HL Deb 12 June 1805 vol 5 cc324-8

The order of the day being read for their lordships going into a committee for the further consideration of the matters alledged in charge against Mr. justice Fox,

The Marquis of Buckingham, in reference to the pending case of that judicial character, begged leave to call their lordships' attention to the circumstance of an act of the Irish parliament, made in the second year of the reign of Geo. I. The benefit of the laws of that part of the united kingdom, though, in some instances, separate and distinct from those of England, was fully secured to the people of Ireland, by the act of union. He collected, on former discussions, from the noble lord on the woolsack, and from other high law authorities in that house, that in a case of the peculiar importance of that adverted to, the proceedings of that house should,as far as could properly be had, be analagous to the course of proceeding, and the practice of the courts below. On that general ground, he conceived it Would be proper to render their relevant proceedings analogousto those which obtained, under an Irish act of parliament, in an Irish court of justice. He had entertained hopes that the learned counsel would have saved him the trouble of making these observations; that not being the case, he thought it might be expedient, that (if what he stated was worthy of attention) the attention of their lordships, and the learned counsel, should be called to it in this way; they would recollect, that the principal part of the charge under consideration consisted of allegations of words spoken by Mr.justice Fox. The act to which he referred, took its rise from a particular occasion, connected with the conduct of a person then executing the office of the highest trust and respectability in Ireland. It provided, that no person, after the 24th of June, 1796, should be prosecuted for words spoken, unless information was given upon oath thereof, within a given time, &c. He was aware this could be no rule as to their lordships' parliamentary proceedings; but he submitted the consideration, how far, in a case of such peculiar nature as the present, occurring in that part of the united kingdom, and where a question for an address for removal was pending, and considering what undoubtedly would be the practice of an Irish court of law under the statute, the operation of that act was worthy of attention with respect to the case of the learned judge. His object, in addressing their lordships on the subject, was, that the learned counsel might have an opportunity of considering the operation of the statute alluded to, and their lordships of giving that degree of attention to it, that they should think proper.

The Lord Chancellor observed, that an opinion naturally could not be expected from him, whether the learned counsel were aware of the statute alluded to by the noble marquis. With respect to the provisions of the act, he thought they could only apply to those proceedings mentioned in the enacting clause. With respect to the conduct of the learned counsel, in reference thereto, he observed, that if they should think proper to ground any question arising out of the statute, it would, no doubt, be duly attended, and fairly considered by the house.

The Marquis of Buckingham explained that by the declaration of the noble lord on the woolsack, his purpose in addressing their lordships was fully answered, from the moment it was understood that if they thought the provisions of the act alluded to worthy of their attention, they should be entitled to argue upon them.

Mr. justice Fox then made his appearance; the counsel on both sides having previously been at the bar, and the witnesses in attendance, the learned judge took his seat on the left, within the newly-erected inclosure below the bar, and the examination of evidence began.—The first witness brought forward was Mr. Deering, a gentleman of the Irish bar, who had been present at the greater part, if not the whole of the trial of Fletcher, Sharp, and Keeys, for murder, at the autumn assizes in 1803, for the county of Fermanagh. It was with respect to the conduct of Mr. justice Fox, principally relative to the jury on that trial, that the article of charge, at present under consideration, was founded. The account given by the witness differed very little, as to the material substance, from that given by one of the former witnesses. As the present witness was proceeding in his statement of what had been said by Mr. justice Fox on the occasion; Mr. Adam, leading counsel for Mr. justice Fox, interposed,and observed, the witness had gone, and was going into a detailed account from his recollection of what Mr. justice Fox said to the petty jury and to the grand jury, and on different days; this, when it was considered, that the words alledged to be spoken may be of a criminating nature, involved some degree of embarrassment. Some of their lordships were acquainted with an act of the late Irish legislature, containing certain provisions, which, as going to affect an examination, such as that before them, might be matter of serious consideration. Upon this ground, he felt a degree of embarrassment, and he wished to submit to the consideration of their lordships, whether, in the situation in which he stood, the act of the Irish parliament alluded to, being new to him, he could be duly prepared to observe upon the question arising out of it, in the way in which it ought to influence the minds of their lordships; a case, where the words alledged, of a criminatory nature, were spoken a considerable time back.—After a few words from Mr. Romilly,

The Lord Chancellor directed that the statute book, containing the Irish act alluded to, should be handed to the counsel for the learned judge.—After running over the act, Mr. Adam continued. He wished that his embarrassment was removed by a perusal of the act. In the preamble it was set forth, that, whereas there was no time limited by law for the prosecution of persons for words spoken, &c. great inconveniencies had taken place, which would not have arisen, if such cases were tried in a short time after. So far the case in question was affected; were it by impeachment, it would precisely represent the grievance he had to complain of. This was the more to be regretted, as he was able to prove by evidence, that, in the long lapse of time, the learned and venerable judge, for whom he had the honour to appear as counsel, had been deprived by death of a most important party. In one point of view, the act met the case as fully as if it were expressly named. With respect to the enacting part, as he could infer from the hasty perusal, the present proceeding considered its penal effect sufficiently in point. What he, submitted was, that an opportunity should be allowed him of consulting with those, who, from their circumstances, situation, and practice, had better means of being informed upon the subject than himself, especially, with regard to the proceedings which obtained, and the constructions put upon the law in the course of practice in Ireland. Mr. Nolan shortly followed on the same side. Mr. Romilly did not deem it necessary to offer any detailed observations to their lordships upon the subject. Mr. Adam, in further observing upon the point, contended, that in a case where words spoken formed the principal part of the matter in charge, it was his duty to bring it under consideration. However, in the present instance, he did not mean to interrupt the examination.—Mr. Deering then continued his evidence for some time longer, after which, he un- derwent a cross-examination by Mr. Adam; some particular points in which being objected to by Mr. Romilly, a short argument took place between the learned counsel, the result of which was, an agreement between them, that any further cross-examination should be postponed to a future day.—The next witness called was the solicitor for the crown on the north-western circuit. His name was Mr. Galbraith. He stated, he had been in court during the whole of the trial adverted to. He had taken notes of the evidence given upon the trial. It was a general rule with him, to take a note of the evidence upon every case he was concerned in, where it conveniently could be done. Of the case in question, he thought, were he permitted to recur to his notes, he could give a good report of what passed upon the trial; he was confident that no man could give a better account of every thing material that occurred. He did not profess to have made his notes so monosyllably, as to take down every iota that was said.—It seemed to be the sense of their lordships, that the witness should be permitted to read his notes as evidence. The witness, in the outset, answered one or two questions which were put to him, without recurring to his notes; on which Mr. Nolan took the opportunity to remark upon the novelty of a witness delivering testimony, partly written, and partly parole. The witness then proceeded, and delivered his chief examination, which repeated the evidence given upon the trial, and was of considerable length, from his notes; and concluded, by observing generally, that there was no material evidence given upon the trial, but what was set down in his notes.—It was then ordered, that the chairman should leave the chair; and the house having resumed, the committee was, on the motion of the lord chancellor, ordered to sit again on Friday.—Adjourned.