indecorum of praising his principal. The fraud was innocent, and I always intended to explain it. The notes will be found not only useful but necessary. References to facts not generally known, or allusions to the current report or opinion of the day, are, in a little time, unintelligible. Yet the reader will not find himself overloaded with explanations. I was not born to be a commentator, even upon my own works.

It remains to say a few words upon the liberty of the press. The daring spirit by which these letters are supposed to be distinguished, seems to require that something serious should be said in their defence. I am no lawyer by profession, nor do I pretend to be more deeply read than every English gentleman should be, in the laws of his country. If, therefore, the principles I maintain are truly constitutional, I shall not think myself answered, though I should be convicted of a mistake in terms, or of misapplying the language of the law. I speak to the plain understanding of the people, and appeal to their honest, liberal construction of me,

Good men, to whom alone I address myself, appear to me to consult their piety as little as their judgment and experience, when they admit the great and essential advantages accruing to society from the freedom of the press, yet indulge themselves in peevish or passionate exclamations against the abuses of it. Betraying an unreasonable expectation of be

nefits, pure and entire from any human institution, they, in effect, arraign the goodness of Providence, and confess that they are dissatisfied with the common lot of humanity. In the present instance, they really create to their own minds, or greatly exaggerate the evil they complain of. The laws of England provide as effectually as any human laws can do for the protection of the subject, in his reputation, as well as in his person and property. If the characters of private men are insulted or injured, a double remedy is open to them by action and indictment. If, through indolence, false shame, or indifference, they will not appeal to the laws of their country, they fail in their duty to society, and are unjust to themselves. If, from an unwarrantable distrust of the integrity of juries, they would wish to obtain justice by any mode of proceeding more summary than a trial by their peers, do not scruple to affirm, that they are, in effect, greater enemies to themselves than to the li beller they prosecute,

With regard to strictures upon the characters of men in office, and the measures of government, the case is a little different. A considerable latitude must be allowed in the discussion of public affairs, or the liberty of the press will be of no benefit to society. As the indulgence of private malice and personal slander should be checked and resisted by every legal means, so a constant examination into the characters and conduct of Ministers and Magi,

strates, should be equally promoted and encouraged. They who conceive that our newspapers are no restraint upon bad men, or impediment to the execution of bad measures, know nothing of this country. In that state of abandoned servility and prostitution, to which the undue influence of the Crown has reduced the other branches of the legislature, our Ministers and Magistrates have, in reality, little punishment to fear, and few difficulties to contend with, beyond the censure of the press, and the spirit of resistance which it excites among the people. While this censorial power is maintained, to speak in the words of a most ingenious foreigner, both Minister and Magistrate are compelled, in almost every instance, to choose between his duty and his reputation. A dilemma of this kind perpetually before him, will not, indeed, work miracles on his heart, but it will assuredly operate, in some degree, upon his conduct. At all events, these are not times to admit of any relaxation in the little discipline we have left.

But it is alledged, that the licentiousness of the press is carried beyond all bounds of decency and truth; that our excellent Ministers are continually exposed to the public hatred or derision; that in prosecutions for libels on government, juries are partial to the popular side; and that, in the most flagrant cases, a verdict cannot he obtained for the King. If the premises were admitted, I should deny the conclusion. It is not true that the temper of the

times has in general an undue influence over the conduct of juries. On the contrary, many signal instances may be produced of verdicts returned for the King, when the inclinations of the people led strongly to an undistinguished opposition to government. Witness the cases of Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Almon. In the late prosecutions of the printers of my address to a great Personage, the juries were never fairly dealt with. Lord Chief Justice Mausfield, conscious that the paper in question contained no treasonable or libellous matter, and that the severest parts of it, however painful to the King, or offensive to his servants, were strictly true, would fain have restricted the jury to the finding of special facts, which, as to guilty or not guilty, were merely indifferent. This particular motive, combined with his general purpose to contract the power of juries, will account for the charge he delivered in Woodfall's trial. He told the jury, in so many words, that they had nothing to determine, except the fact of printing and publishing, and whether or no the blanks or inuendoes, were properly filled up in the information; but that, whether the defendant had committed a crime or not, was no matter of consideration to twelve men, who yet, upon their oaths, were to pronounce their peer guilty or not guilty: When we hear such nonsense delivered from the bench, and find it supported by a laboured train of sophistry, which a plain understanding is unable to follow, and which an unlearned jury, however it may shock their reason, cannot be

supposed qualified to refute, can it be wondered that they should return a verdict, perplexed, absurd, or imperfect? Lord Mansfield has not yet explained to the world, why he accepted of a verdict which the court afterwards set aside as illegal; and which, as it took no notice of the inuendoes, did not even correspond with his own charge. If he had known his duty, he should have sent the jury back. I speak advisedly, and am well assured, that no lawyer of character, in Westminster Hall, will contradict me. To show the falsehood of Lord Mansfield's doctrine, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the paper which produced the trial. If every line of it were treason, his charge to the jury would still be false, absurd, illegal, and unconstitutional. If I stated the merits of my Letter to the King, I should imitate Lord Mansfield, and travel out of the record.

* The following quotation from a speech delivered by Lord Chatham, on the 11th of December, 1770, is taken with exactness. The reader will find it curious in itself, and very fit to be inserted here. "My Lords, the verdict "given in Woodfall's trial was, guilty of printing and "publishing only; upon which two motions were made in "court: one, in arrest of judgment, by the defendant's "counsel, grounded upon the ambiguity of the verdict; "the other, by the counsel for the Crown, for a rule upon "the defendant, to show cause why the verdict should not "be entered up according to the legal import of the words. "On both motions a rule was granted; and soon after the "matter was argued before the Court of King's Bench.

The noble Judge, when he delivered the opinion of the