class of impartial men that you have described might be selected for the grand juries in the city of Dublin?-Yes; I know of men of moderate opinions, that are loyal to their sovereign and to the constitution, that do not wish to outrage the feelings of their countrymen by any hostile acts; I know many of them that could be got.

Mr. James Troy called in, and examined

By Mr. J. Williams.—What is your situation in life?-A silk-manufacturer of Dublin.

Were you in Dublin at the time of the alleged riots at the theatre, and afterwards, when some bills were presented to the grand jury?—I was.

Were you before that jury on the day the bills were ignored, or on the former day?—I believe, the former day.

Were you examined before that grand jury? -I was.

them at the tavern, but you learnt their names since?-I had.

Did you mention to the grand jury, when those observations were made to you, that you knew the persons of the men?—I did.

And that you had since learned their names? I did.

Was it after that, that those observazio.s were made to you by two of the grand jury?— It was.

How long before you quitted the room was it, that these observations were made to you by two of the grand jury?—A considerable time before I left the room.

Mr. George Farley called in, and examined By Mr. J. Williams.-What is your situation in life?—An attorney.

Were you examined before the grand jury upon the subject of the alleged riot at the theatre-I was. Upon the subject of a con

A transaction concerning what persons?A number of persons that were indicted. Mr. Forbes, Brownlow, Graham, and others.

You have named the whole of the persons that you have designated, have you?-There were others in the indictment, that I do not recollect.

Had you seen some or other of those persons that you have now spoken of, at a tavern? On the night on which the alleged riot took place? I had.

Did you state, what you had heard them say and do, to the grand jury ?—I did.

Who examined you?-I was examined by several. I was in about a quarter of an hour. How came you to quit the room in which the grand jury were?-After undergoing examination, I was told they were done with me. Had you stated all that you had to say to the grand jury?—I think not the entire.

How did that happen; why not?-As far as I recollect at the time, I stated the occurrence that happened in the tavern; but there might be a part of the transaction that occurred there, that did not immediately come to my mind while in the grand jury room.

Did you state to the grand jury all that you knew, or if you did not, how did it happen that you did not state it all?-It occurred when a question was put to me, in giving an answer; before my answer was entirely delivered, I was interrupted by a fresh interrogation.

Did you name the persons that were supposed to be included in that charge?—In relating the transaction as it occurred, I was desired by two of the jurors not to name any person who might have expressed himself in any way, whom I did not know by name, the night the transaction occurred.

Before that time, had you stated that you did not know their names the night you saw

Had you seen some persons, and heard some expressions from them at that tavern?— I had. There was a Mr. Forbes, a Mr. Graham, and Mr. Atkinsons, and a Mr. Brownlow.

Did you give any evidence respecting the persons you had seen, and what you had heard, at that tavern?I did.

Did you name any one person that you had seen and observed at that tavern?-I named two Mr. Atkinsons, Mr. Graham, Mr. Brownlow and Mr. Macintosh, as persons that I knew by name. I mentioned that there was another person sitting in the box opposite to me, whose name I did not know at the time that I was sitting in the tavern. I was told by the jury, not to mention the name; to say nothing that I did not know of my own knowledge. I then said, that although I did not know his name at the time, yet that I had learnt that his name was Forbes.

Was any remark made by any of the jury, on your saying that you knew the person of that man?—I was called upon to state what I had heard in the box; and in mentioning the name of Forbes I was again interrupted, and told not to mention the name of any person except I knew it of my own knowledge; I then said I had seen him that morning in court, that I was told his name was Forbes, and that I had no doubt of his being the person that I saw in the tavern. Then I was asked to mention the conversation that I heard, and I repeated almost every thing that I heard in the box upon that occasion; and I must say, that I was very frequently interrupted by some of the jury when I mentioned the name of Mr. Forbes.

In what manner?" You are not to say any thing you do not know of your own knowledge."

Did you observe whether the foreman took any part in it?—He seemed to take the most active part of any of them.

He told me

twice, not to mention the name of any person that I did not know of my own knowledge. He put the questions; he asked me occasionally what was said in the tavern; what I had seen there; and when I happened to mention the name of Forbes, because I did not know him the night I saw him in the tavern, I was told not to say any thing at all about

him.

At that time, did any other of the grand jury interpose? There was a gentleman who sat on my left desired that I should be heard; for two or three were putting questions at the same time to me; I was mentioning something, and was interrupted.

Upon that gentleman on your left hand desiring you should be heard, what was said? I proceeded then with my examination.

Was there any further interruption?-I do not think there was; I very shortly afterwards left the room. When I had finished what I had to say, I was told of course that they had done with me.

