The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-26 00:00:00

•
for such papers upon every frivolous oceasi,'4l. But in`l/1
case like the present, involiing, to sav the: 1eitg14941,,,..Q1/
doubt and suspicion, he thought his 'lion. Triiind,9ll6';'
Member fur Finsbury was perfectl UStified
the course he, had pursued. As he (Mr. Aglionbrliitifg
durstood the case, no breach of the peace Itailtiatliti
place until after the constable had interfered. tht6ol4*':;,,:s
stable thought that language was held which made Inf,t.
meeting an unlawful one, but the constable could not be.;:i
a judge on such an occasion. In his (Mr. Aglionh)'qr
opinion, an assembly was to be considert.d unlawful why,_
convened for the purpose of carrying out something's'
illegal, or when, according to some au t“
thoritie
'4
any violence took place which would lead w 3
reasonable belief that a breach of the fc11(341,3
was about to follow. But the constable had, u 4
thought, no right to decide that a meeting was unhOc 4
ful because something was said which, in his oPi6V.,„
might remotely lead to a breach of the pilot'.
should, therefore, support with the greatest pleasitroE,
motion of bis Hon. Friend the Member for E inshurtY.—`'
Mr..HAWES said he • hoped .thie-law othceri, of!
CroWn would rise and protest
tional dodtrine laid doWit by the Right Hon.- Barone
Skretary of State for the Home • Department ,
should not say one word with respect to the:l4W°'
present lase. But he wished to diklaim &falai{ ,7.,
doctrine of the Right lion. Gentleman, tbat.i a‘to
petentfor,a constable, who might he attending a rubhc
Ineeiiiig, to constitude himself a judge whetlii.r the law
guage used was seditious or not, and to arrest 111.1
speaker who might use what he might conceive to D'

exciting langnage. He wished to ask whether the At"
torney-General and Solicitor-General would maintaia
that doctrine.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he did not say that fit
constable was justified in taking, such a course, but it
if he took it it should be on his own responsibility. -1
had said that a constable thinking that language it'
used at a pu:.lic meeting which might tend directlYl- t°
°reach of the peace might interfere, but at his own
Mr. lIAWES protested against the doctrine that'
constable was to be the judge of what was ' '1:
understood that the opinion of the Right lion.llargr
was, that the verdict of •the Jury justified the eonsOb
But he (Mr. Hawes) aid not think that the verdict ittlll4,
any justification for the constable's interference:
doctrine of the Right lion. Baronet was, htlics' (Tinier
wore than that laid _down in the circular of Lord „Pit„`,
mouth, which gave the Magistrates the power of
upon the deposition of a constable, expressing his
lx
that a certain statement was libellous. That doetrinejt;
Lord Sidmotub had been scodted at the time by Pf1u7.1,1,
opinion. Ile firmly believed that if a constable ast'i'r' e
mitted into that House, he might have found much ia
speeches of the Right Hon. Baronet himself, Which
would have appeared to him to be seditious.--(1 le"r*) -
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that lie ".6'
ready to accept the challenge which had been 1101
out by the lion. Gentleman opposite. He confess°
that he had no objection to make to the doetrite
of his Right lion. Friend the Secretary for the gel.
Department, unless that doctrine were mi,underste"
He should first, however, make a few remarks w id) 11,..
spect to the. motion before the House. Ile would 03.
any Hon. Member who had a reverence for the C°"!1:
tution whether it would not be one of the most fatal co,
ciunstanees to the administration of justice, if that
which would go to cast a slur upon the verdict of aJur,;i
were acceded to. He knew nu other object fur '‘',l6o,r
those papers could by moved except to throw contuntd
upon the Magistrates and the Jury by whom the cusenf
been tried. It eppeared that the motion. for the no u,
the Chairman, which formed the only important d",e,he
meet in the matter, was not to be persisted in. ,
Hon. Member fur Finsbury, however, asked for collie'
the depositions and of the indictment. But, it slO4,
be observed, that copies of thoze had already jieb
furnished to the prisoners previous to their trial: i.or
confessed, therefore, that he now saw no necessit,v
the
their production. With regard to -the motion for be
names of the Jury, he contended that it could onlY
made with the view to cast reproach upon them': 9by
further, he believed, that that House was the last asse°:,vie
in which the verdict of' a Jury ought to be n
the subject of commentary inquiry. He felt
PNb
suaded that the verdict of a Jury was not 4 fi;:i'r.)
