The Sun. — London, England, 1858-04-19 00:00:00

NAVAL AND MILITAR' INTELLIGENCE. The steam transport Prince Albert, 1,345 tons, Capt. Waters, arrived at Spithead on Saturday from Bombay. She put in short of coals. She left Bombay on the 27th of Jan., arrived at Mauritius ou the 10th of Feb., sailed on the 15th, arrived at the Cape of. Good Hope on the Ist of March, sailed on the 6th, arrived at St. Vincent's the 28th of March, and left on the 3d inst. The Tweedside, for - India, with troops; sailed from St. Vincent's on the Ist of April ; left at St. Vincent's the steam-trans port Lady Jocelyn from India, for London. The Modway, West India mail steamer, sailed from St. Vincent's on the same day as the Prince Albert, which had a death from smallpox shortly after leaving the Mauritius, and which caused her to be put in quarantine whilst at the Cape, so that all communication with that colony was prevented, and no news has consequently been brought thence by her. We are informed the Prince Albert made the shortest passage from Spithead to Bombay yet noted. She sailed on the 22d of October with a Tortion of the Royal Horse Artillery from Wool y/lA, and embarked here part of her Majesty's 72d Highinders, and made the passage to Bombay in 56 steaming days, exclusive of 11 days' detention at the different ports. Her homeward passage has been longer, as speed was not of such urgent neces sity as in the transit of troops from England to India. She has a full cargo--wool, seeds, gum, &c. and the following passengers :—Col. and Mrs. Maughan, from the Bom ba y PresidencyiCol .and Mrs. Fleming, of th e 36th Bombay N.I. ; "neut. UrlnstOn,, AS SI S' an t-Comm issapt. ionerJones of the 42d Pu Bnj emab, C. wife; and three children ; bay N.I. ; Lieut. Lockhart, 7th Bombay N.I. ; her Majesty' Capt. Kid d ; Paymaster of giment ; Mr. Hunt and Mrs. Graham, from the Mauritius ; Mr,. and Mrs. Wainwright, two chil and female servant ; Mrs. Beyts, and Dr. dren Mulfinger.,From St. Vincent's—Mr. M‘Lcod. The Prince Albert left England under the command of Capt. Watts, who died suddenlyat Bombay of disease of the heart a few days before shesailed for England. He was a man who possessed groat experience in the command of screw steamers, and was held in high estimation by all who knew hifn. After coal ing the Prince Albert proceeded for the Thames. The authorities at the Horse Guards have de cided on forming a camp on Chatham lines for a portion of the troops belonging to the East Indian corps now at that garrison. The camp will. be • formed early in the approaching summer, and it is proposed that about 1,000 troops shall be encamped as soon as thenecessary arrangements shall becem pleted. The officers and men who will be put under canvass will be selected in the first instance from tie troops of the line at Chatham. A large supply of tents to form the camp have arrived at the Gun wharf, and the Royal Sappers and Miners have been employ( d, under the direction of the Com manding Royal Engineer at Chatham, in examining the wells for supplying the camp with water and making other requisite preparations. The Commander in-Chief having directed addi tional huts to be erected at Brompton Barracks, Chatham, for the accommodation of the large num ber of troops quartered at that garrison, the ground on which the huts will be erected has been laid out and levelled for that purpose. The new huts will be erected inside Piince Henry's Bastion, near those at present occupied by the troops, and will provide accommodation to several hundred addi tional non-commissioned officers and troops of the line. Recruiting in the manufacturing districts is pro ceeding satisfactorily. During the last seven weeks there have been passed at Manchester 44, 49, 92, 66, 58, 51, and 58 men respectively in each week. Tnese are exclusive of the recruits who have been obtained by the militia and the pensioners, both of which forces are actively engaged in the recruiting service. The favourite regiment appears to be the 68th. LAW INTELLIGENCE.---4pril 15. HOUSE OF LORDS. Their Lordships sat this morning for the purpose of delivering judgment in the following writs of error : Lord Cranwortb, who sat as Deputy Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, Lord. Wens,let dale, and the Bishop of Ripon were present. CROFT V. LUMLEY. This was a writ of error brought from a decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, partly con firming and partly reversing a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, given upon a special case made for their consideration. The case was argued before their Lordships and nine of the learned judges in June last. The counsel who argued the cause were the then Attorney-General (now Chief Justice of the. Com mon Pleas), Mr. H. Hill and Mr. Unthank, on be half of the plaintiff in error Sir F. Kelly (now Attorney-General) and Mr. Maud, for the defend ant in error, Lumley ; and Sir P. Thesiger (now Lord Chelmsford, the present Lord Chancellor) and Mr. SeLjeant Wells for the other defendants in error. The case as presented by the counsel for the plain tiff in error in their arguments before their lordships was that the proceedings had originated in an action of ejectment brought by Faithful Croft, the plaintiff in error, as the lessor, against Benjamin Lumley, one of the defendants in error, as the lessee of Her Majesty's Theatre, in the Haymarket, and against the othertlefendants in error, who claimed an interest in the theatre under Mr. Lumley, in which he sought to recover possession of that build ing on the alleged forfeiture by Mr. Lumley of his lease by reason of alleged breaches of covenant on his part. The lease iu question, dated 10th July, 1845, was granted by Mr. Croft to Mr. Lumley, and demised the Opera-house and other premises, part for 66 years, and the remainder for 21 years from its date. There were several covenants and clauses for re-entry, and the queations before the Rouse were--first, whetherunder the circumstances the lease had been forfeited ; and, secondly, whe ther, if forfeited, there had not been a waiver of that forfeiture by Mr. Croft, by an acceptance of rent subsequently to the alleged breaches of cove ' nant becoming known to him. The forfeiture was claimed upon three different grounds-1. That Mr. Lumley having covenanted that he would not con vet the Opera-house to any other use than for acting and performing operas, plays, concerts, balls, masquerades, assemblies, and such theatrical and other public amusements or entertainments as had usually been given therein, but that he would use his utmost endeavours " to improve the same for that use and purpose," had failed in the perform ance of his covenant by shutting up the building for a period of two years, extending from August, 1852, until Dec. ' 1854, when the action was brought. It was alleged that by so shutting up the theatre Mr. Lumley had injured its reputation, and that therefore he had not used his utmost endeavours to improve it in accordance with his covenant. The second alleged breach was that he had, contrary to his covenant, let out certain boxes and stalls to cer tain persons for a longer period than one year. In support of this part of his case Mr. Croft showed that under a deed, dated December, 20, 1851, Mr. Lumely had granted certain boxes therein named, with others, for one year beginning the Ist of February, 1852, to Messrs. Brandus and Co., and that by another deed, dated August, 1852, he bad granted the same boxes, with others, from the Ist of February, 1853, for one year to other persons, so that the same boxes would be let at the same time, although to different persons, for a longer period than one year. The third alleged breach was that in violation of his covenant Mr. Lumley had mortgaged or encumbered the theatre by voluntarily giving warrants of attorney to confess judgments or debts as collateral security for the repayment of money borrowed. The Court of Queen's Bench decided that the only breach of covenant committed by Mr. Lumley was the third breach alleged, with respect to his having encum bered the tbeatre by giving warrants of attorney, but they gave judgment in his favour, on the ground that there had been a waiver of the for feiture on the part of the plaintiff in error, by his having received rent subsequently to the facts complained of coming to his knowledge. The Court of Exchequer Chamber had affirmed this judgment so far as it was in favour of the defendant in error, but were of opinion that the defendant in error had not been guilty of any breach of covenant with respect to the third alleged breach, and they therefore did not go into the question of waiver of the forfeiture. The latter decision was then brought by writ of error before their lordships' house. The pi incipal point relied on by the plaintiff in error was the fact that Mr. Lumley had encumbered his in- It is said to have been decided at the Horse Guards that the 2d battalion of the 20th Regiment shall be raised in Clonmel. The 4th battalion of the Rifle Brigade will move from Chichester this morning to Shorncliffe, and their quarters at Chichester will be taken by the 2d battalion of the 4th Foot, from Portsmouth and Parkhurst. Rear-Admiral Sir H. D. Chads, K.C.8., Com niander-in Chief on the Irish station, arrived at Portsmouth on Saturday, in pursuance of Ad miralty instructions, and hoisted his flag (red at the mizen) on board the Renown, 91, Capt. Forbes, which saluted the Port-Admiral on the occasion, and received an acknowledgment from the Illus trious. Admiral Chads will take the Renown, 91 ; Diadem, 31, Capt. Moorsom, C. B. ; Curagoa, 31, Captain Mason ; and the Racoon, 21, to Lisbon, on " particular service," presumed to be mainly connected with the approaching marriage of the King of Portugal with the Princess Stephanie of Hohenzollern. The squadron is expected to sail to-morrow. The painting of the Marlborough, 131, Captain Lord F. H. Kerr, flag of Vice-Admiral A. Fan ahawo, C. 8., has commenced, and she looks remark ably handsome. She has about 630 of her crew of 1,100. The Roscommon Militia, quartered in Ports mouth garrison, is now giving volunteers to the line prior to being sent to their county head-quar ters for disembodiment. The Vulcan, 6, troop frigate, Commander Sec combe, left Spithead after post time on Saturday morning, with the Ist division of the 2d battalion of the 3d Foot (Buffs). The remaining portion will leave Shorncliffe for Portsmouth this morning, to remain until ordered for embarkation. The process of restowing the Atlantic cable is proceeding simultaneously on board the United States' screw steam frigate Niagara and her Ma jesty's screw steamship Agamemnon, bath in the tidal basin. at Keyham. The Niagara is on the western or Hamoaze side, some distance from the store in the old powder magazine, from which the wire is carried over wheels fi.ted to a framework, floating on the basin. Alongside the frigate is the hulk of the sloop Favourite, on the deck of which is a steam engine for hauling. The after circle in the Niagara (312 miles) is complete. Up to 4 o'clock On Saturday morning 216 miles were stowed in the forward circle. The men were at work all Friday night. The quan.ity taken on board daily is un certain, as the engine gets out of order now and then, and some delay is occasioned by the confined position of the places of deposit. Last year, when the work was done by hand, 75 miles were stowed in 24 hours, the men working night and day. As the Niagara will receive in all 1,500 miles, there are about 900 more to come. The equipment and appearance of this fine frigate, especially aloft, ex cite the admiration of numerous professional and other visitors. The engine for haulin g the wire on board the A gamemnon i s on h er d e ck. About 40 miles•per day are now placed in the mainhold, which has received 37 flakes or layers, consisting of 650 rounds ; as the circumference increases, and the cone in the centre decreases, every successive flake obtains an addition of two rounds or sheaves. Be tween 600 and 700 miles have been stowed in this capacious place, and it will receive as many more. 100 miles of the coil forward have been stowed ; 40 more will make it complete. The men consider that all the Agamemnon's wire can be on board in a fortnight. Nothing is yet done to her rigging or outfit. Thostaff of Mr. Whitehouse, the electrician, is constantly occupied making experiments for im proving the apparatus, and for increasing the speed in the transmission of messages through the full length of the wire. During the last month they have made some progress in the attainment of these objects. Mr. Henley, the inventor of the magneto-electric machine, is assisting in Keyham. "Ber Majesty's screw steam sloop Nile, 91, Capt. E. Chads, with the screw despatch boat Lapwing, 4, Commander M. F. O'Reilly, sailed from Ply mouth oa Saturday for Queenstown. The steam frigate Valekous, 16, Capt. W. Ald ham, accompanied by the st am tug Zephyr, was appointed to sail ft oin Plymouth yesterday for Ferrol to take in tow the Turkish line-of-battle ship winteited there, in order that she may be fitted with screw machinery at Devonport. terest in the theatre by voluntarily giving warrants of attorney under which judgment had been ob tainectagain.st him. It was contended tbat be, having done an act involving certain consequence, must be considered to have done all that by law was involved in that act. By his warrant of at torney he had placed certain persons in a position to ob'ain a registered judgment, and thus they hail gained an equitable charge upon the theatre, contrary to the express covenant contained in the lease. With respect to the question of waiver of forfeiture by the plaintiff in error by the subse quent receipt of rent, it was contended that the money had only been rec3ived as compensation for the occupation of the premises, and not as rent, and that such a taking of the money would not amount to a waiver of the forfeiture. On behalf of the de fendants in error it was contended that there was no pretence fel- considering the judgments obtained against Mr. Lumley as mortgages or encumbrances within the meaning of the words of the covenants. It was clear that by giving warrants of attorney upon which the judgments were obtained, Mr. Lum ley had created no charge, direct or indirect, upon the estate, for the power of disposal vested in him was not restricted until after the registered judg ments were obtained. The act of obtaining those judgments was not Mr. Lumley's act, and there fore he had no hand in encumbering the estate. Judgments were particularly distinguished from mortgages, for no mortgage could be granted of church property, and yet judgments might be ob tained under warrants of attorney, and a charge thus created upon the land. With respect to the boxes being let for more than one year at a time, it was submitted that the mere fact of letting boxes just before the end of the year 1852 for the ensuing - season of 1853 to different persons from those who held them for the season of 1852 could not be held to be a breach of the covenants in the lease ; for it would have been impossiblefor Mr. Lumley to have carried ou the business of the Opera-house without securing the lett;ng of his boxes for the ensuing season. It was also submitted there had been no substantial lease granted for more than a year, in asmuch as the contingencies upon which the leases of the boxes had been granted—viz., the opening of the theatre—had not happened at the time when the action was brought. Under these c'rcumstances it was contended that there had been no forfeiture of the lease. With regard to the question of waiver it was contended that the money was paid to the agent of Mr. Croft as rent, and that, in accordance with the rules of law, the creditor must apply money paid by him to his debtor to the purpose named by the latter at the time of paying it. At the conclu sion of the arguments the following questions were submitted to the learned judges for their considera tion :-- "1. Whether the special cage disclosed a breach of the covenant not to grant, let, or otherwise dispose of any of the bolus or stalls of the theatre for any longer period than one year, or one season. "2. Whether the special case disclosed a breach of the covenant not to charge or encumber the theatre, or any part thereof. " 3. Whether by reason of such breaches, if any, or either of them, the plaintiff in error acquired a right of re-entry on the theatre or any part thereof. " 4. - Whether such right of re-entry, if any, was waiv,-d by the plaintiff in error.- On the 15th Feb. last the learned judges, w h o h a d taken time to consider,dileliaivme:2.edantdheiEr, rolep,iniaonnds upon the question of law propounded to. th em. Justices Coleridge, Wl Barons Bramwell, Watson, and (Manual answered the first and second questions in the negative, and the third and fourth in the affirmative. Mr. Jus tice \Vightman answered the first question in the negative 2nd the rest in the affirmative ; Mr; Baton Mariin answered the fir,t three ques ions in the negative and the last in the affirmative ; and Mr. J us tice Crompton answered the first and fourth in the negative and the secot.d and third in the affir mative; the majority thus being in favour of - the decision of the Court below. . li , rd Cranwolth , this morning, in giving his judgment, af er gar , through the facts of th e case, said that with reg,r ' . d to the first point urged by the plailitiff namely, that Mr. Ll b r each of his agreement tnley had committe d a by Lot keepingin error the theatre open, their lordships wer e unanimously of of iniou that 11 l.t was no i breach of his covenant, and t he y had therefore put upon h A point. no question to the learned judges , He did not consider that there had been any breach of the covenant relating to the letting of boxes or stalls for more than one year. As to the question of whether there had been a forfeiture of the lease by reason of Mr. Lumley having encumbered the theatre by granting warrants of attorney, he con aidered that there had been no such forfeiture. It was a most difficult question upon which to lay down a geiferafrule oflaw, - bait appeared to him that when warrants of attorney were given for the purpose of preventing law costs, when pressed for a bona fide debt, it could not be regarded as a breach (.. of such a covenant as this. It was different alto [Aovgarissmimr. - I—The difficulties and dangers of bringing up Infants by hand or wet nurses have been entirely Over come by Du Barry's delicious Revalenta Arabica Food, which feeds, strengthens, and removes all those littlo pains and irre gularities infants are so subject to." The following letters speak volumes :—" Grammar School, Stevenage, 16th Dec., 1850. Gentlemen,—l think it but common justice to you to 'state that I have used Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica for the :1.1.t. four months, during which time our infant has never had disordered 'bowels, from which it bad suffered much during the previous six months, whilst being nursed, though every cats was taken Co prevent it. Had I known of your valuable have Food sooner it would saved my infant much pain, and lane also the heavy 2,7 4 . ne se ~o f a wet nurse.