The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-11 00:00:00

always be addressed direct to the Judge. It would
certainly appear to be beyond a juryman's pro-
vince, except in very extreme cases, to interfere

with the conduct of the case at all, and certainly

for him to take upon himself the office of censor
is to trench upon the functions of the court itself,
and contrary to all legal etiquette. It is the
business of the presiding judge to keep order in
the Court, and to see that each party fulfils his
duties properly, and if he fails to maintain the
dignity of his cffice no other person can properly
take his place. The utmost that it would have
been correct or becoming for the foreman to do
would have been to have called the attention of
the judge to the conduct of the barrister, if in
fault, and to have appealed to him to interfere for
the protection of witnesses or the elucidation of
the truth. The judge's fault was in not checking
the officious juryman in observations which the
higher court condemned as improper and imperti-
nent, and such interference might well have been
expected from a judge who proved himself suffi-
ciently sensitive to the honour of his court to pro-
ceed, subsequently, to the unusual length of fining
a barrister. Then came Mr. PATER'S share in
the fault. It was, perhaps, natural that he should
feel some irritation, and he might, without impro-
priety, have appealed to the rest of the jury on
behalf of his client, begging them not to be un-
duly influenced by the opinion of their foreman ;
and, in fact, the Lord Chief Justice distinctly
intimated his opinion that such an appeal was
entirely within a counsel's province. However,
Mr. PATER went further. He said, "Thank rs 3 OD
that there are twelve jurymen ; for if it rested
with one, and that one the foreman, there could be
no doubt of the result," and according to the affidavit
of Mr. PATER he added that "he ought to be re-
moved from the box and another juryman put in
his place." Mr. PAYNE upon hearing these words,
uttered in a loud and angry manner, requested Mr.
PATER to withdraw them; being, according to his
own account, apprehensive of a retaliation on the
part of the foreman. The words themselves were
not so much objected to, as the manner of uttering
them ; but Mr. PATER, when appealed to by the
Judge, declined to retract them, reiterating them
with some warmth, upon which, after some alter--
cation, the judge inflicted the fine of 120, which
the counsel has just appealed against. The decision
of the learned judges on Monday, will, we think,
be received with general satisfaction. They ehowed
themselves to be unanimous in maintaining the
general rights and privileges of the bar and of the
jury, and showed no wish to elevate the judge of a
court of public law into an arbitrary despot.
But after a careful hearing of the case,
they arrived at the conclusion that they
were not justified in making the rule
absolute to quash the order. The Lord Chief
Justice, in delivering his very clear and able judg-
ment, pointed out that the question for them to
decide was really whether the Court of Quarter
Sessions had power to punish for contempt of court,
and not consider the justice of its decisions. The
Court of Queen's Bench has, as his lordship pointed
out, no appellate jurisdiction with regard to the
lower court, although it could interpose in a case
where the Court of Quarter Sessions had outstripped
its functions. " There can be no doubt," said his
lordship, " that the words themselves were words
which a counsel might well have uttered in the
honest discharge of his duty ; and however harsh
or unpleasant they might have appeared, that would
have been no ground for a committal for contempt.
But, if used for the purpose of insulting the juror,
then they were used not in the exercise, but the
abuse of the privilege of counsel, and then they
would amount to a contempt of court, for which the
counsel might properly be punished." The matter
therefore resolved. itself principally into a question
of tone and manner of which only those present at
the time of the dispute could judge, and conse-
quently it would have been scarcely suitable to quash
the judgment of the lower court, mere especially as
the opportunity of explanation was afforded to Mr.
PATER, who might easily have intimated that he
intended no disrespect to the court. The Lord Chief
Justice, in some measure, modified his judgment by
commenting strongly on the error of the Assistant-
Judge in not silencing the juror's irrelevant obser-
vations and preventing his getting itsto a personal
altercation with the counsel. So that all the parties
concerned met with well-merited reproof. Mr.
PATER'S case did not suffer for lack of an advocate,
since Mr. DENMAN, who appeared for him, did not
confine himself to argument, but cited an instance
in which Lord CAMPBELL, no insignificant autho-
rity, had expressed, in strong terms, his approval
of ERSKIN E'S reproof to a judge; and not content
with so distant a precedent, Mr. DENMAN ingeni-
ously referred to cases in which the Lord Chief
Justice himself and Mr. Justice SHEE, then on the
bench, had taken a similar course. But we may
presume that, in ail these instances, the learned
counsel showed a due respect to the court by pre-
serving a proper moderation of tone and manner,
and certainly ERSKINE'S language was different
from that of Mr. PATER. Next to securieg justice,
order is the first thing to be sought for in a court of
law, and, indeed, it is highly instrumental in attain-
ing the power. It would be impossible to preserve
due decorum if counsel were allowed to forgot the
obligation of courtesy in the excitement of advocat-
ing a cause or defending a privilege. Tha value
of such forms has been powerfully illustrated in
the contrast afforded by the American Congress to
our own English Parliament, and we must not
forget that when the words, " Take away that
bauble," dismissed the symbol of representative
authority, the rights of Parliament itself soon fol-
lowed it. It is necessary very often that counsel
should be restained from exercising undue pressure
upon witnesses,
and if, in deference to their sup-
posed privileges, no one may interfere with them,
the liberties of the subject will be imperilled out of
respect to the Bar. Should the judge overstep his
powers, it will be easy for a counsel to point out
his error in a firm but respectful manner, and so
carry the approval cf the public as well as the
higher courts with him. In this case, however, no
such sympathy was evoked, and the decision of the
four judges may be studied with profit by judge,
jury, and counsel in the lower courts.
K-

Lord STRATTfEDEN came forward in a very
spirited manner the other evening to take up the
cause of Poland. His lordship was aware of the
disadvantages he laboured under in undertaking
the task at this juncture, when the interest and
attention of the public naturally turns to the
affairs of Denmark, and centres in the questions
that relate to its welfare. This fact, however, does
not detract from the impertance of the topic re-
ferred to by the noble lord, and due credit ought
to be awarded to him for coining to the rescue, as
it were, and when others drew back in indifference
or ignorance, for stating the points which required
notice. His lordship moved the following resolu-
tion That in the opinion of this House the cor-
respondence of her MAJESTY'S Government with
the
-Cabinet of St. Petersburg on the Polish ques-
tion has not yet reached a satisfactory conclu-
sion." Doubtless many who took up the cause
of Poland with zeal and ardour last year ar-
rived at aboat a similar conclusion; but the
danger is that at the preeent time lit :e or no heed