The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-04-16 00:00:00

ty's Attorney-General for Ireland, with them in his posses sion, :o justify any steps he had taken, at least to himself; bat the (louse could not come safely to a conclusion In the ahserce of the. papers; and when they were refused. he (Mr. B.) could not divest himself of the suspicion that all Was not right, or that some Saw ezisted which required all that concealment. They were told, that if the information was granted, it would be to establish charges egr:nst the Magistrates. It was, however, with his Majesty's Atter uev General that the House hod to do, who took t the case 'ant of the hands of the police officers, end brough it to Castle -yard. Such was the fact; It was not o nl y done within lis knowledge, but by the direct orders of his Ma- Jesse's Attorney-Gmeral. If that officer was so fond of ex officio informatioes, ant if he had beensteceived by the wnterees who had Induced his to prefer a charge of essas mask n against the Lord Lieutenant, he should have turtle. against 'ahem the weight of his Aged vengeance, and have persecuted them for malignity and filseheod. Such should have been his conduct, according to the coition of Lord Somers, in a book where be spoke of the duties of Grand Juries. The House was aware that when the capital charge was abandoned the bills were sent up to the Grand Jury, one of which was igs renred, and the other for a riot only found. If the one was thrown out, perhaps the Learned Officer might have to blame an omission of his as the cause. He neglected to add in the charge against the two individuals, the words ec ummulas aliis. The Right lion. Ge ntleman stigmatized the prisoners as members of a gang leagued , together for purposes hostile to the Government. Upon the merits of this gang, as it was called, he (Mr. - 13.) void rake but one remark; that if the Attorney-Ge neral altered his political bias, or if his successor in other: as Lis predecessor bad done, entertained different opinion% the tables would then be turned, and these men would then be called the best friends to the existing state of things. The truth was, that men's loyalty was ever measured by the extent of their concurrence in view with those in office. Half this House might be call.ll a gang, in the fashionable accepteion of the word. Op posioon Economists, and Reformers, all those whose ob ject was to make Government change their measures, were thus a gang. This latitude of construction would make every man an agitator, and every set of men con e.o. trratore. The ex-officio information would arraign ti.oee who dared to think for themselves, and persecute all who differed from Government. The organs .of the law were no more free from the operatic n of this prin ciple, than the accused who were made the objects of its application. By the sweeping attack of tine .1 Gurney- General, • the Grand Jury who ignored the bills w e r e identified with the party which he wished to make them an instrument of suppressing. When the result admit: judgment was stated in open Court, the Right Honour able Gentleman expressed his surprise. He hoed the Grand Jury had done their duty—ralled their artenth p m to the sacredness of that duty—warned them of the crime of p-rjury, and told them that the manner in which they bad fulfilled their oath, was between Gov and their conseiencee. He gratuitonsly stated the obligation which their conduct imposed upon him, of taking ulte rior steps. Placed individually be tine Constitution in the room of the 23 sworn Grand Jurors, Le avowed his It solution of reversing their judgment,by bringing these men to another trial ; as if the rejection of the bills furnished the hest evidence of their (milt. Why was all this ?—why was the constitutice.al tribnual of a Grand Jury then to be trifled with ? Since the Revolution, the history of our judicial proceedings furnished but one other ineance of such an arbitrary interference. That teas to be found in the case of of Sir George Jeffcries.— He disclai:ned all intention of personal offence in making the comparison. lie wished not to liken that infamous Judge to a highly popular prosecutor, firmly believing that their characters neee as for asunder as the Poles, and as unlike to each other as vice and virtue. lie re gretted that an act common to both should have put them in juxta-position. The conduct of clenches upon a certain occasion was still remembered for its illegality, as his memory was itemized by the execration of his toontrymen, lo 16S0, whilst the measures of Charles the Second were provoking the nation to that resistance Which proved the ruin of his family, a bill of indict ment was sent to the Grand Jury against Francis Smith, for having composed a• certain tualicioue, scandalous, and seditious bosh. 'fine Jury weighed the charge, heard the case, and wrote upon tine bill ignoramus.