pernicious tendency of the paper itself, were the topics on which he principally insisted, and of which, for more than an hour, he tortured his faculties to convince the jury. If he agreed in opinion with Lord Mansfield, his discourse was impertinent, ridiculous, and unreasonable. But, understanding the law as I do, what he said was at least consistent, and to the purpose.
If any honest man should still be inclined to leave the construction of libels to the court, I would entreat him to consider what a dreadful complication of hardships he imposes upon his fellow-subject.—In the first place, the prosecution commences by information of an officer of the crown, not by the regular constitutional mode of indictment before a grand jury.—As the fact is usually admitted, or, in general, can easily be proved, the office of the petty jury is nugatory.—The court then judges of the nature and extent of the offence, and determines, ad arbitrium, the quantum of the punishment, from a small fine to a heavy one, to repeated whipping, to pillory, and unlimited imprisonment. Cutting off ears and noses might still be inflicted by a resolute judge; but I will be candid enough to suppose, that penalties, so apparently shocking
