The Sun.
London, England, 1821-07-04 00:00:00

desi_ription, which went forth with an iiipearaiieli
Of authority. A to the proposition itself, it was
of so extravagant a nature, that it was impossible
to give it the sanction of the house. It was mak.;

ug an attack which the House would never sup-
-4
)ort.

Mr. BROUMIAM and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL
mutually explained.
_ _

Mr. SCARLM- said his -Hon. and Learned.
Friend .had risen for the purpose of- calling him
up, at the same time making. statements offacts
for the mere purpose of making them the_ foun-
dation Of his arguments. e never- had pledged.
himself to. any opinion on the legality: of this
Association. He admitted that he did not Con-
sider the Society legal. Much as he respected
the talent of his Learned Friend, he.W'Ould not,
in compliment to that talent, revoke any opinion
he had once given: He thought this 'Association
usurped the functions of the A ttorney-General:
All offences which -affected the tranquillity of
the State, should be prosecuted by the Goitern-
ment of the country. It was the duty of the
Attorney-General to exercise a discretion whe-
ther the parties. sere to be prosecuted or not
but an Association of men, when they undertook
to prose Cute, usurped that discretion, and their
proceedings were illegal and dangerous.---
For these reasons then, without at' all • con-
sidering the motives of the individuals, he whs
of opinion the Constitutional Society in itself was
unconstitutional, and consequently illegal. He
did not mean to say the-Judges of the land had
decided on the question, indeed he did not know
how they could obtain judgment upon it. He
considered it a Society far the. prosecution' of po-
litical offences which affected the safety and tran-
quillity of the State. Their prosecutions did not
emanate from'persons aggrieved ; but they were.
preferred to benefit the State. Every man had an
interest in the preservation of the State, and the
law did not require an Association to do that
which belonged to the Government alone. Upon
his solemn word, he believed one or more of
the prosecutions that were undertaken by the
Association, would not have been undertaken
by the Attorney-General. The Society for
the Suppression of Vice might abuse the
power they used. In one instance Lord Erskine,
threw. up his brief because the Society obstinately
refused to be governed by his advice. All So-
cietie's prosecuting upon public principles were
dangerous. He did not wish to give any opi-
nions on the law of the land in that House, be-
cause legal opinions in that Assembly were not
always impartial. He did not think any case
'had occurred in the King's Bench to support his
'Learned Friend's opinion. The time might ar-
rive when the Attorney-General would find-he
had not been sufficiently instructed. He felt
this motion could not be supported, and he ex-
pressed a•hope that his Hon. Friend would not
press -it to a diVision, because he should feel
obliged to vote against it.

Mr. DENMAN explained.
Mr. WnrrnnE=to in reply, said nothing he had
heard could convince him this Society ought to
be endured. With respect to Benbow and Dolby,
lie would say. if those persons were acquitted,
and they sued for damages for a malicious pro-
secution they would find J. 13. Sharp had bee.
a bankrupt.
The question was then put and negativeit
without a division.