The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

t'llowing against what it was he was called to defend
niniself and in what his guilt consisted. In no other
construcCon of the law coul•I there be any safety. He
fished to save -4'l 'Series ho mighthereafter beaccused
front the delvers aiisirg from the abuse of the law of
e‘e,''sPiraey. lie SvOuld.conchide in the elovent words
4llieli had been: used by an eminent person. in another
fence—" I"e isli the, la-v nut to be a eivoredged sword of
au and oppr, ssion, but the staff of honesty and the
shield ,of innocence."
• 11. KELLY appeared for Mr. John O'Connell, Mr. T.
)4' 1113', and D. John Gray, and as his Learned Friends
*llO had preceded bins had addressed their Lordships
more or less on all the points which had arisen in the.
shotild 'he best discharging his duty by advert-
-147, principally to tht)se !mime which he thought of vast
Ltnport•ance not only affecting the interests of those
Anonhe repro sented but as affecting the right, just, end
satisfactory administration of the criminal law of this
rintry lie would, therefore, proceed at once to state
first objection, which, if his statement should be sus-
tained in their Lordships' opinion, would at once appear
tuanifestly fatal to the whole judgment, and •that was,
that all these defendants had been convicted, and were
6uffering the sentence of the Court, for a greater number
of N tit
hences than bad been found or presented by the
Qand jury—for a greater number of offences than they
ever pleaded to, or been heard on, and above all for
tatlleorrenateorr number of offences than the petty jury were
had any authority to try. He ventured to
i„ubratt to their Lordships this objection, in the first
}:,:tleee",. bemuse if it were admitted. iv would
"tat to the _whole. judgment, and he could
t believe that their Lordships would assent to the ex-
aer"'lieareeproposition which was contended fur on the
rt of the Crown—that if there were one good count in
the
indictment for conspiracy it was sufficient to sustain
.17 judgment,although all the other counts might be
itad in law. But even if that proposition were admitted,
eelve°llll be no answer to the objection which he was
enent•to make, which stood out clear, alone, prominent
f;sototeennected with any other. He could satisfy their
gre't"all.Ps, from a corhparison of the counts of the in-
-4-t:lnelit and the finding of the jury, that these several
Ittrieislints had been indicted for one conspiracy, neces •
Bien) 'l'll at one time and place, and on one ocea-
(l
.aod thet- they had been convicted of three con-
~s, each separate, and were now suffer-
xlsnicireet sentence of the Court on three con-
th ecaeli .in the indictment being charged
of eri3' one conspiracy. To disencumber this part
po~the '
stqeet from all irrelevant matter, he would limit
-'''''lervat'olis to the first count, which, for this pur-
nn this purpose onl, he would suppose a good
thea in law. Ho would make no reference to
the
otoelftineltdeehnatrget.ldes was dead, and they would find that
eightdifferent persons with one con-
petirae,o
„ I. do rive different acts, and effect five different
sei:rea, each of which he would assume to be unlaw-
the Their Lordships would find, when the count and.
eetitillt, else :linees, were referred to, and he would refer to
throughout the whole record, that the count
01,7 teed eight persons with one conspiracy, and under
je`;'.t count several 'strums w ere found guilty, and had
„,(14tneet passed upon them fir three conspiracies. He
but not go into the first count at any greet length?
T4ht he would briefly state the effect of it.
4EO at count charged 'eight persons, on a day and place
,
tae—ese with having been guilty of an unlawful
40 ponspi-
-41. do the following five different unlawful acts :
Q, to create disaffection and discontent, against the
ueen's
Government. Secondly, to create be-
ss,"-con one class of .the people and another. Thirdly, to
caect changes in the Constitution be demonstrations of
Allysical force, for the purpose of intimidation. Fourthly,
..oe
endeavouring to bring the tribunals into contempt ;
fifthly, -for creating discontent and disaffection in
je army. Here the count charged eight persons with
ette conspiracy to effect five unlawful acts. But the
th44.l°' efehe jury was wholly different ; that found that
tineteiiht defendants. were guilty of conspiring to do two
jogs
acis--to create-disaffection to the Government
jet,t 14-will and jealousy between one class of her Ma-
te,lB subjects and another. He would class those
finding
el. s together, and call it number one.
