The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 28, 1864.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, July 27,

The July adjourned sessions for criminal business were
continued to-day at Clerkenwell, before Mr W. H. Bodkin,
the Assistant-Judge. Mr J. Payne, Mr H. H. Harwood,
Dr Jervis, Mr Loveland, and Sir James Tyler, justices.
Ellen Jones, 27, and Mary Lewis, 29, were charged with
stealing :Os. from the person of Mrs Eliza Bull, of 28,
Duke-street, Manchester-square. _

Mr Kemp prosecuted; Mr Sergeant Tindal Atkinson
and Mr Pater wero counsel for the defend.

The prosecutrix, a widow lady, had drawn £3 from the
Bank of England on the morning of the 29th of June.
Thence she walked to Newgate-market, where she changed
one sovereign, and was cautioned by the tradesman to take
care of her purse. She then walked to Farringdon-street,
and at the bottom of llolborn-hill got into one of the Ge-
neral Omnibus Company's large omnibuses which run to
Paddington. In Holborn the two prisoners got into the same
vehicle and they alighted close to Regent's. circus. Almost
at the same instant Mrs Bull found her purse had been
pulled from underneath her handkerchief, and was resting
at the mouth of her pocket, open and empty. She made
known her loss, and a gentleman named Parker followed
the prisoners. He lost sight of them for about ten minutes,
and they were then taken into custody just as they had en-
tered another Paddington omnibus on the other side of the
crossing at Regent's-circus. A sum of 16s in silver was
found on one and £1 14s Bid on the other. The cons did
not correspond with those stolen, and the theory of the pro-
secution was that one sovereign had been changed by the
prisoners while they were lost sight of by
Mr Parker. The
purse was not produced, and the conductors of the omnibuses
were not called to prove the opening statement of counsel—
that if their destination was, as they said,
the Edgware-
road, the prisoners might have gone there in the first Pad-
dington omnibus without alighting at IL egent-circus.

The jury found the prisoners not guilty.
Ellen Jones was then charged on another indictment with
stealing £5 from the person of Martha Thompson.
This was also an omnibus robbery, The prosecutor lives
at Tulee-hill, and was a passenger in a Brixton omnibus
on the 13th June, to the West-end• At Kennington-
park the prisoner entered, and she left at Stangate, West-
minster. When the omnibus reached Charing-cross, Mrs
Thompson discovered that her pocket had been cut and her
purse abstracted. The purse was found on the seat, but
her money was gone. The conductor identified the prisoner
after she had been taken into custody on the other charge.
The jury found her guilty, and sentence was postponed
to allow inquiries to be made.
The Assistant-Judge, in reference to the first case, said
it had not been brought before the Court with the care
which should be bestowed when a solicitor was employed.
There was no witness to prove the routes of the two Pad-
dington omnibuses, and the purse was not produced.
Mr Kemp said they were under the impression that the
policeman could have proved the routes.
The Assistant -Judge said that solicitors should not act
on impressions. .

e,esmspsatihdanthaltirnoßoenared
who instructed him. The
expended greater care in get-
tinli r Kemp
statement made by a witness in a solicitor's office often
differed from the statement of the same witness upon oath.
If two witnesses were called to prove the same facts, the
solicitor was blamed for incurring unnecessary expense;
but that was really the only mode of guarding against
failure of proof.

The Assistant-Judge said the first case was pot brought
there in a proper shape, and the interests of public justice
might have been prejudiced thereby.
Francis Fish, 45, described as a carpenter, was charged
with maliciously wounding a cabinetmaker, named James
Hills.

It appeared that the prisoner had emigrated to Australia
kith his first wife, and on his return about 17 years ago she
left him to take service with a lady who came home in the
same ship, Ho then married a young woman, named Eliza-
beth Durwood, by whom he had a son, who was now 10
years of age, and ho lived with her up to the beginning of
1862. Previous to that time an intimacy had sprung up be-
tween the prosecutor and the prisoner, and the former, who
is separated from his wife, was a guest at the latter's table.
Durwood suddenly left the prisoner, taking the child with

