On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (4)
-
Untitled Article
-
3£wpmat 5j&atrltamtttt.
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
¦¦ i i » yL' - — ¦ — i— i —_ run ;? of q , ue > .: n s y ek » ih . Fbidat , Mat 2 ? . ( SitSir-fsin Banco . ) ' THS QUEES C O"CO 5 ~ SOX 1 SD OTHERS . 33 sb Aitosket-Gessbai . said he had to sho-w KXtseEgajEsz the ra-e eovuntd by Ms Lecrnea FiirnOs , caSiEg rooa the C ^ ni to sho ^ cause "why the jndgjseEt against Mr . t > Cosnor sad others sLonlcl not be arr = st « d on the 43 i sa = i 5 th counts . It tos right he Eii £ ) n ! a state tbat . ^ eith lespe *^ to the xemtifc tistthe iti const did not chaise csnBpirsc ? , The defendants were arquHtsd of the canspirE ^ , and the ? wtie eniatkd io ice b n * £ t t £ thai atqnlitaL TJnac * tke direction cf tis Lsara ^ rl Jadge at tbe iriaL as to Ihs saw -of coEspaac ^ . the Jar ? srquifcled the . Isfendants of thai chsrre . Be did zsot complain alter of the direction of
tbe Jc £ ? e tr ths £ e-IIe £ oT tie Jury . It rns saih a view to t » nn 2 under the consideration of the Jury , and s 3 sc ef i ! 3 J * Const , vbeiatr tha facts , isdepeiitlemly of eoBsprr ^* conEtit 2 t ? d sa < ffnce , that these , couats TFcre pn I- -Jed , sbI the Learned Jnugg l- ^ -d & 9 Jury that « iih reference to the facts stated is the £ fib coast it was impossible for him to suggest anything by "Kinds ths defendants conld be Ecquitted . He said there TSers sdentted i ^ ci 3 that he could not sngcest a donbt upon ¦ which tha Jury could acquit . The Jury , therefore , acquitted the defendants of cossplrscy ia sll the ccimts , feat fccEd th < -m all ynilty on tfc-o fi ' th count , ana made s select 5 -sn of sixteen whora they eosticfod on the fourth ct » s 3 t , raj ing that those who 'wsr&csiivlcted onthefifth-c " nnt « -id sot-contemplate
violence , bat tbat those convict **! on the fourth count did contemplale violsEce ; and itciz verdict gaTe gitzZ co-Sdence ss to their opinion . Ee did not know aistinctiy ¦ what bis irien 2 s' rfg ^ ctioss --ere . Hi wculd now deal ¦ with the objections te £ « i . He -would first bejjin with the frcrlh count , which t ^ s is thf-se "words : — " Ana the inrors aforesaid , en their oath afcresalfi . farther presait that heretofore c-a tee 1 * 5 " day of Ausr ., in the jar aforesaid , and on divers oth £ T eays and rimes Ijc ^ sceen tint day and fke lrt day ot October , in the jesTzfcieEaia , anrl a . % drrers piaets , niTeis evil deposed pgrsonsTiElswfeSlyana tuiiinltiifcBaiyasseiabisd tegttlier TjT . fi i , j -fioienre , thxesls , SEd ir-tfiaidatioitB to oitcts tShsr paKais l > eiDg then peaceaV . e subjects of this t rala :, forced the said iatt xaeiiSioEed s . -nbjt-c . ts to Iests their
ocenpatioss and anplojments end thereby in ; pet * and stoppsd the labour employed in the lawtul ar : d peaceable carrying en , i > y diTers large rumbere ^ of the snJjects of this realm , of certain traces , Hmmfccinr . es , and isosaiKi ^ eE , and thereby esnsed great confusion , terror , asfi alsnn in tbe Eiini ' s of the peact ^ ible Fuhjvcts of this xealai" Oa ? orje « tion TTEi , tisat lo tLat matelial aTennent there-sras no senue , fcnt the cennfsrett on , " aEd , that afttrsfarcE , on tie 1 st dsy of Anmrt in the yesr aiarsaid , and oe dirers othti diys and fenES , bfiiSreeD that day and the 1 st of October , in ibe year aforeaaid , ia the parish aforesaid ., in the ccu-. iy aforesaid , ifc =- s ^ id Fiargxis © "Conner , ic ., tog > fther "Kith ^ t ets other t- ? il disposed T > = rs 3 ijs to Hhs jarors aiort - said sb yet Ekv ^ , oid nnlaTrfnlly . "; Htrt ai d t : ett alone Tras the cfF-nee rtated . and it "vrcs stated with e
perfect ftcut—" and in that county aforesaid , aid . abet , assist , comfort , raj-pe-nand encsara ? e the isid ctj ] disx > osefi DeisDEs is xliis count first aieatiPnEd , to contfcae ssdpersJstin ths said nnla'wfnl assemblings , tkreats , tat 5-¦ mfljHnr « ^; a TJclesce , and rn the cad Hsp ^ diD ^ , and . stoppic ? of tfc * labccr employtd in the sdd tisdea , mEnufecturea asid bnsinessas , " with intent thereby to cause terror and Elarm in ths minds of tbo p- ^ aciible mbjects « f this reaisu , and by the means tf snch terror and jJnTm -noieEtly asd nnlywfully to cause and preenre certain great chssses to be made in the conrtirction of fh "«» realm , ss by lair established , against the p = ar-3 of out esid Lady ths Qneen , hir C > own and = picnity . " . One of his insyls had intimated , zhzt it "was r-ot st-ttrf ypho t " diTers other persans "srere mlo hz ' - so asseml . I ^ d . - -
lord Dssiixs nsdsrstood the objwbou to be that , the facts stiteJ xmhrc * s TTEne"s ?^ re ftsc ^ -a-j -xh nu ^ ti liaTe betn ccisiritiea anywhere ana "en . u' . a pet be , yrinii-nRi in Uas coucti ; ; and another c- >* jt ction was , that it ^ was na-tf . w Bistr > d that the defeEi ? ai * s -s-ere : present •* h < sn tfee cfence charged "was c * nai tted , hoi tbat they Imew any such offence "was in ^ . . iut of feet cominisea , only that they Trere aioing and abetting . 2 Si . Serjeam MrBPHT said there Tsas no illegal of- j fence charged . 2 Sx . 3 JR 2-E oLEsrred , thst it -was ta ^ d that dhters per- ' sans "were sseiiibled ; Ih 3 cSencs vss an nElswfnl as- ' sembly , sad It "W 33 essential that there sbcold % e three or more asseinbleu , snd it did nat appear , a- ' cept fey the "ward " ciTers , ^ what tpss the number tssembly . Mt Serjeant iJtrsPHT conadered they ought to hare been chaired 23 minapals .
The A 3 TOK 3 KT-GESESAX sid , hadth » count rfated Biersly a leral inference no oce -= ? -onld ha-ra ieen ruerc ZKlemsthan iis Ltzmea Friend in saying it Tras a charge "without tmlh , tn-i 02 * 7 an intention U > ensnare by legal feferesce . H = spprthenatd it was a rule , Sr-at yon migkt tidier state the legal result of the fests , prc"Sided they -a-ere crimissi , ac ? Trords "wets ccnpled , io Bho"w tbat ths fects -ssre committed . It "was imp- ^ 5 \ ble te chEJge e 21 as prxEdtols ; if they did assist , it might he so sfetEd , Itat the lzw trcuic . then punish them as principals , Sat as to ff « qoestian of TEnue ., it might he admitted that every laaterisi al-eg ^ dcn must be accorapsaied by a statement of tame and place ; but £ ince 7 George IT-, e . 64 . sec 20 , thst prorided the TeBue ¦ was steted "Khsse tts i Since was iiHrari , the "want oi
s Tencs "with xespect to ths other mat-ers cm 3 d not bs taken-ss se oVjEciian . The -wotHs t-f the 25 th section Trere : — " And *>¦** fcft pcnishJEESi « -f efivaders may teless fequsnfly intercepted ia conseqnence rf technical sEccties , be it enactsa , that r-o judgment upon BEy indictmcHit or inforaiation for ssy ftlcny tx inirdeineaiianr , -whEtlier after T 5 ? dict by default , or oflienrise , ihaQ be stayed c ? reyersed for ¦ want of the aTerment of a = y maiter necessary to be proved , * nor for lie omission of certain voras , * nor for omitting to fete the time at "c-cich the offercs "was commxited , nor far statin ]; tbe time immediately , nor for "want of a proper or perfect Tenne f ? bere the court » h ?» ' !« appear by tbe indictment er information to ha ? e had TUTisdiSion otct the offence ™ Id tbe civil Eii . ute
correspending "with tbiB the expression frss * ' snj znztter of form , " l > nt ia criminal esses , instead of spea&irtg " as of a matter of form , ™ it vss siid it should rot be stared or Teversed ior "Bant cf tbe averment of sbt master TmBeoesaiy to ce proved . The learned couustl lavins rsjsated tbe ^ ords of the statute observed , that the rr-rrespoEding statute only used the -eoTds " any msiter of form ;™ but "without inquiring "wbst ¦ vas the mesocsg of tie expression , " "sphere the cenrt shall api ^ esr fcy the indictment , or icfonnaticn to bavthad jcriEdiction over tie eSence , " he remitted th ^ t h wss mzrifrst tts Court bad jurisdiction , because it ins stated in the county aforesaid . After verdict it n . us ? be preFsnitd that ociy cuch eTidecce iras ; received as ought Vi harfe been rfeceived "with reference to ths jnris
dictioii af ihe Court . The count charged , " that divers persons at divars places ; " that would assume that tbov x&ust haTa been trs-o per * ois 3 , "srhich Trould have tee * -. Enffieient There vns an offence committed by stepper labour "with a view by terror and intimidatiGn t' > chaufs the constitntioi ! . There must have been fsro persons , * nd if assisted there must have been vtiee It iras-said tbsiS "bright iave occurred abread , but tbe eoont stated that the parties irere subjects of this realm H -sras immaterial "ffhere that assunblage too ' k place , -whether in E-x ; tand , Scotland , Ireland , or evta abroad , l » ee ; nse Sie dtftEoants irere charged " "with " committing Use vfreEce , -BirKn the connty of iancaster , " with aidto in
in ? , ic ^ cjspised persons persist un ! a"w ; asstr-tbiing and violence , in impeding and stoppiris labour , T 5 i& iiteit to create terror xn £ - alarm , ard thereby charge She constitution . It "Was said , that iv vas uc > stsitoS ^ s-ho these persons -were ; that was unimpurtant , profiled tte defeadants became principals A YEKhct of—•*• -srith divers other persons to the jurors ¦ nnkno'iyn . " tronld be ttflicient , bscsuse - the offence " sras in aidisg pgtson 3 in doing 33 nnbywful act . " Was it an cfiern-2 for persont xo go about for the purpose , by XBbmid&tiorL , of strpii ' jig the labour ef the whole eountay , wiih intent to bring about a cbnr . ga in the coaslituticn ? If that vcjs zn oficsce , it wss an offence to assist in doias it .
Jdr . Juitice jtaTXESOS said , thai snch mtenbon iras not laid in thp >^ ai-y jsxl of the connL ThaATTOKMiT-Genera Lssid , that no deubt , -with Terpeci to tevcTd ? of the mte i-zgs . msny c : the parties attending there Issi no rs ? of chss ^ iag the ecnslituiiou , but otfcrr ^ came in as < - ' strriea the cfft-r-cti iiirfher ; for , flrniisg p = rsons a ; ^ -m . blefl prodnciEE terror and a 2 arzB they a ^ - ^ aal tb 6 ai ? n . xh the o ^ sct c-f creatjdc a chirj ^ ein 'he ^ jnsatutii . r ' - Tae count charged , " that not cisly 13 L-: nc _^ ure , but m divers other piacis lfc £ semee ^ Tii , 5 haa isi ^ s . place , -zxA , evidt-nce was g ; vcn to ttai eff ct . Mt . Jc-. tice PaTTES 0 > aid net sae how tbe Cr ^^ n could iirpirt imo the p" - ! j prrt cf the cusat lir . t "Which f ^ = stated jr . : hi fitter pEit . "
Ths Attohset-Gsxeb-. i . £ ai-J , Its * by the reneral statement the assesiblj n j ^? t have hsppan-d anywhere , iut the c 2 = nce charged " ^ as said to Lave b ?* -a c _ ai-3 nated in tfee ccrcuty cf Lanr ister . C 3 isi 2 ing the de"JendaixtB vUb . ^! "n ^^; in Lincaahire imperial that they had dose so in thns enur * y . Mi . JusUce Paitesos— Xi . . if it -were s ^ d to have been c «? mmitt 8 d 13 Fiance . The ATT 02 XET-GBXERA 1 , —If th « * BSSS * ^ nC 8 "Was fjven in ianeishire to person -Iding E , w et 5 Egs in Pjsnce , that "truiiil bz an tjSentx ioncashJrr . Ths allegation -sras tLit the ctdss& ^ had a ' -ad the parfiea Trith the intent to chance ihc constimtion . 32 » intent » as tiatcT tis aiders ss * otters . Hx . Justice Pattesox— Whiw : .-agh tts original parties had no such intent , aiid aiUiough done in France ! The Atio ^ SBT-Gexerax bo apjirehended it Tronld iej but is 'waa inconsistent vi-b the avtrmenia to suppose that it ttm dose out of the realm . 3 ni it tbe » "were an iniurrertior in Piris which "WOBldlotTdtiis rffect of altering the oc ^ isatatiou , an * peKonsh « re aided and assisted them in this country ,
-tbatr-wcHld be an offence . The coant , however , so referred to this reahn that it most be supposed the act ¦ was committed "Kithin ths realm . Ths abstsc « of ireiiTO sa * cored- by _ the statute . There noed » -a no rfUgatiim j ? TPnna ' ai : alL If the expression in lite Jtatate iadT ^ BsenrEtfaat -aa impn > peT " ? enue BbiU " . J be - cored , thea ^ ie wold iindersfend the argnmsnt trat tfeere must be soms Tetna There ttbe as nnici ; a wil 1 of a ^ perfect or proper Tenne "where there iras note , t ^ _ Trh £ n ii -eas iiaproperly stated ; and tbertfora ! '«»• J ^ pSapsrou lfi currtt ^ l » csa £ 9 it stated tbat in « ca
Untitled Article
case r . o objection should be taken . If tfca Kfcnt of time jras cureii . so "wcni ^ the "want of place . It ffiust be supposed , after verdict , that the Canrt had correctiy dischaigEd its duty in receiving proper j « yidence . 11 the offence "was stated , the vaat of venue "would not be an objection . The first partof the fourth ceunt charged that " avers evil-disposed persons Trsnt about disturbing pesceabl ^ subjects of the Tesim , and that they , by violence , threats , and intimidations , forced those who ¦ were peaceably disposed to leave their occupations and employments , and that they thereby caused great confusion , terror , aad alarm in the minds of ? the peaceable subjects o ? the realm ; " and then the count went on to aver , " that the ctefrnSants did , in the parish and connty aforesaid , together "with divers othei evil di >
posed persons to tha jarora untnown , unlawfully aid , abet , assist , comfort , support , and encourage tfce said evil-deposed persons first mentioned in the count , to centhnis and persist in the said unlawful assemblings , threats , intarnidsiioiis , and violence , and 3 a the paid impeding acd stopping of the labour employed in the said trades , manuiactures , and business , with intent thereby to canse terror and nlarm in the minds of the peaceable subjects of theTealm , and by meana of Etch terror and aiarm violently and unlarsfully to cause and procure certain great changes to be made in the constitution of this realm es by law established . " His Learned Friead , Mr . Sergeant Murphy * had objected that the aiding and sssisEing on the part of tbe defendants ought to have been charged asta distinct and
substantive offence . He ( the Attemey-General ) however , -wonld contend that it was competent to the prosecution to lay the offence in terms consistent with the fscts as they really appeared . If , instead of being present at the time "t ? hen any of tbo mills vrere stopped and set on fire , the defendants had merely assembled in the reishbourhocd to give that sort of encouragement which thsir propinquity ¦ 57 on ? d afford , or if th ^ y had stopped a bri « ige to prevent the appTeach of the military , * rr had broken up a road for the same purp&sa , or bad ia rmy other -way e ' . ded , abutted , © r assisted the men implored in the commission of the acts charged to h&ve been riono in the first part of tbe connt , it would make ins diffvecce , so far as the defendants were concerned , whether the o £ Vrc 3 which they "were
1 charged "with ti ;' . ipg and assistisc o- * ber persons to j commit , ¦ sras in point of fact committed in Cheshire , i Lancashire , Yorisbira , or any other county . It cer-! tainly could nd bs ea ! n" that tho defendants aided and ' abetted in the sense in which it ttss understood in j common parlance , as the ai < l and assistance was given : ir ^ Jrectly . If the indie > msnt had charged the defen' rants with actually Impeding labour , his Learned ' Friend would sot have forj ? o : t ? n to asfe the 1 jury -whether they could find tbe parties guilty of such a charge upon mere Itpal Intendment . 1 Arguments of this description were sure to ' bs addressed to a jury , end the count was framed on ¦>* . __ ^_ . *_ s . _ a »_ to ? t teem In of misdemeanor tcere
