Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

ministered for the purposes of either sedition by law, are guilty of an offence against the or mutiny."

statute, which, if clearly proved, would, upon conviction, be in every case followed by exemDrummond's Case. 1834. April 9 and 10. plary punishment. It is impossible that any This was an appeal to the Privy Council from well-ordered state of society could tolerate the an award of the Commissioners for liquidating existence of confederacies bound together by the claims of British subjects on France. The secret compacts and oaths not required by law, case is reported in 2 Knapp, p. 295. The head one of the obvious consequences of such connote is as follows:-"A person who possesses federacies being to deprive the State of the the characters both of a French subject under testimony of those who are engaged in them, a the municipal law of France and of a British state of things injurious to individuals, subsubject under the statute 13 Geo. 3. c. 26, as versive of the public order, and striking at the the grandson of a natural-born British sub- very existence of the State, by withdrawing the ject, although both he himself and his father allegiance of the subject from the laws of the were born in a foreign country, is not entitled land to the secret tribunals of unlawful societies, to claim compensation for a loss he has sus-constraining the conscience by oaths, and seeking tained from a confiscation of his property by to obtain their objects, whatever they might be, the French Government under a treaty between by popular intimidation."(a) Great Britain and France, giving compensation for such a loss to British subjects."

Countess de Conway's Case. 1834. June 13. This was an appeal from an award of the Commissioners for liquidating British claims on France. The case is reported in 2 Knapp, p. 364. The head note is as follows:-"The foreign wife of a British subject is not entitled to compensation for the loss of her separate property under a treaty providing such a compensation for British subjects, unless she has herself acquired a domicile in Great Britain at the time of her loss. A foreigner domiciled in Great Britain is, under such a treaty, entitled to claim compensation for his losses."

Count Wall's Case. 1834. June 22 and 27. This was an appeal to the Privy Council from an award of the Commissioners for liquidating British claims on France. The case is reported in 3 Knapp, p. 13. The head note is as follows: "The son of a British father who had entered into the service of France, and taken the oath of a

Knight of the Order of St. Louis, is entitled to the character of a British subject, although he himself was born in France of a French mother, and had served in the French army."

The King against Dixon. 1834. July 23. This was a prosecution under 57 Geo. 3. c. 19. s. 25, for becoming members of a society, the members whereof bound themselves by an oath. The case is reported in 6 C. & P. p. 601. The head note is as follows: "Every person who engages in an association, the members of which, in consequence of being so, take any oath not required by law, is guilty of an offence within the statute 57 Geo. 3. c. 19. s. 25." The society was a trades union of operative cordwainers of Cambridge. Bosanquet, J., in directing the jury, said: "I have no hesitation whatever in saying that confederacies like that which appears to have existed in the present case are as decidedly in contravention of the law of the land as they are pregnant with mischief to the community aud to the working classes themselves. It is for the sake of those who belong to associations like that of the late cordwainer's union of Cambridge that I now declare, that all who engage in associations, the members of which, in consequence of being so, take any oaths not required

0 61636.

Donegani against Donegani. 1834. Dec. 29 and 30. 1835. Feb. 2. This was an appeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeals of Lower Canada. The case is reported in 3 Knapp, p. 63. The head note is as follows:-"The prerogative of the Crown with regard to aliens must be determined by the laws of the particular colonies in which_the questions arise, and not by the law of England, which is only to be looked at in order to

determine who are, and who are not, aliens. The droit d'aubaine (b) became the law of Lower Canada, with regard to aliens, on the ancient French law being established there, by the 14 Geo. 3, cap. 83. The Judicial Committee have taken place between the parties in consewill not notice any alteration of rights that may quence of an Act of the provincial Legislature, but which do not appear on the record."

