s and attendants of his court may tremble when he
frowns, but who else regards it more than they do one of Wood's
farthings.

"There is no comparison," says another, "between the affair of Sir W.
Scroggs and this of ------. Sir W. discharged a grand jury because they
were about to present the Duke of York for being a Papist, but ------
discharged the grand jury for not presenting a paper he recommended to
them to present as scandalous, (and in which, I say, he was a party
reflected on.)"

I agree there is a mighty difference, but whom does it make for?

A grand jury of a hundred (part of a county) take upon them to present
a no less considerable person than the king's brother and heir
presumptive of the crown, the chief-justice thinks this a matter of too
much moment for men of such sort to meddle in, but a matter more proper
for the consideration of Parliament: I would not be understood to
condemn the jury; I think they acted as became honest Englishmen and
lovers of their country; But I say if judges could in any case be
allowed to proceed by rules of policy, surely here was a sufficient
excuse. However the commons impeached him.

The determinations of ignorant or wicked judges as they are precedents
of little weight, so they are but of little danger, and therefore it
will become the commons at all times to animadvert most carefully upon
the actions of the most knowing men in that profession.

I say, my lord, _at all times_, because I hear former merit is pleaded
to screen this action from any inquiry.

I am sensible much is due to the man who has always preferred the public
interest to his private advantages as -------- has done. When a man has
signalized himself, when he has suffered for that principle, he deserves
universal respect. Yet men should act agreeably to the motive of that
respect, and not ruin the liberty of their country to shew their
gratitude, and so, my lord, where a man has the least pretence to that
character, I think 'tis best to pass over small offences, but never such
as will entail danger and dishonour upon us and our posterity.

The Romans, my lord, when a question was in the senate, whether they
should ransom fifteen thousand citizens who had merited much by their
former victories, but losing one battle were taken prisoners; were
determined by the advice of that noble Roman Attilius Regulus not to
redeem them as men unworthy their further care, though probably it was
their misfortunes