The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-04 00:00:00

... .
What tribunals were they from w bosh confidence was to
be removed ? They might be c f seal a character that
your Lordships yourselves would . be disposed to say, the
soener they were put an end to ' Jic better. They might
be attended with delay, with e: ;pence, with many other
circumstances that might retie ,ar them anything but a
remedy. And here are no foil to representations alleged
to be used with regard to the In ; there is no statement
how the defendants proce€
used against these courts,
whether by writing or by slo f,ech.
Lord Camennue—The ,count does nut say all the
courts of law.
Sir THOMAS WILDE- —T he count only says, the tri-
bunals. Whether the de' bridants have proceeded by
Writing, or by speeches„ is i tot said.
The LORD CHANCELLOR L-I see this indictment says,
" bringing the tribun,ls into contempt, and withdrawing
from them the business Wet goes to them, and submit-
ting the same to the iudgmient an:l determination of other
trihunals, to be contrived I *or that purpose." The indict-
, went does not say that these tribunals are not to be
" contrived" by the Legislature !
Lord BRCTOHAM said. the charge was that of destroy-
ing one kind of tribunal's for the purpose of establishing
others, like destroying t he Ecclesiastical Courts in order
to establish Diocesan C ourts.
Lord CAMPBELL sa :d that the Commissioners ap-
Peintcd to inquire into, the operation of the Ecclesias-
tical Conrts were in soi no danger under this indictment.
Sir THOMAS ‘VILDV.—Leyond ail doubt, the Commis-
sioners who made this' report have committed an offence.
'Whether it can be, prosecuted or not, is another
questioe.
extend'
Becton Aes_e,lt
their s' nrisdidtionto other
should have set forth.=—And to
tribunals than those
--,941Y ek'eolished ley law, or to be established.
ir--UPoet.es WithE The next count had the effect
of doing that. It chfarged tle m with "using and usurp-
'courts the prerogative i'sf the Crown in the establishment of courts for the adminiStration of the law ;" but the eighth
gettittlemen
'count stated no such thing. If half a dozen of those
extii t„ certain
Publish' pamphlets at various times in order
' portionfi of the administration of the law
cut t 0 he corrected, not doink this for any idle purpose
said tohintprove the tribunals of the country, could it be
disr osttheY were . bringing the tribunals of law into
to bring the Were those gentlemen guilty of conspiring
ca”,..,lng the Were
of the country into disrepute, be-
to courts
thoscae_see the tribunals E 0 e ' •
ought to induce persons to withdraw from
et is peefectlye submit their disputes to othe
purpose-?ribunals
:.. 19 constituted ant contrived for that I say
gal in the object Itodo so for there was nothing ille-
l'oar the means. Your Lordships have
Pas':ed many Acts to abolish or improve tribunals which
were in disrepute —that is, which did not answer the pur-
pose for which the' were intended, or in the place of which
better may be . substituted. Suppose a e person
should say it was not a wise or a prudent thing
to have recourse to the ecelesiasticul courts—
that it was costly, and would be followed by no good
effect, eetald it be said that he wanted to bring the tribu-
nals of the country into disrepute, so as to constitute an
°frenee punishable by law ? Here thenisvas
nothing ilk-
gal in the object, nor in the means as far as could be
ascertained ; on the contrary, the object appeared to he
as
.at good one. If it was intended that those other tribunals
.. "ld have something illegal in • their character, that
"..(11d be illegal, and in the next count an attempt was
'made to introduce an allegation for this purpose. The
.aregation in the "9th count, that the defendants sought
to assume the Prerogatives of the Crown in the establish.-
i.tn!nt of courts for the administration of the law in con-
ZeTse iPeitai. of the Queen's authority,* is much too
le
There is no parallel for it, except in the
e,a of the seven bishops. It is net stated
'''G'w this is to be done. Were they to have a gr,ltt seal,
'lid set up some office for the purpose of creating courts,
.!tor was it by Act of Parliament, or what other mode was
0 be adopted?'. I cannot' imagine how this usurpation
13 toe adopted?'', carried into effect. This count is not more
sound than the last.
Lord l3aotrcumu—l am not prepared to say if a person
'acilllP a house as a court of law it would be illegal.
1, ors. Ai-UDE—There are, in this very city, coffee-
'''`se where . Persons are ready to decide causes, and
'isur Lordships frequently recommend resort to be had
'to them The next count is the tenth, to which I will
:stow call the attention of your Lordships. lam afraid
Sour of the . Learned Counsel who will appear before
Lordships will be under some apprehension
airnezetchde framing of this count, for he had in-
tro.a'Bill to provide an appeal in criminal cases,
~d the present case of the Queen v. O'Connell will not
al •
rmitnell the necessity for such a Bill. The 10th
Iss11" charged the defendants' with an attempt to
intga the tribunals of the country into disrepute.
repute ‘evriril'e to bring the tribunals of the law into dis-
doii ithout a cause? This is charged as having been
chase:11141111111y, but what is there in the body of the
duce to show that if is unlawful ? The mere intro-
nst ea of the words unlawfully and ?maliciously, does
htrailbeu tigaer.rfe ;oh.
