The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

prosecutor with respect to this purchase. Both Mr.
A. Baring and Mr. Kinder objected to the purchase when
it was first made ; both at that moment desired to cancel
it, and both might well have acted together in the pursuit
of that object, and it really was impossible to under-
stand why it had been deemed desirable to keep the
prosecutor in ignorance of what was going on in the
mind of Mr. Baring, and what were his resolves on the
subject. Yet the letters showed a feeling of that sort,
and the desire expressed to the agent in one of them
not to be restrained by over scrupulousness was cer-
tainly liable to an equivocal interpretation. Still that
was not sufficient to justify a conviction. To justify
that, the jurors must be satisfied that the defendants
acted in a common scheme to get rid of the contract
against the will of the prosecutor, either with the desire
to injure him, or with the resolution so to act, though
by so acting they knew that they must inevitably bring
injury upon him. But suppose that they should think
that the evidence made out a case against Mr. Alexander
Baring, and showed that what he had done was to be
attributed to the motives imputed in the indictment,
still they could not find a verdict against all the defend-
ants on this charge of conspiracy, without thinking them
all to have been actuated by the same motive, and to
have concurred in one scheme to injure the prosecutor.
Many strong observations had been made on the nature
.sf this prosecution, and it was represented that the
jurors must not form their opinions of the offence of
bribery abroad upon the abhorrence in which it was
said to be held in this country. But, happily for the
jury, the question of the enormity of the offence
of bribery was not one which was to occupy at-
tention to-day. The question now was, whether
the defendants had conspired to adopt the
means alleged, and fraudulently to deprive the prose-
cutor of his (property in Mexico, and to injure him in
that country and in this. The transactions to which this
prosecution related extended over many years, but it
seemed that most of these depended on the terms of the
letters which had been put in evidence. These letters
had been obtained from the defendant's house by means
of a bill in Chancery, and the fact that there were so
many letters spreading over a great extent of time, ren-
dered it very difficult for the defendants to give a full
explanation of everything. As to the charge itself, the
jurors must be informed that it was not necessary to
show in positive terms the existence of a malicious feel-
ing towards the prosecutor; it would be sufficient to
support the indictment, if it was shown that the defen-
dants had taken their course wholly without regard to
the question, whether what they did might not be inju-
rious to the prosecutor for ary such feeling or disregard
to the interests of others, and still more the resolution to
do that which was most likely to produce injury to an-
other, was that to which the law would give the name
of malice. This brought them to the letters, and the
question for the jury would be whether these letters
showed the existence of malice in that qualified
form, and whether there was evidence of these
defendants conspiring together for the purpose
of injuring the prosecutor, or of doing that
which they must have known would inevitably produce
injury to him. If the jurors should be of that opinion,
they must find the defendants guilty ; if of a different
opinion, they must acquit the defendants. His Lord-
ship here went at great length through all the letters,
and then referred to the bill and answer in Chancery,
remarking that in his mind the answer was not, as it
ought to have been, a clear, distinct, and direct answer
to the allegations in the bill. The question he must put
to the jurors was this, whether, before the Act of the
Legislature of Mexico was passed, and with the view of
procuring it to be passed, the defendants had directed
their agent to employ bribes. If their agent had, in
employing these bribes, acted on Isis own suggestions,
the mere adoption of his acts afterwards would not ren-
der the defendants liable upon this indictment. But
suppose one of them to be guilty of that part of the
charge (and the other parts of the charge ought, in his
opinion, to be dismissed by the jury as wholly unsup-
ported by evidence), then the question arose, hew far
these defendants were all guilty of a conspiracy, even
as to the charge of trying, by any means and at any cost
to themselves or others, to get rid of this contract. To
make them guilty, a common purpose and a common
mode of action, with regard to it must be proved—com-
munication must be shown to have existed between
these parties. Now, what was the proof of concert or
combination ? The letters appeared to have been
written by Lord Ashburton himself, and the only proof
against the other two defendants was, that each
of them had copied some of these letters. That was
the amount of the proof of combination. The jurors
would consider these facts, and say .whether they were
satisfied that there was a conspiracy to do this injury to
the prosecutor, or whether, without any regard to his
interests, the defendants had determined to pursue a
course of their own, and to get rid of the contract in a
way that must be, or that might be, injurious to him. If
the jurors believed this to be the case, then, though no
personal malice was proved, the verdict must he guilty.
If the jurors were not satisfied of this, they must acquit
the defendants.

The jury retired at half-past six o'clock, and in an
hour and twenty minutes, returned with a verdict of Not
Guilty.

TUB ORIENTAL AND PENINSULAR STEAM NAVIGATION

COMPANY V. HERAPATII.

The jurors summoned in this case were sworn, and
Mr. Boy'', stated that this was an action brought by
the Directors of the Oriental Navigation Company, to
recover damages for a series of libels inserted in Hera-
path's Railway Journal. These libels had been at first
justified, but the defendant being now fully aware that
he had been imposed upon by the persons who had fur-
nished him with the information on which these libels
were founded, was desirous of making amends to the
plaintiffs by submitting to a verdict.
Mr. BODKIN said that he appeared on behalf of the
defendant, who bad inserted in his paper statements
which he then and afterwards believed to be truo, but
which, on further inquiry, he discovered to be un-
founded. He was, therefore, willing to express his re-
gret that he had been so imposed on, and had been led
in that manner to publish matters injurious to the
plaintiffs.
A verdict for the plaintiffs, damages 405., was then
taken.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 2.
The Duke of BEAUFORT presented petitions against
any alteration in the corn-laws.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that
he should, on Thursday, put a question to the Govern-
ment on the subject of the removal of Mr. C. O'Brien
from the magistracy of Ireland.
Earl St. VINCENT presented several petitions from
Bristol and other places against the Sugar Duties Bill.
LIBEL BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL postponed this Bill, in conse-
quence of the absence of Lord Denman.
• t
Lord BROUGHAM suggested that the Bill should
be taken ou Thursday.
Lord CAMPBELL said a very important notice was
on the paper respecting the Post-office, which might
occupy a considerable time.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—WeII, I have a Bill on
Friday, but, however, take it before my Marriage Bill
on Friday.—(Laughter.)
The Bill was then postponed till Friday.
THE SUGAR DUTIES BILL.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE rose to move the third
reading of this Bill. He thought it was absolutely ne-
cessary that they should have an abundant supply of
sugar at as cheap a rate as possible, seeing that this
article had now become, not an article of luxury, but of
necessity. It was to accomplish this object that the pre-
sent Bill had been introduced. The Noble Earl then
read several statements to show that, of late years, the
supply of sugar to this country had not been equal to
the demand. He also read a comparative statement of
prices within the last seven years. He then entered into
an explanation of the general alterations which were in-
tended to be effected by the proposed measure, as they
were lately explained in the debates on this Bill in the
other House of Parliament. He contended that the coun-
tries producing sugar by means of slave-labour
ought not to be placed on the same footing
as those countries producing sugar in which slave-labour
was not employed; and in support of this view he re-
ferred to the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, as given be-
fore the Import Duties Committee on this subject. To
admit slave-grown sugar on the same footing as free-
labour sugar would be to offer a bribe for the Continua-
tion of slavery and the slave trade. He thought that the
protection of 10s. per cwt., proposed by this Bill, in
favour of the West India producers, was sufficient, and
he, therefore, confidently recommended it to the adop-
tion of their Lordships.
Lord MONTEAGLE deprecated the course of the
Government in having left this question in a state of
uncertainty. He thought this was unjust both to the
consumer at home and to the producer in the West In-
dian colonies. He objected to this Bill because it would
cause fluctuation in price, as it made the supply to this
country dependent upon the laws of other countries.
He had no hesitation in saying that he should
vote against an equalisation of the duty be-
tween all foreign sugar and West India sugar,
as he believed that an equalisation of the
duty at present would bo an injustice to the West
Indian produce. He ridiculed the system of certificates
of origin, and contended that it would be useless. He
also ridiculed the idea that this Bill would have the
effect of curbing the slavery system, for he helieved that
it would have just a contrary effect. In proportion as
they consumed free-labour sugar in this country would a
vacuum be created in foreign countries, and that vacuum
would have to be filled up with a supply of slave-labour
produce. This Bill would indirectly encourage the
slave trade, and he could, therefore, but de-
signate the Bill as a hypocritical farce. The principle
of this Bill, he contended, was bad, and the measure
would, therefore, produce no beneficial results.
Lord BROUGHAM differed entirely from his Noble
Friend in supposing that this Bill would give encourage-
ment to slavery and the slave trade. He contended that
such a measure as this was only carrying further into
practice the principles upon which slavery and the slave
trade were abolished. Ho did not deprecate the use of
cotton on account of its being the produce of slaves, nor
did he deprecate the use of coffee on the same ground;
but the reason he deprecated the use of sugar, the pro-
duce of slave labour, was that the labour required for
the production of sugar amounted to torment in the
persons performing the labour. This, however, was not
the case with respect to the production of cotton and
coffee. He would always support any measure which
would have the effect of checking the extension of the
horrors of slavery as it existed in Cuba and Brazil, and
he therefore gave this measure his fullest and most
earnest support.
Earl St. VINCENT complained of the West India
planter having been placed in the position of being un-
able to command that labour which his trade and his
wants required. This had placed the West Indies in a
most disadvantageous situation. If they had had a full
supply of labour the necessity for this Bill would never
have existed.