cl_en and eight were found guilty of another conspiracy,
othu_oespiraey of altogether a different charicter, and
efreeet_eand different purposes—namely, a conspiracy to
by hit; enges in the Constitution by physical force and
collet nll'4l'oll, and also to bring the tribunals of the
ry into disrepute and contempt.
or tl'ir Loan CHANCELLOR—Are the seven found guilty
irintsLpLiir._acytodo 1,2, 3, and 4 ?
t s 4e„ 3' to o yes ;• do three are found guilty of con-
-5 ;* that was creating disaffection in
of aPtt MI
eIY: and therefore those three were found guilty
conspiracies, 1,2, 3,4, and 5.
Mr yet") CliANCELLOrt—That is to do all ?
Tee yes.
to aural CHANCELLOR—I think, Mr. Kelly, the
t°„a3" sera). for you to.have proceeded would have been
f 41)4 were found guilty of doing all • seven were
NitteY of tieing 1,2, 3, and 4 ; and eight were
beear.,ei:ttif doing 1 and 2.
such
Ole I),t. admitted that that, perhape, would have
G ""•Thzittor cotirse to have adopted. He would treat
enaem separately,to avoid confusion. The Learned
the au •
counts Fo read the finding of the jury on all
atwinos
te length. e has already been given several times
- wane ow from those findings it would be found
Ace,llspirVe3a.reonti that eight persons were charged with one
IO le objects, Yat one time and place to effect those
ject!.
'king to the whole question then at once arose
lovtes only rerthetterms of this finding, was it.a findingf,
? " guilty of three conspiracies, or o
"40thr ? cA3
se.se . KELLY would ratohneer
Sete
sayconspiracy and part of
f,7one conspiracy, he-
aves necessary to beer in mind the dif-
wieilloe between the conspiracyand the object of it.
ageeeen °tie conspiracy was found, Nvhen one unlawful
con2oent, amounting to a conspiracy, was made, it
h.ututed an indictable offence. The question was,
atteetl3e,r it was possible, looking at this finding, to put
ice; _°„tner constritetion upon it, than that it was a find-
tipa ul three conspiracies, where conspiracy only was
theLgeed in the indictment. He had already reminded
-14ordships that every conspiracy must be laid with
sse.aee
6aer,, Face- In the first count they would find that
was a charge of but one conspiracy, at one time
si„,,°n oree occasion. The first finding was that the
tt,ls7 vere guilty of one conspiracy to do two unlawful
core , Was that, or was it nut, in itself a verdict of one
ste Plete offence--a crime upon which, if the record
je4Ped there, those . eight prisoners might have had
ties eat passed upon them ? He began, then, with
eiee:--There was, in. the count, a charge against the
ottt Ltpersons of one conspiracy. One conspiracy was
telltde,rielnle‘lratshoeotdhieffiegndants were found guilty of one,
t from being to prevent the sentence of the
Passed upon them for" that offence.
,iaur;v, teat followed? There-was then the verdict of the
total, 'ar. seven of those eight persons were guilty of
,eB.), different and distinct conspiracy—a conspiracy
teeol'atnect from the first as a conspiracy to murder
1.)y7 Mated eo_, from a conspiracy to rob a garden. The re-
a , perfect and complete offence, punishable
le in, and within the language of the charge contained
,theldtettnent.
this sloe LORD CHANCELLOR—The real mode of trying
into stioe
-.to a count would be to turn the finding of the jury
and then see what the count would be.
