The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-31 00:00:00

seducing certain persons under circumstances of
great atrocity—and that, subsequent to his change
of creed, and after he had become a married man,
he had been guilty of other acts of profligacy.
That accusation he denied, averring that it was a
false, scandalous, and malicious libel against him ;
the defendant pleaded a justification, and issue was
joined on no less than twenty-three distinct points.
On some of these points little, if any, evidence
was tendered ; but the real struggle took place
respecting the cases to which we have already re-
ferred. Now it is quite palpable that Dr.
Amnia's character would not have been vindicated
if the Jury believed the evidence respecting ELENA
VALENTE MARIA PRINCIPE, and of the wives of
GARAMONI and CORIBONI, and of the English ser-
vants, although no sufficient proof had been ad-
duced of his criminality with ROSA DE ALLES-
SANDRIS, or a certain other woman, whose name
was unknown to the defendant. The substance of
the charge would have been established in one case
as well as the other; and, accordingly, we find that

the entire struggle between the eminent and dis-
tinguished Counsel on either side was to establish or
rebut these charges, and that the time of the Court
was so long occupied for that purpose—although it
now appears that the defendant must have been
found guilty under any circumstances ; and not
only bound to pay the enormous expenses of bringing
over the different witnesses to this country, main-
taining them here, and giving them compensation
for their loss of time, but also the heavy bill of
costs of the prosecutor, and that on a mere for-
mality, not in any degree affecting the substantial
merits of the case.

It may be said that, to a certain extent, the
matter rests in the hands of the Judge, on whom
the duty of apportioning the punishment and
fixing the sentence devolves ; and that, as the
LORD CHrEF-JUSTICE well remarked, " In the dis-
charge of that sacred duty, full consideration will
be given to the point, as to whether the guilt of
the defendant was aggravated or mitigated by
the plea, and the evidence given to prove or dis-
prove it." Such is, undoubtedly, the fact ; and
we have every confidence in, and respect for, each
and every one of those eminent men who orna-
ment the Judicial Bench, and who have elevated
the English name among surrounding nations for
the pure and incorruptible administration of jus-
tice. But the relief can only be partial. Al-
though the penalty should be merely nominal,
the costs must fall on the defendant, and the payment
thereof will amount to no inconsiderable punish-
ment. A fortune has, in fact, been lavished, and
that without any needless outlay in endeavouring
to proie that the accusations were not put forward
on light or insufficient grounds ; and that the de-
fendant believed that, in preferring them, he was
not violating the truth in any particular, but
merely exposing the infamy of a hypocrite, whom
it was his bounden duty to deprive of the mantle
of purity in which he had undeservedly arrayed
himself.

There is another evil. Tho functions of the
Jury are practically abrogated, and it devolves
upoil the Judge to decide upon the fact as well
as the law. This, and we say it with profound
respect, is a serious grievance—a direct violation
of one of an Englishman's proudest privileges, of

the Palladium of national freedom, the great
Charter of our liberties. Any invasion of Trial
by Jury must naturally bo regarded with the great-
est jealousy, and by no person more than the
Learned Judge who tried the case. Lord CAMP-
BELL has already acquired bright laurels by the
amelioration of the law of libel. Let him com-
plete his work by the introduction of a remedial
measure adequate to meet the evils to which we
have above alluded.

The present Parliament and the present Go-
vernment are not likely to stagnate ecclesiasti-
cally. There is diversity enough of tendency to
begin with in the Cabinet itself. There we find
the advocates of Church independency, of State
control, and of equal treatment by the State. If
we name the systems in the good old con-
troversial fashion after their most distinguished
advocates—there is Gladstone-ism, and Russell-
ism, and Molesworth-ism. If we indulge our-
selves, however, in this nomenclature amongst
Hon. Members of the House of Commons, the list
of " isms" might be largely increased ; every one
will be thinking immediately of Horsman-ism,
and Blandford-ism, and last, certainly not least,
of Spooner-ism, formerly kept in check by Anstcy-
ism ; but now, much more creditably for this par-
ticular " ism," its brief is placed in the hands of
Mr. WM. SCHOLEFIELD, the liberal and consistent
member for Birmingham. The notices already on
the paper for the Session promise to bring these
various motions a little into collision ; indeed, it
seems hardly possible, by any good understanding,
between the parties, to avoid now and then spon-
taneous combustion, especially when, what is so
commonly the fire-annihilator--her MAJESTY'S
Government to wit—is (Mr. PHILLIPS will bear
with us) so likely itself to take fire. Mr. GLAD-
STONE, for instance, is enamoured of Church in-
dependence, for that last spring ho was prepared,
according to Mr. WALroLE's view of his Colonial
Church Bill, to give up the supremacy of the
Crown itself. In defence of religiOus free-
dom he wrote so nobly to Bishop SKINNER
last summer, not only as the advocate of
Church independence, but of the equal claims of
all sects, that he was compelled to declare, for the
satisfaction (if possible) of Oxford, that he still
held the doctrine of State connexion. Still it
was Church independence that he demanded as
the sine qua non. Lord JOHN, on the contrary,
would fight for that supremacy like a true Malay
bantam, till his spurs and comb were torn from
him, rather than surrender an iota of it. Wit-
ness his conflict with the clergy and the bishops in
Dr. HAMPDEN'S case. Sir WM. MOLESWORTII,
again, though naturally at the very antipodes of
Mr. GLADSTONE, would probably go half way with
him, and half way with Lord JOHN. With many
other of the older and staunch Radicals, his most
emphatic demand is for no Government favouri t-
ism of sects. Right nobly did he reply to a
hustings' question at Leeds, " If you ask me what
I will do, I will tell you. If you ask me what I be-
lieve, I reply, that is an affair between me and my
Gon.” He, therefore, would treat alike all
who, in the eye of the Government, do alike,
and if .it must needs be that the endowed sect
retains its present endowments, he would endow
all other sects satisfactorily. Either by disendow-
ment or endowment, lie would place all on an
equality ; probably, he would much prefer the
latter, for the old country at least, as binding the
clergy of all sorts over to good behaviour. As to
the Colonies, his speech on the Kafir War, last
April, showed that bis desire remained unabated
to entrust colonial affairs to the colonists them-
selves ; and no doubt, therefore, he would still
leave it with them to support religion with Go-
vernment grants, or not, as they themselves
deemed best. In him, therefore, we have a
Cabinet Minister, who, like Mr. GLADSTONE, does
not object to State connexion, but who, unlike
him, would then insist on State control,—who,
like Lord JOHN, strongly leans to equality of the
various Churches, so far as Government support
is concerned, for the sake of the Government con-
trol guaranteed by it ; but who, unlike him, takes
no interest in manufacturing colonial bishoprics,
nor English bishoprics either; who desires as much
as Mr. GLADSTONE the independency of the Colo-
nial Churches, but desires it as a part of colonial
independence, and would probably advocate their
emancipation by the simple process of breaking the
golden Government fetters. It would be edifying
to be permitted to hear the debates ecclesiastical
of the Thirteen Secret Voters, ere they decided
what the compromise, or what the sacrifices of
opinion of each, should be on points like these.
But no ; to elve aristocrats to one may talk self-
ishness and folly, and vote for class interests
in a style which they would dread should
see
daylight in the public journals; but the poor
honest elector must be snubbed with the mean-
ness of " secrecy," if he would conceal a Conscien-
tious vote, not from an impartial public, but from
a rapacious and tyrannical oppressor.
Kept out of Cabinet secrets, however, we are
duly favoured with its collective wisdom in Par-
liament. Much of that wisdom 'llb WI e, we suppose,
the wisdom of siience. They will, adopt the judi-