146] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1S14. 



Bench Prison, which motion was 

 agreed to ; and it was ordered that 

 a notice should be sent to Mr. 

 Andrew Cochrane Johnstone to 

 attend in his place on the same 

 day. 



Mr. Holmes then rose, and, by 

 the express desire of Lord Coch- 

 rane, moved, " That there should 

 be laid before this House a copy of 

 the report of the late trial upon an 

 indictment in the Court of King's 

 Bench against the Lord Cochrane, 

 together with his statement, or any 

 affidavit of his filed in the Court of 

 King's Bench." 



Mr. A. Browne seconded the 

 motion, and said that without such 

 an opportunity afforded to the 

 members of attentively looking 

 over the evidence, the House, in 

 the exercise of its judicial and in- 

 quisitorial functions, would be pro- 

 nouncing a judgment of high im- 

 portance upon the fact of a convic- 

 tion of the Courts below. The 

 individual in question had used 

 every means in his power to bring 

 his case under the revision of the 

 Court, but had been prevented by 

 a rule of practice which required 

 the personal attendance on the 

 floor of the Court of every indivi- 

 dual affected by the judgment, 

 which it was impossible for him to 

 effect. It might be said, that in- 

 vestigating the evidence on which 

 the judgment of the Court was 

 founded, would be involving the 

 House in a trial of the guilt of the 

 individual ; but no argument aris- 

 ing from this inconvenience could 

 reconcile it to the duty of that 

 House to proceed to a sentence of 

 expulsion, if on a careful review of 

 the case it should think that the 

 conviction was erroneous. 



The Attorney General said, that 



it was impossible for him to acqui- 

 esce in the motion consistently 

 with his respect for the trial by 

 Jury ; for what was proposed for 

 the House to do but to review a 

 conviction by a jury, to sit as a 

 court of appeal or error on facts 

 on which a jury had pronounced a 

 verdict ? After some farther ob- 

 servations on this point, the Hon. 

 and Learned Gentleman proceeded 

 to correct a mistake on which the 

 last speaker had founded a great 

 part of his argument. He had 

 spoken of technical rules which had 

 prevented the party convicted from 

 obtaining a revision of the verdict 

 given against him. The rule of 

 court alluded to was wisely found- 

 ed on the principle, that if several 

 persons were convicted of a con- 

 spiracy, and one, probably the least 

 implicated, were, on coming into 

 Court, to apply for and obtain a 

 new trial, all the rest would be 

 entitled to come in and take the 

 same benefit ; but in the event of 

 his not obtaining a new trial, the 

 others, though the most deeply 

 involved in the crime, would have 

 the best opportunity afforded them 

 of eluding the punishment. With 

 respect to the present case, after 

 Lord Cochrane had been told by 

 the Court that they could not hear 

 a motion for a new trial when he 

 stood alone ; on a subsequent day 

 the Counsel for Butt had moved 

 for an arrest of judgment with re- 

 spect to him, but the Court had 

 delivered their opinion seriatim^ 

 that there was nothing in the 

 point urged that called for such an 

 arrest. On this occasion Lord C. 

 did precisely what the rules of the 

 Court had prevented him from 

 doing on the pre<eding day. He 

 read from a paper ably written. 



