What could possibly have prevented this trial?
But they talk as if some mysterious power had been used to their injury.

Some call it 'a thraldom from without'-- some 'a drowsiness within.'-- Mr.Brougham's Kendal Committee find fault with others--the Chairman of the Appleby Committee is inclined to fix the blame nearer home.

An accredited organ of their Kendal Committee tells you dogmatically, from the Bill of Rights, that '_Elections shall be free_;' and, if asked how the citation bears upon the case, his answer would most likely prove him of opinion, that, as noise is sometimes an accompaniment of freedom, so there can be no freedom without noise.

Or, does the erudite Constitutionalist take this method of informing us, that the Lord Lieutenant has been accustomed to awe and controul the Voters of this County, as Charles the Second and his Brother attempted to awe and controul those of the whole kingdom?
If such be the meaning of the Writer and his Employers, what a pity Westmoreland has not a Lunatic Asylum for the accommodation of the whole Body! In the same strain, and from the same quarter, we are triumphantly told 'that no Peer of Parliament shall interfere in Elections.' How injurious then to these Monitors and their Cause the report of the Hereditary High Sheriff's massy subscription, and his zealous countenance! Let him be entreated formally to contradict it;--or would they have one law for a Peer who is a Friend to Administration, and another for such as are its enemies?
Is the same act to pass for culpable or praiseworthy, just as it thwarts, or furthers, the wishes of those who pronounce a judgment upon it?
The approvers of that order of things in which we live and move, at this day, as free Englishmen, are under no temptation to fall into these contradictions.

They acknowledge that the general question is one of great delicacy: they admit that laws cannot be openly slighted without a breach of decorum, even when the relations of things are so far altered that Law looks one way--and Reason another.