THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBIE 3, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2132, 3 November 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBIE 3, 1875.

Another step in the story of the purloined letter has been arrived at by the decision of His Excellency the Marquis of Norrnanby in the now celebrated McDonnell case. Whether—with the exception of the reprimand from the Defence Minister which in the Marquis' opinion Colonel McDonnell is to receive—it be the last step we knoV not. We hope it may be. There is nothing very edifying inhearingmore-thanisabsolutely necessary of the "why's" and "wherefore's" which induced any man deliberately to perform a dishonorable action, no matter how much he may be influenced by motives of fancied public or private good. Colonel McDonnell escapes by the skin of his teeth on account of the anxiety under which he was laboring at that time by having his veracity brought into question before the Tairua Committee and the injudicious advice he has received. The Court of Enquiry apparently ignore the legal maxim gui facit per alium facit per se, and exculpate, or at least condone, Colonel McDonnell's conduct because he acted by the advice of one greater than he. It would certainly seem that Colonel McDonnell, having gone out of his way to seek advice, and having chosen to act as his adviser suggested, ought himself to bear the consequence of tho acts which were tho result of that "advice. It is granted that the advice was injudicious —which, by-the-bye, is a very charitable word to designate it by—but still it should be asked what right had Colonel McDonnell in an affair of the kind to seek any advice whatever, judicious or otherwise? It certainly required no casuist to decide which was the right and which ' the wrong way of acting in the case. A letter was brought to Colonel McDonnell, so he states, by an unknown messenger, ■whom he cannot now identify. After reading a portion of that ho found it wa3 not intended for him, and being at a loss how to act—for that he was at' a loss we may presume, else why did he seek advice ?— he sought counsel from Sir George Grey, ■who gave him "injudicious counsel, and he acted injudiciously in consequence; but still he is not t© bear the result of his injudicious action because it was the result of injudicious advice. Surely this is erring a little on the side of leniency. Surely it required no advice, injudicioua ,or otherwise, to decide how to act in a matter of the kind. If a letter intended for one man be opened by another by i*istako, the only course under any circumstances would be to return the letter immediately to the person for whom it was intendod, with an explanation of the causes through which the mistake occurred, and a note of apology. This, we say, is the only course open to any gentleman, under the circumstances. If a man deviates in anyway from this, the only honourable mode of action, and seeks advice from another— no matter who—where no advice ought to be needed, and ttiat advice leads him still further astray from honour's path,

he must be held responsible for having in the first instance sought the advice. Even clients are held responsible w.hen acting under the advice of their lawyers, which advice it is only fitting and prudent that they should seek. Surely a man is much more responsible for, acts committed by advice which he should not seek, than clients are for advice which they should seek. Colonel McDonnell, now it is too late, may blame the injudicious advice of his friends, but he must also blame himself first for ever having sought that injudicious advice. In fact we oursolves would feelalmost more disposed to condone a dishonourable offence of the kind, committed without deliberation, and when suffering under provocation, real or fancied, than one committed as the result of calm and perhaps dispassionate reflection. That is, had Colonel McDonnell found on perusing the letter that it contained matter of grave import to himself, and then, instead of returning it immediately, gone on reading it so as to obtain more knowledge—nay, even if he had without reflection made a copy of it—we should have considered that taking all the circumstances into account — provocation, anxiety, heat of the moment, &c—his oflence, though still dishonorable, a more venial one than was his keeping it back for Sir George Grey to read, and Mr Sheehan to advise upon, and others to copy for his or their future use. Luckily for Colonel McDonnell there is no evidence connecting him with the abstraction of the letter, neither in fact is there anypositive evidence that theletter opened by him is the letter abstracted from the Club. If this evidence were forthcoming of course there would be but one opinion as to the advisability of cancelling the Colonel's commission; as it is not, we are glad that the Governor has not thought necessary to resort to this step, and we daresay that the shame and disgrace inflicted on Colonel McDonnell by the reprimand at the hands of the Defence Minister, and the painful exposure of the whole affair will not be without their effect in showing others than the Colonel the self-evident truth that two blacks don't make a white.