Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

dopted on this important occasion has no parallel in Indian warfare, and indeed is the first instance of bringing forward means adequate to reduce a fortress of great magnitude and strength, in the shortest period of time. In such cases the bravery and resolution of the enemy are of no avail, and the lofty and massy walls cease to be impregnable to a species of ordnance which involves the interior of the building in conflagration and ruin, and makes it too dreadful for the garrison to endure. The tactics which substitute science for personal courage are thus certain to abridge our military operations in occurrences of a similar nature. There can be no glory to the assailed in prolonging resistance, when the incessant firing and explosion of shells and rockets burn and destroy the very citadel, and from which there is no refuge. At Hatrass the stoutest heart was struck with horror and dismay. The garrison sunk under the dreadful operations which exposed them to certain death, without having any means of repelling or defeating the object of the besiegers. Their cannon were of no use, although they kept up a constant but ill-directed fire. Yet the in fa tuation of Dyaram was such, that he would give no signs of submission. By his resistance he had already forfeited all claim to pardon, and therefore he unavailingly sacrificed every thing to his stubbornness, and the proud hut empty boast of unconquerable valour, as if under such circumstances valour could have been exercised to any advantage. The delusion which led him to imagine

that the fort was too strong and inaccessible to be taken was, however, soon over; and his fate will answer a useful purpose in showing others, should there be any of similar views and characters, how idle are the notions which induce them to believe their fastnesses impregnable to European science. It is a great consolation that no assault was made; for, judging from the manner in which Dyaram's horsemen effected their escape, and the bravery and devotion to their chief which they displayed, great loss would have been inevitable in the breach. But, setting aside the political importance of the conquest, we consider that the manner by which it was effected forms a memorable era in the military history of India. The Rohilla cavalry which went in pursuit of the fugitives had rẹturned on the 3d, without having been able to come up with Dya

ram.

It appears that all the female part of his family had es caped in disguise. There are accounts of one of his women having taken refuge with a neighbouring Zemindar, who had reported the circumstance to the inagistrate, and who had been directed to treat her with respect and consideration.

Previous to the commencement of operations before Hatrass, the inhabitants of the gunge had been warned by the British authority against resistance, and the greater part of them had in consequence abandoned their property, and retired to a distant village. Since the fall of the fort, we understand they have returned to resume their property and, occupations.

REMARK

REMARKABLE TRIALS AND LAW CASES.

LIBELS.

Court of King's Bench, June 5. The Kingv. Thomas Jonathan Wooler. -This was an information filed against the defendant by the Attorney-general for printing and publishing a libel. His plea was, Not guilty.

The Attorney-general said, that the libel charged in the information was contained in a periodical paper called The Black Dwarf, of which the defendant was the author and printer. The number comprised in the libel was dated April 2d, and the information contained two counts: the first was for a libel on the ministers employed by the king in the administration of the government; and the second was for a libel on two distinguished individuals, members of that administration.

The Attorney-general, after some remarks by way of preliminary, proceeded to read the libel in question. He particularly dwelt upon the charge, that the administration "talked of patriotism when they meant plunder;" and that their object in embarking in a war against France was not to conquer that country, but ourselves. And he appealed to the good sense of the jury, if the whole were not a gross, scandalous, and seditious libel, calcu-lated to bring the government of

the country into contempt, and to stir up the people to disorder and sedition. He afterwards noticed the libel upon Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, arguing that the purpose of it was the same, though its malignity was restricted to two individual members of the government.

Benjamin Steill was next called to prove the publication, but it was admitted by the defendant as his own act.

Mr. Law then read all the parts charged in the accusation as libels.

The defendant then commenced his address to the jury; and it cannot be denied that the spirit of it obtained the applauses of a great part of the audience, which the sheriffs found it difficult to repress.

Mr. Justice Abbot, the judge, whose office it was to charge the jury, began with stating the general nature of the crime of libel. It is open (said his lordship) to every subject of the kingdom to discuss the measures of government, provided it is done reasonably, fairly, and impartially; but if he chooses to issue forth to the world slander and calumny, he is a libeller, and becomes amenable to the law. He then noticed various observations made by the defendant which were not correct in point of fact; and he concluded with expressing his opinion very M 2 decidedly

decidedly that the productions in question were libels.

After the jury had consulted a short time, one of them asked his lordship, supposing they considered the facts stated to be true, were they still by law bound to find the publication a libel.

Mr. Justice Abbot answered (but not quite audibly), that the truth of the fact did not justify the libel-and he read to them Lord Raymond's opinion upon the question.

The jury retired for two hours and a half, and then returned to the court, the foreman standing with three of his fellows at the door of the judge's room: the other jurymen were behind them.

Mr. Law (clerk of Nisi Prius) then put the question in the usual form, whether they found the defendant guilty of the misdemeanor charged in the information, or not guilty?

The Foreman answered, We find him guilty; but three of the jury wish to state special grounds.

Mr. Justice Abbot said, your verdict must be a general verdict of guilty or not guilty. Do I understand you to say: that you find the defendant guilty?

three of the jurymen stated that they had not brought in their verdict, Guilty.

Mr. Justice Abbot. When 1 put the question, the foreman answered in the affirmative, that it was the verdict of the whole jury.

Mr. Chitty. Three of the jury understood that they were to go back and reconsider, as your lordship could only receive a general verdict.

