Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

VOL. XX. No. 23.]

LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1811.

[Price 1s

705]

Th' appearance is against me, I confess,

Who seemingly have put you in distress:

You, if your goodness does not plead my cause,

May think I broke all hospitable laws,

To bear you from your palace-yard by night,
And put your noble person in a fright:
This, since you take it ill, I must repent,
Though, heav'n can witness! with no bad intent.

SUMMARY OF POLITICS.

IRISH CATHOLICS.- -The acquittal of DR. SHERIDAN, in spite of all the means made use of to obtain his conviction, has produced, as might have been expected, a suspension of the prosecutions against the other Catholic Gentlemen, whom it was intended to try for the same alledged crime, and against whom Bills of Indictment were found. Yet, as the reader will bear in mind, when that acquittal, which does so much ho nour to the Jury and to Ireland, which has given so much satisfaction in this part of the kingdom, and which will be received with applause in every part of the world where there remains one spark of the love of freedom; when that acquittal was first announced to the English public, the venal prints, and especially the COURIER, who seems to be a hack always in requisition, said, that Dr. Sheridan was acquitted for want of sufficient evidence; but, that the rest would be proceeded against upon amended indictments.. For want of sufficient evidence! To be sure; and who, pray, was ever acquitted upon any other ground? Who, (except in cases of mere flaw) was ever acquitted upon any ground other than that of a want of evidence to support the charge? Dr. Sheridan was charged with having become a delegate in violation of an act of parliament; and the Jury say, not guilty, upon the whole of the charge. They bring in no qualified verdict; they do not say, that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had become a delegate; they do not say, that to have become a delegate would have been a crime. They say, not guilty, upon the whole of the charge. Now let us hear what the venal prints have resorted to, in order to account for the suspension of proceedings against the other accused persons. -At first, it was said, as I have

. DRYDEN. Cock and the Fox.

[706

observed above, that they were to be brought to the bar under amended Bills of Indictment. But a suspension has taken place; and, from the following article in the COURIER, it would seem, that there was, at one time, an intention of dropping the proceedings altogether, provided the Catholic Gentlemen would give up their scheme of assembling as delegates. I quote from the Courier of the 30th of November, and the passage is one that merits a good deal of attention. It pretends to give the words of the Irish Attorney General, when he expressed his intention not to pursue the prosecutions any further; and it contains doctrines such, I believe, as never were broached before, and which, if they be permitted to pass as sound, there can, in the mind of no rational man, exist the smallest doubt that our liberties are a mere dream. "The "intention of Government to prove by "the highest legal authorities, that Dele"gation for the purpose of petitioning for "the alteration of law is contrary to the "Convention Act, having been fully ful"filled, the Irish Attorney General signi "fied in open Court last Tuesday, that it

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

was not his wish to press for the trial of "the Delegates at present. He said, "that though there has been a verdict of acquittal in the case of Dr. Sheridan, the law of the case has been clearly, unequivocally, and unanimously declared by the Court; and therefore I consider "" it now as settled law that the Com""mittee or Convention proposed to be ""convened by the resolutions of the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

gentlemen on the 9th of July last, ""would be, if it should meet, an un«« lawful assembly. That being so, I ""cannot suffer myself to believe that ""the Roman Catholics of Ireland will 66 66 persevere in the measure, because I ""cannot suffer myself to believe that it ever

A A

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"was, or is, their meaning to violate the ""law of the land. Under this impression "I feel that it would be hardly con""sistent with the object of these prosecu""tions, which never was to persecute or to punish the individual, but to prevent a public mischief, to press for the trial "" of any other of the Traversers at pre""sent; and I will go farther, and say "that it is my confident expectation, as ""it is my sincere wish, that it may not "" be rendered necessary for me at any "" time hereafter to call for the trial of ""the other Traversers."We trust, "therefore, that the Catholics, who enjoy "the right of petitioning in as full and "free a manner as any other of his Majesty's subjects, will not persist in con"vening the Committee or Convention, "which their resolutions in July last had "proposed to do. If they do, if mistaking forbearance for fear, and erroneously "supposing that the acquittal of Dr. Sheri"dan was an acquittal upon the law as well "as the fact, they do determine to call such "a Convention, then, of course, the trials "of the other delegates will be pressed.Now, I do not, observe, say, that the words here put into the mouth of the Irish Attorney General were ever uttered by him. I see them published in a newspaper; and containing, as I think they do, some most offensive matter, I shall make freely my comments upon them. If they were not uttered by the Attorney General, it is for him, or his friends, to set the public right as to the fact. To me, it is of no consequence whether they proceeded from his lips or not. They form a publication, and, as such, I comment upon them.- -Let us take the article in the order that it lies before us. The Attorney General, the official prosecutor on the part of the government, having seen one of the prosecuted parties escape, through the verdict of a jury, is here made to come into court, into that very court where the acquittal had taken place, and there to say, that, though there had been an acquittal of one of the accused persons, "the law of the case had been clearly, unequivocally, and unanimously declared "by the court, and that he therefore now "considered it as settled law," &c. So then, according to this notion, the court is all and the jury nothing as to settling the point whether a man has, or has not, been guilty of a breach of the law! Dr. Sheridan was charged with having violated the Convention Act. The jury declared him

