The Express.
London, England, 1865-03-15 00:00:00

lIRITANNI#..

ran rransia, TRE—ilatiire EVE.—MIDAS. Miss
Esther imam —Dim cling by MitWit. C. atechea.—Aad TWENTY
aTILAWS. —Commence at ball-past a.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON:BRIDOL

TRW icnang. 6d 60i..:..Aite;;;;;, 6tt MIL
TOMORROW Morning, N. 20a.....A1ter5000. 6d bbia.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15.

THE tardy action of the advisers of the Crown in
releaaing SERAFINO PELIZZONI from the penalty

of an offence which it hen been proved was com-

mined by another person, cannot but begin to
attract the attention of the public. Our laws pro-
vide no means of escape for one convicted by a
jury, under whatever circumstances of mistake, save
through the mercy of the Crown. But that mercy
is no more than justice, it is indeed but a alight
reparation for a grievous wrong, when it is invoked
not to remit the penalty of crime, but to relieve

- .
the innocent from the consequences of an erroneous
conviction. In truth, PELJZZONI has, on the

facts of the case, alread y had a virtual appeal,
and the result has been a reversal of the verdict

against him. Evidence which, by • technical rule
of law, was excluded on the first trial, 'was adduced
on the second, further information was laid before
the jury, and the consequence was that the second
jury, more fully acquainted with the facts, con-
demned Gazooato, and by so doing ite.
quitted Psuzzowt. The public end the Go_
vernment itself has seeepted that decision as cor-
rect, and in virtue of it GRIOOIIIO is now
undergoing the sentence passed upon him for the
manslaughter of MICHAEL Haagurarow. On what
plea, then, can we still detain PLLIZZONI under
the false conviction of the murder of Micaari.
HARRINGTON ! The pretext that has been alleged
by the Home-office is that it is necessary to con-
sult the judges. This course would have been
proper and usual had the application merely been
for a remission of the punishment on the ground
of extenuating circumstances, or the allegation of
facts not proved on a solemn trial. But it cannot
be intended that a judge's opinion should overturn
a verdict of innocence. We cannot punish HlLL-
own° because a jury has justly convicted him, and
also punish PELIZZONI because a judge thinks that
Gasoomo should not have been convicted. This
being the simple dilemma, it is impossible to see
the need of delay to consult a judge whose opinion
can have no effect, because, if counter to that of the
second jury, we cannot allow it to be acted on
without overthrowing the principle of trial by jury
altogether.
We shall not ask our readers to follow us again
into the details of the conflicting evidence adduced
ou the two trials. At the first there was a very
positive identification of PELIZZONI as the ►uthor
of the fatal blow ; but the identification was in-
finitely weakened by a circumstance which at first
seemed to add to its force. The witnesses swore
that PELTIZONI was the only Italian who entered
the room. But they had all sworn in their
examination before the magistrate that there was
a rush of Italians into the room at the moment of
the fatal blow. When the reason for certainty
disappears the consequent certainty must be re-
garded as of extremely doubtful value. But
against this shaken testimony there is to be set the
positive evidence of the Italians themselves. Every
one of these averred that three or four—
of whom Pzuzzosi was not one—broke
into the room, tine they were set upon
by a more numerous body of Englishmen,
that qszoosao's brother was knocked down and
cruelly beaten, and that then GREGORIO, seeking
to rescue him, used his knife. And this evidence
was in its main points confirmed by that of several
of the English witnesses ex►mined on both trials.
The police themselves saw nothing till the affray
was over, but at the first examination they deposed