The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-05-09 00:00:00

• Paine's Age of Reason." This, the Moose was aware, had been the snhject of many prosecutions, and notwith standing what had been said by the Hon. Member, he world appeal to many lient'etnen in that House who had been in the habit of attending Courts of Law, if it were not competent to any individual though a libel had been prosecuted fifty times, to urge in his defence, the fifty lirit time, the very same tapirs he had urged on the for mer trills. The petitioner complained that he was inter rupted i Mhis defence. Now be would state the facts to the House, and they would then . 10-dee what ground he l.ad for such a complaiat. On the first day 9i the trial of Carlile, without calling any witnesses, commenced his defence In an address to the Jury at eleven 'o'clock, which he continued till ten nt night, and the Court then • adjourned. The next day be recommenced his address at ten o'clock, and rontinned till seven, when thaConrt, again adjourned. On the third day he resumed his de fence at the usual hour, and closed at fire. The Jury found him guilty, & the Court again heard him in arrest of jedement. So indulgent was the Court to this indivi dual, through his defence, that at the time sentence was passing on him, they told those individuals who were engared in taking notes of the proceedings, that it as mild net be safe for them to publish all that bad passed. The Honourable Member complained of the excessive fine of 1,300/. was imposed upon that occasion, and 54:16/. upon a subsequent conviction. Carlile then stated that nethingshoeld divert him from l•:s course, that he would Ilse every means to t.efeat the law ; that his wife would carry on the business, and be delighted to become a mar tyr in such a cause, and if she should be prosecuted and convicted, he bad a sister who would continue the busi ness, and when all his family were convicted, he would hire individuals at a low rat , ., so poor as not to he ame nable to the law. Mr. Carlile has kept his word. All his family and various of his shopmen have been convict e•l. It was only the t io:er day one was convicted, and a prosecution was now going forward against another. Soda has been the conduct of Mr. Carl'le. With respect to the fine, theor rno•leof proceeding was resorted to—a'• !evari facies" was issued to recover it; but then the lion. Member says, it ought not to have been exe cuted till the period of imprisonment had expired : if this was the fact, Mr. Carlile had his remedy, to which, however, he did not resort. With this the Court had no thing to dix The . exeention was given to • the Sheriff, and if he acted illegally in not selling the property im mediately, Carlile had then his remedy. and could have made the Sheriff sell; but what did he do?—be held over and then brought an action of damages against the Sheriff. He did not mean to defontl the conduct of the Sheriff on that occasion, but his defence was, that all Carlile's pamphlets were so libellous, that it would not he safe for hint t., sell them. The question went to the Jury, and he did not believe they were influenced by any partiality for the Sheri ff , in giving one shilling da m sirs. The Sheriff then employed a Learned Friend of his (the Salicitor General), Mr. Starkey, to go through the 1641,090 volumes, and select those which were not libellous for the . porpose of sale, and so small was the cumber that it only produced 351. at a public auction. — Under these circumstances, he thought the petitioner had no ground of complaint. There was but one other observation which he wished to make before he sat down. The Hon. Member had said that the fine was ea• ceasing, and yet there was a statement in his speech ceite ineunsistent with such a charge, because he admit ted that in consequence of the Conviction, Carlile sold 11000 copies of " Paine's Theological Works," at half al:tines-each, and pnt the nrotits in his pocket. Thus, iu consequence of the proceedings instituted against making much store than the amouht of the fines. Mr. LV.,\ NAHA in supporting the petition, said that the ptufishment if not illegal, was at all events unconsti tction,,llysevere. _ . Mr. MIME said there were at first hat 2,000 copies, 3,000 were then added, and afterwards 10,00'0, altogether n:aking . 