The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-17 00:00:00

TRIAL OF BERNARD.

[The following is a more extended report of the brilliant
speech delivered by Mr. James than appeared in our im-
pression of yesterday :--1
Mr. James at once proceeded to address the jury for the
defence, but in so low a tone of voice that his opening
sentences were quite inendible in the reporters' box. He
was understood to commence by urging upon the attention
of the jury the grave importance of the case, and remind-
ing them that in its discussion, and in the verdict they
were about to pronounce, was involved consequences the
most serious, not only to public and private liberty in this
country, but to the cause of freedom and of civilisation
throughout the world. It had ever been the boast--and no
idle or empty boast it was—that it was the duty as well as
the pleasure of the English bar to render assistance to the
weak against the strong, to the oppressed as against the
oppressor. From that very spot from which he now spoke
the names of Erskine, of Brougham, and of Denman, had
shed the lustre of their eloquence in pleading the cause of
those against whom had been brought to bear the influence
of the Crown for asserting the liberty of the subject. It
might be said, as was by the Roman orator—" Insignia
mcestis prmsidium rein." And last, but not least—if he
might be permitted to say it in the presence of a judge
whose great learning and sound judgment adorned the
bench—in the last State trial that had taken place the
eloquence of Pollock shod lustre upon the cause he espoused.
The present ease came before the court under peculiar cir-
cumstances. His learned friend the Attorney-General had
opened the case with the moderation and calm dignity
which became its importance and his own high position as
a minister of justice; but he could not but remark that in
that opening there was a portentous silence upon one
point—his learned friend omitted altogether to explain
how it was that now for the first time in the annals of our
jurisprudence a case of this nature had been brought before
an English jury. His learned friend had never explained
how it was, before they were asked to find a verdict —how
it was that, at the bidding of those who were net con-
tent with the blood of Orsini and Pierri, they were asked
to stain an English scaffold with the blood of the pri-
soner at the bar. It was right they should have it
distinctly stated on what principle it was, on what
ground it was, that this prosecution was based upon
this particular act of Parliament, which he trusted he
should bo able to show was perverted, and wrested from
the object which those who framed it bad in view, to serve
a purpose of which they never dreamed. Nor was this his
opinion only. It was the opinion of the most eminent
jurists of the country at the present moment. He wanted
to know how it was that an act of Parliament which had
never before been made applicable to such circumstances
was thus put in force against the prisoner at the bar. The
Attorney-General had observed a significant silence on this
point, and had carefully abstained from all allusion to the
act of Parliament, or to the circumstances which had
brought about this extraordinary prosecution. Ile should
be able to satisfy the jury that this was a prosecution not
on account of an injury of which her Majesty had to com-
plain, or of which any British subject had to complain
but it was a prosecution directed by foreign dictation, to
bring about a state of political subserviency to foreign go-
vernments, which the Government of this country had not
the courage to submit to the English House of Commons
and to the English people. The consequence was that the
Treasury solicitor had been directed to ransack the archives
of Parliament to find an act under which a prosecution
and a conviction could be obtained for the crime of wilful
murder against a man—not to vindicate justice, but to
gratify a political object, which the Government of the
day wanted the courage to submit to the consideration of
the English people and the Cominous House of Parliament.
The Attorney-General had told the court nothing of the
origin of this prosecution. Ho had listened in vain to hear
how it had come about how it was that a charge of con-
spiracy had been brought against the gentleman at the bar
--and he was a gentleman by birth, education, and sta-
tion—that charge having been hanging over him for many,
many days, and prosecuted with all that ingenuity which
distinguished one of the ablest criminal lawyers at the bar,
his learned friend Mr. Bodkin—how it was that after
the case had been heard and reheard before the magis-
trate, and the evidence brought forward in support of it
published all over Europe, the advocate of the Crown had
said, " Let us take that evidence" which he (Ur
James) considered was not evidence that could be received
on a charge of wilful murder--" let us take that evidence,
and speculate upon the chances of conviction upo e the more
serious charge of murder—let us try and get a verdict
against the prisoner ou the capital charge. and that perhaps
will relieve us front a disagreeable political difficulty."
Let them stop for a moment to inquire into the origin of
this transaction. As they all knew an attempt was made
upon the life of the Emperor Napoleon on the 14th of Jan.
1:455. The jury had bad pictured to them by the Attorney-
General the vast injury—death in some instances, wounds
in others—that was occeeioue I by' this attempt of Orsini's,
and though all that his learned friend had said in that re-
spect mightbo true, the jury must not forgot that it in no
way concerned the prisoner. The prisoner was not present
nor had it been shown that he had taken any part in in-
stigating, or that he had participated in any way in that
most criminal transaction. He needed not to be reminded
of the horror and detestation with which every English.
man regarded the crime of assassination. He was not there
to say a word in palliation of a crime so cowardly, dark and
dastardly as assassination. He would not on that occasion
(for it was not necessary) enter into any discussion of a
question that attracted the attention of philosophers of all
nations whether it was right to get rid of a tyrant by death.
But there was so much horror attached to the crime of as-
sa.ssinationtlaat every Englishman shuddered at it. He could
not do better than quote from the speech of one of the most
brilliant advocates of the French bar, M. Jules Fevre, who
defended Orsini, and thank God liberty of speech lingered
at that bar, though the press was no longer free. The
learned gentleman here quoted from M. Jules Favre's ad-
dress in defending Orsini the passage in which he con-
demned assassination, but said of despotism, " God re-
serves fur despots a fate inure dreadful than the machi-
nations of the assassin." This was not only the view
of an eloquent man and a philosopher, but it was a
truth which all history taught, and though Providence
in its wisdom might for a time permit the despot to
trample upon the liberties of a free people, there re-
mained for him an inevitable retribution more certain than
the dagger of the assassin. To suppose that any English
advocates, or any English jury would regard, assassination
as a thing under any circumstances to bo tolerated or justi-
fied, was not t > know the feelings by which Englishmen
and English courts of justice were actuated ; still, looking
at all tho features of the cidse, it was perhaps possible to
understand the sentiment that lingered in the minds of
Italians whose liberties had been destroyed by a blasting
and withering de potism—they might possibly
understand
the existence of a sentiment in the minds of those
men whose liberties had been destroyed and trampled upon,
awt
ihtiuc
thi3O thank God,
w who enjoyed
ere
Government,and
reigned in the hearts of her people, could never share.
wrutl
ehde
by blessings
a Sovereign
Though we might have a natural horror of the crime of
assassination, we could understand that a people who were
f a
whoo
-
n c
oppressed and tyrannised over—who were robbed of their
liberties by foreign tyranny, might be justified in availing
themselves of every means to throw off the yoke. Well,
this desperate attempt of Orsini's having become known in
L indon and throughout Europe, then came the demand on
the part of France to deliver up the exiles who had gained
an asylum in England. This was followed by the threaten-
ing language of the French generals, published in the
etione'eur, and next came the speech of Louis Napoleons
ambassador to the citizens of London. Lord Palmerston's
Government was pressed by the demands of a man who
had himself found an asylum in this country from political
persecution. Then came a proposal on the part of Lord
Palmerston to the House of Commons of the Conspiracy
Bill. Let them trace up these matters (which were fresh
in their recollection) one after the other, and say whether
it was not clear that a political purpose was to be answered
by this prosecution, the object the Government had in
view being to concede in this way to the demands of a fo-
reign despot that which they dared not ask the House of
Commons to sanction. Well, Lord Palmerston introduced
the Conspiracy Bill to the House of Commons, but Lord
Palmerston's Government was wrecked upon that measure
on the motion of his (Mr. James's) hon. friend, Mr.
Gibson. The noble and learned lord who was now presid-
ing inthat court judicially, exercising his undoubted privi-
lege in the House of Lords, declared his opinion distinctly
as to the power of the English law in dealing with cases
such as that bill was intended to meet—from which, how-
ever, a very able lawyer in the House of Commons, the
late Attorney-General, differed. It became a subject of
discussion whether or not the law of England enablsd the
Government to comply with the demand made upon it by
the Emperor of the French to give up those foreign exiles
which he chose to demand—and the result of that discus-

sion was that the Conspiracy Bill was rejected by the
House of Commons, and a statesman whose name should
never be mentioned without veneration and respect in the
presence of any assembly attached to the principles of civil
and religious freedom—Lord John Russell—said that he
should consider it a shame and a listing disgrace to the
people of England if such a measure were passed. Nor was
that feeling confined to the noble lord--it was shared iu by
a largo majority of the English House of Commons, who
rejected a bill against which the genius of the English
people rebelled. Lord Palmerston's goveremeit was
wrecked upon that measure—and the House of Commons,
firm in its constitution d strength, resisted the demands of
one whose dictation might have more effect when directed
against the comparatively weaker states of Sardinia or
Switzerland. The bill was rejected. Lord Palmerston's
government was wrecked, and Lord Derby's Government
succeeded—but this prosecution wont on. Lord Palmer-
ston's government was thrown out on the 19th February.
At that time the proceedings in this case were going on,
the prisoner having been arrested on the 14th. On thel3th
of March, weeks and weeks after the prisoner had been in
custody, and after ho had been repeatedly examined on
the charge of conspiracy 7 a charge in reference to which
the opinion of lawyers differed, whether he could be con-
victed or not, without ransacking the statute-book for
sonic forgotten musty old act of Parliament—on the 13th
March, for the first time, the counsel for the Crown g©t up
and stated in the police-court that the charge of conspiracy
on which all the evidence bad been given, was to be—not
abandoned, but east aside for the moment, and upon that
evidence, which he (Mr. James) contended was not admis-
sible upon a charge of wilful murder—under a statute that
was never intended to apply to a case of this kind, the charge
of wilful murder was founded. On March 13 the prisoner
was charged with having been an accessory before the fact
to the crime of murder, and the attempt was made to pro-
ceed against him for the penalty of death. Lot them see
what had taken place between the time of the commence•
mont of the prosecution and March 13. Lord Derby bad
succeeded to power. What was he to do ? The House of
Commons bad virtually declared, wo will not pass this
Conspiracy Bill. Lord Palmerston 'e Government had been
'wrecked and shattered upon it. Lord Derby knew vary
well that he could not again submit it to the House of Com-
mons. What, then, was to be done? The demand of the
Emperor Napoleon had been made—the Conspiracy Bill
had been brought in to please him; but the House of Com-
mons rejected it--they would have nothing to do with it
Something must be done, so the Treasury lawyers were
directed to ransack the statute book for some musty act,
which somebody orotherhad heard of, upon which to found
a special commission, to try whether they could enforce an
at of Parliament that was no more intended by its framers
to apply to a case such as this than it was to bring any one
of the jury who were trying it within the meshes of an in-
dictment for treason. B 3 the Conspiracy Bill it was at-
tempted to abolish the right of asylum, which was odious