refidence at Sierra Leone, he understood that the grant of King Tom had been controverted by another Chief, who claimed the property of the foil, and that fome of our settlers had been taken forcibly away by that Chief, and fold as flaves. With refpect to the general and avowed principle of the bill, he fhould fay nothing; but he thought fome of the provifions of it bore hard on the private factories established on the river, and on thofe who frequented that part of the coaft; for the recited grant, in fact, comprehended all the whole fouthern fhore, which alone was acceffible for an choring The fouth bank of the river was on the declivity of a mountain, and of course had deep water immediately under it, where all the fhips anchored, for the conveniency of wood and water, which were plentifully fupplied from the mountains. The oppofite fhore was low, fwampy, had no good water, and very bad anchorage, infomuch fo, that the fhip in which Mr. Hippefley was a paffenger, had actu ally been loft on the funken rocks, in keeping too near that fhore. The monopoly, therefore, which was the object of the prefent bill, must be injurious to other traders, who, in fact, had the priority of fettlement, in proportion as it was beneficial to the present adventurers. Mr. Mr. Devaynes believed he might venture to fy there was Devaynes. not a finer country in the world. Few men, he conceived, had been provided with an opportunity of knowing so much of the country as he did; he had been up it to a confiderable extent, and he had proofs that coffee and cotton were produced in abundance, and that fugar grew almoft fpontaneoufly. The natives, he faid, would bring down forty pounds of fu gar, or canes equal to produce that quantity, and fell it for twopence-halfpenny, or thereabouts: but they were particu larly fond of felling it to the English, because they, in that cafe, got that fum, and a dram into the bargain. Mr. De vaynes farther enlarged on the fertility of the foil, and the genial nature of the climate. At length the Houfe divided; Ayes, 87; Noes, 9. The bill was then read a third time, and paffed. Tuesday, 31st May. The order of the day being read for the Houfe to refolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the bill for removing doubts refpecting the rights and functions of juries in cafes of libels, Mr. M. A. Taylor took the chair. The bill was read over a first time, and the question being put, "That the preamble be poftponed," Th: The Solicitor General objected to the preamble, as being too Solicitor general. He faid he had an amendment to propofe, and he General. would take the liberty to ftate the alteration he wished to be made in the bill, in that ftage of it. The right honourable mover, and the learned gentleman who feconded him, had, in his apprehenfion, introduced this bill in a manner that was extremely wife and proper. The complaints that had been ftated by the right honourable mover, and by his learned friend, were with regard to the inconveniences that refulted from the doctrine delivered by Judges to juries on trials in cafes of libel. As it was their intention, fo it was their duty to remove that inconvenience; but the House ought to think with great deliberation on the subject, before they stated a general principle of the criminal laws of England. If he understood the right honourable mover, and the learned gentleman who feconded the motion, it was, that juries had the fame power, the fame acknowledged power, with respect to the crime of making or publishing a libel, as they were underftood to have with regard to any other fpecies of fact, which the law of England had denominated a crime; and as the jury by this bill might give a general verdict, without taking the advice of the Judges in matters of law, it was his with to make an alteration in the preamble: "And whereas "doubts have arifen whether on the trial of an indictment, "or information, for the making or publishing any libel, it "be competent to the jury to take into their confideration "the whole matter of the charge contained in fuch indictment or information." Mr. Solicitor, after the word "jury," propofed to infert these words, "with the affistance "and direction of the Judge in matters of law." He thought this amendment would meet the ideas of the Committee. He conceived that in the bill there was a provifo which left the defendant in this fituation, that he might withdraw himself from the jurifdiction of the jury. The matter of the libel must be stated in the information, and the defendant might fay, "I will not call on the jury to determine any thing, but I rather wish to apply to the Court by demurrer, whe"ther the matter charged against me, is, or is not, in law, "a libel," If he chofe to go to the jury, and they pronounced him guilty, the jury would have done nothing, becaufe the defendant had an opportunity to come again to the Court, and to ask the Court this question; though the jury had faid he was guilty, he had a right to afk the Court whether in point of law he was guilty and he had a right to go to the last refort, the Houfe of Lords. Mr. Solicitor conceived this to be one reafon why the preamble fhould not stand as it did. Although libels might be put on the level with all other criminal cafes, yet it was impoffible to put all VOL. XXIX. 4 F other Mr. Fox. other criminal cafes on the fame level with libels, and therefore, he conceived it would be better to leave out of the preamble any thing refpecting other criminal cafes. There were fome other crimes where the whole matter might appear on the face of the indictment, and in thofe cafes the defendant had an opportunity of taking the opinion of the Court, whether the jury had decided rightly. But it muft, he faid, occur to every man near him, that there were a number of cafes, in which, if the jury took upon themselves the jurif diction to decide both on the law and the fact, and found a defendant guilty, this might be the cafe. Suppose, for inftance, faid Sir John, the cafe of murder, in which the evidence proved that the facts did not conftitute the crime of murder, and that the defendant, in point of law, ought to be acquitted, a cafe, however, might happen, in which the jury might fay, we will not acquit him, but find him guilty; there was then no other remedy but that of applying to His Majefty, as the fountain of mercy. He faid, he had mentioned these things principally with a view to fhew why he wifhed to make an amendment in this bill. In order to de monftrate that great refpe&t ought to be paid to the direction of the Judge, in a point of law, Mr. Solicitor faid, he would refer to fome of the greatest ornaments of the law. Here, in confirmation of this pofition, he read a long paffage from Mr. Justice Fofter, and fupported his arguments by the authorities of Lord Hale and Lord