cumstances, they have their due weight. These things are not done in a corner; all the nation may and will judge for itself, and the judges, from a regard to their dignity and character, will act with gravity and circumspection. Neither Say's nor Almon's affidavits would there be neglected. Why is the Attorney General's power not circumscribed within the same limits? Ought he to be indulged with more authority than our judges? Indeed, if the institution answered the end intended, it would be one, though but a weak argument in its favour. But that is not the case. The end is the speedy punishment of libellers. Does it attain this end? No; before the Attorney General goes through half the necessary process, he might have got the delinquent tried, found guilty, and condemned before the common juries. Need I say more to induce you either to abolish or to modify this power? I will not suppose you so void of understanding and judgment, when I assure you, that no lawyer will have the face to deny the truth of my last allegation. Mr. Herbert Mackworth: Sir; as I happened to sit as a jury. man upon the trial of Almon, I think it my duty to rise up, in order to rectify some mistakes, into which the public in general, as well as some gentlemen here present, have fallen. Various news-papers and pamphlets propagated at that time a belief that we had been misled by the instructions of the judges, in our opinion of the criminality of Junius's Letter to the King. Nothing can be a greater misrepresentation. In this point we perfectly coincided with the judge in our sentiments. Whatever might have been the sense of the juries at Guildhall, we were unanimous in thinking the letter in question an atrocious and highly criminal libel. There was not a single person among us that murmured the least doubt or hesitation, or suspected that the author and publishers did not merit severe and exemplary punishment. These articles were never with us a subject of discussion. But whether Almon was culpable for a crime, which chiefly affected his servant, was a matter of long and anxious discussion. Right or wrong, we were in that point influenced by the instructions of the judge. Sir, I had my doubts whether the prima facie evidence was a conclusive argument of guilt in the defendant. I applied to the judge for a solution of my 'difficulty. He gave it with that clearness and precision in which he has hardly his equal. He informed me that the law always inferred guilt in the master from the prima facie evidence, where there was no other contrary evidence to destroy its force. This was the case in the instance before the jury. No contrary evidence had appeared, no alleviating oaths, no exculpatory affidavits. Whether it was that the authors of the affidavits, which have since been made, were averse to a cross examination, or to an appearance in court, or whatever was the cause, no attempt was made to invalidate the prima facie evidence. It remained unshaken, unimpeached. The necessary consequence was, that we were obliged to follow the law, and to give our verdict accordingly. For the conscience of a juror, if he has any conscience, binds him no less to the observance of the law than of equity. Though I had my doubts about the malignity of the publisher's intention, I did not think these doubts authorised me to set aside a certain principle of law, and to acquit the defendant upon surmise, when he stood condemned by a positive decision of our jurisprudence. It is not that I do not want to see this point more clearly ascertained, and more generally understood than it has hitherto been. Every thing relating to the power and jurisdiction of juries ought to be established on the firmest and surest foundations. If possible, nothing should be obscure, uncertain, or perplexed, in their province. For this reason, I could wish, that this rule of evidence, as well as the rule of law, which, in cases of libels, leaves the interpretation, or the innocence, or malignity of the intention, to the judge, may be maturely considered by this House. If they should turn out to be law, we shall be thus enabled to quiet the minds of the people, and to restore their confidence in the courts of justice. I am persuaded in my own mind that this will be the case. Yet, however upright, however irreproachable, our judges may have been, I should not dislike to see these laws altered, if they can be altered for the better. They have alarmed the people, who look upon them as innovations, as encroachments upon the power of juries. It is our business to examine whether their alarm is well founded, and if well founded, what remedy can be applied. The proposed inquiry, therefore, seems just and reasonable, whether the judges are culpable or not? Our ancestors frequently adopted such measures. Being the grand inquest of the nation, they justly esteemed it their duty to trace out every grievance, and to procure redress. Ought not we to follow their example, when we are called upon by the voice of the nation? We must follow it, except we chuse to forget whom we represent, and whose servants we are. As to the motion, I think it extremely proper, whether you chuse to ground it on the proposed enquiry, or to leave it on its original bottom. The arguments already advanced seem to me conclusive in its favour. Mr. Edmund Burke: Sir; the objects now under our consideration, seem to me to be of great importance, and to deserve something more than a silent vote. I will therefore, with the leave of the House, endeavour to throw some light on the subject. Several gentlemen, Sir, have dwelt with a kind of secret complacency and satisfaction on the high antiquity of the Attorney General's power of filing official informations. They have set before our eyes in every engaging light, the respect and reverence which it has derived from the savoury mouldiness and the venerable rust of ages. The monarchy has