stances. And, looking at the insurrection, the massacre, and the efforts of the insurgent negroes to rouse the country for the purpose of insurrection (said the learned Judge with emphasis), I have no hesitation in saying that not only there was no culpability in declaring martial law, but that probably the Governor would have been punishable if he had not declared it. Next, as to the more serious matter, the keeping the martial law up for thirty days, you must put yourselves, as I have said, in the position of Mr. Eyre, and say if you think he can be considered criminally responsible. You must remember that the statutes speak of "apprehended insurrection" and of " danger," and that Mr. Eyre believed that there was an organized conspiracy; and, though the evidence does not lead me to that conclusion, still he might honestly think so. The question would present itself to his mind thus, "Shall I stop it? If I do not stop it, and the colony is consequently exposed to all the frightful horrors of insurrection, I shall have done a great mischief." The criminality of Mr. Eyre, under these circumstances, must depend upon the extent to which you think that a man of calmness and firmness of mind might have so thought. You must, I repeat, put yourselves in his position, and make all allowance for a person in that position. Then there are the counts as to the case of Gordon, as to which, if you believe Mr. Eyre honestly though that he was really guilty, and that there was such a danger from an organized conspiracy that it was necessary that he should be punished promptly in order to suppress the insurrection, then you ought not to find a true bill on these charges. Then as to the charges with reference to the flogging of Phillips. I have looked through the evidence in vain to find any proof that Mr. Eyre authorized it. He sent him to be tried, no doubt; but there is no evidence that he sanctioned what was done. So as to the act of the Provost-Marshal in hanging the man Marshal. And now I have concluded every thing I have to say to you, except as to the Bill of Indemnity, as to which there may be a doubt; I advise you, therefore, not to let it stand in your way if you think there is a case on all or any of the counts in the indictment.

The Grand Jury returned "No true bill."

IV.

RISK ALLAH v. THE DAILY TELEGRAPH.

THIS was tried on the 13th of June at Nisi Prius before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special Jury. It was an action against the proprietors of the Daily Telegraph for libel, the alleged libels being contained in certain letters from their correspondent at Brussels relative to the trial of Risk Allah there in October, 1866, for the murder of his ward, Readly, and also in a leading article upon it. The libels were complained of as representing that he was guilty of the murder, and, at all events, clearly guilty of forgery and fraud. The defendants did not acknowledge this and justify its truth, but pleaded "Not Guilty "-i. e. a denial that there were any such imputations, or, if there were, that they went beyond the privilege attaching to a fair report and fair comments thereupon.

The whole question being, as the Lord Chief Justice more than once clearly laid down, whether the letters in substance amounted to a report which was fair, and whether, if so, the comments founded thereon were fair, of course the first question was what in substance the letters represented; and, in the next place,

whether those representations in substance were supported by what passed at the trial. It is not easy to collect and state clearly what the letters did really represent, because they were very lengthy, and were not in the form of regular reports, but of "letters from a correspondent," largely mixed with observations of a picturesque and descriptive character. On the other hand, as probably no one would seriously complain of matter of this kind unless it was libellous, it is sufficient to give such passages as were particularly complained of on that ground, adding, however, such passages as appeared to show that there was, at all events, no intention to be unfair. The letters were as follows:

"On the 30th of March, 1865, between the hours of seven and eight in the morning, a young Englishman, named Charles Readly, was killed in his bed at Antwerp by the discharge of a gun. Readly occupied a room No. 7 on the second floor of the Hotel du Rhin. He had for a travelling companion a person named Risk Allah. Immediately after the fatal discharge Risk Allah was arrested on the charge of having murdered Readly, but was subsequently set at liberty in consequence of the report of a Juge d'Instruction, who attributed the death of the young Englishman to suicide. Subsequent investigations, however, induced the Belgian Government to renew the prosecution of Risk Allah.” Then, after much personal description, came the substance of the acte d'accusation, which it was admitted by the plaintiff's counsel could not be complained of: "In the acte d'accusation of Risk Allah prejudicial statements and suggestions are introduced which counsel would never be permitted to use in this country; for example, references to former convictions of some of the prisoner's supposed companions."

It is necessary to mention here that the account of the acte d'accusation ended thus:-"It is pronounced to have been absolutely impossible that after firing the gun the unfortunate youth could have put his hands under the bedclothes. That Readly died by his own act seems incredible, and if the acte d'accusation be correct Risk Allah was the only person near the sleeping apartment of his step-son at the time when the fatal wound was inflicted."

