Glasgow Courier. — 1846-02-28 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

CASE OF BRYAN SKEET.  Mr. O'CONNELL IViZe:i to ask right hon. Secretary for the Home Department-1. Will there be any objection to lay before the House the correspondence between the Most Rev. Dr. Cantwell, the Catholic bishop, and his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, on the subject of Bryan Seery, who has been lately executed at Mullingar ? 2. Whether a deputation consisting of several persons waited on his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant, after the conviction and before the execution of Bryan Seery, to pray that the convict should not be respited or his sentence commuted, but that he should be executed? 3. To ask whether there be any instance in England, for the last century, of any person being tried for any capital felony, by a second jury, after the first jury was discharged by the court, at the same session or assizes, and convicted and executed; and if so, state the time, place, and name of the individual? Sir J. GRAHAM said with respect to the first question of the hon. and learned member, he could say that there would be no difficulty on the part of the Government in laying the correspondence asked for on the table of the House. In respect to his second inquiry, he had to state for the information of the honourable and learned gentleman that a deputation from the county of Westmeath had waited upon the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, conveying a request that the law ht respect to the man should be allowed to take its course. He regretted deeply the interference of thls harsh and unusual proceeding. (Hear, hear.) Rut be must be permitted to state'that such interference did not in the slightest degree influence the decision of the Lord-Lieutenant, who had acted exclusively upon the notes of the evidence /ditch he had carefully read, as well as the opinion of the jury and the judges. With respect to the third question of the honourable and learned member, he must excuse him if he felt that he was not so versed in the law, or the practice of it, as to enter fully into such a detail. But he thought that he was stating the known principle of the law, which was recognised throughout the kingdom, when he said that a party accused of felony might be put upon his trial upon an indictment until a jury had either acquitted him or found him guilty. The hon. gentleman then asked him how the case stood in respect to the practice in England. He would state a case that had occurred at the Summer Assizes at York, in 1794, before Mr. Justice Lawrence; a person was there charged upon murder, was convicted and executed. The judge discharged the first jury and ordered the second jury to be sworn, who convicted the prisoner, and his execution immediately followed. The case was not exactly the same as the recent one, for one of the first jurors had been taken ill just before the judge had summed up, and was unable to proceed with the inquiry. A second jury was then sworn in and the case was again gone into. Perhaps the House would allow him to state a case which had very recently occurred on the Midland Circuit. At the last Spring Assizes, Hannah Jervis was tried for murder before Mr. Justice Coltman. The jury could not come to a decision, they were utterly irreconcileable, and Mr. Justice Coltman, at the close of the assizes, discharged them. At the Summer Assizes she was again indicted, before Mr. Justice Maule, when there was a verdict of acquittal, but that did not affect the principle that a prisoner might be put on trial a second time. With regard to the law and practice in this particular case, they were ruled by two of the ablest judges in Ireland, the Chief-Justice of the Common Plea* and the ChiefBaron of the Exchequer. Before them the question was solemnly argued, and judgment was pronounced by Chief-Baron Grady; the result of which was, that he passed sentence of law upon the prisoner; and the Lord-Lieutenant, acting upon the opinion of the Chief-Justice and the Chief-Baron, proceeded to the lastextremity of the law.  The Marquis of Westmeath peremptorily contradicted this statement in the House of Lords, whereupon Sir James Graham made the following amende in the Commons, which,  of course, spoils a very pretty grievance:—