The Sun.
London, England, 1805-06-07 00:00:00

1114 P ER 14 L PAR I_, I/.

• /MUST OF PEERS,
TEUIZSDAY, JUNE 6.
Linghem'S Marco Till, and Weston'S Divorce
Bill, were Tea& a secend. time.-e-Moereg Divorce Bill
was ordered to be Teed a second time bextweek. • •
• ete. itisTicE, FOX. , •
Upon the Order of the Day being moved for their
:Lordships to resume the examination of witnesses
relatke tothe Charges preferred against. the HoneMie
Justice Fox, the Learned and -Venerelale Judge:vas
called in, and.Jelr. Rom e e re-cOmmenced the exa.
mination of Mr. Armstrong, the Foreman of the Petty
Airy of Ferthanagh, upon whose petition and coM,
plaint the present inquiry was instituted. The Wit-
ness.wae firet asked, ewhethere.efter_ he had heard the
evidence upon theindiEbhent which had giyearise to
the COndlla of theleekered Jndgc, he could consci-
entiously have found any of the Prisoners guilty ?,
Mr. Adam objeaed to. thi,e enestioti as too general,.
and,it was waived. me Witness, on being cross-
examined by Mr. Adam, stated, that .theetrial in
question took place on the. a 9th of August, • t 8.00
tii4.additiOnal evidence woe gone into after the Jury
had been changed ; that the WitnesS, as the Foreman,
delis ered the verd ofacquit tal 'teeing beefi Out Zibout
half atthour. On the ,f,2ptli of Aughst, the day after
the 1;41, Mr. Justice Fox desired;the Clerk of the
(;,rayon to deliver to him a list of the,.Peity jurors.
When he leidreceiVe'd the. list be desired: the Grand
Jury to be called, and. he stigmatised the. Petty Jury
• es unworthy of being believed ore Oath, ' and unfit to
act in the capacity of Jurors, He itl4a prdereel the
Clerk of tl Crown to deliver the list to es.'ery suc-•
ceeding'Jndge'e
as consisting of me unfit to aEt as
Jurors ; also that
theHigh,and Under Sheriffs should
have lists 'delivered to them, ,in order that it might
be known the Jurors were branded with infamy by
the verdi6t they had given, and furthee, that their
names should be posted up 'in the Grand Jury Room. ,
The Witnetis stated, that ,he had been, examined
this sUbjed below a Committee of. the Hotise of
Lords. He added,: that shortly after the circum-
stance to which he Was deposing; he and his brother
Jurymen, applied to,, Counsel for advice, Upon be-
. ing asked, wheelie first MSC' the-present Petition; he
said it was as long' after the trial, 115' the summer of
1804 ; one of the Jhry brought it to him for hiS sig-
. nature. He belie' ed the name of this Juror was
Fawcett.
~ He admitted, that in the part of Ireland
is which he•and the rest,of the Jury resided, though
they did riot receive the newspapers, they had means
of knowing what paised in Parliament. -He-knew,
befbre he signed the Petition, ehat a complaint had
been made in the House against • Mr. Justice Fox.
He said Fawcett and Weir brought the -Petition to
him ; more of the . Jury were present .at the time.,
It was at the house of Mr.' Reid, an 'lnn-keeper ;
they met hi .4 parlour ,of the inn. He 'did not know
who drew up the .Petition.'
Mießoeueev subMitted, that the Counsel foe the
Learned .Judge had no right to press this course of
inquiry. - , .
Mr. ADAM cOntended, that as the Jniy, by pre,
ferri rig. a joint complaint against the Learned' Judge,
were nhited Plaintiff's in the same cause, what-
ever any of them had done or said was capable of
being proved, aiid Was eqnally applicable to all.
Lriid ELLENIiOROUOII said, there could be
no ytest ion with regerd bi the competency of the evi,
thrice. Li all prosecutions carried on iu Criminal
Courts it wits ttie ordinary and constant course to
egliniine. into the motives by which the Presecu-
ork.were .aaiiiited. if it .appear 4 .that they held
.)rivitte astieniblies, and consulted secretly., together,.
it wait a mostepregnant and important fat% in the
consideration ot the charge, as it might indicate the
motives the Proseeutare had in view,. Not only
the assenibly or rneetinglof the Proseeutore, was an
material to be proved,' but the declarations of
any of them accompanying such ad, were important,
The oteedion to the evideece, therefore, would
not bear an argument.
The Witness proceeded to state, that he did not
kneve who drew up the Petition' or who gave in-.
stmu tiotis for it. They employed an Attorney, who
sometimes lived in Dublin, and sometimes in Fee-
. managh. „ This Attorney was the father of one of
the jurors. The Witness was asked, whether, he had
'given the same kind of evidence before the Commit-
tee of the House of LordSe .
Lord HeWeesee LlU,Rigilt.it, irregular to refer to
the evidence giVen -before the Committee.:
The Doat of Ceeatece intimated; that, as the
question, had been objected `to by a',Noble Lord; it
would be proper for the Learned Cohnsel to with-
draw, it.
Mr. AILOA contended, that he hada eight to ask
the question' in oi.ler to compere the evidence given.,
by. the Witness now with that wbich had been given
before. It was a course, of eeiimihation which went
to lie credit of the \Virile:33's teStirnony. ;rye there-
tole thought, with submission, that their Lacciships
would allow him to proceed.
Mr. NOLAN supported hi 4 arguments.
Mr, Reeeieve s heard oh ehe other side.
Thd LORD PIANCELLOq said thLord
V‘, t• • -
ships were ;called. u?on . by tin Counsel for the
l,,,,,earried Judge to eireet that to be' done which
they,had paid shottl4 not he (.16Ae. Their Lord-
shpts had /yelped to communicate the evidence
taken befote the Corrnnitt;:e, and yet they were
desired to suffer Co:tinsel- to ask ,ttliestiorie.whieh
would oblige the,'Witness to repeat 'his ..evidence
• overagain.
Lord,AMV7IO observed, that he was net aware
their Lordships had evertornelo arty such deeisiere
He did not knovi they hid ever passed any vote
u )on the subjeet. He certainly recoile4ted a Noble
I s moving a question' of the kind, but their
Lordships ecejoemett without' agree inee to it.
_lt was
brought on again, but no resolution was adopted,.
Ho eras of opinion that it was it question which
r further deliberation ;it was,,importapt to
substantial justice tnat it should be re-considered ;
net to
do so would, he conceived, be a. sacrifice of
itotico to, forros, The • enly ground of argernent
for meeeng publish the evidence before
the ComMittee was, that it .was.a- Secret Commit
Committee
tee. Why was - it, called 4 Secret •
,Sur he was, it dia not hear 1114 charade'.; .nor
• leas theme in its proceedings, arty circurnStence
(rem .which it COW,- with. propriety, have been SO
ti: lOMitifittd; Jig WO fareeecret, diet out ot