The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-08 00:00:00

-5m55a..........--..-..........-
the count was bad. If they charged a man with intend-
ing to intimidate as ss criminal offence, and with intend-
ing to use a deme.,Sistration of physical force criminally,
- • the indiotnic:Lit must state on whom the intimidation,
and on ';;Com the demonstration of physical force, was
intenr.led to operate. In indictments for obtaining money
under false pretences, it-was always necessary to state
. • whose money was to be obtained. In indictments for
conspiring to defraud it was necessary to" state who was
to be defrauded, and how the fraud was to be accom-
plished, - Therefore he contended that in an indictment
• for a political conspiracy in which intimidation was on.
• rainalty charged, it was necessary to state whom it was
intended to intimidate.. He challenged the Counsel of
the Crown to shew on what ground this count
• . could be held good, and why it was unnecessary
to 'state on whom the demonstration of physical force
was to act. It was bad for generality. But he would
• Proceed to show that intimidation and the demonstration
,orphysical force were not necessarily illegal, and if he
could put a case in which it was lawful to use intimida-
tion and physical torce to assist in pro Curing a change
in the law, he should prove that this count did not ne-
cessarily charge any crime at all. He besought their
sAirdsh,,.ps to dismiss from their minds that the real ob-
i,ee.t of these meetings was to procure a repeal of the
-7P-ton, an object which was opposed to the wishes of the
• segislature and to the wishes of the majority of the
'people in this country. But let them suppose that this
'charge related to a change in the law in favour of which
. the Sovereign, the great body of the people, and the ma-
jority of . one House at least of the Legislature were
united--a change just and desirable in itself, would it be
unlawful to further that object • by the intimidation of
Physical force ? Let him suppose that the ' third
reading of some such measure as the Reform Bill
was fixed,. to take place in their Lordships' House
mat evening, and that a body of 10,000 men were to
nssetnble in Spa-fields, and to say we will march down
• to the. House of Lords, and prevent the Lords from
altering the law, would it be illegal' if a body of gentle-
Men residing in Whitehall and the different streets
through
Which these men would have to pass, were to
nay let us oppose the progress of these men, and by inti-
tinlation and a demonstration of physical force, prevent
. their going down to the House of Lords? Would that be
Illegal or not ? Yet that proceeding would be described
by this count of the indictment
fer Lord BROUGHAM—Why do you not take the case of a
son holding out a pistol to prevent a highwayman
rout robbing him by intimidation ? You take the case
of parties engaged in an act almost of high treason, in
'W. hich the loyal subjects of the King assemble to prevent
the commission of crime.
:IMr. KELLY—That was just the ease: yet these loyal
4n.h)ects were, in the words of the'indictment, seeking by
":_nlnidation. and a demonstration of physical force to
_C;unge the law and the Constitution. That
. inn.
snovved how important it was that the person to
how
elsould be • named in the indictment,
?it order that it isligl
whatit be shown that intimidation was
Illegal, and thr.4 tile party accused might know, at' once,
he had to defend himself from. Unless it were
14 P
intendedv, to to
the principle laid down on the Queen
a totally,tew and different principle, this count could not
~
• slam-Alined. He would, therefore, venture to ask
ht:ther was the intimidation of a large meeting neces•
BWY—for that was the question—illegal? Was a
Ineeting to intimidate evil doers illegal ? There were
many cases in which a meeting to intimidate was attended
with good. He therefore said, it would be necessary to
show what ' the intimidation was, to show that the
Meeting was necessarily illegal, unless their Lordships
prepared to hold that, in all conceivable cases,
W__ here large, meetings were held to intimidate, no matter
6ivtall3t; that all such were illegal. Where was the object ~._,ated here, which object was necessarily illegal? Where
Is."Tre., the means stated, in furtherance of this object,
1,11104 were unlawful ? The 'object was not illegaL
4-. was to effect a change in the law, and in
141;e Constitution. That was what was done in a multi-
de °f eases. Ever • brought in a Bill in
l'arliament had y person who
Would not th. object in view.• It
more or less that
illegal, erefore be contended that the 'object was
Would find n. '
Then With regard to the means employed, they
jeeti,,,e s-rvesting:the count of the multitude of ad-
that i-t „„,824,ndverbs in which the means were enveloped,
souteb '.1"141 to exhibit physical force, and to intimidate
Whe-•'clY• Why, if every large meeting of persons
14-4. eat there was: a large physical force exhibited was
%It
!Marge number of persons coming forward to be
%pi, as special constables would be guilty of Con-
s 19' be they
meeting whereat
?;seat ; cause contemplateda
sok, Physical force was to be exhibited, and whereby
thee Jerson were to be intimidated, would be illegal,
thilig,, the meeting was for the purpose of exercising
8u physical force, and causing that intimidation in
~,•'e ihtet of the law, and not in violation of the law.
