The

ted to the character. But Junius will never justify himself, by the example of this bad man. diftinction between doing wrong, and avoiding to do right belongs to Lord Mansfield. Junius difclaims it.

LET

TO THE RIGHT HON. LORD APSLEY, LORD CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND.

MY LORD,

Feb. 1775.

I

WAS a bye-ftander this day, when your Lordship and the houfe of lords decided the very important cause of Philip Thickness, appellant, and Peter Leigh and others, refpondents: and though unconnected with the parties, and confequently uninterested in the event, I must own I was forcibly ftruck-by a fcene fo novel and unexpected.Iftood, my lord, with filent awe, at the bar of that tribunal, which I had ever been accustomed to confider as the last refuge of injured juftice.I expected to hear a queftion of law, of infinite nicety, difcuffed with wifdom, and decided with integrity. Judge, then, my lord, my astonishment, when, inftead of that decency in debate, which ought to be obferved, even in the lowest courts of justice, and which I had ever thought, in a peculiar manner, characteristic of the house of lords, I faw proceedings that would have difgraced a polish diet!-Yes, my lord, in all iny experience of courts of juftice, I never faw judges.

fo

fo avowedly corrupt, fo indecently profligate as your Lordship and Lord Denbigh!-Lord Camden delivered bis opinion on the queftion, in an argument, that will carry to the latest times his fame and your difgrace.

Your lordship, in anfwer to him, delivered your fentiments, I cannot call them an argument, because there was nothing that resembled a chain of reasoning; and indeed your lordship seemed more to rely on the letter you had received from Sir Wilham de Grey, and the converfation you faid you had with Sir Eardly Wilmot, and Sir Stafford Smythe, than on any reafons you could advance in fupport of your decree !

When Lord Camden, with a decency becoming the occafion, and the place in which he spoke, reminded your lordship how improper it was for a judge-deciding fo nice and difficult a question of property in the higheft tribunal of the kingdom-to talk of opinions of men, not judges in that court, who had given their fentiments in private, probably without much confideration of the fubject, most certainly, without hearing the facts ftated, and the queftion difcuffed by councilwhat treatment did he meet with ?- -Lord Denbigh's attack upon him was the attack of a ruffian, hired to carry through a profligate measure, by affallinating every man who fhould attempt oppofiti

on

on.Your Lordship's language was fomewhat more decent-it was the language of ignorance, delivered with that infolence, which a weak and vain man feels confident in a corrupt majority.

Has your lordship ftill to learn, that the opinion of a judge, though delivered in the course of a cause in open court, and handed down in print; yet if it is on a point not before him, as a judge, is never allowed to be cited even by counfel in argument? And wifely fo eftablished, my lord: for the law of this country gives credit to the opinions of the judges, only on thofe points which are neceffarily brought before them in the course of judicial proceedings. On thefe points, when they have heard the arguments of counfel, they decide if erroneoufy, the injured party has his remedy by appeal:-if corruptly and iniquitoufly, the decifion of the judge appears on the record, and he is amenable to his country's juftice.-Is your lordship ignorant that this is the law? Or can your lordship fay-or will any other man fay for you that in the courfe of his attendance on courts of law, he ever before knew a private let ter, and private conversation, adduced by a judge, not as-arguments, furnishing reafons for an opinion, but as authorities in law, to warrant his decifion? My lord, I will defy your lordship, with all your long lift of advifers, from the hollow-hearted VOL. II

lord,

lord, who made you chancellor, down to the loweft driveller who feeds your vanity with flattery, to fay, that such a fight was ever-before exhibited in a court of justice.

From the existence of courts of law in this island, no man ever, before this day, faw a private letter produced, read, and relied on, as authority by a judge, pronouncing judgment.Are the arguments of counfel mockery? Or, are they supposed to fuggeft matter, to be weighed by those who are to decide ?-The judgment of your lordship, and the house of peers, this day, was avowedly founded on the authorities of men, who had never heard the queftion difcuffed by counfel. If this mode of deciding is to prevail in courts of justice, arguments by counsel are useless your lordship can decide without hearing them nothing more is requifite, than for your lordship to write a letter to fome friend: his anfwer, read in court by your lordship, will stand in the place both of authority and argument. Is this the way, in which juftice is to be dispensed to the subject, in the fupreme tribunals of the countrythe chancery, and house of lords?

:

O feats of Talbot and Hardwick: from whence thofe great and god-like men, with a pure heart, and wisdom more than human, fhed on this happy land the fragrant dews of justice,-from whence

the