Before the jury retired, the judge had desired them, if they should find for Mr. Clifford, to state upon which of the two grounds they gave their verdict: whether upon the ground of Jr. Clifford's not having been guilty of a riot; or, upon the ground of his having been apprehended after the riot was over. When, therefore, the jury returned, and gave their verdict, the judge is reported to have asked them for an explanation of the ground, upon which they gave it. But, I shall now insert this part of the report, as I find it in the news-papers, it being of the utmost consequence, that no misrepresentation of what passed should take place.

"JURYMAN.-It was generally thought "rather harsh to construe wearing O P "into an act of riot, and by some, that "it would be inconsistent with the rights of "Englishmen."

With respect to Sir James's apprehensions of great national danger from what is going on at the Theatre, I must say, that do not participate in them. I have seen nothing, in any of the accounts that have reached me, that would induce me to suppose, that the Opposition at the Theatre has been at all marked with a mobbish character. We see, that scores of the oppositionists are seized, even in the midst of their companions, and dragged off to the office of the Police-Justices, where neither those justices, nor any of their officers, meet with any insult or hinderance in the execution of their office. They demand bail, they send to prison, and no sort of resistance is made. It is remarkable, too, "THE FOREMAN replied, that on the il- that of the wounds said to have been relegality of the arrest, they were unani-ceived in the several scuffles, almost the With respect to the question of "Mr. Clifford having been concerned in "a riot, there was a difference of opi"nion. That question had not, however, been decisively discussed, as the Jury "was unanimous in their verdict on the "first principle.

"SIR J. MANSFIELD then requested the "Foreman to acquaint him with the ground "on which their verdict had been given "with reference to what he had referred "in his charge, whether they found for "the Plaintiff upon the illegality of the "Arrest, or upon the ground that Mr. "Clifford had not been guilty of a riot.

"mous.

"

"SIR JAMES MANSFIELD-I am sorry "that that question was not decided, for "it leaves the thing which I wished to be "decided as equivocal as ever. I am in"deed very sorry that the Jury did not agree on the distinct grounds of the "verdict, for this shocking mistake of "the public will still go forth, and public outrage may be continued by a furious "mob-it deserves no better name-they may think themselves authorized to take "justice into their own hands, and gratify "their revenge by violence and outrageous conduct, even, perhaps, to the ruin of their country. What may be the consequence of such a spirit, it is impossi"ble to foresce, but certain I am, that it "leads to every kind of horror-possibly to "the subversion of Government, certainly to "great evils, perhaps the worst that can be "endured by a nation.

66

66

"JURYMAN-We found the verdict on "the ground that the Plaintiff was ille"gally apprehended.

SiR JAMES MANSFIELD-That's equi"rocal, and decides nothing-for he might be a rioter, and yet illegally ap

whole have been received by the opposi tionists. Scarcely a man on the other side has received a personal injury. Besides, it has been proved, under the hands of very respectable men, that common bruisers had had free admissions, not only for themselves, but also to give to others; and, I cannot help thinking, that it will be finally made to appear, that, in measures of force, the managers set the example. I cannot, therefore, see much ground for Sir James Mansfield's political fears; I cannot see in the conduct of the OP's any thing that appears to me to threaten the subversion of the government, or even the ruin of the country. We have before heard of the ruin of the country; it is a very common phrase; it has been apprehended from various and innumerable causes; but, really, I should not have apprehended it from hissing, hooting, and groaning at the Theatre, however often repeated; I should not have supposed, that, even the pelting of all the players off the stage with orange-peel and rotten apples, was any indication of national ruin.Indeed, I for my part, should be much more apprehensive of national ruin from doctrine like that of Serjeant Shepherd; for, if that doctrine, such as it is described in the report, were once to be generally acted upon, there would be an end of the main object for which we are now disposed to fight in our country's defence: namely, the Trial by Jury. If that

