Lords Sitting of 30 March 1835

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Government of Agra.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from two Places, in favour of an unsparing Church Reform.—By the Earl of CARLISLE and Lout WHARNCLIFFE, from Halifax &c,—for a Repeal or Alteration of the Factories' Regulation Act.—By a NOBLE LORD, from Stockton, and other Places, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from two Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Duke of GORDON, the Earl of ROSSLYN, and Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from a Number of Places,—for further Accommodation in, and Protection to, the Church of Scotland.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from the Independents of Frome, Selwood, for Relief to Dissenters.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN IRELAND.
Lord Broughamsaid, that seeing the noble Duke opposite in his place, he wished to ask a question. He had not the least doubt but that which he was about to mention had been misunderstood; but even then he was sure that the noble Duke would be well pleased to be asked the question, in order that he might correct the mistake. It had gone abroad, in consequence of a question asked, and indistinctly answered or heard, that a very lamentable mistake had occurred in Ireland in respect of the execution of a person in that country for murder. His attention had been called to it as connected with the administration of criminal justice as a Peer of that House, for they were all by their situation as Peers connected with the administration of justice. He had of course made some inquiry into it, and he had found that it was not as it had been stated, that some person had by mistake for another man, suffered the extreme sentence of the law; but then it was said that a mistake had been made with regard to identifying a man before one of the tribunals of the country, where the punishment of his crime was death in case of conviction. There was an immense difference between these two things. The mistake as to identifying a man was unhappily a mistake to which all human tribunals, deciding on
360
human evidence, must be subject. He had understood that there had been some communication with Ireland on the subject, and he thought it material that the public should know that there had been no mistake in the execution of the law; but that if any mistake had been made, it was the supposed mistake upon the fact of the identification of a given person.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to say that he had not any exact information on the subject, but he believed that the rumour as to the mistake was of itself quite erroneous.
Lord Plunkettsaid, that he believed there had been some mistake in the first instance in identifying a person, but it certainly was not true that, by mistake, one man had been hanged for another. The rumour went to impeach the correctness of a verdict; if it was not correct, he trusted that such mistakes were not of ordinary occurrence.

OATHS' ABOLITION BILL.
The Marquess of Camdensaid, that he rose now in order to express his thanks to the noble Duke for the courtesy he had shown in postponing the third reading of this Bill in order to enable him (the Marquess of Camden) to consult the University with which he was connected upon the subject. The consequence of his communication with the University was, that neither he nor they had any wish to oppose the further progress of the Bill. That courtesy had also enabled the University, since the introduction of the measure, to turn their minds to the particular object of the Bill, and he could assure their Lordships that there was among the persons connected with the University of Cambridge no indisposition whatever to meet in the fairest manner the provisions of this Bill, and to assist in promoting the object of it so far as it seemed to them fit to do so. There was in that University every disposition to act in accordance with the principle of the Bill, so far as that could be done without endangering the discipline of the University. Their sole object was to promote as much as possible piety and learning among those who resorted to the University.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he was happy to have been able to gratify the noble Marquess by postponing this Bill,

361
and glad to find that no opposition would now be offered to it. He moved that it be read a third time.
Lord Broughamwas very sorry that after the postponement which had already taken place, he should he obliged to ask the noble Duke still further to postpone the Bill for two or three days. This arose not from any objection to the principle of the Bill, with which he most fully concurred, but from some difficulties of a technical nature, affecting some of its clauses. By Thursday next he hoped to be able to remove them. He had consulted the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who agreed with him as to these difficulties.
The Duke of Richmondwas obliged to the noble, and learned Lords for their attention to the Bill, and for endeavouring to remove those technical objections that might impede its execution; and he consented to postpone it to Thursday.
Third reading postponed.