So much consciousness of guilt on Lord Mansfield’s part, with so much inveteracy on Lord Chatham’s, promised a scene worthy of the public attention. Will it be believed that not a word more was said on the subject, either when the Parliament reassembled after the holidays, or during the whole remainder of the session? At the end of April, I asked the Duke of Richmond the meaning of that silence; he gave me this solution:--“Early in the session Constantine Phipps told Mr. Dowdeswell that he intended to move for an inquiry into the conduct of the judges relative to juries. Dowdeswell said it would be best to have a meeting upon it. ‘No,’ said Phipps, ‘I do not like meetings: men are often borne down at them against their opinions. I will give notice of my intention without further concert.’ Serjeant Glynn said he would do the same the next day. Dowdeswell told him there was not time for concert: it would be like the Minister reading the King’s speech at the cockpit, after it has been settled. Glynn, however, gave his notice. On that the Rockingham party determined to act for themselves, and drew up a bill to ascertain what directions judges should give to juries. They showed it to Lord Chatham after he had attacked Lord Mansfield. He disapproved it much, but offered to support it if they would make it more personal to Lord Mansfield. They refused.[129] All they meant, they said, was prospect, not retrospect: as if branding a crime committed, were not a better guard than a provision against committing it. Then he must be against them, said Lord Chatham. They consulted Lord Camden. He told them Lord Chatham had driven him into the attack on Lord Mansfield, which he did not like, and in which at last he declared he would meddle no farther:[130] he did not care to have all the twelve judges against him. When the Rockinghams moved their bill, Dunning, Lord Shelburne, and the rest of Lord Chatham’s connection were strongly against them.”