—l am, dtc.,Romax Al[ntnhc • ~ Mire I considyr you ablessing to society at.large. 1. It is not to b4 o t d old all the benefit Do Barry's Revaleata been to me, and my little - boy• cries fo la r ai a ni z . l a i t n t . e h e as r of it every morning.— WAvrea .-KKArisu i 2, •. 4 75, Queen's-road, - " b ay tow ate ' r, Pl L e ndo F i i i ve N a O o n v ' : l k . 5 22 0 ,. j. 1:8 0 1 5 .5 5 27 32 1 Mr. Dampier will thank Messrs. Du ne ßa v ri. , ? , ea t n f ta Arabica, ' it d him another canister of their v n alo at n i ta t was 10 days sgried so well with his infant. (This t ( h T e hi ße s obt'when.it commenced living SuPported by testimonials from the following celet rabi d ca i ) r — o. femurs of Chemistry: Dr. A. Ure; Dr. Shorl am l ; Dr ra l e l y t ; D r. Campbell ;" Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wuurifteelss.; o D fc r ,, . is . t l l n e g s a t rar u v a rne r ; • L or d Stuart de Decks; t he Dowager co Thomas King, and many other respectable pe r - Major Gen. sons, whose health has been restored by it, after all other means prelim bad failed. Suitably packed with full instruo- Cons, In canisters, 11b. 2s, 9 d.; 21 b. 4 s. 6 d.; 51 b. 11 s. ; 121 b. 225. The 121 b canisters are sent carriage free or, re. ceipt of Post-office order. Barry Du Barry, and Co., 77, Regent-street, London. Important Caution against the fear. fal dangera of spurious imitations. —The Vice-Chancellor Sir Bata Page Wood granted an Injunction on the 19th March, 185 d, against Alfred Hooper Nevin . for imitating "Ds Sarry'gßeiralenta Arabica Food. gether from where a warrant of attorney was given for the purpose of evading such a covenant and creating a charge upon the estate contrary to the terms of the lease. In the latter case it would cer tainly be a breach of the covenant • but in the pre sent case it appeared to him that Mr. Lumley had no such intention in giving the warrants of attor ney, and therefore he considered that the decision of the Court below was cor rec t u p on thi s po i n t a l so. i The case of " Doe v. Carter," Bth Term Reports, page 300, supported the view he took of the ques tion. He should express no opinion upon the ques tion of waiver, but it appeared to him to be more a question of fact than of law. THE TRIAL OF BERNARD. (From the Daily News.) The verdict of the jury in the case of the Bishops was a protest against the attempt of a domestic bigot and despot to- wrest from Englishmen their hereditary lib3rties. The verdicts of the juries in the cases of Thelwall, Hardy, and Horne Tooke were protests against the attempt of servile and bigotted courtiers to arrest the English people in their progress towards the attainment of extended liberties. The verdict of the jury in the case of Bernard is a protest against the attempt of a foreign usurper and despot to intimidate a weak and unprincipleZ English Cabinet (we speak of the late Ministry) into a surrender of English liberty. Lord Wensleydale having concurred, The judgment of the Court below was affirmed, with costs. THE TACTICS OP THE OPPOSITION. (From the Daily NM ) There is a certain class of politicians in every great party with whom the present is everything, and with whom the future and the past are noth ing. When out of power there is no weapon they are not ready to use to regain it ; when in office there is no principle they are not willing to sacri fice in the reckless resolve to keep it. The traditions of party awaken no scruple in the minds of such men ; and to talk to them of the eventual effect of their greediness and rancour on the character and influence of their party seems to their sordid sense like the words of one that mocks. We fear that in justice it must be said the existence of such mean ness is not peculiar to any political combination or creed, and however reluctant we may be to confess the fact, it is impossible to deny that in the ranks of the present Opposition there are men who would if they were permitted, sacrifice the permanent honour and utility of the Liberal party in their sel fish impatience to oust their opponents from power. If the suggestions of those to whom we allude be attended to every measure ought to be opposed which is propounded by the Derbyite Cabinet, whether it be right or wrong. No matter what the forthcoming Budget of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer may prove to be, Mr. Hungry and Mr. Harping are prepared to give it the most uncom promising opposition ; and before the contemplated resolutions on the government of India have seen the light, ac ive steps have been taken to whip a sufficient number of votes to prevent their being even debated. A motion we are credibly informed will be made by way of amendment—when Mr. Disraeli proposes to go into Committee of the whale house—that the Speaker do not leave the chair ; the practical significance of which would be that the majority of the present House of Commons is determined not to consider or discuss any seri ous proposition unless it be propounded by the man who, as a Cabinet, called it into being. We shall be slow in believing that so old and experieestAl a politician as Lord Palmerston will lend himself to a project so disreputable and so desperate. He had his chance in his oen packed Parliament of legislating for India ; and he threw it away. An overwhelming majority voted him leave to introduce his plan. All the leading Liberals whom he and his personal partisans opposed at the last general election—Lord John Russell, Mr. Bright, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Milner Gibson—voted in the majority upon that occasion. Since his suicidal loss of office, another Adminis tration has obtained permission to lay upon the table another scheme, in the form likewise of a bill. A third recommendation has proceeded from the quarter best entitled beyond all question to atten tion and regard ; but—because its enunciation and development would baulk the cupidity or rash haste of certain hangers-on—who want to count n(lns in a division, not to hear argument in a debate—the course sanctioned by theylearest pre cedents and recommended by the ablest and best men on both sides of the House is, we are told, to be refued consideration, and a mere factious amendment is to be proposed for that purpose in the shape above mentioned. For his own sake, and for the sake of the Liberal party—whose re-union and consolidation on a firmer basis than any they have recently had we fervently desire—we trust that Lord Palmerston will not be betrayed into lending himself to such a proceeding. It is one conceived in a spirit of insult, and which can only be perpetrated in a spirit of outrage. If Mr. Dia raelt's resolutions are good, there can be no harm in affirming them ; if they are specifically bad there ought to be no difficulty in rejecting them. If some of them are sound and others seem to be the con trary, the plain duty of the House is to adopt those that are right and to negative those that are wrong, or to substitute for them others conceived iu a wiser spirit. But to tell the country without disguise that fur the selfish and scandalous purposei of faction, a majority of the House of Commons bad made up its mind beforehand to refisze,all consideratio n to a course proposed by the man who is facile pr a nceps the leader of the Pdrtyof ProgressintheLegislature of this country, and which has been adopted by the efficial leader of the Conservative party in the Lower I House, would be in so many words to proclaim that the present House of Commons has nut only been packed for per: oval objects by the late Minister, but that it is ut'erly regardless of those decent semblances of patriotism by which bad Parliaments ha‘ e sometimes contrived to prolong a m:s.chie vous existence. To us it seems sufficiently palpable that, before the Liberal party can again return to power, there must be a grand and