The Sun. — 1857-01-15 (London, England)

MARKHAM. He had even, it seems, unable to see unmoved the distress and want of Mrs. 11,1ARKEIAM, knowing her husband to be innocent, actually sent her, in a way to avoid detection, a five-pound note ! After six months of inconceivable mental agony, in addition to prison, fare, prison companions, and "the horrors," as he termed it, of solitary confinement, JOHN MARKHAM is informed that he is proved innocent, therefore pardoned, and is now a freeman. The first joy of freedom of course hid the shame of pardon from him, but, practically, he finds on his emancipation that Society is but too ready to regard him not as one to whom it has to make atonement, but as one who has been to prison. Now, surely, let legal pedantry and ingenuity hunt up what difficulties it may, all this ought to be redressed. A man brought to trial, and told by the Judge in open court that he is not merely acquitted through some techni• cal casualty, or through doubtful evidence, but that no stain rests upon his character, rejoins the world, as if nothing had happened. Hence an accused map, conscious of integrity, demands a fair trial, and an officer of the army in like circumstances a court-martial. This seems to point to one mode of remedying the mischief which would retrieve character, namely, a new, public, and impartial investigation. Pecuniary compensation to the full extent of the injury sustained in that way, none would object to, and further it is impossible to go. No compensation can be offered for six months of heart-wearing, bearing up against g punishments, the proper lot of felons,retchedness of being looked on as and degrading haedi wretchedness guilty of that which the inmost heart loathes by all who surround us. It is rather remarkable that MARKHAM'S is not the only case of the kind with which Mr. ROSE and the excellent Ordinary of Newgate had to do. Another man of the name of MARTIN was rescued by their praiseworthy exertions in the same manner. They after several days' labour established his innocence, and even found out the real criminal. It is also remarkable that Mr. ROSE heard both the trials, and was satisfied at the time of Maltszam's innocence, and strongly doubted the guilt of MARTIN ; although he states that the witness who swore positively to MARKHAM'S identity was a most respectable and honest man. It is difficult to explain this, the more so as ho was ably defended by Mr. BALLANTINE, who was thoroughly satisfied of his innocence. These cases do an injury to the administration of justice generally. In the next trial for murder, where identity is at all a question, what jury will not be afraid to convict when the prisoner's counsel has made the best use of MARKHAM'S erroneous conviction. The opponents of capital punishment will, of course, lay no little stress on such cases ; and it may easily happen that thus villains may be left at large, again to commit fresh murders, whom no jury would have hesitated to confine for life.  The account Mr. Rose gives of the interior of Newgate is somewhat startling. Pirates, murderers, garotters, burglars, thieves from birth, receivers, putters up of robberies, and the perpetrators of unmentionable crimes, all picking oakum together, and all solacing themselves under the monotonous task by " holding high discourse" on the edifying topic of their knaveries, and deeds of villanous daring. The temptation is to make theknselves worse than they are, the most outrageous tale of horrors or of  wicked cunning being the most interesting, and  perhaps the most instructive to the younger  scholars. It seems to be a perfect pandemonium, and poor MARKHAM was an object of relentless  persecution among these wretches, because " the countryman," as they termed him, could but per severingly assert his innocence. What a hell on  earth must Newgate be ! Surely if half all this be  ,rue, no ono who has served his apprenticeship to  oakum•picking M Newgato ought to be liberated to  practise on society the infernal arts he has learned there. We certainly agree with Mr. HILL, that it is the very climax of absurdity when once we have laid bold of a practised thief to let him loose on society again : work him, transport him, confine him, do what you like with him but spare us his presence in our towns and villages. Neither reason nor justice demand that a man who has proved he cannot be trusted to respect our property and lives should ever have the chance of injuring either.