Sitting of 5 May 1823

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.—PETITION FROM EDINBURGH.
Mr. Abercrombyrose to present a petition from 7,000 house holders Edinburgh; The petitioners laid most representation the peculiar state of the representation of their great city before the House. They offered he 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? Thirty three 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 dumber 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 2,800 l. while the property of the whole was rated at 400,000 l. 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. I 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
32
bad. There was no such thing as a popular election in that country, nor did its inhabitants enjoy any constitution means of assembling to make known then feelings and opinions upon political subjects. He promised to move for leave to bring in a bill early next session, to alter He mode of electing the member to Serve the city of Edinburgh.
Mr. W. Dundassaid, 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 hot know them, in point of numbers bore no proportion to the inhabitants of Edinburgh.
Mr. Kennedywas rejoiced to see this petition before the House, not only be cause, coming from so important a place as Edinburgh, it must command consider able 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: thy 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. Calcraftsaid, he believed He 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

33
worthy of his whole course, by accepting a sinecure of 2,000 l. 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 Binningwas 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 particularly 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 not more numerous. 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 the rose; for he was no friend to 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. Grantsaid that to what had just been dropped by the noble lord, coming, as it did from a professed enemy to
34
all kinds of reform, it was not his intention to offer any argument; but to those who had said they were ready to support the cause of reform where; a. case for it was made out, he put it whether any could be stronger than the one submitted by his hon. friend. To the objection, that object of the petitioners was to infringe on the articles of the Union, he replied that they sought not to deprive the pre sent electors of their rights, but to extend similar rights to others equally entitled to them.
Sir R. Fergussonsaid, that so far, was the petition from being signed by woman or children, that of the 7,000 signatures there was not one of any person who did not reside in a house of 5l. a year in value.
Mr. Humebelieved that there were not more than 10,168 houses in Edinburgh pf more than5 l. 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 ail the male inhabitants of Edinburgh who resided in houses of above the value 5l a year. In his opinion, a stronger case could not exist.
Mr. H. Drummonddenied 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 farther 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 panels of grand jurors returned by the sheriffs of the city of Dublin, &c."]
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.
Do you know what became of bills of indictment 'between the two days?—They were delivered to me.
Were they returned to the grand jury on the second day, in the same state that they were the first day?—Not exactly.
What difference was made in them?—There

35
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 wider the consideration of the grand jury?—I have.
State the instance?—Frequently at the suggestion of the grand jury themselves.
With or without the leave of the court?—Without the leave of the court.
Did you ever know it at the suggestion of a prosecutor?—Tn 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?—I 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.
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 third; I believe so; it was to him I gave it, 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 interlineations 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?—Persome days.
Without bail?—Three of them appeared in

37
custody on the gaoler's calendar returned to me.
You probably recollect the time that those persons were committed; did it not make a very serious and very awful sensation in all Dublin? [The witness was directed to withdraw.]
Mr. Goulburnsaid, they were assembled to inquire into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin, and he could not see how such a question was at all referable to his conduct. The inquiry would be interminable, if they did not adhere to that which was alone the subject of inquiry.
Sir J. Stewartdefended the relevancy of the question he had put, and denied that the examination could be narrowed in the way recommended by his hon. friend.
The Chairmanthought it was utterly impossible to lay down any strict line as to the nature of the questions that should or should not be put. A question which did not at first appear relevant, might lead to very important inferences.
Mr. J. Williamsargued, that a parliamentary inquiry demanded a greater latitude than an inquiry in a court of justice.
Colonel Barrycontended, that they would do nothing if they confined the inquiry to the conduct of the sheriff. He bad put questions which did not go to that point, but which he could not consider as irrelevant. One learned member (Mr. Brougham) had declared his intention to conduct the committee into an inquiry with respect to the whole state of the administration of justice in Ireland. With such a declaration as this before them, how could an extended examination be Avoided?
Mr. J. Graltanobserved, that if they were to go into an inquiry into the conduct of the guild of merchants, and of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the investigation would he without end.
The Chairmanstrongly recommended that hon. members would, in their questions, as far as possible, limit their inquiry to matters of strict fact.
Sir J. Mackintoshwished the recommendation, as far as practicable, to be adopted. Still he thought that acts of the grand jury might eventually affect and involve the conduct of the sheriff.
[The witness was again called in.]
By Sir J. Stewart—Do you recollect an address from the lord mayor and a body of the
38
respectable corporation of Dublin. To the Lord-lieutenant on his escape?—I do.
Have you any recollection of the gentlemen who signed the requisition, or any of them, for calling that meeting?—It was signed by a great number, and amongst the rest by myself.
Do you recollect being asked the other day, about a Mr. Moore, who was one of the grand jury?—I do.
Was not he one of those who signed that requisition, and one of the first?—I do not know; there were a great number, and I signed my name, and the names of two others who directed me to do so. I did not see his name, but I think it is very likely that he did.
Do you know whether any of the grand jury, and if so, how many, signed that requisition?—I cannot charge my memory with that.
Do you know Mr. Chambers, a solicitor of Dublin?—I do.
He was the solicitor for Mr. Forbes, one of the persons indicted?—He was.
Is that the gentleman who now sits at the side of the sheriff, as his confidential adviser?—That is the gentleman.
By Mr. Nolan.—Do you know whether, being elected as common-council-man is not considered as an exemption from serving on the commission grand juries?—I do not know that it operates as an exemption.
Is it considered as a favour for a common-council-man to be put upon a commission grand jury?—I had rather understood it to be a favour to be off of it.
Do you know, whether the usual practice is, for the sheriff to return an open panel, or a. signed one, for the grand jury?—A signed panel.
Do you mean that the panel is signed in the first instance, or that it is first returned, without signature, and afterwards signed in court?—Signed in the first instance.
Were you present at the time that this grand jury was returned?—The sheriff handed me the panel.
Were you in court at the time, and did he hand it to the proper officer?—The sheriff handed it to me as the proper officer.
Do you recollect any observation made by the court considering the number of traversers, as to the propriety or impropriety of returning so small a panel?—I do not.
According to the practice in Dublin, after a grand jury panel is signed by the sheriff, can any be added to it?—If there is not a sufficient number on the panel as returned, the sheriff frequently adds to it.
With reference to the common jury panel, the jury to try, is that returned as a signed panel?—It most usually is.
After it is signed, can any persons be added: to it regularly?—I have known the sheriff directed to take his name from the panel, in order that he might have an opportunity, of enlarging it.
By Colonel Barry.—Wete you by at the time the petit jury were; called before the court?—I was in the court of King's-bench when the Jury were called over to try the ex-officio information.
Do you recollect any observation being made by the court at that time, as to the smallness of the panel returned?—I cannot distinctly bring it to my recollection.
Any thing said as to the number of traversers?—At some period or other I remember the observation falling from the court, but when, distinctly, I cannot bring to my recollection,
What was that observation?—It was with reference to; the small number of jurors returned.
Was it stating that they were too small?—Yes, with reference to the smallness of the number.
Finding fault with the smallness of the number?—That was the impression that it made upon me.
Was not that at a subsequent commission?—It was not at a commission at all.
It was not at the commission where this grand jury was impanelled?—It was at the trial of the ex-officio information.
It had nothing to do with the grand jury with reference to which you have been examined?—No.
Who was the presiding sheriff to that commission?—It was a trial at bar, in the court of King's-bench; the same sheriff who returned the grand jury.
If the panel had been double the number that it was, would it have made any alteration in the persons who were sworn on the grand jury at the commission?—of course those that followed afterwards, would not have been called, when the first six-and-twenty of the grand jury appeared.
By Mr. Brownlow.—Do you know how many of the January grand panel are to be found upon the preceding panel in October?—I think sixteen.
You stated that you were in the court of King's-bench when the jury were impanelled to try the ex-officio inforniation?—When the jury were called over; I was brought there as a witness.
Did his majesty's attorney general challenge a great number upon that panel?—There were a number set by on the part of the crown.
pp, not you believe that 29 were the number?—There were a good many, but I cannot speak, to the number.
Do you know who was the foreman of that jury?—I do not recollect
Do you think; Mr. Francis Mills was the foreman?—I believe he was.
Was Mr. Francis Mills upon the commission; grand jury. panel in January—I do not Know.
Will, you, have the goodness to see, whether, Mr. Francis Mills was upon that panel?—
40
[The witness referred to the panel] I find that he is.
Then the foreman of the. jury, to try the ex-officio informations, was one of the grand panel of January 1823?—He was.
Do you not recollect, that many were called before his name was called?—I do not.
You were understood to say you were there; but you do not recollect that circumstance?—rl do not.
Do you know whether Thomas Fry was on both juries?—[The witness referred to the panel] I find that he is.
Do you know whether Mr. Moore is not brother-in-law to the provost of Trinity, college in Dublin?—I do not know.
Do you know Mr. Moore, the solicitor, in Dublin; a neighbour of yours?—Yes, perfectly well.
