The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-30 00:00:00

CRIMINAL LNPORMATION.--THE QUEEN V. HAMPDEN.

In this case a rule nisi had been obtained for a criminal
information against the defendant, under the following cir-
cumstances. Mr. Eyton, the applicant, and defendant, were
both gentlemen of fortune, residing in Warwickshire, and
had at one time been intimately acquainted. At
length the attentions of Mr. Hampden to Mrs. Eyton be-
came very marked, and that lady complained to her husband
of Mr. Hampden's conduct, and Mr. Eyton remonstrated
with him, but Mr. Hampden continued to annoy the lady,
and the consequence was a fracas between the parties, and
the application by Mr. Hampden of the terms liar and
coward to Mr. Eyton. Some time since a portrait painter at
Leamington had taken Mr. Eyton's portrait, and had, with
Mr. Eton's permission, exhibited it at the News'-rooms, as
a specimen of his talents. Shortly afterwards Mr. Reeves,
the keeper of the rooms, received an anonymous letter,
stating that he was likely to do an injury to his busines by
publicly exhibiting in his rooms the portrait of a man who
had suffered himself publicly to be called a liar and coward.
Mr. Eyton then applied for a criminal information against
defendant, alleging in his affidavit that he believed defendant
was the writer of the letter. Several other persons who had
seen it declared their belief that it was defendant's writing.
Mr. THESIGER this morning showed cause against the rule,
and read the affidavit of the defendant, distinctly denying
that he was the writer of the letter.

105
k
86
820
126
150

Lord DENmA-N—Where the question is one of simple fact,
and that fact is distinctly denied, the Court, I believe, never
interferes by criminal information. It is a matter to go to a
grand jury.
_ _ _

Mr. KELLY, in suppport of the rule, argued that notwith-
standing a denial of a fact by the party accused, yet the
Court could interfere if the case were one in which there was
strong probability that the charge was true.
Lord DEN3IA-11 said that in such a case the Court might
possibly interfere, but in the present case the matter was of
too little importance for the time of the Court to be wasted
by going into a minute inquiry on the subject. The rule must
be discharged, but without costs.

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CLARKE.

Mr. JERVIS (with whom was Mr. Erie and Mr. Wylde)
moved for a rule to call upon the Attorney-General to show
cause why the verdict found for the Crown should not be set
aside and entered for the defendant.

10134

21
3
17
3
24
2034

It appeared that the defendant entered for exportation a
large quantity of foreign wines at less than their real value,
which subjected the wines to forfeiture to the Crown, and
they were accordingly removed to the Queen's warehouse,
where they no 7 are.

.
Mr. WARREN showed cause against the informality of
seizure on the ground on which the verdict was sought to be
set aside. The arguments on both sides were of a technical
character, and occupied the attention of the Court the whole
of the morning.—Judgment deferred.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

GLOBE.—Our Contemporaries, without respect
to mere party politics, have united in paying the
highest praise to Mr. Sheil's speech. This offering
at the shrine of talent is creditable to their taste; and
will go far to excuse those of them who endeavour to
weaken the effect of that splendid effort upon the case
for the prosecution. That those who have prejudged
the case—who have laboured for a conviction, and have
therefore defended the means by which the Attorney--
General has endeavoured to secure it—that these jour-
nals should feel general chagrin when they discover
the weakness of the case, as made out by the Crown
lawyers, and the effective dispersion of that air-built
pile by the powerful speech of Mr. Sheil, is not to be
wondered at. Admit the relevancy of the topics which
constituted the material of Mr. Sheil's argument, and.,
for any purpose for which the prosecution was insti-
tuted, the case might as well be withdrawn from the
consideration of the jury. The " monster indictment"
has become so much waste parchment—utterly worth-
less, except as a memorial of the legal ingenuity and
labour employed in its fabrication. Hence the
efforts of the Tory journals to neutralise the ef-
fect of Mr. Shell's oration. It was " effective,"
" brilliant "—" the most able effort of an able man "
—" the best speech of the Grattan school of eloquence
ever delivered by any disciple of' that school, or by its
founder ;" a similar opinion being expressed without
any important variation of phraseology. by them all.
But then the speech which they thus agree to praise,
was so much eloquence wasted ; for, say they, "it
failed to touch the defendants' case ;" and, therefore,
though commanding admiration by its extraordinary
merits as an oration, has not succeeded in influencing
the judgment of the third party—the jury and the
public. What, then, is the defendants' case ? This
question must be determined before the inquiry as to
the effect of Mr. Shell's speech on that case can be
answered. The indictment charges " conspiracy"—a
combination to effect an illegal purpose,; or to effect a
legal purpose by unlawful means. Mr. Sheil opposed to
this, the most formidable count in the monster indict-
ment, the fact—admitted by the witnesses for the
Crown—that every meeting of the alleged conspira-
tors was open to every person without distinction,
who, by the payment of a shilling for enrolment as a
member of the Association, desired to know what
they said and what they did. Even this small fee
was not demanded from the reporters for the public
press, nor from the short-hand writer who announced
himself an agent of the Government. The Repeal
Association published its documents to the world.
The correspondence was read openly; and was pub-
lished in the papers of the day, as part and parcel of the
proceedings of its meetings. Such a conspiracy was
never before heard of. Not a day passed but the news-
papers told all that could be known respecting it. The
Attorney-General himself has admitted this. His
speech was little more than a repetition of what every
one knew from a perusal of any newspaper. This
rehearsal was, it is true, seasoned with a somewhat
alarming assurance to the jury, of "as wicked a
conspiracy as ever yet was entered into against the
peace of any country ;" but it was a mere momentary
flight of imagination ; it excited inordinate expecta-
tions of some astounding revelation, which was
doomed to disappointment.
STANDARD.—It is important that the public
should be put in possession of the marks proper to
distinguish those who ruin causes and parties, by
supporting the right on wrong grounds, and by
"making bad worse," when they happen to be on
the wrong side ; and our time happily furnishes
an example in which we can trace all those marks
without the least chance of error, and with a
certainty that in pointing them out we can-
not possibly offer offence or wrong to political
integrity. The example in question is the for-
merly renowned Sir Thomas Buckler Lethbridge,
who has once more emerged from his natural ob-
scurity to instruct the people of England. Thirty-
four years ago Toryism, though otherwise the true
patriotic faith, was, truly or falsely, said to be a
little tyrannical ; certainly, it was not favourably
disposed to popular rights, and then the future
Radical was of course the most violent of Tories.
He it was who moved the committal to the
'rower of the late lamented Sir Francis Bur-
dett for a letter, little differing from the pre-
amble to the Reform Bill, afterwards supported
with zeal and even fury by the imprisoner of
the honest and able, though somewhat extravagant,
Member for Westminster A few years later the
Irish Romanists pressed their demands. These de-
mands were resisted upon the two-fold ground—that
Romanism was false in doctrine, and that its political
organisation must render it both dangerous too the
peace of a country governed by free institutions, and
obstructive of improvement and civilisation. Sir
Thomas, of course, chose the weaker groud, or
perphaps took a weaker than the weakest ground
taken by others, and opposed what was called Ca-
tholic Emancipation, as an extension of civil liberty.
This was not less absurd than the argument of his
friend, the late Mr. John Fuller, of Sussex, who
denounced Romanists as unworthy of civil rights,
because the majority wore red waistcoats and blue
breeches, and frequently stockings that did not
cover the foot. While the opposition to Romanism
contained any such dash of absurdity, Sir
Thomas Lethbridge was the most zealous among
the opponents—but when the dangerous character
of Romanism had fully developed itself, when the mis-
chief had grown to some formidable strength under
the lethargic administration of Lord Liverpool, and
when, consequently, the Opposition became rational
and serious—as offered to a tangible evil, menacing
our peace and union and freedom—then Sir Thomas
suddenly changed sides, and became as violently
pro-Romanist as ever he had been earnestly ultra-
Protestant. The Protean politician, however, did

64
(sii
5%
400

'IL lOL

194
46
1 659
184

164
15%
40s.
20s.

4%
170
205

12%
Ibo

44;i
40
130

16X
13
Nk
25

25
205
81
5$
00

461 l
5
245
29%
42
7754
I'7

4114
55
23
32%
265

144
6534

2q
3
6%
6

not close his metamorphosis with this change ; for
we next find the old violent ultra-Tory the most
Radical among the Radical supporters of the Reform
Bill. The history sketched above is not a very re-
spectable one, but Sir Thomas has challenged it in
corning forward with the weight of his high char-
acter for consistency, honesty, and wisdom to exhort
the farmers of England to fall back upon the fixed
duty scheme of the administration cashiered in 1841.
There is something extremely characteristic of
all the doings of this person, in the time which
he has chosen for his last demand upon public
attention. The League has been at work for two
or three years, demanding a total abolition of the
corn-laws ; but the voice of Sir Thomas was never
heard to resist that scheme which he now pre-
tends to treat as so wicked and unjust.
For anything that Sir Thomas cared—for any-
thing that Sir Thomas said—the corn-laws
might have been repealed at any time in 1842 and
1843. But 1844 presents a different aspect of
must think inkfeex exe
affairs. The farmers are awakened, by what we
agogferathteed,offbeuett wohfatthwee
plvTiiite
eo
to be
f