Proceedings in an action for debt, between the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, plaintiff, and John Horne Tooke, Esq. defendant / published by the defendant.

  • Tooke, John Horne, 1736-1812.
Date:
1792
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Proceedings in an action for debt, between the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, plaintiff, and John Horne Tooke, Esq. defendant / published by the defendant. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    14/42 (page 14)
    ouf other referved Right of a Trial by Jury? Shall they firft take away from us with impunity all the benefit and advantages of reprefentation, and after that take away from us all benefit and advantage of Juries ? And ffiall we with- out a ftruggle, proportioned to the importance of the bene- fits, tamely fuffer our fafety, fecurity, and peace, to be all torn away from us together? A Jury not intitled to inquire into the merits of the qeuftion brought before them, nor into any thing that relates to the merits, is no Jury at all ; nor can in any refpeft anfwer the object of their ap- pointment : and any Jury that ffiall give a verdict againft any defendant, without having firft, according to the oaths of the Jurors, Well and truly Tried the queftioil at ill'ue be- tween the parties* is a perjured Jury. It is not unfit nor improper for you, gentlemen, to con- fider how the Houfe of Commons firft came into pofleffion of any jurifdidtion, or of any trial whatever concerning the return upon Ele&ions. The truth is, they had originally no right whatever to it. It was a manifeft and grofs ufur- pation upon the rights of the Juries of the people. But the Houfe had indeed, at that time, a plaufible pretence for its ufurpation the corruption of the Judges and their abjett dependence on the crown : for they held their offices at that time during pleafure; and Juries were then, as now, often packed, or cajoled, or bullied, for the purpofes of thefe ab- ject inftruments of royal injuftice. After the Revolution the commiffion of the Judges was altered; and it is affe&ed to be faid, that from that time the Judges have been inde- pendent. The pretence then for this ufurpation of the Houfe of Commons being removed, why wTere not the Tri- als of Returns upon Ele&ions reftored to their natural and rightful jurifdiftion, a jury of the people in the courts be- low ? I do not however for my own part believe a fyllable of this boafted independence of the Judges. A long experi- ence, and every thing I have feen and heard for many years paft have manifefted to me the contrary. I do not be- lieve the dependence of the judges on the crown wTas fo great formerly as at prefent. I believe the judges then were lefs dependent on the Crown, and more dependent on the people than they are at this hour. The Judges then were frequently difplaced, becaufe they did not dare to go the whole length, and do all the wicked bufinefs they were ordered to do: they were fometimes too difplaced from ca- price ; and they knew they might be fo. They all fat on the Bench, knowing they might be turned down again to plead as common advocates at the Bar; and indeed it was no un- ufual thing in thofe days to fee a Counfel at the Bar brow-