15.000 copies. He reminded the Hon. and Gentleman opposite, as it was a subject which would fervently come under their consideration, tnat it ought not, to he the object of punishment, to make its sicttni glory in it, which was the case in the present in s'ence. Mr. DENMAN said that it was now proved that irre ligion as well religion had its martyrs. The punishment of the petitioner was excessive, as he bad no means of paying the.fine, his p•operty having been taken from him. He was tertain that if the Court had been aware at the timintpassing sentence, that the individual would not have the means of paying the fine at the expiration 0: hie confinement, it would not have been so excessive, and as the House were now in possession of thecircurn stances, they ought ro (hi that %% lath the Court would hare done. Mr. pzet; said that at the time the Court passed the sentence, they knew that. Carlile, who had stated it in' his defence, bad sold 3,000 copies at half a guinea, each, and most have had therefore a considerable profit. Mr. HUME moved,that the petition he printed. Mr. PEEL. opposed the motion on. the ground of the' impropriety of. tiring eurrency.to am libellous pnbliea- Ilene mentioned io the petitions. ) •". -Air,HUME said that he thought the names of the beoks the meat essential part of the petition. If it,con teineri no objectionable words, he did not see why tire printing of it should be refused. He had no objection that tire marginal references should be omitted. Mr. PEEL objected to the printing of any document in a mutilated farm. Mr. HUME said he would then reserve to himself the power of. putting it.in another form. The petition was then laid on the table. Mr.: DENMAN presented a petition from Notting /10h praying for an araiilation of duty on East and West Indiasugars.—larid on the table. IlLAOKßUlAN'presented a petition from War rington. praying/Mr ties abolition of Slavery.—Ordered to be prinusi . Mr. DICKINSON presented a similar petition from Yeseil.-Orttered to be printed. . Mr, CHALONER presented a petition on the same subj..ct from Yorkshire. Mr. GRENFELL presented a petition from Burring don, praying for a repeal of the duty on Coals carried coast-wise.--Ordereil to, be printed. Mr. EVANS presented petitions from Bedford and Balder*, praxiog for the abolition of Slavery.--Ordered W be printed. Mr. DUSKISSON presented s petition from the bakers awl floor dealers of Liverpool, praying for the flue/lesion of the bread assize of tLondon to Liverpool.— The Hon. Member was of opinion.that it ought to be ex tended not only to Liverpool. boa to every town 1. the .1 • ki ag(tOtn. 1 ~ )1 Mr. tsitENFELL: concurred with the Right Hon. Gent. in the treeeseity of such a Bill. Mr. G. RENNET. wring the Right Hort. the Attor ney. General loin* blase, wished. to ask him a question which he had betaotihe habit ofputting every Session fur the last.five year.. and to which he hull always re c,eived an ineffectual. snorter. He wished to 'carol( the A lterations recommended by the Cersamission of Inquiry, which had been scat out to Guernsey in ISIS, had yet. been carried into execution. The ATTORNEY.-GENERAL said that the subject was now before the Privy .Council. Some alterations were adopted, and others only waited foe further common'. Goitres prior 14, their being adopted. Mr. ABERCROJIBY molted that a Select Committee be appointed to exaotioe the Jooroale of the Howse of Lords, to astertain_the. beej. Means of facilitating the hearing of Appeaser —Ordered. • IttiiIZACIH.O,B Pt IV 'LEG N.. • RAltltt now : mete. to, c4ll, the attention of the Molar to eii; 4*. c`ieniiielitOW WhiC4l eitpraretriliat. day is THE STATESMAN • 'a certain Moirniiig Paper.' He Would, however; pas , them over in silence, had it not been for the wickedness and falsehood in tibia they were dictated, and which obliged hint to bring the paragraph under' the considera tion of the House, as a gross breach of its privileges. — The Hon. Member read the following passage from the paper in question : • The inquiry into the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin still oecuples the attention of the House of Commons ; and each night increases in interest. The details are received, we understand, with the moat intense anxiety in Ireland. The case against Mr. Thorpe closed lett night; and those who conducted his defence went into evidence for him. The first risme called was that of Henry liandwich, the fellow, we believe, who threw tae bottle, the most notorious Of the Orange rioters. He, however, was modest enough not to I Punter, or was not present ; end a Mr. Mansfield, of the Town Clerks' Office, was substituted in his place. We can not well conceive a stronger case of partiality and corrup tioa than that now made out against the Sheriff. The deli. berate packing of one Jury, and the intention to select an other of furious Orangemen, were deposed to out of his own lips ; 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 and concil a tido. The conduct, the gross indecent conduct, of the Jury this officer packed, was proved by several. witnesses ; that they stifled and repressed' all evidence—interrupted the in dividuals who came into the Jury-room—and would hear and receive nothing against the rioter Forbes. Ms.. Troy, an Tuesday night, stated these facts positively. Mr. Car penter, an attorney, gave evidence to the same effect. He spokelo the violent conduct of the Foremaneof the Jury, to his frequent interruptions, and the difficulty he experienced in giving his evidence. They were lest night corroborated by Seri. Ilarris, and Ryan, an officer of the excise ;• both re presented the conduct of the Jury as that of inflamed parii , sans, and not impartial men upon their oaths. Harris stated, that when giving his evidence he was interrupted by three or four Jurors, starting up violently at a Vile, together, to confuse and contradict hint. Ryan proved, that when giving a description of the person who had thrown the watchman's rattle at the Viceroy, and sweating positively to the in iivi dual, he was interrupted by the Foreman, who ass:rted. that in a previous part of his examination, he expressed a doubt as to the identity of the person, though the witness had all through sworn to him most positively. There can be now no doubt, from the evidence of William Poole and from that of the other Dublin Sheriff, Mr. Cooper, who was examined by Mr. Plunkett last night, that Poole was excluded Lie Grand Jury from the foulest motive. Ha was an opponent of a fellow of the name of Suttler, a low but violent Orange man in the Corporation, and therefore he was set aside. Queen deur tuft perdere prier demented.' Mr. Sheriff Thorpe is a perfect exemplification of this maxim ; he was so swoln with authority and prejudice that he disguised none of his intentions; he avowed all his plans, and is now con victed from his own lips. We have often said that there is no act, however horrible or atrocious, of which the Orange party are not capable; and the examination of Tuesday night clearly shows it, and displays this execrable faction in the darkest colours. They found that Mr. Wadden, a most respectable tradesman of Dublin, a man hitherto uttimpetsch ed in character, though unfortunate in circumstances, was giving overpowering evidence against them, and they in stantly entered into a conspiracy to try anti damn his repu tation, by the most abominable calumnies. lie was sub jected to an examination at their suggestion, which we can not now stain our pages by recording, and which with one general feeling of indignation and disgust was subsequently 'rdered to be expunged from their minutes by the House. flue!' of the tranquillity of Ireland will depend on this in quiry and its result; it is attended but by few Members In the House, and the Foreign Secretary has deserted it alto gether ; but even if these few, acting in the name of the Commons of England, wilt act with a det.rmination to tran quillize the country Oho object of this investigation), much indeed may be dons. Withoutit, Marquess Wellesley can not remain is laptood, Mr. filmdom cannot exercise his pow ers with any ► ot safety, the Orangemen will run riot in faction, and thssWblteboss in blood: and Irelnud will be one dreadful scene of conflagration and murder." The Hon. Member then referred to the Journals of INS, to slew that a ino4ion had been made directiag the Attorney-General, at Ito instance of the House, to prosecute certain libels agai. Warren Hastings, writ ten pending the inquiry. . (Colonel Barry) by no means wished the House to' t a similar course in the present instance, thinking . therm altercation with printers and persons of that description ought if possible to be avoided. But he was persuaded that he should not ilis charge his his duty, if he left unnoticed these malignant comments, which were likely to prejudice the public mind against the person whose conduct was the subject of the regain , now pending. The newspaper was then given In, and the Hon: Member then moved that the printer be ordered to attend at the bar of the House to-morrow (this day.) Sir M. W. RIDLEY did not think that the language complained of applied to the House, though it contained insinuations against persons who were not parties to its proceedings. He would put it to the Right lion. Member whether he would not best consult the feelings of the House by withdrawing the motion. Colonel BARRY said he was willing to do so, if be could obtain from the House a general opinion of the gross injustice done to an individual by the remarks which be had read. He certainly thought that, if such comments were not noticed in that place, the Press would be master of the House, and not the House of the Press. Mr. W. WYNN said that any person charged by the House, was under its protection pending the inquiry. lie therefore thought that the comments referred to came within the cognizance of the House. But, at the same time, lie was quite satisfied that the 'notice already taken would be sufficient to prevent a repetition of the offence ; and if not, it would be for the House to proceed at once, and inflict punishment on the offending party. Mr. A BERCROM BY said it would be much better if Newspaper writers made no comments in the course of the inquiry. He thought that the statement which had been read was highly coloured ; but thee be would also ob. kerve that never within his recollection, from the time he first because a Member of that House, did he perceive so many papers and pamphlets, all on the other side. If the House should once enter into this contest, they could not expect to be very speedily delivered from It. Mr. PEEL concurred in the propriety of proceeding no further with this subject. He was perfectly convinced that the character of his Right Hon. Friend was proof against all attacks that could he wade upon it by persons who abused the liberty of the Press. One great advant age, however, resulting from the liberty of the Press, was that its licentiousuesecarried its own shame and reproach along with it. It was a natural consequence that no in jury could be done to character by the malignant excesses of is contemptible Newspaper. The motion was then withdrawn. SHERIFF OF DUBLIN. The House on the motion of Mr. J. WILLIAMS,went into a Committee, and the proceedings in the above ease :were resumed. • Henry Handwich, sea. was then called in on . the motion of Cul. WARR Y, who examined him. He stated that he was no relation whatever to Sheriff Thorpe, neither were his sons, by marriage or otherwise.. There wee, however, a reletionahip between another * . branch of his family and Sheriff Thorpe. HenryJos. Wade was the next witness called. Mr. JON LS was proceeding to examine this witness, as to whether a person named Hyatt had been examined. • before the tiran d Jury, when • - . - • Mr. PLUNKET r rose and observed, that it was im possible the witnes4 court give any answer aii to what had pass-d before the Grand Joey, finless the Committee first decided that he might do so.. It was therefore e . eessary, in the first instanCi ti . to revert to the questaian which had engaged the attecitioa of the-t:aminittee last night. . . . i Mr. WYNN had no dt,ubt that it was conspeteat td the Haase -to call ea Juitikalo state what hay accarred br . . : : • . .... . .. : • foref)sem. - The Right lion. Gent. then clfed some eagles in s upport of the point, and dwelt particularly do that of Sir John Fenwick. Mr. ABERCROM BY adverted to the Bill introrlueed by the late Mr. Horner, Ntilt.li that it referred not to. sire ?tore evidence, bet to hills founded on inforthitions." The proviso in that li II was always the law of the !amt. It s. as his derided opinion that the House was bound to call on the Jurors in question to answer to the fullest ex tent, and that they were bound to comply. Mr. PEEL, in the course of some observations, said that the present bt gt a ram of cotiscience, was an ex• ception to the genera' rile of obliging witnesses to give evidence. lie admitted that, in all other respect*, the power vested in the House was not to be questioned ; tint a Juror was hound on oath not to cereal his own cotineel, the King's, or that of his fellows. He would ask, theroo was it in the power of that House, or of any human poet er, to release him ? 11 s would ask the bolus if they would commit to Nenlate thop persons who merely re fused to answer questions because they felt some consci entious seraphs. He was of opinion that if they con ceived the oath of the Grand Jury to have a Mein con-, struetion bindiug on their consciences, no p reer on earth could-absolve them. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH expressed his °pin; in of the assertions of the Right lion. Gent. who spoke last. Although that Right His Gentleman did nit doubt the power of the Privy Council to absolve one of their body from his oath in a case like the present, yet he would not carry the power of that House sa far, but even doubted its authority. This would he going Inc kto the times in which the riligious andotivil sanctions were confounded. According to all the received II WI and canons of all the theolooisne with whose writings he bad been able to fortis an acquaint:owe, no sooner had the authority that im puted the oath ceased, thin the religious sanction ceased also. The same also was his notion between the relioi ous atacivil sanction. Ile would ask, how otherwise mould the oath of allegiance taken to James the Second be dissolved at the Revolution by the adherents of Wit• ham, and soon