The Sun. — London, England, 1839-08-07 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. pat that he at once recollected it, when it was suggested.— (Laughter. ) " Was anything said about abolishing tithes ?" " Oh yes. " Have you any doubt that that was one of the objects of the me e ti ng ? " I think it was. " Was there not something said about separating from this country if certain objects were not attained ? " I never heard it spoken of—but now you suggest it, I think it was referred to."—( Loud laughter.) So here is a man who positively does not recollect anything about the abolition of Tithes or the Repeal of the Union until it Was "suggested" to him.—(A laugh.) He was ap pointed by Sir Michael O'Loghlan, (then Attorney- Gene ral)—at the recommendation of Mr. Shiel, to whom the gentleman had been Election Agent. And in justice to M r . C ahill, I must say he stated that the Magistrates of the county, Lord Donoughmore at their head, passed a vote of thanks to him for his efficient services in detecting the murderers of Cooper and Weyland. This only comprises my first statement that his conduct as a Crown Solicitor is much more satisfactory than as a witness. And yet this is the only witness, according to my recollection, who dif fers from the general body of the evidence, as to the ill effects of the new instructions as to challenging. Now, Your Lordships would naturally suppose, that the Attorney- General's instructions would be uniform ; but I have read the instructions and they are any thing but uniform. Mr. Ti erney, another solicitor, says that prisoners always chal lenge, so as to get the lowest persons on juries, and e specially publicans. He says, Not having Sir Mi chael O'Loghlen's instructions, I have always chal lenged the most illiterate persons : but I have bad written instructions from Sir Michael." So that here are two solicitors acting under different instructions, to guide them in precisely the same thing. And Sir Michael O'Loghlen says that in England no such right is claimed, w hich i s neither consistent with the fact nor the law. Then again th ere i s anot h er set o f i nstruct i ons sent by M r . Drummond, p ro f es i ng to b e a copy o f Si r Mi c hael O'Loglosn's,l in which, amongst other things, it was said j hat you should not in any case object to a urior, unless e is in some way connected with the case on which he is called to serve. This was quite a different ground, and there is no such great objection to that. It went on, " or for s ome ascertained cause, unfit to serve." Why this is as general as can be : and here is Sir Michael O'Loghlen a reek after he had given the other instructions, giving these tustructions which' are not verbal, but in his own hand rsr„,i,ting- It's monstrous that there should be such - ",,,LtY on a subject so important.—(Hear, hear, hear.) apprise --1 h en Mr. Heald (as we understood) wrote to Sir Michael before going into Carlow and the the inQueen's county of the state of party feeling, and ask g if he was to persevere in his challenges. Sir Mi !peel's reply was—Certainly—but leaving him a discre- Z i as te parties connected with the cause. Then came a,ll • Perrin's instructions—another Attorney.General— his instructions are undeniably right; which were— vv,l Wish that no man be set aside by the Crown against ~_neom there is not a good substantive objection." That is " 3 true beground ; that is the rational ground ; but that it could the plausible ground—that it would be to all par ," in Ireland the most agreeable ground—that it would be th e ground on which to give Mr. Attorney-General , u , Loghle n t h e b est opportunity of saying to his party— ,.6ee what I h ave done for you—l have tied up the hands °I 11 men never to challenge a man on account of his religion, though the cause may be involved and ,senped deep in religious strife—though it may be a poli tical heroquestion—and though the denial of justice may not be more assuredly effected by besetting politicians on one hand and sectarianists on the other. I have de sired that no religious objection shall be taken—that Mr. O'Logel en the might tell to the Catholics of Ireland and to agitators there, but that Mr. Perrin could not tell, un der the i nstructions which preceded the regimen of Mr. O'Loghlen's career." I have shown now what is neces sary to prove the propositions I shall have to advance— propositions in themselves next to self-evident, and I now a pproach with greater f ee li ngs o f uneas i ness t h e nex t p ar t of the subject, apologizing on the one hand to some of Your Lord s hi ps for having dwelt so long on the details what has passed, but apologizing more to others of Your Lordships for having merely gone so generally over this part of the case ; b ut I am anxious, not unnecessarily, to however "copy time. I must go somewhat at greater length, t.t,lavvever, into the two l as t d a y s , w hi c h are i ncompara bl y the most important, affecting in the first place what ought to be considered in reference to interfering with sentences, and the con d uct pursued, or which ought to be pursued, t owards the Judges before whom culprits have been brought, and who still continue to adorn the Bench of Justice; and if any man should think I am now coming to personal ground, allow me to say it is absolutely itnpos sible to satisfy your Lordships of the necessity of laying down a rule to guide the future operations of the Execu tive Government, and to guide the hands of those in whom that Government shall henceforth be, without show ing your Lordships that necessity, by referring . to the de viations that have been made from the right course.— (Hear, hear.) I am sure I have only to appeal to your Lordships for my defence against any supposition of any personal allusion ;whatever. Would to God that I could go through any task without alluding to any one person, but I appeal to your Lordships to consider the absolute necessity of it from the circumstances of the case. Happily for me—and that is almost the only comfort I can derive—happily for me, my allusions do not press upon the Irish Government, or upon those in whose hands it was vested. They do not stand alone—they do not stand without support—their conduct is not brought before your Lordships as theirs, unsanctioned, unapproved —aye, unpraised, and unthanked by th e w h o l e G overnment at home..._( Much cheering.) My charge then is not against them —I single not out them, be they more or less strong —be they weak or be they powerful. I attack not any that are defenceless. The charge is not made, but if any charge in the course of my statement comes out and is implied, it is implied against the strong arm of the Executive Government of this country—. (Cheers)—a Government answerable in law constitution ally for all that their agents do, as long as those agents stand unremoved.—(Renewed cheers.) But in this case it is the law and the fact together. By law they are re sponsible ; by their conduct and by their approval they have made themselves one and the same.—(Great ap plause.))Then let us proceed to this important question-_ and I pass over for the present any remarks I may feel it necessary to make on any principles I may lay down with respect to the power vested in the Executive Government in these realms—of remitting or changing sentences pro nounced by the Judges, and only taking leave for the pre sent to state that that is a high and a delicate function, which ought always to be exercised after inquiry, and upon much consideration.—( Hear, hear.) Another principle I may lay down applicable to what I am about to state, is, that Judges stand in a high and in a most responsible position, and that they ought not to be in jured—their character ought not to be affected—their privileges ought not to be outraged, and their functions ought not to be lowered in public estimation. That is, with respect to them, eminently necessary above all other Public functionaries, there being no middle course between at once impeaching and removing them ; and while they continue unirepeached and unremoved, being treated as if u nimpeachable and unremoveable. With this preface I proceed to the conduct which has been shown to the Judges. It appears at m Rig hton. Fren, the Chief Justice of the Co th mmon y Pleas in H Ireland, i for d some reason or other, which I shall presently have occasion to show you, had fallen into discredit with the Executive Go vernment of Ireland, and that a memorandum was made by a clerk of the Irish Government, which memorandum was supposed to have been made by the authority of the Executive Government. However, that memorandum Was what I shall now describe; and the acting u p o n it was this—no case tried before Chief Jus tice Doherty of the Common Pleas, and over which h e had presided on the trial, when it comes to be considered by the Executive Government, should ever be t ent to th at venerable Judge for his advice.—(Hear, F a r.) I hav e a d m i n i stere d j ust i ce ; I h ave sat on t h e highest tribunal of this country; I have assisted your Lordships in the administration of those high attributes which devolve upon that tribunal; I have passed my life in ..Courts of j ust i ce ; Judges of I have known the venerable and revered the present time, and many of the great men who are now deceased—l believe no man more intimately known their feelings, their opinions, and their habits, as none have had a more undeserved extensive intercourse with them —and I confess that I do not believe that any one of those venerable persons, the heads and the sages of the law of this country, could have brought himself to believe in the possible existence of such a Minute as I am about to read—( Hear, hear)—and I will venture to add, that if it had been told them, the answer from all, in one voice, must have been, " Mistake— carelessness—error—misunderstanding could alone have given rise to such lines being traced upon any paper; de pend upon its all wrong—its all fabrication, and no such outrageous Minute can ever be found to exist."