The Express.
London, England, 1865-03-28 00:00:00

'ORN BROGDNITB GOLD GUARD CRAM.

rOHN BROODEN'S G OLD ALBErf °HAW&

rOIINBROGDINSGOLDBROOORCHAINS.

REMEIIBER i you will ise your friends at
IMAM' wur Um Own. Ws nag 100 WM%

aye erprems•

TO 001.111SIONDIOITIL
.dnotloomento intondon for Impross" London Rooming
, must b. as uk• isavelleansk tO Two
=IL on the day of Whoa.

HAYMMIXEr.
Tins Ermines, THUS vnizza Arm NAJULTADIL.—
THIS WOMAN IN HAMM. Maim liothres. liankrter», BOWS,
FsZNO, anti Coat*. Ituidarirs Base. Lori% tc.—AHH
WY SHAVING. Kiwis Irrisy and Ir. Wright.

esnicarn.
TIM Emma. gusT-entnros AND lIIDDISATILINGB.
—ARRAN NA POGUL Yaws. D• owisidi. Nomitial.
N. VandenboL D. Mir. D. .
—And B•74ce. awake Kra D.
Mack:sun and Wm IL 011va.—And AN AIIPLZ APOIAGY.

LYCLQIL
Mug IvisriNe, TsROA INN. News. H. WWI.
comb, Fltuatrick. sad Nom ; liass Itsworthy. TRZ
87.m:ion. Mews. Ryder, Hariessalnadoemlb, IntsPatrick
11.4115. Beatrice and Ms. nenissa—camswase at 7.

BRITANNIA.
Ms Evans& THE WM MOTHER.; OR. THE PARENT
GUARDIAN. Ur. R. Loons awl NW A. Collier.- Woo H. am-
nProtoroor =lon. Woof MoUßßand Ids roWbolooo D.
—AAA TWE
MAWS. (Mammas AS bottlost I.

HIGH WATIE AT LONDON-311DM
THH DAT -- Minder. la. 110s.....AGenece. EA=.
TaitoNor Morolng, >d 1010.....AAMeGoca, 0.117 m.

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 28.

THERE is no question upon which Home Secre-
taries and official lawyers have committed them-
selves more irretrievably than upon the propriety
of a Court of Appeal in criminal cases. Sir
GEORGE Lewis, who was regarded as • remark-
ably wise and unprejudiced man, delivered one of
his most elaborate speeches against the proposal
to establish any such right. And Sir Glows
Garr, during his long tenure of the office which
he now holds, has lost no opportunity of enforcing
the same views. On the other hand, it is fortu-
nate for theme who differ from these high
authorities to find that their theory has completely
broken down in practice, and that they have been
compelled again and again to grant that
appeal which they have declared to be dangerous
to society. Again and again they have retried
criminals who have already been convicted. TIM
public have not yet forgotten how Dr. Smsravan,
after being convicted at the Old Bailey for the
murder of Ms BArres, was tried again in a back
room in the Hosse-offios sad acquitted. They still
remember how Jamas liPLacruan was tried a se-
cond time by a commissioner in Glasgow, sitting
with closed doors, and without the aid of a jury,
and how she was acquitted, against the deliberate
opinion both of the judge and of the jury who
were swornto pronouncenpon her guiltor innocence.
It is not many months since the Home Sun:rase
was besieged with petitions to pardon • man who
had murdered his wife. Indeed, it is notorione
that no single criminal is condemned to death
without attempts being made to overrule the
decisions both of the judge and of the jury who I
have pronounced their verdict, and without the
HOME Szcarrinx undertaking the office of • judge
of appeal The last instance is that of Pazizzrost.
This foreigner has been found guilty of stabbing
a man, Hzaninorox, and has been sentenced to
imprisonment for life ; but another man,
Moog, bee been tried for and found
guilty of the same offence by a second
judge and a second jury. There are two contra
dictory verdicts : both cannot be right: one must
be wrong, and the Hon& SECRETARY must deter-
mine which it is. If ever the functions of the
HOME SECRETARY are to be called into action,
here is a case which imperatively demands that
they should be examined. In some instances both
the judge and the jury are satisfied with the ver-
dict pronounced, and then it may fairly be said
that the Hosts SECRETARY ought not to interfere.
But in this case the Home Szcarraer must inter-
fere. For if he decline to do so there must be •
failure of justice. Indeed the mass of Pszrzztowi
and Moon' are the very cases for which the pre-
rogative of mercy vested in the Crown provides
the necessary and the only remedy.
But Sir Grosoz GREY is of a different opinion.
He declines the responsibility of determining
which of the two men—Prarznon or Mown—is
guilty. He has therefore directed that an indict-
ment shall be preferred against Pszunont for
stabbing two other men who still live, so that the
whole facts connected with the cue may again be
heard before a third judge and a third jury.
Sir °SOROS Gary admits that his object
in indicting Fairmont once more is for
the purpose of ascertaining whether he was guilty
of stabbing HARRINGTON. As we have said, be
might have investigated the whole circumstances
in Pmazziont's case at the Home-office, as the
circumstances connected with Dr. Snrrnunirr and
JESSIE bi'Lzentax were investigated, and he
might have acted upon the opinion thus formed.
But he has determined 'to call in the aid of
another judge and another jury. Why is this ?
Is it because the latter is a more satisfactory mode
of proceeding, or is it because the Home SWIM..
TART is too timid to exercise that prerogative
of mercy which is practically placed in his hands
by the constitution ! In the one case the Bona
SECRETARY admits himself to be unfit to perform
the duties of his office ; in the other cam it is
tolerably clear that the same mode of procedure
ought to be made imperative in every case.
Sir Groaoz Geer knows the difficulty of doing
justice in the presence of the weeping friends of
the prisoner and a crowd of irresponsible and en-
thusiastic philanthropists. But the Minister of
the Crown ought to be protected. It is
not fair to him, or to the man who stands
in jeopardy of his life, or to society itself, that so
wide an option should be left to any Minister,
however exalted. It is one thing to be tried by
the Home Secretary in Whitehall, it is another
and a very different thing to be tried by a judge
and jury. If any new trial whatever is to take
place—if the verdict once delivered is to be ques-
tioned, it ought to be questioned according to a
settled form of procedure, and the Home Secre-
tary ought to be required to adopt it. In this
matter the duties of the Home Secretary ought to
be defined as clearly as in any other matter
over which he has cognizance. It is
constantly said that if a right of appeal is granted
in one criminal case it must be granted in all,
and that consequently every criminal will be tried
twice. Nothing can he more chimerical. The
object which reasonable men have in view
is not to secure it right of appeal in all cases, but
to prevent the Home Secretary from retrying cri-