An Essay On The Trial By Jury by Lysander Spooner (best love novels of all time TXT) ๐
- Author: Lysander Spooner
Book online ยซAn Essay On The Trial By Jury by Lysander Spooner (best love novels of all time TXT) ๐ยป. Author Lysander Spooner
Removable At His Pleasure. In Addition To This, "The King Himself
Often Sat In His Court, Which Always Attended His Person. He There
Heard Causes, And Pronounced Judgment; And Though He Was
Assisted By The Advice Of Other Members, It Is Not To Be Imagined
That A Decision Could Be Obtained Contrary To His Inclination Or
Opinion."[1] Judges Were In Those Days, And Afterwards, Such Abject
Servants Of The King, That "We Find That King Edward I. (1272 To
1307) Fined And Imprisoned His Judges, In The Same Manner As
Alfred The Great, Among The Saxons, Had Done Before Him, By The
Sole Exercise Of His Authority."[2]
Parliament, So Far As There Was A Parliament, Was A Mere Council Of
The King.[3] It Assembled Only At The Pleasure Of The King; Sat Only
During His Pleasure; And When Sitting Had No Power, So Far As
General Legislation Was Concerned, Beyond That Of Simply Advising
The King. The Only Legislation To Which Their Assent Was
Constitutionally Necessary, Was Demands For Money And Military
Services For Extraordinary Occasions. Even Magna Carta Itself
Makes No Provisions Whatever For Any Parliaments, Except When
The King Should Want Means To Carry On War, Or To Meet Some Other
Extraordinary Necessity.[4] He Had No Need Of Parliaments To Raise
Taxes For The Ordinary Purposes Of Government; For His Revenues
From The Rents Of The Crown Lands And Other Sources, Were Ample
For All Except Extraordinary Occasions. Parliaments, Too, When
Assembled, Consisted Only Of Bishops, Barons, And Other Great Men
Of The Kingdom, Unless The King Chose To Invite Others.[5] There
Was No House Of Commons At That Time, And The People Had No
Right To Be Heard, Unless As Petitioners.[6]
Even When Laws Were Made At The Time Of A Parliament, They Were
Made In The Name Of The King Alone. Sometimes It Was Inserted In
The Laws, That They Were Made With The Consent Or Advice Of The
Bishops, Barons, And Others Assembled; But Often This Was Omitted.
Their Consent Or Advice Was Evidently A Matter Of No Legal
Importance To The Enactment Or Validity Of The Laws, But Only
Inserted, When Inserted At All, With A View Of Obtaining A More
Willing Submission To Them On The Part Of The People. The Style Of
Enactment Generally Was, Either "The King Wills And Commands,"
Chapter 2 (The Trial By Jury As Defined By Magna Carta) Section 1 Pg 17Or Some Other Form Significant Of The Sole Legislative Authority Of
The King. The King Could Pass Laws At Any Time When It Pleased
Him. The Presence Of A Parliament Was Wholly Unnecessary. Hume
Says, "It Is Asserted By Sir Harry Spelman, As An Undoubted Fact,
That, During The Reigns Of The Norman Princes, Every Order Of The
King, Issued With The Consent Of His Privy Council, Had The Full
Force Of Law."[7] And Other Authorities Abundantly Corroborate This
Assertion.[8]The King Was, Therefore, Constitutionally The
Government; And The Only Legal Limitation Upon His Power Seems To
Have Been Simply The Common Law, Usually Called "The Law Of The
Land," Which He Was Bound By Oath To Maintain; (Which Oath Had
About The Same Practical Value As Similar Oaths Have Always Had.)
This "Law Of The Land" Seems Not To Have Been Regarded At All By
Many Of The Kings, Except So Far As They Found It Convenient To Do
So, Or Were Constrained To Observe It By The Fear Of Arousing
Resistance. But As All People Are Slow In Making Resistance,
Oppression And Usurpation Often Reached A Great Height; And, In The
Case Of John, They Had Become So Intolerable As To Enlist The Nation
Almost Universally Against Him; And He Was Reduced To The
Necessity Of Complying With Any Terms The Barons Saw Fit To Dictate
To Him.
It Was Under These Circumstances, That The Great Charter Of Englsh
Liberties Was Granted.
The Barons Of England, Sustained By The Common People, Having
Their King In Their Power, Compelled Him, As The Price Of His Throne,
To Pledge Himself That He Would Punish No Freeman For A Violation
Of Any Of His Laws, Unless With The Consent Of The Peers That Is, The
Equals Of The Accused.
The Question Here Arises, Whether The Barons And People Intended
That Those Peers (The Jury) Should Be Mere Puppets In The Hands Of
The King, Exercising No Opinion Of Their Own As To The Intrinsic
Merits Of The Accusations They Should Try, Or The Justice Of The Laws
They Should Be Called On To Enforce? Whether Those Haughty And
Victorious Barons, When They Had Their Tyrant King At Their Feet,
Gave Back To Him His Throne, With Full Power To Enact Any
Tyrannical Laws He Might Please, Reserving Only To A Jury (" The
Country") The Contemptible And Servile Privilege Of Ascertaining,
(Under The Dictation Of The King, Or His Judges, As To The Laws Of
Evidence), The Simple Fact Whether Those Laws Had Been
Transgressed? Was This The Only Restraint, Which, When They Had All
Power In Their Hands, They Placed Upon The Tyranny Of A King,
Whose Oppressions They Had Risen In Arms To Resist? Was It To
Obtain Such A Charter As That, That The Whole Nation Had United, As It
Were, Like One Man, Against Their King? Was It On Such A Charter
That They Intended To Rely, For All Future Time, For The Security Of
Their Liberties? No. They Were Engaged In No Such Senseless Work
As That. On The Contrary, When They Required Him To Renounce
Forever The Power To Punish Any Freeman, Unless By The Consent Of
His Peers, They Intended Those Powers Should Judge Of, And Try, The
Whole Case On Its Merits, Independently Of All Arbitrary Legislation,
Or Judicial Authority, On The Part Of The King. In This Way They Took
Chapter 2 (The Trial By Jury As Defined By Magna Carta) Section 1 Pg 18The Liberties Of Each Individual And Thus The Liberties Of The Whole
People Entirely Out Of The Hands Of The King, And Out Of The Power
Of His Laws, And Placed Them In The Keeping Of The People
Themselves. And This Itwas That Made The Trial B Jury The Palladium
Of Their Liberties.
