The Sun. — London, England, 1823-04-23 00:00:00

"Ore ; necessaryrecogruzantee. 'This he thought went far to ne gative the truth of such charges against the Catholic Clergy.— The Hon. Member complained that a misrepresentation had gone forth out of doors upon the subject of the late division upon the Catholic question. It had been stated that this large maaority ilh that division were against the Catholic Claims.— It was not necessary to say in that House such was not the case ; but for - the effect which might be produced on the pub lic mind he was desirous to contradict it. Mr. Wii ITE made some observations which were inaudible hi the gallery. He understood him to say that with regard to the charge made upon the Catholic Clergy, of threatening their flocks with excommunication in order to induce them to vote in a particular way, he was assured that it was not true: no sorb thing had occurred, or could occur. Col. WHITE eaid,that nothing but diffidence had prevented him *cm rising when the petition of Sir H. Lees was presented to the Ilouse. It was not, he could assure the House, may doubt of the falsehood of the charges which prevented his rising to give them his contradiction. The Reverend Baronet stated that undue influence was exercised upon the hustings by the Priests ; but in a leiter published in a 'Morning Paper of that • day he had contradicted himself ; for he there stated that it -war near the hustings that they were.uttering horrible dentin. ciatiens against those who voted contrary to their wishes.— This, he could take upon himself to say, was also tithe. Any one who knew any thing about Ireland knew very well that the Catholic Clergy exercised a justifiable influence with their flocks is favour of those who were favourable to their cause. And he did not wish to deny that he had pledged himself to support it. There was no necessity, indeed, for them to use any ether kind of influence ; for his opponent had frankly told the Catholics, that he always had opposed them, and always would. , Was not this enough laugh.),--These charges 'faiailit deceive English Members, but it could not deceive Gen tlemen from Ireland, unless it were those who were determined not to be undeceived.--(dear, hear !) :Mr. V. HUTCHINSON wished to ask the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Colonel Trench) whether he forgot that the roost active agents in all elections which took place in England and Wales, were the Protestant Clergy.—(Hear, hear !)—The objections which had been made would go to disfranchise the • Catholic Clergy altogether; and to lay down that 'because they were Clergymen, they were not to enjoy and exerclee their con. stitutional rights. Mr. V. FITZGERALD concurred in what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Limerick as to the observations which had been made upon the division the other night, upon the mo tion of the Attorney-General for Ireland. Mr. GRATTAN was not disposed to lengthen this discus. Sion, but he wished, injustice, to state, that the Archbishop of the diocese issued directions to his Clergy not to interfsre in the election. • Sir T. LETIIBRIDGE said, that when he presented the petition of Sir H. Lees, he stated that he did not bind him. self to he authenticity of its contents.—(Hear !)—He only presented it as, matter of duty. At the same time he would remind the House of that part of it in which the petitioner prayed to be permitted to prove its allegations at the liar of the House. Sir .1. NEWPORT said, that the fact of the petition against the election having been withdrawn, was a proof that the alle. gations could not be established. Mr. DAWSON said, that notwithstanding the importance of the debate, for which the House was impatient, he must make a few observations upon what had passed. After the positive contradiction which the gallant officer (Col. White) had Oven to the:charges ageinst the Priests, he telt some difficulty in re. pealing them. But Several of his friends and of his family, possessing considerable property in the county, had opposed the Hon. Member in the late contest, yet amongst their own tenantry their Mbyte had been paralyzed by the influence of the Priests; not that fair and justifiable influence whiclithey had a right to exercise, but the secret influence of religious tenor impressed upon the minds of the people. It was noto rious all over the city, that all the Gentlemen of the county opposed the lion. Member, and that he was returned entirely by the influence 'of the Priests. He had been informed by a near friend of his, that the persons who had first been intimi. dated into voting for the Hon. Member, and afterwards con. teased that they had been so intimidated, were now afraid to come forward and give evidence under the same terror and ap e ) prehensions. He had received this information from quarters on which he could depend, and he believed it as firmly as he believed in any thing. Colonel W ITE - said that on either side the House had no. thing but assertion. Ile said, that what the lion. Member as. sorted had no foundation, and the lion. Member said the cannery. These charges were brought against the Catholics, and let them bring proof if they were true. lie defied them—. (Hear, hear!) _ Colonel TRENCH said, that he held affidavits of the facts in his hand ; theretime the charges did not rest upon assertion only. Air. R. MARTIN deprecated the sort of conversation which had been carried on under .present circumstances. In threecon. tested elections in which he had been engaged, he had found the priests to exercise a fair influence only, and that on both sides. • He did tot believe that any spiritual denunciation was ever denounced for the exercise of a civil right. Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, that the contradictions pro. ceeded from parties equally respectable, and who undoubtedly entertained an equally conscientious belief in the information which they had received. But fortunately the house were in possession of circumstances which would enable them to decide upon the respective value of the conflicting evidence. One of the parties had had an opportunity of proving their case, and had shrunk front it ; whereas, the other challenged inquiry and defied their accusers, but the Honourable Member for Derry told them that the witnetEes were Catholics, and could not be produced because their minds were acted on by the terrors of privathood. This. then, proved at any rate, that the accusa. tiont were incapable of proof. With regard to the affidavits Bra in the possession of the n. Member for Cambridge, why did not the persons who had sworn them come forward to drove the allegations of the election Petition ? Perhaps it was because it was safer to give evidence in that way than to submit to a • cross-examination. Mr. BECHER made a few observations on the state of the county of Dublin during the election, and expressed a hope that such a period of agitation and irritation aught not again occur. Col. TRENCH said, that if the allegations contained in these affidavits had been proved before the Committee, they would not have invalidated•tite return.. The petition was, then ordered to he printed. General A RCH DA LI I presented several petitions to the laine effect frotn the County of Fermanagh.