The Press.
London, England, 1856-03-08 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

had been arrested two mouths and a half ago,
and they contended that, according to the
provisions or a late statute, the prisoners had
not received copies of the informations in due
time. The provisions of that statute we may
learn from the words of Mr. JUSTICE TORRENS,
who by a singular chance was brought face to
face with the Attorney-General. Our readers
must recollect that Mr. JUSTICE TORRENS was
one of the judges lately selected for censure in
the House of Commons. " The late statute,"
said Judge TORRENS, " has given to prisoners
" the power of demanding from the officer of
" tho county such informations as have been
" lodged against them , and it is, therefore,
" clear that the Legislature believed them to
" be necessary to them ou their trial."
Just so ; and let us now see how that provi-
sion was met by the Crown officials.
Mr. KNIPE, the prisoner's attorney, swore
that after the arrest of one of the prisoners
(DUNN) he had been employed for his defence.
He went to the officer, and found no informa-
tion lodged, nor could he have known before
the 18th of February that it was intended to
go on with the case. On the 23rd of February
he got fifteen informations, and he was told
that there were ten more to come. From the
voluminous character of the informations, it
was utterly impossible to prepare for trial at
these assizes.
MR KNIPE further stated that some of the
informations, which were not lodged until the
14th of February, hai been sworn, some in
October, some in November, and some in
January.
The counsel for the accused then earnestly
pressed for the adjournment of the trial. The
Attorney-General wished to go on, and Sir
EDWARD TIERNEY, the Crown Solicitor for the
circuit, was put into the witness-box, and
swore " that the Attorney-General had directed
" him to use every exertion to bring the pri-
" soners to trial now, and that all the evidence
'` of an important character was given iu the
" information of the 16th of February." But
the Crown officials were no judges of that.
The question then stood for decision.
Counsel for the accused pleaded want of
knowledge by the prisoners of the nature of
the charge, and they dwelt strongly on the
voluminous character of the evidence. The
informations were kept back to the last
moment, and there were not less than thirty-
four or thirty-five of them.
Then the Court asked a very pertinent ques-
tion—" When were the last infornuttions lodged
The Clerk of the Crown answered, "on the
26th of February."
The Court ruled that the case should be ad-
journed to the next assizes, or to any inter-
vening commission. It did not consider that
sufficient time had been allowed to the pri-
soners. " I should," said Mr. JUSTICE TORRENS,
" suggest to the Attorney-General " (Mr. WIL-
LIAM KEOGH) " the necessity of a due and
" calm, not hurried, investigation, and that the
" accused should have every opportunity given
"to them to defend themselves. From what
" has occurred, accidentally or otherwise, or by
" overlaying the case with unnecessary evidence,
" documents are not forthcoming which the
" prisoners would require in order to a satis-
" factory trial "
It is impossible that the case can be
allowed to pass without further inquiry.
There must have been neglect or mismanage-
ment somewhere amongst the various officials.
There were various blunders committed in
prosecuting Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN and his
friends; and some of the English Law Lords
brought the conduct of the Irish Law officers
before Parliament. We believe that we shall
have occasion to notice this important case
again ; and, in the meanwhile, Mr. PHILLI-
MORE may meditate as to whether he should
interfere in it.