Изображения страниц

sition of their guilt, at a time that be tage of being able to consult with his must have known their innocence. We counsel, and that for this purpose he believe that every one of these state- should be free to tell him the fact of his ments is, in point of fact, inaccurate; guilt, without being, by such commubut, were every one of them literally nication, deprived of his advocacy. As true, we think he did no more than his to the kind of pledges and protestaprofessional duty. As to the statement, tions which counsel may give of their that the guilt was known to Heaven clients' innocence, we think this a mere alone, it is unlikely that such a phrase question of taste, and that they imwas used; but if it were, it does not seem ply nothing more of either truth or to us in reality to express more with re- falsehood than the plea of “not guilty," ference to the case than is implied in the which does no more than defy you to fact, that the prisoner is there an un- prove guilt. This entire controversy convicted man—that we have no right about Courvoisier's counsel seemed to to presume his guilt. Some person us, from first to last, exceedingly foolmust have committed the crime. The ish. No other right was claimed or statement that Heaven alone knows exercised than the ordinary one of who the guilty person is, cannot be counsel; and had the barrister who intended to mean that the undiscovered held Courvoisier's brief thrown it down criminal does not know his own guilt ; when he learned his client's guilt, such and we cannot think that, whether an act would, in our opinion, have such language was used or not, there been altogether inexcusable. The priis any violation of truth or candour in soner's counsel has the right-nay, its use, when limited and restricted in we think it is his duty—to suggest its meaning by the known relations of every possible interpretation of the client and counsel.* As to suggesting, facts proved, consistent with the prein his cross-examination of witnesses, sumed innocence of his client; and in that they, or any others, were guilty, cross-examining, however severely, or and thus persuading a jury to acquit however pointedly, a Crown witness, his client, we think nothing but the whatever suspicion such examination improbability of such a course suc- may throw on the witness, it seems to ceeding, should necessarily deter coun- us plain that, in reality, no more is şel from venturing on it. We agree done than if counsel said in words, “It with Lord Brougham, in the fullest is just as reasonable to try and fix guilt meaning that can be given to his words, on you as on the prisoner at the bar; that an advocate should know, in as plausible a case might be made the discharge of his office, but one against you.” To this, and to nothing person in the world—his client, and more, does the assumed right amount; none other. To save that client by all and this right does not seem to us in expedient means to protect that cli- the slightest degree varied by the fact ent at all hazard, and all cost to all of counsel, from whatever reason, disothers, and among others, to himself- believing his client's innocence. Couris the highest and most unquestioned voisier's counsel is not interested in of his duties.” It is mere affectation pressing this to the extent that in princito say that, in ninety-nine out of every ple it may be pressed, as it was on the hundred cases in which counsel holds first day of the trial he cross-examined a brief for a prisoner, he does not one of the witnesses for the Crown in know that prisoner to be guilty. Scarcely such a way as to suggest her particia man is put on his trial who is not pation in the crime; and it was only guilty ; and we think counsel's duty is on the second that Courvoisier comin no degree affected by the fact of municated to him the fact of his whether there has been a formal com- having committed the murder. We munication by the client of his guilt. think that if, in his conduct with reOn the contrary, we think the prisoner spect to his trial, counsel made any should not be deprived of the advan- mistake, it was that of consulting with

[ocr errors]

* There is a wide step between the advocate and witness," an acute but severe judge once remarked to a jury. * The counsel has said, I think this, and I believe that. A counsel has no right to say what he thinks, or what he believes ; but, since he has told you, gentlemen, his belief, I will tell you mine: that, were you to believe him, and acquit his client, he would be the very first man in the world to laugh at you.”—Vol. i. p. 264.

