The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

There was, however, but little if any search for the
delinquent, and the required assurance was rarely
long withheld. It is needless to say how completely
matters have been changed, by a few stringent
verdicts, There has been a complete revolution in
public opinion, and the man who at the present day
sent or accepted a challenge, would be exposed to ge-
neral censure, in place of the party who neglected
what was termed " the vindication of his honour" by
a personal encounter with his adversary.
But if in these instances " hard cases made bad pre-
cedents," and that the results were exceedingly inju-
rious to the best interests of society, much more per-
nicious would be the straining of the law beyond its
legitimate bounds, for the purpose of ensuring the
punishment of some unmitigated ruffian, whose atro-
cities had excited the just indignation and disgust of
all to whom they were revealed. There might be no
doubt of the moral guilt of the party, or that he had
richly merited the most stringent punishment; but it
should be inflicted in strict conformity with the law,
and a precedent should not be established that might sub-
sequently be made available in cases of a very different
character, and against comparatively innocent persons.
Better that the greatest ruffian that ever disgraced
society should escape with comparative impunity, than
that the law of the land—the great palladium of our
national liberties—should be in any degree strained.
If necessary, a special statute might be enacted, as in
the case of JONATHAN WILD, but there should be no
tampering with the existing law.
The case of JAMES CANNON, the chimney sweep,
who was on Wednesday last, capitally convicted at
the Central Criminal Court, for a brutal and unpro-
voked assault on a police constable, named DIV7EN,
affords a strong illustration of this principle. No
person could feel sympathy or compassion for the
truculent scoundrel. His previous atrocities consti-
tuted him the terror of the neighbourhood in which
he resided. There was a reckless ferocity exhibited
on many occasions, more particularly on that which
forn;ted the subject of the indictment, that ,placed him
beyond We -funds of ci%ilized society. llis very
name was a byeword and reproach—notorious in
every police court and station in the vicinity. He
habitually yielded to his ungovernable temper, and
was indifferent to the consequences either to himself
or others. No penalty could be too severe for such a
wretch. Ile was just the sort of person that a despot
might order for instant execution, without exciting
feeling of compassion for the sufferer, or regret at the
occurrence. The exemplary conduct of his la'est
victim, poor DIVTED, too, increased the horror felt
against his ruthless assailant. lie was affording
assistance at the moment of the savage onslaught, and,
though so severely injured, be exhibited a degree of
forbearance beyond all praise. It was, indeed, an
extreme case in every sense of the phrase, and it is
not from any sympathy 'with the convicted monster,
but in order to prevent a dangerous precedent frcm
being established, that we consider it an imperative
duty to direct public attention to the subject. It
must be borne in mind, that CANNON was not de-
fended by counsel—en omission that should never
take place in capital felonies. There was,
therefore, no opportunity for any person of com-
petent ability commenting upon the language of
the statute, or explaining the nature of the " intent,"
and the overt acts, by which that " intent" could be
determined.

Tile circumstances of this case are so fresh in the
public recollection, that it is quite unnecessary now
to set them forth. The counsel for the prosecution,
in opening the case to the jury, declared that it "was
one that would ordinarily have been prosecuted in the
form of an aggravated misdemeanour, and he dwelt
some time on the conduct and declarations—exclama-
tions might have been a more correct phrase—" of the
prisoner during the time of the occurrence," to show
the spirit by which ho was animated, and to establish
the criminal intent laid in the indictment. The
Learned Judge who presided laid the case very fairly
before the jury. He explained the nature of the

