wears a very different complexion. Nay, | dom, gravity, and authority, a man, who when a special jury has convicted Horne for libelling a member of this House, the learned serjeant, who moved the present motion, advises his client to appeal from the determination of this constitutional tribunal; and to whom does the serjeant advise the person to appeal? To those very courts, whose probity he himself arraigns, and whose prostitution he affirms is evident to universal notoriety? Mr. Cornwall: has every opportunity, and every requisite talent for knowing the real state of the case, tells you, upon his honour and veracity, that there are misdemeanors in the law department, and even engages to demonstrate the fact by positive and direct evidence. Can any thing be more forcible, more cogent than this? Except the proof of every charge was actually laid before you, I cannot see how he could more Sir, what more need I urge against the strongly engage your honour and interest flagititious question on your table? In- in the enquiry. But, he does not rest the In-in deed, there was no necessity for my urging matter upon his own credit, he strengthens so much; but the profligacy of the pro- it by that of the respectable member who ceedings roused all the indignation of my seconded his motion, and supports it by bosom, and I could not content myself the particular charge made by a represenwith a bare vote where so infamous an at- tative of the metropolis. What, then, do tack was wantonly made upon virtue. you find here wanting? The judges in general are accused, and particular judges are particularly mentioned. And by Sir; as on a former occasion I ex- whom? By grave men, who have the best pressed my approbation of the enquiry means of information; by a pleader of disproposed, I should be wanting to myself tinguished character in the courts, and by and my friends, if I did not endeavour to a representative of the first city in the Briforward its progress. It would be idle to tish empire; both tell you, that their conspecify the different accusations, the va- stituents, that England in general, are disrious unconstitutional acts charged upon satisfied, and have reason to be dissatisthe courts of justice. Of these points Ified with the administration of justice. If gave you a detail in the course of another this be not a sufficient foundation for debate; and the learned serjeant, who adopting the motion, I must confess mymoved this question, has again refreshed self totally ignorant of the matter. your memories, and almost exhausted the subject. Let it be my task then, as I stand upon his ground, to shew you the propriety, nay the indispensable necessity of adopting the motion: this I shall do with candour, yet I hope with force, and having the public good only in view, I shall neither be unjust upon the one hand, nor timid upon the other. Sir; the charges, which have been now exhibited against the courts of justice, are not light and trivial. They are not like those vulgar reports, those lies of the day which spring from nothing, and terminate in nothing. No; they are grave and serious matters; matters of weight and moment, which bear the stamp of authenticity, and carry with them every mark of credibility. Has not the learned serjeant informed you that he will bring to your bar respectable witnesses, who will upon oath, prove all his allegations? Has he not in a former debate, assured you, that upon enquiry, the courts of justice will be found guilty of mal-administration? Did he not stake his reputation upon the truth of this assertion? What more can you desire? A man of his wis[VOL. XVI.] Sir; I readily acknowledge that vulgar reports are not sufficient grounds for impeachment, though they are sufficient grounds for enquiry. But will any man in his senses call the charges now urged against the judges, vulgar reports? If ever they were viewed in that light, I am sure they must now have changed their colour. They have got a degree beyond the state of rumour, and begin to assume the air of certainty. At least the people have conceived that idea of them; and I fear they will retain it, till they are undeceived by an enquiry. Consider, then, I beseech you, what will be the consequence of leaving the public in the present condition of uneasiness and discontent. Soured and exasperated as they have been by the process of the Middlesex election, by the affair of St. George's Fields, by the imprudent system of American politics now adopted, by the folly observable in our foreign negociations, and the madness distinguishable in the management of our affairs at home, how can they preserve any degree of temper, when they suspect encroachments to be made on juries, the firmest bulwarks of liberty and property? [4K] When their general interest is not only neglected, but betrayed, they must lose all patience; when they observe the courts of justice forfeiting all pretensions to honesty and integrity, and openly avowing principles which are subversive of all liberty, can the people continue tame spectators of their own destruction? When an opinion prevails, that justice, the great upholder of society, is no longer to be obtained, what motive remains to bind them to the support of government? I see none. When the people lose, and the crown and its dependents alone gain, by the actual state of society, a dissolution necessarily ensues: because the society is really and truly come back to its original state of violence and anarchy. Sir; far be it from me to insinuate that "our judges have brought us to this crisis. I hope they will be found blameless, or at least excusable. If it appears that they have been led astray by the former sages of the law; if any one can prove them errare cum patribus, no man will be more ready than I to throw a veil over their failings. But while matters stand on their present basis; while we are in doubt, and the people in anxiety, I cannot rest satisfied without an enquiry. We have already done enough, and more than enough to work them into a ferment. Shall we continue the same career, and because we have once, offended, multiply offences? Take a view of the grand scene, in which we are likely to be engaged. Set before your eyes France and Spain strengthened by long preparations, and animated by the irresolution, shortsightedness, and timidity of our ministry; look at these, I say, ready to burst in a storm upon us, look at the rest of Europe rather hostile than friendly, and think for God's sake, in earnest, of restoring the good humour of the people. Imitate the Roman senators, who removed the Æqui and the Volsci from their gates, by granting to the plebeians the abolition of all debts, the greatest grievance of the time. the motion before you that I rise, as to do justice to a character that has been grossly misrepresented. Were I disposed to expatiate on the conduct of the judges in ge neral, I believe I might be as eloquent in their defence, as the gentlemen who have taken the liberty of calling their integrity in question have been copious in their ac cusation. At least I am convinced, that if I failed, it would not be through want of matter, but through want of ability. For I take them to be, for knowledge of the law, and for purity of intention, at least equal to any set of judges that ever Westminster-hall could boast at one time. And it is to this very circumstance of their knowledge, joined to their inflexible virtue, that I attribute all the clamour which has been raised against them. Had they meanly, had they infamously crouched beneath the threats of the deluded mob; had they ignobly spread out their sails to the fallacious breeze of popular favour, and suffered their bark to glide down the current of the multitude; in a word, had they wrested the laws to favour the ringleaders of faction and the promoters of sedition, they would have been the greatest of judges, and the first patriots of their country. No names, no honours, would have been adequate to their virtues. Each of them would have been a Coke, and a Holt, and a second Daniel. The chancellorship would be too small a reward for their respective merits. But since they have, like honest men, acted conscientiously, and supported the laws in opposition to the giddy violence and licentious fury of the times; since they have exercised the wholesome severity of justice upon the criminal idols of the rabble, no epithets are too hard for them. One is called the " supple Page," another is termed the "corrupt Tresilian," and a third is christened the "bloody Jefferies." And after thus endeavouring to rob them of their good name among the people, nothing will satisfy patriotism, except they are rendered equally criminal in the eyes of this House. But, I am sure, they will miss their aim. We have more discernment than to swallow such gross impositions; and we may justly apply to them the noted line, "Vane ligur-Nequicquam patrias tentasti lubricus artes." They could not have taken a more imprudent step, than to bring the affair before this House, which has more eyes than Argus. It will prove as fatal to their Sir; it is not so much to discuss cause as a court of justice to a libeller. Sir; it is not in our armies or our fleets, that our chief strength consists; it is in the affections of the people; neither our soldiers nor our seamen can as Britons fight for the government, which endeavours to make them slaves; and never shall we be formidable to foreign enemies while we continue distracted in ourselves. Mr. George Onslow: present the fact, there are present those, who can contradict me; and I here call upon them to rise up, and bear testimony against me if I am wrong. It is well; silence gives consent. Here, then, I repeat it, the jurors were not unanimous. When the foreman pronounced "Guilty of Murder," the judge asked them if that was their verdict, and one of them answered, For what is this motion but a libel upon the judges, and what is this House but the court before which it is to be tried? To me they appear in that light. But, ⚫ since the supporters will have it so, let us suppose it a charge, and see what will be the consequence. The consequence will be an honourable acquittal to the judges, and a disgraceful repulse to their accusers. Two only have been hitherto arraigned." No, it is not my verdict." Are not It shall be my task to clear the one. His friends will, I doubt not, do the same justice to the other. The judge then, whom I undertake to justify, is baron Smythe; a man to whom I owe every thing; for the recovery of a fair reputation, is every thing to me. Were I not, therefore, to defend his injured character, when it is in my power, I should indeed deserve to be called a violator of the sacred ties of friendship, and to be suspected of betraying those dishonourable connections, which I only renounced. For I know not a man that is in private life more amiable, or in a public character more respectable, than baron Smythe. Had it not been for his integrity and firmness, I verily believe the violence of the times would have, on more occasions than one, altered the criminal law of the land. He is accused, or rather traduced, for having at Guildford sent back the jury that tried the Scotch serjeant for the murder of Smith, the inn-keeper. His accusers triumph greatly in the clearness and strength of the evidence against him. But "mark how a plain tale shall put them down." I claim the honour of coming from the county where this fact happened, as well as the hon. gentleman who introduced the subject. I had therefore as good an opportunity as he of sifting the affair. And though I was not present at the trial, I will venture to affirm that I am as deep in the mystery as he is. By his own confession, all his intelligence comes from report, from newspapers, and magazines; very respectable authorities to be sure! and much to be credited! But will he do me the honour to believe that my intelligence is not less authentic, when I tell him, that I had it from grave and venerable men, who were on the spot? Will he do the judge the justice to own, that the charge is groundless and scandalous, when I tell him that these grave and venerable men declare, that the jury were not unanimous in their first verdict; and that therefore the judge was obliged to send them back to consult? If I misre these expressions sufficient to vindicate baron Smythe? I am told that they gave much satisfaction to all the men of sense and humanity in the court. Shocked with the iniquity of the first verdict, which seemed to be founded on the jury's antipathy to the culprit, as a soldier and a Scotchman, they were pleased to see one man at least free from the rage of party, and capable of reflection and justice. They were pleased to see the judge superior to faction, superior to malice, forget every consideration but that of doing his duty, and prove to the jury that they had mistaken manslaughter for murder. Sir George Savile: Sir; when this motion is supported by men of such respectable characters, of such gravity and wisdom, of such weight and authority, not only in the nation but in this House; I am surprised that it should meet with so much opposition. For where, I beseech you, is there any mischief to be apprehended? If, as their friends allege, the judges are innocent, they will be acquitted with honour. Their doctrines, if they are constitutional, will be approved; and if they are unconstitutional, but yet legal, they will bring no censure, much less condemnation, upon them. The ministers, who think themselves strong enough to prevent an enquiry, will surely be equally strong to render the enquiry favourable to their cause, and to pass a vote of approbation. For these reasons, I think that both parties ought to concur in promoting the enquiry. Indeed, Sir, after what has been advanced by a respectable alderman, I cannot see how we can with any grace pursue a different plan. You are openly told, that ministers have attempted to corrupt the venerable sages of the law, to debauch them from the interest of their country, and to wheedle them into decisions contrary to their oaths, contrary to justice. Is not this a serious matter? Does it not call loudly for an enquiry? In my apprehension does not come within their province, because it is an inference of law, and therefore above their sphere. It belongs only to the judges. They are the only men that can untie the Gordian knot. Even a member of this House, though enlightened by the pleading of counsel, and the direc tion of the judge, was incapable of unravelling this intricate affair. Not that the supporters of this opinion thought the matter formerly so thorny and difficult. They could, in the case of Wilkes, take upon them to decide what was a libel, with it is truly alarming, and should rouse us into immediate action. Are you afraid of engaging in a fruitless search, and of not being able to convict the delinquents? That is impossible; for the same member assures you, that if you appoint your committee, and grant it the usual powers of sending for persons and papers, he will prove his allegations at the bar of this House. What more can you desire? Here is a direct and positive charge, and a direct and positive proof is offered. How can the grand inquest of the nation, whose ears ought always to be open to complaints of malver-out consulting any judge. I suppose they sation, throw out a bill, which has so many characters of a true bill? For my part, I look upon you in the light of a grand jury, which, though not bound by oath, is still bound by honour, and justice, and conscience, to find according to the evidence that is produced. What better evidence can you require in this case? No better can hardly be imagined. As an additional motive, however, let me remind you, that he has declared, that he heard with his own ears, from the mouth of lord Mansfield, words expressive of the doctrines now arraigned. Is not this the very thing you wanted? It is it is the specific charge, for which some gentlemen seemed to be so eager. A member of your own House stands a declared witness before you. He mentions persons and things, and brings the charge home to the supposed culprit. What excuse, what subterfuge, now remains? You are fairly beat out of all the strong holds, in which you expected to make so notable a defence. Two or three plain words overturn all your magic, and make those enchanted castles, in which you thought yourselves