jest for discussion ir. that liouse.--(liear,
He condemned the appealing from the verdicts ofJut!.ile
to the verdict of this House ; and he considered .'cup
statement in the petition that the Jury had acted tithe
factious motives, was hardly decent ; the decision
~use,
Jury ought to be treated with respect by that "145
even if it were not considered final. A constable
ttice
bound to interfere the moment he saw the public
endangered. Thus, if he saw persons measuring gr,: voit
and others standing by, he was not called en iias
till he heard pistols fired before he interfered. Nor
ivy
it necessary that he should even see the pistols. l!sor
sufficient if he saw enough to make him reasonab/Y the
pose that a duel was about to be-fought. To stlntsr.
occasions on which a public officer ought t° ity;
fere was a matter of considerable delicacy and dirflet ace
t
but he was justified in interfering on anYIIe
containing any incitement to a breach of the peuc,e_e'
(the Attorney -General) did not know what was tui,
gitage made use of on this occasion, but the reretnija
that the Jury found it an unlawful meeting. ,1 ;nee -11
draw a distinction between a meeting and a lee ,„ the
an abstract subject, which could have no referencecoste
present state of things. He should be sorry t'freolaia
nance anything that would tend to repress rl'iietabit. had
of discussion ; hut the interference of the Or .nd, under,
been justified by the verdict of the Jeff( ,
Noba feel
these circumstances, he trnsted he rel' House •oo
the
f diet
that this was not a care which called for the exe
inquisitorial powers of the Ilouse in caning ~ or• the
papers. They could hardly tall for the navies
I Jury without passing a reflection nn thent;z4nul esr—
ing great doubts of the correctness of the verdict. , ‘Ol
Mr. O'CONNELL said --the offence really 'inset'
against Mason was, --that ite "ItSett` seditious langusry
this was the charge; and the depositions Were necess!i,lo
to prove it. But he would forego that pert of the tulle
which called fur the rtaires of the Magistrates,
wire
c. "
thought this was a case in which they ought to rot 't!,1,1
the depositions. Let thenrSee what was said, that
justify the Jury in the verdict they had come to. pr
Sir R. li. INGLIS said that the lion. Membera.
Finsbury had thrown overboard that part of the
m~f the
which referred to the production of the names
Magistrates. The motion, he thought, .would, 11m.hut
,
vied, tend to destroy the value of trial by Jury: 0
House was not the place to rescind the decision
court of law. The motion of the Hon. Member for 11"0,1
bury would stigmatise the conduct of the Magistrutes.hii
the Jury, for which there were no grounds, °sae
opinion. And with regard to-the constable, there wa
led
evidence to justify even the hypothesis that he excee(-.
his duty. For these reasons, he opposed the motion._o,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objtcted to the Pio
tion, because it would east censure oft the Magistr%ll
or Jury. The Honourable Gentleman denied that .5u,,
was his intention, but the motion was foundea_u'd
the petition which was printed with the Votes. :,eri
that accused the Magistrates of being int11:,0o)
by factious and improper motives.— (Hear, '1;ho
He prptested against that House being made -11 Jo,
of appeal from the decision of a Judge or the p
It was wholly incompetent for that purpose. The laird
Gentleman had asked for copies of the indictment ure
depositions. What was that for, it' not to cast a ectisi-to
upon the Magistrates or Jury? The law with reg-r(tir
unlawful assemblies had been laid down by the Clinch
man, and he quoted the authority of the Queen's 13e Is
upon the point, and the Jury found that the mectinglie,
question was an unlawful assembly. He could net 59,10
tion a motion of this kind, which would cast a cen,7oe
on the Magistrates and Jury; and he believed that iive
present motion were assented to, there was no Case "ie
the parties who were discontented would not- canna'
that House, and the House would then feel itself VAte
to have the evidence, and set itself up as a court 01:101
peal. With regard to what had fallen from the 41,0
Member for Lambeth as to the law laid down bY3ar
Right Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), he (the Selic,!iio
General) agreed with his Right Hon. Friend, 't",,,,tr
constable was authorised in interfering when lie far
ceived the meeting was unlawful and tended to $l/00,
mediate breach of the pence ; but, as his Right et;
Friend said, he did so at his own peril. In thefre:"oo
case the verdict of the Jury showed that the Culs'.ll
acted properly.
