The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-02 00:00:00

wouador New Consolidated, 1 per Con'.
*Egyptian, 7 per Cent —
Do. Secoad issue ., ... 80
D.'. £5lO Bonds
Do. £IOG Bonds —
Do. 1864 -
Do. Account
Do. 15 0 Bonds —
Do. £lOO Bonds . -..— •
Government Railway Debentures . ••• 93 21
Greek 5 per Cent., 1824-5, ea Coups —
Do. Account -
Do. Coupons
Do. Account
Guatemala 5 per Cent • . —
Honduras Gov. Rail. Loan., 10p. Ct., £25 p
Its Ilan 5 per Cert., 1865 —
Do, Account ~ 77
Do. Illaremmana Eaiway 541
1119xican 3 per Cent —
Ditto for Account
Do. 1864 —
Do 6 per Cont. Anglo-French —
Rontevideau 6 per Cent. .. —
Aloorish Imperial 5 per Cent
Now Granada lll
Do 3 per Ceni, —
Do. Deferred
Do Land Warrants (Hectares)
Peruvian 5 por Cent. 1865 —
Do Account .. 871 1 1 I-
Do 41 per Cent. (Uribarren) -
Do 41 per Cent., 1862 -
Do Account
Portuguese 3 per Ct., 1853, '6, '7, '9,'60,'2,'3
Do. do., 167 —
Do. do., Scrip, £2O paid —
Russian 5 per Cont., 1822, £ Si 85!:
Do 41 per Cent. 1850
Do 41 per Cent., 1860
Do 8 per Cent., 1859
Do 5 per Cent., 1862
Do. Anglo-Dutch, 1864, £lOO 80nd5...,
Do. do. £B4 15s. do. ••0
Do 1866, £lOO Bonds
'I BBl 1

Do.„
do £B4 15s. do - -
Do Nicolas Railway 651
Ss -dinian, 5 per Cent
Dividends on the above payable in London.
Austrian. a per Cent. Ex 10 Florins
Belgian, per cent., Ex. 25f.
--
Dutch 2i per Cent. Ex. 12 Guiln

.. -
Do Account
French Routes, 3 per Cent., Ex. 25f. —
Italian, 5 per Cent. 1831, Es. 25f.
Do. Account
CLOSING PRICES.
Consols, Money 9si
Do. Account, June

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)

THE JAMAICA RIOTS-THE CHARGE AGAINST EN-
GOVERNOR EYRE.

This morning Mr. Justice Blackburn sat as the
presiding judge to charge the Grand Jury sum-
moned to try the bill of indictment brought against
Mr. Eyre, late Governor of Jamaica, for misdemea-
nour. The learned judge having made a few preli-
minary observations, told the jury they had been
summoned to make inquiry into a certain indict-
ment that had been preferred against Mr. Eyre,
who was ex-Governor of Jamaica. It appeared to
be clear that in 1865 Mr. Eyre was Governor of
Jamaica, and a disturbance having broken out he
caused martial law to be proclaimed in the Island,
and that for a period of 30 days he by such proce-
dure put a great many persons to death ; and the ques-
tion that arose for them to answer was whether Mr.
Eyre at that time did anything for which he was
criminall3 responsible. In order that they might be
enabled to understand the law with respect to colo-
nial governors he would read to them the provisions
of the acts on that point. The learned judge then
read a great number of extracts from various sta-
tutes, and went on to observe that it appeared for
30 days Mr. Eyre kept up martial law after all
armed resistance had ceased, and when there was
ample opportunity for the trial of persons so charged.
He thOught that he was bound to say that in that
particular he had much exceeded the power given
him by the petition of tight, and if the matter solely
stood there he thought he should have been obliged
to tell them, notwithstanding that there might be
good grounds for an act of indemnity or pardon,
that the I.lw had been exceeded ; but the law
had been very much altered by the Jamaica
statutes, which gave the governor greater power
than had ever before existed. The great question
to determine was the exact power of colonial go-
vernors, and the fact that martial-law having been
proclaimed were his actions afterwards such as a
person of reasonable firmness would have been
justified in doing. It was undoubtedly true that
he would have been blameable had he not
done all that his position compelled him to
do to restore tranquillity, but then they would have
to say bad he power to proclaim martial law, and
was he punishable for not suspending it sooner
than he did. They would have to say, was there
a reasonable ground for continuing the severe state
of affairs? It would also be of great import-
ance for them to consider the • exact position
of matters in the island, more particularly
with respect to Gordon. It appeared that
Gordon was a violent and seditious agitator, to
whose language the outbreak was in a great mea-
sure owing, but he did not think there was clear
ga
ntios e
rthe
of
the
insurrection. conclusion t lia th he was
If
one
uenfdt
hfeo re h
iceofmeilng .
Dir. i
. Eyre thought e
rt htoeu
gg
ehtt
himt that, te,
ta
of
fd
the
enwt toahvi7thy,
e Mwooraunldt
then have to return a true bill ; but ifw they thought
Mr. Eyre had bona fide reason for believing that there
tahreisehefar
hadtanGgeerrdleiknelwyatso
domefthteheineseunri
andaftehteyrethfoartehiet
should
us
hlabsolutely
fg °er)t mighth eoff indispensableentee el
sfrope wasrci
rpt
ai
uoegbynr
ca tts
justified in availing
twhietmh which
hhee
.(vzisr.cEh ayrrgee)dw,
as
himself of the power given to him by the
Colonial Legislature. They would have to place
themselves in Mr. Eyre's position a posi-
tion in which everybody was urging him
on and no one holding him back, and then they
would have to say did he exercise that amount of
caution which it was his duty to have done. The
evidence given before the Royal Commission would
also be laid before them, and, after having consi-
dered that, they would have to make up their
minds as to whether Mr. Eyre had used the
calmness, prudence, and self-control which he was
bound to do placed in the responsible position he
was. There was no doubt that Mr. Eyre did pro-
claim martial law, and that ha took four persons
into custody where martial law had not been de-
clared ; that executions took place during the time,
and that one unfortunate negro was hanged by
Ramsay, the provost-marshal, for merely gnash-
ing his teeth at him. A more atrocious act
could not have been committed, but then it was not
at all clear that Mr. Eyre was aware of such anact.
Mr. Eyre was asked before the Royal Commission the
question as to who was responsible for that execution,
and he said he believed the military authorities had
discretionary power; but he (the judge) thought that
if it was necessary to let loose the dogs of war, it
was absolutely necessary that there should have
been a huntsman to look after them. Under
all the circumstances he (Mr. Justice Blackburn)
felt that Mr. Eyre was not at all responsible for the
act, and that all through the papers there was no
proof that he ever knew or sanctioned such an atro-
cious proceeding. it could not be denied that there
was a most lamentable want of judgment through-
out the matter, but then he did not think the civil
power—viz., the Government—could be blamed for
their want of discretion. Finally, the matter
for the grand jury to determine was, not whether
Mr. Eyre was blameable for declaring martial law,
but whether he was justified in keeping it in force
for 30 days daring which criminal excesses were
committed. There could not be a doubt that actions
wild and reckless had been done, but the great ques-
tion still remained, Was Mr. Eyre responsible for
the excess, if they should be of opinion that that excess
had been committed ? They would have the whole
of the facts laid before them, and having
fully considered the matter, they would, during
term, announce to the court the determination
at which they had arrived. If they should find a
bill imputing excess of duty, they had better so
frame it as to allow Mr. Eyre to make use of the
Jamaica acts as best lie coull ; but if, ou the con-
trary, they thought there had been no excess, but
that Mr. Eyre had acted throughout the matter
with a bona fide view of restoring the Queen's
authority, then they would throw out the bill ; but
it was quite open to them to say to what extent, if
any, they believed Mr. Eyre responsible for the
actsimputed to him.
The grand jury then retired, for the purpose of
considering their decision, but when the result of
their deliberations will be made known is at pre-
sent uncertain.