Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

It was, therefore, of the utmost importance to show what was said by persons going or preparing to go to such a meeting. Doubtless, in an assembly of this kind many persons would go from different motivessome would go from mere curiosity-there would be others who would think there were public grievances which a meeting of this kind would prevent others might go meditating mischief immediately-others again might go there 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 of military discipline." In another part of his judgment Lord Tenderton says, "when we consider that these country people came marching in this way through the town of Manchester, bearing flags and banners inscribed with mottos, not merely containing high sounding words, as the counsel would infer (for the court cannot so view them), but inscriptions of No corn laws,'better die like freeemen than be sold like slaves,' and various other expressions of defiance, it is manifest there was an avowed intention to insult those who were entrusted 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 had." Mr. Justice Bayley, in giving judgment said: "It appears by the evidence in this case, that the meeting was composed of an immense number of persons; a very large portion of physical strength." It appears on the evidence in the case, that there was an elevation, from which elevation persons would have an opportunity of making speeches. And it appeared also, that amongst other persons there was one who had no particular connexion with the place, and who had come a considerable distance for the purpose of communicating his sentiments to the large body of people which was assembled at that place; and he might, by the intimations which he there made, give to that physical force so assembled, a direction which might operate either in perfect innocence, or with a great degree of danger to the public peace. It appeared that before that period it was notorious that he had been at another public meeting, at which public meeting there had been certain resolutions passed. I am referring to the Smithfield resolutions.

At that time then you are to judge what the language will be which he will make use of at the place where there is that large collection of physical strength, which may receive a direction from him-what is likely to be the direction which he may be disposed to give it." Mr. Justice Best, in giving judgement, stated, amongst other matters-" It appears to me impossible to say this drilling was innocent. If it it was not innocent, what was it? We have the key to it in the evidence of the witnesses- that though nothing was to be done at this meeting, yet when their numbers were seen, others would join, and they would be then enabled to overturn the government. And in a subsequent part of his judgment his lordship said" It is not necessary for the purpose of showing it was illegal to decide whether immediate mischief was to be then begun. I believe many went there without that intention; but I have had so much experience on subjects of this sort that I have known this to occur, that those who follow are more in a hurry for execution than those who plan. I think, therefore, that it is most probable that that which I have stated is correct, at least as far as regards the intentions of the leaders. Nothing

mischievous was to be done that day, they were only to ascertain the numbers, to accustom them to meet in large parties, to inspire mutual confidence, to incite others by the great numbers they presented to join in the scheme of those who had embarked themselves; and at some future day, when the drilling would be more advanced-when, as was said by one of my learned brothers, they should have had a trifling addition made to their discipline, by having arms put into their hands-then the mischief was finally to be entered upon." It appears on the evidence in the case, that there was an elevation, from which elevation persons would have an opportunity of making speeches; and it appeared also that amongst other persons there was one who had no particular connection with the place, and who had come from a considerable distance for the purpose of speaking, and for the purpose of communicating his sentiments to that large body of people which was assembled at that place, and he might by the intimation which he then made, give to that physical force so assembled a direction which might operate either in perfect innocence, or with a degree of danger to the public peace. Were they to be told, and was it consistent with what the learned judge laid down, 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 peaceablywho might do so for the purpose of carrying out further the designs of his conspiracy, aware that the organisation was not complete, reserving the withdrawal of the mask which concealed his design until the time arrived for doing so. But 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. In p. 125 of the same book Lord Wynford said, " it appeared to him impossible that the drilling was innocent; it appeared to him that though nothing was to be done at the meeting, yet when their numbers were seen others would join them, and they should then be enabled to overturn the government," &c. In page 126, his lordship said " it was not necessary for the purpose of showing it was illegal to decide whether immediate mischief was to be then begun; he believed many went there without that intention; but he had so much experience on subjects of that sort, that he had known this occur, that those who follow are more in a hurry for execution than those who plan." This was the law laid down by Justices Bayley. Holroyd, and the present Lord Wynford.

