§ Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that after the conversation that took place last night, on the Petition of the members of the Academical Society, it was not his intention at present to press the particular motion of which he had given notice for that evening. He still, however, wished to state, that it was not unlikely that on a future occasion, he should feel it his duty to revert to that subject. The House would hear with regret, that the decision so lately referred to, was not a solitary instance of magisterial misinterpretation of the late act of parliament, even in the city of London. Another most respectable institution of very long standing in the metropolis, called the City Philosophical Society, had also received a refusal to their application for a licence. This society was established in the year 1808, for the discussion of questions of natural philosophy; and he was fully confident, that were the House in possession of the regulations of that society, they were such as it could not disapprove. On the 14th of April last, in conformity with the enactments of the act, they applied to the magistrates of the city of London for a licence. The House must be astonished to hear that this application was refused, not indeed on the exact grounds on which a similar denial was given to the Academical Institution, but on the principle, that it was necessary to be made acquainted with the names of every one of its members, and to be in possession of the list of questions submitted to their discussion. The House would hear with still greater surprise, that the recorder of London was consulted at this meeting of magistrates, and had concurred in the propriety of the refusal on such grounds. Here, then, was a second instance of what, unwilling as he was to impute any harsh or unfair motive to these magistrates, he must call a second flagrant mistake in their construction of the statute. If such, therefore, were the mistakes of men exercising judicial duties in the metropolis, men who, from their station in life and general intercourse, must be presumed to be well-informed, and enabled to have the fullest information, what, he would ask, would be the misconceptions of magistrates in the country, respecting the operation of that law, deprived, as they were, of such advantages? Indeed, it was not left for the House to surmise on this point, as he had heard that a bench of country magistrates had 84 already resisted the application of a Mineralogical Society, on the presumption that the investigation of such subjects led to blasphemy [A laugh!]. With such decisions before them, he could not help considering it highly expedient either that the ministers of the Crown should take the necessary steps to correct such mistakes, or that the legislature should lose no time in guarding its enactments from such flagrant and dangerous misinterpretation. Surely, if the noble secretary for the home department could And time to write a Circular to the whole magistracy of the land, when the object was to abridge the liberty of the subject, he might spare some little time from his other avocations to guard the remaining privileges of the people from being invaded by the misconceptions of that same magistracy. He concluded with moving, "That there be laid before the House the copy of the petition from the Academical Society in Chancery-lane, presented to the magistrates of London at the general quarter sessions held at the Old Bailey on the 18th of April last, with any order of sessions made thereon."
§ Mr. Bathursthad no objection to the motion, and would have abstained from any observation at present, had he not been called up by the allusion, which the hon. baronet had made to a noble relative at the head of the home department. It had been said, that the noble secretary might be better employed in writing letters to instruct the magistrates in the interpretation of the law, than in writing circulars to abridge the public liberty. The hon. baronet had here assumed two things which remained to be proved, and which he, when the proper opportunity offered, would show to be unfounded; namely, that the circular alluded to was contrary to law; and that the secretary of state was bound to instruct magistrates in the proper construction of the late act. Till the former of those points was proved, the noble secretary could not be accused of abridging the liberties of the subject. He had acted on the best advice, and what he had done would be found conformable to law and justice. With regard to the second point, he denied that it was the duty of the secretary of state to instruct the magistrates in the interpretation of acts of parliament. Such was the doctrine held by an hon. and learned gentleman last night, who had said that magistrates were to exercise their 85 own discretion in applying and understanding the laws, unfettered by the instructions of a minister. With regard to the case of the Mineralogical Society, the construction of the act was so absurd, that any law, however easily understood, might be perverted to any purpose by persons who could so far transgress the common rules of interpretation, as had been done in this case.
§ Mr. Brougham.— The right hon. gentleman has correctly represented the observation which fell from me on a former occasion. I then asserted what I now repeat, that the minister of the Crown has no right to interfere with the magistracy in the exercise of their judicial duties. But the right hon. gentleman reprehends my hon. friend, on the presumption that he attached blame to the noble lord at the head of the home department, in not issuing his instructions to the magistracy respecting the construction they should put on the law of the land. My hon. friend intimated no such opinion. He merely expressed his conviction, that it would be as well if the noble secretary had taken the same trouble to guard the rights of the people from invasion, as he took in writing circulars, when the object of such communications went to the abridgment of their liberties. It is not now the proper period to discuss the merits of that circular. It cannot be denied that, whether legal or illegal, its object is to abridge the liberty of the subject. What the strict law is, it is not necessary that I should in this stage give an opinion; but this I contend, that in point of fact, the practice, as recommended in that Circular, was different from previous usage. There might be found an isolated precedent or two, perhaps, but almost the uniform practice was different. The true question for the House to consider was, not whether that circular was compatible with the law and the practice, but whether the secretary of state for the home department, had a right to assume the province of expounding the law, of dictating to the magistracy of the county in the exercise of their judicial functions. And on what authority is this power assumed? Is it by an exposition of the law of the land, or by a declaratory act of the legislature—the only expounders that the constitution recognises? No—this extraordinary interference is assumed on the paid, legal, professional opinion of two hired servants of the Crown, on which alone the secretary 86 of state, also the paid servant of the Crown, dictates to the judicial authorities of the country. I rejoice to think that this proceeding will ere long be brought more fully before the consideration of parliament. When the time of discussion shall arrive, I am convinced it will be shown, that lord Sidmouth has been guilty of one of the most unconstitutional acts that a secretary of state has ever committed in the exercise, or rather in the breach of his duty. I trust also, that the exposure so promptly made of those unwarrantable decisions of the magistrates, will have the effect of preventing a repetition of such disgraceful scenes. It is, in truth, high time that they should be repressed, as already, and mainly attributable to that Circular, could be discovered indications of a very reprehensible alacrity in the perversion of their powers,—not indeed limited to the Bench, but to be traced also to their subordinate agents. I allude more particularly to the conduct of the town clerk of Liverpool, in a very recent instance, where a spirit had manifested itself that has excited, in every enlightened mind in the country, feelings of indignation and alarm.
§ Mr. Alderman Atkinsfelt it right to explain the particulars of the circumstance which took place before the London Sessions. An application had been made on the part of a society, who stated the subjects of their discussion to be of a quadruple nature, viz. philosophical, literary, historical, and political. This application was made at an hour when the judges had just retired, and some of the city magistrates were on the bench, while preparations were making for arraigning some of the London prisoners. In this interval, the application was made, and a casual objection started which might have been easily settled, if the gentlemen, deputed to make the application, had thought proper to comply with the desire of some of the magistrates, who simply wanted a definition of the historical and political subjects they meant to discuss. He was satisfied that the magistrates who were at the time on the Bench, acted to the best of their judgment, and meant any thing but a capricious rejection. They were men who would never swerve from the principles of strict justice, and the rejection on that occasion by no means excluded the applicants from their regular form of seeking a licence at the quarter sessions. The worthy baronet was under a mistake when he asserted that the Recorder concurred, 87 as he was not present at the time of the deliberation.
§ The motion was agreed to.