The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-24 00:00:00

did contain such requisition. As to the materiality of the
warrant, we gave our reasons on Monday for thinking that
the warrant of Sir John Colborne was in no degree material
to justify the imprisonment of this prisoner. We do not think it
necessary to enter into any argument in defence of the judgment
deliberately given, and which we formed upon en anxious
consideration of the case, and with a deep sense cf our
responsibility to the country. To enter into an argument
or discussion, or vindication of what we have so done,
we think would be unworthy of the trust reposed it. us,
in the discharge of which we have pronounced that judgment
which we are satisfied is consistent with law and justice. I a ill
further say, that I do not consider it necessary at all to enter int,
the question ,what more might be done on this occasion. I neit her
assent nor dissent with regard to any of the propositions laid
down on the subject in any respect, and I am by no means pre-
pared to say that if L. Watson, or any of these men had pledged
his oath on affidavit that it is not true on any part of these mat-
ters, whether we should make that the ground of proceedings for
wilful impropriety or not--whether we should make it a found-
ation to quash the return or not. I am not prepared to say that
the falsehood of these matters being made in any degree probable
before us, would not induce us to give the party an opportunity of
having that distinctly proved, and, if so, I do not think it right
that a writ of habeas is to be treated as it has been, as if it were
a powerless weapon for the protection of the subject, or as if
the Judges had been guilty of some fraud and collusion in put-
ting that forward as real protection which is said to turn out
to be nothing but a mere subject of undeserved panegyric.
It strikes me, in this most singular and peculiar case,
for which it is not likely we should fled any precedent,
that even if the remedy had been proved to have en-
tirely failed, that still the provisions made by the law
for the liberty of the subject had been found for ages effectual
to an extent which was never known in any other country,
through the medium of this summary right, a hich is given
through the medium of the law of habeas corpus. But,
at all events I am not prepared to say that, even in the
present case, where there is that statement before us, to
which I give entire credence, of the legal proceedings
which warrant the imprisonment of this person, that if
any part of these proceedings could be impeached by
the affidavit of the party implicated as untrue, I am not pre-
pared to say there might not be full inquiry, and the means
of bringing the truth to appear. With regard to the amending
it clearly follows, from what I have said, that it will be fit
that the amendment should be made, not for the purpose of
varying the nature of the case, because I certainly think the
return is sufficient without it, but on the ground the Attorney-
General took, and on the ground on which we granted this rule,
that it is not fit and decent that any falsehood should appear on
the face of the proceedings of the Court with our knowledge.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE—The question more particularly
under the consideration of the Court is the rule moved for
by Mr. Hill, calling upon Mr. Batchelor to show cause
why an attachment should not issue against him for con-
tempt of Court. Now certainly he had made in his return
a statement which in point of fact is not true, and that is a
justification for us to put in a course of inquiry, to see whether
it be true or not, and next, if it be not true, whether we shall
grant an attachment against him. It turns out that the state-
ment made in the return is not true in point of fact,
then it lays upon him to show that it is owing to some mistake
—some misconception, or something which may protect him
from the proceedings of this Court against him. From the affi-
davit it appears there is some mistake in the return, owing
to some misstatement in the warrant of Sir John
Colborne; for, in the recital of the warrant, the name of
L. Watson is mentioned—in the mandatory part it is left out.
But all the parties were brought over here by the barque
Ross, Captain Morton, and delivered into the custody of the
gaoler by the authority of the Magistrates. Leonard Watson
was delivered along with the other prisoners, and Mr. Batche-
lor, when he received them, had not seen the warrant.
In the course of the day the warrant was delivered to him,
and he afterwards delivered it to the Town-clerk. He, there-
fore, had a very slight opportunity of perusing the warrant ; at
the same time he ought to have done so. But as he did not act
under a wilful intention to impose on the Court, it appears to me
he has exculpated himself ; and I say the rule for the attach-
ment ought to be discharged. With regard to the other parts
of the case it is not necessary to enter into them.
My Lord Denman gave the judgment of the Court
on the general points of the case. It is sufficient
for me to say that I think the warrant not at all material,
because if these persons were under a Canadian Act properly
under sentence of transportation, it was competent for
the Government of Upper Canada to give verbal directions
to bring them to England without any warrant at all. Cer-
tainly the warrant does not seem a business-like document ;
but, at the same time, I think it is not material to consider
whether these prisoners ought to be remanded or not. It is
quite proper that the amendment should be made, because it
is a statement which is not true in point of fact.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS—The observations which have been
made, and which certainly have been carried to a considerable
extent, have for their object an application to a narrow compass.
I allude to whether or not an attachment should issue against
the gaoler of the gaol of Liverpool, and perhaps it may be
admitted that the Learned Counsel in favour of the rule was
well founded in his remark that it is not how far the individual
L. Watson may or may not be affected by this particular error
of which complaint is made, but the question is, I agree with
