The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-04 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

TIONIE CIRCUIT.-KINGSTON, APRIL 3.
BOYLE V. WISEMAN.

This was an action brought by the Rev. Mr. Boyle, a
Roman Catholic priest, against Cardinal Wiseman to re-
cover damages for a libel.
Mr. E. James, Q.C. Mr. Lush, and Mr. Wordsworth
were counsel for the Plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr.
Bramwell, Q.C., Mr. Baddeley, and Mr. Willes appeared
for the defendant.
Cardinal Wiseman, who had been subpeenaed as a wit-
ness, sat upon the bench duringthe greaterpart of the trial.
This case, it will be remembered, was tried at Guild-
ford during the last summer assizes, and on that occasion
the plaintiff was nonsuited. An application was after-
wards made fora new trial, on the ground that the Chief
Baron, who tried the cause, had improperly refused to
admit secondary evidence of the contents of a letter
written by the defendant, in which he admitted the
authorship of the alleged libel, and that he had also ruled
that the cardinal could not be called as a witness for the
plaintiff, as his evidence would tend to criminate himself,
nd upon both grounds a new trial was directed.
Mr. James opened the case for the plaintiff in a brief
and eloquent speech.
The following evidence was then adduced :
The Rev. Mr. Ivory said—l am a Roman Catholic
priest at Kentieh-town• lam the author of the articles
that appeared in the Am (le la Religion. There are two
parties in the ROM3.llCatholic ch urch —a loyal party,and
a party which is not, or, rather, an ultra party and a
moderate party. The Anti de la Religion is the organ
of the moderate, and the Univers that of the more
party. I remember seeing the article signed
:11.1TenCaidinal Wiseman" in the Univers of the 23d May,
1854, and I consider it was the answer to an article that
appeared in the Ami of the 15th of April, written by
me. I referred to Mr. Boyle in my article but I had no
communication whatever with him before I wrote it. I
had not spoken to him for some years before this time.
The article in the Univers undoubtedly refers to Mr.
Boyle. The principal editor of the Ami de la Religion
is the Abbe Cognard. In July last I was requested to
go to Paris to ascertain whether the letter purporting to
be signed by the cardinal was authentic. I went to the
office of the Univers, but previously I saw the Abbe
Cognard, and he showed me a letter which I have no
doubt was the handwriting of Cardinal Wis• an. (Ser-
geant Shee here produced a letter andehan, • e it to the
witness, and he said it appeared to haven altered
since he last saw it. He was not prepare,tto say whe-
ther-it was the same, and he was opinion theat was not.)
I desired the Abbe Cognard to let me havelhe letter, in
order that it might be used before the courts in Eng-
land ; and I told him with what object I had come to
Paris. He told me that he dared not let me have the
paper ; and he said he had been so cruelly persecuted by
Cardinal Wiseman that he dared not offend him. Since
the last trial I have seen the Abbe Cognard at Paris, and
urged him most earnestly to let me have the letter, but
he refused for the seine reason. I asked him if he would
produce it himself, and he refased. I read the letter
and remember its contents.
Sergeant Shee said he should propose to prove that
the letter he had handed to the witness was tho same he
had seen.
Mr. Baron Platt said it was not competent for the
learned counsel to do this, except A 9 evidence for the
defendant.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Sergeant Shee, the
witness said—The letter I saw corresponded in general
appearance with the one now produced. The paragraph
from which I drew the inference that this is not the
same, is the very first passage in it. The letter was
again handed to the witness, and he said that the first
difference he remarked was that the letter he saw com-
menced Monsieur l'Abbe, whereas this letter commenced
simply " Monsieur." There was also no erasure in the
letter I saw, whereas there is an erasure in this one. I
will swear, to the best of my belief, that the letter com-
menced with the words Monsieur l'Abbe, I have no
hesitation in swearing positively to that fact, and I
swear that the first sentence of the letter has been al-
tered. I will also swear that, in the original letter, there
were the words, "La lettre que je diens de publier." I
took a note of the contents of the letter on the same day
I saw it. I made some interlinations in the copy of the
letter some months afterwards. I made it more com-
plete, from notes I took in my pocket-book.
By the Court—l am satisfied that the first sentence is
not the same that was in the original letter.
Examination continued—l took notes while I was
with the Abbe Cognard. I took down the date and one
or two other matters, and wrote out a full statement
afterwards for the use of the plaintiff's attorney. The
witness then said that in the original letter the words
were—" I have received the letter which you wrote to
sue in' reference to the letter which I have just published
in answer to the articles of the Ami de lea Religion re-
lating to the Catholic Church in England." This letter
was signed by the defendant (Cardinal Wiseman). We
were aware that the Univers was under the inspiration
of the cardinal and the abbe, and I always examined it
attentively to see if it contained any answer to our arti-
cles that appeared in the Ami de la Religion. No arti-
cle upon the subject except the one signed "N. Cardinal
Wiseman" appeared in the Univers in that form. I
afterwards saw a correct translation of the original ar-
ticle in the Catholic Standard, a newspaper published in
London.
Sergeant Shee objected to the reception of any evi-
dence to show the publication in an English newspaper
until proof of the original publication in the French
newspaper was established.
After some argument, the examination of the witness
was proceeded with, and he said the article produced
was a correct translation of the article that appeared ori-
ginally in the Univers.
Mr. Bramwell still objected to the article being read
Baron Platt said that it was not read as a proof of pub-
lication in an English newspaper, but merely that it was
a correct translation of the original article.
Sergeant Shee said he offered the original letter.
Baron Platt said it was proved to be the original
litter.

Mr. James said he would not receive the doc-iment
as the original letter.
After some further discussion the whole of the origi-
nal letter was read in the form in which it appeared in
the Univers.
The Rev. Mr. Ivory was then cross-examined by Mr.
Sergeant Shee. He said—l re7ide within the diocese of
the cardinal at Kentish-town. Dr. Griffiths was formerly
apostolic vicar of the same diocese. I had faculties from
the highest authorities of the Church and from the Pope.
I did not receive any missionary faculties from Dr.
Walsh. lam a Romish priest, although an Englishman,
and I have no other bishop, according to the canon law
of the Catholic Church, but the Pope. My faculties were
given to me for life, and there was an agreement lit
writing that I W 39 to be Roman Catholic minister
of Kentish-town for life. Cardinal Wiseman always ac-
knowledged my rights in this respect. I would not have
accepted missiot ary faculties because they can be re-
voked at any time. I acknowledge no other bishop than
the Pope. I was appointed by the special grace of the
Pope. The witness complained of the mode in which he
had been cro-s-exarnined, and said he should not have
been made a Roman priest—which was an honour rarely
conferred upon an Englishman —if his conduct had not
entitled him to that honour. He went on to say t'at,
on his arrival in this country, ho presented himself to
the bishop ; but he acknowledged no other bishop than
the Pope, and he had protested against Cardinal Wise-
man having the right to grant or withhold faculties
from him. He read a letter he had received from the
cardinal, in which he told him that without receiving
the necessary faculties, he was not justified in admi-
nistering the sacrament ; and, unless aon were made for those faculties, it would bep hpislicati duty
to inform the parishioners of Kentish-town of the con-
dition of their pastor. He considered he was appointed
minister for life, and the question was left to the Pope
for decision, and in the meantime he had retired from
officiated in
the performance of his duties, and had never publicly his chapel. He told his congregation he
would not oppose Cardinal Wiseman, and that the doors
of his chapel would be closed from that day. He said he ,
knew nothing of the plaintiff except that he beard that
he had been cruelly treated, and he refused to see him,
because he would not be thought to be acting in opposi-
tion to DaWiseman. He certainly alluded to Dr. Boyle
as a priest distinguished for his piety and zeal. (The wit-
ness here at the request of Sergeant Shee read some por-
tions of the article written by him in the Ami de la Reli-
gion.) He said he bad never heard from the plaintiff
that the word expulse was corrected in the French news.
rgaper, he would not swear it had not been stated
nv: presence of Mr. Boyle that there had been such
a correction made, and that the Cardinal had never
made use of that word or of the word expelled. He
said be went to Paris to make the inquiries he did re-
specting the letter, because he did not believe the car-
dinal would have written such a letter.
Sergeant Slice said he had no doubt that all his pro-
eeedings were actuated by love for the cardinal. (A
laugh.)
Witaess--My object was to ascertain the truth, and
what I did was in the true interest of th e Catholic religion.
R was in a great measure educated at
had
—ome, and I was tutor to some princes of Spain. I never
a dispute with any bishop of the Roman Catholic
Church. There is no canon law for the management of
the Catholic Church in England,lven I was called upon to
and the whole power
is vested in the Mattol
take out faculties, I protested against it.
The Rev. Mr. Boyle was then examined. He said —I
am the plaintaiff in this acticenl am glishman, and
was educated for the Roman Catlnli!:Cashrirch, artly
atStonyhurst and partly in Paris.
ordained a
priest in 1833, and was appointed as curatetot
at Islington in 1847. Dr. Griffiths was then bishop church
at
the diocese. I was also a member of an order of Jesuits.
of
I joined that order in 1825. I have not read any osiflitte
articles in the Univers and the Ami de la Religion, and
was not aware of the controversy that was going on in
France. I retired from the order of Jesuits in 1846.
My attention was first called to the libel, when it ap.
peared in the Catholic Standard, a week after it ap-
peared in the unico, It is false to say that I was ex-
pelled from the order of the Jesuits to which I belonged.
I was never expelled from any religious society in my
life. The cardinal sucreeled Dr. Griffiths as bishop
about six or eight months after I was appointed as cu.
rate at Islington. The first intimation I received that
I was to cease the performance of my duties was in
1850, when I received a letter to that effect from the
cardinal. (The letter stated that after full consideration
he had come to the conclusion that a total change of
men and system was necessary at Islington, and that
be bad appointed two Irish priests, and at the same
time offered him what he described as an important mi -
Rion at Chichester). I wrote an answer expressing my
disincliaation to leave Islington, and I also declined the
honour of founding a mission at Chichester, for that was
what I found was intended. The Rev. Mr. Oakley, a
minister of the Protestant Church, who had become a
Roman Catholic, was appointed in my place, and he