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

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 witness having so long
twithheld fhroemci rlfeurmaannicl: hoefr this
smplaint 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 applied; 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 appended;
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 afterwards 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 waster 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.