Mr. Goulburn suggested whether it would not be for the convenience of the House, if the inquiry was to be entered upon to which the question of the hon. member would lead, to examine some witness who was well informed on the subject, which the present witness had acknowledged he was not. Mr. Grattan thought it was impossible that the witness could answer the question. Mr. S. Rice approved of the course of examination which had been proceeded in by Mr. Brougham. Mr. Wynn asked whether it was proper that the House should examine a witness as to inferences? The witnesses ought to be called upon to state facts, and members might then make their own inferences. Mr. Brougham imagined, from the question which had been proposed by the hon. member, that his questions must have been misunderstood. He had never charged the jury with malversation. Colonel Barry thought the House ought to dispose of the case of the high sheriff in the first instance. He would then support an inquiry into the mode in which grand juries were constituted in Ireland. Sir J. Newport thought it was impossible to disconnect the case of the high sheriff from the question of the constitution of grand juries. He Mr. Dawson said, he had only endeavoured to follow up the line of examination marked out by the learned gentleman. The learned gentleman had talked of the flagrant abuse of the administration of justice in Ireland. (Mr. D.) wished to show that the people of that country, if they were improperly treated, had the means of redress in their own hands. He would not, however, press the question. [The witness was again called in.] By Mr. Dawson.-Has not any person in Dublin, or in any county of Ireland, who pays the grand jury cess, a right to traverse, if he thinks any presentment unjust and unfair?—I always understood so. As clerk of the crown, you can, perhaps, give a more decisive answer than, that you always understood so ?-In the counties on the home circuit, I know the fact; with respect to Dublin, I believe it to be so. By Mr. Brougham.-Would the person traverse the presentment at his own expense, or the charge of the county?-At his own expense. By Sir G. Hill.-You have referred to the ex-officio information which was tried in 1811; when was your recollection first called to the filing of that information ?—This day. before this day?—No, it has not. Has it not been called to your recollection You have referred to documents this day, which prove a perfect accuracy of knowledge of the period, and the particulars, and the result of that ex-officio information, so filed in 1811 ?—I have. Will you explain to the House, how you happened to be in possession of those peculiar documents?-With respect to the indictments, I was informed by letter from the clerk of the crown, under whom I hold a deputation, that he was applied to, for copies of indictments; they were in the commission court, of which I am an officer; they came over; he informed me that they were transmitted to London, and that he had examined them, that they were correct, and he called upon me to countersign them; I examined them, I compared them with an attested copy of the ex-officio information, of which attestation I know the officer and the signature, and upon that comparison I ascertain the fact. You have not stated from what date those indictments were sent from Ireland to you?— I have the letter in my pocket; it is dated "Tuesday, 29th April." Of what period were those indictments?— Of October, 1811. act in that capacity in October, 1811?-The Did the present crown solicitor in Ireland crown solicitors at that time were Messrs. Thomas and William Kemmis, of which the elder of that firm is dead. Mr. William Kemmis is the present crown solicitor ?-He is. By Sir J. Mackintosh.-Did he act as such, in conjunction with his father, in October, 1811?-I apprehend he did; he was young, however, and probably the greater part of the business was transacted by his father. Have you an equal knowledge with him of those records in the office?-I have no knowledge of the ex-officio information that did not remain in my care; I have knowledge of the indictments in my court; but of the ex-officio information I have none. By Mr. Bennet.-You have stated, that you have recently seen an attested copy of an exofficio information in the case of sir E. Littlehales; where did you see that copy?—This morning, in the office or study of Mr. Blake. Who is Mr. Blake?-A gentleman at the bar, I believe. Was that sent to you, or was it sent to Mr. Blake to be given to you?-I apprehend it was sent to Mr. Blake; it was shown to me there. Was it sent to Mr. Blake, or was it sent to the attorney-general?-I do not know; I did not see the envelope. The attested copy of the information was exhibited to me; I compared it with the indictment, and found the offence to be the same accurately; the same transaction; and I saw that the information was, attested by Mr. Bourne, whom I know to be the clerk of the crown in the Court of King'sbench, and with whose hand-writing I am perfectly familiar. By Mr. Plunkett.-Were not the attested copies of the indictments, and the information produced by the attorney-general for Ireland, at Mr. Blake's ?-I think they were. By Mr. Bennet.-What do you mean by their being produced by the attorney-general to you; did the attorney-general give them to you, or did Mr. Blake give them to you? It was in the office or the study of Mr. Blake. Was the attorney-general present ?-I think it was the attorney-general presented them to me. 聊 By Mr. Brownlow.-Have you been in communication with the attorney-general since you have been over, upon this subject?—I have been here but a short time, and he has had recourse to me, and has asked me questions. You hold a public situation under the crown?—I cannot say that it is. You are clerk of the crown?-I am only deputy. By what tenure do you hold that situation? -I may be removed to-morrow; I have no certainty of the tenure under which I hold; the gentleman who holds the patent has it for his own life, and his son's; but, I believe, I may be removed at any moment. By whom?