Star. — London, England, 1823-05-09 00:00:00

rected .to the Court, but by an address to the r Jury, and he continued until ten o'clock that night. The Court then thought it was time to adjourn.-m. He commenced next morning at ten and continued' till seven. A further adjournment was then pro. posed. On the third day he resumed his defence at the usual hour, and did not close it until five. The Jury pronounced him guilty. The application he subsequently made was for. a new trial, and in the 'rriurseof that application he met with no interruption. A motion was afterwards made 'in- arrest of judg ment, which was disposed of by the Court. When brought up for judgment, so far from receiving any interruption from the Court, he was allowed to pro ceed, though the Matter he pressed was so objection able, that the Ch ief.Justice observed to the persons who were taking notes of the trial, that it would not be-safe to publish all Mr. Carlile said. He now com plained of the fine of 10001. 1,0001. of which was for the first offence, 'andlkalor a subsequent one. He begged to remind tberHousexhatCarlile said nothing should prevent himlollowing the course he had de termined on, that, he would take care to defeat the lair, that it would delightlit wife-to become a mar tyr in the same cause; that if "'she 'tumid be found guilty, he had a sister equally ready to suffer," and' that " in the event of his sister being sent to prison, he could easily find persons in indigent circumstances, who, for some trifling emolument, would be willing to sell his publications." He kept his word ; for to the present moment he persevered in the same course. There was now a prosecution pending against an in dividual for the same offence of which.Carlile and his family had been convicted. The writ of Lcoari Fa cia: was issued soon after sentince was passed on him. This was the ordinary writ for levying a fine in such cases, and his whole property was answerable for the tine. The lion. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) seemed to think that the writ should not issue till the term of confinement had expired. If Mr. Carlile thought so, why did lie not apply to the Court? He would have had his remedy it the proceeding was improper. Not having made any such application, the natural con clusion was, that his advisers did not think dime was ground for it. The Court or the Crown had nothing t ) do with issuing the writ. It was issued by the pro vcutors, and the execution left to the Sheriff. Mr. Parkins, the Sheriff, he admit, acted irregu larly. It was his duty to have sold the property, but he did not. Mr. Cadile might have conic into Court and called upon hitn'to do so. The motive assigned by the 3herifffor nut'sel4ng immediately was, that the greater part of the publications seised under the writ was either libellousan blaffplienious, and that therefore it would be dangerous for hint to proceed to the sale. Mr. Caildesubsequently pursued the proper course. He brought his action against the Sheriff to recover compensation in damages. There was no evidence one inte'but that - eddied by Car lite himself, and, the Jurr:cre satisfied that nominal damage; Only should, be airatded. If the:Jury were wrong in their verdict, neither the Court nor tffeLaw Officers of Crown were ittsWerable for it. The. Court decided that the Sheriff was bound to sell. Mr. Parlinsie consequence employed a Gentleman of the profession, Mr. SLUI key, to peruse the sixty-volumes, for the purpose of akertaining What pan he (Mr. l P4rkini) might sell n ith safety. That part be said, and the produce was 3:11. There .siltie nothintio' the Six Acts brought into operation throughout the whr,le of this transaction. The writ was issued in the. usual way,. He thought, therefore,' there was no ground for the coMplaintof the petitioner.' The Hon. 'entleman said the fine was excessive. :The state ments of the Hon. Gentleman himself seemed in con ti adictirm to this- assertion, for he admitted that 1300 copies had been sold at half a guinea each, besides subsequent editions to a much greater amount. The petitioner, tbeiefole, must have pocketed, in conse quence of - the prosecution, much more than the anidunt oldie fine. Mt. LENNAItD • supported the Petition on the giotitid that the Rite vfasexcessive. Mr:HUME• said, such prosecutions tended only to make the' miseltie? greater. Mr. Cathie, as it ap peared. •Cotild always - Bnd numbers who were ready to come forward nod Sell 'his publications. Those who bad been convicted only gloried in the cause for which they suffered. • _ Mr. DENMAN said, those prosecutions, in many instances, were a greater nuisance than the publica. tions against WitiCll they were directed. He was havpy that the joint stock purse frdm which they were carried on was nearly exhausted, and he hcped it would never be tilled again. That the fine was ex cessive appeared clear froin . the circumstance of Mr. Carlile having remained in prison from NOvember. This must have arisen from his inability to pay. The Court, he was sile, would not have passed iuth a sen tence if it thotOt this was to be the consequence. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, Carlile admitted that he sold 3,000 copies, and it Was proved that they were sold at 10s. 6d. each. Half of this at least was profit, and the Court, therefore; had it in evidence that he . made 1,5001. by the sale. Mr. Carlile, he believed, did not Continue in prison solely for non-payment of the fine: be was hound to find rectognizances; and' as he stilt continued to issue his publications horn prisonAhat circumstance would justify persons in being extremely cautious how they became security for his future good conduct. After a few words from Mr. Hum., who moved that the Petition should be printed, Mr. Secretary PEEL said, his attention had been just called to one circumstance in the Petition, it con tained iii the margin the names of those obnoxious yolks for which the Petitioner had been prosecuted, and of those that had been seized. It would not be tight that the House of Commons should be made tht instrument of sending them forth to the public by ordering the Petition to be printed. He had no objection that it should lie upon the table, but he would oppose the printing of it. Mr. HUME suggested the margin might be cut off. Mr. Secretary PEEL said it would be better not to print the Petition at all, than to print it in a mu tilated state, contrary to the usages of the House. Mr. HUME said, as there was an objection to the Petition, he would withdraw it, reserving to himself the right of bringing the subject forward in another shape.—The Petition was withdrawn. mi. DENMAN presented a Petition -front Nottingham, praying that the Duties on East and West India Sagan might be equalised.—Ordered to be printed. Petitions were presented front Blacklutrn,Warrington,Yeevil, di, York, Itetford,- and %lamb, "raying fOr Saver; st 1411w.--Ordelltd to Updated. r") pitesental l e ittiZttoln cif , Praing lief ! whit aofad ln thee inTrtsStisidty io • k th*,,ttt it 114111,4esirable t t shtick! be *cog tin to make the roglisdon genets'. I. AIr..GRENFELL expressed. himself of the same and gave notice that be would bring the subject forwart this Session or next. .Hr. BENNET said, some years had elapsed since the ap lidintntent of a Commission to Inquire into the Administration al Justice in Guernsey. They recommended a number of Re. ambitions, none of which had yet been carried Into effect. He wished to know from the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Attorney-General) whether it was the intention of she Govern ment to do anything in this matter? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the alterations suggested had been under the consideration of the Privy Coun cil. Some of them were to be immediately acted upon, and the rest would receive all the attention the subject required. 31r. BENNARD postponed, to Tuesday, the 10th of June, his motion for a Committee on the Middlesex County Court, which stood for to-morrow. .ary been so much annoyed by the obtrusion of informa tion, contained in letters, newspapers, and pamphlets (and all from the other side), as immediately pre ceding the motion of the Honourable Member for Ar magh. All were against his Learned and Right Ho nourable Friend (Mr. Plunkett). Having permitted those to pass unnoticed, he would join in the sugges tion of the Right Honourable Gentleman, to suffer the Paper in question to remain where it then was. Mr. Secretary PEEL concurred in the entreaty to his Right Honourable Friend to refrain from further proceedings in the business. His Right Honourable Friend's character could never suffer in the estima tion of those who knew him by the malignant article ID question. The licentiousness of the Press carried its own remedy with it, and he would advise his Right Honourable Friend to treat the libel with that contempt which it deserved. Colonel BARRY, under the impression expressed by the House, -would press the matter no further. On the motion of Mr. J. WILLIAMS, the House re solved itself into a Committee of the whole House, to inquire into the conduct of Toe SITFRIFF OF DUBLIN. Sir ROBERT HERON was called to the Chair. CHAutmmt.--Colonel Marry, what witness do you mean to call first? Colonel BAXRT.—Henry Handwich, senior. Winless was called in and examined by Colonel BARRY.