the Learned Counsel, whether or no, in so doing, there has
been an abuse of the process of the Court, and an attempt to
treat the Couretvith disobedience and contempt. That I take to
be the real question in the case ; but upon the discussion of that
question, whether or not it was that the facts contained in the affi-
davits superseded all commentary, or from whatever ground, the
Learned Counsel ( Mr. Hill) declined to enter into that
which is substantially the main question—l mean whether
this was or not a wilful error : I, says the Learned Counsel,
will not discuss that, but leave it for the decision of the Court.
If that be so, he was in the main retreating from the very
question—why, before punishment was awarded, the Court
should be satisfied there was some intention to treat the
Court with disobedience and contempt. When we come to
examine the facts, what reason is there for saying that ? I
don't rest on the affidavit, which states that he was utterly
ignorant of the error until the motion was made, but what
is his conduct in other particulars ? Does he appear in any
degree to have volunteered to take possession of this
man, and abridge him of his liberty ? Not at all. For
by the affidavit it appears he is acting immediately under
the directions, and upon the authority of the Mayor
and Magistrates of Liverpool. So that, in that particular,
there is nothing to show that he has been stepping out of his
way, for the purpose of showing_he was a zealous partizan, to
deprive this man of any liberty to which he was entitled. But
it has been said by another Learned Counsel (Mr. Roebuck),
that in proportion as we attribute to this man all ve-
rity—all knowledge, and all certainty—that he should
know things at any distance equally well with that
which is before his eyes, that it is incumbent to watch
him with a double degree of scrutiny. Whether or not this is
in any degree new, is a matter into which I will not enter.
The opinion of the Court was given. Its being canvassed
is a matter that cannot be objected to ; but it may be
that General Pitt, when he made his return of what
occurred at Gibraltar, being in England at the time,
was probably not more cognizant of every fact than was this
man of what took place on the other side of the At-
lantic. With regard to the amendment, I concur in the re-
mark of the Lord Chief Justice on the necessity of accuracy
and minuteness in all these cases; but that is not the ques-
tion—the question is, whether the party has been guilty of
contempt and disobedience of the Court. I think he has not.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE. —I entirely concur in the decision to
which the Court has come on the two points on which it has
decided. One, whether the motion for an attachment
against Mr. Batchelor should be made absolute; the
other, whether an amendment should be allowed in
the case of Leonard Watson ; and, agreeing as I do,
almost entirely in all the reasons assigned by my
Learned Brothers already, it is necessary for me to
say ♦ery little upon the subject. Many irrelevant topics
have, it seems to me, been gone into in respect of this matter.
I don't think we have anything to do at present with the con-
duct of the gaoler, in the manner in which he received
this man. I don't think we ought to determine the ques-
tion of this attachment by the materiality or immateriality of
Sir John Colborne's warrant, for when we remember
the point on which this rule turns, which founds
itself upon a criminal and fraudulent return, and thereby
a contempt practised by the gaoler, the question
of the materiality of the warrant cannot be relevant, strictly
speaking,nor do I think it ought much to be considered whether
the inaccuracy, the confessed inaccuracy, was to the prejudice
or not of L. Watson. There is confessed to be an inaccuracy
for which I don't say the gaoler is wholly free from blame,
because by greater diligence he might have avoided falls
ing into it ; but he signed the return not being in the slightest
degree aware of the inaccuracy of which he was guilty, and I
have not the slightest hesitation in saying, the rule must be dis-
charged. I am clearly of opinion there is no foundation for this
application, and it seems to me to be a case in which
the merits are so much on one side, that it seems
hardly possible fur any one to suppose when the
motion was first made there was any serious belief
whether it was possible to sustain it. With regard to the se-
cond point, I am clearly of opinion with the rest of my
Learned Brothers, that we ought to grant this amendment.
Mr. HILL.--Certain amendments have been allowed by
your Lordships to be made in the return on the files of the
Court. As soon as they are made we, of course, shall have
copies of them. At that moment we shall consider ourselves
bound to be ready to take our course, whether we will plead to
the return, or make any other application to the Court, founded'
upon what had fallen from your Lordships.
Lord DENMAN—YOU, of course, will be at liberty to exercise
your own judgment as to what course you will take with that
return.

----
The crowd which had filled the Court then dispersed.

On Monday night last a young girl, named Matilda
Worms, daughter of Mr. Worms, appraiser and furniture
broker, of No. 5, Brook-hill, Clerkenwell, was received into
St. Bartholomew's Hospital, having sustained some severe in-
juries by fire. She lingered in great agony until yesterday
morning, when death terminated her sufferings.
Yesterday an inquest was held at St. Thomas's
Hospital on view of the body of William Henry Russell, aged
28. It appeared from the evidence that the deceased was a
labourer, in the employ of Mr. Constable, farmer, of Dulwich,
and that on the 27th ult. he was going with his master's cast,
drawn by two horses, to Dulwich Pits for a load of gravel,
when the horses took fright at a dog in a cart, and started off.
Upon reaching the entrance of the pit, the poor fellow was in
the act of getting off the shaft, when his right leg was caught
in between it and the gate-post. The calf of his leg was torn
completely off to the bone. On beis,g taken to the hospital it
was found absolutely necessary to amputate the limb. He,
however, gradually sank, and expired on Friday last. Verdict,
Accidental death.