Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

Adams struck no blows; that the messenger struck none; nor he himself any but those which were struck at lord Thanet. Rivett, therefore, according to his own account, was the only person engaged, and successfully engaged, against the rioters; yet you are desired to believe, that a large combination of strong and active conspirators were favoring an escape by violence. This is quite impossible; and the blows, therefore, which were observed by lord Romney, were the blows which the officers themselves wantonly inflicted; since it will appear hereafter, by witnesses whom the Court cannot but respect, and whose evidence cannot be reasonably rejected, that they rushed in like madmen, striking with violence the most harmless and inoffensive persons, which compelled others to put themselves into that passive posture of defense, that lord Thanet has been so frequently and so distinctly described in.

[ocr errors]

Gentlemen, I will now state to you the solicitor-general's evidence. He says, "I kept my eye fixed on Mr. O'Connor. When the jury gave their verdict, I observed him and Mr. Fergusson; I particularly fixed my eyes upon them. I observed Mr. Fergusson speaking to Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. O'Connor put his leg over the bar: I called out, Stop him!' Mr. Fergusson said, 'He is discharged.' I answered, 'He is not discharged.' Mr. Fergusson then said to Mr. O'Connor, You ARE discharged.' I repeated, 'He is not discharged.' I observed the jailer lean over, and lay hold of Mr. O'Connor; some person was at this time pressing forward, and Mr. Fergusson complained to the Court. The officer was pressing into court, in order to get round to Mr. O'Connor."-Now, gentlemen, it is fit just to pause here a little, to consider this part of the evidence. The time filled by it is not above two or three minutes; for it is only the interval occupied by the sentence upon O'Coigly; and if a combination had existed between lord Thanet

and Mr. Fergusson, and other persons in the secret, is it probable that Mr. Fergusson would have made himself the conspicuous figure which I am supposing the evidence truly to represent him to have done? His conduct, besides, appears quite different from Rivett's account of it. Did he enter into private resistance or altercation? No; he made a regular and public motion to the Court; the judge yielded to the suggestion; the officers were directed to stand back for the present, and then the sentence was pronounced. This is not the natural deportment of a person engaged in a conspiracy. The solicitor-gen

eral farther said, "Rivett, the officer, said he had a warrant against Mr. O'Connor. Mr. Justice Buller spoke to the officers, commanded silence, and proceeded to pass sentence. When the sentence was finished, I observed Mr. Fergusson, and some other persons whom I did not know, ENCOURAGING Mr. O'Connor to go over the bar.” Here we must pause again. Mr. Gibbs asked the witness, upon his cross-examination, "Did you hear him say anything? Did you see

him do anything?"-The solicitorgeneral proved no one thing which Mr. Fergusson said or did. . . . By these observations I am not impeaching the evidence of the solicitorgeneral; I am commenting as a lawyer upon the result of it; and I do say, as a lawyer, that it is giving no evidence at all, to swear that a man encouraged, or appeared to be encouraging, without stating the facts on which that impression of his mind was founded. Mr. SolicitorGeneral went on to say, "I did not see Mr. O'Connor till he was brought back by the officers; for at the instant that Mr. O'Connor jumped over the bar, three or four persons leaped from the witnesses' box upon the table, and mixed among the rioters; all the lights, except those before the judges, and the chandeliers, were extinguished. Mr. Fergusson, at the moment Mr. O'Connor jumped over the bar, turned round,