tseest, 'subject would be quite willing to accept that
ir" only to this observation, that the count
fel' thre °Pe° to this defect, that it would be one count
their Lo different offences He undertook to satisfy
tt? beneotdtiships that a count so framed, supposing it notf
t"„s. the objection that it contained a charge o
tor ,eut tenet offences, would be a good count
tree
tote,. several conspiracies. What would such
411 " he ? It would be that Daniel O'Con-
ereateaed
04 • others unlawfully attempted to
the a:"
sfreettnon, and did unlawfully and soforth,
Ofarish st of January, 1844, at Dublin, and in the
''tortesba,,, "3LlSlark's, unlawfully, maliciously, and so on
ther, ;,,ee°llsPire, and confederate, to and with each
tee Guy: to and with divers persons unknown, to bring
aspt Guy:
and constitution of this realm into con-
-1 and to raise jealuusies, hatred, and ill-
Ewe betwee .
Jeet, n different classes of her Majesty's
411 , and also that the said Daniel O'Con-
thersi'll . the same day, and (naming the six
eharedt Dublin &c., did unlawfully combine, &c.
tt
°nßt. 161'' by violence and intimidation, the laws and
tle ution
eeontr this realm, and to bring the tribunals of
114-(1 Y Into disrepute and contempt ; and that the
Y 'el Connell did, en the same day (or it might
Übe - 1:4
Le etc afterwards) conspire, &c., to spread disaffec-
t, klalousies in her Majesty's army. That would
indict
count, or, to speak in the language of cri-
b -lettheittl,eg's, that would be three good counts in any
iY there for three several and distinct conspiracies
111,1:Pity thseteral persons. It was an inconceivable ab-
tt-' not 4;ti five persons should be declared to be guilty
?ewe tn"tY of one and the same conspiracy.
Iltul gtell'nELL—You say that the three who are
:3111t1.2x..,,;04:_renTn05.0n1c,e2., 3,4, and 5, are found guilty of
°f thread
44:1 tdsr said that, according to his view, those
three been found guilty in each finding were guilty
e.tord sse"sPiracies
Ive't,,t laa;;;yalPv,J3Exa,—.Then it would be the answer—and
thr :ourable to the applicants--that those three
fir ee" tines found guilty of counts 1 and 2.
hilts
et'ELLY—That is not so ; for eight were found I
eonsre
43•t0 de elFace-to do certain acts—seven of.conspi-
eeete
otheeertain other acts—and three of conspiracy to
separate and distinct act. •
etett3,
ottrieeencEoLnLs—pirDaoo
joysou say that they are found
se 4.lrree. to do 1 and 2 ?
titriLLey eeeee
d.that they were not found guilty
on those two counts. They were once found
tiewtohose two counts, then found guilty on'the fol-
here were, and, lastly, found guilty on the fifth count.
,pireeies.
rttiree separate findings of three separate con-
pst her._ ouepose there were an Act of Parliament
14blerte'ens guilty of certain conspiracies should be
eertein
~..aspenalty nf 100/., and if, under that statute,
Ztes...iej,rolons were indicted for conspiring to do several
e of the persons indicted were found guilty of
tele heacatsets, others of the same acts, and also of cer-
-11.11 ofter
deity„,
_cliargcd— and the remainder were further
iLieg• to
of the other acts charged.- Now, the first
4'4*e to •zolto thee penalty, would not the second be
the third to 3001, ? If it were under itililLltesieta,ttit; and
the plaintiffs in this appeal were indicted,
vet,. toVt of them be liable to the penalty of 100/. each,
iThe -00/. each, and three to 3001, each ?
- Aeon",
esnesceeeon—Would not this be the most
etee sogether
aw,aY °I. putt' • in„ it ? Suppose A, B, and C, being
v4spirillg
with , as in this case, were found guilty of
iknilid ilty others to do certain of the acts charged, B
f conspiring, with others, to do certain
placer of th Segesy, in' the same eime, and in the same
'her, was found guilty of conspiring, with the
Le,e, go one other of the indictable acts.
4relq(!k-;4"lPhELL—Although the acts might bens dif-
th.! eititTtittheir nature as to storm the Tower, and violate
L Y of a woman.
eettot4
wooitaDdCuaecuLLoa—You maintain that these
be of three conspiracies.