The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 4, 1851.

it will grant him the impunity he expects remains to I
be seen ; for the proclamation of the royal pardon
to accomplices specially exempted the one who
fired the fatal shot.
The peculiarity of the ease. as tried, consists in this,
that whilst,without t he evidence of Ht RAY SMITH, there
was but slight, imperfect, circumstantial evidence :
against the two convicts—(that against LEVI BAR-.
WOOD consisting in the possession of a penny token
that had been stolen on the night in question, and
that against JAMES JONES in the recognition of his
voice as that of one of the men who assisted in the
murder by poor Mrs. lioiiEsr, and in the inferences
to be drawn from a conversation between him and
LEVI lIARWOOD, overheard in the lock-up house
after their apprehension);—whilst, exclusive of the
statement of the approver, this was the slender
chain of testimony that connected them with the
burglary and murder; it seems to have been
quite possible to have convicted the approver
himself of the murder by evidence which, though
far from overwhelming, was still strong and
irresistible. A heavy responsibility therefore falls
on those who preferred convictingi;LEvi Haawoon
and JONES on the testimony of IRAM SMITH, to
establishing the guilt of SMITH by the evidence of
Mrs. liot.i.Esr, her servant ELEANOR VANNER,
and the witnesses who saw the party proceeding
towards Frimley on the night of the dreadful
offence.
ELEANOR VANNER proved beyond a doubt the
visit of Hia‘st Swim a dav or two previously to the
murder at Mr. HoLLEsfs- house in the guise of a
hawker; and, taken in connexion with subsequent
occurrences, that visit conclusively establishes a pre-
liminary inspection of the premises with the view
to a burglary. Then come the invasion of Mr. ana
Mrs. IfoitEsr's bed-chamber on the night of horrors;
also the frightful incidents of which the unhappy
lady so clearly stated ; how she, with a keen wo-
manly sense of danger, at once dispelled the cheer-
ful and affectionate mistake of her disturbed hus-
band—that the noise of the ruffians was only a
playfill freak of their happy boys; how she pre-
served her senses whilst at the mercy of their vio-
lence., how, whilston the floor, threatened with death
herself, she heard the pistol fired at her husband;
how she saw the man who had fired it struggling
with the unfortunate gentleman ; and how—but here
let us use her own emphatic words—She

Thought that Smith was the man who w struggling
as
with my husband, and who shot him, and I think so still.
(tien,ation.)
Mr. Dallantine—You still believe he was the man who
shot your husband ?
Mrs. holiest—l certainly do; that is my deliberate
opinion, given upon my oath. (Great sensation.)
Take the evidence of the preliminary visit, with
this strong, deliberate, and deeply conotientious ex-
pression of identity; and add thereto litaANt Smut's
own admission that he was present when, as he al-
leged, I.Evi IlAnwoon tired the shot ; consider the
motive he had in thus transferring his own act to
that ruffian—viz. pardon and pecuniary reward—
and it is impossible to doubt that the actual murder
was committed by SMITH. But deduct from the
other facts Sunlit's own account, and to the former
merely add that SMITH was proved to be an asso-
ciate of I.Evi llAnwoon and JONES—that he was
seen going on the night in question towards ',rim-
v, preceded by IlAnwoein and followed by JONES;
and there is little doubt that, hod he been placed in
the dock on Monday last, he at least would now have
been convicted for the murder, in which both judge
and jury believe he was the chief actor.
No doubt I.Ert 11.tawoon and JoNF,s went pre-
pared fur violence; no doubt both in law and in
morals they are responsible for the consequences of
the shot flutist SMITH fired; no doubt, therefore,
that their conviction for murder is a right one. Still
it does not follow that either of them would. in the
position in which SMITH stood over Mr. llott.r.sx,
have fired as he did; nay, the fair inference is that
LEvi 11.tawoon, who was also struggling with that
victim of SMITH'S brutality, would have hesitated
before murdering him. So, whilst justice is satisfied
at their conviction, our moral sense of retribution is
outraged by the escape of HIRAM SMITH ; if his
escape has been ensured by the precipitation with
which he was accepted us approver. And the ruffian
anticipates not only pardon, but also reward.
" Mr. Charnock—Who first showed you the government
proclamation of a reward ?
Witness—The master of the station-house at Farnham.
I heard there was to be 1501. reward, 50/. by the widow and
1001. by the government, and her Majesty's most gracious
pardon to any of the accomplices who would confess, except
the one that fired the shot.
Mr. Charnock—Don't you expect to get a free pardon?
Witness—lf these bills arc acted up to.
Mr. Charnock—And a share of the reward too?
Witness—Well, it were held out to any person that told
the truth, and I have. (Laughter.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Woollen Did you never ask
Ilollington if the terms of the bill would be acted up to if
you " peached ?"
Witness—l don't know the meaning of the word."
A pardon this Su ITII can never have from the Crown
after3lrs.llol.msr's declaration that be killed her has-
band. Justice will have sadly miscarried, if he be
permitted to evade punishment by the cunning that
proved too much for the Surrey justices.
' But what a state of society within 50 miles of this
metropolis does not the Frimley tragedy disclose.
' A band of ruffians, having Guildford for their head-
quarters, fixing on the particular premises which they
• will, night utter night, break into; making in chis-
' guise their preliminary surveys; prepared to murder
• all the inmates for the sake of a bowl of pence, a
• few silver spoons, or an old gown or two ; their
• habits, their practices, nay, their trade—for burglary
was with them a trade known and recognised
by the persons in whose houses they lodged;
and sympathy rather than disgust and hor-
s r exhibited for them after the commis-

