The Express. — London, England, 1852-06-25 00:00:00

LIIIER .\Nl► LORI► MALMESBURY. Wettminster, Jaw 21, 1&52. m % Loup,--'..klr. Searlett** two last despatches of jut l a ed June 11 re,pcctively, addrts ,, ed to your lord- A d printed sad published, require from me some a ce Tile tint contlins two assertions at variance not only with b.. the publobtd official document., but also with Mr. 6 ,,,,kr•;, own tinsious lotAtelllt its. the stature and exteot of nip sons " injury," and the fat that it woo not brought on by " his own indiscretion," 61 , 4,i,e .hown from Mr. Searlett'a former despatches and ohne,. kNo. I, contains 13 extracts from the various Pr•a • ' .1 documents and evidence, demonstrating • tec, things. TWO conelnsive one is Mr. Scarlett's own, f e w letter t" the Duke of Casigliono, March 18 (page 1,7 "thin Correspiindenee"), which declares that •• now Lvish nce conclusively establishes that a most wive vista eutrage was (outwitted on Can unarmed and unottend• yr.:dolt sulleet.” fury post. indeed, *cents with thew• truth.. It •ill be there too that his '• indiscretion" consisted in ▪ a question, upon receiving • blow from a noised s a t , as tons cause ; and that his " injury " was nearly ea: qr. searlett cannot now be permitted to adopt the Aut nati sewn• in pr. I, Tenet to that of the Court of Inquiry be t i ts sworn t tarn., the court, too, in which Mr. Scar k" Owed hi...iuntryinan's case. and whom (whittle° hail r , rt., teed het saneti.so. Salt tontrootetury udiciol statement. cannot now affect Vu nal sterns 0: the case, sat Call OH.) itll.l to injure the noilean in those who so ice in.i.ttntly woke them. T h , only material point requiting any Attention in Mr. feorlett'S wound despatch is the visit of Lord Frederic Kerr bed sir John Orde to my sun, with the important rmillts iMend..l to be boast' upon it. Now, the following facts sad is thing more Are demonstrated. Their interview si;!. Mr. Er.kine Mother, on the third day alter his wound, at Vac hospital; tint, conning ou A mission without having &Aland it; their not receiving an explanation from him, because none was asked, though the proposed basis of future operations, but which Sir John lithe believes would have been given if they had asked it ; mud Mr. E. Mather's declaration, in the confidence of a private conversation, against r.esiving an apology for an outrage so inezeumble, sod a loch Melt threatened his lite. In tluettlotion of this matter, And in proof of the above vo:ement, I log to refer your lordship to Sir John t , rde . . kurtr of February 2lst, sin weeks after the "mission," m; an account of it (page Uti); to Mr. Erskine Mother's' leihr to Mr. riCathit on the subject, date February 20, not in the printed correspondence, a copy of which I enclose (No. 21_,• and his letter of February 19th to Earl Granville, which Mr. Scarlett rimmed to torward to his lordship, but wlo.'o, I pet mime, i. now in the Foreign office, though not the colvecpondence." Mr. Erskine Mother in refusing an apology from a F rm.o who had tweety destroyed him, did what justice n• void. '1 his person, as far as 1 can ascertain, never once came to the hospital to inquire whether his victim was alive or Wad. An apology trim such a quarter would have been uniwiegless. Whatever we may do for offences or insults, we do not net ive apologies for malignant and deadly injuries,—we punish them tor the sake of justice and of society, and, in casts like this. tor national purposes. Ibe to suggest that when ex parte official statements are published, that in Justice, such replies as may have been given and are in existence, as pointed out in this ante, 'loud receive from your lordship the same con. satiation. 1 have the honour to remain, my lord, your lordship's most obedient humble servant, JAMES MATIIEII. the Right Hum the Earl of Malmesbury, (der Majesty's Secretary of State ter Foreign Alfons, die., &c. Vje Court. The Queen and Prince Albert, accompanied by the Trine,. of Wales, the l'rineess Royal, Prince Alfred, and the Princess Alice, and attended by Major Gen. Buckley sad Col. Bouverie, went yesterday morning to W. struinster Ilan, and afterwards inspected different parts of the New Palace of Wt ,tntiostyr. The Putney , of Kent visited her Majesty yesterday at Buckingham Palace. Iler royal highness also paid a visit to tht Dueh.cs of Gloucester, at Gloucester House. Her Majesty and Prince Albert, accompanied by the Trowels Helena and the Princess Louisa, took a drive in an open carriage and four yesterday a ft ernoon. The equerries in waiting . Major-Gen. Buckley and Col. Boa aerie. attended on horseback. The Queen and l'rince Albert, accompanied by the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, and the Princess Alice, and attended by the Duchess of Athol!, the Hon. Caroline Cavendish. Lord Byron, Major-General Buckley, sad Colonel Bonecrie, honoured the Royal Italian Opera with their presca.e last evening. Vueounteas Canning has relieved the Countess of Desert in her duties as Lady in Waiting to the Queen, and the Bon. Caroline Cavendish and the Hon. Flora Macdonald have relieved the lion. Amelia Murray and the lion. Lucy Kerr in then duties as Maids of Honour in Waiting to her Majesty. Her Majesty's private band attended after dinner in Buckingham Palace on Wednesday, and performed the following selection . e,,ona No. 1) Ae.a, .Behatapiealitektor" Iluaitaroche Tame ... ... ........, .... ....... Kothlitepf. Pei. clot+, " narmierite . d'Anfou" Adagio nail Polowase ..... Watern.nn. The Duchess of Kent, attended by Lady Fanny !toward and Lord James Murray, honoured the Haymarket Theatre with her presence hut evening. The Marquis of Westminster had an interview with the Earl of Derby yesteri.ay at his official residence in Downing street. Viscount Torrington had also an interview with the noble earl. A deputation on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, consisting of Capt. Haigh, Mr. Carter, and Mr. `Stewart: and a deputation on behalf of the Shrews bury and Birmingham Railway Company, consisting of the Ilea. It. H. Clive, Mr. W. G. Roy, Mr. Knox, and Mr. Walker, bad an interview with the Right Hon. J. W. Ilea ley yesterday at the Board of Trade. The Marquis Camden had interview with Mr. Secretary Walpole yesterday at the llome•ofhce. • Mr. Ilildyard, M.P., had an interview with the Right lion. J. W. Henley yesterday to present a memorial from Whitebavea againat compulsory f Bottum in the Money. The Knight of Kerry and Mr. Herbert, M.P., had an in ter...lw with the Earl of Derby yesterday, at his Mikis.' residence in Downing-street. Mr. Sraillie, Advocate-General, South Australia, had an interview with Sir John Pakington yesterday, at the ,V1VUL4•14•0111...• A deputation from the British Beet-root Sugar Com pany. loaded by Mr. Robert Osland and Mr. Henry Val loner, hail an interview with the Right lion. J. W. Henley yesterday, at the Board of Trade. Despatches were sent from the Colonial-office yesterday to the Lord High Commissioner of the lonian Islands, the Governor of Malta, and the Governors of Hong Kong and Ceylon. A deputation from St. Anne's, Westminster, on the sob tee of the Metropolitan Burial Bill, had an interview with Lord John Manners on Wednesday, at the Office of Public Work. and Buildings, Whitehall-olace. The deputation totm.ted of Mr. Joseph George (churchwarden), Mean. David Lerigo, Richard Ilaylett, Joists Chatfield, and H. Reeves (oremettrs), and Mr. Joespli Rogers, surgeon. NEW ZEALAND COMPANY. The adjourned meeting of this souspaity wu held yrstarday at the New Zealand Hews, Dreadetreet-build isms. Alexander Currie, Esq., mediate chair.—Mr. Harriag toa, the secretary, read the minutes at the former meeting, at which the adjournment to this da_y took place.—Mr. Iltirrand denounced the attempt of Mr. Titler and Mr. Fox to prevail Over Sir John Pakington not to sanction her Ma j. sty's signature being attached to the Land Claimants Ad vance Hill. Now, although these two gentlemen had both received compensation as land proprietors, they were coming over to this country to prove that nothing could be so mischievous as to let other parties re ceive compensation. It was the duty of the directors to take some steps by which the memorial of those gentlemen would be defeated —The secretary said he thought it would be more effectual if the shareholders took those steps them selves —Mr. Burrand said he would bring a memorial to the neat meeting.—The chairman thought there was co occasion to wait till then ; the proprietors in the room might at once send in a memorial.—Mr. Few (the soli citor) said that if the government of the colon pawed anything that was out of their control, it would not be confirmed by the Secretary of State. The memorial ought to go in before the bill had pared the House of Lords.—The Chairman thought the memerisi should kiddy point out the hardship of the ease on the set-' Lien.