[19] As to the judges of those times, see what a picture is drawn of a chief justice by the most celebrated of our historians:--"To be a Jesuit, or even a catholic, was of itself a sufficient proof of guilt. The chief justice (sir William Scroggs), in particular, gave sanction to all the narrow prejudices and bigoted fury of the populace. Instead of being counsel for the prisoners, as his office required, he pleaded the cause against them, browbeat their witnesses, and on every occasion represented their guilt as certain and uncontroverted. He even went so far as publicly to affirm, that the papists had not the same principles which protestants have, and therefore were not entitled to that common _credence_, which the principles and practices of the latter call for. And, when the jury brought in their verdict against the prisoners, he said, 'You have done, gentlemen, like very good subjects, and very good Christians, that is to say, like very good protestants.'"--Hume's History of England, vol. viii, ch. 67, p. 91. See also what the same author says in his third appendix: "Timid juries, and judges, who held their offices during pleasure, never failed to second all the views of the crown. And, as the practice was anciently common, of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing the jurors, merely at the discretion of the court, for finding a verdict contrary to the direction of these dependent judges, it is obvious, that juries were then no manner of security to the liberty of the subject."--Vol. v, p. 458. And, if these be not enough, take conviction from the pen of one of the most penetrating geniuses of the age: "The proceedings on the popish plot," says Mr. Fox, in his History of James II, "must always be considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation, in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses, prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not equal shares. Witnesses, of such a character as not to deserve credit in the most trifling cause, upon the most immaterial facts, gave evidence so incredible, or, to speak more properly, so impossible to be true, that it ought not to have been believed if it had come from the mouth of Cato: and, upon such evidence, from such witnesses, were innocent men condemned to death and executed. Prosecutors, whether attornies and solicitors-general, or managers of impeachment, acted with the fury which, in such circumstances, might be expected; juries partook, naturally enough, of the national ferment; and judges, whose duty it was to guard them against such impressions, were scandalously active in confirming them in their prejudices, and inflaming their passions. The king, who is supposed to have disbelieved the whole plot, never once exercised his glorious prerogative of mercy. It is said he dared not. His throne, perhaps his life, was at stake."--History of James II, by the right honourable Charles James Fox, page 33. [20] Fox's History of James II, page 40.