unreserved renunciation by men of all sections composing it of the odious and intolerable system of exclusiveness which has hither to been its blight and bane. We ought never again to see a Liberal Cabinet formed out of one particu lar class either of society or opinions. The days of monopoly are over iu creed and in trade ; we must make an end of them now in administrative rule. A Liberal Administration consisting only of the least Liberal members of the party, and with a personnel consisting of lords and lackies, . political paellas and political eunuchs, is an imposture and a cheat which we trust we shall never again behold. Unless a Government of Progress can be forme with a positive programme and a positive pledge that its promises are not to be indefinitely post polled, we had rather remain as we arc. And if an administration is not likely to be constituted Tha.t shall be prepared manfully and from the out set to maintain the national dignity and indepen dence, to seek the alliance of free nations and to sustain the character of English freedom abroad, then we pray Heaven that we may be saved the grief and shame of witnessing perpetual changes in the confidential advisers of the Crown without any change for the better iu our foreign policy. We desire as earnestly as any can do to see the ascen dancy of liberal and national ideas. We believe sincerely that the best hope of that ascendancy lies in the occupancy of office by an administration in which the people of this country may thoroughly confide. But we hesitate not to say that no set of men can constitute such an Administration, unless they visibly and vigorously represent the intellect, worth, independence, and courage of the whole popular party. Neither ad vanced opinions, nor industrial pursuits, nor the ve`o of aristocratic cliques or coteries, must be li , tened to in future. We have had enough in all conscience, of thesilken Cabinets of Stafford House, and enough and more than enough of the Cam bridge House Cabal. When next the Sovereign calls upon a Liberal statesman to undertake the task of forming a Government, let us hope that she will tell I:im that she expects one that will reflect fairly and impartially all classes and opinions which the constituencies of the empire have thought fit to honour ; and we trust that the statesman to whom she may confide the task will prove himself prepared to ex( cute it without fear, favour, or affection. It is but justice to Lord Derby to say that, out of till comparatively narrow and limited materials at his disposal, he evinced, when lately called upon, a wiser dist.osition in this respect than might perhaps have been expected. But the west inveterately and offensivr-ly oltarch:c Government that has been in England during the present cen tury was that of Lord Palmerston ; and, as the tree is known by its fruits, we have witnessed such a harvest of thorns and this les—acandals at home and disgraces abroad—as the annals of England have been seldom found to record, and as it is to be hoped they will never again contain. Tun CASE OF THE REV. S. SMITH.—In the course of the week a memorial, having for its of j•ct to obtain a mitigation of the severe sentence passel in this case, has received the signatures of the high sheriff, several a the magh•trates, a great number of the clergy, and respect able laity, and Las been forwarded to the Lord-Lieu• tenant of GloucesterW,ire, Earl Ducie, for presentation, together with others from Gloucester and Cuipping Sodbury. Tai CASE op Mn. BARBER.—On Saturday a deputa , Lip, including L. rd Ebrington, M.P.. Mr. Collier, AI. P., and Mr. Brady, M P., waited upon the Home Secretary, to urge the claim of Mr. B.rber to compel:- ea i,u from Government I, will be rememb red that Mr. Barber, who was a - aolicitor in considerable practice, was prosecuted in 1844 by the Bank, at the direction of the spa cites c f the Treasury, for f-rgery, and trays P° - rt-d ; but afterwards his innoceuci was established, and he was allowed to return. The Home Secretary ex pressed an opinion that as this had not been strictly a Government prosecution, the State ought not to be liable. The Crown had done no wrong, neither had the judge or jury done wr on g. M r . Barber was rightly con victed, though it suboequently turned out that there had been a failure of justice by reason of the nen-production been arnwed a separ a t e as to Mr. Barbers not having He would speak upon the matter of other evideno-,.' He admitted, however, that the poi n t t e h r e by n a s n e d the Government, And s . e what could be done , trial was a strong to featureordin The result of the trial of Dr. Bernard is the natural and necessary consequence of the adoption of trial a by jury in political case s . A j ur y w h e n tryingquestionof debt not paid, or o f o bli ga ti on not will respect the d ec l ara ti on o f th e presiding fulfilled, judge, that the law h as l a id d own suc h or such_a rule, that they have nothing to do with the abstract equity of the case, and that they have only to declare whether the law has or has not been obeyed. A jury, when trying a question of assault and battery, or of slander, will equally con form its verdict t i the technical requisitions of the law. But when a political question is submitted to a jury, the jurors feel instinctively that they have a higher duty to perform than merely to de clare whether the letter of the written or consue tudinary law has been violated. They feel that they are called upon to discharge a duty to society at large which may bring their convictions into conflict with the mere formal prescripts of the law; that they must weigh izt an impartial balance the merits and demerits of all the parties to the case ; that in arriving at their decision they must remem ber the existence of a law of higher and holier origin, of a wider mob, sad of more muLiverod comprehensiveness than that which is inscribed in tho Statute Book, or is the records of the Judgments of our Courts. Juries in political cases have to decide questions of • eonstitutional policy as well as of mere law. They who are disposed to quarrel with the verdict of the jury in Bernard's case would have quarreled, had they lived in those times, with the verdicts of the juries in the cases of the Bishop., of Hardy, Thel wall, and Horne Tooke. It is of the essence of trial by jury in political cases, that the jurors, in framing their verdict should allow weight to moral and political in addition to mere legal considerations ; and whoever objects to this piactice ought logically to object altogether to trial by jury in political cases. The object of em panelling a jury in such cases is to take them out of the Jurisdiction of the more technical lawyer, with a view to assert the liberties of the citizen, if need be, cven against the formalities and techni calities of the Law itself. In saying this it is not our meaning to concede that the verdict of the jury in Bernard's case was contrary to, er unwarranted by, the testimony ad duced. There were broken links in the chain of evidemee- The Belgian witnesses expressed strong doubts of the identity of the grenade produced with any of those which they had seen and handled. The letters produced were addressed to Bernard, not written by him ; and the interpretation pat upon their words with a view to infer the expres sion of a guilty intention on the part of the writers was pa' pably forced and strained. The position of one of the principal witnesses—the wife of Rudio—in the uncertainty of his fate, was sufficient to discredit her testimony. The evi dence of the railway clerk—the friendly infor mant of the French Embassy—that Bernard had expressed a confident expectation of the speedy return of the Emperor to this country, was irrre eencileable with the idea that Bernard contem plated the assassination of the Emperor. The evi dence of Orsini's housekeeper as to Bernard's incredulity when he first heard of the attempt in the Rue Lepelletier, and of his unequivocal aston ishment when doubt was no longer possible, con firms in the strongest manner the inference to which the evidence of the railway clerk necessarily leads. With these considerations pressing upon them, we do not see what other verdict could possibly have been returned, even though the jurors had fettered themselves by a strict regard to the purely technical requisitions of the Law. But we will not affect to believe that the verdict was motived by such considerations alone. There can ba tee doubt that the moral sense of the jurors revoltedagainst the essential falsehood of the indict ment. They saw clelrly that Bernard was prose cuted not because he was believed to be accessory to the deaths of the individuals who received fatal wounds in the Rue Leplletier, but because he was believed to have, conspaarectto asaassinate the - Em peror of the French. Their honest, John Bull indignation was roused by the attempt to make them accessories to the falsehood of a judicial juggle. Agate, their sympathies were touched by the peculiar position of the