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

THE STN,„ 14,0,1sTiDQ, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL --- -19, 18,58

THE _TRIAL-Or BERNABD.-

(17min the Daily News.)

The verdict of the jury in the case of the Bishops
was a protest against the attempt of a domestic
bigot and despot to wrest from Englishmen their
hereditary liberties. The verdicts of the juries in
the cases of Thelwall, Hardy, and Horne Tooke
were protests against the attempt of servile and
bigotted courtiers to arrest the English people in
their progress towards the attainment of extended
liberties. The verdict of the jury in the case of
Bernard is a protest against the attempt of a
foreign usurper and despot to intimidate a weak and
unprincipled English Cabinet (we speak of the late
Ministry) into a surrender of English liberty.
The result of the trial of Dr. Bernard is the
natural and necessary consequence of the adoption
of trial by jury in political cases. A jury when
trying a question of debt not paid, or of obligation
not fulfilled, will respect the declaration of the
presiding judge, that the law has laid down such
or such a rule, that they have nothing to do with
the abstract equity of the case, and that they have
only to declare whether the law has or has not
been obeyed. A jury, when trying a question of
assault and battery, or of slander, will equally con-
form its verdict to the technical requisitions of the
law. But when a political question is submitted
to a jury, the jurors feel instinctively that they
have a higher duty to perform than merely to de-
clare whether the letter of the written or consue-
tudinary law has been violated. They feel that
they are called upon to discharge a duty to society
' at large which may bring their convictions into
conflict with the mere formal prescripts of the law;
that they must weigh is an impartial balance the
merits and demerits of all the parties to the case ;
that in arriving at their decision they must remem-
ber the existence of a law of higher and holier
origin, of a wider reach, and of more universal
comprehensiveness than that which is inscribed in
the Statute Book, or in the records of the Judgments
political cases have to
decideof oar Courts.queeti nneJuof Juries n
constitutionali
policy as well as
.of mere They who are disposed to quarrel
with the verdict of the jury in Bernard's case
would have quarrelled, had they lived in those
times, with the verdicts of the juries in the cases of
the Bishops, of Hardy, Thel wall, and Horne Tooke.
It is of the essence of trial by jury in political cases,
that the jurors, in framing their verdict should
allow weight to moral and political in addition to
mere legal considerations ; and whoever objects to
this practice ought logically to object altogether to
trial by jury in political cases. The object of em-
panelling a jury in such cases is to take them out
of the Jurisdiction of the more technical lawyer,
with a view to assert the liberties of the citizen, if
need be, r ven against the formalities and techni-
calities of the Lew itself.
en saying this it is not our meaning to concede
that the verdict of the jury in Bernard's case was
contrary to, or unwarranted by, the testimony ad-
duced. There were broken links in the chain of
ev Belgian witnesses expressed strong
doubts of
f the identity
of the grenade produced with
any of those which they had seen and handled.
The letters produced were addressed to Bernard,
not written by him ; and the interpretation put
upon their words with a view to infer the expres-
sion of a guilty intention on the part of the writers
was pa' paely forced and strained. The position of
one
in the the
principal witnesses—the wife of
Rnciin of
uncertainty of his fate, was
sufficient to discredit her testimony. The evi-
dence of the railway clerk—the friendly infor-
mant of the French Embassy—that Bernard had
expressed a confident expectation of the speedy
return of the Emperor to this country, was irrre-
concileable with the idea that Bernard contem-
plated the assassination of the Emperor. The evi-
dence of Orsini's housekeeper as to Bernard's
incredulity when he first heard of the attempt in
the Rue Lepelletier, and of his unequivocal aston-
ishment when doubt was no longer possible, con-
firms in the strongest manner the inference to which
the evidence of the railway clerk necessarily leads.
With these considerations pressing upon them, we
do not see what other verdict could possibly have
been returned, even though the jurors had fettered
themselves by a strict regard to the purely technical
requisitions of the Law.
But we will not affect to believe that the verdict
was motived by such considerations alone. There
can be no doubt that the moral sense of the jurors
