The Sun.
London, England, 1820-01-10 00:00:00

ings t•-ukers on the part of the persons alleged to
he agerieved or injured by the acts of the ,Maei-
str;,es ? The Honourable and Learned Member
made the absence of such proceedings a ground
tor Portia mentary inquiry ; but was not the fair
itiference irons the absence of such proceedings
this, ileat eo reasonable foundation for them ex-
isted ? But the Grand Jury had thrown out the
bills preferred on b!-half of these persons:—was
tiers ,a'ground for Parliamentary inquiry ? Was it
te,:he isre•utned that the Grand Juiry of the Coun-
ty of Lancaster had violated their oaths ? An ar-
tifice had been teserted to, for the purpose of
renderitog the administt ation of justice suspected
ill the public mind, by publishing the informations
which had been sent up to the Grand Jury ; but
every Geollsman must be aware of the differ-
ence between an information, in which the party
states the facts according to his own views,
and a viva voce examination before the Grand
Juty, in which the entire truth is extracted
from the witnesses. But suppose the Grand
Jet), had erred in ignoring the bills, fresh indict.
merits ht be sellt up to soiy,succeeding (ii' (1(1
Joy Was the entire county of Lancaster to
be pronounjed iucapable or unwilling to exer-
cise such funstions ? But Magrstretes refused
to receive informations—was not their con-
duct rxaminabk in the Court of King's„,Bencle'?
And might, not all the facts connected with such
a transaction be fully examined on affidavits ?
and, if any doubt existed, by a Jury, on en. in-
ferunation under the senct.ou of the Court? ttlas
the Court of King's Bench also to be included
within the ban or this proscription of all the
Constituted Authorities ? But the Honour-
ruble Kntl Learned Member said, that the Centrt
of King's Bench would not interfere, unless-
tee Magistrate acted wilfully ; and that he might
commit an error which would not subject him to
puutshinent was this, then, a ground for Patha-
. uteutary interterence, to stop the course of law,
and subject the
,public functionary to an extreor.
Binary visitation of public vengeance ? Were the
d,fferent points of the arguttuent of the Honour-
able and Learned Afenilser altogether recoecite-
ault When liis object was to.mtike out n case
so important as to call for Parliamentary enquiry,
he stated the conduct of the Magistrates as a dar-
ing violet ion of the subject% privileges, a trietnnh
of authority over law, a foul stain npon our laWs,
forming a black ern' ill the anise', of our country ;
but when it because an object to show that there
:night be a case in which the Courts of L,uw
would be incompetent to investigate the truth,
teen this foul deed, this portentous violation of
the haws and of (lie Constitution, dwindled itee
an error in judgment, too slight and too pirduei-
able to warrant the interference of the Curuirt tit
King's Bette!). Was such an error, if,it dill exist,
lie would ask a case for Parliamentary enquiry ?
Was this the way it) which the condurt,of Meek-
, (rates was to be examined by Parliatnent I He
owned he was not one of those who were dispos-
ed :o exa'inine too criticallythe cundect i,f Magis.;
traces acting in perilous times, under heurvy re-
sp„sibuil ; and awe lie was, that it the befog.
nant pt iociple of the law sluielded their errors, it
was not the province of Perliament to deprive
them of that protection. Further, he would ask,
if any individual was aggrieved, where was the
bar to his remedy by civil acuion, in which the
whole met its of his case would be discussed in a
Court of L'aw, and decided on by a Jury of his
country ? What pretence was there for saying that
jestice had been denied, or even delayed ? Unless
the House was prepared to bring to its bar the.
Grand Jury of Lancuushire—nnless they were pre.
pared to say, that the whole body of Public
Petty Juries, Grand Juries, Magistrates,
and Judges, were linked in one cotnnson conspi-
racy against the peaceable petitioners Who assem-
bled at Manchester on the 16.11 of August—they
haul not ground or principle on which they could
order this inquiry, He d eprecated-such a proceed-
log, as calculated to give efficacy to the plans of
the revolutionary party for the degradation of
the Public Functionaries, and to stamp; with the
authoritative seal of Parkin:Dent, what hitherto
had, rested its vulgar calumny, and in popular
clantour. He believed that such an inquiry,
instead of being calculated, as was alleged, to
allay dissatisfaction, and to conciliate the puislie
mind, could have no other effect than to raise
the hopes and spirits of the Revolutionists, and
to sts ike damp and panic into the been
of every loyal subject. Besides this, the
course was wild and impracticable. How
was this enquiry to be conducted ? At Ilse Bar
of the House, or in a Committee Was this
inquiry to supersede the proceedings already in-
stituted in the- King's Courts ? Or, were the two
classes of proceedings to be carried on simulta-
neously ? It the former was to be the coutse, the
laws were to be lobbed of their authority, and the
subject of his redress, by a proceediets utterly
unsuited to the purposes eithee of punishment (Sr
of compensation. It the latter, we were' to have
the anomalous and unprecedented ineeticle of
pecsotue being tried, on charges affecting their
per oars and properties, perhaps their lives, in
proceedings before Juries, and wiqr witnesses on
oath, in the regular Courts of Law, while • the
very some facts were undergoing it discutssion,
without oath, before the extraeardinety Tribunal
of Parliament. Was it possible that either pub-
lic or individuel justice could be obtained by such
a course, or that any result could he derived frotn
it, aeleolived to maintain the authority of the laws,
or the dignity of Parliament ? Such a proceed•
ire, he must say, appeared to him wild, unpre-
cei!ented, and impracticable. His Honourable
and Learned Friend had adverted to :ace cases as
preeedeets to warrant such a course as that nObv
recommended. The first was a case in the year
1714, in which the House of Lords, for the pur-
pose of proCurieg the removal of the Magistrates
who were 311ppOSt'd to entertaie JACOblikal
ciples, had addressed the Throne for a list ot the
Meeisitates, mint entered into a strict inquiry ; in
entiv•Tienee of which several of the NI ngivra'ri
wete dismisgtql. Was th,ne any ;tie' then deitetut
tog in a Court of Law ? Wes ttie,e ally •Pecifi'
tact that could be it,tptred into a Court of Law
Or :vas it anymore th,itt a procet,iing to ettAile Pda."
liament to advise the Crown, ttith rpTcet to the
holrsome extrrise e>t its retogatise I The seemid
was the ease of the in,irtkr of Pot by the mbh
of Edinburgh, (which had derived much cele•