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

EX-OFFICIO PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.

Mr. BROWNLOW addressed the Chair, and said that he
rose pursuant to the notice he had given, to submit a motion to
the House relative to circumstances which Involved the purity
of jurisprudence in Ireland, arising from the occurrences of the
14th of December laSt, and which faceted most seriously the
public character of his Majesty's Attorney-General for that
country. Whatever might be the ultimate fate his motion was
doomed to experience from the House, he was satisfied that
every Honourable Member would agree that the subject was
one as important as had ever come before them. It was a
question not only concerning Irishmen and Irish feelings,
but it came home to every man's bosom who found protection
in the law and the Constitution. It was the more important
because it was alleged that the conduct which was pursued
was an unwise departure from the usual course of law, and an
unjustifiable exercise of the King's Prerogative bY his Majes-
ty's Attorney General. Such, then, being the outline of the
case, so important in its nature, and in all its bearings, he found
that some would think hint bold in venturing upon a question
which might be called one of law, and that ha ought to have
thrown it into hands more conversant with form 'and the pro.
ceedings of the,CoAirts. He was aware that many lionounible
Members would find him deficient in all that technical aid and
legal knowledge, which would materially assist the discussion.
of the case. But though the question might involve many
law point, it involved more general constitutional prin-
ciples which every man in the country should understand,
and every man in that House stand forward to defend..—
(Hear, hear!)--It concerned not Irishmen, alone, but every
person in those realms who worked upon the intervention of a
Grand Jury, as a chief protection to his rights. It is one strict-
ly consistent with Parliamentarrusage to bring forward. Ile
looked upori it not as a question of law between one individual
and another, but as a question between the King on the one
hand, armed with power and prerogative and unarmed and un-
protected subjects on the other—( Hear !)—There were some
.people who thought, as the question appeared to him of so much
importance, that he should not have allowed it to slumber so
long. To those he was disposed to offer every ap010,,,,ry in his
power. If that proceeding had taken place in England, where
no man dare invade, for a moment, constitutional principles
with impunity, not a day would have been siiflered to escape
until it was brought before the House and the country. If the
decision of a Grand Jury was not only set at nought, but vilifi-
ed and condemned ; if the opinions of Juror's were disregarded
because they did not chance to tally with those of fiis Majesty's
Attorney-General; if every 4itupetation was directed against

Ut in conspectu anus libertas delete sit.
He (Mr. Brownlow) asked his Majesty's Attorney-Generid for
Ireland, if it was his intention to attempt the subjugation of.
England, by destroying the benefits of the Constitution in the
sister country ? Did he seek to establish a source of corruption
in the extreme part of the empire, which was to work its way
to the heart of the Constitution ? • He would ask any lion.
Mirnher about him, what his feelings would be, to see the
country broken in spirit, and made bankrupt by such uncon-
stitutional proceedings ? He believed there were very few
in that Muse who were not acquainted with the circumstances
of the dressing a statue of King William in Dublin on the 4th
of November. The custom was one at least one hundred years
old, and he recollected having seen a Proclamation, in which a
large reward was offered for the discovery of the person who
stele the truncheon from the hands. of the statue on one of
those days of ceremony.--(Hear, and laughter.).—lt seemed
on the arrival of the Marquis of Wellesley in the country, that
he was not inclined to support this loyal .millinery, as it was
called, and the Noble Marquis refused to countenance a prac-
tice which he (Mr. B.) was ready to admit was most mis-
chievous.—(Hear, hear !)--He was well aware of the delicate
ground he was treading upon when speaking of that ceremony,
and he was not inclined to enter upon objectionable topics.—
But as his Majesty's Attorney-General had put the case, he
(Mr. B. felt himself called upon to declare that he would have
equally protested against the deviation front the law if the same
proceeding had taken place, and if the House asked to admit it
asa precedent. He would not have shrunk from the same
duty which he had then undertaken, if the oppressed and per-
secuted parties were Roman Catholics, and the Aitorney-Ge-
neral himself the Grand Master of an Orange lodge.—(Bear,
and laughter.)—ln treating the question on general grounds,
Ile had nothing to do with the party politica winch were intro-
duced only to divert the attention of the Howie from the real
merits or 'dements of the subject. The prevention of the dress-
ing of the statue was the cause of much pride and exultation
on the one side, as it was of depression and mottification on
the other. An outrage followed shortly, which he could not
sufficiently reprobate; and an insult 'was offered to the repre-
sentative of Majesty in Ireland—to a Nobleman whose charac-
ter anti talents promised happiness to that country by his Go-
vernment. The feeling of indignation was prompt and general
throughout the country against the parties concerned in the
insult. He spoke then the language of the whole country,
when he used the strongest terms of abhorrence against them.
