The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-05
JOHN MITCHEL's CASE IN PARLIA-
MENT.

lAllNE PRECEDENT AND LAW
OMAN OF rIpPERAny REJECTED BY THE HOUSE
OF COMMONS.
During the session OF the English House OF Com
mons on the 18Th OF February Mr.. Disraeli rose 10
move "That John Mitchell, returned as member
Tor the county OF npperary, having been adjudged
guilty OF felony and sentenced TO transportation
for fourteen years and not having endured the
punishment to which he was adiadged Tor such
felony or received pardon under the Great Seal
has become and continues incapable OF being
elected or returned as a member OF TINS House.
That Mr.. Speaker do issue his warrant 10 the
Clerk OF the Crown in Ireland TO make out new
writ for the electing OF member TO serve
In this present Parliament for the county OF
Tlpperary IN the room OF John Mitchell,
adjudged and sentenced as Aforesaid" The TIC hit
honorable gentleman said Zine electors for the
county OF Tlpperary have returned 10 this House
convicted ielon, who Is thereby incapacitated
from taxing mis- seat IN this House. John Mitchell
was tried lor treason In lS4S. He was found
guilty and sentenced 10 fifteen years rransporta-
tiod. Alter a comparatively short period he
escaped from his Imprisonment, and he has
neither fulfilled the sentence awarded TO him nor
has he received the pardon from Her Majesty
nncer the Great Seal. lie therefore remains
convicted lelon, and Is incap actated rom taking
his seat in this House, ana, under the crcum-
stances, peg 10 move the RESOLUTION that nave
placed on the paper.n
MIR. O'SHAUGHSEssY who was very indistncty
heard IN the reporters gallery SAID he did not
DOUBT the legal principles laid down by the right
honorable gentleman, nor the applicability OF
those principles 10 the case before the House He
asked Tor time 10 be allowed for the consideration
o! the motion.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said he could not better
answer the challenge OF the honorable member
Tor Taunton (Sir Henry James) tnan oy giving an
answer TO the hree questions he mad asked, but,
before he ola so, he desired 10 say the House had
alwavs preserved To tsef the right 70 decide ques
a. nO-p
urst question which the learned member Tor
Taunton had asked was. whether Mr.. John
Mitchell could now be proceeded against III re-
s2ect OF beng at large before the expiration or
his sentence. Tae Irish law on the subject
aud scotland. convict who had been SEN
tenced IN England 10 transportation aud was
tence IN any part OF Her Majesty's domlnions was
liable to penalty. But In the Irish act the words
and Inasmucn as Mr. Mitchell was convicted ana
transported under the act, his being at large
within tne colony OF van Dieman's Land DC ore
liable TO the statute In regard to the 8 ate OF
The law 1t dld not appear to HIN at the present
reason OF the original sentence or or his being at
large before the expiration OF has sentence. hear,
hear.") The second question asked him was,
whether MIR. Mitchell could be proceeded against
Tor breaking the prison. The statutes OF Van DIE
mans Land provlfcd penalty upon any person
who aided and abelteu the escape OF prisoner,
but no penalty a; all against The prisoner himself
'.hear hear l'l, but ne conceived tne escape from
mlsdemeanor at common law, although he mag
med no person at the present time would think Of
prosecuting against Mr. Mitchell because or his
escape. lCneers.) The third question which the
learned member asked was cnder WHAT disability
arrested BY reason Of what had taken
place. BY his conviction In ls4s he be.
eS one Of az see
being an lncapaoility OF becoming member OF
the only y way ray, In w vi no Sc dis
ceving either Tree or o conditional pardon. or
by serving out the period OF his sentence. If a
conditional pardon were granted, and the comb.
lions were complied with the result was the same
as II a Tree pardon under the Great Seal mad been
was That Mr.. Mitchell had not endured the whole
Of his sentence. ("Hear, hearty He had not re-
:eived either free or conditional pardon, so
snat until he mad endured his sentence all the
dlsquanfcatioDs OF ion were attached TO him.
