The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-24 00:00:00

THE STATE TRIALS.

The following letter has been addressed by Mr.
Sheil to Mr. Wyse, whose motion respecting the
State Trials had been delayed by the keep ng back
of the returns for which he moved :
TO THOMAS WYSE, ESQ., M.P.

MY DEAR WYSE,—You have postponed the motion
with respect to the constitution of the jury by which
O'Connell has been convicted.
The reasons by which you have been induced to
adopt this step appeared to me fully to justify it; in-
deed, you had no choice ; but as I apprehend that in
Ireland an inevitable delay may be mistaken for. a
most detrimental procrastination, and as almost
equivalent to an abandonment of your purpose, and
as I know that you are determined to proceed, I think
that you are bound to take the earliest opportunity of
signifying your unalterable resolution to bring the facts
connected with the trial before the House and the coun-
try. It is a matter of surprise in Ireland that those facts
have not been made the subject of minute discussion,
and that an inquiry was not demanded immediately
after the sentence was carried into effect. That the
deliverer of his country should have have been de-
prived of his personal freedom, and that up to this
moment that great incident in the history of Ireland
should have been hardly noticed in the House of
Commons, appears at first view to be inexplicable.
The exclusion of every Catholic from the jury,
the tampering with the panel, the reiterated declara-
tion of Judge Perrin, that the jury was improperly
constituted, ought to have been, and must most
assuredly be, made the subject of debate in Parliament.
This great question is most properly in your hands.
The high estimate in which your abilities are held,
the personal respect which is entertained for you by
men of all parties, will give no ordinary weight to
your statement in the House of Commons. We are
all rejoiced that you have taken up the cause ; but
you should state to the Irish people, whose eyes are
turned on you, your immovable determination, as
soon as you can by possibility, to demand a Com-
mittee from the Minister whose conduct in these
proceedings has been so strongly impeached. I ven-
ture also to suggest to you, that you are well
warranted in writing to the absent Irish Members,
and entreating them to attend in their places in Par-
liament when your motion shall come on.
One of my motives in writing to you, and in thus
publicly addressing you, is to express my own per-
suasion that you will not leave O'Connell to destiny
without a remonstrance against the mode in which
the prosecution was carried on, and the conviction was
procured. The effect of any impression that we had
abandoned the man to whom we owe everything
would be most discreditable to ourselves, and most
injurious to the whole country. If Irishmen do not
seek redress for a flagitious injustice in the House of
Commons, were are they to look for it ?
Lord John Russell, the leader of the Whig party,
to whose solemn and deliberate declarations on
such a subject the utmost importance must be
attached, has stated, in the most emphatic manner,
his conviction that O'Connell has not been fairly
tried. This is a great fact, and Lord John Russell
and his political associaies will, beyond all doubt, co-
operate with us in calling on the Government to af-
ford us an opportunity of proving the charge pre-
ferred against them.—There were a few, but they
were very few, who thought that your motion in the
Commons was connected in some way with the ques-
tion to be decided on the writ of error in the Lords.
They now feel that in this impression they were sig-
nally in error. The question before the Lords is one
of law, the question which you propose to raise in the
Commons is one of fact. In the Lords the question
will be, not whether the jury was corruptly consti-
tuted, but supposing it to have been so, whether the
verdict should be set aside.—The question in the
Commons on your motion will be, whether the Pro-
testant jury, by whom the great Catholic was tried
and convicted, was fraudently formed. The defendants
challenged the array, and the following is an extract
from the challenge, in which the fact (which the
Crown counsel did not venture to try) is thus put in
issue :—" And the said Daniel O'Connell further says,
that a certain paper writing, purporting to be a ge-
neral list, purporting to be made out from said several
lists, so corrected, signed, and allowed as aforesaid,
was illegally and fraudulently, and for the purpose
and with the intent to prejudice the said Daniel
O'Connell in the cause, made out by some person or
persons unknown ; and the said Daniel O'Connell
says that the said list, purporting to be such general
list, does not contain the names of all the persons whose
qualification has been allowed, upon the correcting,
allowing, and signing of said lists as aforesaid, by the
said Recorder, but omitted the names of divers, to wit, 60

