DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0182
166 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL HISTORY.
they went wrong in doing so. On the contrary, I am constrained
to conclude that they would have done more wrong in obeying it.
And you will remember that during the reign of James, the judges
were on his side, with scarcely an exception, and with hardly any
misgivings. Perhaps they thought that the fate of Tresilian was
an obsolete risk.
The case is rendered still more difficult when you deal with
criminal law, in which the judge must await and abide by the
decision of a jury. In early times, the jury were the witnesses to
the facts, and declared evidence on oath. If they gave under
these circumstances a false verdict, they were obviously guilty of
perjury, and justly susfered the penalties of an attaint, as the
process for chastising a dishonest and perjured jury of the old time
was called. In course of time, how is by no means clear, the jury
became judges of evidence which was laid before them, and ceased
to tender it themselves. The authorities istrove to render them
liable to the old law, as during Mary Tudor's time, in the
Throgmorton case. The last attempt to make a jury liable for a
verdict, was in Perm the Quaker's case, in Charles II.'s time, when
the jury virtually acquitted Penn in the teeth of the evidence. On
that occasion Chief Justice Vaughan as we all know, affirmed the
immunity of juries, and now all that a dissatisfied judge can do is
to rate the twelve gentlemen soundly for going against his ruling..
In this, I venture on thinking that he oversteps his province.
Even in laying down the law, he is an adviser and not an
authority, though he is exceedingly apt to put on the airs of
authority.
After the Revolution of 1688, the law became atrociously severe.
No doubt as wealth increased, people in high places became con-
vinced that it must be secured by penalties from depredators.
There was every motive for this conclusion, except the evidence of
experience, and that other evidence which is still more important,
the analysis of the causes which make crimes frequent. I really
believe from reading the papers of the early Georgian epoch, that
more people in England perished on the gallows than were killed
in Marlborough's campaigns. Monday was the principal day in
London, and gangs of wretches were carted to Tyburn, amidst I
fear the sympathies of the spectators. There arose among certain
they went wrong in doing so. On the contrary, I am constrained
to conclude that they would have done more wrong in obeying it.
And you will remember that during the reign of James, the judges
were on his side, with scarcely an exception, and with hardly any
misgivings. Perhaps they thought that the fate of Tresilian was
an obsolete risk.
The case is rendered still more difficult when you deal with
criminal law, in which the judge must await and abide by the
decision of a jury. In early times, the jury were the witnesses to
the facts, and declared evidence on oath. If they gave under
these circumstances a false verdict, they were obviously guilty of
perjury, and justly susfered the penalties of an attaint, as the
process for chastising a dishonest and perjured jury of the old time
was called. In course of time, how is by no means clear, the jury
became judges of evidence which was laid before them, and ceased
to tender it themselves. The authorities istrove to render them
liable to the old law, as during Mary Tudor's time, in the
Throgmorton case. The last attempt to make a jury liable for a
verdict, was in Perm the Quaker's case, in Charles II.'s time, when
the jury virtually acquitted Penn in the teeth of the evidence. On
that occasion Chief Justice Vaughan as we all know, affirmed the
immunity of juries, and now all that a dissatisfied judge can do is
to rate the twelve gentlemen soundly for going against his ruling..
In this, I venture on thinking that he oversteps his province.
Even in laying down the law, he is an adviser and not an
authority, though he is exceedingly apt to put on the airs of
authority.
After the Revolution of 1688, the law became atrociously severe.
No doubt as wealth increased, people in high places became con-
vinced that it must be secured by penalties from depredators.
There was every motive for this conclusion, except the evidence of
experience, and that other evidence which is still more important,
the analysis of the causes which make crimes frequent. I really
believe from reading the papers of the early Georgian epoch, that
more people in England perished on the gallows than were killed
in Marlborough's campaigns. Monday was the principal day in
London, and gangs of wretches were carted to Tyburn, amidst I
fear the sympathies of the spectators. There arose among certain