Mr. Justice Abbot. I take it for granted that the crown only wishes to obtain a verdict by legal means. No gentleman objected to the verdict at the time; and an answer was given that they all concurred. It may be extremely dangerous, if, after a jury has retired after giving in their verdict, any attention could be paid to the statement of some of the individuals. I certainly do not wish to infringe upon the privileges of the jury: but after a verdict has been received and recorded, I cannot allow a part of the jury, after they have withdrawn, having delivered in the verdict as the verdict of the whole, to say that they did not agree.

Mr. Wooler said, that the jury

The Foreman bowed, and ap- offered a paper to his lordship, peared to answer "Yes." who declared that he would not receive their objections.

Mr. Justice Abbot. Is the verdict of guilty the verdict of all the gentlemen of the jury?

The Foreman again bowed, but if he said any thing, it was inaudible beyond the bench.

After the jury impannelled for the trial of the second information had retired, Mr. Chitty said, that he hoped it would not be considered as an impertinent intrusion, if he mentioned to his lordship, that

Mr. Justice Abbot affirmed that he said, he would receive any thing that proceeded from the whole of the jury, but nothing that proceeded from a part of it. He asked, in a tone of voice quite audible, if the verdict of guilty were the verdict of all, and he was told that it was.

Mr. Wooler. The whole of the jury is here; they have never separated;

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Justice Abbot, at the sitting of the Court, addressed the rest of the Bench as follows:

I wish to take the earliest opportunity of reporting some circumstances which occurred yesterday at Guildhall, in the course of a trial which took place before me. The case to which I allude was an information by the AttorneyGeneral against a person of the name of Thomas Jonathan Wooler, for a libel. After the case had been gone through, the Jury retired to consider of their verdict, and while they were absent another case was called on, the trial of it was proceeded in, and just before the reply in the second case was concluded, the door on my left hand was opened, in order to admit the gentlemen of the jury, who had returned after considering of their verdict; and as soon as the reply was finished, in one or two sentences, the names were called over by the officer in the usual way, and answers were given in the ordinary manner. The foreman of the jury then said, that the jury

found the defendant guilty, but three of them were desirous, or had desired him, on their part, to add something. I then interposed, and observed, that I thought I could not receive any thing coming from a part only of the gentlemen of the jury; that the verdict must be the verdict of all; and I then asked (speaking, as I thought, in a very distinct and audible voice) whether all the jury agreed in the verdict? I was answered that they did, and at that time I heard no dissent expressed by any person. The situation, however, was such, the jury not having all of them come into my view, that it is not altogether impossible that some mistake or misapprehension might have taken place; it is not impossible that some might not hear distinctly what had been said.

The jury having then retired, and the door being shut again, I proceeded to sum up the cause in progress; and when I had concluded, (it not being decorous to interrupt me), and after the second jury had retired to consider of their verdict, a gentleman at the bar suggested, that some of the gentlemen of the first Jury had not concurred, nor intended to concur, in the general verdict delivered; or had been desirous that the verdict should be received with some degree of qualification. I have not the words very distinctly now in my mind, but the circumstances I have stated. I farther understood, that some of the jury were present, in or near the court. I then said, that the verdict of the jury had been recorded, and that it seemed to me, that sitting in that place, I could not do any thing in the matter. I do not know

whether

whether I made use of the sentiment; but it certainly impressed my mind, that it would be extremely dangerous if, after the jury had retired from the bar, a judge then in Court could receive and act upon any communication from them. I therefore was of opinion that the verdict must stand as the verdict of the jury. I wished to take the earliest opportunity of stating this occurrence to my Lord and my brothers.

Lord Ellenborough (after consulting with the other judges).— The Court cannot, according to the authorities and precedents of law, receive an affidavit from a juryman upon the subject of his verdict; and the reason why he is precluded from making the affidavit is, because, from the circumstances, it must have been intended that that verdict was given with his assent. In order to imply this assent, it must unquestionably appear that he heard what was propounded by the foreman on behalf of himself and his fellows; and the difficulty that occurs to my mind is, whether in this case there is sufficient evidence for the Court safely to act upon, that the jury did all hear what was propounded for them, and on their behalf, by the foreman. The jurymen were not all within the view of the judge, for it seems that a part of the jury were in the room behind. I say, therefore, that we have not in this case the ordinary means existing in others, for presuming that every one of the jury heard what was propounded by their foreman. If, indeed, they did not hear it, they were not furnished with any means of contradiction, or of signifying any dissent or qualification.

This fact supplies a distinction from all the cases that have usually come before the Court. A verdict is generally given, the jurors standing together in the presence of the judge; and they have full opportunity of hearing what is propounded by the foreman, and of expressing their dissent if they thought fit so to do. If it could be satisfactorily made out, from the position and nearness of the jury, or from the situation of the judge, that all the jury did hear, and that none of them dissented, it would perhaps be too much to disturb the verdict, and the Court could not receive any affidavit against it. But the perfect evidence of their hearing, and their means of assenting or dissenting, seem to be wanted here; and, therefore, I suggest, for the consideration of my brothers, whether in this case, under the uncertainty, (for any uncertainty is to be avoided, especially in a criminal proceeding,) it should not be allowed to the defendant to have the advantage of a new trial, if he should be disposed to desire it.

[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsæt »