law that contradicts or excludes the common law of England; whether it be canon, civil, jus gentium, or levitical. But, Sir, the Bible is the code of our religious faith, not of our municipal jurifprudence; and though it was the pleafure of God to inflict a particular punishment upon David's crime (taken as a breach of his divine commands) and to fend his prophet to denounce it, an English jury have nothing to do either with David or the prophet. They confider the crime, only as it is a breach of order, an injury to an individual, and an offence to fociety, and they judge of it by certain pofitive rules of law, or by the practice of their ancestors. Upon the whole, the man, after God's own heart is much indebted to you for comparing him to the Duke of Cumberland. That his Royal Highness may be the man after Lord Mansfield's own heart feems much more probable, and you I think Mr. Zeno, might fucceed tolerably well in the character. of Nathan. The evil deity, the prophet, and the royal finner would be very proper company for one another.

You fay Lord Mansfield did not make the commiffioners of the Great Seal, and that he only advised the King to appoint. I believe Juuius meant no more, and the diftinction is hardly worth difputing.

You

You fay he did not deliver an opinion' upon Lord Chatham's appeal. I affirm that he did, directly in favour of the appeal, This is a point of fact, to be determined by evidence only. But you affign no reafon for his fuppofed filence, nor for his defiring a conference with the judges the day before. Was not all Weftminster-hall convinced that he did it with a view to puzzle them with fome perplexing queftion, and in hopes of bringing fome of them over to him -You fay the commiffioners were very capable of framing a decree for themJelves. By the fact, it only appears, that they were capable of framing an illegal one, which, I apprehend, is not much to the credit either of their learning or integrity.

We are both agreed that Lord Mansfield has inceffantly laboured to introduce new modes of proceeding in the court where he prefides; but you attribute it to an honeft zeal in behalf of innocence oppreffed by quibble and chicane. I say that he has introduced new law too, and removed the landmarks established by former decifions. I fay that his view is to change a court of common law into a court of equity, and to bring every thing within the arbitrium of a prætorian court. The public must determine between us. But now for his merits. First then, the establishment of the judges in their places for life, (which you tell

us

us was advised by Lord Mansfield) was a conceffion merely to catch the people. It bore the appearance of a royal bounty, but had nothing real in it. The judges were already for life, excepting in the cafe of a demife. Your boafted bill only provides that it fhall not be in the power of the King's fucceffor to remove them. At the beft therefore, it is only a legacy, not a gift on the part of his prefent Majefty, fince for himself he gives up nothing.-That he did oppofe Lord Camden and Lord Northington upon the proclamation against the exportation of corn, is most true, and with great ability. With his talents, and taking the right fide of so clear a question, it was impoffible to fpeak ill. His motives are not fo eafily penetrated. They, who are acquainted with the fate of politics, at that period, will judge of them fomewhat differently from Zeno. Of the popular bills, which you fay he fupported in the house of lords, the most material is unquestionably that of Mr. Grenville, for deciding contefted elections. But I should be glad to know upon what poffible pretence any member of the upper house could oppose fuch a bill, after it had paffed the house of commons ? -I do not pretend know what share he had in promoting the other two bills, but I am ready to give him all the credit you defire. Still you will find that a whole life of deliberate ini

quity

quity is ill atoned for by doing now and then a laudable action upon a mixed or doubtful principle. If it be unworthy of him, thus ungratefully treated, to labour any longer for the public, in God's name let him retire. His brother's patron, (whofe health he once was anxious for) is dead, but the fon of that unfortunate prince furvives, and, I dare fay, will be ready to receive him.

PHILO JUNIUS.

You do not treat Junius fairly. You would

not have condemned him fo haftily, if you had ever read Judge Fofter's argument upon the legality of preffing feamen. A man who has not read that argument, is not qualified to speak accurately upon the fubject. In anfwer to ftrong facts and fair reasoning, you produce nothing but a vague comparison between two things, which have little or no resemblance to each other. General Warrants, it is true, had

been

been often iffued, but they had never been regularly queftioned or refifted, until the cafe of Mr. Wilkes. He brought them to trial, and the moment they were tried, they were declared illegal. This is not the cafe of Prefs Warrants. They have been complained of, queftioned, and refifted in a thousand inftances; but fill the legislature have never interpofed, nor has there ever been a formal decifion against them in any of the fuperior courts. On the contrary, they have been frequently recognized and admitted by parliament, and there are judicial opinions given in their favour, by judges of the first character. Under the various circumstances, ftated by Junius, he has a right to conclude, for himself, that there is no remedy. If you have a good one to propofe, you may depend upon the affiftance and applaufe of Junius. The magiftrate, who guards the liberty of the individual, deferves to be commended. But let him remember that it is alfo his duty to provide for, or at least not to hazard the fafety of the community. If, in the cafe of a foreign war and the expectation of an invafion, you would rather keep your fleet in harbour, than man it by preffing feamen, who refufe the bounty, I have done.

You talk of disbanding the army with wonderful cafe and indifference. If a wifer man

held