Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/551

 512

matters of fact, or some questions of law, might arise upon the evidence; which if it had, it was the duty of the court to have cleared it; but there does not appear to be any, and therefore there is an end as to the dispute of the law." To which the foreman of the jury replied: "We are no lawyers, indeed, my lord," and requested a copy of the Act for treason, while one of the jury desired to drink a cup of sack, for they had sat so long, and how much longer the debate of the business might last he knew not. Upon which the jury were told that however in ordinary cases they might be permitted to drink before they went from the bar, that in cases of felony and treason the court had never so much as heard it even asked for, and therefore the request was refused. As the jury retired, Lilburne in a loud voice appealed to them to see that he had fair play, and upon their return to court they pronounced a verdict of " not guilty," which was received with extraordinary ac clamation from the multitudes of people in the hall, such as is believed " was never heard in Guild Hall, which lasted for about half an hour without intermission, which made the judges for fear turn pale and hang down their heads." (2 State Trials, p. 80.) Upon the trial of Lady Alice Lisle for high treason, on the 27th of August, 1685, in the first year of the reign of James II., Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys denounced a witness produced for the Crown, who was unable to give any testimony adverse to the prisoner, as a "vile wretch," and behaved with such violence as to " clutter him out of his senses," and upon the witness's con tinued failure to recollect, exclaimed : " Oh, blessed God, was there ever such a villain upon the face of the earth; to what times are we reserved? Dost thou believe that there is a God?" and continued to drive the witness into a state of mental confusion, and then, observing that he stood silent, exclaimed to the jury : " I hope, gentlemen,

you take notice of the strange and horrible behavior of this fellow; and with all you cannot but observe the spirit of this sort of people; what a villainous and devilish one it is." After sentence was pronounced that the gentle lady should be executed by burning her alive, which was graciously changed to causing her head to be severed from her body, the prisoner, in tones of affecting emphasis, said : " I have been told the court ought to be counsel for the prisoner, instead of which there was evidence given from the Bench which, though it were but hearsay, might possibly affect my jury. My defense was such as might be expected from a weak woman; but such as it was, I did not hear it repeated again to the jury." -(2 State Trials, 105.) The foregoing cases, while striking in stances of judicial barbarity, are not uncom mon-illustrations of what repeatedly occurred during the State trials of England. It is true that the rule that a prisoner indicted for felony should not have the aid of counsel did not pass unchallenged. As far back as the reign of Edward II. the author of the "Mirror of Justices" had declared that coun sel learned in the law " were more necessary for the defense of indictments and appeals of felonies than upon other venal causes." The venerable Bishop Whitelocke assailed it in debate; Sir Robert Atkyns declared it a severity, and significantly said that he knew from experience what the maxim meant that the judge was counsel for the prisoner. Even Jeffreys declared that " it was an injustice that a man should have counsel to defend a twopenny trespass, but that in defense of life he should have none." It was not until 1695, however, that a bill for regulating trials in cases of high treason was brought forward in the House of Commons. After much opposition it became a law known as the Seventh William III., chapter 3, and gave among other