The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-07 00:00:00

ills grand jury, did he apply his observation to the whole or to
these only who were sworn ?—(Answer inaudible.)
The ,witness was here ordered to withdraw, and
'ti. James Troy called in. In answer to the Chairman, he
stated himself to be a silk manufacturer, and citizen of Dublin.
Examined by Mr. WILLIAMS—Were you present at the
Dublin Theatre on the occasion of 'the riot, and were you be-
fore the grand jury ?—A. I was ; I was before the grand jury
'in the inorning of the day bet Ore the bills were ignored.
Q. Were you examined ?—A. I was. •
Q. To what point did you give evidence P—A. Relative to
a transaction which occurred in a tavern in Essex-street.
Q. At what time did it. happen ?—A. On the night of the

riot.
Q.' Concerning what person P—A. A number that were in-
., dieted.
Q, What names ?—Mr. Forbes, Mr. Brownlow, Grisham,
and Others.
Q. Ilad.yett seen any of them at the tavern P—A. I did.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL rose to order. Ile under-
stood the inquiry was to be confined to the Sheriff, and unless
they, were quest! o into a full inquiry of the conduct of the greed
jury, the n that had lately been asked could not be
pursued. •
Col. BARRY had always foreseen that it would come to this.
• —The whole question was its fact opened, and he did not see
when it would end.
Mr. WYNN considered that question, as to what happened
- the night before the riot, could not come within the proper
limits of the inquiry of the House into the conduct of the sheriff.
BROUGHAM feared that the House must go into all
-the • branches of inquiry connected with the main object. The
-conduct of the (hand Jury, in the absence of positive evidence,
would assist as matter of inference that could not in any other
way be attained.
Mr. M. A..TAYLOR understood that the question was,
'whether the Sherif had packed the jury or not. If so, the
conduct of the Jury had a great deal to do with the examination.
Mr. WILLIAM in continuation—Q. Did you .know the
names of the persons you saw. at, the tavern when.you was before
the Grand Jury P—A. 'I slid ; but not, when at the cavern.
Q. How long were you undex examination ?-4. About a
quarter of an hour. •
Q. flow came you to quit the „rocini ?--A. I was told they
were done with me.
Q. Had you stated all you had to say P.—qt. Not all, I think.
Q.- Why not ?—A. I stated as far as I could recollect at the
time. &tore my answer was delivered I was interrupted by
a fresh interrogation.
Q. hid you name the persons in questiOn to the Grand Jury ?
A. I'-was desired not to name any person whom I had heard
say any thing on the night in question, whose
.name I did nut
know on that night.
Q. By whom was -this order, given?—A. By two at least of
the Jury.
•Q. Did you-state to the Jury, that you had learned these
names-P_A. I did. wasiold that it would not be evidence
to state any thing of any one -whose name I did not know at
the Tavern.
• Q. How came you to know the names of the persons at the
Them P—A. I did not know the names myself ; but.a gentle-
man, who was with me, told Me. sonic of them.
Mr. PETER MOORE proposed to adjourn.
-Mr. BROUGHAM said.; hie lion; Friend's time was the
crowing of the cock, which had not arrived by one hour.
The (!,ommittee expressed a disposition to go on.
Colonel BARRY proposed to call a witness named Carpen-
ter, but gave up his motion to Mr. WILLIAMS,• who expressed
a desire to calla Farley.
George Fittley was then' called in.--The witness saidlie.was
an attorney in Dublin. lie was examined before the grand
jury on the subject of the riot at the theatre. He was examined
- on the subject of a conversation which took place at a tavern
on the evening of the day on which the riot took place. The
conversation took-place at a tavern in Essex-street. The per-
sons present were,. aslifr, Iforbes. and a Mr. Graham. Many
others were in the room.
Mr. GOULBURN thought there was a deviation from the
strict line of examination. • Instead of examining the witness
as to &Wand was said in the tavern, the better course would be
to inquire into the charge against the grand jury.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, his object waeto save time. He
then continued his examination.—Theewitness want before the
grand jury. lie mentlimed the names of Bromley and Mack-
intosh, beiddei the nausea of Forbes before-mentioned. He was
desidered not to speek of any person he did not know. He said
he knew the person of one . Forbes,- who--was in the box-at the
tavern.- He mentlonea a conversation behest heard, anti was
frequently interrupted by some of the dory, who told him nut
tO speak of persons whom he did not know of-his own know-
ledge- The Foreman -interfered once or twice, telling him
not to speak of what he had heard,. but what., ire ,knew of his
• awn knowledge. A Gentleman on his left desired he should be
. -heard, and he was allowed to proceed : there.was no further
interruption. -When he.finished. what he had-to say •he•leftthe
room. . .
Examined by Colonel BALMY—Be said he was allowed to
state every fact which related to the tavern, save and except
the name of Forbes, which he only knew by hearsay.
Examined by writ t: yr---1-1e heard the name of the per-
son was Forbes. The bill against him was ignored as he heard -;
. Forbes was charged on hue evidence with a capital offence.;
- the witness knew a man mimed Prokus; he conversed with
him ; lie did not say to Prokue I ant surprised ,you will run so
high against the Attorney-General : he might have said so, but
did not recollect it; he never said Prokus 1 have three guineas
a day ; the -witness -was More at eese beibre the Petty than the
Grand Jury : Prokus was a painter at Dublin; they met at
the Dublin Library, and held a conversation. He heard Mr.
Prokus say he would go forward and say the bottle was not
thrown by the man who was charged with throwing it.
Examined by illtS SCMILETT The witness was at the Thea.
tre ; Mr. Prokutwas there; several said the bottle was thrown ;
Mr. Prokus said it was not thrown. The witness thought he
might be deceived; Mr. Prokus-said and unsaid things;
]Takao asserted a thing,• and denied what another -man said;
Prokus said Handwich, who was accused of throwing the
bottle, did not throw it. The witness told him not to be too
-• busy about it, . • .
Examined by Sir F. OatetawET.—lle felt more at ease be-
fore the petty jury than the grand jury, because he was inter-
rupted-by the grand jury.
Bummed by tterams.—lle was eliewn the door by
one of the jury.
Q. Ho you know the difference between an act of civility
and. an act of disgrace?—A. lie certainly chewed me the door
with great politenees.
The witness withdrew.
William . Troy called in again.—ln answer to a question
from Colonel Balmy, he said,. he laid an information against
l'urliese lie heard his name between the period he was at
the Police-office and his .exeminatien before the Privy Council.
Mr. V. Motu. then rose to move; •an edjournmente—The
House accordingly metalled, and the Committee was ordered to
:sit again this Any.
(he the motion of Col. Battu, several witnesses were or-
- . tiered to attend the House on Monday se'nnight.
Mr. SCAREsETT obtained leave to bring in a 11111 to ex-
tend the jurisdiction of the Court of the County Palatine of
Lancaster.
The other Orders of the Day were disposed of, and the House
-adjourned et HALT-PAST Tv/Envie.