TRIAL OF BERNARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume X, Issue 602, 11 August 1858, Page 3

TRIAL OF BERNARD.

As the! trial of' Bernard has not only!become a matter of ''Eiirppeati;*celebrity,; but thelprojce'eclingsian^ reswlt'naVe, alsoerigeride'redantagf 6m4ic;'6buUtipns;;Qf; feenngMthroiigh;: : Ffaricei wiiieli, may 'possibly loe not allayed .withput.more ' serious cbtfse^ence^ r we^ '9pstairied, from "giyipj* ; iriucli7bf 'tHe'Jpa.rticiulat's'.,until "we; j.cotija \ find flpab^fot'^lengMeued, reporfc v .Tj^e.e^austiori of, wjfc '.'last general!'JE^^^ >yittt* the* nbn-^ifat of th'elliay' mail-allows the required space, forHKe.'mp^' important part .of the trial; ' —fMr \ ' Ja^iaes" adress.in' behalf of the prisoner,j and the: i%>ly:,of the. Attorney-General, j "The! c&&fbr! the; prosecutionoccupied five days; arid! on the 16th ofrApfil r ..; ii ■ ; The iLbrd .Chfef!'Justice, the.'Lord!;, Chief. Baron, Mj\; Jiistice!i3rie f arid Mr. Justice Grow- j der/canle into cp^rt at: 10" p'clocki! , ; | The prisoner; was' placed at the bar, and the! trial prpceedecl. '".,/< v -. :■ •'■ i -.-\ :.■ ); ■ Miv James ' his . to :! the j jury A by lie -was nb|;using\ prdi-1 "ndry languagel when, hes?iid that tlie, t decjsioni in j this casel a&cted?th^ ; libertiesof .'.'England, •-,.1t j had.beeti the boast of England hitherto that it i was hfer privilege 1 tp.jdefend! the weak against the^strpng."" the very? spb^ that he ; :np^ occupied, to defend j the 'freedom whicU ha^"'ever.been!the pride of! Englishmen." J! duced to the jury, but "at the'"sametime he had v a right to, protest against the \ manner in wHic)i? the. indictment was, framed. The real purposesi of the prosecution had been ; disguised' from' the very, opening-~it was J?ot instituted tP satisfy' some 'complaint of Englishmen, but tojgratify thesthirst'."for yerigeanceof a'foreign ppteiitateV: .But not' content .with haying'.forf^ that pptent^e; Wished 'to see an; English scaffold stained withJ innocent "blood, r for ;the sake of serving! his * own'; selfish ends. The' AjttprneyGeneralv had 'been silent throughout,;upbn!'the Act of 'Patliahie.nt*'unUerVwhiph'th"e;indictnieri<; was: frauied.': He> made no^ .mention" that the. law was "hmng ;s't'raine'd;.for'the first time;in English'histby^tti^gvatify, ;the;!demands of.;a foreign pbwei^ .Government had shrunk from pr6cee:ding^ in this .matter, by Act of ■Parliament,' ariclthey were seeking to get ,out. of a, difficulty .by .instituting.a criminal prosecution, the! like of Whifelrwas^riever before Jknovvn in tlie! jurisprudence 'of the country,V ; ;jfc'^as. at the suggestion' of the t.nipst' acute criminal -lawyers; of the;day that' tlbis e>cjleriin^nt was being tried; bils!for" t^eV^e'of, British : and^thej gloribus: p'rin^pWftf! Eng]isli;;fam .play,, he J ap^ : pealed;tp th^' ftlr?. tb^ibteFpose their ybice'and; defeat ife 7; Let liini ireckl!to their minds the in-. cidehts of;this;;d^se^ w,i!th; ? the,yiew ; .of| showing,; that a ■ pplitidal; piirpps£ w!^s!'tp ; ' be 'accomplished, by this prosecution. : The'annpuhcement of fch'ej event cif thel4th; of'January^!was received in, these realnistwitb: a feeling of horror, andindigr nation.!s ;Det6statiph ibr'the;assas^ns was. uni-; v'ersally" 'exptessed, but ■ thoiigh the people ,of England Cptild ;not recognise, the'prinpiple of tyi-annicide^ tliey;" could notshut put from their view, in cphsideriiig;! tliat crime,•/ tlie. position,' of Italy, and .the antecedents of ihe Emperor :pf the French; \yhile protesting in the liveliest! language against the •, dagger of the assasgirt, 'Englishmen.. could- - not avoid feeling some sympathy-for those whose, rights and liberties had been rudely destroyed by the legions of the despot. After the attempt upon the Emperor's life, there came the threats of high: Prench functionaries, and the abusive addresses of the French colonels. A. demand was previously made by,the Emperor of the French that something should be done to.cheek the proceedings, if not to expel political refugees from these shores. In reply -to that demandy the; Ministers of the' day brought a bill into the iHbiise ;bf Commbris !tb restrict. the asylum we had offered to the unfortunate refiigees of all climes^nd countries. ' The. House of .> Commons, however, refused- to give the bill a second reading'; from all 'sidesit was condemned as" being, a measure dictated to the British Parliament, arid .liprd' Johti Eussell, one of the gi-eatest;pplit.i<3ians of .the age, declared that if the bill passed he should feel himself ashamed and degraded. 3STbt: alone J was that opinion confined t6'thenoble:lidrd, but'to.the majority of; the English' House ;6f Commons, and eventually the measure led' to the downfall, of the Palmerston Administration. Lprd ] Derby tlien sucbeededrto ;ppweV, but the French difficulty still remained,:arid' thb new Government rset themselvesl to' work to V discover some, other method of gettingrid of it. Ik; then, occurred to the Attomey-Creneral, instigated by Mr. Bddkinito' change' the chargef against tlie prisoner from one of hiisdemeaflour to that of wilful; murder. !!Fbr i! thatl pvirpbsie an old Act of Parliament was resuscitated, whose frairiers had never contemplated application to such^a case: and now it was sought by that means to assauge the anger of the despot without having recburse to the machinery of Parliament., Lord Derby's' Government, were seelang. to obtain from a^u-English jury what thb English House of Commons'had refused; Well, that being so let them just see what ground the Government had tojustify such an. unconstitutional mode ot proeeedmg; They were anxious, they said, to check conspiracies to: murder loi-eign potentates: but, while denouncing such:crimes, the jury should not' lose sight of the events which had induced the attempt of the .14th January. Italy-^formerly the Queen of the Earth the home of liberty, and the promoter of all that ennobled civilisation—was now the prey of the tyrant. ' Her institutions wore suppressed, her sons scattered to the four quarters of tho globe, and her fertile lands made a dead waste. Who

could^ wonder, then, that while-breathing.; the air of freedom on English soil, the : Italian should ,sigh for ;his j own sunny clime? Whd could wonder that ; he should: conspire to regain liberty, in;.his, own native :, home; nay, whd could wonder, that;: dark.thoughts of.assassina-; tion passed thrpugh his .raaddened brain ? , Butj though Englishmen detested the assassin; they! . never had, and never would deny the right ofj Italiansto make open or disgjiised waragainst; him ' who had' destroyed their liberties. So! .much'then for.ltaly. Now, let them glance at! the histdry.of'.'France..' Since! the time of thej ; reyolutidn in 1798, every one must have readi of Vth'e. scenes !of bloodshed that characterised! that;peripd of French history;; but. the people| itberiwere struggling; for liberty—which they ■■fenjpye'd'^.fpr/a'.^pinetit,'.. and; then; followed the Empire of the Great Napoleon. After that the Boiirboris; of whom it was said] thatv they learnt nothing;, and forgot no-1 nothing,"by the vicissitudes of- their dynasty, i Againthe French people rose in!! defence of \ Constitutional Government, and the revolution | of 1830 placed Lbais Philippe on the throne, t In that reign wh.at; happened ? .Why, the real I ,prose;cut6r—Louis Napoleon made a ; descent \ I Fnirice to recbyer;the sceptre of his great i tincle; but.the attempt fiuledj and he afterwards ] K oUobJ;';that asylum on onr shores which he was \ how denying to'tKe victims of his own tyranny. \ While in exile'oji the Rhine, in Switzerland, in I England, and in America, he wrote, and he I preached in favour of liberty and republicanism. Time wore,on, and the revolution of 1848 arrived. Then followed the republic, which Louis Napoleon solemnly swore tp uphold as its presidential head ; and finally, in December, 18S2, th&butchery of an unarmed mob by a drunken soldiery. . The President of the Kepublic had the j leading men of' the nation arrested, the people baypnetecl' and shot down by thousands, and eventually, he waded through blood to the second empire. And this was the man who appealed to an English, jury to have vengeance gratified .'agairist' a refugee, of whom it could only be said that he Had taken part in an att'eriipted regeneration of Italy! He did not i denythat the prisoner had assisted Orsini in ! obtaining grenades, but that act was riot incon- \ sistarit with the ideafchat he was taking: part in i the preliminaries for a general rising in Italy. I Be that, however, as it might, before he could j be convicted the prosecution must show beyond: j all doubt that the grenades used in Paris were those with which the prisoner was connected^ Now, had they done this ? He contended.that | the identity of the grenades had entirely'failed. | None of the witnesses could swear that the ! grenades-produced ;in' the course of the trial i were like those- which the prisoner prosduced in ; London and Brussels. ; The cviI dence of identity was in one respect suspijcioiis, because the witness was; under ar|rest: in Belgium, and on: the whole entirely idefective. The descriptions given by the wit^ ness of those who were connected with the prisoners did riot correspond with those found in jParis and-inow produced^ after the attempt of jthe 14th of January. Then> again> as- to the Ipistpls purchased by Mr. Hollis, in Birmingham,and forwarded to Paris bythe prisoner;' i it was not denied that the prisoner was collect- j ■ ing arms in Paris, with a view to a vising or I an; entente somewhere or other, but; it was denied that he instigated this mnrder, or that, he I was a party to the ill fated attempt which Or-. j jsini made; in an unguarded moment. There was no disguise or attempt at concealment in the actions of the. prisoner. He took the pistols to the booking-office. He gave liis own name. He declared tlie cpntents of the box, and while doing so he made a remark wholly inconsistent with the belief that he was a party to;the insane act of Orsini. It was-said, however, that there was a letter found at the prisoner's; lodgings, which went to prove that he must have had some knowledge of it. This letter referred to a Society called the Friends of Italy $•• and despite what might be said in courts ! of law; about the illegality of such combinations, there could be no doubt that they did I exist. And; who could in his heart;condemn tjhem? They were not directed against- Englishmen • they were not conspiracies against pur beloved sovereign; no, they were the combinations "of men longing to get back their country and their liberties. Suppose we were exiles in, France; with our institutions destroyed by a tyrant, should we not conspire to get them back again ? What was there then about "the ■ Friends pf Italy" that -icould in the remotest ! degreeiprejudice'the prisoner ? The letter was , dated early in July,; 1557, and contained ex- '■ pressions \ of: opinions, with regard; to the Emperor of the French which* were certainly strong, ' but not stronger than had been ;uttered by men had held office:under;the: crown; It was : ridiculous to say, however, that a letter/written twelve months before the .act, could: be received as evidence that the prisoner was:privy to what 'Orsini did in a fatal moment of impulse. This t Ifetter was written ; by Mr. T. Allsop,^ an :enthu'siastic sympathiser.with.the Italian! cause, and liri tlie absence of, proof;it wasnot right to injfer that the prisoner entertained the;view: which i it expressed. A second letter in evidence was Ithe one written by .Orsini to the prisoner, and which simply referred to somebody or something as the" Red Company.". There was nothing in that. Then came the evidence of Mrs. Rudio, who, despite the drilling of the. police, Had given; her evidence in a manner that reflected credit upon her as an English woman .- She had told the truth as far as it went.but lier husband could have thrown the most light upon this case. He could have told us whether the prisoner hived him to participate in tho attempt of the 14th of January; he couß havo disclosed the real objeot of tho accumulation of : firearms in Paris, which the prisoner had ar-

ranged—-but he was not called, and the jury ' were left to make what they could out of his; wifeY evidence. Why was Rudio not brought over to give evidence ? He, of all men, could I! have established guilt or innocence, and why* was he not -'brought over from France ? It was \ no answer to say that had he come he could: have been-released under the Habeas Corpus; Act/ because;'. under. the Extradition Treaty,; Rudio could :have been given up to France again. Why, then, was he not brought over?: Why? Because ,he would have told the jury \ that, like Orsini he had aspirations for liberty, although a poor man, and he had joined an expedition to regenerate his native country; but; that in a moment .of impulse Orsini, who had; undertaken its direction, turned away from the original purpose and made the cruel and das-: tardly attempt .on. the life :of the Emperor. Pass on to the evidence of JVliss Cheyley, the housekeeper of. Orsini, and what did that show ? : "Did it not establish the impression that the scene of the rising which the prisoner had encouraged was 'Italy., She was told by Orsini I that he was going to Italy -when he quitted : England. She afterwards had conversations with the prisoher;about Orsini's visit to his native home. She was to repair there to him, and the prisoner raised her hopes in that respect by always speaking of the coming restoration of Italy. When the intelligence arrived of the fatal, the insane attempt of the 14th, he ran to convey to her his conviction.that Orsini must be mad, or he would have' been by that time in Italy. Was that consistent with his guilt? He should have thought the deaths of Orsini and Pierri would have satisfied the cravings, of the Emperor for vengeance; certainly the scene at the guillotine oil that cold grey morning of their execution should have made the British Government pause, before they instituted this prosecution; Not a word was said by either of the wretched men to implicate the prisoner; on the contrary, if the truth could be known, and posterity would discover it, it would be found that both protested he was innocent; that both had been engaged in an expedition which had the regeneration of Italy for its object and that it was a sudden and uncontrollable impulse that diverted them from going forward to its accomplishment. Despite a secret system in France, that permeated.every house and every building, | that equalled the days of Fouche and the Comimittee of Public Security, when the wife of a ■ man's bosom was bribed into becoming a spy • upon him, the French 5 Government had been junable to secure a scrap or a .particle of evijdehce to implicate the prisoner in the crime for } which two human beings had suffered, and two imore were undergoing a secondary punishment. ;But the great anxiety of the prisoner; his fer- \ vent prayer was tliat the country that had given ;him shelter in the hourof his exile would not jbelieve him capable of paying the hired assassin. ;A few. words ; more, and he should have comjpleted his duty to the prisoner. Let the jury .remember that the indictment for conspiracy ■still, hung-over the prisoner's head; let them remember that it was the opinion of abler jurists Jthari himself that the Act of Parliament on jwhich the indictment was framed was inapplicable to. the present case, but as regarded the vindication of the law, he believed this trial was a mockery and a sham. The great object of the prosecution was to induce an English jury to do what Parliament had refused —to establish the principle, that an exile was not protected in this country. It had been the proud boast of England, as it was of ancient Rome, that the purity and freedom of her institutions enabled her to afford a shelter to the exile of all nations. We [ had had bad things here; we had had an exiled I priesthood here; we had had exiled nobility here; and the monarch of to-day in France had obtained refuge here while in exile. Would an 'English jury, then, bow to the insolent demands of a. foreign potentate, and sacrifice that great and noble principle? The weak States of Sardinia and Switzerland he had compelled to succumb to him, and he had altered the laws to satisfy his demands; but theTJritish nation, speaking through its representatives in Parliament, had indignantly rejected his proposals. It had hurled them back at him, and he was satisfied the jury would follow the example. He might threaten invasion ; he might increase his fleets to intimidate us; but he conjured the jury to tell him, thai, were his 600,000 bayonets glistening on our shores, and his artillery thundering at our doors, yet should the decisions of a British jury be still founded upon immutable justice, and" that no threats could extort from them a decision contrary to the truth. Time out• of mind, British juries in that very court had vindicated the sacred cause of justice, when corruption of the crown and the bench had vainly attempted to coerce them. Re-calling the memory of those upright and steady jurists, he now employed the jury to consider well before they consigned to the scaffold the gentleman at the bar—for he was a gentleman, both by birth and education—-sim-[ply because it would gratify a despot, who had ; erected a throne upon the ruined liberties of a I '■ greatpeople. The closing remarks of the learned couusel were received with applause. The Attorney-General said that the time had now arrived when he was called on to discharge the last duty allotted" to him on that occasion, < and thajmoment was fast approaching when the jury will be called on to perform the last of the solemn and important functions then imposed upon them. In the performance of that task on his part, he would earnestly endeavour, to the best of his ability, to confine himself strictly within the limits assigned by the .law of this country, and by tho practice of our courts of justice in conducting prosecutions di- ; rected by tho Crown. Tho learned counsel for

the prisoner at the bar had addressed them in a* strain of eloquence rarely heard even in this country, but he had touched upon a variety of topics on which he (the Attorney-General) was almost forbidden to speak. ; He should not in. observations which it was now his duty to make do more than endeavour to bring back the minds of the jury to the consideration of the real question, they were called upon to try, and; to put aside, if it were in his. power, topics and subjects which, however interesting and exciting elsewhere, need not belong to the trial in which' they were engaged. First, let him disabuse; their minds of the dream in which his learned; friend had indulged, that this prosecution before \ some of the chief judges of the land, in a Bri-; eish court of justice, and before a British jury j was instituted, furthered, promoted, or even in-1 terfered with in the slightest degree by the French Government, the French police, or any '■■ other person whomsoever, other than those whose bounden duty it was to institute, direct, control, and conduct prosecutions instituted for offences committed against the laws of the country. It appeared to an honorable and learned friend, his predecessor in the office of Attorney-General, upon information officially laid before him, that it was his duty to institute an enquiry into certain -circumstances which tended to raise a suspicion that the prisoner at the bar had been a party to a conspiracy to •murder the Emperor of the French on "the night of the 14th of January last. In the discharge of that duty his learned predecessor— who required no justification and no vindication from him—directed that an information should be laid, and that the case should be laid before a magistrate in this metropolis, sitting in one of the ordinary courts of law. A complaint was preferred, an inquiry was instituted, certain evidence was adduced, and adjournments took place from time to time; and at length the case assumed a form which led his learned i friend behind him (Mr. Bodkin) to appear on the ■ part of the Crown. The magistrate to whom '' the case was submitted thought it his duty to commit the prisoner for trial on the charge of of being accessory before the fact to a murder, His learned friend (Mr. James) talked of ransacking the Statute book and finding some old statute, with a view to gratify the Government of France and to oppress the prisoner at the bar. The statute under which this prosecution i was instituted was one of almost the last year of. George IV., and the passing of which was in the recollection of the persons assembled in that court. Accordingly, under the Act of Parliament, not the Government, or even the chief advisers of the Crown, but the worthy magistrate of the police-court, to whom the case had-been submitted, felt it his duty to commit the prisoner on that charge, and, the. law, having thus been put in motion, it became the bouuden duty of the Government to issue the commission under which this trial was proceeding. His learned friend (Mr. James) had remarkedon his (the Attorney-General's) silence as to why and how a prosecution of this nature was for the first time issued in this country. But this too, was the first time that this great, free,, and happy country had ever been made the scene for planning an attempt to murder a foreign Sovereign. Happily, this was the first occassion on which an act had been designed and planned in this kingdom which terminated in the murder of vnauy innocent and unoffending persons iii another couiitiy. Hence, if this was the first time that such an offence disgraced the..-country to which we have the privilege to belong, this was the first occasion that snoh a prosecution had been brought before a court of justice. From the learned judges before whom the.-prisoner was arraigned, to the humblest. individual in the country, no man would more sincerely rejoice than he (the Attorney-General) would if, by their verdict, whatever it might W, they would cleause this country from the 'stain,' which had been fixed upon it by the suspicion of the crime charged against the prisoner at the bar. If they thought the prisoner was guiltless of the offence imputed to him, in the name of justice send him forth from that court free and unharmed, and replace him in whatever condition of life he had hitherto occupied. The charge against tne prisoner was that he was accessory before the fact to a murder committed in Paris on the 14th January * He (the Attorney-General) would for a moment advert to what he apprehended to be the law with respect to the intention of a party charged with this offence. If the prisoner at the bar was a party to the supplying of Orsini or any one or more of his companions, with any means whatever by which those persons should assassinate or attempt to do any grievous harm to the Emperor of the French, and if they, in making that attempt, however unwittingly, sacrificed the lives of other persons, they and their accessories were guilty of murder, and he who had furnished them with the means for the commission of the offence was guilty of murder as an accessory before the fact. He apprehended the law would be so laid down by the learned Judges. If upon the evidence before them it should appear that the prisoner had assisted in the way detailed by the witnesses in enabling Orsini and his confederates to attempt the assassination of the Emperor of the French, he (the Attorney-General) could no more acquit him of tire moral guilt than of tlio leg.ii guilt of having destroyed and injured a number of his fellow-creatures who were killed and wounded on that occasion, for no one could have supplied one of the instruments of death used on this occasion without knowing that, though it were used with the intention, merely of destroying a particular individual, whether the Emperor or Empress of the French, or any other person, the lives of others must inevitably be sacrificed. The charge was, that two or three persons in this country, Allsop, the prisoner tit the bar,

Orsini • and Pierri, meditated and planned tUa destruction of the Emperor of the' French ; that they agreed to effect it by means of a number of explosive instruments, assisted by the possession oi'revolvers and of daggers, so that if one means of destruction failed, another might be adopted; that Allsop caused those instruments to be manufactured; that.they came into the possession of the prisoner; that he purchased the fulminating powder necessary to charge them ; that he conveyed those instruments to Brussels,, and delivered them to Orsini, who caused them to be conveyed by a servant from Brussels to Paris, by whom they were taken to Orsini's s lodging there; that he furnished Orsini, Pierri, ] Gomez, and Budio with two out of the four : pistols of which they became possessed; that he hired Itudio to proceed to Paris, to assist in the execution of his design; and that thdse four persons, so furnished with the means of this assassination, committed the - murders with which the prisoner stood charged. It had been twice expressly admitted by Mr. James that the grenades which Allsop purchased of Taylor, and which came into the possession of Orsini at Paris, were the instruments with which the murder was committed by Orsini, lludio, and Gomez. The evidence itself left no doubt about that fact, but if there were any doubt it had been removed by the express admission of the counsel for the prisoner. Two questions alone remained: —Were the instruments supplied at Brussels by the prisoner to Orsini the same, or portions- of them, that Mr. Taylor had made, which Allsop* had bought, and, with which Orsisii and the others committed the murders? Or, were any other instruments manufactured and purchased elsewhei'e, and conveyed by the prisoner to Brussels for another and a different purpose ? On these points—having cleared away, as he said, all those matters which were wholly irrelevant to the snbject—the learned counsel besought the calm and patient attention of the jury to the evidence, and he contended, spoil the evidence of Giorgi, Righensi, Foun« narier, Zegners, and others, that there could be no doubt that the grenades used in the attentat were the same that the prisoner had sent to Brussels, and that there was no pretence for ; saying that the instruments sent to Brussels by i the prisoner were applicable to gas inventions. ; Indeed, there had been an express admission by ifcSie learned counsel for the prisoner that the | grenades which had been made by Taylor and sold to Allsop were the same with which.Orsini :aud his confederates had committed the murders. The learned counsel distinctly stated that there could be no question ttat Zeguers took to Paris irom Brussels the "articles which did the mischief." -.. ' .1 The Lord Chief Justice reminded the learned Attoniey'-Genei-al that the jury would be direcs ted to give their-verdict upon the evidence, anct not upon the speech of counsel. "! ' The Attorney-General thanked. his lordship for the suggestion, and would not further dwell upon the point. He objected, however, to the phrase which-had been-made useof-by Mr. James —that some of the witnesses had been " tutored" by the police, and urged that there was not a scintilla of proof than any person had suggested i-o an} r witness the nature of the evidence that he should give. No two of them precisely agreed ; the descriptions of all were different; but when they applied something approaching to a fair test of the recollection of any one of the witnesses, they would find that it singularly corroborated the. case which was sought to be' established on the port of the Crown. 'Zeguers who had'better opportunities of examining the instruments in question than, perhaps, any other person, and of ascertaining their number, said there %vere eight or ten halt balls, ten halt' balls, or live whole ones, being exactly the number found on Orsini and his confederates, after making allowance for three used in the explosion on the night of the attentat; and when they had Madame liighensi speaking to a similar number, and identifying the nnraber of holes in them, the testimony on that part of the case became almost irrefragable. It was true no two of the witnesses spoke alike as to the number of holes; but if they had agreed upon that point it would have furnished ground for an imputation of combination on their'part. The jury had, therefore, the fact of the ten half balls manufactured by Taylor, and sold to Allsop, and they had eight or ten half balls coming into the possession of the prisoner, and by him delivered to Giorgi, by whom they were conveyed to Brussels. They had them identified, also as to the number of the articles by Zeguers, and by Madame Eighensi as to the number of the. holes. They had them conveyed to Paris by Zeguers, and gave them to Orsini at his hotel, and there was" proof to demonstration that they were used in the commission of the murders. If the prisoner had for any law-1 ful purpose sent over those grenades to Brussels, what necessity was there for Orsini appearing there under a false name and a false character, and what occasion had they to resort to all the subterfuge, contrivance, and false and delusive representations which had characterised this transaction from beginning to end ? With respect to the suggestion that Orsini and the prisoner,, with others, were preparing for a general rising in Italy, lie (the Attorney-General) must call the attention of the jury to the singular consideration, applicable to, :md pervading the whole case, that there was not throughout this mass of evidence a scintilla of proof of any design at all connected with a rising ill the Italian domains. Again, why go to Paris, of all places, to prepare for such » risinsr, and so risk exposure to the vigilance of the French Government and police? To-what purpose could revolvers, grenades, and nomavda bo employed in Paris to effect a revolution in Italy ? lie thought the conclusion ut which

"the jury must arHye was, that these desperate in en, fugitives from their own country, proscribed at home, and having a refuge here, abused the protection and benefits which they enjoyed under our laws, and here planned, meditated,- and designed the gratification of their enmity towards the Emperor of the Fiench, and resorted to means of which the jury had heard to effect his destruction. With lebpect to the letter of Allsop, he (the Attor-ney-General) gave it in evidence for the purpose of showing that Allsop, who began by purchasing the. grenades, and afterwards lent his passport to Orsini, was the friend and associate of the prisoner at the bar. -With regard to expressions contained in the letter, upon which Mr. James had commented rather severely, he submitted that it showed a deadly hatred on the part of the writer, JVlr'.' Allsop, to 1 the Emperor of the and contained a dnect incitement to the assassination of the Emperor; and such a letteivbeing-written by an Englishman to a JTrenchmen, with whom i that Frenchman remained on terms of intimacy, showed at least that the sentiments which it contained were not unwelcome to the person to whom it was addressed. [The learned Attoi ney-General read the letter.] When he .heard his learned friend descanting so freely on the liberty of the English -people, he felt ashamed that one who bore an English name, ( and was by birth an Englishman,-should be. the author of such a letter. "He must be billed," said the writer, and the writer was the person who ordered the manufacture of the gi enades. The prosecution did charge the pnsoner with* participating in those sentiments," tut there was no disclaimer of them on his part, and the intimacy continued as close as ever/as was evident from subsequent letters AMitten by Allsop to .the prisoner, and from, the fact that Allsop through the means of an introduction from the prisoner obtained a loan of £4000 upon an estate at Reigate, and from other circumstances. On the 16th of October it appeared that Allsop ordered the grenades* 1 Their manufacture was completed on the 23rd lof November, but the grenades could not be used without a charge, and accordingly they found on the 4th of November, while tha gienades were being made, Bernard purchased 1 a quantity of nitric acid and alcohol, the two chief ingredients of the charge. On the 15th. of December he purchased niore of these article ;, and he also purchased mercury, and he bought them in the proportions that would be required to compose the fulminating powder. • I While the grenades were in the course of raanu-'i factoring Pierri, the third conspirator, proceeded I on. the 20th October to Birmingham, and purT chased two revolvers. By the 23rd November, therefore, these parties were in possession of sre grenades, of two revolvers, and of the materials necessary to constitute the charge-. On the 26th of November, Orsini went to the' Bank of England"to exchange £435 in gold for notes. He gave £60 of that money to Bernard. He also supplied Pierri with a sum of money, and on the 28th November he quitted , London with a false passport in the name of i Allsop, and arrived in Brussels on the followi ing day. The next thing to be ,done was to forward the grenades from London, where Bernard had obtained possession of them, to Paris. I Accordingly on the 3rd December a portion or t perhaps the whole of these grenades were delivered by Bernard to Giorgi, to be by him taken to Brussels. On the 7th of December Bernard i followed the grenades to Brussels, and from the 7th to the 11th of December Orsini and Bert nard werg together at the Cafe Suisse, in Brus- , bels. The next point was to convey the grenades to Paris, and Zeguers was engaged to < ike them there. Zeguers proceeded to Paris accordingly on the 12th of December, and de- \ hvered-up to Orsini at the Hotel de Lille et d'Albton tlin whole of the grenades. The * i evolvers which Pierri had purchased at Birmingham had also to be sent to Paris, and Bernard who was the agent in England, unl * dertook to. forward them, and it would be obh served that false representations were made use lof throughout the whole of the transaction. 1 Tit a false, name and under a false passport Orsini had proceeded to Brussels and' Paris, and 1 under a false representation the grenades had been sent to Brussels. On the 2nd of January, v Bernard," who had much to do, proceeded to the office of-'the. South-Eastern Railway in order to i forward the revolvers, and he forwarded them accordingly,-as had been-proved, also with false 1 i to M. Outrequin. If these three or four Italians intended to proceed to Italy, and attempt a general rising, why should ill their preparations he directed to a rendez- ! »ous in Paris"; without any ulterior residence or ( object by them being suggested? Why should' 1 firearms-be-sent with a false statement that i they were intended for an innocent purpose ? When Orsini, Pierri, and Gomez had taken up their residence in Paris, it became manifest that v Bernard began to tamper with Budio, and that Orsini wished four to engage in the enterprise. j They had at that time in Paris four or five j grenades and three revolvers, one for Orsini, j ""<,' one for Pierri, and another for Gomez ; but if \ Orsiri'v:expected another, of course another ref, \olv-er; would be wanted. They accordingly ~\ found that on the very Bth of January, when * Itudio.was-expected, Orsini purchased another J ! pistol. That man, Rudio, was in a sbitft of the ■ I j,reatest'pnvei'ty, with a wife and child, without ij a bed,to lie on, without food, and without a fire jin the .depth of winter, and -borrowing- small I sums of 4J. and 6d. at a time from a lodger in i "the : paine house' charitable enough lo vendei ! r them such assistance.? and the prisoner at the j bar, for whom your sympathies h;tve been in- , yoked, prevailed on him, while in that wretched | i tate, to leave the country and his wife and child and to go to, Paris to take part in this

murder, with the implements of the murder on his person, and with the ill-gotten wealth which he had obtained from the prisoner at the bar. The prisoner, who was sitting at the moment, listening attentively, here started to his legs, struck his hand on the front of the dock in an excited manner, and darting a look of indignation at the Attorney-General, ejaculated " No!" in a loud tone of voice. - He immediately afterwards, ho tvever, made a gesture of apology to tire Judges for this ebullition of feeling, .and to some extent, gained his wonted composure. The Attorney (without noticing the interruption) continued to say, that in the dead of the night, when Rudio was arrested, after the attempt on the Emperor, 260 francs were found upon him. though but ten days before he and his wife and chiid were at the point of destitution. The prisoner dealt with Budio by small degress until eventually he succeeded in sending that wretched hired assassin to Paris. If Dr. Bernard had sent Eudio on an innocent errand, or even for the purpose suggested, of assisting in a revolution in Italy, did the jury not think that the man, when he reached Paris, and when the assassination of the Emperor was proposed to himi would have said at once he had_ been sent on a different errand than the commission of a foul murder in the streets of Paris on a man who never wronged him ? It was not possible to conceive an honest or a lawful purpose for which Eudio had been sent to Paris; for if there were one, why the subterfuge—why the assumption of a false name ? On the 11th of January, Eudio arrived in Paris, and from that time until the 14th he and Gomez and Pierri and Orsini were constantly together. On the 14th, just before the attentctt was made, Pierri was apprehended at the private entrance to the Opera with one of the grenades in his possession (which the prisoner had sent to Brussels,) one of the revolvers which the prisoner had sent to. Paris and a poinard, which— as, thank God, such things were not made_ in England—he did not charge the prisoner with having procured. Why was it that the prisoner, if he had hired Rudio for the comparatively innocent purpose of raising a revolution in Italy, did not express his horror and surprise when he heard of the murders in Paris, and why did he continue to deal in v spirit of secrecy with the wife of the prisoner ?• On the 24th of January he sent to Mrs.' Eudio, at Nottingham, an order for 24s. } stating that it was forwarded hy " William Thompson," at the instance of some benevolent people who knew her husband, and that they proposed to allow her 12s. a week duri n g his absence from England. These were the circumstances, under which this case came" before the jury. This foul and horrid murder never could have been committed at all—the lives of the unoffending victims of this act never could have been sacrificed unless the four who did the guilty deed had been aided and supported by agents and willing instruments in this country. It was in this country that the grenades, the fulminate .of-mercury, and two of the revolvers had been purchased, and in evei*y part of those transactions the prisoner was proved to be participant. The prisoner did deeds without which Allsop and his confederates might have conspired in vain; and when the prosecutors were asked to vindicate the course which had been taken by the Crown in this instance, in putting the prisoner upon his trial, surely they might ask in return whether they wei'e not bound by the most sacred obligations fearlessly to do justice and to bring the prisoner to punishment, if he were the person by whose means these multiplied murders had been committed on so many unoffending individuals ? They were not debating a political question, they were not discussing the difference between free institutions and arbitary forms of government ; but surely, whatever law prevailed, wherever hurr>an character was respected, wherever virtue existed, it would be admitted that it was due to the laws of a nation, if a murder had been instigated and abetted in it, that the participators and prime agents should bebrought to justice. The prisoner at the bar was now upon his trial for such an offence, and the law of the country imposed upon the jury the duty of declaring upon his guilt or innocence. If upon a full consideration of the circumstances they should think that there was any just or sound reason to doubt the guilty participation of the prisoner in that which had led to the sad and melancholy result which had been detailed, let them give him the benefit of the doubt, and send him forth from that court a free man. But he must conclude as he had begun, by obperving that, if upon the-whole evidence before them they should unhappily be convinced of the guilt of the prisoner, their duty to their God and to their country demanded that they should pronounce him guilty, ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED. Saturday, April 17. At. 2.35 p.m., Lord Campbell concluded his charge to the jury. ! The prisoner then addressed some excited remarks to the court, in the course of which he stated that he would always conspire to destroy despotism. He would not be a murderer; never! The juty then retired. At 3.35 they returned into court with a verdict of " Not Guilty," which was received with loud and continued cheering by a densely crowded court, and was caught up by a large crowd outside.' The Attorney-General stated that it was not the intention of the Government to press the other indictments against the prisoner. THE INDIA BILL. At a^ special general court of the proprietors of the East India Company held in April, a report was adopted in opposition to the two bills for the hotter government of India, introduced by the late and present ministers.

After asserting that " the intention of proposing the abolition of the Company was announced in the midst of, and it may be surmised in deference to a clamour, which represented the Government of India by the company as characterised by nearly every vice .of which a civilised government can be accused, and the company as the main cause of the recent disasters, together with other exculpatory preliminaries, the report proceeds as follows :—•_ _ If the constitution which has made the Indian government what it is must be abolished because it is thought defective in theory, what is substituted should at least be theoretically; unobjectionable. But the Constitution of the East India Company, however anomalous, is far more in accordance with the acknowledged principles of good government than either of the proposed bills. " The nature of the case is, indeed, so anomalous that something anomalous was to be expected in the means by which it could be successfully dealt with. "All English institutions and modes of political action are adapted to the case of a nation governing itself. In India the case to be provided for is that of the government of one nation by another; separated from it by half the globe; unlike it in everything which characterises a people; as a whole, totally unacquainted with it, and without time or means for acquiring knowledge of it or its affairs. # "History presents only two instances in which these or similar difficulties have been in any similar degree surmounted. One is the Roman Empire; the other is the Government of India by the East India Company. . "The means which the bills provide for overcoming these difficulties consist of the upchecked power of a minister. There is no difference" of moment in this respect between the two bills. The minister, it is true, is to have a council, but the most despotic of rulers have councils. The difference between the council of a; despot, and a council which prevents the ruler from being a despot is, that the one is dependent on him the other independent; that the one has some power of his own, the other has not. By the first bill, the whole council is nominated by him. The functions to be entrusted to it are left, in both, with some plight exceptions, to the minister's own discretion. ■••■" The minister is indeed subject to the control of parliament and of the British nation. But: though parliament and the nation exercise a salutary control over their own affairs, it would be contrary to all ] experience to suppose that they will exercise it over a hundred millions of Hindoos and Mahomedans. /Habitually, they will doubtless be hereafter, as they have been heretofore, indifferent and inattentive to Indian affairs, and will leave them entirely to the minister. The consequence will be, that in the exceptional cases in which they do not interfere, the interference will not be grounded on knowledge of the subject, arid will probably be for the most part confined to cases vyhere.an Indian question is taken up from party motives as., the means of injuring a minister; or-when some Indian malcontent, generally with objects opposed to good government, succeeds in interesting the sympathies of the public in his favor. For it is riot thepeople of India, but rich individuals and societies representing class interests who have the means of engaging the ear of the public through the press and through agents, in parliament. And it is important to i remark that by the provisions of either of the bills the: House of Commons will be rendered even less competent in point of knowledge' of : Indian affairs than at present, since by both bills all the members of the council of India will be excluded from it.

" The government of dependencies by a minister and his subordinates; tinder the sole control of parliament, is not a new experiment in England. That form of colonial government lost the United States, and had nearly lost all, the colonies of any considerable population and importance. The colonial administration of this country has only ceased to be a subject of general condemnation since the principle has been adopted of leaving all the important colonies to manage their own affairs—a course which cannot be followed with the people of India. If the control of parliament has not prevented the habitual mismanagement of countries inhabited by Englishmen like ourselves, who had every facility for representing and urging their grievances, it is not likely to be any effectual protection to Mussulmans and Hindoos. - .

"All governments require constitutional checks; but the constitutional checks applicable to a case of this : peculiar kind must be found within the governing body itself.

" Though England, as a whole, while desiring nothing but to govern India well, is necessarily ignorant of India, and feels r under ordinary circumstances, no particular. interest in its concerns, there are in India a certain number of persons who possess knowledge of India, and feel an interest in its affairs. It seems, therefore, very desirable, for the salce of India, that England should govern it through, and by means of, these persons. This would be the case if the organ of government consisted of persons who have passed a considerable portion of their lives in India, or who feel that habitual interest in its affairs which is naturally acquired by having aided in administering them j and if this body, or a majority of it, were periodically elected by a constituency composed of persons in England who have served the government for a certain length of time in India, or whose interests are connected with that country by some permanent tie. It would be an additional advantage if this constituency had tho power of requiring information, and compelling a public discussion of Indian questions. These are considerations which, to a considerable extent, tho

existing constitution of the East India Company fulfils. ' . ■; " The other great constitutional security for the good government of India lies in the forms of business. This is a point to which sufficient importance is not generally attached. The forms of business are the real constitution of India. . "Fromthe necessity of the case, recognised in both the proposed measures, the administration must, be shared/in some proportion, between a.minister and a council. The council may consist of persons possessing knowledge ot India. The minister, except in very rare cases, can possess little or none. He is placed in office by the action of political party, which is governed by considerations totally unconnected with India, and, in the common course of politics, he is removed from office by the time he has been able to learn his duty. Even in the unusual case, of which present^ circumstances are an example, when the minister has made himself acquainted with India through the discharge of high functions in India itself, his knowledge is but the knowledge of one man; and one man's knowledge of a subject like India, until corrected and completed by that of other men, is^ it may safely be affirmed, wholly insufficient, and if implicitly trusted, even dangerous. The good government, therefore, of India, by a minister and a council, depends upon the amount of influence possessed by the council ; arid their influence depends upon the forms of business. " However experienced may be the council, and however inexperienced the minister, he will have the deciding voice. The power will rest with one who may know less of the subject than any member of the council, and is sure to know less than the council collectively, if they are selected with ordinary Judgment. The council will have no substantive power, but only'moral inflnence. It is therefore all important that this influence should be upheld. Unless the forms of business are such as to insure that the council shall exercise its judgment on all questions ; that all matters requiring decision shall be considered by them, and their views recorded in the initiatory stage, before the minister has committed himself to an opinion they will possess no more influence than the same number of clerks in his office (whom also he can consult if he pleases), and the power of the minister will be practically uncontrolled.

" In both the bills these considerations are entirely disregarded. The first bill does not establish any forms of business, but leaves them to be determined by the minister and his council ; in other words, by the minister. Even, therefore, if the minister first appointed should be willing to establish forms which would be any restraint upon himself, a subsequent minister would have it in his power to alter the forms in any manner be pleased.

. "The second bill, unlike the first, does establish forms of business; but such-alone as would effectually prevent the council from being a reality, and render it a useless pageant. . " To make the council a merely consultative body, without initiative, before whom subjects are only brought after the minister has made up his mind, is already a fatal inroad upon its usefulness. But by the second bill the council are not even a consultative body. The minister is under no obligation to consult them. They are not empowered to hold any regular meetings. They are to meet only when the minister convenes them, or en a special requisition by six members. He may send orders to India without their knowledge when the case is urgent,-of which urgency he is the sole judge. When it is not urgent, his orders must be placed in the council-room for their perusal for seven days, during which they are not required, but permitted, to give their opinion, not collectively, but individually. Their own power, therefore, iff that of recording dissent from a resolution not only taken, but embodied in a dispatch. And; if this was not enough, provision is made that an office always invidious, shall be incapable of being fulfilled in any but the most invidious manner. The members of council must come forward individually in declared opposition to the minister, by volnnteering a protest against his announced intentions, or signing a requisition for a meeting of ccuneil to oppose them. Such a council is fitted to serve as a shield for the minister's responsibility when it may suit him to seek and them to accord their adhesion, rather than •as a restraint on his power to administer India according to his individual pleasure. c "The directors are bound to admit, that the first of the bills contains several provisions indicative of a wish to assure to the council a certain, though small amouut of influence, ihe administration is to be carried on in the name of the President of the Council, and not, as by the second bill, in the Secretary of State alone. The council, as well as the president, has a voice in the appointment of the home establishment; while in the Hecond bill all KTnffl" 8 and, all appointments to the prinWtf Ceßf US th? C, oUncil > with the Secretavy of State, inclusively, a provision which divests the council of all control or authority over their own establishment. Again by section 12 of the first bill, no grant i^ol' 2;7« f So appSment to office or admission to service, can be made r without the concurrence of half the counh f ,f. ia - far aB, i* S°«», is a real power, dolt-. IUV?,1 UV?, mU° ' dimi™»ed by the\w deration that thoso by whom it is to be exercised, are the nom.nees of the minister, dependent on him for then- continuance in office after a tew years.

"*? 0 Other Points tho Provisions of tlio second bill seem to have tho advantage. Its

council is more numerous, to which, however little importance can be attached, if the council has no substantial power. It also recognises that .the whole of the council ought not to be nominated by the minister, and. that some part of it should be elected by a constituency specially qualified by a knowledge of India. But even m these, the best points of the bill, it is, m the opinion of the directors/very far from unexceptionable. The nomination of even half the council by the minister takes away all security for an independent majority. It may, indeed, be doubted whether there is any sufficient reason for the minister's nominating any portion, except the supposed reluctahce of some eligible persons to encounter a canvass. The proportion of one-third, whom the minister now nominates to the Court of Directors, seems the largest which, consistently with the full security for independence, can be so appointed. "The provision, that each of the members nominated by the Crown shall be -selected as the representative of some particular branch of the service in India, is still more objectionable. Not only would It preclude the nomination of the most distinguished man, if the seat in council appropriated to the department in which he had served were not at the time vacant; but it would introduce a principle which cannot be too strongly deprecated, that of class legislation. The council should comprise the greatest attainable variety of knowledge and experience, but its members should not consider themselves as severally the representatives of a certain number of class interests.

' " The clause which continues to the proprietors the power of electing some portion of the council is, so far, deserving of support, arid the principle of enlarging the constituency- by the addition of persons of a certain length of Indian service; and residence, is, in itself, unexceptionable; but unless guarded by provisions* such as have never yet been introduced into any electoral system, so large and scattered a constituency as that proposed would greatly add to the inconvenience of canvass, especially as it is not certain that the new electoral body would adopt from the old, the salutary custom of re-electing, as a general rule, whoever has been once chosen, and lias not, by misconduct or incapacity, deserved to forfeit their confidence. The duties of a member of council wowld be entirely incompatible with a continually-recurring canvass of the constituency. , "Respecting the proposition for giving the choice of five members of council to the parliamentary constituencies of five great towns, the Court of Directors can only express a feeling of amazement. It is not the mere fact of election by a multitude that constitutes the benefit of the popular element in government. To produce these benefits, the affairs of which the people are enbled to control the management must be their own affairs. Election by multitudinous bodies, the majority of them of a very low average of education, is not an advantage of popular government, but, on the contrary, one of its acknowledged drawbacks. To assign *•© sneh a constituency the control, not of their own affairs^ but of the affairs of other people on the other side of the globe, is to incur the disadvantages of popular institutions without any of the benefits. The Court of Directors willingly admit the desirableness, if not necessity, of some provision for including an English element in the council of India; but a more objectionable mode than the one proposed of attaining the object, could scarcely, in their opinion, be devised.

"Besides the provisions which relate to the organ of government in England, the bills contain provisions relating to India itself, which are open to the strongest objection. " The appointments to the councils at Calcutta and at the subordinate presidencies, which are now made by the, Court of Directors, with the approbation of the Crown, are transferred by both bills to the Governor-General, and to the Governors of Madras and Bombay. The Court of. Directors are convinced that this change would greatly impair the chances -of good government in. India. One of "the causes which have most contributed to the many ex^ cellencies of Indian administration is, that the Governor-General and Governors have always been associated with councillors selected by the authorities at home from among the most experienced and able members of the Indian service, and who, not owing their appointments to the head of the government, have generally brought to the consideration of Indian affairs an independent judgment. In consequence of this the measures of a government necessarily absolute have had the advantage^ seldom possessed in absolute governments, of being always preceded by a free and conscientious discussion, while, as the head of the government has the power, on recording his reasons, to act contrary to" the advice of his council, no public inconvenience can ever arise from any conflict of ■ opinion. These important officers who, by their participation^ in the government, form so salutary a restraint on the precipitancy of an inexperienced, or the wilfulness of a despotically tempered governor-general ipr governor, are henceforth to be appointed by the great functionary whom they are intended to check. And this restraint is removed, -when the necessity for an independent council will be greater than ever since the power of appointing the governorgeneral and of recalling him is taken away from the company and'from the body which is to be their substitute. It may be added, that the authorities at home have'had the opportunity of being acquainted with the conduct and services of candidates for council from the commencement of thoir career. The Governor-General or Governor would often have to nominate a councillor soon after thoir arrival in India, when necessarily ignorant of-the character and merits ot candidates, and would bo entirely dependent

on the recommendation of irresponsible ad-

visers. . . "Another most objectionable provision demands notice, which is to be found only in the second bill. A commission: appointed in England ife.'to proceed to India, for the purpose of inquiring and reporting on. the principles and details of Indian finance.including the whole revenue, system* and what is | inseparably involved in it, the proprietary rights and social position of all the great classes of the community. The Court of Directors cannot believe that such a project will be persisted in. It would: be a step towards the disorganisation of the fabric of government in India. A commission from England, independent of the local government of the country, deriving its authority directly from the higher power to which the local government is subordinate, arid instructed to carry back to the higher power information on Indian affairs which the local government: is hot deemed sufficiently trust-: worthy to afford, would give a most seriousshock fathe influence of the local authorities, and would tend to impress all natives with the belief that the opinions and decisions of the local government are of small moment, end that the thing of real importance is the success with which ':■ they can contrive that their claims and '■ objects shall be advocated in ;En'gland. Up to the present time, it has been the practice of the home government to uphold in every way; the authority of the governments on the spot; even when reversing their acts, to do so through the; governments themselves, and to employ no agency except in subordination to them. "IVom this review of the chief provisions of the bills, which embody the attempts of two great divisions of.. English statesmen to frame an organ or government for India, it will probably appear to the proprietors, that neither of them is; grounded on any suffix cierit consideration of past experience,'or of the principles applicable to the subject; that the passing of either would be a calamity to India; and that the attempt to legislate while the.minds of leading men are in so unprepared a state is altogether premature. . "The opinion of your directors is, that by all constitutional means the passing of either bill should he opposed; hut that if one or the other should be determined on for the purpose of transferring the administration, in name, from the East India Company to the Crown, every exertion should be used in its passage through committee to divest it of, the mischievous features by which both bills are now deformed, and to maintain, an at present, a really independent council, having the initiative of all business, discharging all the. duties, and possessing all the essential powers of the Court of Directors; as it is the'court's conviction, that measures might be so framed as to obviate whatever may be well founded in the complaints made against the present system, retaining the initiative of the council, and that independence of action on their pai't which should be regarded as paramount and impossible." . :