§ Mr. John O'Connellhad a question to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland. Some time ago he had called the attention of the noble Lord to the statement of the murderer, who declared, that he was in cited to commit crime for the purpose of obtaining sustenance and support from the police, as an informer against others. He had asked the noble Lord before, whether it was his intention to continue so dreadful a system as that—a system that evidently led to crime? He had omitted to state another case at the time. It was, that of parties who applied for pay and support to the police, and offered to give evidence against persons connected with Ribbonism. The policeman to whom they 301 applied tried an experiment with them, for the purpose of testing their accuracy He sent them to a meeting, which existed only in his own imagination. They came the next day, with a full account of the imaginary meeting, to the policeman. There were then further illustrations of this system in the recent assizes at Longford, and at Meath. In the first place, two men were tried for the crime of Ribbonism. The proof against them was, that they had Ribbon documents in their pockets, but it came, out, on the trial, that the Ribbon documents were put in their pockets by the informer himself. In the other case, the party was accused of having killed a cow, and it appeared, that the informer had first incited the man to kill the animal, and, not succeeding, he did it him self, and then accused the innocent man of the crime. He wished now to mention these matters, as prefatory to the question that he desired to put. Was this system to be continued, when it manifestly led to crime? Was it to be continued, when it was directly contrary to the maxim, that it was much better that many guilty men should escape punishment, than one innocent should suffer? He wished to know, was there to be an alteration in the sys tem, which caused the greatest dissatisfaction in Ireland, and that made life and liberty insecure?
§ Lord Eliotcould only give the same answer which he had given when the hon. Gentleman had put the same question at an early part of the Session. He did say then, that the practice of holding out inducements to witnesses to give evidence in criminal cases was in itself objectionable; but, that in the present state of Ireland, that practice could not be safely discontinued. There was a great difficulty in procuring witnesses when they imagined they would be exposed to the vengeance of the friends and relations of the parties against whom they appeared. He hoped and trusted, that there was a growing feeling of respect for the law and the administration of justice in Ireland, which would soon make it unnecessary to have recourse to such means to ensure convictions. He believed, that if now the practice were discontinued, many atrocious crimes would go unpunished. It was absolutely necessary, that the minds of persons who came forward to give evidence should be rendered secure, and, that they should be assured of being able to remove 302 to another country. At the same time he considered, that it would be extremely improper to hold out an inducement of any sort to persons to come forward for the purpose of making accusations, and, he trusted, that under the present system, no innocent person had been found guilty. With regard to the cases to which his attention had been directed, he had only to say, that he had not had sufficient time to read the reports in the newspapers of cases that had occurred during the course of the present assizes.