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

(ti-ite 41.474)re;;;;5.

TO el/ARP:SPUN PRNTS.
A -ervAA PAllti•tu " The Espnes" coatatatna the gam, mtio
Gaulle," pubii,thed every Tikemlay k giday Night, is diu.e
Oar pugt.
!vat ;resew.lntended for The Paprt,,g," Loodaa VArlitni ; alter,
altwt rt_t.e. tio.vvrtcoggawt, by Two o'clock on 04
4a7 of Ipabatation.

MOH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tau Da, —Manila'. 7h. 31Its Aftrresne. d.
I..soaum—Mandag. 41.1 a.. --Mono" 911. I.

LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 25.

Tits Actitt.tt case is over. The huge scandal
that has crowded the newspapers, and has been
the topic of so many discussions, is—so far as the
Queen a Bench and its reports arc concerned—con-
cluded. Never since this journal was established have
the details of such a trial found record in its columns,
and—acting upon the rule laid down for the exclusion
of such details as those of the Nxwwsw libel—never
would such a case have been reported by us, had it not
presented an aspect very different from those which
characterize trials revealing mere gross but ordinary
criminality. In the present case, however, no rule of
exclusion could be permitted to op rate—since it was
impossible to separate the charges against Dr.
Actitm.t from the animus of those who promoted
them. The case has been, in truth, a priestly
quarrel, )ought out in a legal court, with de-
bauchery fur the charge, and oath against oath in the
investigation. It has not been the mere case of a cri-
minal upon trial. The women who came forward, at
the instance of Dr.Nr.w MSS, as witnesses todeclare that
the ex-Dominican priest had polluted them, were not
in court to ask justice against the alleged dcbauchee.
It was not an investigation of the damage done to the
Ccphalouian by criminal conversation with his wife ;
nor was it an inquiry into the fitness or unfitness of
Dr. Actiatt as a member of the church under
the shadow of which he is accused of com-
mitting so many bins. The case had a wider
scope altogether, and involved a variety of
interests that rendered it imperative upon every
journalist to give each fact brought forward in evi-
dence, and every argument, both for and against the
accused. In short the case was one between two
rival churches—the church of St. Pxrsa and the
church that had its foundation at the Reformation.
It was a strife between the 'priesthood of Rome and
the Evangelical Alliance —between a seceder from
Popery and the most active agents of the POPE. The
Papist slandered the Protestant, and this disgusting
trial has been the result.
As the trial has proceeded, the interest in the
public mind has grown from day to day, until it has
spread—with the reports of the investigation—to
every corner of the land. When the case was first
mpened, the statements of the witnesses were so
decided, so circumstantial, and so numerous, that the
fitting certainly ran strongly against itenti.ti--
any second thought upon the subject being ono
of astonishment at the amount of systematic perjury
committed, if the various allegations against him were
untrue. When the case of Aeutua was opened, upon
the cross-examination of the several witnesses, and
subsequently by the examination of the ex-Dominican
himself, that astonishment was not diminished, how-
ever much the balance of belief might have inclined
in his favour. Indeed, long before the several advo-
cates had fulfilled their duty, it was perfectly clear
that, on one side or the other, there was an
amount of perjury positively terrible to contem-
plate. And when the balance of evidence turned
against the Itomaniats, an additional and oversha-
dowing horror arose at the idea of what ramifications
the perjury seemed to pass through—of what men
in high places in the Church of Rome might be
implicated in the crime—and with what de-
liberate pertinacity the whole web of untruth had
been woven, until it seemed strong enough to entangle
and defile, if not destroy, any reputation, however
pure, against which it might be turned.
Many points of the trial and of the evidence pro-
voke especial criticism.
Sir A. COCKBURN warned the jury to be on their
hard against the unconscious bias of any Protestant
prejudices. This was an allowable enough oratorical
flourish,—e hint that Dr. NEWMAN and his witnesses
might not meet with absolute fair play at the hands
of professors of an alien creed. But, on the other
hand, it might be urged that the Italian witnesses
really were liable to suspicion on account of the
manner in which they had been ferretted out and
brought together. Dr. NEvritsw sent over emissaries
to Italy, who applied to dignitaries of the Romish
church and inquisitors to aid them in collecting wit-
nesses to defend their champion, Dr. NEWMAN,
end disable their antagonist, Dr. ACHILLI,—by
blaok-
suing his character. This aid was willingly lent.
Many Italians were naturally disposed to help their
priests against one whom they deemed an apostate.
In addition, to refuse to bear evidence against
Aentxtt might at this moment expose any Italian
to a charge of favouring him. Lastly, it was naturally
enough stated by ELEANOR GIURTINI or VALLENTI
that when first interrogated by her curate as tw
whether she couldtell anything against Dr. AMUR,
do inquired whether it would be " for her owl
wed ?" and was assured it was " for the honour a
file holy church," " for the honour of God." Unbolt
influence it is clear could be brought to bear on the
Italian witnesses; undue influence, if VALLENTI can
be believed, was brought to bear on at least one of
them.
These proceedings cannot exactly be called un-
precedented in an English court of justice. The
charges brought against Dr. ACHILLI, and the means
resorted to for obtaining witnesses in support of them,
remind one of the trial of Queen CAROLINE, and the
green-bag commission of Milan. The charges were
spread over twenty-six years of Dr. Actium's life;
he was called upon to rebut charges of incontinence
with persons not named, in places and at times not
specified. It was a terrible ordeal to undergo which
no man unsupported by conscious innocence, and
even in that case no man not possessed of more than
average courage, could have braved. The parallel
with the case to which we have compared Dr.
ACHILLI'S is the stronger from the entire breaking
down of the evidence so unscrupulously brought

Itogether.
We have no space to examine the whole of that evl-
HOUSE OF COMMON 3.—TIIVRSDAT, JvNz 24. device in detail; but, taking it in groups or chimes, its
The &uits It took the chair at 12 o'clock. 1 weakness, its irrelevance, can easily be indicated. There
PRIVATE BUSINESS. 1
I was a Catholic priest adduced to prove the general
The Lords' amendments to the Eastern Union Railway,
the Oreat Western Railway (No. 2), the North Western . ,
bad character of ACIIILLI, and some documentary
Railway, the Wedmore Road, and the Wycombe Railway i evidence was offered in support of his testimony ;1
Bills were cossidend and agreed to. i there were witnesses brought forward to
_prove 1
PUBLIC BUSINESS. 'specific offences in Italy, Malta, and the leaks 1
METROPOLITAN BURIALS BILL. 1 Islands; there were witnesses produced to prove
On the motion of Lord J. Maartrao, this bill was re- I .enefli in England.
committed for the purpose of introducing eertain new ou
chum.. With regard to the first, the priest stated that at
The Valuation (Irclaoll) Bill, the Woods sad Forests the time to which ho referred he was a boy of from
Land Revenuesßill' the teeieP Summary Proceedingßill, , ten to thirteen years of age. Among all the priests
the S. condary of Bankrupts Office Abolition Bill, the and monks of Viterbo, was there none who wan then
li..horne of Quebec Bill, the Colloidal Bishops Bill, the
Buittoprie of Cheiatehareh (New Zealand) Bill were lien- of mature years to speak from actual observation
raPy rend a third time and passed. to what the younker spoke of from hearsay ? He
The General Board of Health Bill was considered as declared that Mimi.' had a had character
amended, and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
,: at Viterbo, but admitted that he did not know why.
METItOrOLITAN BURIALS (COMPENSATION I
&c.) BILL. of the es memorandum of a policeman offered
A motion for a ecsamitire of the whole house to authorise as a substitute for records alleged to have been de-
fines (to be proposed by Sir W. bletssessila) tee the stroyed in the revolution, it is unnecessary to speak,