The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-05 00:00:00

~_rv-..../ un

PRICE 713.

llr. Michael Storks once more in the Commission ; an '
le must say, that knowing notYng• and ctring nothim!
bout the individual, and having no further acquaint-ince-
vith the case than he had derived from the report of Mr
. . . _ _

fustice Littledale—the Judge who tried the indictment fof
4erjury-he could not possibly have done otherwise, in
•ommon justice to Mr. Storks, in conformity with the
arinciples of our law, and in conformity, he must add.
with the precedents with which his predecessors had fur
rished him. Lord Eldon had laid it down as a rule—
tie rule might he too strict—it might, and he believed it
lid, sometimes keep improper persons in the corn-
-nission ; but still it was a rule which Lord
Eldon had gleaned from long experience, and a
rule, therefore, which he (the Lord Chancellor)
'lad thought it convenient to take for his guide.
Lord Eldon, he repeated, had laid it thiwn as a
rule, that, if a man were once in the Commission, 11,-
vould allow no one hut himself (the Lord Chancellor)
ti withdraw that man's name, unless he should be con-
victed of some disabling offence, by a competent Court, or
artless he should have become a bankrupt. It was et Ire

that the Chancellor ought to listen to no one but the Lord
Lieutenant, in placing persons in the commission ; but it
was a part of Lord Eldon's rule, from which his Lordship
had declared that he had never swerved, not to all4w a
Lord Lieutenant to strike a man's name out of the com-
mission. Lord Eldon had acted upon this rule in the case
f the Durham Magistrates—(Hear, hear)—who had been
removed by the custos rotulorum, but whom the Great
seal had insisted upon being restored to the• Commission.
Well, then, such being the rule, such the facts of the
case, had he flown in the face of the Lord Lieutenant ?
Certainly not, for he had the recommendation of the Lord
Lieutenant in Mr. Storks's favour, and Mr. Storks's
name had been left out of the commission by the late
Lord Chancellor on account of the indictment for perjury,
which indictment having been tried, Mr. Storks was ac •

