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.
