SLIGO ELECTION. (Hansard, 27 March 1854)

§ MR. KER SEYMER
said, as the Chairman of the Sligo Election Committee, he rose to move that the Attorney General for Ireland be instructed to prosecute Michael Gethin, Henry Simpson, and James Simpson, for their conduct, reported to the House by the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the allegations of the petition of John Patrick Somers, Esq. 'In a matter of that kind he would never have deemed it his duty to have stirred had it not been for the suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), in deference to which he now brought forward this Motion. He understood that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) would have had some legal objection to make against the course which it was proposed to pursue. He regretted, however, to have received information that the hon. and learned Gentleman was obliged to be absent through ill health. But notwithstanding that, he felt he would not be justified in postponing his Motion any further. He would only say in conclusion, that if any legal discussion arose, as one wholly unversed in law, he should feel wholly incompetent to take part in it, and should therefore leave the hon. and learned Gentlemen to fight out the matter amongst themselves, with as much difference of opinion and as much ability as seemed to characterise all such disputes. At the same time he most sincerely hoped that there would be an absence of all those mistakes which so much marked Irish State prosecutions, and that no mere legal technicalities would interfere with the due course of justice.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he wished to explain, on behalf of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. I. Butt) and himself, that it had occurred to some of those who had read the Report describing the enormity 1387 of the offences perpetrated, that it might be more in accordance with the rules of the House if the offenders were brought to the bar, to be dealt with according to the judgment of the House; but as the person the most competent to direct their opinions in such matters—he meant the noble Lord the Member for the City of London—believed that those persons ought to be prosecuted, he would only join in the hope expressed by his hon. Friend (Mr. K. Seymer) that the prosecution would be conducted with energy and ability—and, indeed, he had no doubt it would—by the Attorney General for Ireland. The case included the commission of bribery, a conspiracy, and subornation of perjury. And he would remind the House that it would be utterly impossible to effect any reform if they did not enforce justice against such notorious offenders as those implicated in these illegal and unconstitutional practices.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, it appeared that the offences charged were of a very grave and serious character. If, however, the offenders had been brought to the bar, as the House was well aware, all it would be competent for them to do would be to imprison the guilty parties, the imprisonment only to endure during the sitting of the House. Now if they were convicted of the offences of which they were accused, he ventured to express a belief that such a term of imprisonment would be a very inadequate punishment. It was therefore more fitting that they should be prosecuted by the Attorney General for Ireland.