The Sun.
London, England, 1848-10-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM TIIE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TIMES.—A. letter was published in the Times of
yesterday from Mr. Thomas Young, in explanatior,
of another letter of his, which underwent some dis-
cussion last week. Mr. Young, in his second letter,
completely disclaims the sort of official colour which
has been given to his original communication. He
denies entirely that Lore Melbourne, or any other
member of the Whig Cabinet, was for anything it,
the letter he addressed in the careless familiarity of
friendly intercourse to General—then Colonel—
Napier. He complains, finally, of the publicity given
to a communication which was never intended to go
further than his friend's escritoire, and of the im
portance attached to mere gossip. Ali this may 13,
very convenient, or very true. The internal evidence
derived from the letter itself is, after all, the material
point. If, then, the discussion be made to turn
simply on the letter which has undergone so much
discussion, the case seems but very weak against
the members of the Melbourne Cabinet, if, indeed,
there be any case at all. In the next place, rebel-
lion can never be urged as excuse for rebellion, even
had the charge been made out. Lastly, the parties
who have brought forward this accu,ation have
been guilty of such flagrant misstatements in their
mode and manner of producing it, and have so
exaggerated and invented points against the parties
accused, that but very little credit can be attached to
any statement emanating from so unscrupulous a
quarter. We would first remark that the letter in
question, and the reply of General Napier at the time,
which have been adduced as a justification of the foll 3
and the crime of the Irish traitor, in point of fact
contain the strongest animadverson on the one and
the most powerful dissuasive from-the other. This
would in itself afford but an additional proof of the
utter wrong-headedness, of the mere incompetency
to deal with facts, which is the characteristic of the
Repeal party in Ireland, whether it present itself
under the aspect of the unctuous hypocrisy of O'Con-
nell or the armed treason of O'Brien. The state-
ment in the Freeman's Journal was to the effect that
General Napier solemnly promised to conceal Mr.
Young's letter until the Whigs should institute
a prosecution against any one for a line of con-
duct similar to the one which had been proposed
to him by them or by their agent. General
Napier—so it is averred in the Freeman':
Journal—loyally kept his word. He suppressed the
letter, and only divulged it recently on the occasion of
the trial of Smith O'Brien, being such a contingency
as was contemplated by him at the time he volun-
teered his promise. For fear of any misapprehension
On such a point as that of impugning the character for
trustworthiness and credibility of a public writer, it
will be better to lay before the public the statement
from the Freeman's Journal at length, together with
the indignant reply it elicited from General Napier.
The fact of the' promise of concealment until the
given contingency, the occurrence of the contingency,
and the subsequent publication of the letter by Ge-
neral Napier, were either in the knowledge of the
writer in the Freeman's Journal, or they were not.
It is evident he could not have possessed such know-
ledge, as from General Napier's letter it appears
the whole statement is a fabrication. If he did not
possess such knowledge, and simply fired a random
shot to produce an impression in favour of the pri-
soner, it requires a shifty imagination to distinguish
between such a course and that of a wilful perversion
of the truth to answer a given object. Here is the
statement verbatim from the Freeman's Journal:—
" Before we place this remarkable document before the
public it is due to the gallant, brave, and generous sol-
dier to whom it was addressed to state how its existence
became known, and the circumstances under which its
contents have been divulged. The gallant Napier re-
turned an indignant reply to Mr. Young, stating that he
received his sword from the hands of his Sovereign, and
that against that Sovereign he would never unsheath it.
The Whigs, through the secretary of their chief, applied
to the loyal soldier, requesting that the letter should be
returned, in order that this written evidence of the con-
spiracy' might be destroyed. Colonel Napier's reply was
worthy his brave deeds and honoured name. He pe-
remptorily refused—stating, at the same time, that he would
never divulga its contents, or allow it to be made public,
until the Whigs should capitally prosecute a British sub-
ject for the offence of they themselves were guilty. But the
same soldier's honour that pledged him to secresy under
certain circumstances, pledged him to render this letter
and the conspiracy it disclosed matter of history when-
ever the Whigs should dare attempt to deprive of life a
British subject whose only imputed cringe was to follow
the course of policy adopted by themselves in '32. That
daring attempt—clarihq as coming front conscious conspi-
rators—has been made upon the life of Smith O'Brien, and
the Gallant General has kept his word."
