§ Viscount Duncannon,referring to certain returns which had been moved for by a noble Baron opposite, relative to the convictions and sentences upon certain offenders under the Irish Processions' Act, said, that he had to state that the circumstances to which the motion referred were those which related to a recent conviction of offenders at Derry. The offenders were both Catholics and Protestants. They had been tried before Baron Joy, and the sentences, upon the Protestants had, in every instance, been for a term of one, two, or three months' imprisonment, while the sentence upon the Catholics had been six months. In consequence of this difference an application had been made to the learned Baron, and his answer was, that unless new facts were disclosed, he saw no necessity for altering the sentence. A memorial on the subject was afterwards addressed to the Lord-lieutenant, stating that the sentence upon the Protestant offenders having expired, and the circumstances under which the Catholics had acted being nearly the same, the memorialists prayed that the Lord-lieutenant would remit the remainder of the sentence which had been passed upon them. This memorial was signed by the Mayor of Derry, and by nearly all the jurymen who had tried the persons. The Lord-lieutenant, in the exercise of the undoubted right of his Majesty, had remitted the remainder of the sentences without any further application to any individual.
Lord Farnhamsaid, that it appeared from the noble Viscount's statements, that the facts were exactly such as he had previously represented them. In granting this remission of the sentences, no application whatever had been made to the judge who tried the prisoners. He was justified in saying, therefore, that had such application been made, the answer would have been unfavourable. The learned Judge must have considered the criminal circumstances attending the offence as committed by the one party to be greater than those attending the other, or he would have been wholly unjustified in passing a different sentence upon them. There was no doubt that the Lord-lieutenant had the full power and discretion to do what he had done, but he (Lord 787 (Farnham) must say, that he did not think that that discretion had been wisely exercised, since the sentence had been remitted, not only without the approbation of the Judge, but, as he was justified in presuming, contrary to the Judge's opinion.
§ Viscount Duncannonhad not intended to cast any blame on the learned Judge who tried the prisoners; but in the same way that he gave credit to the learned Judge for discretion in the exercise of the duties of the judicial office, he must also say, that he was sure that the Lord Lieutenant had taken full pains to ascertain whether the remainder of the prisoners sentences ought to be remitted or not.
§ Subject dropped.