| i j j ' I ^ ^ pi-rpo- ^ e me case I -E-a « Dot , es In felosy , s distinction between an acces' f ^; y bt fore the"f « tt asd a principal in the second dwee . In tie statue 49 George III ., cap 126 . sec 3 . tntitlcd "An Act for tbe fnithtr Prevention of tbe ' . «*«!* * nd Brokerage of Offices , '" it was enacted , " that I if suy person or persons shculd sell , or bargain for the s . " >' e i'l aDy effice , commission , plr . ee , or employment , ' , dfser-. bed in the act , then every such person , and also i every person "who should wilfully and knowinsly i aid . abet , or assist such persons therein , should be 1 deemed ai > d aujudged guilty of a misdemeanour . " The i statute said , therefore , that persons who did so and so should ha guilty of an indictable efface , and that aiding aud assisting them should also be an offence . The
langnssre of the 5 th and of the 8 th sections of the same statute pointed to similar enactments . He would also refer their lordships to the case of " The King r . Hawn . " 31 Stole Trials , p . 1 . That , was an indictment for a misdemeanour against Mr . Hansra , in aiding aisd aHptt ' ng the weavers of Manchester in a connvracy tr > rai = » tbeir ungQk . In summing up , Mr . Justice Le B ! arx , before whom the case Tras tried , said , " The indictment states , that certain evil-disposed persons , bsving Esstinhicd in a riotous and tumultuous manner in grtat numbers , frr the purpose cf compelling their mast « -TS to advance tiseir wases , the defesdant , Mr . Hanson , did unlawfully and wicktdly encourage them in that eonspiTs . cj , riot and tuB > u : luons meeting , by sang certain expressions to them , encouraging them to
pTceed in tsat illegal manner . " Now their lordships would obs-JTve , tkat in the case that he W .: *; citing Mr . Hanson was present at the meeting ¦ whic h took place , and was in the eye of the law cub of the conspirators , bnt Le waB not indicted ' or conspiracy . He was charged in the i . ' . dictjr . ent -with intending to aid , abtt , and enconrage the conspirators , acn the indictment alleged that he did go to and amongst the said evil disposed persons , and that he did incite , encourage , and as far sb in him lay , endeaTour to move and persuade the r& \ A evil-disposed persons to ¦ persevere and persist in refusing to work . X" rfonbt , in point of law , he was entity of the same
< ff-nce iis tae weavers , but the ol-jeci ; t > men he iiaa in -viav was a different ore . After the decision in ttwt case be did n-t «* . - how his Learned Friend c-. tjM ci 2 tend thit en offtcca was laid in the iadiciment . when the atfendanta were charged ^ with aiuicg an : iSttJing other ? to im-eile and stop labour . His contention vtjz , fcat if tLfc dtfeadants did aid , abet , and a * s st other evil-disposssd pe-sons in imptding the labour of the peaceable snbjtcts of the realm , "with an chjrc aljavor to that « stertained by the parties who dW tb ^ se * vts-: i , t . e deftn-Jaats were guilty of an indicttMe tfittc . Upsn the ' see of the count itself i % ¦ was di-ar ths * . the Court had jurisdiction , and the objection to hn vaM-trity was t&ten after "verdiet .
Mr . Jus' -Tt-e PaTTESOS—The count charges that the drfesda-. t- £ Jd"d asf assisted the evil-disposed persons first mra * . i' = B < -3 to cortinne and prrsUfein the said rrelawfnl ass- nifel'Egs , threats , intimiilations , and violtcc . " , but it u-. * -- p » t av * r that ttey did continue and persist therein . Coulti you , say , in an indictment for murder ; tint the prisoner ai ^ -ed and assisted A . B . in committing murder , without alleging that murder was committed ? The Attorxet-Geseral said , that there was a wide distinction he'ween cases of misdemeanour snd felony . In 1 arty J , a- * ley ' s c 3 E 9 . reported in Fitzgitbon , 122 , *_ be deffcnciiit was irdicted for keeping out of tbe way a material witness , who " was to have proved a fori-sry by one J . S . The indictment « as laid with a
scinter , ar-d the Court h ? ld that this implied that there was an indictment for T- - -rcery , and ' . bet tbe defendant sLr-ew it . for she could sot know it unless there was an inG ? c ^ rcei . t . The sarae principle was recognized In " the K ? ng v . Fuller , " 1 B . and P . 180 . In that case Riebara Fuller was indicted for an endeavonr to ec-duce Muttheif l /> we , free a soldier in his Majesty ' s service , from hi"s duty and allegisnce ; and one of the objections t =-itn ia arrest of judgment waj « , that the indictment nM tin . state that the prisoner knew that Matthew Lowe was a soldier . The Court , bowsver , said , that as the count charged that ths prisoner did advisedly enenctav ^ nrto in cite , thfy thoncht tbe word " advisedly " eqaivaient to the word tdenter , and tfce indictment aas held $ ood . H 3 apprehtnclcd that if one man were charred with aiding and assisting another 10 do a particulET net , it must be presnn ? ed thai tho act iiself had besc dona Ee would now proceed fr ^ consider t ! . a obj-r ^ ons raided to the fifth ccuct . The firs ; oHection
¦ was , that there was no venue . A venae , howtrVcr , was laia in the rusHfia , and unless the oalfnoTtof v « nue in tht booy o ! the count "were aided by the statute of 7 George IV , csp . 64 , tbe statute conld have no meaning at iil . It mwi appear , indeed , that tba Court had jirris . !» cii ' .. n over the offence charged to have been coaimhted , bnt that was shown by the venue in the margin The case of Minier Hart . " 6 C . and P . 123 , wascii «? t-iitlM otbsr sioe in moving for the preicnt rule . Tb- inGsc * i .. t ^ t had the words *• L ^ adon to wit " in the n . ^ T ^ iD ^ -.-. ¦» . the off-rcce was charre--i to have be ^ ii com&iUid : n tbe parish of St . Mir ; . ic ^ w , without at aii sul ' rg that th « offence was " committed in Lcr . don . It was i , id that this indictaiBnt was bad , and th ^ t it * omi'Hon \ yas not cured by tfce statute 7 ih Gc-orgelV-Cwu . d , at 20 . There , liowewr . the objccii-n was taken before verd ' et , and wfr' . e the trial ¦ was seine on . It waj . cleaT therefore ,: that the facts did not app ! 7 to iLe i-rtsent ci ? e .
;^ r . ^ e FiTTEiiaOS . —Theorjection -kst taken ! afterpl « -a , ' . ^ id hu » c&n a prisoner tafee snobject : -: a to Jhe indictcitD * sfttr pltadins over unless he m : v-s \ a J arrest ox JBdameni ? Wben issue caa once betn joined the trial must go on to verdict . ' The Atto&net-G £ SERal observed , that he should ' have tb-. Bgkt that Tae { r . vHTutnz of the statute was , thtt its provisions sfcocld i' -t srply untH aftsr the verdict of the jnry had btea ^ i-tcaiiy pronounced . It appeared to him theifcfi-rp . that JJ iattr Hart ' s e ;** was eg authori ' r in favour of the neltnda-sts . Bnt farther , he wou . rt . contend tt- > . ^ sine the p ^ . 'sinj ; of the Jury Act , 6 th George IV ., cr > . 50 stc 13 . tfc re was no necessity to aver that tbe offraice ccn .: ii ; t * * d t <» ok place within any parish or place wiitin xh * c ~ antjr . 1-.. e want of vsnue "as cured if "ia jury t ; nx &om th- _ - counvy hicb sppeared as tfae veun ? in iLs marri ? 1 . On the suhj ^ c : of venns all tke Itarsin ^ was collected ia tfce case of Sir Francis Buiu ^ : * in -i B an . ; Ai ., i > 5 , ¦ n-Ktre ihe qoeatiun was wLj liur the conriction for libel had taken piice in the rigbt c ~ c ^ tv . Tae Lr > Td' Cb ? ef Jastica thrn sti 1 that the defent ' ent was cr- ! ried with havinc pub- f iished the libel in Leicester * hire , n d lie letter was ' dated in IndceBteisMre , thtr ^ fore tbe libel was published in that county . Felony stood on a different ground , and the assertion tUat misdemeanour might be 1 tned in tbe county where part of ; it was committed ; ¦ eras Uksn fiom th&t T ? hich belonged to ft-lony . ] Thtie had been a iSxns when it was consi- ' der&d that a civil suit could not be tried ! out oi the county . If a felony consisted -if two acts , one ! done in one county and one in another , the party might ' not be liable in either , and therefore a statute was passed to remedy that inconTerience . SHsdemeanour was , as a general rule , to follow Bib mode adopted in civil actions . He ( the Attorney-General ) would ask "whether enough here appeared to show that tbe Court had jurisdiction over the offence , because if there was that was sufficient . It was now sufficient to shorrtbat an offence was committed in the county . There wsre I eases that conld sot be tried at tfce quarter BfeEeloas , ' sad in order to guard against a court intruding -where it \ bad xo JTiriEuictum , the rtatute said , provided that ! it ihciild appear tint the court I " had jurisdiction ; \ tfceMyre thi-t locI . ! not have relation to ve--ue . j bnl 'cr = ct th-. t the f-fff- ? c » was one Trittun ths ' jarit . c :. o to trj ir . T ^ : w ae tht only meaning u r ^ ^ rea U- Le tt .: 4 s . tbe statute . Mr . Ji .- ^ ic-j Coiu-aiiiGE —Uhtd to fecow Low that would Epp ^ ar l > y the iaoictnient '
Untitled Article
lue Attoknet-Gexeral said tha * would appear in the captiou . If the Court had jurisdiction the law would presume that everything "waa rightly done . Mr . Justice : Pa 3 T £ S 0 N said , if the word " information" appeared , how would that apply ? The Attornkt-Genehal said there -were informations which / did not arise out of this Court , such as informations before magistrates . "Ur . Jostles € olehidge said , if upon the face of the indictment something equivalent was suited to show that the trial had token place before a propor court and juiy , how would that affeoi the venue ? The Attorke ^ -Geseiial said , the venue Was stated in the margin . Before iho statute waa passed , it was not sufficient to stato tha same in the margin , but it was now admitted that that was the placo where the offence waa . committed .
