accepted in law, - then all the Property of the People was the King's; if the courts were correct in their judgments giving the King the power by his mere will to imprison any subject, during pleasure, and also to do the same even with members of Parliament and punish them for debates in the House of Commons, then all liberty was at an end, and the King's Prerogative extended over all acts of Parliament, all property, all persons.

6

5. One step more must be taken to make the logic of despotism perfect, and complete the chain. That work was delegated to clergymen purchased for the purpose-Rev. Dr. Robert Sibthorpe and Rev. Dr. Roger Mainwaring. The first in a sermon "of rendering all their dues," preached and printed in 1627, says, "the Prince who is the Head, and makes his Court and Council, it is his duty to direct and make laws. He doth whatsoever pleaseth him; where the word of the King is there is power, and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"" And again, "If Princes command any thing which subjects may not perform, because it is against the Laws of God, or of Nature, or impossible; yet Subjects are bound to undergo the punishment, without either resisting, or railing, or reviling, and are to yield a Passive Obedience where they cannot exhibit an Active one, but in all others he is bound to active obedience." 1

Mainwaring went further, and in two famous sermons — preached, one on the 4th of July, 1628, the other on the 29th of the same month

declared that "the King is not bound to observe the Laws of the Realm concerning the Subject's Rights and Liberties, but that his Royal will and Command, in imposing Loans, and Taxes, without consent of Parliament, doth oblige the subject's conscience upon pain of eternal damnation. That those who refused to pay this Loan of fended against the Law of God and the King's Supreme Authority, and became guilty of Impiety, Disloyalty, and Rebellion. And that the authority of Parliament is not necessary for the raising of Aid and Subsidies; and that the slow proceedings of such great Assemblies were not fitted for the Supply of the State's urgent necessities, but would rather produce sundry impediments to the just designs of Princes." "That Kings partake of omnipotence with God." 2

2

The nation was enraged. Mainwaring was brought before Par

1 Cited in Franklyn, 208; 1 Rushworth, 422, 436, 444.

...

66

Franklyn, 208, 592. These two Sermons were published in a volume with the title "Religion and Allegiance." Published by his Majesty's special command." (London, 1628.) Prof. Stuart seems inspired by this title in giving a name to his remarkable publication — written with the same spirit as Dr. Mainwaring's—“ Conscience and the Constitution." (Andover, 1851.) See 3 St. Tr. 335; 1 Rushworth, 422, 436, 585, et al.; 1 Hallam, 307; 2 Parl. Hist. 388, 410.

liament, punished with fine and imprisonment and temporary suspension from office and perpetual disability for ecclesiastical preferment. But the King who ordered the publication of the sermons, and who doubtless had induced him to preach them, immediately made him Rector of Stamford Parish, soon appointed him Dean of Worcester, and finally in 1645 made him Bishop of St. David's. A few years ago such clerical apostasy would seem astonishing to an American. But now, Gentlemen of the Jury, so rapid has been the downfal of public virtue, that men filling the pulpits once graced and dignified by noblest puritanic piety, now publicly declare there is no law of God above the fugitive slave bill. Nay, a distinguished American minister boldly proclaimed his readiness to send his own Mother (or "Brother") into eternal bondage! Thus modern history explains the old; and the cheap bait of a republican bribe can seduce American dissenters, as the wealthy lure of royal gifts once drew British churchmen into the same pit of infamy. Alas, hypocrisy is of no sect or nation.

Gentlemen, the Government of England once decreed "that every clergyman, four times in the year, should instruct his parishioners in the Divine right of Kings, and the damnable sin of resistance." 1 No Higher Law! America has ministers who need no act of Parliament to teach them to do the same; they run before they are sent.

6. After the head of one Stuart was shorn off and his son had returned, no wiser nor better than his father, the old progress of despotism began anew. I pass over what would but repeat the former history, and take two new examples to warn the nation with, differing from the old only in form.

