The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-03 00:00:00

said he, " are the organs of the nations, and it is only
through such an organ that nations can communicate
with nations. What business is it of ours to consider
what organ a foreign nation may choose ? What
business is it of ours to ask whether the French prefer
to be governed by a President or an Emperor, a
King or a Consul?" It were well for France, for
England, for Europe, if sentiments so rational and
magnanimous as these had influenced the conduct of
British statesmen when GRENVILLE was Foreign Se-
cretary under PITT, and when HAWKESBURY filled
the same office under ADDINGTON. Had either of
those diplomatists possessed the courage or the
liberality to utter such language from the floor of the
Commons, the Continent would have been spared the
ravages of a prolonged and sanguinary war, and the
last descendant of the imperial dynasty of NAPOLEON
would have presided (as he does now) over the for-
tunes of France, without the National Debt of Eng-
land having been increased by the enormous sum of
615,622,298/. sterling !
There was an air of the most felicitous badinage in
the taunt cast by Lord PALMERSTON at his assailants.
" I have been accused," said he, " sometimes, of pur-
suing measures that lead to war. The war party sit
there !"—pointing to the benches of the Opposition.
In a similar strain he exclaimed, further on—
"We stand here as promoters of peace. We stand
here as parties who have laboured assiduously, and are
labouring still, to prevent war if we can—to keep it
within the narrowest range if it breaks out, and to put
an end to it as soon as possible. We stand here as the
promoters of peace. We are charged by the advocates
of war. I leave the House to decide between us; and I
confidently look to the verdict which the House will
return."

It is as the promoter of peace, and as the opponent
of war that Lord PALMERSTON has, during the last
twelvemonths, been assailed with so much virulence.
It is on account of his solicitude to preserve
quietude throughout the states of Christendom that
he has been reviled by the aspirants for a spurious
popularity. There was cons( quently that sense of the
correctness of his position visible in every sentence
articulated last evening by the Foreign Secretary,
which is the worthiest inspiration of an orator, and
which is the best incitement to any man who
may be momentarily embarrassed by the neces-
sity of pronouncing his own vindication. To those
who have regarded the policy of Lord PALMERSTON
aright, the admirable extenuation, or, more strictly
speaking, the exact explanation of that policy
given by him last night, will be little less
than supererogatory ; while, to those who
have had their judgments darkened by prejudice, even
the conclusive and logical remarks of the Foreign
Secretary will prove wholly and entirely insufficient.
That the Commons will, however, view his
conduct with that disregard to mere per-
sonal considerations which has heretofore been
the honourable characteristic of the British Parlia-
ment, that justice will be done by the Legislature to
the skill, the industry, the genius, and the patriotism
of Lord PALMERSTON, we have the most agreeable and

implicit confidence. The Commons will not, by con-
demning the policy of that illustrious diplomatist►
cast a suspicion over the purity of its conscience, and
a shadow over the clearness of its intelligence.

The Court of Exchequer was yesterday the scene
of one of those exhibitions of personality that are
calculated to inflict the deepest injury on the Bar, and
to bring the administration of justice into contempt
and disrepute. The most painful part of the transac-
tion was, that the party who insulted the Court and
his brother barrister was no inexperienced junior, for
whom some allowance should be made for his com-
parative ignorance of professional etiquette, but
a gentleman who had already filled the
highest rank beneath the bench, and who
might be regarded as an aspirant for the
highest honours of the legal profession. A charge
was deliberately put forward that the Lord Chief
Barcn had suffered his private and personal feelings
towards a gentleman nearly connected with himself
to influence his public conduct on the seat of justice
—that he had not merely, on the occasion in question,
but habitually, exhibited gross favouritism towards
his son-in-law, Mr. S. MAuTirr, Q.C., by allowing
1 latitudes to that gentleman which would not be allowed
to others in that or any court.

The unfortunate dispute occurred in the case of the
"Attorney-General v. Russell," for an alleged breach
of certain Custom-house regulations. Sir FREDE
RICK THESIGER appeared on behalf of the Crown,
while the conduct of the defence was entrusted to
Mr. S. MARTIN, the eminent Queen's Counsel. In
the course of the proceedings, Mr. MARTIN asked
certain questions, which were objected to by Sir F.
THESIGER as irrelevant to the matter in issue. The
Lord Chief Baron was appealed to, and his Lordship
very properly stated, that "he agreed with Sir F. THE•
SIGER that the questions were open to that objection at
first sight, but he did not see how he could interfere
at present. Such questions were frequently put, and
counsel always had the credit of having some object
in view." Sir F. THESIGER, however, continued the
objection to similar interrogatories, and having pressed
for the interference of the Court, the Chief" Baron
again answered, that "the objection to a particular
line of examination on the ground of irrelevancy was
one of great difficulty and delicacy for the
judge to deal with," adding, " I can only
say that some discretion must be reposed in Mr.
MARTIN necessarily ;" and on a subsequent oc..
casion observed, " Counsel must be entrusted with
a certain extent of discretion in the conduct of their
cases, whether it be a gentleman only called yesterday,
or a Queen's Counsel of long standing and eminence,
I as Judge must allow them to exercise their own
discretion." Now, his Lordship exercised a sound
judgment and forbearance in all these points. There
was no exhibition of petulance or ill temper at the
repeated interruptions that took place. The con-
tinued repetition of the same objection after the decision
of the Court had been announced was calculated to
consume unnecessarily much more of the public time
than would have been wasted even though the line of
examination had been as irrelevant as was alleged.
There is nothing more vexatious than those constant
interruptions by which it is attempted to prevent cer-
tain facts from being elicited that may be entitled to
weight with the jury. In the case in question the
nature of the defence was "that there was no pre-
tence for saying that there had been contraband goods
on board—that the proceeding was one of pecu-
liar hardship, the vessel being a fishing-boat,
laden with goods of a perishable nature—
that she had been previously boarded by a Custom-
house officer, and, in fact, did not COMO within the
meaning of the statute, which required that all vessels
should be specially reported at the Custom-house.
Mr. ALARTIN was endeavouring to show that there
was no breach of the law, even though its letter
might have been violated upon, and this appeared
aaupde,rfoefcteluyurleseg,ittimo abtee
btoropuicghttooubte
in
nomthme e
It should also be borne in mind that theenpvtidaceeneocdne-:
shpoeunladl cbhearacter,
allowed in
thawnhicihn
ignrgeatewraslatoitfudea
- cases of an ordinary character. It, therefore,
scarcely required the subsequent asseveration of
Mr. MARTIN, that "he did not ask one question
which he did not believe to be proper and material
to the interests of his client." The rank and position
which Mr. MARTIN has acquired for himself in his
profession, in which he is nulli secun e 1
ou
tswould
, m
beingsurely have entitled him to a certain weight with the
Bench without any imputation of nepotism
hazarded.
Sir F. l'EsmER however, was not satisfied with
the courteous
gentlemanlike conduct exhibited
lla and '
by the Chief Baron. On the point being decided
against him for the fourth or fifth time, he burst
out into what we cannot help terming a most im-
proper and unjustifiable charge.
He said, "I cannot but feel that my Learned Friend
is allowed a discretion in this case, and in this Court
generally, which would not be extended to myself or
to other counsel in this or any other court." Now
this was perfectly plain and unequivocal. There was
no misunderstanding the allusion. It implied
that the Judge suffered his private feel-
ings to influence his public duty, that he
endeavoured to advance the interests of his son-in-law
at the expense of other learned gentlemen. No won-
der that the charge was warmly resented, and that
on Sir F. THESIGER refusing to make any concession
the case was adjourned to a future day. No wonder
that Mr. MARTIN deeply felt the unjust and un-
warrantable aspersion so much as to induce him for
the moment to speak of altogether relinquishing

THE SUN,-