If the question admitted of any doubt, I should be desirous of giving
the defendants the advantage of that doubt; but it seems to me perfectly
clear, that there is no foundation for any one of the objections that
have been made. To raise the funds may be an innocent thing; but a
conspiracy to raise the funds by illegal means, and with an illegal
view, is, as it seems to me, a crime; a crime which might perhaps affect
the public in its aggregate capacity; but which, if it take effect, will
certainly prejudice a class of His Majesty's subjects; and it is not
necessary to constitute a crime, that it should be prejudicial to the
public in its aggregate character, or to all of His Majesty's subjects,
it is sufficient if it be prejudicial to a class of His Majesty's
subjects. Here is not only a conspiracy for an illegal end, but a
conspiracy to effect that end by illegal means; because when it is
endeavoured to raise the funds by false rumours, the means are illegal,
then is the end illegal. The object is to produce a temporary rise in
the funds without any foundation; and the necessary consequence of that
is, all those who purchase on the day, and during the period of time
that rise affects the funds, will necessarily be prejudiced.
Another objection is, that the indictment does not state by name the
persons whom the defendants intended to defraud; but it is said, the
indictment would have been good if it had stated, that by means of this
conspiracy certain persons, naming them, had been prejudiced. As to
that, the conspiracy constitutes the crime, and it is sufficient to
state the crime upon the indictment in the way it existed at the moment
when the crime was complete. It might have happened from circumstances
coming to light, that the plot should be detected before the mischief
had been effected; yet the offence would not have been less, because the
parties had done all in their power, and every thing that was necessary
to constitute the crime, when they had formed the conspiracy, and used
the illegal means for an illegal purpose. It depended not on them how
far their crime would be prejudicial to others; but their criminality
must depend on their own act, not upon the consequences of that act.
The other objection is, that the indictment describes the funds to be
raised as the funds of _this kingdom_. It is true, that since the Union
the funds which are raised must be raised in certain proportions upon
one part of the kingdom and upon the other: but when those funds are
raised, they become respectively the funds of the kingdom, they are
raised by the Legislature of the kingdom, and are applied by the
Government of the kingdom to such purposes as Parliament say they are to
be applied to. But if you can properly predicate of them, that they are
funds, in part only applicable to England, and in part to Ireland, still
it is true that those two funds do constitute the funds of this kingdom;
and when it can only be said, that the funds of this kingdom are
distinguishable into British and Irish funds, then when you speak of the
funds of this kingdom, you mean both the British and Irish funds.