Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Others, I believe honestly, are of a different opinion; but it is wholly immaterial to this question which side is right and which is wrong; we are not now discussing the propriety of the Poor Law Amendment Act.

Stephens says that he is a devoted friend to the ancient institutions of his country, in so much that he regrets exceedingly that a form of expression which he says prevailed formerly in indictments is laid aside, and is very much offended because in this bill of indictment it is not alleged that he was "seduced by the instigation of the Devil." But was this a meeting for the preservation of the ancient institutions of the country? He says, you see, how very much he disapproves of the reforms which have taken place in our institutions. Now, was this an anti-reform meeting? Why what is there in the banners that stared Stephens in the face, when he was addressing the multitude from the hustings, and of which he expressed no disapprobation which animated his eloquence on that memorable occasion ? Stephens says he thinks the suffrage is now too much extended, and that it was wrong to depart from the system of our ancestors in which we had close boroughs with ten or half a dozen electors, and according to which system a vast proportion of the people did not enjoy the elective franchise at all. Stephens says he approves of the old system. Everything old meets with his approbation, even the old women whom he was to ply with rum. But what are the banners ? The more Stephens inquired into the matter in his cross-examination, the worse he fared, and when he asked Mr. Hibberd, "Did I not say something more ?" the answer was, Yes, you said you would lead them on, and lose every drop of blood in your body in this cause, if there were a rising? What was a rising? What did he contemplate? These industrious classes rising in a mass, and that there should be a sort of Jacquerie in this country; that persons of small or no property should rise against those who had property, and that there should be universal pillage and plunder. Did not these expressions prove every count in the indictment? Find your verdict, gentlemen, upon the evidence that is laid before you, upon the oath of the witnesses, since the trial began. If upon that evidence, you can entertain no reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant on this charge, you will not shrink from pronouncing a verdict of guilty-if he has so debased the holy character that he fills, if he has so forgotten his duty to his God and to his Sovereign.

[ocr errors]

I think that little sympathy can be entertained for him, and that his punishment may operate as a most salutary example, and may have a powerful effect in restoring tranquillity and respect for the laws of the country.

:

SUMMING UP.

PATTESON, J. Gentlemen of the jury, there has certainly been introduced into this case much irrelevant matter by the defendant; and a great deal of that which he read, if it had been objected to, must have been stopped, because it had nothing to do with the question brought before you. I did not choose to interfere to stop it myself. The Attorney General, on the part of the Crown, did not choose to interfere to prevent the defendant from reading letters which could not have been given in evidence if objected to; because you must be well aware, gentlemen, that, as to anything published by the editor of a Manchester newspaper, the Government, who are the prosecutors, have nothing to do with that; and even if they had, that matter has nothing at all to do with the question here, because that publication had reference to an entirely different matter. I merely mention this in order that you may put it aside, and that we may clear the case of everything that is not really material to the issue. [The defendant (said his Lordship) had complained that in this case there had been no previous examination before the magistrates, when he might have heard what the witnesses said, and have known not merely the nature of the charge, but the way in which it was intended to be established. It was not necessary, and sometimes it was considered a hardship, if complaints of this sort were brought before magistrates and parties were held to bail; and it was very common in misdemeanors that the first step taken was indictment at the assizes or sessions. Therefore there was nothing extraordinary in this proceeding. Here the first step was by indict ment at the first assizes after the meeting; and if the Crown had even been ready to try then, the defendant would not have been bound to try unless he thought fit; and supposing he were ready, the Crown were not bound to try; and if they choose to remove the case, as the Crown has the right, and as the defendant has the right, if he show reasonable cause (about which we are not very particular) in the Court of Queen's Bench, then it was impossible to try it at the spring assizes, because it would be necessary for the defendant to appear and plead in the Queen's Bench; all of which steps would not be practicable during the assizes. Therefore this is the

earliest time when it could have been tried. There was also a complaint of some fire at Ashton having been laid to the charge of the present defendant. But the Court did not know, excepting from what the defendant read, that it ever was laid; and certainly what was in those papers did not seem sufficient to bear out the defendant's statement as to the editor of the Manchester Guardian, about which matter the Court knew nothing. As to the alleged speech of Mr. Fox Maule at Perth, or that of Lord John Russell in Parliament, the accounts of them were not verified in any shape; neither could they have been received in evidence at all, as they had nothing to do with the question at issue. Stephens said he had been an object of persecution and a marked man ever since he took a part against the Poor Law Amendment Act, and suggested some alterations in the Factory Act. Had this meeting upon the evidence anything to do with either of those Acts there might have been some force in the objection; but, as far as the evidence went, he (the judge) could not see that the meeting had had anything at all to do with those measures. As to the authorities to which the defendant had alluded to support his assertion, that, if Parliament passed a law against the law of God, no man was bound to obey it, some passages which the defendant had cited might appear to advocate some such opinion; but those passages were taken singly and without the context. The writers on those cases were writing on a subject of a very delicate and most difficult nature, and one most dangerous to be discussed, because approaching to the point where resistance against all law becomes justifiable-a question of the most difficult and delicate nature that could be conceived. The argument adduced by the defendant seemed to be, that if any of Her Majesty's subjects were of opinion that a particular Act was against the law of God, that Act was not binding upon the people. That, of course, was not the meaning of any of the writers quoted; and it would obviously be destructive of all law, for it would be impossible to know what was law and what was not. It was competent to any man to object to a law-not to disobey it, or to call upon the people in a body to disobey it; but to take the proper constitutional method to draw attention to it, and to show that it ought to be altered. But even to speak disrespectfully of a law could not be tolerated; much less that the subjects of the realm should be told that they might disobey it with impunity; still less that they might resist it by force. It really seemed to him that the greater part of what had been adduced by the defendant to the jury in his justification had nothing

