The Trial of Captain Luke Ryan and Thomas Coppinger, for Piracy; with a firiking Likeness of Captain Ryan. ON N Saturday morning, (March 30, 1782,) about nine o'clock, Judge Marriot opened the commiffion for trying the pirates at the Seffions Houfe in the Old Bailey, and about ten, the trials of captain Luke Ryan and Thomas Coppinger, of the Cologne Privateer, of Dunkirk, came on, for that they, being the natural born fubjects of his Majefty, did, on or about the 16th of April, 1780, piratically take the Brig Nancy, of Aberdeen, bound to Newcastle, three leagues from St. Ann's Head, on the Scotch coaft, and ranfomed her for 300 guineas. John Ramsay, the mafter of the Brig Nancy, was the first witness against Luke Ryan, who proved that he was taken off the Scotch coaft, and that he was ranfomed for 300 guineas; likewife the handwriting of Luke Ryan, which was a moft material part of his evidence, as Ryan endeavoured to prove his name Jofeph Ryan, whereas Mr. Ramfay faw him write it Luke. Thomas Griffin, Michael Bishop, Bartholomew Griffin, Philip Griffin, and feveral other witneffes were brought from Ireland, fome of which went to prove that they knew Luke Ryan a child, went to fchool at Ruth with him, knew him bound to one King, a boat-builder, had feen and knew him to be in the fmuggling trade between Rufh and Dunkirk, in France, till within these few years. Captain Patten, of his Majefty's fhip the Belle Poule, was examined, and proved the taking of the Cologne Privateer foon after the had captured the brig NanHib. Mag. April, 1982. cy, and likewife produced Ryan's commiffion, which was French. Samuel Burn, an officer of the Belle Poule, fwore to a difcourfe which passed between him and Ryan, in which Ryan owned he was an Irishman, and that he came from a place near Dublin. John O'Brien, another Officer, had fome difcourfe with Ryan, and asked him why he fought against his King, and that Ryan anfwered, "He had been used ill by m." Captain Campbell, of the Berwick, heard Luke Ryan fay he was an Irishman; and that Mr. John Hunter said to him, “ you do not speak like a Frenchman, you speak good English." Mr. John Hunter corroborated the Evidence. Mr. Osborn, a carpenter of the Berwick, remembered Coppinger to be one of the prifoners taken on board the Cologne; but as he was the only witness against Coppinger, no notice was taken of his evidence. Culling, late a ferjeant in the Irish Brigade, endeavoured to prove Ryan a lieutenant in Dillon's Brigade, at Dunkirk, fome years fince; he also brought a certificate from Gravelling, in France, to prove one Jofeph Ryan's birth; and David Geeling, another witness in favour of Ryan, came to prove that a child had come from France to Tenure, in Ireland, at the age of a year and a half, supposed to be the fame perfon, which were the only two called. The Jury went out of court to confider Y of of their verdict, and after staying near an hour, brought in their verdict. Luke Ryan-Guilty. Los Coppinger-Not Guilty. Mr. Judge heath tried the prifoners, and fummed up the evidence in a very is partial manner, diftinguishing the differect points of law in Ryan's cafe. Ryan was elegantly dreffed, and feemed little affected with his fate, frequently writing notes to his counfel. The Representation of the Lords of Ireland to the king, in 1719, in confequence of the Attempts made by the Lords of Great Britain to enforce their Authority in this Kingdom, in which the independent, legiflative, and judicial Rights of Ireland are ably flated, which Representation carfed the British Parliament to pass the Declaratory Act of the 6th of George the First. To the King's most excellent Majefty. The humble Reprefentation of the Lords Spiritual and temporal in Parliament af fembled. IT Moft gracious Sovereign, Tis with the greatest concern that we, your Majefty's moft dutiful and loyal fubjects, the lords fpiritual and temporal in parliament affembled, do find ourselves under a neceffity of making this our hum ble reprefentation to your Majelty. and fettle themfelves in Ireland, where they were to enjoy the fame laws and liberties, and live under the like conftitution as they had formerly done in the kingdom of England; which, through God's good providence, has proved a means of fecuring this kingdom to the Crown of England, and we trust will do fo to all futurity. By this happy conftitution, and thefe privileges by us for fo many years enjoyed, the English fubjects of this kingdom have been enabled faithfully to difcharge their duty to