-By the gentleman who has the patent, under whom I hold the deputation. You are removeable at his pleasure?--I apprehend so. You are not certain of the fact?-I have heard it stated by gentlemen of great eminence at the Irish bar. By Mr. W. Courtenay.-You are convinced that is the case?-That is my conviction. By Mr. Brownlow.You state, that you think it was the attorney-general who gave you the attested copies of the informations that were filed in 1811; are you not quite certain that it was he who gave you the copy?—I am. You stated, that you were shown the exofficio information by the attorney-general; was that for the purpose of comparing it with the indictment? It was; and I did compare it with the attorney-general. Was that indictment in your possession ?—I was informed of its arrival, but it came under cover, I believe from the post-office or the castle to come free; it did not come to me, but I was informed of its arrival by the letter in my pocket. Were you the person to whose custody it ought to have come?—I do not think that was material. Was it directed to you?-No. To whom was it directed?-The letter was probably directed to the attorney-general; but in the same packet I received my letter. By Mr. Plunkett.-The indictment did come into your possession at last ?-It did. And it was for the sole purpose of comparing the ex-officio information with that indictment that the attorney-general showed it to you?—— And of attesting it, which I have done. You know the hand-writing of the person who has attested it ?-Perfectly. It was for the sole purpose of your knowing that it was the hand-writing of that person, and of comparing it with the indictment, that it was shown to you by the attorney-general ?——— Exactly. The panels have been in your possession ?— They have been; I brought them over with me in my trunk. Have you had any other communication with the attorney-general, except on the subject of this inquiry?-Not the least. By Mr. H. Gurney.-Is it, or not, within your knowledge, that in consequence of a great interest taken in those trials in the city of Dublin, almost the whole of the panel of fifty, sworn and unsworn, did attend?-I am not able to answer the question: I called the panel only down to a certain place; and whether more attended, or not, I really do not recollect. Is it in your knowledge, whether the corporators of Dublin have, or have not, generally, a precedence on those panels?--I do not think they have, because on looking at the sworn grand jury, in now no less than nineteen instances, I find that upon many of those grand juries, there were none; no corporators; on some, one; on some, two. Now, for example; in a panel amounting to a hundred and seven, of which a hundred and five were called, there were but two common-council-men sworn on the grand jury. Was it usual that those who were corporators of Dublin, stood at the head of the list?--I believe that is a matter into which I am to make an inquiry; I have not taken any account of the order in which corporators attend. [The witness was directed to withdraw.] The chairman was directed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The House then resumed. The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday. QUAKERS AFFIRMATIONS BILL.] Mr. John Williams moved for leave to bring in a bill" to render the Affirmations of Quakers admissible in Criminal Cases." Mr. H. Gurney said, he believed he was warranted in stating, that the bill proposed to be brought in by the hon. and learned gentleman was by no means desired by the members of that body, who were perfectly satisfied with the law as it stood. Leave was given to bring in the bill. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, May 5. REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.-PETI TION FROM Edinburgh.] Mr. Aber cromby rose to present a petition from 7,000 householders of Edinburgh. The petitioners laid most respectfully the peculiar state of the representation of their great city before the House. They offered no opinion on the great question of parliamentary reform, but confined their statement and their prayer to their own peculiar situation, asking that relief which the justice of the case should point out to the wisdom of the legislature. The number of the inhabitants of the city of Edinburgh exceeded 100,000. Since the union of the two kingdoms, Edinburgh possessed the privilege of nominally electing a representative in parliament: but who were the real electors? Thirtythree individuals sent to that House, the representative, as he was called of the city of Edinburgh; and even out of those thirty-three, nineteen elected their successors. In that number the privilege granted to the city of Edinburgh positively and substantially existed. What was the amount of property possessed by the thirty-three electors, compared with the property of the population, who possessed no voice? The property of the thirty-three electors did not exceed 2,800l. while the property of the whole was rated at 400,000l. per annum. Thus, the far greater proportion of the property, the rank, the talent, the education and the morality of the population of Edinburgh was excluded from any share in the election of its representative. They had no more share in returning to that House the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Dundas), who sat there as their representative, than they had in the election of the member for Corfe Castle. The inhabitants of Edinburgh did not even know the day of election. The business was done in a close dismal room, and terminated in a snug and select dinner party. It was charged against the reformers, that they were disposed to theories, but against the prayer of the petitioners no such objection could lie. They complained of a practical grievance, and prayed for a practicable remedy. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning) had opposed any form of the representation, because of its variety and capability of representing all sorts of interests. This could not apply to Edinburgh, for there was no case analogous to it in the English representation. The state of the representation in Scotland, was uniformly bad. There was no such thing as a po pular election in that country, nor did its inhabitants enjoy any constitutional means of assembling to make known their feelings and opinions upon political subjects. He promised to move for leave to bring in a bill early next session, to alter the mode of electing the member to serve the city of Edinburgh. Mr. W. Dundas said, it had always been the wise custom of the House to strike at the root of abuses, when they were once exposed; but, in this case, no abuse was alleged to exist by the petitioners themselves. They, nevertheless, asked the House to do that which could not be done without the greatest injustice; they asked the House to infringe upon the chartered rights of the electors of Edinburgh-rights which, by the most solemn compact had been secured to them. He was satisfied that the House would not depart from their usual custom in this instance, nor proceed upon the allegations of a petition signed by persons who, though he did not know them, in point of numbers bore no proportion to the inhabitants of Edinburgh. Mr. Kennedy was rejoiced to see this petition before the House, not only because, coming from so important a place as Edinburgh, it must command considerable attention, but because it would bring to the test the sincerity of those persons who said they would favour reform upon a special case being shown. The statement of his hon. friend had fully made out such a case: the result of his intended motion would prove the sincerity of the friends of reform. The right hon. gentleman had. opposed the petition, and in doing so he had acted with perfect consistency: this was the petition of 7,000 of the inhabitants of Edinburgh-he was the representative of only 33 of them. Many persons in Edinburgh had refrained from signing the petition, from the ill-success of their previous attempts for a reform of the burghs. Mr. Calcraft said, he believed the House were never before aware of the real state of the representation of the city of Edinburgh. It appeared that in a population of above 100,000 persons, the right hon. gentleman opposite was the representative of only 33, which number was in fact reduced to 14, by the circumstance of 19 electing their successors. The right hon. gentleman had lately finished his political career in a manner worthy of his whole course, by accepting | all kinds of reform, it was not his inten tion to offer any argument; but, to thos who had said they were ready to suppor the cause of reform where a case for i was made out, he put it whether any could be stronger than the one submitted by his hon. friend. To the objection, that the object of the petitioners was to infringe on the articles of the Union, he replied that they sought not to deprive the present electors of their rights, but to extend similar rights to others equally entitled to them. a sinecure of 2,000l. a year. It was a melancholy view of the representation of this country. The speech which the right hon. gentleman had made, was in the true spirit of the representative of 33 constituents. It was concise and singular, inasmuch as it communicated the right hon. gentleman's ignorance of 7,000 inhabitants of the city he represented. He hoped his learned friend's appeal would not be disregarded; and that whatever gentlemen might think of the question of reform in general, the present was a case which they would deem worthy of support. He hoped, therefore, that his learned friend would bring in his bill; and that it would meet with considerable support. He even flattered himself that it would not be opposed by that great champion of the enemies of parliamentary reform, who, he believed, had been kept from assuming the government of India, that he might exert his eloquence in defence of the present state of the representation at home. Lord Binning was at a loss to understand with what grace a sarcasm upon close representation could proceed from the hon. member for Wareham. After all he had heard of the meeting at Edinburgh, of the stage effect (for it was held in the theatre), of the exertions used, &c. he was astonished that out of a population of above 140,000, it was signed by only 7,000 persons. Every one who knew the facility with which all manner of men, women, and children, were got to sign petitions in large towns, and more parti cularly those who knew the extraordinary efforts which had been used to procure signatures to the petition before the House, must be surprised that they were Those persons who professed themselves friends to partial reform, had been called upon to support this petition. It was not in answer to that call that he rose; for he was no friend to not more numerous. partial, or temperate, or moderate, or any other kind of reform: but he thought this was not the case even for those gentlemen to support. No case had been made out which possessed peculiar claims. The case of Glasgow, for example, was much stronger. He considered this as an attempt to introduce parliamentary reform by piece-meal, and he trusted the House would resist it. Mr. J. P. Grant said, that to what had just been dropped by the noble lord, coming as it did from a professed enemy to VOL: IX. Sir R. Fergusson said, that so far was the petition from being signed by women or children, that of the 7,000 signatures there was not one of any person who did not reside in a house of 5. a year in value. Mr. Hume believed that there were not more than 10,168 houses in Edinburgh of more than 5l. a year each in value. Deducting one-fourth of that number as being inhabited by females, it would appear that the petition was signed by within 500 of all the male inhabitants of Edinburgh who resided in houses of above the value of 51. a year. In his opinion, a stronger case could not exist. Mr. H. Drummond denied that the petition expressed the sense of the population of Edinburgh. If there had been a strong feeling on the subject, it would have been signed by 40,000 persons. Ordered to lie on the table. SHERIFF OF DUBLIN-INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT.] The House having again resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, sir Robert Heron in the chair, Mr. Benjamin Riky was called in, and further examined By the Chairman.