Personality of William Garrow
“Marriage: love, honour, and negotiate”
He is an eloquent scolder with a fine voice and very clear articulation, a great flow of words, a considerable speed in understanding the meaning of a witness, and a great ability to address juries in ordinary cases. William Garrow earned and maintained a high public reputation. He was little known in private, and he was kind, generous, and humane.
He was certainly not a scam but a lawyer who came to court, endowed with wild humour, a fearless ability to contradict unfair evidence, and cunning tactics. He rushed through the class boundaries and overcame the hostility and prejudice of the people’s jury. His courage soon inspired other lawyers to pursue similar strategies. His innate sense of honesty combined with his questionable nature to raise spontaneous objections to evidence that, once confirmed, became a precedent for rule development.
Sir William Garrow is a true historical figure, a man who later served as a prosecutor, attorney general, and Parliament member. Many even credit him with the introduction of the phrase “innocent till demonstrably guilty.”
William Garrow Personality
“An earthquake does what the law promises; but does not in practice maintain equality for all people.”
He is tenacious, doggedly, and insistently determined and has a capacity for sarcasm. Sir William Garrow was best known for his indirect reform of the advocacy system, which helped initiate the adversarial court system used in most common law countries today. He introduced the phrase “allegedly innocent until proven guilty” and insisted that the accused’s accusers and their evidence be thoroughly examined in court. Sir William Garrow has been described as one of the most successful advocates of his time,” which has more to do with his exceptional talent” at cross-examination than his knowledge of the law.
As a college student, Garrow studied hard and read sophisticated books on law. Mr Garrow was of no doubt a great lawyer. Garrow was attentive and diligent in completing technical and practical tasks. He is quick, clairvoyant, careful, prompt, skilful, bold.
In the real sense, been skilful would be too general, although it would be perfectly correct if one of these sentences were extended to the superlative. But there’s more that he clearly wants to spray on his exceptional merits. But in general, his cross-examining skills in court had this vast flaw that he relied on hostilely attacking the witness and waging war against him far too soon. Garrow influenced the rules of evidence, which only began to develop at the beginning of his profession. His insistence that hearsay and copied files couldn’t be admitted as evidence led to the best evidence rule.
“But perhaps when you were too obedient, and did not do openly what others did, and were quiet in church and hard-working at school, then some unknown rebellion brewed in you, harming you, though how I do not understand.”
The Garrow family is believed to have originally lived on a farm on the Aberdeenshire coast called Kirkton or Slainson and descended from the Garrioch’s of Kinstair, an ancient Scottish royal line.
Sir William Garrow’s grandparents were William Garrow and his wife Jean Moir lived on a farm called the Mains of Allachy. And according to family tradition and the records of time, they lived on a farm called Knockside for several years. Although the exact location of the Mains of Allachy is unknown, it is clear that these farms would have stood side by side on the Hill south of the River Spey at Aberlour in Banffshire, Scotland. The farms were in that part of Scotland, about 50 miles northwest of Aberdeen, where the River Spey flows east before turning north and emptying into the North Sea. William and Jeangot married on November 8, 1713, and were buried in Aberlour under a stone with an inscription dated May 4, 1742. During her married life (1713-1742), she raised a large family.
She gave birth to five daughters, namely Elizabeth (baptized 1717), Isobel (baptized 1719), Jean (baptized 1725), Janet (baptized 1728), and Margaret (baptized 1734), whose baptisms and marriages are recorded in the church records. She equally has four sons, David (baptized 1715), William (baptized 1722), Robert (baptized 1730), and Joseph (baptized 1735), whose baptisms are also in the church records. These records show that most of the children were baptized in Allachie or Aberlour, while the last two births (Margaret and Joseph) were recorded for Knockside.
Sir William Garrow’s father, David, graduated from the University of Aberdeen with a Master of Arts on April 1, 1736. In the Church of England, he was ordained, and soon after that, he established a school for the young men in Monken Hadley, Middlesex, north of London. David’s younger brother William graduated from the University of Aberdeen with a Master of Arts degree on April 1, 1741, and studied medicine in Elgin, not far from his homeland. He referred to himself as the Doctor of Physick. His career was that of a wealthy pharmacist, surgeon, and doctor in Barnet, Hertfordshire, near Monken Hadley. He would prescribe his own drugs and then mix them, giving him “a general monopoly on Barnet.” He remained unmarried, and his will stated that he left much of his fortune to his cousin Sir William Garrow.
Joseph volunteered in the Royal Navy, and was hired as a lieutenant on June 19, 1761, and commanded the Garland, a twenty-eight artillery warship built-in 1779. He died in 1796 and probably remained unmarried.
It appears that the Garrow’s tended to take an episcopal position. This would explain why David and William Garrow moved to the London area. David, as an ordained minister of the Church of England, and William as a doctor. Today the Scottish community where William and Jean Garrow had their farm is called Charlestown or Aberlour. In this small hilly area, certain locations are known as “Allachie Forest,” “Wick van Allachie,” “Knock of Allachie,” “Burnside of Allachie,” and “Knockside.” Although the Mains of Allachie is not explicitly mentioned, this area is the ancestral home of Sir William Garrow.
We can assume that Sir William Garrow’s father, David Garrow, was born in the Mains of Allachy and was baptized in the parish church in Aberlour on August 4, 1715. He is stated to have resided at Knockside in his later teenage years. He has attended school in Aberlour from 1720 to 1725, where the school teacher was Patrick Gordon, who had studied at King’s College in Aberdeen. His early education gave David the foundation he needed for college. He bagged a master of arts in 1736 from the college of Aberdeen in 1736 with a Master of Arts.
After taking orders in the Church of England, he may have travelled to South Carolina as a missionary. Reverend David Garrow received £ 20 from the money book on August 28, 1745, “as passage money as minister to South Carolina.” If he served as minister there, he would return to England in time to rent a large 16th-century building called The Priory in Monken Hadley on March 12, 1747, and open his school or academy for young gentlemen. Shortly thereafter, on June 5, 1748, he married Sarah Lowndes, a virgin from Camberwell, Surrey, in St. Stephen, Walbrook, and London. With these two decisions, he began building both his family and his school. Then David officially bought the priory in June 1760.
David and Sarah’s relationship produced ten children; William, Edward, Eleanora, Jane, John Rose, William, Joseph, William, David, and Anne. Three of her sons died when they were very young, and the youngest two, who survived childhood, died early in life. It worth knowing that three of their children were named William, with the first two dying as babies. The third child named William survived and became the Sir William Garrow of that story. The children who survived to adulthood were:
Edward (1751-1820) made a fortune in India with the East India Company, returned to England where he became High Sheriff of Hertfordshire and inherited the priory from his father.
Eleanora (1752-1805) She remained a virgin who lived at home in the priory, cared for her parents, and lived in the priory until her death at the age of fifty-one.
Jane (1754-1841) She travelled to India, presumably to visit her brothers from the East India Company. On her return to England in the 1780s, she married William Monk, a gentleman farmer, and had a large family.
Joseph (1757-1792) He served in the East India Company, where he became secretary to the Commander-in-Chief Madras and a person of considerable resources. He had a biological son, Joseph, of the Sultan, who was reputed to be a high caste Brahmin and died in India in 1792
William (1760-1840) He became the lawyer who made his name as an attorney at the Old Bailey, then prosecutor, MP, attorney general, baron of the Treasury and the subject of this story.
“Life becomes like a judicial process. You’re finally defending every value you stand for”
David Garrow’s school was a boarding school and well suited for families with businesses in London who chose to live in the high and healthy neighbourhood, away from the smoke of the city yet conveniently located near the Great North Road to London. The school in the priory, which was established on about 9 hectares of land, did not neglect the social reasons, in contrast to the local Queen Elizabeth High School, which offered a classical education.
The priory aimed to prepare students for commercial careers, like in the East India Company. David’s own sons received education at his school and made notable careers in commerce and government. Located on Dury Road not far from St. Mary the Virgin Church in Monken Hadley, it was demolished in 1961 due to its dilapidated condition. A sketch of the house was made quickly before it was demolished and shows a building in the style that historians sometimes refer to as “modern Gothic.” Many local residents were upset when the demolition was proposed as the property was viewed as part of a fascinating corner of the city. However, as a dilapidated property, it would have been too expensive to maintain.
