The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-24 00:00:00

[BRITISH PRESS. j

A considerable sensation has beets excited by
the trial and conviction of Mr. Robinson, and his
case hes been taken up with more zeal than judg-
ment, by some of the Morning Papers. Among
other mewls used to induce the world to believe
that he was innocent of the crimes of which he
WWI accused, was rather a handy gratuitous as-
sertion, that the Jury had repented them of the
verdict they had given on their oaths, and that.
they bud misconceived the evidence laid before
them. ,The conclusion that is drawn from this
assumed fact, too, is not quite what we should
hove expected, from men advocating the
cause of one of whose innocence they were fully
convinced, " Because," say they, " the Jury
were misled, therefore, Mr. Robinson ought to have
a free pardon." Now we cannot see the force of this
ut all—a free pardon presupposes guilt—the Royal
mercy is extended to one whose life or liberty has
become forfeit to the laws of his country. Should
Mr.Robioson escape in this we v, the question of his
guilt retrains just where it was—that is, the guilt
is admitted. We should rather, therefore, ex-
pect to see the friends of Mr. Robinson demand.
ing for hint a new trial, that his innocence may
be established beyond doubt or cavil, in the face
of his country, and the perjured witnesses brought
to justice.—But the Jury have cut this argument
short, by indignantly repelling the allegation, that
they either regretted the verdict they had given,
or thought that they had been misled by the
witnesses ; so that the justification of Mr. Ro.
Mason rests now, first, on the improbability
of a young gentleman in his circumstances cont-
mitting a theft ;and second, on the possibility of
his personal identity being mistaken ; and these
two points we Oka!) consider in their order.
When evidence against a prisoner is presumptive,
when circumstances seem to point him out US the
purser: who has committed a crime---when he has
not, from various casualties, the means of proving
an aiibi—then it becomes the Court to inquire into
his; motives, the temptations which may he suppos.
ed to have induced him to the commission of the
delinquency with which'he is charged, and then,
and then only) evidence of character becoines of

'the very last importance; because, as the evidence
only amounts to a presumption against him, for.
liner irreproachable character constitutes a much
stronger presumption in his favour. But when di-
rect, testimony-is brought against a man, character
cnn go for nothing. Thus suppose any man, Sir
James Mackintosh for instance, were accused of
a fraud, and the testimony against him only cir-
cumstantial, the known integrity and uprightness
of his character would render him, what lawyers
call auspicione major, and any Jury would throw
out the bill with indignation ; but on the other
hand, suppose that eight or ten honest men, with-
out malice or prejudice, positively swear that
they saw him commit the alleged crime, all evi-
dence as to character must be totally useless, as
it stands to reason, that it is much more probable
temPtations, to the Jury unknown, may have in-
duced hitn to the commission of the alleged crime,
than that ate senses of so many witnesses should
have deceived them. As to the second part of
the defence, viz. that Mr. Robinson is not the real
Simon Pure, that requires a little more consideru.
lions as no doubt can exist that mistakes of
personal identity as extraordinary have frequent.
ly occurred, though to us it seems somewhat
strange, that so vigilant a body as the police of
London should let a man slip so easily through
their fingers, whose crimes were committed so
boldly, and with so little apparent precaution.