-- Witness stated that he is father of Henry end Matthew Hand wich, who were tried in Dublin for rioting in the Theatre. Nei ther witness nor his sons are in any way related to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe ' • but be believes that a cousin o f his children is in some way or other related to the Sheriff. Joseph Henry Moore was then called in ; hut from the noise that prevailed in the House, the few questions that were asked of the witness, together with his answers, were inaudible. On the motbast at Mr. Pl,Voisrr the witness was ordered to withdraw. Mr. PLUNKETT said, the moment for deciding the question which arose last night respecting -the of the House fully to examine the Grand Jury I arrived. He could not conceive how it was pos.. power sjble to proceed further with the business, if the ; Grand Jury were not compelled to answer every ques tion that might be put to them. 1 Mr. C. W. WYNN had no doubt that the House possessed the power to call upon the Grand Jurors to answer any questions they might think proper. Mr. ABERCRO NI BY was of It similar opinion, and quoted in .support of it the opinions of Mr. Homer, Mr. PeiceVel, Lord Somers, and Lord Chatham. Mr. - Seeretary PEEL said there was no Honour - ' able Member in that House more inclined than him self to maintain that the House should possess strong powers. It appeared to him that when a person came to that House. sicha conceived himself bound' by oath not to makes particular disclosure, it would .he an indiscreet exercise of the power of that House if it were exercised to absolve him from that oath. Sir J. MACKINTOSH . saisl, that as he. was not present at the discussion of last night, he could only offer such remarks-as occorted to him in consequence .of the speeches . of those friends wh9 had preceded him... ge would not venture to make large asser tions ;but be would ask, W even in the highest times iii,r4 - 4b usurpation, when the Church had assumed th4,44ciion.of all the a ff airs of society, had there ,been snore singular doctrines promulgated than those Which the Right Hon. Gentleman had-laid down? The connection between religious and civil obligation appeared to hits to, be this : religion lent its aid to enforce a civil obligation ; but he thought that as soon as the authority which created the obligation dissolved it, then the sanction of religion ceased. If this were not true, what could be said of the Oath of Allegiance? The wbule nation had taken the Oath of allegiance to James IL and yet thef had afterwards .tlisken an oitli of aljegiante to William and Mary, *hied positively repealed the oath that they had .4arituniy taken to Jaws.- Were they then to accuse c people of having violated their oath ? No such Both oaths were promissory ; religion . gave ctibn in both cases ;:bat the Oath of Allegiance 'only obligainry aa long Ware allegiance itself 'hoe* What also could be said of the oaths which ithrtlergy had formerly taken to the Head of the 'Clittch at Rome,'and from Which they had been re leased by the Reformation? Did they suppose that *e Founders of the Christian Religion at the Refor mation had been ignorant of the connection between the sanction of religion and the obligation created by law ? Undoubtedly the means which the House nos ' Seised of enforcing answer,kwce my strong, and he did' not see Why they . 4ourd not 16 es,effectually ex ercised in this as in.UAber instances. It was quite a different question as to what degree of tenderness was due to the conscientious scruples of witnesses. • No one doubted that the HOuse had the power of re-, (inking oaths from Quakers, and yet no one doubte d that the House bad done right in yielding to their conscientious scruples; and allowing affirmations in stead of oaths. No witaevs ought to be examined at that Bar who was not content to be examined tho-, roughly. If then, these Gentleneen urged their con scientious scruple s, Wellwrid gOod . ; bat it must, it the same dine, incapacitate them from being examined at fat lithe objection were alloived, every witness whci made it must be struck off the list. No one would deny that all witnesses ought be subjected to an eqiisiricrutiny. For these reasons he should sup port the right of the Committee to requiire an answer, land then if the partynxionined urged any conscien usscrupler, iterouldbe for 112 ' 0 Committee to con 'eider them ; but, - if aHavardi the whole of the witness's Itio 'evidence must be struck out. - ' ' i ' Mr. WETHEREF4.anteed with the Honourable land Learned Gentleampaat in analysing the consti tion of a* oath they ought to separate die civil and 'the religioui obligation. The ciithU tin Grand Itis Jeroo was for the triministratina • justice. It so, and it it was a part of the prinleges of that. Dia* to exercise a complete and eauseasered riglitnfisi ' quirt, What an absurdity 4 was to say that the Hee" atisiessed an nncoatainared right'of inquiry, and yet elttlieloato dale the Coastatutiou bad i imposed an 0111011.1181 Grand Juries which detested the right u; the House., It could not in fact be that the House of Com/Setts had a tight of inquiry, and yet at the same time A or R refine to submit to in inquiry because the State had imposed upon them a patticular oath. the dilemma into Which those Ren. fell who argued that the wimesses in this to conceive themselves bound to seeresy which they had taken. It had been said t of Parliament wottld be necessary to ab ,gious man from 'his oath ; but he wield even an Act if Parliament could notable* .:ho stood upon a supposed religions obligea . tion. The case then came to this, that if it (cold he done at all it could be done by that Hod*: - lb might observe to the Gentlemen below him Owen*y had been in fact, for past of their lives, constantly as. collating the college oaths, which required them to wear particular dresses and always to speak L t a u . Re recollected one instance in which the Bursar of a College had conscientiously refused to accept an eif, See, because one of the articles of his oath wa s , not to give more than two-pence a pound for mutton, m i d use was unable to purchase it at that price —(.4 LerTz.). He could not therefore sympathise in the scrupl e: et those who were called upon to give their testimon: at that bar. He believed that the case was new, ze jf that it had never yet been adjudicated in a Cou rt if Law, whether, if a person was indicted for flu? and it becanie necessary to call 'one of .the Gy ul a Jus y as a witness, the Juror's evidence would be re. ceived. The case of Serjeant Pennick, which had been alluded to, was a case of departure, be; this was one of fundamental right. With regard to the oath of a Privy Councillor, he was not prepaleav e say that, because he thought a Grand Juror bound to answer all questions, a Privy Councillor was so also; for the Privy Councillor stood in a peculiar skunks' towards the Crown. It was therefore the result or the best consideration that•he had been able to give the subject, to consider. the objection which some pee. sons might feel, as the religious scruples of men whose consciences super seded the tie, vise of their cool re.tseis, and who confounded religious with civil obligations. Mr. BRIGHT said, that if the individual whav conduct was before the House was to be acqeitted, not upon the merits of the case ton which he, Mr. Bright, offered no opinion), but upon the impoisi. bility of proceeding, then the consequence %mild be that that House could not inquire into any mire: , sation whatsoever.. Mr. BARING said, that if this question were °fiat importance which Honourable Men.bers had describe& it, then they ought to be cautious how they did that which was of more importance, viz. how they sue the sanction of the authority of that House to treat lightly the obligation of an oath. 'The simple qua. tion here was, was it an oath or not? Had the Le gislature imposed it or not ? It appeared to him that not only had the oath been imposed, but that it hal been imposed for important purposes. The objectif the oath Imposed on Grand Jurors was, that ilia bill was ignored, the evidence on which it had boa presented ought not to go forth to the Politic. ad that all that the world should know should be,.410 the accused had been entirely acquitted. 1' therefore, was imposed, not as the Learned man had expressed, merely for the benefit of the Stub .but for the benefit of a third party. He trostedis the Committee would not sanction the doctrine** the House of Commons could annul an obligati*: previously incurred in the most solemn snanner,nais the sanction of the law. Mr. DENMAN.—If the Committee were with the Honourable Gentleman who had l * * 1 1 11 1; dressed them, they would say that tho s e whibil effected the Reformation and the Revolution hod been guilty of perjury. He contended. that the soh in the case of a Grand Juryman did not imply dm he should not, when the promotion of the ends if justice required, state what a witness had sword be fore the Grand Jurys • He did not consider the oath in that light ; he considered " the King's Comer in the oath to mean the means resorted to is the first instance by the Crown, to apprehend and isier to trial the accused ; znd if the Grand Juror, pa*" these preliminary proceedings, were to speak ra i d" he might obstruct the administration of justice, by enabling the accused to escape, or necessary Irk' nesses to be kept back upon the trial before the Petit .fury; but the moment the proceedings Sere cm. eluded, the obligation of that part of the oath ceased. He considered " his fellows counsel" to alms the part which his fellow Jurors had taken issheJery room, and which, if disclosed, might Mai* thou objects of malice either to the prosecutfis 'or lir prosecuted. As to " his own counsel," be caskstog be did not exactly know what was meant by it words • but he was satisfied that neither thine Not any ot her words applied to the evidence, as that was not in the whole oath the word " evidence".