The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-27 00:00:00

THE JAMAICA OUTBREAK.

APPLICATION AGAINST GOVERNOR EYRE.
This morning, at Bow-street Police court, Sir R.
Collier, instructed by Messrs. Sheen and Roscoe, on
behalf of Mr. John Stuart Mill, the President, and
Mr. Peter Taylor, the Treasurer of the Jamaica
Committee, waited on Sir Thomas Henry to apply
for a warrant against Governor Eyre for the mur-
der of Mr. Gordon in Jamaica after the outbreak
of 1865.

Mr. Mill and Mr. Taylor occupied seats on the
bench.

Arr. J. Horne Payne was with Mr. Collins.

Sir R. Collier said he was instructed by Mr. Mill
and Mr. Taylor to apply for a warrant against Mr.
John Edward Eyre, on the charge of having been
accessory to the murder of Mr. John William
Gordon, at Morant Bay, Jamaica, on October 23,
1865. The application was made under the 24th
and 25th Vic., c. 100, s. 9, and 11th and 12th Vic.,
c. 4; by which any person might be tried in this
country for a murder or manslaughter committed
in the colonies. It might be said that these pro-
ceedings were taken at a somewhat late period
considering the date at which the alleged
offence took place. Upon that point he must
mention that at the time when a warrant was ap-
plied for and obtained against General Nelson and
Lieutenant Brand as principals, it was intended to
make the application also against Mr. Eyre as acces-
sary ; but it was found that he was not within the
jurisdiction of the Court at that time. It was matter
of common knowledge that at that time an applica.
tion was made to the magistrates in Shropshire,
within whose jurisdiction Mr. Eyre then was, but
he presumed that Sir Thos. Henry would not consider
himself bound by their decision, but would exercise
his own discretion. Moreover, that decision was
given prior to the delivery of the charge by the
Lord Chief Justice to the grand jury in reference
to the case of Nelson and Brand. That charge had
since been published by the Lord Chief Justice,
with notes, &c., by himself, and with a luminous
statement of martial law. It was no disparagement
to the Justices to say that if they had been ac-
quainted with all the learning and authority upon
the subject they would have come to a different
conclusion. It was a peculiarity of English law,
and he for one ventured to think it a defect that
there was no public prosecutor, no official person
charged with the duty of bringing offenders to
justice, but it is left to the action of private indivi-
duals; and but that they do it frequently from a
sense of public duty, many great crimes would
escape without punishment and even without in-
vestigation. Those who in structed him were cer-
tainly not influenced by any personal motives, but
by a very painful sense of duty, believing that a
great crime had been committed, that a British sub-
ject had been put to death without warrant, and
under circumstances that constituted what the
law called murder, and they consider that a most
important matter as affecting the tenure under
which every man in the colonies, and indeed in the
British dominions, holds his life and property. Sir
R. P. Collier then proceeded to give an outline of
the circumstances under which the execution took
place, and of the legal grounds upon which it was
contended that it amounted to murder. The learned
gentleman's arguments on this point were to a great
extent identical with those urged by Mr. F. Stephen
in the case of Nelson and Brand, and Sir R. P.
Collier, supported them by reference to autho-
rities, and especially to the charge of the Lord
Chief Justice, from which he made copious extracts.
Having in the course of that portion of his speech
contended that it was not necessary to -prove ex-
press malice, he now went on to say that there
was evidence on which he would submit
that a jury would be justified in finding
that Mr. Eyre was actuated by express
malice. There had been a long feud be-
tween Mr. Eyre and Mr. Gordon, and in one
instance Mr. Eyre's conduct had brought upon
him a severe censure from the Duke of Newcastle.
After entering into the details of the disputes be-
tween Mr. Eyre and Gordon, and quoting largely
from the correspondence, Sir R. P. Collier proceeded
to contend that the Act of Indemnity passed in Ja-
maica did not bar proceedings here.
Sir Thomas Henry said it was not necessary to
argue that point, as it had been decided in the Nel-
son and Brand case.

Sir. R. P. Collier, in conclusion, said' that if the
warrant wa3 granted he did not propose to ask that
it should be executed, as no doubt Mr. Eyre would
voluntarily attend, as General Nelson and Lieut.
Brand had done. lie concluded by reminding Sir
Thomas of his own concluding words i❑ summing
up in that case.

Sir Thomas henry said that was before the
delivery of the charge referred to by Sir R. P.
Collier. In that charge all the arguments
used by Sir 11. P. Collier had been so put
that it • would be impossible to state them
more forcibly, and the grand jury had thrown out
the bill. He was not aware that there had ever
been a case-- there certainly had not during the 28
years that he had preEided on the bench—in which,
after the grand jury had ignored a bill against per-
sons charged as principals in a murder, a magistrate
had issued a warrant against an accessary. Ho did
not think that he ought to establish such a prece-
dent, and he therefore should decline to grant the
warrant. That, however, would not preclude the
prosecutors from preferrini, a new bill before the
grand jury it they thought fit.