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

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
alZiesonosi
alditrkitAerychilolif
ilt commouerteto defendwit ahimcit:ilifd againstlniier
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 had d
been told of it by a chemist ; stll=
Dr. Achilli, according to her account, had the effrontery
MI the audacity, 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
4she4,
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-