The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-17 00:00:00

FOR TIIE SUN.

M.P. for the County of
To RICHARD MARTIN,
Galway.
Dublin, Feb. 10.

Six—Having been One of those who, on the
introduction of your Bill into Parliament, requesting cruelty to
animals, anticipated that you would not succeed, where Erskine's
powers and zeal had failed, and who,
beside, did not foresee
much practical good likely to follow, however humane the at-
tempt, I think it but an act ofjustice not only to recur to my former
opinion, given to you on this subject, but to confess my error
and my present conviction, that few acts of the Legisla-
ture, passed with a view to national moral improvement, are
better, or indeed so well, calculated to ensure that object.
From your temper of mind I am not surprised that you do
not suffer yourself to relax in the good work which your per-
severence wrought, and which your courage has nearly esta-
blished, by the aid of the executive power. Englund has ob-
tained through your agency a new feature of the justice and
mercy of its laws ; and I understand, from some of our tra-
velled friends, that this additional trait in its protecting ,cha-
racter is already known, and worthily regarded on the Con-

tinont.

I do not believe there is, at this day, one class of men except-
ing the protectors of what in vulgar dialect is termed " the
Fancy" (what fancies !) who do not admit that enlightened
views of the tendencies of human nature led you to the enter-
prize which you have so happily atchieved, but which at the
beginning was attributed • to
.a quixotic spirit, and the capri-
cious partiality to the lower animals, too often discoverable in
persons not in the least sensible to the merits, or the sufferings
of their fellow-creatures.
I am happy in knowing, as I do from ulAuestionable facts,
that no man has sacrificed more largely than yourself to the
necessities of persons within your knowledge, and your power
to relieve ; or who has more generously and cheerfully contri-
buted time, talents, and fortune, to the advancement of
indigent merit, wherever you discovered it. Certainly much
more than was wise to yourself—but who can be at once wise
and enthusiastic—generous and cautious—brave and prudent ?
&e. &c. _ _

Providence knows best the instruments fitted to its designs.
T am persuaded it must have proved to you no slight conviction
of its favour, that you have been appointed by him " whose
mercy is over all his works," to be the medium of obtaining
justice for those his creatures that had heretofore or hitherto no
protection from human law against those vicious natures who
" knew no touch of pity," and who mercilessly inflict any pain
or injury for either gain or sport, where the wide range of
positive law fails to particularize the wicked deed, and its at-
tendant penalty.
In addressing the Advocate of Mercy I do not mean to wound
the fe:lings any where by reference to recent frightful disclosures,
but I may assume, that proofs arc daily accumulating to justify
yogr opinion that man is trained to the committal of all enor-
mities by habits of cruelty exercised either in sports or in re-
sentment.
If any thing can add to the merit of your conduct through-
out the pregress of the Reform you have brought about,
it must be th disinterestedness of your efforts, so beyond the
possibility of earthly return from these you contend for. It is
unnecessary to wish for you that higher reward which cannot
but await you from the hand which has employed you in its
service of mercy.
Accept this tribute of feelings, as disinterested as your own,
from a now nameless, though an
OLD ACQUAINTANCE.

P. S. I choose to address this to you through a public print,
because I think public services demand public expressions of
gratitude from such as are ready to render honour where
honour is due.

FOIL THE SUN.

FIRE IN WATLING-STREET.

