treason, is a conclusion which my mind wholly and entirely repudiates.

It appears to me that every one of these counts contains a charge of conspiring: that is a charge of a misdemeanor which may be proceeded against at law; and I may say that this matter has been very much brought under my attention in respect of a charge of misdemeanor against certain servants for conspiring to defraud their master, and, in pursuance of that conspiracy, robbing their master. There a larceny was alleged as the overt act, and the larceny was proved in the course of the trial, and so the whole matter was very much brought under consideration at the trial, and under that of the full court afterwards.(a) The authorities were fully searched and gone into, and my mind has come to the clear conclusion that, it I find upon the face of an indictment a charge of misdemeanor at law, and further on I find a charge for a higher offence, a prisoner has no right to say, I am guilty of the higher offence and I claim that it shall be considered a charge of felony or high treason. Therefore I think the objection cannot be sustained.

SENTENCES.

ERLE, J. Prisoners at the bar, you stand convicted of a crime of very great magnitude. The counsel for some of you have been contending before me that the charge amounted to the crime of high treason; I have been of opinion that the charge as stated upon the record does not technically amount to high treason; but I am bound to tell you that the guilt proved against some of you approximates very nearly to the guilt of treason, or treasonable felony, and that part of this evidence, if the charge had been different, might have made some of you stand in danger of being transported for a long period. I say your guilt is most aggravated, for, if anyone would consider the consequences of lawless anarchy, they would see that, if a multitude excited to violence can put down the power of the law even for a few bours, in all human probability crimes of every description during that time might become rife and from the language which is established here the notion of murdering the peaceful inhabitants and burning towns of great wealth and importance has been familiar to the minds of some of you. It is guilt therefore of very great magni

tude indeed.

it has been said that your crime has been connected with the right exercised

(a) Reg. v. Button, 11 Q.B. 929; see Reg. v. Boulton, 12 Cox C.C. 87; Reg. v. Ferguson, Dearsley C.C. 427; Reg. v. Heywood, Leigh & Cave C.C. 451.

by the subjects of this realm of free discussion upon political subjects; but it is clear that the charge against you is entirely unconnected with free discussion. Rather the charge is brought against you for the purpose of maintaining free discussion-the charge being that you were willing to resort to measures of persecution and extreme violence against other subjects of the realm who do not concur with your views as to the political points which you were insisting on.

I feel it my duty to say that there is a considerable distinction in the guilt of those who stand before me. Some of you have addressed violent language to an excited multitude, probably ill-informed, probably in distressed circumstances-you yourselves being men of education, men of consideration, men of comparative comfort in point of means, applying all those advantages and all those faculties for administering the most pernicious moral poison to the unfortunate hearers who should be assembled around you. It is said that in times of excitement a great allowance should be made for excited language, but when it goes directly to the exhortation to the commission of such crimes as I have adverted to, persons who so misuse that privilege and misapply their faculties have incurred the most grievous responsibility. Some of you addressed meetings and some stood by, at least one stood by, presided and encouraged. You, therefore, stand all of you equally responsible in that respect: and it is therefore that in respect of you, Matthew Somers, you Robert Hopper, you Francis O'Donnell, and you George Smyth, some of you speaking and others presiding at these public meetings, I feel it my duty to inflict a severe punishment. The sentence upon each of you is that you be imprisoned in the county gaol of Lancaster for the space of two years, and that, at the expiration of that period, you find sureties for your good behaviour for two years, yourselves in 100%. each and two sureties in 251.

each.

With respect to you, Martin Boshell, the proof against you was of continuing for a long time in co-operation with the parties, but you never attended at any of these public meetings. With respect to you, Cuddy, the time when you were brought into this was not established clearly, certainly the part you have taken is not so important as that of the others, and therefore the sentence against each of you is that you be imprisoned in the gaol of Kirkdale for the space of one year, nd enter into your own recognizances at the end of that time to be of good be. haviour for the space of one year.

With respect to you, O'Brien, the sen

tence upon you shall be that yon be imprisoned in the same gaol of Kirkdale for the space of six months. And with respect to you, Murphy, considering the imprisonment you have had for this period against your will, the sens nce against you is that you be imprisoned in the same gaol for the space of three months. I order that this sentence be entered upon the first count of the indictment, and that the same sentence be entered upon each of the subsequent counts of the indictment, and that the same period of imprisonment be applicable to each count.

Attorney General: Your lordship has not mentioned the amount of sureties in the case of Cuddy and the other man?

ERLE, J.: I mean them merely to enter into their own recognizances. I do not require sureties.

Attorney-General: Will your lordship mention a sum ?

ERLE, J.: 1007.

Defendant Smyth: My lord, I am a man of business, and it has much suffered in consequence of this. I beg therefore to know if I shall be permitted to correspond with my wife on matters relating to business ?

