the earl's life, his lordfhip had obferved, how hard it was, that an old man, on the verge of fourfcore and ten years, could not be permitted to die quietly. To felect a more ftriking inftance, a few years before his decease, he lay for a time in a state of infenfibility; by means of blifters, and other phyfical efforts, returning life enabled him to chide his phyfician, by, aking a queftion equally uncommon and unexpected Why did you endeavour to bring me back when I was fo far gone in my journey?' "Early in March, 1793, lord Stormont, having occafion to confult his uncle on a law-cafe then depending in the houfe of lords, faid his ideas and recollection were perfectly clear.

"On Sunday, March the 10th, his lordship did not talk at breakfast as ufual, but feemed heavy, and complained of being very fleepy, and his pulfe was low; volatiles and cordials were ordered for him, and cantharides were applied to his iffues. On the Monday he feemed rather better. On Tuesday morning he defired to be got up and taken to his chair; but foon wished to be put to bed again; and faid, Let me fleep-let me fleep. After this he never spoke. On his return to bed he teemed perfectly eafy, breathed freely and uninterruptedly like a child, with as calm and ferene a countenance as in his

beft health, and had a good pulse, but was clearly void both of fenfe and fenfibility. A blister was applied to the arm, which it affected no more than it would any inanimate fubftance. Scotch fnuff was inferted into the noftrils by means of a feather, without the least effect. Some attempts were alfo made to get nourishment down by means of a fpoon, but to no purpose; and, as the laft attempt had nearly choaked him, it was defifted from, and his mouth was afterwards merely moiftened by a feather dipt in wine and water. In this ftate his lordfhip continued without any apparent alteration, fome fymptoms of the vital fpark remaining, yet glimmering faintly, till the morning of Monday the 18th, when there was an appearance of mortification on the part most preffed by lying, and his pulfe began to beat feebly. Fears were now entertained that he thould awake to mifery, which he fortunately did not; but continued to fleep quietly till the night of Wednesday the 20th, when the lingering dying taper was quite extinguished. He expired without a groan, in the 89th year of his age; clofing a long life of honor to himself, and great ufe to fociety, in a way the moft to be defired: and it may be faid of his lordship, as it was of king David, that he died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honor."

Other

4

TH

HE admirers of lord Mansfield have always fhewn themselves diffatisfied with any statement of fuch parts of his conduct as tended to the diminution of his celebrity. They affert his impartiality, his wifdom, his penetration and patience.

"On the contrary, thofe perfons who have declared his lordship capable of committing every enormity whenever he had opportunity to advance the power of the crown, or trefpafs on the liberty of the fubject, have been offended whenever he has been complimented with the titles of a great lawyer, and an upright judge. They arraign his principles of law, and deny his impartiality.

"Between these extremes, lord Mansfield's true character will not be eafily nor perhaps accurately defined. That it lay between them is true; but to which it moft inclined, may, in the opinion of fome perfons, be difficult to afcertain."

"During the whole adminiftration of the Pelhams, he adhered to the whigs, and particularly to Mr. Pelham, whofe confidence he obtained much in the fame way that his friend Mr. Stone obtained that of the duke of Newcastle. They (Stone and Murray) were accused of being jacobites, and the accufation was brought before the houfe of lords. But they had dexterity and influence fufficient to ftop the progrefs of the enquiry. Mr. Stone then being fub-governor to the prince (the prefent king)

was fuppofed, by fome people, to conduct himself in the capacity of a double fpy. He owed his appointment to the duke of New caftle, for the purpofe (as was conjectured) of giving the duke information of the proceedings and tranfactions of Leicester house, and preferved his intereft at Leicesterhoufe by giving information to lord Bute of the defigns and tranfactions of the miniftry, in which he was affifted by his friend lord Mansfield, then Mr. Murray. Whether thefe opinions are strictly correct or not, it is certain that lord Bute had authentic information of all the projects and measures of the miniftry, even at the time when the politics of St. James's and Leicester-houfe differed moft.

"It has been the great felicity of lord Mansfield's reputation, that his conduct has generally been viewed on the favourable fide only. And that fuch detached parts of it as reflected moft to his honour have been principally those which have been held up to public view. If the whole of his conduct had been fairly and impartially examined, it would in many points have brought to our remembrance the conduct of thofe learned chiefs, Trefylian, Keyling, Scroggs, Jefferyes, and fome others."

"It is generally allowed, that in most cafes between fubject and fubject, he thewed great penetration and judgment. He poffelfed a talent, if it may be called fo, of difcovering the merits of a caufe

before

before it was half heard. This quickness, however, fometimes betrayed him into too early a propenfion in favour of one of the parties. And in this precipitation he was more than once or twice unjuft. So difficult it is, for the moft acute understanding, at all times, to difcover hidden truths; and fo dan gerous it is, to entertain a conceit of poffeffing, by intuition, a talent fuperior to the reft of mankind. Yet this is perfectly true of lord Mansfield. Some lawyers have occafionally affumed a courfe of imitation; but the attempt has been fo clumfy and inadequate, it scarcely deferves the name of a carica

ture.