Do you not know that he is brother to the gentleman on the panel?—I really do not know, but I always understood he was a most respectable gentleman.
By Sir N. Colthurst.—Do you recollect any of the Bank directors of Dublin having been challenged by the Crown on the petit jury?—I cannot bring to my recollection any such circumstance.
Then, in point of fact, the law officer of the crown felt it incumbent upon him to object to a greater number upon this panel than on usual occasions?—Yes, it appeared so.
By Mr. J. Williams.—What number did Mr. Mills appear upon the commission grand jury panel?—No. 29.
What was Mr. Fry's number upon that panel?—No. 37.
Do you recollect the number specified in the precept?—The precept, I think, mentions twenty-four.
Do you know, whether the two jurors who served upon the ex officio information, and who had been upon the grand jury panel, had been among the number of those who were or were not sworn?—The Two persons, Mills and Fry, were not sworn on the grand jury; they were merely on the panel.
Within these few years, has it not been usual to call Roman Catholics on grand juries?—I have known it occur frequently, latterly.
You act as clerk of the Crown in a great many counties, and in a great many of those counties do you not recollect Roman Catholics being called upon the grand panel promiscuously with others?—I have; and sworn.
Were you present when the result of the trial of the ex-officio information was announced in the court, by the withdrawal of a juror?—I Was not.
You have no knowledge of any ulterior proceedings being intimated by any person, to be taken after the result of a juror being with drawn?—I have not.
Mr. Terence O'Relitycalled in and examined
By Mr. J. Williams.—What is your, situation?—An attorney, in Dublin.
Where have yon resided carrying on that profession?—In the city of Dublin.
Were yon residing in Dublin at the time that the commission jury was sworn in January last?—I was.
Do you remember when the bills went before the grand jury?—Perfectly.
Were you in the court, or in the neighbourhood of the court at that time, when the bills were before the jury?—Alternately in the court and in the neighbourhood of the court during the first and second days of the commission.
On either of those days did you see Mr. sheriff'Thorpe?—Frequently.
Were you present when it was announced that the bills were ignored?—I was.
To whom was that announced?—In the office of the clerk of the crown, Mr. Allen and Green's office in Green-street; in an office adjoining the court-house, in the same building with the court-house in Green-street, Dublin. Were you in that office at that time?—I was. Were any other persons there?—There were.
Can you name any of them?—It was an office of public intercourse, and a great number of persons occasionally go in, and retire at that particular instant I do not recollect that there were many persons; the conversation alluded to, was directed chiefly to a gentleman of the name of Ward, a professional gentleman.
Was sheriff Thorpe in that office?—He was. How near to the time of the news arriving of the bills being ignored?—From an hour to three quarters of an hour previous.
Did you hear Mr. Sheriff Thorpe make any observation to Mr. Ward, or to any other person, at the time you have now alluded to?—He came into the office where I was, and said, "There will be no bills found: have not I managed it well? and my business being done I have no further here."
How was he dressed at that time?—He had his appointments of sheriff', his cocked hat and sword. He took those off; the hat I am not quite positive about; he put on his surtout and immediately went away, as if to communicate the news elsewhere.
Did you hear him say any thing else?—No. Do you know any other person who was present at the time, besides Mr. Ward?—There was Mr. Macnamara an attorney.
Did you mean to say that his had nothing further to do there?—Yes; at that place.
By Col. Barry.—How many persons were there in the' room?—Sheriff Thorpe, myself, Mr. Macnamara, and Mr. Ward.
Do you suppose-there were any others in the room?—I dare say there were, but as to the identity of them, I cannot speak to that.
Were there any clerks in the room?—I am quite sure there were not then; I was standing behind the counter, and there were but three there; and it is the usual place where clerks were, that I was.
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe say this in a load tone of voice?—He did in an exulting manner.
Did he speak it was loud as you are speaking now?—I rather think not.
But so that it could be heard by any person who was in the room?—Yes.
Had you any conversation with Mr. Ward about the probable finding of the jury?—I am not quite certain; Mr. Ward will of course tell you if I did. Did you make any observation to Mr. Ward afterwards, respecting the declaration of Mr. Sheriff, Thorpe?—I am not quite sure whether I did.
Have you ever mentioned to any person that you had a conversation with Mr. Ward?—No, never.
When d id you first mention this declaration of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe after you heard it?—Whenever the subject came to be discussed.
When did it come to be discussed?—It occurred very often.
When did you first mention it?—I do not recollect having mentioned it at any particular time so that I could state it exactly, until I was applied to as to giving evidence as to another fact, which I was not competent to do; and I stated my incompetency to do it.
Who applied to you to give evidence as to that fact?—A Mr. Costelow, an attorney.
Was it a fact connected with this inquiry?—It was certainly connected with this inquiry; respecting some juror, or something of that sort.
To whom did you mention this fact first?—To young Mr. Piunket, the attorney general's son.
When?—On Monday or Tuesday last.
Do you remember any particular person to whom you mentioned it previously to Monday last?—I do not.
Do you believe that you mentioned it to any one in the interim?—I did to many.
You do not remember them?—I do not.
But you are clear you had no conversation with Mr. Ward upon the subject?—Perfectly clear.
After Mr. Thorpe left the room?—After Mr. Thorpe left the room.
You did not mention it to him?—I did not.
What induced you to communicate with Mr. Costelow upon the subject?—I never communicated willingly with Mr. Costelow; he stopped me in the hall of the court where we were in the habit of meeting each other, and asked me whether I recollected the circumstance which occurred at the commission.
What circumstance was that?—With respect to a juror that wanted or wished to be on the grand jury of January 1823; and I told him I was quite ignorant on that subject, and could give no evidence whatever of it; that I was most anxious not to give any evidence upon the subject, and that I would feel greatly obliged to him not to press any thing upon me; that I was circumstanced a way now that

43
it would be vital to my interests in a variety of ways to come forward.
Was that grand juror's name Poole?—It was.
When had you this conversation with Mr. Costelow?—The same day that I had the communication with the attorney general's son. About Monday or Tuesday last.
By Mr. Brownlow.—Do you come here by order, of this House?—I come here by order of the crown solicitor, who told me, with young Mr. Plunkett, there had been an order moved for; and in order to get a speedy return I came here in order to give my evidence, and get back to my professional pursuits and my family.
The order of this House never reached you?—It did not.
Then you are a volunteer?—I am, so far.
When did you leave Dublin?—On Friday morning.
Where have you been since your arrival in London?—In one of the hotels.
What hotel is it?—I do not recollect the name precisely.
Is it the Salopian?—That is the name of it.
Have you been talking with any one since you came to London, with reference to the evidence you are to give in this House?—I have.
Is it Mr. Blake?—That is the gentleman.
Were you with him to-day?—I was.
Who told you to go to Mr. Blake?—I called at the attorney-general's this morning, and told him that I had arrived; he was not aware that I had, I believe, until I did come. He felt obliged, he said, for my prompt attendance, and requested I would call on Mr. Blake; which I did.
What did he mean by your prompt attendance?—Coming, probably, without the order of this House.
And he begged you to go to Mr. Blake?—He did.
And you went to Mr. Blake accordingly?—I did.
What conversation had you with Mr. Blake?—I wrote down for him the evidence I could give.
Did he not ask you what you could give, as to such and such questions?—He did not.
What did he do with the written evidence you wrote down?—I do not know.
Did he talk to you at all upon the subject of the evidence you could give?—Yes, he did.
What did he say?—He asked me the evidence I could give; and I said, the shortest way will be, for me to write it down; and he said, it would; and I wrote it down.
And you had no further conversation with him?—No.
By Mr. Brougham.—You have not lived in Cotton-garden since you came here [a laugh]?—I do not recollect that I have.
Had you any particular acquaintance with young Mr. Plunkett?—No.
Or with Mr. Plunkett, his majesty's attorney-
44
general for Ireland?—I never spoke to him, but on professional business.
Have you any acquaintance with any member of this House?—I have the honour of knowing many of the members of this House; not intimately.
Are there any you know more than others?—I think I know Mister Ellis more than others.
By Mr. J. Williams.—You have stated, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, and Mr. Ward, and yourself, were behind the desk at which the clerks of the office are usually placed, at the time this conversation took place?—Yes.
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe address this conversation to Mr. Ward, as to a person with whom he was intimate?—Yes, I conceived it so.
By Mr. Scarlett.—You have said you were unwilling to give any evidence, were you rightly understood?—Yes, perfectly so; for I was so circumstanced that nothing but a sense of duty would oblige me to do it; I come here at very great inconvenience to my private concerns.
By Mr. Grattan.—Do you mean to say, that you expressed to Mr. Costelow your disinclination to attend?—I did, and to Mr. Plunkett, too, and to every person who spoke to me upon the occasion.
