the case of the King against Topham,"* Mr. Fox said, "there was some colour for the Chief Justice agreeing with him. On the present occasion, he was glad to grasp at anything; and the House must now speak out plainly, and say whether they meant to confirm the rights of juries, or to vote against the rights of juries, and to add the weight of Parliament to the weight of the Court of King's Bench." Mr. Fox declared, before he sat down, that he had intended to bring forward this business in the course of the last Parliament, but had been prevented by other business; and another consideration for his deferring it was, the expectation and hope of his having the able assistance of his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Erskine )—an expectation and hope in which he had not been disappointed. His honourable and learned friend would now have an opportunity to crown the work which he had so nobly begun, and give his sanction to an Act of Parliament to ensure to his country and to posterity the real existence of those rights and privileges, the theory of which he had formerly defended so eloquently, so ably, and in point of reason so triumphantly, though in point of event unfortunately and unsuccessfully." Mr. Fox concluded with moving, "That the grand committee for courts of justice do sit on Tuesday next." Mr. Erskine, who seconded the motion, supported it with much eloquence and ability, and disclaimed any intention of conveying censure on the conduct of the present judges; so far from it, that, guided by existing precedents, he should find it difficult, if called upon to fill a judicial situation, to bear up against the current of decisions, although they had obviously broken out of the original and prescribed channel of the law. The Attorney-General, Sir Archibald Macdonald, coincided in opinion with Mr. Fox. He, however, wished not to go into committee, lest the public should take alarm, and be impressed with the opinion that there had been something wrong in the conduct of the judges." Mr. Pitt supported the same argument. He declared, that although he should with great diffidence set up his own opinion against the established practice of the judges, yet he could not but confess that it went directly against that practice; for he saw no reason why, on the trial of a crime, the whole consideration of the case might not precisely go to the unfettered judgment of twelve men, who were sworn to give their verdict honestly and conscientiously. He objected, however, to the going into a committee; but recommended the plan of settling the whole business by two short bills. Mr. Fox said," he could not most assuredly make the least hesitation in complying with the suggestion of the right honourable gentleman, who had, in so fair and candid a manner, stated what his own opinion was, and which seemed also to meet the general concurrence of the House. With regard to the ground that the honourable and learned gentleman (the Attorney * 4 Term Rep. p. 129. During the last Parliament, Mr. Erskine was not a member of the House of Commons. General) had taken, by way of defending the conviction of John Luxford," Mr. Fox declared, "he must differ from him completely. So far from thinking the libel a dangerous publication with a view to inflaming the minds of the people of France, there was no danger in it whatever, nor could any such inference as the honourable and learned gentleman had drawn from it be put upon it, either in reason or in law; and if it could, why was not such an inference averred in the information? No such averment appeared on the face of the record, and the only averment that did appear was, that it was a libel on his Majesty's Ministers, and nothing else. Inclined, then, as he should be, for the sake of practicability, to comply with the right honourable gentleman's suggestion of his giving up the motion for a committee for courts of justice, he could not compromise the case of John Luxford for the sake of the two bills, or for the sake of any practicability whatever, however desirable such practicability might be. In his former speech," Mr. Fox observed, that "he had said, he had heard what, from the silence of the other side of the House on that point, he now feared was not true, namely, that John Luxford was pardoned that part of his sentence which related to the punishment of the pillory. As he was satisfied the sentence of Luxford was most inordinately severe and more than he merited, when compared to the guilt of the libel," Mr. Fox declared," he must adopt some method of taking the sense of the House upon a motion for an address to his Majesty for his pardon; and he saw not how he could do that without going into the committee for courts of justice, when, as far as his motion for an address to his Majesty for a remission of Luxford's punishment went, it would undoubtedly be an indirect censure on the court that had passed so inadequate a sentence. It might possibly be said, that he ought to proceed in another way, and ground any motion that he thought proper to make on the record; but let the House remember that he had spoken from a paper which he held in his hand, and the honourable and learned gentleman from another paper which he had held in his hand; but Luxford's libel, and the record, were neither of them before the House; and till the House could get at the