The Sun.
London, England, 1818-04-18 00:00:00

mightily scandalized at the result of the late trial,
in which the itinerant Grievance-monger failed to
obtain a Verdict. •He says that " whatever a
Juryman's politics might be, it is his essential
duty to protect the Liberty of the subject." This is
indisputably true ; but it is not less evidently true
that it is 'equally the duty of a Juryman to punish
the Licentiousness of the subject. Now what was
the doctrine addressed, by the Faction to which he
belongs, to the Juries who decided that Hone's
infanious parodies were not blasphemous ?.While
scarcely a man could be found to deny that they
were the most abominable libels upon the religion
of the country that ever were published, on what
ground was founded a recommendation to the
Juries not to find them such ? It was 'contended
that, because productions soniewhat similar (but
possessing, by the bye, not one hundredth part
of their malignancy) had gone unpunished, it was
not the object of Ministers to protect religion,
but to persecute an opponent, and that such de-
signs ought to be frustrated by those Juries. In
plain terms, they were advised to disregard the
law, because, if strictly adhered to, it would be
rendered an instrument of ministerial vengeance.
It was said on Wooler's trial, I believe, by a
Journal which is now chiefly remarkable for two
things, for its advertisements and its tergiversa-
tion (I quote from memory, but the substance is
correctly stated), that, " although Jurors are
bound by oath to attend only to the merits of the
case submitted to them, their verdict will neces-
sarily be influenced by the actual state of their
feelings; and that it is impossible but that the
sympathy felt for men who have been imprisoned
without trial must attend those who are brought
into Court ! If prejudice against the party
which prosecutes be a proper motive to determine
a Jury in its decision, that which was awarded
against the hawker of petitions may possibly ad-
mit of justification. It will be recollected that
Mr. Deakin, after his sousing, exultingly exclaim-
ed, '' this is just what we wanted." It might,
therefore, have struck the Jury that he took his
station before Mr. Spode's manufactory with the
two-fold intention of getting some signatures to
his petition, and of tempting the men to commit
an assault, and so of touching the pocket (as the
phrase is) of one who was his enemy for two
reasons, because he was a rich man, and hostile
to Reform. But, only for the sake of argtiment,
let me further suppose the parties who employed
this vagrant reformer to have been men of the
most unprincipled and dangerous character, that
they were men who abet, in their violent and law-
less proceedings, a gang of " relentless ruflians,"-
the terror of the neighbourhood which is cursed
with their presence and polluted-by their iniquity..
Let me also put it (hypothetically) that the
attorney" whom they employ in their litigations,
which it is his business to project, is a man of such
abandoned principles, so shunned and loathed by
all the respectability of the place, that the inha-
bitants of a considerdble town concurred, una voce,
to prevent him from obtaining a settlement among
them. From this hypothesis (which contains no-
thing impossible) it will appear that better reasons
may possibly. exist for Mr. Drakin's ill success
than those which were thought to suffice for the
impunity of a man whose principles tend to the
dissolution of all'society.-.
Pefhaps, Sir, I should apologize for noticing,
at such length, writings which are so contemp-
tible in the eyes of men of reflection ; but our
experience. teaches us that they deserve attention,
not on account of their intrinsic merit, as com-
positions, but of their capacity for misckief; to
which, says Burke, those talents which arc fit for
nothing else are more than adequate. -
I am, Sir, with respect, &c.
London, Bth April, 1818. VERAX