In 1672, Charles II. published a proclamation denouncing rigorous penalties against all such as should speak disrespectfully of his acts, or hearing others thus speak should not immediately inform the magistrates! Nay, in 1675, after he had sold himself to the French king, and was in receipt of an annual pension therefrom, he had this testoath published for all to sign: "I do solemnly declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatever to take up arms against the king, . . . and that I will not, at any time to come, endeavor the alteration of the government, either in Church or State." 2

An oath yet more stringent was enforced in Scotland with the edge of the sword, namely, to defend all the prerogatives of the crown, never without the king's permission to take part in any deliberations upon ecclesiastical or civil affairs; and never to seek any reform in Church or State."

1 2 Campbell, 460; 1 Rushworth, 1205.

2 Carroll's Counter Revolution (Lond. 1846), 99, et seq.

Notwithstanding all that the Charleses had done to break down the liberty of Englishmen, still the great corporate towns held out, intrenched behind their charters, and from that bulwark both annoyed the despot and defended the civil rights of the citizen. They also must be destroyed. So summons of quo warranto were served upon them, which frightened the smaller corporations and brought down their charters. Jeffreys was serviceable in this wicked work, and on his return from his Northern Circuit, rich with these infamous spoils, as a reward for destroying the liberties of his countrymen, the king publicly presented him with a ring, in token of "acceptance of his most eminent services." This fact was duly blazoned in the Gazette, and Jeffreys was "esteemed a mighty favorite," which, "together with his lofty airs, made all the charters, like the walls of Jericho, fall down before him, and he returned, laden with surrenders, the spoil of towns." 1

London still remained the strong-hold of commerce, of the Protestant Religion, and of liberal Ideas in domestic Government; for though subsequently corrupted by lust of gain, which sought a monopoly, the great commercial estates and families of England were not then on the side of Despotism, as now strangely happens in America. When the king sought to ruin Shaftesbury,— a corrupt man doubtless, but then on the side of liberty, the enemy of encroaching despotism, a London Grand-Jury refused to find a bill, and was warmly applauded by the city. Their verdict of IGNORAMUS was a "personal liberty bill" for that time, and therefor was the king's wrath exceeding hot, for "Ignoramus was mounted in Cathedra," and there was a stop put to such wickedness. So London must be brought down. She refused to surrender her Charter. In 1682 the king proceeded to wrest it from her by the purchased hand of the courts of law. But even they were not quite adequate to the work. So Chief Justice Pemberton was displaced, and Saunders, a man as offensive in his personal habit of body as he was corrupt in conduct and character was put in his office. Dolbin, too just for the crime demanded of him, was turned out, and Withins made to succeed him. For "so great a weight was there at stake as could not be trusted to men of doubtful principles," says North. Saunders, who had plotted this whole matter, was struck with an apoplexy when sentence was to be given, but sent his opinion in writing. Thus on the judgment given by only two judges, who assigned no reasons for their decision, it was declared that the Charter of London was forfeit,

18 St. Tr. 1038, and the quotations from North (Examen.) Sprat, and Roger Coke, in note on p. 1041, et seq. See, too, Fox, James II. p. 48, 54, and Appendix, Barillon's Letter of Dec. 7th, 1684.

and the liberties and franchises of the city should "be seized into the king's hands." 1

Thus fell the charter of London! Gentlemen of the Jury, the same sword was soon to strike at the neck of New England; the charter of Massachusetts could not be safe in such a time.

In 1686 James II. wished to destroy Protestantism, — not that he loved the Roman form of religion, but that tyranny which it would help him get and keep. So he claimed the right by his royal prerogative to dispense with any laws of the land. Of the twelve Judges of England eight were found on his side, and the four unexpectedly proven faithful were at once dismissed from office and their places filled with courtiers of the king, and the court was unanimous that the king had a constitutional right to destroy the constitution. Then he had not only command of the purses of his subjects and their bodies, but also of their mind and conscience, and could dictate the actual Religion of the People as well as the official "religion" of the priests.2