By Colonel Barry-Were not you suffered to state every fact that came within your knowledge that happened at that tavern?--I think I was, except as to the name of Forbes. From the interruptions, I did not feel myself easy in the room; but certainly I did at the time mention every thing that occurred to me, and was allowed to do so.

By Mr. Plunkett.-Did the jury receive this evidence of yours as against a person of the name of Forbes, or against a person unknown?

-I cannot say.

Was the bill ignored against Forbes ?-I have heard it was.

which were inflicted on the community at present by their operation, which were greater than ever was known in any other country, or at any other period in this Country: and that the House might the better judge, the petitioner offered to their consideration the following most alarming facts. The calendar for the ensuing quarter sessions in the county of Berks, contained the names of 77 persons now in Bridewell. Of these 22 were for poaching; and of these 22, there had been 9 committed by clergymen acting as magistrates in that county. The petition stated further, that, in general, poaching was punished with greater severity than offences punishable with death. In one sessions, an utterer of false silver coin had been punished with 12 months' imprisonment, a housebreaker with 24 months' imprisonment, and a poacher with 24 months' imprisonment and hard labour. Such were the statements of the petition, for which he did not pledge his own responsibility; but yet he thought that they demanded serious consideration, and the case was altogether grave enough without any aggravation. The petition went on to state, that of 16 persons condemned to death at the assizes at Winchester, in the Spring of last year, the only persons who suffered death were two young men who had resisted game-keepers. The pe

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, May 7.

SALE OF GAME BILL-PETITION OF MR. COBBETT AGAINST IT.] Mr. Brougham rose, he said, to present a petition from a writer of eminent talents, respecting the Game Laws, which contained statements, as he thought, deserving the gravest consideration of the House. It was signed "W. Cobbett," and it prayed, that as there was a motion for bringing in a bill for the alteration of the Game Laws, the House would be graciously pleased to pause before passing an act which, as the petitioner had been informed, was likely to go to legalize the sale of game by lords of manors, and other privileged persons to be designated in the act. It prayed that the House would weigh well and consider the state of the laws, and the severe hardships

consider well before they passed the bill into a law, which was to give a property in wild animals to the lords of manors and others, which could only be done by oppressions, great in suffering and humiliation to the people at large, and by com, pelling the country to submit to grievances for the protection of this new property, which, in regard to the power of those who made the laws, and the abjectness of those who were called on to obey them, would be without any parallel in any country westward of Constantinople. These were the remarks and statements of a man of sufficient powers of observation and understanding to make them worthy of attention. And certainly, of all men in the world, Mr. Cobbett was not one likely to treat with leniency this offence of poaching, which took men from their lawful industry, and caused them to waste their time and destroy their morals in forbidden courses; for, as he (Mr. B) had been given by others to understand, no one act, among all those most objec tionable laws upon the subject contained

in the Statute-book, had half, no, not the hundredth part of the efficacy in deterring men from poaching. This he felt to be due to a man for whom, in other respects, he could not be supposed to have the most friendly feeling.

Lord Palmerston said, that the two young men in question were executed, not for poaching, but for murder. One of them had killed a game-keeper who was in the lawful exercise of his duty, the other had levelled his piece at another gamekeeper, who received the contents in his body, but from proper treatment recovered. He was able to speak with certainty upon the characters of the young men, as they were servants of his, and he must say a more cruel and deliberate out rage had never been committed.

Mr. Brougham said, that he did not deny the statement of the noble lord, and yet it would rather go to support the reasoning of Mr. Cobbet. It was not even necessary for him to palliate the offences of the two young men: for the question was, how came they to kill the gamekeepers? and then the answer might be, in consequence of the state of the law. That was the very argument he had used before the court on the trial of 21 persons the other day, charged with murder on the high seas, and it prevailed, too, with the jury for the men were killed in consequence of that most abominable law, which enabled revenue cruisers to fire shotted guns upon the ships of any nation within two leagues of the British coast.

Mr. Benett, of Wilts, admitted that the two young men had suffered death very properly in Hampshire. Still he thought that the state of the law demanded reformation. Most of the offences of the country might be considered as results from the severity of the game-laws. Of fenders were gradually trained from poaching to shop-lifting, and then to housebreaking, and occasionally murder.

Sir T. Baring corroborated the statements in Mr. Cobbett's petition. Half the offenders in Hampshire were committed for poaching.

The petition was ordered to be printed. The following is a copy thereof:

To the honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled. "The Petition of William Cobbett, of Kensington, in the County of Middlesex, Most humbly sheweth, "That wild animals are, according to the law of nature and the common law of VOL. IX.

