Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

lifhed the North Briton with the intent as laid in the Attorney-ge•neral's information.' Lord Manffield ftopped him fhort, and declared in a very strong and menacing manner, That if ferjeant Glynn 'afferted that doctrine again, he (lord Mansfield) would take the opinion of the twelve judges upon it.' The learned ferjeant inftantly faw the fnare, and the defign that was concealed under it. He was fenfible of the danger to public liberty, in fubmitting a question which was to be worded by lord Mansfield upon the rights of juries, to the opinions of the twelve judges at that time. No one could doubt that a confidereble majority of the twelve judges would confirm all lord Mansfield's doctrine concerning libels, and particularly all his lord hip's limitations of the rights of juries. The learned ferjeant therefore, with great prudence, and a great regard for the rights of juries, faw that it was more proper to fubmit, thau to give lord Manffield an opportunity of obtaining an authoritative confirmation of his innovations in the conftitution. Thus, by a device of lord Manffield, the rights of juries upon this great point hung as it were upon a ingle thread. Well might judge Willes fay, Mark him! Had lord Mansfield's project taken effect; and had the majority of the judges acquiefced, of which it is more than probable he had no doubt, it must have been extremely difficult, and next to an impoffibility, ever to have recovered the rights of juries, which lord Mansfield had ufurped, and which ufurpation had been confirmed by the judges.

"Upon another occafion, lord Mansfield attempted the famc device, but the weakness of his nerves prevented the defign being carried into effect. This was in the year

1770, when he gave a paper to the clerk of the houfe of lords, containing the opinion of the court of King's Bench, upon one of the trials of Junius's Letters.

"The houfe of lords was fummon. ed at the request of lord Mansfield, on Monday the eleventh day of December. Great expectations were raifed. Lord Mansfeld's doctrines concerning libels had been much canvaffed in the houfe of commons, in confequence of a motion made by ferjeant Glynn; it was therefore fuppofed and believed, that his lordship intended to bring the fubject before the house of lords. And, probably, that was his original intention. But when the houfe met (on the eleventh of December) his lordship only faid, that he had left a paper containing the opinion of the court of King's Bench with the clerk; and that their lordships might read it, and take copies of it. [The paper, and lord Camden's anfwer, are printed in all the parliamentary debates.]

"It is fcarcely poffible to conceive any thing more ridiculous than this was. He certainly muft have changed his intention, for no perfon will credit that he had the houfe fummoned for the paltry purpose of telling their lordships he had left a paper with the clerk. Lord Camden afked him, if he meant to have his paper entered upon the journals? No! no!' faid lord Mansfield, only to leave it with the clerk.'

"Next day lord Camden attacked lord Mansfield pretty fharply on the fubject of his paper, and put feveral queftions to him concerning the fenfe of it. Lord, Mansfield faid it was taking him by furprise, and that he would not answer interrogatories. Lord Camden defired that a day might be fixed for his lordship to give his

anfwers;

anfwers; but lord Mansfield would not confent.

"As far as this attack upon lord Mansfield went, it was perfectly judicious; and it would have been imprudent to have pufhed the matter further; because an attempt of that fort might, and moft probably would have brought the fubject into general debate; and thereby have been the cause of establishing lord Mansfield's doctrine irrever bly, and clothing it with all the folemn graces and fanctions which a certain well-known crafty influence can eafily procure.

"The next attack that lord Mansfield made on the rights of juries, was not lefs interefting, but it was open and avowed. The judges of his own court fupported his defign without, perhaps, perceiving the nature and extent of it; at leaft it may be candid to admit the poffible fuppofition, for lord Manffeld's art was ufually the best of art; it was the art to conceal itfelf: but this attempt was attended with an advantage to the public that lord Mansfield did not forefee. It brought forth the ftrong admired talents, and great legal abilities of Mr. Dunning, afterwards lord Ashburton.

"It has been already mentioned, under the head of the duke of Grafton, that lord Mansfield was exceedingly hurt by a tract of great celebrity, entitled A Letter on Libels and Warrants, &c.' He therein faw his doctrines of law, and his conduct as a judge, treated in a manner that was no way favourable to his views. But although he was ardent to punish the printer, he did not choose to truft a jury with the caufe. He therefore contrived a new mode, or rather revived a very obfolete one from the ftar-chamber. This was to connect the matter of libel with

the private conduct of the judge, and then to maintain, that a statement of the private conduct of a judge at chambers, or at his own houfe, was a contempt of the court. It would not be very difficult, to an artful bad man, to conftrue mof libels into a contempt of court.

