Page images
PDF
EPUB

impossible, on any principle whatever, to say that anything said by these unknown persons (as to whom there is only a presumption that they had any connection with the prisoner) when they came to storm the house of this witness can be evidence. Supposing they came to rob the house is the prisoner to be affected by the attack on his money, his property, or whatever it might be? Are we to hear what they said in advancement of such an object ?-is that to be put as evidence against Brandreth? I do not know what the witness is to prove, but I put that as an instance to shew how many irrelevant and improper matters may be offered in evidence before the Jury, which could have no possible effect in carrying the case further than the general evidence of the rising could carry it, and which might introduce a great variety of circumstances which might prejudice the prisoner, not properly proved, not capable of being proved, and very likely in no degree connected with the prisoner. I submit to your Lordship, that beyond that general evidence nothing said by these parties to this man, at a distance of ten miles from that point to which the prisoner is brought, can possibly be given in evidence.

Mr. Attorney General. I humbly submit to your Lordships that these facts proved by the witness to have happened on Nottingham Forest are evidence. Then there comes a question, how far anything said by the persons so assembled on Nottingham Forest can be evidence ? Now, my Lord, this is a question of evidence like all others when a particular question of admissibility arises, that can neither be supported on the one side nor rejected on the other, by the mere statement of a general principle, whether what one man or ten men may have said at the distance of ten miles from the place, where the person who is upon trial happened to be at the time, may or may not be evidence, must depend upon the particular facts arising in the particular case before us at the trial, and also must depend upon this, whether that which is attempted to be proved to have been said becomes, in truth, and in fact, part of the transaction itself, and not a separate, distinct,

and different declaration, at a distance of place and a distance of time attempted to be introduced for the purpose of prejudicing. My learned Friend has not said this is done for the purpose of prejudicing, but my learned Friend Mr. Denman says it may happen to prejudice the particular person on trial. My Lord, it does not follow that because some things which have been said at the time anything was done are relevant, that irrelevant matters as Mr. Denman puts it are to be introduced, whenever the matter becomes irrelevant your Lordships will exclude it; but the question is, whether that which was done at the time, accompanied by the acts of these parties, be or be not relevant. Now, my lord, let us see how this case stands already we have got thus far, for of course I must beg the question, that everything proved by the witnesses at present is well proved, in order to argue how far this is admissible.

My Lord, the charge against the Prisoner is, that he conspired with certain other persons named, and certain other persons not named; and, in consequence of that conspiracy, levied war. A part of the case, as made out against the Prisoner, is, that he, together with certain individuals with whom he was personally present at a certain place in the county of Derby, were setting out upon their march to join other persons in the county of Nottingham, for the purpose of furthering and carrying on the traitorous purpose which we alledge they altogether had. My Lord, is it not open to us to prove these facts, in confirmation of the acts which they did in the county of Derby; in confirmation of the declarations which the Prisoner made in the county of Derby ?-Is it irrelevant in the first place to prove, that that which they stated to be their object was the true object, namely, the effecting a junction with certain persons whom they expected to find collected together at the Forest of Nottingham ?—Is it a relevant or an irrelevant fact that, shortly previous to the hour at which they might be expected to arrive there, there were persons collected together at the Forest of Not. tingham; and accompanied with circumstances similar to

those, of the persons who were about to join them, a certain number being collected together in the county of Derby, armed with guns and pikes, and a certain number collected near the Forest of Nottingham, armed with pikes? My Lord, is it no material fact that those persons, so collected together with pikes, had an object similar to those who were collected together in the county of Derby; and how are men's objects, who are collected together, to be ascertained but by that which they state at the time to be their object?

