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

the count was bad. If they charged a man with intend-
ing to intimidate as a criminal offence, and with intend-
ing to use a demonstration of physical force criminally,
e indictment must state on whom the intimidation,
and on whom the demonstration of ) physical force, was
intended 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
Nespiring to defraud it was necessary to state who was
to bedefratided, and how the fraud was to be accom-
Plibhed. Therefore he contended that in an indictment
for a Political conspiracy in which intimidation was cri-
tainaby charged, it was necessary to state whom_ it
of
intended to intimidate. He challenged the Counsel
the Crown to spew on what ground this count
eduld be held good, and why
.it was unnecessary
to state on whom the demonstration of physical force
1/15 to act. It was bad for generality. But he would
Proceed to show that intimidation and the demonstration
01. Physical force were not necessarily
illegal, and if he
(In" pu physical se in which it was lawful to
changeintimida-
tios r
in the
am, forcer to assist
in procuring a
‘ll the law, he should prove that this count did not ne-
cessitrilY charge any crime at all. He besought their
"
Ig
ships to dismiss from their minds that the real ob-
J 4 " of these meetings was to procure a repeal of the
;pion, an object which was opposed to the wishes of the
Legislature, and to the wishes of the majorityof the
PenPle in this country. But let them suppose that this
merge related to a change in the law in favour of which
.0 vereign, the great body of the people, and the ma-
) rnY of one House at least of th.e Legislature were
ultted—a change just and desirable in itself,. would. it be
"'awful to further that object by the intimidation of
PhYsieal force ? Let him suppose that the third
wresdite of some such measure as the Reform Bill
`hest fixed to take place in their• Lordships' House
at evening, and that a body of 10,000 men were to
lia3ernble •in Spa-fields, and to say we will march down
to the
louse of Lords,. and prevent the Lords from
„,`rtrli; the law, would it be illegal if a body of gentle-
-4n residin in Whitehall and the different streets
thron .g
,„ , g which these men would have to pass, were to
-"Y let us oppose the progress of these men, and by inti-
Wodation and a demonstration of physical force, prevent
heir going down to the House of Lords? Would that be
gat or not ? Yet that proceeding would be described
by this count of the indictment.
tanrd lituouGnlst—Why do you not take the case of a
person hotding out a pistol to prevent a highwayman
nnn robbing take the case
him by intimidation ? You
narties engagedhlC in an act almost of high treason, in
the the loy'alsubjects of the King assemble to prevent
kreonilnission ofbrime.
1„17,1% ZELLT--That was just the case: yet these loyal.
in're.t.ll ',ye, in the words of the indictment, seeking by
un4lation and a demonstration of physical force to
,Inge the law and the Constitution. That
be intimidated
how important it was that the person to
• Intimidated should be named in the indictment,
!t1 order that it might be shown that intimidation was
Illegal, and that th party accused might know, at once,
hat he had to defend himself from. Unless it were
int
ended to overrule the principle laid down on the Queen
v• Peck, 9th Adolphus and. Ellis, page 6. 26, and to adopt
totally new and different principle, thiscount could not
be sustained. He would, therefore, venture to ask
Whether was the intimidation of a large meeting neces•
%ay for that was the question—illegal ? Was a
meeting to intimidate evil doers illegal ? There were
lastly cases in which a meeting to intimidate was attended
With ood. He therefore said, it would be necessary to
showgwhat the intimidation was, to show that the
meeting was necessarily illegal, unless their Lordships
Were
Prepared to hold that, in all conceivable cases,
Where large, meetings were held to intimidate, no matter
Whern, that all such were illegal. Where was the object
"erehere, which object was necessarily illegal? Where
"ere the means stated, in furtherance of this objecti„
l'hich were unlawful ? The object was not illegal.
tin to effect a change in the law, and
ltin
t 0 Constitution. That was what was done in a milul e-
pie of cases. Every person who brought in a B
srlittrnent had more or less that object in view. It
il'rl(lid not therefore be contended that the object was
eegial- Then, with regard to the means employed, they
jee,ll;4l find, divesting the count of the multitude of ad-
tha-,v,es and adverbs in which the means were enveloped,
s(l t was to exhibit physical force, and to intimidate
vrh--"etlY• Why, if every large meeting of persons
111 wine" Y•
there was a large physical force exhibited was
tti:gsl, a large number of persons coming forward to be
gPcirs„,ll in as special constables would be guilty of con-
rir -Y$ becaus they contemplated a meeting whereat
•4tph , • b exhibited, and whereby
some 3 sical force was to e
thoa2ttiss,°ll2 were to be intimidated, would be illegal,
ths•ts'lstne meeting was for the purpose of exercising
111,4141sieal force, and causing that inti
midation in
'!ti the law, and not in violation ofd the I.afvov..
PossitA Words o unlawful" and " seditious" was 1_
to dive . e e any precise_ meaning._ He need not refer
cited. ris of the case of the Queen v. Rowet„ already
1/y0 II that se there was an indictment charging
gal tinedrsOns With being in an open place for certain mile-
gave tt—„YerY bad purposes, and words were used which
said tbLarti
cular character to the illegality oac
ts
to the_ist
tteherafitai othdeene• But the words were deemed insufficient
of..,Acts illegal. So here there was nothing onr
case 'ce "" count to show what was illegal. Anothe.
Wall lannPd°intel?as
that with force Orem
that of the King v. Cherer, 4th Barne
qld unlawfully interim
us
timle
Ole service for the the defendantchu r chyardwoasf the indicted
sdhfho he
tne Mr. Cecil, a clerk, in rea
uorial of the Dead" over a corpsc,
car that he did prevent and hinder the burial of the saidh
o,.Pse according to the rites and ceremonies of the Churc.
rtgland, and laid violent hands on the said Mr. Cecil,
ii,ad there were other counts. The court held that that
ti urge was too general, observing that every interrup
Wason not an indictable offence. So here he (Mr.
4Qlly) ontended that every intimidation was not an in-
ci:Lble offence ; it must be shown how and upon whom
it '
e7rated in order to be indictable. The court said
the defendant must see clearly what he had to answer
° the also with these defendants. A meeting to procure
re
Peal of the union ws perfectly lawful, in
tiger to be made unlawful,a it must be shown whowere
facts arties intended to intimidate ; the count. must state
01,t from which it should be made evident that the
s,.7enng was illegal. He would trouble their Lordships
.:th no other authorities with reference to this count, but
-"Nice submit that it was necessary, in order to establish
s'erime of this kind, not merely to state that the acts were
Cll:lrlawful, but to place upon the record circumstances
lectlY and expressly showing how they were unlawfffulct
prayed their Lordships to consider well the e
t'111.24 the law, and upon the well-being of the peoplecod
.f
• ecUntry in of political excitement, of their e
• 41 this case He intreated them to consider how
upon vague.es and general charges, persons might
treated as criminals. In these times, when there was
13:0)th of discussion, and freedom of assembly, when,
fr're `Bill received the Royal assent, meetings were so
BilltheY held in various parts of the country, someb for
strop and some against it, it did appear to him to
ase aa
e„,O-(wIT Preposition for that House to affirm, sitting
or tine ;If Error, that every assembly, relating to acbange
ellateeldileolittliswas illegal. Meetings were, and would, be
f
Upcountry for political objects in times
too
„ Inent—prosecutions might be resorted
ma_
—oimes for the gratification of private., was
l• ice` for
from party feelings—and I:en
the
hunmLPossible to shut their eyes to the fact that e •
nSt of
men must be subject to them, and he ventured
heldiuly •uto beseech their Lordships to pause before they
that any of the subjects of this realm must be put
rer their trial on a vague charge like that to which
upon
~l'?ed• It was under these circumstances and
tin ;rounds that he submitted to their Lordships that
ass sixth count—and the same line of argument would
hr„PAIY to the other counts—was clearly too general et
cod in law. He had said that there was only one other
tc,ll,,nt in the indictment to which he would call the atteT:
pO,l-",inf their Lordships. The eighth count wa_s,
asl
t-C'ule, more extraordinary, when considered
sixth subject of a criminal charge, than the
;re— Count. It was that these eight persons
i
-0,1,a, id, unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously,
etbh-„`',:tia, conspire, confederate, and agree, with eachftre
t and with divers other persons, whose names d
urors aforesaid, unknown, to bring into hatred
fort tLiarePute the tribunals by law established in Ireland
fid,„ " administration of justice, and to diminish the con-
th 17 of her said Majesty's liege subjects in Ireland in
1404t-iwinistration of the law therein, with the intent to
tion eller Majesty's subjects to withdraw. the adjudica-
oth rul, their differences with, and claims upon eachlaw
est ehVirom the cognizance of the said tribunals by
detti e.3;n0(1, and to submit the same to the judgment and
eonetry-41ation of other tribunals to be constituted and
the Al'ed for that purpose, in contempt of our said Lady
ofar,nen, and the laws of this realm, to the evil example
e
ofo,;,?tnors in the like case offending, and against the Reac,
said Lady the Queen, her Crown, and Dignity.e
trii; BUbstance of this charge was the bringing some
do 11141 or other—what particular tribunal is not. men-
confidesote "into hatred and contempt, and withdrawing the
could of the Queen's subjects from them. Now they
t not Mean all the tribunals of the country. They did
11();e-.ptnoean to bring all the minor courts, or all the courts of
etc:oor
Iducesdss reer;vi
contempt. It must apply to courts of
peintit°ons. Supposing those courts to be so bad
hatred and contemp.t, and honest mende-
cooild to effect an improvement in the law, which they
etii)1011-rns,niiny effect by holding up these courts in their true
re
order that they might by lawful means procure
law
interference of the Legislature to alter `TheirLord.
07 in this respect, would that be criminal?
"uld not here enter into the question of whethere
rt'h not the courts of law were co odious as to require
in If the vices and defects of the mode
14, jusfice was administered was to become
question in dealing with people's
altering the law, freedom of discussion in this country
untrya,t
t/tifilnistlid,, be
eavnenenl • could any great improvement in
where it was most needed, be effected_
t ""e3" Were to be deemed criminal who agreed
ip•Ougeititihee; 'Ti any number to hold up a particular
nstitution to the hatred and contempt of the
If this indictment, which was framed at
Ze'lltion law were good at the present day, it would have
/:01in
man centuries ago. And if any number of
elis had agreed together to write down the Star
jnarnher, or the High Commission Court, and hold them
to the hatred and execration they deserved, they
"ght have been indicted for conspiracy.
the Lord CAmPuELL--The overt act being the publishing
Proceedings of the Star Chamber.
Exu.Y—Precisely. That would have been an
`4l:.:rt act, the effect of which must have been to hold up
i
Star Chamber to hatred and contempt. But was it
„,e,g4l? If the courts were such as to deserve the respect
...`!" confidence of the people, they would have it. But the
itiestion was not as to the character of these courts.
° Parties to a case might come to very different
Pinions as to the decision on a case ; one might think
• 1‘
iOY just one and the other the very reverse. But
or va
free country like this, where all the vices and evils
an
aria finstitution might, if nut checked, grow into
rgia , °l'm a part of the system, was it en-
-44 for Englieholea to agree together, if they believed