The Sun. — 1823-11-22 (London, England)

MORNING HERALD.] The restrictions which the visiting Magistrates of Hertford have thought proper to adopt for the safe keeping of the persons charged with the late Murder, have given rise to more than the usual quantum of silly declamatioth—We do not mean to say these restraints were necessary or wise, but it may be asked in the very outset, and on the first. view of the matter, what sinister motives—what inexcusable inducement,' could English Magistrates of reputable condi. tion and Unimpeached character, have, to employ useless, or to their knowledge uncalled-for 'rigour against the unhappy linen, for whose safe custody they are to account ? Is it in the disposition of Englishmen to indulge themselves in acte of wanton severity ? The odium has been rather exclusively an of thrown upon one of  these Magistrates, a clergyman, Mr. Lloyd. It is even stated against him in aggravation, that he has passed whole hours in and about the prison. Of Mr. Lloyd we have not the slightestknow ledge, but, in the name of candour and common sense, is it to be presumed that any gentleman of his probable habits and education would as a matter of luxury, pass his time in such a manner ? Nothing but the clear evidence of facts should induce a belief in such strange idleness and depravity of taste. We have said that we do not justify the restraints imposed upon the intercourse with the prisoners, but there are, as it strikes use the clearest grounds to excuse them. It was most likely—indeed it may be said, Most certainly, the first time that these Magistrates were intrusted with a charge of such awful responsibility. Let any man imagine, for a moment, the situation in which these gentlemen would stand, with reference to the state, the community, and Public justice, if the prisoners had escaped. Now, if ever in any case extreme vigilance was necessary, it is this. The prisoners, truly or falsely, have been represented as persons of desperate audacity, accustomed to acts of hardihood and contrivance, and leagued with a host of the most formidable confederates abroad. Was it not most natural that the Magistrates should, in such a cause, use extraordinary vigilance and restraint ? Was it not natural and excusable, that, haunted as they were by the awful responsibility imposed on them, they should use a degree of rigour beyond reason, and the exigency of the case? What changes have not been rung upon the valuable, but somewhat hackneyed maxim of our law, that—" every man is to be presumed innocent," and so on—Why, according to the construction of this maxim strictly by some of our wise jurisprudents, these prisoners should be left, like other innocent men, to their liberty and other enjoyments. But it will be said that the restraints necessary for safe custody are compatible with this maxim—the meaning of which is, that no infliction or privation shall be suffered in the way of punishment. Be it so— und let us see whether any restraint has been imposed in this instance, in the way of punishment —none whatever. It is true, extraordinary restraints were imposed ; but who is so ignorant of the Criminal Law of England in its daily practice as not to know that it is not merely permits, but directs different degrees of restraint and privation, according to the degree of offence-the character of the individual, and various other considerations of discretion. One person is left at liberty on his own recognizance, another is obiged to provide bail under heavy penalties—a  rd is refused bail, but allowed intercourse w  lose abroad, whilst a fourth is consigned to so II confinement: