The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-31 00:00:00

insult, and obtaining the most summary redress.
Captain INGRAHAM did so in the most effective
manner, and there can be no doubt that he will
be sustained and supported by his own Govern-
ment for the faithful and efficient discharge of his
duty under such trying circumstances, and that
the reclamations of Austria will receive exactly
the attention which they merit, and not a par-
ticle more.

A more extraordinary, we may add a more un-
constitutional attempt at establishing a domestic
inquisition, has seldom, if ever, been recordedthan
that in which the Directors of the, East India Com-
pany have been so thoroughly and completely foiled
through the sound common sense and firmness of
the Lord Mayor, whose magisterial conduct on
this occasion, at least, is deserving of high com-
mendation; and we bestow that well-merited com-
mendation the more readily because we have very
recently felt it our painful duty to complain of
the undue leniency with which his Lordship dealt
with a person who was brought before him for
grossly insulting, and subsequently assaulting, a
female within his jurisdiction. It is true that
the application was by no means complimentary
to magisterial ability. The notion that he could
be so far bamboozled by the plausible fallacies
of even the most acute and skilful advocate, as to
commit for trial a gentleman of station and re-
spectability, when there was not the most remote
chance of a conviction, indicated a very humili-
ating opinion of his judgment. A Magistrate, who
had any amount of professional experience, would
have felt it as a deliberate insult to his intelli-
gence if, under such circumstances, lie had been
asked " what would be the mischief, or breach of
the law," if he held the defendant to bail to
answer the charge at the Central Criminal Court ?
The answer would be very simple. It would be
a gross violation of his duties towards the
community, and to the defendant. To the
community in unduly taking up and consuming
the time of Judge and Jury, and occasioning ex-
pense, but to the defendant it would be a far more
serious injury--an injury inflicted by one who
was placed on the bench for the purpose of pro-
tecting innocent persons from the annoyance and
vexation of being exposed to untenable accusa-
tions. What ! is it no mischief or breach of the
law—to have a respectable gentleman's name
printed in the Newgate Calendar, as being
charged with participating in a corrupt and infa-
mous bargain ? Is it nothing that his name
should be for ever inscribed on the records of the
Court, as being in any degree implicated in such
a tritusaction—that hiA time should be occupied in
preparing his defence—in attending the consulta-
tions of his counsel—in going day after day to the
Court in order to be in readiness to surrender at
any moment that the case might be called on, and
then to tak his place in the traversoes dock, await-
ing before " GOD and his country" the issue of
his trial, and feeling himself the gazed on of all be-
holders—the focus in which a thousand earnest
glances were concentred—the disbursement of
fees to Solicitor for preparing briefs, and to Coun-
sel for perusing them, and for. attending to de-
fend the prisoner from the serious but utterly
untenable accusation ? Call you these nothing,
Mr. CLARKSON ? Really the old JOE MILLER
anecdote does not appear to be so very ex-
travagant. The fishwife who thought the eel
she was Skinning at the moment used to it
did not appear to be a single particle more insen-
sible to the true character of the operation, or the
feelings of the victim, than the practised Old
Bailey 'Advocate, as to the nature of the moral

"flaying" which he was inflicting at the time.
" Where was the mischief or breach of the law"
forsooth? Oh ! Mr. CLARKSON, Mr. CLARKSON,
if you could for a moment 'change places with a
traverser, even where there was the most perfect
certainty of an honourable acquittal, and of his
leaving Court without the slightest- stain on his
character, you would no longer put forward such
an interrogatory with so verdant an aspect.

The case must be so fresh in the recollection of
our readers, that it is only necessary to allude to
the circumstances very briefly. Mr. BRIGHT,
during the India debate in' the House of Com-
mons, had stated, on good authority, that he heard

of a case where a cadetship had been offered for a
pecuniary consideration. A nest of hornets was
at once excited, and quickly buzzing about the
ears of the meek iudiVidual, whose religious
opinions and pacific temperament would prevent
him from resorting to "gentlemanly satisfaction"
for any " ornamental language" that might be
bestowed on him during the discussion. The
changes were rung to no end. The whole gamut
was gone through with brilliant variations
on the original theme. Misstatement, misrepre-
sentation, calumny, falsehood, down to the
lie direct, and all garnished with numer-
ous expletives, were hurled at his devoted
head. It would seem as if a polyglot edition of
the Billingsgate vocabulary had been supplied ad
libitum for the especial behoof of bilious and
yellow-visaged nabobs, who, with multitudinous
stars attached to their names in the libre d'or of
Lea.denhall-street, resented the onslaught on the
fair fame of their mistress—or of ruddy-cheeked
juveuiles, who, although unbronzed by the heat
of Eastern climes, relied on their connection with
magnates from " RAMNUGGIIR SINGH," or " BA-
HADOOR GURU MEHAL," with wholesome crores of
rupees, and very diseased livers, as giving them a
material interest in the Government—that is to
say, the dispensation of the patronage of the
Anglo-Indian Empire. This wordy warfare, how-
ever, fell harmless on the tough skin of the Man
of Peace. In place of withdrawing he boldly
reiterated the charge—nay, more, he stated the
authority on which it had been preferred—viz.,

the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth—
who stepped forward and declared that the offer
had been made to his brother, who had rejected

it the moment he became aware of its illegality.
The hint, however, was sufficient. A letter was
forthwith addressed to the representative, who,
confiding in the privilege of Parliament, had
dared to breathe a word against the vestal purity
—not of the Board, or even of any individual
Director—for Mr. WILKINsoN had expressly de-
clared that the anonymous trafficker was not a
member of, or connected with, the Company—but
of the system which they desired to perpetuate, re-
questing him to give the name and address of his
brother. This was at once complied with. The
brother was then written to demanding that he should
communicate the name of the person by whom
the offer was made, and the particulars of the
proposal. This demand was not complied with by
Mr. WILKINSON; and then began the system of
bullying and browbeating that hitherto has led to
the two applications to the Lord Mayor to commit
Mr. NORMAN WuaiNsoN for trial at the Central
Criminal Court, and Mr. W. A. WILKINsoN, M.P.,
I°z
lisitZv seven days to a House of Correction for re-
mere w gratify their impertinent curiosity.
the nfrencea if total failure of evidence to show that
in the City f Lay there had been, was committed
the Lord Mayor, so as to give jurisdiction to
the jurisdiction, it as even if it had been within
as
manifest that there was
the
no offence that
KINSON knew that °moment Mr. NORMAN WlL-
would be obliged to cc,
Duey
.was required, that he
withdrew from the transaction. a misdemeanour, he
the slightest chance of a conviction Could there be
who was admitted, even by his of a person
gentleman of honour and integarity
not. The accusation fell to the Certainly
gr°ll-nd the
anent the circumstances were explained In°-
they dill not seek to punish him. • But
Why, then
send the case for trial ? Oh that we may extort,
by circuitous means, from Mr. W. A. WILKINSON
an answer which we could not obtain directly,
that we might punish his plain-speaking in the
House of Commons, and trample under foot the
vaunted privilege of Parliament. The
to Lord
Mayor would not fall into that trap,
nor the
it
no less palpable one of requiring him to comm
The
Mr. W. A. WILKINSON for seven days.
answer endeavoured to be extracted from the
Honourable Gentleman was not pertinent or ma-
terial to the matter under 'investigation. If the
transaction was wrong, Mr. NonMAN WILKINSON
might be punished, although the name of the
Party with whom he was dealing had nottranspired.
The effort,
therefore, failed. The Directors, how-