British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 33
Final Arguments, cont.
Mr. Dunlop:
I expect they are generally white because most rockets are white. My Lord, he did not call the Marconi operator; he was content to go on signalling to this vessel by Morse signals and getting no reply. That I submit he would not have done had he thought this vessel was a vessel in distress and wanted assistance. He would not have been content with the steps he took to get into communication with her. And lastly, if they had been distress rockets, you would have found those signals entered in the scrap log. According to the evidence they were not entered there.
The Commissioner:
We have never seen the scrap log.
Mr. Dunlop:
No, my Lord, and the Third Officer, Groves, who had no responsibility in the matter at all because at all material times he was below, was asked if he saw the scrap log on the following morning and he said he did. He was asked was there any entry in the scrap log of those signals.
The Commissioner:
I have forgotten what your explanation is, or was, of the fact that rockets are not referred to in the log at all. What is the explanation?
Mr. Dunlop:
The explanation is because they did not think that the rockets were signals of distress. They thought they were what they call private night signals.
The Attorney-General:
They did the next morning when they knew what had happened to the "Titanic."
Mr. Dunlop:
Not the Officers.
The Attorney-General:
Oh, yes.
Mr. Dunlop:
They still in the witness-box denied that they were distress rockets in the sense of being rockets from a vessel in distress. The whole of their evidence is to the effect that they were not. In one sense distress rockets, true, because they are rockets which show a white light, but in the sense of being rockets from a vessel in distress their answer is no, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
The Commissioner:
How many rockets did you see?
Mr. Dunlop:
I think, my Lord, the evidence is about eight.
The Commissioner:
How many rockets did the "Titanic" send up?
Mr. Dunlop:
We do not know. She said she was sending up rockets for about an hour.
The Attorney-General:
From 12.45.
Mr. Dunlop:
For about an hour, I think, the Fourth Officer said.
The Commissioner:
Is not there any evidence as to the number they sent up; does not one Witness say about 8.
Mr. Dunlop:
I think one Witness did say about 8.
The Commissioner:
You saw eight, and the "Titanic," according to some of her Witnesses, sent up eight.
Mr. Dunlop:
That is so, but I do not suppose that the man who sent them up was counting them. I think, on the whole, we saw more than that, because, after seeing the eight the Witness described seeing three more.
The Commissioner:
One of the "Titanic's" Witnesses said they sent up eight to twelve, I think.
Mr. Dunlop:
And the Witnesses from the "Californian" describe seeing rockets a considerable time after the "Titanic" had ceased to exhibit rockets. They saw rockets till nearly 4 o'clock in the morning.
The Attorney-General:
It is suggested they came from the boats.
The Commissioner:
The "Carpathia" was sending up rockets then, was she not?
Mr. Dunlop:
The "Carpathia" was a long way off, steaming up towards the "Californian" at that time. I do not think it was suggested that the rockets which were seen about 4 in the morning were the "Carpathia's" rockets.
The Commissioner:
At all events, does not it come to this, that the "Titanic" was sending out white rockets and you saw white rockets; that the "Titanic" sent up about eight rockets, and you saw about eight rockets?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, it is a coincidence.
The Commissioner:
Yes, it is a coincidence.
Mr. Dunlop:
As to the colour, it is not of importance, because that is the colour of rocket you would expect if a rocket was sent up at all. The number, again, my Lord, is purely guesswork on the part of the Officer who was firing them, because he was not counting them. What he said was, "I was sending up rockets during the course of an hour."
The Commissioner:
And did not you see the rockets just at the same time that the "Titanic" was sending her rockets up?
Mr. Dunlop:
I have looked through the evidence in order to try to fix the time at which the Fourth Officer of the "Titanic" sent up those rockets, and I have not been able to fix the time.
The Commissioner:
At all events, we know it was not before the collision with the iceberg.
Mr. Dunlop:
Oh, no; somewhere between 1 and 2.
The Commissioner:
Did not you see them somewhere between 1 and 2?
Mr. Dunlop:
We saw some between 1 and 2 and some between 2 and 3.
The Commissioner:
Oh, yes, and some between 2 and 3 possibly, but you see the same colour that the "Titanic" sent up; the same number that the "Titanic" sent up, and you see them just about the same time that the "Titanic" is sending them up.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Those are all coincidences.
