The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-12 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

As the communication of Mr. Tabberner would if pub-
lished lead inevitably to a controversy oa scientific
matters, for which w•e could not possibly afford space
at present, we must decline its insertion.

public well-being, moral as well as physical,
is more especially consigned—how
,do we find them
co-operating in the education of the people ? In-
stead of facilitating they prevent the diffusion of
knowledge, as Mr. GIBSON purposes, this evening, to
demonstrate. They impede that life-diffusing pro-
gress by a multitude of onerous burthens. The evil
consequence of one of these—the duty on paper—
have been emphatically set forth by CHARLES
KNIGHT, in a recent pamphlet, to which we shall
again recur. In the meantime we commend the
proposition of the Right Hen. Member for Man-
chester to the serious attention of the House and the
country—in other words, to all whohave at heart the
diffusion of knowledge among the people.

Turning for a moment from the subjects now im-
mediately under Parliamentary consideration, we
would direct the attention of the community at large
to a matter in their regard of very considerable, and
in some extraordinary instances of supreme and para-
mount, importance. The question is none other than
the amount of responsibility imposed upon the con-
science of an advocate in the defence of any criminal
whose cause may happen to be entrusted to his abili-
ties. Something in the way of discussion upon this
has already appeared in our leading columns, at dif-
ferent, and we might almost say, accidental
intervals ; but we are induced to refer again to
the theme of so many contradictory opinions
in consequence of its having very recently
elicited from a legal organ of high character a dis-
sertation of remarkable excellence, and one which
we cannot but regard as being in a great measure
decisive. Our reference in this particular is to a
masterly article upon an incident relating to the ex-
tent of the duties imposed on counsel, the tenth con-
tribution to the current number of the Law Review.
Than the argument comprised in this very admira-
ble paper nothing can be more lucid, more logical,
more manly, more astute, or altogether more candid
and conclusive. It places the subject, to our think-
ing, in a light such as removes it henceforth from all
possible misapprehension. For this reason we would
bring it directly under the scrutiny of the
multitude, resolved that, as far as we are concerned,
journalism shall not remain dumb in its regard; re-
solved, indeed, that at the risk of repetition, we shall
bring " a thrice-told tale" again, for the last time,
under the prism of popular contemplation.
Setting out, therefore, from ,the very commence-
ment of the narrative, we would at once intimate
that the argument, put forward by this able anony-
mous writer, in the professional quarterly, is illus-
trated, in a most powerful manner, by the course
adopted in the defence of the notorious murderer
COURVOISISB. As the public cannot fail to remem-
ber, the circumstances of that memorable trial have
recently been recalled to general recollection by the
tardy—we cannot but still think the too tardy— re-
buttal of certain calumnies promulgated against the
advocate of the assassin—a rebuttal emanating imme-
diately from the hand of that celebrated forensic
orator. It is not, however, to the letter penned by
Mr. CHARLES PHILLIPS that we would here for
another instant beseech attention, having already, on
one or two occasions, considered the question as to the
value or sufficiency of that document. What we
would at this moment earnestly submit to the judg-
ment of our readers is the impartial view taken of a
matter of such infinite importance to every in-
dividual member of the community by one of the
highest and most respectable organs of the great pro-
fession of the Law. The consideration of this par-
ticular paper in the Law Review appears to us, in
;act, to be imperatively required of every unpreju-
diced person in the country, seeing that it is the final
examinaticn by a competent and unprejudiced judge
of a matter long under discussion, and still in a few
instances, we lament to think, regarded as of
a somewhat dubious character. Having pe-
rused, with the most scrupulous care and at-
tention, the argument advanced by the Law
Reviewer, au argument which, in its sedate and
measured tone, partakes slightly of the nature of a
judicial " summing up," we are bold to aver that
henceforth no rational mind can continue doubtful as
to the verdict which :ought to be pronounced. The
effect of the whole dissertatiot, in fine, is nothing less
than the triumphant acquittal of the distinguished
advocate of COURTOMER, and the total crushing of
his secret and implacable calumniators. A more con-
clusive argument we have never had the gratification
of perusing, an argument more exquisitely sequential
in its style of logic, or one more manifestly definitive
in its deductions.

