XXIV. 1792. BOOK be restored to the privileges of citizens, of which they had been so long unjustly divested. When this claim was refused with every circumstance of indignity and insult-when they were branded as the implacable enemies of the statewhen they were reproached, notwithstanding their uniformly peaceable demeanour, as seditious and factious hypocrites-when the ridiculous and ob. solete Tory clamor was revived, that the CHURCH was in DANGER-when we were told that the extent of their loyalty might be measured by the blood of a king- —can we wonder that they should discover the passions and feelings of men ?—that anger should beget anger?-that in the collision of zeal against zeal the voice of reason should be overborne and lost? Are we really desirous of establishing universal and permanent content and satisfaction? The experience of all ages shews that the only effectual mode is to annihilate all legal oppression. While the spirit of intolerance predominates in the councils of any country, there will necessarily be discontent, resentment, and anger. And it is in vain to expect to obviate the evil consequences of such a system, or to re-establish the general tranquillity, by adding contumely to oppression, or by an attempt to defend injustice by falsehood. We are ourselves zealously attached to the constitution, because we enjoy in their full extent the privileges and immunities derived from 425 XXIV. 1792. it. But what right have we to expect the same BOOK attachment from those who are excluded from these privileges? Though to us the constitution is the object of affection and reverence, to them whom it injures and oppresses it is an odious and tyrannic constitution. Wherever political partialities prevail, and political distinctions are injuriously admitted, there political animosities will be excited. Such is the nature of man: and of this we may rest assured, that equity is the only safe and permanent basis of policy; and, till we determine to regulate our conduct by this principle, discontents and animosities must and will prevail. And the disorders and commotions which we now lament are the genuine offspring of that policy, to which, unhappily for our peace and security, we are still resolved to adhere." The motion was finally ne gatived by a great and decisive majority. bill for as the rights vived, and The Libel Bill introduced in the last session by Mr. Fox's Mr. Fox, and which was lost in the house of lords, certaining was this session triumphantly carried through of juries reboth houses, and passed into a law-notwithstand- passed into ing the pertinacious opposition of the law lords, a law. Thurlow, Kenyon, and Bathurst. The marquis of Lansdown sarcastically observed in the debate, "that he did not blame lawyers for making a stand against the present bill. It was well worth a struggle on the part of the profession. It was a proud ambitious profession, desirous of obtaining 1792. BOOK power over all. And if the noble lord at the head XXIV. of the King's Bench could overthrow it, as his lordship had studied politics as well as law, he would reign lord-paramount of England." The law lords joined in a protest against the bill, which will remain as a perpetual monument of the triumph of common sense over legal and professional subtilty. Lord Camden, whose genius rose on all occasions superior to the prejudices and artifices of his profession, particularly distinguished himself in the debate by the animation and ability which, in no respect diminished by the winter of age, he displayed in the vindication and final establishment, in times dark and inauspicious to liberty, of a doctrine he had early and zealously espoused; and this may be regarded as the concluding effort of a long life rendered illustrious by the practice of every public and private virtue.* More than twenty years previous to this event, that able and upright senator and patriot Mr. Dowdeswell had introduced a bill into the house of commons for ascertaining the rights of juries, substantially the same with the present bill of Mr. Fox. It was, on a division, thrown out by a prodigious majority. But the friends of liberty never lost sight of this great and interesting question, and by the most unwearied and meritorious perseverance they at length happily attained their object. Lord Camden died April 18, 1794. XXIV. 1792. Act for the the Scottish lians. Another point was also gained during this scs- BOOK sion in favor of the general system of freedom, by a bill introduced into the house of peers by lord Elgin, for the relief of the Scottish episcopalians, relief of who had long been subject to heavy penalties on episcopathe original ground of notorious disaffection to the Revolution establishment. But, like other high-flying and Jacobitical Tories, they were now become most conspicuous for loyalty amongst the loyal. An objection however was started by the lord-chancellor, whether, according to a clause in the present bill, specifying the description of persons to be relieved, the state could with propriety recognize the validity of ordination by the bishops exercising their functions independent of the state, And, in his profound knowledge of ecclesiastical antiquity, his lordship ventured even to intimate his doubts, whether bishops could exist in any Christian country not authorised by the state. But his lordship being assured by the bishop of St. David's, who spoke in favour of this "afflicted part of the Church of Christ," that Christian bishops existed three hundred years before the happy alliance between church and state took place under the auspices of the emperor Constantine the Great, his lordship was pleased to declare himself satisfied; and the bill passed without any farther opposition. BOOK XXIV. 1792. In consequence of the spirit of discontent, and even of disaffection, by which a considerable proportion of the community seemed at this period the Friends to be animated, and which had given rise to variPeople in- ous political associations of an alarming nature, Society of of the stituted. and in which ideas of government reform were And |