Star.
London, England, 1816-05-01 00:00:00

beringht forward ;.thetilitying the Administration of
justice in this country. He allowed that his personal
feelings might lead him to be more jealous on this
tothiect their other men ; but he had no hesitation. in
Saying, that he should feel himself .disgraced and un-
'worthy of sitting in that House, if he consented to
tto motion now made, oragreed for a moment with
those who wished to cast this stain on the aclminis-
rear;on of the country's justice. When he said this,
• he did not believe that the object in view was to de-
%troy the character of the Lord Chief Justice of the
Coiirt of King's Bench ; it such was the object, it
would have been most effectually attained by praise
foram such 'a quarter.
Mr. HORNER rose to order. He appealed to the
Chair, if it was not c' ntrary to their orders, that any
nu Member should charge another with corrupt and
Wicked motives, in thealischarge of his duty in that
House.
Air. LAW said. there was no Honourable Mem,
• btr to whose opinion he would rather defer, than to
that of the Honourable and Learned MemUer who
had just spoken ; and if it was his opinion, and the
opinion of the Speaker, thavhc ( Mr. Lew) had been
out of order, he should be tar from wishing to in.
frinee the custom of the 'House. As to the Oa, 'es
on the table, he should abstain from entering into
them in detail, not,that such a course would be a
disparagement to the understanding of the House.—
Ile should observe, however, that the Noble Lord
bad totally misrepresented the duty of a Judge. 'The
duty of a Judge was to recapitulate, to select and col-
tate the evidence—not to set an unexperienced Jury
afloat in the wide sea of facts, without a compass to
direct them, but collect the main lines of evidence,
• . hke radii towards a centre, for the elucidation of
truth, not for the protection of guilt. It was his duty
to protect innocence, no doubt, bin not to say all
that an advocate for the defendant might say. This
duty was one than which no other required a greater
Combination of knowledge and talent. The Judge'
was required, not only to throw his mind over the
whole plain of evidence, but to select the parts which
were most worthy the attention of the Jury.. If in
this extemporary duty a Judge fell into some error,
there was no one who would be disposed very sr.
verely to consider it. But he was aqoaished that the
Noble Lord, atter two years undivided at:ention to
the conduct of the Noble Judge in his cause, after
Al the glosses which he could invent, and all the ill.
genuity he could Exert. had not bec-a able to imagine
one colourable charge. If there had been some de-
gree of error in the Noble Judge it might have been
pardoued, for there was but one pet feet Judge; and
it. wan. for the Howe to say, whether a 111411 wino be.
fore Goo and his country had to petfot m the arduous
duty of directing a Jury in their decision, should not
be left petlectly free, without the fear of a Partia.
mentary inquiry constantly before him.' The House
would look, he was convinced, at a man who bad
s., arduous a duty to perform. with a favourable eye.
Favour, however, was not now required, but justice.
The equality in the distribution cif justice was one of
the noblest privileges of this country ; hut the pre-
sent motion tended to destroy this rtitiality, by
making on. law for men in general, and another for
lifernbeis of Parliatittut—(lhar, hear) Who was
the Nehla Lord who btought thus accusation ? He
was a convict, who sioud forward to accuse his
Judge, with the guilt no his head set crimes for which
that Judge had condemned Limn. With what eye
would the House regard this accusation He wished
the Noble Lord bad stayed out the debate of the
evening on which he had given his notice ; if he had
heard the eloquent description then given of the ad-
vantages which this country enjoyed in comparison
with other countries, from the impartial administra.
lion of justice, he would have hesitated before he had
aimed a blow at the pub:io- opinion on which justice
rests. II the House wished to sanctity fraud and le-
alise conspiracy, and would drag the Judge from
his judgment to level him with the criminal at the
bar—they might agree to the motion of the Noble
Lord ; but if they wished to preserve pure and ihvio-
. late the administration ofjustioe, their conduct would
ire very different. The Noble Lord called on them
to come to a vote in his favour on his responsibility.
Had he forgot the tact, that the Jury by finding him
guilty-had decided that they would not believe his
affirmation on oath, and that by that conviction he
was an incompetent witness in any Court of Justice ?
The House 'would not go far on the responsibility of
the Noble Lord, and he left the cause nt the Lord
Chief Justice, and of justice itself, in their hands, con-
vinced, that from a regard to their own character
and the great principles which guided their conduct,
they would fix on the motion the negative of indig.
nation and contempt.
Mr. PONSONBY said, that as the Noble Lord
had alluded to what had passed on a former occa-
sion, the motion fur his expulsion, he thought proper
to say, that whatever his opinion was on 'that occa-
sion, the present motion had no reference to, or con-
nection with it. He had' voted against the expulsion
of the Noble Lord, because the evidence then before
them was tot sufficient to ground the expulsion of
the Noble Lord on. Seventy four Members had
agreed with him:, The motion now before them was
quite different—it was nut a motion Against the No- "
ble Lord. (Lord Cochrane), but of impeachment
against the Chief Justice of the King's Bench for his
conduct on the trial of the Noble Lord. He had
gone through all the charges with attention, and he
could solemnly protest that he saw no ground fur the
impeachtuent of the Chief Justice, or for supposing
that he had acted partially and oppressively. If he
had been of opinion that there sees any ground fur
such imputations, no tne would be mote ready to
take steps for the degracation and punishment of a
Judge than he should be, feeling as he did, that the
11.gb character of our Judges was owing not to the
respectability of the individuals only, but to the con.
stint jealousy and supervision of Parliament. but
while no punishment could be too severe for trans-
ression on the part of a Judge. it was injurious and
creel to make wanton attacks on persons in this situa-
tion. it' was not enough to prove a mistake in point
of fact, but some gross error, which could only be
attributed to improper motives, and whit!' gave tea-
son to supps.se that the badness of the Watt had con-
tainted to the perversion of the judgment. As he
had voted against the expulsion of the Noble Lord,
because there was net then ground on which the
}bum could found that motion, so he should rote
amga. Ina the -motion now proposed by him.