Mr. Dunlop:
Is not that perfectly consistent with the view that the vessel firing rockets was firing answering rockets? If so, the numbers and the colours would coincide.
The Commissioner:
I was on a different point. I was on the question as to whether you saw the "Titanic's" rockets.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, and I submit not. The fact that we saw eight and saw white rockets does not show they were the "Titanic's" rockets because that happens to be the number which her Witnesses say they sent up, or the colour which they sent up, because if they were answering rockets as is the theory of the Witnesses from the "Californian," you would expect to find precisely the same coincidence; or you might find the same coincidence. For every rocket on the "Californian" sent up there was one sent up in reply from the intermediate steamer.
The Commissioner:
But you do not signal at night by means of rockets in the same way that you would signal in the daytime by means of flags, do you?
Mr. Dunlop:
Oh, no.
The Commissioner:
I mean you do not carry on conversations by means of rockets.
Mr. Dunlop:
No, but if rockets are sent from a vessel herself in distress and the steamer seeing them wishes to acknowledge them, if she has not got the means of acknowledging them in any other way she will or may very likely fire rockets. At any rate that is the theory of the Witnesses from the "Californian." That is the view they formed at the time. It may be now that we know what, in fact, was happening that their theory was wrong, but we are now dealing with the conduct of the men at the time, and we must judge that conduct, I submit, by the views that they formed at the time. Their theory is, I submit, quite consistent with the colour of the rockets and the number of the rockets, if, as they say, these were rockets fired in answer to rockets from a vessel herself in distress. It may be the vessel which the "Californian" saw firing these rockets, being between the "Californian" and the "Titanic," was herself seeing the rockets from the "Titanic" and taking that means of acknowledging that she had seen them.
The Attorney-General:
When I was putting some questions to Gill, the donkeyman, dissented from the suggestions which I have made that nobody who saw the rockets attached any importance to them at the time or thought they were signals calling on the "Californian" to render immediate or any assistance.
The Commissioner:
That is not in accordance with the conversation that took place - "A ship does not fire up rockets for nothing." There was a conversation between the two men to that effect. The one says to the other, "A ship is not sending up rockets for nothing."
Mr. Dunlop:
Those men have their conversation. Both said to each other, and said when they came here, that they were not signals from a vessel in distress. True, they made that observation that they were not sending them up for fun, and I do not suggest that she was. On their theory, it was far from fun she was indulging in, but this vessel was sending up rockets in answer, as they thought, to some other vessel which may have been in distress. So satisfied were Stone, the Second Officer, and Gibson, the Apprentice, that the vessel whose rockets they were seeing was not in distress that although after five minutes past two they saw two or three more rockets, according to their evidence, they thought there was no need to tell the Master, much less to call him. I submit that is very significant that they should have seen two or three more, knowing that the Master was remaining below, and should not have reported these additional rockets to him. That only shows that what they were seeing did not at the time convey to their minds that the rockets were rockets from a vessel in distress. That appears at Questions 7588 and 7601.
It is easy for critics who were not there, speaking with the knowledge that comes after the event, to say that these men ought to have attached importance to them at the time. It is very easy to say that, but one must remember that these men were watching the steamer herself. They saw what her movements were, and what she was doing, and the rockets, taken in conjunction with what they saw led them to think that the steamer which they saw was not in distress. And the opinion of men on the spot is generally more reliable and more accurate than the opinion of persons who were not.
The steamer they saw disappearing in the distance as she steamed away to the South-West may or may not have been the steamer which the Fourth Officer of the "Titanic" said he saw approaching not answering his Morse signals, and afterwards steaming away. It is significant that the same Witnesses who described the firing of these rockets say that as soon as the vessel which they saw began to fire rockets she at the same time began to steam away to the South-West and steamed away until gradually her lights were lost sight of in the distance. That is the evidence, and the reports made at the time by the Second Officer and by Gibson. If that is true the vessel that was firing these rockets cannot have been the "Titanic," because the "Titanic" at this time was lying stopped, and the fact that they saw this vessel steaming away at the same time as they saw the rockets no doubt was the factor which led them to suppose that the vessel that they saw was not herself in distress, but was going off in answer to some other vessel which was away to the Southward of her.
