The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-26 00:00:00

GLOBE.—The case on the part of the Crown is evi-
dently approaching its termination. The witnesses
examined on Tuesday might as well have been at home,
'forany thing they contributed toward strengthening the
proof of any one of the allegations of the indictment. As
it now stands, the case exhibits the sheer folly which
originated the proceedings, and the cruel imposition
practised on the Government by those to whom was
assigned the duty of inquiring into the sayings and
doings at the monster meetings, and of reporting to the
authorities the result of their investigations. The
affair has ceased to excite any extraordinary interest
beyond the precincts- of the Court. Even there, the
feeling which prevails is nearer akin to the ridiculous
than the respectful.. The ennui produced by the
humdrum character of the questions by the Counsel
for the Crown, is relieved by the cross-examination of
the learned gentlemen engaged fur the defence. The
police-constables who were examined on Tues-
day furnished rare fun for the audience. The men
evidently considered themselves as raised in the scale of
importance by their elevation to the table of the Court
on such an occasion, and indulged in vulgar jests and
equivoques in replying to the questions put to them by
the counsel for the traversers. They were humoured
until they had lost their self-command. Their cruel
questioners then so confused them respecting " dates,"
" notes," " reports," and " statements," to which they
had alluded in their examinations in chief, as to involve
them in contradictions and cover them with confusion.
The effect upon the audience was too powerful to
be suppressed. The Court rang repeatedly with peals
of laughter. The counsel for the Crown interposed
frequently to protest against the " indecency " of such
interruptions. Their gravity only heightened the effect
by contrast ; and, as one of the traversers' counsel
remarked, on being requested by the Solicitor-General
to pause in his cross-examination until the laughter
had subsided, " Sure, then, I must wait all day." The
Court (as the Post observes) "was for some time con-
verted into quite a temple of Momus." All but the
Counsel for the Crown—who evidently feel that the
laugh is against them—seem to enjoy the scene as
one got up for their special amusement. We should
not be surprised to learn by the next post that
the Attorney-General has cut short the case for
the prosecution. He must ere this have felt the utter
inutility of attempting to bolster up his monster in-
dictment by such pigmy proof of its allegations as that
with which he has alike mocked the jury and the
country. The counsel for the defence will have little
difficulty in divesting the case of the trilling importance
which is left to it. The solemnity of the early pro-
ceedings—the monster indictment, which when unrolled,
measures nearly a hundred yards—the awful-looking
briefs which fill the bags of the counsel for the
Crown—the twelve hours' opening speech of the
Attorney-General, in which he pledged himself to
prove against the accused parties the existence of a con-
spiracy more fearful than had ever perilled the safety
of the country in any former times !—is there any one
who suffered himself to be imposed on by this assump-
tion of pomp and circumstance, who does not now feel
that the case for the prosecution is a miserable failure,
and that it is now of comparatively little moment of
whom the jury is composed—at least so far as the result
of the inquiry is concerned ? No twelve men, not
positively incapacitated, mentally or morally, for the duties
of jurymen, can arrive at any other conclusion than that the
evidence for the prosecution has not sustained the indict-
ment. We will not conceal the gratification we derive from
the destitution of all proof, so far as the evidence has
yet gone, of the conspiracy, and other high crimes and
misdemeanours with which the indictment charges the
defendants. That gratification does not flow from the
fact that the acquittal of O'Connell and his co-defend-
ants would be a triumph over Ministers, and hasten
their downfal. It has its origin in a higher class of feel-
ings. We rejoice that the efforts employed to impress
the people of this country with an apprehension that
"privy conspiracy and rebellion" were corrupting from
