down on paper with a pencil.”  Then we have a queer story how, when Santurri implored for mercy, David replied, “Priests may pardon, but Garibaldi never,” though the very next minute David is represented as announcing to De Angelis and Latini, that Garibaldi had granted them their pardon.  Then I am informed that Salvatori used insulting language to Santurri on his arrest; that it was solely owing to Salvatori’s remonstrances that orders were issued for the re-arrest of Latini and De Angelis; and that though Salvatori ultimately, at the prayer of De Angelis’ wife, gave her a letter to De Pasqualis interceding for her husband, yet he purposely delayed granting it till he knew it would be too late.

Such are the heads of the long string of accusations against Salvatori, of which practically the sentence is composed.  The evidence, as far as it is given in the sentence on which the accusations rest, is vague in the extreme.  The proof of any personal ill-will against the three victims of the Republic, on the part of any of the prisoners, is most insufficient.  Salvatori is said to have had an old grudge against Santurri, about some wood belonging to the Church, to which he had made an unjust claim.  De Angelis was stated to have once threatened to shoot Salvatori; but this, even in Ireland, could hardly be construed into evidence that therefore Salvatori was resolved to murder De Angelis.  The only ground of ill-will that can be suggested, as far as Latini is concerned, is that he was a partizan of the priesthood.  The act of accusation against Santurri and his fellow-victims, forwarded by the authorities of Giulianello, though essential to the due comprehension of the story, is not forthcoming; and no explanation even is offered of the motives which induced the four “Anziani” to sign a charge which, by the Papal hypothesis, they knew to be utterly unfounded.  The bare idea, that Santurri or the others were really guilty of any intrigues against the Republic, is treated as absurd; the fact that any trial or investigation ever took place is slurred over; and yet, with a marvellous inconsistency, Salvatori is accused of being in reality the guilty author of these executions, because some witness—­name not given—­reports that he heard a report from a servant of Garibaldi, that Santurri was only executed, in opposition to Garibaldi’s own wish, in consequence of Salvatori’s representations.

What was the nature of Salvatori’s defence cannot be gathered from the sentence.  From another source, however, I learn that it was such as one might naturally expect.  During 1849, the mayors of the small country towns were entrusted with political authority by the Government.  In the exercise of his duty, as mayor, Salvatori discovered that Santurri and the others were in correspondence with the Neapolitans, who were then invading the country, and reported the charge to the officer in command.  The result of a military perquisition was to establish convincing