The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-31 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

22
20
24
122
87
36

95
205
91
5$
00

1
71
19
59%
91214
109%

iti
161$
5%
245
29%
42
77%
17
110

47
sal
23
32%
265

124
b. 534
32
2
3
6%

20
20
IN
6
1%

4%
118

13
13
9
59
LOl

1 27%
~.r.
1 4
4
4

52%
18
104

834
4%
50
q 4.54

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—Our Contemporaries, without respec
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tuted, the case might as well be withdrawn from the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. Sheirs oration. It was " effective,"
" brilliant "—" the most able effort of an able man "
____" the best speech of the Grattan school of eloquence
ever a
deliveredsimbyil
aarnyopinion being expressed without
disciple of that school, or by its
founder ;"
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. Sheil'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.
Ills
speech was little more than a repetition of what ever=y
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 has natural ob-
scurity to instruct the people of Engld. 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
Tower 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 toj the
peace of a country goVerned by free institutions, and
obstructive of improvement and civilisation. Sir
Thomas, of course, chase 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