| OCR Text |
Show 11G ATROCIOUS JCDGES. (A. D. 16H. nnd that the juugment against I-Iampden for refusing to pay it ou(l'ht to be set a ~ide. Bnunpston was much alarmed when 1 1 e st~v Strafford and Laud arre ted on a charge of high trea- , 1 Lo1·cll{eer1er Finch oblirred to iiy b yond the cas. son, unc b The next impeachn1ent votell was against Bra1np ton Lim- . elf an<l fi ye of his brethren; uut they were more leniently dealt with, for they were only charged with "high crimes and 111i~<lemeanor · ; " and happening to be in the IIouse of Lords wlwn :i\[r. 'Valier brought up the impcachn1cnt, it ·was ordered "that the aid judge~ {(n· the present should enter into rccog- 11 izances of£ 10,000 each to aui<le the censure of Parliament." This bei11g done, they enjoyed their liberty, and continueu in the exercise of their judicial funclions ; but 1\lr. ,J u tice Berkeley, who had m~ule himself particularly obnoxious by his indi:cr<'et inYectives against the l~uritn.ns,* was arrc. ted while .. itting on hi:; tribunal in "'\V cstmin. tcr Ilall, anLl com-mitted a clo ~ e prisoner to N cwgatc. Chief ~T u.-tiec llramp ·ton tricu to tuit igate the indignation of the l1ominant !)OWer· Ly· n·ivino· J'ndo·mcnt in the case of b 0' 0 Chambers v. Sir Edward Bnm.fielcl, J.lf((yor nf London, against the legality of ship n1oney. To nn n.ction of trcspa::;s anll fal e impri.:!onmcnt, the defendant ju:"ltifle<l by ]Jis plea under " a \Vrit for not paying of n1oncy asse;:;sed upon the plaintiff towards the finding of a ,~hip." There was a (lenlUlTCl' to the plea, so that the legality of the writ cmne dircdly in issue. II :t ' c,n..;(~ The counsel for the defendant rose to cite amp< tens •l-and Lord Say's ca~e, in which all their lorcbhip h~lU • Some of our American federal j ud~es arc in the ha.lJi t of declaimi.ng much in ihc same style against abolitionists- who, indeed, may bo consH\ rrcu_, as occupy.m g a pos1. t'w n m. our present a ff . . e ·pe ~ts p·uallr :ur::; 1n ma.ny r ::; t: • to that of the English Puritans in the times of Charles I.- Ed. A. D. 1641.) JOHN BRA)IPSTO~. 117 concurred, as being decisive in hi.· favor; but Brampston, C. J., said,- " 'Ve cannot now hear this ca;:;e argued. It. hnth been voted and resolved in the upper llouse of Pa.rlian1ent and in the IIou e of Con1mons, nullo contradiceale, that the . aid writ, and what was done Ly color thereof~ was illegaL Therefore, without further di::3pute thereof, the court gives judgtnent for the plaintiff."* The C01nmons were n1ueh pleased with thi ~ submis, ive conduct, but p'l'o forma they exhibited articles of impeachment against the chief justice. To the article founded on ship money he answereu, "that at the conference of the judges he had given it as his opinion that the king could only impose the charge in case of necessity, and only <luring the continuance of that nece. sity." The impcachmen t was allowed to drop; and the chief justicc see1ns to have coquetted a good deal with the parliainentary leaders, for, aCter the king lmd taken the field, he continued to sit in his court at 'Ve tminster, and to act a an attendant to the stnall number of peec who a - embled there, constituting the !louse of Lord.-. But when a battle was cxpecte 1, Charles, l>eing to1cl that the chief ju ~tice of I~ngland was chief coroner, and, by Yirtue of his ofllce, on view of the body of a rebel .Jain in battle, had authority to pronounce jutlgment of attainder upon him, so as to work corruption of blood and forfeiture of lands and goo<ls, thought it would be \· ery con,·cnient to have such an officer in the camp, aud ~ummoned Lord Chief Ju tice • Having once refused to hear counsel against ship money, he now undertook to square the account by refusing to hear counsel for it.- Eel. |