ERLE, J.: It is not a matter which I can give you an answer to, because by the

stat te law of this country the internal regulation of every gåɔl is a matter which is vested in other authorities, and the judge who tries the case has no power over it. I am unable to answer it. Defendant O'Brien: I am sure I will not be able to stand six weeks more of this longer imprisonment.

Dearsley His application is if your lord-hip will be so good as to allow him to be imprisoned in Lancaster.

ERLE, J. There is no reason why that should not be done.

Pollock: The prisoners wish to know whether the two years is to include the period of their past imprisonment?

ERLE, J.: My opinion is that the offence is one of extreme magnitude; it is only by the practice in respect to misdemeanor that it is limited to two years. My opinion is that the guilt of the offence would authorize a much heavier sentence if the form of the charge had been different. It is not to include their previous confine

ment.

MATERIALS MADE USE OF.-The above report is abridged from the shorthand notes preserved at the Treasury. Tho indictment is taken from the copy with eunsel's brief preserved among the Treasury Solicitor's papers.

Thomas Rankin, William Grocott, Edward Clark Cropper, Daniel Donovan, John West, George White, James Leach, Michael M'Donough, William Chadwick, and John Nixon were arrested on bench warrants, and detained or held to bail to stand their trial at the Winter Assizes, which now came on at Liverpool before ALDERSON, B., on Monday, December 18th, 1848.

Counsel for the Crown: the AttorneyGeneral (Sir John Jervis). (a) Knowles, Q.C., Welshy, Monk, and G. F. Pollock.

Counsel for the defence: Edward James for Chadwick and M Donough, Atkinson for Grocott and Rankin.

The other defendants conducted their Gwn defence.

Defendant West: I should wish to hear the indictment read first before I plead. The first count of the indictment was read.

Defendant West: My lord, as that contains the substance of the charge against ine, I plead not guilty.

Defendant White: I consider I have no right to be called on to plead; I have no idea what the charges are.

ALDERSON, B.: You have heard them

read.

Defendant White: I have no chance of defending myself. I consider it will be an unfair trial. I do not know who the parties are that will swear against me.

ALDERSON, B.: There is no necessity for you to know that. You have only to know the charge against you in order to plead.

Defendant White: Then I plead not guilty.

Defendant M'Donough: I scarcely know now to answer the question right, inasmuch as I have no counsel or advice.

ALDERSON, B.: You know whether you are guilty of conspiring to break the laws of the country.

Defendant M'Donough: I was not guilty of conspiracy.

The other prisoners severally pleaded not guilty.

Iefendant West: I do not stand before your lordship in a position to have a fair trial. Her Majesty's Government has preferred a charge against me, which I only know because they have preferred it. I do not know who the parties are who are to come forward to swear that the

(a) Afterwards Chief Justice of C.P.

charge is a true one. I have never had a copy of the depositions or of the indictment. I am not prepared to substantiate my own innocence by bringing witnesses of my own to refute what may be sworn against me in the box.

ALDERSON, B.: So far as the law is concerned, I do not think it is open to you to have a copy of the depositions in a misdemeanor. (a) It is only lately that it has been given in cases of felony. That is no reason for your having it.

Defendant White: I have to make a similar application. My reasons are, if we are to refer to precedents, that I have on a former occasion received a copy of the depositions and a list of the witnesses.

Attorney-General: This is another instance of what has been done as a matter

of favour being turned into a precedent. When White was formerly indicted at Warwick, as a matter of favour he had a copy of the indictment and depositions given to him.

Defendant White: I am not much of a barrister, but I have a case to refer to, Rex. v. Parnell. The Lord Chief Justice granted the list in that case which we now apply for.

ALDERSON, B.: You cannot have a list of witnesses in a misdemeanor. I never heard of such a thing. Let me see what the authority is; I should like to know.

Attorney-General: There must be a mistake. I cannot help overhearing the defendants say they are tried under the same Act (b) as Daniel O'Connell in Dublin, and, therefore, they think they are entitled to the same advantages. It is no such thing.

ALDERSON, B.: They are not tried under any Act of Parliament. They are tried under the common law. I suppose it is the question raised upon the Writ of Error. There is not the least doubt in the matter. I am of opinion clearly you are not entitled to anything in a case of misdemeanor, such as a list of witnesses or depositions. The law has not yet given it you. When the law gives it to persons in your position, you shall have it. Defendant White: Then I enter my protest against it. I beg your lordship to take a note of that objection.

ALDERSON, B.: I shall do no such thing. The jury were sworn.

Defendant White: Previous to the pleadings I claim the same privilege as I had

(a) But see 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 114. s. 3, and 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42. s. 17. There were no depositions in this case, the defendants having been arrested on bench warrauts, after the indictment had been found by the grand jury. (b) 69 Geo. 3. & 1 Geo. 4. c. 4.