The Sun. — London, England, 1823-04-16 00:00:00

laatlUelibilited Of, but was it recollected thathe could then file an ex-officio information, for he was net then Attorney-General, but Judge.—.(flear, hear o—Another complaint which he had to make was, that the Honourable Member had not been ex plicit enough in stating his charge. If the gist of it was for committing the prisoners on the capital charge, and trying them for a misdemeanour, why put in the word "c mum ' larly." The lion. Member had not offered any evidence to support his charge of intention on his (Mr. P's.) part; but he would not shelter himself' behind this deficiency in the case, but would state openly what his own conduct had been. He Was ready to take all the responsibility on himself of having advised the magistrates to that committal, though for their acts, the magistrates alone were responsible. The proper place to try that question would be in a court of law; and .an Attorney-General was not , answerable to Parliament for any advice he might have given to magistrates. The Honourable Member had said that no man should be com mitted on a capital charges unless there was irresistible evidence of his guilt. In this he (Mr. P.) joined issue with him, and he asserted, that if there was enough to justify bring - • ing the man to trial, the Magistrate would be warranted in' ' committing him. The attack upon the Lord-Lieutenant had been treated too lightly ; there was no doubt, if the bottle struck him, but it would have taken away his life. He (Mr. P.) con sidered this an atrocious outrage, bUt he never thought that it afforded ground for a capital charge. One of the individuals taken up expressed his regret that the attempt was not success ful. This man, with the two others more immediately con cerned in throwing the bottle and rattle, were the only persons detained in custody. He did not, however, allude to these par ticulars, from any consciousness of a necessity to answer the case made out by the Flon. Member, but to show that he had not diven his advice on light grounds. The first thing he wished to o, and lie begged the.attention in particular of the Country Gentlemen to th is partof the case, was to state the law with respect to the power of Grand Juries. He hoped to be able to satisfy every Member present, that to whateverrespect the conduct of Grand Jurors was in general entitled, it was by no means a novelty to question the propriety of their decisions. The Hon. Member had admitted that the power was in the Attorney-General of bringing an information after a bikl had been ignored by a Grand Jury. However, after every newspaper and every pla card had rung again with the illegality of such a proceetllng, he should not be content to rest on the admission of the Hen. Member. First, he took it ,that no point of law was more clearly ascertained than that the ignoring of a bill by a Grand Jury was no bar to a proceeding by indictment again ; and new bills might be preferred again and again, as long as the Grand Jury chose to ignore the preceding bill; and that with out any disparagement to their conduct. He took it also to be clear, that, for certain purposes, the proceeding by in formation was as old as the Constitution itself. The books all concurred in representing it to be a form of proceeding vested in the Officers of elle Crown, in order to guard ngainst a failure of justice, in consequence of the defects . 91 the ordinary processes. In ancient times the preroga tives were executed by the known Officeri of the Crown, the Attorney-General and the Master of the Crown Office. The informations - by the Attorney-General were for offences against the Crown ; those by the other Officer for offences of an' inferior nature. They had separate departments, but the right to file informations was co-extensive. So matters con tinued until the Revolution. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that these processes belonged rather to the spirit of the Star Chamber. But whatwas time fact ? When the Star Cham ber was abolished, and in the heat of all the jealousies excited by the existence of that tribunal, the proceeding by informa tion was re-established. Thus it continued until the 4th and sth of William the Third, when an Act was pissed for the new modelling of .the power of filing those informations. The Act ' underwent long discussion, during which a conference between the two Houses of e'arliament was held. By this Act the Master of the Crown office was disabled from filing informa tions, except by the authority of the Court of King's Bench.— But by that very same Act, and at the very time when the spirit of the country against all institutions incompa tibia with liberty, was at its very height—by that Act the power of the Attorney-General to file informations was again deliberately ratified. The power of the Master of the Crown Office being of the same extent as that of the Attorney-Gene ral, it followed that the Court of King's Bench, to which the power of the Master of the Crown Office was transferred, was of the same extent as that of the Attorney-General. He took it to be a principle of which no one was ignorant, that no subject of the realm could be tried twice for the same offence. A proceeding before a Grand Jury was no trial. It was an ina quiry necessary to be gone into before the party could be put upon his trial. It could not be pleaded as autrefoiic acquit in bar of a trial. The party must :thew an acquittal by Petty Jury. It was said diet, to proceed by information after a Grand Jury had decided on the invalidity of the evi dence, was indecorous, and highly objectionable, on a variety of grounds. Now, lie would sinew that, at least, it was not of recent invention. Ile would refer to cases which occurred in the English Courts. The first watt the case of the King v. Hope. It was the case of an application for an information for a trespass,' and it was opposed, on the 'ground that an indictment had been already preferred, and that the Grand Jury ignored the bill. And here he begged to observe that the proceeding was unjust; for this, amongst other reasons—namely, that the Grand Jury had it not in their power to defend themselves.— But was not the King's Bench in the same predicament? But the question was not between the Court of King's Bench and the Jury, but between the public and the criminal. In the case to which he had just referred, it was agreed, per total curiatn, that the information should be granted, because it was that re medy which was to be put into operation in order to effect the ends of justice, when it was in hazard of being defeated by party heats and local jealousies. Now,- he could state to the Hon. Member, that the reasons here assigned, on the part of the Court, for granting the informations, did not come from the lips of a Jefferies or an Empson, or any other of the advocates of doctrines adverse to human rights and liberties ; but from the great constitutional Judge, Lord flardwicke.