The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-16 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
(From the Globe.)
While we fully concur in the feeling which appeared
last night to prevail in the House, as to the impropriety
of measuring punishment rather by the rank of con-
victs than by the quality of crimes, and while we
agree also with Mr. Warburton, that if Sir Francis
Burdett had continued a Chartist, and had, in these
days, transferred his Chartism to the Bull-ring, instead
of confining it to its old and classic arena of Covent-
garden, he would not have been stripped naked on
committal to Warwick Jail, and perhaps would
not even have had his coat turned right again—we can-
not assent to some of the distinctions set up by Members
on both sides between crimes by word and action, and
between political and other offences. There is no
doubt that rash words have often been visited too
severely, and that political justice has often been
the worst of injustice. But it does not follow
that words may not be used with as direct cri-
minality of intention and effect as any other instru-
ments ; and that political opinions may not form the
pretext of schemes directly aimed at spoliation and vio-
lenee. Whether words have been, or have not been,
used with such intentions—whether politics have been
or have not been made such pretexts—are questions
which cannot be answered by such distinctions as those
above adverted to. They are questions for the good
men and true who serve upon juries, and who, as Mr.
Warburton stated, " define the crime, and declare the
criminality at the same time." They have answered
them in the recent trials for treason and sedition, by
convicting 232 persons out of 290 committed.
(From the Standard.)
The case of Lovett and Collins, prisoners in Warwick
gaol, led to a discussion of the scale of punishment suited
to various classes of offences and offenders, from many
of the principles propounded in which we must dissent.
Seditious offences, it is argued, ought to be punished
with peculiar tenderness, and, as it were, in a respectful
manner. This seems to us to be very absurd doctrine.
Whether we look to the motives or to the consequences
of seditious offences, or to the proper adaptation
of punishments so as to produce the most terror with
the least infliction of actual injury to the individual,
seditious offences are most suitably repressed by severe
and by degrading punishments. In our time the motives
of the seditious are thoroughly sordid—as sordid as
those of the thief; we never knew an agitator, from
Daniel O'Connell downward, whose eye was not
rivetted upon somebody's breeches pocket, though
false pride or cowardice might deter the criminal
from a more direct mode of stealing.
(From the Courier.)
Last night Mr. Warburton introduced his motion
on the treatment of Messrs. Lovett and Collins, who
were convicted of seditious libel at Warwick. We refer
to the debates for the particulars of the indignities
which are inflicted upon men whose offence may, after
all, have proceeded from a warmth of imagination or an
error of judgment. They are convicted of having used
violent language, and violent language, it is well known,
is often more attributable to an irritable than to a vicious
disposition. We have no right to suppose, nor as far as
we remember, is there anything in the evidence addu-
ced against them to warrant a belief that they were
actuated by other feelings than those which were, we
believe, pretty generally entertained, and which were
the natural consequence of the riots at Birmingham.
As it is now perfectly understood by the country that
these riots were originated indirectly by the seditious
language and viler doctrines of those who are unfor-
tunately the advisers of the Crown, we are precluded
from those reflections which such disgraceful occur-
rences suggest.