— Jefferies was diapleased,bnt he feared to violate the boun daries of constitutional law. Pursuing the coarse re- , commended by Blackstone under such circumstance% he , caused a second bill to be presented, which was again ignored, and it was not until the failure of the fourth attempt ti a'. he saw the futility of moulding the Jury to , his Purpo-ee. 'What did he then do ? File an ez-othcia information ? N 9, but the very next day he ordered the Owner to be discharged hy proclamation.—(Hear, hear.). Thins fact in itself would prove tine illegality of the prac tice. The forbearance of a profli este and corrupt Judge. in a reign dietinguished for a systematic violation of consti:utional law, furnished an argument against the tiling of ex-officio informations under peculiar circam stanc s, which was incontrovertible. lfJefferies could have found a warrant from the Constitution for tiling them. be, who understood the advantages of a summary prosecu tion so well, would have availed himself of it. True it was, that he had the Jury called into open Court, and ad dressed to them language not very remarkable for its mod-ration, concluding with the sentence. " that the mater was entirely between Goo and their con sciences."—(llear, hear) It was singular that ex tremes should thus meet, and that there should be such a coincidence of expression between men whose political sentiments differed so widely. But if ex-dricio informa tinns were to supersede Grand Juries, the constitutional effect Twist be the disuse of that ancient and constitutional tribunal, in all cases where the prerogative of the Crown and the liberties of the people came to clash with each other. TL,- importance of tine Grand Jury, however, in his eyes was inch, that eeen admitting that those indivi duals were guilty, he thought it better they should escape Is ;tit impunity, than that the administration of the law should he brought into contempt. "The trial b y Jury" said illackdone, o r . the country per pat slam, is also that trial by the Peers of every Englishman, which as the grand bid ark of his lihertie ,is secured to Win by the Great Charter; • uullus fiber incuno capiatur, vel impresouctur, aut exulet, ant aliquo alts modo destruatur, nisi per legalejudieium, parium morum. vel per legein ter ra.' The antiquity and excellence of this trial, for the settling of civil pr.iperry, has been before explained at large. And it will hold mut h stronger in criminal cases, since in times of difficsity and danger, more is to be ap prellecded from the violence and partiality ofJailges ap pointed by the Croivh, in suits between the King and the subject. than in disputes between one individual and another, to settle the metes and bounieries of private property. Our law has, therefore .desely places wrong and twofahl barrier, of a presentment and a trial by Jury. bete ere the liberties of tine people and the pre rogatiiie of the Crown. It was necessary for preetievine tilt admirable balance dour Consritation, to-vest the ex ecutive power of the laws in the Prince; and yet this power mi lit be &unman% and destructive to tiro very Constitution , if exerted without check or coral-on'," &c. And again. " But thelonnders of tine English law have with excellent forecast contrivell that no man should he called to answer to the King fur any capital crime, ueless upon the prepereore accusation of twelve or more of his fellow subjects, the Grand Jury ; and that tine truth of every accu-ation, whether preferred in the shape of in 411ctsueirt, informatior, or appeal, should afterwards confirmed by the unanimone suffrages of twelve of his egnals and neighbours, indifferently chosen, and saperior. , t • all suspicion. So that the liberties of England canoe* but subsist oolong as this rillaelivin remains sacred amii, teas the disarm then of lima Juane, 'Ca E STATESMAN may belated the decline of British liberty.' however, be more manly at once to abolish this tribunal, tliati to mock . the .People with the appearaece of that which they did not in tact possess. lo the opinion of .Blackstone, was to be added that of Lord Somers. as to the reverence in which Juries should be held. It was un necessary to say that all the a'teuipts to -destroy civil li berty in England were first directed to the abolition of ties trial by Jury. The cases 0f Ernpson and Lord Dudley should not be omitted. These persons endeavoured to bring the institution into contempt, which was more criminal than if they had tried openly to suppress it. Ina British House of Commons, he did not deem it necessery.tO show by au thorities how essential to the liberty of the subject trial by Jury had been considered. The principle was recognised hi nit the early Statutes, and enforced by all the writers `Oll British law. Lord Coke declared that by law no man should be attacked but through his Peers. Sir Mathew Hale had stated that the regular and Constitutional mode of proceed ing for any offence was by indictment. These authorities, however, were not to be understood as proving that any other course was illegal. He would wish to establish the illegality of ex-officio informations, but he despaired of be ing able to de so. But though they were not illegal, he had no hesitation in saying that they were contrary to the prin ciples and reasoning of the British Con.ditution.