"Mr. Dunning faw the extent of the manoeuvre. The cafe was this. Lord Mansfield had altered the record in the cafe of Mr. Wilkes at his own private houfe. Amongst the many parts of lord Mansfield's conduct which were cenfured in the Letter on Libels and Warrants, was this fact, of his altering the record. The writer's statement of this fact, lord Manffield called a contempt of the court. The procefs upon a contempt, which is always fome clear indif putable fact, and generally against the officers of the court, attornies or evidence, is by iffuing a writ of attachment, and the defendant anfwering upon oath fuch interrogatories as fhall be put to him. If he purges himself (as it is called) of the charge, he is acquitted; if not, the court inflict fuch punish. ment as they think proper. There is no other trial, nor any jury called in.

"Whether what lord Mansfield had done was right or wrong, could not by this procefs become a natter of inquiry, nor even of animadverfion. If lord Mansfield had proceeded in any of the ufual ways against libels, by action, information, or indictment, there would have been latitude for the difplay of the ingenuity and ability of counfel. He took this for the more prudent and certain way. But his attempt was oppofed with a degree of intrepidity and firmness he did not expect.”

Our limits will not permit us to infert the outlines of the arguments,

ments, why the writ of attachment hould not iffue }

"In July, 1755, the miniftry were changed; and a total revolution in pontics took place. Mr. Yorke, who had been appointed attorney-general, was defirous of continuing the profecution; but the marquis of Rockingham, who was then mmifter, interpofed, and prevented any farther proceedings:

In the month of November, 1768, a woman having appeared before two of his majefty's juftices of peace, to wear a child against the fecretary to count Bruhl, the Saxon minifter; the court interfered, and the juftices were afraid to proceed. The woman applied to fir Fletcher Norton, who advised that a motion fhould be made in the court of King's Bench for a peremptory mandamus to the juf tices to proceed in that filiation. The motion was accordingly made by Mr. Mansfield.

"The lord chief juftice Manffield received it with marks of anger and furprife; he faid he did not understand what was meant by fuch collufive motions, unless it was to draw from that court an opinion upon the privileges of foreign minifters, which they had no right to meddle with; that the motion was abfolutely improper; that he wondered who advised it, and that he certainly fhould not grant the mandamus.

"Sir Fletcher Norton then got up and faid, that the party was his client; that his majesty's fubjects, when injured, had a right to redrefs fomewhere or other: and that he knew of no place where such redrefs could be legally applied for or obtained, but in the court of King's Bench; that therefore he had advised the motion.

"Lord Mansfield, upon this, be

gan to flourish, in his ufual style, upon the facred privileges of ambaffadors, the law of nations, &c. &c. repeated fomething about col lufive motions, and took notice that the application for redrefs ought regularly to have been m de to count Bruhl, or to his majesty's attorney-general.

"Mr. justice Afton faid, delibe rately, that he agreed entirely with the lord chief juftice, and that the motion ought not to be granted.

Sir Fletcher Norton then faid, that, after he had declared himself the adviser of the motion, he did not expect to have heard it again called collufive; that he defpifed and abhorred all ideas of collufion as much as any man in that court; that it was the first time, and he hoped it would be the laft, that he fhould hear the court of King's Bench refer an injured fubject of Englaad to a foreign minister, or to an attorney-general, for redress; that the laws of this country had not left his majefty's fubjects, com plaining of injury, without a legal and certain protection; that their claim was a claim of right, upon which the court of King's Bench had full authority to inquire, and must determine; that if his clients were injured, he fhould always bring them to that court for redrefs, let who would have committed the injury, and he would take care that that court fhould do them juftice; that his motion was proper, and should not be withdrawn.

"Judge Yates then faid, that the reafons offered by fir Fletcher Norton had clearly convinced him; that he had not the leaft doubt of the authority of the court to protect his majefty's fubjects; and that, for his part, he fhould neve refer them either to a foreign minifter, or to an officer of the crown;

that

that he thought the motion perfect ly regular, and that it ought to be granted.

Judge Afton then began to recant. He faid, that he was always glad to be convinced of a mistake, and happy in having an early opportunity of acknowledging it; that from what his brother Yates and fir Fletcher Norton had faid, he faw clearly that his firft opinion had been erroneous, and that he agreed the motion ought to be granted.

"Lord Mansfield then, in great confufion, said, that he should *take time to confider of it. To this for Fletcher Norton replied, that, as two of the three judges were of the fame opinion, the motion muft be granted; but that, for his part, if his lordship wanted any time to confider, whether, when a fubject applied to the court of King's Bench for redrefs, he was or was not to be referred to a foreign mimifter, or to an attorney-general, he had no objection to allowing him all the time he wanted.

"Thus wickedness and folly were defeated, and the unhappy foreign minifter, in fpite of the law of nations, was obliged to comply with the law of nature, and to provide for his child.”

"The conduct of lord Manffield, on the question concerning literary property is well known. He gave a judgment in the court of King's Bench, by which the London bookfellers were induced to believe they had a permanent property in what they bought; and when the matter came to be argued in the house of lords, upon an appeal, and he was firmly attacked by lord Thurlow (then attorney general, and counfel for the appellant), and all his doctrine reprobated by lord Camden, he had not

courage to rife up in his place and defend his own judgment. He faid not a word.

“If he was ambitious of being thought a Mæcenas, which was fuppofed, that may be pretended to be fome excufe for his judgment on this question in the court of King's Bench, but cannot apologize for abandoning bis own character in the houfe of lords.

"By his patronage of fis John Dalrymple, who compiled The Memoirs of Great Britain,' already mentioned in the preceding chapter; and of Mr. Lind, whe wrote fome tracts entitled, "Letters

6

on Poland,' in which the late king of Pruflia is treated with great perity; and fome tracts against A+ merica, during the American war, in fupport of the miniftry; and of fome other writers of the fame principles; perhaps be flattered himfelf with the hopes of being efteemed an encourager of literary men.

But avarice was his ruling paffion. He used to say, thefe who purchafed eftates, preferved their principal but received no intereft; thofe who bought in the funds, had intereft but, no principal. He laid out his money in mortgages, and good fecurities, by which he bad both principal and interest.

"His lordship was alfo ambitious of being thought a ftatefman. Upon one occafion only be fhone as a politician: this was his attack on the fufpending and difpenfing prerogative in the king, which was undoubtedly made with great ability; but the cafe may be faid to have been more a matter of jurifprudence than politics; and although he gave to his eloquence all the advantages he had acquired by a long exercife, yet the merit of the attack is leffened, when it is recollected that lord Camden had maintained

the

the neceffity of a fufpending power in a case of imminent danger of famine, which was the fact, and that ford Mansfield warmly embraced this opportunity of upholding a true constitutional doctrine, to gratify his envy and hatred of lord Cam. den. His motive was founded in perfonal rancour, not in constitutional. All those who are acquainted with the history of the time will not befitate to admit this diftinczion. But the tract which was published, called A Speech 2gainst the Sufpending and Difpend ing Prerogative, and contained all that lord Mansfield advanced in his fpeech upon this fubject in the house of lords, was not written by his lordhip, although generally believed to have been his production, nor was he privy to the writing or publication. The pamphlet was written by lord Temple, and lord Lytzelton, and a gentleman, who was prefent at the debate, and ftates in the form of one fpeech all the arguments on that fide. However, lord Mansfield's motives may be excused, if the feverity of his attack makes minifters more affiduous in their duty, for they had information of the approaching danger, and did not attend to it; if they had, fuck attention would have prevented the neceffity of reforting to fo violent a remedy.

"Of his lordship's political opi. nions and conduct, it would have been happy for his country if they bad been founded in thofe juft principles of all government, which make the honour of the state and the interefts of the people perfe&ly the fame. His political ideas were like thofe of lord Bute; they were contracted, plenetic, and tyrannical. No better proof need be given than his memorable apoftrophe in the house of lords, in the year 1774,

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

6

"Montefquieu, in confidering the causes of the grandeur and declension of the Romans, obferves that policy had not permitted ar"mies to be stationed near Rome, for this reafon confiderable forces were kept in Cifalpine Gaul; but to fe'cure the city of Rocne against thole troops, the celebrated Senatus Confultus was made, still so be seen entgraven on the way from Rimini to 'Cefena; by which they devoted to 'the infernal gods, and declared to be guilty of facrilege and parricide, thole who fhould with a legion, with an army, or with a cohort, pass the Rubicon.' Montanus gives the infoription at length, which is ftronger than Montefquieu ftates, and fays, that Aldus Manutius, in the year 1565, in his way from Venice to Rome, faw this infcription, and carefully tranferibed it. When Cæfar, in his march for Rome, had advanced to the Rubicon, he paufed a few moments at this infcription, but his ambition prevailing, he paffed over the bridge, and then exclaimed, The lot is 'caft, let the gods do the reft!'

"Whoever knows lord Manffield's influence in the British cabinet, will fay this was the die of America."

"In the progress of the American war, lord and general Howe had not the fuccess which his lord

« ZurückWeiter »