The Express.
London, England, 1857-08-06 00:00:00

I..LUCIA DILLa.
limea IL IWE
C.lrmad. . WL7KRIIA/1
llinenn;looll.y.rool.—AMTll6(ll7Alllll.—Camaxem &CT.

HIGH WATHI AT LONDON DRIDOIL
Teo DAT -sf.r.es. Wm. Afiumoss, lb. Ma.
timmearaw—Yeraiss, ft. --- Allman% lb. iSa.

LONDON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 6.

Ws French Government is entitled to the same
fair play that we would extend to any private indi-
vidnal. We abstain, therefore, from expressing a
decided opinion respecting the prosecution it is now
carrying on against TEBALDI and others, until
the evidence and the pleadings on both sides are
concluded. At the same time, however, it is both
cur right and our duty to watch and criticise every
step in the trial. We hear from all quartet that, if
the accused are convicted, an application will be
made to the English Government to restrict the right
d asylum hitherto conceded to political exiles in
this country. And while the trial is yet in progress,
the Emperor of the FILENCH, accompanied by his
Minister for Foreign Affairs, pays a visit to OW

Wass at Osborne.
The trete d'ocersotiots—We initiatory step in the
trial—was published in the Daily News of yester-
day. That doeament can scarcely fail to have left a
painful impression on the minds of Englishmen. In
this country the counsel for the prosecution is ex-
pected to begin by making an explicit, unvarnished
statement of the evidence he proposes to adduce.
Having done so, he may proceed to state the in-
ferences he draws from that statement ; and in this
part of his pleading a rhetorical or impassioned en-
forcement of his views is tolerated. But the sets
traccusatios, in the case of TIBALDI and others, is,
from the beginning, a rhetorical narrative of
an alleged plot, into which are interwo►en
t few letters (real or fabricated), and a couple
tlf depositions (extorted from two of the accused
is secret inquisitorial interrogations), introduced
with a view to render the story more plausible.
Important links in the chain of evidence are pared
over ; dates are suppressed; irrelevant appeals to
the fears and passions of the lovers of order are
Introduced. No such document has been allowed to
form part of ludic—el proceedings in England since
the days of JEFTBKIII and Thus OAres.
The scanty evidence, interwoven with the thread
of narrative in this political pamphlet, may be dis-
tributed under two heads—the direct and the eir-
camstantiaL Under the former had may be elemed
the alleged confessions of two of the seemed; miler
the @mood, certain letters stopped (or alleged to have
been stopped) in the French Postwilmr, or found
(or alleged to have been found) in the possession of
the prisoners.
With respect to the depositions there are rover')
remarks to be made. Three of the accused are in
custody ; four arc at large, and tried in absence.
The only direct evidence against any meet thorn is
contained in the depositions of two of the Wee who
are in custody. To have allowed these two to tom
evidence would have been an intelli gibleprocedure, had
they been removed from the list of accused sod placed
in the list of witnesses. To have asked lm a verdict
against them on their own confessions would have
been a perfectly intelligible proceeding. But to ask
for a verdict against them, against the other priMoar,
and against the four accused who are not in custody,
with not one particle of direct evidence beyood their
alleged confessions, is a most daring defiance of all the
laws of evidence recognised among civilised nations.
Nor is this all. These depositions have been extorted
from the two prisoners in the course of a number of
secret inquisitorial interrogations. Who as my
that the very words of the deponents are given?
Whoour my to what intimidation or solicitation they
may have been 'objected,' Who can say what sug-
gestions may have been made—what promises held
out to them ? Ludy, it is to be remarked that the
depositions of the two confessing prisoners are at
variance w th each other on several important points,
and entirely at variance with the statements made
by, or attributed to, the third prisoner.
In so far, then, as we can learn from the acts
tractesation, the direct evidence against all the
accused is utterly nugatory and worthless. And, the
direct evidence failing, the indirect or supplementary
must fall to the ground likewise. That indirect or
supplementary evidence consists of two classes of
letters. The first of these contains three letters
attributed to Simms!. If the direct evidence were
at all reliable, there are passages in these letters
which might appear to corroborate and explain it. Bat
it cannot be tolerated that obscure allusions in letters
shall be interpreted by the light of direct evidence
which is in itself utterly valueless. It must also be
observed that there are statements in the letters
which are irreconcilable with the statements in
the depositions. Lastly, it remains to be proved
that these letter, have been actually written by
bisszusi. They are simply signed " Giuseppe," or
" Oir." Witnesses liable to no suspicion mmtprom
that they are in MAZZINI'S handwriting, otherwise
they are, as evidence, not worth the paper they are
written upon.

One maple will enable our reader to judge for
themselves as to the weight which is to be attributed
to the ether elms of letters. One is a letter dated
Paris, Jane 4, and "P. T." Another is a
letter dated Larks, Jane 8, beginning " Thar Tt-
BALM" and signed " MASSARO.* It IS as-
sessed in the eels J'insersetioss that the
Sinner is addressed by Ttasuot to MAMA-
S/2M and that the latter is Massannstri's
reply. Now we are told that the bruit was
"seized at the poet by virtue or a regular warrant."
Is the letter which is to be prodased in evidence an
the trial the original or a espy I If it is the original,
how could Masassarrt answer a letter which was