Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1857-03-30

/ Aiui'uouS assembly, or, IN pam ElSilshs luE
preaching to their brother Quakers, and on their
trial at the Old Bailey" the Jury declared
them mot guilty" The Crown Judge, the paid
! legal hireling Of an infamous king, ordered the
jury TO be imprisoned, which being DONE Bush
| ell applied for habeas corpus, and the ease
was argued before the Kings Bench, Chief jus.
tlce Vaughan delivering the opinion Ofthe Court
Ahe return made upon this writ WIS, that said
Bushell was imprisoned
LIST, For finding a verdict against " manifold
e0aael2ce, the judges thus claiming, even at that
late day, the right to be sole judges Of the fact
and evidence, but this point oveT-ruled unani-
mously by the Court, but the second reason came
nome to the question we now have before us, for
| the return says -
That the jury did acquit those indicted
against the direction of the Court Ia matter Of
tq1o, openly given and declared 10 them in Court"
| Here we have the whole question brought direct
| ~ before the highest Court in England, and L
! ask this House to weigh well the deliberate opin
| ions of that court upon this right IF the juy as
! delivered by the Chief Justice. lie says -
| LIST, The words, "That the jury did acquit
! against the direction Of the Court matter of
law" literally taken and de plano, are insignif-
cant and not Ineligible, for issue can be join
ed OF matter in law, no jury can be charged with
the trial OF matter in law barely,no evidence ever
was or can be given to jury of what's law or not ;
nor no such oath can be given to or taken by jury,
to try matters in law; nor no attant lie forsuch
| lalSe oath; and they then add: 'If the meaning
OF these words, finding against the direction of
the Court en- matters Of kato be, that if the judge
| having heard the evidence given in court, flor he
! knows no other) shall tell the jury upon this evi-
dence, The law is for the plaintiff or for the de-
| PENDANT, and you under the pain OF fine and
| Imprisonment to find accordingly then the jury
| go out to do so. Every man that the jury is
but troublesome delay, great charge, and OF no
use az determining Ttght or aoroRg and therefore
| the trials by them may be better abolished than
! continued; which were strange new-iound con-
| clusion after trial so celebrated for many hun
\ dred years. For if the judge, from the evidence,
shall, by his own judgment, first resolve upon any
| trlal what the fact is, and so knowing the fact,
shat then reSo{0e aehat the lao u.s. and under the
| jury penalty to fGd accordingly, what either ne.
cessary or convenient can be fancied juries,
| or to continue trial by them at all p
| such was the opinion of the Kings Bench in
| that case, which firmly established the right of
| jurors and led the way to the noble, fearless
stand taken by the jury in that wo7ll-renOwned
| trial of the seven bishops in 1888. With the de.
| tails of that most marked event IN English histo-
| ry, every member upon this floor is congersant,
and shall only allude to it, to say, that in that
case Chief Justice Wright told the Jury that the
| bishops were gully Of libel and they must so
| find. ALLEY bOne, another justice, said the same
| Holloway told the jury that they were to Judge
whether it was libel or no; and they did judge,
and in defiance of tyrant king and corrupt Judge,
| they declared the bishops mot guilty"
Let us now take the of Owen tried in 1875,
| for libel upon Parliament whom he denounced
| unsparingly for imprisoning Alex Murray. In
that trial the Crown Solicitor told the jury, But
as you are upon your oaths you judge of the facts
| we have laid before you now in Court and only
| them. The judge also told them, Owen was
| guilty, and they ought SO to bring him in, and,
after two hours absence, the jury returned with
verdict of ''Not guilty, upon which .sthe judge
| attempted to question them but their only
answer was, ' that is our verdict my Lord, and
| we abide it. " A noble answer and Howell
| in his State Trials remarkng upon it says,
'tThey found Owen not guilty on the whole of
the case, taking that which included guilt or not,
and Judged as toJdctS lar, and justice of the
whole. We now coma to the of the Dean
OF St. Asaph, tried in 1883, for libel on the gov
eminent. During that trial, Sir John Erskine
asked the Judge upon the bench, is there any
Judge now in England who will say, that when
a jury are sworn to try cause upon the
| general issue, that the judgment OF tie lao,
as oe as The fact does not rest 10Th Them and the
Judge did not deny but that such was the received
| opinion, and Bancroft, the CROWN SOLICITOR,
| admitted the right of the Jury thus to decide upon
the law, as well the fact, and added, There
is no law in this country that can prevent a jury
from finding general verdict. l admit rejoice
IN It, admire and reverence the prinaiple as the
palladium OF the constitution" and he then cites
approvngly the case of the Seven Bisops acquitted
by the Jury in defiance of the instructions oil the
Judge. This was the last great for political Ii
bel, tried upon British soil soon after albel was
was enacted, Q793), establishing the rights of
|
| Not Guilty upon the whole matter put TO
issue on the indictment or information, law,
which Lord Mansfield, Kenyon, rhurlow, and
| Chief Justice Fuller said would produce infinite
disorder and confusion" but SO far from that
| being the case, it has proved blessing to Eng
land from that to this, because it secured to Eng
| lish patriots The right Of free speech, and it
will ever remain in the future, as noble and en-
during monument of the wisdom of Fox, aud
the learning and eloquenoe of an Erskine. Let
US, in passing, now notice the case of Peter Zen
! ger, tried for libel in New York, in 1916 because
he told the people of that state, through his
| paper, that British tyranny undermining
their liberties. Chief Justice De Lancy was upon
the bench, and Hamilton counsel for Zenger
| who, at once admitted that the words ALLEGED to
be libel were published by his client, and he
told the jury they were to judge whether they
were llbelous or not. Justice Delaney said they
were libels and they must convict, but the Jury
returned verdict of Not Guilty." contrary tC
the instructions of the Court.
So much for precedent; but it is asked by the
member from Salem, why, if jurors in former
times were judges of law in both civil and
criminal cases, we do not give them the same
power, instead of restricting them to crmina
cases only ? To which, l answer, that in the
early stages of jury trial, lands in England were
held, first of the king and then Of the lords
f"which K ads escheated to the king in all cases o.
treason, felony suicide, &c, and the only power
that stood between him, or the lord, and the
4
from robbery, because, in those times, parliament
was too feeble to do SO. With the abolition O.
ieudal privileges, the necessity for Jurors Judging
of the laws in civil cases was entirely abrogated
Again he asks, "Why if jurors possess by the com
mon lao this right we contend for, need we de
clare it by statutory enactment" Sir,upon thit
| point history teaches us lesson. When Jetfues
went the round of his "Bloodv Assize," and hi,
victim Alice Lisle, pious quaker lady, too
deaf to hear,stoo tmid to speak, who was accnseC
of treason because she sheltered in her house two
fugitive soldiers from Monmouth army, thrice
the jury refused to bring herin guilty, and thrice
JeAries told them the law was, that she wa,
guilty, and, at last, intimidated by men whose
hands and swords were red with human gore, the,
said equity" Sir if in those days the laws o
England had declared that jurors were Judges o.
the law as well as the fact, Alice Lisle would
never have been executed for treason, nor the
pages of English history been stained by the COM
mission of so foul judicial muder.
But, say gentlemen, jurors are too ignorant t
Judge of the law. Sir that is the old cry. To
day, in looking into the law reports in Charlie,
the Seconds reign. find that the compiler says,
Jurors are Ignorant men, and Eunomus, ont
of the most learned writer's upon English law
takes the same ground, thus practically admitting
that if Jurors acre intelligent, then they NIGH
Judge of the lao well as the fact. But sir arr
Massachusetts, jurors ignorant of the law Aye
are men, reared in this old Commonwealth
blessed with its thousands of public schools it
public press circulating by millions of COPIES il,
free political discussions Of laws and men, il
every place, from the workshop to the forum-ar,
they, | repeat ignorant of the law | leave i
TO you, the representatives of the people, L
answer this question, not doubling the Response
you will make.