HC Deb 24 February 1823 vol 8 cc243-7
Mr. Brownlow

rose to move for a series of papers relative to certain proceedings which had recently taken place in the court of King's-bench, in Ireland. As he understood that there was no objection to their production, it was not necessary that he should preface his motion with any observations. He then moved for, 1. "Copies of the Committals of the persons engaged in the alleged riot and conspiracy on the 14th of last December, in the Dublin theatre." 2. "Copies of the Bills of Indictment, alleging a riot and conspiracy to riot, which were preferred to the grand jury in the city of Dublin, on the 1st Jan. last, and the finding of the jury thereon." 3. "A Copy of the Ex-officio Information, on the same subject, filed in the Court of King's-bench by his majesty's attorney-general for Ireland."

Mr. Plunkett

said, it was, he presumed, the intention of the hon. member to follow up the motion for the production of those papers with some ulterior proceeding, with respect to what had taken place in the court of King's-bench, Ireland, and the transactions that had occurred there. As the present motion was merely for the production of papers, it was not his intention to invite any debate on the subject which the hon. member meant to bring before the House. He begged leave to express his extreme satisfaction on finding it at length announced, that the question would be specifically brought forward. He was glad that it was in the hands of the hon. gentleman, who would discharge his duty to the House and the country, on this, as he did on all occasions, with perfect propriety. But he could not avoid expressing some degree of surprise, that it had devolved on him to bring the question forward; because, when, on a former occasion, an inquiry was made relative to the catholic question, a right hon. baronet was so eager to give an opinion on this case, which had nothing to do with the question which had been asked, that he could not help observing, that these proceedings were an improper course of proceeding. When that right hon. baronet, who was a member of the legal profession, and who at one period had tilled the office which he (Mr. P.) now held, felt it necessary to make this charge, that the proceedings were improper, he did expect that the right hon. baronet would have come forward himself in a manly manner, and abided by the charge he had thought fit to make. He was ready to meet the charge; and he could not but express his expectation, that the right hon. baronet would come forward to second the motion of the hon. member for Armagh, and to substantiate the charge which he had made. The transactions in the court of King's-bench involved a public question infinitely more important than any thing that merely related to himself. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. gentleman would take an early opportunity of bringing it forward.

Sir J. Stewart

said, he had not pledged himself to make any direct charge on the occasion alluded to. He felt himself justified in offering the remark which had occasioned the observations of the learned gentleman, because the state of Ireland had been referred to at the time; and because he was convinced, that the late proceedings had not produced a good effect. He would say, in the face of that House and of the world, that those proceedings, if not absolutely illegal, were certainly unconstitutional. This he felt himself compelled to state, though he entertained the most friendly regard for the learned gentleman. He admitted the great talents and the tried worth of the learned gentleman; but no private consideration should induce him to shrink from what he conceived to be his duty.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

suggested, whether it would not be prudent, en every account, not to press the discussion farther. The proposition was, that certain documents should be laid on the table. No objection was made to the production of those documents. The right hon. baronet had, however, taken the present opportunity to state, that the acts of the attorney-general of Ireland, if not strictly illegal, were highly unconstitutional. Now, he did not think it was placing the House in a fair situation, to call on them, thus prematurely, to discuss a question which was of such vital importance to the learned gentleman, to the government of which he formed a part, and to the interests of the country at large.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald

asked, as the parties were at issue, whether it was absolutely necessary, with regard to this question, to wait for the production of these papers? If it was not necessary, and if, in consequence of recent proceedings, the peace and tranquillity of the country had been disturbed, an expression of the opinion of that House ought to be sent forth as soon as possible. Looking to the temper and feelings of either party, he saw little prospect of the agitation which at present prevailed being speedily allayed. In his opinion, what the right hon. gentleman had said in favour of postponing this question, contained most cogent reasons for bringing it forward. The character of the attorney-general, and the character of his majesty's government, demanded this inquiry. But, there was a third party, the people of Ireland, on whose behalf he strenuously called for that investigation. Could the particular manner in which the indictment was worded, or the mode in which these persons were tried, at all affect the decision of the House? The question to be discussed was merely this—whether, after a bill of indictment had been ignored by the grand jury, it was proper to file an ex officio information against the parties?

Mr. Croker

said, it seemed to him, that on a question of so much importance, papers should not be moved for on the sudden, and granted as a matter of course. No person could deny the right of that House to interfere with a legal proceeding, when a sufficient ground was laid; but he thought it would have been more consonant with the practice of parliament, and the law and constitution of the country, if the hon. member had given notice of motion. He strongly deprecated any interference, per saltum, with the proceedings of courts of justice.

Mr. Brownlow

said, that before he moved for these documents, he had been given to understand, that there was not the slightest objection to granting them. He would submit a motion to the House on the subject, on the earliest possible day after the recess.

Mr. Abercromby

doubted the propriety of the mode which the hon. member intended to take. If the hon. member meant to found on these papers a vote of censure on the Irish attorney-general, he (Mr. A.) should be placed in a very great difficulty. He felt that there was not any defect or illegality in the exercise of this power. It was not asserted, that the attorney-general had done what he was not legally entitled to do; but that he had lent himself to an unconstitutional proceeding. If that were the case, it involved an inquiry into the whole of the proceedings that had taken place; and, towards such an inquiry as that, the hon. member had made no advance whatever; for he had not laid before the House those facts and circumstances which it was necessary they should know, prior to their deciding whether or not a censure should be passed on the attorney-general. There was another objection, which he put to the candour of the hon. member. Let the opinions on the catholic question be what they might, still no man who wished that subject to be fairly and temperately discussed, could wish it to be brought forward until the other was disposed of. His firm conviction was, that this preliminary question should first be discussed and settled.

Mr. Brownlow

said, he intended to submit his motion, previous to the discussion on the catholic question.

The motion was agreed to.