—(flear.)— Csage and precedent alone could justify their propriety. — For in the application of them in this case, be contended there was a breat want of both. From the Norman Con quest to the present time there was no example of an es officio information being filed after the bill had been ignored by the Grand Jury. He denied that the ease of Dudley More was applicable to the purposes of the Attorney-Gene ral. The case referred to was this 1711 a play was brought out In Dublin. In which King William was ridiculed in the prologue, but Queen Mary was most extravagantly be praised. Queen Anne, jealous of the encoiriums bestowed upon her predecessor, forbade the reoitatios of the ob jectionable appendage to the piece. Dudley More, who considered this an arbitrary Interference by the Court, determined that the prologue should not he sup pressed, and he accordingly jumped from the hex upon the stage, and spoke it at length. The conduct gave much umbrage to the Court, and More was indicted for a riot. The Grand Jury ignored the bill, but, by some mistake, 'the foreman wrote upon it " True bill," instead of „ No bill." In this 'state It was returned into Court, and the defendant in form called upon to plead. The Jury, however, soon discovered their mistake, and making affulatit of the true.state of the case in Court, the bill was gnashed: The Attorney- General, however, said he was endued a ith powers of still bringing the defendant to trial, end he accordingly filed an ex-yeeio information. Between this filing, how ever, and the trial, the Irish House of Commons Met, and as the affair bore the semblance of oppressiiin, edam party man—as lie (Mr. B.) would possibly be called, moved for the appointment of a Committee to inquire whether this course was warranted by precedent. The Committee reported that there was no case on record in which an ex-officio infonnation had been filed, after the Grand Jury bad ignored the bill. So far, therefore, from this being a case in point for the Attorney-General, it was rather a beataaa to warn off the Right Hon. Gen tleman from 4sursuiug such a course. Any extraordinary powers with which the Attorney-General was armed, lie ought to have exercised in tenderness to the subject ra ther than in oppressing him. The charge then against the Attorney-General was that of having adopted a harsh, unconstitetional, and unprecedented course of proceed. Jug, which tended to the oppression of individuals, and to the injury of the cause of public justice.—(lfear it did not hallow, however, that because au to dirional bad a right of preferring a second indictment against fellow subject, that the same power should be enjoyed by the Crown. There was in the proceedings of private Individuals a degree of responsibility which did not at tech to the Attorney-General. The abuse of the prera tredve had proved the ruin-of Charles the First aril James the Second. In this case if it was nut applied illegallf, be should contend that it was administered to the op pression of the subject. Hut the yeestion was not, whether this proceeding was legal or not, lint whether it would have been resorted to iu this country ?—(l4ar !) He called upon the Law Officers of England to state how they would act under these circumstances. Suppose his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was to go to the theatre; theta party of Englishmen, who are sometimes impudent enough to think for themselves, should be of opinion that the cause of Spain bad not been sufficiently attended to by him; that having met at a coffee-house near Covent-garden, they had agreed not to assassinate, but to hiss the Hou. Secretary from the house, or even to do some act which would, if possible, drive him from his Majesty's councils; that a hill of in dictment was preferred to the Grand Jury, and ignored ; Would an English Attorney-General veld ere to file an ex officio information afterwards, whatever commands he had received to do so?—((lsar, hear.) lie certainly would not, for be dared nut, as it might be as much as his situation or perhaps his life was worth, to appeal from the decision of a Grand Jury. Why, then, should things be managed otherwise in Ireland—why should that which would be most improper and intolerable here, be consi dered at the other side of the Channel as just and legal ? Having said thus much, lie supposed the House would be glad to hear that he was drawing to a conclusion. — (Hear.) If, in the course of the observations he had made, he had spoken in warm and unmeasured tone, be wished to apologise for them. It was his duty to draw the attention of the House to what he conceived to be an act of arbitrary and oppressive interference on the part of his Majesty's Attorney-General; and in the. dis cussion of such. a subject, lie had not an entire controul ever his feelings. He had never spoken to any Irish man, either Catholic or Protestant, who did not ex press the wannest intligna . don at Hies... measures ' and he was sure that if the same imp ression was not tnade upon a British House of Commons in a cause vitally interest ing to British liberty, it was attributable less to the good ness of the cause, than his ability to do the subject jus tice.