The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THB EVNNING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
GLOBE.—The Standard of last night resumes its
attacks on the three law Lords by whose votes the
Writ of Error was affirmed, and the judgment passed
on O'Connell, and his co-defendants, reversed. The
charge alleged against Lords Cottenham, Campbell,
and Denman is, that in their decision they were ac-
tuated by party feelings, and not by the conscien-
tious conviction of their judgments. 'This imputa-
tion might be allowed to find its own level in the
contempt of every honest mind. We will, however,
yield to the provocation which it supplies ; and
institute an inquiry into the pretensions of the two
law Lords who voted for affirming the judg-
ment of the Court below. From the comparison of
personal requirements, thus instituted, the balance
will be found immeasurably in favour of those whose
integrity is impugned by the Tory print. Of Lord
Lyndhurst we abstain from saying anything that is
personally disrespectful. As a member of the Cabi-
net, however, it cannot be denied that he stood much
more in the position of a prosecutor than of a judge.
Nay, from his position in the Cabinet, as its principal
legal adviser, he might be considered as the originator
of the prosecution. Whether perfect impartiality
was to be expected from a person so situated, may be
safely questioned. Certainly, the two functions of
judge and prosecutor have been hitherto considered as
somewhat incompatible. Added to this, between
himself and the principal traverser there has long been
open war—almost, indeed, a bellum internecinum. As
to Lord Brougham, to speak of him with respect is
difficult, if not impossible. A name once honoured,
and almost adored, has passed into a proverb of re-
proach—a bye-word, the bare mention of which is
the provocative of scorn. We will not here dwell
on the considerations, arising out of Lord Brougham's
political inconsistencies, which have alienated from him
every vestige of public confidence and respect. But we
will ask, whether in knowledge of the law, in judicial
ability, he is, for a moment, comparable with the least
qualified of the three distinguished personages who dif-
fered from him in the case which has provoked the ire
of the Tory prints against them ? It is not for any
superior knowledge of law, but for the powers of
vituperation, for which his Lordship is pre-eminent,
and the delight which he derives, and affords to his
new associations, by employing them against his
former friends, that he now finds favour in the eyes of
those who once hated and abused him. But, granting,
for the sake of argument, that he united in himself
the legal attainments of the three opposite Lords—
grant that he is the greatest lawyer of the age and
nation—is not his boasted hatred of O'Connell caused
by the severe chastisement he has frequently re-
ceived at his hands, such as must for ever dis-
qualify him for pronouncing a judgment on which
the liberty, the character, perhaps the life, of his
antagonist depended? Was ever a juryman more
open to challenge, propter afectum, than himself?
Could not his opinion on the question have been safely
predicted from the beginning ? And now that it has
been given, does any honest man attach the slightest
weight to it ? If he does, he has a far better opinion
of human nature than Rochefoucault has taught us to
entertain, or experience induces us to believe. To
affirm of Lords Cottenham, Penman, and Campbell,
that they were not open to these objections, is to say
but little; but that little is more than sufficient to de-
stroy the cobweb fabrications by which their judg-
ments on the writ of error have been impugne I.
True it is, they are Whigs ; and, as such, they have
been frequently and heartily abused by. O'Connell
and his co-agitators. On one of them especially (Lord
Campbell) the vials of his wrath have been poured
out, without regard either to truth or decency. If
they stood neutral, therefore, in their affections
toward him, is as much as could be ex-
pected. Their learning will not, we pre-
sume, be suspected. One of them was, avowedly—
his political opponents being judges—the greatest
Chancellor of modern times. Lord Denman, when
on a late memorable occasion he resisted the pre-
tensions of the House of Commons, was lauded by the
Tories not merely as a great legal authority, but as a
vindicator of the liberties of the people. The service
he has just rendered to his country is not less entitled
to public gratitude. It displays the same invincible
firmness of character—the same devotion to the con-
stitution—fortified by that extensive knowledge of law
which gives weight and authority to his Opinions in
the estimation of the Bench and the Bar. What
Lord Campbell is, the high rank in his profession,
which he has attained by the unaided efforts of
his powerful and persevering mind, may be taken as
conclusive evidence. After all, if these three great
lawyers have erred, they have erred in very good
company. Mr. Baron Parke and Mr. Justice Colt-
man are not men whose legal opinions may be safely
despised. Neither of them, it is true, happened to be
Attorney-General when the prosecution was instituted.