The Braye Peerage. 1836, February 26, to 1839, August 15. This was a claim to an Privileges. The case is reported in 6 Cl. & F. ancient barony referred to the Committee of 757. The head note is as follows:-" On the consideration of a claim to an ancient barony which has been long in abeyance, if the claimant proves that his ancestor sat as a peer in Parliament, and no patent or charter of creation can be discovered, it is now the established rule to hold that the barony was created by writ of summons and sitting, although the original writ of summons, or enrolment of it, is not produced. (c) A claimant of a barony and coheir is required not only to give notice to the other coheirs, but also to give primâ facie proofs of the pedigree of such of them as decline to claim the barony, to enable the House to make a satisfactory report to the Crown. The proper course for a coheir claiming a peerage in abeyance is to petition the Crown to terminate the abeyance in his favour; but if he does not claim the dignity, and it appears from the case of the claimant that he has an interest, the House will, on his petition, allow him to appear before the Committee of Privileges and present

(a) See also Rex v. Ball, 6 C. & P. 563. (b) See above, p. 713n.

(c) Vaux Peerage case, 5 Cl. & F. 526, and below, p. 1283.

S S

a case to protect his interest in the peerage. | sessed of supreme legislative authorify over that The minutes of evidence and proceedings before island and its dependencies, have such power, the Committee of Privileges in one case are not and were therefore justified in committing a necessarily receivable as evidence in another party guilty of publishing certain libellous paracase. One of the coheirs to a barony in abey- graphs which had been resolved a breach of the ance was attainted of treason, and his heirs and privileges of the House, to the custody of the descendants were restored in blood by Act of keeper of the common gaol in the county of Parliament. (a) Held that it is competent for Middlesex in that island, to be detained during the Crown to terminate the abeyance in favour the pleasure of the House. Quare whether the of the heir of the person so attainted, or of the warrant to the serjeant-at-arms, directing him to heir of any of the other coheirs." (b) take the appellaut into custody, justified him in committing such custody to the gaoler of the gaol in Middlesex."

The Vaux Peerage. 1836, March 3, to 1837, February 28. This was a claim by coheirs to an ancient barony in abeyance, referred [In Kielley v. Carson (1842), 4 Moo. P.C. 63, the Judicial Committee after two arguments to the Committee of Privileges. The case is declined to follow their previous decision in reported in 5 Cl. & F. 526. The head note on the principal point in the case is as follows:- Beaumont v. Barrett, three of the same members of the Committee being present and one "On a claim by coheirs to the dignity of a In Fenton v. baron, created in the reign of Henry 8, and in (Bosanquet, J.) being absent. abeyance from the reign of Charles 2, they Hampton (1859) 11 Moo. P.C. 347, the Judicial Committee followed Kielley v. Carson in preproved that their ancestor sat among the peers in Parliament in the 25th of Henry 8: that he ference to Beaumont v. Barrett. In Doyle v. was duly summoned to and sat in the Parlia-Falconer (1866), L.R. 1 P.C. 328, the Judicial ment of the 28th of Henry 8, and that he and his heirs male-who were also his heirs general

-were summoned to and sat in several succeeding Parliaments, by the style and title of Lord Vaux of Harrowden. To account for the want of evidence of a writ of summons prior to the sitting in the 25th of Henry 8, they showed that there were no Lords' Journals extant from the 7th to the 25th of Henry 8; that the enrolments of writs during that period were very imperfect; and that although the Patent Rolls were complete, no patent or charter of creation of a barony of Vaux, nor any record or trace of such patent, was discovered, after the most diligent searches in all the offices for records. Held, that the barony of Vaux was created by writ of summons and sitting in Parliament, and was therefore descendible to heirs general."

Beaumont against Barrett.(c) 1836. June 17. This was an appeal to the Privy Council from the judgment of the Court of Errors of Jamaica, affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, overruling the general demurrers of the appellant to the pleas of justification pleaded by the respondents in an action of trespass and false imprisonment brought against them by the appellant. The case is reported in 1 Moo. P.C. p. 59. The head note is as follows: "The power of punishing contempts is inherent in every assembly possessing a supreme legislative authority; whether they are such as tend indirectly to obstruct their proceedings, or directly to bring their authority into contempt. The House of Assembly in Jamaica, being pos

(a) 7 Jac. 1. No. 18, intituled "An Act for the restitution in blood of the son and two daughters of George Brooke, late attainted of high treason."

(b) See below, the opinion of the judges in the Camoys Peerage case, which applied also to this case.