prisoner. They saw before them a man, poor as regards worldly wealth, alone and unsupported save by a few private indi viduals who were personally strangers to him. They saw th two most powerful G.ereraments in Europe persevering fir mon thi in a large expenditure, avail ing themselves of theiudefatigable exertions of two completely organised wed not over -scrupulous bodies of police, to ensure the destruction of this poor and almost friendless mall. In such circumstances it , was not in human nature, to escape a certain bias in f evour of the weaker party. Yet again, the per tinacity with which the presiding Judge again and again obtruded upon them the declaration that in the event of a verdict of guilty being returned the law of the caso would be discussed by the fifteen Judges, showed the Jurors that it was intended by a legal quihb!e to remove the case of Bernard from their jurisdict'on, and to have it virtually decided by the Judges, unaided or unchecked by ajury. It is the established right of an English jury to decide both on the law and the. facts of the cases sub mitted to them. The Judge, it is true, expounds the law to.them ; b u t when he has done so, it is their duty and their e ight not only to decide what facts have been proved, but iu what manner the law as expounded from the Bench bears upon them. Lord Campbell anxiously and pertinaciously endea voured to impress u p o n the minds of the jury that they ought to confine themselves to questions of evidence alone, and to leave th e app li cation of the law to th e Judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Had the jury conformed to Lord Campbell's in junctions, they would have done what in them lay to render trial by jury, in political cases, a nullity in all time coming. They are to be honoured for having sturdily resisted such an encroachment on the political privileges and safeguards of English men. They who matured and confirmed our sys tem of trial by jury in political cases did so with their eyes open. They knew that twelve unpro fes,ional men, taken by hazard from the ranks of their fellow citizens, could not be fettered by mere formal and technical considerations of law. They preferred the verdict of such men in political cases to the verdict of mere law yers, because the decision of the former would be arrived at upon wider considerations than those of the law alone. The verdict of the jury in Bernard's case is exactly such a verdict as the en lightened asserters of Trial by Jury in political cases wished to ensure. That the jury have spoken the universal sense of Englishmen in this matter is obvious. The rap turous cheers with which the verdict was received in. Court, the readinsse with which this applause was caught up and re-echoed by the crowds waiting without, the reciprocal congratulations with which the news of it was received iu private societies during the eve n i ng , t h e sympat h e ti c res p o nse which is already coming back to us from the pro vinces—all these things show that the universal nation sanctions the verdict of the twelve honest and intelligent jurymen in the Central Criminal Court. Surely this unanimous expression of the nat'onal eonvietion and will ought to read an in structive lesson to all th I Governments in Europe — ou r own inclusive. So long as trial by jury in political cases exists in England, similar verdicts will be the result of all similar prcsecution s . Even though more stringent statutes could be impetrated from the Le gisl a tZ te, th e result would be the same. Under th e new law, as under the old, juries would refus e to convict. Before d e cisions of a different cha rac t er can be looked for, trial by jury must be aboli s h e d ; an d where should we find the' English G o v ernmen t that would be daring enough to attempt, the English Parliament that would be weak and venal enough to beco4:to an accoa.plice in, its abolition. From one or two quarters we hear puling whis p .r 4 about the effect this vr rdict may product upon the minds of Foreign Goveinments. To these there is on'y sate reply : England. confidently be lieve 4 that the Governments ensled' to hava se use Eni,ugh to acquiesce in the inevitable ; and if they have not, Eng'ancl does not care. (From Melimes.) Not since the Irish Rebellion of 1848 h:s there been any State trial approaching in importance the case of Simon I.3,:rnar d, who was acqui•ted ok Sa turday la , t of complici , y in the murderous attempt of the 14th of January un the Emperor Napo leon. Ind ee :l, the trial which is just over i ta s a h alarmed Europe, aud,the general and int erna ti ona l i n t eres t which is wailing to the inqui r i es respect i ng domes ti c t reason or-redt trot]. It w as prece d ed b y d i scuss i ons th e h ea t an d vehemen ce o f which base Ministers o f a great foreign P o t entate wereled away by the circumstances which produced it to use and permit others to use a language which may be disregarded or may be forgiven, but which can not be forgotten. It is also not to be denied that the Emperor of the French as well as our own Go- [The following appeared iu a portion of our impression of vernment looked forward to a successful prosecu- Saturday.] tion as a means of smoothing away difficulties. To the Derby Cabinet, which had ousted its opponents for bringing in the Conspiracy Bill, a verdict of " Guilty" would have given the opportunity either of proving that no legislation was necessary, or of legislating under the sanction of a judicial decision. The French Government, or rather its sagacious chief, has also notoriously desired such a proof of the goodwill of England as would, in the eyes of con tinentals, be involved iu the punishment of a Re publican conspirator. Such a conclusion of the long disputes between the two countries would have been gratifying to the self-esteem of the French Government, se severely wounded by the events of the last three months ; and we may say, without arrogance or assumption, that the spectacle of an English Court passing sentence on an accomplice of Orsini would have given a moral strength to the Imperial throne. THE TRIAL OF BERNARD. But the calculations of Sovereigns and statesmen and lawyers were destined to be baffled. After a long and wearisome trial of six days Simon Ber nard has been acquitted. The jury remained in deliberation only an hour and 20 minutes ; so that we must believe that their feeling in favour of the prisoner was almost unanimous from the first. Indeed, two or three days before, it might have been anticipated that the jury would acquit the prisoner if they shared the opinions or passions which prevailed among the audience at the trial. The Republican refugee seems to have had, rightly or wrongly, all the sympathies of those who heard the case, and the extraordinary scene which suc ceeded the verdict is a proof to what a pitch the feelings of all present had been raised. That the political and national instincts of the jury had some thing to do with the decision it wou!d beaffectation to deny ; but we think that their verdict was only what was to have been expected, and what may be expected in any similar case. Every one who re members the !strong democratic bias of the class from which the London petty juries are taken will be prepared to learn that they feel a strong sympathy with any one whom they conceive to be • prosecuted at the instigation of a despotic Ceurt, and that they will give the prisoner the benefit of the slightest doubt that arises on the evidence. In this lease there was a link wanting in the chain which connected the ptisoner's purchase of the chymical materials with the actual attempt on the life of the French Emperor. Bernard was a Repub lican, a conspirator, an organizer of revolutionary movements, a suborner of revolutionary agents ; he bought mercury and alcohol and compounded them, he bought grenades and despatched them, and lie induced a needy Italian to enter into his schemes, whatever they wore. His own account was that he conspired always and every where ; that he was engaged in a plot for the independence of Italy ; and that the grenades and the revolvers and the services of Rudio were intended to effect this object. Orsini, and Pierri, and Rudio wept to Paris to further revolutionary movements in general, and not attack the Em peror's life ; but while there they formed the design of assassination and carried it out without the sanc tion or knowledge of Bernard. This, in fact, was the whole defence of the prisoner, and it certainly is not absolutely inconsistent with the evidence. It might possibly be that men so violent and fena tical'as these Italians should be seized with a sud den impulse to take the Emperor's life, and thus to remove what they considered the great obstacle to the accomplishment of their plans. The deadly machines which Bernard had helped to furnish were in their possession, and they,might use them for a purpose which he hid never contemplated. None of the four convicts in France had criminated him. Gomez and Rudio are alive, but they were no', brought to