But then the writer went on so as to show he was speaking of the acte d'accusation: "When the accusing document had been read right through," &c. The letter then, after this caution, stated the principal statements in the acte d'accusation of indictment, and it then proceeded, "When the accusing document had been read the President proceeded to interrogate the accused. With a sudden and impulsive energy, when asked whether he did not know that the sum of 5000l. would revert to him under the contract of marriage, in case of Readly's dying before he attained the age of twenty-one, Risk Allah Bey protested his entire ignorance of any such provision. On every point of this tremendous acte d'accusation the prisoner was interrogated rigidly. His answers were shrewd, prompt, terse, and those of a man either strong in innocence or a very bold malefactor. In any case they were the answers of a man more than commonly intellectual."

So much for the first letter. Then in the next there was this: "I have heard from witnesses and others many opinions about Risk, Allah, and I may say, without exactly feeling bound to say it, that the full half of the personal testimony is in his favour-that is, that a great many people don't think he murdered Readly, though they believe him guilty of forgery and fraud; and the very same persons who take this view are not by any means disposed to pity Risk Allah.... I have, indeed, perceived a very general

readiness to acquit, on the forcible proposition that he is a cross between a serpent and a tiger."

This, however, seemed to be meant merely as a personal expression, for the next passage was, "There is no question that the man is handsome," &c. Then followed a piece of personal description, and then came a statement of some evidence as to close intimacy between Risk Allah and certain dishonest persons. Then came the statement of the evidence of a witness called to show Readly's disinclination to suicide, but who had made a deposition to the contrary effect, which latter deposition was referred to and was stated in the report as fairly as the other evidence. Then in a third letter came, after much matter of dramatic description, a most important passage, partaking of the character of a report, stating the President's interrogation of the accused, which was of a hostile character, but to which the answers of the accused appeared to be given as fully and fairly as the inquiries. And an episode in which the prisoner's able counsel utterly demolished a piece of spurious evidence against him was described as dramatically as any thing else. The letter at its conclusion contained this important passage with reference to a most important witness, "The witness being rather bound, if any thing, to excuse the authorities of the city for having released Risk Allah, described the position of the body in language as guarded and reticent as possible, but still very much of a kind to destroy the theory of suicide, and, by consequence, to set up the theory of deliberate murder."

In the fourth letter there was a full statement of the evidence given as to the settlement executed on Risk Allah's marriage with his wife, with a view to show that he would gain by her death, and also by Readly's. Then came another witness, as to whom there was this passage :--

"The President.-Risk Allah says he was ignorant of the terms of his wife's settlement. Will you say whether, in your judgment, that could have been possible?

“Witness.—I do not think it could have been possible.

"Here Risk Allah rose and attempted to confute some of the witness's statements, which were, indeed, rather based on opinion than absolute fact. The failure of the accused to demonstrate any remote probability of his having married without being acquainted with the conditions of the contract was so evident that M. Lachaud (his advocate), putting the best face on the matter, motioned him to sit down, as if the point were not worth contesting."

Then came a notice of the evidence for the prosecution as to the experiments of "experts," with a view to show that the theory of suicide was not tenable, because it was impossible for a person whose body was found in such a position to have shot himself. The evidence of an "expert" on this point was given very dramatically. Then came this passage, giving the general effect of the evidence on the subject, "One of the witnesses, a doctor, spoke to this effect, When I entered Readly's chamber the body was in the attitude of one who had slept, the head being turned towards the wall. We concluded from the autopsy that death must have been quite instantaneous. Only on the supposition that the body had been moved, and its position altered, could we believe this to be a case of suicide. If the arms had not been placed down by the sides of the corpse by some person after Readly's death, it was no suicide most certainly.' All other evidence hitherto given has confirmed this view. Down to the time of the Court's rising to-day forty witnesses have been examined."

It may be observed that in a case in which the evidence was so voluminous, only the substance could be given, and that the question would, of course, be whether the substance on both sides was fairly given. And at the opening of the next letter there was a statement which actually amounted to an anticipation of a verdict of acquittal of the murder: "It was pretty plainly said by the President to-day that the proofs of murder are insufficient, and that the hypothesis of suicide is tenable." And afterwards, with reference to the evidence of the experts, "They each and all shrank from the terrible obligation of asserting on oath that suicide in this case was an absolute impossibility." And then, "The President turning to Risk Allah apprised him that the Court had, on the evidence of the experts, formed the opinion that it was possible for the deed to have been Readly's own." But there afterwards was this, "But though Risk Allah will doubtless be acquitted of the crime of murder, he will not now, as before, be discharged a free man. The proofs of forgery and fraud are overwhelming, and on these he is to be detained for another trial."

