Is there any other occasion that has come within your knowledge, in which there has been upon the grand jury a majority of the common-council-men sworn?-None.

Referring to the panel of 1821, on which there was a majority of the common-council, will you inform the committee, whether that was, or was not, the occasion of the king's visit to Ireland?-It was.

Was there any business transacted by that grand jury?—The court adjourned in half an hour, all business being then done.

By Dr. Phillimore.-At what time of the year did the present sheriff enter into his office? -At Michaelmas.

By Mr. S. Rice.-What was the smallest number which you ever recollect to have been called on the panel before the twenty-three were sworn ?-Fifty-seven.

By Mr. Scarlett.-Is the panel delivered to you by the sheriff or the under-sheriff?-Invariably, by one of the high sheriffs; they are usually both in court, but one hands the panel to me from his box to where I sit under the judge.

That was the case on the last occasion, was not it? Yes, it was.

By Colonel Barry.-Is it not usual in the commission succeeding an election of commoncouncil-men, to pay them the compliment of putting them on the grand jury; and are there not more common council-men put upon that than on common occasions?-My answer, then, is to apply to a jury every third year; there was a new common-council I believe, in Dec. 1822, from 1816 to 1819, and from 1819 to 1822. I do not belong to the corporation; I am not an officer of that board.

Will you refer, by going three years back, to Dec. 1819, and compare the one of Jan. 1820? -There was no commission in January 1820; the commission was in February. I have not the panel of February, but I have the grand jury.

Is that the only panel you have not?-It is the only panel within this range that I have not; but I have the crown-book, in which the grand jury are entered from the panel. The panel has not been looked upon as a record when the indictments are found, and the caption added to those indictments; I, however, preserve them.

That one which you asked for is the only one which is missing?-It is.

By Sir J. Mackintosh.-Have you the means of answering that question, in reference to former years, before the year 1819?—I have not; my search went back, commencing with 1819; but I have the sworn grand jury alluded to, in February, 1820.

Can you account to the committee, why that particular panel should be missing?—I can

not.

How many common-council-men were there upon that grand jury in February 1820-One only.

Have you not stated, that you have in your
VOL. IX.

Then how can it be equivalent to the panel? I believe I have answered, as far as the grand jury go; if not, I would wish to state that.

Can you state the names of the grand jury in January 1823, and how they were called and sworn?-[Here the witness read over from the crown-books the panel of January 1823.]

Can you state, which of those individuals were members of the common-council?—I can do it in a very short time if it is desired.[The witness was directed to add this to his return.]

What is the smallest number to be found on the panels you have brought with you be fore the grand panel of October 1822?—Sixty

one.

By Mr. Brownlow.-When did sheriff Thorpe make his first return to you?-In Oct. sitting 1822.

What number did that panel consist of?→→ Sixty-two.

The next return he made to you was the great panel of Jan. 1823?-It was.

How many did that consist of?-Fifty. Are the panels in all cases signed by both sheriffs?—They are.

Was the panel in 1823 signed by sheriff Cooper and sheriff Thorpe ?-It was; in law we consider them but one.

Is it not a matter of notoriety, that after the renewal of the common-council, the panel at the succeeding great commission consists of a greater proportion of common-council-men than the panels preceding the renewal of the common-council?-I never heard of that before this night.

By Sir J. Mackintosh.-What was the number of common-council-men who were sworn on the grand jury of the commissions in January 1820?-One only.

Was that the panel immediately after the renewal of the common-council?—It was, as I understood.

By Mr. T. Ellis.-Have you any means of ascertaining how many persons, sworn on the grand jury in 1823, were new common-council-men?-No otherwise than by reckoning them by the almanack, which marks them.

Have you referred to that almanack?—I have not it in the house. [The witness was directed to add the number on the panel of January, 1823, who were new common-council-men.]

Do you know whether all the common-coun-
C

cil-men who attended on that occasion in court, had attended on previous occasions at one or other times before, or whether any of them attended for the first time on the grand jury at that time ?—I have not made any such examination. [The witness was directed to add this to his return.]