quitted by a Jury of his countrymen,with the fullest appro-
bation of the Learned Judge (Mr. Justice Littledale), who
had told him (the Lord Chancellor) not an hour ago, in
that place, that he (Mr. Justice Littledale) had himself
suggested and directed that acquittal. Now it was very
easy for the Noble Earl to say that that indictment had
failed, that it had had no effect, that it had not
succeeded ; and hearing such expressions, it was not
unnatural that the generality of persons should think
it was intended to say that it ought not to have
failed,—that it ought to have had effect,—that it.
ought to have succeeded. Why had not the Noble
Earl said that Mr. Storks was triumphantly ac-
quitted, which was the fact, as he (the Lord Chancellor)
knew, and as the Noble Earl might have known. It
might not be necessary for the Noble Earl to ascertain this
fact, but it was necessary for him, as Lord Chancellor, to
ascertain it. It was his business to go to the record. He
had done so ; and having the Noble Earl's recommenda-
tion, as he had,—for the Noble Earl continued his recom-
mendation in spite of the indictment,—together with the
fact of Mr. Storks being triumphantly acquitted, he had
felt it his duty to restore that gentleman. Now he ought,
perhaps, to assure their Lordships, that there was no man,
in or out of Yorkshire, snore unconnected with Mr.
Storks, both professionally and personally, and even in
the way of ordinary acquaintance, than the individual who
was now addressing them. As to political connection
with that gentleman, he had none. Mr. Storks had been
first put in the commission by Lord Fitzwilliam, and he
owed it to that noble family to state, that neither from
Lord Fitzwilliam, nor from his Noble Friend Lord Mil-
ton,—nor, in a word, from any one connected with them,
had he received any application in favour of Mr. Storks. He
had, however, received application on the subject of Mr.
Storks from some who were connected with that noble fa-
rnily,—strong applications against restoring Mr. Storks,
—nay, he had received even warnings that 51r. Storks
ought not again to be put upon the commission. But he
had not attended to these warnings and these applica-
tions ; he hail adhered to, and had acted upon, that
rigid and inflexible rule, to which he had before ad-
verted, and that, too, against his own political friends.
At the same time he ought to state, that he had bad
many applications in favour of Mr. Storks,—one of
them, a petition signed by one thousand persons, and
the whole of one township had again and again ad-
dressed him, in order to procure the restoration of Mr.
Storks to the commission. It was not, however, in con-
sequence of such appliertions that he had restored Mr.
Storks, although, if he had wanted authority in favour of
what be had done, he might adduce these applications.
The fact was, that he felt he had no choice in the matter,
for if he had not restored Mr. Storks, it would have looked
as though he was trying Mr. Storks in his private room
for perjury, after Mr. Storks had been acquitted Fry a Jury
of his fellow-countrymen.—(Hear.) If he had refused
to restore Mr. Storks, he should have sent it out to the world
that he thought Mr. Storks guilty, although the prosecu-
tion, as Mr. Justice Littledale had described it to him,
was, he must say, one of the most groundless and abomi-
nable that had ever been brought into Court. What d:d
their Lordships think of calling upon a man to prove that
he had sworn truly, in an answer to a bill in Chancery,
respecting a most complicated affair which bad happened
thirty years ago, and when all the persons who could prove
whether he had sworn truly or falsely were dead, with the
exception of one person, and that person being the pro-
secutor ?—( Hear.) Mr. Justice Littledale had told him,
that as soon as he had heard the story of the prosecutor,
he was instantly struck with the cruelty and injustice of
letting the case go on, and, further, that even upon the
showing of the prosecutor himself, there was no reason for
supposing that, if Mr. Storks had stated any thing con-
trary to the fact, he had done so intentionally. Nov, per-
haps, this Learned Judge might be wrong, and perhaps the
Noble Earl, as he had attacked one Judge, would think it
right to attack Mr. Justice Littledale for being of opinion
that Mr. Storks was not guilty.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
But Ire had spoken with another Judge upon the subject
—with Mr. Baron Bayley, whom he hail consulted re-
specting the letter. According to the recollection of Mr.
Baron Bayley, he had intended only that Mr. Storks
should be suspended during the trial, and bad never
meant to recommend that Mr. Storks should be struck out
of the commission. But lie did not pray in aid of the
authority of this able and upright Judge-a.for what
did the case of the Noble Earl amount to when the charge
of perjury was removed ? It was very improper in par-
ties to write to a Judge (he spoke, however, in the pre-
sence of those who well knew that Judges could not help
parties writing to them) ; and it was, perhaps, still more
improper in parties to write to a Jury ; but was that such
an offence as should disqualify a man for the commission
of the peace, or was it in candour and fairness to be s's!
down to that interest, and indiscretion, and imp4tience
which persons felt is their own cases, and which fre-
quently urged them beyond the lannda of regularity ?
Many of their Lordships had spoken to him about their
own cases and the cases of their friends, not asking that
any very undue favour should be exercised in regard to
such cases, but asking that which could not properly be
granted ; for instance, " Can't you give a little time ?"
and so forth.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Such conversations
had always been put an end to by hint as speedily as the
rules of good breeding would allow—(Hear, and a laugh)
—for they were not conversations which ought to be held
between persons who were interested in a cause, and the
Judge who was to decide that cause. He did not blame
any of their Lordships for this, and still less did he say
that in consequence of it they were not fit to be Judges in
the last resort, for he was sure that no harm was meant;
but surely the meaning of Mr. Storks might have been as
innocent. By the way, as the contrary might 1,-,p sup-
pos,d, he begged to state that Mr. StottrA had given him
no assistance at his election for Xorkshire. Indeed, he
wanted no assistance, for there was not a voice raised
against him, with the exception of that of one per-
son, who, he might add, was still in the commis-
sion,—though many persons he knew very muelt ob.
jected to Iris beine: there,—he meant Ws Marlyn
Stapylton—(Hear, hear,a and laughter).--his adversary.
lint, to return to the Noble Eirl's case. The Noble
Earl complained that he (the Lord Chancellor) had
not made up his mind on the 14th of June. Now he did
not see why he was bound to answer this objection, if he
had made up his mind rightly at last. Allow him to say,
that he had a right to take time for conaideration, for in-
vestigation, and for all else which prudent men indulged in
before they made up their minds, and which he was not
very likely to overlook, as he had not failed to perceive in
how very disagreeable a situation the Noble Earl might
place hint if he should make up his mind not to restore
Mr. Storks. Let their Lordships see what that situation
would have been. The Noble Earl had talked of ques-
tions which might be put to him in the county, now that
Mr. Storks was restored; but let him also suggest to the

