The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-12 00:00:00

Obiening

LONDON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1844.

The anxiety felt throughout England and Ireland,
as to the result of the Irish State trials, is now raised
to the very highest pitch, in consequence of the
partial ascertainment of the views of the jury in re-
gard to their verdict. Not having finally decided as
to the wording of that verdict at midnight on Satur-
day, and the judges having doubts (needless, as it
appears to us) whether they could receive a verdict
at all, on Sunday, the jury were locked up till this
morning, when they will, put the matter beyond
doubt, so far as they are concerned.
The conclusion to which the jury had come on
Saturday night was as follows : -
On the first count
On the second No finding.
On the third ..... D. O'Connell, Barrett, and
Duffy, guilty.
D. O'Connell, J. O'Connell,
Ray, Gray, Steele, Duffy,
and Barrett, guilty.
On the fifth
Duffy, and Tierney,
guilty.
On the sixth
On the seventh
On the eighth No finding.
On the ninth
On the tenth
nell, Ray, Gray, Steele,
Duffy, and Barrett,
guilty.
On the eleventh
If the jury do not alter their opinions, the words
" no finding," as now given in by them, will be altered
into " no verdict" on those counts, or into " not guilty
for one of the jury stated that there was no dif-
ference among them, and it was merely as to the
wording of the findings that they had any doubt.
Let us look, then, at the probable result of this day's
proceedings.

On the fourth.

The first and second counts charged the nine tra-
versers with seditiously conspiring to create disaf-
fection among the people—to excite hatred and con-
tempt of the Government—to cause jealousy and ill-
will among certain classes, particularly the army—
to bring the legal tribunals into disrepute—and to
effect changes in the law by a demonstration of phy-
sical force. Upon these counts the jury have come
to no verdict, and they may be therefore taken as not
proved and unsupported. Not guilty will probably
be the verdict as to these counts.

The third count charges the same objects of con-
spiracy as the second, with slight variations. On this
count, three are found guilty. _ _

The fourth count charges the same objects, but
lays the conspiracy at different times and places. On
this count, seven are found guilty.
The fifth count charges less generally the same
objects, and on this count, five are found guilty.
The sixth charges a seditious conspiracy to procure
changes in the law, by means of intimidation and
physical force. On this there is no finding, and not
guilty will probably be the verdict.
The seventh count charges the procurement of
large numbers of the people to meet together at
various places, with intent, by the display of num-
bers, to procure changes in the law. On this, all but
Mr. TIERNEY are found guilty.
On the eighth and ninth counts, "no finding" will
be most likely turned into " not guilty."
The tenth count charges the establishment of
courts to bring into disrepute the legal tribunals of
the country, and on this, seven of the traversers are
found guilty.

The eleventh charges seditious publications and
songs, and the delivery of unlawful speeches, and
here again, " no finding" is equivalent to " not guilty."
There will, therefore, probably be a verdict of
guilty upon five counts, and not guilty upon six
counts of this indictment.

And now commences the greatest difficulty. What
can the Government do with their verdict? Has the
trial, so far, answered any one good purpose ? Has it

not done more to stir up and bad feelings,
than years of repeal agitation could have effected ?
Has it not gained for the Irish more sympathy than was

ever before expressed for their wrongs, by the people

of this country ?
Let Sir ROBERT PEEL ponder well and meditate
closely on his next step—a false move will be fatal to

his Government.

The House of Commons met on Saturday, in con-
sequence of no House being made on the previous
flay. The only subject brought forward was the
Bill of Sir JAMES GRAHAM for an alteration in the

new Poor-law Act, and we are gratified to find that
the bastardy clause, which we opposed from the be-
ginning, is to be materially altered. The unfortu-
nate victim is not to be thrown on the wide world
and compelled to maintain her offspring, or go into a
workhouse. Her oath as to the putative father is
to be taken before two Magistrates, with corroborative
evidence, and the Magistrates are to judge according
to the evidence. If the evidence is sufficient, the
father is to provide for the maintenance of the child,
or go to prison, according to the old law. This is
just. The new law in this respect was unjust and
cruel, and has been inoperative, because it was unjust
and cruel. Why throw the whole punishment of crime
upon the weaker sex, and allow wealthy and heartless
villains to escape ? We believe this clause has done
more to damage the Act than any other. It advo-
cates the most barefaced cruelty. But this is not
the only modification required. More out-door re-
lief should be given, and persons in certain circum-
stances, because they have a little income, but not
enough to keep body and soul together, should not
be thrust out of society and immured in a work-
house. There are means for ascertaining whether
they are really objects of charity, and, with the ex-
pensive machinery of the new Act, there must be
egregious fault in some department, if measures are
not adopted for making a distinction between the idle
and the worthless, and those who have been subjected
to all the ills of poverty from events which no fore-
sight could prevent. There were great abuses under
the old system, but that is no justification for ex-
treme severity under the new. What the public want
is to keep down the enormous amount of the poor-
rates by discouraging idleness and profligacy, and
not by a wholesale condemnation of all who are com-
pelled by adversity to solicit parish relief.

The " Reports of the Inspectors of Factories" to
the Home Department, for the half-year ending De-
cember 31, 1843, have just been printed. There is no
subject in which we feel a deeper interest, throughout
the whole range of the relations embraced by our do-
mestic or social condition, than the welfare of that
friendless and extensive community, whose toilsome
lives are passed in the monotonous labours of the
loom, or the vitiated atmosphere (moral and physical)
of the mill. The proceedings which Parliament has
adopted, and continues from time to time to take, in
order to throw around the defenceless children and
infants whom the poverty of their parents devotes to
the incessant demand for youthful hands in our ma-
facturing districts, are honourable to the right feel-
ing and the benevolent policy of the Legislature.
But, whether from the extreme difficulty of
drawing aright the delicate, yet important line
which shall prevent the righteous energy of
legal protection from trespassing on the legi-
timate rights of 'private property and commercial
enterprise—or from some other cause tending to con-