One State-secret lay at the bottom of the Stuarts' plans,- to appoint base men for judges, and if by accident a just man came upon the bench, to keep him in obscurity or to hustle him from his post. What names they offer us Kelyng, Finch, Saunders, Wright, Jeffreys, Scroggs! 3 infamous creatures, but admirable instruments to destroy generous men withal and devise means for the annihilation of the liberties of the people. Historians commonly dwell on the fields of battle, recording the victories of humanity, whereof the pike and gun were instruments; but pass idly over the more important warfare which goes on in the court house, only a few looking on, where lawyers are the champions of mankind, and the battle turns on a sentence; nay, on a word which determines the welfare of a nation for ages to come. On such little hinges of law do the great gates hang, and open or shut to let in the happiness or the ruin of millions of men! Naseby and Worcester are important places truly, venerable for great deeds. Cromwell and Blake are names not likely to perish while men can appreciate the heroism which sheds blood. But Westminster Hall has rung with more important thunder than cannon ever spoke, and Pym and Selden, St. John and Hampden nay, Penn, Bunyan, Fox, Lilburne - have done great service for mankind. Gentlemen of the Jury, it is a matter of great magnitude which hinges on the small question of fact and law to-day. You are to open or shut for Humanity. If the People make themselves sheep there will be wolves enough to eat you up.

12 Hallam, 333; Burnet, Own Times (London, 1838), 350; 8 St. Tr. 1039, 1081 note, 1267, et seq.; Campbell, Justices, 63; North's Examen. 626; Fox, 54. 211 St. Tr. 1165; 12 Ibid. 358.

3 This last name is thought to be extinct in Great Britain, but I find one Thomas Scruggs in Massachusetts in 1635 et post, 1 Mass. Records (1628-1641), index.

It is difficult to calculate the amount of evil wrought by such corrupt judges as I have spoken of; they poison the fountains of society. I need not speak of monsters like Scroggs and Jeffreys, whose names rot in perpetual infamy, but creatures less ignoble, like Wright, Saunders, Finch, Kelyng, Thurlow, Loughborough, and their coadjutors, must be regarded as far more dangerous than thieves, murderers, or pirates. A cruel, insolent Judge selecting the worst customs, the most oppressive statutes, and decisions which outrage human naturewhat an amount of evil he can inflict on groaning humanity!

Gentlemen of the Jury, in this long sad history of judicial tyranny in England there is one thing particularly plain: such judges hate freedom of speech, they would restrict the Press, the Tongue, yes, the Thought of mankind. Especially do they hate any man who examines the actions of the government and its servile courts, and their violation of justice and the laws. They wish to take exemplary and malignant vengeance on all such. Let me freshen your knowledge of some examples.

1. In 1410 the government made a decree "that whatsoever they were that should rede the Scriptures in the mother tongue, they should forfeit land, catel, body, lif, and godes from their heyres forever, and so be condempned for heretykes to God, enemies to the crowne, and most errant traiters to the land." The next year, in one day thirty-nine persons were first hanged and then burned for this "crime." 1

2. In 1590, Mr. Udall, a Puritan minister, published a book, "Demonstrations of Discipline," not agreeable to the authorities. He was brought to a trial for a Felony, not merely a "misdemeanor." The jury were ordered by the judge to find him guilty of that crime if they were satisfied that he published the book, — for the court were to judge whether the deed amounted to that crime! was found "guilty," and died in jail after nearly three years of cruel confinement.2

He

3. In 1619 one Williams of Essex wrote a book explaining a passage in the book of Daniel as foretelling the death of James I. in 1621. He inclosed the manuscript in a box, sealed it, and secretly conveyed it to the king. For this he was tried for high treason, and of course executed. "Punitur Affectus, licet non sequatur Effectus," said the court, for " Scribere est agere," "Punish the wish though the object be not reached," for "writing is doing!" 8

11 St. Tr. 252.

2

1 St. Tr. 1271; 1 Neal's Puritans (N. Y. 1844), 190. See 16 Parl. Hist. 1276, where Mr. Dunning says this is the first example of such a charge to a jury.

3 2 St. Tr. 1085.