Atrocious Judges Part 4
The next occasion of his attracting the notice of the public was when he presided at the trials of Smeaton and the other supposed gallants of Anne Boleyn. Luckily for him, no particulars of these trials have come down to us, and we remain ignorant of the arts by which a conviction was obtained, and even a _confession_--although there is every reason to believe that the parties were innocent. According to the rules of evidence which then prevailed, the convictions and confessions of the gallants were to be given in evidence to establish the guilt of the unhappy queen, for whose death Henry was now as impatient as he had once been to make her his wife.
When the lord high steward and the peers a.s.sembled for her trial, Fitzjames and the other judges attended, merely as a.s.sessors, to advise on any point of law which might arise. I do not find that they were consulted till the verdict of guilty had been recorded, and sentence was to be p.r.o.nounced. _Burning_ was the death which the law appointed for a woman attainted of treason; yet as Anne had been Queen of England, some peers suggested that it might be left to the king to determine whether she should die such a cruel and ignominious death, or be _beheaded_, a punishment supposed to be attended with less pain and less disgrace. But then a difficulty arose whether, although the king might remit all the atrocities of the sentence on a man for treason, except beheading, which is part of it, he could order a person to be beheaded who was sentenced to be burnt. A solution was proposed, that she should be sentenced by the lord high steward to be "burnt or beheaded at the king's pleasure;" and the opinion of the judges was asked, "whether such a sentence could be lawfully p.r.o.nounced."
_Fitzjames, C. J._--"My lords, neither myself nor any of my learned brothers have ever known or found in the records, or read in the books, or known or heard of, a sentence of death in the alternative or disjunctive, and incline to think that it would be bad for uncertainty. The law delights in certainty. Where a choice is given, by what means is the choice to be exercised? And if the sheriff receives no special directions, what is he to do? Is sentence to be stayed till special directions are given by the king? and if no special directions are given, is the prisoner, being attainted, to escape all punishment? Prudent antiquity advises you _stare super antiquas vias_; and that which is without precedent is without safety."
After due deliberation, it was held that an absolute sentence of beheading would be lawful, and it was p.r.o.nounced accordingly; the court being greatly comforted by recollecting that no writ of error lay, and that their judgment could not be reversed.
Fitzjames died in the year 1539, before this judgment served as a precedent for that upon the unfortunate Queen Catharine Howard; and he was much missed when the b.l.o.o.d.y statute of the Six Articles brought so many, both of the old and of the reformed faith, on capital charges, before the Court of King's Bench.
CHAPTER V.
THOMAS FLEMING.
The greatest part of my readers never before read or heard of the name of Thomas Fleming; yet, starting in the profession of the law with Francis Bacon, he was not only preferred to him by attorneys, but by prime ministers, and he had the highest professional honors showered upon him, while the immortal philosopher, orator, and fine writer continued to languish at the bar without any advancement, notwithstanding all his merits and all his intrigues. But Fleming had superior good fortune, and enjoyed temporary consequences, because he was a mere lawyer--because he harbored no idea or aspirations beyond the routine of Westminster Hall--because he did not mortify the vanity of the witty, or alarm the jealousy of the ambitious.
He was the younger son of a gentleman of small estate in the Isle of Wight. I do not find any account of his early education, and very little interest can now be felt respecting it; although we catch so eagerly at any trait of the boyhood of his rival, whom he despised. Soon after he was called to the bar, by unwearied drudgery he got into considerable practice; and it was remarked that he always tried how much labor he could bestow upon every case intrusted to him, while his more lively compet.i.tors tried with how little labor they could creditably perform their duty.
In the end of the year 1594, he was called to the degree of serjeant, along with eight others, and was thought to be the most deeply versed in the law of real actions of the whole batch. It happened that, soon after, there was a vacancy in the office of solicitor general, on the promotion of Sir Edward c.o.ke to be attorney general. Bacon moved heaven and earth that he himself might succeed to it. He wrote to his uncle, Lord Treasurer Burleigh, saying, "I hope you will think I am no unlikely piece of wood to shape you a true servant of." He wrote to the Queen Elizabeth, saying, "I affect myself to a place of my profession, such as I do see divers younger in proceeding to myself, and men of no great note, do without blame aspire unto; but if your majesty like others better, I shall, with the Lacedemonian, be glad that there is such choice of abler men than myself."
