Изображения страниц

be to have a grand juror called in; and if he made any objection to state what passed, on the ground of his oath of secrecy, then the question would be raised on which the chairman might call for the decision of the House.

Sir George Whiteford called in; and examined By Colonel Barry.-You were foreman of the grand jury in January last ?—I was.

You recollect the circumstances which passed upon the informations preferred against certain persons, for a riot in the theatre of Dublin, on the 14th of December, which were preferred before the grand jury, of which you were foreman ?-I do; I cannot exactly state every particular; being foreman, I did not take notes from the witnesses, but the secretary did take notes of the evidence.

Are you an Orangeman ?—I am not. Are you a man who hold very strong party feelings with respect to the questions which agitate the city of Dublin at this present moment? I never conceived I did; quite the contrary.

Are you a man, who think that it would be for the benefit of Ireland, that general conciliation should take place between all its inhabitants?—It was always my wish, that the inhabitants of Dublin should live in peace with each other.

In the investigation which took place before the grand jury, what portion of time was devoted to the bills before alluded to?-I think we got the bills about two o'clock; we remained until five; and I think from ten o'clock or eleven o'clock, until about three or four the following day, in close investigation.

How long was it previous to, or subsequent to the riot at the theatre, that sheriff Thorpe requested you to be foreman of that grand jury ?—I think it was nearly three weeks previous to the row at the theatre.

From what passed on that grand jury, did fair investigation seem to be the object?-I never saw a set of gentlemen more anxious to discharge their duty than they seemed to be.

Did you see any symptom of party feeling breaking out, with regard to any particular witnesses who were examined ?—I did not. If you had seen it, would you have thought it your duty to have checked it, as foreman ?I would have done so.

Did you hear a report of any conversation, in which sheriff Thorpe was supposed to have stated, that he had an Orange jury in his pocket?-I did.

Did any thing pass between you and sheriff Thorpe, upon that subject ?-There did. State what it was?-Previous to the jury, I heard that a man of the name of M'Connell, went before the privy council, and made affidavit, that sheriff Thorpe said, "he had an Orange panel in his pocket, that would acquit the prisoners." I went to sheriff Thorpe, and asked him, did he say such a thing; if he did,

that he should get another foreman, that Į would not identify myself in any party feeling; and he pledged his honour, that he never made use of such an expression; and in consequence I was induced to go on the jury. By Mr. Grattan.-You dined at sheriff Smith's dinner, did you not?-I did.

Did sheriff Smith give the toast, "the glorious and immortal memory ?"-I rather think not.

Was that toast given by any person at that dinner ?—I believe not.

You did not take out an Orange handkerchief, and give that toast ?-I did not.


By Mr. S. Rice. Having served the office of sheriff, you are of course a Protestant ?—I am. And hold in veneration the memory of king William ?—Yes.


There has been for a great number of years, a custom of decorating the statue of king William? I always saw it done.

There was a great diversity of opinion, as to a stop having been put to that ceremony? There was.

You were one who thought that ceremony might as well not have been stopped ?-Certainly, my feeling always was, that all kind of irritation should be avoided.

You thought that a wrong step had been taken by the authorities, in putting a stop to that ceremony?—I did not think it a judicious measure, in the way it was done.

You concurred, in blaming those that so stopped it ?—I certainly thought it was not judicious.

Then you thought those persons who did so stop that ceremony, did act a part which they ought not to have acted?--I certainly expressed my feeling so far, that I thought it was a measure that was not calculated to create concili ation.

You expressed that feeling?-I am not quite sure, whether I expressed that feeling; but I certainly had that feeling on my mind.

Have you then any doubt in your mind, that in conversation with your friends and acquaintances, you did express feelings to that effect? -I dare say I did.

The riot which occurred at the theatre was occasioned by the irritation occasioned by the stopping that ceremony ?—I should suppose so.

Can you state before this committee, that the slightest doubt exists in your mind, that that riot was created by that ceremony having been stopped?-I declare I cannot say; I should suppose it arose from the stopping of the dressing of the statue.

