The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-28 00:00:00

The Brighton Guardian, the proprietor of
which has been lately sentenced to pay a fine of
501. and to be imprisoned six months in Chelms-
ford gaol, complains of us and some of our
contemporaries, for not raising our voice against
this very severe punishment. We owe an apo-
logy to him and to our readers for not having
instantly expressed our strong disapprobation of
an attempt to revive persecution through the
instrumentality of Courts of Law. The short
paragraph for which Mr. Cohen has been pu-
nished, was what may be termed indiscreet. It
was a communication from a correspondent,

received shortly before the paper went to press.
It contained strictures on the conduct of the
magistracy, in the administration of the poor
laws, amply borne out by abundance of evi-
dence published by order of the House of Com-
mons (and in particular we may refer to the
evidence of the Poor-Law Commissioners),
and some questionable observations, to the pur-
port, that where the middle classes had supported
the magistracy in their proceedings ith regard
to the working people, there have been fires ; but
that where the middle classes had refused to sup-
port the magistracy in such proceedings,there had
been no fires. The tendency of these last ob-
servations, it was argued, was to deprive the
Magistracy of that support, without which they
could not carry the laws into execution ; and,
whatever we may think of the conduct of the
Magistracy, and, however much we may wish
the institutions of the country altered in as far as
regards them, we are ready to allow, that if men
invested with authority by law are not supported
in the exercise of that authority, confusion and
anarchy must ensue. The observations were,
therefore, indiscreet : but who is always on his
guard at all times ? The Bench acquitted Mr.
guard
of all intention of provoking to incen-
diarism ; and, indeed, from the whole tenor of
the articles in the Brighton Guardian, it was
sufficiently evident that Mr. Cohen constantly
dissuaded the people from violent and outrageous
conduct. The severity of Mr. Cohen's sentence
has excited a strong feeling in his behalf in the
scene of his labours ; and already a meeting has
been held with a view to the payment of his fine
by subscription. All, o, course, that can be
done by his neighbours, will be done ; but his
long term of imprisonment, in a distant gaol,
is a punishment which admits of no alle-
viation. Judges must themselves be tried
at the bar of public opinion ; and we
have no hesitation in saving, that at that
bar the sentence against Mr. Cohen will not be
approved of. Of late years the public feeling
has set in strongly against severe punishments;
and this has very properly led to extensive alte-
rations in our criminal law. It was felt that
punishment, to be efficacious in deterring from
crime, should not, by its severity, enlist the
public sympathy on the side of the offender.
It is the same with offences of the press as with

other offences : the punishment will always de-
feat itself if it exceed what is generally thought
the due measure. Mr. Cohen will appear in the
eyes of most men a martyr rather than an offender;

and we need hardly observe, that whenever the
public feeling is with the offender, the tribunal
necessarily loses part of the regard in which all
men would wish our courts to be held. There
is another consideration to be attended to. Mr.
Mabbett, the prosecutor,was a Sussex magistrate.
The offence had reference to the conduct of Sussex
magistrates. Twenty out of the twenty-three
persons composing the grand jury who found the
bill, were magistrates. Mr. Cohen was tried

by a special jury composed of men of the class
of the prosecutor. Had he been tried by a
common jury, in all probability he would
have been acquitted. Had he been tried in
the courts of Middlesex, whether by special or
common jury, the chances are a hundred to one
he would have been acquitted. What sort of
law is that ti hich varies continually in this
manner ? In one place a man is applauded for
what at a distance of ten miles is deemed an
offence. How often have we not seen the origi-
nal publication acquitted, and the publication
which copied the alleged libel convicted ? With
respect to certain acts, all men are agreed. No
man would hesitate a moment to find a verdict
of guilty where what is every where deemed a
crime or an offence has been proved. But it is
otherwise with regard to the expression of opi-
nions. To punish those of whose opinions we
do not approve, is not the best way to obtain
regard for what we may deem the truth. The
correspondent of Mr. Cohen, who thought that
where the middle classes supported Magistrates
there were no fires, stated nothing which could
not have been easily refuted. It is allowed that
the Brighton Guardian did not provoke the

labouring classes to recur to incendiarism.
Why, then, is Mr. Cohen's error to be deemed
such an offence, that nothing less than a fine of
501., and an imprisonment of six months, will
expiate it ? The proprietor of the Brighton
Guardian does both the Ministers and ourselves
injustice when he supposes that on account of
the Ministers we could not " be expected to
notice such an insignificant thing as a Country
Editor, shut up in prison for
six months

•
for not worshipping the " Great Unpaid."
The Ministers are dependant on public opinion,
and it cannot be serviceable to them that an un-
fortunate journalist should be so severely dealt
with in the way of punishment, as to become
an object of general sympathy. The fate of
Sir James Scarlett, whose conduct in the pro-
, secution of the Morning Journal was repro-
bated by most of the present Ministers, and
' approved of by no liberal public man, with the
exception of Sir Francis Burdett, will always
operate as a warning to Ministers against pro-
secutions for libel, calculated to injure them in
public opinion. The sentence cannot possibly
serve Ministers. In fact, Ministers must be
perfectly well convinced of the necessity of
allowing, in a country like this, great latitude to
opinion. They will assuredly not strengthen
themselves by relying on any other ally than
reason in enforcing their principles. 0,1 what-
ever grounds the sentence may be defended, ic
cannot certainly be defended on the ground of
its benefiting the Administration. We cannot
close these observations, without reminding the
proprietors of newspapers to reflect that the
liberty of the press must always be like a hot-
house plant in agricultural districts. Freedom
of discussion can only take root in large towns.
Country gentlemen are very well in their way ;
hut we should be very sorry to be tried by a
jury of them. Woe to the unhappy wight
whose lot it is to publish a Liberal Journal in
a district in which squires bear sway ! After
the trial of Sir Francis Burdett, at Leicester,
for a letter published in London, but put into
a post-office in Leicestershire, juries of squires
should constantly be present to the mind of a
public writer.—Morning Chronicle.
Another candidate has appeared to share the
honour of resistance to the-King's-Commission
with the Corporation of Leicester and the Mas-