—( Hear, h ear.) How stands the fact ? How has this baseless fabric of imagination been acted upon ? So far from its not having been acted upon, in the course of two or three years, twenty. seven cases tried before the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, over which be presided, upon which his conduct stood untouched, and in which he bad pronounced s entences—every one of th ose t wen t y - seven referred, not to the Chief Justice, but—as the evidence upon oath shows, because of the Minute they were not referred to the Chief Justice—in obedience to that memorandum they were removed from him, and they were all referr e d e i ther tot , Crown Counsel —the prosecutolt e s Attorney-General, thenominee during the pleasure of th e Crown, and the the holdingaent of office Crown—or they were referred, as s ten they were referred, to Crown Sollit n o i r n s e c ( a l s l e e s ar o ll t ear o ) f —ettornies at law practising i n the , s e Court • of the Lord Chief Justice, of the ose second common law judge of the Ki ng _ dom. One th . s was the case of a person w h o was prosecuSed for abduction, and conviction took place t ;faction of the Judge, and the individual was o the perfect satin . sentenced by the C,,hief Justice to tran sportation for life. He found the next time he went the circuit, without h av i ng h ad any previo u s intimation of . the result, l far w less w i t h out hav ing h a d any prev i ous communication made to him before the step was taken, that that sentence had been changed into imprisonment fur 12 months ; and to this hour, says he, I am utterly at a loss to tell on what grounds. Then a Mr. Reynolds was convicted of a serious riot, b e f ore Chief Justice Doherty and Mr. Baron Smith together. They agreed upon a sentence of nine months' im ,•lrisonment. It was a greater punishment than mi . ,;sht have been inflicted for that offence, but it was not the first offence, because the party had been convicted before. A letter came from the Executive Governmeni, stating that the case had been referred to the Attorney -General ; and that the Attorney-General, for reasons he had stated, thought there was a great deal of doubt whether the man bad net been punished enough ; and so, aft er two months ' imprisonment, the other seven months' how, did all this arise, because there must have been some mo tive for this conduct towards Chief Justice Doherty? That 1 lead s me at once to the case of Gallen. Gahan was tried before the Chief Justice for having been party to a very gross and outrageous assault ; and he was only, by the Osecy of the prosecutor, in my opinion, indicted under th e Irish Outrage Act, which gives seven years' tran sportation for violent assaults, because he might have been, in all pCobebility, indicted under a much more severe and highly penal statute. It 'was an assault upon four police men. It arose out of no partysquarrel ; it originated in no heat of blood whatever. It was cold-blooded and deliberate. The evidence clearly proved that the assault was committed upon those policemen, especially upon the sergeant, in revenge for his having been a witness upon a prosecution. This gives the very deepest colour to the offence ; it goes to the very root of the administration of justice.—( Hear, hear.) It was an attempt to murder a man in revenge for his having borne testimony upon a pro secution, and to prevent him from bearing testimony again. Why do I say so ? Why do I call it an attempt to mur der? Why do I impute the intention to kill when no murder took place ? First, on account of the injuries, which were of the most serious description. The skull of the sergeant was broken, his arm was broken, and two of his ribs were broken. Upon another of the policemen another of the ruffians fell, and with the whole weight of his body jumped upon him, thereby dislocating his shoulder. Now that I call a murderous attempt.—( Hear, hear.) But I am not left to conjecture the motive from the act—the de sign from the fact—for the man was heard to say, for the purpose of encouraging his comrade ruffian, " Don't forget Crab-lane," which was the place where they lay in wait to murder them ; and after he had said that, he was heard to say, " Now he will never give evidence again." A more aggravated case I have never heard. Accordingly on being tried there was an objection that the police were not sober, because one of the witnesses said there was a smell of whiskey ; but respectable witnesses proved that the smell was attributable to the wounds having been washed with that spirit.—( Hear, hear.) The police were proved to have been quite sober, and to have given most excellent testimony. Well, the Chief Justice, having tried them, on their being convicted, he sentenced them to seven years' transportation. Soon after this, I think it was in March, an application was made by Gahan for mercy, his memorial was considered ; an application was made to the Learned Judge for his notes, and his opinion. The Chief Justice gave his notes and his opinion, stating that he saw no reason to doubt the propriety of the sentence. Acting upon that advice, an answer was returned on the 6th of April, to the memorial, stating that the law must take its course. On the 17th of April a second application was made—anothermemorial for mercy was presented. That was no longer the memorial of Gahan, but that of his brother, and his brother was a Roman Catholic Priest. That memorial was couched in the most offensive language towards the Judge. It in fact insinuated that he was actuated by party feelings, and that the memorialist's only wonder was, that either his brother or any other person could expect to obtain justice from such a Judge. This memorial was sent to the Chief Justice. On the 21st, Mr. Drummond writes to the Chief Justice, calling his attention to the case; but not stating that in consequence of the memorial from the person's brother, the case was to undergo re-consideration ; and the offensive memorial was inclosed in that note. That was sent on the 21st. On the 27th, the Chief Justice wrote a letter, stating his astonishment at receiving such a slanderous attack, and stating that he was still more asto nished that the memorial had been made the ground for re-considering the case of Gahan. The Learned Judge, in that letter, in which he expressed his astonishment, stated that he deemed it prudent to make a copy of his letter; and that was the stigma that was sought to be fixed upon the Chief Justice. Now, it turns out, my Lords, that it was never intended to send that memorial to the Chief Justice. The inference is, or the inference it is intended should be drawn is, that it was intended to send them back to the Priest, with a reprimand for the offensive expressions, and a desire that they should be expunged. I am ready, my Lords, to be lieve that it was sent'by mistake to the Chief Justice, be cause it is sworn that such was the intention. It certainly was sent back to the Priest, but not at the time that any reasonable person might have expected ; and that leads me, my Lords, to think that there is some errors in the dates. A minute is produced of the Lord Lieutenant's, which appears to he dated on the 18th of April, which says " Refer it back to the Priest." On the 21st it is sent by mistake to the Chief Justice, but not till the 27th to the Priest. The Priest, in answer to this, says that he is very sorry if he has given the Government any offence. Certainly he would say so, my Lords, because it was his duty to get favour w ith t h em if he could ; but he does not say one tittle about the gross and scandalous libel upon the Chief Justice. In the minute afterwards sent to the Chief Justice, the memorialist is described as having expressed his humble contrition for what he had stated. Neither the Chief Justice nor the Houses of Parliament have seen that letter of the Priest, but we in the Committee saw it, and I can assure your Lordship that the only expression of contrition in it on the part of this Priest is to the Government and not to the Chief Justice.—( Hear, hear.) Then as to this memorial which it is said was intended not to be sent to the Chief Justice but to the Priest only, how comes it about my Lords, that the 18th, the 19th, 20th, and 21st are allowed to pass before this document is sent to the Priest. That my Lords, I consider to be a most unaccountable circum stance. The Chief Justice complains and complains most justly, not that the offensive letter should have been sent to him instead of having been sent to the Priest, but that upon that offensive memorial the Government should act, and that having acted, they should make it the founda tion for reconsidering so infamous a case. Then comes my Lords, the memorandum. I refer to the memorandum of the 29th of April. The Chief Justice's letter being written on the 27th, in which letter the Chief Justice said he has made a copy of the letter which he had written. On the 29th comes a minute of the Executive Government in which it is stated that the Chief Justice is greatly mistaken in supposing that the letters of the Priest was the cause of the determination on the part of the Govern ment to re-consider the case of Gahan; that that re consideration had taken place, owing to the favourable communications of persons not named, not described or referred to, but among others is the Attorney-General himself. I am certain, my Lords, there could be no in tention to state what was not true here, but I am equally certain that what has been stated has not the impress of truth.—( Cheers.) In the hurry of business an excuse is given to the Chief Justice, which I must say, my Lords, looking at the evidence that has been adduced, is not founded in fact ; and I beg your Lordships' attention while I make out that proposition. I will show your Lord ships that that letter or memorial of the Priest was the cause, and the only cause, of the reconsideration of Gahan's case. First, I prove that from the dates. The letter of the 6th of April stated that the law was to take its course. The Priest's letter is received on the 17th, and it is not till the 2d of the next month that the reconside ration of the case is resolved upon. That alone, I say, is a suspicious circumstance with reference to many of the statements that have been made. Then comes the minute of the 18th, referring it back to the Priest ; but it is not referred back till the 22d, and previous to that it is sent to the Chief Justice by mistake. Then comes the Chief Jus tice's letter of the 27th, and then comes for the first time other grounds for reconsidering the case of Gahan than the Priest's letter, but strange to tell that those other grounds are not put forward until after two days had elapsed from the time of the Chief Justice's complaining of it. Can there be any doubt therefore, my Lords, that that com plaint was the cause that compelled the Government to adopt the course which they have taken ? Then, my Lords, comes the letter of the 30th of April from Mr. Drummond, stating the memorial had been sent by mis take, and last of all the letter of th e 7th o f M ay , i n which Mr. Drummond reprimands the Chief Justice for the course he had adopted of keeping a copy of the me morial.—( Hear, hear.) Now, my Lords, I far one think that the Chief Justice acted most properly in the course he had pursued, notwithstanding the opinion that has been expressed by Sir Michael O'Loghlen. I feel greatly surprised, my Lords, at that opinion. I think that any person must have :been stoical indeed, after hav ing been attacked in the manner that the Learned Judge has been, who would not have pursued a similar course. Sir Michael O'Loghlen seems to think that it is a great offence to keep a copy of a libel against yourself. He says, that there was no necessity for adopting any such course, because parties might be assured that the Government would have given the original. In deed ! If they did they would be the only Go vernment in the world, in my opinion, that would do so, for I will venture to' say that arty Government that did so foolish an act would not be able to carry on for half a year.