[53] George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys of Wem (1648-1689), was born, of
good family, near Wrexham in Denbighshire. He was educated at
Shrewsbury, St. Paul's, Westminster, and Trinity College, Cambridge,
where he was admitted in 1662. He first practised at the Old Bailey and
the Middlesex Sessions, then held at Hicks's Hall. His learning in law
was never extensive; but his natural abilities were very great, and, as
far as one can judge from the reports, he practised cross-examination
with much more real skill than most of his contemporaries. In fact, his
cross-examinations from the bench, though scandalous and brutal to the
last degree, seem to be the earliest instances we have of the art as now
understood. He was appointed Common Serjeant in 1671, left the popular
party and was made Solicitor-General to the Duke of York in 1677, and
became Recorder of London in 1678. He did what he could to aid in the
persecutions connected with the Popish Plot, and was made Chief-Justice
of Chester in 1680. The House of Commons petitioned the King for his
removal from office in the same year, for the part he had taken in
opposing petitions for a Parliament; and he was reprimanded by the House
and resigned his Recordership the same year, but was made Chairman of
the Middlesex Sessions soon afterwards. He was the chief promoter of the
_Quo Warranto_ proceedings by which the City was deprived of its
charter, and was engaged in the prosecution of Lord Russell. He was made
Lord Chief-Justice in 1683. He presided at the trials of Algernon Sidney
and Titus Oates. He was called to the House of Lords in 1685, and tried
Richard Banks in the same year. On his return from the 'Bloody Assize'
he was made Lord Chancellor. He suggested the revival of the Court of
High Commission, and presided in it at the proceedings against Magdalen
College. He advised the trial of the Seven Bishops, and narrowly missed
being made Chancellor of the University of Oxford. On the flight of
James II. he attempted to escape disguised as a sailor, but was seized
in the Red Cow in Anchor and Hope Alley. He was removed to the Tower,
where he died, and was buried in the next grave to Monmouth. The
well-deserved detestation with which he was regarded makes it difficult
to form any just estimate of his character. Where he had no temptation
to do injustice he seems to have been a very good judge; but he had no
hesitation in doing gross injustice by detestable methods, for wholly
discreditable reasons. He is not seen quite at his worst in Alice
Lisle's trial, because she was probably guilty and Dunne was a liar; nor
is he seen at his best as a cross-examiner, because he had very good
material to go on. He has been unfortunate in attracting the notice of
popular writers such as Burnet, Campbell, and Macaulay, who have all
found him a convenient subject for picturesque abuse; and a tendency to
not too ingenious paradox diminishes the value of the work of a more
recent biographer written from the opposite point of view.
[54] Appointed Attorney-General in 1689, and Chief-Justice of the Common
Pleas in the same year. He was a prominent Whig, and at the time of this
trial had appeared for the defence in several previous State Trials,
among others that of Lord Russell, vol. ii. p. 6. He afterwards appeared
for the defence in the case of the Seven Bishops, and was well known as
an adherent of the Prince of Orange at the Revolution. He died in 1691.
[55] See his dying speech, _State Trials_, xi. 312, in which he makes no
reference to Lady Lisle.
[56] This passage with several others proves that Jeffreys had got up
the case beforehand pretty much as counsel would to-day. Cf. pp. 246,
259, 268, 273.
[57] Cf. p. 245.
[58] He was born in Denbighshire.
[59] Cf. p. 245.
[60] _Ante_, p. 239.
[61] Cf. _ante_, p. 245.
[62] Lady Lisle's attainder was afterwards reversed on the ground that
this ruling is wrong; it does not represent the present law (see
Stephen's _Digest_, art. 62), which, however, rests on a subsequent
dictum of Hale's followed by Foster, due probably to his recollection of
this case. Sir James Stephen suggests that as a matter of mere law
Jeffreys may have been right (_Hist. Crim. Law_, vol. ii. p. 234); he
also says: 'I think that this is another of the numerous instances in
which there really was no definite law at all, and in which the fact
that a particular course was taken by a cruel man for a bad purpose has
been regarded as a proof that the course taken was illegal.'--(_Ibid._,
vol. i. p. 413).
[63] Cf. with note, p. 270.
Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to Her Majesty at the Edinburgh
University Press
* * * * *