Passing over, as altogether irrelevant to our imme-
diate purpose, the vivid narrative of the murder of the
unfortunate Lord WILLIAM RUSSELL, at 14, Norfolk-
street, Park-lane, a narrative epitomised in pp. 380-
387—we would transcribe from the Law Review one
or two very brief but decisive passages, demonstrating
directly the nature of the course pursued by Mr.
CHARLES PHILLIPS, and indirectly pointing out the
duties generally incumbent on the advocates
of criminals. In doing this, it is necessary
to bear in mind the precise nature of the
charges preferred against the former by his assailants.
He has been accused of throwing out the foulest
insinuations against the female servant, SARAH
.AIANSER, of directing the foulest aspersions against
the policeman, BALDWIN, and of having solemnly
called on GOD to witness the innocence of the wretch
he knew in his heart to be guilty, namely, COUIt•
VOISIER. The utter inaccuracy of these three terrible
accusations is so glaringly exhibited by the Law
Reviewer that we shall here, in this our last refe-
rence to the matter under consideration, quote from his
arguments the three which he gives in disproof. First,
that the advocate of COURVOISIEE did not endeavour
to shield his guilty client by casting the suspicion of
the murder on a woman he knew to be innocent, is
demonstrated beyond all further cavil by the follow-
ing passage from his celebrated speech, as reported
in the columns of the Times, the Herald, and the
Chronicle. The orator had been alluding to the
charge advanced against his client of having be-
trayed his guilt by his agitation ; and thus con-
tinues :

"' But when Mr. Adolphus called on them to mark the
agitation of the prisoner, as a proof of guilt, what became
ot the women, who showed the very same feelings? HE
THOUGHT THE BETTER OF THESE WOMEN FOR DOING
SO: GOD FORBID HE SHOULD INSINUATE IT WAS A
PROOF OF THEIR GUILT : IT WOULD APPEAR TO HIM,
ON THE CONTRARY, TO BE A PROOF OF THEIR INNO-
CENCE! He wished his Learned Friend bad been where
he, Mr. Phillips, bad accidentally happened to be,—in
Hyde-park, some days since, when the murderous
attack on the Queen was made ! He wished his friend
could have seen the emotion of the bystanders when it
became known; how the stoutest man stood appalled;
and every face betrayed the most painful agitation. If
THAT were a proof of guilt, there was not a man in the
Park who should not have been considered the
murderer. Agitation, indeed !' The Morning Herald
thus reports the passage above quoted in small
capitals from the Times But Mr. Adolphus talks of
the prisoner's agitation being a proof of guilt. Let me
remind him that the female servants, his own witnesses,
were in the same state of agitation, and I THINK THE
BETTER OF THEM FOR IT: for I hold, that in such a
case, agitation, so farlrona being a proof of guilt, Is A
PROOF OF INNOCENCE. The Morning Chronicle gives it
thus But when Mr. Adolphus calls on you to say that
his (the prisoner's) agitation was a proof of his guilt,
what is to become of the women? They showed similar
agitation. Mr. Adolphus says, agitation on the part of
the man was a proof cf his guilt. I SAY, THAT AGITA-
TION, IN THEM, WAS A PROOF OF THEIR INNOCENCE;
AND THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US!' "
That, we take it, is irrefragable testimony against
the truth of the first accusation. Secondly,
that the advocate of the murderer did not make the
foulest charges against the policeman BALDWIN, with-
out the fullest and completest justification, is shown
quite plainly enough from the circumstance that Chief-
' Justice TINDAL, in his summing ups told the jury to
place no reliance whatever on the evidence of that
witness—that evidence having been marked through-
out by the grossest suppressions, the most
shameful prevarications, and having demonstrated,
moreover, that the witness, in the hopes
of securing a portion of the blood-money, had been
guilty of the most culpable intimidation. Thirdly,
that Mr. PHILLIPS did not appeal to ALMIGHTY GOD
to attest the innocence of the monster who had already
made to him a plain confession of his guilt, is proven,
we think, as clearly as the noonday sun by these two
most important passages :
" Taking the newspaper in which the charge was con-
tained, to the two Judges who had been present at the
(Mr. Phillips) asked them whether ho had ever
used any such expression. You certainly did not,
Phillips,' replied Chief Justice Tindal, and I
will be your voucher whenever you choose to call
me." And I,' said Mr. Baron Parke, 'had a reason,
which the Lord Chief Justice did not know, for watch-
ing you narrowly; and he will remember my saying

