The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-15 00:00:00

ebtrb Xbition

to crush the man who gained Catholic emancipation.
He went minutely into all the circumstances of the re-
vision and preparation of the list, which had been
denounced as an " atrocious fraud." He trusted that
the solicitor for the Crown would be made accountable
for his conduct—as accountable as the Attorney-General,
being a Minister of the Crown, was for his.
Mr. SHEIL, M.P., was most warmly received, and,
when the cheering had subsided, he said it was not his
intention to say more than a very few words upon this
occasion, because, ere long, he should have the oppor-
tunity of adverting, in the House of Commons, to the
very conspicuous incidents that had taken place in re-
ference to the pending trials.—(Cheers.) As he should
have that opportunity of meeting his antagonists face to
face, he should prefer reserving for that occasion the
expression of his feeling—of his indignant feeling—
(Cheers)—which these incidents had produced. It was
to him a source of very great pride —of nothing had he
ever been prouder in all his lite—than that he had been
the first person whe had signed his name to the requi-
sition that had called them together.—(Oheers.) Ile
saw that the time had come for making a great popular
demonstration of their feeling, and a demonstration ot
their feeling was also a demonstration of their powerhear.—
(Cheers.) The nation was now roused—(Hear, )
and roused in a just cause ; the facts were with them ;
and his advice was this—to present a memorial
to the Queen, and a petition to both Houses of Parlia-
ment, setting forth these facts with clearness and with
method, and without exaggeration.—(Cheers.) Exag-
geration might be resorted to in a weak and imperfect
case ; but here the truths they would have to press on
the attention of her Majesty and both Houses of Parlia-
ment were of such a character that he would venture to
reiterate to them his strong advice, and he would add his
strenuous entreaty to confine themselves to a statement
of the facts of the case which had been so perspicuously
stated by the Town Clerk of the city of Dublin. It had
been aseertained that individual Roman Catholics, who
were not members of the Repeal Association, nor sub-
scribed to its funds, were struck off the jury list. Let
that go forth as an ascertained fact. The Times itself,
which was strongly opposed to what was called the repeal
agitation, had admitted that if a considerable portion of
the jury list had been suppressed, it was a case that de-
served most serious consideration. That was one fact.
There was another fact: it was this. Yesterday, in open
Court, Mr. Justice Perrin, at the conclusion of the
motion, whilst he declared that he concurred with the
rest of his brethren in thinking that, upon legal grounds,
the Recorder should not be called on to amend, by
mandamus, the writ, added that circumstances had been
disclosed which were calculated to awaken deep sus-
picion.—(Sensation.) He (Mr. Sheil) announced the
fact, that it might get publicity. A judge of the land—
unimpeached and unimpeachable—a man whose purity
of mind corresponded with his talents and erudition—
who combined great weight of character with the purity
of judicial authority, from her Majesty's Court of
Queen's Bench announced—made proolamation—that
there were grounds for suspicion in those transactions.
Let them put that fact in their petition to the
Throne. The Right Hon. Gentleman having read the
resolution, which was to the effect that sixty-three
names of jurors, including a large proportion of Roman
Catholics and liberal Protestants having been struck out,
offered grounds for more than suspicion that foul dealing
had been practised, and that it called loud for Parlia-
mentary investigation, went on to address the meet-
ing; and adverting to the iiintement of Sir Robert Peel,
that his chief difficulty was Ireland, said Ireland he will
find to be his insuperable impossibility. Sir Robert
Peel is embarrassed by seven millions—he is embarrassed
by the energy, the fearlessness, and indomitable spirit of
your leader, Daniel O'Connell.—(Tremendous cheers,
amidst which a cry of " Richard's himself again I")
Mr. MAHER (late M.P. for Wexford) seconded the

resolution.
The meeting was then addressed by Mr. STEELE, and
the resolution moved by Mr. Sheil was then carried

unanimously.
Mr. REDINCTON moved the next resolution, in a brief
address, in which he said that the Government had at-
tempted in Ireland what they would not have dared to
attempt in Canada, and which they would find they
could not attempt here with impunity. lie then moved
" That a petition be presented to the Queen, praying that
her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct her
attention to the conduct of the Irish Government with
respect to the State Prosecutions in the circumstances
Inontioned in the preceding resolution."
Mr. V. O'KELLY seconded it, and it was carried unani•
rnously.
Mr. MACGILL, one of the deputation from the Catholics
of Belfast, then proposed a resolution for a petition to
both Houses of Parliament, praying for an inquiry
.into