(c) See as to this case the remarks of Blackburn, J., in Reg. v. Eyre, 64; and Forsyth's Cases on Constitutional Law, 25.

Committee again followed Kielley v. Carson and Fenton v. Hampton in preference to Beaumont v. Barrett.]

In re Adam. 1837. July 4. This case was heard by the Judicial Committee upon a petition of complaint presented to His Majesty in Council by Mr. Adam, late of the island of Mauritius. The case is reported in 1 Moo. P.C. p. 460. The head note is as follows: "The status of a party resident in the Mauritius must be determined by the laws of England, but the rights and liabilities incident to such a status must be determined by the law of the colony. By the 13th Art. of the Code Civil (which prevailed in the Mauritius previous to its surrender to the British Crown in 1810) the domicile of an alien can only be obtained par l'autorisation du Gouvernement, which, according to the law and practice of France, is an express and formal authority of the Government, and not merely a tacit or permissive acquiescence, for the residence of an alien friend in the island. Where, therefore, an alien friend had, by an order of the Governor and Colonial Council, been deported and directed to quit the island within a month, it was held by the Judicial Committee, to whom the case was referred by the Crown, that such order was consistent with the law of France, and strictly legal, notwithstanding that it appeared that the party so deported had enjoyed the privileges and exercised the rights of a person duly domiciled in the island."(a)

Hunter, Peter Hacket, Richard McNeil, James Her Majesty's Advocate against Thomas Gibb, and William Maclean ("The Glasgow Cotton Spinners' Case "). 1838. January 3 to 11. This case is reported in Swinton's Justiciary Cases, 1, 550, and 2, 1.(b) There are also special reports by Archibald Swinton, Advocate, Edinburgh, 1838, and by James Marshall, Edinburgh,

(a) See Low v. Routledge, L.R. 1, Ch. 42; Routledge v. Low, L.R. 3 H.L. 100.

(b) See as to this case Alison's Life and Writings, 1, 387.

1838. There is also a report published by the Glasgow Committee of Trade Delegates. The case was tried before the Lord Justice Clerk (The Rt. Honble. David Boyle) Lords Mackenzie, Moncrieff, and Cockburn, and a jury. The prisoners were charged on criminal letters with illegal conspiracy of workmen forcibly and illegally to keep up wages by means of threats and acts of violence, and also with the murder of a fellow workman. The head note in Swinton, Justiciary Cases, 2, 1, contains the following passage:

"1. (1) An objection to an indictment containing several major propositions, that each minor could not be specially referred to one of the majors which at once reached and covered it, repelled. (2) A conviction of a substantive crime, such as murder or fire-raising, is incompetent under a charge of conspiracy, of which an act of that nature is stated to have been one of the means. (3) An act of murder having been charged cumulatively, as committed by one of five pannels under the instigation and direction of the rest, as also by the whole five directly, the first statement held to be a relevant charge of murder against all the pannels and the second departed from as inconsistent with it. 2. It is no objection to the admissibility of a witness for the prosecution that a reward has been offered by a royal proclamation to any person who should give "such information and evidence as would lead to the discovery and conviction" of the guilty party. (See Swinton's Special Report, p. 64.)

5. In a case of conspiracy, a letter evidently relating to the business of the conspiracy, addressed to one of the pannels, and found in his house three or four days after his apprehension, although there is not sufficient proof that it was written by a co-conspirator, is an admissible article of evidence. (a)

"I consider it quite sufficient to render the letter admissible as evidence that it was addressed to Hacket and found in his house, and that it is reasonable to suppose it was there before he was apprehended. The existence of a letter so addressed and so found seems to me a very important article of circumstantial evidence connected with the conspiracy."-Lord Mackenzie, Swinton's Special Report, p. 131.

"It is a letter purporting to be written by a person employed at the time in the business of the association, and in regard to matters then in dependence. I hold that we are bound to look into the contents of the letter, and when we do so it raises a difference between it and the document rejected in the case of Hardy (b) (though even that decision may be considered doubtful, since so eminent a criminal lawyer as Mr. Justice Buller was in the minority), and brings it within the other cases."-Lord Moncrieff, ibid., p. 132.

