The National Register. — London, England, 1811-03-10 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER. - IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS. MONDAY, MARCH 4. INFORMATIONS EX-OFFICIO. I.; OP 11- - - • Lord • Hol.l.A:saa moved the Order of the Day, which beir.g I read.accordinely, his Lordship rose. After the due notice which tie had felt it his duty on so very important a subject to give their Lordships of the motion which stood for the discussion of 4hat night, it never entered into his imagination to. anticipate - any objection as being likely to be effected to a proposition which , • to him had appeaTed liable to no sort of objection. He was fully aware of the dangerous ground on which he stood on the present occasion. Upon one hand he was liable to the reproach of beint Willed the defender of like's ; and on the other hand, of • a presumptuousinterfereuce with the administration of justice. But he would not submit to be called a defender of libels, or of I ' libellers,hetatise he was desirous to restrain the abuses of the • law respecting them r and though he was sensible of the charge which he might incur, in thus obtruding himself on a subject • which might so ninth more ably and effeztually have been takeu up by the Learned Lords, yet when he loJited back upon the . history of the country, and saw that all the best improvements . and legal information had been effected without the aid, and ge nerdly with the opposition of the great Law Officers, he felt the less embarrassment. Hi 3 Lordship made a marked ion . between State Libels and those which were directed to de me private individuals. With regard to ex-officio informati in the former cases, his I .ordsbip cited the opinion; of Lord Frale and Blackstone, that tie./ could not have legal warrant except in cases ot extreme and olpious danger. He complained that . the interval between filing the information and bringing the party to trial, had been, sometimes, unnecessarily and oppress sively prolonged. In other instances, after a verdict had peen obtained, the individual had been. left for an indefinite time, without being called up to judgment. " 1 state broadly," said his Lordship, " that this is the case, and that it is an increasing grievance." His Lordship proceeded to contrast the number of informations for libel which had been filed during the first six and some of the last years of the ten immediately preceding.— From 1801 to 1806, inclusive, there had been only 14 informa tions. During only three years which had subsequently elapsed, 42 informations. ex-officio had been tiled by the Attorney-Gene ral. Were all these directed against crimes so high, and aggra vated and dangerous, that the less summary, less severe, and less °ikons mode Of proceeding, would have compromised the • safety of the Government and the State ? A different conclu sion mast be drawn ; in some of these cases, the less vexatious proceeding by indictment might have beerren - iploy t ed. Of these , 42 subjects of the Attorney-General's unsparing vigilance, only It; had been brought to punishment, the remaining Vi libellers whose writing threatened, with immediate .peril, the vriMle :brie of the Con,tltution, had not been found within the pro-. visions of the law, nor tangible by the active arm of this distin guished legal guardian ot the Crown and Constitution : and yet under the portentious mischief consequent on the liberation of these 2(3, we have hitherto escaped without any public convul sion. The Noble Speaker, after various illustrations, called t he attention ot the House to the year which intervened between the six years first mentioned in the ablve review of prosecutions, end the three years contrasted with them ; in that year, during which his Learned Friend (Sir 'Arthur Pgot) was Attorney- General, there was bitt one information, ex-officio, filed. The libel against which it was directed, accused Government of sending troops in unsound vessels fur the purpose of exposing them to he sunk in the ocean. Here was evident danger of ex citing a mutiny. How could a worse libel be conceived ? The - information was the commencement of a process against The , Mona.ng Post. When the present Attorney-General came into office, the Editor of that paper communicated to that Law Oilier who the author of the libel was ; on which account, al though the person• Whose name was :lies given up had quitted this country, the g ros ecution was suspended. " H as the Attor ney-General," his Lordship, " a more strong conviction than I have, that the proceeding by information ex-officio requires to be tempered with lenity, where there is a circumstance of extenuation, or a disposition to atone ? But as this paper was devoted to 'those public men, with whom he was politically con necteed, are there not strong reasons to examine the grounds of lenity ?" The Noble Speaker further inquired, whether their Lordships were aware, that in every abhortive prosecution, the arraigned individuil, however innocent, not only raid his own efisto - , which operated as an unmerited:tine, but the public incur rest an expellee of from 601. to 1061. " du not deny, ' said his Lordship, " that summary proceedings may not sometimes be necessary : but I trust that I have stated sufficient reasons for ex tr,+ordinary vigilance and jealousy against the rxerciie of such power. 