persons, whose qualification respectively to be on said
list had been so allowed as aforesaid by the said Recorder,
which said several persons whose names were so
omitted are as follows ; that is to say—(Here follow
sixty names inserted in the challenge)." The Crown,
instead of joining issue upon the question of fact,
instead of having the allegation set forth in the chal-
lenge—the charge of fraud—tried in open Court, de-
murred to the challenge; that is, insisted that, even
admitting that the panel was fraudulently fabricated,
still the case should be tried by a jury derived from
that corrupted source. In the House of Lords, the
question to be decided is utterly unconnected with
that of fact, namely, whether an infamous tampering
with the panel took place ; but is simply whether
the verdict should stand, notwithstanding that this
suppresion of the names of jurors may have been per-
petrated in the process by which the panel was
made up.
If the question of fact were to undergo an investiga-
tion in the Lords, it might be plausibly suggested
that to the Lords that investigatiou should be con-
signed ; but with the fact the Lords have nothing
whatever to do. It is only in the House of Commons
that we can effectually inquire whether a Protestant
jury has been packed, for the conviction of the fore-
most man in a Catholic nation, under a Government
by which protestations of impartiality and of purity
are so strenuously made. God forbid that we should
be sufficiently pusillanimous, or sufficiently apathetic,
not to demand an inquiry into what even Sir
James Graham admitted to have been a most fortu-
nate occurrence. It will require a more than ordi-

nary exercise of the peculiar -abilities by which the ac-
complished Baronet is distinguished, to show any
plausible reason for not investigating, through a Com-
mittee, an imputation which so many circumstances
have concurred to establish.

R. L. SHEIL.

THE SUGAR PLANTERS.

At all events the country can now experience no
difficulty in comprehending the policy of Ministers
on the subject of sugar. It is openly and obviously
an attempt to conciliate the West India interest, which
will not succeed, because a too great disposition is at
the same time evinced to conciliate public opinion.
The planters have made the discovery that they are to
be flung overboard, sooner or later. For the nonce
Sir Robert Peel informs them they are to enjoy a pro-
tecting duty of ten shillings per hundred weight, but
they are net to count upon it ; at the end of the year he
is to be on their back again, and then the ten shillings
will probably be reduced to five, or annihilated alto-
gether. This they must, indisputably, look upon as
a pleasant prospeet but all the pleasure to be derived
from it they most richly deserve to enjoy, first, be-
cause they aro grasping and unjust monopolists; and,
secondly, because they have not the spirit to resent
the assault made by the landowners upon their mo.
nopoly, by uniting with the free-traders to bring
about a repeal of the corn-laws. They have but a
year 'e respite, either to reap the fruits of their own
injustice, or to avenge themselves by striking at the
injustice of others; If they neglect the opportunity
they will fall, not only uepitied, but objects of uni-
versal derision. They will pass down to posterity as
men who were as devoid of courage as of hu-
manity—who clung to slavery so long as its
abomination could be protracted, and who, when
they could be slave-holders no longer, commenced a
base and hypocritical crusade against the last linger-
ing remnants of the disreputable body from which
they had been compelled to separate themselves.
With regard to Ministers, nothing can be more pi-
tiable than the situation in which they are placed, if
we except, perhaps, the House of Commons, which
consents, at the bidding cif Sir Robert Peel, to vote
that black is white, or white black, or any other ab-
surdity or contradietion whatsoever. Both the House
and the Cabinet have enseonced themselves behind a
thicket of inextricable absurdities, and most gross
and palpable sophisms. No principle whatever guides
theie decisions. In one country they are hostile,
in another they are friendly, to slavery ; they make
distinctions without a difference—coin epithets to desig-
nate different forms of servitude—disguise plain met•
ters of fact—pervert the testimony of travellers, or
oppose it by other testimony, anonymous, and there-
contrivances to fore worthless to the public, since, for aught anybody
""ifs. it may be a poor invention—imagine petty
@Jude objections in debate, though
they know that those contrivances must prove worth-
less tie practice—and while matting ail this display of
cunning disingenuousness and hypocrisy, experiencing
All the while the ectrisciollsnes-s-that they are unable
suceessfelly to oppose public opium' n, and that they
mean, in the amuse of twelve months, quietly to snot
cumb to it. 113 sonic* respects, perhaps, cir-
curnstinces have eembinod
make Minis-
ters appear to be answerable for a greater
amount of ignorance than they really possess,
since they probably know considerably more than
they would .e t4oqght to know of the condition of
labourers
in "Po'4' Phina, ansi Birman
They are aware that githomil noP negroes, the phi.
vators of the soil are, to all intents and purposes,
eiava—itt op country transferred like cattle with the
estates, in another 041npe. 114 to labour by the stick,
and in a third kept to their tasks by P., r114t4P3 ill'
flues ces in which force greatly presiorniPOPa: 110
the Peel Administration is determined henodere
ward to understand by the word slavery nothing but
that predial or farm servitude, the t7Ve of which is

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY

found in the Spanish West Indies and the Brazils. To
slavery in any other form they have no objection.
They will buy and sell freely with Turkey, where a
large portion of the population has always consisted
of slaves—with Egypt, where precisely the same
state of things exist—with the United States, which
are ambitious to rival Turkey and Egypt in this
particular—and, in one word, with the whole world,
without inquiring whether labour be forced or free, if
we except Cuba and the Brazils. Now, is not this
gross and impudent hypocrisy, if anything can be
called hypocrisy which exhibits itself after so undis-
guised a fashion ? We would rather describe it as
unparalleled effrontery, systematically insulting the
country by the use of words which have no meaning
in the mouths of those who utter them. It is not
any respect for humanity that guides them, because
they consent to purchase slave .grown cotton and
coffee—it is a not a consideration of religious feeling,
because they consent to deal in slave-grown sugar it-
self, provided it be consumed by foreigners or our
own countrymen settled in the colonies—it is, and can
be nothing else, therefore, than the result of a tacit
compact with West Indians to protract their mono-
poly as long as possible, provided they in return will
uphold the monopoly of corn at home. If any one
can make anything else of it we heartily wish him
joy of his ingenuity—the undertaking surpasses
our power altogether. Connected with this
question there is another of much interest to
the community ; we mean the probable down-
fal of the Peel cabinet. Within the last few
days it has been within an ace of dissolution, and has, in
fact, hovered for some months on the confines of life
and death. The slightest accident would now suffice
to overthrow the Ministry, and break up the party
which but a short while ago appeared all powerful,
and the reason is that there exists no solid principles
on which such a Ministry and such a party can re-
pose. Conservatism is a sort of negative force, a vis
inertia., which may impede but cannot operate. When
the time of action arrives this opprobium of action
must be got rid of, for there is no compelling of
nonentity to coalesce with existence. Society itself
advances perpetually, and the policy which would
regulate its movements must obviously advance
along with it. To be what is called a Conservative
is to stand still, while to be a Reformer is to adapt the
institutions of the country, under all circumstances, to
the exigencies of the times.—Sunday Times.

NE 24, 1644,

On his cross-examination he admitted that the salary
the plaintiff paid him was only 12s. a week, an admission
which caused a roar of laughter.
Mr. HUMPHREY, in addressing the jury for• the de-
fendant, said that, unfortunately, in all cases of this kind,
juries were invariably prejudiced in favour of the plain-
tiff, and, in proof of it, mentioned a case in which cross
actions had been brought by two parties, one after thc
other, for injuries sustained by negligent driving, in
each of which the jury returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff: After remarking upon the evidence of the plaintiff's
witness, who was employed in the double capacity of
clerk and nurse, and making a comparison between him
and Mrs. Gamp, which caused continued roars of laugh-
ter, the Learned Counsel remarked upon the prejudice
which the plaintiff's Counsel had endeavoured to create
against omnibus drivers in general, by stating that it was
dangerous to meet one of those vehicles in the streets.
He (Mr. Humphrey) feared it was much more dangerous
for an omnibus driver to meet an attorney.—(Laughter.)
The Learned Counsel, after some further humorous
observations, said that the facts of the case, as he should
be enabled to prove by the defendant's witnesses, were
these :—The defendant's driver was not racing with
another omnibus, as had been stated ; on the contrary,
he was driving at a very steady pace. The plaintiff's
gig was behind a cart, which was laden with bars of iron,
the jingling noise of which caused plaintiff's horse to
shy, and the animal suddenly sprang across the road, and
the plaintiff's gig consequently came with such violence
against the step of the defendant's omnibus as to force
it into the side of the vehicle. The plaintiff's gig was
upset by the collision, and that was the way in which the
accident occurred. The plaintiff made no complaint at
the time of the conduct of the defendant's driver, but,
in the following January commenced the present action,
without giving the defendant any notice of his intention
to do so. The Learned Counsel, after some further ob-
servations, called Ray, the driver, Wilson, the conductor
of defendant's omnibus, and several other witnesses,
who swore the occurrence was such as he had described.
Mr. COCSBURN, on the part of the plaintiff, after the
defendant's witnesses had been examined, agreed to
submit to a nonsuit, and a verdict was returned
accordingly.

THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY V. THE EARL OF

LONSDALE.
In this case Mr. Butt appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sheppard for the defendant.
It was an action brought by the Great Western Rail-
way Company against the Postmaster-General, to re-
cover the sum of 48,305/. lls. 10E1., for carrying the
mails on their railway from July, 1841, to the time of
the present year at which the action was commenced.
The question in dispute was the amount of the remunera-
tion to which the plaintiffs were entitled for the services
they had performed. The matter was originally re-
ferred to arbitration, under the powers given by the Act
of Parliament, and the arbitrators appointed as their um-
pire Mr. Pusey, M.P. for Berkshire. The arbitrators
had several meetings afterwards, but could not agree
upon their award, and they left the whole question to be
decided by Mr. Pusey, who made his award, directing
the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs a certain
sum per day for carrying the mails, and also one year's
interest on the amount which the plaintiffs claimed,
and which amounted altogether to the sum which the
plaintiffs now claimed.

- Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN inquired if there was any fact
in dispute between the parties?
Mr. SHEPPARD replied in the negative, and said the
Government would willingly pay whatever sum was
justly due to the plaintiffs, but a difficulty had arisen in
consequence of Mr. Pusey having unfortunately made
two awards. The Post-office authorities had no objec-
tion to the appointment of fresh arbitrators, and the
whole question being submitted to their decision.
After a very long discussion between the counsel on
both sides, it was arranged that a juror should be with-
drawn, each party to pay their own costs, and the whole
question again referred to arbitration.

OLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
CITY POLICE COMMIT7'E.E.
A journeyman tailor, of the name of Burns, living in
Greyhound-alley, appeared to answer a summons taken
out against him by the relieving officers of the parish of
St. Andrew-under-Shaft, to show cause why he refused
to maintain his daughter in the workhouse. The case
was partially gone into before Mr. Alderman Copeland
at the former sitting of the Court, when it appeared that
in consequence of the girl not being in a fit state to be
allowed at large, the parents got her admitted to the
workhouse, and were willing to pay Is. 6d. a week to-
wards her maintenance, but this the parish officers re-
fused, and insisted on the sum of ss. 6d., for which they
had summoned him to pay.
Alderman COPELAND expressed some surprise at the
amount demanded by the parish. The relieving officer
said that ss. 6d. was the price of a pauper's maintenance
per week. That was the sum the parish contracted for.
Alderman COPELAND—The sum is enormous. All
we pay for the support of a prisoner in Newgate is 2s.
per week, yet, he would be bound, the poor in the work-
houses were not so well fed as those confined within the
walls of that prison. He believed the boys in Christ's
Hospital only cost 204 per annum, and they were well
fed and clothed.
After some further observations he postponed the case
till Saturday, in order that some arrangement might be
come to. However, on the case being called, the parish
officers still held out for ss. 6d. The father, it appeared,
was °lily in the receipt of 12s. 6d. per week, out of which
he had to pay 4s. a week rent, leaving very little to sup-
port his wife and family. He wished to keep his child
virtuous, and the only way he could effect this was by
keeping her in the workhouse, where, he said, she was
evidently improving, and there was every appearance of
her recovery.
The parish officers said the father had no settlement
in the parish, and it was an injustice to them that they
should be burdened with a pauper who had no claims
upon them. They saw no reason why she should not
be passed to Ireland, where she had a settlement.
Alderman KELLY thought the idea of parting the
child from her parents, for the purpose of sending her to
her settlement in Ireland, was monstrous, and ought not
for a moment to be entertained.
The MAGISTRATES then consulted, and, after some
deliberation, declined to make any order, or decide one
way or the other.
The unfortunate girl, who was present during the
proceedings, was then taken back to the workhouse.
The poor creature is a decided lunatic.
Mr. Richard Shilloto, landlord of the Swan and Hooper
public-house, Finsbury-pavement, was charged with
harbouring prostitutes in his house on the morning of
the 10th inst. The case was proved by police-sergeant
Saunderson, 106, of the City police, who stated that he,
hearing a noise in the defendant's house at two o'clock
in the morning above stated, listened and heard parties
tossing over the counter for bottles of wine, and obscene
language going on among some women. 'When the door
was opened, he saw three prostitutes of the worst descrip-
tion standing drinking.
Mr. Shilloto said it was impossible for him to discover
who were prostitutes and who were not. He was not in
the bar at the time the officer entered, therefore was un-
conscious who the characters were. He charged the po-
lice with intimidation, and was unable to support the ac-
cusation.
The defendant was convicted in the penalty of 60s.
and 3s. costs.
The next ease was against William Medby, the re-
puted landlord of the Three Tuns Tavern in Fetter-lane,
Fleet-street, for serving spirits on Sunday morning last.
The case being proved, and Mr. Inspector Fosbrook re-
porting the house to be indifferently conducted, the
Court inflicted the penalty of 20s. and the amount'of
costs.

