versy, but in a private letter, I believe, to Pope. Resistance, too, (which is not avowed here), is stated by him as strongly as any Whigs could have stated it. It is a doctrine which ought not rashly to be meddled with, not because it is not a principle of the constitution, and the cornerstone on which the church and state rested, but because it is particularly liable to abuse. The expression respecting the dishonesty of saying, we have a constitution is the ordinary attack upon mock or moderate reformers, who appeal to the constitution at some former period. The absolute reformers, for I do not like nick-names, say that no table contains it, no code, no statute, nothing can be quoted, referred to, or cited; it is not visible or tangible. You call one thing a constitution, we another. The laws and their administration are Isaid to be corrupt. This was probably written after this association of attornies had been formed, and in reference to them he may have said, that the administration of the laws was partial and corrupt. Then he alluded to the oil of corruption, and spoke of its being as notorious as the sun at noon-day. These are the words of a very distinguished man-Lord Colchester; whom I heard say at the same time, that it was a practice which would have made our ancestors startle with indignation. I have heard the independent influence of the Crown in the lower House of Parliament, called the oil which made the machinery of the state move smoothly. Some think it necessary; some have very little doubt of its being unnecessary as to honest purposes. But it is possible for a good subject, and an honest man, fairly and honestly, without a shade of suspicion, or violation of the strictest duties of a good subject, to use the very words of this passage in reference to the influence of the Crown in the Lower House. These observations I have offered, as if I were defending the author. Once more let me remind you of the circumstances, in which Ridgeway published. If you take the dangerous ground of giving implicit credit to the witness, in such circumstances, so brought before you, so unkennelled on this poor man by the Manchester police; if you go on this the most dangerous ground which a jury can suffer itself to enter on, and on which it is not safe to give a verdict on life, limb, or property; notwithstanding you should do this, the story which he tells renders it utterly impossible for you to believe another thing, namely, that Ridgeway knew what it was when Mellor took it got it shuffled into his hand, in order to swear away his liberty, and almost his life, and the lives of his wife and children. It is frightful to think, that men should do what Mellor and that man (pointing to the attorney), the other jackall of the association, call on you to do. Mellor said, "I think proper to mention, that there was a sign dealer in tea, coffee, tobacco, and snuff." Do you think it a very likely thing, that a man who dealt in those exciseable articles would anxiously circulate the pamphlet, would be the publisher of an earnest determined exposition of the evils of such articleswould be circulating an earnest and reiterated address against their use? At all events, the evidence of Mellor casts broad light upon the infamous transaction. I hear the constitution talked of by those, who know but one or two defects, such as the best systems have; who prosecute for the purpose of supporting, not the constitution, but them selves; who praise it amply because their gain is ample; who consider it sacred because they hold not their gains to be profane; who style it precious because it is valuable to them; who defend it by clinging like bloodsuckers to its vitals. I warn you against the worst enemies of the constitution, against well-meaning zealots, who become tools in the hands of others to cast ridicule on the constitution, and to bring shame on the king and go. vernment. I call upon you to rescue this victim from the fangs and gripes of harpies and leeches. Protect yourselves from the slur of giving yourselves up as the tools in their hands. Rescue the establishments of justice and law from those who defame and defile them by their conduct and practices. Mr. Justice Holroyd.-The author was in gaol, and therefore was not likely to have been prosecuted, if there were evidence that the pamphlet was written by him, for the publication with his name was not evidence. He (Justice Holroyd) always understood that Englishmen were proud to have a constitution. It appeared to him, that by the laws of England, the pamphlet was grossly libellous.. Mr. Brougham.-If your lordship read a little before, you will perceive that it is of the reformers he speaks. VOL. LXIII. Mr. Justice Holroyd.-I read what you wish. In my opinion, it is libellous. He reminds them of insurrection, as if he said, “I won't say further, than reminding you that there is such a thing." Mr. Brougham renewed his objection to that passage, as not having innuendoes. His lordship did not think it necessary. Mr. Evans prayed to be heard on the subject. Mr. Brougham.-With great deference, would your lordship understand our objections, and allow them to be presented in such a shape, that they may be disposed of in a court of the highest resort, by means of a bill of exceptions? Mr. Justice Holroyd.-Will you put them down yourself? Mr. Sergeant Hullock.-I never heard of such an objection. Mr. Justice Holroyd.-It is in arrest of judgment only that it can be made. Mr. Evans.-No, I think it is not; and I proceed to show why. Mr. Justice Holroyd. I must proceed now. The question was totally immaterial for the jury. If they were of opinion, that it was libellous, the defendant was amenable. He offered for sale," The Right Divine of Kings to govern wrong." They would observe that title. The defendant knew at least what some of the political publications were. The witness certainly proved a sale, if he was not perjured. It had been attempted to make an objection, that the prosecution was brought by the Association; but the only question for them was, was heguilty or not? None could prosecute but by the assistance of the grand jury, the king's court, or the attorney-general. Suppose he were guilty; if the attorney-general 21 prosecuted, did it make any difference if it came under the grand jury? (His lordship again alluded to "The Right Divine of Kings to govern wrong.") Mr. Brougham.-A line from Dryden, my lord. Mr. Justice Holroyd.-Ifguilty, they would find him so; if they had any reasonable doubt, they would give him the benefit of it. The jury turned round, and in a few moments the foreman pronounced "Guilty of the crime laid to his charge." Mr. Justice Holroyd.-Do you find on the second passage? Foreman. We think he is guilty of the whole. A bill of exceptions was now handed to his lordship. He did not think it could be received, but he would keep it. The King v. Dolby. This was an indictment against the defendant for libel, preferred by the Bridge-street Society. On the panel of the special jury being called, three gentle men only-William Fisher, esq. John Pattison, esq. and Francis Tatton, esq. answered to their names. first, to have cited an authority for so doing. The Lord Chief Justice had so understood Mr. Scarlett. Mr. Scarlett was then proceeding to state his authority, when The Lord Chief Justice observed, that the challenge ought first to be put in. The challenge was then put in, and read. The ground of objection taken was this:-That John Garratt, esq. and alderman, one of the sheriffs by whom the common jury panel was returned, was, in truth, at the time of his prosecutors of the present inreturning such panel, one of the dictment, Mr. Gurney observed, that the challenge was written upon paper. It ought, properly, to have appeared upon parchment. Mr. Scarlett said, that it might be put upon parchment hereafter. The Lord Chief Justice thought that, whether upon parchment or paper, it ought to be presented in the form in which it was to re main. if necessary, be copied upon Mr. Scarlett said, that it could, parchment in a few moments. Mr. Gurney then withdrew his formal point, and denied the matter contained in the challenge. Mr. Scarlett was content to put the fact in issue. The Lord Chief Justice.-The next thing, then, is the appointment of triers. lieve at Maidstone, two special In a case, I bethere was no objection; and upon jurymen appeared, against whom a challenge to the array, those triers. As there are now three two gentlemen were named as special jurymen in the 'box, I think we cannot select any triers more likely to be disinterested. Mr. Scarlett assented, William Fisher and Francis Tatton, Esqrs., were then named, and sworn to try the issue in dispute. The issue was put to the triers thus:-Was John Garratt, Esq., or was he not, one of the prosecutors of the present indictment, at the time when he returned the common jury panel? Mr. Scarlett addressed a few words to the jury, merely to inform them of the question they had to decide. Mr. Alderman Garratt, the present Sheriff, in the course of his duty, returned the common jury: and he (the Alderman) was member of a society calling itself "Constitutional," and prosecuting the present indictment. That Mr. Garratt was a member of that society would be distinctly proved. His name, in fact, appeared in a list of subscribers furnished by the solicitor for the prosecution to the solicitor of the defendant, and that list had since been printed and made public. The Alderman was a subscriber at the commencement of the prosecution; and if he had since withdrawn his name from the lists, he had not withdrawn his money from the funds, of the society; and the money was the sinew which enabled the society to act. William Nettlefold being