Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

R v Edmonds and Others

State Trials Cited authorities 13 Cited in 2 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date04 August 1821
Date04 August 1821
CourtState Trial Proceedings
7 & 8 Will. 3. c. 32. Summoning of Jurors
3 Geo. 2. c. 25. Special Jurors
55 Geo. 3. c. 26. Corn Law Act, 1815
THE KING against EDMONDS AND OTHERS, TRIAL OF GEORGE EDMONDS, CHARLES MADDOCKS, JOHN CARTWRIGHT, THOMAS JONATHAN WOOLER, AND WILLIAM GREATHEAD LEWIS FOR SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, BEFORE LORD CHIEF BARON RICHARDS AND A SPECIAL JURY AT THE SUMMER ASSIZES AT WARWICK, ON AUGUST 3 AND 4, 1821. PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF KINGS BENCH (BEFORE ABBOTT, C.J., BAYLEY, Houton), AND BEST, J.J.) ON A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENT. (Reported in 4 B. & Ald. 471.) The defendants attended a meeting at Birmingham on the 2th July 1819, at which speeches reflecting upon the House of Commons as then constituted wene made, and resolutions were passed for the election of a "legislatorial attorney," who would claim admission to the House as a representative of Birmingham. The defendants were convicted upon an indictment alleging a conspiracy to excite discontent and disaffection, and, in particular, to procure the election of a representative in Parliament without lawful authority. A special jury had been struck by an officer of the Court. 1. Seditious Conspiracy. Persons taking part in a meeting for such a purpose au that alleged in the indictment were guilty of a seditious conspiracy. 2. Partiality in striking Jury. The proper mode of questioning the conduct and indifference of the officer of the Court striking the jury was by an application to the Court, and not (as in the case of a sheriff or coroner) by challenge to the array ; There was no impropriety on the part of the officer is selecting as jurymen such persona only as were in the jury list described as esquireE, nor in including tome who were justices ; but held that it was improper to include persons who had served on the grand jury which had found the indictment; 3. Challenge of Jurors. No challenge can be made until a full jury has appeared; expressions of jurors are not ground of challenge, unless they indicate personal ill-will ; questions cannot be put to a juror for the purpose of obtaining admissions of ill-will; and if a challenge is illegally denied, this is no ground for a new trial at the discretion of the Court,(but is ground for a venire de novo as mattes of right). 4. Bill of Exceptions. A bill of exceptions does not lie in a criminal case. A public meeting was held on the 12th July, 1819, at New Hall Hill, near Birmingham, for the purpose of " taking into consideration the best means of obtaining a representation of the people of Birmingham in Parliament, and all of the unrepresented inhabitants of the Empire."(a) It w as attended by the defendants. Speeches were made by Edmonds, Lewitt, and Woofer; and the following resolutions were adopted : (a) See below, p. 808, " Resared, (1) That in the shameful facto which the quarrelling of rogues at Barnstaple, Penryn, end Grampound (a) have brought to light, we Lave a lively picture of the bribery and abominati His which almost, if not altogether, universally prevail in those sinks of corruption called open boroughs. "Resolved, (2) That in an infamous transaction at Deheeter, in the depth of last winter, we (a) See Annual Register, 1820, 23 ; Mays Constitutional History of England (3rd ed.), 1, 409. 787] Trial of Edmonds and others, 1821. [788 at once see the distracting spirit and the true means by which unprincipled peers as well as others who are candidates for the peerage have metamorphosed open boroughs into close boroughs for the purpose of guilty ambition. " Resolved, (3) That so long as such unprincipled peers and would-be peers shall have at their absolute command a great majority of the seats in the Commons House, which is nothing short of subversion of the Constitution, it is manifest they will contrive to defeat a reform of that House, until the injured people, determined on recovering their liberty, shall become so numerous, and shall raise a voice too awful to be treated with contempt. "Resolved, (4) That a number of gentlemen in whom this meeting confide having stated that there has now for a year and a half past been before the public (published by Effingham Wilson, of London, bookseller) a Bill of Rights and Liberties(a) for effecting a radical reform in the House of Commons on the simple principles of voting for representatives (which is a common right) being exercised by all men of mature years and sound mind who have not forfeited the right by any crime, the votes being given by ballot and the representative body being renewed once a year, it is the opinion of this meeting that the said Bill ought to be adopted and passed into law. "Resolved, (5) That the complaint, remonstrance, and petition which has been read is adopted as the act of the meeting. " Resolved, (6) That for putting on a new and equitable issue their just and undeniable rights to a full enjoyment of the sacred laws, liberties, and free customs of their country, as largely and wholly as they ought to be enjoyed, the said inhabitants of Birmingham will now forthwith proceed to elect one gentleman in whom they can confide as their legislatorial attorney and representative, in whose person they will try the question of their right to Parliamentary representation, and who shall be instructed to claim on their behalf admission into the Commons House as a member thereof ; and in the event of his being acknowledged and received as their representative accordingly, then and there to use his utmost endeavours towards obtaining equal and complete justice to the Commons of the Realm universally by securing to them an annual election of legislatorial representatives to be elected by ballot. " Resolved, (7) That Sir Charles Wolseley, of Wolseley, in the county of Stafford, Baronet, is elected Legislatorial Attorney and Representative of the Inhabitants of Birmingham, and instructed to claim on their behalf by letter to the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons admission into that House as a member thereof, as well as to communicate on the occasion the present as well as the immediately foregoing resolve of this meeting, to be by the said Speaker laid before the House. "Resolved, (a) That our said respected representative, in the event of his being admitted as (a) See below, p. 804n. such to a seat in the Commons House, is hereby instructed to move for the adoption of the aforesaid Bill of Rights and Liberties ; but in it contrary event, to provide a proper manuscript draught of the same, and use his utmost endeavours for having it proposed in Parliament by some other member. " Resolved, (9) That a deputation, consisting of the Chairman and such other persons as he may think proper, do wait upon Sir Charles Wolseley with the resolutions appointing him to represent the inhabitants of Birmingham in Parliament ; and that Major Cartwright and Mr. Wooler be requested to accompany the deputation to join their personal entreaties to induce his compliance with dm wishes of the meeting." A true Bill against the defendants was found by the Grand Jury of the county of Warwick, at the winter assizes for the county of Warwick, 1819. At the instance of the Crown, it was removed by certiorari into the Court of Kings Bench. A special jury was struck on the 25th February 1820 by the Master of the Crown Office. He did not select names from the Freeholders Book by any method of chance, but chose persons having in that book the designation " Esquire." (a) On the 26th February, 1820, the defendants took out a summons to set aside the nomination of special jurors. HOLROYD, J., refused to make any order. The defendants were severally held to bail, and appeared (the defendant Cartwright in person) in Michaelmas Term, and imparled, with the exception of the defendant Cartwright, who pleaded Not Guilty. The other defendants pleaded the like plea in Hilary Term, 1821.(b) FIRST DAY OF null,. Warwick, August 3, 1821. Before Lord Chief Baron Richards and a Special Jury. Counsel for the Crown : Serjeant Vaughan; Clarke; Reader ; Balguy. Counsel for the Defendants : Denman for the defendants Edmonds and Haddocks ; Hill (c) for Cartwright. The four following special jurymen answered to their names : Stephen Barber, Esquire, John Harris, Esquire, George Lucy, Esquire, Talruis Craig Bicknell, Esquire. [Serjeant Vaughan prayed a tales. Denman, applied to have the case adjourned on the ground that a person whose (a) They were stated to be 75 out of 2,543. Papers of Solicitor of Treasury, 2,206. (b) Papers of Solicitor of Treasury, 2,20G. (c) Afterwards Recorder of Birmingham. 789] Trial of Edmonds and others, 1821, [790 name was nn the special jury panel for the last assize had not been regularly summoned on this occasion. The Court adjourned for an hour. When the Court met again, Denman contended that 6 Geo. 4. c. 50. s. 8, required that the jury actually struck should be the jury returned to try the cause ; that if one of the panel were absent, it was not the proper jury ; that Peach, one of the persons so returned by the Court of Kings 13ench had not been summoned or served properly, but for a day that was past, the 29th ultimo ; and that he was absent. The affidavit of Charles Pearson (attorney for the defendants) and Nathaniel Simmons was read. Annexed to it was a copy of a letter by Pearson to Peach. It stated (inter alia) :- " The object of this letter is to communicate this fact (the approach of the trial) that, in the event of your having been summoned you may not be taken by surprise, and that in case you have not received any summons Major Cartwright may have the opportunity of using the circumstance in his favour." Pearson deposed that he received information that Peach had not received any summons to attend as a juryman in this case ; that he (Pearson) and a person deputed by the under-sheriff had called at Peachs house ; that the deponent had received a letter from Peach, which was dated, and which stated (inter alia) :- " It will...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • DPP v Haugh
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 May 2000
    ...v. Singer [1975] I.R. 408. The People (Attorney General) v. Lehman (No. 2) [1947] I.R. 137. R. v. Edmonds (1821) 4 B. & Ald. 471; 1 St. Tr. (N.S.) 785. Reg. v. Dowling (1848) 7 St. Tr. (N.S.) 381; 12 J.P. 678; 3 Cox. 509. Reg. v. Martin (1848) 6 St. Tr. 925. Reg. v. Stewart (1845) 1 Cox. 17......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT