Lastly, it ought to be considered what consequence the finding the bill, may have upon a poor man perfectly innocent, I mean the printer.  A lawyer may pick out expressions and make them liable to exception, where no other man is able to find any.  But how can it be supposed, that an ignorant printer can be such a critic?  He knew the author’s design was honest, and approved by the whole kingdom, he advised with friends, who told him there was no harm in the book, and he could see none himself.  It was sent him in an unknown hand, but the same in which he received the three former.  He and his wife have offered to take their oaths that they knew not the author; and therefore to find a bill, that may bring a punishment upon the innocent, will appear very hard, to say no worse.  For it will be impossible to find the author, unless he will please to discover himself, although I wonder he ever concealed his name.  But I suppose what he did at first out of modesty, he now continues to do out of prudence.  God protect us and him!

I will conclude all with a fable, ascribed to Demosthenes.  He had served the people of Athens with great fidelity in the station of an orator, when upon a certain occasion, apprehending to be delivered over to his enemies, he told the Athenians, his countrymen, the following story.  Once upon a time the wolves desired a league with the shepherds, upon this condition; that the cause of strife might be taken away, which was the shepherds and the mastiffs; this being granted, the wolves without all fear made havoc of the sheep.[2]

Novem. 11th, 1724.

[Footnote 2:  The advice had the desired effect.  The jury returned a verdict of “Ignoramus” on the bill, which so aroused Whitshed, the Chief Justice, that he discharged them.  As a comment on Whitshed’s illegal procedure, the following extract was circulated: 

EXTRACT FROM A BOOK ENTITLED, “AN EXACT COLLECTION OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HELD AT WESTMINSTER, OCTOBER 21, 1680,” page 150.

Resolutions of the House of Commons, in England, November 13, 1680.

“Several persons being examined about the dismissing a grand jury in Middlesex, the House came to the following resolutions:—­

“Resolved, That the discharging of a grand-jury by any judge, before the end of the term, assizes, or sessions, while matters are under their consideration, and not presented, is arbitrary, illegal, destructive to public justice, a manifest violation of his oath, and is a means to subvert the fundamental laws of this kingdom.

“Resolved, That a committee be appointed to examine the proceedings of the judges in Westminster-hall, and report the same with their opinion therein to this House.” [T.S.]]

LETTER V.

A LETTER TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR MIDDLETON.

NOTE.