The Statesman. — London, England, 1823-05-03 00:00:00

it nn it had ever before'exhibited at any time of its history. It. had no doubt, their Lordships would lied it necessary anon to redress those grievances, in order to restore the Infield energy of its population. He should think it duty to bring forward some motion upon this subject of equitable adjustment, and he took this opportunity of thus 'Mating his sentiments, however ineffectual his exertions might he, or, whatever little success might attend them. The attention of Parliament had been unfortunately occu pied with a review of transactions in which they bad no di rect concern, namely, that of censickring the conduct of Foreign Sovereigns, in which they had, comparatively speaking, no right to judge, and. whose conduct they had no power to control ; white the Government neglected re dressing thosegrievances which existed in our own country, end which it was in their power to remedy. It was still his intention to submit various motions upon the subject of those grievances, whenever the time arrived when the result was likrly to be more advantageous and beneficial than at the present moment. He could not, however, lose this oppor tunity of protesting against leaving unredressed and uncon sidered by Parliament the state of the currency which im posed such tremendous grievances upon the country. The Petition, which had given rise to these observations, he viewed as the Petition, not of one individual, but of every individual in the realm, from the highest to the lowest, be eline every one was concerned in the benefits to be derived from the jest principle of an equitable adjustment. It was therefore his intention, upon those general principles, to move, upon some future day, that this Petition be tskeu into consideration, but at present he should content himself with moving that it he laid upon the table. This motion was accordingly agreed to. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. 110USF: OF LORDS.—FRIDAY. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Grants in Aid Bill, the Revenue Consolidation Bill, the lnkeeper's Allowance Bill, and the Naval and Military Pensions' Bill. The Commissioners were the Loril Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftesbni•v. and Lord Redesdale. The Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND presented a petition from Newcastle on Tyne against the Coal duties. Lord SIDMOUTH moved that all the Reports on the table respecting the State of Ireland, be referred to a Committee.—Ordered. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Blackburn, complainiog of Agricaltural Distress. A ;serval from • the India Company presented certain papers respeeting Salaries anal Pensions. DUTY ON FOREIGN WOOL. On the order of the day for the third reading of the Wsrelions 7 ng Bill, The Earl of HAREWOOD objected to that part of it which went to lay duties on the importation of Foreign Wool. He would put it to their Lordships whether it wte just to impose a tax on our own manufactures, by which great. facilities would be afforded to those of fo- reign countries. There was another reason why our home manufacture should nut be burthened with this tan on importation; it was that a new tax bad lately been, laid by Spain on all the raw materials exported from that country. The Bill was read a third time and passed. Adjourned to Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FeIosv. • At four o'clock the House proceeded to the House of Lords, to hear the Royal Assent given by Commission to several private and public Bills.—(See Lords.) Lord A LTHORPE brought up the Report on the New port ragnell Bill. Mr. CARTWRIGHT objected to the Bill on the ground that it affected time right of another trust. A division took place on the amendment — Ayes 43 •' Noes 15; Majority forth. Bill 28. The Bill was then ordered to be read a third time on the 12th of Mar. SOUTHWARK COURT OF REQUESTS. Sir. C. CALVEItT presented petitions ft on' four pa rishes in Sonthwark, in favour of the Court of Requests' Bill.—Lid' on the table. Mr. CALMER I' then moved the second reading of the Bill. SirJOSEPH YORKE opposed the Bill,on the ground that: i terection of a new Court was unnecessary , a nd mov aan amendment, that it be read a second time this day six months. Mr. DENNISON supported the Bill. Mr. JAMES GRAHANI opposed the Bill, on the ground that the officers hail a vested right in their fees, which the Bill would deprive them of. Sir. LAMLITON, in support of the Bill, contended that da claims of the public were stronger than those of individuals. After some conversation between Mr. Bright, the Soli tor General, Mr. H. Sumner, Mr. Bennet, and other Nimbi rs, the House divided, and the numbers were— Ayes 114 ; Noes 2; Majority for the second reading of the Bill 112. The Bill was then read the second time. Sir G. HILL presented a petition from certain per sons engaged in the Cotton trade at Belfast, against any alti•ratiou of the duties on cotton goods imported into Ireland. Mr. SPRING RICE and Sir 11. PARNELL dwelt on the injustice to the manufacturers of Ireland of the repeal of the Union Duties, contrary to the belief which they were permitted to retain, that those duties would not be taken off fur several years to come. At least, if the Bill now before the House passed, compensation ought to be' Made to the different traders whose interest would be thereby affected on the stock in hand. After a few words from Col. Hutchinson, Sir 11. Par nell, and Mr. Wallace, the petition was laid on the table. Mr. CUR'YEN presented a petition from the But chers of Whitechapel, praying for a repeal of the duty on Foreign Tallow.—Ordered to be printed. HIS MAJESTY'S REPLY TO THE ADDRESS. Mr. CANNING rose to read his Majesty's reply to the • &Press, in which his Majesty expressed his thanks to the Gentlemen of the House of Commons, for their duti ful and loyal Address, and received with satisfaction their expression of approbation of the course he pursued to preserve peace. Mr. RUM BOLD presented a petition from the Mer chants and Bankers of Great Yarmouth. praying tor a Repeal of the Duty on Coals.—Ordered to be printed. PROCEEDINGS IN DUBLIN. Mr. ELLIS said be wished to ask the Attorney-Gene ral for Ireland a question. On a late occasion the Right lion. and Learned Gentleman, amongst other things, said be bad an affidavit purporting to be sworn by a per son connected with the Sheriff's Office, in which it was stated that the panel was, contrary to his usual practice, nude out on that occasion by the Sheriff himself, for the purpose of packiog a Jury. He now asked the Attorne y whether, in justice. he was not bound either to furnish a copy of the affidavit or tell the name of time person also made the affidavit, that he might be sum mooned to the lisr of the Hance. Mr. PLUNKETI' said that he bad no hesitation in telling the lion. Gentleman that be would not give time information which he called for. He thought it was must unfair and unreasonable to ask him to diselo'se pri vate information connissieicated to him is his official cha racter. If lie complied faith the demand of the Honour able Gentleman, he should be unworthy of the office he held. Mr. BROWNLOW said that it would be recollected that the Right lion. and Learned Gentleman had, on a former evening' stated that he was in possession of an affidavit stating matters of such importance, that if he was aware of them in time, would have been sufficient to entitle him to challenge the array. To all matters which were stated by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ilh, THE STATESMAN of justice, wrote to him, stating that he believed a case quite in point had occurred in Ireland twelve years ago. He wrote to this Gentleman, with whom he was not ac quainted, but to whom be felt greatly indebted, request. ing him to inquire, and endeavour to discover if such a case had existed. The result was, that such a case was found ; and be was nowenabled to state it to the House. In October, 1811, a bill of indictment was preferred against a man of the name of Leech, for having written a letter to Sir E. Littlehales, then Under-Secretary in Ireland, offering bins a bribe if he would procure him a situation. The bill of indictment was sent before the Commission Grand Jury of Dublin, and was ignored ; new hills were sent op, and were a second time ignored. The indictment contained three counts; the first charged him with writing a letter offering br ibery; the second with bribery; and the third with offering security in money for bribery. Now his predecessor in office (Mr. Saurin) filed an ex-officio information against this indi vidual, in the November following, in which the same counts were presented. He could now produce attested copies both of the ex-officio information and of the in dictments, but be wield not move that they be laid on the table , it might be supposed that he ti Wier! to ex culpate the conduct of his predecessor. He felt himself bound to mention the