under the necessity of disposing of twice transactions in which they had no direct the quantity of produce compared with concern; namely, that of considering the the value of the property, when those conduct of foreign sovereigns, in which contracts were entered into. He asked they had, comparatively speaking, no for justice being done to the public right to judge, and whose conduct they debtors-he asked for justice being done had no power to control; while the to the suffering people of this country-government neglected redressing those he asked for justice in redress of griev- grievances which existed in our own ances, such as those which even Buona- country, and which it was in their power parte, in the plenitude of his power, to remedy. It was still his intention to would not have allowed to exist. Unless submit various motions upon the subject those grievances were speedily redressed, of those grievances, whenever the time we might expect that the country would arrived when the result was likely to be be overwhelmed in ruin, or, at least, in- more advantageous and beneficial than volved in convulsions which no man at the present moment. He could not, would desire to see, and which, perhaps, however, lose that opportunity of protestnone have apprehended as likely to arise ing against leaving unredressed and unfrom such a cause. He called upon their considered by parliament, the state of the lordships to arrest the progress of such currency which imposed such tremendous consequences. But such was the state grievances upon the country. The petiof affairs, that those grievances met them tion which had given rise to these obin every step. Should we ever again servations, he viewed as the petition, have occasion to revert to the question of not of one individual, but of every inpeace or war, he should ask their lord- dividual in the realm, from the highest ships, how they could be prepared to to the lowest; because every one was go to war, even if menaced by some dan- concerned in the benefits to be deger or distress, under such a state of cir-rived from the just principle of an equitcumstances? The sinews of war were money; and he would ask, whether they could expect to raise sufficient funds, if the landed proprietors of the country were so impoverished? He trusted, however, that the sinews of war did not merely consist in money, but in that unconquer able will and courage, which would never submit nor yield. Even in that case, he would ask, how they could expect that unconquerable will and courage to be evinced by a population oppressed as it was by the measures of government? No NEGOTIATIONS RELATIVE TO SPAIN wonder that the people were distressed, KING'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.]— discontented, and 'disaffected, by the con- Mr. Secretary Canning reported His Matinuance of evils in a system of govern-jesty's Answer to the Address of the ment which tended to render them House, as follows: desperate. Unless the government were "I thank you for this loyal and dutiful disposed to sink the country into a state Address: I receive with satisfaction the far more base and abject than it had ever expression of your gratitude for my before exhibited at any time of its history, earnest endeavours to preserve the peace he had no doubt their lordships would find of Europe, and the assurances of your it necessary soon to redress those griev-ready and affectionate support in any ances, in order to restore the ancient measures which I might find it necessary energy of its population. He should to adopt for maintaining the honour of think it his duty to bring forward some my Crown, and the interest of my motion upon this subject of equitable ad- people." justment; and he took that opportunity of thus stating his sentiments, however ineffectual his exertions might be, or whatever little success might attend them. The attention of parliament had been unfortunately occupied with a review of able adjustment. It was therefore his intention, upon those general principles, to move, upon some future day, that this petition be taken into consideration; but, at present, he should content himself with moving that it be laid upon the table. The motion was agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. SHERIFF OF DUBLIN-INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT.]-Mr. Spring Rice having moved, "That Dillon, M.Namara, and Terence O'Reilly, attornies of Dublin, do attend this House on the 9th of May," Mr. Plunkett said, he would avail himself of the opportunity which the motion afforded him of stating to the House a fact of considerable importance, not only to himself but to the question which had engaged, and was likely to engage still further, the attention of the House. It was in the recollection of the House, that both in the speech and motion of the hon. member for Armagh, it was charged against him, that in having filed an ex officio information, after bills of indictment had been ignored by the grand jury, he had acted, in his office of attorney-general for Ireland, without precedent, and had introduced into the administration of the law a practice of which no instance had occurred since the Norman conquest. He had upon that occasion suggested, that from the authority of the Court of King's-bench, in cases which he cited, a fair analogy was to be traced, and sufficient to justify his proceeding. He had remarked that it was unfair, because he could not produce the precedents for the reasons he then stated, to suppose they did not exist. He had, however, since received a letter from a Mr. Foley, an attorney of Ireland, a gentleman whom he had not the honour of knowing, in which that gentleman stated, that seeing the reports of those debates in parliament, in which this subject had been mentioned, and the manner in which the argument had been used, he was induced, from a sense of justice to inform him that he believed a case took place in Ireland twelve years ago, in which an ex officio information had been filed by the