The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — 1835-04-03 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY.  The Duke of WELLINGTON stated, that reference having been made by the noble • and learned lord opposite to the execution of a man, by mistake, in Ireland, he had made some inquiries on the subject, the result of which he should now state to the house. The individual in question was tried before Judge Torrens. He was indicted by the name of Savage for the murder of his wife nine years ago, on account, it was supposed, of jealousy. The murder was committed by the husband ma most barbarous manner. He cat tied the body out on his shoulders, and threw it in the river, and a trace of blood was clearly distinguishable from the place where the murder was committed to the river. That the murder was perpetrated by the husband was never denied or questioned. The murderer was never seen in Ireland or England afterwards, excepting, once, about two }eats ago, when he was met on a mountain by the brother of his deceased wife, by mere accident. The brother was horrified at meeting him, and reproached him with the murder. His answer was, that he was sorry he had not killed more of them. He was never seen afterwards. The individual who suffered, and whose real name was Pyne, was subsequently arrested, under the impression that he was the murderer. Judge Torrens directed an attorney of the name of Wheeler, and a counsellor named Hazard, to defend the prisoner, and to communicate with him on the subject of his identity; but the prisoner main n  tained a dogged silence, and the fact of identity was the sole question for theconsideration of the jury at large. The prisoner's, identity was sworn to by his two:brothers-in-law, and by another person who was not connected with him. On the other hand, a witness swore " that if he was the man named in the indictment, he was so altered that he did not know him then." Some other individuals were ready to swear to his identity, but the learned judge thought that the previous evidence was quite sufficient. The prisoner never brought forward any evidence to show who he really was.. There was not, therefore, the smallest doubt as to the proprie,ty of the conviction, br as to the conduct of those who were cohcerned in the proceedings. This, he believed, was a true statement of the case. (Hear.) There was a paragraph in the letter which he had received of a private nature, but which he would communicate to the noble and learned lord, if he desired it. Lord BROUGHAM said, nothing could be more satisfactory than the explanition of the noble duke, or could more clearly show that nothing had been done rashly or precipitately in this case. It turned out, as he thought it would, that the question submitted to the jury was one of fact, on which they haddecided according to the evidence laid before them. Hie had been on the jury, he must have arrived at the same conclusion. One of the witnesses, it appeared, had said, that if the prisoner were the person named in the indictment, he was very much changed in his appearance. It was very probable that a man who had committed murder nine years before would be considerably changed;- therefore, it was not surprising that this doubt, when opposed. to positive evidence, did not carry much weight with it. The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from a -lace in Leicestershire against the illicit importation of corn from the Isle of Man. The Earl of MarssYtEl presented petitions from Scotland in favour of the established church in that country. The Earl of ROSEBERY moved that the reports relative to the state of gaols in Scotland, which had been made pursuant to the act of 1822, should be laid on the table.—Ordered. The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from Lie master bakers of Henley-upon-Thames for the better observance of the Sabbath.