The Sun.
London, England, 1855-01-06 00:00:00

On the Crown Lands there is a decrease on the
two first items of 131,316 t. and 124,316/. respec-
tively; and in the Miscellaneous of 285,7841. on the
year, 331,3171. on the three-quarters, and
144,0041. on the quarter. This concludes the
ordinary branches of the revenue—the only ones
worthy of particular notice, for the others depend
rather on accidents than on matters affecting the
permanent prosperity of the country.

EMMANUEL BARTHELEMY has been tried and
convicted of one of the homicides with which he
was charged. He has been found guilty of the
wilful murder of CHARLES COLLARD. The unfor-
tunate man, who, in performance of the duty
which he owed to his country, and in obedience
to the dictates of a courageous and manly heart,
sacrificed his life and left his wife a widow, and
his children orphans. No other verdict could
possibly have been returned. No jury could
hesitate for a single moment. Whether the original
outrage on Mr. MOORE should be regarded as a
deliberate and cold-blooded murder, or as an
exceedingly aggravated manslaughter, the cha-
racter of the offence by which poor COLLARD lost
his life would be the same. It would be mur-
der in the eye of the law—murder, for which the
prisoner would be justly liable to the exemplary
punishment prescribed by the law, for the highest
crime which it recognises.
We must, however, agree with the learned and

eminent counsel for the defence, that the result
has been by no means satisfactory. It was not
fair, either to the public or to the prisoner, to
try him for what, under the circumstances of the
case, must be considered as the minor offence,
and which, to a certain extent, must take its
character from the original act. If any justifica-
tion, or rather " extenuatiou," could be offered
for the fatal assault on Mr. MOORE, the murder
of CHARLES COLLARD might not be so atrocious
as otherwise would be' the case. The instinct of
self-preservation runs strongly in the human
heart. The law recognises and makes allowance
for its force. The nature, therefore, of the crime
against poor COLLARD depended on the previous
conduct of the prisoner. If he had previously
been guilty of felony, COLLARD was justified in
attempting to arrest him. If, on the other hand,
he was innocent, then was COLLARD a trespasser ;
and, though the resort to deadly weapons could
not be justified, yet the character of the offence
would be mitigated. It is, therefore, evident
that the former case should have heen tried in
the first instance, that it might be ascertained
whether there was any extenuating circumstance,
however trivial, that could warrant a lenient view
of the case, or show the slightest mitigation from
the full amount of crime imputed to the prisoner.
The jury acted on this view of the case. They
felt that every presumption should be in favour
of the prisoner—that ho should receive the
benefit of every reasonable doubt. Hence, in the
absence of proof to the contrary, they listened to
the ingenious assertions of the talented advocate,
and fancied that it might bo shown that at the
time when he visited Mr. MoonE he had not
contemplated his destruction. In this way, and
this way only, can be understood the recom-
mendation of the jury a recommendation
ascribable rather to the mistake of the Crown
prosecutor than to the merits or comparative inno-
cence of the prisoner.

COLONEL M'MURDO.

In consequence of a sudden order from the Horse
Guards, Col. 111‘Murdo, who had been distinguished by
his services under Sir Charles Napier in the memorable
campaign of Scinde, has left his residence, near Black-
rock, Dublin, en route for the Crimea, where he is to
take an important post connected with the Commissariat
Department.