The Sun.
London, England, 1805-02-18 00:00:00

THE HON. JUSTICE joirksON.

[We have been favoured by a Gentleman at the Bar,
Ireland, with the following Sum Mary of the p“iut.
discussion, and of the arguments on the case of Mr. Ju.-
tice
jOHNSON.]

Os Friday, the iBth of January, a Writ of
Habeas Corpus was sued out, returnable imme.
diately, before the CHIEF JUITICE of Ireland, to,
bring before him the body of the Hun; ROBERT
JOHNsoN, Fourth Justice of His Majesty's Court
of Common Pleas in Ireland, a Prisoner in the ctn. ,
tody of Mr. EDWARD MEDLICOTT, together with
the cause of his detention. Upon the return being
made, the CHM, JUSTICE thought the matter of
such importance and difficulty that he called for the
assistance of such of the Judges as were in town,
(it being Vacation) who all, with the exception of
Mr. Justice OSBORNE, attended the next day, at
the House of the CHIEF JUSTICE, in Merrion.
square.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL, on the, part of the
Crown, supported the arrest, which was impeached
by Mr. MACARTNEY, Mr. JotiN BALL, and Mr.
WILLIAM JOHNSON.
The return stated,. that Mr. Justice JOHNSON
had been arrested by virtue of a Warrant issued by
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, Chief Justice of England,.
reciting, " That it had been certified to him, by
a Clerk in the Crown Office, that an Indiament had
been loon& as of last Michaelmas Term, against the
Hon. ROBERT JOHNSON, /are of Werteriartee,
Fourth Justice of the Common,Pleas, in Ireland, for
having written and published, at Westminster, in
the CoUnty of Middlesex, a Libel of and concer.n.
lug the Government of Ireland; Lord Hatt W ICE Et
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; Lord Its UEBDAL fit
Lord High Chancellor of Ireland ; and the Hon. C.
OSBORNE, Fourth Justice of the King's Bench in
Ireland ;" and requiring his Tipstatf, to,‘Whom it
was direaed, to apprehend the said ROBERTIOiiw,.
soN, in order to his giving bail to appear and plead
to said Indictment, within the ,first ten days of the
ensuing Hilary Term, and to appear upon the
postea in cast of a verdict against him at Nil;
Prius. That this Warrant of Lord ELLEFIBO.
ROUGH'S having been duly. adopted"by J. BELL, a
IViagistrate of the County of Dublin, the
near JOHNS©N was waited upon therewith, and in
the presence of Mr. BELL, was required by him,
EDWARD MEDLICOTT, to give bail accordingly;
which he refused to do. That thereupon the War.
rant was executed, and the said RoaRRT JOHNSON
brought to Dublin, being the nearest way to Eng.
land:—that in the City of Dublin the Warrant was
indorsed by a Magistrate of the City, and that he,
EDWARD MEDI, ICOTT, W3II• abollt to convey him
by the nearest way, into England, when the Writ
of Habeas Corpus was delivered, &c.
Two Affidavits were made on the part of Judge
JouNsoN, the first by himself, stating, that he had
heard, and believed, that the Papers which he was
charged with having written related to transaaions
which had occurred in Ireland in the munth of
July, 1803, and that they were published in the
months of November and December in that year;
that the parties whom they concerned were resi-
dents in Ireland—that he had from the month of
Odober, 1802. never been out of Ireland—that the
persons upon whose testimony the Bill of Indictment
was,as he has heard and believed, found, are persons
in the employment of the Government of Ireland—
that any Witnesses whom he mold call upon are
only to be foundin Ireland—andthat he had no means
whatever of compelling any Witness to attend on a
trial at Westminster to give evidence.
The second Affidavit was, that of Judge Joust.
SON'S Solicitor, J. Sw IFTSIMPSON,Esq. who stated,
that the publications charged to be libellous had
long been publicly sold in Dublin—that he bad
himself purchased them in this City, and that their
publicatiun in Dublin was open and notorious.
The arrest was supported on the words of the
Statute, 4.4 Geo. 111. entituled, an Aft for the
more easy Apprehension of Persons who escape from
one part of the United Kingdom to another, and
from one County to another.
After having been argued for two days before
the CHIEF JusTros and his Assistants, at his house,
the question was adjourned into the Court of King's
Bench, Term beginning on the 231 of January.—
Mr. Justice DALY being absent, Mr. Justice OS-
BORNE declining, from delicacy, to preside, and
the CHIEF JusTice and Mr. DAY being supposed
to differ, the Court postponed the consideration of
the business until Saturday, when Mr. Justice
I)ALY having arrived, it was solemnly argued—Oo
the part of the Crown by the PRIME SERJEANT and
ATTORNEY GENitiaLlor Mr. Justice JoiaNsoN,
' by Mr. CURRAN, Mr. MACARTNEY and Mr. W 44.
JOHNSON.