re volted against the essential falsehood of the indict-
ment. They saw clearly that Bernard was prose-
cuted not because he was believed to be accessory
to the deaths of the individuals who received fatal
wounds in the Rue Lepelletier, but because he was
believed to have conspired to assassinate the Em-
peror of the French. Their. honest, John Bull
indignation was roused by the attempt to make
them accessories to the falsehood of a judicial
juggle. Again, their sympathies were touched by
the peculiar position of the prisoner. They saw
before them a man, poor as regards worldly wealth,
alone and unsupported save by a few private indi-
viduals who were personally strangersto him. They
saw th two most powerful Governments in Europe
persevering for months in a large expenditure,avai!-
ing themselves of the indefatigable exertions of two
completelyorganised and not over-scrupulous bodies
of police, to ensure the destruction of this poor and
almost friendless man. In duck circumstances it
was not in human nature to escape a certain bias
in favour of the weaker party. Yet again, the per-
tinacity with which the presiding Judge again and
again obtruded upon them the declaration that in
the event of a verdict of guilty being returned the
law of the case would be discussed by the fifteen
Judges, showed the Jurors that it was intended by
a legal quibble to reneive the case of Bernard from
their jurisdiction, and to have it virtually decided
by the Judges, unaided or unchecked by a jury. It
is the established right of an English jury to decide
both on the law and the facts of the cases sub-
mitted to them. The Judge, it is true, expounds
the law to them ; but when he has done so, it is
their duty and their right not only to decide what
facts have been proved, but ,in what manner the
law as expounded from the Bench bears upoa them.
Lord Campbell anxiously and pertinaciously endea-
voured to impress upon the minds of the jury that
they ought to confine themselves to questions of
evidence alone, and to leave the application of the
law to the Judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Had the jury conformed to Lord Campbell's in-
junctions, they would have done what in them lay
to render trial by jury, in political cases, a nullity
in all time coming. They are to be honoured for -
having sturdily resisted such an encroachment on
the political privileges and safeguards of English-
men. They who matured and confirmed our ses-
tem of trial by jury in political cases did so with
their eyes open. They knew that twelve_ unpro-
fessional men, taken by hazard from the ranks
of their fellow citizens, could not be fettered
by mere formal and technical considerations
of law. They preferred the verdict of such
men in political cases to the verdict of mere law-
yers, because the decision of the former would
be arrived at upon wider considerations than those
of the law alone. The verdict of the jury in
Bernard's case is exactly such a verdict as the en-
lightened asserters of Trial by Jury in political
ca,,es wished to ensure.
That the jury have spoken the universal sense of
Englishmen in this matter is obvious. The rap-
turous cheers with which the verdict was received
in Court, the readiness with which this applause
was caught up and re-echoedby the crowds waiting
without, the reciprocal congratulations with which
the news of it was received in private societies
during the evening, the sympa'hetic response
which is already coming back to us from the pro-
vinces—all these things show that the universal
nation sanctions the verdict of the twelve honest
and intelligent jurymen in the Central Criminal
Court. Surely this unanimous expression of the
national conviAion and will ought to read an in-
structive lesson to all the Governments in Europe
—our own inclusive. So long as trial by jury in
political cases exists in England, similar verdicts
will be the result of all similar prosecutions. Even
though more stringent statutes could be irnpetrated
from the L-gislature, the result would be the '
same. Under the new law, as under the old,
juries would refuse to convict. Before decisions
of a different character can be looked for, trial by
jury must be abolished; and where should we find
the English Geverement that would be daring
enough to attempt, the English Parliament that
would be weak and venal enough to become ail
accomplice in, its abolition.
From one or two quarters we hear puling whire
p-rs at out the effect this verdict may produce upot
the minds of Foreign Governments. To theSe
here is only tile reply England confidently W-
ilt ves that the Governments alluded to have sense
enough to acquiesce in the inevitable; and if they
have not, England does not care.'

