Give me leave to take the opportunity of this great and respectabit audience, to let the whole world know that all such

attle are val Enless we have been able to find an error vil baru out to reverse the outlawry, it must be

ग

The Constitution does not allow reasons of state to s our ments God forbid it should! We must not Teran pained consequences, how formidable soever they might ill was the certain consequence, we are bound to Fra justitia ruat sælum. The constitution trusts to the vit reasons of state and policy; he may stop prosecutions; par offenses: it is his to judge whether the law or Irma show red We have no election. None of us em ar aproved the commission of either of the crimes w the defendant is convicted; none of us had any hand I beg prosecuted. As to myself, I took no part in another Ida's II Ir addresses for that prosecution. We did not advise

2835 the defendant u fy from justice; it was his own act, C. l E Lit the consequences. None of us have been conKit or hai arying do with the present prosecution. It

171 jowe u sit; it was not in our power to bring in V: cama pardon. We are to say what we take the kov he Ï we di not speak our real opinions, we prevaricate w Soc and our own consciences.

over mary anonymous letters which I have received. an an puhe: and some of them have been brought mind him the Whoever the writers are, they take the wrong way. I wil de my duty unawed. What am I to fer! That mendaz infamia from the press, which daily rais

ja mi just motives! The lies of calumny carry

ITU ME I ust that my tem?

si anins i ny Hit have given

there as I using this k

and the

armow

mer and assisted his

che ward than the

I have ever

points themselves, without mixing in party or faction, and without any collateral views. I honour the king, and respect the people; but many things required by the favour of either are, in my account, objects not worth ambition. I wish popularity; but it is that popularity which follows, not that which is run after; it is that popularity which, sooner or later, never fails to do justice to the pursuit of noble ends by noble means. I will not do that which my conscience tells me is wrong upon this occasion, to gain the huzzas of thousands, or the daily praise of all the papers which come from the press. I will not avoid doing what I think is right, though it should draw on me the whole artillery of libels; all that falsehood and malice can invent, or the credulity of a deluded populace can swallow. I can say, with a great magistrate, upon an occasion and under circumstances not unlike, 'Ego hoc animo semper fui, ut invidiam virtute partam, gloriam, non invidiam, putarem.'

"The threats go farther than abuse; personal violence is denounced. I do not believe it; it is not the genius of the worst of men of this country, in the worst of times. But I have set my mind at rest. The last end that can happen to any man never comes too soon, if he falls in support of the law and liberty of his country (for liberty is synonymous to law and government). Such a shock, too, might be productive of public good; it might awake the better part of the kingdom out of that lethargy which seems to have benumbed them; and bring the weak part back to on intoxicated sometimes stunned into

H

whole advantage he is entitled to from substantial law and justice, but every benefit from the most critical nicety of form, which any other defendant could claim under the like objection. The only effect I feel from such outrages is an anxiety to be able to explain the grounds upon which we proceed; so as to satisfy all mankind that a flaw of form given way to in this case, could not have been got over in any other."

Lord Mansfield then indicated a fatal blunder in the proceedings, which had passed unnoticed by the counsel for Wilkes, and gave judgment in favour of the reversal of the outlawry. It would be difficult, as Lord Brougham says, to overrate the merit of this famous Concio ad Populum :

"Great elegance of composition, force of diction, just and strong, but natural, expression of personal feelings, a commanding attitude of defiance to lawless threats, but so assumed and so tempered with the dignity which was natural to the man, and which here, as on all other measures, he sustained throughout, all under this, one of the most striking productions on record."

The struggle was continued for several years. In 1770 Wilkes was returned for Middlesex; the House expelled him. He was immediately re-elected, whereupon the House resolved, "That Mr. Wilkes, having been in this session of Parliament expelled the House, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve in the present Parliament," and the Speaker issued his writ for a new election. This unconstitutional proceeding Middlesex resented by again returning Wilkes; and the House was driven forward to attempt a fresh encroachment on the rights of the electors. It declared that Colonel Luttrell, whom Wilkes had defeated by an immense majority, ought to have been returned, and was legally the representative of Middlesex; a declaration

which, in effect, transferred the right of election from the electors to the House, and placed it in the power of the majority to unseat at any time an obnoxious member. In the Peers' Chamber Chatham stood forward to protest against the usurpation of the House of Commons. The liberty of the subject, he said, was invaded not only in the provinces, but at home. The English people were loud in their complaints, they demanded redress; and it was certain that, one way or other, they would have it. They would never return, nor ought they to return, to a state of tranquillity, until their grievances were redressed. In his judgment, it would be better for them to perish in a glorious contention for their rights, than to purchase a slavish tranquillity at the expense of one iota of the constitution. Lord Mansfield, in reply, contended that the proposed amendment was an attack upon the privileges of the other House of Parliament, a contention which provoked from Chatham one of his finest bursts of vehement and indignant eloquence.

Amid this ever-increasing political excitement appeared the celebrated "Letters of Junius;" letters which have certainly been overrated, but for combined power and virulence are very remarkable. One addressed to the king was so freely and strongly written,* that the Government very foolishly resolved on prosecuting it. Accordingly the necessary proceedings were taken against Woodfall, the original printer and publisher, and against others who in various forms had republished it. The case of Mr. Almon was brought to trial before Lord Mansfield and a special jury, on the 2nd of June, 1770, when, on

* Its merits, however, are purely those of style. The argument is feeble, and feebly drawn out; and the political views are by no means elevated or comprehensive.

behalf of the Crown, proof was adduced that a copy of the libel had been bought at the defendant's shop, from a person acting there as his servant. The defendant's counsel, Sergeant Glyn, argued that a man could not be made a criminal by the act of his servant; but Lord Mansfield ruled that a sale by a servant was evidence when not contradicted or explained, of a publication by the master, on the principle, whatever a man does by another, he does by himself (qui facit per alium facit per se). The jury then found the defendant guilty.

In the ensuing term motion was made for a new trial, on the ground that there was no proof whatever of a criminal intention on the defendant's part, nor even that he knew of the sale of the libel. The motion was refused, however, on the ground that the publication at the defendant's shop was prima facie evidence of a guilty publication by him. This judgment met with severe censure both within and without the walls of Parliament; but Lord Campbell considers it was clearly according to law and reason (which do not always run in couples!) For were proof required of the master's personal interference or direct sanction, libels might be published with absolute impunity; while innocence is sufficiently protected by the admission of evidence to rebut the presumption.

On the 13th of June came on the trial of Woodfall, the printer of the Morning Advertiser; and, as the defendant's liability as publisher could not be disputed, his counsel sought to persuade the jury that the matter published was not libellous. Then arose a great dispute, whether this was a question for the jury or exclusively for the Court? Lord Mansfield directed the jury that all they had to consider was whether the defendant had