minds of men trusted to his own benign and auspicious disposition, and were not soured by the interposition of undue influence, the laws had not lost their salutary terrors. Do you ask a proof? The forty-fifth number of the North Briton is an undeniable evidence of my assertion: the jury, without any difficulty, found the publisher guilty: what, then, has wrought so sudden a change in the temper and disposition of the people, that they now countenance the most audacious and wicked libels? In so short a time they cannot have become absolutely corrupt.. What, then, is the cause of this strange phænomenon? Are the courts of justice depraved and impure, and do they out of spite and malice contradict and oppose them? I hope not; I hope they are unimpeachable. I believe, nay I know, the scandalous reports which are circulated to be ill founded. Where, then, Sir, shall we look for the origin of this relaxation of the laws and of all government? How comes this Junius to have broke through the cobwebs of the law, and to range uncontrouled, unpunished, through the land? The myrmidons of the court have been long, and are still, pursuing him in vain. They will not spend their time upon me, or you, or you: no; they disdain such vermin, when the mighty boar of the forest, that has broke through all their toils, is before them. But, what will all their efforts avail? No sooner has he wounded one, than he lays down another dead at his fect. For my part, when I saw his attack upon the King, I own my blood ran cold. I thought he had ventured too far, and that there was an end of his triumphs; not that he had not asserted many truths. Yes, Sir, there are in that composition many bold truths by which a wise prince might profit. and venom with which I was struck. North Briton is as much inferior to wit, and judginent. But while I expected from this daring flight his final ruin and fall, behold him rising still higher, and coming down souse upon both Houses of parliament. Yes, he did make you his quarry, and you still bleed from It was the rancour In these respects the him, as in strength, your as he dreaded the terrors of &anodi even you - he has and I eason to triumph in the encounter. big way our royal eagle in his pounces, got a rock, he has laid you prostrate. Commons, are but the sport of his fury. ver of this house, what might not be snowledge, his firmness, and integrity! asdy known by his contempt of all danger, on, by his vigour. Nothing would escape and activity. Bad ministers could conceal ruhig ruit uis sagacity; nor could promises nor threats 20 conceal any thing from the public. So why do I dwell upon Junius alone? There are tunes other libellers whom you cannot reach: secure the erection of the people, they laugh at the terrors mction to scorn. All your messengers of the press, at your gibes of informers, are as much despised as they wed. What is the cause of this general aversion to this aniversal conspiracy against government? We that it arises neither from the natural depravity people, nor from the accidental misbehaviour of watts of law. What is the conclusion? The whole geable upon administration. The ministers are i criminals. It is their malversation and uncontt encroachments that have roused up in the nation t of opposition, which tramples under foot all law, and decorum. Until they are removed and punished, and will be nothing but a scene of anarchy and conIt is not that I do not approve of the proposed O the conduct of our judges. Though I believe bets to be false and groundless, yet as a friend to as a friend to the people, whose suspicions will hase removed by approbation, reprehension, or punishI cannot help giving it my hearty concurrence. e is a letter directed to one of the judges, which hyes him with high crimes. Will you allow that paper kabroad without any notice? You have tried every expedient for quieting the people, but that of removing the offence. Were it only for the sake of experiment, it would be worth your while to try what effect this measure would have upon the public. In reply to what fell from Mr. De Grey, the Attorney General, Mr. BURKE said: Sir; I did not mean to fix a stigma on the character of any particular man. All I wanted to shew was, that there was malice somewhere, and from what I have now heard I find little reason to retract. A pretty satisfactoryaccount, indeed, has been given for Almon's being first tried, and for his not having the other day received sentence. But has any reason been given for his having been tried at all? Has the presumption of malice, that appears upon the face of that transaction, been wiped away by the learned gentleman's rhetoric? No. We have heard much of the legality, equity, and reasonableness of prima facie evidence. If ever applicable, I am sure it is applicable to this case. The prima facie evidence fixes guilt on the prosecutors, and I am satisfied they have not produced contrary evidence to destroy its force. What is the consequence? They must, according to their own law or logic, be condemned. The share that Almon had in the publication of Junius's letter was so small, that no man of common sense can suppose, that he was on that account marked out as an object of punishment. No, Sir, there were other latent causes, neither so specious, nor so ostensible; "manet altâ mente repostum "Judicium Paridis, spretæque injuria formæ, 1 appeal to the honour and conscience of the House, whether I do not speak truth. If I do not, I expect to be contradicted. Does any one chuse to rise? No-no one has the front; and I have the pleasure to see that we have still some grace left amongst us. This is a point that is obvious to the most simple and untutored. Had I been disposed to refine, and to play the metaphysician, my ingenuity, small as it is, would have enabled me to assign no very honourable motives to the quirk, which brought the least culpable first to their trial. Had the original publisher been first tried and acquitted, it was foreseen that common decency would not suffer the other prosecutions to go any further: a circumstance, by which the culprits would save a deal of expence, and certain officers would lose the harvest of their trade. This, and some other points of the like nature I might urge, were I actuated by any malice or personal pique. But I disclaim such unworthy motives. My public conduct shall always be directed by public considerations. Having said this, I have nothing further to add, but that I see no reason to retract or alter my opinions. I return, therefore, to the three grounds on which I set out, and repeat, that all our present misfortunes are owing to the corruption of the people, to the misconduct of our judges, or to the malversation of our ministry. The absurdity of the first supposition I have explained, I hope, to your satisfaction. The whole blame must consequently fall on the two last, but chiefly on the ministry. The necessary conclusion is, that the ministry ought to be removed, and that the proposed enquiry into the conduct of our judges ought to be adopted. After a debate which lasted till a late hour, the House divided on Mr. Phipps's motion: Yeas 72: Noes 164. MR. SERJEANT GLYNN'S MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE TO ENQUIRE INTO THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDGES IN WESTMINSTER HALL, IN CASES RELATING TO THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, AND THE POWER AND DUTIES OF JURIES. December 6. THIS day Mr. Serjeant Glynn moved, "That a committee be appointed to enquire into the administration of criminal justice, and the proceedings of the judges in Westmister Hall, in cases relating to the liberty of the press, and the power and duties of juries." The motion was seconded by Mr. Alderman Oliver, and supported by Sir Joseph Mawbey, Mr. Alderman Sawbridge, Mr. Connel, Mr. Alderman Townshend, Mr. Cornwall, Sir George Savile, Mr. Constantine Phipps, Mr. Thomas Townshend, Mr. Dunning, Mr. Wedderburn, and others. It was principally opposed by Mr. Jenkinson, Mr. Grey Cooper, Lord Clare, Sir Gilbert Elliot, Mr. Fox, Mr. Attorney General De Grey, and Mr. Solicitor General Thurlow. Mr. BURKE said: Sir; the subject of our present debate is, in my opinion, a matter of a very serious and important nature; and is not therefore to be dismissed without mature deliberation. The learned gentleman who introduced it, boldly arraigns the general conduct of our courts of justice; and the honourable gentleman who seconded him, as boldly arraigns the conduct of a particular judge. Either charge should be alone sufficient to excite our closest attention. What effect, then, ought both in conjunction to produce? They ought to impel us, if not to an enquiry, at least to a minute and elaborate discussion. For what has the mover of the question arraigned? He has arraigned the general principles of jurisprudence now adopted by our judges, and has, in his way, proved them not only unconstitutional, but illegal. He has laid before you two heads of accusa |