« ZurückWeiter »
before the Court. As we have already case of Walter Cox, in which Lord Norsaid, it would be impossible for us, to bury and Baron George decided against enter into any thing like a detail of Serjeant Moore, who essayed a reply. this admirable forensic display. He first Mr. Perrin stated the particulars of the addressed himself to the facts, then to case, in which the Chief Justice of the the Law-next to the History of the Ca- Common Pleas, said that the right of the tholics of Ireland, and finally to the Po- Attorney General was a personal right licy of the Irish Administration. In all and could not be transferred to his brother. these divisions, Mr. Burrowes was super Mr. Justice Osborne was rather against eminently, supremely happy. But we the practice. are compelled to reserve until our next a Mr. Justice Daily thought that it was essatisfactory report of this admirable speech. tablished by analogy. Afier he had sat down, there was a mur Mr. Justice Day was rather inclined with mur of applause, and he was congratulated his brothers. on all sides by bis friends. Indeed the Mr. Bellew argued acutely against the union of honesty and talent was eminently right claimed. conspicuous in this address, and we never The Chief Justice did not think the case saw more powerfully exeinplified what in Lord Kenyon went to the present ingreat virtue, aided by great ability, is able stance. to perform. In the course of his speech Mr. Burton said tha: perhaps the Crown Mr. Burrowes pronounced a panegyric on would wave the right and allow the case the free press of Ireland, and stigmatized to go to the Jury. in his powerful and impassioned language Mr. Ball insisted on the right of the the incendiaries and slaves hired by the Crown. Castle to influence the popular mind, and Mr. 'Solicitor General would not give up to inflame the people to madness.-When that right. Mr. Burrowes had concluded, the Council The Atlorney General coincided with the for the traverser, relying upon the evi. Solicitor, and insisted on the right. dence of the Crown and the Law and Jus. The Chief Justice at length determined tice of their case, declined calling wit- in favour of the Crown. nesses or occupying the attention of the Mr. Burton then asked whether since Court and Jury on a case' which they con two Crown Lawyers were allowed to sidered already proved for their client. speak where no evidence was adduced on
The Solicitor General rose to reply. the part of the Traverser, another Counsel
Mr. Goold objected on the ground of would not be allowed to his clients. usage, that the Crown Lawyers, except in To this the Court after some hesitation cases when evidence was tendered on the assented. part of the Traversers, had no right to re
Mr. Goold then touched upon all the ply.
leading topics of this great cause. The Attorney General insisted on the The Solicitor General replied. right.
The Chief Justice, after recapitulating Justice Osborne wished for precedents to the evidence, proceeded to define the establish the right.
Law. After about an hour and half's Mr. O'Connell said that Mr. Justice Day charge, the Jury retired. ruled in the case of Williams (we think) Mr. Byrne rose and enquired whether on the last Munster Circuit, against the the indictment on which the traversers right claimed by the Crown in those cases. were tried, was handed up to the Jury. Mr. Justice Day assented.
The Chief Justice said that it was not · Mr. Bellew said, that Mr. Justice Oso usual nor necessary. borne ruled a similar case at the Assizes of Mr. Justice Osborne thought that the inWaterford.
dictment might have been read to them, Mr. Justice Oshorne assented.
if they wished it. Mr. Byrne cited a case from reports Mr. O'Connell contended that the Jury made in the time of Lord Kenyon, in should have a copy of the Indictment on which that able Judge had strongly repro- which they were io decide. bated the practice which Crown Lawyers While the point was mooting, assumed of speaking when no evidence Mr. Geule, the Foreman, and Mr. Pephad been produced by the Traverser. per, returned into the Box and requested a
Mr. O'Connell immediately read the Copy of the Indictment. He took occapassage, and in corroboration, cited the sion at the same time to inquire whether
the Court could bring in separate verdicts professing the Roman Catholic Religion, for the two counts laid in the Indicrnent. meaning such Committee as aforesaid, --He was answered in the affirmative, and should be appointed, and requested to the Clerk of the Crown having enlarged cause proper Petitions to both Houses of . the issue, the Jurỳ again retired. lo Parliament to be forthwith framed, for the about an hour and a half, the Jury re- repeal of the Penal Laws, meaning the said turned with a verdict of NOT GUILTY. laws so remaining in force in Ireland, and The names of the Jurors are these : to procure signatures thereto in all parts 1. Benjamin Geale, Esq.
of Ireland, and to take measures for bring. 2. Peter. D, Latouche, Esq.
ing such Petition under the serious consi3. Leland Crosthwaite, Esq.
deration of the Legislature, within the first 4. John Orr, Esq.
month of the ensuing Sessions of Parlia. 5. John Duncan, Esq.
ment; and that said Committee should 6. John Pepper, Esq.
consist of the Catholic Peers, and their 7. William Sparrow, Esq.
eldest Sons, the Catholic Baronets, the 8. John Hutton, Esq.
Prelates of the Catholic Church in Ireland, 9. Robert Armstrong, Esq.
and also ten persons to be appointed by 10. Edward Clibborn, Esq.
the Catholics in each County in Ireland, 11. Charles Pentland, Esq.
the survivors of the Delegates of 1793, to 12. John Hainilton, Esq.
constitute an integral part of that number, The following is the substance of the Indictments the Catholic inhabitants of each parish in
and also of five persons to be appointed by found against Messrs. Kirwan and Tauffe. Dublin, meaning each district so called a County of the City of The Jurors of parish, as aforesaid, and that Edward SheriDublin, to wit. our Lord the King dan, late of Dominick street, in the County
upon their oath of the City of Dublin, Doctor of Physic, present, that, on the gih day of July, in being a person professing the Roman the year of our Lord, 1811, at Fishamble- Catholic Religion, and divers other per. street, in the County of the City of Dublin, suns professing the Roman Catholic Reli. divers persons, to the said Jurors unknown, gion, to the said Jurors unknown, well assembled themselves together, and being knowing the premises, but being ill disso assembled, and then and there contriv- posed persons, and unlawfully contriving ing, and intending to cause and procure and intending to aid and assist in and tothe appointment of Persons professing the wards the constituting and forming of such Roman Catholic Religion, to exercise an Committee as aforesaid, on the 31st day of authoriy to represent the inhabitants of July, in the year 1811, at Liffey -streei, in Ireland professing the Roman Catholic the County of the City of Dublin, in order Religion, under pretence of causing Peli. to comply with such resolutions, and to tions to both Houses of Parliament to be aid and assistin and towards the constiluting framed, for the repeal of all laws remain and forming such Committee, did meet and ing in force in Ireland, by means whereof assemble themselves together for the puranv person professing the Roman Catholic pose of appointing five persons to act as Religion is subject to any disability by Representatives of the Inhabitants professreason, or in consequence of his religious ing the Roman Catholic Religion, of and tenets; and also, under pretence of pro- in one of the districts in the city of Dublin curing an alteration of the matters so esta aforesaid, commonly called the Parish of blished by law,did then and there, amongst St. Mary, in the said Committee so proposed other things, enter into certain Resolutions to be formed, and that at and in the said of and concerning such Committee, and of Meeting so then and there held for the and concerning said laws so remaining in said purpose, one Thomas Kirwan, then force in Ireland, and of and concerning and there being a person professing the certain districts in the City of Dublin, Roman Catholic Religion, was then and called Parishes, and used as such for the there unlawfully appointed by the said purpose of public worship, accoriling to persons so then and there assembled to act the rites of the Roman Catholic Religion, as one of the Representatives of the said of the purport and etfect here following: Inhabitants of the said district in the said that is to say, that a Committee of Persons
(To be continued.)
Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent - Garden :-Sold also by J. BUDD, Pall-Malt.
LONDON :-Printed by T. C. Hansard, Peterborough Court, Fleet-street,
VOL. XX. No. 23.).
LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1811.
Th' appearance is against me, I confess,
DAYDEN. Cock and the Fox. 705)
(706 observed above, that they were to be SUMMARY OF POLITICS.
brought to the bar under amended Bills of Irish CATHOLICS.—The acquittal of Indictment. But a suspension has taken DR.SHERIDAN, in spite of all the means made place; and, from the following article in use of to obtain his conviction, has produce the COURIER, it would seem, that there ed, as might have been expected, a suspen- was, at one time, an intention of dropsion of the prosecutions against the other ping the proceedings altogether, provided Catholic Gentlemen, whom it was intended the Catholic Gentlemen would give up to try for the saine alledged crime, and their scheme of assembling as delegates. against whom Bills of Indictment were I quote from the Courier of the 30th of found. Yet, as the reader will bear in mind, November, and the passage is one that when that acquittal, which does so much ho- merits a good deal of attention. " It prenour to the Jury and to Ireland, which has tends to give the words of the Irish Atgiven so much satisfaction in this part of torney General, when he expressed his inthe kingdom, and which will be received tention not to pursue the prosecutions any with applause in every part of the world further; and it contains doctrines such, I where there remains one spark of the love believe, as never were broached before, of freedom; when that acquittal was first and which, if they be permitted to pass announced to the English public, the as sound, there can, in the mind of no venal prints, and especially, the Courier, rational man, exist the smallest doubt that who seems to be a hack always in requisi- oor liberties are a mere dream.
« The tion, said, that Dr. Sheridan was acquitted
• intention of Government to prove by for want of sufficient evidence ; but, that " the highest legal authorities, that Delethe rest would be proceeded against upon gation for the purpose of petitioning for amended indictments. -For want of " the alteration of law is contrary to the sufficient evidence! To be sure; and who, “Convention Act, having been fully fulpray, was ever acquitted upon any other “ filled, the Irish Attorney General signi. ground? Who, (except in cases of mere “fied in open Court last Tuesday, that it flaw) was ever acquitted upon any ground was not his wish to press for the trial of other than that of a want of evidence to " the Delegates at present. He said, “ that support the charge? Dr. Sheridan was though there has been' a verdict of charged with having become a delegate in acquittal in the case of Dr. Sheridan, violation of an act of parliament; and the "" the law of the crise has been cleurly, unJury say, not guilty, upon the whole of the "" equivocally, and unanimously declared charge. They bring in no qualified ver by the Court; and therefore I consider dict; they do not say, that there is not "" it now as setiled law that the Com. sufficient evidence to prove that he had ““ mittee or Convention proposed to be become a delegate; they do not say, that ““ convened by the resolutions of the to have become a delegate would have been gentlemen on the 9th of July last, a crime. They say, not guilty, upon the «« would be, if it should meet, an unwhole of the charge.- -Now let us hear " " luwful assembly. That being so, I what the venal prints have resorted to, in cannot suffer myself to believe that order to account for the suspension of "the Roman Catholics of Ireland will proceedings against the other accused per. "" persevere in the measure, because I sons. -At first, it was said, as I have "" cannot suffer myself to believe that it ever
was, or is, their meaning to violate the not guilty; but, according to this doctrine « «« law of the land. Under ihis impression ascribed to the Attorney General of Ire"" I feel that it would be hardly con- land, that verdict is to have no weight, «« « sistent with the object of these prosecu and the declaratioj of the Judges is to be «« « tions, which never was to persecule or to taken for the true decision. Why, we
punish the individual, but to prevent a were told, in this same COURIER, that all
public mischief, to press for the trial the Judges had given their opinions on "w of any other of the Traversers at pre the side of guilt; but, are we, therefore, "n« sent; and I will go farther, and say to consider the acquitted man as guilty? « « that it is my confident expectation, as Lord Ellenborough, the other day, was by « « it is my sincere wish, that it may not no means equivocal in his charge in the « " be rendered necessary for me at any case of Mr. White, whose publication he « « time hereafter to call for the trial of expressly and repeatedly declared to be a r« the other Traversers.” -We trust, libel, and whom he expressly and repeat“therefore, that the Catholies, who enjoy edly declared to be answerable for all that " the right of petitioning in as full and appeared in his paper. Yet, the jury said, “ free a manner as any other of his Ma- that he was not guilty. Their decision “ jesty's subjects, 'will not persist in con was in opposition to the opinion of the “ vening the Committee or Convention, judge; and are we, for that reason, to “ which their resolutions in July last had conclude, that Mr. White was guilty, and “proposed to do. If they do, il mistaking that the jury were ignorant or perjured “ forbearunce for fear, and erroneously men? If this were to be the case, what
, I supposing that the acquittal of Dr. Sheri: would beg leave to ask, is the use of a “ dan was an acquittai upon the law as well jury? If iheir decision is to pass for no" as the fact, they do determine to call such thing; if a man, though acquitted by
a Convention, then, of course, the trials them, is still to be looked upon as guilty " of the other delegates wil be pressed.--- in fact, and as having escaped by mere Now, I do not, observe, say, that the chance; if this were to be the case, what a words here put into the mouth of the despicable, and even what a mischievous Irish Attorney General were ever uttered institution that of the jury would be ! by him. I see them published in a news. Here was a man indicted for the breach paper ; and containings, as I think they of a positive law; the written law was bedo, some most offensive matter, I shail fore the jury; they had to compare the make freely my comments upon them. act done with the acts prohibited by that If they were not uttered by the Attorney law; and, they declare the man not to be General, it is for him, or his friends, to guilty. But, because the Judges all deset the public right as to the fact. To me, clared, that the act done was amongst the it is of no consequence whether they pro- acts prohibited by the law, it is here said ceeded from his lips or not. They form a to have been assumed, that the acquittal publication, and, as such, I comment upon was to pass for nothing as a declaration ihem. -Let us take the article in the of the meaning of the law; as if the opiorder that it lies before us. The Attorney nions of twelve men were not as good as General, the official prosecutor on the the opinions of four inen, and that, too, part of the government, having seen one in a case so plain that it strikes me with of the prosecuted parties escape, through wonder how two opinions should ever have the verdict of a jury, is here made to come been entertained upon the subject. --into court, into that very court where the Am I told, that the Judges must under. acquittal had taken place, and there to stand the law better than the Jury? If say, that, though there bad been an ac this be to be taken in its full extent, abolish quittal of one of the accused persons,“ the the juries at once, for they are mere au« law of the case had been clearly, une tomata. Let them stay at home for God's "quivocally, and unanimously declared sake, and mind their farms and their shops; “ by the court, and that he therefore now for, to stick them up in courts of justice is " considered it as settled luu,” &c. So a mere mockery. If the Judge is, upon then, according to this notion, the court is all occasions, to be looked upon as underall and the jury nothing as to settling the standing better the application of the law point whether a man has, or has not, been to the act alledged than the Jury, away guilty of a breach of the law! Dr. Sheri- with the latter at once.
But this is not dan was charged with having violated the so; and, until of late years, it never was Convention Act. The jury declared him pretended. The Judge is in the court to
regulate the proceedings; to see that all not sufficient? I do not say that the powers the evidence is fairly laid before the Jury; are too great; but, I do say, that they are to state to them the words of the law as quite great enough; and I further say, applicable 10 the act alledged; and to that, without the Jury in criminal cases, give them, if necessary, his opinion, as to these powers would be monstrous, and the meaning of doubtful parts of the law. such as would leave the people not the But, it is for the Jury to iry, as Mr. Tooke shadow of liberty. The jury was insti. so well urged it in his celebrated action tuted; and was always considered, and is, with Mr. Fox; it is for the Jury to try I hope, still to be considered, as the guarthe person accused, or rather, the ques. diun of the people's rights; as a security for tion at issue. They are sworn “ well and the administration of Justice in mercy; and truly to try ;” and, if they are to be no not a mere shew, not the mere echo of the judges of the luw by which they are 10 Judge, but a body of men more likely to decide, what is the use of them? They do come to a just decision, all the circumnot, in that case, try the question at all; stances considered, than the Judge would and, they had better be sworn well and be. If it be not so, of what earthly use, truly to say whatever the Judge might bid I again ask, is this thing called a Jury? them say. The Jury, and the Jury alone, Why, the only use, and the only possible tries the question brought before it. The use, which it could then be of, would be institution of the Jury is founded upon the to screen the Judge from, all responsibility as presumption that twelve men, impartially to the decision; and thus removing that taken, are not only as likely, but more check, which would exist if there were no likely to form a correct opinion and make jury at all, and making our mode of ada just decision than one or more judges are; ministring justice the very worst that ever and, indeed, what other reason can there was heard of in the worid. --The Jury be, or could there ever have been, for the must be efficient; they must be, according institution of Juries ? If the Jury be to act to their oath, the real triers of the issue; as the Judges bid them, and if, in cases or, they are infinitely worse than useless; where the verdict goes in the teeth of the and, if they are not the real triers, they charge, the Judges are to be regarded as betray their trust and falsify their oaths. right and the Jury wrong, and if the charge — To return to the doctrine ascribed to and not the verdict be to be looked upon as the Irish Attorney General: I would ask, decisive of the law; what, again I ask, if the declaration of the Judges were suffi. is the use of the Jury; what sense is there cient for his purpose, and that, too, in op. in such an institution; and how can the position to a subsequent verdict of a Jury, Jury be said to try any thing?
-But, why was a trial necessary? Why was not would I make the Judges nothing at all, the declaration of the Judges taken withthen! No: my objection is to the attempt, out any indictment or trial at all? Why which has often been made, and with but were the delegates not told, that the Judges too much success, to make them every thing said that the law was against the meeting except responsible persons. They have by delegates? There was something to be powers enough without being iriers of answered by the trial surely? But, now, it causes and criminals. To them belongs seems, that these indictments and trials the vast powers of directing and gorerning were to answer no other purpose than the whole of the proceedings in every merely that of giving the Judges an optrial; of giving their interpretation of the portunity of declaring, upon the bench, law; of determining what is or is not ad- what was the meaning of the law; and missible. evidence and admissible argu- their opinions are now set up, by this ment; of receiving the verdict or causing writer, in the form of a speech of the it to be revised ; and, finally, of passing Attorney General, as tantamount to a dee sentence, of saving life or inflicting death. claratory act of parliament, and that, too, Is not this enough for them? Are these though they did not produce conviction powers too limited ? See, then, what power in the minds of twelve men assembled they possess in the granting or refusing of and sworn to iry the very question, which motions, rules, attachments, &c. &c. it is held forth that these opinions have And, when we consider, that they are all decided. I now come to the second appointed by the king, or bis ministers, part of this publication pretending to be and may, at any time, by the vote of a a speech of the Irish Attorney General; majority in parliament, have their salaries and it is certainly very well calculated to raised, can we say, that these powers are excite some little surprize. He is made