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

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 epFoird 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