§ Mr. Broughamrose to call the attention of the House once more to a society, the existence and nature of which he had occasion upon a former evening to bring under its notice. If he was then disposed to view with alarm what he saw In this association, he viewed with still greater anxiety the proceedings that had since been avowed by it. He held in his hand a letter which had been distributed among all the members, and which purported to be a copy of another letter, a circular, that this self-constituted body of prosecutors had thought proper to issue—to whom did the House think? To the magistrates of England. It came from "The Bridge-street Committee." The "Bridge-street Committee" (as if they were, of course, well known to all the kingdom), had erected themselves into a body, and issued circulars only to all the magistrates of England. And what was their object? First, to expound to the magistrates the law of the land in matters of libel. They inclosed in this circular a copy of a pamphlet, composed under their auspices, and containing their digest of this law, for the guidance of the magistrates. Now, this might be reckoned only a foolish and presumptuous intermeddling on the part of the committee; but it was followed by something of a different nature, as this circular would show. That it was legal for a person to prepare a bill of indictment, or for two or more persons to prepare such a bill, he was not one to deny; but, whether, though it might in itself be legal, if temperately and discreetly done, it might not deserve another character, if done, and systematically done, by a large body with formidable funds to back them—that might form another consideration. Many societies there might be, instituted for different purposes, and incidental to which might be a prosecution. Nobody would quarrel with them for that; but when the House saw an association which was founded for the purposes of prosecutions, which attempted to supersede the powers of the attorney-general, its legality became more questionable. Even with this he would not quarrel; but the object 1047 which they had in this circular ventured to avow was not to be so passed over. [Mr. Brougham then read from a paper]—"Sir; In pursuance of the 4th resolution of the address"—but the House ought to know that this was signed by a Mr. J. B. Sharp, who styled himself "Honorary Assistant Secretary:" was dated No. 6, Bridge-street, Blackfriars, and addressed to the magistrates of England! "I am directed"—by whom? "by the committee"—so that the magistrate was bound to know who and what this committee was:" I am directed by the committee to transmit you a copy of"—so and so; the address, in short, of this society. "In pursuance of the 4th resolution of the address, the committee have found it necessary to institute several prosecutions against persons engaged in the sale of libellous and seditious works; some of which prosecutions have been abandoned upon the parties expressing their contrition." In God's name to whom? To Mr. J. B. Sharp and this committee, forsooth! And upon that being done, these gentlemen, it seemed, were graciously pleased to enter a noli prosequi. But this was not all. The association was not satisfied with convictions, with the surrender upon oath of the dangerous stocks of these venders of seditious publications, and with these 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 expressed 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. And now he should like to be informed, if there were present any member of this constitutional association, upon what authority that oath was required. 1048 He desired to know upon what authority it was allowed, under such a government as this, where there were two such law officers as the attorney and solicitor-general, hitherto not slow to detect, nor remiss to proceed against such offences; where there was a secretary of state not tardy to expound the law, and not backward in issuing his circulars addressed likewise to the magistrates of this kingdom—he wished to know by whose authority it was that this self-constituted association came forward with a circular to the magistrates avowing that their proceedings had gone on in a regular course, from association to subscription, from subscription to promulgation, from promulgation to the instituting of indictments against a particular set of individuals. That no one might be in doubt upon the law, the committee informed the public, that they had "served" a copy of the inclosed exposition of the law of libel, upon every shopkeeper and other person who may so behave." "Many dealers," it was observed, "have thereupon relinquished the further sale or publication of these works and caricatures. In no case has the prosecution been commenced till a few days after the service of this notice, with a view to allow them the opportunity of relinquishing the sale of their stock. Under these circumstances should a conviction of the party be obtained, the delivery of this notice will be pleaded in aggravation, upon the offender's being brought up for judgment." So that juries and judges were to be called upon to consider as the last of all imaginable aggravations, that parties shall have been served with notices of such a committee as this, and had neglected to comply with them! They were to be found to have acted in contempt of Mr. J. B. Sharp, and the committee. The notice of these illustrious personages—these honorary secretaries—these limbs of the law, had been neglected, and parties were therefore to be prosecuted.—This might sound absurd enough in that House, or in a court of law; but out of doors it would have this effect:—men might thus be proceeded against for what the wisdom of this society had assumed to be scandalous and seditious libels, and yet be all the while perfectly innocent; because the society might possibly mistake the law upon the subject. It might turn out upon legal examination, that the poor tradesman, of whom they had previously bought the book or picture, had 1049 been much more innocently employed than the society itself. But to show how likely the unfortunate parties were to obtain a fair trial, he would read another passage of this production:—" Prosecutions are now going on against a notorious vender of seditious publications." This was not throwing the slightest imputation to be sure upon the individual hereafter to be tried: it was in no degree giving a colour to the question; it was a proof of their anxiety that he should be fairly and dispassionately tried! He thought he had now done quite enough in mentioning this matter once more to stop the course of this association. Not the least evil of 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. Let the House well consider what must be another equally inevitable result of these prosecutions. An association such as this was, poisoned justice in its very source. It called up all the angry passions and the interested feelings of individuals in that class of society from which jurymen were to be taken. What chance of a fair trial would a poor man have, before a jury taken out of the neighbourhood of some great man, a member of this association? He was not stating this case upon mere speculative grounds. A gentleman of great respectability, fortune, and consideration, upon seeing the name of a noble lord in the list of these associations had made a remark to the same effect. That gentleman's first observation upon reading it, was, "While that nobleman's name stands upon this list, none of his numerous tenants will be fit for jurors at any such trials." He felt no hesitation in saying wherein lay the remedy for this evil. The attorney-general had the power of suppressing the proceedings of this society by entering a nolle prosequi upon all their indictments. Let it not be said that that law-officer should rather stop till some case of gross abuse, might call for his intervention—an evil of such a description demanded a prompt and decided remedy. He had to apolo- 1050 gize for again calling the attention of the House to one of the greatest abuses which had grown up for many years; and which, if not put down by order of that House, or by the law-officers of the Crown, might lead to much more serious perversions of the law, than any other practices which had for a long time threatened it.
§ Mr. Scarlettbegged leave to say a few words with respect to the illegality of this association. The motives of the gentlemen were probably such that no one would wish to treat them harshly; but their proceedings were contrary to the law of the land. In individual cases, the party aggrieved was allowed to be the prosecutor by the law of England, but where the public was the party, the prosecutor was the government itself, and the attorney-general was the recognised agent of that government. 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. This association undertook prosecutions, however, on a similar scale. Where the attorney-general was concerned, the proceeding was regular: where the party aggrieved prosecuted the defendant knew his prosecutor. On the contrary, 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 could not concur in condemning such an association.
§ Mr. Warreexpressed his suprise, that this Association having been pronounced illegal by what he considered the highest law authority in that House, no member of his majesty's government had offered a word of explanation on the subject.
The Marquis of Londonderryquestioned the propriety of any discussion as to what the attorney-general ought or ought not to do, in the absence of that learned gentleman. Without entering into the legality or constitutionality of the 1051 Association, he could not but express his regret, that if it was of such a character as had been described, the mischief of the principle did not flash upon their minds before, when missionaries were sent down to prosecute men, not for libel, but to death; and great names appeared to the subscriptions, which were as likely to warp the minds of the jury as in the present instance.—But it really seemed as if all the sensibility of those who were so shocked at the formation of this society, was reserved for the sole crime of libel; and as if the very name of Constitutional Association called forth all their powers of reprobation.
Sir J. Sebrightconcurred in the opinions which had been given respecting the Association, which has taken upon itself the task of teaching magistrates their duty. He, for one, would dispense with the instruction of a body, which he considered illegal and unconstitutional.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, that the insinuation of the noble marquis was unfounded in fact, for he had distinctly stated that an association of two or more persons to indict or prosecute might be legal where there was a lack of diligence in the proper quarter: but what he objected to was the system of prosecution going on day after day, until the liberty of the press was reduced to a mere shadow. Such prosecutions, and the associations for carrying them on, were different from those for prosecuting felons; for in the former case party feelings would be created; but who could suppose that a party would be made in the prosecution of felons?
The Marquis of Londonderryobserved that there was an association for the suppression of vice, the object of which was to prosecute all offences against decency and morality, and he had not heard any objection to it; nor did he conceive why an objection should be urged against this association, because it had for its object the prosecution and suppression of disloyalty and sedition.
§ Mr. Scarlettconsidered that there was no analogy whatever between the cases. He thought the self-called Constitutional Association a gross and severe attack on his majesty's government.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, he could not avoid expressing his surprise that the Constitutional Association should have been called illegal. He would take it upon himself to say that in that society there was nothing illegal, or at all contrary 1052 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. Now he would say, that when the question of the legality of the Association had recently come before the judges of the land, he had not heard from the court any insinuation that the society was illegal. Could the House think that if this society had been contrary to law the judges of the land would not have objected to it? 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? Cries of" Hear!" from the Opposition benches. He very well understood the meaning of those cheers; but he would ask whether the attorney-general was to make it is business to go into every print and pamphlet shop in the metropolis, in order to hunt out for libellous caricatures and publications. If the society discovered such, and selected them for prosecution, it was by no means any imputation upon the vigilance of his learned friend. He felt satisfied that his learned friend could use his discretion in cases of ex-officio informations; but it was hardly necessary for him to observe that there were cases where it would not be proper to prosecute.
§ Lord Miltonsaid, that no judge or court could, or ought to give any opinion as to the legality or illegality of a prosecution on which they might be called to determine. With the association in question they had nothing to do. They had only to decide upon the point of law, without at all considering who were the prosecutors.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he objected to any public prosecutions by irresponsible persons, 1053 in cases of libel. He was not surprised that many individuals supported such an association, considering that so many libels were circulated through the country. The feeling, he did not doubt, was a good one, though he considered its application as unsafe and dangerous. The solicitor-general had asked, whether the attorney-general was bound to hunt after libellous caricatures and publications, he did not say he was; but he thought that the secretary of state ought not to be ignorant of their existence, but should point them out fop prosecution. To leave such matters to irresponsible bodies was, he thought, pregnant with danger. The establishment of Orange lodges had originated in a good feeling, but the House had seen how dangerous such associations had since proved to be.
§ The committee of supply was deferred, and the House adjourned.