—(Hear, hear.) The Lion. Member concluded by moving, " That it appears to this House that the conduct of the Attorney-General of Ireland, in regard to the persons , charged with a riot at the Theatre-Royal, Dublin, un the ' 14th of December last, mote particularly by putting theta upon their trial on an ex-efficie information, atter bills of indictment had been ignored by. the Guild Jury, was unwise, contrary to the practice, and not congenial to the spirit of the British Constitution, and ought not, therefore, to he drawn into a precedent hereafter." The motion having been secotiderl, Mr. PLUNKETT rose. The House, he said, would not be surprised at his feeling some degree of embarrassment in offering himself to their notice, under the circumstances in which he was at that moment placed. He had 11,teneti with attention to the statement of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, and shared in common with every Gen tleman present, the pleasure derived from a display of so much good feeling and ability. Hit wished to be the first to otkr his mend of admiration of the manner is which that Hon. Member had laid his it so before the House; but in stead of accepting his apology for any iiiiliscretion of which he supposed himself guilty, it eppeareil to hilts (Mr. P.) that under all the circumstances, die Hon. Member was rather emitted to praise for his moderation, than censure for his warmth of expression. Bet whilst he thus gave him the due acknowledgment of hie merit, ne had to complain to the House that the lion. Member hail taken too wide a field, and indulged in too great a latitude of observation in bring ing his charge against the theisidual who now, tool before them ; for lie appealed to the justice of every lion. Member who heard him, whether, in preferring a specific charge of having abused the prerogative of his office, by filing an es. officio information for a particular uffenie, after a Grand Jury hid ignored the bill, it was fair to involve him 111 all the odium and constitutional unpoptilaety to whi At the appli t L andon of sects Wl:kiwi, was at any tiateesposed. The lion. lileghber had arraigned the r i g ht of the Crown under an y * g agotttnees.to Ma an ez-offtelo Information, and his ar. gement was Intended to shear that • no case could art in which he iaterferenee of the Crown by ex-officio, or. of the. Court of Ning's Bench bt criminal information, could be justified' without a prostration of that bar rier between the prerogative of the Crown and the rights of the people, which his eloquence had been for some time employed in erecting. Ile would prove that no trial should take place criminally without the intervention of a Grand Jury. With this doctrine, he (Mr. P.)%wai not now going to struggle, he only Wished at present to protest against beteg committed to all the edium which attended ex-offitio informations from their first institution. lie wished the Hon. Member and the House to understand that he was not guilty of importing to this country so dangerous a prerogative, nor could he charge himself with producing any bad effect on the laws of England, by the example wuich he had set of its applicier•in in the sister country. • The power of filing such Liforinwion was known to the British la* keg before either his name had been beard of, or his public acts taken notice of. Of all the legal institutions of the country there was no principle of wore decided legality, or decided anti quity, than this. Ile did not mean to say, that the prin ciple, if objectionable, derived any additional sanction from its long . stinding • but lie could not help exerers log his surprise, that if it was so very contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, the experieuce of a thousand years should not have opened the eyes of our ance s tors to the propriety of dispensing with it. Perhaps it ought to be dispensed with; he was not arguing whether it ought or not; but he asked why was lie to be. selected as the object on which all its unpopularity was to be visited? Or why his name was to be couplA with that of Jeffries, of ladamous memory ; or E !titian and Dudley, whose lives covered their own herds with thaw, and brought misery upon their country. Lt was bard that all time er rors of a thouransl years should ho visited upon him, and that, after so long an experieuee, Grand Jury of the county of Armagh should address their Member cow, fur the first time, to call the legality tit this institution into question. He (Mr. P) was bound to say that, in the ma nagement of this ipestion, the Hun. Member had shown a dexterity which he could not help admiring. 