Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 3rd June 1843, Edition 5 of 5, Page 6, Untitled Article

Page 6
Page 6
6 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • 3£iiupmaf ^atrltamtttt.
  • Text (4)
  • 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

      COritT OF Q , UE ' .: \ 'S V EIsslH . Fbidat , Mat 2 ^ . ( SiSir-fsin Banco . ) ' THS QBEES V . O ' COjrSGa . * SJ > OTHERS . 52 js Attobsbt-G £ > sbai . saM fce had to show entsetsaiEsz the rsx . e c-teacMi by Ms Learned FiirnOs , caSiEg r © O 2 the Gn ^ s to show cacss why the judgment against Mr . t > Cosnor sei 3 others BLoaid net be arr = st € d on lie 4 zh sad 5 tb counts . It tos right he £ k £ > ii : a state tbat . wilt respect to the xemtxk feat fee 4 ti const did not cba

      tkd io is ? * ss- £ itf &Bt atqnii ^ - Unac ? direction ef ths Lsara ^ d Judge at tbe trial , as to lbs iaw -of eoEspaacv . ibe Jar ? srquiiled the Csfendants of thai charge . Be did nnt complain alter of the direction of the JcS f e * j tie Se-He ? oT the Jury . It rns told a view to ^ nns under the canaideration of the Jury , and s 3 sc ef i ! JJ * Const , vbeiatr the facts , indepeiidenily of eoEsjfe ^ v * conEtit 2 t ? d sa f-ff-use , that these , couats -Were pn I- -Jed , sb-1 the Learned Jnugs l- ^ -d & 9 Jury that wiih reference to the facts stated is the £ fib count it ¦ was impsssb ' ie for him to suggest anything by -trhidi ths defendants conld be Bcquitted . He said

      ttere Tsers admitted iztta that he could cot sngeest a ] such terror and alarm violent !? and unlawfully to cause to be made the

      donbt upon ¦ which the Jory could acquit . The Jury , j therefore , acquitted the defendants ef craa-piTscj ia all the ccimta , bat fensd th « -m all enilty on tfeo £ ! h -count , ana made b select -sn of sixteen whom they costictedonthefonith ct ^ aat , raj ing that thoss who wexe-csiivicted onthefiith-c " nnt « -id sot-contemplate violence , fcat tbat those convict **! on the fenrth count did contempIaSe violence ; and their verdict gave frtoi < xmfidence ss to their opiaips- Ee did not know aMincliy ¦ what Mairien 2 s' rfg ^ ctioss --ere . Hi -weald now deal ¦ sriti . the objections iak « i . He -would first beipn tnih the fccrHi count , w £ icfc t =-2 < j in thf-si -teards : — "Ard . ths isrois aforesaid , en tijeir oath aicresain . farther present that heretofore c-a tee 1 * 5 " day of Ausr ., in Ihe jar aforesaid , and on divers 6 t 2 i £ T tlays and rimes fce ^ sceen tint day and fke lrt day ot October , in the jeaTEfcieE ^ d , anri a * dirers piaets , niTeia evil cfeposed persons imlswfiiay anfl tamisltufciiaiy assembled tegtfher aid "by Tio . enre , t ^ rp ^' s , seS ii ^ iaidatiGiiB to diTera othar pasoBS bang t ^^ 71 peaceable subjects of this r rala :, forced the said iatt xtEiiSioEed s . -nbjt £ ts to Iests their occtrpatioEs and anplojmeEts ccd thereby iEipe ** and stoopsd the labour empicytd in the lawtul a *; d peaceable carrying en , i > y drrers la ^ e rumbers ^ or the satjeciB of this icalm , of certaia traces , Hiamfcctnras , and busaiKiyeE , and thereby caised great confnsior ! , tesor , afi > 3 alarm in the sim ' s of the peact-ibSe Fuhjvcts of this Tfr . im" Oa ? objection Tris , tbat to ! L _ st niattttp . i aTerment there "was no Tenne , fcut the cennfsrett on , " and , that afttrsfarcs , on tie lat dsy of Anmrt in the yssr aiareaiii , and ce dirers othti dtys and feBES , bsrsreec that day and ths 1 st of October , hi lie year aforeaaidj in the parish aforesaid ., in the cou-. ty aforesaid , ti ^ - szi a FiarsTis © "Conner , * c , tog > fther "Kith dxrers other t- ? il disposed x > = rs 3 ijs to ^ ths jsrors aion - said sb yet EtuiWi oid nnlaTrfnlly /' r Htrt ai d fctrt alone was the off-enee rtated , and it "vtes stated with e perfect tcehi—" and in that county ai < jresaid , air ., abet , assist , tcmlcrt , sar-port and encourage the esIq ctj ] 61 s-TJOEed ¦ oers ^ Es in ihls count first meBtiPnEd , to continne asd perssstin ^^^ p ssid nalawfnl asseEsblmgs , tkrests , intfjnidatk > S 5 . lj ^ q TJeleace . and in the Ead HsprdiDw , snd . stopuiitg of tfc * labccT employed in the sdd tssdea , lEEinifaeturea asid businessas , \ rith inttst ttereby to cause terror and Elarm in ths minds of tbo p- ^ accible subjects « f this reaisu , and by the means tf snch terror and TLin-rm -ncdeEtly i = d anls"wfnlly to cause ami preenre certain great chssses to be made in the conrtirction of fh " i realni , as by irw established , against the p = ar-3 of onr esid Lady ths Qneen , hir &oim and = piaiity . " One of his frlEB- ' -s had isnmated , th 2 t it "was r-ot st-ttrf ¦ who * '» p diTers fetter persans "were i > lo hs- " bo assemU ^ d . - I « rd BssiiAS nsdsrstocd the objwtiois to be tbat , defects stiteJ -widirr * s TTEne-s ?« re fsc ^ -srj \ ch n-iijti Irnre b « n ccisiritie ^ auywhere and ¦ en . n' . a pet be yrhtiVnRi in jhis © onEtrj ; and another c- >* jt ction was , th ^ it - was : c ^»> . pt slated that the deftaiTiaE . * s "cere present - » hen tiie c&sice charged ¦ was c * j-: ai tted , jioi that they Imew any such offence "was In ^ . . int of feet ¦ connnisea , only iLit they "were siaing and abetting . ~ Mt- Serjeam MrEPHT said there -Kas no illegal offence charged . 33 r . ' EKi £ otEsr ? ed , thst it "was £ a ? d that dhters persons 'were ssciiibled ; Ih 5 cSjccs vas sn nnlswfai assembly , asd it -VFS 3 essEEtial that there sbcnln % e tiiree or more asseinbleu , and it did nat appear , acept bj the trard " ciYtiz , ** what less fee nnmter thsembJy .

      Mi Serjeant iJtTBPHT considered they ought to haT-c been charted as principals . Ihe A 3 TOK 3 KT-GE 5 ESAI . sid , hadth » count ^ ated Bierely a legal iEferenee no oce -= ? -onld have ieen mere z ^ lems ihan iis Ltzxnea Friend in sayiug it "Was a charge "without tmlh , tn-i oe ^ t an intention te > ensnare by legal fefertsce . He apprehended it was a rale , that jou imj ^ i = ti ^ iei state the legal rsscl ; of the fasts ,, presided thsy "B'ere crimicsi , srd frotds "were cccpled , to show that £ hfi fects -Bsre committed . It "was imp-iriHe te CBETgB all as prinehals ; If they did ssK ? t , it might be so sfetEd , Itatthe Hw trcuic . then punish them as principals , ~ &at as to &e qsestian of TEnuej it might be admitted that eTery laaterisi alleg .-Ticn must be accomrczdsd by a staterneEt of tim < i and place ; bat jduce