—( Cheers.) Such, however, was the Learned Master of the Rolls' view of the duty of the Government, and that is the first reason which induces me to think that the memorial of this Priest was the cause, and the only cause, for the re-consideration of the case of Gahan. But that, my Lords, is not my only reason. There is Mr. Drummond's examination, which bears out the view I have taken. For Mr. Drummond, when he is asked what is the further application that is allude I to, stated that it was a memorial from the brother of the convict, a Priest of the Roman Catholic order. Then he is asked as to other verbal communications, and he says that be knows of none. But I am nat left, my lords, to say, that there might be some mistake in the Lord Lieutenant's mind, because, with respect to the verbal communications with the Attorney-General, I have the evidence of the Attorney- General himself, who not only denies any such verbal com munications, but proves the impossibility of them having taken place. He is asked, " Have you any recol lection of any verbal communications taking place between yourself and the Lord Lieutenant ?" And upon his answering in the negative, he is again asked —" Are you certain you never volunteered any observations to the Lord Lieutenant, or any other person connected with the Government, on the case?" To which he says—" I am perfectly certain I never did." It is therefore impossible —utterly impossible—that the reconsideration of Gahan's caee could arise from any communication with the Attorney-General. After all this was made to appear clear, Mr. Drummond is asked a general question much calculated to deceive a cursory observer, but not one that was likely to delude those who would look closely into the matter. He was asked whether any communication had been made to the Lord Lieutenant respecting the reconsideration of Gahan's case after the 6th of April, and he stated that he had made none. Then he is asked, " Would you say the Lord Lieutenant had acted in Gahan's case upon the opinion of the Attorney- General, or on the memorial of the Priest—the slanderous memorial of the Priest, and the answer to that is this : " My opinion is that he acted upon the report of the Attorney. General." So much for the case of Gahan. Then the deliberate opinion of the Learned Judge was appealed from to whom ?—Why, to the Attorney-General I Was it ever known before that such appeal should be made from the Lord Chief Justice—the Judge, who had heard the cause—who had seen the witnesses —who was satisfied w ith th e i r ev idence—who had a charged the jury wh o h a d pronounce d th e sen tence, sidered his n . had reconsidered—who had twice recon zant of the facts kn ' inslisment, and still entertained the deli berate conviction ?—( Cheers.) From this Tn d em same cogni zant aware of the circumstancescase—from of the case, his mind imbued the appeal is made to the Attorney. General, who this venerable Judge, able to decide, had seen no witnesses, k n e e r, ve nothing of the Jury, who had heard no argum ents , we the case, and who w as totally given no cons id era tion to circum stances connected with i t. gnorant of all the My Lords, I will go before any ;twelve lawyers in Westminster Hall, or any twelve jurymen, and if any one of them will say that under such circumstances the opinion of the Attorney-General was to be preferred to that of a Judge, who was perfectly acquainted with the case, then, and not till then, shall I be satisfied with the opinion given by Sir Michael O'Loghlen. I say, my Lords, that up to this hour, notwithstanding the evidence he had given, he does not understand one tittle of the case.---( Great cheering.) He either does not understand, or he will not understand it, I care not which. The appeal was made from those who knew to those who were ignorant, and the ignorant man has reserved the opinion of the one who had a knowledge of the subject. He had given the opinion to which I have referred, upon the case of a man who gloried in the thought that he had committed murder. That man was allowed, according to the opinion of the Attorney-Ge neral, who was totally ignorant of the case to go free. His opinion was that such a man ought to be allowed a free pardon. No. I have made a mistake—because he was not guilty of the offence, therefore he was to be com mitted for twelve months. What was the course pursued in the case of Cerayns ? that was a case of stabbing in the streets. An alibi was set up but it was not proved, and a verdict of guilty was recorded against him. The Chief Justice passed the sentence of seven years trans. portation. A letter came to him from his Excellency, saying that his attention had been drawn to this subject, and that he had arrived at the conclusion, that, if he had been upon the jury, who was perhaps never upon a jury, but that if he had been upon the jury he would have believed in the alibi, and would have given him the benefit of it, and therefore, it was that his Excellency bad come to the determination. Your Lordships would naturally suppose to give him a free pardon, but no; because he believed that an alibi had been proved, and that the prisoner was not the man who committed the offence, therefore he was to be subject to twelve months imprisonment. —( Laughter. ) That is one of the most extraordinary modes of adminis tering Criminal justice that had ever entered into the head of any human being. I need not remind your Lordships that Mr. Justice Moore having passed the maximum pun ishment, after the trial of the prisoner, so far from that being a reason for not putting a man upon his trial, it was the best reason why he should have adopted that pro ceeding : another man was put upon his trial and the ques tion was as to the sobriety of the policeman. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Doherty, and the Jury were satisfied the police were sober. I will not trouble your Lordships with going further into the particulars of this case. How very different was the conduct of Sir M. O'Loghlen with respect to the cases of Gahan and Connor, but particularly Gahan. Then there is the case of a per son named Sly. In that case a Priest of the name of Walsh fell from his horse in the market-place, it was stated in a state of intoxication. —( Laughter.) A cry was in stantly raised that he was a murdered man. No evidence was adduced for some time, but at last the Priest came forward ; they were extremely active, and a woman of the name of Ann Rooney was produced, who swore that she saw Sly murder Walsh; then another witness of the name of Corrigan was brought forward, and he stated, that he had heard with his own ears Mr. Sly say, that he had murdered him.—( Hear, hear.) Now, my Lords, I will leave you to say whether or no there is any improbability on that ? —(Laughter.) Was this treated with any sort of con tempt ?—was it disbelieved, or was it refused to be acted upon by Sir M. O'Loghlen. He sent for Corrigan ;he had him up in Dublin, and what was the result? Why he said he would not try Sly till he had other evidence to support that of Corrigan. Sly, however, was tried ; Corrigan was put in the box ; other witnesses were in attendance, but they were not produced, because they durst not, and the result was that Sly was acquitted be cause the jury would not believe the evidence given by Corrigan. Such an opinion had the law officers of the Crown of their own witness Corrigan, tbat they actually sent a short-hand writer to the trial, because they felt convinced that he would perjure himself, and their expec tations were fully borne out, for a greater mass of prevarication never had been put forward.—( Hear, hear.) There is no wonder that the law officers of the Crown distrusted Corrigan, for it was proved against him that he bad gone to Patterson, a police officer, and asked him to correct his daily returns, because he knew it would show that he was in another place at the time he represented he had heard what he had stated. Patterson refused to alter the returns, and for that he was dismissed from his office.—( Hear, hear.) He asked for an opportunity of being tried, but that was not granted ( Hear, hear.) There may be nothing in all this, but at least it requires explanation. One word more with re spect to Mr. Sly's case and I have done. Strong repre sentations were made to Mr. Maloney, who conducted the case for Sly, as to the evidence of Corrigan, but he said that there was no alternative except his being tried. He was tried and acqnitted, and the result was that upon the evidence of the short-hand writer both Ann Rooney and Corrigan were convicted of perjury. They were not however to be found upon the trial, and the consequence was that Corrigan and Rooney would not be tried for their base and murderous perjury, except upon the short-band writer's notes—those perjured murderers were tried upon these notes—they were convicted and sentenced to transportation ,for life. Such, m y L or d, i s th e case of Sly. My L or d s , when I consider the sound judgment--the admirable discretion and singularly moderate temper shown by Chief Jusitce Doherty—( Hear, hear)—upon the oc casion, I cannot but revere him, and I am clearly of opinion that the Executive onght to decide no case without availing themselves of the assistance—the invaluable assistance of the Judge who tried the parties.—( Hear, hear.) That Judge had seen the criminal—he had examined most carefully into the case—he had seen the jury, but above all, my Lords, he had seen the witnesses, and therefore was able to form a pretty correct opinion upon the whole of it, certainly much better than a person who, perhaps, never saw a jury in his life ; nay, certainly much better than that person with the assistance of the Crown-agent —an attor ney, nay, even with the assistance of an Attorney-General, even with all such asssitance it was impossible tbat he should come to either a sounder or safer opinion upon a case than the Judge:who tried it. I can, my Lords, only marvel at the man's confidence, but certainly cannot envy the soundness of his judgment. Again, my Lords, I am clearly of opinion that the treatment given to the Chief Justice Doherty, was most improper, to make as it were a black mark against his name—(Hear, hear)—to stamp him with degradation amongst his brethren—( Hear, hear)—to declare to every attorney, and every attorney's apprentice, that the Chief Justice shall not be treated as if he carries about with him the King's Commission—while he carries about with him that Commission as the ensign of au thority, he shall at the same time be secretly reviled, be stamped as unfit to exercise those high functions which belong to the Commission ; that in no one case which he has tried shall he be consulted—that I hold to be a treat ment most improper, most unwise, and utterly unjustifiable to be passed upon a Judge.—( Hear, hear.) If the Judge has done wrong—if he has made himself obnoxious to cen sure, let the Executive apply to Parliament—let them call upon both Houses of Parliament to address the Crown for his removal—( Hear, hear)—but so long as he continued clothed in ermine—so long as he is entrusted with the King's Commission, such treatment is utterly unjustifiable and unwarranted. Why should he be treated as a crimi nal, and yet be allowed to remain a Judge ?—( Cheers. ) These, my Lords, are some of the grounds upon which I justify the resolutions which I now propose for your Lord ships' adoption. I come now, my Lords, to my fifth reso lution—the prerogative of pardoning. I have, my Lords, anticipated one or two of my arguments upon this head, and therefore it will be unnecessary for me to de tain your Lordships at such a length as might otherwise be necessary. I have already stated to your Lordships with respect to the power of pardoning what appears to me to be a right ,view of it. It i s no t t o b e un d ers t oo d— i t is not understood by lawyers, that the Sovereign is en trusted with the prerogative of mercy, for the mere gratifi cation:offeelings, however humane or becoming—when men are clothed with such a power they must not yield to the natural feelings of the human breast, but they are bound to look at what society demands from them—the prero gative of mercy mnst not be exercised without due deli beration, full inquiry, an accurate knowledge of facts— all these must precede the dispensation of the prerogative of mercy. The throwing open the prisons at a co ronation the discharging of prisoners at a Jubilee, all these matters are now as obsolete as the trial by battle, or any other barbarous customs which disgraced the early progress of our judicial inititutions. I think it scarcely necessary to trouble your Lordsnips with autho rities upon the subject, but their is one passage in " Stam ford" which shows so clearly what opinion the law and lawyers have upon this important prerogative, that I must needs trouble your Lordships with it, as it will not detain you long. Stamford says, " The Sovereign ought never to pardon, in any case, except where he might do so without violating his coronation oath ;" and in that oath, my Lords, you are aware that he swears to administer justice accord ing to mercy, as well as mercy according to justite.