'Syrinx log it up with the rights of lir mud Juries, awl the re moval of the harrier tietweeu the throne and the people, he had touched a chord to which every British heart mast respond. flat did he mean to say that there was no other mode of criminal procee liug, lin through the tnediurn of a (hand Jury? That this war the most constitutional caurse to pursue, he (Mr. P.) admitted, and he agreed with the Hon. Member th.it no conduct on the part of so rispectable a public body could warrant Jeffertes in time observations which be addressed to them. But could tie deny that it was possib!e fir one ni in to du his duty, without questioning the tnauiier in which any other man or set of men did theirs? lie called upon the How Member to say whether, when the Grand Jury returned with their decision into Court, al. bough that decision filled hint, the Court, and the aadienee with wonder, he at all charged them with not having done their duty. Ile expressed a hope that they bail dose their duty, but declared his resotutioo of doing hi., a resolution to which, with llou's help, he would adhere. After all that he had beard, and' notwithstanding the numerous and powerful party by which his actiour had been criticised, he could. not yet persuade himself that he Lid done any thing contrary to Law or the Coustitution. Under these circumstances, then, he threw himself upon the honour of the Honourable Member and the House, whether it was fair to compare his address to the Grind Jury to the disgusting Billiugrgate,with which Jetferies reprinum! ni the Grand Jury iu the cause alluded to? —(hear.) Ibe moderation of • Jefferies in somtdiug bills three several times to time Juty, had been talked of, but was it re collect:A that he could then file an es-officio i-formetion, for be was not then Attorney-General, but Judge.— (Hear, hear.) Another complains which he bail to make was, that the lion. elember had been explicit enough in stating his charge. If the gist of it was for eon:inkling the prisoners nu the capital charge, and try ing them tor a misileineauour,why put in the word " par ticularly." The Hou. Member had not offered any rti. dence to snpport his charge of intention, oa his (Mr. P.'s) part, but he would not she l t e r himself behind this deficiency in the case, but would sate openly what his own conduct had been. He was ready to take all the responsibility on himself of having advised tbe Magis trates to that committal, though for their acts, the Magistrates alone were responsible. The proper place to try that question would be in a court of law ; and an Attorney-General was not answerable to Parliament for any advice be might have given to Magistrates. The Honourable Member hail said that no matt should be committed on a capital charge, unless there was enough to justify bringing time mail to trial, the Magistrate would be warranted in committing Mtn. The attack upon the Lord-Lieutenant had been treated too lightly ; there was no doubt, if the bottle struck him, but it wnula have taken away his life. He (Mr. P.) considered this au atrocious outrage, but lie never thought that it afforded ground for a capital charge. One of the individuals taken up expressed his regret that the attempt was not success ful. This man, with the two others row e immediately con cerned in throwing the but and rattle, were the only persons detained in custody. He did cot, however, allude to these particulars, from any consciousness of a necessity tu answer the case made out by the lion. Member, but tu show that he had not given his advice on light grounds. The first thing be wished to do, and he begged the atteu• tion in particular of the Country Gentlemen to this part of the case, was to state the law with resp e ct to the p ower of Grand Juries. lie hoped to be able to satisfy every Mete' ber present, that to whatever respect the conduct of Greed Jurors was in general entitled, it was by no means a no velty to question time propriety of their decisions. The Hon. Member had admitted that the power was in the Attorney-General of bringing en intormation after a bill had been ignored by a Grand Jury. However, after every newspaper and every placard had rung again with the illegality of such a proceeding, he should not be content to rest on the admission of the Hon. Mem ber. First, lie took it that no point of law was more clearly ascertained than that the ignoring of a bill, by a Grand Jury was no bar to a proceeding by indicttuent again ; ant new bills might be preferred again and again, as long as the Growl Jury chose to ignore the preceding bill ; and that without any disparagement to their conduct. lie took it also to be clear that for certain purposes, the proceeding by information was as old as the Constitution itself. The books all concurred in re presenting it to be a form of proceeding vested in the offi cers of time Croon, in order to guard against a failure of plaice, in consequence of the defects of the ordinary pro cesses. In ancient times the prerogatives were executed by the known Officers of the CAlwn, the Attiroey-Geoe rid and the Master of the Cr iwn Office. The informa tions by the Attorney-General were for offences against the,Crown ; those by the other Officer for offences of an inferior nature. 