not been reckoned sufficient; but that circumstance afforded no reason against a public investigation, especially in an affair which was notoriously much mingled up with a spirit of faction.

On the 24th of February, Mr. Brownlow, in the House of Commons, moved for copies of the committals of the persons engaged in the alleged riot and conspiracy on the 14th of last December, in the Dublin theatre; copies of the bills of indictment, alleging a riot and conspiracy to riot, which were preferred to the grand jury in the city of Dublin, on the 1st of January, and the finding of the jury thereon; and a copy of the ex officio informations, on the same subject, filed in the court of King'sbench by his majesty's attorneygeneral for Ireland. These papers were granted without opposition, though not without discussion. They related exclusively to that head of charge against the legal administration of Ireland, which consisted in the filing ex officio informations, after the indictments had been ignored by the grand jury. On this point, Mr. Plunkett felt himself strong, and therefore did not hesitate to grant all that his opponents required. On the other charge that of having, without sufficient grounds, committed three persons to prison on an accusation of a conspiracy to kill the lord-lieutenant-he was not equally compliant. Colonel Barry on the 24th of March moved for copies of the informations, on which the committal of Forbes, Graham, and Handwich, for the capital crime proceeded. Mr. Plunkett, in resisting the motion, stated, that, when he was originally consulted, his first impression was, that the transaction involved nothing more

than a misdemeanour, and should be proceeded against as such. The investigation continued seven days, during which the solicitor-general and himself attended most assiduously; and in the course of it, it appeared that Forbes went, after he was released, to a tavern in Essex-street, and took part in a conversation about the throwing of the bottle, and the riot: he spoke of himself as so involved in it, that his life might be placed in jeopardy; he said he knew he might be transported to Botany Bay, but he had no objection to suffer that punishment, provided he could have the satisfaction of establishing an Orange-lodge there; that he had only one life, and was ready to sacrifice it for the cause. He complained that the missiles were bad, and expressed his regret that they had missed, and his intention of making another attempt, which, he hoped, would be more successful. All this was proved by the testimony of Mr. Farrell, an attorney, and Mr. Troy, a silk mercer. When he (Mr. Plunkett) heard this evidence, the whole transaction assumed a new character, and it appeared to him, that a deliberate plan to attack the lord-lieutenant had existed, which might have been attended with the most fatal consequences; and under that impression he gave his conscientious advice to the magistrates to commit. Subsequently he had changed his opinion: and he had done so, because, on further examination, it had appeared to him, that the object of the conspiracy was, not to murder the lord-lieutenant, but to compel him to change his measures. The danger to his excellency's life was consequential, and not direct: and, therefore, the crime did not, in the eye of the

law, amount to a conspiracy to murder, though, in truth, it was of a nature not less heinous.

With respect to the depositions of which the production was now called for, he contended that to grant them would be a violation of the constitution, and altogether without precedent. It would be unjust, also, to the magistrates who acted in the case, and who were liable to be prosecuted by the accused parties for having committed them, to put into the hands of the latter beforehand the grounds upon which the magistrates had proceeded. He had never heard of an instance where such a step had been taken. It would be a dangerous precedent to adopt at any time; for no man would come forward and give information against others, if the seal of secrecy, under which he gave it, were to be broken, before the whole case underwent the investigation in a court of justice. Mr. Peel, sir J. Newport, and Mr. Spring Rice, resisted the motion on grounds similar to those stated by Mr. Plunkett: Dr. Lushington, lord A. Hamilton, Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Lambton supported it. At the close of the debate, it was rejected by a majority of 48 to 32. The next step taken in this affair was the presenting, by Mr. Wetherell, on the 11th of April, of a petition from the grand jury of Dublin, complaining of the imputations which had been thrown upon them by the attorney-general for Ireland. This drew from that officer a justification of his measures, and a declaration, that it was the conduct of the grand jury, along with some facts respecting them which had come to his knowledge, that had induced him to file the informations.