By Mr. Jones.-Were you one of those who expressed disapprobation against the autho rities for stopping the decoration of the statue ? I never expressed any such thing.

Do you approve of measures that are not calculated to promote conciliation ?—I approve of measures that are calculated to create conciliation.

Then you disapprove of measures that are

not calculated to create conciliation ?-Certainly.

You did not express disapprobation with those who stopped the ceremony of decorating the statue of king William -I do not think I did.

What did you express then ?-I think I expressed myself so far as this, that it was not calculated to create conciliation.

Did you approve the stopping the ceremony of decorating the statue of king William ?The feeling I had on my own mind was this, that where the thing was sanctioned by the government for so many years, it was ill calculated to stop it in the kind of way it was attempted. Did you disapprove of that measure ?-So far as that.

Did not the riot that took place at the theatre originate from a disapprobation of the stopping that ceremony?—I declare I cannot say.

Was it not matter of notoriety, that it did take place from that circumstance?-I believe it was generally mentioned through town.

Do you belong to the Amicable Society in Dublin ?-I do.

What are the principles of that society?— Loyalty and attachment to the king and consti


Are there not many persons belonging to Orange lodges, belong to that society ?-I cannot answer that, for I am not an Orangeman myself.

Do you know any Catholics belonging to it? No.

Is not the toast, "The pious and immortal memory," constantly drunk at their dinner?Always.

Are you acquainted with the Handwhiches? -No.

By Mr. Abercromby.-You were at Mr. Sheriff Thorpe's dinner?—I was.

There "The pious and immortal memory" was drank?-It was.

You joined of course ?-Of course I did. Do you think that is calculated to promote conciliation?-I cannot say.

Is it a toast calculated, under present circumstances, to allay irritation in Dublin ?-I think, from the present feeling in Ireland, that it is not calculated.

By Mr. Brougham.-You were present at the dinner which sheriff Thorpe gave, on coming into office?-I was.

Were you present when the health of sheriff Thorpe was drank by the company?—I think I


Did you hear any part of that speech -I do not think I did.

How far off were you from sheriff Thorpe at that time ?—I was perhaps in the middle of the room at one of the side tables; it is an amazing large room.

Did you hear any persons, further off than yourself, applaud what sheriff Thorpe said?— It might be the case, but I cannot recollect.

Did sheriff Thorpe speak in a loud, or low tone of voice?-I did not hear him.

When sheriff Thorpe got up to speak, was there not silence in the room to hear him?-I should think there was.

Did you turn your ears towards him?-The room is so large, that if I paid ever so great attention, I do not think I should hear him from where I was.

Do you recollect the room, generally speaking, being attentive to sheriff Thorpe, when he made that speech?—I believe they were, but there is generally such a noise, and such a buzzing, that unless the person speaks very loud, he is not heard. When gentlemen get a little wine, they get sometimes a little out of order.

In what position did sheriff Thorpe speak, was he standing upon the floor or a chair ?If he spoke at all, he stood on the floor.

Have you any doubt whether he spoke ?—I am sure he did speak.

Have you any recollection of where sheriff Thorpe stood ?—At the head of his own table, on the floor I should think.

Do you recollect hearing him speak at all?— I do not.

By Mr. Twiss. Do you not remember any motion to have been made, tending to the censure of the government, on which an amendment was moved by a person of the name of Poole?-I was not present.

By Mr. Plunkett.-You have said, that you' think the measures as to the preventing the dressing the statue were not judicious, that they were not calculated to produce conciliation?-I have said, that after being countenanced by the government for so many years, I thought a sudden measure was ill calculated for conciliation.

Do not you think, that persons who are of that opinion, have a right to express it publickly, and that it is a fair thing for them to do it?-Certainly, very fair.

Do not you think they have a right to do so, in a public theatre or any other place ?--I think they have a right to express their feelings, but not to disturb the peace.

That they would have no right to assault the person, either of the lord lieutenant, or of any other person?-Certainly not.

But they would have a right to express their disapprobation of those measures at the theatre, is not that your opinion?-My opinion is, that, as far as my own feeling would go,. there should be no offence, in any kind of way, offered to the representative of his majesty.

