The Express.
London, England, 1864-03-26 00:00:00

THE THEORY OP THE DAGGER.

In consequence of some remarks in the Paris
I correspondence of the Times, M. Mazzini has ad-
dressed the following "facts, " to use his own
expression, to the editor of that journal, the letter
beaus dated yesterday :
I was publishing in 183 , in Marseilles, • series of poli-
tical writings under the title of Giorinc Italia, the name of
our National Association. The French government had, to
please our own despotic governments, ordered me away. I
hal motives for remaining, and did remain, at Marseilles
wieeealed. The French government, irritated at being no-
able to discover rue, imagined that by accusing me of a
crime they might deprive me of the edam sad affection
to which I owed shelter. They obtained front a
police agent a pretended historical document, to
which the forger had affixed my name, end inserted
it, though well aware of the falsehood, in the
Atuaiteur on the mouth of June, 1833. I immediately
protested in the National, and these were my concluding
words : " I solemnly deny the statement, the sentence—
the whole matter. I give the lie to the semi-official Muni-
tear and to the government ; and I defy the government,
its agents, or the foreign police who fabricated the calumny
to prove • single one of their assertions against me, to pr.:i-
dles the original of the sentence and my signature, or to
discover a single line of mine that scold induce a belief in
the paisethility of much as act oe my part." The Aloniteur
was Coot. The on wee sever produced. The
entmjudicial authorities solved the blem. The judg-
of the Supreme Court of pro
FAveyroo decided
that the aims of Gavioli was the result of a
quarrel, mid perpetrated without premeditation. The
sentence was mimed ea the 30th of November, 183.9. La
Cecilia, whose Dame appeared with mine at the end of the
forged document, continued to live openly in France, and
' wee sever even in led on the subject Some years
later Gisquet who had hew Prefect of Police in 1833, when
writing his assmons, and thinking only of the mousy value
of the melodramatic incidents introduced, repeated the foul
accusation. I cited hies before the tribunals. M. Gaullist
declared before the court his conviction that I was an booed
man, and incapable of crime. The tribunal (April, 1841)
pronounced semease musediaala„ &desist again my 'SOO'
came. Later still, in 1845, at the time of the letter-openieg
affair, Sir James Graham ventured is the House of Com-
ma°, to revive the calorney. He was compelled, by the
information be received from the magistrates of l'Aveyrom
to publicly apologise tome. His words, pronounced on the
Bth of May, 184.5, is answer to a question put by the bon.
member for Kilmernock (Mr. I:ouverie), were the following,
which I extract from your own columns of the 9th of May,
1815 :—" I am bound to state to the hoc, member for Sil-
DOCk and to the house that the account I received yester-
day, meting upon the statements of the judge who tried Ga-
vial, and the public prosecutor, in answer to the inquiries
made at my request, are explicit, full, and direct, that
in that trial DO evidesos whatever was produced which
inculpates M. Mandui in the me. lam bound, there-
fore, to state that if I had known at the time I rude
the original statement the facts of the trial—much more,
if I had known what was the impression of the judge earl
the public prosecutor, who I coooeive are the best autho-
rities in this matter, so far from making that statemeat. I
should have religiously abstained from doing eo. By the
statement I then made a public injury was inflicted on M.
Mezziui, and, therefore, now knowing the facts I have just
detailed to the house, and which were uuknows to me then.
1 think it due to M. Marital to yaks the only and best re-
' palatial in my power, which is that the statement I have
now made shall beam publics. my former statement. I ens
only add that I hope this explanation will be satisfactory."
1 bays, sir, dragged myself reluctantly through this
mire, in the hope of teaching your holiest readers
what value they can set on similar past, preiest,
fortheatairta accumatioeP. It is boort-Nickelling to have
to do so. It is sad to have to do it in England ; sad to
see men whom I was in the habit of considering as natu-
rally addicted to loyalty and fair play reproducing, lightly
and without a single thought of the consequences, amen's-
Cons proved lose ago to be false—sad to see that men whe
call themselves guiltiness and Christians do not shriek
from handling the moral dagger of calumny against the
honour of a man whoa. life and writings they do not take
any trouble to ascertain fora mere party purpose. Silence
and contempt will be henceforward my only answer to
their accuaatioisa

EXCLUSIVENESS IN CHURCH.