The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

sula until the Noble Lord has submitted his version of
those transactions to the deliberation of the Imperial
Parliament, and to the scrutiny of the sovereign
people. Otherwise we should be abusing our power
as organs of that popular mind which should be as
impartial as the Goddess with the sword, the bandage,
and the scales.

It would be no difficult undertaking to demonstrate
the duplicity of the Guizot Administration from the
very defence laid by them upon the tables of the
legislative Chambers. There is such a multiplicity
of malicious misconstructions interpolated in that
defence !—here a voluntary misapprehension of the
meaning of Lord PALMERSTON, here a positive hiatus
in his dispatches, here, again, a discourteous distortion
of the sentences contained therein. By taking the
papers grouped together by M. GIJIZOT, piecemeal,
paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, and
syllable by syllable, it were easy, in the fullest signi-
fication of that adjective, to show the utter absence
of all honourable speaking on the part of the French
Government. Begun with a shameless trick at the
Chateau d'Eu, pursued with official falsities in the
subsequent communications across the Channel, or
beyond the Pyrenees, and consummated with a per-
fidious surprise in the Palace Chambers of Madrid,
the Montpensier marriage is now defended upon
a principle in accordance with the duplicity
in which it was conceived. It is superfluous,
however, to enter wearily into an exposition
of the fraudulent behaviour of the Parisian Ministers
throughout the whole affair, and more especially of
the meanness of the pleas upon which they are now
endeavouring to palliate their conduct to the Govern-
ment of Albion. Within a few days, we might
almost say within a few hours, the documents pro-
duced in Parliament by her MAJESTY'S Minister for
Foreign Affairs will accomplish that task, and any
detailed anticipation of those documents is conse-
quently altogether needless and superfluous.
We cannot, however, pass over one of the many
preposterous insinuations made as to Lord PALMERS-
TON'S inefficiency in not preventing the Mont-
pensier alliance, without one sentence of com-
mentary. We cannot allow an insinuation so mon-
strously opposed to truth to go forth without uttering
one word of indignant contradiction. Much stress
has been laid upon the sentiments expressed by the late
Minister for Foreign Affairs, under the Administration
of Sir ROBERT PEEL, in his communications to the
Due BE SOTOMAYOR, concerning the marriage of the
Princesses of the Peninsula. An invidious distinction
has been attempted to be drawn between the course
pursued by Lord ABERDEEN and Lord PALMERSTON
in this matter, when, in reality, there has been no re-
cognisable difference whatever between the course
pursued by either, when, indeed, their policy, in re-
gard to Spain, has been almost identical!
What Lord ABERDEEN wrote to the Dec
DE SOTOMAT OR, Lord PALMERSTON subsequently
wrote to the representative of his SOVEREIGN in
Iberia. There was not a tardiness in regard to
Spanish affairs on the part of Lord PALMERSTON, as
has been disingenuously insinuated; -nor was there
any reluctance in Lord PALMERSTON to cope with
the subtle and wily diplomatists of the Continent.
Both these facts are notorious to every one acquainted
with the circumstances antecedent to the Peninsular
nuptials. Scarcely had the Noble Lord taken office,
in the middle of 1846, when he cordially upheld the
policy hitherto pursued by his predecessors, and in
black and white committed himself to the prosecution
of the plans already mapped out by Lord ABERDEEN.
Remembering these things, bearing in recollection
the prejudiced aspect afforded to the transaction by
the papers submitted to the French Chambers, know-
ing that within scarcely half a dozen days the coun-
ter-statement of Lord PALMERSTON will be laid
before Parliament, and impressed with the considera-
tion that judgment should never be pronounced until
both parties have been heard, we again protest dis-
tinctly and emphatically against the prejudging of
Lord PALMERSTON upon this delicate and important
matter.

On the 22d of last month it became our painful duty
to offer some very severe strictures upon the unfor-
tunate loss of judgment and temper evinced by the
Lord Chief Baron, in the Court of Exchequer, in the
case of GoLnyryyTT 9/ -BRACT", Mr. COOTCPTTYLN-
in consequence of his having been told by the
Judge, Sir FREDERICK PoLLocx, in the presence
of the jury who were to try the cause, that
the mode in which he meant to conduct his client's
defence " was little short of insanity," and in conse-
quence of his having failed the next morning to in-
duce the Judge to postpone the trial, on the
ground that such an impression militated
thej
againsturytchoeuldenndost ofbut jubseticthe,eretbhy atthemisof
prejudiced—im-
mediately retired from the Court, the cause was
tried as an undefended one,that
u
and the jury gave
heavier damages, by 1001., than had been ob-
tained upon the first trial. Under
ejusticen s r theseeulogize
athd a
mtt
the
easc
miscarried
craeocrnuur
irmbes
by
the
h 0 Chiefug h
a e
d 13t
ed b 3•
B''-
stances, we thought it our duty to
Baron. We
counsel,ouNsv efrel
anderror
ot r to
into which one of the
highest functionaries had unguardedly fallen; that,
f
or the mutual honour of the Bench and
the
Bar (which
have deservedly merited such high repute in this
country), as well for the sake of the people
to whom the impartial administration of justice is of
vital importance, this matter could not be suffered to
drop; and we added, that " it was almost impossible
to surmise whether a greater legal' indiscretion had
ever been manifested on the bench."
On Thursday Mr. COCKBURN moved for a new trial
at
on the strength of the circumstances above narrated.
All the Barons concurred in the propriety of granting
the application, and Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK, at the
close of the deliberation, observed :—" I may say un-
feignedly that I willingly assent to any course which
will best tend to justice in this case, and I am far
from thinking that where the judge has committed an
indiscretion the defendant is to be debarred of his
rights." This is a candid admission, and highly
honourable to the Chief Baron. We only wish he
had begun and ended with what we have just quoted.
He would then have saved himself from palpable con-
tradictions, and from a sharp stroke of wit adminis-
tered by Mr. CoexnunN• SIT FREDERICK POLLOCK,
it seems, could not rest satisfied with his own con-
fession of error, but intimated that the judicial in-
discretion had been followed by another on the part
of the Learned Counsel for the defendant." Mr.
COCKBURN at once aptly rejoined—" If, my Lord, I
committed an indiscretion, I can only plead that I
was accessory to a principal." This smart sally con-
siderably excited the risible faculties of the audience.
We were fully prepared for a slight exhibition
on the bench of an esprit du corps, to soften the
features of the mishap of their venerable compeer.
There is an old saying, " the least said the soonest
mended," which the judges would have done well to
have borne in mind. The Barons PARKE and AL-
DERSON were not very felicitous in their remarks.
Baron PLATT alone best represented the character of
an English judge on this occasion, who said, with
great nobility of mind, when the counsel admitted
the application he urged was without precedent—" If
it be necessary to make a precedent in order to ad-
minister justice, a precedent ought to be made." Mr.
Baron PARKE, it would appear, thought it highly
nconvenient to take away from the judge the dis-
cretion of expressing his feelings during the progress
of a cause. Mr. COCKBURN well reminded him that
it was of graver importance, that a judge should
not be allowed to prejudice any case. It surprises
us, that a judge of the extraordinary abilities which
Mr. Baron PARKE possesses (and who, if judicial
talents alone—which unfortunately they do not—de-
termined the appointments to the chief seats of jus-
tice, should long ago have been Chief Baron) should
imagine, that the precedent which, in this case, has
been most properly established, can have the effect
of depriving the judges of offering discreet remarks
during a trial. We admit it to be desirable that the
judge should be suffered to exercise a discretion, but
then it must be couched in measured terms. The
value of the precedent now set on foot will

consist in this, that hereafter no judge will presume
to insinuate to a counsel, and particularly in the
presence of the jury, that he has advised, and is

acting, like a madman, or little short of one. But
we protest, broadly and generally, against any judge
making any remarks (especially in the outset of a
trial), however measured may be his language, upon
the line of defence proposed to be followed by counsel.

such a course cannot be taken without a ten-