The vast importance of the point on which the mis-
statement has been hazarded by the Dublin journal is
this :—Had General Napier acted in the manner re-
presented, it would have been tantamount to a censure
upon the Government for instituting the Clonmel
prosecution. Such a censure coming from such a
quarter would have carried much weight, as an ex-
pression of the sentiments of an honourable man and
a liberal politician. This material point, it will be
seen, the writer assumes. He holds himself out as a
person possessed of full information on the subject,
and on one so serious it is evident that to act upon
anything short of certitude is in itself a public scandal.
We will now print General Napier's reply to this
statement, and leave the public—even the Irish repeal
public—to decide what amount of trust they can place
for the future in the Freeman's Journal:—
" Saturday Evening, Oct. 7.
" Sir,—l have this instant been shown the weekly
Freeman's Journal, containing a letter from Mr. Thomas
Young, which Il
on was h
compelled to pro-
duce at one
" I have had no communication whatever with any
editor or any person c
connected with newspapers, and
2ut,t b,
ytrpiral process
so of
Mr. law
wmith O'Brien.
Journal • but the reply attributed me by the
the
edttor being wholly imaginary,
Freeman's 1 ,
0
calls for animmediate
the promptest mode of
know not how that letter has been obtainedo
t forcontradiction, and as I am told
journl request as a favour that you will p
al,
following observations:—
making that contradiction public willbeth rouubeilhishyet,huer
"1. I did not return an indignant reply' to Mr.
could co-ope-
rate in arms with a Birmingham attorney and a London
Young—l mehreelyimmplaiedde
ssuopmpoesiitrioonnicaaial
talndscorn u re-
marks upon t
tailor against the Duke of Wellington!
"3. The Whigs did not apply to me requesting that
Iydiscnorodt, states,c. ' that from my Sovereign I re-
ceived
the 2 lettermy
would be returned, &c.'
"4. 1 did not at any time promise or state that l
would never divulge its contents, or allow it to be made
public, &c.
cum" sst.allmdes.,
id never pledge myself to secresy under any cir-
" I did never pledge myself to secresy under any cir-
cumstances, nor in any manner, nor did I ever maintain
any seer esy in the matter.
" W. NAPIER, Major-General."
We will leave these facts to speak for themselves.
When we consider the long services, the unimpeached
honour, and the almost romantic chivalry of character
by which General Napier has been distinguished
through his long and brilliant career, we ourselves
have no doubt on which side the truth is to be found.
What we can do to give publicity to General Napier's
letter is now done. The gallant soldier, the distin-
guished historian, the loyal servant of his Queen and
country, has a right to this service at our hands.
No ! his name has never been sullied by association
with a gang of frantic rebels, and still less with those
who satisfy their public enthusiasm by whispering
treason with closed doors—patriots who would have
fought by the side of the windy hero of Ballingarry,
" But, that I dare not' wait upon ' I would,'
Like the poor cat i' the adage"—
and so we leave the public to decide upon the merits
of this part of the case. We now come to another
point—the letter itself of Mr. Thomas Young. On
reading this over we expected to find armed treason
recommended, at least by Mr. Young, if indignantly
repudiated by Colonel Napier. What we do actually
find in the letter is this. Mr. Young announces to
Colonel Napier the fact that a rising had been in-
tended. There was to have been a run upon the
banks. The populous country towns were to
have been barricaded; and, in the event of
a fight, Colonel Napier was to have been
invited to take the cotnmand at Birmingham.
But the very letter itself concludes with this sentence
—" Thank God we have been spared the trial; but,
as a matter of speculation, tell me what you think
would have been the result. Am I right in my con-
jecture that you would have refused the Birmingham
invite, and kept your sword in its scabbard ?" So here
is a document produced which speaks of transactions
that occurred seventeen years ago; the writer thanks
God that a rising which had been crudely meditated
and imagined—not resolved upon—had been given
up, and this is produced as a justification for the con-
duct of a man who not only meditated but resolved
upon an armed insurrection ; not only resolved upon
it, but carried out his resolution. This, then, being
the subject matter of the letter, we find next that
this wriier, Mr, Young, so far from recommending
Colonel Napier to have anything to do with theg armed movement hypothetically suggested, dissuades
him from even attempting to obtain a seat in Parlia-
ment, lest he should become mixed up in the turbu-
lent political transactions of the time to "the injury
of his purse, his health, and his comfort." What Mr.
Young desires for his friend is leisure and tranquillity
of mind to finish his literary labours, to bring to a ter-
mination that record oftheir martial exploits which will

hand down to posterity the achievements of Colonel
Napier's companions ain arms throughout the me-
morable war in the Spanish Peninsula. One only
point remains untouched, and this will be found
touched upon in the letter from General Napier
which we have printed above. What was his answer
to the hypothetical inquiry to the question that had
been put to him by Mr. Young " as a matter of spe-
culation," whether he would take up arms on a con-
tingency that could never happen, because the events
had already occurred in a contrary sense to the one
assumed ? General Napier tells us, "a few ironical
and scornful remarks." Now, in all this where is
the ju,tification of Smith O'Brien's treason ? In one
sense, certainly the proceedings of the Irish detna•
gogues and of the professional Repealers are "
(natter of speculation." To the phrase is attached
a vulgar as well as a philosophical meaning. The
Preeman'a Journal is but following in the steps of
the party it represents when it brings forward a
statement such as this. Possibly the allegation of
Mr. Young may be the motive of the writer. It
has been done " as a matter of speculation."
POST.—On reference to the Lords' report on the
working of the currency laws, we find that a very
strong opinion is expressed of the erroneousness of the
Act of 1844, which Act appears to assume that what-
ever amount of bank-notes has been issued by the
Bank, that amount should at all times and under all
circumstances be equally regarded as constituting the
circulation of the country. "The inflexible rule,"
says the report, "considered to be invariable and
self-acting, and adopted by the Legislature, as con-
nected with and consequent upon the separation of
the departments of issue and of banking, and the
regulations provided fbr both, is founded on certain
principles which, before they eau be adopted, demand
very serious exaranaticia.--Ammirl Act appears to
assume that one fixed amount of notes out of the
custody of the Bank, and in the hands of the public,
will at all times produce the same effect, and will be
governed by the same laws. Unless this proposition
be true, the uniform and fixed ruwesl
of the Act
of 1844 can hardly be justified. Now, it is
clear that the proposition is
.not true, and the
principal Parliamentary Committees from 1810
downwards have recognised the distinction between
bank-notes issued and circulation. And yet Mr.
Jones Loyd, we regret to say, was so unscrupulous
a partisan of the law of 1844 (cujus pars magna fuit),
that he did what he could to mislead the Committee
upon this branch of their inquiry. When he was
asked whether, in consequence of the low state of the
reserve in 1847, the Bank was not constrained to put
a very heavy pressure on commercial accommodation,
he answered that he totally denied that fact, and that
he appealed to the published returns in support of the
He then quoted the large amount of issues
at the time of the panic in 1847, and drew the con-
clusion that as the notes in the hands of the public
amounted to an unusually large sum, it could not be
said that the Bank of E:-.gland was putting a severe
pressure upon the mercantile world. It would
appear, says the report, that in this answer Mr.
Jones Loyd looks mainly to the numerical amount
of notes issued by the Bank, and assumes that the
accommodation possessed by the public may he
measured by that amount, and by the corresponding
securities in the hands of the Bank. No doubt
that was the impression he desired to convey to
the Committee in order to bolster up the policy
of the Act of 1844, but when pressed upon the
subject in a subsequent stage of his examination, even
Mr. Loyd was obliged to modify his assertion. We
must say that to us he appears to have condescended
to escape from it by a quibble. "I consider," he
said, " that the amount of notes in the hands of the
public and the amount of notes in the Bank (banking
department) still constitute the amount of notes in
circulation. It is perfectly true that the circulation
may be in a more active or in a more dormant state.
It is perfectly true that the samejamount of notes:will,
at different times, be more efficient in performing the
functions of circulation ; that in proportion as confi-
dence is firm the circulation is more efficient, and as
confidence is shaken circulation becomes less efficient.
A diminished efficiency of circulation and a contrac-
tion of the amount of circulation may, in some
respects, produce the same results; but they are still
totally different things." No doubt they are different
things, but what matters that, if the results be the
same, namely, a pressure upon the mercantile
world, and a difficulty of obtaining money
with which to carry on business ? The
mercantile world suffers equally in both cases ; but
if the issues be contracted within their ordinary
limits there is a remedy. The Bank can issue up to
the amount fixed by the law of 1844. If, however,
public confidence be shaken, and a large amount of
the notes issued become inefficient as circulation,
there is no remedy. The law of 1844 will not admit
an additional amount to be issued to supply the place
of that amount previously issued which has been
locked up, and which, as regards the circulation, has
become dormant. That Act, as the report says,
" appears to assume that one fixed amount of notes
out of the custody of the Bank, and in the hands of
the public, will at all times produce the same effect,
and will be governed by the same laws." But even
Mr. Jones Loyd, when pressed upon the subject,
admits that the same amount of notes will at
different times be more efficient or less efficient in
performing the functions of circulation. He ad-
mits that in times when public confidence is
shaken the same amount of notes issued will be
less efficient as circulation than when public con-
fidence is firm. And yet the law fixes the amount
of notes to be issued, and recognises no practicable
means of increasing that amount, even though
one-half or two-thirds, or the whole of the notes
issued should be seized upon and locked up by the
great bankers, leaving the public at large without
dence
any money at all! Mr. Horsley Palmer, in his evi-
before the Committee, estimates that in Octo-
ber, 1847, about three millions were issued for what
he calls " the maintenance of credit," and not for
circulation. MrSamuel Gurney goes further, and
says " he has not the slightest doubt that, at that
period at least, from four millions to five millions of
the notes issued were locked up and inoperative, in
consequence of an alarm end of a fear of not being
able to get bank notes at all." In another part of his
evidence Mr. Gurney says that the difficulty of getting
bank-notes in the money market in October, 1847,
arose from
et an
no alarm that it would not be pos-
s
the restrictionle to gtes
of them the Bank, owing to
Act of 1844. At that
time, when so much difficulty wa ss felt, the issues of
the Bank amounted to 20,800,0001. At the time
Mr. Gurney gave his evidence, the issues amounted
only to 17,700,000/., but there being then no com-
mercial alarm, that amount was much beyond what
the exigencies of business required. " There was
then no banking house or money dealer in London
but what had a larger amount of bank-notes than
they could use. One main reason of that state of
things no doubt was commercial stagnation from the
tremendous blows that commerce had received in
1847, through the operation of the Currency Act of
1844, or at all events, through the operation of a mo-
netary panic to which adequate remedy could be
applied, owing to the restrictions of Peel's law, until
at last the Government found it necessary to autho-
rise the Bank to violate that law in case of need. The
need did not arise, because the pressure_ had arisen
from alarm at the state of the law. When the tyranny
of the law was removed the alarm was removed, and
then the locked-up notes were let o
thut, e circulation
became efficient, and the amountsameeof _of issues did
work which, under the operation the law, they
x ten
t amount
of
f t
h ofe
were not permitted to do. We should, says Mr.
Gurney, have had at all event,sat
gthreeaet
mercantile calamity in 1.847 ; "but
calamity was the effect of tae Act of 1844, and the
Act only." This, then, is
the obligation of the mer-
cantile interest of Endland to the currency wisdom
of Sir IL Pool, backed and applauded by Sir Charles
Wood !

[ADVERTISEMENT.] —The Triumphs Daily Achieved
by the Medicine prepared by John Kaye, Esq., of I) al -
ton-hall, near Huddersfield, and known throughout the
world as Kaye's Worsdell's Pills, are of the most astonish-
ing character. No person, however afflicted, need de-
spair of obtaining immediate benefit. The following tes-
timouy, just received, is a specimen of several hundreds
sent by individuals who are astonished and delighted at
the benefit they hare derived from the use of these Pills.
Mr. W. Boars, of Queen-street, Newcastle-on-Tyne,
writes:—" Your Pills have effected a most wonderful
cure on my diseased body. I was afflicted with a severe
headache, pains in the back and legs, soreness in the
chest, and extreme costiveness. I have received the
greatest benefit from using your invaluable medicine."
To guard against counterfeits the arms of John Kaye,
and a fac-simile of his signature, are printed on the di-
rections wrapped round each box. Sold, price is. lid.,
2s. 9d., or 4s. 6d., by all respectable Chemists and Medi-
cine enders.

ANOTHER ACCIDENT ON THE LIVERPOOL AND BURY
RAILWAY.—On Saturday night William Bradley, about
fifteen years of age, who had been entrusted at Maghull
to point the rails on this nearly, completed line, fell
asleep, as is supposed, on the turning table; and a loco-
motive with a train of mud-waggons passed soon after,
almost severing his legs from his body. He was brought
to the Northern Hospital about
.halt-past eleven on the
same night, but had been so seriously injured that he
died about three o'clock yesterday morning. The parents
of the deceased live in Raymond-street, in this town.—
Liverpool Albion.

On Saturday Mr. E. Trouton and Mr. Martin J
Burke, who were confined in Newgate under the sus-
pension of the Habeas Corpus Act, were sent to Chin-
mel by railway. The parties were summoned on be-
half of Mr. Thomas P. Meagher, to be examined as
witnesses on his trial, which it is expected will com-
mence this day.
Letters from Clonmel state that Meagher's trial
cannot conclude before Friday evening next.
THE STATE PRISONERS.
The Freeman's Journal has the following in a
letter from Clonmel, dated Sunday evening :
" A gentleman, who spent a considerable time with
Mr. O'Brien yesterday, states, that nothing could be
more admirable than his fortitude and manly bearing
under the painful and dangerous circumstances in which
he is placed. His manner is as composed, and his mind
as cheerful, as if ho were a free man, instead of one
whose life is at the disposal of another. In nothing is
he altered, neither in mind, manner, nor appearance.
Mrs. O'Brien spends every moment she can with him,
and if he required solace or support, he would find in her
one admirably qualified to impart both. Did pain or
anguish wring his brow,' he would indeed experience in
her a 'ministering angel.' He has not been removed '
from the apartments he occupied before his conviction.
" MESSRS. M`MANUS AND O'DONORUE.—It is pro-
bable that these gentlemen will be brought up for sen-
tence in the morning. That sentence must, of course,
be death, but I believe they will be prepared to hear it
without blenching, and as becomes men.
" STRENGTHENING THE GARRISON.— I understand
that 401 of the Rifles are ordered to this town imme-
diately, it having been resolved to increase the strength
of the garrison here. What is the object of this ?
Could it have any relation to a scene which the humanity
and good feeling of every man in the country deprecates?
I can scarcely think it possible."
JENNY LIND.
The incomparable Jenny Lind made her third
appearance before a Dublin audience on Saturday
evening, in Donizetti's opera, La Figlia dcl Reggi-
mento. On no former occasion has there been such a
numerous audience inside the walls of Hawkin's-
street Theatre—boxes, pit, galleries, all were
crowded to inconvenience ; notwithstanding which
a great many were disappointed in procuring
even standing room in the galleries. The disappoint-
ment was the greater from the fact of several
parties having come up to town from remote
districts of the country for the sole purpose of
listening to the " Swedish Nightingale." It would
be impossible to convey an idea of the sensation
produced by Jenny Lind in the " song of the regi-
ment," which was encored; and the other songs
given by her in the opera—all her former triumphs
since her appearance on the Dublin boards were as
nothing in comparison. Among those in the house
on this occasion were—the Lord Chancellor and his
family, Lieutenant General Sir Edward and LLadyßlakeney, the Under-Secretary and Mrs. Redington,
Lord Glengall, Lord and Lady Bellew, the
Lord
Chief Justice's family, Lord Guillamore, the Hon.
&c.
Captain Foley, Colonel King, Colonel Jackson, K. 11.,
&c.

THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.
TRIAL OF O'DONOHOE.

Their Lordships took their seats on CLONMEL.
the bench on
Saturday morning, at a quarter to ten
o'clock. The number of persons in court was not greater than on
yes-
terday, nor did the proceedings seem to excite much in-
terest or curiosity,
Mr. BUTT, Q.C., proceeded to examine witnesses for
the defence.
Mr. Patrick Hanrahan, a farmer living at Tinlough, at
the foot of Slievenamon, said O'Donohoe came to his