The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-28 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

THIR DAT —Morning 13 min.after 1 I Evening 42 min.aft. 1
o.Moaaow—Morning 8 min.after Evening 35 min.aft. 2

therefore, of passing occurrences, we have the
satisfaction of knowing that at last the guardians
of the national honour are on the alert, and that
in any event we are fully prepared.

It cannot for a moment be said that the con-
viction of JOHN CHARLES TAPNER must neces-
sarily be erroneous, because it was wholly founded
on circumstantial evidence ; and, because there
was not a single particle of direct proof of
his being the perpetrator of the sanguinary
outrage. We readily admit that there may and
frequently have been cases in which the mind
might arrive at as satisfactory conclusions as if
the eye had witnessed the entire transaction, the
corpus delicti being committed in the broad light
of day, and in the presence of numerous specta-
tors, all of whom might be received as credible
and trustworthy witnesses. But, though there
have been many such cases, where there would
have been a manifest failure of justice, if
such testimony had been altogether rejected—it
cannot be denied that there have also been
numerous instances in which innocent persons
have been unjustly condemned—aye, and
suffered the extreme penalty of the law—
men whose characters were subsequently exo-
nerated from every stain of guilt, not the
slightest blot remaining on the escutcheons of
those who were once held up as objects of popular
execration, and a word in whose favour would be
regarded as treason against the majesty of the
people. In these cases the popular voice had
unanimously convicted the supposed culprits,
even without trial, and the indignant " judges "
were quite ready to carry the precepts of their
celebrated brother " LYNCH" into practical opera- '
tion on the slightest provocation. The great
value of the " trial by Jury" (we had written
this without reflecting that TAPNER was de-
prived of that inestimable privilege, but shall not
now erase it)—we may add of most other tribunals
—is that it interposes an obstacle to the summary
execution of the sentence indicated by the popular
outcry, and to a certain extent at least insures a
calm investigation into all the facts supposed to
bring the offence home to the party accused.
But even this safeguard has but too often proved
inadequate. .A swe have stated, there are nume-
rous cases on record where men have been im-
properly convicted on circumstantial evidence,
and it is therefore essential that such evidence
should be received with the greatest caution ;
that every link in the chain of proof should be
strictly tested, and that the accused should receive
the full benefit of every reasonable doubt.
In the present instance there was not a single
strong presumption—nor, as we have already
stated, anything that, taken per se, led to a
reasonable inference of the guilt of the prisoner.
Now we believe we are justified in stating that
it is the unanimous opinion of our own venerable
Judges that no combination of slight or
immaterial circumstances—none of which would
alone suffice to raise a decided opinion of the
traverser's guilt—would warrant a conviction.
The " presumptions" must be very strong indeed,
and in some instances almost irresistible, to jus-
tify so extreme a measure as the public execution
of a fellow-creature. But in TAPNER'S case what
do we find ? Nothing that necessarily leads to
such a decision, or even bears strongly on the case.
There are unquestionably matters to excite grave
suspicions, to render further investigation expe-
dient, but that is all ; and TAPNER now awaits
the completion of his awful sentence on grounds
which, in his native country, would not be con-
sidered sufficient to condemn a previously-con-
victed pickpocket for the larceny of a pocket
handkerchief.

For what are the facts so strongly relied on by
the Procureur in his very zealous and very elo-
quent, but not very fair or very impartial, speech
to evidence ? First, that the murder was com-
mitted at an early hour of the night, between 9
and 11 p.m. it was said—.—a matter which may
readily be conceded so far as the prisoner was
concerned, although we do not see that it was
very clearly established by the medical testimony,
which alcrxto bcrro ,apc,a 4b. pc,1141,, winch was
founded entirely upon the contents of the stomach
of the deceased. The next matter strongly relied
on was that the prisoner had been seen in the
neighbourhood of the locus in quo, at or about
the time when tile assassination was supposed to
have been perpetrated. Now, admitting for ar-
gument's sake that this was true, and that TAPNER,
was really the person seen by Miss DE
JERSEY and the other witnesses, although
none spoke positively as to his person save
Mrs. ELRINGTON, who exchanged a few words
while he was rapidly following a female, of what
importance is it so far as the issue is concerned ?
There was nothing really to show that TAPNER I
was the person referred to by the other witnesses,
who were unable to identify him distinctly, but,
supposing that it were so, what did it prove ?
Certainly not that the man was guilty of a mur-
der immediately after the time he was thus seen.
It was shown that the Canichers in which Mrs.
SAUJON'S house was situated was a street much
frequented--that th 6 prisoner might have had to
go there on his ordinary business, and, indeed,
we believe that it would have been in the direction
of the Vale Road where he alleged that he was
visiting the night in question. Surely his pre-
sence in such a place could not justify the tre-
mendous conclusion at which the Procureur
arrived. Ho asked, with an air of triumph,
" Now, what was he doing there ? That is what
I should like to know. That is what I
should like to have heard from the defence. It
was a fact that was irreconcileable with the inno-
cence of the prisoner !" Good GOD ! was there
ever such an awful inference drawn from such
slender premises—such a tremendous superstruc-
ture erected on so fragile a foundation. If TAP-
NER was in a street at nine o'clock, in which a
murder was sometime afterwards committed, he
must be guilty of that murder, unless he could
produce unexceptionable evidence to show where
he was, and how he was engaged. Is there a
single one of our readers who could bring forward
witnesses to prove where he was during every
hour of a particular night in last October ; and
would it be just or reasonable, that because he
could not do so, lie should be convicted of the
threefold crime of murder, arson, and robbery ?
The thing is absurd. If such a doctrine could
for a moment be tolerated, no man's life would be
safe for a single session. The innocent would
share the scaffold with the guilty; and yet we find
a man of education, ability, and eloquence, a
man looked up to, and respected by every one of
those who were to decide on the life or death of the
prisoner, so carried away by his zeal and energy as to
lay down emphatically the terrible conclusion, that
such afact "was irreconcileable with the innocence
of the prisoner !" Nay, more, to say that " the pro-
secution could not account for him, but he could
account for himself !" Then, according to this
novel principle, it may become a capital offence
to be unable to account for every moment of time !
It is not the duty of a Crown Prosecutor to prove
the guilt of the prisoner. It is the accused who
must establish his innocence ! But TA PNER did
offer a reasonable explanation. Ile produced
a witness, MARGARET GAHAGAN, to show where
he was and how he was occupied during the time
the murder was committed ; and if her testimony
were credited the prisoner's evidence would be
established. This was laid down by the Bailiff,
and even by the Procureur himself. But, for-
sooth, she was a tainted witness, and could not be
credited. She stated lie came back about 9 o'clock.
The person supposed to be TAPNER was walking
in the Canichers, in the direction of her lodging,
about this time. This trifling, variation o f time—
a few minutes only—is not sufficient to thr ow doubt
on her testimony—to show that she has been
guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, and TAP NER
of murder, arson, and robbery. It is well kn own
to every person accustomed to criminal bus mess
how utterly impossible it is to obtain, even from
witnesses manifestly desirous of telling the truth,
any accurate statement of time ; and even a con-
siderable variation in that respect would not be
considered to justify a doubt upon teatimon y in
other respects apparently trustworthy.
But, again, admitting that it was TAPNER who
was seen by Miss Ds JERSEY, we fearlessly assert,
that so far from "the fact being irreconcileable