The Express.
London, England, 1860-11-06 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF TIE DAILY 101/1.

Fits,— I know that your journal, although Ce`
&lardy the able admialle et a marital mehalaistration of
the tee, has lately mailed its applaud of the mirdkt in the
awe ,4 the coovict llstYaa Nemethrilesa, I request that
you *ill permit oar who venters, to differ from your
opinion to assign some reams which appear to him oaf-
rkieetly cogent to justify tk. itawagatt• intermation of the
Home Department with • view to the arra* alike sentence
of death.
I bog to imam youths* I do met depreciate, may I respect,
the p pular dkreb4 which sot unilaterally Masao upon the
effort of • prince isetiridmal to restrain the hewed tasting
which invokes the public vengeance upon • criminal wham
guilt has beet established is the opinion of a large parties
of society, after • solemn Mid before a judge sailasst far
hie reperiews in inch maw, and not Wm so foe the skill
terupenal by huneouty which ha bylaw to bear in his judi-
cial mayor of crime. I alias* coq at its value the
anouneet that after a palliest homing of • rase by • jury
clearly minuted by a omaciastious amuse of duty and their
uraniniemi verdict, the amateurs of Ms law should be up-
held. Those aromeata are entitled to respect, bat they
an sot irrefragable, sad should sot stead in Me way of jus-
tam Par my OW SI part, I bag to urge that I was preeent
the trial of Mullins from tle 0011=e11CUIOS to AI condo.
aim, lad watched with intense Mmes. all its Merida* and
that Livia( had eo..e opportunitise of observing the errors,
Irma which twee the puree* administration of justice is not
entirely exempt, I have deliberately arrived at an opiaion,
seenriees natal, that ct ie atom that tamale— that ft I. pail.
Lively aajmi and rentiai7 to law to carry out the matence
la this ear.

Permit me b, my that esete mental effort ei needed to
discipline the feeliap le se to Fiord the CUOVilli strictly
fa We presumed ainnisios with the ENtlisit d Yr& limn-
ley. indeed, it le Minh to forget the asteeediede °MN
samembie old sere, sad to Aiwa Sri mows at Was 110-
wain wide emartelso that burrs be hod giednded in
nut. life se e gm b the mewbe el the pehee, ti • sely
.moral somesee el web keisaliss Ski in satunr sip

;Mod envictost of ;fail ;vain Such fromatm
it Jo to too npottalonll sot main too aitagly Won
donor of milt. miii an may, too. .bo istaing

that the ceeeree is the sated mordent of Str;
Smoky ere ovevinced thee be eseipmed the Resweee of
Soar her the brink motive Oda entiM laitleate tie
k Wert. Sock pas= oast pennive they theme
aeons ere distinct awl eosin sot to be nenfensded ;
they twee the lost the Mains We bees tried end
convicted eddy for the Mader of Km Braley, and We
socor been holly iierged .4th the eillence d eemeeely
infirm degree. wire the life of Innen Frees orb
irregular tribunals of opinion, I Wm to thins on whore de•
volveg the treateadee• Winona' of rectify* silmisistrative

error, ~nd I entreat th not to ems a deaf an, to repro-
seetutione in favour of life, however feebly or tardily
arged. and to earaitkr to the lad hour whether any
doubt obtains if the leplity of the convietios in
this case. I comedestly invoke the assistance of the learned
Chief flame himself, the presiding judge at the trial, and
now when he can calmly commune with himself, I invite
biro to review the terms in which he placed this case before
the jury, and to ask himself if be be perfectly easy with the
result of his reflection. Ignoble natures hesitate to confess
their errors, but I know that the distinguished judge,
towards whom I entertain feelings of profound respect, in
too magnanimous and too just to be ininenoed by false
pride, and even sow, if babe conviacedthst he failed on say
essential point in directing the jury who found a verdict ce
guilty. he will not hesitate to atone for his omission by an
act still happily within his power. The ablest judges
who Lase grata[ our courts have fallen inadvertestly into
error. The wonder is, whoa one redecta upon the DOM-
mrily tedious and complex character of a trial fora serious
offence—the intricacy of the facts detailed, the incosgrei•
ties and contradictions in the evidence, and the necessity of
rapidly arranging sad rendering intelligible to untechnial
understanding the chaotic mass—that a failure of juges
shouhl be of such rare occurrence.

