for him, generally confined themselves to a dry detail of the facts in support of the prosecution. In treason, it was true, a prisoner had the advantage of counsel to address the jury, because there it was supposed he might be exposed to a formidable weight of power; and the law, therefore, fenced him round with privileges, the better to enable him to prepare his defence: but to extend the same mode of proceeding to other cases, would be a waste of the public time. There was also a strong objection to the form of the bill; for, though it empowered the court to assign counsel, it provided no fund out of which they should be paid.

Sir James Macintosh, in reply, admitted, that the general proceedings of the courts of justice in this country were perfectly irreproachable; but he was much surprised that the solicitor-general should have argued this question, as if the proposed bill were one which had been tried, and had operated unfavourably for a prisoner. His hon. and learned friend very well knew, that, before the statute of William 3rd, allowing counsel in cases of treason, the law refused counsel to prisoners in all criminal cases. The statute of William was the first good fruit which grew out of the Revolution. Its benefit was universally felt as a safeguard for the subject; and he was at a loss to conceive, why the same advantage which accrued to a prisoner, in cases of treason, out of this privilege, would not also be felt in the same manner in other cases. It was remarkable, that all the arguments, used by his honourable and learned friend against the mo

He

tion, had been employed at the time of passing the statute of William, with the boldest metaphors and the most startling hyperboles. He thought, that, if this measure were tried, it would be found serviceable instead of injurious. There was a broad distinction between what a judge would do in behalf of a prisoner, and what his counsel might. That, which it would be the duty of a counsel to do for his client, would be criminal if done on the part of a judge. His hon. and learned friend had argued this question, as if there were no experience of the operation of such a bill elsewhere he had overlooked the invariable practice of Scotland, where any prisoner might have the advantage of counsel. (sir J. M.) did not confer this privilege, to enable criminals to have a better chance of escaping; for their escape he thought the greatest slur upon the practice of the law; and to prevent it, had always been his aim in his attempts to reform the criminal code: his object was, not that these should escape, but that the innocent should have a better protection. The utmost that could result from agreeing to this measure would be, that a greater number of guilty persons would be convicted, which must be regarded as a good and not as an evil. The whole of the doctrines, which his learned friend contended for, were irreconcilable with the advantages which were contemplated by the statute of William; and they proceeded on the supposition, that that act, instead of being beneficial to persons charged with high treason, was, in fact, detrimental to them.

Sir J. Yorke remarked, that the

hon. gentlemen, who supported the bill, left out of their consideration one point, which he conceived to be very valuable to the country-namely, "time." Suppose a counsel to be "boring" on one side of a case for two hours, and his opponent to be "bothering" for a like period on the other (and he never knew any of those gentlemen, who would not insist on his full portion of time), what must be the consequence? The solicitor-general had stated that 3,000 capital cases were tried in a year; and, allowing counsel four hours to each case, it gave a total of 12,000 hours. Then it would be necessary to have a double allowance of judges and jurors; and even with that double allowance, they would be under the necessity of keeping watch and watch.

The bill was negatived without a division.

Mr. Kennedy, on the 14th of February, directed the attention of the House to several supposed defects in the administration of justice in Scotland, and particuJarly to the faulty mode of constituting the juries in all criminal cases except treason. The established practice, he stated to be as follows:-From each county, a list of 45 persons is, previously to the circuit, returned by the sheriff to the justiciary office at Edinburgh; and from these lists of all the counties contributory to each circuit town, containing altogether 90, 135, or 180 names, according as there may be 2, 3, or 4 contributory counties, the judge selects 45 who compose the grand assize. These 45 persons appear in court on the day of trial; no challenge can there be made to the array;

and from them 15 are selected by the judge to try the particular case. The remedy which Mr. Kennedy proposed was, 1st, That the jury should be constituted by ballot: 2ndly, That the prosecu tor and prisoner should each have a right to three peremptory challenges. These alterations were certainly very moderate, and no doubt can be entertained, but that they would be improvements. The objection to them was, that no inconveniences were felt from the present system; and as the government and law officers of Scotland showed a determi. nation to resist the proposed changes, Mr. Kennedy deemed it vain to press forward his mea

sure.