—Mr. B anne d wou ld adds.. Sir John Pakingtora on the subject.—The Chairman hoped to be able to my some thing definite by the time of the neat meeting in respect to the government, and proposed that the present meeting stand adjourned till the sth of August, which was passed.-- A proprietor thought the direcsors ought not to allow those disparaging observations is the 'runes of that morning to go unrefuted.—The Chairman thought those matters were h..t I , ft alone, and that in most cases of the kind the press, loy iron out of the line of moderation, often defeated itself. —1 he wart then adjourned. i.t)NTWiNDEIIIIT AND COLERAINE Kari.% air.—Yes ter.l4, a special general meeting of the proprietors of this company was held at the offices in Coleman.street-buildings, for the purpose of entitling the directors to borrow further m o s of money for the promotion of the undertaking. Cap- Lon Warren, R.N , took the chair, end read the following resolution —" Resolved that the directors be and are bertby authorised to borrow on bond or mortgage, under the pr o vi s i o n s o f th e ac t i n tit u l e d • Th e Lo n do n derry and Coleraine Railway Consolidation Act, IS-52,' such sum or sum, of money as, together with the sums already bor maed under the provisione of the former acts relating to the company and now repealed, shall not exceed in the whole the sum of ififf.G6fit' This resolution having been unanimously adopted the meeting separated. THE ACHILLI TRIAL COURT OF WREN'S BENCH.—ThreaDAT. *MAAS AT Kr PIIIIII At WI .-iiIVUILK 4,au CAIItIIAU. AND • r•PICIAL JvaT. VERDICT AGAINST NEWMAN. Teti (411111(4 r. INVOILIIATION. After the report given iu yesterday's Express was des patched, Lord Campbell said the defence had been conducted with great propriety and ability, but, la fore the Attorney•Uene tal commenced his reply, it would be better to come to ea understanding as to the questions to be .eft to the jury. The plea consisted of 23 clierges. Sir A. Cumenurn had addressed tumult to the main restates .4 the case, but, technically, it was out plea. Ile thought the several mitt trrs should be telt ...parade to the jury, and he would ...ggest that the nary should . hove a copy of the different allegations in the plea, and, bat Mg heard the discussions on hotii sides, and the summing up of tlw judge, that they should say whether they believed, on the evidence, that • alio!e of the charges were mule out, or any part of them, and if so whet had been 1114110 Out. The jury then retired for a alert Cme. On their return into court, The Attorney-11count rose to address the jury in reply, upon the whole case. Ile said : Ilia . karma friend had, just delivered one of the mast elo quo ut addresses he had ever beard, and hail urged every topic calculated to excite their einoti a. lie had adverted to the great advantage of Dr. Achilles position, but he must remind them that this was the fast time in the trial that his counsel had been haunt upon the matters of actuation alienist him, whilst his learued friend had ta ieu had the opportuudy of addressing them. The whele caw was 03•1 before them. All that the bitterest hatred, the nu st unwearied industry, the inset unbounded resources, and the must unlimited intluence, could combine for the purpose of accomplishing the destruction of one man—no doubt a most formidable ads:nary—had been accumulated together on that occasion; and it would bo for them to say wile:her the mass and body of the evidence which haul be, it produced was of such weight as to crush the prosecutor to the earth, or whethe r it would crumble to dust at the touch of calm and impartial investigation. Be supposed the re never bad been sin lust ince, in an English court of justice, in which a trial had takeu place under such circumstances. Dr. Aehilli, it hail been truly said, had become the accused, but he had nut even been allowed to re main in court to confront thew dingoes against him, and give i instructions for their cross-examination as the case pro ceeded. Awl he could not help thinking that his learned friends who had been studying the proceed. ings of the Holy Inquisition hail become so ena moured of its practice that they were determined that everything which took place in the way of judicial in quit y against Dr. Achilli should be consisteut, and although they were in a British court of Justice, t:.e Reiman forms should be regarded un the present occasion. There never was an instance of • man undergoing so fearful and fur- 1 mirlable an ordeal as that to which Dr. Achilli had been exposed in his esamination for nearly eight hours, and lie appealed to their recollection of his conduct and demeanour during the whole of that anxious period, and asked them with the most perfect confidence whether anything but a thorough conviction of his own innocence could have ilia- bled him to stand such a searching inquiry with calmness and pr greet self-poesession. Ilia learned friends hail endea voured to make them suppose that thee RIO • question of ' religious controversy. Ile stated that the two eliampious of the contending religious faith were before them, and waned them against prejudice. Ile had supposed th-d he (the Attorni y-G!neral) should appeal to their religious feelings. He should be ashamed, however, if he were to endeavour to excite in their minds soy such feeling. This was me a . question of religious controversy, for Dr. Achilli add, Dr. Newman has assailed me with poisoned arrows—if he could prove his charges, the law would protect him, l if not he must ho convicted as a slanderer. Ibis learned *Mod had said that Dr. Newman was not actuate!: by per usal animosity. Ile had exhibited, however, all the Neil of • proselyte. Dr. Achilli was a man of great learning andeminence, and Dr. Newman's hatred against him might be as sarong as if they had come into personal collision But his learned friend said these were matters published bag ago-15 months, it was said—they were all contained in the Dublin &view; and in page 76 of Dr. Achill e* book he attributed the charges to Dr. Wiseman, Archbishop t.l Westminster by the Pope's creation. (t.aughter.l If he would have thrown off his mask, Dr. Achilli would have met him; but when he saw those charges re-asserted by a man who was once respected, and who was • tangible being, and could be got at, he lost no time in calling upon him to peeve his statements. Ile tint commenced proceedings the publishers of the pamphlet, but allowed Dr. •.man's name to be substituted. Was ever a man placed In such • situatiou as Dr. Achilli ? It was said he was on his trial. If he had been, some specific offence would have been selected ; he could not have been questioned himself; and he would have been in a much better position, because he was now called on to answer for 26 years of his life, and had no less than 23 charges brought against him. But notwithstanding all these disad vantages, and that their minds had been twice impressed by the powerful addresses of his learned 'friend, he had no doubt that they would he actuated by a desire to do justice, and that he should satisfy them that there was no ground for supposing that Dr. Newman's charges were proved. Ile should look with confidence to their verdict. lie would first draw attention to the charges on the record, of which there was not the slightest proof. In the first place, it was alleged in the 7th charge that Dr. Aehilli, on I.'eb. 1, 1831, debauched and carnally knew Rosa di Allessandris, and in Sept. 1833, he was found guilty of it by the Bishop of Vi terbo. In the 12th charge it was said that the offence took place in the sacristy of the church of 6radi, and in the 20th charge he is represented to have given 50 scudi to the fa ther of Rosa di Allessandris as hush money. This charge altogether failed to be proved, and he did not except the evidence of the document produced from the Inquisition. Lord Campbell—Places are mentioned in it but not names. The Attorney-General was obliged to his lordship. They had heard whet Dr. Achilli had said about lima Alles sansiria—that she was iiider than himself and • nun. It was said that the polite records at Viterbo had been destroyed —but this would have taken place in the Bishop's Court. The eighth charge was that he debauched a certain other woman at Viterbo, whose name was unknown, being chaste and nansarried. It was siggulaz that as the woman was un known they should be aware of the fact that she was chute and unmarried. (Laughter.) The difficulty his client had had in struggling with the ease had been to obtain dates, names, and places. In the present case the charge was laid in July, 1834. Now, it was in evidence that Dr. Achilli was then on • tour of visitation with his principal—that lie left Viterbi in 1833, and did not return until November, 1834, and, therefore, with regard to that charge it was not made out. The ninth charge was that he had debunked and carnally known, in 1835, at Viterbo, one Vintiond Cams, and another woman unknown, but chaste and anenarried, and that he had afterwards been found guilty by the Holy Inquisition. Now, in the year 183,1 he was never in the neighbourhood where the offence was said to have been committed, but preached the Lent sermons at Capua, and had • patent to confess in the diocese of Capua. He exer cised that office in 1835, and was that year. The documents had been produced which vouched the truth of this statement made by Dr. Achilli. And they would see what faith was to be attached to the pretended judgment and sen tence of the inquisition, which had been produced. That document said he confessed to have been guilty of those particular offences, when, in fact, he was not wild& some hundreds of miles of the place. The 13th agoga alleged that Dr. Aehilli being a Romish priest at Bamis, Capua, Naples, and Malta, spoke and talked against des doctrines of the Roman catholic faith, to wit, the doctrines of the eucharist, confession, and absolution, and against the moral obligation of chastity and continence, and by the means of his thus teaching and preaching he corrupted %curd persons, and amongst others Louisa di Cent:Bekaa di Alessandris, the women Vallenti, Principe, and mime, all of whom he was alleged to have debauched and snandly known. Rosa di Allessandris and Eleanor Valleall be mos alleged to have debauched in 1831, and to bays 411.111.11 by his preaching in 1841, many years after be bet left tee locality in which they resided. So that he mos cold to have debauched them first, and corrupted them albsrwards. The 21st charge stated that there were is in the archives of the Neapolitan polies chewing that Dr. Achilli had been reported for habitual lempatiessey. He knew what his friends would say if they had ffigkeippens thrifty. They would remind the jury that dry bed at tempted to give in evidence a document from Es Milos of Ecclesiastical Affairs, and which was re is be a report from the Neapolitan police. C de iis4 dame they had had latterly of the anthority of des lies pulitan police reports, he thought they should have gene Is the fountain head at least; but the Roman getbdie midis who went to Italy to get up the evidence Mast Alia dm document from that quarter, to which, in feet, be sew up plied, and the learned judge ruled that the paper labia be did get from an individual could not be received. nose were all matter+ upon which no evidence had ken offend, and upon which Dr. Newman must be found guilty. Bet he did not shrink from the other charges, and he believed be should sa:isfy the jury that there was no ground for any them. First, Dr. Newman charged in the libel, and me pealed, that Dr. Achilli was an infidel. It was alleged that Dr. Achil6 preached against the sucharist, auricular con fession, and absolution. If it were meant that Dr. Aehilli was an infidel because he disbelieved in transubstantia•ion, and the efficacy of human at solution and confession, he hoped the number of such infidels would daily increase (Applause.) It was then said that he was a Roma priest and • hypocrite; and his learned friend had tried to substantiate that charge by referring to Dr. Achilli's book. The primp to which ha referred was a description of a strong mind struggling with de doubts. It was difficult for a man to tear himself from lie ancient faith all at once. They all knew that Luther, with his strong mind, struggled from year to year with his eon. victions ; and would any ono pretend to say that became be remained in the church in which he wee born until the fall light of truth dawned upon his mind, that Luther could properly be characterised as a hypocrite ? (Mass sours of applause.) Bat who was the person from whom those charges proceeded? Was Dr. Newman 'nodally converted Did conviction flash at once upon his soul Did he lie down at night disbelieving in transubstantiation, &protestant, and rise up in the morning a catholic ? (Ap plause.) He would proceed to the nest charge—the charee in which it was alleged that in 1826 Dr. Achilli was de prived of his faculty to lecture in consequence of an offence his superiors did their best to conceal. Why, he had no appointment to lecture until the following year Kr:), and he continued in possession of that lectureship down to the year 1833' It was untrue that he was ever deprived of his lectureship at all, and it was imposaible that he could have been deprived in 1826. This was his indictment— these wae the charges he was tailed on to answer. Ihe THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 25, 1852. fifth charge alleged that in 1827 be had earned the repu tation of a ecandelous friar. Was that the fact? They had evidence of his character fur ten sears after that. They bad heard that, amongst other offices of trust, he had been appointed to accompany the provincial in his visitation of the convents; and in tsm, be was himself appointed visitor of the convent at Nepi ; so that, so far from this charge being true, he was held in the highest possible estimation, at all events, clown to 1838. When at Rome, he was chomp 'to preach the Lest sermons; and at Naples, in 1837, he In. appointed the confessor of Louie& de Bourbon, Duchees of Sammy. Was it possible that a man whose reputation was so damaged as it was alleged, could have been selected for so important an office to a female a high birth P In the Some year, having been sub-prior, be all. use elected prior elate Dominican convent; and surely it would be absurd and ridiculous to suppose that such would have been the case if he had been a preen of mandilous reputation. In 1835 ho had applied for letters of &cauterisation, in order ' that he might cease to be • monk, and become a simple priest. It was true that there was sonic delay, and the seed , larisation was mot completed until 1839, but it was in the in terval that he had bees appointed to the offices which he (the Attorney-lieneral) had named. lie would now refer to the sixth charge, namely, that which related to Eleanor Valenti. Eleanor Vale uti gave no date, but the offence was alleged in the plea to have been committed on the let of February, 1831, and his learned friend bad stated that Dr. Achilli bad been tried'and punished for the act. Now, with respect to all the Italian witnesses, he (the Attorney- General) had a rem ark to make that would be well worthy of their observatiou. They hail bud an intimation of the interest which was taken in this case in Roman catholic countries, and they had had proof of the facilities which I had been alnualed to persons who haul been sent to collect evidence. The y had heard of a Roman catholic gentleman of high station, whose name Mr. Hurting wished to conceal —for be wished to write it ou a slip of paper and band to his lordship. Now, why shouhl that desire of concealment operate upon Mr. Harting ? There was au crime in going abroad to obtain witnesses in support of any plea. Was it that Mr. Harting was afraid that he was coming too near the sacred precincts of the Vatican ? Was he afraid to show that the rulers of the Roman catholic church were interested in the an stion whether Dr. Achilli should remain a powerful opponent, or whether he should bo crushed beneath charges like them ? Now they had heard tram Eleanor Vulenti that she had liven t lui by her curate that she must corneae, for the good of holy mother church, and for the honour of tied. E'canor Valenti had represented that she had never told any one before she came to this country what bud taken place, except her contiesne. She said that she had not even told her own mother what she was going to England for. how did the curate know that it would be fur the good of the church that she should come over? lie must have known that the way way in which good could accrue to the church would be by crushing • formidable adversary, and therefore he had told her to come over. But his learned friend bad asked, whether it was intended to create a preju iice egaiust the Roman catholic witnesses ? Ile (the Attorney-General) would riot attempt to excite any feeling whatever, he would only draw the attention of the ury to the facts, and leave them to form their own conclusion,. Who, then, were these Italian witnesses? Mere birds of passage, brought here unknown to any one,l returning home as soon as the trial was over ; and re strained by no tea. of prosecution far perjury ouch as would operate upon witnesses who lived in this country. If they succeeded in conveying the impression which they W been brought to make, they stead very likely return hew with honour ; and even if they failed—seeing that they had made the attempt for the good of holy mother church and the hunuur el God—their tender-hearted confessors would be likely to make them dree but • light penance. Contrast their case with that of Dr. Acltilli, who could not escape from the obloquy of these charges, and they would see that the balance was much in his favour. But haw were three witnesses brought over ? They had been together and compared their stories; and he had been struck with a re markable coincidence between them. The offence was said in the case of Rosa di Allesandris to have been committed in the sacristy ; and that of Principe to have taken place on a Good Friday ; but it was not alleged in the pleas, either with respect to:Valenti or to Principe that it had keen committed in the amenity. But both bail come there and stated that the intercourse had taken place in the sacristy. The introduction of there witnesses had led him to take the unusual course which had been adopted with respect to Dr. Achilli on cross ezumina- lion. Dr. Achilli had come there to meet and deny certain specific charges, but he had been asked whether he had not also been guilty of incontinency with other women ? Dr. Achilli bad thought it his duty to himself to avail himself of the privi lege allowed by the law, and to decline answering these alZi es on o s i a l d i t r kit A ery chil o li f i lt co m m ou e rte to defend wit a him ci t: i l i f d against lniier fifteen years of age, and of various other enormities, and was he to be asked whether at any period in his life he might not have forgotten those laws of marelity which were obligatory upon us all ? lie (the Attorney-Ueneral) very much feared, if such a question were put even to the wisest and best amongst us, that we should find it extremely difficult, with truth and upon out consciences, to answer in the negative. He knew and would recognise no difference in the application of the laws of morality to persons in orders and to laymen. It had, indeed, been said that there was a peculiat heinousness in the breach of those laws by members of religious orders , ; but surely there was no distinction in obligation between the monastic vow and that baptismal vow which was made fur us all, and which bound every Christian man to the observance of the strictest chastity. Was it then to be made • charge against Dr. Achilli that he would not answer • questiou which was directed to as certain, not whether he was guilty of the specific charges contained in the libel, but whether he had at any time been guilty of faults, before they pronounced a censure upon which ho would refer everyone to his own heart. If Dr. Achilli haul come here determined to deny everything which was to the prejudice of his character, what was then to have prevented hint from giving a direct denial to the gee-thins ut his teemed friend ? If he had dune so, who could have contradicted him i All that they could have dune would have been to have drawn such inferences from what they knew of human passion, and of the probable re sults of the law of celibacy, as would have led them to dis credit his testimony iu other respects. But he had refused to give that denial; and was that to prejudice the evidence on other matters which he had given freely ? If anything could more strongly confirm the truth of his testimony in other respects, surely it win that very *crapulousness upon which his learned friend bed le strongly commented. But his learned friend stated that dm data were not material, so that they might lay the alga in 1831, and have the whole period between that sad the pessent year in which to prove its commission. lib irrimal friend was technically right ; but, whether be was =so or not, ho would leave the jury to decide. His Mead appeared to think he had some oonElsmatice at the iiilasss's statement in what they had heard respect. kg SW alstilie ; but, although it was the custom of Italian Win whim they married to retain their maiden nausea, it was notth•anstom of gentlemen to change theirs, so that the entlee paint fell to the ground. It was, in short, just the misethe Into which a person sent over to rake up what ever evidence he could get twenty years alter the cinem ass', was alleged to have occurred would be likely to had. De. Alia denied the whole story in toto, and the jury would have to weigh his positive statement against the evi dence of a witness like Valenti. But did the story look like • true one? Dr. Achilli had certainly not behaved se ' liberally to her as to have purchased her silence. The very . triviality of the presents which she said he had given her had ewer d a smile, and yet 20 years after the affair, al though Dr. Achilli had in the interim been an ecclesiastic and a preacher of high repute in the neighbourhood of Ifbasbo, a cry was heard in the streets of Loadoa lint be had seduced this woman—a cry which it was not pretended any one had heard of before, except Valenti's confessor, who was in his grave. But he be Valenti said she h ad d been told of it by a chemist ; st ll = Dr. Achilli, according to her account, had the effrontery MI the au dacity, though he held a public odes La the ' ti meek, to avow his criminal intercourse with her, app.- rently without requiring the slightest prank. of secreay. And all this they were to believe had taken place, and Dr. Achilli not only to have yawned hie reputation, bas to boo advanced step by step to the highist 41101111 la his order ! Composing, then, the voids/me es bleb ski" OM jury would have to say whe ther they Wilma De. Ably denial or the statements of Valenti, =oda under week sabasirdinary and incredible cir amrierminitera Those 111410 free charges at Viterbo, but only this Onoa ha ham ailsopted to be proved. The neat sews ins at Mom hat lOW his learned friend had peeved by. Ilia del aims la Sr are of Principe at Naples. The jury wield abeam is this isitsace how important dates were. Good Friday of 1840 was stated in the justification to have been the day on which the offence was created, bat the WiliNIS herself said that it was in the month of October se Nseseekber. Again, !Unto. Principe stated that she was bona is 1793, and that she was 25 when her child was born; bat her daughter said that the offence was committed 13 or 14 ago, so that instead of being under IS, as was 4she 4, must have been 22. In her examination in chief woke of only one occasion when the intercourse bad place ; but when she was re-examined on the hallowing morning she mid there had been intercourse 7 or 8 times. Did she elommeiente that to the attorney for the dam* ? If she did law was it possible that with the plainaz of conned am tke other side thy could have emitted to pyut the asasssary questions ? If she had re amed this 4tonaaWn till now, how could they trust her Winn aping ths aliphatic denial of Dr. Achilli? But his isseneit Mend bad alluded to the application which had been made to the magistrates on the part of Dr. Achillia friends as some corroboration of the story. Bat it had never lima shown that thaw charges, or gossip, or rumour, had augthiag to do with the Principes. He would now sane Is Garin. The proof given by Dr. Newman of the rtcommitted with the wives of Ganmoni arraboai had entirely failed. They would rat when they got from Italy they had the means of peoeoring witnesses on behalf of Dr. Aehilli. Garamoni hag been brought over here on behalf of Dr. Newman; and Captain Lawrence, the inspector of pelican had also come to England. Now, Captain Lawrence was well Jewels to Mr. OarealOni, and Mr. Garamoni was well known to Cap tain Lawrence. When, therefore, Oatmeal knew that Captain Lawrence was coming over, nothing would induce him to stay in England, and he had gone cic ; for Cap tain Lawrence had been requested to procure the attend ance of his (Garamoni a) wife to eanfront him. In the place of Garamoni, then, the other aide had produced two witnesses to prove this charge of adultery. Russo, who was oleo known to the police, had stated that Dr. Achilli was near the apartment of Garamoni 1 wife, though he (Russo) hail never been in the house; and he also undertook to identify Dr. Achilli, having never seen ham before. The other witness only said that be saw a man whom he judged to be Dr. Achilli by his stature. Yet this was to prove • charge of adultery ! Hie learned friend had laid consider- able stress upon what he called a contradiction between Dr. Achilli and Oaramoni's wife ; but it was absurd to ground upon so slight a discrepancy a suspicion, much more a charge, of intercourse which both parties had utterly de nied. If his learned friend's object was justice he would hardly hays dwelt upon such n slight circumstance. Ile (the Atturney-Ocneral) thought, howev‘r, that ho might s.ifoly idly upon the judgment of the jury in tl.iu in stance. But now he come is the ease of the CgruboMs. . _ If dere was any damage to 6 - e character of Dr. ATlii from having engaged them as his Serfallta, that would have beer. the ease from the very first day they entered his em ploy. But it had been shown that lie was living in high 'vote at eirfu, and visiting even the Lord High Commis alarm The charge depended entirely upon the statements of Mr. Reynolds. Now, he (the Attorney-General) could not help being struck with the extraordinary chit ractrrof this statement. Was it conceivable that Dr. Aclolli should have carried on sosheineies:lif the indecent familiarities which were imputed to him st a %%inflow where he could be so ea si ly rbserved, espreially atter he had been told of them? Besides, the window from which the other witness stated that she had witnessed the familiarities was below that of Dr. ACHM ; and as jalousie blinds look upwards, it was scarcely posdlole that she could have seen them. it was, however, peeeible that she might have seen Carraboni himself with his wife, and that her m..ater, who hail a deep feeling against Dr. Achilli, might have made her believe that it was that gentleman. Ihsirlea, Zante being a smaller place then Corfu, any such familiarities must have been known by everylsoly in the town, and if the circumstance were true the? might have had the fact proved by other and less doubtful If Dr. Achilles character were so scandalous, it was imixosible that his reposition should not have followed bin to Malta; and his appoinoment to his office at the college we. a sufficient answer to the slanders of Mr. Reynolds. Nothing could hardly be more atrocious than the justifica tion which bad been placi don the record with respect to Dr. Achilles conduct in that situation. Leoriiiii and Zee charis were supposed to he guilty of certain irnmoraliti , s, of which they were chit, ged by a priest named Cioxii. At that time Dr. Achilli was In London, and therefore any idea that he was implicated in those immoralities was variably unfounded. Dr. Achilli placed no reliance ou the statements of Ciossi, and recommended the London committee not to interfere; but there was an inquiry, and the charges were for the pi client dismissed. Afterwards the matter was revived, and Dr. Achilli, who supposed that it had hero settled, was dismissed, because he had sent away Zaccharis on an important mission after having transmitt . 3l a notice to the committee some days before. Lord Campbell observed that en looking more closely at the pleas he found that he ought to have admitted the questions which he had declined to allow Sir Alexander Cockburn to put to the Earl of Shaftesbury His lordship therefore directed the noble earl to be sent for. The Attorney-General resuming, dwelt at sonic length on the affair at Malta, and said that it would be unfair to infer • charge of ecntplicity from the hasty statement of an angry man. Ile (the learned gentleman) trusted that the jury were now not unprepared to believe that charges might be trumped up for the purpose of destroying Dr. Achilli; and lie a pealed to them with confidence, to their deliberate judgment, whether there was the slightest ground for Pay ing %oat V.e very serious imputation contained in the plead ings with respect to the college at Malta was established. The Earl of Shaftesbury having now arrived, was exa mined by Sir Alexander Cockburn upon the point to which reference has been made. Ilia lordship began more thou once to repeat the entire narrative which formed the sub stance of his Former evidence ; but he was as often inter rupted by Lord Campbell. At length he was asked what were the other reasons besides those which be had already stated that had induced the committee to dismiss Dr. Achilli. The Earl of Shaftesbury—The reasons that governed our decision were the se :—We felt that if the matter were to become public, so great • scandal would be brought upon the college, and especiaLy upon that branch of it which was occupied by the missionary reformed priests, that, both with regard to the character of the institution itself, and, moreover, to the interestsof theprotestant religion, there was nothing left us but to break up the whole establishment, therefore we cut the Gordian knot by . dismissing Dr. Achilli. It did not concern us to carry the investigation any further; for we considered that whether he was implicated or not, it was our duty to wipe our handset so foul a scandal. (Applause.) We acted upon the rumour, not upon any charge actually before us, and we determined to break up the whole thing. The Attorney General really felt much obliged to his lordship for having recalled the Earl of Shaftesbury, be cause, after this lust piece of evidence, so far from the seri ous charges contained in the justification having been cots , blished, they had entirely failed, and he trusted that the matter was set at rest for ever. [A voice in the gallery— . " Hurrah !") lie (the Attorney-Uentoral) now came to the charges which had been made against Dr. Aebill's con , duet in England. Three servants in succession bad repre sented themselves—one to have had liberties taken with her, and the othe r two to have been seduced by him. A fourth case had also been thrown in. In all these instances no complaint had been made either to Dr. or Mrs. Achilli. The learned counsel had been obliged to deliver up J nue Legge to the reprobation of the jury; and Ilarrictte Harris had been dismissed for being dirty—acircumstance which she would be likely to resent. His learned friend had praised the candour of Sarah Wood, which be thought en titled her to some credit; but it was well known that she had conic from the house of Mercy, and therefore her can dour did not go fur much more than that of the negro, who, after he had been hired by a gentleman, said to his new master, " Sir, I think it proert i o tell you that I am a black rs man." (Laughter.) M. Log an had complained that the birth of her sister's child at er house had entailed great expense upon her ; but had she made any application to Dr. Achilli to be contributory towards that expense? Dr. Achilli hod done nothing to stifle inquiry but had allowed hie servants to go at large into the world, and had certainly offered no " hush money." Ile had acted throughout as an innocent man. Mrs. Logan had expressed great anger at Mrs. Caustelani for having led to her being subpoenaed, but it she thought that Dr. Achilli had had intercourse with bee sister, why should she desire to shield him, or why &mid she he unwilling to appear? It was said, too, that Dr. Achilli had given Jane lasge a religious book. Now, be was far from saying that it Dr. Achilli had done so, it would have been any evidence of his guilt ; but if he had, why did they not produce the book for it would have bees a strong corroboration ? Then there was the ease of Catherine Furman, in 1847; but if Dr. Achilli had really token any liberties with her, why did she not tell Miss Lambert, who as a respectable woman would immediately have ordered him to quit her house. One remark would apply to these alleged cases of seduction—the very alteration which has taken place in the law of bastardy showed how easy it was to trump up such chimes, and hence the law had required corroborative evi dence in addition to the oath of the woman herself. They had heard the manner in which the witnesses hat , given their evidence. They had also had before them Mrs. Aehilli ; and he bad no doubt that they would form • cor rect judgment as to the relative weight to be attached to the testimony of each. This brought him, in the last place, to that most extraordinary document which had emanated from tbe Holy Inquisition. They would observe that hie horsed friend had relied upon that document fur limed of several of the charges of which there had been eel proof, but of which the proof was to rest upoo the seshosies to be found in that precious document. He =Jena th dspted ienparopriitettiwfulhodoccourseentw.hiy:tahtis quam,lord booms there was an allegation that Dr. Achilli been Rand 'silty by that tribunal, and had had a certain punials essat awarded to him. It was evidence that there had been such a judgment, but as to the facts themselves, it was so evidence at all. It was the first time in which a judg ment of the Holy Inquisition had been admitted m an English court of justice, and he sincerely hoped b would be the last. Probably it would be, after the fate which awaited that under consideration. It was in 1851 that Mr. Harting went to Rome and put himself in communLation with certain of the authorities there. There was nothing discreditable in getting a judg ment of a court; but somehow or other an individual whom Mr. Harting was extremely desirous should be shrouded in mystery undertook to obtain for him a copy of this docu meat. Mr. Harting desired to write this gentlaman's name on a piece of paper and hand it to his lordship, but at last it appeared that it was Monsigoore Talbot, the pr ivate secretary of the Pope. lie (the Attorpereleneral sup reed that he th eoght the interierenee of Monsignorer albot was • swatter that would not bear the light, and that it was desirable to eemosal it because there was something in it to create prejudice. So secret were not only the proceedings lost even the transeetions of the office th at even an English Roman catholic bishop was no t allowed to enter, but was kept at the door till the clerk or no tary or official tame and delivered to him the paper. There was no examination with the original, nor indeed say proof that such • document existed at all. Certainly it was the most remarkable document that ever came before a smart of justice. Amongst other things, it was stated that W superior of the order of preachers had paid to • woman on behalf of Dr. Achilli fifty crowns, as a compensation fur her seduction. But where was that superior ? This docu ment was obtained in the month of September, 1851 ; the pleas were placed on tho record on the 12th of February, 1852 ; that the pleas were founded upon the document, and Vasa *ado( ument produced as proof of the pleas. The jadganart stated in the document was one of perpetual sus- Mirhi:ea the cure of souls and preaching the word of wad aim that Dr. Achilli must repair to some house et lb ardor a( Ow more strict observance. Now, in 1839, babel sawart !, be a monk, and to hold office ; and how, lissehus, snit this sentence be carried out ? Laud Omphell-1 only admitted the document as proof eat am was such a sentence ; but I cannot take it as "dame of the precedent facts. The Attorney-General acquiesced, and said that as re garded the confessions of indecent behaviour and immo eality mentioned in the document, it was a gross sod sow &Ines fabrication. These allegations were militmit say proof whotever, and he did with the meet perhat sawillowea say that with regard to them Dr. Achilli bad asetpletaly absolved and acquitted himself. Dr. Achilli new stood be thee them ready to receive the decision of the Jury , and he anticipated with the most entire confidence that that vets diet would be one that would vindicate him be. the feel slander which Dr. Newman had thought proper fa mai gate respecting him Ile had also the most entire eishielle• that their verdict would be one of condemned= oasis* Dr. Newman, and one upon which he would be answerable to the law. lie (the Attorney-Oeneral) had sow gone through the case with anxiety, with the deepest interest, and with a constant sense of his inability to do japtice to it. Upon those charges in detail he had addressed to them those obeervatiuns which he committed to their delibiTate judgment, and winch, he trusted, would he found justified by their sentence. He appealed to them whether he had in any way endeavoured to excite any of those prejudices which his learned friend had anticipated ; and whether he had nut endeavoured to avoid those religi- MU questions which this painful inquiry ( or he agreed with his learned friend that it had been • painful inquiry) was calculated to arouse ? Ile had presented to them the ease of a man, who, under unprecedented and unparalleled difficulties, was, he might say, celled before them—because it was quite impossible for him not to challenge Dr. New man to sul.stantiate the truth of his statements in a court of justice—who had been called before them to answer for a very considerable period of his life, upon charges of a most serious description, and of u cha racter which were necessarily conflict ng one with another. lle had endeavoured te disentangle the circumstances of the can from the complexity in which they were involved ; fur he had been anxious that his duty should be discharged in the way which his lordship desired ; namely, by presenting to their minds each charge in succession, with the ev:desice in its support or in opposition to it ; and he trusted that at all events he had performed his duty fairly. He was sure that the snore this case was silted, the better it would be for Dr. Achilli; the more light could be let in, the more the truth would appear. Ile was desirous that no part of the case should escape from their most minute investigation ; for although he knew that it was a perilous issue fur his client, he reposed in the must entire confidence upon the force of truth and of the circumstances, and he trusted hie case most implicitly to their impartial determination. (Loud cheers which were immediately hushed by the officers of the court.) The jury then retired, and remained out of court nearly half an hour. Oa the court re.assembling, Lord Campbell summed up. Ile said he was sure it was quite unnecessary to ask them to give their earn et atten tion to this ease, and to deal with it with the utmost impar tiality. Some apprehension had been expressed that they might be influenced by religious prejudices, as if the credit of the protestant religion was at stake. lie did not (eel , cave that the character of the protestant religion was at all at stake. The character of Dr. Achilli was at stake ill the deepest manner. Then as to the defendant Dr. Newman, there was no danger of his being looked upon unfavourably by them although he buil left the protestant religion, and was now, a they were told, a ,sealous champion of the Roman catholic church. There could he nu doubt that clergymen—if there were any such in the church of England —who were Roman catholics at heart, who remained in that church receiving its emoluments and enjoying its advantages, were deserving of blame; but when a man like Dr. New man, when he was in the Church of England, said be found he did not ledung to the true church, and ho renounced all the profits and advantages that be might have derived from it, and joined the church of Rome, no obloquy at tached to him. Ile museuy that Dr. Newman acted rashly and recklessly, fur although he might well believe in all he said, yet he was asserting a ,:umber of things of which be could have no personal knowledge, and respecting which lie might easily be deceived. At the same time he had con ducted himself with great propriety, for when the applica tion was made to his booksellers, he immediately stepped forward and made himself responsible. This being a cri minal information, all that the court bald in allowing it to be brought forward was, that there was a rea weable ground for sending the caw to a jury. Them was uo doubt that it woull amount to a libel, because they were imputations upon the character and conduct of Dr. Achilli, and if they found there was uo necessity for making these charges, their verdict would be for the prosecutor. There were two pleas, find, what was called the plea of not guilty, and upon that plea their verdict must be for the prosecutor. Dr. Newman freely allowed the publication, and it would be for them to say whether this was a libel—whether it contained crimi natory charges that would bring any person in di-grace who was the objset of them. Formerly that would have been the only question they would bare had to determine but by the law now, those who are charged with a libel ' had an opportunity of alleging that they had said nothing but what was true, and that they were actuated by a laudable motive in speaking the truth. Ile was very glad that that was now a principle of our jurisprudence, because it tool: away the reproach " the greater the truth the greater the libel." Now, if the truth could be established, and a laudable motive for speaking the truth, no punishment, but commendation, would follow ; and it would be for them to say, from the evidence that had been laid before them, whether the venous imputations alleged in this plea by Dr. Newman against Dr. Achilli were established. With regard to several of the charges, there seemed to be hardly any evidence ; with regard to others there was most serious evidence, and, if they believed the evidence, it would be their duty to say that the imputa tions were true. By an arrangement which he had sug gested, they would be furnished with a copy of the charges, sial.he should ask them to say whether they believed them to be all true, or, If they made a distinction between them, which of them they believed to be true. They might find that none of them were true, or that none of them ,were true to their satisfac 'ion. In order to enable them to come to a right conclusion he would go over the evidence with a few ob servations, merely for their assistance, earn. idly advising them to form their own opinion, and not to be influenced in the slightest degree by anything that he could say. His lordship then read the evidence of the first witness, Eleanor Valenti, who charged Dr. Achilli with having deflowered her. Ile did not find that their was any corroboration of her charge. The next chirp was the most serious of all, and:was deposed to by Sophia Maria Principe, and with regard to it it might be observed that it was not a new charge, for it had been made against Dr. Achilli years ago. His lordship then read her evidence, that Dr. Achilli had intercourse with her in the church of St. Peter the Martyr at Naples. and that she became with child. There were two witnesses to this charge, the young woman her self and her mother, who said she accused Dr Achilli of it. Dr. Achilli denied that it was true, but the evidence was for their consideration. Dr. Achilli said he never applied to the police about but that some of his friends did, and even according to his evidence there had been some scandal on the subject at that time. Then they came to Corfu, where Dr. Achilli was charged w ith adultery with a woman named Garamoni. His lordship quoted the evidence cm that point, which he said did not seem to him to be at all clear. lie next commented on the evidence of Mr. Reynolds, u to the alleged improper iutimacy of Dr. Achilli with the wile of Caraboni, the chortle singer. Mr. Reynolds, lie observed, had been in respectable employment for many years, and might he a respectable man, but it was something extraordinary that he alleged that I/r. Achilli was cohabiting with this woman, sleeping in the same bed with her, for weeks and months, and yet that he was to be seen in the daytime familiar with her in the way described. The jury would judge whether that was probable. If this had been a woman of docent character wham Dr. Achilli was attempting to seduce, it might have been probable, but this woman was said to be a common prostitute, with whom he had been sleeping and yet had these familiarities in the day time. His lordship having read the other evidence bearing on this point, passed on to the charge at Malta, which in substance seemed to be, that Dr. Achilli being then principal of a Protestant order there improperly tried to screen from inquiry two persons of the name of Zaccharis and Leonini, and that with that view he sent Zsecharis away. There could be no doubt that he did send him away, and it would be for the jury to say with what motive. His lordship reviewed the evidence of the Rev. George Hadfield, the ltev. Alexander Watt, and the Earl of Shaftesbury as to this charge, and mid there could be no doubt that the allegation in the plea that Dr. Achilli was dismissed for immorality and complicity wee not made out. Then they came to the charges of misconduct in England, with regard to which there was first the evidence of Ilarriet Herne, who spoke to Dr. Achilli having kissed her and placed his hand upon her, which was a charge nut of criminal inter course but of indecency. Mrs. Cadogan, the aunt of this witness, stated that her niece told her what had occurred, but she made no complaint, and took no steps concerning it, and the girl remained in the house three months afterwards. Referring to the evidence of Sarah Wood, his lordship spoke of wi tness having so lon g t withheld f h ro e m ci r lfe u r m a a n n i c l: hoefr this s mplaint of the alleged con duct of 1)r. Achilli, Her story was only brought out during the getting up of this evidence ; and this would be a point entitled to the attention of the jury in estimating her evidence. There was a contradiction ; and it would be for the jury to say whether they believed this woman or Dr. Achilli. Certainly it was remarkable that she had con cealed the accusation so long. Then there was the unsup ported evidence of alleged familiarities given by Catherine Forman; and this cloud the evidence with respect to the women in London. Then came the evidence of Mr. Harting, the solicitor, who produced the copy of the decree of the Inquisition, and here the question had been raised with regard to the admissibility of that document. Of course that had been produced, en tirely for his (the Judge's) information. Dr. Grant's (the Roman catholic bishop a) evidence was material. He hail Mated that the Inquisition hail jurisdiction in respect to inmeralities and irregularities. The common notion war,' dot the Inquisition dealt with heresies rather than with immoralities; but Dr. Grant, • mast respectable person, emerected that impresaion, stating that the Inquisition ap plies to grave offences of ecclesiastics. That jurisdiction may not be frequently a pplied; but there appears to be each a jurisdiction, and that must be borne iu mind. Now, as to the decree itself. The material part of it, in point of law, is evidence on which we may safely proceed. The first part of it is a very irregular document. In the case of a court of competent jurisdiction there would be the pro ceedings recited, with the judgment; and then it would speak for itself. But here you have a document with the name of the notary of the Iluly Inquisition ap pended; and herein ho states that he has inspecte certain documents, and that he has drawn his own inferences. Time early part of it is more in the nature of a deposition and examination, than of judgment ; but a ft erwards come words which amount distinctly to • decree of the court. (Here his lordship read the decree, the effect of which we have already given. It prohibited Dr. Achilli from preach ing, &e., and condemned him to be confined three years in some convent of his order, where rigorous discipline would be enforced.) Now, th a was not only evidence, but very strong evidi nee. It proved that such a sentence was pro nounced; and, notwithstanding the horror we have in this country of the Inej ' 'on, we must remember that it is • regular tribunal an the Roman States, and that it is pre sided over by men of learning and piety. 'this document was obtained from the officers of the Inquisition; they knew that it was to be used in an English court of justice; and he could not suppose, for one moment, that they would mislead in such a matter. He could not suppose this decree to be a fabrication. That such a sentence was passed he himself entertained not the slightest doubt; and he warned the jury against coming to a contrary con clusion. Ile then the a muse for which that sentence was pronounced was a very different thing We might suppose more likely for heresy than for immorality . Dr. Achilli said it was here se, and that iio was brought against him fur immorality ; hut it was ter the jury to say whether, looking to the whole of the document, the sentence was for heresy or for immorality. Whatever the offence, it was cleir Dr. Achilli threw himself uu the mercy of the court. lie himself stated that the charge was for heresy, viz., for having preached the doctrine of justification by faith. If that were so, it was a very different thing from all the shrieking immorality spoken of; and on that point the jury would exercise their own intelligent judgment. That he thought was the whole of the evidence an support of the plea. If he had omitted any thing he would be obliged if the COMMA would remind him. _ . Mr. Had&ley called his lordship's attention to the fact that the allegation in the plea had no reference to any par ticular grounds on which the sentence passed by the Inqui sition was given, but was simply an allegation that the said li was suspended (rout the• celebration of mass, &c. Lord Campbell—Exactly. Su he had obaerrcd to the jury ; and so far it was strong evidence. Is there anything, however, omitted ? Mr. Builds:ley was not aware of anything. Lord ramplall precetded—They now came to the evi dence in answer to the plea. The learned county I for the defendant rather complained that the use was not begun on that side. Ile (the learned counsel) had at the tins made an observation which the jury would probably be ready to conlirsn, vie., that the more natural etsurre was to have the accusation first, and then the answer to the steels- titian. Mr. Betideley here interrupted. His :orilship had omitted, in his summiug up of the evidence, the reference to the proceedings of the court at Corfu. Lord Campbell—lte. The name of AAch il liell occurred in a proceeding clinging him with adultery. Hut then this appeared, on the real merits of the ease, to he entitled to • very little weight. 'There was a suit brought in the court at Corfu by Mariunne Garimoni for alimony against her husband. Ile first pleaded that she had misconducted her self ; and by a further defence that she had been guilty of adultery with Ur. Achilli. But then this was no proof of the fact at MI, and iu the evidence relating to the matter elven on the other side it turned out that instead of the charge being prosecuted, uu witnesses were examined et all, and that the suit was compromised or withdrawn. A juror—We recollect perfectly well. One of the Coureel—Did your lordship men:icn the vows taken by Dr. Achilli Lord Campbell (again addressing the jury)—The vows were quite inaniaterial ; Mr, whether Dr. Achilli took the vows of obedience, whether at the same time he took a vow of chastity and poverty, was quite immaterial as re garded the obligations of literality ; and his conduct, if se alleged, would hove been equally reprehensible if he had nut taken the vow of chastity. (Here some further inter ruption of as unimportant character took place; and his lordship proceeded.) It was now his duty to recupitunde the evidence on the other side. There was the evidence of Dr. Achilli himself. There was his history, told by Him self, which showed that he had been an eminent person in the church to which lie had belonged. (Here his lord-sip went over the eurly part of Achilles evidence.) Teen the evidence came to the events to which these charges applied. (Another portion of the evidence was read.) In 1841 he got into the Inquisition ; and how he gut there remained a mystery. Then there was the marriage. The eaggestion had been made that, as be lied taken the vow of celibacy, it was discreditable to him to have entered into the holy state of matrimony ; hut, it' he had conscientiously- come to the conclusion that the views on this head which he had formerly entertained were uu christiatilikc, the jury could not set him down, because: of the marriage, as a reprobate. Ile knew that Luther, who hail also taken the vow of celibacy, had afterwards mai -ied —nay, more, ha I married a nun. Therefore the tact teat he had married would not probably lower Dr. Achilli in the opinion of the jury if they believed, on the evidence they had, that he had conscientiously renounced the Roman Ca. thohe religion. (His lordship then went on to read Dr. Achilli's evidence in denial of the specific charges.) His general denial was this : " I was not deprived at any time of my faculty to lecture from any cause, nor was lat any time deprived of any office." (Here his lord ship spike of Achilli having been confronted with certain of the female witnesses and of his point blank denials of any knowledge of them.) Certainly (said his lordship, speaking of the several statements of the women) thew is here nut one tittle of evidence beyond the individual charge to support the accusation. In the case of Prineipe there was the cerrohoration of the mother; but ageiast their evidence the jury would have to weigh the evidence of Dr. Achilli. (Here Mr. Reynolds's evidence was entered into, and Achilli's counterbalancing charges against Reynolds, as a drunkard, were enumerated.) As to the charge of ma de lity urged against Achilli it did not seem supported ; and lie said himself, " There never was a time in my life when I did not believe in the divine mission of our Saviour." Theis there was Dr. Achilli'e statement about the Inquisition. Ile said that the Inquisition could not try, and there fere had not tried, him in respect to immoralities; but the confusion seemed explained by the circumstance that thelproccedings before the Inquisition were verbal examinations, no written ex planations and answer,/ being handed in. On this point, perhaps, Dr. Grant was a better authority than Dr. Achilli. He (Lord Campbell) looked upon Dr. Grant as a tenoned, learned in the canon law of Rome ; and no doubt the state ment might be accepted that the InquisitMn did peewee ju risdiction in respect to immoralities. Dr. Achilli's infer ence that he was only tried for heresy was natural ; for it would have been very strange if in 1841 there should have been ingituted at Rome proceedings against him for what be had done so many years previously in other places. It was more probable that the inquiry should have been into asserted heresy—that was into a rereat offence, than into immorality, or offences of long standing. Why, in 1841, the Inquisition should have suddenly resolved to go into the whole life of Achilli, is not explained and does not teem probable. However, on that point the evidence would guide the jury. (The noble lord hero went into the cross examination of Achilli.) A pregnant matter for the coesideratioa of the jury was in the circumstance of Achilli having declined, on the assertion of his privilege, to answer the question whether or not he had had any criminal con• nexion with any women in England. From his elecliniue to answer the question as to " any," one might not un charitably suppose that, though not with " many," lie lied erred in point of chastity ; _ and that may anon t some ground to suppose that it he erred in point of chastity on one occasion, he may have alone so on another. but then it must be pointed out to the consideration of the jury that this declining to answer in one instance affected the en dos to be attache,' to the witness in the other instances in which he had answered. It would have been easy for him to say, " I new r with any woman bad improper intercourse." But he declined to do so; and the jury would therefore consider whether, on the whole, his declining to answer the particular question did or did not lower him in their estimation as a credible witness. Speaking of the charge that Achilli bad left his order in order to avoid exposure in it, his lordship said it appeared Achilli had intended to be secularised fur a long time before he ceased to be a monk ; and, consequently, the charges that be had become secularised in order to avoid certain accusations rested on very slender grounds. (His lordship then touched on tho other paints raised in the cross-examination ; but the comments were not of a material character.) Ile then curtly referred to the other witnesses on Achilli's side. Marianne Garamoni gave an account of the rencontrc which had led to the charge of adultery against Achilli, which was very different from he other accounts ; and be tween the conflicting evidence the jury would have to decide. Tho evidence of Mr. Kirkpatrick was of no importance, for it was given against a man with whom the witness was unacquainted. The evidence of Mrs. Achilli was only of value as against the character of one of the women act u sing Dr. Achilli. The jury were now in the possession of the whole of the evidence. They had listened with great patience, and he was care the public would be indebted to them for the manner in which they had addressed them selves to their duties in this case. His lordship, addressing the counsel, asked if there was a copy of the plea ready to be handed in to the jury. Some difficulty was experienced in gating an " unseercd" copy, but at length it was agreed to hand the jury the plea as it had been printed in a morning paperer Tuesday. His lordship decided that this would serve the purpose. His instructions to the jury in passing the document to them was as follows Now, that document contains, as I an, informed, a correct copy f the allegations of the plea. What I direct you to do is attentively to consider these, to beer in mind the evidence for and against, and to tell me when you return whether you find any of them proved, sr all of them ; and then I will direct how the verdict on that is to be given. I have done my duty to the best of nay ability, and I am sure now you will do yours. A Juror.—We are obliged to you, my lord. The jury then (at about half past eight) retired. They did not return into court until 11 o'clock. On their return it was asked, " Are you agreed on your verdict ?" The Foremen.—Yes ; on the 19th charge we find proved. All the rest we find not proved. (Sensation and partial cheering.) Lord Campbell.—The 19th charge respects Dr. Achilli's being deprived of his professorship and prohibited from preaching and hearing confession. You find that to be proved ? The Foreman—Yes, my lord, proved. Lord Campbell — And you find none of the other allega tions proved? The Foreman and several Jurors—No, none of the others. (Here the people in the court, beginning to understand the verdict, burst out into a vigorous cheer, which one at tempted to suppress.) Lord Campbell--With regard, then, to the plea of not guilty. The first plea is not guilty. You see that involves the publication and the question w hether it was of a libel lous nature. A Juror—Not guilty. That's what we find. Lord Campbell—No, understand me. The first plea is not guilty; and that involves the question whether it is proved that the defendant published this alleged libel, and whether it be libellous. Do not mind the truth of the charges at all. As to this, ray only on that do you find him guilty ,• and that it was of a libellous nature. The Foreman—Yes, guilty. Lord Campbt ll—Ou that you find him guilty. There is then a verdict for the crown on that. Then we come to the justification. And on the justification you find that the only part of it which is proved is the 19th, respecting I/r. Achilli being deprived of his professorship, and prohibited from preaching, end from hearing confession. A juror—Yee, that is the verdict. Lord Campbell—Wait a moment ; and let me see. That is (after a pause), you find that that is true which is alleged in the decree of the Inquisition, as far as that decree goes. A Juror—Yes. Lori Campbell—So far as that decree goes. You don't find as to the remain for the decree, but as to the decree itself ? The Foreman—Yes, only that. Lord Comply.. ll—Vtrr well. Then you find it to be true that Dr. AChilii was stoprntled how thecelebration of 31111.41, atul prohibited from any cure of souls, and from preaching, and from hearing confosston,and from exercising his sacerdotal oft a in any way—according to the decree of the Inquisi tion. And all the rest you fwd not to be proved