Had the measures which were brought forward been only
guided by common prudence and temper, they would have
been met with approbation from one end of the country to the
other. But when his 3lajeety's AttorrieyAieneral, in an tin.
lucky hour, spoke of assassination, ridicule, the most powerful
of all weapons, was instantly directed against hint anti all his
subsequent proceedings. From the conduct- of his Majesty's
Attorney-General an argument might fairly be raised, to
what lengths a public officer, vemovible et the pleasure of
the Crown, will go at the instance of the Crown, or perhaps
from his own irritated feelinge.—(Hear, hear! from the Op-
position.)—lle asked from what occurrence could the accusa-
tion of an intended assassination be made out? or in what
manner was it shown that it was to be car.ied into effect ?
Wail the Lord Lieutenant to be assassinated by hissing
hini—a Wellesley of all others to have his fears excited by
the silly clamour of a mob.—(llear, hear!)—To show the
House how well the circumstances of the case tallied with
the charge of' an intended assassination, he would inform
the House of ilia relative situation of the parties. The Lord
Lieutenant sat in a box on the left side of the theatre, in a re.
cess on a level with the stage. The assassins went to the same
side of the House to the gallery—to a place where they could
not see the object of their vengeance, and the most inconve-
nient which could be selected for their object. From that spot
it was impossible to reach his Excellency with any weapon or
missile, unless from such a gun as was known alone in Ire-
land, and which /lad the peculiar power of shooting round a
corner—(Laughter)--and at an object which was neither seen
nor aimed at.—(A laugh.)—He asked if ,men in possession of
their faculties ever made choice of such a place for such an ob-
inet ; or if ever men came to assassinate the Chief Magistrate
of a country, and with a rattle and a bottle--(Hear, and laugh-
ter.)—The parties, however, who became the objects of suspi-
cion were.taken up, and lodged in gaol. The four walls of die
t t and tilers were they left to pass
their sureties,
outrage wok place on the 14th
prison
ricsatittiras dhioeiiirdasynle
of December, and on the Monday after the Lord Lieutenant,
through his Private Secretary, returned thanks to Mr. Mulli-
gan for his defence. Ile heard a great deal about packed Ju-
ries, who went together against law and evidence from politi-
cal sympathy, hut in the present case the feelings of the whale
of Ireland were packed together by ill-timed addresses, and
still More ill-timed answers. At last the Assizes came—the
Oyer and Terminer arrived, and then it was intimated, for
the first time, that the capital part of the charge was aban-
doned, which notice `was accompanied by a declaration that
the evidence was sufficiently strong to bear out the capital
as the laws were
'in mercy. For his
ncoemvelLesointiowl,..erittliithaast
wiitlenwasathanbiristiterong
part he ventured to say, that if the Attorney-General had
really evidence to subsutusiate the guilt of the partit, it was
his duty to proceed to the last rigour of the law against theM,
"'lrraercy was twice Mas-
assassins. To talk of
iaini edr ce; it inrPs autde
ed; bleseing him that gives and him, that receives." Was- it
Ifma
cmastehse.ascotriinitutrzyulaous_nest
mercy to these men to leave them subject for life to an odious
charge ? anti was it mercy of his Majesty's Attorney-General
to act as he bad done in the matter between the King and the
people, against niea, on evidence which he was afterwards
afraid to peoduce in a Court of Justice against them ?—(llear !)
---The infermations on which the warrant of committal was
faunded should be before the House,, As the case then rested,
no men could say whether they bore out that proceeding. It
was easy for his Meresty's Attorney-General for Ireland, with
theni in his poesession, to jaetify any steps be had taken, at
least to himself; but the House could not come safely to a con-
clusion in the absence
.of the papers ; and when they were
refused, he (Mr, 11.) could not divest himself of the suspicion
that all was not right, or that sonic flaw existed which required
all that conetalment. They were told, that if the infornitition
was granted, it would be to establish coargesagainee the mee
epetrateg. It was, however, with his Majesty's Attorney,
General that the !rouge had to do, who took the case not of the
hands of the police-officers, and brought it to the Castle-yard.
Such was the fact ; it was rat only done within his knowledge:,
but by the direct orders of Ids Majesty's AttorneyaGeneral.—
If that officer was so fond of exaafficio informations, and if
he had been deceived by the witnesses who had-Induced him
to prefer a charge of assassination against the Lord-Lieu-
. tenant, he , should have turned against them the weight. of
his official vengeance, and have persecuted them for malignity

the capital charge was abandoned the bills were sent up to the
Grand Jury, one of which was ignored, and the other for a riot
only found. If the one was thrown out, perhaps the Learned
Officer might have to blame an omission of his as the cause.._
He neglected to add in the charge against the two individuals,
the words cunt mulas aliis. The Bight Hon. Gent. stigmatized
the prisoners as members of a gang leagued together for pur-
poses hostile to the Government. Upon the merits of this gang,
as it was called, he Dir. 13.) would make but one remark, that
if the Attorqy-General altered his political bias, or if
his successor in office as his predecessor had done, enter-
tained different opinions, the tables would then be turned,
and these men would- then be called the best friends to
the existing state of things. The truth was, that men's
loyalty was ever measured by the extent of their concur-
rence in view with those in office. Half this House might be
called a gang,in the fashionable acceptation of the word. Op.
position Economists, and.Refonners, all those whose object was
to make Government change their measures, were thus a gang.
This latitude of conetruction would make every man an agita-
tor, and every set-of men conspirators. The ex-officio informa-
tion would arraign those who dared to think for themselves, and
perseseuee all who fpni.Goverament. The °rens oftlit>
law were none:e free front the operafron of this principle, ttietti
the accused who • were made the objects of its application. By
the sweeping attack of the Attorney-General, the Grand Jury
who ignored the bills were identified with the party which be
wished to make them an instrument of suppressing. When the
result of their judgment was stated in open Court, the Right
lion. Gentleman expressed his surprise. Ile hoped the Grand
Jury had done their duty—called their attention to the sacred-
ness of that duty—warned them of the crime of perjury, and
told them that the manner in which they had fulfilled their oath
was between God and their consciences. He gratuitously stated
the obligation which theirconduct imposed upon him, of taking
ulterior steps. Placed individually by the Constitution in the
room of the 23 sworn Grand Jurors, he avowed his resolution
of reversing their jtulgnient, by bringing these men to another
trial ; as if the rejection of the bills furnished the best evidence.
of their guilt. Why was all this ?—why was the constitetiOnal
tribunal of a Grand Jury thus to be trifled with ? Since the
Revolution, the history of our judicial proceedings furnished
but one other instance of such an arbitrary interference.—
That was to be found in the case of Sir George Jeffries.—
He disclaimed all intention of personal offence in snaking
the comparison. He wished not to liken that infamous
Judge to a highly popular prosecutor, firmly believing
that their characters were as far asunder as the Poles,
and as unlike to each other as vice and virtue. He re-
gretted that an act common to both should' have put them
in juxta-position. The conduct of Jeffries upon a certain oc-
casion was still remembered for its illegality, as his memory
was eternized by the execration of his countrymen. In 1680,
whilst the measures of. Charles the Second were provoking, the
nation to that resistance which proved the ruin of his family, a
bill of indictment was sent to the Grand Jury against Francis
Smith, for.having eompOsed a certain malicious,, scandalous,
and seditious book. The Jury weighed the charge, beard the
case, and wrote upon ttit bill ignoramus. Jefleries was ilis-
pleased, but lie feared to violate the boundaries of constitutional
law. Pursuing the course recommended by Blackstone under
such circumstances, lie caused a second hill to be presented,
Which was again ignored, and it was net until the failure of the
fourth attempt that he saw the futility of moulding the Jury to
his 'purposes. What did he then do? File an eaegfileio infor-
mation ? No, but the very next day lie ordered the prisoner to
he discharged by proclamation.---(ilear, hear )—This fact in
itself would prote the illegality of the practice. The forbear..
ance of a profligate and corrupt judge, in a reign distinguish.
ed for a systematic violation of constitutional law, furnished an
argument against the filing of e.t-officio informations under
peculiar circumstances, which was incontrovertible. If Jellifies
could have found a warrant from the Consitution for filing them,
lie =who understood the advantages of a summary prosecution so
well, would have availed himself of it. True it was that he had
the Jury called into open Court, and addressed to them language
not very remarkable for its moderation, concluding with the sen-
tence that the matter was entirely between GOD and their
consciences."—( Hear, hear,. hear !)—lt was singular that ex-
tremes should thus meet, and that there.slionla be such a coin.
cidence of expression between men whose political sentiments
differed so widely. But if ex-oficio informations were to super-
sede Grand Juries, the constitutionateffect must be the disuse
of that ancient and constitutional tribunal, in all cases where
the prerogative of the Crown and the liberties of the people
came to clash with each other. The importance of the Grand
.Jury, however, in his eyes was such; that even admitting that
those individuals were guilty, he thought it better they should
escape with impunity, than that the administration of the law
should be brought into contempt. " The trial by Jury" said
Blackstone, or the country per patriam, is also that trial by the
Peers of every Englishman, which as the grand bulwark aids
liberties, is secured to hint by the Great. Charter ; " nullus fiber
home capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut exulet, ant aliquo alio
modo destruatur, nisi per judicium, parium suorum,
vel per legeni terrre." The antiquity and excellence of this
trial, for the settling of civil property, has been before ex•.
plained at large. And it will hold much stronger in criminal
cases, since in times of difficulty and danger, more is to
be apprehended from the violence and partiality of Judges
appointed by the Crown, in suits between the King_ and
the subject, than in disputes between one individual and
another, to settle the metes and boundaries of private
property. Our law hail, therefore wisely placed this strong and
twofold barrier, of a presentment and a trial by Jury, between
the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the Crown. It
was necessary for preserving the admirable balance of our Con-
stitution, to vest the executive power of the laws in the Prince ;
and yet this power might be dangerous and destructive to that
very constitution, if exerted without check or controul," &c..