Now, my Lord, I want to deal, if I may quite shortly, with the case on the assumption that the vessel which was seen, and whose rockets were seen was the "Titanic." I am going to ask your Lordship to judge of Captain Lord's conduct by the circumstances as they were present to his mind at the time these events happened. Captain Lord was a young Captain, some 35 years of age, who had worked himself up in the Leyland Line by his care as a navigator. For some six years he had been in command of Leyland Line steamers, and he had shortly before been promoted to command the "Californian," a fairly large passenger steamer of over 6000 tons. As a Captain, his first care and duty was the safety of his own vessel. On the 14th of April he was on duty all day. He had never been in ice before or in the neighbourhood of icebergs. Icebergs had been reported to him by East-bound steamers. He was keeping a sharp look-out for ice, and he passed various icebergs that day, as are recorded in the log. After darkness set in he ran into thick field ice, which obliged him to stop his ship at 10.21. While taking every precaution for the safety of his own vessel and her crew, he was not unmindful of the safety of other vessels. He was in no way callous up to that time, because by means of his wireless apparatus he communicated to vessels in the neighbourhood the position of the icebergs that he had passed earlier in the evening, and when he stopped in the ice he communicated the fact to the "Titanic," which he knew was somewhere in the neighbourhood, showing that he had regard for the safety of other vessels besides his own. Between 10.21 and 12.15 he saw that the field ice extended in all directions. He said it extended as far as the eye could reach. It was thick ice; it was ice that was crunching and grinding against the ship's sides with such a noise that the donkeyman, Gill, was unable to sleep. He was, therefore, in a position in which it was obviously dangerous to move his ship or his rudder or propeller, a danger which he would not have been justified in running especially in the dark except in the case of clear and unmistakable necessity.
At 11 o'clock he sees this mysterious steamer which, rightly or wrongly, he judged at the time and said at the time was a cargo boat and not a passenger boat. He watched her approach. At 11.30 he saw her stop owing to the field ice, as he thought, and the fact that she did stop just as he had stopped would no doubt confirm the wisdom of his resolution not to move his engines till daylight. At 12.10, according to the evidence, the Third Officer was relieved by the Second Officer. The Third Officer goes to bed. So does the Marconi operator; neither of those two are suspicious at all that anything was taking place. At 12.15 the Master goes to his chart room with his clothes and boots on, to lie down after he had been 17 hours on duty. He gives orders to be called at daybreak, because he had decided not to get underway before daybreak; and he told the Second Officer to tell him if the mysterious steamer either came nearer or moved away. If it came nearer he might have to shift his position. If she steamed away, and it was safe for her to do so, that might affect his decision not to proceed on his voyage till daylight; therefore, he gives this direction to be informed as to the steamer's movements, not that he has any idea that the vessel is in danger, but because her movements may affect his.
At about 1 o'clock in the morning the Second Officer, speaking through the speaking tube, reports that he has seen rockets, but the Second Officer did not think and did not report that the steamer which was firing these rockets was in distress. That report did not convey, and was not intended to convey to the mind of the Master, that the vessel was in distress. The Master then told the Second Officer to Morse signal to her and find out why she was firing rockets and to send Gibson to report the result. At five minutes past two in the morning Gibson reports that she would not answer the Morse signals, that she had fired more rockets, and was steaming away to the South-West. At this point there is a conflict of evidence as to whether the Master was asleep, as he says he was, or was awake, as Gibson says he was. The truth probably lies between the two; the man was half asleep, and in that condition the Master repeated the question which he had put earlier in the evening to the Second Officer as to the colour of the rockets.
I am going to submit he put that question because he could not understand how the steamer which he himself had seen and which was then reported to him to be steaming away to the South-West could be wanting assistance, and the description of her movements, therefore, created a doubt in his mind as to whether they were signals of distress or not, and, therefore, he enquired as to the colour of the rockets. He also asked what o'clock it was. I venture to think he asked that question because he wanted to know how long it was before daybreak, in case assistance might be wanted.
The attitude of his mind was this: "If she is steaming away to the South-West, then these are not distress signals and she is not in need of my assistance. If she is lying stopped she may have sustained some damage to her propeller or her rudder. I can do nothing for her until daylight; I am stopped here in the ice and so is she. I will wait till daylight." That appears to have been the attitude of his mind as the result of the communications made to him by the Second Officer and by the Apprentice Gibson. In any case, he was entitled to rely on the watch on deck sending for him if they thought there was any need for him to be on deck. They were the judges of the situation, and he was entitled to rely, and did rely, on their judgment.