her, and he discovered her cohabiting with the prosecutor
Hills. The prisoner was prosecuted for bigamy, as he said,
at the instigation of Hills, and ho suffered two months' im-
prisonment for the offence. He subsequently found that
Durwood had left Hills, and he then took away his son, but
employed the mother to work for him. On the 2d July he
went to fetch a pair of the boy's trousers from the mother's
residence, in Gloucester-street, Hackney-road, and he there
encountered Hills. Words ensued. Hills had a stick and
the prisoner had a saw which he had just taken out of
pledge. They brandished these weapons, and Hills received
a cut in the forehead from the back of the saw, which
caused a wound 4i inches in length, and one which pene-
trated to the bone.
The Assistant-Judge left it to the jury to say whether
the wound was caused intentionally or accidentally.
The jury found the prisoner not guilty.
The woman Durwood was examined, and admitted having
slept with Hills in the same room in which her son by the
prisoner was sleeping, and having written to Hills for
money shortly before the 2d of July, when this occurrence
took place.
A remarkable circumstance connected with the case was
that the first wife of the prisoner, who is still in respectable
service, was present at the police court when this matter
was under investigation, and has visited him since at the
House of Detention, in order to provide him with some
trifling extras.

The prisoner, who seemed elate 1 at his acquittal, thanked
the jury, and said to the woman Durwood that she might
go with Hills if she liked.

The Assistant Judge said his advico to her was to have
nothing to do with either of these men.

Patrick Roberts, 20, was convicted of stealing a gold
watch and chain from the person of Mr James Grant, the
editor of the Morning Advertiser.
Lockyer, the prison officer, proved numerous convictions
of the prisoner from 1856 to the present time in the names
of Brien, 0' Brien, Anderson, Williams, and Jones.
The Assistant-Judge, after sentencing him to five years'
penal servitude, said that the public were much indebted to
Mr Grant for the manner in which he had followed up the
matter and brought the prisoner to justice,

(Before Mr. Payne.)
Patrick O'Brien, 21, a shoemaker, was charged with
assaulting Thomas Curzons, 318 D, when in the execution
of his duty.

Mr Cooper prosecuted; Mr Besley defended.
The prisoner was drunk and fighting with another man
in Barrett's-court. He struck the officer several times in
the face, and in the struggle they both fell. The constable
was for 16 days unable to perform his duty.
The prisoner was convicted, and four previous convictions
for assaults having been proved, he was sentenced to nine
months' imprisonment with hard labour.

James Roach was charged with stealing a coat, waistcoat,
trousers, and a comb, belonging to Thomas Fitzgerald.
Mr Cook prosecuted; Mr Starling defended.

The two men lodged in a common lodginghouse, and in
the absence of Fitzgerald, Roach broke open his box and
stole his clothes, The comb was found upon him.
The jury found a verdict of guilty, and he was sentenced
to six months' imprisonment.

The hail cases are appointed for Monday next, and, as all
the other cases have been tried, the court will not sit again
until that day.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

HOME CIRCUIT—INTAIDsToNE, July 27.
CIVIL SIDE.
(Before Mr Baron Martin and a Common Jury.)
HALL V. HOBBS.

This was an action to recover damages for an assault.
The llon. G. Denman, Q.C., and Mr Willoughby were
for the plaintiff; Mr M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr Sergeant
Parry, and Mr Philbrick for the defendant.
The parties in this action both carry on business as
masons and builders at Deptford, and it appeared that some
ill-feeling existed between them in reference to trade trans-
actions, and owing to ono of them having obtained a certain
contract with the local board of works for which the ether
had sent in a tender. The case, on the part of the plaintiff,
was, that on the 28th of May the parties met, and after a
few words had passed between them the defendant kicked
the plaintiff on a certain part of his person. The defence
was that the plaintiff was continually annoying the defen.
dant, and that he said something offensive to him on every
occasion when he met him, and that before the assault was
committed the plaintiff had called the defendant a -

sweep, and that, irritated by his conduct, he gave him a
kick; but it was said that he only had a slipper on at the
time, and, therefore, could not have done much mischief.
A good deal of laughter was caused during the trial by the
cross-examination of the plaintiff by Mr Chambers, who
insisted upon knowing the exact spot where the kick took
effect ; and it appeared that, pursuant to an order made by
one of the learned ju:ges the plaintiff had undergone an
examination by two medical gentlemen with a view to
ascertain the actual amount of damage that ho had sus-
tained, and, according to their evidence, he had not been by
any means so seriously injured as he represented ; bat at
the same time it should be stated that this examination was
not made until several weeks after the occurrence.