He accompanied this letter with a valuable jewel, to show off her beauty.
He did what he thought would be still more serviceable, and, indeed, conclusive; he prevailed upon the young Earl of Ess.e.x, then in the highest favor with the aged queen, earnestly to press his suit. But the appointment was left with the lord treasurer, and he decided immediately against his nephew, who was reported to be no lawyer, from giving up his time to profane learning--who had lately made an indiscreet, although very eloquent, speech in the House of Commons--and who, if promoted, might be a dangerous rival to his cousin, Robert Cecil, then entering public life, and destined by his sire to be prime minister. The cunning old fox then inquired who would be a competent person to do the queen's business in her courts, and would give no uneasiness elsewhere; and he was told by several black-letter judges whom he consulted that "Serjeant Fleming was the man for him." After the office had been kept vacant by these intrigues above a year, Serjeant Fleming was actually appointed. Bacon's anguish was exasperated by comparing himself with the new solicitor; and in writing to Ess.e.x, after enumerating his own pretensions, he says, "When I add hereunto the obscureness and many exceptions to my compet.i.tor, I cannot but conclude with myself that no man ever had a more exquisite disgrace."
He resolved at first to shut himself up for the rest of his days in a cloister at Cambridge. A soothing message from the queen induced him to remain at the bar; but he had the mortification to see the man whom he utterly despised much higher in the law than himself, during the remainder of this and a considerable part of the succeeding reign.
Fleming, immediately upon his promotion, gave up his serjeantship, and practised in the Court of Queen's Bench. He was found very useful in doing the official business, and gave entire satisfaction to his employers.
At the calling of a new Parliament, in the autumn of 1601, he was returned to the House of Commons for a Cornish borough; and, according to the usual practice at that time, he ought, as solicitor general, to have been elected speaker; but his manner was too "lawyer-like and ungenteel" for the chair, and Serjeant Croke, who was more presentable, was subst.i.tuted for him.
He opened his mouth in the house only once, and then he broke down. This was in the great debate on the grievance of monopolies. He undertook to defend the system of granting to individuals the exclusive right of dealing in particular commodities; but when he had described the manner in which patents pa.s.sed through the different offices before the great seal is put to them, he lost his recollection and resumed his seat.
Bacon, now member for Middles.e.x, to show what a valuable solicitor general the government had lost, made a very gallant speech, in which he maintained that "the queen, as she is our sovereign, hath both an enlarging and restraining power: for, by her prerogative, she may, 1st, set at liberty things restrained by statute law or otherwise; and 2dly, by her prerogative she may restrain things which be at liberty." He concluded by expressing the utmost horror of introducing any bill to meddle with the powers of the crown upon the subject, and protesting that "the only lawful course was to leave it to her majesty of her own free will to correct any hardships, if any had arisen in the exercise of her just rights, as the arbitress of trade and commerce in the realm."
This pleased her exceedingly, and even softened her ministers, insomuch that a promise was given to promote Fleming as soon as possible, and to appoint Bacon in his place. In those days there never existed the remotest notion of dismissing an attorney or solicitor general, any more than a judge; for, though they all alike held _during pleasure_, till the accession of the house of Stuart the tenure of all of them was practically secure. An attempt was made to induce Fleming to accept the appointment of queen's serjeant, which would have given him precedence over the attorney general; but this failed, for he would thereby have been considered as put upon the shelf, instead of being on the highway to promotion.
Elizabeth died, leaving Bacon with no higher rank than that of queen's counsel; and on the accession of James I., Fleming was reappointed solicitor general.
The event justified his firmness in resisting the attempt to shelve him, for in the following year, on the death of Sir William Peryam, he was appointed chief baron of the Exchequer. While he held this office, he sat along with Lord Chief Justice Popham on the trial of Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder conspirators; but he followed the useful advice for subordinate judges on such an occasion--"to look wise, and to say nothing."
