ed by the
attorney-general, who held office by, and at the pleasure of the crown,
was deprived of his right to be judged by his peers on the substantial
point at issue. Indignant juries refused to convict in libel cases, and
Mansfield's ruling was attacked by the opposition in parliament. Chatham
and Camden denied its legality. In the commons, though a proposal to
abolish _ex officio_ informations received little support, a motion for
a committee of inquiry into the rights of juries was only defeated by
184 to 176. Dowdeswell and Burke believed that the question of law was
likely to hinder a satisfactory settlement, and in March, 1771,
Dowdeswell moved for an act to give juries the powers denied to them. A
section of the opposition, however, held with Chatham and Camden that
the matter should be settled by a bill declaring that the law gave them
these powers. They would not support the motion, which was lost by an
overwhelming majority; and Mansfield's ruling was received as law until
1792.

[Sidenote: _HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE PRINTERS._]

Another matter connected with the press engaged the house of commons for
the most part of the remainder of the session of 1771. Parliament, as
we have seen, was so constituted that occasions might and did arise on
which the will of the people was not fairly represented. This
constitutional difficulty was increased by the secrecy in which
parliament shrouded its proceedings. Once useful as a means of securing
freedom of debate, this secrecy was maintained as a matter of privilege
after it had become useless and, indeed, pernicious. It was carried to
an extreme point by the present parliament, the "unreported parliament"
as it was called. Strangers were constantly made to withdraw from both
houses, specially when a popular member of the opposition rose to speak.
This caused a silly quarrel between the two houses in 1770, and either
shut its doors against the members of the other. The publication of
reports, forbidden by a standing order of 1762, had for some time been
carried on under various disguises, and the reports, which were founded
on scanty information, were often unfair and scurrilous. In February,
1771, Colonel Onslow complained of two newspapers which misrepresented
his conduct in the house, and held him up to contempt by describing him
as "little cocking George". Disregarding a warning from Burke as to the
folly of entering into a quarrel with the press and attempting to k