The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-02 00:00:00

[NEW TIMES.]

Notwithstanding the positive assertions that
Russia had declared war against the Porte, and
that a joint Manifesto of Austria and Russia, re-
lative to the affairs of Turkey, had already been
signed", we believe that nothing of the kind is yet
determined upon. The Austrian 0 bserver,it is well
known, speaks the sentiments of the Cabinet of
Vienna with something approaching to official ac-
curacy ; but that Paper has not given any hint from
hich the inclination of the Austrian Government
to support the Greeks can be reasonably inferred.
—lt may be doubted whether the Emperor Alex-
ander has any desire for the mere conquest of
European Turkey, but he probably participates
in a great degree the deiire common to all Chris-
tian Potentates to put an end to the barbarous
oppressions exercised on the Greeks by their
ferocious tyrants. The Emperor of Russia is
naturally looked up to as the chief patron of the
Greek religion, and his subjects, who are bigot-
tedly attached to that communion, would con-
sider a war for its re-establishment as sacred.
Still lie must be well aware that the other
European powers could not, and would
not look on tamely, while Russia made her-
self mistress of Constantinople.—W e now
begin to experience some of the evils of
that senseless clamour for retrenchment, right or
wrong, which has been kept up for the last six
months. Ministers have, in our opinion, injudi-
ciously suffered themselves to be dictated to by
faction and ignorance; and our army is about to
be reduced at the very moment when we want
an imposing force to support our negociations. If
the Emperor Alexander be actuated, as some
suppose he is, by a wish to destroy the balance
of power, his most efficient ally, in this nefarious
scheme, will have been Hume the Surgeon.

[MORNING HERALD.]
We have received many communications rela-
tive to what took place at the Old Bailey on
Wednesday in the last week, between the
London Jury and the presiding Judge. A
most serious impression has, we have no
doubt, been made upon the public mind by the
publication of the appeal of ten of the Jury, de-
precating, as a matter of humanity, and as a
balm to their feelings, the infliction of the
punishment of death upon those against whom
verdicts of death had been returned by
them. The refusal of the City Officer who
presided to hear the apiial of the Jury, and
his rebuke to the Foreman has also excited a
strong sensation. Has an English Jury no right to
make an appeal to the Royal mercy of the King
in Council through the Court ? Do they not con-
stantly exercise this right ?—ln individual cases,
it is true. But if in individual cases, each in suc-
L cession, why should they not have the right of irn-

ploring the Royal mercy for the sum of those
eases (which is exactly the same thing) at the
closing of their functions as Jurymen ? The
grounds of their appeal are equally within the or-
dinary practice of Jurymen—the absence of mark-
ed atrocity, and the dreadful severity of the
punishment. But the Common Serjeant is re-
ported to have told the Jury (we by no means
pledge ourselves for the fidelity of the report,
which we copied from another Paper) that they
had nothing to do with the punishment which
the law awards. We shall not take it upon us
to discuss or even to question this dictum of " the
Court;'' but we would turn round and ask any
person who has the least acquaintance with the
character and humanity of our jurisprudence in
penal matters, whether an English Jury is re-
garded as a mere mindless, heartless machine,
which shall simply present a verdict of technical
guilt or innocence, without regarding the colour
of the offence or the nature of the punishment ?
Have we not frequent instances of the Court and
the Jury conspiring to sophisticate common rea-
son and conscience, by depreciating property, in
order to evade the blood-written provisions of the
Statute?