'I be Attorney-Gekneral, I repeat ) hot only visits with 149 punishment the author of the libel, but frequently holds the formation suspended over individuals-avhorr circumstances have involved in exposure to the law, without any participation in the valence. The case of The Morning Post was, indeed, an instance of i favour; the only instance which he recollected." °tl must plead" observed his Lordship, " not only ignorance, but stu pidity, it I did not express suspicion of abuse." Should is Lordship obtain the papers, fur which his motion. was framed, his ulterior objects would be—l.—To propose a Bill to prevent the Attorney-General from filing an ex-officio information for libel after a specific time had elapsed since. publication.-2. To move a Resolution for compelling the Attorney -general. within a limited time, either to bring the Tarty to trial,.or to file a !101l prosequi, or to state sufficient reasons, such as the absence of witnesses, for postponement.-3. When a verdict is obtained, judgment to be immediately prayed, and not deferred at the pleasure ofthe Attorney-General.-4. To propose that the Judge should have the discretionary power to stay proceedings.-5. To move the repeal of that part di recent Act which enables the Attorney-General to hold to special bail the party intended to be tried under ex-officio information. lie had, however, only to move,.at present, for returns of all . criminal . informations,. tried 'ex-officio by the r Attorney-General, from the Ist of JanUaly, 1801, to the 31st of December, 1807. Lord Etetriuoieouou said, that unable though he felt to at - tend to the discussion, he had tesolved so to du, and had attended to every word,he believed, that had fallen from the No'hle Lord , (Holland,) but was compelled to diftr from him. They Were asked to strip the files of the Churt Ki:Va Bench, and keep their contents upon the table of that !louse, just to ::earch fur a nod prosequi respecting The I\ lornine, Post! The adiniplatration of no public office ought totpe lightly and factiously questioned. It would have been more manly in the Noble Baron (Holland) to have moved at once the revoking of the anode of proceeding by ex-officio informations. 1,01%1 HOLLAND and Lord Er.LENBOXOUGII explain d. Lord STANHOPE contended that the Attorney-General might make an illegal exercise of legal power ; and that prosecutions for libel ought not to be held in terroruin over tile headd of those who happened to transgress the laws. Lord Ells X; N (after much apology for himself) declar at the free administration of public justice was essential t tisfaction of the people of England. Certainty he k ex-officio informations were coeval with the statute-lat ut they were not meant to be used as an every day Imnishment, and hence this anomaly in our laws had been suffered to exist.— lie felt jealous for the liberty of any uriividual, when contend ing for such a monster as the Crown ; indeed the 25th of Ed warditt. was a proof of this, since t!' is Act had been too often prevents, so that Parliament was frequently compelled to in terfere add restore its purity. The Noble a!ld Learned Lord concluded, by observing that common jurors were beet entitled to judge in cases of libel. The Loan CHANCELLOR said, with respect to the motion before them, if their Lordships wished to• alter the law as to r - ditions libels, why did they not do this upon some some .ge , oeral principle ? Let them meet the question in this way, and they would be as unwilling as were their ancestors for such a change—quite as unwilling as they were in 1801. Sped •IJuries, however,bad no more to do With the motion than orders of bas tardy.—(A tabgh.) For one, he (the Lord Chancellor) could not consent to so monstrous a prdliosition. Lord RLDESDALE thought the duty devolving upon the At torneyjUeneral was one of the most painful ttlat could be con ceived. It was a duty of a responsible nature, and one for the exercise of which he was answerable in his o.syn person. As the law stbod, he (Lord 41..ealesdale) was of opinion, that it was properly eonstittited, Will to preserve the freedom and , to cur rect the licentiousness of the Press. It had hitherto had this effect, and he trusted no alteration would be made, either in its spirit or form. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, feeling it his duty to give his vote in favour of the motion of his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord liolland,) was most anxious to state the grounds open which he gave that vote in order that he :night guard against any misconception. lie was 6ne of those who highly approved of ! the proceeding by informat ion, it was a p roceeding which he maintained was firmly bottomed rnt the English Constitution, and consequently one extremely beneficial to the community.— Fie (the Marquis of Lansdowoe), had listened to the speed's of the Noble Lord on the 'Woolsack, in the hope of learning his opinion upon the material point iu question.—The l•Tobie Lord, however, instead of 'meeting the subject in' a fair and candid manner, had evaded any allusion whatever to the opinions of those great authorities who had been quoted. No mischief could arise from liaving sins information on the Table of the House, the truth ought to prevail, and tke country oihould he satisfied that the law had been always administered with purity, and on constitutional principles. With these feelings, he should give his vote in favour of the Motion before their Lordships. , ig. . THE NATIONAL REGISTER. 