Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

stances you have succeeded, because jurymen are too often ignorant of their own rights, asd too apt to be awed by the authority of a chief-justice. In other criminal prosecutions, the malice of the design is confessedly as much the subject of consideration to a jury as the certainty of the fact. If a different doctrine prevails in the case of libels, why should it not extend to all criminal cases?— why not to capital offences? I see no reason (and I dare say you will agree with me, that there is no good one) why the life of the subject should be better protected against you, than his liberty or property. Why should you enjoy the full power of pillory, fine and imprisonment, and not be indulged with hanging or transportation? With your Lordship's fertile genius and merciful disposition, I can conceive such an exercise of the power you have, as could hardly be aggravated by that which you

have not.

But, my Lord, since you have laboured (and not unsuccessfully) to destroy the substance of the trial, why should you suffer the form of the verdict to remain? Why force twelve honest men, in palpable violation of their oaths, to pronounce their fellow-subject a guilty man, when, almost at the same moment, you forbid their inquiring into the only circumstance which, in the eye of law and reason, constitutes guilt-the malignity or innocence of his intentions:-But I understand your Lordship.-If you could succeed in making the trial by jury useless and ridiculous, you might then with greater safety introduce a bill inte parliament for enlarging the jurisdiction of the court, and extending your favourite trial by interrogatories to every question in which the life or liberty of an Englishman is concerned i.

Your charge to the jury, in the prosecution against Almon and Woodfall, contradicts the highest legal authorities, as well as the plainest dictates of reason. In Millar's cause, and still more expressly in that of Baldwin you have proceeded a step farther, and grossly contradicted yourself.--You may know perhaps, though I do not mean to insult you by an appeal to your experience, that the language of truth is uniform and consistent. To depart from it safely, requires memory and discretion. In the two last trials, your charge to the jury began as usual,

[ocr errors]

with assuring them that they had nothing to do with the law, that they were to find the bare fact, and not concern themselves about the legal inferences drawn from it, or the degree of the defendant's guilt.--Thus far you were consistent with your former practice.-But how will you account for the conclusion? You told the jury, that" if, after all, they would take upon themselves to "determine the law, they might do it; but they must be very sure that they determined according to law, for it "touched their consciences, and they acted at their peril." --If I understand your first proposition, you meant to affirm, that the jury were not competent judges of the law in the criminal case of a libel ;--that it did not fall within their jurisdiction; and that, with respect to them, the malice or innocence of the defendant's intentions would be a question coram non judice.--But the second proposition clears away your own difficulties, and restores the jury to all their judicial. capacities. You make the competence of the court to depend upon the legality of the decision. In the first instance, you deny the power absolutely. In the second, you admit the power, provided it be legally exercised. Now, my Lord, without pretending to reconcile the distinctions of Westminsterhall with the simple information of common sense, or the integrity of fair argument, I shall be understood by your Lordship, when I assert, that, if a jury, or any other court of judicature (for jurors are judges), have no right to enter into a cause or question of law, it signifies nothing whether their decision be or be not according to law. Their decision is in itself a mere nullity :-the parties are not bound to submit to it: and, if the jury run any risk of punishment, it is not for pronouncing a corrupt or illegal verdict, but for the illegality of meddling with a point on which they can have no legal authority to decide 1.

I cannot quit this subject, without reminding your Lordship of the name of Mr. Benson. Without offering any legal objection, you ordered a special jury man to be set aside in a cause where the King was prosecutor. The novelty of the fact required explanation. Will you condescend to tell the world, by what law or custom you were authorized to make a peremptory challenge of a juryman? The parties indeed have this power; and perhaps your

Lordship, having accustomed yourself to unite the characters of judge and party, may claim it in virtue of the new capacity you have assumed, and profit by your own wrong. The time, within which you might have been punished for this daring attempt to pack a jury, is, I fear, elapsed; but no length of time shall erase the record of it.

The mischiefs you have done this country are not confined to your interpretation of the laws. You are a minister, my Lord; and, as such, have long been consulted. Let us candidly examine what use you have made of your aninisterial influence. I will not descend to little matters, but come at once to those important points on which your resolution was waited for, on which the expectation of your opinion kept a great part of the nation in suspence.-A constitutional question arises upon a declaration of the law of parliament, by which the freedom of election and the birthright of the subject were supposed to have been invaded.--The King's servants were accused of violating the constitution.--The nation is in a ferment.-The ablest men of all parties engage in the question, and exert their utmost abilities in the discussion of it.--What part has the honest Lord Mansfield acted? As an eminent judge of the law, his opinion would have been respected. As a peer, he had a right to demand an audience of his sovereign, and inform him that his ministers were pursuing unconstitutional measures.--Upon other occasions, my Lord, you have no difficulty in finding your way into the closet. The pretended neutrality of belonging to no party, will not save your reputation. In questions merely political, an honest man may stand neuter. But the laws and constitution are the general property of the subject; not to defend is to relinquish ; --and who is there so senseles as to renounce his share in a common benefit, unless he hopes to profit by a new division of the spoil. As a lord of parliament, you were repeatedly called upon to condemn or defend the new law declared by the House of Commons. You affected to have scruples, and every expedient was attempted to remove them.--The question was proposed and urged to you in a thousand different shapes.--Your prudence still supplied you with evasion; -your resolution was invincible. For my own part, I am not anxious to penetrate.

this solemn secret. I care not to whose wisdom it is intrusted, nor how soon you carry it with you to your grave". You have betrayed your opinion by the very care you have taken to conceal it. It is not from Lord Mansfield that we expect any reserve in declaring his real sentiments in favour of government, or in opposition to the people; nor is it difficult to account for the motions of a timid, dishonest heart, which neither has virtue enough to acknowledge truth, nor courage to contradict it.-Yet you continue to support an administration which you know is universally odious, and which, on some occasions, you yourself speak of with contempt. You would fain be thought to take no share in government; while, in reality, you are the main spring of the machine.-Here too we trace the little, prudential policy of a Scotchman.--Instead of acting that open, generous part, which becomes your rank and station, you meanly skulk into the closet, and give your sovereign such advice as you have not spirit to avow or defend. You se

cretly engross the power, while you decline the title, of minister; and though you dare not be chancellor, you know how to secure the emoluments of the office.--Are the seals to be for ever in commission, that you may enjoy five thousand pounds a-year?—I beg pardon, my Lord; ---your fears have interposed at last, and forced you to resign. The odium of continuing speaker of the House of Lords, upon such terms, was too formidable to be resisted. What a multitude of bad passions are forced to submit to a constitutional infirmity! But though you have relinquished the salary, you still assume the rights of a minister. Your conduct, it seems, must be defended in parliament.--For what other purpose is your wretched friend, that miserable serjeant, posted to the House of Commons? Is it in the abilities of Mr. Leigh to defend the great Lord Mansfield?—or is he only the punch of the puppet-show, to speak as he is prompted by the CHIEF JUGGLER behind the curtain ".

In public affairs, my Lord, cunning, let it be ever so well wrought, will not conduct a man honourably through life. Like bad money, it may be current for a time, but it will soon be cried down. It cannot consist with a liberal spirit, though it be sometimes united with extraordinary qualifications. When I acknowledge your abili

ties, you may believe I am sincere. I feel for human nature, when I see a man, so gifted as you are, descend to such vile practices.--Yet do not suffer your vanity to console you too soon. Believe me, my good Lord, you are not admired in the same degree in which you are detested. It is only the partiality of your friends, that balances the defects of your heart with the superiority of your understanding. No learned man, even among your own tribe, thinks you qualified to preside in a court of common law. Yet it is confessed, that, under Justinian, you might have made an incomparable prætor.--It is remarkable enough, but I hope not ominous, that the laws you understand best, and the judges you affect to admire most, flourished in the decline of a great empire, and are supposed to have contributed to its fall.

Here, my Lord, it may be proper for us to pause together.--It is not for my own sake that I wish you to consider the delicacy of your situation. Beware how you indulge the first emotions of your resentment. This paper is delivered to the world, and cannot be recalled. The persecution of an innocent printer cannot alter facts, nor refute arguments.-Do not furnish me with farther materials against yourself.--An honest man, like the true religion, appeals to the understanding, or modestly confides in the internal evidence of his consience, The im postor employs force instead of argument, imposes silence were he cannot convince, and propagates his character by the sword.

JUNIUS..

SIR,

LETTER XLII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

Jan. 30. 1771.

IF we recollect in what manner the King's friends have been constantly employed, we shall have no reason to be surprised at any condition of disgrace to which the once-respected name of Englishmen may be degraded. His Majesty has no cares, but such as concern the laws and constitution of this country. In his royal breast there is no room left for resentment, no

« ElőzőTovább »