Page:Letters of Junius, volume 2 (Woodfall, 1772).djvu/295

Rh not the same, taken in a moral or religious view. What he affirmed, in contradiction to the levelling principle so lately adopted by Lord Mansfield, was, that the damages should be proportioned to the rank and fortune of the parties; and for this plain reason; (admitted by every other judge that ever sat in Westminster Hall) because what is a compensation or penalty to one man, is none to another. The sophistical distinction you attempt to draw between the person injured and the person injuring, is Mansfield all over. If you can once establish the proposition, that the injured party is not entitled to receive large damages, it follows, pretty plainly, that the party injuring should not be compelled to pay them; consequently the King's brother is effectually screened by Lord Mansfield's doctrine. Your reference to Nathan and David come naturally in aid of your patron's professed system of jurisprudence. He is fond of introducing into the court of King's Bench any law that contradicts or excludes the common law of England; whether it be canon, civil, jus gentium, or levitical. But, Sir, the Bible is the code of our religious faith, not of our municipal jurisprudence; and though it was the pleasure of God to inflict a particular