I:IIURTELL rl. BEAUXONT.
MR. ED Tor—.in justice-to the character of a
respectable man, Mr. Wriggleswdith, who has been shamefully
maligned in the proceeding,. against the application for a new
trial, decided last Thursday, I am induced to make known some
facts tithe public through 'your means, which the rules of Court
forbade being received in evidence. It is a lamentable inconsist-
ency, that, ~chile the affidavits in support of a rule are sifted and
canvassed, replied to and opposed, by counter affidavits from
the opposite party, the affidavits of such opposite party are
precluded from disproof. The speciousness of their concoc-
tion, the grossness of their falsehood, the infamy of the cha-
racters making them, may be capable of complete exposure by
evidence, but not a word will be received.. In this unequal.
conflict, the artful or dishonest replicant is almost sure to
prevail. •
In excuse, it is said, that if affidavits in reply were suffered
to be disproved, there would be no end to affidavits. But this
is a bad excuse. It need not be so. If some little addi-
tional trouble be required for an examination whether affida-
vits be true or false, it ought not to be grudged. Sub
stantial truth and justice ought to be the paramount objects of
all legal investigations ; not facility in getting through them,
or rid of them.
Mr. Wrigglesworth became a witness in this cause in the fol-
lowing manner :—On the morning after the trial in the Pleas
last July, a Mr. Edward Bottrel entered the County Fire
Office, and informed one, of the desks, that he called in
consequence of having just seen an account of the trial
in the Newspapers—he said that soon after the fire, a man whom
he knew of the name of Bradshaw, had applied to him
and asked him to make out false invoices for the Thurtells as
of goods sold by him to them, offering him 20 per cent. on their
amount for doing so, which offer he had refused. He was in
consequence introduced to me, when he repeated this statement,
and added, that Bradshaw was a man-in bad circumstances,
and for a sum of money, would, no doubt, come forward and
prove the case against the Thurtells. I treated this tender as I
had all others from the connexions of the Thurtells. I refused
to give or promise any thing, and this piece of evidence fell to
the ground. He then told me he had shewn the account of the
trial to Mr. Wrigglesworth, who had been the manager at
Messrs.slargraves, and who, upon reading it, exclaimed," Now
the murder's out ! This accounts for Snowden's sales, which
always puzzled me;" he added, that all the goods really bought
by the Thurtell's went into Hargraves, and that Mr. Wriggles.
worth, who was a very intelligent man, and on whose accuracy
I might depend, could prove the whole of the transaction.
This, of course, led to an interview with Mr. Wrigglesworth,
and 1 found him all that he was described. I *hewed him
Thurtell's invoices.' Those from Todd's and Leaf's, he said,
were real transactions; he recognized some of Todd's as copies
.of invoices which had been deposited with the goods at Mar-
de
gy eg by SnowdenChte pointed out certain goods which he
hade objected Swan
to and
returned—he described the reductions of
rI
price at which they had been sold to Margraves, and the
successive steps by which they had been introduced ; he
said that Snowden had substituted invoices of his own for
the original ones of Todds, which at first had been deposited at
o
the warehouse, and that Snowden had defaced all the old marks
on the goods, so thatif I traced them I should have 'great dif-
ficulty in ideniifying them. Eventually I procured from Messrs.
Margraves copies of Snowden's invoices to then:, and traced and
obtained possession of a large portion of the goods when the
accuracy of Mr. Wrigglesworth's information became establish-
ed in every particular ; Nothing could be more candid than his
testimony from first to last, nor more kind than his apologies
for his former employers, Messrs. Mar2-,raves', share in the
transaction.

A word now on the affidavits of Snowden and Margraves,
which to my utter astonishment the Court has declared to have
completely answered" that of Wriggiesworth. How is it
completely answered? In these affidavits there is a long parade
of denials of things not affirmed, and of averments which are
not disputed, and some immaterial circumstances are answered,
but all that is material is evaded or admitted. The sum and
substance of Wrigglesworth's affidavit is, that Thurtell's Par-
chase: ofgoodsfrom Todd's and Leaf's were clandestinely sold to
Margraves through the agency of Snowden, and that the in-
voices on the sale and the resale were alike. Is any iota of this
denied ? Does Snowden deny that he sold those goods to Mar-
graves, as Agent for Thurtell ? No. Does he venture to swear
for whom, if not for Thurtell, he was agent ? No. So much
for Snowden—for the present. Well—Do Margraves deny hav-
ing bought the goods " of Snowden as agent." No.—
Do they not, by the copies of invoices which they
have delivered; corroborate and confirm all that is ma-
terial in Wrigglesworth's affidavit ?—Undoubtedly they do.—
The silence of Snowden to the above most important aver-
ments of Wrigglesworth is tantamount to a full confession.
This fatal silence was strongly and repeatedly remarked upon
by the Chief.lustice, while the affidavits were under discus-
sion. How he came the next morning when delivering judg-
ment to pass it over as he did, I confess myself unable to ex-
plain.

The affidavit of one Taylor, that Mr. Wrigglesworth is un-
deserving of belief on his oath—for which. bold assertion lie
gives no reason, is too contemptible to merit, further remark.
Affidavits of this description are procurable by the infamous
at a few shillings each at any time. Many of this tribe of
swearers have been with me offering to turn upon their em-
ployers if I would pay them. 1 have two letters now before
me from a fellow of the name of William Reeves, which state,
that " under certain conditions" he could put me in posses-
sion of important information. I saw this man in gaol. He
told me that he had been employed by the Tleartells on the for-
mer trial—that they had not paid him as they promised, and
that several firemen were engaged to swear falsely against us—
that he knew of two men who would prove every thing I
wanted ; but he intimated that he must be relieved from his
then distress, and he asked me if I would appoint him a fire-
man, or an agent to the Office. I refused to give or promise
him any thing, or to have any thing to do with him. Rejected
by me this man now swears again for his old employers, and
affirms, that he saw a quantity of bombazeens in the ruins of
Thurtell's premises, a fact which is denied by every one else.
The obloquy which was lavished upon Mr. Wrigglesworth by
a Learned Serjeant, who is rather remarkable for his latitude
of speech, I think was cruel. Mr. Wrigglesworth is a`family
man, and has always moved in respectability, and formerly in a
higher sphere than at present. He came forward without fee
or reward, or the request, or the promise, of either, to further the
ends of public justice. Are not these ends likely to be defeated,
if men cannot become witnesses without being held up topublic
scorn ? Is it generous to destroy the fame and wound the feel-
ings of a man who is forbidden to speak for himself? I have
made inquiry in the city, and find that Mr. •Wrigglesworth's
character stands high. Mr. Kilson, in whose employ he now
is, tells me that he has known him, and respected him, for
twenty years; that before he engaged him he inquired of
Mr. Hargrave as to his conduct with him. Mr. Margrave said
that no fault could be found with his integrity and moral con-
duct, and that he should be happy to promote his views in life.
I cannot close this letter without noticing two propositions in
the judgment of the Learned Judge, in which the interest of
the public appears to me very ;naterially compromised. One
imputes an impropriety in indicting the Thurtells, and the rest
for a crime, while an action was pending between one of the
parties and the prosecutor : how is this impropriety made out ?
Do not all jurisconsults agree that the trial of an offender ought
to follow the offence as speedily as may be, so that the facts