And again—" But the founders of the English law have with
excellent forecast contrived, that no man should becalled to an-
swer to the King for any capital c:inie, unless upon the prepa-
ratory accusation of twelve or more of his fellow subjects, the
Grand Jury ; and that the truth of every accusation, whether
preferred in the shape of indictment, information, or appeal,
should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage
of twelve of his equals and neighbours, indifferently chosen,
and superior to all suspicion. 6o that the liberties of Eng-
land cannot but subsist, so long as this palladium remains
sacred and inviolable," &c. From the disuse then of Grand
Juries, may be dated the decline of British liberty. It would
however, be more manly at once to abolish this tribunal
than to mock the people with the appearance of that which
they did not in fact possess. To the opinion of Blackstone was
to be added that of Lord Somers, as to the reverence in which
Juries should be held. It was unnecessary to say that all the
attempts to destroy civil liberty in England were first directed
to the abolition of the trial by .IMy. The cases of ,Empson
and Lord Dudley should not be omitted. These persons en-
deavoured to bring the institution into contempt, which wits
more criminal than if they had tried openly td suppress it.—
In a British House of Commons, he did not deem it necessary
to show by authorities how essential to the liberty of the subject
trial by Jury had been considered. The principle was recog-
nised in all the early Satutes., and enforced by all the writers
on British law. Lord Coke declared that by law no man
should lie attacked but through his Peers. Sir Mathew Hale
had stated that the regular and constitutional mode of
.pro-
ceeding for any offence was by indictment. These authorities,
however, were not to be understood as proving that any other
course was illegal. He would with to establish the illegality
of c.r.eicio intormations, but he despaired of being able to do
No. But though they were not illegal, he had no hesitation in
saying that they were contrary to the principles and reasoning
of the British Constitution.—(Hear !)—Usage and precedent
alone Could justify their propriety. But in the application of them
in this case, he contended there was a great want of both.—
From the Norman Conquest to the present time, there
was no example of an ex-officio information being filed after
the bill had been ignored by the Grand Jury. He denied that
the case of Dudley More was applicable to the purposes of the
Attorney-General. The case referred towns this;---in 1712, a
play was brought out in Dublin, in which King William was
ridiculed in the prologue, but Queen Mary was most extrava-
gantly bepraised. Queen Anne, jealous of the encomiums be-
stowed upon her predecessor, forbade the recitation of 'the ob-
jectionable appendage to the Piece. Dudley More, who coml..
tiered this an arbitrary interference by the Court determined
that the prologue should not be euppressed, and he accordingly
esniped from the box upon the stage, and spoke it at length.—
Tins =duct gave much Umbrage to the Court, and More was
indicted for a not. The Grand Jury ignored the bill, but, bysome
mistake, the foreman wrote upon it " 'hue bill," instead of" No
bill." in this state it was returned into Court, and the defendant
in form called upon to plead. The Juiy, however, soon is.
covered their mistake, and making affidavit of the true state of

the ease in Court, the bill was quashed. The Attorney-
General, however, said he was endued with powers of still
bringing the defendant to trial, and he accordingly filed an ni-
efficio information. Between this filing, however, and the trial,
the Irish House of Commons met, and as the affair bore the're:,
semblance of oppression, some party man—as he (Mr. B.)
would possibly be called, moved for the appointment of a Cam,
mittee to inquire whether this course was warranted by prece-
dent. The Committee reported that there was no case on re-;
cord in which an ex-officio information had been filed after
the Grand Jury had ignored the bill. So far, Aherefure, from
this being a case in point for the Attorney-General, it; was
rather a beacon to warn off' the Right Hon. Gentleman front
pursuing such a course. Any extraordinary powers with
which the Attorney-General was agreed, lie ought to have
-exercised in tenderness- to the subject rather than in oppressing
him. The charge then against the Attorney-General was that
of having adopted a harsh, unconstitutional, and unprece- ,
dented course of proceeding, which tended to the oppression of
individuals, and to the injury of the cause of public justic.e.—
( Hear l)—It did not follow, however, that because an individual
had a right of preferring a second 'indictment against a fellow
subject, that the same power should be enjoyed by the Crown.
There was in the proceedings of private individuals 3 degree
of reapOnsibility which'did not attach to the Attorney-Geneial.
