The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-27 00:00:00

MONDAY'S BUSINESS.

In reply to Mr. B. COCHRANE,
Sir G. GREY said the first business to be taken on
Monday would be the report on the bill relating to public
works in Lancashire and Cheshire; and that supply would
be the next order on the paper.
THE RECOGNITION OF THE SOUTHERN
STATES.

The O'DONOGHUE—I beg to ask the hon. and learned
member for Sheffield Ishether it is his intention to proceed
on Tuesday evening with his motion for the recognition of
the Southern states of America.

Mr. ROEBUCK—My answer is, certainly; and I am
only astonished that there should be any' doubt upon the
subject. (Much laughter, and cries of " Hear, hear.")
THE CASE OF JESSIE M'LACHLAN.

Mr. MACAULAY asked the Lord Advocate by what
authority an oath was administered to John Ritchie, one
of the persons examined by the Procurator-Fiscal touching
the truth of the statement made by Jessie M'Lachlan after
her conviction for murder, and for what reason that person
alone out of 66 witnesses was sworn to the truth of his

answers.
The LORD ADVOCATE said the explanation of what
appeared so extraordinary to the hon. gentleman was
that the sheriff in Scotland was entitled to put upon
oath any witness examined before him if he thought it
desirable. In the case in question he took his own course
upon his own responsibility, as he was entitled to do.
THE DOVER PACKET SERVICE.
Mr. HEYGATE asked when the papers relating to the
Dover and Ostend packet service would be laid upon the
table.

Mr. PEEL could not say with certainty.
Mr. HEYGATE said he would repeat his question on
Monday.