By Mr. S. Rice. Is the year in which the triennial election of members of the commoncouncil takes place, a matter of notoriety in Dublin?-Oh, certainly.

Did it take place in December last ?-Shortly previous to December they enter upon their office.

Was there a commission of Oyer and Terminer in Dublin, in Oct. 1822?-There

was.

Are you aware who made out, copied, and returned the lists of the grand juries and petit juries for such commission?-I received the juries from the sheriff; I know nothing of the making of them out. I have no connexion whatever with the Sheriff's-office; the first knowledge I have of the panels coming from the sheriff, is his handing them to me in court. By Mr. Bright.-Do you know, whether, in point of fact, those members of the commoncouncil who were last elected, were upon the last panel ?-I do not know at present.

By Colonel Barry.-If there is a failure in attendance of grand jurors, it is usual in the court to impose a fine, is it not?-It is usual to call the panel on fines, and frequently to impose fines.

Was there not a very strong expectation of business of very great importance in the different courts, to occur at this commission?-I do not recollect any thing of importance, but the affair at the theatre.

Was not there an indictment of the conspirators, the ribbon-men ?-I believe that was in the county of Dublin, therefore my first answer should be with reference to the city of Dublin; the business for the county and city of Dublin is done in the same court, and going on by the same judges.

By Mr. Hume.-Have you made diligent search for the panel of 1820, which is now missing?-I have.

Is that the panel which you stated was missing in consequence of the death of your clerk? My clerk died shortly after that period; I do not know that it was in consequence of his death that the panel was missing.

By Mr. Plunkett.--When did you first miss that panel; when did you first discover it was not among the others?-They were never put together; they are usually rolled round the papers of the commission to which they belong. That panel I missed on Friday last.

Have the sheriffs of Dublin returned any commission grand panel to you, since January 1823? They have.

How many did that grand panel consist of? The panel of Feb. 1823, consisted of eightynine.

When did you first search for the panel of Jan. 1820?-On the day on which I could not find it.

When did you first see that panel ?—I think I did not see it since the sitting of the commission; it is usually rolled round the papers of the commission, and they are put up in the press.

By Mr. Brownlow. -Where are those panels kept?-The papers of old date are preserved in the office, in a room in Green-street, attached to the court. The papers of more recent date are preserved in an apartment in my house, where the business is executed.

Are you to be understood to state, as the probable reason of that panel of 1820 being missing, the death of your clerk?-The panel might not be forthcoming, if he was living; but he would have been the most likely person, I think, to have found it.

By Mr. F. Lewis.-Are you able to state how many common-council-men appear in the panel returned in Feb. 1823, consisting of 89? I can, by reference to the document. [The witness was directed to add this to his return.]

With such important business before the court, would the chance of a person not attending being fined, be considerably greater?—I should suppose so.

Would not that, in your opinion, account for a greater attendance of grand jurors appearing consecutively than upon another occasion? The jury have been frequently called on fines, and not answered in the same consecutive order, I never knew an instance of their so answering before.

By Mr. S. Rice.-Are you acquainted with the situation in life of Joseph Henry Moore, who appears to have been one of that grand jury?—I cannot say that I am.

Do you know that he acts as agent to the Atlas Insurance office, in Dublin?-I have heard that he does?—I do not know.

By Mr. Bright. You are not aware of any circumstance in that panel differing from the complexion of the other panels?-No.

Are you aware of any irregular or unusual practice in respect of the formation of the panel of Jan. 1823, except as far as concerns the numbers put upon it ?—None.

By Mr. Denman.-Have you any means of recovering that panel in Feb. 1820, from any other source?—I should suppose in the Sheriffsoffice only. The panel was made out there, and most probably they may preserve a copy

of it.

Can you obtain, yourself, the panel of Jan. 1817? If I were in Dublin, I dare say I could.

Could you by sending for it?—I dare say it will be forthcoming.

Are there the means of seeing how many common-council-men were upon that panel, in the same way as it may be ascertained with respect to the panel of Jan. 1823, and of Jan. 1814? Of course.-[The witness was directed to obtain those two panels.]

