28S

HISTORY OR ENGLAND.

CHAP.

XIII.

1689 .

saying that the extraordinary peril to which the state was■ exposed had forced them to take on themselves the responsi-bility of employing extraordinary means of defence. It hadtherefore never been thought necessary by any English Parlia-ment to pass any Act or resolution touching this matter. Thetorture was not mentioned in the Petition of Right, or in anyof the statutes framed by the Long Parliament. No memberof the Convention of 1689 dreamed of proposing that the in-strument which called the Prince and Princess of Orange to thethrone should contain a declaration against the using of racksand thumbscrews for the purpose of forcing prisoners to accusethemselves. Such a declaration would have been justly re-garded as weakening rather than strengthening a rule which,as far back as the days of the Plantagenets, had been proudlydeclared by the most illustrious sages of Westminster Hall tobe a distinguishing feature of the English jurisprudence.* Inthe Scottish Claim of Right, the use of torture, without evi-dence, or in ordinary cases, was declared to be contrary to law.The use of torture, therefore, where there w T as strong evidence,and where the crime was extraordinary, was, by the plainestimplication, declared to be according to law; nor did theEstates mention the use of torture among the grievances whichrequired a legislative remedy. In truth, they could not con-demn the use of torture without condemning themselves. Ithad chanced that, while they were employed in settling thegovernment, the eloquent and learned Lord PresidentLockharthad been foully murdered in a public street through which hewas returning from church on a Sunday. The murderer wasseized, and proved to be a wretch who, having treated his v r ifebarbarously and turned her out of doors, had been compelledby a decree of the Court of Session to provide for her. A savagehatred of the Judges by whom she had been protected had* There is a striking passage on this subject in Fortescue.