--Have you any returns to present to the committee?—I have. [The wit ness delivered in "A Table of the several By Col. Barry.-In your testimony on the former evening, you stated, that the grand jury took the best part of two days to consider of the bills of indictment? They took from two o'clock until five on Wednesday, and from about ten on Thursday, until towards two. know what became of bills of indict ment between the two days?-They were de livered to me. second day, in the same state that they were in What difference was made in them ?-There had been an error in the indictment, which I discovered, and pointed out to the counsel for the crown in the morning, and that error was corrected. The bill of indictment was altered?-It was. Who altered it?-The crown solicitor. Do you conceive that any person has a right to alter a record of the court; have you ever known an instance of a bill of indictment being altered while under the consideration of the grand jury?—I have. State the instance?-Frequently at the suggestion of the grand jury themselves. Why should he wish not to do it in open court?--I declare I do not know; I state the fact; he withdrew to the chamber, which was just in the rear of the court, it occurred in twelve or fourteen places, the fourth year of the king's reign. If that bill of indictment had been found by the jury in the state in which it was originally presented, could the persons, if found guilty, ever have been brought up for judgment?-I think it ought to have been quashed, It was the crown solicitor that made the alteration in it ?-Yes, from the fourth to the With or without the leave of the court?-third; I believe so; it was to him I gave it, Without the leave of the court. Did you ever know it at the suggestion of a prosecutor?-In some degree it is at the suggestion of the prosecutor, for he is under examination in the grand jury room, and if it appear that a matter of fact is erroneously stated in the indictment, it is returned to the officer to correct it: the clerk of the crown, if it is a government prosecution. Was this alteration by the desire or with the cognizance of the grand jury?—The alteration took place at my own suggestion. Was it at the desire or the suggestion of the grand jury, that the alteration was made?-It was not. At whose suggestion or desire was it made? -I believe at mine. You mentioned that it was by the counsel of the crown-I discovered the error in the course of the evening, when I came to enter the indictments, that is, to form an abstract for the judges, and the next morning I suggested that the indictment contained that error to, I think, the solicitor-general. What was the error?-The error was merely this: the offence took place on the 14th Dec.; the indictment stated that it was in the fourth year of the king's reign; I knew that it was in the third; and I suggested the alteration from the fourth to the third. Did you hold yourself authorized to make that alteration without the leave of the court? I did not make it. Who did make it ?-I made the suggestion to the solicitor-general; Mr. Townsend was also in court; he was disposed to think the indictment was right; however, on examination, the indictment was found to be wrong, and it was amended by the crown solicitor. With his own hand?-He took the indictment into the chamber; I suppose he did not wish to be seen doing any act with respect to it in the court; he took it into the chamber, and it was there done. Why do you think he did not wish to be seen doing any act with respect to it in open court? The court was very crowded. Why should he not wish to be seen doing any act with respect to it in open court? declare I do not know; it was an awkward place to engross or do any thing to an indictment there. Why should he be ashamed?-I do not know that he was ashamed. and he withdrew with it. Were there any other alterations made but that in it?-None that I know of. The alteration was a mere matter of form, and not of substance?-Exactly so; the bill of indictment was not acted upon by the grand jury at that time. There was no indorsement upon the indictment by the grand jury before the alteration was made?-None. That indictment might have been withdrawn, and another more accurately drawn presented? Exactly so. By Mr. Scarlett.-The alteration was not made before the indictment went up before the grand jury?-The indictment went up on the Wednesday; a number of witnesses were examined; and it was returned in the evening. Returned found?—No, nothing was done upon it. It was before the indictment was found that the alteration was made?-Yes, certainly; I could not have suffered an alteration to be made in the indictment after the grand jury had acted upon it. By Sir J. Stewart.-How many persons were in this indictment ?-I believe there were ten. Was there any interlineation of a name after that indictment had gone up to the grand jury? -None that I know of. Was there any interlineation at all in it ?-I believe there are interlineations in the indictment. Of names?-Of names. ' That indictment charged certain persons with a riot and a conspiracy?—It did; there were two bills. How did those persons appear to you, from the gaoler's calendar, committed; under what charges?-Their cases were distinguished upon the calendar. How many were committed under a charge of conspiracy to murder?-I believe three. James Forbes was one; one of the Handwiches was the second; one of the Grahams was the third. There were two Handwiches and two Grahams. Perhaps you can state the person they were charged with a conspiracy to murder?-Perfectly: His excellency the Lord Lieutenant. They had lain in gaol under this charge a considerable time?-For some days. Without bail?-Three of them appeared in |