SIR W. VERNON HARcouRr said the matter had
come somewhat suddenly upon the House, aud he
did not EEL Ia situation to express conhdens
sLltutional one, and At tina same time one OF
enormous dlrncuiy.
respect Tor the honorable and learned member .or
the University OF oxford, said that the argument
any DOUBT In MS Mind The question before the
House was whether John Mitchell, a convict ielon.
was eligible 10 SIT IL THIS House. BY the common
la oi the land, as laid down In Coke, IL lad
down IN the most decisive manner that man
attalnted o treason or lelony was Incapacltated
from being elected member OF Parliament. not
because tue person so attalnted was cIvllly dead,
out ecause he was not "a tit and proper person"
within IN. meaning OF the language OF tne writ TO
serve in Parllament-( Hear, near'D and he did
not thlnk any one would dispute THIS was good
sense on tae part Of the common law enactments
OIL this subject.
Mr.. J. MARTIN would leave all the questions
other tuan the breaking OF the parole Tor lawyers
to settle. De one oil the men before whom
the scneme OF Mr.. Mltchers escape laid.
Each man was requested by Mr.. Mitchell TO con.
siuer the scheme IN detail, and TO say on their
honoc whether they thought that in efrecting
MS escape he would be breaking his parole
mi IA of
them gave lt as their Opln.on IN writing, that the
escape by the means proposed would be honor
able. tLaughter) Honorable gentlemen might
laugh out he valued the laughter no more IMAM
II was worth. (Renewed lausnter.J HIS object
In rising was 10 tell every member OF the House
that II Mr.. Mitchell had acted disnonorably he tine
speaker was responsible Tor II. However much
Mr. Mtcael mad offended tue English nation ne
never tod a lie. cHear, hear.'D Ii Mr.. Mitchell
had broken bis parole he mad done so also. lie
careo little Tor any decision the House might
come TO- and he did not tnlnS Mr.. Mitchell cared
much. Mr.. Mitchell was tie representative Tor
Tpperary Whatever the House migat decide. and
he protested against man in his position being
reckiessly stlgmatzed as liar, as oeln2 both In
con sid crate and unjust.
The slarqus OF HARRINGTON SAID the only consid-
eratIOn upon y hcn the right honorable gentleman
could argue was, on tile one hand, the cOnsldera.
rIon whether IL was due TO the dignity OF the
House mat Mr. Mitchell Ia the particular position in
wulcn he had been placed by MS sentence and his
subsequent escape-wuetner 1t was due TO the
do use that the same action should oe u IN his
case was taken III the case OF O'DOnUvan Rosa,
and on the otner Eand tuey were influenced by
Tue cousiueEdttoH ds w HHelnei Tue hOuae suouiu
consider the question purely on legal grounds and
not Import anything else into II.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL Tor Ireland said The most
important and solemn and terrifying part Of the
speech OF the honorable and learned menber Iof
OK ord was when he turned round to them and
asked tbem whether they had considered what
was the state OF AFFAIRS as regarded John Mitcneis
legal condition In Ireland, and whether they had
considered the property OF prosecuting man Tor
being at large. The government had considered
IT, and they mad come TO the conclusion that there
were no proceedings which they could take at
present asllust Mr. Mitchell AS QAQ been alreaUy
explained, the irish statute which bore on the SUD-
iect OF a person being at large before the
termination oil MIS- sentence, was 80 framed
that IL aid not embrace the case OF al
offender VINO was iound at large Ia any part
Of her Majesty's COMMONS outside the United
Kingdom. They could lot proceed against MIN
because there had not oeen force used In tue es.
cape. The reason was simple one, that wDich
was set out IN the paper. so Tar as ne knew,
there had only been three questions raised which
seemed 10 throw doubt on tne proposition 10 the
paper. The nrst was thar OF MS honorable Trend,