the Crown of England, and vigorously fet themfelves, upon all occafions, to affert the rights thereof, against all the rebellions which have been raifed by the if enemies. And therefore, we your Majefty's loyal fubjects, do with all fubminion to your Majefty infift upon them, neis, to have them preferved inviolable. and hope, through your Majesty's good And we beg leave to prefent to your Majelly, that though, the Imperial Crown of this realm was formerly infeparably annexed to the Imperial Crown of England, and is now to that of Great Britain, yet this kingdom being of itfelf a diftinct dominion, and no put of the kingdom of England, none can determine concerning the affairs thereof, unless authorized thereto, by the known laws and cuftoms of this kingdom, or by the exprefs confent of the King. And as your royal ancestors have always It evidently appears, by many ancient enjoyed the right and power of deterrecords, and fundry acts of parliament mining all matters that related only to paffed in this kingdom, and particularly this kingdom, by their royal authority, by one in the 11th of Queen Eliz. intitled, in their parliaments held here, fo we An act for attainder of Shane O'Neil, humbly hope your Majelly will always &c." that the kings, with all the princes lock on this right as a moft valuable and men of value of the land, did, of jewel of your crown, which none fhould their own good wills, and without any war or chivalry, fubmit themfelves to your Majefty's royal anceftor, King Henry II, took oaths of fidelity to him, and became his lege fubjects, who (as it is afferted by the lord chief juftice Cake and others) did ordain and command, at the inftance of the Irish, that "Such laws as he had in England, fhould be of force and obferved in Ireland." By this agreement the people of Ireland obtained the benefit of the English laws and many privileges, particularly that of having a diftinct parliament here, as in England, and of having weighty and momentous matters relating to this kingcom, treated of, difcuffed and determined in the faid parliament. This conceffion and compact thus made, and afterwards, by fucceeding kings, confirmed to the people of this land, in prodels of time, proved a great encourage. ment to many of the English to come over prefume to touch without your Majelly's confent, and that your Majefty will graciously allow us to reprefent it, as an invafion of your prerogative, and a griev ance to your loyal fubjects in this kingdom, that any court of judicature fhould take upon them to declare that your Majefty cannot determine all controverlies between your fubjects of this kingdom, and about matters relating wholly to the fame, by your royal authority, in your parliament fummoned to meet here; or that your fubjects of Ireland appealing to your Majefly in your parliament in Ireland, in matters wholly relating to this kingdom, do bring their caufe before an incompetent judicature. We have (may it pleafe your facred Majelly) endeavoured with our utmost "care, to enquire into the grounds of all fuch appeals or removals of caufes from this kingdom, as have at any time been made into England, and are priuaded that that fuch ufages have been introduced by flow degrees, at firft the judges here be ing to determine the caufes that came be fore them by the common laws of England, and fometimes not knowing well the ufages there applied to Henry III. their then king, for information, who gave them an account what the common law and cuftom of England in like cafes was; and this undoubtedly by the advice of the Juftices of the King's Bench, who then were obliged to attend the King wherever he should be; and in procefs of time, when his fucceffors had fettled the court of King's Bench after another manner, and had forborne to fit there themflves in person, the application which formerly uled to be made to the King who prefided in that court, came of course to be brought before the Justices of the court, although the King was not there perfonal ly prefent. And this, as we conceive, gave rife to that cuftom of removing caufes, by writs of error, from the King's Bench in Ireland to the King's Bench in England; but from hence to infer, that therefore appeals from the parliament of Ireland may be brought before the Houfe of Peers in England or Great-Britain, is a confequence for which there appears to be no manner of ground. As for the practice of appealing from the High Court of Chancery in Ireland to the Lords of Great Britain, we can find but two precedents of fuch appeals before the late happy revolution, one in 160, and the other in 1679; and we can account for them no otherwife than by obferving, that they happened at a juncture when no oppofition could be given them from this kingdom, becaufe through the prevalency of a popith interet, no parliament had been held here for fone years before, nor were we then in any likelihood of having any called here for many years to come; nor can we lind, that any like fubfequent appeals from that court have any other foundation than thofe two precedents. And such appeals (though they had been of longer flanding, and better founded) yet were never fuppofed to preclude the King's Majefty from his right of giving redrefs to his fubjects of Ireland in his parliament, when ailembled here, any more than writs of error to the King's Bench in England had hindered the like writs from being returnable in the parliament here. And accordingly when, by God's blef fing on the late happy revolution, this kingdom came to have a parliament, after twenty-fix years intermiffion, complaints were heard, writs of error and appeals were received, and proper orders were made thereon as formerly; nor were they, as far as we can find, ever queftioned, or their validity doubted, till the year 1693, when two appeals from the Parlia‐ ment here were carried before the Lords in England though no pleadings to the jurifdiction of the Parliament of Ireland bad been offered or mentioned by either party, on hearing the faid caufes here. And though the Parliament of Ireland could not then interpofe, or any way affert their jurifdiction, because it was not fitting, yet the Lords of England declared the faid caufes to be Coram non Judice, and without hearing the merits of the caufes, reverfed the decrees that had been made here. Upon which occafion, we cannot but obferve, that the Parliament of Ireland (as the conftitution thereof has been for fome hundreds of years) being convened by the fame authority and writs of fummons, and confifting of like members ard diftin&t Houfes of Peers and Commons, and the former having the fame affiftance and attendance from the Judges of the Rveral Courts and Mafters of Chancery as in England or Great Britain, either fome record, act of parliament, or antient u fage, muft be fhewn, whereby to make a difference (which has never yet been attempted) or elfe, from our very conftitution it mull, as we conceive, appear, that whatever power of judicatie is lodged in the English or British Parliament, with respect to that kingdom and its inferior courts, the fame mult alfo be allowed to be in the Parliment of Ireland, with like refped to the kingdom ard courts thereof. And if it be looked upon as illegal for any inferior court in GreatBritain to act in direct eppolition to, or contempt of the orders and decrees of the Houfe of Lords in Parliament there affembled, the fime muft alfo be concluded upon the like opponition given, or contempt fhewn, to duch paríiamentary ̧orders and decrees, as are er shall be made within this kingdom. And therefore, in the year ir 25, when a Parliament of Ireland met on a complaint of Edward, earl of Meath, and Cecilia, countefs of Meath, his wife, fetting forth, that during the interval of Parliament they had, by order of the Lords in England, been difpoffeffed of the lands that had been here decreed them, the Did Parliament unanimoully reftored the faid carland countess to the lands they had been fo difpoffeffed of fo effectually, that neither they nor their heirs have been diiturbed in the poffeffion of them. Y 2 And And we may very justly conclude from the ftrong refolutions, in which the Parliament here did on that occafion affert their jurisdiction, that they would have proceeded as effectually in vindicating the decree on the other appeal, if the removal of the lord bishop of Derry, the appellant here, and a compofition made by his fucceffor with the Irish fociety of Londonderry, the appellants in England, had not prevented it. After the time of thofe two appeals, feveral writs of error and appeals were brought into your Parliament in this kingdom, and among them an appeal where in Maurice Annefley, Efq; was refpondent, which were determined, and the judgment given on them took effect accordingly. But the fame Maurice Annefley being refpondent in an appeal brought lately from the Chancery of the Exchequer, before the Parliament of Ireland, by Hefter Sherlock, appellant, after having appeared to the jurifdiction here, appealed to the Lords of Great-Britain, from a decree made here in justice to the appellant Hefter Sherlock, and found fuch countenance there, as has given your loyal fubjects just reafon to complain of much injury done both to your Majesty's prerogative and privileges. For it having (after a full and fair hear. ing) been decreed in your Majefty's Parliament of Ireland. and accordingly ordered, that the appellant, Hefter Sherlock, fhould be put into poffeffion of certain lands in the said order named, until the should receive thereout a certain fum of money to her decreed, to be due and chargeable on the faid lands. And the faid decree and order having accordingly been obeyed, and put in execution by the then high-fheriff of the county of Kildare, to whom the faid order was directed; and the faid Hefter Sherlock being accordingly in the actual poffeffion of the faid lands, the Lord Chief Baron, together with the other barons of your Majefly's Court of Exchequer in this kingdom *, have taken upon NOTE. upon them, in an illegal and unprecedented manner, to cause the faid Hefter Sherlock to be difpoffeffed of the faid lands, and to lay feveral great fines upon the late high-fheriff of the faid county of Kildare, for refusing to give obedience unto the orders of them, the faid barons, in that cafe iffued, although their faid orders were manifeftly contrary to the laws, cuftoms, and antient ufages, of this your Majefty's kingdom, as well as to the above mentioned refolutions, formerly made in the cafe of the late earl of Meath, and continuing upon record in the Journals of Parliament, of which refolutions, as well as of the feveral refolutions and decrees in like manner made upon the appeal of the faid Heller Sherlock, the faid barons had fufficient and timely notice before the issuing of any of their above-mentioned illegal orders, as in a report of this whole proceeding, now alfo entered in the Journals of Parliament (a copy whereof, we herewith humbly lay before your Majefty *) may more fully and largely appear. Hereupon we humbly crave leave to reprefent unto your Majesty, that although appeals from courts of equity in this kingdom to the Lords of England of GreatBritain, are but a very late practice, (as we have already fet forth); yet in all fuch cafes, it has been the conftant and received practice here, that no copy of any order of the faid Lords was ever allowed, or demanded to be allowed, as authentic in any fuch court, except the fame were exprefly directed unto the court which was to put the fame in execution, and proved by a witness viva voce, upon oath, to be a true copy of the original order. Nor does it appear, that any fuch court ever claimed, or pretended to any authority, to fupply any defects fuppofed at any time to be in any fuch order, or by virtue of fuch order in the least to go beyond what exprefly and in words was in fuch order contained. And yes fo it is, that although the only pretence of the faid barons for these their illegal proceedings, is grounded upon certain copies of orders, or pretended orders, from the Lords of Great-Britain, yet neither were the faid orders, or any of them, directed to the court of equity or chancery- fide of the Exchequer, (where the cause originally lay, and from whence the appeal was) but only to the Lord Chief Baron and NOTE. Jeffrey Gilbert, Efq; was chief Baron, and John Pocklington and Sir John St. Leger, the other two barons of the Exchequer, and were ordered by the Houfe of Lords into the cuftody of the Gentleman Usher of the black rod, for having taken upon them to put into execution a pretended order from another court, contrary to the final judgment of this High Court of Parliament, in the eaufe between Sherlock and Annelley, as betrayers of his Majefty's prerogative, and the undoubted ancient rights and to 625. privileges privileges of this Houfe, and of the rights and liberties of the fubjects of this kingdom. See Lords Journals, vol. xi. p. 621, other other barons, which is the ftile of the common law-fide thereof; nor were the faid copies, or any of them, in manner aforefaid proved to agree with the original orders, neither were the names of any lands, or so much as of any country, inferted in the faid copies, or any of them. And yet notwithstanding all thefe noto rious defects and nullities of the faid pretended orders, the said barons have proceeded not only in their own names, to whom the faid pretended orders were di rected, but also in the names of the Chancellor of the Treasurer of the Court of Exchequer, (to whom the faid orders were no way directed) to iffue forth several in junctions and orders, and therein, without any warrant for fo doing, to infert the names of the lands, and of the county wherein they are supposed to lie, in order to difpoffefs the faid Hefter Sherlock of the lands whereof the had been put into poffeffion as is herein above mentioned. And that your Majesty may be yet more fully apprised of the arbitrarinefs as well. as the illegality of the proceedings of the fad Barons, We further, in all humble manner, lay before your Majefty, that whereas, among other rules of practice in all your Majefty's courts throughout this your kingdom, by ancient law and custom established, it is univerfally received, that every order or other rule of court ought to be made upon the motion of fome countel or attorney, or other perfon by law or custom allowed to make fuch motion, that no injunction or writ, ought to iffue out of any of your Majef. ty's courts, (except in the Crown's caufe) without the name of a fix clerk or attorpey thereunto fubfcribed, (who is to be accountable unto every perfon, who through any undue practice of his, fhall be aggrieved by fuch writ of injunction), and that no proceedings fhall be ground ed upon any written affidavit, which is known to be either falte, or defective in any material part thereof, (except fuch defect be firft fupplied or fallity expunged), the faid Barons in thefe proceedings, have acted in open violation of thefe, as well as other rules, which by the law they ought to have observed and strictly kept to. The Barons having ordered an injunction to iffue for the difpoffeffing of the faid Hefter Sherlock, without any motion for the fame made either by counfel or attorney, or by any other perfon, except what was offered in court by the faid Lord Chief Baron himself. The faid injunction, also, having no name of any attorney thereunto affixed or fubfcribed; and the affidavit of John Annelley (upon which the faid Barons afterwards pro ceeded to fine the faid late high theriff) having feveral notorious falfities in it, of which, though the faid Barons were publicly advertifed at the time when the faid affidavit was read in open court, yet they took on them to act thereupon, without caufing the fame to be rectified, or the faid fallities to be expunged or altered. And, although the faid orders from the Lords in Great Britain exprefsly required no more, but that Maurice Annefley fhould be restored to the poffeffion of thofe lands, of which the faid Maurice was difpoffeffed, pending the appeal before the faid Houfe; yet the Barons in their faid injunction, not only ordered poffeffion of certain lands by name, to be given to the faid Annefley, as is already mentioned, but also, grounded this their injunction upon an affidavit, wherein it is not fo much as alledged that the said Maurice was at all poffefled or difpoffeffed of any lands whatfoever pending the faid appeal. And whereas it is the duty of the Barons of your Majefty's Court of Exchequer in this kingdom, and a part of the oath by each of them taken at their entrance upon their faid office, "That where they may know any wrong or prejudice to be done to the King, they fhail put and do all their diligence that to redrefs. And if they may not do it, they fhall tell it to the King, or them of his council, or to the King's Majefty's lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of this realm for the time being." So far have the faid Barons in the prefent cafe been from doing all their diligence to redrefs the wrong or prejudice done to your Majefty's prerogative, of finally determining in your Parliament here, matters relating wholly to this your kingdom, that they feem to have acted with great diligence and zeal in direct oppofition thereto, and to have taken fuch meafures as will, in effect, establish a jurisdiction fuperior to that which your Majefty undoubtedly has in your High Court of Parliament in this kingdom; nor does it in the leaft appear, or is it at all pretended, that the faid Barons, or any of them, during all the above mentioned proceedings, did ever tell, or make known the fame, either to your Majefty's lieutenant governor or governors, or to your Majelty's privy council, who, if they had been timely acquainted therewith, might (according to their duty) have made the fame known to your Majefty, or otherwife have done what was fit and proper for the fupporting your Majesty's royal prerogative, and defending the just rights and |