Star.
London, England, 1823-05-03 00:00:00

COA LS.

Sir E. HARVEY preset:zed another Petition, praying for
repeal of the D.:ty on CPAs carried toasiways.—thdered to be
laie on the table.
GOULDURN presented a Petition from a person named
Jos,pli Stephenson, concerned in the Irish Linen 'trade, praying
repeal of the Duty on Coals. The repeal of this !ai
be of the greatest imparta:.ce to Ireland, and therefore ht: hopt.ll

Mr. PLUNKETT said, he would take the oppor•
utility afforded by this motion to lay before the
House a fact which he was not aware of on a former
occasion, when his conduct in filing an ex qfficio in-
formation was under ccnsideration. It was then con-
tended that he acted without precedent, and that
since the time of the Norman Conquest no instance
could be produced of an Attorney-General having
proceeded by information in any case where an in-
dictment had been previously thrown out by a Grand
Jury. He then stated, that thouglehe could pi °duce
no precedents, they still might exist ; for that the re-
cord of such a proceeding could not be fourd, as in
other cases, either iri the pleas or in evidence. It so
turned out, that a Gentleman named Foley, an attor-
ney, with whomite had u t the pleasine of being ac-
quaintei, actuated by a sense of justice, took the
trouble of inquiring into the subject, and communi-
cated to Dim by letter a Case in which an ex ojkiv
information had been fi:ed by the Attcirney•Genersal
after-a bill of indictment had been-thrown out by a
Viand Jury. He would state the case to the House.
In October, 1811, a bill of indictment was preferred
against a person named Leech, for writing a letter to
Sir Eiward Littlehales, offering him a bribe if he
'.could procure a situation fin. the writer. The bills
were sent up to the Grand Jury of Dublin, and ig-
nored. • The Court; being surprised at this decision,
ordered pew bills. They were sent up, and were also
ignored: Each bill consisted of three counts: the
first, charging that a letter had been written offering
a bribe; the second, charging generally that a bribe
had been offered ; and the third, severally, that a let-
ter had been written, reel money had been offered by
the writer for a place. The bills having been thrown
out, Mr. Saurin, then Attorney-General, filed an ex
officio information against the individual. Here
therefore vets an instance similar to that for which so
heavy a charge had been brought against him: one •
in which, after bqls of indictment had been ignored*
the Attorney-G..neral proceeded by information. He
had ..rested copies of the indictments and of the ex
officio information ; but he would not propose that
they should be laid upon the table, as it might ap-
pear as if done td inculpate his predecessor, which
was by no means his intention. He thought, how-
ever, that it would not have been trespassing on the
time of the H to strew, that twelve years back
the same proceeding had been resorted to, for which
he had been so severely censured. The Right Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Sautin) who preceded him in office,
was never called upon to account for this application
of the law. He did not suspect that he was stepping
beyond the bounds of duty ;"but conceiving that there
was a case for excrcifing the power with which he
was vetted, thought himself called spots to proceed
by inforniation. Ile was satisfied that the Learned
Persdii to whom he alluded filed his information ten.
der the conviction that he was not going beyond the
ordinary line of duty, and therefore the circumstance
made no particular rreptession on his mind. Had hr
recollected it, he was sure he should not have hesi- •
tated to supply him with a precedent which came
home so comple:eiy to the question.
Mr. DENAAN asked whether the case had gone
to judgment?
• Air. PLUNKETT said it had not. No plea had
been entered:, but the Court, ill consequence of the
youth of the person, and his having lost his situation,
did not think it necessary to inflict further punishment.
Mr. ABLIICROMBY said, he felt some surprise
at hearing the case referred .te by his Right Honour.
able and Learned Friend (Mr. Plunkett.) The charge
against him was, that the proceeding was unprece-
dented, unwise, and contrary t ) the spirit of the Bri.
tish Constitution. It would have made an important
difference if this precedent could have been referred
to when the question was.befure the House. The
question was one peculiarly interesting to all persons
of the profession of the law, He begged leave to•
ask the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman
whether the person who now filled the office of

"4'l'lAt.

I

~~~

...

_
;-t'"
•

Clerk of the Crown in Ireland was the same who held
it in the year 1811, because to two persons must the
case have been known ex ficces.sitate rei; and if so, he
should call upon the House to say how such cundnct
had served the Right Hon. Gentleman in the dis-
charge of his duty? If Mr. S twin had not commu-
nicated to the Attorney-General the knowledge of
that fact, he had acted with at least .a want of cow.-
. tesy, ioleavinglhe discovery oFthe- case to accident.
Mr. PLUNKETT said the office of Crown Solici-
t.lr in Ireland was served bytwo persons, a father and
con (Thomas and William Kern mis) the fa:her was
now dead, and he thought it probable that the son,
who was a young man, might be ignorant of, or
might not have remembered the ca.,e.
Sir .1. NEWPORT said, the Gentlennao (Mr. W.,
Keinrnis) had couducted the business of the office. for
his father at the period in question, and must there-
fore be deemed competent to recollect the case, and
if so, was inexcusable. Ale was joined with his father
in the patent by which the place was held, and must
have been cognizant of the fact. It was, therefore,
inexcusable in him to have withheld from the 'Right
llonourab:e Gentleman that fact which it was his
bounden duty to have revealed.
Mr. GRATTAN thought, that both the Crown So-
licitor and the late Attorney-General for Ireland,
should be ordered to attend at the BAT of the House.
Sir N. COLTHURST suggested, that the case
might have escaped the recollection of the Crown
Solicitor, as it had escaped that of the Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman himself.

Colonel BARRY rose to move an Amendment to
the motion of the Honourable Member for Limerick,
to add the name of the Crown Solicitor in Ireland to
the number of witnesses whose attendance on the
House• was moved for. He knew nothing of Mr.
Kemmis, but thought it only fair that he should be
summoned in order to defend himself. Ile should
therefore move, " That William Kemmis be added
to the number of witnesses moved for, namely, Dil-
lon M4l4lamara, and Terence O'Reilly, and that he
do so attend on Friday, the 9th of May."
Mr. CALCRAFT moved; that the name of the
Right Hon. William Saurin, his Majesty's late Attor-
ney-General for Ireland, should also be added.
Mr. GOULBURN was uncertain whether he knew
Mr. W. Kemmis or not ; but he begged to remind
the House what was the real object of the inquiry,
namely, into the conduct of the High Sheriff of
Dublin,; in the course of which much of an unplea-
sant nature to the individuals mentioned might be
thrown out; and, it was for the House to consider
whether the examination of those individuals could
throw any light upon the inquiry. He seized that
opportunity to object, that it was unfair of the Ho-
nourable Gentlemen to make that inquiry a pretext
for 'summoning before the House individuals from
different parts of Ireland, and to examine them upon
topics other than that immediately the subject of in-
quiry. It was not Mr. W. Kemmis merely who was
called on to attend before the House, but also the
late Attorney-General for Ireland; and the only ob-
jects of which were to know from themselves, first,
whether or not they were cognisant of a certain case;
and, secondly, why they had suffered it to escape
their recollection.
Mr. CALCRAFT, from what had fallen from the
Right Hon. Gentleman, had bo objection to with-
dravlhis motion for the attendance of Mr. Saurin, if
that for the attendance of Mr. Kemmis was also.
Mr. Secretary PEEL begged leave to mention two
circumstances respecting Mr. Kemmis, connected
with the very important fact mentioned by his Right
Hon. Friend ; the first was, that a Gentleman of the
Bar, Mr. Townsend, who in conducting the late pro-
seintion had been associated with his Right Hon.
Friend (Mr. Plunkett), had also, in the year 1811,
been employed for the Crown in the case mentioned.
The second was, that the present Chief Justice of the
King's Bench in Ireland (Bushe) had been Solicitor-
General there in 1811 ; consequently had knowledge
of the case, and yet that learned individual, before
whom, in his capacity of Chef Justice of the King's
Bench in Ireland, the late trials had taken place, had
also completely forgotten the fact. Had Mr. Towns.
end or Chief Justice Bushe recollected that precedent
they would no doubt have mentioned it at the trial ;
and, if it had escaped their recollection, it was
only fair to suppose that Mr. Kemmis had equally
forgotten it.—( Hear, hear).
Colonel BARRY, in consequence of what had
fallen from his Right lion. Friend, would consent to
withdraw his motion, which he had made only on
account of the individual himself who was the object
of it. It appeared to him, from the number of wit-
nesses called for, that the object and extent of the
proposed inquiry were indefinite, in which case he
and hrs. friends were justified in being fully prepared
to meet them, by calling for the attendance of any
'parties who they might deem necessary. With the
leave of the House he would withdraw his motion.—
The motion was accordingly withdrawn.