BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 379
Parliament upon charges of undue appropriation. He was eminently successful
in the vindication of Lord Clive, and obtained a verdict of acquittal. His
appearance in the House of Lords, as one of the counsel in the great Douglas
cause, tended greatly to increase his professional reputation, and secured for
him the friendship of Lords Bute and Mansfield. Shortly after the decision
of this appeal, Mr. Wedderburn was brought into Parliament for the Tnverary
district of burghs, which he represented for several years; and, in 1774, having
been chosen for two English boroughs, he became member for Oakhampton.
In the House of Commons he proved himself an able debater,’ and was one of
the chief defenders of the Grafton administration, in opposition to Burke, who
had thrown all the force of his eloquence into the Rockingham interest.
The ready talent and acute and logical reasoning of Wedderburn were
fully appreciated by the party with which he witg associated. His rise was
accordingly rapid. In 1771 he was promoted to the office of Solicitor-General;
and in 17 7 3 succeeded Thurlow as Attorney-General. While holding this
appointment in 1774, he appeared, in opposition to the famous Dr. Franklin,
before the Privy Council in favour of the Governors of Massachusetts Bay,
whom the Americans, and Franklin, as their representative, were petitioning to
depose. The speech of Wedderburn before the Council has been censured for
its “ sweeping bitterness ” towards the philosopher ;’ but it is at the same time
an excellent specimen of his eloquence, and quite in keeping with his known
sentiments relative to the unhappy American disputes.
Much praise is conceded to the Attorney-General for the promptness and
decision of character which he manifested during the memorable riots in London
of 1780. All the municipal force of the city had been overpowered, and
the capital was in the hands of a lawless mob. In this emergency the King
summoned a meeting of the Privy Council; and the question was-whether
military force could be constitutionally employed without the delay and forms
necessary in common cases of riot? Wedderburn at once gave his opinion in
the affirmative. “ Is that your declaration as Attorney-General’?” inquired the
King. “Yes, Sire, decidedly so.” “Then let it so be,” said his Majesty.
Wedderburn instantly drew up the order of Council accordingly, and in a few
hours the riots were quelled, and the capital, already partially in flames, saved
from inevitable destruction.
Immediately after this event Mr. Wedderburn was appointed Chief Justice
of the Court of Common Pleas, in the room of Lord Walsingham, and created
a Peer by the title of Baron Loughborough of Loughborough, in the county of
Leicester. In the capacity of Chief Justice his lordship presided at the trial of
the rioters, of whom twenty-six were condemned and executed. His charge to
the jurors on this occasion has been eulogised by some as replete with “reasoned
It is singular that lawyers usually are very ineffective in the House of Commons. Of this Lord
Erskmwne of the best pleaders of his time-was a signal instance. Within our own period, the
only barristers who have been successful a8 parliamentary orators, are Sir William Follett, Sergeant
Jackson, and Mr. Frederick Shaw.
380 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES.
eloquence;” while others beheld in it an extent and latitude of principle
inconsistent with the letter of the law. “ The precipitate and indiscriminate
severity of the sentences passed in his judicial capacity, by this magistrate,
upon .the rioters,’’ says one writer, “far exceeded anything known in this
country since the days of Judge Jefferies; such, indeed; as left the memory
of these transactions impressed upon the public mind in indelible characters
of blood.” This to a certain extent may be true; but while we consider
the amount of punishment, the magnitude of the crime ought not to be
overlooked.
If the conduct of the Chief Justice is liable to any degree of censure in this
instance, it must be admitted, even by the most inveterate of his political
adversaries, that, on the bench, his decisions were characterised by an uprigh,tness
and independence sufficiently illustrative of his integrity, and the deep
veneration in which he held the liberty of the subject. We may instance a
case of false imprisonment-Burgess w. Addington (the former, an obscure
publican ; the latter, one of the Justices of Bow Street.) In palliation of the
conduct of Justice Addington, it was contended that it was the usual practice
to commit for further examination, owing to the extent of business which the
Justice had to transact. Lord Loughborough expressed himself with great
energy and warmth :-
‘‘ The law,” said his lordship, “would not endure such practices. It was an abominable practice,
when men were taken up only on swpcion, to commit them to gaol and load them with irons, and
this before any evidence was given against them. Here the commitment stated no offence, but a
suspicion of an offence ; and a man was thrown into gaol, for five days, for the purpose of further
examination, because the magistrate had not lime to do justice. It was a mode of proceeding pregnant
with all the evils of an ezpost facto law ; the constitution abhorred it ; and from him it should
ever meet with reprobation. He knew the abominable purposes to which such proceedings might be
perverted. No man was nafe if justices were permitted to keep back evidence on the part of the
accused. It was not in his power to punish the Justice, that authority lay with another court ; but
he would not allow such a defence to be set up before him as a legal one. The commitment stated a
lie ; for, though there had been an accusation upon suspicion, there had been no information taken
upon oath. Men who had not time to do justice should not dare to act BS magistrates. This man
should not be permitted to act It was a practice from
which more evil must result than could be cured even by the suppression of offences. The purpose
of committing for further examination, was clearly to increase the business of the office at the expense
of men’s characters, and every valuable privilege and consideration.”’
The liberty of the subject was in question.
In 1783 Lord Loughborough formed one of the short-lived Coalition Ministry,
by being appointed First Commissioner of the Great Seal. The fate of
this administration is well known ; and, from the period of its disruption, which
speedily followed that of its formation, his lordship remained out of office till
1793. In the course of the ten years which intervened, the important question
of the Regency had been agitated with all the zeal of contending factions,
Lord Loughborough at once espoused the cause of the Prince of Wales ; and
from his knowledge of law and the constitution, gave a weight and authority
to that side of the question which all the eloquence of Pitt, and sound sterling
The jury gave the plaintiff thee hundred pou%ds damgm.