not guilty; but, according to this doctrine ascribed to the Attorney General of Ireland, that verdict is to have no weight, and the declaration of the Judges is to be taken for the true decision. Why, we were told, in this same COURIER, that all the Judges had given their opinions on the side of guilt; but, are we, therefore, to consider the acquitted man as guilty? Lord Ellenborough, the other day, was by no means equivocal in his charge in the case of Mr. White, whose publication he expressly and repeatedly declared to be a libel, and whom he expressly and repeatedly declared to be answerable for all that appeared in his paper. Yet, the jury said, that he was not guilty. Their decision was in opposition to the opinion of the judge; and are we, for that reason, to conclude, that Mr. White was guilty, and that the jury were ignorant or perjured men? If this were to be the case, what, I would beg leave to ask, is the use of a jury? If their decision is to pass for nothing; if a man, though acquitted by them, is still to be looked upon as guilty in fact, and as having escaped by mere chance; if this were to be the case, what a despicable, and even what a mischievous institution that of the jury would be! Here was a man indicted for the breach of a positive law; the written law was before the jury; they had to compare the act done with the acts prohibited by that law; and, they declare the man not to be guilty. But, because the Judges all declared, that the act done was amongst the acts prohibited by the law, it is here said to have been assumed, that the acquittal was to pass for nothing as a declaration of the meaning of the law; as if the opinions of twelve men were not as good as the opinions of four men, and that, too, in a case so plain that it strikes me with wonder how two opinions should ever have been entertained upon the subject.— Am I told, that the Judges must understand the law better than the Jury? If this be to be taken in its full extent, abolish the juries at once, for they are mere automata. Let them stay at home for God's sake, and mind their farms and their shops; for, to stick them up in courts of justice is a mere mockery. If the Judge is, upon all occasions, to be looked upon as understanding better the application of the law to the act alledged than the Jury, away with the latter at once. But this is not so; and, until of late years, it never was pretended. The Judge is in the court to

not sufficient? I do not say that the powers are too great; but, I do say, that they are quite great enough; and I further say, that, without the Jury in criminal cases, these powers would be monstrous, and such as would leave the people not the shadow of liberty. The jury was instituted; and was always considered, and is, I hope, still to be considered, as the guardian of the people's rights; as a security for the administration of Justice in mercy; and not a mere shew, not the mere echo of the Judge, but a body of men more likely to come to a just decision, all the circumstances considered, than the Judge would be. If it be not so, of what earthly use, I again ask, is this thing called a Jury? Why, the only use, and the only possible use, which it could then be of, would be to screen the Judge from all responsibility as to the decision; and thus removing that check, which would exist if there were no jury at all, and making our mode of administring justice the very worst that ever was heard of in the world. The Jury must be efficient; they must be, according to their oath, the real triers of the issue; or, they are infinitely worse than useless; and, if they are not the real triers, they betray their trust and falsify their oaths.

regulate the proceedings; to see that all the evidence is fairly laid before the Jury; to state to them the words of the law as applicable to the act alledged; and to give them, if necessary, his opinion, as to the meaning of doubtful parts of the law. But, it is for the Jury to try, as Mr. Tooke so well urged it in his celebrated action with Mr. Fox; it is for the Jury to try the person accused, or rather, the question at issue. They are sworn "well and truly to try;" and, if they are to be no judges of the law by which they are to decide, what is the use of them? They do not, in that case, try the question at all; and, they had better be sworn well and truly to say whatever the Judge might bid them say. The Jury, and the Jury alone, tries the question brought before it. The institution of the Jury is founded upon the presumption that twelve men, impartially taken, are not only as likely, but more likely to form a correct opinion and make a just decision than one or more judges are; and, indeed, what other reason can there be, or could there ever have been, for the institution of Juries? If the Jury be to act as the Judges bid them, and if, in cases where the verdict goes in the teeth of the charge, the Judges are to be regarded as 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 decisive of the law; what, again I ask, is the use of the Jury; what sense is there in such an institution; and how can the Jury be said to try any thing?. -But, would I make the Judges nothing at all, then? No: my objection is to the attempt, which has often been made, and with but too much success, to make them every thing except responsible persons. They have powers enough without being triers of causes and criminals. To them belongs the vast powers of directing and governing the whole of the proceedings in every trial; of giving their interpretation of the law; of determining what is or is not admissible evidence and admissible argument; of receiving the verdict or causing it to be revised; and, finally, of passing sentence, of saving life or inflicting death. Is not this enough for them? Are these powers too limited? See, then, what power they possess in the granting or refusing of motions, rules, attachments, &c. &c. And, when we consider, that they are all appointed by the king, or his ministers, and may, at any time, by the vote of a majority in parliament, have their salaries raised, can we say, that these powers are