He should trouble the Court with only one other case, the Queen v. Collins, p. 460, Carrington and Payne, in which a resolution of parties in Birmingham was set forth to the effect, that "the people of Birmingham were the best judges of their own power and resources to obtain justice." In this case Mr. Justice Littledale, in summing up, said, " that with respect to the second resolution, it is no sedition to say that the people of Birmingham had a right to meet in the Bull Ring, or any where else; but you are to consider whether the words that they are the best judges of their own power and resources to obtain justice,' meant the regular mode of proceeding by presenting petitions to the crown, or either house of

[ocr errors]

"In

parliament, or by publishing a declaration of grievances, or whether they meant that the people should make use of physical force, as their own resource to obtain justice, and meant to excite the people to take the power into their own hands, and meant to excite them to tumult and disorder. This was an authority more applicable to the present case than that before the court, when Justice Littledale pronounced his opinion. The only remaining authority was that of the King v. Burdett, page 178, of 4th Barnwall and Alderson. Having an idea that he had already trespassed too much upon the court on this branch of the proceedings, he would call their attention to the facts of that extraordinary case. In the King v. Burdett, 4th Barnwall and Alderson, 178, Lord Tenterden said, the King v. Powes and others, the trial proceeded upon this principlewhen no proof of actual conspiracy, embracing all the several conspirators, was attempted to be given in Middlesex, where the trial took place, and where the individual actings of some of the conspirators were wholly confined to other counties than Middlesex, but still the conspiracy as against all having been proved from the community of criminal purpose, and by their joint co-operation in forwarding the object of it in different places and counties, the locality required for the purpose of the trial was satisfied by overt acts, done by some of them in prosecution of the conspiracy in the county where the trial was had." He thought it might be convenient, in the opening of his address, to advert very shortly, and shortly he would do it, to the position in which the question of the repeal of the union stood at the time of the constitution of the Repeal Association. Shortly after the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, which received the royal assent in 1829, an association was formed in this city which changed its name upon various occasions, with the view to evade the law, but having in contemplation the repeal of the union. There being at that time a statute which had since expired, a temporary act, the then government, of which Lord Grey was the head, issued a proclamation in January 1831, suppressing that association. The proclamation stated :

By the Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of Ireland.

ANGLESEY.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, by an act passed in the tenth year of his late Majesty's reign, intituled an Act for the Suppression of Dangerous Associations or Assemblies in Ireland," a power is vested in the Lord Lieutenant, or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland, by his or their proclamation or order, to prohibit or suppress the meeting of any association, assembly, or body of persons in Ireland, which he or they shall deem to be dangerous to the public peace or safety, or inconsistent with the due administration of the law, or any adjourned, renewed, or otherwise continued meetings of the same, or any part thereof, under any name, pretext, or device whatsoever.

And whereas it hath been known to us, that an assembly or body of persons has been in the habit of meeting weekly, at a place in the

C

city of Dublin, called Home's Hotel, Usher's-quay, and that the said assembly has been designed, and the meetings thereof held for the purpose of disseminating seditious sentiments, and of exciting amongst his Majesty's subjects disaffection against the administration of the law, and

the constituted authorities of the realm.

And whereas we deem the existence of the said assembly or body of persons, and the meetings thereof to be dangerous to the public safety, and inconsistent with the due administration of the law:

We, therefore, the Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of Ireland, being resolved to suppress the same, do hereby prohibit the meeting of the said assembly or body of persons, and all adjourned, renewed, or otherwise continued meetings of the same, or of any part thereof, under any name, pretext, or device whatsoever, and being determined and resolved strictly to enforce the law and the penalties thereof against all persons offending in the premises, do charge all mayors, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and all other magistrates, officers, and others whom it may concern, to be aiding and assisting in the execution of the law, in preventing the meeting of said assembly or body of persons, and all adjourned, renewed, or otherwise continued meetings of the same, or of any part thereof, and in the effectual dispersion and suppression thereof, and in the detection and prosecution of those who, after this notice, shall offend in the respects aforesaid.— Given at his Majesty's Castle of Dublin, this 10th day of January, 1834, By his Excellency's Command.

GOD SAVE THE KING.

E. G. STANLEY.

This proclamation was issued by Lord Grey; and in the course of that year a question was put in the House of Commons to the then minister of the crown, Lord Althorp, relating to this question of the repeal of the union; and Lord Althorp, in that session of parliament of 1831, stated—" The case with respect to the government is this: The hon. member for Waterford has, it is well known, been exciting so much discontent in Ireland, has been keeping up what he calls agitation in that country, that although the conclusion of every speech, however violent or inflammatory, has been an advice to his auditors to be obedient to the laws, it must be evident to every unprejudiced man who has read those speeches, or who has marked the course which the hon. member has been pursuing, that this language and conduct has had but one tendency; namely, to incite to insurrection and rebellion thoughout the country. I repeat it, their direct tendency has been as I described it. What, I ask, has been the avowed object of the hon. member for Waterford's agitation? To obtain a repeal of the union. I would beg to ask any man who has considered what the repeal of the union must produce, whether it does not become the duty of government to employ every means in their power to prevent the accomplishment of an object which must directly lead to an entire separation of the two countries? Sir, I trust that those who seek for a repeal of the union will not succeed. If they do succeed it must be by succesful war, and, from the spirit of

my countrymen, I hold that to be impossible. The hon. member has made an allusion to such an extremity. I tell him that no man entertains a greater horror of war than I do; and of all descriptions of war I think a civil war is most to be dreaded. But, sir, I also tell him, that even civil war itself would be preferable to the dismemberment and destruction of the empire. I have felt it my duty to state thus fairly and boldly what are the views of her Majesty's government on this momentous subject." That was the position in which the government stood in '31, and it was a matter which was not to be overlooked, in considering the question which arose in the present case; for he would undertake before he closed his statement, to show that the object of the traversers in the course of the proceedings which formed the ground of the present action, was to obtain a repeal of the union by means otherwise than ceable, by the disaffection which was produced in the minds of the people, and by the organisation which was established throughout the land.

pea

It was not the first time that persons were found to preach peace, and to intend outbreak. An eminent English judge, (Grose,) in the case of the King v Joseph Hanson, said that men with rebellion in their hearts were often found to pretend peace. The effect of that proclamation in 1831, and of the strong opinion entertained by the then government, was to give a temporary check to the repeal agitation; but the very moment that the statute of the 10th Geo. IV., giving summary power to the executive, expired, the agitation was recommenced, and the repeal of the union was again brought forward: and in the commencement of the session 1833, his late Majesty, in his address from the throne, desired to be intrusted with such additional powers as might become necessary in Ireland for controlling and punishing the disturbers of the public peace, and for continuing in its strength the legislative union between the two countries. On moving the address to the throne, Lord John Russell, then a minister of the crown, in the course of his speech stated—“ Shall we now say that there ought to be a separation between England and Ireland at a time when, as I contend, all that has lately passed in that country shows that the objects in view are neither more or less than these --that an attempt is to be made under the name of a repeal of the union, and under the power of a separate parliament to disunite the two countries; to confiscate the property of all Englishmen who have property there; to overturn at once the united parliament, and to establish in the place of the King, Lords and Commons of the united kingdom some parliament of which the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) should be the leader and the chief." Another minister of the crown said "I told the hon. gentleman what I will now emphatically repeat, namely, that the question of the repeal of the union is the question of separation between England and Ireland, that the question of separation involves the question of the destruction of the British monarchy, and the setting up in its stead in Ireland a ferocious republic of the worst kind." The late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, then Lord Ebrington, declared on the same occasion that though he had the greatest horror of civil war he would prefer it to a repeal of the union.

This led to the passing of the statute called the coercion act which was a temporary statute, and has since expired. The effect of the passing of

« ForrigeFortsett »