The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-11-28 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

IRELAND.

THE STATE TRIALS.

FURTHER ATTEMPT AT POSTPONEMENT.

OnMonday afternoon rejoinders in demurrer were handed
into the Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of Daniel
O'Connell and the other traversers.
The Attorney-General moved that the demurrer be ar-
gued the following day.

- Mr. FORDE (ttoiney for Mr. O'Connell) said he
thought he should not be called upon to act upon the re-
joinder till next term.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his object was not
to annoy any person, but he renewed his application.
Mr. FORDE.—That motion came quite by surprise on
them, but still he would suggest to their lordships that
there were positive rules of the court which would entitle
them to oppose it. The standing rule of the court was,
that the demurrer was not to be argued in the same term
in which it was taken. The Attorney-General had, be-
sides, omitted to give notice ; and, secondly, the paper-
books by which they were bound had not been made up
or given to them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL insisted on his right to have
the demurrer argued to-morrow. As to the paper books
alluded to by Mr. Forde, they would be ready in an hour.
He trusted, therefore, that the Court would be no party
to delaying those proceedings further. At all events, he
(the Attorney-General) would be no party to the delay,
and he once more urged the court, as a matter of right, to
fix the argument for the next morning.
Mr. Justice PERRIN inquired of the Clerk of the Crown,
what the rule of the court was ?

The CLERK of the CROWN said, that when the paper
books were made up at the expense of one party, he bad a
right to demand that the demurrer should be proceeded
with ; but it was otherwise when parties joined in the
expense.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in this case the
books had been made up at the expense of the Crown ex.
pressly to avoid giving a pretext for delay. He had no
objection, however, to furnish one copy of the books to
any attorney for the traversers who might be fixed on, in
order to enable them to make a comparison.
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON said that he certainly always
understood that where a party pleaded in abatement he was
bound to sustain his plea when it was handed in.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that the Court had decided the
contrary, and that the traversers were entitled to a four-
day rule, and now, in accordance with the rule of court,
they claimed that a demurrer set down in this Term should
not he argued until the next.

The ATTOR.Y EY.GENERAL said, that although they got
that four day rule, in his opinion they were not entitled
to it. They were bound by the statement of the officer
on that occasion ; and when the officer now stated that
they were not entitled to what they claimed according to
the rule of the court, they should likewise submit to that
statement, although it happened to be against them.
The CHIEF J usT c E would take it for granted that the
parties would be ready in the morning.
Mr. WHITESIDE.—My lord, we have got no briefs yet.
Mr. FORDE said they could not possibly prepare them
that nivht. They would have to sit up all night to do so.
(Laughter.) There was not a single brief made out.
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—That may be, but it is altoge-
ther your own fault. You got four days' notice, and it
is perfectly idle to say you are not now prepared to go on.
Mr. FORD E .—Perhaps your lordship would allow the
argument to stand for Wednesday?
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—We will call on the case to-
morrow.

The Court was then adjourned IA a quarter-past five
o'clock until the following day.

The full court sat on Tuesday, for the purpose of hear-
ing the argument on the demurrer. Lord Ingestrie was
present. The several traversers, with the exception of
Mr. O'Connell, who was not in court at the opening,
' handed in their joinders to the demurrer. The argument
was then proceeded with, the point raised by the plea of
the traversers being this, that the statute of 1 and 2 Vic-
toria, chap. 37, did not extend to the Court of Queen's
Bench, and that the witnesses to support the indictment
should be sworn according to the provisions of 56 George
111., namely, in open court, The Attorney-General, in
showing that the former statute did extend to the Court
of Queen's Bench, said he was seeking to support the
construction of the act which it had received from all the
Judges of Ireland from the period when it passed the leg-
islature ; and he quoted the opinions of the Judges, and
also referrrd to several English authorities on the point.
Sir Colman O'Loghlen and Mr. Moore, Q.C. followed;
after which the Solicitor-General wound up the argument
by the admission that the plea involved one of the most
important questions ever raised before the court. The
Chief-Justice intimated that their Lordships would give
judgement on the following morning. The argument oc-
cupied five hours and a half. One of the points relied on
by the counsel for the Crown was, that the traversers in
their plea had not made known the names of the witnesses,
who, they alleged, had not been sworn in open court.

