Page images
PDF
EPUB

S. S. GREGORY.

having passed the Libel Act, it reached the Lords for their concurrence.

Thurlow had managed to prevent its consideration at a previous session; and on this occasion did all he could to defeat it.

He summoned all the judges of England and procured from them a unanimous opinion that the question of libel or no libel was one of pure law for the court alone. Lord Bathurst, a former Chancellor, and Kenyon, Chief Justice of King's Bench, combined with him.

But Camden met them without fear and without hesitation. On the 16th of May, 1792, rising with difficulty and leaning upon a cane-he was then seventy-nine-he thus began his remarks:

"I thought never to have troubled your lordships more. The hand of age is upon me, and I have for some time felt myself unable to take an active part in your deliberations. On the present occasion, however, I consider myself particularly, or rather personally bound to address you, and probably for the last time. My opinion on this subject has been long known; it is upon record; it lies on your lordship's table; I shall retain it and I trust I have yet strength to demonstrate that it is consonant to law and the Constitution."

His manner had been at first slow and hesitating, his voice low and tremulous; but as he proceeded he stood erect, his voice became firm and strong and he spoke with the animation and fire of youth. He expressed his convictions upon the question at issue in this emphatic language:

"So clear it is that the jury are to decide the question of 'libel or no libel,' that if all the bench, and all the bar, and the unanimous voice of Parliament were to declare it to be otherwise, I could not change my opinion. I ask your lordships to say who shall have the care of the liberty of the press? The judges or the people of England? The jury are the people of England. The judges are independent men. Be it so. But

SPECIAL ADDRESS.

are they totally beyond the corruption of the crown? Is it impossible to show them favor in any way whatever? The truth is they possibly may be corrupted. Juries never can. What would be the effect of giving judges the whole control of the press? Nothing would appear that could be disagreeable to the government. As well might an act of Parliament pass, that nothing should be printed or published but panegyrics on ministers. Such doctrine being acted upon, we should soon lose every thought of freedom. If it is not law, it should be made law-that in prosecutions for libel, the jury should decide upon the whole case. In the full catalogue of crimes, there is no one so fit to be determined by a jury as libel."

The result was that after two nights of debate the bill was ordered to second reading. Thurlow attemped unsuccessfully to defeat it by amendment. He then appealed to Camden to permit an amendment, authorizing the court to grant a new trial if dissatisfied with the verdict for defendant.

Camden inquired: "What, after a verdict of acquittal?" Thurlow said, "Yes," to which Camden replied, "No, I thank you."

The bill passed, in form declaratory of the common law, and the great struggle was ended.

The principle thus established has become a part of the constitutional law of this country. Whether it involves the decision of questions of law by a jury in this class of cases it is not necessary now to debate. That a jury may sometimes acquit contrary to the law in any criminal case is doubtless true. That prosecutions for libel stand upon the same footing as all other criminal prosecutions in this respect was established by this memorable struggle. That is, in such cases the jury is not restricted to a finding as to the mere fact of publication, but must pass upon the whole case and render a verdict as to the guilt or innocence of the accused accordingly.

S. S. GREGORY.

The answer given by Camden to Thurlow, which I have quoted, was his last public utterance.

He died in London on the 13th of April, 1794, in his eightyfirst year. He had been made an Earl in 1786 and created Viscount Bayham.

His

In politics he was a Whig. He was amiable and gentle in private life; a humane and upright judge, a statesman devoted to the cause of humanity and liberty and always ready to lend his aid to wise reforms and progressive measures. views as to the validity of general warrants and as to the rights of juries in prosecutions for libel, as I have already said were incorporated in the constitutional law of England and quite generally in that of this country; a striking illus tration of how much one brave man can accomplish in a righteous cause. As an orator he was overshadowed by Burke, Fox and above all Chatham, whose awful power raised him above all his contemporaries. Yet as to these two great questions, he certainly exercised an influence upon his age and country not inferior to that of either of these great men; indeed, probably more than all of them combined. For he had the professional training and attainments which they lacked.

Sir Thomas Erskine May in his "History of the English Constitution," speaking of this age, makes these interesting observations:

"No reign was more graced by the learning and accomplishments of its judges. They were superior to every cor rupt influence; but all their sympathies and predilections were with power. The enemies of Lord Mansfield asserted that he was better calculated to fill the office of praetor under Justinian, than to preside as chief criminal judge of this kingdom in the reign of George III.' Neither Lord Mansfield himself nor any other judge deserved so grave a censure; but with the illustrious exception of Lord Camden, the most eminent magistrates of that reign were unfriendly to liberty.

SPECIAL ADDRESS.

Who so allied to the court, so stanch to arbitrary principles of government, so hostile to popular rights and remedial laws, as Lord Mansfield, Lord Thurlow, Lord Loughborough, Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough? The first and last of these so little regarded their independence in the exercise of the chief criminal judicature of the realm that they entered the cabinet as ministers of the crown, and identified themselves with the executive government of the State. What further illustration is needed of the close relation of the judgment seat with power? But no sooner had principles of freedom and responsible government gained ascendency, than judges were animated by independence and liberality. Henceforward they administered justice in the spirit of Lord Camden; and promoted the amendment of the laws, with the enlightenment of statesmen." 2 May 552-3.

The estimate of Camden's character expressed by this author is shared by others whose opinions are entitled to consideration.

Of him Brougham says:

"Among the names that adorn the legal profession, there are few which stand so high as that of Camden. His reputation as a lawyer could not have gained this place for him; even as a judge he would not have commanded such distinction, though on the bench he greatly increased the fame which he brought from the Bar; but in the Senate he had no professional superior, and his integrity for the most part spotless in all the relations of public life, with the manly firmness which he uniformly displayed in maintaining the free principles of the Constitution, wholly unmixed with any leaning toward extravagant, popular opinions, or any disposition to court vulgar favor, justly entitle him to the very highest place among the judges of England."

Lord Campbell begins his life of Camden in this way:

"I now enter on a most pleasing task. The subject of the following memoir was one of the brightest ornaments of

S. S. GREGORY.

my profession, and of my party, for I glory, like him, in the name of Whig, although I hope I have never been reluctant to point out the errors of Whig, or to praise Tory talent, honor and consistency.

"From some of the opinions of Lord Camden I must differ, and I can not always defend his conduct; but he was & profound jurist, and an enlightened statesman-his character was stainless in public and in private life. When raised to elevated station, he continued true to the principles which he had early avowed. When transferred to the House of Peers, he enhanced his fame as an assertor of popular privileges. When an ex-Chancellor, by a steady co-operation with his former political associates, he conferred greater benefits on his country, and had still a greater share of public admiration and esteem, than while he presided on the woolsack. When the prejudices of the sovereign and of the people of England produced civil war, his advice would have preserved the integrity of the empire. When America, by wanton oppression was forever lost to us, his efforts mainly contributed to the pacification with the new Republic. And Englishmen, to the latest generation, will honor his name for having secured personal freedom, by putting an end to arbitrary ar rests under general warrants, for having established the constitutional rights of juries, and for having placed on an imperishable basis the liberty of the press."

These eulogiums are not extravagant. They are the just homage paid by men distinguished in their profession, two of whom succeeded him in the custody of the great seal, to this accomplished lawyer, learned judge and fearless advocate of liberty and popular right.

I shall attempt no further encomium upon this great character.

The lesson of his life is useful and merits attentive contemplation. It may well be studied, not only by the profes

« PreviousContinue »