By Mr. R. Martin.-Are you not acting clerk of the crown for some counties in Ireland? -I execute the office of clerk of the crown on the home circuit, consisting of Meath, West Meath, King's County, Queen's County, Kildare and Carlow.

In this office, has it occurred to you to observe that a grand jury has been formed in going over 26 of the names upon the panel? I think not.

Is it not an object with gentlemen in the counties, and conceived desirable by them, to appear at the assizes, and be upon the grand jury?-I have always observed a great desire on the part of the gentlemen, to attend.

And you are pretty certain that a grand jury was not obtained without calling for more names than 26?—I have no doubt of that.

By Mr. Brownlow.-Having stated that there was nothing else unusual on the face of the panel of Jan. 1823, except the small number of names put upon that panel, was it not unusual for 23 out of 26 persons to answer consecutively?-I thought I answered beyond the observations I have already made; namely, the smallness of the number on the panel; the extent of the number of common-council-men sworn on the grand jury, and the 13 commoncouncil-men that were not sworn, to be added to that.

Then, in point of fact, there were three unusual circumstances attending that panel ?-So it occurred to me.

Was there any thing unusual or irregular in the mode of composing the panel before the parties were sworn in Jan. 1823, except the number upon it?—It was unusual to have so small a number as 50 upon the panel; to have 14 common-council-men sworn on the grand jury; to have more than one-half of the whole panel common-council-men.

By Mr. Ellis.-You have stated Mr. Moore to be on that grand jury?-Joseph Henry Moore, of Bachelor's walk; I see he is. He also appears to be a common-council-man.

Can you say whether he was not a member of the former common-council?-Yes, he was. Are not Mr. Moore and his family old and settled inhabitants of Dublin?-I do not know any thing of him; he appears to be a very respectable gentleman.

Was Mr. M'Guller, one of the persons indicted, a clerk to Mr. Moore ?--I do not know. The persons indicted were Forbes, two Grahams, two Handwichs, and Brownlow.

By Mr. S. Rice.-Can you state, in reference to the panel of Jan. 1823, whether there are the names of any Roman Catholics upon that panel?-I believe there are not.

You can state, of your knowledge, whether, on former panels of commission grand juries, there were Catholics?-It is really a matter Í never inquired into.

Have you ever known Roman Catholics serve on the commission grand juries for Dublin?—I have not a sufficient knowledge of the persuasion those gentlemen are of, to answer the question.

By Mr. Plunkett.-Do you recollect having at any time, and when, sent the six panels for the year 1822, to any person?-On the evening of the 1st of Jan. 1823, I sent the six panels to the house of the attorney-general for Ireland.

Was that the evening of the first day that the grand jury sat?—It was; the bills of the indictment were preferred on Wednesday the 1st of Jan. about two o'clock in the day; the grand jury remained together until towards five in the afternoon, the bills were not then disposed of; they were sent up the following day, and upon the evening of the 1st of Jan. I sent the panels in consequence of a message I received.

Were you sent by the court to the grand jury, in the evening of that first day?—I was; in consequence of the length of time that the bills were before the grand jury, the judges ordered me to go up to the grand jury, and ask them whether they were likely to dispose of the bills that were before them; and I accordingly went up.

Is it usual for the court to do so?—It is not.

Have you ever known it done on any other occasion. I cannot recollect that I do know of it. In general, the grand jury send down the bills pretty speedily after they are preferred; but it may have occurred; I cannot possibly charge my memory with it.

Had the court any business before them, to occupy them when they sent you up?—No; the indictments alluded to were the first, and I think the only ones preferred.

Have you any means of knowing the number of witnesses they examined?—I suppose a great number; they were sent down to the grand jury; how many they examined I cannot state.

How many were sworn?-I cannot charge my memory with it.

There were a great number sworn ?—There were.

If the grand jury were to examine all those, would it strike you as any thing unusual the time they occupied ?-It occurs to me they might have examined them all; but so much depends upon what each witness might have to say, I cannot say.

By Sir J. Newport.-What do you suppose to have been the reason that the court sent yon up to the grand jury?—I should suppose it arose from a feeling in the court that the grand jury had had time to dispose of the bills.

