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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME 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 Sbee, Mr.
Bramwell, Q.C,, Mr. Baddeley, and Mr. Willes appeared
for the defendant.
Cardinal Wiseman, who had been subpoenaed as a wit-
ness, sat upon the bench dnringthegreaterpartof 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 for a new trial, on the ground that the Chief
Baron, who tried the cause, bad 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 be had also ruled
that the cardinal could not be called as a witness for the
plaintiff, as his evidence would tend to criminate himself,
and 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. Ivors said-1 am a Roman Catholic
priest at Kentish-town. I am the author of the articles
that appeared in the Ami de la Religion. There are two
parties hi the Roman Catholic church—a loyal party,and
a party which is not, or, rather, an ultra party and a
ID-Kiel-ate party. The A nil de la Religion is the erne
of the moderate, and the Univers that of the more
violent party. I remember seeing the article signed
" N. Cardinal 'Wiseman" in the Univers of the 23d May,
1854, and I consider it was the answer to an article that
appeared in the Ana 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 thia 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 Wiseman. (Ser-
geant Shee here produced a letter and handed it to the
witness, and he said it appeared to have heen altered
since he last saw it. He was not prepared to say whe-
ther it was the same, and he was opinion that it was not.)
I desired the Abbe Cognard to let me have the 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 be 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
Le refused for the flume reason. I asked him if be would
produce it himself, and he refused. I read the letter
and remember its contents.
Sergeant Shea said he should propose to prove that
the letter he had handed to the witness was the same he
had seen.

Mr. Baron Platt said it was not competent for the
learned counsel to do this, except as evidence fur 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 corn-
n:enced 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 viens 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 pccket-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
me in reference to the letter which I have just published
in answer to the articles of the Ami de la 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 Arai 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 newspapet published in
London.

Sergeant Shea 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 Unirers.
Mr. Bramwell still objected to the article being read.
Baron Platt said that it was not read as a proof of pub-
lication hi an English newspaper, but merely that it was
a correct translation of the original article.
Sergeant Shea said he offered the original letter.
Baron Platt said it was proved to be the original
letter.
Mr. James said he would not receive the document
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. Ivors was then cross-examined by Mr.
Sergeant Shee. He said—l reside 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 in
writing that I was 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 missionary 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
oin whichrhbv]yee
had been croon-examined, and said be should u
been made a Roman priest—which was an honour rarely
az
conferred upon an Englishman —if his conduct had n of
entitled him to that honour. He went on to say that,
r on his arrival in this country, presented himself to
the bishop ; but he acknowledged he
deed no other bishop tha n
the Pope, and he had protested against Cardinal Wise,-
man having the right to granthe b
orad withhold faculties
from him. He read a letter received from the,
cardinal, in which he toldhwimas notthsct justified in
without receiving. ;
l application.
the necessary faculties, he
nistering the sacrament ; and, unle
adm
s d
were made for those faculties, it
would anbe his duty to inform the parishioners of Kentish-town of the con- : w
dition of their pastor. He considered he
appointed.
minister for life, and the question was left to oth Pope
for decision, and in the meantime he had retired from.
the performance of his duties, and had never
publicly
officiated in his chapel. He told his congregation
would not oppose Cardinal Wiseman, and that
the doors
he
of his chapel would be closed from that day. He said he
knew nothing of the plaintiff except that he heard that
be had been cruelly treated, and he refused to see him,
because he would not be thought to be acting in opposi-
tion to Dr.Wiseman. 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 Arai de la Reli-
gion.) He said he had never heard from the plaintiff
that the word expulse was corrected in the French news-
paper, but he would not swear it bad not been stated
in the 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
14L1 he went to Paris to make the inquiries he did re-
si'Llug the letter, because he did not believe the car-
dinal would have written such a letter.
'rgesait Shee said he had no doubt that all his pro-
ceedings were actuated by love for the cardinal. (A
laugh.)
ae:::11I deigds—wally object was to ascertain the truth, and
Re-,
and in, the true interest of the Catholic religion.
Rome, and f"•`--"I was in a great measure educatedl at
Dad a dispute "tutor to some princes of Spain. never
Church. vaerew.ith any bishop of the Roman Catholic
the Catholic Chuirser.
is vested in the b canon law for the management of
iisnbeEngland, and the whole power
take out faculties, I protestedi it.
• When I was called upon to
The. Rev. Mr. Boy wes against nlexamined. said--I
am the plaintaiff in this action.
was educated for the Roman &flatir Englishman, and
Catholic Church,
ordained aie Church, partly
at Sbonyhurst and partly in Paris.
toe church
th
priest in 1633, and was appointed as ea
rat
at Islington in 1847. Dr. Griffiths was then bishop of
the diocese. I was also a member of an order Jesuits.
I joined that order in 1825. I have not read any
articles in the Univers and the Ami de la Religion of the
was not aware of the controversy that was going r,,11
France. I retired from the order of Jesuits in les:e
My attention was first called to the libel, when it a •
peered in the Catholic Standard, a week after it ar.
~
peered in the Unit-era. It is false ta say that I was ex-
pelled from the order of the Jesuits to which I belonged.
I was never expelled from any religious socieiy in my
life. The cardinal succeeded 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 bad come to the conclusion that a total change of
men and system was necessary at Islington, and that
he had appointed two Irish priests, and at the same
time offered bins what he described as an important mi -
sion at Chichester). I wrote an answer expressing my
disinclination 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