The prisoner was charged with being an accessory before the fact of the murder of Nicholas Battie. Of course he was not there to contend that if the prisoner and Orsini conspired to kill one person, and in the attempt to kill him killed another, he was not liable; but of course this particular occurrence must be proved to their satisfaction, and it must be shown, to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, that this crime was instigated, counselled, and planned," which, he believed, were the terms of the indictment, by the prisoner. That was the charge which the Government had undertaken to prove; and if it was consistent, as he would show them it was, with the whole of this case, that the prisoner had nothing whatever to do with this attack upon Napoleon, but that he believed that what they were about to be engaged in was an insurrection for the restoration of liberty in Italy, then, according to the dictum of one of the most able judges who ever sat on the English bench-Mr. Baron Alderson-the prisoner must be acquitted. They must be satisfied in their hearts and in their consciences, before they consigned the prisoner at the bar to an English scaffold, that he was a party in instigating this particular murder. Now he held that the facts were inconsistent with that view. No doubt they had proof that a murder had been committed in Paris-no doubt that Rudio and Gomez used the weapons with which they had come provided, for a different purpose, to commit a sudden attack upon the Emperor no doubt of that. But the prosecution sought to establish the charge against the prisoner by three general pro

positions, and although their witnesses were extremely numerous, many of them having been brought forward to establish that which nobody disputed, viz., the facts of the murder in Paris-they would find a vast deal of that evidence inapplicable to the three propositions he referred to, and which, as not bearing upon the salient points of the case, might be rejected from consideration. His learned friend, the Attorney-General, made out first a connection between the prisoner and Allsop, the Englishman, and through him with the grenades which, it would be remembered, were ordered by Allsop, and, if they pleased to say so, paid for by him in the months of October and November. They were ordered on the 6th of October, and delivered on the 23rd of November. The Crown sought to establish the connection with the prisoner by means of these grenades, and their case was this"You," they said to the prisoner, "went to Giorgi, who was keeping the Café Suisse in London, and asked him to take over the grenades to Brussels." Now no one could doubt that in this part of their case the Government had utterly failed; and the woman whom they had called on the previous day, and whom they had brought over at the last moment from Brussels, had not only not proved their case, but had proved the direct contrary. But when they sought to make out the connection by means of the grenades ordered by Allsop of Taylor of Birmingham, and by the delivery of them to Giorgi to be carried to Brussels, they must establish the identity of the grenades, or there was no case. It must be proved

to the satisfaction of the jury beyond doubt that those grenades which were made by Taylor in Birmingham, and which it was proved did the mischief in Paris, were those which passed through Dr. Bernard's hands. The learned counsel proceeded to comment upon the evidence by which the identity of the grenades was sought to be proved; the chief points of discrepancy were the variations of the witnesses as to the number of the holes for the nipples.

The case for the prosecution was that Taylor made the grenades at Birmingham, and that Dr. Bernard was shown to have been in possession of them. He said they had failed in showing that, but, on the contrary, the instruments which were seen in the prisoner's possession were proved not to have been grenades, and the prosecution had not only cast a doubt, but had utterly negatived the evidence as to the identity of them.

And now they came for a moment to the question of the pistols. These pistols were bought, by Orsini and Pierri, of Mr. Hollis, of Birmingham. He was not there to deny that Orsini was calculating on some great émeute, and was preparing arms for it, and he was not denying that Dr. Bernard contributed in that preparation. But he did deny that Dr. Bernard was aware of this particular attempt. He wished it to be known, that he denied and it could not be proved, because it was not the fact that he was cognisant of and was privy to this attempt on the life of the Emperor; but that he and others were assisting Orsini to bring about an émeute he did not deny. That was consistent with every portion of the evidence against him, it was consistent prima facie

with much of the evidence on the part of the Crown, it was consistent with the evidence that he knew he was assisting in the collection of arms at Paris; but he denied that the intention to murder Napoleon was known to, or was canvassed by, him. He was not disputing that fire-arms were being collected in France, and that the prisoner was engaged in sending them. But in a fatal moment Orsini and the men who were there made an attempt which everybody regretted. Then there was this letter of Mr. Allsop's, of the 1st January, 1857. Dr. Bernard was seen with him about raising money in July, 1857, and that was the only time on which he was seen with him. But they were not, as in the time of Sydney, to execute a man because a paper was found in his desk. Their Lordships had decided that the letter was admissible, and he bowed to that decision, but the effect-the weight of it-was not for their Lordships to determine. If a letter written a year ago, found under the table, was to be regarded as proof of the complicity of the prisoner in a transaction of the 14th January, 1858, what man was safe? Let them see what this letter was. "Riverhead, Kent, January 1st, 1857. My dear doctor,-Many thanks for the two slips which you propose sending to the friends of Italy. I hope that some answers have been received in London. I am glad to learn that any difference of opinion is limited to one point. Difference of opinion is inevitable; it exists in every army, but unity of action is necessary for success. However, I have every confidence in the future. The abominable miscreant of the 2nd of December seems to have reached his culmi

nating point. Have you seen the withering contempt with which Smith O'Brien alludes to the Queen's kissing this unconvicted felon?" Now, he did not endorse the opinion of Mr. Allsop, who seemed to be a wild enthusiast. But he had not said more than many ministers had said. He proceeded:-"He is not likely to give much more trouble, even if he should escape the retribution he so richly merits. If I was in California now, I would at once double the amount offered by Landor to the man who should perform an act of justice on that most wretched caitiff." He was alluding to a letter by Mr. Landor, which at that time was attracting great public attention. "He must be killed," the letter went on to say, "and with him the system which he seems to be necessary to keep up." Now, because Mr. Allsop wrote the opinions of a wild enthusiast in January, 1857, was that any proof that Dr. Bernard shared in them? On the contrary, Rogers the spy said the speech he heard Bernard make was not worth a report, but this letter was read in evidence against the prisoner on a charge of murder. Men of literature must take care that no letters were found in their possession. If a letter which was found in a man's possession were to be proof of murder, was there a member of the House of Commons, or a man devoted to literature, or a journalist, who might have a letter or a pamphlet, which he read or did not read, counselling assassination, who would be safe? He believed that at first some of their Lordships thought that the letter was dated 1st January, 1858. In that case the letter would have been material; but it was January, 1857.

The letter went on to say,

"I shall be glad to hear of Orsini's progress." Orsini had then been lecturing in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and, no doubt, it was to that that he alluded. He now came to the other letter that was found on the 7th of April, 1857, in which the only expression that called for remark was, as to "the red and company." Why, was there anything in that expression which exceeded in violence the terms applied, in what were called the Tory days, to the Radicals in this country? This letter was about as harmless a letter as was ever written by one gentleman to another.

The learned counsel then referred to the evidence of Mrs. Rudio, which showed, he said, that the destination of Rudio was not Paris but Italy, in order to join in an insurrection there; but, he suggested, either such was not the design of Orsini, or he had framed the attempt on the Emperor on a sudden impulse; but, however that might be, the evidence of Mrs. Rudio showed that, so far as Bernard was concerned, Rudio was engaged to go to Italy, not to Paris. The counsel for the Crown had produced letters from Orsini found at Bernard's lodgings: but they had produced none from Bernard found on Orsini or the other parties to the attempt. With all the power of the French police, not only was there not found on him any document, but there was not the trace of any letter through the post-office, or any communication which showed that the prisoner had any complicity in this fatal enterprise.

I am now, said the learned counsel, coming to the conclusion of my observations on this extraordinary case, and I ask you, is this a case in which you will wrest

the law and give a verdict of guilty? Is this a case in which you will consign to death the prisoner at the bar? I should have thought that under the twilight of that morning when Orsini and Pierri expiated their crime on the scaffold, enough had been done to vindicate French justice. I should have thought that the vengeance of Louis Napoleon, whose insulting demands on Sardinia and Switzerland you have heard so much of, demands which were also made on this country, but which were resisted by the firmness of our House of Commons-had been satisfied. But you have this unfortunate man indicted for conspiracy and for wilful murder also. I have a right to say-and it is not merely my opinion, but the opinion of jurists more able than myself that the Act of Parliament under which he is indicted, does not apply to this case. I believe, that as regards the law, this trial is a mockery and a sham. The great object of the French Government is to establish the principle, that the French exile is not protected in this country. It has been the pride of Englishmen that this country is the refuge of all; as Cicero says, "Regum, populorum, nationum portus et refugium." We have had exiled kings here; we have had exiled priests and exiled nobles. We have had monarchs of France in exile here; and Louis Napoleon himself was an exile here. The object of this prosecution is to make this country no longer the asylum of the exile; but I trust you will hesitate long before, by your verdict, you bring about such a result. I trust that you will find in this case, doubts which will justify, nay, compel you, to say that the particular crime which is charged is not proved to

your satisfaction. It has been a great advantage to this country that it has ever been open to political exiles. The inquisition, the persecutions of Philip, and the revocation of the edict of Nantes, sent to our shores many who enriched us by their knowledge of manufactures and arts, and from these refugees some of our best citizens, amongst whom I may mention the Laboucheres and the Romillys, have sprung, Will you destroy that asylum which exiles have ever enjoyed, and which, I trust, they will ever continue to enjoy? No, gentlemen, you will not. I implore you to pause, because I believe that at present you do not see the political results of your verdict. Gentlemen, I have done. I have discharged my duty in regard to this unhappy gentleman, to the best of my ability. I have discharged it as an English advocate, and I trust that I have discharged it fearlessly, and as I should in an English court of justice. And I am proud to say, that though the liberty of the press is extinguished in France-though a man cannot there record his opinion, if it be unfavourable to the imperial Government-I am glad that it is the pride of the French bar that freedom of speech still lingers there, and that the tyrant cannot destroy it. I have discharged my duty to the best of my ability, little equal to the magnitude of the case. Let me urge you to discharge yours fearlessly, conscientiously, and firmly. You will have the case left in your hands, after the reply of the Attorney-General, by one who will hold the scales impartially. Let me implore you to discharge your duty unintimidated by the French army, and by threats of French invasion. Tell the French Emperor that he can

not intimidate an English jury. Tell him that the jury-box is the sanctuary of English liberty. Tell him that on this spot your predecessors have resisted the power of the Crown, backed by the influence of crown-serving and time serving judges. Tell him that under every difficulty and danger your predecessors have secured the political liberties of the people. Tell him that the verdicts of English juries are founded on the eternal and immutable principles of justice. Tell him that panoplied in that armour, no threat of armament or invasion can intimidate you. Tell him that though 600,000 French bayonets glittered before you, though the roar of French cannon thundered in your ear, you will return a verdict which your own hearts and consciences will sanctify and approve, careless whether that verdict pleases or displeases a foreign despot, or secures or shakes and destroys for ever the throne which a tyrant has built upon the ruins of the liberties of a once free and mighty people.

The Attorney-General replied on the address of the prisoner's counsel, repudiating the idea that the present prosecution was in any way instigated by subserviency to the Emperor of the French, or by any other motive than the desire of bringing to justice an accomplice in a great crime. To Mr. James's inquiry, why a prosecution had now, for the first time, been instituted under this Act, he answered, that it was the first time since the Act was passed that such a crime had been perpetrated in this country. He then replied generally to the comments made on the evidence, again presenting the leading points for the consi

deration of the jury; concluding, "If they had any fair doubt of the prisoner's guilt, they should say so by their verdict, and send him forth a free man; but if the evidence satisfied them of the guilt of the prisoner, their duty to God and their country demanded that they should find him guilty."

On the sixth day of the trial the Lord Chief Justice summed up. He said that during the trial several questions of law had been raised; but these were for the consideration of another tribunal; the jury were judges of the facts alone; and the important fact for their consideration was, whether or not the accused was an accomplice in the design to assassinate the Emperor of the French upon the 14th of January by the explosion of the missiles that had been produced in court. Technically the prisoner was charged with being an accessory before the fact to the murder of Nicholas Battie; and though the death of Nicholas Battie might not have been in his contemplation, yet if it were a natural and probable consequence of the attempt to assassinate the Emperor, the charge would, in point of fact, be established against those who were accessory to that attempt. The prisoner was not liable on this charge for anything he might have done out of the United Kingdom; they must consider whether he had been proved to have done anything in the United Kingdom which made him an accomplice in this design. Al though he certainly did not contemplate the death of Nicholas Battie, did he authorize the employment of the grenade for the purpose of assassinating the Emperor? If he did, and the death of Battie was the probable con