The abuse of the preivitive had proved the ruin of Charles
the First and James the Second. In this case, if it was not
applied illegally, he should contend that it was administered to
the oppression of the subject. But the question was not, whe-
ther this proceeding was legal or not, but whether it would
have been resorted to in this country ?—(Hear!)—lle called
upon 'the Law Officers of England to state how they would act
under these circumstances. Suppose his Majesty's Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs was to go into the theatre; that a
party of Englishmen, who sometimes are impudent enough to
think for themselves, should he of opinion that the cause of
Spain had not been sufficiently attended to by him; that having
met at a coffee-house near Covent-garden, they had agreed not to
assassinate, butte hiss the Right Hon. Secretary from the
House, or even to do some act which would if possible drive
him from his Majteuy's Councils ; that a bill of indictment was
preferred to the Grand Jury, and ignored, would an English
Attorney-General venture to file an ex-officio information after;
wards, whatever commands he had received to do so ?—(llear,
hear!)—lle certainly would not, for he dared not, as it might
be as much as his situation, or perhaps his life, was worth, to
appeal from the decision of a Grand jury. Why, then, shaluld
things be managed otherwise in Ireland,—why should that
which would be most improper and intolerable here, be 'con-
sidered at the other side of the Channel as just and legal ?
Having said thus much, he supposed the House would be Pad
to hear that he was drawing to a conclusion.—(hear!)-It, in
?the course of the observations he had made, he had spoken lit
warm and unmeasured tones, he wished to apolog:ee for them.
It was his duty to draw the attention of the House to what he
conceived to be an act of arbitrary and oppressive interference
on the part of his Mejesty's Attorney-General ; and in the dis-
cussion of such a subject, he had not an entire controul over
him feelings. He had never spoken to any Irishman, either
Catholic or Protettant, who did not express the warmest in-
dignation at these measures; and he was sure that if the saute
impression were not made upon a lAritish House of Commons
in a cause vitally interesting to British liberty, it was attri-
Instable less to the goodness of the cause, than his ability to do
the subject- justice.—(Hear, hear I)—The Hon. Member con.
eluded by moving,
" That it appears to this House that the conduct of the At-
torney-General of Ireland, in regard to the persons charged
with a riot at the Theatre-Royal, Dublin, on the 14th of De-
cember last, more particularly by putting them upon their trial
on an ex-officio intormation, after bills of indictment had been
ignored by the Grand Jury, was unwise, contrary to the prat-
nee, and not congenial to the spirit of the British Constitutiott,
and ought not, therefore, to be drawn into a precedent here.
after."

The motion having been snonticd,
Mr. PLUNKETT rose.—The House, he said, would not be
surprised at his feeling some degre: of embarrassment in offering
himself to their notice, under the circumstances in which he was
at that moment placed. He had listened with attention to the
statement of the lion. 3lember who had just eat down, and shared.
in common with every Gentleman present, the pleasure de:
rived from a display of so notch good feeling and ability. Ile.
wished to be the first to offer his ineed of admiration of the
manner in which that Honourable Member had laid his case
before the House; t instead of aceepting his apology fbr any
indiscretion of which he supposed hints* guilty, is appeared
to him (Mr. P.) that under all the eircuitistimees„ the Hon:
Member was rather entitled to praise for his moderation, than
censure for his warmth of expression. But whilat he this gai-e
him the due acknowledgment of his merit, he bad to complain to
the House that the Ilimourable Member had taken too wide
a 'field, and indulged in too great a latitude of observation
in bringing his charge against the individual who now stood
before them ; for he appealed to the justice of every. Ho-
nourable Member who heard him, whether.. in prefer:leg a
specific charge of having abused the prerogative of his office,
by filing an exonyieio information for a particular offence, after
a Grand Jury had ignored the bill, it was fair to involve him
in all the odium and constitutional unpopularity to which the
application of such a power was at any time exposed. The
Honourable Member had arraigned the right of the Crown
under any circumstances to file an ex-officio information, and his
argument was intended to show that no case could arise in which
the interference of the Crown by. ex-officio, or of the Court of
King's Bench by criminal information, could be justified with,
out a prostration of that barrierbetween the prerogative of the
Crown and the rights of the people, which his eloquence had
been for sonic time employed in erecting. Ile would prove
that no trial should take place criminally without the in-
tervention of a Grand Jury: With this doctrine, he (Mr. P.)