may be fresh in recollection ; that the witnesses may be forth'
coming; and that punishment, when necessary, may succeed to
the crime,before the impression which it has created on the public
shall be forgotten? if an action for debt or damages between
parties were a bar to an indictment, offenders on detection would
frequently raise such actions to prevent a prosecution, or to pia
time, during which witnesses might be got out of the way, or
to induce the prosecutor to cempromise ;—or, if an action were
already subsisting, means would be found for protracting it,
to delay or defeat a prosecution. I cannot conceive any one
good reason for delaying the course of justice on such an ac-
count, unless, indeed, in regard to the prosecutor. He 1391
himself open to suspicion and observation in both his suits ;
and no doubt there have been instances where base characters
have instituted criminal charges to intimidate a creditor fro
proceeding in his suit. But these cases are few.—They are al-
ways viewed with ample jealousy, .and they are open to ex-
posure. They are cases of rare exception, Which afford no Fes-
sonable grounds for delaying the regular administration of cri-
minal justice. Will any unprejudiced man say, that the end*
of justice would have been served if we had left the Thurteli'
to the free exercise of their practices on the public until the
final disposal of their claim upon the County Office ?
The other proposition broadly affirms that neither perjurll
nor conspiracy in witnesses arc sufficient grounds for a new
trial. According to this doctrine, if a case be got up against
a man by false witnesses, and a verdict be thereby oletained
against him, even to the alienation of his whole property--and
if, in the interval between the verdict and judgment, the suf-
ferer be able to bring to justice, and convict the false witnesses,
the corrupt proceeding is yet to stand goad—the false judgment
is to proceed; he is not to have the benefit of a new trial—but he
must sink under known and proved perjury and conspiracy !
I submit to the dispassionate judgment of the public, whether
this subjugation of property to the power of fraud and perjury
is not really appalling.
We know
.to our sorrow the proverbial uncertainty of the law.
We know that, according to the mode of trial in England, the
facts and witnesses intended to be produced, are kept as secret
as possible, until the hour of display in Court. How then is s
defendant instanter to disprove perjured statements, and ex-
pose unworthy witnesses, if such appear ? He cannot—a ver-
dict must go against him—and if, upon proof of the misdoing,
he be not allowed relief in a new trial, is he not rendered the
victim of legalized injustice ?
The reason assigned for refusing to grant a new trial, upon
proof of pea and conspiracy in the witnesses is, that it
might encourage false accusations of witnesses. So .a flagrant
and positive wrong is to be committed to prevent the chance of
another wrong. An excellent reason, ttuly ! But has it never
occured to our Judges, that by rendering a verdict fraudu-
lently procured immoveable, an encouragement far more alarm-
ing is given to getters-up qf fraudulent cases—and to desperate
men to become their false witnesses? What care men of a
base description for the ultimate .fate of their instruments, so
that they get a verdict and' costs Q Into what uncertainty is
the possession of property thrown by the above encouragement?
I thus speak of evils which I hare suffered • under. As re-
presenting the interests of nearly 40,000 perzons of.property,
cdmplain of the jeopardy in which that property is 'placed by
the above doctrines: Already are the crimes of incendiarieni
and fraudulent claims increasing in an alarming degree, and if
any thing be done to give .them further encouragement,, the
sooner Fire Insurance be put an end to the better; for the
inju-
ries done to Life and Property by wilful fires will then out-
balance the value of the indemnity of insurance to holiest
sufferers. I am, &c.
J. T. BARBER BEAUNIO?iT,
County Fire Office, LondO.

EX-SII ERIFF PARKINS.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, 16.
BYRNE V. PARKINS.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, who was some time
ago the object of public subscription, against Mr. Parkins, Ex-
Sheriff of London, for money had and received for the plain-
tiff's use. It is generally known that the defendant took art
active part in promoting the said subscription, and induced
many persons to render assistance. The plaintiff was sup-
ported with his family at the rate of two guineas a week, and
having called for an account of The money, Mr. Parkins stated
that the whole which came to hands amounted to 1511. 8s-
The plaintiff, supposing Mr. Parkins had not accounted for
all the money received, brought this action ; and the ques-
tion was, how much he really had received for the use of the
plaintiff.
Mr. C. Pifinrars, in a very able speech, stated the case,'
and having entered' into all the circumstances connected with
the history of the transaction, contended that a balance of at
least 1901.• was due to the plaintiff. The defendant had ad'
mitted that he received subscriptions.to the amount of 3001-,
yet Mr. Parkins did not account for more than 151/. It would
appear in the items of account, that, having: placed this man in
certain stables, with a promise to put him in business as a
stable-keeper, he had made him pay rent at the rate of 90/. Per
annum, besides taxes. The Learned Counsel called. several
witnesses in support of his case.
John Scott, the first witness, said he was some time since
clerk to the defendant. He stated that Mr. Parkins told him
on one occasion that the subscription was advancing rapidly.
and that he had 3001. in his hands, including 51. received from •
Sir F. Burdett.
Mr. W. Cebbett said, he conversed several times with Mr.
Parkins on the subject of the subscription. In September,
1822, before the plaintiff arrived' in England, the defendant
said he had about 1501. in his hands.. -

Mr. Robert Bell said, he conversed many times with the de-
fendint-about the subscriptions, but never could learn :how
much he had received. Mr. Parkins acknowledged he had re-
ceived more then was given to Byrne. He gave a reason for
not paying over the surplus :--" Do you think," said Mr.
Parkins, " I would give the scoundrel the money, he means
to run away, and leave his wife and children on the parish in
England." • The witness asked if they had given him a coach
and horses as they. promised him ? The defendant said, No, .1
have done a better thing for him ; he •is taking care of InY
stables, and is now in my employ. The conversation was either
at the beginning of February, or at the end of March last year-
Mr. MAItitYATT then addressed the Jury for the defendant-
He called upon then to consider the cause without the fringe
and ornament. Mr. Parkins had delivered an account, stating
item by item, down to the smallest suns, the money-which
Byrne had received. The total which came to his hands was
151/. and it did not appear from any evidence the plaintiff bad'
offered, that one shilliwg more had been received ; if that were
so, what pretence was there for the action.
The account was then put in and read. It consisted of mo-
ney paid to Byrne, cash advanced for the publication of adver-
tisements in papers and placards. There was a sum of 9/. for
wages to the defendant's clerk, lee :Min, employed in the
office of Mr. Parkins, .who carried on the general business of
charity and benevolence. He received subscriptions for Byrne,
and was paid the above sum. The sum of 3/. 9s. sd. was pia
for Evening Newspapers to be sent to Ireland. Another item
was 49/. 4s. for half a year's rent for stables and coach-house,
and 21. 9s. 4d. for King's Taxes. There was also a weekly al-
lowance during twenty-five weeks, at two guineas a week.
A great number of witnesses were called to make out the
items of account, and also the occupation of the stables in
Riding' House-lane by the Plaintiff.
Mr. Purni.nes, in reply, said it would have been satisfaee
tory to have had this case set:led in another place. He admit-
ted Mr. Parkins was entitled to be paid for every farthing
furnished to Byrne for his support ; and this action was not
brought for any thing hut justice ; Byrne claimed a consider-
able balance. Mr. Parkins admitted that he had received three
hundred pounds, and yet he gave in a written account for a hun-
dred anti fifty-one pounds. One of the accounts must be filler-
He made the declaration to Mr. Cobbett and to Mr. Bell, that,
he had received a considerable sum of money ; and to his
clerk; Scott, he said_ he had received 300/. Mr. Cobbett said
Parkins told him that he had received 1501. before Byrne came
from Ireland, He called the attention of the Jury to the miser-
able state in which Byrne and his family were represented
to be in the advertisement published by Mr. Perkins, yet this
unfortunate father of 7 children, and a sick wife, was to pal
104/. a-year for premises. Mr. Cobbett and 111 r. Bell had said
Byrne was put into the place to keep it for Parkins. If it was
not see Cobbett and Bell were yerjured.

[Here Mr. Parkins observed—Then they are perjured.]
Mr. PHILLIPS said it was a most indecent thing for an un-
blushing defendant to accuse respectable citizens of perjury.--
It was as. clear as day-light that this charge for rent was an
after thought to put poor Byrne out of Court. There was no
agreement between them. If Byrne had been asked to enter
into a bargain for 1041. a-year, he would have stared with
amazement. He might as well have asked him to pay the Na-,,
tional Debt, or find out the longitude. None of the family of
the poor man ever had so much in their possession as 1041,--
Byrne wrote a letter of gratitude from Ireland, but had there
been a single line of gratitude from him since he came to Eng-
land ? No; Mr. Parkins had treated him harshly, and with-
held his money. He had expressed a hope that Mr. Parkins,
who had been Sheriff of London, would not have made this de-
fence. The defendant wore a laugh of triumph, but the Jury
would not support him in that sort of expression.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in his charge, called the atten‘
Lion of the Jury to the points, and left them to consider whether
they could rely most on the written account given by the De
fendant, or the sum which one of the witnesses had stated to
be 3001. The safest way was to rely on written accounts be-
tween man and man, and not be led away by loose converts'
Lions, than which nothing could be more uncertain.
The Jury retired, and on their return found a verdict for the.
Plaintiff—Damages 1941. 4s. 4d.