The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. i

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.—On the very day it was announced that
O'Connell and the repeal leaders were to be prosecuted
by the Government, we commenced an article in the
words of the Eastern apophthegm—" Begin nothing of
which thou bast not well considered the end." The
difficulties which would attend the course of such
a prosecution ; the dangers of success, no less
than the dangers of defeat ; were manifest to all.
We counselled Sir Robert Peel to pause ere he commit-
ted himself to a policy surrounded by such perils. We
insisted that the Proclamation against the Clon-
tarf meeting ought to have been the commencement
of a new era. If the public peace were perilled —as
it was assumed
to be—by the "monster meetings,"
the proclamation, if obeyed, would put an end to
the apprehensions ; if disobeyed, the force which the
constitution places at the disposal of the executive,
might have been lawfully employed to enforce obedi-
ence. Those who called the meeting, as well as those
who persisted in assembling, after the prohibition was
issued by the Government, would have been liable to
the pains and penalties which the law provides to punish
disobedience to its commands. The Government had
connived at the previous meetings. It had thus induced
a belief in the minds of the people that they were within
the protection of the law. Every act of the Govern-
ment tended to this conclusion. The removal from the
commission of magistrates who attended the meet-
ings, and other summary. acts of the prerogative,
by which the executive expressed its disapproba-
tion of proceedings it had not the power to pre-
vent by the means vested in it by the constitution,
gave encouragement to the repeal leaders. 'Week suc-
ceeded to week, and month to month. One " monster
meeting" after another, to the number of nearly a
hundred, was held. No actual breach of the peace was
committed at, or followed, one of those meetings. A new
light suddenly broke upon the councils of the Govern-
ment. The Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was dispatched
from London with headlong haste, with a copy of the pro-
clamation against such assemblies in his pocket. Upon
his Excellency's arrival in Dublin, a meeting of the
Privy Council was instantly convened ; and, while the
multitudes were on their way by the various roads to the
place of meeting, printed copies of the proclamation
were posted at the various approaches to the spot. A
formidable military force, consisting of cavalry, infantry,
and artillery, took up the best-selected positions, to
act against the multitude, if it did not instantly dis-
peree. The prompt obedience paid to the authority
of law, and the quiet dispersion of the people to their
homes, prevented the calamitous consequences which
even an accidental collision between a single peasant
and a single soldier might have occasioned. The prompt
and earnest efforts of O'Connell, and the influence which
his name and character exercise over the popular
mind in Ireland, prevailed. He prudently dispatched
messengers in all directions to meet the people
on their way to the meeting. A printed ad-
dress, hearing his well-known signature, informed
them that the meeting was prohibited by the authority of
Government. He exhorted to obedience, and was
obeyed. We do not suppose that the Government,
by delaying the proclamation to the latest rnoment,
contemplated, much less desired, a collision be-
tween the ropealers and the military. But
we do say, that had not O'Connell interfered, large
numbers of the peasantry would have arrived
on the ground, without knowing of the proclama-
tion ; and that some act of unpremeditated
violence between individuals might have led to
an attack, in which life would probably have been
sacrificed to a lamentable extent. The obedience thus
paid by the people to this suddenly-determined on, and
clumsily-enforced, interference of the Governmert with
the long-permitted monster meetings, was a pledge and
earnest that there was no disposition to hold such meet-
ings after they were denounced as illegal. The Govern-
ment had thus asserted its authority in a legal manner ;
its proclamation was obeyed, and its purpose was effected.
Had a conciliatory policy been adopted, simultaneously
with the suppression of the " monster meetings," there
would have been hope for Ireland. Instead of this, the
evil genius of the Cabinet counselled further acts of
coercion; was listened to; and prevailed. The Arms
Registration Act was introduced. The prosecutioh of
O'Connell and the other repeal leaders followed. At
every step, this ill-advised proceeding involved the law-
advisers of the Government in disgrace, through the
blunders they perpetrated in its management; and the
Government itself in difficulties, contempt, and odium
with the nation. The proceedings were fraught with
glaring inroads upon the securities with which the law
surrounds accused parties while preparin for and upon
their trial for alleged offences. The dignity and so-
lemnity of a court of criminal jurisprudence were out-
raged by the highest law officer of the Crown. The
proceedings, from their commencement to their close,
were calculated to bring the administration of the
laws under suspicion, rather than to strengthen their
hold upon the affections and obedience of the people.
A verdict of guilty was returned—as every one knew
it would be returned—by the partisan jury which
had been secured for the purpose of obtaining a
conviction. The motion in arrest of judgment was re-
fused. The indictment, in every count, was pronounced
perfect. Sentence was pronounced; and O'Connell and
his co- defendants consigned to a goal for various periods;
ordered to pay heavy fines ; and to enter into still
heavier recognisances, at the termination of their re-
spective terms of imprisonment, .ere they could be re-
leased. The House of Lords has reversed the judg-
ment. At the moment that we write, O'Connell
and bis co-agitators are at liberty. His political in-
fluence in Ireland—heightened, as it was, by the
State prosecution against him—is enhanced to an incon-
ceivable extent by the reversal of the
.judgment, and the
triumph it has conferred on him, and on the cause of
which he is the leader. Repeal was indebted to Sir Ro-
bert Peel's accession to office for animation ; it derived
strength from every measure of his Government ; until it
filled Ireland with its converts; drew the revenues of a Ger-
increasing numbers and
influence of its confederation; which were daily increased
form an
thperin
publiccipa l i ty
safety to its
frco or,ffe r
thes ; and excited apprehensions
by the impolitic measures of the Government. Sir R.
Peel at length assented, rather than cordially agreed, to
the dangerous counsels of those who thought that to in-
carcerate O'Connell was the best way to encounter Irish
difficulties. The experiment has been made. It has failed.
Defeat has succeeded to disgrace. Sir R. Peel, who declined
in 1839 to undertake the government, and assigned as an
apology for relin quisung the undertaking—" My eh iefdif-
ficulty was Irelands" has now to meet that "difficulty,"
increased, by his own acts, in a tenfold ratio. That
he will be able to encounter that difficulty, and
to overcome it, we deem impossible. 'We scarcely
think he will have the. temerity to try. One false step
may environ the nation with perils, and convulse it with
apprehensions.
That O'Connell will employ his ac-
knowledged powers of effective persuasion, and now
multiplied force of influence, with his followers, to re-
strain them from any violent outbreak, we have reason
to believe. His conduct in the fearful crisis created by
the Proclamation against the Clontarf meeting affords
ground for believing that he will now be prudent—we
will add, patriotic. The course which Sir R. Peel will
take is far more problematical.
That the Government
has felt the shock of this defeat of its coercive policy,
is plain. It was announced at the meeting of the House
of Commons this morning, that Lord Stanley has ac-
cepted the Chiltern Hundreds. What does this indi-
cate? Is the Cabinet about to break up? All manner
of rumours are afloat.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Sept. 4.
APPEALS.
After the decision of the case of " O'Connell v. the
Queen (in error)" yesterday, Lord BROUGHAM proceeded
to give judgment in that of

BYRON V. COOPER,
in which the only question was, whether the rector of a
parish in Lincolnshire was entitled to receive his tithe in
kind, or bound by the existence of an alleged modus.
The Court of Exchequer, from which the appeal was
brought, had decided against the•modus. The House of
Lords now reversed the decree as to some of the lands
in question, reserving to the clergyman, if he thought
proper, the power of having an issue directed from the
court below, as to whether the remaining lands were
subject to the modus or not.

DRUMMOND V. MAUN.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the judgment of
the court below should be affirmed with costs.

CREED V. CREED.
In this case a decree of Lord Chancellor Sugden had
been appealed against, the question being whether some
annuities charged upon real estate had or had not
priority over other legacies charged on the personal
estate. The Lord Chancellor had held that the an-
nuities were entitled to priority.
On the motion of Lord COTTENHAM the decree was
reversed.

TAYLOR V. CLEMSON.
This was a question as to a tenantcy of land under
the Manchester Railway Act.
Lord BROUGHAM, and Lord COTTENHAM were of
opinion that the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber
must be for the defendant in error with costs.

MURRAY v. MURRAY.
This was a question upon a private Act of Par-
lament.

The judgments of Lord BuouctrAm, Lord COTTEN..
lIAM, and Lord CAMPBELL were that the interlocutors
of the court below must be affirmed with costs.

STIRLING V. EWART.
Lord BROUGHAM, Lord COTTENHA M, and Lord CAMP-
BELL
This was a
gave judgment in this case, affirming the judgment
of the court below with costs.
KNIGHT V. BOUGHTON, BART.
question upon the provisions of a will.
' The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the decree be
affirmed without costs.
Lords Brougham,Cottenham, and Campbell concurred,
STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAILWAY V. DARRATT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR delivered the judgment of
the court in this case, in which the question was, whether
the railway company could demand the higher or lesser
duty upon coals exported or shipped from Stockton-
upon-Tees. His Lordship moved that the judgment for
the defendant in error in the court below should be
affirmed with costs.
THE EARL OF ROSSLYNT V. AYTOWN.
office
orlf died, and of
afterwards
c Chan-
In the year 1780 George 111. granted to Sir James
St. Chair Erskine, afterwards Earl o Rosslyn, the office
the office to
of Director of Chancery in Scotland, for his natural life.
In 1830 the Earl appointed his eldest son, Lord Lough-
such whether c the
Aytown,
the
two
survivorScotland.them,lnto
Earlpresentdefendant.
grantquestionsarose,anto
party
persons jointly ; and secondly, whether a who only
director
held his own office fur life could appoint wen office for
the life of another person who might survive him. The