The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-08 00:00:00

....w

conscientiously that any iilstitutioh deserved hatred and
e'ontempt, and to hold it up in its true light to the
people ? He woad quote to their. Lordships the descrip-
tion given by an eloquent and learned writer, Vvho had
boon a Cabinet Minister (Mr. Macaulay), of the manner
in which justice was administered in England hi the time
of Charles the Second and dames the Second ; he saj 5
" The next great blessing which we owe to the Revolu-
tion is the purification of the administration of justice in
political easea. Of the importance of this change no
person•can judge who is, not well acquainted with the
earlier volumes of the Stall trials. Those volumes are,
we. do not hesitate to say, the most frightful record of
baseness and depiavity that is extant in the world. Our
hatred is altogether turned away from the cri me and the cri-
Mina's, and directed against the law and its ministers. We
see villainies, as black as ever were imputed to any person,
at any bar, daily committed on the bench, and in the
jury box. The worst of the bad acts which brought
discredit on the old Parliament of France—the con-
demnation of Lally, for instance, or even that of Camas,
may seem praiseworthy, when compared with the
atrocities which followeach other in endless succession as
we turn over that huge chronicle of the shame of England.
The Magistrates of Paris and. Toulouse were blinded by
prejudice, passion, or bigotry. But the abandoned judges
of our own country committed murder with their eyes
open. The cause of this is plaiu. Ie France there was
no constitutional opposition. If a man held language
offensive to the Government he was at once sent to the
Bastile or to Vincennes. But in England, at least after
the days of the Long Parliament; the King could not,
!by a mere act of his prerogative, rid himself of
a troublesome politician. He wasforced to remove
those ivho thwarted him •by means of perjured witnesses,
packed juries, and corrupt, hard-hearted, brow-beating
judges. The Opposition naturally retaliated, whenever
they had the upper hand. Every time that the power
passed from one party to the other, there was a pro-
scription and a . massacre, thinly disguised under the
forms of judicial procedure. The tribunals ought to be the
sacred places of refuge, where, in all the vicissitudes of
public affairs, the innocent of all parties may find shelter.
They were; before the Revolution, an unclean public
shambles, to which each party in its turn dragged its
opponents, and where each found the same venal
ferocious butchers waiting for its customer. Papist or
Protestant, Tory or Whig, Priest or Alderman, all was
one to those greedy and savage natures, provided only
there was money to save and blood to ;lied. Of course
those worthless judges soon created around them, as was
natural, a breed of informers more wicked, if possible, than
themselves. The trial by jury afforded little or no pro-
tection to the innocent. The juries were nominated by
the sheriffs. The sheriffs were in most part of England
nominated by the Crown. In London, the great scene
of political contention; these officers were chosen by the
people. The fiercest parliamentary election of our time
will give but a faint notice of the storm which raged in
the city on the day when two infuriated parties
each bearing its badge, met to select the men in whose
hands were to be the issues of life and death for the
coming year. On that day nobles of the highest de-
scent did not think it beneath them to canvas and marshal
the livery, to head the procession, and to watch the poll.
On that day the great chiefs ciparties waited in an
agony of suspense for the messenger who was to bring
from the Guildhall the news whether their lives and es-
tates were, for the next twelve months, to be at the
mercy of a friend or foe. In 1681, Whig
sheriffs . were chosen ; and Shaftesbury defied the
whole power of the Government. In 1682, the sheriffs
were Tories. Shaftesbury fled to Holland. The other
chiefs of the party broke up their councils, and retired
in haste to their country seats, Sydney, on the scaf-
fold, told those sheriff's that his blood was on their
heads. Neither of them could deny the charge, and
one of them wept with shame and remorse."
Such was a true description of the tribunals of the coun-
try at 'the time to which this eminent writer refers.
Though, thank Heaven, they lived now in different
times, and under different institutions, yet, be would
ask, if it would be criminal for any number of men
to unite to write or speak down tribunals
in which there might be many vices of practice
and administration. Was the charge of an indictment
of this kind necessarily a criminal charge—that of con-
spiring to bring the tribunals of the country into con-
tempt? If the courts did not deserve contempt,' they
would not receive it ; that decency of language and
moderation should be used in the •discussion, might be
necessary, but it was another and a very different ques-
tion, because parties believed that such were vices of the
system, that it deserved hatred and comtempt ; they be-
came criminal because they agreed to speak of that insti.;
tution in what they believed to be just and becoming terms.
Again, this was extremely vague. He would not say
how the administration of justice bad been carried on ;
he would not say anything of how the ecclesiastical
courts had been spoken of in and out of Parliament. The
attacks that had been made upon these courts was not
upon the judges, but upon the system ; look
at the criminal courts ; in those courts many men
had been tried who were not guilty, and suffered death,
in consequence, perhaps, of the badness of the system ;
and was it to be said, that those who had been their
nearest and dearest relatives, suffer under a bad sys-
tem, that, if they decreed it, they would be guilty
of conspiracy ? It was too much to say that
parties could not attack a bad system without being
guilty of conspiracy. There were many parts of
the system that might be assailed, and with truth, and
for doing so men ought not to be considered criminal.
As to the latter part of the count, was it to be said that
it was a crime to say that the administration of jus-
ticehad become hateful and contemptible, and that parties
would refer their differences to another tribunal? He
submitted that there was nothing illegal or criminal in
attempting to bring anypart of the system into contempt
in order to obtain an improvement ; there was nothing
he believed that it would be illegal to t)ring into con-
tempt except the religion of the country, and that had
been even held not to be illegal. On these grounds the
count being bad the whole was vitiated, and the whole
indictment must be reversed.
Lord CAMPBELL wished to advert to this difficulty.
You say, Mr. Kelly, that these bad counts charge no
offence, then we find the record saying " for the offences
aforesaid." Now, can that be supposed to include that
which you say is no offence.
• Mr. KELLY submitted that that must be- so, because
the word offence aforesaid must mean the offence the
jury had found. Offence could not mean offences ; it
must mean one offence well laid, and an offence ill laid.