after by the whole British bathos? Many other oaths, Wm toe oath of allegiance, were mere pro iniesory oaths, and the L-gialature who first imposed them, could alter or r•-pesl them, and impose new obli gations. What was the House to think of oaths taken by the Clergy of England at the Reformation? Was Cronmer and Tillotson ignorant of the sanctions imposed by religion and by the positive law ? As soon as the law imposing the oath was dissolved, at the same time the 'obligation, or at least the prohibition, ceased. The Houle was not to consider the delicacies and unfounded scruples of witnesses. They shook' be sifted, and such as retuned to stand such test, should nut come before the House, nor could their testimony be de pended on. Snell witnesses as pretended those scruples incapacitated theinolree. Those were the reams by which lie styperied the right of the Committee to insist on answers to the questions proposed. • Mr. WETHERELL Said, that in all eases where wit nesses had scruples, the beet test would be far the House to dctrtnline whetter those scruples were reasonable or not. With respect to-the oats of allegiance, that was a promise to maintain the authority of the state. One person proposed and the other promised t bat tvhen the authority of the foresee ceased, the latter was absolved. It %%mold be u !y introducing confusion to mix up the religion with all oaths of this kind. The proposer of the oath mayput one construction on the oath, and the person who takes it may pet a different interpretation on it. In such a case the rule would be to decide vvios dena aniinson iinponentir. In continuation of this po sition, the Hun, and Learned Gentleman cited the au thority of Doctor Paley, and contended that the person who proposed, and nut lie who took t:ie oath, was the proper interpreter at it. That beini laid down as a prin ciple, hebegeed of the Committee to apply it to the case of those Grand Jurors. It was a part of their oath nut to divulge what happened in the Grand Juri-:oust till after the delinquent was tried. Stich concealment use for the benefit of justice. Tnat oath of coneeelment was imposed by a Legislative enactment, but the House claim ed a right by common law, sad paramount to all Legis lative enactments. The maxim in all those cases °road's, was to inquire lois inspodvit et (mink?. \o wall could impose an interminable seal of secreey, when time cause for which such oath of seeresy was imposed had ceased. If those oaths of Grand Jurors a. ere iutermina ble, while the Couse of Commons claimed the paramount right of examining them, this dilemma would follow that one should give nay. If the relieionist believed that the oath aces I inning on him, the Legislature could not dissolve the obligation on him. If the obliecatioa of oaths did not cease with the causes of imposing them, nine•tenths of the Members of the University represented by his Right honourable Friend, were walking about the streets in veiled habits u; perjury. After all the at tention he gave the present subject, he could not but feel that the scruples of the witnesses Were without foun dation. On these grounds lie gave it as his opinion, that the Committee might follow up their examination. Mr. Bluoirr expressed a hope that no scruples of the parties ander examination would have the effect of stop ping short the inquiry into the conduct of the Sheriff.— lie trusted that the question would be decided by the Right Hon. Gentleman, whomeopialon, from his habits and studies, a. as to be considered the highest authority in that Howie. Mr A. BARING said be had no bias in his mind in determining the present question. He would not, how ever, be supposed to treat lightly so important a case. The simple question was, whether this was an oath im• posed permaneutly on the Grand Jury or not. It was cot enough that the party who originally imposed the oath would release the party taking it. There was often a third party whose interests were at stake, and on account of whets the persons taking the oath could not be released. Mr. DENMAN said that the case was one where the obligation of an oath did not apply at all. If a witness setimmitted perjury before a Gratid Jury, how could he be 'Wrought to trail without the Jurymen being absolved from their oaths? If a man were convicted in open Court, on the oath of a per : ured witness, in the presence of the twenty-three Grand Jurymen, should an innocent man be allowed to suffer', betontse the Jurymen would not expose the falsehood uf the witness? The nature of the oath did not go to the extent of preventing the dis closure of evidence. It only bound them to - keep the •King'stounsel, their fellows, and their own. Lord Sooner', io his Treatise on Grand Juries, fully explained the meaning of the King's Counsel and their fellows. Without entering into a larger or more philosophical arguinent, he felt that the greatest latitude should be al lowed in the pre: ent case. lie heard with surprise the statement of the Right Hon. Gent. who spoke last, that the question Was of no importance, but if it were done only for tne ends of justice to an accused individual, that was a :natter of ohe greatest importance. Mr. CANNING said that it was by no means his in tention to follow into the large and general question.