The National Register. — London, England, 1808-02-07 00:00:00

FEB. 7. 83 sizr77Pa THE NATIONAL REGISTER.. sentiments upon the subject. We only deprecate the manner in which the strictures of The Independent W hig have been con ducted ; and the bad confegnemes which must emue should the Jurors, as is apprehended, cozuu►cnce a prosecution against the Editor of that Paper. • ln every case, both civil and criminal, there must he some tri bunal trout which there is no appeal : and the w isdoni nf our forefathers has in our country coinmitted the final decision of all cause, in which the lives and tibertieA of the people are con cerned, to twelve impartial men, of the rank of the accused. Thew men are to decide the cause entirely by the er idettce be fore them ; and that t.yr cry thing may be made plain to their understandi” , s, and that no dubiety tthatcver in•ty be left with regard to .toy essential point, the late does not permit them to deliver a verdict until they have all become unanimous in their opinion (tithe guilt or innocense.of the accused. do nation ha, ever devised WIN' evpedient by which person :1 liberty could be MOW COMpletrly secured to the :atbieet ; and the irn.:tances are ihnucterahle in which Ent.lish 11:C. aStT 1 ittd the inno cence of-their Veers if/ CIVII;UICe of all the arts anti threats of the vector ve power. nut if such has been fennd to be the so perior ben-tits of a ,lur as a final tribunal in criminal t aßtsgother MI- N% ISC to rail against this institution, for ets as c.innot be separated from any hilMMlCStablistuneng. '-;• 1 nnu h is the partialitr of Juries guarded by the manner in w hick they are se_ leen tl, that bribery or private ioilueoce i alto i ,ether out of the question; and if, therefore, on any occasion, a Jury decides in opro.ation to what the spectator just, it is certainly lir 110 11:C.11!S fair, that this opinion should entitle the spectator to brand the Jury with the odious crime of deliberate perjury. Twelve men, though appl % all their penetration to di , cover the truth of the evidence brought hei'ore them, may possibly - b.• led into mistakes, may condemn the innocent and acquit the guilty ; lint this is much less likely than that a clamour should h e excited either for or against the Itemised among the public at large, who have neither heard nor weighed the evidence, nor, under the solemn obligation of an oath, have deliberately made up their decision. We would neither ''' (rat. the mouths of men, nor hind up their pens, to prevent t hemfrom delivering, their opinions, either i t ref:lrd to the verdict of a jury or any tither question. They may expatiate on tile evidence ; they may point out tote circum stances on sy filch, in their opinion, a verdict ought to have turned ; they may declare, that their decision woul,t have been different, had they at on tho trial. So far, certainly, the pm, may go, otherwiw its freedom is a mere dead letter. But the fulependent Whig 14. far from being eontetaed t, ith this degree of liberty ; it directly asserts, that the man whit nos found inno cent is guilty, that the e‘ 'device clearly demonstrated him to be so.hnil that the jury, n ith Open eves. committed a direct and del iherite act of petjurv. This is a serious, and, indeed, n grant charge it is such a‘; cannot be passed over by the jury, either in their capacity of a public tribunal, or as private MM. 77 , c 11 . 6 i,• ha- threatened to publish tho names and resideoce of all the ,ittranen, as it le to already done that of their foreman and thus, as it were, to set a marl; upon them as perjured men, ho otmht to be hooted and expelled from soeiety, this Sittintioli Of things, the jury have no other resource but a legal prosecution to rescue thou from a load of perpetual infamy. (fa prosecution should be commeueed tv.:ainst The Indept relent high, there is little doubt of its beim; successful. Even if the jar, men should prefer tilt' civil form of prosecution atat site for damages, it is impossible that the iVhig should make geed it chargos ; fir that would be to make one jury judge the verdict of another. But if the criminal form of prosecution should be preferred, as most probably it will, even the truth of its alle gations could no t b e urged in its defence. By this metros the freedom of the press, and the inviolability of the decisions de livered by juries, will come to an issue, and the former will suffer as Intuit by the criminal folly of men who abase it for improper purposes. Well may it be alleged, that the I rule je relent Whig is in our days, one of the greatest enemies of the press. _ It the jury seemed, indeed, to decide directly against evi dence, it V,.;V: Ihr p rf; Vince or tt - e Judge to have sent thein back to rc-con,ider their verdict : a power which has frequently been emplo y ed in ca:,:es of very little importance. ]tut the Judge him‘elf has not, on the plawnt occaidon, escaped his shar e