thought there was no more to fear. James, a zealous papift upon the throne, and the army at his command, the chief juftice fet no bounds to his cruel temper. The king, eafed alfo of his fears, gave himself over entirely to the paffion of revenge, on those who directly or indirectly had affifted the duke of Monmouth. Jefferys was sent with fome affittant judges into the weft, with a special commiffion to try the late rebels; and major-general Kirk was ordered to attend him with a body of troops, to keep the people in awe. It was not poffible to find in the whole kingdom, two men more destitute of religion, honour, and humanity. They were two cruel and mercilefs tygers, that delighted in blood, as may be judged from the following barbarous actions, amongst many more, which they did on this acca. fion. The cafe of lady Lifle, a widow at Winchester. Her crime was the harbour. ing and concealing, Mr. Hicks, a prefbyterian minister of the duke of Monmouth's party, though his name was in no proclamation; and one Nelthorp, utterly unknown to her. The jury, not fatisfied with the evidence, brought her in not guilty.-Jefferys, in great fury, fent them out again: they found her not guilty three times: but Jefferys threatening them with an attaint of jury, their fears were fo wrought upon, that they at laft brought her in guilty; nor could the, though above feventy years old, obtain any favour, but the change of her fentence from burning to beheading. At Dorchefter, Jefferys, to fhorten his work, told thirty prifoners, that if they expected any favour, they fhould plead guilty; but, as they did not care to take that method, he condemned twenty-nine of them, and ordered them to be immediately executed. At another place, he promised two hundred prifoners their pardon, provided they would plead guilty; but when they had fo done, he ordered fourfcore to be hanged. Not to enlarge on fuch a scene of horror, it fuffices to fay, that Jefferys hanged above fix hundred on this occafion, whofe quarters were distributed to adorn the highways: he even gloried in this barbarity, and boafted, that he had hanged more than all the judges in England fince William the conqueror; yet he would have carried his cruelty farther, had not many purchased his favour with their eftates: they that had no money to buy pardons, were either hanged, or cruelly whipped, or fold for flaves into the American plantations. The king was fo well fatisfied with Jefferys's conduct under this commiffion, that he dignified him with the title of baron of Wem in Shropshire, and made him lord chancellor, Hitherto Jefferys continued climbing up to the fummit of preferment and wealth: he gloried in his iniquities, and contributed the utmost of his abilities and power, towards the deftruction of the proteftant religion, and the establishment of popery and arbitrary power, by the violent councils in the courfe of this reign: but the day came at laft, which was allotted, by providence, to bring him forth to punishment. The king being fled, the prince of Orange being joined by the friends of the conflitution in church and state, his confcience filled him with the dread of falling into the hands of justice, for his unjust, barbarous, and inhuman practices. He refolved alfo to fly, and thought to conceal himself till an opportunity ferved to carry him beyond fea, He difguifed himfelf in a failor's habit, and only waited at a houfe in Wapping, till a fhip that lay near, fhould fail for Hamburgh; but a clerk in chancery accidently paffing by, difcovered him, as he looked out of the window of the houfe, were he lay concealed. The difcoverer immediately gave the alarm, and the populace feized him, and hurried him away with many reproaches and indignities to the lord mayor, who declined meddling with him. However, Jefferys dreading the confequence of being left to the will of an enraged people, who threatened to tear him to pieces, thought it mott for his own fafety, to be committed to the tower, and obtained that favour, where he foon after died, partly of the blows he received but, it is certain, that he contributed greatly to his death by exceffive drinking of fpirituous liquors. Thus he died a mat despicable death, in fome manner his own executioner, though he escaped that public puniment of the gallows, as an atonement of all the mifchiefs done to his country, and for all the blood fpilt by his means; Whofe memory will stink to eternity. E 2 The The Hiftory of the Seffion of Parliament which began Nov. 15, 1763, being the third Seffion of the Twelfth Parliament of Great Britain; with an Account of all the material Questions therein determined, and of the political Difputes thereby occafioned without Doors. Continued from p. 789. HE next money bill prefented to the his majesty a certain fum of money out of the finking fund, for the fervice of the year 1764; and for preventing in certain cafes, the obtaining of allowances in refpect of the leakage of wines imported into this kingdom. Upon occation of this bill, the reader is defired to recollect the 22d resolution, of the committee of ways and means, of March 10, and the 4th refolution of March 13, and the orders made upon thofe occafions. In obedience to thefe orders, Mr. Jenkinson, on the 21ft of March, prefented this bill to the houfe, when it was read a first time, and ordered to be read a fecond time. On the 23d it was read a fecond time, and committed to a committee of the whole houfe for the 26th, when, after reading this