The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING MARCH 18, 185 S.

MR. SERJEANT ADAMS AND MARY HILL

(Fres the Daily Nom )
Lord PALMERSTON last night in the House of
Commons condescended to adopt a tone very like that
of a buffoon—seemingly for thesakeofdivertingatten-
tion from the gra* ity of certain allegations against
the way in which justice is at times administered
on the bench of Middlesex. Is reply to the question
of the gallant member for Westminster about the •
case of MARY HILL, Lord PALMERSTON said:
I beg to my that the caws to wbish M hu referred is, in
some respects, such as he has
described it, but net in all itecir-
entwinement. It is quite true thata woman was convicted of •
robbery, committed under circumstances which, lam told, ,
are not now unfrequent. It appears that a system is now
practised by which " ladies" of engaging • induce
gentlemen who walk the street. at undue hours—
(laughter)—to
accompany them to lonely situation., and
while engaged, so my hon. and gallant friend hes said, in
" amversation"—(great laughter)—contrive to extract
valuable property from their pockets. Thereupon there
issue upon him some male confederates, one of whom claims
the lady as his wife, and reproaches the gentleman with in-
terfering with his connubial rights—(roan of laughter)—
and while the discussion is going on, the lady" escapes
with the booty, and the gentled:alibis only too happy Wreaks
his escape without any material personal injury. (" Hear
hear," and laughter.) This "lady" was engaged in carry-
iug on a transaction of this kind, was arrested by the
police, rescued by her male confederates, but again arrested
sad brought to trial.
Sir DE LACY EVANS, in asking the question of
which he had given notice, had prefaced it by a
description of the circumstances out of which the
charge of felony arose. We see how ingeniously
the SECRETARY of STATE thought proper to
parody the story. On the felony itself there
could be little difference of opinion. Both
prosecutor and prisoner were persons of loose
habits, and the woman being found guilty of robbing
her temporary paramour, it became, of course, the
duty of Mr. Serjeant ADAMS to pronounce sentence
upon her. This sentence, as all newspaper readers
now know, was seven years' transportation for the
felony. Afterwards came the point on which Mr.
Serjeant ADAMS was the person to be condemned.
rho woman was indignant, and called a policeman a
pig, in presence of the even-tempered Judge
—and for thus using a loose tongue, that
occupant of the judicial bench sentenced her
to thre years' additional transportation. It was
this extra punishment to which we drew attention,
and to this also was it that Sir DE LACY EVANS
had the manliness and good feeling twice to draw
the notice of the House of Commons. Either Mr.
Serjeant ADAMS was right in his sentence on the
woman MARY HILL of three years in the hulks for
calling a policeman a pig, or he was wrong. If he
was right, the sentence should have been persisted
in, and Lord PALMERSTON'S tone might have been
dignified and calm—if he was wrong, was it the
business of the SECREIARY of STATE for the
HOME DEPARTMENT—a minister having charge of
the admiuistration of justice in this country—
when asked in his place in the House of Commons a
question about the conduct of a Judge in the admi-
nistration of the law, so to frame his speech in reply
as to excite "laughter," "load laughter," " mars of
laughter?" Does LA.— PALMERSTON think the
mode of administering justice in England a
matter of joke—ur does be desire to briug
it into derision ? His mode of treating the
subject now under inquiry leaves this in
oinething.very like doubt. Instead of expressing
candidly his view of the point at issue, and stating
the whole truth,— that Mr. Serjeant ADAMS had been
obliged to read his illegal sentence, and that
the woman would only suffer the punishment due
under the verdict, and not be compelled to
endure the extra three years for an exhibition
of ill temper, Lord PALMERSTON chose to use
all those peculiar Parliamentary arts which he
can so skilfully practise to divert the attention
of he Chamber he was addressing from the real
point at issue. He evidently thought the case a sub-
ject for humorous display rather than serious con-
sideration. He spoke of a miserable oonvicted street-1
walker as " • lady," and having set up this poor'
, joke, spoke to it, and secured the laughter of
the House. Under the roar of this the
explanation was trippingly given that " Mr.
Serjeant ADAMS had informed him (Lord PALMER-
, wroN) that he (Mr. Serjeant ADAMS) had acted in
, that manner for the purpose of deterring other per-
sons from any violent conduct in the court, but that
it was his intention in the exercise of a power
granted to him by net of parliament to altwr lbw see-
. tenee during the continuance of the session, and the
sentence of seven years' transportation would be carried
out on the lady, as was originally intended."
, The " roars of laughter" which greeted Lord PAL-
, misits•roN's speech in this case,—however agreeably
• they may have run in hisears last night,—will neither
deceive the common sense nor satisfy the moral feeling
of the public at large. Away from the Assembly
where the explanation was afforded people will
only trouble themselves to recognise the salient
points of this case. These are clear enough. A
Judge pronounces a sentence unrecognised by the law
—this irregularity excites the challenge of the Press
—a
Member of the House of Commons, in his
place in Parliament, does his public duty by asking
the Government of the day tor an explana-
tion—the propriety of the challenge and of
the question are both tacitly admitted by
the withdrawal of the sentence and the putting
forward of a melancholy excuse from the Jude.
The seriousness and soundness of the allegation
against the administration of justice in the metropo-
firms county of Middlesex being thus virtually unde-
niable, the Roma SECRETARY thinks a tone of an-
tique jocularity the one in which he should deal with
the subject. Oa the points • thus stated the public
verdict may lie easily divinedi—and with the public we
are now quite content to leave itj—merely adding that
for ourselves the result is what we strove for. We
felt that injustice had been done—that sn illegal sen-
tence had been pronounced. We denounced the
Judge who had overstepped the line of his duty, and
the SECRETARY of STATE now says that sentence has
been withdrawn. Once more the Press has been
able with success to insist upon justice being done,
and it now only remains to be seen how much longer
the authorities will run the risk of needing such " ex-
planations" as that of last night.