fact as a ditty to himself, to show that not later than twelve years ago, the same proceed ing which had been charged to him as (fault, was re sorted to by the Gentleman who preceded him, believing it to be his duty, as the only means of attaining justice. --(Cheers.) He was satisfied that the late Attorney- General thought this proceeding to be in the routine of his business, anal therefore made no particular impres sion on his mind, fur he had no doubt, that if he had recollected it,he would have communicated it to him. Mr. DENMAN asked if the case proceeded to judg ment? Mr. PLUNKETT, as we understood, said it did not for want of a plea ; the traverser having expressed his contrition, and beeen deprived of a public situation, no further punishment was inflicted. Mr. ABERCROMBY said that he heard the state ment of the Right Hon. Gentleman with surprise, be cause it showed that his conduct, in filing an ex - officio information was not unprecedented in Ireland, though the charge of the Hun. Member for Armagh was to that effect, the conclusion of his motion being, that the course adopted by the Attorney-General fur Ireland was con , teary to the practice, and not congenial to the spirit of the British Constitution. Every body must be aware, that the ease just mentioned by . the Attorney-General, would have made a great impression on the House if it had been made known on the night the charge was broaght forward against him—(hear, hear) —and would have com pletely, as be (Mr. Abercromby) conceived, altered the view many Members had taken of that question. Every man must know how great an interest this subject had excited from the first moment in Ireland, particularly among those connected with the law. Ile wished to take this opportunity of asking the Attorney-General for Ireland, whether the person who was now the Crown Solicitor, was the same who had hell that office in 1811? If lie was the same person, he asked how it was possible the Irish Government could be properly served in legal proceedings? Mr. PLUNKETT said, that in 1811, the office bad been filled by the father and son. The father, how ever, had since died, and the son must have been a very young man at the time of the transaction in question. Sir J. NEWPORT thought that as the son was acting for the father in the year 1811, lie ought to know what had passed in the office at the time. Mr. J. GRATTAN said, that the young man had acted with the father fora series of years, and he ought to be called as a witness to the bar. Mr. ELLIS (of Dublin) thought, that as the transac tion had escaped the attention of the Attorney-General, it was very natural it might have escaped the attention of the Crown Solicitor. It eas then ordered that Lucius O'Reilly and Te rence 111‘Namara, Attorneyi of Dublio, be ordered to at tend the bar of the House on the 29th May. Col. BARRY then moved that Win. Kemmis (the Irish Crown Solicitor) be called to the bar. Mr. CALCRAFT said Ire should propose that the name of Mr. Swim the late Attorney-General for Ireland, be included in the order. Mr. GOULBURN deprecated the principles of calling any witnesses that were not necessary to the elucidation of the particular ease. They might call a great variety of wit nesses to their bar, but the object ought to be to see whe ther those witnesses could throw say light on the transaction in question. Any other course would be extremely inconve nient. It was now proposed to call not only Mr. Kemal., but Mr. Saurlo, who could have nothing to do with facts involved in the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin. Mr. CALCRAIer said, that no man could take upon him self to say, whether from the course the inquiry would take, it might not be necessary to call both Mr. Kemmis and Mr. Salida. If, however, Mr. Kemmis was not ordered to at tend, he should not press his motion. After a few words from Mr. PEEL, Col. BARRY said, that he never thought Mr. Kemmis could give any evidence elucidatory of the case in question, though as that Gentleman bad been pointedly adverted to, he wished that an opportunity should be afforded him of vin dicating himself. Witnesses might be called so as to ren der the inquiry indefinite. He was willing to go into any inquiry to the fullest length that might be demanded, whe ther into the Corporation of Dublin, the Guild of Merchants, or even into the feuds of unhappy Ireland, from the invasion of Henry 11. down to the present day ; he did not, how ever, see what good it could effect. At present, with the leave of the House, he should withdraw the motion. The motion was accordingly withdrasen. The SPEAKER then reads letter from the Under Sheriff of the city of Dublin, assigning urgent official business as the cause for his not obeying the Order of the House to at tend as a witness. The letter alleged that Judge M'Clel land and Judge Vandaleur had stated, that they must sus pend the Commission for the trial of prisoners, If the Under- Sheriff situated himself. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that a second Under-She riff might be appointed, which would obviate the diffi culty. Mr. GOULBURN said, that being aware of the inconve nience which the discharge of public business must ex perience, if provision was not made to meet the absence of the Under-Sheriff, he had written from that House to the Sheriff of Dublin, desiring him to appoint a deputy. He had sine, received an answer, stating that no appointment l ased take place under the circumstances. One reason was, that both this Sheriffs must concur in the appointmeat ; and OM of them was in Dublin, and the other in London at the time. Another still more cogent reason was, that the Jodi shield appointed must give security to the amount of 20.00 0 1. INQUIRY INTO TIIE CONDUCT OF THE HIGH SHERIFF OF DUBLIN, Sir FRANCIS BURDETT. in rising to move the order of the day for going into a Committee of Inquiry on the conduct of the Sheriff of Duhlio. suggested that it aright bis expedient to limit it to three days in each week, namely, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Mr. CALCRAFT said that the selection of those days might inconvenience the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his proceedings. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he ear. taint) , should be Inconvenienced If they were selected. end he thought that Tusediy, Wednesday, and Thursday, night be more convenient. After a few words from Sir F. BURDETT, Mr. TIERIiEY said that the usual mode la such cases was for the House, at ilwrisiug, to decide when the business should be resumed Toe House then went into the Committee. • Sir ROCERT HERON in the Chair. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT expressed his hope that the business would be commenced by those Irish Gentlemen who were more coavusaot with the subject. Mr. CALCRAFT moved that the witnesses who were in the Gallery, should be ordered to withdraw, tied they were accordingly directed to do sot on the ereoiwg alluded to, be was desired' by the Sheriff of Dublin to give a contradiction. He was surprised to hear, on an incidental cenversalon on Thursday, that this affidavit had no jurat, and he now wished to know if the affidavit alluded to by his Hon. Friend was simi larly circumstanced. Mr. BENNET said a few words, which we could. not catch. _ _ _ e _ Mr. PLUNKETT said that he had produced that docu ment for the purpose of repelling the charge brought against him—that he had been guilty of improper conduct in the dis charge of the duties of his office. He admitted that that affidavit had uojurat, but because that was so circumstanc the Hon. Gent. was not to infer that the other was in the same predicament. Mr. R. MARTIN rose, but was called to order by Mr. oulbu rn . . . Mr. MUNDY presented a petition from some place (the name we did not hear) in Derbyshire, praying for the eman cipation of Slaves.—Ordered to be printed. Sir E. HARVEY presented a petition from the county of Essex, signed by the High Sheriff, complaining of Agricul tural Distress. After a few words from Lord MILTON and Mr. lIONY WOOD, the petition was ordered to be printed. Sir E. HARVEY presented a petition from the Inhabit ants of Cogge.shall, in the county of Essex, praying fur a repeal of the Duty on Coals.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. HUNIE postponed a motion of which he had given notice relative to Carlisle. Mr. GOULBOURN presented a petition from Joseph Stephenson, of Dublin, praying for a repeal of the Daty on Coals. Col. BAGWELL supported the petition, and stated that not only the public but the local Duty on Coals, in Dublin. was a source of great grievance to the inhabitants. Mr. HUME stated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an immediate opportunity of conferring a great benefit not only on the people of Ireland, hut of England and Scotland also, if he would remit these duties, ana take so much from the Sinking Fund. He bdieved the Right lion. Oeutteman looked as if he was half inclined to take his advice.—(A laugh). CORONERS IN IRELAND. Mr. GOULDURN presented a petition from the Coroners of the county of Cork, complaining of the great inconveni ence of their small salaries.—(A laugh). They stated that the county of Cork was 120 miles in length, and 60 in width ; that there were only four Coroners in the county, who were obliged to attend all the inquests, and that their salaries were totally inadequate to their laborious duties. Mr. HUME said he understood that whenever a vacancy occurred there were a good many candidates, and he there fore presumed the office was well paid.—The petition was laid on thetable and ordered to he printed. Colonel BAGWELL presented a similar petition from the Coroners of the County of Tipperary. fie stated, that by a late Act of Parliament, a person before he became candidate for the office of Coroner, was under the neces sity of finding large security, and making oath that he had either 2001. a-year in possession, or 4001. in reversion. In Ireland, it should be also recollected, that the Grand Juries were limited by their Bill to give not more than forty guineas amongst all the Coroners of each county. In 'he county of Tipperary, there were ten Coroners, and each was necessarily obliged to keep a horse for the per formance of his duties, while the ten had not more than forty guineas between them. They might have been en abled still to perform their duty, if their case was not rendered still more severe, by being excluded by the late Act, from fees to which they were before ,entitled. lie hoped the injustice of this Art would satisfy the Hon. Gentleman opposite of the necessity of giving the Coro ners a salary sufficient to enable them to perform their duties. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that one of the mis chiefs caused by the late Act was, that of preventing the Coroners from executing the duties of their office. His Hon. Friend. the Member fur Aberdeen, had said that there were many candidates on every vacancy, that held perfectly true, before the late Act was paesed, but since the case was the contrary, because ne twin could be adequately remunerated for the duties of eo laborious an o ffi ce by four pounds a-yeer, and yet every body must ba aware . how essential it was to the peace and tran quillity of Ireland, that these duties should be properly executed. Now so great was the distance that Coroners bad to go on many occasions, and co inadequate was their remuneration to their expenses, that in many cases no inquests were held at all. He hoped the House would see the justice of the complaint of the petitioners, and take the case into consideration. Mr. R. MARTIN said, that he was the great means of passing the late Bill. Ile was ready to acknowledge that since it passed, the Coroners were by no means adequately paid, and if they were not well paid, it was impossible the duties of the office could be properly dis charged. Forty guineas a-year was not enough for one Coroner, much less for all the Coroners of a county.— By his Bill, Coroners were deprived of a great portion of their fees, by being prevented from executing writs, which he thoughts most useful and salutary measure. He had known one Coroner in his county, who, after getting 60,000?.:from debtors, put it into his pocket and walked off to America.—(A laugh.) Mr. BECHER, in supporting the prayer of the Peti tion, said that he believed forty pounds for each Coro ner had been contemplated by the Act, but when the Grand Juries came to examine it closely, they found that .tbe words would not bear that interpretation. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said that it should be ob served, that the extent of the county of Cork being 120 miles in length and 60 in width, made the case of the Coroners of the county of Cork particularly hard. The object of the petitioners was not so much to call the at tention of the House to the smallness of their salary, as to the injustice of the late Act in depriving them of fees, which they would much rather have, than any remuneration the House would be pleased to give them. The petition also prayed that the House would take into consideration a law which deprived them of a right they bad enjoyed for two hundred years. Sir N. COLTHURS'I' said that it was clear that forty guineas was not enough for four Coroners. He did not see why a clause could not be introduced into the late Act, empowering Grand Juries to remunerate them according to their services. After a few words from