The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-12 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

POST.—The decisions delivered by the Barons of
the Exchequer in the Alexandra case leave the re-
lative positions of the Crown and the defendants
practically unaltered. In the courseof Michaelmas
term the Attorney-General obtained a conditional
rule for a new trial, and, cause having been shown
by the counsel for the defendants why that rule
should not be made absolute, the members of the
Court have now given judgment. The Lord Chief
Baron and Baron Bramwell are of opinion that the
rule should be discharged, or in other words, that
the verdict found at the trial for the defendants
should not be disturbed; whilst Barons Channell
and Pigott have pronounced for making the rule
absolute, that is to say, for a new trial. The Court
being thus equally divided, no definite judgment
could in effect be pronounced ; but, in order to fur-
nish one from which an appeal might be made to
the Court of Exchequer Chamber, Mr. Baron Pigott,
as the junior member of the Court, withdrew his
judgment. The majority, then, being in favour of
discharging the rule, it was formally discharged,
and against such judgment the counsel far the
Crown will now appeal to the Court above. The
public are so perfectly conversant with all the cir-
cumstances under which proceedings were insti-
tuted by the law officers of the Crown in this re-
markable case, that it will be necessary only very
briefly to advert to them. An information was filed
by the late Attorney-General against certain per-
sons claiming to be the owners of a vessel seized by
the Crown in the port of Liverpool, and in the con-
struction of which it was alleged the law had been
violated, and the vessel, with its appurtenances,
thereby forfeited to the Crown. It was a proceed-
ing not against the defendants personally, but
against the ship, and the issue to be decided was
ether the Crown was entitled to retain possession
of the latter, or was bound to restore it those claim-
ing to be, its owners. The whole case turned on the
construction which should be put upon certain
sections of an Act of Parliament known as the
Foreign Enlistment Act. By the seventh section
it is provided that if any person shall, within the
United Kingdom, " equip, furnish, fit out, or
arm," or "attempt to equip," &c., any vessel,
" with intent or in order" that such vessel should
be employed for hostile purposes against a friendly
Power, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and
that every such vessel shall be forfeited to the Crown.
On the trial it was proved that, in respect to her
mode of construction, the Alexandra was better
fitted for warlike than for commercial purposes, and
that she was easily convertible into a ship of war.
It was also proved, however, that at the time of her
seizure she had no armament on board. The Lord
Chief Baron, who tried the case, explained to the
jury that the building" of a ship intended for war-
like purposes was not forbidden by the Act, and left
it to them to say whether the Alexandra was
" equipped, furnished, armed, or fitted out" within
the meaning of the Foreign Enlistment Act, or
whether it was the intention of the defendants to
equip or arm the ship within her Majesty's domi-
nions. The jury decided that she was not so
equipped, and likewise negatived the intent to
effect her equipment in an English port. The rule
nisi for a new trial was obtained on the grounds of
misdirection and of the verdict being against the
weight of evidence, and that rule has now, as
already explained, been discharged. It is remark-
able that whilst the two senior members of the court
concurred in upholding the verdict upon the same
grounds, the two junior members were of opinion
that it should be set aside for reasons totally dis-
tinct. The Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Baron Bram-
well were satisfied equally with the direction of the
former to the jury and with the justice of the ver-
dict. as measured by the evidence adduced on the
trial. Mr. Baron Channell gave his voice for a
new trial chiefly because he believed that the
Lord Chief Baron had not sufficiently explained to
the jury the law as pertinent to the case, and had
misled them by placing the sale of armed ships
and of munitions of war on the same footing.
Mr, Baron Pigott, on the other hand, rested
his judgment on the misinterpretation of the
meaning of the section of the statute by
the Lord Chief Baron, and on the ver-
dict being against the weight of evidence.
In his opinion, the obvious construction of the ship
for warlike purposes, the stanchions with which
she was supplied, and the cookhouse—constructed
for the accommodation of large numbers of men—
with which she was furnished, all tended to show
ether an actual " fitting out" or an intent so to do
within the meaning of the Act. The discrepancy
between the grounds on which Barons Channell and
Pigott have arrived at the same con elusion in itself,
therefore, gives additional weight to the judgments
of the Lord Chief Baron and Baron Bramwell,
which, in train of reasoning and in results, entirely
correspond. It is impossible, however, to read the
decisions of the two last-named judges without ar-