called and examined, said-I am attorney to the defendant in this case. I appeared at the Crown-office, to strike the special jury, and I then demanded from Mr. Murray a list of the members and subscribers of the Constitutional Society; Mr. Murray admitted that the society were the prosecutors, and sent me, on the 29th of May, the list I have in my hand. In that list I find the name of Garratt occurring twice: there is a Sir George Garratt, and a John Garratt, styled an Alderman. Opposite to Mr. John Garratt's name, there appears a subscription of 5l. 5s. I have no doubt that the Mr. John Garratt there named is the present sheriff. John Roberts knew the person of Alderman Garratt, and was at Guildhall at the time when the Alderman was chosen sheriff. At the conclusion of the first day's poll, Mr. Garratt stated, that he had been a member of the "Constitutional Association;" but that, since he had been chosen Alderman, he had thought it incompatible with his duty to remain among them, and he had therefore ceased to be a member. Witness was at Guildhall on several following days during the poll for sheriffs; and either on the first or second day after that to which he had already alluded, he heard Alderman Garratt retract his former declaration. The witness was pressed, upon his cross-examination, and upon his re-examination, and also by the Judge, to give the words which Mr. Garratt had used; but he could only, he said, give the sum and substance. Being taxed, on a subsequent day, with his declaration, that he had abandoned the Bridge-street Society, Mr. Alderman Garratt did retract that declaration. Mr. Gurney, considering that the sheriff had really nothing to do with the choice of the jury, was a little surprised at the course which Mr. Scarlett had taken. The objection, if it could be made out, was, notwithstanding, sufficient. The learned gentleman then commented upon the inconclusive nature of the evidence adduced, and proposed to set the matter completely at rest by calling John Garratt, Esq. Alderman and Sheriff. Mr. Scarlett submitted, that Mr. Garratt was not a competent witness. The objection being to the sheriff's return, the sheriff could not in person give support to his own act. Besides, by supporting Mr. Gurney's case, and obviating his (Mr. Scarlett's) objection, Mr. Garratt would further the indictment of which he was a prosecutor. The Lord Chief Justice said, that he would endeavour, if possible, to recollect some authority. Mr. Scarlett confessed that he could furnish none. Mr. Tindall, during a pause of some minutes which ensued, observed that jurymen had been allowed to give evidence as to their own competency. The Lord Chief Justice thought, that the cases were dissimilar. No authority whatever occuring upon the point, the learned counsel were driven back to argument. tion in a court of justice. The case, which appeared in Coke's Reports, was this:-Robert Scarlett became a member of the grand jury of the county of Essex; and he was indicted before the Court of Star Chamber upon a charge of having so become a member of the grand jury, to aid in the finding of certain indictments in which he (R. Scarlett) was personally interested. It appeared, therefore, that if a person knowing himself to be interested, voluntarily, and by his own seeking, did that office which the law required should be performed by an impartial hand, he subjected himself for such act to public prosecution. Now, put the case that a man became sheriff, in order, by returning particular jurors, to aid and support a particular indictment; he would for so becoming sheriff be actually punishable; and such a sheriff (the case was merely a case supposed) would clearly have an interest in a collateral issue like the present: he would be called to give evidence in a collateral issue, when the effect of his own evidence might be, to purge himself from misdemeanor. Mr. Gurney contended, that the question before the triers was The Lord Chief Justice.merely a collateral issue, and an Supposing such a case, Mr. Scarissue in which Mr. Garratt could lett, as you have imagined, could have no interest. the verdict upon the collateral The Lord Chief Justice.-I issue be admitted afterwards as think not. Mr. Scarlett begged to be understood, in what he was about to say, as casting no imputation upon Mr. Alderman Garratt. To show that he meant any thing rather than an offence, he would begin with citing a case in which a namesake of his own, a man named Robert Scarlett, had been the subject of criminal prosecu evidence upon an indictment? Mr. Scarlett clearly apprehended that it might. The issue would be tried before a court of competent jurisdiction; a verdict of acquittal would be an answer to the indictment; and therefore a verdict of guilty would be evidence. Such a verdict would not only be evidence, but conclusive evidence. A court of law must |