some of his professional friemeis how examine the parcel, which was found he ought to act in the circumstances to consist of plate stolen from Lord that arose, as it is plain that cases may William Russell's. If there was a doubt, be easily imagined in which his com- this unexpected circumstance, coming munication to any one whatever of this to light at such a moment, disposed of confidential disclosure, might possibly it. The sort of management, as it affect his client's life. In this, and in could not but appear to be, about the this alone, we think he was wrong. trunk, would have made it appear There were in this trial some very re- not improbable that there was somemarkable circumstances. Though sus. thing of trick in the getting up of picion from the first was directed to other parts of the evidence, intended Courvoisier, there was the absence of to show Courvoisier to be a thief. This probable motive to the crime. His came in to fix all that was doubtful. trunk was searched by the police, and To conceal his thefts, and enjoy in nothing to confirm suspicion was found security the stolen property, was the there. A large reward was offered: probable motive of the murderer. We and then, on a second search in the regret that Mr. Townsend has been same trunk, gloves stained with blood enabled only to give us fragments of were found ; and again, some eight or the speech in defence of Courvoisier, ten days after, are found at the top which appears to have been a very of the trunk two blood-stained hand. able one. kerchiefs, marked with the prisoner's In considering the question of the initials. The handkerchiefs, which extent of counsel's privilege, it should were not found on the two previous not be forgotten that cases exist of searches, it was surely fair in counsel moral guilt, where the prisoner is not to suggest had been placed in the trunk legally guilty. It is not enough that afterwards. Courvoisier was in gaol in a man is criminal, but a precise crime the interval, and had no opportunity must be alleged against him ; and with of placing them there. What is the whatever skill an indictment may be fairness of reproaching counsel with framed, the crime charged may be dirsuggesting that they had been after- ferent from that proved. The conwards placed there by others, and for fessions of a prisoner will be to some the purpose of obtaining, by Courvoi- particular fact, which it is not impos. sier's conviction, a share in the large sible may not amount to the crime reward that was offered ? Such a solu- charged, or may even exceed it; and, tion of the fact may not have been a in either case, he may be legally entrue one. That is not the question titled to an acquittal. Is that legal Was it not a possible one?-was it not a right to be annulled because he has supposition that it was fair for the jury said to his counsel “ I am guilty-do to examine? So much did one of the the best you can for me?” With the policemen shuffle, when examined with exception that we have stated, we respect to this search of the trunk, throughout approve of the course that the judge who tried the case adopted by Courvoisier's counsel. (Tindal) bid the jury to place no re- The remarkable case of “The King liance on his testimony.

against M.Naughten, for the murder A strange incident occurred during of Mr. Drummond," is the next in the the course of the trial, calculated to volume. On this we are not now disremove such doubt from the mind of posed to dwell, as it was a subject of the jury, as the absence of adequate discussion with us at the tine of the motive might create. Courvoisier, a occurrence ;' and there does not seem few weeks before the murder, left a to be at the moment any object in parcel in the care of a Frenchwoman, bringing before the public mind the who kept a sort of hotel, where he had question of the responsibility of the been a servant some years before. insane in criminal cases. It does not She laid the parcel aside, and forgot seem possible to fix the law with more all about it, till

, on the second day of precision, than in the language of the the trial, looking accidentally at a judges of England, to questions subFrench newspaper, she saw something mitted by the Lord Chancellor for their about Courvoisier, which led her to decision. Where insanity is set up as

Criminal Responsibility of the Insane. — Vide Dublin UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE, vu'. xxi., p. 626.

a defence, “the jury ought to be told his petition. His, however, appears in all cases, that every man is pre- to have been by no means a claim dessumed to be sane, and to possess a suf- titute of some colour of probability, ficient degree of reason to be respon- and one, at all events, consistent with sible for his crimes, until the contrary the terms of the original patents. Half be proved to their satisfaction; and a century passed away, and no more to establish a defence on the ground of was heard of the Stirling peerage, when insanity, it must be clearly provedl another claimant rose up in the perthat, at the time of the committing of son of Alexander Alexander. the act, the party accused was labour- Alexander Alexander was the son ing under such a defect of reason, of a Birmingham merchant of the from disease of the mind, as not to name of IIumphries, who went to know the nature and quality of the France in 1802, was caught up like act he was doing; or, if he did know other English visitors, and imprisoned it, that he did not know he was doing in Verdun, where he died in 1807. what was wrong."

Ilis son, who had accompanied him, The next trial--that of “ Alexander was detained at Verdun till 1814; Alexander, claiming the title of the affairs of the Humphries' became Earl of Stirling, for forgery"_is the deranged, and how they were supmost remarkable in the volume. The ported in France is not known. În rank of the accused, his character for 1812, Alexander married a Neapolitan integrity, and the nature of the docu- lady, "an intimate acquaintance of ments alleged to be forgeries, gave to Madame Normand, the celebrated the trial unusual interest. It was before Parisian sybil." The propbetess read the High Court of Justiciary, Edin. his destiny-he was “to attain high burgh.

honour, and encounter severe trials.” In 1621, James the First granted by The oracle was not altogether out, and charter the territory of Nova Scotia to the judicial investigation of Edinburgh Sir William Alexander; and on the was, we suppose, one of the predicted 2nd of February, 1628, he received trials. from Charles the First a grant of the In 1814 he came to England, and province, since called Canada, and set up a school at Worcester. was raised to the peerage by the title In 1815, he first stated his claim to of Viscount Stirling; he was after- the earldom of Stirling, through his mowards created Earl of Stirling and ther, Hannah Alexander, the daughter Viscount Canada, and died at London of a Presbyterian clergyman in Dublin. in February, 1640. In 1739, on the In 1824, he obtained the royal licence death of the fifth Earl of Stirling, the to take the name of Alexander, and title was supposed to have expired. soon after assumed the title of Earl of Twenty years after, an ineffectual Stirling and Dovan, and designated claim was made for it by some William his mother countess. Alexander, who was a general in the In 1831, he granted to his agent American army. The original patents 16,000 acres of land in Canada, and were to the grantee and his heirs male. made him a baronet, in the terms of a This William's statement was that the clause in the charter of 1621. In the male heir, on the death of the fifth same year he petitioned for leave to do Earl, was John, uncle of the first homage at the coronation, as herediEarl, whom he claimed to represent. tary lieutenant of Nova Scotia. He In his petition to the House of Lords then issued a proclamation to the baroin 1761, he stated that his family had nets of Nova Scotia, informing them long resided in North America, from of important rights and interests of which he described himself as having which they were not aware. returned in 1757. He also stated, lished a prospectus, offering for sale as a formal part of his case, that he lands in any quantities that might be bad been served and returned nearest agreed on; and one of his advertiseand lawful heir of Henry the fifth ments stated that “at the hereditary Earl on the 20th of March, 1759. lieutenancy office of the Lord Pro. The claim was, it would seem from the prietor of Nova Scotia, New Bruns. journals of the House of Lords, aban- wick, and Canada, every encouragedoned, and William Alexander re- ment and countenance would be given turned to America without having to individuals who might be disposed produced any evidence in support of to form a company, and thc hereditary


Ile publieutenant would himself take one- descended from Sir William, he was tenth of the shares of which each com- not heir male :pany might think it desirable it should consist.” Oh, John Ball, John Buli, “The excerpt on which he founded his thou that hast ears to hear everything claims, alleged to be a forgery, pretended to but the truth, for ten long years didst

be taken from a charter which operated a thou listen to these addresses to thy

change in the destination, and was a grant

from the crown to William, first Earl of cupidity-for ten long years, thou that stonest and starvest thy prophets--yea,

Stirling, and the heirs male of his body;

whom failing, to the eldest heirs female, and in thy self-glorification, buildest

without division, of the last of such heirs monuments to those whom thou hast

male.' The Crown officers contended that stoned and starved, didst support in this was not a genuine but a forged docuwhat might be almost called afiluence, ment, and made three startling proposi this man, who had no other claim on tio:13:—that it was not the excerpt of any thee than these impudent pretensions. charter; that there never was such a charIt was, perhaps, but natural that the ter; that there never could have been such individual should be-as he certainly a charter.

Each of these positions was was—a kind of favorite in society.

proved by internal and historical evidence." He, and those to whom his applications were addressed, were worshippers It would appear that the forms of of the same idols. His was but a shorter Scottish law give some facilities for cut to wealth and rank, and for a while

fraud in the case of titles. Suppose a it seemed successful. In whatever state person wishing to represent himself as of mind he commenced this strange pro

heir to anybody, he has but to get a ceeding, it was soon tainted with fraud. brieve from Chancery, and a jury is The notoriety of his claims, and the bold- empannelled, and such evidence as the ness with which they were advanced, party chooses to produce is laid before enabled him to raise money to large the jury. The proceeding is altoge. amounts. Through one agent he got ther ex parte, and no person is heard £13,000. He sent in a protest to in opposition to the claims, except one Lord Grey against any interference who makes precisely the same claim in with his hereditary rights by Colonial the same right. Imagine a man Governments; and petitioned the choosing to give himself any extinct House of Commons against the New title, and no one heard in opposition to Brunswick Company Bill, as inter- this who has not a fancy for the same fering with the territories of the Earl title. In this way a case is made, and of Stirling and Viscount Canada. He where property is not affected, the voted at all elections of Scottish peers thing is very likely never to be ex. since 1825 ; and pleaded successfully, amined, and an ambitious man may in the Common Pleas in England, his exalt himself into a peer, perhaps, or a privilege as a peer from arrest. If he baronet of Nova Scotia, or some such did not believe himself Earl of Stirling, dignity, with no great difficulty. He never was there a bolder or more fear- is served, as it is called, as heir of so less impostor ; if guiltless of imposture, and so, and the service being returned never was there a man who lived so into the Court of Chancery, is evilong in such strange delusion. It is dence of his right. In this way the not impossible that he was the dupe of claimant of the Stirling peerage had a fraudulent trick ; this, though there himself served as heir of the first and is little in the evidence to suggest or the fifth Earls of Stirling. The claimsustain such a view, we almost believe ant appears to have thought that there to have been the case.