My Lord, if we were asking whether those men in the Forest of Nottingham had stated any circumstances happening at some other time, as a matter of a mere narration, there might be something in the objection; but we are not arrived at that yet, and, therefore, I will not discuss it: I know it might be done through the medium of legal evidence; but, when one of the questions will be, for what purpose were those men upon Nottingham Forest called together at that time, it will be recollected that the Pri soner has declared he was going to join men on Nottingham Forest: but, when we come to what they did, aye and what they said, for that I conceive is admissible too: the fact that they knocked at Mr. Roper's door is not objected to, then for what did they knock at Mr. Roper's door? That can be proved only by what passed at the time they knocked at the door by the declaration accompanying it; and, therefore, unless my learned Friend can argue that the going to Roper's house, and the knocking at his door, is not an admissible fact to be proved in this case, which I defy any Lawyer to do, neither can my learned Friends object to our saying to Mr. Roper,-When they did surround your house, and when they did knock at the door, what did they tell you they wanted?

My Lord, thus it is impossible to separate the two. It. is independent of the declarations of persons at other times irrelevant to the matter in issue; that which a man asks for, when he knocks at my door, is as much a fact as the act of stopping me, or the act of knocking at my door. You cannot separate the avowed declaration from

the act, though it is as to that which is done at a different place, when there is a fair ground laid by evidence to affect the Prisoner with the common object; such evidence has been admitted in all times, and one case occurs to me, I will not undertake to say whether actual decla rations in a different place were proved: I refer to a case of great importance, I mean Lord George Gordon's Trial; if I speak erroneously I shall be happy to be corrected. On that trial there were proved declarations of some of the persons concerned in the riots at that time, with whom Lord George Gordon was charged to be connected as to that which had been done in Scotland; and the Crown produced witnesses for the purpose of proving what had been done in Scotland with respect to Roman Catholic houses: and the Court admitted the evidence of what had been done in Scotland, because the persons charged were proved to have referred to what. had been done in Scotland, Now, how does that differ from this? The charge is, that the Prisoner, with others, were levying war. It is proved that one of the means by which they were about to effect that object of levying war, and that their ultimate object was to collect themselves together to march to Nottingham and Nottingham Forest, there expecting to meet another body of insurgents, who were to come there for similar objects. Then, if your Lordships can admit at all the evidence of persons being collected together at Nottingham, how can your Lordships be asked to reject what those men said. If I were to go into general reasoning upon the subject, it appears to me as well to say this,-Suppose we put the time that the Pretender invaded Scotland, you prove a declaration of an army in one county to shew they were acting with an: army in another, you could not, according to this, even prove the word of command. I ought to apologize to your Lordship for taking up so much time; I will only. say, we do not give this as distinct declaration, but as part of the res gesta on Nottingham Forest; and I submit that what they said to Mr. Roper, as to what they wanted, when they knocked at Mr. Roper's door, is a fact con

nected with the circumstance of their being assembled together with pikes at that hour of the night.

Mr. Denman. My Lord, my learned Friend, Mr. Attorney General, has referred to one authority upon this subject, with respect to which it certainly does appear to me to be necessary, very materially to correct my learned Friend's recollection, for I think if he had had an accurate memory of what was given in evidence upon that subject, he would not have asked how the cases differed, but have been extremely puzzled to find how they agreed. The imputation on Lord George Gordon was, that he, at the head of a mob, was destroying the mass-houses in London, levying war against the King in opposition to the laws in favour of the Papists, and that the motive by which he induced them to act was by telling them what had been done in Scotland, that the mass-houses had been destroyed there; adding, at the same time,-" Gentlemen, no good was done at Edinburgh till the mass-houses were destroyed; let us persevere and be firm, and the same measure will produce the same beneficial result." But had any thing been done in this case? Is it to be said that when there was this expectation expressed at Pentridge of a rising near Nottingham there had been any rising near Nottingham, or that the specific measure which had been pointed out had been taken by those Nottingham insurgents; if those specific declarations had been referred to, and my learned Friend had been able to prove by other evidence that they did pass, then the case would have resembled Lord George Gordon's. Lord George Gordon referred to what had taken place as a foundation of future mischief,-here what I submit is, that there is nothing proved at Pentridge but an expectation of similar mischief at Nottingham Forest. I object not therefore to the fact that arms were demanded in the one place as they had been in the other, but when my learned Friend wishes to go into the conversation between Mr. Roper and the ten or a dozen people who came to demand pikes, those persons being unconnected except by a very slight presumption with the individual who stands before your

« PreviousContinue »