The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING. JUNE 28, 1842.

aril unconstitutional measure when the remedy is so
simple ? It would be some consolation, also, to the poor
to learn that their sufferings occupied the earnest atten-
tion of their rulers, and that they were not denied the
last consolation of the wretched—the hope even of dis-
tant relief. We cannot think so badly of the gentlemen
of England as to believe that they will resist such a
measure for their own personal interests, or that they
will be reluctant to entrust Sir ROBERT' PEEL with
power like that so often conferred on former Ministers.
Whatever may be the result, however, we trust the re-
presentatives of the people will do their duty. Let every
Member who feels for the distresses of his fellow-crea-
tures be in his place on Thursday, and support a mea-
sure which can do no harm, and which will, at least, tend
to soothe the distresses of a starving population.

We have before us a report of a trial in the Queen's
Bench, Dublin, on Monday last, singularly illustrative
of the way in which justice, or rather law, is adminis-
tered in Ireland, and of the necessity that exists for a
speedy amendment of the infamous law of libel. The
trial in question is entitled " The QUEEN V. CHARLES
G. DI:FrY, the proprietor of the Belfast Vindicator,"
for an alleged libel which appeared in that Journal re-
lative to the trial and conviction of a Catholic, named
HUGHES, of the murder of a Mr. POWELL. HUGHES
was twice tried and acquitted for this murder. The
Jury on both occasions consisted of Protestants and
Catholics—the former in the proportion of two to one
of the latter. His acquittal did not satisfy the law offi-
cers of the Crown. Ho was put a third time on his
trial, and an Orange Jury packed for the purpose of
finding him guilty. He was found guilty, as a matter
of course, and hanged. Nearly at the same time
four Orangemen were tried for the murder of a Ca-
tholic. The evidence of their guilt was as clear as the
sun at noonday ; but here, again, the law officers of the
Crown packed an Orange jury, denied to the friends of
the murdered man the right of challenge, and obtained
for the prisoners an instant verdict of acquittal ! Now,
if ever there were cases calling for the strong reprehen-
sion of the public press, they were these which we have
just cited. They were enough to rouse the indignation
of all honest men. They revealed to the Catholics of
Ireland, that the times of Lord NORBURY were revived,
when there was one law for them and another for their
oppressors. Commenting upon them, the Editor of the
Vindicator published the following article, made the sub-
ject of a prosecution by the Irish Government :
"Francis Hughes has been tried for the murder of Mr. Powell,
for the third time, and a conviction at length obtained
against him. On his guilt or innocence it is not our
province to pronounce ; but we do affirm, without fear-
ing that any conscientious man in the empire will
differ from us, that he has not had a fair and on-
partial trial, such as the law of England intends that every
prisoner shall receive. He has not been tried indifferently, as
a person under the protection of the law, for whom the Judge is
counsel, and the executive an unprejudiced arbitrator ; but be
has been tried as an Irish Catholic, whose guilt ordinarily ap-
pears to be assumed, and whose conviction seems to be desired.
This case of Hughes, and the monstrouis injustice which it in-
volves, may be full understood where the system under which
we live in /Ulster is not known ; we must contrast it with that
of the prisoner's for the murder of APArdle. Both are fresh on
the public mind, and it is impossible that any two cases could
better illustrate a system than they do the one against which we
now testify. In the case of M'Ardle, four Orangemen were tried
for the murder of a Catholic; the Jury in the box, at the time
the case commenced, consisted of eleven Protestants and one
Catholic. The agent for the next akin to the murdered man
objected to several of the jurors, but the Crown counsel insisted
upon retaining them all without exception. In Armagh a
Catholic was to be tried for the murder of a Protestant, and
when the case commenced a Jury was also in the box which had
tried two or three cases already ; it consisted of ten Protestants
and two Catholics, and it was proposed to the Crown to follow
the practice that had been pursued in Down, and retain the
Jury already sworn ; but the Crown Counsel decided,y refused
to adopt the system in the ease of the Catholic which they had
adopted in the case of the Protestant.
,‘ What is the meaning of this scoundrel system? What can
it mean but one or other of these two things, either the insolent
and atrocious libel that Catholics are unworthy of being trussed
on their oaths, or the infernal principle that it is nut desirable
to do them justice? We cannot mince the matter; it comes
positively to this—we care not which horn of the dilemma is
chosen, but one of them is inevitable."

In England no honest man could bo found to affirm
that the system here exposed is not a " scoundrel system"
—a system to which no body of men ought to submit.
But the Irish Orangemen and the Irish law-officers of
the Crdwn are of a (Efferent opinion. Chief Justice
PENNEFATIIER, who presided at the trial of the Vindi-
cator on Monday, took care to lay down the law in such
a way as not only to secure a verdict for the Attorney-
General, but to establish the doctrine that the public
Press enjoyed no right whatever of calling in question
the public conduct of public men. We quote an ex-
tract from his Lordship's charge, as reported in the
Dublin Evening Mad :
" Gentlemen, with the truth or falsehood of these charges
you or I have nothing to do here. This may seem somewhat
strange in your eyes, but it is the law, and it is common sense.
If a man be guilty of any crime or misconduct, by which he can
be made answerable to the law, there are the proper tribunals
to bring him before, where he will be tried and made answer-
able if he be guilty; and where he will be acquitted if he be
not ; but no man has a right, because he is the proprietor of a
printing press and types, to set himself up as a tribunal to pro-
nounce upon the guilt of his fellow-subject.. If the Queen's
Attorney-General, or her Crown Solicitors, have misconducted
themselves, there are, as I have already stated, the proper tri-
bunals to bring them before, where they will be made answer-
able; but I would be glad to know by what authority the author
of this libel has set himself up to pronounce a verdict against
them. It was open to Mr. Duffy or any other member
of the community, to petition the House of Commons, if he had
any means of substantiating the gross charges which he has put
forward in this publication. He might have got redress if he
had looked for it in the legitimate way. There is no man in
the country against whom the doors of justice are closed; but
who, I would ask, has made the man who printed and published
this libel a tribunal before whom the Attorney-General and
others concerned in the administration of law, are to be called ?
No such right exists on the part of any individual, let him be
ffigh or low, newspaper editor or other person ; and do you
think, Gentlemen, if the Attorney-General, and his brethren,
thought proper to appear before Mr. Duffy, that they would get
a fair and impartial trial? You may judge of that fact from
the nature of the publication which forms the subject of the
prosecution. The law which forbids the inquiry into the truth
or falsehood of public libel is not new—it has existed upwards of
500 years, and we cannot change it in this place."
Chief Baron PENNEFATIIER told the Jury at the open-
ing of his charge, that it was for them to find, both upon
the facts and law of the case. lie did not wish to bias
their judgment in any way, and, therefore, we suppose
to help them to come to an impartial verdict, be thus
commented upon one portion of the alleged libel, after
gravely reading it to them :
Now, Gentlemen, was there ever a more diabolical libel than
that ? In my opinion, never ; and yet this is said to be an inno-
cent publication. lam not to decide the question, but lam to
give you my opinion, and that is, that this is a gross and infa-
mous libel. Ido not think this is mincing the matter.

There is certainly no mincing of matters on the part
of the Learned Chief Baron. Nor shall there be a
greater mincing of matters on the part of the public
Press, which has duties to discharge as high, as impera-
tive, and as essential to the freedom or the subject and
the welfare of society as any which devolve upon his
Lordship and his Learned Brethren. We pronounce
the law, as laid down by the Learned Chief Baron, as
law only fit for Ireland—as law every day repudiated by
the Judges in Westminster-hall. Public men are public
property ; and it is the right of the Press to comment
upon their public conduct whensoever such con-
duct may appear reprehensible, provided the
terms employed are not calculated to provoke
abreach of the peace. The Learned Chief Baron con-
temptuously alludes to the impudence of the proprietor
of types and a printing press setting himself up to judge
of the guilt of his fellow-subjects. His Lordship treads
on ticklish ground. If the most material part of the truth
is thus to be kept buck in order to cast ridicule upon the
Press, did it not occur to the Learned Chief Baron

that, by moans quite as fair and as legitimate, the Press
might retaliate upon the Bench blow for blow with still
more crushing effect? Judge PENNEFATTIER'S charge
has convinced us that learned heads may make impudent
speeches, albeit surmounted with a horsehair covering.
The Lord Mayor of Dublin made a great noise some
years ago about amending the law of libel. How is it,
that, amid such a persecution of the Liberal Press of
Ireland, we hear nothing of it now ? We hear of no-
thing now but prosecutions of the Belfast Vindicator, the
Northern Whig, and other Liberal Papers, and yet Mr
O'CoNmELL is as silent as the grave. In what way are
we—in what way is the Press of Ireland, to interpret this
strange silence ? Rumours have reached us with re-
ference to it, but at, present we forbear to give them
utterance. We will allow Mr. O'CONNELL time to ex-
plain his own conduct upon this matter.

We have Madrid Papers, by Express, to the 20th
inst., but they contain no news. On that day the Mi-
nisters presented their programme to the Cortes.
Madrid Bourse of the 18th—Five per Cents., with 11
Coupons, 30} for cash.

The whole of the French Journals have been receivo3, but
with the exception of one incident, which may operate to the
prejudice of the Ministers at the ensuing elections, they
contain no news of political importance. This is the
arrival at Bordeaux of the Captain of the Deux Sceurs,
from the coast of Africa, where he complains that
his vessel was detained, and searched in a very in-
solent manner, by a British cruiser engaged in the
suppression of the slave-trade. lie adds that some of
the British sailors employed in assisting the officers to
search his vessel, stole a quantity of wine, for which he
obtained no redress, although he complained of it the
next day to a British officer. Of course the truth in
this case is grossly exaggerated, but the fact that such a
statement gains credit in France, ought to put our Go-
vernment on its guard how it exercises this right of
search. Why are not French officers kept on board our
cruisers to search French vessels ? Such a suggestion
was made so early as. January last in this Journal, as
the only way of preventing international quarrels.
The Semaphore• has the following letter:—
1414aNDRIA, JUN; 6.—lt is positively aeSrvied here

that the English post-office ha; resolved that the India mail
shall cease to pass through rirance, and take another route.
The route by Trieste, Cologne, and Ostend to England,,is
spoken of. On the arrival of the mail from Suez, aat amer
will be dispatched, it is said, to Corfu, from the e two
steamers will be despatched, one to Malta, the other to Trieste.
It is asserted, tt.at by the way of Trieste the mail will be re-
ceived in England four or live days sooner than by way of
Marseilles, and that arrangements for the execution of this
plan are now making in England. By these means, say the
English, the delay which the Paris Post-office has caused in
the delivery of several despatehes will be prevented."
On the remonstrance of the English Consul, Meheinet Ali
had ordered the officers of the Custom-house not to demand in
future the additional duty of two per cent. on goods imported
between the 23d of November, 1841, and the 26th of May,
Its4l. The merchants are rejoiced at the conclusion of this
Conatitutionnel.