Do you think it would be right to punish any person for merely expressing his disapprobation of those measures at a public theatre, or any other place?-My opinion is, that, unless he was hostile, and showed great hostility for merely disapprobation, hissing or hooting, my. opinion is, that they are privileged to do that at a theatre.

Do not you think it would be an unjust thing to punish persons for merely agreeing before hand to go to the theatre, merely for the purpose of hissing or groaning, if they thought a measure

injudicious?-My own opinion is, that they ought not to be punished for merely hissing and groaning.

By Mr. R. Smith.-During your shrievalty, what was your course for forming the panels for commission grand juries?—I always formed the panel, and I inclosed it to my brother sheriff for his concurrence.

Did you yourself select the names ?-I selected the names myself from the grand panel.

Not your under-sheriff?-Sometimes he did; and sometimes I have done it myself.

What is the general course?-The general course is, for the sheriff to write out his own panel, and submit it to his brother sheriff, and then for it to go to the sheriff's office, to have it engrossed.

Did you yourself go to select the names from the book, or was a list handed to you from the office, for your approbation ?-Sometimes I made out the list myself, and sometimes I desired the under-sheriff to make out a list; and I submitted that list to my brother sheriff, and then we got it engrossed.

By Mr. Brougham.-Are you to be understood to state, that the general course is, for the sheriff himself always to select the jury?— It is. The sheriff writes out his list from the grand panel, and he submits that to his brother sheriff; he encloses it to me, he sends it back, or we both go to the Sheriff's office, and agree on the panel; and then we get it ingrossed by the under-sheriff's clerk.

Then the general course in that office is, that one sheriff selects from the grand panel, and submits to his brother sheriff, and they agree together upon the panel, and then send it back to the sub-sheriff ?-The sheriffs take it quarter about; in his quarter he makes out his panel.

You are understood to say, that the common course of that office is, that one sheriff selects from the grand panel, and submits these selected names to his brother sheriff, for his approbation; and that then the two agreeing upon the names, they are sent back to the subsheriff? That is the course that I adopted during my quarter.

Is that the usual course in the Sheriff's office? -I should think it is.

Do you know of that course ever having been adopted in any one case, except when you were sheriff yourself?-I do not; for I had no assistance to guide me in the office.

Then you do not know that that is the usual course?-I do not.

Then what you mean by the usual course of the office is, (is it not?) the course of the office while you yourself were sheriff?—I know nothing about the course of the Sheriff's office, beyond my own year of office.

And you did not then select?-I made my observations on the panel. He made out a general list for my approval. There never was a jury struck that was not submitted to my inspection; I took it to my brother sheriff, and

we then agreed upon the panel, and had the summonses sent out. I do not think I ever made any list but from the grand panel.

Do you think that the stopping the dressing of the statue was a measure likely to produce irritation?—I think it was. I think the dressing it also a measure of irritation.

By a Member.-Was the grand jury, in 1823, composed of a less respectable class of individuals than you had formerly known serve as a grand jury?—I think I never served on a jury with more respectable gentlemen than the grand jury in 1823.

Do not you believe that the course which you pursued in striking the panel, was the usual course with sheriffs in striking a panel ? ̧ -I should suppose it was. It was the course I adopted myself.

Are you not one of that party, in Dublin, who wish to see the dressing of the statue die a natural death ?--Certainly.

Did you make any objection to the undressing of the statue ?—No.

Have you ever heard, that the lord lieutenant himself used to parade round the statue of king William, on the 4th of November, in Dublin? -I have.

Have you heard, that the garrison of Dublin used to fire round the statue of king William, on the 4th of November?—I have.

Are such things observed now?—No. Then, the honours offered to this monarch, are much on the decline?-I think so.

How often was the statue dressed subsequent to the departure of his majesty from Ireland, and previous to the prohibition on the part of the lord mayor?-I think, shortly after the departure of the king.

How often?-I do not recollect.

Did it not continue to be dressed until the lord mayor put a stop to it in November last? -It did.