— H e only h o ped that the point would be decided so as to •eixe sad faction without doors, and without a stretch of Ale extreme authority of the House. There was as• &010 but that the oath of a Grand Jury hound the siembees to secresy as to all what passed before them, • and if there was any injury accruing from the strict itaintenance of that principle, the error would be a ,ground for a new legislotiee enactment. The questionl which the House bail then, in fact, to decide was, wise titer it should exercise its authority or its discretion ?e With regard to its authority, there was uo necessity of taking the question abstractedly, as one where the com petency of the House was at stake. In point of discre tion, it seemed to be admitted on all sides that a refusal - - 1 / i I to answer the question by a juror, whether arising from scruples of tendernrss of conscience or f!ous ocher causes should not be visited with the extreme di.pleasitre of the !louse, or the party be cominitted from that bar. Coder these eirenmstances, lie could not s , .e what advantage there mull he i goinz further into the cohbideratiln the steoject, or in patting the question, when the House declared, beforehand, that it did not in'cril to proceed , against the witness to the last extreini!y. The scrupl es * of the witnesses might not confine etch of them to the same light, and the probable effect of going low the iii— rptiry on the condtrt of the Grand Jury would be, th at a great deal of evidence tending. one way would he gi ver ,. and the flame be, perhaps, lei to come to a co.nplet e ly false view of the case. That consideration WWI so strin g pith him that lie would vote against thequestions king put ti the Grand Jurors. He reserved altogether the. great point of the authority of the lin .:e. Ile reznitteit to find that any thing like iiiiiente should he dir e et,i against the solemn obligation of an oath. To compare the oath of a Juryman to those obsolete and ridiculous tests eljuded to by an Ibin, an I f.eirool Itlemkr, w... not to raise the Onirersity oath to the character of Vie . oath of a Jury, but to lower the obligation of a Jury It, the nominal bond of the other. • • Mr. WETHERELL au CANNING mutually esti aimed. Mr. PLUNKETT sail rge had been male against the Sheriff of the city • in fey improper con duct in inspanelling a Jury, am as evidence' had been snit - emit in support of that charge with regard to tbe.con duct of the Jury themselves, it mould he a gross injosties . to the Sheriff to suspend the couroe of any examination by which an answer to those charges might he given. —lf the House canoe to the determine ion not t • per sue the examination of those witnesses, it would he, is his opinion, but fair that all the prelimin ory dente touching the conduct of the Grand Jury should be expunged. Mr. BROUGHAM said, that having expressed some • doubts oil the pr ceding evening, and having since pall some a:tention to the subjert, and having heard the speeches of Hon. Gentlemen, he was anxinns to say a f w *lords. The object of the inqiiiry could be attained in his opinion without a diatiosure cif what paoiril the Grand Jury. The question was, in fact,could the inquiry goon oith safety and to the completion of its oloject, without . inquiring into the transactions before the Grand Jere.— If any 111AlltliOlIght it could out, that man must be further of opinion that the inquiry must be gone into in the fol. • lest extent, and that the 1 rase mug act reti ospectire!vmol alts••lve trots, an obligation already made. The point which the lloitse hail to try in re hits was, whether the She. ;e packed the Grand Jure or not, and though licalltnitted the . value of evidence on time sub.eif tent cohduct of the Jure, yet it was riot absolutely material to a decision on the lost issue. The Sherilrs comlact was by siii means to slant or fall by the conduct of the Jury, for if los were a wan determined to procure an improper verdict, be would take care to impanel men who would preserve the semi. blance of decorum and regnlarity. regard to the *pinion he had given on :Ire stili of the King, hr arts not on cousideration dispo;eil to in iintain