What was the length of time that they were occupied, from the time that the bills went up

till you went up by the desire of the court ?Three hours.

Were there not 27 witnesses?-No; there were not so many sworn the first day.

How many were sworn the first day?-I think not more than twelve. A great number were sworn the second day.

What answer did you get from the grand jury when you went ?-That they had not disposed of them.

Did you report that to the court?—Oh, certainly.

Did the court make any observation ?—I declare I am not aware of any.

Who were the judges?-Judge Moore and Judge Burton.

At what hour was it that you made your report?-I returned immediately; I think about five o'clock; the court then adjourned.

By Mr. Brougham.-Were you in your present office in the year 1811?-I was.

Did you know of a bill or bills having been preferred before the grand jury, by sir Edward Littlehales, on a charge of bribery?-There were two bills preferred at his suit.

Do you know what became of those bills?— They were ignored.

Do you know of any further proceedings that were had upon these charges ?-I have seen an attested copy of an er officio information, filed by the then king's attorney-general upon the same charges by Mr. Saurin, immediately after these bills were ignored, the following term.

Were any proceedings had upon that information?-It appears that there was judgment against the defendant for want of a plea.

Judgment went against him on the ex officio information after the bill had been ignored?Yes.

In the courts of Dublin are there not two kinds of grand juries; term grand juries, and commission grand juries?—There are; and in Dublin a third, namely, the sessions.

But in no other part of Ireland are there three?-None that I know of.

The term, the commission, and the sessions, are peculiar to Dublin?-Just so.

In other counties of Ireland, there are the term and the commission ?-There are the assizes and the quarter sessions.

Will you state what the sort of bills are that are preferred before the commission grand juries?—All felonies, all crimes in short within the city of Dublin that are preferred to any grand jury, except what are tried at the quarter sessions; in short, they appear to me to do the criminal assizes part.

Felonies and misdemeanors ?-Yes; all the money transactions are taken from them.

But the commission grand juries deal with the charges of felony and misdemeanor?-Yes. What do the session grand jury deal with ? -They dispose of minor offences.

Minor criminal charges?-Yes, precisely; namely, assaults and petty larcenies, and other

misdemeanors in short.

But matters of a criminal description ?—Yes, matters of a criminal description; they also, I understand, present some money to their officers, and for certain local purposes; that is the session grand jury.

So that the sessions grand jury not only deals with petty offences of a criminal nature, but also with presentments respecting money to their officers ?-So I have understood.

What do the term grand juries deal with PThe term grand jury present all money, with reference to Dublin, that is usually presented at the assizes.

I do not understand this: it is all Irish. Will you explain what you mean by the grand jury presenting money; what they do?---They present money to be raised off the city of Dublin for all public purposes.

To be raised on whom?-On the citizens. In what way is it raised upon them ?-Under those presentments.

Are they assessed according to their property?-The assessment takes place, I believe, with reference to ministers money, as it is called. [a laugh.]

We are getting deeper and deeper into ignorance. For what purposes is the money raised, which the term grand juries present?—A variety of purposes.

Will you name one or two?-For the gaols; all public works.

Roads?—Yes.

And bridges?-All within the city of Dublin; in short, it is a grand jury cess, as it is called. Lighting and paving?-No.

Salaries to officers ?-[The witness was directed to withdraw.]

Mr. Dawson rose to order. He said that they had before them the case of the conduct of juries upon criminal matters. The learned member was going into an examination with respect to their conduct as to civil concerns-a course which he submitted was irregular.

Mr. Brougham said, he had had his misgivings that there was something in the state of Ireland, and in every thing connected with the administration of justice in that country, which would make it a very ticklish thing to ask a single question about it during the inquiry in which the House was engaged. He was not, therefore, much surprised at the interruption which had just been made. The hon. member who had made the objection would only allow the House a farthing candle glimmering before their eyes, instead of a torch, to light them through what he foresaw would be neither a short nor a simple examination. Now that the House had, God be thanked, for the first time, entered into an investigation of the gross and flagrant abuse of the administration of

justice in Ireland, it was absolutely and indispensably necessary that every circumstance that could throw light on that investigation should be brought forward. It was impossible that the House could proceed one step, unless they knew what they were really about, and when he, for the first time, had heard of commission and of session grand juries, and a variety of other names wholly new to English members, what was more natural than to ask for distinct explanations, in order to enable them to put further questions? With that view he had put a question to the witness. How far corruption might have lurked in the answer, he could not say, because the answer had not been given.

Sir G. Hill defended Mr. Dawson, from the sarcasms of Mr. Brougham, and said that he was most anxious for the fullest scope of inquiry.

Mr. Brougham complimented the hon. baronet on his candour and manliness in declaring for an open and fair inquiry. He denied having dealt out any sarcasms. He had no cause for doing so.

[The witness was again called in.]

By Mr. Brougham.-You say the term grand juries present money, that is to say, order money to be levied for bridges, roads, and other public works; do they order money to be levied for any other expenses?-The gaols, penitentiaries, all those public buildings; in short, all monies presented off the city of Dublin, that is not presented by the sessions grand jury, is presented by them; all public expenses.

Do the term grand jury and the sessions grand jury, taken together, levy money for the payment of the salaries of different officers?They do.

What sort of officers ?-Clerks of the crown. Any other officers?-Clerks of the peace; they are called the town clerks in Dublin; for them a very considerable levy takes place, for a great deal of business is done in the Sheriff'scourt; all gaolers and keepers of prisons, sheriff's fees; all demands of that sort.

Any other officers ?-There are other minor officers belonging to the court, the officers of the court of King's-bench, and the officers of the Commission court.

All those they levy the money for ?-They do.

Are those, or any of those, officers appointed by the corporation of Dublin?-The town clerk is of their appointment, I apprehend.

The gaoler?-Yes, and the gaoler. Any of the others?-The sub-sheriff. Do any other officers appointed by the corporation receive salaries levied by the grand

jury?—I cannot charge my memory at present with any other officers; their presentments are very considerable.

Do you recollect any other purposes for which monies are levied by the term grand cannot charge my memory with any others. jury, besides those you have mentioned?--I

The expenses of the prison, and clothing and providing for the convicts?-Of course, mentioned the gaol and the penitentiaries.

Who gives the contracts for the clothing of those?—The grand jury appoint. I apprehend, the expense of bread and milk, and all those matters for the gaol, is very considerable. hend the grand jury. Who give the contracts for those?-I appre

By open bidding?-I do not know. You do not understand that word ?—I understand it perfectly.

Open bidding is when an advertisement is made, and any person tenders, and that person is accepted who offers on the cheapest terms. You do not know whether it is done by open bidding or by close contract ?--I do not.

Who are the present sheriffs?-The sheriffs elect, are Mr. Arthur Perrin and Mr. Samuel

Lampray.

Mr. Sheriff Thorpe and Mr. Sheriff Cooper are in office at present?—Yes.

When were the sheriffs elect appointed to succeed the others ?-Within this month; they come into office in September.

Do you happen to know whether they were on the grand jury which ignored the bills against Handwich and Graham?-They were; both of them.

Do you know any thing respecting the details for the expenses that are submitted to the consideration of the grand juries in the city of Dublin?-I am not acquainted with the entire detail; I have looked over the presentments, as they have been printed.

Respecting contracts, have you never heard that there is a public competition for supplying the prisons with bread, and meat and clothes, and so on?—I declare I do not know; it may be so, but I am not aware of it.

Are you aware, that any person contributing to the payment of the grand jury levies, is able by law to traverse any presentment of a public kind that he thinks unfair and unjust? -I apprehend that all presentments are traversable.

By Mr. Dawson-Do not you conceive, from your knowledge of the citizens of Dublin, that if any unfair presentment was passed by the grand jury of the city of Dublin, that would be instantly traversed ?—I should rather hope it would.

If any improper practices are said to exist in the levying of money upon the citizens of Dublin, do not you think that the citizens are more to blame than the grand jury, if such practices exist, for not traversing the presentments?-Very likely; I may be erroneous, but I would not come to that conclusion. [The witness was directed to withdraw.]