—Ordered to be II SHERIFF Jy.I.I.ILJN. Mr. ELLS stated that be held in his hand a petition from the High Sheriff and the late Grand Jury of the City of Dublin, Which asserted that the petitioners, on hearing the charges brought against them had repaired to London, and prayed for • inquiry in such a way as she House would please to direct,— 'ey were now not only in London, but in attendancuon the House.—(Hear, hear I)—tie did • not wish to anticipate any part of the debate upon the motion of the lion. Member who bad given notice (Sir F. Buxdett), and he would, therefore, content himself With moving now that the petition be read. Mr, PLUNKETT asked whether he was to understand that .the whole of the Grand Jury was in attendance ? • Mr. E GUS said the Petition was s*ned by . the Foreman, anti that six of the Grand .fury, deputed by their fellows, now waited with the Sheriff the:pleasureof the . HouSe. Mr. BROUGHAM observed that a notice of motion con eerning the conduct or character of persons appearing on the votes of the House could alone be a regular ground of a peti. ilea such as the present. No person,. as was obvious to every Member, had a right to take, notice of any reflection made In that House on his conduct in this way, if conveyed through any other medium than that of the votes. l{e'could not, as one of the persons who promoted the motion which was to be discussed that night, avoid, in fairness, to observe upon the alacrity which the accused had ahewn to meet the charges—a readiness of which they ought to have the benefit during the inquiry, whatever might be the result--(Hear, hear !)—The Petition was ordeted to be printed. VONDUCT OF THE IJTGII SHERIFF OF DUBLIN AND 'THE GRAND „JURY. Sir F. BunDErr said, he rase in consequence of the notice he had given on a former evening e That notice naturally grew out of the manner in which the question discussed onthe night he gave it had been treated by the Right Hon. Gentleman op. r mite (Mr. Plunkett). The House must have witnessed upon otter occasions, how painful it was to touch upon any subject .connected with the troubles and misfortunes of Irelan d ; they must have seen that the state of the country was such as to reit -der it almost impossible to mention any subject connected with it without giving rise to expressions Of an irritating nature. It 'was, however; necessary for the House to ente r into such ills. -cussions ; and it was equally necessary that they should endeavour to find out some means ofalleviating those evils and dissentions !with which the country had been so long afflicted. Not only was this necessary for the prosperity of Ireland, but as an im portant part of the Empre, the peace, h a ppiness; and prosperity , of England, depended in a great degree on putting an end to a state of thir.gs which was little better than smothered civil war. This being the case, it being difficult upon such topics to avoid :angry discuuion ,lie should have been particularlyready to meetthe 4whilies expressed on the opposite side of the House, if he thought -any palliative was likely to be soon found for the existing evils. jle would be the last person in the world not to wish that a veil oblivion should be thrown over every topic likely to excite irritation. They could knot shut their eyes to the evils that afflicted Ireland, nor their ears to the complaints of the people. They would therefore only imitate the foolish superstition of those who avoided whistling lest they might increase the storm, if they were to be silent from an apprehension of giving rise to angry feeling. They were on the eve of a necessity which must soon bring on a full and complete inquiry into the state of that country. He was anxious to use no language which could irritate any party, as Ito shew no partiality to one or the other. This' the matter at issue might by some be considered in - the light of a contest between the Attorney.4eneral and the High Sheriff, one entrusted with the power of proceeding by ex-OMo information, and employing that power as some thought improperly, these circumstances, either upon the present or the former occasion, formed no part of his consideration. The Right Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Plunkett) however holding so high a situation, and in that capacity having brought forward a charge of the most grave nature against a person as high as himself in a constitutional point of view, it was impossible under these circumstances that the House could fulfil the inquisitorial functions with which it was vested if it refused to concede to his motion. The more he considered the subject the more he felt convinced that they could not properly have come to a decisive vote when last the question was before them. Hostile as his feelings were to ex (Side informations, it appeared to him at first peculiarly hard that such a mode of proceeding should be had recourse to after a bill of indictment had been thrown out by the Grand Jury. It appeared like a case of oppression; and lie same into the Howie with that feeling when' the matter was to be discussed on a former occasion. But the statement of the Attorney-General for Ireland, produced a different feeling ; and. the. Learned Gentleman appeared to him to haie made out a case that justified the use of such an extraordinary exertion of his official duties. For this "reason he could-not concur in a vote of censure, particularly when be recollected that this power was employed to resist the oppression of the people, and used against those who, having power, were disposed to use it against the people. So far, therefore, from considering it an act of oppression, first to send up to a Grand Jury a bill of indictment, and when that was thrown out to proceed by cx-ofpio information, he was now satisfied that the Attorney-General could not have proceeded in a way More favourable to The parties accused. He first preferred his bill, and it was only when he foetid the ordinary course of justice to be obstructed that he filed an ect-Vicio information. He wished every Attorney-Gerieral in this country would follow the example—would first prefer a bill of indictment ; and if that was thrown out. then be left to his own discretion whether or not he should prosecute the matter further. Persons might take it as a hardship to be charged a second time. To be tried a second time was a herdship, but not to be charged. If the charge were groundless, it was for the advantage of the accused that the matter. should .be brought before a Grand Jury and thrown out; for then, if the Attorney-General, from irritation or ill feeling, proceeded further, the person would come into Court under inure favourable circumstances. The parties here, therefore, had no reason to complain. The wisdom of ex-officio informations was another question, and he wished the Muse would inquire into so important a subject. He hardly ever re