By Mr. Brownlow.—Were you acquainted with Mr. Sheriff Thorpe's person at the time he came into the office?—I knew him as sheriff, but I never knew him until he was made sheriff.
You have said that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe said, the business had been very well managed; was there any allusion to the jury at that time?—I conceive that he alluded to the management of impanelling the jury, by the expressions that he used.
By Mr. C. Calvert.—You were understood to say, that the words he used were, "there will be no bills found?"—Those were the words.
And he said that in a loud tone?—Yes.
By a.Member.—And you had no previous knowledge of him, except in his capacity of sheriff?—Yes, I knew his person as sheriff.
How came it that you never mentioned it to any person until you mentioned it to Mr. Plunkett, jun.?—I have mentioned it frequently; but the particular persons I am not prepared to name.
You have not named any person except Mr. Plunket, jun., to whom you have mentioned it?—There were a great number of persons present besides those: Mr. Macnamaraand Mr. Ward, those can vouch for it.
You cannot name any other individual to whom you mentioned it, except to young Mr. Plunkett?—No.
By Sir J. Mackintosh.—Did you state Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to have used those words in an. exulting tone, and in a voice loud enough to be heard by you?—He did.
Are you rightly understood in having begun to say, that you probably had conversed, since the occurrence of that interview, with Mr. Macnamara, the other gentleman present?—That is precisely my evidence.
Did you hear the whole of the conversation that passed between the sheriff and Mr. Ward?—I am not quite sure; they seemed to be very intimate, and I would not obtrude myself any thing more than that which was said so loud.
Are you sure there was nothing said previously to that you have repeated?—Certainly not.
By a Member.—You say that the sheriff left the room as if to communicate the news; what news do you mean?—The news of the bills being thrown out, against the rioters.
Did you not say that this conversation passed three quarters of an hour before the bills were thrown out?—I do.
How do you reconcile it, that the sheriff should leave the office to carry the news of the bills being thrown out, three quarters of an hour before they had been thrown out?—To communicate to his friends in the city, that the bills had been, or would be, thrown out.
Do you know whether Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had been previously in the grand jury room?—I do not.
Were you in court when the bills were returned?—I was not; but I was so near that I knew it immediately: I was in the office that just the hall divided.
How long was that after Mr. Sheriff Thorpe came into the office?—About three quarters of an hour.
Will you take upon yon to say it was not three o'clock when Mr. Sheriff Thorpe came into the office?—I do not think it was.
Do you know whether Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had been in the habit of employing Mr. Ward as his attorney?—I know nothing about it.
By Mr. Brownlow.—After you first heard it, and between that time and the time of communicating it to Mr. Plunket, had you not (made many persons, or some persons, acquainted with the information you possessed?—I do not know any person that I communicated it to; but Mr. Macnamara, being present, was aware of my knowledge of the transaction.
You have already stated, that you had communicated it to many persons?—I did.
You now tell us you never communicated it to any person?—I say, I do not know any person that I can name at this instant, that I communicated it to.
By Mr. Denman.—Did any person come from the grand jury room to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, I about that period?—Not that I saw.
Was there any thing from which you could infer, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had received any particular information with regard to the probability of the bills being thrown out?—Nothing but his coming into the room, and announcing this.
By Mr. J. Williams.—Was there any thing particular in the manner of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe when he came in?—He came in, in an exulting manner, and announced it at once; every body that was there might have heard it; I believe,
46
at the very instant, there were very few in the room.
Mr. Dillon Macnamara called in, and examined
By Mr. Scarlett.—What is your profession?—A solicitor and attorney.
Were you near the court at the time when the commission grand jury, in January last, were sitting upon the bills that were before them?—I was.
Did you, upon that occasion, see Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I did.
Where did you see him?—At various times in court during the day, attending to his duty as sheriff.
Do you remember seeing him at any time in the clerk of the peace's office, adjacent to the court?—I did.
What time of the day might that be?—I think it was between two and three o'clock. I cannot be precise as to the time; about the hour of three I should think.
Do you remember who were present in the room when you saw him there?—No.
Can you name any persons that were present?—Mr. O'Reilly was present; there were several persons in and out of the room that day, all day; whether they were present at that precise period I cannot undertake to say.
Do you recollect Mr. Sheriff Thorpe coming into the room, whilst you and Mr. O'Reilly was there?—I do.
Did he make use of any expression in your hearing?—He did.
State what you recollect him to have said?—He might have said various things; but Relative to the bills, he mentioned, that they were ignored; or, that there were no bills.
To whom did he address that remark?—He expressed it to some friend who was there; Mr. O'Reilly mentioned to me who that gentleman was, but I could not say positively that that was the gentleman; if I was allowed to speak upon my belief, I believe if was.
You believe it was whom?—A Mr. Ward.
Did you hear any question put to him, on any remark made by that gentleman to him?—He asked him, had the bills come down from the grand jury; he said no, but you may make your mind perfectly easy as to the result.
Was there any thing particular in his tone, or manner, when he said that?—He seemed to be well pleased at it.
Did he stay in the office?—No, I think he went away almost immediately after.
Do you remember how he was dressed when he came into the office, or whether he changed his dress before he left it?—I made no remark at the time as to his changing his dress.
Was there any conversation that occurred immediately afterwards between you and other persons, upon the subject?—There was a general conversation in the private room, saying, that they anticipated the result of those bills, inasmuch as there were persons on the jury who would not find true bills against the persons accused.
Was there any list of the grand jury in that office?—Yes.
Was that list looked at, at the time, to ascertain the names of the peisons?—Yes.
Did you know the individuals whose names were on the grand jury?—Yes, some of them.
Can yon take upon you to say whether the persons present specified a certain number of grand jurymen that they thought would not find the bills?—There was conversation in the office among the persons that were there, stating that there were persons of a certain—
Mention the word?—That there were fifteen Orangemen upon the grand jury; and other gentlemen said that there, were seventeen.
This was a conversation resulting from what the sheriff had said in the outer office?—It was.
When did you first mention this conversation to any body afterwards?—I do not remember mentioning it till there was a summons from this House for some gentlemen to attend; there were some acquaintances of mine in the courthouse of Dublin, talking of what they could be summoned for, and I mentioned, quite accidentally, what I have just now related, and I immediately got a summons to attend.
Do you know Mr. Costelow?—I do; it was Mr. Costelow I was mentioning it to.
By Colonel Barry.—Can you specify any other persons who were in the office at the time those conversations were supposed to take place?—I cannot, with certainty.
How many, do you suppose, were in the room at the time?—I really could not say, with accuracy; there were some of the clerks in the office, I should think; and some five or six other persons.
Where were the clerks standing or sitting?—I took no notice of that whatsoever.
Where were you standing when you heard the words?—I was standing outside the counter. Who was inside the counter?—Mr. O'Reilly, I think, was inside the counter, speaking to a gentleman there; I should rather think it was Mr. Ward.
The conversation you have stated with respect to the gentlemen of the jury, was after the sheriff was gone out?—Yes.
In the same room?—No, in the adjoining room.
Do you recollect hearing from any quarter, or ascertaining before you went away, that the bills had been ignored?—In about an hour afterwards or something better, the bills were then publicly ignored.
What do you mean by that?—That every person in court knew it.
By Mr. Scarlett.—Were you in court when the grand jury came in with the bills?—I think I was, I certainly heard Mr. Plunkett make some observations, which makes me think I was in, court at the time.
How long was that, after the conversation which you heard sheriff Thorpe have with a gentleman?—An hour or better.
Do you recollect what those observations
48
were that Mr. Plunkett made?—It was a kind of lecture, leaving them to their God, I believe.
By Mr. Brownlow.—Are you an Orangeman?—No, I am not.
Do you belong to any association in Ireland?—No; some seven or eight years ago I was a freemason; I have been a very bad member, for I have never attended these four years.
Do you know Mr. Mansfield?—I do; he is a clerk in the sheriff's office in the city of Dublin.
Do you recollect having had any conversation with Mr. Mansfield, in order that he might pack a jury for a client of your's?—I certainly do recollect some eight or nine years ago, when I was a very young man in the profession, that there was a person who was a clerk of mine; it was the only criminal case I was ever concerned in in my life; and my client, who was concerned in forging stamps, I believe was afterwards transported; his trial occupied twelve hours; I think he told me that if he could get some friends of his upon the jury, and gave me some friends, if I could prevail upon the sub-sheriff to get his friends upon the panel, he would remunerate the sub-sheriff handsomely. I think it my duty not to conceal any thing, I do not know what the consequences may be; I am perfectly independent of the profession, and I would not conceal any thing which had passed.
Did you communicate those names, with the offer of the bribe, to the sub-sheriff?—I do not think I communicated the names to Mr. Mansfield, but I communicated the substance of my message to him, that if he would put certain persons on the jury, whom my client would wish to be on it, he would be remunerated handsomely.
Do you recollect what Mr. Mansfield's answer to you upon that occasion was?—I think he said, that the jury was out of his power, as it was taken up by the crown; or, that the solicitor of the Stamp-office had ordered the panel to be returned to the castle, or something of that kind; and that he had not an opportunity, even if he wished.
Mr. Mansfield is summoned to the bar of this House?—I heard so this night.
Did not Mr. Mansfield indignantly reject the offer of a bribe?—He said what I have mentioned, that, even if he wished it, it was not in his power; for that the panel was ordered by the crown solicitor, or ordered by the castle; indeed, I think further than that, that the men that were summoned on the panel were not to compose the jury.
Did not he reject the bribe?—He did not get the bribe.
Why did not he get the bribe?—Because he did not do what I wanted.
Was your client tried?—He was; and was transported.
By Lord Milton.—Who was the crown's solicitor then?—Mr. Kemmis.
You said it was a crown prosecution?—It was a prosecution at the suit of the Stamp office.
Who conducted it?—The solicitor for the Stamp-office; Mr. Burrow.
Who were the counsel?—I believe Mr. Townsend was one of the counsel on the part of the crown.
Were the attorney or solicitor general employed in the case?—I cannot recollect.
How long ago is it since this case took place?—It was either in 1815 or 1816.
What was the name of your client?—Gallaghan.
You state, that you never thought of this transaction till it was brought to your notice, that you might be questioned upon it; what do you mean by that?—I met Mr. Mansfield, in the lobby of the house, about an hour since; and he told me, that he thought it was fair to mention it; that the party on the opposite side of the court, that he conceived I was summoned for, were aware of the fact; and that he thought it might be asked, that I might be prepared.
By Mr. Hume.—What do you mean by the panel having been ordered, in that case, by the crown or the castle?—I took the answer from the sub-sheriff or Mr. Mansfield, that it was not in his power, that the jury that he summoned were not the jury that would be sworn upon the trial of the case.
By a Member.—When Mr. Sheriff Thorpe stated, that the bills would be ignored, did he add, "have I not done my business cleverly," or words to that effect?—He mentioned words to that effect, certainly; "have not I managed the matter well;" or words to that effect.
By Mr. W. Williams.—Did you deliver a statement in writing to Mr. Blake, of what had passed in the office from Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—He begged of me to put down in writing what I could communicate, and I did so.
By Mr. Goulburn.—Were the words just stated by you, "have not I managed the matter well," contained in your statement given to Mr. Blake?—I should think they were.
Have you any doubt of those words having passed?—As to the substance of them, none in the world.
By Mr. W. Williams.—To whom were those words addressed?—I cannot positively state; but Mr. O'Reilly having stated to me that they were addressed to Mr. Ward, I believe they were.
Were they addressed to a gentleman near Mr. O'Reilly?—Yes.
By Mr. Denman.—Had any thing occurred,' within your observation, that should induce; Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to suppose the bills would be thrown out?—Nothing that I know of.
Were you in court when the bills were all ignored?—The bills JL believe were found against two.
The bills were ignored as to some, and found' as to some?—Yes.
Do you remember having said, that Mr.' Mansfield told you he had taken the panel to
50
the castle?—I remember that Mr. Mansfield said, the thing was out of his power, if he had the inclination.
Did he say the panel was taken to the castle?—Either the castle or the Stamp-office.
By Colonel Barry.—You and Mr. O'Reilly left Dublin together, travelled together; arrived here together, and have lived together ever since you-came; were not you perfectly agreed as to every word of evidence you were to give at this bar upon this subject?—I think we do not differ much in substance, although we do not agree exactly; I am sure he had a stronger recollection of the case than I had.
And he refreshed your memory?—He seemed to recollect it better than I did.
Did he not refresh your memory upon the subject?—No, I do not think he did.
He reminded you of some circumstances you had forgotten?—For instance, he reminded me that it was Mr. Ward the sheriff was speaking to; which I would not certainly take upon myself to state who was the individual that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe addressed himself to.
These written statements that you gave in, did you prepare them at Mr. Blake's office, or send them in afterwards?—No; Mr. Blake asked us one or two words, and then said, "Would you have the goodness to put down in substance what evidence you could give to the House?"
Where did you do it?—In Mr. Blake's office, in his drawing-room.
Were you both together?—Mr. O'Reilly wrote his statement, and I wrote mine.
Did you see his statement?—Yes, I did.
Before you made your own, or after?—Be fore I made my own, and not agreeing exactly in the words; for he mentioned that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe addressed himself to Mr. Ward; and I, not being sure of that, I wrote mine separately.
You stated, that this gentleman, whom you supposed to be Mr. Ward, asked him a question, and that sheriff Thorpe's was a reply to that question?—Yes.
Mr. Peter Tomlinson called in; and examined
By Mr. J. Williams.—What is your situation?—A bootmaker, in Black-rock, within four miles of Dublin.
Were you in Dublin during the trial of the rioters?—I was, occasionally.
Do you know Daniel Smith?—I do. He is a cloth-merchant.
Do you remember going to him about the time of these trials, about some business?—Perfectly, going to take orders for boots. That was two or three days previous' to the trials.
Do you remember your having to wait some time, in order to give the orders to Mr. Smith?—I remember waiting in the outside shop, near the door.
While you were standing there, do you remember any body coming, to whom Mr. Smith spoke?—I recollect a person coming, to whom

51
Mr. Smith said, "Good morning, Mr. Sheriff. Well, these trials are to go on?" "Yes."
Who replied "yes?"—The man whom he addressed as sheriff, answered "yes." "Have you made out a list of the jury? "No, I am just going to the office now to make it out." "How many will you impanel?" "I will pick about sixty that we can depend on; they may then challenge as many as they please; they shall have as good a petit jury as they had a grand jury."
Should you know that gentleman, Mr. Sheriff, by sight?—Certainly; though I never saw him before.
Look about you?—[The witness turned round and looked about him.] I do not see him.
Have you seen him since?—I have not. Had you ever seen him before?—Never to my knowledge; and would not have known him then, but that Mr. Smith addressed him as sheriff.
You think you should know him again?—I have not the slightest doubt; I eyed him particularly.
By Mr. Goulburn.—Do you know which sheriff it was?—I went to the Session-house and saw the other, who I know it was not.
By Mr. Denman.—What was the name of the other?—Cooper.
Would you know that other sheriff, the one whom you saw whose name was Cooper?—I do not know that I would, I do not think I would.
By Mr. Brownlow.—When did this conversation take place?—Perhaps two or three days before the trials of the traversers that were so much talked of.
By Mr. J. Williams.—Did you hear that there were two trials of the play-house rioters?—I did; this was the second.
Mr. Sheriff Thorpe said, that he would give them a good jury of 60 for this second trial?—He said he would pack about 60 that we could depend upon; that they might then challenge as they pleased; that they should have as good a petit jury as they had a grand jury.
Was any one present at this, besides Mr. Daniel Smith and yourself?—One of his young men, a Mr. Peter Alma.
By Colonel Barry.—When did you mention that?—That very day.
To whom?—To several; to Mr. Charles Mageen, to Mrs. Hart.
Do you mean to say that it was Mr. Sheriff Thorpe who made use of this observation?—I do.
By a Member.—Were you summoned by this House to attend at the bar?—I was not. You volunteered your services?—I did. To Mr. Hart an attorney in Dublin.
What did he say to you?—He asked me whether I was willing to go to London, and I told him I was.
Did you call upon his majesty's attorney general for Ireland, after you came here?—I went to him the night I came into town, and
52
he desired me to go to Mr. Blake; and to Mr. Blake I told what I now tell. He bade me to state what I had to say, and I did so, exactly as I have done it now.
Mr. John M'Connell called in; and examined
By Mr. Scarlett.—What is your situation in Dublin?—A silk-manufacturer.
Do you know Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I do.
Do you recollect seeing him at any time in the house of a Mr. Sibthorpe?—I do.
Was that before or after the trials?—It was before the trials: on the Tuesday after the riot at the theatre.
Do you remember hearing any remark made by sheriff Thorpe there?—Yes; I heard him make use of remarkable expressions.
With whom was he speaking when he made use of those expressions?—Shortly before I heard him make use of a remarkable expression, he was in conversation with William Graham.
What was the remarkable expression to which you alluded?—"I have the Orange panel in my pocket."
Was that addressed to any individual in the room?—It did not appear to me to be addressed to any individual in the room; it was uttered in a low tone of voice.
Who was William Graham?—He was one of the traversers on the business.
Had you been in the room before the sheriff came in, or did you come in and find him there?—When I entered the room the sheriff was in it.
You found the sheriff sitting by Mr. Graham, in the room?—Yes.
Who is Mr. Sibthorpe?—He is a painter and glazier.
Do you know whether Mr. Sibthorpe is a friend of Mr. Thorpe's, the sheriff?—Yes.
You have said that the sheriff was in the room before you entered it?—Yes.
