The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELL EGENCE.

HOME CIRCIIIT.—GUILDFORD, AUGUST 12.
(Before the Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
BOYLE V. WISEMAN.

The plaintiff in this action was a Catholic priest, and
the defendant was Cardinal Wiseman. The action was
brought to recover damages for a libel alleged to have
been published by the defendant.
The only plea upon the record was one of " Not
Guilty." The damages were laid at 10,0001.
Mr. James, in opening the case, said, that the plaintiff
in this action was Mr, Richard Boyle, and the defendant
was Nicholas, Cardinal Wiseman. The plaintiff for some
time had filled the office of a Roman Catholic priest in
this country, and the present action was brought to re-
cover damages from Cardinal Wiseman for having pub-
lished a series of false and malicious libels concerning
him—libels of a nature calculated to entirely ruin and
destroy him, and for which, as it appeared to him, there
was not the slightest foundation. These libels had been
publi,hed in a French paper called the Univers, also in
the Tablet, and in the Catholic Standard. They had
been circulated in France, over the whole of the,
continent, and had reached the ears of the Pope in
Rome, having been also published in a newspaper which
he was informed was regarded with especial favour by
his Holiness. There was no pretence for a justification,
and he could prove the statements were untrue, and
not only untrue, but, that they were also untrue to the
knowledge of the Cardinal ; that the facts referred to
had been long before cleared up to the knowledge of the
Cardinal, who, notwithstanding, had ventured to bring
forward charges which he knew were without founda-
tion, for no other object, as it appeared to him, than to
utterly crush and destroy the unfortunate plaintiff. The
learned counsel then read the libel which formed the
subject of the action. It was a translation of a letter
originally addressed to the Univers, and the material
portions were the following :
"Yon quote in your article of May 7 a passage on the
Anti de la Religion, which seems to give the key to M.
Cognat's production. In it is drawn the portrait of a
priest, pious and zealous, who had grown gray in the
service of the altar, who perhaps had laid the first foun-
dation of his church, receiving all at once a notice con-
veyed in a simple note that he had ceased to be pastor
of his flock. He was thanked in the most flattering
terms for the services which he had rendered, and at the
same time condemned in his declining years to languish
in the depth of distress. Perhaps he was fortdtsate
enough to find the means of placing himself during the
week in some office in the quality of clerk : then,
when Sunday came, he would reappear at the altar to
celebrate the holy mysteries. This last circumstance de-
signates the individual in question in as clear a manner as
if his name were uttered. There is here but one single
priest in that position ; that is to say, who is clerk in an
office all the week and who ascends the altar on Sunday.
If a priest, employed in a commercial house in Paris,
offered himself to give us details on the character of the
French Episcopate, I think that, before accepting all
that he would say to us, we should find it opportune to
ask for some information about him at the secretariat of
his dioces e. Let us suppose that we look at the details
given, and that the result of them is to inform us that
the priest who presents himself, or who is presented to
the public, as the victim of episcopal tyranny and op-
pression, was formerly a member of a religious society,
from which he was expelled ; that he was kindly given
occupation in a diocese, but he was never incorporated
in it ; that, instead of having grown gray in the service
of the altars and of having founded a church, he was
only employed for some years, and that it was in the
quality of curate or assistant priest. If it were added,
that it became necessary to fix a day, when his
faculties were withdrawn from him, and when his
place was filled up, that he refused to give up
to his successor the presbytery through which was the
entrance to the church, the sacristy, and the confessionals,
pretending that the late bishop had granted to him
that house in full property, without rent to pay (which
is contrary to the titles of property); that the priest then
advertised furni,hed apartments to let, and that it was
not till after many months, by means of legal prosecu-
tion and considerable expense, that possession could be
taken of the presbytery. . . . :—what would not that
man have to answer to God and to the church for scan-
dal caused, and for calumnies propagated, on such an
authority."

Mr. James proceeded.—This was the libel complained of,
and he would show the jury presently why it was calcu-
-I,ted to be so utterly ruinous to any man in the position
of a Roman C,tholic priest. The learned counsel hav-
ing concluded a very powerful address,
The Rev. Mr. Ivors was then called as a witness.
He said— I am a Roman Catholic priest, and the in-
cumbent of the chapel of St. Alexis, Kentish-town.
I remember seeing an article in the Univers of the 23d
of May, signed " N , Cardinal Wiseman." The Univers
is the organ of the Ultramontane, and un-English, and
unconstitutional party. The articles I wrote were upon
the subject of English Roman Catholic affairs. They
appeared in the paper with the signature of the " Abb6
Cognat." I went to Paris on the 27th of July last upon
the subject of the libel, and with the intention to find
out the author., I had heard that the Abbe Cognat had
written to the Cardinal, and that he had sent a reply,
and'l saw a letter in the possession of the Abb6 which
I believe was in the Cardinal's handwriting.
Mr. James—Did you ask the Abbci to give you that
letter ?
Witness—l did, but he refused to do so. I read the
letter, and am acquainted with the contents.
Mr. James submitted that, under these circumstances,
he was entitled to give secondary evidence of the con-
tents of the letter.
Mr. James said, here was a letter written by.
1a de-
fendant to a person abroad, who refused to give %h
up.
He contended that they were in just the samepo.si
as
if
givethed a
eleetotoerabry evidence bad
ebveienlooe fsto, andits contents.
Mr. he was at liberty
to
Mr. Lush followed on the same side.
his experience on the benchgiven
eodriadt ntehte remember
similar
ir
dr
JCI es stitic Oen
Erieh uaproisnentheansdubh
jeecwt.oulHd
isco.lnforedrshwipitahccAo
not
tt hbeey
ni
'aid, I
oi npgi y
or: t
thatire l ,
saencdo nudpaorny heivs i dr eetnucrenli coulde s
a
the contents of Gthaewltehtoteror uwnadgerththeenceiraclulemd_stannceese
Mr. W. R.
am s
a c
i Thec of
Eng-
lishman
principal withg assistant secretary to Cardinal
thHe
epi Wiseman.
ra e
Monsignor
title. I
sending ecclesiastical notices to the Catholic Standard
eatagreign
every week, and I superintend the ecclesiastical division
of that paper. I have no manuscript of any of the ar-
ticles that appeared in the Catholic Standard of the
27th of May.
Mr. H. J. Prendegast said—l am the editor of the
Catholic Standard, and I have the charge of all the
docthe I
eumvmearennbut
ass
manuscript
pta.tt
ogilo t
ninneetvoleerttthseaer
wopf
aatnpnyeer
s.2u7ctlhh
moc
faanni‘ntuoas
ytc
because
ec. ave
Mr. James then called upon Cardinal Wiseman to
appear and give evidence.

Sergeant Shee said that his learned friend must know
very well that Cardinal Wiseman could not be exa-
mined.

Mr. James said he believed he bad a clear right to
examine him, and he should have the Cardinal called
on his subpiena.

Sergeant Shee said, it appeared to him that his
learned freind had no right to call upon the Cardinal to
appear as a witness.

The Chief Baron said, he could only take notice of
the issue between the parties, and it appeared to him
there could be only one object in calling the defendant,
and he did not feel called upon to go through the cere-
mony of having the Cardinal placed in the witness•box,
where, in his opinion, lie would be clearly entitled to
refuse to answer,any question that might tend to crimi-
nate himself, and therefore could not be examined as a
witness.
Mr. James said, he excepted to his Lordship's ruling,
and he should certainly insist on having the Cardinal
called upon his subpasna, and then the question
be rtried in another shape.
the Crier of the Court accordingly called upon

Mr. F. Lucas, M.P., was next examined—l am the
editor of the Tablet, but I know nothing of the letter in
question, and I have never read it. I have no manu-
script of it, and I know nothing about it. He went on
to say that, in obedience to the subpwna he had received,
he had written to Dublin to request that the manuscript
of the letter might be sent to him, and he had received
the roll of paper in reply which he now produced and
handed to the learned counsel. . .

Mr. James, having looked at the manuscript, gave it
back to witness, and asked him whose writing it was ?
Mr. Lucas replied that it was the writing of a Mr.
Ormsby, who was connected with the establishment.
He added that lie had had some conversation with the
Cardinal upon the subject of the letter at his house,
and although he could not recollect exactly what it was,
his impression was -
The Chief Baron said, the witness must not state hii
impressions.

Examination continued—Witness certainly under-
stood that the Cardinal had written a letter, and that it
referred in some way to Boyle. He did not know, how-
ever, what letter was referred to. He should say that
the letter had relation to Boyle, but not referring to any
attack that had been made upon him.
The plaintiff was then called and sworn, and Mr.
James was about to examine him, when
Serjeant Shee interposed, and said that, unless his
learned friend could carry the evidence of publication
further than he had, he should submit there was nothing
to go to the jury.
The Chief Baron—There is clearly not sufficient evi-
dence of publication to go to the jury, and if no more
evidence on that point is to be offered, in my opinion,
there is an end of the case.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.