Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/435

 398

Each of the presiding judges has the right It might mean that there was a definite to charge the jury separately, and students place in Her Majesty's dominions at which of constitutional law will recollect the curi the Act of 1870 had come into operation. In ous confusion produced at the trial of the that case the indictment was bad because Seven Bishops (who were tried at bar in the the place was not specified, or therein reign of James II) by the fact that the four might signify that the Act had come into presiding judges delivered directly conflict operation at all places on Her Majesty's ing addresses to the jury in regard to the dominions, in which case the impossible bur question whether the conduct of the Episco den of proving this allegation affirmatively pal defendants amounted to sedition. No rested on the Crown. appeal lies from the decision of the judges The judges overruled this objection — the at bar, either to the Court on Crown Cases Lord Chief Justice remarking that even in Reserved or to the whole of the judges of the the construction of a criminal pleading some Queen's Bench Division. But where the regard must be paid to the ordinary under charge against a defendant tried at bar is standing of language and common sense. misdemeanor, he may, if convicted, appeal It is curious and noteworthy, by the way, at once to the judges who tried him for how slow the law of England is to follow a new trial, and then, if they uphold the con the trend of modern civilized jurisprudence viction, to the court of appeal. This course with reference to the amendment of criminal was actually taken by Mr. Bradlaugh after pleading. Even Scotland under Lord Kingshis conviction in 1885 for a breach of the burgh's Act has largely got rid of technical Permissory Oaths Act. We may pass now and hairsplitting objections to the wording to the legal points actually taken and de of indictments. But the Sassenach still lin cided on Dr. Jameson's trial. First came gers obstinately in the rear. As in most a series of objections to the indictment, other cases, however, the conservatism of pressed with consummate skill by Sir Ed English lawyers in this matter springs from ward Clarke, the leading counsel for the a respectable root, viz., their desire that a defense. The material clause in the in defendant in a criminal case should clearly dictment on the purpose of their argument know the offense with which he is charged. was as follows : " That they (i. e. the de A via media between undue laxity and the fendants) on Nov. 1, 1895, ana* on divers present absurd strictness might readily, how days between that date and December 30, ever, and ought to, be discovered. The 1895, within the limits of Her Majesty's two remaining objections urged against the dominions and after the coming into opera indictment of the Raiders were of a more tion therein of the Foreign Enlistment Act of substantial character, viz.: (1) that the de 1 870, and without the license of Her Majesty, fendants were not alleged to be British sub were engaged in the preparation of a mili jects, and (2) that the offense was not tary expedition to proceed against the sufficiently alleged to have been committed dominion of a friendly state, to wit, the within the Queen's dominions. On these South African Republic; and afterwards, to points the court held that the Foreign En wit, on Feb. 25, 1896, and at the time of listment Act was not limited to subjects of taking this inquisition, were within the the British Crown within the Queen's do county of London, and within jurisdiction minions, or incapable of reaching British of the Central Criminal Court." The first subjects beyond them — two very important objection taken to the indictment turned on glosses, it may be added, on the text of the the word therein in the passage quoted above. statute. The only matter remaining for It was said that this word was ambiguous. notice— and that of a brief description — is