86 
and had courage to perform its duty; and, 
unpuzzled and unawed by the technical so- 
phistry of the bench, has shewn its respect 
for the constitutional law of common sense, 
and vindicated the right of giving publicity 
to proceedings connected with the inyesti- 
gation of alleged offences, and the exercise 
of the functions of public justice. They 
have decided, in fact, that the justice-room 
of a police office is not a lion’s mouth, in 
which accusations are to be admitted, and 
evidence to be received, of which the pub- 
lic are to have no knowledge. The Lord 
Chief Justice, if the newspaper-report be 
correct, was pretty decisive in his charge 
upon this subject :— 
“« As far as regards any opinion that may have 
been entertained by the public, as to the publication 
of police reports, there does not seem to have been 
a justifiable ground for it, because courts have more 
than once expressed their opinion of its illegality. 
The opinion has often been delivered of late years, 
and occasionally in former times. It can hardly, I 
think, be insisted by the defendant's counsel, that a 
verdict ought not to pass for the plaintiff! The 
amount of damages, and the estimate of them, is a 
matter peculiarly proper for you.” 
- The jury, however, were not forgetful 
that though the bench be at liberty to give 
its opinions, they are judges of the law, as 
well as the fact; and not being disposed 
to award any penalty where they saw no 
guilt, after a few minutes’ consultation, and 
without retiring from their box, they re- 
turned a VERDICT for the DEFEN- 
DANT. 
IRELAND. 
In looking across the channel to this ill- 
treated, but important integral portion of 
the British dominions, we are glad, there 
‘also, to see the return of good sense and 
moderation in the conduct of juries. 
We mentioned in our last (M. M. vol. 
58, p. 564), that a prosecution had been 
commenced, on the evidence of a single 
reporter for a hostile newspaper, against 
Mr. O'Connell, on a charge of seditious 
language at a meeting of the Catholic Asso- 
ciation; and it seems that Mr. O’Connell 
had himself imagined that any indictment, 
the attorney-general might think fit to 
prefer against him, would be sure to find a 
grand jury that would give it entertainment ; 
‘and that he had accordingly made every 
‘preparation for a vigorous defence against 
what he expected would be carried on in 
the spirit of formidable attack. .We were 
happy, however, to find that, on the Ist 
of January, though not one single Ca- 
tholie was included in the panne!, the grand 
jury had the candour and good sense to 
throw out the bill. In the mean time, a bill 
of indictment had also been preferred, on the 
other side, against that flaming Orange 
gentleman, Sir Harcourt Lees, for some 
~ dreams of a distempered imagination, which 
he had published as oracles of inspiration, 
about horrible designs and conspiracies of 
the Catholics, &c.; and we are happy to 
say, that a grand jury threw that out also: 
Political Affairs in January. 
[ Feb. 1, 
thus proclaiming, as it were, to the too 
long-divided and irritated people of Ireland, 
that Mr. O’ Connell may be rhetorical, and 
Sir H. Lees moon-struck, with less danger 
to the state than might probably result from 
harassing the respective parties with the 
rancour of political litigation. The effect is 
said to have proved the wisdom of the cal- 
culation. Both parties appear to have 
assumed a tone of comparative moderation, 
and heart-burnings and recriminations have 
in a considerable degree subsided. We 
would recommend the following-up of this 
spirit of forbearance, by the suspension of 
the zeal for proselytizing on either side, and 
of the disputes about distribution of Bibles. 
What signifies forcing books upon those 
whose priests will have influence enough 
to prevent them from reading them ? 
We recommend the following statement 
to the attention of our financiers and govern- 
ment politicians : 
“ Treland is, in fact, a burden to Eng- 
land. The cost of governing this country 
amounted to twenty millions, while that of 
England amounted to fifty. Ireland cost 
three millions more than the assets which 
she returned to the imperial treasury. The 
expense of governing her would go on 
increasing in proportion to the duration of 
the injustice with which she was go- 
verned.”” 
Nor is the following unworthy the con- 
sideration of those who think that our law 
of marriage, and our marriage ritual, stand 
in need of no revision: 
“ Two respectable and prosperous young 
tradesmen of Limavady, became attached 
to two young females of the Presbyterian 
religion. They proffered marriage, and were 
accepted. Difficulty, arose, however, with 
respect to the performance of the ceremony 
by a Protestant Clergyman; and the young 
people were about to apply to a couple- 
beggar wholived in the town, to unite them, 
when the priest, the Rey. Mr. O’ Hagan, 
believing that the act of 1793 had repealed 
all the old laws relating to the celebration 
of marriage between persons of different 
persuasions by Catholic Priests, except 
where one of the parties happens to be a 
Protestant of the Established Church, 
agreed to marry them. At the end of six 
weeks, certain Magistrates discovered, as 
they thought, that the Priest had committed 
-an act that would subject him to capital 
punishment, and summoned the parties to 
give testimony against Mr. O’ Hagan, for 
having married them. They unanimously 
refused to do so; whereupon the Magis- 
trates sent them to gaol; and employed a 
party of the King’s troops to escort them. 
Separation and confinement, and the pros- 
pect of suffering under these evils for three 
long years, were trials which their fortitude 
was unable to resist. They, therefore, af- 
ter some time, consented to give evidence 
against the Priest; and those penal laws 
which Montesquieu had well said, were 
written 
