Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

statute which forbids sheriffs to summon Jurors oftener than with an interval of two terms, is wholly disregarded, and the officer who strikes special juries, is equally inattentive to the clause which restricts him from returning them (4 Geo. II. cap. 7). I confess I doubt altogether the necessity or expediency of the 15th section of the 3d of Geo. II. which extended to ordinary causes the special provisions of trials at bar; but the legislature, of course, did not contemplate the introduction of such juries, except on extraordinary occasions. After the enquiries of a committee, I venture to hope parliament will feel the necessity of repealing that and the two following sections. If persons superior in education and expert in business, are necessary in particular causes, there seems to be no sound pretence for taking the choice of them out of the hands of the sheriff, nor for exempting them from the general restriction of the 4th Geo. II. cap. 7. A conformity to this restriction would render them less liable to objection; but it is altogether unaccount able, and without analogy in the whole course of our jurisprudence, that a man may first be prosecuted on the suggestion of an attorney-general, without the intervention or the presentment of a grand jury, and afterwards be tried by a special jury, struck, in the exchequer by the remembrancer of that court, or in the King's Bench by the master of the crown office! In mentioning this aber

ration from the just, liberal, and merciful spirit of our laws, I am actuated by a deep sense of duty to my country, by a hope that truth, on subjects of public interest, may always be spoken with impunity, and, by a well-founded confidence, that errors and abuses have only to be made kuown to be corrected and reformed.

"The smallest departure from practices established by law, and the smallest encroachments on the barriers of liberty, ought to be watched with as much jealousy as greater ones, because they indicate a departure from principles, and a disposition to make greater encroachments, if any occasion were alleged to require it. I do not, however, consider either prosecutions by informations, spe cial juries, or commitments by any authority unsanctioned by act of parlia ment, and even contrary to acts of parliament, to be light and inconsiderable encroachments; and I exhort the people to petition against thein, and the legis lature to make such salutary and effective provisions, as may restore to every man the right to be exempt from prosecution, except by the indictment of a grand jury; as may render all juries pure and unsuspected; and as may se cure Englishmen from indefinite imprisonment on the hasty vote of any asseinbly, or on the bare pleasure or ipse dixit of any court." [To be continued.]

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN THE STAMFORD NEWS RELATIVE TO THE CRUELTIES OF THE FRENCH IN PORTUGAL.

SIR,

Among the many ignorant and foolish effusions, that have disgraced the columns of the English newspapers, since the retreat of Massena from Santarem, the following from a recent number of the Stamford News is peculiarly deserving of animadversion.In an elaborate article on the cruelties of the French army,

VOL, IX.

the editor of this paper observes :"The courage of a Frenchman exists not for a moment after it is divested of the turbulence of passion; he is therefore really a COWARD, and his notorious cruelty is thus accounted for." Had such a remark occurred in one of the private letters from Lisbon,those precious morsels of truth and liberality, it might have passed unnoticed; but that it should have been penned by the editor of so respectable a paper, as the Stamford News, is truly astonishing, and may be fairly quoted as a lamentable

[ocr errors]

proof of the degraded state of the British press. Here we find the whole French nation held forth not only as being notoriously cruel, but even stigmatised as cowards! It would have been as well for the writer, before he published such a foolish paragraph, to have considered, whether he could be borne out by bistory; the domestic habits of the French people; or, so far as concerns the conduct of their armies, by the uniform testimony of our own official dispatches. Were the French notoriously cruel, our commanders would undoubtedly, long ago, have furnished us with a mass of documents quite conclusive on the subject. This, however, is not the case; but, on the contrary, they have, on many occasions borne honourable testimony to the humanity and attention of the French to those who have fallen into their hands. Even Lord Wellington himself can be ad. duced as belicing the assertion of the Stamford editor.-September 7, 1809, after the unfortunate battle of Talavera, his lordship writes thus to Lord Castlereagh: "Mr. Dillon, "the assistant commissary has ar"rived from Talavera; he reports "that the British officers and sol"diers, who are wounded are doing. "remarkably well; and are well fed "and taken care of; indeed, he 66 PREFERABLE ΤΟ THE FRENCH "TROOPS." Thus the cruel French, the notoriously cruel French, according to the Stamford editor, are represented by an English general, as taking more care of the British prisoners and wounded, than of themselves. I am aware that we have been told by the same commander, that the French have lately been guilty of shameful excesses in Por

[ocr errors]

says,

[blocks in formation]

tugal; but may not these ravages be rather attributed to the French com mander, than to an innate love of cruelty in the French nation? And if so, let me ask the Stamford editor what he would think of the Moniteur, if it were to cite detached instances of cruelty in English officers (and are none such to be found?) and attribute them entirely to the cruel propensity of Englishmen ? With regard to the excesses in Por tugal, let the matter be stated fairly. The English have entered Portugal as defenders, the French as conquerors.--In 1810, Massena pursued Lord Wellington all across the country; and, during the pursuit, his lordship's orders were to destroy every thing, to lay every thing waste, lest the enemy should find provisions, &c. In 1811, Massena, in want of food, leads his army out of Portugal closely followed by the English general; but continues to burn and destroy every thing he meets with,— what for? for the same reason that Lord Wellington set him the example last year.The English may disguise the matter as they please; but this is the fact, and the light in which the conduct of these generals must be viewed by all impartial men. All armies are licentious when unrestrained by discipline.The Eng lish soldiers were guilty of the most shameful pillage in the retreat under the unfortunate Sir John Moore. To make a difference between the armies of different nations, in respect to humanity, &c. and thence to draw national characters is absurd and puerile in the highest degree, and utterly unworthy the intellect of any but a dotard or bigot." Humanity of English soldiers,-humanity of the English nation, &c. &c." are impartial judges will look to history; flattering phrases in our ears; but where they will read of our huma nity in the East Indies, in Africa, in America, at Copenhagen, &c. &c.

[ocr errors]

As to the charge of cowardice, it is almost too ludicrous to require notice; but it shows that nothing is too gross for a writer, when he descends to vulgar prejudices and national antipathies. Frenchmen are really cowards! Granted-but bave the goodness to inform us by what means they are now become the most powerful nation on the globe?-By what means have they crushed five mighty coalitions, and at length completely closed the continent to Great Britain herself. If the French are a nation of cowards, what epithet must be applied to the other nations of Europe, all of whom have combined against her; and after a war of twenty years, they behold her ten times mightier than she was before? If the Stamford editor cannot answer these questions, he would consult his reputation, in future, by leaving such illiberal abuse to those sinks of sophistry and falshood, the Morning Post and the Courier.

Your's truly,

COMMON SENSE.
Newington, May 14, 1811.

REMARKS ON THE NEW

TRINE OF LIBELS,

AND EX-OFFICIO INFORMATIONS,

SIR,

LETTER II.

doubt, that it would be a thing quite monstrous and disgusting to behold a society of men, whose religion enjoined one thing, and whose laws permitted another thing directly opposite. Since it would be impossi ble that both could be right, the conclusion must be, that either those people followed a false religion, or that their laws, instead of being solemn and sacred, were sinful and criminal; the one or the other of these alternatives would be inevita ble; and in fact, I do not see how they are to be avoided in the case before us, since it is a thing beyond all doubt, that christianity and the mo

:

a

dern law of libels are in direct contradiction to each other; and according to Sir W. Blackstone's rule the law must yield to the gospel, and I trust that every good christian, and indeed every moral man, will applaud the justice of such a decision. -There is no medium between truth and falsehood, they are contrary masters, both of whom, no man can serve a liar cannot be a true man, nor a true man a liar. Just so real christian cannot be a persecutor of truth if a man will, either as DOC judge or juryman, treat truth as an offence, and punish it, he must renounce christianity: he must expose himself to the wrath of God, which the Apostle Paul says (Rom. 1.18.) is revealed from heaven against men who hold the truth in unrighteouness; and surely it is holding the truth in unrighteousness to punish it as a crime; nay, to be in any shape instrumental in depressing the cause of truth, is, I conceive, to fly in the face of the Deity. I do not wish, Mr. Editor, to add to the scripture quotations inserted in my last; nor can I conceive that a point, so clear and fundamental in the christian system, requires any such illustrations in the minds of your readers: no Sir, every man who is a christian wellknows that " Lying lips are an abomination" to the Deity, which he

The trascendant importance of the subject of my last letter, involving the most invaluable rights of my countrymen, will, I trust, apologise for my troubling you with a few supplementary remarks on the innovating doctrines recently avowed.

It was observed in my former letter, that Mr. Justice Blackstone has admitted the necessary conformity of the law of England to the divine law. This will be found in his introductory remarks on law in general; and indeed it is no extraordinary concession; for he was conscious, no

serves; "but they that deal truely are his delight;" and therefore whoever sets himself up as the enemy, or punisher, or persecutor of truth, must be conscious of proceeding against the injunctions of christianity which are superior, as Mr. Justice Blackstone himself acknowledges, to all other laws and injunctions whatever. But although the modern theory of libels militates against the positive commands of our religion, yet it must be observed, that the ancient, the true and genuine law of this land, bore a very different character, as different indeed, as light is from darkness, for it was, above all other laws, remarkable for its attachment to truth and mercy. It may therefore be considered as baving a higher claim to christian purity and excellence, than any o ther system of juriprudence whatever, for these are the great and cardinal virtues enjoined by christianity; which tells us never to let Mercy and truth forsake us; and that they may not, it commands us to bind them round our necks, and to write them on the table of our hearts. We are told too, that Mercy and truth uphold the king; that his throne is upholden by mercy: by which we see how congenial the christian system is with a just and limited monarchy. The merciful bias of our English law is obvious, from the horror it has of torture, and of all new and extraordinary modes of punishment. It considers every convicted man as being in misericordia regis, and gives the monarch the power of mitigating the severity of the punishment of the law, except only in some particular cases of treason against the constitution; where partiality in favour of wicked mini ters, and evil counsellors, is necessary to be strictly guarded against. Its regard for truth is evinced by a number of instances, which one would think modern judges them selves must have forgotten, when