William Garrow was taught at his father’s school in Monken Hadley, The Priory, where the emphasis was on preparing students for commercial careers such as the East India Company. As such, it taught social grace as well as English, Greek, Latin, French, geography, math, and dance. To study there, Garrow knew the English language well, had a moderate knowledge of Latin, and added considerable French knowledge as an achievement. He attended this school until he was 15. At this point, he was assigned a lawyer in Cheapside by Thomas Southouse.
William Garrow showed potential and was described as “considerate and diligent in the performance of the firm’s technical and practical duties,” and Southouse recommended that he become an attorney. At age 17, he apprenticed under Mr Crompton, a well-respected lawyer. As an apprentice, Garrow studied intensely and carefully, read Sampson Euers Doctrina Placitandi, a handbook on the law of typesetting, which was written in legal French. At the same time, he was checking cases at the Old Bailey and befriending clerk William Shelton there.
Education in Criminal Law
“In any case, I think that the legitimacy of the court would be undermined if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion.”
The young Garrow showed such skill and speed that he was strongly recommended by Mr Southouse to pursue the higher branch of the law, that is, the trial attorney. Accordingly, at the end of his articles, Garrow introduced himself as an apprentice to Mr. Crompton, then a major special attorney, whose practice at the time was the popular guide for the study of this branch of law.
At the time, discussion/debating societies were the places where a young speaker could perfect his speaking skills. This talent was commonly referred to as “sprouting” and known in more polite society as the art of eloquence. In these discussion societies, the speaker would be confronted not with friends or fellow students who would like to endorse him as one of them, but with a group of competitors with varying abilities and a generally knowledgeable audience hoping to enjoy the joy, a good one, to experience a representation of intellectual struggle.
Everyone in the hall would consider themselves a capable critic and would unceremoniously berate the speaker for their mistakes. The environment was grave, with interruptions, misrepresentations, and ridiculousness far beyond the limits of peaceful propriety. It was common practice for the audience to use “scraping,” a sound of their feet against the floor, to indicate that they were tired of their speaker. However, this was just a rough exercise for the speaker to learn to benefit from these obstacles and to show courage and determination.
However, it wasn’t easy at first to find William Garrow in the monthly Law Magazine. He claimed that when he went with friends to Coachmaker’s Hall on Foster Lane in Cheapside to learn the art of eloquence, he was so shy that they had to force him off his chair and hold him while he made his first speech. Otherwise, he should shy away from the job he has taken on. While this seemed incredible to those who knew him in later life, it was actually “perfectly in tune with his reserved and withdrawn nature.” In the fight against his shyness, he quickly gained an excellent reputation as a speaker in the taverns. He was referred to in the press as “Counselor Garrow, the famous speaker at Coachmaker’s Hall,” where one of the largest debating clubs met.
He had just finished his novitiate when he walked away with the palm of the eloquence of all club-goers. He is said to have nearly killed a journeyman watchmaker “who had long ridden the high horse of society, defeated him in a cool debate and dethroned him from his preeminent position as a champion.” When William Garrow decided to appear in a debate, the audience congratulated themselves on the certainty of an interesting discussion. It is reported that when Mrs Cornelya was planning a new type of entertainment at Carlisle House in Soho Square, including a debate as part of the entertainment of the event, her main concern was the support of Mr. William Garrow.
Every bar student had to be a member of one of the four main Inns of Court in England, and Garrow was inducted into Lincoln’s Inn on November 27, 1778, and he became a member of the bar on the same day. As an apprentice lawyer to Richard Crompton, Garrow diligently noted his copy of Euers Doctrina Placitandi from 1677 – a two-volume book on the law of typesetting in French. Hundreds of notes and comments in Garrow’s own handwriting relate to relevant precedents from the work of Mr Justice Yates and are supplemented by Mr Justice Ashhurst and Mr Justice Buller. Mr Justice Willis highly praised his efforts. They show how extraordinarily hardworking he was and how Brougham, despite his knowledge of little law, acquired legal knowledge from a young age. The book is kept in the library of the Honorable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, to which it was donated by Montague Chambers QC in the 19th century.
The record shows that Garrow took criminal law studies seriously. In addition to his work under Mr. Crompton, he prepared in three other ways. First, he said he had attended meetings of the Old Bailey, Criminal Assize of London and Middlesex regularly for eight years before calling the bar. Second, he befriended William Shelton, the clerk of the Old Bailey, who was considered the most accomplished criminal defence attorney of his day. In addition, he trained himself and was determined to be successful in “editing and reasoning and in public speech” at the Debate Society meetings that later flourished in London inns and public spaces, where he was first recognized.
He was a powerful debater, and his speeches were so admired for their eloquence and ingenuity that his presence was always welcome. Others also called William Garrow in his profession “as bold as all his brothers, but privately is modest and reserved” and with a “particularly reserved and withdrawn attitude.” His shyness outside of court contrasted with his boldness in it.
This was how Garrow prepared to speak in the courtrooms of the Old Bailey. As his critics and even his friends would point out, he never studied law as an academic. He never became an authority on or even comfortable with any particular area of the law. What he studied and what he was very good at was criminal law, as practised in the assize courts like the Old Bailey.
Career as a barrister
“Freedom is in the hearts of men and women; If it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”
William Garrow started out as a trial attorney at the Old Bailey at a time when many defendants were becoming increasingly dependent on attorneys to escape their convictions. His first case as a barrister was actually as a prosecutor. On January 14, 1784, barely two months after being called to the bar, he sued John Henry Aikles for receiving a bill of exchange for false deception. It was alleged that Aikles promised to pay Samuel Edwards £ 100 and a small commission on a £ 100 bill and that he did not hand over the money when he took the bill. Despite Aikles’ attorney claiming “this is not a crime” and being represented by two of the most respected criminal defence attorneys of the time, Garrow convinced both the judge and jury that Aikles was guilty. Garrow later defended Aikles in September 1785 and secured his release on account of illness.
In his early days as a practising attorney, Garrow was best known for his aggressive and confrontational style of cross-examination. When James Wingrove was charged with robbery and theft in 1784, Garrow’s cross-examined William Grove (who acted as the witness and the person who accused Wingrove) admitted that he was engaged in an effort to get a reward and that Wingrove hadn’t robbed the two wounded. Garrow disgusted most of the thief-takers; Grove was one of them, though He did not treat the Bow Street Runners and other experts with disrespect. His aversion to such men was evident in his defence to three men in 1788 for theft; they were accused of attacking John Troughton, scaring him for his life, and stealing his hat. The question was whether the attack frightened him for his life or whether he had gone too far in demanding a reward that could not be claimed for simple theft. Garrow noted that Troughton was unsure how he lost his hat, despite attempting to claim the defendants turned him off.
After four witnesses submitted character evidence, the defendants were found not guilty. Garrow used the jury repeal extensively to limit sentences for his convicted clients at a time when many crimes were punishable by death. In 1784, some women were arrested for stealing fans worth 15 shillings, which meant a conviction would result in death punishment. Garrow convinced the jury to convict the women of stealing 4 shillings from fans and change the sentence to 12 months of hard labour.
Garrow soon developed into a notable practitioner, conducting criminal proceedings in the Old Bailey and outside London both as a lawyer and as a prosecutor. The number of cases he has had in the Court of King’s Bench is exceeded. Nobody is heard in court, nobody wins a jury, or is more likely to please an ordinary accountant. In February 1793, he was appointed the king’s attorney to assist in the prosecution of those charged with treason and sedition, less than ten years after calling the bar. His appointment received a mixed response from the media. Garrow and the other five Appointees were described as the best talent of the time.
As the French Revolution and its perceived danger to the UK gained momentum, Garrow’s career began to gain stability. He has been prosecuted in most state proceedings. As he gained experience, many of them were left to his own devices and confronted with prominent lawyers, including Thomas Erskine, James Mingay, and James Scarlett. In May 1794, the government suspended the habeas corpus, banned all public gatherings in 1795, banned secret organizations in 1797, and in 1799 all associations interested in reforming the governance of the United Kingdom. The government arranged a series of 800 arrests with 300 enforcement warrants issued and signed for treason and made special efforts to prosecute Thomas Hardy and John Horne Tooke. Hardy was the first to be tried. The prosecutor claimed that he wanted a revolution in England similar to that in France. After Garrow prosecuted and defended Erskine, the trial lasted eight days instead of the normal.
