The Sun. — 1854-05-09 (London, England)

COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OF DEATH IN  IRELAND. The Marquis of WESTMEATH moved for a copy of any memorial or petition to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in favour of a commutation of the sentence of death passed upon Hugh Tierney for murder, at the late Spring Assizes for the county of Westmeath, with the signature attached thereto ; also, a copy of the notes taken for the Crown of the address made by the Chief Justice Monaghan, when passing sentence upon the convict ; and also a transcript of any note or observation made by the Chief Justice Monaghan, or any memorial or petition which had been forwarded to the Irish Government in favour of a commutation of the sentence on Hugh Tierney aforesaid. The noble marquis said the prisoner was convicted on the clearest possible evidence of an atrocious murder ; and the learned judge, in passing sentence, held out not the slightest possible hope of his life being spared, and the people in the county of Westmeath were quite thunderstruck when they heard that the Lord-Lieutenant had commuted the punishment, though the day of execution had been fixed. He understood that the only reason why the memorial in favour of the prisoner was got up was that they were against an execution taking place in the town. The Government were bound to state what motive they had for obstructing the ordinary course of justice in this case. The noble lord then alluded to other cases in which sentences were set aside, and complained that the landlords in the county, the protection of whose property depended upon the rigorous execution of the law, bad not been consulted. The Earl of ABERDEEN explained that, when the memorial was received by the Lord Lieutenant, he transmitted it to Chief Justice Monaghan for his opinion. After full consideration, and making further inquiries into the case, the learned judge recommended to the Lord Lieutenant to commute the sentence of death to transportation for life. Re did so on the ground that, though death ensued, the intention of the prisoner was clearly robbery and not murder, and that death did not take place at the time of the robbery, for it appeared that the deceased was able to walk afterwards, and never complained of any personal injury. Was there any of their lordships who 'would say that the Lord-Lieutenant should have hung the man, notwithstanding the recommendation of the judge ? The LordLieutenant could not have done anything else than act on such recommendation. He had no objection to the return with the exception of the note of the Chief Justice to the Lord-Lieutenant, which, being of a confidential nature, he could not consent to produce. Lord CAMPBELL hoped the noble marquis would be satisfied with the answer of the noble earl. After some remarks from Lord CAMPBELL and the Earl of EGLINTON, The Marquis of CLANRICARDE complained that in the criminal convictions in Ireland offences against property were more heavily punished than those against persons. The LORD CHANCELLOR admitted that such an impression was to be gathered from the reports of the trials, but remarked that the shades of criminality in each case were very delicate, and the best reports might often mislead. Lord WESTMEATH replied, and the motion for papers was agreed to. The Chnrch Building Acts Continuance Bill was read a second time. Some other bills were advanced a stage, and their .ordships adjourned at half- past 6 o'clock.