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

THE STATESMAN

of justice, wrote to him, stating that he believed a case
quite in point had occurred in Ireland twelve years ago.
He wrote to this Gentleman, with whom he was not ac-
quainted, but to whom be felt greatly indebted, request.
ing him to inquire, and endeavour to discover if such a
case had existed. The result was, that such a case was
found ; and be was nowenabled to state it to the House.
In October, 1811, a bill of indictment was preferred
against a man of the name of Leech, for having written
a letter to Sir E. Littlehales, then Under-Secretary in
Ireland, offering bins a bribe if he would procure him a
situation. The bill of indictment was sent before the
Commission Grand Jury of Dublin, and was ignored ;
new hills were sent op, and were a second time ignored.
The indictment contained three counts; the first charged
him with writing a letter offering bribery; the second
with bribery; and the third with offering security in
money for bribery. Now his predecessor in office (Mr.
Saurin) filed an ex-officio information against this indi-
vidual, in the November following, in which the same
counts were presented. He could now produce attested
copies both of the ex-officio information and of the in-
dictments, but be wield not move that they be laid on
the table, it might be supposed that he ti Wier! to ex-
culpate the conduct of his predecessor. He felt himself
bound to mention the fact as a ditty to himself, to show
that not later than twelve years ago, the same proceed-
ing which had been charged to him as (fault, was re-
sorted to by the Gentleman who preceded him, believing
it to be his duty, as the only means of attaining justice.
--(Cheers.) He was satisfied that the late Attorney-
General thought this proceeding to be in the routine of
his business, anal therefore made no particular impres-
sion on his mind, fur he had no doubt, that if he had
recollected it,he would have communicated it to him.
Mr. DENMAN asked if the case proceeded to judg-
ment?
Mr. PLUNKETT, as we understood, said it did not
for want of a plea ; the traverser having expressed his
contrition, and beeen deprived of a public situation, no
further punishment was inflicted.
Mr. ABERCROMBY said that he heard the state-
ment of the Right Hon. Gentleman with surprise, be-
cause it showed that his conduct, in filing an ex-officio
information was not unprecedented in Ireland, though
the charge of the Hun. Member for Armagh was to that
effect, the conclusion of his motion being, that the course
adopted by the Attorney-General fur Ireland was con,
teary to the practice, and not congenial to the spirit of
the British Constitution. Every body must be aware,
that the ease just mentioned by. the Attorney-General,
would have made a great impression on the House if it
had been made known on the night the charge was broaght
forward against him—(hear, hear) —and would have com-
pletely, as be (Mr. Abercromby) conceived, altered the
view many Members had taken of that question. Every
man must know how great an interest this subject had
excited from the first moment in Ireland, particularly
among those connected with the law. Ile wished to
take this opportunity of asking the Attorney-General for
Ireland, whether the person who was now the Crown
Solicitor, was the same who had hell that office in 1811?
If lie was the same person, he asked how it was possible
the Irish Government could be properly served in legal
proceedings?
Mr. PLUNKETT said, that in 1811, the office bad
been filled by the father and son. The father, how-
ever, had since died, and the son must have been a
very young man at the time of the transaction in
question.
Sir J. NEWPORT thought that as the son was acting
for the father in the year 1811, lie ought to know what
had passed in the office at the time.
Mr. J. GRATTAN said, that the young man had acted
with the father fora series of years, and he ought to be
called as a witness to the bar.
Mr. ELLIS (of Dublin) thought, that as the transac-
tion had escaped the attention of the Attorney-General,
it was very natural it might have escaped the attention
of the Crown Solicitor.
It eas then ordered that Lucius O'Reilly and Te-
rence 111‘Namara, Attorneyi of Dublio, be ordered to at-
tend the bar of the House on the 29th May.
Col. BARRY then moved that Win. Kemmis (the Irish
Crown Solicitor) be called to the bar.
Mr. CALCRAFT said Ire should propose that the name
of Mr. Swim the late Attorney-General for Ireland, be
included in the order.
Mr. GOULBURN deprecated the principles of calling
any witnesses that were not necessary to the elucidation of
the particular ease. They might call a great variety of wit-
nesses to their bar, but the object ought to be to see whe-
ther those witnesses could throw say light on the transaction
in question. Any other course would be extremely inconve-
nient. It was now proposed to call not only Mr. Kemal.,
but Mr. Saurlo, who could have nothing to do with facts
involved in the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin.
Mr. CALCRAIer said, that no man could take upon him-
self to say, whether from the course the inquiry would take,
it might not be necessary to call both Mr. Kemmis and Mr.
Salida. If, however, Mr. Kemmis was not ordered to at-
tend, he should not press his motion.
After a few words from Mr. PEEL,
Col. BARRY said, that he never thought Mr. Kemmis
could give any evidence elucidatory of the case in question,
though as that Gentleman bad been pointedly adverted to,
he wished that an opportunity should be afforded him of vin-
dicating himself. Witnesses might be called so as to ren-
der the inquiry indefinite. He was willing to go into any
inquiry to the fullest length that might be demanded, whe-
ther into the Corporation of Dublin, the Guild of Merchants,
or even into the feuds of unhappy Ireland, from the invasion
of Henry 11. down to the present day ; he did not, how-
ever, see what good it could effect. At present, with the
leave of the House, he should withdraw the motion. The
motion was accordingly withdrasen.
The SPEAKER then reads letter from the Under Sheriff
of the city of Dublin, assigning urgent official business as
the cause for his not obeying the Order of the House to at-
tend as a witness. The letter alleged that Judge M'Clel-
land and Judge Vandaleur had stated, that they must sus-
pend the Commission for the trial of prisoners, If the Under-
Sheriff situated himself.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that a second Under-She-
riff might be appointed, which would obviate the diffi-
culty.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that being aware of the inconve-
nience which the discharge of public business must ex-
perience, if provision was not made to meet the absence of
the Under-Sheriff, he had written from that House to the
Sheriff of Dublin, desiring him to appoint a deputy. He
had sine, received an answer, stating that no appointment
lased take place under the circumstances. One reason was,
that both this Sheriffs must concur in the appointmeat ; and
OM of them was in Dublin, and the other in London at the
time. Another still more cogent reason was, that the Jodi-
shield appointed must give security to the amount of 20.0001.
INQUIRY INTO TIIE CONDUCT OF THE HIGH
SHERIFF OF DUBLIN,
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT. in rising to move the order
of the day for going into a Committee of Inquiry on the
conduct of the Sheriff of Duhlio. suggested that it aright bis
expedient to limit it to three days in each week, namely,
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Mr. CALCRAFT said that the selection of those days
might inconvenience the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
course of his proceedings.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he ear.
taint), should be Inconvenienced If they were selected. end
he thought that Tusediy, Wednesday, and Thursday, night
be more convenient.
After a few words from Sir F. BURDETT,
Mr. TIERIiEY said that the usual mode la such cases
was for the House, at ilwrisiug, to decide when the business
should be resumed
Toe House then went into the Committee. •
Sir ROCERT HERON in the Chair.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT expressed his hope that the
business would be commenced by those Irish Gentlemen
who were more coavusaot with the subject.
Mr. CALCRAFT moved that the witnesses who were in
the Gallery, should be ordered to withdraw, tied they were
accordingly directed to do sot