Atrocious Judges : Lives of Judges Infamous as Tools of Tyrants and Instruments of Oppression — A Reader’s Guide

Saunders's Legal Maneuvering

The excerpts detail Saunders's role in the prosecution of Lord Shaftesbury for high treason. He suggested examining witnesses before the grand jury in open court, arguing that 'the usual secresy observed being for the king's benefit, it might be waived by the king at his pleasure.' This subtlety allowed the crown to present its case publicly, a departure from standard practice. Saunders himself interrogated the clerk of the council, Mr. Blathwayt, giving a 'treasonable tinge to all that passed.' The effort earned him a knighthood, though the grand jury's 'ignoramus' verdict must have been a disappointment.

Contradictions in Counsel

Saunders's career reveals a pattern of serving the crown even when ostensibly defending the accused. He argued against Fitzharris's plea of impeachment pending, declaring the alleged treason 'the most horrid, venomous treason ever spread abroad.' Yet he also defended those prosecuted for discrediting the Popish Plot and supported the Earl of Danby's discharge. In the latter case, he clashed with Chief Justice Pemberton, who reprimanded him for 'offering to impose upon the court.' Saunders retorted that he believed his brethren understood the matter as he did, and Danby's support gave him a 'complete triumph.'

The Quo Warranto Strategy

When the attorney and solicitor general could find no legal basis to challenge London's city charter, Saunders devised a remedy. He advised discovering something that could be set up as a forfeiture, leading to a quo warranto against the citizens. The only irregularity was a by-law requiring tolls for market improvements after the great fire, and a petition lamenting the prorogation of Parliament. This strategy, based on slender pretexts, aimed to strip the city of its franchises and undermine the 'pure administration of justice by impartial juries.'

Readers should attend to the editorial framing: Hildreth's introduction and bracketed notes shape the narrative as a cautionary tale for American magistrates. The excerpts show how legal technicalities could be weaponized, and how a judge's rise often depended on pleasing the monarch. The appendix on Passmore Williamson, though not excerpted, likely extends this critique to a contemporary American context.

Somewhere in those old judicial tales, I kept noticing how power convinces people they’re above their own rules. It left a strange ache. That same quiet discomfort followed me into the reading notes on jurisprudence—not answers, just a deeper sense of how fragile our guardrails are. Jurisprudence — Reading Notes feels like a patient companion to that unease.