record, he could not proceed. If he could be told that Luxford either had been pardoned or would be pardoned, the pillory, he would say no more, but for the sake of practicability, would consent to withdraw his motion for a committee for courts of justice, and would barely move for leave to bring in the two bills that had been suggested." Mr. Pitt said, that with regard to the punishment of the pillory having been remitted, he had not the least recollection of that having been the case, or of any application having been made for it. He had in more than one instance, since he had been in his Majesty's councils, dissuaded them against the too frequent use of the pillory, which, in his opinion, could not be too sparingly employed; and from what he saw of Luxford's case, he had no reason to imagine, if application were made, that there would be any great difficulty in getting that part of the sentence remitted. Mr. Fox said," he was so perfectly satisfied with what he had heard from the right honourable gentleman, that he should for the present withdraw his motion for the committee for courts of justice, and wait to see if anything were done in Luxford's case; and if there should not be anything done, he would then move for a copy of the information and of the record, and likewise for an address to his Majesty for mercy in a case which had received a sentence inordinately disproportionate to the degree of criminality in the libel." The original motion was then, with leave of the House, withdrawn. After which Mr. Fox moved, 1. for leave to bring in a bill "to remove doubts respecting the rights and functions of juries in criminal cases ;" and 2. for leave to bring in a bill "to explain and amend the act of the 9th of Queen Anne, intituled An act for rendering the proceedings upon writs of mandamus and informations in the nature of a quo warranto, more speedy and effectual; and for the more easy trying and determining the rights of offices and franchises in corporations and boroughs." Leave was accordingly given to bring in the said bills. The first bill was brought in on the 25th of May, and passed the Commons, with little opposition, on the 2nd of June. It was debated in the Lords on the 8th, when the Chancellor opposed its further progress in that session. His lordship said, that although its principle met with the concurrence of all those noble and learned friends with whom he had conversed on the subject, yet in consideration of the advanced state of the session, and the importance of the bill, he should move, "That instead of being read a second time on that day, it should be read a second time that day month." Lord Camden declared himself a friend to the bill, not because it tended to alter the law of the land, but because it established it. He contended that the jury already did possess, and always had possessed, a legal right to form their verdict on the whole case, law, fact, and intention, how much soever this right might have been discountenanced by the judges. If a jury, notwithstanding the direction of a judge, were to acquit a defendant, no power in this country could reverse this decision; so, if they found him guilty, that verdict could only lose its effect if the Court were to arrest the judgment. Lord Loughborough pursued a similar line of argument. He considered the bill as a declaratory bill, the object of which was not to make that law, which was previously supposed to be of a different description, but to declare and explain what was understood to be at that instant the existing law of the land. The bill, he said, was agreeable to the direction which, as a judge, he had himself always given in cases of libels. He wished, therefore, to be ranked among its warmest advocates; nevertheless, since they were arrived at a period of the session when it was impossible for them to proceed with it consistently with the respect which was due to themselves, to the subject itself, to the rights and to the tranquillity of England, he concurred in the prudent proposal of deferring it. Lord Grenville supported the same side of the question. He thought that it would be unwise and indecorous for their lordships to proceed in such a bill without the assistance of the judges, from whom a declaration of what was understood to be the existing law upon the subject would come with more weight and authority than from any other quarter. The Marquis of Lansdowne spoke much in favour of the liberty of the press; but against its licentiousness. He professed himself to be a zealous friend to the bill; and argued against the proposed delay. The Lord Chancellor's motion was carried, and the bill was of course postponed. In the succeeding session, however, it was triumphantly carried through both Houses, and passed into a law.