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

ISSUE DErAITMENT.
Notes jiggled ...• .... 26,499,365

:Government debt .... 11,015,10.
Other securities 3,459,9n0
Gold coin and bullion 12.024,365
Silver -

426,499,335
Dated the 10th day of July, 1851

Z 26,! 99,"065
41. MANSE( Wii:Nlef Ctishier
:PARTMENT. ; -e
Government oecnritiei

BANHINQ DE
' X
Proprietors'•capital .. 14,553,000
Rest .. .• .. .• .. 3,234,92
Public deposits (in-
chiding Exchequer.
Commissioners of
National Debt, Sav-
ing's Banks, and

• (Includg:Dead Weight
Annuity)......: 11,308,515
Other, securities...... frb,527,012
Note B.. 6,552.720
Gold With** 55,;,577

Dividend Accoants) 4,817,074
Olher deposi.s ...... 10,470,957
-ever Pa), and other
81115:....... . 849,731

£33,05,724

£33,975,724
r. MABSH4L-t,Chte:

DAted the 10 th day of Julir, 182

- A.VERA.GE-,PtICA SIJ , -
The Average 'Price oLl3rown or MlyseevCift.a o Sugar, Com-
puted from the returns made in theweek ending July 8,
1856, exclusive of the Duties of Cantinas paid or,payattle
thereon; on the importation: thereof into Great Britain.
From the British Possessions in America, 3os. 44.
Muscovado, the produce of the Mauritius 303. ld
:Muscovado, the produce of the East Indies
Average of the three foregoing descriptions 3os. 84d.

THE IRISH MASTER OF THE • .ROLLS VERSUS-
THE-IRISH ATTORIVEMENERA L.

- DUBLIN, Faittiki•AFTERNOON.
The Master of the Rolls delivered today the,following
addiess

The Attorney-General for Ireland having thought pro-
per to iccuser me of being the cause of Mr. Janes 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 tedere 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. Ti s-
entry immediately followed the remarkable raper.; 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 and 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 gigantic frauds which hail been committed. In the
Iri h article of the Times newspaper of the 10th March,
1856, there is the following passage :—The Leinster E •
cress, 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' already
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 not 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 Tirncs (the 10th of March) there is a leading article
immenting on the Sadleir frauds, and implicating
James with John Sadleir. Not a week—l believe I
might say 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 lac
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 ire
business—the small sums gradual/5r accumulated for-tlior
futurepiavisionjof large familil4 or awn smart for de,
elining years—all these have icy too many instances heal
engulphed in the mass of heavy deposits, and have left.
the deluded victims penniless, hopeless, and in the
most affecting despair." The Attorney-General had
no sympathy for these poor people, and. closed,
his ears and shut his eyes -to everything which
was said or written in relation to the S ureic fauds.
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
prosecutor's, they would be guilty of a gross dereliction
of duty." I added that, " when giving judgment, 1
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 t'ie law on the subject, but that I should lay
it down to them disiinctly." I then real the judgment
of L ;rd Campbell in Burnes v. Pennell, 2 House of Lords
eases, referring to Lord Broughana's judgment to the
same effect, and I also referred to the case of the King
v. De Beranger, 3 %tile and Selwyn. The Attorney-
General, who had fallen asleep from the 4th of March to
the 33 of June, notwithetanding fleet every newspaper
which he took up must have sugge ted 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 Inindon 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. I arse 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 csnnected 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 `l4th 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 Crown solicitor without being applied for. I Shall
ascertain that fact today, 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 20-b 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
I by Mr. Meldon, the solicitor for the official manager, to
the Crown solicitor. I have Mr. Meldon'A statement
in writing on these points. Mr. Meidon, however, says
that Mr. Gauseen, the solicitor for the English share-
holders, lent one of his briefs to the Crown solicitor on
the 21st
; that is, after I had given judgment on
the 20th of june
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 judsements I had given on the 4th of March and the
34 of June imposed a distinct duty upon him so t.) do.
The letter of John Sadleir, of which he was in posses-
sion on the 14th of Juue, rendered it the more his duty
to ievestigate the case. When did James Sadleir cease
td be 'amenable The Attorney-General says on the
17th or 18t.h 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 Saileir's letter was not found until after the 3d of
June. 'lf there was any ercu- e Prior to the 33 of June,
what justification was there for making no inquiry, and
taking oat no copy of any affidavit from that date until
after the -.2oth 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 could have done so. The
Attorney-General says that Jarees Sadleir was amenable
until the 17tb or 18th June. Did it require frem the
3d of June to the 17th or 18th of June to swear infor-
mations ? Wby was no application made to nee prior
to the 20th of June? If there had, I should have
-stated
the entice case tco Any porkqn.dTutist by the Attorney. !

-

1