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

contract is wanted, an advertisement is published, and the bar.'
gain is made with the highest bidder. Then you do not know
whether the contracts for the convicts are made by open con-
, tract or close connivance ?—I have already said that I am not
the officer of the corporation, and am not therefore acquainted
with these particulars.
Who are the sheriffs elect ? Perrin and Lamprin.
When were they appointed ?—Lait month.
Do you happen to know whether they were on the grand jury
which ignored the bills that were preferred by the Attorney-
General ?—They were both.
By 31r. DAWSON.—If any improper or illegal presentment
were made by tbe term grand juries, and the inhabitants of
Dublin submitted to them, would they be' more to blame than
the grand juries ?-01 urmurs.)
Mr. GOULBURN suggested whether it would not be for
the convenience of the House, if the inquiry was to be entered
upon to which the question of the Hon. Member would lead,
to examine some witness who was well informed on the subject,
which the present witness had acknowledged he was not.
Mr. GRATTAN thought it was imposible that the witness
could answer the question.
Mr. S. RICE approved of the course of examination which
had been proceeded in by his Hon. and Learned Friend Mr.
Brougham.
Mr. WYNN asked whether it was proper that the House
should examine a witness as to inferences ? Surely the wit.
nesses ought to be called upon to state facts, and Members
should make their own inferences.—(Hear !)
Mr. BROUGHAM supposed, from the question which had
been proposed by the Hon. Member, that his (Mr. Brougham's)
questions had been misunderstood. He had never charged the
jury with malversation.
Colonel BARRY thought that the House ought to dispose
of the case of the high-sheriff in the first instance. He would
then support the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite in en
inquiry into the mode in which grand, juries were constituted
in Ireland. He hoped that the case of the, high sheriff' would
not be entangled with any other question.
Sir J. NEWPORT was of opinion that it was impossible to
disconnect the case of the high sheriff from the question of the
constitution of grand juries.
Mr. DAWSON said that he had only endeavoured to follow
up the line of examination marked out by the Learned Gentle-
man opposite. The Learned Gentleman had talked of the
gross and flagrant abuse of the administration of justice in
Ireland. He Mr. Dawson) wished to shew that the people of
that country, if they were improperly treated, had the means
of redress in their oWn hands. lie would not, however, press
the question.
The witness, who had withdrawn when the objection was
taken, was again put to the bar.
By Mr. DawsoN.—Do you not know that any person in
Dublin or in Ireland generally, who pays the grand jury assess-
ment, has the right of traverse if he think the assessment un-
just or unfair ? I always understood so.
Mr. DAWSON thought that the witness ought, as Clerk of
the Crown, to be able to give a more decisive answer to the
question.
By Mr. BROUGUAM.—At whose expence would any person
traverse ? at his own charge or that of the country ?—At his
own charge.— (A laugh.)
L
By Sir G. Hii..---When was your recollection called to the
proceedings with respect to the charge of bribery in 1011 ?—To.
day. Have you referred to documents which afford you accu-
, rate knowledge of the filing of the ex-officio information in
1811 ?—I have.

Will you state how these documents came into your posses.
sion ?—(We could not hear the answer to this question.)
Have you the date when copies of these informations were
forwarded to you P—l got them on the 28th of April.
What was the date of the proceedings ?--October, 1011.
Did the present Crown Solicitor act as such in October,
1811 ?—Yes; in conjunction with his father.
By Mr. H. G. BEwsare.—The witness says he saw copies
of the proceedings of October, 1811, in the CUB of Sir E.
Littlehales, where did he see them P—ln the office or study of
Mr. Blake.
By Mr. PLUNKETT.—Were they not sent to Mr. Blake's
office ?—Yes.
By Mr. G. BF:TO/XT.—Did the Attorney-General or Mr.
Blake give then' to you ?—I think the Attorney-General (as
we understood) was present when I got them.
Have you been in communication with the Attorney-Ge-
neral since you came here ?—I have been only a short time
in town . • the Attorney-General has asked me some questions.
By Mr. BILOWNLOW.—By what tenure do you hold your
office ?Isit a patent one P—l hold my ()Slice under—(we could
not hear the nanie.) 1 apprehend, from the opinions which I
have got on it, that I am removeable at pleasure.
Iljr Mr. W. CouRTENAY.—You think you are removeable
at pleasure ?-1 believe 1 am.
fly Mr. B. OultNEY.—I wish to know. from the witness,
wheelie') from the great interest which the trial excited, the
whole of the panel did not attend P—l cannot say (as we un-
derstood) whether they all attended.
Have the common councilmen precedence on those penals ?
Ido not think they have. On looking over several panels, I
find some without any common councilmen on them ; others
with a few. On one panel, where there were 107 persons, 105 an.
swered (as we understood), and there were only three common
councilmen among them.
• Does the witness know whether the common councilmen
chosen stood at the head of the list ?—(lnaudible.)
The examination of the witness was here closed, and he was
ordered to withdraw.
Sir F. BUItDETT said, that at the'present late hour he did
not think it proper to call any other witness.
Colonel BARRY observed, there were some witnesses in at-
tendance to whom it might be of much importance, as their
time was of consequence, that they should be examined as soon
as possible. Among these were .illr. Sheriff Cooper, who was
ready to be examined if the House thought proper.
Mr. BROUGHAM did not see any objection to examining
the second sheriff now, Wile wished to be called; but as the
sheriff's might be considered in the light of defendants on this
occasion, it would perhaps be more convenient to hear the tes-
timony of' those who might be examined as to their conduct be-
fore the House proceeded to examine them.
Colonel BARRY said, there being no charge against Sherif
Cooper, it could not be inconvenient to have him now examined.
Mr. BROUGHAM begged to be understood as having no
objection to Sheriff Cooper's examination it' he desired it, and
also to give him an opportunity of hereafter coming forward to
explain any parts of his conduct that might be adverted to by
other witnesses.
Mr. ABERCROMB' was of opinion, that it would be bet-
ter to examine the other witnesses in order to see what was the
nature of the charges against the Sheriffs, before they examined
the Sheriff's themselves.
Colonel BARRY had no objeoon to this course. It was
not his intention to call any witnesses. He had only thrown
the suggestion out to the House.
Mr.-PLUNKETT said that when on a former night he made
the statement, out of which this examination arose, lie had men-
tioned that he was prepared with witnesses who could prove it.
Those witnesses were not now all in attendance ; and as Sheriff'
Cooper was not implicated in that part of the transactions to
which the evidence would refer, he thought it would be incon-
venient at present to examine Mr. Sheriff Cooper.
Mr. S. RICE wished to postpone the examination of the
sheriffs, until several documents which hail been alluded to
were laid before the house ; and after the length to which the
evidence had already gone, it was better to have it fully before
them in the printed form, so that they might see its bearings
before they went any further. The examination of' Mr. Sheriff
Cooper must necessarily be very long : it would be bettter not
to commence it to night.
M. OOULBUItN did not see any advantage which could be
gaind by commencing the examination just then ; however he
thought that the earlier the time fixed for resuming this inquiry
the better.

r. C. WYNN moved that the Chairman do report progress,
and ask leave to sit again.
The CHAIRMAN put the question, to which there were
several dissentient voices. He declared it to be carried in the
affirmative, and left the chair.
FUTURE ORDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS.
The House having resumed, it was moved " that the Com-
mittee do sit again on Monday."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested
the propriety of the House's coming
.to some understanding in
respect of the further conduct of the inquiry. He thought the
precedent of the examination of witnesses respecting the orders
in council might be conveniently followed in this case. On that
occasion, when other business was before the House, the exami-
nation of the witnesses continued till nine o'clock, and then gave
way to the orders of the day.
BROUGHASI had no objection to this course being
adopted ; but he believed that ten, and not nine, was the hour
that was fixed in the case to which the Right Hon. Gentleman
had just alluded.
After a few words across the table between the CITAIICEL-
Lon of the EXCIIESWER and Mr. BROUGHAM, it seemed to
be understood that these proceedings were in future to com-
mence at five in the evening; and on day! when other business
stood for discussion, should conclude at nine.
Lord MILTON thought it might be inconvenient for the
House to bind itself down to any particular hour.
Mr. BROUGHAM said it could not be understood by fixing
a particular hour that the House was strictly to stop at.that
hour, or cut itself short in the mhldle of a sentence. But it
would be the general understanding, that no new head of in-
quiry should be entered upon after the hour mentioned.—The
motion was then agreed to.
Mr. GOULBURN postponed the Committee on the Irish
Tithe Committee Bill to Monday.