riving irresistibly at the conclusion that in the
building of the Alexandra the Foreign Enlistment
Act was not violated. That statute designedly
omits to prohibit the " building" of ships of any
class whatever, whether intended for peaceful or
for warlike purposes. Shipbuilding is an important
branch of English trade, and that branch the Legis-
lature clearly never intended to paralyse. The sole
point, therefore, to be determined on the late trial
was whether the construction of a vessel in such a
manner as to be easily convertible into a ship of
war was such an equipment or fitting out as the
Legislature intended to prohibit. That it was not
intended to arm the Alexandra in an English port
was universally .conceded ' • no one doubting that,
like the Alabama, she would have taking her arma-
ment on board in some foreign port, or on the high
seas. It was impossible, however, to give to the
terms used in the Foreign Enlistment Act any other
than a common-sense meaning, and, without an ob.
vious straining, they could not bear the interpreta-
tion sought to be put upon them by the Crown.
Even although the builders of the Alexandra may
have intended the vessel should be employed against
the Government of the United States, still, unless
such intent was manifested by their putting her in
a position to be so employed, they could not be con-
sidered as having violated the law. A fair test is
furnished by the Lord Chief Baron when he asks
what would have been the condition of the Alex
andra on reaching the high seas had she been per-
mitted to depart. She would have been absolutely
powerless for hostile purposes. Without armament
or military equipment of any kind she would have
been a mere hulk. Would she, then, in such a posi-
tion, have been " armed, furnished, equipped, or
fitted out" within the meaning of the Foreign En-
listment Act ? It is impossible for any one seriously
to answer the question in the affirmative, and, that
being so, there can be no reason to question the
justice of the verdict given by the jury in favour of
the detendants.
TIMES.—Sir George Grey has lost no time in
replying to the remonstrance addressed to him by
the magistrates of the county of Derby in the case
of Townley, and his letter, containing a full account
of the grounds upon which he acted, will be found
in our columns this morning. This document places
the respite of Townley in a very different light from
that which has given rise to so much popular dis-
satisfaction, while at the same time it reveals a point
of far more serious and startling character than any
hitherto noticed in reference to the case. In the
first place, this feeling of dissatisfaction has arisen
for the most part under the impression that the re-
spite of the prisoner has been granted by Sir George
Grey in the exercise of his discretion. The public
will, therefore, be startled to hear that he does not
appear to have had any discretion at all in the
matter. Neither the suggestion of the Judge nor
the consequent examination of the prisoner by the
Lunacy Commissioners has had anything to do with
the matter. Sir George Grey has not had even to
form a judgment upon the merits of the case. It
appears that by an Act of Parliament, passed in
1840, it is enacted that whenever any person con-
fined in any prison under sentence of transportation,
imprisonment, or death shall be declared insane by
I two physicians or surgeons and two justices of the
peace for the place wherein the prison is situate, it
shall become the duty of the Secretary of State to
send him to an asylum. The precise words, indeed,
of the Act are "it shall be lawful," but it is well
known that this is a regular legal term, implying
an obligation, and not a permission. In the case of
this particular Act there appears, at all events, to
be no doubt that this is their meaning, and Sir G.
Grey is strictly accurate in saying that " this is the
construction which has been uniformly placed" upon
ehpel formaNcr eoedcwe
npe
aware,teGwfbo haauueatettteose
considerationssrod wge r
of her
George
the
asiyheuoraenertr efhooyi
certificate
Majestyannr. question.
executed,u p
oan nn td ht as
tsuhoierf
ethehdta
hntpadyut
hands
certifi-
cate, oi
eecfr
tAaisfirci are
dl wholey questionthoelf,
nec
desstenh settled,
whatever.
tl eaodnnht
Hel
e)matter independently
jaut
tdegr ofoe
of
wlaa'
Secretary,onan swdy ntoi
utekahryneye'
token
there was nothing left to the authmoreities.but to obey
a plain direction in a recent Act of Parliament, and
to order Townley's removal to a lunatic asylum.
This statement ought to be sufficient, as we shall
presently point out, to remove any feeling of
jealousy in regard to the supposed injustice of the
proceedings, but it discloses a state of things which
ought to be far more startling and alarming to the
public mind than the worst suspicions hitherto en-
tertained. A partial administration of justice couldj
in this country only be an accidental and isolated
circumstance, and would be sure, if it occurred, to be
sdecisivelyegregiously
morep u ta
serious,
ebt
rso
iuop r
udt s
WeSt
huit the existence of a law
s
heanvaec t
aml
we naty
sa pbpeeeanr sate()
customed to suppose that the prerogative of pardqn
rested entirely with the Sovereign ; that when a
prisoner Was epee convicted nothing but the Queen's

I

mercy, exercised upon the recommendation of th.o
Home Secretary, could save him. But from th"s
statute it would appear that a prisoner under sety
tence of death can at any time be reprieved by me,t:
force of a certificate of his insanity, drawn 1113
two physicians or surgeons of any character °
opinions whatever, attested bv two justices of the
peace of any idiosyncracies or intelligence whateve?'
Now, as it has been made abundantly evident, in !fs'Dl
course of the discussion on this case, that medi
men of high standing may be found who will certify
to the existence of insanity in almost any conceic
able case of murclor, and who, indeed, would be
more likely to give the required certificate the worse
the murder was, it is certain that the medical seeo;
rity for the execution of justice in the spirit of the
law is worth absolutely nothing, Nor do we eed
that matters are made much better by the requiree
addition ot the signatures of two justices of the peel:
It would be hard if out of the ir3gistrates ;
county town two could not be induced, either by f
clever lawyer, or by the medical men themselvee,,:,
by some crotchet or sentiment, or by some pop°`,
cry, to endorse such a certificate. We do not sl
for our part, why anybody need be hanged s'lltf
this loophole to escape by. At all events we fitro
certain that any clever rascal, by the help 01 t
clever lawyer, might take advantage of the 10 i
It is scarcely possible to exhaust the anomaly
such a state of things. Great complaint has beet,
very properly made of the irresponsible and tiocebe
tam character of the Commissions which might, to
appointed by the Home Secretary to inquire 1131/,
such cases as these. But the Home Secretary u„
all events, responsible for noting on the report of
Commissions he appoints, and, unsatisfactorl4
any secret tribunal of the sort must necessarily '„'
the persons appointed by him can hardly be ot.h!`o.
wise than independent and competent authoritleo,
But the tribunal to which this Act gives an act
rity to revise the sentence is fortuitous, and
either ignorant or prejudiced, or both, and its aot1"0
removes all responsibility from any one. It
felt to be sufficiently unsatisfactory that an tt°,rbe
stricted and unregulated power of: reversing
solemn sentence of a court of law should rest e!ei,
in a responsible Minister of the Crown ; but It fi
amazing to find this power placed in the handel
any two crotchetty medical men and any two ,101
informed or prejudiced justices of the peace. ItLe*
been found dangerous that the authority of a PI
andjury should be set aside by a Minister act e,
under the authority of the Queen ; but here the !he
thority, not only of judge and jury, bat of i
Queen herself, is set aside by two magistrates 5110
two medical practitioners. The Act is said to 110,
been hastily and inconsiderately passed in 18 0,
and it cannot be doubted that such a flagrant s9OO,
malt' will be at once rectified. It is to be hoped,
that, the attention of Parliament being thus in3Pe'nr
tively drawn to the question, it will take the 0111
tunity to law down some satisfactory law fall,
decision of similar cases for the future. Unwelco",l
however, as such a revelation of the state of be
law may be, it is satisfactory that it removes oc.eo
shadow of ground fur the unpleasant imputatl'op
on the administration of justice which have beu°,ll
loudly and unhesitatingly expressed. The whir
before Sir George Grey, the Lunacy Coin
sioners, and the self-constituted Coramissiove
been entirely mistaken. The matter has been atgl/0
a s though they were upsetting the decision of 0
jury as to whether the prisoner was insane 0%0;1
when he committed the act, whereas the,
question was whether be is insane or 13°` e
the present moment. Neither the truth
the verdict nor the justice of the senteoce
in any way impugned. The sole questiono
whether the sentence shall be executed. If ot
prisoner, from whatever cause, is now to ic'
it is acknowledged that it would be an act °f to'
humanity to put him to death. It will be' seep'
from Sir George Grey's letter, that preciselio'
same question of the sanity of a prisoner after „"01!
tence was raised in the case of a poor man trie°o"
the year before Townley, in precisely the salve tri'
by the intervention of the Judge, and that the !
soner was sent to an asylum in just the sallied
that Townley has been. The accusations of Peili
ality which have been made in the matter ar°,;oll,
we think, proved to bo uncalled for and unjue' it/
At all events, now that it is made evident tbu,9
miscarriage of justice, if there he any, is chargeto
entirely on an absurd Act of Parliament, it iBi-V
hoped that the public will reserve their dissait';ol
tion for that strange piece of legislation, and
no time will be lost in altering it.

