Lords Sitting of 13 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Wills of Personalty by British Subjects.

WESTMINSTER IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the Third Reading of this Bill,
VISCOUNT LIFFORDrose to call the attention of the House to the Acts 8 & 9 Vict. c. 178 and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 176. The noble Viscount said that in 1845 an Act of Parliament was passed by which a Commission was constituted to open a street leading from the Houses of Parliament to Buckingham Palace. This was be done at a cost of £150,000, and the Commissioners subscribed £50,000 among

979
themselves, re-payment of which was to be postponed until after every other debt and claim was satisfied. In 1847 another Act passed which authorized the raising of other sums, and also empowered the Commissioners to fly an unlimited number of "kites." In 1852 they bought 121 properties. The street, now known as Victoria Street, was then, opened, and the ground they had to dispose of was valued at £400,000, while the mortgages were £128,000, and the bonds £130,000, leaving a large surplus. But between April, 1852, and December, 1854, the Commissioners had incurred liabilities to the extent of £1,043,246. It was right to state that the Chairman of the Commissioners had from the first opposed these proceedings, and had remonstrated by letter and in every possible way. The Commissioners got rid of their chairman and another member, and at the end of the two years they had contrived to borrow £700,000 more than the property was worth. This property was sufficient to pay off the debts, but not a farthing would be left to the bondholders. A new Commission was now appointed, and it was most important that their good name should not suffer from former transactions; he would, therefore, state that the new Commissioners were in no way responsible for the misdeeds of their predecessors. The street was now opened, and would, when completed, be one of the finest in London. But it was necessary to put an end to the present unfortunate position of the property; and the new Commissioners had, therefore, introduced the present Bill to enable them to sell the property and pay off the mortgagees; but there would be nothing left for the bondholders. This Westminster Commission had proved a great blow to enterprises of the same kind; but it was only right it should be known that up to the year 1852 the speculation did pay, and it was owing solely to the extravagant conduct pursued after that period, and for which the present Commissioners were in no way responsible, that the undertaking had been brought to its present miserable condition. The street was then open from end to end, and the Commission had nothing to do but let the land, and carry out the object for which the aid of the Government had been granted. It ought to go forth that undertakings of this kind would pay, except in cases like this, in which such extraordinary powers were given.
LORD REDESDALEthought what had
980
been stated was very important; it had been a most extraordinary transaction from first to last. The present Bill was intended to remedy the difficulties in which the whole undertaking had been placed.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

ADMIRAL ELLIOT AND THE FRENCH DOCKYARDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he wished to refer to a matter that affected the character of a private individual. He had given notice by letter to the noble Duke the head of the Admiralty; he regretted that the noble Duke was not in his place, but he did not intend to say anything that required an answer. What he wished to refer to was a statement made by the noble Duke, on Tuesday evening, affecting the character of a gallant officer in the navy. In the course of a discussion which took place that evening on the Government of the Navy Bill, in adverting to certain statements that had been made by Sir John Pakington in "another place," the noble Duke said—
"The noble Earl first called your Lordships' attention to the question of iron-cased ships, and referred to a speech lately made in the other House, founded on information furnished to a right hon. Baronet by Admiral Elliot. Admiral Elliot went to France, and applied, through the English Minister there, for leave to visit the dockyards of that country, in the same way as French officers have often applied for leave to visit our dockyards. His request was acceded to with the civility which the French authorities would naturally desire to show in such a case. Admiral Elliot went, and saw all that was going on in those establishments; but I must confess that, under the circumstances, I sincerely regret the course which he took on his return to England. If I myself had given a French officer permission to view our dockyards, and I afterwards found that he took the first opportunity of publishing the results of his inspection in the manner adopted by the gallant Admiral, I certainly should not think he had done a very friendly act."
Their Lordships would agree with him that such a statement, made by the noble Duke, might lead one to suppose that Admiral Elliot had visited the French dockyards, perhaps under the direction of the Admiralty, probably of his own accord; but, at all events, that he did something contrary to good manners, or played something like the part of a spy; that he had come back and related what he ought not to have related; or done something he ought not to have done. He was sure the House would also admit that between the officers of the French and English Navies there ought to exist a mutual feeling of brotherly and professional respect and re-

981
gard; so that if the day should ever unhappily come when political events and difficulties should plunge the two nations into war, they might engage in that war free from any feelings of personal animosity. This would not be the case if it was thought that on either side anything like a system of espionage had been carried on. He was sure that if political differences ever led to such a melancholy event as a war between the two countries, the chivalrous feeling of the English naval officers would only be surpassed by that of the French, and even in such a war, he hoped no personal animosities would exist between them. It was, therefore, necessary there should be no misunderstanding on a matter of this kind; that there should not be the slightest impression that any officer of high rank had acted in any manner inconsistent with honourable and correct feeling. Now, what was the history of Admiral Elliot's visit to the French dockyards? Admiral Elliot went to Cherbourg, with two friends, in the yacht of one of them, with the intention of paying a visit to the French dockyards. They saw the dockyard of Cherbourg and afterwards that of Brest, by the full permission of the Prefét and authorities. The manner in which they were received showed that there was no idea they came with any purpose the French authorities were not willing to assist them in carrying out. They were shown over the arsenal and works, the French officers affected no concealment; they were proud, and justly so, of the progress they were making in the construction of the iron-plated ships. He should mention that before he left for France Admiral Elliot called on the noble Duke and told him of his intention. He asked the noble Duke if he could be of any use to the Admiralty; if he wished to have anything reported to him. The noble Duke very prudently replied, "You know all that interests us in England, I shall be glad if you can tell us anything the French are doing in which we are interested." After leaving Cherbourg Admiral Elliot went to L'Orient and Rochefort; these establishments he found he could not see without the permission of the French Admiralty. He wrote to Lord Cowley's Secretary, requesting that the permission might be applied for. It was given, and under that official permission he visited those dockyards also. When Admiral Elliot returned to England he told his
982
friends—among them the Duke of Somerset and Sir John Pakington—what he had seen, and, as far as Admiral Elliot was concerned, there the matter ended. "When the noble Duke said he had "published" what he saw he was sure he did not mean all that the scope of the word implied—that he did not mean the statement to be in any way offensive. Now, supposing Admiral Elliot, when at L'Orient and Rochefort, did see a great deal that he was not shown; supposing he saw, by accident, something of great interest, and supposing he has never mentioned what he saw? Did not that prove the character of honesty, and the absence of anything like an intention to be a spy? He could not say that such was the case, but he was bound to say that all Admiral Elliot did see he saw openly and fairly, and under the eyes of the French officers themselves, nor had he revealed to his friends or to the noble Duke anything except what he had seen in such a manner. In the absence of the noble Duke he felt that he ought not to say more, but in saying what he had he thought he had only done his duty to a brother officer in vindicating, not his character, for that required no vindication, but his acts, from the imputation suggested by the large words used the other night by the noble Duke. Admiral Elliot was only travelling for amusement when he visited the dockyards of France, and not in any way as the agent of Government.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEregretted that the noble Earl had not felt it consistent with his duty to postpone his statement. The noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty was absent in the performance of his public duties, and, therefore, had either not received the letter which the noble Earl had addressed to him, or had been unable to take advantage of it. He (the Duke of Newcastle) would have felt it his duty to interrupt the noble Earl if he had not begun by stating that he rose to vindicate the character of an absent Friend; but he still thought it would have been better for all parties if the statement had been deferred until to-morrow. That opinion was confirmed by what had fallen from the noble Earl. The Report to which the noble Earl had referred was, no doubt, accurate; but there was no charge conveyed in the observations of the noble Duke affecting Admiral Elliot's honour, although the discretion of that gallant officer in this particular instance was challenged. The noble Duke never used the

983
word "spy," but the noble Earl opposite said he rose to vindicate his friend from the imputation of being a spy. The statement of the noble Duke had been borne out, for it was within his knowledge that the conduct of Admiral Elliot had given offence to the parties concerned in Prance, who felt that his act had been far from friendly. They would have considered it was the duty of Admiral Elliot, as an Englishman, to report to the Admiralty what he had seen; but the gallant Admiral had gone far beyond that. The noble Earl said that Admiral Elliot had not "published" his information; and true it was that he had not published an essay upon the state of the French navy, but he had taken the best possible means of widely publishing his statements. If he had simply made a statement, as he did, to the noble Duke, he would have done his duty; but the gallant Admiral did far more—he not only communicated his statement in conversation to his friends, but he placed it in writing in the hands of a Gentleman who he must have expected and intended would have used the very best mode of publication in the world. A letter in the newspapers might have attracted comparatively little attention, but the debates in the House of Commons on such a subject were sure to be read. If the noble Earl would have condemned the gallant Admiral for publishing his statement, how could he approve his conduct in taking the very best means of making it public? Sir John Pakington had expressly stated in the other House that he made the statement he did upon the authority of Admiral Elliot. He (the Duke of Newcastle) had chiefly risen to explain the cause of his noble Friend's absence, and he could not but repeat his regret that the noble Earl had not deferred his observations until to-morrow.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, the course he had taken had arisen entirely from a feeling that the statement put forward by the noble Duke ought as speedily as possible to be explained, especially to our friends on the other side of the water. As to the use made of the gallant Admiral's information, all he need say was that Admiral Elliott and Sir John Pakington were personal friends; that he was justified in communicating what he had seen to his friend, and there, as far as he was concerned, the matter ended. That it was afterwards used in the House of Commons was not his act.

CHIEF JUSTICE MONAHAN.
LORD CHELMSFORD: I wish to call the attention of the noble Earl on the cross benches (the Earl of Leitrim) to the subject of a notice of Motion which he has placed upon the paper, and which stands for this day week. My noble Friend the other evening, without any previous notice, made several remarks upon the conduct of Chief Justice Monahan in reference to certain proceedings at the last summer assizes for the county of Donegal. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor instantly rose and protested in very strong terms against the course taken by my noble Friend in preferring accusations without notice, and, consequently, without the opportunity of an answer being given. The noble Earl then said he would place a notice upon the paper, which would enable us to discuss the whole question; and, in pursuance of that promise, he did put down the notice which now appears upon the paper—that he would move for the return of certain presentments. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor immediately said that such a notice did not at all advance the matter, as it gave no intimation of the nature of the charges which were intended to be preferred. I then understood my noble Friend to say that he would shape his Motion in such a way as to satisfy the friends of the Chief Justice. My noble Friend did me the honour at the time to communicate to me the particular grounds upon which he should bring under our notice the conduct of Chief Justice Monahan. I immediately expressed my opinion that there hardly appeared to be sufficient grounds to warrant such a serious step, and I said that I thought that the conduct of Judges ought not to be arraigned unless there was some specific charge of corruption, partiality, or other gross misconduct, which all persons would admit to deserve serious reprehension. I have reflected on the matter since, and I find my first impression to be the correct one. I have been struck with the inconvenience of bringing forward complaints against a Judge without the existence of serious charges. To the Judge such a course would be prejudicial, for, even if he satisfactorily answers the complaint, still the fact of the charge having been raised will be remembered against him. It will also operate extremely prejudicially for the public interest, in the administration of justice, if every Judge is to be liable to censure in Parliament upon all occasions.

985
Under these circumstances I have communicated my opinion to my noble Friend, and I hope that he will be good enough to listen to my recommendation and withdraw his Motion, which can be attended by no beneficial result, but which may prove very prejudicial for the public interest.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: My Lords, no Member of this House is more desirous to support the authority of the judicial bench than I am; and it was with sincere pain that I made the observations which I did the other evening with respect to Chief Justice Monahan. I felt strongly that what had taken place had caused much uneasiness in the locality concerned, and I did not intend to comment on the circumstances more warmly than I thought absolutely necessary. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack having complained that no notice had been given, so as to enable an answer to be prepared to my animadversions, my object in giving my Notice of Motion was to afford such an opportunity. I have, however, no desire to go on with any discussion which your Lordships may think would be prejudicial to the public interests, and I, therefore, feel great pleasure in adopting the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Am I to understand that the noble Earl withdraws his charges? If he does so I am contented, and do not wish to say anything more on this subject. But, unless he withdraws his charges, I must request him to proceed and state them.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I cannot retract a single syllable of what I said. What the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack wishes me to do is quite impossible.
VISCOUNT LIFFORDwas understood to say that charges of this kind were not considered in Ireland to be of that serious character that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took them to be. The wisest course would now be to allow it at once to drop.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I say that most serious charges were brought against Chief Justice Monahan; for if a Judge betrays his duty and makes himself a political partisan by delivering a party charge to the grand jury I think he is guilty of gross misconduct.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think the observations with which my
986
noble and learned Friend opened this discussion were in singular taste and discretion, and that my noble Friend on the cross bench followed those observations by gracefully withdrawing his notice of Motion. There the matter might have ended satisfactorily to all parties; and I must say I regret the remarks which have since fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
EARL GREY: I cannot agree with the expressions of the noble Earl opposite. It seems to me that nothing can be more unsatisfactory than that a most serious charge should be incidentally thrown out against a Judge, and that, when objection is taken to going on with that charge without notice, notice of Motion should be given, and that then that notice should be withdrawn, unaccompanied by any withdrawal of the charge itself. I put myself in the position of Chief Justice Monahan. If I were accused of abusing my position as a Judge by delivering a partizan charge, and such an accusation were formally preferred against me in this House, I should desire either that my friends should have an opportunity of meeting it, or that it should be distinctly withdrawn. Therefore, I entirely concur with my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack that one of two courses, and one only, ought to be taken by the noble Lord on the cross bench. He ought either distinctly to say that there is no ground for any imputation on the conduct of Chief Justice Monahan, or else to state publicly in this House the ground on which he condemns that conduct, and so allow those to whom that learned Judge may trust his defence to answer the charge as best they can.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I am exceedingly sorry to see the noble Earl opposite so unwilling as he appears to be to permit oil to be thrown on the troubled waters. If I also were to place myself in the position of the learned Judge referred to I feel that I should be perfectly satisfied. Of course, the honour of every man must be in his own hands, and he must be the best judge of how it is to be vindicated. But I do not believe I am less particular on that point than other public men, and I have no hesitation in stating that I with very great regret heard the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack use the expression which he did after my noble Friend (the Earl of Leitrim) sat down. My noble Friend was ready

987
to drop the subject, and willing to abandon the charges supposed to have been made. ["No!"] At all events, he said he would not bring them on before your Lordships. And when the noble Earl opposite throws out a taunt respecting accusations I must say I am not aware of any specific accusation having yet been laid upon your Lordships' Table. There was, indeed, a general expression of condemation of a learned Judge's conduct the other night, which I as much regretted to hear as any other of your Lordships; but there was not such a positive and particular charge made as to render it necessary that this House should carry this unfortunate matter further. When my noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), who is certainly as careful of the character of a Judge as any man, said what he did, and when the noble Earl on the cross bench stated that he would not proceed with or repeat the statements which he made the other evening, I am sorry that anybody possessing so much weight with your Lordships as the noble Earl opposite does, from his great ability and experience, should not have used his influence, as I have already said, to throw oil on the troubled waters.
EARL GREY: My reason for rising was that the noble Earl on the cross bench distinctly stated that he did not retract a single word of what he had said. In my opinion a censure upon a Judge ought not to be lightly pronounced. If pronounced at all, it ought to be done upon grave occasions, and with due notice, so that there might be time to prepare an answer to it; and I cannot but think that under the circumstances a Judge is not placed in a right position if an accuser does not retract his charge as well as withdraw his notice of Motion.
THE EARL OF WICKLOW: As the matter now stands, these charges have been brought forward, but have not been abandoned by the noble Earl on the cross bench, who, in conformity with the desire of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), has merely consented not to proceed further with the subject. As put by the noble and learned Lord on the "Woolsack the case is perfectly just. But, as I perceive we are not likely to have any more upon this question, I feel bound to say that, although I have had no acquaintance whatever with Chief Justice Monahan, I know the sentiments entertained by the Bar generally towards him, and I am sure it is the universal feeling in Ireland that
988
a more upright, more learned, or more impartial Judge never sat on the bench of that country.
LORD LYVEDEN: I agree that the noble and learned Lord who introduced this subject to-night did so with the best possible taste. But he said that none but the gravest charges—for example, the charge of corruption—ought to be brought against the Judges in Parliament. Now, I understood the noble Earl on the cross bench to use the word "corrupt." ["No!"] Certainly, he stated that this Judge had said on the bench what he must have known not to be true. [The Earl of LEITRIM: No!] After the violent expressions in which the noble Earl had indulged it was not sufficient that he should now say he would not persevere with his charges. It was surely incumbent on him to express some regret for the language he had used.
LORD CHELMSFORD: I really did not hear the violent language ascribed to my noble Friend. At the time he was addressing your Lordships I was otherwise engaged. I did not understand that the noble Earl made any specific charge—certainly he made no serious charge—against Chief Justice Monahan. On that I formed the opinion which I expressed, and if your Lordships really think I was wrong in recommending my noble Friend to withdraw his Motion I am sure he will not consider himself bound by anything I have said. Indeed, after the discussion which has just taken place, I will not ask him to follow my advice on the subject, unless he feels that he is entirely justified in doing so.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I am sure no one can doubt the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord opposite advised the noble Earl on the cross bench to withdraw his notice; but I cannot help thinking that the suggestion the noble and learned Lord now makes is really the correct one; and upon the whole, unless the noble Earl is prepared to withdraw the charges he made against Chief Justice Monahan on a former occasion, it is most desirable for the character of this House and of an absent Judge that the noble Earl should persevere with his Motion, and bring forward the charge in order that the matter may be discussed and disposed of. It is all very well to talk of throwing oil on the troubled waters, as a noble Lord expressed it, or making things comfortable; but this is not a matter between two sides of the House, or between one

989
noble Lord and another; it has reference to the character of an absent Judge, which is placed in the greatest jeopardy. The noble Earl denies that he used the word "corrupt," and that he ever said the Chief Justice had stated what was not true; but undoubtedly the purport of his charges was that he sitting on the bench had acted as a political partisan; and, as I conceive, a graver charge cannot be made against any Judge. How would that learned Judge stand if the Motion, in the present state of the matter, were not brought forward? The charge would remain. It would be said the noble Earl in his place in Parliament made a grave charge against a learned Judge; but on it being represented to him by the noble and learned Lord opposite that the charge was not sufficiently grave to be brought forward in that House he had withdrawn the Motion. It would be added that the noble Earl did not withdraw the charge, and the House had no opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. I do hope, therefore, the noble Earl will take one of two courses—either entirely retract the charges he made or persevere with the Motion of which he gave notice.
LORD CRANWORTH: I entirely concur in what has been stated by the noble Duke. The matter must somehow or other be brought before your Lordships; but I appeal to the noble Earl whether common fairness to Chief Justice Monahan does not require that he should shape his Motion in some other terms than those in which it now appears. In its present form it communicates nothing whatever which would enable the learned Judge through his noble and learned Friend on the "Woolsack or any other Peer to make his defence. Surely the notice ought to state distinctly with what the noble Earl charges the Chief Justice.
THE EARL OF EGLINTON: I am sorry, my Lords, to take up your time further on this matter, but this discussion ought not, in my opinion, to end without some expression in regard to Chief Justice Monahan coming from this side of the House. I can only say that from the position I held two years ago in Ireland I naturally came in contact with nearly all the Judges. I was frequently, both in society and on matters of business, brought into contact with Chief Justice Monahan; and I can assure your Lordships that there was no member on the judicial bench of whom I formed a higher opinion. I believe him
990
to be a man of extremely high character and talent, and of the utmost impartiality.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I cannot agree to follow the counsel of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth), nor do I feel in the least called upon to do so. This matter is not without precedent, as has been asserted by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. On the contrary, I find exactly similar charges were made some years ago in the other House of Parliament against an equally learned Judge—the late Baron Smith. Nay, more, I find the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the list of the majority on a division upon that occasion for an inquiry into that learned Judge's conduct.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise to order. There is at present no Question before the House. ["Oh, oh!"] That would be sufficient to stop this discussion from going on. But surely it will be expected by your Lordships that the noble Earl should not proceed to bring forward his charges without any notice whatsoever. I never complained in the slightest degree that he' should bring a charge against a learned Judge. It might be his duty to do so. My complaint was that, without retracting the charge against Chief Justice Monahan, he abandoned his intention of bringing it on for discussion.
LORD CHELMSFORD: I rise to order. When the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack calls my noble Friend to order he is not entitled to make a speech. My noble Friend was not bringing forward the charge against Chief Justice Monahan without notice; he was insinuating something against the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the Government with which he was connected on a former occasion.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I am entirely in the hands of the House. I am perfectly satisfied with the notice as it stands. I am not prepared to put on the paper a bill of indictment against Chief Justice Monahan. I will not do it. I am not, like some of my advisers, a learned Lord; I am a simple layman; at the same time I have as good a sense of propriety as any noble Lord in the House. I have had occasion to complain, perhaps to the great annoyance of your Lordships, of the manner in which the Government of Ireland is conducted. In presenting a petition from the county of Donegal, I, among other matters, animadverted on the conduct of

991
the Chief Justice; but I did not say that he stated what he knew was untrue. I said what he stated was untrue and that he must have been misinformed; that he must have received, out of court, wrong information. What I complained of was that a Judge should get information on certain matters out of doors and act upon it.
LORD REDESDALE: I really think it most desirable that this matter should end here. The noble Earl, having expressed an opinion with regard to Chief Justice Monahan, gave notice of a Motion on the subject; he is willing to say no more about it, but cannot admit that it was an indiscreet charge. A very high opinion has been expressed of Chief Justice Monahan; and he may well rest satisfied with that expression of opinion on both sides of the House—quite as well as if the charge had been discussed; and as the noble Earl is willing not to carry the matter further I really think it should be allowed now to drop.
LORD BROUGHAM: Whatever the noble Earl on the cross benches may say in words, of his refusing to retract what he before said, I consider that in substance and effect the charges against Chief Justice Monahan were withdrawn when the noble Earl consented to abandon his Motion.

TICKETS OF LEAVE—CASE OF MICHAEL GARDINER.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved for Correspondence respecting the granting of a Ticket-of-Leave to Michael Gardiner, a Convict, who pleaded guilty at the Spring Assizes for the County of Roscommon in 1849 to an Indictment for Conspiracy to murder Major Denis Mahon. The noble Earl said it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that in 1847 the south west of Ireland was in a very disturbed state, and that several magistrates and others were shot at, and attempts were made against the lives of a number of persons. Major Denis Mahon, one of the principal landowners in the county of Roscommon, was shot dead a short distance from his own residence. For this murder three persons were arrested, and tried at the Summer Assizes of 1848. One was convicted and hanged; a second escaped conviction, the jury having, through terrorism, disagreed; and the third, Michael Gardiner, who was indicted not for the murder but for conspiracy to murder, and who, in fact, plotted the whole affair, and
  992
  employed the actual murderers, offered to plead guilty if his life was spared. In 1848 there were sixty-six prisoners for trial in the county of Roscommon,' of whom four were for murder and nineteen for conspiracy to murder. In the following year, to show that crime had not decreased, there were ninety-seven prisoners, of whom nine were charged with murder and fourteen with conspiracy to murder. In the case of the murder of Major Mahon the prisoners refused to join in their panel. The man who fired the fatal shot was executed. The second was discharged, because, although he was assured by a gentleman who was present that the evidence was perfectly clear, the jury dared not agree upon a verdict. Gardiner was then put upon his trial, and offered to plead "Guilty," provided he were assured that his life would be spared. Mr. Monahan was at the time the law officer of the Crown, but it was not until subsequently, when Mr. Hatchel filled that position, that the plea was finally accepted. The result of its acceptance was that Michael Gardiner had sentence of death recorded against him—a sentence which, however, was afterwards commuted into transportation for life. He could not say in what prison the offender had, since 1849, the period of his conviction, been confined by the authorities; but in the month of March in the present year, to the great surprise of the magistrates and people of Roscommon, he received a ticket-of-leave, and was allowed to walk back to the scene of his crime, and, so to speak, to walk over the grave of his victim. It might be said he had behaved well in prison, and that according to the rules acted upon by the governors of our convict establishments he was entitled to the ticket-of-leave which he had obtained; but the simple answer to such an argument was that the sooner rules which admitted of such occurrences as that to which he was alluding were changed the better. He might add that it had been proved in evidence that Gardiner was actually the man who had loaded the gun with which the murder in question had been committed—and some explanation was, under those circumstances, he thought, due from the Government, why it was he had been set at liberty? It was but right that he should also state that Gardiner, having gone back to his former haunts, had, he believed, some time ago betaken himself to Manchester, which was the head quarters of the Ribbon Societies

  993
  of the United Kingdom, it might be there to receive instructions as to how he should proceed in carrying out the principles to which, before his imprisonment, he had been shown to be attached. He should simply say, in conclusion, that he hoped the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he did not wish to make a single observation in opposition to that revision of the rules of our convict prison which the noble Earl had suggested, but must assure him that so long as those rules remained as they were, the confinement of Gardiner could not with propriety have been continued beyond the period at which his ticket-of-leave had been granted. Although, he might observe, the noble Earl had given notice that he intended to make a Motion on the subject, he yet had not formally done so, and, indeed, there was no correspondence whatsoever bearing upon the point at issue, which, if ordered, could be produced. He might further observe, that as he understood the rules relating to the carrying out of our convict system, prior to the final abolition of transportation in 1857, it was an established regulation that a criminal who was sentenced to transportation for life, and was retained in this country, should be discharged on licence at the expiration of ten years from the time of his conviction, unless during the time of his imprisonment, he should have been proved to have been guilty of any misconduct justifying his further confinement. When transportation was abolished and penal servitude instituted in its stead, it had been found necessary to revise that rule; and proceeding analogically, it had been laid down that any convict sentenced to penal servitude for life should be kept in custody for a period of twelve years, with the same proviso as had previously existed with reference to transportion for life. But to advert to the case immediately under the notice of the House, he should remind the noble Earl he had omitted to mention that another man named Michael Brennan had pleaded "Guilty" on the same occasion as Gardiner to the same offence, had precisely the same sentence pronounced upon him, but had that sentence remitted by the law officers of the day, after having undergone an imprisonment of only two or three years, upon the ground that the evidence against him was much less clear than that against Gardiner. He had explained how
  994
  the rules with respect to convict prisons had been changed in 1857; but Michael Gardiner was convicted under the old law, and his sentence was commuted to transportation for life. Therefore, he would have been entitled to claim his discharge on licence at the expiration of ten years; but it was felt that his case was so bad that it was requisite to carry the rules to the utmost extent that was permissable, and, therefore, Michael Gardiner was detained for twelve years, and was not discharged before March of the present year. Consequently the noble Earl would see that however much the rules might require modification, no undue leniency had been exhibited towards Michael Gardiner, but that the full punishment was carried into execution. The noble Earl had stated that Michael Gardiner had been very recently walking about Stroke's Town. He (the Duke of Newcastle) was not aware that that was the case, but he was glad that the noble Earl was aware that the man was no longer in that neighbourhood, and had removed to Manchester. He was acquainted with the name of the street and the number of the house where the returned convict was residing. He could not say whether the man had gone to that town for the bad motives glanced at by the noble Earl, or from a desire to get out of a neighbourhood, a stay in which ought, from reminiscences, to be so horrible to his feelings; but the noble Earl would admit that the Government could have taken, according to the usual rules, no other course than that which had been adopted, though it might be a question whether the rules should not have more elasticity than at present.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONbelieved that the convict system in Ireland worked generally in a most excellent manner, but he was convinced, from the explanation given and from his own experience, that in this instance nobody was to blame and that the system alone was in fault. He also quite concurred in the hope that that system would be so far changed as to prevent such gross cases as that now brought before their Lordships' notice. He thought that a man condemned to penal servitude for murder for life should be placed apart from his fellow beings for the rest of his life. He was induced to intrude now upon their Lordships' attention in consequence of a case which occurred while he was in Ireland. In an island near Dublin, called Ireland's Eye, a man named Kirwan mur-

  995
  dered his wife in a most dreadful manner, and upon circumstantial evidence he was convicted and sentenced to death. A memorial, as was usual in all such cases, for a remission of the sentence was presented to him, and to his surprise the memorial was supported by the opinion of the two presiding Judges—Mr. Justice Crampton and Mr. Baron Greene, Judges of the highest character—on the plea that evidence had since come to light which ought to have been brought forward at the trial, and which might have saved the man from conviction. His own impression was that the man, if innocent, ought to be pardoned altogether, and, if not, that the extreme penalty of the law should be inflicted; but, of course, where the two Judges recommended a commutation of the sentence, he could hardly, on his own responsibility, order the man for execution. He felt so strongly on-the subject, however, that he laid the case before the then Lord Chancellor, with the intention of being guided by his decision. The Lord Chancellor concurred with the Judges, and the sentence was accordingly commuted. He nest heard of this dreadful murderer in the following way:—When he was again in Ireland, in 1858, the man's name appeared in a batch with others which were submitted to him with the view of recommending their return from Bermuda. He, however, refused to recommend the return of Kirwan, and he thought he was justified in that course. He was glad to have the opportunity of clearing himself from the imputation of having done, on his own responsibility, that which he felt at the time to be wrong, and of pointing out the possibility of the worst of murderers being brought back upon society under the present system.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, that with the present system of Government in Ireland it was almost impossible to preserve the peace of the country. With regard to tickets of leave, he thought that, if given at all, they should only allow the holders to go beyond the confines of the kingdom; least of all should men who had been convicted of the grossest crimes be allowed to allowed to return to the place where they had committed those crimes.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONexpressed the satisfaction with which he had listened to the explanation given by the noble Earl (the Earl of Eglinton) respecting the case of Kirwan, and he believed this explanation would give equal satisfaction in
  996
  Ireland. He had heard with surprise that a ticket of leave had been given to a person who had been convicted, at least, of a conspiracy to murder, and that he should be permitted again to revisit the scene of his former crime and perhaps, as had been forcibly said, to walk over the very grave of his victim. He thought that the release of a man who had committed an offence so closely allied to murder was inconsistent with the safety of human life throughout the country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas also shocked that under any system a person convicted of murder, but whose sentence of transportation had been commuted, could, after the lapse of a few years, revisit the scene of his crime. He heartily concurred in the disapproval which had been expressed with regard to such a system, and he would undertake, with the assistance of the Home Secretary and of the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Waddington), to revise that system, and see whether such an abuse could not be put an end to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREexpressed his acknowledgments for the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, and said he was quite satisfied with the result of the discussion which had been elicited.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he appeared to have been misunderstood both by the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord. What he was explaining was the rule as to convicts in Ireland. The rule as to ten and twelve years' convicts in England was quite different.
  House adjourned at Half-past Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.