It is difficult to calculate the amount of evil wrought by such corrupt judges as I have spoken of; they poison the fountains of society. I need not speak of monsters like Scroggs and Jeffreys, whose names rot in perpetual infamy, but creatures less ignoble, like Wright, Saunders, Finch, Kelyng, Thurlow, Loughborough, and their coadjutors, must be regarded as far more dangerous than thieves, murderers, or pirates. A cruel, insolent Judge selecting the worst customs, the most oppressive statutes, and decisions which outrage human nature--what an amount of evil he can inflict on groaning humanity! * * * * * Gentlemen of the Jury, in this long sad history of judicial tyranny in England there is one thing particularly plain: such judges hate freedom of speech, they would restrict the Press, the Tongue, yes, the Thought of mankind. Especially do they hate any man who examines the actions of the government and its servile courts, and their violation of justice and the laws. They wish to take exemplary and malignant vengeance on all such. Let me freshen your knowledge of some examples. 1. In 1410 the government made a decree "that whatsoever they were that should rede the Scriptures in the mother tongue, they should forfeit land, catel, body, lif, and godes from their heyres forever, and so be condempned for heretykes to God, enemies to the crowne, and most errant traiters to the land." The next year, in _one day thirty-nine persons were first hanged and then burned for this "crime."_[81] [Footnote 81: 1 St. Tr. 252.] 2. In 1590, Mr. Udall, a Puritan minister, published a book, "Demonstrations of Discipline," not agreeable to the authorities. He was brought to a trial for a Felony,--not merely a "misdemeanor." The jury were ordered by the judge to find him guilty of that crime if they were satisfied that he published the book,--for the court were to judge whether the deed amounted to that crime! He was found "guilty," and died in jail after nearly three years of cruel confinement.[82] [Footnote 82: 1 St. Tr. 1271; 1 Neal's Puritans (N.Y. 1844), 190. See 16 Parl. Hist. 1276, where Mr. Dunning says this is the first example of such a charge to a jury.] 3. In 1619 one Williams of Essex wrote a book explaining a passage in the book of Daniel as foretelling the death of James I. in 1621. He inclosed the manuscript in a box, sealed it, and secretly conveyed it to the king. For this he was tried for high treason, and of course executed. "_Punitur Affectus, licet non sequatur Effectus_," said the court, for "_Scribere est agere_," "Punish the wish though the object be not reached," for "writing is doing!"[83] [Footnote 83: 2 St. Tr. 1085.]