111 PT
PREEESTA:
HOL
PRopER , r]
o BE 'IA
thronEr,hout
No. 67, Char
FREE
pRo
°I landed a
The noblemn
cottaze wit]
OWNERS
*ffo
b"acc the c
rds b
}:state' f yfr,B
Jrn(
vhere
nicY can
t
lain;the he
T.,
diB
Venierees,lrllEßE IS
chaser is in
and then on
Auction
AUOTiI
that
The
at they
]
-flu W
,
Auction
."-ftion:l4
_Printed 0
Tonder are
tileY are rea

IRA
Uie IP!
(Limited) B,pe York 1
i
yew

IVI4:)I,NSI3I'°IIIX6
Ely yo.
These 11:12
star
mete with
larch • ti
To load
Por AlfredLaiil
TraP'

George „iv
WYke9)
Georne De
s Arn. iarn L
pM'Arthu
yi• Sarg
ip,"°ndon'
gorrivi
AY'res al
SI
aj,nes Thc
.1?-utter-1
-'
•Q`ichar,
AJlizueid

Directors
bus
•Jirectors
ahrl to ma
Money
current rn
EDeelally
bAN]

4 ICrsqrs
4;1 coniori
ant"
1 Ti 4.
n
-
oT
of thNt ce utFa
',7bss.pereiiit
l'h, e
PaYable4,l

NlAow4lBe,
•ed
eio
114,Anai7
~,,`,Y1114
atta,
10ilows

COUNTRY MARKETS.

It•

COLCHESTER—JAN. 9. tt)46
There was a fair supply of wheat at our market 1/1
with a moderate business doing, and prices as folio v?
Wheat, white. 44s 50s Beans,lllazagan.,'3!"
~,.;!
red 40s 44s middle & sm:ll%ss 1
Barley
Oats . 20s 25s grey

GLOUCESTER—JAN. 9.
There was a good show of English wheat to-613,111
the formers, which met a fair sale at an advance of le
qr. Foreign wheat dull, with no advance on tholo,
last week. Oats, barley, beans, and peas were
still unaltered in value.

CIIELMSFORD—JAN. 8.
ste9lil
At this corn exchange to-day there was a mode the p ri,/' 0:
of wheat, which net a tolerably active trade, and., of
of last market advanced is per quarter for the best 0
Spring corn unaltered. 30
Wheat, old white 30s 47s l'efts, Partridge. •• '9 40'
new 44s 50s White .......... 39s 0
old red 34s 40s Boiling ........ '39 )1
new 38s 42s Dun .......• „0 p
Barley 27s 378 Ditto new ..... ' 345 /1
Chevalier ..28s 39s Beans, Tick, old ••s 0
Grinding 22s 31s nert•' 359 )
Malt. 6ls 67s Harrow Ticks •',,s
Chevalier . 64s 69s new''3o
Oats 2os 28s Mazagan .....''

KIRKCALDY GRAIN—JAx. 9.
at
We had good supplies of barley, oats, and W 1 to at
market to-day. Sales were ready, and prices
qr up.
Wheat. Barley.
First....3ss Od 26s Gd 17s Oa
Second .. 37s Od I 28s Od I 18s 0(1
Od 30s Od 193 Ga

lARKET. calf t'
the close of the el—

i
fav'ir
l'4ll
11.1 e
ttiti:Pllll
t
th
16t;
70, U)

Ite,s,sr,i. ,

~ r ehtle

o
jalihthe
of -tt.ry
"t, Stock
Ynien