The Express.
London, England, 1848-05-29 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, MAY 29, 1848.

decidedly answer in the affirmative. Bet both
questions should be deferred• until a fit answer
be made to the aßgression of the Spezia'
government. Lord FALMERaYoN's wisdom or
Lord PALMERSTON'S folly is a thing to be
by ourselves fur ourselves. We should not mix àm
op with the conduct of the Duke of SoeowaYou.
It is a rule in war, that there is extreme danger is
a general's changing his front in presence of an
enemy. Thus is it alio in policy. If lard PALMER-
hyoN's be a wr. off pokey, we should ch .nge it ; but
do not let us effect that change precipitately, during
the moment of an enemy's attack, and in consequence
of that attack, for the result can only be to afford a
triumph to that enemy.
But people say, let us do justice, and never mind
the consequence. We would prefer to say, let us do
justice, but in seasonable time, and in such a way is to
lead to no disastrous or disgracr let co. a quencee.
England his to do, in its far and complicated re-
latioes, with many nations which cannot be considered
to pewees reason or calmness and ample knowledge
like ourselves.
They and their people arc,to a great extet.t,children,
governed by fears, impulses, and Wow of inferable
simplicity and erroneousness. The orientate are all
children of this kind, and Spaniards partake of the
nature of orientate. They look upon England as a
giant of superhuman might—as a power, to excite
whose hostility or resentment would be followed by
inevitable destruction. This reverential idea—this
superstitious fear —uf the power and majesty of Eng-
land is amongst barbarous nations the greatest
guarantee of peace. It spares us altogether those an-
noying scenes of alarm and quarrel, which would
spring up every day, but for the terror of our name and
the majesty of our empire. Once allow this prestige
to be destroyed, once admit that every whipper-
snapper of a foreign potentate or minister can pull us
by the beard, fling our letters back in our faces, and
dismiss our ambassadors—suffer this, and we may
be certain that there will be no end or cessation to in-
sults. AU those who trembled so long at the
very name of the British lion, will feel such childish
delight at finding the King of the Forest so tame, so
subdued, and so sick, that every one of them will be
every moment for pulling him by the make, hammer-
ing out his teeth, and applying their housewife-
scissors to his claws.
Their amount of insult will only be measured by our
capability of sufferance. Does any one for a moment
suppose that the Duke of Sorostsvon would have
dared to send away our ambassador, had he not
tried the infliction of the previous indignity of re-
turning him Lord PALMERsTON'S letter, and found,
from the attitude of the British government, that he
might do at with impunity i) Indeed, he admits this
to be the case. The Spanish duke trod violently on the
toes of the British lion and then certainly wars.
mered out a few excuses, hoping he had not hurt him.
Tout au eantrairr," exclaim Laid, Pstifexame
and LANSDOWNE, on the part of the lion ; " your
harsh treading on the lion's toes is an indignity which
he swallows and thanks you for." Of course, SOTo.
MAYOR follows it up by a box on the ear.
If this was mere passion, or the ungovernable out-
break of temper, it would be more tolerable • but it is
no such thing. This succession of insults ia the
result of policy and calculation. The British govern-
ment sets itself up es the great opponent of the
MONTPENSIER succession. What chiefly mili-
tates again.t that succession, and keeps the
Liberia' from admitting it, is England's refusal
to recognise, and the power supposed to attend that
refusal. To humble England, therefore, and its repre-
sentative—to show the policy of the English envoy
to be not that of the English parliament—this is all
so much strength, so much elevation, given to the
MoNITENIMERs. oTOMAYOR's act deprives the Queen
of SPAIN of her only ally, and drives from Madrid the
representative of the only existing sovereign power
which ber or is friendly to her. But this is

recognised ly t‘.
precisely what the Spanish-French party want. Their
aim has been all along to sacrifice the Queer. And that
sacrifice, which they began in her marrite4e to a nin-
compoop, they hope to terminate in a forced abdica-
tion. To get rid of the presence of an English re-
presentative in the peninsula—especially to get rid of
that representative with contumely—and yet to
manage so that this contumely ebonies be received by
Englead in content and without resentment—
that is the very acme of the desires, the intrigues, the
deep and insidious policy of the Afrancesados.
The question now is—are we to gratify them P It is
quite evident from the volume of correspondence just
published, that Mr. But.wee gave no provocation ;
that SOTOMAYOR bad no presentable charge or com-
plaint against him; and that the sole reason effe,ed
far the affront—the desire to save him from the
attacks of NsevAsz's cut-throats—is either an idle
and poor excuse, or, if serious, but an aggravation of
the insult.

MR. MITCHEL has been found guilty of the offence
for which he was indicted under the statute recently
enacted for the more effectual " security of the crown
end government" of these realms, and, in conformity
with its provisions, he has been sentenced to undergo
the penalty of transportation for the term of fourteen
years. We know not whether the severity of the
punishment thus awarded and the courage with
which he met his doom, are as likely to induce
ill this side of the channel a generous disposition to
beget the exact nature of the offence, as they are calcu-
lated to enlist sympathy and regret among a certain
portion of oar fellow-subjects in Ireland.
For ourselves, we freely own that, regarding the
001 Wee unfortunately pursued by Mr. MITCHEL both
is Leh and writing as necessarily tending to the
e of blood and all the countless miseries and
crimes inseparable from civil strile, we cannot but
hope that good may result from the terrible example
thus made, and that by his removal from the midst
of an excitable populace their chance of being led to
self-destruction may have been averted.
But we should cherish this expectation with more
confidence if, in the proceedings which have led to
the painful result in question, we were not compelled
to recognise a mode of dealing with the course of
public justice, for which we have vainly sought for any
conceivable justification. We alludeto what we are with
d. ep reluctance forced to designate as the unfair,
and unconstitutional manner in which the jury
appointed to try Mr. MITCHEL was formed.
That the twelve gentlemen who were eventually
sworn did not well and truly try the issue joined, and
a true and honest verdict give according to the evi-
dence, far be it from us to say. We are thoroughly
convinced that the verdict was just and righteous.
Indeed it hardly seeing to us conceivable how,
upon the evidence given, any set of rational
and upright men, whatever their private leanings or
opinions may have been, could come to any other.
But for that very reason do we the more poignantly
regret the imputation of unfairness which unhappily
attaches to the conduct of the prosecution. The more
palpable the offence, the less motive could there have
existed for resort to the exercise of an oppressive and
semi-obsolete prerogative of the crown. But when to
the charge of oppression is added that of sectarian
and political exclusion, we know not whether most to
deplore the fatal folly of the act or to resent its injustice
and disregard of public policy and public prindplu.
It appears that, according to the jury law in Ire-
land, the sheriff of the city of Dublin is bound to re-
turn a list or panel containing 180 names, out of
which, in each case tried before the quarterly com-
mission of oyer and terminer, a jury of twelve is
chosen. The 150 names so returned by the
sheriff are directed by the statute to be indif-
ferently chosen by him out of the names that be finds
upon the general jurors' book. This book contains in
the city of Dublin about 4,800, of which two-thirds
are esthetics and one-third are proteetants ; and it is
reasonable, therefore, to suppose, that a panel impar-
tially selected from such a numerous list would at
least contain as many catholica as protestant., if not
a proportionate number. The discretion is however
left to the sheriff, and if in the exercise thereof
he thinks fit to disregard this or any other
rule which men in general would expect him to
observe, as the law stands we see no help for it. For
the case in question the sheriff returned 122 pro-
testant' and but 28 catholics. Objections having been
taken to this panel, Mr. FRENCH was examined, on
oath, as to the manner in which he had made the se-
lection of names. He declared his ignorance of the re-
ligious persuasion of the greater number whom he bad
returned, and denied that any partisan motive had in-
fluenced him. No evidence to the contrary was
adduced by the counsel for the defence; and the ob-
jection to the panel was therefore very properly over-
ruled.
But when from this ill-balanced list of 150, the
ary to try Mr. Macau came to be struck, it would
ben been but decent end seemly that every care

Make
should be takes', we is say too salmis fee
the inequality which as 11l sides was felt to lest had
against the sbet at all events to repel the fa-
'Lunatics.. selit Ihequality was the remit
of any cic deign. Men watched with
anxiety < see, wheat, the panel was called
over, what the sosneel fee the crown would do. An
ancient 'visible enables them, it would appear, to
set aside as sway names as they think fit, without as-
signing any cause. The prisoner is allowed to est
aside twenty in the same manner, but no more. When
Mr. MITCHEL had been arraigned, seventy-five out of
the 160 answered to their names ; and of these
seventy-five sixteen were catholic*. After three
or four Protestants had been suocessively
sworn as jurors, the name of one of the
catholic* on the panel was called : "hire ;"—and the
oopy of the New Testament was placed in his hand.
At this moment the Crown Solicitor pronounced the
ominous veto, and the sacred volume was trausforn d
to the next orthodox hand that appeared. And this
revolting process was repeated again, and again, and
again, until—we record it with pain—until every
catholic juroron the panel was met aside!
We shall not do our readers the injustice of sup-
posing that any comment we could make on such a
transaction could add to their sense of shame at behold-
ing such a proceeding as this take place in the name
of our sovereign Lady the Queen. When a course
somewhat similar, which had been pursued in the re-
cent trials of Messrs. MEAGHER and (YBales was
brought before the House of Commons upon Tuesday
last, the Premier, on his own behalf and that
of Lord CLARENDON, absolutely and uncondi-
tionally repudiated all complicity therein, or
sanction thereof. And, as to the other lead-
ing members of the Irish administration—the
Chancellor (BaADT), Sir W. Soneavitte, and Mr.
REDINOTON —We believe that no suspicion of their
privity to such a transaction has ever been whispered
or entertained. Where the responsibility fairly and
truly lies, we venture not to say; but this we eesitate
not to declare, that if the government value the
public opinion of either England or Ireland, a full
and searching investigation must be forthwith insti-
tuted, and means peremptorily taken to prevent the
possibility of its recurrence.
T. at erapt to govern Ireland by the Orangemen
at this time of day is out of the question; std if the
insolent extruaion of every catholic from the ordinary
jury-box does not mean • his, in the name of pestilent
and perilous lolly, what dues it mean ?