But this is an odious imputation, worthy of that por-
tion, of the Press which vents the disappointment of
the Ministry at the failure of its schemes. In follow-
ing the example which the Standard and other
organs of the Government have set us, we are well
aware of the invidious task we have undertaken. It
was with reluctance and regret that we yielded to the
sense of obligation which the conduct of our oppo-
nents imposed upon us. Such comparisons as we have
now instituted should, we admit, be generally avoided.
To canvass the motives by which judges are, or are as-
sumed to be, influenced, when exercising the functions
of their high office, much more to suggest hints, and
supply surmises, to their prejudice, is of most danger-
ous tendency. Any little triumph which may be oc-
casionally gained by such a process is more than coun-
terbalanced by the mischiefs that, in the end, are
produced by it. We would fain believe that each
of the five law Lords who were called upon to vote
gave an honest judgment, uninfluenced by party poli-
tical considerations. We would fain believe this, even
of Lord Brougham—fallen though he be from the
high place which he once held in the estimation of his
country, to one which provokes scorn, softened by
pity, in the honest-hearted portion of the community.
At any rate, their judgment was openly given in the
face of their country. It will be canvassed by an
acute, bold, and even fastidious profession—a consi-
deration which, of itself, ought to induce us to be-
lieve that it was not rashly, or unfairly given. On
the right, or wrong, attaching to it—on its correct-
ness or incorrectness, will depend, for ever, the legal
reputation, and—what men esteem more—the honour,
of those who pronounced it. Those who condemn, as
well as those who approve, the reversal of the judg-
ment by the House of 'Lords, may be assured that
this State prosecution, with its attendant circum-
stances, and those which marked the appeal from the
judgment of the Court in which the trial took place,
will never he forgotten. It will stand for ever, as a
landmark, in our books of law, and our constitutional
histories, if the two countries are destined to remain
united—still more memorable if, (which may God in
mercy avert) from the wickedness, or incapacity, of
our rulers, the union should be dissolved, and they
should take their place, in the great European family,
as two separate, independent, and, as we fear would
be the case, two hostile nations.
STANDARD.—The more the late extraordinary
decision in the House of Lords is considered, the
more inexplicable does it appear. We are reminded
by some sl those journalists who have been most
active in eulogising the conduct of the illustrious
three who have voted in Mr. O'Connell's favour, of
the indecorum of indulging in strictures on a judicial
decision ; but surely if there ever was a case entitled
' to be regarded as an exception to the rule, it is
the decision in question. We are, however, not
disposed to admit the principle even as a general rule.
The conduct of judges, and of political judges more
especially, is a perfectly legitimate subject for free
discussion. Beside, the expression of public opinion
is almost involuntary ; and that public opinion will
long continue to reprobate this most unprecedented
verdict, it would be idle to question; for no circum-
stance has occurred within our recollection so well
calculated to bring both law and justice into con-
tempt. We state the case in terms so plain, that
no one can affect to mistake them. Lord Lynd-
hurst and Lord Brougham are common-law law-
yers of great experience—an experience derived not
merely from their judicial situations, but from an
extensive practice at the bar ; both of them have
been much engaged in criminal Courts; one of them
was, as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer
for four years a criminal judge. Now, these
learned and distinguished persons are wholly of
accord on the subject of the Irish trials, as
well with each other as with a very large ma-
jority of the judges, English as well as Irish.
Lords Denman and Campbell are, it is admitted,
likewise experienced common law judges, and have
each of them had large practice in criminal pro-
ceedings. They are altogether opposed to Lords
Lyndhurst and Brougham, and to all the other
judges but two. Nay, Lord Denman is at
variance with all the judges on a point, on
which no one beside appears to entertain the
smallest doubt ; and what manner of judge is it
that rushes forward with the casting vote ? We
would speak of him with respect, but we shall not,
therefore, be deterred from recording our honest
opinion of his qualifications as the arbiter of a case
which demanded and received so much consi-
deration from other judges. 'Whatever requi-
sites they may have acquired from practice, it
is clear that Lord Cottenham can have had no
similar opportunity—for he has seen less of crimi-
nal proceedings than any other judge upon the
bench, or indeed than many of the lay Lords ;
infinitely less, for example, than Lord Wharncliffe,
chairman for many years of the Yorkshire sessions.
Nay we are inclined to doubt if Lord Cottenham
ever saw the inside of a criminal court in his life,
unless as a spectator ; or ever perused as indict-
ment until called upon to consider the one
on which he has so lately decided. Such is
the judge who has been permitted to turn the
balance against not only law Lords as eminent
and as experienced as Lord Lyndhurst and Lord