The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-31 00:00:00

CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION.

Mr. BROUGHAM rose before the Report of
Supply could be. brought up, and apologised for
taking the opportunity to bring before the House
the conduct of a body. calling themselves the
Constitutional Association. On a former day he
considered those persons dangerouS in a constitu-
tional view, and he had since been strengthened
in that opinion. He held in his hand the copy of
a letter, which had been transmitted by the As-
sociation to the Magistracy of that House,—
(Hear !)----and it purported to be a copy of ano-
ther circular which the Association issued' to' all
the Magistrates of the United Kingdom. It was
to expound to the 'Magistracy the law of libel,
as found in a pamphlet under the auspices of the
Bridge-street Committee It was legal for one
or two personS in a particular case. to combine
for the purpose of carrying on a temperate pro-
secution. .Many societies had been formed fOr
disinterested purposes, and such associations were
legal ; but when they saw a society founded on
a system of indictment and prosecution, which
exclusively belonged to the Attorney-General,'
they were justified in pronouncing it uncon-
stitutional. The ' Learned Gentleman then
read the letter to the House, which was signed
J. B. Sharp, 6, Bridge-street, Blackfiiars. The
writer stated that he was desired by the Com-
mittee to transmit a copy of their orders, and ex-
position of the law of libel, which' would be
found explanatory of their intention. In pursuance
of the 6th Resolution, the Committee had found
it necessary to institute prosecutions against se--
veral persons engaged in publishing seditious
libels, some of which had been abandoned in con-
sequence of the parti'es expressing contrition, sur-
rendering, on oath', their entire stock of libellous
and seditious matter, and entering into an en-
gagement never to publish the like again. After
reading the above with comments, Mr. 'Brougham

. .
.
contended that the Association formed a- most
dangerous self-constituted body, coming forward
to discharge the duties of the Attorney-General,
•and promulgate.- their eXposition Of the law
to bias the Magistracy of the country. No man
could doubt that backed with large funds they
became an object of terror, and any person
threatened
.by them would doubtless relinquish
a publication, whether seditious or not. They
stated that prosecutions were going on against a
notorious vender of seditious works at Manches-
ter, and under. that character the individual Was
to be tried by them. It was enough to merely
mention this to the House. Every lion. Member
would deprecate such an Association. It was
not the least evil attached to this Association,
that forty Peers- claiming high rank in the land,
had lent their names to such proceedings. Those
persons might at last be the judges of the very
persons they had prosecuted. by their Attorney.
lie wished to impress on the House that these
proceedings poisoned justice in its very source.
It called up angry feelings in jurors who might
belong to the Society itself. A man would have
no chance in-a trial where the influence of any
of the Association prevailed. A worthy and re-
spectable man seeing the name of a Noble Lord
of great wealth and influence in the county to
which he belonged, said, " If this Lord's name j
was among the Association, and a man was tried'
by his tenants,. he could not have fair and honest
jurors." The remedy for these abuses lay with
the Attorney-General, who could put a stop to
all prosecutions by soli prosequi. Such proceed-
ings ought to be' stopped by the use of the Attor-
ney-General's power. lie considered. the esta-
blishment of the Association illegal, and in a
1
constitutional point of view one of the greatest
abuses.

Mr. SCARLETT said his Hon. and Learned
Friend had said enough on a former occasion to
convince the House of the bad effect produced
by the Association alluded to. On the paper
which had been read he did not wish to offer
any remark. He was only desirous of address-
int; a few observations to the House on the
illegality of the motives of those Gentlemen
who formed the Association. The party ag-
grieved were in general the prosecutors, but in
cases Where crimes affected the public interest,
the Attorney-General was the means of bringing
offenders to
,justice. lie did not suppose it was
the intention of any one to reflect on the At-
torney-General for neglect of duty, but this As-
sociation was a libel on him, as it imputed to that
Hon. and Learned Gentleman laxity in the dis-
charge of his duty. It was a combination to do
the duty of the Attorney-General. If several
attorneys were to go about the country, prose-
cuting for offences against the State, would it not
be said they were usurping the duty of the At-
torney-General ? No person who considered this
Association in a constitutional point of view,
could fail to concur in all that had been said by
his Hon. and Learned Friend.

Mr. WARRE observed, that the highest law
authorities in that House had expressed their
opinions declaring the Association illegal, and as
there was no Member in the House who defended
it, the Association must be taken to be illegal.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY considered the
whole proceeding on the subject extraordinary.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had risen to
deliver his sentiments in the absence of the At-
torney-General, stating what was the duty of the
Attorney-General, and what ought to be done
to check an illegal Association. The Noble
Marquis heard that it was illegal, but he did not
rely with confidence on the wisdom of the re-
marks he had heard, because history furnished
many instances of similar associations which had
not been declared illegal by any competent tri-
'bunal. He might ask why the truth did not
rush on the mind of Lawyers when early transac-
tions of similardescription came under discussion ?
His Lordship had heard of individuals with
large funds having formed societies to prosecute
offender& for the- benefit of the public. Great
names had been seen in these Associations which
might have poisoned the minds of Jurors just as
well as the Association which had been brought
under the consideration of the House. No ob-
jection was •made to those Associations by
Lawyers. It seemed that all the sensibility of
the Leanted Gentlemen was reserved for the
crime of libel and sedition. The Association to
prosecute libel had been called conspiracy, and
the subject occasioned a display•of learning sel-
dom heard in that House.

