The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-17 00:00:00

-41Ctirb

SUZY-OFFICE, Seven o' Cloch.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

73,031 THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—If the Anti-Corn-law Leaguers are not
always tolerant of those who do not go all lengths with
them, the Corn-law Leaguers are lustily following their
example, at the expense of the Ministry. In fact the
Government will have two cereal combinations on its
back, instead of one. Out of the alligator jaws (de-
picted by H. B.) of the Anti-Corn-law League, the
luckless Sir Robert sinks in the boa-constrictor gripe of
the landed protectionists. The chairman of the Suffolk
Leaguers thus denounces the policy of the present Go-
vernment, as having betrayed the constituency to whom
it owed its effective majority
" They were well aware that at the last general election the
majority expected by the friends of the present Government
was 20, or thereabouts. By the exertions of the yeomanry and
of the agricultural interests generally, a majority of 100 was
secured.—(Hear.) Yet what was the result ? In the very
first session after the present Government were placed in
power *it. Robert Peel brought in his Corn Bill, which les-
sened the protection given to the agricultural interests.—
(Loud cries of Hear. )"
One of the spokesmen of the Surrey Leaguers cha-
racterises, as follows, the wisdom of the country gen-
tlemen, and charges the Minister of their choice with a
highly flattering aptness to being frightened
When they saw an unconstitutional body coming
forward, and exercising such a powerful influence
against them, as was exercised by the ' Cotton Lords,'
as they were termed, it would hardly be supposed that
the lords of the soil, who, although they might be pos-
sessed of vast quantities of land, still had very little wisdom,
would have come forward to assist that body in their attacks
upon the agricultural interest. Such, however, was the case;
persons in high station, wh3 ought to have supported them,
bad, for political purposes, turned their backs upon them, and
gave their support to those who desired to destroy them.—
(Hear.) This being so, it was high time for them to come
forward themselves in support of that interest, which
was not only attacked by the Anti-Corn-law League,
but also by those who ought have been amongst its
thief supporters—(Cheers)—but who, on the contrary, had of
late thought fit to second the endeavours of its most determined
opronenta.—(Hear, hear.) He did not wish to enter into a
political discussion, but he must say that the agriculturists, by
their apathy, had allowed the Government to make concessions,
which, if they had exerted themselves, he was quite sure would
never have been made ; and he called upon them now to resist
the endeavours of the Anti-Corn-law League to frighten their
friends into further concessions:"
But perhaps the most unkindest cut of all was that of
Lord Henniker at the Suffolk meeting:—
" The arguments used by the anti-corn-law advocates to
prove that the free importation of foreign corn would produce
no disarrangement in the agriculture of England, reminded
him of an anecdote. It was once asserted by some very grave
philosophers, that if an eel were put into a vessel filled with
water to the brim, the vessel would not overflow, as none of the
water would be displaced. Well, a tub was brought, and it was
filled in the presence of the philosophers. A country gentle-
man, one of the stupid country gentlemen, as they were called,
however, told them to take care lest the eel should splash them.
—(Laughter.) He was disbelieved ; the eel was put in and
it was soon found that it splashed the water about in all direc-
tions. Now be warned the agriculturists that, if free trade were
adopted, they would get splashed in like manner."
This variation of the old story of Charles the Second
and the Royal Society is most maliciously calculated to
illustrate the result of putting in Peel. We beg, how-
ever, to make one slight variation more ; and the parallel
will be complete. In the modern Eel or Peel instance,
it was not the " grave philosophers " who asserted that,
if the Eel, or Peel, were put in, the vessel would not
overflow—" no disarrangement would be produced in the
agriculture of England." The grave philosophers
predicted precisely the contrary. We ourselves,
who have sometimes ironically been said to cul-
tivate the philosophical, emphatically warned " the
stupid country gentlemen," that the Eel, or Peel,
would " splash them." It was those same " stupid
country gentlemen," whom Lord Henniker drags in,
head and shoulders, that were bent on trying the an-
philosophical experiment of a Peel Government.
Accordingly the Eel, or Peel, was put in, and " the
water was splashed about in all directions." It was
impossible to furnish a happier illustration of the
slippery champion chosen by the country gentlemen ;
or one which came more infelicitously, or more in-
sidiously, from the lips of a senator, who took some
pains to declare that he wished to support Government
to the utmost of his power. The landed, as well as the
manufacturing League seem to repose their hopes in
Sir Robert Peel's squeezableness. Between them he
will most assuredly have the peine et forte dure to un-
dergo. "It was desirable, said a speaker at the Suffolk
meeting, " that Sir Robert Peel should know, and that
it should go forth through the land, that the yeomanry
were ready to support the laws and the institutions of
the State, and that they were not content to allow
themselves and their children to be injured to enrich
Mr. Cobden." We never heard that Mr. Cobden had
devised any artificial legislation to injure anybody ; or
any series of measures with regard to a great article of
commerce, each successive one of which has produced
disappointment to every interest consulted, or not con-
sulted. But what we are most edified by in these
Landed League proceedings is the sudden adoption
of the " unconstitutional" modes of action of the Anti-
Corn-law League. Lord Rendlesham said at the Suf-
folk meeting, They were not to rest satisfied with
petitions only. They should come forward with sub-
scriptions, and if the League raised 100,0001. they ought
to raise 200,0001.—(Vehement cheers)—and thus con-
vince the world that though the League be ' a great
fact,' the agricultural interest was still a greater fact."
At the same meeting Mr. Gross said, that as tenant
farmers, they would tell their enemies that they were
ready for the fight. They would stand in the breach,
and nail their colours to the mast.—(Hear, hear.) How
was it possible for the farmers of Suffolk to compete with
the farmers of Poland ? There is a beautiful mixture of
metaphor and interrogation here. To " stand in the
breach," and " nail their colours to the mast," are each
gallant operations ; though they are not commonly con-
sidered capable of being performed at the same time and
place. However, as Sir R. Peel's Constrictionists mean to
raise 200,0001. for the League's 100,0001., it is possible that
they can do two things at once, in all manner of ways. It ap-
pears, however, that, though they can stand in a breach, and
nail colours to a mast, each of which are deeds of des-
perate daring—one of which seems enough at a time—
there is another thing which they can not do ; or, at
least, Mr. Gross pathetically asks, How can they ?
" How was it possible for the farmers of Suffolk to
compete with the farmers of Poland ?" Why per-
haps not, while they are standing in breaches, and
nailing their colours to the mast. Suppose they
tried a less showy process—viz., putting their shoulders
to the wheel ! A correspondent of last evening's
Standard actually founds a plea for protection on the
fact that the farmers won't put their shoulders to the
wheel, and adopt even tried improvements ! Others
might derive from his observations, which we subjoin,
and which seem those of a practical farmer, the strongest
possible argument for stimulating improvement by com-
petition. But " how are they to compete ?"—they can
" stand in the breach," and " nail colours to the mast"—
but " compete" they cannot. " She didn't mind death,
but she couldn't bear pinching."
STANDARD.—One of the most common complaints
of the Anti-English party in Ireland is, that Parliament,
in legislating for the empire, does not study the
character nor endeavour to suit " the genius" of
the Irish people. What this much-talked-of genius
happens to be, it is very difficult to discover, as it
has remained hitherto unsuited by every attempt of Par-
liaments, native or Saxon, but most of all by the com-
mon law of England, as far as respects trial by jury.
The proceedings which took place on Monday in Dub-
lin, at the commencement of the trial of Daniel
O'Connell and his fellow-agitators, present still
further proof of this fact, if after the previous trans-
actions in the case, such proof were at all required.
When every pretext for delay which the notorious in-
genuity of Mr. Pierce Mahony could devise, or the plen-
tiful affidavits of the traversers partisans support, had been
exhausted, Mr. O'Connell and his friends were at length
brought to bay by the A ttorney-General upon Monday
morning. To imagine, however, that the calling over of
the jury would have gone off in decent gravity, and the
Attorney-General have been allowed to open the case
for the Crown, according to the practice of the matter-
of-fact and un-mercurial Saxons, had been to do the
agents for the traversers, the greatest inustice. On the
contrary, no sooner had the counsel taken their places
than Mr. Ford's grievance-discriminating eye marked a
piece of negligence on the part of the under sheriffs' lowest
official, and with becoming solemnity " moved the
Court" to place the chair for the witnesses a little
to one side • a motion which, to do the audience justice,
they received with laughter, and which was granted by
the Court without the customary dissent of Mr. Justice
Perrin. This important matter being disposed of, Mr.
Ford proceeded to give an unmistakeable proof
of the sincerity of his desire, and that of the
party which he represents, to have a jury without
any political bias whatever, and of the value
which they attach to the oath of jurors, that they
will be guided by evidence alone. A Mr. Benjamin
Eaton, one of the special jury panel, sharing, it seems,
in the general and not unreasonable desire of avoiding
a service of many days upon the trials, claimed exemp-
tion upon the ground of ill-health, to which Mr. Ford,
with much candour, replied that it was quite impos-
sible for the traversers "to lose the chance " afforded
them by Mr. Eaton's being upon the jury. This plain
and candid reference to hopes grounded upon the,
chance of the political feelings of a juror was made,
the reader will remark, by
party. which has been vanthe representative of a
pouri g about the integrity
of trial by jury, as though the entire weight of
saving the Constitution had devolved upon them.
Amongst Irish patriots, however,there
to be found in acts a wholesome commentary upon
professions. The historical indignation of Mr. Wyse, the
• well-worn rhetoric of Mr. Sheil, the poetical fervour of
Mr. Thomas Steele, and even the familiar-faced jokes
and periods of Mr. O'Connell himself, are less va-
luable as a test of sincerity than the eager refusal
of Mr. Ford to lose the chance" of raid •
-
Mr. Eaton. Such incidents as these seem ex-
tremely odd to those who are accustomed to believe
that the spirit of the English law is right in
supposing jurors to decide by the evidence that is laid
before them, and by that alone. We are net yet so
enlightened as to use the popular language of oar
Irish neighbours, who talk of "carrying agitation
into the Queen's Bench." And certainly, even
•
with their example before us, and with all the
knowledge of legal politics which they have been
of late imparting to us, carrying agitation into
the jury-room is still a novelty on this side the
Channel. The calling of the jury being got over, the
traversers made one further attempt to gain time by chal-
lenging the array on the ground of the omissions in the
list, the consideration of which had occupied the Court on
the previous Friday. By the application one further'
day was gained, but no further advantage, 44 the Court

-----
BOMBAY TRADE WITH CHINA.
A private letter from Bombay has the following :
" Since the settlement of the tariff by Sir Henry Pot-
tinger, the trade with China is improving. Who would
have anticipated, a few months back, the calm and
good feeling that now prevails between the Chinese and
English ! I doubt, however, if we shall be able to get
tea, sugar candy, &c., any cheaper by the arrangement
that has been entered into; these articles are at pre-
sent much dearer than they were before the war: I
allude to Bombay. How the good folks in England
manage to dispose of tea at the prices published
in the newspapers, is an enigma to me. We
have at this time three American vessels in the
harbour, bound to China, to convey and form
the escort of the American Envoy to his Celestial
Majesty, in order to negotiate for a free trade with the
United States ; but I am told that the treaty entered
into by Sir Henry Pottinger comprehends " all European
Powers," placing them on an equal footing as regards
trade. Such being the case, it was whispered to the worthy
Ambassador, that the High Commissioner would not,
probably, condescend to receive him, which seemed
to raise his choler. The opium trade is as flourishing
as ever ; the prices given for the drug are enormous ;
ships leave this for our new settlement, Hong-Kong,
laden with nothing else ; it is, therefore very clear
that our Government wink at, if not countenance, the
trade. Sir Henry Pottinger has, indeed, declared that if
any opium should be seized on the coast by the Chinese,
he will not interfere, nor will her Majesty's Government
be answerable for the value of any opium so seized—thus
leaving it entirely to the parties to traffic to any extent
they please."

IRELAND.

THE STATE TRIALS.

(BY EXPRESS.)

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTERS.)
DUBLIN, TUESDAY, JAN. 16.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE QUEEN V. DANIEL O'CONNELL AND OTHERS.
The proceedings of yesterday did not advance the
the case at all ; it was a repetition of the preliminary
skirmishing that has already given such active occu-
pation to the Crown lawyers. It was, however, fully ex-
pected that to-day the case would be fairly commenced
by the swearing in of the jury, and the immediate
opening address of the Attorney-General. The
Court assembled at 10 o'clock, and there was a very
full attendance within the building ; but outside
the Four Courts there was much less of bustle and
excitement than on the previous day. The arrange-
ments were precisely the same, and proved equally
efficacious in securing order.
Their Lordships having taken their seats the tra-
versers were called in the usual manner. Mr.
O'Connell answered to his name, but Mr. Barrett and
Mr. Duffy were absent.
The names of the jury were then called over to
take their appearances ; they all answered with the
the exception of Mr. Stephen Parker. Captain Edw.
Roper applied for an exemption' on the ground of
age, being 72 ; and Mr. Benjamin Eaton on the score
of ill health. Both the applicants were told by the
Chief Justice to wait.
On the names of Mr. Barrett and Mr. Duffy being
again called,
Mr. Gartland, solicitor, said that Mr. Duffey had
been obliged to quit the Court on the preceding
evening, from severe ill-ness, and applied for an in-
dulgence of a few minutes for his appearance.
Mr. CANTWELL (for Mr. Barrett) said that this
gentleman could not appear for a short time, and
asked if the case might not proceed in his absence, he
(Mr. Cantwell) appearing as his attorney ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it Was requisite in
a case of this kind that everything should be con-
ducted with the utmost regularity and order. If
a traverser were absent for ten minutes on
the first day of the trial he might be
absent on another day for a longer period.
It might be very inconvenient to individuals, but
without the consent of the Crown, a traverser could
not appear in this case by attorney. If he appeared
by attorney in an early period of the proceedings,
there might be some difficulty at a later stage in iden-
tifying them. It had been decided in England that
unless the consent of the Crown was given, parties in
a case of this kind could not appear by attorney.
Mr. O'CorniELL said he did not think that the tra-
versers could be considered as included in those de-
scribed in the indictment as persons unknown.—
(Laughter.)
The Court waited a few minutes, when
The CHIEF JUSTICE said it was now twenty mi-
nutes beyond the hour to which the Court adjourned.
Mr. CANTWELL said Mr. Barrett resided four or
five miles from town, and, probably, might have been
delayed by some accident.
The Cam JUSTICE said the indulgence as to time
was one not in the power of the Court to grant.
Mr. Cantwell then asked for only five minutes
longer, which the Court granted.
During the interval Mr. Henn, the counsel for
Mr. Barrett, entered the Court, and made the same
offer on behalf of his client, that had been previously
made by Mr. Cantwell—namely, that the case should
proceed in his absence. In a case of misdemeanour
there could be no objection to this.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said the Attorney-General
had already signified that he could not allow this to
be dome, on the ground of the difficulty there might
be in identifying the traversers. It was the Attorney-
General who had to be satisfied on the point, not the
Court.

The Attorney-General said had the application to
appear by Attorney been previously made, he should
have been prepared to show that the traversers had
no right to appear by attorney. All the parties
named in the indictment were bound under recog-
nizances to appear in person, and during the present
trial he should be under the necessity of insisting on
their personal appearance every day.
Mr. O'Connell said, that would subject, them to a
series of accidents that might detain them two hours
every day.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said that was not likely to

happen.
The name of Mr. Barrett was again called, and he
had not arrived.
The Clerk of the Court then ordered Timothy
O'Brien, Esq. and James Rooney, Esq. (Mr. Bar-
rett's bail) to be called, and required " to produce the
body of Richard Barrett."
Precisely at this moment Mr. Barrett entered the
court, and his exceedingly opportune arrival excited
great laughter.
Mr. Barret apologised for his absence, stating that
it arose from his residing at some distance from town.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said that was no reason at all
of his not attending the hours of the Court. If such a
thing occurred again the Court would be compelled
to enforce the recognizances.
The COURT then proceeded to swear the jury. The
first sworn was Mr. James Hamilton.
Captain Edward Roper was called, and then again
claimed his exemption on the ground of age, and
handed in an affidavit setting forth his age.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—Pass him over for the present.
Mr. Henn objected to the withdrawal of the name
Qf Mr. Roper. The plea of age should have been
made in the Recorders' Court ; he submitted that it
could not be entertained here.
The affidavit was handed across the table, and Mr.
O'Connell having read it, said that it was only a de-
claration of age, not an affidavit of any incapacity.
Mr. Roper said it was six years since he had served
on any jury, and he thought he was exempt from
age

The CHEF Jurricz said he would have been so
had he taken the proper steps in October last.
Mr. Macdonough objected to the exemption, and
grounded his argument against it on the judgment
delivered by Mr. Justice Crampton on the previous
evening. That decision asserted, in the strongest and
most emphatic manner, the finality of the
Recorder's list. One of the qualifications
for being placed on that list, was being a certain age ;
the Recorder had adjudged on that qualification, and
the Court had itself asserted,. in emphatic language,
that such adjudication could not be reversed by any