MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. (Hansard, 21 July 1863)

§ SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he rose to move, pursuant to Notice, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she may be graciously pleased to grant Her Fiat to the Petition of Eight of George O'Malley Irwin, esquire. A most important constitutional question was involved in the matter to which he wished to direct their attention. He should confine himself as briefly as possible to a statement of the facts of the case. Mr. O'Malley Irwin some years ago was charged with the offence of having fabricated a letter with the name of a Mr. Johnston signed to it. Mr. Irwin, however, had always alleged and was ready to prove that the prosecution which was instituted against him was wholly groundless, and contrary to law and practice. When the trial was close at hand, Mr. Irwin caused a subpoena to be served upon the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, with the view of compelling him to give evidence as to certain matters and documents of which he was in possession. That high official, however, disregarded the subpoena, and in utter contempt of the Queen's writ, refused to attend as a witness, and the letters which ought to have been produced were consequently not forthcoming. The result was that Mr. Irwin was convicted. The defendant, however, afterwards applied to the Queen's Bench for a new trial, which was granted him. On the second trial he took the legal means to enforce the attendance of the Government officials, but they again refused obedience to the Queen's writ. In consequence of the absence of the evidence which he believed those gentlemen could give, Mr. O'Malley Irwin was a second time convicted, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, which he underwent. Mr. Irwin next petitioned the Irish Government, and endeavoured to procure something like justice for himself by indicting Mr. Johnston, whose signature he was said to have fabricated, for perjury. Once more he sought to obtain the evidence of the Government officials by the usual legal means; but being again unsuccessful, he failed in the prosecution he had instituted. From that time—and he (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) was speaking of events 1174 which occurred many years ago—Mr. O'Malley Irwin had tried every means to procure redress, but he had up to that time failed to obtain any acknowledgment for the injuries which he had suffered. After the passing of the Act of Parliament for which the country was indebted to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), Mr. O'Malley Irwin caused to be prepared for presentation to Her Majesty a Petition of Right; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department felt it to be his duty to advise the Crown to withhold its fiat to that Petition of Right, and Mr. O'Malley Irwin was again baffled in his endeavours to procure justice. Now, he (Sir Fitzroy Kelly) was prepared to maintain, as a proposition founded upon the constition and the law of this country, that it was not competent or consistent with the duty of any officer of the Crown to advise the Queen to withhold her fiat to any Petition of Right upon any ground, whether right or wrong, whether well or ill founded. Such an interference was only to be justified in a case where a petition appeared to be founded on fraud or upon gross and manifest error. Having stated briefly the circumstances of the case as his own justification for having given notice of the Motion, he wished to add that it was not his intention, at that late period of the Session, and in so thin a House, to persevere with it; but he should again bring forward the matter in the next Session, when he should be able to claim a fuller and more attentive audience. As, however, the forms of the House required him to make the Motion, he should now conclude by doing so.