behaviour. The reafon of this feems not very apparent. It has been obferved, that fecurity for the peace is calculated as a guard from perfonal injury; and articles of the peace can only be demanded from a man, who by fome pofitive act has already broken the peace, and therefore is likely to do so again; or where any one will make pofitive oath, that he apprehends bodily hurt, or that he 68 goes in ❝ danger of his life " But a person who has written a libel, or pretended libel, is not on that account fuppofed to be a man who would bruife, or maim, or knock down his neighbours. Security for the peace, therefore, feems no neceffary part of the punishment of a libeller. If he should write another libel, and be again convicted, he will of course be again punished, and there can be no doubt but that the penalties will be amply fufficient. In truth, as there is no reason for requiring fureties for the peace from a fuppofed libeller previously to his conviction, neither does there appear any just ground for annexing fureties for the behaviour to the fentence of a libeller. But it confiderably increases the difficulties of the libeller, and especially if he be a man of a high and unconquerable spirit: and fuch men, if they engage in fupport of the rights of the people, are always objects of great averfion to crown lawyers and prerogative judges, JURIES have been fometimes fo much puzzled by the directions from the bench, and the contrary pleadings of the counsel, in trials for libels, that they have several times given irregular and incomplete verdicts. Instead of bringing in a general verdict of GUILTY, or NOT GUILTY, they have brought in the party accufed GUILTY OF THE es an nd the of ero uch ach, fel, eral ver ver ave OF THE cafe in which the party tri voured, but in which the to be favoured; and in whic á defirable thing to obta GUILTY, at any rate, and i In the case of the King a the jury, instead of bring verdict of GUILTY, OF NOT the defendant in guilty of ticular paper with the publica was charged. Their verdi "of printing and publifh "Briton, No. 45." I was 69 Englishman's Right, during that trial; and I remember, that it then appeared evident to me, that the jury, by the manner of bringing in their verdict, meant to find the mere facts of printing and publishing, without determining whether the paper was or was not a libel. It also appeared to me to be a verdict, that the jury ought not to have given, and that the judge ought not to have taken. I did not, however, know, till I was informed by the publication of the " Opinion of the "court of King's Bench, in the case of the "King against Woodfall," that the clerk had taken upon him to alter the verdict. But we now know from the most unquestionable authority, that the clerk altered the verdict, and entered it up as a general verdict of GUILTY 7. But whatever irregularity there might be in the verdict, or whatever injustice in the alteration of it by the clerk, it is certain, that the bookfeller 7° Sir James Burrow's Reports, vol. V. p. 2668. ftood by lord Mansfield, and 18 |