On the 15th of April, Mr. Brownlow moved the following resolution : "That it appears to

this House that the conduct of his majesty's attorney-general for Ireland, with respect to the persons charged with a riot in the Dublin theatre, on the 14th of December last, particularly in bringing them to trial upon informations filed ex-officio after bills of indictment against them for the same offence had been thrown out by a grand jury, was unwise;-that it was contrary to the practice, and not congenial to the spirit of the British constitution ;-and that it ought not to be drawn into a precedent hereafter." This propo sition he prefaced by a speech, in which he commented on the general nature of informations exofficio-the unprecedented use that had been made of them here-and the particular circumstances of the proceedings in question. The only defence set up was, he observed, that the course was legal. Legal or illegal, would it have been taken in England? He would suppose the secretary for foreign affairs to announce his intention of visiting the theatre; and a set of Englishmen to fancy that the cause of Spain had not been sufficiently vindicated by this country in the late negotiations, and that blame was due to the right honourable secretary that account. Suppose such a set of men to meet at some coffeehouse adjoining Covent-garden. theatre, and to plan an attack upon Mr. Canning with a view to drive him, if possible, from the theatre and from the councils of the king; suppose a bill, on such account, to be presented to a grand jury and ignored; would the English attorney-general venture afterwards to proceed ex-officio?

on

Would he venture, even if commanded to do so? He (Mr. Brownlow) believed that the attorney-general dared do no such thing that the learned gentleman knew that it would be as much as his situation, perhaps as much as his life, was worth to do so. Then why talk of the thing's being legal? Was the nature of the proceeding changed by occurring on one side of the water instead of the other? Was it meant to contend, that the same thing would be constitutional in Ireland, and yet absolutely intolerable in England? The question (Mr. Brownlow concluded) was not, how far, upon strict law, the proceeding in question could be borne out; the question was-had it been a constitutional proceeding, an expedient proceeding, a proceeding which, under similar circumstances, would have been adopted in this country? Mr. Plunkett showed, by legal precedents, that ex-officio informations might be, and had been, filed, after a grand jury had rejected indictments for the same matters: and he contended, that, if the crown were to be excluded from this course, the effect would be, that the attorney-general would be driven to have recourse to the prerogative of his office in every case, instead of proceeding in the first instance as a common prosecutor: for what attorney-general would prefer an indictment, if the finding of a grand jury-however erroneous-however clearly emanating from mistake or prejudice -were to deprive him of the means of putting the accused upon their trial. His conduct in this particular case he justified by impeaching the finding of the Dublin grand jury, the conduct which they had pursued, the motives by which

they had been actuated, and the mode in which the panel had been framed. Had he acquiesced in their finding, the ends of public justice, he argued, would have been defeated. Thirteen witnesses had been examined before that grand jury, exclusively of other witnesses produced on the subsequent trial: and any impartial person, looking at the evidence, would at once declare, that there was no part of the bill of indictment, whether it referred to the conspiracy, to the riot, or to the assault, that was not completely proved. There was no sound mind that would not admit, that the men, who could have brought themselves to such a conclusion as the Dublin grand jury had, could not have arrived at it by legitimate means. It had been distinctly proved, that a plan had been formed to commit a riot; that, in furtherance of that plan, a number of persons assembled at the theatre; that a missile had been thrown by Graham; that Forbes had gone the day before to the theatre to buy tickets for the purpose of packing an audiencethat Forbes was taken with the whistle in his hand with which he incited the rioters; that, at a subsequent meeting at a tavern, he had expressed his concern at the failure of their purpose, and his hopes of success on a future occasion. Yet, with such evidence, the grand jury ignored the bill: and their reason for doing so could not be mistaken. It was his (Mr. Plunkett's) conviction, that they, the grand jury, conceived the plan of these rioters to be a very right and proper plan. They conceived, that, when the lord lieutenant, in compliance with the expressed desires of his sovereign, had ex

erted himself to conciliate the various classes of the Irish people, and to put an end to the heartburnings which had so long embittered that community, it was extremely proper and lawful, that certain persons should seize the first opportunity that presented itself, for marking their powerful disapprobation of such an acquies cence in the expressed commands of his majesty. To that extent they felt it highly proper the opposition should proceed; though they were not prepared to go the length of thinking, that it was right to fling bottles and rattles at his majesty's representative. That, in his conscience, he believed to be the decided conviction of the grand jury-a conviction, he also believed, which the greater portion of the Dublin corporation did not consider erroneous. He (Mr. P.) had grounds for impeaching not only the decision of the grand jury, but also the manner in which it had been impanelled. He had reason to know, that the sheriff was related to two of the accused, in the close affinity of first cousin. This, had he known it at the time, would have been ground of challenge to the array. He had also in evidence upon oath, that the sheriff declared, that the traversers need not be afraid of the result of the trial, as he had a list of Orangemen for the jury in his pocket. Another circumstance would shew the spirit in which the grand jury was impanelled. There was a person, named Poole, who was desirous of serving on the grand jury. The sheriff promised him, previously to the riot, that he should be on the jury; but, after the riot, he found that his name was not on the list, and when the sheriff was applied to on the sub

