JOHN

OHN HORNE is the fon of an eminent poulterer, who formerly refided in London. He was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge, and at an early period of life obtained the living of Brentford, though he did not at first direct his views to the church. As he was much admired for his eloquence, and to a penetrating judgment joined an extenfive acquaintance with lan guages, and almoft every branch of fcience, he might probably have rifen much higher in his profeffion, but being of an ardent difpofition, and an active turn of mind, he engaged in the politics of the day, and enlifting under the banners of freedom, became the warm partifan of Mr. Wilkes.

In 1768, when that gentleman offer ed himfelf a candidate for the county of Middlefex, Mr. Horne mounted on horfeback, and canvaffed in his behalf. His exertions on this occafion were fo fuccefsful, that he was the principal means of fecuring that famous election to Mr. Wilkes.

After this period, Mr. Horne was a conftant attendant at all the public meetings of the county; and it was at thefe that he firft began his attack on parliamentary corruption, which he has never ceafed to continue, when an opportunity occured.

In the mean time, Mr. Horne was not exempted from perfecution.-His fpirited letters to Mr. Onflow, Speaker of the Houfe of Commons, publifhed in the Public Advertiser in July, Hib Mag. Dec. 1794,

1769, fubjected him to a profecution for a libel. This was tried on the 6th of April, 1770, before Sir William Blackstone. The trial, however, was quafhed, in confequence of a defect in the form of the evidence, which was ftrongly contefted between Serjeant Glynn for the defendant, and Serjeant Leigh, on the part of the profecution; but the Judge determined in favour of the former, advifing the latter to move for a new trial, on the ground of a mistake in law. This motion was accordingly made and granted, and a new trial was heard at Guildford, in Surrey, on the firft of Auguft. In this new trial, Mr.Onflow introduced a new charge for libellous words fpoken by the defendant at a meeting of the freeholders of Epfom; and although Serjeant Glyna and Mr. Meffing ably expofed the impropriety of profecuting the conftituent for expreffing his fentiments at a meeting called for the purpose of giving inftructions to their reprefentatives, and although Lord Mansfield himself acknowledged the infufficiency of the evidence refpeting the letters, the jury gave a verdict against Mr. Horne, with 400l. damages. A rule, however, was moved for on the 8th of November, in the court of Common Pleas, to fhew caufe why the verdict should not be fet afide, which was argued by Serjeant Glynn on the 26th; but the Judge deeming it a point of too much importance to authorize a hafty decifion, the queftion was adjourned over PPP