'limy had separate departments, but the right to tile informations was co-extensive. So mat ters continued until the Revolution. The Honourable Gentleman seemed to think that these processes belonged rather to the spirit of the Star Chamber. But what was the fact? Wh-n the Star Chamber was abolished, and in the heat of all the jealousies excited by the existence of that tribunal, the proceeding by ietortuation was re-established. Titus it ocnitinued until time 4th and oth of William the Third, when an Act was passed for the new modelling of the power of tiling those informations. The Act underwent long dis-. cussion, during which a conference between the two Houses • of Parliament was held. By this Act the Master of the' Crown Mike was disabled from filing informations, except by the authority of time Court of King's Bench. But by that very same Aot, and at the very time when the spirit of the country against all institutions Incompatible with liberty was at its very heightb—by that Act the power of the Atter; eg y-General to the infoneetions was again deliberately ra Inch The power qf thq Master et the Croeni pace being . Ones sane rata" as that of the attorney-General, it fol lowed that the Court of iiina's Basch, to which the power efthe Master of the Crown 001ce was transferred, was of the same extent as that of the Att.Aney.tienerul. It. took it to he a principle of which no one was ignorant, that no subject of the realm could be tried twice for the same offence. A proceeding before a Grand Jury was no trial. It was an levity necessary to he gone Into before the party could be put upon his trial. It cmld not be pleaded as autrefols acquit In bar of a trial. The party motet show el acqnittal by Petty Jure. It was said that, to proceed by information after a Grand Jury had decided on the invalidity of the evidence, was inde corous, and highly objectionable, on a variety of grotinds. Now, be would show that, at least, it was not of recent inventi n. Ile worth) refer to cases which occurred in the English Courts. The first was the case of the King e. Hope. It was tie rise of an asplication fur eu in form 'non fur a trespass, and it was ep F oird on the ground that an indictment had been already preferred, and that the Grand Jury ignored the bill. And here he begged to observe that the proceedinz aas unjust; for this, amongst other reawits—namely. that the Grand Jury had it not in their %tower to def. ti I themielves.-- Uut was not the King'S Bench in the same piedicarnent ? But the question was not between the Court of Ki 0 , 4•,, Bia.eh and the Jury, but between the pubtie and the criminal. In the case to which be ha I jtist referred, it was agreed, per totaui curium, that the intormitiou should be granted, because it was that remedy which was to be put ipto operation in order to elect the ends of justice, when it was in hazard of being defeated by party_heats and local jealonsies. Now, he could st..t to the Hon. Member, toot the reasons lucre assignod, on. the part of the Court, for granting the inform atoms, did not ce;4le from the lips of a Jetferies or ate Empson, or asp 64.4 of the advocates of doetrtnes adverse to hemmer rights , and IBterties; butt from the great constitution,' Judge. Lord - teartitieke.—(Heir !)--Here, then, was a t great anthority, not coLily admitting the proc'ess as one of Strict 1-gality; but absentely claiming it as a rotes.- sloe against the failure of the ortlit ary cogiies to ac.. complish the work of justice. T . r.r. next - case was the hiug e. Thorpe, which was ea° en auplieation for an information for a uuisance. I t . was stated, on ths pert of the application, that a bill was preferred fur the nutsence, but, en account of the partiality felt by the Jnry, the bill was ignored. Lord Mansfield ceded neat the appil • cation should be granted, and was joined by the nett of 'tile J airs, Butler, Asharst, and Mlles. Ile inform .- 3ion was tiled; the defendant suffered juilgutent to gas by default. Here wits a case, then, that disclosed this :singular fact, that the tirand Jury ignored a hill agiinst -a defendant who, when called opus afterts anis to def , o4 hiinself, was so sensible of his want of merits, that he suffered judgment to go by default. 