—(Hearl)—Here, then, was a great authority, not coldly admitting the process as one of strict legality, but absolutely claiming it as a pro-, tection against the failure of the ordinary engines to accom. plish the work of justice. The next case was the King v. Thorpe, which was also for an application for an information for a nuisance. It was stated, on the part of time application, that a bill was preferred for the nuisance, but, on account of the partiality felt by the Jury, the bill was ignored. Lord - Mansfield ruled that the application should be granted, and was joined by the rest of the Judes, Buller, Ashurst, and Willes. The information was fil e; the defendant suffered, judgment to go by default: Here was a case, then, that dis closed this singular fact, that the Grand Jury ignored a bill against a defendant who, when called upon afterwards to de. fend himself, was so sensible of his want of merits, that lie suf fered judgment to go by default. The next case to which he would advert occurred in the third year of the present King's reign. It was the case of the King v. the Inhabitants of Berk shire. A bill was preferred before the Grand Jury; it was ignored ; two successive bills were presented, and severally ignored; and, in consequence, an information was applied for and granted. So far, then, for English justice. Since the year 1795, thirteen cases before three Chief' Justices (Lord Clonmel, Lord Kilwartlen, and Lord Downes) occurred, of applications for information att./ the Grand Jury had ig nored the bills. The House would observe that, in cases of applications for informations, where the offence was riot one which came strictly within its jurisdiction, the King's ' Bench usually asked for some allegation of misconduct on the part of the Grand Jury ; but this was not the case with regard to those offences which were within its habitual jurisdiction. The first case to which be would refer was the Icing v. Dias. A bill was preferred and ignored. The prosecutor applied to the Judge to cause the ;Jury to reconsider the bill to be preferred. It was preferred and ignored. An inforniation was then asked and granted. The Right Hort. Gentlenilio then referred to` several other canes where the proceeding was of a similar na ture. The King v. Patterson, and the King v. Crawford, were cases where the offence was Immediately within the jurisdiction of the King's Remit, They were cases of letters provoking to tight. Bills were preferred and ignorcal. An information was applied for, and no other allegation of misconduct was made against the Jury than this—that they ignored the bills, being under Sonic influeneeunknown to the deponent. Ile would add one more case, to which he begged time attention of the House. The CAW 1 , 03 still depending, and he would therefore tot men tion names. It was a curious instance, inasmuch as it was the case of an information being applied for on account of a bill being ignored by the very same Grand Jury before whom the hills were preferred against the defendants, whose came was now -before the fiouse. As the case was not concluded, he should merely , say that an allegation of misconduct was made against the Grand jury, and the information was granted conditionally. The defendants in that case were charged with conspiracy , to defraud. A. was charged with giving B. money, and B. of receiving it, in order to be able to swear he had received it, with a view to defraud a third person. The bill was ignored. An information was applied tbr, and it was stated that the Grand Jury reftvrgi to receive a letter as evidence, which was written by one of the conspirators. It was also stated, that a Juror asked one 'of the witnesses, did lie ever know this person, meaning A., whom, for the present he would call APllialion. —" Pray, did you ever know," said the Juror, " poor mtii`.'llalt on to commit perjury." The witness said be did not. The'Juror then asked, " if made any affidavit e" Witness said lie did not. The Jury shelved him the door and ignored the bill. This (hand Jury had previously expended all their strength, he stipposed, and exhausted like Jupiter after giving existence to Hercules; they weld not muster up futficiciit power to timid another bill. But whilst lie furnished these cases to the House, he begged to remind them of the ini vossi *bilitv of knowing, whether, in a great many instances of •Auforniations being filed, there was a bill preferred anti ignored. ' 'W Mere an information was filed, it was no part of the record ; it *as not necessary it should appear in evidence that a bill had been previously preferred. Therefore, it by no means fol lowed, that in cases of informations being filed, the silence of the record should be taken to be as evidence of no bill being previously preferred and ignored. Was he then to be taunted with attempting an innovation iq thepractice of the country ever since the Conquest ? Every one of his predecessors had appealed to the same process, without leaving it to the discretion of a Grand Jury, whether any proceeding should be had; iind after the lesson which he had lately received, he would take care never again to trust himself in the hands of a Grand Jury. Had he in the first instance filed his information, no complaint would be made— the Constitution would have escaped —the libertiei of the coun try would remain whole. What was his crime ? It was not that be had filed an information in a case where it was unfit to apply such a process ; hii crime was for going before a Grand Jury, and for this he was to be visited by all the ter rors with which the genius cf the Constitution was armed.o— for.. Gentleman had said that. it was only a mockery to go , before a Grind Jury, and take their decision only when it pleases you. Did the lion. Gent. suppose that an Attorney General had any interest or inclination to pick quarrels with Grand Juries? He could conceive a variety of cases where it would be proper for the Attorney eeneral to go before a Grand Jury in the first instance ; but surely it was not necessary that he should be bound by their decision. When he was inclined, for the sake of general convenience, to pro ceed by indictment, 'it did not follow that he should surrender ' into the hands of the Jury the determination of the question whether the case was one to be proceeded in or not. He would suppose a case. Suppose a. bill of indictment was preferred, and after evidence was heard by the Grand Jury, they ignored ;—suppose that the witnesses had stated to the Attorney ' General by affidavit or otherwise, that the Grand Jury sat with their legs across, and put their hands in their ears to shut out the evidence • and, suppose that the nature of the evidence was such as manifestly, and beyond all question, to make it impe rative in them to hind a trite bill,—suppose, under such circum stances, that the bill was ignored, was not that a case in which the Attorney-General would be warranted in interfering? The Hon. Gentleman stated that, in this proceeding on this °eta sion, he was actuated by a zeal for the preservation of the Con stitutien and the liberties of the subject. But should the con duct- of the Attorney-General in due affair be condemned, the Honourable Gentleman would obtain this result for the Con stitution, that no Attorney-General would ever again have re course to a' Grand Jury, but always use the process of information. Ile felt that he was trespassing upon the attention of the House too long.—(Loud cheers.)—But he assured them that if himself alone were concerned, he would not have troubled them at such length, but every body who knew him, knew that there were interests growing out of this question infi nitely more dear 'to him than any which concerned himself.— He would then refer those Hon. Gentlemen who contended that the Attorney-General was not legally authorised to file ex officio informations, to the 3d and 4th Barrow's Reports, in which it was laid down by Lord Mansfield, that such an au thority did exist in the Attorney-General, and that it was un necessary for hint to apply to the Court of King's Bench to grant one, because the authority existing in the 'Attorney. General himself, it was unnecessary to call upon the Court to, sign an information which he might sign himself ; and fur ther, that if it was not a proper case for the Attorney-General to file an information, neither was it a proper one for the 'Court. Thus it was clearly established that the Attorney-Gene ral had a right to exercise the same discretion as the Court of King's Bench in filing ex-gbYalo informations, and he hoped that be even had satisfied the Hon. Gentleman upon this point. Upon the. case of More, which had been alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman, he wished to offer one or two observations.— This was a case which could not have been found but from the merest accident, because, from peculiar circumstances, it came under the cognizance of Parliament, and it should be recollected that this was a proceeding, not by information, but by indictment. The circumstances were these i e .-The bills were sent up to the Grand Jury, and intending to ignore them, they, by mistake; returned. true Bills; The Grand Jury ap plied to rectify the finding, but the Court refused the applica tion, unless it was made on affidavit. The affidavit was made, and the indictment quashed; but the Attorney-General said he had another authority to resort to, and filed an ex-officio information. However, it so well deserved attention, that the subject was before the Irish Parliament, and such loud complaints made against Sir Constantine Phipps, that Parlia ment petitioned for his removal ; and though the particular at. tention or the House was called to the question at the time, yet no complaint was made against Constantine for filing an ex-officio information. The complaint against hint was, for interfering with the Jury while proceedings were pending. Thus far lie thought it necessary to advert to this case, to shew that It was not exactly in point for the Hon. Gentleman's purpose. Now he would proceed to state the facts, and the evidence pro duced to sustain these facts, as well as the grounds which in duced him to file the ex officio information. If he could show the finding was in opposition to the facts, and that gross injus dee wits the consequence, he had no doubt that the It oust: would agreewith him in the propriety or the course he had adopted.e.- In the papers for which the lion. Members had moved, with the view of ascertaining the motives of the Irish Government, and which had been laid on the table to-day, was the indictment and the evidence which went before'the Grand Jury to sustain it, and lie would take it upon himself' to say, that any rational man looking at the evidence of the thirteen perons, he did not in clude the two Atkinsone, and two others who were subsequently examined, who gave their testimony before that Jury, would come to the conclusion that there was no part of the indicnnent, whether for the conspiracy, the riot, or the assault, which was not as fully and demonstratively proved against all as well as against Handwiteh and Graham. He would state to the House the impression upon the Jury which induced them to come to such a conclusion, and of which he was as morally certain as if he had been one of the Jury. While it was found that the Lord Lieutenant was prepared to act on his Majesty's last ad monition to the people of Iceland, by an equal administration of the laws, and by putting down the dominant party which kept up a system of the most embittered feelings and heart burnings; that party whom he' had called a gang, thought they were warranted in shewing a proof of their disapprobation, and had therefore a right to invite a riot; but he did not believe that any of them had a right to make an attack upon the Lord Lieutenant. This, he believed, was the opinion which induced them to come to the conclusion of finding " no bills," but upon the legality of which the Learned Judge upon the trial removed all doubt. The Right Honourable Gentleman here read an extract from the Judge's charge, shewing that no persons had a right to confederate to make a riot at a theatre even against an actor. However, tit,: Jury, he believed, were of a different opinion, and thought they had a right to confederate to express their opinions against the Lord Lieutenant. Now, if such was the fact, and that there was a party so filled with prejudices as to believe that ti;ey were justified in acting against the very elements of justice, for the . puipose of rendering the Government of the Lord Lieu tenant ineffective, and shelving there was a power superior to it , lie had` no other course left but that which he had pursued. Cheers.)—And though censure should be thrown upon him for tag conduct, under such circumstances, he should still ever feel proud of the honest integrity which dictated it.—(Hear !)_ll, had been charged with want of judgment in committing for a capital charge and afterwards abandoning it ; but he maintained that a change of' opinion which circumstances justified, only con. firmed the judgment that bad been exercised, by leaving an op. portunity for such a change. Now it appeared that three or four Orangemen had taken advantage of the Lord-Lieutenant's visitat the theatre to show their disapprobation of his Government. He did not use the term " Orangemen" in any offensive sense. With some individuals of that body he was on the most friend ly terms, but as a body he deprecated them, as an Association in violation both of the Statute and the Common Law, and above all because they were hound together by a principle of exclusive religion. While such a body existed it was impos. Bible that Ireland could ever be in any other state than that of war, because the existence of one party necessarily created another in opposition.—(Hear, hear o—And instead of the whole community uniting to support the law, all were arrayed in hostility against it. It could not be said that he had acted impartially, it was his duty to notice every violation of the law, and as public prosecutor, he has been called upon to bring the Catholic as well as the Protestant to punish ment. If lie had neglected to do so—if be had shut his eyes to the impolitmy of one party and not of the other, he should have. believed himself guilty of the greatest self abase meat. By such conduct the Protestants endangered their own safety, Their garrison was in the law, but if they sallied be- , yond it and challenged others to s violation of it, they would not only endanger their own safety, but that of the country.— ' (Loud cheers.)—That he would descend from his character, and become the instrument of party purposes, was a charge from which, if his character was not nuthcient to shield him, he would make no defence. But to return to what he was be fore statinie; that a few Orangemen had determined to insult the Lord Lieutenant at the theatre, for the purpose of compel ling hint either to leave the kingdom, or change the principle his Government. Now, it was difficult to conceive what reasonable ground they could have for such opposition, be cause the Lord Lieutenant had not appointed one Catholic to a situation since he became Chief Governor of Ireland.— The Right Honourable Gentleman then adverted to the evl. dence upon the trial, which, he said, still more confirmed the false principle and prejudices which must have actuated the I Grand Jury in throwing mit the bills. The Honourable Gentleman called for censure upon hint without a statement of facts, but he would relieve him from the necessity of hay. ing made such a statement, by laying before the House the I grounds which decided him to pursue that course which the t Honourable Gentleman would now, inculcate. Two of the Traversers were time close relations of the High Sheriff (first t emising once removed), and it was known that he declared be. fore the trial, that they need have no anxiety upon the subject, as he had an Orange pluiriel in his . rocket;—(Cheers)-and a Protestant gentleman, who was desirous of being placed on the Grand Jury, was refused by the Sheriff, who being asked the reason, said, " Do you think I would put him on the Jury after saying that he would abide the King's letter ? In stating this, he did not mean to inculpate the Grand Jury, it was the Sheriff who deserved censure for choosing a prejudiced Jury. The Grand Jury could not be inculpated for being in fluenced by prejudices of which, perhaps, they were not, them selves, aware of possessing. Again, on the second day, when lie found the Jury were not likely to come to any determine.: Lion, he compared the partnel with .those of preceding years, and found they ran from seventy to one hundred ; but when it was limited to fifty, twenty-six of whom had never been on any former pannel, and, wish the exception of the two first, they all answered to their names in regular order. Now he would put it to the candour and honour of the Honour able Gentleman if he was justified, under such circum stances, in the course which he had taken. But the cir cumstances were even still stronger. A person who assist ed in the Sheriff's Office swore that the Sheriff desired the pannel to be brought to himself, to be prepared on that occasion, and that it should not be given to the person who usually made it out. $o far for the conduct of the Sheriff.— A Mr. Farley; who happened to be in the tavern on the even ing before the riot, and heard certain expressioni,was examined before the Grand Jury. He said, " that be heard a person that evening who said certain things. Ile did not know his name then, but he knew his person, and he - had seen him several times' since, and now knew that his name was Forbes." The Jury asked him if he knew him now. Farley replied that •he did ; but the Jury:said that was no matter, as he did not know him at the time he heard the cipressions, anti they took his evidence against Forbes as a person unknown.—. (Hear, hear, hear !)--Farley was a Protestant, but the Jury believing him to be a Catholic, and wishing to throw an imputation on his evidence on that account, asked Mr. Troy, one of the witnesses, if he knew that Mr. Parley was a Protestant. Mr. Troy.said that lie believed he was, but they refused to give any credit to his testimony, as lie could not swear positively that Farley was a Protestant.—( Hear, hear ! )—ln the course of Ryam's examination, as appeared from the papers on the table, he Zas asked, were you instructed to appear as a witness against Graham," he replied not. " What description of a man was it who flung the rattle ?" Ryan said he was a sailor-looking man, and then they asked, " were there not many men like him." Ile was asked "if he had not said that he had mistaken him." He replied " No." "O yes, you must," said one of the Jury, " because I have it in my notes." He would not trespass further upon the House, as far as related to this part of the case. As to the legality of the filing an es-offifie information there was no doubt, but on the constitutional question there was some difference of opinion. 11 the ptfwer was never to be exercised, if it was unconstitutional to exercise it, it ought to be taken away altogether ; but if the power did exist, it was not unconstitutional to exercise it. He admitted, however, that it should.be exercised with discretion, and that the person exercising it should' be liable to the consequences. If it was unconstitutional to exercise such a power, and that he had, however, exercised it, he had no defence ; but if, on the other hand, it were legal, and that lie had been only charged with in discretion in the exercise of it, it was for them who brought the charge to make out a case, skewing that he had not exercised a sound discretion. NO far from the Hon. Gentleman having made out a case, so far from hii having laid any grounds for censure, no fact had been stated which did not come from him self, and by these he was entitled to acquittal. The Right Hon. and Learned' Gentleman concluded by saying that the House were now in possession of his feelings and justification, and ihe would withdraw, leaving them to pursue what course their wis dom and justice would suggests—(The Right Hon. Gentleman withdrew amid loud and continued cheers.) Mr. W. COURTENAY said that he never heard a motion which gave him more pain than that of the Hon. Gentleman. But it was impossible not to see that, whatever was its result, it would only tend to increase the irritation of party in Ireland, and he would therefore suggest a middle course, which would give neither party any cause for triumph. He wished to see the law impartially administered ' • but he would ask, was it possible for any man : , who had heard the statement of his Right Honourable Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, to say that he had exercised in an unjust or oppressive man ner the power that was vested In him ? Who could take upon himself to say that the Attorney-General was riot justifiable in filing an ca.-officio information, after the Grand Jury had ignored the bill? lle was anxious that the House should not pronounce any decided judgment upon the question, in order that neither party should have to boast a triumph. It would be a useless waste of time were he to make any observa tions on the legality or constutionality of the power which was exercised by tire Attorney-General. His Right Honourable Friend had adduced many cogent arguments in support of the course lie had adopted. With respect to the point, as to whe ther the power had been properly exercised in the present in. stance, he could only say that he thought his Right Hon. Friend hail only done that which was necessary for the safety of the country, acting as he did upon a sound discretion. In his opinion, the Attorney-General would have, been guilty of a gross dereliction of his duty if lie had given way to any claims which could lead him from a due discharge Of it. The lion. and Learned Member concluded some further observations by moving as an Amendment, that the other Orders of the, Day be. now read. Mr. D. BROWNE spoke a few words, we believe, in sup. port of the Amendment. Colonel BARRY feared, that after the powerful impression which must have been made on the House by the speech of the Right Hon. the Attorney-General, it was a trespass on his part to occupy their attention ; yet he owed it to himself and to the House to state some facts of which he had. been put in possession. The statement of them would defeat in some de gree the impression of the Right Honourable Gentleman, as they controverted those which he had alleged. Before he went into the statement of these facts, he would beg leave to remark that the Right Honourable Gentleman had occupied the principal part of his speech in vindicating the legality of the measure; whereas his Hon. Friend, the Member for Armagh, had very briefly dwelt upon .or investigated that point. As to the legality of the measure, he (Colonel Barry) had listened to the cases which the Right Hori. Gentleman had adduced, who had quoted 19 cases, not one of which was analogous to the present case, for not one of them was the case of an Attorney- General filing an ex-officio informati on a f ter a G ra nd Jury had ignored the bills of indictment. They were the cases of indi viduals before the four Judges -of the King's Bench. Tlie ac cused party there had the advantage of counsel, and could be heard in his defence ; but in the case of an ex-officio informa tion, the power of the crown obliged the subject to go to trial without the benefit or opportunity of counsel on his behalf. It was worthy of remark, that the evidence which the Right Hon. Gentleman detailed was of an anonymous character, as it rested solely on his assartions, and was not regularly before the House. His line of observations particularly attached censure to the conduct of the Sheriff, and of the Jury iinpannelled by him. As to the Sheriff's conduct, it was important for the House to know that there were two Sheriffs in Dublin, of which one was in the interest of one party, and the other of the opposite party. These Sheriffs impannelled the juries at alternate terms. On the present occasion the crown solid. for wrote to the Sheriff (Thorpe), requesting that both Sheriffs might join in impannelling a jury, and accordingly they jointly drew up the panne!. As to the assertion that Sheriff Thorpe had said that he had a,Jury in his pocket to acquit the traversers, the assertion rested on the affidavit of a certain person named Connell. The affidavit stated eight per. sons to be present at the time the expression was used, and he was prepared with seven affidavits alleging this expression had not been used by the Sheriff. Helconiplained of the manner in which the Attorney-General had read the evidence given on the trial, and assuming it as the evidence given. before the Grand Jury, which was by rio means apparent from evidence before the House.. The Atkinsons he regarded as the contrivers of the whole conspiracy, who bad got it up for interested pur poses. Here the Hort. Meinber entered into a detailed account of Atkinson's family, and of the two brothers examined on the trial, against on e o f w h om a c h ar g e was made some years ago, of breaking open stores and stealing thence to bum), &c. This charge was bought oft' by the father, and the prosecution of money. He likewise stated, several other circumstances cal given up on the payment of a certain sum ciliated to throw discredit on the Atkinsons, and traced the mo tive that induced one of them to come forward to a desire of preserving a Clerkship in the Delivery Office, which he had obtained only , a r •ew weeks previous to the 14th of December. The Learned Gentleman was anxious to know what was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in England as to the measure adopted by th e Ri g h t lion. Gentleman in Ireland. Ile would be desiro us o f : .air i ng them declare whether they would be ready, under similar circumstances, to act the part which the Attorney-General had acted in Ireland. He con ceived the House had a right to ask this question, and demand the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. Lord Al ILTON was not prepared for the sentiments favour able to liberty which had fallen from the Hon. Mover of the present occasion, more particularly when he recollected that on a former occasion he had come over to vote for the suspension of the Constitution of ,England, and other measures unfavourable to political freedom. He alluded to the period of 1819. He had comedown to the House with the impression on his mind, that he should have voted for the motion of the Honourable Mover ; but on the ground stated in the motion, he would certainly not support it, as that ground referred, not to the filing of the informations after the ignoring of the bills, but to the persons concerned in them. The introduction of the phrase " particularly with respect to the persons," conveyed the idea that there wis some other vague and undefined cause besides that state& iaitthe motion on which the. House had forined its judgmeot. He certainly did, not approve of the dis cretion which - iiiiiiited his Right Hon. Friend .to institute this proceeding by informations, for the situation of Ireland and the government, Or rather the mis-governthent that existed there, rendered it peculiarly ill-suited to such proceedings. With a Lord Lieutenant of one set of opinions, and a Secretary of totally oppositepolitical views with his right lion. Friend, the Attorney-General, and other high officers of principles at va riance with his, it was impossible that an harmonious, regular, and good government could be constituted from such discord ant ingredients.' If the policy of the Government was to dis countenance the orange system in Ireland, why, he would ask, b w o as dy, L o rd eontOin'uNe(etiiln office, who he as up , d os e t r m sto a o st d er-G tobeengreraanll in Ireland ast ? that H e was astonished at the facts which had been disclosed by his Right Honourable Friend respecting the High Sheriff of t-merof Dub lin, and ,if upon inquiry it would fully appear that he durst to trifle with his office, and make the most invaluable privilege of the Constitution subservient to party purposes, he hoped the House would deal with him in such manner as such presump tion deserved. After some further observations on the expe dieney of discountenancing faction in Ireland, the Noble Lord stated that he would not vote for the original motion, for the reasons lie had already stated; neither , would he support the amendment, because he thought it more fair and satisfactory to his Right lion. Friend to have the opinion of the House taken on a direct motion as to his conduct, and not evaded by the side-wind resolution-proposed by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtenay). lie hoped some Gentleman would propound some line of proceeding which would bring the real case fairly before the House. Mr. GOULBURN said, that after what had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, it would not.be necessary for him to enter into a vindication of that conduct which his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Plunkett) had se' ably defended. He must declare that he participated with his Right Hon. Friend in the act he had done, and took on himself his full share of the responsibility belonging to it. The Noble Lord who spoke last had spoken of a divided Government in Ireland as a great evil; but the Members of that Government were divided only on particular topics that were not connected with the main business of the Government. He himself and the Lord Lieutenant concurred in every necessary measure for the Government of Ireland, although they differed in their opinions respecting the Catholic . question. Ile would therefore ask the Noble Lord, who pro fessed himself the friend of everi.kind of religious tolera tion, whether lie would exclude men from office on account of their religious faith ? After supporting the Catholic claims, would he . hereafter object to a Catholic Secretary acting in concert with a Protestant Lord Lieutenant ?—( Hear, hear !) lie was prepared to vindicate every part of ,the conduct of his Right Ilon..Friend the Attorney-General ; and as to the present motion it only tended to revive the agitation which had been so much complained of, and would be giving a triumph to one party or another. It had been asserted thavithe prosecutions alluded to had been instituted on anonymous information ; but lie contended there was a sufficient ground to justify the extra ordinary proceeding resorted to by his Right lion. Irtend. The question now was, whether the Grand Jury did discharge their duty without prejudice? And lie maintained that there was sufficient ground in that respect to justify the filing of ex47cio informations. He felt that the further agitation of this ques tion went to revive animosities, which it must be the wish of all to bury in oblivion ; and he would accept of the modified pro position of hislion. Friend (Mr. Courtenay.) ; Mr. BROUGHAM said he should desert the duty lie owed to the laws and Constitution of the country, if he were to nega tive the proposition now before the House. With all the good wishes which he entertained towards his Right Hon. Friend, with every inclination to find him right, and with all his poli tical partiality+ he was obliged, with pain, to declare, that he considered the act of his Right lion. Friend to have been against the Constitution and law of the country. His Right Hon. Friend had quoted eighteen cases, resting only upon the authority of records in the Courts of Dublin ; but none of those cases applied to the Act in question. The Court of King's.. Bench did grant informations after Grand Juries had thrown out the bills of indictment, but that was done upon oath, anti the parties at the same time were required to enter into recognizances to defray the expenees of those against whom they applied for the informations, in case the prosecution failed. In the present instance, however, an Attorney-General assumed a greater power than belonged to the Court, for he filed informations without affidavits, and on his own authority. Among the authorities quo t e d by hi s Ri g ht Hon. Friend, there was only one cause of a criminal nature ; the others to be con sidered in the light of civil cases. There might be an indict ment for not building a bridge, and if the Grand Jury threw because the c a s e , th oug h nom i na ll y cr i m i na l , out the bill, the county m i g h t b e procee d e d aga i nst by the Court of King's Bench, was one altogether of a civil nature; therefore a case of this kind did not apply to the act in question. He would put it to all the lawyers in that House, whether the Court of King's Bench would grant an information under circumstances such as those now un der consideration; and yet, without the authority of the Court, or any application to the Court, the Attorney-General did file an information on his own authority. No lawyer in England or Ireland—no living authority ever heard of such a thing being done; and what were old musty records, in the Crown Office, to the knowledge, the practice, and recollections of great learned authorities ? The reason given by Judge Blackstone in justi fication of informations ex-gificio was, that they were necessary in cases of danger anil urgency, where a prosecution ought to be instituted as Speedily as p ossible, and when Grand Juries could not be found sittin g . But no such justification could be urged in-this instance. On this subject lie felt very differently from those who seemed disposed to turn the disgraceful riot at the Dublin Theatre into a source of merriment. Ireland was long cursed by a faction, and his great fear was, that the country might still continue to be exposed to that faction • and while lie was obliged to diff er f rom hi s Ri ght lion. Frien d,: he would impress on the House the necessity of taking due notice of the most illegal and unjustifiable conduct of the High Sheriff, which had been represented to the House that night. There was no greater misconception than to suppose that a Govern ment divided in itself could effect the tranquillity of the country. The Right lion. Secretary for Ireland had congratulated him self on the harmony with which the Irish Government had hitherto proceeded. In that harmony. he saw something re sembling a harpsichord with black and white keys.—(A laugh.) The'principal Law Officers of the Crown, namely, the Attorney and Solicitor-General were a pair of those keys. The one differ ing from the other on that most essential question on which the happiness of Ireland depended. To prove how harmoniously they glided on, the Rt. lion. Secretari , said they had not yet any dif ference of opinion on any question. That was what he com plained of, that they did not entertain any question on which they differed. It was the fate of that ill-governed country that they never had a cordial Government, but as one officer, from age or seine supposed merit,- went out on a pension the vacancies were filled up, not by picking out men of acquirement, but, to be true to the balance, by putting one man to counteract an other, in order that there should be no preponderance in favour of that vital question—lie meant the emancipation of the Ca tholic. It was the fate of that country to have to pay heavy rents to absentee landlords, to pay tithes to absent clergy, to be under loads of taxation to a Government who did not for alle giancereturn protection. They oughtto rouse from their lethargy, in which they were too long plunged and not abandon th eir I duty as the Government of Ireland did, merely to secure their places. The Lord Lieutenant dines at the table of the Lord Chaircellor, who was said, though since denied, to have drank the toast of his exportation. The underling Secretary , differed—was at variance with the Chief Governor. A liberal Attorne,y-General was coupled with an Orange Solicitor-Gene ral. That was the state of Ireland. lie wished to see all dis sension put down in that country. lie could not vote for the acquittal of the Attorney-General, nor would he vote for the original resolution, because he did not wish to give a triumph to either party. He could not according to the orders of the House move a new amendment, nor adjourn the farther conside ration of the question till the facts stated by the Attorney-Ge neral for Ireland .were proved. He did mean, if nobody , Else took up the subject, to being forward a motion on the con duct of the Sheriff of Dublin. He would not be understood, in voting for passing to the Orders of the Day, to a pp rove o f d ie conduct of the Law Officers of the Crown. Mr. CANNING agreed entireiyWithThe. Hon. and Learned Gentleman as to the sentiments expressed in the concluding part of his speech, where he insisted on the propriety of put ting an end, if possible, to the dissentions of Ireland. He was also most anxious that neither patty should seem to have a tri umph over the other in the decision of the present question, but the House Would, he trusted, see that the best mode of arriving at that end, would he by making this the finalproceeding. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman would have them break up the present Government, and institute another in order to obtain perfect unanimity upon the Catholic Question, but where, front what part of the House, or from what class of men was he to chuse his unanimous Cabinet ? The time in which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman thought proper to say that there ought not to be such a Government was rather ill-chosen, when perhaps for the first time an attempt Was made to establish in Ireland a system of impartial, justice. The best system for Ire land was that which the new Government had introduced, and it was from a wish to see that system and Government con tinued, that he was anxious to prevent any blow from being stricken at in efficient a member of it. Consistently with this view, he was willing to adopt th e m i t i gate d mo d e of gett i ng r id of the motion suggested by the Hon. Mover of the Amendment. It were much to be wished, he would allow, that the ciuestion alluded to had been settled at the time of the Union, but that was found to be impracticable, from The difference of opinion that prevailed. Not many years after the Union, Mr. Pitthav- Mg retired from office, a new Government came into power, and there again the same difference of opinion was manifested. Another Government succeeded, and a like division took place, and he believed, that even if the Gentlemen opposite were in power to-morrow, it would be found difficult, notwithstand ing their concurrence upon all other topics, to obtain perfect unanimity upon this. If any change could be made, so as to insure the decision of that question, he would willingly resign his office, and consider any change attended by such a result as a change for the better. There was no want of disposi• tion in the existing Government to bring forward Measures for the good of Ireland ; anti it was certainly a poor re ward (under the difficulties and the discouni.gements of such an attempt) to attack them on the eve of a Measure intended for i her benefit. If the government of Lord Wellesley had the ap- ut.071,-,:i probation of Pietliament, the Right Hon. Gentleman who now awaited their verdict was the right hand of that Gover:neat and, in order that he might still be at the side of Lord Welles ley, it was desirable that that acquittal should be complete, i though it could not be unanimous. Mr. DALY urged the necessity of inquiring into the conduct of the High Sheriff of Dublin, and expressed a hope that no opposition would be offered to a motion having that object. Mr. BROUGHAIII said he should redeem his pledge, by , . . giving notice of a motion, if no other Member took up the subject. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not wish to prolong _ the discussion, but called oh as he had been, he could net avoid making a few observations. He concluded that his Right Honourable and Learned Friend had not acted illegally in filing an ex-officio information after the Grand Jury hatl ignored the bill. The legality of the proceeding was admitted by law yers. Every lawyer knew, that when a bill was ipiored by the Grand Jury, it was not a bar to further proceedings before the Court of King's Bench. According to the argum ents of his Hon. and Learned Friend, if the Grand Jury ignor bill, charging a grave offence, the Crown had no remedy. That was placing the Crown in a worse situation than the Constitution al• lowed. He could not bring his mind to believe his lion. and Learned Friend had any doubt in his own mind on the legalitY of the proceeding. lie contended that the conduct of the At. torney-General for Ireland was borne out by law. His clear opinion was, that as far as the law was concerned, the Attor- ney-General for Ireland was completely•justified. bx c o ec h n ed call ed q u c t e r o f t co l n i d e si Mr. BROUGHAM explained. ' but it could n e o th t E e Mr. SCARLETT said he w•as induced to rise for the pur apocusdmsetoiotntedfi . s i t nt a h t . i at n ht g a difference which arose in the orpiment. lie were disposed to find a verdict against the Crown, g ir•e and g up the prosecution. After a Grand Jury bill, it could not be Constitutional to file an ezecio info r- motion. The Attorney-General ought td be satisfied with the had thrao.whenn.otah_terys. - - -i l i result, without going from the Grand Jury to the Court of King's Bench. Grand Juries might do wrong, but that was i r reason why they should be calumniated. Ile did not join t! vote of censure. He believed that the Right Honourable *V tsAicthut discharge e eY ali h G e I e jrulirlayi i d "' b as e been giole. ~ Learned Genleman had been anious to disCliarg his d n y .. honestly, but t in his zeal he had exceeded the restnctions ini posed by the Constitution. he put to Mr. BROWNLOW, in reply, said, the question General eeracol took i o a f i p rel roce and linfi l i e n y h E a n d g n la o n t d aa w s h w ie e l r i ed th d e le A q t the Attorney-General was this :—Would they have taken the He would not press his motion. For the present ! a T e Y e a c . up ; the conviction, however, on his mind was, tha t t w i t h. cusation had not been answered.---The motion was then expressed B ed AG a dr - a - W - n - . - tension F. BURDETT immediately after gave notice of conducton to move, on the 2241 inst. for inquiry into the of Colonel Sheriff of Dublin. and NhiarpEeltiLhaobservedathaiadtbtleleerxeawaleir: -Air. ELLIS said he had received instruction from shF Thorp to court Inquiry into his conduct in order that be rilign! have an opportunity of defending himself. He was inst_cete,: also to say, that no expression had been uttered by tha otb r The other Orders of the Day were disposed 04 or acts done, which he was not prepared to defend. House adjourned at ONE O'CLOCK. ___.....,,,...r..•"____,% examined tBhbeellarifit a nd tbe PARLIAMENTARY PROCEED. 1101.75 E OF COMMONS. Lunte, 14° die Aprilis, 182 3 . CANAL—Trent and Mersey—Petition of Ilan an te d ° L lc ; cupiers in Wilne and Shardlow,, against ; Committee on the Bill, Counsel ordered. for T i Tit Es (Ireland) —Petition of Nobility, &c. of KilkennY, a commutation thereof ; to be printed. • at ; to Petition of Sir Charles iVolseley, Bart., against be printed. agai nst Salford, Manchester, and Great and Lilac Bolton, unLic ANSI LICENCES—Petition of Retailers, the Bill. BEER DuTlEs—Petitions from Innkeepers and Publicans af ley, fo r P .i n Chor m _ i d i iminution of the Duties the to be Prin ted ' c MUT Chariti •in • ' Or es England and Wales. i: 1 s rEs—Addresq f “ Copy of the Ninth d-er:frelerresti Marti:, 15° li A 4 " 8 - -23. " / 7 ' ) • 1 G I ight GAs LlGHT—Bristol Oil—Petition from the BnsUm mas ~_,, ~ Company, against; referred to the Committee on the Bit_i; Counsel ordered. Brighton—Bill read a second time, a nd committed. a eainst. ROADS—Thirsk—Petition of Thomas Bates, E g g' i r t — i l iford Kettering, &c—Petition of Truatewi for repairing '' wi n - Road, against, referred to the Committee on thel3ill. itts. cheater and Romsey—Bill read a second time, and c° 111n ? of lIIPROVEIIE NTS—Leeds--Petition from the TownsluP ~,, llunslet, against, referred to the Committee on the Bin% Counsel ordered ; Voices. Bermondsey—Bill rea d 3 see° time, and committed. vision Report on VESTRY —Bethnal Green—Pettion for additional pro _,. reported —instruction to Comm i ttee to ma k e addition al ptev' B BR lV i t n a o h E E l —Bill— i o h c ß K iltr u ea rn d e a ri t c h k ird time, and rased. . , .. a 2tl NAT URALlZATiox=—Hoffinann's }Bills rev, _ time, & Cau' WITNESSES ABROAD witted. Petition CoAL DUTlES—Petitions from Cranley, Northam, TAY FEaatEs ACT—Petition for leave to present a Pc ti for amendment, thereof ; referred to a Committee. 3101- ton, Great Torrington, Guildford, and St. Keverne (" wall), agaihst the Duties on Coals carried coaswise. awe, SMALL DEBTS—Petitions from Glastonbury and to on and Blackbourn, in favour of a Small Debts Act; ta the table. i conrY Ro srA.N CATHOLIC CLAlMS—Petitions from theArchm e ‘ a rre ~, of Sudbury, the Deanery , of Stow, Associate (Burgher/qua:l, bytery of Glasgow, Inhabitants of _Mansfield, ( ) r an. __ ti 'rythetton Lucas, ,1-16 es, Hardenhuish, and Stanton, a' from the City of Oxford, AGAINST; to lie on th e tale. 000' SU° i A t—Petitions from Ilrecimin and Newry, AOAINST tion of the Duties. Can t Y ATTORNEY-GENERAL greluntl)—Petitions from the of the of Wicklow, and IV. 1 ' mida ining rown of, jun., co conduct of. . • f Ship' MERCHANT VESSELS APPRENTICESIIIP--PetttlOn 0 able. owners of Great ' 1 armnuth, against ; to lie on the t s, .. e . GENERAL O. TURNPIKE ACT--Petition of Land . P. Boston, against ;to lie on the table. , in, npiOt an d COUNTY RATES—Address for " Account of t h e • t h ree persons committed in each County upon a charge °' s South , ra. Expenditure of the Rates of each County for the 18t b ; r of years, distinguishing each ; together with the ran. i n y, number tried, acquitted, or found guilty ; time alro a wn '` e n ( t ) mt of the e ch a rge made upon the County Rate for the Prel ec .of thereof, distinguishing.the sums charged for the exPea ce. , IVitnesses, and those (if any) for Counsel and Solicitors. SLAVE TRADE CONSOLIDATION—BiII read a first inle" Tfil_ s lis A tirle . o in t l3lll ; NOTICES OF MOTIONS for 1. Lord Viscount Althorp —To repeal Foreign E 2. Mr. Grenfell—Account Balances of Public I%lNoootes o f the hands of the Bank of Ireland, and Ban k Bank of Ireland in circulation. ORDERS of the DAY for THIS DAY. 1. Militia Reduction (Ireland) Bill .—Second Readiog' 2.. Beer Duties Bill—Further consideration of Rep' 3. Supply—Re port. 4. Ways and Means—Committee. 5. Union and Intercourse (Ireland) Acts—Comte upon. 6. Supply—Committee. 7. Weights and Measures Bill—Report. 8. Division of Counties Bill—Report. 9. Military and Naval Pensions Bill—Third Readhli• - NOTICE GIVEN YESTERDAY. . 11 . Tuesday, April 21 0- # t he Sher i ' Sir Francis Burdett--Inquiry into the conduct -- and Grand Jury of the City of Dublin. PRIVATE BILL--S EcoND READING for TOO P AI. Tamworth Roads. .......................................:L........,.......,,................."'"w -,.. N ew A L I PACIIA AND THE GHEEKs !!!....-TDO. J.'it- Edition of the Lig of Ali Pacha which will i i: a pear on the first of May, will contain of a i ll t e s ta interesting_ account of the present political st ate of Greece, in addition to much interesting ma recently Collected on the spot. otaig The ship. Dore is now in - the Jer e-, I op with a large quantity of gunpow for SP and will sail in a few days. I