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

'Ca E STATESMAN

may belated the decline of British liberty.'
however, be more manly at once to abolish this tribunal,
tliati to mock . the .People with the appearaece of that
which they did not in tact possess. lo the opinion of
.Blackstone, was to be added that of Lord Somers. as to
the reverence in which Juries should be held. It was un-
necessary to say that all the a'teuipts to -destroy civil li-
berty in England were first directed to the abolition of
ties trial by Jury. The cases 0f Ernpson and Lord Dudley
should not be omitted. These persons endeavoured to bring
the institution into contempt, which was more criminal than
if they had tried openly to suppress it. Ina British House
of Commons, he did not deem it necessery.tO show by au-
thorities how essential to the liberty of the subject trial by
Jury had been considered. The principle was recognised
hi nit the early Statutes, and enforced by all the writers `Oll
British law. Lord Coke declared that by law no man should
be attacked but through his Peers. Sir Mathew Hale had
stated that the regular and Constitutional mode of proceed-
ing for any offence was by indictment. These authorities,
however, were not to be understood as proving that any
other course was illegal. He would wish to establish the
illegality of ex-officio informations, but he despaired of be-
ing able to de so. But though they were not illegal, he had
no hesitation in saying that they were contrary to the prin-
ciples and reasoning of the British Con.ditution.—(flear.)—
Csage and precedent alone could justify their propriety.—
For in the application of them in this case, be contended
there was a breat want of both. From the Norman Con-
quest to the present time there was no example of an es-
officio information being filed after the bill had been ignored
by the Grand Jury. He denied that the ease of Dudley
More was applicable to the purposes of the Attorney-Gene-
ral. The case referred to was this 1711 a play was
brought out In Dublin. In which King William was ridiculed
in the prologue, but Queen Mary was most extravagantly be-
praised. Queen Anne, jealous of the encoiriums bestowed
upon her predecessor, forbade the reoitatios of the ob-
jectionable appendage to the piece. Dudley More,
who considered this an arbitrary Interference by the
Court, determined that the prologue should not he sup-
pressed, and he accordingly jumped from the hex
upon the stage, and spoke it at length. The
conduct gave much umbrage to the Court, and More
was indicted for a riot. The Grand Jury ignored the
bill, but, by some mistake, 'the foreman wrote upon it
" True bill," instead of„ No bill." In this 'state It was
returned into Court, and the defendant in form called
upon to plead. The Jury, however, soon discovered
their mistake, and making affulatit of the true.state of
the case in Court, the bill was gnashed: The Attorney-
General, however, said he was endued a ith powers of
still bringing the defendant to trial, end he accordingly
filed an ex-yeeio information. Between this filing, how-
ever, and the trial, the Irish House of Commons Met, and
as the affair bore the semblance of oppressiiin, edam
party man—as lie (Mr. B.) would possibly be called,
moved for the appointment of a Committee to inquire
whether this course was warranted by precedent. The
Committee reported that there was no case on record in
which an ex-officio infonnation had been filed, after the
Grand Jury bad ignored the bill. So far, therefore,
from this being a case in point for the Attorney-General,
it was rather a beataaa to warn off the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman from 4sursuiug such a course. Any extraordinary
powers with which the Attorney-General was armed, lie
ought to have exercised in tenderness to the subject ra-
ther than in oppressing him. The charge then against
the Attorney-General was that of having adopted a harsh,
unconstitetional, and unprecedented course of proceed.
Jug, which tended to the oppression of individuals, and
to the injury of the cause of public justice.—(lfear
it did not hallow, however, that because au todirional
bad a right of preferring a second indictment against
fellow subject, that the same power should be enjoyed
by the Crown. There was in the proceedings of private
Individuals a degree of responsibility which did not at-
tech to the Attorney-General. The abuse of the prera-
tredve had proved the ruin-of Charles the First aril James
the Second. In this case if it was nut applied illegallf,
be should contend that it was administered to the op-
pression of the subject. Hut the yeestion was not,
whether this proceeding was legal or not, lint whether it
would have been resorted to iu this country ?—(l4ar !)
He called upon the Law Officers of England to state how
they would act under these circumstances. Suppose his
Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was to
go to the theatre; theta party of Englishmen, who are
sometimes impudent enough to think for themselves,
should be of opinion that the cause of Spain bad not been
sufficiently attended to by him; that having met at a
coffee-house near Covent-garden, they had agreed not to
assassinate, but to hiss the Hou. Secretary from the
house, or even to do some act which would, if possible,
drive him from his Majesty's councils; that a hill of in-
dictment was preferred to the Grand Jury, and ignored ;
Would an English Attorney-General veld ere to file an ex-
officio information afterwards, whatever commands he
had received to do so?—((lsar, hear.) lie certainly
would not, for be dared nut, as it might be as much as
his situation or perhaps his life was worth, to appeal from
the decision of a Grand Jury. Why, then, should things
be managed otherwise in Ireland—why should that which
would be most improper and intolerable here, be consi-
dered at the other side of the Channel as just and legal ?