ebne epnu tr
e ths
t o dm.
gshthandavneott)e
ons
if Mr. Stomrki
Noble Earl, EHaarrel,wwGodlaa)t hi
Suppose there were such people as " Storkites"—( Hear,
and a laugh)—in Yorkshire, and suppose that they had
come and said to the Noble Earl, " why did you strike 31r.
Storks's name out of the comtnissiun ?" The Noble Earl
might answer, "I did not strike his name out; on the
contrary, I recommended Mr. Storks." " \%ho did it
then?" " The Lord Chancellor," must he the reply; and
so it would go forth that 311.. Storks had been put out of
the commission in consequence of some spite or mistake of
the Lord Chancellor.—(hear, and a laugh.) Nov this
would be very unfair, but it would be very natural for the
people to think it true. The Noble Earl had, in the first
instance, recommended Mr. Storks ; and now, in the
eyes of all men, he seemed to disapprove of his having
been placed in the commission. This, he thought, was
a complete answer to all that had been said. He
had no interest whatever in the appointment of
rates. If cause were shown to him why, in any instance,
they should be chinged, he would not heitate to alter the
commission. As a proof of the humility with which he
u.el the power of his situation, he would st..te to their
Lordships, that lie had not called to the commission of the
peace the nearest relation he had, until he received a letter
from a Noble Marquis, with whom he was upon no parti-
‘.ular terms of intimacy (he alheled to the Lord.Lieute-
pant of Cumberland and Westmoreland), expressing a wish
that lie should place that individual in the commission,