impregnable, vanish into air. In vain is Ulysses, in vain is Polyphemus, and his one-eyed brothers, pressed into your service. These and the old Greek story, which we have all read, become mere sound, vox et præterea nihil. Consider, I beseech you, the dangerous consequences of the doctrines in question; and, if you will not be moved by the interest of the public, be moved by your own. This House has voted away its privilege in matters of libel. Any member that is supposed to have been concerned in composing, printing, or publishing a supposed libel, may, by a mandate of the court, be seized in your lobby, or dragged from his seat. And who is to determine, whether this supposed libel deserves the name of libel or not? Not a jury; for that point trusted at that time, to some supernatural street: "Flebit et insignis tota cantabitur urbe." The authorlings, and printers, and printers devils, will be all in motion. The press will labour and groan. News-papers, pamphlets, puns, and pasquinades, will increase and multiply. Grub-street will pour out its thousands, and Paternosterrow its tens of thousands; and the land will be one scene of anarchy and confusion. View this picture, and reject the motion if you can. Sir Gilbert Elliot : Sir; nothing can be more strange or inconclusive than the reasoning of the last speaker. He takes it for granted, that, according to the assertion of a certain alderman, the integrity of a deceased judge was tempted; and upon this basis he grounds the necessity of the proposed à enquiry. But why does he not give credit to the whole of this surprising intelligence? Why does he confine his belief to one half? When we were blessed with this anecdote, it was understood that the tempter had no power over the judge. He was more virtuous than our first parents, Adam and Eve, and did not taste the forbidden fruit. By what kind of logic, then, do you make this fact a foundation for the enquiry? Is an instance of a uprightness in a judge an argument for suspecting all the judges of malversation and corruption, and for appointing a committee to sift their conduct? I believe every sober man will draw a quite different conclusion. The merest novice in the art of thinking will see and feel, that it furnishes the strongest motive for superseding all enquiry. One would think that the heads of our patriots are turned, and that their eagerness to serve the public, has made them forget the plainest principles of reason as well as justice. Having a good end in view, they are not very scrupulous about the nature of the means. They think themselves justified in doing evil, if good comes of it. So far are they good Christians. I mean Christians of Loyola's sect. Nor ought their discretion in pitching on a dead judge to be forgotten: "Dead folks tell no tales," is the proverb of the foreign robber. Their prudence therefore in copying his example, and in killing their evidence, is highly to be commended. It is of a piece with that openness and sincerity, which made a general attack upon all the judges, when only one was, for obvious reasons, and very honourable purposes, the object of rived? Is the original motion withdrawn? Or has it undergone any alteration or amendment? Nothing can be farther from the truth. It still remains in statu quo, with all its sins and imperfections upon its head. What then, in the name of blundering and absurdity, can gentlemen mean, by telling us, that we have now before us the specific charge, which was desired? No, Sir, we have no such thing upon the table. The original motion lies there still; and the particular facts or charges in question, whether true or false, were only introduced to aid its progress through the House. At least, we cannot, according to the forms and orders of the House, view them in any other light, The reasonings therefore, founded on this supposition, were logical and just, and for the contrary reason, those of the last speaker, were absurd and inconclusive. If, sensible of the impropriety or impossibility of supporting such a vague and undetermined charge, you choose to give us a specific charge, you must lay your heads together once more, and manufac ture a fresh one, or new-model the present. Sir, it is not that I care, if the House take this for a specific charge, and apply the general assertions of the member who moved it to lord Mansfield. I am not disposed to imitate that delicacy which prompted him to accuse all the judges in. stead of one. I will be frank and open. I will freely confess that the very doctrines, which he condemned in terms, indeed, not very precise nor intelligible, but still in such terms, as his eloquence afforded, have been taught from the Bench. Not indeed that I was in court when they were delivered. No; I do not pledge myself to the House as a witness. Nor do I think that any man was under a necessity of pledging himself. For I have it from the best authority, that the heterodox tenets now under our consideration are the avowed creed of the judges, and that, if they are heretics, they are heretics with their eyes open. These articles of belief they have adopted upon the maturest deliberation, and by these articles they are willing to abide. The principal, and indeed I may say the only man, at whom you aim, scorns to shrink from your blow. He will meet you in the open field, with equal arms and without any odds. For he laughs at all the terrors of your patriotic inquisition, at all your tortures, all your stakes, and fires and faggots. |