HISTORIC SKETCHES. 



61 



tainly be precluded limn .-ittui^ i.n tin- jury. nil thn 



twenty-third -your of tho n-itfn <>f K.lwanl 111. (1327-1377) that 

 witnesses, though still added to the jury, were not allowed to 

 Tote as to the verdict ; mid it was not till the eleventh year of 

 Henry IV. (1399-141:5) that they wore made to give their evi- 

 court, under the scrutiny of the judge, and without 

 being associated in any way with the jury. 



Under the Angevin princes (from Henry II., 1154, to Richard 

 II., 1399), though tho grand provision in Magna Charta that 

 no free man should bo tried by any bat his peers was con- 

 stantly disregarded, it does not appear that juries as such 

 suffered any violence ; but with the Tudor princes cauio in this, 

 as in other respects, quite another order of things, and that 

 which the Tudors did tho Stuarts did likewise. Juries were 

 called to account in the most direct and personal manner for 

 verdicts given according to their conscience (some authorities, 

 however, say they were frequently bribed), and were frequently 

 reprimanded by the judge or tho king's council, and sometimes 

 cited before the Court of Star Chamber, where, if they did not 

 repent, they were heavily fined and also imprisoned. Some of 

 the fines imposed on individual jurymen were as much as .2,000, 

 a ruinous amount in Queen Mary's reign (1553-1558;, when 

 such a fine was actually inflicted. Whether there was or was 

 not any ground for the interference of the Star Chamber on tho 

 score of bribery of the jurors by the parties to suits, it is evident 

 that the offence might h&ve been punished by more regular 

 means, and that the means actually adopted were liable to be 

 grossly abused. As a matter of fact they were grossly abused, 

 and the tyrannical conduct of the Star Chamber in dealing with 

 juries was one of the chief causes which contributed to its down- 

 fall. When the Star Chamber was abolished by Act of Parlia- 

 ment in 1641, with an indignant protest against its ever having 

 existed, and a solemn declaration that nothing of the kind should 

 be permitted in the time to come, this evil practice of threatening 

 and punishing juries, so as to compel them to give such verdicts 

 as the Crown wished, was abolished also. During the civil war 

 (1642-1648), and during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell 

 (1648-1658), it was not heard of; jurymen were allowed to be 

 responsible alone to God and their conscience, and gave their 

 verdicts freely, no man making them afraid. 



With the restoration of Charles II., in 1660, some of the old 

 governmental vices were restored also. The Star Chamber men 

 would not have back at any price, nor to please any one, but tho 

 judges took upon themselves to revive the wicked old custom of 

 polluting the very source of justice by intimidating those who 

 had charge of it. Two Chief Justices of England, Hyde and 

 Keeling, were especially guilty of this crime, and made themselves 

 so notorious that the House of Commons came to a resolution to 

 impeach the latter for his misconduct. He was suffered to speak 

 for himself at the bar of the House, and to go free on promise of 

 amendment. 



In the face of this, and in spite of the expressed opinions of 

 most of the legal luminaries of the day, including Lord Chief 

 Justice Hale, the Recorder of London, in 1670, ventured, nnder 

 tho circumstances stated above, to fine the jury which acquitted 

 Penn and Mead, and to commit Mr. Bushel! to prison when he 

 -efnsed to pay. Here was what followed when the jury remained 

 obstinate in their simple verdict of " not guilty," after having 

 been browbeaten, threatened, and ridiculed, both by chief magis- 

 trate and Recorder, and after having been sent back three times 

 to consider their verdict, which indeed they did alter to a simple 

 verdict of " not gnilty " as to both prisoners. 



CLERK : Are you agreed upon your verdict P 



JURY : Yes. 



CLERK : Who shall speak for you ? 



JURY : Our foreman. 



CLERK : What say yon ? Look upon the prisoners at the bar. 

 Is William Penn gnilty of the matter whereof he stands indicted 

 in manner and form as aforesaid, or not gnilty ? 



FOREMAN : William Penn is gnilty of speaking in Gracechnroh 

 Street. 



MAYOR : To an unlawful assembly '( 



BUSHKLL (the foreman) : No, my lord, we give no other 

 verdict than what we gave last night. We have no other verdict 

 X> give. 



