The Sun. — 1853-01-08 (London, England)

THE CASE OF KIRWAN.  When the new Lord of the Admiralty was addressing his constituents the other day, he took credit to himself for having been on the Commission which has already effected considerable improvement in the administration of justice in the superior courts of common law, and gave a pledge that he and the Ministers with whom ho is now associated would not rest content with what their predecessors had done, but would go on to purge the ecclesiastical courts, and do whatever else might be needed in the way of law reform. That there is room for further improvement there is no question, and we beg to suggest to Sir James the propriety of turning his attention to the necessity for a court of appeal in criminal cases, to which the convict might carry any doubt, not only of law, but of evidence, which might arise. Had such a tribunal existed Mr. Kirwan would not be in his present position. He would have been able to gain from a superior bench not merely the acquittal he has received at the hands of public opinion, but the liberty which ought to attend it.  Look at his case. Unfortunate in his leading counsel, unfortunate in the judge and jury who tried him, he was found guilty of the murder of his wife, and sentenced to death, in terms which preclude all hope of any mitigation of his doom. Coming into court with hands which were certainly not clean, and neither then nor since surrounded by circumstances calculated to excite the least sympathy in his behalf, no sooner had the evidence as reported by the English press been weighed, than there appeared in our own, and cotemporary columns, a sifting of the facts of the case, any one of which, had it been spoken by the counsel for the defence, must have procured his acquittal. Not a dissentient voice was raised. One and all confessed that there was no evidence of his guilt ; which was all they could say of him or any man ; for to prove a negative—as that he was not guilty—is, as everybody knows, impossible. In the remonstrances thus raised, there was not the remotest symptom of prejudice. Mr. Kirwan had for a number of years been living in violation of the sanctity of the marriage tie. He had huddled the dead body of his wife into the poorest, cheapest, and worst corner of the cemetery. Her fulled ral rites had hardly been consummated when he brought home the partner of his guilty love. All this was ad' mitted ; and it was all considered and set down in full weight against him. But, in spite of it all, there was no proof— not even presumptive proof—that he had been guilty of the crime he was accused of. The cir' cumstantial evidence relied upon showed, on the con' trary, how difficult it was to reconcile the facts with the supposition that he had murdered his wife ; while the medical testimony established without a shadow of doubt the facts, that none of the wounds upon her bed, conld have occasioned death, and that the other appear• antes were in harmony with the supposition that she was drowned in the ordinary way. The result was, that Mr. Kirwan was respited, and there ended all dread of an actual murder for a supposed one. But is not Mr. Kirwan entitled to something more than a mitigation of his punishment ? What was he tried far ? For murder. Why is he not to be hanged Because the evidence is considered not conclusive of his guilt. Then why transport him ? Suppose that the jury had thought it inconclusive, they must have , acquitted him, for the question was "Guilty or not guilty,' not whether there were circumstances which raise a suspicion of guilt ; but here comes the great jury of public opinion, and says that the question is not conclusive ; that it is unsatisfactory, and irreconcileable with itself. The Executive acting upon that, reverses the verdict, and says Mr. Kirwan shall not be hanged. Then why, again, is he to be transported ? He was not tried for a transportable offence, but for a capital one. What monstrous injustice is it to say, "We will not hang you because we cannot prove you guilty ; but we will transport you because you cannot prove yourself innocent."—Morning Advertiser.