Mr. ELLIS, of Dublin, whom we understood to support the prayer of the pe ition, it was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. Mr. JONES moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Great Sessions in ;Vales Bill, for the pur pose of postponing it to Monday. CALLING OF WITNESSES IN THE CASE OF THE SHERIFF OF DUBLIN. Mr. S. RICE moved that Lucius O'Reilly and Te rence hlacnamara, be ordered to attend the bar of the House, on the 9th of May, to be examlued as witnesses in the case of the Sheriff of Dublin. Mr. PLUNKETT said that he was anxious to take ad vantage of the opportunity afforded him by the motion of the Hon. hleuibrr, before the more immediate busi ness of the evening cater on, to 'Lite a few facts which were essential to the defence of the charge brought against him on a furtive evening. He was charged wade' baying, in the execution of the duties of his office. diet bills of indictment bad been ignored by a Grand Jury, resorted to eono.le of proceeding, in tiling an ex-officto information, for which no precedent could be found sine* the Norman Congitest. At the time the charge was made he suhmitted all the cases lie could find which h ire any auslogy to the course he had pursued. He stived, then, also, thst though he could nut produce cases inure diately in poirt, of Attorney-tienerals having Weil es- I o:ficio ititousetions after bills had been ignored by t r 1 1 Juries, net it would be unfair to infer that no ;case ex• istrA. because, from the nature of the proceeding, no c record could be referred to to prove its existence.— sf ol vrver, it so turned iltit by accident time the diactisdeOl on this question, that a Mr, Foley,. actuated by a Host p * k . Lord MILTON and Sir F. BURDETT said a few words, which were not audible In the Gallery. Mr. WYN' said that the Sheriff ought to be allowed to be present, in order that he might know how the evidence affected him. Mr. F. LEWIS conceived that he ought certainly to be present, but the House was not on that mount to be pre cluded from the right of examining him. Mr. WYNN did not deny the right of the House to es amine the Sheriff, but he thought he ought not to be called upon for evidence if allowed to be present during the pro ceedings. Mr. LANiBTON said it would be absurd not to exwair t• him after the Resolution which the House had come to of calling him to the Bar. The Clerk then read the entry on the Journals, dated April 13, respecting the proceedings in question. The Chairman next directed the Serjeant at Arms to ca . t In the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, Benjamin Ri:se% Esq.. upon which that Gentleman appeared at the Bar. Examined by Sir JOAN NEWPORT. What is your name 7—Benjamin Itikey. You are Clerk of the Crown in Ireland ?—I execute the ace of Clerk of the Crown. For how many years have you executed the Q ice of Clerk of the Crown?—Nearly thirty. Has witness brought with him any documents by ivh . cli he ran ascertain the state of the panels of (hand Ju:ies . . . in Dublin ?—I have. Has witness returns of the panels for the years 161 J, 1820, 1821, and 1822?-1 have,except part of the panel for 1820, which I have not got. Has nitness examined the state of the panels, and can he inform the House what number of corporator' were on them ?-1 can, to the best of my judgment, I examined them with the list of the Corporation. Is there any other Grand Juries empanelled hi Ire land, besides the Commission Grand Jury?—There is. What is the duty of the Commission Grand Jury, and the others?—The duty of the Commission Grand 3 are, is the only one to which my oftiee is attached ; I attend . in the Court of King's Bench, and the Grand Jury of that • Court is the only one for money preseni mews, with the exception of the presentments made at the Session,' Grand Jury. Can the witness state the proportion of Corporator' nn I those Grand Juries?—Aldermen of the City of Dublin are on the Grand Jury for the County. I never attend the Sessions Court, and know nothing ot it. IVho are the other persons besides Aldermen that are on the Grand Jury ?—Sherilrs' Peer:. What is meant by Sheriffs' Peers ?—Those who have served the of of Sheriff, or have been lined fur not serving. Are they different from Common Council and the Al dermen P-1 always understood so. How is the Common Council returnel ?—The Guild of Merchants returns 32, and the other Guilds return ca:lt a certain number. Do any of the other Guilds return as large a proportion as the Guild of Merchants ?—Noue. Is the election annual ?—No. Has witness any statement of the umber of Corpora tors on the Commission Grand Jury for the years 1819, 18.:0, 1821, and 1822?-1 hare, with the excl.; - lion of that part of the panel for 1620, which is not turd-- coming. Can witness state the number of Common Councilmen and Corporators on the Grand Jury for the year 1!,1'i? —ln February, 1819, there were nineteen sworn, and Line on the panel. 'l'l.e two next Commission., there were none sworn, and none attended. In J nne there were five sworn, and eighteen not sworn. lo August there ware eleven on the panel, but none sworn. In December there were three sworn, and four on the panel. In Feb. 1826, there was one Common Councilman sworn. (Witn• ss said here he could not refer to the pahel.) In June there were two sworn, and eleven on the panel. I n October there were three sworn, and five on the panel. In Di. cember there were My-three on the Grand Jury, and six teen on the panel. CHAIRMAN.—Does witness mean to say that there were three sworn, and sixteen besides on the panel ? Exactly.—ln February, 1821, there were nine sworn, and thirteen not sworn ; April, two sworn, and two not ; Joly, seven sworn, and thirteen not; August, eight sworn, and thirty-two not; October, eight sworn, and nine not. In January, 1822, two sworn, and two not; April, two sworn, and none on the panel ; August, but one Common Councilman, and be not sworn ; October, five sworn, and fourteen not. In January, 1823, fourteen sworn, and thirteen on the panel. How many did that panel consist of P—Fifty. Has witness during his experience of thirty years ever known sii,smalka number as fifty to constitute a panel ? I have not. What was the smallest number witness had known pre. viously to the year 1823 ?—ln February, 1819, the num ber was 61; June, 72; October, 95; December, 87; June, 1820, 71; October, 66; December, 71. February, 1821, 67 ; April, 107; July, 82 ; August, 79; October, 61. January, 1822, 77 ; February, 87 ; April, 68 ; June, 78; August, 85; October, 62. Witness said that out of twenty-seven Common Coun cilmen on the panel for the Commission Grand Jury for January, 1823, fourteen were sworn on the Grand Jury, he was now required to state what place did those four teen occupy on the panel?—All the Grand Jurors were taken out of.the fitat twenty-six, whose names stood first on the panel, three only being absent, and the fourteen Common Councilmen were among the nineteen that stood first. Did the witness know during his experience any casein which so many of those on the panel answered to their names in rotation as they were called ?-1 have not known any such ease. Witness stated that besides the fourteen sworn on that Grand Jury there were thirteen more Common C.:lintel linen on the panel not sworn. Those numbers together made twenty-seven, which was a majority of the whole panel. Did witness know of any other case in which the Common Councilmen composed a majority of the panel ?-1 do not find any. By Mr. PLUNKETT.—In August, 1821, what was the number on the panel:—There were seventy-nine. How many of them were Common Councilmen? — Forty. How then could witness say that he did not know of any instance in which the Corporators made up more than half the panel ? (The answer to this and other questions coirld not be beard in the gallery, on account ot the situation in which the witness was placed, and of the low tone in which he spoke. The shorthand writer's repetition of sow of them was still less audible.) By Sir JOHN NEWPORT.—Were the fourteen Caw mon Councilmen at the bead of the panel, or io what part of it?—The whole of the Jury answered in same ston, as the names on the panel were called up to 26; wilk the exception of three. By Mr. PLUNKETT.—Ia what order did the Mertes Common Councilmen answer ?—ln order to answer Mt question I should have the panel, and I have only marked down here all that answered. By Sir JOHN NEWPORT.—Were the three wits were absent, Common Councilmen or not P—Two of them were Common Councilmen. u l r s i e i s t . the ta t o r s d h i e n u a r ian co d JailujrusreyinisfeoorastnipnlgereriComwmiriiisosuiorassOirslisedJg over the whole of the panel ? — No. The Grand Jail panel is called over twice ; the second time the Damsel called on a fine. y-sena How many names are usually called ov er before tbe Grand Jury is completed ?—Generally from ei g ht to one hundred and fire. tLe Uriod•Jary of last Jan., the lastuse was Ws ;Ks Be Lord MILTON.—Of the last Grand Jury , that 4