In the next letter it was stated that, "Two of the five gunmakers, and also Dr. Schoppens, the surgeon, this day withdrew the opinion that they had expressed that the shot which killed Readly might have been possibly fired by his own hand. . . . When the President evoked yesterday the admission of a possibility of Readly's having killed himself, the flood-time of Risk Allah's dark and turbulent tide did indeed seem to have been taken for his advantage. But to-day that tide was unexpectedly turned, and the case for the defence has gone less swimmingly than it seemed at first to be going. The opinion of the experts, given with qualifying doubts, has been in three cases retracted; and the evidence is at present but evenly balanced for and against the bare possibility that this could have been suicide and not murder. Two Antwerp gunmakers and M. Charrin, lieutenant de place, hold to the theory that suicide was possible; the officer even goes so far as to say that it was in his belief more likely, from all the appearances, than the act of an assassin. On the other hand, Messrs. Jansen and Montigny, the Brussels gunmakers, and Dr. Schoppens, the Antwerp surgeon, having reconsidered the question, with the help of fresh experiments, decidedly state that the young man could not have destroyed his own life and left such appearances as were observed."

Afterwards the remarkable experiment made by Lieutenant Charrin, which so powerfully conduced to the acquittal, was described very dramatically. Then it was added, "The difficulty was, then, to account for the position of the arms, which were stretched downwards in the composed attitude of slumber, notwithstanding the fact proved by surgeons that instant paralysis must have been caused by the shattering of the spinal column. Dr. Devisme combatted the theory; and cited the example of a soldier who had made five or six steps, holding his musket in his hand, after having received such a wound. Dr. Schoppens, however, persisted in declaring that a movement necessary to bring Readly's arms into the position in which they were found could not have occurred after the instantaneous death he must have died. Moreover, the way in which the coverlet was disposed over the upper part of the body and arms could not possibly be reconciled with the hypothesis of suicide. Those gunmakers who had with much hesitation subscribed to the theory of Readly's having possibly shot himself, now asked permission to withdraw their testimony, saying that their conclusions must, in a measure, be formed on the surgical testimony. If,' said Dr. Montigny, Dr. Schoppens declares that the move

ments were impossible, I retract the opinion which I gave in support of the suicide theory.' And M. Jansen said the same thing, perhaps a little more strongly. In the midst of this conflicting evidence of experts, each of them in turn got upon the bed and tested the practicability of pointing the gun in such a manner as to commit suicide, as Readly is supposed by the defenders of Risk Allah to have committed it."

Then followed a statement of the speech of the Procureur-Général against the accused, and in the next letter it was continued. In the next, the speech of M. Lachaud, the eloquent advocate of the prisoner, was stated, as appeared, with still greater force, the best passages being given verbatim, though, on the other hand (as observed by the Lord Chief Justice) the speech of the prisoner's counsel, which-less eloquent, but, perhaps, more important, as it dealt with the facts-was omitted. In a word, the letters were evidently directed to the giving a general idea of the case than a regular report. Then the result, a verdict of acquittal, was stated; and it was added that "when it was announced there was great applause and enthusiasm in court." Such was the substance of the letters. Then came a leading article, of which the effect seemed to be that Risk Allah had escaped, but that the evidence was, to say the least, strong against him: "He has been declared 'Not Guilty,' in a word, in spite of terrible suspicions." And again, "A polished gentleman, whose wife had unfortunately perished, and whose ward was found one morning with a gun-shot wound on him." And at the close, "We defy any one to read the record of that long trial without coming to the conclusion that the result might have been different had the defence been less skilfully conducted."

Such was the substance of the alleged libel, of which, as the action was founded thereon, it is essential to give the effect. It is equally essential to give the substance of the voluminous evidence adduced, with a view to show that these publications were not legal, and were libellous, because not fair reports nor fair comments thereon.

The plaintiff had also been tried at Brussels, for complicity in a forgery committed by one Osman Effendi, a Pole or Russian-and actions had been brought against him in the Probate Court and in the Court of Chancery, in reference to some share transactions between him and a gentleman named Bingham; but the result was that Risk Allah was cross-examined, the suit in Chancery was compromised, and all imputations against him were withdrawn, the Court of Chancery striking out as impertinent and scandalous the charges made against him in the bill, and ordering that he should receive his costs. This matter was also brought up against him at the trial in Brussels, and the observations made upon it in the defendants' newspaper formed one of the subjects of the present action.

The most important part of the evidence adduced, with a view to show that these publications were not legal, and were libellous because not fair reports nor fair comments thereon, was that which related to the statements of the experts. It was not charged that the writer of the reports had any personal feeling against the plaintiff, or any intentional unfairness; but it was complained that the letters were on most important points entirely untrue; that the whole report was compiled from the Echo du Parlement, and hastily and carelessly compiled, and that it was manifest that the writer was not in court at all, or, at all events, even if he were, had made no notes nor bona fide report of his own, but had merely got it up very carelessly from other men's materials