      7 Georga IT-, c . 64 . sec 20 , th&t proTided the veBue T ? a 5 stated "whsse the vfience was iSarg ^ i , the -want of s Teucs ¦ wifli respect to ths other matters cm 3 d not bs taken-= s se oVjectian . The -worHs i-f ihs 25 th section Trere : — " And . that Qsft pcnishmEsi * f off ^ sders may belsss frsqasnfly intercepted ia conseqnence rf technical isiEcties , be it enaetsa , that r-o jndasent upon BEy indictmcHit or inforaiation for ssy ftlcny tx EmdemeaaouT , -whether after T ^ rdict by default , or othenrise , ihaQ be stayed cr reyersed for ¦ want of the aTennent of asy maiter necessary to be proTed , * nor for the omission of certain words , * nor for omitting to EtsSe the time at \ rhich the offerca ¦ was committed , isor far stating the time immediatslj , nor for Trent of a proper or perfect Tenne "s ? bere the court

      shall appear by the indictment er iaformation to ha ? e had jmisdission otct the offencs . " In the civil Eii - corrEspcncmg inta tiis the expression f ^ ss * ' snj mstter of form , " l » ut ia criminal cases , instead of spea&irtg " as of a matter of form , ™ it "was siid it shonlc rot be stayed or Teversed ior -want ef tbe avermeBt of sbt maiter unnecessary to ce proTed . The learned counstI harass rejsated tbe srords of the statate observed , fiat lie cr-rrespoDdinif statute only nsed the ¦ Ber ^ s " any isstter of form ;™ but -without inqairins-wbst Teas the me&sHsg of tbe expression , " -where the cenrt sbsU apj * ai by tbe indictment oi infonnatioa to tea . it had jgriEfiiction orer tbe i ^ nce , * ' he admitted tb ^ t h was marifrst tts Court had jurisdiction , because it -was stated in the county aforesaid . After "rerdict it n-us ?

      be prersnitd that ocly each eridecce "Jras . - leceiTed as ought is , tarte been received -with reference to ihs jurisdiction af the Court . The count charged , " that divers persons at drras piaces ; " that -would assume that thov nnst biTa been rs-o pereon 3 , -srbich -srould have bet :-. Enffieient- There "vras an offence cummitted bj Etopj-i ^ c labour "with a view by terror and intimidatiGn ti > chaugs the constitntioi ! . There must have been fsro persons , and if assisted there must have been vtiee . Xt "was-ssid tbsi •^ nght tare occurred abroad , bnt tbe eoont stated that the parties iceie subjects of this realm . It -was immaterial "where that assemblage took place , -whether in Ea ^ scd , ScoCand , Ireland , or evtn abroad , l » ec = nse Sie dtftisdaiits "were charged " -with " committing

      fto vffence , -wirntu the connty of Iaacaster , -with aidin ? . &c ^ evil dispesed persons to persist in nnlawfcl asstr-tbnng and violence , in impeding and stoppinj ? labour , Tsith i ^ teit to create terror an . d alarm , and tberehy charge the constitntjon . It wai said , that iv vas net stated ¦ vrho tb ^ se penons wexe ^ that was nnimporrant , proviled tte defendants became principals . A YEKhct of—•*• -srith divers other persons to the jurors mikiiO' > pr ; for , flnd'Eg p = rsans a ; « i-inble 4 prodnciEE terror and alarm , tbej a ^—a ^ wl them -a-ixii the o '^ j = ct ef -creatxbz a chi : ^ ein 'he eanstituSi . r ' . Tae coant charged , that not cniy ia L"nc _^ ure , but m divers otbsr piacis ifcEsemaetriii . s haa t ^ - ^ s place , zeC evidence was given to that eff ct . Mr , Jc-. tice PaTTES 0 > " aid net sae how tbe Cr ^* ra eonld iBrport isto the p" - ! j isrt cf the ejsat list ¦ wbieb . f ^ = stated jr . ; hc fitter pExt . " The Attoe ^> et-G £ SEB-. i . sai-J , Its * by tbe reneral ^ itemest Uk aseemblj n j ^? t have hsppan-d anywhere , but thecfi % 2 ce charged - ^ as said to Lave be ^ a c . ai-3 nSted in tfee tctraty cf iaiw- ater . QisisiDg the de-^ endaatB -siai ^"" istirg in Lancashire , impcrtsd that they had dose so in thns cnur * y . Mt Justice Paxtesos— Xi . . if it were said to have been cemmift < sd la FraEce . The ATT 02 XET-GBXERA 1 , —If thft * Bas ^ isca -was fjven in Lancashire to peiscr' ? -Idms E ,-et 5 Egs in Prance , that -B-mid bs an offiaice i-incasjurr . Ths allegation -sras tLat tbe r-t-- > r ^;> . ' - bad a '_ ad the parfies with tbe intei > t to chance th = consdauion . Ihe intent * as tiat cT the aiders as * otters . Mt Jasdce Pattesox— W-haL , : « agh tte ori-^ nal parties had no such intent , aiid aiUioufh done in Prance ! The JLTKflprer-GEXERAi . so apj-rehendea it Tronld bej but it " » aa inconsistent trj-h the avtrjBents to suppose that it wsa dose i . rf of the realm . 3 nt H ther « "were an inmrrertioE in Piris which woBldb » Tdti » rfect of altering the oc ^ istitaaoii , an * peKonsh « re aided aad assisted thttm in this country , that irciLld be an ofi % nee . The count , hewever , so Teferred to this reaba that it must bs supposed the act 'was committed -within ths realm . Ths abstsc « of TOiTO sa * eored- by _ ttie statute . There noed i-a no fJh ^ * irm s $ ynnnaiLi aJL If the expression in lhe jtatnie had ^ Deen that aa improper venue Bbiiilu be eared , iliEs ^ ie could nnders&Etl the argument trat there mnst be some venna . There sfbe as m = ch iw t of a ^ perfect or proper Tenne where there was nose , t ^ ¦ wken ii -tss iaproperlyr stated ; and tbertfora tfe-| ffetpte Trould cure ft , bswass it stated that in « ca x " _ -i " " - _ <_ —_

      Untitled Article

      casa r . o objection shouU be taken . If tte want of time jras cured , so -wcn ? £ the -want c-f place . It ffiust be snppcEsd , after verdict , that the Canrt bed correctiy discha ^ ed its duty in receiving proper l « vidence . If the offence "was stated , the vant of venue would not be an objection . The first partof the fourth cennt chargen that " divers evil-disposed persons want about diBturbiug pesceabl ^ subjects of the realm , and that they , by violence , threats , and intimidationB , forced thosa -who -wrre peaceably disposed to leave their occupations and employments , and that ttey thereby caused great confusion , terror , and alarm in the minds of rlhe peaceable

      subjects o ? tbe realm ; " and then the count went on to aver , " thai the deftnSants did , in the parish and connty aforesaid , together with divers other evil di > posed persons to tha jarora unknown , unlawfully aid , abet , assist , comfort , suDpori , and encourage tfce said evil-disposed persons first mentioned In the count , to centhnis and persist in the said unlawful assemblings , threats , intamidsiioris , and violence , and 3 a the ? a ! d impeding acd stopping of the labour employed in the Eaid trades , manuiacturea , and busipess , with intent thereby to cause terror and alarm in the minds of the peaceable subjects of theiealm , and by means oi

      and procure certain great changes m constitution of this realm es by law established . " His Lsarned Friead , Mr . Sergeant Murphy * had objected that the aiding and assisting on the part of tbe defendants ought to have been charged asta distinct and substantivB offocce . He ( the Attemey-General ) however , would contend that it was competent to the prosecution to lay the offence in terms consistent with the facts as they really appeared . If , . instead of being present at tbe time "t ? hen any of tbo mills were stopped and set on fire , the defendants had merely assembled in the reirhbonrbocd to £ rve tbat sort of encouragement which thsir propinquity -57 on ? d afford , or if th ^ y had stopped s . bridge to prevent the appTeach of the military , * rr ha < i broken tip a road for the same pnrp&sa , or bad ia ray other way e ' . ded , abatte > 1 , © r assisted the meii i nip ' oyed in the commission of the acts charged to hs » ve been dona in the first p £ rt of tbe count , it would make ito diff ' . ence , so far as the defendants WEre concerned , whether the offprco which they -were charged -with tv ' . ing and assistisc o- * l : er persons to commit , 'cos in pc-int of fact committed in Cheshire , Lancashire , TorSsbirs , or any other county . It certainly could net bs eafd that tho defendants aided and abetted in tbe sense in winch it was ¦ understood in common parlance , as the aid and assistance was given iroirectlv . If the indictment had charged the defendants with actnally impeding lahanr , his Learned Friend wocld not have for ? o : t ? n to asfe the jury -whether they could find tbe parties guilty of sach a charge upon mere Itpal intendment . Arrumcnts of this description were sure to bs addressed to a jury , end the count wa 9 framed on pprpo . se to rae ? t teem In case of misdemeanor tfcere ¦ cra « not , is In felony , s extinction between an accesf ^; y before the'fact asd a principal in the second dwee- In tie statue 49 George III ., cap 126 . £ ec 3 . tntitlcd " An Act for tbe fuithtr Praventioa of the 5 * . !* * nd Brokerage of Offices , '" it was enacted , " that if iny j > erson or persons should sell , or bargain for the s ^' t-. f any rffice , commission , p ? sce , or employment , dfEcr . bed in the act , then every such person , and also every person who should wilfully and knowingly aid . abet , or assist such persons therein , should be deemed and aujndged guilty i > f a mistUmeanouT . " The statute said , therefore , that persons who did so and bo should ba guilty of an indictable cfi-nce , and that aiding and assisting them should also be an offence . The langnsire 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 v Hans-m , " 31 Slate Trials , p . 1 . That-was an indictment for a misdemeanour against Mr . Hansra , in aidinj ; aisd aHptt / ng the weavers of Manchester in a congp ' racy to rai = » tbeir » aig ^ . In summing up , Mr . Justice Le Blare , before whom the case Tras tried , said , The ind'etfcent states , that certain evil-disposed persons , having Esstrnhicd in a riotous and tunraltuous manner in great tumbers , fcr the pnrpose cf compelling their mast' -rs to advance Jheir wases , the defeadant , Mr . Hanson , did unlawfully and wickedly encourage them in fbat conspiracy , riot and tumuriuons meeting , by rising certain expreswons to them , enci-uraging them to P' ^ ceed in tkat illegal manner . " Now their lordships would obs-JTve , tfes . % in the rase that he v .-. i citdag Mr . Hanson was present at the meeting which 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 jridictaient with intending to aid , abet , and encourage the conspirators ,

      ana the indictment alleged that he did go to and amongst the said tvi ] disposed persons , and that he did incite , encourage , and as far sb in him lay , endeavour to move and pirsuade the faid evil-disposed persons to persevere and persist in refusing to work . l \ r > rfonbt , in point of law , he was suiity of the same < ff-nce ks tne weavers , but the ol-jecS t > hich he had in -viaT- was a different ore . After thb decision in tbst case be did »¦* h * . - bow his Learned Friend c . tjM ciSt * nd tb ^ t no ngencs woe laid in the indictment , -when the defend ' anta - were charged-with aiuicg an : -iSttdng other ? to im-.-ede and stop labour . His contention -5 ra =, that if tLe dtfeadanta did aid , abet , and a * s st other evU-duposad pe-sons in imptding the labonT of tbe peac ^ aWp sn' ^ tcts of the realui , -with an crje-c- 3 lUrk » r to ihat < -stertatned by the parties who dW tb- ? sc * it&-: f , tl . e defm ^ aats were frailty of an indicttl-le tfittc . Upsn the ' see of the count itself i % was c > ar ths * tne Cosrt had jurisdiction , and the o >> - jecvjon to hn va i-iity ¦ was T&fcen after "verdiet .

      Mr . Jn 3 * .: re PaTTESOS—The count charges that the fiFfefida-. i * £ id ° d asf assisted the evil-disposed persons first mrcMcB ^ a to cortinne and prrsitfein the said unlawful ess- nifel'Egs , threats , intimidations , and violtnc- " , but it

      scinter , ar < d the Conn ield that this iinplied that there was an indictment for f .-rcery , and ' . bet the defendant sLi-ew it , for she could Dot know it unless there was an isait ^ Tcei , t . Tbe sarae priudpJe van rec > gD : Krd In " the K ? ug v . Fuller , " 1 B . and P . 180 . In that case Rieharn Fuller was iv 6 icted for an endeavour to ec-duce llutthcw Lowe , tV . ec a soMier in bis M » jeaty " n service , from his duty and allegfemce ; and one of the objections t ^ vken la srrest of judgment was , that the indictment nM to T - 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 ^ nr to incite , they thoncht tbe word " advisedly " equivalent to the word tcienter , and the indictment •» as held jrood . Hs apprehended that if one roan were charred with aiding and assisting another to do a particnlET net , it must be presnn ? ed thai tho act iiself had besc dona Ee weald now proceed t ^ consider tJ . a obj-r ^ ons r ^ i-= ^ d to the fifth ccuct . Tbe firs ; ol-jection

      ¦ was , tbat there was no venue . A versie , however , -was ' Saia in the iuiiHjis , and unless the oid ^ sioaaof Tenue in the body ctf the count were aided by the Statute of 7 , George IV , csp . 64 , tbe statute conld have no meaning : at iU . It rffirt appear , indeed , that tba Court had jirrU . !» ciI ' .. B over the offence charged to have been coai- muted , but that was shown by the venue hi the raaisiri Tbe case of " Minier Hart . " 6 C . and P . 123 , wasciied « . n tb ^ t-iber si < je in moving rer the present ; rule . XL- : cGicti .. t ^ t had the words *• L ^ adon to -srit" j in the n . ar ^ iD ^• .. . the oflvBce was charred to have : be ^ n com&iUtd -n tbepariibnf St . M ^ tj ic .,, w , with- out at s » i fctiti ^ g that th « offence was committed in : Lcr . don . It -was i , id that this mdictaiBnt was bad , and th ^ t it * omi'Hon \ yas not cured by tbe statute 7 ih Gt-orgelV . c ^ u . d , Rt 20 . Tbere , bo ^ evcr , the ob-j jocii-u was taken before verd ' et . and wfr ' . e the trial ¦ was sc-ins on . It waj . cleaT therefore ,: that the facts did ' not sppl ? to iLe i-rusent ci * p . jii . JniU ^ e FiTTEliaOS . —The objection war taken , afterp l ^^ , : i 0 ho * can a prisoner tafee £ nobject -ia to Jbe indictcitnt Gfttr pltadins over unless be m : v-s in j arrest os jodament ? When issue haa once been juined the trial must go on to verdict . The Atto&net-Gbseral observed , that he should ] have th-. ugkt that tae jr . ^ n . 'EJj of the statute was , thtt its provisions sbo-uld ft spp '? "Bti ! after the verdict of tbe jury bad been ^ i-tcaiiy pronounced . It appeared to him tfeeieii-rp . that JJ isttz Hirt ' s csj * was no authori ' r in favour of the oeitnda-sts . But farther , he won . rt contend tt " ' sine the rs . 'siBi ? of the Jury Act , 6 th Gfcorge IV ., c ;• . 50 set 13 . tfc re was no necessity to aver thst tbe offraice ccn .: ii ; t * * d t <» ok place within any parish or place wiii » in ti ^ c ~ uutjr . Ti . e want of vsnne ¦ n-as enred if "ta jury t iik from th- _ - connvy hicn appeared as the veun ? iu 1 L 3 marrir 1 . On tbe subjee : of venns all tKe Itarain ^ was collcrt * d ia tfce case of Sir Francis Buru ^ : * in i B an . ; Ai ., Hb , ^ Ktre the questiun was wL ; ther tbe ron-riciion for libel had tajren piice in the rigtt c ~ c ^ tv . Tae Lr > Td' Cb ? ef Jastica tfcrn eti-1 that the defent ' e&t was crirrfed with haviar publish *! the libel : n L = ice £ tsrf hire , a d ihs letter was dated in Lacesterfhire , thtr ^ ore the libel was published in that county . Felony stood on a different ground , and the assertion that misdemeanour might be tried in the eoncty where part of it was committed ¦ w 5 is taken from that T ? bich belonged to ft-lony . Thtie bad been a time wbeii it was considered that a civil rait conld not be tried ont of the connty . If a felony consisted -sf two acts , one done in one county and one in another , the party might i not be liable in « ither , and therefore a statute was passed to remedy tbat inconverknee . Misdenieanonr ! was , as a general rule , to follow tbe mode adopted in ! civil actions . He ( the Attorney-General ) would ask whether enough here appeared to show tbat tbe Court had jurisdiction orar the offence , because if there was that was sufficient . It was now mfllcient to show tbat an offence was committed in the county . There vae ; eases that conld hoS be tried at tte quarter aesEloas , I and in order to guard against a court intruding where it bad xo jariEcictum , the rtatute said , provided tbat J it ficuld appear tint the court I had jurisdiction ; t ' cesriyte that u > c ! 4 not have relation to ve-ue . . bnl 'ct ^ ct th-. t the r-fiW- » was one irittiin the jaxit- ' -c - ; . o to trj it . Tba : was the only meaning t- r ^ ^ rea U- Le tt .: 4 s •; . tbe statute . Mr . Jdic-i CoLi-aiDGE -= Uttd to know Low that would Epp ^ ar t > y the iaaictment

