as far as poffible, interested perfons from being thereon; and particularly when the crown profecutes, were none allowed to be jurymen who were any ways dependent upon the miniftry; it is apprehended, there could not then be the least doubt but that all parties, who defired juftice and right to take place, would be fully fatisfied to have their caufes determined by fpecial or other juries thus appointed.

There seems to be no reason to doubt that the general appointment or return of proper perfons for all juries was originally within the fheriffs jurif diction, who themfelves, according to that learned author, BOHUN, were at first all appointed by the people. This power has been explained and enforced, by divers acts of parliament; and the parliament have likewife taken proper care that jurymen fhould be men fit and eligible for that important truft; in particular, the act of the fecond of Charles II. obliges the fheriffs to return none for jurors on the trials in the king's bench, common pleas, oyer and terminer, &c. except they have 201. per annum freehold in the county. And in London, fo long fince as the 37 of Henry VIII. it was enacted by parliament, that the citizens in London worth 400 marks were to be impannelled and returned by the fheriffs to pass upon attaints.

It was formerly a conftant practice, at London in particular, for criminal profecutions never to be commenced, until the fheriffs had first returned and impannelled a grand jury, to confider what foundation there was for fuch profecutions; and then he fummoned a petty jury to determine the merits of the cafe. The truth of this remark is explained by the history of the reign of king Charles II. for Maitland afferts, that in 1680, the citizens of London were put into a violent ferment at the proceedings of the court, by the acquittal of perfons tried for

bad

bad defigns; which brought them to a refolution of chufing fuch fheriffs as were in the intereft of their country; and whom they could depend upon to return fuch juries, as were fincerely attached to the proteftant intereft. And he further adds, that in 1681, the citizens imagining that their lives, liberties and estates, chiefly depended on the integrity of their fheriffs, they chofe Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute, Efqrs. men in all refpects qualified for fo great a truft. Rapin alfo, in page 724 of his fecond volume, obferves, that the faid Thomas Pilkington and Samuel Shute, who were whigs, being both chofen fheriffs, in the room of Slingsby Bethel and Mr. Cornifh, the king, who wished to be revenged on lord Shaftesbury, (who then lived in Alderfgate-ftreet) granted a special commiffion of oyer and terminer to fit on the earl's trial; that the greatest crime against him was an affociation found in his study against the king's enemies, the proteftant religion, and their country. But notwithstanding the hopes conceived by the court to be rid of their enemy, the grand jury, confifting of twentyone principal citizens, returned the bill ignoramus. And he afterwards fays, that Moore, the lord mayor, being fupported by the privy council, prevailed partly by force, to have fheriffs chofen of the king's party. This he obferves was a triumph for the court, and that the earl of Shaftesbury was fo fenfible of it, that feeing himself likely to be deprived of the city of London's protection, he evaded the impending storm by a retreat into Holland.

It may not be here improper to remark, that, notwithstanding the pains taken by minifterial tools and fycophants, to degrade and revile the citizens of London, and to reprefent them as a factious and licentious fet of people; yet it is a fact beyond contradiction, that they have never been wanting

to

to fupport the juft conftitutional prerogatives of the crown, as well as the legal privileges of the fubject; and on many important occafions have they exerted themselves in defence of public liberty; and fo far from being abetters of a party fpirit, that it has been their conftant invariable rule to oppofe arbitrary principles and practices, which in many reigns have been too much exercised by every denomination of parties, when they had it in their power; for this glorious conduct have they frequently incurred the difpleasure, and when ever opportunity offered, have they experienced the weighty iron rod of corrupt power.

The history of the reign of Charles II. fully verifies this affertion; for one of the first instances after the court had fecured sheriffs at their devotion, was to get juries to ruin their fellow citizens; in particular alderman Pilkington, was by a jury fined 100,000l. for affronting the duke of York; alfo alderman Ward was, by another fuch jury, convicted of perjury. And thefe juries were at this period fo partial, that Maitland obferves, they were fond of obliging the court, to the ruin of their fellow citizens, which occafioned an hiftorian to fay, that juries at THAT TIME were a reproach to religion and a fcandal to the nation. And not content with oppreffing individuals, Rapin fays, that after the court had got a lord mayor and fheriffs at their devotion, they improved the advantage; and relying upon the magiftrates compliance, refolved to annul the charter of London. The fatal confequence of this refolution is too well remembered: the citizens were deprived of their whole rights and privileges; and what must always be expected to be the confequence, the ancient privileges confirmed by magna charta, of every city and corporation in particular, and of the whole kingdom in general, fhortly followed.

VOL. I.

R

The

The court then became triumphantly arbitrary; and fuch, alas! was the ficklenefs of the times, that the court artfully found means to divide the people, fo far as to form a confiderable party on their fide; and had not their intentions of bringing in popery, as well as arbitrary power, been afterwards quite manifeft to the whole nation, it is more than probable that the English liberties would have never more been reftored. But there is now great reafon to hope, that the civil and religious rights of this kingdom, will never, by the fupinenefs of its guardians, nor by the wickedness of defigning men, be again brought fo near the brink of total deftruction. We have (thank God) a monarch upon the throne, bred up in a due reverence for our happy conftitution. As a fpecimen of his great regard thereto, almoft at his firft entrance upon his regal power, he did, at the recommendation of a patriot minifter, nominate a chief juftice, who, without partiality, must be esteemed one of the greatest ornaments to his profeffion; one, who has thought it his duty to remind juries of their ancient dignity and authority; and one that with the moft inflexible spirit of patriotifmm, has nobly afferted the doctrine, fo difagreeable to the friends of arbitrary power, but which has been maintained by lord Coke, as well as the moft upright and learned of the profeffion, THAT JURIES ARE JUDGES OF LAW

AS WELL AS FACT, AND ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ANY BUT GOD ALONE FOR THEIR VERDICTS. We have ftill a farther fecurity for our liberties, as his majesty's ancestors were chofen for and have conftantly defended that great charter of English liberty, restored at the glorious revolution; there confe quently cannot be the leaft doubt of his majesty's giving his royal countenance to every method or propofal that a patriot legislature can devife, to preferve our happy conftitution pure and undefiled.

Therefore

Therefore, as trials by juries, which are faid to be coeval with the English government, and were, as Rapin obferves, vol. 1. p. 95, established by that great and good king, Alfred, as a defence against the natural fpirit of oppression, which grew upon men in authority, they muft of confequence be esteemed a principal bulwark to this excellent conftitution.

May, therefore, every poffible method be taken to preferve English juries free and independent from all undue influence to the latest period of time.

TH

The judges oath and office.

HE king has, and always had, by his prerogative, a power of appointing the judges. The courts of juftice are his courts, and the judges are his officers; but they are not to determine according to the will of the king, but according to the law of the land. The king, in his coronation oath, binds himself, not to fell, deny, or defer juftice to any. As by his judges alone, he can difpenfe law and juftice among his fubjects, the keeping or breaking of this oath depends on the uprightnefs and integrity of the judges he appoints. Hence king Edward III. obliged his judges to take an oath, to do equal and impartial juftice; which oath, as it has ever fince been in ufe, may be worthy to be inferted at large.

Ye fhall fwear, that well and lawfully ye fhall 'ferve our lord the king, and his people, in the office of juftice; and that lawfully ye shall coun-, fel the king in his bufinefs; and that ye fhall not counfel, nor affent to any thing, which may turn him in damage or difherifon by any manner, way ⚫ or colour; and that ye fhall not know the damage * or difherifon of him, whereof ye fhall not cause 'him to be forewarned, by yourself or by other; and that ye shall do equal law, and execution of

- R 2

right,