The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-07 00:00:00

Corporation; witness 'milked In
the Corporation ; he did so alipat
140; when the witness spike Shad
he received was, that there Wass v►-

conciliation now would not do ft

that effect; he never had pansonal quarrel . _
Thorpe, though they were always political opponents; S.
did not see Mr. Sheriff Tholpe distil last quarter day; he
then met him on the stairs of the Ape:slily House: Shear
Thorpe took his hand and sail, be hoped all differences
would be forgiven and forgotten ; witness walked out with-
out making any reply ; he was asked to dine with the She-
riff. but declined; at one of the Corporation Assemblies,
the same Mr. Sutter moved a rote of censure on the Atter-
ney-Generel for Ireland; witness opposed it, and moved an
amendment, which was seconded; Sheriff Thorpe Was in the
Chair, and refused to put the amendment, decianag.that the
original question was carried; the amendment was seconded
by Mr. Fitzsimmons.
..
By Colonel BARRY.—The only reason be had for wish-
ing to be on the Grand Jury, was to assert a right, es mold
Member of the Corporation ; that was one of his reesoes ;
he never told the Sheriff that he knew more of the differences
than any one else; be was passing the shop of —, when
he was called In end told that he was not on the Grand Jury,
but that speech, that conciliation speech, which he made,
was the reason; Sheriff Cooper was not present, bat the
suggestion came from bise.—(Here some answers were
given, relative to a Mr. O'Meara, which we did not collect.)'
Witness considered Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to be a high party
man; -witness himself was of the King's
called the Christmas
party, but he now abided by the King's letter. There was
no other person of the same name In the Corporations wit-
ness took an active part in the election of the Lord Mayor,
Alderman Smith; who was a conciliation man • for that
reason he thought they were mending; he was told by Mr.
Aldermen Smith, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe left the witness off
the Jury in consequence of the speech he made.
By Sir JOII!•I STEWART.—it was no degradation to a
man of his standing In the Corporation, to assert his chins
to be pet on the Commission Grand Jury; Alderman Smith
, had a right to be Foreman of the Grand Jury, fir 1823; he
was left off, and witness, on inquiry, was telltit was in con-
sequence of Ali absence; on application, however, to Alder-
man Smith himself, witness discovered that Alderman Smith
was neither absent at the time, or was he served with a sem-
inoni:
The Committee here ordered a reference to the eits.ni-
nation of Mr. Sheriff Cooper' on the preceding relation,
to conversation between him and the witness, Mr.
Poole.
A conversation then took place respecting a contradic-
tion of a pert of Sheriff Cooper's evidence, which the wit-
mess supposed applied to him.
Sir O. HILL asked whether the witness persisted in
aaying th it what the Sheriff stat •ti was untrue ?—The
witness said that, so far as regarded his going to the He-
cinder's Court. It was untrue, -
Mr. It. SMITH observed that in fact there was no con-
tradiction ; and -he moved that the preceding questions
and answers, where there was an apparent contradiction,
should be expunged from the short-hand-writer's notes.—
This was agreed to.
By Sir G. HILL.—Did you, in fact, gain the Recorder's
Courtl7- I did not.,
..
Did, in the Recorder's Court, ask to 100 put on the
panel, because you Were afraid justice would met-be done
in OrMeara's case 2—How could I ask nay thief, when
I was out in the Court?—(A laugh.)
By Mr. BROWNIAM—You wished to be on the
?—I said to the Sheriff, .. I should be glad if you
if/ put my name on the panel."
'•Did 'you offer him any inducement for so doing ?
None.
Did you not say, that if he put your swim on, you
would not divide on the playhouse riot ?—Nevert and I
am glad that an opportunity is afforded meet' rept ingtv
1/40
this'charge, which was made before agaisat me the
Hon. Member for Armagh, as 1 see by the puma... 4 ad
tries of order.) I - -ir . P
' Lord MILTON. All personal allusiewillniMproper.
The witness should understand that all 041410111110 are put
tigh the Cbaliiitan. JO .R
* * 'Witness was ordered to withdraw. -." .
tterrilo,
. r. (I. BEINIPir. Tbe witness's conduct tads. most
unbecoming I have ever seen a man placed le the same
situation. .1 world suggest that. he be adaseeisked to sc-
ant the assembly he is addressing.
• - Mr. R. SM ITH. The witness's fault, lam sure, ie in-
voluntary. He is' not probably aware that be has tres-
passed against the forms of the House.
Mr. A lIHRCROMBY. I cannot visit upon the wit-
hiss's conduct se severe a term as that used by my Hon.
Pfldnd (Mr. Beitnetr)t •He was publicly, and by came'
alluded to by in Hon. Member of this House; and it is
nireascinabrei tbathe slionld be anxioutt, On the first op-
'portunity, to clear lalutself of the imputation which had
.en cast upon Ides. (Hear.) I am clearly of opinion
Ithat he :has a right to explain himself; but that
stuplenation must be free from personal allusions or re-

Mallen P. •
Mr. BENNET. , The whole manner of. the witness is
iftdectent. The Honwshoold not be brow-beaten in this
*hinter. Ile seems totally unmindful of the situation in
' If hitt' fon is placed:'
.' -sq ~.'NEWPORT. I must say, that if the witness's
ante er *as warm, so was the question which be was asked
warm. If Member's will rise a violepceof tone in address-
,itig)a.witnestyliey ionsti be prepared for some degree of
has; intim answer. (Hear.) Ido not justify the person-,
nifty of his slinsionei hat I say that Members are in some
meastirevespnasible fur the temper of the witness when
they put to him Wag= or.violentluestions.
)Ir FORMS'S! Its mast be Mere that man if be did
F.Oreilly %earthly tlitite question which was put • ter biro.
. 'del reonceito 'Mgt the Mode in which he was called
h deti teat most'dho4deriy. The witness was under the,
,projectiou of this liclitsts.. .
r„Mr.,.fAlderman WAYP.—I ask if great allowance
must nor, be made for a, man whose character has been
impeached as this .witness's has iu this House.—(Hear.)
4 irat lodiprOadt myself at reading that part of the speech
Hof the Hon-Member for Armagh when this illusion was
made: • Ana his'erWly Mint* too, even supposing he was
lifilty Of it *ad—stylist?' soliciting to' be mit upon the
Grind slttry ? why,. this happened every day in the City
of,Lqmlisa—ia loud laqgh). In the City of London, no-
thigia.xen, mpri compfon, than for persons to apply to
.bovetheir,Aamos oss use Grand Jury;, so that, with all
yst.ocorupairo of Jaeland, it appeared that this practic,
was as prevalent is England as it was there.
• JtSir RSHAW—AIeut racoon myself to say,t bat the wit.
-fess bid noriatentiort of :flog offence to ibis Hesse, or to
any Member of it. • og Morsel, called upon to ear
'ylaatu'hie continerg sequence of tertnethidg that ocr
cared hi this IlloWde: e requested oL me to pot such
'. . to hint .would leer him to the desired expla-
nation. I did so.; and Ism sore the Committee will see
that it was more to gratify his own feelings than with a
view of giving offences. that be made the allusion to the
speech of the Houotwable Member.—(Hear.)
The witness war then Called in.
The CHAI R3IAN; addressing him, said—" Witness,
in whatever answers you may give to questions asked of
you, you must not forget the respect due to this House.
You are to consider the questions, wherever they come
from, as proposed:by me, my declining to repeat them
to you being entirely an accommodation towards me by
the Committee. You 'Must therefore be careful to avoid
all reflections upon, or allusions to. those who pat them;
but, whilst I thus warn you, 1 wish you to understand
that it is not my intention, nor is it the wish of this
House, that you should be restricted from going into any
explanation which you deem necessary to par own jut
tification.—(Hear, hear.)
The witness, in reply to the admonition, promised to
adhere strictly to the terms of it, and disclaimed all in-
tention of showing any disrespect for the Honig.

-y -~.--=- = ~

Now explaiii
upon, any h
without al'
Armagh.

Ili*. at elln-
OATer..—lt
le 'peach of

. -That will be irregular.
Sir.ABERCROMBY.—The difficulty may be got over.
by this witness's saying, that he has sohrewhere read that
such and such charges hare been made against him.

Sir GEORGE HILL—I object to this mode of exami-
nation. It Is irrelevant. I can see no object in it, but to
extract from the witness a commentary upon the speech of a
Member of this House, which has nothiog to do with our
present enquiry.
/dr. S. BOURNE.—There cannot be a doubt but that if
any thief) injurious has been said of the witness he ha* a
right to explain.
The CHAIRMAN.,—Go on with your explanation.
Queition repested.—Did you ever otter, if you were put
upon the Grand Jury, not to divide upon the Play-house
riot?—never. I speak not et those who made the sensa-
tion, bat it is as gross a Abel upon my reputation as ever
was uttered. I declare solemnly I never made any such
proposition to Sheriff Thorpe or any one else.
By Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS.—Whom do you mean by
conciliation seen 2—Those who adhered to the recommenda-
tion in his Majesty's letter.
:a answer toe MEMBER.—Sir W. Smith was Foremen
of the Greed Jury of January, IS2B. Witness thinks he had
a right tq be Foreman, because he had been Sheriff. The
Ex-Sheriff is generally Foreman the succeeding year.
By Mr. PLUNKETT.—The Ex-Sheriff is not compelled
to serve, but it is a compliment paid him.
By Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS.—Witness cannot say upon
bow many Commission Juries he has served. These Juries
were composed or a different class of persons before Janu-
ary, 1823, from those that have served there since. The
Jurors before that time were more respectable. lie has
seen four or five respectable Roman Catholic Citizens of
Dublin on these Juries ; the Jurors since January, 1523,
were less respectable, and more party men; they were
Orangemen,or what are called Ascendancy Men.—(A laugh.)
—lf the panels of the different years were put into his hands,
he could state the individuals who had been lately introduced
upon the Juries, all of whom were men in obscure condilons
at life.

The panels were here put into the witness's hands, who
withdrew to examine them.
Mr. WETHERELL Made some objection to the witness's
being *Rowed to canvass the characters of the individuals
who composed the Grand Jury.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS replied that respectability in life be-
ing An Indispensable qualification of a Grand Juror, the
question as to the claims of these individuals in that re-
spect, was closely connected with the conduct of the Sheriff
who had chosen them.
The witness upon his return gave his opinion an to the
rank end respectability of the ineividnals of the Grand Jury.
By Mr. J. WILLIAMS.—Do you find amongst the names
any Roman Catholics?—Not a single one ; on the contrary
I might to state that ont of these men of the name of Samuel,
came to Sheriff Thorpe's meetlog with a placard in his hat,
on which were written the words " Glorious and immortal
inemory."--(li ea r.)
is any one on that panel whom you don't know 7—l be-
Rave not.
is there what you eel a " conciliation" man amongst
them 7- I think Juhn Sharpe. and James Mattliewson ere
rather moderate men.—(A laugh)
But there is no Roman Catholic'—Not one.
(tied they to be on Juries beforel-1 have often sat with
thew Nr Tlx or anon piers before J y, 111971.--(Hear.)
state whether the reek of the persons in that paper is
eqito Woe with whom you sat in the three COMMUSIOR
J tido 101111,17-By no means.
In what respeet do they differ?'—lnfinitely less respecta-
ble ; en some former Grand Juries, amongst others, there
was a Romeo Catholic Oentlegrao, who was said to be
worth 120,0041 f.
By eft NICHOLAS COLIIIMIST.—I wish toast jou,
whether because one of these Jurors drank the "Glorious
and immortal memory," and that others of them entertaioed
politiesl feelings yea think their bias would lead them to
desert their duty on their oaths 7—That is a question which
I will hot undertake to *lnnen—(Neer.)
MEMBER.--DS yen think the Sheriff would have
flaiiisted spoil their sentiments, so as to calculate epon
their Correnreireg la any pitrtfirelav views of Mat
Ilie.PlEELlose to orftr. He sheerved that if this mode
of examination was followed srp, the effect would be to
bring discredit upon GrandJerles altogether. Every Mem-
ber-in the Howe could mower the Teen lee, which wee pertly
one of in feteeee. as well es the witness.
Sir N.•COLTHURST and Sir G. HILL defended the
question.
•Mr. J. WII.LIAMS said the question was, whether a
particular set of persons had not been selected by the She-
riff, did it wks proper to every inquiry by which that infor-
madeo might be obtained. •
Mr. PEEL explained.
Mr. WETHERELL thought the question an Improper
one.
The witness was now asked in and asked by Mr. SCAR-
LEIT, whether-the party feeling in Subtle was not ex-
tremely warm!—He answered in the affirmative, and pro-
ceeded to state the differences that existed among Catholics
and Protestants in Dublin. He said the sentiments rod
party feelings of the Grand Jury wanes° well hewn that
Mr. Sheriff Thorpe must babe been ewers of these feeiings,
and witness believed he lied seieeted the Jury on that
account.
In answer so a question from Mr. GRATTAN, the wit-
ness mentioned the toast given by Mr. Darley, the bead
officer of pollee.
Mr. IPPS asked if it were possible for twenty men to
be on any Grand Jury in Dublin without being actuated by
strong party feelings.
A Member objected to the question, because it was re-
qatrieg the witness to give mere matter of opinion, and
be believed if proper pains had been taken, • Jury might be
selected, who would conscientiously discharge their duty
whatever their feelings might he.
No answer was given to the question.
• The witness being *skint if there had been any Orange-
men on the hwy, answered that be did not know of his own
knowilidge ; bet judging oy report, he believed there were
several.
He Wei aimed by Sir GEORGE HILL, whether there
*ere not perused in Distills of the same political sentiments
'ail& own, sod equally inclined to act impartially ? He
soblerered that there were, and men, too, who fek the utmost
loyalty towards their Sovereign. Witness was an officer in
Ik-Robert Shaw% corps of Yeomanry.
The wittness, rejthdreir. and the Chairman desired that Mr.
Troy might be ailed in. '
Witness said he was a sift Manufacturer in Dublin.
Colonel BARRY said he wished to call evidence to eon-
wallet what the last witness had said ; but he made en mo-
dal to that effect.
• James' Tray, examined by Mr.' WIL LI A.1184--4re rubs
in Dublin .when Hills were presented to thitinted
,and bad . beep a witness before the Jury the day the
Hills wersignoted. It was in the morning. Ile was
introduced elope, no other witness being present. Ile
was examined' before the Grand Jury. He made a state-
ment relative td s transaction that occurred in a tavern
in Essex-street, Dublin, the night of the riot at the thea-
tre. It concerned a number of persons that were indict-
ed. (Here the witness stated the names of Forbes,
Erownlow, Graham, and others.) Ile hail seen at the
tavern some of these persons on the night the alleged
riot took place.
Here the witness was ordered to withdraw, and the
Attorney-General objected to this mode of examinetion.
Colonel BARRY said he saw it would come to this,
and he Waiglad of it; for the more the business was
inquired into, the more truth would come out.
sir. WYNN doubted the propriety of examining re-
lative to the riot and the conduct of the Grand Jury,
when the only business of the Committee should be
rected to the conduct of the Sheriff.

Mr. A BERUKOSI BY thought this infinity was proper.
Mr. BROUGHAM contended that mach of the con-
duct of the Sheriff depended on the conduct of the Jury
selected by him.
Mr. SCARLETT thonzht this mode of infinity was
strictly proper, as tending to show what resulted frow
the conduct of the Sheriff.

• •
TIE
oostiog Mr. Suttee from ilitiatililiSON-11
t .the middle of Noirembild Acia to. or 114oMion
Sheriff norm the Imooor leaposidfile toy me,
very hard mini to play, sod the Koh. itlemher for
for that Jury, or words to
quarrel wkii Mr. filierilt Xord MUMON.:2II