collected a case where they could be justified but this. Writers on the subject always gave extreme cases to warrant the exer cise of such a power. Blackstone, who, with respect to the Con. stitution, seemed to think, like some writers on natural history, that whatever is is right, only justified it in extreme cases of urgent necessity, such as danger to the Constitution or the life of the King so imminent as not to admit of delay. Was it in this way, or upon such urgent grounds, they saw It lately exercised ? No. It was had recourse to upon every occasion, and had been made a constant source of oppression to the sub ject. There were others who justified itin another way, and con tended for the propriety of employing it in trivial cases. They proceeded on the maxim de minbnis non coral lex, and that in matters of little importance so much legal form was unne cessary. Reference had been made on a former occasion to the argument of Mr. Benjamin Shore. He never could see how that argument was conclusive. He shewed no law for his asser tion ; and only proved that the power was a usurpation, having been used for a length of time. Ile admitted that the Attorney. General for Ireland ought to be relieved from all the odium arising from the legal part of the question ; and this being his impression, he could not concur in a vote of censure. He should not have brought forward this motion, were it not for the state. menu of.the Learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunkett) with reference to the conduct of the High Sheriff. As those statements had been met by a direct negative, as they were represented by the parties concerned to have been made incorrectly, it was impossi ble that any good could arise from the course formerly recom mended by an Hon. Member opposite, who said lie would give neither party a triumph by going into inquiry. That would be doing justice to neither party, but denying it to all. If he saw this matter in the light of a contest between the Orange men and the' Cotholics, he should not hesitate to whom he would grant a triumph. But lie did not view it in that way.— The Member for Armagh, in his very able and eloquent speech, though he went into the legal quostion, and touched upon a variety of topics connected with Ireland, continued the :natter to this point—whether or net the Attorney-(iene rat exercised a sound discretion? Upon that he (Sir P. II.) was nut competent to form an opinion be had not yet bef ore hint sufficient means of information. The Hon. Mein ber (Mr. llrownlow) asked it' what was not right at one side of the Channel could be right at the other c He (Sir F. B.) would answer, Yes. Difference of circumstances might make it so. On knowing the state of Ireland, it was impossible not to feel the impression now warmly fekby English Gentlemen in general. that no impartial justice was to be obtained by the great bulk of the population. This was the strong feeling of his mind, but it did not influence his opinion. It would not be doing justice to the Noble Person at the head of the Irish Go. vernment, or to the Attorney-General for Ireland, if they had voted on the question the other night without farther infonna don. lie felt justified for those reason% in saying, that the Learned Gentleman had not been handsomely treated by the Hon. Gentlemen about him, who had abandoned hint to his own exertions, and who had, by the amendment proposed by them, left the question in a state quite unsatiafactory and incompatible with the demands of justice. Ile had no idea in what manner the motion with which he intended to conclude could be resisted. Ile felt confident the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman him self would not resist it; nor could he imagine how any party could oppose it. He was at a loss therefore to know in what manner it could be resisted at all ; but he had heard a whisper of an intention to propose that the House should order a prosecu. tion against the Sheriff. Ile had purposely abstained in what he had said front every thing that was likely in the most remote de mote give offenceto any party whatever, wishin,-- that the House should conic for once to a vote upon the affairs of Ireland, leaving all party questions completely out of view.—(Hear !) Should such a vote as that to which he had just alluded be pro posed, he felt himself bound to resist it, considering that by such a proceeding the House would give countenance to the charges against the Sheriff—an appearance which, he thought, the house was not qualihcd to attach to 'that Officer's conduct, and which would be consequently unfair, conceiving, as he did, that the House ought not to declare any opinion on one side or the other. By the amendment carried on Tuesday night last, it appeared to hint that there was such an exact equality, such a perfect poise betsvvea the parties, that it was deemed prudent not to proceed further, although by the vote then agreed to, it was quite im possible for the House to suffer the question there to rest; not. withstanding which conviction he, for one, felt that it would be unjust for the House to become a party in the accusation brought 'against the Sheriff.—(liear!) 7 -lie should, therefore, conclude by moving.:-' That the statement madeby the Right Hon. the Attorney. General for Ireland in his place on Tuesday the Itith day of April inst. respecting the proceedings that had taken place on the trial of Forbes, Handwitch, and Graham, in the City of Dublin, rendered it incumbent on that House to instl. Lute an inuuiry into the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin on that occasion." Air. I J assured the House, that the observations he would make on the present motion would be very few.-- Ile thought it would be unbecoming in NM to oppose inquiry ; but he did , not think that his case stood upon the question stated by the Himourable Baronet. The question, in his case, was one of discretion entirely, and when once it was resolved into that, it was • not because an Honour able Meniper might differ from him on that subject that therefore he .should censure him. To censure him, the House must not only differ from him on the question as to his exercise of that discretion, but must also decide that motives of op.. pression or malice had induced it. lie could not but thank the Hon. Barotiet for the gentlemanly manner in which he had in troduced the motion, a manner indeed which never forsook the Hon. Baronet upon any occasion. He fully admitted the ne cessity of Inquiry, but he submitted that his justification did not at all stand upon this question. If this case was complete, and he submitted that it was, without reference to the subject matter of the Hon. Baronet's motion, he could not be at all affected by it. He must here observe, that on occasion of his Address to the House, wherein he had made the statements respecting the High Sheriff of Dablin, he was not an accuser, but an accused. lie was stating his own exculpation, though he was aware that it involved the conduct of other individtuds. His defence was, that he believed the facts he stated to the House ; and, so believing them ' the q uestion was, whether he was not bound to act as he had done ? If he believed that certain circumstances had transpired, all tending to shew that the minds of the Grand Jury (whether from their habits or what else, it mattered not) were not In a state to lead them to a proper conclusion on the evidence, had he not a right to take the measures he had taken to obtairi that conclusion? Ile considered himself to have no personal concern in the present motion, though he should be much mortified to think that any Hon. Member believed he had made his charge lightly. His suspicions on theitubject of those charges had, up to that moment, not only not been re.. moved, but had been strengthened. He now begged to inform the House that he considered the Sheriti a proper subject for prosecution ; and that unless the interposition of the house took the subject out of his hands, he should institute a prosecution against him. He .thought the She riff should have some opportunity of vindicating himself ; and he (Mr. Plunkett) would not stand in his way. If the Houee should think proper to accede to the present motion, and of itself institute an inquiry, he should of course con sider the subject as taken out of his hands. -He thought it proper to explain to the House why it was that he had hitherto delayed prosecuting the Sheriff. He had; from time to time, communicated to the Lord Lieutenant the facts he had already stated to the House with his opinion upon diem, and those facts, and that opinion, in due course, were forwarded to his Majesty's Government. This he mentioned to chew that his charge against the Sheriff' was no after-thought, for the purpose of - defending himself. Now, although he had stated his opinion that the Sheriff deserved to be prosecuted, the House must be aware that a considerable body of evidence was necessary, in order to put the charge against him in a legal shape. The trial of the rioters was con cluded in the month of January, and of course it would not have been proper to commence proceedings against the She riff' while that trial was in progress. Mr. Sheriff Thorp was the Sheriff who had impannelled the Petty Jury, and he cer tainly thought both Sheriffs ought to return the Jury process. He admitted, however, that the pannel had been shewn by Mr. She. riffThorp to his brother Sheriff. Ile (Mr. P. thought it better not td disturb or embarrass the course of the proceedings by charging the Sheriff in that stage of them. The House was aware that it was nut more than two or three days after the result of the trial had been known in this country before the Hon. Member fOr Armagh gave notice of the motion lie had matte last week. He (Mr. P.) - had pressed for the bringing forward of that mo tion early ; for the House must be sensible of the anxiety he felt on its being kept over his head for two months. And when the motion was at last brought forward, lie declared to the House that it was not more than five minutes immediately be fore his addressing the House in his defence, that he knew the preCise charge which was to be brought against him. Had he proceeded against the Sheriff before the bringing on of that motion, it might be thought that his proceeding was intended' as a sort of set-off against the charge brought against himself. The question affecting himself, therefore, he considered as already disposed of. His intention was to prosecute the Sheriff nukes she Hoose took the subject out of his hands ; and lie hoped he might be 'permitted to say, that his mode of proceeding would be the unfavoured ex op7cio mode; for his makingu second experiment upon a Dublin Grand Jury was entirely out of the question. He should apply to the Court of King's Bench for a rule that the trial should take lace at the bar of the Court ; and by a Jury taken by an a djoining county; and by this means he hoped to reach the substantial justice of the case. It however was not for him to say what was the proper course to be taken by the House. If it thought propel. to take the subject into its own 'hands he could have no objection ; but under all the circumstances, lie thought it would be more proper and becoming for him to abstain from giving any vote on the presentinotion.—(Hear, hear !) Mr. DENMAN thought the statement made by the Right Hon. Gentleman last week amounted not to a defence, and that the best proof in his own favour would have been the establish went of the truth of the allegations he had brought forward—not against a public functionary, but in justi fi cation of himself.— He though the whole cause of theßight Hon. Gentleman's pro ceeding was open to objection ; particularly in instituting other proceedings after having, as the Law Officer of the Cown, taken his choice. of an indictment by a Grand Jury. He must say, that he felt astonished that participation in a play-house riot should be brought forward as a charge of high treason. Mr. PLUNKETT begged to inform the Hon. and Learned Gentleman no such charge as high treason had been urged against time accused. Mr. DENMAN said, the charge was certainl y . that of a con spiracy to assassinate the King's Representative, the Lord- Lieutenant. If he could judge of the evidence adduced before the Grand Jury by that which had been laid before the Petty Jury, he had no hesitation in saying, that as a member of the Grand Jury, lie should have treated the charge of a conspiracy to assassinate, with perfect contempt. And if he were on the Petty Jury, he would upon his oath say, that he did not be lieve the persons accused went to the Theatre under a previous concert to assault the Lord Lieutenant ; though he had no doubt there was a previous concert to riot. The bottle he believed to have been thrown by sonic drunkard, who had first swallostred its contents ; and as for the rattle, it had been thrown by a boy of eighteen ; an act, lie thought, much more becoming the mag nanimity of the Government either to overlook, or not to bring before a Jury in so heinous a shape as that in which it had been charged. 