The important question to be considered I. this : has the
convict been convided upon leo! evidence! Standing upon
the true doctrine of cirinumAdwial evidence, I answer
humbiy in the negative.
The Lord Chief Baron having informed the jury that the
evidence upon which they were to form their opinion was
of the kind designated as " circumstantial ^ this defined
the n.dure of the term, and I borrow the detuition from
the fullest report published of his lordship's charge : " Cir.
cumatantial evidence meant a number of facts, which, if
believed, left in the mind of a rational man no reasoeable
doubt as to a particular concluaioo." I object to this de-
finition, which it is well to bear in mind for its want of can-
pletenem ; the defect is ineffably important ; but notwith•
standing the definition wee submitted with a personales
force which could nut fail to operate with irresistible in.
ineoce upon the debbeimmes of the jury, when connected
with matter of a quality such as the following quotations
from the charge, as reported in the public journals, will
indiotte :

" The oast important pews of evidence against the pri.
poser was the pared, and if they should beheve he (Mal.
btu) roads it up, they most form their own opinion as to
the effect of that evidence."—Deily Fero.
" With regard to the parcel, there could be no doubt
that whoever placed it there was connected with the
snarder."—Tina.

" The primmer had sot in any manner attempted to ac-
count for the poriemios of tile cheque."—Morairig Post.
fly own recollection of the words need by the Lord Chief
Benin &CA not exactly agree with theme versions. Thom
who Listened to the very powerful addrees of his lordship
will not forget that his leaguers, if not syllogistic, was at
Inset suggertive, and vary much resembling, if not mutually,
these words :—" Who plead the wool in the shed! It was
not Emma—then is &brisket proof of his innocence. Wm
it the primmer Owed It there ; and if so, who cuattuitted
the mural. to'

From the foregoing attracts train the charge—differing •
lat'e o terms, but subrtaattally agreeiag—it will appear
wri lent that the learned Chief Biron himself eateristinal at
that marmot the belief that the prisoner had piing the
parted is the shed, sad that the fact of his haring phial II
there wee, u his judgment, easethaire evident* of his
ban " corteeraed la the murder : e in other words, of
bin being the actual murderer. The interrogatory,
" Wes it the prisoner plead it then" area
equiraleat to raying—end the jury so understood
the questioa—that the primmer had plaoed
there. Thus interpourting the gumbos in its unmistakeable
algal/Wows let me present the resaoaing in logical form.
The primmer placed the parcel in the shed. The pence
who planed the parcel in the shod is the murderer, therefore
the prima r i the murderer ! It appears to me that a most
dimpres• Macy larks la this argument, to which I shell
phonily advert

A carious coincidence has marked the progress of this
trial ; it ambles see to appropriate to toy aliment • lucid
explanation of the Mare of circumstantial evidence by a
learned Irish jade". Almost coatempormsomly with the
trial of Mollies dm Lord Chief Moron of Irelead has bees
'aimed is trying a am charged with the murder of his wile.
The ',ideate fa he crows has bees "'direly circumstan.
teL The feria of the ease may be briefly stated. The
primmer imd his wife tecupled a bedroom, sad the wit* wee
fogad dead aster dreamiest."' of grave ampisioa. Chid
/Moe Apt, is hie charge to the Jury, thus 0110Cilitib` laid
dews the law of " denmasatial midterm :

"The primmer iadieted for the murder of bit wife,
sad they were called epee to corrict him of that beams
camel epos what wee called ' cirmumMatial widows:
Evidestie of that Ware meeisted of • settee of testa, frees
which • jury might later that the set charged era dame.
Mellon h them me as direct proof of it ; Mt in atheist
at • conclusion on circumstantial evidence it was amender,
that Me aerie, of feele ia proof should be sot merely coo.
Mites' with Me guilt of the amused, but inconsistent with
soy retinas! Weise, of kis immeace. It was sot mouth
that the facts is proof should lead to street euepacirm—se
valid verdict couM be found Irma that. It was meratial
that the ciemunelances taken in the whole shoold satisfy the
jury that no reasonable iaferruce except that of the guilt
of the swami could be drawn from them."
The jury very properly acquitted the primer.
Collet* the definitions of "circulostamitial madam" as
teepee Ural, given by the Chief Barons of Eatitad sod lee.
load, I own my preference for that propoemded in Imbed,
and applying the Met maisised ia the latter to the are of
Manias I coMerad that Mare act • poetic& of
impi evidence that be meamitted the murder fir
which he is doomed to death. The lad
(lief Bum rather ladlatmatly rejected, as being atteely
mingle's, the direct mad offered for the prosecution otthe
guilt of Mathes. The learned Judy ',baked the istrodur
tics of evidence " not of • mature to lead to the imputatim
oentaised in the indiatmeat," sad directed the jury to re-

'1" PCT°lir
THE EXPRESS,

pal " the pethesies of the cheque" as the ell-haportipt
fact ; and " the pining al it rims" the set merely as-
sumed—it mey be said to have been *et floc panted. Is
effect Mullins, tried for anarder, was head galley of hay-
rag the deign in his pommies and piecing it is the field.
The evident* of guilt, however, extracted from the assumed
pommies of the cheque, seem to me to case
whine the category of that species of proof des-
cribed by Archbishop Whateley (" Elements of Rhetoric."
Part 1, c. 2, s. 2) :—" As far, thee, as any cause
popularly speaking has • taring to produce • captain
effect; so far its 'listening is an ergamont for that of the
ant. U the cause be fully sufficient, sad no impediment
utterance, the effect in question knows certainly, and the
soarer we approach to this the stronger the argument."
The archbishop proceeds to thus describe the fallacy of this
argument "This V the kind of argument which produces
(when shod of absolute certainty) that ipecac' of the pro-
bthie which is usually celled the plausible." I might ex-
tend to an intolerable length my argument against the legal
sufficiency of the proof that Mullins ever placed the parcel
in the tiekl ; but to accelerate my conclusion, I cognede that
be did place the parcel where it was subsequently found,
sad that this act was • part of an abortive pin aphid the
life of Emma ; and then approaching the point of my arp-
meet, I ask. after the admissioa which I h►ve made,
what evidence does this act of Mullins afford of his
connexion with the murder Is it coachisive that be corn.
nutted the murder Mains has not bees indicted as an
accessory after the fact, but he is hand guilty of
the murder. Adopting the words of the Chief Bane Pigot
co the trial, to which I kayo already made reference. I ask
is the fact of Mane *nag the parcel in the I'M " not
merely cuesistent with the guilt of the accused, but mown-
intent with say rational infersece of his innocence of the
murder! I should shrink from pointing to any quarter
when winpicion might rest with as much foundation as
ups the einvict. Manias is old sod shattered, and of an
ap apparently more than that scripturally allotted to man.
At rash a period of life the wicked purpose falters and
tells. One is permitted in ouch a case as thia—
min hewed to ripecielate —to exhaust hypotheses if
gasiessary, end I shod= entsuit • possible case. Supposing
OM nen ese erainsetei with Mullins by companionship,
et Ike el kindeed, famine" with the habits of the murdered
woman, aged emelese of bier wealth, and without privity
with thane. Md eseamit the vile and profitless murder,
sad that be earned c the articles which had belonged to
his victim, and deposited them is the abode of Mullins for
mhty, and that the Isar Win these, possibly identifying
them, and rubsequestly being impelled by his amenities,
and instigated by the devil, did, in parsons:* of his old
trade, use these articles for the destruction of Emma and
for the aeiraintion of the reward offered by the polka—
ing& he. base sad deserving of the heaviest punishment
as be unienbially would be—ought he, ors the bare evidence
of these articles being" in his poseession," be convicted of the
murder of MAIL *ashy! This imaginative case may per-
chaste approximate to the facts of this horrible trimmer
tion ; at least it suggests • possible condition of things con-
sistent with • rational inference of Use innocence of Mullins
of actually participating in the murder, and therefore legally
excludes the verdict obtained against
Before I conclude, allow me to expren my ores
apprehension that the Lord Chief Baron was sot
entirely s•tisfed with the finding of the jury. In
passing sentence he thus addressed the prisoner:—
"If you can even now make it manifest that you are
innocent of the charge, I do sot doubt that every attention
will be paid to any cogent proof laid before those with whom
it rests to carry the law into execution." We know that
the gate of mercy even is this world is never soiled against
the admission of truth, but the unusual character of this
address at such • time would almost lead to the belief that
the Lord Chief Baron himself felt that there was • want of
direct evidence against the man before him which troubled
him on reflection.

I have done. I have possibly fatigued yon with • tedious
argument in favour of • wretched man, who, I fear, bus
sinned grievously in many respects against society, but
where soul, for aught we know in the abeam of anerrbg
demonstration, u guiltlees of the crime for which be le
domed to die. Lf I may presume to suggest • safe coulee
of proceeding with regard to tkis person, I submit that her
Majesty should grant him • pardon for the crime of which
he has been ooevicted, and then that the law officers of the
crown should coosider the propriety of indicting him for the
substantive offence of compassing the destruction of Emma.
The irrevocable punishment of death on grounds possibly
questionable will be thus averted, and Gamily justice may
triumph upon les* evidence of the guilt of Mullius in re-
lation to his °dome against Emma—l am, fin.,
November 2.

ri; r11;1-Arra '410"-rel/ 7• I
•
TUESDA Y EVENING, NOVEMBER
Ride *ntellignct.
EQUITY 001311T8.—Nov. 5.
Wore the Load Chaneellor.)
dimsK IMAIIIILL.
The arguments in this pert-heard case, which wee re•
ported in this journal yesterday, were concluded. The
Lord Chancellor stated that he would give his judgment
on Wednesday morning.
The next owe, " Jenne: v. Jenner, " was only partly
opened at the rising of the court. We therefore postpone
our report.

(Before the Master of the Bolls.)
CIDNIOCK AND OALNIVOILTNT T. HAINIEDST.—DXIDCBREIL
The plaintiffs, the well-known auctioneers in Waterloo-
tee,offled their bill in this case with a view to obtain •
for specific performance by the defendant of • written
agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant, whereby it
was witnessed that in consideration of the plaintiffs
having advanced to the defendant the sum of 1,500/. on
account and in part payment of the proceeds of the pro-
perty mentioned in the agreement, the latter would commit
to the plaintiffs' custody and care, for sale by auction, or
otherwise, the great historical collection of manuecripts,
books, paintings, enamels, and various other weeks of eat,
upon the defendant's premises, No. 13, Upper.
street, upon the following term', viz., a commiltstlitt
per cent. upon the amount realised by the tale, and sng
commission was to include all incidental expenses incurred
for properly introducing the property to public notice. The
agreement also contained provisions as to the payment to
deendantof the balance of the proceeds of the Isle,
and the re-delivery of such articles as should be boy& in.
The defendant represented the collection as being of great
value, and as likely to realise at least 15,000/. Part of It
woo delivered to the plaintiffs in pursuance of the agree-
ment, end sold by them in June lest, bat owing to various
circumstances such part produced much lees than the de-
fendant had anticipated. It realised about 700/. only. Diffe-
rences having arisen between the plaintiffs and defendant,
the latter refused to deliver to the former any further part
of this collection. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought to com-
pel bim to do so by the decree of the court, and the bill
also prayed that the defendant might be ordered to pay to
the plaintiff, suck sum as the court might think proper to
award for damages for the lose sustained by them by -roam
of the defendant's conduct.

Ihe defe;dantpntti;:cionnurrer, which was supported
by Mr. Lloyd and Mr. E. Fry. Hr. R. Palmer and Mr.
Dickerson appeared in support of the bill.
Hia Honour allowed the demurrer, on the ground that the
question was one of damages, and ought, therefore, to be
decided at law.

(Before Vice-Chsacallor Sr R. T. Kindorsley.)
WIDFIELD r. TUNDFIELD.

A petition was presented in this owe from the lord of
the manor of Dovercourt, praying that notwithstanding the
appointment of a receiver of the Lower Wick Farm, de-
vised under the will of a Mr. Randlield, he may be at
liberty by his bailiff to enter upon and take possession of
the property until the customary fine on the admission of
the tomtit upon the court-roll has been paid. A question
had been raised under the will of Mr. Randfield as to the
estate which his son, William Cass Handflekl, took under it,
and the House of Lords held that he took an estate in fee
with an !executory devise over. William Cass Handheld
was admitted on the rolls of the court in 1854 and paid the
customary fine, and he died in 1856, and as he had no son
the executory devise over took effect ; under these cir-
cumstances the lord claimed that the devisees ought to be
admitted and to pay another fine, and the question which
was argued before the court was practically whether under
these circumstances the fine paid by William Cass Rand.
field enured to those who took under the executory
devise.

Mr.Prendergairt appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Dicken-
son for the devisees, and Mr. Kay for the widow of the tee-
tetor, who is entitled to an annuity charged by the will on
the property in questioa. Mr. Shibbsare appeared for parties
intimated in the personal estate.
His Honour said he had to consider whether the case was
dear to the lord or it was clear against him. Uhe felt
like a reasonable doubt on the subject he should
it right to give the lord leave to enter ; but it appeared
to him that the lord was not entitled, and that in such a
ease as the present the admittaece of the first tenant
enured to the benefit of those entitled to the remainder in
fee. He should therefore dismiss the petition with oust&