The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-24 00:00:00

THE AFFRAY AT SIX-MILE-BRIDGE.

ENNIS, TUESDAY EVENING. —The commission was
opened this morning, in the Criminal Court, by the
Right Hon. Judge Perrin, at half-past ten o'clock, and
the grand jury having been sworn,
His Lordship proceeded to deliver the following
charge :—Sir Lucius O'Brien and gentlemen of the
grand jury of the county of Clare, the calendar is very
heavy, and presents severalcases ofserious charges, several
of homicide and other offences. There is one case which
has been the subject of a great deal of observation, con-
versation, and discussion in the journals of every part of
the empire and elsewhere. In the case to which I refer,
unfortunately and deplorably, a number of persons lost
their lives ; and there are, I believe, nine persons charged.
eight soldiers and a gentleman who is a magistrate of'
your county. The soldiers were bound, and were there
under orders. There was nothing illegal in their pro-
ceeding through the crowd with the freeholders, pos-
sibly like any other body of freeholders and their com-
panions, but doing and offering no unnecessary violence,
nor were they to be subject to any violence from others.
They had no right to force a way through the .crowd by
violence, nor to remove any obstruction by arms, still
less by discharging deadly firearms. They had no right
to repel a trespass on themselves, or on the escort, by
firing or inflicting mortal wounds. You will observe the
distinction I take between removing an obstruction and
repelling a trespass in another part of the case. They
had a right to lay hold of, as every subject of her
Majesty has, and to arrest persons guilty of any assault
or trespass, or other act tending to a riot, either to re-
strain or make them amenable. There is no distinction

between soldiers and others in that respect, Lord Mans
field says, and his attention was veryimuch called to this
subject, touching the military engaged not as soldiers,
but, he says, as citizens, and I say, as subjects of her
Majesty. No matter whether their coats be red or
brown, they are employed not to subvert but to pre-
serve the laws which they ought to prize so highly,
taking care not to commit any unnecessary violence, or
to abuse the power vested in them. Every one is justi-
fied in doing what is necessary for the faithful discharge
of his duty, although he is deeply culpable if he wan-
tonly commits any illegal act under the pretext of law.
If assaulted, oestruck with stones, they had a right to
repel force by force, but not with deadly or mortal
weapons ; though if provoked by blows, so as to lose
the command of their tempers—though more forbear-
ance, perhaps would be expected from soldiers than
from others—if they did, when so provoked, use the
mortal weapons in their hands, not with any previous
premeditation on their parts so to use them—and I have
marked the distinction between soldiers and others
under such circumstances—in such repulsion or affray,
the law, in consideration of the provocation and the
frailty of human nature, reduces the crime which would
otherwise be murder to manslaughter. And if it should
still further appear that, having been so assailed
and attacked, they having been guilty of no aggres-
sion, and repelling force by force, the violence proceeded
so far that, without any misconduct on their part, their
lives were threatened, and in actual danger ; and if it
appears that, in order to save themselves and their lives,
they were obliged to fire, and did fire, in the defence of
their lives, and slay, the homicide is excusable and jus-
tifiable. But in order to warrant that finding by the
jury, or that proceeding by the soldiers, you must be
convinced by actual proof that their conduct had been
all through correct, and by actual proof—not the sayings
nor the opinions of any individual--that their lives were
in danger, and were saved by the firing, and only by the
firing. In order to warrant such a finding as that, you
must entertain that conviction founded upon the evi-
dence given before you. The facts evincing danger im-
minent to their lives, and which could be prevented only
by the firing, must be established by clear evidence, de-
monstrating that such danger existed, and could be pre-
vented only by resorting to that deplorable remedy. In
considering that matter, you will recollect that there
were of the party forty soldiers fully armed, with fixed
bayonets, under the , command of two officers and two
sergeants ; and further, that it is at least doubtful whe-
ther there was any legal command upon them to fire.
No command was given by their officers. I think that is
admitted on all bands. And, further, you must recollect
that the firing cannot be justified upon the ground merely
that otherwise the freeholders might either have escaped
or been withdrawn. That would afford no justification
for slaying the assailants. You will also consider where
the matter occurred—in this respect favourable to the ac-
cused—a narrow lane. In another point of view (but this
is a matter for inquiry), it is said to have been near the
court-house, and near an open road where there wag a
large body of police and a strong detachment of soldiers
stationed, and where several magistrates were in attend-
ance. Yon will consider the matter I have before taken
into consideration, whether the soldiers fired without
orders, and whether they showed the steadiness and for-
bearance that they ought. I need not again repeat to
gentlemen of your intelligence that when I state any-
thing I merely state what I have been informed ; and I
will not state a word as to that, but you will look to the
evidence before you. If it shall appear to you that shots
were fired, and some persons were killed, at a consider-
able distance from the lane, and out of that lane, and by
some of the soldiers who had occupied and immediately
came from it, and gained the open ground without any
continued resistance—where there was no pretence of
danger to their lives, and the persons were some at a
great distance, and some of them with their backs
turned—if that state of facts appeared, without previous
excitement and previous provocation, it would amount
to a case of murder. If you should find that the homi-
cide was of the worst description, and that they had un-
necessarily, and without provocation and excitement to
excuse, and also a warmth of blood, for which there is
an allowance made, you could not visit their act upon
the whole body ; and, therefore, it will be material for
you to ascertain who those individual persons were.
With respect to those slain in the lane, if you are con-
vinced that the soldiers were not the aggressors, but
that when they fired they were unlawfully assailed, so
as to be in real danger of their own lives, and could not
otherwise save them—as I hefore mentioned, it. would
amount to justifiable homicide, and ought to be so found.
But if you think that, though they were not the aggres-
sors, and that they were assailed and struck, and
being thereby provoked, repelled force by force,
with the affray thickening, and they receiving
blows, either from weapons in the hands, or
stones cast upon themthat they were provoked
so, and repelled force by force, so as to get their blood
so heated that they fired and slew them—l think, then,
you ought to find a bill of manslaughter against all, that
is against every man who is proved to you to have dis-
charged his musket on that occasion. • but you must
have such pioof, of course. And • whatever you find
with respect to those slain in the lane- -manslaughter or
homicide in self-defence—you ought to find a bill of
manslaughter, at the very least, against every soldier
who is proved to you to have fired in the broad street,
called Lodge-road.
The grand jury then retired, and, previous to the ris-
ing of the court, they came into the box, and Sir L.
O'Brien, the foreman, on handing in some bills, stated
that it was too late then to enter on the consideration of
the Six-mile-bridge case, and accordingly it was post-
poned until to-morrow at eleven o'clock. There are
twenty witnesses to be examined.

