The Express.
London, England, 1865-05-13 00:00:00

Eike erpreos.

TO 0321111111,0171014111.
lavertbietnenta !Mewled fee " The Loren' London 'vetting
e= must be et the Odes, 10. litavettoetted. b 7
on the day of pabosetka.

Tics Immo. MY WIPES MOTHEM.-OIIR AMERICAN
COUBIN. Batten, Backst6l4,Zogvii,Matica, elan
.
Ilsowdoo, Bon" and WTI AL—MIT BRVING.
Xis Lodes Neeley.—Aad MY lIIIBBAWS WHIM

rsiNoircis.
Ts= Imam lINAZT-82111NG3 AND FlDDLiariuNin.
—‘IIILAA NA MGM Dimen. D. lisaD, Dmilais.
Yeirkaloa, J. D. Marred, WWI. Marla : Kra D.
lannakana and M 1 M. Oilvar.—And AN AMPLE APOLOGY.

LYCEUM.
Iles tram, A DAY Arrsr. THE WEDDING. Years.
scare end WWI»; Wm Bongoes sad Nis. G. Las.—EITY
Bum man. iLmer, Ryder, Gordon. sad letatyre : Num
lasiersq.--Aed THE LOST CEILD. Xr.

BITTANNIA.
Too Imam MUTT AND TB! BEAST. llama. Leib
end Mon: Mimi II Owe sad Beetl—The Templeton
=VII
yJYI&T
OF ITALY. MA 8. Loan -And AIM
M Imalmme IL

HIGH WATIIA AT LONDON-BUDGE.
IIuEDAy *Tam 36 1110.....Afterioa6 13i. 451 a.
io-KOMOW Manila. 414 4:6 ....Atlienocak 46 UAL

LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 13.

ALTHOUGH mach has been said and written
about the claim of the Rev. A. D. WAGNER
to keep back a portion of the knowledge be
obtained from Cowerawcz KINT as to the murder
of her brother, much more, we suspect, will
have to be said before the public mind reaches
a conclusion in which it can net. To us the case
does not altogether seem so simple as it does to
some of our contemporaries. We are glad, there-
fore, to see amidst great differences of opinion a
disposition to discuss the matter with more fairness
than has always been displayed when clergymen
have claimed privileges similar to those upon which
Yr. WAGNER now relies. Upon one thing most
Inglishmen,we believe,will be agreed. The "seal
"of the coagulant" is not of itself • plea which
either an English court or the English public can
admit for the purpose of exempting any person who
bas taken the oath of • witness. When • clergy-
man speaks of the seal of the confessional
be talks the jargon of • system—he in fact pits
system against system. Now we know the system
of English criminal jurisprudence, but the system
of the confessional we do not know. It is entirely
unrecognised by our law ; it is whatever its agents
may assert it to be, and if we admitted their pre-
tensions we should be helpless in their hand*.
Mr.Weowla was therefore not well advised when he
pleaded the right of a system before the Wiltshire
magistrates. But does it follow that be was morally
bound to tell the court all that Cotntriaccs Kizer
told him independent of any engagement on his
part to do so ? Is the confidence of the wretched
is the compassionate, of the weak in the strong,
entitled to no respect ? Is every man or woman
to whom • person in mental distress acknowledges
a crime bound to disclose the fact? It would ap-
pear so. The law says that no privilege of secrecy
csa be conceded to any person whatever, except to
a counsel or an attorney. The clergyman and the
family doctor are bound to disclose any information
which they may have confidentially acquired by
meting in their professional character. But it may
be doubted whether the enforcement of the law to
this extent would be sustained by public opinion.
Suppose CONSTANCE Kiirrr had gone voluntarily to
Mr. WAGNER, and confessed the perpetration of
the Road murder, and he had told her that if she
did not give herself up to justice it would be his
duty to communicate with the police, would his
conduct in that case have commended itself to the
judgment of his fellow-men ? If, instead of alleg-
iag a right or a system, Mr. WAGNER had pleaded
the confidence which CONSTANCE KENT had placed
So him as a friend as • reason for not bearing wit-
ness against her, we think he would have placed
himself on strong ground. A claim to official
immunity excites prejudice, but we can all under-
stand the obligations of ordinary human con-
fidence. If, however, he had wished to stand
in that free position, he should have forborne
in the first place to hold himself out as a per-
son desirous of hearing confessions, a systematic
receiver of secrets, and in the next place be should
not have presented himself as a witness at
all No court can consistently with self-respect
allow a person who oomes forward to give evidence
arbitrarily to draw the line at which his disclosures
shall cease. He may plead a moral inability,
arising out of the relation in which he stands to
the accused person, and then the court may judge
bow far his reasons are sufficient to justify his re-
serve. Unless he does this, Mr. WAGNEIR cannot
have both the credit of promoting the ends of
public justice, and the privilege of withholding the
information necessary to enlighten its progress.
There is another matter which we cannot pro-
fess clearly to understand. Mr. WAGNER,
writing to a contemporary, states that neither he
nor Miss Gassy had anything whatever to do,
directly or indirectly, with Miss Kmrr's public con-
fession. No one but himself was cognisant of her
gait till after the public acknowledgment of it
bad been decided on by Miss Kairt herself. This
is certainly not the impression which Miss GRUM%
evidence at Trowbridge leaves on the mind.
Miss GER.AN there stated that she sent for
Miss KENT to her room on Wednesday in
Holy Week, and held a religious conversation
with her. She did not so much as utter the word
" murder," but she told her that she knew of her
" sin," and how it would be aggravated in GOD'S
sight—aggravated as she has been generally under-
stood to mean —by concealment Mias Gamic
appears to have asked Miss Km whether the
child pleaded for mercy, whether it cried, and in
this manner got at the whole story, and learned
both the incidents and the motives of the aot.
Miss Saran also asked Miss Km it she fully
realised what it—that is the private confession—
" involved," and was told by Miss Hirr that she

did. What did it involve if not a public confer
lion 1 This eartrialy looks like putting • pressure
upon the girl which could only lead to one result.