The jury in the result gave a verdict for the plaintiff,
with £35 damages.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

TIMES —The jealous watchfulness of the Howe
of Commons has undoubtedly discovered a grave
fault in the Extradition Treaty between Prussia
and this country. The inviolable asyiutu afforded
by England to political refugees is a fact of which
we are all justly proud. It is extended with impar-
tiality to absolutist and revolutionary exiles—to
fugitives from the terror of Princes and from the
terror of mobs. The most popular Minister of his
time has been driven from office because he was sus•
petted of an intention of tampering with the pro-
tection which we grant to all political offenders.
Prussia cannot expect to receive the concessions
which have been denied to France. There is, in-
deed, a precedent which fully covers the Convention
Parliament is now called upon to sanction. The
Convention made with Prussia this year is iden-
tical in terms with a Treaty made with Denmark in
1862, and we may be suspected of mean and un-
worthy motives in refusing to approve it. If it be
necessary, we must submit to such a misconstruc-
tion. The clauses of the Extradition Treaty with
Denmark passed per incurianz, and it would be
better that they should be immediately reformed
than that the error once made should now be re-
peated. No one will question the wisdom of an Ex-
tre dition Treaty when confined in its operation to
criminals accounted such by all nations. Least of
all would its propriety be doubted at a time when
our policemen are speeding across the Atlantic in
pursuit of the murderer of Mr. Briggs. The Con-
vention between England and the United States
provides for the surrender of such an offender, and
it would be a reproach to the civilisation of both
communities were it otherwise. It cannot be of
advantage to either nation that men guilty of acts
which are accounted crimes by both should, by
passage from one to the other, escape punishment.
Yet it Muller, instead of flying to America, had
betaken himself to his native Cologne, we should
have been unable to substantiate any claim for his
surrender. No apter instance can be adduced of the
desirability of au Extradition Treaty between
Prussia and England, provided its operation was
properly fenced and guarded. Had the treaty
which has been drawn up be©n similar to the
conventions between England and France and
between England and the United States, it would
have been adopted without a question by the House
of Commons. Unfortunately there is a material dif-
ference between it and them. The Prussian Treaty
does not sufficiently provide for that which on
abstract grounds must appear desirable, and the
necessity of .which has been proved by experi-
ence. The Power called upon to surrender
a Criminal should be satisfied of the crimi.
nality and substantiality of the offence with
which he is charged. It, is not enough that we
should demand the surrender of John Smith, who
has taken harbour in New York, unless we can show
that there is evidence against John Smith sufficient
to render him liable to be tried for the same offence
in New York if it had been committed there. In
the same way, when Anderson, the fugitive slave,
was demanded from the Governor of Canada by the
President of the United States, the Colonial Judge
before whom the case ultimately came rightly re-
leased the prisoner on the ground that the offence
charged against him was not murder according to
English law. The Treaties between this country
and France and America, and the acts of Parlia.
meat giving effect to them, provide that the magis-
trate who may be called upon to commit a supposed
offender shall be satisfied that there is evidence
against him which would justify his committal for
trial for the crime of which he is accused if the
alleged guilty act Lied taken place in England. It is
strange that Sir George Grey should have asserted,
in answer to the criticism of Mr. Seymour Fitz-
gerald, that the original Treaty between England
and France, which was ratified by an Act of 1843,
was no longer in force. The Home Secretary said
that a later Treaty, of 1852, to which effect had been
given by au Act of 1853, had supplanted the former,
and the old safeguards had been abandoned. If the
later Treaty has any existence, it seems certain that
it hes never been ratified by Parlament. The only
modification of the Act of 1843 which has been
made is to allow a metropolitan police magistrate
to commit an alleged offender; the nature of the
evidence justifying the committal has never been
in the slightest degree varied. The law remains
now as it was 20 years ego, and before the requisi-
tion of a French Ambassador can be complied
with an English magistrate must be satisfied that
there is evidence against the accused of having com-
mitted an offence which is a crime at English law.
The Convention with Prussia departs from this
sound principle. By it the English Government
not only binds itself to give up a person accneed,
on having stitisfac,ory ev;Acnco of his ty;;;.ng

guilty of crime, but also to give up any one who
has been convicted, upon receiving an authenti-
cated copy of his conviction. This last clause
gives no power to us to review the grounds I
of the conviction of the accused ; and when we
couple this with the mode of legal procedure in
Prussia, the serious character of the addition is ap-
parent. A person accused of crime may be sum-
moned to take his trial, and upon his non-appear-
ance proceedings may be taken against him in his
absence, and he may be convicted en conturnace. A
mere political offender, an inhabitant of Prussian
Poland, for instance, engaged in a fatal affray with
the police, and escaping, might, in his absence, be
convicted of murder, and there would be no answer
to a demand for his extradition. The action of the
proposed law will be seen if we imagine that such
a clause had occurred in the American Convention,
and the American Courts permitted proceedings par
contumace. It would not have been necessary to
submit to the Canadian Court any evidence of the
nature of Anderson's offence ; a mere certificate of
his conviction, accompanied by proof of his identity,
must have secured his surrender. We have said that
there is a complete parallel to the Convention be-
tween Prussia and England, and the advocates of
the Extradition Bill now before Parliament are en-
titled to the benefit of it. The Convention between
Denmark and Great Britain, signed in April, and
ratified in May, 1862, and confirmed by an Act of
Parliament of the same year, is in its terms pre-
cisely the same as the Convention with Prussia.
The objectionable clauses of the latter are copied
word for word from the former. But this is an
argument for putting an end to the Convention with
Denmark rather than for seconding it by adopt-
ing the Convention with Prussia. Either of the
high contracting parties to the Danish Convention
is at liberty at any time to give notice to the other
of its desire to put an end to the agreement, and in
such case the agreement ceases and determines at
the expiration of six months after the notice,
Now that our eyes are open to the danger of being
bound to surrender a convict without inquiry it
would be proper to give notice to terminate the 1
Treaty, with a view to obtaining a withdrawal of
the objectionable clause. In any case we ought
not to repeat our error. The Attorney. General
confessed the weakness of our position when tie
became eloquent on the love of freedom which
characterizes our Judges. No one will dispute the
truth of the digression, but it was nail ad rein.
The Judges are doubtless jealous of Acts of Parlia-
ment of this kind, and would take care, if pos.
Bible, not to assist in the surrender of persons as
criminals who are not criminals, but they would
have no choice. The words of the proposed statute
are express. An authenticated copy of the con-
viction and proof of the identity of the person
convicted being produced, a magistrate is bound
to commit the fugitive as a step to his extradition.
There is no room for inquiring whether the acts
perpetrated make up the crime of which the accuse d
has been found guilty. Such a state of the law is
one which can be tolerated with difficulty, and
which certainly should not be extended. We have
made a mistake in entering into such a compact
with Denmark; let us not wittingly confirm another
such mistake in a compact with Prussia.
DAILY NEWS.—Austrian politicians are com-
plaining loudly of the arrogance and rapacity of M.
de Bismark, who displays in his dealing with Ger-
many the same qualities which they applauded
in his treatment of the Danes. No power in
Europe has done so much as Austria to aid M. de
Bismarck to attain a bad eminence. Its Govern-
ment has abetted all his plans, and lent him mate-
rial help to carry into execution designs as inimical
to the liberty of Germany as to the independence of
Denmark. He is now sorely trying the temper of
the people and governments of Germany, and having
once proved how far unscrupulousness and audacity
will carry a statesman in these days, he is not likely
to desist until he encounters German statesmen wide
perceptions as clear and a will as ,resolute as his
own. The complaints of the Austrians relate to the
political and military attitude of Prussia on the eve
of the negotiations for peace, and are shared by the
smaller German States. The pretensions of Prussia
as to the Duchies wrested from Denmark are
not as yet fully and definitely avowed. But \I.
de Bismark is clearly seeking to give his King
the exclusive control over the destinies of their
inhabitants. He endeavours, in the first place, to
diminish as much as possible, with the ultimate
intention of excluding altogether, the authority of
the Germanic Diet to deal with the question.
Already the Diet is shut oat from the negociations
for peace. There is no chair at the green table at
Vienna for Baron Beust, who so ably represented
the German Bund at the London Conference.
Peace, it is pretended, concerns only the bellige-
rents, and the cession of territory will probably be
made to Austria and Prussia. The National
Verein and the Frankfort Diet, the democracy and
the States of Germany, have now to learn that
this Schieswig-Holstein business is no concern of
theirs. In the next peace Prussia proposes a form
and mode of administration in the Duchies which
would necessarily throw the government into her
hands for a long time, and enable her to
exercise a decisive influence over their for-

tunes, and perhaps to appropriate them to
herself. Instead of either inviting the Diet
to pronounce on the succession to the vacant
throne, or referring the choice of a Prince to the
States or people of Schleswig and Holstein, M. de
Bismark proposes the institution of a provisional
government, to be exercised by Austria and Prussia.
The competence of the Diet in this matter again is
denied. M. de Bismark knows that in the uncer-
tainty which would be the result of this arrange-
ment the real power would belong to that govern-
ment which should bold firm military possession of
the territory, and that, firmly established in the
Duchies, Prussia would have nothing to fear from
the Emperor of Austria, who has too much on his
hands elsewhere to permit him to embark in a seri-
ous quarrel with Prussia about a duchy or two,
which in no case could become his. Accordingly he
is taking measures to obtain for Prussia complete and
exclusive military power over Schleswig and Hol-
stein. It is in view of this intention that the recent
arbitrary and high-handed proceedings of Prince
FrederiekCaarles of Prussia at Rendsburg must be
regerded if their full significance is to be understood.
So brutal treatment of a Confederate has never been
heard of since the institution of the German Bund.
The iortress, on the possession of which the King
of Prussia has set his heart, has been held by a Fe-
deral garrison, composed of Saxon and Hanoverian
troops, under the command of Gen. Hake, from a date
earlier than the commencement of hostilities between
Germany and Denmark. Since the outbreak of the
war the Allies have had their magazine and hospitals
there. It is not surprising that a bad state of feeling
has for some time existed between the Prussian
and non-Prussian troops at Rendsburg. Prussian
valour is not fitted to bear more than a very
moderato degree of success, and the Saxon and
Hanoverian soldiery were not disposed to
bear with the airs of the conquerors who had
returned from Dybbol intoxicated with glory. From
these dispositions arose offence given and taken, and
frequent collisions, such as any barrack.master of
tolerable capacity would have soon put an end to.
This, however, was not the policy of the Prussian
Government, and accordingly, on the 20th instant,
General Hake received from Prince Fredk. Charles
a note of a most extraordinary character, announc-
ing that " the King, his master, had ordered him to
take possession of Rendsburg, and make himself
master of the place," and that on the following
morning General Graeben would, present himself
with 6,000 men and two batteries for that purpose;
It was nearly in these words, and entirely in this
style and tone, that the Danish General Mers, was
summoned to evacuate Sleswig. But Prussian pride
scarcely distinguishes friends from enemies. General
Hake appears to have taken a somewhat mean and
timid view of his duties, for, instead of pointing out

to Prince Frederick the serious character of the step
proposed, remaining firm in a defensive position,
and referring the matter to his political superiors,
he took the easier course of throwing the responsi-
bility upon Prince Frederick, and while declaring
that he could not consent to give up Rendsburg
he
announced that he should withdraw. The Prussian
corps arrived punctually on the following morning,
and the Federal troops marched out, dispirited and
humiliated, to bivouac outside the town, as no quar-
ters had been provided for them. This transaction
has caused a most painful feeling throughout the
Fatherland, fcr it is felt that all Germany has been
insulted and injured. But what can ardent patriots
expect when they take for their champion, and offer
to Europe as their representative a man who con-
ducts the affairs of a first-rate European State upon
the principles of the burglar and the brigand ? Our
German friends may rely on it that they will have
much to do, and a great deal to suffer, before they
hear the last of AI. de Bismark's arrogance.
HERALD.—There were at all times amongst the
Irish judges queer characters, who occasionally did
very queer things. Up to the commencement of the
present century they were mettlesome, high-bred
fellows, kalowing, perhaps, not much about law,but
exceedingLy punctilious as regarded honour. They
were then almost invariably men of good family,
for at that period it was considered indispensable
that a judge of the land should possess social posi-
tiou as well as lerael knowledge. They were belli-
cose—when the Lord Chancellor exchanged shots
with the roaeter of the Rolls, and when old
Norbury, after having literally fought his way
to the
judicial scat, was always prepared, when
on it, to afford personal satisfaction for his
judicial sets. " Off the bench, my lord," cried
Colonel Smyth, "you dare not use such language
towards me." " Crier," exclaimed Nor bury,
"adjourn the court for an hour." Looking at
his watch, ned addressing the complainant, " Sir,

I shall be on the Fifteen Acres' in fifteen
minutes, and most happy to have the pleasure
of meeting you there ;" and he did go to the
trysting place where affairs of honour usually
came off, and after waiting there A sufficiently long
time for his adversary, who declined to follow,
ho returned to business at the appointed time, and
concluded the charge he had been delivering to the
jury when interrupted. There were witty and
hard-living dogs amongst them, who drank COP
ously during the night and appeared very shaky
in the morning, while there was one in the daily
habit of eating himself into intoxication. Judge
K—, having sworn against drink at the earnest
entreaties of his friends, had a newly-baked loaf
steeped in a bottle of port every morning until all
the wine was completely absorbed, and eat it on
the bench while discharging his functions. Others
there were who came into court late in the evening
and administered justice until midnight, after
which they enjoyed the " flow of wit" and claret
until " daylight in the morning." But with all
their peculiarities, whether of fighting, drinking,
eating port wine, or carrying on the legal business
of the country by night instead of by day, all these
men were courteous in their manners ; and although
their hot blood manifested its existence after a
fashion quite inconsistent with oar present
ideas of judicial propriety, still, when clad in
ermine, they almost invariably conducted them'
selves with a dignity of demeanour which commanded
respect and with a politeness which disarmed hostile
criticism on their private habits. That race of fun?
tionaries has passed away, and the Irish bench is
now occupied, happily, by a different class of men,
some of whom have raised themselves by their a 0"
knowledged talents, while others owe their elevation
more to political services than to professional distinc
tion. They may know more of law, but it is certain
that their overbearing arrogance when discharging
their duties is often in strange contrast with the
patience and good temper of their predecessors-
And, if what is stated.of one of them by the Traes
Chronicle, in reference to his conduct at the last
Kerry Assizes, be true, it must be admitted that
the judge seems to have entirely forgotten not mill
the limited extent of his power, but the dutl
entailed upon him by his position. Justice Ball
is a very old gentleman, who was never at all
time remarkable for amenity of disposition, but
whose nerves seem to be from some cause or
other, now so completely unstrung as to render
him unconscious of the effect of his acts. Th.e
police seem to be the objects of Justice Ball's part'.
cular aversion, hatred of the preservers of the peace
appears to be with him a sort of monomania, which
he indulges, forgetting that a judge should be
the last person to derogate from the character
or to diminish the respect due to the men who
most efficiently secure the peace of the country
and the execution of the laws which he is aP"
pointed to administer. " About this time," says
the Tralee Chronicle, when giving the account of
the proceedings in court, " the crier's wand'
which had been lying up against the jury-bat
fell down. His Lordship—' Have that policeman
and his truncheon removed at once.' Mr Mason--:
' My lord, it was the wand that fell.' His LordshiP
Whoever threw that down I order him out of
court; all through the circuit we are annoyed bY
policemen throwing their truncheons about ! tell
that man to go out immediately.' A door was
opened, some person walked out and the business
was proceeded with." Now what, we may ask,
would be thought of an English judge who ordered
a person to be ignominiously expelled from 6
public court merely because he happened to stand
near a sheriff's wand which accidentally fell to the
ground ? No man upon our bench would dare to
do so arbitrary and illegal an act, which was all the
more improper in a country such as Ireland, where
respect for the law and for its agents should be
lously inculcated by the superior authorities. The
absence of the Irish aristocracy, and the tradition
of the bench when those who sat upon it gene'
rally belonged to that class, have permitted the
Irish judges to assume a social position qui°
beyond that which is accorded to their brethren
in this country. This unexpected and sudcleo
elevation seems to have turned the heads of some
amongst them, who, dazzled by the respect paid In
their office, sometimes conduct themselves in a man°
ner more becoming a three-tailed pacha of past dass
than a wigged and constitutional magistrate of pre.;
sent times. Attention to their eccentricities and
exposure of their illegal acts of tyranny, bY
lico
Irish press, are duties which it owes the Pu
The ridicule which such proceedings are sure, W.11°,11.
known, to provoke, will be the moat suitable punlsu,
ment that can be inflicted on men of little minus
and unbounded vanity.