STATISTICS OF DRUNKENNESS IN THE METROPOLIS.— i
A Parliamentary paper has been published in return to a '
motion made by Mr. Hume, showing the number of
persons taken into custody for drunkenness and for dis-
orderly conduct by the metropolitan police force, with
similar returns relating to the city of London, and to
the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. This interesting
paper throws a favourable light on the progress of so-
briety and good conduct in the various districts of
London. In 1831, when the metropolitan popula-
tion amounted to 1,515,585, there were 31,353 persons
arrested for drunkenness, and 10,383 for -disorderly
conduct; of the drunkards, 11,605 were women, and
19,748 were men ; among the persons who conducted
themselves in a disorderly manner there were 7,287
women and 3,096 men. In 1841, when the population
had increased to 2,068,107, the numbers of the same
offences were still enormous, the total for drunkenness
being 15,006, and for disorderly conduct 15,810 ; there
were among these totals 5,123 female drunkards .and
9,883 males, and among the disorderly there were
7,913 women anal 7,897 men. In the same year the
city police took up 2,313 persons for drunkenness and
802 persons for disorderly conduct among a population,
as shown by the census returns, of 123,563 persons.,
In 1851, when the population of- the metropolitan dis-
tricts had increased to 2,399,004, the total number of
persons arrested for drunkenness had decreased to
10,668, 6,207 of whom were men and 4,461 women, and
the total of disorderly persons arrested was 6,138, 2,556
of whom were men and 3,762 women. In the city the
numbers were in 1851—drunkards arrested, 280 ; dis-
orderly persons arrested, 681. Edinburgh, with 140,000
inhabitants in 1841, shows 4,824 arrests for drunkenness
and disorderly conduct in that year, and in 1851, when
the population was 166,000 the arrests were only 2,793,
while Glasgow, with 333,651 inhabitants in 1851, had in
that year 10,012 arrests for the reasons ' mentioned
above.

SIR CHARLES WOOD AND FRANCE-- Sir Chas. Wood
has now doubt received a severe rebuke from his col-
leagues ; and it is unquestionable that, whether de-
manded. or not, a sufficient apology has been tendered
to and accepted by the representative of France,
which for the present terminates the affair. But
Sir Charles Wood must be taught to bridle his
his tongue. When Chancellor of the Exchequer,
his great fault was that he scarcely ever ut-
tered a sentence intelligibly, and that his bud-
gets were confused and incomprehensible jumbles.
In this instance he was unfortunately but too distinct,
and his reiteration of the "gagging " phrase which
appeared so to delight him, only confirms the general
tenor of his remarks, and makes us, wish that, for once
at least he had been the subject of his remarks, and
makes us wish that for once at least, he had been the
subject of his complaints, and that himself, like the
French press, had been " gagged." Sir Charles Wood
will be more discreet for the future ; or, in the words of
Sir James Graham—another sinner, by-the-bye, in this
very same matter—the public, will know "the reason
why."—Edinburgh Advertiser.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Pills for Invigorating
the Weak and Strengthening the Debilitated.—These
wonderful and efficacious pills are the only medicine
adapted to invigorate weakened constitutions, persons
of low and nervous habits, or those who are suffering
from bad digestive organs, or others whose health has
become deranged by bilious affections, disordered
stomachs, or liver complaints. Those affected with
coughs, colds, asthma, or shortness of breath, should
have recourse to these invaluable pills, as their mighty
powers will be found a certain and efficacious reined'
for all these complaints, imparting at the same tlin
strength, new life, vigour and buoyancy of spirits to the
afflicted, and may be taken with perfect safety at any
period of life.—Sold by all druggists, and at Professor
Holloway's establishment, 20, Strand, London,