Captain Jonessaid, the House would recollect the case of some Roman Catholics, convicted at the Derry Assizes, whose sentence had been remitted by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on the ground that a petition had been presented in their favour signed by the jury who tried them, and also by the Mayor of Derry. Their case had been before brought under the notice of the House, and he would beg to ask the noble Secretary for Ireland, whether he was aware that the petition, alleged to have been signed by the jury, was not signed by them? He would also ask whether the noble Lord had received any intimation from Ireland that the jurors had not signed that petition, and that the names subscribed to it were forgeries? If the noble Lord were aware that the signatures to that petition were forgeries, then he had to ask the noble Lord whether he intended to institute an inquiry 511 into the means by which, and into the parties by whom, that forgery was effected? and lastly, whether he would lay the petition so presented to the Lord-Lieutenant upon the table of that House?
§ Viscount Morpethfelt himself under an obligation to the hon. Member for mentioning the subject, for otherwise he was not sure whether he should have been warranted in trespassing on the indulgence of the House, even if he had stooped to the offer of an explanation, in consequence of the attacks upon him proceeding from a Court of Justice in Ireland, and echoed from a situation nearer home. The imputed blame divided itself into two heads—the one applied to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, for not having paid due deference to the learned Judge who tried the case, and the other to himself, for having put forward an unfounded statement. As to the Lord Lieutenant, as he did not understand that the charge was renewed, he should only mention that so far from having shown any slight to the learned Judge by acting before he had ascertained his opinion, it was only after thoroughly examining and anxiously weighing the opinion handed over to him by his predecessor, Lord Haddington, that Lord Mulgrave proceeded to act. Surely it would not be contended that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was to be exclusively limited by the opinion and report of the Judge. The opinions of the Judges were very proper and necessary ingredients in forming a decision, but he trusted that the responsible advisers and the representatives of the imperial crown of this country, were not, in all cases, to be bound by them. With respect to his own share in the transaction, he found that the proceedings took place at the Assizes which had just terminated for the county of Londonderry, and he would read to the House the report from The Dublin Evening Mail, of what took place in the Court-house of Londonderry, before Baron Pennefather:—
"Eight of the jurors, it was stated, attended in the Crown Court on Thursday last, and Mr. Robert Mills, one of the jurors, stood forward and addressed his Lordship to the following effect:—
"'My Lord, a statement has gone abroad that the jurors who tried a certain case at the last Assizes signed a petition, praying for a mitigation of punishment for one party. As one I declare that I never 512 signed any such document; and several of my brother jurors are now present, eight in all, to make the same declaration. The other four are in the country, but will, we have no doubt, declare as we do to-morrow. We have here, my Lord, drawn up a statement to this effect, which we request your Lordship will have the goodness to forward to his Majesty's Government. We are utterly incapable, my Lord, of stultifying ourselves by such an act as is attributed to us.'
"His Lordship said he should certainly comply with their request; but, as it was better that all the jurors should sign the document before he took charge of it, he should leave it with them till the next day. There was, he said, another individual also who lay under the imputation, or calumny, he would call it, of having signed the memorial to the Lord Lieutenant. He wished that he too would then come forward and release himself from it. His Lordship added, that he could not conceive anything more injurious to the due administration of justice than that misrepresentations should be circulated respecting what jurors or persons in a Court of Justice did. It was most mischievous.
"The whole of the jury have since signed the document, and entrusted it to Baron Pennefather."
He was not yet in possession of this document, but he was in possession of the petition on which his statement had been grounded, and regarding which he then only spoke from information. He only forbore from laying it regularly before the House, because he was unwilling to set a precedent which might unduly interfere with the right of the Crown to exercise its discretion on this most delicate but invaluable prerogative; any hon. Member, however, who wished to see it should be freely and fairly welcome. It was a petition from Isabella Maclachlan, the moer of one of the prisoners then confined in Derry gaol for taking part in a riot; it besought the mercy of the Lord-Lieutenant, and to her signature were attached twelve other names, all different, and all in different hands writing, with this addition, "We whose names are above written, who sat as jurors on the trial of the prisoner, very humbly implore your Lordship in his favour, and we, as in duty hound, will ever pray." The hon. Member had asked whether he looked upon the 513 signatures as forgeries? Undoubtedly he did not; and what was more, the learned Judge did not seem so to have considered them, because when the petition was forwarded to him he commented on the circumstance that the jury had petitioned without any allusion to the notion of forgery. But was it to be said, that the jurors only signed the petition on behalf of one prisoner, whereas he had made no such distinction in his original statement? The learned Judge in his report clearly stated, that the prisoner in question, of the name of Maclachlan, took an active part in commencing the riot—that he had acted as ringleader, and that he could not recommend his case to mitigation. Therefore if the jury petitioned the Lord-Lieutenant for mercy to one of the prisoners, it was not to be supposed that they excluded from their prayer other prisoners who had been guilty at the same time and of the same offence. Another petition was from the four prisoners, James Yorke, Boyle, Maclachlan, and Doherty, and it was signed by James Yorke for himself and his fellows, to which a note was annexed signed John Gillespie, Mayor of Deny, entreating the Lord-Lieutenant to give a favourable consideration to the case. This probably was the individual alluded to by Baron Pennefather when he talked of other imputations and calumny, and when he trusted that the individual against whom they were directed would come forward. He, looking at the respectability of the signatures, merchants, physicians, and solicitors, did not think that they would take the opportunity of coming forward to relieve themselves from the imputation and calumny of having petitioned the Lord Lieutenant for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. These were the facts, and any comments upon them, from the situation he had the honour to hold, he thought himself debarred from making.
Sir Robert Fergusonsaid, that the petition was signed in favour of only one of the parties. Some of the persons were sentenced to a greater punishment than the others. It was stated to him by some of the jury that they thought there were circumstances in Maclachlan's case which particularly entitled him to the favourable consideration of the Lord-Lieutenant. He had not seen the report in The Evening Mail, but he had seen in a Derry paper what fell from Baron Pennefather, which did not include the passage now referred to.
§ Viscount Morpethwas unwilling to quote unnecessarily from confidential documents; but the learned Judge's statement was, that although Sir Robert Ferguson said he had been informed by some of the jury that there were circumstances in the case of Maclachlan which entitled him to consideration more than others, he (Mr. Baron Pennefather) had since read his notes of the trial, which were very long, and the conclusion he came to was, that the sentence on Maclachlan was not too severe, and that there ought to have been no remission of it.
§ The conversation ended.