was no way of getting rid of the effect In one of the many proceedings in of the service, inasmuch as there was which he claimed to be Earl of Stir- no rival claimant ; but by some preroling, he produced documents to esta- gative process, if we understand the blish his right which were impounded, matter rightly, his pedigree was invesand a prosecution for forgery directed tigated, and the services reduced; or, against him.

we would say, quashed. Lord The original patent gave the dignity Cockburn's judicial decision against of Earl to Sir William Alexander and the validity of the services was exhis heirs male. This could answer no pressed in a very able judgment. This purpose for the present claimant, as, was in 1836. When that judgment even on the supposition of his being was pronounced, he went to Pa.


ris—again consulted the prophetess, ments, whether written or pasted, on and in July, 1837, received from her the back-some were written, others a map of Canada, with certificates on pasted-bore dates later than 1703. the back which supplied all the defects Unluckily, the date on the map was pointed out in his case by the judicial not that of the issue of the partidetermination of 1836. These certifi. cular copy, but of the period from cates were all charged to be forgeries. which the copyright was to run: the They were dated in 1706, and pur

words at the bottom of the map were, ported to be statements about an “Avec privilege pour vingt ans, 1703." ancient charter preserved in Acadia. The particular copy adds the words, One is from a person named Philip “ Par Guillaume Delisle, premier Mallett, who sends his friend this map geographe du Roi.” Delisle did not to show him what vast territories the obtain his appointment of premier King of England has given to one of geographe till 1718. The patent aphis subjects; and he then states the pointing Delisle was put in evidence, grant to be to William Earl of Stir. and bore date August 24th, 1718. ling and the heirs male of his body, Flechier and Fenelon had both died whom failing, to the eldest heirs fe- before this copy of the map was in exmale, without division, &c., of the last

istence. of said males." This memorandum, Evening visits of the claimant to which runs to great length, is followed the prophetess, who was seventy-five by another, in which a M. St. Es- years of age, were proved ; and letters tienne certifies all the reasons which proved to have been given by her to led Mallet to inscribe this on the map, the claimant, seeking to establish some and adds :-“ With such documents, of the facts stated on the map. But no person in France can question tho these were not proved to be forgedexistence of such a charter.” Then they were very probably genuine, but cornes another inscription on the proved a part of the fraud. map :-“ Flechier" Bishop of Nismes It does not seem necessary, after authenticates it with his autograph, what we have stated, to give the eviand his certificate is so framed as to dence of chemists and others as to the imply that lie has compared the ab- character of the ink with which the stract on the map with a copy of the certificates on the map were written. orizinal charter.

The jury unanimously found, "the Pasted on the back of the map was excerpt-charter and the documents on a letter from John Alexander, whom the map to be forged ; and they, by a the claimant calls John of Antrim, majority, found it not proven that the and who makes such a statement in pannel (the traverser] forged the said this document of the pedigree as meets documents, or is guilty art and part Lord Cockburn's objections. This thereof, or that he uttered them letter is dated Antrim, August 25th, knowing them to be forged.” This is 1707.

an exceedingly painful case. Nothing This old map must have been a could be higher than the testimony curiosity; for in addition to all that given in favour of the claimant's howe have inentioned, there was a certi. nour and integrity, by witnesses of fieate from Fenelon, Archbishop of the highest rank-men who had known Cambray, who vouches for Mallet, him at school and through life, and and authenticates the map.

Next who continued his friends. It is cer. comes the strongest fact of all : Louis tainly consistent with the evidenceXV. writes on the map_" This note perhaps with the probabilities of the is worthy of more attention under case--that this man, possibly half inpresent circumstances, but let the copy sane with his dream of peerage and of the original charter be sent to me." property, was himself, as has occurred

De Foe himself could not con- in the case of other claimants of titles, jure up more shadows from the world the victim, not alone of his own eager in which dead kings and archbishops credulity, but of the dishonest purare likely to be found, than appear on poses of persons speculating on the this map which came from the hands success of this miserable imposture. of the French prophetess. It seems The French prophetess, and the doalmost a pity to disturb the necyo- cuments supplied by her, are more mantia. On the front of the map was like this than anything else. It is im. the date of 1703, and all the docu- possible not to regard the claimant as

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »