The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-05 00:00:00

ebtrti Ltz'Zittton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

GLOBE.—Those conversant with the proceedings of
courts of criminal jurisprudence have remarked, that
when the evidence against a prisoner at the bar has shown
itself too strong to be shaken by direct testimony, the
counsel for the defence adopt one of two modes to afford
their client a chance of escaping conviction. The first,
and that most frequently adopted, is to argue upon the
extreme improbability of his being betrayed into
the commission of the particular crime of which
he stands accused. His habits—his disposition, so
opposite to the tendency of heart and life tending to
such an offence, would justify a doubt—heavily as the
evidence may seem to press against him—that some
mistake exists ; which, though not capable of detec-
tion by his counsel, nor of being explaMed by the ac-
cused, will justify the jury in acquitting him of the
charge. Of course, a host of witnesses will be ready to
swear that the gentleman at the bar is all his counsel
has said respecting the correctness of his morals and the
kindness of his heart. In many cases, this line of de-
fence succeeds, and the prisoner is acquitted. The other
mode is to rest his defence upon the previous excel-
lence of his character ; to fill the Court with wit-
nesses—all of whom have known the prisoner a very
considerable time, and never knew anything against his
character until the present charge, which placed him in
his now unhappy situation. The design is to raise a
presumption in the mind of the jury, notwithstanding
the facts in proof, that he has not been really guilty of
the offence with which he is charged. A course some-
what resembling this seems to have been adopted in the
House of Commons on Friday evening, by the members
of the Government who undertook the defence of the Irish
Attorney-General. The charge brought against this
functionary was, that he, while engaged in
conducting a State prosecution, of the deepest
importance to the parties he accused, and to
the country at large, was so far regardless
of the respect he owed to the Court; of his duty as the
principal law-officer of the Crown in the country ; and
of the temperate and impartial administration of justice
toward the indicted parties, who then stood on their
deliverance, as to challenge to personal combat one of
the counsel for the defence, who was then in
course of addressing the jury in behalf of his client !
There were other counts, charging him with unfair-
ness in his general mode of conducting the
prosecution. The proofs establishing the ease against
this officer of the Government were so strong, that even
thereading counsel for the defence of the culprit, though
he muttered something of " the House being imper-
fectly acquainted with the full particulars of the case,"
did not attempt to rebut the facts as they had been stated.
Still it was necessary to frame something in the nature
of a defence—seeing a defence was to be set up. And
how was this done ? After the most approved Old
Bailey fashion ! By drawing the attention of the jury
from the facts, and pronouncing an eulogium upon the
private virtues of the accused party. First it was at-
tempted to be shown that he was not a person at all
likely to be guilty of the particular piece of miscon-
duct imputed to him. "He had displayed remarkable
coolness of temper and moderation of judgment in
conducting these proceedings"—and these, it was further
urged, are the qualities by which he is, and always has
been, distinguished. Another witness stated, " the At-
torney-General conducted himself with the,greatest po-
liteness and kindness of demeanour during these trials."
Now, all this testimony. was brought forward to show
that from his previous habits the party accused was
not at all likely to be guilty of the offence charged
against him (and especially of those in the other
counts); it was, therefore, peculiarly unfortunate for
him, and those who undertook his defence, that it was
met by the stubborn fact, that he had been guilty of
them ! It was evidently felt that mere presumption,
where the proofs of criminality were so strong, would
do little by way of rebutting the charge. This diffi-
culty was met by calling witnesses to general
character. These (as in Old Bailey practice)
were easily found One, who had known him for up-
wards of twelve months, could safely say, that " a more
honourable, right-minded man does not exist." Another,
that "he is an honour to his profession"—that " no man
is more remarkable for high-minded conduct, both in
public and private life." A third, that "in private life
he was a man of most exemplary character." Now,
this is exactly what is seen at every session of the Cen-
tral Criminal Court. It resembles it in another parti-
cular ; viz., its utter inapplicability. It is just as if a man
charged with forgery should receive a good character for
temperance ; or one of the swell-mob, accused of picking
pockets, for his humanity to animals. The forger and
the member: of the swell-mob, when acquitted by
juries, upon the strength of the good character given
of them by their friends and associates, sometimes take
their departure from the Court with an expressive com-
pliment from the Judge—that " they leave the bar
without a blemish upon their reputation 1" So it has
been with Mr. Attorney-General Smith. That he
is guilty of the monstrous outrage of which he was
accused there exists not the smallest doubt. But his
general character (whether true or false) for the time
served him. He was not only saved from merited pu-
nishment, but his employers informed the Court that
" they had taken no steps toward his dismissal, and do
not contemplate taking any." In short, they intend to
retain him in their service ! Mr. Attorney-General
Smith is, therefore-44 least far the present—a
free man. Whether he will be equally fortunate
on a future occasion, and before another jury, re-
mains to be seen. What may, however, be the fate
of this unhappy subordinate official is not a mat-
ter of much moment. The day is not distant when
his masters, who are the principal delinquents, and have
adOpted his guilt by screening him from punishment,
will themselves stand, with him, at the same bar, from
which, by their means, he has just escaped. The
charge which will be preferred against them is one
serious in its character ; and of its truth the proofs are
abundant and irresistible. They have conspired against
the peace of one portion of the empire, and against the
prosperity of the whole. Their speeches and their acts
attest a mutual purpose. In fact, they are guilty of
originating the very measures in carrying out which
Mr. T. B. C. Smith has been only an agent—their hired
tool; instructed, paid, and, protected: by them. If the
jury which is to try these criminals perform their duty,
their career of crime will be stopped.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.):

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.

On the motion of Mr. STRUT' I' the following Mem-
bers were appointed as a Select Committee on Petitions
for Private Bills, viz. :—Mr. Strutt, Mr. Robert Clive,
Mr. Rice, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Mr. Wrightson, Mr.
George Cavendish, Mr. Crompton, Mr. Brotherton, Mr.
Pakington, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Beckett, Sir John Yarde
Buller, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Richard Walker, Mr.
George Philips, Mr. Bell, Mr. Gibson Craig, O'Conor
Don, Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Eliott
Yorke, Mr. Kemble, Mr. Aglionby, Captain Jones, Mr.
Thornely, Mr. Barneby, Mr. Benjamin Wood, Mr.
Tatterton Egerton, Mr. Stansfield, Lord Worsley, Mr.
Baillie, Mr. Edward Buller, Sir William Heath-
cote, Henry
-Mr. Hope Johnstone, Mr. Morgan John O'Connell,
Mr. Packe, Mr. Acland, Mr. Evans, Mr. Home Drum-
mond, Mr. Parker, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. E. P. Shirley.