The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-14 00:00:00

111.af WATER A? LONDON7RRIDGE.

TEIS nAr Morning. Ih. 2b. 17m.
Slortibig, 2b. 3b. Om.

LoNDON, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14,

T I NI E SEC RET ART returned the only
answer that was expected—if not the only
answer that was possible—to the Memorial pre-
sented on behalf of FRANZ MULLER, and the
confession which the unhappy man made this
morning at the very last moment, puts the seal on
the right hum baronet's decision. Whatever the
German Protection Society, or the legal advisers
of MULLER, or the volunteer witnesses who have
appeared since the trial could remember, allege,
or suggest, had been well considered ; the judges '1
'who presided at the trial were consulted, and as a
result of the whole Sir GEORGE GLEY felt com-
pelled to inform 31t-LtEn's solicitor "that after
" careful consideration and comparison with the
" evidence given at the trial of the statements made
" on behalf of FRANZ Mrixan, and after full corn-
" munication with the learned judges before whom
" the proceedings took place, there is no ground
" which could justify him in advising her MAJESTY
"to interfere with the due course of law."
Mt LLER himself has now vindicated this course.

It was no part of Sir GEORGE GREY'S duty to try
LLER over again ; it was his duty not to do so.
The jury had not expressed that vague doubt of
the guilt of the prisoner which is sometimes im-
plied in a recommendation to mercy, nor had the
judges expressed any doubt of the propriety of the
conviction. Under these circumstances the only
ground for interference would have been that some
evidence had been discovered which could not be
brought forward at the trial. Sir GEORGE GRIT
examined the statements in which the friends
31t-Li.Ea allege that such evidence is to be
bound, and decided that it was not such as would
warrant him in interfering with the due course
of law. He did this on his own responsibility ;
for it is not true, as has been asserted in answer
to our remarks, that " his responsibility does not
" commence until he interferes with the due
" course of law." He is bound—and we are sure
that Sir GEORGE GREY, than whom a more conscien-
tious or merciful administrator does not exiat,would
be the last to repudiate an obligation attaching to
his office—to examine the sufficiency of any
reasons for interfering with the course of law that
may be brought under his notice. He bas done
so in this case, and with the result that is now
stated.

There is an active, rational, and useful concur-
rence of public opinion in the processes of criminal
justice which it is most desirable to recognise
and guard from perversion. But it is evident
that this participation of the community in the
decisions of the courts would become an embarrass-
ment, instead of a support, if it were found that
those decisions were liable to vehement attacks,
and the judges who pronounce them were exposed
to censure as often as persona not present at the trial,
and acquainted with the proceedings only by report,
were unable to trace all the processes and to seize
all the points of connexion of the evidence by which
the Court was led to its conclusion. If the habit
of observing the practice of our tribunals is worth
anything, it will generate a confidence which
should supply the place of direct personal con-
viction where that is impossible. We do not say
that the case of 3lrm.ze is one of these; the public
generally, we are sure, does not think so. But if
it were, the language which has been employed
with reference to the recent trial by some whose
learning and professional associations ought to have
taught them better is such as no self-governing
people can permit to be applied to its institutions.
Our law courts are a part of ourselves, our better
and higher selves ; the institutions iu which,
all prejudice and passion, and whatever
might prompt to rashness being excluded, the
highest meson of the community, consecrated
to that service, examines, compares, and decides
in serenity and freedom. Public discussion is
happily free in this country, and there is no sub-
ject which is exempt from inquiry. Many persons
object to our practice of trying prisoners, and
others to our habit of dealing with persons
convicted of capital crimes. The field of
argument is open to them ; but there is one course
which is not open, although it has on this occasion
been clandestinely entered upon : they have no
right to embarrass and obstruct the administra-
tion of justice in the supposed interest of any
theory. This, however, is what some well-known
advocates of the " inquisitorial " system in the
courts and some opponents of capital punishment
have l►tely done. Such &lovas td---we are glad that
there is no English word for it—must react inju-
riously upon their cause. The harsh censures
which have been passed on English justice
in the present case will recoil on the heads
of their authors. No prisoner ever entered the
dock with surer guarantees of a fair and impartial
trial than did FRANZ MULLER on the 27th of
October. Be was well befriended : he was
defended by most able counsel; the jury was
selected with care ; the judges were such as we
might be proud to put forward as the representa-
tives of the judicial bench ; and the verdict was