- He trusted the Committee would not, by deel ar that they could not call upon GrandJurorsto levee what evidence passed in the Jury-room, hold Se the Public that any man might, through "MOP wards his neighbour, go before a Grand Airy, 104 by his false evidence cause that fieighboor to be upon his trial with impunity. He-beard vial& prase an observation which, had been made Hon. Member who last addressed the that this was not a question of importance. be would 'ask, was it of no importance to psier . r, sources of justice? He considered it a lyellotif the deepest and most - grave importance; *1 . 4„ . 7 thought justice to die accused required thi4 lOor he should be condemned, his cooducteaghboo quired into by all the ways attainable hYdaw•terit . the privileges of that House. Mr. CANNING said he did notiatend to •. 'large and philosophical view which had - of this question, neither did he mean toargeo what would be done in a Court °Maw open stobis occasion; because, as that House was not bawd the rules.of a Court of Law, it would be the time of the Committee to say asvonispale . gtonnd ; but. the Committee in deciding. tletitor case ought to look to the practical way.in obligation of an -oath was considered eatotoof andlie thought no one could doubt bog detlo! taking that oath cernsidered, - howevererisseatif o would not inquire. that dm was boosiLblif f keep all that passed in their Jory-toontso , o l . lo were two .questlons before the Cossmitte! 'dew thority of the House; and, *Hy, the. which that authority oug t ht tO beeserciaud; 1 ,0 111 : spect to the authority et &e l:louse. to ciaesoill:: obligation of as oath raked by virtue of Oolows.' or Act of Parliament, he confessed he ofir de , danger than advantage Might arise from tho.doS sion of that authority in the abstract ; and be tame: it better to enter into a discussion upon the ow. the AbelitieiPalf 4 i ,w..Itte,OMBY thought tat Viers AA that was rielvd• 14. 40, silt the iekici;ests Lice.by Glittlemen fe a c whia the remotsit liiirftiktt"tiomment durittetbe Niqut . Un*Whedlir case ought to m i ghtk , , s . theputdicetton read by-thil Right raWlvielis , by the oath v "egret* t Jis bey "PM highly censurable. He fett happy in, tlkat that an Act c Weer*. 4. 2 :4 opportunity to state, ;hat all offence of that nature solve a religil the same W hims ' was not confined to that side of the question. During say that even jest forward eithet the whole of his Parliamentary life, he had never the man who BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Colonel BARRY begged to state to the House, that there was no man more unwilling than himself to complain of a breach of the privileges of that House; but he felt that he should not be discharging his duty, if he neglected calling the attention of the House to a gross libel contained in a newspaper, called The Mitish Press, in its publication of that day. From the obscurity of the print in question, he should have been inclined to pass over the article he alluded to in silence and contempt; but however obscure, he could not in justice suffer it to pass un noticed. Before he should proceed with the case, he begged leave to read the paragraph containing what he deemed a gross breach of the privileges of the House. The Right Hon. Member then proceeded to read the paragraph, which was as follows: • " The inquiry into the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin stilt occupies the atteninm of the House of Commons; and each night increases in interest. The details are received, we under stand, with the most intense anxiety in Ireland. The case against Mr. Thorpe closed last night ; and those who conduct his defence went into evidence for him. The first name called was that of Henry Flandwich, the fellow, we believe, who threw the botde, the most notorious of the Orange rioters.— He, however, was modest enough not to answer, or was not present ; and a Mr. Mansfield, of the Town Clerk's Office, was substituted in his place. We cannot well conceive a stronger Lase of partiality and corruption than now made out against the sheriff. The deliberate packing of one Jury, and the intention' to select another of furious Orangemen, were deposed to out of his own tips; his avowals were stated, of having the Orange panels in his pocket. The exclusion of Poole was clearly proved, because his principles were those of fairness arid con ciliation. The conduct, the gross indecent conduct of the Jury this Officer packed, was proved by *veral witnesses; that they stifled and repressed all evidence—interrupted the individuals who came into the Juiy-roamand would hear and receive nothing against the rioter Forbes. Mr. Troy, on Tueedpy night, stated these facts positively. Mr. Carpenter, an &toe. ney, gave evidence to the same effect : he spoke to the violent conduct of the Foreman of the Jury, to his frequent interrup tions, and the difficulty be experienced in giving his evidence.