The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-22 00:00:00

einoriiinA A"inst,

LONDON. MONDAY, APRIL 22, 1844.

In the House of Commons on Friday, Mr. Buxom.,
greatly to his credit,- called the Home Secretary's
attention to a recent capital conviction at the Central
Criminal Court, which has excited public sympathy
in no slight degree. " The case," remarked the
Hon. Member for Durham, "struck him as being one
of the most extraordinary that had ever occurred.
It appeared that a poor woman had thrown herself
and baby into the water, being at the time in circum-
stances of the utmost destitution. Apparently
her intention was to commit suicide, and not
leave
her infant alone and unprotected in the
world behind her. Her own life was preserved, but
the child perished. The unhappy creature had been
sentenced to death for her crime, and one of the news-
paper reports stated that the judge gave her no hope
whatever that mercy would be extended to her.
such a statement required comment, and he now
wished to be. satisfied that the Right Hon. Gentle-
ula,tess attention had been called
eGto so distressing a
RoA.. HAM'S answer to
case:"' Now, what was Sir J.
this affecting statement? " In
the Ileum- Secretary, " his attentionpnt
of fact," said ,
had not been

called to the matter until the present moment. In the
very delicate duty which would devolve upon him, the
Hon. Member might rest assured he would do his best to
exercise a sound and dispassionate judgment; but be-
yond this, he could not then say anything, as the
Howe must be aware of the inconvenience attending
such discussions." Anything more cool—we might
almost add, supercilious—than this reply we do not
often remember to have met with, even in the records
of Parliament. It exhibits all that free and easy in-
difference to human life for which SIDMOUTH and
CASTLEREAGH were so remarkable. The whole town
is just now ringing with the case of poor MARY
FURLEY ; the judgment pronounced on her—legal
though it undoubtedly is—is generally declared
to be harsh and unmerited; yet the Home Secre-
tary
knows nothing at all about the matter !
The very Minister, who, from his official position,
should be perfectly cognizant with every case of
moment that transpires in the criminal jurisdiction
of the country, boldly states that his " attention has
not been called" to one of the most heart-rending
trials that have taken place at the Old Bailey for
many a year, " until the present moment !" Does
Sir JAMES GRAHAM never read the newspapers ?
If he is in the habit of doing so, he cannot fail to have
read the whole circumstances of this distressing case,
which have been detailed at length in the columns of
the daily journals, wherein also may be found most
unquestionable proof of the public sympathy for
MARY FURLEY. But we are forgetting ourselves;
Ministers of State make a point of never reading
newspapers —on the same shrewd principle, we
presume, that boys fight shy of a dose of wholesome
physic—they tell us so themselves, and even seem to
take a pride in their ignorance. Does an Opposition
Member put an inconvenient question to Govern-
ment, on the faith of some perfectly just statement
that he has met with in the columns of the daily
press, some Minister or other is sure to get up and
reply, that, for his own part, his time is so
fully occupied that he really has not a moment's
leisure to read newspapers, and consequently
cannot be expected to know anything at all
about the merits of the ugly questions put
to him. But how changed the case, whenever
the press happens luckily to furnish Ministers with
weapons wherewith to assault their opponents—with
apt nicknames wherewith to cast ridicule upon
them ! Then, it is quite beautiful to see how well
read they are in newspapers—with what studious
attention they keep in mind their agree-
able arguments—what a vivid recollection they re-
tain of their apt felicities of sarcasm ! The other day,
for instance, Sir JAMES GRAHAM—Who, of course,
never reads either daily or weekly journals, or other-
wise he would have been fully acquainted with all
the particulars of MARY FURLEY'S case—the other
day, we say, this singularly organised Baronet, being
indignant w ith the Opposition for presuming to differ
with him on the Ten Hours' Factory Bill, coolly told
them that they were encouraging a " JACK CADE "
system of legislation. When called to account for
this insulting expression, what was his reply ? The
sarcasm was not his—" Non meus hic sermo est, sed
qum precepit Ofellus"--he had met with it in a news-
paper ! Yes, it was one of those insignificant,
plebeian journals, which well-bred Ministers of State
never read, that had supplied him with the ma-
terials of his invective ! Finding not a single
shaft left in his own quiver, he had—with a condes-
cension which cannot be too highly appreciated—bor-
rowed one from the well-stocked quiver of the Exa-
miner. But, to return to the far more important
subject with which we set out. Sir JAMES GRAHAM,
it seems, has promised to exercise " a sound and dis
passionate judgment" on the case of MARY FURLEY.
We:most devoutly hope that this judgment will lean to
the side of mercy, for never yet was there a case that
more imperatively demanded the lenient interpreta-
tion of the law.

It is long since we have opened a Parliamentary or
Sessional Paper of more extensive importance and
interest than the " First Report of the Select Com-
mittee" (appointed on 16th February last) " to inquire
into the state of the laws respecting Joint-stock
Companies (except for banking), with a view to the
greater security of the public." This "Blue Book"
(No. 19 of 11. C., 1844) comprises the Report of the
Committee in question ; a detail of their proceedings
de die in diem; minutes of evidence ; an appendix ;
alphabetical heads and analytical digest of the evi-
dence taken, &c. &c. Joint-stock companies are, obvi-
ously, such powerful means for accomplishing signal
good, or producing incalculable evil, in all the varied
fields of enterprise upon which it is proposed to launch
private capital for lucrative investment, that no more
legitimate object could have been propounded for the
investigation of a Committee of the House
of Commons than the mode in which such as-
sociations are concocted, organised, brought out,
financed, conducted, and wound up ! Such seems
to be the skeleton-history of those more epheme-
ral companies, to the cases of which the labo-
rious attention of the Select Committee was
more particularly directed. The details and
particulars, and " filling up," as the artists
call it, are to be found skilfully traced,
and vividly coloured, in the evidence appended to the
Report. Of that Report we can spare room, to-day,
for little more than a very succinct compendium ; but
this will be found to embrace matters, the importance
and interest of which it would not be easy to exagge-
rate. They well deserve the most serious attention
of every reader. The evidence and appendix,
occupying 350 folio pages, will be of course too volu-
minous for any purposes of abstract.
This " Report," after stating that the Committee
had perused the Report prepared by Mr. BELLENDEN
KER on the Law of Partnership (presented to Parlia-
ment in 1837), and on which was founded the existing
Letters Patent Act, 1 Vic., c. 37, adverts to the de-
positions they had taken of " other persons conversant
with joint-stock companies as to their operation and
the improvements that may be made in the
legal and equitable remedies at present available to
them, and their directors and shareholders ;" and to
the evidence they had received, " in connexion with
certain bubble companies, touching a few remark-
able cases of miscarriage or fraud." In order to
confine their inquiries within practicable limits, the
Committee divide bubble companies into three classes;
namely, 1. Those which, being faulty in their nature
(founded on unsound calculations), cannot possibly
succeed : 2. Those which, whether with good objects
or bad, are so ill constituted as to render it probable
that the miscarriages or failures incident t• mis-
management must attend them : 3. Those which are
faulty or fraudulent in their object, being started
only to create shares for the purpose of jobbing in
them, or to create, under pretence of a legitimate
business, the opportunity and means of raising
funds to be shared by the adventurers who start the
company. All the companies of this last kind,
adopt, to the utmost practical extent, all the charac-
teristics of the best companies : an array of directors
and officers—a large capital announced—plausible
statements issued propounding excellent purposes;
intimating that they are sanctioned by Act of Parlia-
ment—publishing their addresses in some conspicuous
places of business respectably situated, and employing
throughout the country respectable agents and bankers.
These pretences, of course, are, many of them ficti-
tious. To remedy the evils of this class of projects
in future, the Committee deem an easy affair—
" Publication of the directors, of the share-
holders, of the deed of settleraent, of amount of capital
and whether subscriad or not subscribed, nominal
orreianl, the
would baffle every such case." The
class of
dealing
companies, No. 2 in the above reca-
pitulation,Committee anticipates more diffi-
cultywith; and the class No. 1, " faulty
in their nature," it deems to be " beyond certain
cure by the Legislature." The general remedy it
proposes, in respect of the other classes, is the regis-
tration of new companies'
prospectuses, circulars,
&c. The bubble companies, which were the imme-
diate occasion of the inquiry, having been con-
cerned in effecting assurances and granting annui-
ties, the Committee's attention was naturally directed
to such associations. Its " summary," includes
1. The cases examined, and the character of their
objects, concoctors, and managers ; 2. The modes of
deception adopted ; 3. The duration of the compa-
nies ; 4. The amount and distribution of the
plunder ; 5. The circumstances of the victims ;
6. The impunity of the offenders. " Exami-
nations by which the character and conduct of
individuals were implicated, and which are therefore
companies excluded from the evidence annexed," relate to ten
viz., seven insurance, annuity, and loan 1

companies, three, mining and general ditto. In 1
eight of these the concern was represented to have
been founded by mere adventurers, on schemes evi-
dently fraudulent.
The history of some of these companies, avid the
processes of fraud by which dishonest managers,
directors, &c., realised large sums, will be perused
with astonishment. We can quote at present only a
passage or two from this portion of the Report. An
insurance office was established by one or two per-
sons, one an uncertificated bankrupt, on terms highly
advantageous to himself as resident manager, and
'shareholder of 100 shares : but which, owing to dis-
putes among the parties, was dissolved after effecting
insurances to a considerable extent. "On behalf of
this company a prospectus was issued, containing
highly respectable names. It appeared from some
legal proceedings that the number of shareholders
was only eleven—who' were all directors." Under
" Direction of Companies " we meet with this anec-
dote :—" Another company existed for four years,
the manager having deluded the directors by flourish-
ing statements of accounts, until some of them be-
came suspicious, and, on examination, found they had
no funds. They were obliged to pay the manager
2,0001. to induce him to remove, there being, in the
deed of settlement, a provision that he was to have
1,0001. a year." And under " The Amount and Dis.
tribution of the Plunder," we have this :—" One of
the least creditable of these concerns obtained, in the
course of two or three years, from about 120,0001.
to 150,0001., and another at least 100,0001. By
another, the shareholders lost about 100,0001.; by
another, 80,0001. were lost in London, and 10,0001.
in Edinburgh. In two cases, where the chief actors
had been bankrupts, no books or accounts were forth-
coming. In another, the clue was, the enrolment of
annuities." Here, for the present, we must close.