—( Hear, hear.) And the statute of Northampton declared the same. Coke likewise said, "There wereithree modes of pardoning crimes or preventing them—first, a good educa tion ; 2d, the execution of good laws ; and thirdly, pardons being very rarely granted, and granted only after full inquiy and calm and deliberate consideration. Again, Sergeant Kingsays, his of pardon, work, tha the t lawentrusted with the power used only in those cases wherein, could the law have fore- Hawkins ins fore seen it, it would have accepted it out of its general rules. Such, my Lords, are the authorities upon this subject. Let us now inquire whether there have not been some cir cumstances which call for the resolutions I have placed upon your table. It appears from the evidence contained in this blue book that persons to the amount of 240 were discharged by the verbal order of the Lord Lieutenant while he was in the counties in Ireland in the year 1836. Five were afterwards discharged upon private representa tions, and this made the number to be no less than 245 prisoners who were discharged in this wholesale manner. The evidence upon this point your Lordships will find in pages 253, 256, 258, 346, 461, 469, 786, and 905. The course of proceeding as there detailed was this, his Excel lency, in his progress, came to a town, and was attended by the populace to the gaol—arrived there he had the pri soners, or rather I would be more correct in saying, cer tain of the prisoners, paraded before him —they being such as were recommended by the gaoler—there were often other prisoners in the gaol, but they were put up according to the discretion of the keeper of the gaoler. For instance, take the case of Clonmell—from the gaol in Clonmell 57 persons were discharged, 57 were paraded before the Lord Lieu tenant and pardoned, but there were 200 prisoners inthc gaol at the time. Everything depended on the fiat of the gaoler. At Clonmel it appeared that the Lord Mayor ac companied the Lord Lieutenant to the gaol ; but though he was a Magistrate, and in many cases the committing Magistrate, yet not one question was put to him respecting any one of the persons who were thus again thrown upon society. It appears also that the Chaplain of the gaol was present, Mr. Prendergast, but it appeared that no questions were put to him either ; in his evidence he stated that the gaoler recommended whom he pleased, and in one case he, Prendergast, interfered, and prevented two prisoners from being sent back to society, the ground being that, as the gaoler said, they had behaved unwell in prison ; these two persons were sentenced to transportation for life for being concerned in a case of manslaughter, which was of so atrocious a nature as to be but little removed from murder. Mr. Prendergast ob• jected to them, and very properly, upon the case being represented to him, the Lord Lieutenant refused to grant mercy to them. Mr. Prendergast was then asked to point out any of the prisoners whom he could THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1839 recommend for pardon, and he named a prisoner, Wm. Dee, but the gaoler interfered, and poor Prendergast was con founded, and no wonder, my Lords, for he who had but a moment before been invested with the prerogotive of mercy was snddenly withdrawn from him by the fiat and interference of the gaoler, who said the prisoner had been punished in gaol. Prendergast searched the Book of Punishments, but he could not there find the name of Dee, but the consequence of the gaoler's interference was, that the prisoner was not pardoned. An attempt bi's been made to show that many of the prisoners who were pardoned had again been committed to prison—his objec tions lay much deeper than that. Every one must know t m h e a r t cy th o a n t gwbatstnootbethe wayexercised i . n_w ( h c i (which the Cheers prerogative ln e, o n n o o n f fifty-seven prisoners were discharged, two of whom were sgain committed. In Westmeath nineteen prisoners were discharged, and six of them were subsequently committed for other offences. Now that, my Lords, is an argument in favour of my resolutions —f or the 55 prisoners who were discharged from Clonmell, might be very fit subjects for the prerogative of mercy, b ut the six from W estmeat h discharged ozi w ine without nutahtnetsr there i a c lsv t full eer a no n g d asg7edn certainly were not —not one of th em oug ht to have been business-- no t more than one minute f or eac h case. uct S hpa o eso m enL e otofh o rd Ce f the cases we re o f great magn i tu d e, yet the prisonerspri soners tm inquiry. more re discharged, t baNnone w in andothu e r were pardoned, merely because the gaoler said they were well behaved under him. That might be a very good reason for using them well in prison, for giving them some orison indulgences—it was no reason for discharging them. The fullest possible precaution ought to be used. One should be slow to convict, and then he ought to award the slightest possible amount of punishment. But when the question is to reverse the operation, and remit the sen tence, is it to be thought that then there is no need of an inquiry, of any investigation, of any ceremony whatever— that while the down-hill course of condemnation is gra dual, slow, and painful, the up-hill road of remission ought to be rapid—that there should be no obstruction, no impe diment in our ascent to the smiling plains of mercy ? Shall it be said that while the resolution to punish cannot be too slow, the act of reprieving and pardoning cannot be too quick ? The proposition that you should be slow to punish, is not only consistent with the proposition that you should be also slow to pardon, but it proves it ; because you have n o right to punish unless of necessity, unless upon the ground that unless you do so in the case of the existing cri minal, you caanot possibly prevent the commission of future crime t One proposition follows another ; and if you say that you may rashly, lightly, inconsiderately pardon, you condemn yourself for punishing : because if it be right to pardon, it must have been wrong to punish. This is strong, clear, and irrefragible. This question induces the most grave reflections. You cannot but think that there is nothing more encouraging to the criminal, than the observation that an application from a Member of Par liament, a magistrate, or a body of men connected by police, or religion, or a community of feeling respecting crime—that such an application, without any consideration of the case, insures a favourable hearing from the Execu tive Government. In this manner the law loses its autho rity, justice is disarmed and paralyzed, the criminal ceases to fear, and the administration of justice is no longer re spectable.—(Cheers.) It ceases even to be tolerable, if mercy is dealt out without prudence, discrimination, temperate conduct, and deliberative judgment on the part of those who stand by the sacred models of jus tice.—(Loud cheers.) If I should even say that such a mistake should not arise from any want of consideration, but from the motives of feeling, however amiable, while I should be disposed to view in the most friendly manner such an error of judgment, and God knows it is only an error of judgment I ascribe, or as Grattan calls it, a mere incircumspection. The result of such a mistake must be productive of the most grievous consequences. But here we have seen appeals from the Judges and the Jury who have tried cases—not even to the Attorney- General —not even to the Crown Soli - tors, but appeals to the Gaoler.—( Hear, and a laugh.) From one of the Courts, one of the most important offices of the law, we have seen cases referred from the Judges and Juries to the gaolers and turnkeys sitting in appeal ; and those officers have been asked, not under what circum. stances judgment had been pronounced against the man, but upon the comparatively immaterial facts of the beha viour of the prisoner towards the gaolers and his servants. —( Laughter.) And here it should be remembered, that the man who has been often in gaol is most likely to find favour in the eye of the gaoler—( Laughter)—because it naturally happens that he who is used to the restraints of a prison is less likely to be impatient than he who has been deprived of his liberty for the first time. As the wild bird will flap his wings against the cage in which he he is confined, the tame bird who has been born, hatched, and bred in slavery will never flap his feathers against the wires. So he who has been often in goal—he who has spent a large portion of his time in the durance of confinement—he is most likely to be the man whom the gaoler would speak well of to the Executive Government, as the best-behaved person, and the most deserving of mercy.__( Hear, hear, and laughter.) But this dole of mercy has not depended upon the decision of the Attorney- General, sitting in appeal against the descendants of the Lord Chief Justice, nor upon the opinion of the gaoler heard by his turnkey, but we have seen that it has resulted from the accidental circumstance or caprice of the Viceroy happening to visit one goal instead of another in the course of his tour. Surely then we have good reason to ask whether justice, of which mercy is a portion, has been administrated according to fixed principles and established rules, o'r ac cording to the caprice which may have induced the Viceroy to extend his tour to one place instead of another —( Hear, hear)—but those things were not only done without reproof, but they were sanctioned and adopted by the Government. Further, that judicious, calm, delibera tive body, entitled the National Representatives of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, having heard that an inquiry was about to be instituted, and having information promised to them, but not a little given to them—those grave senators, without any inquiry on their part, or any possible anticipation of the result which an inquiry on their side or on ours might be. that grave and venerable body representing Great Britain whole cs me t e Churchsos t if o o vote, o o uof t net Scotlandet, acquittal n f adwnthdhica approval. h t i ps w apd i rel t oa h evrp oaglulyencerned, and in the o th er o f w hi c h, t h e . t any pretension to proph es y, ant i c i pat i ng t h e b est possible ethisrdcoi t psi b a Ase n e o s unau d d ctl body did, trt andy n g, nr ndodt bohelui ernnr a ce c Ireland—dida Parliamenta sn merg: a jtaohwretwoovt consisting a s se assembled—( I a d chiefly_ (L a u o g f lit theer — r e p t h r e a . t interested —happily those cases were not taken from this House into the other now coequal body of the Legislature. But they might in the other House anticipate our decision in those cases, o r i n t h e case of Lady Hewley, with quite as much propriety as the other. They might with quite one case a justice s t ice as s much in the other.haveant Notwithstanding icipatedourdecis,ionin with out inquiry, and in necessary ignorance of the subject— without witnesses being examined, or documents being pro duced—the House of Commons passed a vote of general approbation of the whole system. But this is not all. The Government sanctioned and adopted it. Parliament was dissolved on the 17th of July, 1837 ; on the 18th of July a letter, was delivered, signed by the Secretary of State and the the Lord Lieutenant,which message might as well have been delivered by word of mouth—( Laughter)—for the Lord Lieutenant was in London at that time. There was a drawing room on the 21st, and his Excellency did not return to Dublin till the 24th. The letter was posted up (littera scripts ntanent) in various parts of Ireland. It stated that her Majesty was entirely gratified by his Excel lency's administration, and she hoped his conduct would be guided by the same principles. There is another circum stance—Chief Justice Doherty is stiil leading the King's Commission in Ireland. There is a black mark on him which must be whitewashed off. Further, the Lord Lieu tenant said he would proceed in the steps of his predecessor —(Hear, hear,)—and then we shall have a recurrence of the case of Gahan, Gall, and King. Upon these grounds I have thought it my indispensable duty to address your Lord ships in order that you might be enabled to remedy the mis chief of which I have complained—believing as I do that the most important of all the functions of the Government is that which is involved in the administration of justice—( Hear, bear)—deeming as I do that if you do not take steps promptly to express your opinion, we shall again and again see instances of this kind from the Executive Governmentof Ireland—instances which would make Mercy and Justice change opposite places, and make Mercy blind while Justice must weep.