The greater part of the provisions of the act of William III., relative to trials for treason, had been long ago extended to Ireland; but there were still two of its regulations, the benefit of which was not enjoyed by that part of the empire; namely, one requiring an act of treason to be proved by two credible witnesses, and the other, that a prosecution for treason must take place within three years after the commission of the treasonable act. A bill was passed, under the auspices of lord Holland, extending these provisions to Ireland. Yet the common appeal to experience might have been made here, as well as in the case of Scotch juries; for it might have been affirmed, that no practical oppression had ensued from the imperfections of the Irish law of treason.

A commission had been appointed in 1815, to inquire into the state of English courts of justice. No more important subject

of investigation existed; and perhaps no one, on which political sagacity and virtue could be better exercised. Our courts, with their various forms and offices, were the growth of barbarous times; and it would, indeed, be strange, if modern experience and wisdom could not suggest changes of arrangement better adapted to the new state of things which has gradually risen up. The inquiry, however, had hitherto produced no benefit; it had occasioned much expense; the only return made for which consisted of four reports. On the 9th of May, sir John Newport embodied the principal facts with respect to the mode, in which the inquiry had been conducted, in the following resolutions :

1. "That it appears, from returns laid before this House, that the commission to inquire into the state of the English courts of justice, appointed by his majesty on the 9th February 1815, in compliance with their address of the 28th of June, 1814, was composed of five commissioners, two of whom were masters in chancery; and that they have been compensated for their services by an annual payment of 1,200l. to each commissioner, amounting on the 9th Feb. 1820 to 30,000l., exclusive of the payment of the secretary, and other incidental charges, and of a further sum of 6,000. due to the said commissioners on the 9th of Feb. of the present year.

2.That the commissioners have delivered in four reports; the first, on the court of Chancery, 9th April 1816; the second, a very small supplementary report on the same court, 20th Dec. 1817; the third, on the King's

bench, 5th Jan. 1818; and the fourth, on the court of Commonpleas, 3rd July, 1819.

3. "That it appears, by the statement of the lord chancellor to the secretary of state for the home department, on the 17th March last, that his lordship has adopted some measures, as detailed in that statement, for carrying into effect some of the recommendations contained in the report of the commissioners upon the court of Chancery; and that, in other instances, those recommendations appear to his lordship to require much further consideration, to which consideration (with the advice and assistance of the master of the rolls, and eventually of others of the judges) his lordship now proposes, at the expiration of five years from the period of its delivery, to submit the whole of the report.

4. "That the chief justices of the King's-bench and Commonpleas, in their several statements of the 5th and 6th of March last, acquaint the secretary of state, that their lordships attention had not been in any manner called to the recommendations contained in the reports on their courts, nor had those reports been officially made known to them; which reports had been delivered in by the commissioners, on the 5th Jan. 1818, and the 3rd July 1819, to the office under the control of the secretary of state for the home department.

5.That this House views with extreme regret the slowness in its progress of a commission instituted for such important objects, and prosecuted at considerable public expense; the obstructions which the commis

sioners appear to experience in their inquiries, from the reluctance manifested by some of the officers of the court of Exchequer to deliver the returns called for, and to facilitate the execution of the commission, as detailed by the commissioners; the very protracted period of time to which the consideration of some of the measures recommended for regulation of the court of Chancery, and generally of the whole report thereon, has been deferred; and above all, and as highly censurable, the manner in which the two reports on the King's-bench and Common-pleas have been withheld from the notice of the judges of those courts, by those public officers who were officially bound to submit them to their consideration."

The attorney-general, in opposing the resolutions, defended the conduct of the commissioners, and exculpated the chancellor from the charge of remissness. It was, he said, no matter of imputation on the commissioners, that the reports had not been sent to the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common Pleas; for by the very words of the commission they were to return them into the Petty-bag-office. It was the secretary of state, who ought to have transmitted them to the heads of these two courts; and he had omitted to do so in the belief, that they had been forwarded from some other quarter. The first four resolutions were negatived without a division: on the fifth the House divided, when the Ayes were 56, the Noes, 72. In the months of November and December in the preceding year, the licentiousness of the press had been carried far beyond

its usual limits. Newspapers, placards, pamphlets, and caricatures, of the most filthy and odious description, were exposed to sale in every street, alley, and lane, of the metropolis, and circulated thence, though in less profusion, yet with great activity, to the most distant parts of the kingdom. This evil was alluded to in several of the loyal addresses; and many private indi viduals occupied themselves in devising legal means to correct it. At length, on the 12th of December 1820, some gentlemen met together in London, to consider of the propriety of forming an association, on constitutional principles, similar to that set on foot in 1792, for supporting the laws, for suppressing seditious publications, and for defending the country from the fatal influence of disloyalty and sedition. This was immediately resolved to be done; and a committee was appointed to draw up a general statement of the views and objects of the proposed society. On the 16th, the committee made a report, which was ordered to be printed, and was discussed article by article on the 21st and 22nd of December; on which last day the substance of it was adopted as an address. This address was considered so moderate and sound in its principles, that great numbers of persons of distinction quickly came forward to countenance the association with their names, and to support it with their pecuniary contributions. Considering that many venders of seditious works did so in ignorance of the law which prohibits such an offence, the society caused to be drawn up a brief "Exposition of the English law

of Libel," which they distributed to every dealer in pamphlets, newspapers, and caricatures, as a warning of the danger which he was incurring. Many yielded to the admonition thus given, and withdrew from an infamous traffic, which was likely to bring on them disagreeable conseBills of indictment quences. were preferred against those who persisted in it; and several of them were glad to purchase the lenity of the association by acknowledging their guilt, engaging to abstain from similar practices for the future, and paying the costs which had been incurred. The cases, which the society selected for prosecution, were of so flagrant a kind, that no reasonable person could doubt of the criminality of the accused.

The exertions of the association were certainly useful: yet it must be admitted, that such an institution is particularly liable to abuse. From the necessary vagueness of the libel-law in a free country, it is scarcely possible in the keenness of ardent discussion to avoid coming under its lash; and it is only the responsibility of the officers of the crown, and their reverence for public opinion, that gives the subject an assurance, that the law will not be enforced, except in cases where its spirit as well as letter is in fringed, and the public safety is concerned. There lies, therefore, a strong objection against prosecutions for public offences by any persons except the authorized and accountable representatives of the executive power. Accordingly, there soon arose a strong feeling adverse to the association, even among persons of whose attachment to the constitution no doubt

could be entertained: and many, not satisfied with disapproving of it as inexpedient and too liable to abuse, even went so far as to pronounce it an illegal combination. Mr. Brougham took an opportunity, on the 23rd of May, of directing the attention of the House of Commons to its proceedings; insisting strongly upon the danger of prosecutions conducted by means of a common fund, and against individuals selected at the discretion of political prejudice. A few nights afterwards he again adverted to it, and exposed with sarcastic severity the absurdity and presumptuousness of a circular letter addressed by the secretary to the magistracy of the kingdom. The hon. and learned gentleman commented in strong language on the unconstitutional nature of the society, reprobating its proceedings as illegal, and as tending to poison the sources of justice, by destroying the impartiality of juries. Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Warre agreed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Brougham. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, most strenuously contended for the legality of the proceedings adopted by the society; and, whilst he carefully avoided saying a word on the policy or impolicy of it, pledged his credit, as a lawyer, that it was, in its formation, both legal and constitutional.

From the time when notice was thus taken of the proceedings of the association, its activity slackened considerably; and as often as it was incidentally mentioned in parliament, theOpposition were unmeasured in their reprobation, while the ministers cautiously avoided undertaking its defence. At length on the 3rd of July,