The Trial By Jury, Be It Observed, Was The Only Real Barrier
Interposed By Them Against Absolute Despotism. Could This Trial,
Then, Have Been Such An Entire Farce As It Necessarily Must Have
Been, If The Jury Had Had No Power To Judge Of The Justice Of The
Laws The People Were Required To Obey? Did It Not Rather Imply That
The Jury Were To Judge Independently And Fearlessly As To
Everything Involved In The Charge, And Especially As To Its Intrinsic
Justice, And Thereon Give Their Decision, (Unbiased By Any
Legislation Of The King,) Whether The Accused Might Be Punished?
The Reason Of The Thing, No Less Than The Historical Celebrity Of The
Events, As Securing The Liberties Of The People, And The Veneration
With Which The Trial By Jury Has Continued To Be Regarded,
Notwithstanding Its Essence And Vitality Have Been Almost Entirely
Extracted From It In Practice, Would Settle The Question, If Other
Evidences Had Left The Matter In Doubt.
Besides, If His Laws Were To Be Authoritative With The Jury, Why
Should John Indignantly Refuse, As At First He Did, To Grant The
Charter, (And Finally Grant It Only When Brought To The Last
Extremity,) On The Ground That It Deprived Him Of All Power, And
Left Him Only The Name Of A King? He Evidently Understood That The
Juries Were To Veto His Laws, And Paralyze His Power, At Discretion,
By Forming Their Own Opinions As To The True Character Of The
Offences They Were To Try, And The Laws They Were To Be Called On To
Enforce; And That "The King Wills And Commands" Was To Have No
Weight With Them Contrary To Their Own Judgments Of What Was
Intrinsically Right.[9]
The Barons And People Having Obtained By The Charter All The
Liberties They Had Demanded Of The King, It Was Further Provided By
The Charter Itself That Twenty-Fie Barons Should Be Appointed By The
Barons, Out Of Their Number, To Keep Special Vigilance In The
Kingdom To See That The Charter Was Observed, With Authority To
Make War Upon The King In Case Of Its Violation. The King Also, By
The Charter, So Far Absolved All The People Of The Kingdom From
Their Allegiance To Him, As To Authorize And Require Them To Swear
To Obey The Twenty-Five Barons, In Case They Should Make War Upon
The King For Infringement Of The Charter. It Was Then Thought By The
Barons And People, That Something Substantial Had Been Done For
The Security Of Their Liberties.
This Charter, In Its Most Essential Features, And Without Any
Abatement As To The Trial By Jury, Has Since Been Confirmed More
Than Thirty Times; And The People Of England Have Always Had A
Traditionary Idea That It Was Of Some Value As A Guaranty Against
Oppression. Yet That Idea Has Been An Entire Delusion, Unless The
Jury Have Had The Right To Judge Of The Justice Of The Laws They Were
Called On To Enforce.
Chapter 2 (The Trial By Jury As Defined By Magna Carta) Section 2 Pg 19The Language Of Magna Carta
The Language Of The Great Charter Establishes The Same Point That
Is Established By Its History, Viz., That It Is The Right And Duty Of The
Jury To Judge Of The Justice Of The Laws.
The Chapter Guaranteeing The Trial By Jury Is In These Words:
"Nullus Liber Homo Capiatur, Vel Imprisonetur, Aut Disseisetur, Aut
Utlagetor, Aut Exuletur, Aut Aliquo Modo Destruatur; Nec Super Eum
Ibimus, Nec Super Eum Mittemus, Nisi Per Legale Judicium Parium
Suorum, Vel Per Legem Terrae."[10]
The Corresponding Chapter In The Great Charter, Granted By Henry
Iii, (1225) And Confirmed By Edward I, (1297,) (Which Charter Is
Now Considered The Basis Of The English Laws And Constitution,) Is
In Nearly The Same Words, As Follows:
"Nullus Liber Homo Capiatur, Vel Imprisonetur, Aut Disseisetur De
Libero Tenemento, Vel Libertatibus, Vel Liberis Consuetudinibus Suis,
Aut Utlagetur, Aut Exuletur, Aut Aliquo Modo Destruatur, Nec Super
Eum Ibimus, Nec Super Eum Mittemus, Nisi Per Legale Judicium
Parium Suorum, Vel Per Legem Terrae."
The Most Common Translation Of These Words, At The Present Day, Is
As Follows:
"No Freeman Shall Be Arrested, Or Imprisoned, Or Deprived Of His
Freehold, Or His Liberties, Or Free Customs, Or Outlawed, Or Exiled, Or
In Any Manner Destroyed, Nor Will We (The King) Pass Upon Him, Nor
Condemn Him, Unless By The Judgment Of His Peers, Or The Law Of
The
Comments (0)