assayed and endeavoured to force, compel, and oblige the said A. B. and C. D. such proprietors and managers as aforesaid, against the wills of the said A. B. and C. D., to discharge the said P. Q. without his consent, and against his will, from his said retainer and employment of a player, at the said last-mentioned theatre, and wholly to dismiss him therefrom; by means whereof the said P. Q. hath ever since that time hitherto remained wholly unemployed in his aforesaid retainer and employment, and hath wholly lost and been deprived of great gains, which would otherwise have accrued to him therefrom, to wit, at &c. aforesaid, to the great terror and disturbance of his Majesty's subjects assembled lawfully in the said theatre, and against the peace, &c. § 23. SOLICITATIONS TO COMMIT OFFENCES. or misdemeanors at common law. Every solicitation of another to commit an indictable Solicitations to offence, whether felony or misdemeanor is itself a misde- commit crimes meanor at common law. Thus, to solicit a servant to steal the goods of his master is a misdemeanor, although no step be taken beyond the soliciting towards the commission of the felony. (c) Thus, to solicit a member of the privy council to accept a bribe for the disposal of an office; (d) to promise money to a member of a corporation if he will vote for a particular individual as mayor; (e) or to offer a bribe to a juryman, (ƒ) are themselves misdemeanors; and the same principle applies to all cases where an ineffectua! attempt is made to induce another to commit an offence. On a prosecution for a misdemeanor in inciting another to commit felony, it is not necessary for the prosecutor to shew negatively that the felony was not completed in order to sustain the charge for misdemeanor only; but he may leave it to the defendant to shew, if he think fit, that the misdemeanor was merged in the greater offence; and, in the absence of such proof, he may be convicted of the solicitation. (g) Indictments. That A. B. late of &c. on the &c. at &c. did wickedly and Indictment for unlawfully solicit and incite one A. D. a menial servant of one soliciting a serD. W. of aforesaid, gentleman, feloniously to take, steal, and vant to embezzle carry away a certain number, to wit, seven, of linen napkins of the his master's goods. value of fourteen shillings, of the goods and chattels of his master, the said D. W. and to deliver to him the said C. F. the said seven linen napkins, against the peace, &c. (c) The King v. Higgins, 2 East, R. 5. Indictment for son to commit an unnatural crime. That A. B. late of &c. being a person of a most wicked soliciting a per- and abandoned mind and disposition, and devising and intending to vitiate and corrupt the morals of one C. D. and to stir up and excite in his mind filthy, lewd, and unchaste desires, and inclinations, on &c. at &c. did wickedly and unlawfully solicit, invite, and endeavour to persuade the said C. D. to permit and suffer him the said A. B. then and there feloniously and wickedly to commit and do that detestable and abominable crime called buggery with the said C. D. against the order of nature, against the peace, &c. Indictment for soliciting a woman to commit perjury, by swearing a child to an innocent person. (h) That A. B. late of &c. being a wicked and evil-disposed person, and minding and intending great injury to one C. D. of &c. a good and valuable subject of our said Lord the King, and unjustly to cause and procure him to be put to great charges and expence of his monies, and to give security for the maintenance of a child, of which one E. F. spinster, was on &c. pregnant, and which, by the laws of this realm, was likely to become a bastard, did on the same &c. aforesaid, at &c. aforesaid, unlawfully and wickedly solicit, instigate, persuade, and procure the said E. F. to go before one of the justices of our said Lord the King, assigned, &c. and that she the said E. F. in consequence of such solicitation, instigation, persuasion, and procurement, did go in her own proper person before G. H. one of the justices of our said Lord the King, assigned, &c. and then and there did, &c. (state the filiation) whereas in truth and in fact, he the said A. B. at the time when he so endeavoured to persuade, solicit, and instigate the said E. F. to make oath and swear as aforesaid, then and there well knew that the said C. D. would be put to great charges and expence of his monies, if she the said E. F. would swear as aforesaid; and whereas in truth and in fact he the said A. B. at the said time when he so endeavoured to persuade, solicit, and instigate the said E. F. to make oath and swear as aforesaid, had no reasonable or probable cause whatsoever to suspect or imagine that the said C. D. was the father of such child, but on the contrary thereof, the said A. B. was then and there informed by the said E. F. that he the said A. B. was the father of such child, of which she the said E. F. was so pregnant as aforesaid; and whereas in truth and in fact, she the said E. F. never told or informed him the said A. B. that the said C. D. was the father of such child; and whereas in truth and in fact he the said A. B. so wickedly and unlawfully endeavoured to persuade, solicit, and instigate the said E. F. to swear as aforesaid, in order that he the said A. B. might be exonerated, freed, and discharged from divers expences which might accrue to him as being the father of such child, after the same should be born of the body of her the said E. F. against the