Reading it (the letter), as the Court are entitled and bound to do, we find that it is a paper

(a) See 2 Starkie on Evidence, pp. 234, 235; 2 Hume, 396; Burnett's Criminal Law, 486; R. v. Hardy, 24 St. Tr. 354, 518; R. v. Watson, 32 St. Tr. 360.

(b) 24 St. Tr. 19.

regarding this association and traced into the possession of the individual to whom it was addressed, one of the office bearers of the association. I read it as I would read any anonymous letter, or any paper or placard, or as I would look at a plan or at one of those packets of combustibles produced in evidence yesterday. I view it not as a letter, but simply as an article touching the common cause and traced into the hands of a prisoner. The only English case of all those referred to in which a paper was produced not as the declaration of a particular individual was the trial of Watson for high treason, in which a paper bearing no signature was proposed to be read. The objection by Sir Charles Wetherell was that there was no evidence about it. But the Court entertained a doubt in regard to its production on a different ground, which was this, that on reading the paper they were not satisfied that it was ever intended it should be used in the common cause."(a)-Lord Cockburn, p. 133.

7. The obtaining a certain certificate having been founded on as a ground of suspicion against one pannel, and the fact of having granted it against four others, the statement made by the party on applying for such certificate, held a part of the res geste, and allowed to be proved in exculpation. (6)

8. A number of witnesses to a defence of alibi, who, shortly after the commission of the crime, had signed in presence of one another a joint certificate, and at the same time conversed together in regard to the times, places, and circumstances to which the defence referred, allowed to be examined cum nota, principally on the ground that there was not sufficient proof of agency to connect the pannel with the procuring the certificate, but a unanimous opinion expressed by the Court that if the act of one pannel had disqualified the witnesses from giving evidence in his favour, they could not have been received in favour of the others.(c)

The jury having found the prisoners guilty of three of the charges as libelled, Lord Mackenzie in passing sentence said:

"I am perfectly aware that mere combination for the purpose of raising wages is not prohibited by the law of Scotland. It was once illegal, but the combination laws were repealed. I was one of the persons who approved of that repeal. Be that as it may-no matter who approved or disapproved-they were repealed. But the conspiracy in which the prisoners joined was a combination not merely to raise wages, but to do so by using illegal means. It was a conspiracy to deprive the employers and the employed of their undoubted rights, by force and violence, to rob the one class of their right to employ labourers at such prices as the latter were willing to receive, and to rob the other class of their right to dispose of their labour at such prices as might be agreeable to themselves. A conspiracy of this sort, when widely spread, affecting a multitude of people, and when threats and violence and actual assaults are used to numbers, and used in re

(a) 32 St. Tr. 354.

(b) Swinton, Special Report, 212. (c) Swinton, Special Report, 227.

peated instances, to promote its purposes, I must consider as a very serious crime. It is an offence particularly against the very class to which these prisoners themselves belong. That class are dependent for the subsistence of themselves and their families upon their labour. If they are deprived of that, they are reduced to misery; and yet here is a power formed with the intent of so depriving them of their laboura tyranny by which, if they dare to exercise their natural rights, they are subjected to lawless violence. The guilt of the conspiracy, proved by the verdict of the jury, applies, no doubt, to all the members of it-to all those who, not being forced into it, willingly joined it; but it applies more particularly to the pannels, who were the ruling parties in the conspiracy-through whose agency the vast extent of mischief which resulted, has been principally occasioned. Under these circumstances in the execution of my duty I feel it incumbent upon me to propose a punishment of a very serious nature. When I look at the appearance of those persons, when I consider their characters, respectable except in reference to this crime, it is most painful to me to propose such a sentence. I am, however, afraid, that though not otherwise disreputable persons, their characters have been in one respect deeply deteriorated. By long connexion with this association it is plain that, to a certain extent, their sense of religion and morality was extinguished, and that they came to regard their own interests, and the interests of the conspiracy to which they belonged, as paramount to all other considerations-that they came to reckon the rights of other men as comparatively nothing. It seems as if their minds had undergone a species of delusion in this respect. But these considerations cannot exempt us from awarding such a punishment, as may be adequate to their guilt, and sufficient to deter others from imitating it, and, therefore, I feel myself under the necessity of proposing that the prisoners be transported for the period of seven years."

