The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-14 00:00:00

(from the Morning Herald of this day.)

The attention of the country, from one end to
the other, is now of necessity fixed upon the heavy
charges brought by the Attorney-General, Fitz-
gerald, against the Irish Master of the Rolls, well
known in other days as the successful prosecutor of
Mr. O'Connell, as well as by his magnificent de-
fence of his own conduct upon that occasion be-
fore the Commons of England.
It is well that our readers should call to mind
that this is not the first persecution undergone at
the hands of the Whigs by the eminent judge in
question, nor the fact that he is not now in a posi-
tion to make his personal defence in the house,
which, no doubt, would be as triumphant, could
he make it, as was that which occupied the Com-
mons for an entire night ten years ago, and to
which not the most virulent of his enemies dared
to attempt even the semblance of a reply.

The case whish at this moment calls for notice is
one of even a more serious nature than that to
which we have alluded, and involves the character
both of the judicial bench and the Government of
the country, as repres^nted by the Irish Attorney-
General, to a degree unequalled in importance by
any previous occurrence within our memory.
We consider that Mr. Moore expressed truly
the general opinion of the public of Ireland, and
of that portion of Englishmen who have attended
to the proceedings in question, namely, that Go-
vernment had connived at the escape of Mr. James
Sad lei r from justice; but another question remains
behind, of even greater importance, viz., what
motive could the Queen's Attorney-General have
in adopting such a course of proceeding?
We are saved from dwelling at any great length
upon the first part of the question by the withering
exposure contained in the speech of the Master of
the Rolls on Friday, in which, with unsparing and
relentless logic, and by reference to dates, he con-
victs the Attorney-General of one of two things—
wilful connivance at the escape of a criminal, or
the grossest neglect of public duty. Mr. Fitz-
gerald attempts to screen himself by laying a great
portion of the blame upon the late Attorney-Gene-
ral ; but the learned gentleman in this unworthy
attempt conveniently forgets that he himself was
Solicitor-General, and that the heaviest laches
committed absolutely occurred in the month of
June, two months after his own accession to the
higher office of Attorney-General.
We would humbly beg the House of Commons
to be more chary of its own character for consis-
tency
and honesty in the matter of dates in the
present instance than it was at the period when,•
as far as they could, honourable and right honour-
able gentlemen voted a censure on Lord Derby's
Government for having offered employment—a
net, by the way, which depended solely upon the
testimony of Mr. E. O'Flaherty—to a gentleman
many months before the occurrence of the offence
which was said to render him unfit for office.
To return. As early as the 4th of March, suffi-
cient was known to the whole world, with, it would
appear, the single exception of Mr. Fitzgerald, to
implicate James Sadleir in a criminal participation
with the enormous frauds perpetrated by his brci•
ther, the late Lord of the Treasury.
Every one has heard of the underground room at