peace, &c. Indictment for That on &c. a certain writ of our said Lord the King, called a soliciting a wit- subpoena ad testificandum, had been and was duly issued and tested ness to disobey a by and in the name of P. Q. of &c. at &c. the same day and year (h) To solicit, or attempt to perstrade, a witness to swear falsely, though such solicitation be ineffectual, is a misdemeanor at common law; the King v. Edwards, cited in Scofield's case, Cald. 400. aforesaid, the said P. Q. then and there being custos rotulorum in subpoena, to give and for the said county, which said writ was directed to B. B. and evidence before D. D. by which said writ our said Lord the King commanded, &c. the grand jury. (recite the writ.) And the jurors, &c. that a copy of the said writ (1) was on &c. at &c. duly served on the said H. H. who then and there had notice to appear and give evidence according to the exigency of such writ, and that the evidence of said H. H. at the time of issuing the said writ, and from thence until and upon the said &c. therein mentioned, was material and necessary to have been given before the said grand jury on the said bill of indictment, so to be preferred against the said A. B. as aforesaid, and that at the sessions of the peace holden at &c. in and for the said county, on &c. aforesaid, such bill of indictment was preferred against the said A. B. to and before a certain grand jury then and there duly assembled in that behalf. And the jurors, &c. that A. B. late of &c. being an evil disposed person, and contriving and intending to obstruct and impede the due course of justice, on &c. at &c. unlawfully and unjustly solicited, persuaded, and prevailed upon the said H. H. to absent himself from the said sessions of the peace, holden as aforesaid, and not to appear there before the justices then and there assembled, to testify the truth and give evidence before the said grand jury on the said bill of indictment, so preferred against the said A. B. as aforesaid (and the said H. H. in consequence of such solicitation and persuasion, did not so appear and give evidence according to the exigency of said writ), to the great obstruction, hindrance, and delay of public justice, in contempt, &c. to the evil, &c. and against the peace, &c. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that on the said &c. a certain other writ of our said Lord the King had duly issued, directed to the said B. B. and D. D. by which said last mentioned writ, our said Lord the said King commanded the said B. B. and D. D. that, &c. (recite the writ). And the jurors, &c. that the evidence of the said H. H. at the time of issuing the said last mentioned writ, and from thence until and upon the said &c. therein mentioned, was material and necessary to have been given before the said grand jury in the said bill of indictment, so to be preferred against the said A. B. as aforesaid. And the jurors, &c. that the said A. B. being an evil disposed person, &c. (Same as first count, saying " endeavoured to dissuade," &c. and omitting the allegation that the solicitation was successful). That A. B. late of &c. on &c. and on divers other days and times, Indictment for between that day and the first day of &c. at &c. unlawfully, soliciting and wickedly, and maliciously intended, devised, and endeavoured as inciting persons much as in him lay, to raise and create insurrections, riots, and to make a riot. First count, for tumults within this realm for the disturbance of his Majesty's peace, and to the great terror and annoyance of his liege and peaceable sub- persuading them jects. And that the said A. B. in prosecution of his said wicked intention and purpose, and for the effecting and accomplishing thereof, which they did (i) This is an offence indictable at common law; Hawk. b. 1. c. 21. The mere attempt to stifle evidence is criminal, though the persuasion should not succeed, on the general principle that an incitement to commit any crime is itself criminal; 6 East, R. 464. to assemble, in consequence of So. Indictment for endeavouring to persuade a per son to counterfeit a note of a foreign state, and for prepar ing for the fabr:cation. (j) on the said &c. and on the said other days and times, at &c. aforesaid, with force and arms, unlawfully, wickedly, and maliciously solicited, incited, encouraged, and as much as in him lay, endeavoured, and laboured to persuade, instigate, and prevail on divers other liege subjects of our said Lord the King, whose names to the jurors aforesaid are as yet unknown, inhabiting in the said parish of C. and in the neighbourhood of the same, with force and arms unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously to assemble and gather together, to disturb the peace of our said Lord the King, and to injure and annoy a great number of the peaceable subjects of our said Lord the King in their persons and properties; and that by means, and in pursuance of the said wicked solicitations, instigations, and endeavours of the said A. B. a great number of persons, to the number of one hundred and more, to the jurors aforesaid as yet unknown, afterwards, to wit, on &c. with force and arms, at &c. aforesaid, unlawfully, riotously, routously, and tumultuously assembled and gathered together to disturb the peace of our said Lord the King, and being so assembled and gathered together, did then and there unlawfully, riotously, routously, and tumultuously continue together in a riotous and tumultuous manner for a long time, that is to say, for the space