The Marquess of Normanby,in reference to a question which had been asked on a former occasion by a noble Earl (Charleville), stated, that he had no objection to produce further information with regard to John Coghlan, an Irish prisoner, who had been sentenced to transportation, but being certified by the surgeon as unfit for the voyage, had received a pardon. This was also the case with a man named Michael Bryan, who had been imprisoned for twelve mouths. There had been a very favourable report of that man's conduct, and it was upon the recommendation of the learned judge that the course had been adopted to which the noble Earl had alluded.
§ The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that Coghlan, after the commutation of his punishment, had been convicted of rape, although they were told that he was not able to bear the fatigue of transportation.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he had acted upon the certificate of the surgeon in agreeing to the commutation of punishment.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that it was the regular surgeon appointed to attend the prison, and whose duty it was to report correctly.
Lord Broughamconsidered, that the present subject was one of the most serious nature, as it related to the administration of justice, He considered that the power of bestowing mercy was one of the highest functions in the country. It was peculiar to the constitution of this country that the prerogative of mercy was not a mere matter of caprice on the part of the Sovereign, that it was to be exercised under a solemn oath taken at the coronation; it was, therefore, a responsible public duty, and the advisers of the Crown could only recommend the exercise of it where it was due. In his opinion, it was a most serious matter that a surgeon's certificate should be taken as the ground for a commutation of punishment without further investigation. He considered that the noble Marquess ought to have had further inquiries made into the certificate, as it was clear that at present it was contrary to the facts of the case. There must be some gross contradictions and absurdities somewhere, and if no other noble Lord would adopt 843 the course, he should feel it to be his duty, to put the Government to the trouble of producing the certificate.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he now heard for the first time, that the Coghlan who had committed the rape, was the same identical Coghlan who had been previously discharged.
§ The Earl of Charlevillesaid, he was the same person, and had been tried five times for different offences.
Lord BroughamIt now appeared that, instead of a medical certificate from a medical man, there must be also a recommendation to the Lord Lieutenant. He begged the attention of the noble Marquess to this—that it was upon the responsibility of a medical man that the whole of these commutations took place. Such a proceeding was most monstrous. If upon the responsibility of a medical man whether employed by the Government, or called in accidentally, any sentence was to be commuted or altered, all he could say was, that no sentence need ever be passed. They all knew how certificates were obtained—they were mere matters of opinion, and they all had seen how they were procured and used in the other House of Parliament. They had seen hon. Members who were unable to attend Election Committees, because it was inconvenient for them to turn round and vote a different way from the manner in which they had voted on a previous Committee. A medical certificate was very convenient, as it might turn the balance the other way, and seat a Member. That had occurred in his own knowledge. No medical man ought to have any power or authority to alter the sentence of the law. It should be matter of inquiry, and very grave inquiry. No such arrangement could take place in that country, nor was it recognised in the English law, that upon the recommendation or responsibility of a medical man, a sentence of any sort could be commuted.
§ Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that a medical certificate alone would not excuse the absence of a juryman; for the party making it was obliged to attend in court, give his evidence, and be subject to cross-examination.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the question with respect to the prisoner was, whether he was in a state of health to undergo a voyage to New South Wales. In such a case, it was always customary in 844 Ireland to attend to the medical certificate; but, though he was not transported immediately, it did not necessarily follow that his sentence would be commuted.
The Earl of Rodenwas sure that the gentry in Ireland would feel great satisfaction at the conversation which had taken place, for they attributed many of the evils with which that country was afflicted to the unlimited manner in which the noble Marquess had thrown open the gaols.
§ Subject dropped.