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


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 AAchilliell 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and that the suit was compromised or withdrawn.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 anont 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