England, the property of him, be he rich or poor, who is able to catch or kill them; that, nevertheless, laws have been passed in this kingdom to appropriate the animals to the exclusive use of a few; and that your petitioner has been informed that certain persons intend to apply to your honourable House to pass a law to make this appropriation more exclusive, rigid and unjust than it now is, by authorizing the selling of the animals aforesaid, and by confining the right of selling to those persons who now claim and exercise a monopoly of the sport of killing those wild animals:

"That your petitioner has now lying before him the quarter sessions calendar of this present month of April, for the county of Berks; that he finds there to be 77 prisoners in the Bridewell of that county; that he finds 22 of these to be imprisoned for poaching, and that 9 of them have been committed by ministers of the Church of England, acting as justices of the peace; that he finds, in this calendar, that poaching is, in many cases, punished with more severity than theft; that he finds an utterer of base silver punished by twelve months imprisonment, and a house-breaker punished by 24 months; and that he finds a poacher punished with 24 months imprisonment and hard labour :

"That your petitioner thinks it monstrous injustice, that the rest of the community should be taxed to build and repair prisons and maintain gaolers and prisoners, and also the wives and children of so many prisoners, and all this for the preserving of those wild animals which it is a crime in nine hundred and ninetynine out of every thousand of that community to pursue, or to have in their possession; and he, therefore, prays, that your honourable House, if you should think proper to continue the present gamelaws in force, will be pleased to enact, that those who prosecute poachers shall pay all the expenses attending their imprisonment, or other punishment; and also all the expenses attending the support of wives and children rendered chargeable by such punishment:

"That your petitioner, looking at the above-mentioned scale of punishments, and bearing in mind, that, of 16 persons, condemned to death at the assizes at Winchester, in the Spring of last year, the only persons actually put to death were two young men, who had resisted game

G

keepers; that your petitioner, looking at these things, prays that your honourable House will repeal those terrible laws relating to the game, which were never known in England till the reign of the late king, and that, at any rate, you will not make game saleable without, at the same time, making those who are to have the exclusive profit, pay the expense of punishing poachers and also the expense of keeping their pauper families; for, though it seemed that nothing could add to the injustice of compelling men to feed wild animals and to pay for preserving them for the exclusive sport of others, yet that injustice would assuredly be rendered more odious by the proposed measure for giving the few a monopoly of the sale of those animals, which, to the insolence of feudal pride, would add the meanness of the huckster's shop. Great has been the suffering, great the humiliation to which the people, in different countries, have, at times, been reduced by aristocratic power; but to compel the mass of the community to pay for the preserving of wild animals, to punish them if they attempt to pursue, or touch those animals, and to enable the aristocracy to sell those animals, to have the exclusive sale of them, and exclusively to pocket the proceeds, though the animals have been reared at the expense of the whole community, is, as your petitioner believes, a stretch of power on the one hand, and a state of abjectness on the other, wholly without a parallel in the annals of any country westward of Constantinople.

WM. COBBETT.

SHERIFF OF DUBLIN-INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT.] The House having again resolved itself into a Committee on the conduct of the Sheriff of Dublin, sir R. Heron in the chair,

Do you now mean positively to say, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe did not make objection to the political opinions of Mr. Poole?--I do not mean positively to say it, but I rather think he did not, in consequence, that from the circumstances that occurred, he and I were not of the same feelings in politics.

Did you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe concur, at grand jury was struck?—We did. last, in forming the panel from which this

You have mentioned, that the panel, when it was presented to you first, was in the hand writing of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe ?--I think it was. Was Mr. Poole's name upon the panel when it was first shown to you?-It was.

You have stated that you cannot take upon yourself positively to say, at whose suggestion it was that his name was put off the panel ?— It was mutually.

You mentioned on a former evening, that the reason of Mr. Poole's being struck off was, his having made the application ?-To me; if he had not made the application, I think I would have insisted on his being on.

What do you mean by your insisting on his being on?-In consequence of his standing in a similar situation with those who were on, being one of the members of the commons of the city of Dublin.

Do you mean, you would have insisted on his being on, against Mr. Thorpe's attempt to put him off?-I think I would, for I have known Mr. Poole a long time.

What was the nature of Mr. Poole's application to you; was it in the way of complaint or of application ?-I think he came to me, to require me to speak to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, to have him put on the panel.

Did he make any complaint with respect to
I do not think he did.
breach of promise in Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?

any

By Mr. Plunkett.-Are you positive whether, when Mr. Poole first came to you upon the

examined

By Mr. J. Williams.-Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe interfere in preventing Mr. Poole being put upon the panel?-On communication with Mr. Thorpe, we agreed that he should not be on the panel; I had no objection to Mr. Poole's being on the panel, but in consequence of his calling on me; I rather think, had he not called on me, he should have remained on the panel.

Did not sheriff Thorpe object to Mr. Poole on the ground of his political opinions?—I cannot be certain.