(From the ?Imes.)
Not since the Irish Rebellion of 1848 has there
been any State trial approaching in importance the
case of Simon Iknmatd, who was acquitted on Sa-
turday last of compliei y in the murderous attempt
of the 14th of January upon the Emperor Napo-
leon. Indeed, the trial which is just over has a ,
general and international interest which is wanting]
to the inquii ies respecting domestic treason or sedi-
jou. It vt a, preceded by discussions the heat and
vehemence of which have alarmed Europe, and tho
Alini,ters of a great foreign Potentate were led
away by the circumstances which produced it to
use and permit others to use a language which may

be disregarded or may-be forgiven; hut-1,4310h- can-
not be forgotten. It is also not to be denied that
the Emperor of the French as weir as our own Go-
vernment looked forward to a successful prosecu-
tion as a means of smoothing away difficulties. To
the Derby Cabinet, which had ousted its opponents
for bringing in the Conspiracy Bill, a verdict of
"Guilty" would have given the opportunity either
of proving that no legislation was necessary, or of
legislating under the sanction of a judicial decision.
The French Government, or rather its sagacious
chief, has also notoriously desired such a proof of the
goodwill of England as would, in the eyes of con-
tinentals, be involved in the punishment of a Re-
publican conspirator. Such a conclusion of the
long disputes between the two countries would have
been gratifying to the self-esteem of the French
Government, so severely wounded by the events of
the last three months ; and we may say, without
arrogance or assumpticn, that the spectacle of an
English Court passing sentence on an accomplice
of Orsini would have given a morel strength to the
Imperial throne.
But the calculations of Sovereigns and statesmen
and lawyers were destined to be baffled. After a
long and wearisome trial of six days Simon Ber-
nard has been acquitted. The jury remained
in deliberation only an hour and 20 minutes ; so
that we must believe that their feeling in favour of
the prisoner was almost unanimous from the first.
Indeed, two or three, days before, it might have
been anticipated that the jury would acquit the
prisoner if they shared the opinions or passions
which prevailed among the audience at the trial.
The Republican refugee seems to have had, rightly
or wrongly, all the sympathies of those who heard
the case, and the extraordinary scene which suc-
ceeded the verdict is a proof to what a pitch the
feelings of all present had been raised. That the
political and national instincts of the jury had some-
thing to do with the decision it would beaffectation
to deny ; but we think that their verdict was only
what was to have been expected, and what may be
expected in any similar case. Every one who re-
members the strong democratic bias of the class
from which the London petty juries are taken will
be prepared to learn that they feel a strong
sympathy with any one whom they conceive to be
prosecuted at the instigation of a despotic Court,
and that they will give the prisoner the benefit of
the slightest doubt that arises on the evidence. In
this ;case there was a link wanting in the chain
which connected the prisoner's purchase of the
chymical materials with the actual attempt on the
life of the French Emperor. Bernard was a Repub-
lican, a conspirator, an organizer of revolutionary
movements, a suborner of revolutionary agents ;
he bought mercury and alcohol and compounded
them, he bought grenades and despatched them,
and he induced a needy Italian to enter ineo
, his schemes, whatever they were. His own
i account was that he conspired always and every-
where ; that he was engaged in a plot for the
' independence of Italy ; and that the grenades
and the revolvers and the services of Rudio were
intended to effect this object. Orsini, and Pierri,
and Rudio wept to Paris to further revolutionary
movements in general, and not attack the Em-
peror's life ; but while there they formed the design
of assassination and carried it out without the sanc-
tion or knowledge of Bernard. This, in fact, was
the whole defence of the prisoner, and it certainly
is not absolutely inconsistent with the evidence.
It might possibly be that men so violent and fans-
tical'as these Italians should be seized with a sud-
