better adapted to the circumstances of the case, than the imperfect means of investigation possessed by the House of Commons. Mr. Canning, Mr. Peel, and the other ministers expressed the same opinions more unequivocally and put a direct negative upon the motion. Mr. Brownlow and colonel Barry called loudly for inquiry, and denied in toto the truth of the allegations which the attorney-general had made against the sheriff and grand jury. The learned gentle man, said Mr. Brownlow, had asserted in his place, that the jury were packed. Now, nineteen out of the twenty-three grand jurors, whoignored the bills of indictment, usually sat as grand jurors; their names appeared in every panel for ten years back; and during that time they had frequently received the thanks of the judges for their upright and impartial conduct. It had been stated by the attorneygeneral, that one of the traversers, was the first cousin of the sheriff. In truth, however, there was not one of them more connected with the sheriff, than with the learned gentleman himself. The attorney general had informed the House, that a Mr. Poole applied to the sheriff to be put on the jury; that the sheriff had consented, but that, subsequently, Mr. Poole having expressed his inclination to carry into effect the conciliatory views of the king's letter, his name was not included in the panel. The high sheriff had informed him (Mr. B.), that, three weeks before the jury was impanelled, Mr. Poole begged to be put on the grand jury. The sheriff said, he would submit his name to his colleague. In the mean time, a letter was addressed to the sheriffs by the crown solicitors, by the or

ders of the attorney-general, re questing that both the sheriffs should join in making out the panel. Mr. Poole renewed his application to be put on the grand jury, when the sheriffs informed him, that they felt the necessity of being cautious, and that he had disqualified himself by the applications he had made. Mr. Sheriff' Thorpe asked, what reason he had for pressing the application? "I'll tell you," said Mr. Poole; "the case of a Mr. O'Meara is to come before the grand jury. I am acquainted with facts, connected with that case, which are not known to the rest of the jury. I wish to be on the grand jury, that justice may be done to Mr. O'Meara. Put me on the jury, and I'll give you my word not to divide on the question of the play-house riots." The sheriff replied, that, after such a declaration nothing would induce him to put Mr. Poole on the jury. With respect to the conduct of the grand jury, there was no notice of motion respecting them, but he was authorized to say, that every thing the attorney-general had said with respect to them was incorrect and unfounded. The attorneygeneral had been misled and misinformed by some calumniator. The attorney-general had said, that a witness of the name of Moran had been produced before the grand jury, and that but two questions had been put to him when he was shown to the door; the jury authorized him (Mr. B.) to state, that that witness was asked a greater number of questions in the grandjury room, than he was asked on the trial.

Mr. Denman, Lord Milton, Mr. Spring Rice, sir J. Newport, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Brougham, spoke in favour of parliamentary investi

gation. Upon a division, sir Francis Burdett's motion was carried by a majority of 34; 219 members voting for it, and 185 against it.

On the 2nd of May the House resolved itself into a committee for the purpose of inquiring into the charges preferred by Mr. Plunkett against Mr.Thorpe and the jury; and prosecuted the investigation on the 5th 6th and 7th of that month. The three points attempted to be established against Mr. Thorpe, and from which it was intended to be inferred, that he had packed the jury, were, that the panel contained an unprecedented number of the members of the corporation; that the grand jurors answered with a suspicious punctuality to their names; and, that the panel was shorter than upon any former

occasion.

One Mr. Terence O'Reilly, an attorney, stated, that, on the day on which the indictments were ignored, Mr. Sheriff Thorpe, in a room adjacent to the court, and about three quarters of an hour before the fate of the bills was announced, addressed a gentleman, named Ward, on the subject of these bills, predicting that they would be ignored, and exulting in the management by which he had insured such a result. Mr. O'Reilly was confirmed in some part of his statement by a Mr. M'Namara, but both were contradicted positively by Mr. Ward. One John M'Connell stated, that, at a card party at a Mr. Sibthorpe's about three days after the riot in the Dublin theatre, he heard Mr. Thorpe say to Graham, one of the persons who were afterwards (but not then) accused, that he had the Orange panel in his pocket.-Mr. Sheriff Cooper proved, that the

panel, which, according to M'Connel's statement, was in Mr. Thorpe's pocket on the 17th of December, was not prepared for several days after. He denied that the grand jurors were persons more remarkable for party zeal than other gentlemen in Dublin; and affirmed, that, if the January grand jury differed in any thing from former commission grand juries, it was in its extraordinary respectability.Mr. Plunkett produced a list of candidates to represent the merchant's guild, recommended as good men in bad times," at the head of which was a vignette of king William, with his horse trampling upon a Knave of Clubs, intended, it should seem, as the symbol of the Dublin lord mayor. Mr. Cooper admitted, that seven of the fifty returned on the grand jury panel were to be found in this list, but denied that they were violent party-men. In conclusion he said, that, though he considered his colleague Mr. Thorpe a high party man, he should from his knowledge of him consider him as a juror altogether above exception.-William Poole stated, that, being anxious to sit upon the January commission grand jury, in order to guard the interests of a certain Mr. T. O'Meara, who was indicted for perjury, he applied, in November, to Mr. Thorpe, and obtained from him a promise that he should be returned in the panel. Finding himself excluded from the panel, he remonstrated with Mr. Thorpe, who apologized by saying, that he had a hard card to play, and that it was impossible to please all parties.

Christopher Moran complained, that the grand jury having heard from him all the particulars of the riot with which he was acquainted,

refused to listen to a story he wished to tell, about the arrest of one of the Handwiches.

Here the case sgainst Mr. Thorpe closed.-Mr. N. Murray Mansfield was the first witness called for the defence. He stated that he was clerk in the sub-sheriff's office, and described the mode in which the panel was struck, as being perfectly fair. Mr. Thorpe proceeded expressly upon the principle of excluding from it all men of violent politics.-Sir George Whiteford, foreman of the grand jury, stated, that he was solicited by sheriff Thorpe to preside over the January grand jury several weeks before the riot; that, having heard M'Connell's statement, that Mr. Thorpe boasted of having an Orange panel, he refused to act upon the Jury, until Mr. Thorpe assured him, upon his honour, of the falsehood of M'Connell's story; that he never saw a body of men more conscientiously anxious to discharge their duty than the grand jury in question. Sir George added, that he was one of those who wished the dressing of the statue of king William to die a natural death, but he confessed that he thought the measures taken to suppress the ceremony were calculated to produce irritation. Being cross-examined by Mr. Plunkett, he said, that, in his opinion, it was not deserving of punishment, to express dissatisfaction at the forcible means by which the dressing was discontinued. Mr. Twycross, one of the grand jury, described himself as an Englishman, and a friend to Catholic emancipation. He affirmed, that the grand jury conducted their inquiry with the utmost patience and impartiality, and that they were nnanimous in their decision.

Mr.

:

J. H. Moore, another juror, said, that he had acted as secretary to the grand jury, and taken notes of the examinations. His testimony perfectly corresponded with that of the two preceding witnesses; but, being questioned as to some particular facts, he hesitated to make disclosures inconsistent with his oath as a grand juror and a long discussion followed on the question, whether the grand jury could be wholly absolved from their obligation of secrecy. The point was not decided; and the examination continued through the 8th, 9th, and 14th of May, upon an understanding, that the members should, as far as possible, abstain from putting to any of the Jurors, questions as to facts which occurred in the grand-jury room. One Mr. Davis said, that he was not an Orangeman, and that he had heard Mr. sheriff Thorpe refuse to put Mr. Addison Hone on his grandjury panel, on the ground of the violence of that gentleman's politics.

On the 23rd of May, the investigation of the conduct of the high sheriff of Dublin was resumed. After several witnesses had been examined, sir Abraham B. King was called. He stated, that he had never had any panel put into his hands for revision, nor, to his knowledge, was any panel put into the hands of his clerk. He had been, he said, an Orange-man since 1797; the oath of that society was in print; a prayer was read on opening the lodge, but no portion of scripture was read; the signs and words which were communicated after initiation were, he said, taken from the Old Testament. Being pressed to explain from what passage these signs and words were taken, the witness pleaded his oath

of secrecy. After the House had determined that he should be compelled to answer, the inquiry was urged in every possible shape: he was told by Mr. Brougham that his oath was an absurdity, and of no force, and admonished by the chairman that his refusal might drive the committee to a painful course. But neither casuistry nor menaces, nor persuasion availed: sir A. B. King firmly persisted in respecting the pretended sanction of his oath; nor would he communicate more than that the pass-words were to be found in the Old Testament. The attorney-general (sir Robert Gifford) thought that, before compelling the disclosure of these words by measures of severity, it might be worth inquiring whether the answer was likely to bear upon the subject before the committee. Mr. Canning too recommended not to press this line of examination. Sir John Newport, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Scarlett, and Mr. J. Smith urged the necessity of committing the witness; but Mr. Brougham and Mr. Plunkett thought it better to give him another opportunity of answering. Being recalled, sir Abraham King again explained, that the only words, which he hesitated to divulge, were the signs and symbols by which Orangemen are ena bled to distinguish each other; and these had no reference whatever to any maxim or rule of conduct. Mr. Peel declared, that, after this answer, he could not press the inquiry. Mr. Brougham com plained, that the witness had triumphed over the committee.Mr. Calcraft, on the other hand, thought the last answer perfectly satisfactory.

