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

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS,

Many mistakes have occurred in the observations
made on the appointment of Mr. Beard to the office
of Court Newsman, from which Mr. Doane retires. This
office has nothing to do, as stated, with the clerkship of
presentations, which concerns ecclesiastical appointments,
and is in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. The Court
Newsman's duty is to distribute daily to the morning
papers a document supplied from Court, and called
the " Court Circular"—not in any way connected with
a newspaper so called. The office of Court Circular,
or Court Newsman, commenced under the reign
of George 111. The King, being much annoyed at
the inaccuracies in the papers as to the royamovements,
took the advice of the chief metropolitan magistrate, and
appointed a Court Newsman ; and Mr. Doane, the grand-
father of the late official, was installed in the office, which
has gradually developed itself in importance. '!ho record •
ing of the official doings of Ministers' reception of deputa-
tions, sending off despatches, and announcements of ,ap-
pointments, fall to this officer. The Lord Chamberlain like-
wise makes a heavy demand on the Court Newsman's services,
as he is seated in the ante-room on drawing-room and levee
days, and has to prepare and forward to the daily press
a list of the company present, as also to do the like duty on
the occasion of Royal balls and evening receptions, instal-
lations of Knights of the Garter, So. At some periods of
the year the business to be done is very heavy, and. the
lithographt I sheet which the Court Newsman has to. get
struck off by press at his awn private residence cannot fre-
("lentil, be forwarded to the daily papers before two or three
o'clock in the morning. At other times of the year the
duties are, comparatively speaking, light, although daily
duty throughout the year is necessary, and the responsibi-
lities are always great,—Court Journal.

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
whether 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, iet,__e obvious construction of the ship
. the stanchions with which
for warlike purpose:
'ha cookhouse—constructed
numbers of she was supplied, and ti
':_a
to show
1:1
for the accommodation of lairs
tent so to do
tail
within the meaning of the Act. The o
men—
with which she was furnish:furnished,ether an actual " fitting out" or an :screpancy
between the grounds on which Barons Chatta:ll and
Pigott have arrived at the same conclusion in iteelf,
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, end 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 he so employed, they could not be
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
rhe defendants.
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
c Townley, and his letter, containing a full account
oe
of tht; "rounds upon which he acted, will be found
in our cols: Inns this morning. This document places
the respite ot-oc•nley in a very different light from
that which has
gi.--en
Lrise to so much popular dis-
satisfaction, while at
he same time it reveals a point
',.
of ic.Ar more serious and st:rtling character than any
9to the case. In the
hithertonoticed in referent,:•
under the impressefac.tion has arise
en
re-
first place, t;i's feeling of dissati.2
'n that the
for the most part
,Sir George
spite of the prisoner ii been granted by
Grey in the exercise of hio discretion. The
public
will, therefore, be startled to hear that ho 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
two physicians or surgeons and two justices of the
peace for the place wherein the poson is situate, it
shall become the duty of the Secretas7 of State to
send him to an asylum. The precise wora.ls, 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
he 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
the section in question. Now, as the public are
aware, a certificate in the form required ty the Act
was duly executed, and placed in the hands of Sir
George Grey. Upon the receipt of that certifi-
cate, therefore, the whole question of Townley's
fate was at once settled, independently of any other
considerations whatever. The matter was taken
oat of the hands not only of the Judge and jury,
but of her Majesty and the Home Secretary, and
there was nothing left to the authorities 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 he far more stFatling and alarrn',n,-, to the
public mind than the worst suspicions hitherto en-
tertained. A partial administration of justice could
in this country only he an occidental and isolated
circumstance, and would be sure, if it occurred, to be
decisively put a stop to. But the existence of a law
so egregiously absurd as this enactment appears to
be is far more serious. We have always been the
customer to suppose that the prerogative of pardon
rested entirely with the Sovereign ; that when a
prisoner was once convicted nothing but the Queen's