The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-02 00:00:00

DISTRICTS.

OVERLAND MAIL

PARIS, ThURSDAY•

The French telegraph conveys the following
news brought by the Indian mail, which left
Malta the 26th, and reached Marseilles the
29th. On the 16th of April, General Pollock
joined Sir R. Sale at Jellalabad, re-establishing
on his march the authority of Thorabaz Khan
Sullpoora. He was to march on Caubul as soon
as he was joined by Colonel Boulton. General Eng-
land had re-united troops, forced the passes, and joined
General Nott at Candahar. Captain M'Kenzie had
arrived at Jellalabad, with offers from Akbar Khan
to release his prisoners on conditions. The answer
was not known. Elphinstone died on the 23d of
April.

China news is of the 19th. On the 10th of March
the Chinese, 10,000 or 12,000 strong, tried to retake
Ningpo, while another force attacked Chinghae. In
both instances they were repulsed with considerable

THE REGICIDE FRANCIS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Stn,—The observations in your Paper of this day, on
the attack made by Francis upon our amiable Queen,
has awakened in my mind great solicitude about the fate
of that deluded man.
The life of a fellow-creature is at stake, and appears
to be in great jeopardy. He has been convicted, by the
verdict of a Jury, of an attempt to take away the life of
our beloved Sovereign ; but this merely on circumstan-
tial evidence, and, I confess, evidence most unsatisfactory
to my mind. Indeed, I cannot help coming to a directly
opposite conclusio.l—viz., that he had no intention to
take away the Queen's life. For in my mind, it exceeds
the utmost limits of probability, that a pistol charged
with any substance capable of destroying life, and pointed
at the Queen, should be fired off within seven feet of
the Royal carriage, at a moment when Colonel Arbuth-
not and his horse were interposed between the Queen
and the pistol, and that no mark should have been pro-
duced by it on the man, the horse, or the carriage.
On the other hand, consider the nature of the evidence
on which the Jury found the prisoner guilty, the sound
produced by the discharge of the pistol. On such evidence
I never could have given a verdict of guilty, when the
life of a prisoner was at stake. I should have doubted
my own ears, if present when the pistol was fired ; and
could not, of course, have trusted to another's. It is
said, and is, I believe, an undoubted fact, that fire-arms
loaded with ball make a louder report than if loaded
without ball. But in Francis s case there is evidence that
no mark was to be found to prove that the pistol was
loaded with ball ; this evidence (though negative),
considering the position of the prisoner, &c., at the
moment of discharging the pistol, appears to me to
outweigh the positive evidence as to sound. And
when it .is considered that the pistol could not
be fired without a great d. gree of surprise, and
even consternation at the instant, it appears the most
improbable, that a soldier, however practical in ac-
tual war, could give a very confident opinion, whether
the pistol was or was not loaded with ball, or other
matter destructive of life. But, if Francis purposed to
kill the Queen, why use any other matter than a bullet?
what else more likely to effect his purpose, and how easily
to be procured?
I would here ask whether the degree of sound might
not in some measure depend on the quality of the powder.
and still more on its being rammed down (even without
wadding) with more or less force. Might not the sound
in some degree depend on the structure of the pistol?
Under such circumstances, I would never have found
a verdict of guilty, because there was not evidence
to remove doubt from my mind ; and it is the universal
direction of Judges, in Criminal Courts, that where there
is doubt the prisoner ought to have the benefit of it.
Nor can I regard the conduct of Francis on the pre.
ceding Sunday as any additional proof of his purpose to
destroy the Queen. If the pistol was not loaded with
destructive matter on the Monday, what is there to show
that it was on the Sunday ? The probability is, that it
was in the same state, both on the Sunday and Monday.
I lament exceedingly that anything should have been
done to give a moment's alarm or anxiety to our beloved
Sovereign, and though the law must not in this ease be
restrained, in terrorem, I hope that a new law will be
made, declaring that the discharging of any kind of fire-
arms presented against our Monarch, shall, without
proof of the piece being loaded with any destructive
substance, subject the offender to transportation for life,
or other very severe punishment.
Now, the question whether Francis shall suffer death,
is one of the most solemn nature, and it is a question of
mere abstract justice and law. In deciding this ques-
tion, a man should endeavour to divest himself of all
feeling. Disgust, horror, pity, will cloud his judgment.
Bat at this moment I think the public mind is in an ex-
cited state, and, therefore, that the judgment of the pub-
lic is not to be confided in.
There is another reason which makes me solicitous
that the life of Francis should be spared, and that is a
wish to save her Majesty from any of those compunc-
tious visitings of nature which would be the result of a
future conviction in her own mind that the man was in-
nocent as to any murderous purpose. Now, suppose that
in the awful moment of death he should solemnly and
firmly proclaim his innocence, I cannot persuade myself
that it would not be the occavion of very bitter and last-
ing pangs in the tender and benevolent heart of our be-
loved Queen that she had not extended to him the pre-
rogative of mercy.
To me it is highly improbable that any man of sou ..d
sense should resort to murder the Queen ; for vvl-_,„) ever
heard a ground of complaint against her and sup-
'Alan to such an
posing a mad ambition could rouse a
'or
attempt, would he have sunk wh the sentence of
death was pronounced on him, would he not rather
have gloried in his crime?
As to the doctrine a t;.,empted to be set up by the
Crown lawyers at Fr 'l.ncis's trial, that if a case of pre-
sumptive proof is TrJade out against a man, it is for him
to repel the presumption, it appears to me most un-
English and an-Christian ; and it would be easy to cite
cases of I.,ersons executed for murder, whose innocence
has afterwards been established to demonstration, and
yet the presumption, from circumstantial evidence, could
not be repelled. Mr. Editor, as a subscriber to your
independent paper, I hope you will regard with favour
this appeal, and either insert this letter, or give such
parts as you deem unobjectionable, in such modified form
as you may prefer.—l am, Sir, a lover of justice, and
June 29, 1842. AN ENGLISHMAN.