« PreviousContinue »
July; 1803. Under the provisions of that act; 1805. and the different circumstances, which attended the exécution of it in the county of Donegal, it became the duty of Lord Abercorn to hold the first meeting within ten days (viz. on the 21st of July), a whereas he çlelayed it to the 28th; thus alt doubling the utmost period of time allowed by the
act, when the delays, even of hours might be te pregnant with disaster. It became moreover in04** cumbent upon his Lordship, as a governor of the
county, laying elected to raise the men by: Te-
This resolution thus signed was transmitted to the Lord Lieu
tenant, who approved thereof; and ordered and directed, pur hisuant to the act, the governors to proceed without delay to
raise the said number of volunteers, by this mode,' which
of levy, by the said resolutions signed by them. At the next of general meeting, held on the 4th day of August, 1803, at Lifford,
Lord Abercorn alone presided as governor, Sir Samuel Hayes
ballot was to be suspended by the Lord Lieutenant in the coun2ties, where the governors - should have signified under their
hands, that they could raise the men more expeditiously by re-
VOL. 11. s, ap.
1905. view of the act: whereas, from the time the Lord
Lieutenant had, according to the act, signed his consent to suspend the ballot, in order to facilitate the recruiting, which was the mode adopted for raising the quota of 350 men by the County of en Donegal, up to the 29th of August 1803, not apore single man had been raised; and yet (incredible) ali presentment was tendered on that day by their grand jury to the judge, for his fiat, for levying pole near £2000 upon the occupiers of lands in the county of Donegal, under the pretence of paying pro the government the money, not one shilling of the which had been advanced for the purposes of the act. Not a single man had then been recruited. me je
The law required, that the men should be first ved fraised, and that the grand jury should be furvish-t tai ed with lists duly authenticated by government, of the the men so raised, and the bounties paid by them ficer out of the public money for that purpose. Had on Mr. J. Fox, on that occasion, betrayed his trust, in violated his oath, and injured his sovereign and his wae country, by putting bis fiat to such a fraudulent co presentment, he would have become, (for the first it. · time in his life) a scandal and a reproach to 8p court of justice. The pitiful malignity of charge per ing the judge with boasting of the personal mo-ho! tive of annoying the state delinquent, is too con temptible to animadvert upòn.
Şuch was the mass of false, rancorous and ma. Ni conse. "lignant accusation, for which Lord Abercorn and.com the charges. his creatures were for two years furnished with the
countenance and purse of government, in order Not
211 est to support the Orange ascendancy in Ireland over 1305.
the rights, welfare, and justice of that country.
With all Mr. Pitt's partiality for that nobleman, Further he never durst make it a government question : for,
V tary proeven Lord Auckland opposed this latter mode of ceedings as proceeding. It ought, said his Lordship, to have originated in the House of Commons or in an inferior court. If they did any thing in the present mode of carrying on the business, they would probably be reduced to the embarrassing circumstance of pronouncing a verdict on a man, whom they might afterwards have to try, in case of his impeachment by the Commons, or appealing from the judgment of an inferior court. No rational hope could be entertained, that the charges would
be fairly gone through during the short remainder st of that session. The Chancellor supported the
proceedings, and recommended to Lord Abercorn
1805. lvead. The motion was opposed by Mr. Vansit
tart, and consequently negatived. Acts of Par. Of all the parliamentary manæuvres of that sestouching sion touching Ireland", the two acts, which were Judge fux and Judge passed to affect the legal proceedings against the
two judges Fox and Johnson, demand the most serious observation. Lord Abercorn had proceeded to examine several of his most material witnesses before the committee, when finding it im
* Some acts, which did not affect Ireland passed this session, which gave great dissatisfaction to the public. The act, which granted an annuity equal to one.fourth of the duties of the Isle of Man to the Duke'of Athol and his heirs general of the 7th Earl of Derby, after the rights of that family had been delibea rately purchased and finally settled by government in the 5th of the King, was considered to be a rank ministerial job: and some very strong protests were entered against it by the Duke of Norfolk, Marquis of Buckingham, Lords. Radnor, and Carysfort. Lord Ellenborough called it importunate mendicancy. General disgust and indignation followed the decision of the House of Commons on the 25th of June 1805, which was the last parliamentary discussion, in which Mr. Pitt took a part. Chagrined and humbled as he was at the vote of the Commons affecting his friend Lord Melville, he artfully proposed to substitute the mode of proceeding against him by impeachment, for that which had before been determined upon, of crimiral information by the Attorney General. Mr. Fox, Mr. Whitbread, and others of that side of the House were for the latter mode : confiding more in the verdict even of a packed jury, than in the honor of the House of Peers, one-half of whom had either been created or promoted by Mr. Pirt, i.-the decision of such a question. The minister prevailed in the Commons on this question by a majority of 23 : the division being 160 for impeachment, and 143 for criminal information. When the Speaker gave the casting vote against Lord Melville in the Commons, there were 432 members in the House, on this occasion only 309.'
practicable to get through the whole of the evi- 1805. dence before the end of the session, he procured the act to pass, which enacted, that the proceedings should not be discontinued by any prorogation or dissolution of Parliament. The other act passed to meet the case of Judge Johnson, though he be not mentioned in it, is still more extraordinary. That learned judge, after having been foiled in all his proceedings in the law courts, pre
sented a petition to the House of Lords (on which - he was heard by counsel at their bar), against cer
tain clauses of the bill then pending (namely, the 44th of Geo. III.) which went to affect his case in the nature of an er post facto law; praying, that he might not be prejudiced - by a law, which was not in existence at the time of the alleged offence. The legislature however on the roth of July (about 10 months before the alleged commission of the offence and four months before he was tried for it at Westminster) passed an act for amending the two before mentioned acts of the 13th and 44th of Geo. III, by which they admitted persons apprehended out of the jurisdiction, in which they were charged with having offended, to bail in all bailable cases; compelled witnesses to answer subpænas to appear, and give evidence as well from without as within the jurisdiction of the writ; and lastly required, that no such warrant. should be acted upon, until the seal signet or signature of the court, judge, or justice issuing the original warrant, should have been sworn to. These were three of the main objections to the act of the