§ MR. FREWENsaid, he begged to inquire whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department had any objection to lay upon the table of the House a copy of a certificate which it had been stated was signed by every one of the jury who tried Mr. Jeremiah Smith, the late Mayor of Rye, and found him guilty of having committed wilful and corrupt perjury before a Committee of that House, and who had lately represented to his Lordship that they believed Mr. Jeremiah Smith to be innocent of the crime; and in consequence of this representation his Lordship had advised Her Majesty to grant him a free pardon.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONstated, in reply, that the ease of Mr. Jeremiah Smith had been frequently brought under his notice by a great number of memorials, and by numerous persons who had inter, ceded in his behalf; hut, nevertheless, upon a full consideration of the case, and the evidence upon which Mr. Smith was convicted, he had not felt it to be his duty to advise the Crown to interfere with the execution of die sentence, On the 20th of July he had received from the jurors a document which he had no objection to lay upon the table if required, stating that the undersigned jurors who had tried Mr. Jeremiah Smith, and had pronounced him guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, expressed their strong recommendation that mercy should be extended to him on the ground of its having been represented to them, and they believing it to be true at the time they gave their verdict, that the seat for Rye had not been abandoned when Mr. Smith gave his evidence, and that such evidence was given with a corrupt motive of retaining the seat for that borough. They stated that they now believed that the seat was then abandoned, and hence that there was no corrupt motive on the part of Mr. Smith. and they trusted that mercy would be extended to him. As a general rule, he attached more weight to the opinions of a jury expressed in their verdict founded upon evidence given upon oath than upon any opinions which might be founded upon statements subsequently given without the security of an oath or the sifting of a cross-examina- 1093 tion, and he did not, therefore, feel disposed to advise the Crown to act in accordance with this memorial. The grounds upon which he had taken that step were that he had received, on the 25th of July, the following letter from the surgeon of New-gate—
I feel it my duty to state to your Lordship that the present condition of Jeremiah Smith, a prisoner here, is most critical. He is very feeble in every way, and he is now suffering from head-symptoms of a very serious character, threatening apoplexy. I consider his illness the more alarming on account of several members of his family having died from similar attacks, and I cannot answer for the effects of prolonged imprisonment on the prisoner, whose habits had previously been very active.He felt that, although Mr. Smith might have been justly sentenced to a term of imprisonment, still he had not merited a sentence of death, and it was upon these grounds, and not in any way in connection with the opinion of the jury, that he had deemed it right to advise Her Majesty to grant a free pardon.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether, as he proposed to lay this certificate upon the table of the House, there would be any objection, at the same time, to produce the copies of any memorials received in favour of Mr. Jeremiah Smith, together with the names and addresses of the 10,000 persons who had signed them?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, such a document, if printed, would equal in size two of the largest books upon the table. He thought it would be enough to say, that he had received petitions in favour of Mr. Smith from a great variety of quarters, and he also thought it right to say that he believed those petitions could not have reached him if there had not been an active canvass in procuring signatures.