large/7264/free_press_1206_librivox_64kb_mp3/freepress_12_belloc_64kb_26
large/7264/free_press_1206_librivox_64kb_mp3/freepress_12_belloc_64kb
English
7264
The lawyers decide in the last resort on the freedom of speech and writing among their fellow citizens, and as their Guild is now unhappily intertwined with the whole machinery of Executive Government, we have in modern England an executive controlling the expression of opinion. It is absolute in a degree unknown, I think, in past society. THE LAWYERS DECIDE IN THE LAST RESORT ON THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND WRITING AMONG THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS AND AS THEIR GUILD IS NOW UNHAPPILY INTERTWINED WITH THE WHOLE MACHINERY OF EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT WE HAVE IN MODERN ENGLAND AN EXECUTIVE CONTROLLING THE EXPRESSION OF OPINION IT IS ABSOLUTE IN A DEGREE UNKNOWN I THINK IN PAST SOCIETY
s own future depends upon his supporting the interests of the politicians and so betraying his client--or, if some eccentric undertakes his own defence, the whole power of the Guild will be turned against him under forms of liberty which are no longer even hypocritical. A special juryman, for instance, that should stand out against the political verdict desired would be a marked man. But the point is not worth making, for, as a fact, no juryman ever has stood out lately when a political verdict was ordered. Even in the case of so glaring an abuse, with which the whole country is now familiar, we must not exaggerate. It would still be impossible for the politicians, for instance, to get a verdict during war in favour of an overt act of treason. But after all, argument of this sort applies to any tyranny, and the power the politicians have and exercise of refusing to prosecute, however clear an act of treason or other grossly unpopular act might be, is equivalent to a power of acquittal.  WHICH CASE THE ADVOCATE'S OWN FUTURE DEPENDS ON HIS SUPPORTING THE INTERESTS OF THE POLITICIANS AND SO BETRAYING HIS CLIENT OR IF SOME ECCENTRIC UNDERTAKES HIS OWN DEFENSE THE WHOLE POWER OF THE GUILD WILL BE TURNED AGAINST HIM UNDER FORMS OF LIBERTY WHICH ARE NO LONGER EVEN HYPOCRITICAL A SPECIAL JURYMAN FOR INSTANCE THAT WOULD STAND OUT AGAINST THE POLITICAL VERDICT DESIRED WOULD BE A MARKED MAN BUT THE POINT IS NOT WORTH MAKING FOR AS A FACT NO JURYMAN EVER HAS STOOD OUT LATELY WHEN A POLITICAL VERDICT WAS ORDERED EVEN IN THE CASE OF SO GLARING AN ABUSE WITH WHICH THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS NOW FAMILIAR WE MUST NOT EXAGGERATE IT WOULD STILL BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE POLITICIANS FOR INSTANCE TO GET A VERDICT DURING WAR IN FAVOR OF AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON BUT AFTER ALL ARGUMENT OF THIS SORT APPLIES TO ANY TYRANNY AND THE POWER THE POLITICIANS HAVE AND EXERCISED OF REFUSING TO PROSECUTE HOWEVER CLEAR AN ACT OF TREASON OR OTHER GROSSLY UNPOPULAR ACT MIGHT BE IS EQUIVALENT TO A POWER OF ACQUITTAL
large/7264/free_press_1206_librivox_64kb_mp3/freepress_12_belloc_64kb
file
download/librilight/large/7264/free_press_1206_librivox_64kb_mp3/freepress_12_belloc_64kb.flac