FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48  
49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   >>   >|  
ommittee concludes their precedents begun under Lord Nottingham, and ended under Lord Hardwicke. They are of opinion that a body of precedents so uniform, so accordant with principle, made in such times, and under the authority of a succession of such great men, ought not to have been departed from. The single precedent to the contrary, to which your Committee has alluded above, was on the trial of the Duchess of Kingston, in the reign of his present Majesty. But in that instance the reasons of the Judges were, by order of the House, delivered in writing, and entered at length on the Journals:[23] so that the legal principle of the decision is equally to be found: which is not the case in any one instance of the present impeachment. The Earl of Nottingham, in Lord Cornwallis's case, conceived, though it was proper and agreeable to justice, that this mode of putting questions to the Judges and receiving their answer in public was not supported by former precedents; but he thought a book of authority had declared in favor of this course. Your Committee is very sensible, that, antecedent to the great period to which they refer, there are instances of questions having been put to the Judges privately. But we find the _principle_ of publicity (whatever variations from it there might be in practice) to have been so clearly established at a more early period, that all the Judges of England resolved in Lord Morley's trial, in the year 1666, (about twelve years before the observation of Lord Nottingham,) _on a supposition that the trial should be actually concluded, and the Lords retired to the Chamber of Parliament to consult on their verdict_, that even in that case, (much stronger than the observation of your Committee requires for its support,) if their opinions should then be demanded by the Peers, for the information of their private conscience, yet they determined that they should be given in public. This resolution is in itself so solemn, and is so bottomed on constitutional principle and legal policy, that your Committee have thought fit to insert it _verbatim_ in their Report, as they relied upon it at the bar of the Court, when they contended for the same publicity. "It was resolved, that, in case the Peers who are triers, _after the evidence given, and the prisoner withdrawn, and they gone to consult of the verdict_, should desire to speak with any of the Judges, to have their opinion upon any point of law, that, i
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48  
49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Judges

 

principle

 

Committee

 

Nottingham

 

precedents

 

questions

 

resolved

 

opinion

 

thought

 
present

consult
 
public
 

publicity

 
instance
 

authority

 
period
 
verdict
 

observation

 

stronger

 

requires


Morley

 

England

 
established
 
twelve
 

retired

 

Chamber

 

concluded

 

support

 

supposition

 

Parliament


bottomed

 

triers

 

contended

 

relied

 

evidence

 

desire

 

prisoner

 
withdrawn
 

Report

 

conscience


determined

 

private

 
information
 

opinions

 

demanded

 

resolution

 
insert
 
verbatim
 

policy

 
constitutional