t

avarice. Any other man, but this bosom friend of three Scotchmen, would gladly have sacrificed a few hundred pounds, rather than submit to the infamy of pleading guilty in open court. It is possible indeed that he might have flattered himself, and not unreasonably, with the hopes of a pardon. That he would have been par doned, seems more than probable, if I had not directed the public attention to the leading step you took in favour of him. In the present gentle reign, we well know what use has been made of the lenity of the Court, and of the mercy of the Crown. The Lord Chief Justice of England accepts of the hundredth part of the property of a felon, taken in the fact, as a recognizance for his appearance. Your brother Smythe browbeats a jury, and forces them to alter their verdict, by which they had found aScotch serjeant guilty of murder; and though the Kennedies were convicted of a most deliberate and atrocious murder, they still had a claim to the Royal mercy. They were saved by the chastity of their connections. They had a sister, yet it was not her beauty, but the pliancy of her virtue that recommended her to the King.

The holy author of our religion was seen in the company of sinners; but it was his gracious purpose to convert them from their sins. Another man, who, in the ceremonies of our faith, might give lessons to the great enemy of it, upon different principles, keeps much the same company. He advertises for patients, collects all the diseases of the heart, and turns a royal palace into an hospital for incurables. A man of honour has no ticket of admission at St. James's. They receive him like a virgin at the Magdalenes'; Go, thou, and do likewise.

My charge against you is now made good. I shall, however, be ready to answer or to sub. mit to fair objections. If, whenever this matter

shall be agitated, you suffer the doors of the House of Lords to be shut, I now protest, that 1 shall consider you as having made no reply. From that moment, in the opinion of the world, you will stand self-convicted. Whether your reply be quibbling and evasive, or liberal and in point, will be matter for the judgment of your peers; but if, when every possible idea of disrespect to that noble House (in whose honour and justice the nation implicitly confides) is here most solemnly disclaimed, you should endeavour to represent this charge as a contempt of their authority, and move their lordships to censure the publisher of this paper, I then affirm, that you support injustice by violence, that you are guilty of a heinous aggravation of your offence, and that you contribute your utmost influence to promote, on the part of the highest court of judicature, a positive denial of justice to the nation.

JUNIUS.

LETTER LXIX.

TO THE

Right Hon. Lord Camden.

MY LORD,

I TURN with pleasure from that barren waste in which no salutary plant takes root, no verdure quickens, to a character fertile, as I willingly believe, in every great and good qualifi cation. I call upon you, in the name of the English nation, to stand forth in defence of the laws of your country, and to exert, in the cause of truth and justice, those great abilities with which you were entrusted for the benefit of

1

mankind. To ascertain the facts set forth in the preceding paper, it may be necessary to call the persons mentioned in the mittimus to the bar of the House of Lords. If a motion for that purpose should be rejected, we shall know what to think of Lord Mansfield's innocence. The legal argument is submitted to your Lordship's judgment. After the noble stand you made against Lord Mansfield, upon the question of libel, we did expect that you would not have suffered that matter to have remained undetermined. But it was said that Lord Chief Justice Wilmot had been prevailed upon to vouch for an opinion of the late Judge Yates, which was supposed to make against you; and we admit of the excuse. When such detestable arts are employed to prejudge a question of right, it might have been imprudent at that time to have brought it to a decision. In the present instance, you will have no such opposition to contend with. If there be a judge, or a lawyer, of any note in Westminster-hall, who shall be daring enough to affirm that, according to the true intendment of the laws of England, a felon, taken with the maner in flagrante de. licto, is bailable, or that the discretion of an English judge is merely arbitrary, and not go. verned by rules of law, I should be glad to be acquainted with him. Whoever he be, I will take care that he shall not give you muchi trouble. Your Lordship's character assures me that you will assume that principal part, which belongs to you, in supporting the laws of England against a wicked judge, who makes it the occupation of his life to misinterpret and per. vert them. If you decline this honourable office, I fear it will be said, that, for some, months past, you have kept too much company with the Duke of Grafton. When the contest turns upon the interpretation of the laws, you R

cannot, without a formal surrender of all your reputation, yield the post of honour even to Lord Chatham. Considering the situation and abilities of Lord Mansfield, I do not scruple to affirm, with the most solemn appeal to God for my sincerity, that, in my judgment, he is the very worst and most dangerous man in the kingdom. Thus far I have done my duty in endeavouring to bring him to punishment. But mine is an inferior ministerial office in the temple of justice: I have bound the victim, and dragged him to the altar."

JUNIUS:

The Reverend Mr. John Horne having, with his usual veracity, and honest industry, circulated a report that Junius, in a letter to the Supporters of the Bill of Rights, had warmly declared himself in favour of long parliaments and rotten boroughs, it is thought necessary to submit to the public the following extract from his letter to John Wilkes, Esq. dated the 7th of September, 1771, and laid before the Society on the 24th of the same month.

"With regard to the several articles, taken "separately, I own I am concerned to see that "the great condition which ought to be the "sine qua non of parliamentary qualification, "which ought to be the basis (as it assuredly "will be the only support) of every barrier "raised in defence of the constitution, (I mean 46 a declaration upon oath to shorten the dura"tion of parliaments) is reduced to the fourth "rank in the esteem of the society; and even "in that place, far from being insisted on with "firmness and vehemence, seems to have been "particularly slighted in the expression, You "shall endeavour to restore annual parliaments.

"Are these the terms which men who are in " earnest make use of, when the salus reipub "lice is at stake? I expected other language "from Mr. Wilkes. Besides my objection in "point of form, I disapprove highly of the "meaning of the fourth article as it stands. "Whenever the question shall be seriously agi.

tated, I will endeavour (and if I live, will "assuredly attempt it) to convince the English "nation by arguments, to my understanding "unanswerable, that they ought to insist upon "a triennial, and banish the idea of an annual "parliament. ....I am convinced, that "if shortening the duration of parliaments "(which, in effect, is keeping the representa. "tive under the rod of the constituent) be not "made the basis of our new parliamentary ju"risprudence, other checks or improvements "signify nothing. On the contrary, if this be "made the foundation, other measures may come "in aid, and, as auxiliaries, be of considerable "advantage. Lord Chatham's project, for in"stance, of increasing the number of knights "of shires, appears to me admirable.

"As to cutting away the rotten boroughs, I am "as much offended as any man at seeing so

many of them under the direct influence of "the Crown, or at the disposal of private per86 sons. Yet, I own, I have both doubts and "apprehensions in regard to the remedy you propose. I shall be charged, perhaps, with an unusual want of political intrepidity, when "I honestly confess to you, that I am startled "at the idea of so extensive an amputation. In "the first place, I question the power, de jurc, "of the legislature to disfranchise a number of "boroughs upon the general ground of improv. "ing the constitution. There cannot be a doc"trine more fatal to the liberty and property "we are contending for, than that which con