The Sun. — 1847-12-28 (London, England)

AMIN.NELL and the girl were both correct in point of time, it could hardly be possible for M'CABE to have been the man in company with REID, as she described. ;There was no other evidence of any importance against him. Judge PATTESON felt that little reliance could be placed on the evidence respecting the chemical experiments, and that that relating to the garters was perfectly ridiculous. It would therefore appear, from the strictest examination into every circumstance connected with the case, that the matter detailed in REID'S confession is not , only possible, but extremely probable ; that there is not only a reasonable doubt, but that the balance of evidence is in favour of M'CADE'S innocence, at least of any previous knowledge, and that therefore the royal prerogative should be exercised in his favour.  It should not be forgotten either, that A/MAIM had himself been examined on the former trial as a witness for the Crown ; and it is a matter of public policy that persons coming forward as approvers should not, at any subsequent period, be made responsible for the offence, any particulars of which they have detailed. Many of the most grievous offences against society would remain wholly unpunished but for the revelations that have been obtained from accomplices. Unless it could be shown that the testimony given by the party was wholly and entirely false ; that he was himself the principal delinquent, and had attempted to transfer the chief guilt from his own shoulders to one of his less guilty companions, or to a perfectly innocent man, he should never afterwards be questioned for his share in the transaction. The punishment of a criminal would be dearly purchased if any suspicion was to be cast upon the public faith. Nothing could warrant the execution or even transportation of M'CAne, but his being a principal in the murder, aiding and abetting in its commission ; and were he even an accessory after the fact, his admission as QUEEN'S evidence should save him from any penalty. There is one other point connected with the case which we put forward, not with the desire of sheltering a person who has acknowledged himself the wilful murderer of three of his fellow-creatures from the punishment due to his fearful transgression, but that, as a matter of public policy, it is desirable that if the law, which forbids a person to be brought to trial a second time for the same offence, is erro neous, it should be amended—but that if it is just and proper, it should be adhered to, not merely to the letter, but in its spirit and integrity• Although no redeeming point could be urged on behalf of REID, or in extenuation of his guilt, far better even that he should escape his merited punishment, than that the law should be unduly strained to bring him within its meshes—a precedent that might be followed under very different circumstances, the most dangerous to be admitted in a free country. As the law now stands, no man can be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offence. If he should be a second time brought to trial, he may plead " autrefois acquit," or " auterefois convict ;" and such will be a good answer to the charge. It has been decided (in ItEx V.