The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-14 00:00:00

Olteninac

LONDON, MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 1841.

The first of the state prosecutions, that of Mr.
KEVIN IZOD O'DOHERTY, one of the proprietors of
the Irish Tribune, a journal established since the
conviction of Mr. JOHN MITCHEL, and the conse-
quent suppression of the United Irishman, has been
brought to a conclusion. After a protracted trial,
which lasted the greater portion of two days, and
after having been locked up for nearly twenty hours,
the jury were discharged by the presiding Judges
(the LORD CUM' BARON and Baron Paissx-
reritEa), there being no possibility of their agree-
ing on the verdict they should return. In this
particular case there were no complicated facts
to be submitted to the consideration of the jury,
there was no conflicting testimony, nor was there
any necessity for balancing the weight that should
be attached to different witnesses, or of assigning the
degree of credibility that should be attached to each.
The evidence was of the simplest character, and no
question of any difficulty could possibly arise
thereon. The only witnesses produced were the
officer of the Stamp-office, who :proved that the
prisoner was one of the registered proprietors of the '
journal in which the objectionable articles were con-
tained, and the other, a constable of the detective
police, who proved the purchase of the particular
papers at the office of the Tribune. The
prisoner was doubtless, to a certain =extent at least,
responsible for the tone and character of the articles
that were inserted in his journal. In any civil pro-
ceedings there is no question that the defendant
would have been held clearly liable for any damages
e
that might have been occasioned by the publications.
There is, however, a tnaterial difference where the
prosecution is a criminal one, more especially under
a statute of 80 stringent and severe a character the
Treason Felony Act—a statute imposing the highest
secondary punishment known to the law, thegper-
petual banishment of the party implicated
from his home, his friends, his family, from
all that could make life desirable. In such a
case some evidence should surely have been gives to
show that the prisoner had sanctioned and approved
of the inculpated articles previously to their admis-
sion into his paper. We should have supposed that
such evidence could easily have been given, if such
were really the fact. The police had taken possession
of the office of the Tribune, including all the manu-
scripts of the different articles that had appeared.
If -any of these manuscripts were in the hand-

writing of the prisoner, that fact might easily I
have been proved. If he had uttered speeches)
in which the same sentiments were put.forward,
although clothed in different language, some evi-
dence might have been adduced which would have
led the jury to the conclusion that he was guilty of
one or both of the intents charged in the indictment.
But there was nothing of the kind; it was perfectly
consistent with the evidence that the defendant
might have been wholly ignorant of the contents of
these articles, that he might never have seen or
heard of them before he was arrested for their publi-
cation.

The eminent counsel who conducted the case was
not slow to avail himself of the deficiency of the evi-
dence against his client, and to the judicious and
skilful line of argument adopted by him the
result may, in a great degree, be ascribed
and not, we hope and trust, to any pre-
meditated determination, on the part of any of
those sworn, " a true verdict to return, according to
the evidence," to shelter the prisoner from the con-
sequences of his offence, if it should be clearly and
unequivocally brought home to him. The case for
the defence was also materially strengthened by the
fact, that the prisoner had served notices upon the
Crown prosecutor, requiring the production of the
eriginal manuscripts, that had been taken possession
of, which demand was not complied with. If the
manuscripts had been produced in court, the defendant
might have shown that they were wholly in the
handwriting of his coadjutor, who was also in
custody, to stand his trial for the same offence, at
the same sittings of the Court. These circumstances,
so ably commented upon, were surely sufficient to
justify a doubt as to the intentions of the prisoner,
and to render the disagreement of the jury pos-
sible to be accounted for on other grounds, beside a
previous determination by some of the jurors to ob-
tain an acquittal per fus out nefus.
When Messrs. O'BRIEN snd ME/Lauzia were tried
some time since, the authorship of the inculpated
articles were at once admitted by the prisoners ; the
only question, therefore, was the obvious intent and
meaning of these writings. Upon this no reasonable
doubt could have been entertained by any sane man.
Those, therefore, who refused to join in the verdict
of the majority must have been actuated by the
most improper motive—a determination to prevent
justice from reaching undoubted offenders. How happy
would it now have been for these unfortunate men had
the juries in the former cases been unanimous, and
every one influenced by the same conscientious
motives as the majority. They would, most proba-
bly, now have been prisoners, but they might have
looked forward to the period when their incarceration
! would terminate and they would be restored to their
I friends, their offences against the law being expiated
by the salutary punishment they had undergone.
Their imprisonment would have rendered it impossible
that they could have been guilty of the more aggravated
crimes with which they are now charged, and for
which they are lying fettered prisoners, the most
sanguine hope of their friends being, that their forfeit
lives may be spared, and that the clemency of the
Crown may substitute a sentence of perpetual banish-
ment for the death that might most justly be inflicted.
The course that will be pursued by the law officers
in consequence of the discharge of the jury without a
verdict, is not yet known. We do not, for the reasons
we have above set forth, regard the recent case as
evidence of a determination not to convict when suf-
ficient grounds are laid before a jury. We there-
fore trust that the other cases may be proceeded with,
and if the missing link in the chain of evidence can
be supplied, there is no reason why Mr. OTONERTY
should not be again placed upon his trial even during
the present Commission.
_

It is curious and interesting to compare the
different deliberations of the English House of Com-
mons and the National Assembly of France ; and as
if to facilitate and render such a comparison more
interesting, the two Houses of Legislature are just
now occupied with very similar subjects. True, the
object of one House is to reform old institutions, and
of the other to crate those institutions anew ; still,
practically, the tendency of their deliberations is the
same, and the subject-matter of these deliberations is
occasionally very similar. Two very important
matters just now occupy the attention of Committees
of both Parliaments. In France one of the most im-
portant subjects now under consideration is the re-
gulation of the Press, and in England the election
of Parliamentary representatives. These two subjects
have a closer affinity than may at first sight appear.
Both, practically, affect, if not liberty of conscience,
at least the free expression of opinion. It is surely
not necessary at this time of day, and especially in
this country, to dilate upon the national advantages
attending upon an unfettered press. In this country
freedom of the press is not looked upon as an advan-
tage, but as a necessity. In France, by a strange
contradiction, the press occupies a position at once
more honourable and less honourable than in -Eng-
land. "England is a country governed by its
journals, where the name of its journalists are
never known," said the Honourable Member for
Canterbury, when speaking at the Manchester Athe-
naeum. In France the journalists fill a more promi-
nent place—their names are known and honoured,
yet the journal in which their opinions are expressed,
and from which their celebrity is derived, are far from
enjoying that freedom and immunity which is the es-
pecial privilege of their English contemporaries. The
French journals are any day liable to be " seized," a
ceremony of the effect of which we are practically in
blissful ignorance. In England, if a provincial reader
does not receive, as usual, his London paper, he at
once blames the neglect of his news-agent—
he never dreams of supposing the Government
have " stopped " the paper ! In France such
a supposition is quite natural, and a matter of
course. Therefore it is we say that if the position of
the journalist be considered more honourable in
France than in England, then the position of the
journal is infinitely less so. Whether or not the
system of " seizing" newspapers is to be continued
under the new regime remains to be seen. A Com-
mittee of the Chamber of Deputies are now busied
with framing laws for the regulation of the press,
but to our thinking they are giving themselves un-
necessary trouble—the fewer; regulations made upon
that subject the better. They cannot allow too much
liberty to the public journals ; in this, as in all cases,
half-measures are most pernicious—there is no such
thing as half-liberty, it is as impossible in existence
as half-life. If the press be intended to be a true
exponent of public opinion it must be allowed to
follow every shifting current. The compass cannot
point truly when in leading-strings. From the recent
discussions of the French Assembly, more especially
from their resolution to demand from every journal
so much " caution-money," we are inclined to fear
that the Republicans of France do not suf-
ficiently recognize the vital necessity that a
free nation should have a free press. It must,
however, be remembered, by way of extenuation,
that the circumstances of the State render many
measures temporarily expedient which would not be
tolerated as permanences, and among these must be
any restrictions which the Assembly may at the pre-
sent moment deem it necessary to place upon the
freedom of the true representatives of the people.
While our continental neighbours have been de-
bating about the condition of the press, the English
House of Commons has been deliberating about
Parliamentary elections, and both these subjects, as we
have said, have reference to the free expression of
popular opinion. In both cases the subjects at issue
are similar, if not the same—namely, are the people to
be allowed a free utterance of their opinions, either
by the voices of their journals or by their individual
decisions in the• polling-boothsl? The question as
regards the journals is not yet actually settled in
France, and as regards the electors it is not actually
settled In England—not actually settled, and yet
virtually decided—for while the investigation of the
corrupt elections is yet pending, the House of Com-
mons has decided in favour of a measure calculated
to put an end to such "corrupt practices." Many
preliminary steps have, however, to be taken
before the ballot will be the law of the land, and in
the meantime the Bill referring to the corrupt prac-
tices at elections is passing through Committee. The
debate
peculiarly
uponanilmlisates
eacatdonpaTcahluirasrdlyay
amusing,vening
was
al-
though not, perhaps, generally speaking, very credit-
able to the character of the House. The part
greater
of the speakers seemed • •
to be mhabltants of " glass

THE SUN,