—( Cheers.) If there be any one amongst you, who thinks it signifies riothing that wit nesses should not come forward to give evidence accord ing to their recognisances, and should, in default, suffer a few days, and the murderer go free—then your Lordships will vote against my first resolution. If there be any amongst you who think that it is not right to exercise that important element of the Constitution to set jurors aside, lest jurors may have to judge their perhaps brother offenders, and that instructions may be so vague, as to be acted upon differenitly in each circuit, then you will vote against my second and third resolutions. Then, again, your Lord ships will vote against the fourth, if you think that the Judge ought not to be consulted in the application of mercy to the prisoners whom he has tried. All of you who would stigmatise and degrade him will negative this proposition. But I have no fear of sue a consummation. I have too high an opinion of the wis dom and integrity of your Lordships' House. Whoever has practised in our Courts, or presided on our Benches, or observed our judicial proceedings, he must think that of all the branches of our Constitution the administration of justice is the most important. This great power of the administration of justice is the clamp which binds toge ther the diversified orders of society, which connects the discordant materials of the, pyramid from the narrowest and most exalted down to the lowest an d widest. As long as this great power circumscribes our social system, I disregard all the perils that may assail the Constitution. Give the Crown all the tyrannous de vices you may:imagine, let the House of C ommons b e ob sequious, the House of Lords be weak, and the Court be corrupt—still, I--fearless of the safety of the liberties of the people—will appeal from the Queen at Westminster to the Queen's Courts at Westminster, knowing, that in the Courts of Justice I shall find the imperishable palladium of the Constitution.—( Cheers. ) Parliament may vacillate, the House of Commons may alternate in small majorities, one day one way, the other slay the other—l e t our mixed me.- nnarchy become the most aristocratic, still, I shall fly to the Judges for refuge, who will protect the sub ject and the Crown against all dangers,—(Cheers). Or if the danger should come (which I don't think we shall live to see) —if the danger should come from the fierce democracy, if the pressure should be from the lower region, if the outrages of the multitude should break in upon and threaten to demolish the walls of the Constitution, then I oppose as an t impregnable bul war k t h e j u di c i a l sys tem, against which, as arms a rock, I know that all the surges of popular fury will dash,i and will d as h i n va i n .— ( Hear, hear.) my Lords, it s to the administration of justice, in which this House in an eminent and special manner is interested, by the Constitution of the country— it is to the administration of justice that I make my appeal in all difficulties, in all perils of the country, and as often as you perceive any attempt made on that hitherto impregnable bulwark —and the more cautiously and slowly and gradually the attempt may be made, and the less there is any design of that kind, of which in this instance, God knows, I cannot by possibility impute the slightest intention ; but if through inadvertency—if through indiscretion—if even through an excess of feel. ings of a kindly nature and amiable disposition—such in discretion shall have been practised as, if not corrected, and not stayed in the outset, may lead to great and fatal abuses--then, above all things, the more it appears that there has has been nothing, but mere indiscretion in fault the more does it become your Lordships to apply the re medy by the application of some principle which the exigency of the case may seem to require. My Lords, with these observations, and upon these grounds, I have deemed it my duty to press on your Lordships the adoption of these resolutions, which I have read before, and which, exhausted as I am, I have no desire to trouble your Lordships with reading again, but which I submit to the attention and calm consideration of your Lordships, and upon which, on the part of the Constitution and the administration of justice, I implore your Lordships this night to pronounce your decision, —(The Noble and Learned Lord resumed his seat amid great cheering. ) The Marquis of NO R ANB Y felt that the way in which he had been attacked, and the desire he felt of placing his actions in a proper light before their Lordships, entitled him to some claim on their Lordships' attention. —( Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned Lord, in the commencement of his speech, stated the manner in which he meant to treat the subject; but having listened to the manner in which the Noble and Learned Lord had treated the subject, he could not help alluding, before going into those numerous details and different portions of his con duct, to the grounds on which he was standing in defence of himself, and the manner in which the Noble and Learned had on this occasion pressed his motion before their Lordships. When the Committee, he could hardly say made its Report, but when it reported the evidence, the Noble and Learned Lord gave notice of his intention to bring a certain portion of the evidence before their Lord ships. On that occasion it was stated by many Noble Lords that the interval for the consideration of the subject would be too short. But the Noble and Learned Lord, on that same occasion, distinctly stated that there would be nothing criminatory against him (the Marquis of Nor manby). On a subsequent occasion, when an appeal was made to allow a fair time for the consideration of the evi dence, the Noble and Learned Lord had stated it might be brought within very narrow limits. Again, the Noble and Learned Lord on Tuesday stated the resolu tions he should move were such as that their Lord. ships might pronounce an opinion upon without having read one word of the evidence. How far any one having heard the able and elaborate speech of the Noble and Learned Lord, could come to a conscientious vote this night, without reading through portions of the evidence to which the Noble and Learned Lord directed their Lord ships' attention, while it would be necessary for every one who felt bound to pronounce an opinion on the conduct of others, spreading over a large space of time, no one of the topics being of a recent date—how far their Lordships would conceive it would be possible for any body to do justice to those resolutions, without baying read one word of the evidence, he would leave for their Lordships, when they came to give their vote, to decide. The Noble Duko opposite had told the Noble and Learned Lord that the time was too short—an attempt was made to per suade him againgst bringing it on by the Noble Chairman of the Committee, and many other of their Lordships stated how impossible it was for them to come to a decision upon so short a notice with credit to themselves or satisfac tion to the country. When that appeal was made, the Noble and Learned Lord stated that on Thursday last the resolution should be laid before their Lordships, but Thurs day came and no resolutions were presented, and it was not until Friday that their Lordships were put in possession of them. He (the Marquis of Normanby) had stated the other night that he would not appeal to the Noble Lord to put off the motion, and as he found how unwilling the No. ble and Learned Lord was to listen to the appeal of others, he (the Marquis of Normanby did not think it would have become him to make any request on the subject. However it was for their Lordships to decide, and he should bow to their Lordship's decision, whatever it might be ; but he (the Marquis of Normanby) felt the immense disadvantage of having to go through a subject of this nature after the Noble and Learned Lord, posess ing, as he did, such unrivalled powers of fixing their Lordships' attention. Now with regard to these Resolu tions. There were those who wculd come after him who would be better able to express opinions as to the objec. tionable nature of many of those resolutions. With re spect to the first resolution, however, he felt the subject to which that related was a fit matter for a Bill, and not a resolution. Far be it from him to compete with the Noble Lord as to the manner of dealing with this subject, but he would just mention, as show ing another disadvantage under which he laboured, that this was the first time he had heard an authentic ver sion of the first resolution of the Noble and Learned Lord. Now, with reference to the first resolution, the Noble and Learned Lord had not adverted to an alteration recently made in the law, so that there was not that delay now which had formerly been complained of. But he would hurry on as quickly as he could to those resolutions that per sonally affected himself. But before coming to them, he could not help noticing, with great regret and indignation, the mode in which the Noble and Learned Lord had spoken of ono of the greatest ornaments of the Irish bar—Sir Michael O'Loghlin. He had been represented by the Noble and Learned Lord as a person who would frame instructions for the purpose of serving a particular party ; and then Sir M. O'Loghlen had been contemptuously compared with another Learned Judge. It was under these circumstances that he (the Marquis of Normanby) would say he felt himself warranted in saying (although comparisons of learned persons in judicial situations might be very invidious), that if this question were discussed in any assembly on the re lative merits and professional station of Sir Michael O'Loghlen and Chief Justice Doherty, he would not say what he felt would be the result ; but at any rate he would say he felt the comparison be tween those two learned persons would not be such as to justify the Noble and Learned Lord in speaking in the disparaging manner he had of a Judge who, in every situa tion he had filled—as Sergeant, as Law Officer, and then as Baron of the Exchequer—in every one of these situa tions he had succeeded in uniting a feeling cf admiration and respect of all political parties, beyond any other per son who had sat on the Bench in Ireland.—( Hear, hear.) Having said so much of Sir Michael O'Loghlen, he could hardly think the Noble and Learned Lord meant to allude to Mr. Cahill as the only person who have given testimony of the successful working of that system which had originated with Sir Michael O'Loghlen, he could hardly say originated, because the present Justice Perrin had given similar directions. The Noble Marquis here read extracts from the evidence of Mr. Tickell and Mr. Kemmis, to show that if the lists were properly chosen, the new Jury Act under the system of challenge would work well. It would be a great advantage for the people to feel that when convictions did take place no injustice was done, but that there was a fair tribunal to which they could appeal, and the prejudice which was spoken of by many witnesses as having prevailed against the administration of justice in consequence of Juries being packed no longer pre vailed. —( Hear, hear.) With respect to the 3d resolu tion, the Noble and Learned Lord said the instructions ought to be the same on every circuit. He agreed with the Noble and Learned Lord upon that ; but if the Noble and Learned Lord knew more of the local circumstances of Ireland, he would feel the instructions to a Crown Soli citor on one circuit might not apply to another, and there fore he could not help saying with respect to those two resolutions, that their Lordships ought not to interfere with the instructions to a Crown Solicitor as to what persons should be challenged. It was not necessary for him (the Marquis of Normanby) to dwell at any length upon the subject of challenging jurors, because there were those present who would be much better able to deal with questions of a technical nature than he could. Now the practice in Ireland was in almost all cases to con sult the Judges ; but he (the Marquis of Normanby) could not consent to a resolution which prescribed it as the duty of the person exercising the prerogative of the Crown to consult the Judges. He thought that to be at variance with constitutional principle. The Noble and Learned Lord stated generally that the Judges were treated with disrespect. He most distinctly denied that, or that there was any feeling of this kind, with one exception. He found no such feeling in the evidence of Chief Justice Bush—( Hear, hear)—and he was the only one examined on the Committee, with the exception of Mr. Justice Per rin. His Noble Friend alluded to Mr. Justice Moore, who had been the longest on the bench of any person in the United Kingdom, and who maintained the highest judicial character, with whom he never nad the slightest difference as to the nature of the relation which ought to exist between the head of the Executive and the Judges. The question rested entirely between him and Chief Justice Doherty. With regard to the case of Gallen, it was not to be expected that he should go through the different parts of the evidence. He had the notes of Chief Justice Doherty and the recommendation of Mr. Sergeant O'Loghlen. On these he came to a decision, the justice and propriety of which he would maintain to the remission of the sen tence. The whole of the question between the Execu tive Government and Chief Justice Doherty was whether the Chief Justice was or was not justified in retaining the copy, not only of the memorial sent to him by mistake, but the Lord Lieutenant's minute also. These had always been held to be confidential communication s which ought not to be retained without permission ; but the expressions of Chief Justice Doherty were such that he was justified in resenting them. With regard to the decision in this case it was a very painful one. He felt the inconvenience to which it would lead, and that under the circum stances he could not communicate in that confidence with Chief Justice Doherty which ought to subside between the Lord Lieutenant and the Judge of the land. The Noble Lord alluded to the case of Reynolds. That case occurred the year before, and had nothing to do with the case which lie referred to Chief Justice Doherty. It was on his re. port that the Master of the Rolls, Baron Richards, enter tained very considerable doubts as to the charge of that Learned Judge, both to the facts having been stated cor rectly to the jury, and also as to his view of the law of the case, and that he thought the punishment disproportionate to the offence. He ought to apologise to their Lordships that in the multitudinous mass of papers which he had had to look over since last Friday, he had not made himself suf ficiently master of Sly's case. He certainly bad no desire to avoid any explanation'. With reference to the opinion which he entertained that Chief Justice Doherty had acted contrary to the usual course in retaining the minutes of the Lord Lieutenant, he would refer to a communication from Sir W. Smith, which was of precisely the same nature. Chief Justice Doherty stated that there was no instance of sentences having been commuted by the law officers without reference to the Judges. Now there happened to be several cases during the time Chief Justine Doherty was Solicitor-General—one of which Judge Moore dis tinctly recollected, that of Patrick Kelly, who was found guilty of manslaughter at Clonmel, who was discharged ssithout any communication with him (Lord N.) There was also the case of Leary which occurred when Mr, Doherty and Mr. Joy were the law officers of the Crown. who advised against the opinion of the Judges, and a com mutation took place, the person who was sentenced inter ference be executed having been transported. Here was an of the law officers with the Judges. He now came , to tne resolution which confined itself merely t o that one case.—( Hear, bear, hear.) In no instance had there been an indisposition on his part to consult the Judges. Baron Pennefather was summoned before the Committee, but not called, or he (Lord N.) would otherwise have had the advantage of his testimony as to the commu nications which had passed between them. With respect to the sth resolution, before he entered into the merits of the case he must recal their Lordships' attention to the circumstances with reference to time. It was brought before Parliament in 1837 by a meeting held at the Man sion House, at which the Noble Earl opposite took a prominent p ar t, an d di st i ngu i s h e d hi mse lf by tearing up the protest of his brother Peers. Earl CHARL E VILL E inquired if the Noble Lord meant to indict him.—( A laugh.) The Marquis of NO RMA NB Y certainly did not mean to indict the Noble Earl—it was entirely a matter of taste. —( Laughter.) He alluded to that meeting as the foun dation of these proceedings. There were many other charges brought against him, which Lord J. Russell at the time expressed his readiness to meet. Theresolution alluded to transactions in which lie was accused of irregularity it, having substituted oral instructions for written memorials. That was a subject which it behoved Noble Lords to have brought forward as soon as possible whilst the matter was fresh in his recollection, and he might have had the testi mony of those who were acquainted with the circum stances. With respect to the evidence adduced to show that he went about abusing the prerogative of the Royal mercy, it was confined to four or five gaols, selected be scarcely knew w hy. N ot only was it confined to a few Counties, but in no instance had the local inspector been called, on whose advice he principally acted. It was not proper to examine parties ,as to private con versations, for instance, Colonel Shaw Kennedy, then a confidential offi cer o f t h e Government, had been examined as to private co mmun i cat i ons which had taken place be tween him and the Lord Lieutenant—(Lord Wharncliffe, " Why, it was a note t o you " . ) Yes, but the conversa tion had originally been confidential, and though it bad been reduced to writing by Colonel Shaw Kennedy he still considered it as thoroughly private and confidential as if it had never been reduced to writing. That these liberations had not been the result of mere accident he utterly and distinctly denied. He might have been right or wrong, but he had done it on design, and with a purpose, which he deemed would be beneficial to the people. This subject had been fully brought before their Lordships in July 1837, when be was better able to defend himself and his recollection fresher than now. The Noble and Learned Lord now had then spoken of the " judicious lenity" which he (the Marquis of Normanby) had displayed. It was soon after that, that the letter had been written to him, of which the Noble and Learned Lord had spoken; and certainly when my Noble Friend had written that letter, the last person he could have imagined likely to object to it, was the Noble and Learned Lord.—(Hear, hear.) Now, as to the selection of witnesses, he thought the case had not been justly dealt with. In one instance, it was actually stated that the go vernor of a gaol which he had visited was not in a state of sanity at the time. Supposing for a moment anything so inoredible had occurred, was it not rather singular that the Committee had not called Mr. Brown, the local inspec tor, whom he was in the habit of consulting, and who could have given information. If their Lordships merely viewed the case with English eyes, they would not do it justice. The exercise of the prerogative of mercy should not be considered in the two countries as if they were precisely analogous—for on the contrary, there was much utterly at variance in the habits and customs of the two countries, and the offences which had been pardoned in Ireland were much more likely to be repressed by clemency than in England. In Ireland those offences were principally as saults, chance-medleys, faction-fights, and cases of that kind, which were punished much more severely there than in England, as being more frequent in Ireland. If there was a disposition on the part of the people to attend to the admonitions of the Government, when directed to enforce the law, certainly to such offences clemency might properly be extended. In England the most numerous class of of fenders were the thieves; and doubtless the hardened thieves when liberated could not be depended on for their future good conduct, their habits being generally confirmed If the people showed a disposition to respect the authority of the Government, it was a fair experiment to try whether by lenient measures, peace and tranquillity could not be promoted, and a kindly feeling produced between the lower classes and the upper, by showing them that a just and liberal superintendence was exercised over them, If it was expedient to try such an experiment, it was desira ble that it should be so full as to have the greatest chance of making a strong impression. It was not adopted with a view to any idle pageantry—popularity he had sufficient of without any such experiment indeed, any Lord Lieu. tenant might, by displaying affability and affecting splen dour, acquire, if so minded, a degree of popularity ; it was, however, with no such contemptible idea, but from a desire to exert a beneficial influence on the minds of the people. And what had men the result ?—(Hear, hear.) Strongly impressed as he was with the unfairness of bringing the subject forward at the distance of two years, he was glad that this interval had enabled him to point to the regular diminution of commitments, and, above all, of the more aggravated assaults, as the result of his proceedings.