course of discipline, and not close with me in opinion. He must think the people extremely ignorant, or extremely wicked, to be so full of dissatisfaction without an adequate cause. The former solution would do very little credit to his discernment, and the latter would do still less honour to his heart. Sir, the people of this country are shrewd and sagacious. However much they may err in their notions of foreign politics, they are rarely, if ever, mistaken in their judgment of our domestic affairs. This House, both Houses, and the whole legislature, have frequently taken false steps. Who brought them back again into the right path? The people, the universal and collective wisdom of the nation; why, then, neglect or despise their voice, their murmurs, their execrations? You may be sure they have grounds for their uneasiness. It is not by words, but by deeds, that their minds are ruffled and discomposed. They have no interest in the existence of disorder and confusion. Peace and good government are always desirable objects to them, and they are the two things at which their murmurs aim. Restore these blessings, and their clamours cease. But while the same grievances continue unredressed, and while the authors of them remain in authority, and multiply their oppressions, it is in vain that you expect their acquiescence. They will get loose from their chains, or, like the strong man, pull down the pillars of the constitution, in the struggle. They will never rest till they have dragged down from the bench the political judge, who wrests and perverts the laws in order to satiate his own avarice, and to serve the purposes of tyranny. Not that I charge any individual with this high crime; no, all I mean is, that such an opinion prevails, and that while it prevails, the people can never enjoy tranquillity, because they can never think their liberties or properties secure as long as they nourish such a viper; in their bosom. Let us therefore remove the cause, if we would annihilate the effect, and govern according to the principles of justice, if we are desirous of seeing obedience once more established among the people. Mr. Grey Cooper : Sir; I am always of opinion that in important points, men should deviate neither to the right nor the left, but keep the direct road to the object of their pur suit. They should not beat the bushes for coneys, when their view is to start hares. They should not surround the whole forest with their greyhounds and bloodhounds, and threaten a general chace, when their only aim is to hunt down a single stag. Why should the whole country be alarmed with an universal hue and cry, when only two individuals are to be taken? There is something ungenerous as well as impolitic, in raising a clamour against all the judges, because two happen to be obnoxious to certain gentlemen. The mo tion, as it now stands, presumes that our courts of justice are in general corrupted; and yet it appears, from the language of several members, that two judges only are aimed at by the enquiry. At least I do not find that any more are suspected. Certainly no hints, no oblique reflexions of that nature have yet been dropped in this House. Could this have happened, if there had been any real foundation for complaint? It is impossible. The original mover of the question must have been in the secret; and the delicacy of his friends would have spared their names with the same cautious tenderness which they have shewn those of Mansfield and Smythe. We may, then, take it for granted, that even the promoters of the enquiry do not suspect any others of malversation, and that these two are the only delinquents struck at by patriotic vengeance. If this be fact, and that it is so, I appeal to the honour and conscience of every man who hears me, why was not the enquiry confined to them? Why were they not openly and boldly charged with their crimes, that having a fixed and permanent object of discussion before us, we might come to a certain and speedy determination? Why are we thus precipitated into a general attack upon our courts of justice, when only two persons are held culpable? Real patriotism is always honest, open, and direct; it avows boldly its motives and designs, and does not, in order to be revenged of a few, involve many in the same indiscriminate censure. For, let me tell you, Sir, the very adoption of this motion will be a kind of previous condemnation of all our great law-officers, because all will see that, as a ground-work, we must first have supposed or believed them to be guilty. Now, can any thing be more rash or iniquitous than this proceeding? We have no charges, no surmises, but against two; and yet we shall not only suspect, but believe all to be guilty! Does this conduct become a wise, grave, and venerable assembly, who must know that judges are not lightly to be suspected, and that those who bring their character in question, without producing weighty and well-supported charges, ought to undergo severe and exemplary punishment? I cannot, therefore, persuade myself that the mover will find many abettors. The scheme, as my hon. friend very justly observed, is too irregular and absurd, as well as unfair and uncandid, to gain a respectable division. Contrary not only to forms and precedents, but to reason and equity, it must equally shock the judgment and feeling of every unprejudiced man. Thus, then, all that was said by the last speaker, falls to the ground like the baseless fabric of a vision. The whole being an air-built castle founded on the supposition of the general criminality of the judges, and of the necessity of a general inquiry, it vanishes before the light of reason, as ghosts do at the approach of the sun. The real, the concealed end of the enquiry, is the condemnation, or at least the aspersion, of two persons. The manner, in which it is to be conducted, necessarily implies guilt in ten more, against