INTERPRETATION OP THE ACT. 407 to waive it at the trial. By bringing the prisoner before 1789 the Court on an indictment drawn by himself, he WQuld have 25 Apni. given its members to understand that in his opinion there was a case against her ; but if it had become known that the prosecution had been instituted by him in deference to seif-con- Captain CampbelFs views, in what sort of position would he have placed himself? The excitement of the discussion seems to have blinded him to the obvious interpretation of his act ; for evidently he did not see that it laid him open to a charge of trifling with the jury, playing with the prisoner's life, and exhibiting a degree of weakness in the discharge of his duty, both as a prosecutor and a judge, which would render it diflScult to place any confidence in his administration of justice. There is no reason to doubt want of his purity of intention ; the case against him is that, not courage, being sufficiently mindful of the responsibility attaching to his position, he weakly yielded his opinion at the first appearance of pressure ; forgetting that in such circum- stances weakness becomes iniquity. A review of these proceedings gives rise to a suspicion that the functions of judge and prosecutor may have been improperly combined in the same person, through a misinterpretation of the Act and the Letters Patent by Misiuter- which the Court was established. It is clear that Collins the*AcT"^' looked upon it as part of his duty to act as prosecutor, and there is no doubt that he acted as judge when the Court sat. If, for instance, he had carried out his intention to bring Mary Turner before the Court, he would have pre- pared the charge and collected the evidence for the trial ; and when the trial came on he would have examined the witnesses and addressed the Court, at the same time taking notes, arguing questions of law and fact, and finally, pass- Triajuncta ing sentence after conviction.* In addition to all that, he *" ""**'
- ** The Judge- Advocate is the judge or preuident of the Court ; he frames
and exhibits the charge against the prisoner, has a vote in the Court, and is sworn, like the members of it, well and truly to try and to make true deliverance between the King and the prisoner, and give a verdict according to the evidence."— Collins, p. 11. Digitized by Google
