Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-12-03

4
selves for trial on pain of perpetual ex-
lie, and in case Of failure. that they
should stand attainted of felony, and
suffer and forfeit accordingly. There
was no law in existence to punish this
assault in the manner it was adjudged TO
be punished by this act Of Parliament.
1t was an erpost facto law aud an act Of
attainder.
In the reign Of William the Third, Sir
John Fenwick was indicted for conspir-
| ing to assassinate King William and
bring on French invasion, but it was
found impossible to convict him in the
established courts, for the acts Of the 7th
William, just then enacted, required two
witnesses 10 convict in cases Of treason,
and but one could be procured. The
prosecution in the regular court was
abandoned and a bill OF attainder brought
in Parliament. Each house allowed the
introduction of much proof that was in
admissible in the courts They allowed
the introduction of proof Of what the
+, wife Of the accused had said and done,
! and what had been given in evidence in
another proceeding. to which Fenwick
!, was not a party, and at which he was
| not present The act of the 7th William,
requiring two witnesses, was not Gem
piled with. The proof was insufficient
to convict him of treason in the estab-
I lished courts of the kingdom. The coun.
I sell of Fenwick urged in vain that the
statutes of England defined the crime OF
treason, established the proof required to
convict in such cases and prescribed the
mode of trial. They urged in vain that
/ the accused was in the hands of the pub
lie authorities, subject to be proceeded
against in the established courts, and
that the great charter gave him trial by
a Jury of his peers and the law of the
land. If these parliamentary attain
ders come in fashion," said one of his
counsel, I'VE shall not know what is
treason, what is evidence, nor where or
how we are to be tried" The bill of at
tainder was carried Ia the House OF
Lords by majority Of seven, and in the
House Of Commons the vote stood q hun.
dred and eighty-nine for attaining hin
and one hundred aud ffy-six against it.
He perished on the seaffold. The his
torian Macaulev Gays, in Dgard TO the
|
clearly political crime may have been
defined by ancient laws, man accused
of it is not to be tried By crowd of eager
politicians, of whom be can challenge
none, even with cause who have no judge
to guide them; who are allowed to come
in and 20 out AS they chose; who hear as
much or as little of the accusation or de-
fense as they choose; who are exposed
to every kind of corrupting influence du-
ring the investigation who cheer one
orator and cough down another; who are
aroused from sleep to cry aye or no ; and
who are hurried from their suppers half
drunk to divide. 1t was unjust and of
evil example, not because it was re-
Prospective act, but because twas an act
eminently judicial, and performed by a
body destitute of all judicial qualities. p"
The act of P Parliament by the authority
of which Fenwick suffered, was an act of
attsinder, because he was tried by Par
| lament and not by the established courts
of the kingdom which had jurisdiction of
the case, and it was retrospective stat
ute because it changed the rules of evil
dence in the case and punished the
accused upon testimony upon which he
could not have been convicted and pun.
ished at the time the alleged offense was
committed. He was not guilty by the
pre-existing law, but was adju1ged guilty
| by special law made for the occasion and
after the offense was committed An
other English historian declares that the
attainder and execution of Fenwick was
blot upon the character of the Wings
who we're the svowed champions of lib
erty.
After the effort and the failure of the
movement TO restore the house of Stuart
to the throne of England, in l745, Par
Lament enacted law, providing for the
trial of several of the noblemen and 9TH
ers, who were engaged in it, in the coun-
ty Of Middlesex. The offense was not
committed in that county, and the laws
of England gave the accused the right TO
be tried in the countyin which the oHense
was committed. They were tried in Lon
don, county of Middlesex. The historian
Smollet characterized this law as an er
post fdeto law, inficting an enormous
wrong on the accused, because it deprived
them Of the right to be tried in the coun-
ty in which the offense was committed,
and because it was enacted after the
commission of the crime of which they
we're charged.
In the eleventh year of George II,
sixty voters Of the borough of New
Shoreham were deprived Of the right to
vote by a special act which named them
They were deprived of their rights on
the grounds of bribery at an election for
members Of Parliament There was an
existing law which punished bribery by
deprivation of the right to vote, bat this
act was bill Of pains and penalties
(which is embraced BY the Constitution
in the phrase, bill of attainder"), be
cause these sixty voters we're deprived
Of their rights as a punishment for the
crime without strial BY the established
courts.
By q subsequent act the whole Of the
voters Of the borough of Cricklade we're
deprived Of the electoral rights on ac-
count of the prevalence Of bribery in
that borough. Wooddesou, a comments
tor on the laws Of England, says that
these acts may be properly classified
under the bead Of bills Of pains and
penalties"
II therefore appears that parlia-
mentary judgments were sometimes rem
dered in the presence Of the accused,
sometimes in the absence Of the accused.
Sometimes evidence was introduced.
sometimes there was none; sometimes
there was no previous Law 10 punish The
party as be was punished, and sometimes
fCorti~uaI - r.-~fh 49,