Star. — London, England, 1816-05-01 00:00:00

"? beringht forward ; . thetilitying the Administration of justice in this country. He allowed that his personal feelings might lead him to be more jealous on this tothiect their other men ; but he had no hesitation. in Saying, that he should feel himself .disgraced and un 'worthy of sitting in that House, if he consented to tto motion now made, oragreed for a moment with those who wished to cast this stain on the aclminis rear;on of the country's justice. When he said this, • he did not believe that the object in view was to de %troy the character of the Lord Chief Justice of the Coiirt of King's Bench ; it such was the object, it would have been most effectually attained by praise foram such 'a quarter. Mr. HORNER rose to order. He appealed to the Chair, if it was not c' ntrary to their orders, that any nu Member should charge another with corrupt and Wicked motives, in thealischarge of his duty in that House. Air. LAW said. there was no Honourable Mem , • btr to whose opinion he would rather defer, than to that of the Honourable and Learned MemUer who had just spoken ; and if it was his opinion, and the opinion of the Speaker, thavhc ( Mr. Lew) had been out of order, he should be tar from wishing to in. frinee the custom of the 'House. As to the Oa , 'es on the table, he should abstain from entering into them in detail, not,that such a course would be a disparagement to the understanding of the House.— Ile should observe, however, that the Noble Lord bad totally misrepresented the duty of a Judge. 'The duty of a Judge was to recapitulate, to select and col tate the evidence—not to set an unexperienced Jury afloat in the wide sea of facts, without a compass to direct them, but collect the main lines of evidence, • . hke radii towards a centre, for the elucidation of truth, not for the protection of guilt. It was his duty to protect innocence, no doubt, bin not to say all that an advocate for the defendant might say. This duty was one than which no other required a greater Combination of knowledge and talent. The Judge' was required, not only to throw his mind over the whole plain of evidence, but to select the parts which were most worthy the attention of the Jury.. If in this extemporary duty a Judge fell into some error, there was no one who would be disposed very sr. verely to consider it. But he was aqoaished that the Noble Lord, atter two years undivided at:ention to the conduct of the Noble Judge in his cause, after Al the glosses which he could invent, and a ll the ill. genuity he could Exert. had not bec-a able to imagine one colourable charge. If there had been some de gree of error in the Noble Judge it might have been pardoued, for there was but one pet feet Judge; and it. wan. for the Howe to say, whether a 111411 wino be. fore Goo and his country had to petfot m the arduous duty of directing a Jury in their decision, should not be left petlectly free, without the fear of a Partia. mentary inquiry constantly before him.' The House would look, he was convinced, at a man who bad s., arduous a duty to perform. with a favourable eye. Favour, however, was not now required, but justice. The equality in the distribution cif justice was one of the noblest privileges of this country ; hut the pre sent motion tended to destroy this rtitiality, by making on. law for men in general, and another for lifernbeis of Parliatittut—(lhar, hear) Who was the Nehla Lord who btought thus accusation ? He was a convict, who sioud forward to accuse his Judge, with the guilt no his head set crimes for which that Judge had condemned Limn. With what eye would the House regard this accusation He wished the Noble Lord bad stayed out the debate of the evening on which he had given his notice ; if he had heard the eloquent description then given of the ad vantages which this country enjoyed in comparison with other countries, from the impartial administra. lion of justice, he would have hesitated before he had aimed a blow at the pub:io- opinion on which justice rests. II the House wished to sanctity fraud and le alise c o nspiracy, and would drag the Judge from his judgment to level him with the criminal at the bar—they might agree to the motion of the Noble Lord ; but if they wished to preserve pure and ihvio . late the administration ofjustioe, their conduct would ire very different. The Noble Lord called on them to come to a vote in his favour on his responsibility. Had he forgot the tact, that the Jury by finding him guilty - had decided that they would not believe his affirmation on oath, and that by that conviction he was an incompetent witness in any Court of Justice ? The House 'would not go far on the responsibility of the Noble Lord, and he left the cause nt the Lord Chief Justice, and of justice itself, in their hands, con vinced, that from a regard to their own character and the great principles which guided their conduct, they would fix on the motion the negative of indig. nation and contempt. Mr. PONSONBY said, that as the Noble Lord had alluded to what had passed on a former occa sion, the motion fur his expulsion, he thought proper to say, that whatever his opinion was on 'that occa sion, the present motion had no reference to, or con nection with it. He had' voted against the expulsion of the Noble Lord, because the evidence then before them was tot sufficient to ground the expulsion of the Noble Lord on. Seventy four Members had agreed with him: , The motion now before them was quite different—it was nut a motion Against the No- " ble Lord. (Lord Cochrane), but of impeachment against the Chief Justice of the King's Bench for his conduct on the trial of the Noble Lord. He had gone through all the charges with attention, and he could solemnly protest that he saw no ground fur the impeachtuent of the Chief Justice, or for supposing that he had acted partially and oppressively. If he had been of opinion that there sees any ground fur such imputations, no tne would be mote ready to take steps for the degracation and punishment of a Judge than he should be, feeling as he did, that the 11.gb character of our Judges was owing not to the respectability of the individuals only, but to the con. stint jealousy and supervision of Parliament. but while no punishment could be too severe for trans ression on the part of a Judge. it was injurious and creel to make wanton attacks on persons in this situa tion. it' was not enough to prove a mistake in point of fact, but some gross error, which could only be attributed to improper motives, and whit!' gave tea son to supps.se that the badness of the Watt had con tainted to the perversion of the judgment. As he had voted against the expulsion of the Noble Lord, because there was net then ground on which the }bum could found that motion, so he should rote amga . Ina the -motion now proposed by him. sotterroit.otionAL um, 014 i t Offs doe not only to the persons of the Judges, but to jos. ttce itself,to protect tbens against onfounOld attacks. for by weakening tlie tpublit.etpinion on IP itstpartie• lity of thlinahninistration of the w; that adniTnistea• 'ton Was itself weakened. It was not enough to chair a Jeagowith impartiality, injustice, or oppres sion in the general, facts should be stated to support the assertion; for the Hifiute should not consent to refer to a Committee charges against a Judge, unless they could say that facts had been stated to them which, W satisfactorily proved, would entrant im peachment. 'No such facts were stated in the charges before the House. As to the charge that the coun sel for the defendants were called on to proceed with their opening statement late at night, be conceived was a circumstance favourable to the defendant that the-Jury wete not allowed to retire until the evidence for the provecution bad been weakened by the inge nuity and assertions of the defendant's counsel. Un less his strength was absolutely exhausted, he, had he been counsel for the defendant, should havebeen anxi ous to have addressed the Jury while the evidence was fresh on his mind. The Noble Lord had misconceiv ed the ordinary course of proceedings in Courts of Law, as he :opposed that every Counsel employed by the defendants had a right to address the Jury. The ckfendants had divided themselves into classes, fur each of which one Counsel only addressed the Jury : Neither had more than one Counsel for each defendant, or class of defendants, a right to be heard in any case, except in points of law, or in trials for high treason, in which, by statute, two Counsel were allowed to be heard. He should not go through ill the charges, some of which were supported on facts not known at the time of the trial, and which were never before a Jury. The charges,. by whomever were drawn up, did not seem to.have emanated from a sincere conviction. Was it alleged that any point of law had been Wasted ? No. Was it said that any "acts had been mistated ? None, but One with reeatd to the evidence of Alexander Murray, but even this assertion was not borne out. As to the inferences from facts, who was likely to be the fairest judge ? A Judge, learned, indifferent, and unbiassed, or the Noble Lord, who, Whether innocent or no, muss have hod a strung bias on the subject. The trial was ao matter transacted in a corner : it was in the presence of an upright and enlightened Bar, com posed of man who Would be the last to truckle to the will of zi judge—in a crowded twin. in which were men of the highest rank and character. And would the Learned and Noble Judge in the face of this au dience, have sacrificed the high character which he had so hardly earned by a laborious life at the bar and on the beach ; and all this without any one motive ? Notwithstanding the idtprobability of such a condor, it any specific fact of corruption or of bribery could be charged on the Noble Jodge. this House might re. lee to a Committee the examination of the truth of the *negating. But the whole of the charges prefer red by the . Noble Lord were merely argumentative ; net one, indeed, contained the direct statement of any culpable act. If, however, the House would look at the evidence, and consider the charge to the Jury, he was persuaded that no such statement could be sustained. For, upon examioing that evidence, it would be found that a more candid charge was never delivered by any Judge. The Learned Judge did not, in taxi, state the whole of the evidence as it bore against his present accuser, while in what he did state tie left it to the Jury to judge. But the Noble Lord, among his charges, alleged that the Learned Judge was not sufficiently minute in his inquiry as to what passed between *the Noble Lord and his servant when the latter presented the note of De Berenger. Wltat, however, was the fact ? Why, that the Learned Judge distinctly asked the servant, when exabrined in evidence, what his master said, and what passed be tween them upon the delivery of the note alluded to. This appeared in the report of the trial, and the ser vant's answer was very short, entering into no parti culars. But the omisson of particulars was not owing to the Learned Judges. The whole, however, of the charges consisted, he would repeat, of mere inference, and the N. bk Lord's complaint was solely this, that the Learned Judge did not argue as that Noble Lord would have him to du. On those grounds he thought the House would not do its duty if it consented to enter into any inquiry upon such charges, for they contained nothing worth inquiry. They were, in tact, totally destitute of any impeachable matter, and, therefore, there was nothing proper to be referred to a Committee. For, according to the constitutional justice of this country, no man, however humble, could be put upon his trial without any distinct charge preferred against him—without any just grounds of suspicion. Sir F. BURDETT, after 'Ming that it would be improper, as well as uapleasant, to enter on many matters which it was impossible not to bear in mind, lamented the hardship under which the Nark Lord laboured from the very circumstance of his own pre. sence. He should pass Over what had fallen incon sideritely, and perhaps harshly, though naturally enough, horn the Honourable Member ( Mr. Law) who spoke second on this question ; for it any ques• tion demanded a temperate discussion, and more es pecially unmixed with any acrimonious expressions 'from the Noble Lord, and that Honourable Member (Mr. Law), it was this :—He was sure that all the declamation That had been indulged in about justice, and the danger of weakening its influence on public opinion, was entirely unfounded in argument; that, on the contrary, to bring Judges under the tribunal of that House reflected credit on our system of jus tice, and ensured its safe administration, however unpleasant such a course might be to the Judges themselves. Many of them had, heretofore, been dragged to, light in their malversation, which urged the necessity at least of such a measure ; he should, therefore, think it idle to waste the time of the House in refuting thi Honourable Member who had in dulged in this strain of eloquence. Putting this out of the question, he agreed in all his general reasoning with the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr : Ponsonby) who bad contracted the question within such narrow bounds; and he would admit that, it the first charge stood by itself, it did not call for the interlefence of the House; at the same time it contained charges not quite so harmless as the Right Hoe. Gentleman had stated. As to the time at which the Learned Judge broke up the' trial, he (Sir F.) should certainly feel it the greatest advantage, if some time were suffered to in , terrene between the prosecution and defence; it af ,Abtliad that time far consideration and.arransement - • • Irrisieh y itenersin eitabitea with a defence must so Much ~desire. In the present instance the trial had lasted a long time; a great deal had come, under consideration, and tbere was every reason for the calms*" to wish fart to be called on (after sitting 14 hours in court) to make a defence. But, further, they themselves thOught delay would be an advan tage—they themselves stated that they were not ca pable of entering on their client's defence, exhausted as they were, at that late hour ; and therefore all that l'heade of the Learned Gentleman about the conve nience the counsel would experience in proceeding immediately, fell to the ground ; for here we had the I counsel themselves declaring that they were Inca pable of proceeding. There was another circum stance in the charge that justified suspicion, for sus picion *mold fall on any man who compelled a course of proceeding. and gave a reason for it. if the reason turned out untrue. Now it was alleged that the Court could not be broke up at a lase hour, because cert yin persons in public offices would find it inconvenient to attend at another time! Surely this could not be any sufficient reason for refining to adjisorn the trial : it was therefore not unfairly brong!lt forward, as tend ing-to shew a general bias against the defendant. Tee Hon. Gentleman who spoke second could not have read all the cluirges; for he thought this the principal: but if the anise found as strong or rronger matter in all the other charges, it could not reject them alto gether. The question was, whether these aarges did or did not contain the offences of partiality and corruption ? Lie should call the attention of the House to the 13th charge—that of conveyino an opinion to the Jury that De Berenger appeared isrore the Noble Lord in a red coat, and suppressing evi dence that he wore a green uniform : this was not merely erroneous reasoning, but a positive fact; it charged the Learned Judge with.supplying evidence to the Jury of a most material tact, which must have had great weight with them : as a Juryman, if he had believed the statement of the Judge, he must have been compelled to give that verdict which the Jury did. The Learned Judge used this language : ", Having Minted down the game , _ they chewed what became of the skin." Presently he supposed a dia. logue to go on between two persons concerned in a fraud. Now this was,all supposition, and there was not a word to bear out the expression, that " the patty appeared in the full costume of his crime :" there was no evidence to prove that ar Berenger peered before the Noble Lord in this masquerade dress. If it had been so, the Noble Lord's case was no longsr defensible : but the whole depended on a hackney-coachman, and yet it was stated by the Judge on the Bench, that all the witnesses concurred in this testimmy. It was stated too, on good grounds, that this coachman had received money for giving his evidence. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to order, ' conceiving k disorderly to alledge that any witness (who had never been prosecuted) had received a bribe ; hut upon a cry of aair, Chair The SPEAKER decided, that the Honourable Baronet was in order. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT resumed, and ob served, that although he might have made an en-. founded statement, or offered an erroneous Argus:lent, to which the Learned Gentleman might reply, lie had uttered nothing contrary to order. He only meant to mate what he had heard, that nmeey was rained to eoliect evidence for the trial under consi. &ration, and that under such cUctinist vices, the testimony of low people should be received with great caution. The evidence, however, of Crane,. referred only to the dress in which he received De j Berenger into his coach, but that dress De Berenger might have changed before he met the Noble Lord ; and even when De Berenger left the coach, Crane stated that he wore a great-coat with a red collar to his inside.coat. Now a red collar mail red facings to a green coat, was the uniform of the Sharp-shooters, and this was the dress in which the Noble Lord said he first saw De Berenger. Therefore there was no. thing is Crane's testimony directly contradictory to the allegation of the Noble Lord, and certainly nothing to justify the strong remark of the Learned Judge. This remark then, which formed the subject of the 18th charge, certainly called for inquiry, and warranted the motien,becanse it afforded a just ground to suspect partiality. But according to the Hon. Gen. tleman (Mr. Law), no charge against a Judge should be entertained unless actual bribery appeared, or in other words, unless the guilt of the Judge were so glaring, that it would be impossible for the House to shut its eyes against it. The Learned Gentleman was, however, more constitutioual in his language, than the Honourable Gentleman : and admitted that just ground of suspiCion would form impeachable matter. With regard to the observations of the Ho. nourable Gentleman, that we should not allow any law or privilege to Members of 'Parliament which was not enjoyed by other individuals, the fact was, that Members had many exclusive privileges, and one of them was, the right which any Member pos sessed of laying an article of chaige upon the Table of that House. But a Member had not, in fact, any material advantage in this respect, for any other member of the cornamaity might also peter a charge in the shape of a petition, which lie (Sir Francis) should not hesitate to present; nor could he suppoo: that any Member of that House, aware of his duty, would refuse to present such a petition. Therefore there was no mighty difference in such cases betwreu Members of that House and other individuals. But as the charge under consideration was presented by a Member of 'that House, it was surely not the less entitled to attention, especially from a recollection of the sentence, which that House itself, as well as ! all other men, the Noble Lord himself, and his Judges, conceived to be too severe—(Hear, hear). — But yet the Noble Lord did not complain of, or ap. Vlfor, any mitigation of that senttnce ; indeed, the obJe Lord refused to make any bud* application. But the Noble Lord's conduct throughout, before and after his trial, was such, that lie (sir k rancis) could not conceive it possible for any man to act with such confidence who was not conscious of his inno ' cence. Here the Honourable Baronet detailed the proceedings of the Noble'Lord to obtain a new trial in order to vindicate his conduct by add uciog further evidence, and strongly animadverted upon the con duct of the Court of King's Bench in rejecting the Noble Lord's application upon the subject, because. truly otiters involved in . the same indictment, and who had fled the country, did nut join in the appli gado& Trio ruled Court, picadl4 fur this extraor- ainsiy aeclslois, iiffseirell to hint, as It inspartial l man, utterly unjustifiable. ' in fact no right t' make such a rule, oncly contradictory to that sacred mas. Charta, ztulli ar:abintu: aut wnditinot ant , 'Want." Justice was denied to the Nair upon the most en•enable grounds, u however, very approrrive to the nosy( prosecutions For conspiracy. The prii system of prosecution was, in Wet, alr tionabie ac that condemned by the Poet ----Rhathnianthus Labe: duri.crma mina, Castigarque, audnq;—dolos ; sub , gi.q ; fated. The Honourable Baronet mantt.tined, strain in which the Learned Judge del in the charge alluded to, for inst:►nce, sons must have been murdered at the the evidence were not deemed suffice the accused, departed from the tempera duty prescribed, and which became the an impartial Judge. The House shot)! upon the charges on the tahle from duced by the Learned Gentleman who that, I,kc samples ton often ethib'ted ai kets, diEered materially from the bulk longed. It must be clear to any m an w h o isupur tially read the charges throughout, t h at t h ey eel rained a great deal of impeachable stuttter,•web called for the inquisition of That House. Tie tiTTORNEY-ENERAL observed,that it had occurred to many, that the House should not so long have delayed to decide upon those charges, b ut for himself, and for the sake of justice, he confessed that he WAS glad of the delay, because k afforded a fulk r" opportunity for considering the *hole case, n 4 because the result was