—(Hear, hear.) And he would move this in arrest of judgment against the alleged enormities of which be had not been accused, till they had lost all the freshness of novelty.—(Hear, hear.) He would now advert to the evidence with regard to the improvement in the state of the country. Mr. Cahill (who must be admitted to be a good authority on matters of this kind, however much he had been ridiculed by the Noble and Learned Lord) in regard to the county of Tipperary, but stated that prior to 1836, the faction fights disturbed the district from one end to the other— that they were of the most desperate character, —that they often led to a great sacrifice of human life ; and he further stated that these riots bad been put an end to by a superior administration of justice in res and to these offences, and the success of an appeal from the Govern 'to discontinue them. It was also stated that the appoint ing of sectional Crown prosecutors had produced a most beneficial effect, for that previously there had been no regular system of prosecution on the part of the Crown, and consequently great neglect and deficiency. Mr. Howley, the Assistant Barrister, gave an account of some per sons who had been convicted of faction fights, who had been pro mised by him some remission of their punishments, if during the ensuing eight or nine months, less of such fights occurred, —that in the following nine months, these feuds had been con siderably diminished, and that the prisoners were therefore dis charged. Their Lordships would observe that the people of Ireland had long contracted a deep-rooted feeling that the laws were made not to preserve peace but to oppress them. And the only way of eradicating this feeling was to treat them with mildness and clemency. As to the manner in which he had exercised the prerogative of mercy, he might be permitted to observe that he possessed many very satisfactory testimonials from places into which their Lordships had not en quired. To begin with Cavan, the Chaplain of the gaol said that he had made strict inquiry into the cases of all the priso ners, and that he (the Marquis of Normanby) had made him self thoroughly acquainted with their general character, and had liberated none but such as had been powerfully recommended. The remedy he had used had certainly been an effectual one, fur none of these persons had returned to the gaol since. Now, if, as it had been represented, these persons were of so bad a character previously as almost constantly to be inmates of goals, and if none ef them had been returned since, this certainly justified the course which he had adopted. The House should recollect that this was a branch of the inquiry against which he had protested—that he did not think it was legal for them to enter upon, and yet at this distance of time he was enabled to produce documents which were his complete justification. Therefore, however wearisome it might be to their Lordships to hear documents read, and he knew well their Lordships did so consider it, he trusted they would permit him to do so, as he might now be considered on his defence.—(Cheers.) Tire Noble Marquis then cotinued to read the documents With regard to Sligo the Noble Marquis read the evidence of Sir W. Parker, who stated that his Excellency's antici pations had been realized, as no individual had been again committed, and crime had considerably diminished in the coun try, and the calendar had been less heavy. With regard to Kilkenny the Noble Marquis read the testimony of Mr. Benson, Local Inspector, who stated that the Lord Lieutenant had made inquiries as to those whose conduct had been good during the period of their confinement, and he had discharged two persons whose time had nearly expired, and he directed the Governor to report to him as t o th e c o n d uc t o f one prisoner of whose time four months remained unexpired at the end of two months. Mr. Hurley, the Local Inspector of Kerry, bore testimony to the fact of the inquiries that had been made into the cases, and that those only had been liberated whose con. duct had been correct, and whose times of imprisonment had early expired.—(Hear, hear, hear.) With regard to the County of Meath he could produce the testi mony of an eye wit ness , w h ose name lie could not mention without giving u tt erance t o th ose feelings of regard which the name of one of the best, most just and most patriotic of the friends of Ireland must necessary inspire, he meant the late Lord Clements. That Noble Lord had stated that he resided in an adjoining county to one in which certain prisoners had been discharged, and he would state that proper inquiries had been made previous to the dis c h arge , an d th a t hi s judicious exercise of clemency had been followed by the best effects. His Noble Friend to whom he had just alluded, said in the course of a second debate, he would not as the gallant officer had done rely upon anonymous authority, but would read to the House a letter from Mr. Saunders of Castle-Sanders, in which that gentleman said " as to the care and attention manifested in the examination of the case his Excellency surprised us all byth knowledge he exhibit e d a s to eac h case b roug ht b e f ore him'' and hoped that this testimony of a gentleman resident the spot simile( be received by the Gallant Gentleman as a spe. eimen of the care and attention which were bestowed on each of these cases before they were determined on. This would prove that he (the Marquis of Normanby) had sought local in formation from those persons best qualified to afford him the in formation on the spot, and he had framed his course according to the circumstances of th e pl ace , regu l a ti ng i t b y those princi ples which he had pr ev i ous ly l a id d own f or hi s guidance in the .j exercise of the prerogative ; therefore, when the 240 cases which he had exercised the prerogative of mercy were 1 those men tioned, it should be borne in mind the proportion to oases 49,000,b0re to an tdh to e totaltirenumbernumber i amounted to pre sented praying a commutation of sentence,. • g n a l in those counties ooffme/moTialtltsail:iii‘cvni‘dlilce,i‘n amounted Portio had not visited, and 5 n ,ootoboe, been nnd exercisedi it would b i e n fo a und ye t a h t a e t y the io proo which t've of mercy had which he had visited,than in those which h the transmission his visiting those counties had prevente d yihich had been of memorials from them similar, those p o ry had been so far justified trans mitted from other places. • s ic- in which this exercise of by the results, that in those . coun e t r i crime they a s cl , diminished. ere calle d u p o Their w aYioms and usages of English apply to this question all . the tLh:rdpsrheirioisgasthiOeulhdar.rietcaoklelencipt,elacel;en and proceedings of that law had plicable to Ireland, that they lead law—that the axioms, and apply , Then exceptions on the side of severity consider it hard that on the measures of coercion. bfreeeqnueonbtlligyebdeetno found su . sp e nsudois ond peration t i b o e n e of those laws, d passed over unnoticed had frequently an . exception had been made on the their Lordships should Ise called upon e e na :i i su (d' re h' . e dI I-1 (1, could not conclude without fis b i y rdset t hoeofi occasion humanity, m.ci r on d at e s. n h it i to i hy p a fa l s::: to pass raking some allusion to the grounds on which the Noble Earl opposite had rested, when he had moved for this Committee. The Noble had then stated that he considered the Govern ment responsible for all the tears and blood that had been shed in Ireland ; he had stated that crime had existed to a greater extent than had ever before been known, and that it had ex isted unrepressed. Th e N o b le and Learned ' Lord had stated that he should only refer to about 50 pages of the evidence, instead of that h e had tra ve ll e d over f i ve or s i x hundred, b ut not in all those pages, not even in one single page, could any single word be found bearing out the assertion of the Noble Earl, that the Government had not done every thing in its power to repress crime, to discover it when committed, and to A ... EVENING EDITION. bring offenders to justice. Such a charge had not been in the least substantiated. Indeed, he had been informed from authority, that such an admission had been tended to the Com mittee, and he trusted to the candour of the Noble Earl to make the admission, and when such was the case the Govern ment could not be said to be deserving of censure. He thought the people of England would review the whole course of the Government, and would rather direct their attention to the general state of the country—they would be more inclined to look to the general results. They would look to the grounds of the decrease which had taken place in the military force of 2,000 men, which they had been enabled to space from Ire ' land for the exigences of England.—(Loud cheering.) He hought they would take this view of the question, and would consider the reduction of the military force of 2,000 men more than an equivalent to the 240 men whom he had released during the course of three years. The Noble Earl on that oc casion alluded to several individual cases—he had mentioned the county of Clare, and had stated that in that county it was impossible to procure a conviction. Now, according to the evi dence of Mr. Tomkins, it appeared that convictions were never more easily obtained, and that no homicide had taken taken place in that county within the last ten years for which a conviction had not been obtained.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") The Noble Earl had also alluded to Reynolds, who had been examined as a witness before that House, and the Noble Earl had asserted that he had been murdered in consequence, and that the Government had not attended to the application of Mr. Nagle for force, and that this murder had been committed in consequence. Since that time the per son charged with the murder had been tried, and it was proved that Reynolds was the aggressor—that he had entered this man's house and attacked him with a drawn sword—that all that the man had done had been done in self-defence ; and so evident was this that not only had the Judge stopped the case, but the Counsel for the prosecution had given it up, acknowledg ing that it was impossible for him to proceed with the case. He had mentioned this in order to show to their Lordships the impropriety of alluding in this manner to cases which were not ripe for investigation. He had now given his reasons why he thought their Lordships were not justified in adopting these resolutions. With respect to the first, they were not likely to attain their ends. A% ith regard to the two last he had given an explanation of his c induct ; and he was happy to find that none of their Lordships had cast any .impu tations on his motives. He had the consolation of reflecting on the results of the conduct which he had pursued, and it was impossible that it could have been so very injudicious when its result had been to retard the course of crime. Under these circumstances he left his defence in the hands of their Lord ships, feeling that they would not 'be justified in passing this vote of censure on him ; or if they should do so, he would appeal with confidence to the verdict of his country.—(Load cheers.) Lord WHARNCLIFFE rose, but immediately gave way to Viscount MELBOURNE, who would not have risen to ad dress their Lordships had he not felt imperatively called upon to do so—more especially when he saw the Noble Chairman of the Committee had risen for the purpose of addressing their Lordships. That Noble Lord was much better acquainted with the subject than he was. In fact, he should not go very deeply , into the evidence—in fact, he was unacquainted with the greater portion of it, as he had not had time to make himself ac quainted with it. This subject had been most fiercely and ve hemently urged on their Lordships' attention by the Noble and Learned Lord ; notwithstanding, he had been urged, in justice to the cause which he professed to advocate, and in justice to the persons concerned, not to press this question forward to a decision. He had been appealed to not to press this ques tion forward by many of their Lordships, and the injustice of the course he was pursuing in so doing had been pointed out to him.—(Cheers.) The circumstances of the case must, however, have been sufficiently manifest to their Lordships. He had begun his statement by stating the anxiety under which he laboured in bringing forward this question, which deeply connected itself with party interest and with per sonal feelings—feelings both of a political and a personal cha racter. His Noble and Learned Friend had said, that if his own former character and conduct were not a sufficient guaran tee to their Lordships that he was not influenced by motives of a party or a personal character, the manner in which he would introduce the case to their Lordships' notice would be that guarantee, for he would not bring forward this motion ih any manner as an attack on the Government, or any of those con nected with it. What consideration the Noble Lord's former life and conduct might deserve from their Lordships, it was not for him to determine, but with respect to the other guarantee, he did not think that of any value. He had intro duced his motion by a speech more bitter, more inveterate, more vehement, and more criminating; than any he had ever heard—( Cheers and laughter)—criminatory not only of his Noble Friend, who was in the House to defend himself—( Hear, hear, hear)—but criminatory in the highest degree of other Gentlemen who were not present, whom he had represented as criminal in the highest possible degree, and whom he expressly charged with the greatest possible delinquency. If they were to decide questions of such magnitude and importance, it was at least necessary they should decide them calmly, and upon ma ture consideration, but above all, upon sufficient information. Were they to crime to resolutions moved upon arguments of the most criminatory nature against the chara s .cter of high judicial officers who were not present—it was surely necessary that they should come to such a decision upon some more certain grounds than the declamation of his Noble and Learned Friend—upon a better acquaintance with the evidence upon which the charges were founded—a more full investigation of the real facts of the cases, and the grounds upon which they stood, than their Lord ships had been able to give. He wished to put it fairly to their Lordships whether they could pass those resolutions with out more consideration of the evidence upon which they were supposed to be founded. It was not only necessary that they should have time to consider the evidence, but also to hear the explanations of the parties implicated, before they affirmed re solutions of such a violently criminatory nature, and introduced by a speech even more criminatory. With respect to the man. ner of striking Juries he had not had time to make himself master of the subject, nor did he think any of their Lordships were in a better position, except those who formed the Com mittee. He thought it was hardly necessary to resolve that the prerogative of mercy should be exercised only after due inquiry and deliberation, as an abstract principle, or that cases ought to be referred to the Judge. These were truisms—that was the usual mode of transacting criminal business, and much more constantly in Ireland than in England—such was the case ac cording to his experience. The question however was, whether under the circumstances the course taken with respect to Chief Justice Doheity was justified or not ; and he was net prepared to say so from his non-acquaintance with the evidence. His opinion was that the resolutions were unnecessary. He was not prepared to deny any of the general principles laid down by his Noble and Learned Friend : indeed some of them were he should say quite common place.—( A laugh.) Not meaning to deny any of these principles, but not having sufficient in formation—not having sufficient grounds to act upon, he felt it his duty to move the previous question. His Noble and Learned Friend had spoken with great vehemence, and he would add with great injustice upon that occasion. He said the Government had incurred the same responsibility as his Noble Friend because they had completely approved of hi% conduct; undoubtedly they had done so, and he would read to their Lordships the approval of a man in whom probably the House would have more confidence, at all events his Noble and Learned Friend must have confidence in it—he was going to quote from the 3d vol. of the speeches of Henry Lord Brougham.—(A laugh.) (The Noble Viscount read a long extract in which the policy of the Marquis of Wellesley, and the Marquis of Anglesea in Ireland, was much praised, and the Marquis of Normanby was said to be pursuing the same manly and impartial course.) He did not wish to quote that passage for more than it was worth—( A laugh)—but it was pretty strong approbation—(Cheers, and laughter)—of the general conduct of his Noble Friend—it was quite as strong as the Letter of Lord J. Russell, and was spoken a year afterwards, yet all that was said of a Government who were now charged with having pardoned a man, because he was the brother of a Priest, and most improperly put another upon his trial, because he was a Protestant. Not being master of the question, it was impossible for him to go into it in such a manner as would be necessary, in order to make an impression—therefore his only object in rising wus to put their Lordships in possession of the course he would feel it his duty to pursue, and which he would advise them to follow. His Noble and Learned Friend had concluded with a splendid eulogium upon justice —part of it he had heard before—he believed it was Sheridan's eulogium upon the freedom of the press—( A laugh)—but he thought that those who talked of the virtues of justice ought to exercise them, yet his Noble and Learned Friend asked their Lordships to adopt a motion which violated every substantial principle upon which justice was based.—(Cheers. ) Lord WHARNCLIFFE would have been very glad to have rested the whole case upon the speech of his Noble and Learned Friend, but the Noble Marquis had charged unfairness on the Committee. The Noble Lord proceeded to defend the Com mittee, but in so low a tone of voice as to be inaudible in the gallery. The Noble Marquis complained that Baron Penne father had not been called. The Government were informed of all the evidence that was taken from day to day—why, then, did not they call for the Baron to give them any information in his power? He might have said the Government had alwaye been courteous to him, but would that exculpate them for fining a black spot upon the character of the Chief Justice Doherty? As to the case of Gahan, there had been no answer—the memorial ought to have been returned, and the Judge ought not to have been called upon to produce his notes in such a case. He considered that the course that had been adopted by the No ble Marquis on the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in Ire land was extremely uncalled far and improper. He would admit to the Noble Marquis that he had no corrupt motive in what he had done, but he thought the prerogative of mercy oughtthe Governmento be differently forrentltyheup spe exercised. rssion He of th er o i u m g e ht in th l e rel e a ff n Arta ha p d f h not been attended with that vigour which ought to have cha racterised them. The Noble Lord concluded by defending the Committee for the aspersions that had been thrown outagainst them. Lord PLUNKET could not conceive the necessity that! existed for bringing forward at the present period the resolu- tions which had been introduced by the Noble and Learned Lord. Re could not conceive upon what ground the Commit tee had entered into these parts to which the resolution re-. ferred, and had totally passed by the question of ribbonistn. The resolutions proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend, were so long, so intricate, and so important that, that however high in talent, and rich in informat ion his No bl e an d Learned Friend might be, he (Lord P.) trusted their Lords hips would not commit themselves to that perilous navigation to w hi ch his Noble and Learne d Friend would commi t them. I n t h e first resolution which alluded to the forfeiture of recognizances, he apprehended his Noble and Learned Friend was proceeding upon mistaken views. The law of recognizances had been) changed in Ire land—and as it formerly sto o d i t cer .tZnly was absurd. The p rocess b y which the party was bound was estreated, the recognizances then passed into the Court of Ex chequer, by whom the warrant was sent to the Sheriff of the county, who sent it back again to the Court of Exche quer. But amidst all this proceeding, the Sheriff only took care to levy as much as would pay his own fee each time.—(La.ughter.) But now the warrant proceeded at once from the Court to the constabulary ; all t.) - , 0 mummery under the old system was done away with. if the Noble and Learned Lord wanted to remedy thepresent' ystem, it could be d one, i n his opinion, more effectually soy 'Act of Parliament. The second resolution complained that the_prac tice of s e tti ng as i de jurors had been dispensed 'with. When he (Lord P.) had the honour of beir.g the Attorney-General under the Marquis of Wellesley, he made a regulation that no juror should be set aside on account of his religion, and that rule had been acted upon by his successors. Sir M. O'Loghlen had done no more than Mr. Blackburne, yet his Noble and Learned Friend had confined all his censure to the former. Lately a Roman Catholic priest was convicted before a jury in the county of Cork, consisting of six Catholics and six Pro testants, of inciting a man to swear murder against ano t her. This This proved the safety of the present system. T Marquis had only used file prerogative of the Crown n i o h n . d m ea i l n in o g r mercy to criminals imprisoned for the commissio offences. It certainly was the proper mode to , consult the Judges who tried a prisoner, before his sen tence . was remitted. Chief Justice of t' • When he had the honour to be klad been Common Pleas, be and another Noble a ti n ie d n Le L arn ovd e . d L L i e e r u d ,enant, consulted by the Marquis of Angles?, about the remission of the sentence They(: two men who sentenced for manslaughter. a dvised itg,r4i - nst a re mission ; but the Noble M arquis , never th e l ess remitted the sentence, and he (Lord P.) dared to say, very jr,stly._( Hear. ) His Noble Friend had tri ed it as all expe ri ment; h e h a d suc ceeded; ind b e (Lord Plun ket) __ congra u l ated him and the country on the results. I!e had never known Ireland to be in such a tranquil state as it now was. The statement which his Noble and Learned Friend had made of the nature of the prerogative of mercy was not quite correct. Mercy was the highest prerogative belonging to the Crown. It was undoubt edly, like every other prerogative, to be exercised only by re-