of censure ; mid it has been alleged, that iu summing up the evidence, it was not necessary to have teen so particular In pointing out the on which the pri,oner might he ac quitted. This objection is stilln,ore onreazobable than what has been urged aoinst the r•!1'..1 t Of I tit r 7 .. jt i$ the r business of the Judge to sum up the evidence with perfect im partiality, and to omit no circumstance which c.til weigh either for or against the prisoner. But the English common law goes still farther : it requires that the judge, should consider himself as counsel for the priste.. - r, awl consequently bound to be most particular is recounting every circumstance that may weigh on the side of mer cy. This singnlar trait of humanity has suisen from a very cruel practice in our criminal procedure, one of the barbarous remains of the feudal system. According to that system, both the land: and the people were considered as the property of toe Kin :4; ; and hence• the fiction ago c, that all offences done a t rai, N t the subjects were against the Kioe. But it was t lumght unpar donable in those days, that a snhject should lie :11101% ed to plead against the King its hi , own courts ; and therefore the priso: er was denica e % t .ry aid on his trial. In cases of high treason, whe:v the K ite; was personally interested, not only was the pri smier refused the assistance of counsel, but it was even account, d a special favour if he were allowed to suniaion yviteesses in hi, fa% our, to cross-question those of the Kin;,, sir to make any concluding comments in his own behalf. S.,ch was the state of things when Sir Walter Italeigh prayed tar deli% ernure from the tnul lines of England. An alteration, w hiels does ho nour t o the humanity of modern times, has taken place in these affairs ;- and State Trials are now conducted, as they so much require to be, w ith every indulgence to the prisoner. In the ordinary criminal prosecutions at common law, however, the accused is still left at a cruel disadvantage : he is allowed the assistance of Counsel merely in suggesting que.aions to he put to the wit ne‘ses, and in giving hiin hints for his own procedure. lie is allowed no assistance 111 summing up the evidence, or in stating his casein the most forcible manner to the Jury. From his ig norance and want of ability, he is usually obliged to consign himself silently into the hands of his Judges. The humanity of the English character, revolting at the cruelty of these institutions, and yet nut% Ming to depart front ancient forms, has endeavoured Us wake up she defect by the singular fiction, that the judge is to be considered as counsel for the prisoner, and as hound to sum up the evidence in Isis behalf. It is certain that time cot eiouseess of this circumstance, operating upon the mind of the has frequently intlue•teed the nature of the charge, awl it is not possible that frequent complaints should not be raised both against jitil:es and juries, -until this very unjustifiable defect in our forums of criminal pso cedure be remedied. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. FROM THE Pith PA nig, ,T AN. '2:3.-- The .lion Thar of the 'Ash contains a De cree of the Conversative Senate for calling out the conscription of the sear ISO 9. It is to consist of 80,0,P) to be drawn frusn the youths of eighteen and nineteen years of age. By another Decree of the Conservatory Senate in the came paper, the towns of Kehl, Cassel, Weier, and Flushing, are united to the French Linpire :—Kehl, to the department of the Lower Rhine ; Cassel, to the department of Mount Tw irv i e ; Wesel, to the department of the Ruer ; and Flushing, to the department of the Scheldt. DENMARK. (MPENTIAGEN, JAN. 9.—TLe following Corr spondence is of the greatest impor;ance ; it commences after the taking of Copenhagen, and sliews to what menus the English Goverment has recourse to obtain their ends. So. T.—EJ tract of a Report . fram M. RIST, Charge d'Affaires from Deamarl: to tire English Court, to the Minister of Sta.e, Curia, 13r:t ST 0:I F doted London, Sept. 11, 1807. It was probably to give more weight to these considcraticns, which Mr. Canning proposed to me, by reading to me yesterday his first initiate of the propositions of the Coutt of London, that he thought it riekt to add to it a brief exposition of the consr quenc; which the refusal ch our part to treat would he attended with, He Into' read to me the following five menaces which it contained.—l. The confiscation of all the vessels already de tained, and set to be ile:ained. y. The capture of Our colonies. J. The destruction of our trade. 4. The possibility of being oblized to introduce Swedish troops into Copenhagen. 5. The necessity which might at ise, of rewarding and indemnifying his Swetikh Majesty with the posse•.sion of Norway.—Mr. Canning j idg. , sa it fit to leave out these menaces in the cox of the verbal . thvk sent me. _ T ' I •