to do with that which was the proper subject of inquiry. The observations which the defendant had made were adduced in very powerful language, with talent and ability, and with a fluency and power of language which he (the judge) had very rarely seen equalled, and which would undoubtedly make, as they ought to make, a great impression on the minds of the jury, provided that they really bore on the points in question.

The great point of the charge in the indictment was that the defendant was present at an unlawful meeting, inciting the people to unlawful acts. The definition of an unlawful meeting read from the books by the Attorney General was perfectly correct, one which was well known and generally adopted; viz., that wherever a body of persons met together in great numbers, in such a manner and under such circumstances as reasonably to excite terror and alarm in the neighbourhood where they were so assembled, that was an unlawful assembly. What was the object of the meeting? They must collect that from the evidence as to what took place; and if they found that the defendant was at the most material part of the meeting (whether or not he was in the procession was immaterial), then, if the meeting were illegal, if any man joined in an illegal meeting, he made himself answerable at all events for what took place subsequent to the time he joined it, if not before. The defendant, in the most deliberate part of his address to the jury, that which was worked up with most eloquence, showing that there could be no crime unless there were a criminal intention, said it was for them to see what his intentions were. The evidence of intention was to be collected by the jury from the acts which they found to have taken place. And whatever those acts were naturally and inevitably calculated to produce, that was to be taken as evidence of the intention to produce such results. We could not dive into the hearts of men to see their real intentions there; and we could only ascertain it by attributing to men such intentions as their acts manifestly seemed to imply. The circumstance alone of this meeting being held at night and by torchlight, would not of itself be sufficient to justify them in saying that it was an illegal meeting, but it was one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration. The object of the meeting might be fairly collected from the banners that were carried and their inscriptions: "For children and wife we will war to the knife." "Ashton demands universal suffrage or universal vengeance." The defendant said he was of no party in politics, Whig or Tory, or Radical, or any

other description of persons; that he had nothing to do with Chartism or universal suffrage or the ballot. If that were so it was certainly very extraordinary that he suffered himself to be at the meeting where these banners were carried.(a)]

The jury, after a short consultation, found the defendant guilty.

PATTESON, J. Have you anything to say against judgment being now passed?

Defendant: No, my Lord, the Crown has had its own way throughout. I have nothing whatever to ask.

PATTESON, J.: Joseph Rayner Stephens, the jury, after hearing the address which the Attorney General made, the evidence on the part of the prosecution, and the address-the very powerful address-which you have made to them, have found you guilty of the charge laid in the indictment, which is in effect that of attending an unlawful assembly to the terror of Her Majesty's peaceable subjects, and addressing to the persons then assembled seditious language, inciting them to provide themselves with arms, and to resist the execution of the laws. In that verdict of course I entirely concur, because really there is no contradiction in the evidence of this case at all laid before us. The evidence is all one way; and as to the character of that meeting, I think there cannot be any doubt in the mind of any person who has heard this evidence. I am very sorry to have to pass sentence upon any person of your talents and ability, and of your education, for an offence of this sort; and if it be indeed true that you have hitherto advocated peaceable doctrines, and have endeavoured to inculcate upon persons whom you have attended in your ministerial capacity the notion of submitting to the constituted authorities of the country, and have only upon other occasions advocated a resistance to the Poor Law Amendment Act and nothing else, then indeed, although you would have been committed, by advocating such resistance, to a very great extent, yet there might be some sort of reason for saying you had a mistaken notion, that you had fallen into error in supporting that, because that law, in your judgment, was contrary to what you think you are bound to obey in the Law of God, therefore you were not bound to obey that law. But, on the present occasion, I can see no reason whatever for supposing for a moment that that meeting had anything whatever to do with the Poor Law Amendment Act. It is most unfortunate for you, if it be true that you have taken no part in politics, if it be true that you have

(a) See "Life of Joseph Rayner Stephens,"