Mr . Justice Cclebidge Baid , there was now acitse in this conrfc . from tbe Central Criminal Court , where the venne In the margin was ' Central Criminal C iutt , " an-: the acts were-laid t& be dono within the jurisdiction of that court Suppose the case was tried before a Middlesex jury , ho * y did it appear on tho face of the indictment tbat the Middlesex jury or the judge kad jurisdiction ? " Tho Ait ^ enet-Genebal said , it might not appear , but tbere was . a larger jurisdiction stated in the margin , and this C « urt had power over all offences . Tbe award of a wrong vekire was cot intended to be helped by the statute , but only time and place . The whole scope 6 f his argument might be summed up almost in a seutar . ee , —< -that tbere ; beii- ' (? now no occasion for a jury to come
from any particular ville , and it being the universal rule of pleading , that the pl&ce in the . margin was tbe place were the act was done , and now that oljtctlon was not to bo taken upon the necessity of tbe guild not feeing allegedj sikI there being no venue in a court which had in the margin a county , it was the want of a proper venue ; but fri-m the indictment . Laving ir . the martrin the venue , aad it appearing by the caption to bs a presentment of a j ' . iry of that county , it Fa ! now to be tafcen that the t ffbnce was committed within tho count ? in the margin , and where the Court had jurisdiction . Ee . tiierefore , snbmitted that the meaning of the Btatnte was . that some deftct should be cuTed j ami , therefore , that tbe tola ! absence i . f venue was 1 , 0 ol j : ction . Up » n the other point the question was , wtiat
was the offence charged in tbe Cfth count ? It did not chargs conspiracy , but that ** tho dfcf « ulai ; t unlawfully did endeavour to excite Hor Majesty ' s liege subjects to dissiffection an « hatred of her laws , acd unlawfully did endeavour to persuade and to eacoursge the said liege subjects to unite , confederate , aad agree toltive their ttveral ami re £ pective tiiiplo ) - uients , and to produce a cessation of labour throughout a large portion of this * ream , with indent , and ia ordtr by so dring , to bring about and proiluce a cbuuRQ in tho laws and c . nsiituUon of this realm , against the peace of our ec ' . 'I Lady the Queen ,-her crown a . d cii ^ uity . " The expression here used wiis an tndeavour to psrsusrie to acts as laid in the indictment , " to unite ,
confederate , snd atiee to ltave their several and respective t :. 'j Iojin ^ rt . 3 , and to produce a cessation cf labour , tbroigbiut a large portion of this r < ilm , ¦ with intent , and . in order by so doing , to bring about and produce a change in the laws and constitution cf this realm , against the peace of onr snid Lady the Queen , her crown aul dignity . " If the endeavour to persuade was i-umei ' . nt , the next point was , what was it the defendants endeavoured to induce the Queen ' s subjects to do ? It was on endeavour to stir up tho Queen ' s suVjects , an A it could aot be particularly stated who those parties were , as had been contended for on the other side . The endeavour to persuade a person to ommit an offisnee was an offence itself .
Mr . Justice Patiesoh . —I should wish to know what meaning yuu attich to the latter part of this fifth count It begins by saying " that the defendants , together with divers' other evil disposed persons , unlawfully did , endeavour to excite Htr Majesty's" li-ge subjects to disaffection and hatred of her laws , and unlawfully did endeavour to persuade and encoura ^ o the said liege subjects to unite , confederate , and a ^ ree to leave their employments . " I und » rstand that ; but then the count gots on to cay , " and to produce , a cessation of labour throughout a large portion of this retilm , withintent , and in ordar , by so doing , to bring about and produce a change in the laws and . constitution cf the realm . ' Does the count mean that the defendant s endeavoured to produce a cessation of labour ,
or that they endeavoured to persuade and . encourage Her M&jebty ' s liege subjects to produce such a cessation ? I I The Attokset-Genebal thought that tbe latter construction was the one vhich the count ivquired . Now , their Lordships were aware tbat many acts were in themselves perfectly legal , which would be unlawful if done in combination with others . A man could not be compelled , for instance , to till his own land , but the moment several persons agreed together that they would leave their landa untilled , with a view either to irjuie the paraph or the pars&n , the ac * became illegal . So , an officer might resign l . ia comnv-p . -ion ; but it waa held , in Vertue v . Lord Clive , " 4 Bnrr . 2 , 472 . that it ¦ was an illegal act fcr a number of 1 fliceia to combine to throw up their commissions , with a view of obt ^' r . ing an increased allowance . Again , there could l > e 1 no doubt tbat a man might attend an auction , and bi
Gareey , in " Levi v . Levi , ' 6 C . and P ., 2 SU , that ft was an indictable of ^ nce for a number of pen- ou s to go to an r . u , ction-room , having previously Ji-ieert that one only of the party should bid for -each particular article . Now , the fifth count of this inrTctmtnt charged thf defand 3 pts with endeavouring to persuade the liege subjects of her Majesty to Btop labour ; and it averred that ; be : r olject in doing so was to change the constltut » n of the realm . He submitted that a combination to st ^ p labour was necessarily an indictable offence . The Wi-Jfartf of the community was essentially dependent on the continuance of public labour , Rnd any combination to produce a cessation of labour among a lanje class of the community was an injury to . tbe whole . The offence , however , was aggravated when tbe defendants not orly incited persons to cease from labour , but did so with a vk-w to change the constitution . Upon these grounds be submitted that both counts in the indictmeut were good . ,
The Solicitok-General then addressed the Court on ths same side , tnd said that he would first deal with the olj ^ -. tions which had been raised to the fonrth count cf the indictment . What was the charge contained in that count ? It averred that , on the first day cf August , in the jear aforesaid , and on other days between that day acd the 1 st of October , at divers places . divers evil-disposed persons unlawfully and tumultnou 5 ly assembled together , and by violence , to other persons being then peaceable subjects of thiB realm , forced them to leave their occupations . This was the first part of the count . Their Lordships would observe that ne intent was - laid in that part of it . It merely daid that certain persons unlawfully assembled together , anJ caused great tenor and alarm in the minds of the
peaceable subjects of tbe realm . That averment being made in the first part of the count tha charge cgainst tbe defendants followed , and the offence with which they vrtre charged was stated to have been committed in the parish :. n < county previously mentioned in the indictment ; As against the defendants therefore tbere was a sufficient venue laid . Tbe count then went on to say , that the defendants , together with divers other evil-disposed perJons to the jurors then unknown , did unlawfully-aid , abet , assist , comfort , support , and encourage the said evil-dispvsed persons in tbe count first mentioned to continue and persist in the said unlawful assemblings , threats , intimidations , and violence , and in the s . vitl impeding aud stopping of the labour employed ii : the said trades , manufactures , and business , with