subsisted and flourished most during the existence of this power. Why, then, quarrel with it at the present juncture, when it is likely to prove most beneficial? I will not say that there is no weight in this reasoning, because I will not say that there is any question without its difficulties. Most questions have, like Janus, two faces; and if you view only one of them, you may, with a little management, make your favourite side assume a pretty fair and comely appearance. Something of this legerdemain is observable on the present occasion. While the opposers of the motion celebrate the flourishing state of the monarchy, during the existence of this power, they forget to prove to us, that it owed that happiness to the Attorney General. Sir, it is the fate of narrow minds, and confused heads, to mistake one cause for another, and to make nature as great a chaos as their own brain. Were it necessary, we might easily trace the flourishing state of the monarchy up to other causes, and demonstrate by facts, that this institution retarded rather than accelerated its But growth: but there is no occasion for fetching such a tedious compass; arguments enough have been already advanced to prove it unconstitutional and incompatible with liberty. What can be a clearer evidence of its having never benefited the kingdom? The same arguments which prove it now prejudicial, prove it prejudicial ever since its commencement. what if it should be shewn not to have the sanction of antiquity? Sir, I have enquired among others into this point; but fortune has not been favourable to my diligence. I have not been able to trace it into the darkness and obscurity of remote ages: nay, I have found it to be modern, and as it were of yesterday. Far from fixing it as high up as Edward the third, I have been obliged to come much farther down from the source. The words "matter of record," which have been quoted, did not mean official informations. Bracton, who is allowed by all to be a good authority, mentions "actions popular," which, I apprchend, were founded on these expressions: but "actions popular" were not the same as official informations; and in short I have, upon the minutest enquiry, been forced to allow them but a modern date. Thus then it appears, Sir, that the opposers of the motion cannot take refuge under the wings of antiquity: they are beat out of the entrenchments of Gothic rubbish, under which they hoped to remain impregnable. Whither now will they fly for shelter?-To a majority of voices; in these alone, not in argument, will they prove victorious. If we have any discre tion, any shame left, we must agree to this motion, and either totally abolish or modify the Attorney General's power of filing official informations. Were there no other argument for this measure but that single one advanced by the opposer, that the office is odious and suspected, it would, in the opinion of any sober man, be sufficient. For as all government was originally instituted for the ease and benefit of the people, no establishment, which gives them nothing but uneasiness, can be approv ed by a wise legislature. Let it then be cut off from the constitution as a rotten limb, which escaped the notice of our forefathers in the hurry and precipitation of the Revolution. But we are not pressed by necessity? There is no complaint of any late abuse of this power? This 1 flatly deny. The power has been egregiously abused in the case of Almon. Why was culty, found the publisher guilty: what," then, has wrought so sudden a change in the temper and disposition of the people, that they now countenance the most audacious and wicked libels? In so short a time they cannot have become absolutely corrupt. What, then, is the cause of this strange phænomenon? Are the courts of justice depraved and impure, and do they out of spite and malice contradict and oppose them? I hope not; I hope they are unimpeachable. I believe, nay I know, the scandalous reports which are circulated to be ill-founded. he singled out, and prosecuted before the rest of his brethren? He whose guilt, if any, was only nominal? Why was not the original publisher and others, who had no excuse to allege, first brought to justice? Here I believe every man discovers malice. Almon had been active in promoting certain measures not very agreeable to the cabal. He had published certain journals, which contained anecdotes that some peoplé high in office and power could wish to have buried in eternal oblivion. It was resolved to punish him for these acts of temerity. Hold was therefore laid of this slender twig. But what ensued? The courts dare not make use of the strange verdict procured against him. The only cause which the Attorney General has been able to carry against libellers, he cannot turn to any account. From him we learn, that the office is so odious and detestable to the people, that it does not answer any of the purposes for which it was intended. Has he not here said enough to induce us to abolish or modify it? Yes, certainly; if we do not suppose, with some speculative politicians, who will justify the court at all points, that the people are corrupt, and that the courts of justice and the administration are blameless. For I must aver, that one of these three propositions must be true, else such atrocious libels as we have lately seen could never have passed unpunished. Where, then, Sir, shall we look for the origin of this relaxation of the laws and of all government? How comes this Junius to have broke through the cobwebs of the law, and to range uncontrouled, unpunished, through the land? The myrmidons of the court have been long, and are still, pursuing him in vain. They will not spend their time upon me, or you, or you: no; they disdain such vermin, when the mighty boar of the forest, that has broke through all their toils, is before them. But what will all their efforts avail? No sooner has he wounded one than he lays down another dead at his feet. For my part, when I saw his attack upon the King, I own my blood ran cold. I thought he had ventured too far, and that there was an end of his triumphs; not that he had not asserted many truths. Yes, Now, Sir, I can see no reason for sup- Sir, there are in that composition many posing that the people have sunk to the bold truths by which a wise prince might very dregs of corruption, that they natu- profit. It was the rancour and venom with rally delight in slander and detraction, which I was struck. In these respects the and love to protect libellers and defamers. North Briton is as much inferior to him, It is not long since they would bring in a as in strength, wit, and judgment. But, libeller guilty even at the suit of the At- while I expected from this daring flight torney General. In the reign of George his final ruin and fall, behold him rising the second, no such mortifying repulses still higher, and coming down souse upon were received from juries, even when a both Houses of Parliament. Yes, he did dangerous rebellion raged in the very make you his quarry, and you still bleed heart of the realm. Government was suf- from the wounds of his talons. You ficiently respected to maintain its authori- crouched, and still crouch, beneath his ty. Shebbeare was without any difficulty rage. Nor has he dreaded the terrors of punished with imprisonment and pillory; your brow, Sir; he has attacked even you and many other delinquents were chastised he has-and I believe you have no reaby the lash of the law. Even so late as the beginning of his present Majesty's reign, when the minds of men trusted to his own benign and auspicious disposition, and were not soured by the interposition of undue influence, the laws had not lost their salutary terrors. Do you ask a proof? The forty-fifth number of the North Briton is an undeniable evidence of my assertion; the jury, without any diffi[VOL. XVI.] son to triumph in the encounter. In short, after carrying away our royal eagle in his pounces, and dashing him against a rock, he has laid you prostrate. King, Lords and Commons, are but the sport of his fury. Were he a member of this House, what might not be expected from his knowledge, his firmness and integrity? He would be easily known by his contempt of all danger, by his penetration, by [4 E] his vigour. Nothing would escape his vigilance and activity. Bad ministers could conceal nothing from his sagacity; nor could promises nor threats induce him to conceal any thing from the public. But why do I dwell upon Junius alone? there are numberless other libellers whom you cannot reach: secure in the protection of the people, they laugh at the terrors of information to scorn. All your messen gers of the press, all your tribes of informers, are as much despised as they are detested. What is the cause of this general aversion to law, this universal conspiracy against government? We have seen that it arises neither from the natural depravity of the people, nor from the accidental misbehaviour of our courts of law. What is the conclusion? The whole is chargeable upon administration. The ministers are the grand criminals. It is their malversation and unconstitutional encroachments that have roused up in the nation this spirit of opposition, which tramples under foot all law, order, and decorum. Until they are removed and punished, the land will be nothing but a scene of anarchy and confusion. It is not that I do not approve of the proposed enquiry into the conduct of our judges. Though I believe the reports to be false and groundless, yet as a friend to the judges, as a friend to the people, whose suspicions will thus be removed by approbation, reprehension, or punishment, I cannot help giving it my hearty concurrence. There is a letter directed to one of the judges, which charges him with high crimes. Will you allow that paper to walk abroad without any notice? You have tried every expedient for quieting the people, but that of removing the offence. Were it only for the sake of experiment, it would be worth your while to try what effect this measure would have upon the public. Mr. Attorney General De Grey: Sir; when I hear facts misrepresented, in which I had a personal concern, and cases stated which never had any existence but in the author's brain, I think myself authorized by justice, and bound in honour to contradict them. The hon. gentleman who spoke last has given the House a brief narrative of two facts, which I know to be without foundation; and I must tell him, that, to speak in the gentlest terms, he treats a man injuriously, when he assigns to his actions motives, which are only the suggestions of his own fancy. He informs you, that malice and oppression appear palpably on the face of Almon's prosecution, because, forsooth, he happened to be first brought to his trial, and because his guilt was only nominal. But is the opinion of the hon. gentleman more respectable than the opinion of the jury, by whom he was tried? They found him guilty. His trial preceded that of the original publisher, and the other delinquents, merely through accident. As many informations as could be conveniently got ready, were at the same time filed against the transgressors. The judges, after this process was finished, happened, in the course of business, to sit to hear causes at Westminster before they sat in the city. This is the true state of the case; this is all the malice, all the oppres sion, which have been exerted on this occasion. If there had been any preconcerted scheme of rancour or revenge, a different course would have been taken. The Attorney General would have first brought to his trial the original publisher, that culprit, whose superior guilt seemed most likely to procure a verdict favourable to government; a verdict, which might serve as a precedent or sanction to the condemnation