149 IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT . ' punishment the author of the libel, but frequently holds the iii- formation suspended over individuals...whore c ircumatances have HOUSE ms' OF LORDS. . involved in exposure to the law, without any participatio n in the odence. The case of 'l'he Morning Post was, indeed, an instance e---- of i favour; the only instance which he recollected." " I must MONDAY, Mmtcn 4. • plead" observed his Lordship, " not only ignorance, bu t stu- INFORMATIONS EX-OFFICIO. pidity, it I did not express suspicion of abuse." Should lis to p Lord •HOLLAN'D moved the Or d e r of the Da y , which bebeingLordship r objects obtain thewoul pa p d bers, e fur which his motion.' was framed, rea d.accordinely, his Lordship rose. After the due notice which his ulterio —l.—To propose a Bill to the Attorney-General irom Whig an ex-officio information fur lee had felt it his duty on so very important a subject to give -• their Lordships of the motion which stood for the discussion of libel after a specific time had elapsed since. publication.-2. To i that night, it. never entered into his imagination to. anticipate move a Resolution for compelling the Attorney-eh:neva'. within - any objection as being likely to be effected to a proposition which a limited time, either to bring the parte to trial, or to file a !101l • to him had appeaeed liable to no sort of objection. He was A prosequi, or to state sufficient reasons, such as the absence of 41117 aware of the dangerous ground on which he stood on the witnesses, for postponement.-3. When a verdict is obtained, present occasion. Upon one hand he was liable to the reproach . judgment to be immediately prayed, and not deferred at the of beintealled the defender of lilies ; and on the other hand, of pleasure of the Attorney-General.-4. To propose that the Judge should have the discretiona • a presumptuonsinterference w ith the administration of j ustice. discretionary power to stay proce , dines '' To 1. t • .---J. But he would not submit to be called a defender of libels, or of . move the repeal of that part di recent Act whi c h enables the . libellers,•betatise he was desirous to restrain the abuses of the Attorney-General to held to special bail the party in tended to be tried under ex-officio information. lie had, however, only to • law respecting them rand though he was sensible of the charge which he might incur, in thus obtrud i ng himself on a subject move e at present, for returns of all. criminal .informations, tried • which might so much more ably and effeetually have been taken ex-officiu by the" Attorney-General, from the Ist of Janualy, up by the Learned Lords, yet when he loJked back upon the 1801, to the 31st of December, 1807. • history of the country, and saw that all the best improvements Lord Bette:BOROUGH said, [hut unable though he felt to at- . and legal information had been effected without the aid, and gee - tend to the discussion, he had tesolvesi so to du, and had attended nerally with the oppoeition of the great Law Officers, he felt the to every word,he believed, that had fillen from the Noble Lord less embarrassment. His Lordship made a marked disuse ion , (Holland,) but was compelled to differ free him. They Were . between State Libels and those which were directed to de me asked to strip the files of the Cburt ef Kieg'a u Bench, atal keep private individuals. With regard to ex-officio informati •'\ their contents upon the table of that !louse, pist to ::carch for a in soli prosequi respecting Th Morning Post! The adinipiStration the former cases, his I .ordship cited the opinion; of Lord Hale and Blackstone, that deity could not have legal warrant except of nu public office ought toee lightly and factious:y questioned. in cases or extreme and olpious danger. He com p lained that It would have been more manly in the N o b le Baron (Holland) the interval between filing the information and bringing the . to have moved at once the revoking of the node of p roceeding by ex-officio informations. party to trial, had been, sometimes , unnecessarily and oppress sively prolonged.. In other instances, after a verdict had peen I Lord HOLLAND and Lord Er.LENBO XOUGII explain d. - obtained, the individual had been. left for an indefinite time, E Lord STANHOPE contended that the Attorney-General might without being called up to judgment. " I state broadly," said make an illegal exercise of legal power ; and that prosecutiona his Lordship, " that this is the case, and that it is an increasing • for libel ought not to be held in terroruin over the head of those grievance." His Lordship proceeded to contrast the number of who happened to transgress the laws. informations for libel which had been fileA during the first six I Lord Ells ei Nr. (after much apology for himself) declar at and sonic of the last years of the ten immedia tel y preceding.— 1 the free administration of public justice was essential t From 1801 to 1806, inclusive, there had been only 14 informa- I tisfaction of the people of Englaed. Certainly he k t tions. During only three years which had subsequently elapsed, i ex-officio informations were coeval with the statute-h as _ ut 42 informations.ex-officio had been tiled by the Attorney -Gene- ' the y were not meant to be used as an every day Imilishment, ral. Were all these directed against crimes so high, and aggra- , and hence this anomaly in our laws had been suffered to exist.