Mr. Croher, of the George Inn, Aldermanbury, was
summoned for permitting drinking in his house on
Sunday morning last. The case was dismissed with
payment of the costs.
BOW-STREET.

Mr. William Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor for Ireland,
was brought before Mr. Twyford, the sitting Magistrate,
in the custody of an officer of the A division of police,
charged under the 9th George IV., ch. 55, sec. 56, with
having stolen a, letter from the Castle of Dublin, ad-
dressed by Mr. Robert Johnson, of Kinlouth , late as-
sistant-barrister of the county of Mayo, to the Right
Hon. John Littleton, now Lord Hatherton, in the month
of October, 1834. The defendant was not placed in the
dock, but was allowed to take his seat at the table ap-
propriated to solicitors. The particulars of this extra-
ordinary case were as follows :
In the year 1834 Mr. Robert Johnson filled the situa-
tion of assistant barrister for the county of Mayo, having
as his depnty Mr. George O'Malley Irwin. On the 7th
of October of that year, a letter, purporting to be signed
by Mr. Irwin, was received at the Castle of Dublin, inti-
mating that Mr. Johnson had resigned his situation, to
which an answer was returned by Mr. Littleton, accept-
ing the resignation, and at the same time expressing
regret on the part of the Government that such a. deter-
mination had been come to by Mr. Johnson, who imme-
diately wrote to the Lord Lieutenant, expressing his
thanks to his Excellency for the kind expressions con-
tained in his letter. Mr. Irwin subsequently applied
for the vacant situation; and his application was backed
by testimonials from the Marquis of Clanricarde and
others, but it was not successful. In the following year
two indictments were preferred against Mr. Irwin, in the
Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, charging him with
having forged the resignation of Mr. Johnson, for the
purpose of clandestinely obtaining his situation, on
which occasion Mr. Irwin demanded that the letters of
Mr. Littleton and Mr. Johnson should be produced to
prove the mark. Johnson had himself admitted having
resigned the situation, but those letters were not
forthcoming, as Mr. Kemmis declared that he knew
nothing about them, and the only letter produced
on the trial was the letter of Mr. Irwin containing
the resignation of Mr. Johnson. Mr. Irwin then ap-
plied for leave to communicate with Mr. Johnson on
the subject, and the answer received from him was that
he had told Mr. Irwin that, as the Government intended
to remove him, he should submit to their decision, but
that it was utterly untrue that he was satisfied with Mr.
Irwin having sent in the resignation, of which he was
totally ignorant until he received a communication to
that effect from the Irish Government. Mr. Irwin was
consequently convicted, but afterwards obtained a testi-
monial from Chief Justice Pennefather to the effect that
his cause had been lost in consequence of the non-pro-
duction of the two letters in question. Mr. Irwin now
produced copies of those letters, which he said he had
obtained from Mr. Armstrong, who was at the time se-
cretary to Mr. Kemmis, the originals of which he charged
Mr. Kemmis with having stolen, in order to prevent their
being produced on the trial.
In answer to the charge, Mr, I'emlnis said that in the
1835,, he, lleing Solicitor to the Crown in Ireland,
was directed to prosecute Mr. Irwin on the charge of ;
forging the name of Mr. Johnson to a resignation of his
office as assistant barrister, and he was convicted upon
two indictments.

Mr. Irwin here declared that the jury who tried him
was a packed one, and that seven out of the twelve were
talcum instead of special jurymen.