By Colonel Barry.—Was that expression that he made use of, said so that any body else but yourself could have heard it?—There were persons nearer to him than I was; I heard the expression distinctly.
Nobody had spoken to him previously upon the subject of the riot at the theatre, or the trial of the prisoners?—I did not hear that any person had spoken to him.
He bolted it out at once without any provocation, "I have an Orange jury in my pocket?"—"An Orange panel."
Without any thing leading to it?—Those were the words he used, "I have the Orange panel in my pocket."
Without any question being addressed to him?—I did not hear any question addressed to him upon the subject.
Whom was he talking to at that time?—Mr. William Graham.
Did you see Mr. Barrett Wadden during the time that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe was remaining at Mr. Sibthorpe's?—No, I did not.
He lives within a door or two, does not he?

53
—Mr. Wadden lives next door to Mr. Sibthorpe.
Has he been in Liverpool lately?—I understand he has.
He is your step-father?—He is.
When is the last time you have seen Mr. Wadden?—I saw him this evening, in the lobby of this House; I saw him a few moments ago.
You are not on terms with him now?—No, I am not.
Whom did you mention this conversation first to?—To a person of the name of Mac Natten.
When were you called upon, or by whom, to give testimony of this?—By Mr. Wadden.
When did you mention that expression of sheriff Thorpe to Mr. Wadden?—The day after I had heard it.
When were you first examined by any officer of the crown, or any professional person, on the subject?—A few days after I had mentioned it to Mr. Wadden.
By whom were you then examined?—The attorney-general for Ireland, at his house in Steven's-green.
Did Mr. Wadden go with you there?—He did.
Will you mention all the persons that were in the room when this expression was supposed to take place?—Mr. and Mrs. Sibthorpe, Miss Sibthorpe, young Mr. Sibthorpe, William Graham, Mr. Sheriff Thorpe.
Could that have been said without any one of them hearing it?—Yes; there were persons in the room that might not have heard it.
By Mr. Brownlow.—Were there not persons nearer to sheriff Thorpe than you, when he made use of the expression?—William Graham was nearer to him than I was. I do not think that any other person was nearer to him.
Was he the nearest person of the party to him at the time?—Yes, he was.
Then of course that conversation that came to your ears, could not have escaped William Graham's?—I think he could have heard it.
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe seem to direct that expression to Graham?—No, he did not appear to direct it to any particular person.
By Mr. Goulboun.—Were not you extremely surprised that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe should have been so indiscreet as, in the hearing of several persons, to state, that he had got the Orange panel in his pocket?—I was.
Have you heard any other remarkable expressions on the part of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I have. He said, "I wish the devil had the marquis Wellesley out of this."
Were there any others that you recollect used by him?—Yes; I cannot repeat his exact words; but the meaning of them was, "he is an annoyance, he is in our way?"
Are you stating the substance of a conversation, or only a particular expression?—I am only stating the substance, the meaning that I attached to what I heard.
At what period did you communicate those
54
expressions to any one?—The following day, to Mr. Mac Natten and to Mr. Wadden.
By Mr. Bright.—At what time were those matters communicated to the attorney-general?—I think four or five days after the conversation had taken place.
Were they communicated to the attorney-general before the grand jury was empanelled?—I cannot say.
By a Member.—Do you believe that the expressions, respecting the "marquis Wellesley, were heard by others who were present, as well as yourself?—Yes; the expressions respecting the marquis Wellesley, were spoken when Mr. Sheriff Thorpe was at cards; and the last expression that he made use of, when he wished the devil had him, was made as he left the room; and as he buttoned up his coat; I was close to him, and the company was about withdrawing.
Had you, or any of the company present, been talking of the marquis Wellesley, before Mr. Sheriff Thorpe made use of that expression?—I do not think I had been talking of the marquis Wellesley.
Was the marquis Wellesley talked of in that society?—The subject of conversation, at one time, related to the occurrence at the theatre; and I think the marquis Wellesley's name was I mentioned.
Did sheriff Thorpe say any thing about the I marquis Wellesley at that time?—I did not hear any remark from sheriff Thorpe.
That was the circumstance that seemed to lead to the observation?—The act of buttoning I up his coat, you mean; I observed him make use of the expressions when he was buttoning up his coat.
By Mr. Brownlow.—A man of the name of Graham was in the society?—Yes.
You have stated, that he was one of the traversers?—Yes.
Was he aware at the time, that he was accused of having conspired to assault and insult the lord lieutenant in the theatre?—I cannot say.
Did you know that he was?—No.
Henry Cooper, esq. called in; and examined
By Sir G. Hill.—You are one of the sheriffs of Dublin?—Yes.
Do you recollect the striking of the panel of the grand jury, that has caused this inquiry?—Yes.
Were you called upon, on that occasion, to I take any part in the striking of that panel?—I was.
By whom?—By the solicitor, Mr. Kemmis; by letter.
Have you that letter in your pocket?—I have not.
Can you state what the purport of that letter was?—It was, that I should take a part in the striking of that jury, to prevent any' observations.
That letter was from whom?—From Mr. Kemmis.
The crown solicitor?—Yes; I think it went so far as to say, by desire of the attorney-general.
Would you have interfered with your brother sheriff in the striking of that panel, if you had not received that letter?—I do not think I should.
And why?—I conceived, that the sheriffs acting quarterly had that prerogative of striking their, own juries; he was the elder sheriff.
Is there any etiquette between the sheriffs, with regard to each striking a grand jury at a commission by themselves, without the interference of their brother sheriff?—I conceive it so.
What is the usual arrangement between the sheriffs in that particular?—The usual arrangement is, that the sheriff for the quarter strikes his panel; and that he may or may not communicate with his brother sheriff.
Is it the arrangement, that the senior sheriff strikes the panel of the first grand jury?—It is.
And the junior sheriff the next grand jury?—The next quarter.
What occurred between you and your brother sheriff, when you attended at the striking of this grand jury at the request of the crown solicitor?—He had made his document for the sub-sheriff to strike the panel; I attended, and we concurred on the panel which was struck. I mean, that my brother sheriff and I had agreed upon the gentlemen who were put upon that panel.
Do you mean thereby to say, that you and your brother sheriff went through the list of the proposed grand jurors who were to serve upon it?—Yes.
Did you go through that list, and canvass the names individually?—We did, with the sub-sheriff, Mr. Whistler.
Had you any feeling, that you had a more peculiar duty than on other occasions to perform, when you were so particularly called upon to assist your brother sheriff in striking this panel?—I did, in consequence of the letter I received.
Did you feel any particular responsibility upon yourself upon that occasion, to look to the individuals that were proposed to serve upon that grand jury?—I considered, that those men who were put upon that panel, should be respectable citizens of Dublin.
Did you, as a sheriff, feel yourself personally responsible for the characters of the individuals upon that panel, as far as your intelligence could assist you?—Yes.
Have you a pretty large acquaintance with the citizens of Dublin?—Indeed, pretty generally.
What is your own situation in life?—A coach-maker.
How long have you belonged to the corporation of Dublin?—About 13 years.
Did it occur to you, to offer any objection to your brother sheriff, with respect to any of the Names proposed upon that panel, as in anywise objectionable?—I did.
Did you object to any of them in consequence?—I did.
What became of those names that you did object to?—They were struck off the panels.
Do you recollect how many there were?—One particularly, I think.
Did you consider, that that grand jury was as respectable, for all the purposes of discharging their duty, as grand juries usually are?—They were.
To whom was the crown solicitor's note addressed?—The letter I received was directed personally to me.
Did you exercise a more than ordinary scrutiny with regard to that panel, in consequence of that letter, or not?—From the names that appeared to me, I exercised it so far, as I conceived those men who were put on it to be fully responsible for the situation in which they were placed.
Were the names that were struck upon that panel, usually to be found on other grand jury panels in Dublin?—I rather think they were.
Did it appear to you, upon the examination of that panel, that there was any extraordinary number of persons that had not usually been upon the grand jury panels placed upon it?—
Were those individuals that were struck off that panel, objected to upon any political ground?—No.
By Mr. Brownlow.—A witness, that has been at the bar of this House states, that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe said, on the 17th Dec, he had an Orange panel in his pocket; when did you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe agree upon the grand panel of January 1823?—I think it was three days previous to the summonses for the jury being issued.
Did Mr. Sheriff Thorpe represent to you, that a man of the name of Poole had applied to be on that grand jury?—He did.
Mr. Sheriff Thorpe suggested that to you?—No, Mr. Poole applied to me.
Do you recollect Mr. Sheriff Thorpe making any observations on the name of William Poole in that list?—I recollect that a conversation occurred, that Mr. Poole had applied to me; he came to my office to say that Mr. Sheriff Thorpe promised to put him on that panel, and applied to me to (speak to Sheriff Thorpe; I told him that it was his quarter, and I referred it to him.
What passed between you and Mr. Sheriff Thorpe upon the subject of Mr. Poole?—In consequence of his application, we mutually agreed that we did not think he should be one on the panel, from his application.
