Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/230

 The Judicial History of Individual Liberty. repeatedly declared illegal by Parliament. The arguments therefore took a wide range. John Somers, who closed for the defense in a speech occupying less than five minutes in delivery, completely covered the case when he said: "My lord, by the law of all civilized na tions, if the prince does require something to be done which the person who is to do it takes it to be unlawful, it is not only lawful, but his duty, rcscriberc priiicipi. This is all that is done here, and that in the most humble manner that could be thought of. ... My lord, as to matters of fact alleged in the said petition, that they are perfectly true we have shown by the journals of both houses. In every one of those years which are men tioned in the petition this power of dispen sation was considered in Parliament, and, upon debate, declared to be contrary to law; there could be no design to diminish the pre rogative because the king hath no such pre rogative. Seditious, my lord, it could not be, nor could possibly stir up sedition in the minds of the people, because it was presented to the king in private and alone; false it could not be, because the matter of it is true; there could be nothing of malice, for the occasion was not sought—the thing was pressed upon them; and a libel it could not be, because the intent was innocent, and they kept within the bounds set by the act of Par liament that gives the subject leave to apply

187

to his prince by petition, when he is ag grieved." Williams closed for the crown in an acri monious but consistent argument in which he went so far as to deny the right of petition. But the court and jury stood in greater awe of the seething public sentiment. In sum ming up the evidence, Wright, Allyhone and Halloway evaded any expression of opinion upon the legality of the dispensing power. Wright and Allybone considered the petition a libel; Halloway thought otherwise. Powell boldly declared that the dispensing power was inconsistent with law, and the Declara tion of Indulgence a nullity; otherwise, he said, the whole legislative authority would be in the king. The jury remained out all night. The next morning they came into court with a verdict of acquittal. It is difficult to specify the legal effect of this trial. The judges were. not in agreement as to the law, and the whole proceedings were colored by public excitement. Rut it is to be observed that not only the criminality of the publicaron but also the legality of the dispensing power were submitted to the jury as questions of fact. The political effect of the verdict was, however, immense and far reaching. When the troops on Hounslow Heath heard the news they broke into enthusiastic cheering. On the same day an invitation was de spatched to the Prince of Orange to assume the British Crown. The tyranny of the Stuarts had come to an end.