The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-01 00:00:00

THE ACHILLI CASE.

SENTENCE UPON DR. NEWMAN.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAY.
Srrrumis no BA co.— thou Limo Comm', It& JEnica Cots-

- -
met, Ma. handl, WISZT ors Ma. Rams Eiti.a.
THE QUINN r. NIEMEN.

We continue our report of the proneedinip of yesterday in
this cue. The conclusion appeared in only a portion of our

impression.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly followed upon the same side.
Mr. F.Phs did not address the court.
The arguments of the learned gentlemen being concluded,
their lordships were about to eonsider their judgment, when
Dr. Newman rose and said, he wished to say a few words
to their lordships: he was aware he had no right to do so.
Lord Campbell said that Dr. Newman had already had
the assistance of five eloquent counsel. The court, how-
ever, were ready to hear anything he might wish to say.
Dr. Newman was then commencing to address the court
from a paper in his hand, when
Lord Campbell inquired whether what ho was about to
read had been seen by his counsel?
The Attorney-General said he was not aware of the con-
tents of the paper ; he only knew of the desire of Dr. New-
man to address the court.
. . . . _

Lord Campbell suggested that it would be better for Dr.
Newman to leave the case as it stood.
Dr. Newman was quits willing to accede to that course.
Lord Campbell then asked whether it would be inconve-
nient to him to stand while the judgment was passed?
Dr. Newman raid it would not be. lie thereupon rase,
and remained standing during the time that the sentence
was being passed.
?dr. Justice Coleridge, the senior puisne judge, then
delivered sentence as follows :
Dr. John Henry Newman, I have to pronounce upon you
the sentence of the court for the misdemeanour of which you
have been convicted ; that of having published a defamatory
libel, reflecting severely upon the character of Dr.
Aehilli. So much has been said in this case,
'hat it is unnecessary for me to review in detail
the former proceedings which have taken Place. The
criminal information having been filed, by leave of the
court, you have pleaded to it two pleas, one of not guilty,
denying the publication, and one under the recent statute,
in which you undertake to establish, firstly, that the
charges so reiterated in the plea were true; and, secondly,
that the publication of them was for the public good.
Upon the trial of the lone' so raised it was admitted, sad
it is right to state the whole admission, and not to state it
partially as your counsel to day have several times done,
that if the libel was true, it was for the benefit of the public
that it should be published But, of course, unless the
chews in the libel, as repeated in the plea, should be SW
tamed, it was not and could not have been meant to be
admitted that the publication was for the public benefit.
After a very long trial the jury were of opinion that the
plea was not made out, end many of the allegations in the
plea having had evidence adduced on the one side, and the
other—to prove and to disprove—the jury expressed their
opinion upon all these allegations, but one, unfavourable to
you. Within the usual time of moving for a new trial your
counsel made no application; but at • later period, when
you were brought up for judgment, an application was
made that, even then, they should be heard to impeach the
Propriety of the verdict, as having passed against evidence.
Irelding to a single precedent, the authority of which the
court by a rule has put an cnd to for the future, the court
granted a rule, and that role came on to be argued. That
rule was ultimately discharged, after a very long and able
argument. The ground upon which it was discharged was
one that might perhaps have been urged in the first in-
stance, and that might have prevented the court from
granting tho rule at all. But the case was new ; it arose
upon a recent and most important act of parliament, and it
was thought better that the whole subject should
be discussed. I, for one, think that no time was
lost, long as that argument was, because I think it has
served for the advancement of the interests of justice, and
has enabled the court to be better possessed of all the ma-
terials for pronouncing a judgment upon you than it other-
wise could have been. On discharging that rule the court
did not find it necessary to express any opinion upon the
propriety of the conclusion to which the jury had come
upon the particular allegations as to which proof +Reoffered
to them. The court discharged it upon the ground that
the jury bad rightly found a verdict upon the issue sub-
mitted to them; that there was nothing to show that there
had been any impropriety in their verdict; and that •
second trial could only have resulted in the same conclu-
sion. But the court also thought, in discharging that rule,
and having had reference to the statute, that it was satis•
factory to find that when you were brought up for judg-
ment it was competent for them, and, if competent, they
were bound to consider the plea and the whole of the
evidence offered on both aides in proof and disproof of the
allegations in order to see, not whether the verdict was
right or wrong, not whether you had Incurred any or no
guilt, but whether the guilt established by the verdict was
aggravated or mitigated by the plea and the evidence.
The court bad therefore an enlarged duty ; they had felt
the statute has east it upon th• m, and they have entered
into • consideration of all the circumstances. In addition
to that they have heard to-day, as they would have heard
in any ordinary case before the sentence passed, the affi-
davits which you have offered in mitigation of your offence
—and, looking to them, I believe I speak the sentiment of
every member of the court when I say that, in the first
place, they are satisfied that you honestly believed the
truth of the allegation you made against Dr. Achilli. (A
murmur of applause here ran through the court.)
They see no reason to deny implicit credit to the
statements you have made to-day upon oath, and they
understand, and indeed are prepared to accept and adopt,
the frank language which they understood to have been
used in the course of the argument, that you are a man in-
Fanie of affirming that which you believed to be untrue.
expressions of applause were here renewed.) Further
that, I believe that the court is entirely of opinion
that this was not a reckless or unthinking belief that you
have taken up; but that you have—receiving the story
from some one whose character you thought entitled to re-
spect and credit, having made such inquiries as were in
your power at that time, having understood that these
charges had been made many months before, and had re-
ceived no contradiction from Dr. Achilli—you have been
led to think that you had good groan& for the belief you
so entertained. Thirdly, I think it is but fair to believe
what you have now stated, that you composed and pub-
liaised this libel, not from any personal malice that you
entertained against Dr. Achilli, but beams you
thought that he had 'nailed the religion which
you valued above all things in life, that be came
openly and speaking as an eye witness and porddpoter, OW
iiST
may almost say, in the transactions to whisk he end
that therefore it was extremely Imputes% et
Birmingham, to which place he led elms, to Me
charges by an exposition of his character, &triodes tbseeby
from the authority with which they would otherwise ISOM
to be clothed. This brings me to the next and mesa impor-
tant part of the case, the actual truth or falsehood of those
allegations which you put upon your plea. Now, in address-
ing myself to them, I cannot, of course, adopt the stress
and unqualified language which your advocates have used.
There are many cireunistanvewhich, after all that has bees
said, Judea, one to pause before one adopts that extreme
and strong laaguage. In the first place, there is • greet
improbability in the story which you put forward, taken IS
• whole. One can hardly bring oneself to believe, Mat •
man, not merely so wicked, and wicked for ee=
years, but, according to your statement, so l
esely wishatiebould have been, as it appeus un-
asbe was, caressed, honoured, trusted with
Climmnikato and unfit employment in the Asia= imp
thole sbureb, until it appears he had lapsed ha his faith
boa that church. Another circumstance assost fail to
arrest the attention of any one who has regards* this eels
duos, me we are bound to do, the motives, •o eels SINS
have been put forward to the witnesses wee ems has
Italy to support the truth of the story. One of them spin
to bee hewn been divested to came Imre tee the balsam elf
holy chunk and the Nether of Owl. Vsaissbis ammo
aafiesbeidly. Nose more likely to loss bill ussisissasi
and thoughtless witnesses, who were to spook to noels
tranasetioas, into error and ezaggeratiou. Another eircum.
stance, also, could not but press upon the mind of the cave,
vie., the *strews difficult —I may say the almost entire
impossibility—for Dr. Achilli effectually to contradict the
stories which were repeated of him In Italy and the other
parts of the Continent, seat if they were untrue. Meek
use said of the difficulty under which you had Ir
boored in bringing witnesses to this country to substantiate
your allegations. I have no doubt it is true ; but dillies/a,
is not the right term to use in the case of Dr. Achill, •
man who had left the Roman Catholic Church under • sod
tame from the Holy Inquisition, and who therefore wield
have found it almost, if sot absolutely impossible to iodises
any witnesses to come here ; either to detract from the duo
Teeter, or contradict the statements of the witnesses in your
behalf. These are circumstances which we think the jury
were rightly entitled to consider. If we were considering
now the verdict of that jury, they would enter largely into
our consideration. I am trite aware they do not apply to
the whole of the case against Dr. Achill* ; but they were
certainly most material to the parts I have already alluded
to. Yet, after making all these allowances, and taking
into consideration all these circumstances, the court
is not entirely satisfied with the finding of the
Jury upon thew facts in all particulan. If tie
question of • new trial had turned simply and
solely upon the facts and upon the finding of the jury
son those facts I believe that the court would have had
no difficulty, at all events, in saying that there was so muck
to question upon them, that they would have desired rho
investigation of another jury. But these circumstance'
ought, I think, to have been a little more felt by those who
have expressed themselves so strongly, as some have dons,
with respect to the conclusion to which the jury came. The
Vial and every step of these proceedings have been so
anxiously attended by such a numerous clam of people, that
it is quite impossible to say that some may not have come
here supposing this was a question between the two
churches of England and Rome. Any considerate man,
however, who thought of the matter for • moment, must
have seen that the church of England, at least, had no
interest whatever in the matter. If you had been shown
to be, what the information alleged against you, a
wilful, and wicked, and bitter slanderer, the church
of England might have said. with regret I speak
it, that you were no longer within her fold.
She might have gone further, she might have appealed to
writings, in my opinion at least, invaluable, which pro-
ceeded from your pen whilst you were one of her members,
in which, great as was their ability, sound as was their doe
trine, urgent es was their teaching to holiness of life,
nothing was more remarkable than the tenderness and gen-
tleness of spirit that pervaded the whole. Nay, she might