* The statute in question enacts that, on the trial of an indictment or information for publishing any libel, where an issue is joined between the King and the defendant or defendants on the plea of not guilty pleaded, the jury sworn to try the same may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty, upon the whole matter put in issue upon such indictment or information, and shall not be required or directed, by the Court or judge before whom such indictment or information shall be tried, to find the defendant or defendants guilty, merely on the proof of the publication by such defendant or defendants of the paper charged to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to the same on such indictment or information. On every such trial the judge shall, according to his discretion, give his opinion and directions to the jury on the matter in issue between the King and the defendant or defendants, in like manner as in other criminal cases. The jury may find a special verdict in their discretion, as in other criminal And in case they shall find the defendant or defendants guilty, he or they may move in arrest of judgment, on such ground and in such manner as might have been done before the passing of the act.† cases. MR. WHITBREAD'S MOTION RESPECTING THE ARMAMENT AGAINST RUSSIA. At the Congress of Reichenbach, the defensive alliance had proposed to Russia that she should accede to the peace which they were negotiating with Austria; and that all conquests should be restored: but the Empress Catharine refused to admit of any interference between her and Turkey. Being, however, deprived of her ally, the Emperor of Austria, she saw the impracticability of subjugating the Porte for the present; and accordingly offered to restore all her acquisitions except the town of Oczakow and its dependencies, which had been captured by the Russians in the year 1788. 32 Geo. III. c. 60. By the Act 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, for amending the law respecting defamatory words and libels, it is, among other things, enacted, that on the trial of any indictment or information for a defamatory libel, the defendant having alleged in his plea the truth of the matters charged in the manner required in pleading a justification to an action for defamation, the truth of the matters charged in the alleged libel may be inquired into, but shall not amount to a defence unless it was for the public benefit that the matters charged should be published. The object of the convention of Reichenbach, concluded in July 1790, by the ambassadors of England, Holland, Poland, Prussia, and Austria, was the restoration of peace between the Austrian and Turkish Empires. Oczakow, situate at the mouth of the Dniester, on the Black Sea, was not merely a harbour for the Turkish vessels of war, but the sole place of strength between the adjacent frontier and Constantinople, from which it is separated by only one hundred and ninety miles of unarmed and defenceless country. With the view of obtaining the restoration of this place, and the country between the Bog and Dniester to the Porte, Mr. Fawkener was despatched by the British Court to St. Petersburgh; but a firm determination being shown by the Empress to resist the demands made by England, Mr. Pitt delivered a message from the King to the House of Commons, on the 28th of March, 1791, stating that the endeavours which had been used, in conjunction with his allies, to effect a pacification between Russia and the Porte, having hitherto been unsuccessful, and the consequences which might arise from the continuance of the war being highly important to the interests of himself and his allies, and to those of Europe in general, he judged it requisite, in order to add weight to his representations, to augment his naval force, relying on the zeal and affection of the House of Commons to make good such expenses as might be incurred by these preparations, for the purpose of supporting the interests of his kingdom, and of contributing to the restoration of general tranquillity, on a secure and lasting foundation. To the address on this message an amendment was moved by Mr. Coke, of Norfolk, omitting the greater part of the address, and deprecating measures which tended to involve this country in hostilities, upon grounds so little understood and so ill explained. Several other motions condemnatory of the armament were proposed in the course of the same session, but they were all rejected by considerable majorities. Mr. Pitt finding that the hostile interference of this country between Russia and the Porte was by no means approved of by the nation at large, thought it expedient to abandon it; and he directed the British envoy to withdraw all further opposition to the demand of the Empress. The negotiation then proceeded without material difficulty; and a treaty of peace between Russia and the Porte was signed on the 11th of August, 1791, by which the Turks ceded to the Russians the fortress of Oczakow, and all the country lying between the Bog and the Dniester. 1792. On the 6th of February, shortly after the meeting of Parliament, Mr. Pitt laid before the House of Commons such of the documents relative to the apprehended rupture with Russia, as he thought necessary to explain the whole transaction; and, on the 20th of February, a motion by Mr. Grey, for the production of further papers, was objected to by Mr. Pitt, and lost. March 1. On the 29th of February, Mr. Whitbread moved, "That no arrangement respecting Oczakow and its district appears to have been capable of affecting the political or commercial interests of this country, so as to justify any hostile interference on the part of Great Britain, between Russia and the Porte." In the course of a long and able speech, he reprobated, in terms of indignation, the temerity of Ministers in lavishing the money of the nation, with such profusion, for an object wherein neither equity |