The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-10 00:00:00

majority hi the tveakest fraction, lo4f, the State, whole con-
struction is 'essentially ziefenilve, fie 'tiatist be prepared for a
contesith the off;nsive vigour and growing energies of
theitommons; fresh frOnathei4elections ; he must he pre-
paro4tzi find them backedlai the angry enthusiasm of the
peoPle, supported by the mighty echoes of the Press, and
sanctioned by the approval of the most popular Monarch
that has ever been seated on the English Throne.
" He must be a disloyal man ; for he must contemplate
approaching that Royal ear with suggestions for a cow-
ardly falsehood, in the shape of an anti-Reform Message to
Parliament.
" He must be a blind and prejudiced man; for he must
fancy, that, by dissolving the present House of Commons,
he shall be able to obtain one of a less reforming disposi-
tion; as if the desire of a people, just baffled at the mo-
ment of gratification, should be snore quiescent under such
disappointment, than when checked, as it was in the
spring, at its outset.
" He must he a rash man, and a bad man ; for he must
be willing to commit the coronets of the Peers, and the
peace of the nation, to the dangerous re-action of a second
and third dissolution.
" Where then shall be found this bold, bad, blind, rash,
prejudiced, disloyal person? No where, I trust; and least
of all in the House of Lords."—Times.

When Mr. (now Lord) Brougham presented in
the House of Commons the petition of the Jurors
of London, praying for an efficient reformation of the
Criminal Code, with a view to the abolition of ca-
pital punishments for all crimes against property, he
gave it his decided and unqualified approbation and
support. He saw then nothing in it to cause him to
read a lecture to Jurors on the violation of their
oaths, but a great deal to make their opinion on the
necessity of the revision of the law worthy the se-
rious attention of the Legislature. Is it possible
that the air of the House of Lords can have so im-
proved the acuteness of his faculties as to enable him
to perceive the blemishes in that petition which he
was incapable of perceiving ten months ago? We
know there are many memorable instances of the
strange changes which can be brought upon the mo-
ral perceptions and opinions of men by the influence
of an aristocratic atmosphere; but, as it is impos-
sible to believe that the great intellect of Lord
Brougham can be swayed by the circumstances
which enslave inferior minds, we -must con-
tent ourselves with stating the fact which we
have above alluded to, without pretending to
divine the cause. Certain it is that on the 19th of
November last Lord Brougham presented to the
House of Commons, a petition signed by the same
parties, and couched in precisely the same language,
as that which his Royal Highness the Doke of
Sussex has, with an unostentatious sincerity of
manner which does him the greatest credit, pre-
sented to the House of Peers. On that occasion
Lord Brougham introduced the subject by saying
he had a petition to peseta which he felt greatly
honoured by being intrusted with, and to which he
begged the particular attention of the House. He
described the petition as one " very ably and clearly
expressed," and having stated the prayer of the
petition, and informed his hearers of the class of
persons by whom it was signed, and who had prac-
tical experience of the inefficacy of sanguinary laws,
he proceeded to say " the petition was worthy the
attention of the House on account of the reasons it
urged, but more especially on account of the autho-
rity of the petitioners ; for who were so competent
to speak of the scruples of Juries as they who had
felt those scruples ?" Lord Brougham having con-
cluded, Mr. Ward, then one of the Members fof'
the City, rose and bore testimony to the respect:,
bility of the petitioners; after whom Sir Thomas
(then Mr.) Denman got up, and emphatically de-
clared that this was cne of the most important pe-
titions that had ever been presented to that 1-louse;
and that it deserved the serious attention of eve!),
Hon. Member. He added, what we shall give in
his own words—" The House will now see that it
is a fact that Jurors are not unfrequently placed in
the miserable and painful dilemma of refusing to
declare the fact, as the oath they have taken rcs
quires them to do, or consenting to administer a law
which they believe to be cruel and unrighteous. I
know it has been stated by authority, which though
' high, is not competent to judge of the matter, that
Juries do not feel any scruple to administer the law;
but the House now has the snort competent authority
in contradiction to that statement." Such were the

unqualified declarations of the present Lord Chan-
cellor end Attorney-General in favour of the London
Jurors' petition against capital punishments in the
month of November of last year. The laws remain the
same—the mischief remains the same—the reasons
for altering the laws remain the same—the opinions
of the Jurors remain the same ; but the opinion of
the Lord Chancellor is so far changed, that he who
formerly said " who were so competent to speak of
the scruples of Juries as they who have felt those
scruples ?" now says that Juries ought to feel no
scruples whatever ; that, if the law unreasonably or
iniquitously takes away life, they should feel no com-
punctions of conscience—no shuddering:, of nature
—no humane hesitation, at finding themselves made
accessary to judicial murder; but should proceed to
slay, according to evidence, with as much coolness
of judgment and firmness of nerve as if they were
only summoned to perform the ditties of a righteous
system of justice, instead of being called upon to act
as the :Ministers cf Vengeance, and gratify that vin-
dictive demon in its appetite for blood ! The petition
states that, " in the present state of the law, Jurors
feel extremely reluctant to convict where the penal
consequences of the crime excite a conscientious hor-
ror on their minds, lest the rigorous performance of
their duty as Jurors should make them accessary to
judicial murder. Hence, in Courts of ,Justice, a most
unnecessary and painful struggle is occasioned by
the confl;ct of the feelings of a just humanity with
the sense of the obligation of an oath." Is this an
admission on the part of the petitioners that when
serving as Jurors in capital cases, they perjure them-
selves to acquit the accused ? No such thing—the
petitioners only state the struggle which exists in
such cases between their dread of being accessary
to judicial slaughter and their sense of the obliga-
tion of an oath. They pray the Legislature to re-
lieve them from that painful conflict between their
consciences and their feelings; yet Lord Brougham
has chosen to lecture them, as if they had admated,
in their petition that they had violated their oaths
to save themselves from the horror of assisting in
the unnecessary sacrifice of human life. That Juro:s,
however, have frequently evaded their oaths :ather
than deliver up men to the executioner for crimes
which ought not to be punished with death, is a
matter of public notoriety ; and what is more, they
have often been countenanced in so doing by Judges
of the land. Does it follow that any person who
states this fact as a reason for an alteration of the
law is an advocate for the crime of perjury ? If so,
Lord Brougham was himself, at one time, an advo-
cate for the commission of that offence; for, as we
have shown, he made the scruples of Jurors, to conms
vict, an argument for the reformation of the criminal
laws. The case is put strongly, but justly, by a
morning contemporary (the Chronicle), which says,
"ifJurymen had acted on the principle recommended
by his Lordship, all we can say is that blood would
still be poured cut blip
water in this country, for the
higlie;. ranks clung to sanguinary, punishments so
long
as Juries wouldconvict. Yet the Courier in-
-inuates this is an encouragement to perjury. It is,
however, only the statement of a fact which, to the
disgrace of our criminal
laws, admits of no refuta-
tion. We have the high authority of Sir William
Blackstone for this, upwards of sixty years ago.
That most upright Judge, and able commentator on
the laws, states the melancholy fact in the following
words So dreadful a Ust (of capital punish-
ments), instead of diminishing, increases the number
of offenders. The injured, through compassion,
will often forbear to prosecute; through
compassion, will sometimes forget their oaths,
and either acquit the guilty, or mitigate
die nature of the Offence ; and Judges, through com-
passion, will respite one half the convicts, and re-
commend them to the Royal mercy. Among so
many chances of escaping, the needy and hardened
offender overlooks the multitudes that suffer. Ile
boldly engages in some desperate attempt to relieve
his wants or to supply hie vices; and if unexpectedly