His most memorable judgment as chief baron was in what is called "The Great Case of Impositions." This was, in truth, fully as important as Hampden's case of ship money, but did not acquire such celebrity in history, because it was long acquiesced in, to the destruction of public liberty, whereas the other immediately produced the civil war. After an act of Parliament had pa.s.sed at the commencement of James's reign, by which an import duty of 2_s._ 6_d._ per cwt. was imposed upon currants, he by his own authority laid on an additional duty of 7_s._ 6_d._, making 10_s._ per cwt. Bates, a Levant merchant, who had imported a cargo of currants from Venice, very readily paid the parliamentary duty of 2_s._ 3_d._ upon it, but refused to pay more; thereupon the attorney general filed an information in the Court of Exchequer, to compel him to pay the additional duty of 7_s._ 6_d._; so the question arose, whether he was by law compellable to do so. After arguments at the bar which lasted many days,--
_Fleming, C. B._, said: "The defendant's plea in this case is without precedent or example, for he alleges that the imposition which the king has laid is '_indebite, injuste, et contra leges Angliae imposita_, and, therefore, he refused to pay it.' The king, as is commonly said in our books, _cannot do wrong_; and if the king seize any land without cause, I ought to sue to him in humble manner (_humillime supplicavit_, &c.), and not in terms of opposition. The matter of the plea first regards the prerogative, and to derogate from that is a part most undutiful in any subject. Next it concerns the transport of commodities into and out of the realm, the due regulation of which is left to the king for the public good. The imposition is properly upon currants, and not upon the defendant, for upon him no imposition shall be but by Parliament.(!) The things are currants, a foreign commodity. The king may restrain the person of a subject in leaving or coming into the realm, and _a fortiori_, may impose conditions on the importation or exportation of his goods. To the king is committed the government of the realm; and Bracton says, 'that for his discharge of his office G.o.d hath given him the power to govern.' This power is double--ordinary and absolute. The ordinary is for the profit of particular subjects--the determination of civil justice; that is nominated by civilians _jus privatum_, and it cannot be changed without Parliament.
The absolute power of the king is applied for the general benefit of the people; it is most properly named _policy_, and it varieth with the time, according to the wisdom of the king, for the common good. If this imposition is matter of state, it is to be ruled by the rules of policy, and the king hath done well, instead of 'unduly, unjustly, and contrary to the laws of England.' All commerce and dealings with foreigners, like war and peace and public treaties, are regulated and determined by the absolute power of the king. No importation or exportation can be but at the king's ports. They are his gates, which he may open or close when and on what conditions he pleases. He guards them with bulwarks and fortresses, and he protects ships coming hither from pirates at sea; and if his subjects are wronged by foreign princes, he sees that they are righted. Ought he not, then, by the custom he imposes, to enable himself to perform these duties? The impost to the merchant is nothing, for those who wish for his commodities must buy them subject to the charge; and, in most cases, it shall be paid by the foreign grower, and not by the English consumer. As to the argument that the currants are _victual_, they are rather a delicacy, and are no more necessary than wine, on which the king lays what customs seemeth him good. For the amount of the imposition it is not unreasonable, seeing that it is only four times as much as it was before. The wisdom and providence of the king must not be disputed by the subject; by intendment they cannot be severed from his person. And to argue _a posse ad actum_, because by his power he may do ill, is no argument to be used in this place. If it be objected that no reason is a.s.signed for the rise, I answer it is not reasonable that the king should express the cause and consideration of his actions; these are _arcana regis_, and it is for the benefit of every subject that the king's treasure should be increased."
He then at enormous length went over all the authorities and acts of Parliament, contending that they all prove the king's power to lay what taxes he pleases on goods imported, and he concluded by giving judgment for the crown.
Historians take no notice of this decision, although it might have influenced the destinies of the country much more than many of the battles and sieges with which they fill their pages. Had our foreign commerce then approached its present magnitude, Parliaments would never more have met in England,--duties on tea, sugar, timber, tobacco, and corn, imposed by royal proclamation, being sufficient to fill the exchequer,--and the experiment of ship money would never have been necessary. The chief baron most certainly misquotes, misrepresents, and mystifies exceedingly; but, however fallacious his reasoning, the judgment ought not to be pa.s.sed over in silence by those who pretend to narrate our annals, for it was p.r.o.nounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, and it was acted upon for years as settling the law and const.i.tution of the country.[38]
King James declared that Chief Baron Fleming was a judge to his heart's content. He had been somewhat afraid when he came to England that he might hear such unpalatable doctrines as had excited his indignation in Buchanan's treatise, "_De Jure Regni apud Scotis_," and he expressed great joy in the solemn recognition that he was an absolute sovereign. Our indignation should be diverted from him and his unfortunate son, to the base sycophants, legal and ecclesiastical, who misled them.
On the death of Popham, no one was thought so fit to succeed him as Fleming, of whom it was always said that, "_though slow, he was sure_;"
and he became chief justice of England the very same day on which Francis Bacon mounted the first step of the political ladder, receiving the comparatively humble appointment of solicitor general.
Lord Chief Justice Fleming remained at the head of the common law rather more than six years. During that time the only case of general interest which arose in Westminster Hall was that of the Postnati. As might be expected, to please the king, he joined cordially in what I consider the illegal decision, that persons born in Scotland after the accession of James to the throne of England, were ent.i.tled to all the privileges of natural born subjects in England, although it was allowed that Scotland was an entirely separate and independent kingdom. Luckily, the question is never likely again to arise since the severance of the crown of Hanover from that of Great Britain; but if it should, I do not think that Calvin's case could by any means be considered a conclusive authority, being founded upon such reasoning as that "if our king conquer a Christian country, its laws remain till duly altered; whereas if he conquer an infidel country, the laws are _ipso facto_ extinct, and he may ma.s.sacre all the inhabitants."
Lord Chief Justice Fleming took the lead in the prosecution of the Countess of Shrewsbury before the Privy Council, on the charge of having refused to be examined respecting the part she had acted in bringing about a clandestine marriage, in the Tower of London, between the Lady Arabella Stuart, the king's cousin, and Sir William Somerset, afterwards Duke of Somerset. He laid it down for law, that "it was a high misdemeanor to marry, or to connive at the marriage of any relation of the king without his consent, and that the countess's refusal to be examined was 'a contempt of the king, his crown and dignity, which, if it were to go unpunished, might lead to many dangerous enterprises against the state.'
He therefore gave it as his opinion that she should be fined 10,000 and confined during the king's pleasure."
While this poor creature presided in the King's Bench, he was no doubt told by his officers and dependants that he was the greatest chief justice that had appeared there since the days of Gascoigne and Fortescue; but he was considered a very small man by all the rest of the world, and he was completely eclipsed by Sir Edward c.o.ke, who at the same time was chief justice of the Common Pleas, and who, to a much more vigorous intellect and deeper learning, added respect for const.i.tutional liberty and resolution at every hazard to maintain judicial independence. From the growing resistance in the nation to the absolute maxims of government professed by the king and sanctioned by almost all his judges, there was a general desire that the only one who stood up for law against prerogative should be placed in a position which might give greater weight to his efforts on the popular side; but of this there seemed no prospect, for the subservient Fleming was still a young man, and likely to continue many years the tool of the government.
In the midst of these gloomy antic.i.p.ations, on the 15th day of October, 1613, the joyful news was spread of his sudden death. I do not know, and I have taken no pains to ascertain, where he was buried, or whether he left any descendants. In private life he is said to have been virtuous and amiable, and the discredit of his incompetency in high office ought to be imputed to those who placed him there, instead of allowing him to prose on as a drowsy serjeant at the bar of the Common Pleas, the position for which nature had intended him.
CHAPTER VI.
NICHOLAS HYDE.
