The Express. — 1865-03-15 (London, England)

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 provide 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, condemned Gazooato, and by so doing ite. quitted Psuzzowt. The public end the Go_ vernment itself has seeepted that decision as correct, 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 consult 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 HlLLown° 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 infinitely 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 regarded 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