Did you ever hear, that any application was made to the lord-lieutenant, stating the apprehensions of many of the inhabitants of Collegegreen, from the riots occasioned by the dressing of the statue?—I did.

Mr. John Twycross called in; and

By Colonel Barry.—What is your situation in life?-Jeweller and silversmith and goldsmith of Dublin.

You served upon the grand jury last January? -I did.

Are you an Orangeman ?-I am not. Are you a supporter of what is called Catholic Emancipation I should be very happy if it took place to-morrow, if there was security given from any inroads on our constitution in church and state.

In the course of the transactions on the grand jury, were there any circumstances that led you to think that there was any partiality shown as to the subject matter that was brought before them?—Not in the least.

Did it appear to you, that there was an

anxious wish, conscientiously to discharge the functions of grand-jurymen?-Most particularly so by every individual.

Was it by a patient investigation of all the facts that were brought before you ?-A most patient and most careful investigation of all the facts.

Was there any thing in the conduct of that grand jury which induced a conviction in your mind, that they harboured any degree of partiality on the subject matter submitted to them? I have not the least doubt there was no partiality shown whatever, but every attention shown to every witness.

Was the finding of the bills according to the unanimous decision of the jury?-Most unanimous; we so declared in open court.

Mr. Joseph Henry Moore called in; and

By Colonel Barry.—What is your situation?' A stock broker and agent to an insurance company in Dublin.

Have you been in the habit of serving on Dublin grand juries ?-Since 1817 I have.

You were employed by the grand jury to take notes upon the late occasion?—I took notes as well as others of the grand jury, memorandums of the heads of evidence.

Are you in any way connected with any' Orange institution?-Not any, nor never was. Are you competent to answer to such things as passed upon that grand jury?—I have taken an oath of secrecy.

You know the facts?-I am perfectly aware of the facts from having acted in a measure for

the foreman:

[The witness was ordered to withdraw, and a conversation ensued, in which Mr. S. Rice, Colonel Barry, Mr. Bankes, and sir J. Newport participated, on the propriety of taking any part of the evidence of this witness, until the question was decided, whether he should be obliged to answer to matters to which the witness might conceive himself bound by his oath of secrecy. The witness was then ordered to be called in.]

By Colonel Barry. Did you attend to the proceedings of the grand jury with great attention?-Most attentively.

Did it appear that it was the intention of the grand jury, fairly, honourably and impartially to investigate the subject matter submitted to them ? Most decidedly."

Did you see any instance of any witness being brow-beat or attempted to be forced out of the room during his giving evidence? Certainly not.

How long did you' occupy in considering those bills?Until five o'clock on the first day,

when the court sent

us to know if we had

decided. I returned for answer to, I believe, Mr. Riky, that we had not decided; that we should remain there and examine all the wit nesses, if it pleased the court, or adjourn, as the court should direct.

Were there a great number of fresh witnesses

sworn and sent up to you the second day ?There were.

Do you remember how many witnesses altogether were examined before the grand jury ?— There were 27 I think.

Was any impediment offered to any witness giving his testimony before the grand jury?— Certainly not; the foreman protected them in every way.

Were the witnesses fully examined to every point which they appeared ready to bear witness to?-The usual routine questions of grand jurors were put to them.

By Mr. Jones. You state that the witnesses were protected by the foreman; did any of the grand jury then conduct themselves towards those witnesses in such a manner as to require protection ?-Certainly not; in a multitude of people there may be a multitude of questions.

Was not there a person examined who offered evidence as to the person of one of the rioters, which evidence he was not suffered to give, because he did not know the person of the rioter at the time of the riot having been committed? That is a secret of the jury, I apprehend. [The witness was ordered to withdraw.]

Mr. Calvert said, he thought the understanding was, that they were not to continue the examination after the witness had objected to answer the question.

Mr. S. Rice considered the partial testimony given ought not to stand on the minutes.