the same circumstances.
It was seconded by Mr. JOYCE (of Galway), and carried.
Mr. O'CoNNELL next rose to address the meeting.
He said, that by some it had been said that this was no
place for him to-day, and others had declared that if he
did not attend it would be like the performance of Ham-
let with the chief part left out.—(Laughter.) Without,
however, minding what either of these parties said, he
felt himself that, as a Catholic, glorying in his religion,
it was his duty to be present.—(Cheers.) He accused
the British Government of the grossest perfidy towards
the Roman Catholics of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Trial
by jury was admitted to be one of the greatest and most
important privileges of the British subject, but how
could it be properly or fairly administered if the Roman
Catholics were excluded from the jury-box ?—(Cheers.)
Jba complained that the names of 63 Roman Catholics
had been struck off the jury panel, and be proclaimed to
the people of England and to the people of Ireland that
there could be no satisfaction in a trial where these things
which wero called accidents happened, and were said to
be without remedy.—(Hear, hear.) The Catholics of
Ireland were indignant at such conduct, and were they
not bound then to congregate again and insist on their
rights and the vindication of their honour 2—(Hear.)What
was the mode of protecting life, liberty, and property
but trial by jury, and could that be done if it were once pro-
claimed to be a legitimate cause for excluding a man from
the jury-box that he was a Catholic ? (Hear, hear.) If
such a course were pursued, the spirit of the Act of
Emancipation, as well as the Queen's prerogative, would
be violated ; and this they must not submit to without
sit least remonstrance.—(llear, hear.) Sir J. Graham
bad said in the House of Commons that the Roman
Catholics had violated their oaths ; he had thus insulted
/hem, and was he not the Secretary for the Home De-
partment ?—(Groans.) It was quite true that he had
swallowed his words, but he only retracted them when
he found the indignation of the Irish Members pouring
down upon him. Mr. Smith had accused the Catholics
of violating the sanctity of an oath ; there was no incon-
sistency about him—he had never retracted ;in act, as
in speech, he was the same ; arid he, accordingly, struck
every Catholic from the jury list.—(Cheers.) But did
they suppose that by these proceedings they would put
down the determination of the people to obtain radical
redress for their grievances ?—(Cheers.) Would they
make one anti-Repealer by them ? Would they redress
uny injury or do the people any good ?—(Hear, hear.)
Me was ready to abide the result, and he cared not
-what it might be ; even though the verdict were
death itself, what harm could it do to the cause
of Ireland ?—(Loud cheers.) He was heartily glad of
what had occurred. He did not know how they might
tire a jury into a verdict, for he understood that, in conse-
quence of a motion made that day, the trial might last
till the 15th of April—(Hear and laughter)—but this he
knew, that 35 Catholics had dropped from the list. He
put this fact abroad among the people of Ireland, and he
was rejoiced that no Catholic was in the awkward predi-
cament of being on a jury with 10 or 11 persons who
slid not attend to the evidence so closely as himself. He
rejoiced, too, that the spirit had gone abroad. It was
mere mockery to say that these individuals were to be
put off because they were lypealers. From north to
south, from east to west, indignant Ireland was uttering
denunciations of the mode of proceeding adopted in this
case. The very excuse which they offered for the act
was the compliment which hypocrisy paid to virtue. A
man was a hypocrite, not for hating or despising virtue,
but out of compliment to it. He knew the value of vir-
tue, and therefore pretended to that which he had not.
The virtue of giving a perfectly fair jury was expected
at the bands of the Attorney-General, and was put
forth in the hypocrisy of the excuse that the Ca-
tholics put off the list were Repealers—thus ad-
mitting, that if he had not that excuse the act would be
derogatory to a public functionary.—(lfear, hear.) He
came forward as one of the Catholics of Ireland. What
was it to him that he was ono of the accused party-
-were they not all accused ?—(llear, hear.) They had
indicted his son, though he thought they should be con-
tent with indicting the father, and he was bound to pro-
tect that son. Buthe came there to call on the Catholics
of Ireland to protect themselves—(Cheers)—to forget
what differences might have existed amongst them, and
without involving any man in an opinion which he did
not entertain. They had hoard that day gentlemen. who
were anti-Repealers,
but while they maintained their
opinions as such, they were ready to join with the Ile-
peelers in that meeting in insisting that the Government
should really emancipate the Catholics by taking
away that degrading inferiority which they could not
endure. He called on the Catholics of Ireland, from
north to south, and from east to west, who had listened
/nor!) than once to his voice, to rally one and all, in in-
sisting that justice should be done to the people of
Ireland, and that the Administration who had outrage-
ously dared to violate the Emancipation Act stand(' be
burled with disgrace from the position which they held,
or, if not, should continue to hold office with the exe-
cration of every rational man in the community. The
Catholic party, since their accession to power, had acted
with perfect and complete liberality. In the corpora-
tion of Dublin they had returned an over proportion of
Protestants, and wherever a liberal Protestant had
pre-
sented himself he had been elected by the Liberals.
With the Catholic party there were no bigoted restric-
tions, no paltry rivalship of religion.—(llear, hear.)
The example now set by the Government could not,
therefore, be permitted to go down to posterity unscathed
and uncondemned—(Hear, hear)—nor could they allow
the spirit of the Emancipation Act to be frittered away
by the illiberality of a Government prosecution. After
a lesson of peace to the people of Ireland, Mr. O'Connell
concluded by saying, that there might be injustice, there
might be martyrdom, but there must be no shrinking.
The petition to her Majesty was then adopted, and the
meeting separated.

DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING ONESELF IN LON-
DON.—In London, every man is so submerged in the
multitude, that he who can hold his head high enough
out of the living mass fo'bo known, must have something
of remarkable buoyancy or peculiar villany about him.
Even Parliament, except to a few of the leaders, is no
distinction. The member for the shire is clipped of all
his plumage at the moment of his entering that colossal
poultry-yard, and must take his obscure pickings with
other unnoticeable fowl.—Blackwood's Magazine.
The trial of Mrs. Gilmour, for the murder of her
%unhand, wataantobutarkabe,polnacEeribifore the High Court of
Justiciary, y.

THE FUNDS—(CLOSING PRICES.)
BRITISH FUNDS.
B Ink Stock ............ 187 India Stock
3 per Cent. Red...... 974 Ditto Bonds .... 80 pm
3 Cent. CMIS. ... Ditto Old Annuities...
Lei -
3i pJr Cent. Red ... 102 96/ /
Ditto New Annuities...
i.vew 31 per Cent. ... 1011 Ex. Bills, 1,000/. lid..
67 p 67 pm
m
New 5 per Cent. ......... Ditto 500/...
Long Annuities to expire Ditto Small
Jan. 1860 ... ...... 12i Bank Stock for Acct. 1874
Oct. 1859 ........ India Stock for .... 274
Jan. 1860 ... ..... Consols for Act.
FOREIGN FUNDS.
Portuguese,_ 5 per cent.
Ditto, New Ditto —
Prussian, 5 per cent —
Russian, 5 per cent —
,Ditto, Metallic
...... .
Spanish, 5 per cent 22a
IDitto, 3 per cent...
sefpeerrrecde.n.t...
—f.. —l2ea.
31
DFrietntocli.),
Exchange ...... .... —f. —c.
French, 3 per cent. —f. —c.
Dutch, 21 per cent. 54i
!Ditto, 5 per cent.... 100 k
RES.

4natrian, 5 per cent.
Belgian, b per cent
Bra-Lilian Bonds —

B_lenos Ayres6 per cent.
Chaim', 6 per cent. lOl
Colombian, 6 per cent
Ditto, 1824
Cuba Bonds, 6 per cent ll
Danish, 3 per sent
Greek, 1825, 5 per cent —
Mexican, 5 per cent.
Ditto, 6 per cent. 1837
Peruvian, 1825,6 per ct. =

id) .. ...... . ... ..

_
SHA
OBristol and Exeter (70 pi
Eastern Counties (23 paid)
Ditto New Registered ( paid)
Edinburgh and Glasgow (50 paid)
Ditto Registered (12i paid) .....
Great Western (75 paid) •••
Ditto Fifths (12 paid) .
Hull and Selby (50 paid)
London and Birmingham (100 paid)........
Ditto New Quarter Shares ( 2 paid) ......
London and Croydon Railway (Trunk)
Ditto Scrip ( 5 paid) it
Midland Counties Railway (100 paid)
Ditto Quarter Shares ( 15 paid) 2ll
Norwich and Brandon (2 paid)
Newcastle and Darlington Junetion(ls paid\ 271
North Midland (100 paid)
Ditto Thirds (211. 13s. 4d. paid) 3Ol
Paris and Orleans (20 paid) .
Paris and Rouen (20 paid) .
South Eastern and Dover (50 paid) ..... 361
Yarmouth and Norwiah (13 paid)....., l6l
York and North Midland (50 paid) .... 120

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
ACRAMAN V. COOPER.
Sir T. WILDE moved for a ruld to show cause why the
verdict found in this case for the plaintiff, for 8,400/, at
the last sittings at Guildhall, should not be set aside,
or a new trial had, or a nonsuit entered, on the ground
that a question was left to the jury which ought not to
have been left. The action was for the recovery of a
paper purporting to be a scrip receipt for 10,000/. paid
on account of shares in the Royal Mail and Steam Packet
Company. Messrs. Acraman and Morgan had borrowed
20,000/. from Messrs. Cooper, Thompson, and Co., on
the security of certain scrip receipts in the above-named
Company.—Rule granted.

TRIAL OF MRS. GILMOUR.
This woman was tried on Friday and Saturday
last, in the High Court of Justiciary, Edinburgh, for
the murder of her husband, by administering arsenic
to him, which produced death. The circumstances of
the case are no doubt in the recollection of the reader,
full details of the charge against the prisoner, having
been recently published.
The Jury, after an absence of about an hour, re-
turned with the following verdict—The Jury, after a
careful and mature consideration of the evidence
brought before them in this case, are unanimously of
opinion, that John Gilmour died from the effects of
arsenic ; but find it Not Proved against the prisoner
at the bar, as libelled.
This announcement was followed by very decided
expressions of approval by those in Court, which were
rebuked by the Lord Justice Clerk.
The prisoner was then dismissed from the bar.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS
FRO3I THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—The extraordinary omission of upwards
of sixty names from the special jury panel, after
its revision by the Recorder, is now placed beyond
controversy. The proceedings in the Court of Queen's
Bench, Dublin, on Friday, have made that matter
of record which previously rested only on public ru-
mour. Thefacts, as admitted by the Attorney-General,
fully bore out the statements we had previously
given. The panel from which the jury by whom
the case, " The Queen against Daniel O'Connell
and others," will be tried, is a mutilated panel.
A blunder on the part of a deputy, to whom the
duty of preparing the lists for verification by the
Recorder of Dublin, was intrusted, is stated to have
occasioned the omission. The account of the extraor-
dinary accident is given in a letter sent by the Clerk
of the Peace to Mr. Mahony, one of the solicitors
engaged for the traversers. The omission is ad-
mitted, and an explanation offered, which exem-
plifies the grossest carelessness, if the omission
be regarded as purely accidental. We confess
to an inability to adopt this construction. Mr.
Justice Perrin, when expressing his opinion on
the application to the Court, on the part of the
traversers, to interpose to set aside the panel, under
the circumstances, stated " there was matter of grave
suspicion in the case—of gross neglect somewhere."
The Judges, it will be seen, decided unanimously
that the Court had no jurisdiction in the case. The
ground on which the Court seemed to rest its decision
was, that the Crown, in the prosecution of O'Connell,
stood in the same position as a private prosecutor; or,
indeed, any other suitor. To set aside the panel, and
to direct a new revision, would, therefore, be to post-
pone the business of the Court, to the great incon-
venience and injury of those who had causes ripe for
trial. The soundness of the reasoning employed by
the Bench will scarcely command universal con-
currence. The trials of causes between private in-
dividuals
.might, we apprehend, have been had by
consent of parties. To them it might be a
matter of indifference . that nearly seventy names
had been abstracted. But with respect to
this great national trial—the proceeedings on
which absorb the attention of the empire,
and the result of which is anticipated with tremulous
anxiety—it is of the highest imaginable consequence
that the country should be satisfied that justice, pure
and undefiled, is done between the Crown and the tra-
versers. If unfair advantage has been taken against
the parties accused—if the law has not been admi-
nistered with scrupulous impartiality—the Crown
may obtain a verdict ; but that verdict will be the
emanation of injustice. The majesty and autho-
rity of law, instead of being vindicated by the con-
viction of the accused parties, will be dishonoured and
weakened. The punishment of parties so convicted,
would be regarded as the infliction of vengeance by a
Ministry which has violated the obligations of justice
for the attainment of a triumph over political oppo-
nents. Thus the foundations of order would
be shaken, and the ties which bind the
governed to the government would be loosened.
We ask Sir Robert Peel, on whose decision the
question hinges, does he expect to suppress the repeal
agitation by the course he is pursuing, by the agency
of his law officers in Ireland, against the repeal
leaders—tainted as the prosecution is by the strik-
ing off from the jury list of every Roman Catholic
who was drawn to serve upon it ; and now by
the astounding discovery that upwards of sixty
names were omitted by a blunder, or ab-
stracted by a fraud, from the lists as revised by
the Recorder? Will a prosecution thus conducted
strengthen the hands of Government ? Will the
Irish people he convinced that " justice to Ireland"
is the intention of the English Government, or the
tendency of its policy ? Will not the effect of such a
trial be the confirmation of every prejudice already
existing in Ireland against the legislative union of the
two countries ; and increase the number of Repealers,
until every Catholic—not only in Ireland, but in the
empire—is a member of the Association, or strongly
sympathises with the objects they seek to obtain ?
The aggregate meeting of Catholics in Dublin, on
Saturday, is a proof of the indignant spirit that has been
raised. The practical imputation cast by the Government
upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland, by declaring them
disqualified, because of their creed, for being trusted,
under the solemn sanction of an oath, with the functions
of jurymen, has called forth the indignant repudiation
of the stigma thus sought to be branded upon the
religion of the great majority of the nation. This
attempt to revive the penal disabilities, which were
removed by the long-delayed measure of Catholic
Emancipation, will combine and array the Roman
Catholics of the United Kingdom against the
Government. In the words of the requisition
by which the meeting of Saturday was con-
vened, the proceeding of the Crown is described as—
" Both an insult and a wrong to the emancipated
Catholics of Ireland, perpetrated by a government of
which the leading members have repeatedly expressed
their determination to administer justice without re-
ference to religious distinction.' The aggregate meet-
ing was convened to petition our beloved Sovereign,
that she may be graciously pleased to direct her at-
tention to the conduct pursued towards her loyal and
devoted Catholic subjects by her Majesty's Govern-
ment.' " The Catholics are also preparing to assem-
ble in the 'different districts for a similar purpose.
The Government has thus proved itself a greater
agitator than O'Connell, at any period since the
CtliToAlicNEDmAaßro_T
ncip.ationnihgßehitlldlbecame law !
irsipshosed of h
Courtt of Queen's
Bench on Saturday
artifice a delay—it would be rash to say e mtohset recent
last—
for no one can guess what may be doing in Dublin
this morning. The matter set at rest on Saturday
was the motion of the traversers to quash the jury
panel, on the ground of the omission of fourteen or
fifteen named Roman Catholics, and of twelve
persons not named, or as it would appear,
known, but also Roman Catholic. The affair was
argued at great length, and the motion unanimously
refused by the Court. From the proceeding we have
obtained at least an approximation to the actual state

of the case. A paper containing sixty-three names, not
of special jurors, but of special and common jurors, of
whom we suppose there must be five or six thousand
in Dublin, was, in fact, mislaid in the office of Mr.
Recorder Shaw's register, before the list of special
jurors was made out. The mislaid paper presented
a local list (from a particular parish or particular
parishes) and of course the names were given in
it promiscuously, without attention to alphabetical
arrangement, so as to render applicable the test
which we applied on Friday. Mr. Justice Perrin
intimated pretty broadly a suspicion that the paper
was dishonestly abstracted. We are wholly at a
loss to comprehend the ground of Mr. Perrin's
suspicion, in which it is quite plain none of his
brother judges participated. The paper, according
to the Dublin Freeman's Journal, must have been

mislaid so long ago as last Novem.ber. It was mis-
laid by a party unconnected with the Crown, and in
a place to which the officers ofthe Crown had no ac-
cess. And what possible effect could be anticipated
from the omission of sixty-three names (taken in
mass from one parish), from a list, as we have said,
of five or six thousand special and common jurors?

