The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-19 00:00:00

THE. SUN, LONDON, MONDAY*

he had been an "accessory before the fact," he
would have been justly responsible, and we should
have regretted, in place of rejoicing at, his acquittal.
But &mow BERNARD was no murderer. There
was a link missing in the chain of evidence. He
bad been intimate with ORSINI, but so were many
other good and excellent men, against whom the
breath of calumny has not dared to utter a single
slander. He relieved RIIDIO and his young
wife ; but it would be hard indeed if an act of
simple charity towards a less fortunate refugee
should bring with it punishment in place of
applause. He was cognisant of the manufacture
of the grenades, and assisted in bringing them
into Belgium, and in forwarding the revolvers
purchased in Birmingham into France. But
there was nothing on earth to show that these
instruments were intended to be used against the
EMPEROR, or to inflict injury on any human being
either in France or elsewhere, save in the way of
bona fide war—a matter of which neither- Louis
NaroLzoif, nor his accredited Ambassador to the
Court of St. James's could justly complain. We
fully credited, and what disinterested and unpre-
judiced person would not have credited, the em-
phatic denial of M. BERNARD of any participation
in the contemplated murder. It was not brought
home to him, and thanks beto GOD, England has not
yet substituted suspicion, or, what has been
tilled " notoriety," for proof, clear and convinc-
ing "proof." He was therefore properly ac-
quitted, and the questions that had been reserved
for the consideration of the 15 judges, must wait
another trial, where the complicity is more
clearly established.

There is another charge hanging over the head
of M. BERNARD, but we hope and believe that it
will not be persevered in. He is still under the
accusation of Conspiracy to Murder. But
the charge was to all intents and pur-
poses : the same that has been already
disposed, and it is a sound principle that no one
shall be twice placed in jeopardy on the same
charge. If M. BERNARD was guilty of the conspi-
racy laid to his charge, he would have been justly
and properly convicted, and we should not have
endeavoured to save him from the extreme
penalty, which he, in such case, would
have merited. But, believing him to be innocent
—believing him to be the victim of unfortunate
circumstances, which occasioned suspicion, we
cannot help rejoicing at his escape, and blessing
the "trial by jury," which will receive a new
illustration in the eyes of all the peoples of
Europe by the result of this very remarkable trial.
The Moniteur has not given the result of the
investigation. The Debats does net give the
arguments of Mr. JAMES. Au official blind is
placed over the light that ought otherwise to have
been diffused throughout the length and breadth
of the land. But still the secret will become
known. The people of France will learn that
English judges, English juries, or English advc-
cates are not to be bullied, intimidated, or ca-
joled, and they will necessarily look for that great
blessing—a free trial by a honest, independent,
and unprejudiced jury.
There is another indictment hanging over the
defendant's head—one for the conspiracy to mur-
der. But it would be an insult to the Jury, who
have delivered an honest and unimpeachable ver-
dict, to try it ; and that insult will not, we be-
lieve, be attempted by Sir FITZROY KELLY, who
displayed the most perfect fair play towards the
prisnner.

So, then, the Sceptics were right 1 There was
no PALMERSTON Reform Bill. A Conspiracy Bill
L.
we all know there was, and none knows it better
than Lord PALMERSTON ; there was time for that ;
there was time, too, for an India Bill, which alu
seems likely now to come to grief ; but, there was
no time for a Reform Bill 1 Good intentions of
Reform, says Lord PALMERSTON, there were, but
good deeds there were not ; and as the latter are
the road to Paradise, and the former, according
to all Divine*, pave the facilis descensus Averni,
the late Premier seems to be only another
illustration of the dogma of our spiritual police.
For his India Bill, good or bad, however, we
thank Lord PALMERSTON. He had the courage
to back the popular demand for the abolition of
the double Government ; he erred, perhaps, in
some points, as Lord DERBY erred in others, but
we do not wish to be unfair, or to withhold from
him the credit of complying with the general wish
of the country ; but what we do blame him for,
and what we consider to be the proof of his anti-
popular bias is—first, that he could have ready,
at an hour's warning, two aristocratic bills—
secondly, that the popular one was not even
drafted. The India Bill, as he gave it us, an-
swered the people's demand for abolition of the
double Government, by opening fresh advantages
to our aristocracy ; the Conspiracy Bill was pure
subserviency to the Ruler whom our aristocracy,
our Whig aristocracy especially, have made their
pet. If India demanded prompt attention,
itterations in our criminal law rather demanded
consideration ; above all did the outrageous bully-
ing of the French Colonels, the complicity of the
EMPEROR through the Moniteur, and his direct
and insulting appeals through PERSIGNY and
WeLzwsxr, require that we should legislate on
the subject, if at all, with the utmost composure
and dignity. A Conspiracy Bill could have well
waited till next session.
We, therefore, hold that Lord PALMERSTON'S

the-people,--tlre-Tories are quite willing to be re-
formers ; quite as willing, certainly, as their party
opponents. The country has settled it that pro-
gress must be the rule, and it were childish, now,
to imagine that any Administration could last to
a second session, which had not some respectable
advance to exhibit in its first one. Indeed, the
effort of the aristocracy of both the old parties is,
to divert us from political to legal and social re-
forms, and to keep us from pushing reform in
Parliament, by asking what more we should do if
it was reformed ?

The other lesson we should learn from Lord PAL- r
DIERSTON'S everlasting procrastination is, to take
this work into our own hands. Between the
Whigs and Tories, as one of the journals of the
latter pertinently observes, the difference is, that
the Tories honestly say they would rather keep
things as they are ; the Whigs would rather do it
too, but do not say so. The people without,
therefore, and the really liberal members in the
house, and those whose services the people can
command, must all be brought to act together.
There ought to be one hundred real Liberals
surely, out of some four hundred who more or
less profess to be so, and if only that number
would combine to act steadily together, and avow
that they would concede their allegiance to no
Minister who would not concede the great points
in Parliamentary Reform, they would soon find
those who would bid for their support. It is but
for the independent members to declare unflinch-
ingly the political price of political support—to
convince the aristocrats that they could have it on
no lower terms, and they would get their price.
Since the great Reform Bill, so long promised,
is therefore now quite dismissed for this year, we
warn the House that it must no longer trifle with
individual Reforms. Mr. LOCKE KING will
soon test the slippery ones. The abolition of the
property qualification for England can surely be
no longer refused. When a person is lying in
prison for having been tempted to make a decla-
ration not more untrue, morally, than similar
declarations made by many others ; and when,
most scandalous of all, peers' eons, without a
penny in their pockets, are deemed qualified by
their aristocratic blood, how can the miserable
property qualification for a seat be longer main-
tained ? If Mr. LOCKE KING'S motion be rejected,
we would advise him to give notice of a resolution
immediately, that until the property qualification
be repealed, Scotch members and peers' sons
ought to have the same qualification as other
candidates. Mr. KING will also bring forward
his motion for extending the ten-pound franchise
in the counties. Now, we should advise the in-
dependent members to declare, that if the Whig
leaders deceive them again, they would never aid
them to regain office again. Men who will refuse
such easy, simple, and necessary reforms, session
after session, do not deserve the support of the
really Liberal party.