attorney-general, after bills of indictment for the same offence had been ignored by the grand jury. He had replied to that letter, by thanking Mr. Foley, and requesting him to inquire into the subject. Mr. Foley had done so; and the following were the particulars. In October, 1811, a bill of indictment was preferred against a person of the name of Leach, for writing a letter to sir Edward Littlehales, soliciting the appointment of the place of Barrack-master. The bill contained three counts: the first was for sending a letter, proposing to give a bribe; the second, for offering money by way of bribe; and the third, for offering securities for money by way of bribe. That bill was ignored by the grand jury. The court of King's-bench, impressed * Sce Vol. 8, p. 964. with the disproportion between the evidence and the finding, ordered a second bill to be preferred. That second bill was also ignored; and, in the November following, an ex-officio information was filed by his predecessor in office. He held then in his hands attested copies of the indictment, and of the ex-officio information that followed the ignoring. And yet Mr. Saurin, the attorney-general of that day, was never called upon to explain the grounds upon which he took that course. He (Mr. P.) attributed his not having heard of that precedent, during the recent discussions, to the fact of its having escaped the recollection of his predecessor. He did not feel it his duty to lay these documents on the table of the House; because he would not seem to inculpate the character of the hon. gentleman who had preceded him; but he owed it to his own character to state, that, twelve years ago, the same thing had been done for which he was censured, and in which he was charged with having acted unprecedentedly. The conduct of the attorney-general at that period had never been impeached, nor had any doubt been entertained of its justice. He felt that this bore most strongly upon his own case, because that hon. gentleman had supposed he was only acting in the course of his duty. Mr. Denman asked if any judgment had been passed in the case mentioned by the right hon. gentleman. Mr. Plunkett replied, that judgment had been signed for want of a plea; but, in consequence of the contrition expressed by the defendant, and of his having lost a valuable appointment, no further punishment had been visited upon him. Mr. Abercromby said, he had heard this statement with the greatest astonishment. They had been told, from the beginning to the end of this business, that the imputation upon the character of the attorney-general for Ireland was that of having acted without precedent. The hon. member for Armagh had concluded his speech by saying, that his conduct had been unprecedented, contrary to the practice of the court, and not congenial to the spirit of the British constitution. If the fact which had been just stated had then been known, it would have made the greatest possible difference in the case. He wished, however, to ask one question, and, if it should be answered in the affirmative, the House would see the bearing it must have upon this case. He wished to know, whether the person who was now the crown solicitor had held that office in 1811. There were two persons to whom, ex necessitate rei, all the particulars of this case must have been known -the then attorney-general and crown solicitor. He would beg the House to consider how the attorney-general for Ireland had been served in the discharge of his duty, when no communication of this fact had been made to him. If Mr. Saurin did not think fit to communicate the fact to his right hon. friend, that was a matter of courtesy of which he (Mr. A.) had no right to complain; but that the crown solicitor should not have informed his right hon. friend of it, seemed some thing more than accident. It was for the purpose of impressing upon the House the situation in which his right hon. friend was placed the inconveniences of which he believed, were shared by the lord lieutenant himself-that he called their attention to this singular conduct of the crown solicitor. Mr. Plunkett said, he was bound in justice to the crown solicitor to state, that two gentlemen of the same name had held that office. They were father and The father was dead, and the son must have been a very young man at the period to which he had alluded. son. Sir J. Newport said, that however young that person might be, he had, at the period mentioned, acted for his father; and if he was then competent to do so, he must be well acquainted with the facts of the case. Mr. Grattan said, that as the gentleman alluded to had acted for his father during a series of years, he thought it advisable, that he should attend at the bar of the House. [Loud cries of "Mr. Saurin also."] Sir N. Colthurst thought it very possible that the crown solicitor might have forgotten the matter, as the right hon. gentleman himself had done so. Colonel Barry said, he would move that the name of Mr. W. Kemmis the crown solicitor, be added to those of the witnesses already moved for. Mr. Calcraft moved, that Mr. Saurin's name should also be added. Mr. Goulburn thought it would be a most inconvenient course to enlarge the examination of witnesses, unless in the course of the proceeding, circumstances should arise of a nature to call for it. Mr. Calcraft consented to withdraw his motion for the attendance of Mr. Saurin. It was certainly difficult at present to state to what extent the examination would proceed. Mr. Secretary Peel wished the House to suspend its judgment with respect to Mr. Kemmis. The fact which had been stated by his right hon. friend was, undoubtedly, very important; but still he thought it possible that it might have been forgotten. Mr. Townsend who had concurred with his right hon. friend, had also been in office in 1811, and yet he did not remember it. The present lord chief justice of Ireland was at the same period the solicitor general, and yet, when the cause was tried before him, and the objection urged by the defendant's counsel, that this was a case without precedent, his own memory did not furnish him with this fact, with which it was almost certain that he must have been acquainted. Colonel Barry said, his reason for ordering the attendance of Mr. Kemmis was, because, in the course of the examination, matter might come out which it would be necessary for him to explain. From the number of witnesses summoned, it would appear that the examination was meant to be indefinite. If gentlemen should institute an inquiry into the feuds of unhappy Ireland from the time of Henry 2nd, he could have no objection. to it; but he would not, therefore, lose sight of the question then before them; namely, whether the conduct of the sheriff did, or did not deserve the censure of the House? As gentlemen appeared willing to confine their examination to that point, he would withdraw his motion. The motion was withdrawn. After which, the Speaker informed the House, that he had received a letter from Gabriel Whistler, the sub- sheriff of Dublin, stating that his attendance, in pursuance of the order of the House, would interrupt the judicial proceedings of the commission. now sitting in the city of Dublin.-Sir F. Burdett then moved the order of the day for going into a committee of the whole House on the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin. The House having resolved itself into the said committee, ir Robert Heron in the chair, Sir F. Burdett said, that having brought the proceeding to the present point, and put it in a train of investigation, he would now leave it in the hands of the gentlemen of Ireland, who were necessarily better acquainted with the subject, and more immediately concerned in the conduct and issue of the proceeding than he could possibly be. On the motion of Mr. Calcraft, the Serjeant was directed to cause all persons summoned as witnesses, to withdraw from the gallery. Mr. Benjamin Riky called in, and examined. You are clerk of the crown in Ireland?—I execute the office of clerk of the crown in Dublin. By Sir J. Newport.-How many years have you executed the office of clerk of the crown in Dublin?-For nearly 30 years; I have been in the office for 33 years. Have you brought with you any document by which you can ascertain the state of the panels upon the commission juries in the city of Dublin?-I have. Have you with you the panels for grand juries in the years 1819, 1820, 1821, and 1822? -I have, with the exception of the panel for Feb. 1820; I have the grand jury of Feb. 1820, but not the panel. How comes that panel to be not in your possession?-The clerk whom I had at that time is dead; I was not able to lay my hand upon it, nor has it been found; I left directions when I was leaving Ireland to have it sent after me; I have got the grand jury, but not the panel. Put in those panels which you have with you. [The witness produced the same.] Have you examined into the state of those panels, and can you state to the committee the number of corporators on each of those panels? -I have, and compared them with the list of common-council-men. The question asked, is confined to the commission grand juries. There are other grand juries also impanelled in the city of Dublin, are there not?--There are. What is the duty respectively of the commission grand juries and the other grand ju ries? The duty of the commission grand jury is the disposing of indictments merely; that is the only court in Dublin of which I am an officer; however, I attend also the court of King's-bench, and I know that the grand jury of that court present all money affecting the city of Dublin, with the exception of certain presentments, made by the quarter sessions grand jury. Can you then state what the respective attendance of the corporation upon the commission grand jury, and upon the other grand jury, are?-The term grand juries, consist, for the most part of the aldermen of Dublin; I never have attended the quarter sessions court, and I do not know any thing of it. Are the commission grand juries composed, in the same proportion of common council, as those term grand juries, you have already mentioned ?-I apprehend not. Who are the other persons on those grand juries, besides the aldermen ?--Sheriffs-peers, I believe; aldermen and sheriffs-peers exclusively. What is the meaning of sheriffs-peers ?-A gentleman who has served the office of sheriff, or fined by reason of his not having served that office. Are the committee to understand that the common council are a different body from the sheriffs-peers and the aldermen ?--I have always understood so. How are the common council elected?There is first the guild of merchants; the guild of merchants return, I think, thirty-one; there are different other corporations. Do any of the other guilds elect as large a number of common council as the guild of merchants?—None, I believe; the election is every three years. Will you state the number of sheriffs-peers, or common council, that were on the commission grand juries in the year 1819?-At the February commission, in 1819, there were six common councilmen sworn on the grand jury, and nine that were not sworn; at the July commission there were five sworn, and eighteen not sworn. Were they not sworn on account of non-attendance ?-They were; at the October commission, in 1819, it appears that there was not any common-council-man sworn on the grand jury, there were eleven on the panel; and at the December commission, in the same year, it appears there were three sworn on the grand jury, and four others on the panel. The first, in 1820, is the February commission, of which I have not the panel, but I have the grand jury from the record, and it appears there was one common-council-man sworn on the grand jury; at the June commission, in the same year, there were two sworn on the grand jury, and eleven on the panel; at the October, three on the grand jury, and five on the panel; at the December, three on the grand jury, and sixteen on the panel. In February 1821, there were nine sworn, and thirteen on the panel not sworn; in April there were two sworn, and two on the panel who were not sworn; in July there were seven sworn, and thirteen on the panel not sworn; in August, eight sworn, and thirty-two not sworn; in October there were eight sworn and nine not sworn. In January 1822, there were two sworn, and two on the panel who were not sworn; in Feb. two sworn, and two not sworn; in April there were two sworn, and none other on the panel; in June there was not any common-council-man on the panel; of course, none sworn. August 1822, there was but one on the panel; he was not sworn. In October there were five sworn, and fourteen who were not sworn; and at the January commission in 1823, there were fourteen sworn on the grand jury, and thirteen others on the panel who were not sworn ; making twenty-seven on that panel. In With reference to the last panel you have spoken of, how many does the entire panel | consist of?-Fifty. frequently the panel is called over twice, and often on fines. The range is from 57 to 105; there are, of course, intermediate numbers, 59, 67, 89, and Have you ever known any panel confined Will you look at the panels of the preceding to so small a number as fifty?—I have not. year, and state how far down the call proceedWill you read the numbers of each panel?ed before the grand jury was completed ?— The number on the panel in Feb. 1819, is 61; in July, 72; in Oct. 95; in Dec. 87. In 1820, in June, 71; in Oct., 66; in Dec., 71. In 1821, in Feb., 67; in April, 107; in July, 82; in August, 79; in Oct., 61. In 1822, in Jan., 77; in Feb., 87; in April, 68; in June, 72; in August, 85; in Oct., 62; then, on the panel of Jan. 1823, 50. Can you state what places the fourteen who were sworn occupied in the panel in 1823, whether there were any persons before them on the panel, or whether they answered, and in what manner, according as they were placed upon the panel?-The grand jury, in 1823, answered within the first twenty-six names; namely, three absent persons only. Have you ever known an instance, before this time, in which such a circumstance took place, as that the persons should have answered in rotation in the manner you have just now stated ?—I do not remember any such circum stance. It appears that there were upon the panel, in Jan. 1823, twenty-seven common-council-men; 14 sworn, and 13 on the panel that were not sworn; out of a number of fifty, had you ever before known an instance in which the common council formed a majority of the commission panel?—I do not find any such circumstance. What was the entire number of the panel in August 1821?-Seventy-nine. What was the number of common-councilmen ?-Forty. By Mr. Plunkett.-How do you reconcile that with saying, that there was no instance, except the last, in which there was a majority of common-council-men ?-I understood the question was in equal proportions; I misconceived the question; the corporators are 27, which is more than the half of fifty; but, perhaps, I have fallen into an error. By Sir J. Newport.-Were the 14 commoncouncil-men, whom you have stated to be sworn upon this panel, placed at the head of the panel?-The whole jury, with the exception of two after the foreman, answered in succession, until I came to the twentieth, there was then an absent gentleman, and then the other four were sworn; so that the whole jury ran in succession, with the exceptions I have mentioned. Were the three that were absent, commoncouncil-men or not?-Two of them, I think, were common-council-men; Lane, Sparrow, and White, are the absent gentlemen. Mr. Lane is a common-council-man; Mr. Sparrow, I believe, is not; and Mr. White is. Is it in the ordinary course of calling over the commission grand jury, that the grand jury is completed, without going nearly through the panel, in calling them over ?-Very seldom; so on. By Lord Milton.-In the panel of the grand jury immediately preceding the last, what rank on the panel was the last named of the grand jury?-Fifty-six. What rank was it on the one next previous to that?-Eighty-five. By Mr. Brougham.-You mean by that, that the last man sworn on the grand jury was the eighty-fifth upon the panel?-Yes; but it frequently happens that the panel is called over and there are not enough without calling them on fines. Will you state the place of the last man on the grand jury on each occasion?-It frequently happens that the names of the grand jury are called over to the end of the panel; a sufficient number to form the grand jury not appearing, they are called on fine, and then short of the last man frequently a grand jury are found. What is the lowest number on the panel sworn on each occasion ?-I shall be obliged to reckon them; they are not numbered on the panel. Have you any means of informing the committee of the distinction between a person being called on fines, and a person being called on the first time that the panel is gone through? In some instances, I have a statement of the number of fines appearing on the face of the panel; in other instances I have not, as the judges sometimes direct that the panel shall be called on fines without actually entering them, and not having a wish to inflict fines if it is not necessary. I have already stated, that 57 appears to be the lowest number, and 105 the highest. Have you any means of stating whether, on any given occasion, the whole of the panel was exhausted before a jury was obtained ?—I have. State in how many cases the panel was exhausted?-There are 18 panels; it will take some time to go through them. [The witness was directed to make a return of the number of panels which were exhausted; the number of fines imposed; and, in respect of the panels that were not exhausted, the lowest number that was called.] By Sir J. Newport.-In what manner is the panel delivered in, and by whom?-It is delivered to me by the sheriff, annexed to a precept which has been previously delivered to him, calling for the grand jury. By Mr. S. Rice.-On the grand jury, in Jan. 1823, how many common-council-men were sworn?-Fourteen. |