Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/383

 350

The Green

a regular Court of Appeal in criminal cases. This bill in capital cases gives an absolute right of appeal, and provides that in certain events a new trial may be ordered by the court, which is to consist of all the judges of the present High Court of Justice, including the Chancery judges and the lord justices. In non-capital cases, a right of appeal is given subject to certain leave being obtained, but such appeal is limited to convictions or indictments. The judges who are to constitute the court, if the bill passes, have had several meetings to consider it and have, it is re ported, arrived unanimously at the conclusion that the bill is " objectionable in principle and cumbrous and unwork able in detail." Under these circumstances it is hardly likely to become a law this session of Parliament. It is in teresting to know that, so far as principle is concerned, the judgtts say that the wide rights appeal proposed would, in their opinion, " tend to lessen the sense of responsibility of juries "! Anent the Oscar Wilde case, to which reference has been made, this much may be said of it which is highly creditable to the English courts and to the English news papers. The whole proceedings, from the day the warrant was issued until the day the sentence was passed, were com prised within just seven weeks, and this included the trials. It was not until the proceedings against the Marquis of Queensbury, which had been begun at the instance of Wilde, disclosed a startling story of shameful practices, that the outside public had the slightest intimation of the life Wilde had been leading. Up to that time he was regarded as a talented if eccentric author, whose manuscripts any publisher would pay liberally for, and whose plays any manager would gladly accept. In fact, during the days of the first trial, two theatres were filled nightly with audiences of "most" people, who laughed at and applauded the clever things in two clever plays written by the wretched man whose time meanwhile was spent between a prison cell and the dock. It seemed incredible that such a man could be guilty of any moral delinquency, and particularly of the loathsome offense with which he was charged. He was arrested •n the 5th of April, and although the preparation of the case against him involved the compilation of the testimony of a large number of witnesses and some documentary proof, he was put upon his trial on the 26th of April. The jury could not agree, and then for the first time he was ad mitted to bail. At the next term of court, less than three weeks later, he was again tried, and this time convicted. With all this celerity there is no suggestion that there was any " railroading " of the case to a hasty conclusion. Nor, on the other hand, was there any attempt by his counsel to interpose delays. Sir Edward Clarke, who defended him,

is not only the acknowledged leader of the English Bar, but he has such a reputation for truth and uprightness that it is extremely likely that a mere request from him would have procured a continuance to a subsequent term. It is probable, however, that such a thought never occurred to him. His brief was marked 250 guineas (or the equivalent of $1250) as a retainer, and it would have been worth quite as much again had the case been continued and the trial protracted. The newspapers deserve credit for not responding to a certain public demand for the dirty details of the proceed ings. One newspaper absolutely refused to publish any re port whatever of the case, and the others, at least those most generally read, tucked their reports away on an inside page and under the head of the ordinary police news, cut ting out and " boiling down " the matter until it assumed a most condensed form. And yet it was open to them to have given their readers columns full of it, displayed under obtrusive head-lines. As to gossip about the chief actors in the case, or descriptions of the scenes in court, there was hardly a word of it, and absolutely none after the trial was over. We are not informed how the convicted man and his counsel took the sentence, or what they think of it or what they are going to do about it. Quite in keeping with this was the equally decent con duct of the newspaper reporters in the divorce court last week. A " society " case was on, and the dramatis persona: were not only prominently known, but the drama was of an exciting and highly interesting nature. But some of its incidents were of such a nature that counsel agreed in requesting the judge to try the case in camera. This he refused to do, but he suggested that he would request the reporters to refrain from publishing any report of the case other than the result. This was done, and the reporters complied with Sir Francis Jeune's request. It is now sug gested that a bill be introduced into Parliament to give the judges of the courts authority to act generally as Sir Francis Jeune did in the case mentioned. If a newspaper, after the interdict of the court, publishes a report of the proceedings, both the writer of the report and the responsible editor and publisher of the paper will be dealt with as for contempt of court. It is not improbable that here as in America such a bill would be opposed on the ground of its alleged interference with the liberty of the press, or because its pro visions were unduly repressive of " newspaper enterprise," but it is doubtful if such objections will prevail. A large part of the community, and a very decided majority of those necessarily engaged in the class of cases which the bill will cover, would gladly welcome it. Stuff Gown.