The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-05 00:00:00

The consideration (Eemanded lay the legislative measures at I -
present under discussjl)n for the benefit (we trust we may
say) of Ireland, has. otnehesr'ity withdrawn our attention from
lhe acts of the Executive ar, that country. We have not had
eisure so much as to r aatieee the recent energetic proceeding of
the Government witlo. -relation to the magistrates of Carlow,
whose monstrous a* Jock open the most sacred iustitution con-
nected with the a anniniairation of the law was some time since
related circurns'Avitia'aly in this journal. It will suffice at pre-
sent
to rernin'', our readers that the offence committed by th a
seven eseni%ernen in question was one of no less enormit
~„
t I.;han u deliberate attempt to pack the jury panel of th .
,:e ou vty with their own partisans and creatures, with a i, pp.
cu'4 view to pollute the stream of justices in coo in
trials of a political or party nature that were nr atnected
to take place at the assizes and ousster sesneous then
approaching. To effect this nefarn,us objec',, the plan
adopted was the exclusion from ''.ne panel of no fewer
than 300 individuals, 'mostly Cathorecs, hut all known, or sup-
posed to be of the L'leral party., or politically opposed to the
seven wise men of -the quorwat o To this plan there was but
ono obstacle—an express preavision of a recent statute, by vir-
tue of which tho so 300 irer.ivicluals had as clear right to the
jurors of Carlo w as he r most gracious Majesty has to be
queen of E' „gland- We need scarcely say that seven
Orange Justi-ces of Vac Peace (the seven champions of Protes-
tantism) di' i not, allow so trifling an impediment as a paltry
Act of Par tianeent to stand in the wey of their lofty projects ,
They cies sred it at a bound, as the best fox-hunter amongst
them r rould have cleared a five-barred gate. Perhaps -a, nnore
darin' g breach of magisterial duty, or a more flagrau', v; elation
of th e law to serve the purposes of party, was -,ever perpe-
trao :d, even in the country which witnessed -the outrage to
',nil' .ch we have thus cursor-11y referred. T',lo proceedings of
th ese magistrates violated the very chastioy of justice ; but the
1 in-:es were, and in the memory of young men, when such
conduct would have b .:en the dire' t road to glory and prefer-
rneent ; when an act like this would have fret with applause,
.encouragement, wad reward, and the perpetrators of it have
basked in the se tiniest smiles of viceregal favour, and rejoiced
in Benjamin's portion of the feast of patronage and power.
It is anythi'ag but marvellous that the Orange thrones and
derninat sous should revert with aching eyes to those elysiaa
days of. (authority without restraint, and crime without retri-
butiora. it is anything but astonishing that s' the little ty-
-rant aof the fields" of Carlow should sigh for the return of
the.. Talbots and the Haddingtons. One stroke of the vice-
regal pen has cancelled the commissions of the seven ma-
gisterial delinquents, and the course of justice runs smooth
arsain. This is following up the dismissal of Colonel
vierner with proper vigour : it is easy to conceive the an-
guish and dismay of Orange-land, as chief after chief is drivco
_from the vantage-ground of pen verted power.
" We have fallen upon gloomy days;
Star after star decays,"
-would be an ap-oropriete lament for the guilds and lodges.
We could mingle our tears with theirs, only that the thought
-of the benefit which a whole nation derives from their dis
ters, dries up the fountain of our sorrows. But it is w
none of the vulgar feeling of party triumph that we rejo*
and clap our hands at beholding the career of the oppres
thus energetically checked, and " the proud man's contomel
thus spiritedly rebuked and castigated, We contemplate th
.intrepid measures of Lord Muloaave's Admiaistration with t
gratifying consciousness that they are acts of humanity a
mercy. This, indeed, is government ! This is to fulfil t
1 rratest and highest functions of a ruler, the defence
-the laws and the protection of the people. Ireland, more
than any other country ef which we have any know-
ledge either from reading or experience, requires a governor
of the courage and high mettle of her present viceroy. What
first. ? Boldness. What second? Boldness. What third ?
-.Boldness. The feeblest Administrations have dealt pretty
vigorously with the crimes of the poorer classes of the Irish
people: when the Rockite was to be transported, or the
Whiteboy hanged, it was not then that Dublin Castle, in the
days of Toryism, showed the symptoms of moral cowardice
most decidedly. The of of men of influence and station
are the true test of administrative energy. Before we extol a
srnovernrnent for its vigour, we must know how it deals pith
malefactors in high places—with the man of f;rtune and the
county potentate—oith the Member of Parliament and the
roratelt master. The present Irish Executive is the first that
has stood this trial as becomes the depositaries of the
Co- antry's peace and welfare. Steadily keeping in his view
t'ae great erds of government, the Lord-Lieutenant has re-
spected no man's person, but has enforced the penalties of
crime with an impartial hand against criminals of all parties, de_
press, and stations, from the summit of society to its base ; not
more resolute and vigorous in vindicating, the supremacy of
the law against the pauper insurgent of Tipperary, than against
the greatest landed proprietor of Galway, and the combined
Ors.nge aristocracy of Carlow. Why do we dwell upon these
points? Not only because in an Irish administration this is a
new virtue, but because in this fearless assertion of the laws,
end undaunted championship of the public interest, we see the
accomplishment of objects of paramount importance, to Ire-
land in the first place, to the whole empire in the second. We
see the -foundations of Irish tranquillity, order, civiiization, and
,improstement deeply and permanently laid - we see the first
"loosen and steady attempt that a British Government has ever
made to raise up and comfort that desolate and oppressed
Ir.ember of the imperial family ; we see that attempt crowned
with success beyonn all hope and calculation brilliant; and
eve behold in this soccess the first firm plantation of the English
power in Ireland.—Morning Chronicle.
In giving his consent to the establishment of Municipal
Corporations in Ireland, Sir Robert Peel expressed himself
as follows :—" I believe any hope of a satisfactory settlement
mu it befutile which does not recognise the establishing munici-
-I,4lbodies on the basis of popular influence." How happy
would it have been for Ireland had this belief been impressed
upon the mind of Sir Robert, and of the party which he repre-
sents, three years ago, when the question was first brought
under the consideration of the legislature ! Had this belief
been then acted upon in an honest spirit, from how much in-
jurious excitement would the country have been saved ! How
much waste of time, and of worse than useless exasperating
discussion might have been avoided in the House of Corn:
mons ! l And how different would now be the condition of
Ireland if, instead of st'ill having to struggle for her rights
against avowed and occult enemies, she was recovering her long
lost repose in tboir enjoyment !! ! In fine, how much better
would it altogether have been for the country if Sir R. Peel and
his party, instead of denouncing Irish Corporations based
on popolar influence, as nothing better than " normal schools
of agitation," had at once come forward and acted upon the
adruission which, after three years of uncertainty and excite-
anent, in which not only the British empire, but the British.
Constitution, have been threatened with dismemberment—the
*one with the loss of Ireland, the other with the excision of
hereditary legislation—is now reluctantly wrested from thent4
apparently with no view to acting in accordance with its spiritjj
but solely to gain an opportunity, by a seeming acquiescenceA
of inflicting injuries on a Bill which it would be dangerous, if
not impossible, any longer to resist by open opposition. Sir
Robert has certainly an extraordinary way of exhibiting his
aptitude for the l'remiership, into which his expectant parti•
zans are so rabidly desirous of forcing him. All the most im-o
portant practical acts of his political life have been founded oral
a rect!n":ation of his previous opinions. His conduct on the present"
occaoion is merely a second edition of that which he pursued etl
re .erence to the Catholic Relief Bill. He recants his erroraj
'when they are no longer tenable, not from conviction, but neces-1
sity. Instead of Premiership, or the office of leading the Go-
vernment of a country, we should suggest a new berth for
.aim, to which we would give the name of derniership, or leaden''
of the compulsed aceeders to liberal government. We hear
no more now of the "normal schools of agitation," though
the most reckless organ of the most reckless and infatuated of
the faction contends, that as Ireland is a poor country she can
very well dispense with municipal corporations altogether, and
not daring to argue on this position, contents itself with an
elaborate calculation to prove that the poorer may be a people
the higher must be their house-rents, and therefore, that Ire-
land, being poorer than England, the qualification of her mu-
nicipal franchise should be fixed at a higher rate. Instances,,
too, are adduced, of the very cellars being let at 10/. per an.,
num in some of the Irish towns, as an evidence of even thed
101. franchise being too low to secure an enlightened consti-
tuency I But it is needless to rebut such self-exposing so-
phistry, though we fear, from the aspect of affairs, that Ireland,
need scarcely expect any satisfactory adjustment of her claims
in the present Session.—Morning Advertiser.