I should like to read two answers which he gave to Question 7373 and the following questions, because I submit those answers are the explanation of his inactivity. "(Q.) Did you question your Second Officer as to why you had not been called? - (A.) I did. (Q.) What was his explanation to you? - (A.) He said that he had sent down and called me; he had sent Gibson down, and Gibson had told him I was awake and I had said, 'All right, let me know if anything is wanted.' I was surprised at him not getting me out, considering rockets had been fired. He said if they had been distress rockets he would most certainly have come down and called me himself, but he was not a little bit worried about it at all. (Q.) If they had been distress rockets he would have called you? - (A.) He would have come down and insisted upon my getting up." He was relying upon the Second Officer and Gibson, and if any erroneous impression was drawn by these men who were on watch, it was not Captain Lord's fault. He was entitled to rely upon them, and he was lulled into a state of security and unsuspicion by the reports that he got and the way in which those reports were made. He is allowed to continue his sleep and is called at daybreak, in accordance with the orders he had given the night before. Then he hears of the loss of the "Titanic." As soon as he hears of the loss of the "Titanic" he proceeds towards her with all possible speed, and all the Witnesses are agreed that as soon as the necessity for taking action was brought home to Captain Lord's mind he at once took action, and extreme action. He steamed at full speed through the field ice which has been described, and successfully did so, and at 8.30 he arrived at the "Carpathia's" position.
At 7.30 he passed a vessel blocked in the ice. He thought at the time it was the "Mount Temple." It is quite clear now, from the evidence given by the Master of the "Mount Temple," that the "Mount Temple" was a good deal further to the Southward, and, therefore, the vessel he saw stopped in the ice must have been some vessel other than the "Mount Temple." But that is what he sees at 7.30, a vessel which although comparatively near the scene of the tragedy is herself so involved in ice that she is unable to force a passage through it. Captain Lord, however, does so, and he eventually gets alongside the "Carpathia" at highest speed at 8.30 in the morning. When he gets alongside he is told by the "Carpathia" that she has picked up all the survivors. Captain Lord is not content with this assurance. For two hours after that he searches amongst the wreckage in the hope that he may pick up any of those who may happen to survive. The conduct of Captain Lord that morning was not the conduct of a man who was callous or indifferent to the duties which he owes to humanity. I submit that his inaction was purely the result of ignorance of the conditions that were actually existing some two or three miles away from him on this particular night. He was entirely ignorant of what was going on during the time he was resting in the chart-house. Had he only known, he would have rushed to the "Titanic's" assistance, and no one regrets more than he does that he did not do so, but the remorse for his apparent inactivity during these fatal hours of midnight is relieved by the knowledge that if he had gone to this vessel's assistance when called by Gibson at five minutes past two he could not by any possibility have got to her before the "Carpathia" had herself arrived upon the scene.
As I have already explained to your Lordship the "Californian" was distant two and a half hours steaming from the position of the "Titanic" and if he had gone to her assistance at 5 minutes past 2 it is perfectly obvious that he could not have reached her until after about 4.30 which was half-an-hour after the "Carpathia" got there. That is assuming that he could have made at night the progress which he was able to make in the daytime, and it is very unlikely if at night he had proceeded in the direction in which the "Titanic" was that with this field of ice in front of him he would ever have got there. But I submit that on this evidence it is abundantly clear that even if he had taken action at 2.5 which is the time it is suggested he ought to have taken action, he could not possibly, by reason of the distance and the time intervening between himself and the "Titanic," have reached the "Titanic" in time to have been of any assistance at all. Even if he had gone at 1 o'clock in the morning, which was the time when first rockets were seen he could not have arrived there until 3.30, more than an hour after the "Titanic" had sunk. So that in no view, as I submit of this case, would the conclusion be a fair one that any life would have been saved or any suffering relieved had the Master of the "Californian" not remained inactive between 1 and 6 o'clock in the morning. My Lord, that is his evidence at Question 7406, if I may read one or two answers to your Lordship on this part of the case because they put what his view is. "(Mr. Dunlop.) Assuming that she sank somewhere between 2 and 3, could you in fact, if you had known at 1.15 a.m. in the morning that the "Titanic" was in distress to the southward and westward of you, have reached her before, say, 3 a.m.? - (A.) No, most certainly not. (Q.) Could you have navigated with any degree of safety to your vessel at night through the ice that you had encountered? - (A.) It would have been most dangerous. (The Commissioner.) Am I to understand that this is what you mean to say, that if he had known that the vessel was the "Titanic" he would have made no attempt whatever to reach it. (Mr. Dunlop.) No, my Lord. I do not suggest that. (To the Witness.) What would you have done? No doubt you would have made an attempt? - (A.) Most certainly I would have made every effort to go down to her. (Q.) Would the attempt from what you now know in fact have succeeded? - (A.) I do not think we would have got there before the "Carpathia" did if we would have got there as soon." His attempt would have failed. As I say he laments that he did not make the effort, but I submit also that if he had made the effort it is one which certainly would not have done any good to the "Titanic" and might possibly have only added the "Californian" to the "Titanic" tragedy.