doctrine had been acted upon, in the case | chiefs that must arise from jurors not taking the law of every case implicitly from the judge; and, amongst those mischiefs he stated that of the law's changing continually, with every change of jurors. This is the old argument of SCROGGS and JEFFREYS, but it is not the more amiable or convincing for all that.--If laws were all written; if all possible cases were provided for in a manner so clearly as to leave nothing to be supplied by reasoning or construction; and if we had a security from Heaven for all judges being honest and impartial; then (though, by the bye, it would be quite fatal to the Serjeant's profession) I should say, leave the law to the judge, for he has spent his life in reading the law, and the jury have not. But, the fact is, that there is not one case out of one thousand which the law has so clearly provided for as to leave nothing to be supplied by construction; and, there is, in almost every case, especially of the sort of that now before us, so much depending upon the views and intentions of the parties, and the character of the act depends so much upon those circumstances, the true weight of which can be felt only by men who are taken from amongst the people, that I have no scruple to give it as my decided opinion, that a jury of twelve honest and impartial men, are, leaving all other considerations out of the question, more likely to come to a just decision than any single judge that ever sat even upon the English bench. The Serjeant, however, should have remembered, that the institution of juries grew out of a scrupulous regard for the safety of the persons and the property of the people against the arm of encroaching power; and that the great maxim of our benign law is, that it is better for a hundred times a hundred guilty persons to escape punishment, than that one innocent person should suffer. The laws have all been grounded upon the known existence of the power of juries to interpret those laws; and, therefore, if this power of juries be taken away, or, which is the same thing, suffered to remain only in name, you, do, in fact, change the nature of those laws.-I do not wish to inculcate an idea, that our judges are fickle in their interpretation of the law; but, surely, Mr. Serjeant Shepherd will not pretend to say, that different interpretations have not been given by different judges, of the same law;

of the seven Bishops, in the reign of JAMES II. those Bishops would have been found guilty, and, of course, punished. If, in short, that doctrine had been acted upon, neither of the villains, SCROGGS and JEFFREYS, would ever have been accused of tyranny towards juries, for they never would have met with any opposition, but, on the contrary, would have found juries to be a most convenient sort of 'scape goat. Juries, like all the other institutions, intended as safeguards of freedom, become, if perverted from their purpose, not only no safeguards at all, but the instruments of greater tyranny than would have been practised, if they had not existed. A judge, with the eyes of the public fixed upon his decisions, would be more likely to be cautious how he lent himself to the abuse of law, than if those decisions, though really his, passed for the decisions of juries. We cannot, therefore, too often, or too strongly, repeat our abhorrence of this doctrine, which, if acted upon, would make juries nothing more than the means of screening the misconduct of judges from public hatred and indignation.In some of the reports of this Trial, Mr. SERJEANT LENS is represented as urging the Judge to call upon the jury for a statement of the reasons, upon which they founded their verdict. This does not appear to have been done by the judge, who merely asked them to say, upon which of two distinct grounds they founded their verdict; which, though new to me, was very different indeed from calling upon the jury for their reasons generally, which, in my opinion, would be a most daring violation of the rights of juries. A man may be very capable indeed of forming a correct conclusion, and, from various causes, very incapable of clearly stating his reasons, especially before a numerous assembly, who, from the very nature of the circumstances, must be watching every word that he utters. Besides, is it not manifest, that, in one and the same case, different men may come to the same conclusion upon different grounds? Nay, must it not necessarily happen, in many cases, that the jury are not, at first, unanimous, and that their verdict is the result of some giving up their opinions to others? Into what endless labyrinths, then, would every case lead the persons impannelled as well as the court, were it to become customary to ask jurors the reasons for their verdict? Serjeant Shepherd talked of the mis

nay
of the same clause of the same written
statute; and that, of course, different de-
cisions have taken place upon evidence of

1

"Holding in common with the Parliament "itself, the doctrine of its purity and of "its sufficiency to save the State, we can"not anticipate such a decision. But if, unhappily, we should find ourselves mistaken; if, again, every measure and every minister be covered over with its approbation, then we will venture to predict, "not that the Government is acquitted, but "that the Parliament stunds condemned; and "we shall most unwillingly be compelled to appeur in the foremost rank of those who "must acknowledge that they are convinced "and converted. For it is needless to dis

66

the same facts, or facts of exactly the same description, produced in different cases? When the Serjeant was a young man, he must have seen the delightful puzzling that this created amongst the wiseacres at a Quarter Sessions. Our judges are, and have been, for many years past, as good, perhaps, in every respect, as judges ever were; but, still they are no more than men, and no men are perfect. It is neither the wisdom or the integrity of the judges that I should distrust; but, the power which Serjeant Shepherd contends. for is, as SIR ARTHUR PIGGOT said in the debate upon the Irish Insurrection Bill, 66 a power that I would give to no man. In short, the Serjeant's doctrine would, if" mean one of two things-either that acted upon, render juries totally useless; and we might as well consent, at once, to the revival of that infamous instrument of tyranny the Court of Star-Chamber, which was established for the purpose of inflicting punishments upon persons, whom juries could not be prevailed upon to find guilty.

"guise the matter. A refusal to punish "the authors of our misfortunes can only

"there has been no blame incurred-or "that it is inexpedient to declare it, be "cause such a resolution would drive the

guilty persons from the Government. "In the one case, the Parliament will "shew that it is not the Representative of "the Country; in the other we shall have

66

66

champion of their rights, but a well con"trived instrument of taxation.—The consequences of such a decision, therefore, "will be productive of incalculable mis"chief; it will complete the alienation of the

a conclusive proof that the Ministers of EDINBURGH REVIEWERS.- -It will be "the Crown are irremovable. The reremembered, that these gentlemen have, sponsibility of our rulers, that fairest fea in their justly celebrated work, lately en- "ture in the theory of the Constitution, deavoured to maintain, that the House of "will be no longer even a name, whereCommons stood in no need of a Reform. Much "withal to round parliamentary periods: ingenuity was employed in this endeavour," and the people will thenceforward recogand, it may easily be supposed, that some" nize, in the great Council of the Nation, effect was produced by it. Events have," not the guardian of their interests, and the however, since the writing of that article, occurred, sufficient, it appears, to shake the opinions of its authors.Amongst the reasons why a Reform should take place, we always mentioned, the want, as things now stand, of any real responsibility Country from the Government, and shame in the ministers, be their conduct what it 66 away the boldest defenders of the present might. Now, in their Number for Octosystem.". Here then, we have a disber 1809, the Edinburgh Reviewers, after tinct pledge; that unless the parliament taking a view of the Conduct of the War, punish the present ministers for their maand particularly of the ruinous and dis-nagement of the war; we have a distinct graceful Expeditions to Spain and Holland, declare, that, if the House of Commons do not make the ministers really responsible for these failures, they (the Reviewers) will join us in calling for a Parliamentary Reform, as the only means of saving the nation from utter ruin. -It is best to insert their own words, to avoid the possibility of a charge of misrepresentaIt now remains to be seen,

tion

66

"wheher that PARLIAMENT which stands in "no need of reformation-which is a fair re'presentative of the p ople of England - which speaks the sentiments of the country-will "once more acquit the Ministers of all "blame for their recent mismanagement.

66

promise, that, unless the parliament, at its meeting, does this, the Edinburgh Reviewers will join us, nay, will place themselves at our head, and be our leaders in all lawful endeavours to obtain a Reform of the Parliament.-I cannot help thinking, that the writers of this work do now perceive, that the nation is not to be saved without a Reform of the Parliament, and that this is only a decent way of accounting for the change of sentiment, which upon this subject, they now mean to disCover. A correspondent, in a letter inserted below, supposes, that the article against Parliamentary Reform was written by a person, now no longer one of the

writers in the Review. I should have guessed it to be the production of LORD SELKIRK; and, indeed, I believe him to be the author of it. Persons, conducting such publications, are but too apt (without any corrupt motive) to suffer rank and wealth to usurp their pages. This would be of no consequence at all, if the authors were to put their names to what they write; but, it is of great, and may be of mischievous, consequence, when their writings go forth to the world as the writings of the editors, or conductors, of a celebrated work.- At any rate, we have now the pledge of the conductors, and to that pledge, we shall, I trust, find them adbere.

no man.

true; but, it is nothing at all in the way of justification of those, who have taken upon them to manage the affairs of a nation. I am at a loss to discover what sort of apology even, can be offered, not for the failure but for the undertaking, of either of the expeditions. I regard that in Spain to be the worst, after all; especially as it was undertaken with the sad experience of Sir John Moore before the eyes of the ministry as well as the commander. I do not agree with the Edinburgh Reviewers in all they say of Sir John Moore, or of his conduct in Spain. I believe him to have been much to blame, but the ministry and their agents to have been more to blame. His retreat was too precipitate. CONDUCT OF THE WAR. The mis- It was a flight, and a flight it need not management of the war is now denied by have been, if the necessary precautions had The very hireling news-papers been taken at several of the passes in the confess that it has been mismanaged; or, mountains, and at two or three of the at least, they have not the effrontery to bridges. This, however, has nothing to deny the fact.-Let us now see, then, do with the present question. And, again,' what the parliament will do. The public I say, that I am totally at a loss to dismust remember, that, after all thoughts of cover, what sort of apology can possibly an attempt upon Antwerp had been given be found for the undertaking of either of up, the hirelings of the press told us, that those ruinous expeditions.I have, howthe island of Walcheren was invaluable; that ever, no notion, that the matter will be it was a most important post for us to hold; taken up in the manner that it ought to and that it was well worth all the expence be, when the parliament meets. And, and all the loss of lives, which the capture yet, all other motives aside, it is strange of it had occasioned. Nay, it will be that a motive of self-preservation should remembered, that, these assertions were not impel men of property all to join not confined to the hireling prints; for in their endeavours to prevent a repetithat Lord Chatham himself, when he com- tion of such waste of the national means; municated to the ministers (in a dispatch to prevent a repetition of measures, that was published) his intention not to so manifestly tending to the downfall proceed up the Scheldt, did not fail to tell of the state. But, it has in all nations them what a "valuable possession" the been thus. There appears, under such country would find in the Island of Walche- circumstances of public danger, the same -Long before that time, and at that sort of infatuation always to have pretime, I endeavoured to convince my read- vailed; and, the truth is, perhaps, that ers of the impossibility of our holding such infatuation is a necessary consequence Walcheren for only one winter. For these proceeding from the same cause as the endeavours I was most outrageously abused danger itself. It would seem that the by the hirelings. I was represented almost blows, which cripple a nation, do, at the as a traitor, because I advised the ministers same time, deprive it of its senses.to evacuate the island with all possible I cannot bring myself to entertain the terspeed; and, because I repeated my re- rible idea of England's becoming a demonstrances against keeping, or attempt-pendence of France, an idea not less fearing to keep, the island, or any part of it, the Nabob's Gazette lamented that I was not "silenced.". Well! we now see, that, if my advice had been followed, how much loss, how much disgrace, this nation would have avoided! I am, for my part, quite at a loss to discover, upon what grounds the ministers will, or can, attempt to defend their warlike measures. Any man, or set of men, may err. This is very

ren.

ful than that of death itself; but, still, if things go on in their present course, I cannot see, how we are to escape this dreadful end. If our affairs are to be ex-. posed to the natural and inevitable consequences of continual bickerings and intrigues, if self-interest, if grovelling passion, are to bear sway, reason says we must fall, and fall we shall.