The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-23 00:00:00

time I should abstain from the exercise of my ministry.
Thi3 reconciliation, according to the instructions given,
c.rsialeel in this—that I should write and publish some
book in favour of the Roman Catholic Church. I must
correct an observation which I made, not baviug suf-
ficiently reflected. My incarceration at the Inquisition
took piece
in 1841, and after being set at liberty I re-
mained a certain time in Rome, and afterwards I went,
as I said, into the. country in the neighbourhood of Rome
Those were all the conditions on which I was released
from the Inquisition on the first occssion.
Cross-examined by Sir A. COCII/3URN—I became a
monk of the order of St. Dominic, in 1820, and took the
vows. The Domiuicnns profess only a single vow,
thus :—" I, Achilli, promise obedience to God, to the
blessed Virgin, to the patriarch Sr. Dominic, and to you
Most Rev. Father-General of the Order until death."
There is nothing else in the vow. I mean to state on my
oath I believe a Dominican monk does not take the
vow of poverty and celibacy. I swear on my oath I did
not take those vows. If it is not their interest to take
those vows, Dominican monks do not take them. They
were not a necessary condition to be admitted into
the Order cf St. Dominic. The vow of
obedience is only necessary. In the year 1824
I became a priest. Chastity is part of the obligation
of a priest. I swear that during the time I was at Vi-
terbo, from 1819 to 1832, I had no intercourse with any
woman following the imputations that have been made
against me.—(Laughter.) I could answer "no" to the
question whether I have had sexual intercourse with
other women than these mentioned while at Viterbo.

Sir A. Cocenueat—That is not the question.
Witness—l could answer, but I avail myself of the
privilege given by the Judge not to answer.
Sir A. COCKBURN said the privil, ge of not answering
could only be allowed in a criminal court.
Lord CAMPBELL said ho could not compel the witness
to answer the question.
Witness—l never had intercourse with any woman in
the sacristy of the church at Viterbo, nor in any room
contiguous to it. In 1826 I went to La Quaercha of my
own accord ; I was not sent ; I did not go there by way
of penance. Every officiating priest in Italy has not a
General power to confess like I had. In 1826, Spaletti.
a priest, might have made accusations against me; I
heard that these accusations were in circulation, but I
did not go on a tour of visitation with Broscente to
avoid them. There was not one single word against me
when I left Viterbo. In 1834 there was not a charge
against me of violating the person of a young woman
in Cardinal Balzi's house. There might have been,
but I cannot now recollect. lam not indifferent to
charges of that kind, but thousands of the same
nature have been made . ugainst me. When in
the prison of the L quisttion I was accused of
murdering a nun, and the matter was brought under
the notice of the French Government. To obtain
letters of seclurazition, I must have a patrimony.
The letters mention vows in the plural, but I still per-
sist in saying I only took one vow as a Dominican
monk. I obtained the patrimony from my uncle shortly
after the letters of secularization were granted. In 1831
I did stay for a portion of the month of October at the
house of a lady named Gentilli, the widow of one
Christoche; the house is in the country near Rome.
The servant in the house was not the woman Valenti,
I don't recollect ever seeing her face before. I have
gone out shooting while there, with Spaletti, the vicar of
the bishop.
Sir A. COCKBURN—Oh! that is the amusement of
monks.—(Laughter.)
Lord CAMPBELL said that formerly English bishops
and the clergy kept fox hounds.
Sir A. COCKBURN—But there is a great difference
between secular clergy and monks.
Witness—l never took out any servant girl to show
her some shooting sports while I was at Signora Gen-
tili's house.

You have plenty of funds to carry on these proceed-
ings?—l hope Providence will furbish me with funds.
From whom do you get funds?—l get them by the
providence of God.
That is not my question P—l obtain them by the Pro-
vidence of God through come friends.

Lord CAIUPBELL—r do not see any necessity for in-
quiring into that point.
Sir A. COCKBURN—I only want to show fonds are
not wanting. _

Lord CAMPBELL—I think there are no funds wanting
on either bide.—(Laughter.)
I think, Dr. Achilli, yuu have said the monks at
Viterbo are very wicked people?—l do not come here to
cry out against them.
But you have cried out against them—have you not?
--When time and circumstances allowed it.

You said, I think, they were a sinful and profligate
people?—l did not say that of the monks of Viterbo. ,
Are they a good and virtuous people?—Some are
good and some had.
Were some loose in their conversation with women;
and were all possible means taken to hush up their con-
duct?—According to the law, it was the duty of the
principals to proceed against them, and I myself have
been charged to conduct inquiries respecting some.
Were you ever charged with such an offence?—As
long as I remained with the Dominicans I was their
idol.—(Laughter.) Atter leaving Viterbo I went to
Naples, having previously spent Lent at Calms.
While you were at Capua had you intercourse with
any woman whatever P—l might say no;" but I ap-
peal to the privilege given me by the Judge not to
answer the question.—(Sensation.) I was never charged
with having intercourse with the daughter of the cham-
berlain of the Bishop of Capua.
Do you think, now you are a Protestant, that a
charge of unehastity is a serious one to be made against
a Roman Catholic priest?—l believe it is a real crime
among all Christians. I do not think it makes much
difference between a clergyman and a layman in this
resp,ct.
(The witness was under examination when our report
left.)

SECONDARIES.—(THIN DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
HOPPER V. BURNETT.-:-WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE.
The plaintiff in this action is a ship broker in the
City, and the defendant carries on the same business at
Sunderland, and the action was brought to recover the
sum of 21. for money lent.
Defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
The Learned SECONDARY said that in this case some
person had sent him a letter; he bad not read it, but it
was highly improper of any one to write to a judge on
the subject of a case about to be tried before him. He
should therefore band the letter, which was at great
length, over to the plaintiff's attorney to read.
The plaintiff's attorney read the letter, and said it
was from the defendant, but did not disclose the contents,
The plaintiff's latterly then called the plaintiff, who
proved that he lent the defendant 24, and took his
lOU.

The jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.

The-plaintiffs attorney applied to the Secondary
to certify for costs to prevent the necessity of plain-
tiff going before a judge, as it had been necessary to
bring the action in the superior court, for if they had
taken proceedingi in the County Court it must have
been at Sunderl4nd, and plaintiff would have been at the
expense of going down there; or, on the other hand, a
special application must have been made to the Judge of
the Sheriff's Court, London, and then defendant, if he
had a defence, would have had to bring his witnesses up
to London, _ _ _ _ _

The Learned SECONDARY said, that where there was
a concurrent jurisdiction, as in this case, he had Do
power to give a certificate—the application must be
made to a judge at chambers.