The Sun. — 1858-04-23 (London, England)

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 murder 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 concerned 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, therefore, be subjected to all the annoyance and expense of a second trial, which could only be instituted 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 signally 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 character to give him the opportunity of proving that such was not the case. The political refugees or their friends and supporters among public journalists 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 atrocious 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 misdemeanour but of felony. It was on that ground that so large a reward was offered for his apprehension. He was, to all intents and purposes, in the same position with Dr. BERNARD ; the indictment 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