The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-01 00:00:00

[NEW TINES.I

- -
The article which appeared hi The Times, o.
yesterday relative
,to. the proceedings in the case
of the King against Dolby, demands, our parti-
cular. attention, It is, we beiie.ve, the only in-
stance in. which the Constitutional :Association
has been mentioned in that Journal,. without the
lowest and most dkgracefuk scurrility: and we
are therefore satisfied that the. article' was com-
municated by a Correspondent, and not written
within the purlieus of Tripling House-lane. : It
presents,.however, by no, means a fair statement
of what took place respecting the summonlog of
the Jury. We need not 'repeat our forniernar-
rative of the circumstances which led to the'
summoning of the Special Jury a second
hied they attended, no further difficulty 'would
have occurred. • Why so large a proportion
of them twice .evaded the discharge of an
important public-duty, it is not for us tick con-
jecture—we trust it was not from the 'base
and slavish fear of being abased in The Times
for giving a conscientious verdict. .Be the cause
what it may, the non-attendance of those Oen-
tlernen rendered it, necessary for the Coroner to
choose ten talesmen, and the Court fully recog-
nised the propriety of his having previously form-
: ed g panel,. with a vim to the very, contingency
that actually .happenedt—lt" is intimated, and_
most unjustly intimated, that the- Coroner had
acted unfairly in the formation of this panel,
which,. it is asserted, ".was selected by him.
from the class of Esquires, usually in attend-
ance on Special Juries," Now we have a copy
of the list before us; and it so happens that it
does not contain a single .Esquire ; but M e see inH
it tailors, shoemakers, a cutler, a 'salesman, a'.
printer, a. paperhanger, a schoolmaster, a hosier,
a glover, a chinaman, a lacentan,^ and several.
other tradesmen of different descriptions. --
Strangers as we are to all the individuals, we.
cap only say that, to judge from their various
designations in the list, they seem to be is hider'
pendent a set of men as could have been assem-
bled- for stiCh a purpose,. We do ,nat deny that
the defendant is entitled to avail himself.of all-
legal objections: but we know that the only real'
benefit that .be could derive from his objection
in the present case was delay ; a thing which he
evidently'considers
,as. of great importance, hay;
ing twice contrieed to postpone his trial on Mere.
'technical grotmds,. Whether this shrinking from
judicial investigation implies a strong confidence
in his own innocence, or thg contrary, the public
may easily determine. . .

THE TIM ES I]
We have at present little more than space to
insert the information, that Mr. Creevey means,'
at some early period, to bring forward his motion,
founded on papers for which he moved on Wed-
nesday night, for the abelitiOn of that most
injurious *Act which was, passed in the year
1817, entitled " An Act to enable his Majesty
" to remunerate the services of
.persons holding
44 high official situations," The cif cumstances out'
of which this Act sprung were curious. The
cries of the people seemed, about the time that it
was passed, to have almost forced Ministers upon
the unpleasant task of abolishing some of the
many sinecures and undeserved pensions ; when
up springs this Act to their relief, which,
while it affected to clip down the places with-
out any duties to perform, created so many new
pensions of retirement and superannuation, as to
have left the country losers in the substitution of
the new act for the iniquitioui practices which
subsisted before. It has been no very uncommon
observation, that 64 ridicule is the test of truth."
This was very strikingly verified in the contro-
versy between Mess. flume and Grolier; when the
Secretary of the Admiralty, by a calculation, ex-
pressed not in figures of arithmetic, but of ridicule
and rhetoric, strove to convict one of the most dili-
gent and careful men in the House of Commons
of an. arithmetical blunder of 11,000,0001. in an
account which embraced a sum total of only
17,000,009/.1, This, as Mr. Brougham observes
in' his able illustration of Mr. llume's accuracy,
44 proves too much." It was the next thing to
morally impossible that any man above the level
of an idiot should, with returns before him even
so perplexed as those of our public offices, have
made a mistake of five parts out of eight, in the
sum total of any statement to be arrived at by
simple addition. For Mr. Hume) had he alone