MAYOR : You are a factions fellow. I'll take a course with you. 



SIB T. BLOODWITH (alderman) . I knew Mr. Bushell would 

 not yield. 



BUSHKLL : Sir Thomas, I have don* according to my con- 



MAYOR : That conscience of yours would oat my throat. 



in ii i i.i, -. No, my lord, it never shall. 



MAYOR : Bat I will oat yours no toon M I can. 



RECORDER : He has inspired the jury. He has the spirit oi 

 divination. Methinks I feel him. I will have a positive verdict, 

 or yon shall starve for it. 



PENN : I desire to ask tho Recorder one question. Do you 

 allow of the verdict given of William Mead P 



RECORDER : It cannot be a verdict, because you were indicted 

 for a conspiracy, and one being found not guilty, and not the 

 other, it could not be a verdict. 



PENN : If not guilty be not a verdict, then you make of thn 

 jury and Magna Charta bat a mere nose of wax. 



MEAD : How ! Is not guilty no verdict ? 



RECORDER : No, it is no verdict. 



After this fine judicial dictum there were other passages be- 

 tween the jury and the c< urt, and the jury being once more asked 

 as to William Penn's guilt, said, as before, that he was guilty 

 of speaking in Gracechurch Street. 



RECORDER : What is this to the purpose ? I say I will hare a 

 verdict. (And speaking to Edward Bnshell, said) : You are a 

 factious fellow. I will set a mark upon you ; and whilst I have 

 anything to do in the city I will have an eye upon you. 



MAYOR: Have you no more wit than to be led by such a 

 pitiful fellow ? I will cut his nose. 



PENN : It is intolerable that any jury should be thus menaced. 

 Is this according to the fundamental laws? Are not they my 

 proper judges by the Great Charter of England ? What hope i* 

 there of ever having justice done when juries are threatened, and 

 their verdicts rejected ? I am concerned to speak, and grieved 

 to see such arbitrary proceedings. Did not the Lieutenant of 

 the Tower render one of them worse than a felon ? And do you 

 not plainly seem to condemn such for factions fellows who 

 answer not your ends ? Unhappy are those juries who are 

 threatened to be fined, and starved, and ruined if they give not 

 in verdicts contrary to their consciences. 



RECORDER : My lord, you must take a course with that same 

 fellow. 



MAYOR : Stop his mouth. Gaoler, bring fetters, and stake 

 him to the ground. 



PENN : Do your pleasure. I matter not your fetters. 

 ******* 



RECORDER : Gentlemen, we shall not be at this trade always 

 with you. You will find the next session of parliament there 

 will be a law made that those that will not conform shall not 

 have the protection of the law. Mr. Lee, draw up another 

 verdiot, that they may bring it in special. 



LEE : I cannot tell how to do it. 



JURY : We ought not to be retained, having all agreed, and 

 set our hands to the verdict. 



RECORDER: Your verdiot is nothing. You play npon the 

 court. I say you shall go together and bring in another verdict. 

 or yon shall starve, and I will have you carted about the city 

 as in Edward the Third's time. 



FOREMAN : We have given in our verdict, and all agreed to 

 it ; and if we give in another, it will be a force upon us to save 

 our lives. 



Finally the jury gave their verdict " not guilty " against 

 both prisoners, and each one of them affirmed the same sepa- 

 rately ; whereupon the Recorder fined them forty mark* 

 each, and ordered them to be imprisoned till the fine should be 

 paid. 



Imprisoned they were accordingly in the common gaol of 

 Newgate, a noisome, filthy den, which was a disgrace to any 

 country calling itself civilised. From Newgate, however, the 

 spirit which had made itself felt in opposition to the oppressive 

 conduct of the Recorder's Court made itself heard at the Court 

 of King's Bench. A writ of Habeas Corpus was sued out and 

 made returnable immediately, and when the governor of Newgate 

 brought up his prisoners it turned out that they were detained 

 for non-payment of fines imposed npon them on account of their 

 verdict. 



Chief Justice Vanghan, in one of the most learned and 

 masterly judgments ever delivered, wer.t Into the whole matter. 

 What he said may bo found in the sixth volume of the State 

 Trials, and in the collected judgments of the eminent Chief 



