Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-11-29

lutte character of Charles. He was there
upon seized in the streets Of London by
some persons, who assaulted and wound
ed him in the face with the intent to dis
figure him. The authors Of the assault
fed to the continent, and Parliament
passed an act Of attainder against them,
sdjudging that the offenders should re-
turn by given day and SURRENDER them
selves for trial on pain of perpetual exile,
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 adjudgsd to be punished
post .factO law and an act Of sttainder.
In the reign Of William the Third, Sir
John Fenwick was indicted for conspir-
ing to assassinate King William and
bring on q French invasion, but it was
found impossible to convict him in the
established courts, for the act of It'll
William, Just then enacted, required two
witnesses to convict in cases Of treason,
and but one could be procured. The
prosecution in the regular court was
abandoned and bill of attainder brought
in Parliament Each house allowed the
introduction Of much proof that was ia
admissible in the courts. They allowed
the introduction Of proof Of what the
wife of ths accused had said and done,
and what had been given in evidence in
another proceeding, to which Fenwick
was not party and at which he was
not present. The act Of 7th William,
requiring two witnesses, was not com.
piled with. The proof was insufficient
to convict him Of treason In the estab-
lished courts Of the kingdom. The coun-
sci 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 DO proceeded
against in the established courts, and
that the great charter gave him trial by
q jury of his peers and the law of the
land. ''If these Parliamentary attain
ders come in fashion, said one of his
counsel, 1--WE shall not know what is
treason, what is evidence, nor where or
how we are to be tried" The bill Of
attainder was carried in the House of
Lords by majority of seven, and in the
House Of Commons the vote stood huns
dred and eighty mine for attaining him
and one hundred and fity-six against it.
He persisted on the scaffOld. The histo-'
rian Macauly says in regard to the at
tainder Of Fenwick, that however clear
ly political crime may have been defined
by ancient laws, q man accused of it is
not to be tried by a crowd Of eager poll
ticians Of whom he can challenge none,
even with cause; who have no judge to
guide them; who are allowed to come in
aud go out as they chose who hear as
much or as little Of the accusation or de
fsnso as they choose; who are exposed 4
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. It was unjust and Of
evil example, not because it was re-
Prospective act, but because it was an act
eminently judicial and performed by
body destitute Of all judicial qualities"
The act of Parliament by the authori-
ty OF which Fsnwick suffered was an act
of attainder, because he was tried by
Parliament and not by the established
courts Of the kingdom which had juris-
dictiOn Of the case, and it was a retro
spective statute because it changed the
rules Of evidence in that case and pun
ished the accused upon testimony upon
which he could not have been convicted
and punished at the time the alleged Of
ense was committed. He was not guilty
by the pre-existing law, but was adjudged
guilty by special law made for the occa-
sion and after the ofense was committed.
Another English historian declares that
the attaindeT and execution Of FenWIck
was blot upon the character Of the
Wings who were the avowed champions
of liberty.
After the effort and the failure of the
movement to restore the house Of Stu
art to the throne Of England, in 1745,
Parliament enacted law, providing for
the trial Of several of the noblemen and
others, who were engaged in it, in the
county of MiddleSex. The ofense was
not committed in that county, and the
laws of England gave the accused the
right to be tried in the county in which
the offense was committed. They were
tried in London, county of Middlesex.
The historian Smollet characterized this
law as an &c post fdcto law, inficting an
enormous wrong on the accused, because
it deprived them of the right to be tried
in the county in which the offense was
committed, and because it was enacted
after the commission Of the crime Of
which be was charged.
In tie eleventh year of George II,
sixty voters Of the borough Of New Shore
ham, 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, but this
act was a bill Of pains and penalties,
(Which is embraced by the Constitution
in the phrase, "bill of attaiader,") be-
cause these sixty voters were deprived Of
their rights as q punishment for the
crime OF bribery without trial by the
established courts.
BY subsequent act the whole Of the
voters of the borough of Cricklade were
deprived of the electoral rights on &C
count of the prevalence of bribery in
that borough. Wooddeson, a common
tator on the laws Of England, says that
these acts may be properly classified
under the head OF bills of pains and pen
alties'
1t therefore appears that parliamentary
judgments were sometimes rendered in
the presence Of theaccused, sometimes in
the absence Of the accused. Sometimes
evidence was introduced, sometimes there
was none; sometimes there was no pre-
vious law to punish the party as he was
punished, and sometimes there was; that
Parliament proceeded by no fixed form OF
law, and the proceedings were generally
characterized by violence ard passion and
| exhibited the appearance Of malignity and
persecution. 1t also appears that bi Is o.
attainder were enacted against bodies o.
men who were named and against bodies
| ofmen who were not named.
| Wooddeson states that the exercise o
the power of making the law for case:
after they arose and inficting punishment
without reference to any existing law
was shocking to the humanity Of the PEG
pie Of England, and was found like Sissy
j - Il. Ill l.. -. L. .n.n-. -