Lord MONCRIEFF added: "The prisoners are proved to have been engaged in a conspiracy. It was a most dangerous conspiracy-an illegal conspiracy-originating in an association which had existed for many years, as the minor proposition of the indictment in its commencement narrates: it was a conspiracy for the deliberate purpose, not of raising the rate of wages by withholding the labour of its own members, but of withdrawing or excluding from employment by force and violence, by threats and intimidation other persons who had as good a right to dispose freely of their labour as the members of this association had to use theirs. And the indictment further sets forth, under the first charge, that the association having been formed, and being of the description which has been stated (I do not allude to any part of the indictment that is inconsistent with the finding of the jury), took certain steps for the promotion of their object-among others, that they appointed a guard committee to deter, by molestation and threats, the workmen from attending the mills. The jury have found it proved that this guard committee was appointed for the purpose of

impeding and besetting the mills--endeavouring to deter the operatives from proceeding to labour-and not only to deter those actually employed from working, but also to prevent or deter all others from accepting employment, under the rate of wages at which they themselves were willing to work. This is found proved as a general point in this indictment, without any reference to special acts of violence. The conspiracy which was so formed, and which was engaged in those proceedings, appears to have widely spread, as all the evidence shows. The indictment further states two special instances, in which the mills were in fact so beset by persons, procured and hired by the guard committee for the purpose of molesting and intimidating the working operatives. The first was at Oakbank, the character of which we know from the evidence; and the extent to which it went, and the alarming character it assumed, are particularly made known to us by the testimony of the Sheriff. We see that the conspiracy was of a most formidable character-such as could not be tolerated in any civilized land--and that a system was carried on, which was calculated to destroy the whole trade and manufactures of this kingdom. Then the third charge, which has been found proven, relates to the molestation at Mile End factory. That charge contains a statement with regard to certain persons who were convicted for acts of assault and violence, before the Sheriff, who, however, dispensed with pronouncing sentence, on an undertaking by the agent for those persons, and who was also the known agent of the association, that the guards should be withdrawn; and then a meeting of the association was held, when it was resolved that the guards should be withdrawn accordingly. When we look at the first charge which is found proven, in reference to the nature of this guard committee, and to the third charge, which states the manner in which this transac tion took place, can we fail to see that the same system was still carried on to which the first charge unquestionably applies—and that they did not carry into effect the resolution held out, of permanently withdrawing the guards? Can we overlook the fact that after that arrangement or minute of the 15th of June, those persons to whom the term of reproach, nob, was applied were still molested? The jury have found the charge as to the appointment of a secret select committee not proven, and we must lay that aside; but it appears that the guard committee, though ostensibly withdrawn, in point of fact was not withdrawn. Looking at the whole transaction and not straining anything-we exclude from our consideration, either that minute, or the circumstances which occurred after it was made, but must see from the whole that the arrangement was not carried into effect. We must look to the whole circumstances, so far as they bear on the charges found proven by the verdict of the jury. I concur in the sentence which has been proposed; and I consider this association as one of the most dangerous conspiracies that has been seen in this country for a long period. It is to

cannot

me matter of great astonishment, how it should be possible, for men possessed of the understanding, which it appears that all or most of the prisoners possess, so to pervert their minds and moral principles as to believe at the very time when they are asserting their own liberty to work or not, that they are entitled to force their brethren to cease from working whether they will or not? It is of vast importance to the subjects of this country, that every man should be enabled to bring his labour freely to the best market within his reach; and surely that must imply that the liberty to labour or not to labour should not be at the mercy of any domineering power. One man is as free as another to bring his labour to market. It is impossible to say what would be the result if such a system of restricting labour as that contemplated by the association could be tolerated. It seems to proceed from some unaccountable delusion leading to the most deplorable con. sequences that men should think that they can raise and keep up the rate of wages by destroying the capital by which alone the trade of the manufacturers is sustained. If the conspirators could have succeeded in their plans, and prevented everybody but themselves from disposing of their labour as they pleased these manufacturers would have speedily come to utter loss and ruin, and the whole trade would have received a shock from which it might never have recovered."