intent thereby to cause terror and alarm in tbe minds of tbe peaceable subjects of this realm , and by means of such terror and alarm violently and 'Unlawfully to cause tnd procure certain great changes to be made in the constitution of this realm , as by law established . Tfee offence , therefore , with which the dbfeuoasts were charged was this—that they did aid , alrct , and assist the first mentioned evil disposed pcrscca to continue and persist in the acts before stated , and tha-S they did so with a ceitain intent . The charge was not that the defendants were present , or taking pait ia the acts stated to have been done in tUe previous paTt of the indictment , but that they encouraged tfce parties who committed those acta to persist in the same conduct There was a venue , tberofore , laid in
that part of the count which contained the charge against the dtfendanu : ; and the question therefore no «• was , whether tbe allegation was also necessary in the pievicus part of ti . e indictment . It certainly was cot necessary at coxnnicu law to introduce such an averment , aiid , even if it were , still according to the proviii : s of the 20 th section of the statute of George 1 Y-, c 64 , if it appeared en the face of tbe count that the court h =. d juiiiaictir-ii , the want of snch an averment w--u \ i b ; cured . He should maintain , however , that : a . \ pe : « dcnt of the- ttalute it was quite unnecessary , it t > - ^> q-jj-e iQ : j , fip * ihte for their Lordships to assume that th « :: it chun- ' -d took plac . out of thexonlm . ScppobO tbe c-ffttnci . « f liinniiaioub-: ? assembling and impeding labour 1 ad ta ' nen p ace in : h <* County of Chester . The def endants -were cburged T > ith aiding them in the connt j of Lancaster . If the evidence proved that the aiding and abetting took place in Cheshire , might no ; the defendants have been found guilty on this
indictment ? It was not i-eeessary to prove that it was dono in Lancashire , and therefore it was unnecessary to introduce the uverrufcat . The fafJacy appeared to him to lie in not tiisiu ^ -uiEbing between cases of felony and cases of ruisdemeauour . In cases of misdemeanour the offence might be made np of acts done in various places , and some acts might be done out of the realm , and some in it Their Lordships weald see that the count contained the word ; " unlawfully . " Now that muBt mean against the law of England . It also alleged that threats were made to the peaceable subjects of this realm . Why should the Court assume that the subjects of tbe realm were out > f the realm ? Oa the contrary , it most be aBsumed . ijprtHia / Mfc , that the Grand Jary-were speaking of things-which had taken place-within the realm . It certainly wonld be a most violent presumption , after verdict , to say that what took place must have taken place out of the realm of England . Then came the question whether it was essential to have the venue in
this part of tbe indictment ? Suppose in an indictment for murder , a count should alleije ihct A ., in tba parish of I ? in the canty of C . m&de an assault on D . struct him with a knife , owsttirg these wor-Js , - '{ ben ana t . tro , " did any one ever bear that in cuch a cise it & isn ' t have bt ^ n . irgued th < -t A stiuik D on : of tire j-ritaiGura of tbe Court ? Now , with regard ; : mis-
Untitled Article
demeanours , his Learned Friend the Attorn * y-Qenef ^ al h : ul referred their Lordhhips to the case of " Tbo K ' ne v . Bui'iifctt . " He wuuld call the-it Lordships' att-iuion jto one 01 two passu : es from the judgment in that case , ' from which it would appear that even if the venue were laid ih the county of Lancaster / it would not be ntcessarj to prove it . The postage which he was about to cita w * s takon from Mr . Justice Bolroyd ' s jm ' -tnent , 4 Barn .: an 1 Aid ., 138 . Ilia Lordship 8 : iid , " I think tho j'irv irny inqftive into and tsifcs cognisance ; of these facts which are done out of tueii county , for the purpose of finding a defendant guilty , not only of so much of thfl crime as was committuxi within the county , but also of tbe remainder of the aggregate charge in those casM , where bo much of the misdemeanours charged as is ^
proved to hove beeu done within their county is of itself a nrsdemeanour j and this is established to be the law in cases of conspiracies and" nuisances in both of which tha juries do nfjt confine their Verdicts of guilty to suuh criminal aclf or consaquor . ces as occur in the s » uuty whore the conspfiacy or erection of the nuisance is laid and proved , but extend them to euch further acts und consequences of conspiracy and nuiianc 2 as may occur or arise ia another county ; and jsdgment and punisbment are in such cas ^ s given and awarded td the full extent of the aggregate offence . ' It waa not necessary , therefore , that the whole ( fffjiico fchould take place within the county ^ it V 7 i < 3 sufficient to provo that part of it arose there . Hetubmitled then , tMut at common law the . averment of
of a venue was wholly unnecessary in thafct ^ art the Ichnr ^ e which might be regarded as iuducameht . At all events the statute 7 th George IT ., 61 , would cure the dtfaiit of a want of a proper or perfect vsnua , provided it-appeared on the face of the indictment that tho Court had jiTrisa . Sr . J 5 on over tn « offcince , which is quite clear in the rr- < ntcase . New , vith regai'd tothe 4 meauing f-f tljo bi 1 i ment that the defenclahts unlavvfuily encoum 4 ed evil dispai-Kd p r «) Rs v ,. > pttdist aiui coudnue in their conduct . The iniitumnt i ! i < i not , it wus true , al ' ieiie that thvo parties ( SKI persist and continue to
assist , comfurt , support aiid encourage the raid cvildispbsed persons to cur . tiuuo and persist in these outrages . In the second Institute , p . Ij 82 , Lord Coke , in hia re&uin >; - in the Statute '« f Westminster , showed that the word " aid" comprehended all persons couu •• . lliug , abetting , plotting , assenting , consisting , e : (! oncouragteg , uud who . weru not pi-ou-ut whvn thu act was done , and ' . hat if they wero p ' .-esont they w ^ ia principals . With regard to tho word " abdt" ' hitt had been dtflned to tuenti , " iastigation ulo ^ te , ' with , mt fores . " The words U'vttj thorefore , did not m ? an . tht . the defendants wero present , ; . but that they ir . cilv . l those whu w » rj . 'Now ^ again , with regard tu the ace . siity of avorriij ^ that ufe aci was done which the defendants r . iddd and abetted oUiers in doing . In c : vses of miaileiuoanour , this , he suhmitted , was not necessary .
Mr . Jusiick Pattesun said , if toe Loavncd CDunsel interpreted the worc ' . a tu mean solicit , that would he one tfiing ; bu ' , taking t !> tm as he { Co lenrfrtd Jmigt ) understood thy arnuniiat V > be , to ibkih aAsUtfn ^ to do a thing , not tbe mere iuciteiutut , but taking n . part in t . h-. ' thins ; itself , tbe ; i that wa" } another thing . The SOLiciTonGKNERAL then cited st > v < ral cases as to the uci of soliciting . . Tbo parties were charged with endeavouring to persuade the parties to ccntiuuo to assemble . Tbe argument on the otbi-r-side was , that they , ought to have been charged with actually doing the act . Nijw , how w . iuid that be borne out ? . He apprehended the rule to He that thoy migh ' . be indicted as actual principala , or the actual circumatojieijaSmight be set out . It would bo strange if you * were compelled to lay the cl : ; i gj uno way , uikI prove uuch ^ r . Tur . Ju 3 tice Paxteso . v thought it would be difficult to pay tbt < y w » irfl principals .
The Holicixob-Genjeral said , that the Legislature in somu particular cusea bad decU . eil that pt-isons aidinj ; and assisting in any act sbonld be indicted r > s principals , Avbich clearly showed that but for the direction of tbe Legislature parties guilty of those particular offences need not be indicted as principals . Here the charge was for aiding and assisting , and'therefore it was not n < jces « ary to lay a venue , but if it \ vas , the defect was cured by the statute ; therefore tha fo ' rin adopted in this caso -was sufficient , Ho trusted that upon this fourth count the Court would consider the indictment good . Tbfn , with regard to the fifth count , the first objection was , tha 1 there was no venue . Bui , fur tbe statute of the 7 th and 8 . h Geo . IV ., c . 64 , sec . 20 , that defect would have htea fatal . What was the
meaning of tae statement in the Act of Parliament ? That they should not arrest the judgment for want of a proper and ptrtect venue . In the present casu there was a county state J Jo tu 3 margin of the Indictnent , and be should submit fSafc wlien there was a venue in the margin this Act of Parliament applied , and that it war , in point of fact , nothing more than an imperfect statement of the venpe in not stating the ville or place . Here the couutyjiihowed that the ' -Court had jurisdiction to try the offence ; it was an-. imperfect Fta-. ement that the ( jffenco took place in tiie county of Lancaster . He admitted it waa an imperfect vunue , and therefore it was cured by the statute . ' If thera
had bttii a reference in tbe body of the instrument to the county in thv unrein , th . n there v . 'ould havi : h"en a complete venue ; but whtn there was not that reference , then the venue w . ia imperfect . If th're had been no Vonua at all , the case would come within the ; statute , provided the case mt . s tried within tbe proper county . It appeared upon the face of ic thut it was within the proper jurisdiction , because the grand jury of that county bad so returiad it , and upon the l-otiirnthe Court considered it was within the county , ant ! therefore proceeded to { ry , and the remedy of the prisoner would bo tontoVo in arrest of judgment . Wr Justice Colfridge wished to know what the learned counsel understood by the word " Court . "
Toe goLiciTOR-GENEBAl , understood it to be tbe ju : l ') je apd jury who w ' ere . to try the offence . . Mr . Justice Coleridge—Supposing Lancnbire waa in tbo margin , and tha offence was laid in the indictment tp have been committed in Cheshire , would the learned counsel say that the county in the ranrgin was the venue ? The Solicitor-General said that was ti-othe * thing ; if no other county was mentioned , the , county in the margin would be the venue . Tbe Court at any" rate would be the asme , whether the prisoner stood his trial , or suffered judgment by default , The Legislature certainly intended this act to be move useful than it was likely to prove , if the objections which bad been raised phould prevail ; and it was , no doubt , intendci to place
the law of criminal pleading 011 the same fcutiug in these respects as the law of civil pU'&ttng . Ho should the : efore submit , that it did sufficiently appear that the Court had jurisdiction to try the indictment , and that consequently me want of a venue was cjired by the statute 7 George IV . Now as to tho altega % ona iu j £ he fifth count . The charge in that count in effect was , that the defendants endeavoured to iuduse persons to enter into a conspiracy to produce a cessation of labour throughout a great p ^ rti > n of the realm , iu order to bring about a change in the constitution of the country . That was undoubtedly an indiotabla off nee . He would not occupy their Lordships further ou this point , as he felt that tbe great objection to tbe count was the want of a venue , on which he bad already addressed the Court at great length .
Mr . YVoRTLEY said , that be was on the same side with his Learned Friends , the Attorney-General aad Solicitor General , but the questions discussed ha < : already been so fully argued , that he did not think it necessary to trouble the Court with any observations . . -v "• Sir G . Lewin , Mr . Waddington , and Mr . Pollock , who were also couusel for the Crown , followed Mr . Wortley ' s example , and declined to address the Court . Lord Denman said it was now'too late ! to hear the other side to-day , and the Court would appoint some day for that purpose ; but they could not mentioa one at present . . The Court then rosa at twenty minutes past four o ' clock .
3£Wpmat 5j&Atrltamtttt.
3 £ wpmat 5 j&atrltamtttt .
Untitled Article
HQUSE OF COMMONS . —Friday , May 26 . In answer to a question by Mr . Lambto . v , Sir James Graiiajj said that no further progress vfould be made with the Factories BUI till after the Whitsuntide recess , but that then he would take the sense of the House on the education clauses . ^ the House went into Committee on the subject of the resolutions on fbe imitation of Canadian wh ^ at and flour . On tbe first resolution , embodying the fact of tbe passing of the Canadian Act , Lord John Russell moved to omit the words which made the legislation of this country dependant on the legislation of the Canadian AsseraUy . "' ¦
Loid Stanley said , that Mr . Francis Baring , in bis epeech of a previous evening , had answered the objection by anticipation . That Right Honourable Gentlepian had said that the Government should have passed their act last year , making its operation cmtiagent on the aofc of Ihe Canadian Legislatme . But in point of fact , they had not made the legislation of this bountry dependent on : the conduct or the Canadian Assembly . They bad waited toseewb ^ fc course that assembly would adopt , In order to protect the British agriculturists , before they proposed to adini t Canadian corn duty free , which also they made contingent oh the fulfilment of the conditions laid down with respect to kbo admission of the grain of the United States into { fapfl Ha- ¦ I Mr . . Fbxkcis BA&im said that Lord Stanley ' s explanation was not worth much . The fact still stood uncontrov * rted , that our legislation Was made dependent on that of Canada .
j An exchange of arguments on this point , between Lord Stanley and Lord ; John Russell , was finished off by j Colonel giBTHORP declaring he wonld rather be dependent on tbe legislation ef Canada , than on the legislation of Lord John Russell and his colleagues in the Jote Government . The farmers of Lincolnshire had sent Mr . Cobden , on his late visit , back with with " a fl ? i iu bis ear . " A shoemaker of the name of Roebuck tiisA settled him
Untitled Article
Mr . Labouciiere said that the oubjycb of nny alteration should hnvb originated ia the Imperial L ? g ; . stiture ; tha whole matter should _ have been ltf : in its naa is . \ ¦ ; . After a few wordsj from Sir Robert Pee ! , Mr . T . DBNCOMBE sarcastically expressed hia pity for tbe quandary inphich the countpy g jji ' cmen found themselves . Betwe&n their pledges to tlieir constituents , their attachment to the Government , and their fear of th » Whtgs | they did not know what to . do , knowing as th ^ y ^ id tha t thete was a dash of free trade about this measure ] Lord Worsley | cou ' . d not support the nra » ndment , because it did not apply to the whole of the resolutions , i '
Colonol Wyndham was determined to oppose every lhing that had connection with free trade . They had bteu promised , unfder the Corn Law of last year , a ranga of prices from 54 s . to 58 s . ; they were 103 . or 12 s . below tbat . If they were wrong ia one set of fiignrea , they might he wr < j » ng ia another . In fact , Mr . Gladstone did not k $ )| 5 rX . cow from , a donkey ( roars of laughter )—or a pifogb from a wheelbarrow . These were the reien on wuoin the agriculture of England was dependant . I ; Qn -i division , Lord John Russell ' s amendment wag reacted by 203 to 94 . " Lofti Worsley 'then proposed another amendment : V That it ia expedient to make an alteration , in the provisions of the :-ct Lf the last session , regulating the
duties on tho insportatioh of corn , by which alteration tbe protection intended ' to be given to tbe British producer of wheat no fonder rests on duties which are imposed by tbe Imperial Legislature , and tho produce of which is not available in aid of tbe burden of taxa . ioai unrlf r which this country is now labouring . '** : : ' Colonel Wood thought that the alarm raised about this measure was as absuid as the panic aN / Ul t ? ' 9 :-ini port : iti ( .-n cf ca't ' . j . j There waa orly a dirPr'pnc > of one shilliiii , ' b 6 tp : een thasflfsiiiximum of t ^ e colonial s'i . flogeca ' . e i * nd tfi" protection ! . fforde < l by tho prev .-ut nrfcisure . HtUl , he ronfcss ^ S that it h were a new pnpositi' -Ti , instead < . £ beiig a pefrtion of last yc . r'a ly ^ lslation , he wiijM not hiva ] approved cf it . Mr . Charles Wood drew from the paper * on the
suDJecS , that the Canadians wt . ro i . c . ucumt to impose theirduty of 3 a . < -xc « pt as a consideration for tlr * reduction of duty in this country ; aad it appeared that so far as the prateo cf Canada was concfcrued , no benefit would accrue ; 'from ! the meacuro lo the people of this country . Thocuiy ] pr .. c . n ^ il result would bi- ^ ll i o transifeienco of nn incohi « hitherto receive-1 . by rnir 6 wtf Exchequer into tbat nf ijjjjj ^ auadians , which , judging from the . r . vcrngo antvuijt ' oT ' duty on colonial jrram for the last flvo years , ¦ wc nl-. i ba about £ 18 , 000 unnuiilly . Tne amount was not iarice , hnt he looheU to the principle invil \ d ; and though it r mud til large to talk of treating C . DR / : a as " an integral part of the empire , " he did not ' % efe the policy nr the proprie'y of throwing away rbvo ^ ue f ¦ r ho earthly oUjr-ct whatt-.- ^ r . B'fii . ' . •; . , otbrr colonies hud as to ' . d a claim as Canada tu be treated r . s " jiitetri . 1 " ' jr . rtP 0 ? the empire .
