Star.
London, England, 1802-11-27 00:00:00

!77-"T

, -

`r-i‘

•

Mr. BURROWS maintained fiat the Legitimate,
in the preamble of the Ad, had clearly pointed out
what were the particular mirchiefs intended to be
remedied. It had fpecified the various offence;
likely to forward mutiny and fedition ; and had
further enaCted," that it (hould be an offence with-
in the At to admirlifter, or to be affiflant in ad-
minillering any oath, purporting to bind any per-
fon to engage in any mutinous or feditious aels ;
or any aas tending to dillurb the public peace ;
or to obey the command of any body of men, un-
fanetioned by tli law ; or not to reveal any unlaw-
ful confederacy ; or not .to difcover the taking of
the oath, &c." All thefe additional provifions, he
infitled, referred folely to the offences enumerated
in the Preamble of the Att, namely mutiny and
fedition, and to no other.
Mr. JEKYLL truiled the Court would, in the
conflruCtion of an Aft fo highly penal, take into
its confideration the time of committing, and the
objeCt of the offence imputed to the prifoners. —_
It was an ACt made for the purpofe of fuppreffing
thoCe unlawful affociati'ons, which had for their ob-
jeCt the overthrow of the Government, and had
no relation whatever to the offence with which the

defendants were charged. He allowed that fuck
a queftion as this was could not be tried on affida-
mits ; but the only thing contended for was, that
the parties fhould be admitted to bail. He was of
opinion the preponderancy of the affidavits in their
favour entitled them to that privilege. He com-,
mented on the affidavits in fupport of the profe-
cution, and confidered them as made by perfons
who were particept criminit, and therefore liable to
fufpicion. •
Lord ELLEN BOROUG 11 raid, that if he could bring
his mind to entertain any reafonable doubt, as to
the conftration of the flatute in queftion, he mould
be happy to accede to the application, on the part
of the prifoners ; but he could not conceive them
.entitled to be bailed for an offence, which he con,

fidered as exprefsly within the terms and meaning
of the Ad. The Ad, it was true, in its main
provifions, was directed againit the' offences of
Mutiny and Sedition, attempted to be furthered
by the obligation of an oath to the party engaged
in them ; but the fubfequent part of the clan& •
clearly embraced a more general fcope. It applied
to oaths, adminiftered for the purpofe of promot-
ing the objets of every illegal affociation. He
could only coiled the fenfe of the Ad from the
words of it. It declared illegal all affociations
tending to difturb the public peace, and then pro-
hibited the means ufed to bind men's confciences
to ad in obedience to perfons engaged in unlawful
confederacies, or to refrain from difcovering them.
There provifions appeared to him precifely to in-
clude the cafe in queftion. What was the oath ad,
miniftered ? It was to be true to the journeymen
ihearmen who were engaged in an illegal combina-
tion • and not to divulge their fecrets. The object
of this was, to keep the whcle body of workmen,
in a particular branch of our manufacture, in ter-
ror. Was not this an illegal Combination ? Ie his
opinion it was within the meaning of the Ad of
Parliament ; but was a confolation to him, that it
the quettion would not be decided by his opinion,
in the prefent inftance. If the At ought to receive
a narrower conftrudion, the Defendaits would
have the benefit of it hereafter, on a metfon in are
reft of judgment ; this queftion extended no farther
than to the propriety of bailing them. By the af-
fidavits for the profecution, the corpus deleai was
eftablifhed.—The Court had confidered the affida-
vits on the other fide, and had been actuated by its
defire of conftruing ;hem in favour of the liberty
of the prifoners.—lt was the duty of the Court, as
guardian of the liberty of the fubje&, to endeavour
to put a favourable conftruetion on ads imputed as
offences, and to give the parties implicated the full
benefit of fuch conftruCtion ; but when a real cafe
was made out, and fads were brought within the
fcope and object of an Mt of Parliament, it was
equally the duty of the Court to refufe its interfe.
rence. Upon this cafe he had no reafonable doubt,
and he was clear the prifoners were not entitled to
be bailed.

Sir N. GROSS obferved, that fomething had been
thrown out refpeding the power of the Court to
bail or remand the prifoners. In all cafes this
Court had power to bail, even for murder. It had
lately exercifed that power, in the cafe of Mr.
Shuttleworth, accufed of murder. The quellion
here was, whether the offence was within the Ad.
of Parliament ? The Learned Counfel, Mr. Erikine,
had acknowledged he was mired by the latter part
of the clank' : he did not wonder at it, for its fenfe
and meaning was clear. It was not in his power
to fay, that adminiftering an oath, not to reveal
an unlawful confederacy, was not within the ad.
There would be more than one opportunity of dif.
culling this point : There might be a motion in
arreft of judgment, or a cafe made for the opinion
of all the Judges. He was perfuaded, that if any
Gentleman at the bar hereafter fuggefted a doubt,
that the Court would acquiefce in any mode re-
commended for deciding upon it. At prefent he
was convinced the combination, in furtherance of
which the oath was adminiftered, was illegal ; and
therefore within the aft. His Lordfhip declined
commenting on the fads of the cafe, that the par-
ties might not be prejudiced by the ftatement of
his obfervations in the Newfpapers.

Sir S. LAWRENCE thought the prifoners were not
entitled to be bailed. It was true, the preamble
of the Ad referred only to the offences of Mutiny
and Sedition, but it was not an unufual thing for
Ads of Parliament to go beyond the preamble in
its enacting claufes. The firft part of this Ad was
confined to Mutiny and Sedition, but the latter
part was general. There could not be any confe-
deracy which was more illegal, or which it was
more important to check, than one which militated
againft the exiftence of fo,important a branch of
the trade of the country as its wool.flaple.
Sir SIMON LE BLANC faid, that in cafes of this
kind, where there was any reafonable doubt, the
Court clearly had a right to bail. Without faying
whether die fads would be hereafter found appk-
cable to the charge, he thought there was fufficient,
upon,the face of them, to bring the offence within
the At of Parliament ; he was therefore of opi-
nion, the yrifoners ought to be remanded.