LONDON MAGAZINE: For JANUARY, 1771. DEBATES OF A POLITICAL CLUB. Lucius Læna (L-d S-h) in Answer to Aurelius Atticus (L-d L-n) continued from our Appendix p. 652. I RT is not the house, my lords, we ever objected to, but to the papifts of the houfe. In the moments of our warmeft indignation against the bigot James the Second, we loved his family, we placed his daughters on the throne, and as I before obferved it was our love for the proteftant part of his family, that led us to apply to the electrefs Sophia, in the fettlement of the regal fuccefion. The noble lord wishes, he tells us, to abelih all party-diftin&tions, yet he is greatly offended that the diftinction of whig and tory is not inflexibly kept up; the king muft govern by a faction to pleafe his lordship; he must not be the common father of his people, but the monarch only of the whigs; at a time that thefe deftructive diftinctions are happily haftening to oblivion, they must be revived by a judicious fovereign, and to conciliate the affections of all to the government of a Brunswick prince, the unoffending pofterity of the tories must be held in a state of eternal profcription! What weight, what regard, my lords, is due to the reafonings of fuch wretched politicians; thefe mountebanks in government, who prescribe the revival of parties as the means of restoring domeftic peace, and when they paint us on the brink of ruin declaim on the neceffity of our commencing an immediate war? To your lordships I fubmit the debate, and defire the previous queftion may now decide the force of our respective argu ments. Jan. 1779. The previous queftion was accordingly put, and the original motion for the papers was rejected by fixty five against twenty-one.. Having thus given the public, with our customary fidelity, the debates on the demand made by Lucius Verus Paterculus, in the upper club-room, for all the papers neceffary to elucidate the difpute with Spain, we now proceed to the motion made in the fame room on the 28th of Nov. by Victor Americanus to afcertain the rights of election; but as the argument on this fubject was barely a repetition of what the reader will find in the political debates in our Magazines of February, March and April, we fhall confine ourselves to that part of the reafoning, which branched into a digreffive retrospection of our law courts, and the mode of adminiftring juftice in fome late decisions of popular caufes, on which Vi&or Americanus animadverting with much feverity, Horatius Tullius (Lord M—d) made the following reply. Moft illuftrious 1-s, THE opinion of this houfe has been fo repeatedly and fo fully taken on the business of the Middlefex election, that it is utterly needlefs for me to make any answer to what the noble lord has now been pleafed to urge upon the fubject; I therefore rife only to correct thefe miftakes with refpect to his charges against me in a judicial character, charges quite remote from the purport of his motion, and introduced merely as a fresh tub to amufe the wretched whale of popularity. It is extremely painful, my lords, where a man is publickly attacked,not only to have prejudice to contend with, but ignorance; I fay ignorance, becaufe highly as I refpect the abilities of A 2 my my accufer in other matters, this is a point upon which he is entirely deftitute of information, indeed so destitute, that was I not apprehenfive my filence might be liable to mifconftruction, I fhould not have diftinguished him with the attention of a reply. The noble lord is pleafed to say, that the conftitution of this country has not only been wounded in the Houfe of Commons in the material right of election, but in the court of King's Bench by the immediate difpenfers of the law. His lordship tells the houfe, that doctrines no lefs new, than dangerous in their nature have been inculcated in this court, and that particularly in a charge which I delivered to the jury on Mr. Woodfall's trial, my directions were contrary to law, repugnant to practice, and injurious to the deareft liberties of the people.This is an alarming picture, my lords, it is drawn with great parade, and coloured to affect the paffions amazingly. Unhappily, however, for the painter, it wants the effential circumstance of truth in the defign, and muft like many other political pictures be thrown, notwithstanding the reputation of the artist, among the miferable daubings of faction. So far in fact, my lords, is the charge without foundation, that the directions now given to juries are the fame that ever have been. There is no novelty introduced; no chicanery attempted; nor has there, till to ferve fome interefted purpofes of late, been any outcry raised against the integrity of the King's Bench. When indeed the abettors of fedition found, that the judges were neither to be flattered from their duty by fulfome adulation, nor intimidated by the daring voice of licentioufnefs; when they found that Juftice was not afraid of drawing her fword against the greatest favourite of an inconfiderate multitude, they had no refource but to impeach the probity of her minifters; to acknowledge the equity of any fentence against themfelves, would be to give up their pretenfions to patriotifm; and to acknowledge their disregard of thofe laws, upon an attachment to which, they founded all their reputation with the people.-What, therefore, was to be done? to traduce the judges; to reprefent them as the fervile tools of every arbitrary minifter; to repre fent every criminal of a popular nature, a martyr to the public good, and to excite a general abhorrence of all legal fubordination. The noble lord will probably obferve, that apt as the populace are to imbibe injurious opinions with respect to men in office, there must nevertheless be fome foundation for these opinions before they can be univerfally believed.-This, however, manifeftly contradicts his own declaration upon a very recent occafion; where speaking of the late Lord Anfon, he faid, that to the wifdom, experience and care of that nobleman the nation was indebted for all the naval glories of the laft war. Yet Lord Anfon according to his account was fo obnoxious to the million, that my accufer thanks God he had fortitude enough to place him at the head of the admiralty, in fpite of all the popular clamours raised against him; in direct oppofition to the clamours of the merchants, and the whole city of London. If this is not fufficient to ferve the noble lord, what fhall we fay of Sir Robert Walpole's adminiftration, which he himfelf oppofed, though he now favours us with fo many complimeats on the wifdom, on the rectitude of that celebrated statesman? Or what will he fay to the late Lord Granville's continued want of popularity, to whofe abilities, to whofe patronage he confeffed himself indebted for every thing he is in politics?-Here are proofs of his own producing in favour of unpopular characters; and I do not defpair on future occafions to hear a multiplication of the inftances. In the law particularly, my lords, it is well worth obferving that fome of the names moft efteemed by the accufers of the prefent judges, have been eminent for maintaining the very doctrines, which now expofe the King's Bench to a torrent of unremitted obloquy.-I could quote numerous authorities, equally juft and refpectable, of this opinion, but I will only mention three: Mr. Justice Dennifon, Mr. Juftice Forfter, and Mr. Juftice Yates, all independent men; the noble lord has mifconceived the matter, by implicitly believing, as many others do, what has appeared in print refpecting the nature of libels, and directions to juries, whereas much is often print ed ed totally falfe and groundless; if I patient hearing upon a legal question in this illuftrious aflembly. Victor Americanus replied to Heratius Tullius thus: Moft illuftrious 1-s, IF I conceive the noble lord on the woolfack right, or have been rightly informed by the public prints, from which I candidly confefs, I originally derived my information on this fubject, the doctrine of the King's Bench is, that a libel or not a libel is a question of law to be decided only by the court, and the fole power of the jury is to determine upon the fact of printing and publishing.-This, my lords, 1 understand to be the noble lord's opinion, but this I never understood to be the law of England, on the contrary I always underitood that the jury were competent judges of the law, as well as of the fact, and indeed if they are not, I can fee no effential benefit arifing from their inftitution to the community. I am therefore defirous, my lords, I am earnestly defirous, that a day may be appointed for examining into the conduct of fuch judges as dare to eftablish this anticonftitutional practice in our courts.I am well affured from the most refpectable authority that the practice is immediately fubverfive of our deareft rights, our most invaluable liberties; and profligate as the times may be, thefe are objects that intereft fhould lead us to defend, even if we are wholly unactuated by principle.In a late trial of an imputed libel, my lords, it was declared from the bench, that if the jury inftead of adding the word only to their verdict had found the defendant generally guilty of printing and publishing, they would have found him guilty of the libel, even though the paper might be perfectly innocent. But where is the wonder that our laws fhould be perverted, when the conftitution upon which thefe laws are built has been fo infamously wounded? The fuperftructure may well give way, when the foundation is fo notoriously deftroyed-Excufe me, my lords, for introducing the Middlefex election fo frequently.-I cannot but introduce it on every occafion. The right of election is the vital circulation in the body politic. Stop it and we are politically destroyed. What |