minutes, but I did not take any kind of notice of it, not thinking it neceflary.

2. Then being honourably acquitted, you continued to attend the Society regularly?

A. I was difcontinued as a Delegate; I believe I ferved out for that quarter, but in that month I went down into Staffordfhire, and into Yorkshire, upon bufinefs, upon an order that I had from America.

2. At what time did you firft communicate to any magiftrate that you was in the courfe of this enquiry, and whether you furnished them, or any particular magiftrate, from time to time, with the notes you have been reading in Court?

A. I confulted with a friend, and informed him that there were fuch and fuch focieties about London.

2. I am not asking you what you informed a friend?

A. It is neceffary I should state it; I should be forry for faying any thing that is wrong, and I wish the world at large. should know my reason for doing it; I did not do it of myself, but by advice; it was a gentleman that I had received friendship from at the weft end of the town; he recommended me by all means to make a report of it; I did make a report of it, and have done.

2. And you have done from time to time?

A. Yes.

2. When was the first of those reports made?

A. I believe the firft report that I made must be in the month of October, 1792.

2. I fhall not at present ask you who that person was, and whether the report you made was to any perfon entrusted with any public ftation, or merely to a private friend, to any perfon invested with magiftracy fo as to act upon it?

A. I do not know how far I am at liberty to answer this queftion; I made my reports to a perfon in a quarter that I was well satisfied that a proper knowledge would be had; whether it is by a magiftrate, or whether by any body elfe, it makes no difference, I was fatisfied in my mind that these focieties would be known by those reports.

5

2. If

If you had told me that it was any body vefted with any public magiftracy, I would not have asked, but having faid it is not a perfon in that fituation, I ask to whom it was?

A. I have not faid fo.

2. I wish then to repeat my question?

A. I faid I would answer it in the best manner I poffibly could, and that is, whether it was a magistrate or any other person, I was satisfied from the quarter I gave my information to, that it was well known that there were these societies.

2. Did you hear my question?

A. Yes.

2. Then furely you could not confider that as an answer if you did; I put this question, Was the person to whom you communicated your reports in the month of October 1792, a magistrate of any fpecies or description, from a Juftice of the Peace to a Secretary of State?

Lynam. If I am by your Lordship's direction to answer this queftion directly, I certainly will.

Lord Chief Justice Eyre. I think you may say that it was or not to a magistrate.

A. It was not to a magiftrate.

Mr. Erfkine. Then to whom was it?

Mr. Attorney General. I object to that question being put; the principle which admits that it ought not to be asked if it were to a magiftrate, admits that it ought not to be afked as to any body elfe; for my part I cannot fee what it has to do with the justice of the case.

Mr. Erfkine. I am surprised at this objection; is this man to be let loose for seven hours with written papers, and am I not to be permitted to try his credit? when he says that in the month of October, 1792, he informed a person of these transactions, am I not to be permitted to ask him who the perfon is to whom he made those reports? if he answers it was to fuch an individual, may I not call that individual in order to fhew, peradventure, that these reports had no existence at that time, or that he did not fhew them to the perfon named? I fhall be perfectly fatisfied with whatever judgment the Court pleafe to pronounce upon

this occafion, but I certainly think it my duty to infift upon the queftion.

Lord Chief Justice Eyre. It is perfectly right that all opportunities fhould be given to discuss the truth of the evidence given against a prisoner; but there is a rule which has universally obtained on account of its importance to the public for the de tection of crimes, that those perfons who are the channel by means of which that detection is made, fhould not be unneceffarily disclosed if it can be made appear that really and truly it is necessary to the investigation of the truth of the cafe that the name of the person should be difclofed, I fhould be very unwilling to ftop it, but it does not appear to me that it is within the ordinary courfe to do it, or that there is any neceffity for it in this particular cafe; all that this witnefs fays is, I did this upon advice; I did from time to time communicate with a friend for the purpose of its being communicated to a magistrate, and in that manner it was that I came to know these transactions.

If there is a rule that the channel by which those communications are made should not be disclosed, that rule I think will extend to this cafe: I rather think that we have this day determined that there is fuch a rule, and I cannot fatisfy myself that there is any fubftantial diftinction between the case of this man's going to a Juftice of the Peace, or going to a magiftrate fuperior to a Juftice of the Peace, or to fome other person who communicated with a Juftice of the Peace, because the communication to a Juftice of the Peace, though it may be extremely neceffary for the purpose of bringing offences to light, yet will not of itself amount to any evidence.

Mr. Gibbs. With great fubmiffion to your Lordships, the way in which the question was put to the witness by Mr. Erskine, was in order to fift his credit, whether what he said now was what he had always faid; he asked him this, not who employed him, but whether he had communicated to any body what he had obferved at the meetings of thefe Societies; his answer was, that he had communicated it to a friend: Now with great fubmiffion to your Lordships, it is the common practice, that when a man's credit is fifted by being afked whether he has ever

told

told the fame ftory to another perfon, and he fays he has told it to a particular perfon, he is always afked who that particular perfon is, if the gentleman who is examining him thinks it worth while to prefs the examination to that extent.

Lord Chief Justice Eyre. I believe in general, where it is not at all accompanied with the circumftance of its being a channel of communication to Government for difcovery, that what you fay is true; and the only question is, whether there be fuch a rule for the fake of enabling the Crown to watch over and detect great offences, the channels of communication are noť to be difclofed. If there be no fuch rule as that, your propofition is right: it appears to me that there is fuch a rule, and that we have this day determined that fuch a rule exifts; and I do not feel a diftinction between this cafe and that.

Lord Chief Baron Macdonald. Afk him if it was any fervant of the public?

Mr. Erfkine. Was it any fervant

Mr. Attorney General. I am fure I am addreffing a Court that will always excufe a Counsel, in any situation, who is acting upon public grounds, if he fhould happen to be mistaken. I fubmit to your Lordships, that the question which Mr. Erfkine was about to put to the witness, is not a question to be put. With respect to what has been ftated, as the principle upon which the question was originally put, your Lordships will permit me first to state what was the fact at the time that this objection arofe. My learned friend asked the witnefs, whether the perfon to whom he made the communication was or was not a magiftrate? As I understood the anfwer of the witnefs, it was to this effect; that he made the communication to a person who was in fuch a fituation that he had no doubt that the conduct of those focieties would be watched by those whose duty it was to attend to it. The question immediately put upon that was, if it was not a magiftrate, who was it?

Now I know I ought to ftate with great diffidence, any opinion of mine upon a queftion of evidence, not having for years attended any of the Courts of law, not knowing what the practice of the Courts is at this day, and not being therefore able to ftate from principle what rule is to be deduced from that

practice;

practice; but in the course of the early period of my life I have had a good deal to do with this fort of business in the Courts of Law, and I beg humbly to state my own opinion, that if the rule with respect to asking a question of a witness be that he is to disclose the channel of communication to a Magiftrate, that a queftion pointing at perfons who ftand in fituations, where they cannot be strictly stated as acting as Magiftrates, but at the fame time have refpect to the public office of magistracy, is a queftion that is not to be put.

My friend says, ought I not to try the credit of the witness ? I happen, in the habit of my own profeffion for the last fix years, to know the practice in the Court of Exchequer; it is a fort of thing that occurs every day: a witness fays, I had an information that the defendant had committed an offence against the revenue laws, for which he would incur a forfeiture of thirty thousand pounds, if you chufe so to state it. chuse so to state it. What is the principle upon which the Court, fay you, fhall never afk where he got that information? It may be said, it is neceffary I should know this, because it may be extremely effential in trying the credit of the witnefs who fpeaks to other facts, that I may know his credit as to other facts, by trying how far he is credible to the facts he states of A. or B. But what fays a Court of Justice. A Court of Juftice does not fit to catch the little whispers or the huzzas of popularity; it proceeds upon great principles of general justice; it says that individuals muft fuffer inconveniences, rather than great public mifchief fhould be incurred; and it says, that if men's names are to be mentioned who interpose in fituations of this kind, the confequence must be, that great crimes will be paffed over without any information being offered about them, or without perfons taking that part which is always a difagreeable part to take, but which at the fame time it is neceffary fhould be taken for the intereft of the public. I fay then, that the objection to the quftion now proposed to be put, always ftating that objection, with the utmoft deference to your Lordships, which I do from a fenfe of duty founded upon what I think the cleareft principle of duty to every individual who forms a part of the community. I ftate this--that after VOL. III.

Ꮐ

the