eireues 'hat a crime which could not be so under other
aud
Now the law does not presume that the
repute. e law are so perfect that no man may
.not
repute there'
eitt nnds for bringing them innocently into dis-
rtse:theirse
the con what courts were to be brought into dis-
counts—_ allegation stating what were
is ee overt act set out. Now,
there
some listener at a door had heard
*defenOants say- we will agree to bring the
LtribUnalS of : thelavyinto disrepute, and had
heard nothing,turther, eith:sr as to the means by which,
or the üb]ects-for which, this was to be done, ksubruit
to Your Lordship, that would not be sutlicient to convict,
as it might be with a perfectly legal object, and b. y per-
fectly l
gal means, that this was to be ; and, it Lord
tlieuborough's remark, that it was necessary that every
man . accused of crime should know precisely that
of which he was accused, in order to be able
to defend himself, is to go for anything, then
this count fails.. The eleventh count charged ``The said Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, Thomas :
Steele, Thomas Matthew Ray, Charles Gavan Duffy,
Thomas Tierney, Peter James Tyrrell, John Gray, and Richard Barrett unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously 1
contriving-, intending, and devising, by means of intimi-
dation and the demonstration of physical force, and by,
causing and procuring large numbers of persons to meet
.1. assemble together in divers places and at divers
"
,tnneoils s within Ireland, and by means of sedi-
and inflammatory speeches and addresses to be
Made and delivered to the said persons so to be assem-
bled as last aforesaid and also by means of the publishing
and causing and procuring to be published to and amongst
the subjects of her said Majesty divers unlawful mall-
(dells and seditious writings and compositions, and fur- •
ther contriving, and intending l mean
aforesaid to intimidate the Lordsy spiritual several
and tem-
poral and the Commons of the Parliament of the United
aKingdom of G reatßritain and Ireland, and thereby to effect
nd bring about changes in the laws and Constitution
f this realin as by law established heretofore, to wit, on
the thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord
one thousand
the eight hundred and forty-three, to wit, at
parish Of Saint Mark aforesaid, in the county of the
citY of Dublin aforesaid, unlawfully, maliciously, and
s:tlitiously did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree
az!th each other, and with other persons whose names
__ e to the jurors aforesaid unknown, to cause and
Zieoeiure large numbers of persons to meet and es-
ti l"),1° together in divers places, and at- divers
tap, within Ireland, and by means of unlawful,
Bet ulliQus, and inflammatory speeches and addresses
eon be niade and delivered at the said several Places,
the said several times respectively ; and also by
nteans of the publishing and causing and procuring to be
published to and amongst the subjects of her said Mtt-
al"tY, divers unlawful, malicious, and seditious writings
tempo4mpositions, to intimidate the Lords, spiritual and
therebyinitel' and
the Commons of the Parliament of the
therl‘-eingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and
eby to effect and bring about changes and alterations
1 the laws and Constitution of this realm, as now by law
aVestablished, in contempt of our said Lady the Queen
of the laws of this realm,, to the evil example of all
oet_ Others in the like case offending, and against the peace,
I our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.'
New
the Your Lordships will observe that in this count
the e arge is with attempting to intimidate_
altering Lords and Commons, for the purpose of
of the law, without any mention being made
charged her Majesty. I conclude that it is meant to be
that the Lords and Commons would be induced
10,0 alter the law by intimidation. Now, I think your
Co raships will never admit that the House of Lords and
ens could be intimidated to—
that 1 (1
•CA-Menenn—There may be a conspiracy to-do
coos:,111ch may nut be accomplished. There may be a
reayt;'4CY to intimidate, but the Lords and Commons
Le—rrt.!. it with firmness and resist the attempt..
81,. I","'",i,"lloßA.m—But if it were accomplished—
to h,,,,, b"1-LDE—I will suppose the alteration in the law
of the -R. ?.e.n effected. I will suppose that, at the timei
harp 1.,
gceirm Bill, persons had been indicted for'. ho.d-
L:rd're meetings for the purpose of intimidating the
Res, . 4nd Commons. Such an indictment could not be
tiling could happen as that, byintimidation, the Legisla-
ture could be induced to, alter—and how could that
which th
t
diet ey not accomplished, subject a party to an in-
ristendit,
the conspiracy, when,
dietinent7
ble to . if they had accom-
would have been subject to no such in- ,
Au.agreernent to do that which it was impossi-
accomplish was no crime. Would the law intend
nottoay that such an effect could be produced, and if it could
, how could the agreement to produce such an effect
onnstitute a crime ? - To what intimidaticn does the in-
dictment refer ? It may refer to the intimidation to be
Irhproduced by setting before the Lords and Commons
0111 e political
° consequences which must ensue
i,. a certain course of conduct. Now, was
L
..Ii!, not . lawful to lay before the Legislature
e consequences of the doing, or failing to do, certain
_acts. There was nothing degrading, as in the sense of
personal intimidation, id such conduct. Is it the intimi-
dation of the whole body, or only of individuals? If a
number of persons who had particular opinions agree to-
the to endeavour to induce the Legislature to alter
ar.) law, is that necessarily a crime? If an important
the subjecti of this country placed, if they are not to
...e expressi any opinion for the purpose of attracting the ate
t nt on of the Legislature to the subject?
Lord BROUGUABI—
and writings. Thib is laid as by seditious speeches
'
chargSir T. WILDE—I should be glad to know, if this is the
e, if those Seditious speeches ought not to be set out,
your Lordships might see if they were seditious or
liable to If a person snakes seditious speeches he is
be prosecuted for it, and an agreement to make
seditious speeches is not an offence. There is merely a
,g,'s_nera,l allegation that intimidation was to he used:
•11(11.1', that is only what every great and powerful man is
in the habit of doing when he objects to any act which
• the Legislature is about to 'do.
Inidatioa s The allegation of inti-
a made in the indictment (lees not constitute
an unlawrul act.
.._ Lord CAMPBELL—Suppose it had been to corrupt the
Legislature.
possible Although the law would not suppose that
, it would be an unlawful act.
Sir
ir, VCT44I)4+I ' 8119144 say, Paw Lords, that an