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

might displease or whom conciliate. So long as he
spoke the naked truth, none could feel offended or
dissatisfied. Any concealment or refusal to speak
would be a crime of no ordinary magnitude, and none
could be so unreasonable as to expect that he would
be guilty thereof under any possible circumstances.
If he bear false witness, if he wilfully and deliberately
speak what is contrary to the fact, he becomes
liable to the highest secondary punishment—banish-
ment from his native land•; but if merely mistaken,
and that he states even what is unfounded in fact
conscientiously believing it to be true, be will be
protected from penal consequences;either through legal
proceedings or private animosity, and he, in like man-
ner, should refuse to enter into any explanation of
what he has been compelled to state upon oath, either
to qualify or retract, for his doing so would be a
virtual admission that he had been guilty of perjury.
There is an additional reason wby this protection
should be afforded to the witness. He does not volun-
tarily assume that duty. It is not to please or gratify
himself that he comes forward. He is compelled to
do it, whether willing or unwilling, and none can re-
fuse, from the highest to the lowest, from the illus-
trious Consort of our most gracious SOVEREIGN, to
the humblest of her subjects. No business, public
or private, however urgent or important, will be re-
ceived or deemed a sufficient excuse for neglecting or
refusing to attend in pursuance of the subpena ad
testificandum, which had been served. Under such
circumstances, it would be strange indeed if the law
refused to protect a person whom it thus compelled
to come forward, from all annoyance consequent
upon his obedience to its dictates.
There was, however, a strange forgetfulness of
these principles manifested in a case recently decided
at the Middlesex Sessions ; and if the doctrine laid
down by Mri Sergeant ADAMS, in the ",QuzesT v.
GUNSTON" should be permitted to pass without notice,
it is impossibre to calculate the amount of mischief
that might be occasioned by parties, who felt in any
degree aggrieved at the evidence given in any pro-
ceeding, being induced to take the law into their own
bands and insult and assault with impunity the wit-
ness with whom they felt offended. In the
case in question a HENRY SMYTHE, a
gentleman holding a public situation in the Inland
Revenue•oiice, Somerset-house, was the prosecutor,
and Mr. GUNSTON was the defendant. It appeared
that the prosecutor had some time previously been
examined as a witness in a proceeding de lunatico
inquirendo, touching the state of mind of a gentleman
named F2uarox. In it he had made some statement
strictly bearing on the subject-matter then under
investigation, in which the mother of the defendant,
since deceased, was alluded to. in a manner that ex
cited his anger. As soon as the jury had returned
their verdict the defendant wrote to the prosecutor, in
which, after stating the testimony of which he corn-
pleined—(which we do not repeat, as it is by no Means
our wish to hurt the feelings of any party, only allud-
ing to the question as one of vital importance to so-
ciety in general)—he said, " But the bare insinuation
against my departed mother compels me to wrest her
memory from an attack of base malignancy. You
will excuse my expressing my firm conviction that
you invented this language to serve your purpose. I
write, therefore, to give you an opportunity of retracting
your words, and retrieving your character." No
answer having been returned to this not very courte-
ous or temperate epistle, the defendant met the pro-
secutor the subsequent day, when leaving his office,
and asked whether there was any answer to his letter,
and Mr. SMYTHE having replied, " that it was not
the time or place to discuss such matters," imme-
diately struck him in the face, and a scuffle ensued,
which terminated in the matter being brought
before the presiding magistrate at Bow-street.
That gentleman took a very correct view
of the transaction. He said that " the letter
written by the defendant, although containing no
threat, was an exceedingly improper one, for the
complainant when examined on oath was bound to
state the truth, however offensive it might prove to
others." He then gave the complainant his choice,
whether he should fine the defendant 51. (the highest
punishment in his power to inflict),:or send the case
for trial. The latter branch of the alternative was
adopted, and the case was accordingly transmitted to
the Middlesex Sessions for trial.

When called on, the defendant pleaded guilty, and
the facts alluded to before the magistrate were
brought forward in mitigation. In pronouncing
judgment, Mr. Sergeant ADAMS declared that, " having
looked to the evidence given before the commis-
sion de lunatico inquirendo, he must confess
that he could not discover any reflection on the
memory of Mrs. GuNsLroN," but added, " that
the prosecutor having been accused by the defendant
of having intended to throw an aspersion on the
memory of Mrs. GUNSTON, should have at once dis-
claimed any such intentions, adding that the defendant
was fully warranted in believing that he (the
prosecutor) had been guilty of the act imputed to
him in the absence of any disclaimer on his part."
He then proceeded to read a lecture to the prosecutor,
saying, "he had no right to go about scattering
falsehoods," and ended by inflicting a nominal fine of
is. on the defendant.

Now we must earnestly protest against this most
extraordinary decision being constituted a precedent,
and caution all persons from being led into the com-
mission of very serious offences by the impunity per-
mitted to the defendant. What answer could Mr.
SMYTHE return to a letter designating his sworn tes-
timony as "an attack of base malignance," and de-
claring that he had "invented the language to serve
his purpose," or, in other words, that he had com-
mitted wilful and corrupt perjury ? Was he to "re-
tract his words" as required, and acknowledge that
he ought to be sent before a criminal tribunal and
transported for his grave offence? Practically, that
was what he was required to do, and which Mr. Ser-
geant ADAMS censured him for neglecting. What-
ever explanation he might be induced to give, the
tone and character of the letter was not calculated to
elicit, and if the matter had terminated there a cri-
minal information would unquestionably have been
granted, if applied for, and a heavy punishment in-
flicted. The additional outrage—a blow in the face
in a crowded thoroughfare,—however, gave impunity
to the defendant, and if Mr. Sergeant ADAMS be
right, afforded every encouragement to others to take
the law into their own hands, and despise the rules
that are ordinarily observed in society. We, at least,
shall strenuously protest against such a doctrine, and
its more than probable consequences.

ALARMING FIRE LAST NlGHT.—Between nine and
ten o'clock last night (Sunday) a fire suddenly broke out in
the lower portion of the premises belonging to Mr. John
Fisher, a brush-manufacturer, at No. 108, treat Dover-road.
Three engines of the London Brigade attended, and, with a
plentiful supply of water, the flames by eleven o'clock were
safely extinguished—not, however, until Mr. Fisher's stock
in trade was destroyed, and the whole of his furniture and
other effects severely injured. Fortunately the sufferer was
insured in the Sun Fire-office.

RE-UNION OF INFLUENTIAL ROMAN CATIT3LICS.--
We stated on Saturday that Cardinal Wiseman he.d been on
a visit to a Roman Catholic nobleman in Buckinfshamshire.
The gentleman to whom the cardinal paid a visit, of several
days is Charles Scott Murray, Esq., a few years since one of
the members for the county of Bucks, but who resigned his
seat upon his abandoning the Protestant faith. Mr. Murray
las since erected a splendid Roman Catholic chapel close to
his residence at Danesfield, near Aylesbury. Amongst those
invited to meet the newly-created cardinal were the follow-
ing:—Dr. Waring, the new Cacholic Bishop of Northamp-
ton; Lord Catnoys, Lord in Waiting to her Majesty; Lady
Camoys and the Misses Stonor, Lord and Lady Feilding,
Lady Georgiana Fullerton, Mr. Allies (late chaplain to Dr.
Blomfield, Bishop of London), and Mrs. Allies; Mr. George
Bowyer, Mr. Pugin, Lady and Miss Fitzgerald, Mr. Caven-
dish, Mr. Maskell, Mr. and bars. A. L. Phillips, Mr. Fuller-
ton, and Father Terreo. It is stated that Lord and Lady
Fending are about to proceed to Rome at a very early period.
—.Rerald.

" THE DUKE" ON ROMAN CATHOLIC EMANCL.
PITION.—When the Duke of Wellington supported the
Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill in the House of Lords,
his Grace said—" It is impossible to suppose that the small
number of persons that this measure will admit into this
House, and the few who may possibly obtain seats in the
other House, can afford any ground for apprehending danger
from legislation to the Church of Ireland—the Church of
England in Ireland. I entertain no doubt that after this
measure shall have been effected, the Roman Catholics will
no longer exist as a separate interest in the State, as they
at present do. I have no doubt that they will cease to
excite disunion in this and the other House of Parliament.
Parliament will then, I hope, be disposed to look at their
conduct, and everything which respects that country, as they
will look upon the people and the affairs of England and
Scotland. I will say, however, that if lam disappointed in
my hopes of tranquillity, after a trial has been given of the
measure, I shall have no scruple in coming down to Parlia-
ment and laying before it the state of the case, and calling
for the necessary power to enable Government to take the
steps suited to the occasion. I shall du this in the same con-
fidence that Parliament will support me that I do in the
present case."

RESIGNATION OF ARCHDEACON MANNING.--This
much respected clergyman has, we understand, resigned the
archdeaconry of Chichester, in consequence, it is supposed,
of difficulties about the present position of the Eatablished
Church.