The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-19 00:00:00

character, involving a breach of duty, a crime of the
most serious description, followed by the grossest
perjury, were fully established and proved. On full
consideration of the entire evidence on both sides,
however, Mr. BROUGHTON came to the conclusion
that no jury would convict the prisoner, whom he ac-
cordingly ordered to be discharged.

The observations which we thought it our duty to
offer on the subject are not, however, in
any degree shaken by the final result. The
simple fact that a magistrate came to a
decision and exercised his summary jurisdic-
tion, depriving even a person of bad character
of her liberty, and consigning her to a House of Cor-
rection for a week, without giving her time to estab-
lish the truth of her story, and to produce the wit-
ness on her behalf, whom she statetto be cognizant
of the entire transaction, was, in our opinion, deserv-
ing of grave animadversion. The magistrate him.
self admitted the error into which he had fallen by
revoking the judgment he had just pronounced, and
expressing his opinion in favour of the truth of the
defence put forward, and his gratification at the
escape he had had of doing injustice to the unfortu-
nate young woman.

Police magistrates have functions of the most im•
portant character entrusted to their hands. Every
case must be investigated before them, in the first
instance; they are to a certain extent to discharge
the duties of a grand jury, and to see that there is
sufficient evidence to afford, at least, a reasonable
prospect of a conviction, before they expose the
persons brought before them to the inconvenience,
expense, and disgrace of a public trial. They are to
protect the public from frivolous and trifling charges,
and to see that the liberty of the subject shall not be
lip nagnitude that it cannot be ienhfarrigngeedis.: su upon without a sufficient cause. If the
ade-
quately dealtypit under the summary powers vested
in the magistW, and if there is sufficient evidence
to satisfy a jury of the guilt of the person charged,
unless rebuttea'by further evidence to be adduced on
his behalf, it is the duty of the magistrate to send it
for further investigation, otherwise at once to dis-
charge the prisoner. A further discretion, however,
is vested in'the magistrate; he is permitted in many
cases to decide at once upon the guilt or innocence of
the party, and to pronounce a sentence of fine or im-
prisonment. This extraordinary and unconstitutional
power should be exercised with the greatest discre-
tion. The just and humane principle of the British
law is, that every person must be supposed innocent
until found guilty by the verdict of a jury of his
peers; and, again, that it is better that ninety-nine
guilty persons should escape, than that one innocent
man should be subjected to undeserved punishment.
Hence a jury are in every case told by the presiding
judge, that should they entertain any reasonable
doubt they are to give the benefit of it to
the prisoner. A magistrate, who acts both as judge
and jury, should be influenced by the same conside-
rations ; he should not decide upon a balance of evi-
dence. ; Unless perfectly satisfied that the charge is
well-founded, and that the case is free from doubt,
he should not brand the character of the person by
a conviction which may seriously affect his entire
prospects in life; he should give the fullest opportu-
nity of producing every witness whose testimony
could, by a possibility, throw a further light on the
case. It is in this respect we think that Mr. ARNOLD
acted injudiciously. We trust, however, that in his
future career he may be warned by what has occurred,
and not again fall into a similar mistake.

A curious electioneering trick has just taken place
in Galway, which, it is said, had considerable effect
in furthering the prospects of the repeal candidate.
A letter was received:by the mid-day mail, purporting
to come from the highly respectable news-agents, the
Messrs. JOHNSTON, of Eden-quay, Dublin, and en-
closing a printed slip, stated to be taken from an
Express Edition of The Sun, announcing the disso-
lution of the Ministry ; that Lord JOHN RUSSELL had
ceased to be Prime Minister of England, and that
Mr. Moszairasi would consequently return to his pri-
vate capacity, and no longer fill the situation of one
of the principal law officers of the Crown in Ireland.
The well-established character for accuracy and
early information of 7he Sun, as well as the ex-
traordinary raoiaity • I.,;*iv whin], .0 1uL,Au,.........
of interest or importance is circulated through-
out the country, by means of its Expresses,
were so well known, that it gave a certain
verisimilitude to the story, and for a time no
question arose as to its accuracy. The friends of the
English connexion, those grateful for the mea-
sures already announced for the amelioration
of their country, were naturally struck with
dismay; while, we regret to say, the re-
pealers were so blinded by party feelings, and so
much excited by the pending contest, that they
hailed with joy tidings that, if well founded, should
have caused the deepest regret. The fate of a
Ministry who have done so much for Ireland, who re-
moved the disabilities under which she suffered for
well-grounded cause of complaint, and to
eavgeersy, who desire to extend her privileges, to remove
equalise her in every respect with England, was only
regarded as a matter bearing on and influencing the
pending election. Strange that persons should be so
led away and blinded to their real interests by tem-
porary excitement. It is unncessary to say that the
nature of the hoax was SOCM fully explained, and we
are happy to say that the Solicitor-General, accord-
ingmaintaine I the
fromstill which the false-
hood had threatened to displace him.
ionft etlhl ieg epnoel el ,
position
the tlesat d

Messrs. JOHNSTON have, we find, offered a reward
of 1001. for the discovery of the author of the im-
pudent forgery, which certainly was of a character
that no electioneering tactics could justify or palliate.

A loiter
a t Trieste, from
s Veniceom avA)N,s The Brazilian Vice-
Consul —VIA.NNA, has proceeded
to Vienns, to propose to the Austrian Government to
send several thousand poor families from Reisengeberg
s
and Erzeberg to Brazil, at the expense of the Brazilian
Government. State lands would be there placed at their
disposal in such parts of the country as possess but a
thin population."

Madrid papers of the 10th inst. have been received.
The Count of CASTELLANE, the brother of the bride
of Don ENRIQUE, has been released from arrest. On
the morning of the 10th the marriage of the daughter
of Don FRANCISCO DE PAULA with the eldest son of
Count ALTAMIRA. was celebrated at the palace. The
answer to the address drawn up by the Committee for
the Chambers contains a paragraph formally approving
of the marriages. It was proposed by Senor Ros DE
OLANO and Senor BENAVIDES to introduce a •paragraph
relating to the Flores' expedition, but the proposition
was not acceded to. The debate on the Address would
commence immediately in the Chamber of Deputies.
It was reported that Queen CHRISTINA. was about to
visit Paris.
MADRID BOLSA, FED. 10.—The Three per Cents. were
done at 32 for cash; the Four per Cents., at 20 ; the
Five per Cents., at 201; Passives, 61; and the Coupons
at 19.

We have received the Paris
papers of Tuesday.
The Ministerial journals have at length broken silence
respecting the affair between the Marquis of NORMANBY
and M. GUIZTY, and the last dispatches of Lord
PALMERSTON and the Marquis. The Journal des Dibats,
after defending M. Gtazor from the attacks of the
Opposition papers, endeavours to prove that the dis-
patches of Lord NORMANBY and Lord PALMERSTON are
not of the importance attached to them by the journals
of the Opposition. The Epoque and the Presse follow
on the same side, while the Constitutionnel and the
Sleek rerew their attacks upon 111. GUIZOT. The latter
journal says:—
" The testimony of Lord Normanby. and Lord Palmerston
is not, unfortunately, the only one which is wanting to M.
Guizot. As to this testimony, formerly so precious, we think
that but little regard is paid to it at present. What matters
to M. Guizot, in the midst of his intoxication, the double
contradiction that his words have just received? Can it be
true that timid Conservatives andcourtiers appear alarmed at
the rudeness of this official dementi, delivered to publicity,
blow after blow, by the journals and the tribune? Can it
bb true that it has been declared that the words pronounced
by M. Guizot were not a formal denial of the language held
by that Minister in his conversation with Lord Normanby?
that they signified only that the Ambassador of England was
wrong in looking on that language as serious ? Is it to be
supposed, in fine, that M. Guizot himself had desired to im-
ply a disavowal on his part without this disavowal being
precisely stated? In that case, Lord Normanby would be
exceedingly culpable not to have entered on the path of so
easy an arrangement. It appears that this Ambassador is a
prejudiced man. He has not learned in the Conservative
school to appreciate the value of an adroit equivocation; he
is not aware what encouragements bold lies merit, when
uttered in the tribune of: a great nation in the interest of a
system. He disdains the glory of these superior minds to
whom it costs nothing to be caught in flagranti delicto of
political dishonesty, before all Europe, provided they get out
of a present difficulty, and are assured of impunity: Im-
punity ! Why it appeared acquired for six years to M.
Guizot and his accomplice; but one would now say that the