of two hours then next following, and during all that time, committed many great and violent outrages in breach of the peace of our said Lord the King, to the great terror, disturbance, and grievance, not only of many of his said Majesty's quiet and peaceable subjects then inhabiting and residing there, but also of all other of his said Majesty's quiet and peaceable subjects then and there passing and repassing in and about their lawful affairs and business, in contempt of our said Lord the King, in open violation of the laws, good order, and government of this realm, and against the peace, &c. (Add a second count for the solicitation, omitting the statement of the actual assemblage.) That one P. M. late of &c. on &c. at &c. did unlawfully solicit, incite, and endeavour to persuade one R. S. feloniously, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, to falsely make, forge, and counterfeit, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a certain promissory note purporting to be the promissory note of a certain foreign state, to wit, the state of Norway, with intent to deceive and defraud the said foreign state, against the peace, &c. (j) This indictment was tried at the Middlesex Michaelmas session 1819, and was stated to have been penned by, or at least to have received the sanction of the Attorney and Solicitor General. The prosecution was instituted by the Treasury. The facts of the case, as they appeared from the evidence of Mr. Robert Scott, the person on whom the attempt to incite and solicit was made, were as follow: On the 27th of May last, the defendant came to his house and asked him whether he could copy curious engravings? He replied in the affirmative. He believed that the defendant was induced to come to him in consequence of his (witness's) having published a specimen of a note for the Bank of England, extremely difficult of imitation, and as an effectual prevention of forgery. Upon receiving the answer in the affirmative, the defendant produced a genuine note of the And the jurors, &c. do further present, that the said P. M. here- Second count. tofore, to wit, on &c. with force and arms, at &c. did unlawfully make, cut, and engrave, and cause and procure to be made, cut, and engraved, a certain block, in order and with the intent fe Drontheim Bank, in Norway, for the payment of ten dollars, and inquired if he could make an accurate engraving of it on wood. He was told that he could; and he then inquired if witness could procure different sorts of paper, to which he received a similar answer. Upon which he gave witness directions to make an engraved copy of the note produced, which appeared to be an impression from a curious wood engraving, on yellow paper, in the Danish language, to the following effect: "Ten Specie in Dollars.""In conformity with the foundation of 1816, pay Norway's Bank, at Drontheim, to the bearer, ten specie dollars, for which the value is lodged at Drontheim." "No. 41,224." To this note there were some manuscript signatures. Witness, when he first saw the defendant, asked his name and address, which he declined to give, but said that he alone would be responsible, and that no harm could come to witness, and added, that money was no object. In the course of further conversation defendant said, that, having been defrauded by the Drontheim Bank, he had determined to resort to this expedient as a mode of revenge, and hinted that there were other persons connected with him. Witness, before he would undertake the business, said he would take a day to consider of it, and desired the defendant to call again. In the mean time he communicated the circumstances to some friends, and consulted with them what course he should pursue, suspecting that the defendant was connected with a gang of conspirators to defraud the Drontheim Bank. Upon consideration it was resolved that he should undertake the business to a certain extent, as a means of bringing the defendant to justice; and when he called the next day, he was told that witness would undertake its Witness then asked what number of notes he would wish to have taken off the cut when done, in order that he might bespeak a sufficient quantity of paper, which was to be very peculiar in its texture and colour. The defendant said he should want about 3,000 at first; that he intended going abroad with them, and would return about the end of six weeks, and give further orders. Witness went on with the plate, and in the progress of the work the defendant called repeatedly and gave his orders. The plate being nearly finished, the defendant asked whether witness could also engrave the numbers and fac-similes of the signatures to the genuine note; and being told that also could be done, he gave orders accordingly. Before the plate was completed, and before any impressions were taken from it, witness communicated what was going forward to the Danish Envoy, and in consequence of the information so received the defendant was apprehended, and the present prosecution was the result. There were three sets of counts, in number sixteen, of which the three principal ones are here given, the others only laying the same charges in different ways. Three objections were taken by counsel to the indictment: 1. That the note produced was not a promissory note, according to the true nature and import of such an instrument. 2. Supposing it to be a promissory note, for any thing that appeared to the contrary, it might be the note of a private individual named Norway, and not Y |