give evidence against the prisoner. In short, though it was proved that Bernard was en gaged in some scheme requiring instruments of death, and though the act of Orsini affords pre sumptive proof that the assassination of the Em peror was the scheme in question, yet the con nexion between the two was not proved to abso lute demonstration, and a jury, ready to give the prisoner any loophole of escape, took advantage of the defect in the evidence to return a verdict of " Not Guilty." We have said that, in our opinion, such a ver dict was to be expected in such a case. Indeed, whatever may be the recommendations of judges, and their exposition of the strict letter of the law, juries will not restrain themselves from looking at State prosecutions in a political light. In the pre sent case Simon Bernard was formally charged with the murder of Nicholas Battie, under a statute framed originally for the punishment of murders by Englishmen on foreign ground, such as the murder of one sailor by another in some South American port, the murder of a set of unfortunate negroes on the West Coast of Africa, or the more gentlemanly murder of one duellist by another at Boulogne or Ostend. When this Act of Parlia ment was evoked for the prosecu ion of a refugee for a plot against the life of a despotic Sovereign, and when, moreover, it was plain that the prosecu tion was the result f a diplomatic tempest and a Ministerial change, we may well conceive that a jury would consider that the law was being strained to effect a political purpose, and that their duty was to defeat the attempt. Indeed, as long as we have had a political history, juries have always as serted their right to look at all the bearings of a case, and not to confine themselves to the narrow issue which the judge has set before them. It was thus that they have come to be the judges of the malicious intention of acts and of the libelous cha racter of writings. They have not been content with merely saying whether a man struck a blow, but they pronounce whether he is guilty of murder or manslaughter. They decide for themselves what is treason, what is sedition, what is libel. So in this case the jury seems to have been more than willing to declare that the prosecution of Simon Bernard, under the statute of George IV., for what was really tlt e political offence of high trea son against his own Sovereign, was a perversion„of the principles of the English middle class, they, like the audience in court, steadily refused to look on Bernard as a mere murderer, like Barthelemy or Laui. They saw in him, even if the evidence were complete, only a conspirator against a despotic ruler, who had himself seized a throne by craft and violence, and against whom craft and violence, if Rot justifiable, were at least not to be classed with the guilt of the common murderer. If Nicholas Battie and Eugene Riquier perished in an attack on the Imperial person, it was by accident, and the cause of their deaths must be subordinated to the political offence, and not erected into an individual and distinct crime. 1n a country like France, where every existing power has been established in blood, things must not be mea sured by the English standard. Plotting and vio lence are there as much a matter of course as a bill with its three readings is in our country. W'e talk of our Catholic Emancipation, our Reform Act, our Free Trade Act, our abolition of! the Ec clesiastical Courts ; the French have their three days of July, their three days of February, their 2d of December. Why, then, should Bernard, even if guilty, he judged by the severe rules of English morality ? Let the French settle these things among themselves. The Republic was in 'ewer, and it was overthrown by force ; the Em pire has succeeded, and the Empire is sought to be overthrown. Why should we pervert our laws and stain our courts with blood in order to protect one unscrupulous faction from another Something like this is, we cannot doubt, the reasoning of the class from which the jury was taken, and we can easily imagine that when the audience was so much roused, the jurors would have their share of the impulse. All the circum stances of the trial show how much political feeling has been mixed up with the question which the jury had to try. The experience of Mr. Edwin James induced him to turn his defence of the pri soner into a tirade against the Empire, its chief, and i - s principles, and the conclusion of this harangue was received with cheering and clapping of bands. The result of all these influences was that the jury took al vanla_:e of it defvet iu evidence to return a verdict consonant with their political feelings, and to express their dislike of the very principle of the prosecution. On their judgment we are not called to pronounce an opin on ; we only think that it was to be expected, and that any further proceedings against the pri soner way as well be abandoned. Napoleon 111. may remember that his companions, Vaudrey and Lailty, were acquitted in 1836, though seized with arms in their hands ; the v, edict of the Old B:iley jery is, therefore, not without a precedent even in his own history. The fact is, that men are made up of passions as well as judgment, and that after such a bitter coritrover,y as his marked the be ginning of the present year we mmy well expect juries to lo ik beyond t e evidence to tlte coese quencee of their verdict, and spectators to shout their sympathy with a conspirator, although they may detest assassination. The interest in this case this morning was intense, from a desire, no doubt, to hear the summing up of the Lord Chief Justice ; but we need scarcely say how many hundreds were disappointed from being unable to gain admission, and how much greater disappointed were those within the building, from the inaudible tone of voice usually adopted by his lordship in summing up important cases. The interest was farther heightened from the desire to hear the verdict delivered by the jury, and the impression generally, but erro neou•dy, entertained that the prisoner, if found guilty, would be sentenced before leaving the dock. The arrangements made by the Under Sheriffs throughout have been excellent. Nothing has occurred to cause the least confusion, notwithstanding the number of applica tions for admission and the crowded state of the court on each day. [ADVERTISEMENT ]—Ho loway's Pills an af-tonisl ing Dewedy for Giddivess in the Head.—Mr. Newton, druggist, Hull, states, in a letter to Pr.feasur Holloway, that Mr. John Ware, residing in S.ubb's-buildings, West -street, Hull, bad been afflicted with giddiness in the head oil and on for the last 20 years, and though he tried many things during that long period, yet be found little or no relief from them. At la,t he was induced to try Holloway's Pills, from bearing so many encaniuccs passed on their virtues, and, wonderful as it may appear, he is perfectly cured, and now I 'joys better health than ever he did before, thanks to Holloway's Pills.—Sold by all vendors of medicine; and at Pi ofe:or Holloways establishment, 244, Strand, London, Long before 9 o'clock a number of ladies and gentle men had taken their seats in the galleries and body of the court, and by 10 o'clock the court was crowded. A few minutes after 10 o'clock the learned judges en tered the court, and took their seats on the bench, and the prisoner was placed at the bar. Mr. John Simon for the prisoner, before his lordship commenced summing up, said, that he believed by the Act of Par lament the points intended to be reset ved should be handed in and explained at the time of the trial. He had, however, made application to the At torney-General to be allowed to hand in, withi❑ a rea sonable period, any further points the prisoner's counsel might wish to urge on his behalf, to which that learned counsel had aseuted. Lord C =Oen said—lt did not rest with the A ttorney- General to assent or dissent to such an application. The learned judges Lad it in their power to reserve to them selves any point of law during a trial though it might not be raised by the counsel on either side, and of bringing it before the Court of Crirnivai Appeal. Their lordships, however, would receive any other points that might be wished by the prisoner's counsel for argument in an appeil before the Court of Criminal Appeal. THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 19, 1858. THE SUMMING UP. Lord Campbell then commenced summing up. He spoke very low and was understood to say they now approached the conclusion of this solemn inquiry in which they had been so long engaged. His brother judges and himself had viewed with great satis faction the devoted attention the jury had paid to all they had heard, and their lordship were peculiarly struck with the anxiety the jury had displayed test night not to hurry e the case when they unanimously asked that the summing up should be delayed a day, though they bad suffered so much deprivation in having been secluded so long from the society i f their families and friends, and must have suffered other inconveniences. He was afraid, however, they would have to suffer some further inconvenience, for where life was at stake a jury could not be too careful in considering the facts by which it was proposed to convict. They were aware that during the trial many important questions of law had been re served, of which the prisoner would have full advantage if their verdict was against him on the question of fact submitted for their decision. They were the judges of the fact, and the important fact for their considera tion was, whether the accused was an accomplice in the design to assassinate the Emperor of the French by the explosion of gre❑ade4. Technically he was charged as being a❑ accessory to the murder of a person named Batti, and although the death of Batt' might not have been in his contemplation, yet, if his death was the natu ral and probable consequence from the attempt to ass assinate the Emperor of the French (and if these facts were established against him) ho was an accessory btif,re the fact. All the law could lay down for their consi deration for the purposes of this trial, was that the pri soner while residing in the United Kingdom was a subject of her Maj ,sty. He hail an asylum here, he was protected by the English laws ; he owed obedience to them, and he was bound by them in the same manner as any of her Majesty's native born sub jects, and they were to consider whether it was proved by the evidence that the prisoner bad done anything within the United Kingdom which made him an accom plice in this charge. As he had observed, although the prisoner did not contemplate the death of Batti, and probably was not aware of his existence, yet, if they were of opinion that his death was caused by the bursting of she grenades thrown in the attempt to assassinate the Emperor of the French, the prisoner was just as much an accomplice in Batti's death as if Batti was the person it was intended to murder. Their verdict he need not again remind them must be determined entirely by the evidence, according to the solemn oath they hail taken. Topics had been submitted to them, which he must say appeared to him to be irrelevant, but the Court declined to check their being urged, lest it might be supposed the prisoner's counsel had been restrained from ;14- vancing such topics as he thought serviceable to his client. That was a court of justice in which they knew nothieg of politica. It was their duty to confine them selves to the law and the facts of the cave before them, irrespective of the shattering of Lord Pal merston's Government, the discussions in Par liament, and the statements about foreign dic tation, and he therefore implored them to act in an independent manner, and find their verdict from the evi dence before them. He felt it his duty to lay before them the whole of the evidence that had been adduced, for the purpose of establishing the prisoner's complicity in the attempt of the 14th Jan., but he did not think it necessary to read over that part of the evidence that had been given to prove that attempt. It was not now disputed—indeed it was now a matter of history—that an attempt was made on the night of the 14th Jan to assassinate the Emperor of the French with grenades by Orsini, Pietri, Rudio, and Gomez. The learned judge then commenced reading the evidence, beginning with that of Mr. Taylor, of Birmingham, who manu factured the grenades used on that occasion, and by which Batti lost his life. With reference to Alleop's letter, dated the let of January, 1857, found at prisoner's lodging, his lordship said it was admitted in evidence not to prove that the prisoner participated in the sentiment; it contained, but simply to prove that he bad a know ledge of what was then ping on between Allsop and Orsini. The evidence of King, clerk at the South-Eastern Com pany's offices, Regent's-circus, was very important, bet!' as regarded the prosecution and the prisoner. If Ber nard's statement was seriously and sincerely made, it showed that some general insurrection was intended, a❑d the remark, " I shall go there when he returns bows," implied that the rising was to be of a general character, and not an attempt upon the life of the Emperor of the French, and if they believed that the prisoner at the bar was not responsible for the act of the 14th, they would acquit hi m . The learned judge dwelt for some time upon the evidence given relative to the passports and Dr. Bernard's connection with them, and remarked that these frauds went far to prove the inutility of the pass port system. Mrs. Rudio had given her evidence with great caution, and without any disposition to state anything but what she believed to be true. In conclusion his lordship told the jury they must consider the charge against the prisoner as if he were a native born subject, for the purpose of this prosecution, and that they were not to be deterred from finding a verdit of guilty against the prisoner, if they considered the evidence warranted it, from any fear that such a verdict would interfere with the sacred right of asylum that had been so long the glory of this country to afford to political exiles. Tue prisoner, before the jury retired, in an excited manner, declared that the balls taken by Georgi to Brus sels were not the same that were forwarded to Paris. He had called no evidence from a desire not to injure other per sons. He had never hired assassins, and Rudio went to Paris at his (Rudio'.) own request. He was innocent of the murders of the 14th January. He had never plotted assassination, but be had conspired to destroy despotism and tyranny, considering it was the sacred duty of him self and all political exiles to do so. He exclaimed in a very excited manner, "Never, never, never will I be a murderer." Toe jury retired to consider their verdict at ten minutes to 3 o'clock, and returned exactly at 4 o'clock, after an absence of one hour and ten minutes. THE VERDICT.-EXTRAORDINARY SCENE IN COURT. The Jury having taken their places, a breathless silence ensued. The Clerk said—Gentlemen, are you all agreed ? Is the prisoner, Simon Bernard, guilty or not guilty ? The foreman, in an emphatic tone of voice, replied, NOT GUILTY. Immediately on the announcement of the verdict, the whole of the audience rose and cheered enthusiastically, which was again and again repeated. The ladies waved their handkerchiefs, and gentlemen waved their hats, and the ebullition of feeling in favour of Dr. Bernard was of the most gratifying and enthusiastic character. The cheers were loud and continuous, which the learned judges made no attempt to check, and from the expres sion of Lord Campbell's features, he was evidently plewei that the judges had, by the verdict of the jury, been relieved of oonsidering, in a Court of Appeal, the points of law raised in the prisoner's favour, in the event of his having been convicted. Dr. Bernard was greatly excited, and he was unable to restrain his feelings on hearing the verdict. Ile turned round in the dock, and bowed in every directio n to the audience, and waved his handkerchief again and again. As soon as silence was partially re stored, Dr. Bernard shook bands with Mr. Sleigh, the gentleman who so ably conducted his d e f ence b e f ore the committing magistrate, and addressed th e j ury an d Bench. Ile said "I am not guilty—l am not guilty—England always has been, and I feel convinced will ever be, the land of liberty. It has always attempted to crush tyranny." Lord Campbell—This must not Le. Dr. Bernard then, by desire of his friends, abstained from saying anything more, and left the dock. Mr. suppose after the verdict that has been returned Dr. Bernard will not be put upon his trial on the other indictments for murder. Lord Campbell —I should presume they will not be proceeded with. The Attorr , ey•General said he did not intend to offer any evidence on them. This announcement was received with loud cheers. Mr. Simons —Then I hope sour lordship will allow the prisoner to plead on the other indictments. Lord Campbell—Certainly. Dr. Bernard WAS again placed at the bar, but he was . • unable to comprehend its meaning, and appeared appre• hensive of what was about to take place, but hi■ confidence was almost immediately restored, on Mr. Sleigh, one of his counsel, informing him that it was to go through the form of pleading, to be acquitted on the other indictments. Mr. Clark the❑ called upon Dr. Bernard to eay who ther he was guilty or not guilty of the charges ! The prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Clark was then about to call upon Dr. Bernard, in the usual form, to object, if he wished, to any of the jury before they were sworn, when Lord Campbell said that might be dispensed with. The jury were then sworn, and Dr. Bernard Wall charged with the other offences of murder. Lord Campbell said that no evidence would be offered on the indictments, and .t was therefore their duty to return a verdict of not guilty, which was accordingly done. The scene in the court on the return of the verdict was one of the most extraordinary that has ever been witnessed in a court of justice. The cheers were most enthusiastic, and as they died away within the building they were caught up by the people outside the court. The crowd was so great that it almost stopped up the traffic. The cheers were repeated again and again, and it was a considerable time after the return of the verdict be. fore the street was restored to its usual quiet. The interest excited in the trial which has just eon eluded has never been equalled in modern times. The policy of the late Government in reference to the insti tution of the prosecution has met with general reprehea• sion, from the moment of Dr. Bernard's ap prehension. Down to the very moment of his acquittal the sympathies of the British public have been enlisted on his side, and the brilliant defence of Mr. Edwin James will be preserved as one of those manly speeches in defence of the liberty of the subject, and especially the sacred right of asylum for refugees suffering from the unbearable tyranny of a despot, for which so many of our illustrious countrymen have been distinguished, and his n line in history will hereafter be associated for, its forensic eloquence and liberal senti ments with those of Erskine, Brou,-;hani, Denman, and many others. Dr. Bernard will be liberated on bail this even ing, on the nrsiemeanour for conspiracy, and removed to the Court of Queen's Bench, but we presume, when the hour of trial arrives, no evidence will be ofhrod for the prosecution, as the evidence in support of it is the same as that for which the priso• per has been so rightly and so gloriously acquitted by a British jury. Country rdarKets LEICESTER—APRIL 17. At our corn exchange to-day, there was a moderate show of wheat, and is per qr cheaper than last week, fine white making 50s and red 465. There was rather less barley on offer. The demand was limited, and the quotations about the same as last week. In beans there was an advance of ls. per quarter, but scarce. NOTTINGHAM —APRIL 17. At our corn market to-day there was a good supply of wheat, and a numerous attendance of buyers. The trade ruled brisk at a decline of is to 2s per qr. ; fine white wheat, which sold at an advance of 3s to 4s per qr., good white making 51s. and red 50s. pet quarter. The trade in barley ruled dull, and last week's rates were maintained. Beans in small supply, and is per quarter dearer. Oats were scarce andls. higher. NEWCASTLE—APRIL 17. There was a good supply of farmers' wheat, and an ear 'y clearance was effected at rather above last week's rates. A. slow trade in foreign, holders requiring more money, which in few instances had been paid. No change in flour. Barley continues scarce; prices unaltered. OW as dear. NORWICH—Ann 17. A. good supply of wheat to-day, which met a slow sale at a alight decline on last week ; a mere retail business doing, Flour is lower. DALKEITH GRAIN MARKET—Arnth 16. Qrs. Best. Current. Info' loi 278 Whea 49s Od 789 Oats 34s 6d 27a 20......... 24+ Oa 209 Barley 375 6d 32s bid, 2- Oa 53 Peas & beans 42s 6d 4ls 6cl HADDINGTON GRAIN MARKET—APRIL 15. WHEAT. BARLSY I OATS. I num,. First 49s Od 38 , Od 131 s 6d 146 s Od Second 42s n 2d 1 34s Od 128 s 3d 142 61 Third 343 Od 129 s Od I . zss 6d 139 s 01 Total quantity of wheat in market, 436 qrs., 410 sold barley „ 405tqrs., 405 sold oats ,; 254 qrs., 239 ~ .)id _ ~ ~ beans .. 108 qrs., 107 sold AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER. Wheat, 11. 2 2 0-12ths I Barley, ...11. 14 0 11-12a1 Oats, ... 1/. 8 3 9-12ths 1 Beaus, 21. 2 5 o.l2tbs DUBLIN—Amur. 16. White wheat, 278 Od to 29s Od , red ditto, 245 Od to 260 6d; ditto new, s Od; barley, malti ng , 14 s to 18s 01; grind ing, —8 to —s ; oa.s, old, 13s to 15s 6d; ditto, new, —I Od to ----s Od ; oatmeal, 13s to 15s 6d; bere, now, 14s to 150 Od ; rapese d, 23s Od to 25s Od per brl ; bakers' flour, 14. 6d to 19s Od per cwt; Indian corn, 33s Od to 344 6d Fir 480 lbs. RAILWAY TRAFFIC .RETURNS. TRAFFIC RETURNS FOR THE WEEK. Miles opened, ISN7. 26X, 118 198% 94y 6% 20 183 X 263 203% 465 25 90 286► 161 647 5% 18:1% 289% 60 173 914 2g 567 177 301 N 171 10814 12% 639 i Receipts. • NAME OF RAILWAY. .. 1857. 1,56. - BRITIBEI. £ Z - Belfast and Ballymena ...... ~, ...... 1,266 1,383 Belfast and County Down• • • • • • • • • • •• 326 317 Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire 2,297 2,719 Bolton, Blackburn, and West York .. - - - Bristol and Exeter •• . • - • • •••• •• • • •• 5,930 6 241 Ca1ed0nian............ • ............ 1, 27 12,717 Chester and IIolyhead••• .. •......... 4,86 e 5,035 Cork, Blackrock, and Passage .. 203 171 Cork and Bandon .. • • .. .. .. .• •• •• - 330 263 Dublin and Beltast J unction Dublin and Drogheda.• •••• • •• Dublin and Kingstown •• .• - Dundee and Arbroath Dundee, Ferth, and Aberdeen Junctio4 1,0 Dundalk and Enniskillen• •..•• • • •• 8 5 4 0 4 3 9 9 East Ang1ian........ •• • • .. •• .. •• •• .- 946 375 East Lancashire.. .. .. .. .. .. .. •• - •• 8,673 5,521 Eastern Counties and Norfolk Eastern Union ....... •••••••• • • • • • .5 23,431 18,119 Edinburgh and Glasgow .• • • • • • •• .• • • 5,595 5,221 Edinburgh, Perth. and Dundee" .. Exeter and Crediton.. - .. .• •• •... •• - - Furness Railway •.• .. - Glasgow, and South-Western 6,1, 96 6,877 Great Northern ...... • ........ 19,682 22,300 Great Southern and Western (Ireland) 6 ,362 5,79 1 Great Western .................... 27,198 26 539 Irish South Eastern ................ 223 306 Lancaster and Car1i51e.............. 5,6e6 5,582 Lancashire and Yorkshire.... ~,, ....., 21,341 23,221 Leeds Northern .................... - - Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport.... -.- London and North Western ......... 52 ,663 59,5 58 London and Blackwall.• • ......• • ... 1 , 334 1, 467 London, Brighton, and South Coast.. 13 ,1 91 15,425 London and South Western. -....- 13,726 15,370 Londonderry and Enniskillen •....... 666 701 Manchester, Buxton, and Matlock, &c. - - Manchester, ShctUeld,and Lincolnshirt 8 .365 9,127 Manchester and South Junction...... 821 993 Maryport and Carlisle •• • • • • •..... ~ 112 902 Midland ..... • .................. „ 28,228 30,161 Midland Great Western (Irish) ...... 3,920 3,979 Monklands ........................ 1,430 1,527 Newcastle and Car1i51e............... 4,597 4,716 North British ...................„. 6,205 7,358 North Staffordshire) .........• ..... 6 , 1 58 6,970 North-Western - - Scottish Central ,.........., 2,721 2 691 Scottish Midland ....... ......., - , - Shrewsbury and Birmingham .... „ 1,403 1,553 Shrewsbury and Chester .. •........ 2,347 2,6* Shropshire Union South Devon .•••• .• .......... 2,320 3,601 South Eastern.... .• ......., , ......., .... 17,749 16,162 South Wales ............., ... . 6,380 6,448 South York., Don cas t er, and GOLl; :: 2,'53 2,425 Taff Vale ................ ~......., 3,560 4,270 ~,,..„ „ ~ 1,448 1,345 Waterford and Limerick ............ 943 1,212 West Cornwall ...... ..... ....... 572 574 Whitehaven Junction ............... 455 f 457 York and Newcastle, and Berwick a York and North Midland & Leeds.. - FOREIGN. Dutch Rhenish ...... • • ............ 2,657 2 , 534 Lyons and Mediterranean . •...... Northern neauo of r nd ra T n r c o e ye . s . ............ .... _ - . Namur and Liege ........... • • •• • • pt, Orleans aarrii: aa : dd a nsdtraLyonssCentralb ur 4.h. ... .. : : : : ............. 40,5 - 13 38, - 352 41,0709 36,1=185 ••••••• Paris and Rouen..• ~.............. W 'l° C l-,e t n a a t: "i d d N i o l r l tl r - ° W es t of France ... :: 30 S - A9 nn 7^ 30,502 30,457 BIRTH S. BIRKETT—On the 17th inst., at Sydenham, Abs. Jame• Birkett, of a son. Dimy--011 the 15th inst., the wife of the Rev. G. W. Darby, rector of Fersfield, of a son. HARRIS—On the 15th inst., at St. George's-terrs.ce, Hack• my, the wife of Salem C. Harris, Esq., of a son. MILLS--On the 15th inst., at Lower Norwood, Mrs, Edw. Mills, of a son. WATSON—On the 10th inst., at Scofield-place, Cullen, _N. 8., the wife of John Watson, Esq., Inspector o f Hospitals and Fleets, of a son. MARRIAGES. MILLR--BURN— On the 15th inst., at St. Pancras Church, William Primrose, only son of Frederick A. Mills, Esq., of Norwich, to Louisa Elizabeth, younge s t d aug h ter o f Jai F. Burn, Esq., of Hatton-garden. suddenly, nly Bligh, at C 2. B 8: A 1013.40,4 DEATHS. - -- BLIGH—On the 15th inst., at Ltatnington, Ce c ili a , w idow o at a o Regent's-park, the Rev. Willi am Bl ackwell Bowel, B o o l, f y E the s— l the ite 3 1 r 6 A t h d i m n i :t a . , 1 aged 56. CRM A ER—On the 16th i ns t., a t 9, Terrace, Kensington, John Baptist Cramer, age d 88 . COREET—Ou the 15th i ns t ., at Chepstow, Vincula Corbel Esq., M.A., aged 69. COCKBURN —On the 12th inst., suddenly, at Downtou Kingtou, Herefordshire, Sir W. R. S. Cockburn, Bart. N.S., aged 61. MERRY--On the 16th inst., at 19, North Audley-stresto Grosvenor-square, Mr. Thomas Merry, aged 73. --- LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUN( of No. 11`2, Strand, Printer, at Tht Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the counil of Middlesex, Monday, April 19, 104