Lords Sitting of 7 March 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord SONDES, from some place, against the existing Beer Laws.—By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from different parts of Scotland, for Church Extension,—By Lord KINNOUL, from places in Perthshire, to the same effect.—By Lord REDESDALE, from York, Yardley, and other places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Lord DACRE, from the Magistrates of Hertford, and Bradford, against the existing Beer Laws; and from Rutford, for a uniform Penny Postage.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Manchester, and other places, against the Beer Laws; also from a great number of places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws; and from Oswestry, against Oaths.

RAILWAYS—(IRELAND).
Lord Broughampresented petitions from two places in the county of Tipperary, in favour of promoting Railways in Ireland. Having presented these two petitions from the respectable persons who had signed them, it was but fair for him to state, that although he approved of every facility that could possibly be given for the construction of railways in Ireland, yet, that he should most decidedly oppose any attempt to obtain from this country a grant of the public money, for that, in his opinion, most unjustifiable project—very
2
fit to be carried into effect without any undue pressure, either for or against it, highly unfit to vote money for it, to go to a country to which it would not naturally go—contrary to every sound principle of legislation—and, very likely in any country, except Ireland, to be made the means of practices which were called jobs.—Therefore he gave notice, that he should strenuously oppose any such effort, and with a view to enable him to oppose it more successfully, he should next week move for certain returns for showing what, in an inflammatory way, was generally stated to be untrue, namely, the immense sums we got from Ireland, and the very little we did for it. It was too much the practice to make such statements; he did not grudge any thing that was done for Ireland, but he wished to have the truth stated.

BRITISH NAVY—RETURNS.
The Earl of Hardwickewished to trespass on the House for a few minutes in consequence of the remarks which had fallen from the noble Earl opposite (Minto) the other night. In the course of the

3
debate, that noble Lord stated, that he was satisfied with the reserve of the navy, and, that he placed great reliance on his demonstration-ships; and the noble Lord complained of his (Lord Hardwicke's) having stated that which was untrue with regard to the two points, viz., the masts of the Revenge, one of the demonstration-ships, not being ready, and, that there were no complete suits of sails for line-of-battle ships at Plymouth; and the noble Earl further stated, that certain parties were aggrieved in consequence of his having said, that the returns were false. Now, with regard to the Revenge. It was his duty to acquaint their Lordships that he was at Portsmouth himself, that he went as a naval officer to ascertain the state of the dock-yard, and if anything had been misstated, the blame rested entirely with himself. The Revenge was one of those ships which the noble Earl stated to be in readiness for active service, but he (Lord Hardwicke) found her fore-mast was not hooped; her main-mast not finished; and he was informed that the contract for, the iron work would not be completed in less than eleven days. He understood the noble Earl to say there were other masts in store. He (Lord Hardwicke) never said there were not, but what number of masts had the noble Lord? The noble Lord stated, that he had three sets; he (Lord Hardwicke) would give him five; but there were eleven sail of the line dismasted in the harbour. The whole of the ordinary were dismasted. The noble lord would remember, that he (Lord Hardwicke) said the reserve was not sufficient, and that be entered into some detail to prove it. The noble Earl said, with reference to the sails in store at Plymouth, that he was at fault, and he was ready to admit that he was so; but suppose be granted that, did it alter his argument with respect to the condition of the reserve? The noble Lord said, he had seven sets of sails. Was that all the noble Lord had got? He (Lord Hardwicke) stated, on the previous night of discussion, that there was not a complete suit of sails for a single line-of-battle ship in store. The noble Earl stated, that there were complete suits of sails for three first rates, but it turned out, that on the 31st of January there were some of these sails deficient. There were three suits of sails for second rates, with the exception of six foretop sails, six main-top sails, and four mizentop sails; and there were three suits of
4
sails for third rates, complete. The noble Lord seemed to think, that all his remarks were confined to the deficiency of sails, and had boasted, that he had sixty-six top-sails, and he must have rummaged every hole and corner, and included sails of all sizes. He (Lord Hardwicke) had also stated, that at Portsmouth dock-yard, there was not a suit of sails for a frigate or sloop, or brig—there were no second rates sails in store. There were two sets of sails for a first rate, including the Britannia, and one for a third rate in store. These statements were made for the purpose of pointing out the deficiency in stores at the present time as compared with the year 1826. The noble Lord seemed to congratulate himself, because with twenty-one sail of the line, at Plymouth, he had, according to his own shewing, seven suits of sails, and, according to his, (Lord Hardwicke's) three suits. He would now go to frigates, and it appeared, that there were for fourth rates, one suit, and for fifth rates, five suits, making six suits of sails for eighteen sail of frigates, at Plymouth. There was not a complete suit of sails in Plymouth dock-yard, for a sloop or brig, except the Acorn. With respect to rigging, there was ten suits of rigging for twenty-one sail of the line, and eleven suits of rigging for eighteen sail of frigates. He mentioned these points to show how accurate he had been generally; but he begged their Lordships' pardon for the single inaccuracy he had been led into on a former occasion. With regard to the return made to the Admiralty, he thought there must be some misunderstanding, or how was it possible that thirty sail of the line could be ready for sea, when there was such a deficiency of sails, rigging, and other stores. Did the noble Lord know, that for his demonstration ships there was not a single top-sail yard in store? He did not mean to say, that the returns were false, because he was satisfied, that the gentlemen connected with these departments would not state anything knowing it to be incorrect or false; but be did impugn them then, and he did so now, because there is a firm belief on the part of the country, that these vessels are not in the state of efficiency and readiness that had been represented, and, as the noble Earl stated, his returns led him to believe.
The Earl of Mintowas extremely sorry that he was nut aware of the noble Lord's intention of addressing the House, or he

