"that it is an invafion of the right of juries," are the propofitions maintained by Junius. His opponents never answer him in point; for, they never meet him fairly upon his own ground.

3tio, Lord Mansfield's policy, in endeavouring to fcreen his unconftitutional doctrines behind an act of the Legiflature, is eafily understood.-Let every Englishman fland upon his guard ;-the right of juries to return a general verdict, in all cafes whatfoever, is a part of our conftitution. It ftands in no need of a bill, either enacting or declaratory, to confirm it.

4to, With regard to the Grosvenor cause, it is pleasant to obferve, that the doctrine attributed by Junius to Lord Mansfield, is admitted by Zeno, and directly defended. The Barrister has not the affurance to deny it flatly; but he evades the charge, and foftens the doctrine by fuch poor contemptible quibbles, as cannot impofe upon the meanest understanding..

510, The quantity of bufinefs in the Court of King's Bench, proves nothing but the litigious fpirit of the people,, arifing from the great increafe of wealth and commerce. Thefe, however, are now upon the decline, and will foon leave nothing but law-fuits behind them. When Junius affirms, that Lord Mansfield has laboured to alter the fyftem of jurifprudence in the court where his Lordship prefides, he speaks to those who are able to look a little farther than the vulgar. Befides that the multitude are easily deceived by the impofing names of equity and fubftantial juftice, it does not follow, that a judge, who introduces into his court new modes of proceeding, and new principles of law, intends, in every inftance, to decide unjustly. Why fhould he, where he has no interest ?—We say that Lord Mansfield. is a bad man, and a worse judge-but we do not say that he is a mere devil. Our adverfaries would fain reduce us to the diffi

culty

culty of proving too much.-This artifice, however, fhall not avail him. The truth of the matter is plainly this. When Lord Mansfield has fucceeded in his scheme of changing a court of common law to a court of equity, he will have it in his power to do injuftice whenever he thinks proper. This, though a wicked purpose, is neither abfurd nor unattainable.

6to, The last paragraph relative to Lord Chatham's caufe cannot be answered. It partly refers to facts of too fecret a nature to be afcertained, and partly is unintelligible. "Upon one point, "the caufe is decided against Lord Chatham."Upon another point, it is decided for him."Both the law and the language are well fuited to a Barrister!-If I have any guefs at this honeft gentleman's meaning, it is, That "whereas the com"miffioners of the great feal faw the question in "a point of view unfavourable to Lord Chatham, " and decreed accordingly,-Lord Mansfield, out "of sheer love and kindness to Lord Chatham, "took the pains to place it in a point of view more favourable to the appellant.”—Credat Judaus Appella.-So curious an affertion would stagger the faith of Mr. Sylva.

WE

LETTER LXIV.

Nov. 2. 1771<

E are defired to make the following declaration, in behalf of Junius, upon three material points, on which his opinion has been miftaken or mifreprefented.

Imo, Junius confiders the right of taxing the Colonies, by an act of the British Legislature, as a fpeculative right merely, never to be exerted, nor ever to be renounced. To his judgment it appears plain, "That the general reasonings which

were

"were employed against that power, went directly "to our whole legiflative right; and that one part "of it could not be yielded to fuch arguments, "without a virtual furrender of all the reft."

2do, That, with regard to prefs-warrants, his argument should be taken in his own words, and anfwered ftrictly;-that comparisons may fome. times illuftrate, but prove nothing ;-and that, in this cafe, an appeal to the paffions is unfair, and unneceflary. Junius feels and acknowledges the evil in the moft exprefs terms, and will show himfelf ready to concur in any rational plan that may provide for the liberty of the individual, without hazarding the fafety of the community. At the fame time, he expects that the evil, fuch as it is, be not exaggerated or mifreprefented. In general, it is not unjust, that, when the rich man contributes his wealth, the poor man should ferve the ftate in perfon ;-otherwife, the latter contributes nothing to the defence of that law and conftitution from which he demands fafety and protection. But the question does not lie between rich and poor. The laws of England make no fuch diftinctions. Neither is it true, that the poor man is torn from the care and fupport of a wife and family, helpless without him. The fingle queftion is, Whether the feaman*, in times of publick danger, fhall ferve the merchant, or the state, in that profeffion to which he was bred, and by the exer cife of which alone he can honeftly fupport himfelf and his family?-General arguments against the doctrine of neceffity, and the dangerous use that may be made of it, are of no weight in this particular cafe. Neceffity includes the idea of inevitable. Whenever it is fo, it creates a law to which all positive laws, and all positive rights, must give

* I confine myself strictly to feamen ;—if any others are preffed. it is a grofs abuse, which the magistrate can and should correct.

give way. In this fenfe, the levy of hip-money by the King's warrant was not neceffary, because the bufinefs might have been as well or better done by parliament. If the doctrine maintained by Junius be confined within this limitation, it will go but very little way in fupport of arbitrary power. That the King is to judge of the occafion, is no objection, unless we are told how it can poffibly be otherwife. There are other inftances, not lefs important in the exercife, nor lefs dangerous in the abufe, in which the conftitution relies entirely upon the King's judgment. The executive power proclaims war and peace, binds the nation by treaties, orders general embargoes, and impofes quarantines; not to mention a multitude of prerogative writs, which, though liable to the greatest abuses, were never difputed.

3tio, It has been urged as a reproach to Funius, that he has not delivered an opinion upon the Game Laws, and particularly the late Dogact. But Junius thinks he has much greater reafon to complain, that he is never affifted by those who are able to affift him; and that almost the whole labour of the prefs is thrown upon a fingle hand, from which a difcuffion of every publick queftion whatsoever is unreasonably expected. He is not paid for his labour, and certainly has a right to choose his employment.-As to the Game Laws, he never fcrupled to declare his opinion, that they are a fpecies of the Foreft Laws; that they are oppreflive to the fubject; and that the spirit of them is incompatible with legal liberty:-That the penalties impofed by these laws bear no proportion to the nature of the offence:-That the mode of trial, and the degree and kind of evidence neceffary to convict, not only deprive the subject of all the benefits of a trial by jury, but are in them. felves too fummary, and to the laft degree arbitrary and oppreflive:-That, in particular, the late

acts

acts to prevent dog-ftealing, or killing game between fun and fun, are diftinguished by their abfurdity, extravagance, and pernicious tendency. If these terms are weak or ambiguous, in what language can Junius express himself?—It is no excufe for Lord Mansfield to say, that he happened to be absent when these bills paffed the House of Lords. It was his duty to be prefent. Such bills could never have paffed the House of Commons without his knowledge. But we very well know by what rule he regulates his attendance. When that order was made in the House of Lords, in the case of Lord Pomfret, at which every Englishman fhudders, my honeft Lord Mansfield found himself, by mere accident, in the court of King's Bench :-0therwise, he would have done wonders in defence of law and property! The pitiful evasion is adapted to the character. But Junius will never juftify himself by the example of this bad man. The diftinction between doing wrong, and avoiding to do right, belongs to Lord Mansfield. Junius difclaims it.

LETTER LXV.

TO LORD CHIEF JUSTICE MANSFIELD.

Nov. 2. 1771.

AT T the interceffion of three of your countrymen, you have bailed a man, who, I prefume, is alfo a Scotchman, and whom the Lord Mayor of London had refused to bail. I do not mean to enter into an examination of the partial, finifter motives of your conduct; but, confining myself ftrictly to the fact, I affirm, that you have done that which, by law, you were not warranted to do. The thief was taken in the theft; the ftolen goods were found upon him, and he made no defence. In thefe circumftances, (the truth of which

you