The jury foreman was so tense that he whispered the verdict “not guilty” and then passed out immediately. Tooke was later prosecuted. The jury found him not guilty again, so the other 800 trials were abandoned.
While Garrow was a lawyer, the West Indies sugar planters had great power in Parliament, which enabled them to maintain a monopoly on the marketing of sugar in England and make enormous profits. This sugar firm was vastly profitable due to the use of slave labour, which Garrow had long resisted.
When the sugar growers offered him a job to manage all of their legal and political affairs, he replied, “If your committee gave me all of their income and goods, I would not be seen as an advocate of practices I detest, and a system I hate.” In 1806, the governor of Trinidad, Thomas Picton, was charged with once” causing unlawful torture on a young girl. He was arraigned before the Court of King’s Bench under Lord Ellenborough are 367 pages long, and Garrow was closely involved as a prosecutor.
In fact, his opening speech on February 24, 1806, was considered one of his best. The case concerned the question of whether Spanish law allowing torture was still in at the time of the incident. The jury finally decided it was not, and Ellenborough found Picton guilty. Picton’s attorney moved for a retrial, which was granted; the jury in the second trial eventually ruled that Picton was innocent.
Thanks to Garrow’s political ties, he became the first attorney general and then attorney general to the Prince of Wales in 1806 and 1807. He was endorsed by Erskine, who said in a letter to the prince that “he knows more about the true justice and politics of all criminal matters than any man I know.” In 1812 he sued Leigh Hunt for inciting defamation against the Prince Regent. Thanks to his work, Hunt was found guilty and overturned an 1811 trial in which he was acquitted.
Why was Garrow such a different kind of jury? Unlike his better-connected rivals, this young lawyer of humble origins was willing to mingle with and understand the demi-moons of coin makers and counterfeiters, thieves. He was ready to take the outrageous step of meeting his clients in plague-ridden prisons to follow their instructions. Criminal cases still resembled the poorly executed public gathering they initially emerged from. He instantly saw humour’s promise, even robust humour., to get the jury out of the way and a case (or at least a witness) out of the Clear away—Laugh court.
He was known for his sarcasm during cross-examination, but “the lowest form of humour” could quickly turn into deadly irony at the expense of the persecuting societies and the well-rewarded thief-takers whose zeal and greed caused many errors of justice. He refused an inspection and turned his questions into mini-speeches, much to the jury’s relief and to the anger of the prosecutors. He was a lawyer who came to court, endowed with wild humour, a fearless ability to contradict unfair evidence, and cunning tactics. He rushed through the class boundaries and overcame the hostility and prejudice of the people’s jury.
His courage soon inspired other lawyers to pursue similar strategies. Over time, it was this pressure from the bar that allowed more wiggle room for the defence and fairer trials as the lawyer pushed for rules of evidence (like the hearsay rule), equal rights for lawyers, and role reorganization. From the judge of the active inquisitor and jury director to the more neutral arbitrator.
This is not to say that all or even most of his cases ended in acquittal. His defence was not centered around the honest radicals but dishonest villains whose necks were at stake. He toyed with sympathy for judgments in cases where the law required anyone who stole more than 40 shillings of goods to go to the gallows. However, it was the jury that valued the stolen property, and Garrow could lower ratings on indignant owners and incorporate the jury’s grace..
Political and judicial career
“Luck has nothing to do with it, because I’ve spent many, many hours, countless hours in court, working a moment in time without knowing when it would come.”
Since 1789, the press has speculated that Garrow, a Whig, would enter Parliament; however, he was first selected for Gatton in 1805. This was a lazy town where Garrow was supposed to serve the interests of his patron saint. After entering politics, Garrow initially paid little attention and did not make his first speech until April 22, 1806, when he appealed against Marquis Wellesley’s charges. He spoke again on June 18, 1806, about a technical legal matter and did not intervene for another six years. Braby and other sources point out that he did not enjoy his time in Parliament and was rarely there unless he had to do business.
In June 1812, he was appointed Attorney General for England and Wales, where he received the customary knighthood, and in May 1813, he was appointed Attorney General. The Attorney General was the highest public prosecutor when the Prince Regent feared liberal changes in criminal law and the parliamentary structure. One could count on Garrow to oppose it as “just a creature of the regent.”
Instead of the progressive, defensive work he did early in his career, and this period was a time of conservative aggression against the reformers. Garrow, in particular, made a mistake with Sir Samuel Romilly, who was one of those looking to reform a penal code that many claimed was not working. On April 5, 1813, Romilly’s draft law on traitors to treason and crime was passed in Parliament. The intention was to remove the corruption of blood from treason and crime cases. Garrow, then attorney general, said the bill would override one of the UK Constitution’s guarantees. The bill ultimately failed, and blood corruption was only removed from English law with the Forfeiture Act 1870. He was also Chief Justice of Chester from 1814 to 1817.
Garrow also helped repeal the Corn Laws, voted for the measure, and promoted laws to control surgical practice in the UK. However, the bill was not converted into law. Animal cruelty was widespread in the early 1800s. Garrow was among those who hated it and promoted a bill in 1816 to increase the penalties for riding horses to the point of grave injury or death. Though defeated, his actions were justified by an 1820 bill introduced by Thomas Erskine, who received royal approval and entered the law. Garrow eventually resigned as attorney general and MP in 1817 when he was named one of the finance barons.
Garrow’s first judicial appointment was in 1814 when he was appointed Chief Justice of Chester. This was countered by Sir Samuel Romilly, who argued that the positions of the Chief Justice and Attorney General were inconsistent, saying that “the appointment of a gentleman to a lucrative office for the sole pleasure of the Crown creates a high legal position.” The independence from the judiciary, for which it was so essential to remain intact, was too inconsistent. ”
As attorney general, Garrow had previously only distinguished himself through a more punitive reenactment of the laws against machine breakers in December 1813. At the 1814 session, most of his speeches focused on stock market fraud. He insisted on the trial’s justice against Lord Cochrane. He declined to investigate the courts’ compensations of June 28, 1814, and February 21, 1815.
He resisted Romilly about the withdrawal of the militia. On March 6, he testified that he faced the Corn Lawcrowd outside the house. He found the crowd alarming, even though they let him through as a “friend of the people,” and he established the military protection of the members. On March 18, 1816, after filing his voters’ application against property tax, he declared himself in favour. Indeed, he could be counted on to vote with ministers on critical occasions, although most of his speeches in the future were brief interventions on legal issues. The exceptions were a full defence of Ellen-Borough’s conduct in the Lord Cochrane case on April 30, a speech against Brougham’s May 8 press freedom law, and a Defense of the Immigration Act, May 10, 1816.
A personal attempt to impose speed limits on the stagecoach on June 10, 1816, was frustrated. He denounced the abuse of petitions for parliamentary reform on January 29, March 31, March 12, 1817, but his keynote address at that session was in defence of the Incendiary gathering Act on February 28. He did it and notified the house shortly after receiving the first conviction for circumventing the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act.
On May 6, 1817, Garrow was appointed as the successor to Richard Richards to the Baron of the Treasury and Military Service. He resigned from Parliament and his position as Attorney General. He was not a particularly prominent judge in the state treasury, mainly due to a lack of knowledge of the law’s intricacies. Practising on the Assize circuits, albeit, was a different matter because he dealt with his better-known criminal law rather than the Treasury Department’s commercial law, Garrow did much better.
Braby says he routinely amazed attorneys and defendants with his knowledge of the intricacies of the crime. Garrow retired on February 22, 1832, was replaced by John Gurney, and, upon retirement, was appointed privy councillor to measure the government’s respect for him.
“Just because some people in the Supreme Court declare something “constitutional” doesn’t mean it.”
Garrow had an unfavourable relationship with Sarah Dore, who had previously given birth to a son, William Arthur Dore Hill of Arthur Hill, Viscount Fairford, in 1778. Her life then becomes a mosaic of time differences and insights into events that permanently connect her to William Garrow’s and Garrow’s family history. Based on the Dorehill family tradition, Sarah Dore had some sort of marriage to Arthur William Moyses Hill (Viscount Fairford), who later became the 2nd Marquess of Downshire.
She had a son in this regard, William Arthur, born in 1778. By this time, the father had received a Master of Arts (July 9, 1773) from Magdalen College, Oxford University, and was MP for Lostwithiel in Cornwall (1774-) 1780) and later for Malmsbury (1780-1784). Sarah kept exciting company. It is a family tradition that the Hill family disapproved of “marriage” because Sarah did not bring enough wealth to the union and had it annulled. To establish his ancestry, William Arthur received the surname Dore Hill, Dore from his mother, and Hill from his father, the source of the name Dorehill uses today..
After his relationship with Sarah, Arthur William Moyses Hill married Mary Sandys (1786), a “notable heiress.” Then, after the death of the Marquess of Downshire, Arthur William Moyses Hill became the 2nd Marquess of Downshire with one of the most extensive landholdings in Ireland and England, a very wealthy man. He died early, and his will may have been a bit of a shock to his widow. His will entrusted her and her children to his son William Arthur to treat him “like family.” They will also support two other children whom he fathered out of wedlock.
Regarding William Arthur Dorehill, it was stated in the will that he was, in fact, the son of Sarah and Arthur William Moyses Hill. This also suggests that it was the same Sarah who married William Garrow. It reads: “Mrs. Garrow, the wife of Advisor Garrow, took care of a mother and is being paid.” It was also stated that Mr. Garrow would receive the cost of his training. William Arthur Dorehill floated freely between his Hill and Garrow families.
Dore was believed to be an Irish noblewoman who seduced Garrow, but the sole intent of his postulation was to discredit Garrow, and there is no evidence to support this claim. Their firstborn, David William Garrow, was born on April 15, 1781, and their second, Eliza Sophia Garrow, was born on June 18, 1784. Garrow and Dore finally married on March 17, 1793. Dore was described as particularly elegant and was actively involved in local affairs in Ramsgate, where the family lived.
He was schooled at Christ Church in Oxford, received a doctorate in divinity, and he served as one of the Prince of Wales’ chaplains. Edward Garrow, his son, was a cricketer and a preacher. Eliza Sophia Garrow got married to Samuel Fothergill Lettsom. One of their children, also known as William Garrow, served as the Consul General of Uruguay. Sarah died on June 30, 1808, after a long and painful illness she endured in a very exemplary manner. She was buried in St. Margaret’s Church, a beautiful old country church outside the village of Darenth, Kent, a few miles southeast of London. Her grave is a vaulted table with an iron gate near the church wall.
Impact on English Law
“It is the spirit, not the form of the law,that keeps justice alive.”
Garrow’s most outstanding achievement in life was to be remembered as he helped change the face of criminal proceedings in England. Along with others who followed him, he started a revolution in criminal law.
There have been lawyers in England since the 13th century. Prisoners charged with treason and crimes were not legally permitted to have a lawyer before them for five long centuries, although the penalty for these crimes was the death penalty. In one rape case during Edward I’s reign (1273-1307), judges ruled and, it remained law (NO COUNSEL LAW) until the 18th century.
The only exception was a point in the law and then only by order of the court. It was a severe flaw in the English judiciary (and by no means applied to criminal proceedings). The tenet for the rule lies in the fact that criminal charges in English criminal law were always made in the name of the monarch and, in the early days, were seen as a majesty to those charged with seeking advice against the king or queen. As a result of the rule, any prisoner tried for treason, murder, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, and most other theft forms had to defend himself without help in court.
Even if they could speak, they were not allowed to make an affidavit. In treason and crime trials, the accused should, therefore, often try to defend themselves insufficiently.
Unsurprisingly, to modern eyes, denial of legal assistance is viewed as barbaric. zThe rule did not apply to the prosecution, and this caused serious harm to the defendants for centuries, especially in treason trials where the crown was always represented. To make matters worse, the defendants were not allowed to sue witnesses, nor, if they appeared voluntarily, put witnesses under oath. This placed them on a lower level than witnesses to the persecution, whose credibility was increased by testimonies. Evidently, inmates suffered severe disabilities in presenting a defence and were often rescued from the gallows solely by the grace of the juries or, in some cases, the judge.
The Whig politicians and grandees who were in power after the glorious revolution emphasized the growing importance of the individual in society and enshrined a number of fundamental rights in their Bill of Rights of 1689. This ignored this in an early manifestation of the modern concept of human rights, among other things, for the free election of parliamentarians, the right to a trial, and the fairness of the jury. This excessive deposit should not be required. No excessive fines should be imposed. And those cruel and unusual penalties are not imposed.
As part of the same process, the Whig leaders also introduced the radical Treason Trials Act of 1696, a historic law that had unexpected effects on the birth of an adversary. By violating the centuries-old rule, prisoners charged with treason were given the right to seek advice on any matter, including addressing the jury on facts and legal issues. It was also a response to the Crown’s indictments made by the Crown. Two official reasons were put forward to justify the law. First, these treason trials required two witnesses for an overt act. Second, and more importantly, the Crown always employed an attorney to be prosecuted.
However, these reasons did not exist in criminal proceedings that did not involve the rich and powerful, and similar legislation for such proceedings was deemed unnecessary. Even so, the course of criminal proceedings itself has changed. As the number of crimes appeared to increase, law enforcement organizations across the country were formed to meet growing demands for legal assistance, reduce crime investigation costs, and pay legal fees.
At the same time, the government supported a bounty system that encouraged thieves in search of a reward. Along with key witnesses encouraged to alter king’s evidence and testify against their co-defendants in order to save their own necks, these led to increasingly common perjury that harms innocent scaffolded defendants, even for minor crimes.
Because perjury was endemic, some judges concluded that the scales had weighed too heavily against prisoners charged with serious crimes in criminal matters. As a result, from the 1730s, and without legislation, some of them sporadically allowed a lawyer to appear before defendants and to question prosecutors and their witnesses. Even though it was a slow process, it allowed the lawyer, not the judges, to argue.
But even in such cases, attorneys were still banned from investigating their clients and were primarily confined to cross-examination in order to maintain the situation in which the uninvited accused himself was plainly telling his side of the story to the jury. What the judges did not introduce was that despite this restriction, the attorneys would enter the courtroom through skilful cross-examination and diminish the previously active roles of the judge and jury, who were exclusively referees and experts.
A notable role in this development was played by William Garrow. He appeared in over a thousand cases at the Old Bailey and established an aggressive and personal style of questioning prosecutors and their witnesses. As will be seen, this was crucial in obtaining a trial against an opponent and also contributed to the establishment of rules of evidence such as the presumption of innocence, the “best evidence” rule, the rule against the evidence of accomplices, and the hearsay rule. This gave the prisoners new rights.
Because the lawyer was only allowed limited appearances for prisoners, the hostile system was slowly established during the 18th and 19th centuries, which amounted to a “crucial period of training in English criminal law.” However, their origin was unknown for a long time and is still contested today by academic lawyers who cannot agree on an opponent’s origin. Garrow, more than any other attorney, was responsible for the widespread increase in controversial criminal cases. He knows more about the true justice and politics of all things criminal justice than anyone else. Also, he can rightly be called the father of the trial against the opponent.
The meaning of the change contradicted by Sir William Garrow is described as a cross-examination that continued to comment on the evidence, refute or discredit the prosecution, and fight aggressively, even cruelly for the accused.
Garrow was certainly a Whig in the early years of his career (he joined the Whig Club on June 26, 1784). His actions in the House of Commons. One of the reasons for lawyers to participate in criminal proceedings is to establish rules of evidence. However, since it was the presence of lawyers in court proceedings that enabled them to establish rules of evidence, the cart is placed in front of the horse. After the birth of the contradiction, at the urging of Garrow and other defence lawyers, the best evidence rule, hearsay rule, and other rules of evidence grew so that by the mid-19th century, books on rules of exclusion and opposition existed in some numbers. With the increase in the rules of evidence used by Old Bailey attorneys as a tool in their efforts to oversee the trial and take over the criminal courts, the judges have created the Law of Evidence for No Reason, though even it accepts it because it believed it was a legal creation. It played into the hands of lawyers by opening up to scrutiny and solicitation of council cases over judicial proceedings previously reserved for judges and juries.
Rules of Evidence
The rules of evidence evolved over the years Garrow served in criminal courts. Where a rule would benefit his client, Garrow insisted on adhering to it strictly. Very early in his career, Garrow served as a lawyer for John Hinxman, who was accused of stealing property from his employers. This process is enjoyable because the outcome of the case depended on the strict application of a rule of evidence. It also shows the harshness of the criminal law at the time for what would be a minor crime today (theft of some small items, including a handkerchief).
When Hinxman was fired from his job, he was caught leaving the store with a locked box. The prisoner confessed, although his employer may have urged his confession, in hopes that he would receive mercy. There were some pieces of silk, some socks, and a handkerchief. The theft of this property was a serious crime with draconian consequences when Hinxman was found guilty.
Garrow immediately went on the attack and discovered significant procedural errors and problems with the prosecutor’s evidence. Although Hinxman confessed, Garrow managed to get the jury to declare the verdict innocent. Garrow pioneered the use of cross-examination to comment on the evidence, refute or discredit law enforcement, and fight aggressively on behalf of the accused. Such tactics have been characterized as the most notable change, like criminal proceedings
“If there weren’t any bad people, there wouldn’t be any good lawyers.”
One of Garrow’s first trials at the Old Bailey was the persecution of John Henry Aikles for receiving a bill of exchange on January 14, 1784, under false pretences. Prosecutor and not defence, as he chose, that Garrow founded his successful entry into the field. There is also the taste of his style and tactics so early that would make him known as a lawyer. In the Aikles case, his aggression and irony at the prisoner’s expense had quickly set him apart from other lawyers.
A shrewd scammer, Henry Aikles, was accused of stealing a bill of exchange received on the promise of a discount on it. Instead of doing that, he converted it for his own use. His lawyer confidently stated that this was not a crime and that it was considered a very questionable point. But the sharpness of Mr. Garrow’s answer and the willingness and persuasiveness of his arguments so far satisfied the judge that he left the question of fact to the jury who convicted the offender. And concerning a reference to the twelve judges, they agreed with Garrow’s view of the law.
In this case, Garrow was turned down by two of the most seasoned practitioners of the day, Mr. John Sylvester and Mr. Fielding. In his observations in court, Garrow was able to clarify a confusing point of criminal law, a bill of exchange is a form of a negotiable instrument, a means of obtaining a temporary loan. To receive an amount of money immediately, the person signs the account, which obliges them to pay a required amount of money to or on the order of a certain person or holder on request or at a certain future time. It was alleged that Aikles stole a £ 100 account from Samuel Edwards by promising to pay Mr. Edwards its face value minus a small commission.
Aikles took the signed bill but did not hand it over. When the bill was passed to him, he claimed the money was in his apartments, and Edwards sent Mr. Croxall with him, instructing him not to leave him without the money. However, Aikles got away with no provision of the money and apparently sold the bill to another party who had the right to demand payment. The question in court was whether Aikles had stolen the £ 100 account for a crime. When presenting the case to the jury, Garrow spoke with the great irony of Aikles as one of those virtuous and benevolent men who have the secret of making a great fortune and supporting elegant homes and good equipment through patent philanthropic acts. And the most comprehensive benevolence.
After bringing evidence and defending it, Garrow spoke to the judge in his final statement about the law and recent precedents. In fact, his testimony was also in front of the jury, and he spoke in a way that the jury would clearly understand. He describes a theoretical example and then a number of more recent cases which he considers similar and precedent. In part, he says: Your Honor, The case we are now bringing is just like the case of a man who goes to Smithfield Market and chooses a horse, the owner gives him the horse to try, and the stranger ride away from the horse. If I were to turn to the general view of a man who is mine and ask who lived the property of the horse, he would reply that its delivery to the stranger determined the actual property. But the law said that this property was acquired with criminal intent; such taking is a crime. What happened to Sharpless in this place about nine years ago?
It was the fashion trick of the day (each period has its tricks) to go to a goldsmith and send some of his wares home. It was the wisdom of the day for the goldsmith to order his servant not to leave the goods without money, but somehow Sharpless sent the servant back and kept the goods, and the judges deemed it right to do so. Difficult to prove that the goldsmith actually owned his wares after they were delivered to the stranger by his servant. I had the honour of explaining to your gentlemen a horse theft case, another which in a concise time, received a solemn decision from all the judges in England, which is decisive in this case.
A man hires a horse on the pretext of taking a trip to Essex. In fact, he never makes such a trip but sells the horse. This was found to be a crime. A man goes to a publisher and orders a glass of beer and change for a guinea, sent to Mr. Stiles’ House. When it is returned, on some pretext, he returns the servant, takes the change, and leaves, Allows me to ask if the tax collector who stayed in the bar of his house had more control or possession over his money than any man who listens to me. And yet your glories have with great wisdom asserted that this taking is a crime Mr. New Year’s Eve asks: when did the crime begin? I will answer for exactly as long as I started in the cases I was allowed to take to court. In the case of the horse fighter, it began the moment he put his foot in the stirrup to steal the horse. Here, the crime began the moment the prisoner picked up the note with the criminal intention of converting it for his own use.’
It was clear that Garrow had started his career in such a way that he wanted additional few years, and that brought him a lot of work, fame, and fortune. The court record shows that he revealed a clear understanding of the theft law, openly carried out his attack on the accused’s character, and carefully pulled the jury. While the attorney was not allowed to speak in front of the jury, the prosecutor was usually only when his case was opened.
In the process, however, Garrow continued. After all the evidence was presented, he said, “Sir, I would be happy to bring this matter to the Tribunal, but that any arguments of this nature be directed to the jury. They are supposed to work there, so it is my duty to pester you with a few words in response. It was a new and practical weird approach for the jury that he would pursue throughout his lawyer career – mostly in defence.” Here we get in Garrow’s own words a real sense of the electrical effect he was having in the criminal courtroom context.
Based on the facts of the case and undoubtedly influenced by Garrow’s tactics, the jury found. Aikles was convicted as a defendant and sentenced to death, though he was later pardoned on probation, which in September 1785, when Aikles was in the, strangely turned into a transport penalty he was often found in.
After London avoided the transport and found himself back on the gallows, Garrow appeared before him, using legal arguments and Aicle’s illness to secure his release. The records do not reveal whether Aikles was completely free at the time or whether he was promoted for his original coffence with the move. Most of the Garrow cases in those early years were crimes committed by the common people, and because of the bloody code in England, there have been many crimes where a conviction has involved a death sentence or transportation.
Jury Nullification and prious perjury
‘’The government cannot compensate us; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equals before the law.’’
Garrow’s aggressive cross-examination style could reveal indirect information that motivated the juries to bend the rules and reduce the judgment’s severity. This is known as “repeal and pious perjury.” Revocation occurs when a jury acts according to its conscience or when, in a case, it appears to destroy the law or evidence. In pious perjuries, the jury lowered the value of the stolen property, sometimes significantly, to avoid the death penalty, while it was viewed as too severe a punishment and disproportionate to the offence.
One such occurred in 1784 when Garrow was defending Elizabeth Jones and Mary Smith for 14 shillings worth of shoplifting. A witness named Lewis, who helped arrest the two women, vowed to ask for mercy upon arrest. Garrow interrogated him. There was too much evidence against her to acquit the inmates, but through his cross-examination, Garrow allowed the jury to satisfy their inclinations through partial judgment and found them guilty of stealing fans worth 4 shillings. By setting the stolen fans’ value below five shillings, the jury prevented, in a good example of “pious perjury,” the women from being sent to the gallows and sentenced to twelve lashes and forced labour for months in a house of correction. When the death penalty existed for many property crimes, the juries often reduced the charge, and with it the sentence, often from death to transportation or, as in this case, to flogging and imprisonment.
Newsworthy trials of William Garrow
“The law is continuously based on morals, and if all laws that are essentially moral decisions are to be invalidated under the fair trial clause, the courts are indeed very busy.”
On the October 29, 1792, case, Garrow represented Ms. Weltjie against her husband’s “servant,” Betty Callaway, on whom she was accused of assault. What makes this case interesting now, and at the time it was prosecuted, was that Mr. Weltjie was a personal assistant to the Prince of Wales. The prince’s dealings with Herr Weltjie, as previously described in the press, had already been the subject of criticism and embarrassment for him. Now the prince would be mocked again. Garrow took up the case and dramatized the quality of the prince’s friend’s domestic life:
The public prosecutor Amelia Louisa Weltjie, who presented herself as the wife of ‘Mr. Weltjie, a person some time ago in a lucrative position under the Prince of Wales “who accused Betty Callaway,” said Mr. Weltjie’s servant “of abuse. William Garrow, who represented Ms. Weltjie, accused her of years of having been abused by her husband, often walking out the door and otherwise being brutally treated, but the situation got worse over the summer when her husband, although very ill, denied not allowing servants to look after them or even change their sheets.
She had got up on July 2, waiting for the kitchen to clear, and stole some clean sheets from the laundry. But when she returned to her room, she was brutally attacked by Miss Callaway. When she complained to her husband, he defended the servant by saying that she followed his instructions and refused to fire her. Ms. Weltjie then took her to a judge, but Weltjie followed her, secured bail, and escorted the servant home. Fortunately, said Garrow in conclusion, Weltjie was not an Englishman but merely an arrogant, wallet-proud foreigner who had gotten rich in the service of the country’s most famous subject.
The jury found Miss Callaway guilty, and she was sentenced to two months in prison. There was no fine because Weltjie, the judge said, was so “brave” that he paid it for her. Another case that sparked public interest then and now is:
Baron Hompesch and the Farmer and his Dog
“Behind every argument is a person’s ignorance.”
This case shows how the landed gentry and gentlemen were particularly threatened by Garrow’s court tactics, which were diagnosed as a threat to their honour. Baron Hompesch got so angry with Garrow for his courtroom style that he challenged him to a duel.
Baron Hompesch was a Swiss nobleman and officer in the British Army. He had rented a property in Kent and accused his neighbour, the farmer Sherwood, of hunting game with a dog on his land. This was a violation of gaming laws. Garrow defended the farmer Sherwood and brought in the farmer’s dog in defence to find out that it was only a sheepdog. He laughed at the Baron and explained that his case was supported by two witnesses, the Baron and the dog, “the latter of whom was certainly an honest witness.”
The witness who was called to prove the fact was Baron Hompesch. The Baron stated that the defendant was using the land of a Mr. Chambers who was then imprisoned in Verdun and whose mansion he (the Baron) had rented. He saw Sherwood (the defendant) on February 6 last year.
In a little blanket near Sittingbourne, with a gun on his shoulder and a dog behind him. The dog was between a setter and a sheepdog. He said to him: Farmer Sherwood, you hit the ceiling. He replied, what if he had done that? The Baron replied: Who permitted you? He replied: He had said goodbye, and what was it for the Baron? The Baron replied: After that, it would become clear what he had to do with it. During cross-examination, the Baron said he should know the dog again when he saw it; It was like a sheepdog, but Farmer Sherwood had told him it was one of the best dogs in the county for a hare, and he got a lot of money for it.
He admitted that he and the defendant were on good terms that the accused came to him and sometimes drank with him, and they played six pence together in the Baron’s House until one evening the accused’s wife came and gave him a good haircut. She plugged her husband’s ears and forced him to go home immediately. A few days later, the Baron admitted, he sent the defendant a small present, consisting of a small wine to freshen up his mood after his wife was beaten, and a very neatly decorated, ridged horsewhip, which he recommended as good alternative medicine for his wife.
However, he denied having written defamation against the defendant or acted indecently against a woman who was the subject of the present complaint. Still, Mr. Garrow assured him that he should hear such a thing before the assizes were over. The dog was then produced in court, which the Baron admitted as his old acquaintance, as proof that he was no Lurcher. Mr. Garrow gave a very lively speech to the jury on behalf of the defendant.
He said two witnesses, the Baron supported the case, and his dog, the latter of whom was undoubtedly an honest witness. Concerning the former, as he called himself “His Excellency the Baron Hompesch,” he assumed he had a fair and legal right to the title. Still, he insisted that the jury should not try the accused on his evidence because it was very clear that there were other motives in his head than just wanting to enforce the law.
With great strength, he promoted the virtues which were to adorn high rank and wealth and lived with vigour over the conduct of His Excellency the Baron and sent a man a horsewhip to chastise his wife. Had he been hit hard even by the strong arm of the Kentish farmer, he would have had his deserts.
He said there was no evidence that the defendant used his weapon to destroy the game. At these times, every man should have his weapon, and you might as well convict a draft duelist who commits a footpad robbery for having braces with hair-raising weapons in his pocket.
Mrs. Day’s Baby
‘’Beauty is nature’s boastful right and should be displayed in court, at parties, and at lofty ceremonies where most will marvel at the craftsmanship.’’
Another process that drew public attention was, the point is to determine if Ms. Day is the baby’s legitimate mother. The case was examined for the legality of Mr. Day’s name before Mr. Justice Heath. What emerged in the case was that Mrs. Day, a Staffordshire woman who had become pregnant, left her husband’s house in Kimbolton in Huntingdonshire to sleep with her relatives in Staffordshire. It turned out that Mrs. Day had a miscarriage or lost the child who was being settled in an estate of five or six hundred pounds a year.
It was alleged that Ms. Day, who was in need of a surrogate child, returned to her husband in early March with a child she claimed was her. The question of Mr. Day’s legitimacy has been challenged in court. There is no doubt that Mrs. Day intended to return to her husband’s home with a child, and it appeared that she had actually applied to several people, most notably the workhouse in Wolverhampton. Garrow’s job was to interview the woman who had allegedly sold a child to Mrs. Day and who now claimed that the child she was selling was the same person named Mr. Day whose legitimacy was at stake.
The skill with which Garrow interrogated this woman left no doubt that the child Mrs. Day was carrying home was a surrogate, but that the woman who claimed to have sold the child to Mrs. Day had a false testimony was travelling. Her child’s age did not match the age of the child Ms. Day introduced to her husband. Although, the jury ruled to the advantage of the heir’s legitimacy for other reasons. Mrs. Day certainly had a child as she herself looked after the child with whom she returned to her husband, but it happened that many witnesses who had critical information later died. This included the mother and those visiting her, so no positive proof of delivery could be obtained, and the whole matter was based on the conversation between the neighbours and with the mother on her return, together with the recognition of the child by the father.
This case filled the country with gossip and drew a court crowd rarely seen in size. Garrow’s ingenuity used to show that even if the child Mrs. Day with whom she returned to her husband – who he, “good, easy man,” was mistaken for his was indeed a substitute, it cannot be that it could be the same child sworn in by the woman. This child is said to have been fifteen weeks old, while the child brought back by Mrs. Day, who allegedly belongs to her, was only five weeks old when she returned to live with her husband in Huntingdonshire. So this child cannot possibly be the child of the witness.
The difficulty with which Mr. Garrow ascertained these facts, and the great art with which he derived them from a woman so well educated and prepared in her history, offered the best lesson of cross-examination to a young attorney.
The court was silent during the interrogation, which lasted about three hours. Mr. Garrow’s eyes were hardly averted from the witness. They seemed to invade her soul and reveal the innermost functions of her mind. For a while, she was as calm as he was, but her steadfastness eventually collapsed. He ultimately broke into the truth of the story and finally let it speak to itself so tangibly that his victory was complete.
These court records from this early stage in Garrow’s long legal career reveal the qualities he was known for in his day and which he remembered immediately after his death. It is this early period of interest for scholars in the development of common law. However, in order to understand the man to whom important contributions to the genesis of the opposing process are attributed, other aspects of his long life will be of interest.
Hearsay in the commons
“Laws are a dead letter with no courts to explain and define their true meaning and workings.”
Indeed, Garrow appears to have paid little active attention to his role as an MP, at least until he became a lawyer. Although he was first elected to the House of Commons in April 1805, he did not attempt his first speech until a year later, on April 22, 1806. He is said to have squandered the property of the East India Company.
Turned down a proposed suspension of the debate, Garrow said he had no intention of speaking as he had made some sort of alliance and alliance with himself to keep quiet. Even so, he felt he should oppose Wellesley’s impeachment because the charges had been brought with no evidence to support them. Because of the precedent, he was against it. he felt that the house should not be given the precious impeachment privilege of being the instrument of slander, at least or even for a short time. “His comments didn’t seem to spark any interest, let alone comment.