It was by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe your attention was called to the name of Poole upon that list?—I had myself an objection, in consequence of his calling on me.
In which objection Mr. Sheriff Thorpe concurred?—He did.
Have you seen Mr. Sheriff Thorpe in company with the lord lieutenant of Ireland, since the striking of this grand commission panel?—I have, more than once.
Did his excellency receive Mr. Sheriff Thorpe as a public delinquent, as a man who had packed the jury to acquit men guilty of an assault upon his person; how did the lord lieutenant receive Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—As far as I perceived, perfectly politely.
Did he receive him cordially?—He appeared to receive him as he received me.
He made no distinction between you?—I perceived none.
Did he shake you by the hand?—The last place I had the honour of being shaken by the hand by his excellency, was at church; he also shook sheriff Thorpe and the lord mayor by the hand there too.
When was that?—I think on yesterday fortnight.
Since a motion of censure was made against the attorney-general for Ireland in this House?—Oh, long since.
By Colonel Barry.—Who prepared the panel for the petit jury, on the ex-officio informations, in the first instance?—That was in my quarter, it was prepared by my sub-sheriff, sheriff Thorpe, and me.
Did sheriff Thorpe, or you, take the most active part in the formation of that panel?—I did.
If sheriff Thorpe had declared that he would take care to have as good a petit jury for the trial of the ex-officio informations, as he had had a grand jury for the ignoring the bills of indictment, could he have effected it?—Certainly not through me.
If sheriff Thorpe had wished to pack a petit jury for that purpose, could he have effected It?—Certainly not.
If you were told, that sheriff Thorpe said, in a company, that he would do so, would you believe it?—I should not suppose he would be capable of making use of such an expression; if he did, I think he was wrong.
Are you a party man?—No.
By Mr. Brownlow.—The sheriffs give public dinners in Dublin, do they not?—They do.
Did you give "The glorious memory" at your dinner?—I did not.
You are understood to say, that when you attended Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to strike the panel for the grand jury, there was a list of names prepared?—Yes.
That list was ready when you got there?—It was.
Out of that list you found, who did you object to?—I think there were three that I objected to.
Those names being omitted the remainder stood?—Yes.
Are you acquainted with all or the majority of those names that appeared upon the list?—Pretty generally.
Were you acquainted with their political sentiments?—No, I was not.
Then you and your brother sheriff did not select the names out of the corporators at large, but out of a list of fifty-three ready prepared by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—Yes.
If that fifty-three had contained names, or had been composed of those people you thought objectionable, with a view to the end of justice, could you though objectionable, with a view the end of justice, could you not have desired might have been altered.—Yes.
Would you not have: desired that panel should have been increased, if you had thought it right?—I would.
You have stated, you and. you sub-sheriff were chiefly engaged in composing the panel for the petit jury, could that have been described, with any justice, by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, as an Orange panel?—From my feelings, I think not.
Are you an Orangeman?—I am not.
Is sheriff Thorpe, to your knowledge, an Orangeman?—Not to my knowledge: an Orangeman?—Not to my knowledge.
Was not Mr. Sheriff Thorpe the first sheriff who gave that obnoxious toast at the Sheriffs dinner, after the visit of the king to Ireland?—He gave "The Glorious and Immortal Memory."
Who is the person who serves the summonses on the grand jurors?—There are different persons to serve them.
The bailiff?—Yes.
Is he paid by the sheriff?—He is paid by the sheriffs.
He pays nothing to the office?—No, I believe not.
Was there any different mode of delivering the summonses on that occasion, from that usually adopted?—I do not know any thing of the serving of those summonses; the others were in my quarter, and I was particular with the bailiff himself, and I swore him to the service of those summonses.
Are you aware that the same was done on the part of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I am not.
Did you suggest to sheriff Thorpe any names to be added to that grand panel?—I do not recollect that I did.
By Mr. N. Calvert.—You stated, you objected to three persons on the panel, whose names were in consequence struck out?—To two or three.
Those objections you state were not at all on account of their political principles?—No, I knew not their politics.
Several persons whose names were upon the panel were canvassed between you and your brother sheriff, as to their fitness or unfitness to remain on the panel; had you conversation about it?—We had.
Was it at all on the ground of the political principles or party feeling of any of those persons, that this canvassing took place between you?—No.
You have stated that in going to communicate with your brother sheriff, respecting this panel, you conceived it your duty to see that it was formed of respectable citizens of Dublin?—I did.
Was that the only consideration?—Nothing more.
You had not any means of judging whether this panel consisted of fewer names than usual,

59
or not at the time it was handed to you?—I considered it shorter than what the usual panels returned were.
Have you been in the habit of observing what was the usual number of common-council-men on a commission grand jury?—I think they varied frequently.
Have you formed any notion in your own mind, what the usual number of them were upon the panel?—At that period I did not consider it; at this moment I have seen eight, ten, or twelve.
Did it occur to you, on looking over that panel, that there was an unusual number of common-council-men upon that?—It did not, particularly.
Have you since observed that circumstance?—Since, from remarks, I have observed that there were more common-council-men than usual upon it.
Is there one sub-sheriff for both the sheriffs, or have you each one?—One for both.
You spoke of your sub-sheriff forming the panel for the trial of ex-officio information?—Concurring with me.
What is the manner in which that is done?—It is formed partly by the sub-sheriff and partly by the high-sheriff.
In what manner was that panel formed?—He submitted the list of respectable citizens to me; with this, and with my own knowledge of the city, I struck that ex-officio jury, and returned it to him.
The body of the list is presented to the sheriff in the usual course, ready formed by the under-sheriff?—No; he submitted a number of names of the respectable merchants and traders of Dublin; with those whom I added myself, we afterwards made a list for the panel, at which sheriff Thorpe was present.
Can you at all state the proportion of names you added to those that he submitted to you?—I dare say there might be one half; those men whom he submitted I very well knew.
Then it was the same person who performed the office you have stated in forming the panel for the petit jury for the ex-officio informations, who had in like manner primarily formed the panel for the grand jury, in January 1823?—No, I cannot say that;
Was not it the same sub-sheriff?—Yes; how far sheriff Thorpe communicated with him I cannot say.
You do not know whether that is the usual course for the sub-sheriff to form this subject to his communication with the high sheriff?—It depends upon the sub-sheriff and the high-sheriff; I have that confidence in the sub-sheriff, to believe that he would not submit any man upon that, that I would not myself think a proper man.
In whose hand-writing was the panel for the grand jury, when it was submitted to you?—I believe it was in sheriff Thorpe's.
By Mr. Plunkett.—What is the ordinary course in the office of returning the commission grand jury; is it by the high-sheriff, or the
60
clerk in the office?—I cannot account for any thing but what has occurred since; I came into office at the exact moment.
Have not you understood what is the usual and ordinary course in the office; is it not the ordinary course for the panel to be returned by the clerk in the office, and not by the high-sheriff—I rather think not.
Is there any difference in the mode of framing the panel of the grand juries and the petty juries?—I always understood the high-sheriff took that prerogative to himself of returning the grand jury.
Always, in ordinary cases, that he took that prerogative to himself?—In all cases, I understood it so.
Do you mean to say, that the usual and ordinary practice in the Sheriffs-office is for the high-sheriff to return the panel of the grand jury, and not to have it return by the clerk in the office?—It is my feeling in the office; that is what has been done since I came into office.
At what time was it that you first interfered with respect to the return of the January grand jury panel?—On receiving the letter from Mr. Kemmis, I communicated to the sub-sheriff and to the high-sheriff; that was my first interference.
A panel was then shown to you, in the handwriting of Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I believe it to be so.
Do you not believe that a great proportion of the persons who were returned upon that grand jury panel by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, were persons of very strong political feeling upon the particular question of dressing the statue and drinking the toast?—I conclude, that some were, and some were not if I could form an opinion of the whole I would do so.
Had there not been an election of corporators in December?—There was.
Was not there a very strong agitation in the public mind, at the time of the election of those corporators, particularly on the subject of the dressing of the statue?—Not to my knowledge at that time.
In December had not the dressing of the statue been prevented, by order of the lord mayor, in the month of November?—Yes.
Was not there a censure of the lord mayor, by the corporation, for doing so?—There was.
Was not there a censure of the lord mayor by the guild of merchants, for doing so?—I believe there was.
Was not it in the midst of that agitation, that the new corporators were elected, in the month of December?—It was.
Was not there a very strong political feeling in the minds of a great body of the corporators who were so elected in December, at the very time when those censures were pronounced?—In some guilds there was strong political feelings expressed, I believe.
In the guild of merchants, particularly, was there not a very strong political feeling expressed?—I conceive there was.
The guild of merchants elect 31 common-council-men?—Yes.
