Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VI.

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS.

The Constitutional Association.—The Ionian Islands, and Sir Thomas Maitland.-Grant to the Duke of Clarence.-Proceedings at Manchester.—Bishop of Peterborough's Examination Questions.-Libel in John Bull Newspaper-Dissolution of Parliament.

We shall conclude our account of the present session with some detached proceedings, which could not with propriety be included under any of the above general heads.

The licentiousness of the press had of late been loudly and repeatedly complained of, and had, indeed, during the course of the proceedings against the Queen, risen to an almost unprecedented height. The observation of it gave rise to a measure, as to the expediency of which some doubts may be entertained. A number of distinguished individuals, attached to administration, but not connected with it, formed themselves into an association for the purpose of prosecuting publications deemed libellous against state or church. The danger was, that such an association, or rather the officers to whom its concerns were intrusted, having prosecution for their especial charge, would be disposed to press to the utmost extent a measure which, on the contrary, it were desirable to contract within the narrowest eligible limits.

The assuming into the hands of individuals a function which naturally belongs to the executive government, though it could not, under the circumstances, be deemed an unconstitutional encroachment, seems yet to detract from the weight and dignity of the crown, and to imply an insinuation, as if it did not possess energy sufficient for the support of its own rights. If the society, indeed, could take off from government the odium which such proceedings, even when necessary, can with difficulty escape, they might be considered as acting generously; but we rather suspect, that, while the odium of a prosecution under this form is greater, it will all in the end light on the government, in whose cause, and under whose understood approval, the measure is undertaken.

This subject was brought repeatedly before the House, partly upon motions by Mr Brougham, and Mr S. Whitbread, partly by petitions from individuals who had become the objects of prosecution.

Mr Brougham, on the 23d May, said he did not mean to contend that, by law, this right was vested solely in the Solicitor and Attorney-General, for he held that, by law, any man could proceed against another for a public offence. After the many associations which had existed for the prosecution of felonies, it would be hard to raise a question with respect to their strict legality. But the proceedings of these associations had always been confined to the prosecution of felonies, or of those odious crimes which came more immediately under the cognizance of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, which, at the time of its establishment, was strongly objected to, on the ground of its impropriety, but with respect to which, he wished to be understood to give no decided opinion. The Society for the Suppression of Vice, however, by confining itself to the object of its institution, and connecting itself with no party, had done less mischief than had been apprehended at the time of its establishment, and had even effected some good. But there was a society now in existence, of a perfectly different nature, which meant to proceed to the prosecution of political offences, to be selected at the discretion of political feeling. The prosecutions were to be conducted by means of a common fund, and no person of respectability could be fixed upon as immediately responsible for the acts of the society. He did not mean to say there were no respectable individuals connected with the association. He knew, indeed, that there were many most respectable persons connected with it, to whom, on the present occasion, he wished to address himself only in the language of expostulation. He believed that many persons had entered into this association, without see

ing how likely it was to be perverted to improper objects-without being aware that they were lending the credit of their names to proceedings, of which, if they did not hereafter repent, he, knowing their sound constitutional principles, should be surprised. Hitherto the office of prosecuting for offences, to which this society professed to oppose itself, had been vested in the Attorney-General, who was open to the influence of public opinion, which restrained him in the exercise of a very high, and, if not coupled with responsibility, a very dangerous political power. Indeed, by many persons, it had been deemed too high a power to be intrusted to any individual, however responsible for the exercise of his trust. But here was a set of individuals, under the name of a Constitutional Association, proposing to exercise the functions of the law-officers of the Crown, without any responsibility whatever. Mr Brougham afterwards complained that the association was not satisfied with convictions-with the surrender upon oath of the dangerous stocks of the venders of seditious publications, and with expressions of contrition to Mr J. B. Sharp; but the parties were required to enter into an engagement never again to drive the same trade! Now, here he must protest against a society of this sort attempting to erect a jurisdiction of its own, as it were, to indict sundry persons whom it might choose to proceed against; and then threatening the party with all those further measures which could be resorted to by an association backed by ample funds, and supported by all those powerful names which it put forth. The person proceeded against, was menaced with ruin if he held out; for defence would amount to ruin with such an association; and the party could have nothing else to look to, unless he came forward and express