was not now going to struggle, he only wished et present to
protest against being committed to all the odium which at.
tended ex-officio informations from their first institution. He
wished the Hon. Member and the House to understand that lie
was not guilty of importing to this country so dangerous a pre-
rogative, nor could fie charge himself with producing .any bail
effect on the laws of Englund, by the example which he had
set of it. application in the sister country. The power of
filing such information was known to the British law
long before either his name had been heard of, or fax
public acts taken notice of. Of all the legal institutions
of the country there was no principle of more decided le-
gality or decided antiquity than this. He did not mean to say
that the principle it' objectionable, derived. any additional
sanction from its long standing; but he could not help ex-
pressing his surprise, that it was so very contrary to the spirit
of the Constitution, the experience of a thousand years should
not have opened the eyes of our ancestors to the prdpriety of
'dispensing with it. Perhaps it ought to be dispensed with : he
was not arguing whether it ought or ought not; but. heesked
why was he to be eelected as the object on width all its imp°.
polarity was to bellisited? Or why his name was to be coupled
with that of Jeffries, of infamous memory ; or Enipson and
Dudley, whose lives covered their own beads with shame, and
brought misery upon their country! It was hard that fist
the errors of a thousand years should be visited upon him,
and that, after so long an experience, the Grand Jury of
the county of Armagh should address their Member now, for
the first time, to call the legality of this institution into
question. He (Mr. P.) was bound to say that, in the manage-
ruent of this question, the Hon. Member had shown a deX.-
terity. which he could not help admiring. By mixing it up with
the rights of Grand Juries, and the removal of the harricr
between the throne and the people, he had touched a chord
to which every British heart must respond. ~But did he mean
to say that there was no other inode of criminal proceeding bat
through the medium of a Grand Jury ? That this was the
most constitutional course to pursue he (Mr. I'.) admitted, and
he agreed with the lion. Member that no conduct on the part
of' so respectable a public body could warrant Jeffries in the
observations which he addressed to them. But could he deny
that it wait postale for one man to do his duty, without ques-
tioning the manner in which any other man or ea of men did
theirs? He called upon the lion. Meniber to say whether,
when the Grand Jury returned with their decision Into Court,
although that decision filled hint,_ the Court, anti the audit'zjt
with wonder,. he at. all charged them with pot having. atone their
duty. lie expressed a hope that they had dente their duty, hat
declared his. resolution of doing his, a resolution to which, aka
tiott's help. he would adhere. After all that he bad hearth
and notwithstanding
numerous and powerful party 17
which his actions had beencriticised, he could not yet persua
himself that hit had done any thing contrary to law or the
Constitution. Under these, circumstances, then, he threw him-
self upon the honour of the lion. Member and the lioute, whea
ther it was fair to compare his addrees to the Grand Jury to the
disgusting Billingsgate, with which Jeffries reprimanded tae
Grand Jury In the causie alluded to ?—( Hear f)—The niodcatt-
* doe of Jeftnes in sending bills three several times to the Jury,

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 file; 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 ie.-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 information after a Grand 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 one of whom a charge 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 the Right lion. Gentleman in Ireland.
Ile would be desirous of :.airing
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,
bwoasdy, Lord
eontOin'uNe(etiiln office, who he
as up,dosetrmstoaostder-G
tobeengreraanll in Irelandast ?
thatH 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 quoted by his Right 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 case, though nominally criminal,
out the bill, the county might be proceeded against 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 possible, and when Grand Juries
could not be found sitting. 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 differ from his Right lion. Friend,: 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 their 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 approve of die
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 the mitigated mode of getting rid
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.
bxc oec
hn
ed called
q uc te r o ft
col
ni
de
si
Mr. BROUGHAM explained. '
but it could neothtEe
Mr. SCARLETT said he w•as induced to rise for the pur-
apocusdmsetoiotntedfi
.sitntaht.iatnhtg a difference which arose in the orpiment. lie
were disposed to find a verdict against the Crown, gir•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
li
result, without going from the Grand Jury to the Court of
King's Bench. Grand Juries might do wrong, but that wasir
reason why they should be calumniated. Ile did not join t!
vote of censure. He believed that the Right Honourable *V
tsAicthut
discharge
eeYalihGe Ie
jrulirlayi id
"'base been giole.
~
Learned Genleman had been anious to disCliarg his dny..
honestly, butt 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
ioafiprelroceandlinfilieny
hEandgnlaontdaawshwieelriedthdeleAqt
the Attorney-General was this :—Would they have taken the
He would not press his motion. For the present! a
TeY e a c .
up ; the conviction, however, on his mind was, that t with.
cusation had not been answered.---The motion was then

expressed
BedAGa
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
and tbe

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEED.

1101.75 E OF COMMONS.
Lunte, 14° die Aprilis, 1823.
CANAL—Trent and Mersey—Petition of Ilan anted °Llc;
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.
against
Salford, Manchester, and Great and Lilac Bolton,
unLic ANSI LICENCES—Petition of Retailers,
the Bill.
BEER DuTlEs—Petitions from Innkeepers and Publicans af
ley, for
P .in Chor m
_idiiminution of the Duties the to be Printed'
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, and
committed. aeainst.
ROADS—Thirsk—Petition of Thomas Bates, Egg' irt—iliford
Kettering, &c—Petition of Truatewi for repairing '' win-
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 read 3 see°
time, and committed. vision
Report on
VESTRY —Bethnal Green—Pettion for additional pro
_,.
reported —instruction to Committee to make additional ptev'
BBRlVitnaohEEl—Bill—i
oh
cßKiltruearnd
earitchkird 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 Pcti
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‘arre ~,
of Sudbury, the Deanery, of Stow, Associate (Burgher/qua:l,
bytery of Glasgow, Inhabitants of _Mansfield, ()ran.
__ti
'rythetton Lucas, ,1-16 es, Hardenhuish, and Stanton, a'
from
the City of Oxford, AGAINST; to lie on the tale.
000'
SU° i
A t—Petitions from Ilrecimin and Newry, AOAINST
tion of the Duties. CantY
ATTORNEY-GENERAL greluntl)—Petitions from the
of the
of Wicklow, and IV. 1 ' midaining
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.
GENERALO. TURNPIKE ACT--Petition of Land. P.
Boston, against ;to lie on the table. , in, npiOt and
COUNTY RATES—Address for " Account of the • three
persons committed in each County upon a charge °'s
South ,
ra.
Expenditure of the Rates of each County for the 18tb;r of
years, distinguishing each ; together with the ran. i ny,
number tried, acquitted, or found guilty ; time alro awn
'`en(t)mt of
thee charge made upon the County Rate for the Prelec .of
thereof, distinguishing.the sums charged for the exPeace.,
IVitnesses, and those (if any) for Counsel and Solicitors.
SLAVE TRADE CONSOLIDATION—BiII read a first inle"

Tfil_slisAtirle.ointl3lll;
NOTICES OF MOTIONS for
1. Lord Viscount Althorp —To repeal Foreign E
2. Mr. Grenfell—Account Balances of Public I%lNoootes of the
hands of the Bank of Ireland, and Bank
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- # the Sheri'
Sir Francis Burdett--Inquiry into the conduct --
and Grand Jury of the City of Dublin.
PRIVATE BILL--SEcoND READING for TOO PAI.
Tamworth Roads.

.......................................:L........,.......,,................."'"w-
-,.. New
A L I PACIIA AND THE GHEEKs !!!....-TDO. J.'it-
Edition of the Lig of Ali Pacha which will
ii:a
pear on the first of May, will contain of aill testa
interesting_ account of the present political state
of Greece, in addition to much interesting ma
recently Collected on the spot.
otaig
The ship. Dore is now in- the Jere-, I op
with a large quantity of gunpow for SP
and will sail in a few days.