— vated and dangerous, that the less summary, less severe, and lie felt jealous for the liberty of any unrlividual, when contend- lees ositous mode Of pros:testing, would have compromised the . ing for such a monster as the Crown ; indeed the :25th of Ed- safety of the Government and the State ? A different conclu- i warditi. was a proof of this, since 0-is Act had been too often sion must be drawn ;in some of these cases, the less vexatious . prevente4, so that Parliament was frequently compelled to in- proceeding by indictment might have beetremployiel. Of these . tcrfere add restore its purity. The Noble and Learned Lord 42 subjects of the Attorney-General's unsparing vigilance, only concludes', by observing that common jurors were beet entitled Iti had been brought to punishment, the remaining '26 libellers , to judge in cases of libel. whose writing threatened , wit h immediate . p eril, the vehele • The LORD CHANCEL LOR said, with respect to the moti o n febric of the CoriAltution, had not been found within the pro-. '; before them, if their Lordships wished to• alter the law as to visions of the•law, nor taligibie by the active arm of ehis dhoti- ' , editions libels, why did they not do this upon some some .ge- euished legal guardian ot the Crown and Constitution : and yet ', item! principle ? Let them meet the question in this way, and under the portentious mischief consequent on the *liberation of they would be as unwilling . as were their ancestors for such a - these 26, we have hitherto escaped without any public convul- change—quite as unwilling dossa they were in 1801. Speci •IJuries, sion. The Noble Speaker, after various illustrations, called the however,had no more to ith the motion than orders of bas- attention of the House to the year which intervened between terdy —(A tabgh.) For one, fie (the Lord Chancellor) could . the six years first mentionedin tke aheve review of prosecutions, I not consent to so monstrons a prdliosition. end the three years contrasted with them ;in that year, during Lerd RLDESDALE thought the duty devolving upon the At- which his Learned Friend (Sir 'Arthur Pgot) was Attorney- torneyjUeneral was one of the most painful thet could be cone Geral, there was bat one information, ex-officio, filed. The ceived. It was aduty of a responsible nature, and one for the libel against which it was directed, accused Government of exercise of which he was answerable in his (evil person. As es. . sending troops in unsound vessels fur the purpose of exposing the law stbod, he (Lord iistelesdale) was of opinion, that it was them to he sunk in the ocean. Here was evident danger of ex- properly eonstitiited, bosh to preserve the freedom and ,to core citing a mutiny. How could a worse libel be conceived ? The tett the licentiousness of the Press. It had hitherto had this , - information was the commencement of a process against The effect, and he trusted no alteration would be made, eithei in its . , Morn.ng Post. When the present Attorney-General came into spirit or form. . office, the Editor of that paper communicated to that Law Tbe Merquis of LANSDOWNE, feeling it his duty to give his Wiser who the auther of the libel was ;on which account, al- vote in eiveur of the motion of his Noble and Learned Frietid. . though the person. Whose name was z.hus given up had quitted (Lord Holland,) was most anxious to state the grounds epon . this country, the g„ r osccution was suspended. " Has the Attor- which he gave that vote in order that he :night guard against'any . heyeGeneral," #i his Lordship," a more strong conviction than , misconception. lie was One of those who highly approved of I have, that the proceeding by information ex-officio require s j the proceeding by information, it was a proceeding which he , -to be fehipered with lenity, where there is a circumstance of ! maintained was firmly bottomed on the English Constitution, and consequently one extremely beneficial to the community.- 3 extenuation, or a disposition to atone ? But as this paper was r devoted to Those public men, with whom he was politically con- i He (the Marquis ef Lansdowee), had listened to the speechi of aceeteel, are there not strong reasons to examine the grounds of . the Noble Lord.on the !Woolsack, in the hope of learning his E.. lenity ?" The Noble Speaker further inquired, whether their opinion upon the material point in question.— . lfhe Nobie Lord, s Loniships were aware, that in every abhortive proseontion, the however, instead of 'meeting the subject in' a fair and candid manner, had evaded any allusion whatever to the opinions of arraigned individusl, however innocent, not only raid his own Cristo . , which operated as an unmeritedstine, but the pultic ineur- those great authorities who had been quoted. No mischief could red en expellee of from 601. to HX:I. '"1 du not deny, said his arise from having 'this information on the Table of the House. Lordehip, " that summary proceedings may not sometimes be the truth ought to prevail, andelte couiltry should he satisfied necessary : but I trust that I have stated sufficient reasons fur ex- that the law had been always administered with purity, and on tsaerdinary vigilance and jealousy against the teersise of such constitutional principles. With these feelings, he should give c power. Ihe ' Attorney - C mer al , I repeat, hot only visite with .. his vote in favour of the Motion before their Lordships. • .... . , -el,' . , . ~ . ..e.. . .