'nen, with regard to the mode in which the Grand Jury had been treated, he must say that he did not ad mit the right of any Judge to comment on the conduct of a Jury touching their conclusion upon the evidence brought be fore diem. If such a . right were to be allowed, it must be equally allowed to the Jury to retort upon the Judge. He had no desire to go back to the dine of' Judge Jefferies, or to that even of Chief-i ustice hitelied, who had been properly attacked by Swift for having nine ,times sent back a Grand Jury for not finding a bill t'or libel against the publisher of the Drapier's Letters ; but he would take time liberty of saying that a Counsel, however high might be his rank, or however great his talents, forgot his duty and himself when he threw out, reproachful in. sinuations against a Grand Jury for their decision in that cha racter. The Right Hon. Gentleman having once asked the Grand Jury to pronounce an opinion on his case, had no right to appeal against that decision. He (Mr. D.) did not, even now, exactly recollect when it was that the Attorney-General heard of the coal-practices of which he complained ; but he thought that the moment he did hear of them, the affair of the 'bottle and rattle absolutely sank into nothing. They operated as a poisoning of justice in its very source, and were a reason for the Riht Hon. Gentleman's taking Immediate proceedings. Had the A ttorney-General done so , he would have selected a victim more worthy of his indignation than a few journey men carpenters. He might then have fairly brought the She riff' to justice, but now it appe are d th a t l i e c o mpl a ined of him only when he found it convenient to do so in his own defence. Ile (Mr. D.) thought the Sheriff would be hardly dealt with, if lie had not granted t o hi nt th e inquiry which he challenged. Ample reason had been stated to call for the in terfere= of the Ilouse of Commons, and to get rid of this mo tion as the fornier had been gotten rid of would, in his opinion, be most objectionable. The party concerned, who agreed to such a course, agreed to his own shame. He could not refrain either from noticing the language of the Attorney-General, as applied to the accused, when he opened the case against them. lie called them " a gang ,''and used other expressions towards them, by no means fit to be used by Counsel opening a crimi nal proceeding against any individuals. Ile did not like these persons to be called " a gang" on such an occasion. What ever might be his opinions of Orange Societies, he thought it but fair towards those Societies to say, that in his opinion there was nothing fairly leading to a belief that their Societies were implicated in the riot, though the individual rioters might be members. He wished to-see the principles of English liberty extended to all, not excepting those who denied its existence, for he considered that its application to them caused it to shine with increased lustre. Ile thought many of the evils which afflicted Ireland were to be attributed to her not having English laws, and particularly to her being de. prived, in so many instances, of time Trial by Jury. Ile well recollected the argument of the Ri g ht lion. Gentleman, when a motion was made in that House for an inquiry into the trans actions at Manchester, where many people were trampled upon and killed who had peaceably ass embled to petition. The Right lion. Gentleman had argued that inquiry, onght not to take place, because a Grand .fury had thrown out bills of in dictment preferred against the individuals 'whose conduct was to be inquired into. For his own part, he preferred the worst possible Jury to the best Attorney-General ; and he did not think but that such a g rievance as that stated by the Attorney- General should be 'th a subject of inquiry by the House. Ile had fbrborne to state on a former night his opinion of the con duct of the Right Hon. Gentleman, because he did not like to speak it in his absence, and he mentioned that opinion now with every respect for the Right Honourable Gentleman. He concluded by declaring his intention to support the motion. Mr. BANKLS oppos e d the motion. Ile thought, however, that it was singular the Attorney-General, who had brought grave charges, in his own defence, against individuals not be fore the Reuse, had not brought them forward earlier. The Right lion. Gentleman had thus thrown the House into a situa. tion of great difficulty, Still he (Mr. B.) strongly objected to the House exercising a judicial authority, and lie believed, if the Hon. Bart. had done him the honour to notice his frequently declared opinions on this subject lie had always found them consistent. The House was partially relieved from the diffi culty he had mentionedats the Attorney-General had declared his intention to institute a prosecution against the Sheriff. The House had not the means of doing justice to the inquiry, for it could not examine the witnesses upon oath. Ile repeated that the utmost the House could do, with any effect, had been stated was about to be done by the Attorney-General, and although this was a duty which be thought that Right Hon. Gentleman ought to have perfimned before, he should oppose the motion. Lord MILTON said, the speech of the Hon. Member who had just sat down, was directed generally against the inquisi torial power of the House as to the particular motion of his Hon. Friend. His (Lord Milton's) object, however, was not so much to remark upon the speech of the Hon. Member, as to, notice the observations of the Right lion. and Learned At torney-General. The sentiments, which he (Lord Milton) had declared upon the motion last week, of the Hon. Member of Armagh, were founded exactly upon the case made out by the Right on. Gentleman against the Sheriff of Dublin. But, now the Right Hon. Gentleman wanted it to be understood, that his acquittal had been produced independent of that care; if indeed, the passing to the order of the day, could be called an acquittaL—(Hear, hear, hear !)—lt was not upon thin merits of the Right Hon. Gentlemen, but upon the demerits of the Sheriff that he (Lord Milton) had decided. He could not consent to the statement that the Right Hon, Gentleman was acquitted. He now wanted to defend himself by getting out of the present motion ; and declaring, very tardily, that he in tended to prosecute the Sheriff. The Right Hon. Gentleman thought a fair trial could be obtained in this subject, by means of a Jury taken from the adjoining county. lie (Lord M.) thought that question was not at all to affect the one now before the House. He should support the motion for inquiry ; be cause if the charges against the Sheriff were well founded,there would be too much reason to think that the attention of the House was demanded to the general state of the administration of .Justice in Ireland.—(Hear, hear !') Mr. BROWNLOW said he persevered in his opinon that the conduct of the Attorney-General for Ireland had been harsh, unprecedented, and unconstitutional. How far the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman stood exculpated for an act avowedly unconstitutional, because he had impugned the High Sheriffs, it was for others to say : for his own part he did - not think he had advanced the case one jot. He (Mr. Brownlow) hoped, that upon the present occasion, there would be expressed in that House only one unanimous and pervading feeling of the strong and irresistible necesssity of an inquiry . at the bar of that House into the conduct of the High Sheriff, in order that, should he be found as guilty as he (Mr. B.) believed him innocent, he should receive that censure and punishment which such misconduct deserved, and that they might have it in their power to eradicate, root and branch, the whole system which fostered such an abuse of power—(Hear hear 1)—on the part of an officer sworn to perform justly the h igh functions of his of fi ce. The Attorney-General had told them, in plain terms, that the Sheriff of Dublin had conspired 'to impede, if not to turn the course of justice, to suit his private political objects ; all parties ought to unite in one view of such a charge,' and that was to institute an immediate inquiry into its trdth, {Hear, hear); not a moment should be lost in redressing so enormous an evil.