to him, when you sate down, " Brother Tindal,
did you observe how carefully Phillips abstained from
giving any personal opinion in the case ?" To
this the learned Chief Justice instantly assented.'
We have reason to know, independently of Mr.
Phillips' putting for ward this statement, that it is
correct. Mr. Baron Parke is aware of it, and could
have instantly contradicted, or can now contradict it,
if it be in any respect inaccurate. If, then, this testi-
mony be true, in our minds it settles the question. It is
mere drivelling to quibble about forms of expression, as
against the evidence of two such men as the late Chief
Justice Tindal and Mr. Baron Parke. The thing—the
very substance of the matter so pointedly called to their
attention was—whether Mr. Phillips bad expressed any
opinion of his own, 'any personal opinion" in the case,
as to Courvoisier's guilt or innocence—in whatever form
he might have expressed it: whether as solemnly
declaring the fact of guilt to be known to the Deity
alone—or as declaring the speaker's belief that
Courvoisier was not the guilty person. Mr. Baron
Parke distinctly vouches, that, knowing as much as Mr.
Phillips so unfortunately knew, he had for that reason
' narrowly watched ' him—doubtless weighing, as
Mr. Baron Parke can and does weigh whatever is
said before him, especially in his judicial capacity,
every word and turn of expression of Mr. Phillips. And
on his sitting down gave expression to the result of his
narrow watching'—viz., how carefully Phillips had
abstained from giving any personal opinion on
the case.' The Chief Justice 'instantly assented;'
and this assent was given after he, also, had been made
aware of the cruet position in which Courvoisier had
placed his counsel. What but a perfect confidence in
his innocence could have emboldened Mr. Phillips to
make this pointed appeal to two judicial personage?,
whose answer in the affirmative, or silence, would have
withered the appellant?

" But did Mr. Phillips, in fact, use the expression?
['The omniscient God alone knows who did this crime.']
We verily believe that he did not, but one might be very
easilyimisunderstood for it. The report in'the Times is given
in the third person, and not professedly verbatim; and
the slightest turn of expression, unconsciously, would
make all the difference. We have made inquiries
on this subject, and find that a member of the
bar who was present at the trial—a gentleman of long
standing in the profession—of ability, of high cha-
racter, and unquestionable honour—Mr. Fortescue,
paid close attention to Mr. Phillips, and will state on
oath, without the slightest hesitation, as he has ever
since stated on innumerable occasions when the subject
was mentioned, that Mr. Phillips' exact words were—
' But you will say to me, if the prisoner
did it not, who did it? I anwer, ask the Omniscient
Being above us, who did it: ask not me, a poor finite
creature like yourselves: ask the prosecutor who did it;
—it is fur him to tell you who did it; it is not for me to
tell you who did it; and until he shall have proved, by
the clearest evidence, that it was the prisoner at the
bar, beware how you imbrue your hands in the blood
of tbat young man.' "
With these decisive quotations from the
masterly article in the current number of the Law
Review we close all further allusion to a question
which is now for ever incontestably decided. The
perfect truthfulness and morality of the course pur-
sued by Mr. CHAZLES PHILLIPS in the defence of
COLTILVOISIER has been now demonstrated beyond the
reach of suspicion ; and while thus crushing his
various calumniators, the Reviewer has clearly,
although indirectly, pointed out the solemn duties
and responsibilities devolving upon counsel.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

We have received the Paris journals of yesterday.
The Committee of the Assembly has reported
against granting the request of the Attorney-General
for Bordeaux to prosecute M. Marc DUFRAISSB, re-
presentative of the people, for the publication of a
seditious libel.-

The steam-frigates Zenobie, Pomone, and Prony,
have been ordered to join the expedition against La
Plata. The troops of the expedition will be com-
manded by Lieut.-Col. BERTIN DUCIIATEAU.
The Moniteur du Soir officially contradicts the
rumours so assiduously circulated, of an approaching
modification in the Ministry.
A mutiny broke out on the Bth in a company of
the 11th regiment of infantry, stationed at Dina❑ in
Brittanny, but it was speedily suppressed by the
firmness of General DELAUNT, who caused four non-
commissioned officers to be arrested as ringleaders.
The mutiny was not connected with politics.
The Bourse was agitated yesterday, and several
fluctuations took place in the price of Govern-
ment Stock. The Five per Cents. opened at 961.
80c., rose to 971., fell subsequently to 96f. 55c., and
closed at 961. 65c. The Three per Cents. closed at
58f. 60c.

BUSINESS DONE IN FOREIGN RAILWAYS AT THE
LONDON STOCK-EXCHANGE, Fr.z. 11.
Boulogne and Amiens, 7!4—Dutch Rhenish, IX—Namur
and Liege, VA—Northern of France, al/2 —Paris and Rouen,
23 4.

4-3 r
k, t
E
" • ,t 4!
-71
o •R"