There are reasons why in my submission your Lordship, even although you may take an unfavourable view of Captain Lord's conduct, ought to refrain in your report from censuring him. There are three grounds on which I submit that your Lordship, even although you think that his conduct merits rebuke, ought in your report to refrain from rebuking him. The first ground is, I venture to think, the ground of public policy. I submit it would be a grave mistake to introduce into your report a topic which cannot but affect the prestige of the British Mercantile Marine if the topic is introduced for the purpose of censuring the conduct of Captain Lord. Your Lordship's report will have an international interest and importance. It will be circulated by the press in all foreign countries, or in most foreign countries, and if it contains any censure of the "Californian," it will put into the hands of foreign critics a weapon of attack on the reputation of the British Mercantile Marine, of which we are very justly proud and jealous. I mention this in order that your Lordship may have present to your mind this aspect of the case, and consider whether it is in the public interest that publicity and advertisement should be given to what has been called the "Californian" incident.
But in the interests of justice the report ought not to pass any censure on Captain Lord. In the first place the Commission was not appointed to enquire into his conduct at all. His conduct had absolutely nothing to do with the objects of this Enquiry as stated by the Attorney-General in his opening speech. There was no jurisdiction to hold any Enquiry into Captain Lord's conduct. Under the Merchant Shipping Act an Enquiry may be held into the conduct of a Master who, after being in collision with another ship unreasonably fails to stand by her or give her his name. But apart from that section there is no power to hold an Enquiry into the conduct of a Master who, after being in unreasonably withheld assistance from a vessel in distress. It is admitted that there is no jurisdiction here to suspend or cancel Captain Lord's certificate. If it has not that jurisdiction, it has no jurisdiction to censure him, because censure is merely ancillary to the jurisdiction which the Court possesses if it has jurisdiction of cancelling or suspending his certificate. Censure is frequently an alternative to the power which the Court has of suspending or cancelling a certificate in a fit case. But if the Court has no jurisdiction to deal with his certificate it cannot have a jurisdiction to express censure on his conduct. Whatever we may think, they are merely opinions which ought not to have the sanction which your Lordship's report would give to the opinions which your Lordship may possibly hold. If the Board of Trade had power to order an Enquiry into Captain Lord's conduct, it did not exercise the power, and it cannot now treat the Enquiry, which was not into his conduct, as if it had been.
Under the Rules which regulate proceedings at these enquiries, if a charge is made against a Master, he must be told what the charge is. That is required by the Merchant Shipping Act, and is also required by the Rules which govern the procedure on these enquiries. The Rules are set out at page 723, and under Rule 3 he must, when an Enquiry is ordered, be served by the Board of Trade with a notice in the form which your Lordship will find on page 729, containing a statement of the questions which, on the information then in possession of the Board of Trade, they intend to raise on the hearing of the investigation, and service of this notice is essential in order to make a Master a party to an Enquiry.