The proportion of special jurors to common jurors
in Dublin appears to be but one in eight;
eight, therefore, would be the number of special
jurors excluded by the omission. But the proportion
of Protestants to Roman Catholics—special jurors—
upon the list of all the other parishes taken together
—is about three-and-a-half to one—so that the
omission has merely caused the exclusion of two
Roman Catholics, and it must surely be compen-
sated by the exclusion of six Protestants. Let us,
however, indulge Mr. Justice Perrin, by supposing
that all the 63 omitted were special jurors ; we have
Mr. Pierce Mahoney's oath that 14 or 15 of them
were Roman Catholics—somebody else, it is true,
says that there were 12 other nameless Roman Ca-
tholics—but it is nearly certain that these 12 are 12 of
the named made to appear again as anonymous. Take,
however, the whole number of 27. Here we have 27
Roman Catholics and 36 Protestants excluded together.
How would the addition of these two numbers have,
in the slightest degree, disturbed the proportions
existing upon the list of 717 ? What motive, then,
can possibly have prompted the doing of that which
Mr. Justice Perrin insinuates ought not to have
been done without a motive ? It would be
well if judges would remember that their position
gives to what they say a weight which the
sayings of some of them might not otherwise
possess, and that they would, in consideration of
this, guard their language a little. There has
been a blunder in Mr. Shaw's office—nobody
disputes that—nor do we defend it, further
than by saying that in every office blunders
now and then occur very innocently, and
that this has on the face of it all the cha-
racteristics of a most innocent blunder. Officials
at this side of the water may exult in their exemp-
tion from exposure like that to which the Dublin
Recorder's register has been subjected, but they
probably owe the immunity rather to their good for-
tune than to their extraordinary skill or vigilance
—we doubt that ever a jury list has ever been made
up for Middlesex, not subject to as many and as
grave objections as have been alleged against the
Dublin list; but here pettifogging objections are dis-
graceful, very few solicitors, no barristers of reputa-
tion, would lend, themselves to such objections, least
of all would a judge condescend to help one of them
out by an insinuation for which he could offer no
sufficient ground.

FROM THE MORNING P*PERS OF THIS DAY.
TIMES.—The Greek
.Kalends have arrived. The
day which the most sanguine never hoped to see—
the day the indefinite remoteness of which rendered
it an almost impossible unit of time—has dawned
upon the inhabitants of St. Stephen and St. Benet
Sherehog. Alderman Gibbs has published his ac-
counts ; and when the world has recovered from its first
surprise at this announcement, it will be prepared to
hear the startling news that the vestry has audited
them and passed them. There is—according to the
most celebrated metaphysicians—a feeling of pleasure
produced by astonishment. Whether it be that the
excitement caused by an unexpected event acts upon
the system by stimulating the languid circulation of
the blood, and dispelling the heaviness which a
monotony of occupation causes to weigh upon the
human frame, we cannot undertake to say; but we
believe it to be an admitted fact that the sensation
of pleasure invariably results from the excitement
of surprise. If so, what happy fellows the inha-
bitants of St. Stephen, Walbrook, and St. Benet
Sherehog, must be ! For it has been their plea-
surable diversion to ascertain not only that Alderman
Gibbs has given an account of his official receipts and
expenditure, but also that the vestry has audited
them ; and not only this, but that the Alderman
makes out the parish to be his debtor to the tune of
eighteen hundred and two pounds three shillings and
sixpence; and, more than all else, that the auditors of
the vestry have authorised the aforesaid balance to be
paid over to their calumniated and dilatory creditor.
One thing is clear—either that the Alderman is
one man picked out of
.ten thousand, of admirable
self-denial, exalted contempt of gain, and un-
bounded generosity, or else—but we will not state
the alternative. But there in another thing which
is equally clear, viz., that to men of less self-
denial and less virtue than the Alderman, this
system of giving 18 years' tick for parish disburse-
ments presents innumerable opportunities for some-
thing very like fraud. Only fancy a private gentle-
man authorising his steward to receive his rents and.
pay away money without ever asking, or, if he did
ask, without enforcing, an account of the respective
receipts and expenditure ; and this indifferent manage-
ment to be continued, not for one, or two, or three,
but for nearly twenty years. Or, imagine the
trustees of a charity appointing a secretary to col-
lect subscriptions and to lay them out for certain
definite objects, and yet never extracting information
as to the mode of expending the money until twenty
years had elapsed. Would not such a man be thought
an idiot, and such trustees unfaithful to their trust ?
Alderman Gibbs' accounts run over a period of
eighteen years. As might be supposed, they include
items of the most heterogeneous kind. Coals, can-
dles, organ-blowers, funerals, carpenters, plumbers,
lecturers, vergers, sextonesses, and parish-clerks.
Here are draughts for a costive Jones, there are pills
for a dyspeptic Seroggins ; Mrs. Tibbs' midwife and
Mrs. Brag's casual nurse ; shoes for small boys, and
stuff gowns for charity girls, jostle Dr. Waters'
yearly salary of 401, as parish lecturer, and Mr.
Chappell's bill for the firecock in Bond-court. And
whenever there has been the most incongruous assort-
ment of parochial necessities in ono page, the next
page illuminates the inquiring mind with a long suc-
cession of ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, &c., &c., &c.
All this may be quite right and correct. There
may have been so many shoes bought in one week,
so many petticoats in another, and so many midwives
in a third, and black draughts in a fourth. The organ
tuner, the organ-blower, the sextoness, and the glazier,
may all have been punctually paid, and paid out of
Alderman Gibbs' pocket too. Still we maintain
that it would be a much more business-like proceed--
ing to audit the accounts every year, and spare both
the purse and the feelings of the payer, as well as
preserve the parish from the continued visitation of
intestine disputes. Of course the auditors never
dreamed of passing the Alderman's accounts, without
having seen the vouchers for them. What a collec-
tion of precious autographs Alderman Gibbs must
have possessed ! Now that he has no further use for
them, we fear he will commit them to the flames.
When we think of their number and their value, our
memories recur to the fire which consumed the Alex-
andrian library. We dread a second fire of London,
which shall avenge the Gibbsian wrongs, and. extin-
guish the river Thames.
ADVERTISER.—Our Dublin correspondence of
this day merits a most attentive perusal, and cannot
fail to excite a deep interest. It contains not only an
account of the aggregate meeting of the Roman Ca-
tholics, in reference to the recent exclusion of their
members from the jury panel, but also an account of
the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, on a
motion on the part of the traversers to have the trial
postponed till the jury list were corrected, as well as
on another motion, on the part of the Crown, to have
the trials continued—in case of their not being pre-
viously concluded—through the vacation after the
close of the present term, of which it was moved
that said vacation shall be regarded as part.
The latter motion, made by the Attorney-General,
was acceded to by the Court, Judge Perrin only
being dissentient, as to the propriety of granting
it at that stage of the proceedings, when there were
no less than fifteen days of the term unexpired.
The motion on the part of the traversers to postpone
the trials till the extraordinary omission, to which we
have already alluded, of certain names from the jury-
list were supplied, was refused on the grounds that
there was no party directly charged with the omis-
sion, and that the Crown appeared before the Court in
the light of an ordinary prosecutor. In concurring in
the view of his brothers on the bench, however, Judge
Perrin remarked, " I cannot but think that there was
great negligence and gross want of care in the way in
which authentic documents have been treated, and I
ant not prepared to say that the whole was the result of
accident." Mr. Moore, in applying for the postpone-
ment of the trials, stated that the names of twenty-
seven persons, of whom twenty-three were Roman Ca-
tholics, duly recognised by the Recorder himself as
qualified to be on the jury-list, were omitted, either by
" mistake or fraud," and subsequently, upwards of
sixty individuals were excluded, in a manner of which
no satisfactory explanation has yet been attempted.
Such is the present phase of the State prosecutions
in Ireland. What is to be expected from them ?
Nothing, save to make " confusion worse confounded."
The manner in which, from first to last, the prosecu-
tions have been conducted is sufficient in itself to give
a triumph to the traversers, even in their conviction.
It is the weight- of public opinion which gives
solidity to law.—" Packed" juries, as is already