Among the essential distinctions that give to the
hostilities of party in England a very different aspect
from that which they assume in the United States,
(and certainly a much better and more decorous one,)
the tone of respect and forbearance adopted towards
the judges in this country, is of the most remarkable.
There can be no doubt that this feeling of deference
for our judges arises in part from the tendencies of
our education. One of the first principles inculcated
in the minds of our youth, is a profound veneration
for the law. One of the first duties of the adult citi-
zen is to protect, with a jealous vigilance, the inde-
pendence and official inviolability of those who are
chosen to expound and administer it. But the reve-
rence with which the judges are habitually regarded,
by all ranks of the British people, arises chiefly (much
to the honour of those functionaries be it said) from
the high feeling, the impartial judgment, the learning,
and the constitutional spirit which they bring to the
practical discharge of their duties, so responsible, so
solemn, as they are. The faet that, against the com-
petition of such a bar as we can boast, they should
have attained to the dignity of the bench, is, in
itself, a certain guarantee for their personal integrity,
their general deportment in private life, and the con-
scientious propriety with which they will fulfil the
duties devolved upon them by the confidence of the
Crown. It happens, therefore, that infirmity of tem-
per is rarely to be objected to our judges. They
have already passed through a long ordeal of pro-
fessional education and business, in which the exi-
gencies of their position have come in aid of obvious
merit and social considerations, so as to have accus-
tomed them to the discipline of that beautiful self.
control which is indispensable on the judgment seat.
True it is, that from time to time we have had
great judges who have manifested little petulances;
but these petulances have been, for the last half cen-
tury, the full extent to which objections to the de.
meanour of our judges in court could fairly be
stated. With the essential purity, the scarce less
essential dignity, of justice, has been maintained.
We have had, certainly, on a recent occasion, to re-
mark upon a very premature development, in a high
law officer—(not a judge, however)—of bellicose
propensities. But this was a mere lulus naturce—or,
in the parlance of our provincial journals, " another
proof of the extraordinary mildness of the season."
One Mr. Attorney• General SMITH no more indicates
the professional morale of functionaries in general
occupying such an office, than a single swallow
establishes the approach of summer. Such excep-
tions only illustrate and corroborate the rule of that
contrary course of things which, as we con-
tend, obtains in our judicial system. In
the United States we fear that these mat-
ters fall out very differently. The judges there,
do not seem to be more remarkable, as a body, for
the exalted professional qualifications we have touched
upon, than individuals among them are for exem-
plary morality, decorum, or propriety in private.
What more common than to read—and especially of
late—in American papers, of sanguinary duels, the re-
sult of disgraceful brawls and miserable squabbles, be-
tween "honourable" judges, or some such func-
tionaries? The scales of justice appear to be thrown
down very unceremoniously when there is some
private feud to be revenged by those who hold
them. The sword of the law is abandoned, without
even a decent show of regret or compunction, for the
rifle or the bowie-knife. Scandals like these sound
as impossible absurdities in an English ear. Never-
theless, they are but too frequent in America, and
are, we fancy, as much the result of education there,
as with us are the worthier notions and associations
that we attach to the judicial office, character, and
bearing.
But we are compelled to own that a recent case,
in which a native born American citizen was capi-
tally indicted in one of the Courts of South Carolina,
tried, convicted, and condemned, for the offence of
aiding the escape of a female negro slave from her
" owner," has elicited a written statement from a
judge of appeal (!)—a judge of the free United
States,—the vaunted home, the so-called " cradle,"
the professed refuge of Liberty (! !), which is twenty
times more disgraceful to the writer, the judicature
to which he belongs, and to the Government under
which it is established, than twenty such atrocities
even, as those we incidentally noticed in The Sun fl
the 9th of March (the caning of a Judge TURVILLE,
of Nashville, and the murder of Judge lIORSTORD, at
Texas), and the 16th instant (the murder of the Hon.
BENJAMIN MAJOR, a Senator and Judge of Missouri).
We need go no further back, as we could multiply
these melancholy examples. On this last case of Jowl
BaowN, of Fairfield district, sentenced to be hanged
for the offence we have described, under an old Caro-
' lina statute of 1754, a public meeting, it seems, had

been called at Pittsbargh ; and certain resolutions
were agreed to, such as a body of freemen, nobly
alive to the natural rights of their fellow-creatures,
might be supposed to come to. These resolutions
were forwarded to the functionary, whose coarse and
brutal mode of expressing himself at the trial will be
fresh in the recollection of many of our readers—a
certain Judge O'NEALL.
" Stung," says the editor of the Pittsburgh Emanci-
pator, "by the severity of the remarks made, the
judge sent for publication a letter, of which the fol-
lowing is the principal portion :

"John L. Brown is a native of Fairfield district ; he
was tried and convicted, on very clear proof, of aiding a
negro woman to run away and depart from her em-
ployer's service. The proof created a strong belief that
the woman had been his kept mistress for some time."

As to the righteous instinct of attempting to escape
from a condition of bondage—accursed both of GOD
and man, indefensible on principle, demoralising and
degrading in its influence on any society in which it is
permitted—we disdain to utter a word in the nature
of a plea vindicatory. But the disgusting cant and
hypocrisy of this judge (himself, if we mistake not, a
slave-owner) in reference to the humiliating, but
enforced viciousness of all slave connexions, and
writing in the polluted atmosphere of South Carolina,
affecting to introduce this topic of aggravation against
the prisoner, is an ingredient of additional disgust, in
the paper he has thus ventured to put upon record.
He proceeds to quote the Act of May, 1754, under
which BROWN had been convicted. It is a charac-
teristic document, and makes us blush for the blunted
perceptions and one-sided morality of our fathers to
have tolerated (as the English Legislature must have
done) a colonial statute in which the most odious
pretensions of slave property are stated and vindi-
cated in this barefaced and shameless manner :
" Whereas, by the laws of this province, negroes and
other slaves are deemed to be chattels personal, and
Noiwilneerreaassnoanpyunoisthhemrengtocoadns
baendinfichica
tt
etedls
are, in every respect, as much the property of their
persons inveigling, stealing, or
bayr e
the Ands
now now in force upon
carrying away any such slaves from their lawful