Mr. Brougham said, there could be no doubt that to any fact which occurred previously to the witness being sworn as a grand juryman, or after the grand jury but to an examination relative to what were discharged, he might be examined; passed in the jury-room, he was not prepared to be a consenting party, unless a precedent could be shown for absolving the witness from his oath. In the case of admiral Byng (which he always considered as a murder)-on that infamous transaction, a bill was brought in, which passed that House, for absolving the members of the court-martial from the fore the solemn' opinion of the House at obligation of their oaths. It was therethat period, that an act of the legislature was necessary. But there was also the act of the 56th of the late king, for regu lating grand juries, which dealt with this

recting that depositions taken before matter. In that act, after dijustices of the peace shall be laid beforé the grand jury, it is enacted, that if upon the examination of witnesses it should” appear to the grand jury that the wit

nesses have sworn falsely, they may report the same to the court; and in case the court should, therefore, order a bill of indictment for perjury to be preferred, it should be competent for any of the grand jurors to give evidence on the trial of such indictment, notwithstanding the oath taken by him as a grand juror. Now, the mere enactment of the statute or question was an admission that the legislature thought that a specific act was necessary to absolve a member of a grand jury from his oath. The case of admiral Byng ran upon all-fours with the present case, it was a regular proceeding before the House of Commons. He begged, however, to guard himself against being taken to declare, that even if courts of justice were without power to absolve a grand juror from his oath, that therefore the House of Commons (whose authority was paramount to all courts of justice) could not give that dispensation without an act sanctioned by the other House of parliament, and by the Crown. He was far from intending to make any such assertion as that; because he could suppose the case of the House of Commons proceeding against a minister of the Crown, or against a member of the upper House; and being refused assistance either by the Crown or by the House of Peers. He by no means, therefore, contended, that an act of parliament was absolutely necessary to the object in question; but he thought that enough had appeared before the committee to induce it to pause, and to deliberate seriously upon the point. Perhaps it would be better, for the present, to conclude the proceeding and adjourn. Mr. Abercromby had no objection to an adjournment, but could not help wishing that the question had been mooted upon the evidence of the first witness. He thought, as far as he could give an opinion upon the sudden, that the House had power to dispense with the oath, and compel the witness to give his evidence.

Mr. Wynn believed that the power of dispensation, as regarded the oaths of grand jurymen, had existed in courts of justice prior to the 56th of the late king.

Sir J. Newport said, that the 56th of the late king was meant to declare what the law was, and not to make a new law. With that avowed view, it had been introduced. It was to correct an irregularity that existed in the Irish practice of the law, and to place it upon the same footing with the practice in England.


Mr. Brougham thought the statute enacting, and not declaratory. At the same time he thought that the committee ought to take the sense of the House upon the point.

Mr. Wetherell thought that the oath of a grand juryman might be dispensed with by the power of a court of justice, and had not the smallest doubt that the 56th of the late king was declaratory. The case of admiral Byng stood upon other ground. The House of Commons, in that case, were not acting in the capacity of a court of justice.

The House resumed: The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.


Thursday, May 8.


COMPLAINING OF THE SEIZURE OF HIS PROPERTY.] Mr. Hume presented a petition from Richard Carlile, a prisoner in Dorchester gaol, praying the House to consider the hardship to which he had been put.

The treatment which Mr. Carlile had received was novel in its nature. There were strong prejudices against Carlile, which he regarded as being wholly without foundation. The fact was, that Carlile was, previously to the distresses in 1816, a very respectable mechanic. Those distresses had so reduced him in his circumstances, that he was forced to become a hawker of pamphlets; and at the time of lord Sidmouth's circular he had been employed under Sherwin, who published a Political Register. But, up to this day he would say, that Mr. Carlile was one of the best moral characters in England [hear!]. Notwithstanding that

hear!" he would persist in his opinion. Mr. Carlile's religious opinion might differ from that of some other persons; but that did not affect his moral character; and he would dare any one to contradict him when he said, that as a husband, as a father, as head of a family, and as a neighbour, Mr. Carlile might challenge calumny itself. Now, what had those by whom this man had been persecuted made of it? Why, it appeared that the circulation of the books had been prodigiously increased by the measures which had been adopted for the purpose of suppressing them. Previous to Mr. Carlile's first trial, he had published an edition of Paine's religious works, and though 250 copies of

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »