The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-08 00:00:00

" The Came for which HAMPDEN fell is the Field, a*d SYDNIIT (Ned on the &enfold!:

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS.—WEDNESDAT.
The Irish County Treasurers' Bill, and the Appren-
tices' Bill, toeether with several private Bills, were
broiled up from the House of Commons.
On the motion of the Marcihess of LANSDOWN, the
Irish Charitable Loan Societies' Bill was read a second
time.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN presented a petition
from the Inhabitants of Salisburv, which he said was
most numerously and respectably signed, and which
prayed for the Abolition of Slavery in the British Co-
lonies.
Adjourned to Friday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WILDNeiDAT.
General OASCOYNE postponed his motion relative to
the payment of the Irish Half-pay in British Currency to
Friday, May 23.
Mr. RICARDO presented a petition from the Linen
Manufacturers of Arbroath, complaining of the law
which compels them to stamp their Linen.—Laid on the
tables

Mr. RICARDO presented a similar petition from Bre-
chin, and another from the Yarn-spinners of Arbroath,
complaining of the law that subjects their linen-yarn to
inspection.-.-Laid on the table.
Colonel FRENCH presented a petition from the Inha-
bitants of Cambridge, praying the House to take the
necessary measures for the abolition of Slavery in the
Webt Indies.—Laid on the table.

Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from the menu-!
facturers of Cnpar, and another from the Spinners of
Linen Yarn of the same place, against the Linen JAWS
—Ordered to he printed.
Mr. F. BUXTON postponed his motion for the aboli-
tion of Slavery till the 15th May, but on the understand-
ing that he Would not, upon any ground, make a further
postponement.
Lord NUGRNT postponed his motion for placing
English Catholics on the same footing with Irish Catho-
lice, to the 21th May, on a similar understanding, that
he would not make a fnrther postponement.
Mr. LAWLEY presented a petition from the inhabit-
ants of Birmingham, praying for the abolition of Sla-
vory.—Ordered to be printed.
GAME L %WS.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he rose to present a petition
from Mr. Cubbett, which called the attention of the
House to the present-state of the Game Laws, and prayed
that it would not suffer the Bill now in progress through
tke House for authorising the sale of game by the Lords
of manors and other persons qualified, to pass into a law
without further consideration. Mr. Cobhett in his peti-
tion called the attention of the House to the severe hard-
ships of the Game Laws, and the disastrous effect they
had upon the morals and jurisprudence of the country,
and in doing so he stated a fact which could not fail to
convince the House of the truth of his assertion. The
Sessions Calendar of the County of Berks contained the
names of 77 persons who were confined in Bridrwell, 22
of whom were for poaching, and nine of them were com-
mitted by Clergymen, who were Justiies of the peace;
and these men were absolutely punished with greater se-
verity than those who had been convicted of crimes de-
serving death. Several guilty of such crimes bad been
punished only with an imprisonment of twelve months,
and a housebreaker with 24 mouth•, while a poacher
was condemned to a punishment of 21 tii.mths and hard
labour. It wag monstrous that out of 77 persons impri-
soned, 22 should be fur poaching. The petitioner also
stated that in the County of Hants, of 16 persons who
were condemned to death, only two young men suffered
punishment, and that for residing gamekeepers. He
implored the House to well consider the monstrous in-
justice of these laws, before they aggravated the evil, by
passing the Bill now io progress through the House.—
Mr. Cobbett states that great evils were endured in other
counties Iron. the privileges of the aristocracy ; but laws
which gave toe aristocracy the exclusive possession of
wild animals, though reared up at the public expense,
and enabled theta atone to sell them, showed a stretch of
power on the one bawl and a degree of abjectness on the
other, which were unparalleled to any country westward
of Constantinople. These facts, stated with the usual
perspicuity of that able writer, were certainly entitled to
the serious attention of the House ; and it could not be
said that Mr. Cobbett in any way encouraged poaching;
for he ventured to say that no Act of Parliament had a
greater tendency to prevent poaching than his writings.
►Vhatever might be his difference of opinion with Mr.
Cobbett, he felt it his fluty to present the petition.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Hon. sod Learned
Gentleman stated that two men were condemned to derail for
resiitiag game-keepers. That was true, but one of those
men had shqually committed mauler, and the other had ma-
liciously fired a gun at so unarmed man, aid lodged the
contents in his body, at a distance of ten yards. The man
WPM a servant of his (Lord Palmerston), but he fortunately
recovered.

Mr. BROUGHAM said that be had no doubt PII the No-
ble Lord stated was perfectly true, but still it was not con-
clusive as to the petition. He could not justify the men
who had committed such acts, but he condemned the laws.
which placed men in a state that rendered the commission of
such acts likely. He would now use the same argument he
used the other day in defence of the twenty-one men who
were tried for murder on the high seas. Why did they kill
the men ? because the Legislature passed an abominable
law, giving Custom-House crukers the power of shocting at
smugglers to a distance of 1111 leagues from the English
coast. Ile did not mean to justify the men for killing others,
but why were they shot at? Without denying the statement
of the Noble Lord, it was no argument against the prayer of
the petition.

Mr. J. BENNET said It was lamentable that so many
murders should yearly take place in consequence of the
Game Laws, and hoped some alteration would be made In
them.

Sir T. BARING corroborated the statement in the peti-
tion, that the greater part of those in prison in the county of
Hants were confined for poaching.
Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from the inhabitants
of the Borough of Evesham, praying for the abolition of
Slavery.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. J. MARTIN presented a similar petition from the
inhabitants of Tewkesbury.—Ordered to be printed.
Sir M. RIDLEY presented a similar petition from New-
eastle-upon-Tyne.—Ordered to be printed.
Col. BAGWELL. presented a petition from the Under
Sheriff of the County Westmeath, against the Grand Jury
Presentment Bill, which was now in progress through the
House.—Laid on the tahle.

Mr. ABERCROMBY postponed his motion, relative to
John Murray Borthwick, to the 3d of June.

Mr. Q. 13gNNE C moved fur returns of all grants of land
in New South Wales, and the annual expenditure of the co-
lony for the last seven, years, preparatory to the bringing in
a Bill for the better administration of Justice in that colony.
—Agreed W.

INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF TILE SIIERIFF

OF DUBLIN.

The Order of the Day was then moved for resolvint the
House into a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the
Sheriff of Dublin.

The CHAIRMAN desired the Clerk of the Man for
Ireland to be celled in. He delivered the panels which had
been previously called for by the Houses He (the Chair-
man) then desired to know if Sheriff Cooper was in at-
tendance.

It being annOunced that he was not in attendance' Mr.
WILLIAMS requested the Chairman to order Serjeant llar-
ris to be called in ; but Sheriff Cooper being then in attend-
ance, he was ordered to be called to the bar.

Sheriff Cooper examined by Mr. J. WILLIAMS.—I wish
to knew if Sheriff Thorpe did not interfere to prevent Poole
from being put on the panel 7—Sheriff Thorpe said that he
had no objection to his being pet on the panel, but as Poole
had called on me for the purpose, I rather wished that he
should not be nut on the panel.
Mr. WILLIAMS repeated his question.—l mentioned to
Sheriff Thorpe that Poole had called on me to he put on the
panel, -ind Thorpe made some observati.n which I do not
re ineet.

Mr. WILLIAMS—is the Committee to learn that the ob-
jecti, ii to Poole's being put on the panel came from the wit-
ness or Sheriff Thorpe 1-1 can't recollect.

Mr. WILLI ANlS—Ete pleased to recollect if Sberiff
,Thorpe did not object to Poole's being put on the panel 1.1
consequence of his political opinions; recollect yourself 7
—Sheriff Thorpe and I were not then in the habit of commu•
nicalins.

Mr. WILLI iMS again repeated the question.—l wish to
know if Sheriff Thorpe did not object to Poole's Schur
part on the panel in consequence of his political opinion /
—I have a delicacy in giving an opinion upon which f am
not positive.
Mr. WILLIAMS—I 'am not asking as to an cpinion,
but as to a fart ?—I can't say positivey.
Mr. %VI LLIAM3 again repeated the question—Did
not Sheriff Thorpe object to Poole's being put on the
panel in consequent:col his political opinio.ts ?-1 should
peahably think that be might or might no', but rather
think that be did nut comusualcate it to :ne.-11e c 3

PRICE 7N"..m;i•

not be certain whether Sheriff Thorpe made the attempt
Sew Mr. O'Reilly since his examination closed, lied
some conversation with him respecting Mr. Poole's
being kept off the panel. Did not think that O'Reilly
could have known the nature of the evidence which
witness had given. Witness told O'Reilly last night
that he thought he (O'Reilly) must be wrong as to
what hehad stated respecting Sheriff Thorpe and Mr.
Poole. He had never desired O'Reilly not to say any
thing on that subject. tale did not mean positively to
say that Sheriff Thorpe did not make some political dis-
tinction between Mr. Poole and others who, were in the
panel. He had not songht O'Reilly after the examini-
tion was over, he wet him in the lobby. Mr. Whistler
was the Under-Sherilf. No particular sum was paid by
him to the Sheriffs—it depended entirely on the receipts
of the office. The accounts were settled quarterly.
Examined by Mr. BRlGHT—Witness differed in po-
litical opinions from Sheriff Thorpe, though be has con-
curred with bins in the formation of the Grand Jury.
117 Mr. PLUNKETT—The panel was in the hand-
writiog of Sheriff Thorpe. Mr. Poole's name was on it
at first, and it was on the mutual suggestion of witness
and Sheriff Thorpe 'hat it was taken off. The reason
was, that Mr. Poole had made application to have his
name on; if be bad not, witness would have insisted
on its not being struck off. Witness does not recollect
Mr. Poole having made any comnlaint to him of a breach
of promise. Heard that Sheriff Thorpe bad promised
him to put hit name on the pine'. Does not know why
Mr. Poole came to him to put his name on. It might
have been from the idea that Sheriff Thorpe had chang-
ed his mind before Mr. Poole applied to uttness.
Mr. PLUNKETT then put this important question
If Sheriff Thorpe had changed his mind before, how
could his applying to you be the cause why Mr. Poole
was excluded?—We were making out a preparatory list.
and I mentioned that be had applied to me to have his
name put on.
By Mr. LETVESTER.—There were but few Concili-
ation mee on the ?and; there were some moderate
minded men on it. the number of Conciliation men
might probably be five, and if he had the list he could
say if their names were within twenty-seven of the first
names to be called over.

By Mr. PLUNKETT—Witness never heard Mr.
Whistler boast that he was the person who had returned
the panel.
Hy Sir JOHN NEWPORT—Witness was at the
Sheriffs' dinner, but could not state any particulars as
to Sheriff Thorpe having declared his determination to
abide the wishes of those who had made him Sheriff.--
Sheriff Thorpe's health was drank, but he did not recol-
lect the speech he made further than that he thanked
those who had returned him. The substance of it might
be that Sheriff Tb3rpe was ready to agree to their
ishes.

- -
By Mr. WILLIAMS—Witness was intimate with
Mr. O'Reilly.
By Mr. GRATTAN— Witness did not indulge in the
hope of being Lord Mayor; did not know Mr. Brad-
shaw, of Mounijoy-square, Dublin. •
Serjeant-Mayre Farris was neat called in.
Examined by hir. WlLLlAllB.—Witness belongs to the
74th regiment, stationed in Dublin. He entered the regi-
ment al a private soldier, and was afterwards advanced to
be corporal, Bedew, and serjeant-major, which rank he
now held; he was before the Grand Jury. after the riot; he
was examined by four or five of them, and not very cour-
teously ; they continually reminded him thit he was speak-
ing on his oath, and questioned his veracity in a threatening
manner, One of the Jurors said, " 1 don t think yon could
know a person from one gallery to another." Witness was
the,n speaking of the man whothrew the missile, of whose
person he was quite certain. Another of the Jurors left bis
seat and went up to the Foreman for the apparent purpose
of contradicting what witness had stated. lie complained
on leaving the room of the manner he had been treated, and
other witnesses did the same.

By Colonel BARRY.—Witness did not recollect the
names of the Jurors, of whom he complained; he had ob-
jected generally to the rude manner in which he had been
treated.
By Lord HOTHAM.—Witness was two or three times at
the Pliteuix Park when not on duty. He supped in the Park
once or twice. Went to the theatre of hli own accord on
the 1411. December. tie had had no particular conversation
since the riot with any of the housenold of the Lord Lieu-
tenant. Never had any conversation with Mr. Johnson on
the subject, either directly or indirectly. It was since that
time he was made a Serjeant-Major, but not in consequence
of any thing he did on the occasion, but, as he hoped, of his
prior good conduct.
Mr. Ryan was the next witness called.
Examined by Mr. WILLIAMS.—Witness is an officer of
Excise. Was before the Grand Jury of Dublin as a witness
on the subject of the riot. They examined him separately
at first, but afterwards two or three of thins asked him dif-
ferent questions at the same moment, before he bad time to
I answer one, and this, as he believed, for the express pur-
pose of shaking his testimony. They asked him his motives
and expectation in coming forward to give his evidence.
He complained of this, and stated to the Foreman that it was
impossible to :..nswei the questions in the manner they were
put. lie stated that he was sworn as well as they, and that
he had no other motives than those of duty in coming for-
ward. He was, at the time, stating the particulars as to
the person who threw the rattle. He said that the person
who threw it wore no glasses, and that he was a sallow-
looking young man. They contended that I had expressed
a doubt on the subject in another part of my evidence, but
that I denied ; and, on referring to the notes, no such doubt
could be found. When he came out he complained of the
manner in which he had heen treated. All the witnesses
who came out made a similar complaint. Several material
facts escaped his recollection at the moment, In consequence
of the annoyance he experienced.
By Colonel BARRY.—Witness is positive as to the evi-
dence he gave. Never heard that any other man was
pointed out in Newgate as the person who threw the rattle.
Never heard that a man named Ormsby was pointed out as
the person.
To a question toy Mr. BROWNLOW„ witness said that
on the night of the riot in the theatre he sat in the lower
gallery, and saw Graham sitting in the front seat of the up-
per gallery.
The witness having withdrawn by order of the Com-
mittee,

Mr. GOULBURN said he was unwilling to interrupt the
examination, but be could not see what connection there
was between the seat occupied by Graham In the ballery
and the conduct of the Shea itf and Grand Jury. If his Hoa.
Friend could show the relevancy of each questions of course
he might proceed.
Mr. BROWNLOW said that he understood that if Gra-
ham sat in the :rota row of the upper gallery, and the
witness in the fifth row of the lower gallery, as be statue,
it would be Impossible for him to see Graham, the one seat
being as perpendicularly under the other, that if a plumb
Hoe were let fall from the one it would drop on the other.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT said that it made no difference
wheth r the evidence of the witness were true or false, the
pwsrion at prevent being whether the Grand Jury impeded
Ithe witness.

Mr. BROUGHAM said he understood the question went
to shake the credit of the witness, and in that case it was

'Pie witness being again called la, answered to questions
by Mr. BROWNLOW, that be sake Urabam, who bad a
trent seat in the upper Ittllery, lean4rtir over the railing awl
Bing the rattle, hating Ortt taken the parts asunder.