whom no charge appears. The consequence is that, if we would not be convicted of manifest injustice, we must reject the motion, and postpone the farther consideration of the whole affair, till some patriot has the courage and honesty, or the temerity and villainy, to make a specific charge. We must leave to the Bill-of-Rights-men the wisdom and uprightness of enquiring into the conduct of magistracy, with the pious hope that some flaw will be found in their proceedings. It is not our business to move heaven and earth in order to blacken their character, because we do not hate the men. Such patriotism is more becoming in those desperadoes, whom the judges, as the instruments of law, punished for their crimes. But there is, forsooth, a pamphlet, which charges a certain judge with various misdemeanors. What then? must we, in consequence of its misrepresentations, arraign his conduct? If we are to be regulated by pamphlets, I believe we shall soon have plenty of business on our hands. For where is the man, into whose behaviour we must not at this rate inquire? If you credit news-papers and pamphlets, we are all profligate and abandoned. There is hardly an individual among us, that is sound and untainted. At least I will engage to shew the best of you represented in this light by some publication or other. Why then, in the name of absurdity, do you mention a pamphlet, or popular rumour, as a ground of impeachment? The greatest worth and innocence cannot upon this plan escape. Indeed the pamphlet in question is an excellent pamphlet, if you think there is any merit in proving what was never doubted. A jury had found Woodfall guilty of printing and publishing only, and the awkward compiler of the Letter on Libels wastes 158 octavo pages of paper in attempting to demonstrate, that according to this verdict he could not be punished by the judge! What a profound casuist! I apprehend that Almon will soon employ him in writing a quarto volume, to prove that two and two are equal to four! He seems to be the only man for elucidating a self-evident proposition, and for giving a comely appearance to a little learning, by garnishing it round with suffocating periods, antiquated phrases, and barbarous idioms. Such is the Vandal, that the last speaker would make the oracular leader of the legislature of Great Britain! O disgraceful! what infamy awaits us next? Sir, shall we, the representative of the whole English nation, receive the drowsy declamation of every interested scribbler as our invariable rule of action? If we are to-day guided by a popular pamphlet, will not the same argument exist for listening to an unpopular one to-morrow? At this rate, Sir, neither stability nor order can exist a moment in our resolutions, and the last writer, let his principles, or his doctrines, be never so ludicrous, never so dangerous, must necessarily furnish the Commons of England with a dictator. Truly, Sir, this is a whimsical mode of maintaining our parliamentary independency, and we shall have much reason to guard against encroachments from the crown, if we are to determine upon national points, merely as every vender of sedition may think proper to direct us. But the wisdom of the present motion, is perfectly of a piece with the justice; we are called upon to stigmatize ten innocent men, for the sole purpose of involving two obnoxious judges in the same charge of criminality. Gentlemen may say, that it is necessary for the honour of our courts to enter into the proposed enquiry. I am of a very different opinion. I think it more for their honour to dismiss the motion as malicious, than to receive it as well founded. Such a dismission is more to their credit, than the most solemn acquittal we can pronounce, and when we know that the acquittal will afford slander as ample a field for abuse, as an indignant rejection of the charge, it is wasting our time, as well as lessening our dignity, to waste another word upon the motion. Mr. Alderman Townshend: are charged upon our judges; and they have greatly contributed to swell the popular clamour; because they are exotics unknown and unwelcome to our soil and climate: evidently derived from the civil law, they can never assimilate with the British constitution. The people will reject them as incompatible with the nature of our laws, and tlie noble institution of juries. The end of all laws should be the is a treason at the great bar of humanity, which is in the least calculated to support oppression. Were general warrants therefore absolutely legal by a positive statute, -were informations, interrogatories, absolutely legal by positive statute, and the power of juries equally confined by law, it would be our duty to repeal such diabolical acts. Sir; I am every day a witness to the uneasinesses and murmurs of the peo-happiness of the people, and every thing ple, and as I see the necessity of an inquiry becoming every hour more and more urgent, my conscience would charge me with infidelity to my constituents, were I to remain fixed to my seat, while I hear any member sporting with their interest, and using every art to divert us from giving them satisfaction. I have not heard any gentleman deny that the people suspect the integrity of our courts of justice, and are consequently uneasy. Is it not necessary to remove this suspicion and this uneasiness? And is it not our business, our peculiar province and duty to remove them? Undoubtedly; the proposition is uncontrovertible. But can this good consequence be produced by sophistical arguments advanced in this House? By no means. As something was done by the courts of justice to wake their jealousy, something must be done by us to lay it asleep. Deeds, not words, are now required; and the inquiry seems the only plausible scheme. If a better plan can be offered, I am not so much wedded to the present as not to embrace it with open arms. My sole object is the satisfaction of the people; I am as well pleased with one as with another, provided I think it equally efficacious. But, while I deem the enquiry not only the best, but the sole plan, that will quiet the nation, I must adhere to the inquiry. The charges against our judges, I mean the published charges, which have given birth to the national anxiety and disquietude, are complicated and extensive, and therefore the plan by which they are to be removed, must be equally extensive. But these points, however interesting, are not all. Many other circumstances crowd upon my mind. That I may not exhaust the patience of the House, I will only insist upon one, which, in my opinion, is equivalent to a thousand. Ex uno disce omnes.' I am afraid then, that there is too great a vicinity between Westminster-hall and St. James's. I suspect, and the people suspect, that their correspondence is too close and intimate. But why do I say it is suspected? It is a known, avowed fact. A late judge, equally remarkable for his knowledge and integrity, was tampered with by administration. He was solicited to favour the crown in certain trials, which were then depending between it and the subject. I hear some desiring me to name the judge; but there is no necessity for it. The fact is known to several members of this House; and, if I do not speak truth, let those who can contradict me. I call upon them to rise, that the public may not be abused.-But all are silent, and can as little invalidate what I have said, as what I am going to say. This great, this honest judge, being thus solicited in vain, what was now to be done? What was the last resource of baffled injustice? That was learned from Much has been said, and very justly a short conversation which passed between said of the unconstitutional law, which has him and some friends a little before his been laid down to juries. But what have death. The last and most powerful enbecome of informations, attachments, ingine was applied. A letter was sent him terrogatories, and a long train of concomitants? Are not they unconstitutional? Do not they call for an enquiry? Is not perpetual imprisonment, where the same person is party, judge, and jury, an object worthy of our attention? These things directly from a great personage; but, as he suspected it to contain something dishonourable, he sent it back unopened. Is not this a subject that deserves enquiry? Ought we not to trace out the adviser of such a daring step, and, upon proper cons The cept they can ruin one of the greatest viction, to bring him to the block? The excellent person who was thus tempted to disgrace and perjure himself, and to betray and ruin his country, could not die in peace, till he had disclosed this scene of iniquity, and warned his fellow-citizens of their danger. Shall we then, who are ap-worthy motives? Shall we adopt the lie of pointed guardians of the people, not take his warning, and wake from that lethargy, with which we have been so long benumbed? He had no interest in communicating this intelligence. He saw himself on the brink of the vast ocean of eternity, on the eve of his journey to "that undiscovered country, from whose bourne no traveller returns." Nothing, therefore, could animate his breast, but that pure flame of patriotism, which had always directed his steps, and of which he had given so recent a proof. Ought not we then, even if we laugh at all patriotism, to bestir in our own liberty and property? Yes, certainly; for, let me tell you, neither are secure, if we do not immediately check all sympathy and fellowfeeling between the judges and the crown, and much more all undue influence and palpable corruption. It is in vain that the salaries of the judges are raised, if their ambition and avarice are inflamed by ministerial bribes, or promises from the crown. The people will be highly dissatisfied, and will have reason to be so, till they see the repetition of such criminal acts stopped by the fear and terror produced by exemplary punishments. Let me then, conjure you to imitate the glorious example of your forefathers, by adopting this enquiry, by penetrating into every recess, and dragging forth villany, though it should lurk behind the throne. Thus will you retrieve your lost character; thus will you restore unanimity and strength to a divided and unhappy kingdom; thus you will be beloved and honoured by the present age, and acquire the esteem and reverence of posterity. [N. B. Sir Joseph Yates was the judge meant by the alderman. When the letter from a great personage was mentioned, lord North, and the rest of the treasurybench stared at one another, but did not utter a single sentence by way of contradiction.] Lord Clare: Sir; I am fully persuaded that nothing but an inquiry will satisfy the last speaker and his faction. Indeed I am convinced they will not be satisfied, ex the day, and strengthen the tide of popular clamour, on which they expect to be wafted to the land of places, pensions, and lucrative jobs? The idea is too gross and absurd: we must all know that this enquiry would not quiet the discontented faction; because, we know that the judges have law on their side, and must therefore stand acquitted. Why, then, engage in such a laborious and tedious examination? Those, who are capable of being set right, will be set right by this night's debate. As for the rest, they will remain infidels, were one to rise even from the dead. Inspiration would make no impression on their minds. Were not this the fact, were they not resolved to shut their eyes against conviction, and determined to continue the outcry, which their arts have raised against the courts, would they set their own little knowledge in opposition to the collective wisdom of the various benches, and come in here to tell us that the judges did not understand, or willingly violated the law? Sir, I am no lawyer. I cannot therefore