ed contrition to Mr J. B. Sharp, at No. 6, Bridge-street, Blackfriars; and unless, too, he gave up his whole stock of libellous and seditious publications; and even this would not avail him, without taking an oath to do so no more. Not the least evil of that association was, the circumstance of its numbering among its members about 40 peers of the realm, who were thus lending their names to a set of men capable of using them for these purposes; for he was far from supposing that those noble individuals, in so doing, were aware of the consequences of such a permission; which was, that, in the end, they were to be the judges in the last resort of those who were to be prosecuted by such attorneys as these men were. He afterwards declared that he thought it was not legal to go to a man's shop, and say to him, "If you don't agree to certain terms, Iwill indict you. If you do not admit your guilt, give up your property to us, who have no right to ask it, and who cannot take it without violating the law,-If you do not, besides all this, take an oath never to repeat that which we pronounce to be a legal offence, we will inflict legal vengeance upon you, and you must endure the consequence." To do this, was to act more like a robber than anything else-more like a violator, than a protector of the law. This he held to be illegal. If this was the law of England, he had not so studied it; if it was a part of the constitution, he did not understand it. If these proceedings were to be supported by peers, who might ultimately have to pronounce upon them judicially, then all he could say was, that there never was an association put down as illegal, half so much to be reprobated as this society-this terror to all good men, commonly known by the name

of the " Bridge-street Gang." There were, however, many persons belonging to the society for whom, individually, he entertained a very high respect. To those he should prefer using the language of expostulation, rather than that of reproach. He believed they had been drawn into the society by designing persons-that they were the tools of others, for whom no one could possibly feel any respect. "Church and state," " social order," and "sacred institutions," were fine phrases; but, in the present instance, they meant that it was necessary that a parcel of individuals should swell their own purses, by using those of other people.

Mr Scarlett also urged, that the effect of this society's labours was, in fact, to libel the Attorney-General. They implied that that officer had not been sufficiently vigilant, and that the society, therefore, undertook to remedy his defect of duty. Now, what would be said of a private gentleman, who should go about the country indicting offences, committed, not against his interests, but against the interests of the public? What an extraordinary thing this would be!-a sort of perambulating Attorney-General! In the cases in which the Constitutional Association interfered, the prosecutors were unknown, no names were avowed, and some of them might be upon that very special jury which would have to try the offence charged against the defendant. There was no person who had considered the question in a legal or constitutional point of view, who would not concur in condemning such an association. He afterwards urged,-Suppose a society were formed to conduct excise prosecutions, and another for customs, and a third for other departments, let the House consider the state in which society would become invol

ved: the nation would be cast into parts, and every individual employed in hunting down his neighbour.

Mr S. Whitbread conceived that the association was opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and had a tendency to corrupt justice at its source. The legislature was bound to protect the people from acts of oppression. He trusted the House would not shut its eyes to the proceedings of the association, because it acted under the mask of law, and was patronized by peers, old women, and his Majesty's ministers. The two attorneys, Sharp and Murray, wished to become prosecutors for the public, 'and to dispense with the exertions of the Attorney and the Solicitor-General. He trusted that all persons of respectability, who had without due reflection become members of the association, would withdraw their support from it. If, as he had reason to believe, there were any persons present, who had become new subscribers or share-holders in the concern, he hoped they would dissolve their connexion with it, before they became bankrupts in reputation. The association might be compared with the inquisition of Spain: it was nothing more than an inquisition on the press. He acknowledged the power of the press, when employed in a good cause; but when used for a bad purpose, he thought it operated as a cure for its own evil. The association pursued its victims by a system of treachery and deceit ; and if suffered to exist, he knew of no greater evil that could afflict the state.