the Irish Attorney General: I would ask, if the declaration of the Judges were sufficient for his purpose, and that, too, in op. position to a subsequent verdict of a Jury, why was a trial necessary? Why was not the declaration of the Judges taken without any indictment or trial at all? Why were the delegates not told, that the Judges said that the law was against the meeting by delegates? There was something to be answered by the trial surely? But, now, it seems, that these indictments and trials were to answer no other purpose than merely that of giving the Judges an opportunity of declaring, upon the bench, what was the meaning of the law; and their opinions are now set up, by this writer, in the form of a speech of the Attorney General, as tantamount to a declaratory act of parliament, and that, too, though they did not produce conviction in the minds of twelve men assembled and sworn to try the very question, which it is held forth that these opinions have decided.I now come to the second part of this publication pretending to be a speech of the Irish Attorney General; and it is certainly very well calculated to excite some little surprize. He is made

to say:

"I cannot suffer myself to believe, I could not suffer himself to believe that he was guilty; I might be thought to allow, that, in addition to all his other powers, of which I have so often had to speak, he possessed this of prosecuting men, of harrassing their minds and ruining their fortunes, and that, too, under pretence that they had committed a crime, which he could not suffer himself to believe that they had committed.--Let there be no attempt at shuffle here. Let it not be pretended, that the gentlemen might commit the crime and not mean to do it; for, observe, all crime consists in the evil-intention, or meaning; and observe further, that this Attorney General, in his indictment, did actually charge the Catholic Gentlemen with being "ill-disposed persons" and with

do that which he accused them of, and for which he brought one of them to be tried as a criminal.--Our English Attorney General, when his conduct was under discussion, in the House of Commons, last year, said, that he was not to be looked upon as free from errors of judg ment any more than other men. Very true; but, we here see the COURIER exhibiting the Irish Attorney General as having prosecuted men for crimes that he himself acknowledged that he did not believe them guilty of.--The third part of this speech given to the Irish Attorney General relates to his views in the prosecutions; and he is made to say, that "the object of these prosecutions never was to "persecute or to punish the individual."

"that it EVER WAS, or is, their" (the accused persons) " meaning to violate the "law of the land." Here, reader, is this Attorney General, this official Prosecutor, made to say, in open court, that he does not believe; nay, that he cannot suffer himself to believe, that the accused persons ever meant to violate the law of the land. Now, what had this same person said only a few days before in the indict ment against Messrs. Kirwan and Taaffe? Why, just the reverse; for he there, as you will see by a reference to the copy of the indictment, in the last column of my last Number, says, that they were " ill-disposed "persons and were unlawfully contriving and "intending" to do what he had accused them of! Was it possible, then, for him" unlawfully contriving and intending" to to have uttered the words ascribed to him by the COURIER? Was it possible for a man to come into court, and, before those very judges, to whom he had accused these gentlemen, declare in so solemn a manner, that he did not believe them to have been guilty of the crime that he had laid to their charge in a manner still more solemn, and which charge was founded upon informations upon oath? Was it possible for a man to come into court and declare, that he did not believe persons to have ever been guilty of the crime, for which he himself had prosecuted them, he himself having necessarily been the adviser of the prosecution? And, yet, if there be no truth in the statement, at what a degree of impudence must this editor of the Courier have arrived?-I cannot bring myself to believe, that the declaration was made; because it would, it seems to me, call for the most serious inquiry into the conduct of the Attorney General. He has powers enough, God knows! Powers sufficient to make him truly formidable without any abuse of them; but, if he were to arrive at such a pitch as to avow, that he prosecuted men for crimes, of which he could not suffer himself to believe that they were guilty; if he were come to this pass, what a country would Ireland be to live in?Yet this is what the COURIER attributes to him; I have quoted the very words said to have been uttered by him; I have, I believe, seen the same words, under the same form, in other public prints; and, thus seeing them, were I to let them pass without comment, I might be thought to acquiesce in the right of an Attorney General to prosecute any man hat he chose for a crime of which he

-No? What was the object, then? This passage of the COURIER's fabricated speech (for fabricated it must be) forced into my recollection the professions of the Fox, in Dryden's beautiful Fable, where the poor Cock has just escaped from his jaws to the branches of a friendly maple. And so, Dr. Sheridan, according to this "false Loon," the COURIER, no harm was intended you, though you were informed against, indicted, and put upon your trial, and though so strong an appeal was made to the Jury against you! No harm, according to this venal writer; no harm at all; only to put you a little in a fright perhaps ! No harm at all, though you were described, in the indictment, as an evil-disposed person, not having the fear of God before your eyes, but being moved and instigated by the Devil, and well knowing the premises, contriving and intending to do the act laid to your charge! No, not the least harm; no persecution, no

punishment, intended: all in good part; all perfectly friendly, according to this English hack, surpassing, be you well as sured, all the hacks of Ireland, except, perchance, you have imported some of the true British breed, the fame of which has now extended over the whole earth. You know the answer of Chanticleer:

"Nay, quoth the Cock, but I beshrew us both, If I believe a Saint upon his oath."

If any thing more were wanted to prove, that this speech put into the mouth, of the Irish Attorney General was a mere fabrication of the COURIER, we have it at the close, where the former is made to say, that he hopes not to be under the necessity of pursuing the prosecutions; but that, if the Catholics persist in what they were doing, he shall pursue them. No man could have said this: no man would, I hope, have been permitted to throw out a threat like this in open court. What! first prosecute men for an alledged crime, which proves to be no crime, and then tell them, that if they persist in doing that which is no crime, they shall be har rassed with prosecutions! What would this be but to tell them, in substance, that though Juries acquitted them, though they were guilty of no crime in the eye of the law, they should, at any rate, suffer all the trouble and expence of a state prosecution, wherein the prosecutor pays no costs, and wherein the public and the prosecuted person are obliged to bear all the expences, amongst which are the fees of the Attorney General himself? If this could be said in open court; if this could be permitted; if a threat like this could be suffered to be thrown out in the presence of the Judges, then, indeed, we should be in a pretty state. But, as I said before, it must be a fabrication of the COURIER, like the French Dispatch said to have been promulgated by Mr. Adams, and like the many intercepted Letters between Napoleon and his brother Joseph.

the Judges; that warrants to apprehend them have thereupon been issued; that they have (I believe) been held to bail; that they have been indicted as ill-disposed persons, unlawfully contriving and intending to do certain wicked.acts; and all this for what? Why, because they were delegates, or took a part in choosing delegates, for the purpose of agreeing upon, and causing to be presented, a petition to Parliament, the object of which was to obtain for themselves and the rest of the Catholics an equality in rights with their Protestant fellow-subjects. Call you this forbearance! The Attorney General has forborne to prosecute some of those who were indicted. But, when did he forbear to do that? Not till one of them had been acquitted, and till Dublin and the whole kingdom had expressed their joy at that acquittal and their approbation of the conduct of the Jury. Not till then; and, therefore, it is by no means difficult to form a just estimate of this forbearance.

If the object of the prosecution had been merely to put the question at rest by a legal decision, why were so many persons involved in it? One would have been enough for this purpose.—I can, therefore, discover nothing like forbearance in any part of the proceedings; and a man must have the impudence of an English venal writer to give that term to the suspension of the trials at Dublin, which, be it observed, appears to have been contrary to the express desire of the parties prosecuted, who, of course, were anxious to get rid of an indictment hanging over their heads.

-At the tail of the article, on which I have been remarking, there are some observations upon the conduct of "the Reformers", as this writer calls them, which are also worthy of notice.He says: "We appre "hend, from what we have read in some "Irish Papers, that we must not flatter "ourselves with the expectation that the "Réformers will suffer the people to be -The COURIER then adds something as "undeceived; they will keep the declafrom himself. He seems to think, that it is "ration of law by the Judges as much not enough to make the Attorney General "out of sight as they do the fact, that the threaten, and therefore, takes upon him to acquittal of Doctor Sheridan was an acput forth an additional threat of his own," quittal solely on account of insufficiency and says, that, if the Catholics mistake "of evidence. Their wish is to keep the forbearance for fear, they will be prose- public mind in a ferment, to inflame cuted with renewed vigour. Forbearance! "and agitate the people, and to take eager The Catholic Gentlemen have experienced" advantage of any season of calamity or disforbearance, have they? It is hard to say Public calamities are their elewhat this man's ideas of forbearance may "ment. Then is the time to create alarm, be; but this we know, that these gentle-" to exalt their own merits, to establish men have been informed against before "the fame of their political sagacity in the

"tress.

« ZurückWeiter »