their allegiance the people of Ireland, and that it was
therefore essential to the crushing of the one and the
suppressing of the other, to occupy the country with
30,000 troops, and to surround her shores with ships,
hovering in sight, to lend their aid in putting down
the rebellion when it should burst forth—we say, we
rejoice (and who will not participate in the joy ?) that
not a solitary instance of any such disloyalty has been
adduced throughout the pending investigation. Every
witness produced by the Crown has completely nega-
tived the charge of conspiracy by establishing the fact,
that so far from concealing, the Repeal Association ac-
tually threw open their whole system of action to the
observation of all, without reference to politics or creed.
The meetings—large though they wore, beyond all prece-
dent—were emphatically peaceable. On the ground, the
utmost good humour prevailed; the police constables in full
uniform passed from one part to another, perfectly unmo-
lested by the people ; and when the proceedings termi-
nated, the crowds dispersed without doing the slightest
injury to the person or property of any one. That there
was much nonsensical bombast uttered at the meet-
ings by the speakers, there can be no doubt. The
harangues were of the description best described by
the appellation of Irish eloquence. They contained
many passages the taste of which we cannot ap-
prove, and the sentiments of which we decidedly con-
demn. They vanished into air ; and would have been
utterly forgotten by this time, had they not been re-
vived in the recollections of the people by the in-
stitution of the ill-advised prosecutions. We believe
the Irish people to be as well-affected to the Throne
as any portion of the English. Had the present Go-
vernment, when it entered upon office, adopted a
just and generous system of policy in Ireland,
the prejudice with which the bulk of the people re-
garded its return to power, would have subsided,
and the country would have been as peaceable under
its rule as it was under that of the Whigs. An-
other and an opposite system has been adopted ; the
effects of which are seen in the existing state of the
people. Sir Robert Peel has been, we believe, goaded
on to the adoption of coercion and intimidation. Those
who have been impatient for the possession of those
exclusive advantages, which they could not hope to ob-
tain, except by producing discontents which would seem
to justify a prejudice against their Catholic fellow-
citizens, have prevailed over his better judgment. Ilis
compliance has already cost him much, and will, ere
long, cost him more, trouble.
STANDARD.—The first witness examined on the
Irish trials on Tuesday morning was John Maguire, a
head constable of police, who detailed some of the oc-
currences at the Longford meeting. He proved that
the peasantry entered the town in military array, pre-
ceded by bands and bearing banners. This witness
was cross-examined by Mr. Whiteside amidst " much
laughter," excited apparently by exceedingly little
wit, bet there was nothing elicited to damage
his testimony. John Jolly, also a head constable,
gave a very graphic account of the monster meeting
at Mallow. He repeated portions of the speech of
Mr. O'Connell upon that occasion, in one of which
that gentleman informed the meeting that " when
the Union was repealed all labourers would be
farmers, all farmers gentlemen, and all gentlemen
Members of Parliament and Lords ;" adding, that
when he asked the crowd to hold up their hands,
in testimony that they would be ready to meet
him at a future time, " a wood of hands were
held up." In his cross-examination, the Learned Counsel
attempted to turn the evidence of the witness into ridi-
cule, but had the misfortune, not uncommon at the bar,
to get the tables turned upon him. The incidents and
speeches at the meeting at Baltinglass were described
by Henry Godfrey, a police-constable. The witness
read from a note-book some of the remarks made by
persons in the crowd ; one of which was, " That is a
shout that will frighten Protestants as well as pigeons ;
and another, " This is a day that will frighten
Saunders"—meaning the lord of the soil. At this period
of the examination,• a question having been put by Mr.
Freeman, one of the Crown counsel, the following dia-
logue, which could not occur anywhere but in an Irish
court, ensued :

" Mr. Fitzgibbon objected to this question. It, however, was re-
peated, upon which
"Mr. Cantwell (one of the agents for the traversers, who stood at
the traversers' side-bar) likewise objected to it ; but
" The Chief Justice told him it was not his duty to interfere.
" Mr. Cantwell---I know my duty, and will do it. I hope, my
Lord, you will do t'our's.---(Sensation in the Court.)
" The Attorney-General---If Mr. Cantwell presumes to conduct
himself thus, I must call upon the Court to exercise its authority.
The Chief Justice (who spoke at the same moment with the At-
torney-General)---If you presume, Sir, to instruct the Court In its
duty, you shall he removed forthwith.

Cantwell---I am quite satisfied the Court will do its duty,
but I felt it to be my duty to call attention to the highly illegal and
leading question put by the Counsel for the Crown.
" The Chief Justice—lt is not your duty to address the Court at
all when you have Counsel." _ _

Several sub-constables of police were examined, and
corroborated the statements of Godfrey, respecting
the meeting and the sort of remarks made by the

CHRONICLE.—What is called the Anti-League
movement appears really to get on a little, and, sin-
gularly enough, its progress seems to give entire sa-
tisfaction to the Government journals. It is true
that the oratory of the Anti-League meetings consists,
generally, of abuse -of the League, and abuse of the
Government, in about equal portions ; but the advo-
cates of Ministers are willing to wink at much that
is disagreeable, in the hope that the new agitation
may counterbalance and check the League, which has
grown too strong for the Government to cope with.
We are happy to see the encouragement thus given
to organisation and discussion amongst the farmers ;
for we are satisfied that agricultural combinations,
even in favour of protection, will ultimately contri-
bute hardly less than the League itself to the triumph
of free trade. In the first place every one of these
meetings helps to damage the Government. Look at
the Conservative dinner at Buckingham, of which we
published a report yesterday, and at which even
the presence of Sir Thomas Fremantle, Member
for the borough, could not suppress the expressions
of distrust and discontent with regard to Ministers.
Mr. Pigott, indeed, felt it decent to propose their
healths, but prefaced the toast with a speech, in
which, after hinting that the honour of making such
a proposition was not sought, but thrust upon him,
he brought forward a number of reasons why no
man who cared a rush for the agricultural interests
should join in his pledge. He suggested that Sir
Thomas Fremantle should speak for the Government;
but Sir Thomas's modesty—a feeling not injured in
his case by over exercise—came to his aid, and saved
him from the task. Mr. Dayrell, who followed him,
was not to be deterred by the defencelessness of the
Cabinet from giving them a tart lecture on the Ca-
nada Corn Bill, and other similar misdeeds. In the
same spirit, at the Northampton meeting of Monday,
Lord Southampton declared, amidst the cheers of
the auditory, that the Ministers ought to be made
to declare themselves, and that all further shuffling
ought to be out of the question. The next advan-
tage of these agricultural meetings is, that they ex-
hibit the advocates of protection in the most absurd
and ridiculous light. As long as the squires re-
main silent, and rely upon the mere vis inertia
of the class, they can oppose a very formidable
resistance to any movement; but when they
get up meetings, and form societies, and, above all,
make speeches, they are putting the rope about their
own necks. Monopoly is bad enough with the best
defence that can be made for it, but it becomes in-
tolerably absurd in the hands of such an advocate as
Lord Orkney, who figured at the Buckingham
dinner. Lord Orkney gave a deplorable picture of
the west of Scotland, which was desolated by the
tariff. Foreign cheese, let in by faithless Sir Robert,
had ruined that once prosperous region. It happens,
however, unfortunately for Lord Orkney's argument,
that foreign cheese is one of the few articles on which
the duty was not reduced by the new tariff. Another
proof, according to the Roble Lord, of the injury
done to the agricultural interest by free trade was,
that the tariff made meat dear; and so it is, he added,
with a felicitous illustration of the principle, "if
you change the uniform of a regiment, it is ex-
pensive. Changes are always expensive." Then,
passing from logic to invective, he attacked
the League—the standing topic in all the " pro-
tection' speeches—for want of charity. " They
won't give a subscription," said he, "to
relieve distress ; but only kick up a bobbery about the
corn-laws, and then see how quickly the 5001. came
down." Sir Charles Knightley, in Northampton,
evinces a familiarity with language equally choice.
He calls the Leaguers "ragamuffins," and enlarges
upon the resemblance between them and a " scratched
pack of hounds." The reverend speakers who take
part in these meetings lean rather to deliberate
calumny than to foul-mouthed abuse. We find,
within a few days, two of them—one named Fisher,
at Newport Pagnel, and the other named Lichfield,
at Northampton—coolly charging the League with
incendiarism. It is notable that if a peculiarly
shocking and unchristian imputation is made on any
of these occasions, it is sure to come from some poli-
tical parson. Others may use weapons as sharp ;
but they like to add a touch of poison. But the
speeches of all these agitators, whether they be silly
or malicious, will only excite the minas of the
farmers to idditional reflection, and increase that
feeling of uneasiness which will lead, at no distant
period, to a settlement on which all can rely.
And this brings us to the greatest benefit whicl,
as we think, the agricultural agitation will help to
confer on the country. Public men will be com-
pelled to declare themselves. Ministerial shuffling
will soon become impossible. Farmers and Leaguers
will agree in insisting upon a plain straightforward
answer to the question, "Is the present corn-law to
be maintained or not.?" The more farmers are in-
duced to reflection, the clearer and stronger will their
conviction become that security is the main point.
They will see that with no corn-law, or a bad corn-
law, they may be prosperous ; but that with a corn-
law
which no Minister will bind himself to, and no
man in his senses ensure for a twelvemonth, the
thing is wholly impossible. From both sides of the
House, therefore, we expect that Sir Robert Peel
will be told, "We want to know the permanent
policy of the Government, not its general intention,
or what it will do or refrain from doing during the
present session. Tell us, therefore, frankly, whe-
ther you will uphold this corn-law or not ?" A
Minister who knew his own mind, and who knew
that the agricultural interest was in a fever of
anxiety, could not hesitate a moment in such a
case. If he were satisfied that the present protection
ought to be maintained, he would at once say, " I
have revised the corn-law, and placed it on what I
think a good footing. It may have some defects, but
I will not cast into the lottery of legislation' for
another which may have as many. I will not, for
the sake of minor improvements, keep alive the ap-
prehensions of indefinite change. I will abide by the
corn-law of 1842, and stake the Government upon its
continuance." This would be not only manly and
honest, but even statesmanlike in a Minister who was
really favourable to protection. But no such declara-
tion will be made. The paltry evasions which sig-
nalised the commencement of last session will, we
verily believe, be repeated next week. We should
not by any means regret, however, to find ourselves
mistaken in this respect. A bold and honest decla-
ration by Sir Robert Peel, that he would stand by
the corn-law, would recover in some degree the
character he has lost, but it would also simplify the
the business of getting rid of both law and Minister
together.

TIMES.—The Buckinghamshire Conservatives have
dined and spoken. The speeches were as various in
flavour as the dishes. Sir T. Fremantle, who repre-
sented Ministers on the occasion, may report that
their censure seasoned the curry, and their praise
iced the champagne. But it is not to the general po-
litical aspect of the dinner, nor to its bearings on the
present state of parties, that we wish to advert. Our
attention has been drawn to a seemingly unimportant
passage in the speech of a Mr. Pigott. This gentle-
man, in proposing " the health of her Majesty's Mi-
nisters," diverged from the hacknied road of Minis-
terial eulogy, not only into something very like con-
demnation and suspicion, but also into the suggestion
of certain plans, the relevancy of which to the sub-
ject-matter of tis speech can only be explained by
the association of ideas. He had alluded to the Anti-
Corn-law League, and had expressed his satisfaction
that the " lion of England had roused itself and
shaken its mane." But in the next sentence—at least
in the next reported sentence—he seems to entertain
a serious doubt whether the aforesaid lion had really
aroused itself in earnest, and whether the shaking of
the mane was likely to frighten the objects of its
wrath ; for, by a rhetorical figure, which skips over
two terms of a proposition at once, lie jumps at once
to an inference:—

" There aro one or two points on wI4T wiolt to ddd I fi'w WQP4'