The Press.
London, England, 1858-04-24 00:00:00

BERNARD'S TRIAL.

No one at all acquainted with the temper of
British juries can have been surprised at the
verdict given on Saturday last in the case of
Dr. BERNARD. A State prosecution, conducted
by the great law officers of the Crown, and ori-
ginating in political circumstances, has ever
been looked upon with disfavour in this
country by that class of persons from whom
common juries are chosen ; and there were
incidents in connection with this particular trial
which tended enormously to increase that dis-
favour. It was supposed—and the supposition
was strengthened by the ingenious suggestions
of the counsel for the defence—that the prose-
cution of Dr. BERNARD had been undertaken
at the bidding, or at least by the desire, of the
French Government; and when to this consi-
deration was added the knowledge that grave
doubts existed as to the application of the statute
under which the proceedings were taktn, to the
case. it is not wonderful that the twelve men
who found themselves called upon to decide
the question by their verdict, eagerly seized

11111

the opportunity afforded them of repudiatino
the suspected foreign interference, and adding
another to the many recorded instances of the
fearless impartiality of the British jury-box.
Let it not be supposed for a moment that
we mean to suggest that the Jury in Dr. BEE-
NARD's case were animated by any
desire to gain celebrity, or were influenced b
y
any other feeling than an anxious wish to do
their duty according to the oath which they
had taken. No one who has read the evidence
could entertain any such suspicion. The de-
positions of sixty-two witnesses, while they
abundantly proved the crime of which Oastxr
and his confederates had been guilty, failed to
connect the prisoner with their plans so con-
clusively as to exclude all doubt; anti the bold
defence which was set up for him—that, al-
though he was engaged in a plot for a general
rising in Italy. he was not privy to any design
upon the life of the Emperor of the FRENCH—
served to explain many circumstances which
could not have been accounted for on any
other hypothesis. The charge alleged against
him in the indictment—that he was accessary
before the fact to the murder of a man who
was killed in consequence of the attempt made
to assassinate the Emperor—could be sus-
tained only by proof that he was a party to
that scheme of assassination ; unless this was
made out, the Jury could not convict. As Mr.
JAMES aptly said, " If I lend n man a pistol
" with which to go and defend his house at
" York from attack, and I afterwards hear that
"on his way thither lie has shot a matt as
" Leicester with it, I am in no way respon-
" sible for that act." The Jury applied this
illustration to the case before them, and
though they could have no doubt that BERNARD
was to a great extent cognizant of ORSINI'S
plans, they found that it was not proved that
he had full knowledge of them, and so ac-
quitted him.
But the great difficulty against which the
prosecution had to contend, was the un-
certainty of the law in regard to the case. It
was impossible to deny that if the Jury found
a verdict of guilty, that verdict would, in all
probability, be set aside by the Court of Appeal,
on the ground that the prisoner was not within
the jurisdiction of the English tribunals on
that charge. Accordingly, when the entire
proceedings were stigmatized by Mr. JAMES as
" a mockery and a sham," " a wresting of an
Act of Parliament from its original design to
serve a political purpose," it was not in the
power of the Attorney-General to complain of
this language, and to assert that a verdict was
not sought for the purpose of trying an ex-
periment. The susceptibilities of the Jury
were wounded at the idea that they were asked
to return what would, in all probability, be a
nugatory verdict; and they prevented the ex-
periment by pronouncing an acquittal.
After all, it is not perhaps of much conse-
quence that the fifteen judges will not now be
called upon to decide the points of law raised
by Dr. BERNARD'S defenders. It is probable
enough that they would have held that he was
not triable under the statute; but their judg-
ment is not necessary to point out the
deficiencies of our law with respect to domiciled
aliens. These deficiencies are now known,
and may be remedied by a simple enactment.
which, without in any degree limiting the right
of asylum, will bring refugee conspirators
more completely within the control of our
laws, and place them on the same footing as
British subjects in respect of any attempt they
may make to levy war on our allies.

I

The chief reason why we must regret the
conclusion at which the Jury arrived on this
important case is, that it has led to the aban-
donment of all further proceedings against
Dr. BERNARD. A true bill had been found
against him for conspiracy, and the indictment
was to have been tried in the Court of Queen's
Bench; but acting on the wise old rule, wino
bin rexari (Wet pro cadent cause, the Attorney-
General has determined not to prosecute that
indictment. The evidence would necessarily
have been the same as that offered in support
of the capital charge ; for although teshnical►y
the offences differ in name and degree, sub-
stantially they are identical. Dr. BERNARD,
therefore, reaps the benefit of the unwilling-
ness of the Jury to convict him capitally upon
•videnoe which would probably have been

deemed amply sufficient to make out the
eharge of misdemeanour.
We cannot, of course, expect the French
nation to appreciate with entire fairness the
motives which influenced the Jury in giving
their verdict. The press of France has fallen
into the not unnatural error of supposing the
acquittal to be " a triumph of demagogy." But
if the province of the Jury were clearly under-
stood by our neighbours they would perceive
that, far from being a triumph of demagogy,
the verdict was simply the result of the axiom
which gives a prisoner in all cases the benefit
of any doubt that may be left by the evidence.
Nor would they, if better informed, misunder-
stand the cheers with which the verdict was
receivo d.