THE EXHIBITION BUILDING VOTE,
In reply to Mr, C. BENTINCIE,
Sir G. GREY said this vote would be taken, if possible,
on Thursday next, after the vote for fortifications.
THE CASE OF JESSIE I‘I'LACHLAN.
Mr. STIRLING said that, while admitting at the outset
that the law of Scotland might require some revision, he
felt it his duty to call the attention of the house to the fact
that in this case the verdict of a jury had been set aside
upon a quantity of very doubtful evidence, collected toge-
ther at an inquiry conducted in a very objectionable manner.
He had also to remark that the right hon. gentleman the
Home Secretary had not treated those engaged in the ad-
ministration of justice in Scotland with the courtesy which
he conceived to be due to them. Further, the right hon.
gentleman causd a great deal of pain and annoyance to an
innocent person—he alluded to Mr. Fleming. The hon.
gentleman then proceeded at some length to quote from the
correspondence between Mr. Fleming's agents and the
Home-office in support of his argument, and contended that
by the course pursued in the cross-examination at the trial
Fleming had been virtually put on trial himself for wilful
murder, without the advantage of having counsel to defend
him. It had no doubt been unintentional, but on several
occasions during the correspondence the right hon, gentle-
man had spoken of Jessie M'Lachlan's "share of the trans-
action," and in other terms which conveyed the imputa-
tion that another person was concerned in it. Public feel-
ing, which had before been much excited by the vile accu-
sations and caricatures of the " ritald press," had taken a
very painful change, and Mr. Fleming, through that im-
plied imputation, had been hooted and hunted through the
parish. He contended further, that when Sir G. Grey
acquitted the woman, he ought to have accompanied the
pardon with a written declaration that he considered the
old man flee from imputation, or else to have indicted
him for perjury, which he dared not do. The hon. gen-
tleman concluded by saying that he had no interest in the
matter personally, and knew none of the parties but the two
right hon. gentlemen then in the house.
Mr. DUNLOP also thought there had been a miscar-
riage of justice, which, by the act of the right hon. gentle-
man (Sir G. Grey) had led to all the subsequent discussion.
He took exceptions to the proceedlngs on the grcund that
that man was not tried as an accessory, and he reverted to
some of the facts of the case to show there was a failure of
justice in consequence. There was abundant evidence to
prove that the woman did not commit the deed alone. It
was impossible for the Home Secretary to have done other
than he had,
The LORD ADVOCATE, at considerable length, stated
the facts of the case, and condemned the accusations made
against the Home Secretary for his use of the Royal prero-
gative. It was a clear constitutional right, and there were
no grounds for the charges that had been made against its
exercise in this case. Mercy was administered on grounds
different to law by both judge and jury. After sentence it
was no more the power of the judge or jury to tie up the
hands of the Home Secretary than it was for the latter to
interfere and review the sentence. The exercise of the
attribute of mercy was not a reviewing of the sentence, in
a legal and constitutional sense. This was not a case of
that kind, but one where, after the judge and jury had done
their duty, facts had been discovered that were not brought
before them, and in which, undoubtedly, the func, ions of the
Crown ought to be exercised. He defended the opinion ex-
pressed by him on a former occasion relative to the power of
putting on his trial on the same charge a man who bad given
evidence in support of it. It had been held, and he consi-
dered upon good authority, that an accomplice, after he had
been put into the witness-box, could not be prosecuted. It
was a humane indulgence. It secured the immunity of
those who made discoveries of crime, and it enabled them
to give true and unrestrained testimony. It could not be
known that a man was an accomplice until after he had
given his evidence. There was not a single instance in
Scotland where justice had been defeated by such an ope-
ration of the law, and he had no cause to regret the advice
he had given in the conduct of these proceedings. The hon.
gentleman complained that the inquiry made after the trial
was made in an objectionable manner, but it was very easy
to criticise after a think was done. The original circum-
stances were investigated by competent authorities, and
there was every reason to believe, from the proofs that were
brought forward, that Mrs. M'Lachlan was the sole perpe-
trator of the crime. The other theory had not then been
suggested, and she was either guilty of the murder by her-
self, or her statement afterwards made was untrue, which
had been clearly and palpably proved. It was therefore im-
possible to put both of them on their trial, for the probabi-
lity was that, if it had been done, both would have escaped,
old Fleming's statement not having been made at that time
in contradiction to Mrs. M'Lachlan. A public prosecutor's
duties ended with a conviction, and after that the criminal
was in the hands of the executive; but if a public prosecutor
thought he had prosecuted to death an unhappy prisoner on
evidence which he afterwards thought unsatisfactory, was it,
he asked, his duty to sit still and allow the law to take its
coarse? The Lord Advocate was not the usual person who
was applied to for advice in such cases ; but he contended
that when a new inquiry was instituted it was the duty of
the Home Secretary to ask, and the Lord Advocate to give,
such advice as it was constitutionally and legally within his
power to do. The right hon. and learned gentleman then
referred to the respite on Oct. 4, and the subsequent in-
quiry. This, he contended, was well and temperately con-
ducted, and was as perfect as the circumstances would allow.
It was said that old Mr. Fleming should have been repre-
sented there; but on what principle could such a claim be
supported ? The inquiry was not of a criminal charater,
and many things were allowed at it which would never have
been admitted in a court of justice. Its object was simply
for the information of the Home Secretary, and, the ques-
tion which it involved being solely between the prisoner and
the prerogative, old Fleming could have no right to be re •
presented at it He denied that it imputed any guilt on
Fleming, or could be construed into discourtesy to the judge
who tried the case. It was instituted in the exercise of the
prerogative of mercy ; it expressed no opinion on the guilt
or innocence of the prisoner; but left the case, because of
doubt with which it was surrounded, to time to unravel.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY admitted that his conviction was that an
inquiry was necessary, but he denied that it involved any
discourtesy to the judges. On the contrary, he stated, when
the subject was first brought before the house, that he did
not think it possible any other verdict could have been re-
turned upon the evidence presented to the jury—(hear)—
and that still was his feeling. In all these cases the Home
Secretary
with
iielittolioa:yli
neadBoitsdhiti
sent,:
voen,tacsaaetnc upon
otdrt
ah thej
oe
rjudgei ,
permanent
ie 'cis ownmf awnheonttriedunaided
instancesu
nd
wtehjraue-sdsetgeahcms
are
Under-Secretary
r 7,
which
butiosoh
ultireatseleyrgeprevailed.antp i
better to
Mr,
eistataisu
at
tmOTT believed that it would be much
once an appeal in criminal cases than