Суд присяжных в старые времена.

Томас Фрост.

КОГДА мы поздравляем себя, как мы так склонны делать, о продолжительности существования системы суда присяжных в Англии., а также защиту, которую он предоставляет от попыток злоупотребления законом в ущерб обвиняемому., мы часто не помним о том, что институт не всегда оказывался гарантией, когда суд, действует под влиянием Короны, пытался добиться судимости. Только во второй половине шестнадцатого века присяжные начали проявлять решимость не уступать в своих суждениях желаниям высокопоставленных лиц., получившее дальнейшее развитие в XVII в.. Интересная иллюстрация старого духа судей, и новый дух жюри, дается судом над сэром Николасом Трокмортоном, в 1554, по обвинению в государственной измене, в заговоре против смерти или низложения королевы, и захват силой оружия Лондонского Тауэра. Обвинение вели сержант Стэнфорд и генеральный прокурор., Грифон, бывший ведущий; и примечательно, что и они, и председатель Верховного суда Бромли допрашивали заключенного почти так же, как это до сих пор принято во Франции и Бельгии., стремясь получить доказательства, которые осудили бы его из его собственных уст. Попытка не удалась, и единственное обвинительное доказательство против заключенного содержалось в предполагаемых признаниях Уинтера и Крофтса., кто, Однако, не были вызваны в качестве свидетелей.

Жюри, после нескольких часов раздумий, вынесен оправдательный приговор, после чего лорд-главный судья обратился к ним угрожающим тоном, говоря, «Помните себя лучше. Рассматривали ли вы по существу все доказательства в том виде, в каком они были заявлены и процитированы?? Дело касается Королевского Высочества и вас самих.. Будьте внимательны к тому, что делаете». Жюри было твердо, Однако, и бригадир ответил на увещевание станка, «Мы нашли его невиновным, согласна со всей нашей совестью». Затем поднялся генеральный прокурор., и обращение в суд, сказал, «Пожалуйста,, мои лорды, поскольку кажется, что эти присяжные заседатели, которые странным образом оправдали заключенного от его измены, в которой он был обвинен, немедленно покинет суд, Я молю вас за королеву, чтобы они и каждый из них были связаны подпиской о невыезде в размере 500 фунтов стерлингов за штуку., to answer to such matters as they shall be charged with in the Queen’s behalf, whensoever they shall be charged or called.” The court went beyond even this audacious request, for they actually committed the jury to prison! Four of them were discharged shortly afterwards, having so little moral stamina left as to make a humble confession that they had done wrong; but the remaining eight were brought before the Star Chamber and severely dealt with, three being ordered to pay a fine of £2,000 each, and the others £200 each.

In the following reign, in a case in which three persons were indicted for murder, and the jury found them guilty of manslaughter only, contrary to the direction of the court, присяжные были оштрафованы и связаны подпиской о невыезде за их будущее «хорошее поведение». Решение лорда-канцлера, два главных судьи, и главный барон, в царствование Якова I., устанавливает, что при обнаружении человека виновный по обвинению, жюри не должно подвергаться сомнению; но когда присяжные оправдали заключенного против того, что суд считает доказательством вины, они могут быть обвинены в Звездной палате, «за их пристрастность в признании явного преступника невиновным». В 1667, мы находим эту точку зрения распространенной на случай, когда большое жюри игнорирует законопроект на основаниях, которые суд не счел достаточными.. Главный судья Келинг в том же году оштрафовал большое жюри графства Сомерсет., за то, что не нашел верного счета против человека, обвиняемого в убийстве; но, говорится в отчете, «Потому что они были джентльменами с хорошей репутацией в графстве, суд пощадил штраф». Этот случай, и несколько других, в которых тот же судья действовал аналогичным образом., были доведены до сведения Палаты общин, Однако, и это собрание постановило, «что прецеденты и практика штрафования или заключения в тюрьму присяжных за вынесение вердиктов являются незаконными».

Несмотря на эту резолюцию Палаты общин, Уильям Пенн, и еще один член Общества друзей, по имени Мид, обвинение в Олд-Бейли за то, что, с другими неизвестными лицами, незаконно и шумно собрались на Грейсчерч-стрит, в лондонском Сити, the Recorder dealt with the jury in a manner which caused the illegality of fining jurors for their verdicts to be again brought into question. The indictment set forth that Penn, by agreement with and abetment of Mead, did in the open street speak and preach to the persons there assembled, by reason whereof a great concourse of people gathered and remained a long time, in contempt of the King and the law, and to the great terror and disturbance of many of His Majesty’s liege subjects. The trial took place before the Recorder, the Lord Mayor, and the Aldermen; and when witnesses had deposed that Penn had preached, and that Mead was there with him, the Recorder summed up the evidence, and the jury retired to consider their verdict. They were absent a considerable time, at length returning with the verdict that Penn was “guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street.”

“Is that all?” the Recorder asked.

“That is all I have in commission,” replied the foreman.

“You had as good say nothing,” observed the Recorder, and the Lord Mayor added, “Was it not an unlawful assembly? You mean he was speaking to a tumult of people there.”

"Мой господин,” returned the foreman, “that is all I have in commission.”

“The law of England,” said the Recorder “will not allow you to part until you have given in your verdict.”

“We have given in our verdict,” returned the jury, “and we can give in no other.”

“Gentlemen,” said the Recorder, “you have not given in your verdict, and you had as good say nothing; therefore go and consider it once more, that we may make an end of this troublesome business.”

The jury then asked for pen, ink, and paper, and the request being complied with, they again retired, returning after a brief interval with their verdict in writing. They found Penn “guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly met together in Gracechurch Street,” and Mead not guilty.

“Gentlemen,” said the Recorder, regarding the jury angrily, “you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the court will accept; and you shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court. We will have a verdict, or you shall starve for it.”

Penn protested against this course, upon which the Recorder ordered the officers of the court to stop his mouth or remove him. The jury not leaving their box, the Recorder again directed them to retire and re-consider their verdict. Penn made a spirited remonstrance. “The agreement of twelve men," сказал он, “is a verdict in law, and such a one having been given by the jury, I require the clerk of the peace to record it, as he will answer at his peril. And if the jury bring in another verdict contradictory to this, I affirm they are perjured men in law. You are Englishmen,” he added, turning to the jury, “mind your privilege; give not away your right.” The court then adjourned to the following morning, when the prisoners were brought to the bar, and the jury, who had been locked up all night, were sent for. They were firm of purpose, and through their foreman persisted in their verdict.

“What is this to the purpose?” demanded the Recorder, “I will have a verdict.” Then addressing a juror, named Bushel, whom he had threatened on the previous day, он сказал, “you are a factious fellow; I will set a mark on you, and whilst I have anything to do in the city, I will have an eye on you.”

Penn again protested against the jury being threatened in this manner, upon which the Lord Mayor ordered that his mouth should be stopped, and that the gaoler should bring fetters and chain him to the floor; but it does not appear that this was done. The jury were again directed to retire and bring in a different verdict, and they withdrew under protest, the foreman saying, “We have given in our verdict, and all agreed to it; and if we give in another, it will be a force upon us to save our lives.”

According to the narrative written by Penn and Mead, and quoted in Forsyth’s “History of Trial by Jury,” this scene took place on Sunday morning, and the court adjourned again to the following day, когда, unless they were supplied with food surreptitiously, they must have fasted since Saturday. The foreman gave in their verdict in writing, as before, to which they had severally subscribed their names. The clerk received it, but was prevented from reading it by the Recorder, who desired him to ask for a “positive verdict.”

“That is our verdict,” said the foreman. “We have subscribed to it.”

“Then hearken to your verdict,” said the clerk. “You say that William Penn is not guilty in manner and form as he stands indicted; you say that William Mead is not guilty in manner and form as he stands indicted; and so say you all.”

The jury responded affirmatively, and their names were then called over, and each juror was commanded to give his separate verdict, which they did unanimously.

“I am sorry, gentlemen,” the Recorder then said, “you have followed your own judgments and opinions, rather than the good and wholesome advice which was given you. God keep my life out of your hands! But for this the court fines you forty marks a man, and imprisonment till paid.”

Penn was about to leave the dock, but was prevented from doing so, upon which he said, “I demand my liberty, being freed by the jury.”

“You are in for your fines,” the Lord Mayor told the prisoners.

“Fines, for what?” demanded Penn.

“For contempt of court,” replied the Lord Mayor.

“I ask,” exclaimed Penn, “if it be according to the fundamental laws of England, that any Englishman should be fined or amerced but by the judgment of his peers or jury; since it expressly contradicts the fourteenth and twenty-ninth chapters of the Great Charter of England, which say, ‘No freeman ought to be amerced but by the oath of good and lawful men of the vicinage.’”

“Take him away,” cried the Recorder.

“They then,” continues the narrative, “hauled the prisoners into the bail-dock, and from thence sent them to Newgate, for non-payment of their fines; and so were their jury. But the jury were afterwards discharged upon an habeas corpus, returnable in the Common Pleas, where their commitment was adjudged illegal.” Even then, judges appear to have remained unconvinced of the illegality of the practice, or stubborn in their desire to enforce their own views or wishes upon juries; for the question was not regarded as finally settled until the decision in the Court of Common Pleas was clinched, в том же году, by a similar judgment of the Court of King’s Bench.