The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-29 00:00:00

their solemn obligations—had they suffered any feel-
ings of misplaced sympathy or morbid sensibilities to
have biased their judgment, they would indeed have
had much to answer tor, and thousands and tens of
thousands of d. stitute HidoNs and starving orphans
would have had to lament their fatal dereliction of
duty. But such is happily not the case. They have
restored the character of Irish juries, which had been
so deeply tarnished during the late State prosecutions.
They have nobly discharged the dutiesi they owed to
their country—and, undeterred by the system of
terror and intimidation that was resorted to—un-
swayed by any sinister influence, they have returned
an honest and a censcientious verdict, in strict ac-
cordance with the evidence produced before them.
Where now are the promises that were held out to
the family of the wretched man ? Where are the
hopes by which he was sustained during his whole
career ? There can be no doubt that he persisted to
the very last in believing that a jury could not be
found to convict him, or that if a verdict of guilty
was returned, his sentence would be the signal for a
general insurrection throughout the entire country,
that he would be forcibly rescued from any punish-.
ment to which he might be condemned. How frivo-
lous were those expectations—how vain these hopes.
The "Doctor Doyle" Club have been found
wanting. He has been convicted, but he
has not been restored to liberty or to his
disconsolate family. The marchings and coun-
termarchings of the Confederates have been but
vague and unmeaning demonstrations. The cheers
before Nevvgate, but so much empty air. He has
been already removed from the prison, and embarked
on board a Government steamer for the convict
deptst at Spike Island, there to await the sailing of
the next transport, and yet no effort was made for
his release—no attempt to liberate him from his
chains. Nothing more occurred than usually happens
on the departure of an ordinary prisoner. It is not
in triumph over the unhappy man that we give ex-
pression to these sentiments, it is not in exultation
for his melancholy doom. Gladly would we see him
relieved from every personal suffering if it could be
so with safety to the nation. But it is necessary to
show the agitators who have entered on a similar
course to that fur which he is
,suffering,
who fancy that they may imitate his conduct,
but that they may possibly be preserved
from a like termination, the utter absurdity of
the supposition, and, if possible, before it is yet too
late, warn them back from the hazardous pathway
on which they have entered. The of ject of the law,
in condemning criminals, is, we have been told by
one of the most eloquent and philosophical of those
profolind and learned men who have enlightened the
world with their wisdom,
" Ut peana in paucos perveniat, metus in owner."

If the punishment could be averted from the
single one, without also dissipating the salu-
tary fear that must be forcibly impressed on the minds
of the multitude, none would rejoice more fervently
than ourselves, notwithstanding the mischief he has
occasioned; but an example 'was necessary to the
salvation of the entire kingdom; and the
Irish Government have, in the promptitude
and decision with which they have vindicated
the majesty of the law, and put its sentence against
the prisoner into execution, gained for them-
selves the approbation of every well-disposed and
loyal citizen of the British empire.

The calumnies that had been uttered against the
law officers of the Crown, the vile insinuation that
they had packed, or rather procured the packing of
a jury for the purpose of obtaining a conviction—
& charge which we rrgret to see was again put for-
ward by the prisoner even after the verdict had been
recorded—were all proved utterly groundless. As
we predicted, the matter was brought to the most
conclusive and satisfactory test. The array was
challenged, and the Crown, in place of demurring
to that challenge, mcst fairly joined issue on the
facts, alleging " that the panel had been properly
arrayed by the High Sheriff."

The testimony adduced on behalf of the prisoner
most signally failed in establishing any partiality or
undue interference. The first witness, Mr. PETER
CASSERIT, an attorney, who has been in the habit of
practising in the Court, and was well acquainted with
the general class of jurors returned for the t►ial of
criminals, deposed that the only difference was that
the jurors on the present occasion mere rather more
respectable than those generally summoned, that he
did not thereby mean a more aristocratic class, but
that it was the only difference he perceived. It wit.;
not, however, merely the absence of all proof in
support of the challenge that justified the law
officers. Nothing could be more explicit or con-
clusive than .the evidence of the lligh Sheriff;
that gentleman proved " that the panel was all
prepared by himself on one occasion—that he merely
asked the position in life of the parties on the list—
and that at the time he prepared those panels he was
unaware of the religion or politics of the parties, nor
did he recollect
,any one saying any thing of
their religion or politics." After this, we trust
that those vile insinuations may be altogether aban-
doned. The Attorney-General also, in the course of
his most powerful address, fully and completely vin-
dicated himself from the charge that he had insulted
the members of his own religion by directing Roman
Catholics to be excluded from the jury.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

We have received the Paris papers (f Saturday
and Sunday.

The Journal des Debats, the Presse, and the other
organs of ths.ex-dynasty are furious against the Na-
tional Asseinbly for having passed the decree of ba
nishment against the Orleans family. The Reforme,
on the contrary, considers that the Assembly would
have failed in its duty had it neglected to banish a
" dynasty twenty times perjured, and which confis-
cated law, liberty, honour—a dynasty which made of
electoral France a paddock of cattle, and of labouring
France a bagne —the dynasty of shame, in short;"
while the National thus coolly and unanswerably
places the question upon its proper basis. It says—

" With respect to the fallen dynasty the Republic can
have no other sentiments than the most profound disdain
for the King, who, charged by imprudent men with the
direction of France, sacrificed the fortune, dignity, and
honour of his country to his own interest; the most
profound indifference for the Princes, who were together
the fruits of ihis policy. But why, then, have a decree
of banishment? The reasons are so evident tkat there

is not a
I'he pry
y has
the
elowed a
fatalpas s
ali-
ment, s
unttitti ent f
goodwhich t hre7rhilu- td ut.‘ns -oef;:mtFaaeduPatr
notwhic
he natti anddbe
IYill exisdt**,6 tLY:td nota
merit, and oppirtunities for being led away. Now such.
would certainly be, to some persons easy to miskad, the
consequence of the presence of any member of the ex-
dynasty. There are people who keep an entrepot of
intrigues and hopes for all emigrations, and all fallen
royalties. Such a branch of industry must not be
favoured. It would be a crime not to prevent the most
distiint and most improbable eventuality of the effusion
of blood, or of any perturbation whatever in society.
By the decree of banishment it is not pretended to in-
flict a penalty, Isut simply to take a measure of police.
Persons are not proscribed—but the causes of conflict
are. And let us be permitted to say all our opini. n.
Et was right to fix no term to the exile, because, caused
by the necessities of the present, end not by a sentiment
‘,l vengeance of France, other circumstances can only
abridge it. But when there shall be no more incon-
venience in crtain measures, which would now be a
clinger, nut for the Republic, but for the blind pa,sions
which must be protected against themselves, the mag-
nanimity of the French natiou may undo what its
prudence has dune."
After the divheion on the decree of banishment
against Louis PHILIPPS and his family, two mea-
sures of considerable importance were presented to
the National Assembly. The first was by the Minis-
ter of Finance fur securing an uniform rate of postage.
It is as follows :

" Art. 1. From Ist Jan. 1849, the. rate of postage for
a single letter throughout the whole of France is fixed at
20 centimes.
"Art. 2. The weight of a single letter is inert used to
10 grammes.
"Art. 3. The Post-office is authorised to carry as let-
ters settled packets of papers of the weight of tiom 10
to 125 grammes. These packets shall be charged at a
fixed rate of If., to whatever part of France they Guy
be sent."

The Bill was referred to the Committee of Finance.
The second, presented by M. CREMIEWE the Mi-
nister of Justice, was for the re-establishment of the
law of divorce. The following is the text of the pro.
posed measure :
" Art. 1. The law of Bth May, 1816, is abrogated. In
conavquence, the provisions of chapter 6, book 1, of the
Civil Code, come again into force from the date of the
promulgation of the present law.
" Art. 2. Art. 310 of tie Civil Code i 5 modified as