The Express. — 1866-05-04 (London, England)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.  The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND replied that the statement to which the hon. member referred was substantially correct. Mr. LEFROY said he did not think the Attorney-General for Ireland, who was suppceed to be the supporter of the law and was the chief law adviser of the government, bad given a sufficient answer to a personal question. (Hear.) Inasmuch as he considered the Attorney-General had not done justice to so high a legal authority, he wished to offer a few observations on the subject, but he would not trespass unnecessarily upon the house. The event referred to took place in August last year. On that occasion a most important trial came before the Chief Justice. It was the case of a young man who had been murdered, and the evidence was altogether circumstantial. The trial lasted two days! and he maintained that during that trial the Chief Justice was enabled to give constant and unremitting attention to the cue. (Hear, hear.) A legal objection was made on some point by the counsel for the prisoner. Not being himself a lawyer? he would not attempt to explain the point in queetion, but he would refer to the report of a leading paper published in Dublin, the correctness of which had not been disputed. The facts as stated were that the counsel for', the prisoner, Mr. Malloy, urged a point on behalf of the prisoner, and the Chief Justice, after hearing the endense, charged the jury as he wasinformed, at sufficient length to illustrate all the points in the case. The jury then retired, and after half an hour's deliberation they returned into court with a verdict of guilty ; the foreman at the same time stating that the majority wished to recommend the man to mercy. The Chief Justice asked on what ground, and the foreman replied because some of the jury thought the prisoner had taken too much whiakey. The Chief Justice declined to forward that recommendation, and said that he had never heard a case which, from its nature and details, would so little entitle the prisoner to that recommendation, and observed it was new to him that a man should be entitled to mercy because he had oommitted a twofold offence. Here arose the point to which he was particularly 1114L110W1 to call the attention Of the house,becauae at this stage of the proceedings the question of the hon. member for Kilkenny became pertinent, and to this the hon. member's obeervations referred, and the Attorney-General for Ireland bad pledged his character and reputation that they were substantially correct. After the Chief Justice had sentence' what occurred was what he (the hon. gentleman) was about to state, and he did so upon the evidence of an eye-witness who stood high in his profession, who was a Queen's counsel, who acted for the crown on that occasion, and who had had great experience in every department of the administration of justice. This gentleman stated that it was a mistake to say that the Lord Chief Justice was unable to see to read a sentence written in, large handwriting, and that it was not even his habit to, ways pectacles. (Hear, hear.) The clerk of the crown always had a form in his possession, and whenever a prisoner was sentenced a paper with a blank for the day of execution was placed before the judge on the bench. During the address of the Chief Justice to the prisoner in this case it occurred to him—when the judge approached that part of the document where the date of execution wee to be named, he found it was necessary to fix a day after the Dublin Commission, which was then close at hand, and though the Chief Justice had determined on the day he had no memorandum of it, and was obliged to refer to the almanac, which caused considerable delay. (Hear, hear.) This gentleman further stated that of course there was nothing to fix the circumstance particularly on his mind, but he happened to be nearer to the Chic Justice than any one else, and he believed the account which he gave of the transaction was perfectly correct. (Hear, hear.) The Chief Justice had previously sentenced another man to death fur murder at the same anises, and therefore he meet have been familiar with the forms. (Hear, hear.) Mr. COGAN rose to order. While the hon. member confined himself to what had been said against his distinguished relative the house would listen to him with patience, but if he went into the general conduct of the Chief Justice he would lead to a discussion of the whole question, which would be highly inconvenient. (" Hear, hear," and cries of " Order.") The