The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

evidence wholly insufficient to warrant convictions ?
They receive handsome salaries, partly for the pur-
pose of saving the country from the expense of
futile prosecutions, but chiefly to save innocent parties
from the expense and annoyance of being called upon
to answer frivolous and vexatious charges. Both
these objects would be defeated if our correspondent's
views of the magisterial duties were well founded.

Again, on the same point, he says—
" That evidence was given by the proof from
the India House to the latest date antecedent to
the marriage." Here then, according to our cor-
respondent, it is not necessary to show that any crime
whatsoever had been committed ; it is sufficient to
make out a mere case of suspicion in order to arrest a
party as a felon, and drag them to a police-office.
In the article so strongly attacked by Mr. SINGLET,
we stated " that cases might arise where the presid-
ing justice would be authorised to remand the parties
for a reasonable time, when it had been distinctly and
positively proved that a grave violation of the law
had taken place, and there were strong grounds for
believing that the offence could be brought home to
the accused by the testimony of witnesses who might
be forthcoming within a brief period. But the power
should be sparingly exercised, .and never unless the
commission of the offence had been clearly established."
By these opinions we still abide, and we fearlessly
leave the question between us and our correspondent
to the decision of the public.
He also thinks that the lady's own statement was
sufficient. She did not pretend in her statement at
the office that Mr. JAMES was dead, but that the mar-
riage with him was in a false name, and therefore, he
adds in a parenthesis, illegal (quite an error by the
way).

Now, we beg to inform our correspondent that
putting forward a weak or inadequate argument does
not deprive a party of the benefit of any valid defence
which be or she may have ; or relieve the prosecutor
from the necessity of making out the case. Neither
would it be an error (as he seems to think) to suppose
that the first marriage being invalid, as it would be
if wilfully contracted under a fahe name, would
not be a sufficient answer to the charge.
The marriage having been celebrated would
throw the onus on the defendant of impugn-
ing its validity, but this she would be entitled
to do, if in her power. Our correspondent has con•
fused the case of a second marriage. The offence will
be complete, though the defendant assume a fictitious
name at the second marriage (R. v. Allison—Rus-
sell v. Ryan, 109)—but if the first be void, the party
cannot be indicted for bigamy, because the former
marriage is a mere nullity (1 Hale, 693). In this
respect, also, our correspondent, who attempts to cor-
rect others, is himself in error.

As to the third objection, we never asserted in any
manner, either " that a divorce from bed and board
would justify a second marriage," or that " the lady
was a foreigner." We defy Alr. SINGLEY to bring
forward a single statement of ours to either effect.
We did say that "a conviction for bigamy could not be
anticipated in the face of such evidence," that "a
person totally ignorant of law could not be supposed to
understand the nice distinction between a divorce a
vinculo matrinaonii and one a mensa et thoro ;" and
we argued that the "felonious intention being want-
ing, she should be acquitted of the charge." This is
far from stating that the second marriage was justi-
fiable, as our correspondent most unwarrantably
ascribes to us. Not a single syllable respecting the
lady's being a foreigner is contained in either of our
articles on the subject. Ilis statement, therefore,
that we assume her to be one is a purely gratuitous
assumption on his part, not resting on the slightest
foundation.

We have thus disposed of Mr. SINGLET'S argument,
We should not again have referred to the subject but
for his attack : we originally referred to it solely on
public grounds, because we conceived that a grave
mistake had been committed by the presiding magis-
trate, which, if suffered to pass unnoticed, might
constitute a very dangerous precedent. Mr. SINGLET
has thought proper to attack our arguments, and we
readily accord him space in our own columns for
that purpose. But we believe that we have fully and
completely justified our own views and refuted that
gentleman's arguments. We shall now conclude,
giving him one piece of sound advice, viz., that he
should never thrust himself prominently forward as
the refuter of error without knowing that error has
been committed, and that he is himself correct in the
arguments he may adduce in support of his own
views.

Her MAJESTY'S visit to Ireland—an event which
must have provel as gratifying to the QUEEN indivi-
dually as it was honourable to the nation collectively
—has, we are glad to believe, done much towards
removing, if it have not entirely removed, that ill
feeling which has (so causelessly!) existed between

the people of the sister kingdoms. We will not again
allude to those unhappy dissensiono which we ourselves
have so long and so heartily deplored; they now rank,
thank Heaven ! only among the things which were.
As an evidence of this auspicious change, an Irish
Contemporary, which does not scruple to admit that,
some time back, it "broadly advocated revolution,"
now declares revolution to be unattainable, and there •
fore all teaching that tends in that direction to be
" mischievous and bad." Yes, revolution is unat-
tainable in Ireland, that is to say, such revolution as
is here alluded to. The people of that country, how-
ever easily their impressionable natures may be
swayed by the plausible rhetoric of designing dema•
gogues, are becoming more keenly alive to their
own interests, and better acquainted with their
real rights. Yes, revolution is unattainable in Ire-
land, witness the enthusiastic shouts which greeted
VICTORIA'S progress. The almost unprecedented
acclamations with which her Britannic MAJESTY was
received in Ireland were, doubtless, as a death knell
•

to the hopes of the disaffected. Yet these demon-
strations of warm-hearted enthusiasm on the part of
the Irish—

" The noble in patience—now noble in love"—

honourable as they are to Ireland, and highly charac-
teristic of her generous people, are net enough to satisfy
our ambition for that people. We would see a revolution
in Ireland—a social revolution, of that peaceful and
sublime character by which, like the far-famed philo-
sopher's stone, baser metals are converted into gold—
a social revolution, which should render the green
isle worthy of its name, by spreading a
verdant fertility over its barren places a
social revolution, which should make industry take
the place of apathy, and (as an almost inevitable con-
sequence) content take the place of disaffection. The
-Irish orators are partly right when they say Ireland
must look to herself for happiness. On Ireland her-
self much of her own prosperity depends ; but she
must look for that prosperity not to the eloquence of
her senators in College-green, but to the persevering
exertions of her people themselves. We have seen
how gallantly that people can come forward to do
homage to a royal visitor—let them only evince a
similar happy resolution in their own cause,
and Irish distress will be a bye-word. Let
the hardy peasant hands just raised high
in acclamation not relapse into idleness, but
cheerily do their best. And, more especially,
let the Irish landlords, who crowded round
her MAJESTY with loyal words and smiling faces,
now attest the truth of all their protestations by
doing their utmost in converting Ireland into that
land of loyalty and gladness which it must have ap-
peared in the eyes of Queen VICTORIA. Some such
happy consequences as these we would fain have re-
sult from the royal progress.

That royal progress, as we have already said,
called forth demonstrations which. were highly
honourable to the Irish nation, but to no one
was that visit more honourable than to the
object of so much loving loyalty. Since
her accession to the throne, her MAJESTY
has repeatedly, by some act of spontaneous kindness
and unaffected sympathy, endeared herself to the
affections of her people, but we remember no act so
beautiful and in its simplicity so indicative of the
warmth of her woman's heart as her standing on the
paddle-box waving her handkerchief in farewell to
the people of Dublin. As the vessel faded in the
distance the last thing visible to the eager eyes on the
pier head was the Sgure of her MAJESTY and the
waving handkerchief. Some worthy artist should
perpetuate the scene, for never could Queen
VICTORIA appear in a more graceful character. We,
is our readers well know, are no panegyrists
influence
of royalty. We glory in the increasing of
democracy in England, nevertheless we are in no