      Untitled Article

      Tub Attoknet-Gexerai said tha * would appear in the captiou . If the Court had jurisdiction the law would presume that everything waa rightly done . " Mr . Justice : Patteson said , if the word " information" appeared , how would that apply ? The Attornkt-Genehal said there were informations whlch ; did not arise oat of this Gonrt , such as informiiticnB before magistrates . Mr . Justice Coleridge said , if npon tha face of the indictment something equivalent was suited to show that the trial had token place before a propor court and jucy , how ¦ would tbat affeci the venue ? The Attobke * -Ge : nejial said , the venue was stated in the margin . Before iho statute was passed , it waa not sufficient ¦ to Btato the fiatnein the margin , but it was now admitted that that was the placo where the offence was committed .

      Mr . Justice Cclebidge Baid , there was now a ' cijse in this conrfc . from the Central Criminal Court , where the venne In the margin was •• Central Criminal C iutt , " an-i the acts were-laid to be done witbia the jurisdiction of that court Suppose the case wa 9 tried before a Middlesex jury , ho * y did it appear oa the face of the indictment that the Middlesex jury or the judge kad jurisdiction ? " Tho Ait , ; ENET-Genebal said , it might not appear , but tbere was . a larger j > irisdietion stated in the margin , and this Cntirt had power over all offences . Tbe award of a wrong venire was cot intended to be helped by t ! he statute , but only time and plate . The whole scope 6 f his argument -might be summed up almost in & seutar . ee

      —> -that tbere : being now no occasion for a jury to come from any particular ville , and it being the universal rale of pleading , that the place in the . margin ¦ sras tbe place were the act was done , and now that oljcctlon was not to bo taken upon the necessity of tbe guild not feeing alleged , 2 i ; r l there being no venne in a court which had in the niaxfii ? i a county , it was the want of a proper vtcue ; but fri-m the indictment . Laving ir . the martrin the venue , asd it appearing by the caption to bs a presentment of a j ' . iry of tbat county , It was now to be tafcen that the t ffence was committed within tho county in the nsargin , and where lhe Court hud jurisdiction . Ee . tlierefore , submitted that the meaning of tbe statnte was . that some deftct should be cured : and ,

      therefore , that the tola ! absence i . f venue was io ol j : ction . Upon the other point the question was , vrtint was the oflfence charged in tbe Cfth count ? It did not chargs conspiracy , but that ** tho dt-f « Klai ; t un-¦ la wfully did endeavour to txcito Hor Majesty ' s liege eaVjscts to disiifection an « hatred of her laws , and unlawfully did endeavour to persuade and to encourage the said liege subjects to unite , confederate , aad agree toltave tbeir ttveral and respect ire eiiiplo } - rsients , 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 proilnce a cbi ' . uge in tho laws and c . asiitution of this realm , against the peace of our blu ! Lady the Queen , her crown a . d Ciisuity . " Tne expression bete used was an endeavour

      to psrsuaae to acts as laid in the indictment , " to unHe , confederate , snd atiea to kava their several and respective t :. > | loj tas . ru , and to produce a cessation cf labour , tbn ^ gbiBt a large portion of this r ^ ilm , with intent , and in order by so doing , to bring about and produce a change in the la-xs and constitution oi this realm , against tbe peace of onr srud Lady the Queen , her crown aul dignity . " If the endeavour to persuade was mmei ' . 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 the Queen ' s suVjcCts , hni it could sot be particularly stated who those parties were , as bad been contended for on the other side . The cDdeavour to persuade a person to commit an offence was an offence itself .

      Mr . Justice Patiesos . —I should wish to know what meaning you 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 , iini unlawfully did endeavour to persuade and encourago the said liege subjects to unite , confederate , and asjree to leave tbeir employments . " I understand that ; but then tbe count goes on to cay , " and to produce , a cessation of labour throughout a large portion of this realm , withintent , and in order , b 7 so doinjsi to bring about and produce a change in tbe laws and . constitution cf the realm . * ' Does tbe count mean that the defendants endeavoured to produce a cessation of labour ,

      or that they endeavoured to persuade and . encourage Her Majdbty's liege subjects to produce such a cessation ? I I The Attoknet-Genebal thought that the latter construction was the one vhich the count required . 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 lands untilled , with a view either to irjuie the paraph or the pars&n , the act became iileg . il So , an officer might resign Lia comm ^ ion ; but it waa held , in Vertne v . Lord Clive , " 4 Bnrr . 2 , 472 , that it was an illegal act fcr a number of i flkers to combino to throw up their commissions , with a view of obt ^' r . ing an increased allowance . Aaain , there could l > e i no doubt that a man might attend an auction , and b ;< : for the articles put up for sale , but it waa held by Baron 1

      Gnreey , in " Levi v . Levi , ' C C . and P ., 2 Sy , that fc wag an indictable of ^ nce for a number of persons to go to an r . u , ction-room , having pre 7 iously jvjieed that one only of the party should bid for each particular article . Now , the fifth count of this in ^' otmtnt charged tbr > ciefand 3 pts with endeavouring to persuade the liege subjects of her Majesty to stop labour ; and it averred tbat ; be : r object 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 < m the continuance of public labour , nnd any combination to produce a cessation of labour among u lanje class of the cimmunity 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 thert grounds be submitted that both counts in the indictmeut "were good . .

      The Solicitok-General then addressed the Court on ths same side , Ln < i said that he would first deal with the olj ^ -. tions which had been raised to the fonrtb count cf the indictment . What was the charge contained in that count ? It averred that , on the first day cf August , ia tho jear aforesaid , and on other days between that'day and the 1 st of October , at divers places . divers evil-disposed persons unlawfully and tumultuously assembled together , and by violence to other persons being then peaceable subjects of this realm , forced them to leave their occupations . This was the first part of the count . Their Lordships would observe that n « intent was - laid in that part of it . It merely Aid that certain persons unlawfully assembled together , ani caused great tenor and alarm in the minds of the

      peaceable subjects of the realm . That averment being made in the first part of the count tha charge against the 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 sunicient venue laid . The 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 evll-dwp « . sed persons in tbe count first mentioned to continue and persist in the said unlawful assemblings , threats , intimidations , and violence , and in ti : u said impeding and stopping of the labour employed iu the said trades , manufactures , and butiness , with

      intent thereby to cause terror and alarm in the minds of the peaceable subjects of this realm , and by means of sach terror and alarm violently and ( Unlawfully to cause and procure certain great changes to be made in " the constitution of Ibis realm , as by law established . Tfee offence , therefore , with which the defeno&nts were charged was this—that they did aid , alrct , and assist the first mentioned evil disposed persons to continue and persist in the acts before stated , and tbi-S they did ao 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 previoas paTi of the indictment , but that they encouraged the parties who committed those acta to persist in tho same conduct There was a venue , therefore , laid in that part of the count which contained the charge against the dtfendanis ; 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 common 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 the count that the ecurt bid juiiiaictir-ii , the want of such an averment Tru ' ilb- cured . He should maintain , however , that : D . \ jx .-: « dcnt of the- ttaiute it was quite unnecessary , it w ^ q-ai-. e iK } , < ip * iWe for tbeir Lordships to assume that Uk- :: tt efe'Y ' -G tool ; plac ¦ out of theronlm . Scppouo the c-ffenci . « f tuiunituoub-Iy assembling and impeding labour 1 ud tahsn p ace in th <* County of Chester . The def endants ¦ we re churged ¦ R ith aiding them in the coniit j of Lincast&r . 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 dojio in Lancashire , and therefore it was unnecessary to introduce the uvenufcst . The fallacy appeared to him to lie in not tiietu ^ uiEbing between cases of felony and cases of misdemeanour . In cases of misdemeanour the offence might ba made np of acts done in various places , and some acts might be done out of tbe realm , and some in it Their Lordships weald see that the count contained the word ; " unlawfully . " Now that mufit 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 cf tbe realm -were oat * f the realm ? On the contrary , it must be aBsumed / Mfe

      . ijprfaa , that the Grand Jarjnrere 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 p ! ac « must have taken place ont of the realm of England . Then came the question whether it waa essential to have the venue in this part of tbe indictment ? Suppose in an indictment for murder , a count should allege ihct A ., in tba parish of B in the canty of C , made an assault on D , and struck kim with a knife , omsttirg these wor-Js , •' thien and t . tro , " did any one ever bear that in cuoh a cise it ru-eb ' t have bt-in . irgued th < -t A struck D out of ti . e j-ritaiGut > n of the Court ? Now , with regard ; : mis-

      Untitled Article

      demeanours , his Learned Friend the Attorn * y-Qeneral b : ul referred their Lordbh : ps to tho case of " The K ' ne t > . BuivfcU ' He wuuld call thtit LordsMps" att-iwion jto one oe two paesa : es frota 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 necessary to prove it . The postage which he was about to cito W ! "s taken from ivlr . Jiistice Holroyd ' s jm ' .-ment , 4 Barn , an-. t AM ., 138 . His Lordship s : \ id , " I think tho I jury miy ir quire into and tsika cogniamce 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 a ^ was committurl within tbe county , but also of the remainder of the aggregate , charge in those casas , whfere so much of the misdemeanours chari'ed as is

      proved to have beeu done within their , county is of itself a . nrsdemeanour ; and this is established to be the Haw in cases of conspiracies and" nuisances in both of which tha juries do nfjt ' confine their verdicts of guilty to suuh criminal acfi | or consaquor . ces as occur in the s » uuty whore the consptfrfty or erection of the nuisance is laid and proved , but extend them" to euch further acts and consequences ' of conspiracy and nuiftancs as may occur or arise ia another county ; and jsdgment and punishment are in such castp given and awarded tai the full extent of the aggregate offence . " It was not necessary , therefore , tbat thg whole ({ Banco bhould take place within the county ^ it v ^ s sufficient to provo that part of it arose there . Hetubmitied then , tkut at common law the . averment

      of a venue was wholly unnecessary in tha £ | % art of the ( cbnrae which might be regarded as iuducameht . At all events the statute 7 th George IT ., 61 , would cure the defadt of a want of a proper or perfect vsnua , provided it appeared on the face of the indictment that tho Court had ji ' . risaSr'inn over th « offcince , which is quite clear in the jrr- ' ntcase . Ni > w , v-ith reg ; ai'd to tbe , meaning f > f the ei j i utent that the defenclants unlawfiiWy encoum ^ ecl evil dispj . ' -pd p- s pu-ins v ,- > pttoist and- coudnue in their- conduct . The iruibt > nunt did . not , it was true , ai ;« ie th 3 t thvo parties dKl persist and continue to

      evildisposed persons to cur . tiuuo and persist in these outrages . In the second Institute , p . 1 ; 82 , Lord Coke , in hia retnlin , ; in the Statute $ f Westminster , showed that the word " aid" comprehended all persons couu •• . lliug , abetting , plotting , assenting , consisting , am ! oncouragteg , kh < 1 who . wero not pi-o . ^ tut whvn thu act was done , and ' . hat if they wero p-. tsont they w ? ia principals . With regard to tho word " abdt" 'hut had Leen dtCned to mean , " iastigation ; ilo ; te , ' without fores . " Tfia words U" -.- ( i , thorefore , did not m ? an . thi ; . the defendants were piensnt , ; but that iLoy ir . cilv . l those whu w » rj . No ^ ,, again , with regard tu the uoc > siity of avoi-ri-Dj ^ jihat we act was done which the defendants r . iddd and abetted oUiers in doing . In c : vsks of mia < leiuoanour , this , he submitted , was aot necessary .

      Mr . Justice Pattescn said , if tbe Loavncd Counsel interpreted tho woru iu mean Holicit , that vrould be one tfiiiig ; bu '» takinf ! t ' jtni aa he ( t ' .. e lenrfrtd Juugt ) un vtral cases as to the ucl of soliciting . . Tho parties were charged with endeavouring to persuade the parties to ccntteuo to assemble . Tbe argument on the otbi-r-sido vris , tbat they , ought to have been charged with actually doing the act . N ( jw , how w . mid that be borne out ? . He apprehended the rule to " ne that thoy migb ' . be indicted as actual principals , or the actual circumattv ^ s ^ a ' . might be set out . It would bo strange if you * were compelled to lay the cl : a gj ( rnc way , mid prove uu&' . h ^ r . Tur . Ju 3 tice Paxteso . n thou ^ Iit it would be difficult top . iv tbey wfirfl principals .

      Thu Souicitor-Oeneiial said , that the Legislature in Boiiie particular czaea bad decl-. etl that pt-iaons aidinj ; and assisting in any act sbonld be indicted r > s principals , which clearly showed that but for the direction of tbe Legislature patties guilty of those particular offences need not be indicted as principals . Here the charge was fur 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 the fo ¥ m adopted in this case was sufficient , Ho trusted that upon this fourth count the Court would consider the indictment good . Then , with re / f-ird to the fifth cou ^ t . the first objection was , tha 1 there was no venue . Bui , fur tbeptatute of the 7 th and 8 . h Geo . IV ., c . 64 , ? ec . 20 , tbat defect would have litcn fatal . What was the

      moaning of the statement in tf ' 9 Act of Parliament ? That they should not arrest the judgment for want of s . proper and perfect venue . In the present case there was a county etaterf fn ILs margin of the imiictn : ent , and be should submit f&afc wlien there was a venue in tbelmargin this Act of Parliament applied , and tbat it wa ? , in point of fact , nothing more than an imperfect statement of the venue in not stating the ville or place . Here the cimutyibhovsed that the'Court had jurisdiction to try the offence ; it was nn-iirperftet statement tbat the uffenco took place in tbe county of Lancaster . He admitted it waa an imperfect vunue , and therefore it was cured by the statute . ' If thero

      had betti a reference in the body of the instrument " to the : county in thv margin , th . n there v . 'ould have h ° en a complete venue ; but whtn there was not that reference , then the venue w . is imperfect . If th-re had been no Venua at ail , the case would come within the ; statute , provided ihe case mt . s tried within tb ^ proper county . It appeared upon the face of ic that it was within the proper jurisdiction , because the grund jury of that county bad so returiad it , and upon the rutiirn the Court considered it was within the county , and therefore proceeded to try , and the remedy of the prisoner would bo to mote in arrest of judgment . Mr Justice Colfridge wished to know what the learned counsel understood by the word " Court . "

      The 3 olicitou-Genekal understood it to be the ju : 1 ' i { e and jury who Were . to try the offence . iir . Justice Coleridge—Supposing Lancnbire was in -the 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 margin was the venue ? The Solicitor-General said that was ti-othei ? thing ; if no other county was mentioned , the , county in the margin would be the venue . Tbe Court at any ' rata would be the acme , whether the prisoner stood his trial , or suffered judgment by default . The L ^ islature certainly intended this act to be more useful than it was likely to prove , if the objections which had been raised should prevail ; and it was , no doubt , intended to place

      the law of criminal pleading on the same fcv / ticg in these respects as the law of civil pleading . Ho should the ; efore submit , that it did sufficiently appear that the Court had jurisdiction to try the indictment , and that consequently tbe want of a venue was cured by the statute 7 Giorge IV . Now as to tho allegations iu *| he fifth count . The charge in that coaut in effect was , tbat the defendants endeavoured to iuduse persons to enter into a conspiracy to produce a cessation oflahour throughout a great p > rti . > n of the realm , in order te bring about a change in tbe constitution of the country . That was undoubtedly an indiotabla off nee . He would not occupy their Lordships further on this point , ' as he felt that the great objection to the count was the want of a venue , on which he had already addressed the Court at great length .

      Mr . VvoRTLEY said , that he was on the same side With his Learned Friends , the Attorney-General aad Solicitor General , but tha questions discussed ha < : already been so fully argued , that he did not think it necessary to troublw the Court with any observa tions , v * ¦ Sir G . Lewin , Mr . Waddington , and Mr . Pollock , who were also counsel 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 mention one stf present . - ' _ . The Court then rosa at twenty minutes past four o ' clock .

      3£Iiupmaf ^Atrltamtttt.

      3 £ iiupmaf ^ atrltamtttt .

      Untitled Article

      HQUSE OF COMMONS . —Friday , May 26 . In answer to a question by Mr . Lambton , 'Sir Jambs GRahaijj 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 ths education clauses . ^ flie House went into Committee on the subject of the resolutions on tiie imitation of Canadian wh ^ at and flour . On the first resolution , embodying the fact of tbo passing of tha Canadian Aot , Lard John Russell moved to omit the words which made tbe legislation of this country < U pendant on the legislation of the Canadian Asserubly . -

      Loid Stan let 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 cintitf * gent on the act of the ' Canadian Legislate e . But in point of fact , they had ; not made the legislation ofthiB bountry dependent on : the conduct or the Canadian Assembly . They bad waited toseewhpt course tbat assembly would adopt , in order to protect the British agriculturists , before they proposed to admit Canadian corn duty free * whicbialso they made contingent oh the fulfilment of the conditions laid down with respect to kho admission of the grain of the United States into ^ nnn ^ 'v . ( Mr . Pkakcis Bajmko « aid that lord Stanley ' s explanation was not worth much . The fact still stood uncontrovMted , that our legislation was made dependent on that of Canada .

      i An exchange of arguments on this point , between Lord Stanley and Lord , John Russell , -was finished on by I Colonel giBTHOHP declaring he would rather be dependent on tbe legislation ef Canada , than on the legislation of Lord John Russell and his colleagues in the iote Government . Tha farmers of Lincolnshire had sent Mr . Cobden , on his late visit , back with with " a ft ? i in bis ear . " A shoemaker of the name of Roebuck tiisA settled him

      Untitled Article

      Mr . LadOUCIIERE said that the subject of ^ " 7 alteration should hnvb originated in the Imperial L ? g ; . s litute ; tha whole matter should _ have been ltf : in its haa is . \ ' . ; -. After a few wordi ! from Sir Robert Pee ! , Mr . T . DUNC 0 MBE sarcastically expressed his , pity for tbo quandary inwvhich the countfy goiUcmen found themselves . Betwe&n their pledges to tlieir constitucnta , their attachnient tp the Government , and their fear of Ui * WbAgaj they CM not know what to . do , knowitu : as th ^ y « kid that there was a dash of free trade about this mtjasijiiei Lord WORSL-EYj cou ' . d not support the nra-ndment , because it did not apply to the whole of the resolutions . I '

      Colonol Wvndham waa determined to oppose every lhing that had connection with free trade . They had been promised , unW the Cora Law of last year , a ranga of prices from 54 s . to 58 s . j they were 103 . or 12 s . below that . If they were wrong in one set of fiignreB , they might he wrong ia another . In fact , Mr . Gladstone did not k $$ r'a ; . cow from a donkey ( roars of laughter )—cr a pio «(? h from a wheelbarrow . Thess were the men oa miova the agriculture of England was dependent . I ; Qn $ division , Lord John Russell ' s amendment was reacted % 203 to 94 . "

      LorVi Worsley ' then proposed another amendment : V That it is expedient to make an alteration , in the pro-Visions of the :. ct Lf the last session , regulating the duties on tho ins portatioh of corn , by which alteration tbe protection intended ' to be given to the British producer of wheat no ion . jer rests on duties which are imposed by the Imperial Legislature , and tho produce of which is not available in aid of tbe burden of taxa . ioai undf r which this country is now labouring . ** : : ' Colonel Wood thought that the alarm raised about this measure was as absurd as the panic abt / ul tVwinipr > rt : tti ( . ' n cf raTj . ! There w ; ia orly a diff- r > nc > of one shilliiii , ' b 6 t : p : een taasfiwximum of t ' re colonial s'i . flogecR ' . e i * nd tn <» protiMion hfTbrded by the prev .-ut mtsh sure . HtUl , he ronfess ^ d that it h were a new

      pnpositl' -M , instead < . £ bc- 'iig a petr ' aoa of last ye-. r'a la ^ Lslation , be W' > u ! : t not hiva approved cf it . Mr . Charles Wood drew from the papers on the subject , that the Canadians wt . ro i . cluctnnt to impose theirriuty of 3 a . ' -s ' copt as a consideration for tl * reduction of duty in Ibis * country ; aad it appeared that so far as the proxtvfU ) cf Canada was conctriied , no -. beneflt would accrue ; frunii tbo meacuro to the people of this country . TLocuiyj pr .. c . n ^ il result would bt- _ , t ! ie transifeienco of nn incohi « hitherto receive- ' , by < rdr 6 wtf Exchequer into that rif ijjjjj ^ auadians , which , judging from tho . r , vt ; rngo umvuiit of duty on coloaial ^ ram for the last flvo years , ¦ wc nl-. i ba about £ 18 , 000 unnuiilly . Tas amount was not iarice , bnt he loohed to the principle

      invih fj ; and though it F"Uiid ( . d large to talk of treating C-. mv ' . a as " an integral part of the empire , " he did not-seis the policy <; r the proprie f y of throwing away rfavonue f ¦ r ho earthly oUjr-ct wbatt-.- ^ r . B'fii \< --i , othrr colonies hud as to ' . d a claim as Cansds tu be treateri r . 3 " ir , te ^ rl . 1 " jr . ri . p ol the empire . Mr . Hutt tx baiLd th « - tlu : ini { -scalo , as a coaUWaaco which added to tfab natural vicissitudes of commerce and approved tf this Canadian nic-a&uro , bacauso it contained more ^ B" | ii ^^ n evil , and as an p . -r > proxiRiation to a moro nn ^ ira ! s ^ ato of things , based on " the principles of Cunn : ijusr : | . i . .-. " Kc thought thit thfl produce ftom Upper Cuui'la \ voulu he ousiderabu-, fcr : all nscuunts represented th * 511-cultivat « d andtbir . ly settled bnt fertile distri : \ . l nujosning Late Erie , Sic , as tho . ^ ranury of North Aiij-Tira . '

      Colonel RushbROOKE , though he had voted against Mr . Labouchere ' s lamertdmeut , was not able to support the Governin 6 Ut- * eso ! ij !^ pns . Mr , Bankes G ' ojtsidihd the period very inopportune for . thtjiutroductiopof thismtr'suro . It wus a now project both to him afnd his constituents , and he ftjt himsalf bound to oj'pojse it . Mr . Blacksto ^ e thought that Ministers had been induced , to give this boon to Canada as ?¦ compensation for the ruin inflicted on their timber tradg by the new t-riff . But tbe agriculturists cf this ' con"try were of opinion that they ought not to be compelled . to pay for it . I ; ' : ' Oa a division tfyere appeared—For Lord Woraley ' a amtadment 102 Against it } 2 i > 3 Majority ... - ¦ ¦ ... ——; IG 1 A ? : other division was taken on the resolutions , which were carried by 2 IJ 8 to 137 . :

      THE ( REPEAL AGITATIOtf . Mr . M . J . O'Connell said , he would take the opportunity of asking a question of the Guvernment . Hti understoctd that it bud been announced that night that certain magistrates in Ireland bad been removed from tht Commission of the Peace . He believed that three persons hatl been ntraed as having been ' so removed—oife of tpem a Member of the House , another an Irish Peer . He wished to ask , first , whether the information Lehall received on this po nt was correct ? Secondly Whether any other Megi&lrates , except those three to whom be ¦ Referred—nampfy , the Jlon . iaud Learned Member jfor Cork , Lord French , und Sir AI . D . JBellew , had been romoved from the Cnnunisbion ; Aiiftl thirdly , whether the Government had any objection tc * . ! ay on f . e . table of the Houss a list -of tfca ponies so removed ? I , i '

      ; Sir J . GiiAiiAM . said , th ? t he had that morning receded from the ilijrd Ch : u ; cellor of Ireland an nfnciai 1 couimunic-itiou siitfog that in the disci . meo cf hss duty be had thought fit to remove from the Comrais-! sro : i of th ;) P . ace Lord French , he having presided at I a meeting wl . t-n tJLe question of Repeal was discussed ; an' -Vtliiit ho ( t > : c Lord CbauceUori had also thought it ; his duty to remove from the Commission the Hun . 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 i Kerry , ana he believed he bad now answered ail his , questions . j ¦ , Mr . M . J . O'Connejul said , he had also asksd for a j list of the nawesp ! Swathe magistrates who bat ! been * dismissed ; but be now wished to know when the j moeting ^ which ] Lord French presided took place : ? i Sir Jf ^ RAHAM replied , that the Lord Chancellor of , Irelau ^ pad mentioned th « date , and he thought it was j in tbeVarJ . y p # t | of List week .. : . :

      Mr . W . S . 'CBrien inquired whether he should be diaiuissed from the commission of tbo peace for presenting a petition in favour of the Repeal of the Union ? j . ; Sir J Qbaham—If the Hon . Gentleman attends a meeting f * > r the RVpeal of tin Unioii , I have no hesitation in saying the Lord Chancellor of Ireland would remove him from the commission—( cheers . ) Lovd 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 ? 1

      Sir J . (§ raham replied , that it was in tha discretion of t ' Lord Chancellor to remove gentlemen from the commission on hwj . own authority , and he ( Sir J . Graham ) on the p ' art of the Government , had np hesitation in saying that tbe step taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland ] was approved of by Her Majesty ' s Ministers—( cheers ) . ^ Mr . Sheil wishedf ' to know whether , previous to removing thuso gentlomen from the commission , nwticu had been given them that , in the event of their attending particular meetings , the / would be dismissed from the magistracy ? I Sir J . Graham stated that a communication had passed between Lord French and the Lord . Chancellor of I reland before he w&s removed from the cornmiss ' - OE . 1

      Mr . Kedington asked whether any communication had bean nu ; de biy the ^ Government to L Tds-Lfeuteuant in England , or to the Government in Ireland , in order th&fkUCf mi ^ ht int imate what wero the crimes or measHies " . for takiDg part in which parsona wero to be dismissedJfrom the commission of tbe peace ? Sir J . Graham said , there was no reneral . order issued with inspect to meetings in this country or in Ireland . Each case must be decided on its own merits , and on the discretion of the responsible advisers , oC lhe Crown . ( Hear . ) j Mri W . S . O'Brien roso to ask another question , but was met by ; txpressions of impatience . He said he wcnld not be put down . ( Oh f oh . ' ; These questions were of iutinite importance to Ireland , tbe people of which were disposed to live quit-tly .. Tfiey only asked for jfree institutions , such as tbe English population enjyyed . JiCries of chair , and order !) the that

      Tbe Speaker inf ^ tmed Hon . Member he must confine In&ifieff '" to asking a question . : Mr . W . S . O'Brien said he wanted te know whether the R '' e : ht JHon . Baronet had been informed by official -correspornlence iroai Ireland of ai . y breach of the peace at a Rt-peal meeting except the unfortunate asnnssination at j C : jaet 1 S i" J . Graham said he had not received any information of ar . y breach of the peace , except on t !\ t > occasion to which tte Eon . Member had referred , and when , unfortunately , one life had been sacrificed ; but , on the other liand , the Government was informed thafcjiiultitmUnoua ; isserubiie 3 took place . which producedj ^| l gecateet pussibio excitement and alaroi among Sel ' Majtety ' s loyal subjects in Ireland . ( Hear , hear . ) j * . Mr . Sheil said the question be had asked a short time ago had not been answered . He wanted to know

      whether any communication had mad e been t oLord French to the effect that , if be attended meetings of a particnlM- 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 had not received the slightest intimation tbat such questions were to bo asked , and that hour of the evening was certainly not the usual ? time for putting them . In mattersoftbia nature he was nt $ at asxibns at all times ts answer such questions accurately and to the best of bis recollection

      He ppprehended that the course of the affairwas this . The Lord Chancellor seeing tha 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 that same communication intimated to his Loreship that i . t ^ was not consistent with his duty as a siagistrate -tiva ' ttctftl such a meeting . Lord Ftorch ' s reply , hebeiie ' yiJ 3 d , w ; . k thai whatever might be the coasequences .-ie should attend the meeting , and on ihe fact that he * bad donl so having been ascertained , the Loid

      Untitled Article

      Cbancellorfelt that he conln not adopt any other er urs ^ but that of diennssin ? the Noble Lord from tha com mission of the peace—thear ) . Here the conversation dropped , and the Home soon after adjourned .

      Monday , May 29 . After the presentation of numerous petitions some notices were disposed of . ' REPEAL OF THE UNION WITH I RELAND—IMSMISSAT OF LORD FRENCH AND OTHEtt MAGISTfiATES FROM THE MAGISTRACY . ^* Mr . REDiNGroN rose for the purpose of putting s question to the Right Hon . Baronet the Secr « tary for th 9 Home Ikpartmtnt , relative to the recent disnuVsai of certain magistrates from tbe roll of justices of th « peacs- in Ireland . The Right Hon . Gansleman was no doubt aware that a letter bad been addressed to Lord French , one of the dism saed magistrates , by the Secretary to tho Lord Cbauca lor of Ireland . In that ' . ptfrar were set forth the grounds on which the rfismissa ! " had letter also referred to

      been made . Toe statements made iu that House by the Right Hon . Baronet at the head of the Government , and by a Noble Duke 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 pr ^ sides over or forms part cf such a ( Repeal ) meeting could neither be prepared to repress violence , nor could he be expected to act against a body for whese offence he would himself he responsible . To guch persons the preservation of the public peace during the preaent agitation cannot be safely intrusted . Your Lorrifhi p ' a determination to preside over such a meeting immediately after the declarations in Parliament pmves to the Lord Chancellor that the time has arrived f-r evincia » the ' deiirminstion of the Government to fleicga'a n « power tothnsa ^ ho se ^ k by such maBSures as are now propo&--1 to dissolve the legislative union . To alb »

      such persons any longer to remain in the comr . issioa of tiiH peaeo would ba to afford the power of thg Crown to the carrying of a measure which Htv Majesty j ^ tike her predecr-ssor , expressed her determinati on to ' prevent . Thu view of the case , which the stop t& £ en by your Lordship has forced upuu tha attention of the Lord fJIisTicellor , wiU compel him ai ODce to saper je any o'hor magistrate who since tho declarations in p ^ 1 lament have attended like Repeal meetiiigs . " Nq W " tbo questions which he would ask the Right lion ! Baronet v > vre , — Q > - ± t , v . Iiether any communication had been ma ' o by tbe Government to the L ~ r (* Cna-cellor of Ireland , announcing to him the <; e ' erurination of her Majesty to ) -revo ! it the Repeal © f tbe Union » and next hi would like to know -whether the determination of tb-e Goveiniunit h . ; d in tbe first instance , and befot e npy riismfssal tool : plare , been c ^ nspiunic .-ited by the Lord Coanceiior of Ireland to the magistrates of the counties in that counfry ?

      Sir J . Graham would s ^ ato , in answer to the Hon . Member ' s quLdt ons , that whea Eer Majesty ' s Ministew came into ( , fBce , and when they confiited the great seal of Iteland to tho hands of Sit E . Susden , it was at the same time intimated ta him that he was to we all tho powrra vith which he wns invested by the law and the constitution in ordpr to discourage any Attempts to dissolve tho legislative Union between tho two cenrr ' rie ? Oa a suhstqueiit occasion , and when rer . e ^ M eff .-rta were mada to ai ^ solve tliut Uniori , his Right Hoa . Friend tho First Minis ' ' r of the Crown made a declaration , of course , tte whole of Her Majesty ' s advisers were responsib l e—( 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 discoarago to the utmost every attempt to (•¦ ever the legislative union between the two countries—( cheers ) . He ( Sir J . Griham ! had no hesitation hi sayiiig , that in consequence of the general instructions conveyed to the L'ird Cfranc l ! or of Ireland in ths first instance ? . nd subsequently , and more especially in consequence of the receut declaration of his Right Hon . Friend at the head o ? tbe Government , a cooununica . tion had baen made by the Lord Chancellor to Lord French and t' > other magistrates .

      Mr . Redington complained that the Ri ? ht Hoit Baronet had not answered his question . What he had asked- was , whether the declaration referred to by the Ri (? ht Hon . Baronet had been communicated to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland , aud in what manner it had been so cotumanicated to that Right Hon . and Learned Gentleman ? ¦ Sir J . GRAHAij said , he had already stated to the Hon . Gentleman thp . t the Loni ChanceMor and also the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland , had received , at their accession to office , general instructions as to the dbcietionery powers whicii they were to exercise in riiscouraging every attempt raadb to dissolve the Union between the two countries . He was not aware that any official communication bad beon recently . made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject .

      Mr . Reddington . —Then he v ? a . ° to understand from the Right Hon . Baronet that no official communication had been made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as to the declarations- mate by the Government ; ami tl at he was no . v to be considered as justified in removing those maqistra ' es whom he hsri struck off the roll of Justices of the Peace upon tbe authotity of , ' and upon no other than , tho reports of ths debates in tlist House . ( " Hear , h ? ar , " aisd cries of " Order , " '"Chair . ") Sir J . GkahaM had already told the Hon . Member that the Lord Lieutenant anri the Lord CbancJJor of Ireiand b d . had specific instructions givsn tu them on thefr ' nccss&ion to offija . Wv . h respsci to any official fimmuai- ^ tion , he had st&' . ed wiiat teak phc 9 . If the Hon . M ? mber was of opinion thatthe Lord Chancellor had escee-Jtd his authority in tha course be had parsued , he might take the sense of the House on the snbjfct .. ( Cheers on the Ministerial side . )

      Mr . REDTNeTON paid , that the Right Hon . Baronet need not try to fix him in that way for the mere parpuse of obtaining a cheer . ( Cheers renewed . ) He was not referring to th « question of Repeal . Hea'fet'la pla-n question—did the Lord Chancellor of Ireland send an official communication of the declaration mada by the Right Hon . Baronet at tho head of the Government , on behaif of her Majesty , to the magistrates of Ireland ? ; j § Sir J . GBAtfllt—I do believe he did send such rfflchl communication of the declaration of Government to Lord French aad other magistrates .

      Mr . Wyse would asfe the Right Hon . Gentlenwn whether it waa now the determination of ths Government that every Irish magistrate who should attend a quk-t : uxd peaceable meeting , from which no danger of any "breach of the peace could , be apprehended , and a 6 whi .-V : o . " . Iy the question of the Repeal of th ° Union waa t > b » discussed , —was it , ha repeated , ths determination of Government to strike the name of every such mnglstra ' . e out of th 6 Commission ? Sir . T Graham said that the power o the Lord Chancal ' ior was a discretionary power , for which he and tboso - ^ feo advised him would be reaponaiM * Before any magistrate was dismissed , tbe Lord Chancellor would communicate with him ; but the fact ^ as , each individual ca" -e must be judged of on its &vfu merits . The Lord Chancellor of Ireiand would defend the course he might take in every instance .

      Mr . W . S O Biuen thought the Right Hon . Baronet waa shuffling , jnsi . ad of answering tha questions put to him . ( This remark vras followed by loud cries of order , and chair . ) The Speaker intimated to the Hon . Member that there was no question before the H " ouse . Mr . Wyse considered that it was of the utmost consequence tbat his question should be fairly answered . It was admitted on aii hands , that Lord French was dismissed from the Magistracy for having attended a public mating at which the question of " Repeal ' was agitated , and at which it was said tbat there waa 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 answering questions pot upon such hypothetical grounds ; bat he thought that some of the Hon . Member's Friends on the bench near him mi ^ bt supply him some instinces in which gentlemen had b-. en . dismissed from the frlagifitraey for having been present at certiin dinners , and drinking certain toasts . ( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches ) C » j ,, ain Vivian would beg to ask the Right Hon . Bart , if it were trua that the Government intended t » put down hy force all meetings convene ! for theRspeal of the Union ? He wished also to ask whether the Gjvernment did not intend to plica the Ca ^' . ie of Dnb j lin and the Pigeon-house in a state cf ddencs-( Cheers and loud laughter . ) S-s J . Graham said , that with ail resist for tha Hoa . Member he must decline answering ^ questions «> eiit . vui . . out of nis department . Herr ! tbe subject dropped . the

      Loi-a Stanley moved that the report of resolution passed on Friday , respecting the :.:. ?<*' tation of wheat and flour from Canada , sh-ald 1 » brought up . Mr . M . Gibson proposed to the House-to iffir . j £ 3 an amendment that the reduction of the import duty int 0 Eaglind ounht not to be made contingent upon aa toport duty ii . to Canada . He endeavoured to aistiugoi 8 " tiiis amendment from Lord John- Rasaelli which h 3 " been Drgativfd ou Friday . Dr . Bowhiso , in a few words , seconded 3 Ir . Gibson . Lord Stanley contended that this amendment was substantially the same with Lord John Russell ' s . Mr . Thornely followed , but / like the prricedio ? speakers , failed to make himself audible , amid the rotf of members eager to divide and dina . Mr . VitLiEas , for a few minutes , braved the sam » din ; and toe Hoik then divided , rejecting tho amendment .

      The resolutions having been reported , and leave && to bring in a bill founded up « n them , Sir James Grahaji moved the eonsideration of *• LoTds' amendments on the Totero * Registration Bin-These were agreed to . Lord Eliot then moved the second readiDgo * " Irish Arms Bill—a measura having for its object V > amend and continue the laws in Ireland relative to tns registration , importation , tnanuficture , and sola 0 inns . He gave a short history of tha origin and succes Ate renewals of the Irish Arms Aces , the ^ * ( Concluded in our seventh page . )

      Untitled Article

      g * , THE NORTHERN STAR . - ^ , _ ^ j . _/_ _

  • Citation
    • Northern Star (1837-1852), June 3, 1843, page 6, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/vm2-ncseproduct936/page/6/