5
should have come down prepared with such documents as would enable him to have given a more satisfactory reply. On the former night, he had merely stated, that the 'officers of Portsmouth and Plymouth were anxious to state to their Lordships' House, that they would vouch for the accuracy of the returns. That had been his object in rising, and he had confined himself strictly to it. The first point to which he would refer was, the statement with respect to the lower masts of the Revenge, which it was said were not hooped, while he (Earl Minto) had stated that she was in a state of readiness to be sent to sea. The fact was, that the lower masts of the Revenge were her original masts, in which she had been paid off. On her being paid off, her masts were surveyed and found sound, but being on the construction of the late surveyor of the navy, Sir Robert Sepping, and being found strained, in order to secure them, it was proposed to put in new cheeks and fishes. These were prepared, but in consequence of the wood being new, it was thought advisable, so long as the ship was not required, to leave them unfixed to season. That was the explanation he had received. At the same time he had desired to know, in the event of her services being required, when she would be ready for sea, and he was told that in eight and forty hours the masts could be put on board. He had also written to know whether, in the event of a sudden call, there were other masts suitable for the Revenge, and unappropriated, and the reply was that there were; at the date of the noble Earl's visit, the 24th of February, complete suits of sails for seven sail of the line, and altogether in store sixty-six topsails for ships of the line—with regard to the noble Earl's representation of a deficiency of sails at Plymouth, the Master Attendant stated, that the noble Earl having visited one sail-room was perfectly satisfied with what he saw and heard, and declined going into any of the other rooms. With respect to the other parts of the noble Earl's speech he could produce papers, but which he had not now about him, from which he could answer in detail. He would produce those upon an early occasion. The noble Lord had said that there were no topsails for demonstration-ships. He thought the noble Earl was entirely mistaken here. But if his papers should not bear him out in this declaration, although he had the strongest conviction that they would, he would confess that he had been exceedingly in error,
6
and that in that case our supply of stores was far short of what it ought to be, and what was indispensable to the service of the country.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas apprehensive their Lordships had entirely overlooked the most important part of this momentous question. He was happy, indeed, to hear that the Revenge had three good masts, but he would beg leave to remind them, that the discussion had turned upon demonstration-ships, which, if called upon, were not ready for action. He would ask noble Lords, were not we at war in two quarters of the world at this moment?—We had a war, on our hands, in America, and we were carrying on war to a great extent in Asia. He thought, therefore, that the forces of this country should be on a war establishment—whereas, this discussion had turned upon the question of the propriety of supporting a peace establishment—nay, more, a reduced peace establishment. What! carrying on war in two quarters of the world, at the same time, with a reduced peace establishment! He would remind their Lordships, that nearly two years ago he warned them against the consequences of persevering in such an attempt. He believed since that time they had been feeling the inconvenience of such a course, and he trusted in God, that danger and disaster might not soon make them feel still more the fatal error of persevering in that system. A peace establishment—even a small peace establishment—might be very fit and very proper for service in time of peace; but when you come to carry on war, your peace establishments would not be found equal to perform the duties required from them in time of peace, and likewise those extensive duties required from them in time of war. Now, he would like to call their Lordships' attention to one important point as illustrating the dangerous absurdity of carrying on war service with a peace establishment in the navy. In the month of August last year, a discussion took place in the House with respect to the blockade in Mexico. In his opinion, as well as in the opinion of several noble Lords, it was expedient to send a squadron of her Majesty's ships to that part of the world to look after the blockade, and to afford protection to the lives and commerce of her Majesty's subjects in that country. The French Government did not carry on

7
war with a peace establishment. When they went to war with Mexico, and sent a force there, it was a force upon a war establishment; and what happened, they carried on war operations, and war operations of a very active description; but we being engaged in a war with part of America, and having only a peace establishment, were obliged to take our ships engaged in operations of war, from North America, where they were for the purpose of putting down the rebellion in Canada, to send them to the gulph of Mexico, to perform the peace duties of giving protection to the commerce of British subjects. Admiral Sir Charles Paget was ordered with his squadron to perform those duties in North America, and that squadron was subsequently withdrawn, for the purpose of being sent to Mexico to perform peace duties—that was a point which he complained of. We were carrying on war with America, and also in Asia; both of them requiring all the force and power which this country could send out, in order to bring that war to an early and honourable termination. We were doing that with a reduced peace establishment, and incurring all descriptions of risk in every other part of the world. And this was the case while these disputes between noble Earls were going on upon whether there were or were not two or three masts, more or less in the dockyards of this country, while, in point of fact, comparatively the whole of the force at this moment was unarmed and unfit for the contests that were going forward. He had stated this over and over again a year and a half ago, and he now repeated, that our force was totally inadequate even to peace duties. A noble Lord, a few evenings ago, adverted, from a correspondence that he had, to the inconveniences resulting to the colonies from the vast number of volunteers that had been called under arms in that particular spot. The truth was, that both agricultural and every other interest was at a stand-still there, and though a soldier was saved by every volunteer that was called into the service, yet an infinitely larger sum of money was in that way required. It was known to all the world, and must be known to the Government, that our establishment was quite inadequate to bring the wars that were now going on to an early and honourable end, and which never could be suc-
8
cessfully accomplished unless the wars were undertaken in earnest.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the only question before the House was, that a petition should lie on the Table, and the only notice that had been given was of a motion for the production of a memorial respecting the administration of justice in Mullingar. He did not object to the observations made by the noble Duke, but he was sure the noble Duke would feel with him that the subjects on which he had touched were so important, that they ought not only not to have been entered upon without notice, but that they ought not to have been entered upon in the absence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who was prevented from attending in his place from indisposition. The present example might induce their Lordships to be a little more attentive in future to the order of their proceedings. Upon an incidental proceeding the noble Duke had announced his opinions and apprehensions on topics of vast importance, and in estimating the importance of those matters be could not yield to the noble Duke, or any one else. In his opinion they required to be the subject of grave consideration. He did not rise, therefore, to follow either the noble Duke or the two noble Lords who had preceded him, the two latter, in their discussion of adaptation of sails and masts at Plymouth and Portsmouth; but he would say he trusted the noble Duke would afford his noble Friend at the head of the Government a future opportunity of explanation on this subject. While he could not shut his eyes to those grave subjects of apprehension, in various parts of the world, which might eventually affect the interests of the country, he could not admit that this country was in a state of war. He could not admit that this country was in a state of war with any maritime power. He contended, and any of their Lordships who had looked into the details of the subject must know, that while this country had a peace establishment, it was a peace establishment superior to almost any peace establishment that had ever been known to exist in any former period of the maritime history of the country. Not only was it a larger peace establishment than those which had existed before, and which at very recent periods had been thought by former Governments wholly adequate to maintain the integrity and dignity of the country; but being a peace establishment, it had up

9
to this moment not been once found wanting in any quarter of the globe in which it had been necessary to assert the dignity of the British flag, and maintain the interest of the Government. Without entering into further details, he wished to set the noble Duke right upon an important point, upon which he had unintentionally been led into mistake, and which it was material, both as to the credit of the Government, and to the establishments of the country; should be distinctly understood. The noble Duke supposed that the British force, which for the protection of British interests had been recently, usefully, and effectively employed upon the coast of Mexico, could only be obtained by withdrawing that force from the coast of Canada. He could assure the noble Duke, that he had been misinformed on that point. The greater portion of the force had been sent out from this country, and no one single ship had been withdrawn from the coast of Canada for that purpose, which had not been so withdrawn by previous orders, independently of what was occuring in Mexico; and for the plain reason, that upon the coast of Canada, and in the river St. Lawrence, it would have been unsafe to have retained them there. Two ships had been removed from the coast of Canada, that had not been ordered to be removed before; and the greater force employed in Mexico, was a force at liberty in this country, and despatched from it to meet the exigencies that had arisen. This explanation he felt it to be his duty to give, but he was anxious that no further discussion should take place in the absence of his noble Friend at the head of the Government.
The Duke of Wellingtonwould not have said a word, had it not been that he considered the observations of the noble Lords who preceded him, originated in something like a mistake. There was war at this moment carrying on by us in two quarters of the globe, and he certainly considered, that our force was insufficient to bring that war to an honourable and early termination. That was his opinion. The noble Lord opposite had said he was mistaken in respect of the ships that had been called from North America; but so far from being mistaken, he believed he might have gone further than even he had gone. When they began to make war with peace establishments they starved the peace establishments as well as the war, because they had no reserve for any other
10
purpose. He hoped, that noble Lords would not experience the truth of what he had stated; he hoped they would feel no inconvenience from carrying on a war with a peace establishment; he had protested against the course two years ago, and he protested against it now. He felt strongly upon the subject, but he could assure their Lordships, that in that feeling he had no desire whatever, except to promote the honour of the service. If the noble Lord wished the question to be discussed in another shape he could have no objection to it.
Subject dropped.

PARDONS (IRELAND)—MULLINGAR.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that with respect to the motion of which he had given notice, he would state to their Lordships, that the subject of the memorials to which he referred stood thus—that if any reasons could be adduced for the exercise of lenity in the cases connected with them, there could be no reason whatver for withholding these memorials from their Lordships. The number of cases in which the noble Marquess opposite had extended mercy in the course of his Government was so great, that it was incumbent on him to satisfy their Lordships, in every case which he was called upon to answer, that had he done so on substantial grounds, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Marquess would not oppose the production of the papers to which he should presently refer. The case which he was now going to bring under their Lordships notice related to a transaction that had taken place in the month of November, 1836. He should have brought it under the attention of their Lordships before, but he had not received the documents connected with it until lately, since which he had had no opportunity of doing so, when the noble Marquess (Normanby) was present. It appeared, that in November, 1836, at a place not far from Mullingar, in the county of Westmeath, about which, as it was his native county, he felt the greatest interest, but which, he regretted to say, was in a more disturbed state than any other county in the kingdom, and where even within the last week, whilst the judges were sitting there, most disgraceful proceedings had taken place, and where, within the last two months, six most cold-blooded murders had been perpetrated, a man named Mahony, who was

11
employed by a gentleman in the neighbourhood, was fiercely assaulted by four persons at the entrance to his master's stables; he fought his way to the gateway leading to his master's house, and was there struck by a man, who was afterwards identified to be Cooke, so violently with a stick that his skull was laid bare. He then struggled until he reached his master's house, and there, from loss of blood and additional outrage, as it afterwards appeared at the trial, became so ill that he was not expected to survive. In consequence of the nature of the assault, two of the men who were apprehended, viz., Cooke and Wholahan, were not allowed to be bailed out until a considerable time had elapsed, and the man was said to be recovering. In the March following these two men were brought to trial before the judges of assize, and they were sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment. Mr. Uniacke, one of the magistrates of the county, hearing that there was an application about to be made to the Government by the prisoners for a mitigation of their sentence, wrote to the Government on the subject on the 27th of July, 1837, and to that letter received the following answer:—
"Dublin Castle, July 31, 1837.
"Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, on the case of Thomas Cooke and Patrick Wholahan, prisoners in the gaol of the county of Westmeath, under sentence of imprisonment, and to acquaint you, that the Lord-lieutenant referred a memorial from the prisoners to the judge, and when his report is received your letter will be submitted to his Excellency at the same time.
"I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,
"J. DRUMMOND.
"Thomas F. Uniacke, Esq., Mullingar."
On the 17th of August following Mr. Uniacke received another letter from Mr. Drummond, to the following effect:—
"Dublin Castle, Aug 17 1837.
"Sir, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ult., on the case of Thomas Cooke and P. Wholahan, prisoners in the gaol of the county of Westmeath, under sentence of imprisonment, and to acquaint you, that the Lord-lieutenant has had the judge's report under consideration, and decided, that the law must take its course.
"I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servant.
"T. DRTJMMOND.
"Thomas F. Uniacke, Esq., Mullitigar."
12
What, then, would be the surprise of their Lordships, when after this they heard that his Excellency, the Lord-lieutenant had thought fit in December, 1837, when the principal of these two persons had undergone little more than half his imprisonment, to enlarge him without bill? [The Marquess of Normanby: No; not without bail.] He understood so. [The Maruess of Normanby: Ay, ay; you understood so.] He might be mistaken, but his only object in bringing these maters forward was the interest of his country, and far was it from his wish to bring any charge against the noble Marquess without full foundation for it. This very day he had received a letter from a gentleman residing in the county of Westmeath, in which he said, that they were living in a state of civil war, and that it was the duty of the gentry to entreat and insist on the Government paying attention to this subject. When the noble Marquess spoke of being justified in liberating this man, he wished to know whether it were on account of his health; because if so there was in every gaol an infirmary, and an officer who was paid for doing his duty, so that this man might have been attended to. Or was it from the good nature of the noble Marquess? He knew his own countrymen well; and although they were far from being enlightened, but were, on the contrary, most ignorant, yet they were a sharp sighted set of men; and if they found they had to deal with a governor on whom they could impose or gain their point by a little overstraining of the truth, they would endeavour to do so; and if the noble Marquess had exercised his good nature in this instance, he had done wrong, and it did more credit to his heart than to his understanding. The noble Lord opposite said the other evening that he should, on going to Ireland, follow in the footsteps of the noble Marquess; but he hoped in God that the noble Lord would, for his own reputation, avoid doing so; and if he hoped that benedictions might follow him, as he stated they had done his noble predecessor, it would be necessary for him to avoid it, for he strongly doubted whether the noble Marquess had met with many benedictions from the peaceable and respectable inhabitants of that country, though no doubt be had been blessed by a great number of the unpunished malefactors there. It was

13
painful for him to make such an observation, but it was his duty to see these matters set right, and he was more particularly justified in these observations, because it was his intention to ask their Lordships to apply to the House of Commons for certain returns which had for a long time lain on their table, but had not yet been produced to their Lordships. Now, although several of the cases he should presently refer to had been explained away by the noble Marquess, yet it was incumbent on him to show, that he had done his duty in this respect as to a considerable number that were discharged, and others who were released on bail; yet from one of the returns which he had just spoken of it appeared, that of those persons whose sentences had been commuted by the noble Marquess, twenty-seven were under sentence of death, thirty-three were to have been transported for life, two for fourteen years, sixty-three for seven years, and 960 for minor offences; and yet out of this number, 1,085 in all, in only forty-one cases was any bail taken, so that the great majority of those persons had been enlarged without bail, although that ought to have been entered into. In four cases only had the liberations been made by the recommendation of the judges who had tried them, and one on the recommendation of the assistant-barrister of the county. Other reasons might, perhaps, be adduced, such as sickness, good conduct, &c., and of these the noble Marquess might have the full benefit in his reply. He would just advert to a matter of this nature which had been brought under discussion the other night, respecting which the noble Viscount opposite had taunted him, although the case had come before him in his magisterial character. He referred to the case of Ward and Gannon, who the noble Marquess had said were liberated on the recommendation of the assistant barrister. Now, at the time those men were tried there were eighteen magistrates on the bench with himself, and only three of them had signed the memorial for the liberation of these criminals, and the magistrate whose name the noble Marquess had mentioned as a judge of the comparative guilt or innocence of those persons was not amongst those magistrates who had tried them. It would, therefore, have been more delicate to him if the noble Viscount had not introduced the name of
14
that individual, and said he was to be referred to, although he was not present at the trial. The noble Marquess had alleged, as a reason for the liberation of these men, that it had been granted on the application of the prosecutor, and a memorial numerously signed by respectable persons, and amongst whom there were two Protestant clergymen. But the noble Marquess should remember, that it was not always safe for Protestant clergymen in Ireland to refuse to put their names to memorials for mitigation of the punishment of prisoners, and he certainly thought that one of the rev. Gentlemen who signed this memorial, and with whom he had been acquainted from his childhood, was very much to blame, and that he had done a weak act; but the Executive Government should have the fairness to consider whether it was their duty to listen to such applications, or to turn a deaf ear to them whenever they were made. The noble Marquess concluded by moving "An Address, for any memorial addressed to the Lord-lieutenant or government of Ireland, for the liberation of Thomas Cooke from the gaol of Mullingar, who had been convicted at the general assizes in March, 1837, and sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment; and also, copy of the Lord-lieutenant's order, signed T. Drummond, dated the 11th of December, 1837, for the liberation of Thomas Cooke, addressed to the high sheriff of the county of Westmeath."
The Marquess of Normanbywould endeavour, in his reply to the noble Marquess, to confine himself to that which the noble Marquess had almost omitted from his speech—viz., those particular cases to which the motion of the noble Marquess, of which he had given such timely notices referred: he should afterwards find it necessary to allude to the second case, but he would, at present, confine himself to the first. It was most unfair to their Lordships when the noble Marquess opposite said, that he had drawn no distinction between producing the opinions of the judges in these cases and the memorials themselves; for what he had said was, that the production of these memorials would lead to an exposure of the Lord-lieutenant's confidential notes on the opinions of the judges, and he thought, that unless some stronger case was made out by the noble Marquess, it would be only wasting their Lordships' time and establishing a bad and

15
dangerous precedent, one which he would not attempt to establish by producing these memorials with the Lord-lieutenant's confidential memorandums in them. With respect to the case of Cooke and Wholahan, soon after these men were tried, a memorial was presented to the Government most respectably signed in their favour. Amongst the signatures were those of two Protestant clergymen. This memorial he referred to Mr. Baron Pennefather, who had tried the prisoners, who stated, that Cooke had received an excellent character; that he had never been impeached before with bad conduct, and that, had it not been for the line of defence which that prisoner had taken, he should have attached more weight to that defence, and apportioned the sentence accordingly. Upon seeing this report, however, and having the magistrates' letters before him, he had desired that the law might take its course. About two months after that time Dr. Vignolles, his first chaplain, who had property in the county, told him that he had inquired into Cooke's character, and that he had found it unimpeachable up to the time of this offence, and that whatever imputation there might attach to Cooke, yet his conviction had principally been produced by the line of defence which he had adopted. Mr. Reid, the rector of Kilbride, in that county, had also said, that he had known Cooke for five years, that he had always borne a high character, and that he thought if his defence had been differently conducted, he would have been acquitted. It was said that the reason of such defence being made was, that the counsel had not bad time to study the case. He had received a letter to the same effect from the Rev. Mr. Ward, as well as a recommendation from the Presbyterian chaplain of the gaol in which the prisoner was confined, and also another from Mr. Sheil. Having considered this case, he wrote, saying, that if the man could get sureties to keep the peace, that nothing was heard against him, and his conduct was reported to be good during that period, he should be liberated at the end of two months. The report received at the end of that time was favourable, and the man was liberated in the month of December, 1837; but on giving bail, himself in 20 l., and in two sureties of 10 1. But if their Lordships were to judge his government by cases of this kind, there were four years to go through, and many were ready and interested to find out such cases, and who would be indefatigable in
16
their endeavours to bring them forward as a proof of his misgovernment. He thought he might well leave the case here, considering the manner in which the allegations had been made against him, and, judging from the cases of Ward and Gannon, and also of Cooke, the grounds on which he had been charged with respect to them, and the total failure of those grounds he thought he might on them rest his general defence to the general charge against him. The allegations against him were, that in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, he had acted differently from his predecessors in the Lord-lieutenancy of Ireland; that he had swept the gaols of the country; and that in extending pardon to so many criminals, he had been guilty of cruelty towards society at large in Ireland. Now, without meaning to take up the time of their Lordships by going into the whole case, he would beg their attention to a few little facts; he would beg to quote the opinion of a right hon. Gentleman, who bad, for a considerable period, held the office of Secretary for the Home Department, and who had been distinguished for the ability with which he had discharged its duties, and the minute attention which he had paid to all its details—he alluded to Mr. Secretary Peel. In a discussion on a motion of Mr. Hume, in June, 1823, for abolishing the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, which was at that time held by a nobleman whose name he could never mention but in terms of respect and admiration—he alluded to a noble Marquess, the brother of the noble Duke (Wellington) opposite—in that discussion Mr. Peel in opposing the motion, and by way of illustrating the inconvenience of which the abolition of the office would be productive, said: "To prove to the House what would be the probable augmentation of business in the Home-office by acceding to the motion, he would only mention, that in the past year there were in Ireland 8,312 criminal convictions, out of these there were applications for mercy in 2,400 cases, out of which 400 capital offences were set aside."* He (Lord Normanby) did not quote this as meaning to cast any, the slightest, blame on the noble Marquess, who was at that time at the head of the Irish government for having too extensively exercised the prerogative of mercy; on the contrary, he thought that noble Lord had acted right; but what, let him ask, would be said of his government, if it could
*Hansard, New Series, Vol. ix., p.1233.

17
be shown that he had set aside 400 capital sentences in one year? What would be said, if, through a mistaken desire for popularity, as it was called, he had set aside even half that number of capital sentences, or received half the number of applications for mercy which were made in the year 1822? He would repeat what he had said on a former occasion, that he had bestowed the greatest attention on the consideration of all the cases of applications for mercy which had come before him, and that not less than three or four hours each day were consumed in that way, in addition to his other duties. So far as he himself was concerned, he could have no objection to the whole of the applications for mercy that had been made to him during the whole time of his government in Ireland, with his memoranda on each, being laid on the Table of the House. He used the word "Table" in this sense figuratively, for not ten tables such as that before him could contain them; but his objections to the motion were, that the production of those documents would be a had precedent, and that no good ground had been laid for it. As some mention had been made of medical certificates, he would say one word on that subject. From the manner in which it was mentioned, one would suppose that the certificates sent up to the Government, accompanying applications for mitigation of punishment, might be those of any medical man selected by the prisoner; but that was not the case. The certificates were in all instances those of the regular medical attendant on the gaol. He had found what appeared to him some irregularity in the form of the circular sent to the medical attendants, and he directed that the circular should inform the surgeons that in those cases where it was found, that confinement was injurious to the prisoner, he (the surgeon) should state his opinion whether the further confinement was likely to endanger life. As to the case of Coghlan, which had been mentioned on a former evening, and in which some surprise was expressed that the Government should not have known either through the judge who had tried him, or through the gaoler of the prison in which he had been confined, that he had been tried before—Coghlan was one of nine or ten prisoners who had been discharged from the hulks, and whose cases had been inquired into by Major Palmer, the inspector-general of prisons, by Dr. Roney, and Mr. Drummond, who had recommended their discharge. He had no reason at the time to
18
believe that he was the same party who had been tried and convicted for a former offence, for Judge Johnson, who was the same Judge who had tried both cases if the prisoner was the same, and who had recommended the commutation of his sentence, had made no mention of the previous trial and conviction. The gaoler could not have been aware that he was the same party, because when he was committed in 1836 he was described as twenty-one years old, but when he was committed again in 1838 he was described as only twenty years. He had now no doubt that he was the same party who had been previously tried, but he had no means of knowing it at the time. There was one circumstance connected with Cogblan's second crime which, though it did not alter its legal character, was mitigatory of its moral enormity. It appeared from a note of Judge Johnson, who tried him, that the prosecutrix admitted in her evidence that she was a person of irregular habits, and obtained her livelihood by prostitution, and that up to one o'clock on the very morning of the offence she had been walking in the streets of Birr in pursuit of her disreputable calling. As to the case of Cooke, the application to the Government on his behalf had been signed by the hon. and rev. Mr. Brown, who was in effect the prosecutor, for it was his bailiff who had been attacked. He had long known Mr. Brown, who had declared to him his full conviction that Cooke was innocent of the offence, and certainly Mr. Brown was a man who would be far above signing any such document if he did not feel that he was fully warranted in doing it. He was one whose strictly faithful and impartial discharge of his duties had endeared him to his neighbours, and to those who differed from him in religion. He did not complain of charges being brought against himself, but on the part of an upright and independent clergyman, he must protest against the imputation thrown out by the noble Marquess, that he had been induced to sign the application to Government by intimidation. He would not now trouble their Lordships with any further observations, but would reserve himself on some other points on which he had intended to speak until those matters were brought more fully under the consideration of the House.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that certainly it was not the practice of that House to interfere with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and he confessed he should be sorry to see it make any change

19
in that respect. But he must say, that when cases like those stated by the noble Marquess were mentioned—when the noble Marquess defended himself in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy by quoting the opinions of judges and lawyers, and the statements set forth in memorials and applications to the Government for mercy, the House had some little claim to be admitted into the secret of those opinions. These were not authority, and though the noble Marquess might have acted on them, it must still have been on his own responsibility; but when the noble Marquess referred to them in the House, the House he repeated, had some little right to something more of them. At the same time the House should not call for documents the production of which might be injurious to the public service. The case of the prisoner Cooke was that of a conviction, not merely of an assault, but of an assault of so serious a nature, that he was not allowed to give bail until the man who had been assaulted was considered out of danger. The Lord-lieutenant, on being applied to for the extension of mercy to the prisoner, obtained the report of the learned judge who tried him, and on the consideration of that report he decided that the law should be allowed to take its course; but on a further application being made to him he thought fit to remit the remainder of the sentence, taking security for the man's future good behaviour. Now he must say, that considering the nature of the offence of which this man had been convicted, and that offences of that nature were rather common in Ireland, he could not help thinking it unfortunate that the noble Marquess had not adhered to his first decision, and allowed the man to undergo the full term of his imprisonment in order to show to the country what the opinion of the Government was with respect to such offences. Their Lordships had for several years heard of reforms of the criminal jurisprudence of the country. He did not now see in his place the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) who had taken a lead in the discussions on that subject, but if he had heard that noble and learned Lord once, he had heard him a dozen times declare, that the great end of all those reforms was the certainty of punishment. The practice, however, which prevailed in the Irish Government—he did not now refer in particular to that of the
20
noble Marquess, but to the Government of Ireland generally—was such that there was no certainty of punishment, and for this reason, that after all the chances of acquittal which the accused party had on his trial, he had also the chance of escape from punishment which rested on private application to the Executive Government. He regretted, that the noble and learned Lord to whom he had alluded was not now in his place, as he could, and no doubt would, illustrate the effect of those private applications for the remission of punishment and consequent evasion of the due execution of the law in a much better mariner than he could do; but the fact being as had been stated, that such applications were made, and made with success in many instances, it must lead to great uncertainty of punishment, and, of course, to great uncertainty in the execution of the law. It was quite obvious, that the noble Marquess having in the first instance decided that the law should be allowed to take its course, and having afterwards changed his mind in consequence of private applications, gave an encouragement to such applications, which must increase the uncertainty of punishment in that country. This was not the first time that cases of the kind had come under the notice of their Lordships. A case had occurred last year where a party had had his sentence remitted in consequence of private application. The principle, he repeated, was a dangerous one and must be seriously injurious to the execution of the law.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that as the noble Marquess had alluded to him in no very courteous terms, he could not avoid saying a few words. The noble Marquess had alluded to the case of Coghlan. Now, it did happen that that person had been committed in 1831 to the gaol of Tullamore on a charge of Ribandism, but from the difficulty of procuring evidence on such a charge he had been discharged by proclamation. He was the following year, committed on a charge of robbery. The noble Marquess had alluded to the woman who gave evidence on another trial. Now, he would tell the noble Marquess the character of this man. The noble Marquess was correct in stating, that the woman was an unfortunate female but how did John Coghlan get his living? By waylaying these women returning from the barracks to Birr, and robbing them of

21
the money they had got from their calling, and very often assaulting them. The noble Marquess said, "After this recommendation of Judge Johnson, should I not have listened to his recommendation?" He brought no charge against the noble Marquess; he knew not whether John Coghlan was undergoing his sentence or not. He brought the charge for the former case, where he was tried, found guilty, and sentence of death was recorded against him. He was sent to the hulks, and afterwards was pardoned. He then was committed for rape, tried, found guilty, and left for execution. In the case of Michael Bryan, the noble Lord said, on Tuesday night, that he had confounded and confused his statement. He had done neither; if there was confusion or confounding in it, it was on the noble Marquess's side, and not on his. The noble Marquess said, that he commuted the sentence of that man on the certificate of the surgeon of the hulks. He understood the noble Marquess differently on the former occasion. He was willing to take his statement either way; it should be either the surgeon of the hulks or of the gaol; if of the hulks the noble Marquess commuted his sentence on that recommendation. To show the inaccuracy of the details, the noble Marquess said the letter was signed by T. Drummond, whereas it was signed by Lord Morpeth. The man's sentence was commuted, and he was seven months in the gaol of Tullamore. And did the noble Marquess mean to say, that he having commuted his sentence from transportation for seven years to one year's imprisonment in the gaol of Tullamore, on the ground of ill health, and on the surgeon's certificate to that effect, that surgeon not having seen prisoner, seven months after, said he in a state of health not to bear imprisonment for a year, and his imprisonment forthwith commuted. The noble Marquess was misinformed as to this case. The surgeon of the gaol on application declined to give the certificate, and they applied to an apothecary in the town of Tullamore, and that apothecary signed the certificate, on which the noble Marquess again commuted the sentence, and let the prisoner out. The noble Marquess had alluded to the number of applications for pardon during the Government of Lord Wellesley. He did not tell their Lordships the number of applications which were made to
22
him. He mentioned that Lord Wellesley commuted the sentences on some 400 prisoners; he did not tell their Lordships whether Lord Wellesley let them out of gaol, or whether he took bail for their good behaviour; but of this he was perfectly certain, that on any comparison with Lord Wellesley or any other chief Governor of Ireland, there would be no comparison between his conduct and the conduct of the noble Marquess in letting prisoners out of gaol. Upwards of 1,300 persons had been let out of prison by the noble Marquess in twenty-one months, and only in forty-one cases had bail been taken for them, and there were amongst them men guilty of every crime, excluding the crime of murder. With respect to the case of Cooke, let out of prison on the recommendation of Mr. Berry Tennant, he did not see how that could be reconciled with the letter of Mr. T. Drummond. The letter stated—"The Lord-Lieutenant has had the judge's report under consideration, and has decided that the law must take its course." Afterwards the noble Marquess used his own discretion, and went against the opinion of the judge. But he could assure the noble Marquess he should be ready soon to meet him on the general subject, and he must say he should be very anxious for the production of those memorials, because he laid the very greatest stress on their production, to shew the influence by which prisoners had been allowed to get out of gaol, and have their sentences commuted; and he would prove that the persons signing those memorials could not by any possibility have any knowledge of the prisoners, and that they did not reside in that part of the country where they were; and the noble Marquess showing the sources that he might choose to place confidence in, passed over all the Magistrates, and all the persons of respectability, whose characters were at stake for the information they gave him, and who could have given a true and particular account of the characters of the convicts in question—but he passed them over, and went to sources which he now wished to conceal; but if these memorials were produced, their lordships would be able to trace the influence which had been used.
The Maquess of Normanbysaid, that so far from attempting to conceal anything he thought he had brought forward his information rather too distinctly. With regard to the opinion of Mr. B. Tennant,

23
he never stated, that he had recommended a revision of the sentence; so far from that, he (the Marquess of Normanby) had said, it was on the report of Baron Pennefather, that he had decided, in the first instance, that the law must take its course. It was on a further investigation as to the character of Cooke, that he had commuted his sentence. With regard to John Coghlan, he did not know so much of him as the noble Earl seemed to do, and never disputed, that he was the same man. But by the return which made him out a hardened Ribandman in 1831, he must be a very precocious offender, because by the return to the Crown he was only twenty-one years of age in 1836, so that he could only have been sixteen years old when he was a hardened offender. Perhaps, as the noble Lord knew so much about him, he could tell whether John Coghlan had one eye? He had heard, that one of John Coghlan's eyes was completely gone, and the sight of the other was represented to be so nearly gone, that it was an utterly hopeless case. [The Earl of Charleville had heard of that.] He had not the least objection to John Coghlan being the same man, but only gave an opportunity of its being proved, that he was the same man.
The Earl of Charlevillebegged pardon for interrupting the noble Lord. He had the most respectable evidence to prove that he was the same man. He knew nothing about his eye, but very likely that was the cause which had prevented the surgeon to the hulks giving him a certificate. The circumstances relating to him were these—that when under sentence of transportation at the gaol of Tullamore he had behaved excessively ill, and was several times put into solitary confinement, and it was then found, that he had procured some lime, and for the purpose of getting a certificate, he introduced a portion of the lime into his eye, and was caught in the fact.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the noble Earl seemed to have information on the subject, and he was anxious to ascertain whether Coghlan was the same man or not. The noble Earl alluded to Michael Bryan. The case was this Michael—Bryan was refused by the surgeon to the transport, and sent back to gaol. When he had alluded to the grounds of the ultimate commutation of his sentence, he had stated, that they were of a mixed character, for the certificate was not of such a character as he should require, but was only a report of the state of his health. It appeared, that Michael Bryan had voluntarily given
24
10 l. to the person he had assaulted, and had also given security, and, weighing all the circumstances together, he had given him his discharge.
The Earl of Rodenwas anxious to ascertain whether the noble Marquess did discharge Coghlan out of the gaol of Tullamore upon the certificate of an apothecary of the town, or whether it was on the certificate of the surgeon belonging to the gaol?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, it was not a medical certificate, but it was signed by a medical assistant—by a person of the name of Dennis he thought. But he had not discharged him on that certificate; it was one of the ingredients only on which he had formed his judgment.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, he was prepared to produce Dr. Pierce as evidence—a man whose character stood as high as any surgeon's or doctor's in the empire, a man of undoubted qualification and great integrity—to show that this certificate of bad health had been improperly obtained. With regard to the liberation of another prisoner, a sergeant, whom the noble Marquess had stated as having risen from the ranks and lost a leg in the service, he was a man of the very worst character, a man who had married a woman of good fortune and much superior to himself, and who had behaved most infamously to her. He was a man in good circumstances, and the bail of 10 l. which he had been required to give was nothing to him. When he was sentenced to transportation it was to the universal satisfaction of the neighbourhood, and to their universal dismay when he was set at liberty. The noble Lord said, it was in a casual rencontre that he had committed the assault for which he was sentenced to transportation. It was no such thing, but was a deliberate attack on a sheriff's officer in the execution of a writ, when he had scooped out his eye with a knife in a very shocking manner.
The Marquess of Westmeathin reply said, there was the document stating that the law was to take its course, and after that, there was a well-established case of morbid sensibility—a sort of itching of the fingers to sign pardons, such as was rarely seen. The noble Lord wanted to charge him with gathering up cases. In the county of Westmeath the noble Lord had gone to the gaol, and had enlarged on view nineteen prisoners. He

25
would venture to say, that in the annals of the world there never was a case like that. Therefore, as respected the county of Westmeath, he was justified in bringing the cases forward. The noble Marquess seemed to put the hon. and rev. Mr. Brown forward to enable him to escape. He had known the hon. and rev. Gentleman from a child; he was his own friend; but he was sorry to say that on this occasion he had not acted with sound judgment. He had signed Cooke's memorial merely from good-nature, and because, being a clergyman, he did not like to oppose anything that appeared merciful. When parties were applied to to sign these memorials in Ireland, such was the system of intimidation that they dared not refuse to sign them, and this was the way they were got up. It was the peculiar duty and province of the Lord-lieutenant to have paid attention to the trials and convictions rather than to such kind of information. In conclusion, the noble Marquess said he would not press his motion.
Motion withdrawn.