The arguments upon which the arrest was sup.
purled, were nearly these

t. That the Statute 4+ Geo. HT. c. 92, had
only in view the arrest of persons in one Country for
crimes committed in the other only in cases of
offences which were not bailable.

2. 'That it only extended to cases of afloat es.
cape by locomotion, and not to those in which the
party not having been kindly present. in the place
where the offence was committed, was only present
by construEtion of law.

3. That the Prisoner, even if guilty of writing
this,Libel, was not guilty of an offence in England,
within the meaning of the Ad.
4.. That the Statute only had reference to cases
where impunity was obtained by the oftencler's be-
ing out of the jurisdiction in which the crime was
c4sintnitted„*

The Aa, in its first and second Sections, provides, for
the arrest, Oncl.(in bailable cases), bail of offenders between
County and County within Ireland. The 3d Saban, after
reeitiog tint Felons and other Illalefadurs who escape from
one part of the United Kingdom to another, whereby their
offences often • rimaio llopunisktd—there being no suifleierti
provion for transmitting such ottenders --enacts, that, from
the Ist at August, 1g,4, if any person against when' a War-
rant shall issue, in. I reland, fur any ofence against the Laws
of Ireland, shall eiettpit A-2 rAtf.tei or be in Scotland or
EWarrant,gland, then the Warran endorsed by a Magistrate of the
bLuce whither he shall .so eicapr, go inN reside, or be, shall
e sufficient to arrest him,—and he shall 'be conveyed iby the
nearest way into Ireland, where he shall be brought before a
Magistrate, and dealt with as if apprehended in Ireland.
The 4th Section, " Fear the remedy of the like inconvenh.
hoer, with respect to szrel, persobs escaping from England.
and Scotland into Ireland," goes on to enad the same provt-
shins as the 34. _
:The fifth seraiort provides for the payment of the expence
of trarismitting Prisoners, by the 'Creasurer of the courtly to

On the 6)i point it Vvi's Contended, that the
en ;cling words of the Aft, however general, must
he referred to the Preamble for explanation ; that
ow words - F4nas and, other MalefaCtors". had
clearly in view offences of the high nature of felt).
[lies, particularly capital ofF-nces—but the word
MalefaCtors was necessary to *hide crimes of this
description under the Law of Scotlaod, which did
not acknowledge the term Felons of Felony ;—that
46. other Mulefadors",- must meats sornethirg nearly
synonimous Felons.; but the legi,latute never
could mean to brand persons guilt of petty ores.
passes, or assaults, by the term Alnltineloes:—but
the Statute itself, by omitting to make any provi.
sion for bail.(which, it was confessed by th 6 Aerate..
NET GENERAL, it had Omitted to do), proved
clearly that it was not intended'to include bailable
offences—that. the words no sufficient pro.visioil
ing made, Jrc. implied, that soot: provision had cx.
isted—which was true, of unbailable ofFnces, but
not of bailable:--that this provision, in. cases
of unbailable crimes, however, was not sufficient—
jr being by a Secretary's Warrant, which was mat-
ter of favour, and: not of right—that the English
Habeas Corpus ACt, 31 Car. 11. acknowledged
this distinftion, and permitted the transmission
of capital .ofrencleisfrorn one country to another,
while it punished by the heaviest penalties the
sending out of England a subject not charged with
a capital offence f. that this law, if construed to in,
dude misdemeanours, would aft as a AMAX. of
the Habeas Corpus Mt in England, and would
subjea, es the law Was I eCiprOC4B any man to be
taken 'out of his house in London, and carded
without, the 'power ,of giving bail, to whatever
county v in, Ireland a vindietive prosecutor midit
chose.' That-the Legislature must be supposed to
regard the, common law rights 'of the subje6t,
and aaually did so in this Alt,proViding,, that
in casts between country and country, bail should be
allowed, which it would also have enatictl between
country and country had bailable offences been
within their contemplation ; :and it was - further
urged, that. the law never could mean to
.fornish
an,angry prosecutor with the means of..gratifyittg
his vengeance out of the public purse, by giving
hirn the power of transmitting a prisoner, charged
with the slightest assault, from, one country to the
other at the public expence.