order of the day, an inftruction was ordered to the committee, that they have power to receive a claufe of credit; and alfo another initruction, that they have power to receive a claufe for making forth duplicates of exchequer bills, lottery tickets, certificates, receipts, annuity orders, and other orders, loft, burnt, or otherwife deftoyed. The house then refolved itself into the faid committee, went through the bill with feveral amendments, and ordered the report to be received the next morning; which it accordingly was, the amendments agreed to, and the bill, with the amendments, was ordered to be ingroffed; after which it paffed through both houfes in common courfe, and received the royal affent on the 5th of April. By this law it is enacted, that there fhould be iffued and applied by the treafury out of the monies of the finkingfund (after paying, or referving fufficient to pay, all fuch fums, as had been directed by any former act or acts to be paid thereout) towards making good the fupply granted to his majefty for the fervice of the year 1764, a fum not exceeding 2,000,000l. The treafury are im folution of March the 13th, there is added a claufe for preventing any allowance in refpect of the leakage of wines after the 1ft of May, 1764, upon wines not imported directly from the place of their growth, or ufual place of their firft shipping. And laftly, in purfuance of the second inftruction abovementioned, there is a clause added, and in confequence thereof an addition made to the title, for making forth duplicates of exchequer bills, &c. upon proof made before one of the barons of the exchequer, of its being destroyed, upon giving fecurity to the officer who makes forth the duplicate, to fave him harmless, in cafe the exchequer bill, or other public fecurity, faid to have been deftroyed, should afterwards appear, and payment be demanded. From this abftra&t the reader muft fee, that by the act it is not fo much as prefumed, that the annual furplus of the finking-fund will amount to 2,000,000l. nor does it feem to have been defigned that no more than one year's clear produce of that fund fhould be issued and applied to the fupply of 1764; because if it had, it would have been faid, that there shall be iffued and applied by the treafury out of the monies of the finking fund arifen, or to arife, before the day of 1765 (after paying or referving, &c.) From the act itself therefore no difpute could have arisen about the amount of the annual furplus of the finking-fund; but on the 20th March there was published a panegyrick upon the conduct of our adminiftration, in regard to the fupplies, (which having the appearance of authority, we gave in our Magazine for March, to which we must refer our readers, and to that of May, for the Budget, containing fome remarks on that flating of the National Account.) [To be continued in our next.] the 1765. An Enquiry into the Doctrine, lately propagated concerning Libels, Warrants, and the feizure of Papers, with a view to fome late proceedings, and the Defence of them by the Majority, upon the Principles of Law and the ConftituIn a Letter to Mr. Almon, from the Father of Candor. On Libe's, Warrants, and the feizure of Papers, tion. 37 would be fowing fedition, if not high treafon, in the itate. by Magna Charta, no man could be put By the old constitution, and afterwards upon his trial for any offence, until a grand jury had found a bill of indictment or of their own knowledge, made a prefentment thereof; and then the person fo charged, was to he tried by a petit jury of his peers; but now, people of all degrees are put on their trial by a charge framed at the pleasure of the attorney general, called an information, filed by him at dif cretion without oath, fo that it is in the power of this officer to harraf's the peace ing the matter at all. (of any man in the realm, and put him to a grievous expence, without ever try The Child may rue, that is unborn, Chevy Chafe. Price as 6d. The firft Edition of this Pamphlet appeared under the above Title, but for fome reafons, the fubfequent Editions which there has been four) have passed under the Title of, A Letter concerning Juries, Warrants, &c. upon the principles of Law and the Confiitution. Printed for J. ALMON. HE discourse of late has run fo much of Vice Chancellor of Oxford, when Lord This very game was played with a late H. was of the cabinet, and at the head of the law. The Attorney General putting the doctor to valt expence, entefiled an information ex officia, and, after and retour a holle profequi van fled tions of parliament, that every body's thoughts have been turned to thefe points. I hall endeavour to offer what I have to fay with clearnefs, and according to law, and to express myfelf with that freedom and plainnefs which becomes the member of a free state. I do not think myself at liberty to fean the private actions of any man, but have aright to confider the conduct of every man in public. The king can do no wrong; as doing nothing of himself, but every thing by the. advice of his council and minifters. The fpeeches from the throne; treaties of peace and war; the application of public revenue; appointments to offices in the ftate; the direction of crown profecutions; and, in a word, every other act of government must be always debated, que ftioned, and blained as the act of the minifter. There is no infeparable connection between a minister and the fovereign. The latter is not by the duty of his office, to fupport any one man against the general fentiments of his people; and of courfe, whatever is faid or written against the administration, is not to be regarded as an attack upon his throne. Indeed, were it otherwife, no act of a minister could ever be arraigned, and no liberty of the prefs exift; for, every enquiry, clamour, and cenfure, made to the world, in print, another information of the fame offence, and, when a like expence was incurred, entered another nolle profequi. In short, the politico legal game was had refort to, because there was no evidence to convict, * and was dropped and renewed in order to oppress, to the extreme charge of the worthless doctor, and to the infinite difcredit of a moderate king. profecuted by an information, ex officio, There is no offence which is oftener than a libel. Now, many judges before the revolution, and perchance some fince, have faid that, in law, a paper may be a libel, whether the charges in it be true or falfe, that every libel is, by construction of law, against the peace, and (in very late times) that it is even an actual breach of peace; and (at last) that fecurities for the good behaviour may be demanded; but thus matured the doctrine of informations, one may fay of the lawyers, who have that they have been very aftute in forging of chains for mankind. Nothing, indeed, can be added but the revival of a position, that a jury is only to try the fact of publication, and muft leave the intention of the words to the court, for their construction unlefs, indeed, it could be contrived to get rid of juries intirely, that is, to eftablifh in perfection the ftar-chamber anew. thought, could only be filed where the king was immediately concerned, and fo the old books fay; but, it is now certain that they are not limited by any thing befides the difcretion of the attorney-general, who is an officer of the crown, durante bene placito, and not upon oath. This is a power that is, in my apprehenfion, very alarming; and a thinking man cannot refrain from furprize, that a free people fhould fuffer fo odious a prerogative to exift. It is still more wonderful that, fince this prerogative is endured, there has been no act patfed to fubje&t the Attorney General, provided he did not purfue his information, or upon trial was non-fuited, or had a verdict against him, to the payment of full costs to the party abused. However, the exercise of fuch a grievous prerogative lays a ftrong foundation for a jury's retaining the privilege of determining both the law and the fact, with respect to libels. Indeed, it is only in conformity with common parlance, that I fpeak of law and fact in libel as diftinct things, for to myself they appear to be infeparably united. A criminal profecution and trial can only be had for a crime; now, the mere fimple publication of any thing not libelious (there being no public licenfer) is no crime at all; it is then the publication of what is falfe, fcandalous, and feditious, that is the crime, and folely gives jurifdiction to the criminal court; 2nd that therefore is what muft, of neceffity, be fubmitted to the jury for their opinion Were I therefore a and determination. juvor, I should take nothing implicitly or upon truft, in this respect, from any man, but thould endeavour to form my own judgment of the matter as an impartial jurer, and not as a ftatefinan; "the verdist itself is not an act minifterial, but judicial, and where the jurors give it according to the best of their judgment, they are not finebie." The frict law, I know, is pretended to be, that the truth of the matter afferted is no defence against the charge of its being libel, but that is a point which I thall never be prevailed upon to receive as law, from the authority of any man whatever; and much the lefs fo, for the fashion now introducing (for the first time fince the revolution) of proceeding against printers after the author is known, which breathes a fpirit of perfecution, (I may day of erucky) hardly to be endured. If an attorney-general finds it neceffary in law to charge a paper to be falfe, in order to render his information against it, as a libel, legal; and that his informing against it for being a true libel, would not only be ridiculous, but bad in law, he fhould prove it to be false, or I would never upon my oath find it to be fo, let what measure or what magiftrate foever be the object of it. In truth, the crown, in libel, should not only prove the words to be falfe, but likewife fhew, either from the nature of the paper itself, or from external proof, that it was malicious as well as falfe, or I would acquit the defendant. For, if this were not likewife requifite, it might very well happen, that a fober and temperate man, who wrote veryjuftly upon the whole against a bad miniry, might have been milinformed, touching fome particular fact; and then the attorney general, after admitting or not contefting twenty other charges, might lay his finger upon this fingle one, and thew it to be falfe, and thereupon infilt upon having made good his information. In fuch case, I thould confider whether it was maliciously or wantonly, that the author had published fuch an untruth, or whether common fame fupported him in it, and should acquit or condemn him accordingly; for common fame has been refolved to be a good ground of accufation. But it is become more neceffary than ever, that the people fhould retain the privilege of determining the law and the fact, relative to libels, because their reprefentatives have lately, by a refolution, declared, that privilege of parliament does not extend to the cafe of a libel. I had been always in an error upon this head before, which I was led into by old cafes. My notion was not taken up in confequence of the contruction made by the prefent Court of Common Pleas, nor did I, indeed, entirely build upon my own fenfe of the matter; but I was fixed in the opinion by the authority of that great lawyer Lord Chancellor Egerton, who, after having held the great feal for fourteen years, with greater reputation than any man before him, in a folemn argument which he delivered in the cafe of the Poft. Nati, and which he afterwards publifhed him elf, upon a strict review, and with great deliberation, (so that it is uncontrovertibly his opinion) has laid down the fame doctrine, and cites particularly the old determina tion tion made by the judges in the cafe of Thorpe. "That if any perfon that is a "member of parliament be arrested, in "fuch cafes as be not for treafon or felo"ny, or for furety of peace, or condem"nation had before the parliament, it is "used that such persons be released, and "may make attorney, fo as they may "have their freedom and liberty freely "to attend the parliament." The Lords, in the following reign, moft folemnly ratified this doctrine, in the famous cafe of the Earl of Arundel by a refolution nemine Contradicente.” Now, my reafoning from fuch premifes was thus: Members are clearly intitled to privilege in all mifdemeanors, for which fureties of the peace cannot be demanded. But, fureties of the peace cannot be demanded but in actual breaches of the peace. The writing of any thing quietly in one's ftudy, and publishing it by the prefs, can certainly be no actual breach of the peace. Therefore a member who is only charged with this cannot thereby forfeit his privilege. Indeed, I had originally conceived, upon a much larger fcale of reafoning, that freedom from arreft for libel was a privilege incident and neceffary to a House of Commons, because it was a fafe-guard against the power of the crown, in a matter that was almost always a difpute between the minifter and the fubject, and no more than a natural fecurity of perfon for an independent part of the legislature, against the arbitrary proceeding of a King's officer, in the leaft afcertained of all imputable offen ces. But this point has been lately cleared up to the contrary in St. Stephen's chapel, upon a debate of two fucceffive days, the laft of which continued from three in the afternoon till two in the morning. Nevertheless, the commons of England at large having come to no new compact or furrender of antient privileges, ftill poffefs their old right of being judges of the law in libel. When a man is charged with a libel, by an arbitrary information ex officio, he muft cry out, like a Roman of old, Provoco ad Populum; I appeal to my country, that is, to a jury of my equals. I will give bail for my appearance to try the validity of this charge before them, but I will do nothing more. I never heard till very lately, that attorney-generals, upon the caption of a man fuppofed a libeller, could infift upon his giving fecurities for his good behaviour. It is a doctrine, injurious to the freedom of every subject, derogatory from the old constitution, and a violent attack, if not an absolute breach, of the liberty of the prefs. It is not law, and I will not submit to it. What makes me infift the more upon all thefe points is, an affurance that the legal methods of proceeding in every cafe of a libel, are fufficiently fevere, and that therefore all illegality is totally inexcufàble. Profecutions for libels generally arife from, and are pursued with a spirit of party-revenge. Men are upon fuch occations apt to do things which in cooler moments they would be ashamed of. The fight of thefe things fhould make grave men of all fides attend to the conflitution, to prevent the laws of their country from being made either the fport or the facrifice of party upon any occafion. One cannot guess what may, or may not, in fome unlucky time, be regarded as a libel by fome judge or attorney-general. The highest or lowest of authors, the nobleft or the most sneaking, the original or the copy, the patriot or the tool, the head of a party or the amanuenfis of a private junto: In fhort, the most respectable commonwealthfman or the paltrielt of coffee houfe liftners and political eveldroppers, may equally chance to fall under this arbitrary brand. Nay, if it be law, that a man may be guilty of a libel by writing against the dead (as well as the living) I do not fee how the world is ever to difcufs the actions of administration, or any man to publish animadverfions upon their conduct in particular inftances; nor what is to become of the licensed hiftorian, with his rule Nequid veri dicere non audeat. For example, if I was to fay of a late great chancellor, that I could not think he merited the appellation of a patriot, having ever regarded him as a decent, circumfpe&t, prerogative lawyer; that he leaned in his notions too much towards aristocracy; that he feemed, in his politics, to approach much nearer to the principles of the Earl of Clarendon than of Lord Somers; and that, at lait, upon what public principles he joined the oppofition, after having been in all things with the court for forty years before, I could never learn. It seemed, that even his oppofition to, or difapprobation of the peace, proceeded rather from |