Will you have the goodness to look at that paper [a paper being handed to the witness]; do not you believe that that printed list was furnished by the persons who are the friends of dressing the statue to the corporators, for the purpose of having a list chosen of common-council-men from the guild of merchants according to it?—I consider this a list for the purpose of returning those men that were in it.
Will you have the goodness to read the title of it?—"Guild of merchants; the glorious and immortal memory list; good men in bad times."
There is a picture at the top, representing king William on horseback?—I believe it does.
He is represented with his horse treading upon the knave of clubs?—I suppose it does.
Do not you understand that, as representing the lord mayor?—I should suppose it was.
Do not you find seven of the names who were returned in that list "as good men in bad times," and for that purpose sworn upon the grand jury in January 1823?—I think there are seven names appear here.
Name the seven persons?—Mr. John Stevens was on it, I think; Mr. Joseph Henry Moore, Christopher Graham, Joseph Lampray, John Davis, Robert Lodge I think was on it, and Samuel Lampray.
Do you, or do you not believe, that those persons who were so named, "as good men in bad times," and who are elected on that recommendation, were persons of strong political bias upon the subject of dressing the statue, and drinking the toast?—As to their strong political feelings I cannot say.
Do you believe they have any political feelings?—I think they have; but as to strong political bias, I cannot form an opinion.
Do you think that those seven persons were fit, fair, and impartial jurors to try a question, for the purpose of finding a bill of indictment upon the subject then pending?—I do.
If the 31 persons, who are named in that list had been returned upon the panel of the grand jury, would you have thought them objectionable, as fair persons, to try that question?—Some I would not have returned; I cannot say that they were unfair, but I would not put them on.
Did you object to any person proposed by sheriff Thorpe, in the panel that he submitted to you, on the ground of their political opinions?—I do not recollect that I did.
All you looked to was, that they were respectable citizens?—Fair and respectable citizens.
Would you have thought yourself at liberty, when sheriff Thorpe returned you the list of fair respectable citizens, to object to any one of them, on account of a political bias?—I think if I had expressed a reason, that he would have struck off any that we would have mutually struck off.
Would you have objected to any one respectable citizen returned on sheriff Thorpe's list, merely because you thought he had a bias?—If I did not consider him a violent man, I would not have struck him off.
Were you aware, when sheriff Thorpe submitted that list to your consideration, that there were 27 corporators returned upon that panel, who had been elected in the month of December previously?—I was not aware, exactly, of the number when it was submitted.
Do you believe that there was any one of those 27 corporators so returned, Who was not friendly to the dressing of the statue?—I rather think there were men on that panel that would rather, under the circumstances, that the statue was not dressed.
Can you mention under what circumstances?—That is my feeling of those jurors.
Do you mean, out of the 27 common-council-men?—As to the men who were on that panel, I do consider some of them, men who would not wish to have the statue dressed; some of those men on the grand jury.
Can you explain the circumstance of the entire grand jury being sworn out of the first 26 persons upon the panel?—I really cannot, except their attendance in consequence of being liable to fines; I do not know any other reason.
Had they not, on all former occasions, been liable to fines?—They had, as far as I know.
Have you ever heard of any instance in which a grand jury of 27 was obtained on any former commission, without coming down as low as the 57th man upon the panel?—I cannot answer that question accurately.
When you came to frame your panel of the petit jurors, did you at first frame it in the same manner in which you finally returned it?—There were some alterations, but very few.
Did you frame your own panel, or did you receive a panel framed from your sub-sheriff?—Part by the sub-sheriff, and part my own framing.
Is it not the ordinary course in returning the panel of the petit jury, to take the grand panel, and out of that to take some of the most respectable and leading names?—I did it so.
After you had done it so, were there any alterations made, and at whose suggestion?—There were very few, for they were of such a respectable return, that it was not necessary.
By whom were those few suggested; do you speak of those that were returned by the subsheriff?—I speak of the whole panel.
How many were returned by the sub-sheriff; what proportion did the number returned by him bear to the whole panel?—I think it probable it might be from 20 to 30 or more.
You have said, that you are not a person of any party feeling; do you mean to say, that the sub-sheriff, Mr. Whistler, was not?—I do not think him what I would term a violent party feeling man.
Was he a man of patty feeling; or was he a man, as you are yourself, a man of no party feeling?—It is difficult for me to answer to the feelings of another.
What is the reputation of Mr. Whistler in that respect; is he, or not, considered a man of party feeling?—I would not consider him a man of high party feeling.
Twenty or 30 of the names were returned by him?—I think about that number.
The whole panel consisted of sixty?—Yes.
Twenty or thirty were returned by the sub-sheriff?—Submitted to me.
Did you adopt those that were submitted to you by the sub-sheriff?—I think I did, the whole of them.
Are there not some circumstances that would have rendered it rather awkward for you to decline adopting the panel sent you by your sub-sheriff?;—I think not.
You do not, feel then, under obligation to the sub-sheriff?—No; I felt them of that description of men that were of the highest character in Dublin, from my knowledge of them.
Do you mean, that those gentlemen were not men of any party feeling?—Not to my knowledge, positively.
Will you undertake to say, whether the twenty or thirty, then suggested by Mr. Whistler, were, or not, men of strong party feeling?—I took the whole panel of that sixty; for I was cautious on that, that I made the observation, we would not have high party men on the panel.
High party men?—Or party men.
Were there any names suggested upon that panel, who were not upon the grand panel?—I cannot answer that question.
What alterations were made in the panel, from the time that you had first taken the sub-sheriff's suggestion, and had given your own names, till you returned it into court; were there not alterations made?—The alterations that were made, were, I think, putting men of greater respectability from the bottom to the top of the panel, according to their respectability.
Were there not new names added?—I do not think there were more than one or two.
Do you know a person of the name of Stoker?—I do.
Was he not a person who was considered as having been very much concerned in the planning of the riot at the theatre?—I heard something of it; but I know nothing of it.
He was a clerk of alderman king's?—He was.
Have you ever, heard, that, by the sub-sheriff that panel was taken and shown to Stoker, and that, at his suggestion, any names were added to that panel, or any alterations made?—Nerer; I know very little of Mr. Stoker; but I do not think the sub-sheriff of Dublin would be guilty of submitting the panel to Mr. Stoker, for his approbation.
Have you ever heard that Stoker has him-
64
self declared that was done?—Not to: ray; knowledge; I never heard of it.
How many names do you say were struck off the panel of the grand jury, after Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had consulted you?—I think, there were probably three or four, and other names substituted.
Was Mr. Poole's one of those names that were struck off?—He was.
Have you heard, or do you believe, that, before the riot had happened, Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had promised to put Mr. Poole's name upon the panel?—Mr. Poole told me so himself.
Do you believe that?—Yes, I do. That he had promised him before the riot?—I do not know as to the time of the promise.
Have you any doubt the promise was before the riot?—I declare the time was not stated, and I do not know whether it was before or after.
Do you not know that, afterwards, Sheriff Thorpe refused to let his name remain upon the panel?—He agreed in the objection, in consequence of Mr. Poole requesting me to speak to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe to put him on; we thought that he had some motive we did not know; I objected to him under those circumstances.
In the interval between his having been promised to be put on and his being struck off, had not Mr. Poole taken an active part in the corporation, to prevent the dressing of the statue?—Not to my knowledge.
Had not you heard of it?—I heard of it. I do not know of any active part he could take I to prevent it; the police prevented it.
Had he not been an active person in the corporation, to declare his disapprobation of it?—Yes.
He had done so in December, in the corporation?—I so understood that he always had.
Have you not heard that sheriff Thorpe declared he could not place him upon that panel because he was a "conciliation man?"—No, I never heard those expressions.
Or any expression to that effect?—No; sheriff Thorpe did not communicate it to me.
By Colonel Barry.—Did not some of the persons who were sworn on that grand jury, apply to be excused from serving?—They did.
Were they not told, that if they did not attend they would be fined, or that they must attend?—As far as came to me, I always gave that for answer, and that I could not take them off.
Would not that account a good deal for their consecutive attendance for their answering as their names were called?—I would conclude so.
If those men were anxious to be put on for sinister purposes, do you conceive they would have applied to you to leave them out?—No.
In the state of Dublin now, do you hold it to be possible almost to find a grand jury who

65
have not formed some opinion, one way or another about the' dressing of the statue?—If I was to form an opinion, I would conceive that every man in Dublin has formed some opinion upon it.
Do you conceive those men who were on the grand jury, having, in common with the rest of the citizens of Dublin, formed such an opinion, they were men who would have perverted justice on their oaths, by finding a partial verdict, in consequence of those opinions they had formed?—I do not.
By Mr. Brougham.—Your sub-sheriff, Mr. Whistler, is an attorney?—He is.
How often has he served the office of sub-sheriff f—I believe this is the second time; it is many years since lie served before.
There is a bye law, or an act of parliament, which prevents a person serving oftener than once in three years, is there not?—I understand there is.
Who served the office of sub-sheriff the year before Mr. Whistler?—Mr. Archer.