quote precedents and cases so readily as the learned serjeant, who moved this question; but I am told by gentlemen who are not inferior to him, either in judicial knowledge, or knowledge of the constitution, that the doctrines, which he has arraigned, are not new or peculiar to the noble lord who has been so scandalously traduced. They may be traced back as far as any monuments reach; and down from the Revolution they have universally obtained, and are consequently the standing law of the land. Why, then, was the illustrious lord, who presides in the King'sbench, singled out from all the judges, who have patronised the same opinion? Why is he in particular adjudged criminal, and pointed at by the finger of faction? If any of you is at a loss for the reason, I believe I can explain it. This great lawyer happened to sit on the bench, when the ring-leader of sedition was, by the laws of his country, to suffer for his crimes; and, notwithstanding the clamours and threats of the misled populace, he had the courage and virtue to put the laws in execution. He fined and imprisoned the de linquent. From this source springs the unrelenting vengeance, and merciless persecution of the city patriots. The same great lawyer happens, at the requisition of his prince, to apply that wisdom, for which he is so eminently distinguished, to the good of the state, and the support of government. Hence the Thatched-house Junto call him a minister and a political judge, as if it were a crime to be possessed of political knowledge, and criminal to give disinterested counsel to the King and his ministers. Our patriots dreading his superior abilities, as insurmountable obstacles to their elevation, proclaim war against him, and strain every nerve to accomplish his destruction. But the justice of this House will disappoint their diabolical machinations. The majority of this House disdain to court the prejudices of the rabble with a sacrifice of innocent, of meritorious blood. We have no ends to gain by the perpetration of murders, and leave such villainous roads to fame, for the panders of popularity. Sir, the picture which I have here given you of our patriots, discovers the features of truth, and the likeness must be palpable to our senses. Why, then, should we be surprised that they make such an irregular and distant attack upon so formidable an enemy as the chief of the King'sbench? Sensible that, if they came to close quarters, they would be inevitably foiled, they keep aloof, and, instead of a direct charge, confine themselves to an enquiry. They raise a false alarm, a hue and cry about something, they know not what, in order to make the world stare, and inflame the mind of ignorance. One tells you, that the criminal law is pervert. ed, and juries overturned. But, when you ask for the author of all this ruin and desolation, he is nonplussed and silenced. Another tells you, that he believes the author to be lord Mansfield. But, when you demand his reasons, he gapes for utterance like a skate gasping for breath out of water, and is at his wit's end. What must we think of this embarrassment and confusion? Their conduct puts me in mind of an old Greek story, which I read, when I was a boy at school. It is a well known story, gentlemen, you have all read it. It is the story of Ulysses. This good old Grecian, wise as he was, happened to be shipwrecked on an island inhabited by a race of giants. It was his misfortune to take shelter in the cave of Polyphemus, the most formidable of the whole tribe. This Polyphemus used, after the manner of giants, I suppose, to stay his stomach with some of these wretched Greeks, whom he had caught on his premises. Out of revenge, as well as for his own security, Ulysses watched his opportunity, and with a fire-brand put out the eye of the Cyclops as he lay asleep, in the same manner, as our giants alledge, that lord Mansfield has put out the eye of the law. The pain, as you may easily conceive, waked the giant. It did; and, after groping his way out of the cave in the dark, (for neither he nor any of his nation had but one eye, which by the bye was in the middle of their forehead) he raised a terrible outcry, you may be sure. I question much whether it was not more frightful than the Indian warwhoop, or the Irish howl. Well, be that as it will, his dolorous lamentations brought together a large posse of his one-eyed brethren, and they found him, I dare say, in as bad a pickle as our patriotic cyclopses have found the constitution. But still it remained for Polyphemus, who had raised all this noise, to resolve the grand question, who did it? The Greeks having stole away in the bustle, he could produce nobody, and all the answer that his brothers could get was, that nobody did it!' Thus are we alarmed with terrible encroachments on liberty and property, but when we demand the authors, they are not to be found. There are sad doings, but nobody did them! Sir, the more we consider the nature of the times, the more it becomes us to reject the proposed enquiry; for unless we condemn at any rate, it will be impossible for us to satisfy the clamours of patriotism; if we enter into the examination recommended by the learned serjeant, and finding ample room to applaud the judge, at whom his political thunder is levelled, do justice to his character, will not the rabble without doors impeach the integrity of the decision, as they have hitherto impeached the integrity of all our decisions, and fill every newspaper with complaints, that we only venally acquitted him in obedience to the commands of the ministry? We may easily see the temper of our patriots from their treatment even of juries, warmly as they contend for the omnipotence of twelve judicial inquisitors. When a jury finds a verdict agreeably to their wishes, then the power of juries is to be held inviolably sacred: but when Almon is convicted by a jury, the matter |