'4ihj„ /v. ords " unlawful" and " seditious" it was 'im-
f,ths -,i 1-4`) give any precise meaning. He need not refer
te„,'"ecl. ?Lails' of the case of the Queen v. Rowet, already
n."O perk that case there was an indictment charging
°lll and ":11.1 with being in an open place for certain ille-
"ve a fiery bad purposes, and words were used Which
to
to particular character to the illegality, of the acts
be d
`"? teak,„
4, one. But the words were deemed .
insufficient
the ea.„` 1'11,,e acts' illegal. So here there was nothing on
cue i;,-,eel the count to show what was illegal. Another
'wall and was that of the King v. Cherer, 4th Berne-
that -forwithesswell. The defendant was indicted
. for
didunlawfully or arms in the churchyard •of the parish he
the io
te Mr. Cecil, a clerk, inzeading
service for th rrupt one
and that h d' ° " Burial of the Head" . over a corpse,
eer„B_, eid prevent and hinder the burial of the said
of t'tiv ”Cording aidhe rites and ceremonies of the Church
and land, and l violent hands on the said Mr. Cecil, eh,..L'uere were other counts. The court held that that
ht,'ZiOn was too general, observing that every interrup-
-Pfr- "u Was not an indictable offence. So hero he Xls:lr.
lily) contended that every intimidation was not an in-
letahle offence s. it must be shown how and upon whom
the, in order to be indictable. The courf sai
e defendant must see clearly what he had to answers
4-
4180 • h these defendants. A meeting to procure
th with
o„e repeal of the dnion was perfectly lawful, and, . in
tCer to be made unlawful, it must be shown who were
e Pare • • the count must state
f.,,, , ies intended to, intimidate,,., . .
,-;`,`4B, from Which it should be made evident that the
s‘-Dis,ting was illegal. He would trouble their Lordships
tt'"" 'Mother authorities with reference to this count,'but
a „Q.:nee submit that it was necessary, in order to establish
%erne of this kind,-not merely to state that the acts Were
dirawful, but to
place• upon the record circumstances
• Ile pea and expressly showing how they were unlawful.
upon Prayed their Lordships to consider well the effect
~s the law, and upon the well-being of the people of
".I,l4l.oeountry in times of excitement, of their de
easily in this case. He intreated them to consider how
1), I,ly, upon vague. and general charges, persons might
Nti a ted as criminals.' In these times, when there was
he% ens of discussion, and freedom of - assembly, when,
stenr° a Bill received the Royal assent, meetings were so
the Bill held in various parts of the country, some for
streo,4l' and some against it it did appear to him to be a
co'urt PrePosition for that House to affirm, sitting as a
of The i't Error, that every assembly, relating to a change
held in was illegal. Meetings were, and would., be
excit e'li3 country for political objects in times of
eni-t
"might be resorted Ito
senietiol --Prosecutions
iee-...„ es for the gratification of private ma-
-40,,,,
asi bl Ometimes from party feelings—and it was
134 T e
or to shut their eyes to the fact that even the
11, uumf:nen must be subject to them, and he ventured
held t`f, to beseech their Lordships to pause before they
tiPou -"l't any of the subjects of this realm niust be put
reeer4their trial on a vague charge like that to which he
these''. It Was under these circumstances and upon
Una sixth that he submitted to their Lordships dui
gi,, Xth
14 t cennt--and the same line of 'argument would
i' to the other counts—was clearly too general and
etieti:9llW• He had said that there was only one other
neo m the indictment to which he would call the attenf-
peuihoif their Lordships. The eighth count. wits, i
the e,,, more extraordinary, when considered as
