Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1865-05-03
obj. State!s,rt)o)ia:trlll, s,rt))ia:tr
LFrom Review in The London Times, Of Eos
"Judges of England ~ .'

4 Il
Judges of England.'1
After speaking of the improvement in
the administration of justice, in civil suits
during the reign of Charles III and his sue
cessOr, the reviewer proceeds: r...r
But If our civil law was improved al
this period in several respects, and private
justice was fairly administered, nearly all
the political trials of these reigns have ac-
quired dark and infamous celebrity
These frightful scenes of Judicial crime
were more like the inhuman rites in which
barbarians immediate theirvictims, after go.
ing through some pompous solemnities
than the calm proceedings of courts of JUS
tice. The objects Of the jealousy Of the
Government or of the envenomed hatred OF
factions were brought hurriedly before tri-
bunals, over which might have been writ
ten the words inscribed by Dante on the
Inferno, which forbade hope to those who
entered. -~s-f -'' ..-.t t.' a-E'
After listening to some mystic shibbo-
lethS, expressed in unintelligible jargon,
which charged them with vague and un-
certain crimes, they were exposed without
professional aid, except what was really a
mockery, to the sinister accusations of adj
vOcates well versed in the craft OF murder
by law, for the most part unscrupulous and
brutal, and often urged by strong self-in-
terest to do anything to secure convictions.
If in this unjust and fearful contest they
wished to encounter the evidence against
| them, their means of proof not equal,
since their testimony could not be on oath,
and was accordingly denounced or discred-
tied. Nor was the conduct of these Inquests
| Of Blood less shameful than their unfair
| procedure. m
| The Crown witnesses were generally
| wretches who made Staying by perjury a
| trade, and were paid in proportion to the
success of their efforts. The jures were,
for the most part, arranged by officers brib-
ed for this purpose, so that their verdict
could be Anticipated. AS for the Judges
with only few exceptions, they strained
| the law to destroy the accused, or admitted
| Illegal proofs against them, or made speech
es in favor of the prosecution, or artlully
distorted the facts of the case, or adjured
the jury to find for the Crown; or in tones
sometimes of nauseous cant occasionally of
simulated indignation. invoked opinion
against the prisoners, playing the part not
of moderators of justice, but of bloodhounds
eager to run down their victims. Can we
wonder that under conditions like these the
| State trials of these evil days, from that of
| Vane, inhumanly murdered because he rec
| ognized the authority of Cromwell, to that
of the hapless Lady Lisle, condemned for
| following the instincts of mercy which are
the peculiar glory of her sex, were foul
tragedies, in which lawless power was en-
abled under the forms of justice to work
out deeds of the darkest iniquity? Can we
wonder that they were described by one
| intimately acquainted with them, as practi-
ces worse than the practices of the lnquisi-
tion?
The causes Of this remarkable contrast
between the private and political trials of
the reigns of Charles and James III should
never be forgotten by Englishmen, and Mr.
Foss should have dwelt upon them. Among
them stands in the first place the Law and
| Procedure of High Treason, which, al
though in part depending on statute, was
in many respects the work of the judges,
and in their hands had become machinery
that caused the grossest oppression and
cruelty. AT this period the penalties of
treason were extended to number of often
ses which never should have been made
capital; and the celebrated statute OF Ed
ward III was strained so as to include acts
not within the contemplation of its authors.
| Through these means the Governments of
the times acquired new and eXtravagant
power to affect the lives and liberties of the
subject, and the indefinite nature of this au-
thority increased in great extent its dam
| gers.
Bad, however, as was this state of the
| law, its procedure was still more reprehen-
| sible. In trials between the Crown and an
individual, involving charge of high trea-
son, in which, usually, from the nature of
the case. proof is given of number OF par
ticulars, itobviously is requisite of justice
that the accused should be informed before
hand of what is to be alleged against him.
In trials of this political character, in which
the Government in special way is inter-
ested in procuring convictions, it is only fair
that the prisoner should know who are to
be the witnesses against him, and who are
to be the Judges of the facts, for the double
purpose of checking perjury and of guard
| ing against malpractice and influence.
| And it is evidently just that in all suits the
testimony on both sides should rest upon an
| equal basis of credit and be sustained by
| the same sanction, and that the weight Of
professional skill should not be thrown in
| to one scale and kept iniquitously out of the
other. In every one OF these particulars
| the dictates of common sense and right
were set at naught in the Stuart State trials.
The accused was refused copy ofthe in
| dictment; when brought to the bar it was
read to him, but its obsolete jargon passed
comprehension he knew nothing of the
witnesses or the jurors; his evidence, being
unsworn, was disbelieved; and, except to
argue dry points of law, he was deprived
| of the aid of counsel. Ensna1ed thus
treacherously at the onset, and denied JUS
1 tice during the proceedings, he became an
! easy prey to his assailants; and the accu-
| sation, the trial, and the sentence, were
linked together in inevitable sequence.
| srLet any person." says an actor in these
scenes, "consider truly these circumstances,
] and it is wonder how any person escapes;