Mr . Hutt a saiLd thf t ! it : ini :-sc : ilo , as a coaUWaaco which adde . l to thja natural vicissitudes of commerce : and approved tf this Canftd .: \ n iiitabuto , bavRuse it contained more , ^ B" | ii i )? n evil , and as an approximation to a moro niiwra ! s ^ at-j of things , based on " the principles of conii : ijusr : ii ..-. " He thought tbit thn produce ftom Upper Cuui'la vroulu he ousiderabu-, fcr : all ascounts represented thft illcultivat" d and tbir . ly settled but fertile distrir-J aujosning Late Erie , < 5 rc , as tho . ^ jranary of North Aiij ' rira . ' ' Colonel RushbROOKE , though he had voted against Mr . Labouchere ' s | ameridmeut , was not able to support the Govenimeut-resoInserts . Mr , Bamces oo | ttioj ^ ed the period very inopportune for . th&iuuoductiottof thismtr'suro . It wus a now project both to him t £ M his constituents , and he ftjt himsalf bound to oj'pojse it . that had
Mr . Blacksto ^ e thought Ministers been induced to give this boon to Ciinr . < 1 a as ?¦ compensation for the ruin irfT . ctled on their timber tradg by the new t-riff . But the agriculturists cf this' * -cbu- ! try were of opinion that they ought not to be compelled io pay for it . j „; ' ¦ ¦ ¦ Oa a division there appeared—For Lord Woraley ' a amtadment 102 Against it f 203 Majority ... ... — : 101 Ai-. other division was taken on the resolutions , which were carried by 2 IJ 8 to 137 . : THE ( REPEAL AGITATIO ^ f .
Mr . M . J . O'Connell said , he would take tbe opportunity 01 * asking a question of the Government . Ho understock thpt it bad been announced that night that ccjtain magistrates in Ireland bad been removed from tht Oommisaioh of the Peace . He believed that three persons batl been niraed as having been' so removed—one of ttom a Member of the House , another an Irish Peer . He ~" wished to ask , first , wkcther the information Lehall received on this po nt was correct ? Secondlyr ; # hether any other Megi&lrates , except those three to whom be f-eferred—uampfjr , the Jlon . iaud Learned Memberjfor Co , rk , Lord French , und Sir AI . D . JBellew , had been romoved from the Cwrumiasiion ; Arrd thirniy , whether the Government had any objection
to . lay on f . e . table of the Houss a list - of tfce parties so removed ? 1 i ' Sir J . Graham said , tb ? t he had that momin # receded from the ll ^ rd Cu rti ; cellor of Ireland an nfficiai couimunicitiou siitfng that in Vhe dietl . nree cf bss duty he had thought fit to remove from the Commission of th ; j P > ace Lord French , he having presided at a meeting w ! .:-n fiLe question of Repeal was discussed ; anf'tliiVt ho ( t > : o Lord CbanceHori had also thought is his rtut . y to remove from the Commission the Hon . and Learned , Member for Cork for the same reason . ' He ( Sir J . Graham ) had not heard of the removal o ? the third gentleman referred to by the Hon . Member for Kerry , ana ho believed he bad now answered ah his
questions . J , Mr . M . J . O'Connejul said , he had also asked ? or a list of the names ¦ of ait ^ tbe magistrates who had been dismissed ; but fee now . wished to know when the meeting ^ which ] Lord F renc h presided took place .- ? Sir J , | i | RAHAM replied , that the Lord Cruncoilor of Irelau ^ pad mentioned the date , and he thought it was in tbeVarly y 0 t | of l . iat week .. : : Mr . W . S . 'O'Biuen inquired whether he should be diaiuissert frona the commission of inn peace for presenting a petition in favour of the Repeal of the Union ? j . ; Sir J Graham —If the Hon . Gentleman attends a meeting fur the RVpeal of tho Uniosi , I have no hesitation in saying the Lord Chancellor of Ireland would remove him frora the commission —( cheers . ) Lovrt J . Russell—Is it stated that the Lord
Chancellor haR removed the gentlemen referred to from the commission ai the desire of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland ? . ,. . ] Sir J . Graham replied , that it was in tha discretion of tLig Lord Chancellor to remove gentlemen from the commi . ssion on hi $ . own authority , and he ( Sir J . Graham ) on the p ' art of the Government , had np hesitation in saying that the step taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland' was approved of by Her Majesty ' s Ministers—( cheers ) . J
Mr . Sheil wished to know whether , previous to removing thuao gentlomen from the commission , n « ticu had been given them that , in the event of their attending particular meetings , they would be dismissed from the magistracy ? ¦ Sir J . Graham stated that a communication bad passed between j Lord French and the Lord Chancellor of I reland before he was removed from the cornmiss OE . j Mr . Kedington asked whether any communication had bean made bjy the ^ overnment to L > rds-Lieutenant in England , or to tbe Government in Ireland , in order thaB ' rttey mi ^ ht int imate what wero the crimes or measai 3 . for taking part in which parsons wero
to be dismissed jfrom the commission of the peace ? Sir J . Graham said , there waa no reneral . order issued with n-spect to meetings in this country or in Ireland . Eacu case must be decided on its owa merits , and on the discretion of the responsible advistrs , oC ; ae Crown . ( Hear . ) j Mri W . S . O 5 BRIEN roso to ask another question , but was met by ; txpressions of impatience . He said he wonld not be put down . ( Oh f oh ! i These questions were of iijtinito importance to Ireland , tbe people of which were disposed to live quietly . ; TSey only asked for jfree institutions , such as tbe English population enjyyed . JtCries of chair , and order ' . ) the
The Speaker inf ^ hned Hon . Member that he must confine iiirjifieff '" to asking a question . : Mr . W . S . OBacEN said he wanted te know whether the R ' ght tHon . Baronet had been informed by official < orre 8 pori' ! enc « j irom Ireland of ai . y breach of the peace at a Repeal meeting except the unfortunate asmssination at -f .-jaet ? S r J . Graham said he had not received any information of ar . y jbreach of the puace , except on t ^ . H occasion to which the Eori . Member had referred , and when , uufoiftunn ^ . ely , one lifo had been sacrificed ; but . on the other Laud , the Government waa
informed thSljnultituillnous assemblies took place . whicb produced ^!* g reatest possibio excitement and alarcA among QeJir'MajeEty ' B loyal subjects in Ireland . ( Hear , hear . ) j * Mr . Sheil said the question he had asked a short time ago had not been answered . He wanted to know whether any cominunication had mad e been toLord French to the effect that , if be attended meetings of a particular character , he would be dismissed from the commission ? I Sir J . Graham said , that nothing could be less expected than thai a question of this kind should be put at that hour of ihe evening —( " hear" from Mr . M . J . O'ConnelL ) On' the present occasion ba bad not received
the slightest intimation that such questions were to bo asked , and that hour of the evening was certainly not the usual ? time for putting them . In matters of this nature he waa m £ at atttibua at all times t » answer such questions accurately and ^ » o the best of his recollection He apprehended that the course of the affairwas this . The Lord Chancellor seeing tbo name of Lord French appended to a requisition for a public meeting at which the subject of Repeal was to be discussed , communicated wivh that Noble Lord , and asked him whether it was his intention to attend ? , and he ( Sir J . Graham ) believed that in tbat same communication intimated to his
Lordship that . i . t ^ was consistent dnty a aiagfstrate /^ alitfctfd sueh a meeting . Lord Fren ch ' s reply , hebelie ^( i , kw ; . ji , thai whatever might be the coasequenceg .-ie should attend the meeting , and on ihe fact that he had doiib so having been ascertained , the Loid
Untitled Article
Chancellor felt that he conln not adopt any other erurs * but that of dieraissin ? the Noble Lord from tha com . mission of the peace—( hear ) . Here the conversation dropped , and tbe Hooee soon after adjourned . Monday , May 29 . After the presentation of numerous petitions , some notices were disposed of . REPEAL OF THE UNION WITH IRELAND—DISMISSAL OF LORD FRENCH AND OTHEIl JfAGISTHATES FROM THE MAGISTRACY . Mr . Redikgton rose for tbe purpose of putting a " questionto the Right Hon . Baronet the Secr « taryjL . th 9 Home D « partmtnt , relative to the recent dismissal of certain magistrates from the roll of justices of the peaca in Ireland . The Right Hon . Gansleman was do doubt aware that a letter bad been addressed to Lord French , onaof the dism ssed magistrates , by tbo Secretary to tbo Lord Chauca lor of Ireland . In that Settor were set forth the grounds on which the dismissal had
been made . The letter also referred to statements rnaiJa in that Hon 38 by the Right Hon . Baronet at the head of the Government , and by a Noble Duko in another p !? . co , and it made the declaration by Lord French of bis intention to attend at a Repeal meeting the gronnd of his dismissal from the magistracy . The lette ? amongst other things , stated— " A magistrate who t , tZ sides over or forms part cf such a ( Repeal ) meetin ? could neither be prepared to repress violence , nor cotiUi he be expected to act against a body for whese offence he wou ! d himself he responsible To guch persons the preservation of the public peace during the preaent agitation cannot be safely intrusted . Your Lorrifhi p-g determination to preside over such a meeting iramedi . ately after the declarations in Parliament pmves to tfce Lord Chancellor that the time has arrived f « r evincing the ' dett . Tminr . tion of tbe Government to fle !(§ ats na power to thnsa ¦ "fho seek by snch measures as are cow propo&--1 to dissolve the legislative union . To alb *
such persons any longer to remsm in the comr . ission of liiH pcaca would ba to afford the power of the Crown to the carrying of a measure which Htr Majesty has tike her predecr-ssor , expressed her determinati on tj prevent . This view of the case , which the atop t&Sen by your Lordship has forced upim tha attention of the Lord f | lir : r , cellcr , will compel him at once to sapsr 3 e ! je any o'hor magistrate who since tho declarations id Par . 1 lament have attended like Repeal meetings . " Now tha questions which he would ask the Ri ^ nt Hon | Baronet wore , —fl .-tt , r . Iiether any communication had been ma ' o by tbe Government to the L ~ rr > Cna-cellor of Ireland , announcing to him the < : G'crtnination of her Majesty lo v-revo ^ t the Repeal of tbe Usion ? ard next hi would like to know whether the determir ation of tb-e Govermuriit h . ; d in the first inetnrce , and before npy riiFmissal toofe plare , been c ^ nspiunic .-ited by the Lord Coancesio ? of Ireland io the magistrates of the counties in tbat country ?