sixth "Neet of • a criminal charge, 'than the
kips e eount. It was that these eight persons
eoltbr.kl , unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously, .did
Othet,,ue, conspire, confederate, and agree, with each
to the :and with divers other. persons, whose names are
and d. Jurors aforesaid, unknown, to bring into hatred
for tbi3rePute the tribunals byestablished in Ireland
Aden: administration of justice, and to diminish the con-
the mHof her said Majesty's liege- subjects in Ireland in
issue inistration of the law therein, with the intent to
tiqn Uter Majesty's subjects to withdraw the adjudica-
„ll'er, it, their diffrences with, and claims 'upon each
(istaheaen the cognisance of the said tribunals by law
;,'eteraehed, and to submit the same to the judgment and
tentrise-dit,stien of other tribunals •to 'be constituted and
„-",,e Qt,-: I.or that purpose in contempt of our said Lady
"1 allot-0, and the laws ofthis realm, to the evil example
ent. -:`!rs in the like case offending, and against the peace
'the '44 Lady the Queen, her Crown, and Dignity."
tsibun übstanee of this charge was the bringing some
tioned4l or other—svhat particular tribunal is not men-
' eunfid.,--into hatred and contempt, and withdrawing the
s.rie
,:ilci not eof the Queen's eubjects from them. Now they
pot, th," mean all the tribunals of the country. They did
Pie-Po 4,111t° bring all the minor courts, or all the courts of
otherot 1.1-re, into contempt. It must apply to courts of
eSeriPt S '-h • • ts to be so bad
.d tons. upposmg t ose cour sir - eserve h
t men de-.
„., ed t„ atred and contempt, and hones .
"'uld Only art improvement in the law,.which they
eoleo S effect b holding up-these courts in their true
the • rs,in order that by lawful means procure
14 Intwor they might
w • cone of the • to alter and amend the
N,.. in this Legislature .
_. . _ ,_
s c i respect, would that be criminal? Their bora
r tint (t)inl'd' not here enter into the qiiestion of whether
that eh e courts of law Were so odious as to require
ill Inge' If the vices d defects of the mode
It W111,,h . . an
b ome
elat Just-Ice was administered was to ec
elt mugf question in dealing with peole's rights
e 3, , .
^oeld b le laW, freedom of discussion in this country
• t• e at a,
jpiri count,. n end ; could any great improvement in
!- the -Y; even where it was most needed, be effected
.)2.,t, Y were to be deemed criminal who agreed.
IC "er in
ntuti_ any number to hold up a particular
Pblic? un to the hatred and contempt of the
tett If - this indictnient, which was framed at
hs moron law sv en „..., . ere good at the present day, it would have
x..nessi;uo two centuries ago. And 1 1 any nuniber 'of
Ch en had dwrite the
4Mber, or agree together to down Star
up to
tk the High Commission Court, and hold them
nii "e hat ed and •
gilt r a execration they deserved, they
have been indicted for conspiracy,
t, Lot,ci C'
'le ProceeTnELL—The overt act being the publishing
• kr. it. `"ngs of the Star Chamber.
°vest 'ELLY---Precisely. That would have been an
the Star the effect of whichmust I• b hold
tp Cli,;,,_, have been toup
it'egAl? xf""uver to hatred and contempt. But was it
lid co46_, file courts were such as to deserve the respect
Suesti__ uence of the people, they would have it. But the
Two "is vvas not as to the character of these courts.
?ping_triies to case might come to very different
it 4 ,1,02 !S to the decision on a case e might think
, in e. ,rY just one and the other
the Very reverse. But
es Lree counts lik
aa iost,,
.Y e_ this, where all the vices and evils
aad for
iii might, if not checked, grow into
'dal kit i Bart
to
Itlle -, -sligeols. was it cri-
nglishmen to agree togethir, if they believed