—( Hear, hear.)—The Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman had never been charged by him with cur reption ; but here such a charge was brought against the High Sheriff for " packing" a Jury. Mr. PLUNKErr.—" I said that the 26 names of the Grand Jury, who answered at the first call, were the names of persons not generally suninioned on preceding Grand Juries." Mr. BROWNLOW said that lie was informed that 19 of those names were to be found in every presiding grand jury panel for several years, and that many of them had been often praised by Judges for their impartial, upright, and constitu tional conduct. This was a simple fact easy of solution.— (Hear !)—The Hon. Gent. then touched upon the manner in which the Sheriff's were directed to return the panel conjointly, and said, that Sheriff's Thorpe and Cooper did so make the re turn. lint a circumstance had been stated respecting a gentle. man named Poole, who wished before this trial was mentioned to be on the grand jury, for some motive of vanity, as had been mentioned, and who, after a prTnise to gratify his request, was omitted in the list by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, who alleged as the rea son, that Mr. Poole had said lie should abide by " the King's letter." Now the fact, as stated by the Shenff, was this— Mr. Poole had certainly expressed a wish to be on the grand jury, and when Mr. Sheriff Thorpe took the panel to Mr. Sheriff Cooper for his conjoint assent, lie mentioned that this Gentleman was anxious to be on the grand jury ? adding at the same time, that he had made a request to be included in the list, which was, perhaps, an objection, considering the man ner in which they were directed by the Attorne y-General to re turn the panel. Mr. Sheri ff Cooper acquiesced in this objection, and Mr. Poole was omitted. The latter again applied, and said, O that if admitted on the grand jury, he should not divide on the inquiry respecting the rioters. n being pressed for the reason of his solicitude to be on this jury, he replied, that a case was to be tried respecting a Mr. O'Meara, with all the par ticulars of which he was very conversant, and could in that respect he useful to the grand jury ; and that he had a peat wish to be on it, that he might do justice to Mr. O'Meara.— (A laugh, and cries of " Hear I")—The Sheriff instantly said, that he had given himself a conclusive reason why his request could not be complied with.—(Hear, hear I)—The Hon. Gen tleman then complained of the hardship of not including the Grand Jury with the Sheriff, in the proposed inquiry, for they bad been alike inculpated. It was said, that Christopher -Moran, when examined before them, had been asked only two questions : he (Mr. Brownlow) was authorised by the Grand Jury to contradict this assertion, and to say, without being in. formed of the nature of the examination, that Moran had been asked consider a bly more q u e stions, and had undergone a longer examination in their room than lie had sustained at the trial. He could assure the House that there were many reports in circulation which were as injurious to the character of the Attorney-General for Ireland as those which the Right Ho nourable and Learned Gentleman had stated respecting the Grand Jury were discreditable to those gentlemen , _ and they were perhaps equally unfounded. Fo r i ns t ance , h e (Mr. Brown. low) had heard it stated, that an individual who had given it to be understood that he could give information respecting the throwing of the bottle in the theatre was introduced to the Right Hon. the Attorney-General. Ile might here'observe, that from the manner in which thebottic was described to have been thrown, there was just as much reason to suppose that it had ' been hurled ut Lord Combermere, who sat on the opposite side of the house to that on which the Lord Lieutenant was situated, as at his Excellency. Be that, however, as it might, he would proceed to state what was reported to have taken place between the individual to whom. he had just alluded, and the Attorney. General. It was said, then, that the man told the Right Hon. and Learned Gent. that he was sitting in the pit on the night the Lord Lieutenant visited the theatre, anti that after drinking the contents of a bottle which he had with him, which were porter, and not spirits, lie (to use his own words) " chuched the bottle disposed, jai were oeer mdstueceilt,atqruatiitoene,notluiegiAl of Attorney-General m informationey..G s e s r a l o n sag e , over the stage-lamps." The rumour ran, that upon hearing s ' u ' bre er ct y , the was against ai couldss shown io t wi relateen A l w e t or d tnh o oeeyr.. Housee ( n l 4 alullig,ahnutyenrd. other )— w s tories r e wi ewesreewr which were told agains t the Attorney- G enera l , and w hic h were per quite as unfounded as those which the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman related against the Grand Jury. It was, however, sufficient to show that contradictory statements existed, in order to make out a case for Parliamentary inquiry. The Grand Jury were not required to try whether there had been a conspiracy against the Lord Lieutenant, but whether the parties against whom bills had been preferred had formed that conspiracy. Upon a consideration of the evidence which had been submitted to them, the Grand Jury felt bound to de clare that they had not, an d lie could not see how they could, come to any other conclusion ; for it was stated in one of the affidavits which had been placed upon the table of the House, that the deponent had heard a man, who was since dead, de clare that Graham did not throw the rattle in the theatre ; but that he himself (die man who had died) had thrown it. The Honourable Member concluded by observing, that the High Sheriff would be exposed to great hardship in being subjected to 'an cx.ofJiciu information ; because, if lie were to be ac. quitted, he would, notwithstanding, be obliged to pay the costs. Mr. OOULBURN scarcely expected to claim attention after the able manner in which his Honourable Friend (Mr. Brownlow) and the lion. and Learned Gentleman oppositehad handled the matter. He rose, however, to state why he,su p . ported the motion of the Hon. Member for Corte Castle. lie thought all persons would agree with him that the question no longer concerned his Right Hon. Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, or the Irish Government. If his Right Honourable Friend could !thew just grounds for imputing blame to the Grand Jury, he must stand acquitted, and his conduct could not be before the House. Ile conceived that he had done that the other night. His Hon. Friend behind (Mr. Brownlow) could not but admit that the High Sheriff had acted with much indiscretion, as to give rise to the grounds of complaint against him. The consequence of adopting the motion for inquiry by that House would be to prejudge the case, and thereby do in justice. It was a fact highly in favour of his Right lion. Friend, that Moran aliould he deemed unworthy of credit by the Grand Jury. His lion. Friend had stated a circuMstance said to have occurred in the Privy Council Chamber at the Castle, to which he would only refer for the purpose ofsaying, in the most solemn manner, that the statement was altogether void of faun. elation.—( Hear !)—ln order to discredit other testimony strong ly corroborated, his lion. Friend had detailed the conversa. tion of a man who had conveniently died in the interim, to per suade the House that that which was distinctly sworn to by no less than three witnesses, was void of foundation. As to the evidence, It was unnecessary to go into detail on one side or the other—there might be faults on both sides, but that was not the place to discuss them. If there were looseness of testimony on one side, it must be admitted the same prevailed on the other. But the question before the House was, whether the de y should accede to the motion of the Hon. Member for Co Castle, or that of the Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Burdett). It could not be denied, lie thought, that the most advisable course in this case was that which would be MOltt satisfactory to the public; and lie must say, he thought that the fairest which enabled the accused to rebut charges by evidence on oath. If there was one principle more undeniably established than another, it was, that it was impolitic in that House to depart from its h igher duties and descend into an exercise of' the functions of inferior tribu. nals. He put it to the Howie. to consider what must be the effect, in Ireland, of a proceeding of the kind contended for by the Hon. Baronet. The Hon. Baronet, himself was not unaware of the exasperation such a course would produce. It was not dif ficult to foresee what would be the effect of doling oat in small incomplete quantities, from day to, day, angry matter of this kind to the two expectant parties, already in a state of mutual inflammation. In conclusion, lie had only to say that he must vote against the motion of the Hon. Baronet, because he thought it a most inconvenient mode of proceeding, and because another course was open, and more constitutional..—(Hear, hear !) Colonel BARRY recalled to the mind of the House, that this was not an individual case, but one of public justice, as had been distinctly pointed out in the opening speech of die Hon. Baronet. Public justice, it was truly contended, could not be attained by an ex-offleio information in Ireland, and it was only { on that ground it was demanded that that House should take the case into his own hands.—(Hear, hear !)---lf they loved justice, he was sure they would examine into the case at the bar of the House, by which means alone the calumnies, uninten tionally he was sure, vented against the honourable individuals who were then anxiously waiting to have an opportunity of clear ing their character, could be dissipated. It was a thing which r ti i lAo s en ta rt to l wumpo h h ir e n entyhlethG a r at eeh a ngeeu a rame t sletitharftwuenhtesaobnemifnhoesertietthiutmaitiedue aaHbonsk;ruceudsinti.einirtiiilotialartmon;nosoes.t ~ Pgr e fil ed mieignalh i tetler n tyd gs los to rPnan. ld hint that he did not. it Mr. I'LUNKETT wished to correct the statement of the Hon. Member, but was interrupted by cries of " Order." The SPEAKER observed, that strictly the Right Hon. Gentleman was not entitled to speak ;abut the might, un convenienceth.oe f correcting an error of this particular atured er courtesy of the House, excuse the breach of order. slr. PLUNKErr then stated that he answered a pastor! as to " further inquiry," and not as to " ulterior proceedillgs'' Colonel BARRY would be extremely sorry to misrepresent the Right Hon. Gentleman. The distinct impression on his mind was, that he had answered him that lie should not Insti tute ulterior proceedings, unless ordered by the House to d o so. With reference to the anecdote of the rattle it stood thus The witness who professed to be able to identify the pets° who threw the rattle, pointed out n man from amongst the i prisoners, whom he was assured by Major Tacitly was not the man. That identical man, however, was the man w ho After wards, on his death-bed, conftised himself the person who threw the rattle.—(Hear, hear l)—He declared it to be his intention to support the motion of the Honourable Member for Westminster. Sir J. NEWPORT thought a complete case had been nud e out for inquiry at the bar of that House. So far from stieh,a In that country there was party, but no course inflaming the public mind in Ireland, as was argued g the Right lion. Secretary opposite, (Mr. Goulburn) it NIS tne only possible mode of appeasing the dissensions in that country• nion had no controul there and therefore that House ass e best place for such a proceeding, and most likely to exercised:l fluence over the minds of all persons. Justice, he e ent o e the required that the House should ralopt the proposition Hon. Baronet. The Houae, he considered had made all, un worthy compromise, in a case connected with this question 0O a . late night. He hoped ' they would not fall into the same mii take on this occasion. Mr. SPRING RICE considered the whole questien,i,east the garded the Right lion. Attorney-General, was , "le' warrant the grounds of policy or necessity were such as to step he had onginally taken in issuing er- dfi cio inform.attUf,. If there were, he should hold him justified, and lie shonlo to 7 a public. Public op :- Bider the Attorney-General for England would be bound count in the same way, if the minds of the grand jury. of the __ e try were . poisoned. But, then, upon this contingen,cy tt,e,'„. did the justification of the Attorney-General for 1 r .lan: 1 1 :; t pend. Ile confesses he was not unprepared for the s ee n.. , the of that Right Hon. Gentleman relative to the conthiett_erba Grand Jury of Dublin. The reason of this was, thetin„,„,„ last year happened to be placed in the situation of Cl a1f,1,7„ to a Committee of Inquiry into the Affairs of the Corsi • Dublin. In the course of his labours in that t,. ga nging mittee he ascertained that it was, and had b Sheriff. almost practice for many years past, for th e High ation.- exclusively to isppoutt the members of the 1 h C charac ter, or Unless a man had this qualification, wont- , t . Grand rank seemed to avail nothing. The institution 0 t __ re . Jury was one not to he uunpered with by thos . l„ j ; be• spected the Constitution of the Country. He Herate r at true , lieve the whole case as stated by the Attorney-; „repos until p . roved otherwise. He was for many reas°l o b u ilin, sessed in favour of that statement. When he was t 2 en public shortly after these Bills had been ignored, he nle .___„ w en. business one of the witnesses, one who had never o,vr;e o or tioned as yet upon any one occasion, but whose name 17_ . :t„ hi ,, quiry. In answer to his question as to what he 1 , 1 1 7 ',`, l ,`;ararld hand to the Chair to be called, if the House went, laic witness told him that he had much to tell, but tl . :,'"„u ot ring but, lo l,. o e uld_ Jury only asked him one or two questions , him to tell his story, turned him out.—(llesrtltzr,!,; an y of vote for the question of the Hon. Baronet, no Itt"" i t hat not° s° those ingenious sideways of meeting question! i n , ~,,, Th,e often practised. Truth was never obtaincti ~tt l i r _, ; ,,fr ote d his Judge who indulged ink tuperations against h ! J o /,‘„'', o i r e into duty ; and, in his opion, if the House didi. not u'l . t ly to Mr. Secretary PEEL said, it was inducedhis"-n to do se , 0 ! 1 confine himself to the subject. lie WM was too 0 , 0 01 the present case, it would abandon its functiiotei.ntion the consideration that the time of that liousinct, the hitrodele: value,. to admit of unnecessary topics could o n n only ernbanto3 t i ld tion of general topics into the inquiry . u ror no they , you, ~ discussion. The esti as simply whe le. h vi g il Silent! qu luct ot t e otY consent to institute inquiry into thecont . ... r „ leo , neees. the of Dublin ? They were all agreed that 11"1"lti/ r ., h „ wa s for the pi purpose of doing justice ( 0 t h e Sheri on' then to tion the n w " ,e -person most concerned. Th e whole quaa..._ . in the tle.c. the way the inquiry would be most satisf tot/ che douse to abstatn mination of that point he recommended . e :lee which gene from party topics, and adhere to those ptin.willielt gone,Wo re_ rally regulated the conduct of rooisanent, ono, equity; commendable, because they rested tui justic tars appealed to Any commendable,• good sense. The Right Il an ' eat htoefht forer•ulturdi man, to ask himself, whether the ATI; -3170nOSe guano- er f a irly that night were sufficient to induce the the I t their general practice. He wished to bring 1 s the subject oudico to the test, and, upon established nrille'r-e-' He se ag ree ' If the• d• till in• to be referred to a Court of Law- • id clu e A the motion of the Hon. Baronet, they woo pee. i t e ms . 'Ca e of Jus, „„i t e Into quiry upon fair principles in a they they to net - t the most important question how far oty to rece ive a esa _ attic the conduct of a Grand Jury ? Were tfleY not fai tl Y rt bar the evidence of every man Who said he was lt me w s iqipS e. mined by the Grand Jury. They might bY,,7pcut upon direire, if the charge—how would the Grand `try 't.; he oho tl gr did fence ? The Right Hon. Baronet had sat , ,_ • _, us e thel : or the House refused inquiry into Civil Taiwan a busc!n n o:ever, ohy not refuse political inquiry. The question, littl• whether that was the proper tribunal • _ mon ths, _ be , • which would occupy the House for wee IO ? 1 ,,_, 1, t he Ale" for Yorkshire, said it was a quedion ot i: l 7, 2 „ify rota t t r:„ 1 out receiving any satisfaction. The Noble .I,?_lu_oire hoe ,t_he, conduct of all the Sheriffit of Ireland. It wi t un eirY he wo uld " more than an isolated question ; could the ~;,, e sdi t she .., factorily pursued without the administration make e t ,w h e e :a tri- It not be better to refer it to a Court of J- co eds- The parties. would be bound by an oath. TIT, ~u e stioaa'ea ti rts banals of the land were constituted to trY gush quests by " - c ase. greatest Constitutional questions had been t "tion in th is „rly occupied their attention, and observed ofJustice, and there was no *round for exeeP ' Wh ich forll ete The Right lion. Gentleman adverted to a much investigation, was not satisfactory , . s alsethe result, wA. that,. ~ h e qu estiOn ect o f • to occupy the attention of the House, lie saw come to a , hi , coming to a conclusion. Suppose they Were t hey o i l not termination that the Sheriff had acted O'er?, 'Y' the y woe' tr ial. trust the Attorney-General to prosecute, fo r ;Atha ut 0 4 ,, i n . suffer a Sheriff who bad acted illegally to dl t ex- o fi t 'ced illa Right lion. Friend was prepared to file mo de an of lot r efs formation against the Sheriffs. Under that ht O l e Su e l' w no Pr e ' sP tie ing they , would go to trial fairly. If they brook; be pa. , fore the House, he might be disposed before the House, a fair trial afterwards Could. nOt , e ly st tia, es e , Mr. TIERNEY said, if he could, consider t Ill' or c orne.r se , to vote."." o aed sc ai :'re ton whether tie: Sheriff should be tried by a illo:.,'„ nisi ~, where 1 ; but he saw the question on a more eat_' lu platet ion d. It was a question whether all Irish matters Of clu tote e h e t. to he turned from Parliament and sent back aga istr sn o o n, The state of the case was thi s t _ i a, ne w Minim totiee t. li been formed ; their bond *as strict and impoitto l ,if t he 11 ,l i o tc ic e but the departure from that bond was the sollre e ros eeete4we of Ireland. One part of the AdministradollYo a re ntl e e...- I, for crying " No Popery !" whilst others said )t) TiOt ton their The Lord Lieutenant went to the play, all- iote rs ° B l osl l The Attorney-General endeavoured to put th e t r i 1 „,...The ( tech trial, and at last was tried himself.--(A bog 'ti,eir Con De , Sheriff and Grand Jury called for inquiry into y o u $ 1 0 7301. and the House was recommended to 841.-- 14 ,:haonta t ,ent prosecuted in Ireland by the very man who '- diiol,Bo o4 Such a line of proceeding could not fail to ex into its, Ireland. The House ought to take the subjee,t_ 00 4101, and satisfy the Irish people that justice was 10 D ,a i r y Oi 'Lament. A fair opportunity for Parliamentary Pig Mr. Secretary CANNING said the speech of t_f: oe s t ~ .',40 and he implored the House not to pass it over. ..e. tion. o ° ..a eri ti: 1 tleman, although commenced in conformity to 1r.i..0 tO wrolo , anue' Val e 0 1 fine the question to narrow bounds, hall a ~,,,o ti ao Ge ne quite foreign to the matter in debate. The X tt erneY;,l it in" /louse was, that the statement made by the, reeler Ito for Ireland in his place, on the 16th of A1m! , ,,, iraill o noal,, curnhent on the House to introduce stri t ight 1 airy l' the conduct of the Sheriffs of Dublin. The o a t co ult• able Gentleman had said, if they went distressted thatioloirf would bring all the grievances which obt hat s pill try before Parliament. lie bad no., do the c barK e ttr c sos,, at the bar would take a wider range wag_ ear n* 1 ,.,1 bte!, the Sheriffs, but surely that was no reason r..V.„„ t iet if ti len,Y. in that House. The speech of the H e On__,a w :,int, loa: ot eiliw_ marked in some instances with ternperat t arl y 7 e 01 0 ., f0 : 1), 0 11 1 1 ,. parts of the topics of the Hon- Bal e j ut e 10, 4 ;Pio; than the sentiments of any Gentleman ...n e t those °",,,, s re ett ii e the question. Ile was obliged to c h i elf. Ile i'7, r f‘e t i p which more particularly ay ittal owl 1 Ilion " otel would haie been entitled to full solo ou r it . 0 4 nr After that q uail on eel statement respecting . the Shert • the Attorney-General tor irpellaiednd °stood i an no o re tit Secretary Canning) hesitated upon giv rt e of cens_,lsith° because be was not PrePitred W P a " is l fl at inolltlaw individuals without utquiry. He cou r,ec_tiiisleionoct retiedielo