The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-23 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 1858.

The proceedings against Dr. BERNARD have ter-
minated, and he is fully and completely exonerated
from all the charges preferred against him in con-
sequence of the attempt of the 14th of January
last. This is as it should be. This is exhibiting
a constitutional respect for the trial by jury and
for the glorious maxim of the criminal law—that
no one shall be twice placed in jeopardy for the
same offence. Every particle of evidence that
could be adduced on the trial for conspiracy woul
have been applicable to that which, thanks to an
honest and fearless jury, terminated so happily
and so justly last week. It would have bees an
insult to that jury, to Messrs. LErTON JOHN
HEISMENT, AUGUSTUS WELLS, AUSTIN WITHERS,
JAMES WHEELER, HENRY CHISLETT, CHARLES
STOCKS, JOHN HENRY POWER, WILLIAM LANG
MEW, Joust MACKEY, JOHN BIGMORE, JOSEPH B.
SPYERS, and GEORGE WHEELER, who had so nobly
vindicated the great palladium of the national
liberties, to have sought for an adverse verdict
on precisely the same facts that had already been
considered inadequate to warrant a conviction.
We know that such attempts have been made,
and that a colour of legality has sometimes been
given to them ; but Sir F. KELLY is not the man
to violate the substance, while he adheres to the
letter, of the law. If Dr. BERNARD was guilty of
the conspiracy to murder Lours NAPOLEON, he
was also an accessory before the fact to the mur-
der of NICHOLAS BATTIR, for nothing has been
more clearly established than the principle laid
down by the Lerd Chief Justice, that if one man
meets his death in consequence of a criminal attempt
against the person of another, all persons con-
cerned in that attempt are responsible, although
.they might have had no express malice against
the victim, or were not even cognisant of his
existence. The lesser crime, therefore, merged in
the greater, and it would have been a solemn
mockery to have placed a man on his trial for a
misdemeanour, who, if guilty, should have been
convicted of felony, and that of the most serious
character known to the law. As a corollary to
this proposition, it naturally follows that if the
accused were innocent of the 30 trder of NICHOLAS
Barns, he could not be guilty of the conspiracy
to murder the EMPEROR, and should not, there-
fore, be subjected to all the annoyance and ex-
pense of a second trial, which could only be insti-
tuted in servile deference to the wishes of a Foreign
Government—a matter that certainly cannot
be ol'jected against the present Cabinet.
But it has been attempted to cast censure on
Sir FITZROY KELLY, because he altered the nature
of the charge for which Dr. BERNARD was tried,
from one of conspiracy to murder, which, under
the existing law, is but a misdemeanour, to that

oa capital felony. And we regret to say that
nis predecessor has lent himself to the paltry
attempt. Had he done otherwise he would have sig-
nally failed iu his duty to 11i3 SOVEREIGN, and to
hiatountry, and, in Liar play, to the political refu-

gees who have found a sanctuary in Great Britain
against the persecution to which they had or might
be subjected. The ground of defence for Dr.
BERNARD, which his friends and the public should
insist on, was simply that he was not
aware of the purpose for which the
grenades were intended. Had it been otherwise
he would have been justly liable to the extreme
penalty of the law. And it was due to his cha-
racter to give him the opportunity of proving that
such was not the case. The political refugees or
their friends and supporters among public jour-
nalists kave never put forward such a doctrine,
which would in fact be playing the game of their
oppressors, by showing the inadequacy of the
English law to punish with adequate severity atro-
cious crimes, clearly established to the satisfaction
of an independent and high-minded jury.
The first charge against Dr. BERNARD merely for
misdemeanour was artfully intended to prove the
necessity of " a Conspiracy to Murder Bill," such
as was introduced by the late Cabinet,
and which very properly led to its
expulsion from office. The accusation
against Mr. THOMAS ALLSOP was one, not of misde-
meanour but of felony. It was on that ground
that so large a reward was offered for his appre-
hension. He was, to all intents and purposes, in
the same position with Dr. BERNARD ; the indict-
ment should, therefore, have been of a similar class,
and preferring the minor charge against the politi•
cal refugee was simply an artful dodge, to show
that fresh legislation was required—legislation
which would have pressed very severely against
the comfort and security of the thousands of
honest and honourable men who have sought
shelter and protection within the British do-