The sun., 1893-07-09

Of himself than an arruignincnt oil LORD
Chief Justice CoLERlDGE TIN reasons as
Aligned for his refusal 80 submit to trial for
perjury In an English court. will Dr accepted
by fur-ininded men ON both 81 lns OF tho At
lantic rs sufficient and conclusive. We have
pointed out that, under tho existing mode
OF English procedure. n person accused oi
that particular crime IL robbed of his best
means Of defence. because he Ia prohibited
from tcstifying iu his own behalf. md be-
cause, according to tho weight OF English
legal opinion. tho evidence Of his wife also
would be excluded. No man in his senses
would confront trial under such disabili-
ties. disabilities which have been denounced
rs monstlous by the leading jurists OF both
political parties in England Itself.
But 1t may be asked. how did 1t happen
that during the period intervening between
the affirmation Of the verdict in the breach
OF promise case by the Court Of Appeals, and
the issue OF nn order Of arrest against Mr..
HunLBERr. he himself did not take moas-
ures to bring his defamer to account; and
how, again. did it happen that, when the
Public Prosecutor finally moved in the
matter. he proceeded not against the de-
feated and discrodited plaintiff. but against
the victorious defendant? These are per-
tinent questions, and they are answered by
the proof brought forward In this book
that but for the secret, improper. and un-
fair interposition Of Lord CoLERIDGE
Mr.. HURLBERT's plans for the condign pun
ishment Of his traducer would have been
carried out: and that, but for the surrepti-
tious and grossly wrongful pressure ex-
erted by tho Lord Chief Justice. the Public
Prosecutor would not have applied for IN
order Of arrest against the successful de-
fendant In the breach OF promise case
That such interposition took place, and
that such pressure was exerted. is a matter.
not of surmise or inference. but Of incon-
trovertible proof. furnished in the official
correspondence. published in May. 1892. in
compliance with motion offered by Mr.
LABouCHERE In the House OF Commons: :
this proof being supplemented by admis-
sions made month later in the House Of
Lords by Lord CoLERIDGE himself. when
endeavoring to explain away and palliate
his extraordinary conduct.
Let us trace tho course Of Lord COLE
RIDGES interference in u matter with which.
In his judicial capacity. he had nothing to do.
but which had q direct and vital bearing on
the honor and the liberty Of an American
citizen. We previously said that immedi-
ately after the verdict was rendered in the
action for breach OF promise on April co.
1891. oil the documents in the case were
impounded on tho motion OF defendants
counsel. a motion made for the express pur-
pose Of enabling the defendant to serve the
public interest and vindicate himself. so far
as he might need further vlndication. by
puniahing the plaintiffs attempt to blucllen
his character and destroy his home. The
sale keeping OF these documents and the
right OF access to them were indispensable
to prove TINT certain blackmailing letters
emanated from the plaintiff; that the So
called diary produced by her was concoctcd
with intent to deceive: that certain revolving
letters signed WILFRED MURRAY. and i'm
puted by her to the defendant. were not, in
tho Judgment OF experts. in his handwrit-
ing; that alleged interviews with the de-
1endant were referred to dates and places ut
which lie could not possibly have been
present: and. In short. that the whole case
OF the plaintiff In the action for breach OF
promise was IL tissue Of perjury and fraud,
woven either In furtheruice Of malicious
conspiracy. or for the vulgar purpose Of
blackmail. In a trial OF the plaintiff for
hial or for perjury. all the incriminatory
evidence deducible from the documents in
the breach Of promise case, would have been
brought forward together with mass Of
Testimony demonstrating the reality. ante
cedents. and motives OF the person deslg-
mated as WHIPPED MURRAY. and admitted
by the plaintiffs counsel to be identical
with one ROLAND. OF whose existence there
was in.isputnblo proof.
1t may, indeed. be questioned by those who
will not take the trouble to rcad Mr. HURL-
BEkT's book, whether he would have sue
corded In proving tho dissimilarity OF his
handwriting from that OF the imputed lot
teis. and tho real existence of person call
ing himself WIuFRED MURRAY: but even
they will not deny Mr.. HURLBERTs right to
try to provo these things. and his right OF
exemption from improper. unfair, and un-
heard-of interference OH the part OF the
Lord Chief Justice. AS matter Of fact,
throughout the period intervening between
tho verdict In tho breach OF promise case
and tho Issue Of an order Of arrest against
the defcndant his solicitor was denied all
access to the Indispensable documents i'm
pounded at the defendants request; and
access 10 those papers. unless he would
pledge himself beforehand that he dld not
wish to inspect them for the purpose OF Inn
partial review and OF conscientiously dccid-
Ing which OF tho parties deserved. on the
face OF the evidence. to DO severely dealt
with; but that he would use the papers
solely to carry out u predetermined prose-
cution OF the defepdant. Secret interven-
tion for such an object ou tho part OF u
Lard Chief Justice Is SO essentially incredi-
bic that it remained unsupported by Mr..
HURLDEa-, or anybody else. until in May,
lsa2. Mr.. LABoUcHERE's motion compelled
the publication of the Official correspond
Gncc affecting significant change In GER
tain rule o: court.
Lot uS see when and under what circurn.
stances this ciiangc was made. 1t appears
srom tho speech made In the House Of Lords
by which. in June. 1892. Lord CoLERIDaB
endoavoIsd to explain and Justify his con-
dnrt. that, In May, 1891. while the appeal