Do not you believe, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe objected to Mr. Poole, on the score of his po

a complaint of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe having broken his word in having put him off?-I think I can go the length of saying, that he did not complain; the first complaint I heard was in the court, that Sheriff Thorpe (when the panel was struck) and Poole had some words in consequence of his not being on.

Do you not believe, that Mr. Poole had long before that, applied to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, for the purpose of being on the panel?--I do, from conversations I have heard since, but not at that time.

And that he had promised him?—Yes.

Was that before Mr. Poole came to make his application to you?—Not before that, I did not hear.

Do not you believe the fact to be, that before he came to make the application to you, he had been promised by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, that he should be upon the panel ?-I declare I cannot form a belief of it.

From what you now know, and have heard, do you not believe that an early promise had been made by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to Mr. Poole, that he should be upon the panel, long before the conversation with you?--I do believe, from the conversation I have heard since, that he had been.

The return of the panel was in the hands of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—It was.

Why did Mr. Poole come to you, he having already had a promise from Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, to be upon the panel; why did he apply to you to put him upon the panel?—I cannot say. Do you not believe that it was because he had heard, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had changed his mind as to putting him upon the panel?-I think it may be so.

From what you have since heard, do you believe that Sheriff Thorpe had changed his intention of keeping Mr. Poole's name upon the panel, before Mr. Poole made the application to you?—I do.

If sheriff Thorpe had changed his intention, as to keeping Mr. Poole's name upon the panel, before Mr. Poole applied to you, how could Mr. Poole's applying to you be the cause of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe's putting his name off the panel? -This was the preparatory list, prepared for the record panel, and on reading that over, when we came to Poole's name, a conversation took place, as I have mentioned before, and I stated that he had called upon me, and under those circumstances I thought his name ought to be omitted.

By Mr. Leycester.-Do you know how many "conciliation-men" were upon that panel?-I know there were some very moderate minded men upon it.

Do you think there were five?—I do. Were those five within the first 27 of that panel, or any of them?--If I had the panel I could state; but there were certainly more than that, to my knowledge, upon the panel.

George Harris called in; and examined By Mr. J. Williams.—To what regiment do you belong?—The 7th hussars; troop-serjeant major.

Were you not examined before the grand jury, after the alleged riot in the Dublin theatre-I was.

Who examined you?-Four or five of the jury.

In what manner was the examination conducted by the grand jury?—Not very courteously; indeed it was not.

Explain to the committee what you mean by the words "not very courteously?"-They were very careful to remind me that I was speaking upon my oath; and after I had answered a question, it was repeated to me, and that in a significant and fretful manner; and

when I was asked, how I could possibly know a person I had seen in one gallery from the other; one of the jurors replied to me, I do not think you could know the person you swear threw the missile." I was speaking of the person I had sworn to as having thrown the rattle.

Had you, at the time, positively stated your knowledge of the person?—I had stated it with the greatest confidence; I spoke to the individual who threw it; one of the jurors answered, "I do not believe that you knew the person who threw the missile."

When you retired from the room, did you make any comment to the persons in the neighbourhood, to bystanders, on the manner in which you had been treated?-I did; there were several gentlemen standing at the grand jury room door, and were inquiring of most of the witnesses, as they came out, how they had been received by the jury; I there publicly said, I had been used very badly, and I also heard several of the other witnesses say they had been used in a similar kind of manner.

By Colonel Barry.-Was it the mode of examination you objected to?-Yes; I thought the manner rude in which I was interrogated. Did they seem to discredit your testimony? Perfectly so.

Philip Burke Ryan called in; and examined By Mr. J. Williams.-What is your situation? -An officer of excise at Dublin.

Were you examined by the grand jury, on the subject of the riot at the theatre ?—I was. I was examined as to a few questions, by the foreman; and then by one or two more, immediately after him; and in the course of a few minutes, I was asked one question by one, and before I had time to give an answer, two or three more started fresh questions to me, for the express purpose, as I conceived, of shaking my testimony, from the manner in which they proceeded towards me; that was, after one of them asked me my motives and my expectations, if I was counselled or advised, or what my expectations or motives were for coming forward to give my testimony there.

Did you make any complaint to them of the manner in which you had been treated ?—I did to the foreman; I was called from where I sat, next to the foreman, and in the event of being annoyed so much by two of the grand jurors, I immediately returned back to him, and told him, it was impossible for me to give direct answers to the questions they put, or to be able to recollect the questions they put to me, from the manner in which they acted. I told them, when they were annoying me, that I was equally sworn as they were, that I took a solemn oath in the court to do my duty, and had no other motive for doing it, and requested to be heard distinctly by them.

Was that after the question had been put in the manner you have described, so that you had not an opportunity of giving your answers fully and distinctly?—Yes, it was.