Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

PROMOTIONS.

Colonel.-Brevet Captain J. Jameson, of 65th Foot, Captain A. M. Douglas, of 88th Foot, to be Majors in the Army. 7. William Drew Stent, of Fittleworth, county of Sussex, esq., in memory of William Lucas Shadwell, (formerly William Shadwell,) of Hastings, esq., to take the surnames of Lucas Shadwell, in lieu of his present surname; and bear the arms of Shadwell quarterly, in the first quarter, with the arms of Lucas.

13. 9th Foot, Lieut.-General Sir T. Arbuthnot, K. C. B., from 52nd Foot, to be Colonel.-52nd Foot, Major-General Sir E. Gibbs, K. C. B., from 68th Foot, to be Colonel.-68th Foot, MajorGeneral C. Nichol to be Colonel.William Gore Ouseley, esq., (now Secretary to Her Majesty's Legation at Rio Janeiro,) to be Minister Plenipotentiary to the Argentine Confederation.John Fiennes Crampton, esq., (now First Paid Attaché to Her Majesty's Embassy at Vienna), to be Secretary of Legation

to the Swiss Cantons. - Francis Farrant, esq., to be Secretary of Legation at the Court of Persia.

16. Denis Benjamin Viger, esq., to be President of the Committee of the Executive Council of Canada; Henry Sherwood, esq., to be Solicitor-General for Upper Canada; William Fuller, Boteler, esq., Q. C., to be one of the Commissioners of the Court of Bankruptcy, vice Edward Goulburn, serjeantat-law, resigned.

20. 17th Foot, Brevet Lieut.-Colonel P. M'Pherson, to be Major.-60th Foot, Major the Hon. G. A. Spencer, to be Lieut.-Col.; Captain E. C. Gifford, to be Major.-Brevet Captain F. Stupart, of the 26th Foot, to be Major in the Army.

CIVIL PREFERMENT.

Rev. C. T. Vaughan, to be Head Master of Harrow School.

IRISH STATE TRIAL.

IN our last volume will be found an account of the progress of the repeal agitation in Ireland; and our narrative stated that Government had at length found it necessary to interpose with the arm of the law, and that a true bill had been found by the grand jury of the city of Dublin against Mr. O'Connell and his principal associates, charging them with a seditious conspiracy. Under various pretexts for delay on the part of the defendants, the trial was deferred until the 15th of January in the present year, and we propose now to give an account of the proceedings at the trial, at somewhat greater length than usual, on account of the national importance of the subject, and the interest taken by the public in the result.

It was fully intended that the trial should commence on Monday, the 15th of January; and on the previous Friday, Mr. Moore, one of the counsel for the defendants, (or traversers, as they were called, because they had traversed the indictment,) moved the Court of Queen's Bench that the panel of special jurors struck in the case should be quashed, and that a mandamus should issue to the Recorder, commanding him to place on the jury list the names of twenty-seven persons who had

been omitted, and whose claim had previously been allowed by him when he signed the list; or that a new sheriff's list should be made out, and that until the jury should be struck from the amended list, the trial should be postponed to the 1st of February, 1844. This motion was opposed by the Attorney-General, and after some discussion, the Chief Justice said that the court were unanimous in rejecting the application.

On Monday, the 15th, the Court of Queen's Bench was crowded with barristers and spectators, in the full expectation that the trial would then commence. All the Judges were on the bench, namely, the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice Crampton, Mr. Justice Perrin. The counsel for the Crown were—the AttorneyGeneral, the Solicitor-General, Sergeant Warren, Mr. Brewster, Q.C., Mr. Martley, Q.C., Mr. Freeman, Q.C., Mr. Bennett, Q.C., and Mr. Tomb, Q.C., and Messrs. Holmes, Smyley, Baker, and Napier. The counsel for the traversers were-Mr. Moore, Q.C., Mr. Henn, Q.C., Mr. Whiteside, Q.C., Mr. M'Donagh, Q.C., Mr. Monahan, Q.C., Mr. Fitzgibbon, Q.C., Sir Coleman O'Loghlen, and Messrs. O'Hagan, O'Hea, Close, and Perrin.

The

traversers were called into court -namely, Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, John Gray, Thomas Steele, Richard Barrett, the Rev. Thomas Tierney, Charles Gavin Duffy, Thomas Matthew Ray, and the Rev. Peter James Tyrrell. Mr. Cantwell formally announced the death of Mr. Tyrrell. Mr. O'Connell obtained leave to robe himself, and reappeared in his wig and gown. Before the jury were sworn, Sir Coleman O'Loghlen, on the part of Daniel O'Connell, challenged the array, on the ground of the irregularities in the preparation of the jury lists which had already been so amply discussed. Sir Coleman stated that the challenges of the other traversers were identically the same, and would be handed in very shortly. The Attorney-General demurred to the challenge, which raised the question debated previously, and this was argued over again, at great length.

The Judges pronounced their decision seriatim. The Lord Chief Justice observed, that over the Recorder, within his own jurisdiction, the Court of Queen's Bench had no control, unless fraud or malversation were charged against him, which it was not; and therefore the court must accept the panel as it came from the sheriff. He condemned the proposition made by Mr. Moore, as tending to open the door for ruinous delays of justice. Mr. Justice Burton and Mr. Justice Crampton concurred with the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Perrin, with some doubt, dissented. The demurrer was of course allowed, in accordance with the decision of a majority; and the court adjourned at half-past seven, without swearing the jury.

VOL. LXXXVI.

The court resumed at ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, the 16th. Considerable delay took place in calling over the jury, and selecting twelve names. Some of the defaulters were fined, and others were excused on the ground of ill health.

At length twelve jury

men were sworn, and the following are their names:-James Hamilton, foreman; Edward Roper, Edward Clarke, Francis Faulkner, John Croker, Henry Flynn, Henry Thompson, Anston Floyd, John Rigby, Robert Hanna, William Longfield, William Ord.

Mr. Napier opened the pleadings, and then the Attorney-General (Mr. T. B. C. Smith) rose to state the case. He first described the nature of the charge against the defendants:

In the words of the indictment, the traversers stood accused of having "conspired and confederated together to raise and create discontent and disaffection among her Majesty's subjects, and to excite them to hatred and contempt of the government and constitution of the realm as by law established, and to unlawful and seditious opposition to the said government and constitution, and to stir up hatred, jealousy, and ill-will between different classes of her Majesty's subjects; and especially to promote among her Majesty's subjects in Ireland feelings of ill-will and hostility towards and against her Majesty's subjects in England; and to excite discontent and disaffection in the army; and to cause large numbers of persons to meet together, at different times and at different places, for the unlawful purpose of obtaining, by means of the intimidation to be thereby created, and by means of the exhibition and demonstration

X

of great physical force at such meetings, changes and alterations in the government, laws, and constitution of this realm as by law established; and particularly, by those means to bring about and accomplish a dissolution of the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland; and also by means of inflammatory and seditious publications to intimidate Parliament, and thereby bring about changes and alterations in the laws and constitution of this realm as now by law established; and to bring into hatred and disrepute the tribunals established for the administration of the law therein, and to assume and usurp the prerogative of the Crown in the establishment of courts for the administration of the law."

He proceeded to explain the offence of conspiracy in the legal acceptation; citing various received authorities. Conspiracy is a combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal act or acts, or to effect some legal purpose by illegal means. It is not necessary to prove that two parties came together and actually agreed to a common design; but it might be inferred from their pursuing a common object and resorting to common means. In the case of the Queen versus Murphy, Mr. Justice Coleridge observed: "I ought also to tell you, that by finding the defendants guilty you will not, as has been said, affect the right of petitioning. It is not wrongful to assemble in a public meeting to petition Parlia ment against that which is alleged to be a public grievance; neither is it unlawful to refuse payment of the church-rate in money, and to leave the collector to obtain payment by taking the goods of

the party, as is constantly done in the case of the Quakers: but it is unlawful, by means like those charged in this indictment, to prevent those rates being levied on the goods of the party. It is not necessary that it should be proved that those defendants met to concoct this scheme, nor is it necessary that they should have originated it. If a conspiracy be already formed, and a person joins it afterwards, he is equally guilty.

[ocr errors]

The act of either party is considered to be done by the rest, and is evidence against the rest. In the case of the King versus York, Mr. Justice Rooke instructed the jury, that if the defendant went beyond the mere purpose of enlightening the minds of the people upon speculative points, to excite a spirit of discontent and sedition, or even if his speeches had that tendency, he must take the consequences. In 1819, in the case of the King versus Hunt, Mr. Justice Bayley said, alluding to drilling: "If the object of the drilling is to secure the attention of the persons drilled to disaffected speeches, and give confidence by an appearance of strength to those willing to join them, that would be illegal; or, if they were to say,

66

We will have what we want, whether it is agreeable to law or not;' a meeting for that purpose, however it may be masked, if it is really for a purpose of that kind, is illegal."

The Attorney General proceeded:

He should be told, forsooth, that the meetings dispersed peaceably. Why, the dispersion of those meetings peaceably, and the intention that they should disperse peaceably, was one of the

versers.

66

most aggravated parts of the whole proceeding. The multitude were peaceable, because the parties knew that the time had not ar rived for an outbreak. The hour of England's infirmity was to be Ireland's opportunity!" That was the language of one of the traWait, will you be ready to come when we call you? You must wait till the time arrives." If that course were not adopted, the conspiracy would necessarily be broken up at a much earlier period; because part of the conspiracy was, to have the organization complete from north to south and from east to west; then the signal was to be given. Therefore it was that those meetings peaceably dispersed. "Others again might go there," as Lord Tenterden said, "who meditated mischief at some future time, when those drilled, who up to this period had been without arms, might have arrived at a further stage in military discipline." In another part of his judgment Lord Tenterden said, "When we consider that these country people came marching in this way through the town of Manchester, bearing flags and banners inscribed with mottoes, not merely containing high sounding words, as the learned counsel would infer, (for the court cannot so view them,) but inscriptions of No Cornlaws,' Better die like freemen than be sold like slaves,' and various other expressions of defiance, it is manifest there was an avowed intention to insult those who were intrusted with the administration of justice and the laws; and, if possible, by a show of numbers, to overawe and prevent them from interfering with the object their leader might be supposed to have

[ocr errors]

had." Were they to be told that they might have hundreds and thousands of persons assembled, whose course of proceeding was to be regulated by the direction which they might receive from any individual who might tell them to separate peaceably-who might do so for the purpose of carrying out further the designs of his conspiracy, aware that the organization was not complete, reserving the withdrawal of the mask which concealed his design until the time arrived for doing so? He denied that the circumstance of their being peaceable or ending peaceably, when they were assembled together under the control of any one man, who might give them one direction or another, was consistent with the law of the land; and he should ever hold so until he heard the contrary authoritatively laid down.

The Attorney-General next applied himself to the facts of the case: and he began the history of the repeal agitation with the Association established by Mr. O'Connell soon after the Emancipation Act, in 1829; suppressed by a proclamation of Earl Grey's government in Jan. 1831. He cited Lord Althorp's declaration against repeal in 1831, when he said that "civil war itself would be preferable to the dismemberment and destruction of the empire;" King William's speech from the throne in 1833, asking for "such additional powers as might be found. necessary in Ireland for controlling and punishing the disturbers of the public peace, and for preserving and strengthening the Legislative Union between the two countries;" Lord John Russell's declaration against repeal in the debate on the address reply

« ZurückWeiter »