for that office, than a gentleman diftinguished not only by his fkill in the laws of England, but by a very extensive acquaintance with oriental languages, and oriental literature, and also poffeffed of an enlarged and liberal mind, and a fincere attachment to the interests of justice and humanity.

ONE of the most memorable cases, in which English juries have afferted their right of judging of the law, as well as the fact, in trials for libels, is that of Mr. WILLIAM OWEN, who was tried in the court of King's Bench, by a fpecial jury, in 1752, on an information filed by the attorney-general, for publishing a pamphlet, entitled, "The cafe of the Hon. ALEX. MURRAY, "Efq; in an appeal to the people of Great "Britain." This pamphlet contained a narrative of the rigorous treatment which Mr. Murray had received from the house of commons, in confequence of fome charges. exhibited

es, in

their

as the

WIL

ourt of

1752,

ney-ge

ntitled,

RRAY,

Great

Ha nar

ch Mr.

ouse of

charges hibited

against Mr. Murray, who w lord Elibank, it is obferved combe Regis, who was prese

at the time, that he "never ❝tion worse supported by "numbers" Indeed, the tr Mr. Murray received was viol and oppreffive, and fuch as flect extreme difgrace on th The pamphlet, therefore, account of his cafe, was nat attack upon the house of co though it was fevere, it was

"1 Diary, p. 88.

conduct of the house in this affair was more fuitable to the character of a court of in

quifition, than to that of a British House of Commons. After the publication of the pamphlet, the house voted it to be “an im"pudent, malicious, fcandalous, and sedi❝tious libel :" and presented an address to the king, requesting his majesty to order his attorney-general to profecute the author, printer, and publisher. Mr. Murray having now quitted the kingdom, the profecution fell upon the bookseller. The trial came on at Guildhall, before fir William Lee, lord-chief-justice of the court of King's Bench. Mr. Murray, afterwards lord Mansfield, as folicitor-general, was one of the counsel for the crown against Owen; and Mr. Pratt, afterwards lord Camden, was one of the counsel for the bookfeller. Mr. Murray contended, that the question was, • Whether the jury were fatisfied, that the • defendant,

order

e au

Murray

e pro

The

Wil

Durt of

ds lord one of

; and

vas one

Mr.

n was,

hat the

endant,

the charge stated in the informa
'proving the fale of the bo
• does not prove all those opp
• hard terms laid in the charg
• defendant.' He added, "I

one thing, which is, the da
finding a verdict SPECIALL
you find him GUILTY OF PUE
felling this book. GUIL
GUILT: then guilty of w
paper. Where is the guilt
gentlemen, of being DE
finding him GUILTY any

2 State Trials, vol. X. p