P. 197,

not joined yourself to any denomination of persons, either Chartists, Radicals, or anything else, and have only endeavoured to conduct yourself, in the observations you have made, to the parties you have addressed from time to time, according to your notions of what is contained in the Bible-it is most unfortunate for you that you should have suffered yourself to act at all in any way at this meeting; because I am sure that a person of your education could not at all have been deceived as to the language contained on the banners, and as to the import of those inscriptions, as stated by the witnesses. And, therefore, if you saw, as you could not avoid, the inscriptions on the banners, which were ranged in a circle round the hustings, you should certainly have abstained from having anything to do with that meeting, according to your own principles which you have stated here to-day. How it came for you to mix with a meeting like that, if it be true that you are no Chartist, or care nothing for universal suffrage, I cannot at all understand; but certainly I can only look at the case upon the evidence laid before the jury, and upon the circumstances of this particular case only; and it is for me to pass such sentence as may deter other people from committing offences of this sort, whether you have by some strange infatuation suffered yourself to be brought into this meeting, and have not advocated such opinions at other meetings and upon other occasions; because really it is plain that unless persons who are instigating others to resistance to the laws, and to arm themselves for that purpose, are severely punished, the utmost confusion, violence, and probably blood. shed will prevail. And the persons who will be apprehended and punished will probably be those who carry into effect what is advised by others; those who give that advice being the most guilty persons. It is therefore the bounden duty of every Court, before which such a charge is laid against the person who has incited others, to visit that person with severe punishment, even more than the persons who have been so excited and have so acted. In this particular case no persons seem to have acted on the advice given; or at least, so far as I know, nothing followed; no violence or bloodshed, no serious injury to persons or property, appears to have flowed from any advice given by you at the meeting. But the tendency of that advice is of a most serious and alarming nature. Therefore I feel that I cannot do otherwise than pass such a sentence as I hope will have the effect of deterring other people from repeating or committing similar offences, and of convincing you that such expressions as were used by

you here, at a meeting on the 14th of November, cannot be suffered to pass with impunity, but must of necessity be visited with severe punishment. The sentence upon you is that you be imprisoned in the House of Correction at Knutsford for the term of eighteen calendar months, and that at the end of that time you find sureties for the term of five years for yourself in 500l., and two sureties in 2501. each.

Attorney General: My Lord, I shall not proceed to trial upon the other indict ments to which Stephens has referred steadfastly hoping and believing that the ends of justice are completely satisfied.

Stephens asked his Lordship whether the sentence precluded him from the use of pens, ink, and paper.

The learned judge said he did not know the regulations of the gaol.

Attorney General: My Lord, he may have pens, ink, and paper, and books, as far as I am concerned. God forbid that he should be debarred, as far as my influence extends, from anything that can alleviate the suffering he must endure.

The judge was understood to say that the prisoner might be allowed to have pens, ink, and paper, always taking care that it was forbidden to the defendant to write for publication anything of a similar character to that for which he had been convicted.

MATERIALS MADE USE OF. The above report is chiefly taken from the Northern Star, August 17, 1839. The reports in the Times and Manchester Guardian of that date have been consulted and made use of. Aid has also been derived from the Life of Stephens by Holyoake.

CASE OF THE SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX.

PROCEEDINGS UPON A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE CASE OF THE SHERIFF OF MIDDLESEX, BEFORE LORD DENMAN, C.J., LITTLEDALE, WILLIAMS, AND COLERIDGE, J.J., IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AT WESTMINSTER, ON JANUARY 27, 1840. (Reported in 11 A. & E. 273, 3 P. & D. 349, 8 Dowl. P.C. 451, and 4 Jur. 70.)

To a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, &c. it was returned by the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons that he detained the prisoners on the following warrant, directed to him by the Speaker:

"Martis 21° die Januarii, 1840.-Whereas the House of Commons have this day resolved that W. E. and J. W., sheriff of Middlesex, having been guilty of a contempt and breach of the privileges of this House, be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, these are therefore to require you to take into your custody the bodies of the said W. E. and J. W. and them safely to keep during the pleasure of this House, for which this shall be your sufficient warrant.

"Given under my hand, &c.

"CHARLES SHAW LEFEVRE, Speaker."

Commitment for Contempt by House of Commons-Jurisdiction of Court of Law.

Held by the Court, that

1. A warrant of commitment by order of the House of Commons for contempt of the House need not specify the grounds of the order;

2. Whatever jurisdiction a court of law may have when the grounds are specified in the warrant, it has no jurisdiction to inquire into their existence or sufficiency when they are not specified, and in such case the return of the warrant is conclusive;

3. The Court will take judicial notice of the office of the Speaker of the House, and of his authority to give effect to its order;

4. The warrant was not vitiated by verbal defects.

January 23, 1840.-R. V. Richards moved for a writ of habeas corpus requiring Sir William Gosset, Knight, Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, or other person having the custody, &c., to bring before this Court the bodies of William Evans, Esq., and John Wheelton, Esq., with the day and cause of their being taken and detained, &c., to undergo, &c.

The motion was made on the affidavit of Messrs. Evans and Wheelton, sheriff of Middlesex, which set out the various proceedings in the cause of Stockdale v. Hansard, down to the return of the vendi. tioni exponas.(a) It then stated that they had declined paying over to the plaintiff

(a) December 19, 1839. See above, p. 947.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinua »