Ireland (2) Print E-mail
Carlisle Patriot - 18 May 1844
STATE PROSECUTIONS. - We believe the fact to be, that the judges are
unanimous in declining to grant the motion for a new trial, as against all
the parties convicted with the exception of the Rev. Mr. TIERNEY; and that
Mr. Justice CRAMPTON stands alone, and upon some minor point, with respect
to that individual. Assuming this to be the case - and we have reason to
think the statement correct - our astonishment is increased, and our
disappointment the greater, that the Court did not pronounce judgment before
the close of the term - leaving Judge CRAMPTON's point, and his dissent fram
[sic] his learned brethren, to operate to the extent that both are entitled
to upon the public mind. As matters now stand, the impression is gone
abroad - artfully improved by the repealers and their press - that a
powerful case has been made on behalf of Mr. O'CONNELL - that the usual good
luck attends his fortunes. The prestige of his name, which began to decline,
is once more on the ascendant; and the agitation, which had considerably
subsided, is again resuscitated into vigorous life. But a more fatal effect
than all these has been the consequence of the indecision of the court. An
idea prevails that Mr. Daniel O'CONNELL and his co-conspirators have not had
a fair trial - that justice was corrupted, at its very source, in the
construction of the jury, and that the law was improperly strained by the
admission of illegal evidence. This is "a heavy blow" to the administration
of justice; and, although the sensation produced will not be borne out or
justified by the fact, when the court comes to pronounce its judgment, yet
it is not on that account the less dangerous, nor the less to be deprecated.
That doubt, says the repealers, must indeed be grave, which takes from one
term to another to be determined - that difference in opinion, must, in
truth, be serious, which demands so much time for debate and discussion with
a view to settlement. The Irish law courts are bound by English precedent.
Is it not strange that it never occurs to the judges here to adopt English
practice? We are morally convinced that the argument upon the motion for a
new trial would not have occupied the consideration of any court in
Westminster-hall three hours; and yet here it was spun out by tedious
repetitions of the same topics, and in the same words, for a period of ten
days, and not decided after all. We have said that justice itself has been
stunned by this tardy mode of its administration. The national character is
compromised, the qualities of the legal profession are impugned, the bench
is lowered in estimation, our institutions are turned into ridicule, and our
very fitness for the trial by jury - an early stage in civilization - is,
not without show of reason, brought into question. - Dublin Evening Mail.
 
< Prev   Next >