Then on June 18, 1806, he spoke again in a debate on the affairs of India, not out of interest in the subcontinent but for technical reasons. Lord Teignmouth was asked about treaties with local princes when he was Governor-General of India. Garrow was not connected to the nature of the House of Commons proceedings when he intervened, saying that the noble’s opinion should not be sought. “Elsewhere,” he said, “the rules of evidence would not allow an examination of the witness’s opinion.” In response, another member (Dr. Laurence) pointed out that no rigorous legal evidence was required in proceedings before the house, as nothing could be different than the situation of the House of Commons seeking information and that of a court. Garrow immediately withdrew, noting, It seemed like he had wandered from the courts downstairs to this place where he found that legal knowledge was completely useless for interviewing witnesses.
Ironically, he thanked Dr. Lawrence for his reading, and “from his account, it was evident that this House had grandly chosen to depart from the rules of evidence established by the wisdom of the ages to protect our lives and freedoms. In my opinion, a British Hearing Court could not be received to promote the conviction of a man for conspiracy or otherwise. He could not have overlooked, however, that the rule against hearsay evidence, far from being established by the wisdom of the centuries, had only recently been established through the efforts of defence lawyers, including himself on the front lines, in criminal courts. Garrow was clearly frustrated by the total lack of accountability and fairness in the way MPs gave hearsay information. In return, the speakers at Garrow House tried to point out that they were not bound by any rules of evidence and could present what they wanted. Garrow received another lecture from the house.
Secretary Wyndham noted the tone in which the learned gentleman (Garrow) had spoken and said that although he had thanked his learned friend for his presentation, he had not benefited from it. The question was whether the rules of the following courts apply to parliamentary proceedings. Did the learned lord say they did where the cases were so very different? If he didn’t want to say that, he didn’t say anything. He then did not intervene in a debate for more than six years until, on February 12, 1813, he spoke as an attorney against a transfer of common law judges to the Courts of Fairness. He did not find his time in the house very pleasant, and as time went on, he began to like it less and less. Apparently, he was rarely there unless he had certain business to do.
When Garrow resigned as attorney general in May 1817 to become one of the barons in the Finance Court, he resigned from the House of Commons. There’s no question that Garrow didn’t shine as an MP. While there have been many successful lawyers in Parliament, the eloquence skills required for some differ from those of a jury in a court of law. Lawyers like Pitt were primarily politicians and usually gave up working at the bar. And a lawyer who is used to weighing arguments in detail and treating all causes with the same seriousness could easily bore the community or treat its members as if they were an indiscriminate jury.
However, since he served as a judge (June 1812 – May 1813) and then-Attorney General (May 1813 – May 1817), this work often required his presence in Parliament.
As the Attorney General and Attorney General, the Crown Chief Prosecutor who served during the Napoleonic Wars, Garrow was responsible not only for prosecuting many people accused of treason and sedition, but also a leading figure in Let the Crown Pass Laws in Parliament, who protect the empire from the revolution.
This was a time in England when the regent and many in his administration feared liberal changes in the structure of Parliament, criminal law, and longstanding social policy, for example, in relation to Catholics. Garrow could be relied on to support these conservative government efforts and, as such, was considered “just a creature of the regent.” The mark he made in history at this stage of his career, unlike his earlier models of aggressively defending customer rights, is not that of an innovator using his talents to bring about the much-needed change in these areas brings. Important topics were discussed. One was how justice and mercy would be applied in the criminal code.
In its simplest form, this edition had these dimensions. Traditionally, many crimes, even things like shoplifting, can result in the death penalty. In reality, few people have been hanged for this type of crime. Even if the judge or the crown are convicted, they can override the sentence as an act of grace. The laws were recorded in the books to scare those prone to commit such crimes. This legal system left a great deal of power to the judges and the crown to define a just punishment in each individual case. The crusaders, who called for these laws to be changed, pointed out that the threat would have little force if the criminals were convinced that the harsh punishment would never be carried out. Simultaneously, many people were reluctant to indict an underage perpetrator of such a crime if they believed the accused could be hanged if found guilty. They claimed the justice system was not working.
Baron of the Exchequer
“The purpose of the law is not to punish sins but to prevent certain outward consequences”
On May 6, 1817, Garrow was promoted to Baron of the Treasury, in whose office he remained until his retirement in 1832. In this final phase of his career, he was one of the four barons of the Treasury, a judge in one of the highest courts in the country. This ancient court was set up to resolve disputes over income, especially when the Crown had an interest, but as it evolved, it also dealt with other issues of interest to the Crown.
The Treasury was the third court to deal with various issues, such as the other higher courts, the Common Pleas, and the King’s Bench, all this toward the end of the 17th century. In Garrow’s day (at least until the later years of his tenure), it was in Westminster Hall, a few hundred yards from his house on Great George Street.
He was widely regarded as an indistinguishable judge, largely because his knowledge of the finer legal aspects was rather weak. But this supposedly poor knowledge of the law, if true, might have worked to Garrow’s advantage in developing law enforcement. While he sometimes advocated bills in his Old Bailey legal profession, his focus was on the art of representing and understanding the people before him in court. On the other hand, this could have resulted in him being strict as a judge.
It should be noted that Garrow not only sits in front of the Finance Court dealing with issues that require a thorough understanding of the complex issues in the broad realm of commercial law, but that he spends much of his time as a travelling judge on the circuits of Assize. This legal system was explicitly devoted to criminal matters such as the common man experienced. In Garrow’s case, it typically dealt with cases involving the life or death of the accused. Topics included murder, manslaughter, arson, theft, riot, rebellion, betrayal, counterfeit coin making, and theft of sheep. And in tackling these crime problems, Garrow was the expert on the law.
In the Assize circles, in which Garrow now acts as a judge, the new practice of the so-called trial against opponents was established in the daily criminal trials of the time. A new generation of defence lawyers and prosecutors worked under the watchful eye of Garrow and other judges. These lawyers had learned the art of investigative and cross-examining by observing Garrow’s skills in these areas.
Now, as a judge, Garrow administered the rules of evidence that he helped develop. While criminal proceedings continued in transition, the recent changes made were institutionalized. A new generation of junior lawyers learning their craft in the Assize Circles was tutored in this school by Judge Garrow, who was considered to be the master of their field for on-the-job training. Much of the publicly available information in the public record about Garrow as a judge comes from his Assize circuits service.
At this point in history, judges were travelling from one provincial town to another with a jury to buy up for the assizes all the individuals who had been charged with more serious crimes. The Assizes usually took place twice a year during Lent and summer. In some provinces, the assize was an annual event so people could spend many months in jail waiting for the trial.
The courts of Assize do not always succeed in an attempt to create an atmosphere of dignity and solemnity in which the trials would take place. This ceremony began when the two judges assigned to each session reached the district boundary. They would be met there and taken to the city of Assize with a truly triumphant entrance, accompanied by respected families from the county. The judges are met by the sheriff and often by many of the county’s wealthiest residents. The latter came in-person to greet him or sent their carriages in their richest colours to serve as escorts, adding to the splendour of the occasion, and they entered the town with bells and trumpets preceded by the men of the sheriff, number twelve or twenty, in full clothes, armed with spears “.
The ritual for the trial continued with the judges in their scarlet robes going to the local parish church where the sheriff’s chaplain delivered the assize sermon to the judges. With this calm, the company moved into the courtroom, where the first cases were dealt with immediately. It opened and read the judges’ committees to give the assize judges full jurisdiction to hear any pending criminal cases. They usually adjourn at this time until the next morning and retire to their accommodation or perhaps to the home of a local woman who deserved some of the entertainment that made the Assizes a social occasion for those on the right side of the law.
The next morning, the clerk called (non-civil) the names of the members of the county peace commission and noted those present, as well as the mayors, coroners, stewards, bailiffs, and agents. Next, the grand jury would convene, and the judge would give them directions and swear them in. Shortly after they were sworn in, they retired to a separate room to receive the charges and hear the oral testimony against each prisoner from the prosecutor and his witnesses. When the suspect was not present or represented, based on the evidence to law enforcement, the jury would decide if the case should be heard. They wrote their verdict on the back of the bill and found either a “real bill” that took the defendant to court.
Garrow’s will and trust
‘’The Court of Justice is the most vulnerable and closest to illegality when dealing with a constitutional law enacted by the court that has little or no discernible roots in the language or design of the constitution.’’
Two years into his retirement as a judge and ten years before his eventual death, Garrow wrote and signed two legal instruments that laid down how his wealth would be managed for the rest of his life and how it would be distributed after his death. The first was his will and the second was a contract or a trust.
The will was short and had two requirements. First, that he “wanted to be buried at Hadley [the place of his birth] so close to the remains of my late uncle, Doctor William Garrow, so easily, with no parade or unnecessary expense.” And the second was to build his trust. They will state: “I give all my real and personal property, whatever and wherever and of whatever kind and nature, my said … executor on the trusts and for the use, interests, and purposes contained in and by the deed of assignment.
While the will was simple and straightforward, the trust agreement consisted of sixteen pages of handwritten language in a complicated legal language that in some places is difficult to interpret by laypeople as well as even by a lawyer.
While some details may seem unclear, the general direction of what Garrow wanted to do with his wealth is clear: he wanted professional help with the administration of his estate, he wanted to care for the next generations of his family, and he wanted to avoid duties in the event of death In a design that is trusted in the Ramsgate Library’s Heritage Collection, Garrow carries his Real estate in more detail. This list includes:
- Pegwell properties.
- Barnet properties, including those obtained by the will of his uncle, Dr. William Garrow, including the Two Brewers.
- Enfield property near the obelisk in the Great North Road. The property at or near Rowley Green near Barnet. (will of uncle)
- Messuages, farms, and land called Aberdulais and mills and forges called Aberdulais Mills.
- Messuages, farms, and land called Winualt and Bryhioheeth or Bernwith and Maer Llerwellyn.
- Woods, woodlands, mines, and minerals in Parish of Lantwill by Neath in County of Glamorgan.
- Properties in counties of Kent, Hertford, Middlesex, and Glamorgan.
Glamorgan’s properties are located in the Neath area just outside Swansea in South Wales. It is interesting to speculate that the Glamorgan properties Garrow owned when he died were preserved when his son-in-law, Fothergill Lettsom, went bankrupt. Garrow was a significant investor in his son-in-law’s business venture in the Wales tin factory, and Garrow may have purchased the property in part payment for the substantial cash.
When Garrow was seventy, he turned the detailed management of his property over to the executors. These men were Leonard Smith of the City of London, a merchant, Edward Lowth Badeley of Paper Buildings, Temple, Esquire, and William Nanson Lettsom of Gray’s Inn, Esquire. William Nanson Lettsom was the cousin of Garrow’s daughter’s husband.
These men had the authority to buy and sell assets as needed to manage the investments and meet the trust’s obligations. During Garrow’s lifetime, this was only allowed with his permission. Trustees were appointed for life. They had to appoint their successors and give them the same authority. This was necessary because the trust was designed to last for at least an extended number of years, if not forever. The following people would receive money from the Trust after Garrow’s death. Joseph Garrow, the son of William Garrow’s brother by an Indian woman, would receive £ 1,000.
If Joseph Garrow was not alive when William Garrow died, the money would be for his daughter, Theodosia. The trust was to provide three of Jane Monk’s children with £ 200 each, and Jane William happens to be Garrow’s sister. The Jane Monk children mentioned were Eliza Eleanora Elwin, Selina Augusta Blanc, and Charles Edward Monk. Jane Monk would receive interest, dividends, and £ 2000 annual product for the rest of her life, and upon her death, that income would be passed on to another daughter of Jane, Myra Charlotte Monk. (Jane received this inheritance for a year and died passing the inheritance to Myra Charlotte.) The remaining estate was to be split into two parts, or “parts,” one part in support of Sir William Garrow’s son’s widow. Charlotte Caroline and her descendants.
The other part was helping Sir William Garrow’s daughter, Eliza Sophia Lettsom, and her descendants. How this should be achieved is of particular importance. Charlotte Caroline would receive £ 300 a year from interest on her family allowance side for the rest of her life. The corpus of this money would be divided equally among their children. Their male children would get their share when they were twenty-one years old. Female children could only receive the interest on their share, specifically “to receive dividends, interest, and income throughout their lives for their sole and separate use and without the authority to anticipate, change, or encumber that money.”
After the death of a daughter, the money had to be divided among that daughter’s children. Again, male children would receive their share at the age of twenty-one, and female children would again receive only the interest, and again without the authority to charge the money. Apparently, this strategy would be continued indefinitely through the female line. Eliza Sophia Lettsom, the daughter of Sir William Garrow, would also receive £ 300 a year for the rest of her life, but in this case, the terms were set out in great detail.
The Trust Deed says in part that they will receive “an annual income of £ 300” and “would pay the dividends, interest and annual income thereof into the proper hands of said Eliza Sophia Lettsom, the wife of said Samuel Fothergill Lettsom, for and for their parting.” Uses and benefits regardless of her current spouse or any prospective spouse she might be married to from time to time and free from the control, debts, and obligations of her current or prospective husband Eliza Sophia Lettsom Dividends, do not provide, tax, allocate or in any way encumber or dispose of interest and annual income before they are actually due and payable “.
There was also a complicated provision that an additional £ 200 a year, if necessary, should be split into a relationship between Eliza Sophia and her husband, who, as stated in the document, “are now separated for financial reasons and separated from the circumstances of the said Samuel Fothergill Lettsom. This may have been the source of money that Samuel Fothergill Lettsom supported when he lived in Boulogne, France, all his life and avoided debtors’ prison in England.
Eliza Sophia’s children would participate in the trust in the same way as her children. There was apparently a different provision for the “children, grandchildren, or the subject,” and that is, that money could be drawn for maintenance, education, and promotion, but that money would be taken from that portion for the person in the trust. The trust document also describes how conceivable contingencies in the life of the trust or in the lives of the persons affected by the trust can be dealt with over a longer period of time. This determines how all of these eventualities should be dealt with, and needs to be dealt with, makes the document an extremely complicated matter.
We know from the will of Garrow’s granddaughters that trust was a significant part of their wealth, even though women could only draw the interest they had earned on the money they inherited. Garrow had six granddaughters. Of these, only three married, and of these two late in life. Only one married at the usual age for young women to find husbands.
It seems that when the granddaughters could afford it, they lived on the grandfather’s money and remained independent. For example, the Virgin Anna Maria Garrow died in Canterbury when she was about forty years old, leaving nearly £ 3,000 to her sister Georgina Laetitia, who was also a virgin.
There were only three great-grandchildren of Sir William Garrow, two of whom were girls. And only one of these girls had children. Caroline Georgina Philips Hacker had four children, two girls, and two boys. Of the two girls of this generation, only one had children – Edith Elizabeth Hacker Snead, great-granddaughter of Sir William Garrow, who had three girls and two boys.
Shortly after his retirement, Garrow added an attachment to his will. In it, he commanded that “Mrs. Sarah Young, widow (and his housekeeper) should receive his bed, crib, mattress, pillow, pillow, and other items as I now use them, the same thing along with two full changes of the best linen of all the same and the closets, tables, and chairs and everything else in and around or in my bedroom. “After Garrow’s death, Mrs. Sarah Young continued to live at Pegwell Cottage. The Kentish Observer recorded the following observer on November 19, 1840. Mrs. Young appears to have lived less than two months after Garrow’s death.
Garrow was not buried in Hadley near the remains of his beloved uncle, as he requested. He was intermented in the churchyard of St. Lawrence Parish Church, Ramsgate, Thanet, near his home. His crypt may also have been more expensive than advertised.
His request was that his funeral be “without a parade.” The tomb is not far from the church’s door and is surrounded by an iron gate and covered with ivy. The inscription is difficult or impossible to read, but records show that these words are carved in the stone.
Sir William GARROW of Pegwell Cottage was the third son of David Garrow of Hadley, County Hereford. He was born on April 13, 1760, and 1793 by King George III, and he was appointed one of his majesties. In 1806 he was appointed Attorney General to HRH George, Prince of Wales. In 1812 he was appointed attorney general. In 1813, the attorney general of King George IIIA year after his appointment as the attorney general, he was appointed Chief Justice of County Palatine of Chester. He was promoted to Baron of the Finance Court in 1817, and after serving the duties of that office sincerely and skillfully for nearly 15 years, he retired in February 1832. He was immediately appointed by King William IV, one of his most honourable Privy Councilors Majesty. He died in Pegwell, loved and honoured on September 21, 1840, at the age of 80.
Recommended by Motto Cosmos: