The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-15 00:00:00

1101_WATNI AT LOSrDOQr_IITDoi

Ts Doi—iiiiiii.7llCmi.77.7iiiii-se;i71011.
TmaNMS—MamS S Ailmmoos. ilh. 27m.

LONDON, TUESDAY, NAY 15.

Tea met against the Rev. Hanel HArcis, which
has occupied a court of *tiro during eve whole
days, is pregnant with important results. So ter
as the guilt or Maosenes of the reverend gentle.
man is concerned it is better to say nothing.
The facts upon which the titivation depends must
he ignored in the columns of a journal. They are
by their nature excluded from public diectissiOn.
Th. matter really important in this trial comieres

the peculiar circumstances and conditions ender
which it was begun and has been conducted.
Optimist lawyer and Home Secretaries may, per-
baps, still maintain that no change in our present
judicial systeni is required ; but it will be difficult,
after observing the course of the trial which closed
yesterday, to persuade any man of common sense
that the necessity of things does not require some
authorised tribunal to reconsider verdicts in cri-
minal oases.

At the close of last year the Rev. H. HATCH,
the chaplain to the Woodworth Gaol, was con-
•icted of several gross assaults upon two children
who had been placed by their parents in his house
for the purpose of being educated. For thin
offence he was sentenced to four roan' bia-
prieonment with hard labour. No sooner wee
the sentence pared than the most strenuous efforts
were made to obtain a pardon from the Bone
Securest% Attar consideration that Miairlw

refused to interfere, but suggested to the rev. gen-
tleman and his friends that he should indict for
perjury the child of eleven years of age upon
whose evidence he had been convicted. This
course was adopted ; and, in fact, it is the trial of
the charge of perjury against Ecomss PLC*IIIII
—the chief witness against Mr. HATCH last Decem-
ber—which has occupied the Court for so many days.
Now, it is obvious that this indictment for per-
jury has in truth been dictated by the HOlll SWIM-
Tsar. He undertook to recommend this course of
action. He could not satiety himself with a bare
refusal to pardon Mr. Baron, but felt himself
compelled to recommend to the petitioner and his
friends this plan of an indictment for perjury. In
ordinary cases the HOVE SICLITARY confines him-
self to merely granting or refusing the petition for
pardon : in this case be took the unusual step of
pointing out the course which ought to be pur-
sued. It is clear, then, that there are cases in
which the Hone lisemersav considers it right
to sebume the responsibility of himself suggesting an
indictment for perjury against witnesses whore evi-
dence has procured o conviction. The question occurs,
what object had the Howe Sralserasy in making
this suggestion, and whether the indictment sug-
gested will accomplish the objoet proposed? But,
again, it is obvious that this indictment for perjury
was in truth a new trial of Mr. Hawn, and to
obtain that new trial was the object of the
Hose Ss•arraar. No one who has considered
the trial of the child l'u-seas can doubt that
this is so, and indeed both the Judge and the
Counsel treated the matter in that light. Without
question it was the intention of the HOWL Sails•
Tsar to intimate to the petitioner and his friends
that if he could procure a conviction of perjury he
would be pardoned. This was not said in

specific term; but it was so understood. Though
unquestionably the pardon of Mr. Harem need
Dot follow the conviction of the child PLUMMER,
still it is practically impossible to disunite the one
from the other. Now that the girl is convicted,
the clergyman must be practically released. The
trial of the girl, therefore, was a new trial of Mr,
H case. The vital question remains, why
they tins form of new trial can be considered either
satisfactory, or eveit just.
It is a fortunate thing for Mr. HAWN that the
evidence air.unet I consisted of statements of
fact. If the .tateinents were untrue he must be
innocent : the ,tw•ation was whether the witneseee
told the truth. But if the evidence had been circum-
stantial -if the ease had been such that, ad-
mitting all the Gaeta to le• true, a jury might have
drawn a etincluaimi of innocence instead of guilt,
all indictment of perjury would have been unless.
hi the cam of 1411111.11 IL.T, for stance, th., pro-
ceeding by indictment for perjury was impossible,
be.:anse the facts were not so much denied as dif-
ferently construed. At the same time, should the
H es sailiersav determine to release Mr. Hawn,
became the jury hare convicted the girl Pu'rran,
he aunt determine to follow an opinion which
his conduct proves him to consider of the utmost
vane, but which, it should be observed, he is
sot always permitted to invoke. In short, this
11101 k of obtaining a new trial by means of an in-
dwtment for perjury cannot be applied except in
certain cases, and if new trials in criminal matters
are needed at all (as indeed seems to be conceded)
surely some mode of obtaining a new trial ought
to he invented which shall moot all cease with-
out exception.

!INIIIIIIR,