Mr. Eyre seems to have changed his mind about his
assumption of sole responsibility, between the time when he thought responsi- bility a distinction, and the time when it seems at all events a danger. In December, 1865, he wrote, " The whole responsi- bility of what has been done therefore rests with me ; " and in January, 1866, " For the preservation of martial law, and the continuance of military tribunals until its termination, for the arrest and removal to Morant Bay of Mr. Gordon, and for not interposing to stay the execution of his sentence when condemned, I, and I alone, am responsible." Now, however, when asked to bear the legal responsibility, he seems to wish to evade it, and remains in the heart of a Tory county, where the Great Unpaid would dismiss the application for a committal, and any grand jury would ignore a bill against him, —instead of coming to London, where a stipendiary magistrate would hear the case in the first instance, and the grand jury would be chosen from a large and comparatively impartial population. His solicitor assigns as the reason that he wishes to give evidence in favour of Colonel Nelson and Lieutenant Brand, which he could not do if all three were in- dicted together. But this is, of course, not the real reason, for his soli- citor very well knows, that by severing in their defence and differing in their challenges to the jury, they can easily secure separate trials, and the opportunity of giving evidence for each other. Mr. Eyre likes the sole legal responsibility of his acts better with Tory squires who know little of law on the Bench, than with a sti- pendiary magistrate there who knows much. Perhaps he is wise. Only he should not previously have expressed quite such grand views about the whole responsibility being his, and his alone. His subordinates, Colonel Nelson and Lieutenant Brand, face the responsibility they have incurred more bravely.