which intimation he of course complied with. His reason
for net rejecting the name of Mr. Storks was, because be
never knew, until the present evening, that the Noble Eat!
a 1 t ,a,l,7paprepssed any o
int
ment. dislike t o therenewal
ioBt
assuredly
i o
a nyf
tthatjn g
intimation
the kind hail ever been made to him, he did not recollect
it. He had therefore inserted the name of Mr. Storks in
ihe fiat, without any immediate consultation with the
Noble Earl, because he deemed it superfluous and unne-
ce-sary. He hid no connexion or personal acquaintance
with this individual. Personal bias lie had none in this
transactiou. He had acted in obedience to a wriet rule,
from which, since he had been in office, he bad never de -
pa, ted. He had felt it necessary to say thus much, because
case was one of great importance both with respect to
himself and to the Magistracy in general.—(Hear.)
Lord LYNDHURST wished to say a few words as to
the course which he had taken in the transaction allutiti.
to, and lie was the more desirous to do so, because in one
material and essential principle be differed from the doe,
trine laid clown by the Noble and Learned Lord on the
woolsack. A communication had been made to him (Lord
Lyndhurst) by Mr. Storks himself, on which be felt that
he was imperatively bound to act, and lie thought that
their Lordships would agree with him, that it was hones-
sible for him, in accordance with any proper rule of con-
duct, to act otherwise than he had done on that occasion,
Mr. Michael Storks stated to him, by letter, what Lis pro-
ceedings had been with reference to the case which had
been referred to. It appeared that a bill had been filed in,
Chancery, to which he put in an answer, and certain alle-
gations contained in that answer were made the grounds
of an indictment against him for perjury. Mr. Storks
stated that the Grand Jury having been suinmenell to con-.
eider the indictment, he had taken upon himself to address
them on the subject. He (Lord Lyndhurst) felt it impos-
sible, in consequence of this statement, which came ftoise
an individual who had for many years he'd the office of
Justice of the Peace, to place his name on the cummissien.
—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Michael Storks said in that letter,
" that having received information that certain parties in-
teadtd to appear as prosecutors and witnesses on a bill
preferred against me, I considered it to be my duty"—(and
here their Lordships would observe, that this came from
a Magistrate of 20 years' standing)—" I considered it to
be my duty to apprize the Grand Jury of such intention,
with a few remarks on the case. This, I understand, is an
error; but, if so, I erred unintentionally; and my being
e
made a victim is the real cause
thfrom
eir nno
imeoxhfac,il my
yeyd
oilnui excluding
otherevl
‘hai iisrgees thus
ttt.utho.
ass,
Storks
soc
look-
ing r ,
The Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack adro'Ated
that if this were done from a corrupt motive, it v:as most
reprehensible. But could it arise front any other than a
corrupt motive, when a proper tribunal exieted to try and
tu decide on the merits of the original charge, that lie
should address a letter to that tribunal ? Was it possible
upt
itnhoattiavttelii sea(ctlitat
sewea,orh,uelid,
eviap,arrs.o)er-eige,lid:
ons
the Commission. But, taking it as an error, as Mr.
Storks stated it to be,—an error committed, be it ob-
served, by a person placed in the office of a Judge, should
he have been justified in reinstating him in that situation?
—( Hear, hear.) He thought that he had acted correctly
in taking the course which he had adopted, although his
Noble and -.Learned Friend had taken a different view of
the ease, and preceeded in a different manner. Ile (Lord
Lyndhurst) also had a letter which Mr. Storks had ad-
dressed to the Foreman of the Grand Jury,—a letter from,
and in the handwriting of, Mr. Storks, who had been its
the Commission of the Peace for twenty years. Thus. ran.
om-
that letter—"
ilbieeodopyar,niTtedhouel
rultheeirtyot
letter
rNo
tfth,i,bet,elhenemt billeef
tiwhitycnuhl
aie of Nssny
reterre_ide
be-
lsfpentoaarvsetieinntgigitaftttrhont the best authority, that a number of persons
are combined to prosecute. The ostensible prosecutor is
James Woodhouse; but be is not in circumstances to
enable him to carry on such a proceeding, and the
whole business is the result of wicked, and malicious
feelings. Not less than thirty-two years ago I had a litiga-
tion with Woodhouse, which is a proof of the malice that lie
still harbours ; but I trust that the Grain! Jury of the yiunty
of York will not agree to countenance such injustice, but
will allow the Court of Chancery to decide the issue which.
is still pending, before they find the bill which is now-
, preferred." This was the letter which Mr. Justice Bayley.
when it was placed before him, bad thought it necessary,
as his Noble and Learned Friend had stated, to submit to
the Secretary of State for the Heine Department, together
with other documents. His Noble and Learned Friend
had said, that if the letter had been wrieten by an attor-
ney, the act would have been more reprehenaible. He
could not agree in that opinion—he could not subscribe to
that principle, because he could not forget the offence was
committed by an individual reho had been fur 20 years in
the commission of the peace.—(Hear, hear.) Another
letter was also addressed to the Grand Jury, suggesting
observations to them. Some of the observations were as
follow :—" Samuel Holdsworth, of Halifax, butcher, one
of the prosecutors against Michael Storks, will swear any
thing. Joseph Woodhead, another of them, will also
swear any thing to forward his infamous design." Such
were the reasons which induced him to exclude Mr. St, As
from the commission, It was not on account of the in-
dictment for perjury that had been preferred against Mr.
Storks. So far from that being the case, such a circum-
stance would have made him doubly cautious in excluding
that individual, because such a step might appear us if he
twee passing judgment on him.—(Hear, hear.) But hu
had deemed it necessary to exclude Mr. Storks because be:
had committed an indictable offence.--(Hear, hear.) Did
not his Noble and Learned Friend know that it was. an in-
dictable offence to write to the foreman of a Grand Jury
for the purpose of influencing him ? Anti who was it that
did so? Why, an individual who had been executing the
duties of a Justice of the Peace for 20 years. That was the
ground on which be excluded Mr. Storks front the com-
mission; and, after such misconduct, he would have
considered it a disgrace if he had placed. Mr. Storks in the
commission of the pence.—(Hear, hear.) lie had been
traduced on account of the part be bad taken in the papers
published in the county of York, and in anonyuaeus let-
ters which bad been sent to him. An extract from one of
these he would read, as it contained a most unjust attack
on his Noble and Learned Predecessor in office. The letter
was signed, " A Yorkshire Freeholder ;" and it contained.
this passage :—" Surely you ought to look to his long ser-
vices before you degraded an individual who was so bright
an ornament of the bench." Then there was a letter
signed by Mr. Storks himself, in Willett he stated that his.
(Lord Lyndhurst's) predecessor would not have pursued the
same course; and that he had acted differently from what
Ilia Noble and Learned Fedecessor would have done. " I
have nut to learn (said the writer) what malignity the
most persevering will be exereised towards me by those
partiee. I could not expect any thing like a fair and
manly hostility from them. The same point was pressed
upon your eminent predecessor, but by him it was indig-
nantly rejected," Now he was quite convinced that his
Noble and Learned Predecessor would not, under the cir-
cumstances which he had detailed, have rejected such a
course of ratoceeding, but would at once have decided that
he bad no other to follow. His Noble and Learned Friend
had stated, with perfect correetness, what had passed be
tween his Noble and Learned Friend and himself. His
Noble and Learned Friend bad written a Letter to him,
requesting t.c.. `.a.now why he had excluded Mr. Storks ;
and he had stated, distinctly, en that occasion, that the
ground on which he h el:lie:el:lieu; dar,ei;l,;lzei.rianni d
Iwas,e.,,..lllsL(.l'LL
Jury,com uinnieaaticoanse arsespteco iting hnitmeisfeelrf,encaeniNiViptahrttichueuGdyranimd
words
tat
a—c(aHseeawr,hehreear,an
hear.) The
was absolutely
haps, have been mistaken by his Noble and Learned.
; bul
occasions to consult le or (-
Lieutenantcustomary on such
of the county. In this ease it appLined t)i4tl
pleased to the Commis:don;
ly
aritten. Unnh
hfbhe ruei et
bnbedlele believedyePotbhaabzthat, for the last 40 or 50
had a right to appoint
qsuee had thez:ibt.iii