den impulse to take the Emperor's life, and thus to
remove what they considered the great obstacle to
the accomplishment of their plans. The deadly
machines which Bernard had helped to furnish were
in their possession, and they might use them for a
purpose which he had never contemplated. None
of the four convicts in France had criminated him.
Gomez and Rudio are alive, but they were not
brought to give evidence against the prisoner. In
short, though it was proved that Bernard was en-
gaged in some scheme requiring instruments of
death, and though the act of Orsini affords pre-
sumptive proof that the assassination of the Em-
peror was the scheme in question, yet the con-
nexion between the two was not proved to abso-
lute demonstration, and a jury, ready to give the
prisoner any loophole of escape, took advantage of
the defect in the evidence to return a verdict of
" Not Guilty."
We have said that, in our opinion, such a ver-
dict was to be expected in such a case. Indeed,
whatever may be the recommendations of judges,
and their exposition of the strict letter of the law,
juries will not restrain themselves from looking at
State prosecutions in a political light. In the pre-
sent case Simon Bernard was formally charged with
the murder of Nicholas Battie, under a statute
framed originally for the punishment of murders
by Englishmen on foreign ground, such as the
murder of one sailor by another in some South
American port, the murder of a set of unfortunate
negroes on the West Coast of Africa, or the more
gentlemanly murder of one duellist by another
at Boulogne or Ostend. When this Act of Parlia-
ment was evoked for the prosecution of a refugee
for a plot against the life of a despotic Sovereign,
and when. moreover, it was plain that the prosecu-
tion was the result of a diplomatic tempest and a
Ministerial change, we may well conceive that a
jury would consider that the law was being strained
to effect a political purpose, and that their duty
was to defeat the attempt. Indeed, as long as we
have had a political history, juries have always as-
serted their right to look at all the bearings of a
case, and not to confine themselves to the narrow
issue which the judge has set before them. It was
thus that they have come to be the judges of the
malicious intention of acts and of the libelous cha-
racter of writings. They have not been content
with merely saying whether a man struck a blow,
but they pronounce whether' he is guilty of murder
or manslaughter. They decide for themselves what
is treason, what is sedition, what is libel. So in
this case the jury seems to have been more than
willing to declare that the prosecution of Simon
Bernard, under the statute of George IV., for
what was really the political offence of high trea-
son against his own Sovereign, was a perversion of
the principles of the English middle class, they,
like the audience in court, steadily refused to look
on Bernard as a mere murderer, like Barthelemy
or Lard. They saw in him, even if the evidence
were complete, only a conspirator against a despotic
ruler, who bad himself seized a throne by craft and
violence, and against whom craft and violence, if
not justifiable, were at least not to be classed with
the guilt of the common murderer. If Nicholas
Battie and Eugene Riquier perished in an attack
on the Imperial person, it was by accident, and
the cause of their deaths must be subordinated to
the political offence, and not erected into an
individual and distinct crime. In a country like
ai
et t eir n of
our course
country.as a
bill
France, where every existing power has been
established in blood, things must not be mea-
suredthe English standard. Plotting and vio-
e arewith
We talk of our Catholic Emancipation, our Reform
Act, our Free Trade Act, our abolition of! the Ec-
clesiastical Courts ; the French have their three
thereits threea much a
readingsili
days of July, their three days of February, their
2 of December. Why, then, should Bernard,
lenc
men if guilty, he judged by the severe rules of
Eiglish morality ? Let the French settle these
things among themselves. The Republic was in
power, and it was overthrown by force ; the Em-
pire has succeeded, and the Empire is sought to be
overthrown. Why should we pervert our laws and
slain our cBurts with blood in order to protect one
unscruoulous faction from another ?

Something like this is, we cannot doubt, the
reasoning of the class from which the jury was
taken, mid we can easily imagine that when the
audience was so much roused, the jurors would
have their share of the impulse. All the circum-
stances of the trial show bow much political feeling
has been nixed up with the question which the.
jury bad to try. The experience of Mr. Edwin
James induced him to turn his defence of the pri-
soner into a• tirade against the Empire, its chief,
and i:s principles, and the conclusion of this
harangue was received with cheering and clapping
of hands. The result of all these influences was
that the jury took advantage of a Flight defect in
evidence to return a verdict consonant with their
political feelings, and to express their dislike of
the very principle of the prosecution. On their
judgment we are not called to pronounce an
opin.on ; we only think that it was to be expected,
and that any further proceedings against the pri-
soner may as well be abandoned. °Napoleon 111.
may remember that his companions, Vaudrey and
Lailty, were acquitted in 1836, though sized with
arms in their hands ; the v• rdict of the Old Bliley
jury is, therefore, not without a precedent even in
his own history. The fact is, that men are made
' up of passions as well as judgment, and that after
such a bitter controversy as has marked the be-
ginning of the present yvAr we may well expect
juries to look beyond t e evidence to the conse-
quences of their verdict, and spectators to shout
their sympathy with a conspirator, although they
may detest assassination.

F": [ADVERTISEMENT Pills an astonisl ing
Remedy for Giddiness in the Head.—Mr. Newton,
'druggist, Hull, states, in a letter tu Prefessor Holloway,
that Mr. John Ware, re,idin in S:ubb's-buildings,
West-street, Hull, bad been affl.cted with giddiness in
.the bead off and on fur the last 20 years, and though he
tried many things during that long period, yet he found
little or no relief from them. At last he wa3 ieduced to
try Holloway's Pills, from hearing so many encAniurm
(passed on their virtues, and, wonderful :Is it may appear,
he is perfectly cured, and now enjoys better health than
'ever he did before, thanks to Hod Pile.—Sule
by all vendors of medicine ; and at Pi ofesor Holloway.s
establishment, 244, Strand, London.

LAW- -INTELLIGENCE.-April 15.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships sat this morning for the purpose
of delivering judgment iu the following writs of
error :
Lord Cranworth, who sat as Deputy Speaker in
the absence of the Lord Chancellor, LDrd Wensley-
dale, and the Bishop of Ripon were present.
CROFT V. LUMLEY.
This was a writ of error brought from a decision
of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, partly con-
firming and partly reversing a judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench, given upon a special case
made for their consideration.
The case was argued before their Lordships and
nine of the learned judges in June last.
The counsel who argued the cause were the then
Attorney-General (now Chief Justice of the Com-
mon Pleas), Mr. H. Hill and Mr. Unthank, on be-
half of the plaintiff in error ; Sir F. Kelly (now
Attorney-General) and Mr. Maud, for the defend-
ant in error, Lumley ; and Sir F. Thesiger (now
Lord Chelmsford, the present Lord Chancellor)
and Mr. Serjeant Wells for the other defendants in
error.

The case as presented by the counsel for the plain-
tiff in error in their arguments before their lordships
was that the proceedings had originated in an
action of ejectment brought by Faithful Croft, the
plaintiff in error, as the lessor, against Benjamin
Lumley, one of the defendants in error, as the lessee
of Her Majesty's Theatre, in the Haymarket, and
against the other defendants in error, who claimed
an interest in the theatre under Mr. Lumley, in
which he sought to recover possession of that build-
ing on the alleged forfeiture by Mr. Lumley of his
lease by reason of alleged breaches of covenant on
his part. The lease iu question, dated 10th July,
1845, was granted by Mr. Croft to Mr. Lumley,
and demised the Opera-house and other premises,
part for 66 years, and. the remainder for 21 years
from its date. There were several covenants and
clauses for re-entry, and the questions before the
Home were—first, whether under the circumstances
the lease had been forfeited ; and, secondly, whe-
ther, if forfeited, there had not been a waiver of
that forfeiture by Mr. Croft, by an acceptance of
rent subsequently to the alleged breaches of cove-
nant becoming known to him. The forfeiture was
claimed upon three different grounds-1. That Mr.
Lumley having covenanted that he would not con-
vert the Opera-house to any other use than for
acting and performing operas, plays, concer- s, balls,
masquerades, assemblies, and such theatrical and
other public amusements or entertainments as had
usually been given therein, but that he would use
his utmost endeavours "to improve the same for
that use and purpose," had failed in the perform-
ance of his covenant by shutting up the building
for a period of two years, extending from August,
1852, until Dec., 1854, when the action was brought.
It was alleged that by so shutting up the theatre
Mr. Lumley had injured its reputation, and that
therefore be had not used his utmost endeavours
to improve it in accordance with his covenant. The
second alleged breach was that he had, contrary to
his covenant, let out certain boxes and stalls to cer-
tain persons for a longer period than one year. In
support of this part of his case Mr. Croft showed
that under a deed, dated -December, 20, 1851, Mr.
Lumely had granted certain boxes therein named,
with others, for one year beginning the Ist of
February, 1852, to Messrs. Brandus and Co., and
that by another deed, dated August, 1852, he had
granted the satire boxes, with others, from the Ist
of February, 1853, for-one year to other persons,
so that the same boxes would be let at the same
time, although to different persons, for a longer
period than one year. The third alleged breach
was that in violation of his covenant Mr. Lumley
had mortgaged or encumbered the theatre by
voluntarily giving warrants of attorney to confess
judgments or debts as collateral security for the
repayment of money borrowed. The Court of
Queen's Bench decided that the only breach of
covenant committed by Mr. Lumley was the third
breach alleged, with respect to his having encum-
bered the theatre by giving warrants of attorney,
but they gave judgment in his favour, on the
ground that there had been a waiver of the for-
feiture on the pact of the plaintiff in error, by his
having received rent subsequently to the facts
complained of coming to his knowledge. The
Court of Exchequer Chamber had affirmed this
judgment so far as it was in favour of the defendant
in error, but were of opinion that the defendant in
error had not been guilty of any breach of covenant
with respect to the third alleged breach, and they
therefore did not go into the question of waiver of
the forfeiture. The latter decision was then brought
by writ of error before their lordships' house. The
principal point relied on by the plaintiff in error was
the fact that Mr. Lumley bad encumbered his in-
terest in the theatre by voluntarily giving warrants
of attorney under which judgment had been ob-
tained against him. It was contended that he,
having done an act involving certain consequence.,
must be considered to have done all that by law
was involved in that act. By his warrant of at-
torney he had placed certain persons in a position
to obtain a registered judgment, and thus they
had gained an equitable charge upon the theatre,
contrary to the express covenant contained in the
lease. With respect to the question of waiver of
forfeiture by the plaintiff in error by the subse-
quent receipt of rent, it was contended that the
money had only been received as compensation for
the occupation of the premises, and not as rent, and
that such a taking of the money would not amount
to a waiver of the forfeiture. On behalf of the de-
fendants in error it was contended that there was
no pretence for considering the judgments obtained
against Mr. Lumley as mortgages or encumbrances
within the meaning of the words of the covenants.
It was clear that by giving warrants of attorney
upon which the judgments were obtained, Mr. Lum-
ley had created no charge, direct or indirect, upon
the estate, for the power of disposal vested in him
was not restricted until after the registered judg-
ments were obtained. The act of obtaining thote
judgments was not Mr. Lumley's act, and there-
fore he had so hand in encumbering the estate.
Judgments were particularly distinguished from
mortgages, for no mortgage could be granted of
church property, and yet judgments might be ob-
tained under warrants of attorney, and a charge
thus created upon the land. With respect to the
boxes being let for more than one year at a time, it
was submitted that the mere fact of letting boxes
just before the end of the year 1852 for the ensuing
season of 1853 to different persons from those who
held them for the season of 1852 could not be held
to be a breach of the covenants in the lease ; for it
would have been impossible for Mr. Lumley to have
carried on the business of the Opera-house without
securing the letting of his boxes for the ensuing
season. It was also submitted there had been no
substantial lease granted for more than a year, in-
asmuch as the contingencies upon which the leases
of the boxes had been granted—viz., the opening
of the theatre—had not happened at the time when
the action was brought. Under these circumstances
it was contended that there had been no forfeiture
of the lease. With regard to the question of waiver
it was contended that the money was paid to the
agent of Mr. Croft as rent, and that, in accordance
with the rules of law, the creditor must apply money
paid by him to his debtor to the purpose named by
the latter at the time of paying it. At the conch-
sion of the arguments the following questions were
submitted to the learned judges for their considera

ion :

" 1. Whether the special case disclosed a breach of the
covenant not to grant, let, or otherwise dispose of any
of the boxes or stalls of the theatre for any lunger period
than one year, or one season.

"2. Whether the special case disclosed a breach of the
covenant not to charge or encumber the theatre, or any
part thereof.

" 3. Whether by reason of such breaches, if any, or
either of them, the plaintiff in error acquired a right of
re-entry on the theatre or any part thereof.
"4. Whether such right of re-entry, if any, was
waived by the plaintiff in error,

On the 15th Feb. last the learned judges, who bad
taken time to consider, delivered their opinions
upon the question of law propounded to them.
Justices Coleridge, Williams, and Erle, and
Barons Bramwell, Watson, and Channell answered

the first and second questions in the negative, and
the third and fourth in the affirmative. Mr. Jus-
tice Wightman answered the first question in the
negative and the rest in the affirmative ; Mr. Baion
Martin answered Ihe first three questions in the
negative and the last in the affirmative ; and Mr.
Justice Crompton answered the first and fourth in
the °Legal ive and the second and third in the affir-
mative; the majority thus being in favour of the
decision of the Court below.

Lord Cranworth, this morning, in giving his
judgment, of ©r going through the facts of the
case, said that with regard to the first point urged
by the plaintiff in error namely, that Mr.
Lumley had committed a breach of his agreement
by not keeping the theatre open, their lordships
were unanimously of of that that was no
breach of his covenant, and they had therefore put
no question to the learned judges upon that point.
He did not consider that there had been any branch
of the covenant relating to the letting of boxes or
stalls for more than one year. As to the question
of whether there had been a forfeiture of the lease
by reason of Mr. Lumley having encumbered the
theatre by granting warrants of attorney, he con-
sidered that there had been no such forfeiture. It
was a Most difficult question upon which to lay
down ageneral rule of law, but it appeared to him
that when warrants of attorney were given for the
purprse of preventing law costs, when pressed for a
bona fide debt, it could not be regal ded as a breach
of such a covenant as this. It was different alto

gether from where a warrant of attorney was given
for the purpose of evading such a covenant and
creating a charge upon the estate contriry to the
terms of the lease. In the latter case it would cer-
tainly be a breach of the covenant ; but in the pre-
sent case it st peared to him that Mr. Lunale) had
no such intention in giving the warrants of attor-
ney, and therefore he considered that the decision
of the Court below was correct upon this'point also.
The case of " Doe v. Carter," Bth Term Reports,
page 300, supported the view he took of the ques-
tion. He should express no opinion upon the ques-
tion of waiver, but it appeared to him to be more a
question of fact than of law.
Lord Wensleydale having concurred,
The judgment of the Court below was affirmed,
with costs.

THE TACTICS Of THE OPPOSITION.

(From the Daily News )

There is a certain class of politicians in every
great party with whom the present, is everything,
and with whom the future and the past are noth-
ing. When out of power there is no weapon they
are not ready to use to regain it ; when in.office
there is no principle they are not willing td`sacri-
fice in the reckless resolve to keep it. TIW traditions
of party awaken no scruple in the minds of such
men ; and to talk to them of the eventual effect of
their greediness and rancour on the character and
influence of their party seems to their sordid sense
like the words of one that mocks. We fear that in
justice it must be said the existence of such mean-
ness is not peculiar to any political combination or
creed, and however reluctant we may be to confess
the fact, it is impossible to deny that in the ranks
of the present Opposition there are men' who -Would
if they were permitted, sacrifice' the- permanent
honour and utility of the Liberal party in their sel-
fish impatience to oust their opponents from power.
If the suggestions of those to whom we allude be
attended to every measure ought to bet Opposed
which is propounded by the Derbyite Cabinet,
whether it be tight or wrong. No matter What the
forthcoming Budget Of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer may prove to be,. Mr. Htingryand Mr.
Harping are prepared to give it the most uncom-
promising opposition ; and before thecontemplated
resolutions on the government of India have seen
the light, ac'ive stepii have been taken tewhip
sufficient number of votes toprevent their- being
even debated. A motion we are credibly informed
will be made by way of amendment—vrhen-Mr.
Disraeli proposes to go into Committee of the whole
house—that the Speaker :do not leave- the Oak ;
ttie practical significance of which would be that
the majority of the present House of Counts:ids is
determined not to consider or discuss any Seri-
ous proposition unless it be' propounded by
_the
men who, as a Cabinet; called it 'into being.
We shall be slow in believing that so 'old-and
experienced a politician as Lord Palmerston
wilt lend himself to a projeet so disreputable
and so desperate. He had his - change itdi his
own packed Parliament of legislating -for' India;
and he threw it away. An overwhelininginajority
voted him leave. to ;introduce his plan. All' the
leading Liberals whom he and his personal partisans
opposed at the last general election—Lord John
Russell, Mr. Bright, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Milner
Gibson—voted in the majority upon that occasion.
Since his suicidal loss of office, another Adminis-
tration has obtained permission to lay upon' the
table another scheme, in the form likewise'of a bill.
A third recommendation has proceeded from the
quarter best entitled beyond all question to atten-
tion and regard ; but—because its enunciation and
development would baulk the cupidity or rash
haste of certain hangers-on—who want to count
noses in a division, not to hear argument in a
debate—the course sanctioned by theelearestpre-
cedents and recommended by the ablest and best
men on both sides of the House is, we are told; to
be refused consideration, and . a mere factious
amendment is to be proposed for that purpose in
the shape above mentioned. For his own sake; and'
for the sake of the Liberal party—whose re-union
and consolidation on a firmer basis than any they
have recently had we fervently desire—we' trust
that Lord Palmerston will not be betrayed into
lending himself to such a proceeding. It is one
conceived in a spirit of insult, and which can only be perpetrated in a spirit of outrage. If Mr. -Dis-
raeli's resolutions are good, there can be' no hatm
in affirming them ; if they are specifically bad there
ought to be no difficulty in rejecting them. If wine
of them are sound and others seem to be. the con-
trary, the plain duty of the House is to adopt those
that are right and to negative those that are'wrong,
or to substitute for them others conceived 'in a wiser
spirit. But to tell the country without disguise that
fur the selfishatnd scandalous purposes of faction, a
majority of the House of Commons bad tnade' up
its mind beforehand to refuse all consideration'fb a
course proposed by,the man who is facile princeps
the leader of thePartyof Progressin the Legislature
of this country, and which has been adopted by the
officzalleader of the Conservative party in the Lower
House, would be in so -many words to proclaim tliat
the present House of Commons has• not only been
packed for pet-tonal objects by the late Minister,
but that it is utterly regardless of those decent
s,nblances of patriotism by which bad Parliathents
hate sometimes contrived to prolong a, mischie-
vous existence.

To us it seems sufficiently palpable that, befOre
the Liberal party can again return to power, there
must be a grand and unreserved renunciation' by
men of all sections composing it of the odious and
intolerable system of exclusiveness which has hither-
to been its blight and bane. We ought never again
to see a Liberal Cabinet formed out of one particu-
lar class either of society or opinions. ' The days
of monopoly are over in creed and in trade ;' ire
must make an end of them now in administrative
rule. A Liberal Administration consisting only of
the least Liberal members of the party, and with
personnel consisting of lords and lackies, political
paellas and political eunuchs is an imposture and a
cheat which we trust we shall never again behold.
Unless a Government of Progress can be formed,
with a positive programme and a positive pledge
that its promises are not to be indefinitely post-
poned, we had rather remain as we'are. And if
an administration is not likely to be constituted
that shall be prepared manfully and from the out-
set to maintain the national dignity and indepen-
dence, to seek the alliance of free nations and to
sustain the charactertiof English freedom abroad;
then we pray Heaven that we maybe saved the
grief and shame of witnessing perpetual changes in
the confidential advisers of the Crown without any
change for the better in our foreign policy. We
desire as earnestly as any can do to see the asceii;•
dancy of liberal and national ideas. We believe
sincerely that the best hope of that ascendandy hes
in the occupancy of office by an administration' in'
which the people of this country may thoroughly
confide. But we hesitate not to say that no set of
men can constitute such an Administration,
unless they visibly and vigorously represent'
the intellect, worth, independence, and 'courage'
of the whole popular party. Neither ad-
vanced opinions, nor industrial pursuits; nor the -
veto of aristocratic cliques or coteries, must be
listened to in future. We have had enough in all
conscience, of thesilken Cabinets of Stafford House,
and enough and more than enough of the Cam-
bridge House Cabal. When next the Sovereign
calls upon a Liberal statesman to undertake the
task of forming a Government, let us hope that she
will tell him that she expects one that will reflect
fairly and impartially all classes and opinions which
the constituencies of the empire have thought fit
to honour ; and we trust that the statesman to
whom she may confide the task will prove himself
prepared to exi cute it without fear, favour, .or.
affection. It is but justice to Lord Derby to say
that, out of the comparatively narrow and limited
materials at his disposal, he evinced, when lately '
called upon, a wiser disposition in this respect,tban
might perhaps have been expected. But the most
inveterately and offensively oligarchic Government
that has been in England during the present cen-
tury was that of Lord Palmerston ; and, as the
tree is known by its fruits, we have witnessed such
a harvest of thorns and thistles_scandals at hothe
and disgraces abroad—as the annals of England
have been seldom found to record, and as it is to
be hoped they will never again contain.

BIRTHS.
DARBY—On the lith inst., the Rife of the Rev. G. W.
Darby, rector of Fors&ld, of a son.
HARRIS —On the 15th inst:, at St. George's-terrace, Hack-
ney, the wife of Salem C. Harris, Esq., of a son.
Itius— On the 15th inst., at Lower Norwood, Mrs. Edw.
Mills, of a son.
WATSON—On the 10th inst., at Seafield-place, Callen
N. 8., the wife of John Watson, Esq., Inspector o
Hospitals and Fleets, of a son.