sion of their crimes. Talk of bands of
Italian brigands ! Why for them there is some ex-
CUse to be made—for their existence some apology
can be suggested. But to have tolerated on the
barren heaths about Guildford, in their beerhouses, a
nest of burglars, is a disgrace and a scandal of the
most inexcusable sort to the country. If government
cannot protect the villages of Surrey against such out-
rages, society had better betake itself to the back
woods of America, and seek safety there.
It is useless to talk of education, of improved mo-
rality, and of religious influences preventing such
crimes; we may wait half a century for =mu-
nity from outrage by such means. What
is wanted is a little sacrifice of personal and
domestic freedom for the sake of safety. Here, in
the ease of these Friuiley murderers, they were
all found lodging and living in beer-houses. Why
not increase the powers of the police over those hot-
beds of crime and violence ? 1)o not put them down
but place them under active surveillance. Give the
rural police power to regulate rural lodging-houses
as the Health of Towns Act of 1848 does such
places in districts that hare come under its pro-
visions, and if these deeds of violence be not quite
suppressed, they will be greatly reduced. At pre-
sent the growth of burglars and murderers in the
country is unchecked ; there they tiourish in beer-
houses, lodging-houses, and low taverns ; carry on a
systematic business in house-breaking; and only
attract general attention when they perpetrate such
horrible acts of violence as Mrs. HOLLEST has such
just cause to mourn over.

FRANCE.

PAR I §:Ttt t• MOAT EIFININO.
The ',wend des Debars publishes a long memo-
randum on the German question, addressed by the
French government to the powers who signed the
treaty of N'ienna. The memorandum treats under all
points of view the question whether Austria has the
right of demanding the admission of her Italian and
Slavonian provinces into the German Confederation,
and whether this demand falls within the sole com-
petence of the Confederation.
The document is dated March ti, ISM, and is as
ollows :

The Germanic confederation wee constituted by the
federal treaty concluded at Vienna, June 8, 1815, between
all the German governments, and of which the Ist article is
conceived in the following terms:
" The sovereign princes and free cities of Germany,
including their Majesties the Emperor of Austria and the
Kings of Prussia, Denmark, and the Netherlands,—that is
to say, the Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia,
both for the whole of their rissessions formerly belonging
to the German empire, the King of Denmark for Milstein,
the King of the Netherlands for the Grand Duchy of Los-
, emburg, establish between them a lasting confederation,
which shall bear the name of the Germanic Confederation."

This article and the ten other articles of the federal
treaty, which contain the principal hales of the confedera-
tion were re-produced verbatim under the Nos. 43-63 in the
general treaty of Vienna signed the next day, June 9, by
the representatives of the principal European powers. As
to the articles 12-20 of the federal treaty, collectively desig-
nated as " special provisions," and applying to questions of
minor importance, they were not, like the preceding, for-
iodic repeated in the general act of the Congress ; hut
what. amounts to the same thing, the 61th article of that act,
to which they were annexed declared that they would have
the same force and validity as if they had been textually
inserted.
_ .

