The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TlMES.—After three days' inquiry the magistrates
at Market Drayton have unanimously dismissed the
charge against Mr. Eyre, on the ground that the
evidence did not raise a probable presumption of
guilt, and that they were convinced a jury would
not convict. The proceedings have been given with
sufficient fullness in our columns. The prosecution
went over the long history of the Jamaica outbreak,
and in this case omitted nothing which could tend
to impress the magistrates with a conviction that the
late Governor was not only legally, but morally, a
murderer. In the cases of Colonel Nelson and
Lieutenant Brand the charges were more strictly
technical, and were declared to be for the purpose
of bringing to a legal test several questions, such as
whether Gordon and others could be properly tried
by a court-martial, whether the Act under which
martial law was proclaimed was valid, and also what
was the effect of the Act of Indemnity. Mr. Eyre,
however, has had to meet a far darker accusation; and
❑ow that the Jamaica Committee have brought for-
ward their case against him, we cannot wonder that
his advisers restrained him from giving any facilities
to the prosecution, or treating the charge as if it
were merely the trial of an abstract right. The
theory of the prosecution is, that Gordon could
justifiably be put to death only by sentence of a
legally constituted Court, or by an Executive acting
without malice and under the pressure of absolute
necessity. If either of these conditions were want-
ing, those who took part in or abetted the execution
would be guilty of murder. Mr. Stephen urged
that for several reasons the Court which tried
Gordon had no right to exercise its functions, and
that therefore its sentence was a nullity. He then
came to the alternative whether Gordon was put to
death in obedience to absolute necessity, and for the
safety of the island. This also he controverted,
and professed to show not only that no necessity
existed for the execution, but that the cause of it
was the personal eiukhobity of Mrs EyrQ aping

Gordon--an animosity which, whether it arose on
private or public grounds, which undoubtedly, if it
were proved to have influenced the Governor's acts,
constitute that malice which the law demands. To
prove that political hatred animated the Governor,
and that the machinery of martial law was used by
him to compass the death of a man on whose
destruction he bad resolved, was, therefore, the
chief object of the prosecution, and to support this
the despatches and the evidence of Mr. Eyre, with
respect to matters both before and after the out-
break, were laid before the Bench. Mr. Eyre had
spoken of Gordon while he was living as a mis-
chievous person, and after he was dead as an im-
moral person. He had himself apprehended him,
and caused him to be taken to Morant Bay and put
on his trial. He had under his own hand confirmed
the finding of the Court, and decided that its
sentence should be e±ecuted. For these reasons,
and, furthermore, because it was notorious that
Gordon bad been a political opponent of the
Governor, the Bench was requested to consider,
among other questions, " whether Mr. Eyre's deep
enmity towards Gordon did not operate on his
mind." Whatever judgment may be formed on
these unhappy events,we think that no tribunal could
ratify the charges which had been made on such
evidence as has been produced. If Mr. Eyre were
indeed guilty of the crime of which he is thus accused
no punishment would be too severe for him. He
would have committed the gravest political offence
that could be perpetrated by a man in authority,
that of having used his official power and the forms
of legality to strike down a personal enemy. We
cannot but think that, when so odious an accusation
is brought forward, all compliments and expressions
of sympathy on the part of prosecuting counsel aro
entirely out of place. The defendant can as little
desire to receive this ghastly courtesy as the prose-
cutors, if they really believe in his guilt, can be
sincere in offering it. We cannot be surprised that
the evidence for the prosecution failed to convince
the magistrates that it was their duty to send the
case for trial. As far as we can judge from the
necessarily abridged reports which are published,
there was no addition made to the facts with which
the public are already familiar, and on which the
great majority have already formed a definite
opinion. The history of the Jamaica outbreak is
again laid before us, and the political agitation that
preceded it. The conviction which these events
have forced on those who have carefully examined
them is that the outbreak had a dangerous aspect,
and this was still further exaggerated by the fears
not only of Mr. Eyre, but of the Jamaica whites,
who urged on him the necessity of strong measures,
declaring that otherwise the small body of white
people would be unsafe in the midst of the negroes.
To all impartial minds the existence of this well or
ill-founded apprehension accounts for the deplorable
severities which were inflicted. It is proved beyond
a doubt that Mr. Eyre was urged to extend martial
law to Kingston, if not to the whole island ; it is
proved that on every side the cry was raised that
Gordon, and Gordon alone, was the cause of the
massacre, and that until he was taken and dealt
with there would be no safety from the negroes,
whom he was alleged to have excited, and who
believed in his impunity. Mr. Eyre's fault—
a great and grievous one in a Governor—was
that he shared in a general panic and yielded
to a public clamour. He has asserted, and there is
no reason to doubt truly asserted, that he believed
in Gordon's guilt and in the necessity for his execu-
tion. How any one could come to such a conclu-
sion on the evidence taken at Gordon's trial it is
difficult for us, reading it quietly at home and in
safety, to understand. But we must bear in mind
the frenzy which rebellion and massacre excite in
the minds of those who hear of deeds of blood and
know not whether they and their families may not
be the next victims. This meagre and irrelevant
evidence did as a fact convince, not only Mr. Eyre,
but the members of the court-martial, the brigadier
commanding, the Jamaica Executive, and appa-
rently every white man, whether Englishman or
West Indian, who was in the island. Indeed, no-
thing could be greater than their surprise when they
heard that people in England thought a man should
not have been hanged upon it. In Jamaica every
eye viewed the conduct of the unhappy agitator
through a lens which coloured and distorted all his
acts. We have recurred to this sad story in order
to show that, grievous as were the errors in Mr.
Eyre's conduct, the charge which his prosecutors at
length decided on bringing against him could not
be supported. What may constitute in strictness
thelegal crime of murder may be for lawyers to dis-
cuss, but of its moral aspects juries will judge for
themselves, and we should be sorry to think that
any English jury would convict in this case on such
evidence as is before the world. With regard to the
legal questions into which Mr. Stephen entered we
feel no desire to raise any discussion, since they
must be shortly considered in the cases of Colonel
Nelson and Lieut. Brand. But we must say that,
looking on the matter by the mere light of common
sense, it is difficult to imagine how any tribunal
can hold a deed to be criminal which is performed in
bona fide obedience to an act of the Legislature,
and can import into the question such abstruse
considerations as those to which the prosecution
invites attention.