On the 26th of May, the in

quiry proceeded; and again an effort was made to extort from sir A. B. King, the sign and passwords of the Orangemen. Mr. Brougham said, it had been proved that sheriff Thorpe had boasted of having an Orange panel in his pocket, and that some of the grand jurors were in fact Orangemen; and therefore, the committee was bound to probe the Orange system to the bottom. Mr. Peel, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Goulburn, and colonel Barry urged, that the moral tenor fo the system might be thoroughly known without extorting its formal and insignificant symbols.-Sir A. B. King assured the House, that the so earnestly-pursued symbols had no hostile allusion whatever to any class of his majesty's subjects; and that they hinted nothing of extermination. Mr. Brougham, on pressing the proposition of a specific examination to a division, was defeated by a majority of 117 to 87. Mr. Hume then proposed to ask the witness the purport of the passages from which the Orange symbols were taken. On a division, the motion was rejected by a majority of 131 to 77. Mr. Plunkett voted both times in opposition to ministers.

The inquiry terminated on the following day, by the examination of Mr. Plunkett himself; the members who advocated the cause of the sheriff and jury, conceiving that they had already sufficiently made out their case. The effect of it certainly was, to disprove the inculpatory allegations of the attorney-general: but it had another more important use; for it showed how familiar corruption, in the administration of justice, was to the minds of the Irish people.

The tendency of these proceed

ings, relative to the riot in the theatre, to excite strong party feeling in the capital could not be doubted; and when a spirit of faction is called into activity in a metropolis, the remoter districts seldom escape the contagion. The violence of religious animosity dis turbed the tranquillity even of those districts where property was in general secure. For instance,

the counties of Antrim and Armagh exhibited frequent scenes of violence, though few or none of plunder. Wherever the Ribandmen and Orangemen met, or came within reach of reciprocal insult or provocation, riot seldom failed to

At Carrickfergus, a prosecution for riot took place before baron M'Clelland, where the parties indicted were Catholics; but, after the examination of several witnesses, whose evidence just went far enough, to prove the impossibility of discovering which faction was the aggressor, the judge stopped the further progress of the trial, and dismissed both Orangemen and Ribandists, with a just reproof of that unnatural spirit by which the banners of two communities, calling themselves Chris tian, were made the incitements to devastation and civil bloodshed. the 12th of June, the and Ribandmen, met at the fair of Maghera, in the county of Derry. A quarrel ensued; when the Orangemen, being driven to the barracks, there provided themselves with arms and ammunition, and fired repeated volleys upon the country people, of whom some were killed, and, from 16 to 30 were wounded. The Orange triumph was afterwards celebrated by an attack on the houses and windows of Roman Catholics. The following circum

stance is an illustration of the mode in which party spirit was constantly interfering with the administration of justice. At the Lent assizes of Mullingar, a prisoner was put on his trial for murder, and the clearest evidence of his guilt was produced. The accused was a Catholic, and a single Catholic was on the jury. Eleven of the jurors were agreed to convict the accused of murder, but the twelfth stood out. No argument, no appeal to justice, or to conscience, could influence him. The jury, after being locked up until the judge left the town, were dismissed without a verdict, and the murderer escaped.

The disturbances in the southern counties and the adjacent districts, had never been entirely suspended; but in the beginning of the year, the outrages were less numerous than they had previously been, and hopes were entertained of a gradual return to tranquillity and peace. This expectation was quickly disappointed: for, during the month of March, the system of outrage was pursued in parts of the pro vince of Munster with increased activity and vigour, and reached other parts of the country which had been nearly exempt from disturbance. During the first week in March, five malicious conflagra tions and twelve outrages of dif ferent descriptions took place with in the county of Cork; and for some subsequent weeks, scarcely a night elapsed, in which, within those districts, some house or property was not destroyed by fire, or in which attempts were not made by the insurgents to enforce the penalties previously denounced against all those who resisted the authority of these desperate offenders. Notwithstanding: the