Thus the treaty constituting the confederation, including
its 'cut essential clauses, forms on integral part of the
general treaty of the Congress, and if this principle were
strictly carried out, not the least alteration could he made
in the least clause, without the eoncurr•nce of all the go-
vernments which signed the general treaty.
A fortiori, the some principle applies to article 1 of the
federal treaty (Art. 53 of the general treaty) which creates
the Confederation, gives it a rank among European states,
and determines its limits. Front the declarations made by
Austria and Prussia in 1818, at the moment when, in exe-
cution of the clause relating to them in the Ist article of
the federal treaty of June 8, 181.1 (Art. 53 of the treaty
.of
the 9th of the same month), they designated for in-
corporation in the Germanic Confederation those provinces
of their respective dominions which had formerly belonged
to the empire, it has been wished to infer that this clause
was considered arbitrary rather than strictly obligatory;
whence it would follow that if Austria did not specially
comprise Lombaidy among the provinces called to enter
into the confederation, as she then claimed the right of
doing, by virtue of the relations which had existed between
this Italian possession and the German empire, the reason
was that Abe waived, as she declared, giving this extension
to the article.
Austria had neither to interpret nor to extend the article.
For her ns well as for Prussia the question was simply to
execute it, by indicating those of their German possessions
which were to enter into the territorial circumscription of
the confederation. Lombardy could not assuredly Is• con-
sidered as entitled to figure under such a denomination in
virtue of her former feudal relations to the German empire.
And that this was the view taken by the cabinet of Vienna
is clear from the exclusion of Lombardy, settled in the
sitting of the diet on April 6, 1818, from the list of Austrian
pros inei, which were to form part of the Confederation.
Austria was then bent on proving to Germany how little it
entered into her view. to extend beyond the Alps the line
of defence of the Confederation.
. Austria had no right beyond that which was created for
, her by the treaty of June 11, 181.1, in relation to this terri-
torial circumscription of the German Confederation. It
would be. quite as difficult to aomit the other supposition,
that Prussia, in 1818, would base had it understood that

;K:71;1141ound in rigour to enter into the Confederation
with all her provinecri which had been formerly &p en-

deneies of the empire."
Witneas the terms of the vote given in the name of the
King of Prussia, in the sitting of the Diet on the nth May: '
ilk Majesty thinks that he cannot better prove the sin-
cere part which he wishes to take in :al which promises to
secure the future repose of Germany, and the most perfect
development of her internal strength, than by joining with
this object the Germanic confederation, with all the German
provinces of the monarchy already formerly attached to
Germany by language, manners, laws, and in general na-
tionality." The designation of these provinces follows.
Such a declaration implies no sort of reserve, supposes no
arrierepenst:e. It shows, on the contrary, how fully Prussia
entered then into the spirit of Germanic homogeneousness
which prevailed in the formation and composition of the
confederation. _ _

Prussia conformed purely and simply to the clause of the
tat article of the federal treaty of June 8, 1815, and still
more so to Art. 53 of the European treaty of June 9.
The only argument hitherto brought to contest the right
of the European powers which signed the treat• of Vienna
to intervene in modifications of the territorial limits of the
confederation rests upon Art. 6 of the Final Act, concluded
at Vienna in 1820, between the plenipotentiaries of the
Germanic governments, to complete and develope the pro-
visions of the federal treat•. It is therein said that, " The
admission of a new member into the confederation can only
take place when it is judged compatible with existing rela-
tions and with the general interest of the confederate
states." _ _

It is difficult to understand in what respect this article
can invalidate the right of European powers to take part in
the alteration that might be contemplated in the arrange-
' ments of 1815. .
_ . _

In the first place it speaks of the admission of a new
member, whereas nothing of that kind is at present in ques-
tion. Austria makes part of the confederation ; and now
she want* to figure therein with all her provinces, instead
of those provinces which are German.
For the rest, even were it admitted that, in default of
the literal sense, the spirit of this stipulation applied to the
case of the incorporation of new temtories in the confedera-
tion, it would have the meaning attributed to it. From the
circumstance of its exacting for this case the unanimous
consent of all the German governments, it by no means
follows that the same article contests the right of the
powers which signed the treaty of 1815 to interfere for
the purpose of ratifying or of opposing the change in ques-
tion. It says that to authorise such a measure the
consent of all the German governments is necessary ; but it
does not say that this consent dispenses with that of the
other powers ; nor can it say so, because the contrary
results positively from the treaty of Vienna. It is in fact
clearly not competent to the German goverment. alone to
alter stipulations agreed to by Europe in common. It is
therefore evident that article 6 of the Final Act has not in
any respect derogated, nor can derogate from article 53 of
the general treaty; but that it has left things in the state
in which the latter article had placed them ; and that in
order to modify this state of things it is necessary to have
recourse to the authority by which it has been established—
that is, to obtain the consent of the principal European
powers.
It is objected that in 1848 the Diet of Frankfort admitted
into the Confederation several provinces of Prussia which
had been hitherto foreign to it. It is easy to answer that,
Europe not having sanctioned this decision, it is, as far as
right goes, null and void, and that the general circumstances
which shook the whole European edifice explain suf.
ficiently the absence of formal protestations. No one, it
would seem, has any interest in maintaining that all which
then passed in Europe, without becoming the subject of a
protest, has by this circumstance obtained the sanction of
legitimacy. Besides, the opinion of France on this subject
has been made known.
It remains to examine if there arc sufficient reasons for
determining the European powers to give that consent the
necessity of which has just been established.
Austria, it is said, having established in her internal
administration the system of unity, can only remain in the
Confederation with the whole of her territory. If she were
not permitted to do this, she would rather cease to be a
member of the Confederation than create a schism in her
possessions by subjecting them to two different systems.
There is here a question of right and a question of fact.
Let us begin by examining the first.
When the confederation was formed the interior system of
Austria allowed it to join it on the conditions prescribed by
the Federal Act and by the general Act of Congress. She
cannot now argue modifications which she has thought fit
to introduce into her individual constitution as a reason
for requiring what will change the very nature of the Con-
federation. Nor can she threaten to retire from the
Confederation if her demands be not acceded to.
It is said in effect, in Art. 53 of the General Act, so
often cited, that the German governments should esta-
blish between themselves a perpetual confederation,
and the Final Act of ltial interpreting this clause, says
expressly in An. 5 that "the confederation is indis-
soluble by the very principle of its constitution, so that
none of its members have the liberty of seceding from it."
So much for the right. As to the fact (which doubtless
must have great weight when it has reference to so great a
power as Austria), it may be affirmed, without hesitation,
that the Cabinet of Vienna, whether it obtain or not the
incorporation of the whole of its provinces, will never
voluntarily renounce making a part of a confederation
on which it exercises an influence which is one
of the principal elements of its political powers.
It may be added that the undivided existence of the
Austrian empire has not yet so absolute a character, is not
so much an accomplished fact that no means can be found
of reconciling it with the maintenance of a portion of that
empire out of the Confederation of which the rest should
continue to form part. To satisfy Europe. against the con-
sequences of the proposed innovation, and indeed to afford it
a means of deriving advantage from it, recourse has been had
to arguments of a very different nature. In reply to those
who allege that France and Russia, in case of a struggle
with Austria either in Italy or on the eastern frontier,
would necessarily find themselves ireduced by the effect
of this innovation to the necessity of opposing
the entire confederation, and that, consequently, their
'position would be rendered worse, and that they have the
right to oppose it, it may be said that that would make no
change in the actual chances, the force of events necessarily
involving sooner or later the confederation in any serious con-
flict in which the most powerful members might be engaged.
This allegation, and consequently the inductions from it, are
not quite exact. In past times, when Austria, by the
imperial dignity with which its sovereign was habitually
clothed, found itself placed at the head of Germany, it has
not been wen that she has always succeeded in involving
it m the wan of Italy and Hungary. Nothing,

then, absolutely proves that under the empire of the
federal pact of 1811 she should succeed better. Even
supposing that this result were probable at present, it is only
a probability, whilst after the projected incorporation it
would become certain. It is enough to say that this incur-
rotation is not, as it is attempted to be made believed, an
indifferent circumstance as to the balance of power

in Europe, and one with which the other governments
have not to concern themselves in that respect.
The cabinet of Vienna pretends also that, funda-
mentally, there will be no change in the principle. of ,
the German federal right by the explicit and effective
aggregation to the Germanic confederation of the non-G.-man
provinces of Austria, because, in case of defensive war, in which
Austria or Prussia may be engaged, one or, oothe r, before as well
as after such annexation, would bring into the conflict all
its disposable forces without distinction of those furnished
by the Germanic or non-Germanic provinces. It is added,
that in the actual state of things, if the war should assume
larger proportions, the whole Confederation would he
inevitably led to juin in it in virtue of the article 47 of
of the final act of May Li, 1820. This articlestipulates that
if a confederate state " shall be menae d or attacked in its
possessions not comprised in the Confederation, it shall not
be obliged to take measures of defence, or an active part in the
war, until the Diet shall have resolved in permanent council
by a majority of votes that a danger exists for the territory
of the Confederation." It may be clearly seen by the
very terms of this Article, that a state of the Confederation
having to fight for its non-German possessions, cannot, ipso
facto, draw Germany into the quarrel; but Germany must
judge it necessary, .or its own safety, to take an active part,
whilst in the new and rohnorrnal situation imposed on it by
the incorporation of all the provinces of the Austrian em-
pire the Confederation would find itself engaged a priori, by
the effect ot' a complete military consolidation, to take part
with and for Austria, in a war that she might have to sustain
out of Germany. In the present state of things the
Confederation would examine, discuss, consent, or refuse
as it may think proper. In the combination in question it
would have only to obey—its free will would vanish. This
situation would assuredly he very different. It is supposed,
it is true, that, the whole of Austria made part of the Con-
federation, the Diet, using its right on a state sub-
mitted wholly to its jurisdiction, would prevent the
Austrian government from engaging too easily in struggles
of which it would have to submit to the consequences. This
argument is identical with the supposition that Austria,
although representing in the Confederation a territory and
population three times greater than now, would nut exercise
the absolute preponderance that such an increase would stem
to insure her,and would not pretend to any greater influence
than heretofore. The apologists of the project of incorpo-
ration pretend, in fact, that this measure required by
the interior necessities of the empire, ought not
to confer on her any increase of power either in
Europe or in the Confederation. This assertion appears
difficult to reconcile with the reasoning to which
they have recourse to show the advantages that
the incorporation would have fur the cause of order and
peace. It was then urged that Austria, become'more power-
ful in the federal council, would be better able to restrain
the revolutionary spirit in Germany, and the ambitious in-
fluences which are too often sought as a means of aggran-
disement. Doubtless in thus expressing itself, the imperial ca-
binet slid not intend to raise for its own purpose.si a vain phan.
torn of terror. The revolutionary reality, as exhibited by
the press, is in its view imminent, and the whole com-
bination of Germany is not too powerful to quell it. Facts
do not authorise Austria to bold. such language. Its

army is strong, revolt has found itself crushed, the
detestable doctrines of the demagogic have not
corrupted it, it presents 400,000 men • red to war by a
proof which often demoralises the bravest tnnips—eontact
with revolutionary ideas and insurgent people. Nothing
has weakened thin powerful army, and it is in
I vain to represent as weak and unprovided with
sufficient means of repression, a power which is
so strong after having traversed the dangers of
wars and revolutions. A choice must be made between
these two stat:ments. Either the proposed change will in-
crease immeasurably the power of Austria, and then
Europe, and France particularly, have the right to interfere
for the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe, or it
will not have any sensible effect, and in that hypothesis
as no advantage would result, au innovation which would
render uneasy public opinion, by changing the public Eu-
ropean right, should not b: made. The Germanic confede-
ration is one of the bases of this public right. Interposed
between the great pawers, the encroachments of which it is
its interest to prevent, it contributes powerfully by its ex-
tent, and, if we may so say, its passive power, to the
preservation of general peace. The homogeneousness of
races, which in the midst of its diversities constitute a real
unity, renders it wonderfully tit fur this great and noble part.
Limited to the hounds of thin homogeneousness whilst
the confederation shall impose on itself at once the obliga-
tion not to surpass them,and not to allowthem to be curtailed,
it will he the surest safeguard of order and European peace.
A contrary policy would naturally have quite opposite con-
sequences. To extend arbitrarily those limits natural or
consecrated by time, by joining to the German populations
Selaves, Hungarians, Illyrians, Italians, amongst whom they
would been gulfed,would be to denaturalise tlf eConff Aeration
whose name must be changed not to be in contradiction
with the reality. This mass, absorbing in its hisom twenty
peoples and twenty different states, would present itself to
the mind not as a guarantee of peace and balance of power,
but as a menace, as a symbol of confusion and invasion. Even
in the interior of the countries which compose it, it is doubtful
if, spite its apparent Circe, it will succeed better or even so
well as the present Confederation in maintaining order and
authority. It may be conceived that a basis of common
nationality would-allow the forces of Austria, Prussia,
and Bavaria to intervene, without too notch °Gliding
public [feeling, to sustain or restore the govern.
ment threatened in Saxony, in Baden, in Hew.
in Holstein, hut what would be the effect produced
by the employ of Hungarian or Polish troops to re-esta-
blish order on the banks of the (thine; of Bavarian or
Prussian troops to quell insurgent Hungary ? Would
not such a system, proposed not as an excep-
tional ease or under given circumstances, hut as a normal
constitutional state of thi ngs,ereate sooner Mater repugnance,
irritation, which might compromise the repose of Europe ?
Is there no fear, too, of the difficulty of putting in mot' so
enormous, so complicated a machine ? I'he federal organi-
sation sincerely applied, and consequently respecting the
independence of the several governments, would be evi-
dently powerless. A man of genius—a despot favoured by
circumstances, ouch as Charles V. or Ferdinand 11.,
would cause it to succeed perhaps for a moment, but then
the instrument placed in his hands would become too
formidable for Germany and for Europe. This moment
passed, the pretended federal power, exhausted by its own
excess, would fall into real desuetude, and the Confedera-
tion, from a desire too much to extend itself, from end by
strained the springs of its existence, would perhaps finish by
dissolving itself and giving up Germany to an anarchy which
would leave Europe without equilibrium. Combinations then
involving so many dangerous and fearful consequences,
without any chance of benefit, should be avoided.

Odilon Barret declared on Tuesday, at a dinner
party, in presence of M. Fould, that the President
had never demanded from him any political pro-
gramme, neither had he himself proposed any. As
to the law of May, about his designs against which
so great an outcry had been made, the modifications
which he contemplated went no further than those
which had been adopted by the committee on the
Municipal Bill. The decision of the chamber yes-
terday in favour of the first part of M. Beaumont's
amendment makes the duty on sugars proportionate
to the quantity of pure sugar, instead of taking, as
the committee proposed, the saccharine richness as
the base of tarification.

To-day a ballot took place in the Assembly for
appointing a successor to M. Arnaud (de l'Ariege) as
secretary. But none of the candidates having ob.
tained the absolute majority, there was no result.
The votes were distributed as follows :—Number of
votes, 413: Yvan, 183; Alonet,lo4 ; Victor Lefmne,
31; Chassaigne-Gozon, 2.7); F. do Lasteyrie, 23; 1)c
Kerdrel, 14. A fresh ballot will take place to-
morrow.

The Assembly proceeded to discuss the proposition
of M. Pain, demanding freedom for the exercise of the
profession of bookseller and printer. The committee
rejected the taking the motion into consideration.
After a long speech from M. Pain, and a debate in
which MM. Moulin and Boysset took part, the mo-
tion was put to the vote, and rejeeted. by 320 votes
against 213.

(tumours of serious disorders having broken out at
Montpellier and in the departments of the south oc-
casioned to-day a sort of panic at the Bourse. The
Fives fell 6.k., closing at 92f. 75c. ; the Threes
closed at 57f., with a fall of 49c.
The French refugees, it is said, contemplate pre-
senting a stubborn resistance at Geneva, where they
have concentrated their numbers, to the decrees of
expulsion issued by the federal government. The
17 refugees already proscribed, including MM.
Boichot and Pyat, are said to have joined the others
at Geneva. Some serious disorders may spring from
this concentration of irritated malcontents at Geneva.
The Moniteur contains a decree appointing the
members of two commissions for the distribution of
the Mexican indemnity.