The Express.
London, England, 1852-10-29 00:00:00

THE CASE OF THE MAMA!.

TO Till IDITOR Or TUE TWIT KIWI.

SIR,—A short time since I forwarded to you for
publication a translation of two important documents
connected with the trial and sentence of Francesco
and Rosa Medial, who are now undergoing their
sentence in the prisons of Tuscany for the so-called
crime of " impiety."
I now propose, with your permission, to make a
few observations upon that case, in the course of
which I think I shall bo able to show that these
excellent persons have not only been cruelly and
unjustly punished, but that their sentence is mani-
festly illegal, and in clear violation of Tuscan law.
The crime of which the Madiai have been con-
victed is termed " impiety ;" but it appears from the
documents which I forwarded to you, and which
have been published under the sanction of the law
officer of the Tuscan government, that, so far from
their being guilty of any " impiety," the only crime
proved against them was, teaching their maid ser-
vant to read the Bible, whereby she became a con-
vert to Christianity. The sentence of the Royal
Court describes this young woman as being " little
more than 20, and destitute of religious instruction,"
which one would think might have been accepted as
an excuse for the seal of the Medial, men by a Tus-
can court ; but it seems that the " pure gospel" is in
its judgment so much worse than absolute Hea-
thenism, that the Royal Court of Florence solemnly
" declares that it is established that im-
piety has been committed by Francisco and Ron
Madiai, by means of proselytism to the so-called
evangelical confession, or of the pure gospel," to the
" damage and disgrace of the catholic religion,"
dominant "in the Grand Duchy." This is the "im-
piety" of which the Madiai have been convicted, and
for which they have been sentenced, the husband to
Zati months' imprisonment in the House of Forced
Labour at Volteria, and the wife to 43 months' im-
prisonment in the Ergastolo, or house of Correction.
This is the sentence which was affirmed, on appeal,
by the Supreme Court of Causation of Florence, and
which his Imperial and Royal Highness the Grand
Duke has several times refuicd to remit or commute,
alleging that it is a point of conscience with him that
the law shall take its course.

It is not surprising that so unjust and cruel a
sentence should have roused the indignation of Europe
against the perpetrators of so foul a deed, or that the
sympathies of every humane mind should be power-
fully excited on behalf of those two Christians, whose
and patience under their sufferings have
ecquraeliffee d their piety and deyo:ion.
It is to the honour of our country that the proposal
made by Sir Culling Eardloy to the Protestant Al-
liance should have been so readily responded to, and
that England should have sent out a deputation con-
sisting of men of high rank, to bo joined by others
equally distinguished from other countries, to inter-
cede with the Grand Duke for the liberation of these
two Christian confessors. We must not, however,
cherish any great confidence as to the result of this
interpration, knowing as we do the origin of the
prosecution, that it was instigated by the pints,
and carried on, there is reason to believe, under the
direct sanction of the Court of Rome. But whatever
may be the result of this deputation, one course will
be still open to us—via., to expose the cruelty and
injustice of these proceedings to the indignation of
the world, andthus to shame than who have hitherto
proved themselves to be deaf to the voice of justice
and humanity.
It would be quite superfluous at this time of day
to argue that this cruel sentence is opposed to natural
justice and the most sacred rights of mankind. To
your readers, thank God, the propositiod,will appear
self-evident. It is, however, an instructive fact that
the Royal Court of Florence actually attempt. to
justify the sentence, as a measure of Joliette.
liberty and religious toleration, " and, in sword-
mince with the opinions of the most illustrious
writers." We may now understand in what sense
it was that Paul Cullen publicly stated in Dublin, in
the course of the last year, that the church of Rome,i
or the Pope, had always been the friend of religious
liberty!
I will now proceed to show that this sentence is
grounded on a palpable violation of Tuscan law, and
that the forms of justice have been prostituted, in
order that these two Christians might be offered up
as a sacrifice upon the altar of priestly bigo and
intolerance. The sentence is altogether illegal,try and
a disgrace to a civilised community, as will appear
by a short examination of the case. The royal
court, after declaring that " it is establisbn
that impiety has been committed by Pressen*
and Rosa Medial by means of proselyties
to the so-celled evangelical confession, or of
the pure gospel," refers to the law under which the
parties are condemned in these terms :—" And,
whereas, the crime of impiety, by means of prosely-
tism, is manifestly contemplated in the last portion
of the 80th article of the national law of the 30th
of November, 1780, and it is to be repressed by
punishment, never less than what is termed exem-
plary," and it then proceeds to award punishment, as
provided by that law. We ere thus referred to the
60th article of the Leopoldine law of 1788, for a
definition of their crime. This article is in these
terms :

"Whosoever, with an impiotui intent, shall due to profane
the divine mysteries, by disturbing the sacred functions
with violence, or shall otherwise commit any public im-
piety, and who shall teach publicly maxims contrary to our
holy catholic religion, towards which we have always
nourished, and will perpetually nourish, our constant love
and seal, we will that he, as a disturber of the order by
which society itself is ruled and maintained in tranquillity,
shall be punished with the greatest and most exemplary
rigour, never with less punishment than public labour,
for a term or for life, according to the circumstances of the
case."

This law embraces three classes of offences, every
one of which is of a public nature.
1. Disturbing the sacred functions, with violence;'
2. Committing any public impiety; and
3. Teaching publicly maxims contrary to the
catholic religion.
There is not a word in the whole of this article
about the crime of proselytism. Nor is it pretended
that the Madiai have done anything to bring them-
selves within either of the first two clauses. But it
is said that " the crime of proselytism is manifestly
contemplated in the last portion of the article,
which forbids any one to "teach publicly maxims
contrary to our holy catholic religion." Now it is
manifest that the publicity of the teaching is of the
very essence of the offence, and, for all that ap-
pears by this law, the private teaching of the
maxims referred to is no crime. The Royal Court
of Florence and the Supreme Court of Camden
however, think otherwise, for they have decided that
the private teaching of a maid servant by her master
and mistress in a private house, is a "teaching pub-
licly" within the of iho above-cited article
of the Leopoldine law. Tama courts do not
appear to lure been at all emburesed by the neten.l

sity of holding that a private teaching in a private
house is • teething "publicly." They get over the
difficulty in this way. They say that "publicity" is
of two kinds, "true publicity, or publicity
proper," and "publicity improper." The former
exists where actions are done in a public place;
and the latter, where actions, though done in pi- I
vate, "have become extensively divulged, and have
occasioned grave scandal." 'the court informs us
that the conduct of the Madiai " became so public,
and produced so much public witudal, that the local
parish priest conbilered it his duty to give notice
thereof to the superior ecclesia►tical authority;" and
thus it was that their private teaching in their pi-
vato house became a " teaching" publicly, so as to
render them liable to imprisonment with hard la-
bour for 56 and 4:5 months respectively.
Like the wolf in the table, the court says to its
victims, "If it was not public, it was private; it
is all one ; you must go to a loathsome prison, and
after four or five
,yeas' incarceration, you will
learn the true nature of religious liberty as it is
understood by the Holy Roman Church and the
Tuscan courts, in accordance with the opinion of the
most illustrious writers."

I need add nothing to show the atrocity of this
sentence, but 1 would ask, in conclusion, what is the
duty of the British public in reterence to this case?
If a heathen once caid, .Nihil !turndown a me
aliening& puto," how much more should we, as
Christians, be ready to show our synipathy with
these prisoners, and to "remember think that are
in bonds, us bound wi'h them ?" The deputation
which has been sent out by the Protestant Alliance,
will no doubt do all that is in their power; but is not
something more necessary and proper to be done?
What is our government about? The King of Pres-
Ills, with au earnestness of purpose which does him
honour, has sent out a special ambassador (Count
Arnhim Blumberg) to Flounce, to intercede with
the grand duke, and to support the deputation ; why
should not our government do the same?
Lord Derby may rest assured that in no other way
could ho exercise his high functions wilt greater
acceptance to the British public; and there cannot
be a doubt, that, if such a proposal were made, it would
meet with the fullest approbation of our gracious
Sovereign, who so worthily represents the magna-
nimity and benevolence of her people.
I am, sir, your faithful servant,
JAMES COOK EVANS.
17, Southampton-buildings.