Statute 7 WM. IV. and 1 Vic., c. 85 s. 2, which was
to the effect, that if any person should administer poison
or other destructive thing to another, or.stab, cut, or
wound any person, or by any means 7rhatever cause to
any person bodily injury, dangerous to life, with intent
to commit murder, such person should be guilty of
felony, &c., and, being convicted, should suffer death.
Now, it appears to vs that the case in question did
not come within the provision of the statute—that the
" means" resorted to should be ej'sdcm gencris, with
those previously referred to, such as poisoning, stab.
bing, cutting, or wounding, or that, at least, some
instrument or weapon dangerous to human life, and
likely to prove fatal, should be resorted to. His
Lordship declrred, that " it was the first time in his
experience that an indictment had been framed on that
statute (or, we ventoTe to assert, on any similer one),
in which no weapon had been made use of. Oa the
4th section of the same statute it was considered ne-
nessary that some instrument should In used; so that
when the defendant bit off the prosecutor's finger, it
was held not to be a wounding within the statute (R.
v. Stevens, 1 Mood, c. c. 409 ; R. v. lierris, 4 Carring-
ton and Payne, 446.) It is right, however, to add, that
th© words " other means" ore not included in th© 4th

sect ion.
If the jury could have convicted of a minor offence,
we have little doubt that they would have ave;led
themselves of the privilege ;I but, unfortunately, the
difficulties which arose in the case of the BIRDS hei
led to an enactment which prevented such a crime.
They should either find him guilty on the full charge,
or acquit him altogether ; and henc3 the verdict of
which we cannot help compla;ning.
It would Le impossible, within the compass of en
article, to point out the consequences tint rn follow
from this novel interpretation of the law. We may,
however, illustrate it by saying that in every prize-
fight or pugilistic encounter, where death results, the
parties may be capitally convicted, and that the use
of the knife and other deadly weapons will receive
great encouragement from this verdict of an English
jury.

On the part of Lord DERBY and the present Con.
servative Administration,;we beg permission to return
sincere thanks to the Edinburgh Review for its lest
article on Representative Reform. It apperers that
the obsequies of Protection are to be celebrated prior
to those of the Duke of WELLINGTON ; that the
QUEEN herself, indeed, is to be chief mourner, im-
diately followed, of course, by her PRIME MINISTER
and her CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and a very
large accompaniment of mutes ; and although a
little uncontrollable grief is feared on the part of
some country cousins, it is nevertheless fully expected
that the grief will be interred with the remains of the
deceased. No party strife can of course be tolerated
during the two funerals; but these being over, Lord
DERBY'S campaign will begin in earnest. Now as
he will be able to choose his own position, and as he
has defences which can long withstand a pretty vigo-
rous opposition, we do not see why he should not
make the best of his advantages. It will be impos-
sible for the EX-PREMIER to summon the League to
his rescue, if the QUEEN'S Speech, and the movers
and seconders !of the Address, do really dispose of
the question of Protection. The leaders of the
the League, to do them justice, have never
shown the least solicitude for office. They were ready
to back any statesman, Sir ROBERT PEEL or Lord
Jowl', indifferently, if either would carry their object
for them. Their first hot zeal against Lord DERIST
was due entirely to the belief that he would WI to
unsettle, as far as he could, thelresults of their seven
years' labours; or that ho might be compelled by his
supporters to do it. In proportion as they saw that
he was sincerely determined to abide by the vote of
the country on their one question; saw too that the
Genius of the Cabinet was availing himself of the
Budget as a magic spell to silence the last hopes of
Anti-Free-Traders,—they became less and less fiery
in their opposition, and some of them, to the great
dismay of the Whigs, began to talk of giving the new
Government a fair trial. The former, no doubt,
hoped as soon as they had opened their eyes from
their "Resignation fit," to see the:Treasury benches
all ready cleared fer them by the Free-traders. The
against
the a
surtrevra e
Free-traders felt, however, no particular interest iu
the family clique. They had been expecting security
suffrage
to
al of their policy, by a large extension
the classes
sses most interested in
chew focd, and a
demolition of their
enemies' atrongholde,
the nomination boroughs; utterly
disappointed in this, they naturally lost all confidence
in the Whig Minister who had deceived their hopes,

and were quite content to go on with practical legisla-
tion, end to bide their time. They have much of that
feeling still. We expect that the great meeting at
Manchester will snow consithrable unanimity of feel-.

ing amongst the Reformers, on points which they will
be slow to trust in Lord Jour's hands. They will
want a very large end real extension of the suffrage;
an easier mode of registration; a fairer apportionment
of represen+ltives ; above all, they are determined to
tolerate no new Reform Bill without the Ballet; and

on most of these points, especially the last, and the
one preceding it, Lord JOIIN, notwithstanding all his
declamation at Perth about democracy, is as they, and

we too, believe, no more inclined to concession than
the PREMIER himself. Lord JOHN has not often, so
far as we can remember, transcended the .Edi,ohurgii

Review; and we feel little doubt that the writer of
the late article on our representation was aware in

generals, and perhaps in details, of what the Noble

Lord would like to offer to Reformers. Some becom-

ing differences, deducted to save the credit for inde-

pendency of the writer and the statesman, and we fancy
the reviewer is not far from the meaning of the Perth
laudations of Democracy. If so, we again say that we
think the Earl of DERBY is much indebted to the re-
viewer. He, too, will know what to offer to Reform-
ers. Mr. DISRAELI has declared himself friendly to
including intelligent operatives within the limits of
an extended suffrage. 3lr. WAr.rone, we know, would
have no personal objection to giving votes even to
militiamen ; and Lord DERBY may well believe that
to stem democracy the best course may be to enfran-
chise the elite of the masses. If so, the .Edinburgh
Review will furnish him with some useful hints. A
main object of the article we allude to is, to show that
the middle classes are the chosen constituency of the
Reform Bill (Lord DERBY'S own Bill, be it remem-
bered, as much as Lord Jennie) ; that by cutting off
gradually the old freemen and potwallopers, and
abolishing so many nomination boroughs, it diminish-
ed the power of the aristocracy on the one hand, and
of the populace on the other ; while by enfranchising
the ten-pound householders, it created a largo middle-
class constituency. Now, this was Lord DERBY'S
work. This work ho could consietently carry on ;
and the reviewer contends that another Reform Bill
ought to move in the ruts (we will not say on the
rails) of the old one. Moreover, the reviewer shows
how this may be done. He selects various clams of
persons, against whose admission to the franchise
we believe that the greater part of Lord DEBBI
supporters would raise no objection whatever.
He proposes to enfranchise all the members of the
three learned professions, all officers in the army and
navy, all schoolmasters, all who pay, or may have to
pay, direct national taxes ; all these classes but the
last would be, of course, an educetion suffrage, one
which the most Conservative member of the present
Cabinet would hardly object to; while most ra-
wns paying direct taxes are already included
in the present constituency ; it would merely fa-
cilitate, in some cases, sustaining a claim to be on the
register. The reviewer goes, however, a little fur-
ther; he would put on the register all persons who
could prove satisfact erily to the Revising Barrister that
they were possessed of the clear sum of 501. invested
in Government securities, in a savings' bank, or in the
purchase of annuity. Ho would not, indeed, object
to 501. worth of property, in any form, conferring a
vote ; but he thinks the above-mentioned form the
only ones susceptible of easy verification ; and in 501.
invested in a freehold gives a vote, there appears, he
truly enough conceives, no reasonable objection to its
giving a vote if invested elsewhere. Here, again, we
think Lord DERBY would be as liberal as the Whig
organ. Men who had saved end invested 50/. would
at least approximate very closely to the class Mr.
DISRAELI declared himself willing to enfranchise.
The reason which the reviewer appears to assign
for preferring the extension he advocates, is one too
which must find favour with the head of the present
Ministry, end the part author of the Reform Bill-
Tire voters thus created will be, he observes, of the
class most resembling the middle classes, even such of
them as belong nominally to the working classes ; on
the same
eground he suggests the enfranchisement of
all managers and superintendents of labourers, over-
lookers and foremen, &c., in factories. He discussed
the propriety of a small number of members elected by
working men exclusively, as their representatives, but
thinks they would prove a knot of obeructives ; also
whether by double election workmen might not elect
electors, and these again the members of Parliament
(as in Norway), the fatal objection with the reviewer
is, that there is but one step between this and the
awful abyss of universal suffrage ! In both these
views Lord DERBY will agree with him. We have
no doubt, moreover, that his Lordship and Mr.
DISRAELI still more, would look favourably upon the
suggestion which first appeared in the Spectator, and
is much approved by the reviewer, of a certain num-
ber of natioaal representatives, to be elected by per-
sons who shall request the Revising Barrister to
strike the name out of the local list, and insert it in
the national list ; the object being to provide an
opening for that superior class of candidates, who,
though all intelligent persons wish to see them in
Parliament, are not popular with any constituency,
because, as independent tFnkers, they cannot swallow
the entire creed of my party. For ourselves, ves,w
we
frankly own that there have been many
indi-
viduals excluded from Parliament, whom, in a local
election, we could scarcely have supported, but whose
absence from Parliament we deeply felt, and for
whom, as national voters, we could have given our
suffrage gladly.
We must pass over the reviewer's redistribution of
the franchise. Again, the Conservatives are much in-
debted tobine for his ingenious special pleadings for the
Aru.ndels end Honitons, and other little places, called
indeed towns—but, in fact, nothing better than large
agricultural villages. Places, fur the most part, with
a lord or a squire, and a clergyman ; but no librery,
no news-room, and no mechanics' institute. " They
are places having a peculiar character."—Yes, that of
insignificance. Tise Ballot, though he thinks it pru-
dent not to be too contemptuous, he evidently dislikes
as t
inml
e acfgohor
,a
as t th h 1
safe
ee
mV.
plan
ani o
by w hiecwrhbryoh.
eelltro FRAIL,
We
would
supersede
of
u mentioned,p ers Shrews-
bury,eadsebo:
necessity. He would send round to ell the elcztors
an officer, attended of cots-se by the agents of the
candidates, to receive in a box, with a slit in the
top, voting papers lett at least 24 hours previously
would prevent
good
i(nthseepotlalanndaloptihis
adopted
he elsehctoiwngs, Poor-law
deal of the bribery, which gets to its worst about
2 p.m., on the polling day, and prevent also much of
the excitement and drunkenness. Be it so. Yet., since
ceasr esigno
numberlesslerl
cd bbo oroy_im
withk, can it
cthansetei
s
name
i ti prevent
thepublishedguiltiest
of
papers
sin the p
We
h
ee
mosthave
estimable members of society have been compelled to
elolate their religious or conscientious convictions by
a barbarian, a political leouEe, under the name of a
landlord, or a master
; we have seen their mental
anguisha
ware
isho y sometimes,
are usbutthe
p sucheeti sorrow,protection
of
th
eB
that
Ballot
nothinglot
n afor
those
theotbest voters in the whole
comm ern
csf
commonly w it h r
andos
et
iheentiou indifferent,
n an who
b
?mbeurcttharey enidnawf nhti h c
he
that voter,
cruel! and
that
cares about
them The en
who
tt einks for himself, ought to be surrounded
em
by every
safeguard the Legislature can furnish. Lord Jon et
and his reviewer must add to this pretty little sub-
terfuge two things. One, that the voter is not to sign
his name to the voting paper; another that he is to
inclose it in an adhesive envelope, before he puts it into
the box. Then, my Lord, we may begin to think of
asking you back, that is, provided you pledge your-
self more surely than you did to the Appropriation
Clause, to carry the Ballot, or to resign office.
Meantime we see at present no reason why Lord
DERBY cannot offer us nearly as good a Reform
Bill as Lord Jones and his reviewer ; and, if so, we
also see no reason why, after completing their legal
and other reforms, they should be driven Dom office
on the Reform question. The reviewer has furnished
what Lord DERBY at first appeared to wish for, a
check for Democracy only, and it will suit Lord
DERRY better, for the very reason that it will be held
to be a liberal thing from him, while it is in reality
nothing but a spring buffer to save the Parliamentary
train too violent a shock.

A remarkable paper of a political character adorns
the current number of Blackwood for November. It
has especial refer:mce to the state of parties during
the lapse of the recent "Holidays." The writer