The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

BANKING DS

Proprietors' capital .. 14,553,00 p
Rest ...... •• • ....... 3,284,962
Public deposits (in-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners of
National Debt, Say-

ing's Banks, and
Dividend Accounts) 4,817,074
Other deposits ...... 10,470,957
•even Day and other
8i115........... 849,731

£33,975,724

Dated the 10th day of July, 1851

AVERAGE PRICE OF SUGAR.

The' verage Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, com-
puted from the returns made in the week ending July 8,
1856, exclusiv4of tilos. Duties of Custairt-paid or payable.
thereon, on the importation thereof into Great Britain.
Froin the British Possessions in America......... 30s. 4d.
Muscovado, the produce of the Mauritius ...... 30s. id
Muscovado, the produce of the East Indies .... 335. 90.
Average of the three foregoing descriptions...... 303. Bid.

THE IRISH MASTER OP THE ROLLS VERSUS
THE IRISH ATTORNEY.GENERAL.

DtTBLIN, FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
The Master of the Rolls delivered to-day the following
address :

The Attorney-General for Ireland having thought pro-
per to accuse me of being the cause of Mr. James Sad-
leir's not being amenable to answer the criminal charge
which the Attorney-General intimates he is prepared to
bring forward against him, now that he is no longer
amenable, I feel it due to myself to repel that most un-
founded and unwarrantable charge, and I regret that in
doing so I shall have to put the Attorney-General on his
trial before the public, and I shall state no fact that I
shall not be prepared to substantiate before a committee
of either house of Parliament. On Feb. 20, 1856, Mr.
James Sadleir subscribed his name in one of the books of
the Tipperary Joint-Stock Bank to a document stating
that the bank was unable to meet its engagements. Da'
entry immediately followed the remarkable report and
balance-sheet of Feb. 1, 1856, referred to in my judg-
ment in Ginger's case, declaring a dividend of 6 per cent.
and a bonus of 3 per cent. On the 4th of March the mo-
tion was made before me under the provisions of the
Winding-up Acts that the affairs of the company should
be wound up. In giving judgment on that occasion (a
report of which was published in several Dublin and
London newspapers, and amongst others in the
Dublin Evening Mail of March 5, 1856,) I distinctly ad
verted to the facts which implicated James Sadleir with
the gieantic frauds which bee been committed. In the
Iri h article of the Times newspaper of the 10th March,
1856. there is the following passage :—The Leinster E -
press, alluding to the connivance of Mr. James Sadleir at
the tremendous frauds brought to light in the Rolls
Court, says :—lt is said that that gentleman has atready
fled from the impending storm, but we trust that is not
the fact. The shareholders owe it to themselves and to
the cause of pub is justice that the surviving fabricator
or fabricators of the swindling report should ndt escape
a criminal prosecution, and if Mr James. Sadleir and
his coadjutors, whoever they may be, have not already
gone, it is right that measures should be taken to pre-
vent their leaving the con try." In the same number of
the Timcs (the 10th of Marcb) there is a leading article
c =mooting on the Sadleir frauds, and implicating
James with John Sadleir. Not a week—l believe I
might PAy not a day—elapsed in which the Sadleir
frauds were not denounced by the public press as un-
paralleled. In the Carlow Post, adverted to in the
Irish article of the Times of the 10th of March, the la-
mentable fact was alluded to, that "The savings of tra-
ders, clerks, and assistants—police officers and small
farmers—the savings which were to establish some in
business—the small sums gradually accumulated for the
future provision of large families, or as a support for de-
clining years—all these have in too hArett,
engulphed he the mass of heavy an have left;
the deluded victims penniless, hQpelesev and inAhei
most affecting despair." The* Attorney-General had
no sympathy for these poor people, and closed
his oars and shut his eyes to everything which
was said or written _in relation to the S td!eir frauds.
At length the case of the English shareholders came
before me in the latter end of the month of May,
1856, and the arguments of counsel having occupied
several days, and the monstrous frauds of the Tippe-
rary Joint-Stock Bank having been laid bare before
the court and the public, I stated, as appears from a
report of the observations made by me and published
in all the newspapers, that I intended "to consider
the matter attentively before giving judgment, and
that there was one question which I thought it was
my duty to the pubiic to pass my opinion upon at
that time. I then expressed my unbounded astonish-
ment that the Irish Government had not thought fit
to take any notice of the case. I stated that it was
of the last importance to the interest of all parties
that they should do so, and that if they chose to re-
main quiescent, and shrunk from the duty that de
volved upon them, of placing the case before the Crown
prosecutors, they wou'd be guilty of a gross dereliction
of duty." I added that, " when giving judgment, I
purposed to enter into the facts at considerable length
and I undertook to prove that if the Government de-
termined to remain quiescent they could have no right
to complain if the public charged them with conni-
vance at conspiracy. I repeated that the Govern-
ment must interfere. That they might pretend igno-
rance of the law on the subject, but that I should lay
it down to them distinctly." I then read the judgment
of Lord Campbell in Burnes v. Pennell, 2 House of Lords
cases, referring to Lord Brougham's judgment to the
same effect, and I else referred to the case of the King
v. De I3eranger, 3 Menlo and Selwyn. The Attorney-
General, who had fallen asleep from the 4th of March to
the 3d of June, notwithstanding that every newspaper
which he took up must have suggested to him the duty
which he was bound to perform, awoke on the last men-
tioned day, in consequence of my observations ; and an
electric telegraph message was sent from London to some
person, I believe the registrar, to know when I should
give judgment. Having intimated that I would not
give judgment for some time, the Attorney-General
turned his head upon his pillow and again fell asleep
until the 14th of June. lam now about to state facts
which the Attorney-General cannot get rid of by any
sophistry or mystification. On Tuesday, the Bth of
this month, I applied to Mr. Meldon, the solicitor for
the official manager (the official manager being absent
from Dublin on business connected with his office) to
know when the Attorney-General, or any person on his
behalf, first applied for copies of any of the affidavits or
documents filed or lodged in the Master's office in this
matter. On the 14th of June, 1856, a copy of Mr.
John Sadleir's celebrated letter to his brother James
Sadleir was givenito the Crown solicitor. I have not
ascertained whether this letter was applied for, or sent
to the Grown solicitor without being applied for. I shall
ascertain that fact to-day, but shall not delay sending
this statement. Surely that letter was calculated to
arouse any person except the Attorney-General. He,
however, remained as little alive to the Sadleir
fraud as he had been before. On the 20th of June, I
gave judgment. On the 24th of June, 1856, and not
sooner, a copy of one of the affidavits was bespoke on
the part of the Attorney-General, and it was given out
by the solicitor for the official manager on the following
day. On the 25th of June, a copy of another affidavit
was bespoke, which was given out on the following day.
On the Ist of July, a copy of another affidavit was given
out ; and, on the 30th of June, four affidavits were sent
by Mr. Meldon, the solicitor for the official manager, to
the Crown solicitor. I have Mr. Meldon's statement
in writing on these points. Mr. Meldon, however, says
that Mr. Gaussen, the solicitor for the English share-
holders, lent one Of his briefs to the Crown solicitor on
the 21st of June ; that is, after I had given judgment on
the 20th of June, The result is this—The Attorney-
General took no step whatever to ascertain whether
there was any evidence to affect James Sadleir until on
or after I gave judgment on the 20th of June, although
the judements I had given on the 4th of March and the
3d of June imposed a distinct duty upon him so to do.
The letter of John Salleir, of which he was in posses-
sion on the 14th of June, rendered it the more his duty
to investigate the case. When did James Sadleir cease
to be amenable? The Attorney-General says on the
17th or 18eh of June, "I believe he was amenable after
I gave judgment on the 20th of June." But I shall
assume that the Attorney-General has been accurately
informed of Mr. James Sadleir's movements, and that
the date of the 17th or 18th of June is correct. How
does the Attorney-General account for having taken no
step, and made no inquiry or investigation, from the 4th
of March to the 3d of June ? Every document con-
nected with the bank was in the custody of the official
manager from the time of his appointment, although
John Sadleir's letter was not found until after the 3d of
June. If there was any excuse prior to the 3d of June,
what justification was there for making no inquiry, and
taking oat no copy of any affidavit from that date until
after the 20th of June ? The letter of John Sadleir,
with which the Crown solicitor was furnished with a
copy on the 14th June, should have awakened the At-
torney-General if anything coeld have done so. The
Attorney-General says that James Sadleir was amenable
until the 17th or 18th June. Did it require from the
3d of June to the 17th or 18th of June to swear infor-
mations ? Why was no application made to me prior
to the 20th of June.? If there had; I should have,,stated
the entire CAW to any person deputed by the Attorney.