The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-12 00:00:00

eittnin

LONDON. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1848

A majority of seventy-three in a House of 486
last evening brought the Jewish Disabilities
Although
Bill
through the ordeal of a second reading.
we could have desired a more unanimous pronuncia.t
tion in favour of the measure on the part of
Popular representatives, we are satisfied with the
popular
numerical superiority of its supporters, because the
majority already mentioned is sufficiently remarkable
to be decisive as to the ultimate emancipation of the
Israelites. Even to the most sanguine dissentients
there can be no longer any doubt whatever in refe-
rence to the fate of the question recently agitated at
Westminster. Not only is there a conspicuous
numerical preponderance in favour of the views
advocated by the Prime Minister, but we would
especially direct attention to a circumstance
of a very peculiar significance—a circumstance
more persuasive than the most eloquent adjurations
of DISRAELI or of STIR-IL—namely, that all the in-
telligence of the House of Commons is on the side
of Lord Jour( Russam.; and that among the sup-
porters of the project for the admission of Jews to
Parliament are numbered all the most important
members of that renowned and illustrious senate.
The division list of last evening is of itself sufficient
to attest the rationality of the present movement of
religious toleration. Foremost among those who
th
e
obstructive declared themselves for the erasure of t
obstructive phrase from the Oath of Abjuration:
foremost among them, not merely in being told out
into the lobby, bu
force of argument and
splendour of rhetoric—.are t
in
the principal leaders of
what by the undiscerning are termed the different
parties in the Legislature. Lord JoLIN RessELL, as
the leader of a Liberal Government, has secured to
himself the glory of introducing the measure to the
British Parliament. Sir ROBERT PEEL, as the
leader, or rather the creator, of his political phalanx,
has accorded the Bill his most cordial and powerful
support. Lind GEORGE BENTINCK, as the leader of
the little wrangling, squabbling, and acri-
.monioas squad of Protectionists, has de-
clared himself so explicitly in favour of
the Ministerial scheme for the liberation
of the Hebrew race in England, that he has been
summarily cashiered by the gentlemen of the country
faction, and his sceptre has been suddenly transferred
to the rather dubious grasp of the Most Noble the
marquis of GRANBY. There is enumerated, in short,
in the upper list of the division almost every name
that genius, skill, or intelligence has recorded in
brilliant characters upon the pages of Hansard.
Anion; the opponents of the innovation the most
prominent quality appears to be that of a respectable
iaediocrity.
The Baron LIONRL DB ROTHSCHILD, as the first

Israelite admitted to the Parliament of the United ,
Kingdom, will be more fortunately circumstanced than
either Mr. PEASE as the first Quaker, or Mr. O'Cole-
NELL, as the first Roman Catholic. The representative
of London will have all obstacles smoothed down before
him by the pressure of Reason; he will be ushered into
the presence of the Speaker by all the most remarkable
statesmen of his age—whereas the representative of
South Durham crept into the House of Commons,
through the leniency of the law by which
it was provided that Quakers and Mora-
vians (and subsequently the sect called Separatists)
could legally make a simple affirmation equivalent in
their cases to the solemn oath of another; and
whereas also the representative of Clare was only able
to force his way into the Lower House of the Legis-
lature by a struggle such as would have proved too
tremendous for one less inspired for the occasion by
matchless eloquence and surpassing audacity.
The speech delivered yesterday evening by Sir
ROBERT PEEL is, perhaps, the most cogent and
perfectly unanswerable argument in favour of
the measure as yet delivered. Its calmness
amounts to an inimitable placidity, and its
deliberateness disarms the passion even of
Bigotry Incarnate. No one will be disposed
to charge the Right Hon. Baronet with indifference
to the interests of Protestantism. His whole career
—and a career it is such as will survive in our na-
tional history—would be a splendid refutation of the
aspersion. Strong, therefore, in his attachment to the
Establishment, agitated with a profound solicitude to
secure for ever the characteristic of Christianity to
the empire at large, to its Constitution, and to the
Parliament, the late Premier, nevertheless, announces
the coincidence of his opinion with that ex-
pressed by the Noble Lord, his successor.
Nor does Sir ROBERT PEEL arrive at this determi-
nation from any considerations of political expediency,
—"My decision this night is influenced much less
from considerations of political expediency than from
a deep sense of religious obligation." That, we take
it, is a sentence calculated to bewilder the imagina-
tions of such worthies as Sir CULLING EARDLY
SMITH. As if aware that such would inevitably be
the case among the zealots of the Church, Sir ROBERT
at once gives an illustration of his meaning, and in so
doing reveals the principle which is the very
vitality of his reverence for religion, namely, the
principle of " forbearance" inculcated by the con-
verted Pharisee, who became an Apostle. "I main-
tain this," said the Right Hon. Baronet, " that the
House of Commons has no right for mere religious
error to inflict a penalty." And by way of attesting
the accuracy of that assertion, he observed, very
admirably, s" In the case of the Roman Catholic
you did not exclude him because he maintained the
doctrine of transubstantiation, but because you
thought he was a dangerous subject in consequence
of his acknowledging the supremacy of a foreign
power." That that supposition was erroneous was
testified by the very passing of the Act of Catholic
Emancipation ; and it has only very recently been
remarked by a distinguished member of the Roman
Catholic Church in England, that the spiritual alle-
giance owed by every Roman Catholic to the Sovereign
PONTIFF, is in no respect whatever incompatible with
his allegiance to the QUEEN.• Unlike the subject ofthe
Papacy, the Jews are not debarred even by this
shadowy phantom of disloyalty. On the contrary—
listen to the panegyric thus uttered upon the Israelites
by Sir ROBERT PEEL—" I consider that in point of
moral conduct—in point of active exercise of charity
—in point of tried loyalty—and in point of property
—the Jews are entitled to as much consideration as
any other religious sect." And these are the indi-
viduals whom 204 Members of the House of Com-
mons would last evening have excluded from the en-
joyment of the ordinary rights of citizenship! The
efforts of those dissentients must, however, prove in-
nocuous, now that we remember the force of public
opinion, and the majority of seventy-three upon the
second reading.

We have already pointed out the propriety of hav-
ing every prosecution conducted by competent per-
sons, appointed by the Crown for that important
duty, and also the expediency of affording profes-
sional assistance to every prisoner who is unable to
provide the means necessary for his own defence.
The expenditure would not be very considerable, and
greater security would be afforded to persons un-
justly accused than can now be said to exist. Several
instances have recently been brought to light in
which the innocence of parties has been made appa-
rent after they have sustained severe and unmerited
punishment. Nothing should he spared which would
impress the community in general with an absolute
confidence in the just and impartial administration of
the law. At present that feeling cannot be entertained
as fully as it ought to be. In the great majority
the most experienced and talented barristers are
retained against the prisoner, while he is left alto-
gether undefended, although the consequences of a
conviction may prove utterly ruinous, and his future
liberty, his character, and everything that renders life
desirable may be involved in the issue ; and, again,
even if he should be enabled to scrape together the
sum necessary for his proper defence, and that he
should succeed in showing that the charge was ut-
terly untenable, he must submit not merely to the
incarceration to which he had been subjected previous
to the trial, but also to the heavy pecuniary loss. No
costs can be given against the Crown, and the subject
is left wholly without remedy. I❑ theory the law
says, "Better that ninety-nine guilty men should escape
than that one innocent man should be unjustly con-
victed ;" but in practice we find it to be very different-
Protection is afforded against an unjust civil demand,
which by no means is extended to a party charged
with a criminal offence. In one case, if the charge of
the presiding judge is unsatisfactory—if he enunciates
any erroneous proposition of law, or misleads the
jury in any particular—a new trial may be obtained.
It the verdict is contrary to the weight of evidence,
or contrary to the opinion of the Court, a second in-
vestigation may be had ; but it is otherwise in
criminal cases : no appeal can be had from the verdict
once returned, however unfounded it may have been ;
it must remain in force against the party, and the
QUEEN'S pardon can alone save him from tlie punish-
ment due to a crime, although great doubts may be
entertained of the justice or propriety of the former
decision. Nay, even where the innocence of the
person is made perfectly apparent, as in the case of
MARY ANNI TURTON, who had been sentenced to
six months' imprisonment for a crime which was
subsequently brought home to another, so that
not the slightest doubt can be entertained that the
verdict was altogether incorrect, yet there is no pos-
sible way in which it can be set aside, and the lair
fame of the injured person must for ever remain tar-
nished on the public records. A court of appeal in
criminal cases should be established, in which the
judgment, if defective in any particular, either in
law or fact, might be reviewed. _

In another part of our paper communications will
be found respecting the case of a lad named GEORGE
FREDERICK MIDDLEBROOK, who was on Saturday
last convicted at the Central Criminal Court on a
charge of arson. Much dissatisfaction is said to exist
as to the verdict returned in that case, which was
returned after a very short deliberation, and as we
stated in our report at the time, was received with
the utmost astonisement by a crowded court. It ap-
peared to us at the time that, at the outside, the case
was" to one
merely of suspicion, and by no means such
warrant a conviction. A number of witnesses
were
produced, who gave him an excellent character,
of Somethem having known him from a child. All
spoke of him as an honest, well-conducted boy, whom
although
hect an
and
cannots
elhthey considered quite incapable of committing
such
positive unimpeachable
testimony cha-
cha-
racter toeffnce. t
, asidet re Now, a
of guilt, it is in cases such as that to which
we
arc
alluding that it is peculiarly valuable. Every
r cir-
cumstanceshould be closely and attentively
consi-
dered—not merely that he was in such a position that
he might have committed the offence, but was it
certain that the fire was the act of an incendiary, and
if so, was it morallyimpossible that such could have
been the case without the knowledge and participa.
tion of the unfortunate lad ? There was no motive
which could have induced him to join in such a
transaction, and one so totally opposed to his previous
conduct, and to the irreproachable character ha had
maintained from his earliest childhood. It was not

• * " A few Remarks on the Social and Political Condi-
tion of British Catholics. By the Earl of Arundel and
Surrey," pp, 30. gyo. Charles Dolman, 1848. London.

'W ~, `4. - ' 1d )' cep '
e k
, i ~...
,sO,
_7,.. \ .o.r. `. i - •is
1,06 ' ''''.--.
,„ 1-f•-•'-'• ~.;°, ! 1 ''''
Na ' ' c.-=. •r:' -:-,---,, `-„:`z4.-_,1..-ct,'''
---- ,77'.-- .7. , . • „,„ , . •,, , ~ , ,
„..... „,,
. '..1",iit..-' At ,i 7.,.,, ;c,„.',N,,, ' I,') .41,0" , ',Ol ;,:. , •,.
---..„_