The Sun.
London, England, 1801-06-22 00:00:00

4 4
fot that the Deftnttnit's having appeared, and en.
tore; it)tin a defence, cnred all objeCtion, to the want, of
a igummOns, and that his not having askea for farther
tiTne to pretxtre his defence, waved ail objedions to
his being taken by survise. But us to the other
points the Court was rhvided in opinion. •
I.ordKIZNYO'N thought, tint there Was a .differ.
epee between an At-Eon:for 'the 'Penalty and a Con-
, vidion upon the Game Laws. In the one, that is,
an A,dion, it was enough to state, that the Defend.
ant
.had.killed "Game, not being qualified so to do
and then to prove that he had killed it, the burthen
0!' proving that he Was qualified rested on the Pe.
ferdant ; but in the case of a conviCtion before a
Justice,. it was required,, not only that the Infor-
,,. matins' should state that the Defendant killed Game,
not being qualified; and then the Evidence to prove
'he",killecl' the Game; but also, that the informer
ahould give reasonable evidence of the probability
that. the .Defendant was not a person qualified to
kill Game:. This was 'a donrine that.was held by
Illy Lord MANSEM.D, Mr. Justice FostEx, and
Mr„ Justice DENNTSON7 upwards of forty years
ago, iri eases'which, his Lordship recited—but the
detail of which would branch out to a length for
which we have no room, at presen% His Lordship
.thought this :.!4.l:rlneteasonahl,e, tor it was not re- •
gaited of an Informer to state, positively, that a
Defendant was not qualified, but he could easily
state_ what he knew of .1t Defendant, by
.which a
Mag,iStrate mightjedge, whethet he Was qua-
lified, .or not. He 'could know, fOr instance,
',whether the Defendant was a Duke of 'Bedford.or
a Cobler in 3 sill ige, and if sonie such-ilk as this.
`were not to be fiallOwed, the Duke of Bedford,. if
summoned before a Mhgis'erihe, :antrit was prove&
he shot a }cartridge, would be boun& to prove
Ms qualification ;4,-,to prevent these vexatious cm.
pliints, it had been thought proper to require that'
the Informer, in these cases, shoold lay some rea-
42nable.. evidtnce whenee the 'Magistrate might
fairly infer that the Defendant -was not 'qualified,
and that the circumstances of the Case, dm; stated,
should not only appear in the. inforniation, but -also
in the recital of the eVicTence; on which the con..
viaion was &untied, and' lastly, in the convidion
' itself. This was not done in the piegerit Case.—
The whole here depended on the information itself,
in. Which nothing was said whence to infer that the
• Defendant was disOalified ;- for these- -reasons his
tordship was of opinion that this conviction ought
• to be quashed.
Mr. Justice GROSE inclined to the same opinion,
but more, in some,,respeets, from deference to- the
authority of Cases that had so decided it, than to
any reasoning' which he had to apply to them.—
On the whole; however, he thought this Conviction,
aught • to be *quashed'. •
Mr. Justice LAwltztice and. Mr: Justice LE.
BLANC were of another opinions They did not see'
why there should be any difference, in the Case of
a Convielion halfore a IVlagistrate, and that of an
Affion for the recovery of a penaltibefore a Jury.,
In the case of an Anion, it would be sufficient first,•
to alledge in the Declaration, that the Dekndint•
had killed Game, not being qualified to do so ;
then to prove that lie killed Game, which threw
on the Defendant the burthen of proving that he
was qualified, which he Could at all tunes easily do,,
whereas it might be impossible for the other side
to prove the contrary, &c. for which -reasons they
thought this Conviction legal. • •
The consequence of this division of Opinion' of
two Judges against two, was, that the Couit did
nothing in this Case.

THE ZrNO-.V.-SPERCE.

The Defendant came to receive the judgment of
the Court- for publishing a pamphlet called " Spcnce!s
Restorer of Society." The whole matter had been
formerly diseuwtd, and nothing now remained but.
the Judgment of the COtirt; •

Mr. Justice ()ROSE addressed the 'Defendant on
the nature of the offence of which he was c9nvieled,
wlEch was, that of publishing a very atrocious and
wicked Libel against the Governm:nt and Consti.
tution of this Country. The object of this Libel,
the:Le:lined Judge said,' was quite obvious ; it was
to 'excite discontent in all the lower classes of the
cottmunity in which we live, and to cause those
who have no property, to aim at the subversion of
all Law which was made fol ericOurdgeracrit of
dustty, and the proteciion of that property, v. !;c-1
was the reward of it ; in a word, it was a Pubic:{
tion, the bent of which was the totafdestruetionct
all Law; all Morality,,and all Religion,and toplitce
in their stead, confusion and anarchy, the offsPring
t of fidie Philosophy, and the parent of all the compli-
cated miseries Which have so munch affliciad the world.
The Learned Judge then proceeded to mark the pro-
gress of the Society. in which we live, how, under
Divine Providence,we had gradually risen to the tali.
nent proiperity which we now enjoy, sceur6d only
while we were prudent enough to submit to the Lawi -
which the wir.clom of our Ancestor?' had engled.—
He expatiated on the folly of the Defendant's Pub:
lication, recommending an equality of possessions,