470 
fuppofed to be dire€ted by mere common 
fenfe and ftrict regard totruth, There 
are, however, certain cafes, in which prac- 
tice has introduced, as appears to me, a 
dangerous and burtful violation of this 
xuie ; and I beg leave to be allowed to 
Jay my fentiments concerning them before 
your readers : thefe are, cafes of fuicide, 
and murder by duelling. 
The penalties enjoined by the laws 
againit the crime. of fuicide incur the im- 
putation of hardthip and injuftice, as they 
neceflariiy fall upon the innocent, and 
generally difrefied, relatives, and mifs the 
criminal. It 1s therefore not to be won- 
dered at, that che humanity and delicacy 
ef the age fhou'd have deviled means for 
eluding the letter of the law; nor of this 
do I complain—it is the mode by which 
this is done that I think blameable. I be- 
lieve it is not within the recolle&ion of 
any Jiving perfon, that a cafe of fuicide in 
the higher, or even the middle ranks of 
fociety has preduced fiom the coroner’s 
jury any other verdi&t than that of lunacy. 
Yet that, upon a medical or philofophi- 
cal view, many of thefe cafes warranted 
no fuch fentence, is perfectly evident; and 
when the fubjeft or the inqueft is cne of 
the loweft ciafs, the verdi& of felo de fe is 
not unfrequently returned. But no one 
can really believe, that in the nature of 
the cafe there is any general difference he- 
tween rich and peor. The verdict of iu- 
nacy might perhaps be juttified by making 
it a Jegal maxim, that the act of felf-de- 
privation of life is in itfelf an a& of in- 
fanity ; but then this verdict ought to be 
univerfal. Even then, the objection of 
putting a law fiction into the mouth of the 
jury, inftead of a plain truth, would re- 
main. As the matter now ftands, there 
frequently is the additional imputation of 
a partial judgment, violating that equal 
juftice cf ovr laws which is their chiet 
boaft. That this is fometimes obtained 
by corruption,is the commen opinion, and 
I fear too well founded. Were a coro- 
ner’s jury once, refolutely and honettly (I 
mean when the circumftances of the cafe 
would clearly juftify them), to return a 
verdiat cf felo de fe againtt a fuicide of 
rank, it would probably produce an 
amendment of tne law, and relieve future 
juries from the temptation to prevaricate. 
The condué of juries tn trials of in- 
diétment tor murder againit duellifts isa 
mre ferious matter; and I confefs I am 
aftsnifhed how men of characier and conhi- 
deration can be brought to concur in fu-h 
a dire& violation of thei oaths as often 
appears in thefe cafes.. “Ihe coroncr’s ine 
queft feldom helitates, upon the fame evi- 
x 
Condud? of Furies refpetting Suicide and Duelling. [Jan. 1, 
dence of the fact, to bring it in murder. 
The law, as Blackflone decifively re- 
marks, has, beyond all queftion, included 
killing by duel in its definition of murder; 
indeed, no act of the kind has in it more 
of that deliberate intent which conftitutes 
the eflerce of the crime. The judge, in 
his charge, fcarcely ever fails to remind 
the jury, that they are to conficer what are 
the laws of the land, not the laws of ho- 
nour. Yet the cuftom of duelling is be- 
come fo inveterate, and its confequences 
bear upon fo many perlons of the iuperior 
ranks, that the very judge who has made 
this exordium, ufually comes round to fome 
modification or fubterfuge, and inclines 
(it not actually dire€ts) .he jury to foften 
down their verditi to manflaughter. Now 
TI do sot take upon myfelf to decide how 
far the rigour of the law fhould, under the 
prefent fiate of moralfentiment, be put in 
force againit duellifts—1 am well aware 
that great difficulties attend the queflion. 
But Ido not befitate to affert, that there 
cannot be a worfe way of getting rid of 
the dithculty, than by what I cannot but 
regard as an open violation of their {worn 
duty in the jury. Refpeftable as the 
bench of judges may be, their direction 
or advice ought to have no weight with 
juries, in oppofition to the plain diétates 
of truth and fenfe. There is the lefs mo- 
tive for jurymen to ftre:ch their confcienccs 
in this cafe, as the conftitution has pro- 
viced a remedy againit the feverity of the 
law, by the interpofition of the royal par- 
don. Probably the court is better pleafed 
that the verdiét fhould render unneceflary 
fuch an exercife of the prerogative ;, but 
it is not for a jury to balance the merit of 
complaifance againft the obligation of 
duty. Ifa few verdiéls were given con- 
formabie to the firiét letter of the law, 
either ihe execution of the fentence would. 
prove an effectual check to duelling, or 
the repeated applica:ion for the royal - 
mercy would occafion fome attempts to 
im>srove the police in this point, and to dif-. 
coun enance the practice by cther means. 
What, however, I am moft concerned. 
for, is the fanétity of the juryman’s oath, 
which requires him ‘* Well and. truly to, 
try’? the caufe, and ‘‘ a true verdiét to 
give accordiag to the evidence ; * and per- 
mits no accommodation to temporary ex-_ 
pedience, or the prevalent fentiments of 
the day. There is no office the difcharge. 
of which demands a firmer adherence to. 
the rule of right; and of this rule, the 
letter of the law is here the fole interpres 
ter. If juries once accuftom themfelves to 
be led by their own feelings, or the direc- » 
tions of the judges, into determinations 
contrary — 
cw. ~ ~ : 
ag, ee fe 
