Proceedings in an action for debt, between the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, plaintiff, and John Horne Tooke, Esq. defendant / published by the defendant.

  • Tooke, John Horne, 1736-1812.
Date:
1792
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Proceedings in an action for debt, between the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, plaintiff, and John Horne Tooke, Esq. defendant / published by the defendant. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    36/42 (page 36)
    [ 3« ] copy of the Journals of the Houfe of Commons, and the Speaker’s certificate have been produced.—Now what are you to Try and examine ?—'The Speaker’s certificate ?—If the Speaker’s certificate is fufiicient to take away our pro- perty ; why fiiould not the Speaker’s certificate be follow- ed by execution ? What occafion is there to call a Jury to- gether to try nothing ; and }ret to mfke them folemnly fwear to Try, Well and Truly ? I afk again, unlefs it was for the purpofe of perjuring a Jury, why might not the Execution have immediately followed the Speaker’s certifi- cate, as well as your verdict ? Why ? There was no reafon upon earth but one.-—It was done to colour the tranfa&ion. They are not yet quite ripe enough to ftrip from us at once (and let us know it at the time) our right to a Trial by Ju- ry. But they have compleatly done it in effeft. They have left us the Jury, but taken away the Trial. They have, by a fubterfuge, taken away the Trial, which is the im- portant part ; and have left us the Jury, which without Trial is a mere mockery. But the virtual reprefentatives of the people may very confidently think a virtual trial by Jury quite fufiicient for us. I with they would themfelves be contented with virtual falaries and penfions, and with virtual taxes too. But if they thought it necefiary, merely to colour the bufinefs, that it ihould nominally pals through a Jham Jury ; why did they not alter the Juryman’s oath, and not compel him to add individual perjury to the bafe- nefs of betraying a public duty ? Why compel the Jury- man to fwear Well and Truly to Try, as a necefiary preli- minary to a verdift, what the a£t directs he fball not Try at all ? Perhaps they would have altered your oath, if they had thought of it. Perhaps they would have left out— Well and Truly to Try. For they have Tried it: and then fend thefe Gentlemen here to tell you—after you have fworn to Try—that you have nothing to Try! It is a mockery equal to the Injury. Why, you cannot, with- out perjury, give a verdict till you have Tried it. Now, if there can be any verdift under fuch an Aft, it is gi- ven already ; the Trial, if there has been any, is all over before the queftion comes to you : and the effeftual ver- dift is given before you (peak. You are only leit to fay, that a verdift has been already given by fomebody eife, but you know not by whom or for what reafon. And all that you have to do, if indeed you can do any thing, is, to fay, that you have feen a paper containing the verdict, figned by the Speaker. Now, Gentlemen, can any man be fo blind as not to fcq that, though this Aftion comes betore you in the fnape of an aftion for debt, the Act of Parliament itfelf is in faft a