OCR Text |
Show Truth Refcued from Impofture. tfi:. [Per ]udiciumparum] As expl:!ined by the univerfal Concurrence of Uws and Lawyen, we are to underlbnd, a Jury of our Equals. 2d. That no ManjlialJ he taken, or lmprifoned, or ~e di.ffei:;ed of bi.r [rttHold, Libtrtiu, Free·Cujloms, or he out-/au:ed, or txlle~, or any other Wa!' Jeflroyed; nor we fonU not pafs ttpon him, nor condemn bun, b11t by the Law-ful Judgm"tt of bit Peers, Or, by tbe LaUJ of the Lttnd, 3 H~n. 9· 29. . This is the ;mcient Law of the Land, confirmed by rhmy two Parltaments, acknowledged by all Lawyers; nay confeft and quoted by the Man in Hand, pag. l· ;d. The Q)leltion will be this, Whether from. this Claufe, and what is iecorded as explan:~rory and Confirmatory of It, there be fuffic1enr to prove That Juries are Judges of Latu and Fdfl. Fird In Order to the clear Stating and full refolvi~g of the Quefiion, 1 fhall 'explain briefly, and refcue the Iauer Part of thts Law-Texr, from the wretched ConftruEHon of S. S. which is this. Or. is titbtr DifjunOivt or Op_ulativ_e_; if dif/unOivt, then it mujl im-. ply fomt otl!tr Jud~et ~tjidu tbe jury.- if CopulaiiVt (Or f~r And) 11 jlill impliu another Jundtilton, bejidu that of the Peur or Jury; h1s Confcquc11ce is that ptrLegem Tur.-e (or the Law of the Land) in that Place, canno1 (a~ this Novice infiuuates) be undtrjlood to bt the Tr)'al of the JnrJ, but to be the Tryal both of Judge and Jury, according to that l'dax11n, Ex FaiJ:o Jus oritur. I mnft confefs my felfto be a Novice to tbis prepofterous Way ofP:ua· phrafing out of pure Reputation. . Why, if (Or) be disjunftive, it mufl: imply fome other Judges, 1 cannot fee, and wonder at the Man's Impertinency, (if what's fo natural to him, were to be wood red at) for though Expreffions, or the Mannet of Phrafing Things, m:ly be disjunfiive, yet that does no Way follow, that the Matters included iu thFf!11 fhould be fo disjunfilve of each other, as to imp_ly a Thing not con-natural.- For Inlbnce, If! !hould fay by Way ofPrnmtfe to a Man, do me j1ub a Service, and I toiU gn)e tbte an Hundred Sh1Dmts or five Pounds: Does Or imply another Sum? Or that fucb a Child is one tho11jtmd _ninety and Five Days, or three Yean old: does or Juppofe a dJff&· rettt Age? .. Infhort. [Per LegemTerr.e] or by the Law of the Land, cannotbeun· derftood exclufivc of 3 Judgment by Peers, it being but a more ample and comprehenfive Way of Phrafing the People's Right and Priviledge, of Tryal by Juries. lf(Or) be confidered Copulatively, he thinks it will fetch in the Jufli· tes, as Co·JuJgu tvith Junes; but that Conclufion ls wrong; for as fuc:h Copulation difowns an Exclufion of Judgment by Peers, and makes tt Part of rheLaw of the Land; Co let me tell him, that what is conceived to be additional (as by the Law of the Land) cannot fo eafily be under!lood of Juflicer, as of the whole legal Form 1nd Method of Try1l in the Cafe menttoned, with the whole Rights and l'riviledges of Juries and Prifoners. That this is not my own Senfe{ bot the Law's, if his fo much honoured LorJ Cook, be to be credited, let him turn to Fol. )O. of the fecond Parr of his l nfiiuues, where he will find this DoElrine, Tryalr by tbe Latu 4 tbe Land, nre by due Co11rje and Proufr of t!Je Law, and they are by IndicT· ment and Prefqztment of good ond hrWful j1'1en: Jlnd wh"! is this! bar, Per Judicium parum, or ]11Jgment hy Juner? But of this more m the App_en~ix. . .. .. Next, Tbat a1 ]unu are Jutlgtt of Law and Fafl, (as hath been unhlp· pi.ly difiinguifht) Men's Intereft, putting that a fonder, that Rcafon and LJ\'¥ origina1ly joyned together) 1 fhall proceed to evidence. . · . 1. The firft Argument i1 drawn ftom the Record o( their own lndt!t· T~~\~diament is found and given into the Court, BiUa Vda, ora uue In· diftrnem, by the grand. Inqlie{l, or Jury of twel\'e Men, ·before the Court c;rpake Cognizan'e of the C~ufe! upon this, it's recommended toPe~~ Vor;. I. T5uth Refcuul from Iznpollurt. Petty-Jury, to judge the whole Matter, and to deliver in their VerdiEl:or Opinion, whether ..d. B. he guilty in Mtmner and Form. If then the lndiEl:ment comprehends both Law and FaEI and that the J~ry is to &i"ve their .Judgment in Manner and Form, and tha'r 1Hannerand }onn tak7m, and 111cludc _the whole Law and Fa:l of the InliOmenr (a:::; they mamfeftly do) then, With grelt Strength and Clearnefs we may infei-, Tbtu the J11ry ·is Judge of Law and Ftlfl. , 2d. My Second Argument is drawn from the Nature of the Verdi& gi~ n• . Judgment is_ the Determination and Refuit of Law~ therefore thofe whD art Aut bon o} jifcl! Dettrminatiom or Rifolutionr, mufl,tetdJ he Judger of the Law. How 1s 1 t poffihle, that ~he Jury can pronounce legale Judicium Leg~l Judgment, and yet not be Judges, whether the F~-·tl proved be ob~ nox1ous to the Law, or not? ]t~diciul11t fJ«t~fi ]urir diOum, or the Mouth of Law, which heing the Juries, they pronounce Law as well as Faa A Verdi£< is a Child compofed of Law and FaEl, and infpirited wirh the Opi-nion of the Jury. · This is further evidenced from their own Proceedings ~t the 0/J-Bai!y where they imprifoned the Jury, for not bringing in their VerdiCt ib as t~ render our Meeting un~aw[ul, which they could never do, and nor be ]udgu Pf thtrt Latv, the Jlleetmg wm fuppoJed tb have tra~JJ$.rejl. In fhon, Since!Suilty, and 1101 Guilty, ate VerdiEts; and th:it they can· not be given, but where a Faa is obnoxious, or not obnoxious to Law,a'n(i Iince none :1re to give that Verdi a, bur rhe Jury; it fo11ows that rhe Jury .are only Judges, _bcc~ufe_ they onl_r can criminate or cleal·. 'And where rhe Power o(Determmanon 1s, there IS the J udgm.ent of Law; but that is in the Jury. Where there is no Law, there can be no Tranfgreffion. N'ow fuch Tranf.. greffion being fuppofed, in the yerdifi of Guilty, it is moft pl:!in, that GJJilt)! cannot be pronounced but wah a Reference to the Law tranfgreft; :1nd that Reference cannot be m:tde, bm by fuch as are Judges of the extent ofthe Law. l· My third Argument !hall be drawn from the Punilhment of Male~ {Jaors. · To puni(h :1nyas a Malef:1Elor, it is requifite he be proved fuch. but it is implJffible he thould be fo. but with refpeE\: to fome Law tranfgreit: Nor can hebe concluded fucha ~rJnfgreffor,unlcfs his FaEl:be judged obnoxious to the Law: And where this Judgment is, there rejlr tbe Judg-fhip of Laio ~nd Fail; for that he !hould be legJJiy punilbt, purfuant to a legal Jud&· ment, and yet_ the A~thors of this legal J udgmcnt, not to be Judges of the Breach of Law, IS fome of the pro(oundeft Non-Senfe in Nature: \~har is this but to render rhe Jury meer C}lpbers, when they !hall onl.Y tell rhe Court, that which the VVitnefs fhall (Wear to their Hand ? But he· Clufe tht:ir Vi:rd_iEl:s are Guilry, or not Guilty, which determine the Fall meritofious ofPunifhment, or Acquittance; therefore have they the only ~ower of Judgment, 4· My fou rth Argument fhall be drawn from a Maxim of their oWn viz. Ex FaOo ]m oritur. Therefore, fays S. S. The }ury are not only }uJCes. It i~ fuch a ·Way .of drawing Coufequence., as I have not been acqua.in:. ted With ; for nothtngca.n be clearer than the contrary to this Conclufion, If out of the Faa the L:iiv ari:fes, then thofe who are Judges of F:~El-, c~nno.t efcJoe being Jud~es of Law alfo; for Faa gives it. . Thts PaffJg~ purs a· 1\c pi11I ultrfl to the Pretence of Difficulty, and the Neceffity of always a eking Q,ueftionS of the jufiites' ; fin·ce' rite Narnfe of ~he Faa clearly proved9 carries the Legality, or contrary in the Bofom, lf nqt in the Front of ic: and is therefore obvious to the plaineft and mo!t l:uftick Capacity. · $. My next Argument !hall be drnwn from the id·i::onft']uen&u of tbeop· pojir~ Opinion, viz. Tbar 1lhn '{lay be bo11ght or foiJ ""' dj tbeir Livu, Li· lurt1t1 and Eflnter. · · For |