After the abrupt dissolution of the second Parliament of Charles I.
without the grant of a supply, all redress of grievances being refused, the plan was deliberately formed of discontinuing entirely the use of popular a.s.semblies in England, and of ruling merely by prerogative. For this purpose it was indispensably necessary that the king should have the power of imposing taxes, and the power of arbitrary imprisonment. He began to exercise both these powers by a.s.sessing sums which all persons of substance were called upon to contribute to the revenue according to their supposed ability, and by issuing warrants for committing to jail those who resisted the demand. But these measures could not be rendered effectual without the aid of the judges; for hitherto in England the validity of any fiscal imposition might be contested in a court of justice; and any man deprived of his liberty might, by suing out a writ of _habeas corpus_, have a deliberate judgment upon the question "whether he was lawfully detained in custody or not." Sir Thomas Darnel, Sir Edmund Hampden, and other public-spirited men, having peremptorily refused to pay the sums a.s.sessed upon them, had been cast into prison, and were about to seek legal redress for their wrongs.
In the coming legal contest, almost every thing would depend upon the chief justice of the King's Bench. According to a well-known fashion which prevailed in those times, the attorney general, by order of the government, sounded Sir Randolph Crewe, then holding that office, to which he had been appointed hardly two years before, respecting his opinions on the agitated points, and was shocked to hear a positive declaration from him that by the law of England, no tax or talliage, under whatever name or disguise, can be laid upon the people without the authority of Parliament, and that the king cannot imprison any of his subjects without a warrant specifying the offence with which they are charged. This being reported to the cabinet, Sir Randolph Crewe was immediately dismissed from his office; and, in a few weeks after, Sir Nicholas Hyde was made chief justice in his stead. He was the uncle of the great Lord Clarendon. They were sprung from the ancient family of "_Hyde of that ilk_" in the county palatine of Chester; their branch of it having migrated, in the sixteenth century, into the west of England. The chief justice was the fourth son of Lawrence Hyde, of Gussage St. Michael, in the county of Dorset.
Before being selected as a fit tool of an arbitrary government, he had held no office whatever; but he had gained the reputation of a sound lawyer, and he was a man of unexceptionable character in private life. He was known to be always a stanch stickler for prerogative; but this was supposed to arise rather from the sincere opinion he had formed of what the English const.i.tution was, or ought to be, than from a desire to recommend himself for promotion. He is thus good naturedly introduced by Rushworth:--
"Sir Randolf Crewe, showing no zeal for the advancement of the loan, was removed from his place of lord chief justice, and Sir Nicholas Hyde succeeded in his room--a person who, for his parts and abilities, was thought worthy of that preferment; yet, nevertheless, came to the same with a prejudice, coming in the place of one so well-beloved, and so suddenly removed."
Whether he was actuated by mistaken principle or by profligate ambition, he fully justified the confidence reposed in him by his employers. Soon after he took his seat in the Court of King's Bench, Sir Thomas Darnel and several others, committed under the same circ.u.mstances, were brought up before him on a writ of _habeas corpus_; and the question arose whether the King of England, by _lettre de cachet_, had the power of perpetual imprisonment without a.s.signing any cause. The return of the jailer, being read, was found to set out, as the only reason for Sir Thomas Darnel's detention, a warrant, signed by two privy councillors, in these words:--
"Whereas, therefore, the body of Sir Thomas Darnel hath been committed to your custody, these are to require you still to detain him, and to let you know that he was and is committed BY THE SPECIAL COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY."
Lord Chief Justice Hyde proceeded with great temper and seeming respect for the law, observing, "Whether the commitment be by the king or others, this court is a place where the king doth sit in person, and we have power to examine it; and if any man hath injury or wrong by his imprisonment, we have power to deliver and discharge him; if otherwise, he is to be remanded by us to prison again."
Selden, Noy,[40] and the other counsel for the prisoners, encouraged by this intimation, argued boldly that the warrant was bad on the face of it, _per speciale mandatum domini regis_ being too general, without specifying an offence for which a person was liable to be detained without bail; that the warrant should not only state the authority to imprison, but the cause of the imprisonment; and that if this return were held good, there would be a power of shutting up, till a liberation by death, any subject of the king, without trial and without accusation. After going over all the common law cases and the acts of Parliament upon the subject, from MAGNA CHARTA downwards, they concluded with the _dictum_ of Paul the apostle, "It is against reason to send a man to prison without showing a cause."
_Hyde, C. J._--"This is a case of very great weight and great expectation.
I am sure you look for justice from hence, and G.o.d forbid we should sit here but to do justice to all men, according to our best skill and knowledge; for it is our oaths and duties so to do. We are sworn to maintain all prerogatives of the king: that is one branch of our oath; but there is another--to administer justice equally to all people. That which is now to be judged by us is this: 'Whether, where one is committed by the king's authority, and by cause declared of his commitment, we ought to deliver him by bail, or to remand him.'"
From such a fair beginning,[41] there must have been a general antic.i.p.ation of a just judgment; but, alas! his lordship, without combating the arguments, statutes, or texts of Scripture relied upon, said, "The court must be governed by precedents;"[42] and then going over all the precedents which had been cited, he declared that there was not one where, there being a warrant _per speciale mandatum domini regis_, the judges had interfered and held it insufficient. He said he had found a resolution of all the judges in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, that if a man be committed by the commandment of the king, he is not to be delivered by a _habeas corpus_ in this court, "for we know not the cause of the commitment." Thus he concluded:--
"What can we do but walk in the steps of our forefathers? Mr. Attorney hath told you the king has done it for cause sufficient, and we trust him in great matters. He is bound by law, and he bids us proceed by law; we are sworn so to do, and so is the king. We make no doubt the king, he knowing the cause why you are imprisoned, will have mercy. On these grounds we cannot deliver you, but you must be remanded."[43]
This judgment was violently attacked in both houses of Parliament. In the House of Lords the judges were summoned, and required to give their reasons for it. Sir Nicholas Hyde endeavored to excuse himself and his brethren from this task by representing it as a thing they ought not to do without warrant from the king. Lord Say observed, "If the judges will not declare themselves, we must take into consideration the point of our privilege." To soothe the dangerous spirit which disclosed itself, Buckingham obtained leave from the king that the judges should give their reasons, and Sir Nicholas Hyde again went over all the authorities which had been cited in the King's Bench in support of the prerogative. These were not considered by any means satisfactory; but, as the chief justice could no longer be deemed contumacious, he escaped the commitment with which he had been threatened. Sir Edward c.o.ke,[44] and the patriots in the House of Commons, were not so easily appeased, and they for some time threatened Lord Chief Justice Hyde and his brethren with an impeachment; but it was hoped that all danger to liberty would be effectually guarded against for the future by compelling the reluctant king to agree to the PEt.i.tION OF RIGHT. Before Charles would give the royal a.s.sent to it--meaning not to be bound by it himself, but afraid that the judges would afterwards put limits to his power of arbitrary imprisonment--he sent for Chief Justice Hyde and Chief Justice Richardson, of the Common Pleas, to Whitehall, and directed them to return to him the answer of themselves and their brethren to this question, "Whether in no case whatsoever the king may commit a subject without showing cause." The answer shows that they had been daunted by the denunciations of Sir Edward c.o.ke, and that they were driven to equivocate: "We are of opinion that, by the general rule of law, the cause of commitment by his majesty ought to be shown; yet some cases may require such secrecy that the king may commit a subject without showing the cause, for a convenient time."
Charles then delivered to them a second question, and desired them to keep it very secret, "Whether, if to a _habeas corpus_ there be returned a warrant from the king without any special cause, the judges ought to liberate him before they understand from the king what the cause is." They answered, "If no cause be a.s.signed in the warrant, the party ought, by the general rule of law, to be liberated; but, if the case requireth secrecy, and may not presently be disclosed, the court, in its discretion, may forbear to liberate the prisoner for a convenient time, till they are advertised of the truth thereof." He then came to the point with his third question, "Whether, if the king grant the Commons' PEt.i.tION, he doth not thereby exclude himself from committing or restraining a subject without showing a cause." Hyde reported this response: "Every law, after it is made, hath its exposition, which is to be left to the courts of justice to determine; and, although the PEt.i.tION be granted, there is no fear of conclusion, as is intimated in the question."