The Sun.
London, England, 1856-03-26 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1356.

The two most suspicions circumstances we had
gathered from the rumours current, in relation to
the Peace Conferences, are the exquisite facility
of Russia in conceding points she was fully ex-
pected to have contested With vigour, if not with
determination, and the muttered threats of Rus-
sian vengeance, reported to h&ve been levelled by
Count ORLOFP 'against Austria. The 1E thiopian
does not readily change the colour of his skin, nor
the leopard part with his spots, and, linking to-
gether the above circumstances, we must be par-
doned for having deduced from them the convic-
tion that the two Powers are in collusion, and
have b?en, and are practising deliberate foul play
against the Allies. Russia, whose policy it has
always been to magnify her triumphs, and mini-
mise her defeats, and, whatever her braggadocio
before, to vaunt her resources, and insist on her
conditions being accepted, pure and simple, most
strenuously, in circumstances of disaster, so yield-
ing as she is reported to be now ! And threaten-
ing Austria when, if exhausted as she is repre-
sented to be, Austria has proved her best friend
by securing her peace! How are we to reconcile
these things on any other supposition than that
we have advanced ?

Let us see to what extent, without any undue
straining, the most recent rumour or fact—for
that to which we are about to refer may be ac-
cepted as such—May throw light on the matter.
The Turkish Plenipotentiary, AALJ PACHA, it is
confidently asserted, has received peremp-
tory instructions from the Council at Con-
stantinople not: to consent to the insertion
of the SULTAN'S late decree in the articles of
peace, on the pretence that such insertion would
bind the Porte—which, by the way, no one ever
doubted nee(lo:binding, so fast and icose has it
played with iftpromises of reform—to a certain
form of administration in its own independent
territories ;an further, to oppose any arrange-
ment about tho: Principalities which should be
in any way prejudicial to the sovereign rights of
the SULTAN in these provinces. Has the reader
caught a glimptle of the truth 7 The grand aim
of the Allies in dealing with Turkey must, we
apprehend, be to obtain every reasonable security
for the future welfare and stability of that un-
happy country, so that the least possible excuse
for interference on the part of her unscrupulous
neighbours should be forthcoming. To this end
the carrying out of the late decrse of the SuLus,

)1/4.

and , the establishment of a healthy and vigor-
o;] i form of government in the Principalities
• IX, 3 essentially necessary. The carrying out
of the one, more especially, because of the good-
I will the emancipation from theft. civil and reli-
gious disabilities would insure on the part of the,
fGreek Christians ; and the establishment of the
other; because of the evident check a 'strong and
t united people would give to the aggressive designs
of Austria and Russia. Now, if such be' the effect
, which may reasonably be calculated on from the
carrying out of these reforms and the establish-
ment
.of such a rule, it is quite obvious what
would be the result if neither were accomplished.
Aa it was, if not worse, Turkey would continue
to be ; and over the Principalities one or two
armies would incessantly hover, like so many vul-
-1 tures, waiting their opportunity. All, or nearly
all, that has been won by, the sword would prove
a bit of waste parchment.

Russia knows this, Austria knows this, and
Turkey ought to know it, as indeed we believe
her rascally Paellas do. And all three like Wise
know, aid we trust the Allies also, that if the
decree of the SULTAN be not inserted in the articles
of peace, and the " sovereign " scruples of the
Porte (they may be counted, possibly, in sove-
reigns or their equivalents) be respected, the re-
forms promised will never be accomplished, the
Christian Rayabs in Turkey will continue disaf-
fected, and the Principalities will be as powerless,
as full of intrigue, and provocative of aggression as
ever, having lost the brightest prospects not merely
ever held out to' that corn-growing country, but
probably to any two provinces in modern times.
Is the fate of Kars not yet sufficiently burnt
into the English mind ? Is it forgotten—why,
it must be as present as the air we breathe, that
Kars was bought with Russian gold, as it is that
our Ambassador, who may have followed instruc-
tions from a high, though not a Ministerial quar-
ter, as good as looked on and saw, without making
an attempt at interference, the villainous bargain
consummated. What bought Kars, has, in all
human probability, moved the Council at Con-
stantinople to issue these, its fresh instructions, to
its Plenipotentiary, and the purchaser of the
Council, as of Kars, may well afford the
appearance of an eager longing for peace that
will be gratified even at more than ordinary sacri-
fice, and is likely enough to have recourse to
a simulated anger against Austria, the more suc-
cessfully to carry on the deception. The interests
of Russia and Austria may be • said to be at one
with respect to the future of Turkey and the Prin-
cipalities, and how could either be better served
than with Turkey for a cats-paw to obtain from
the Allies what they dare not themselves demand ;
but having which, any sacrifice either may have
pretended to make, will turn out as perfect a mat-
ter of indifference to them as of utter inutility to
the carrying out the aim of the Allies. In Hea-
ven's name let us not be sold after this fashion.
We have lost much gallant, and not a little noble
blood—have or have had saddled on ourselves
much taxation, and need some palpable fruit to
set against the deep and abiding feeling of degra-
dation which the shameful mismanagement of the
War, and our consequent loss of prestige, has
occasioned us. Let the Council of Constanti-
nople- be taught a stern lesson, and have clearly
and unmistakeably demonstrated to it, that, come
what may of its promised gold, its resistance to the
policy of the. Allies must. at once determine before
the fixed and irrevocable resolution of France
and England,;' that Tulkey shall no longer play
fast and loose with, her promises—but shall be
made to keep her own 'word iu real interests and
the interests of Europe. If this be not done, the
future historian will have to exhaust all epithets
of scorn and disgust at the iniserah!e folly of the
rulers of the two greate3t nations in the world,
who went to war for the protection of a weak
State, and when they had brought the enemy to
terms, suffored a knot, of villainous intriguers in
that State to chouso them 'out of the attainment
of their aim.

The Rev. H. F. YEATMAN, Chairman of the
late Dorset Intermediate Sessions, at which
JOSEPH BYLES, a poor labourer, convicted on a
charge of feloniously receiving a sack and some
wheat, the property of his employer, was twice
sentenced under very remarkable circumstances,
has addressed a letter to the local newspapers, in
which he endeavours to vindicate himself and his
brother Magistrates from the strictures of The Sun,,
and other members of the metropolitan press,
on the procedure,„ of the B3nch on that
occasion. Unfortunately for hirns3lf and them,
though only as might have been expected, the
attempted vindication turns out an utter failure ;
no fact of importance being controvertel, and
everything new advanced only tending to show
how lenient and how thoroughly applicable those
strictures were.

In order that the reader may be enabled
to form au opinion on the case, it
will be necessary to restate the principal
facts. JOSEPH BYLES, then, a labourer, was,
with his wife and daughter, charged before
the Bench at the above Sessions with having
stolen or feloniously received the sack and wheat
in question, and, together with his wife, convicted
on the latter count (the daughter being acquitted),
and sentenced, himself to nine months' imprison-
ment (with hard labour), and his wife to six
months. And here we may state, a perusal of
the evidence left little doubt at the time in our
minds of thamife's guilt, while the presumption
was exceedingly strong in favour of JOSEPH'S
innocence. The prisoners were tried and sen-
tenced on the first day of the Sessions.
On the second, the Rev. Chairman drew the atten-
tion of the jury, in a tautological address, gar-
nished with every circumstance of amazement,.
to " a most startling assertion" made to the
Bench that day by the prosecutor—an asser-
tion that had " greatly surprised them,"
and to the effect that in his belief the pri-
soner, JOSEPH BYLES, was innocent 1 "Un-
der this startling discovery" (we quote from the
report) " the Court was desirous of reconsider-
ing the sentence passed upon JOSEPH BYLES, but
they were unwilling to do so without, asking the
opinion of the jury on the-more or less guilt or in-
nocence (!) of the prisoner. They did not
wish to
put them in the unpleasant po-
sition of reconsidering their verdict. There
was no doubt that, in point of law, he was respon-
sible for what wad found in his house (the stolen
articles, by the *ay, were found concealed in the
court desired was whether
pantry), but what the
the jury, upon reconsideration, thought (in the
!) that' the guilt of
as they originally
absence of any evidence
JOSEPH BYLES was not as great
thought it to be--whether they thought it right
he should have a less degree of punishment (!)
They would consider whether they could recom-
mend him (the said JoSEPFI BYLES) to the mer-
ciful consideration of the court." The well-
meaning jury, it would appear, thought they
could, for they did so, taking care, however, to
state it was on the recommendation of Mr.
SAUNDERS, the (unreasonable) prosecutor.
JOSEPH BYLES was then sent for, and on appear-
ing at the bar had his sentence commuted from

nine to three months' imprisonment with hard

labour !

Such are the facts ou which we commented a
fortnight ago, as follows :—" The reader is inere-
dulous. It is nevertheless the fact. The unfor-
tunate man was aware of the wheat and sack
being in his house or he was not. If he was
aware, he was guilty ; if not, he was innocent. If
he was guilty no extenuating circumstances were
forthcoming ; if innocent (and the party most
interested next to himself in the fact, viz., the
prosecutor, pronounced him to be so), he was
entitled to nothing short of an acquittal. Yet,
after an anomalous reference to the jury, he was,
on their unwarranted recommendation to mercy,
sentenced to three instead of nine months' hard
labour 1" Subsequently, in the same article in
which another instance of " justice's justice" was
noticed, we called attention to the fact that the
chairman in BYLEs'S case was a clergyman, and
challenged the reader's recollection whether " the
most glaringly foolish and unmerciful decisions
emanating from the unpaid magistracy that had
come within the range of his knowledge were not
attributable to members of the cloth."

What has the seriously outraged and- Rev. H.
F. YZATNIN to say in self-defence, and on behalf
of his brother magistrates? A. good deal, a column
and a half,' no less, of the most tumid balder-
dash, conceived in the utmost arrogance, by the
most muddled brain almost imaginable, and no-
thing further to the purpose than as demonstrating
the grotesque incompetency of the Bench, the
"startling" mercifulness and modesty of his own
disposition, and the- shameful injustice done to the
prisoner. After a column of prosy twaddle,
chiefly technical, partly given to grief , and
" amazement," and altogether meant possibly to
be expository of the case, the rev. successor to
the Apostles again expresses surprise at the prose-
cutor's conduct, this time describing his statement
as " so completely out of date," and accounts for
his recommending the prisoner to merely by in-
forming unit was on his (the Chairman's) recom-
mendation, as being the only thing he could do.
Admits that the recommendation of the jury
" was founded on no fact," and affirms for the
edification of those " who are always ready to
speak evil of dignities, and to cast stones on those
who sit in the judgment seat"—that the Court
" had no power in law to alter or modify the ver-
dict of the jury, which had been recorded on the
previous day (no one, by the way, having said
it had), Audaciously pronounces the prisoner
guilty, and asserts that if the Court erred at all
it did so "by administering the law with too
much mercy (FlEavzx help us I) to a man who had
feloniously robbed his master" (that master, be
it remembered, a hard, though justly disposed
man, who allowed him and his family much too
little bread to eat, and a very unlikely person to
be imposed upon, or moved by foolish pity,
having pronounced him innocent of any such
offence !) Concluding with a postcript, in which
he "lets the cat out of the bag," declaring that,
had the Bench considered the verdict contrary to
the evidence, they might, and should (Would ?)
have submitted the case and the notes of evi-
dence to the consideration of Her MA-
JEsnes Secretary of State for the Home
Department ;" but, not dissenting from the
said verdict, they could not do so conscien-
tiousby ! !

Conscientiously Why that, was what they
"might and , should," have done- in-- any,lase,
whether they believed him positively innocent or
guilty, or " more.or lees innocent or guilty";" in-
stead of stultifying bdth themselves, "the prose-
cutor, and the jury by the unheard of, and
wholly unjustifiable and ridiculous course they
adopted. The presumption and bard-hearted-
ness of the man more than surprises—it a,lmost
petrifies us. He a minister of religion, a.
disciple of Him whose life was a life of mercy,
whOie :doctrine was mercy, all whose acts were
merciful, who offered no outlet to the vengeance
of the, accusers of the woman taken in adultery,
but bade such as were without sin among them
first throw a stone at her, and when, conscience.
stricken, they had all slunk away, gently
accosted her, and said, " Hath no man con-
demned thee ? neither do ' I condemn thee ;
go thy way, and sin no. more" actually
deems himself justified in intercepting the mercy
of the Crown towards BYLuS, because of his be-
lief in the poor man's guilt, notwithstanding his
accuser had pronounced him innocent ; as the
jury, if they could have reconsidered their ver-
dict, would, there eau be no doubt, have done
also, leaving him—wretched creature that he W.a%
and is—to drag out his three months' term of
hard labour and imprisonment ? Nay, more than
this, positively brands the man's character
afre,h, and "conceives that if the Bench (acting
under his direction) erred at all, it was by admi-
nistering the law with too much mercy to a man
who had feloniensly robbed his master." Did no
recollection of his own Master and His precepts
mantle his cheeks with a blush of shame as he
penned the words? Had the memorable " judge
not lest ye be judged," 'or "judge righteous
judgment," escaped his recAlection, topther
with that legacy of the poor to the kind-
liest regard and consideration of His servants?
But we refrain. We write more in sorrow than
in anger, and, knowing nothing more of the gen-
tleman than the case reveals, certainly from no
latent personal hostility, but from a sense of duty
to him as well as the public and the prisoner ;
and therefore, in conclusion, we sincerely wish
him repentance, a "good conscience,' and better
"law," and invite the attention of the Home-
Office to the entire affair, trusting that the know-
ledge so considerately kept back from it will lead
to the immediate liberation of the prisoner, and
the vindication of stultified justice by the appoint-
ment of a stipendiary, or, at all events, a better
qualified Chairman of Sessions. Absurdities and
abuses like this, we fear, are fast uprooting in the
minds of the poor all respect for law, as well as
its unpaid administrators. This evil cannot, we
conceive, be too promptly checked.