Sir J . Graham would s ^ ato , in answer to the Hon . Member ' s quLdt ons , that whea Eer M-ijesty - 8 Ministers came into ( , ffice , au'l when they confit ' p . d the great seal of Ireland to the hands of Sir E . Sugtlen , it was at the same time intimated to him that he waa to we all the powrta -R-ith which he was invested by the law and the constitution in ordpr to discourage any attempts to dissolve tho legislative Union between the t * ro cenrr'rie ? Oa a suhstqueiit occasion , and when rene ^ vM eft ' .-rta wera made to ai ^ solve tliat Uniort , his Right Hon . Friend tho First Minis ' f r of the Crown made a declaration , of course , tte whole of Her Majesty ' s advisers were responsive— ( hear , Lear)—that it was Her
Majesty ' s determination to adhere to the declaration of her Royal predecessor , and would use all the means with which she waa intrusted by the law and the constitution to discourage to the utmost every attempt to sever the legislative union between the two countries—( cheera ) . He ( Sir J . Gritum ! had no hesitation In sayiiig , that in consequence of the general instructions conveyed to the L'ird Oarc Ilor of Ireland in ths first instance and subsequently , aud more especially in coa . tfequenca of tbe receut declaration of his Right Hon . Friend at the head of the Government , a coannunica . tion had been made by tbe Lord Chancellor to Lord French and t' > other magistrates .
Mr . Redington complained that the Ri ? ht Hon . Baronet had not answered his question . What , be bad asked- was , wh . stber the declaration referred to by the Ri (? ht Hon . Baronet had been communicated to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland , and in what manner it had been so cotumanicated to that Right Hon . and Learned Gentleman ? . Sir J . Grahau said , he had already stated to the Hon . Gentleman thp . t the Lord ChanceMor and also the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland , bad received , at their accession to office , general instructions as to tbe dbcretioaery powers whicb tbsy were to exercise in discoaraging overj attempt raadb to dissolve the Union between the two countries . He waa not aware that any official communication bad beon recently . made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject .
Mr . Reddington . —Then he v ? ap to understand from the Right Hon . Earonet that no c-fficial communication had been made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as to the declarations mate by the Government ; and tl at he was no . v to be considered as justified in removing those maqistra ' es whom he bsri struck off the roll of Justices of the Peace upon tbe authotity of , ' and upon no other than , tho reports of ths debates in tb . !' . House . ( " Hear , h » ar , " and cries of " Order , " "' Chair . ') Sir J . Graham had already told the Hon . Member that the Lord Lieutenant anri the Lord Chancellor of Ireiandb . d . had specific instructions giv ? n tu them on their ' nccss&ion to cffiai . ¦ Wi > . h respsci to any official c ^ mmuai- ^ 'ion , he had st&' . ed what to ^ k p ! . ic 9 . If the Hon . M > mber was of opinion thatthe Lord Chancellor had excceUt d his authority in tha course fcu had parsued , he might take the sense of the House on the anbjfct .. ( Cheers on the Ministerial side . )
Mr . REDrN 0 TO . \ paid , that the Right Hon . Baronet need not try to fix him in that way fur the mere purpose of obtaining a cheer . ( Cheers renewed . ) He was not referring to th « question of Repeal . Hea'fet'l a plain question—did the Lord Chancellor of Ireland send an official communication of the declaration made by the Right Hon . Baronet at tho head of the Government , on behaif of her Majesty , to the magistr-tea of Ireland ? ^ Sir J . GRArfHt—I do believe he did send such rfflcial communication cf the declaration of Government to Lord French and other magistrates .
Mr . Wyse would asfe the Right Hoi Gentlenwn whether it was now the determination of tbo Government tbat every Irish magistrate who should attend a quiet aid peaceable meeting , from which no Hanger of anyiireach of the peace coaM be apprehended , and at wbiv- ! . -. o .- ' . ly the question of the Rspeal of tb ° Uniou waa t > ba discussed , —was it , ha repeated , ths determination of Government to strike the name of every such »> ng : stra ' . e out of fch 6 Commission ? Sir . T Graham said that the power o the Lord Chancellor was a discretionary power , for which he and thoso nko advised him would be reaponaiMa . Before any magistrate was dismissed , the Lord Chancellor would coui : uuaicatc with him ; but the fact ^ as , each individual ca ^ e rncst be judged of on its &wis merits . The Lord Chancellor of Ireland would defend the course he might take in every instance .
Mr . SV . S O Brien thought the Right Hon . Baronet was shuffling , inst . ad of answering tha questions put to him . ( This remark vras followed by loud cries of order , and chair . ) The Speaker intimated to tbe Hon . Member that th 6 ie was no question before tte H ^ use . Mr . Wyse considered that it was of the utmost consequence tbat his question should be fairly answered . It was admitted on ail h-iads , that Lord French was dismissed from the Mng ' . stracy for -having attended a public mating at which the question of " Repeal ' was agitated , and at which it was said tbat there was a risk of the peace boing broken . Now , he wished to know if it was to be understood that Magistrates of Ireland were liable to ba dismissed for attending public dinners , where there could be no fear of a breach of the peace , but wherj tho question of Repeal might be quietly discussed ?
Sir J . Graham said , he must decline answenn * questions put upon such hypothetical grounds ; bat he thought that some of the Hon . Member's Friends on the bench near him mij { ht supply bim wUh some instinces in which gentlemen had b-. en . dismissed from the Magistracy for having been present at certain dinners , and drinking certain toasts . ( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches . ) C > t , ain Vivian would beg tQ ask the Right Hon . Bart , if it were trua that the Government intended te put down by force all meetings convene ! for the Rspeal of the Union ? He wished also to ask whether the Qj vernment did not intend to pi ice the Ca ^ . ie of Dublin and the Pigeon-house in a state 0 " dJenea . ( Cheers and loud laughter . ) St J . Grauam said , that with all respect for the Hoa . Member he must decline answering . questions so etit ' . ti : ! ,. out of ais department . Her * tbe subject dropped . the
Loru Stanley moved that the report of resolution 3 passed on Friday , respecting tbe :.:. ?<*" tation of wheat and flour from Canada should be brought up . Mr . M . Gibson proposed to the House to ifiir . j £ 3 an amendmer" ; ihat the reduction of the import rtuty in * - ° Eaglind ounbt not to be made contingent upon an to " port duty ii . to Canada . He endeavoured to aistiugai 8 " Uiis amendment from Lord John- Russell , which h 3 " been Drgativfd ou Friday . Dr . Bowking , in a few words , seconded Mr . Gibson . Lord Stanley contended that this amendment was substantially the same with Lord John Russell ' s . Mr . Thornely followed , but / like the preceding speakers , failed to make himself ^ audible * amid the rotf of members eager io divide and dine . Mr . Villiers , for a few minutes , braved the sao » din 1 and the flora then divided , rejecting the * &&& ¦ ment .
The resolutions having been reported , and leave fW * to bring in a bill founded np « n them , Sir Jaiies G&AHAJf moved the consideration of tt « Lords' amendments oa the Yoters * Registration BiB ' These were agreed to . Lord Eliot then moved the second reading : of tna Irish Arms Bill—a measura having for Us object V > amend and continue the laws in Ireland relative to tne registraUon , importation , laanuftcture , and sale 0 inns . He gave a short history of tha origin and nieces , ive renewals of the Irish Arms Aces , the ^ st ( Concluded in our seventh page . )
Untitled Article
g THE NQP .. T HERN S T AJR _ T , _ _ J . _ '_
-
-
Citation
-
Northern Star (1837-1852), June 3, 1843, page 6, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1215/page/6/
-