and APPEARED to follow Mr. O'Connor; BUT I WILL NOT POSITIVELY SWEAR IT." I am very glad, gentlemen, that he did not; because it would have been unpleasant to swear that positively, which will be positively contradicted; by those, too, who are of as good faith, and who had as good an opportunity of observing. It is a mere misapprehension; and I would say to the solicitor-general, if I were to see him at his own table, or at mine, that he is mistaken. Indeed, in a scene of confusion, no man can tell what he sees with any certainty or precision, and images are frequently confounded in the memory. The solicitor-general then said, that Mr. Stafford jumped upon the table, and drew a sword; and, speaking of lord Thanet, he said, he went across the table, and that he saw him in conversation with Mr. Justice Lawrence, the particulars of which he did not hear; but that, when he went across the table again, he said he thought it fair he should have a run for it: he said it rather in a tone of anger, in consequence of what had fallen from Mr. Justice Lawrence. Gentlemen, this last part of the evidence applies to a point of time when the disturbance was at an end: . . . you cannot therefore believe, that, under such circumstances, when lord Thanet could not but know that high offense had been given to the justice of the county, he should come voluntarily forward, in the hearing of the king's judges, and confess himself to be an accomplice in a high misdemeanor. These observations are not made to induce you to believe, that lord Thanet's expressions have been misrepresented to you; but to convince you, that the making them at the time, and to the persons to whom they were made, arose from a consciousness that he had no share in assisting Mr. O'Connor. . . The right of Mr. O'Connor to deliver himself from such a warrant, if he could escape before it was executed on his person, was an opinion which

lord Thanet might correctly or incorrectly entertain; but to enhance the confession of such an opinion into an admission of the crime in himself, is contrary to every human principle and feeling, and, therefore, not a reasonable conclusion of human judgment. — Gentlemen, these are my observations upon the evidence of the solicitor-general, as it affects lord Thanet; and, as it applies to Mr. Fergusson, it is very important; for if Mr. Fergusson had been flourishing a stick in the manner which has been falsely sworn against him, what should have induced the solicitor-general to say, only in general terms, that he saw him encouraging? Will any of my learned friends maintain, that if the solicitor-general could have proved, in terms, that Mr. Fergusson had a stick in his hand, till it was wrested from him by the officers in repelling violence by violence, that he would not have distinctly stated it?

Gentlemen, Mr. Justice Heath was next examined; and there is no part of the proof more important, particularly as it affects Mr. Fergusson, than the evidence of that very learned, and, I must add, that truly honorable witness, who was one of the judges in the commission, and presiding at the trial. He said, that "a messenger from the secretary of state had applied to the Court for liberty to execute a warrant upon Mr. O'Connor; that permission had been accordingly granted." So that Mr. O'Connor was not to be ultimately liberated, but was to remain amenable to the process in the hands of the officers: that, "after the verdict had been given, and the sentence pronounced, the messenger, VERY UNADVISEDLY, went to the corner most removed from the door, and said aloud, My lord, may I now execute my warrant?' Presently afterwards, I saw Mr. O'Connor put one leg over the bar, and draw it back again." I have already reminded you, gentlemen, that at this time there was a doubt in the minds of some as to the effect of the verdict

[ocr errors]

to liberate the prisoner; and I admit that Mr. O'Connor, when he put his leg over the bar, knew of the existence of the warrant, and intended to evade it. Mr. Justice Heath then said, “A violent riot and fighting took place, such as I never before saw in a court of justice. It seemed to me to be between the constables on one hand, and those who favored the escape of the prisoner on the other." This shows plainly that Rivett did not speak the truth, when he said that the blows were all on the side of the rioters against the officers; whereas the fray, as described by Mr. Justice Heath, arose at first from the activity, if not the violence, of the officers; which I will confirm hereafter by the most respectable testimony. "It being dark" (continued the learned judge) “I could not see the numbers of the combatants; but I think there must have been ten or twenty engaged in it. I saw Mr. Stafford brandishing a sword over their heads. The combat might last for five or six minutes. I saw Mr. Fergusson, in his professional dress, standing upon the table with many others. He turned round, and said, 'My lord, the constables are the persons to blame; it is they that are the occasion of the disturbance.' Before I could give him an answer, he turned round towards the combatants; and then my attention was drawn FROM HIM to the more interesting scene of the fight." Every part of this evidence is a decisive exculpation of Mr. Fergusson. WHEN was it that Mr. Justice Heath saw him upon the table? I answer, at the very moment, nay at the only moment when blame is attempted to be imputed to him. By whom was he thus observed? Not by a common person, unqualified to judge, or uninterested in the order of the court, but by one of its highest and most intelligent magistrates. . . . It is therefore quite impossible, upon Mr. Justice Heath's evidence, to mix Mr. Fergusson with violence; for the learned judge distinctly stated,

