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

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 meeting?
" 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 Mr. Cahill, 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.
Tierney, another solicitor, says that prisoners always chal-
lenge, so as to get the lowest persons on juries, and
especially 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,
which is neither consistent with the fact nor the law.
Then again there is another set of instructions sent by Mr.
Drummond, profesing to be a copy of Sir Michael
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 some 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 hen 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-
Zi 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 the ground on which to give Mr. Attorney-General
,u, Loghlen the best opportunity of saying to his party—
,.6ee what I have 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'Logelen
the might tell to the Catholics of Ireland and to
agitators there, but that Mr. Perrin could not tell,
under the instructions 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
approach with greater feelings of uneasiness the next part
of
the subject, apologizing on the one hand to some of
Your Lordships 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 ; but I am anxious, not unnecessarily,
to
however
"copy time. I must go somewhat at greater length,
t.t,lavvever, into the two last days, which are incomparably
the most important, affecting in the first place what ought
to be considered in reference to interfering with sentences,
and the conduct pursued, or which ought to be pursued,
towards 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 the whole Government 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
injured—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
unimpeachable 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 Cothmmony Pleas inH Ireland,i ford 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
upon it was this—no case tried before Chief Jus-
tice Doherty of the Common Pleas, and over
which he had presided on the trial, when it comes to be
considered by the Executive Government, should ever be
tent to that venerable Judge for his advice.—(Hear,
Far.) I have administered justice ; I have sat on the
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 justice ;
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,
hear.) 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
sentences—every one of those twenty-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 referred either tot ,
Crown Counsel—the prosecutolt e s
Attorney-General, thenominee
during the pleasure of the Crown, and the the
holdingaent of office
Crown—or they were referred, as s
ten they were referred, to Crown Sollitnoirnse c(alsleesarolltearo)f
—ettornies at law practising in the , s
e Court • of the Lord
Chief Justice,
ofthe
ose second common law judge of the King_
dom. One th.s was the case of a person who
was prosecuSed for abduction, and conviction took place t
;faction of the Judge, and the individual waso
the perfect satin.
sentenced by the C,,hief Justice to transportation for life. He
found the next time he
went the circuit, without having had
any previous intimation of. the result, lfar
wless without hav-
ing had any previous 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, before
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, after 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 leads 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
the 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 with them 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 the 7th of May, in
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 with their evidence—who had
a
charged the jury who had pronounced the sentence,
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
neer,ve
nothing of the Jury, who had
heard no arguments, we
the case, and who was totally given no consideration to
circum-
stances connected with it. 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, my Lord, is the case of
Sly. My Lords, 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 is not to be understood—it
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