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, I do not scruple to affirm, that they are in efgreater enemies to themselves than to the libel

fect

ler 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 magistrates 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 is 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 a miracle 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 be 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

inclinations of the people led strongly to an undistinguishing 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 Mansfield, 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

On the contrary, many signal instances may be produced, '&c.] The whole series of the British history evinces the truth of the general assertion in this period. Except in some seasons of popular frenzy, English juries have, ever, more eminently than any other courts, ancient or modern, stood unbiassed, in the trial of great public questions, by either servility to a government, or devotedness to a popular faction. There have been moments, indeed, when even by these juries, not truth and justice, but the wishes of a minister, or the clamour of a seditious populace, were chiefly respected: but such occasions have been rare and transient; and the nation have ever been eager to make atonement for the ills inflicted by them. Compare with the political conduct of English juries, that of the late parliaments of France; how much more honourable to human nature, is the conduct of the juries? Never was this praise more conspicuously deserved, than in the trials for sedition and treason, which have taken place in England, since

the year 1783. On each side, the verdicts of juries have set bounds, both to the insolence of sedition, and to the vindictiveness of offended authority. The people have heard their voice, and have recognized it as their own.-The history of the cases of Almon and Wilkes, will be more seasonably introduced hereafter.

d2

general

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 innuendoes 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 innuendoes, 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 shew the falsehood of Lord Mansfield's doctrine, it

is

Accepted of a verdict.] A colloquial barbarism for accepted a verdict. To shew the falsehood of Lord Mansfield's doctrine, &c.] The right of juries to return a general verdict; the endeavours of Lord Mansfield

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 When law and reason speak plainly, we

RECORD.

do

Mansfield to confine them to the simple finding of the facts alledged, true or false; the discussions in the trial on account of JUNIUS's Letter to the King; and the fierce vengeful contradiction of the opinion of Lord Mansfield-which fill this whole paragraph, and several subsequent ones-are all such as to deserve much and various illustration. But this is not the proper place. They will arise more fitly to our consideration in the progress of the Letters. We should do wrong to exhaust our materials unseasonably, in erecting merely the park gate and the porter's lodge.

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 yery 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 de"fendant'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 mo"tions, 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 court upon the verdict, went regu"larly through the whole of the proceedings at Nisi Prius, as "well the evidence that had been given, as his own charge to "the jury. This proceeding would have been very proper, had a motion been made on either side for a new trial; because ei"ther a verdict given contrary to evidence, or an improper charge

65

by the judge at Nisi Prius, is held to be a sufficient ground for "granting