The LORD JUSTICE CLERK: "The verdict of the jury has stamped this association of cotton-spinners in Glasgow as an unlawful association; and no man that heard the evidence with regard to its nature, its character, and its proceedings, even for a considerable period of time previous to the commission of those acts of conspiracy, can entertain the slightest doubt that it was unlawful in its structure, utterly unlawful in its objects, utterly unlawful in the means which it resorted to for the purpose of effecting those objects. I gave no such opinion when I was addressing the jury; but I state now the impression produced on my mind by the evidence disclosed, which was of a most extraordinary nature, and which

Ishowed that this was an association of a most illegal and dangerous description-illegal in its nature, most injurious and dangerous in its consequences, not only to the public, but to the members of the association themselves, to promote whose interests it professed to be at first established. When I recollect the nature of the general evidence laid before the jury, and forming the foundation of that part of the verdict to which no objection has been made-when I recollect that that evidence is sufficient to appal heart of this country an institution should be established for carrying into effect designs so dangerous, so disgraceful in their nature, I must say that a more fearful state of bondage never was exhibited on the face of this earth than that in which those members were held, who presumed for one moment to exercise their legal rights, and do what they thought proper in the disposal of their labour. They were under a species of slavery which was worse than the worst which has been proved to exist in civilised

the stoutest heart-when I think that in the

society; placing them in a condition of subserviency, ready to perpetrate the worst crimes at the bidding of their ringleaders, hardened in their hearts, and set against all orders of the community, and under the pretext of promoting the interests of the operative cotton-spinners, bringing destruction on that manufacture in which they were particularly engaged. It is the bounden duty of this Court, to convince the people of this country, that the practice of this most dangerous system will no longer be permitted to exist within the bounds of this kingdom. For the purpose of deterring others from persisting in these evil courses, and of bringing a part of the community back into a state of order-in order to show the danger in which they are involved, and to protect the real interests of the operative classes of the community, and particularly that class to which you belong, it is indispensably necessary that you should be visited with the punishment which, under all the circumstances of this case, notwithstanding that the other charges have been found not proven upon grounds which must be perfectly obvious to yourselves, we must pronounce. Prepare yourselves, therefore, for removal to another country where you will not be permitted form such unlawful associationswhere no conspiracy will be permitted to exist. You can only prosper there by conducting yourselves in a legal and orderly and honest manner, by not encroaching on the rights of others in any way whatsoever, but by submitting yourselves to that labour which is necessary, and which will most undoubtedly be exacted from you, and by following a course of uniform rectitude. At this late hour, after such a lengthened trial, I shall say no more than that, while we find it our bounden duty to award this punishment, we certainly lay out of consideration entirely, not only the tenth charge, but also all the other charges which the jury have found not proven."

The Camoys Peerage. 1838, March 27, to ancient barony referred to the Committee of This was a claim to an 1839, August 27. Privileges. The case is reported in 6 Cl. & F.

789. The head note is as follows:-" One of had been created by writ of summons and sitting several coheirs to a barony in abeyance, which in Parliament, was attainted of high treason. His son and heir was restored in blood only, by Act of Parliament, (a) expressly excepting honours and hereditaments. Held, that it is competent to the Crown to terminate the abeyattainted coheir, or of the heir of any of the ance of the barony in favour of the heir of the other coheirs, and that the right to terminate the abeyance in favour of any of the other coheirs was not at all affected by the attainder. A claimant to a peerage in abeyance is bound to give notice to all the coheirs known to him to be existing (b); and notice by letter through the post office is not sufficient. Coheirs to a peerage

(a) 1 Eliz. No. 32, intituled "An Act to restore in blood the sons and daughters of Edward Lewknor, Esquire.'

(b) See The Vaux Peerage case, 5 Cl. & F. 526, and above, p. 1283.

« AnteriorContinua »