of the other defendants. Such would have been the true way of showing malice. The very reverse of what is condemned would have been the only rational plan for obtaining this end. But, after procuring a verdict in this malicious manner, we dare not make use of it! We dare not pass sentence, or punish the guilty bookseller! He shall be called up to receive sentence to-morrow. It is true that Almon was already summoned for that purpose; and yet, after attending, was told that he should not be wanted on that day. The judges being either not agreed in their sentence, or being prevented by some other cause from concluding that business, I did not make Almon appear before them, lest by the rule of the court, they should be obliged to keep him in custody till sentence was passed. was afraid that such a step might prove injurious to his trade and character. So that what was an act of lenity and mercy, is here charged upon the Attorney Ge neral as an act of cowardice and fear. No, Sir, that officer has done nothing of which he needs either to be afraid or ashamed. He misrepresents the actions of no man; he traduces the character of no man. Neither his words nor his deeds need ever call a blush into his cheek. I Mr. Edmund Burke: Sir; I did not mean to fix a stigma on the character of any particular man. All I wanted to shew was, that there was malice somewhere, and from what I have now heard I find little reason to retract. A pretty satisfactory account, indeed, has been given for Almon's being first tried, and for his not having the other day received sentence. But has any reason been given for his having been tried at all? Has the presumption of malice, that appears upon the face of that transaction, been wiped away by the learned gentleman's rhetoric? No. We have heard much of the legality, equity, and reasonableness of prima facie evidence. If ever applicable, I am sure it is applicable to this case. The prima facie evidence fixes guilt on the prosecutors, and I am satisfied they have not produced contrary evidence to destroy its force. What is the consequence? They must, according to their own law or logic, be condemned. The share that Almon had in the publication of Junius's letter was so small, that no man of common sense can suppose, that he was on that account marked out as an object of punishment. No, Sir, there were other latent causes, neither so specious, nor so ostensible. "manet altâ mente repostum Judicium Paridis, spretæque injuria formæ, "Et genus invisum, et rapti Ganymedis honores," I appeal to the honour and conscience of the House, whether I do not speak truth. If I do not, I expect to be contradicted. Does any one chuse to rise? No-no one has the front; and I have the pleasure to see that we have still some grace left amongst us. This is a point that is obvious to the most simple and untutored. Had I been disposed to refine, and to play the metaphysician, my ingenuity, small as it is, would have enabled me to assign no very honourable motives to the quirk, which brought the least culpable first to their trial. Had the original publisher been first tried and acquitted, it was foreseen that common decency would not suffer the other prosecutions to go any further: a circumstance, by which the culprits would save a deal of expence, and certain officers would lose the harvest of their trade. This, and some other points of the like nature I might urge, were I actuated by any malice or personal pique. But I disclaim such unworthy motives. My public conduct shall always be directed by public considerations. Having said this, I have nothing further to add, but that I see no reason to retract or alter my opinions. I return, therefore, to the three grounds on which I set out, and repeat, that all our present misfortunes are owing to the corruption of the people, to the misconduct of our judges, or to the malversation of our ministry. The absurdity of the first supposition I have explained, I hope, to your satisfaction. The whole blame must consequently fall on the two last, but chiefly on the ministry. The necessary conclusion is, that the ministry ought to be removed, and that the proposed enquiry into the conduct of our judges ought to be adopted. Mr. Dunning: Sir; as the subjects now before you were precipitately brought on the carpet, I cannot pretend to treat them with that precision and accuracy which they deserve. Their importance, however, is in my eyes too great to let me pass them over without submitting to your judgment a few observations which occur to my mind. In my apprehension, the opposers of the motion have advanced against it only one argument, which has not been fully answered and refuted. This is the argument: both Houses have frequently addressed the King, to desire the Attorney General to prosecute libellers and defamers. The Attorney General has at this moment on his hands prosecutions, which he commenced at the instance of parliament. Will you, then, abolish or abridge the power of an officer, whom you found so necessary to put your own designs in execution? What has been, may be again. More "Whisperers" may be published; and you may wish, when it is too late, that he still possessed the power of filing informations. An hon. friend of mine, who proposed to modify the Attorney General's power, either by allowing the defendant to shew cause in a court of justice why an information should not be granted, or by subjecting the affair to the previous cognizance of a grand jury, answers this reasoning by affirming that there is no occasion for the interference of a court of justice, or of a grand jury, where the grand inquest of the nation, a body much more respectable than any grand jury, has decided the point, and found a true bill, a true ground for a prosecution. This logic would be very just, could it be shewn that the interposition of parliament had in any case answered the end intended. For |