Sir J. SEUR'rcu-r rose to deprecate the self-
'constituted althority which presumed to give ad-
vice to the Magistrates, and lay down the law.
As a Magistrate, he protested against what he
considered indecent and unconstitutional con-
duct.

Mr. IlnotrartAra explained. He said, there
was no case of Association that bore the least re-
semblance to the Association in question.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY instanced' the
Society for the Suppression of Vice. The only
difference was, that they prosecuted for indecent
publications--the present Association for sedi-
tious Libels.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL felt himself called
on, in the absencof the Attorney-Genera!, to
say a few Words. tt had been said the. society
in question took upon itself to prosecute contrary
to law. .On the contrary, he was ready to con-
' tend that they did nothing inimical to the spirit
'of the COnstitution.—(llear, heart on both sides
of the 'llouse.)-lie wished to know whether the
Members of that House or the Judges of the
land were to decide on the law ? That House
was certainly not the tribunal to decide upon the
established. law of the land. The Judges were
eompithmt to decide, and in a recent application
made by one of the persons prosecuted by the
Association, they did not say the prosecution
was illegal. The question of the legality or
the prosecution instituted by the Society'Came
no-
der their cousideration.L--(Criesef " No, no !")
He was ITresent at the time when the' quegtion of
the 'prosecutien was
.introduced, and he never
heard the Judge intimate that the Society was
unconstitutional; or contrary to the law of the
land. If it had been illegal those Judges would
have expressed their opinion, and as they did not;
it was to be sitpported. Woald any one say that

persons .combining together, and forming a fund to
punish persons violating the law, *ere acting un-
constitu tiona ? Did they not bring every charge
before the Grand Jury to decide, and could any
one say in association who did so was illegal ? It
was not—and he expressed a hope that what he
said would go forth to the public—it was not the
duty of the Attorney-General to hunt out libels,
neither was it for his- Learned Friend .to eriter
roll pi-osequi. Would any lawyer say that• his
Learned Friend, exercising a sound discretion,
could enter soli proscqui? No honourable man
who was a subject to the monarchy could for one
moment suppose the Attorney-General, in the
stria line of his duty, could follow the Course
laid down by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
Lord Mt t,ToN was surprised -at the manner in
which the Hon, and Learned Gentleman retreat-
ed from the responsibility °fills first assertion. Ile
had stated, in the first instance, that the Judg,2s
had declared this society to be legal ; and then
he wishes the House of Commons to believe, that
because they have not said it was-illegal, it Must
be legal ; but he would ask the Solicitor-Gene-
ral if it was usual for the Judges,when a subjectsof
this nature was incidentally brought before them,
to express an opinion on .that subject without
hearing the remarks or arguments of Counsel,-
Then the Learned Solicitor-General proceeded
to pronounce what he could not but consider a
phillippic on the negligence of his Learned Friend
the Attorney-General. lie said that he had lately
seen a most atrocious libel upon the person of the
King, and it was reserved for the Constitution_ al
Association to prosecute that libel.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL, in explanation, said
that his Learned Friend, the Attorney General,
had never seen the libel to which he had al-
luded. At the time that he (the Solicitor Ge-
neral) had seen it, the Bill of Indictment had been
found, so that the interference of the. Attorney
General would have been unnecessary and eirPli
improper.
_

Mr: WYNN did not rise for the purpose of pro.
longing a rather irregular discussion. With're-
spect to the Association, he thought, with the
Learned Solicitor General, that it was not strictly
illegal, but he thought it both injurious and -im-
politic. Hewas always averse to irresponsible
bodies, and though he was not surprised at the
feeling which must have created such a Society,
a desire to diminish the libellous system which
had acquired of late such an extensive influence,
he still thought the principle most pernicious..
Mr. SCARLETT said it became him to make a
few observations. He remembered a person at
the Sessions who always supported his law-, by
laying a bet that no one could deny it. - His
Learned Friend had not gone to that extent.—
Nevertheless his Learned Friend had declaie4.l
the law in a low tone. His opinion -was; it was
-an illegal Association. It was unconstitutional,
for the reasons stated by those Hon. Membeni
who opposed it..
The House then received the Report of the
Committee of Supply, and Mr. BROGDEN took
the Chair.

Mr. Ilumn, in consequence of the lateness' of
lie hour, moved to postpone the proceedings -till
:o-morrow, 'which 'motion, after a few words
'mom• the'Marquess of Londonderry, was agreed
Lo. •