The Sun. — 1870-04-02 (London, England)

THE ACQUITTAL AT TOUUBS.  The Spectator says that the Nemesis of pinver is dogging the Emperor hard. He had nothing to do with the offence which provoked the recent trial at Tours, and. very little to do with the acquittal of the offender, but offence and acquittal alike will in all human probability be visited on his head: That he either suborned, or frightened, or in any way influenced the High Court, as fanatics are saying all over Europe, we are entirely unable to believe. The history of his life may, as Republicans think, make any calumny credible, but all the probabilities which reasonable men are accustomed to weigh tell against the reception of this particular one. He has never displayed or felt any affection for his cousin, whom he left out of the line of succession, and did not even pension Until he threatened to stand forward as leader of the extreme democratic side. His interest was a verdict of manslaughter, and a sentence of imprisonment, which he might when some time had passed away have com muted to one of seclusion within the limits of Corsica. Moreever, it seems to be forgotten that he had before this event, parted with his personal power. Nobody can read the accounts of the trial, impartial as some of them seem to be, without believing that the governing motive in half the jury and at least half the audience was loathing for the ideas represented by the 111arseillaise, that justice and dignity and equality were alike forgotten in a sort of wild impression that the shooting down of a journalist of that kind *as not an act deserving retribution at all. We say nothing about the charge of murder. To English observers the evidence seems to shew that Victor Noir was shot down in a fit of savage fury provoked not by the victim, but by tilt previous reflections of the Prince, who even in the court could scarcely restrain himself from threatenino, Maitre Laurier, the opposing counsel, but we admit that on that point the verdict must be treated as decisive. The deference shewn to the rank of the accused by everybody except the opposing counsel, who certainly spoke out with sufficient plainness, was not in itself perhaps so unjust as it appears. The Prince until condemned was legally an innocent person, and the law itself, in according him a special tribunal, recognised a distinction between him and ordinary citizens. A considerable latitude of speech is allowed even in England to prisoners under trial on a capital charge, and in most cases the violence of- the prisoner was provoked by equal violence in the witnesses, who equally with himself were bound to respect a Court of Justice. Nor is it clear to our minds that Ulric de Fonvielle in crying " A snort, a snort 1" did not actually mean to interrupt by violence the proceedings of the Court, in which case his sentence of ten days' imprisonment was mild in comparison with the one Sir A. Cockburn would have inflicted. But then, if the Prince was justly treated, all meaner prisoners are entitled to equally considerate justice—to be held as the Prince was held to be, innocent men under necessary detention. Notoriously this is not the case, and the impression left by the whole trial in the French mind will be that the law has been nullified, evidence twisted and equally outraged to protect a man accused of murder because lie bore the name of the Imperial House. That the Emperor desired none of these things signifies nothing. The regime is his ; the regime permits them, causes them, justifies them ; and the regime stands condemned, with that condemnation of scorn which, in the history of France has never failed sooner or later to prove itself executive.