From the little experience I have had of Board of Trade enquiries, the very first step taken in a Board of Trade Enquiry is to formally prove service of these notices upon the men whose conduct may be called in question. No such notice was given to the Master of the "Californian." On the 26th of April, Captain Lord and Gill gave their evidence at the American Court of Enquiry, and a transcript of that evidence was in due course transmitted to the Board of Trade. On the 11th of May, on the arrival of the "Californian" in Liverpool, statements were taken by the Officers of the Board of Trade from Captain Lord, the three Officers, two Apprentices, an A.B. and some of the engine room staff. On the 14th of May, Captain Lord attended here and gave his evidence, and his testimony was relevant to some of the questions which have been submitted to your Lordship. I asked on that occasion to be allowed to appear on behalf of the "Californian" and the Master, and my application was very properly resisted by the Attorney-General and objected to by your Lordship. My application was resisted or certainly not assented to by the Attorney-General, who properly explained that although the evidence showed that rockets were seen by the "Californian," and the evidence showed that the "Titanic" was not very far from the "Californian," it was very difficult to say that that evidence had any bearing upon the questions submitted to your Lordship, and, therefore, as the "Californian" was sailing, he proposed to put a few questions to the Witnesses. That is, on the 14th of May after the Board of Trade had all the information which they now have bearing on the "Californian" incident. No charge at that time was made against Captain Lord, no intimation was made that any charge would be made, and he was not made a party to the Enquiry. He appeared here in no other capacity than as a Witness to give to the Court such assistance as he could in answering questions which had then been submitted by the Board of Trade for your Lordship to answer. And the capacity in which I appeared is properly stated on the front page of the various records of the day's proceedings "as having watched the proceedings on behalf of the owners and Officers of the "Californian," as distinct from "appearing on behalf of the 'Californian,'" which are the words I see opposite more distinguished names. It is not until the 14th of June, a month after Captain Lord has left the witness-box, that an intimation is given that the Board of Trade propose to formulate a question relating to the "Californian," which would give the Court an opportunity of censuring Captain Lord. It is not my province nor my purpose to criticise the procedure which has been adopted with relation to the "Californian," but it is manifest from the statement of facts as I have stated them, that Captain Lord has been treated here in a way which is absolutely contrary to the principles on which justice is usually administered, or on which these enquiries are generally conducted.
I respectfully urge the Attorney-General to consider whether this question ought really to be put at all. The object of it is explained by the Attorney-General on page 649. There it is stated that the object of this question is that the Law Officers of the Crown should get from your Lordship a finding of the facts relating to the "Californian" incident in order to enable them to make up their minds whether, in the public interest, they ought to institute criminal proceedings which may be instituted under Section 6 of the Maritime Convention Act. If that is the object of the question, I submit it is a wholly unfair object. If this man may be prosecuted hereafter, he ought to have had notice of this question before he entered the witness-box; he ought to have known precisely what the charge made against him was, and he ought to have had an opportunity of hearing the evidence given by the other Witnesses before he himself had to give his own evidence.
If you deal with this question, my Lord, and find the facts against Captain Lord, what chance would he have of a fair and impartial trial before a jury which had read your Lordship's report? If that is the object, my Lord, of this Question, this invitation to your Lordship to find the facts with regard to the "Californian" incident, if the object is with a view to future proceedings, I respectfully and strongly urge that it is a most unfair object. If that is not the object, then I do not know what the object of the question is. If it is not in the public interest that Captain Lord should be charged with a failure to render assistance, then the question ought not to be raised so publicly here in the form of the question which has been submitted to you.
Captain Lord has already been sorely and severely punished for his apparent inactivity during these fatal midnight hours. That inactivity, whichever view your Lordship may take of the facts, is, I venture to submit, an inactivity due to mere thoughtlessness or error of judgment and not to any willful disregard of duty. He may have relied too much on his Second Officer and Gibson, the Apprentice; he may have erroneously drawn a wrong inference from the reports which they made to him. Whatever his conduct was it was conduct due to a want of appreciation of what the real circumstances at that time were, and not to any willful disregard of duty.
The ordeal of public criticism and public censure, through which he has already passed, will, without further censure, be a sufficient warning to him and to other Masters of the strict duty that lies upon those who go down to the sea in ships of rendering assistance if they can to other vessels in distress. It requires no further rebuke to impress upon Master Mariners the importance of that duty. That counsel should have to appear here to vindicate his reputation and defend his honour is not the least humiliation that this man has had to undergo.
For all the reasons that I have urged, I do ask your Lordship not to pass any censure upon this man, and I venture to think that if your Lordship does not censure him then truth and justice and mercy will meet together in your Lordship's report.
(Adjourned to tomorrow, at 10.30 o'clock.