such as he had anticip a s e l I must be the consequence of due consideration. ft the Learned Judge alluded to, were not more or les s than man, he must feel that he had pound to con. gratulate himself from what had taken place thu night. For after what the Hionourable Bartis-s h a d stated, that not only any Member of that House, bat any individual in the community was at liberty to prefer a charge against the Learned Judge, it wa s a gratelul testimony to that Learned Judge, dtsrlin of his difgcult and important d -ties, that ni one wa ever found to prefer any charge against him but as unfortunate convict who was pronounced guilty by a Jury of his,country, while the only person mend to support the charge of that convict was the Hump able Baronet associated with him in the representa. tion of Westminster. Bu: it was impassible that any man who looked impartially at the wilco , : of the ease could concur in the conclusions of the Hun. Baronet. With respect to-that part of the charges which related to the direction from the Judge to proceed with the trial, the Honourable Baronet had not stated the facts correctly. There must be a power somewhere to to gulate the proceedings of the Court. It wo u ld b e utterly impossible to go on in the. usual course of justice, it it were put to the convenience of an Ad. vacate, whcther x cause should be proceeded in a t postponed to a futnre day. There would always be some reason or other, why an advocate might ail fir delay. He would go further, and say, that the interesls of justice were substantially prontwed by Ea allo xi:lg any unnecessary. delay, for an advocate was in a better conditioo.to discharge his duty, when all the various occurrences were fresh upon his es.ind, the tone and manner in w},ich witnesses had give.' then evidence, and a thou-and different circumstances, the force of which would be whull7 lost, it any coati. derable interval writ? to take place. With respect to :he power of determining what course should be adopted in any cause, it WAS evident that a presiding authority mast exist somewhere, and in whose hands could it he so properly placed, as in those of the aid Judge of the Cum: ? There was te.thing unjust, ax I impartial, in the conduct or my Lord Ellen. borough. He merely intimated a hope, that they might be able to proceed , in the trial, and to bring it to a conclusion, without any adjournment.— Among the many misfortunes which had befallen the Noble Lord, he could not help I considering.it as one of the greatest, that he bad the Honourable Baronet for his advocate. He did not mean to use the words offensively. He alluded only to the fine of argument which the Honourable Baronet had adopted. The Honourable Baronet. said, and -it was one of the gravest charges, if it were founded in truth, that the Noble and Learned Lord, using that striaog and for. cable language which was so familiar to him, con. ve) ed a different meaning to the Jury than what the evidence would justify. the expression of the Noble Lord, alluded to by the Honourable Baronet, was, " that after having hunted down the game, they then disposed of the skin." The game was De Be. rangers the skin, the mountebank dress in which be was clothed. The Honourable and Learned Gene demon here went into a recapitulation of the evidence which proved the facts of De Berens/if having been identified through his whole journey, from Dover to Lord Cochrane's house ; and animadverted in for cible terms upon the circumstance that Lord Coch rane did not call his own servants to prove the dress in which De Berenger appeared, which it was reason. able to presume he would have dome, if their eva. (knee could have established what lie had stated in ov:n voluntary affid ivit. With terpect to are evidence et . Crane, the hackney coachman, no douht it would be vety convenient for the purpose of the Noble Lord it he could get rid of that altogether.— But let the House remember that two long years had now elapsed, and no attetnpt had been made either to 'disprove that evidence, or to indict the individual for perjury. Even Denman, the person who re• exited the note from De Berenger, who went with it to Lord Cochrane at the tintnaa's, and who brought back his Lordship's answer, though called Upon the trial, was not examined as to the dress which De Berenger wore. Why not ?—Becattse it was feared he would disclose circumstances unfavourable to the cause of the Noble Lord. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman concluded by observing, that there was not one syllable of crimination in the charges against the Noble and Learned Lord. Sir F. BURDETT explained. Mr. BARHAM expressed his conviction of she innocence of the Noble Lord. His opinion remained unchanged upon that subject. At the same time be could not vote in favour of the motion. I: Lord COCHRANE replied at some considerable length. He forgave those invectives that were direr. tad personally against himself. From the near con nection of on Hun. Gentleman (Mr. Law) with the ' Noble and Learned Judge whose conduct he come 'shined of, his heat and zeal might be excused. The 4 ti I a t a ,4 l 1 ,~ ~, t nttlat to - The , as it Wan f I %f t) w p le on icLro gr er"d , , IL I f ; simpin ° Tr . ,Geocief vcl doctrine . 004 of Irinciple of , fts—fc intost as e .1 Y In cised et— latic els fated. , that from 4116 art :livered hi . w' that many • , gill OA Bailey, • :tent to c on •,, ..11.06 • rance which • • he character oold not .•, if r the sample , 3 spoke liito • tor', at public in v .; 110 1 to which it be *ill - •