"In all thofe political caufes concerning the prefs, in which the crown was party, he was partial in the extreme. His rule of law uniformly was, that the crown was never wrong in thofe caufes. To the liberty of the prefs he was a fincere and implacable enemy. His definition of this liberty was, a permiffion to print without a licenfe, what formerly could only be printed with one. In trials for libels, he has been heard to deliver fuch language from the bench, as ought to have flushed the jury with indignation. In thofe trials, his invariable practice was, in his charge to the jury, to make a laboured reply to the defendant's counfl. Will any candid perfon fay this was proper conduct in a judge, who ought to be ftrictly impartial? This is not the language of prejudice for the truth of it an appeal may fafely be made to all thofe perfons who are yet alive, who heard him upen thofe occafions.

"But a ftronger proof cannot be given of lord Mansfield's general mifconduct and unif-directions to juries, in cafes of libels, thau the

late declaratory act of parliament of the rights of juries, which was brought forward by Mr. Fox and Mr. Erfkine, and was supported by a confiderable part of the miniftry. The artful and dangerous practices of lord Mansfield (in these political trials, fo interefting to public liberty) to which he had through life moft tenaciously adhered, and had ardently maintained to be law, were totally annihilated and done away. Juries were reftored to their conftitutional rights, which fixes upon his memory and character a more indelible ftigma, than could have been inflicted by an article of impeachment. The many tranfgreffions he had committed on law, juftice, and humanity, rendered this act of parliament abfolutely neceflary. Lord Camden, though far advanced in years, vigoroufly fupported the bill in the houfe of lords, and condemned all lord Mansfield's doctrines in terms of juft afperity.

"There is a fact not less respecting lord Mansfield's favourite opinion, than his great defign upon the rights of juries, in all questions concerning the liberty of the prefs, which diftinguishes him to have been from principle, as well as ftudy, perhaps, the inoft dangerous enemy to the conftitutional rights of juries, that ever fat in a court of juftice, fince the time of the starchamber.

"The fact here alluded to, happened on the trial of John Williams, in the month of July, 1764, for re-publishing the North Briton in volumes. Serjeant Glynn, who was counfel for Williams, faid, with a frong emphatis,

That in the matter of libel, they were the proper judges of the law, as well as the fad, that they had the full right to determine, whether the defendant had pub

•lifhed

lifhed the North Briton with the * intent as laid in the Attorney-general's information.' Lord Mansfield stopped 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 queftion 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 confiderable majority of the twelve judges would confirm all lord Mansfield's doctrine concerning libels, and particularly all his lordship'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, than to give lord Mansfield an opportunity of obtaining an authoritative confirmation of his innovations in the conftitution. Thus, by a device of lord Mansfield, the rights of juries upon this great point hung as it were upon a fingle thread. Well might judge Willes fay, mark bim! 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 muft 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 fame 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 house of lords was fummoned at the request of lord Mansfield, on Monday the eleventh day of December. Great expectations were raised. Lord Mansfield's doctrines concerning libels had been much canvaffed in the house 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 lordthip only faid, that he had left a paper containing the opinion of the court of King'sBench 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 mult have changed his intention, for 1.0 perfon will credit that he had the houfe fummoned for the paltry purpofe 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? faid lord Mansfield, it with the clerk.'

No! No! only to leave

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 pushed the matter further; becaufe an attempt of that fort might, and most probably would, have brought the fubject into general debate; and thereby have been the caufe of eftablishing lord Mansfield's doctrine irreverfibly, and cloathing it with all the folemn graces and fanctions which a certain well known crafty influence can easily 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 Mansfeld's art was ufually the beft 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 foresee. 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 far-chamber. This was to connect the matter of libel with

the private conduct of the judge, and then to maintain, that a ftate ment 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 moft 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 house. Amongst the many parts of lord Mansfield's condnet which were cenfured in the Letter on Libels and Warrants, was this fact, of his altering the record. The writer's ftatement of this fact, lord Mansfield called a contempt of the court. The procefs upon a contempt, which is always fome clear indifputable fact, and generally againft the officers of the court, attornies or evidence, is by iffuing a writ of attachment, and the defendant anfwering upon oath fuch interrogatories as thall be put to him. If he purges himfelf (as it is called) of the charge, he is acquitted; if not, the court inflict fuch punishment 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 matter of enquiry, nor even of animadverfion. If lord Mansfield had proceeded in any of the ufual ways againft 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 firmnets he did not expect."

[Our limits will not permit us to infert the outlines of the argu

ments