The Crisis. Группа авторов

perhaps, a Chancellor may ask the Assistance of those, whose Judgment he esteems.—True, my Lord; but then let him call on them in the Character of Assessors—that they may hear the Arguments of Counsel—that they may be answerable for the Doctrines they lay down—and, that the Suitor may know, by whose Opinion his Property is bound.

      My Lord this is your Character; drawn with more Truth, than by those Sycophants, who tell you that you are greater a Chancellor than Hardwick, Talbot or Camden!—No Man ever doubted about your Head;—the Conduct of this Day has fixed Men’s Opinions of your Heart.—My Lord, it was a foul Proceeding.

      It was a Black Day’s Work; Justice seemed in Eclipse:

      The Suiter had seen with Grief, in what weak Hands the Great Seal was entrusted: but when he saw, that if your Ignorance led you to decide erroneously, a PACK’D HOUSE of PEERS might be brought together to sacrifice his Property to your Vanity, he was struck with Horror.—My

      [print edition page 63]

      Lord, the Nation will not bear it,—and after the Scene of this Day, your Lordship cannot hold the GREAT SEAL.

      JUNIUS.⁹

      P.S. When the Decree was affirmed, there was not above five or six Lords in the House, besides Lords Camden and the present Chancellor.—Lord PAULET (to his Honour be it recorded) moved to have the Judges called in. This Motion was over-ruled, and he retired.—It was the Duke of Chandois, Lord Denbigh, Lord Cathcart, and Lord Galloway,¹⁰ who took upon themselves to decide a nice Question of Law, which ought to have been argued with Wisdom and Discretion, but which was debated with Passion, and decided by Party-Zeal.—In short, what raised the Chancellor, ruined the Suitor,—THE TIMES.

      Note, When the House of Lords were met, to hear the Cause, a Message was sent to Lord Mansfield by the Chancellor, to know if he would attend,—but, the Chancellor very well knew, he would not attend:—He knew, that

      [print edition page 64]

      Lord Mansfield could not resist the Arguments of Lord Camden; and that he must concur with him in reversing the Decree:—Lord Mansfield therefore stayed in Westminster-Hall, to decide the Property of twenty-five Pounds, and neglected his Duty to attend, where Ten Thousand Pounds were at Stake, as well as the Honour of the Nation:—He well knew the honest Zeal of Lords Cathcart and Galloway, the Villainy of Lord Denbigh, and the Folly of the cajoled Duke of Chandois:¹¹—He knew that they would attend, constantly, to take Notes, in Order to form a Determination, they went into the House prepared for;—namely, To affirm the Decree,—and do for Lord Mansfield what he durst not do himself.

      Lord Mansfield’s personal Dislike to the Suitor has long been well known.—When he appeared at the Bar of the King’s Bench to receive Judgment for libelling Lord Orwell,¹²—Lord Mansfield jumped from the Seat of Justice, and with Fury in his Eyes, and an Agitation of Body consonant thereto,—exclaimed Commit him! Commit him!—an Indecency of Behaviour which astonished the whole Court.

       Since writing the above, I have seen a Letter from Sir WILLIAM DE GREY, in Answer to one from the Appellant, requesting to know whether the Letter read by your Lordship in the House of Peers, was read with his Privity?—Sir William De Grey’s Answer is in these Words:

      “Sir,—I am entirely a Stranger to what has been passing in the House of Lords, upon the Subject of your Letter, not knowing till a Day or two ago, that there was any Cause depending there in which you were interested; and then, only in casual Conversation.”

      I am, Sir, &c.

      WILLIAM DE GREY.

      [print edition page 65]

      On this Letter I will make but one Comment:—Either Sir William De Grey’s Answer to the Appellant contains an Untruth, or your Lordship has practised on the House of Peers an Imposition of the Blackest Dye.

      Printed and published for the Authors, by T. W. SHAW, in Fleet-Street, opposite Anderton’s Coffee House, and by his appointment the Corner of Little Turnstile, Holborn, where Letters to the Publisher will be thankfully received.

      [print edition page 66]

      [print edition page 67]

      THE

      CRISIS

NUMBER VIII	To be continued Weekly.
SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 1775	[Price Two-pence Half-penny.

      To the Lords Suffolk, Pomfret, Radnor, Apsley, and Sandwich.

      How Glorious the Æra, thrice happy th’ Day,

      When Private Int’rest to Public gives way,

      When Bribes cannot tempt your Lordships to sell,

      Th’ Birthright of Freemen to Tyrants of Hell.

      How Glorious th’ Æra, thrice happy indeed,

      When TRAITORS, and MINIONS are sentenc’d t’bleed,

      When JUSTICE shall reign, and Heav’n’s great call,

      The Proud Seed of Hell, Just Victims do fall.

      MY LORDS,

      YOU have a peculiar Claim to an Address from the Authors of the CRISIS, and it shall be our Business in this Paper, to preserve, if Possible, the preshiable INFAMY of your Names.

      The Motion made by LORD RADNOR, on Monday the 27th of February, concerning NUMBER III of the CRISIS, was Unjust and Vi—us, the Paper contains nothing but the most SACRED TRUTHS, and therefore could not be a false or scandalous LIBEL: the amendment of the Epithet

      [print edition page 68]

      Treasonable, proposed and supported by the Lords POMFRET, SUFFOLK, APSLEY, and SANDWICH was Infamous, and of a Piece with every other proceeding of the present Reign, and present Ministry; it shewed in a particular Manner, the BLOODY minded Disposition of prostituted Court-Lords, the instruments of MURDER and PUBLIC RUIN.¹ The immaculate Lord SANDWICH, insisted that the word Treasonable should stand Part of the Motion, as a proper Foundation for bringing the Author to exempliary and condign Punishment. Suppose, my Lords, this infamous Amendment to the RADNOR Motion, had been carried, and it had stood a false, scandalous, and treasonable LIBEL, could the mere ipse dixit of a few venal Lords, make that Treason, which in the Literal or constructive Sense of the Word, was not so.

      The Author of NUMBER III, is perfectly well acquainted with the Statute of Treasons, passed in the Reign of Edward the Third,² and

      [print edition page 69]

      likewise with the various Expositions, and Interpretations of it; he well knew, the Paper was Written upon the true principles of the REVOLUTION, and that it could be justified by the Laws of the Land; he well knew, (though there is hardly any Villainy but what Court-Sycophants may do with ease) that it was not in the Power of Lord MANSFIELD, with all his Chicanery, with all his Artifice, with all his abuse of Law, with all his perversion of Justice, with all the aid of false Construction and forced Ineuendos, to bring it within the meaning of that Statute; he well knew the Disposition of the Sovereign and his Minions, and that nothing would, or can satiate Royal, Scotch, or Ministerial Revenge, but the BLOOD of those who oppose the present most horridly cruel, and most infamously wicked Measures of Government; and, my Lords, he well knew the shocking prostitution of Hereditary Peerage, and the bare-faced Treachery and Villainy of a purchased Majority in the House of Commons.

      Has there not, my Lords, been INNOCENT BLOOD enough shed in this Reign, that your Lordships should still Thirst for more?

      Why should your Lordships be so desirous of stopping