that after having seen and heard him as he described him to you, he observed him no longer, his attention being drawn from him to "the more interesting scene of the fight." Is not this a most positive declaration of Mr. Justice Heath, that the place where Mr. Fergusson stood, was not the scene of the fight, and that he was not personally engaged in it? for he turned his eyes from him to the scene of the combat, and of course to the persons of the combatants; whereas, if Mr. Fergusson, with a person so remarkable, and in the dress of his profession, had been himself a rioter, the learned judge must have pursued him with his eyes, instead of losing sight of him, and must have seen him more distinctly. But the truly honorably judge does not leave the exculpation of Mr. Fergusson to any reasoning of mine, having concluded his evidence with these remarkable words: "I must do him the justice to say, that in the short time I saw him, which was not above a minute or two, I did not see him do, or hear him say, anything to encourage the riot. I thought myself in great danger, and all of us also." testimony, gentlemen, IS ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE. . . . When we sider, therefore, that this learned and reverend person stood in the same situation with the first witness who was examined for the crown; that he had an opportunity, from his situation in court, of seeing everything which belonged to the scene of combat, as he termed it; and when he nevertheless so separated Mr. Fergusson from it as to feel himself compelled to say what he did in the close of his testimony, we ought to give to his words a weight beyond the voice of a thousand witnesses.

66

This

con

The next witness was Mr. Abbott, a gentleman at the bar. He saw Mr. O'Connor make a motion to leave the Court, and heard Mr. Fergusson say he was discharged. Mr. SolicitorGeneral answered, that he was not discharged; and then either Rivett or

Fugion said he had a warrant; there was then a little confusion; but the prisoners resumed their places, and Mr. Justice Buller proceeded to pass sentence on O'Coigly. When that was finished, Mr. O'Connor leaped over the bar towards his left hand; a great tumult and confusion took place." No part of all this, gentlemen, was ever disputed. "I saw lord Thanet on the table nearly before Mr. Justice Lawrence." This is also nothing. If lord Thanet mixed in the riot, it could not be near Mr. Justice Lawrence, but in the other part of the court, where the prisoners were placed. "The learned judge spoke to lord Thanet, and said it would be an act of kindness in Mr. O'Connor's friends to advise him to go quietly to prison, lest some mischief should happen. Lord Thanet then turned round, and said—I did not distinctly hear the first words, but the concluding words were, 'TO HAVE A RUN FOR IT,' or 'FAIR TO HAVE A RUN FOR IT. Gentlemen, I will not weary you with a long repetition of the same observations. I have observed more than once already, that if Mr. Justice Lawrence had considered lord Thanet as having done anything to promote the riot, he would have acted accordingly; and it would be, therefore, trifling with your time and patience to detain you farther with Mr. Abbott's testimony.

[ocr errors]

Gentlemen, we are now arrived at Mr. Rivett; and, retaining in your minds the testimony of the crown's most respectable witness, on which I have been so long observing, I shall leave you to judge for yourselves, whether it be possible that what he says can be the truth, independently of the positive contradiction it will receive hereafter. Indeed, the evidence of this man administers a most important caution to juries not to place too implicit a confidence in what is sworn with positiveness, but to found their judgments upon the most probable result from the whole body of the proof.

Rivett says,... "Many gentlemen were seated upon the solicitors' bench," which has already been described to you as immediately before the prisoners, and without the counsels' seat, in which lord Thanet appears to have sat till he stepped into that of the solicitors, where he was heard to speak to Mr. O'Connor, and congratulate him on his acquittal. It was in this place, and before and after this time, that Mr. Sergeant Shepherd described him as standing unmoved, with his face to the court, and his back to the prisoners: Rivett went on to say, "When the jury were coming in, I endeavored to go nigh to the jailer, when I was pulled down by the leg; and as soon as I turned round, I saw Mr. Thompson," who turns out not to have been Mr. Thompson. "I thought Mr. O'Connor looked as if he intended an escape. At that time there was a noise and violence; and Mr. Fergusson said to the Court, 'What business has this fellow here, making a noise?"" Now, gentlemen, this cannot be a correct statement as it respects Mr. Fergusson, since it has been sworn by all the crown's most respectable witnesses that he made it a regular motion from the bar, and the officers were desired to stand back. “I told his lordship, I had a warrant from the duke of Portland to arrest Mr. O'Connor; and the judge said I should have him, and desired the jailer to take care of the prisoners for the present. The sentence was then passed on O'Coigly; and as soon as it was finished, Mr. O'Connor immediately jumped out from the bar; there was then a great confusion in court; the gentlemen who sat before me got up: Mr. O'Connor took to the left, and I called out to shut the door. I endeavored to get forward, but was prevented by those gentlemen who had placed themselves before me and the other officers. I was pulled and shoved down two or three times; but by whom I know not. I jumped forward as well as I was able, and was

endeavoring to pursue Mr. O'Connor, when Mr. Fergusson jumped on the table, and with a stick flourished it in this way, to stop me. Mr. Fergusson was in his gown. I sprang at him, and wrenched the stick out of his hand, and then he returned from the table, and went to his seat." I will not pause at this part of the evidence as it applies to Mr. Fergusson, but pursue it as it goes on to lord Thanet; because, if I can show you that its application to him is demonstratively false when compared with the rest of the crown's evidence, on which it must lean for support, it will destroy all its credit as it implicates Mr. Fergusson also. He says, "I was then knocked down by a person who pushed at me with both hands, and I immediately struck that person three or four blows." His words were, "He shoved me with both hands;" and, in his cross-examination he afterwards described it, "I struck that person three or four blows: he called out, 'Do not strike me any more;' I replied, 'I will; how dare you strike ME?"" You observe that he describes lord Thanet as having no stick, and as having struck him whereas Mr. Sergeant Shepherd saw lord Thanet, at what must necessarily be the same point of time, standing with his face to the judges, and his back to the prisoners, motionless, as I have repeatedly described him, till he must have received violence from some other person, since the Sergeant saw him leaning back, and DEFENDING himself with a stick which he held in both hands over his head an account, which, if any corroboration of such a witness could be necessary, I will establish by eight gentlemen who were present, and who will add, besides, in contradiction of Rivett, that lord Thanet was himself beat severely, and never struck the officer with either fist or stick. That lord Thanet had a stick, is beyond all controversy: and, having one, is it likely that a man of his strength and activity, engaged in

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Erskine. - I have been reading his original examination. I will state his cross-examination by and by, and then set both of them against the truth. He says farther, and to which I desire your most particular attention, "I saw Mr. Fergusson flourishing a stick about the middle of the table. I went that way, to avoid the persons who had stopped up the passage. He endeavored to prevent me; but I wrenched it from him, and struck him. I HAD NOT THEN SEEN LORD THANET." Now, gentlemen, I have only to beg that you will have the goodness to make some mark upon the margin of your notes of this fact, which the witness has had the audacity and wickedness to swear to. I use these severe expressions which I have applied to no other witness. in the cause, because I never wantonly employ epithets that are unjust. He was in such a situation that he cannot be mistaken in what he swears; neither does he qualify it with his belief: but takes upon himself to marshal the proceedings in his memory, and to affirm POSITIVELY both as to persons and times. Yet I will prove Mr. Fergusson to have been within the bar in his place when Rivett speaks of him as on the table, and CERTAINLY WITHOUT A STICK. I will prove this - not by Bow-street officers, but by gentlemen as honorable as any who have been examined. Mr. Rivett told you too, "that he came along from the great street where the Star Inn is, towards the prisoner, to arrest him; but that he went to the table to avoid the gentlemen who interrupted him in his passage towards him." Lord Thanet is one whom he positively fixed on as having done so. Lord

« ElőzőTovább »