of investigation existed; and perhaps no one, on which political Bagacity and virtue could be better exercised. Our courts, with their various forms and offices, were the growth of bar barous 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 6,000l. 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 bas 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 reluct ance 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 cen'surable, 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 individuals 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 iofluence 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

quences.

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 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 infringed, 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 opportu nity, 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, the Opposition were unmeasured in their reprobation, while the ministers cautiously avoided undertaking its defence. At length on the 3rd of July,

Mr. S. Whitbread moved an address to his majesty, praying that he would be pleased to direct the attorney-general to enter a noli prosequi upon all indictments preferred by the society. Mr. B. Bathurst opposed the motion; expressing his conviction that the association had done much good; and, for proof of its legality, appealing to the numerous combinations existing in the country of private persons, for the prosecution of various felonies, and laying particular stress on the example of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. Dr. Lushington spoke in support of the motion with much force. To compare, said he, the association in question with the associations instituted for the prosecution of felonies, was a violent outrage upon common sense for all such associations confined their prosecutions to offences committed against their individual members. Mr. Bathurst had asked, " supposing a subscriber to one of these associations to be upon a grand jury, would he not be justified in finding a true bill against any individual whom there was sufficient evidence to implicate?" To this question Dr. Lushington answered, that a subscriber to one of these associations might be justified in finding a true bill against an offender, because with regard to robberies and burglaries there could only be one opinion-they were moral offences, of which there could be no doubt, and upon which men could decide, without being liable to the influence of undue passion or par tiality. But how stood the fact with regard to political crimes? Were they crimes upon which doubts never existed? Or were

they not crimes, upon which individuals differed most widely? Were there not cases on record, in which one jury bad acquitted, and another jury had convicted, one and the same publication of libel? To place a member of the Constitutional Association upon a grand jury, would lead with a moral certainty to the conviction, in the first resort, of any individual against whom that association might think proper to present an indictment: for the affairs of the association were conducted, or at least professed to be conducted, by a committee selected by the members at large; every member might therefore be sup posed to have some confidence in the committee, which he had himself assisted to appoint, and would naturally be inclined to follow up that confidence, by sending any individual, against whom the committee had instituted a prosecution, to the courts of the country to endure a trial. There was another circumstance connected with this society, which he had also viewed with grief and astonishment. It had compelled the judges of the land to step out of their way, and to direct, that every juryman, who ascended into the box to decide upon the seve ral prosecutions which it had instituted, should answer upon oath to the question, whether he was, or was not, one of its members. The court of King's-bench, perplexed by the unexampled nature of this association, had been compelled to make a new precedent, in order to preserve justice. Let the House contrast the situation of this society with that of the individuals whom it selected for its victims. On one side was a society with large, he

had almost said unlimited, funds at its command, for the purpose of prosecution; and therefore able to afford fees to counsel and other necessary expenses, even though no further additions were to be made to its resources, which he was sorry to say was not likely to be the case, as he had that day seen among the subscriptions, a gift of 300l. from lord Powerscourt. On the other side were poor and needy individuals, involved in ruin and imprisonment by the mere institution of the numerous prosecutions, which this society had cominenced. Now, supposing one of these individuals to be fortunate enough to free himself from the fetters, in which it had endeavoured to enthral him, and to get out of that Pandemonium, to which it was its avowed determination to consign all who were bold enough to oppose its measures and to thwart its designs, who was to answer for the injury he had sustained? against whom would he be entitled to bring his action of damages? He would frankly declare in the presence of the House, that if he thought it likely that this society would be allowed to continue its damnable proceed ings, and if he could bring himself to believe in the legality of a counter-association, he would be among the first to join such counter-association, and to do his utmost to stay the hand of oppression, which he considered to be raised at that moment for the purpose of crushing under its weight a large number of poor and unprotected booksellers. And what would be the consequence of such confederations? Would it not be this-that the country, instead of subsiding into

peace and tranquillity, would be filled with rancour and ill-will from one end of it to the other; that man would be irritated against man, and that the same scenes would be repeated, as were exhibited at the close of the year 1793, when brother was set against brother, and each man was branding his neighbour as a republican, leveller, or jacobin?

Mr. Brougham spoke at great length on the same side. He admitted that the society might legally indict, but he asserted that it was not legal for them to use the process of the law in ter rorem over the king's subjects; and, without authority from situation, without the powers or privileges of office, to go into any peaceable citizen's shop, and say to him-" If you will not agree to certain terms which I shall please to impose, I will indict you, and you shall take the consequences of resistance." Mr. Scarlett took the same side. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General defended the society. They held, that it was not only strictly legal, but in perfect harmony with the constitution, and denied that any of the charges brought against it had been made good. Mr. Whitbread's motion was withdrawn. It had been intended merely as a pretext for discussing the general question; and even his own party admitted, that, whatever might be the merits or demerits of the association, it was not in that House, that the propriety of discontinuing the prosecutions instituted by it ought to be determined.

Some attempts were made, in the course of the session, to induce the House to assume to it