ject, he said, "Do you suppose I would allow a man to be on the grand jury, who said he would abide by the king's letter?" He (Mr. P.) had the affidavit of a person who assisted in the office of the sheriff, to the effect, that, when the jury was about to be struck according to the usual course of the office, the sheriff ordered the panel to be brought to him, and said he would prepare it himself! and the deponent swore, that he believed this course was taken, to enable the sheriff to deal with the panel as he pleased. There was another objection to the mode of impanelling the jury. When he (Mr. P.) learned that a whole day had passed without finding the bills, he procured the panels of the five preceding years. He found on inspection, that there were from about 70 to 100 on each panel, and that, on calling the panel, it was with difficulty the requisite number of the jury was made up after calling the whole list. In the present instance, the number was only about 50, of which there were about 26 names that he did not find on any other panel; and the whole number attended, with the exception of two or three; they answered in regular order, and before the 26th name was called, the jury was completed. He would put it to the candour of the House, if he would have been justified in going back with the case to such a grand jury. He concluded by stating, that his own inclination would have been, to meet the resolution by a direct negative, but that, in order to prevent either party in Ireland from assuming an air of triumph on this occasion, he would only move, "That the other orders of the day be now read."

Colonel Barry was the only member who supported the resolution strenuously: though several others expressed a marked disapprobation of Mr. Plunkett's conduct. Among these was Mr. Brougham, who argued, that the precedents which the attorney-general for Ireland had quoted, were altogether inapplicable for they were all cases of informations, granted by the court of King's-bench-not of informations filed ex officio by the attorney-general; and consequently were guarded by the many preventives of abuse, which the law has annexed to the former mode of proceeding. The result of the debate was, that Mr. Brownlow's motion was, with the leave of the

*

On a subsequent day (the 2nd of May), Mr. Plunkett mentioned a precedent in point, which had been recently communicated to him by a Mr. Foley an attorney in Ireland. The following. were the particulars of the case: In October, 1811, a bill of indictment was preferred against a person of the name of Leach, for writing a letter to sir Edward Littlehales, soliciting the appointment of the place of barrackmaster. The bill contained three counts: the first was for sending a letter, proposing to give a bribe: the second, for offering money by way of bribe; and the third, for offering securities for money by way of bribe. That bill was ignored by the grand jury. The court of King's-bench, impressed with the disproportion between the evidence and the finding, ordered a second bill to be preferred. That second bill was also ignored; and in the November following, an ex officio information was filed by Mr. Saurin, Mr. Plunkett's predecessor in office. Mr. P. produced attested copies of the indictment, and of the ex officio information that followed the ignoring.

The result of the case was, that judgment was signed against the defendant for want of a plea; but in consequence of his expressing great contrition, and having lost a valuable appointment, no further punishment was inflicted on him.

House, withdrawn. Sir Francis Burdett, at the same time, gave notice, that he would, on the 22nd of the month, bring the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin before the House.

On the day fixed for this motion,' Mr. Ellis, member for Dublin, presented a petition from one of the high sheriffs of Dublin (Mr. Thorpe), and from the foreman and jurors of the Christmas grand jury of that city, praying for an inquiry (in such manner as the House should direct) into the charges preferred against them by their attorney-general. Mr. Ellis took the opportunity of announcing, that Mr. Thorpe and six of the grand jurors, deputed by their fellows, were then in attendance. The annunciation was received with acclamations; and Mr. Brougham complimented the sheriff and jurors upon the promptitude with which they had solicited inquiry. Immediately afterwards, sir Francis Burdett moved, "that the statement made by the attorney-general of Ireland, in his place, on the 15th day of April, respecting the proceedings on the trials of Forbes, Graham, and Handwich, renders it incumbent on this House to institute the strictest examination into the con

duct of the sheriff of the city of Dublin on that occasion."Mr. Plunkett, without directly opposing the motion, addressed the House in a speech which showed that he was, at bottom, not a little averse to the course proposed. He avowed, that he was willing and even thought it necessary to institute a criminal prosecution against the sheriff, in case the House did not, by a parliamentary inquiry, put it out of his power to do so; and he intimated very plainly, that proceedings in a court of justice were