ployment, I did not say it was necessary. It is an employment of amusement merely; an employment that I meant to make public; but not for the sake of gain or praise. My lords, when first I began my life, I was encouraged to worthy and to virtuous actions, by the temptation of praise. I have long since learned, my lords, to be able to do those actions which I think virtuous, in despite of shame. My lords, Mr. Attorney-General has done what I have before heard attempted to be done with very great sorrow he has attempted to re-instate the Star-Chamber. The fault he finds with it, is only its rankness,-before the prosecutions grew so rank in the Star-Chamber, and which rankness caused it to be abolished. I don't recollect the words of that act by which it was abolished; but I am sure that its rankness alone is not the reason given. If the gentleman would lend me his memory, I should then repeat that none of the powers, nor none like them, (your lordships know better the words, I don't recollect the words,) but nothing like them was ever to be put in use again, in that or in any other court, as well as I can remember. Mr. Attorney-General has talked of the personal conceit of Tutchin concerning authors. I thought myself till a strong zeal made me act otherwise, as little likely to become an author as any of the gentlemen who hear me. I have never been a contractor with any newspapers; he knows I have not. If I desired the printer of the Public Advertiser to give me up always to justice, my lords, I cannot easily conceive how Mr. Attorney-General could find any thing to justify his oratory upon that subject. Is that a defiance of a court of justice? Is that flying in the face of the justice of the country? To be willing to abide its sentence; not to withdraw myself from its censure; not wish even to avoid any inquiry into my conduct; is that to be that boldfaced audacious man, that defies the justice of his country? My lords, if it is, I can only again deplore, that

466

a gentleman, who must have great understanding, and great talents and abilities, from the office which he holds, that the understanding of that gentleman should be so very different from mine. My lords, I have already appeared in this situation often enough; and if I had, as he imagines I have, any luxury or pleasure in holding myself forth in public: If I had, it would long before this have been satisfied.-There are many other things which I might say to your lordships; but as I trust, and fully trust, that I shall still find a remedy, my lords, against the present decision, I shall forbear saying one syllable in extenuation of what the Attorney-General has been pleased to charge me with; and leave your lordships to pronounce your judgment without the least considerashould tion of me; without the smallest desire that you abate a hair from what you think necessary for the justice of my country. I shall leave it entirely to your lordships' discretion."

Mr. Justice Aston then pronounced the sentence of the court, which was, That he do pay a fine to the king of 200 pounds; be imprisoned for the space of twelve months, and until that be paid; and that upon the determination of his imprisonment he should find sureties for his good behaviour for three years, himself in 400 pounds, and two sureties in 200 pounds each.

The two following Speeches of the Hon. C. J. Fox, and the Hon. THOMAS ERSKINE, (now Lord ERSKINE,) on May 20th 1791, the time the following Bill was moved for in the House of Commons, we think proper to lay before our readers in this place.-Though not delivered in a Court of Justice, they may be said to come in a great measure, under the head of Judicial Eloquence, and will be found highly important, as regarding the Liberty of the Press, and consequently of the British Subject.

A BILL,

Entitled an Act to remove Doubts respecting the Functions of Fuires, in cases of Libel.

*Whereas doubts have arisen, whether, on the trial of an indictment or information, for the making or publishing any libel, where an issue or issues are joined between the king and the defendant or defendants, on the plea of Not Guilty pleaded, it be competent to the jury impannelled to try the same, to give their verdict upon the whole matter of issues.

Be it therefore declared and enacted, by the king's most excellent majesty, and by and with the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this

When this bill was first brought into the house of commons, the following preamble stood part of the bill, but was afterwards omitted upon the motion of the Attorney-General: "Whereas in all criminal' prosecutions by indictment, or information, where an issue or issues are joined between the king and the defendant or defendants, on the plea of Not-Guilty pleaded, the jury impannelled to try the same, have always had, and by the law and constitution of England were intended to have, and in their discretion to exercise a jurisdiction over the whole matter-put in issue between them."

present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that, on every such trial, the jury sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole matter, put in issue upon such in-" dictment or information; and shall not be required or directed, by the court or judge before whom such indictment or information shall be tried, to find the defendant or de-, fendants guilty, merely on the proof of the publication, by such defendant or defendants, of the paper charged to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to the same, in such indictment or information.

Provided always, that, on every such trial, the court or judge, before whom such indictment or information shall be tried, shall, according to his or their discretion, give their or his opinion and directions to the jury, on the matter in issue between the king and the defendant or defendants, in like manner as in other criminal

cases.

Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to prevent the jury from finding a special verdict, in their discretion, as in other criminal cases.

Provided also, that, in case the jury shall find the defendant or defendants guilty, it shall and may be lawful for the said defendant or defendants to move in arrest of judgment, on such ground, and in such manner, as by law he or they might have done before the passing of this act, any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

MR. Fox began his speech by observing," Every member of this house is so well acquainted with the duties of the house, that I need not take up their time with stating, that one of the most important of their duties is that of watching over the executing government of the country, in which is included, as an essential part, the judicial proceedings of the kingdom. It is not ne

cessary for me to use words to describe the duty, nor to shew that whenever the house thought it necessary to inquire into the administration of the judicial branch of the executive government, the house did not go out of its just and constitutional province. It was, of all the constitutional duties of that house, one of its most wholesome and necessary: and I trust, that it would not be thought that the commons house, by interfering so far as to take notice of what might have been transacted in the courts below, were raising an unjust prejudice in the minds of men, and unhinging the settled reverence and opinion of the country.-Nothing could be so unfair as to say, because he watched the conduct of those entrusted with the execution of the judicial department-that he was faulty if he should state what appeared to him to be unexplicit or erroneous-or that seasonably declaring his opinion' was defaming the courts. Nothing could be more untrue, or more unjust, than this mode of reasoning; for if it were to be held as a doctrine, that it was giving an unnecessary alarm to the country, to take notice of, and animadvert on, what occurred in the courts in the beginnings of error, or in the progress of it, what must be the consequence ? That they must either suffer abuses and errors to accumulate, until by their own grossness, they had inflamed the nation, and produced the natural consequences of authority and justice abused-or be subject to the imputation of unnecessarily alarming the people, and unhinging the influence of the courts. Now, nothing in his mind could be more true than this proposition, that the true authority of the courts was to be maintained by convincing the people, that the inquisitorial superintending power of parliament was constantly vigilant; that it was ever on the watch, and that, whenever it observed any thing which called for explanation or connection, the house stepped forth to the discharge of its duty, and, by its seasonable admonition, restored love and confidence to public opinion, and fixed