Having said thus much, lie supposed the House would be
glad to hear that he was drawing to a conclusion.—
(Hear.) If, in the course of the observations he had
made, he had spoken in warm and unmeasured tone, be
wished to apologise for them. It was his duty to draw
the attention of the House to what he conceived to be an
act of arbitrary and oppressive interference on the part
of his Majesty's Attorney-General; and in the. dis-
cussion of such. a subject, lie had not an entire controul
ever his feelings. He had never spoken to any Irish-
man, either Catholic or Protestant, who did not ex-
press the wannest intligna.don at Hies... measures' and he
was sure that if the same impression was not tnade upon
a British House of Commons in a cause vitally interest-
ing to British liberty, it was attributable less to the good-
ness of the cause, than his ability to do the subject jus-
tice.—(Hear, hear.) The Lion. Member concluded by
moving,
" That it appears to this House that the conduct of the
Attorney-General of Ireland, in regard to the persons,
charged with a riot at the Theatre-Royal, Dublin, un the'
14th of December last, mote particularly by putting theta
upon their trial on an ex-efficie information, atter bills
of indictment had been ignored by. the Guild Jury, was
unwise, contrary to the practice, and not congenial to
the spirit of the British Constitution, and ought not,
therefore, to he drawn into a precedent hereafter."
The motion having been secotiderl,
Mr. PLUNKETT rose. The House, he said, would not
be surprised at his feeling some degree of embarrassment
in offering himself to their notice, under the circumstances
in which he was at that moment placed. He had 11,teneti
with attention to the statement of the Hon. Member who
had just sat down, and shared in common with every Gen-
tleman present, the pleasure derived from a display of so
much good feeling and ability. Hit wished to be the first to
otkr his mend of admiration of the manner is which that
Hon. Member had laid his it so before the House; but in-
stead of accepting his apology for any iiiiliscretion of which
he supposed himself guilty, it eppeareil to hilts (Mr. P.) that
under all the circumstances, die Hon. Member was rather
emitted to praise for his moderation, than censure for his
warmth of expression. Bet whilst he thus gave him the
due acknowledgment of hie merit, ne had to complain to the
House that the lion. Member hail taken too wide a field,
and indulged in too great a latitude of observation in bring-
ing his charge against the theisidual who now, tool before
them ; for lie appealed to the justice of every lion. Member
who heard him, whether, in preferring a specific charge of
having abused the prerogative of his office, by filing an es.
officio information for a particular uffenie, after a Grand
Jury hid ignored the bill, it was fair to involve him 111 all the
odium and constitutional unpoptilaety to whi At the appli-
t
Landon of sects Wl:kiwi, was at any tiateesposed. The lion.
lileghber had arraigned the right of the Crown under any
*gagotttnees.to Ma an ez-offtelo Information, and his ar.

gement was Intended to shear that • no case could art
in which he iaterferenee of the Crown by ex-officio,
or. of the. Court of Ning's Bench bt criminal information,
could be justified' without a prostration of that bar-
rier between the prerogative of the Crown and the rights
of the people, which his eloquence had been for some
time employed in erecting. Ile would prove that no trial
should take place criminally without the intervention of a
Grand Jury. With this doctrine, he (Mr. P.)%wai not
now going to struggle, he only Wished at present to protest
against beteg committed to all the edium which attended
ex-offitio informations from their first institution. lie
wished the Hon. Member and the House to understand
that he was not guilty of importing to this country so
dangerous a prerogative, nor could he charge himself
with producing any bad effect on the laws of England, by
the example wuich he had set of its applicier•in in the
sister country. • The power of filing such Liforinwion
was known to the British la* keg before either his
name had been beard of, or his public acts taken notice
of. Of all the legal institutions of the country there was
no principle of wore decided legality, or decided anti-
quity, than this. Ile did not mean to say, that the prin-
ciple, if objectionable, derived any additional sanction
from its long. stinding • but lie could not help exerers-
log his surprise, that if it was so very contrary to the
spirit of the Constitution, the experieuce of a thousand
years should not have opened the eyes of our ancestors
to the propriety of dispensing with it. Perhaps it ought
to be dispensed with; he was not arguing whether it
ought or not; but he asked why was lie to be. selected as
the object on which all its unpopularity was to be visited?
Or why his name was to be couplA with that of Jeffries,
of ladamous memory ; or E !titian and Dudley, whose
lives covered their own herds with thaw, and brought
misery upon their country. Lt was bard that all time er-
rors of a thouransl years should ho visited upon him, and
that, after so long an experieuee, Grand Jury of the
county of Armagh should address their Member cow, fur
the first time, to call the legality tit this institution into
question. He (Mr. P) was bound to say that, in the ma-
nagement of this ipestion, the Hun. Member had shown
a dexterity which he could not help admiring. 'Syrinx-
log it up with the rights of lir mud Juries, awl the re-
moval of the harrier tietweeu the throne and the people,
he had touched a chord to which every British heart mast
respond. flat did he mean to say that there was no other
mode of criminal procee liug, lin through the tnediurn
of a (hand Jury? That this war the most constitutional
caurse to pursue, he (Mr. P.) admitted, and he agreed
with the Hon. Member th.it no conduct on the part of so
rispectable a public body could warrant Jeffertes in time
observations which be addressed to them. But could tie
deny that it was possib!e fir one ni in to du his duty,
without questioning the tnauiier in which any other man
or set of men did theirs? lie called upon the How
Member to say whether, when the Grand Jury returned
with their decision into Court, al. bough that decision
filled hint, the Court, and the aadienee with wonder, he
at all charged them with not having done their duty.