2. Reasoning thus upon ;the preamble and intro.
dutory words, the Court would lcwk to the words
in the enacting clause, which were contended to
attach upon any person whatever who should ac.
•tually or construdively offend against the laws of
•either country ; these words..ivere errape, In? into,
_reside, or be. lithe law were thus to be construed,
every word but be was nerfeCtly. ,unnecessary : but
the Legislature is not to he pressed tp use unneccs.
sary words ; and if a direct
,meaning could be given
to every one of these words consistent with the
preamble, that .maning aught to be adopted ; that
might be done, by supposing the case of a person
whci.had offended by his personal presence in the
country where the offence Was committed ; he Plights
kwnintrwiuntgionmfwiannit it
herietrigsonshot
!sr roe!ito map,
the other
country : having gone irteriAri.be. might reside in
the place where the. warrant Was issued vssr,4l,ore.„
'Wing, he might chance to be in the place whom
the warrant was sent,
.every one pf these words
would thus have a definite meaning, anti meet
every possible case in which punishment might be
avoided by a removal from the place of the of.
fence, while a contrary construdion would read
escape, go into, and reside, utterly nugatory, and as
the word be, implying existence merely, would an.
sswer every other purpose.
3. It was urged, that a person wholly residing
in Ireland couldnot be held construAively to
commit a crime in England. Obedience is due to
the laws of a country under which a man lives,
which he is bound to know, and which can al.
ways reach his offences ; but England and Ireland,
though politically united, are juridically distind.
Their Statute Laws are diffent ; many things are
crimes of a very serious nature in one country,
which are but trespasses in the other. It is
true, that any man sojturning under the protec.
tion of the laws of either Country, owes obeli.
ence during that period to those hiss's ; but his obe.,
dience is not to n,ntirue after he is removed from
tinder their protedion. Upon this ground, Mr.
Justice jciurtsarr, not having been for nearly three
years in England, could nut be supposed ill offend
against the laws of that country within the last
two.

4- No Impunity could follow if a person in
Ireland kid committed a crime against the laws
of Ireland ; ifthe Libel in question were such an
offence, it could be trie.l here ; a publication here
was sworn to, to produce that publication ; sup-
posing Mr. Justice JouNsosi to Love written the
Paper, he must have sent it from Ireland to Eng.
land, and hie parting; with the possesston was a
publication in Ireland, for which, if any proof of
his being the author could be made, he was liable
to be tried in this country, where .111 the parties
lived, all the Cats were known, and where only
witnesses could he and and brought forward.

In reply to the two first arguments it was said,
on the rat of the Crown, Oro the preamble could
only be let in to explain the enatting words when
those words were doubtful. In this case they
were not at, all doubtful, they .embraced every
case of attual or .construCtive measure, and it
would be doing violence to the 14ainest rules of
grammar in suppose that the wurdi reside, or te,
did nut extend to the person wherever he might be
found, or wherever he might have been at the
time of the °Tenet. That misdemeanours were
excluded by the preamble was denied ; the
words mahl:l3ort, included every species of Ivrong
doers, and the wortisfr trty ?fence, in the emitting
part, proved this to be the grand scope of the Le-
gislature. Neither was the omission tit a p,iwer to
bail any proof ; it aright have been considered dan.
gerous to give to either a Scots or Irish Magistrate,
a power to hail ott,nders charged with crimes against
the. lives of the other country, which laws two.
tially dill': red from lit; own, and of which he
could not b.!.expeAtid to know, enough to be .soie to
decide whether he could take b

As to the two hirer heri!s of Ittg-trnerir, it W 4
insistrti. that every limn in ;he three connltita is

and that the author of a libel in any One, is,•by
sending it into -the otners,.guilty of a publica.
lion in each of them, than he may be tried in each,
and punisliedin cacti; and that the prosecutor' its
not to he restrained in his choice et prthecuting
wherever hernay think fit.
This is a very alight view of the arguments which
haVe occupied our three 14,11i' Courts in, St'..;:,e,,ssioti
during this term. ,
In the King's Bench, the CHIRP jusrice, and
Mr. Justice DALyt t!ecided for the validity of the
arrest, Mr. Justice DAY dissenting. A W'rit was
then sued out in the Court of Exthrtper, which,
after four days hearing, decided ,as the Ktog'.s Bench
bad done. 'ford Avowal-me, Chief Baron, ?3arc rid
GEoItOR and M'Cr.r.LAND being in favour of the
Writ, Baron SMITH dissenting. Baron, SMITH'S
opinion delivered on this occasion was the ino;;c
masterly piece of eloquence anti argument ever kniavrii
in our Courts ; it occupied four it,'Uri of tfie pro-
fou„dcit aiwition from a crowded audience, and:
was succeeded by the extraordinary, compliment of
the whole Outer 'Bit- rising and bowing to th 4
Baron at the concussion 'of his speech, in token Of
their respeillul admiration and 3,,,probvion„
meiliateiy upon ti e determination of ihi.ntdii:quer,
a ‘Vrit k,f ii..beas Corpus W 43 sued out of
,tiler Coin.
mon Pleas, where it has been argued -'on Scorday
and this day, and is to be again di,;cris,eti to.:nor.

There are but two julges presiding in till Qdrn.
mon Pleas, in consequence of the a`)seoec of j1141,*
Fox, and the situation of jodg, J ; and it
is nut unlikely but the case may be adjourned lo
next term, to-morrow being the last day, and it
being nearly impassible to conclude the arguments
in the time.