The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-20 00:00:00

NOTICE.

The Third Edition of " The Sun" of last Eveaing, con-
taining the Latest Betting and Racas at Bath, was
published in time for delivery in town at 7.15 p.m.

THE PROSECUTION OF EX-GOVERNOR

EYRE.

BO W- STREET.--Tit is DAT.
The hearing of this case was proceeded with this
morning before Mr Vaughan.
There was a somewhat fuller attendance than
yesterday.
The Jamaica Committee was represented by Mr.
P. A. Taylor, who occupied a seat upon the Bench,
and the Eyre Defence Committee by Lord De
Blaquiere, the Hon. Major Anson, and Sir Roderick
Murchison, who (as yesterday) preferred to find
places at the solicitors' table. Amongst the gentle-
men on the Bench we also noticed Sir Baldwin

Leighton and Mr. James Carson, the High Sheriff

of Buckinghamshire.
The same learned counsel appeared as on former

occasions.

Sir R. P. Collier put in certain documents which
he had proposed as evidence previously, but which
were not then produced, Mr. Fairfield not having
at that time been able to find them at the Foreign-

office.
Mr. Vaughan said that with regard to the por-
tion of the blue-book which he yesterday undertook

to read over, he had come to the conclusion that
some portions of it were not evidence in this
case. He held that for the defence Mr.
Giffard was entitled to put in all documents which
were written by official persons in the island to

Mr. Eyre, and all documents written by Mr. Eyre
to the Secretary of State. lie had marked the
passages which he considered could legally be ad-

place as to whether other
portions
enok
ceshould be admitted. Ulti-
mitted.
A g
lon
of discussion
theev evidence
t
Ulti-
mately a few of the excluded passages were ad-
mitted, but the rule laid down by Mr. Vaughan
was substantially adhered to.

Mr. Giffard then proceeded to open the case
for the defence. He complained of the man-

ner in which the prosecution was conducted.
Though Sir It. P. Collier repudiated any
imputation of corrupt motives to Mr. Eyre,
and declared that the only object of the proceed-
ings was to obtain a judicial decision on an abstruse
point of law, yet the prosecutors continued to cir-
culate atrocious calumnies against him.
Sir B. P. Collier said there had been a good deal
of abuse in the papers—much more abuse indeed of

the prosecutors than of Mr. Eyre. But he had care.
fully refrained from alluding to it, and he thoughl
his learned friend ought to do the same.
Mr. Vaughan said that so far as the case ha
been before him he hall nothing to do with any of
the imputations alluded to.

Mr. Giffard would not refer to the calwnuies
circulated elsewhere by any one not connected with
these proccedings. What he had a right to refer
to, and Mr. Eyre had a right to complain of, was
that Mr. Mill, the prosecutor, whom he lamented
not to see on this occasion in his usual place beside
the magistrate, had sent to the newspapers for
publication a document written, as its date showed,
on the 20th of April, after the commencement of
these proceedings,
and that Mr. Shaen, solicitor to
the prosecution, forwarded it, and that that letter
reiterated the calumnies, which Sir R. P. Collier,
acting on their instructions, disclaimed. This charge,
which they dare not attempt to prove in Court,
was circulated with a view to influence the case.
What would have been said if, in the late Fenian
prosecutions, some one connected with the Treasury
had written and Published in the papers a letter de-
nouncing by name a
Person then on his trial. If
that letter had been written to Mr. Vaughan him-
self it would have been an understood contempt of
court. lie did not understand what right the
gentlemen now prosecuting had to assume a posi-
tion as if they commanded the jurisprudence of the
country in order to carry out the pestilent policy
of this prosecution. The case had not been pro-
secuted in an ordinary way. The dismal catalogue
of floggings and executions had been gone over to
produce a prejudice as to the alleged oppression.
Sir R. P. Collier said he was sorry to interrupt
his learned friend who, however, he was certain
could not have
intended to misrepresent him.
What he had said was that the issuing of
an illegal proclamation was an illegal act
without reference to corrupt motives, and that
he did not attribute to Mr. Eyre any
corrupt motive in that act. That was what he said
with reference to the proclamation. Then he went
on to say that be charged Mr. Eyre with certain
oppressive acts done under that proclamation. It
was not for him to
imputs motives, but he
thought himself justified in saying that
all acts of oppression assume an arbitrary disposi-
tion and intention.
Mr. Giffard said that as his conduct had been
to some extent influenced by the disclaimer
oltwwas somewhat embarrassing
understand that it did not go so
withdrawn, or at all events
far as he had at first understood. Referring to the
evidence, he observed that it had been shown that
of
ohf
eSayinrwdßetrieiPagt.iirCteonwl
oseernnp,oltahciensg.w
of the acts of cruelty
committed.
it R. P. Collier said it was proved that Mr. Eyre
allegedllv
il,
a Mr. Eyre
present
kainvnee
Itvhheen
hrthe executions took
place.
Mr. Giffard said
be was present in the island, but
he did not know for
what offences,'or on what
evidence they had been convicted. Ile knew only
that they had been convicted by courts-martial, at
one of which the Attorney-General of the Island
presided.
Mr. Vaughan observed that he was not sitting
there as a jury.
Mr. Giffard maintained that in some respects Mr.
Vaughan was sitting as a jury.
Mr. Vaughan said he should not sit as a jury
m this ease. If he thought there was a prima facie
case he should feel it to be his duty to commit Mr.
Eyre for trial.
Mr. Giffard said he was about to argue that
there was no rhila facie case. And as one
of the reasons why he should contend that
the case should not go forward, why, in fact, the
magistrate should consider the question whether he
would assist these proceedings (by refusing,to do
which he would not prevent the prosecutors from
preferring a bill), he should have to submit that
this was a State prosecution.
Mr. Vaughan said that was a question which ho
could not consider at all. Whether the prosecution
was a state prosecution or not was, he said, not a
matter for his consideration.
Mr. Giffard submitted that it was a matter for
the consideration of the magistrate in reference to