they talk of truth being a libel. Indeed it is to me a matter of astonish、 ment, how any judge can possibly recommend such a doctrine to a jury, or how his conscience can possibly permit him to direct them to act upon it. Let us consider a little the nature of these proceedings: a jury are impanneled, and sworn to make, true deliverance between the King and the accused: they are then informed of the crime with which the accused party is charged, which is the publication of "a false "wicked and malicious libel," or else of a "false wicked malicious and sedi "tious libel" that he hath pleaded not guilty, and put himself on trial by "God and his country, which country you are," saith the officer of the court to the jury, after having read over to them the charge or ins dictment. Now pray observe here, gentle reader, that the trial is to be by God and the jury, that the deli verance is to be TRUE, and that the offence imputed, implies falsehood, malice and wickedness; this is the ground of criminality laid to the charge of the party; and upon which the jury are to give a verdict.

[ocr errors]

But it may be asked-what mean you by a verdict? Juries are sometimes very ignorant, and it is the business of judges to instruct them: it is for that the office was created. To which I beg leave to reply, that such instructions are not always constitutional. I have read of a case which once occurred at Warwick assizes, where a juryman, one George Baylis, with a look of perplexity, thus addressed the judge: "My "Lord, we are a little hobbled;

66

some of us know Mr. Plaintiff, and "and some know Mr. Defendant, "but we cannot tell who Mr. Ver"dict is."* It is such juries as these that make arbitrary and dictatorial judges, to the perversion and dis grace of our excellent laws: but suppose an ignoramus jury sitting on

* Hutton's Dissertation on Juries. p. 25

such a case, and a true British judge Conscientiously and constitutionally explaining to them their duty, what would he say upon this case? He would say the word verdict, means a true saying, or sentence, being derived form Vere dictum, which hath that meaning in the latin tongue, and consequently that their sentence ought in every respect to be confor mable to the truth. Verdict, says my Lord Coke, is, quast Dictum Veritatis, so that the office of a jury is to find out the truth, and to report it; and this they do upon the penalty of their consciences; they are bound by an oath, and are answerable to God, for so doing; consequently the trial is by God, as well as by them and this decision is very properly called a true deliverance, Lord Coke also says, although the jury are sworn ad veritatem dicendam, yet when they find veritatem facti, they pursue well their oath. They pursue it, as he says, but they do not accomplish it, which they are bound to do if they can; but if they cannot, which sometimes happens, then, and then only, are they excusable in not fulfilling the deliverance of the party, by a special verdict. But they are criminal if it is in their power to get at the truth, and they do not get at it, and form their verdict on it; for otherwise how can their decision deserve the name of a verdict; how can it be Dictum veritatis?-How can it be the joint operation of God and their own consciences, if they refuse, at the instigation of a judge, to admit truth injustification? If they positively reject it, after having sworn to find it and report it? What,pray,is the Veritus facti, in the case here supposed? Not that the accused party published certain words, making a mischief, or disturbance, or stir among the people, as Chief Justice Wright defined a libel; or that inculpated the actual exercise of the government, according to the definition of Allybone;

but that he published what was "false wicked and malicious," or" se"ditious" likewise; that is the fact, the truth of which the jury are to decide, and on the truth of this fact, to give a Dictum veritatis.What did Wright and Allybone require of the jury? What, I beg leave to ask, does every judge require of a juryman, who wishes him, by a verdict, to declare that any offensive or inflammatory publication, is libellous, without investigating its truth or falshood-what is required, I ask, in such cases, but a solemn protestation before heaven, that certain words are false, wicked and malicious, because they are inflammatory or offensive to the feelings of the parties? Is not this act itself a wicked falsehood? and to return this as the report of truth, Dictum viritatis, instead of seeking that truth, is it not a horrible iniquity? And to make heaven itself a party to this crime, can any thing be more blasphemous? If the quali ty of being merely inflammatory or offensive to other mens' feelings be sufficient to constitute a libel, why describe that offence in such very opposite terms in the indictment? why call it there an act that is false, wicked and malicious? Is it not incumbent, that this act, which is called a crime, and intended to be punished as such, should be proved to be what it is described to be? That it should not be asserted to be one thing, and proved to be another thing? An honest man is called upon before God, and under the penalty of his own salvation, to cer tify as a truth that the act is what it is asserted to be in the charge, not what it is proved to be in court; that it is false and malicious, without any proof being adduced of falsehood or malice:-Slanderous or offensive perhaps he may think it: but no, that will not do; he must solemnly declare it to be the other, because the judge pleases to call it so; pleases to call Richard Robert,

« ZurückWeiter »