The LORD CHANCELLOR—Every time Mr. Kelly, you
adverted to this circumstance; you used a word that is
not in the indictment—several offences—whereas, it is
offences*aforesaid.

Mr. KELLY asserted that there was not a single offence
legally charged ;
‘the offences aforesaid must mean the
offences found by tho jury. Suppose, for instance, in an
action for slander he were to introduce a most absurd
and ridiculous count—suppose in the first count the slan-
der was stated to be that the man had been called a
felon, that in the second
.count it was stated to consist
of something equally actionable, and that in the third
count it was stated.that he had called the plaintiff an
honest and an honourable man—if on those three counts
a verdict was given with general damages, the court
not being able to discriminate how much had been given
by the jury on the good counts, and how much on the
bad ones, would reverse the judgment, and send the case
back, again for trial. So in this case the court did not
know how much of the punishment had been apportioned
to the good counts and how much to the bad ones, and he
tipprehended they had no choice, but must reverse the
judgment altogether.

- Their Lordships here retired for a short time ; on
their return,
Mr. KELLY resumed, and said that in reference to the
point he had just concluded with, the only consequence
which would arise from reversing the judgment, would
be that the same degree of precision would be observed
in criminal cases which was now observed in civil cases ;
and it would be competent for the prosecutor to enter up
judgment upon one count which the court held to be good, as
was donee in civil cases. Ile would now proceed to the ques7
tion which rose up Mn the writ of error, in fact relative
to the swearing of the witnesses before the grand jury ;
and it would
,appear, both in the plea in abatement
in the case, 'and on the assignment of the
writ of error, in 'fact, that the witnesses in support of
of the indictment, if sworn at all, had been sworn, not
in open'court, but before the grand jury .only ; and he
would submit to their Lordships that, under the statute
regulating the swearing of witnesses upon indictments
in Ireland, there was no authority in the grand jury to
swear the witnesses in this prosecution, being in the
Queen's Bench, but that they must be sworn in open
court ; and upon this, this further and more important
question arose, whether, supposing the statutes did ex=
tend to the Court of Queen's Bench, and therefore
the witnesses were properly sworn, whether they did
not authorise that the names of the witnesses
should not be indorsed on the bill, and signed by the
name of the foreman, or by his initials. He would refer
to this latter point first ; but, before doing so, he would
proceed with regard to the swearing of witnesses upon
trials on indictment in Ireland. This was regulated by
two Acts of. Parliament, the 56 Geo. 111., c. 87 and the
1 and 2 Victoria, c. 37. Before he called the atten-
tion of their Lordships to the particular language
of these statements, he, would state what he
considered to be the effect of them. Before
the statute of 56th George. 111. was passed, a practice
prevailed in Ireland of sending witnesses before the grand
jury without being sworn at all, and indictments were
found on the testimony of those witnesses who were not
sworn ; and to regulate this evil that statute was passed.
That statute provided expressly that in all cases where
witnesses were to give evidence before a grand jury, on any
indictments ; they were first to be sworn in open Court,
so that from the time of passing the Act to the year
1838 noßill had been.properly returned, and no person
was put upon his trial upon an indictment unless the
witnessess in support of it had been sworn in open Court.
[The Learned Gentleman -was proceeding when our
report left.]

•
IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN BEASTS.-011 Sunday
morning last, eleven very fine cows Were landed from on
hoard the Emerald Isle, Captain Bouch, from Rotterdam.
—Hull Advertiser.

APPROACHING MARRIAGE IN HIGH LIFE.---We
have to announce that the nuptials of Lord Charles Welles-
ley, son of the Duke of Wellington, and Miss Pierrepont
is finally appointed to be solemnised to-morrow. The
Duke of Wellington, as we have previously stated, gives
the wedding breakfast at Apsley House, for which circulars
of invitation have been issued.

HUNGERPOED SUSPENSION BRIDGE.--01l Friday,
wooden cradles were placed at each of the pillars in the
centre of the river, for the men to work in, in fixing the
chains across the river, for the Suspension Bridge. The
whole of the iron works are ready, and it is expected to be
completed by the Ist of August.
A wag, passing through a country town, observed
a fellow placed in the stocks, "My friend," said he; " I ad-
vise you by all means to sell out.' " I should have no ob-
jection, your honour," hugpjledskily,
~,,,imtagtiirefelit they
seem much too low."