The Sun.
London, England, 1823-05-03 00:00:00

SHERIFF OF DUBLIN.

Mr. S. RICE Moved that Dillon Macnamara, and Terence
O'Reilly, attorniea of Dublin, should be ordered to attend at
the bar of the House on the 9th ink. to give evidence on this .
subject.
Mr. PL,UNKETT readily embraced the opportunity which
this motion aflbrded him of stating ,a fact which had some con-
nexion with it. It had been charged that in filing an ex.4dficio
information, after bills of indictment had been ignored by the
Grand Jury, he had acted in his office of Attorney-General
for Ireland without precedent, and had introduced into-the
administration of the law a practice of which no instance
hail occurred since the Norman Conquest. He had upon
that occasion suggested, that from the authority of the Court
of King's Bench, in cases which he cited, a fair analogy was to ,
be traced, and sufficient to justify his proceeding. Ile had re-
marked that it was unfair, because he could not produce the
precedents for the reasons he then stated to suppose they did
not exist. lie had since received a letter from a Mr. Foley, an
attorney of Ireland, a Gentleman whom he had not the honour
of knowing,:in which that Gentleman stated, that seeing the
reports of those debates in Parliament, in which this subject
had been mentioned,-and the manner in which the argument
had been used, he was induced, from a sense of justice, 'to in-
form hint that he believed a ease took place in Ireland 12 years
ago, in which an ex.oelicip information hid been fifed by an
Attorney-General, after 'fills of-indictment for the settle offence
had been ignored by the Grand Jury. Ile (Mr. Plunkett) re-
plied to this letter, by thanking Mr. Foley, and requesting him
to inquire into the subject ; he had done so, and the following
were the particulars which he had transmitted :—ln October,
1811, bills of indictment were preferred against a person of the
name of Leach, for writing a letter to Sir Edward Littlehales,
soliciting the appointment of the place of Barrack-master.—
The bills contained three counts : the first was for sending*a
letter, proposing to give a bribe ; the second, for offering money
by way of bribe; and the third, for offering securities for money
by way of bribe. These bills were ignored by the Grand
Jury ; the Court was surprised, and ordered fresh indictments
to -be sent again to the same jury, who again ignored
them: InNovember following, his predecessor, Mr. Saurin,
tiled an ex-officio information—(Hear, hear, hear!)—contain-
ing the same counts, acting under the power which lie (Mr.
Phinkett) had exercised; and the case was tried in the same
Court. Ile held the papers in his hand, which he did not mean
to lay on the table, because he would not seem to inculpate the
Character of the Hon. Gentleman who had preceded him ; but
lie owed it to hid own character to state, that twelve years ago,
the same thing had been done for which he had been censured,
and in which he was charged with having acted unprecedented-
ly. 'The couduct of the Attorney-General, at that period, had
never been impeached, nor had any doubt been entertaim.d of
its justice. He felt that this bore' most strongly upon his' own
case, because that Hon. Gentleman had supposed he was only
acting in the course of his duty.
Mr. DENMAN asked if-tiny judgment had been passed in
the ease mentioned by the Right lion. Gentleman.
Mr. PLUNKETT replied, that judgment had been signed
for want of a plea ' • and it appeared, in consequence 'of the con-
trition expressed by the defendant, and of his having lost a t'al.
liable appointment, that no further punishment had been visited
Upon him, and the afthir was dropped.
Mr. ABERCROIIIIIY had heard this statement with the
greatest astonishment. They had been told from the beginning
to the end of this business, that the imputation upon the eharac.
tee of the Attorney-General for Ireland was that of having acted
without precedent. The Hon. Member for Armagh had con-
cluded his speech by saying that his conduct was unprecedent-
ed, enntmry to the practice of the court (which it appeared not
now to' be), and uncongenial to the spirit of the British Consti-:
tution. If the fact which had been just stated had then been
known, it would have made the greatest possible difference in
the case. It must be well known that the proceedings already
taken had excited the attention of every person who thought,
read, and reflected, in Ireland ; and above all, the attention of
every Person connected with.the law. He wished, however, to
'ask one question, and, if it should be answered in the affirnia-
, tive, the House would see the effect it must have upon this
question : Ile wished to know, whether the person who was
now the Crown solicitor had held that office in 1811. There
were two persons to whom, ex necessitate rei, all the particulars
.of this case must have been known—the then Attorney-Generel,
and the 'Crown Solicitor. He would ask the House to consider
how the Attorney-General for Ireland was served in the die-
cherge of his &ay when no communication of this fact bad been
-made to him. 11111r..Saurin- Aid not think fit to inform the
Right Hon. Gentleman, this was a matter of courtesy of which
he (Mr. Abercromby) had no right to complain ; but that the
Crown Solicitor should not have informed him of it, • seemed
something more than accident. It was for the purpose of im.
pressing upon the House 'the situation in which the Right Hon.
Gentleman was placed, the inconveniencies of which he befiev-
. ed were also shared by the Lord-Lieutenant himself, that he
called their attention to this singular conduct of the Crown
, Solicitor.