On Wednesday the Lord Chief Justice proceeded to
deliver the judgment of the court. He said the principal
question turned upon the true construction of the Act 1
and 2 Victoria, c. 37; and, after anxious and due delibe-
ration, the decision his mind came to, without much
doubt, was this,—that the construction of the act given by
the law officers of the crown was the right and true one.
(Sensation.) The object of the 56th George 111. was to
provide against an evil prevailing in all the courts through-
, out Ireland; that of the Ist and 2d of Victoria to provide
against an inconvenience arising from the former act ; and
it was not passed for any particular part of Ireland, but
for all parts of Ireland—for one part as much as another.
There was no reason whatever to curtail the formal mean-
ing of the words in it, because the mischief which it was
intended to remove prevailed in one part as much as in
another, and the remedy should be necessarily equally
extensive. It was clear that the legislature contemplated
the remedy of an evil which existed as much in the
Queen's Bench in Dublin, and in the commission courts
of Oyer and Terminer, as in the assize courts of the
country. As plain as words could make the statement,
the grievance was said to be universal, and the legislature
undertook to reform the evil. His lordship concluded by
expressing his opinion that the plea was insufficient, and
the demurrer good.—Judge Crampton entirely concurred
with the Chief Justice.--Mr. Justice Perrin also concur-
red with the court, and stated at length his reasons.—. Mr.
Justice Burton concurred, without offering any remarks.
The Attorney-General applied that the traversers be
required to plead instanter.

Messrs. Hatchell and Whiteside contended that the
traversers were entitled to a four days' rule to plead over
again after judgment had been given.
Mr. Brewster replied, and contended they had no
grounds for looking to the court for four days to plead ;
and called on the court to make the traversers plead in-
stanter, and to fix a day for trial.

The Chief Justice, after consulting with his brethren,
said, it appeared to him that it was competent for the
party seeking delay to make statement of the grounds on
which they sought delay. But no such statement was
made. Mr. O'Connell had been furnished with a copy of
the indictment and the matter it contained, and had pleaded
not guilty. He had made no case to the court, and the
court assumed he had none, and was therefore of opinion
the justice of the country should not be delayed, and that
Mr. O'Connell should plead instanter.
The Attorney-General applied to the court to have the
traversers called.—The clerk of the court ordered the crier
to call Daniel O'Connell, John O'Connell, C. G. Duffy,
T. M. Ray, Thomas Steele, Rev. Mr. Tyrrell, Rev. Mr.
Tierney, and John Gray. They were called, and all ap_
peared except Mr. O'Connell and his son, who soon after
entered the court, and were given seats at the side of the
inner bar—both wore repeal buttons.
Pleas were then handed in of NOT GUILTY for all the
traversers.

On Friday the traversers applied once more for a long
day; and, as well upon the alleged state of the jury list,
as upon the affidavits of the solicitors for the defence,
moved the court to postpone the trials until the Ist of
February. The Attorney-General resisted this motion in
its full extent, but consented to have the day fixed so far
off as the 13th of January. So far as substantial justice
is concerned, we presume there will be very little differ-
ence in the complaints of the repeal press, whatever differ-
ence there may be in the well-groundedness of such com-
plaints. A few days ago the crown was taunted with
" retrograde progression," and proclaimed through the
country as "defeated," by the very prints which, since
Tuesday, have been accusing government of " galloping
justice," haste, and precipitancy. Whether they will now
complain of not having got time enough, or boast of hav-
ing defeated the Attorney General's attempt to obtain gal-
loping justice, time must show. Perhaps they may inge-
niously contrive to combine the contradictory arguments,
and vaunt that they have obtained their ends, while, at the
same time, they complain of being unduly hurried at the
Attorney-General's will. The solicitors for the defence
swore strongly as to the impossibility of preparing their
case by the time first named by the Attorney-General.
They also swore that the present application was not made
for the purpose of delay. The conclusion of the whole is,
that the day for these important trials is now settled to be
Monday, the 15th of January, which, assuredly, ought to
give the traversers, counsel, and attorneys abundant time
to prepare, and will also take away all grounds of cavil
concerning the jury list.

The Attorney-General gave the following as his reason
for granting this concession :—" Although (said the right
hon. gentleman) he felt that it was his imperative duty to
resist to the utmost of his power any technical objections
to the progress of this momentous case—although he had
forced—for no other phrase would properly describe the
course which he had been compelled to adopt—although
he had forced the traversers to plead, and driven them
out of every pretext for delay, still another duty imposed
itself on him, for he had duties to discharge not only to
the crown, but to the public, and he agreed with his
learned friend that it would not be desirable that the trial
should take place so rapidly, or under such circumstances
as would enable any person with justice to say that it had
been hurried forward unfairly. Although he should resist
a postponement of the trial till February, yet after the
statements in the affidavits' which he admitted to be of
importance, after as anxious a consideration of the whole
of the case as was ever by any public man devoted to the
consideration of a subject, he had come to the conclusion
not to object to the postponement of the trial to the sec-
ond day of next term, to the first Monday, in fact, in that
term ; but he should, on no account, consent to its being
put off to the vacation after term. He was perfectly aware
of the public inconvenience that must arise from the trial
at bar of such a case in term ; but, although mischief to
some individuals might accrue, they were in that court,
and they came into it as suitors, subject to the rule that
public justice, in the case of a prosecution by the crown,
delayed in the first criminal court in the ho,,i

the objection made

to the present

ury panel, on the