— They were last night corroborated by Serjeant Harris, and Ryan, au Officer of the Excise ; both represented the conduct of the Jury as that of inflamed partisans, and not Impartial men upon their oaths. Harris stated, that when giving his eel, deuce, he was iota ruined by three or foul Jurors, starting up violently at a time, together, to confuse and contradict hitte-7 Ryan proved, that when giving a description of the person who 'fad thrown the watchmen's rattle at the Viceroy, and swearing positively ro the individual, he was interrupted bt the - Fore. man, who asserted, that in a previous part of tali - examination, he expressed a doubt as Co the identity of the person, though 'the witness had alt through sworn to him most positively.— There can be now no doubt, froin the e4it l enci:Of SPas.' Poole •atid from that* of the other Dublin Shetiff, Costwilaso/14 was ettamined by Mr. Plunkett hue night, that Aisle -we. es. eluded the Grand Jury from the foulest nattthees.'..„ll4 tsis nut. opponent of a fellow of the nam. of Smiler, a low but violent ' (Orangeman in the Corporation, and there fore he was set iielde. ritaseen Deessysell rodent prigs deriestoe'—liberiff Thorpe is Orfeetnegemplikation .f -this maxim. He was no taroks with authorhy aud preiudice, that he disguised none of hisfuteutions. He avowed all Ids plans,and is now convicted from his own lips. We have often said that there is no act, however horrible or atrocious, of Which the ()ranee party are not Capable; and the examination pi Taman night clearly shews it, and displays this execrable faction in the darkest colours. They found that Mr. Wadden, a most respectable tradennian of Dublin, a man hitherto unimpeached in character, though unfortunate fricircumstanees, was giving overpomecingevidenue against diens, sod they in stand' entered into i topopitogy ro try,and damn his repotatioo by the rails .abornitiable sauna** 1 -1 4 c ,was subjected to an examination at their sugzestion, which ere Cipunit now stain our pages by recording, and which witl4bow Okra' feeling ofhidlp nation and disgust was subsequeridy *Awed to he espunged from their minor); by the House. fle begged luare then*o givein that Paper, ancl• defiled that reference should be made to the Journals of 1788 t and to the ease-of Sir . Elijah. Imply. In that: case it would be fotind, that dUring au iaquiry into ~ . . his c0t,t431. iq _Oat ;loqse, sons yoblicatiionk inju rious to Sir Elijab (aley appeared, and the House came to a Resolution—" That an humble Acidressbe presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty may be graciously pleased. to givy directions to his i%lajesty's Attorney-General:to proseinteind bring to condign punishment the hiitlorti if that . pablitation." Now, although it was not his intitition'to commit the house with a newspaper, or to bring it into a predi catnent with printers, yet, feeling that he Should not discharge his duty to - the 'House, to hiMitelf, andlip the parties who were the objects ei attack, or to the Public, did he not exhibit that Paper to the House, he would therefore mere hand- in the Paper, leav ing to the house to deadawith it as it should seem meet. He should, however, now move that the Printer of the British Pressle called to the bar. The SPEAKER. said, before the Right Honourable Gentleman.could make .any motion on the.subject, it must appear that the House was pleased that the Pa per should be delivered:in. . Sir M. W. RIDLEY felt unwilling to interface; but it appeared to him that the lariguage of the-Pe per was not directed against, nor did it apply to, Dar contain any insinuation against, any individuals within the walls of that House. He would therefore suggest to the Right Honourable Gentleman, as hir did not intend to found any ulterior proceedings on his motion, that perhaps the Right Honourable Gen tleman would best consalt his own feelings, end at tain his own object, by refraining from interference . with individuals who, by some means or other, ob-' tanned a knowledge of what passed within the walls of that House—(Hear, hear). Colonel IiARRY did not wish to press the matter farther, provided a general feeling of the House should be expressed, that gross injustice bad been at tempted by the publication in question, against in ' vidnals who had appeared at the bar of that House. hlr. C. W. WYNN said, assuredly every person who appeared at its har was entitled to protection by the House. The House mast either punish offences similar to the present, or be • under the necessity of clearing the gallery, as had been done on foram' ;oc casions, in order to prevent their proceedings from being reported. keep G evoi .1 ; • • Jettt *eta Graff the ever lot teilii +e h: tons the but, imeti Aoki stst9 upo l Jur! es* and ply i btu, tic I.J Vi tkil tt be v Or V be d He call