ceie4l4.
Mr. SHEIL said that his Hon. Friend (Mr. Pun ,;0410
having stated he did not mean to cast any imputatl°7 1,0
the Magistrates or Jury, he thought they tmeht, 0,
,t(10
content with that. The motion was' not fotuirleal,ol,
the petition, as stated by the Learned Solicitor-Gc2pleiV
The real question they had now to discuss was, o'":ka0
the circumstances were such as to justify the proce7o
which took place. The Attorney-General adrnii.t,iier'
would be inconvenient to exercise the power sea
fering with public meetings, and that. such-. aj,..,isav
ought not to be resorted to unless under .stroriOrdiirie
stances. It could
should take on
of law, afloat which jejtvb9geient(tcsieoc,ctaliiiidsiffste„,eeraimt:ib,nnilcoaesitdl
ddtiviffita4t7::itiint7l:4;7.l-1,01.4i5:i11.d:
y was a%
what -not so. If by granting the papers they elgY
a ,censitre on tlie:judge and Jury, by refusing ther-,a15
would gite authority an illegal act. 400
Sir ROBERT • PEEL said the Hon. 011-„4001C-
allowed that the motion was brought forward 'W`'-` tb•
tive of what was stated in the petition, and that 2 7e'
tion was to be judged on its distinct merits.l.ll'` tyio
tion alleged that the conviction was obtained coht,lothe
the evidence ; the charge, therefore, was
Judge and Jury, not the constable. It was suit. nft'shs
that befinv the sentence was given the ChairatufrThier,
Sessions and two of the Jury left the Court •
°get° be
But this had been utterly den- ed, had been sbu'lli
quite accidental, and was, in tket, abandoned as a ct of
All they were called on now to decide was the connLl_a
the constable. Ile did not deny that this liousal7,ll it
jurisdiction in the administration of justice, th()1 11"„,,lit
was very difficult to define its limits ; but lie
nothing could be more dangeroas than an intermeilota,
by the House with the course of justice, as suebi beirig
Terence would always be liable to the suspicion0
influenced by party. The Hon. Gentleman 10'14, for
the names of the Magistrates and the Jury, but n.
ttittht
that of the constable. Why the lion. Gentleman
have left out all the rest of
The the motion. t iii
11r. T. DUNCOMBE— constable's name
the petition. in
Sir It. PEEL—Every eh vision of Court lie
favour of the constable. The parties, if theYi7ll„t it
grieved by those decisions, should have itypt6l" , a„ated
was nut till after all the law courts had been esi:
to iu.
than the House of Commons should be applied the
teriere. Ile hoped, tinder all the eircunistanecsl
H the
ouse would uphold the principles upon not en'
ministration of Justice was Jimmied, and wonicilocon.
danger those principles by consenting- 0) thte,
"the Bight
Viscount PALNIESiON concurred wi ,ere
Hon. Baronet that they shunld not li-btly noAat.
thetle
sa:dzeintiisntlrett
it trust rot ibeee
in tl,e Biro courts ;
arise in which notice might •be taken of nhn;p`id,c6,feti
those ceorts. The liigl:est authority inulm ,rowna
lately in another part of the kingdom.
evances uf
Learned Judge had lately maintained that