The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 2Macaulay, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron
History
The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 2
Macaulay, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron
Great Britain -- History -- James II, 1685-1688; Great Britain -- History -- William and Mary, 1689-1702
humbler culprits who had been arraigned at the Old Bailey. There the
jurymen, violent partisans, taken for a single day by courtly Sheriffs
from the mass of society and speedily sent back to mingle with that
mass, were under no restraint of shame, and being little accustomed to
weigh evidence, followed without scruple the directions of the bench.
But in the High Steward's Court every Trier was a man of some experience
in grave affairs. Every Trier filled a considerable space in the public
eye. Every Trier, beginning from the lowest, had to rise separately and
to give in his verdict, on his honour, before a great concourse. That
verdict, accompanied with his name, would go to every part of the world,
and would live in history. Moreover, though the selected nobles were
all Tories, and almost all placemen, many of them had begun to look with
uneasiness on the King's proceedings, and to doubt whether the case of
Delamere might not soon be their own.
Jeffreys conducted himself, as was his wont, insolently and unjustly.
He had indeed an old grudge to stimulate his zeal. He had been Chief
Justice of Chester when Delamere, then Mr. Booth, represented that
county in Parliament. Booth had bitterly complained to the Commons that
the dearest interests of his constituents were intrusted to a drunken
jackpudding. [41] The revengeful judge was now not ashamed to resort
to artifices which even in an advocate would have been culpable. He
reminded the Lords Triers, in very significant language, that Delamere
had, in Parliament, objected to the bill for attainting Monmouth, a
fact which was not, and could not be, in evidence. But it was not in
the power of Jeffreys to overawe a synod of peers as he had been in
the habit of overawing common juries. The evidence for the crown would
probably have been thought amply sufficient on the Western Circuit or
at the City Sessions, but could not for a moment impose on such men
as Rochester, Godolphin, and Churchill; nor were they, with all their
faults, depraved enough to condemn a fellow creature to death against
the plainest rules of justice. Grey, Wade, and Goodenough were produced,
but could only repeat what they had heard said by Monmouth and by
Wildman's emissaries. The principal witness for the prosecution, a
miscreant named Saxton, who had been concerned in the rebellion, and
was now labouring to earn his pardon by swearing against all who were
obnoxious to the government, who proved by overwhelming evidence to
have told a series of falsehoods. All the Triers, from Churchill who,
as junior baron, spoke first, up to the Treasurer, pronounced, on their
honour, that Delamere was not guilty. The gravity and pomp of the whole
proceeding made a deep impression even on the Nuncio, accustomed as
he was to the ceremonies of Rome, ceremonies which, in solemnity and
splendour, exceed all that the rest of the world can show. [42]
The King, who was present, and was unable to complain of a decision
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account