Mr. PLITNKETT was bound in justice to the Crown Soli-
citor to state, that two gentlemen of the tome name had held
that office—they were father and son ; the father was dead, and
the son must have been a very young man at the time to which
he had alluded.

Sir J. NEWPORT said, however young that person might
be, he had, at the period mentioned, acted. for his father ; and
if he was then competent to do so, he must be well acquaint-
ed with the facts. There were three or four persons still join-
ed in the patent, he believed ; he could not see any means
by which this conduct in withholding information, which it
was clearly his duty to impart (and be would not at this time
advert to his conduct in any other respect), could be justified or

-
excused.
Mr. J. GRATTAN said, that the gentleman alluded to
had acted for his father during a series of years, and he thought
it advisable, and even necessary, that he should attend at the
hex of the House.—(l4oud cries of " Mr. saurin also," were
now heard.)
Sir N. CO LTH URST thought it very possible that the crows
solieitor might have.forgotten the matter, as the Right Hon.
Gentlernan himself had done so.

' Colonel BARRY would move that the name of -Mr. W.
Kernmis, the crown solicitor, be added to those of the witnesses
already moved for.
Mr. cm,cßArr moved, that Mr. Saurin's should also be
added.
The SPEAKER then read the original motion with the ad-
dition of the two latter names.

GOULIIIJRN recalled to the attention of the House,
that they had come to.the resolution of inquiring into the con-
duct of the High Sheriff of Dublin. It might happen, in the
course of that inquiry; that giounds would appear for examin-
ing Mr. Ken-Omni, but none such existed at present. It would
not only be highly inconvenient in many other respects, but it
would interfere with anti divert the inquiry from its proper ob-
jeci, to examine Mr. Kemmis and a Gentleman who had been
the Attorney-Mineral for Ireland,' as to how his memory hap-
pened t fail him with respect' to a circumstance of which he
'must have been cognizant at the time of its occurrence. That
circumstance was entirely distinct from the filing the ex.officio
information which was before the House. _

••10•1‘............”.•• • V. • ••..•.• •• •••.-• ~••••
Mr. CA Llt eArf coincided with the reasons of the Right,
)lon. Gentleman, UM' would withdraw his motion for the pre-
sent. Whether, in the course of the inquiry, the attendance of
those persons might, be necessary or not, was more than any

- Colonel BARRY said, his reason for calling upon the House
to order the attendance of Air. Kemmis was, because in the
course of the examination, matter might come out which it
would-be necessary for him to explain. FrOm the number of
witnesses summoned, it would appear that the examination was
meant to be indefinite. One Would suppose that they were go.
hug to, try a Jury, because they hoe-decided in a particular way,
on'an cr.dicio information. Not only that, but it might re-
ally be imagined that the state of the Guild of Merchants, and
indeed of the whole Corporation of Dublin, was to be inquired
into. If Gentlemen should institute an injuiry into the feuds
of unhappy Ireland from the time of Henry IL, he could have
no objection to it ; but he would not therefore lose sight of the
question then before them, which was, whether the conduct of
the Sheriff did, or did not, deserve the censure of the House.—
As Gentlemen appeared willing to confine their examination to
that point, he would beg leave to withdraw his motion. '
The motion wits then withdrawn.

The'SPEAKER said, he had received a letter from the
Under Sheriff of Dublin, stating his reasons fOr nut being pre-
sent on this day, in conformity with the summons of the House.
The Clerk read the letter, in which the under.sheriff stated,
that an immediate compliance with the order of the House
Would be attended with a great delay of public business in the
sheriff's office ; that it would occasion a cessation of the issu-
ing of writs ; and that many trials would be prevented front
going on. The under-sheriff further alleged, that Mr. Baron
INl'Clelland and Mr. Justice Vandaleur had stated to him, that,
if he were obliged to attend the House, they should be neces-
sitated to put an end to the commission.
Sir J. NEWPORT observed, that all inconvenience might
be avoided, by the appointment of a second sub-sheriff. There
ought to be two sub-sheriffs, and the ends of justice should not
be delayed because the sheriff's, for their own convenience,
chose only to appoint one. Why, he asked, had they not united
in 'the appointment of a second sub.sheriff.
Mr. GOULBURN said, as he felt that the necessity which
arose for the attendance of one of the Sheriffs, and of the Sub-
Sheriff, would be likely to create inconvenience, be had written
from that House to Dublin on the subject. He called on the
remaining Sheriff to appoint a Deputy, who, in the absence of
the Sub-sheriff, should discharge his duty. He bad received
an answer, stating the reasons which prevented the accomplish.
ment of ult object. In the first place, he understood that it
had always been the practice in Doblin for the two Sheriff's to
agree in the appointment of the Sub-sheriff: Now, one of the
Sheriffs being in attendance on the House, and one being in
Dublin, an obstacle was interposed to that proceeding. An.
other obstacle was, that the Sub-sheriff gave security to the
amount of 20,000/., and it was not easy, on a very short
notice, to find a person who would undertake so great a re.
sponsihility. -

On the motion of Mr. PLUNKETT, the sub•sheriff was, pro
tempore, discharged front his attendance.
Su F. HUHU:TT moved the order of the day, for the
Ilouse resolving into a Committee of the whole House to in-
quire into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin.

Before the SPUAKER left the Chair the lion. Baronet ex.
pressed a wish that the particular days for pursuing the in-
quiry should now be named; and he proposed Monday, Wed-
nesday, and Friday.
Mr. CA LCRAt"I` was apprehensive that such an arrnage.
event would interfere with much important business.
The CANCELLOR of the EXCLIEQUEIt expressed a si.
eviler opinion.
Sir F. BURDETT was willing that Tuesday, Thursday,
and Friday should h© the days.
Mr. TIERNEY said, the usual practice had been for the
House at its rising, to declare when the inquiry should be
renewed.—The House then resolved itself into u Committte ;
Sir ROBERT iiE RON in the Chair.

Sir F. BURDETT said that, having brought this business to
the present point, having placed it in a course of investigation,
.he would now leave it in .the bands of the Gentlemen of Ire.
land, who were more immediately concerned in the conduct and
issue of this proceeding.
Mr. CA LC RA FT suggested whether it would be proper that
the witnesses in the gallery should withdraw.
After a few words from Colonel nanny, this suggestion was
agreed to; and the Chairman directed the sergeant to cause all
the witnesses to leave the gallery.
Lord MILTON inquired whether the Sheriff, whose con-
duct was to be inquired into, but who would of course be exa-
mined, should be subjected to this exclusion ?
Mr. W. WYNN was of opinion that the sherifFshould be
sufferedto remain, for the purpose of learning how the evidence
affected him.

After a few words from Mr. F. Lewis, Mr. W. Wynn,
N. Calvert, IVII. Larnbtort, and Colonel Barry, it was agreed,
that the sheriff' should not be excluded.
The Clerk then read the entry on the journals of the proceed-
ings in the flonse, of Commons on the 15th and 22d of April,
relative to the proceedings of the Attorney-General for Ireland.
By the CllAlRMAN.—Sergeant, inquire whether Benjamin
Richy, Clerk of the Crown for Ireland, is in attendance? •
The Sergeant signified that he was ; and was immediately de-
sired to call him in.
The witness was then placed at the bar.
By thee,' At AMA N.--What is your name ?--Benjamin Rich y.
Are you Clerk of the Crown for Ireland ?—I hold that office.
By Sir .1. NEWPOILT.—}Iow many years have you exe-
cuted the office of clerk of the Crown for Ireland ?—Nearly 30
years.
Have you brought with you any documents by which you
can ascertain the state of' the panels of the grand jury of Dub.
lin for some years past ?—I have.
Have you brought with you the return of the panel of the
commission grand jury of Bablin, in the years 1818, 1820,
1821, and 1822 ?—f have, with the exception of the panel of
February, 1820. •
How comes that panel not to be forthcoming ?—(The witness
was understood to answer, that the death of his clerk prevented
him from producing it.)
By Sir J. NEWPORT.—As the questions I am about to ask
relate to the state of those panels, it is best that the witness
should have them in his hand.

Can the witness, by examining those panels, state the num.
bar of collimators on each of them ?—I am, to the best of my
judgment ; 1 have already compared the panels with the list of
the corporation.
The question which I have asked the witness is confined to
the commission grand juries. Are there not other grand juries
empannelled in Dublin. ?—There are.
What are the duties of each P—The commission - grand
juries dispose of indictments, the term grand juries attend to
presentments..

Ca'n you state; of your own.knowledge and observation, what
is the respective number of corporators empannrlled on the
Commission and term grand juries ?—Many of the commission
grand jury are members of the corporation of Dublin. „I do
not attend the quarter session court, and therefore I know no-
thing of the term grand jury.
Are the commission grand jury composed of the same mint-
ber of corporators, so far as you know, as the term grand jury
—I apprehend not.
Who are the persons connected with the Corporanon that are
generally.empanelled on grand juries, besides common council-
men ?—They are aldermen and sheriff's peers. ,•
What is the meaning ofa sheriff's peer ?—Sheriff"s peers are
persons who have either served the office or sheriff, or who have
fined for not having served it.
Am 1 to understand that the members of common council
are a different body from the sheriff's peers and aldermen P— Yes.
How are the common council elected ?—By the members of
the different guilds.
How many ti the guild of merchants return ?—Thirty.two.
The others return different numbers.
Does any other guild return so many as the guild of mer-
chants ?—.No.
The election is annual ?—lt is.
Has the witness any statement made out from the panels
by which he can ascertain the number of corporators on the