Who is Mr. Archer?—An attorney.
Is he at all connected with Mr. Whistler?—I am almost certain not.
Do you know of any person in the employment of Mr. Whistler serving the office of sub-sheriff the year before?—No, serving as sub-sheriff a year or two before; there is no such clerk in the office as Mr. Archer.
The year before Mr. Archer, did the person who was a clerk in the employment of Mr. Whistler serve the office of sub-sheriff?—No.
Do you know it one way or the other?—No; I know there is no sheriff has served, an under clerk to Mr. Whistler; nor connected with him in any way.
Who elects the sheriff?—The commons; there are a number sent from the commons to the board of aldermen, and from this number the two sheriffs are chosen.
Do you mean by the commons, the common-council-men?—Yes.
Did you ever hear of a society called "The Amicable Society?"—I have.
Is it composed of common-council-men?—There are a number of common-council-men in it.
Are the bulk of the society common-council-men?—No, they are not.
Are a considerable number of the members of it common-council?—As members of the society, there are a good many common-council-men.
Do the Amicable Society exercise an influence upon the election of sheriffs?—They recommend the friends of that society, I rather think.
Do they not exercise a considerable influence in the choice of the sheriff?—They do, rather in the returns, not in the choice of sheriff.
In the return to the aldermen of those out of whom they are to choose?—Yes.
How many are sent up to the aldermen?—Eight.
Did you ever hear of an understanding between the persons who are to be recommended, to be assisted in the election by the Amicable Society, an understanding between them and the common-council or the Society, as to the conduct they are to hold while they are sheriffs?—No, I do not know that there is any such compact.
There is nothing in writing, but is there any thing understood 'between theriv?—I do not think there is any understanding.
Any thing understood between them as to the patronage of offices?—I think not.
You must be quite sure of that, one way or another, in your own case?—In my own case I am certain of it; as to the patronage of the office, certainly not.
You have no recollection yourself, of any understanding as to the line you were to adopt in the conduct of your office?—No.
Is there not a considerable degree of patronage in the power of the sheriff?—No, not to my knowledge.
Do they not name to a number of things?—To none but the sub-sheriff.
That is the only appointment they have?—Yes, I believe so.
Is that the only appointment you yourself have named to, or had a share in naming to?—The only appointment.
Is there not a keeper of the sheriff prison?—There is.
Have they nothing to do with the nomination of the keeper?—The nomination of the under officers of the prison comes from the sub-sheriff.
Does that include the keeper of the sheriff's prison?—The sub-sheriff named him, and I concurred in the appointment.
Do you mean that the sub-sheriff is the man who appoints those officers, or does he submit the names to the sheriff?—He submitted those names; and I concurred in his appointment.
Do you recollect any other of those-inferior officers?—No; only the officer under" Mitt, which is his clerk in the sheriff's office, and this.
Are those officers changed with every suh'-sheriff?—They are not, I believe.
They continue in them after the time when the sheriff is changed?—When they are well-behaved persons, I conceive they do.
Is the office of the sub-sheriff a lucrative one?—I believe it depends upon Circumstances. I dare say it may be worth from 600 to 700 l. a year.
Does he account for the fees to the high-sheriff?—He does.
Does he pay any other consideration to the high-sheriff, besides accounting for the fees?—Not that I know of; not to me.
The sub-sheriff gives you a security, does he not?—He does.
Would you not consider yourself interfering with the safety of that security, if you interfered with his appointment of those officer such as the keepers of the gaol, and other you have alluded to?—It would.
By Sir G. Hill.—Amongst the citizens of Dublin, do you not think that, generally, each man in society has formed his opinion upon the propriety of what is called, granting the Roman Catholic claims?—I rather think they have, almost every man in Dublin.
Are you of opinion, that a man who is hostile to the Roman Catholic claims is disqualified as a grand juror, or incapable from that circumstance of performing his duty as a grand juror, upon his oath?—I do not.
Then, comparing that grand jury with other grand juries that you have known sworn in the city of Dublin, do you think that grand jury was as capable of performing its duty conscientiously as any one you have known?—In my opinion they were.
By Lord Milton.—The panel was formed out of a list written in Mr. Sheriff Thorpe's hand-writing?—I believe it was.
You suggested the propriety of striking off some names in that list?—Yes; I think three; and others were substituted.
In point of fact, the panel, as it stood, consisted of names, all of which were suggested by Sir. Sheriff Thorpe?—They were sure; those struck off, and those substituted in the place of them, that we mutually agreed on.
Were there any substituted in the room of those struck off?—There were.
By whom were they suggested?—I think they were mutually agreed upon by both of us.
By whom were they suggested?—I really think, that, taking the almanack, we spoke on several citizens probably, and took them from those names that we mutually talked of.
But not particularly suggested by you?—We agreed that those persons should be substituted in the room of the others.
Were they suggested by you, did they come from a list you suggested?—No; I had no list.
By Mr. Goulburn.—When you met sheriff Thorpe, for the purpose of arranging the panel, did you know what bills were to be brought before the grand jury, against whom?—I conceived of course, those men who were in prison, with any others, for the riot in the theatre.
Did you know that a person of the name of M'Culler, was to be indicted before that grand jury?—Not at that time I did not.
Mr. Joseph Henry Moore was on that grand jury?—He was.
Was he proposed originally by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—He was in the list.
Do you know whether he bears any relation to Mr. M'Culler?—Not to my knowledge. I do not know any further than having heard he was his clerk.
Has hot Mr. Moore been in the habit of attending the commission grand juries constantly?—He has, frequently.
Do you happen to know that Mr. Moore's sister is married to the provost of Dublin University?—I do not know it, as my own knowledge, but I believe it to be so.
By Mr. S Rice.—Were you a party to the panel in October; 1822?—I was not.
Have you joined in a panel for a term or presenting grand jury at any other time?—No.
Have you ever served individually upon either term or commission grand juries?—I have on both.
What kind of persons composed the term or presenting grand juries?—Principally the corporation of Dublin.
Are there any other individuals upon them? I—I do not know that there have been.
Do you know, as sheriff of Dublin, whether it is the usage to select those grand juries out of the members of the corporation?—I believe it is, generally.
Is the serving on a commission grand jury, considered a burthen or an advantage?—It would be considered an inconvenience to men in business.
Is the serving on a presenting grand jury, considered as a burthen or an advantage?—I declare, I do not know the advantages of it; I would avoid them; I never was but on one.
On the commission grand jury on which you served, how many members of the corporation mere there?—I should suppose the number to be 10, or 12, or 14.
Can you state, whether there is a general anxiety to serve on a presenting grand jury?—I have heard it, but I do not know it accurately.
Do you believe, that there is a general disinclination to serve on the commission grand juries?—Some men will serve on the commission grand juries, in consequence of their being short, to avoid being put on others.
By Mr. Hume—You have stated, that in consequence of a letter which you received from the crown solicitor, you attended Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, where is that letter, and can you produce it?—I have the letter perfectly safe at home.
You have stated, that you went to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe in consequence of that letter, and found that he had drawn, out the list of the panel, which he produced to you; in consequence of the discussion which took place, was any alteration made in the order in which the names were placed upon that list?—There were alterations made in that respect, moving the names up.
You have stated that several of the corporation applied to you to be excused from serving, can you remember the names of such corporators as prayed to be excused?—I remember Mr. Forster applying.
You have stated, that you did not consider, and do not consider the seven names, which you read from the paper which you hold in your hand, to be violent party men; will you state whether you consider, Mr. Sheriff Thorpe a violent party man or a moderate party man?—I would consider him inclined to party but as to violence it is a difficult matter for me to form an opinion.
Do you consider Mr. Sheriff Thorpe a decided party man?—Oh, I think him a party man, decidedly.
Do you consider those seven individuals less

69
party men than Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I would Consider some of them less party men, and some probably have similar feelings.
Will you state any one of those seven, whom you consider more decidedly party men than Mr. Sheriff Thorpe?—I would consider Mr. Graham and Mr. Stevens as more moderate.
If Mr. Sheriff Thorpe had been one of the jurymen, would you have considered him objectionable, as a strong party man, to try such a cause?—Had he taken the oath as a juror, I would have considered him perfectly eligible.
By Mr. Brougham.—Did the sheriff send a copy of the panel, when it was settled, either to the crown solicitor, or to the attorney-general, or to the castle?—I do not think he did; not to my knowledge.
You have staled, that, according to your opinion, the panel could not be called an Orange panel; and you have stated also that you do not know the political feelings of the persons upon it; what ground have you, therefore, for forming an opinion, that it was not an Orange panel?—I had no grounds for forming an opinion on it; I know no man upon it to be an Orange-man,
You stated, that three or four names were removed, with the concurrence of your brother sheriff, and as many more substituted in their places, upon what grounds were those persons so removed; was it political grounds, or for misconduct, in your view?—Not from political feelings.
The House resumed. The Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.