Kaims. He faid he had his doubts whether, after the bill paffed, it would be necessary to fet forth the whole libel on the record. These were the remarks that had occurred to him, and if they were worth any thing they would be attended to, and if not, he did not with that any notice fhould be taken of them. Mr. Fox, in fupport of his bill, faid, he was perfuaded there was much more difficulty in wording a bill of this fort, than many gentlemen imagined; and therefore he was obliged to the honourable and learned gentleman, and to any other Member, who could give him fuch affiftance as might tend to render the bill' as perfect as poffible. He conceived the grievance in the prefent ftate to be fuch, as would undoubtedly have induced him to have waved all difcuffion of what was law, and to have left that completely in doubt, rather than lofe the benefit of the other part of the bill. There were, he thought, three or four fhades of this bufinefs. He conceived that juries had a right to decide on the intention, for the intention was matter of fact. The difference be tween murder and manflaughter had been held to be matter of law. Another thing was the tendency and effect of a libel, which Mr. Fox faid he conceived to be as nearly matter of fact as poffible. The conftruction of a will, of a fettlement, ment, of a deed, or of any legal inftrument, was certainly matter of law, but the queftion whether fuch a libel had or had not fuch a tendency, was merely matter of fact, and yet fome had conceived it to be matter of law. With regard to murder, he owned he had always felt confiderable difficulty in deciding on that point The opinions of eminent Lawyers had always great weight with him; they had probably settled the point in a way that was juft and proper. It had always appeared to him that befides the naked facts, and abstract law, as applied to thofe facts, there was fomething between them which he could call by no other name than the application of law to thofe facts; and there was a queftion fometimes mixed of law and fact, and that question must go to the jury. He thought it was fafer not to diftinguish between fact and law but that the whole fhould go to the jury. It. was poffible that the Judge might maintain that to be matter of law which the jury might conceive, or the counsel for the defendant contend, to be matter of fact. He conceived it to be univerfal in all trials by jury, for the Judge to give his opinion and advice with regard not only to the law, but fometimes alfo with regard to the fact; and he had no fort of apprehenfion that the paffing of the bill would tend to prevent the Judge from giving that advice and affiftance which his fuperior learning and information enabled him to bestow. He wished the bill thould ftand as it then did, and that the whole matter might be referred to the jury. It was very different from murder, becaufe in that cafe nothing appeared on the record. Mr. Fox faid, he conceived that notwithftanding Lord Mansfield's declaration, that in threatning letters the jury had only to confider the publication, and, whatever might be the cafe in high treafon, yet in all cafes of libels they must be fet forth verbatim. It must be left in all cafes to a jury to infer the guilt of men, and an English fubject could not lofe his life but by a judgement of his Peers. Mr. Fox took occafion to mention the cafe of high treafon, and overt-acts of treafon. He thould, he faid, be very glad to accept the words of the honourable and learned gentleman, "with the affiftance and under the direction of the Judge in "matters of law," were thofe words not to create another difficulty, and tend to keep up the old quarrel in another fhape; and instead of difputing what was the province of the Judge, as diftinct from the province of the jury, a dif pute would arife about what was law and what was fact. He did not know any offence that could be tried without the affiftance and direction of the Judge; and this bill, Mr. Fox faid, was only to put the cafe of libels on a footing with all other criminal cafes; he conceived, therefore, that the words Mr. which had been propofed by the honourable and learned gentleman were intirely ufelefs, and mere furplufage. Mr. Erfine objected to the amendment as fubverfive of Erskine. all the advantages which were propofed from the bill. If adopted, it would renew all thofe doubts and difficulties, which had formerly been the fource of fo much grievance and complaint, and which were now the objects of remedy. He went on in a fpeech of much length and ingenuity, in which he had occafion to difplay his extent of legal informa tion, in order to prove the bad confequences which would refult from adopting the amendment. Mr. Mr. Bearcroft faid, it was generally acknowledged that Bearcroft. there was fomething defective in the prefent fyftem which fubfifted with regard to libels; and he concurred in the neceffity of applying fome remedy. This defect, he believed, arofe from the foul mixture which had taken place in the cafe of libels of political opinion, which ought always to be kept feparate from the decifions of a Court of Juftice. A very few words, he conceived, were neceffary to reconcile the differences of fentiment which were entertained on the prefent fubject. Refpect was certainly due to the opinion of Judges on the question of law. But it was only neceflary for them in the cafe of libel, after having given their inftructions, to fay, "Gentlemen of the jury, do upon this, as upon all other occafions. Give the verdict as you pleafe, arrange << it in any of thofe claffes which we have enumerated and "explained, except you should find neceffary to bring in a fpecial verdict. Hearken to what we have now delivered, "but follow it only as, upon confideration, you fhall "find that it applies to the cafe which you are now to de"cide." Attorney The Attorney General faid, that juries had, in all cafes, a General. right to bring in a general verdict, which, fince the reign of Charles 11. had never, in any inftance, been challenged or difputed. The prefent bill he thought unneceffary; but in the fituation it now ftood, he had only to fay, that the refpect due to the opinions of the Judges, in matters of libel, ought moft certainly to be effablifhed upon the firmett grounds. Mr. Fox. that Mr. Fox, in reply, faid, that from what he had heard, he was only confirmed in his opinion, that the words," by the "affiftance and direction of the Judge," ought not to be ivferted in the bill. One learned gentleman had faid, the jury ought to hearken to the opinion of the Judges; and another had faid, that they ought to regard it with respect. He doubted how far the terms, either to hearken or refpect, could be defined by any ftatute; and nothing, he obferved, ought to be admitted into a ftatute, which was not pofitive and |