"vourable to Lord Chatham, and decreed accord"ingly, Lord Mansfield, out of fheer love and "kindness to Lord Chathamn, took the pains to "place it in a point of view more favourable to the "appellant."-Credat Judæus Apella.-So curious an affertion would ftagger the faith of Mr. Sylva. VOL. II K k LET LETTER XVIII: 2 November, 1771.. WE E are defired to make the following declaration, in behalf of Junius, upon three material points, on which his opinion has been mistaken, or mifreprefented. 10. Junius confiders the right of taxing the colonies, by an act of the British Legislative, as a fpeculative right merely, never to be exerted, nor ever to be renounced. To his judgment it appears plain, "That the general reasonings, which were employsed against that power, went directly to our whole legiflative right, and that one part of it could not "be yielded to fuch arguments, without a virtual "furrender of all the reft." ན་ 2. That with regard to prefs-warrants, his argument fhould be taken in his own words, and anfwered strictly ;-that comparisons may fometimes illuftrate, but prove nothing, and that, in this cafe, an appeal to the paffions is unfair and unneceffary. Junius feels and acknowledges the evil in the most exprefs terms, and will thew himself ready to concur in any rational plan, that may provide for the iberty of the individua', without hazard ing the fafety of the community. At the fame time, he expects that the evil, fuch as it is, be not exaggerated or mifreprefented. In general, it is not unjust that, when the rich man contributes his wealth, the poor man fhould ferve the ftate in perfon; otherwife the latter contributes nothing to the defence of that law and conftitution, from which he demands fafety and protection. But the question does not lye between rich and poor. The laws of England make no distinctions. Neither is it true that the poor man is torn from the care and fupport of a wife and family, helpless without him. The fingle queftion is, whether the feaman*, in times of public danger, fhall ferve the merchant or the ftate, in that profeffion to which he was bred, and by the exercise of which alone he can honestly support himself and his family.-General arguments against the doctrine of necessity,eand the dangerous ufe that may be made of it, are of no weight in this particular cafe. Neceffity includes the idea of inevitable. Whenever it is fo, it creates a law, to which all positive laws, and all pofstive rights must give way. In this fenfe the levy of hip-money by the King's warrant was not neceffaK k 2 ty, * 1 corfine myself strictly to Seamen ;-if any others are preffed, it is a grofs abufe, which the magiftrate can and fhould correct. ry, because the business might have been as well or better done by parliament. If the doctrine, maintained by Junius, be confined within this limitation, it will go but very little way in fupport of arbitrary power. That the King is to judge of the occafion, is no objection, unless we are told how it can poflibly be otherwife. There are other inftances, not lefs important in the exercise, nor lefs dangerous in the abuse, in which the conftitution relies entirely upon the King's judgment. The executive power proclaims war and peace, binds the nation by treaties, orders general embargoes, and impofes quarantines, not to mention a multitude of prerogative writs, which, though lia to the greatest abuses, were never disputed. - 5. It has been urged, as a reproach to Junius, that he has not delivered an opinion upon the Game Laws, and particularly the late Dog-act. But Junius thinks he has much greater reafon to complain, that he is never affifted by thofe, who are able to aflift him, and that almost the whole labour of the press is thrown upon a fingle hand, from which a difcuffion of every public queftion what foever is unreafonably expected. He is not paid for his labour, and certainly has a right to choose his employment. As to the Game Laws, he never fcrupled to declare his opinion, that they are a fpecies of the Foreft Foreft Laws, that they are oppreffive to the fubject, and that the spirit of them is incompatible with legal liberty-that the penalties, imposed by these laws, bear no proportion to the nature of the offence, that the mode of trial and the degree and kind of evidence neceffary to convict, not only deprive the fubject of all the benefits of a trial by jury, but are in themselves too fummary, and to the laft degree arbitrary and oppreffive. That, in particular, the late acts to prevent dogftealing, or killing game between fun and fun, are diftinguished by their abfurdity, evtravagance, and pernicious tendency. If these terms are weak, or ambiguous, in what language can Futus exprefs himself? -It is no excufe for Lord Mans field to fay that he happened to be abfent when thefe bills paffed the house of lords. It was his duty to be prefent. Such bills could never have paffed the house of commons without his knowledge. But we very well know by what rule he regulates his attendance. When that order was made in the house of lords in the cafe of Lord Promfret, at which every Englifhman fhudders, my honeft Lord Mansfield found himself, by mere accident, in the court of king's bench. -Otherwife, he would have done wonders in defence of law and property! The pitiful evasion is adap ted |