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 tookt
the case
'ant of the hands of the police officers, end brough it to
Castle-yard. Such was the fact; It was not only 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 ecummulas aliis. The Right lion. Gentleman
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 were
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 artenthp 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 by Jury" said
illackdone, or. 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,