On the other side, the SolicitorGeneral would take it upon himself to say, that in that society there was nothing illegal, or at all contrary to the spirit of the constitution. If this were contrary to law, he should be glad to know who were the judges of the law-whether that House or the

ordinary judges of the land? Was the House to believe that the association of persons for the prosecution of offences against the law, was in itself a violation of that law? He maintained that such an association was not illegal; of the policy of it he was not giving any opinion, but he challenged his learned friends to say that it was illegal to prosecute persons guilty of the crime of libel. It had. been said, that the Attorney-General might if he pleased enter a nolle prosequi to the indictments of the society. He did not profess to be in the secrets of the society; but he had been informed by a learned friend who sat near him in the court the other day, that there were two cases of the most atrocious libel against the Sovereign; and he would ask whether those were cases in which a nolle prosequi ought to have been entered by the Attorney-General?

Mr Bathurst thought it was improbable that the society could have originated from the selfish schemes of a few professional individuals. Had the association originated in this manner, it never would have been able to attract so much notice. The very circumstance of its having been alluded to so frequently in that House, proved that the society had done, and was doing, a great deal,-of good or evil, he would not pretend to say. He was of opinion, that the more the attention of the country was directed towards the society, by the discussions in that House, the more the subscribers to it would increase. At the time of the French Revolution, a society of a similar nature to the present was allowed to exist, and gave rise to no doubts as to its legality. The society to which he alluded obtained the sanction of an eminent legal authority, first in his place in the House of Peers, and afterwards in his judicial character on the bench.

Another eminent legal authority, Lord Kenyon, had also given an opinion in favour of the legality of that society. No single transaction of the association had been considered a fit subject for legal investigation; he thought it unreasonable, therefore, that the House should be called upon to put it down.

The Attorney-General viewed it as a most extraordinary doctrine urged on the other side, that the AttorneyGeneral was the only public prosecutor in the country. If he brought a case of libel into court, he was constantly assailed by the defendant or his counsel with the charge that he was proceeding by an unconstitutional mode that he had filed an information ex officio, instead of leaving it to the ordinary course of indictment, prosecuted by any private individual who might think fit to proceed. In this country there was, in fact, no such officer as public prosecutor; all prosecutions were instituted by individuals, though in the name of the King; and Lord Loughborough, as was well known, in the year 1792, stated, that it was the duty of every member of society to enforce obedience to the law. So far from the Society for the Suppression of Vice being illegal, his lordship at that time, when the press teemed with infamous productions, asserted that those individuals were meritorious in the highest degree who entered into an association for the purpose of suppressing them. The Society for the Suppression of Vice had been instituted as long ago as the year 1787, and its object was, to carry into effect the King's proclamation against vice and immorality; yet, from that day to this, no man had dreamt of attacking it on the ground of illegality. It was very true that the constitution had armed the AttorneyGeneral with a particular power; but

the crime of libel was as well known to the law as any other, and individuals or societies had as much right to prosecute for it as they might for felonies, or for the publication of obscene prints and books. If the Attorney-General instituted a prosecution which terminated unfavourably to him, the party accused had no more remedy against him than it had against this society; and the indictments presented by the latter were at least attended with one advantage to the defendant. If the AttorneyGeneral proceeded ex officio, the information for a libel was filed on his sole opinion; but in cases of indictment by the society, a grand jury intervened, and was called upon to decide whether the publication complained of, was, or was not, a libel. Besides, if Mr Murray or Mr Sharp conducted themselves improperly, the party aggrieved had his remedy against them.

The motions had no result, except that of allowing to the respective parties an opportunity of expressing their opinion.

--

On the 7th June, Mr Hume introduced a motion, censuring the manner in which the Ionian Islands were administered by Great Britain, and particularly the conduct of Sir Thomas Maitland, the governor. The honourable gentleman gave the following view of the system pursued:It was well known that the islands of Zante, Cephalonia, Ithaca, and Cerigo, had been originally conquered by the British arms in 1809; and that of Santa Maura in 1810; and it could not be forgotten that it was not till the year 1815 that they had been formed by the Congress of Vienna into an independent state, under the protection of the King of Great Britain. By that treaty it was determined that they should constitute a single free independent state, with the name

« EelmineJätka »