Though we are considerably accustomed to the perusal of
Newspaper articles of which the reasoning is bad, and the
feeling worse, we do think that we never read quite so vile an
article in every respect as that of yesterday's Chronicle on Mr,
Talfourd's Bill for the extension of Copyright. In that arti-i
tie stupidity and impertinence contend for the mastery, and;
one knows not which is the more excessive, for when the sole!
pidity is contemplated it seems to be matchless, and when the
trapertinence is brought under review it seems in very wan-
tonness of presumptuous folly to be utterly without a parallel.
Conceive, reader (if you can conceive such a thing), the
scribe of the Morning Chronicle sneering at the claims of Sir
Walter Scott's writings for remuneration beyond twenty-eight
years of copyright, and delicately suggesting that if Mr.
Wordsworth, Mr. Southey, and Mr. Moore would have
their families any thing the better of the literary works
to which they have dedicated the labours of their lives,
they had better cause a Bill to be brought into Par-
liament for that special purpose. We imagine that the hireling
of some publisher, frantic with vanity, and fearful of having
to share his gains with those who have been the foundation
©f them, has produced the silly and offensive article to which
we think it expedient to direct the public disgust. He tells ;
u 3 that "that there is not so much as three per cent. of din-,
ference between the present value of a copyright for twenty-
eight years, and one for sixty." To this
.fact there is added
the following delicate insinuation :-_" This, indeed, is so,
palpable, and so very generally admitted, that the convico,
tion is all but universal that there is a wide difference between
the avowed and the real object of the Bill." Now, as to the •
question of value, and the trade learning about " three per
noon" it is mere vulgar journeymanism. What it means is,'`
that if a publisher were buying a copyright he would 4
not give more than three per cent. additional, though
the proposal of an extended copyright were made law,:
But what does that signify? Is the legislative estimation of '
the rights of authors to be measured by the office regulations;
of' dealers and chap-men ? Whether publishers would choose ,
to give three per cent., or thirty, or three hundred additional,
fos.the extended copyright does not affect the question.lti
s
eso.tefiropoeed as a part of the new law that copyrights should`
EN,4ezetriPlctrily,i.sold to some publisher. If Mr. Talfourd's'
fights will
tsnyjilt4niseltaso I lb: the probability is that copyrig
nesgo4(o, . era for more than their preseet extent, if
*.fa.skicni2-;._ • . r ors will leave to their families the rever-
va• o,jr.„.e.sok-ltiso ti 55.,.. isposed of to the publisher has expired.
sn'oe.A t • ihre.gasef pit- q out " retrospective operations," we have
es n e &e n' •
t
--- airtady.sbowkihaf it i 3 mere delusion or mere fabrication.
l

SPIRIT OF 7:FIE PUBLIC 3- 0 CRN ALS. I T 1 ;e Bill is not so framed as to have a retropective opera-
.. I tit ,n. Whatever individual rights now exist under the
osw are to be respected, Nothing is to be interfered
with, except the public right `eaich exists tinder the pre-
tent statute law tes seize tm-tra the coinage of an author's brain
at the end of twetettec;iht years, Tins is a public usurpation
1 which the tsosetnewt', law of tilngland does not sanction. Every
lawful keels-was:et which authors make with publishers is to
stead gor;cl ; but the Bill proposes that at the termination of
~ tat 'contract the property, instead of felling- into comnionage,
1 s".all revert to the representatives of the author. What the
' amenders (!) of the Bill proposed, is to make the law retros-
pective, for they want a law in 1838 to have regard to contracts
rneele years ago, and to extend one-half of the benefit of these
nontracts to a period of thirty-two years, at the least, beyond
what was intended by either party concerned when the con-
tracts were made. It is. therefore, not Mr. Sergeant Tal-
fourd, beat Mr. Sergeant Talfourd's opponents, who are justly
open t' the charge of wishing to carry into effect a retrospec-
tive ',awe—Morning Post.
slis far as the circumstances of Cie dreadful affray in Kent
heals yet come in an authentic shape before the public eye,
they do not appear to us to show that the dreadful destruction
of learnag life connected with the frantic asts of the madman
Cksuelenay was at all necessary and unavoidable. It is not on
Cep, part of the maniac aline that there appears to have be :•n
j. deficiency of that sound judgment, the want of which in those
who exerciegauthotity has so often a calamitous influence on
human affa'rs. \''.'e pass over at present the circumstance of
the maniac, whose brain, the surgeons need not tell us. xi as
in a state of the highest inflammation, having beet' let loose
iron society by the Home-office, from the peaceful security of
the criminal wing of a lunatic asylum. We suppose the; e
must be come investigation of that matter in Parliament, as
Lord John Russell's answer to Mr. Plurntre's question upon
that subject does not appear to be very setiefactory. It must be
admitted, that if the Home. office has been -uilty of any re-
missness of duty in this metier, Government Is morally respon-
sible for the catastrophe. Not only was the maniac let loose upon
society but released, as the event shows, from all surveillance
whetever, For several days was he allowed to perambulate the
country in a raving State of frenzy, armed with pistols and
dagger, without any attempt being made 'to secure him uetil
he had collected a crowd of poor deluded peasants, to wbcm
he gave supplies of fond and drink, and who, as if bitten by the
madman, became, by acme curious process of moral contagion,
infected with his frensy. But though raving mad, we are not
told of his havieg committed any act of violence up to the
time of shooting the unfortunate man. who went singly in the
character of a constable (though not being one), to arrest him
upon a magistrate's warrant. For what offence agaiest the
law end Upon whose information that warrant was issued vie are
110'1 iold. Against two of his followers, Wills and Newman,
warrants were also issued, but we are la, in the dark as to is hat
the charge was. An Evening Paper, The Sun, says it sees no
good reason for such a step, and observes that " until Cour-
tenay brutally slew the constable, he does not appear to have
ecramitted any legal offence." This is not se. He and
his follower, had not committed, as we said any act of vio-
lence ; but it was in itself an offence against the law and the
" Queen's peace" for a number of persons to be "riotously
and routously assembled," and to go about the country, armed
with bludgeons, in such a manner as was calculated to create
terror in the minds of the Queen's peaceable subjects.
Though a riot be not actually committed, an unlawful assembly
is in itself indictable, and this was unquestionably an unlawful
assembly, though in acting in terrorize populi it does not ap-
pear to have any definite object. The Ministerial Journals,
indeed, threw out dark and mysterious hints touching distin-
guished persons having some connection with this frantic out-
burst, in connection with the Poor-law ; and one of them_
the Globe, made a most indecent and disgusting attack upon a
nobleman who, by his humane and manly advocacy of the case
of the oppressed poor in Parliament, has given especial offence
to the autocratic dynasty of Somerset House. If Courtenay, in
his addresses, made use of the unpopularity of the Poor-law to
inflame the passions of the peasantry, it does not appear that
any overt act of resistance to that law was committed or me-
ditated. It is certain that Courtenay'e madness took the
turn of the more animal passion for destruction. Was
it not possible, by some judicious plan or contrivance, to have
separated the maniac from his misguided followers, and placed
him once more under the salutary coercion of a strait-waist-
coat? At all events, nothing of the sort was attempted, but a
simple constable and another were sent to take into custody
this raving madman, armed with loaded fire-arms. Who can
wonder that the poor countryman, who was made the " bell-
the-cat" on this occasion, was sacrificed on the spat? Then,
when the soldiery were called out, to the amount of 100 regu-
lar troops against this maniac, at the head of 40 or 50 pea-
sants, provided with no other weapons than sticks and blud-
geons, why could not the maniac have been captured, or put
hors de combat, without such a massacre of the unfortunate
peasantry as is horrible to think upon ? Certainly the hasty,
unreflecting ardour of Lieutenant Bennett, in rushing upon
the madman with his sword, may have been the cause of
hurrying on a general collision, which might otherwise have
been avoided. It was an excess of zeal, creditable to the
personal bravery of that gallant and unfortunate officer, but
attended with most calamitous consequences. It does not
appear clearly, from the evidence given on the inquest,
I whether Lieutenant Bennett struck at Courtenay with his
sword before the latter discharged his pistol, or imme-
diately afterwards. It ii true, one witness, who was not
a military man, swore that Courtenay fired before Lieute-
nant Bennett struck at him, but Major Armstrong, who
commanded the detachment, and who saw the rencontre,
was unable to say whether the firing of Courtenay was before
or after Lieut. Bennett raised his arm. It seemed to him
that the very moment they closed on each other, the pistol
was fired and the blow was given. We presume that this
blow was one of the sabre cuts, described as having gashed
the forehead of Courtenay. Had Courtenay been taken alive
and put on his trial for the murder of Lieut. Bennett, and he
were a person of sane memory, it would become a very mate-
rial question, whether the deceased struck or attempted to
strike him with the sword before he discharged the pistol, it
being certain from the statement of Dr. Poore, that the
Riot Act was not read, and it also appearing that no warrant
for the apprehension of Courtenay was at that time exhi-
bited. Nor, according to Major Armstrong's evidence,
is it clear that Lieutenant Bennett ever called upon Courtenay
to surrender. Indeed the belief of that Gallant Officer is
that he did not. But then there was the death of
the constable's assistant, which bad been previously perpe-
trated by the hand of Courtenay. In cases where a num-
ber of men assembled for some illegal object, and agree
together to resist legal authorities, a murder committed
by one of them in pursuance of the common object is,
by the law of England, murder by all. It is upon that ground,
no doubt, that the Coroner's jury have returned verdicts of
murder against several of Courtenay's followers as well against
himself, who is now beyond the reach of all human tribunals.
The insanity of Courtenay, however, would have been a suc-
cessful plea to an indictment for murder in both those cases.
Legally speaking, a madman cannot be guilty of murder, or
any other crime, and then comes the question how far any of
his followers can be implicated in the guilt of murder, seeing
that the act of homicide was not, in either instance, murder
in him who struck the blows? They were but the result of
sudden paroxysms of insanity in Courtenay alone, not the con-
t-quence of any preconcert with others. Now, if one man be
tried as a principal in a crime, and be acquitted, another
charged as an accessary must be acquitted too, for where there
is no principal, it is a rule of low as well as of reason, that
there can be no accessary. We think the same principle
might be applicable to principals in the first and se-
cond degree, for if there be no principal in the
first degree, there can, we would humbly suggest, be
no principals in the second degree, who are also known
in law as accessories at the fact. No doubt, the prisoners
against whom the Coroner's jury have returned verdicts of
murder will be put upon their trial for that offence ; but upon
proving the insanity of Courtenay, we dare not say, if the
facts should be clear, the point of law will be raised which
we have suggested. Let it not be supposed that, if the men
be acquitted of the murder on this or any other ground, they
would therefore escape all civil punishment. They are in-
dictable as rioters, and as persons being unlawfully assembled
at common law. At all events, we trust, Government will
never think that any judicial bloodshed ought to follow in a
case like this, where the ignorant people have been led astray
by a madman, for whose opportunity of doing mischief, in that
or any other way, Government is itself accountable. The
following remarks by a Ministerial journal, The Sun, strike
us as being very just :
" But after the murder was committed, and the desperate
character of the lunatic and his deluded followers was known,
were proper measures taken to secure him and separate him
from them ? The military were summoned, and Mr. Handley
made a feeble attempt to address Courtenay's followers. We
cannot think that all was done which the law or which pru-1
dance requires. Surely the rioters ought to have been made I
an are of the presence of the military, and asked to surrender.
Probably the Riot Act should have been read, of which there
is no evidence. But a gentleman, whose gallantry unfortu-e
nately cost him his life, rushed towards Courtenay, apparently'
to seize him, and the bloody contest, which a little temper ore
prudence might have avoided, then ensued. We want to
know if it were not possible by stratagem, by surrounding that
wood, by some temporary delay, to have succeeded in appre-i
bending the murderer, without shedding so much blood !" 1
Englishmen are naturally and necessarily jealous of the in-'
terference of the military power, and we hope a time will
never come when they will be disposed to acquiesce in the
propriety
of the military firing on the people without the
order of the civil authority. Such a thing is only character-
istic of a state of martial law. New, according to the state-
ment of Dr. Poore, no magisterial order was given to fire
in the present instance. At all events, Dr. Poore says he
did not give it. This is surely a subject for inquiry in
Parliament. In our opinion it materially affects the les
gality of the homicide of the unfortnnate peasants. It
ought to put the military to the necessity of proving that
they fired only in the necessary self-defence of their own
lives against men armed only with sticks and staves after
Courtenay fell. If, indeed, it should turn out that the
slaughter of so many of our fellow-subjects by military exe-
cution, being without a Magistrate's order, was committed in
necessary self-defence, that is another question. We do
not presume to prejudge a case, the whole merits of which
are yet but imperfectly known, and which must be the
subject of solemn inquiry elsewhere. But people naturally
ask why cool, steady, regular mops, being in number sufficient
to surround the whole party, and take them prisoners at the
point of the bayr.ot, were not able to quell such a riot without
so great an effusion of blood ? We should observe that it was
by Dr. Poore's authority that the soldiers loaded, although
before he had time to answer Major Armstrong's question,
they fired. Dr. Poore had also given an order—which ap.
pears to us a very extraordinary and unprecedented ene—to
" take Courtenay, dead or alive," addieg that he hoped it
might be done without effusion of blood, alluding, we suppose,
'o his misguided adherents. That order, "to take Courtenay,