Ile expressed a hope that they bail dose their duty,
but declared his resotutioo of doing hi., a resolution to
which, with llou's help, he would adhere. After all that
he had beard, and' notwithstanding the numerous and
powerful party by which his actiour had been criticised,
he could. not yet persuade himself that he Lid done any
thing contrary to Law or the Coustitution. Under these
circumstances, then, he threw himself upon the honour
of the Honourable Member and the House, whether it
was fair to compare his address to the Grind Jury to the
disgusting Billiugrgate,with which Jetferies reprinum! ni
the Grand Jury iu the cause alluded to? —(hear.) Ibe
moderation of • Jefferies in somtdiug bills three several
times to time Juty, had been talked of, but was it re-
collect:A that he could then file an es-officio i-formetion,
for be was not then Attorney-General, but Judge.—
(Hear, hear.) Another complains which he bail to
make was, that the lion. elember had been explicit
enough in stating his charge. If the gist of it was for
eon:inkling the prisoners nu the capital charge, and try-
ing them tor a misileineauour,why put in the word " par-
ticularly." The Hou. Member had not offered any rti.
dence to snpport his charge of intention, oa his (Mr.
P.'s) part, but he would not shelter himself behind this
deficiency in the case, but would sate openly what his
own conduct had been. He was ready to take all the
responsibility on himself of having advised tbe Magis-
trates to that committal, though for their acts, the
Magistrates alone were responsible. The proper place
to try that question would be in a court of law ; and
an Attorney-General was not answerable to Parliament
for any advice be might have given to Magistrates. The
Honourable Member hail said that no matt should be
committed on a capital charge, unless there was enough to
justify bringing time mail to trial, the Magistrate would be
warranted in committing Mtn. The attack upon the
Lord-Lieutenant had been treated too lightly ; there was
no doubt, if the bottle struck him, but it wnula have
taken away his life. He (Mr. P.) considered this au
atrocious outrage, but lie never thought that it afforded
ground for a capital charge. One of the individuals taken
up expressed his regret that the attempt was not success-
ful. This man, with the two others row e immediately con-
cerned in throwing the but and rattle, were the only
persons detained in custody. He did cot, however, allude
to these particulars, from any consciousness of a necessity
tu answer the case made out by the lion. Member, but tu
show that he had not given his advice on light grounds.
The first thing be wished to do, and he begged the atteu•
tion in particular of the Country Gentlemen to this part
of the case, was to state the law with respect to the power
of Grand Juries. lie hoped to be able to satisfy every Mete'
ber present, that to whatever respect the conduct of Greed
Jurors was in general entitled, it was by no means a no-
velty to question time propriety of their decisions. The
Hon. Member had admitted that the power was in the
Attorney-General of bringing en intormation after a
bill had been ignored by a Grand Jury. However,
after every newspaper and every placard had rung
again with the illegality of such a proceeding, he should
not be content to rest on the admission of the Hon. Mem-
ber. First, lie took it that no point of law was more
clearly ascertained than that the ignoring of a bill, by
a Grand Jury was no bar to a proceeding by indicttuent
again ; ant new bills might be preferred again and
again, as long as the Growl Jury chose to ignore the
preceding bill ; and that without any disparagement to
their conduct. lie took it also to be clear that for certain
purposes, the proceeding by information was as old as
the Constitution itself. The books all concurred in re-
presenting it to be a form of proceeding vested in the offi-
cers of time Croon, in order to guard against a failure of
plaice, in consequence of the defects of the ordinary pro-
cesses. In ancient times the prerogatives were executed
by the known Officers of the CAlwn, the Attiroey-Geoe-
rid and the Master of the Cr iwn Office. The informa-
tions by the Attorney-General were for offences against
the,Crown ; those by the other Officer for offences of
an inferior nature. 'limy had separate departments, but
the right to tile informations was co-extensive. So mat-
ters continued until the Revolution. The Honourable
Gentleman seemed to think that these processes belonged
rather to the spirit of the Star Chamber. But what was
the fact? Wh-n the Star Chamber was abolished, and in
the heat of all the jealousies excited by the existence of that
tribunal, the proceeding by ietortuation was re-established.
Titus it ocnitinued until time 4th and oth of William the Third,
when an Act was passed for the new modelling of the power
of tiling those informations. The Act underwent long dis-.
cussion, during which a conference between the two Houses •
of Parliament was held. By this Act the Master of the'
Crown Mike was disabled from filing informations, except
by the authority of time Court of King's Bench. But by that
very same Aot, and at the very time when the spirit of the
country against all institutions Incompatible with liberty
was at its very heightb—by that Act the power of the Atter;
egy-General to the infoneetions was again deliberately ra
Inch The power qf thq Master et the Croeni pace being