1505 which he should then say nothing, he was happy, that it offered the most satisfactory proof, that the body of Irish Catholics sought to remedy the grievances they felt, by no other than legal means. Having read the petition, and moved, that it should lie on the table, Mr. Cartwright lamented, that it should have been brought forward at a time, when the Catholics as well as every one else knew, that there was an insurmountable objection to the attainment of their object; to which the feelings of the people of Ireland were much alive, and upon which therefore there could be no discussion without endangering the tranquillity of the country. Mr. Fox observed, that the insurmountable obstacle had not been specified; he could therefore then say nothing to it: whenever he should hear what the obstacle was, he should be ready to state his opinion upon it. For the conveniency of the Irish Members, an early day in May was appointed for the discussion, as the Spring Assizes would then be over.

Lord Aber

Much Irish matter was in the mean time presJudge Fox, sed upon both houses of Parliament; in so much,

corn against

that it became a general complaint, that more of

their time was devoted to Irish, than British concerns, by which the labour and attendance of the Members were insufferably increased. In the House of Lords, the Marquis of Abercorn presented new petitions from Mr. Hart, and from Mr. Armstrong and other Jurors of the County of Fermanagh, and from Mr. Irwin the Sheriff of the same County. He also adverted to the heads

or particulars of the charges, which he intended to prefer against Judge Fox. The substance of them was nearly the same, as of those, which he had submitted to them last Session. They then were 7 in number, and he had now reduced them to 5: because two of them were too trivial, and founded in misconception: another of the charges he had new methodized, though, it remained substantially the same: and what he had last Session termed heads of complaint &c. against Judge Fox, he then simply termed particulars of the conduct of Judge Fox.The Chancellor reminded him, that by the 1st of his present Majesty, no Judge was to be removed or called upon to answer for his conduct, but in consequence of an Address to his Majesty from Parliament to that effect. It became therefore a matter of the utmost delicacy and importance, what papers were laid before the house, and how that house exercised its delicate powers in that regard. Beset on all sides with difficulties as Lord Abercorn was in the prosecution of Judge Fox, it appears manifest, that he rested his ultimate success upon his personal influence with Mr. Pitt, who still directed every Parliamentary movement. A report was then current, that Mr. Pitt conscious, that his influence in the House of Commons was on the decline, had been induced to dissolve the Parliament, which was called Mr. Addington's Parliament, though Mr. Addington affected to have exercised no treasury influence in its election. The Marquis had sufficient interest to secure the

1805.

1805.

Case of Judge Joln.

progress he had made, and in order to ensure himself against the disheartening operation of recommencing his labours, he procured an Act to be passed, "to continue the proceedings in the "House of Lords, touching the conduct of Luke "Fox, Esq. one of the Judges of the Court of "Common Pleas, in that part of the United "Kingdom called Ireland, notwithstanding any

prorogation or dissolution of Parliament.” These most extraordinary proceedings against Judge Fox brought forth the Duke of Clarence to call upon the house to exercise their constitutional duty on the occasion. His Royal Highness most properly suggested, that the initiation of the business should have proceeded from the other house for the house of Lords being juridically but a Court of Appeal, could entertain no original proceedings, except in the case of impeachment by the Commons House of Parliament. He moved therefore, that the Committee appointed to sit on the next day upon the subject, should be postponed for 6 weeks. The Motion was *negatived by a majority of ›9.

The same Session of Parliament produced ano ́ther Act affecting the case of Judge Johnson, also a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland. It's title in great part bespeaks its meaning. 6. An -Act to amend 2 Acts of the 13th and 14th

The prominent opposers of the Motion were Lords LimeFick, Westmoreland, Hawkesbury, and Sidmouth; the chief supporters of it were Lords Carlisle, Spencer, and Grenville, ́

酱

“years of his present Majesty, for the more effec- 1,805. "tual execution of the Criminal Laws, and more 6.6 easy apprehending and bringing to trial offend"lers escaping from one part of the United Kingdom to the other, and from one County to another." When a Government can with impunity convert the judicature and Legislature of a country into engines of personal vengeance and oppression, then indeed is the system become so corrupt, that it must fall-by its own or another hand. It has been before observed, that in the month of May 1804, Mr. Cobbett had been found guilty of having libelled Lord Hardwicke and others of his Government in the letter signed Juverna published in his political register. After his conviction he gave up the manuscript letters he had received by the post from Ireland, to Government, who soon found persons ready to swear, that they were in the hand writing of Mr. J. Johnson. The letters not only censured Lord Hardwicke, Lord Redesdale, Mr. J. Osborne and Mr. Alexander Marsden, who were mentioned in the indictment, but they also minutely disclosed the views grounds and means of Mr. A. Marsden's having procured the office of Attorney General for Mr. O'Grady. It was found prudential not to load the indictment with his name, lest the prosecution might be clogged in its progress, or appear on that account more personal than official, By the scenic preparation for the intended tragedy, it appears, that the act of state was anxiously wished to be covered by sanction of law. The censor of the

1

1805. system became the marked victim of oppressive

vengeance. The precipitancy to oppress the daring individual betrayed the managers of the state manœuvre into open abandonment of the first principles of Legislation by passing an ex post facto law, and into hostility to the freedom of the subject by defeating the great safeguards of Magna Charta, and the bill of rights against oppression. The particular effects of high influence upon the principal actors in this state-exhibition may be traced through every scene, which from the marking of the victim led it to immolation.

*

How strongly state feelings operated upon the legal proceedings in this matter in the Courts of Ireland, may be collected from what fell from the Attorney General in his argument in the King's Bench in January 1805, on the legality of the arrest of Judge Johnson, of which more will be said hereafter.

I

cannot help complaining, that it is a little severe, that when "I am seeking to bring another man to his trial, I am suddenly put upon my own, &c. I wish to take the first occasion of disclaiming both for myself and others, the most remote idea "of any proceeding towards Mr. J. Johnson, which the necessary "attainment of justice does not indispensably require." And when Mr. Baron Smith in the first week of the ensuing February, delivered his admirable argument in the Exchequer against the opinion of his brethren on that Bench, he found it necessary, to make this important cautionary declaration. "I will not fear, "that any thing, which I may have urged to day can be mis"represented or remembered to my injury by others: I shall

have rouzed no treacherous enemy into action: and even if "I should, yet knowing how free the country is, in which I

live, I cannot suppose, that their hostile activity would be "successful. The free doctrines, which I have maintained, " I should be sorry to look on as too bold; and still sorrier, to

consider, as in any manner obsolete. Therefore in promulg