The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-28 00:00:00

set at naught ? Are these things to be effected, we
repeat it, simply for the purpose of appeasing the
very narrow and very ignoble consciences of some ,
half-dozen gentlemen ? For none but men with the I
narrowest understandings and the most ignoble
notions of religion could endeavour, and endeavour
so effectually, to render the seventh day of every I
week—the day peculiarly set apart by Christians as
a most noble and beautiful festival—to render, we
say, that seventh day most hateful instead of most
welcome to the population. It has been observed by
a great philosopher, that supposing mankind had
not been restricted from labour on the
Sabbath, according to the beneficent institution
of the Christian Church, that in that case
some such a regulation would have been absolutely
required from our human legislators. Some relaxa-
tion is imperatively required from physical and mental
exertion. The bow, unless unstrung, gradually lcses
its tension, however tough or elastic its materials.
As the human body is only preserved in health by
the refreshing intervals of the quiescence produced
by sleep, so does society require for the preservation
of its vigour such periodical cessations from toil as
those afforded us by Sundays.
In the vicinity of the Glasgow terminus there are
somewhere about 350,000 :souls ; at the Edinburgh
terminus there are upwards of 200,000 souls.
Reflecting for a moment upon the thousands of in-
dustrious artizans comprised in that calculation ;
upon the men, women, and children, who are there
pent up in the confined and unhealthy bye-streets and
courts of Edinburgh and Glasgow ; upon the six
weary days of labour, living hand to mouth, breath-
ing nothing but polluted atmosphere, seeing nothing
but smoke and bricks, hearing nothing but the roar
and clatter of industry ; remembering the many limbs
that must ache in those two great cities on the
seventh day, the many brows that must burn with the
toil of the preceding week, the many hearts that
must sicken with the breath of the factory and the
workshop.—it is impossible to regard this restriction
on the part of the railway directors otherwise than
as a most cruel and unjust transaction.
We do not presume to interfere with the doctrinal
differences of any one; but we would earnestly de-
mand that these enemies to Sunday travelling should
only possess the power of legislating for themselves.
The true apostles of Christianity coerce no man to
their creed. We have always understood that the
rubrics of a church are enforcible only by moral and
not by physical agency. Much less should men be
empowered to dominate over the multitude for the
satisfaction of some extravagant ecclesiastical whim.
W ith the proper observance of the Sabbath these Sunday
trains have not the remotest connexion ; on the con-
trary, their continuance has been an extraordinary
boon to hundreds, who would have been otherwise
without any means of attending Divine service. We
are assured that through their instrumentality many
hundreds of Roman Catholics were enabled to reach their
chapels in Glasgow every Sunday from a considerable
distance in the country ; and Christians of various
other denominations have been benefited in like
manner. By the stoppage of these trains every
means of communication between the two principal
towns of Scotland will be entirely destroyed, coaches
and postchaises having been long since abolished on the
high road, in consequence of the facilities of steam
transit. These highly religious directors have thus
debarred the poorer and even the middle classes of
the inhabitants from breathing the pure air of the
country ; and be that noble saying never forgotten,
that man made the town, but GOD made the country !
We should be disposed to comment in more strin-
gent language upon this monstrous specimen of in-
tolerance, but that we remember that its very per-
petration must inevitably produce its own punish-
ment. The directors will find that they have a
higher, and, we hope, a more enlightened authority
in the shareholders ; and we call upon those share-
holders, for the sake of the health of the community,
for the sake of civilisation, for the sake of civil and
religious liberty, to rescind this extraordinary and
bigoted enactment.

It is the constitutional privilege of every British
subject that he shall be deemed innocent of any offence
charged against him until he shall have been convicted
thereof by a jury of his countrymen ; and in case the
circumstances should admit of a reasonable doubt, the
presumption in favoui of innocence should prevail,
the accused should receive the benefit of that doubt,
and be discharged from any of the penal consequences
of an act that had not been clearly and distinctly
brought home to him. This right of trial by jury is
the great palladium of the liberties of Englishmen,
and any derogation therefrom must necessarily be
regarded with the utmost jealousy.
The Legislature has of late years frequently taken
from this right. In many instances it has given to
magistrates a power of summary conviction, a right to
hear and decide a certain class of cases, to exercise
the functions of judge and jury, to decide whether the
person accused is innocent or guilty of the offence
laid to his charge, and, if guilty, to pronounce the
punishment of fine or imprisonment within certain
pecified limits. Should the evidence be conflicting
in its nature, the magistrate has, generally speaking,
the option of sending it before another tribunal, where
it will be investigated before a jury of twelve men on
their oaths, which he may also do if it appears deserv-
ing of greater punishment than that within his power
inflict; but, should he take it upon himself to
decide the question, he should act as a jury would be
directed by the presiding judge to do, and he should
give the accused the benefit of any doubt, and
certainly he ought not to decide, as in a civil case,
according to the weight or balance of evidence. In
conceding this great and unconstitutional power, the
Legislature was actuated by considerations of public
convenience. In many trivial cases the sending of a
person for trial would be a far greater punishment
than the infliction of a small fine, and much time and
expense would also be saved to the complaining
parties by the obtaining of an immediate decision.
It was also influenced by the high respectability of
the gentlemen on whom it conferred this power, and
the knowledge of the force of public opinion that
would be brought to bear upon any person by whom
the power was abused. It is peculiarly the province
and the duty of the public press to call the public
attention to any case in which the presiding magis-
trate appears to have acted on erroneous principles, in
order to prevent the recurrence of a similar mistake
on another occasion.
It will be in the recollection of our readers that a
case was brought before Mr. BROUGHTON, the magis-
trate of Worship-street Police-court, on Wednesday,
the 14th instant, against a young man named WIL-
LIAM SCOTT, who was charged with " drunkenness
and disorderly conduct, and obstructing the police in
the discharge of their duty." The case was a
peculiarly unpleasant one, inasmuch as it involved
swearing of the most contradictory character—ln-
spector JULIAN and several policemen, six in all,
declaring that SCOTT was intoxicated, and that he
was exceedingly noisy and turbulent, while, on the
other side, a surgeon, two respectable tradesmen, and
another witness, whose station in life was not stated,
came forpard, and positively swore that the young man
was not intoxicated, and that he was perfectly quiet
and orderly. The witnesses for the defence also de-
scribed the conduct of Inspector JULIAN as of the
most outrageous description ; that he rode furiously
backwards and forwards, goading his horse so that

was by a miracle he escaped trampling on and severely
hurting some of the lookers-on. On this evidence
Mr. BROUGHTON was called upon to adjudicate, and
his decision, and the grounds on which it was given,
appeared to us at the time to be of a most extra-

ordinary character. He stated "that the balance of
evidence was in favour of SCOTT'S intoxication, and
that therefore he would fine him 55., or a week's im-

prisonment, for being drunk, and that he would leave
out of consideration the allegation of intern-

perance and violence against the inspector, as it was
not formally before him for adjudication." Now in
this the most of principles were involved.
In the first place, he expressed a doubt, not merely

n words, when he spoke of the balance of evidence,

but also in the quantum of punishment, and in de-

dining to consider the conduct of the complainant.
If he was not perfectly satisfied and thoroughly con-
vinced of SCOTT'S guilt, he should not have sentenced
him to any punishment, however slight, which might
involve much more serious consequences than the
pecuniary penalty. He was not justified in omitting
so important an element as the conduct of the cum-
plahiarit in coming to a conclusion on the case, and if
he really believed the accusation, the fine of ss. was