'I he next cas, to which he would advert oerurreil in the third year' f the present King'. reign. It was the case of theßinz v. Vie .In habitante of Berkshire. A bill was preferred before the Grand Jury ; it was Ignored ; two sascessive bills were presented, and severally ignored; and. in conse quence, an infprinatioe was applied and . granted. So far, them, for English jostiee. Roar tha year 1193, thir teen cases before tttree Chlef Just:txs (Lord (,loatuel, Lord Kilwarden, and Lord Downes) occurred, of app) - cations for information after the Grand Jury had ignored the bills. The House would observe that, it, cages of ap plications fur informatious, ,here the offence Was net one which cause strictly within it, jurisdiction, ths Kines Bench usually asked Lr some allegation of miscoodu t on the part of time Grand Jury; but this was not the case with regard to those offences which were within its ha. bitual jurisdiction. The first case to which he would re fer was the King v. Dias. A bill was preferred Mid ig pored. Time prosecutor applied to the Ju age to rause the • Jury to reconsider time Bill. The Judge refused ; but recommended another bill to be preferred. It was pr... le red :tad *rued. An isform , tion was - then asked and granted. 'lite Right Host. Gentleman then Deckled to several other eases where the proceeding w.a of a Si Miler nature.' Tee King v. Patterson, and the King v Craw ford, acre cases where the often -e was itu.s.ediately with in the jurisdiction of the King's Bench. They were ewes of Inter provoking to fight. Bills were prefrrr. el and ignored. An information was applied fat, and no other allegation of misconduct was made against rbe Jury than this, that they ignored the bills, being under Some influence unknown to the deponent. He wdaid add ens wore case, to which lie begged the attention . of the House. The case was atilt depending, and he would there fore not mention names. It was a curious instance, ia asmuch as it was the case of an information being ap plied for on account of a bill being ignored by the very same Grand Jury before whom the bills were preferred against the defendants, whose cese was now before the House. As the case was not concluded, he should reerrly say that an allegation of misconduct was made agaileA the Grand Jury, and the information was gretted condi tionally. The defendants in that case were charged wilts conspiracy to defraud. A. was charged with giving It. money, and B. of receiving it, in order to be able ts swear lie had received it, with a view to defraud a third person. The bill was ignored. An information was applied for, and it was stated that the Grand Jury refused to receive a letter as evidence, which was writ e.s by one of the conspirators. It was also stated, that a Juror asked one of the witnesses, slid he ever know this person, weaning A, whom for the present he wool I call MtAlahon. " Pray, did you ever know," said the Juror, alfalahan to moult perjury ?" 'f he witness said he slid not. The Juror then asked " if M•Nlalwn made any affidavit?" Witness said be did not. 'flue Joey showed Lim the door and ignored the bill. This Grand Jury had previously extended all their strength, he supposed, and exhausted, like Jupiter, after giving existence to Hercu les; they could not muster up enfiicient power to find another bill. But whilst he tu roislred these cases to the House, he begged to remind them of the impossibility of knowing, whether. in a great many instances of informa tions being filed, there was a bill preferred and ignored. Where an information was tiled, it was no part of the re cord; It was not necessary it should appear in evidence that a b 111144 been previously preferred. Therefore, it by no means followed, that in eases of informations being the silence of the record shuuld be taken to be as evitienre of no bill being previously preferred au nosed. Was be then to be Whited with attempting an innovation in the practiciof the country ever since the Conquest? Everyone of his predecessors had appealed to the same process, without leaving it to the discretion of a Grand Jury, whether any proceeding should lie had; and after the lesson which lie bad lately receive el, he would take care never again to trust himself the hands of a Grand Jury. Had lie in the first instance filed his information, no complaint would be made—the Constitution would have escaped--the li berties of the countries would remain whole. What was his crime? `lt was not that he had filed an infot !nation in a case where it was unlit to apply such a pm cots ; his crime was for going before a Otani Jury, and for this he was to be visited by all the terrors with which the genius of the Constitution was armed. The lluu. tieniletnao had said that it was • nly a nine kery to go be fore a Grand Jury,, and take their decision only when it pleases you. Did the Hon. Gentleman suppose that 0 ,1 Attorney-General bad any interest or inclination to pick quarrels with Grand Juries? He could conceive a ni nety of cases where it would be proper for the Attorney - General to go before a (hand Jury in the first instance: but' timely it was nut netts ssaty that be should be bound by their decision. IV hen it was inclined, for the sake of g • eneral inconvesiencr, to proceed by indictment, it did omit follow that he slum d surrender into the bandeaux Jury the determination of the question whether tbe case was one to be proceed in or not. He would stepwise a Case. Suppose I bill of indictment was preferred, ad •Ik,.;A . • Ail aft , r Dore( Attw (ii an band iiiuis eign fit rill d4.se use that the i filinN Lad I ate part law -i