Star.
London, England, 1823-04-16 00:00:00

had the satisrartion of saying.that he had nearly
caucladed his observations. He had never talked to
any Irishman, whether Catholic or Protestant, who
was hot indignant at these proceedings; and he hoped
the same feeling would be echoed in a British House.
of Commons. Englishmen all vciretated their Con-
stitution, and if there were any part of it which they
almost love) to madness, it was the Trial by Jury—
(Load cries of hear). He hoped they would never
stiffer any man to abuse it; for if they did, the next
step to follow would be the, abolition of the liberties
of the subject—( Vekerient cries or Hear, hear). The
Hon. Member concluded by moving a Resolution to
the effect, that the late proceedings of the Attorney-
General for Ireland, and particularly in the late pi o-
secutinns, were on wise, unconstitutional, pressing upon
the subject, and ought not to be drawn into a piece-
-dent hereafter.
Mr. PLUNKETT said, that in rising on such an
occasion as the present, the House would naturally
suppose that he felt some degree of embarrassment.
He had listened nit!) great attention to the speech of
the Honourable Gentleman. Many of the observa-
tions which had fallen from him were entitled to his
(Mr. Plunkett's) entire approbation; but he could not
help complaining that when the Honourable Member
brought f ant ard a specific charge against him for
having filed an cx officio information, after a bill of
indictment had been ignored by the Grand Jury, he
should have endeavoured by all the powers of his
eloquence to involve him (Mr. Plunkett) in. all the
odium which applied to the doctrine of es officio in-
formations in general. The argument of the Honour-
able Gentleman went the length of arraigning jhe
power of the Crown to file ex ?fficio informations in
all cases, whether through its Law Officer or the
Court of King's Bench. If the proceeding by infor-
mation were odious, illegal, and unconstitutional, as
was contended, he (Mr. Plunkett) was not liable to
the charge of having imported it from Ireland into
England, or of exposing Orli country to the infection
of the example set in Ireland; for among all the in-
stitutions incorporated into the law of this country,
there were none of more unquestioned antiquity and
admitted legality than the proceeding by informa-
tion. He must think it somewhat hard that he (Mr.
Plunkett) should be selected as the object of censure,
and that his conduct should be represented to Parlia-
ment as worthy to be classed with that of Sir George
Jefferies, of infamous memory—with that of Empson
and Dudley, and all persons who had inflicted misery
on their country, and whose acts had brought down
vengeance on their heads. It was rather too hard
that the accumulated odium of a thousand years
should be reserved for this day, and thundered on his
devoted head. He would put it to the candour of
the Honourable Member—he would throw himself
upon the justice of the House, and ask whether it
was fair to couple any observations upon his conduct
with a reference to the filthy, disgusting Billingsgate
which flowed from Jefferies when he reprimanded the
Grand Jury, and sent them back a third time?—
The Honourable Gentleman had introduced a charge
unconnected with the present question, that of his
(Mr. Plunkett's) having advised the committal of the
parties tor a capital offence, who were after waeds
prosecuted only for a misdemeanour. The Hon.
Member had brought forward a motion for censure
without any evidence to support it, but he (Mr.
Plunkett) did not intend to act so mean and unworthy
a part, as to shelter himself behind the total want of
evidence. It was true that the Magistrates who com-
mitted those individuals were responsible for their
own act, and there was no evidence that they had
atoned to his (Mr. Plunkett's) advice; he would
frekly avow, however, that the Magistrates did re-
sort to his advice. The information upon which he
bad advised the committal had not been laid before
the House. It had been very properly and judi-
ciously withheld, not for the purpose of screening
himself, the Attorney-General of Ireland, but for
the purpose of protecting the Magistrates—(Hear).
—When these parties were first taken up by the Ma-
gistrates, although he considered the offence with
which they were charged a most daring outrage
which called for exemplary punishment—although
be considered that there was ample proof of a riot and
conspiracy, he did not think, there was any proof of
a deliberate plan for taking away the life of the Lord
Lieutenant. An inquiry was instituted into all the
circumstances, which lasted seven days, in the course
of which it appeared that Mr. Forbes was one of the
principals who had planned the conspiracy, and had
assisted in packing the house for the purpose of car-
rying on the riot. As to the missiles, the bottle and
rattle which were thrown at the Lord Lieutenant, it
was easy to make jokes on such a subject.
,The bottle
might be an empty bottle, and the rattle might, per-
haps, be called an " agreeable rattle !" but if the
bottle, whether empty or not, and the log of wood
called a rattle, had struck the Lord Lieutenant, in-
stead of cutting the cushion of the box in which he sat,
either of those missiles might have deprived him of
life. This Mr. Forbes regretted not that he had thrown
the bottle, but that it had missed ; and what was the
excuse set up for this most atrocious conduct? Why,
it was that he ssas'druuk, and acted upon by his
bad passions—that he was infuriated with liquor.—
These were the grounds upon which Ile had dared to
plead that he was not answerable for this deed ; but
if he had not been made answerable for it, where
would have been the safety of the illustrious per-1,
soilage at whom it was thrown ? After this digression,
he should take a review of the law and the functions
of Grand Jurors. He contended, that it was per-
fectly legal to file ex officio informations, as well after
as before a bill has been ignored by a Grand Jury;
for even in proceedings by indictment which may
have been ignored, other bills of indictment might
hesent to the same or other Grand Juries, Satin quo-
lies, as the same bill for the same offence might be
thrown out. This, then, 'hewed that a Grand Jury.
Awes not so sacred a thing as had been represented.
Re contended next, on the authority of Judge Black-
stone and others, that the power of ex Ocio informa-
tions was a prerogative reserved to the Crown at the
first formation of our Constitution. When the Star
Chamber was abolished, the power of proceeding by
information was expressly reserved to the Crown by
the very Act of Parliament which abolished that
Chamber. At the Revolution, some Members of Par-
hament wished the system of informations abolished;
but alter three or tour years, and many conferences
between the Lords and the Commons, the Act was
passed, which left the power of informations to the
Attorney-Genet-41, but. took it from the Master of the