it, as it would be to declare, that there was one en sctuteat far Ireland and an-other for England, with respts t tea Grand Juries. tae couhd not agree with the reasoning of an Han. Mesa- , her, that a Juror could not be dispensed from his oath to prosecute a witness for perjury before him. Timer was a casein point which he reran:tn.!. • A mars was givireg evidence against another for a capital otiono. and during the progress of his examination, a note tro is cue of the Grand Jury was sent dawn to his Cann;-t stating that the witness hail given evidence of a ditto-rot nature to the Grand Jury on the day before. rime con. - tlMSnett was the JUryinan was ittlinittad au evidence, the min under trial was acquitted, nod toe other Was tried and convio•teol of perjury on the same testimony. After some farther o'iservations the lion. Member concluded by expressing his concurrence in the propriety of 11 it forcing the extreme authority of the liouse. Colonel BARRY said, that the inquiry should be pnr ,tueil in justice to the Sheriff ; from what he understood the Grand Jurymen were not desirous of pressing their scruphes. • The ATTORNEYGENERA obsnrvetl, that when, two nights, ago, the first question was put to a tritti..ss with respect to the conduct of the Grand Jury, lie bad en tered his protest against such a line of evidence, be cause lie foresaw that if it were persevered in, the com mittee would be placed in ti , dilemma in which their now stood. He regretted that thellouss had not listened to his advice upon that occasion. tic Lite:: that in the rase of Sir John Fenwick the house Ii convene:l.a Grand Juror to state proceedings tvli;cii had passed in the jury room ; but hedoubted whether it would be ex pedient to ffillow that p-ecedent upon the present occa sion. He had not yet ma le up his mind upon that poito, and he therefore hoped that the committee would not come to a hasty decision of the question In fore it. (tf this lie was satisfied, at all events, that if the committee should refuse to receive the evidence of the Gram] Jury, they ought in justice to those gentlemen to expunge from the minutes of the evidence eyery word which le herd to their conduct. (Hear.) Dr. LUSHINGTON entertained no ilonbt of the pow er of Parliament to absolve Grand Jurymen from their oaths. He agreed with his Hon. and Darned Friend- in• the opinion that every thing relating to :he conduct of the Grand Jury ought to be struck motor the evidence if the testimony of the Jury were not mint:al-it. Sir 3. NEWPORT suggested that a motion shoal.' he made to expunge from the minutes all that related to the conduct of the Grand Jury. (Cries of " Move.") He would first wish to know the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. Colonel HARM was of opinion 'that the proceeding suggested by the Right lion. Bart. would he an act of gross injustice towards the Grand Jury. Could the committee, after having allowed all the calumny (he did not use the wort in an offensive sense) which hail been uttered against the Grand Jury to be published, now re fuse to hear and record their vindication ? Sir J. NEWPORT said lie would not in he the mar lion in opposition to the opinion of the It. glut Him 6 ri fleman. Mr. DAWSON contended, that the nature of the case required the fullest itsvestigition—inpatation bad been frequently thrown out on the administration of justice in Ireland—it was right to see whether these imput ohms were well founded.' He, for one, would vote fur no thing short. Mr. GOULBURN adhered to the opinion he had al ready given, namely, that no individual ought to be compelled to giveevidence, which to his conviction might appear a contradiction to iris oath. Sir N. COIITHURST said, that five of the witnesse% contained in the list, given by the Attorney-General for Ireland, had thrown blame on the Jury. The Jury would not receive fair play, if an opportunity were not allowed them to defend themselves agaiust charges already made. Mr. CANNING said, that the Grand Jury had ptated in a Petition to that House, that acclsations bad been made against them by the Attorney-General for Iceland, of an unwarrantable sort—that bound as they were to secresy, they were not at liberty to disclose the evidtnce that had been brought before them—or the reasons oo which they had founded the decision they hatdconie to — that paragraphs in the Petition sheaved thistStlie Jury that thirty were not at liberty to disclose What had Owl place before them. Mr. BROUGHAM said, that he did not think that t h e evidence of the Grand Jury was necessary to the defe nce of the Sheriff, though the Gentlemen who conducted the case on the other side witle so much ability were of a diG fern!fent opinion. felt, -,: