*

 

 
 REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRIAL AND PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS 
 
 IN THE CASE OF 
 
 THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION 
 
 G. ACHILLI-r. DR. NEWMAN. 
 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 COMMENTS ON THE LAW AND ON THE COUKSE AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL ; ALSO 
 
 WITH THE PLEADINGS AND AFFIDAVITS ; AND COPIOUS NOTES, PARTICULARLY 
 
 ON THE CONSTITUTION AND PRACTICE OF THE COURT OF INQUISITION. 
 
 BY W. E. EINLASON, ESQ., 
 
 OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, 
 
 Author of "Leading Cases on Pleading," " ClMiitable Trusts" &c. Jcc. 
 
 " Let not the sheep discard their clothing because the wolf sometimes conceals himself 
 therein." ST. AUGUSTINE. 
 
 " The devil hates all Christians, but especially monks." ST. ATHANASIUS. 
 
 LONDON: 
 C. DOLMAN, 61, NEW BOND STREET, 
 
 AND 22, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1852.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 SUCH serious legal, moral, and religious considerations are 
 involved in this case, that its publication, in a correct form, is 
 clearly required. It has been said that the trial could only cause 
 scandal : if it were so, Dr. Newman would not be responsible ; 
 for the prosecutor had previously published charges gross and 
 sweeping involving the great body of the Catholic clergy, and Dr. 
 Newman came forward to destroy the mischief of the scandal by 
 removing its generality. He said " Thou art the man ! These 
 things are true, of yourself ! " Moreover, there can be no scandal to 
 the Catholic Church; for the prosecutor confesses, that from 1829 
 he had doubts as to her doctrines,* and soon after disbelieved ; nor 
 to the Protestant, for he avows, that for many years after he was 
 perfectly persuaded of the imposture of the Catholic doctrines, he 
 continued zealously to teach them, and to perform a worship he 
 believed to be idolatry. To what religion can his history now be 
 fairly said to cause scandal ?f 
 
 If it be said, that supposing the charges against him to be true, he 
 must have been connived at in the Catholic Church, the answer is to 
 be found in the evidence. The first case sworn to was about 1 830, 
 
 * See the admissions of his book, proved as part of the evidence. 
 
 f It would be absurd to take our ideas of monastic life or discipline from the 
 character of Achilli, who says he " never was a monk." The Carthusian Sutorus 
 says, " Non est domus in qua non jaceat mortuns." And St. Augustine says, 
 " I dare not pretend that my house is better than Noah's Ark, where among 
 eight men one reprobate was found." In a poem respecting the religious orders, 
 written about the end of the twelfth century, the source of all danger to the 
 cloistral discipline was thus pointed out : 
 
 " Qui sunt in claustro quasi Sathan in paradiso, 
 Plurima falsorum sunt vere pericula fratrum, 
 Et venit a falsis fratribus omne malum." 
 
 Mores Catholici, b. x. c. 9. 
 
 Digby says, "Doubtless there might be found at times some counterfeit, in 
 whose hood the dark bird nestled, of which Dante speaks ; but such impostors 
 were sure to-be unmasked at last, and driven out." Let the reader refer rather 
 for his ideas of religious life to A Kempis than Achilli. See the Imitation, b. i. 
 c. 1718, 25. 
 
 2017214
 
 IV PREFACE. 
 
 and extends over a year ; and he admits that in 1833 he was forced 
 by the general of the order to leave Viterbo ; that from that time he 
 went from place to place ; that in 1835 the Pope was desirous of his 
 removal from the order,; that he would not remove until 1839 ; that 
 in 1837 these charges were unknown against him in Rome ; that 
 from that time until 1 840 he was at Naples ; that in the spring of 
 1841 complaints were made as to the case of Principe before the 
 police ; that in that same year he was in the prisons of the Inqui- 
 sition ; and that he was forthwith sentenced to perpetual suspension 
 from the priesthood. 
 
 Can it be said there was connivance, any more than in the case 
 of those respectable gentlemen, the Committee of the Malta College, 
 who, when they engaged him, of course had not heard the " un- 
 pleasant statements as to his past life," which he refers to in his 
 affidavit ; but, after they had heard them, dismissed him,* without 
 going^ into those matters, for " fear of the scandal which might be 
 caused to the Protestant religion."t 
 
 Again, can scandal be caused by this case as to the confessional, 
 when it appears that the sins' committed had nothing to do with it ; 
 but on the contrary, were prevented when the instructions received 
 there were regarded, and only occurred when they were disregarded ? 
 and when, further, it appears that persons not disposed to abandon 
 sin, do not go to confession ; and when so disposed, are reclaimed 
 
 As little can the Catholic Church have to fear from the dis- 
 closures of the case as to the Roman Inquisition ; for in the 
 instance of Achilli no heavier punishment is awarded after he had 
 for some years, as he avows, been perverting persons from the Catholic 
 faith, than a few months' imprisonment which he himself calls a 
 " slight correction." 
 
 * And why should stress be laid on the direction of the confessor to the first 
 witness not to disclose the matter, as it was the case of an ecclesiastic, more than 
 on the resolution of the Malta committee ? or why should suspicion be excited by 
 the direction of the confessor to come forward and tell her story, more than by 
 the most creditable advice of the vice-president of the college to a Protestant 
 witness to do so ? 
 
 t See the evidence of Lord Shaftesbury. 
 
 J Let the reader refer to the evidence of the Italian women, and compare it 
 with that of the English ; the former were reclaimed, not so the latter, except 
 one out of three ; and that was at an asylum half Catholic. 
 
 Which has nothing to do with the Spanish, the cruelties of which were 
 rather political than religious, and always restrained by the See of Rome. 
 See even Ranke. See also Balmez.
 
 With regard to the formal result of the trial, it would be of very 
 subordinate interest even had it been a fair trial. But public 
 opinion has pronounced it was not a fair trial. The Times has 
 stated, in an able and eloquent article, which shows how prejudice 
 can yield to a sense of justice, 
 
 " We consider that a great blow has been given to the administration 
 of justice in this country, and that Roman Catholics will have hence- 
 forth only too good reason for asserting that there is no justice for 
 them in cases tending to arouse the Protestant feeling of judges and 
 juries." 
 
 The moral value of the verdict may be estimated from a few 
 facts. Not one witness for the defence was involved in any 
 contradiction, whereas Achilli was contradicted by his own wit- 
 nesses and by himself. On the worst of the charges, even the Lord 
 Chief Justice went far towards saying it was proved ;* on 
 another he said it was proved ;t and the jury who have found both 
 of them not proved, have found that a third was proved,^: in flat 
 contradiction to the oath of the prosecutor, on whose oath alone 
 they found all the others disproved ! 
 
 Nor is this all. The counsel of Achilli shrunk from putting 
 him into the box until he had read all the evidence that could be 
 adduced against him ; and then swore only in the negative of the 
 charges as pleaded, which the defendant had previously been com- 
 pelled to plead, with the strictest particularity and precision. || 
 
 It is stated in a text-book of the highest authority, If that 
 "there are numberless cases of false verdicts without corruption 
 or bad intention of the jurors. They may have heard too muck 
 of the matter before the trial, and imbibed prejudices without 
 knotting it." And when it is remembered that Achilli's book and 
 speeches, and articles of the same character, had been for some time 
 in very general circulation among the class from which most of the 
 jurors came, it is conceived that this very much augments the justice 
 
 * That of Principe. 
 
 t One of those about Garamoni. 
 
 J As to the judgment of the Inquisition. 
 
 See his affidavit and his evidence. 
 
 || And how he swore may be appreciated from two specimens. He swore he 
 had not visited a lady, " a Gentili," because, though that was her maiden name, 
 she had married ; and he swore (see his affidavit) that he did not rob of her 
 honour, &c., when his own counsel suggested (see note to plea), that this 
 might mean only that she had no honour to lose ! See his cross-examination 
 also as to the way in which he answered. 
 
 If Tidd's Practice, vol. ii. p. 905, ninth edition.
 
 and the importance of holding the libel privileged on the score of 
 public discussion ; the general and personal question being so mixed 
 up as to make it practically impossible to separate them. For 
 instance, the question as to the Inquisition (on which, really, 
 the verdict greatly turned), is whether Achilli was dismissed 
 for heresy or immorality, which, though in itself a personal ques- 
 tion, is closely connected with popular prejudices as to that Court. 
 
 In a strictly legal point of view, that part of it which relates to 
 the judgment of the Inquisition is the most interesting. And here 
 it suffices simply to state, that while the Lord Chief Justice held 
 that the reasons referred to a mere resolution of dismissal by a 
 committee of gentlemen sitting in a private room, must be taken as 
 the reasons of the dismissal with any others which they might 
 be able to state ; he held, as to a solemn judgment of the supreme 
 court of a sovereign state, that it must be shown that the court 
 had jurisdiction, though the judgment was authenticated by a secre- 
 tary of state, and the officers of the court ; and that then it was 
 open to the party concerned to impute to it, without the least 
 attempt at proof, fabrication and forgery ; and that, though he held 
 part of it unquestionably genuine, the rest might be discarded, 
 forming an integral, and the most material portion of it; as 
 reciting the reasons on which it was founded, and the confession 
 of the party sentenced ! 
 
 If there were no other reasons for publishing this report, it 
 would be found in this fact, that though Achilli's book was part of 
 the evidence, the attention of the jury was not directed to the 
 admissions it contains, which are now carefully set forth, and the 
 effect of which, it is conceived, must be decisive, even upon those 
 who might have had doubts before. 
 
 It may be said, that, until now, the profession and the public 
 have not had an opportunity of really considering the whole of the 
 evidence for the defence ; and if their opinion has hitherto been in 
 its favour, it certainly will be far more so now. Moreover, facts 
 are now in evidence, which, had they been disclosed to the Court on 
 the originaj. application, would surely have been deemed an answer 
 to it ; and even now appear to be reasons against judgment.* 
 
 * The Court will not interfere by granting a criminal information where the 
 attacks complained of have been caused by the intemperate language in publica- 
 tions by the party complaining, although such publications arose from inquiries 
 made in pursuance of his duty. Therefore, where a clergyman had, in the course
 
 The legal bearings of the case are (as well as the moral) dis- 
 cussed with some care in the Introduction, and the reader is requested 
 especially to consider that part of it which is devoted to prove 
 that the rule ought not to have issued at all ; or that the libel was 
 privileged, and that, in the absence of express evidence of malice, 
 Dr. Newman ought not to have been called upon to prove its truth. 
 
 Be that as it may, in the language of a respected barrister, at the 
 close of the evidence for the defence, " Dr. Newman is morally 
 vindicated." And it may be added, what is far more important, 
 the Church is vindicated too.* 
 
 HARCOURT BUILDINGS, TEMPLE, 
 July 16*4, 1852. 
 
 of inquiries as to certain charities in his parish, published pamphlets reflecting in 
 no measured language upon the character of his opponents, the Court discharged a 
 rule that he had obtained for a criminal information, in respect of certain attacks 
 made upon him, by way of recrimination ; but they intimated that if the attacks 
 were renewed, a criminal information would be granted. Reg. \. Hall, 
 7 L. T. 136. 
 
 * If anything were wanted for that vindication, the following will complete it. 
 It must be premised that the jurisdiction of the Holy See as to the religious 
 orders, is, after their establishment, rather appellate or ultimate, than original 
 and immediate. 
 
 " Advices from Rome, in the Univers, under date the 14th ultimo, mention a 
 change of great importance to the Dominican Order. About two years ago the 
 Very Rev. Father Jeandel was summoned by his Holiness to reside at Rome in 
 the capacity of Superior-General of the Order of Friars -Preachers, but with the 
 title only of Vicar- General. This ecclesiastic has now been appointed Provin- 
 cial, in the place and stead of the actual titular, who, with several other Superiors 
 of some of the twenty-two houses of which the Roman province is composed, 
 has just been deprived. Father Jeandel will henceforward exercise over those 
 houses a full and entire authority. The following are the details of this incident, 
 which is considerable, by reason of the consequences which it cannot but have 
 with reference to the Religious Orders. Everybody knows that for a long time 
 the Holy Father had ordered that in such of those institutes as had varied a little 
 too much from the primitive rule, they should re-enter the rule gradually and 
 without any violent changes, by the door of the noviciate. Most of the Orders 
 obeyed the wishes of the Supreme Chief; and in particular the Benedictines, by 
 the choice they have made of a General completely devoted to the reform, have 
 caused the Holy Father one of those rare satisfactions which console him in the 
 midst of the sorrows he has to endure. The house of Sta. Sabina was chosen 
 for the noviciate of the Friars-Preachers, and for the two years which have 
 scarcely elapsed since Father Besson has been directing it, in spite of the state of 
 poverty and distress in which the convent was placed, the number of subjects he 
 has furnished have reached the almost incredible number of eighty. Well, in 
 spite of this, and although the more aged members who inhabit the other houses 
 were left in their staiu quo, some of them, and unhappily among those several 
 Superiors, declared themselves hostile to these changes, which, however, did not 
 affect themselves, to such a degree that they made open opposition against the 
 Superior of the Noviciate and the Vicar-General of the Order, F. Jeandel ; and 
 went so far as to draw up against them a memorial, which they presented to his 
 Eminence Cardinal della Genga, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and
 
 Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 Regulars. A sufficiently curious fact is that, moved, doubtless by a sentiment 
 of loyalty, they thought it their duty to communicate this to F. Jeandel, who 
 replied to them : ' You represent me, my Fathers, under very black colours. I 
 am what God sees me, and neither more nor less ; but I engage, for your own 
 sakes, above all, not to present the memorial to the Cardinal.' Without attend- 
 ing to this hint, the memorial was presented, and we have stated the result, 
 which transpired after an audience which Cardinal della Genga had a few days 
 ago with his Holiness."
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THIS case appears to form a great fact in the social history of the 
 country, and to illustrate a great feature iu its moral character, viz., 
 its blind and bitter prejudice against the Catholic Church and the 
 religious orders, which have ever been her noblest ornaments ; those 
 religious orders to whom the English people owe their conversion to 
 Christianity ; all their cathedrals and most of their colleges ; the 
 preservation of learning, and the transmission of the light of truth 
 through the middle ages, the " ages of faith." What were what 
 are, those religious orders ? Let the reader (if he have not already 
 learnt) excuse a few fragments culled from the most magnificent 
 work of modern times.* 
 
 "What else is it to say" (writes Peter the Venerable), " Omnia 
 quse habes da pauperibus et veni sequere me," but "become a 
 monk." Even Michelet observes (speaking of the Franciscan 
 order the twin order of the Dominican), that their love of poverty 
 (common to both orders) was an effort to escape alive from the con- 
 ditions of this life, from the servitude of matter, to conquer and 
 anticipate here below the independence of a pure spirit. Our own 
 St. Anselm defines the object of the monastic discipline as " purity of 
 heart, and the end everlasting life." The Benedictine rule, which, 
 at the time of the reformation was prevalent in England, is thus 
 described : " Status vitae innocentiae secundum eximii P. Benedict! 
 normam." The venerable Bede gives as the reason for the monastic 
 life, the necessity for escaping the distractions of society. St. 
 Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Henry II., 
 writing to the Cistercians, says, " Let the professors of the order 
 keep the footsteps of apostolic religion in moderation of food and 
 raiment, in watching, in confessions, in discipline, in psalmody, in 
 humility, in hospitality, obedience, and all other fruits of love." 
 St. Francis says, " The rule of life of the friars minor consists in 
 observing the holy gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, living in obedi- 
 ence without property and in chastity." 
 
 Our own Saxon laws ecclesiastical thus spoke of the monastic life: 
 
 " It is right that monks, by day and by night, with inward heart 
 ever think of God, and earnestly call upon him, and with all humility 
 regularly live, and always separate themselves from worldly occupa- 
 tions as they best may ; and do as is their duty, ever care how they 
 
 * Mores Catholici. 
 B
 
 2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 best may please God ; and all that perform which they promised when 
 they took order : to attend diligently to their books and prayers, to 
 learn and teach as they best may ; and every pomp and vain pride, and 
 separate property and useless deed, and untimely speech, wholly to 
 despise, as is befitting monks. But it is truly an evil that some are too 
 arrogant, and too proud, and too widely erratic, and too useless, and 
 altogether too idle in every good deed, and with inclination to evil deeds, 
 in secret profligacy, inwardly heartless, and outwardly indignant. And 
 some are apostates who ought, if they would, to be God's soldiers within 
 their minsters. Such are those who have cast off their shepherds, and 
 who continue in worldly affairs with sins. It goeth ill that those men 
 in orders, who through fear of God were whilom the most useful and 
 most laborious in divine ministry, and in bookcraft are most useless 
 and never labour strenuously, but do all for lust and ease, and stroll 
 and wander. That is a hateful life ; it is also worse that the superiors 
 do not amend it, nor some conduct themselves as they should : but it is 
 our duty to amend it." * 
 
 Mabillon proves that the first monks of England followed the rule 
 of St. Benedict, " which " (says Michelet), " is a rule of good sense, a 
 rule of labour, grave and practical ;" and many cathedrals of England 
 were served by them from the age of Ethelbert to the Reforma- 
 tion.^ St. Dominic made choice for his use of the rule of the great St. 
 Augustine, adding certain particular constitutions, as the rule of 
 perpetual abstinence from flesh, and great fasting. He took all 
 possible precautions to enforce poverty in the order, and preserve its 
 discipline. He himself founded monasteries in Canterbury, London, 
 and Oxford. Bishop Tanner counts forty-two houses of the preach- 
 ing friars (as they were called) in England, at the dissolution of 
 the monasteries. From their black hoods and cloaks, they were 
 called in England " Black Friars." Stevens states that the order 
 was at the end of the last century divided into forty-five provinces. 
 A modern Protestant writer f says, "The Dominicans and Franciscans 
 were renowned for their profound learning and unquenchable passion 
 for knowledge ; wearing the garb of most abject poverty ; renouncing 
 all love of the world ; refraining from, and rejecting, all fixed obla- 
 tions or state endowments, and adhering to a voluntary system for 
 support, they wrought a powerful change in the ecclesiastical and 
 collegiate learning of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ; and 
 by their charity, devotion, and strict austerity, gained the respect 
 and affections of the people." 
 
 Sixty-six cardinals, 460 archbishops, and 2,316 bishops have 
 worn the habit of St. Dominic ; simple friars, without birth or for- 
 tune, who had been chosen only through regard to their virtue. 
 St. Vincent Ferrer, of this order, was renowned all over Europe for 
 his eloquence, and was specially invited by the king of England to 
 preach in this country, which he did with enormous success. 
 
 Walter Beauclerc, chancellor of England, in the reign of Henry 
 
 * Ancient Laws of England, vol. ii. Ecclesiastical Institutes. 
 
 f Merry weather's Bibliomania; a most excellent little book ; full of facts.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 III., and bishop of Carlisle, took refuge in the order of St. Dominic, 
 abandoning all things, even to his cloak (says Matthew Paris), when 
 he entered the convent at Oxford. Henry III. of England had for 
 his confessor John of Darlington, a Dominican of great sanctity and 
 erudition. 
 
 In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the great schools of the 
 Franciscans and Dominicans drew multitudes to their convents. More 
 than TOO friars at a time, from every part of Europe, have been known 
 to resort to the Franciscan convent, at Paris, "for the sake of study. 
 The scholastic halls of the convent were particularly grand. There 
 were two lectures on theology every morning, and two every after- 
 noon on the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The English Franciscans were especially learned towards the end of 
 the thirteenth century. Then shone Roger Bacon, Henry Willot, 
 Thomas Dorking, William of Ware, John of London, and Richard 
 Middleton ; the last of whom is commemorated with fourteen other 
 chief doctors of his order on the tomb of Duns Scotus at Cologne. 
 
 St. Thomas Aquinas, the great luminary of the order, was accounted 
 the most marvellous man in Christendom ; and to this day his works 
 are read with more reverence, perhaps, than any other since those of 
 St. Augustine his great model and master. St. Thomas it was 
 who wrote the celebrated treatise Contra Impugnantes Religionum, 
 which forms the most complete defence of the religious orders. 
 
 " How deeply interesting" (says Digby) "is it, even now, to visit 
 the monastery of St. Dominic, at Naples one of those great schools 
 whose masters possessed such an empire ; and where St. Thomas of 
 Aquinas composed many of his works, and taught theology." 
 
 "It is a curious fact" (Digby says) "that science itself owes 
 much to the intercourse of the great with the monastic orders. Had 
 it not been for a Franciscan prior and his friend, a Dominican 
 (confessor to the king of Castile), who recognised the merit of Co- 
 lumbus, and obtained from the king three ships, in 1491, Columbus 
 would have been obliged to abandon his enterprise. 
 
 The mendicant orders produced men of profound erudition. 
 Joseph Scaliger, writing to Casaubon, tells him to search in the 
 king's library for some notes of a Dominican friar, on the Alcoran, 
 which would greatly assist his studies. The Dominican library of 
 St. John, in Venice, is described by Tomasini and Montfaucon. 
 The Dominican library of St. Maria Novella, Florence, vied with 
 that of the Franciscans of the Santa Croce. And the libraries of 
 monasteries were public, for they were open to every one. 
 
 The library of the Dominicans, in London, was well stored with 
 valuable books. Leland mentions some of those he found there ; 
 and among them a Bible in the vulgar tongue. 
 
 The order were renowned for their love of study, and were fond 
 of the physical sciences. In fact, by their learning they drew scholars 
 from the universities to their schools. Such was the character of 
 religious orders. 
 
 B 2
 
 4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Wh.it is, at this very day, the religious life ? " When I was 
 at Carnaldoli," says Digby, "the monks used to begin matins in 
 the church at half-past twelve ; at three they returned to take 
 repose, and at five rose for the day. In the Carthusian monastery 
 of La Parti Dieu, on the mountains of Freyburg, the monks rose 
 at eleven, and remained in the church till two ; they then returned 
 to rest till five. The day closed with them at seven in the evening, 
 when they retired to rest. Such was and is the monastic life. Such 
 it was in substance in all the orders, Franciscan, Dominican, or 
 Benedictine. St. Dominic bore a wonderful great respect to all 
 other religious orders, and an eminent Franciscan says, " There 
 is no order in the whole church in which a good man cannot be 
 saved, and in which a bad man will not be condemned. So 
 that whether we take the habit of St. Benedict, or St. Dominic, 
 or St. Francis, it matters not, since they are all holy habits, 
 constituted by holy men." True to these instructions, the great 
 poet of the ages of faith in his Paradise represents St. Bona- 
 ventura, the Franciscan, proclaiming the praises of St. Dominic, and 
 St. Thomas Aquinas, the Dominican, celebrating those of St. 
 Francis, each blaming the irregularities, not of the other's order, 
 but of that to which he himself belonged. Of course there were 
 occasional abuses ; but there were well understood ways of eradi- 
 cating them. Good monks set a good example, and if they 
 left their monasteries, it was not to withdraw from their order, but 
 to found better monasteries. 
 
 "It is to be observed" (says Michaud), " that the monks who wrote 
 chronicles of their order, or monastery, were careful to mention and 
 record whenever an irreligious, or, as they called him, an unhappy 
 abbot, ruled ; and whenever the monks forgot the spirit of their institu- 
 tion, by living to themselves rather than to Christ. They never fail 
 even to mention at what epochs discipline was in the least relaxed ; and 
 when there was no attempt to correct them." 
 
 Sometimes we find, when a monastery fell under the dominion of 
 an evil superior, the monks who persevered in sanctity fled. Thus 
 St. Richard, prior of the Benedictine monastery of our Lady, in 
 York, with twelve others, desiring to serve God according to the 
 rule, and restore the ancient discipline, left the monastery and 
 founded the far-famed Abbey of Fountains, in 1 132. This was often 
 exemplified in the mendicant orders: thus, in the Franciscan, an 
 English friar, named Adam, was treated as seditious, for opposing a 
 superior, who wished to alter the discipline of the rule ; and ap- 
 pealed to the pope, who caused the deposition of the superior. 
 
 A Protestant writer thus speaks of the mendicant orders :* 
 
 " Much as the friars have been condemned, and darkly as they have 
 been represented, I have no hesitation in stating, that they did more for 
 the revival of learning and progress of English literature than any 
 other of the monastic orders. We cannot trace their course without 
 admiration and astonishment at their splendid triumphs and success ; 
 
 * Bibliomania in the Middle Ages, by Merry weather.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 they appear to have acted as intellectual crusaders against the prevailing 
 ignorance and sloth. The finest names that adorn the literary annals 
 of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the most prolific authors 
 who flourished during that long period, were mendicant friars (i.e. 
 Franciscans or Dominicans). We accordingly remember Duns Scotus, 
 St. Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, the founder of experimental philo- 
 sophy, and Robert Grossteste, the most enlightened ecclesiastic of the 
 age. We may not admire the scholastic philosophy of the followers 
 of Francis and Dominic, but it is little understood, and condemned 
 too often without reason or proof, for those who denounce seldom care 
 to read them. I find no religious orders ever before carried the spirit of 
 inquiry to such an extent." 
 
 " The destruction of the monasteries," says Digby, " was the great 
 work accomplished at the Reformation."* And the Reformation 
 created a disposition, at such irreconcileable hostility with the 
 evangelic counsels, that, as a necessary consequence, all who sought 
 to follow them, under whatever habit, incurred abhorrence. Those, 
 it is true, who lived nearer to the time of the monks, were not so 
 inveterate. It has been remarked, that the greatest and most 
 popular dramatists of the Elizabethan age held the religious orders 
 iu much reverence. The members whom they introduce are almost 
 always holy and venerable men; and as no one would bring unpo- 
 pular opinions prominently forward in a play intended for repre- 
 sentation, we may be sure that the public regarded them in the 
 same light. In these plays we find nothing that resembles the 
 coarse ridicule with which the monks were assailed, two generations 
 later, by dramatists who wished to please the multitude." -j* 
 
 "But as Protestantism was to be progressive, these opinions became 
 obsolete, even among the same classes ; and at length the mere sight 
 of a monk was sufficient to inflame its votaries with rage and 
 scorn. J " The bare sight of one of them" (says a modern author) 
 " really embitters the existence of an Englishman. If he catches 
 sight of a monk at Cadiz or Lisbon, he cannot think of anything 
 else. It is in vain that the good religious men offer and give 
 hospitality ; that they have libraries at the disposal of all strangers ; 
 
 * " There were, in the reign of Henry VIII.," says Camden, " monuments 
 of the piety of our forefathers, built to the honour of God, the propagation of the 
 Christian faith and good learning, and the support of the poor. About the 
 thirty-sixth year of that king, a torrent, as it were, broke in upon the ecclesiastical 
 state of England, and, to the great surprise of the whole world, and oppression 
 of the nation, at once threw down the greatest part of the religious, with their 
 curious structures, most of which, in a short time, were everywhere pulled down, 
 their revenues squandered, and the riches which had been consecrated to God by 
 the pious munificence of the English, from the time they received Christianity, 
 were in a moment dispersed and profaned. There never were more certain indi- 
 cations of, and glorious monuments of Christian piety than these." And Weever 
 says : " There were not extait any other seed-plots besides these from whence 
 Christian religion and good literature were propagated over this our island." 
 
 f Sir W. Temple condescends to reckon the primitive monks and modern 
 friars on the list of the great and wise and good. So with Cowley. And every 
 one remembers Sterne's portrait of the Franciscan friar. 
 
 i This has of late been painfully exemplified.
 
 6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that their churches and convents are full of paintings, statues, and 
 objects 01 admirable art, which all persons may enjoy as if their 
 own property ; in vain that they present everything gratuitously, 
 and with the utmost courtesy and benignity. Nothing can cure the 
 madness of the English ; and under their ignoble hands, these 
 institutions perish, and, I fear, for ever."* 
 
 This being the state of public feeling in England, where the 
 religious orders have of late years been revived, one Giacinto Achilli 
 came to England, and represented that he had been a Dominican 
 friar, and a priest ; and that both the priesthood and the religious 
 orders were in a very shocking state. Of course, in such a state 
 of public feeling, he received a cordial greeting from all those who 
 hated the Catholic Church and her religious orders; and who, 
 carried away by their prejudices, never stopped to inquire whether 
 the truth were that those orders were so bad that he had to leave 
 them, or so good that they could not let him remain. His account 
 of the order, after having been in it twenty years, during portions of 
 which time he alleges he was in some position or other of authority, 
 as lecturer, professor, visitor, or prior, is as follows : 
 
 " Who are generally the most wicked persons in Italy ? Priests 
 and monks. How great are the horrors of the cloisters ! where 
 ignorance and superstition, laziness, indolence, calumny, quarrels, 
 immorality of every description, not only live, but reign. The most 
 abominable vices, long banished from all society, have taken refuge 
 there/'f 
 
 Now, these things were written in 1846, five years after having 
 been perpetually excluded from the priesthood, and after having 
 relinquished not only the religious orders, but the Catholic religion ; 
 and these were his first public intimations of the existence of this 
 immorality and these vices in those orders, in one of which he had 
 lived (and, necessarily, he could not know much of any other) for 
 so many years. During many years he was in the Dominican order, 
 
 * Du Mecanisme de la Societeen France et en Anoleterre. 
 
 + It should serve to show what value is to be attached to such sweeping 
 charges that when Achilli, on his oath, was challenged to sustain these state- 
 ments, he said the monks of Viterbo (the only ones he could have known much 
 about.) were good ; and generally, that he supposed monks were some good and 
 some bad ; which, in a certain sense, may be true, as it must be of all men ; only 
 to make it the whole truth, it should be added that the " some " who are good 
 are infinitely more numerous than the " some " who are bad. And moreover, in 
 the whole course of his career, including this trial, no specific charges have been 
 brought by him against particular monks or ecclesiastics ; while any one will see 
 who peruses the report of the trial, that this is more than can be said of himself 
 or any of his co-seceders from the Catholic Church. Let the reader refer to the 
 history of the Malta college, with the case of Achilli, Sacarres, and Leonini ; 
 or to the evidence of his fellow Dominican, who declined to answer any questions 
 touching his own past life, or the other poor apostate, the private secretary of 
 Father Gavazzi i Surely this trial shows that it is only those who leave the 
 Church, or are expelled from it, against whom, if any such charges can be 
 brought !
 
 INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 for some time in positions of authority, and yet no proceeding 
 had he taken as to these things ; though all history shows that 
 if disclosed they would be reformed. He reserves his disclosure 
 until he has left the convent, left the Catholic Church left 
 the country and embraced a religion which execrates these orders ; 
 and then, he reserves them until they can be of no use for any 
 purpose of their reformation, and can only avail to augment the 
 abomination in which they are held by the people of this country 
 his patrons and supporters ! Is it not an amazing instance of the 
 blindness of prejudice, ignorance, and enmity, that all this should 
 have been credited, without any idea of its being self-contradictory 
 and self-condemnatory !* 
 
 It is painful to find that so many should wish to believe every- 
 thing abominable of those religious orders which formed for ages 
 its noblest ornaments ; never hesitate a moment to give credit to 
 the vilest charges against the inmates of convents ; should positively 
 receive with delight tales of foul crimes, and cherish in their hearts 
 the stories of iniquity which any apostate may bring them ; it 
 never crossing their minds for a moment to ask whether it were not 
 more Christian to suspect one person of calumny than hundreds of 
 foulest iniquities; never pausing to ask for proof, because not caring 
 for it not desiring to be unconvinced, because fearing to be disap- 
 pointed ! 
 
 So it was, however ; not, doubtless, with the candid, the charitable, 
 the liberal, and the enlightened ; but they are unhappily in the mi- 
 nority ; the rest believed. Was this to be acquiesced in by those 
 who knew these things to be atrocities of calumny ? They all rested 
 on the character and credit of Achilli; inquiries were made; evi- 
 dence obtained, and in July, 1850, the Dublin Review appeared 
 with an article, elaborate, and apparently authoritative, accusing 
 Achilli of the very vices he thus imputed to his order ! an article 
 republished and widely circulated ; yet no proceedings were insti- 
 tuted, by or on the part of Achilli, to vindicate his character. 
 These charges remained unanswered for the whole of the remainder 
 of that year, and for nearly the whole of the next, until m October 
 last,' Achilli continuing his denunciations of the priesthood and the 
 
 * Especially as there are works extant such as the books of Digby, Faber, 
 Capes, and Allies, written by men who have actually been converted to Catholicism , 
 in a great degree through the impression made upon them by the piety and sanc- 
 tity of the religious houses abroad ; and any Protestants could easily satisfy 
 themselves as to the piety and sanctity of those at home. Is it uncharitable to 
 say that those who do not so satisfy themselves do not desire to be satisfied ? 
 Nay, is not one forced to think unfavourably of such as thus show themselves 
 obstinately bent upon believing badly of thousands of their fellow Christians ? 
 Were any one now partaking of these unhappy prejudices to permit them- 
 selves to become really acquainted with the religious of the order of the Good 
 Shepherd (for instance), or the Nuns of Norwood, or the Dominican monks of 
 Woodchester, or the Benedictines of Loughborough, they would soon blush for 
 their bigotry.
 
 # INTRODUCTION. 
 
 religious orders, and going about the country declaiming against 
 them, and doing his utmost to excite prejudice against them, Dr. 
 Newman, himself a priest, and of a religious order, very naturally 
 assumed them to be true ; and believing them so, repeated them in 
 substance, in a lecture he was delivering in vindication of the Ca- 
 tholic Church, and her priesthood, and of religious orders. Then 
 ensued the present prosecution. Now, here some considerations 
 naturally occur, as to the moral or legal right of the putting forth 
 these charges under the circumstances, and the moral and legal 
 responsibility involved. First, as to the obligations of the Catholic 
 religion ; and next, as to the requisitions of our own law. 
 
 Now there can be no question, whether we refer to ancient or 
 modern authorities, that the Catholic religion, assuming the charges 
 not to be disproved by Achilli, justified Dr. Newman, indeed, made 
 it his duty to publish them, believing them to be true. 
 
 The Saxon laws ecclesiastical thus speak of the duty of priests : 
 
 " It is the duty of priests, in their shrift- districts, wisely and pru- 
 dently to lead and teach their spiritual flocks ; and they may not flinch 
 for fear nor love of man from preaching righteousness, and forbidding 
 unrighteousness. Weak is the shepherd at the need of fold who will 
 not with his cry protect the flock that he has to keep, if there be any 
 public robber before to rob. He may not flinch if he will secure him- 
 self, neither for love nor fear, from saying to men what is most right. 
 Woe to them who undertake a spiritual flock, and can neither take care 
 of themselves nor of the flock they should keep. Such are those who 
 will not, or dare not, warn the people against sins, and correct sins. 
 
 " It is also most needful to mass-priests that they make known to 
 their parishioners that every one strictly preserve himself from false 
 witness, because it is a very heavy crime. Whatever man shall com- 
 mit, or has committed that crime, shall purify himself with the same 
 penance as concerning homicide or other capital crimes : he shall live 
 seven years in very narrow misery, on penance, or be cast out from all 
 Christian men." 
 
 And similar conclusions are confirmed by the Saxon canons about 
 defamation,* and by the greatest Catholic theologians.t 
 
 * The Saxon ecclesiastical law thus states the rule as to defamation : " Falsos 
 testes a communione ecclesiastica sumniovent, nisi poenitentiae satisfaction crimina 
 admissa deleverint. Si quis propter odium falsuin testimonium super alterum 
 dixerit vii. annos poeniteat, iii. in paneet aqua; quia Scriptum est, " Qui falsum 
 testimonium profert contra proximum suum extinguatur lucerna ejus in die 
 ultimo." Si quis mendacium dixerit per ignorantiam et non nocent, confiteatur 
 ei cui mentitus est, et sacerdotis judicio hora tacendi datnpnetur vel xii. psalmos 
 cantet. Illi vero qui semper meutiendi (causa) hue illucque discurrant et per 
 hoc multa dampnabilia adquirant, sed ad poenitentiam convertunt primitus omne 
 mendacium exsecrare debent, sicut Scriptum est, " Perdes cmnes qui locuntur 
 mendacium." 
 
 f Dr. Kenrick, present archbishop of Baltimore, in his Theologia Moralis, 
 cap. ii., De Famae et Honoris Isesione, says, " Publicam ob utilitatem licet revelare 
 occulta alicujus delicta, qui fama abutitur ad alios decipiendos ;" and strengthening 
 his assertion with the opinion of St. Thomas, 2, 2, qusestio 73, art. 2nd, ad 
 primum, which is, " Revelare peccatum occultum alicujus, propter ejus emen- 
 dationem, vel propter bonum justitise publicse accusando, non est detiahere.'
 
 INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 According to these principles of Catholic moral theology, it is 
 clear that, if Dr. Newman did not believe the charges he published 
 against Achilli to be true, he would be guilty of as great a sin as 
 any of those of which he accused Achilli ; and that, under peril of 
 such sin, he would be bound, whenever his belief was altered, to 
 make reparation to Achilli by publicly retracting those charges. 
 And if he believed the charges true, he could of course state, and 
 would be called upon to state, the grounds of his belief: but no 
 greater onus of proof would be imposed upon one than upon the 
 other ; the question being not whether the charges against Achilli 
 were proveable, but whether they were true ; for they might be true, 
 and yet not proveable ; and as the Church would proceed inforo con- 
 iscientice, the accused could never be allowed to waive the question 
 of his guilt until his adversary had proved it. The primary ques- 
 tion would not be whether the charges could be proved, but whether 
 they were true. And not only might they be true, though not 
 proveable, but they might even be not true, and yet justifiable : 
 that is, the circumstantial evidence, or the reasons for belief, might 
 be so strong as to justify any person morally in acting upon the 
 belief, for his own protection, and the protection of others. There- 
 fore the Church would call upon Achilli to disprove the charges 
 against him, as well as upon Dr. Newman to prove them. Both 
 parties, in fact, and not merely one of them, would be called to 
 produce all the proof in their power. And even if the charges 
 against Achilli were not proved, it would not amount to disproof, or 
 be equivalent to his acquittal, because it would not show them untrue, 
 or even always unproveable, but only unproveable at that time. And 
 even if they were disproved, that would not prove them groundless, 
 so as to be equivalent to the conviction of Dr. Newman of any offence 
 at all, still less a grievous offence ; and it might yet be that he was 
 wholly without blame, having not only belief, but reasonable belief. 
 And in that case the Church would not only deem him justified in 
 warning the faithful of the man he believed thus guilty of grievous 
 sins, but culpable in neglecting so to do ; at all events after they had 
 been previously brought before the man, and apparently admitted 
 by being allowed to pass uncontradicted. A contrary principle 
 appears equally revolting to religion, to reason, and to common 
 sense ; for the practical result would be this. If a clergyman not 
 only believed such grievous sins of a man, but knew that they have 
 been brought against him in his presence (publication is the same 
 thing in effect) and not denied, and also knew that this man was 
 
 Upon which the archbishop says, " Sic apostata qui veritatis studio sua praetexit 
 vitia, meretur, ut hsec palam prsedicentur." 
 
 Coucina, in his Theologia Moralis, quoted by Scavina, whose theology is the 
 theology of St. Alphonsus, condensed, says, " Licet revelare verum et occultum 
 alterius crimen ut publicum damnum, evitetur quo in casu quisque per se loquendo 
 crimen manifestare tenetur ; nam boruim communitatis vincit bonum particulars, 
 ac qua-libet pars tenetur ad bonum totius conferre."
 
 10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 doing much mischief in society, and had admission into domestic 
 circles where he might repeat these shocking offences ; yet the 
 clergyman would have to hold his peace, and allow any amount of 
 mischief to be perpetrated, unless he happened to be able to prove 
 the charges he believed : nay more, unless he were persuaded that he 
 would always be able to prove them ; which of course he could 
 not be. 
 
 Nor is this all. Such would have been the rule of the Church, 
 assuming Achilli to have been originally only the accused ; but it 
 was otherwise : as already has been shown, he was originally the 
 accuser ; he was the aggressor ; he went about denouncing the 
 priesthood and religious orders as abandoned to immorality and the 
 most abominable vices. By the law of the Church, he would have 
 had to prove these horrible accusations ere he could accuse another 
 for retorting them. He would have had to justify himself for 
 spreading such shocking and scandalous charges. Nay more ; it 
 would have been impossible that he should do so, for he would have 
 been deemed to stand convicted of having failed in his duty in not 
 suppressing these iniquities, or exposing them, while he was in the 
 convents in which he acquired his knowledge of their existence 
 assuming him to have ever done so. He would have had to show, 
 first, how it was he did not do this : until he showed this satisfactorily 
 he could have had no locus standi to accuse others of crimes he con- 
 victed himself of having connived at ; and as connivance is as bad 
 as commission, he could not have accused another of malicious 
 slander, for accusing him of what he thus would have been deemed 
 to have admitted. 
 
 Did the law of England ever proceed upon a contrary principle, 
 or does it now ? This is the next question. 
 
 Originally, there was no law apart from the law of the Church. The 
 human law was not merely co-extensive with the Divine, but iden- 
 tical with it. Bishops sat with earls in those assemblies of our Saxon 
 ancestors where the laws were either agreed upon or administered ; 
 and it was not only that the secular law was in conformity with the 
 moral theology taught by the Church, but it was, in fact, a trans- 
 cript of it, differing only in substituting secular penalties for such 
 as were purely spiritual, and enforcing the sentences of the Church 
 with the arm of the civil power. This may be seen amply exem- 
 plified in the Saxon laws, recognised by Coke as the sources of our 
 common law. Hence the direct way (strange as it may sound to 
 Protestants) of testing the law as now laid down, and seeing how 
 far it divaricates from the original common law of this country, is 
 to see how it squares with moral theology as now taught in the 
 Catholic Church ; for, by common consent, that has not changed, 
 as may be seen by comparing any modern Catholic catechism with 
 those Saxon laws. And it will be found that the more a law has 
 divaricated from that sacred standard, the more it has departed 
 from right reason, common sense, and sound policy.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 Hence anciently the courts were partly of a spiritual character ; 
 and even secular penalties were only added to the spiritual, the 
 offence being adjudged according to the moral theology of the 
 Church, a fact, traces of which may be seen in the theological 
 expressions " mortal " and " venial," to be found in our old law- 
 books.* After the Conquest the secular courts encroached con- 
 stantly on the courts spiritual, and more and more devaricated from 
 the law of the Church. The secular courts were separated from the 
 spiritual, and by degrees deprived the latter of any share in the 
 adjudication of cases in which the secular courts imposed any 
 penalty ; thus substituting their jurisdiction, instead of bringing it 
 in aid of the spiritual. Hence, in the reign of Edward I., we find 
 a statute recognising that defamation shall be tried in the spiritual 
 court, when money is not demanded, but a thing to be done for 
 punishment of sin.f And in the reign of Edward II. is another 
 Act,:}: recognising that, in defamations, prelates shall correct ; en- 
 joining penance corporal. 
 
 While offences were cognizable by the courts spiritual, they were 
 sure to be dealt with according to common sense and conscience ; and, 
 be it observed, that long after the courts secular had usurped the 
 jurisdiction of the courts spiritual, the latter retained it in cases 
 where priests were concerned, and would, at common law, have 
 had cognizance of the case before us, where both parties are priests. 
 In the courts spiritual (not at all like the present " ecclesiastical 
 courts" of the Established Church, those objects of universal 
 abomination), the rules of moral theology would be followed, 
 which make a slander mortal if wilful, venial if not wilful ; and in 
 either case would call on both parties to give all the evidence in 
 their power (in addition to their own statements), and would not 
 cast the whole onus of proof upon one party, probably the least able 
 to support it ; because (as Coke says) " the nature of crime is 
 secret." 
 
 It is to be observed, that as printing was not discovered until the 
 era of the Reformation, in order to arrive at that which would have 
 been the law in the time of Edward the Confessor or Edward III., 
 in the case of a libel, properly so called, i.e., written slander, 
 printed or published, it is really requisite to resort to the moral 
 theology of the Catholic Church, which certainly in the former of 
 these periods would have been implicitly, and even in the latter 
 would have been respectfully consulted, by the secular courts. It 
 is self-evident that this must have been, and must ever be so in 
 Catholic countries ; for the judges can scarcely give judgments at 
 variance with that religion which they recognise as obligatory on 
 
 * See Mirror of Justice, v. sec. 12. 
 f 13 Edw. I. stat. 4. 
 t 9 Edw. II. c. 4. 
 
 A bill has recently been rejected for removing the last remains of this system, 
 a relic of which is sometimes seen in our churches in the shape of a white sheet.
 
 12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 their consciences, especially when also recognised by the state. At 
 least, this must have been so, except in cases where corruption 
 or coercion induced them to give decisions contrary to their con- 
 science and the law ; and therefore the common law originally 
 would have been similar to, and in the present instance the law of the 
 Church: A chilli would have been as much called upon to disprove 
 the charges published against him, as Dr. Newman would have 
 been to prove them. 
 
 Nor would what was or would have been the law of libel in 
 ancient times be necessarily changed in principle by the change of 
 religion, though it would, of course, in its application. Many 
 curious cases after the Reformation illustrate the alterations that 
 ensued as to what was deemed a libel, i.e., as reflecting on a man's 
 character. Thus it was held by Lord Holt, in the reign of Queen 
 Anne, to be a libel to accuse a man of wishing to bring in popery ; 
 and he cited a case in which it had been held, that even to call a 
 man a papist was libellous; for "the very being a papist shows 
 what his principles and affections are, and is good reason to remove 
 him out of every office of trust."* But nevertheless, except so far 
 as necessarily affected by the change of religion, the principles of the 
 law of libel would remain^the same ; and it is with reference rather 
 to that which would privilege a libel from prosecution that the ques- 
 tion has to be considered in the present case, in which no one doubts 
 there was a libel. For the invention of printing, after all, per- 
 haps, affects the question, at all events in Catholic theology, and, as 
 it is conceived, so ought reason and sound sense, not in principle, but 
 degree ; as printing a defamatory statement is simply speaking it to 
 a greater number of persons than is ordinarily possible by word of 
 mouth ; for how could it matter whether a libel be spoken (as it 
 may be) to 5,000 persons at a public meeting, or written to them in 
 a printed publication ? t 
 
 Practically, too, evidence at the trial is often rendered unavailable 
 by reason of the rigid strictness of our rules of evidence. Now, it 
 is to be remarked, that in the case of an application for a criminal 
 information, as it is an extraordinary procedure on the part of the 
 court, the old principle of law has in a great degree continued to be 
 acted upon at all events, until very lately. The prosecutor has always 
 had, by his own affidavit, in the first place, to deny distinctly the 
 truth of all the charges he complains of ; and it is believed that he 
 was expected to go as far as it was possible towards disproving 
 them. The defendant's showing the truth of the charges would 
 induce the court to refuse the motion. + But then, on the other 
 
 * How v. Prin, 7 Modern Reports; Holt, C.J., 11 Modern Reports, 99. 
 
 f Thus Twysden, J., in a case temp. Charles II., says of a printed publication, 
 " It is no more than if the defendant had employed several clerks to write as 
 many copies as he has now printed." (Lakev. King, Sannders' Reports, 133.) 
 
 i Per Pratt, J., King v. Beckerton, Strange, 498. Hobart, C.J., Hobart's 
 Reports, 253.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 1 3 
 
 hand, exactly in proportion to the conscientiousness of the party 
 prosecuted will be his scrupulousness as to swearing positively 
 to the truth of what he only believes, however firmly and however 
 reasonably, because upon credible testimony ; for few conscien- 
 tious persons would swear to any fact they did not personally 
 know, although a contrary practice is notoriously prevalent in 
 courts of justice, and the every-day proceedings of life. So that, 
 even upon a criminal information, a party may be utterly defenceless 
 who has most laudably, to warn others, made serious imputations upon 
 another, perfectly true and which he may believe to be true, and 
 may even be able, morally, and at one time have been able, legally, 
 to prove, and thus practically there may be no protection for the 
 public against the greatest impostor or the most atrocious scoundrel. 
 
 Thus, in this case first put, why should the party publishing the 
 libel under such circumstances be called upon to prove the libel true, 
 any more than the party libelled should be called upon at least to 
 give as much evidence as he can of its being false ? at all events, 
 where the former proves that he is not in a position in which it 
 is possible to give legal proof of its truth ; and the other, it is 
 obvious, must be able, if it be false, of giving some evidence of its 
 falsehood. Originally, it is conceived, this was so, even in trials ; 
 and though afterwards on actions for libel the party suing could not be 
 examined as to the truth of the libel, by a recent Act he may 
 be called for in actions, and in cases of criminal informations he 
 may offer himself for examination. But then this is not very 
 material in the worst cases of all, those in which the libel 
 is a very bad one, i. e., charges of the blackest crimes ; and is 
 also true, though not legally proveable, for in those very cases, the 
 party libelled being a person without conscience or scruple, will 
 assuredly either not appear, or if he do appear, will deny it ; and 
 as it requires two witnesses to convict of perjury, he may do so 
 with impunity exactly in the cases of greatest and grossest iniquity, 
 where of necessity there will ordinarily be no witness to the actual 
 commission of the crime. 
 
 In such cases there seems only one chance of refuge for the party 
 prosecuted, viz., his being able to show from the other's own conduct 
 that he was conscious of the crimes imputed to him ; as, for example, 
 that he had ever been charged with them in his presence, without 
 his contradicting them ; and that they had ever been published to 
 his knowledge without his publicly meeting them. This of course 
 would be necessarily an uncertain and rare resource, though 
 still it is easily conceivable that it might occur ; where a man 
 at one time durst not contradict the charges because dreading that 
 they would be legally proveable, and at a subsequent time was 
 either dragged forward by others to vindicate his character, or 
 ventured upon it himself, in the hope that the charges were legally 
 proveable no longer. 
 
 So strongly does the law of England even now feel this, that on
 
 14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 an application for a criminal information it is of itself a sufficient 
 answer (and even on indictments, or in an action, strong matter 
 of suspicion), that the party complaining has not come forward 
 promptly,* or has allowed the libel to pass on some previous occa- 
 sion without publicly meeting it.f And this, perhaps, is the principle 
 on which it is laid down as a general rule, that an action is not 
 maintainable against a person who repeats defamatory matter put 
 forth by another ; though this rule also is fettered by such technical 
 restrictions as to be practically valueless at a trial. 
 
 The whole law and practice of the Court of Queen's Bench as 
 to criminal information has ever been in conformity with this prin- 
 ciple, for it has proceeded upon this rule, that this extraordinary 
 intervention shall not be invoked by any one who has not come 
 promptly to the court upon the first publication of the charges com- 
 plained of; and if he disclose that there has been some former 
 publication thereof, upon him is cast the onus of accounting for 
 his not having come earlier. And even in an action a long delay 
 would be fatal. 
 
 Yet, as will be seen from the subsequent statement of the case, 
 the Court granted the rule, and ordered the information, upon an 
 affidavit of the prosecutor disclosing that there had been a previous 
 publication of some of these charges ; and not disclosing that he 
 had accounted for his not having resorted to any public court of 
 justice for vindication of his character ! 
 
 Unfortunately an Act was passed a few years ago by Lord Camp- 
 bell, which, like so many other Acts of Parliament for amendment 
 of the law, was no real improvement, and which enacted that the 
 defendant on a criminal information might plead the truth of his 
 charges, and prove them, if he could. Of course, in cases where 
 he could prove them, this might not much matter, but in cases 
 where, however true, they were not proveable, to put Mm to the 
 proof was really to leave him at the mercy of the prosecutor. And 
 unhappily the effect of the Act has been certainly seems to have 
 been in this case to induce the Court to be too easily satisfied with 
 the prosecutor's affidavit of denial, and too easily induced to grant 
 the information, hoping that no hardship will ensue, on account 
 of the defendant being enabled to plead the truth at the trial. 
 The fallacy is, it is conceived, palpable, of confounding permission to 
 prove with power to prove, or proveability with truth. And yet, on 
 reference to the argument upon the rule, it will be seen the Court 
 relied on this delusive resource of the defendant, as a reason for 
 refusing him time even to answer the affidavit of the prosecutor ! 
 
 The reader is requested to consider the affidavit on which the 
 Court granted the information ; an affidavit disclosing that one of 
 the heaviest charges contained in the alleged libel had been made 
 
 * Regina v. Murray, Jurist, 37, where there had been a delay of a few 
 months only. 
 
 t Maitland v. Goldney, 2 East, 425.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 1 5 
 
 in some manner in the course of some proceeding in a court of 
 justice, and not disclosing that the prosecutor and deponent ever 
 publicly denied the charge, or publicly challenged inquiry into 
 it ; an affidavit, also, disclosing that so long as a whole year 
 before it had been published in a London newspaper, that he had 
 been dismissed by the committee of a Protestant college, after 
 they had heard unpleasant statements as to his past life, and 
 not disclosing that he ever took any public notice of this publication, 
 either as to the charges thus made or the reasons of his dismissal. 
 The records of the Court of Queen's Bench furnish, it is believed, no 
 instance of a criminal information granted on such an affidavit !* 
 
 Now though the law always held the truth of a libel a justification 
 in an action, and by Lord Campbell's Act it is so now in a prosecution 
 or criminal information (although, even before that Act, truth was an 
 answer to an application for a criminal information, which of itself would 
 seem to show that at common law it must once have been an answer on 
 the trial of the information, the peculiar object of which is vindication 
 of character; and it seems absurd to say that while an information will 
 not be issued if the libel appears upon the affidavits to be true, the 
 defendant is to be convicted, though it be proved by witnesses 
 at the trial to be true), yet the defendant has to plead and prove a 
 justification ; and if he be not able to prove it, however true it may 
 be, he has no defence, unless he can make it out in law a privileged 
 publication. 
 
 Now it is of the utmost importance to distinguish between cases in 
 which the publication of a libel is privileged, and where it is jus- 
 tifiable. In the former class of cases, the party publishing it has 
 not to prove its truth ; in the latter, he has. 
 
 It cannot be, that the law of England only holds such publi- 
 cations privileged as are essential for common mercantile transactions, 
 or the ordinary commerce of life, and protects no other ; and in all 
 other cases calls upon the party publishing the libel, however laudable 
 may have been his object, however valuable the warning it may 
 convey, however convinced he may be of the truth of it, however 
 incapable of proving it, calls upon him at the trial to prove it : and 
 not only so, but to prove it, not merely by moral but by legal evidence ; 
 or, if he fail, brands him as a libeller, and inflicts imprisonment or fine ! 
 If in many cases it cannot be otherwise at the trial, that is, according 
 to the law as it stands, then this very fact shows surely that such 
 injustice is to be avoided, and that such cases should not be sent to 
 stand the test of trial, whenever it is possible fairly to consider them 
 privileged. Practically, therefore, the question comes to one of 
 privileged publication ; and on this the law will probably be 
 warped by the religion of the country and the opinion of the age. 
 
 One of the most curious cases on the subject (perhaps the earliest) 
 
 * And still less of its being accompanied by such observations as those of the 
 Lord Chief Justice on the occasion, the use of the epithet " ribaldry ;" and an 
 insinuation of possibility of a conspiracy to suborn perjury !
 
 1 6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 is that which Coke cited, * in the reign of James I., as having 
 occurred in the reign of Elizabeth, where a parson, in a sermon, 
 recited a story out of Foxe's Martyroloyie, that one Greenwood, 
 being a great persecutor, had great plagues inflicted upon him, and 
 fell by the hand of God ; whereas, in truth, he never was so plagued, 
 and was himself present at the sermon ; and thereupon brought his 
 action. And the Court said, that, being delivered but as a story, 
 and not with any malice or intention to injure any, he was not guilty. 
 This principle, here acted upon, is, it is conceived, one of common 
 sense, and was acted on in the reign of Charles II.,t when a 
 petition to parliament had been printed and circulated, charging the 
 plaintiff with " many horrible and great abuses," and Sir Matthew 
 Hale held the publication was not actionable. So, in 1793, Lord 
 Kenyon recognised the principle, though denying its application, 
 declaring that, in order to constitute a libel, there must be a mali- 
 cious intention to defame. J And, in 1813, Lord Ellenborough, in 
 a case reported by the present chief justice of the Queen's Bench, 
 who tried the case of Dr. Newman, held a publication privileged 
 which charged the plaintiff with publishing works of an improper 
 and ^immoral tendency. " The main question," (he said) " is quo 
 animo the defendant published the article, whether he meant to put 
 down a nuisance to public morals, or to prejudice the plaintiff. To 
 ascertain this, it is material to know the general nature of the 
 defendant's publication ; the plaintiff is bound to prove the defen- 
 dant actuated by malice, and the defendant discharges himself by 
 showing the contrary. Liberty of criticism must be allowed, or we 
 should neither have purity of taste nor of morals. Free discussion 
 is essentially necessary to the truth of history, and the advancement 
 of science. That publication, therefore, I shall never consider as a 
 libel, which has for its object, not to injure the reputation of an 
 individual, but to correct misrepresentations of fact; to refute 
 sophistical reasoning ; to expose a vicious taste, or to censure what 
 is hostile to morality." 
 
 Again, a case occurred in 1827, in which a dissenting preacher had 
 been charged with forgery by a member of his " denomination," who 
 failed to prove the charge, whereupon the question arose if the pub- 
 lication were privileged. The judge left it to the jury, whether the 
 letter were a communication made bond fide in answer to the inqui- 
 ries instituted touching plaintiff's conduct. They found the con- 
 trary, which was clearly the case, for the publication complained of 
 was a considerable time after the matter had been investigated and 
 disproved, so the Court decided against the defendant ; but they 
 plainly affirmed the principle, that if there be a question of public 
 interest respecting the character of a minister of religion, a pub- 
 
 * Locke v. King, Saunders' Reports. 
 
 r Brook \. Montague, Cooke's Reports, temp. James I., 90. 
 
 + Rex. v. Abingdon, 1 Espinasse's Reports. 
 
 Talari v. Tapper, 1 Campbell's Reports, 350.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 lication is privileged, if not malicious, which is only designed bond 
 Jide for the benefit of the public ; a doctrine naturally deducible 
 from the principle laid down by Lord Ellenborough in the case 
 before cited.* 
 
 It must not be omitted to observe that, in law, no proceeding is 
 supportable for a libel unless it be legally malicious ; and though 
 ordinarily the law implies malice from the publication of what is cal- 
 culated to prejudice another, and does not require proof of malice, 
 yet where it appears that there was not malice, it is otherwise ; and 
 the definition of a "privileged communication" is a publication 
 made on such an occasion as rebuts the prima facie inference of 
 malice arising from the publication of matter prejudicial to the cha- 
 racter of the plaintiff, and throws upon him the onus of proving 
 actual malice,t i.e., that the defendant was actuated by motives of 
 personal spite or ill-will. J And Lord Campbell, in a case last year, 
 said : " The rule is, that if the occasion is such as will repel the 
 presumption of malice, it is a privileged communication, and it lies 
 on the party complaining to prove that malice existed. It would be 
 very hard if, where a person has done no more than discharge his 
 duty to himself and society, he should thereby be rendered liable to 
 an action." He again recognised the principle, saying, " The question 
 is, whether the occasion of the publication rebuts the inference of 
 malice arising from the matter of it." Again, in 1823, Mr. Justice 
 Bayly recognised the same principle, citing those very words ; and 
 Lord Tenterden said : " The malicious intent may be inferred from 
 the publication of the slander itself, in a case where no evidence is 
 given to rebut the inference." In 1839, the present Lord Campbell 
 cited the old case first above referred to, as quoted by Coke ; and 
 also maintained that publications, for the good of the community, 
 have been held privileged in many instances. And this was re- 
 markably illustrated in 1840, in a case in which Mr. Stowell was 
 sued for libelling a Catholic priest. The libel was as strong as 
 could well be conceived, for it charged that the priests "grind 
 the people down and debase them as low as the beasts that perish ;" 
 and although, at the trial, a verdict had been found against him 
 under Baron Rolfe, who said, " the occasion" (an anti-Maynooth 
 meeting) " did not negative malice," the verdict was set aside. Lord 
 Denman recognised the principle that there might be an occasion of 
 a public discussion on a religious subject, on which the speaking of 
 libellous matter would be privileged, and he only denied the 
 application of the doctrine to that case. He said, " We consider 
 
 * Blackburne v. Blackburne, 4 Bingham's Reports, 408. 
 
 f Per Parke, B., Wright v. Woodgate, 2 Crompton, Meeson, and Roscoe's 
 Reports. 
 
 J Taylor v. Hawkens, 20 Law Journal Reports, Q.B. 313. 
 
 Rex v. Creecy, 1 Maule and Selwyn's Reports. Rex v. Harvey, 2 Barn- 
 well and Cresswell's Reports. Hearne v. Stowell, 12 Adolphus and Ellis'a 
 Reports. 
 
 C
 
 18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the old case (cited by Coke) is not law;* all the other cases 
 are perfectly consistent with the doctrine, that the privilege 
 which protects a communication must result from a right to dis- 
 cuss the particular matter, in respect of which the alleged libel is 
 published." In that case, there clearly was no such right, for the 
 libel related to the priest's conduct in imposition of penance, which had 
 no natural or necessary connection with the Maynooth endowment. 
 
 Assuming, then, that Father Newman did not prove any part of 
 his charges (which is a question whereon the reader will exercise 
 his own judgment), then the question of law would arise, whether 
 the occasion of publication was privileged ; which would depend on 
 another question, whether it rebutted the ordinary inference of 
 malice ? This question, on which probably few impartial persons will 
 have much doubt, depends upon whether the publication were " to 
 put down a public nuisance or to prejudice the plaintiff," which will 
 be best decided by a reference to the antecedents of the occasion and 
 the " general nature of the publication ;" whether, in the words of 
 the judges, in the cases cited, the circumstances showed that (in the 
 language of Lord Ellenborough) the object was not " to injure the 
 reputation of an individual," but to " correct misrepresentations of 
 fact ;" or to " censure what is hostile to morality ;" or, in the language 
 of Lord Denman, that there was " a right to discuss publicly the 
 particular matter in respect of which the alleged libel is published." 
 
 It will be for the unprejudiced reader to decide whether there 
 could have been any intention "to injure the reputation" of a man 
 by repeating charges already published by others, and remaining 
 undisputed ; whether it is or is not more probable that the object 
 was to " put down a public nuisance " than to "prejudice the plan- 
 tiff ? " whether, when the party libelled had publicly made charges 
 against the priesthood and religious orders in general to both which 
 states of life the plaintiff and defendant belonged there was or was 
 not a reasonable occasion to "correct misrepresentations of fact?" 
 and whether statements tending to disprove those charges by de- 
 stroying the credit of the person who made them (a common course 
 in courts of justice for such a purpose), did or did not come within 
 the strictest rule laid down, that there must be " a right to discuss 
 the particular matter " to which the libel related ? 
 
 Presuming that these questions are determined by the reader in 
 favour of Father Newman, then it will follow that the publication 
 was privileged, by reason of the occasion ; and that it was not 
 necessary to justify it, and to plead and prove a justification; but 
 that all he had to do was to show so much of the circumstances and 
 causes of publication and the antecedents of the case as in law 
 constituted the ground of privilege, viz., the raising of a public con- 
 troversy, on the part of Achilli himself, as to the character of reli- 
 gious orders in general, and especially of the one to which he had 
 
 * Sed quaere de hoc; see it cited 1 B. & A. and 4 B. & C.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 belonged ; and a controversy necessarily implicating his own con- 
 duct in that order, to which the libel related. That being shown 
 as it is conceived it clearly was then it was for Achilli to disprove 
 the charges, rather than Dr. Newman to prove them. 
 
 The question would appear really to have been unconsciously 
 decided by Lord Campbell in favour of Dr. Newman ; for he laid it 
 down at the trial that the publication was clearly (assuming it to be 
 true) for the public advantage ; seeing that Achilii had raised a con- 
 troversy on the subject of the character of the Catholic clergy and reli- 
 gious orders, in which it was manifest the public had an interest. It 
 will not avail to answer to this that it only implied that the truth was 
 a condition of its being for the public benefit ; because, on that sup- 
 position, the terms of Lord Campbell's Act are unmeaning, which 
 require that, in addition to the libel being true, it should be pleaded 
 and proved that its publication was for the public benefit ; which 
 certainly shows that the latter is a distinct, and not a dependent 
 stipulation ; and though the Act requires both these things, that is 
 only on the plea of justification, which is quite consistent with its 
 having been done maliciously ; whereas, on the plea of " not guilty," 
 the question arises, at common law, whether the libel be privileged ; 
 in which case a plea justifying it on the ground of truth would not 
 be required, unless malice were expressly proved. 
 
 It is rather remarkable that on the very day on which the trial 
 concluded, a case was reported tried before that upright and 
 honourable judge, the Lord Chief Baron, in which the law was 
 laid down, not only in conformity with the principles above main- 
 tained, but with the most ancient authorities alluded to, on the sub- 
 ject ; and in a case, too, not dissimilar in character to the present. 
 There, a clergyman had sent round the parish a circular, cautioning 
 the people not to send their children to the plaintiff's school ; and 
 applying to him certain severe expressions in Scripture, such as 
 " schismatics," and " evil deeds," &c. The Lord Chief Baron held 
 that the occasion on which the letter was published, in the absence of 
 proof of express malice, made it aprivileged communication; and that, 
 therefore, its truth need not be proved.* The analogy between that 
 case and the present is obvious ; and it is not, as any lawyer will 
 see, at all affected by the fact, that the charges in the present 
 instance are far more serious, which makes no difference in point of 
 principle ; and, indeed, supposing them true, but not proveable, 
 would only make it more important to support the privilege, while, 
 on the other hand, would make it more easy, if not true, for 
 the prosecutor to prove that malice which could destroy the. 
 privilege, f 
 
 * Gilpin v. Fowler (clerk), Court of Exchequer : sittings at Nisi Prius, 
 (June 21), before the Lord Chief Baron and a special jury. 
 
 f The evil likely to arise from protecting information bond fide given to pre- 
 vent damage from misconduct, appears much less than that from putting a stop 
 to such information, by rendering the giver of it liable, unless he has legal 
 c 2
 
 20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The question, however, is one of law,* which it is for the Court 
 to decide, and which was not raised at the trial. Before passing to 
 the trial, however, there is a class of cases on the subject of privi- 
 leged libels, which it is proper to advert to, in connection with 
 a somewhat painful feature in the proceedings the conduct of the 
 Attorney General and of the judge. The decisions alluded to are those 
 which concern what is called privilege of counsel. Among the cases 
 in which the law holds a libel, though false, yet not actionable, if 
 not proved to have been malicious is that of counsel at the bar. 
 In the very case already cited in the time of James I.f it was said, 
 " A counsellor hath a privilege to enforce anything which is informed 
 unto him by his client, and to give it in evidence, being pertinent to 
 the matter in question ;" and in another case it was laid down that " if 
 a counsel speak scandalous words against one in defending his client's 
 cause, an action lies not against him for so doing ; for it is his duty to 
 speak for his client ; and it shall be intended (understood) to be spoken 
 according to his client's instructions.''^ The old reports are brief, 
 and often obscure ; and it must be presumed that it was " intended," 
 from, the fact of its being in the " instructions," that the counsel be- 
 lieved it true ; and then the doctrine is consistent with the general 
 principles above elucidated. And this is, indeed, the reason de- 
 ducible from subsequent decisions. In 1818, a case was determined 
 in which an action was brought against Sir James Scarlett for 
 saying in a speech at the bar, that the plaintiff was a " fraudulent 
 and wicked attorney." The Court said the words were privileged, 
 because pertinent and relevant to the case, and not used at random, 
 but were a fair comment on the circumstances of the case ; and 
 that the action could not be maintained, unless it could be shown 
 that the counsel availed himself of his situation maliciously to utter 
 words wholly unjustifiable. In another case, Mr. Justice Bayley 
 said, " The speech of a counsel is privileged by the occasion on 
 which it is spoken ; he is at liberty to make strong, even calumnious 
 observations against the party, the witnesses, and the attorney in 
 the cause. The law presumes that he acts in discharge of his 
 duty ;" and Mr. Justice Holroyd adds : " If in the course of a 
 cause he utter observations injurious to individuals, and (query, or) 
 not relevant, he could be sued in an action showing that the matter 
 was spoken maliciously, and without reasonable and probable cause." 
 Lord Ellenborough laid down the law thus : " The law pri- 
 vileges many communications which otherwise might be considered 
 calumnious. In the case of master and servant, the convenience of 
 mankind requires that what is said in fair communication between 
 
 proof of the truth. Per Erie, J., Coxhead v. Richards, Common Pleas, Trinity 
 Term, 1846. 
 
 * Brook v. Montague, Croke's Reports, temp. James I. 90. 
 
 t Wood v. Grenston, Styles's Reports. 
 
 t Per Cresswell, J., Coxheadv. Richards. 
 
 Hodgson v. Scarlett, 1 Barnwell and Alderson's Reports, 242.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 man and man on the subject of character should be privileged, if 
 maMe bondjide and without malice. So a counsel intrusted with the 
 interests of others, and speaking from their information, for the sake 
 of public convenience, is privileged in commenting fairly upon the 
 circumstances of the case, and in making observations on the 
 parties concerned, and their instruments or agents in bringing the 
 cause into court." And Mr. Justice Bayley says, " If the epithets 
 were not warranted, the judge in his summing up at the trial may 
 set the matter right" In another case,* Mr. Justice Holroyd said, 
 " The observations may be commented on by the judge." 
 
 Now these authorities are cited for several purposes : first, in 
 support of the general principle of law, as to libels privileged by the 
 occasion ; next, to raise an argument by way of analogy for its 
 application to the present case ; for if what may be said by a master 
 as to the character of a cook is privileged by reason of public con- 
 venience, is not what a clergyman may say of another, who claims 
 to be a clergyman, a multo fortiori privileged ? Is not the case of 
 a cook of infinitely less importance than that of one who has the 
 care of souls ? And let it be recollected that the character of 
 Achilli was relevant and of public interest, not merely as respects 
 the Roman Catholic Church, but the Church of England; for, if he had 
 been duly and justly degraded from the priesthood for immo- 
 rality, then the question arises whether he be admissible into the 
 Church of England, which, admitting the orders of Catholic priests, 
 of course admits the authority over such priests of Catholic bishops 
 and other ecclesiastical superiors, and necessarily recognises their 
 sentences, for offences, which the Church of England considers as 
 offences. 
 
 In point of fact, however, at the trial, Dr. Newman was prepared to 
 prove the plea he had been compelled to plead, it not being prudent 
 to depend only on a point of law ; and it is important to remark, 
 that though it is both in law and right reason open to a party 
 prosecuted for several separate libels, distinct in date and in detail, 
 to plead separately the truth of each, and to defend himself in pro- 
 portion to his proof (supposing him not privileged for part or for the 
 whole), the rules of pleading are, or rather were, so technical in 
 their character that if this had been attempted, the prosecutor, who, 
 as it is, demurred twice to the plea, might have raised questions of 
 form which would have protracted the trial until the demurrer was 
 decided or the pleading altered, and so it was deemed best not to 
 attempt it, but to plead one plea to the whole of the alleged libel, 
 incurring thereby all the risk of another technical rule of pleading, 
 that the whole of a plea must be proved, the practical result being 
 that Dr. Newman was placed in this position, that he had to prove 
 every one of the separate charges he had made ; so that requiring 
 him to enter into proof at all was really to render it morally certain 
 
 * Flint v. Pike, 4 Barnwell and CresswelTs Reports.
 
 22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that legal proof might fail on some part of the plea, and therefore 
 that in strict law a verdict must go against him. 
 
 These authorities, however, have been cited for another purpose, 
 which has a more immediate reference to the course of the trial to 
 which we are now coming, viz., to raise a serious question as to the 
 conduct of the Attorney General and of the judge. It will be seen 
 that counsel are even considered legally responsible if they utter 
 observations injurious and calumnious maliciously and without 
 reasonable and probable cause ; and every lawyer knows that malice 
 is usually inferred from the want of reasonable and probable cause. 
 Moral responsibility of course may arise even where legal 
 responsibility does not, and the sense of honour existing in the pro- 
 fession of the bar can scarcely be less rigid than the requisitions of 
 common sense or common honesty. It has, indeed, been laid down 
 by a very distinguished lawyer in our own times, that an advocate 
 is bound to disregard all other considerations save the interest of his 
 client ; but as such a sentiment seems simply iniquitous, it surely 
 will not be recognised in a Christian country. It will be, however, 
 for the reader to judge whether it has not been acted upon in this 
 case. v 
 
 It was so, unless it be held that counsel are justified in defending 
 their client, on his oath alone, by imputing to a large number of 
 persons, as respectable in position, and not impeached in character, 
 either the same offence as that with which he is charged, or other 
 offences equal to or exceeding it in atrocity. 
 
 For the Attorney General's defence of Achilli was, as Sir A. Cock- 
 burn said it would be, simply this, that every person who swore 
 against him swore falsely, and that any document produced against 
 him was a fabrication. Now Achilli was charged with adultery, &c., 
 and he is defended by imputing to a large number of persons perjury 
 and forgery. 
 
 This is no exaggeration ; the Attorney General's hypothesis was, 
 some of the most eminent ecclesiastics in Europe had conspired to 
 forge a judgment reciting certain charges against Achilli, and then 
 to suborn false evidence to sustain those fabricated charges ! And 
 of course it followed that all the evidence in support of them was 
 false, and the greater portion of it wilfully false. And he had no 
 other ground for this awful hypothesis but the oath of his client, 
 speaking in his own defence, and for his own interest ! Is this con- 
 sistent with morality ? 
 
 Had he " reasonable and proveable cause" for imputing conspiracy, 
 perjury, and forgery to a number of persons, most of them respect- 
 able, many of them reputed to be not only respectable but pious and 
 estimable ? Was the oath of his own client " reasonable and prove- 
 able cause " for this shocking accusation ? If not, then it must have 
 been malignant and mendacious, and consequently immoral. 
 
 The writer does not presume to determine the question or even to 
 express an opinion upon it ; perhaps his opinion is too strong to
 
 INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 express, and bis feelings upon the subject too powerful for expression, 
 His readers will judge for themselves. But he ventures to remark, 
 as justifying him in raising the question, that he is Abdicated not 
 merely by the authorities he has cited, but by the actual example 
 of the most high-minded and honourable men at the bar. Cases 
 occur (he is informed, constantly) in which counsel, when they find 
 they cannot defend a client without implicating others whom they 
 do not conscientiously believe guilty, throw up their briefs ; and he 
 remembers that Sir A. Cockburn has done so in more than one 
 instance. On an opposite principle the profession of the bar would 
 appear absolutely infamous, and one of far deeper infamy than that 
 of the poor polluted creatures who pace our pavements. 
 
 The question will be, then, did Sir Frederic Thesiger really 
 believe in the monstrous theory of perjury and forgery he put foi'- 
 ward in his client's defence?* If decided by the reader in the 
 negative, a painful conclusion must follow, not merely as to the 
 counsel, but as to the judge. It will have been observed that the 
 great authorities already cited show that if the expressions of the 
 advocate are unjustifiable it is the duty of the judge to comment 
 upon and correct them; and so, if the Attorney General were 
 culpable, it would follow that Lord Campbell was equally so for 
 neglecting to discharge the duty, and protect the characters of those 
 who were thus cruelly sacrificed. The writer repeats he expresses 
 no opinion, but leaves it to the reader to determine. 
 
 In fact, the reader will have to decide whether Achilli or all the 
 witnesses against him swore falsely. As Sir Alexander Cockburn 
 says, there is no alternative: it is an issue awful in one sense, 
 absurd in another ; but such is the issue. And perhaps those who 
 read the trial are in a better position to decide it than those who 
 heard it, being better able calmly to sift and compare the evidence 
 of the witnesses on one side and the other ; and especially to com- 
 pare the evidence of Achilli, not only with that of Dr. Newman's 
 witnesses, but also with that of his own. There is the more neces- 
 sity for this, as his counsel, contrary to the course always taken 
 when the object is the vindication of character, declined to call him 
 for examination until Dr. Newman's case had been proved ; the 
 result of which was not only to take the chance of that case breaking 
 down in proof, but to allow Achilli the opportunity of considering 
 the evidence against him before he was examined, t instead of being 
 examined before he was aware what evidence could be adduced 
 against him ; thus depriving the defendant of any power of apply- 
 ing the most effective test of its moral value. J 
 
 * If he did, he was, I think, the only person in court, except such as were 
 absolutely besotted with prejudice and ignorance. 
 
 f Having it taken down by short-hand writers. 
 
 J Where a person is to swear in his own defence, and does not know what can 
 be proved against him, of course he cannot so safely make general denials of 
 charges, as he can if he have the opportunity of sifting what is proveable against
 
 24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Sir F. Thesiger, in the argument on the rule to enlarge the rule 
 for the criminal information, contended that a party making charges 
 in this country against another ought to be prepared at any time to 
 prove them in this country ! even though they related to acts alleged 
 to have been committed out of this country ! Such a monstrous 
 principle staggered Sir A. Cockburn, as well it might ; and was too 
 much even for the Lord Chief Justice to adopt to the utmost, 
 although, as may be seen, he in substance acted upon it ; and only 
 accompanied it by this mild modification, that it was not an 
 " invariable or infallible rule ! " The result of such a rule must be 
 that a person could never safely state anything, however important 
 it may be that it should be known, as to the bad acts of another, 
 abroad or at home, for he must necessarily run the risk of the wit- 
 nesses being removed out of his reach ; and thus, if those persons 
 whom he has accused only wait till then, they will make him an easy 
 prey in the Court of Queen's Bench ! How would Sir Frederic or 
 Lord Campbell like the rule applied to their own families ? Sup- 
 pose a daughter were about, for instance, to marry a most abandoned 
 man, of whom some one could publicly testify dreadful deeds done 
 abroad, but against whom he durst not venture to publish them at the 
 risk of being called upon at any time to prove them ! 
 
 And it will be seen that from first to last there has been on the 
 part of the prosecution an endeavour to protract the proceedings, and 
 to prevent this cause from coming to trial ; and that these endeavours 
 have delayed the trial no less than four months, from the 16th Feb- 
 ruary, when it might have come on, to the 21st June, when it did come 
 on. And that during the interval witnesses were lost by removal ; 
 just as in the interval between the publication of the article in the 
 Dublin Review and of Dr. Newman's lectures, documents had been 
 lost by an accidental burning of archives. 
 
 The comparison of a large mass of evidence, such as was taken 
 in this case, can scarcely be performed by the jury, without some 
 assistance from the judge ; and, of course, in giving or withholding 
 that aid, great injustice may either intentionally or unintentionally 
 be done. In such a case, not to guide is as bad as to misguide ; 
 and the withholding may be as mischievous as the expressing of an 
 opinion. That charge, indeed, may be the more dangerous which 
 misleads, simply by not leading; as a miscarriage of justice may 
 be more difficult to discover which occurs through non-direction 
 than by mis-direction. The very silence of a judge may be fatal ; 
 and a smile, or a shake of the head, especially if he be a man of 
 much gravity, may be decisive. There is a phrase which speaks 
 
 him ; and so shaping his answers exactly to what he knows has been sworn, in 
 such a manner as adroitly to evade absolute contradiction in every case where it 
 is possible to avoid it ; and rather to adapt his own evidence to it. The common 
 rule of excluding witnesses from court in cases where there is a conflict of evi- 
 dence, in order to prevent collusion, is sufficient to show the value of this test, 
 to which Achilli's counsel declined to subject him.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 about whispering or smiling away a reputation, and a judge may 
 easily, in a similar way, dispose of a witness, or destroy a great 
 body of evidence, or even damn a whole case. And he can do this, 
 of course, the more easily if he conform to the prejudices and pre- 
 disposition of the jury. Here it is that a negative is as bad as an 
 affirmative misconduct on the part of a judge, and may cause as 
 serious a miscarriage of justice. In such a case, to do nothing is 
 to do mischief; to be neutral is to be fatal. Silence (to use a com- 
 mon saying) is sometimes, and usually, assent ; and the assent of a 
 judge is sanction, and may seem to lend a sanctity even to the 
 coarsest and the vilest^ prejudice. "What matter it if justice mis-- 
 carry through the corrupt conduct of jury or of judge, by reason of 
 his coercing them to follow his opinion, or leaving them to follow 
 theirs? If either be wrong, the mischief must be the same. 
 Of what consequence can it be whether a judge bully a jury, or 
 pander to their prejudices, if in either case he act unfairly and un- 
 justly ? What difference was there between Jeffreys and Scroggs ? 
 
 This is a delicate topic, but it must be touched upon. The truth 
 must be told no candid person will doubt it Dr. Newman was 
 not justly dealt with ; he had not a fair trial. 
 
 The conduct of Lord Campbell is grievously complained of. The 
 writer heard on all sides, and from the bar, expressions of indig- 
 nation as to it, throughout the trial, and particularly during the 
 charge. Of course, the writer, or any Catholic, might distrust his 
 own opinion ; but these were the opinions of many Protestants, and 
 lawyers ; and, as they confirm his own, he ventures to express it. 
 It is conceived that throughout the trial, though it was obvious 
 from the first that the jury had most bigoted and prejudiced dis- 
 positions, he very feebly, if at all, tried to check them ; that, on 
 the contrary, he, in several instances, openly pandered to their 
 prejudices, and even gave expression to his own, and in opposition 
 to sworn evidence ; that, in many instances, he grossly misrepre- 
 sented the evidence, to the disadvantage of Dr. Newman ; that, in 
 every instance, he failed to notice the points tending against Achilli ; 
 that he damned and destroyed witnesses without the least excuse ; 
 that he dealt most unfairly with the most important document in 
 the defendant's case ; and that he silently assented to the atrocious 
 and monstrous theory of perjury and fraud by which the Attorney 
 General defended his client. Indeed, he did more, he implicitly 
 sanctioned it. The Attorney General's theory was, that all was 
 false ; Lord Campbell's, that only a little part was true ; which, by 
 implication, gave up the rest. - The judgment of the Inquisition, 
 for instance, was represented by Sir Frederic Thesiger as altogether 
 a fabrication ; Lord Campbell, that the judgment was genuine, but 
 the reasons it recited the vital part of it could not be taken to 
 be so, though proved by precisely the same evidence as the rest. 
 The only difference between the one theory and the other seems to be, 
 that Sir Frederic's was iniquitous and consistent, and Lord Camp-
 
 26 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 bell's iniquitous and inconsistent. The atrocity * of the Attorney 
 General revolted even the Lord Chief Justice ; it was too much 
 even for the strong nerves of Lord Campbell. But the noble and 
 learned lord's scruple was only as to the degree; not as to the 
 principle. He was economical ; he would not impute perjury and 
 forgery to any greater extent than necessary to secure the acquittal 
 of Achilli. The recent antecedents of Lord Campbell did not 
 inspire Catholics with great confidence in his freedom from preju- 
 dice; no one could accuse him of an intention to do injustice; and 
 every one is aware that he possesses some of the most necessary 
 qualities of a good judge, patient, painstaking, and profound; 
 but this only renders the proof of prejudice more plain : the omis- 
 sions or misrepresentations of such a judge, who fails not to observe 
 everything, and forgets nothing, are even painfully apparent ; 
 though not intentional, they cannot have been accidental. There 
 are judges in Westminster Hall who would have had the confidence 
 of Catholics in such a case, but Lord Campbell is not one of them ; 
 and even if he had been, the trial itself would have dispelled the 
 delusion, and satisfied any dispassionate person that, whatever may 
 be the merits or demerits of English administration of justice, the 
 present case can never be appealed to as a proof of its impartiality. 
 There are those, indeed, who believe that justice has never been 
 so grievously violated since the case of Coleman ; and as no one 
 can doubt that, had Dr. Newman's life been in peril, the result 
 would have been the same, the parallel is not less truthful than 
 painful. 
 
 If the judge be complained of what of the jury? Of them, 
 truly, it were difficult to speak. Certainly they disappointed no 
 one. In the main, they were a common jury ; and as soon as they 
 were in the box, the result was anticipated, which their conduct, 
 and even their countenances, instantly indicated. Hardly had 
 the trial commenced when they eagerly availed themselves of a 
 hint given by the judge, to clamour for a departure from an 
 ordinary regulation.t In the progress of the cause their ges- 
 tures intimated acquiescence in the vilest calumnies against the 
 Catholic Church. In course of the evidence they interfered 
 in so unjust a manner, that the defendant's counsel meditated 
 throwing up his brief; finally, they disregarded even the direc- 
 tions of the judge, and found a verdict in defiance of evidence, 
 justice, common sense, and law, and which revolted most respect- 
 able persons in court. 
 
 In ancient times, there was a process by which juries were 
 rendered responsible for gross miscarriages of justice in their hands. 
 The writ of attaint was some security for men's property, liberty, 
 character, and lives. Now, there is none ; and all are absolutely in 
 
 * This is Sir Frederick's own phrase, and he must excuse its use. 
 t The exclusion of Achilli from court while witnesses were examined, against 
 whom he was afterwards to swear in his own defence !
 
 INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 the power of any "common jury" who may be empannelled upon 
 them. They are perfectly irresponsible.* Why should juries be 
 the only parties in the country acting without responsibility, and 
 under no apprehension of punishment for the most flagrant ini- 
 quity ? Is it because, by committing perjury, they may commit 
 murder? Have no such judicial perjuries been committed ?f Ought 
 liberty or character to be less secure than life ?J 
 
 The reader will perceive serious and painful issues are raised in 
 the report now presented ; grave and grievous complaints are made 
 of a monstrous miscarriage of justice. It is for him to judge whether 
 the defence was proved in substance ; and whether almost all its 
 charges, as many of them as were material, were not clearly made 
 out ; so, if though it might be necessary to pass a verdict for 
 Achilli, it would only be a technical one, and Dr. Newman would 
 be not only morally, but, in substance, legally justified, and could 
 not receive any but a merely nominal sentence. 
 
 Such are the issues the reader has to try, which really amount to 
 this : Did Dr. Newman get justice in the Queen's Bench ? It is 
 the writer's sincere conviction, and he is certain that of most of 
 those who witnessed the proceedings, that Dr. Newman did not get 
 justice ; but was, from first to last, most unfairly and unjustly dealt 
 with. The Times thus comments on the trial : 
 
 " We wish we could conclude our observations on this case without 
 saying anything calculated to imply a censure on the jury or the judge, 
 under whose auspices they have, it seems to us, so signally miscarried. 
 From the time when one of them objected to the exclusion of Dr. Achilli 
 from the court, and another to the searching and reasonable question as 
 
 * Let this be considered in justification of some appeal to public opinion, at 
 all events. 
 
 t Let the reader be reminded of the case of the woman who was tried towards 
 the end of last year at the Old Bailey, for perjury committed at the Hammer- 
 smith Police Court, in support of a charge made by her against the nuns of the 
 Good Shepherd Convent. She was acquitted without a moment's hesitation on 
 the part of the jury, and yet, in less than a month, I think, came forward and 
 made a voluntary statement that her charge against the nuns was a lie from 
 beginning to end. A number of witnesses were brought forward in support of the 
 charge of perjury Protestant as well as Catholic ; among the latter two or three 
 Catholic clergymen. For the defence, not a single one. 
 
 J The following is the Jury List : 
 
 1. Edmund Townsend, 3, Bury-place, Bloomsbury, merchant. 
 
 2. John Carter, South Molton Street, merchant. 
 
 3. Henry Weston Elder, 7, Commercial-place, St. Luke's, merchant. 
 
 4. William John Powell, 11, Highbury-place, merchant. 
 
 5. John Stevens, 39, Torrington-square, merchant. 
 
 6. Charles Turner, 26, Hamilton-terrace, Marylebone, merchant. 
 
 7. John William W'atson, Hornsey-lane, Highgate, merchant. 
 
 8. John Sewell, 3, Landsdowne-place, North Islington, merchant. 
 
 9. Henry Huth, 12, Sussex-place, Marylebone, merchant. 
 
 TALES ADDED. 
 
 10. George Pierce, Strand, bookseller. 
 
 11. Samuel Parker, Bedford-place, brass-founder. 
 
 12. Elias Morgan, Norfolk-street, lodging-house-keeper.
 
 28 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 to his general chastity, which he did not find it expedient to answer, 
 till the faltering announcement, preceded and followed by unchecked 
 applause, that the justification was not proved to their satisfaction, 
 there is every reason to think that the case was not viewed by the jury 
 with complete impartiality and absence of sectarian feeling. Perhaps 
 this was hardly to be expected ; but when we are told that Catholic 
 and Protestant have nothing to do with the decision, we should like to 
 ask who believes that if Dr. Achilli had continued a member of the 
 Church of Rome to the present time, and the charge against him had 
 been contained in a speech of the earl of Shaftesbury, the verdict 
 would have been the same minus, of course, the cheers and the popu- 
 larity ? Many of the witnesses were poor, but it is among the poor that 
 the profligate seek their victims. They could not be corroborated as to 
 the fact, for that is a matter of secresy ; they were not discredited, they 
 were not broken down, they were simply put aside and disbelieved. The 
 principle upon which this case was decided would put an end to all 
 proof by human testimony. If we are to require publicity in matters 
 whose very essence is secresy, virtue in witnesses the very nature of 
 whose confession degrades them, and confessions by the accused of what 
 every worldly interest binds them to deny, we may shut up our courts 
 of justice, proclaim impunity for crime, or use ordeals and divinations 
 as a substitute for the investigation we have rejected. 
 
 '^ If there is to be no presumption in favour of assertions attested by 
 oath, no public writer can venture, should the public interest as was 
 admitted in the case of Dr. Newman by the prosecuting counsel ever 
 so imperiously require it, to make statements, however well founded, 
 criminatory of the character of another. Who can hope to be believed 
 when such a mass of evidence has been flung aside as worthless ?" 
 
 His own opinion is, perhaps, of no value ; he places the grounds 
 of it before the reader, in the preliminary proceedings, as well as 
 on the trial itself. Appeals, on the part of Dr. Newman,* from 
 Lord Campbell and a special jury to the profession and to the public ; 
 from the verdict in the Queen's Bench to "Westminster Hall and 
 the people of England. They will do justice. They will not swallow 
 the monstrous and atrocious hypothesis of perjury and forgery by 
 which half a hundred persons are to be convicted that one may 
 escape. They will not sanction a perversion of justice, in order to 
 secure a triumph for Protestantism. They may not appreciate re- 
 ligious houses, but they venerate religion; they, may reluctantly 
 tolerate Popery, but they will not perpetrate iniquity. They love 
 truth, and will not forget that, in the eloquent language of Sir A. 
 Cockburn, whose defence was every way worthy of his illustrious 
 client, "Justice is one of the dearest and eldest born of the 
 emanations of the Divine Being ! " 
 
 * He begs to say that he is a stranger to Dr. Newman, and has no other 
 feeling on his behalf than he would have for any one unjustly treated, especially 
 one whom he respects as a gentleman, a scholar, a Christian, and a clergyman.
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, 
 November 4<th, 1851. 
 
 Sir F. Thesiger moved for a rule to show cause why a 
 criminal information should not issue against Dr. Newman on the 
 following affidavit : 
 
 Giovanni Giacinto Achilli, of Shaftesbury Crescent, Pimlico, 
 Magister Sacrce Theologice, or Doctor of Divinity,* maketh oath and 
 saith, that he is now, and since March, 1850, has been resident in England, 
 and is now, and since May, 1850, has been minister of the Gospel to the 
 Italian Protestant Church, Dufours'-place, Broad-street, Golden-square, 
 Middlesex, and that such chapel is duly certified and registered as a 
 religious place of worship. That he is an Italian by birth, and was 
 born in Viterbo in the Roman States, 1803, and was educated in the 
 Roman Catholic faith ; and that in 1819, he being then of the age of 
 sixteen, he entered into the Dominican convent of St. Quercea at 
 Viterbo, as a novice, and after a year's residence in such convent pro- 
 fessed himself a monk of the Dominican order. That about the year 
 1825, he received priest's orders, by special dispensation granted by the 
 Pope (Leo XII.) at the request of the duke of Lucca, and in 1833 
 received the degree of doctor of divinity in the College of Minerva at 
 Rome. b 
 
 " That as early as 1829, he entertained doubts as to some of the doc- 
 trines of the Church of Rome, and that notwithstanding such doubts 
 he was for a long time unwilling to leave the Church of Rome ; c but 
 
 a In the Dominican order, the degree corresponding to that of doctor in th e 
 secular clergy, and also this title, conferred on the Dominicans through special 
 privilege, is given upon stipulation, on eath, to teach the doctrines of St. Thomas 
 Aquinas on every point (jurare in verba Thomas), so that Achilli must have 
 forfeited the title, which is not a mere literary one, compatible with the various 
 doctrinal teachings. Dublin Review. And he took this oath in 1833 ! In his 
 marriage certificate he calls himself " cavalier." 
 
 b The college of the Dominicans. 
 
 c Why so ? For he has declared that " whatever iniquity, wickedness, and 
 abominations ever existed upon earth will be found among priests and monks " (in 
 one sense, a truism ; for the worst men have been found " among " them) ; " and
 
 30 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 that, in the exercise of his duties as confessor and preacher, his practice 
 and teaching were in some respects openly at variance with, and falling 
 short of the practice and doctrines of the Church of Rome. d That in 
 1835, he being then about to leave Rome for Capua, e solicited from 
 the Pope permission to secularize, i. e., to quit the monastic state and 
 remain a simple priest/ and that such permission was not given until 
 after many applications had been made, supported by the recommenda- 
 tions of the cardinal archbishop of Capua ; and that in August, 1839, 
 by the permission of the Pope, he finally separated himself from the 
 order. 
 
 " That his practice, preaching, and conversation while at Capua and 
 Naples for seven years, from 1835 to 1841, drew much attention upon 
 him, and, as he believes, made him suspected and disliked by many 
 members of the Church of Rome, and in particular by monks of the 
 monasteries at Naples, of whose life he disapproved, and expressed his 
 disapprobation. That in 1841, he was called by private business to 
 Rome/ where he had often been advised to betake himself by ecclesiastics 
 
 that in the cloisters immorality of every description reigns." And in his book 
 he says that he had at this time become perfectly persuaded of the imposture of 
 the principal dogmas of the Catholic faith. Why, then, "unwilling to leave 
 the Church of Rome ?" 
 
 ^Any Catholic can easily conceive the truth of this statement. Yet he was 
 as he says, offered professorships ! 
 
 e For what cause ? Achilli, in his first published statements, asserts that he was, 
 in 1833, offered three professorships; and says, " I have, then, and for that sole 
 cause (what cause?), relinquished my chair at Viterbo." In his late book, he 
 says the general of his order forced him to give up his chair and leave Viterbo 
 in 1833 a year or so after the first case sworn to at the trial took place. ' ' There 
 was then given me the charge of visitor of the convents of the Dominicans in the 
 Roman States and Tuscany." There is no visitor of the order but the provincial, 
 who, at that time, was Father Brochetti. It is an office of great importance, very 
 likely to be given to a priest of six years' standing, whose preaching was openly 
 at variance with the practice .and teaching of the Church of Rome. Achilli 
 states, that at the end of 1833 he gave up his three professorships, and at the 
 beginning of 1835 went to Capua : this leaves just one year for his life in Rome. 
 Yet, the published statements of his friends assert that he was vicar of the 
 Master of the Holy Palace, and professor of moral philosophy at the Minerva 
 College, both in Rome. And he represents that at the same time he was visitor 
 of the Dominican order in the Roman States ! Now the mastership of the Holy 
 Palace is one of the highest in the order, and held for life. The present master 
 succeeded to the office in 1832, his predecessor being created cardinal, and as his 
 socius (there is no vicar) he appointed Father Modena, one of the most eminent 
 men of the order, who has held the post ever since. The hon. sec. of the Society 
 for Religious Improvement of Italy, improves upon the history of Achilli by 
 making him master and vicar too ! and visitor, not only of the Roman States, but 
 of Lombardy likewise ! ! and all this in the course of one year ! ! ! 
 
 1 In his book he says he was " disgusted with the Dominicans." Were they 
 so with him ? It appears from his book they complained of him, and that there 
 were " evil reports" against him in 1833, at Viterbo. 
 
 K In bis book (which was put in as evidence against him), he says that when he 
 was in prison, in 1841, there were reports that he had been guilty of other crimes 
 besides those for which he alleges he was imprisoned. Now the affair of the 
 Principes occurred at the end of 1840, and her parents complained in the spring 1 
 of 1841. See also his cross-examination as to his having been sent out of 
 Naples in charge of the police. Moreover, he says that his friends exerted them- 
 selves with the British consul to clear him from the charges. See note on his 
 book, post, in report of trial.
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 31 
 
 of the Church of Rome, professing to advise him for his own advance- 
 ment ; and that while at Rome he was arrested by the Inquisition, 11 and 
 remained in confinement for three months, at the end of which he was 
 released,' and left Rome in September, 1841, and went to Ancona, and 
 a short time after sailed to CorfuJ 
 
 " That from the time of his leaving Ancona k he has always professed 
 openly his renunciation of the faith and doctrines of the Church of 
 Rome. 1 That he has read the following passage in No. V. of a series of 
 lectures entitled "Lectures on the Difficulties of Protestantism, by 
 J. H. Newman, D.D., priest of the congregation of the Oratory of St. 
 Philip Neri, delivered to the Brothers of the Little Oratory. 
 
 " And in the midst of outrages such as these, my brothers of the 
 Oratory, wiping its mouth and clasping its hands, and turning up its 
 
 h In his narrative he says, that in 1841, he made to the Inquisition his 
 " renunciation of all the honours and employments which he had enjoyed up to 
 that time." What were they ? He was secularized in 1839. 
 
 1 Very easily released ! considering the cruel character of the tribunal, and 
 that for years, according to Achilla's own account, he had been very obnoxious ! 
 
 J His friends of the Italian Improvement Society, in their published memorial, 
 state that he " escaped " from Rome to Corfu ; how so, if " released ?" and then 
 went to Ancona. In his own narrative he says he is " far from being displeased 
 with the Inquisition," and speaks of the " trifling correction " he had received, 
 which clearly implies that he had been " corrected ?" It is stated in the Dublin 
 Review, it was by imprisonment from which he escaped. 
 
 k Or, rather, escaping from his imprisonment. See his evidence at the trial. 
 
 1 Not until after he had been " corrected" by that Church. What was there 
 in that to lend him any new light as to her doctrines ? 
 
 m St. Philip Neri was a practical philanthropist, whose memory, after the 
 lapse of three centuries, is still enthusiastically cherished by Roman citizens, as 
 the regenerator and benefactor of their country. Indeed he was called the 
 Apostle of Rome. Florence was his native city, where he was born in 1515, 
 and, at the age of eighteen, he quitted all for the metropolis of the Christian 
 world. Here he passed the remaining sixty-two years of his life, without going 
 further beyond the Holy City walls than was necessary to visit the Seven 
 Churches. In the porches and catacombs of these venerable sanctuaries he was 
 accustomed to pass the night in prayer. He shunned honours and dignities. 
 The mitre, with the title of cardinal, repeatedly offered him by Clement VIII. 
 and Gregory XIV., he never would accept. The great hospital for pilgrims and 
 convalescents is a permanent monument of his charity. He founded a society 
 of pious clergymen, called " Fathers of the Oratory,'' to promote moral im- 
 provement and religious education among all classes of the people. For this 
 purpose he enjoined daily preaching short sermons, being enlivened by anthems 
 or litanies, with musical accompaniments. Connecting the national taste for 
 this pleasing art with religion, he made both useful auxiliaries to his mode of 
 popular instruction. A French tourist calls him the Vincent de Paul of Italy, 
 and observes that the genius and taste of the Italians were admirably combined 
 with his apostolic virtues. Alluding to the concerts of sacred music, which owe 
 their origin to the refined zeal of the saint, and are usually called " Oratorios," 
 from the oratory or chapel wherein they usually take place, in order to attract 
 youth from theatres and bad cpmpany. In all his undertakings, in fact, 
 St. Philip Neri, endeavoured to render religion more attractive, if possible, than 
 vice. Illustrious for sanctity and miracles, he at length paid the debt of nature, 
 at the age of eighty, on the 26th of May, 1595 ; and twenty-seven years after, 
 with St. Ignatius and St. Francis Xavier, he was canonized. On the anniversary 
 of his death, the chamber he once occupied is thrown open to the public ; and 
 his festival is kept in the adjoining church, where the pope and cardinals go in 
 state to divine service. Reminiscences of Rome. Such is the order to which
 
 32 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 eyes, it trudges to the Town Hall to hear Dr. Achilli expose the Inqui- 
 sition. Ah ! Dr. Achilli, I might have spoken of him last week, had 
 time admitted of it. The Protestant world flocks to hear him, because 
 he has something to tell of the Catholic Church. He has something to 
 tell, it is true ; he has a scandal to reveal, he has an argument to 
 exhibit. It is a simple one, and a powerful one, as far as it goes and 
 it is one. That one argument is himself ; it is his presence which is the 
 triumph of Protestants ; it is the sight of him which is the Catholic's 
 confusion. It is, indeed, our confusion, that our Holy Mother could 
 have had a priest like him. He feels the force of the argument, and he 
 shows himself to the multitude that is gazing on him. ' Mothers of 
 families,' he seems to say, ' gentle maidens, innocent children, look at 
 me, for I am worth looking at. You do not see such a sight every day. 
 Can any Church live over the imputation of such a production as I am ? 
 I have been a Roman priest and a hypocrite ; I have been a profligate 
 under a cowl ; I am that Father Achilli, who, as early as 1826, was 
 deprived of my faculty to lecture, for an offence which my superiors 
 did their best to conceal ; and who, in 1827, had already earned the 
 reputation of a scandalous friar. I am that Achilli, who in the diocese 
 of Viterbo, in February, 1831, robbed of her honour a young woman of 
 eighteen ; who in September, 1833, was found guilty of a second such 
 crime, in the case of a person of twenty-eight ; and who perpetrated a 
 thiroMn July, 1834, in the case of another aged twenty-four. I am he, 
 who afterwards was found guilty of sins, similar or worse, in other 
 towns of the neighbourhood. I am that son of St. Dominic who is 
 known to have repeated the offence at Capua, in 1834 and 1835, and at 
 Naples again in ] 840, in the case of a child of fifteen. I am he who 
 chose the sacristy of the church for one of these crimes, and Good 
 Friday for another. Look on me, ye mothers of England, a confessor 
 against Popery, for ye ' ne'er may look upon my like again.' I am that 
 veritable priest who, after all this, began to speak against, not only the 
 Catholic faith, but the moral law, and perverted others by my teaching. 
 I am the Cavaliere Achilli, who then went to Corfu, made the wife of a 
 tailor faithless to her husband, and lived publicly and travelled about 
 with the wife of a chorus singer. I am that professor in the Protestant 
 college at Malta, who with two others was dismissed from my post for 
 offences which the authorities could not get themselves to describe. And 
 now attend to me, such as I am, and you shall see what you shall see 
 about the barbarity and profligacy of the inquisitors of Rome.' You 
 speak truly, Acliilli, and we cannot answer you a word. You are a 
 priest ; you have been a friar ; you are, it is undeniable, the scandal of 
 Catholicism, and the palmary argument of Protestants, by your extra- 
 ordinary depravity. You have been, it is true, a profligate, an 
 unbeliever, and a hypocrite. Not many years passed of your conven- 
 tual life, and you were never in choir, always in private houses, so 
 that the laity observed you. You were deprived of your professorship, 
 we own it ; you were prohibited from preaching and hearing confessions ; 
 you were obliged to give hush-money to the father of one of your 
 
 Dr. Newman, and other Oxford converts, have devoted themselves. Such was 
 the saint whose spiritual children are to be subjected to insult for carrying on 
 their labours of love in this great city, wearing, with natural affection, the " habit 
 of their order," nothing but a plain black suit, after all. The " Little Oratory" 
 is a fraternity of laymen attached to the Oratory for purposes of moral and 
 reb'gious improvement.
 
 PRELIMINARY* PROCEEDINGS. 33 
 
 victims, as we learn from the official report of the police of Viterbo. You 
 are reported in an official document of the Neapolitan police to be 
 ' known for habitual incontinency ;' your name came before the civil 
 tribunal at Corfu for your crime of adultery. You have put the crown 
 on your offences by, as long as you could, denying them all ; you have 
 professed to seek after truth, when you were ravening after sin. Yes, 
 you are an incontrovertible proof that priests may fall and friars break 
 their vows. You are your own witness ; but while you need not go out 
 of yourself for your argument, neither are you able. With you the 
 argument begins ; with you too it ends : the beginning and the ending 
 you are both. When you have shown yourself, you have done your 
 worst and your all : you are your best argument and your sole. Your 
 witness against others is utterly invalidated by your witness against 
 yourself. You leave your sting in the wound ; you cannot lay the 
 golden eggs, for you are already dead." 
 
 " That he is the person here referred to, and that in May, 1850, he was 
 present at the Town Hall, Birmingham, at a meeting of the Evangelical 
 Alliance, and on no other occasion. That he then addressed the meet- 
 ing, but did not use such words as are above mentioned. That he did 
 then describe the constitution of the Inquisition, and openly express his 
 abhorrence of its practices ; x but he did not speak of any individual 
 members of the Church of Rome/ nor make any charge against the 
 moral character of any individual whatever. 2 That except in his dis- 
 belief of some doctrines peculiar to the Church of Rome, he has never 
 been an infidel, but has always believed, and still does believe in the 
 means of salvation made known by the Gospel ; and he has never 
 affected to believe, and has not inculcated any doctrine of the falsehood 
 of which he was satisfied.* That he has never been a profligate, nor 
 indifferent to a sense of virtue and decency. That he was not so early 
 as 1826, nor at any other time, deprived of his faculty to lecture for an 
 offence his superiors did their best to conceal ; and that he has not, at 
 any time or for any cause, been deprived of his faculty to lecture. b That 
 he had not in 1827 earned the reputation of a scandalous friar. That 
 he has not at any time of his life brought (by his own consent c ) any 
 scandal on hims'elf or on the Romish Church, d except so far as any 
 
 x The reader will remember the passage previously referred to (see Introduc- 
 tion, p. 6), and will readily conceive the forbearance of the writer of that para- 
 graph. This sentence in the affidavit was obviously suggested by counsel's 
 inquiries, as to whether Achilli had provoked a public discussion of his own con- 
 duct by public accusations against the conduct of others ; which indicates coun- 
 sel's consciousness, that this would tend to give the publication of Dr. Newman's 
 charges a privileged character. 
 
 y Yet he declares he was "far from being displeased at the conduct of the 
 Inquisition." See his narrative. 
 
 z In his book he put forth shocking, yet stupid, charges against the character 
 of certain individuals holding office as inquisitors. 
 
 a But he had already stated, that for years before he left off preaching and 
 teaching the doctrines of the Church of Rome, he had ceased to believe divers of 
 their doctrines ; and that he celebrated services he believed to be impostures. 
 
 b How so ? He had already stated that, in 1841, " he gave up " all his 
 honours or offices. And see the judgment of the Inquisition, proved at the trial. 
 
 c What does this mean ? 
 
 d Was it no scandal that while exercising the duties of confessor and preacher, 
 his " practice " should be " openly at variance with the doctrine.s and practices of 
 the Church?"
 
 34 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 such scaudal may have been consequent on his gradual abandonment 
 of the doctrines peculiar to that Church.* That he did not, in the 
 diocese of Viterbo, or at any time or place, rob of her honour any 
 young woman, and was not, in 1832, or at any other time, found guilty ; 
 nor was he guilty of any such oftence ; and did not perpetrate a third 
 such crime in 1834, or a"t any other time ; and that he was not, at any 
 time or place, guilty of similar sins or worse/ &c. That he has never 
 spoken against the Catholic faith, so far as received by him ; nor 
 against the moral law of the Church ; nor according to his own 
 conscientious belief has he perverted others by his teaching. 
 
 " That he has not induced any married woman to be unfaithful to 
 her husband, but he admits that while at Corfu he had a servant of the 
 name of Corribone, who had, as he believes, been a chorus-singer, and 
 that the wife of Corribone lived with her husband under the defendant's 
 roof, and accompanied her husband while travelling with the deponent, 
 but he denies that he had improper acquaintance with her, or that there 
 was any unbecoming familiarity or intimacy between them.* That it is 
 true that he was deposed from his post of professor at the Protestant 
 college at Malta, 8 but that the cause of his deposition has been stated 
 in a report of a committee of the college (published in the Record, 9th 
 December, 1850 h ), and that in such report the following passage 
 occurs: 'After Dr. Achilli's appointment, various unpleasant state- 
 ments were made to the committee as to his past history, which was 
 submitted to him ; but, as they were denied by him, and were not 
 supported by any sufficient evidence, they were rejected by the com- 
 mittee. It was not until he interposed to quash the investigation into 
 charges affecting the moral character of several priests, 1 by sending 
 his friend Saccares to Sicily that the committee resolved to have no 
 connection with him. Such a step was felt by the committee to be an 
 act requiring, apart from the consideration of any statement affecting 
 his own character, his immediate removal from so responsible a posi- 
 tion.' j 
 
 " That it was not to his knowledge or belief ever alleged that he was 
 dismissed from his position for any offence which it would be unbe- 
 
 e His denials in the precise language of the libel, as on the trial he nega- 
 tived them in the precise terms of the plea, need scarcely be repeated, as they 
 merely negative each charge separately. 
 
 1 See his cross-examination, in which he declines to answer whether he had 
 not been guilty of " similar crimes " at each place in succession he visited. 
 
 e Did not this admission give the Court ground to call upon him in making an 
 application for the extraordinary interference of the Court by a criminal informa- 
 tion, to satisfy them by explicit statements supported by other evidence than his 
 own, as to the true reason of his dismissal, especially considering that he directly 
 after discloses that the very same kind of charges as the alleged libel contained 
 had been then made against him ? Did the subsequent part of his affidavit 
 come up to the usual requisition of the Court in that respect ? 
 
 h So long, then, as a whole year before the information, it had been published 
 in a London newspaper that "various unpleasant statements had been made 
 respecting his past history," and that he had been afterwards dismissed from a 
 responsible position in a Protestant college ; and the affidavit does not disclose 
 that he took any notice at all of this publication. 
 
 ' Who were those priests ? Did they include Achilli himself, or any acquaint- 
 tance of his ? Ought not the affidavit to have explained that ? 
 
 J Let the reader remark how far this admission is answered by the rest of the 
 affidavit.
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 35 
 
 coming to describe, or any offence affecting his moral character, 14 except 
 so far as his sending away Signor Saccares may be considered such an 
 offence ;' and that he always denied, and it is not true that he sent 
 him away from the college, 1 " but that he left the college voluntarily ;" 
 and he, being aware of his resignation, requested him to go to Sicily 
 for the purpose of distributing Bibles and tracts. p 
 
 "That he has never been prohibited from preaching, or hearing 
 confessions. 11 
 
 " That, to the best of his belief, he has never been reported in the 
 official documents of the Neapolitan police to be known for habitual 
 incontinency. That he believes that a tailor at Corfu, named Nicolo 
 Garrimoni, did, in answer to a petition for alimony by his wife, charge 
 his wife with adultery with the deponent, but he believes' that the 
 charge was not brought before" any civiL. court, or any court what- 
 ever ; but that the fact of the adultery was alleged in a paper pro^ 
 fessing to be prepared for the court in the matter of the said petition ; 
 and that the deponent, having been made acquainted with the fact that 
 such charge had been made, 1 expressed his willingness" to meet the said 
 charge in court ; but he never heard that the charge was brought for- 
 ward/ and believes that it was not, and denies that there was any 
 ground for it. w 
 
 LORD CAMPBELL said, disregarding the " ribaldry " in the pre- 
 vious portion of the passage, the latter part of it was clearly 
 libellous ; and the rule was ordered. 
 
 k He admits that a year before the Record published a statement, the effect of 
 which was to represent that he had been ; and he does not say that he took any 
 public notice of this. 
 
 1 As it was considered (he admits) by the committee. 
 
 m But he does not deny that he sent him away from Malta ; and that he sent 
 him away in order to quash the investigation. 
 
 n Was it, as Achilli " left " Rome " voluntarily," by way of escape ? 
 
 Then he did " send him away ?" 
 
 P And for no other purpose less pious and more practical ? Achilli is silent 
 upon that point, which it will be perceived is the point. He does not deny that 
 he sent him away from the island to interfere in the investigation alluded to ; 
 and for which the committee say they decided he ought to be dismissed. 
 
 1 Not when the Inquisition, in 1841, deposed and suspended him ? The reader 
 is requested to refer to his cross-examination on this point, and to the verdict of 
 the jury, who said, in direct contradiction to this statement, on his oath, that he 
 was by a decree of the Inquisition totally and perpetually deprived and suspended. 
 From this specimen the reader will appreciate the averments of the affidavit. Ex 
 uno disce omnes. 
 
 1 Strange word this. Did he not ascertain ? 
 
 9 How "not brought before" a court, when it was alleged in answer to a 
 petition for alimony ? Let the reader carefully compare this passage with the 
 charge in the alleged libel and with the evidence. 
 
 * How " made," if not " brought before a court ? " 
 
 u How did he " express" this ? Privately, or publicly ? 
 
 v He had just stated that he had heard that the charge had been " made" on 
 a petition for alimony, in a court of justice. 
 
 w But he does not say that he ever publicly denied the charge ; or ever pub- 
 licly challenged an inquiry into it. Conceive of a clergyman of any Church 
 hearing of such a charge not taking this course, and then coming, years after, 
 for a criminal information to clear his character ! Can any one recollect or refer 
 to any case of an information ordered on such an affidavit ? 
 
 D 2
 
 36 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH Nov. 7, 1851. 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn (Attorney General), moved for a cross rule nisi, 
 for enlarging the rule nisi for a criminal information until Easter 
 Term, in order to afford the defendant time to answer the matters in 
 the affidavit of prosecutor, and show cause against the rule. 
 
 The defendant, Dr. Newman, made an affidavit, stating, 
 
 " That he is at present unable to answer the several matters contained 
 in the affidavit of Giovanni Achilli, by reason of the fact that the several 
 matters referred to in the affidavit, and which form the subject of the 
 alleged libels complained of by him (or the greater part thereof), 
 occurred at periods of time long passed, in parts beyond the seas, and 
 places far distant from this kingdom, and that in order to answer the 
 said matters and show cause against the rule, it will be necessary for 
 the deponent to obtain evidence from various parts and places beyond 
 the seas, and from countries far distant from these realms, which 
 evidence it will be wholly impossible to procure and bring before the 
 Court for a considerable time, and until the expiration of several months 
 next ensuing ; that unless such time is granted and such delay allowed 
 for the procuring of such evidence, it will be wholly impossible for him 
 to answer the said matters contained in the affidavit, 1 and to show cause 
 against the rule ; and he is informed and verily believes that if such 
 time is granted, he will be able to obtain evidence from such foreign 
 parts and places sufficient to enable him to answer the matters contained 
 in the affidavit/ and to show cause against the rule, and to satisfy the 
 Court that the rule ought not to be made." * 
 
 The learned counsel cited the case of Paciftco v. The Herald, in 
 which time had been given to answer a similar application, the 
 matters charged having occurred abroad. 
 
 The rule nisi was granted. 
 
 T It must be obvious that this would be so ; though it might have been pos- 
 sible to give reasons for not " answering the said matters," i.e., by showing the 
 publication in the Dublin Review, from which the alleged libel was taken, in 
 substance, and that prosecutor had not noticed it. 
 
 f Dr. Newman here distinctly swears, to his belief, that he can prove the 
 charges ; yet the Court considered he had not sworn to his belief, that the charges 
 were true ! As if they could be proveable, if not true ! 
 
 z Which might be done without proving the truth of the charge, as by show- 
 ing that abroad those charges had been publicly made, and not publicly answered ; 
 which is a sufficient answer to the application for a criminal information. See 
 Introduction.
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 37 
 
 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH Nov. 21, 1851. 
 (Sittings in Banco.) 
 
 The rule for a criminal information having issued, and an interme- 
 diate cross rule having been obtained, calling on Dr. Achilli to show 
 cause why the first rule should not be enlarged till the first day of next 
 Easter Term, to enable Dr. Newman to obtain from Italy the evi- 
 dence which he believed he could there procure to show that he was 
 justified in publishing the alleged libel. 
 
 Sir Frederic Thesiger now showed cause against the cross rule, 
 which he said was in contradiction to the principle he had always 
 understood to govern the conduct of this Court, that when one man 
 took on himself to slander the character of another, the slanderer 
 should be prepared at once to justify the slander. He should not, how- 
 ever, rest on that principle ; because he thought that, entirely disre- 
 garding it, this was not an application which on any fair and reason- 
 able grounds ought to be granted. The learned counsel read and 
 referred to the affidavit. 
 
 The Court would observe that the ground of this application for 
 delay was that an opportunity should be afforded, to Dr. Newman 
 and the publisher to send a roving commission to investigate into 
 the whole life of Dr. Achilli for a period of thirty-two years ; and 
 it was remarkable that in founding the application on these affidavits 
 Dr. Newman did not vouch, in the slightest degree, his own belief 
 in the truth of the charges he had made. a He (Sir F. Thesiger) 
 was apprehensive of allowing the defendant this opportunity of thus 
 seeking all over Italy for evidence ; for, considering who the parties 
 were, and what was the nature of the libel; considering, too, that 
 one of the parties had turned from, and the other had turned to, the 
 Church of Rome, b he could not shut his eyes to the possibility of 
 affidavits being easily procured in Italy from persons into whose 
 character and conduct there would be no means of making any 
 
 * Dr. Newman stated, as will be seen, not in the " slightest degree," but in 
 the strongest possible way, that if he had time, he should be able to prove the 
 truth of the charges he had made. Was not this the best way of alleging his own 
 belief in their truth ? If they were proveable, of course, they must be true 
 (though the course might not hold, and they might be true, and not proveable) ; 
 and he stated his belief that they were not merely true, but also proveable. And 
 this was deemed, not only by counsel but the court, not a sufficient averment of 
 his belief in the truth of the charges ! Certainly, it is not such hard swearing as 
 is usual in courts of justice ; but, perhaps, swearing is none the worse for not 
 being so very hard ; and it seems strange that judges should object to it; and 
 think an affidavit insufficiently strong, because sufficiently scrupulous. 
 
 b What had that to do with the case ? Sir Frederick, however, is too acute 
 an advocate to have mentioned it, if he did not well know its effect on the mind 
 of the Court. 
 
 c Why should the learned counsel have presumed that false affidavits were not 
 punishable abroad ? His argument is founded on that utter assumption.
 
 38 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 inquiry, nor any into the truth of their statements. They would 
 be persons making affidavits out of the jurisdiction of this Court, 
 not only without the power of Dr. Achilli to contradict their testi- 
 mony, but without any danger on their part of punishment for 
 making untrue statements. Nothing could be more unfair to Dr. 
 Achilli than to allow a proceeding of this kind ; and it was quite 
 unnecessary for justice to Dr. Newman to allow it ; for, under the 
 statute 6th and 7th Viet. c. 96 (Lord Campbell's Act), it was com- 
 petent to Dr. Newman to plead that the alleged libel was true, and 
 that it was published for the public benefit. d It would be hard 
 indeed towards Dr. Achilli to give to Dr. Newman the chance of 
 getting an opportunity to fish for evidence on affidavit, when he 
 might under his pleas, and at a different stage of the cause, have a 
 commission to examine witnesses, in which Dr. Achilli could join. 
 The persons from whom these affidavits were asked were those over 
 whom the Court could exercise no jurisdiction, and under the cir- 
 cumstances of this case such a proceeding would be unjust and dan- 
 gerous towards Dr. Achilli. The Attorney-General, in moving for 
 the rule, had quoted the case of M. Pacifico and the Morning 
 ffer*ald, but that case was not applicable. M. Pacifico had com- 
 plained of a libel published in a letter from the correspondent of the 
 newspaper resident in Greece, and time was given to enable the 
 proprietor of the newspaper to inquire from his correspondent on 
 whose authority he had made the statement. 6 But besides, the 
 answer to that case was, that what was done there was done by the 
 consent of M. Pacifico. f He (Sir F. Thesiger) had mentioned the 
 matter to his learned friend out of court (who then appeared for 
 M. Pacifico), and who had at once assented to it;S and their lord- 
 ships were aware that the inquiry proved perfectly satisfactory so 
 far as M. Pacifico was concerned. 
 
 Mr. T. F, ElliS) on the same side, said that, as to the case of 
 
 d Before this Act the truth was not a justification on the trial of the information, 
 but was on the application for the information (see Introduction, p. 14), and then 
 the question was decided on affidavits, the prosecutor having to purge himself 
 satisfactorily from all the imputations, and enter into full explanations of the 
 transactions alluded to, in order, as far as possible, not merely to deny, but to 
 disprove the charges ; whereas on the trial the prosecutor can cast the whole onus 
 of proof upon the defendant. As respects informations, therefore, this Act is 
 not of much benefit, especially as it requires that the defendant should plead 
 (and prove), not only the truth of the libel, but that it was for the public 
 benefit, with the particular facts showing that it was so. 
 
 c This is palpably incorrect ; and as the writer was not in court, he can only 
 conjecture it to be a mis-report. It is obvious that the party responsible must 
 have had to swear to his belief of the truth of the charges (as Dr. Newman 
 did), and although the correspondent, or the person on whose authority he 
 made the charges, made affidavit abroad in confirmation, these affidavits would 
 have been open to the very objection taken by Sir Frederick to the affidavits to be 
 prepared in confirmation of Dr.' Newman's. 
 
 f As Sir Frederick ought to have done in this case; because it was fair, rea- 
 sonable, and just ; and the refusal of it must cause a failure of justice as he 
 might have foreseen. 
 
 See the preceding note. He said much more.
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 39 
 
 M. Pacifico and the Morning Herald, that newspaper avowed the 
 source of its information to be the letter of its own correspondent, and 
 consequently the paper there stood in the situation in which the pub- 
 lisher of this libel stood before Dr. Newman admitted himself to be 
 the author of the libel. 11 To make that case in point with the 
 present, this application to the Court ought to have been made by 
 the publisher, for time to examine the author, Dr. Newman, as to 
 the sources from which he had derived his information I 1 It was 
 not at all in point to support an application by Dr. Newman him- 
 self, for he was the author, and ought to know on what authority 
 he published the libel. J Then, as to the affidavits, the Court must 
 be struck with what Dr. Newman did and what he did not say. 
 It was only by implication that they could learn what it was that 
 Dr. Newman wished the opportunity to prove. k The fact of the 
 publication of the libel was now admitted ; the truth of the charges 
 was all that now remained. As to them, Dr. Newman neither said 
 that he now believed those charges, nor did he even state that he 
 ever had believed one syllable of them ; he merely said that " the 
 said matters referred to in the affidavit of Dr. Achilli " occurred at 
 such and such places and times. * In order to try the sufficiency of 
 this affidavit, the Court must consider what would be the situation 
 (he said this without meaning any personal imputation on Dr. 
 Newman, but merely to test a legal result) of Dr. Achilli if he 
 wanted to assign perjury on this affidavit? m If there should be 
 twenty witnesses to prove that on as many occasions th'e maker of 
 this affidavit had declared that he did not believe one of the impu- 
 tations contained in the libel, no assignment of perjury in the affi- 
 davit could be sustained ; for nowhere was it there stated that the 
 person who made the affidavit did believe the imputations. n It 
 vvas further to be remarked, that Dr. Newman did not say from 
 whom he got the information, nor from whose testimony he ex- 
 pected to substantiate it. He hoped that he should not be 
 
 h And, therefore, in the position in which Dr. Newman stood, after he had 
 admitted himself the author, as legally responsible. 
 
 ' That was not the object of the application in the case cited ; for of what use 
 would it have been to ascertain the ' ' source ' ' whence the information was obtained, 
 unless it was sworn to ; and if sworn to, it must have been sworn to abroad, as 
 in this case was proposed and objected to. 
 
 i How absurd to represent that as the question ! The question was, not as to 
 authority, but proof, or affidavits as to the truth ; and these affidavits must, in 
 either case, have been made abroad. 
 
 k Parties seldom assent to anything, in such cases, unless they are pretty cer- 
 tain it could be enforced upon them. 
 
 1 And necessary implication is as good as direct assertion. Dr. Newman 
 swore he believed the charges proveable. 
 
 m This is the true test, no doubt. 
 
 " That is stated, and nothing could be easier than to indict Dr. Newman for 
 perjury, in swearing that he believed the charges proveable provided Achilli 
 could prove them false ; for if false, Dr. Newman's affidavit must have been at 
 least as false as if he had sworn he believed them true, for he swore he believed 
 them proveable. 
 
 Which Achilli wished much to ascertain, no doubt, for reasons that will
 
 40 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 thought to be construing the affidavit too strictly, but he 
 thought that a different rule of construction of words and 
 expressions must be applied in cases where a man used words, 
 of the meaning and effect of which he was ignorant, and where 
 words were used by men who had passed their whole lives 
 in tracking their way through tortuous paths of subtle con- 
 troversy,? knowing full well the value of the words which 
 they used, and the danger of the words they abstained from using. 
 He would not suggest in which of these two classes of persons the 
 maker of this affidavit was to be placed, or how far he stood between 
 the two extremes, but the Court must look at the form of the 
 affidavit as it now stood. So looked at, the document exhibited a 
 very remarkable instance of mental reservation. Here was a case 
 in which A. complained of B., for having libelled him: B answers, 
 " I admit that I published the libel I do not say that I believe it. 9 
 I do not say that I ever have believed it ; but, if you will give me 
 a few months' time, I may perhaps find in Rome or Naples some 
 persons who will say that you have done what I charge you with." 
 Such an application could not, in accordance with any rules of 
 justice, or any practice of the Court, be granted. He should now 
 proceed to consider the statute on the law of libel, which, bene- 
 ficially for the public, had been passed within these few years. 
 One of the justifications under that statute for the publication of a 
 libel was that it was true ; another was, that it was published for 
 the benefit of the public. This case showed how well that statute 
 would work for the advancement of justice. The inquiry in this 
 case was one of importance to the public, 1 for Dr. Achilli denounced 
 the mischiefs of the Church of Rome, and Dr. Newman alleged that 
 Dr. Achilli was not to be believed in his denunciations, for that Dr. 
 Achilli himself had been guilty of all those acts of misconduct which 
 he charged upon others. It was of importance that the public 
 should know the truth in these matters, and that question of where 
 the truth lay was capable of being made the subject of evidence by 
 witnesses to be examined at the trial. If Dr. Newman found that 
 trial coming on too suddenly 8 to enable him to produce these wit- 
 suggest themselves to be apparent on reference to the subsequent part of the case. 
 But what had that to do with the question of the truth of the charges ? If they 
 were false, then whoever might swear to them mattered not. 
 
 p Here again, this indecent observation had of course nothing to do with the 
 case ; but the advocate is too prudent to have hazarded it if he had not known it 
 would weigh with the Court. 
 
 i B. (i.e. Dr. Newman) does say he believed it. 
 
 ' This is an important admission that the publication was for the public 
 benefit ; but then, by the Act, Dr. Newman also has to prove it true. This im- 
 poses a burden upon him, as the author believes, not imposed by common law ; 
 and most unjustly imposed upon him. For if the publication was for the public 
 benefit, the occasion was lawful, and the publication privileged, in which case, as 
 he contends (see Introduction), Dr. Newman would not have to prove the charges, 
 bnt Achilli to disprove them, or prove them to be malicious. 
 
 Alas ! Dr. Newman found the trial come on too slowly for him to his great
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 41 
 
 nesses, he might apply to the Court, and would get all proper 
 benefit from the application at that time ; but, as matters now stood, 
 there was no ground for this application. 
 
 The Attorney General, in support of this rule for the enlargement 
 of time, said that the arguments of his learned friends assumed that 
 the present proceeding was the only one by which Dr. Achilli could 
 clear his character. That was not so. If the rule for the criminal 
 information should be discharged, Dr. Achilli might still have 
 recourse to an indictment. This being an application to the court 
 for its interposition to enable Dr. Newman to answer the rule which 
 had been obtained against him, the court would (i.e. should) use its 
 discretion in such a way as to be sure that justice should be done. 
 The argument of Sir F. Thesiger amounted to this, that where the 
 conduct of a party was impugned in relation to acts done without 
 the realm, the man who impugned it should be prepared at once to 
 sustain the imputations by evidence within the realm (!). Such an 
 argument did seem strange, and the doctrine itself was incapable of 
 practical application. He submitted that when the character of the 
 party was assailed in respect of conduct out of the realm, the Court 
 would (i.e. should) grant to the assailing party the proper oppor- 
 tunity of substantiating his charges. He submitted that the case of 
 M. Pacifico was in point. It was true that he (the Attorney Gene- 
 ral), who then appeared for M. Pacifico, did make no resistance to 
 the application, but that was because he felt that such an applica- 
 tion was just and reasonable. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. We were not called on to give judgment in 
 that case. 1 
 
 The Attorney General said that it was so no doubt, but in that 
 case he knew that the truth would in no way be injurious to his 
 client. The present application ought not to be resisted. His 
 learned friend was mistaken in supposing that a commission might 
 issue, for no commission to examine witnesses could issue in a 
 criminal case. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. But that is not objectionable. It would be 
 much more satisfactory to have the witnesses examined in the box. u 
 
 The Attorney General said it would be so, but that was not a 
 reason why Dr. Newman should not be enabled to examine wit- 
 nesses in this preliminary inquiry. Dr. Achilli had quitted the 
 
 cost and previous prejudice : and much benefit he got from application to the 
 Court or the prosecutor to bring it on more quickly, as will be seen in the subse- 
 quent part of the case. The Court would not give him time when he wanted it, 
 to procure evidence, nor prevent delay when it prevented him from retaining his 
 evidence. See his affidavits, post. 
 
 1 What did that matter, if the counsel were right in deeming it fair and just 
 (which the Court did not dispute) ; and if the case were in point as to the present, 
 which the Court certainly did not disprove ? 
 
 u But suppose they could not be got to come over, as was the case with many, 
 and as the Court must have known was very probable ?
 
 42 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 Roman Catholic Church, and he now came forward to denounce 
 what he called the offences of the clergy of that Church. Dr. 
 Newman alleged that he was not a credible witness on such a matter, 
 and set forth certain acts of the life of Dr. Achilli to prove that 
 allegation. Dr. Achilli called that a libel on him, and Dr. Newman 
 said, " Give me time and I will get evidence to support my allega- 
 tions ; but I must have time to enable me to get that evidence." 
 Surely he had a right to what he thus asked. If this rule should 
 be discharged, Dr. Newman would have no means of doing what he 
 required for his defence, and of resisting the issuing of this informa- 
 tion. v It was impossible to say that the matter could be properly 
 investigated, with any reasonable possibility of the defendant defend- 
 ing himself, unless he was allowed to obtain this evidence, to which 
 he was undoubtedly entitled. 
 
 Mr. Badeley, on the same side, submitted with confidence that 
 this rule must be made absolute, not only for the purposes of the ends 
 of justice, and the protection of the person whose case was under the 
 consideration of the Court, but for the benefit of the Court itself, the 
 application now made ought to be granted. In cases of this sort, where 
 a criminal information was applied for, the Court would act with the 
 greatest hesitation and caution. In such a case the Court would require 
 the man who came to ask for its protection, that he should come 
 into court with clean hands, and should give the Court assurance 
 that he was entirely innocent of the offence with which he was 
 charged. Here additional evidence to that of Dr. Achilli himself 
 was required to put the case fairly under .the consideration of the 
 Court. Dr. Achilli could not be injured by this application. He 
 would still be at liberty to claim redress at the hands of a jury. The 
 alleged libel here charged certain offences to have been committed in 
 distant parts of the world. It was impossible that Dr. Newman 
 should be expected to call together at once all the witnesses who 
 were to support the charge. A person might come into court 
 asking this extraordinary remedy, and it might turn out that if he 
 were not so guilty as that he might be convicted by a jury, still he 
 might be quite undeserving of that protection which he asked for. 
 On the other hand, it might be abundantly reasonable, fair, and 
 proper that he should have this protection, and that in the result it 
 would turn out so ; still, it would be satisfactory to the Court to 
 know that it . had granted to the defendant a fair and reasonable 
 means of defending himself, such as in law he was entitled to, and 
 such as in justice he ought to enjoy. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. I am of opinion that this rule ought to be dis- 
 charged. I by no means consider as inflexible the rule that if a man 
 publishes a libel imputing to another the perpetration of some mis- 
 conduct in a foreign country, the publisher of the libel is bound 
 
 v Nor, in reality, of defending himself at the trial. See previous note.
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 43 
 
 instantly to be able to justify the truth of what he has alleged. 
 With respect to the Pacifico case, I do not think that it is any pre- 
 cedent for the present ; in the first place, because what occurred was 
 done by consent ; and, secondly, because if it had been resisted I 
 should have been of opinion that, under the circumstances of that 
 case, the defendant's was a fair application^ There the libel was 
 published in a London journal, and consisted of a letter from the 
 correspondent in Greece of that journal ; and it was stated in the 
 affidavit that that correspondent was at that time living in Greece, 
 and that the defendant had reason to believe that he would be able 
 to justify the truth of the statements contained in his letter. x This 
 is a very different case; for here, the imputations being of the 
 gravest and most serious kind, there is not the mention of one single 
 witness on whose credit Dr. Newman has made the imputations, or 
 from whom he says he expects to be able to justify what he has 
 stated.y The affidavit, therefore, comes to this that he may have 
 made the statements upon common rumour, and, without saying that 
 he has invented anything 2 (for I believe that he would be the last 
 man in the world to do so), a he may on mere rumour have brought 
 forward these charges without any reason whatever to believe that 
 he had the means of proving them ; b and he now wishes to send out a 
 commission, by which he may be enabled to find some persons who 
 will make an affidavit in support of these charges. To allow that 
 would, indeed, be to place a person whose character was assailed in 
 a very disadvantageous position, and one in which he ought not in 
 fairness to be placed; and I was much struck by the remark that 
 Dr. Newman does not even now state his belief in any one of the 
 charges which he has made. I am therefore of opinion, that, exer- 
 cising the discretion which belongs to us, we ought not to grant this 
 application. According to the law as it now exists, he will have 
 the opportunity of vindicating the truth of the charges he has made ; 
 
 w Which disposes of the first reason, for, if just, the Court should grant it. 
 
 x How could he do so, on the rule for the issuing of the information, except 
 by affidavit, made abroad ? 
 
 y As if that were of the slightest importance, when he swore positively that he 
 believed he should be able to prove the charges ! 
 
 z Then why have suggested so foul an insinuation ? 
 
 a How so, if "the last man in the world to do so ?" For what material 
 difference in morality is there between bringing serious charges forward on mere 
 rumour, or on mere invention ? And all this is thrown out by Lord Campbell 
 with the full knowledge that these charges had been brought forward more than 
 a year before, in one of the leading reviews, and repeatedly in other publications, 
 without contradiction ; and it is actually admitted in Achilla's own affidavit, 
 before the Court at this time, that these charges had been brought against him in 
 1850, and that it had been published in the Record that he had interfered with 
 an inquiry instituted. 
 
 b Why not, if the affidavit were true ? Did Lord Campbell mean to insinuate 
 the possibility that Dr. Newman wanted to get up affidavits, true or false ? 
 
 c He does state it, in the strongest way possible or proper ; he swears he 
 believes them proveable.
 
 44 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 and if he can show that he has acted upon a laudable motive in pub- 
 lishing them, he will establish a complete justification for what he 
 has published.* 1 
 
 Mr. Justice PATTESON. I am entirely of the same opinion. This 
 case is distinguishable from that of M. Pacifico for the reasons 
 already given by Lord Campbell. I do not recollect any instance 
 in which this Court has enlarged a rule of this kind, in order that 
 the defendant might send to a distance to discover evidence in sup- 
 port of his charges. 6 There is a case in which I was counsel for 
 the defendant, where an application was made to the Court : the 
 case against Dr. O'Meara, at the instance of Sir Hudson Lowe. 
 Many affidavits were filed in that case, but there was not any oppo- 
 sition, and the rule was enlarged by consent. f There never has 
 been any application of this sort granted by this Court. % 
 
 Mr. Justice COLERIDGE. I am entirely of the same opinion. I 
 have no wish to add any remarks to those already made on the affi- 
 davits, but I will say a single word. The Court does exercise a 
 discretion in these matters, but it is not an arbitrary discretion, but 
 is one which is exercised according to settled general rules, h such as 
 from xperience we find to be most conducive to the advancement of 
 justice. There is no case where an application similar to this has 
 been granted. The affidavit fairly lies open to the objection made 
 to it, and, independently of any personal consideration, there is 
 enough to show the extreme inconvenience which would result from 
 granting the present application. It is new to me to hear that this 
 Court requires, in cases of criminal informations, something addi- 
 tional to the declaration of the person who comes to seek our pro- 
 tection, denying in clear and express terms the imputation cast upon 
 him. 1 I am unwilling to lend myself to the creation of any new 
 precedent on facts such as are now laid before us, and I think that 
 this rule ought to be discharged. 
 
 Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN. I am of opinion that this rule should 
 be discharged, on the ground that the affidavit on which it is moved 
 
 d It does not seem to have struck the chief justice that perhaps he might 
 prove the occasion of publication to have been laudable, and yet fail to prove the 
 charges true, which might, nevertheless, be true. The noble and learned lord 
 thinks that case not worth contemplating or providing for ! 
 
 * Which was not asked. The application was not for time to discover, but 
 time to obtain, evidence : the evidence was sworn to exist. 
 
 1 Just so ; as in Pacifico's case, the application was so obviously reasonable 
 and proper, that even the opposite side assented to it ! And this is actually 
 used as an argument for not acceding to a similar application ! 
 
 No such application had been granted by the Court, simply because so 
 plainly just that the opposite party always assented, and the Court was never 
 called upon to grant it. 
 
 h What rules are there ? It has been already shown that the application was 
 obviously essential to the advancement of justice. 
 
 ' See the above note. Because it is " new " to hear of any application being 
 ever made in an affidavit disclosing that those charges had been made long ago, 
 and not disclosing any notice taken of them at that time.
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 43 
 
 is substantially defective. I was particularly struck by the argu- 
 ment upon it, that it does not anywhere appear in the affidavit that 
 Dr. Newman believed the charge in fact and in truth, nor that he 
 has any evidence to substantiate the statement, but he thinks that 
 if time is given he may obtain such evidence. This is not enough. J 
 Rule for time discharged. 
 
 PLEADINGS. 
 
 " In the Queen's Bench, Michaelmas Term, 15th Viet. 1851, Middlesex.-* 
 Be it remembered, that C. F. Robinson, Esquire, coroner, and attorney 
 of our Lady the Queen in the Court of Queen's Bench, who prosecutes 
 for our said Lady the Queen in this behalf, comes here into the said 
 court at Westminster, the 21st day of November, in the 15th year of 
 the reign of our said Lady, and gives the court to understand and be 
 informed, that John Henry Newman, Doctor of Divinity, late of the 
 parish of Aston, in the county of Warwick, contriving and wickedly 
 and maliciously intending to injure and vilify one Giovanni Giacinto 
 A chilli, and to bring him into great contempt, scandal, infamy, and 
 disgrace, on the 1st of October, 1851, did falsely and maliciously com- 
 pose and publish a certain false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory 
 libel, containing divers false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory 
 matters concerning the said G. G. Achilli, that is to say : 
 
 The information set out the libel verbatim, with the usual inuen- 
 does. The libel was as follows : 
 
 " And in the midst of outrages such as these, my Brothers of the 
 Oratory, wiping its mouth and clasping its hands, and turning up its 
 eyes, it trudges to the Town Hall to hear Dr. Achilli expose the Inqui- 
 sition. Ah ! Dr. Achilli, I might have spoken of him last week, had 
 time admitted of it. The Protestant world flocks to hear him, because 
 he has something to tell of the Catholic Church. He has something to 
 tell, it is true ; he has a scandal to reveal, he has an argument to ex- 
 hibit. It is a simple one, and a powerful one, as far as it goes and it is 
 one. That one argument is himself ; it is his presence which is the 
 triumph of Protestants ; it is the sight of him which is a Catholic's 
 confusion. It is indeed our confusion, that our Holy Mother could 
 have had a priest like him. He feels the force of the argument, and he 
 shows himself to the multitude that is gazing on him. ' Mothers of 
 families,' he seems to say, * gentle maidens, innocent children, look at 
 me, for I am worth looking at. You do not see such a sight every day. 
 Can any Church live over the imputation of such a production as I 
 am ? I have been a Roman priest and a hypocrite ; I have been a pro- 
 fligate under a cowl. I am that Father Achilli, who, as early as 1826, 
 was deprived of my faculty to lecture, for an offence which my supe- 
 riors did their best to conceal ; and who in 1827 had already earned the 
 reputation of a scandalous friar. I am that Achilli, who in the diocese 
 of Viterbo, in February, 1831, robbed of her honour a young woman of 
 eighteen ; who in September, 1833, was found guilty of a second such 
 crime, in the case of a person of twenty-eight ; and who perpetrated a 
 third in July, 1834, in the case of another aged twenty-four. I am he, 
 
 > What more could he say, than that he believed the charges proveable ?
 
 46 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 who afterwards was found guilty of sins, similar or worse, in other 
 towns of the neighbourhood. I am that son of St. Dominic who is 
 known to have repeated the offence at Capua, in 1834 and 1835, and at 
 Naples again in 1840, in the case of a child of fifteen. I am he who 
 chose the sacristy of the church for one of these crimes, and Good 
 Friday for another. Look on me, ye mothers of England, a confessor 
 against Popery, for ye " ne'er may look upon ray like again." I am 
 that veritable priest who, after all this, began to speak against, not only 
 the Catholic faith, but the moral law, and perverted others by my 
 teaching. I am the Cavaliere Achilli who then went to Corfu, made 
 the wife of a tailor faithless to her husband, and lived publicly and 
 travelled about with the wife of a chorus-singer. I am that Professor 
 in the Protestant College at Malta, who with two others was dismissed 
 from my post for offences which the authorities could not get themselves 
 to describe. And now attend to me, such as I am, and you shall see 
 what you shall see about the barbarity and profligacy of the inquisitors 
 of Rome.' You speak truly, Achilli, and we cannot answer you a 
 word. You are a priest ; you have been a friar ; you are, it is unde- 
 niable, the scandal of Catholicism, and the palmary argument of Pro- 
 testants, by your extraordinary depravity. You have been, it is true, a 
 profligate, an unbeliever, and a hypocrite. Not many years passed of 
 your conventual life, and you were never in choir, always in private 
 houses, so that the laity observed you. You were deprived of your 
 professorship, we own it ; you were prohibited from preaching and 
 hearing confessions ; you were obliged to give hush-money to the father 
 of one of your victims, as we learn from the official report of the police 
 of Viterbo. You are reported in an official document of the Neapolitan 
 police to be * known for habitual incontinency ;' your name came before 
 the civil tribunal at Corfu for your crime of adultery. You have put 
 the crown on your offences by, as long as you could, denying them all ; 
 you have professed to seek after truth, when you were ravening after 
 sin. Yes, you are an incontrovertible proof that priests may fall and 
 friars break their vows. You are your own witness ; but while you 
 need not go out of yourself for your argument, neither are you able. 
 With you the argument begins ; with you, too, it ends : the beginning 
 and the ending you are both. When you have shown yourself, you 
 have done your worst and your all ; you are your best argument and 
 your sole. Your witness against others is utterly invalidated by your 
 witness against yourself. You leave your sting in the wound ; you 
 cannot lay the golden eggs, for you are already dead." 
 Which said false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel the said 
 J. H. Newman did then publish, to the great damage, scandal, and 
 disgrace of the said G. G. Achilli, in contempt of our said Lady the 
 Queen, and believes to the evil and pernicious example of all others in 
 the like case offending, against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, 
 her crown and dignity. Whereupon the said coroner and attorney of 
 our said Lady the Queen, who for our said Lady the Queen in this 
 behalf prosecuteth, prayeth the consideration of the Court here in the 
 premises, and that due process of law mav be awarded aerainst the said 
 J. H. Newi 
 
 J. H. Newman in this behalf, to make him answer to our said Lady the 
 Queen touching and concerning the premises aforesaid." 
 
 " In the Queen's Bench, Michaelmas Term, 15th Viet. 1851. k The 
 Queen v. J. H. Newman. And the said J. II. Newman appears here in 
 
 k These pleas were filed 30th December, 1851. As first delivered, they were
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 47 
 
 court, by Henry Lewin his attorney, and the said information is read 
 to him, which being by him heard and understood, he complains to 
 have been grievously vexed and molested under colour of the premises, 
 and the less justly because he saith that he is not guilty of the said 
 supposed offences in the said information alleged, &c. 
 
 " And for a further plea the said J. H. Newman saith, 
 
 " 1. That before the composing and publishing of the said alleged 
 libel, to wit, on the 1st of January, 1830, &c., the said G. G. Achilli 
 was an infidel, to wit at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex. 
 
 " 2. That the said G. G. Achilli was and exercised the functions of a 
 priest of the Church of Rome at Viterbo, Capua, Naples, and elsewhere, 
 and whilst such priest, &c., he secretly abandoned and disbelieved the 
 peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome, to wit, &c. ; and though out-r 
 wardly professing chastity and purity of life, he committed the several 
 acts of fornication, adultery, and impurity hereinafter mentioned, and 
 by reason thereof was a hypocrite. 
 
 " 3. That the said G. G. Achilli was a profligate under a cowl, in 
 that, being a member of the order of St. Dominic or Friars Preachers, 
 and bound by vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, he committed 
 the several acts of fornication and impurity hereinafter mentioned. 
 
 " 4. That the said G. G. Achilli had a faculty to lecture at Viterbo, 
 of which faculty, as early as 1826, he was, for certain misconduct, 
 deprived by the "superior of the order, one F. Velzi, but which miscon- 
 duct was concealed and suppressed by the said superior, and is to the 
 said J. H. Newman unknown. 
 
 " 5. That the said G. G. Achilli, in 1826, was a friar of the order of 
 St. Dominic, in the convent of Gradi, at Viterbo, and, contrary to his 
 duty as such friar, neglected to attend divine service in the choir, and, 
 without the permission of his superior, had frequent intercourse with 
 persons not belonging to the said order, and so in 1827 had already 
 earned the reputation of a scandalous friar. 
 
 " 6. That the said G. G. Achilli, in February, 1831, at Viterbo, 
 debauched, seduced, and carnally knew one Elena Valente, then being 
 chaste and unmarried, and of the age of eighteen years, and then and 
 there robbed her of her honour. 
 
 " 7. That the said G. G. Achilli, at Viterbo, debauched, &c., one Rosa 
 de Allessandris, then being chaste and unmarried, of the age of twenty- 
 eight years, and robbed her of her honour, and on the 1st of September, 
 1833, at Viterbo, was found guilty thereof, upon due inquiry before the 
 bishop of Viterbo. 
 
 " 8. That the said G. G. Achilli, on the 1st of July, 1834, at Viterbo, 
 debauched, &c., a certain other young woman of the age of twenty-four 
 
 demurred to, and had to be amended ; then they were demurred to again, and 
 again amended. The technical and disgraceful character of these objections, 
 and their obvious object to obstruct, protract, and delay the proceedings, will 
 be appreciated from a specimen or two. The plea charged " acts of impurity " 
 and " lewd conduct " were alleged; and it was objected that it did not state " in 
 what this impurity and lewdness consisted ! " It also charged, that the prose- 
 cutor " spoke against the laws of morality, continence, and purity," and it was 
 objected, " what did he speak ? " Again, it charged " criminal intercourse with 
 a female child," and it was objected, " that it did not show she was chaste, or 
 had any honour to lose ! " And while time was consumed with these discredit- 
 able technicalities, witnesses were lost ; and thus defendant was driven to such 
 strictness of statement as to make proof scarcely possible, and denial very 
 safe.
 
 48 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 years, whose name is to the said J. H. Newman unknown, and then and 
 there robbed the said woman of her honour. 
 
 "9. That the said G. G. Achilli, at Viterbo and in the neighbourhood, 
 committed sins, similar or worse, and debauched, &c., one Vincenza 
 Guerra, then being chaste and unmarried ; also another woman, then 
 being chaste and unmarried, whose name is to the said J. H. Newman 
 unknown ; and that the said G. G. Achilli was afterwards at Rome, before 
 the Court of the Holy Office, or Inquisition, found guilty of the said 
 several offences. 
 
 "10. That the said G. G. Achilli, on the 1st of January, 1835, being 
 a friar of the order of St. Dominic, at Capua, debauched, &c., a certain 
 other woman, being chaste and unmarried, whose name is to the said 
 J. H. Newman unknown. 
 
 " 11. That the said G. G. Achilli, on the 1st of January, 1840, at 
 Naples, debauched, &c., one Maria Giovanni Principe, a female child of 
 fifteen years of age, &c. 
 
 "12." That the place where the said G. G. Achilli debauched the said 
 Rosa de Allessandris was the sacristy of the church of Gradi, at Viterbo, 
 and that the day on which he debauched the said female child at Naples, 
 was Good Friday, in the year 1840. 
 
 "13. That the said G. G. Achilli, being a priest of the Church of 
 Rome, at Rome, Capua, Naples, and Malta, spoke and taught against 
 the truth of divers doctrines of the Catholic faith, to wit, &c. ; and 
 also against the laws of morality, to wit, the moral obligation of 
 chastity and continence, and thereby did pervert one Luigi De Sanctis, 
 one Fortunate Saccares, the said Rosa de Allessandris, the said Elena 
 Valente, and the said Maria Giovanni Principe, from their belief in 
 such doctrines and obedience to such laws. 
 
 " 14. That on the 2nd of July, 1843, at Corfu, the said G. G. Achilli 
 debauched and made faithless to her husband, one Marianna Crisaffi, 
 the wife of one Nicolo Garamoni, a tailor ; and afterwards, on the 1st 
 of August, 1843, at Corfu, the said G. G. Achilli publicly cohabited 
 and committed adultery with one Albina, the lawful wife of one Vin- 
 cenzo Coriboni, a chorus singer, and publicly travelled about with her 
 from Corfu to Zante. 
 
 "15. That on the 1st of May, 1848, and for twelve months preceding, 
 the said G. G. Achilli held the office of professor of theology in a 
 Protestant college, to wit, St. Julian's College, at Malta, and during 
 that period hindered and frustrated an investigation then pending be- 
 fore Messrs. Hadfield and Brien, officers of the college, concerning 
 charges of fornication and other gross immorality against one Fortunato 
 Saccares, and one Pietro Leonini, in which charges the said G. G. Achilli 
 was also implicated, by sending away the said Fortunato Saccares to 
 Sicily ; and thereupon the earl of Shaftesbury and others, the committee 
 of the said college, dismissed the said G. G. Achilli from his said 
 office of professor, and that the said G. G. Achilli was dismissed as 
 well for hindering and frustrating the said investigation as for the said 
 several acts of sin, fornication, and immorality hereinbefore mentioned, 
 but which the said committee were then unwilling to, and have still 
 forborne to state and describe, and cannot get themselves to describe 
 specifically. 
 
 " 16. That the said G. G. Achilli, in the years 1847, 1850, and 1851, 
 being resident in London, did attempt to seduce and debauch one 
 Harriet Harris, then being chaste and unmarried, and did conduct him- 
 self lewdly and indecently as well ,to the said Harriet Harris as to one
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 49 
 
 Jane Legg, one Sarah Wood, one Catherine Gorman, and one Mdlle. 
 Fortay ; and by reason thereof, and of the said several other matters 
 hereinbefore set forth, the said G. G. Achilli was guilty of extraordinary 
 depravity, and was and is the scandal of Catholicism. 
 
 " 17. That the said G. G. Achilli was a profligate by the commission 
 of the said acts of profligacy, and also had been and was an unbeliever 
 and a hypocrite. 
 
 "18. 'That the said G. G. Achilli, at the convent of Gradi, at Viterbo, 
 in the year 1836, continually absented himself from the choir of the 
 chancel of the said convent during Divine service, and was a frequenter 
 of private houses, contrary to the rules of the said order of St. Dominic, 
 and had thereby given offence to divers lay persons, not members of the 
 said order, whose names are to the said J. H. Newman unknown. 
 
 " 19. That on the 16th day of June, 1841, at Rome, by the Court of 
 the Holy Office, or Inquisition, the said G. G. Achilli was suspended 
 from the celebration of mass and disabled from any cure of souls, 
 and from preaching and hearing confessions, and from exercising the 
 sacerdotal office. 
 
 "20. That, after the said G. G. Achilli had debauched the said 
 Rosa de Allessandris, at Viterbo, of the age of 28 years, on the 1st of 
 September, 1833, he was obliged to give the sum of 50 scudi (10.) to 
 the father of the said young woman as damages, and that by the official 
 reports of the police at Viterbo, it is declared that the said G. G. Achilli 
 had given the said money, as such hush-money, to the said father of 
 the said young woman. 
 
 "21. That, on the 1st of January, 1839, in and by an official docu- 
 ment or report of the officers of police at Naples, and being amongst 
 the archives and documents of the said Neapolitan police, the said G. G. 
 Achilli was reported and declared to be known for habitual incon- 
 tinency at Naples. 
 
 " 22. That after the said G. G. Achilli had debauched the said Ma- 
 rianna Crisaffi, the wife of the said Nicolo Garimoni, the tailor, on the 
 3rd of July, 1843, the name of the said G. G. Achilli came before the 
 civil tribunal at Corfu in respect of the said crime of adultery ; that is 
 to say, that Nicolo Garimoni, by Antonio Capello, his advocate, pre- 
 sented a petition to the Court, praying that a petition presented 
 by his said wife Marianna for alimony should be rejected, upon the 
 ground that the said Marianna had been guilty of adultery with the 
 said G. G. Achilli, and offered to prove the same by lawful witnesses. 
 
 " 23. That the said G. G. Achilli, on the 1st of January, 1850, and 
 on divers other days, though knowing himself to have been guilty of 
 the several offences aforesaid, did deny them all ; and that the said 
 G. G. Achilli, when he committed the said offence, and thereby was, in 
 fact, ravening after sin, did profess and pretend to be seeking after truth : 
 and that by reason of the said offences the said G. G. Achilli was and 
 is unworthy to be believed in respect of the charges by him made against 
 the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Rome, and the persons pro- 
 fessing the same. And so the said'J. H. Newman says that the said 
 alleged libel consists of allegations -true in substance and in fact, and of 
 fair and reasonable comments thereon. 
 
 " And the said J. H. Newman further saith, that at the time of 
 publishing of the said alleged libel, it was for the public benefit that 
 the matters therein contained should be published, because he says that 
 great excitement prevailed, and numerous public discussions had been 
 
 E
 
 50 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 held in divers places in England, on divers matters of controversy 
 between the Churches of England and Rome, with respect to which it 
 was important the truth should be known ; and inasmuch as the said 
 G. G. Achilli took a prominent part in such discussions, and his opinion 
 and testimony were by many persons appealed to and relied on as of a 
 person of character and respectability, with reference to the matter in 
 controversy, it was necessary for the purpose of more effectually 
 examining and ascertaining the truth, that the matters in the said 
 alleged libel should be published and known, in order that it might 
 more fully appear that the opinion and testimony of the said G. G. 
 Achilli were not deserving of credit or consideration, by reason of his 
 previous misconduct ; and also because the said G. G. Achilli had been 
 and was, at Birmingham, Leamington, Brighton, Bath, Cambridge, 
 Huntingdon, Winchester, and elsewhere, endeavouring by preaching 
 and lecturing to excite discord and animosity towards her Majesty's 
 Roman Catholic subjects, and against the religion and practice of per- 
 sons professing the Roman Catholic religion, against the peace of our 
 said lady the Queen ; and it was of importance and conducive to the 
 diminishing of such discord and animosity, and to preserve the peace of 
 our said lady the Queen, that the said matters should be published and 
 known to all the liege subjects of our said lady the Queen ; and also 
 because the said G. G. Achilli had improperly pretended to such sub- 
 jects that he was a person innocent of the said crimes and misconduct, 
 and that he was greatly injured by the said foreign ecclesiastical tri- 
 bunals, and that he had been persecuted and oppressed by the Roman 
 Catholic Church and by the bishops and authorities thereof, on account 
 of his religious opinions, and that he was a martyr, on account of his 
 religious opinions ; and by means of such improper pretences was 
 endeavouring, and was likely to obtain credit and support from such 
 subjects, by reason of their being ignorant of the said misconduct of the 
 said G. G. Achilli, it then became, and was of public importance, and 
 for the public benefit, to expose the impropriety and want of truth of 
 such pretences, and to prevent the said subjects being deceived 
 and misled by such pretences, and to have the real character of 
 the said G. G. Achilli, and his conduct, made known to such 
 subjects and the public in general. And also because many benevo- 
 lent persons and the public generally were at that time disposed 
 to show kindness and give assistance to the said G. G. Achilli, on the 
 ground of his having been harshly and unjustly treated by the said 
 Court of the Holy Office, or Inquisition, and by the said superior of 
 the said order of St. Dominic, and on the ground that he was a person 
 deserving of kindness and assistance ; and it was for the benefit of the 
 public that the said matters should be published, for the purpose of show- 
 ing that the said G. G. Achilli had been treated fairly and properly, 
 and according to his deserts, by the said court and the said superior ; 
 and that the said G. G. Achilli is a person wholly undeserving of kind- 
 ness and assistance, and because the said G. G. Achilli had obtained 
 and was likely again to obtain prefenment and employment of public 
 trust and confidence, which he was unfit to obtain by reason of the said 
 matters, and which he had obtained and was likely to obtain, only 
 by reason of the said matters being unknown, and unpublished. And 
 so the said J. H. Newman says he published the said alleged libel, 
 as he lawfully might, for the causes aforesaid ; and this the said J. H. 
 Newman is ready to verify. Wherefore, he prays judgment, &c." 
 
 (Signed) "EDWARD BADELEY."
 
 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 51 
 
 "Hilary Term, \Qth Victoria, 1852. The said C. F. Robinson, 
 Esquire, coroner and attorney, &c., as to the plea first pleaded, puts 
 himself upon the country ; and. as to the plea secondly pleaded, saith, 
 that the said J. H. Newman, of his own wrong, and without the cause 
 in his said plea alleged, composed and published the said libel, as in the 
 said information alleged, &c." 
 
 "Hilary Term, IQth Viet. 1852. And the said J, H.Newman, as 
 to the replication of the said F. Robinson, puts himself upon the 
 country, c.' 
 
 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH APRIL 21, 1852. 
 
 Sir J.. Cockburn (with whom was Mr. Badeley) moved that the 
 case be appointed for an early trial, the sittings after this term. 
 He moved on five affidavits. First, there was the affidavit of Dr. 
 Newman, setting forth all the previous proceedings and the history 
 of the pleadings. It stated 
 
 " That on the 16th of January a demurrer on the part of the prose- 
 cutor was filed to the special plea of the defendant. That he caused 
 application to be made to the prosecutor's attorneys, to know what 
 their objections were to the plea, and they declined to give such 
 information ; and thereupon he was compelled to amend his plea 
 in the best way he could, without knowing the particulars of the 
 objections, as he was most desirous to remove all technical objec- 
 tions, and to go into the merits of the said alleged libels. That the 
 prosecutors again objected to the plea, and thereupon he caused appli- 
 cation to be made to the prosecutor's attorneys for the particulars of 
 their objections, with which they complied, and thereupon he caused his 
 plea to be amended, to meet the objections, though he was advised by 
 counsel, and fully believed that his pleas, as first settled, were sufficient 
 in law and fact ; and if the same contained any informalities it was 
 through accident, and not with any view of delay on the part of 
 defendant or his advisers. That the objections taken to the plea, and 
 the legal form thereof, occasioned such delay that the pleas, as last 
 amended, were not filed until the 9th February, 1852. That fully 
 believing that the trial would come on on or about the 16th February, 
 he had caused his witnesses to be requested to come to this country 
 ready for the trial ; and he had not time afterwards to write to them to 
 prevent their coming into this country by that time ; and if he had not 
 sent for them forthwith to come by that time, the prosecutor might m 
 have joined issue (without a demurrer), and the trial would have taken 
 place at the sittings after Hilary term ; but the defendant would have 
 been left without his witnesses, and deprived of the just defence which 
 their testimony could afford to him. That it was absolutely necessary 
 that his witnesses- should come to England for his defence. That five 
 of them arrived in London from Corfu about the 16th February, and 
 two of them from Malta on the 6th, and two of them (females) arrived in 
 Paris, one about the 13th January and the other about the 1st February ; 
 one of them bringing with her a child in arms, and leaving a child at 
 
 1 /. e. the parties joined issue. This was on February 26th ; it might have 
 been in December but for the discreditable demurrers already alluded to. 
 m And undoubtedly would. 
 
 E 2
 
 52 PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 home five or six years old ; and she refused to leave her home with- 
 out her husband. That the defendant has been put to a very great 
 and serious expense in the necessary support of the said witnesses, 
 from the time of their leaving home down to the present time." That 
 the female witnesses in Paris are very desirous and urgent to return 
 again to their own homes, and that several of the witnesses are said to 
 have threatened to return to their own homes, without waiting for the 
 trial, and that one of the English witnesses has requested to be permitted, 
 and threatened to go to America before the trial of the cause ; but this 
 defendant cannot comply with these desires or requests, as he is advised 
 and believes that their testimony is absolutely necessary for his just 
 defence. That he was desirous to try the cause at the spring assizes 
 for Surrey, about 22nd March, for which there was sufficient time ; 
 and he caused application to be made to the prosecutor's attorneys for 
 their consent to such a trial, but they declined to accede to it. That he 
 is informed that several of his witnesses are suffering serious losses by 
 reason of the delay in the trial of the cause, and that these losses will 
 be much increased if the delay is continued ; and that some of the 
 witnesses have threatened to return home. That he believes they will 
 leave the country unless the cause is speedily heard, and thereby the 
 defendant will be deprived of his just defence to the prosecution." 
 
 Guiseppe Montanori, of Corfu, but now staying at Church-street, 
 Greek-street, Soho, made oath and said, that he arrived in London the 
 16th "February, that he was staying there solely for the purpose of 
 giving his evidence in the cause, and at great inconvenience and loss in 
 his trade, a house-painter. 
 
 Antonio Russo, of Corfu, staying at, &c., made a similar affidavit, 
 stating that he was a journeyman carpenter, and his master had now 
 engaged another man in his place, in consequence of his having been 
 detained in England. 
 
 Niccolo Garramoni, of Corfu, tailor, made a similar affidavit. 
 
 On the 14th April, Mr. Lewin wrote to prosecutor's attorneys, 
 asking consent to early trial, " to prevent the heavy expense of 
 witnesses being continued," having previously, in February, proposed 
 to try at the Surrey Spring Assizes, an offer which was refused. 
 Lord Campbell declined to take the case, unless an understanding 
 could be come to that it would only last two days, which of course 
 was utterly impossible, and no arrangement for a trial could be made 
 in Easter Term. So the cause stood over until the "sittings 
 after Trinity Term," which commenced in June, after a delay of 
 not less than four months from the time at which the cause could 
 have been tried, and would have been, but for the conduct of the 
 prosecutor's attorneys, and the delay they produced. 
 
 n During this interval, Dr. Newman's attorney had to write to the prosecutor's, 
 complaining of attempts to tamper with the witnesses. 
 
 It is requisite to give the address of a person making affidavit ; and this the 
 
 Srosecutor's attorneys well knew, of course ; and Achilli was thus able to find the 
 efendant's witnesses out, and had opportunities of speaking with them. Mr. 
 Lewin, the defendant's attorney, made a similar affidavit.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH JUNE 21, 1852. 
 
 (Sittings at Westminster, before Lord Campbell and a Special 
 Jury.} 
 
 THE QUEEN ON THE PROSECUTION OF GIACINTO ACHILLI 
 V. DR. JOHN HENRY NEWMAN. 
 
 The Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and Mr. T. F. Ellis 
 appeared for the prosecution ; and Sir A. E. Cockburn, Mr. Serjeant 
 Wilkins, Mr. Bramicell, Mr. Joseph Addison, and Mr. Badeley 
 for the defence. Some of the special jury summoned did not answer 
 to their names, and the parties prayed a tales de circumstantibus.v 
 
 Mr. Ellis opened the pleadings. This was a criminal informa- 
 tion filed by her Majesty's coroner against John Henry Newman, 
 charging him with the publication of a libel upon Giacinto Achilli, 
 to which the defendant had for a first plea pleaded not guilty, on 
 which issue was joined ; secondly, he had pleaded specially, setting 
 forth certain allegations of fact and conclusions, to the effect that 
 the allegations in the libel were true in substance and in fact, and 
 that the publication of them was for the public advantage.^ To 
 these pleas the prosecutor replied that the defendant had made 
 the publication of his own wrong, and without the excuses alleged 
 by him in the pleas, and on this replication the defendant had taken 
 issue. 
 
 The Attorney General (Sir F. Thesiger) then addressed the 
 jury for the prosecution. He said, This is a criminal information, 
 which has been filed against Dr. Newman for a libel contained in a 
 pamphlet which was published in the month of October last year 
 (one of a series), entitled " Lectures on the present Position of 
 Catholics in England, addressed to the Brothers of the Little 
 Oratory." The prosecutor, Dr. Achilli, is an Italian by birth, and 
 formerly was a monk of the 'Dominicau order, and a priest of the 
 Roman Catholic Church. He has since embraced the doctrines of 
 
 * I.e. were willing to fill up the number with such of the bystanders as were 
 common jurors. Why were not the special jurors called on their fines ? 
 i Under Lord Campbell's Act. See Introduction and notes, ante, p. 14..
 
 54 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 the Protestant faith, and is now a preacher of the Gospel at the 
 Italian Protestant Chapel, in the neighbourhood of Golden- square. 
 The defendant, Dr. Newman, as most of you probably well know, 
 was formerly a clergyman of the Established Church, and was a 
 distinguished graduate of the University of Oxford ; he has since 
 been converted to the Roman Catholic faith, of which he is now, if 
 not one of the most able, certainly one of the most zealous defenders. 
 Dr. Achilli, the prosecutor, before the year 1850, had paid occa- 
 sional visits to this country, but at the commencement of that 
 year, having recently escaped from the prisons of the Inquisition at 
 Rome, 8 in which he had been confined for six months, he arrived 
 in this country, and has been resident here ever since. He is a 
 person of considerable talent, of great self-reliance, and of indomit- 
 able energy. He appears to possess a strong and determined will, 
 and a spirit of independence which makes him occasionally unwill- 
 ing to submit to authority. Such a person having revelations to 
 make respecting the dungeons of the Inquisition, in which he 
 has been twice incarcerated, and also respecting the errors of that 
 faith_which he has relinquished, and respecting the conduct of 
 its professors, was likely to be gladly listened to.* He attended 
 various public meetings, in which the statements he made excited 
 a great deal of interest, and, being published, were read with 
 great avidity. It was, of course, under these circumstances, 
 evident to the members of that Church which he had quitted, 
 that he was a most formidable adversary, and one who was 
 by no means to be despised ; and they seemed to have con- 
 sidered that it was an important object that they should dis- 
 able his authority, impeach his veracity, and destroy his credit ; 
 and no person appears to have addressed himself to the attainment 
 of these purposes with more zeal, if with more ability, than Dr. 
 Newman. He was aware of the temper of the English people ; he 
 knew that nothing was more likely to scandalize them than the 
 notion of any impropriety committed by any person clothed with a 
 sacred character ; and he, therefore, very industriously raked 
 together all the scandals which the malice of the enemies of Dr. 
 Achilli had disseminated; and he gave an account of them in his 
 lectures, and published them in the pamphlet which was the subject 
 of this prosecution. 11 He was engaged, in 1851, in delivering a 
 series of lectures to the brothers of the Oratory, and the pamphlet 
 which is now under consideration forms the fifth of those lectures, 
 and is entitled "On the Logical Inconsistencies of the Protestant 
 Faith." He undertook in this lecture to perform what he no doubt 
 
 This was meant for, and made the main and the master-point of prejudice 
 in the case ; that the prosecutor was a victim of the Inquisition ! 
 
 1 Most true ; eagerly listened, without the least desire to discover the truth. 
 
 " The most simple and most severe comment on this passage is the observation 
 of Sir A. Cockburn, that Sir Frederick could not be so ill instructed as not to 
 knowthat these charges had all been published in the DublinRevieiv of July, 1850 !
 
 RKPORT OP THE TRIAL. 5") 
 
 considered an act of duty to the faith he had newly embraced 
 namely, to destroy the character of Dr. Achilli. In page 195 he 
 introduces the subject in this way : " Oh ! the one-sided intellect 
 of Protestantism !" (He reads the libel.) 
 
 In Michaelmas term last the Court granted leave to file a cri- 
 minal information against the Messrs. Burns and Lambert for the 
 libel as published by them. Subsequently, Dr. Newman admitted 
 that he was the author of the libel, and his name, by the leave of 
 the Court, was substituted for that of the Messrs. Burns and 
 Lambert. 
 
 If Dr. Newman had contented himself with general charges of 
 immorality and profligacy on the part of Dr. Achilli, there would 
 have been no reason for him to take the slightest step to vindicate 
 his character against such vague and general imputations, for of 
 course they would be ascribed to that hostility which Dr. Newman 
 would entertain towards Dr. Achilli, and he could have afforded to 
 pass them over with silence and contempt. But it was perfectly 
 impossible for him so to deal with charges of this description 
 charges specific and minute in their character containing, if not in 
 all instances the names of the persons referred to, at least such 
 descriptions of them as pointed out clearly and distinctly who they 
 were, together with minutiae of details as to places and times, it is 
 quite clear that if Dr. Achilli had taken no notice of them, if he 
 had not called on the accuser to support his accusation, and to 
 justify the statements he had made, the world would fairly and 
 justly have believed that the charges were true, and that it was out 
 of the power of Dr. Achilli to controvert, or even to deny them. T 
 Dr. Achilli, therefore, felt bound to appeal to the law for the vindi- 
 cation of his character against these foul slanders, and to call on his 
 accuser in a court of law, if he can, to make good these charges 
 against him. Dr. Achilli applied to the Court of Queen's Bench 
 to be allowed to file a criminal information against Dr. Newman. 
 Before he could obtain the sanction of the Court to file that informa- 
 tion, it was absolutely necessary that he should give a distinct 
 and specific denial to the different charges which were alleged 
 against him. He did so ; the information was granted, and Dr. 
 Newman has now, as you have heard, pleaded to the information. 
 Now, until lately, a great anomaly prevailed in the law on the sub- 
 ject of proceedings for libel. If a person who alleged that he was 
 injured by a libellous publication brought an action, it was compe- 
 tent to the person against whom the action was brought to plead, by 
 way of justification, that the statements in the libel were true ; and 
 if he succeeded in establishing the truth, the party failed in his 
 action. But if an indictment.or criminal information were brought 
 for the very same libel, it was not open to the party accused to plead 
 
 T Then this inference, of course, is to be drawn from the fact that he allowed 
 all the charges to be published in 1850, in the Dublin Review, with far more 
 minuteness and detail, without taking any steps to vindicate his character.
 
 56 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 the truth, w because such proceedings being on the ground of the 
 possibility of the publication leading to a breach of the peace ;* it 
 was obvious that this consequence would result whether the state- 
 ments were true or false, which led to the ordinary expression, " the 
 greater the truth the greater the libel." This anomaly and absurdity 
 in the law was removed by the noble and learned lord, who now 
 presides, and who some years ago introduced to the legislature the 
 Act by which, in cases of this kind, the party accused is enabled to 
 plead the truth of the allegations contained in the libel, and adding 
 to it that the publication was for the public benefit. Dr. Newman 
 has availed himself of this privilege, and has, in his pleas, comprising 
 twenty-three distinct charges, expanded the statements in the libel, 
 and introducing the details which are necessary with respect to the 
 particulars of the different charges ; and he has undertaken to prove 
 the truth of these statements so contained in his pleasJ I need not 
 say (since I have read the libel) that as the pleas follow its statements, 
 they involve a series of charges of the most serious kind against 
 the moral conduct and character of Dr. Achilli, the earliest period 
 referred to being 1826 ; so that for twenty-six years we are called 
 upon to enter into an investigation of his life, add conduct, and 
 character. He is charged as early as 1831 with having seduced 
 several women, some of whom are named in the plea and others are 
 said to be unknown ; he is accused of improper intercourse with other 
 women, and with adultery with two of them ; he is stated to have 
 been removed from his professorship in the Malta Protestant college 
 in consequence of endeavouring to stifle accusations of incontinence 
 against others, and in which he was himself implicated. Finally, 
 he is charged with the seduction of several females in this country, 
 in the years 1849, 1850, and 1851 ; and all this is summed up with 
 the statement which Dr. Newman puts forth against him as to his 
 habitual incontinence. I have felt some degree of embarrass- 
 ment, gentlemen, as to what was the course I ought properly to 
 pursue in this most anxious investigation. Under ordinary circum- 
 stances I should anticipate the charge contained in the plea, and call 
 the evidence in my power for the purpose of rebutting it, but it 
 appears to me and to my learned friends whose assistance I have, 
 that it would be impossible for us, under the extraordinary circum- 
 stances in which this case is presented to you, properly to adopt that 
 
 w An information, however, could not be granted at all upon applicant's 
 affidavits ; it did not clearly appear that he denied the charges ; or if on the 
 affidavits of the defendant it appeared that they were true or stale. See Introduc- 
 tion, ante, p. 12. 
 
 * This is a rather narrow reason ; not to be found in the older cases ; at least, 
 with reference to criminal information ; the object of which, undoubtedly, is the 
 vindication of character. 
 
 r In a few moments Sir Frederick was complaining that his client did not 
 know what charges he had to meet ! This plea was filed nearly five months 
 before the trial ! and it only embodied the article in the Dublin Review, published 
 two years before !
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 57 
 
 course on the present occasion. I need not say to you that from 
 the position of the parties, if the charges were true, that much 
 greater facility would be afforded to Dr. Newman to obtain evidence 
 in Italy to support them than would be afforded to Dr. Achilli to 
 rebut them ; and that if they were untrue, Dr. Newman would have 
 much better means put in his power to bring forward witnesses 
 than would be allowed to Dr. Achilli. z We are here in utter 
 uncertainty as to the mode in which Dr. Newman proposes to esta- 
 blish the truth of these charges." "We are aware that there are 
 some witnesses here for the purpose of giving their evidence ; and 
 we are in some small degree prepared to meet them and rebut their 
 testimony ; but we are utterly at a loss to know how most of these 
 charges will be attempted to be proved, and therefore it is abso- 
 lutely necessary for us to wait until the evidence on the part of Dr. 
 Newman shall have been given, when we shall be enabled to meet 
 that evidence by calling the witnesses before you whom we can 
 bring forward, and giving you all the testimony in our power to 
 enable you to judge as to the credibility of the evidence adduced by 
 the defendant. I pledge myself to call Dr. Achilli before you at 
 the proper time, b 'and to submit him to the searching examination 
 of my learned friend. As to him, the question is of course one of 
 the deepest anxiety and interest. He is arraigned before you on 
 his trial to answer these charges, directed against him for his sup- 
 posed conduct during no less than twenty-six years of his previous 
 existence. He calmly and I believe I may add, fearlessly awaits 
 the result of this investigation. He is perfectly aware of all the 
 difficulties with which he is surrounded ; he knows that nothing but 
 the most patient and careful attention will enable you to* ascertain 
 what degree of credit is due to the witnesses who will be called ; 
 but be is satisfied, though he is a foreigner I had almost said 
 because he is a foreigner that that fairness and that impartiality 
 which invariably distinguish British jurymen will be exhibited on 
 
 z This could imply nothing less than an insinuation that Dr. Newman might 
 easily find in the Catholic Church a conspiracy to get up false evidence : the 
 very insinuation conveyed with such extreme delicacy and charity by the Lord 
 Chief Justice of England on the argument of the rule. Otherwise it is impos- 
 sible not to see that both parties were on an equality, trying the case in this 
 country, each having to procure his evidence abroad, with this great advantuge 
 on the side of the prosecutor, that he could offer his own evidence. 
 
 a This really was too bad. The reader, on referring to the plea, will perceive 
 all the charges set forth with perfect particularity of time, place, and person. 
 The prosecutor, by special demurrer, drove the defendant to this particularity 
 in pleading ; and (as will be observed in the course of the case) restricted him 
 rigidly within those limits in respect to proof. 
 
 b There was (as will be seen) a little mental reserve here as to the phrase 
 " proper time," which in the case of a criminal information, the object of which 
 are to vindicate the character of the prosecutor, usually is taken to mean the 
 earliest possible time, in the opening of the case, whereas Achilli's counsel 
 would not produce him for examination until the defendant had first been put to 
 prove all his charges by other evidence, which of course he ought not to be 
 able to do, though the charges were perfectly true.
 
 58 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 the present occasion, and that you will join with those who are now- 
 intrusted with his vital interests in the endeavour to arrive at the 
 truth in this inquiry, because by the truth, to which he is ready to 
 commit himself, he must stand or fall in this his day of trial. 
 
 The Solicitor General (Sir F. Kelly) then called the first wit- 
 ness, when Mr. Serjeant Wilkins (Sir A. Cockburn having left the 
 court for a few moments ) moved that the witnesses on both sides 
 be ordered out of court. The Attorney General asked if this was 
 intended to apply equally to Dr. Achilli (who sat under his counsel). 
 Mr. Serjeant Wilkins. Most assuredly. (The prosecutor appeared 
 reluctant to leave.) The Attorney General looked wistfully at the 
 Chief Justice, who said, with emphasis, " If you insist on it, brother 
 Wilkins, of course it must be so."" 1 The ^4 ttorney General, encouraged 
 by the tone of the Chief Justice, ventured to urge that the exclusion 
 of the prosecutor, because he happened also to be a witness, would 
 be inconvenient, as preventing personal communication with his 
 counsel in the progress of the case. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE 
 said, If the counsel for the defendant insists on it it must be so. 
 Mr. Serjeant Wilkins. My lord, we feel it our duty to press it. 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. Then Dr. Achilli must leave the court. 
 He~~did so accordingly. Immediately one of the jury (a man of 
 colour) rose and said with some warmth, that it seemed hard upon 
 Dr. Achilli to exclude him, as he could not know what charges were 
 brought against him. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, Gentlemen, 
 as prosecutor of course he has a right to be in court, but as it is 
 proposed to examine him also as a witness, and as all witnesses are 
 ordered out of court, if the other side insist, I am bound to include 
 him in the order. 8 
 
 c This seems the fitting opportunity for mentioning, that as leading counsel 
 are usually engaged in cases going on simultaneously in two courts, one or other 
 of the leaders in a case have continually to be absent from one court to attend 
 in another, as in this instance, and continually throughout the case ; but Sir F. 
 Thesiger on one side, and Sir A. Cockburn on the other, attended for the most 
 part entirely to this case. 
 
 d Was this quite fair ? The effect was to throw the odium of excluding Achilli 
 on Dr. Newman's counsel, instead of which, it ought to have been avowed as the 
 act of the Court, and as in accordance with the invariable practice in trials like 
 these. A slight thing serves to prejudice a jury, especially in such a case. 
 
 e This is an ordinary, I believe invariable, application in cases in which 
 there is to be a conflict of evidence, and the reason is obvious : the impossi- 
 bility of testing the opposing testimony if the witnesses hear each other's 
 evidence. The value of the practice, which really is all but a rule, is illustrated 
 in the story of " Susanna and the Elders," and the instances are innumerable 
 of life and character rescued from false witnesses by this simple yet effective 
 expedient. Let the reader refer to the evidence of one witness for Achilli, 
 the woman Gararaoni, given while he was in court, but not while he was ex- 
 amined, and then they will the better understand the effect of his being in 
 court while all the witnesses were examined, and before he was examined himself. 
 As it is, however, he had the advantage of reading all the evidence given on the 
 first two days, before he gave bis own ; which obviously is a most material con- 
 sideration in estimating its value.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 59 
 
 The Solicitor General then adduced formal evidence of the 
 publication of the libel, and the admission of Dr. Newman's author- 
 ship. 
 
 The libel was then taken as read, and the case for the prosecution 
 closed. f 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn then addressed the jury as follows: In rising 
 to address you, gentlemen, on behalf of the defendant, it would be 
 in vain to disguise that I feel that the task is calculated to inspire 
 me with considerable apprehension. When I consider that this is a 
 question involving religious considerations, it requires no more to 
 make me unusually alive to the difficulties I shall have to encounter in 
 procuring, even from gentlemen of your intelligence and honour, for 
 my client that fair, impartial, and dispassionate hearing which is abso- 
 lutely essential to the administration of justice in such a case. 
 Gentlemen, I have not performed my part in the administration of 
 justice for so many years without having become painfully impressed 
 with the consciousness that even under the excellent system in which 
 justice is administered, and the admirable and invaluable institutions 
 which happily prevail in this country, and which are our boast and 
 honour throughout the world, how difficult it is where questions of 
 class-interest, or political, or still more, religious feelings are 
 involved, for even those who come to the administration of justice 
 with the noblest and loftiest sentiments to protect themselves against 
 that bias which such feelings are so naturally calculated to engender, 
 and which will steal over our hearts, and occasionally pervert our 
 understandings, without our being in the slightest degree conscious 
 or sensible of the mischievous influences they exercise over our 
 minds. And, gentlemen, in what case if such unhappily be the 
 frailty of human nature, that if even the best of us are open to these 
 influences in what case could there be more reason to apprehend 
 its effects than in the present. It has been unhappily reserved 
 for our days, that after a long period of repose and quiet, the flame 
 of religious controversy should once more be kindled. Woe to our 
 times that such should be the case ; but unhappily it is so, and we 
 must deal with these facts and circumstances as things over which 
 we have no control. We have before us on the present occasion two 
 great champions of these contending Churches. And now I ask any 
 man to commune with his own heart, and to ask himself this ques- 
 tion, Are we not all prone to look on those whose religious opinions 
 agree with our own, and who are the champions of our faith, with 
 a partial eye, and to look with suspicion and distrust upon those 
 with whom we disagree ? In this case we have two converts, each 
 from the faith of the other. Let any man ask himself how he looks 
 on the secessions from the Church to which he belongs, or those who 
 become converts to it. Is a convert made from the Roman Catholic 
 to the Protestant Church we look upon him as a man who has 
 
 f At half-past ten. The plaintiff's whole case having only occupied three- 
 quarters of an hour.
 
 60 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 yielded to the force of reason and the light of truth, and who has 
 adopted his new faith from sincere conviction. We entertain no 
 doubts of his truthfulness. If any suspicions are cast upon his 
 motives, our hearts, our passions rise immediately in his favour. We 
 are disposed to look with favour on all he has done, and if his motives 
 are called in question, we become at once the advocates of his cause. 
 On the other hand, take the man who has become a seceder from our 
 faith, and a convert to Catholicism, on him are we not prone to look 
 with distrust ? and are not his motives called in question ? and are we 
 not ready to call him an apostate ? We look on him with a pre- 
 judiced and partial judgment, viewing his conduct as that of a man 
 who has abandoned his faith the faith to which we are attached, 
 and we are inclined to ascribe his secession to some of the baser 
 motives which actuate men's minds. Gentlemen, here we have the 
 very case before us. Two converts, or, if you please, two apostates, 
 are before you. Two men who have each abandoned the faith in 
 which they were respectively brought up, and who have been con- 
 verted to the opposite faith ; each has become the champion of the 
 cause to which he has recently passed over, and between them there 
 is this Jssue and this contest ; and on the part of one of them, a 
 Catholic, I have to address a jury composed, perhaps exclusively, of 
 Protestants. Do not believe, gentlemen, that I entertain the 
 slightest distrust of you, or doubt that you have entered that box 
 with the full determination faithfully to discharge the duty which 
 before God and man you have sworn to discharge. But, if there 
 be anything which inspires me with apprehension in this case, it is 
 the distrust I feel as to the possibility of men placed under such cir- 
 cumstances discharging their duty without being subject to those 
 influences which are so apt to dominate unconsciously over us ; and 
 if I make these observations, it is only to justify what I am about 
 to do to call on you, in the name of all that is sacred, to guard 
 yourselves against the possibility of prejudice or passion interfering 
 with the discharge of your duties duties which require for their 
 proper discharge calm, unbiassed, unprejudiced, and dispassionate 
 minds. Let us now consider in what position Dr. Newman, the 
 defendant, stands. It is clear that in attacking (and I admit that 
 he has attacked the character of Dr. Achilli, in such a manner that 
 he must justify that attack if he can, for so to attack a man without 
 having the means of making good that justification, is, I admit, 
 matter of most serious offence) it is clear, I say, that the defendant 
 has made these charges from no private or personal motive; that he 
 had no private pique to gratify, no private spite to indulge, no vin- 
 dictive feeling to satisfy against Dr. Achilli. Why then attack 
 him, will be asked : and I may be allowed to ask why has he 
 attacked Dr. Achilli ? the Attorney General has suggested to us an 
 answer to that question. He says that Dr. Achilli came forward as 
 a man who knew and could reveal the secrets of the Inquisition ; 
 who was able to show the errors of the Roman Catholic doctrine;
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 61 
 
 who could expose, and denounce, and hold up to odium the 
 practices of the Roman Catholic clergy ; and that therefore it 
 was necessary that he should be silenced and put to open shame. 
 Now, gentlemen, there was one thing which the Attorney General 
 must have known, and ought injustice to have stated. Every one 
 who heard his statement necessarily would have imagined that these 
 charges had first been brought forward by Dr. Newman in the 
 lecture in which the libel is contained, and had been "raked 
 together " by him in the first instance. Gentlemen, the Attorney 
 General could not have been so ill-instructed as not to know that this 
 representation was utterly incorrect. Every one of these charges 
 had been published openly to the world no less than fifteen months 
 before Dr. Newman took them up. Such charges as these (says 
 the Attorney General), when made with such specific reference to 
 details, time, and place, it was impossible that Dr. Achilli should 
 not meet them. Why, gentlemen, for fifteen mouths they were 
 published to the world with far more particularity of time and 
 place than is to be found in Dr. Newman's statements ; and (as we 
 can show) were brought to the particular attention of Dr. Achilli 
 (for he refers to them in his book) ; dates were given, documents 
 mentioned, with every reference requisite to enable him to give 
 an answer ; and during all that time he refrained from taking any 
 steps in respect to this publication. But when Dr. Newman refers 
 to these charges, which thus had been brought against him, and 
 which he had not had the courage or the boldness to answer, 
 then Dr. Achilli comes forward and obtains this information 
 against Dr. Newman, s Gentlemen, I do not mean to say 
 that the man who publishes libellous charges against another is 
 justified in point of law, by being able to say that these charges 
 have been published previously in the same manner by somebody 
 else, and had remained uucontradicted ; but surely it is a matter 
 which, though no legal answer, 1 ought in fairness to have been 
 stated. It is a very different thing to be the first inventor 
 or author of libellous charges attacking another man's character, 
 from what it is to repeat or advert to charges which have been 
 publicly made, and which have been published to the world ; which 
 have been drawn to the attention of the party charged, and which 
 he has allowed to remain for months almost for years, unanswered 
 and unrefuted ; for surely his silence may fairly have warranted the 
 man who adverts to them in the second instance, in the inference 
 that the absence of contradiction or refutation amounts to a tacit 
 
 s In the interval witnesses, of course, might die, or become inaccessible, or 
 could have been deterred from coming forward ; and, in fact, many who could 
 have borne testimony were hot forthcoming at the trial ; and judgments and other 
 documents referred to in the alleged libel, had become destroyed by the burning 
 of official buildings during the revolutions in Italy. Does not this strongly 
 show the absurd injustice of calling on a man at any time to prove charges 
 which may be true, but not proveable ? 
 
 h In some cases it may even be in itself an answer in law ; and in an appli- 
 cation for a criminal information, is always so. See Introduction, ante.
 
 62 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 acquiescence and acknowledgment of the truth of the accusations. ' 
 Now, let us see, gentlemen, what is the real motive which has 
 influenced Dr. Newman in attacking Dr. Achilli. The Attorney 
 General has told you, with perfect truth, that Dr. Achilli questioned 
 the Roman Catholic faith. Having been brought up in that faith, 
 having become a monk and a priest, and long officiated in both 
 characters, he came forward about 1845, saying, " Behold a convert 
 to Protestantism ! one who could no longer endure the abominations 
 of the Catholic Church !" His language against the church which he 
 had left was of the strongest character. He everywhere not only 
 denied the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but he spoke in 
 strong terms of the corruption of the clergy, of the dissoluteness of 
 the lives of the priests, of the abominations of the conduct of the 
 members of the hierarchy. In a letter to Pope Gregory XVI., after 
 descanting on the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Church (it is 
 at p. 376 of his book, entitled, " Dealings with the Inquisition"), he 
 says : 
 
 " Yes ; the people, deceived by you, have good reason to believe in 
 you. You have deceived them with your doctrines your own, not 
 those of the Gospel ; invented for your own profit alone ; not for the 
 benefit of men's souls ; to which you have even denied consolation 
 when they could not give you silver and gold in payment for it. You 
 deceive them with your practices when you, so avaricious, preach dis- 
 interestedness ; you, so impure, chastity ; you, so vindictive, forgive- 
 ness ; you, so insubordinate, submission ; you, so turbulent, peace ; 
 you, so self-indulgent, temperance ; you, so indolent, industry ; you, so 
 immoral, holiness. Thus, to this day, you have deceived the people, 
 and they have ceased to believe in you ; perceiving that God did not 
 dwell in you that God no longer spoke through your untruthful lips." 
 
 Gentlemen, if this was the way in which he addressed the head of 
 the church to which he had once belonged, you may easily believe, 
 gentlemen, that when he spoke of the subordinate members of the 
 hierarchy he was not more considerate in his use of terms. Through- 
 out his work he dwells perpetually on what he calls the dissolute 
 lives of the clergy, on the corruptions and abominations of the 
 church, from the pope upon his throne down to the lowest minister 
 connected with the church ; he represents that the rule is that of 
 wickedness and licentiousness, and that purity and virtue are the 
 rare exceptions. This is the sort of language in which, since his deser- 
 tion of the Roman Catholic Church, he has always spoken of it. 
 If these things are true, it is of course important to mankind, and 
 to the Christian world, that the truth should be known. I quarrel 
 
 1 In all criminal trials it is the best possible evidence of the charge, that it 
 has been made in the prisoner's presence, and been uncontradicted ; and in all 
 judicial proceedings, what is said in the presence of one of the parties, and not 
 denied, is good evidence against him, as an admission. This argument was not at 
 all adverted to by the judge, yet surely was material and forcible ? It is true, 
 Achilli had barely denied the charges, but had not taken the steps which his 
 own counsel declared the proper step to take to vindicate his character.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 63 
 
 not, therefore, with him if his statements are true. But how are 
 we to know that they are true ? Is a Catholic, who believes, of 
 course, that the church of his ancestors is the one true church, is 
 he to submit to such shocking imputations upon it ? Or is one who 
 having come to it from the conviction that it is the true church, 
 and who, in consequence of that conviction, has been induced to 
 abandon a position of distinction and of emolument, and all that 
 can operate upon meaner minds, for the sake of following what he 
 believes to be clear truth, and to attach himself to that which in his 
 mind is the true faith ; is he to remain silent under these accusations 
 against the church and the faith in which he believes ? Gentlemen, 
 1 am satisfied that there is not one of you, firm as may be your 
 attachment, and firm as may be your affection for the Protestant 
 Church,J who would not be ready to do this justice to members of 
 the Catholic Church, or who would not say, that when adcu- 
 sations such as these, which Dr. Achilli has for years fulminated 
 against the whole body of the Catholic clergy, are made public to 
 the world, there is not one of you who would not say that it was 
 the right, nay, the duty of a Catholic to come forward and vin- 
 dicate his church from the imputations and aspersions thus cast 
 upon it. It would, indeed, be a mockery to talk of " toleration " 
 it would be a farce to say that religious opinions were free if you 
 would only listen to accusations against the Catholic Church, and 
 not allow its members to raise their voices in its vindication. Now, 
 gentlemen, the defendant, Dr. Newman, had become a member of 
 the Roman Catholic Church. All who belonged to the Church of 
 England had witnessed his desertion of it with regret : his ability, 
 his learning, his piety, and integrity, no man, even in the envenomed 
 conflicts of religious strife, has ever ventured to question. Under 
 the influence of strong feelings of conviction he had become a 
 convert to the Catholic faith, and he now came forward to vindicate 
 not only the religion he had adopted, but himself, for the course he 
 had pursued. He found that one who, like himself, was a convert, 
 but a convert from, not to the ancient faith, had attacked the 
 church and the religion which he had embraced. He found, also, 
 that the mode which this individual adopted for the purpose of 
 attacking the Catholic Church, was not merely to impugn its doc- 
 
 j " Sed quaere de hoc," as the old lawyers would say. It is morally certain 
 that the majority of the jury did not believe in, or belong to any church at all ; 
 and even of the few who might be members of the Church of England, it is 
 pretty certain that all were of that class which do not really believe in a church 
 as a divinely appointed body, with a divine mission, and sacraments. And let 
 the reader be reminded, that Mr. Drummond, recently, in the House of Com- 
 mons, declared that no one of this class would be a fair judge in any tribunal to 
 consider the case even of an Anglican who believed in the sacramental system ; 
 which (he justly said) constitutes the essence of a church. (Debate on Mr. 
 Bennett's Case.} What a farce, then, was this trial of Dr. Newman by a 
 common jury (for it really was so), chiefly composed of those to whom the very- 
 idea of a church was absurd, and to whom sacraments were superstitions.
 
 64 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 trines and impeach its creed, but the course he pursued was to bring 
 the whole of its clergy into odium and disrepute, and to hold them 
 up to odium and execration, as men whose whole lives and habitual 
 practices were so abandoned, that, to use his own expression, 
 applied to Pope Gregory XVI., k they " cried to heaven for ven- 
 geance," and demanded that the good portion of mankind should 
 unite to sweep away these abominations ! l Can any man wonder, 
 when these attacks were made, openly, repeatedly in lectures, in 
 pamphlets, at public meetings, and in books, that a champion of 
 the church thus attacked should think fit to come forward in its 
 defence? Gentlemen, I do not appeal to your prejudices or pas- 
 sions they are not on my side but to your judgment, and I ask 
 you with confidence, can any one of you hesitate to say that those 
 who uphold the cause of the lloman Catholic Church were justified in 
 making what defence they could against such charges as these, so 
 long as that defence was consistent with truth and honesty ? Now, 
 fet us see what was the course to be pursued by a party thus acting 
 as a champion of the lloman Catholic Church ? How were these 
 accusations to be met ? There was this difference between the 
 accusations of Dr. Achilli against the Church and of Dr. Newman 
 against Dr. Achilli, that the latter dealt chiefly in general charges ; 
 it was rarely that facts advanced by Dr. Achilli were specific they 
 were vague and unsatisfactory charges that corruption abounded 
 in the church that the lives of its clergy were crowded with 
 iniquities of every description but the charges, though vague, 
 assumed importance from the circumstance that the man who came 
 forward to accuse and denounce, was not only accuser but witness ; 
 he could say " I am a living testimony of the things I speak to ; 
 I have been a monk and a priest, and I know what monks and 
 priests do ; I know the interior of monasteries and convents, and 
 I tell you of the lives they lead there, and the practices there 
 pursued ; I can tell you of the wicked and sinful things there per- 
 formed, against the laws of God and man ; and for these things I 
 tell you that these institutions, and the church to which they belong, 
 should be swept away from the face of the earth, as unworthy any 
 longer to be allowed to exist on it." m Surely he would not adopt 
 statements of this kind until their truth was shown ? Here is a 
 witness who speaks, not to specific facts, but as to general charges, 
 of what he alleges as within his own knowledge. What, then, is the 
 
 k A pontiff of exemplary piety, and unimpeachable character. 
 
 1 It was observed that the foreman and another of the jury nodded their 
 heads assentingly to these shocking statements ; both when originally read and now 
 repeated. This is only a specimen of the outward signs by which the jury 
 denoted their foregone conclusion, and their predetermined resolution to convict. 
 Most of them, probably, had been prejudiced by Achilli's awful book, and had 
 obviously imbibed the most intense horror and hatred of the Catholic Church. 
 Was this one of the objects of Achilli, in waiting till after the circulation of his 
 book, before he prosecuted any one for these charges ? 
 
 m Here, again, one or two of the jury nodded assent.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. G.j 
 
 first question which occurs? Who is this witness who thus comes 
 forward to denounce the church of which he was once a member, 
 and is now an apostate ? Is he a person worthy to be believed ? 
 Is his testimony such as may safely be relied upon ? Take the 
 common every-day illustration to be found in the proceedings 
 of courts of justice. A witness comes forward to depose to facts 
 upon which, perhaps, it is impossible to meet him directly, because 
 he alleges them to have taken place entirely within his own know- 
 ledge. What is the first question those who are called upon to act 
 in defence of parties accused upon the testimony of such a witness 
 think it necessary to put ? Who, and what is the witness ? whence 
 comes he ? what are his antecedents ? what are his motives ? That 
 is the common and obvious course suggested by good sense and ex- 
 perience of mankind. The same question, surely, presents itself 
 in the case of Dr. Achilli. He holds up the Catholic hierarchy and 
 institutions to odium and execration, on the strength of his own 
 intimate acquaintance with the proceedings of the clergy. The first 
 question surely is, who are you that tell us these astounding facts ? 
 He says, " I am one on whose high sense of morality and religion 
 these abominable things have made so deep and painful an impres- 
 sion, that I have resigned all, rather than continue a member of a 
 Church in which they occurred. My motive for leaving it was, 
 that my reason revolted against its doctrines, and still more, that 
 my moral and religious sense revolted against the deeds by which 
 I found myself surrounded." n Gentlemen, if these were the 
 grounds on which he left the church ; if it be true that such were 
 the abominations he witnessed, that though he had already attained 
 a position of proud pre-eminence, and although at every step as he 
 proceeded there appeared a prospect of his rising higher and higher, 
 until he attained the highest rank in the church (and this is what 
 he represents), if it be true that he abandoned all this from a 
 sense not merely of the erroneousness of the Catholic doctrines, but 
 disgust and abhorrence of the abominations of the Catholic clergy, 
 I admit that his testimony is such as would be calculated to make 
 a powerful impression on the minds of those who were wavering as 
 to their faith, and still more upon the minds of those who believed 
 that the pure and reformed Protestant worship was more acceptable 
 in the eyes of God ; and who, being members of that communion, 
 would be naturally disposed to take an unfavourable view of the 
 doctrines and the practices of the Catholic Church. Was it 
 not, then, natural on the part of those whose duty it was to vin- 
 dicate the faith in which they were born, or which they had 
 embraced from conviction, against these aspersions, to inquire who 
 and what Dr. Achilli was ; and to ascertain whether it were true 
 that he had been induced to quit the Catholic Church, and become 
 
 n Nothing could be more effective and powerful than this passage, and a 
 similar passage in Sir Alexander's reply.
 
 06 REPORT OF THE TUIAL. 
 
 a convert to the Protestant, from the motives and for the reasons he 
 represents abhorrence of the practices of the Catholic Church." 
 What if it should turn out that, instead of having been voluntarily 
 a deserter from the faith in which he was born, he had been expelled 
 ignominiously from that church for his crimes, and that he had 
 adopted Protestantism simply because the exigency of the moment 
 required that he should do so as a means of obtaining a subsist- 
 ence surely, if this should turn out, it would be a circumstance of 
 the greatest possible weight in determining the question whether his 
 evidence, in the matters about which he has spoken, is deserving of 
 the slightest credit. Nobody can for an instant doubt that it would 
 be a most important fact and ingredient in the consideration of the 
 case. If you found that instead of having quitted the church, he 
 had been expelled from it, that would necessarily be in itself a 
 circumstance calculated to detract materially from the value of his 
 testimony. It entirely destroys the inference which would neces- 
 sarily be produced from the fact, if it were a fact, that he had 
 quitted the church from disgust for its doctrines and the practices 
 of its clergy. No one can doubt that it was a most important 
 question to be solved. What if it turned out that Dr. A chilli 
 had ben expelled ignominiously from the Catholic Church ? I ask 
 you, if that were proved, I ask you, if any one of you had found 
 your church or your religious community attacked in the uncom- 
 promising manner in which Dr. Achilli did not scruple to attack 
 the Catholic Church, would it not be deemed right to publish such 
 a fact to the world ? No man can answer that question in any way 
 but one. If his expulsion from the church had been brought 
 about, not merely by his apostacy from its doctrines, but had been 
 the consequence of his own confession of crimes, bad enough in any 
 one, but detestable in one who had become a member of the sacred 
 calling of the Christian ministry, would it not have been the duty 
 of those who were sifting his evidence, and anxious, because 
 believing it utterly untrue, to disprove and refute it, to bring 
 this fact before the world ? Gentlemen, this is our case ! Such is 
 the position in which Dr. Newman was placed by the writer of the 
 article in the Dublin Review, which appeared before Dr. Newman 
 published these Lectures. When Dr. Achilli came to England, he 
 everywhere and in every way publicly denounced the Church of 
 Rome ; representing himself as one who came forward as a witness, 
 in consequence of the impression produced upon his mind by the 
 horrors he had seen. This naturally led to inquiries as to who and 
 what he was. And so early as June, 1850, was published an article 
 in the Dublin Review, giving the whole account of his life, with the 
 charges referred to in this case, giving the most minute details in 
 each instance, challenging him to meet them ; stating the proofs 
 that would be adduced in documents (judgments and records of 
 courts, or of the police) or in living witnesses. Gentlemen, for 
 fifteen months Dr. Achilli allows these charges to remain unanswered
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 67 
 
 and almost unnoticed no, I am wrong there, for in 1850 he pub- 
 lished a book called " Dealings with the Inquisition," and in that 
 book he adverts to charges brought against him in the Dublin 
 Review, and contents himself with a general denial of them, but 
 takes no steps against the proprietor or publisher of this review, or. 
 the author of the article. Yet the author was not beneath his 
 notice, for it was no other than Cardinal Wiseman. He himself 
 says Dr. Wiseman is the author of the article, and he adverts to 
 him in these terms : " There is the renowned Cardinal Wiseman, 
 the archbishop of Westminster, according to the pope's creation, 
 the same who has bad the assurance to accuse me from his pulpit, 
 and to publish an infamous article in the Dublin Review, in which 
 he has raked together, as on a dunghill, every species of filth from 
 the sons of Ignatius Loyola ; nor is there lie or calumny that he 
 has not made use of against me." Now this book was written 
 before Dr. Newman's lecture appeared ; he knew, therefore, of this 
 article in the Dublin Review, but he takes no proceedings against 
 it, although all these facts, now adverted to in far more general 
 terms, were by Dr. Wiseman specifically set forth facts which 
 my friend admits it was incumbent on Dr. Achilli, the moment 
 they were mentioned, immediately to bring before a court of jus- 
 tice. Well, gentlemen, Dr. Newman, finding Dr. Achilli continuing 
 to propagate those charges against the Roman Catholic Church, 
 not merely making those statements in discourses from the pulpit 
 or at public meetings, but publishing them in a book which pro- 
 fessed to relate " Dealings with the Inquisition," taking the oppor- 
 tunity of going over the whole of the institutions of the Roman 
 Catholic Church, and denouncing them in terms such as I have 
 before referred to Dr. Newman at length comes forward, and cer- 
 tainly does reiterate the charges that had appeared fifteen months 
 before in the Dublin Review, referring to the very book in ques- 
 tion. Well, I am quite ready to admit that Dr. Newman is legally 
 responsible for every word to be found in his pamphlet, although pub- 
 lished elsewhere before that pamphlet appeared. Up to the present 
 moment, I have been endeavouring to make clear to you the position 
 in which he was placed, and the motives which have induced him to 
 come forward. But then the question is, whether he can justify these 
 charges. It was not to stop the mouth or stifle the voice of a 
 man who came forward to denounce the Catholic faith, but it is 
 for a very different purpose, to test the credibility of the wit- 
 nesses, by a reference to his character and antecedents. No one 
 can hesitate to admit that this is a perfectly legitimate course for 
 any one to pursue who was. interested in the truth or falsehood 
 of the charges to which the accuser referred, to endeavour to ascer- 
 tain how far he was worthy of belief. Inquiries have been made 
 respecting him, as inquiries had been made before the article 
 in the Dublin Review appeared ; and the result is, that as Dr. 
 Newman felt himself justified in adopting these charges, which had 
 F 2
 
 68 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 remained unanswered or unrefuted in the first instance, so now, 
 having published them, and being called upon to answer for it, after 
 further investigation he feels himself justified in putting upon the 
 record a plea, alleging openly in the court that these charges are 
 well founded, and that there is truth in all of them ; and he is 
 prepared to vindicate thus the course of conduct he has pursued. 
 And here, gentlemen, I must say the Attorney General has adopted 
 a course which has filled me with astonishment. His client, Dr. Achilli, 
 has come forward to vindicate his character from the aspersions thus 
 cast upon him. He knows he has long known every one of the 
 accusations whicli have been brought against him : he has, by means 
 of the special plea, put upon the record about five months ago, dis- 
 tinct enumeration of each specific case, with all the details of time 
 and place necessary to enable him to meet the different charges. He 
 is the accuser : he has put Dr. Newman upon his defence ; he is 
 here ; he is within the precincts of the court ; the Attorney General 
 could have put him into the box ; I should have supposed him all 
 anxiety to be there ! I should have imagined that the first object 
 of his heart would be at once to rush into the witness-box, and to 
 go through the charges brought against him, and deny them 
 upon his oath, and show them there was no foundation for them 
 for the falsehood and the calumnious character of which he here calls 
 Dr. Newman to account. But, no ! That course is not convenient. 
 It is better to see what can be made out on the side of the defendant ; 
 if witnesses can be broken down ; if documents can be excluded ; 
 it may be that a verdict may be obtained without calling Dr. Achilli 
 before you. 
 
 The Attorney General. I pledged myself to produce him. 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn. Yes ! but at what time ? 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. The Attorney General has pledged himself to 
 call Dr. Achilli, and I hope I may say, without being charged with 
 showing any partiality, that the natural course seems to be, first 
 to bring forward the proof of the accusation, and then to go into 
 the defence. 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn. Gentlemen, I will only say, then, that if 
 this be so, I entirely concur in the course I understand was pursued 
 by my learned friend when I was not in court of demanding that 
 the prosecutor should not be present while our witnesses were being 
 
 The observations of Sir A. Cockburn were evidently making an impression 
 upon the jury, when Lord Campbell interfered, and destroyed it by his observation ; 
 as to which, the writer appeals to the profession, whether the practice be not, in 
 a case of criminal information, for the purpose of clearing the character of the 
 prosecutor, at once to call him into the box, and submit him to examination. 
 The case of the duke of Cumberland is an instance which will occur at once to 
 many the more in point, as resembling the present in respect to the lapse of 
 time, and the gravity of the charges. By declining to call Achilli before he had 
 an opportunity of studying what the witnesses stated against him, his counsel 
 evaded the only test which could be applied to his statements, sworn in his own 
 defence. See note, ante, p. 58.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 65) 
 
 examined. I pass on at once, then, to the accusation, and to the 
 case which will be submitted to you, only observing that I own I 
 should like to have had an opportunity of examining Dr. Achilli 
 himself, before he knew the exact amount of evidence which could 
 be adduced against him. It appears and I am speaking now only 
 from the information Dr. Achilli has himself furnished us with it 
 appears that Dr. Achilli, who is, I understand, somewhere about 
 fifty years of age, was brought up at Viterbo, where he received his 
 education, and in 1819 he entered as a novice into the Dominican 
 convent ; there he passed one year of his noviciate, became a monk 
 in the ensuing year, and afterwards a priest of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. In both, I believe, but, at all events, in one of these 
 capacities, he took a vow of perpetual chastity. Gentlemen, no one 
 can doubt, however loose may be the practices of society on subjects 
 such as that I have referred to, in the case of a person in the holy 
 office and calling of a minister of the Gospel, continence is a duty 
 which cannot without grave and serious offence be violated. But 
 when to that consideration is superadded solemn and holy vows, 
 taken voluntarily upon this subject, one can understand that accusa- 
 tions of this kind assume a very grievous character. It is admitted 
 that charges imputing to a monk or a priest incontinence, are of a 
 most serious character ; and I will only accompany that with this 
 observation, that if this be so, surely they must be matters of 
 grave and serious moment if they turn out to be true in the case of a 
 man who is denouncing those very crimes against the clergy of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, as one of the reasons for his leaving that 
 Church, and becoming a convert to Protestantism. P Gentlemen, 
 Dr. Achilli became a priest in the year 1825, and in 1826 he was 
 appointed professor of philosophy at the seminary or college at 
 Viterbo, and remained at Viterbo, with occasional absence, till the 
 year 1833. The libel charges that during that time he was guilty 
 of various acts of incontinence at Viterbo. It says, first, " I am 
 that Achilli who, in the diocese of Viterbo, in February, 1831, 
 robbed of her honour a young woman of eighteen." Is that true, or 
 false ? It might be said that, if at an early period of life, when 
 his blood was hot, he committed an offence of that kind, but had 
 atoned for it by a life of purity and holiness, it would be cruelty to 
 fling the charge in the face of . man who now came forward to 
 reprove those crimes. I concur in that view ; but this is only the 
 commencement of the history, which will be brought down year by 
 year to the present time. This is the first case specially referred to 
 in the catalogue of enormities charged against him : In February, 
 1831, he robbed of her honour a young woman of eighteen. I will 
 produce that young woman before you, and you shall hear her tale. 
 Her name was Elena Valente. She has now for some time been 
 
 P By the instinct of an experienced advocate, Sir Alexander anticipated the 
 objection the jury would take to his examining Achilli on charges of this kind, and 
 endeavoured to deal with it.
 
 70 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 married. You shall hear how he pursued her, and how at length 
 she became his victim, became disgraced, and remained so for some 
 years, until at last, her character being to a certain extent retrieved, 
 she was, as I have said, married ; and has since lived in a respectable 
 position. That is one case. Then, there is the case of Rosa de 
 Allessandris, in the year 1833, and also that of another person, in 
 the year 1834. As to these cases especially, gentlemen, I must 
 say I should like to have had the opportunity of asking Dr. Achilli 
 some questions before he knew the amount of evidence I could 
 produce ; for a party who has the opportunity of swearing in his own 
 defence, and of doing so after he knows the worst that can be 
 proved against him, of course is in a very favourable position. 
 Rosa de Allessandris is married, and will not come forward ; but I 
 have the written confession of Dr. Achilli, and the same as to the 
 other ; he has been actually tried for these things ; he has confessed 
 them, and has been punished for them ! Gentlemen, with respect 
 to his deprivation, there is, I believe, a mistake in the date ; but I 
 shall prove that for the offence of incontinence he was deprived of 
 his faculties. He remained at Viterbo until 1833 : proceedings 
 were instituted against him in the court of the bishop ;i and on his 
 leaving Viterbo and going to Rome (where he had strong friends), 
 the affair was hushed up, and he became professor in the college 
 of the Minerva. He remained at Rome a year, and then proceeded 
 to Capua ; and, as he states, at the invitation of Cardinal Serra, he 
 preached the Lent sermons there that year. Gentlemen, there is 
 no doubt that he from his youth has shown eminent ability ; and 
 being a man of great knowledge and eloquence, his preaching was 
 sought after ; but this is quite consistent with his private life being 
 quite irreconcilable with the sacred character he held. It seems, 
 that having left Capua, and having stayed a year at Rome, he 
 passed his time for two or three years between Capua and Naples. 
 At this time there occurred two of the cases which form the subject 
 of the present libel ; and he admits by his own confession two 
 cases at Capua ! Then, we come to the case of seduction at Naples, 
 in 1840. I have the woman here, -Maria Principe, now married to 
 Balisano. I shall prove that this woman, being then a girl of fifteen, 
 he debauched, at the convent ; that she became pregnant ; and that 
 complaint was made by her father and mother at the time. The 
 father is dead ; but I have her here. She is now married ; and is, I 
 believe, a respectable person ; her mother comes with her, and you 
 shall hear their evidence. Remember that her statements are not 
 produced here for the present occasion ; they had been made long 
 ago, and brought to the attention of Achilli by the complaints of 
 the parties; there were proceedings before the commissioner of 
 police ; it is a matter recorded and known as having happened many 
 
 i Which, it will be found, could not be proved, because the record had been 
 burnt ; and Lord Campbell refused to receive a copy made by an official person, 
 and authenticated by a municipal seal.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 71 
 
 years ago. "Well, gentlemen, it seems that soon after, Achilli left 
 Naples ; and it seems that, in 1839, he separated from the Dominican 
 order to which, up to this time, he had been attached, whether he 
 separated himself so entirely as he represents is a question ; for we 
 find that after this he is still spoken of as of the order. 1 However, , 
 he became, he says, secularized, and took upon him to quit the order, 
 free, as he states, from the obligations which continuance in it imposes. 
 He went on preaching at Capua, &c., but such was the scandal 
 produced by these various acts which did not merely imply incon- 
 tinence, but the greatly aggravated offence of seduction, if not of 
 violation the scandal caused was such that it was necessary to 
 bring the matter before his ecclesiastical superiors, by whom he was 
 sentenced to suspension from the functions of the priesthood, and 
 seclusion in one of the more rigid houses of the order. This did not 
 suit Dr. Achilli (laughter), and accordingly he began to meditate 
 secession from the Church. The fame of his proceedings had become 
 so notorious, however, that it reached the Court of Rome ; he was 
 demanded from the Neapolitan Government ; he was taken to 
 Rome and brought before the Inquisition ; he was then charged 
 specifically with the crimes I have mentioned, and the acts of 
 incontinence tending to bring disrepute upon their order. I have 
 here an authentic copy of the record of the judgment, which I shall 
 put in evidence. It contains the confession of Achilli himself of 
 these very specific acts. He was sentenced by the Court of Inqui- 
 sition to perpetual deprivation of all ecclesiastical functions ; pro- 
 hibited from preaching, from confessing, and from administering the 
 sacraments ; and condemned for penance to three years' seclusion in 
 one of the more rigid houses of the order. He retired to the con- 
 vent of Nizarro, where three years were to be passed in doing 
 penance. But this did not suit him. (Laughter.) In his book he 
 said he went to Nizarro to arrange his private affairs. He does not 
 say a single word about these proceedings before the Inquisition. 
 I should have liked to have asked him a few questions before I laid 
 my proofs before you on this part of the case. However, he did not 
 stay at Nizarro, but went off in haste to Ancona, and meeting with 
 a gentleman, he got his name inserted in his passport, and went with 
 him to Corfu, which is in the dominions of this country. He now 
 openly secedes from the Roman Catholic religion, and professes to 
 have adopted the pure truth of Protestantism. At Corfu he opened 
 what he called an Italian church, but there he soon got into a serious 
 scrape, " and made the, wife of a tailor faithless to her husband." 
 The tailor (named Garramoni) had separated from his wife, and had 
 been adjudged to allow her 2s. a week as alimony. But he dis- 
 
 1 In the judgment of the Inquisition (in 1841, after the secularization) it is 
 ordered that he retire to one of the houses of his order ; and upon the hint thus 
 afforded, the Attorney General founded one of his arguments for his atrocious 
 charge of falsification a flagrant quibble, however; for it might still very 
 naturally be spoken of as his order, i.e., the order to which he had been vowed.
 
 I 2 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 trusted the fidelity of his wife, and watched her house at night with 
 the viewof clearing up his suspicions, and one night, at half-past 
 eleven o'clock, he saw a person come there, not in the dress of a 
 priest, but in an ordinary dress. He seized hold of the party, and 
 holding up a light, he found that it was Dr. Achilli. The tailor 
 then instituted a suit, which ended in a compromise, and it was 
 agreed that the husband should pay no more money, and let his wife 
 off on that condition. We had this man here for many weeks, but 
 unfortunately he was obliged to leave England : we have a man 
 who was present and saw the whole of the transaction, a 
 man who saw the seizure made of the person who had gone 
 into the house, and I will prove that Dr. Achilli was that 
 person. I have also the transcript of the proceedings, which will 
 establish the assertion made in the libel, that "your name came 
 before the civil court of Corfu for your crime of adultery." After 
 this scandal he left Corfu and went to Zante, and it was now that he 
 " made acquaintance" with the wife of a chorus singer named Cori- 
 boni. The wife of this man was a woman of notoriously bad 
 character, combining, as it is stated, prostitution as a means of 
 getting jnoney with the profession which her husband carried on. 
 Dr. Achilli took these people into his suite (laughter), and travelled 
 with them to Zante, where he was desirous of establishing this 
 reformed Italian church, under that mission which he boasts in his 
 book of having received from Heaven. He there applied to a 
 gentleman named Reynolds, who held an office of respectability and 
 trust in the customs. Mr. Reynolds was disposed to further the 
 object, became a subscriber, and obtained the subscriptions of others, 
 and interested the vice-governor of the island, Colonel Ford, and 
 thus having obtained considerable subscriptions, the church was 
 opened. Mr. Reynolds happened to know something of this Madame 
 Coriboni, whose character was open and notorious, and he was not a 
 little astonished, when he went to the church, to find the wife 
 officiating as pew-opener, and the husband as clerk. (Great laughter.) 
 He thereupon remonstrated with Dr. Achilli (I have Mr. Reynolds 
 here, and will put him in the box) ; upon which Dr. Achilli assured 
 him that the woman was a second Magdalen (laughter), had forsaken 
 her evil practices, and intended to lead a pure and virtuous life. 
 Mr. Reynolds hardly knew what to make of this ; but after a little, 
 circumstances came to his knowledge which led him to think that 
 the Magdalen was anything but a penitent ! (Laughter.) It so 
 happened that his house was opposite Dr. Achilli's, and commanded 
 a view of a room used as a laundry, in which the woman worked ; 
 and he thus had an opportunity of seeing Dr. Achilli toying with 
 this Magdalen in a way not at all satisfactory to one who had 
 desired to receive from him the teaching of a minister of religion. 
 (Great laughter.) This happened more than once, and there was 
 always that degree of familiarity between the parties which naturally 
 led to unfavourable conclusions. From what was seen going on
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 73 
 
 between Dr. Achilli and this woman it became necessary to close 
 the blinds of this and the adjoining houses, the ladies in which were 
 much scandalized. Dr. Achilli was also seen walking arm-in-arm 
 with this lady, to the infinite scandal of the new Protestant congre- 
 gation ; and no doubt was left that a criminal intercourse subsisted 
 between them. Mr. Eeynolds and Mr. Ford remonstrated, but as 
 Dr. Achilli persisted in keeping her in his house, they would have 
 no more to do with him, and the congregation was broken up. Dr. 
 Achilli then went to Malta, and put himself in communication with 
 some gentlemen there connected with a plan to establish an Italian 
 Protestant college at Malta. A body of gentlemen, at the head of 
 whom was the earl of Shaftesbury (a nobleman who is at the head 
 of every benevolent undertaking calculated to promote the moral, 
 social, and religious welfare of mankind), were endeavouring to 
 introduce the Protestant religion among the Italians in Malta, and 
 with that view to establish a college there for general instruction, 
 and it was arranged that Dr. Achilli should be the theological pro- 
 fessor at the college, with a handsome salary ; it being believed that 
 he had been actuated in his secession by the purest motives. He 
 goes to Malta, where he is associated with others, two of whom 
 were two persons who had been priests (named Saccares and Leo- 
 nini), and who had been somewhat too hastily adopted at thia 
 college. A person named Kaossi, who had been an Armenian priest, 
 and fled from the Roman Catholic authorities, was also a member of 
 the college, and he had not been long there before he made charges 
 against his fellow labourers, charges of gross immorality, involving 
 Dr. Achilli as well as Saccares and Leonini, though he was only 
 so far connected with them that he was said to have connived at 
 their conduct. These charges were referred to the superiors of the 
 college, the Rev. Mr. Hadfield and the Rev. A. Watt, and by them 
 were transmitted to the committee in London, who desired an investi- 
 gation to be instituted : as Saccares and Leonini, as well as Dr. 
 Achilli, denied the charges, Kaossi was called upon to prove his 
 charges, or be considered as a calumniator. His principal proof 
 consisted of a confession, alleged to have been made by Saccares, 
 but which Saccares and Leonini denied altogether. The consequence 
 was that Kaossi was looked upon as an inventor, and was about to 
 be dismissed, when numerous persons came forward and gave a 
 different account of the affair, which led the Messrs. Hadfield and 
 "Watt to appoint a day to resume the inquiry. All this was known 
 to Dr. Achilli. It was known to him that these charges were of the 
 most serious character, charges which related to the introducing of 
 bad women into this Protestant college. It was known to him that 
 the board were most anxious for another investigation ; but, to the 
 astonishment of all, Dr. Achilli took upon himself, without communi- 
 cating with the authorities at Malta or London, to send Saccares 
 into Sicily to distribute Bibles there, which of course anybody else 
 could have done, and this was looked upon as a mere pretext to get
 
 74 HEl'OKT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 rid of him, as it necessarily put an end to his connection with the 
 college. The board in London were indignant at the proceedings 
 on the part of Achilli, and it ended in his dismissal from his office. 
 The committee, consisting of gentlemen of the highest respectability, 
 the earl of Waldegrave, the Rev. R. Burgess, and others, dismissed 
 him after investigating the matter. Being dismissed, in 1850, he 
 came to England, when he began that course of lecturing and 
 writing, and holding up to hatred and disgust the doctrines 
 and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, which he has since 
 pursued. I should now tell you that in the year 1849, being at 
 Rome, during the time of the Revolution, a time when anarchy 
 prevailed, he there married a lady named Heley, according to the 
 rites of his new Italian church. Whether or not that was consistent 
 with his vows of perpetual chastity is a question into which I will 
 not enter. But, however, having now become, according to his own 
 view, a husband whatever might have been his past conduct, one 
 would have supposed that from the moment when he entered into 
 the holy estate of matrimony, at least, we should have heard no more 
 of the incontinent doings of Dr. Achilli. But he had no sooner 
 entered-London than he recommenced his usual practices. At the 
 first house in which he lived in London there was a maid servant 
 named Harriet Harris, and he made use of every effort to seduce 
 that young woman. He failed, and she complained to her friends. 
 Mrs. Achilli shortly after arrived in London, and he desisted from 
 his attempts. Though not successful with the girl Harris, he was 
 successful with another, named Jane Legg. He took a house at 
 No. 11, Shaftesbury-terrace, Pimlico. Jane Legg was his servant 
 there, and yielded to his solicitations ; she became with child ; 
 I believe, however, not only Dr. Achilli, but a friend of his 
 also, who was there, had connection with her. She went away, 
 and had a child, who died of the small-pox ; and, in conver- 
 sation with her sister, it appears that though Dr. Achilli 
 never did anything for her, he never denied that he had had 
 to do with her. He had another servant, Sarah Wood, whose 
 reluctance and resistance he overcame ; and another, named Cathe- 
 rine Gorman, with whom he did not succeed. Gentlemen, we have 
 these witnesses here, and shall call them before you. If these 
 witnesses are to be believed in ; if, when a married man, after 
 having removed from those demoralizing examples which he, Dr. 
 Achilli, alleges himself to have witnessed when in the convents of 
 the Dominican order ; if, after having left that polluted atmosphere 
 for the purer atmosphere of the Protestant Church, and having 
 allied himself in what he believed to be a matrimonial alliance with 
 a young lady who devoted herself to him ; if you find after all this, 
 he still continued his dissolute and licentious conduct, and he en- 
 deavoured to make every woman the victim of his insatiable lust, 
 that will tend, I think, to throw some light upon the other charges, 
 and will, I think, lead you to believe that these charges are well
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 75 
 
 founded. And if these things be so, I ask whether those whose 
 Church is denounced by such a man, on the grounds of the alleged 
 licentiousness of its clergy, are not justified in holding him up 
 him, the accuser and witness in the true colours in which he 
 deserves to be pourtrayed, in order that the people of this realm, 
 who are to judge of the truth of his representations, and whom it is 
 sought to influence in their religious views by the statements he 
 makes I ask whether it is not right that his real character should be 
 pourtrayed, that they may judge of the credit to be attached to the 
 evidence of such a witness? that they may judge whether the 
 Catholic Church is that foul nest of pollution and crime, or whether 
 these things are not fabricated and invented by him in order to con- 
 ceal the real reasons and the fact of how he ceased to be a member 
 of that Church ; whether it were as he represents, that it was 
 from his horror at such abominations, he was induced to hold 
 the clergy of that Church up to execration ; and whether it was 
 that, having been guilty of these excesses himself, and having been 
 brought to justice and exposed to penance and contrition, he takes 
 care not to bring forward this in his narrative, because he knew 
 that no credit would be attached to statements coming from so foul 
 a source ? Whatever may be the zeal of the Protestant Church 
 (and I rejoice to see it burn brightly when occasion requires), I trust 
 it will never lead us to be guilty of denying to others the free, full, 
 and unfettered exercise of their religion, or the free expression of 
 their opinions, or to prevent them from confuting malignant and 
 wicked accusations. Gentlemen, it was under such views alone 
 that Dr. Newman came forward. Dr. Achilli is to Dr. Newman 
 utterly unknown. But when he came forward as the public accuser 
 and denouncer of the Church of which Dr. Newman is now an 
 ornament, he feels that he was justified in ascertaining who and 
 what Dr. Achilli was, and, if he has been guilty of these outrages 
 upon religion and morality, showing him in his true colours. Gen- 
 tlemen, I say that the cause of truth demands that in these matters 
 of religious opinion and controversy matters in which all mankind 
 are deeply interested truth should be on both sides adhered to, and 
 that testimony, to which great effect will necessarily be attached, 
 should be sifted, and when it rests on the character of the witness, 
 that character should be ascertained and judged of by those who 
 are interested. On the other hand, I admit that when, with a view 
 to silence an adverse witness, falsehoods and crimes are charged 
 which are known to be ^untrue, that is conduct on which reproba- 
 tion cannot be too severely visited. It is for you, gentlemen, to 
 judge in which of these two positions Dr. Newman stands. You 
 will certainly be satisfied that at least he has not invented these 
 stories. It will be proved satisfactorily that he has not in- 
 tended to be a calumniator and slanderer. These are matters 
 which have been brought against Dr. Achilli long ago matters 
 standing recorded against him ; he cannot be unprepared to meet
 
 76 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 them. I believe, from my instructions, that I shall be enabled 
 to prove this case, not indeed in every minute particular, but at all 
 events as to the substantial charges, 1 shall be enabled completely 
 to make them out ; and then it will be for Dr. Achilli, or for his 
 counsel, to see what answer can be given to them. I own I should 
 like to have known the answer Dr. Achilli would have given before 
 he knew the extent of the proof I could adduce. I think, however, 
 my learned friend (Serjeant Wilkins) was right, in my absence, in 
 desiring that the witnesses should be ordered out of court, that Dr. 
 Achilli should not at all events know the precise extent of the proof 
 we have to bring against him. 8 Be that as it may, he will have an 
 opportunity of going step by step through every portion of the 
 charges. Yon will hear what he has to say in his defence. If Dr. 
 Newman has charged him unjustly, if the accusations are un- 
 founded, Dr. Newman will be the last man to flinch from the con- 
 sequences which must fall upon him ; but he will be protected by 
 the conviction and consciousness that he has not been influenced by 
 any personal feeling or vindictive motive against Dr. Achilli ; that 
 he has simply attacked him in order to repel the foul accusation 
 which Dr. Achilli has thought proper to bring forward on his own 
 testimony against the Church, of which Dr. Newman is now a 
 member. Gentlemen, when Dr. Achilli shall have been called, I 
 shall again have an opportunity of addressing a few observations to 
 you. In the mean time, I will only ask you to do this forget for 
 the moment that you entertain religious opinions on one side or the 
 other ; look at this case as if no religious considerations were con- 
 nected with it, and, forgive me for saying, be upon your guard lest 
 aught of prejudice that may pervade your minds should mingle 
 with your judgments. Bring to the case a calm, dispassionate 
 consideration of the evidence laid before you. If you are of 
 opinion that Dr. Achilli is not guilty of these matters charged 
 against him, then Dr. Newman must submit to your verdict ; but 
 if you believe the witnesses if you are satisfied by the documents 
 I shall place before you then, although it may be painful to your 
 feelings to come to the conclusion that Dr. Achilli is an impostor, 
 and that, though the accusations brought against the Roman Ca- 
 tholic Church, however congenial to Protestant feelings, are un- 
 founded and calumnious, you will not hesitate to do justice, and in 
 that case we look with confidence to your verdict.* 
 
 Elena Justini" was then called in, and having been sworn, was 
 examined by Mr. Bramwell, through an Italian interpreter. 
 
 * From the daily reports, however, he knew all the evidence against him 
 before he was called ; and from his own short-hand writers. 
 
 1 Sir Alexander Cockburn's address occupied nearly two hours ; he sat down 
 about twelve o'clock. 
 
 " This witness had a most modest and >ingenuous countenance, and gave her 
 evidence in a very artless and apparently truthful manner, which made a great 
 impression. As Sir F. Thesiger conceived he was justified in imputing that she-
 
 REPOKT OF THE TRIAL. 77 
 
 My age is forty years. I am married to Vincenzio Justini. I 
 was married two years ago. My maiden name was Valente. I 
 am now living at Viterbo, where I have lived from my birth. 
 I know the Dominican convent there. I knew Dr. Achilli at 
 Viterbo. He was a monk of that convent. I have been in that 
 convent when he called me. I was then about seventeen or 
 eighteen years of age. Dr. Achilli deflowered me. It was in the 
 sacristy. I was in service at that time with Signora Gentili, with 
 whom Dr. Achilli was acquainted. He had been a visitant to her 
 house in the country for a month. He had offered familiarities to 
 me before. I had walked out with him alone. . He had asked me 
 to walk with him. He had already commenced to insult me when 
 he was at the country house. I was intimate with him again some 
 little time after the first occasion at the convent. He sent for me by a 
 messenger. It was customary to give servants a present after visit- 
 ing in a house ; and he sent to say he wished to give me one. I 
 went to him. I asked him whether there was any sin in it, and he 
 replied that there was not. I told him that there was hell in it. 
 He said, " Not at all, otherwise hell would be quite full." 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir F. Thesiger. I arrived in London last 
 Thursday. I shall have been away from Viterbo six months on 
 the 23rd of this month. I have since been living at Paris, Dover, 
 and some other places (the name of which I do not know) between 
 Dover and London. I came from Viterbo with Madame Rosina 
 Gilbert ; my husband also accompanied me. I was in Paris three 
 months. I came to Dover, as far as I recollect, in May. There 
 were other witnesses in this cause at Paris Giovanni Principe and 
 her mother. They lived in the same house with me and my hus- 
 band. They accompanied us to Dover, and lived there with us. 
 We received instructions to leave Viterbo from a lawyer. Did you 
 see your priest before you came away ? Yes ; the curate. Did 
 he send you here ? He told me I ought to come here. While I was 
 at Paris, I told Principe and her mother of what had happened to me, 
 and they told me what had happened to them. I did not know 
 them before I met them in Paris. I have seen some of the other 
 witnesses in this case in London, but not at Dover or Paris. I 
 have seen an English gentleman named Reynolds, who lives at 
 Corfu. Have you spoken to any Roman Catholic priest since you 
 came to London ? No ; I have not lived in London with any of 
 the witnesses but the two Principes. I had known Achilli a month 
 before the occurrence at the convent. I had been in the service of 
 Signora Gentili about a 'month before that took place. The 
 convent is about two miles from her home. Dr. Achilli came to 
 
 gave false evidence, and Lord Campbell intimated that it was suspicious, and was 
 not confirmed, the reader is requested to mark it carefully, in order to compare it 
 with Achilli's, which was pressed by Sir A. Cockburn, as completely confirming 
 it ; and to which confirmation Lord Campbell never referred the jury at all !
 
 78 IlKPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 stay with her at her country house for a month. I was the only 
 servant in the house. The other members of the family were two 
 men. It was, perhaps, five or six days after Achilli came that I 
 first took a walk with him in the country. He solicited me on this 
 occasion. He said that he would take me to show me a place where 
 the two gentlemen of the Signora Gentili's family were in the habit 
 of shooting. Instead, however, of taking me to see the chase, he 
 took me to a hut, where I was with him alone. He there solicited 
 me, but I denied him. I returned home in his company. Did you 
 tell Signora Gentili what had occurred ? No. Did you tell it to 
 your confessor ? Yes ; five or six days afterwards, when my mis- 
 tress allowed me to go to confession. 7 I never again walked out 
 with Achilli. He solicited me once more during his stay in the 
 house of Signora Gentili. I did not tell Signora Gentili what had 
 occurred, but in the morning I showed that I was disturbed, and said 
 that I would leave the place. I did not, however, leave the house 
 until Achilli had left. I was only engaged for a month. I left the 
 signora's on the last day of October, and the affair at the com r ent 
 happened some time in November. Achilli had sent for me to the 
 convent, saying that he wanted to give me the usual present to 
 servants. When I got there he was waiting for me in the sacristy. 
 The sacristy opens from the church. I went into the sacristy be- 
 cause I saw him there, and beckoning to me. He gave me nothing 
 but a silk handkerchief, which was older than he was. (Laughter). 
 Next day, I went to the same confessor to whom I had told what 
 had happened before, when I was living with the Signora Gentili. 
 I began to cry, and he then said, " I knew you were in the hands 
 of a rapacious wolf in sheep's clothing." Did you tell your mother 
 what had taken place? No; because the confessor forbade my 
 mentioning it, as Achilli was an ecclesiastic. w Achilli afterwards 
 sent to me to come to him at the house of a family who were 
 related to him at Viterbo. I felt I was dishonoured, and there- 
 fore I went. x After the first occasion I changed my confessor, 
 
 T It is evident there were some restrictions upon her in this respect ; and, per- 
 haps, this was the cause of her fall. At all events, it confirms the Catholic 
 theory, that frequenting the sacrament of penance gives strength to resist sin ; 
 the very disclosure of temptations often destroying them. 
 
 w These and similar questions showed the drift of the cross-examination was 
 not so much to break down the evidence (which so acute an advocate soon saw 
 hopeless), as to produce the impression on the minds of the jury and the public, 
 that the fact must have been revealed by the confessor, with a violation of the 
 secret sanctity of the sacrament. The dfcingenuous disclosure by the witness, 
 however, of the fact that Achilli had told it to a friend of his, quite frustrated 
 this pious purpose. Moreover, the messages which went backwards and forwards 
 might naturally have revealed it ; with other circumstances in the course of an 
 intimacy of that kind. Now, Lord Campbell put Sir F. Thesiger's point to the 
 jury, but never adverted to these obvious answers. 
 
 1 When the witness gave her evidence this was remarked by every one as a 
 touch of nature, most materially confirming it ; but Lord Campbell actually put 
 it to the jury as a circumstance of suspicion ! As if a woman after her fall were 
 to be judged of by the same reasoning as before !
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 79 
 
 and did not go so often to confession as previously. I told the 
 second occurrence to my new confessor. Did you tell him the name 
 of Achilli ? No ; because it is the custom not to mention the name 
 of the sinner, but merely the sin. Did you mention the name of 
 Achilli to the first confessor? Yes ; because, as he lived near the 
 villa, I thought he might otherwise suspect some of the family. Be- 
 sides the handkerchief, he gave me a beautiful present three 
 sausages. (Laughter). They were both given me on the first occasion. 
 He promised, but never gave me anything afterwards. During 
 all this time you never told your mother what had happened ? 
 No. Did you ever tell it to any one but to your confessors ? 
 No. Once, to my great surprise, a person asked me, " Is it true 
 that Father Achilli has been intimate with you ?" I replied, " Who 
 told you that?" and he answered, "Achilli himself." He said it 
 to me because, as far as I understood it, he wished to arrive at the 
 same end. This was some few month? afterwards. The whole 
 connection with Achilli extended over some months, but probably 
 not a year. Achilli remained at Viterbo but a short time after this 
 intercourse had taken place. I do not think he remained a year. 
 And you never told these occurrences to any one but your con- 
 fessor ; not even to your mother? No; I told her about six 
 months ago that I was coming here upon a trial, but did not even 
 then tell her that Achilli had been intimate with me. Would you 
 have me publish my own sin? The curate caused me to come to him, 
 and asked me whether I had known anything of Achilli. I said, 
 " Why do you ask ?" He said, that it would be for the glory of God 
 and the honour of the Church.y AVas that the confessor you had con- 
 fessed to ? No ; he is dead. He heard what I had to say. He sent me 
 to Rome. I saw the grand vicar, and an English lawyer, and a 
 Phillippine father. They said I must come here. I said all I have 
 been saying here. z I have had my expenses on coming over here to 
 this trial paid by the lady who brought me here, but I have not 
 received even half a biocchi in money. That lady now lives with 
 us. She is a Roman Catholic. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Bramwell. After what happened with 
 Achilli, I went to a convent for three years. I was not a nun, but 
 went to try if I had a vocation to be one ; if the Lord called me to 
 it. My confessor advised me to go. He said I was in danger of 
 becoming a disreputable character. I found I had not a vocation to 
 be a nun. I afterwards married. I never had mentioned to me 
 
 y That she should tell the truth, of course ; but not only, however, did Sir F. 
 Thesiger, when he put the question, but Lord Campbell, in reading over the 
 evidence, repeat the answer in a tone the one of sneering sarcasm, the other, 
 of grave suspicion calculated to create the impression that the priest was , 
 suborning false evidence. Is this an illustration of a fair trial ? 
 
 z Sir F. Thesiger's cross-examination lasted nearly two hours. It is impos- 
 sible to imagine a more trying test for a witness a female, and a foreigner as 
 to events occurring twenty-three years ago ; but the universal impression was, 
 that her evidence was strengthened, instead of being weakened, by the owleal.
 
 SO REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 the affair with Achilli, except by the man, who said Achilli had 
 told him of it. a 
 
 The Rev. Joseph Giotti (generally known as Father Vincent), was 
 then examined by Mr. Addison. He said : I am a native of Viterbo, 
 and am thirty-two years of age. I received part of my education at 
 the Lyceum College, at Viterbo. Achilli was then professor of philo- 
 sophy there, and was in priest's orders and a Dominican monk. What 
 was his character? The Solicitor General objected to the question. 
 Mr .Addison. This is upon the charge that he had earned the reputation 
 of a scandalous friar. Lord CAMPBELL. What was his moral cha- 
 racter? Very bad. His reputation was bad ? Yes. By Mr. Addison. 
 Were these charges pending against him in the Bishop's Court ? The 
 Attorney General objected to the form of the question." Mr. Addison. 
 Is there a court there called the Bishop's Court? Yes. Who pre- 
 sides in it ? The grand vicar. Do you know of proceedings against 
 him in that court? Yes. Have you acted as secretary? Yes. At 
 the time of the proceedings? No. c I was at Viterbo when Achilli 
 left that place : he left suddenly. Did he escape ? I do not know. 
 How did he leave ? He was not found. What do you mean by his not 
 being found? I cannot explain myself further : he was not found. d I 
 was not there for a day or two before he left. The archives of the 
 Bishop's Court, at Viterbo, were all burnt during the last revolution, in 
 1849. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir F. Kelly. Achilli left Viterbo in 1834. I 
 was then about thirteen years of age. I have never seen him since he 
 left. I received a subpoena to attend this trial in the beginning of last 
 December, from Mr. Flannagan, an Irish priest. I was then and am 
 now a priest at Broadway, Worcester. I have, since December last, 
 been abroad, in order to obtain information about this business. I have 
 seen the person who bore the name of Rosa di Alessandris. 6 I saw 
 her once at Viterbo. I did not give nor offer to her, or any one else, 
 money to give evidence about this business. I saw several persons 
 when abroad with reference to this business. I did not induce any one 
 
 * What an illustration of the powerful effects of the sacraments of the Church 
 is this poor girl's case ! What a contrast to the instances adduced of females 
 in this country who had similarly fallen ; but, alas ! had not been similarly 
 reclaimed ! 
 
 This witness was upwards of three hours under examination ; and at its close, 
 I heard on all sides exclamations to the effect that her evidence was unim- 
 peachable. And this was the witness given up by Lord Campbell to Sir F. The- 
 siger's cruel imputations of perjury ! 
 
 b This is a specimen of the strictness with which the prosecutor's counsel 
 scrutinized the evidence and objected in every possible way. 
 
 c Mentioned in the plea ; one of the many witnesses Dr. Newman could not 
 procure. 
 
 d This is an instance of the scrupulousness with which a good Catholic will 
 swear, though it was set down as equivocation, or fencing. How could he swear 
 that Achilli had absconded (which was what counsel were driving at) if not 
 actually and personally cognisant of it, however he might infer it from the facts ? 
 A witness on oath is not to state inferences, but facts ; and facts to which he can 
 safely swear of his own knowledge. Such is the force of prejudice, that even 
 educated persons conceived that this conscientiousness was "Jesuitical." In Jar- 
 dine's Criminal Trials will be seen similar instances of prejudice against priests, 
 simply for answering circumspectly and scrupulously. 
 
 e So he could not state anything as to them of his own knowledge.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 81 
 
 to come over as a witness ; but I did see many persons who are not 
 here. I did not seek out any one. Persons came to me spontaneously 
 as soon as they heard what I was come about. It is a small town, and 
 my errand was soon known. I put myself in communication with the 
 
 Fand vicar at Viterbo, and with a Dominican priest, named Zoppiri. 
 know the last witness. I saw her in Italy. I did not interrogate 
 her. I saw her in company with her husband. Dr. Newman was the 
 person who employed me to go to Italy. I was at Viterbo about fifteen 
 days, and was occupied during the greater part of that time in seeing 
 persons with respect to this matter. I was in Rome about seven or 
 eight days. I saw there three persons with respect to their giving evi- 
 dence. I believe none of them are witnesses. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Bramwell. I saw Rosa di Alessandris at 
 Rome. Did you endeavour to persuade her to come to this country to 
 give evidence ? I told her to do so. She refused. She was unwell. 
 She was in the family-way. I saw the chief of the police at Viterbo. 
 He gave me a document I produce. It is his private copy of the pro- 
 ceedings against Achilli. I made the copy of it. Lord CAMPBELL (to 
 counsel). How do you propose to make this evidence? f Mr. Bramwell. 
 I was trying to "see how, my Lord. (To the witness) Has it any 
 seal? It has the authenticated seal of the city. Lord CAMPBELL 
 (with much acerbity) If it were authenticated a hundred times it 
 would not be evidence.* Mr. Bramwell. I thought so, my Lord. 
 
 Sophia Maria Balisano 1 ' was then examined by Mr. Badeley, and re- 
 plied in her native language, rendered by the interpreters. I shall have 
 been married eight years in November next, and my maiden name was 
 Principe. I am not certain that I am yet twenty-eight years of age. 
 Before I married I lived at Naples. I knew Dr. Achilli' there : that 
 is about twelve or thirteen years ago ; when about thirteen or fourteen 
 years of age. I at that time frequented the church of St. Peter for 
 prayer, and first saw Dr. Achilli in the sacristy of that church, who 
 was sub-prior, when I went to make a small offering of money at an 
 image. 1 The purpose for which I went led me into the sacristy. 
 I went one day alone, and he shut the door of the sacristy. "l 
 wished to leave, but he prevented it, and dishonoured me. He used 
 violence. I tried to get away, and struggled with him. I was 
 before a virgin ; I then became pregnant. Before my confinement 
 
 f This was said with much acerbity, without waiting to see how it would be 
 admissible. 
 
 f Here is a specimen of the technical strictness of the law of England. A 
 copy of a public document (destroyed), made by a public officer, and authenticated 
 by a public seal, is inadmissible. It is to be observed, that as the officer's was only 
 a copy, the witness's (duly authenticated) was as good, there being no degrees 
 in secondary evidence ; so that the officer's copy could not have been admitted ! 
 How strikingly this shows the terrible difficulties a defendant encounters in such 
 a case in obtaining legal proof. 
 
 h She is a middle-aged woman, belonging, like Giustini, to the humbler 
 classes, and gave her evidence in a quick manner, with a good deal of gesticulation, 
 and with every appearance of sincerity and veracity. 
 
 ' The paper she identified, and which was afterwards shown to Achilli, in his 
 cross-examination, related to a pia unione, in honour of the Blessed Virgin, 
 one of the obligations being to visit her image in the chapels in question, for the 
 purpose of praying for the divine mercy through her intercession. The giving of 
 alms was only an incidental duty of the members, and did not necessarily lead 
 them to the sacribty, nor out of the church. The Church has always encouraged 
 G
 
 8.2 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 ray father and mother went to Dr. Achilli ; I, however, was not with 
 them. I remonstrated with him at the time, and said it was a harm 
 and an evil he was doing ; but he replied, that it was no harm that it 
 was rather a good than an evil. I did not return from the church }>y 
 the same door at which I entered. Mr. Badeley. Did he make you 
 any presents ? Witness (with great contempt). A bit of sweetmeat 
 from time to time. j (Great laughter.) The thing produced great dis- 
 tress in my family ; my father, three years afterwards, died from 
 illness arising out of it. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. I left Naples on the 16th 
 of January, and my mother accompanied me to Civita Vecchia. Who 
 desired you to come from Naples here ? A Dominican father named 
 Scrouli. How did he discover that you knew anything of Achilli ? 
 Because I went to the tribunals at Naples, and it was a well-known 
 thing. How came he to ask you? A trial took place in Naples about 
 thirteen or fourteen years ago : he asked me if the thing were true or 
 not? In coming to' this country everything I have required I have 
 had, but no money, for it was not necessary. I came alone a great 
 part of the journey, but it is a Phillipian father who has taken care 
 of me, and I don't know what or how much he has paid. I have been 
 in England about two months, and while in Paris met with the witness 
 Giustini. We are now living together, and we have talked together 
 about the business. Have you conversed with any priest since 
 coming over about giving evidence? No. When I went to put money 
 under the image of the saint I saw Dr. Achilli alone. There were other 
 people coming to pay, but of Dominican monks none except him. The 
 church was open all day : it was closed at twelve, and re-opened at 
 vespers. The sacristy was a first room ; there was a second where the 
 vestments were kept, and there was a third where he sat. The door of 
 the sacristy w r as in one way, and the entrance to these other rooms in 
 another. I went to the sacristy to put down my name, but the money 
 was paid at the end of the year, and this was done by many. I used 
 to go at different hours, when I knew Dr. Achilli would be engaged on 
 this particular business. It was in the morning, about nine or ten, 
 when the act happened, and between November and December, but I do 
 not remember the exact date. I went through the church to get to the 
 sacristy, and there were many people in the church at the time. I 
 Avent in and presented a little book, which he took and turned over. 
 He then locked the door ; I felt some fear ; but he said, " Be quiet, or 
 shame will grow out of it." I said, " You are a priest, let me go ;" he 
 replied, " Oh, this is no sin." I did not call out ; nobody could have 
 
 confraternities (the origin of our Saxon " guilds," the precursors of corporations), 
 which had originally a religious character, and are extremely ancient. There yet 
 remains at Rome an inscription relative to the establishment of one ; and even 
 as early as the reign of Constantine the Great, the Christians began to form such 
 associations. The arch-confraternity of " Raccommandate di S. Maria," was 
 founded in the thirteenth century. It was half-religious and half chivalrous, 
 and in the fourteenth century rendered great services to the poor, and still 
 exists ; and a modern traveller states it has one hundred and twenty-four foreign 
 "filiations." 
 
 J A modern traveller says : " Many of the lay confraternities came on Sun- 
 days and festivals, with sweetmeats for the sick." The practice of giving 
 sweetmeats is common, it is clear, in Italy ; but an ignorant English jury, very 
 likely, would think it strange.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 83 
 
 beard me there, and I had not the strength, because he said to me, 
 " You are all red in the face now. You had better wait and go out by 
 the monks' entrance, and not through the church." The exit from the 
 sacristy in that way was also locked, but with a sort of latch, and not 
 a large key. Dr. Achilli showed me the way out, opening the door and 
 looking if there was anybody about the entrance. I did not at first tell 
 anybody of what had happened, but when I had increased so much in 
 size that I could not conceal the fact, I told my mother ; that was in 
 February or March. I did not complain to him ; my father and 
 mother went. He knew that I was in the family-way, but denied that 
 he had anything to do with it. Dr. Achilli resided in Naples a year 
 or more after I spoke to my mother. 
 
 This terminated the cross-examination, and at past four o'clock the 
 Court rose, reserving the re-examination till to-morrow. 
 
 SECOND DAY. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE took his seat at half-past nine. There 
 was a delay of a few minutes on account of the witnesses not having 
 arrived. Lord CAMPBELL asked Mr. Letcin very roughly " Are 
 you the defendant's attorney, sir?" " Why are not your witnesses 
 here ?" "They will be here directly, my lord." " Where are they, 
 sir?" "In Manchester-buildings, my lord." "Why are they not 
 here, sir?" " A clerk has gone for them, my lord ; they will be 
 here in a moment." " They ought to be here now ! The Court 
 ought not to delayed !" k Shortly after they arrived 
 
 Maria Giovanna Principe was recalled and re-examined by Mr. Bram- 
 well. The society to which I belonged was one which Dr. Achilli had 
 founded. I paid money. Many others paid besides myself. We were 
 not called by the name of any society. We received a paper like this 
 (produced). I received it from Achilli. I do not know whether these 
 payments commenced after he came. I never was at that church after 
 he left it. I do not remember his leaving the church. A short time 
 before he left my mother was aware of this circumstance. I went 
 before the police at Naples about Achilli. I saw a commissary of 
 police there. I made a statement, always repeating what had happened. 
 My father and mother went there also. Achilli was not there. I never 
 spoke to him in the streets. I visited him afterwards in the sacristy. 
 
 k The most appropriate comment on this ebullition is the observation of a 
 barrister (a stranger to the contest), "What an affectation of haste!" The 
 whole delay was about five minutes, and Lord Campbell well knew the " reason 
 why." He was well aware that it was of the utmost importance to keep the 
 defendant's witnesses from communication with the prosecutor, who was in the 
 precincts of the court ; and he also knew that there are no proper waiting-rooms 
 for witnesses in Westminster Hall. Indeed, the absence of accommodation is 
 disgraceful, and as detrimental to the administration of justice ; and in such a 
 case there seemed no reason to aggravate the difficulties of so arduous a case by 
 this rough rebuke. It is a small circumstance in itself, but sufficient to show 
 the secret animus. Separately these incidents are insignificant, their accumu- 
 lation is suspicious. Straws floating in the same direction show the current 
 clearly. 
 
 a 2
 
 84 REPORT OF THK TRF.VL. 
 
 Cross-examined by tiie Attorney General. I went before the commis- 
 sary of police before I was delivered. That was when I was four or five 
 months gone with child. Achilli was still in Naples at that time. He 
 was brought before the police. He caused my father to be called before 
 the commissary. I never met Achilli before the police. When Achilli 
 went before the police I did not go. I was only once before the police. 
 I think the event was repeated seven or eight times in the sacristy, 
 between December and Lent. My mother knew of it at that time. 
 Achilli did not leave Naples for some time afterwards, after I knew 
 myself to be with child. I know why Achilli brought iny father before 
 the police. It was to say that my family had uttered this calumny 
 against him, and that it was a calumny. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir A. Cockburn. My father was called a second 
 time before the police, after I had made the complaint. Nothing was 
 done to him upon the complaint of Achilli. The commissary had 
 informed himself, between the two complaints, whether my family 
 was an honest one, and whether I was an honest girl. Afterwards he, 
 hearing the truth, sent for my father, and then he gave the papers to 
 another tribunal. My father was sent for a third time, and other times 
 as the knowledge of the commissary increased. How did it end ? The 
 Solicitor General objected. Lord CAMPBELL ruled that the question 
 was irregular. Sir A. Cockburn. You went into it yourselves ! 
 
 Signora Principe was then called and examined by Sir^l. Cockburn. 
 I am the mother of the last witness. I knew of my daughter being in 
 the family way, but I do not remember the month or year. My daughter 
 was not then married. She was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. 
 I learned from my daughter who was the father of the child. I saw 
 her weak and ill. I inquired of her what was the matter. She told 
 me everything. She had always conducted herself well up to that time. 
 I have seen Dr. Achilli about this matter. I saw him after my daughter 
 told me who was the father. He was in a procession, 1 and I and my 
 husband took him aside. We called him into a house, and told him the 
 affair. He was angry. He said it was not him. He said, " I am a 
 priest." I said, " I will apply first to Divine justice, and then to the 
 laws of my country." He then turned from me and said, " Go to the 
 devil if you like, to me it matters nothing." I afterwards saw him 
 again. He caused me to be called before the commissary of police. I 
 went before the commissary. My husband was summoned with me. 
 We both of us went. That was a few days after the conversation I 
 had had with Dr. Achilli. Dr. Achilli was not present before the com- 
 missary. My daughter was afterwards taken before the commissary. 
 Dr. Achilli, when he went to the commissary, stated that a low family 
 had calumniated him. The commissary then sent for the father, wishing 
 to know how the priest was involved in the matter. My daughter then 
 went to the commissary, because he (the commissary) told us we were 
 to take her before him, and we did so. He wished to ascertain the age 
 
 1 Achilli swore this could not be true, because (as Sir A. Cockburn said he 
 always would give a reason) it was not allowable to speak to a monk in a pro- 
 cession ; and one of the jury eagerly seized hold of this, and nodded his head 
 sagely. As if a person under such circumstances would stand on etiquette ! Sir A. 
 Cockburn put it far more truly, that this very incident showed the force of these 
 feelings. And be it observed, that if all this evidence had been according to the 
 atrocious invention of the Attorney General, " trumped up by ecclesiastics," they 
 could hardly have framed so out of the way an incident, but have chosen a more 
 3ual and common manner of communication. See note to his examination.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 85 
 
 of my daughter. The commissary caused my daughter to confess every- 
 thing that had happened. We were not condemned for the charge we 
 had made against Dr. Achilli. Dr. Achilli left Naples after this I 
 don't know how long after, but we lost sight of him. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Solicitor General. I am fifty-nine years 
 of age. I was twenty-four or twenty-five years old when 
 my daughter was born. She was born at Naples, and I lived 
 there until this affair happened. I have never left Naples, My 
 husband was a baker. I had no business of my own. There is 
 nothing which will enable me to tell what year this took place 
 with Dr. Achilli. I can only guess : it happened between thirteen 
 or fourteen years ago. My husband died three or four years afterwards 
 of a disease of the heart. I did not know Dr. Achilli before this circum- 
 stance, but I knew him by sight ; I saw him preaching in all the 
 churches. Dr. Achilli might stay at Naples a year or two after this 
 occurrence. I cannot say how long he remained. I saw him in the 
 procession four or five days after I knew of the pregnancy. The mat- 
 ter was before the police altogether three or four months. It was about 
 a month after I saw Dr. Achilli in the procession that he applied to the 
 police. Dr. Achilli did not preach in the churches for more than a year 
 after the application to the police. I saw him when I first spoke to 
 him, then 1 never saw him any more. My daughter lived with me 
 three or four months after her confinement. I was then forced to send 
 her to work. She went to work. I used to take her there and fetch 
 her back. Mr. daughter married eight years ago ; that was one year 
 before my husband's death. 
 
 Antonio Russo m examined by Serjeant Wilkins. I am a resident at 
 Corfu, and am a carpenter. I know Garimoni, a tailor, at Corfu. One 
 night in July, 1844, I was walking with Marino Vanice in the street of 
 Viannello. We passed the house of the mother-in-law of Garimoni. 
 As we passed the house, Garimoni opened the door. He called me in, 
 and pointed out some one to me and my friend. He said, " Here is a 
 Catholic priest, Achilli." I saw Achilli on the stairs near the apart- 
 ment of the wife of Garimoni. This was about eleven o'clock at night. 
 It was dark. I took hold of him and said, " What are you doing 
 here ?" He trembling answered me, " Nothing." I know it was Achilli, 
 because Garimoni called out, and a lamp was brought. I distinctly saw 
 his face. Garimoni was very angry, and scolded his wife. He was 
 also very angry with Achilli. A police officer was called for by Gari- 
 moni. Achilli was trembling, but did nothing. When the light was 
 brought, the constable not being there, Achilli stepped through, and 
 escaped. He ran away like a horse. I and Vanice were afterwards 
 called before the Court. It was eight or nine days afterwards. There 
 were depositions taken." I was examined. Garimoni was in England 
 for some time two or three months. He went away about a month ago. 
 
 m The witness was an honest-looking fellow, who spoke with every appearance 
 of truthfulness. 
 
 " This commences the evidence as to the case of Garimoni ; the next witness 
 also refers to it. It will be seen from the affidavit of Garimoni (see ante}, 
 that he was prepared to be a witness for Dr. Newman, and was only prevented 
 by the delay of the trial, which compelled him to return to Naples ; the docu- 
 ments produced by the Corfu judge, Mr. Kirkpatrick, support the story ; which 
 is also confirmed by Achilli himself, and his own witness, the wife, especially by 
 the inconsistency between his evidence and hers. And all this was put aside 
 by the jury and the judge, simply because Achilli chose in terms to deny it !
 
 00 REPORT OP THE TKIAL. 
 
 Cross-examined. I came over with Garimoni and lived with him 
 here. I know Captain Lawrence, inspector of police at Corfu. Gari- 
 moni left this country, but I cannot tell when, because I also went 
 away for one or two days. I went to Paris and Corfu, and then re- 
 turned here. Before Garimoni and I left I had not heard of the arrival 
 of Captain Lawrence. I heard that in Corfu. I did not tell Garimoni 
 of it, because everybody in Corfu knew it. When I came back I 
 found Garimoni was gone, but I knew he was at Corfu. I have had 
 the misfortune to be imprisoned at Corfu once. I was put in once for 
 two or three hours for some youthful trifle. I mean to say I have only 
 been imprisoned once at Corfu. I had beaten my brother, and was 
 imprisoned again. Once more I have been accused, but not convicted. 
 They said it was for robbery. I was three days, or two, or four, in 
 prison for that. I cannot swear I have not been in prison four times, 
 because when a child I was taken up. In 1840, 1843, 1844, or 1845, I 
 do not recollect whether I was in prison. I was never in the house of 
 Garimoni's mother-in-law before that time. I do not know whether 
 Garimoni lived with his wife. When Dr. Achilli ran away like a 
 horse I do not know where he went. I do not know that Dr. Achilli 
 lived next door to Garimoni's mother-in-law. I never knew Dr. Achilli 
 before that evening, not even by sight. After this fact I never set eyes 
 upon him. I was called before the court at Corfu upon this business. 1 " I 
 have not said my deposition was taken in Corfu. 
 
 Re-examined by Serjeant Wilkins. I was never charged with theft 
 more than once, and it was not true. The trifles for which I was im- 
 prisoned were for being in the streets, or a little intoxicated. When 
 Garimoni said it was Achilli in the house it was loud enough for Achilli 
 to hear him. The lamp was put to his face by the wife of Garimoni, 
 by the desire of the husband, who obliged the wife to bring the lamp. 
 
 Giovanni Patriniani examined by Mr. Badeley, through an interpre- 
 ter. I am a jeweller at Corfu. I know Dr. Achilli. I have seen him 
 at Corfu several times. I know Garimoni. I received communica- 
 tions from him as to his wife, which led me to observe the house of his 
 mother-in-law. He took me one night to watch between ten and eleven. 
 We saw a man come out ; it appeared to be Achilli from his stature. I 
 was acquainted with Achilli. I knew the wife of Coriboni ; she was a 
 woman of bad character ; her name was Albina. 
 
 Sir F. Thesiger declined to cross-examine this witness. 
 
 Bocchiciampi examined by Mr. Addison. I knew Achilli in Ancona 
 in 1841. He sought my acquaintance, his object being to go to Corfu, 
 I had a passport for Corfu, and he asked my permission to insert his 
 name in the passport. I gave it to him. He went to the English consul. 
 His name was inserted in it ; he told me he could not get out of Italy 
 for want of a passport ; he had not money to pay his passage. Did you 
 
 In the face of this fact (confirmed by the documents produced by the judges), 
 the Attorney General ought to have shrunk from imputing false swearing ; 
 and Lord Campbell, in the case of Principe, admitted that the matter, having 
 been brought forward publicly at the time, was very strong evidence of its 
 truth ; though he did not say so in this instance. Why did he not ? He, 
 however, did say one of the charges in this case was proved ; yet the jury found 
 it not proved ! 
 
 P Why not ? Sir F. Thesiger objected to the very kind of question which 
 afterwards Lord Campbell was compelled to admit might be put; though 
 here by his tone he encouraged the jury to object. See Achilli's cross- 
 examination.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 87 
 
 get repaid ? The Attorney General objected to the question. Lord 
 CAMPBELL. I do not see how it bears on the charges.* 1 Mr. Addison. 
 At Ancona did you observe him with females at an hotel? The Attor- 
 ney General objected ; what charge is this upon ? Sir A. Cockburn. 
 General immorality. Do you shrink from it? Lord CAMPBELL (sternly). 
 That is not fair ! The Attorney General. I am bound to take care 
 that no question be irregularly put. Sir A. Cockburn. There is a 
 general charge of profligacy and unpriestlike conduct. Lord CAMPBELL. 
 But can you give evidence of such conduct in any part of the world ? 
 By Mr. Addison. I have seen Achilli at Corfu. There was a woman 
 living in his house, a servant. Have you seen him in a bad part of the 
 town frequented by bad women ? Yes. More than once ? Yes. The 
 Attorney General. I really must interpose ! Nothing is charged as to 
 Corfu but Coriboni and Garimoni. Sir A. Cockburn. You compelled 
 us to give those names. Lord CAMPBELL would not allow the line of 
 examination to be proceeded with. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. It was in 1841 or 1842 I 
 accompanied Dr. Achilli to Corfu. That was after he had been confined 
 in the prisons of the Inquisition ? r Yes. 
 
 Mr. W. A. Reynolds, examined by Sir A. Cockburn. I was em- 
 ployed at Zante and the Ionian Islands, by the government, for twenty- 
 five* years. I have retired on half-pay. I was collector of customs 
 from 1842 to 1851. I remember Dr. Achilli being brought to my 
 house at Zante, by Captain Ford and his family. He spoke to me upon 
 the subject of establishing an Italian Protestant church in the island, 
 in the autumn of 1844. He asked for my assistance and co-operation. 
 He said he was taking a house for that purpose, and he did so in a few 
 days. It was on the opposite side of the road, contiguous to mine. I 
 assisted him in his object. Subscriptions were entered into. The 
 chapel was opened in 1844. I attended on the first occasion. I was 
 struck by the appearance of a woman of notoriously bad character, 
 who acted as doorkeeper, and let us in. I knew her by sight from 
 having seen her in Cephalonia, where she carried on the life of a com- 
 mon prostitute, her husband bringing persons to her. My dressing- 
 room looked towards the back of her house, and I had friends living in 
 the street in the front of her house. I often visited those friends. Her 
 dress was very peculiar. She was always standing at the door, with 
 her person much exposed. Everybody in the place knew what she was. 
 Her husband was a chorus singer. He used to bring home friends to 
 her. Her husband acted as Dr. Achilli's clerk, reading the Church of 
 England prayers. I considered it my duty to call on Dr. Achilli the 
 next morning. I told him I should be excessively sorry to deprive him 
 of good servants, whom, I dared to say, he had taken on the recom- 
 mendation of some friends ; but I considered it my duty to inform him 
 
 i The object of this part of the cross-examination was to show that Garimoni 
 had departed from a fear of Captain Lawrence's disclosures, as chief of the police. 
 But see the affidavit of Garimoni (see ante). First, the prosecutor's lawyers 
 protracted the trial so that defendant's witnesses had to leave ; and then they try 
 to blast their characters ! 
 
 ' Of course, the object of this was to counteract any awkward ideas about 
 absconding, and excite the sympathies (or bigotries) of the jury. It was enough 
 to turn the current of their feelings had it set ever so strongly against him. The 
 very words, "prisons of the Inquisition," seemed always to have mysterious 
 potency. Throughout this was the prosecutor's cheval de bataille.
 
 88 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 of their bad character, and the impropriety of keeping them in his 
 service. I told him everything I knew of the woman and her husband. 
 He said he was aware already of her previous character ; that he hoped 
 she had become a second Magdalen ; that he considered it his duty, as 
 a clergyman, to continue his protection to her. I believe I rejoined he 
 was free to give what charity he liked, but it was a very improper thing 
 forcing her upon the congregation ; and that if I saw either of them 
 there again I would leave the chapel instantly, and I was convinced if 
 I did so all the rest of the English would follow my example. I had 
 my wife and daughter, and servant, living with me at that time. My 
 house was opposite Dr. Achilli's, commanding a view of the room on 
 his upper floor, which room was used by this woman as a laundry. 
 The distance from my house to that room was, perhaps, fifteen or 
 twenty feet. After that conversation, I several times saw Dr. A chilli 
 in that room with that \voman. I have seen him in his shirt-sleeves, 
 and the woman in her open undress, working at her ironing. I could 
 only see the upper part of his person. 5 Her shoulders were almost bare, 
 as she usually dressed. She had no gown on then, as is common with 
 that class of women. I have seen Dr. Achilli put his hands on her 
 shoulders and on her bosom, talking and laughing all the time. I have 
 seen it several times. I kept my blinds down on account of my 
 daughters, it being an improper sight for them. The blinds were also 
 kept down at the next house to mine. I saw Dr. Achilli after this, and 
 expostulated with him. He said it was his duty, she being a Magdalen, 
 to support her against all the world. Lord CAMPBELL. Did you 
 charge him with the indecent familiarities ? I did not mention exactly 
 all I had seen ; but I told him he was too familiar with his servant, and 
 that I had seen so much going on, that I considered it necessary to stop 
 it. I advised him to send her and her husband away. I saw him after 
 this time at my own house. I did not go to see him. He came to me. 
 I requested my wife to leave the room. I then, in private, told him 
 what I had seen, and I insisted on his sending them away. He became 
 extremely violent ; he never denied his connection with the woman. 
 [The Attorney General (angrily). " He never denied his connection 
 with the woman ! " Lord CAMPBELL. Did you charge him with it ? 
 I charged him with familiarities. Lord CAMPBELL (with an air of 
 extreme indignation). Sir, you surprise me ! 1 am astonished that you 
 should venture to make such an observation ! You never charged him 
 with criminal intercourse?' Witness. I charged him with the 
 indecent familiarities. Sir A. Cockburn. Did he deny the fami- 
 liarities ? No.] My wife came down and the conversation was put an 
 end to. After I had remonstrated with him, I went once through his 
 bed-room. There was a bed with two pillows. I said, " It is a double 
 bed." I do not remember how he turned it off. There was a table 
 
 s This is important ; it destroys the whole force of the reason Achilli gave for 
 the improbability of the statement, and strongly confirms it. Achilli said it was 
 impossible, for his house was higher than the witness's, so that the latter would 
 have to look upwards; the effect of which would be precisely what the witness 
 described that he could see only the upper part of the person, to the waist. 
 
 ' As if this were not necessarily implied in such indecencies ! Let the reader 
 observe the roughness with which, at a hint from the prosecutor's counsel, this 
 most respectable witness was thus most unjustifiably assailed, before a jury 
 already obviously prejudiced, and with whom this episode was enough to destroy 
 the credit of the witness. No such ebullition occurred on any occasion against 
 any one who appeared on the part of the prosecutor.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 laid in his dining-room for two persons. I apologized for intruding, as 
 I saw he was going to have a friend to dinner. He said it was only 
 the table laid for himself and poor Albina," as he made her dine with 
 him. I was out one evening when the band was playing near the 
 Mole. There were some friends with me. My attention was called to 
 Dr. Achilli being behind me with this woman leaning on his arm. 
 I quitted the congregation. The other English residents did the same, 
 on account of this business. The matter made much stir. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. I arrived here on the 15th 
 February last. I left the Ionian Islands on the 6th February. I then 
 went to Malta. I was collector of customs. The chapel had not been 
 established many months. Coriboni's wife acted as door-keeper at the 
 chapel on the first occasion only, and her husband only once acted as 
 clerk. My windows had jalousies. The windows to Dr. Achilli's room 
 were quite open. I saw these familiarities several times five or six 
 times, perhaps, or it might be oftener. They were always the same 
 sort of familiarities. I, perhaps, saw them for five or six minutes. 
 They continued after my remonstrances, the windows still open. Dr. 
 Achilli was quite aware I had seen all this. I could see perfectly well. 
 I had told him I could see, but they continued/ I attended the chapel 
 once or twice afterwards. I do not know about what time the last re- 
 monstrance was made. Pray, sir, has not Dr. Achilli remonstrated 
 with you ? With me ? upon what ? Upon anything I ask you, sir, 
 has he not remonstrated with you ? No ; I cannot understand on what 
 he should remonstrate with me. Why, sir, has he not remonstrated 
 with you for your habitual intemperance? For my intemperance? 
 certainly not. Mr. Reynolds, remember ! I know I am upon my oath, 
 sir. Did he never remonstrate with you ? No ! never ! You never 
 were intemperate ? I am not an intemperate man. I might have been 
 at a dinner party a little jovial, as other men are, but I am not in the 
 habit of being intoxicated all men are a little intemperate, perhaps, 
 now and then. The Attorney General: I don't know that. Witness : 
 Dr. Achilli never remonstrated with me upon the subject. If I had 
 been intemperate I should not have served the Ionian government 
 twenty-five years. Mrs. Read, who lived next door to me, had her 
 blinds pulled down. She is dead, but Mr. Read is living, and in this 
 country, but he is nearly blind. Dr. Achilli took me over his house to 
 show it to me. His bed-room was on the third floor. I have talked to 
 Lieut. Stoney about this matter. I think I told him that the reasons of 
 
 u An observable coincidence with the evidence of Patriniani, who said that was 
 her name. This was not mentioned in the charge. 
 
 v Yes ; but Achilli swore the witness could not see ; and if he truly swore 
 according to his own belief, that would of course amply account for his being 
 reckless about these familiarities, supposing him to have committed them. 
 Therefore, this part of the cross-examination, pointing to improbability on the 
 score of recklessness (on which Lord Campbell strongly relied, in discre- 
 diting this witness), quite breaks down. Indeed, the whole principle of such 
 objections to evidence, otherwise respectable, is founded on a flagrant fallacy 
 the assuming that persons who are very lustful are likely to be very careful. As 
 if passion might not run away with prudence ! As if sensuality might not be 
 supposed to besot the mind, and make it blind to consequences ! As if all great 
 crimes did not presuppose this sort of besottedness. Yet this palpable fallacy, 
 pressed again and again in different forms, was the staple of Lord Campbell's 
 charge, and the sole argument for disregarding a whole body of respectable 
 testimony !
 
 90 REPORT OF TUB TRIAL. 
 
 my suspicions were the two pillows to the bed and the two covers on the 
 table. I know Captain Read. He was at the Ionian Islands. I have so 
 far assisted in this case that I was asked by Messrs. Lewin, the attorneys 
 of Dr. Newman, to go to Corfu and meet the gentlemen they had sent 
 there. I was asked to go out on account of my knowledge of the 
 place. I had told them what I knew, and they eng'aged me as a witness. 
 I told them what I knew by letter from Malta in November or Decem- 
 ber last. I wrote to them in consequence of seeing the circumstance in 
 the papers. Have you any relations of the Roman Catholic persua- 
 sion?* No. I found a Roman Catholic gentleman at Corfu, Dr. 
 Scandeller, who had been written to. I know Parson Mitchell ; he was 
 at one time chaplain to the forces in Cephalonia. I don't know that 
 he was engaged in this matter. I have not been paid, but expect to be 
 paid after the rate granted to merchants or bankers. 1 I have not the 
 least idea what it will be. I expect to receive 11. & day up to this time. 
 I brought down the witnesses the other day, and subpoenaed some of the 
 Italian ladies.? I gave Mr. Stoney a subpoena at Plymouth, as I live 
 in that neighbourhood. I gave the witnesses no notice that the trial 
 was deferred. I did not see Dr. Achilli after I withdrew from 
 the chapel. My wife was confined to her bed, and therefore did 
 not see anything. A servant of mine witnessed these familiarities. 
 She sat at the window, which commanded a view of the laundry. 
 There were from seventeen to twenty-five English who attended the 
 chapel. This letter (produced) is in my hand-writing. The Attorney 
 General read the letter (addressed to Lieut. Stoney), as follows : " Can 
 you come up to give evidence in an action of libel, brought by Giovanni 
 Achilli, our ci-devant parson, against Dr. Newman, in relation to his 
 living with the wife of a chorus singer as his concubine, at Zante, 
 about which I kicked up such a row. You cannot have forgotten 
 it ! Do you remember a conversation with Achilli as to my quitting 
 the congregation, because he would continue to keep that woman 
 with him ? If you can speak to the point, Lewin will send you the 
 sum we mentioned, to pay the expenses up and down, and for the 
 stay in London ; in fact, they are quite disposed to be liberal/ You 
 need not be ashamed to appear in the case, for Lord Shaftesbury and 
 several clergymen are summoned."* (To the witness) What did you 
 
 w And what if he had ? Are Roman Catholics to be supposed by reason of 
 their religion ready to suborn perjury ? This unworthy insinuation is the sub- 
 stratum of the Attorney General's case. 
 
 1 That is for his expenses, of course. 
 
 y Because he understood Italian. Lord Campbell made as much of this as the 
 Attorney General ; but what does it come to ? 
 
 1 The Attorney General well knew that this meant merely expenses, which a 
 witness could claim ; for his clients had clearly been in communication with 
 Storey or they could not have got the letter. Was this a fair use of the 
 license of counsel, to insinuate subornation of perjury, on such a misrepresenta- 
 tion ? 
 
 " The Attorney General would never have dared, had he not known that he 
 had judge and jury with him, to read this letter, which so thoroughly con- 
 firmed the witness's evidence when the explanation of it (of which the Attorney 
 General was fully aware) was given. For if the witness's statements were not 
 true, Stoney could have been called to disprove them. And, now, will it be 
 believed that Lord Campbell discredited this witness in his charge, by refer- 
 ring to the insinuation, without alluding to the explanation hinting that he 
 had been concerned in getting up the case, without mentioning that it was
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 91 
 
 mean, then, by their being " disposed to be liberal ?" Only that he had 
 said he would not come up without being paid his expenses. Lord 
 CAMPBELL. Who told you they would be liberal? I merely said so 
 on my own authority. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir A. Cockburn. How did it happen that you 
 served three witnesses with subpoanas ? I happened to be at Mr. 
 Lewin's office, and was going down where they were living, and was 
 asked to hand them over. This Lieut. Stoney : you have known him 
 several years? Yes. And he, as an officer, objected to come up unless 
 paid his full expenses ? Yes ; he was a family man, on small means, 
 and could not afford to come at his own expense. When did he say 
 that ? In Liverpool, in March. You had spoken to him, then, on the 
 subject? Yes. Was he unwilling to come as a witness? Yes. And 
 so in consequence of what had passed between you on the subject, and 
 as he was anxious to be furnished with money, you wrote to him in the 
 terms of the letter ? Yes. Was any money sent to Stoney ? No. 
 
 Rosina Lavaney examined by Mr. Addiscm, through an intrepreter in 
 French. b I am a Swiss, and now residing at Geneva as a nursery 
 governess. I was servant to Mr. Reynolds at Zante, in 1844, and con- 
 tinued so until 1851. I returned to Geneva when her and his family 
 quitted the Ionian Islands. I remember a Mr. Ford visiting Mr. Rey- 
 nolds, and introducing Dr. Achilli to that gentleman. I went to the 
 Protestant chapel the first time that it was opened, with Mr. Reynolds. 
 I then saw the wife of Coriboni on h6r knees before the door, acting as 
 pew-opener. Her husband acted as chanter or singer. I recollect Mrs. 
 Reynolds being ill. I then sat in a chamber near hers, in order to be 
 ready to attend her when called. I could, from that window, see into a 
 room in Achilli's house, which was used as a laundry. The room in 
 which I sat had Venetian blinds, which I used to have so closed that 
 though I could see through them I could not be seen. I have several 
 times seen Achilli with Coriboni's wife in that room. I have observed 
 Coriboni's wife with her neck very bare, and Achilli in his shirt- 
 sleeves. I have observed very great acts of familiarity between them. 
 The wife of Coriboni being thus uncovered, I have seen Achilli several 
 times place his hands on her shoulder and bosom. I have seen them 
 talking and laughing together. I have seen them walking together in 
 the public streets of Zante towards evening. I never saw Coriboni and 
 his wife together. The blinds in Mr. Reynolds' house, looking towards 
 Achilli's, were kept closed, because Mrs. Reynolds was ill, and could 
 not bear daylight. I do not know of any other reason for fhe blinds 
 being closed. The blinds were not always kept closed after Mrs. 
 Reynolds recovered. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. I came over from Geneva 
 about a fortnight ago. I knew about coming two or three days before 
 I came. I heard about it from Mr. Reynolds, who wrote to me. I saw 
 Mr. Reynolds after I came here. I have been living with Madame de 
 Plume, whose husband has a government office. The expenses of my 
 
 only casually, and in consequence of seeing the case in the newspapers ; and, 
 above all, Lord Campbell never a'dverted to the obvious confirmation of the wit- 
 ness's story, by the omission to call Stoney, who, if he did not know it to be 
 true, could and would have been called to contradict it ! 
 
 h The witness was an ingenuous-looking girl, who gave her evidence with 
 equal modesty and simplicity. 
 
 c No other reason would be given her ; because (as she said) it was not de- 
 cent to mention the other matter to her.
 
 92 IlKl'ORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 journey have been paid for me, but I have not received any money. 
 Mr. Reynolds paid for me. I quitted the Ionian Islands at the same 
 time as Mr. Reynolds, and came with him to Lyons, where he left me 
 for London, and I went to Geneva. Achilli and Coriboni's wife used 
 often to be together in the public streets, where every one could see 
 them. Her husband lived with them. How often did you see these 
 familiarities ? Several times. Were you very much shocked ? '' I was 
 much disgusted. Did you always turn away when you saw them ? I 
 did, after I had seen that Achilli' and Coriboni's wife acted so. 1 could 
 only see what took place when they were before the window ; had they 
 retired into the other part of the room I could not have seen them. e 
 Used he to begin the moment he came into the room ? I do not know, 
 for my window was not opposite to their door. f Only one window of 
 Mr. Reynolds' house commanded this room of Achilli's house. These 
 familiarities continued several times. Did you mention them to any 
 one but Mr. Reynolds ? I mentioned them to Mrs. Reynolds and the 
 young lady (the daughter), but to no other person, although I heard 
 other persons talking of them. Miss Reynolds was then fifteen. 1 am 
 now twenty-eight. What, did you mention these familiarities to a 
 young girl of fifteen ? She used to see it herself. She was disgusted 
 with it the first time she saw it. I do not know how often she saw it, 
 for we ceased to speak of it, as it was not decent. 
 
 Re-examined. I am a Protestant. The blinds in Mr. Reynolds' 
 house were Venetian blinds, of such a nature as one could see through 
 them without being seen. The blinds were kept shut because it was 
 hot. I heard many persons talking of this affair. 8 
 
 Vincenzo Barga examined by Mr. Badeley. I have lived in Corfu 
 twenty-three years. I am an armourer. I recollect Achilli coming to 
 Corfu as a Catholic priest. He appeared as a Protestant. Four or six 
 days after he came he declared himself a Protestant. I do not know 
 whether he was a Protestant or a Catholic. I knew Coriboni and his 
 wife. They lived together. I have seen Coriboni's wife in public as a 
 bad woman, in which character she was known and esteemed in public. 
 The Attorney General objected. How was this material? Sir A. 
 Cockburn. If she were of general and notoriously bad character, and he 
 nevertheless persisted in retaining her after remonstrances, and though 
 he was a minister of the gospel surely this would tend to show that 
 he kept her to satisfy his desires. Lord CAMPBELL. It cannot be 
 necessary. Mr. Badeley Have you seen Achilli with her ? I have 
 
 d This was said in a tone of sarcasm very ungenerous towards a girl evidently 
 innocent and ingenuous. 
 
 e Here it will be observed how this coincides with Achilli's own account of 
 the relative position of the rooms preventing persons seeing into his house, 
 except looking in an upward direction. 
 
 1 This is important, as answering the suggestion relied on by the Attorney 
 General and Lord Campbell, as to the improbability of such indecency ; for 
 in Achilli's house it would appear as if the blinds were closed. 
 
 E The Attorney General, conscious how monstrous and infamous it would 
 appear to charge the witness with perjury, artfully endeavoured to show she 
 might have sworn falsely, though not wilfully, by reason of her having seen 
 some one committing these indecencies, and then having been induced by Rey- 
 nolds to believe it was Achilli. Strange sophistry, this ! Does the Attorney 
 General think this would have been any the less perjury to swear to something 
 told her by another, and which she did uut know herself ! Because she swore 
 she saw Achilli. . ,
 
 appointed 
 the vacati 
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 93 
 
 seen Achilli enter the house where she lived. I cannot say how often. 
 Achilli left in 1843. Coriboni's wife and Achilli were said to have left 
 Corfu together. I do not know it of my own knowledge. I lost sight 
 of them both at the same time. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. It was Dr. Achilli's own 
 house, was it not ? I do not know. It was next door to the house of 
 the mother-in-law of Garimoni. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir A. CocJcburn. When did you first become 
 acquainted with the wife of Coriboni ? I knew her as a public dancer 
 at Corfu. When did she come first? The Attorney General objected. 
 Sir A. CocJcburn. Surely it is a regular question ; he has already said 
 he had seen Achilli enter the same house. Lord CAMPBELL. This is 
 a case in which, as I am anxious to arrive at the trutli by all means, I 
 will not stop the examination. Sir A. CocJcburn. When did Achilli 
 come to Corfu? I cannot say exactly. Was it after Coriboni's wife 
 had come ? I believe it was afterwards. Do you know if Coriboni's 
 wife resided all the time in the same house as Achilli ? So long as I 
 knew her she was living 1 in the same house. Was that Achilli's house 
 or her husband's ? I do not know. 
 
 The Rev. George Horatio Hadfield examined by Mr. Serjeant 
 Wilkins. I am a clergyman of the Church of England, now resident 
 at Whitchurch, Hampshire. In August or September, 1846, I was 
 principal of St. Julian's Protestant College, Malta. After 
 acation of 1847 I returned to Malta in September. I am well 
 acquainted with Achilli. On the 19th July, 1847, he was appointed 
 Italian professor of theology in that college. He came to Malta on the 
 llth December. Before he arrived, a priest, named Keosse, who had 
 been a Catholic priest, had brought certain charges against two persons 
 named Leonini and Saccares, who had been priests. The Attorney 
 General. Were these charges in writing ! I have the statement here. 
 Mr. Serjeant Wilkins. Were they Protestants ? They professed to 
 be Protestants ; they were connected with the college. They were 
 residing in a house connected with the college as missionary students. 
 I communicated with the committee of the college in London several 
 times on the subject of these accusations, which had gone to London 
 before. I afterwards, at their request, inquired into these charges. The 
 earl of Shaftesbury is the chairman, and the earl of Waldegrave is 
 another member. In consequence of these charges a meeting took place 
 at the mission-house at Malta, on the 28th of December, in the presence 
 of Achilli and the accused priests. At my request, Mr. Bryan, the vice 
 principal, took the chair. Achilli was present. Keosse was then called 
 upon to state his charges against these priests. Leonini was charged 
 with having committed adultery with a Maltese lady. Saccares was 
 charged with sleeping out of the mission-house, and' having frequent 
 intercourse with women of bad character. Achilli had lived in the same 
 house with these persons during the same year. Keosse had not lived 
 with them. The priests were called upon to answer the charges, and 
 denied them. The examination was written and sent to London. I 
 have here the depositions. As they denied the charges the case was 
 for the time held not to be proved. Achilli called Keosse a calumniator. 
 On the 5th of January, notice was given to Keosse either to substantiate 
 his charges or to withdraw them. As long as they rested merely upon 
 his authority the charges were not believed. Some time after that a 
 Dr. Bonavia made a statement to me, which I mentioned to Dr. Achilli. 
 Dr. Bonavia stated that he had heard from Saccares similar statements
 
 94 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 to those which Keosse stated that he had made to him. I gave this 
 statement to Achilli on the 16th of February, 1848, telling him at the 
 same time that I was going to send it to the committee in London. On 
 the 19th of February, 1848, I received from Dr. Achilli this letter 
 (which was read, as follows) : "I have need of the Rev. Mr. Saccares 
 for an important mission, and he starts immediately for his desti- 
 nation, consequently he does not any longer belong to the college." I 
 believe that Saccares left upon that day. I received no information 
 of that between the 16th and 19th, that he was going away. I left 
 Malta for England on the 24th of April, 1848. Dr. Achilli came to 
 London soon after. Was he dismissed ? Our notion was he had removed 
 himself ; that he had resigned his position in the college. In obedience 
 to directions from the earl of Shaftesbury I dismissed Leonini from his 
 position in the college. Keosse continued to teach after I left Malta, 
 but has since returned to the Church of Rome. Dr. Achilli was well 
 acquainted with the charges brought against Leonini and Saccares. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir F. Thesiger, The students in that depart- 
 ment of the college to which Dr. Achilli belonged were Italian priests, 
 who had seceded from the Church of Rome. Including Dr. Achilli 
 himself, their number varied from three to seven. Keosse was also there 
 as a seceding priest, and in order that he might teach Turkish in some 
 of our other institutions he lived in the same house ; but he did not 
 live there when Achilli was there before. Achilli had not left Malta 
 before I had ; but he came to England soon after me. h 
 
 The Rev. Alexander Watts examined by Mr. Addison. I was 
 formerly clerical secretary to the committee of the , Malta college. I 
 recollect the charges against Leonini and Saccares coming to England. 
 I had a conversation with Achilli about it. He was anxious that I 
 should suppress the whole of them. He insisted that I should deliver 
 them to him, and not bring them before the committee, as he said that it 
 would not be of any use to do so. I would not do so ; the charges were 
 laid before the committee, and they decided upon investigating them, 
 The investigation was lirst entered upon by the principal, vice-principal, 
 and Dr. Achilli, who formed the council of the college. Their report 
 was sent home to London ; the committee then requested the bishop of 
 Gibraltar to assist in the investigation. His lordship declined, because 
 Saccares, one of the principal parties accused, and who was a witness, 
 had been sent away by Dr. Achilli. Subsequently the committee, 
 taking into consideration that Saccares had been sent away from the 
 island by Dr. Achilli while those charges were pending, upon some 
 mission of his own, and without the consent of the committee, deter- 
 mined to remove him, and decided upon closing that branch of the 
 institution over which he presided. The resolution to that effect was 
 dated May 8, 1848. The Attorney General.^-Where is it? (Put in 
 and read.) 
 
 " Resolved, that it is not desirable, under existing circumstances, to 
 keep up the Mission House ; and that notice be given to Dr. Achilli 
 and the other priests, that their professorship ceases, and that the 
 establishment for ex-priests will close in a few months." 
 
 September 26, 1848, Dr. Achilli addressed a letter to the earl of Shaftes- 
 bury, which he requested might be laid before the college committee. 
 (The letter was then put in and read.) " I am about leaving London to 
 
 h See as to this matter Aclrilli's own affidavit, disclosing the publication of these 
 proceedings.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 95 
 
 go to my mission. I have hitherto hoped that you and the other mem- 
 bers of the Maltese college committee would not allow me to leave 
 England so embittered, as I assure you, that although separated from 
 the college, I still equally love you in the Lord ; it is only a misunder- 
 standing for which you have got angry with me. I did not know that 
 I was forbidden to come to England, and thought that the employment 
 you confided to me was serving you and the cause of religion. But 
 this is to be as God has willed it. I think, however, that God forbids 
 that there should be any ill dispositions between us. Therefore, if you 
 believe yourselves offended with me, I beg your pardon ; while on my 
 own side, I shall willingly forgive any offence that may have been offered. 
 I have suffered much, without having on my own conscience anything 
 to reproach me. Have I transgressed your laws, or failed in my duty ? 
 Do not allow me to leave this country, perhaps for the last time, without 
 receiving from you one little word of friendship. Even a servant, when 
 no longer wanted, has a character given him, and his month's wages 
 paid him ; but it appears you are sending away your servant without 
 even a letter, or paying him his stipend, which was fixed to be paid by 
 the year ; and I have only received it for eleven months. I beg you to 
 interpret this to the committee." 
 
 This letter was laid before the committee, and an answer sent, Dec. 6, 
 1848. (Put in and read.) 
 
 " Malta College Office, 3, St. James's Street, 
 
 December 6, 1848. 
 
 "Rev. Sir, At the last meeting of Committee, held on the 15th 
 November, 1848, Lord Ashley, at your request, laid before the members 
 present your letter addressed to his lordship, dated September 26, 1848. 
 The Committee request me to send you the following reply. When 
 you arrived in England in June last, after being absent a whole month 
 from your official situation and important duties in the Malta College, 
 without communicating your intention of leaving, either to the prin- 
 cipal or to the Committee in London, I expressed to you the dissatisfac- 
 tion which the Committee felt with your proceedings in these respects, 
 especially as you had been previously informed by them that they did 
 not wish you to come to England that summer on the business of the 
 College. I then asked you to attend a meeting of Committee to be 
 held next day, that you might have an opportunity of offering any 
 explanations which you might think proper. You neither attended that 
 meeting nor any other subsequent ones since your arrival in England. 
 You have addressed no letter of explanation to the Committee, except 
 this short note, in which you desire to be informed in what respects 
 you have failed in your duty, and request some recommendatory letter 
 before leaving England, expressive of the Committee's Christian regards. 
 The Committee are not a little surprised at the tenor of your commu- 
 nication, after they have so fully expressed their views of your unjusti- 
 fiable mode of acting, both as regards your deserting your post at 
 Malta during term time, as well as in respect to your summarily 
 removing, upon your own authority, Signor Saccares from the College, 
 and sending him upon some mission of your own into Sicily. You did 
 this, too, at the very time when you knew that the most serious 
 accusations of gross immorality were brought against Signor Saccares, 
 then resident in the Mission House. You thus defeated the ends of 
 justice, or deprived the accused, if innocent, of the opportunity afforded 
 of clearing his character before the world.
 
 9R REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 " I regret to add, that the Committee have had additional cause of 
 dissatisfaction with you since your return to England. I have before 
 me a letter from one of our subscribers, in which, before paying his 
 subscription, he requests me to give him some explanation of the inju- 
 rious statements made by you to him respecting the Malta College. 
 
 " You conclude by mentioning that the salary paid you was only for 
 eleven months instead of for a year. You forget that the Committee 
 did not engage your services by the year. You were paid quarterly, 
 as all the other officers of the Institution, at a certain rate per annum. 
 When I gave you the amount of salary due, according to the terms of 
 the resolution of the Committee, held on the 19th of June, 1848 
 including payment for the month you were absent from Malta without 
 leave you expressed yourself perfectly satisfied in signing the ac- 
 knowledgment. 
 
 " It has been with sincere regret that the Committee have felt 
 themselves obliged, for the above reasons, to withdraw their confidence 
 from you, and to remove you from the advantageous situation they 
 had conferred on you in the College. In that office you had an 
 opportunity of rendering most important service to the cause of Italian 
 reformation, by preparing missionary agents, so much wanted to 
 occupy the different fields of labour which might be opened up. 
 " I remain, yours faithfully, 
 
 (Signed) " ALEX. WATT, Secretary. 
 
 To Dr. Achilli." 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. You have read the reso- 
 lution laid on the table on the 8th May, 1848, by the earl of Harrowby, 
 for consideration? (It is read, as follows) : 
 
 " Resolved, That it is not desirable, under the altered circumstances 
 of Italy, to keep up the existing Mission House at Malta, and that 
 notice be accordingly given to the Italian Theological Professor, Dr. 
 Achilli, and to the other inmates of the Mission House, that the Profes- 
 sor's appointment will cease, and the establishment for ex-priests will 
 be closed in three months from the date of the receipt of this commu- 
 nication." 
 
 Will you read the minute of the final resolution taken by the com- 
 mittee on the 24th May, 1848. (It is read, as follows) : 
 
 " After prayer, the committee proceeded to consider the resolution 
 submitted to the last meeting, by the earl of Harrowby, respecting the 
 discontinuing of the Mission House at Malta, and the termination of 
 Dr. Achilli's appointment as Italian Theological Professor. 
 
 " This resolution was unanimously agreed to, and the secretary was 
 instructed to send a copy of it to Dr. Achilli." 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. I recollect Achilli coming 
 to England after the resolution of the committee with respect to the 
 closing of the Mission House. Was there afterwards a resolution of 
 the committee of the 19th June? Yes ; when a letter was read from 
 the bishop of Gibraltar, in which his lordship expressed his great dis- 
 satisfaction with the conduct of Achilli with respect to Saccares. The 
 Attorney General (angrily). I object to the witness stating the contents 
 of the bishop of Gibraltar's letter. I simply wanted to know the 
 resolution to which the committee came. The witness then read the 
 following resolution of the committee : " The committee, having taken 
 a review of the whole conduct of Dr. Achilli, in connection with the 
 statements of the bishop of Gibraltar, came to the following resolution :
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 97 
 
 * That Dr. Achilli having voluntarily abandoned his post at Malta, 
 during term time, without the permission, and even contrary to the 
 expressed wishes, of the committee, as contained in their letter of 
 April 18th, resolved, that the engagement between the committee and 
 Dr. Achilli must be considered as virtually terminated by his act.' " 
 That resolution was communicated to Achilli. The Attorney General 
 objected that only the resolution was to be received. Sir A. Cockburn. 
 I submit that the statements of the bishop of Gibraltar must be read, 
 as referred to in the resolution. The Attorney General eagerly objected. 
 Lord CAMPBELL. I think the whole forms one document. The 
 Attorney General. I asked only for the resolution. Lord CAMPBELL. 
 The statements referred to are a kind of preamble, and form part of 
 the resolution. The Attorney General. The resolution was sent to 
 Achilli, not the reasons, which are not evidence against him. Sir 
 A. Cockburn. What I ask for is matter of recital, and leads to the 
 resolution ; without it we have not the whole of the resolution. It im- 
 plies that, in consequence of what was stated by the bishop of Gibraltar, 
 the resolution is come to. Lord CAMPBELL. Does not the resolution 
 begin at the words, " The committee having taken a review," &c. Sir 
 A. Cockburn. The question is, on what grounds Achilli was dismissed ; 
 my learned friend wants to confine me to the resolution, but my object 
 is to show that the committee took into consideration a great deal more 
 than they thought it necessary to say in the resolution. Lord CAMP- 
 BELL. I think that as the resolution refers to the bishop's statements 
 as to matter of recital, the whole must be read.' 
 
 The Earl of Shaftesbury examined by Sir A. Cockburn. I was chair- 
 man of the Malta Protestant College. Complaints of Dr. Achilli's 
 conduct with respect to Saccares were forwarded to the committee 
 Accusations of immorality against Saccares and Leonini had been pre- 
 viously forwarded to the committee, and this matter was referred to the 
 authorities of the college for investigation. One of these authorities 
 was Dr. Achilli himself, as the head of the department of ex-priests. 
 It became his duty, in conjunction with Mr. Hadfield, the head of the 
 college, to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of these persons, Leo- 
 nini and Saccares. We heard afterwards that Dr. Achilli had sent 
 Saccares away. We received a letter from the bishop of Gibraltar, 
 and on the receipt of that letter, it appeared useless to continue the in- 
 quiry when the principal party had been sent out of the way, to avoid 
 examination. The Attorney General objected. Lord CAMPBELL. 
 The resolution speaks for itself. Sir A. Cockburn. Did Achilli come 
 to London in consequence of a summons from you ? No. Did he 
 anticipate that summons by coming to London? Yes. Had he any 
 authority from you to leave his post, and come to London ? No. On 
 his arrival did he state reasons for leaving Malta? Not that I am 
 aware of ; except that he said he came on business of his own. Before 
 his arrival you had acted ? Before his arrival we had come to the reso- 
 lution to break up the whole establishment, believing that the evil 
 could not be eradicated. 
 
 The Attorney General again 9bjected to entering into the reasons 
 of their dismissal ; it was recorded in the resolution already produced 
 
 ' Let the reader observe this ; the reasons recited in a resolution of a volun- 
 tary society are to be read (and rightly and reasonably) as forming part of it ; 
 but afterwards, the Lord Chief Justice refused to receive the reasons recited 
 in a judgment of a regular court of justice, of a sovereign and independent 
 prince ! 
 
 H
 
 98 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 that Dr. Achilli's engagement was virtually terminated by his own 
 act ; and nothing; was there said as to his having sent Saccares out 
 of the way. Sir A. Cockburn. Though that was not adverted to, I 
 will show that it was taken into consideration. Lord CAMPBELL. 
 We cannot ask about what was passing in the minds of the com- 
 mittee. Sir A. Cockburn. I propose to prove what passed at the 
 meeting of the committee. Lord CAMPBELL. The resolution with 
 its preamble states the reasons of the dismissal. Sir A. Cockburn. 
 They are not all stated. The question is what they were. Lord 
 CAMPBELL. We must take them from the resolution. Sir A. Cock- 
 burn. There might be many grounds on which they were unanimous, 
 but in order to avoid exposure they may only have stated one of them 
 in the resolution. Surely, when afterwards a question arises as to what 
 they were, the resolution is not to be conclusive ? The question is on 
 what grounds the committee really proceeded. Lord CAMPBELL. The 
 resolution states them, and you cannot go further and enter into other 
 grounds. Sir A. Cockburn. Then we are shut out from proof plainly 
 applicable to the issue. j 
 
 Dr. Bonavia examined by Mr. Bramwell. I was teacher of Latin 
 and Italian at the college of Malta. I was there teaching for the last 
 three years. I remember Achilli being there ; he resided at the same 
 house with Leonini and Saccares. I had some conversation with him 
 respecting the charges which were made against them. I asked him if 
 he had heard the reports which were circulated with respect to them in 
 the town? He said he had. I next asked if he believed them ? He 
 replied that he did not. Did he express any opinion as to the propriety 
 of what had taken place ? So far as I remember he did not express 
 any disapproval. Did he use any expression as to its being wrong ? 
 The Attorney General objected. The witness continued. I asked if he 
 thought it was judicious to permit the visits of a married lady who it 
 was "said used to come from Valetta to visit Leonini at the Mission 
 House ? He in return asked me if I thought it was wrong ? I said it 
 was not judicious, on account of the reports which were circulated in 
 the town, and that it was especially injudicious to allow the lady to be 
 admitted to Leonini's own room. He asked again whether there was 
 any harm in permitting such visits? I said I thought it was wrong, 
 Leonini being a bachelor, and it might lead to bad results. He then got 
 into a passion, rose from his chair, and said, " You are too scrupulous 
 because you are married ; if you were a bachelor perhaps you would 
 do worse than Leonini ; it would be better for you to mind your own 
 business, and not to meddle with our affairs, if you wish to continue in 
 our friendship." He then left me in the room, and went to join his 
 companions, who were playing cards. 
 
 Cross-examined by ihz^Lttorney General. Have you ever told this 
 to anybody before this ? This is the second time I have ever mentioned 
 this conversation. What was the first ? I told it first to Mr. Lewin 
 (the defendant's attorney), after my arrival in London. I have been 
 hve months in London upon this affair. Sir A. Cockburn. We wanted 
 to try it four months ago, but were prevented. Witness continued. I 
 am a member of the Maltese bar, but I do not carry on the profession, 
 
 J Which was, that Achilli had been dismissed for reasons the committee could 
 not get themselves to describe. The effect of the decision was, to exclude a 
 great deal of evidence contained in the minutes of the committee (portions of 
 which they had published), and referring to other reasons they did not think 
 proper to publish.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 99 
 
 bein teacher of Italian in the Maltese College. The Attorney General. 
 Did you go to Mr. Lewin, or he come to you ? Neither. How came 
 you to mention it ? After I had heard of the case, I thought it my 
 duty, being called upon to come here, and say all I knew for the sake 
 of truth. Who advised you to come here ? Am I bound to answer ? 
 Lord CAMPBELL. You are. Witness. It was Dr. Bryan, vice-presi- 
 dent of the college. k The Attorney General. How did he know of the 
 conversation between you and Dr. Achilli ? No one knew. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir A. Cockburn. How came Dr. Bryan to send 
 you ? I do not know. Did you mention to him that you had conver- 
 sations with Leonini and Saccares ? Yes. 1 Sir A. Cockburn. My 
 lord, I have a brief full of the evidence of these persons." 1 
 
 Harriet Harris," by Mr. Addison. I am aged twenty-two. I am 
 now in service. In March, 1850, I was engaged as a servant by Dr. 
 Achilli, who was then living in Northumberland-street, Strand. He 
 had just taken a house in Shaftesbury-crescent, Pimlico. I went there 
 in the morning. I found there a Mr. Castellini, who was making the 
 drawing-room carpet. Dr. Achilli arrived soon after in a cab. Mrs. 
 Achilli did not arrive until a fortnight afterwards. I got dinner ready. 
 Dr. Achilli was in and out of the kitchen during the day. In the 
 evening, Dr. Achilli came in and took very improper liberties with me. 
 There was then no one in the house but ourselves. He put his hand 
 round my waist. He kissed me. I did not consent, but got away from 
 him as soon as possible, and went into the back kitchen. He followed 
 me there, and told me what he had gone through when he was abroad, 
 and amongst other things he said that he had been imprisoned for six 
 months. When he was in the back kitchen, he attempted to put his 
 arms round my waist and my neck, and to kiss me. He then went 
 out, I think. He came in after I went to bed, I think about twelve 
 o'clock. Nothing more took place that evening. He made several 
 attempts subsequently to put his arms round me, but I got away from 
 him, and he kissed me twice when I was not aware of it. I mentioned 
 this to my aunt, Mrs. Cadogan, and to Mr. Castellini. These attempts 
 all took place before Mrs. Achilli came back. He did not repeat them 
 subsequently. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Solicitor General. I had been in service six 
 months before I went to Dr. Achilli's house. I remained in Dr. Achilli's 
 service three months. Mrs. Achilli came home about a fortnight after 
 I went, but I never told her of these liberties. Mrs. Achilli found fault 
 with me about the kitchen being dirty. I afterwards gave her warn- 
 ing. I subsequently asked her to let me stay, but she refused. I re- 
 
 k Why should he have mentioned it to any one ? The ex-priests had all 
 removed, and there was an end of the affair. The conversation only became 
 important on account of the present proceedings, and the issue raised on them ; 
 and then naturally it would recur to his recollection. Yet, not only the 
 Attorney General, but the Lord Chief Justice seized hold on this slight circum- 
 stance to discredit this most respectable person's evidence ! 
 
 1 This of course explained Dr. Bryan's sending the witness without his know- 
 ing the particular conversation abovt deposed to, which would transpire, probably, 
 upon examination by defendant's attorney. 
 
 m Including the evidence of Kaossi, who, however, could not be got hold of: 
 another instance of the difficulties of Dr. Newman. 
 
 n A very pleasing, modest-looking girl. 
 
 Mrs. Achilli afterwards states the reason, which casts no discredit on tbe 
 girl. She was said to be dirty : she did not look so. 
 H 2
 
 100 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 ferred a lady afterwards to her for a character ; she said she could not 
 give me a character for cleanliness, and she said two or three other 
 things about me which I did not think right. My aunt was the first 
 person who spoke to me about coming here to give evidence. I after- 
 wards saw Mr. Lewin. These things never took place anywhere except 
 in the kitchen. 
 
 Re-examined. Dr. Achilli often came into the kitchen. 
 Mrs. Cadogan. Harriet Harris is my niece. I remember her com- 
 plaining to me of what Dr. Achilli had done to her during the first 
 week that she was there. She complained that he had used indecent 
 liberties towards her. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. When my niece spoke to 
 me I did not at once go off to Dr. Achilli to remonstrate ; I did not 
 mention the matter to Mrs. Achilli after she had arrived. I first men- 
 tioned it to Mrs. Castellini, about a month after my niece left. I saw 
 Mr. Lewin, the lawyer, about this business about six weeks ago. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir A. Cockburn. When my niece came to me I 
 said I understood that Mrs. Achilli was coming home in a few days. 
 
 Jane Legge p examined. I was in the service of Dr. Achilli about 
 ten months ago. I was in his service seven or eight months altogether. 
 I was servant of all work. He then lived at Shaftesbury-crescent, 
 Pimlico. During the time I was in his service he took liberties with 
 me. He began to do it about three months after I had entered his ser- 
 vice. I gave notice to leave, and he asked me to stop on. I did so. He 
 had before that kissed me two or three times, but nothing else. He 
 took other liberties with me a day or two after that on which I had con- 
 sented to stop. He came up to me when I was in my mistress's bed- 
 room, and took liberties with me. Eventually he was too intimate with 
 me. This happened several times, and I ultimately became pregnant. 
 I stayed about four months after that. I left because my mistress gave 
 me notice to leave. I afterwards got another place, for which Mrs. 
 Achilli gave me a very good character. I was afterwards delivered of 
 a child, which died. I saw Dr. Achilli about a fortnight before I was 
 confined. I did not speak to him about my situation, because I was 
 not with him more than a minute or two. While I was at Dr. Achilli' s, 
 a friend of his, Mr. Augustini, was staying there. He also was inti- 
 mate with me. I never told Dr. Achilli. I am now stopping with 
 Mrs. Johnstone, Vauxhall-road, where I have been awaiting this trial. 
 I was before that living with my sister, Mrs. Logan. I saw Dr. 
 Achilli there, on the occasion of his coming to see a gentleman who 
 lodged at my sister's house. That was after the death of my child. I 
 never asked him for anything ; he never gave me anything. I have 
 since seen him at Mrs. Logan's, and have spoken to him about coming 
 here. About five weeks after the death of my child, I told him of my 
 subpoena to give evidence on this trial. He said that I had no need to 
 go. I told him again about a week after, that I had to go ; and he said 
 to me that I was to shut the door in the faces of those who came to 
 subpoena me. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Solicitor General. I had lived at two places in 
 London before Dr. Achilli' s ; but, subsequently to that, I had been in 
 the country for two years. Mrs. Achilli never complained of my con- 
 duct with regard to men. She only said that she would not allow a 
 young man to come to see me. I did not meet a man outside the house. 
 
 P A girl who appeared to speak truthfully.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 10l 
 
 After she had spoken to me, I received a young man, a friend, in the 
 house. She came down stairs one night after her return from a party, 
 and found a young man in the back kitchen. He had been in the 
 house about two hours. She did not then tell me that I must leave her 
 service. The Solicitor General. How many men were you in the habit 
 of seeing while you were at Dr. Achilli's ? I am not obliged to answer 
 that question. Lord CAMPBELL. You must answer. I had no men 
 come to see me except that young man and another friend of mine, who 
 came to see me once or twice. The Solicitor General. Then you have 
 told us of Augustini besides ; that makes three men. Any more P I 
 have not told you that I had anything improper with the other two. 
 Lord CAMPBELL. Did they come to court you? Yes, sir. (Laughter.) 
 Mrs. Achilli never found fault with me, except with regard to that 
 young man. She said she would not allow him to come in the evening, 
 but that he might come in the morning if he liked. She never saw 
 anything wrong in me with regard to any man in her life. The Soli- 
 citor General. Did you ever, after she had found fault with you about 
 the young man being behind the door in the kitchen, say one word 
 about Dr. Achilli having taken liberties with you ? No, sir. Do you 
 remember her one night telling you to go to bed, and that she after- 
 wards watched, and found that you had opened the area door, and had 
 gone out ? Yes ; I went to speak to my friend at the door ; nothing 
 more. Was it a man or a woman ? A man. Did she not tell you 
 that you must quit her service ? No, sir. 
 
 Sarah Logan. I am the wife of John Logan, an engineer, who lives 
 at 11, Shaftesbury-crescent, Pimlico. I am the sister of the last 
 witness. She was delivered at my house. Dr. Achilli came to my 
 house to take lodgings for two friends. Subsequently a clerk from 
 Mr. Lewin's came to inquire about my sister. I sent to inform Dr. 
 Achilli about it. He came to. me one day, in the evening, and said 
 that Mrs. Castellini was employed by Dr. Newman's party, that Dr. 
 Newman was a very bad man," 1 and he hoped to have him sent to prison. 
 He said if the people came again I was to shut the door in their faces, 
 I said it had been a great expense to us having to keep my sister, par- 
 ticularly as the baby had died in our house. He said, " Yes, yes." He 
 said nothing more, except that he would come again, and repeated that 
 we were to shut the door in the faces of any persons who came to serve 
 us with subpoenas. TJwo or three days afterwards he came again to 
 us. We had then been subpoenaed. We showed him the subpoenas, 
 and he said he thought they would not compel us to go. He said 
 that he thought my sister Jane had nothing to say against him. I said, 
 " Of course, sir, you know what passed between you and Jane." He 
 made me no answer. Nothing more was then said. Some days after he 
 came again, about an anonymous letter which had been sent him about 
 my sister. It said he ought to be ashamed to draw poor domestics into 
 trouble, and not bear them through it ; and that unless he sent 51. to 
 defray all expenses, he should further hear of it. I said that I did not 
 know who had sent it. Dr. Achilli said that it must have come from 
 the same parties as the subpoenas.. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. Dr. Achilli talked to me 
 in English on every occasion/ I cannot tell from where my sister 
 
 i The reader will remark this. 
 
 r When examined, it will be observed, he said, he could not speak English 
 well enough ; and claimed to be examined, through an interpreter, in Italian.
 
 102 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 came to my house. I believe that it is owing to Mrs. Castellini that 
 we were subpoenaed. I did not wish to come here to be mixed up in 
 the business, 8 and therefore I said to my sister, on seeing her talking to 
 Mrs. Castellini after we had received our subpoenas, " I had rather spit 
 in her face than talk to her." (Laughter.) I did not wish my sister to 
 have anything to say to her. 
 
 Re-examined by Sir A. Cockburn. This was after I had seen Dr. 
 Achilli. 
 
 Sarah Wood' examined by Mr. Bramwell.I am aged 19. I am 
 now living with my parents at Windsor. I have lived in the service 
 of Dr. Achilli. I entered his service in March of the year before last. 
 I came to his house from the House of Mercy, at Windsor ; Mrs. Tennent 
 sent me. He took liberties with me after I had been with him about 
 a fortnight. I went up stairs to clear out Augustini's bed-room, and 
 while I was there, Achilli came in ; he followed me several times round 
 the room and tried to put his hands round my waist, but he did not 
 succeed, as I walked away from him. His proceedings were inter- 
 rupted by a knock at the door. He ran down stairs and commenced 
 writing. I went down to see who it was, and found it was my mistress, 
 who had returned home for her parasol. After she went out again I 
 went back to the bedroom, and he followed and renewed his attempts. 
 I walked away and began to cry, and threatened to write to Mrs. 
 Tennent. He said if I did I should be a very naughty girl. He gave 
 me a religious book, the title of which was " Come to Jesus." About a 
 fortnight afterwards, when Mrs. Achilli was out, he called me into his 
 dressing-room to dust the table. I knelt down for the purpose of dust- 
 ing the legs, and while I was doing this he bolted the door, and then 
 taking me by the shoulders threw me with great force upon a bed. I 
 resisted with all my might, but could not get away. He was intimate 
 with me then against my will. I told him I would leave. I stayed 
 Jive months afterwards, however. I left because I was so ill that I could 
 not stay any longer. I could not write. I asked my mistress to write 
 to Mrs. Tennent, but she would not. u When I got ill she wrote to 
 some one who wrote to Mrs. Tennent. My father then came to take me 
 away. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney General. The House of Mercy is a 
 place for women who have misconducted themselves. I was taken in 
 there on the recommendation of Mrs. Tennent. I was in the house 
 about nineteen months ; I was sixteen when I went there. Mrs. Tennent 
 recommended me to Mrs. Achilli. I am a Protestant. I fasted during 
 part of Lent, while I was with Mrs. Tennent, but not while I was at 
 Dr. Achilli's. Had you not a hymn-book to the Virgin Mary?" No. 
 Some people say that the House of Mercy is a Roman Catholic esta- 
 blishment, but I believe it is not. w Mrs. Achilli told me that Mrs. 
 Tennent had been a Roman Catholic, but had left that religion. I told 
 
 " She was clearly a reluctant witness, as any person so respectable na- 
 turally would be. to detail the disgrace of her own sister. This, of course, 
 adds to the value of her evidence. 
 
 * A girl, equally plain looking and plain speaking. The Attorney General 
 sneered bitterly at her plainness of look, but did not allude to her plainness of 
 speech, which had a remarkable air of truthfulness and sincerity. 
 
 11 Mrs. Achilli was not asked if this were untrue. 
 
 T What a question to discredit a witness by ! One of the finest passages in 
 Sir A. Corkburn's reply is upon this. 
 
 w It is a Tractarian house.
 
 REPOKT OF THE TRIAL. 103 
 
 no one of the liberties which Dr. Achilli had taken with me 1 until 
 about four months ago, when one of Mr. Lewin's clerks came to me 
 at Windsor. I did not then tell him about the worst part of Ihe liber- 
 ties. Three or four days afterwards, however, my father and mother 
 questioned me about the matter, and I told my mother all. They told 
 me I should tell the truth, and I then got a woman to write to Mr. . 
 Lewin to tell him all that had passed between me and Dr. Achilli. 
 
 Re-examined. I had been seduced before I went to the House of 
 Mercy. I went there in consequence of having quarrelled with my 
 family. 
 
 By the COURT. I was away from my father's house about three days 
 before I went to the House of Mercy. I had been seduced about six 
 months previously. I first went there without his knowledge. I had 
 been to school, but I left as soon as I could nurse the baby. 
 
 Catherine Gorman. I lived in service with Miss Lambert, 3, St. 
 James' s-street, from 1843 to 1849. Dr. Achilli came to lodge there in 
 1847, before he went to Malta. About six months after he came, he 
 attempted to take liberties with me by putting his hands about my waist. 
 He asked me to confess to him. I got away from him. On one occasion 
 subsequently he asked me to show him the name of a street on the map. 
 I went up to the table for the purpose ; he came to me. I went away 
 directly. I am a Catholic, and mentioned these things to my confessor, 
 and in consequence of advice I received from him I avoided being alone 
 with Dr. Achilli. y Dr. Achilli, while at Miss Lambert's, was irregular 
 in his habits, and used to come in late at night. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Solicitor General. Miss Lambert was a dress- 
 maker. I never told her of this conduct on the part of Dr. Achilli. 7 I 
 was first applied to about coming here by Mr. Simpson, of Clapham- 
 common. He is a Roman Catholic, living upon his own property. I 
 have also seen Father Hutchinson, at the Oratory, about it. He came 
 to me about a week after Mr. Simpson. 
 
 Mr. James V. Harting examined by Mr. Badeley. I am a solicitor, 
 in Lincolu's-inn-fields. Lord CAMPBELL. Are you a Roman Catho- 
 lic? I am, my lord. Mr. Badeley. I was employed in November or 
 December last to go abroad to collect the evidence necessary in this 
 case. I went first to Rome, then to Viterbo, then again to Rome, then 
 to Naples, then to Malta, then back to Naples ; afterwards once more to 
 Rome, and thence home. At Viterbo I entered into communication 
 with the bishop and his vicar-general, and with the priors of St. 
 Quercea and another convent. I communicated also with the police 
 
 * He had told her that Dr. Newman was a " bad man." 
 
 f Let the reader who is prejudiced against the practice of confession remark 
 this. It probably saved the girl, as it would have saved Giustini, had she 
 followed the confessor's advice. Moreover, in both cases the advice given 
 appears to have been the same to avoid the occasion of temptation the best 
 test of sincerity ; and what can more strongly show the falsity of the vulgar idea 
 about confessing, and sinning again, &c., so current in anti-Catholic publica- 
 tions, or on anti-Catholic platforms. 
 
 This does not seem at all decisive ; the poor girl would be disheartened by 
 the destruction of the notice she had hoped to be restored to ; and her voice and 
 manner betokened a great degree of depression almost despair. 
 
 1 Here, again, the inference insinuated is fallacious. Of what use would it 
 have been to mention it to the mistress ? She would not have believed the girl, 
 on the denial of a clergyman; and the girl would more likely have lost her 
 place than the landlady her lodger.
 
 104 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 authorities at Viterbo, and the apostolic delegate. The gonfaloniere of 
 Viterbo (an officer resembling a mayor), told me that he could not fur- 
 nish me with any police documents, because they had all been destroyed. 
 I received from him a declaration of what he heard. Lord CAMPBELL 
 Is not this a waste of time ? There are no documents to produce. 
 Mr. Badeley. You went to Naples? Yes; I went to the Minister for 
 Ecclesiastical Affairs, and obtained a copy of a letter addressed by the 
 Minister of Police to the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs of Naples. 
 Lord CAMPBELL. How do you make that evidence? Sir A. Cock- 
 burn. It is an official report from the Minister of Police. The allega- 
 tion it is produced to prove is, that on a certain police report of Naples 
 the name of Achilli appears in connection with a certain statement. 
 Lord CAMPBELL (referring to the plea). That, in a certain official 
 document or report of the officer of police at Naples, he is mentioned 
 as known for habitual incontinence. It is in support of that allega- 
 tion? Sir A. Cockburn. Yes ; and first we show that it is an official 
 report of the police, and then we produce it from the office of the 
 Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs. Lord CAMPBELL. Is that the 
 
 S roper custody ? Sir A. Cockburn. It was a report made to that 
 epartment, which had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the conduct 
 of a priest. The document emanates originally from the proper depart- 
 ment, and it is produced from the proper department. The Attorney 
 General. How can the witness know that ? or even if it purport to be 
 so, how can it give itself an authentic character ? That must be esta- 
 blished by other evidence. Lord CAMPBELL. It is produced by a most 
 respectable gentleman, no doubt ; but what proof have I that it is an 
 official document of the Neapolitan police? Sir A. Cockburn. There 
 are certain official seals on it. (To the witness) You went to the 
 office the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs directed you to? Yes; 
 there was over the door an inscription, " Office of Minister of Eccle- 
 siastical Affairs." I asked for the official report made by the Minister 
 of Police in regard to Giovanni Achilli. I went to the Minister of Police. 
 J was introduced to him by that appellation. He told me that being an 
 ecclesiastical affair, the document would be found in the ecclesiastical 
 department. At that office the original document was produced, of 
 which this is a copy. It was produced from the archives, and was on 
 the file of papers relating to this case. Was that the proper custody ? 
 Yes. The Attorney General. How do you know ? The proper 
 authorities told me so. By Sir A. Cockburn I saw the seals affixed ; 
 one is the seal of the office of ecclesiastical offairs ; the other is the seal 
 of the ministry of foreign affairs. I took it there, and had the seal 
 impressed in my presence.* Lord CAMPBELL. The document is 
 clearly inadmissible. 1 " 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn. Do you produce a copy of the judgment of the 
 Court of Inquisition? Yes. Is that a regular tribunal in Rome, 
 having jurisdiction over ecclesiastics ? d It is. The Attorney General. 
 
 * What could he have done more ? 
 
 b Which shows (if it be so) the strict technical absurdity of the English law. 
 A document was offered, not to prove that Achilli was incontinent, but that he 
 was reported as so ; which is all that the libel and plea alleged ; so the decision 
 was that the document was not proved to be a copy of the report. How could 
 it possibly be proved, then ? 
 
 K Now ensued a struggle as to the admissibility of this document, which 
 formed, in a legal point of view, the most interesting feature of the case. 
 
 d The reader is requested to consider a few remarks on the origin and cha-
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 105 
 
 How do you know the business of the court ? I hope you have had no 
 personal acquaintance with it ? I know it from the statements of the 
 assessor. I applied at the office of the tribunal. 
 
 The Attorney General. There is no evidence that this is the regular 
 
 racter of the Roman Inquisition. In our own Anglo-Saxon laws, the principle 
 is to be found that offences against the religion recognised by the state, are not 
 merely spiritual offences, but crimes against society, which the state is bound to 
 punish ; and hence, in those laws are to be seen secular penalties for spiritual 
 offences. And Balmez shows that opinions opposed to the interests of morality, 
 society, and the safety of the state, are crimes against the state, and cognizable 
 by the civil power. Protestantism and Catholicism Compared. Now, this 
 was the general character of the mediaeval sects against which the Inquisition 
 was directed. If the third Council of Lateran sanctions the severe measures 
 enacted by the civil power against the sectaries of those times, it is because, in 
 the words of the decree, " they exhibited such barbarities against Christians, as 
 not to spare churches or monasteries, but destroying and wasting all like pagans." 
 Harduini Coll. Conciliorum, vi. p. 2. Llorente, in citing the decree, omits 
 this clause ! which is precisely the description of the Wickliffites, the Waldenses, 
 and the Lutheran or Calvinist reformers, who " wasted and destroyed, like 
 pagans, and acted exactly as the Danes had done many centuries before, not 
 sparing monasteries or churches." Even Mosheim admits that the Cathari 
 raised disturbances in nearly all the states of Europe. (ii. 465.) (See, as to 
 the infernal atrocities of the Lutherans and Cavinists, Mores Cathottci, last 
 book.) The Albigenses, according to a contemporary account he preserves, held 
 that all acts of Christian virtue were superfluous, and that the crimes of the 
 voluptuaries would not meet with punishment which reminds one irresistibly of 
 the blasphemous "sin boldly" of Luther, and the sentiments ascribed to 
 Achilli in the evidence. Arnold of Brescia attempted a revolution, civil as well 
 as ecclesiastical. Mosheim, ii. 471. The Henricians burned the sacred em- 
 blems of Christianity, tortured and insulted the clergy, and forced monks by 
 violence to a violation of their vows. Fleury, iv. 578. And the Huguenots in 
 France, or the Stadingers in Germany, committed similar excesses. Fleury, 
 v. 251. The Council of Verona, in which the tribunal of the Inquisition was 
 first formally established, 1184, was a mixed assembly, in which the emperor 
 acted with the ecclesiastical powers ; and the organization it received in the 
 Council of Toulouse, 1229, was the result of painful memories of the long and 
 sanguinary struggle to which the Albigensian atrocities had given occasion. 
 The original constitution simply required each bishop to visit annually suspected 
 districts of his diocese, summon witnesses before him, and interrogate them on 
 oath for the discovery of heretics, such as those above described, and members 
 of secret associations. In the Council of Toulouse it was first ordained that 
 there should be a standing commission in each parish, consisting of the parish 
 priest, and two or three laymen of good repute, whose duty it would be to report 
 to the bishop and magistrate cases (i. e. of the character above described) occurring 
 within their districts. It was in 1248 that the Dominican order received the 
 special superintendence of the tribunal. The popes reserved superior authority 
 and power of appeal, and invariably exercised it in favour of moderation and 
 mercy. See Llorente and Balmez. The Roman Inquisition is not to be con- 
 founded with the Spanish, which was not established until 1482, and was purely 
 local and political, not only without the privity of the pope, but in opposition to 
 his remonstrances ; and repeatedly checked by appeal from its sentences. Thus, 
 then, the Roman Inquisition is as old as the twelfth century, has ever since been 
 a recognised legal and ecclesiastical tribunal, had its origin rather in civil than 
 spiritual offences, was reasonable and moderate in its character, and, from its 
 very nature, was peculiarly directed, not so much against mere heresy, as against 
 immorality. This is the tribunal of which the Lord Chief Justice of England 
 was so ignorant, and against which he had such vulgar prejudice, that he pro- 
 fessed not to know it had a regular legal character at all ! and then, even in
 
 106 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 course by which a document of this kind is authenticated or made 
 admissible ; if it be admissible at all. Lord CAMPBKLL (to the 
 witness). Was that the office professing to be the office for transacting 
 business belonging to this court? It was. What part of Rome is it 
 
 opposition to sworn evidence of one of the best canonists in Europe, said he had 
 a notion that it had to do only with heresy, and not with immorality ! This is 
 the tribunal, too, of which he said, " Thank God, we have no Inquisition in this 
 country ! " which, if it referred to the mode of procedure, was simply untrue, 
 seeing that commissions of Inquisition are identified with the law of England 
 from the earliest times ; and the original constitution of the Roman Inquisition 
 resembles strikingly the Saxon court leet in principle, for both were tribunals 
 lay, or partly lay, for the discovery and suppression of nuisances, though the 
 one might be more usually (not exclusively, as in the case of brothels, &c.) 
 directed against physical, the other against moral nuisances. And then, as to 
 the scope of the jurisdiction ; does the Lord Chief Justice of England consider it 
 a thing to thank God for, that there is no parochial commission of two or three 
 laymen of good repute to inquire into and suppress such abominations as those 
 of the Agapemone, or of Mormonism ! Probably the people of Italy " thank 
 God" they have not such abominations recognised, or silently sanctioned by 
 law, in their country ! And as to the secrecy of the Inquisition its way of taking 
 evidence it can only be objectionable to prejudice and ignorance ; for all the 
 evidence in Chancery and the civil courts is taken in the same way ; as also the 
 evidence before a grand jury, which forms a tribunal in strong analogy to the 
 Inquisition, as even in this country moral nuisances may be " presented " before 
 it, such as blasphemous publications, or public assemblies. Suppose a man 
 were to teach publicly that the Scriptures were the work of impostors, should he 
 not be presented to a grand jury, and indicted on their presentment ? And 
 would not the evidence be, in the first instance at least, taken in secret ? What 
 is that but the Inquisition ? And as to subsequent publicity, of what use is it 
 but to raise scandal and do mischief, and spread the corruption it is desired to 
 suppress ? Indeed, the legislature has recently established, most wisely, an 
 ecclesiastical Inquisition, under the Church Discipline Act, for secret inquiries 
 into offences of clergymen ; for the express purpose of preventing the scandal 
 caused by offences of ministers of religion. Can there then be a prejudice more 
 vulgar and more ignorant than this against the Roman Inquisition ? It is the 
 less creditable in men of rank, education, and station, because all accounts, ancient 
 and modern, attest the extreme moderation of the Roman Inquisition, and its 
 regular recognised system. In 1541, Pope Paul III. urged the Neapolitans to 
 resist the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition, because it was excessively 
 severe, and refused to moderate its rigour by the example of the Roman, which 
 had been in operation three years without a single complaint. And, in 1563, 
 Pope Pius IV., in the same spirit, advised the Milanese, that their Inquisition 
 should continue, as of old, subject to the Roman court, whose rules of procedure 
 were extremely mild, and left the accused the fullest liberty of defence. 
 Llorente. Thus as long ago as the age of the Reformation, the Roman Inqui- 
 sition had regular recognised rules of procedure. And so recently as the present 
 generation, the Viscount de Tournay, prefect of Rome under Napoleon, from 
 1810 to 1815, published a description of the Inquisition. " The duties of the 
 congregation of the holy office are very well known ; but that which is much 
 less so, is the moderation of its decisions, and the gentleness of its proceedings. 
 Now the size of the prisons, and their healthiness and cleanliness, are a proof 
 of the feelings of humanity of those who presided over them." Etudes Statis- 
 tiques, vol. ii. p. 47. 
 
 As to evidence of a judgment, it is elementary law that "It is not matter 
 of substance to show letters of administration, for whether they are legally 
 granted or not, belongs to the cognizance of the spiritual courts, who are 
 governed by the rules of the civil law, and, therefore, they legally cannot be 
 weighed at common law, since it has different measures of jurisdiction." Gil-
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 107 
 
 in ? The Vatican? I found the notary ; he referred me to the assessor ; 
 the document was delivered to me by the notary. It has the certificate 
 of the secretary of state and archivist, Cardinal Antpnelli. The 
 Solicitor General. Pray, Sir, have you had business with the Holy 
 Inquisition before? Not personally. What means have you of know- 
 ing anything of the course of business in the court? From books of 
 practice and from seeing documents of the court. You have no perso- 
 nal experience ; you know nothing except what was told you ? And 
 what I learn from books of practice. You were never there before ? 
 No. Do you know anything, then, about the office ? They gave me 
 books of practice to refer to. A book of practice of the Holy Inquisi- 
 tion ? Yes. e Who told you of the course of the office ? The assessor 
 and the notary, officials of the court. You were introduced to him as 
 a notary of the court ? Yes. And you found him at the office of the 
 Inquisition ? Yes. He was spoken of as a notary of the Inquisition ? 
 Yes. Lord CAMPBELL. He would not know St. Peter's until he was 
 told. (Laughter.) The Solicitor General. You know nothing of the 
 document but that he gave it you ? No. You compared it with no 
 other document ? No. Do you know anything of the genuineness of 
 the document, or whether it is a copy of the judgment ? Except from 
 what he told me, and from the seal of the office. I saw the seal affixed 
 at the office, and Cardinal Antonelli's afterwards. The office was at the 
 Vatican, in the rooms appropriated to the Inquisition. Lord CAMP- 
 
 bert on Evidence, 95. So probate of a will under the seal of the court is suffi- 
 cient, and no evidence to the contrary can be given, for the spiritual courts are 
 the proper judges. But the adverse party may give in evidence that the probate 
 is forged, or obtained by surprise. Ibid. 75. In the present case, the Court 
 presumed it to be forged, at least, in part. So again, exemplifications are of 
 better credit than any sworn copy, for the courts of justice that put those names 
 to a copy are supposed more capable to examine, and more exact and critical in 
 their examination, than any other person is or can be ; and, besides, there is 
 more credit given to their seal than to the testimony of any private person ; and 
 therefore we are more sure of a fair and perfect copy when it comes attested 
 under their seal, than if it were a copy sworn to by any private person. Ibid. 
 
 e Of which this is a summary : " The Court of Holy Office is charged with 
 the correction of all offences against faith and morals, and from the nature of 
 its functions proceeds most commonly on accusation made, or, as it is techni- 
 cally termed, ' per via di denunzia.' In cases of notorious offenders it proceeds 
 ex debite officii, or 'per via de Inqui&izione.' 
 
 ' ' The depositions are all taken on oath, and in writing, by the notary of the 
 court, and are signed by him and by the witness. If, after preliminary inquiry 
 and perusal, and consideration of the evidence so taken, the judge considers that 
 the case should proceed, he decrees accordingly ; and upon the decree so made 
 which is signed by the notary, a citation issues. After the evidence against the 
 accused is completed, the accused is interrogated upon the facts so obtained ; 
 and if he denies them, the evidence is read over to him ; but in the first instance 
 the names of the witnesses are not given. If he still persists in his denial, he is 
 confronted with the witnesses, and all are again interrogated in the other's 
 presence, and he may call witnesses to contradict if he can. Upon the result 
 the judges then proceed to judgment. In cases where the accused, upon inter- 
 rogation, confesses the charges, or some of them, no confrontation takes place. 
 The preliminary depositions, the decree to proceed, the citation and return, 
 the evidence in substantiation of the charges, and of the accused, and of his wit- 
 nesses (if any) for the defence, with the judgment, and what was done thereon, 
 make up the process which is preserved as of record in the archives of the 
 court." See Achilli's own admission as to its fair procedure.
 
 108 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 BELL. I don't suppose the prisoners are there ! The Solicitor General. 
 Who introduced you there ? Am I obliged to state ? Certainly. I 
 have no objection to write it on a paper for the Lord Chief Justice. 
 The Solicitor General. No ; I must have an answer. It was Monsignor 
 Talbot. Lord CAMPBELL. Private secretary to the Pope ! f 
 
 The Bishop of Southwark called (as Dr. 'Grant) and examined by 
 Sir A. Cockburn. Dr. Grant, you are a Catholic bishop? I am. 
 Lord CAMPBELL. Of what see? The bishop was silent. Sir A. 
 Cockburn was about to object. The Attorney General rose and said, 
 "The public prosecutor is present!" Lord CAMPBELL exclaimed, 
 " Oh, I will not press for an answer ! " Sir A. Cockburn. Were you 
 resident in Rome for many years ? For nearly fifteen years. You were 
 for some time rector of the English College at Rome ? g I was. During 
 your residence there, the matters with which I was charged led me to 
 an acquaintance with the business of the courts of Rome. I know the 
 Inquisition among other courts. The office is in the Vatican ; formerly 
 it was in the palace called the Palace of the Inquisition, close to St. 
 Peter's ; but since the French occupation it has been taken into the 
 Vatican : the court, however, sits elsewhere. Lord CAMPBELL. 
 Have you been at Rome since the invasion of the French ? I was there 
 then, my Lord. Sir A. Cockburn. Do you know the seal of the 
 court ? I have never seen it actually affixed to any document ; but I 
 have seen documents belonging to the court. I have never received 
 documents directly from the Inquisition. I have received them through 
 other congregations, as the Propaganda. I have applied at the office 
 of the Inquisition, and the documents have come through other courts. 
 I have applied not at the office, but to the court, by petition, and have 
 had answers to the petitions. The documents I received were sealed ; 
 they had seals affixed, purporting to be the seal of the court. Looking 
 at the document now produced, from having been acquainted with the 
 seal of the court, I can say that this is similar. Strangers are not 
 allowed to enter into the office. The COURT. How do you know 
 that ? I have had to wait until the clerk came out. h 
 
 t The Attorney General, in his reply, pressed the reluctance to mention the 
 name as a proof of a conspiracy for forgery of the document ? What a state of 
 mind that man's must be who could fasten so fearful a meaning on so trivial a 
 circumstance ! The witness was well aware of the prejudice against a ' ' Monsignore. ' ' 
 
 8 The English college had been originally the hospital of the Holy Trinity and 
 St. Thomas established for English pilgrims, after the destruction of the ancient 
 Saxon school, in 847, which was founded by King Ina, in 727, for the education 
 of Saxon ecclesiastics. It was for the maintenance of this school he originated 
 Rome's scot, or Peter's pence, which was paid with some intermissions until the 
 reign of Henry VIII. In 1351, just 500 years ago, the present hospital was 
 founded ; and there exist in the archives letters from Henry VII., eulogizing the 
 foundation. In 1579, it was devoted to English exiles, and the hospital being 
 dissolved, a college was erected, with the revenues of the former establishment. 
 Cardinal Allen (once rector of St. Mary's, Oxford), aided in establishing the 
 college ; and in 1680, the college and church were rebuilt by Cardinal Howard. 
 In 1798, the French confiscated his property, and it was not restored till 1811, 
 when Dr. Gradwell, afterwards vicar apostolic of the London district, was made 
 rector. In 1828, Dr. Wiseman succeeded him, and was followed, in 1844, by 
 Dr. Grant. The college gives gratuitous education to twenty-five ecclesiastical 
 students. In the Roman universities the legal studies embrace international 
 law, the canon and civil law, and the institutions of ecclesiastical and criminal law. 
 The reader may be informed that the bishop is esteemed a very good canonist. 
 
 h The Attorney General made a most mysterious and suspicious affair of this ;
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 109 
 
 Cross-examined by the Solicitor General. Have you received such a 
 number of documents with the seal of the court as to make you fami- 
 liar with the seal ? From looking at the seal on this particular document 
 1 believe it to be the true one. That is no answer. I ask you, have 
 you received, yourself, a sufficient number of documents under the seal 
 of the court to enable you to swear that you are familiar with the seal? 
 I have received documents with the seal, not this particular seal. No, 
 of course; but that form of seal, that appearance of seal? Yes? Is 
 the office at the Vatican ? I believe so. Believe ! do you not know ? 
 I mean that about the time I was leaving Rome the French had 
 re-occupied the Palace of the Inquisition, and that the office was, 
 I believe, to be taken into the Vatican. You learn it from what 
 you heard? I was told so by one of the officers of the Inquisition. 
 Sir A. Cockburn. Now, my Lord, I tender this judgment in evidence. 
 The Attorney General. I beg to call your lordship's attention to the 
 Act 14 & 15 Viet. c. 99, s. 7, providing " that all judgments, &c. and 
 any proceedings or decrees, may be proved in any court of justice by 
 examined copies, or by copies authenticated by the seal of the court to 
 which the original document belongs ; and that if any copies shall pur- 
 port to be so sealed, the same shall be admitted as evidence in every 
 case in which the original document is reasonable evidence, without any 
 proof of seal, or of the judicial character of the person sealingj" &c. 
 Now the ground on which I submit that this proof here fails is, that 
 there is no evidence of the existence of a court having jurisdiction over 
 the subject matter, which is essential, in order to make the seal of the 
 court authenticate itself in this way. Sir A. Cockburn (to the bishop 
 of South wark). Has the Court of Inquisition jurisdiction over the 
 clergy in matters ecclesiastical? It is the supreme court in matters 
 ecclesiastical. It has jurisdiction over the clergy in higher crimes. 
 The Attorney General. How do you know that ? Because I have been 
 acquainted with all the different courts, having been consulted by those 
 courts upon points of law ; and from being consulted by the courts, it 
 was naturally my duty to know what affairs belonged to one court 
 rather than another. I was employed by the English bishops in getting 
 documents from each. Lord CAMPBELL. Are you acquainted with 
 canon law ? I was employed by Cardinal Acton to advise him on points 
 of canon law ; and he was judge in several of these courts. Has the 
 Inquisition a jurisdiction of its own ? The court is regulated by the 
 canon law. You are aware that there is a distinction between the pro- 
 ceedings of a court and its jurisdiction ? I am speaking of jurisdic- 
 tion. I am asking whether the jurisdiction exercised by the Court of 
 Inquisition exists by consent of the state ? It exists by consent of the 
 sovereign of the state ; and in Rome its proceedings are regulated by 
 the canon law. You will not distinguish between jurisdiction and pro- 
 ceedings. I am now on the jurisdiction. I want to know if its juris- 
 diction depends on the canon law, or whether it is peculiar to itself ? 
 It is a jurisdiction peculiar to itself; and I thought I had explained 
 that it depended for existence on the act of the sovereign of the state, 
 or sovereign. Then is the jurisdiction of the Inquisition the same in 
 every state in which it is allowed to be established, or does it vary 
 
 and pressed it as another proof of his frightful theory of forgery and fraud ! As 
 if a much more natural reason (the true one) were not the desire to avoid 
 scandal through any disclosure of matters of immorality that might be pending 
 against any priests !
 
 110 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 according to the will of the sovereign of each state ? As a matter of 
 law, I believe that sovereigns have dictated to it as to its proceedings ; 
 for instance, in Spain, and in some particular cases ; to what extent I 
 do not know. Then its jurisdiction varies in different states ? Yes. 
 We are now inquiring into its jurisdiction in Rome? Yes. It is there 
 the supreme court of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Attorney General. 
 You have not been consulted by the Inquisition ? No. When you 
 say you were consulted by the different courts, you mean by the 
 other courts? By Cardinal Acton, for different courts of which he 
 was a member, and by the Propaganda. Not with regard to the 
 Inquisition ? I was obliged to know what proceedings would belong 
 to the Inquisition. I was agent for the ecclesiastical affairs of the 
 English bishops, and it was my duty to be acquainted with the 
 particular business belonging to each court. I do not quite under- 
 stand. Are we to gather, that all which does not belong to the 
 other courts belongs to the Inquisition? No; the different matters 
 are distributed among the different courts ; and the Inquisition 
 is one, the Propaganda another, the Congregation of Rites another. 
 Then, knowing what is the business of the other courts, you 
 assume that what does not belong to other courts belongs to it ? I do 
 not assume it ; I have a knowledge, derived from the general run of 
 business with which I was acquainted, as to what part goes to each 
 particular court. Lord CAMPBELL. I do not see how it is possible 
 to have more satisfactory evidence !' The Attorney General. What 
 are the matters within the jurisdiction of the Inquisition ? The juris- 
 diction is partly criminal, and partly a court to advise the Holy See 
 on difficult questions of theology. What is the nature of the cri- 
 minal jurisdiction it exercises ? It exercises general jurisdiction on 
 matters of heresy, and in great cases of immorality against eccle- 
 siastics. Have you explained the whole of the jurisdiction exercised 
 by the Inquisition ? What I have said takes in most of the subjects 
 of it ; unless, perhaps, I ought to add that there are other circum- 
 stances supposed to fall under the classification of heresy. The 
 A ttorney General (sarcastically) Oh, heresy! no doubt. (Laughter.) 
 Sir A. Cockburn. Cases of immorality are subject to its jurisdiction? 
 Yes. Sir A. Cockburn again tendered the judgment for admission. 
 Lord CAMPBELL. What is the objection ? The Attorney General. 
 I object not upon the ground of jurisdiction, nor as to the seal, but to 
 the mere production of the judgment, without any proof that Dr. 
 Achilli was before the Court,' or that there were any proceedings on 
 which it was founded. It may be a mere statement of matters 
 ex parte ; it may be a mere fabrication, from beginning to end !* The 
 
 ' Even the Lord Chief Justice grew impatient at the peddling, pettifogging 
 objections taken to the admission of the document; the admission of which, 
 however, he afterwards entirely neutralized. 
 
 J The atrocious suggestion, which involves such venerable men as Cardinal 
 Antonelli, and the other ecclesiastics of the Roman congregation, in the crimes 
 of conspiracy and forgery, and subornation of perjury, might have been and was 
 supposed at this time to be a mere savage burst at the close of a long day's 
 struggle, with the anticipation of a defeat; but the reader will find that the 
 Attorney General in his reply repeated it deliberately, and made it the ground of 
 his defence of Achilli ! What a desperate defence it was, may be imagined from 
 its own nature and from the fact, that, at the close of the evidence for the 
 defendant, it was generally conceived that the line taken in reply would be to 
 suggest that there were two Achilli's (if, indeed, there could be two !); and this,
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. Ill 
 
 Solicitor General. I have likewise to object that there is not only no 
 proof of the identity between the prosecutor and any gentleman named 
 Achilli, but there is no proof that any one at all was before the Court ! 
 Lord CAMPBELL. That is what has been just urged. The Solicitor 
 General. I contend that it is contrary to the first principles of the law 
 of England to admit as evidence against a man a judgment in a cri- 
 minal procedure without clear proof that he was called upon to answer. 
 My Lord, this is the first time that a judgment of the Inquisition has 
 been tendered in evidence (at least, since the Reformation) in an 
 English court of justice ; k and whatever may be the nature of the 
 court, it is not to dispense with the first principles of the English law. 
 Mr. Ellis. Even in civil matters, a judgment is not evidence where it 
 appears that the party was not heard. 1 The confession may have 
 been put in without Dr. Achilli appearing at all ; and it is a tribunal 
 of whose authority or seal the Court can know nothing. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. I am called upon to determine whether this 
 document is admissible in evidence on the allegation in the plea. m 
 I am clearly of opinion that it is. I am not considering whether 
 it is evidence under which Dr. Achilli could be led out to be burnt 
 alive, or to be imprisoned for life in the dungeons of the Inquisi- 
 tion ; n but merely whether it sustains the allegation in the plea. 
 We must not be frightened at the word "Inquisition!" Thank 
 God, the thing has no place in this country! But I have abun- 
 
 it will have been seen, was actually hinted at by the Solicitor General. Bat 
 Achilli' s counsel knowing that the very name of the Inquisition was a "tower 
 of strength" to them determined upon that which, ordinarily, would have been 
 indeed a desperate course, to defend one man by imputing forgery, conspiracy, 
 and perjury, to half a hundred others ! 
 
 k But not the first time ecclesiastical judgments or documents, emanating 
 from the Holy See, have been received in English courts of justice ; on the 
 contrary, the law of England has a distinct class of decisions, and a regular 
 course of procedure on the subject, settled centuries ago. The course at com- 
 mon law is, for the bull or brief to be certified by a Catholic prelate. When the 
 Catholic Church was recognised by law this would be by his seal ; now it must be 
 in person; and that is the only difference. Year Book 31, Edward III., 9, 
 cited in the writer's pamphlet on the Catholic hierarchy, p. 25. 
 
 1 Yes, but here that did not appear ; but the contrary appeared. 
 
 m Which was, that by the Court of Inquisition, Achilli had been perpetually 
 suspended and deposed from the functions of the priesthood. 
 
 n The reader will remark and appreciate this specimen of impartiality, and 
 compare it with the following extract from Scrogg's charge in the case of poor 
 Coleman : 
 
 "You shall have," says Scroggs, in Coleman's case, "a fair, just, and 
 legal trial. If condemned it will be apparent you ought to be so : and without 
 a fair proof there shall be no condemnation. Therefore, you shall find we will 
 not do to you as you do to us, blow up at adventure, kill people because they 
 are not of your persuasion. Our religion teacheth us another doctrine, and you 
 shall find it clearly to your advantage. We seek no man's blood, but our own 
 safety." 
 
 Here there was some stamping of feet from some of the lowest class in the 
 outer portion of the court ; marked indignation and disgust from the educated 
 portion of the audience including members of the bar and even clergymen 
 of the Church of England. Lord Campbell did not check the applause he 
 received! The Times remarked on this: "We have every respect for the 
 high judicial character and attainments of Lord Campbell, and it is therefore
 
 112 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 dant evidence before me of the existence of such a jurisdiction, 
 and that this is a judgment under the seal of the tribunal, and I 
 have no difficulty in admitting it valeat quantum. It is remarked, 
 in the course of the argument, that this is the first time since 
 the Reformation that the judgment of the Court of Inquisition 
 has been tendered in evidence in an English court of justice. 
 Looking at this document, however, I find that it is a copy of the 
 proceedings of the Court of Inquisition; that such a jurisdiction is 
 exercised at Rome. Thank God, it does not extend to this coun- 
 try !P This country will, however, be ready to receive documents 
 emanating from courts of justice in other countries ; and I think 
 that, in receiving this document, I am not in the slightest danger 
 of doing that which may prove injurious to the Protestant religion 
 of this country .1 I do not receive this as I should a record of a 
 Court of Admiralty, as conclusive evidence of the facts,' but only 
 as evidence in support of the defendant's allegation that there is 
 such a judgment in the Court. 8 
 
 The judgment was then put in :* 
 
 " Testor ego infrascriptus notarius S. Congregationis Romanic, et 
 Universalis Inquisitionis, quod perquisitis actis assumptis in S. Omcio 
 contra sacerdotem P. Hiacynthum Achilli religiosum professum ordinis 
 Praedicatorum, constat ex eisdem actis, ipsurn Achilli, constitutis judi- 
 cialibus excussum, fuisse reum confessum de carnali copula, dum in 
 coenobio Viterbiensi moraretur, cum pluribus feminis habita, item de 
 defloratione alterius virginis in civitate Montis Falisci, aliasque duas 
 
 with great regret we find him, in a case of so much delicacy and excitement, 
 drawing attention to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, ' thanking God ' that ' we 
 have no Inquisition in this country,' and, after he had been sufficiently ap- 
 plauded, renewing the remark that it might be applauded again, and assuring 
 the audience, with grotesque solemnity, that by admitting this document he did 
 so without the slightest degree of danger to the Protestant religion of this 
 country a discovery which was received by the enthusiastic audience with a third 
 round of cheers." 
 
 P There was another outbreak from the back of the court, which Lord Camp- 
 bell received as placidly as the first. It will be seen that he at once rebuked the 
 applause Dr. Newman's counsel elicited. 
 
 i And if it were otherwise, the Lord Chief Justice would not have ad- 
 mitted it. 
 
 r Why not ? It was a judgment of a regular court of a sovereign state. 
 Why should it not be taken as all judgments of supreme courts are, as conclusive 
 evidence of the facts it recites ? Let it be observed, this latter sentence, was spoken 
 after the chief justice had read the judgment carefully, and proved that it recited 
 such offences as were charged in the plea, and if given full effect to, would sustain 
 the plea. And let it be also observed, that the struggle throughout was for 
 the admissibility, at all events, of the entire documents, including the grounds 
 of the judgment as recited in it ; the whole appearing (as will be seen) as one and 
 the same record under the same authentication ; and so it was admitted, and an 
 objection even started as to the reception of the recitals. Next day, however, 
 after further reflection, Lord Campbell rejected the recitals ! 
 
 8 The struggle for the admission of these documents lasted about two hours. 
 
 1 When the judgment was put in, a barrister of some eminence turned round 
 and exclaimed, "Thank God for that! Newman is now morally vindicated! 
 Whatever the verdict may be, the Court cannot sentence him ! "
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 113 
 
 mulieres Capuse carnaliter cognovisse. Eruitur quoque aliam puellain 
 Neapoli matrem veddidisse ; ac superiorem ordinis Praedicatorum 
 scutato quinquagiuta alter! foeminse ab eodem Achilli corrupt* pepeu- 
 disse ad dainna illata sarcienda. 
 
 " Denique fidem facio, quod ob memorata crimina, et alia de quibus 
 in actis mature prius discusso examine gravaminum ex actis resultan- 
 tium, perpensis defensionibus, aliisque ex more consideratis, nee non 
 benigne excepta ipsius inquisiti confessione, ejusdemque declaratione 
 sequentis tenoris : ' Non chiedo di non esser gastigato, auzi amo che 
 si proceda severamente sul conto mio in quel modo la giustizia esige. 
 Ricevero, con rassignazione qualunque disposizione venga emanata, 
 ed ove mancasse qualche ragione a procedere con piu rigore, la mia 
 confessione sia .bastante a punirmi come meglio credera il S. Tri- 
 bunale.' Emi. Inquisitores Generates, Fer. iv., die 16 Junii, 1841, 
 in Conventu S. Marise supra Minervam decreverunt : Inquisitus P. 
 Hiacynthus Achilli prcevia suspensione perpetua a celebrando sacri- 
 ficio Missee, inhabilitatione perpetua ad quamcumque directionem ani- 
 marum, et ad Verbi Dei praedicationem, nee non privationis vocis 
 activse ac passivae, et impositis psenitentiis salutaribus, damnatur ad 
 manendum per triennium in aliqua domo Religiosa sui ordinis stric- 
 tioris observantiae. 
 
 " In quorum fidem Datum ex Cancellaria S. Officii hac die 22 Sep- 
 tembris, 1851. 
 
 ANGELUS ARGENTI, 
 
 ** S. Rom. et Univ. Inquis., Notus. 
 " Testis, Fr. VINCENTIUS LEO SALLUA, O., 
 
 " Praed. 1. Socius S. R. Inquis. 
 Witness, JOHN GORDON, 
 
 " Cong. Orat. Presb., Birmingham. 
 " Witness, NICHOLAS DARNELL, 
 
 " Cong. Orat. Presb., Birmingham. 
 
 " Sworn before me at Rome, this 17th day of November, 1851. 
 " JOHN FREEBORN, 
 
 " British Consular Agent, Rome."" 
 
 The following translation was read : 
 
 " I, the undersigned notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Con- 
 gregation of the Inquisition, do testify that, after a complete inves- 
 tigation of the proceedings instituted v in the Holy Office against Father 
 Hyacinth Achilli, priest, religious professor of the order of preachers, 
 it is proved from the same acts that the said Achilli, having been 
 examined by th'e established authorities, confessed himself guilty of 
 having held carnal intercourse, whilst he was living in the monastery of 
 Viterbo, with many women ; also of having deflowered another who was 
 a virgin in the city of Mount Faliscue, and of having carnally known 
 
 u The above document is sealed at the signature with a large seal bearing the 
 insignia of the triple crown, supported by St. Peter and St. Paul, &c., with 
 these words on the margin, " Sigil. S. Roman, et Univers. Inquisitionis," in 
 Roman capitals, and at the foot it is stamped with the seal of the British Con- 
 sulate, Rome. 
 
 T In the civil law, the parties exhibited their interrogatories on their several 
 allegations, and the witnesses were privately examined upon these interrogatories 
 by the same judges who tried the cause. Gilbert on Evidence, p. 39, citing 
 Dig. lib. xxii. tit. 5. sec. 3. de Test. 
 
 I
 
 114 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 two other women at Capua. Moreover, it is discovered that he made 
 another girl at Naples a mother, and that the superior of the order of 
 preachers paid fifty scudi to another woman who had been corrupted by 
 the same Achilli, in order to make amends for the injuries done. Lastly, 
 I attest that on account of the crimes of the above-named, and other 
 crimes of which mention is made in the acts, after mature and deliberate 
 examination of the heavy charges resulting from the acts, after having 
 weighed the charges put forth, and considered" 1 other matters according 
 to custom, and after having mercifully accepted the confession of the 
 accused himself, and his own declaration of the following tenor, ' I 
 do not ask to be chastised, nay, rather I desire to be severely dealt 
 with on my showing, according as justice demands. I will receive with 
 resignation whatever punishment may be determined* upon, and sup- 
 posing there were wanting sufficient reason for proceeding with greater 
 rigour, I desire that confession be considered sufficient grounds for 
 punishing me as the said tribunal shall think best,'* their eminences the 
 Inquisitors General on Wednesday, June in, 1841, in the Convent of 
 Santa Maria supra Minerva, decreed that the accused Father Hyacinth 
 Achilli, after having been for ever suspended from the celebration of 
 the sacrifice of the mass, and for ever disabled from any sort of direc- 
 tion of souls, and preaching the Word of God, and deprived of active 
 and passive voice in the government of his order, and after having had 
 salutary penances imposed upon him, be condemned to remain for 
 three years in some religious house of his order of the most strict 
 observance/ 
 
 " Given in testimony of all these facts for the chancellor's office of 
 the Holy Office, on this day, Sept. 22, 1851." z 
 
 w The following is the form of a judgment by confession, in the Queen's 
 Bench, which is drawn up by the master, or officer answering to the "notary " 
 of the Inquisition, who first sets forth the declaration, and then says : " The 
 said C. D. (defendant) says, that he cannot deny the action, and therefore it is 
 considered (idea consideratum est) that the said A. B. do recover against the 
 said C. D." &c. That is, the master certifies the pleadings as the notary cer- 
 tifies the acts, and then certifies that " it is considered " by the Court, &c., just 
 as the notary does in the Court of Inquisition. The parallel appears precise. 
 With respect even to common conviction by magistrates, as to which the rule is 
 very strict, it was long ago held by Holt, C.J., and lately recognised by 
 Denman, C.J., that "it was enough if it appeared (i. e. on its face) that an 
 offence had been committed, and an adjudication of imprisonment by a court of 
 competent jurisdiction." Bethel's case, Salkeld's Reports, cited in re Ham- 
 mond, Queen's Bench, Trinity Term, 1846. 
 
 x The Times says, " Against these positive statements, these accumulative and 
 corroborative probabilities, and these dangerous admissions, there is nothing to 
 be set except the denial of Dr. Achilli, adhered to with steadiness and pertinacity ; 
 a denial which amounts to little more than a repetition of the affidavit upon 
 which the criminal information was granted. If no amount of evidence could 
 outweigh Dr. Achilli's denial on oath, the solemn proceedings of the trial were a 
 hollow mockery ; and if it could, it is difficult to cpnceive what testimony the 
 jury could have expected." 
 
 y The Times says, " The sentence of the Inquisition, moreover, solemnly 
 recites under respectable attestation his own confession and submission, in 
 Italian." 
 
 1 It has long been settled law that a foreign judgment is prima facie evidence 
 even of a debt to be recovered in this country, and conclusive until it be impeached 
 by the other party (per Butler, J., Walker v. Wilier, 1 Douglas ; also Sinclair 
 v. Fraser, 20 Ho well's State Trials). This doctrine was recently affirmed
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 115 
 
 Mr. Reynolds re-called and examined by Mr. Badeley. Do you 
 know the seal of the court at Corfu ? Yes. This is the seal of the 
 Civil Court (looking at document produced). Mr. Badeky then ten- 
 dered in evidence the document : 
 
 ANTONIO CAPELLO, Present. Corfu, 3rd July, 1843. 
 
 ( Stam P-) President of the Meeting, S. A. Capello. 
 
 To the Noble Civil Tribunal. 
 
 The Petition of Nicholas Garimoni, in answer 
 to that of June 21, 1843, of Marianne Cris- 
 saffe, his Wife. 
 
 States that his wife was surprised in the 
 house of her mother, at about half-past 11, on 
 the night of this last 2nd July, 1843, by her 
 husband, while she was in company with a 
 certain Signor Achilli Giacinto ; and that the 
 time, the manner, the circumstances, and the 
 conversation that followed the surprise, prove that the said wife was 
 unfaithful to her conjugal duty. 
 
 Witnesses : ANTONIO VIRISSO. 
 MARCO TEVANSCI. 
 (Signed) STATIC SPANOPULO, Advocate. 
 
 Extracted the 5th March, 1850, from the Acts of Trial, No. 120 (of 
 July, 1843), of the Civil Tribunal. 
 
 (Signed) NICOLO VARTLA, Local Archivist. 
 
 William Nicholi was then called, and said, I am a Dominican friar. 
 Every one becoming a member of that order takes the three usual vows 
 
 solemnly in the House of Lords, Houlditchv.Donegall, 8 Bligh's Reports, N.S. ; 
 and even to that extent of receiving evidence against it, the judgment is only 
 examinable when a party applies to our courts to enforce it. Per Eyre, J., 
 Phillipps v. Hunter, Q.H. Blackstone's Reports. 
 
 In a case occurring within the last five years, Lord Denman and the Court of 
 Queen's Bench held that even a plea to an action on a judgment in a colonial 
 court (which is treated as a foreign judgment), must steer clear of any inquiry 
 into the merits of the case, for whatever constituted a defence in that court 
 ought to have been pleaded thereto. Henderson v. Henderson, 6 Queen's 
 Bench Reports. 
 
 So in another late case, Alderson, B., in giving judgment, said " It is not con- 
 trary to natural justice, that a man who has agreed to receive a .particular notice 
 of a legal proceeding should be bound by a judgment in a cause where that 
 particular mode of notification has been duly performed, even although he has 
 not had actual notice of it. Vallee v. Dumergue, Exchequer, Trinity Term, 
 1849. 
 
 In a late case in the Common Pleas, Maule, J. said, " Whether a man is 
 bound by the law of a foreign country is matter of law here and everywhere. 
 There is nothing on the absence of process contrary to natural justice, if there 
 has been some other kind of notice, as verbal notice." And Wilde, C.J., said, 
 " If a court of competent jurisdiction have given judgment, that judgment, at 
 the place where it was given, is conclusive against the parties, if not appealed 
 against ; and that, even where so sued upon itself in this country, it is primti 
 I 2
 
 116 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 of poverty, obedience, and chastity. Every priest, whether of that 
 order or not, comes under the obligation to chastity. The Attorney 
 General. What, are the vows repeated ? Witness. No ; but the office 
 of priest involves it in itself. s 
 
 facie evidence of a cause of action." Bank of Australasia v. Harding, Trinity 
 Term, 1850. 
 
 In a case occurring last year, Lord Campbell recognised these doctrines, and 
 said, " It does not appear that the question has ever been decided whether even 
 in an action upon a foreign judgment the merits of the case on which the foreign 
 court has regularly adjudicated, may be put in issue. Doubtless it is open to 
 the party to show that the foreign court had not jurisdiction (in Dr. Newman's 
 case he called upon him to prove that it had) of the subject matter of the suit, 
 or that he never was summoned to answer (qucere, as auy notice, usual or accepted, 
 is held sufficient in cases just cited), and had no opportunity of making his 
 defence, or that the judgment was fraudulently obtained. It is enough to say 
 that the dicta against retrying the cause are as strong as those in favour of the 
 proceeding, and it must now be taken to have been in due manner decided 
 against the defendant. How far it would be permitted to a defendant to im- 
 peach the competency or integrity of a foreign court, from which there was no 
 appeal, it is unnecessary here to inquire (in Dr. Newman's case he permitted 
 the prosecutor to impeach both) ; the documents by which the case was esta- 
 blished in a distant quarter of the globe may be lost, or not forthcoming ; and 
 the witnesses who truly swore it may be absent or dead. If the judgment were 
 given by a court in a foreign country, how is the cause to be retried here ? " 
 Bank of Australasia v. Nias, Queen's Bench, Hilary Term, 1851. 
 
 In the first place, a postulant is reminded according to the formulary for 
 receiving to the order : " Oportet quod intelligas, quse habeas servare in reli- 
 gione, ne postea dicas, te fuisse deceptum, vel non credidisse tot ardua esse in ea. 
 In primis oportet te servare tria, vota principalia religionis, viz. obedientiam, 
 paupertatem, et castitatem. Quantum ad obedientiam scias quod eris obligatus 
 servare Regulam et Constitutiones nostras, et obedientias raajorum tuorum, ita 
 quod non existimes te ullam habere libertatem, sed totalitu esse subjectum, et 
 privatum propria voluntate. Quantum ad paupertatem, similiter non poteris 
 habere aliquid quantum cunque modicum, quod possit dici tuum vel quod tu 
 possis dicere, hoc meum est. Circa castitatem teneberis non solum servare 
 castitatem corporis, sed etiam mentis ; id est, quod non cogites de rebus inho- 
 nestis, nee delecteris in illis, et ultra hoc non poteris loqui turpia, aut facere 
 actus turpes et inhonestos, et lubricos nutus et fixiones oculorum m mulieres ; 
 et ita te existimes in hoc tamquam non esses homo, sed lapis vel lignum." 
 These admonitions, which are rather curtailed, precede the admission to the 
 noviciate, which lasts twelve months ; during that period the postulant is required 
 to live in accordance with the said rule, and at the expiration of that term, if 
 nothing be said to the contrary by the superiors, and the postulant still continue 
 to bear the habit and observe the rule, a tacit profession takes place, binding 
 him to the order, and vice versa. If, however, a public and oral profession takes 
 place, as is the universal practice, he uses the following form : " Ego, frater 
 
 N , facio professionem : et promitto obedientiam Deo, et Beato Mariae, et 
 
 Beato Dominico, et tibi," &c. Upon this form the Constitutions remark : 
 " Declaramus quod professio est votum solemne. Declaramus quod inter tria 
 vota principalius, et essentialius religioni est obedientia, turn quia per earn 
 majus bonum Deo offertur, quam per alia (offertur enim per obedientiam Deo 
 propria voluntas et bona animse ; quse praeferuntur bonis corporahbus et exteri- 
 oribus quae per alia vota Deo offeruntur) ; turn secundo, quia votum obedientiae 
 continet in se alia vota, et non ex converse (qui enim promittit obedientiam, 
 promittit caste et sine proprio vivere) ; turn tertio, quia votum obedientias pro- 
 prie se extendit ad actus proprios propinquos nni religionis, qui est perfectio 
 charitatis et dilectionis Dei. Quanto autem aliquid est propinquius nni tanto 
 melius est ; et propterea in professione nostra exprimus solum votum obedientiae,
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 117 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn then put in Achilli's book, " Dealings with the 
 Inquisition," 15 to show that if the defendant's charges against Dr. 
 Achilli were true, their publication was for the public utility, when 
 
 sub quo continetur observatis castitatis et voluntarise paupertatis, et praecep- 
 torum quae in Regula et Constitutionibus continentur, vel quse a Prselato fiunt : 
 Declaramus, quod ex voto nostrae professionis tenemur et obligamur caste, et 
 sine proprio vivere, et Regulam ac Constitutiones non contemnere, et praecepto 
 in Regula, vel in Constitutionibus facto, in his quse sunt secundum regulam et 
 constitutiones, usque ad mortem inclusive obedire." " Item declaramus, etc. 
 similiter si profitendo exprimat aliquid religioni repugnans, puta se dicat : non 
 intendo servare castitatem promissam, quantumcumque illam promittam, non 
 tenet professio ; haec enim expressa nocent, uon expressa non nocent." 
 
 b As this book was regularly received in evidence, anything stated in it is, of 
 course, evidence against the author; and as the law privileges " fair criticism " 
 on any publication, a few remarks upon its character may properly be made. 
 It is, however, really beneath criticism, and all that need be said of it on that 
 score is that it is a collection of loose, gossipping stories, obviously the effusions 
 at once of enmity and vanity, the object of which is to convey an exalted idea of 
 himself, and to cast odium on all other of the ecclesiastics in the Catholic 
 Church. And this enmity and vanity are so blind, that they lead to the most 
 ludicrous self-contradictions. Thus, for instance, he calls the Inquisition " bar- 
 barous," yet elsewhere admits he said he had no fault to find with the slight 
 correction he had received ; and, surely, for a person who had for ten years (as 
 he himself admits) been secretly teaching what they deemed heresy, and per- 
 verting others to it, a few months' imprisonment (putting out of question the 
 alleged immoralities) was not very barbarous. In another place, he represents 
 himself as a sworn enemy to hypocrisy, and as one frank and sincere by nature ; 
 and yet he acknowledges that for many years, after being perfectly persuaded that 
 the mass was an imposture, he continued to celebrate it ! He professes to narrate 
 accurately things said at secret conclaves of the Inquisition, and represents a Jesuit 
 as giving a circumstantial exposure of the arts and artifices of his own order ! He 
 professes to state things he ascertained as happening at Ancona, while he was 
 passing through it as a fugitive to Corfu, in such baste, as it was sworn in evi- 
 dence, that he had not money to pay his passage, and had to get his name into 
 another person's passport. He pretends to have been disgusted with the monks 
 for their immoralities ; yet he does not venture to say he ever remonstrated with 
 them, or represented matters to the superior authorities, whereas he discloses 
 that they repeatedly remonstrated with, and complained against him. He says 
 he could not live among them, but does not say that he ever demanded an 
 investigation into their conduct. He says he was himself, on several occasions, 
 in authority, as sub-prior, prior, and visitor, yet does not venture to say he 
 ever used his authority to repress these supposed practices, except in a single 
 case of a man since silenced by death. He represents the monks as dis- 
 trusting and disliking him, and yet as pressing him to continue with them. He 
 alleges that no complaint had been made against him until 1841, when thrown 
 into prison, yet repeatedly states that accusations were made against him ever 
 since 1833. He says the Bible is deemed heresy in the Church of Rome, yet 
 says he held chairs of scriptural teaching ; represents an eminent ecclesiastic as 
 giving him a copy of the Bible to read, and declares that he for years preached 
 and taught entirely from the Bible. He says he was full of wrath against the 
 Church, ever since he discovered her deceits, and yet, though he also says he dis- 
 covered those deceits, and was persuaded her whole doctrine was imposture, as 
 early as 1833, he never seceded to Protestantism until he had been sentenced to 
 perpetual deprivation. He says the Inquisition proceeded only for heresy, yet 
 says that he was known to have held that heresy for ten years previously, and 
 at the same time admits that there was a report that he had been guilty of other 
 crimes, and speaks of documents produced to prove the falsehood of accusations 
 as to his conduct at Viterbo, made while he was in the Inquisition prison ! He
 
 118 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 The Attorney General said that he would not trouble his learned 
 friend to prove this, but would at once admit it. 
 
 In this book Achilli says, " The first attack against me was at 
 Viterbo " (p. 37). Some among the friars disliked me " (p. 36). " The 
 vicar of the bishop raised reports against me. I was told of the evil 
 reports but took no notice of them " (p. 130). " I entreated the 
 general of the order to allow me to remain in peace at Viterbo, but he 
 refused to comply with my request, and ordered me to renounce my pro- 
 fessorship, and repair to Rome : at last I could visit no longer, and 
 was obliged to surrender my professorship into the hands of the 
 bishop " (12930). " It was thus that I was forced, at the close of 
 1833, to leave Viterbo." "The first of my accusations dated from 
 1830, d while holding the head professorship of theology in the college 
 of Viterbo, and advocating and teaching with great zeal the Romish 
 doctrine." " I disbelieved in the mass, and rejected its doctrine " 
 (161, 162). "I was perfectly persuaded of its impostures in 1835, 
 and the heresies of its doctrine, but continued to celebrate it without 
 devotion, but with a show of earnestness" (201). " At that time I had 
 never yet publicly given any idea that I was at all dissatisfied with the 
 doctrines of the Church, or differed in opinion with the monks, or 
 had quitted that faith which I had hitherto advocated to the world " 
 (186). "I had never been really a monk" (254). "At Capua, I 
 foresaw a persecution against me " (237). " At Naples I was continually 
 attacked by false reports " (257). " I had occasion to leave Naples on 
 account of important business which called me to Rome in 1841. I set 
 off with the intention of returning again at the end of a fortnight, 
 but while I was on the point of leaving Rome to return to Naples, I 
 was arrested by the Inquisition. If this had not befallen me, I should 
 have returned to Naples, enjoying a little world of my own" 6 (261). 
 " When I was afterwards in the power of the Inquisition, the inquisi- 
 tors spread reports relating to other accusations than those originally 
 alleged." A report was circulated that I had been guilty of other 
 crimes than those for which I was placed in the Inquisition " (20). 
 
 says the sentence for heresy is inevitably burning, yet not only admits his own 
 sentence was a " slight correction," but does not dare to state (what the best 
 authorities say, could not be stated) that a single case had occurred of a capital 
 punishment by the Roman Inquisition. He declares the Church connived at 
 immoralities, yet says he was placed in posts which gave him full power to 
 correct them, and that he was known as constantly complaining of them ! He 
 says he writes under no vindictive feeling, yet takes care to say something inju- 
 rious against every one who ever reproved him ; and his book teems with charges 
 the most shocking and shameful against ecclesiastics, whom every traveller in 
 Italy knows are men as venerable for their virtues as for their age, and who 
 even Lord Campbell felt compelled to say were men eminent for learning and 
 piety. He tells a stupid story about a woman being ordered on her salvation to 
 " denounce '' her husband to the Inquisition (what on earth does that mean ?), 
 and yet discloses that she disobeyed the injunction (and told the party who 
 gave it that she had done so, and should do so), without the slightest incon- 
 venience following ! It is, in short, a book crammed with coarse calumnies, the 
 malignity of which are only equalled by their monstrosity ; and such, in short, 
 is its absurdity, that it can scarcely impose upon the meanest minds, except by 
 reason of its pandering to the vilest and most vulgar prejudices. 
 
 c Then it could not have been for heresy he was sent away from Viterbo. 
 
 d The witness Giustini swore her acquaintance with him commenced about 
 1830, and lasted a year or so, and was known to other parties. 
 
 c Then it was not voluntarily he left the Church.
 
 REPORT OP TUB TRIAL. 119 
 
 " A process was got up against me before the Inquisition in " 1842 (33). ' 
 " There no one, not even the dearest friend, can afford protection or 
 support : there every accusation has to be fully entered into. The 
 accuser gives his name to the tribunal, the same with the witnesses. 8 
 They began in this manner with respect to myself. The first attack 
 against me was made at Viterbo, h in concert with certain parties at 
 Rome, and some of the Dominicans from Naples" ' (37). " Documents 
 were laid before the British consul at Rome, by my friends, while I 
 was in prison, proving the falsehood of the accusations laid to my 
 charge at Viterbo" j (79). "In July, 1842, I was released, by order of 
 Pope Gregory, from the prisons of the Inquisition " (1). " I was set 
 free for want of any definite charge being established against me : I 
 was still under strict surveillance " (266). " In September I was near 
 Nazzano. I set off for Ancona. I left Ancona on 4th October, and 
 two days afterwards reached Corfu. I was fortunate enough to get in- 
 cluded in the passport of a family, with which I travelled without any 
 separate mention of my name : this was a necessary precaution to 
 insure me from molestation on the road " (268). " There the Papal 
 consul demanded my expulsion as having been guilty of enormous 
 crimes. Several of the Maltese at Corfu had at one time taken into 
 their heads to follow me in the streets with insulting and threatening 
 words" (269). "I opened the Italian church' in Corfu, in 1844, with 
 Bamliera at my side. He and his brother, two dear friends, at the 
 head of a few Italians, embarked from Corfu, and landed on the shores 
 of Calabria, where, in a skirmish with the troops of the king, they 
 were taken prisoners and put to death " (270). " I was closely 
 united with the brothers Bandiera. When my friends set out for 
 Calabria, I took my departure from Corfu, to settle at Zante. It was 
 settled that 1 should there receive communications and instructions 
 rom them as to my future proceedings " (275). "At Malta, an article 
 in a journal proposed to the people to welcome me with cudgels, stones, 
 and other offensive missiles ; and another which accused me of being 
 an impostor and hypocrite. I opened the Italian church and published 
 my writings. " These proceedings silenced the reports against me " 
 (282 3). " Some English clergymen, and others who called themselves 
 Protestants, were afterwards induced to oppose themselves to me " 
 (288). " The renowned Cardinal Wiseman, the archbishop of West- 
 minster, according to the Pope's creation, lias published an article 
 against me in the Dublin Review " k (76). 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn stated that that was the case for the defendant, 1 and 
 the Court then (at a quarter past eight o'clock) adjourned to half-past 
 nine o'clock to-morrow. 
 
 f Which could not have been for heresy. See former notes. 
 
 s The reader will remark how striking is this testimony to the fairness and im- 
 partiality of procedure of the Inquisition, as to which see notes to the judgment. 
 
 h The place to which the evidence of Giustini refers ; and he afterwards 
 shows that this accusation was not for heresy, as, outwardly, he was zealous in 
 teaching the Romish doctrines. 
 
 ' Where the affair of the Principes occurred. 
 
 J Where he says he never disclosed any heresy. 
 
 k W T hich expressly refers to this article" in the Dublin Review. 
 
 1 Which was most materially confirmed by the last piece of evidence adduced 
 the book. Unhappily, however, its numerous confirmations were not put to the 
 jury.
 
 120 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 THIRD DAY. 
 
 The Court sat at the usual hour. 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn. My Lord, I beg to tender in evidence the 
 Dublin Review, for July, 1850, to show that the charges contained 
 in the libel were published some time ago, and with specific refer- 
 ences to facts and dates, proving that the prosecutor has had ample 
 opportunity of meeting these charges, and also showing that they 
 were not got up for the justification of Dr. Newman. The Attorney 
 General objected. Lord CAMPBELL. I do not think it is evidence. 
 Sir A. Cockburn. Perhaps the same proof is contained in Achilli's 
 book. 
 
 Giovanni Giacinto Achilli m was then called, and examined by 
 the Attorney General. 
 
 The Attorney General first asked him whether he would give his 
 evidence in English or Italian ? to which he replied, " I would prefer 
 to give my evidence in English, but as I cannot speak fluently in con- 
 versation," I would prefer being assisted by an interpreter." Sir A. 
 E. Cockburn observed that Dr. Achilli could preach in, English. The 
 Attorney General said, reading a sermon was a different thing. Lord 
 CAMPBELL said, no doubt the witness would give his evidence best 
 in Italian. The prosecutor was then examined by the Attorney 
 General. I am 49 years of age. I was born at Viterbo. I was 
 educated in the Roman Catholic faith, in the College of the Jesuits a^ 
 
 m The Times thus described him : " He is a plain -featured middle-sized man, and 
 his face is strongly Italian. His forehead is low and receding, his nose prominent, 
 the mouth and the muscles around lull of resolution and courage. He wears a black 
 wig, the hair of which is perfectly straight, and as he close shaves, this wig gives 
 to his appearance a certain air of the conventicle. His eyes are dark and deep 
 set ; and with his black wig, sallow complexion, and sombre aspect, leave an im- 
 pression upon the mind of the observer by no means agreeable, and not readily to 
 be forgotten. Judging of his intellectual powers, from his physiognomy and mode 
 of giving evidence, one would be led to say that he was a man of considerable 
 penetration and acuteness. The questions put to him by his own counsel he 
 answered with great clearness, and in a calm, unwavering, quiet manner, without 
 any trace of strong excitement, or feeling deeply roused. Sometimes a slight 
 contemptuous smile accompanied his denials, and once or twice he seemed to treat 
 points angrily. His general bearing was cautious and careful replying with great 
 reflection and precision." 
 
 n It had been already proved that he could speak well enough in English in 
 common conversation. See the evidence of the witness Logan. 
 
 No doubt he would "prefer" it; the reason is obvious: the process of 
 interpretation is tedious, and interposes not only great opportunity for reflec- 
 tion upon the replies to be given, but breaks the force of cross-examination. It 
 was remarked, that when a little excited, he would constantly commence an 
 answer in good English, and then turn to the interpreter, and put it in Italian. 
 And he soon became even himself so wearied with the double process of inter- 
 preting questions and answers, that he begged the questions might he put in 
 English and answered in Italian. Thus he secured himself all the advantages 
 of both systems, hearing in English, answering .in Italian, to his own satis- 
 faction, no doubt. In every conceivable way the Court shielded him.
 
 RKPORT OF THE TRIAL. 121 
 
 Viterbo. I entered into the Dominican convent of La Querci, at Viterbo, 
 as a novice, in the year 1819. I was then sixteen years old. I remained 
 there as a novice a little more than a year. I then became a professed 
 monk of the Dominican order. p After that, in 1821, I went to Lucca to 
 pursue my studies there. In 1824 I entered into priest's orders. I was 
 then under the canonical age. I obtained my orders, being under age, 
 by a dispensation from the Pope. It was at the solicitation of the 
 duke of Lucca. In the same year I went to Rome to pursue my 
 studies at the College of Minerva there. 1 In the early part of 1827, 
 I was sent to Capranica to preach the Lent sermons. Capranica is in the 
 diocese of Sultri, in the province of Viterbo. I was appointed by the 
 bishop of Sultri. I have got the patent of my appointment here/ lu 
 the spring of 1827, I received an appointment as Lector Philosophies in 
 the seminary of the bishop of Viterbo. The appointment is here. I 
 commenced my duties in November, 1827. I remained there discharg- 
 ing my duties till 1833 inclusive. On the 6th of October, 1832, I was 
 appointed by the Master of the Sacred Palace to be his vicar in the 
 diocese of Viterbo ; and, among other things, made me not only censor 
 of the press, but president of the censorship. I have got here an 
 appointment of vicar from the Master of the Sacred Palace. In 1833, 
 I obtained from Cardinal Valzi, bishop of Monti-Fiasconi, unlimited 
 authority to confess persons of both sexes in his diocese. 3 That gave 
 me authority to impose penance and to give absolution. In, the same 
 year, 1833, I was appointed, by the general of the Dominicans, prefect 
 of studies and head professor of the College of Minerva at Rome. I 
 have got the appointment here. At the end of 1833 I left Viterbo with 
 the provincial of my order, on a visitation tour of the Dominican 
 
 P Such early profession is not usual. 
 
 i The Dominican seminary. A splendid library was founded for public use 
 by Cardinal Casanata, in the Dominican convent of St. Maria sopra Minerva. 
 The printed books, in 1838, numbered 180,000 volumes, besides manuscripts. 
 Some inedited writings of St. Thomas Aquinas have been discovered here. Here 
 also is a complete collection of prints and engravings, amounting to several thou- 
 sands. There are six rooms filled with books ; the chief hall is 300 feet long. 
 Reminiscences of Rome. The church of the convent is a magnificent edifice, 
 containing many chapels, one of which contains the body of St. Catherine of 
 Sierra, the St. Theresa of the Dominican order. 
 
 T The Attorney General carefully refrained from asking, and Sir A. Cockburn, 
 amid all the embarrassments he had to encounter under a partial judge and pre- 
 judiced jury, who were watching when they could interrupt him, omitted to ask 
 how long Achilli exercised the offices thus alleged to have been conferred. And 
 the value of the me~re evidence of appointments, may be appreciated from a pas- 
 sage in the history of Titus Gates. " He took orders, and officiated as curate in 
 several parishes, and as chaplain on board a man-of-war ; but all these situations 
 he successively forfeited in consequence of his misconduct (yet no, doubt he pro- 
 duced his appointments as proof of character). Houseless and penniless, he 
 applied to Dr. Tonge, a man in whom weakness and credulity were combined, 
 with a disposition singularly mischievous and acute ; and who deemed it his duty 
 periodically to warn his countrymen of the designs of the Jesuits. In Gates he 
 found an apt instrument for his purpose, and it was arranged that he should 
 feign himself a convert to the Catholic faith. He accordingly obtained a place in 
 the college of English Jesuits, but the habits of Gates did not accord with the 
 discipline of a college, and after a trial of five months he was disgracefully ex- 
 pelled and injured." Lingard, vol. xii. 
 
 1 Another diocese. Be it observed, he never remained long at any place.
 
 122 REPORT OP TUB TRIAL. 
 
 convents in Tuscany. 1 I was engaged on that visitation tour about a 
 year. I returned to Viterbo in November, 1834, when the visitation 
 tour was ended. I then stayed in my own convent at Gradi, with the 
 provincial. I remained at Viterbo only a few days on my return. I 
 was then appointed visitor of another place. In 1827 I was chosen 
 confessor of the governor of Viterbo by the apostolical delegate. 
 During the whole time I was at Viterbo, and down to 1833, 1 continued 
 to act as confessor to the governor. The general authority to confess, 
 which I had at Viterbo, was renewable from year to year ; and it was 
 renewed from year to year down to 1833. When I returned to Viterbo, 
 in 1834, I remained a few days, and was appointed visitor to the con- 
 vent of Nepi. I was engaged there four weeks. I then went to Rome. 
 I arrived at Rome in the month of December, 1834. In 1835 I had 
 two patents to preach the Lent sermons. 1 have got them here. One 
 was from the cardinal archbishop of Capua. The authority was 
 to preach at his cathedral at Capua. The other was from the 
 same cardinal to preach Lent service in the church of St. Maria 
 di Capua, a collegiate church. I have them here. I also received 
 authority to confess persons- of both sexes. That was an appoint- 
 ment during pleasure. I held that appointment all the time I 
 was at Naples. In 1835 I obtained letters of secularization from 
 the Pope. I produce them. I did not immediately avail myself of 
 them, because I was requested by Cardinal Acton to remain a little 
 longer in my order, till I had better tried my vocation. 11 After I had 
 the letters I went to Naples and lived in the Dominican convent for 
 four years. During that time, in the month of June, 1838, I went to 
 Rome. I stayed only a month at Rome ; with that exception I stayed 
 all the time in the Dominican convent at Naples. In the month of 
 June, 1838, I was confessor to the princess of Saxony, Duchess de 
 Bourbon. In February, 1837, I was made free of my order in the pro- 
 vince of Naples. I have a minute of my incorporation. I was affiliated. 
 I produce the minute. On the 3rd of August, 1887, I had a patent 
 constituting me to be prior of the convent of St. Pietro Martyrio, 
 Naples. Before my appointment I was sub-prior. This was by the 
 provincial of the order. There is in it, and also in another document, 
 a clause absolving me from all excommunication ; that is a clause 
 which is put in all patents which have the power of conferring any 
 jurisdiction. I was also appointed by the provincial to be his commis- 
 sary in a cause to be tried in the Convent del , near Naples. On 
 
 I The peregrinations of other friars or priors of the Dominican order, have 
 produced blessed fruit. " Who," says Digby, " could describe the fruits of peace 
 which followed the steps of a Friar Lawrence of England, or a St. Vincent 
 Ferrer (who came to England), who never left a town without having chased from 
 it the demon of discord, and re-established peace, order, and harmony, and who 
 passed as an angel of peace through Spain, France, Italy, Savoy, Switzerland, 
 England, and Ireland ; or of a Raymond of Capua, 23rd general of the order ; 
 or he who afterwards governed the Church as Pope Innocent V. ; or he who 
 afterwards was Pope Benedict XI. Thus, in 1299, Brother Angelo of Faventia, 
 prior of the Dominicans, made peace between Bologna and Romagna. So Friar 
 John made peace in Verona, Vicenza, Mantua, Padua, and Bracea ; and the 
 treaty he drew up between the Guelphs and Ghibellines may be seen in Muraton." 
 (Art. 9, Ital. iv. p. 117). Oh, let no one take their idea of the religious orders 
 from the life of Achilli or his associates ! Very different scenes and occurrences 
 characterize their history ! 
 
 II Sir A. Cockburn asked the reason, on examination.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 123 
 
 the 15th of December, 1838, I was also appointed commissary to con- 
 duct an election in a convent at Naples. In 1839 J completed my secu- 
 larization. I remained at Naples after that as a secular priest for about 
 two years. In 1841 I went to Rome. I arrived in Rome from Naples 
 in the year 1841, but I do not recollect the month. In the spring of 
 1842 I was imprisoned in the Inquisition. I remained in the prison of 
 the Inquisition at that time about three months. I then went to pass 
 the summer in the country near to Rome. I afterwards went to 
 Ancona. From Ancona I proceeded to Corfu. I was assisted in getting 
 from Ancona to Corfu by Boccheciampi. I met him at Ancona, and 
 he said to me he was going to the Ionian Islands. I told him I was 
 going the same way, but I had no passport. He said I might make use 
 of his, because he had a passport for five people, and they were only 
 four. So I took no name, but was No. 5. I remained at Corfu about 
 a year and a half. I went from Corfu to Zante. I remained at Zante 
 about a year and a half ; that was till about July, 1846. I then went 
 to Malta. From Malta I came to England. I came to England for 
 the first time in May, 1847. I was then appointed professor of the 
 Malta College. I went to Malta, and acted in the duties of my pro- 
 fessorship. I returned -to England in June, 1848. I remained in 
 England at that time till January, 1849. I then went to Rome. I 
 was married at Rome on the 24th of June, 1849. T I married Miss 
 Heley, an English lady, who had been educated in Italy. Soon after 
 my marriage I was again put into the Inquisition. I remained in the 
 Inquisition about six months. I was at the Castle of St. Angelo. I was 
 taken out of prison under pretence of giving testimony in a political 
 cause. The French authorities interfered in my favour. After I left Rome 
 I came to England, where I have remained ever since. I have since been 
 minister of the gospel at the Italian Protestant chapel, in Dufours'- 
 
 T The validity of manner depends on the lex loci. To be valid, this marriage 
 ought to have been in conformity with the laws of the then existing republic. 
 But the republic had passed no new marriage law : marriage was just as it had 
 been under Pope Pius, and as it is now ; and to be valid, it was necessary that it 
 should be celebrated before the parish priest. Again, the republic had not re- 
 voked the law (part of the civil law) which makes a marriage contract by a friar 
 or priest invalid. By the law of the republic, a Roman subject or a priest was 
 incapable of legally marrying. Nor could it be considered as a marriage between 
 strangers and aliens. Achilli bad never been naturalized in England ; he was a 
 Roman subject, subject to the Roman law. The lex loci did not apply ; the 
 marriage was not celebrated according to the law of this country. The officiating 
 elder was Saccares, who was so summarily sent from the Protestant College at 
 Malta. It is fair to add that, in 1850, Achilli was legally married to the sam<? 
 lady at St. Martinis Church. 
 
 w In his narrative, he says, " In 1841 I had troubles with the Inquisition, 
 the result of which was, that being weary of serving in the ministry of the 
 Roman Church, I separated myself entirely from that office, and made to the 
 Inquisition my renunciation for perpetuity of all the honours and emoluments 
 which I had enjoyed up to that time. The Inquisition, on its part, drew up a 
 decree of dismissal for perpetuity from all the branches of my ministry " (p. 8.) 
 The reader will observe this account is quite consistent with, and confirms the 
 decree of the Inquisition and the recital of his confession, for renunciation is an 
 equivocal phrase, and may mean confession of a criminality necessarily involving 
 perpetual renunciation ; and a comparison of the language of the decree will 
 show a striking coincidence. But let the reader particularly observe, the narra- 
 tion admits a decree of dismissal ; the jury found the fact of a decree of depriva- 
 tion ; and he swore in court he never was deprived at all ! See his affidavit also.
 
 124 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 place, till two weeks ago. I have never been deprived of any office for 
 any cause. 1 Neither in the month of February, 1831, nor at any other 
 time, did I ever know a person named Elena Valente Giustini. While 
 I was at Viterbo, I never robbed of her honour any young woman at 
 any time. I knew a family at Viterbo of the name of Gentili. There 
 are two families there of the name of Gentili two brothers. At that 
 time the only woman of the name of Gentili was the wife of Count V. 
 Giulio Gentili. Neither of the family lived in the country. I did not 
 pass my country month, 1831, with the family of a Gentili. It was 
 my custom in the month of October to pass my time at the country- 
 houses of my friends or relations. These families were in Zelli, Christo- 
 fori, and Tekeschi. I believe I passed the month, in 1831, with two, 
 if not all three of them. I do not know of any country house of the 
 Gentili. In neither of these three families was there a servant girl with 
 whom I went out to any place. I never went with any servant girl to 
 a place where the two Gentilis were shooting. Now look at that 
 woman Elena Valente, now Giustini.'' Do you know that woman? I 
 have never seen her! Elena Valente or Giustini all these questions 
 have been directed to her ? I never saw her ! Sir A. Cockburn. You 
 ought to repeat the qxiestions in the presence of the woman. The Attor- 
 ney General (in English). Have you ever had criminal intercourse witli 
 that woman anywhere ? No ; never. In any place in the world ? 
 No. Sir A. Cockburn, The questions ought to be put in Italian, that 
 the woman may understand them. The Attorney General (througn the 
 intrepreter in Italian). Did you ever see that woman in the sacristy of 
 the church at Viterbo ? No. Sir A. Cockburn. Let her be placed 
 where the jury can see her." The Attorney General objected." Sir A. 
 Cockburn. It is very hard, that as he is brought to contradict her on 
 oath, the jury may not see her countenance. The Attorney General. 
 You excluded the prosecutor while the witnesses were being examined 
 against him. Sir A. Cockburn. But now they are confronted ; surely 
 the jury should see the countenances of both ! The Attorney General 
 again objected, and being supported by the Court, continued his exami- 
 nation of Achilli. Have you ever seen her in the house of a relation of 
 yours? No. Have you ever had criminal intercourse with her? No. 
 Did you ever give her any pocket-handkerchiefs and sausages ? No. I 
 
 1 It is to be observed these answers were so many formal negatives of the 
 charges in the plea, following the precise words there used, like his affidavit. 
 
 5" The first witness, who was now sent for into court : when she came in, she 
 was placed opposite Achilli, with her back to the jury, who could not see her. 
 She looked at him with an air of innocent wonderment as she heard him 
 quietly contradicting all she had sworn. See her evidence and her cross- 
 examination as to the Gentilis, which Sir A. Cockburn contended con- 
 firmed her. 
 
 z The reason was that every one remarked the truthful character of her 
 countenance, and her shocked expression at the assertions of Achilli. 
 
 The objection spoke volumes to the hearer, and will to the reader. Achilli's 
 counsel shrunk from any real confronting of him and his accusers. It was 
 apparent to every one present that he nerved himself by a powerful effort to 
 meet them ; his hands moved, and his countenance worked convulsively, and 
 strikingly contrasted with the quiet and composed aspect of the woman, who 
 looked " more in sorrow than in anger." So much did the Attorney General dread 
 the effect of her countenance on the court and jury, that directly he had finished 
 his questions respecting her, he peremptorily ordered her out of court. And 
 such was the witness whose air of truthfulness he durst not contemplate or fairly 
 face to whom he imputed perjury !
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 125 
 
 am not speaking- of any presents given at any time, but as rewards for 
 criminal intercourse ? Certainly not. I have not at any time given 
 such things to any one. You have not given a handkerchief at any time ? 
 Perhaps I may have given an old handkerchief to a poor woman. 
 Do you know a person of that name ? I know one b of the name of 
 Rosa di Allessandris, a nun, a relative of mine, of St. Bernardino, in 
 Viterbo. Were you ever found guilty of having debauched, seduced, 
 and robbed of her honour Rosa di Allessandris ? The one of whom I 
 have spoken is older than I ain in age. That is no answer. (Question 
 repeated.) With her I could not commit any sin, because she is shut 
 in a nunnery. Lord CAMPBELL. Answer the question ! I never was 
 found guilty of having debauched, seduced, and robbed of her honour 
 a woman of that name. I know of no other woman of that name except 
 my relative. I never had carnal connection with Rosa di Allessandris, 
 in the sacristy of the church at Gradi, or any where else. I never gave 
 any money to the father of Rosa di Allessandris as hush-money. I 
 think I was a child of five or six when the father of Rosa di Alles- 
 sandris died. In the month of July, 1834, did you debauch, seduce, 
 and carnally know a woman whose name is unknown, and who was 
 before chaste? c (Laughter.) No. In 1834 I was on my tour with the 
 provincial, and returned in November to Viterbo. In 1835, while resident 
 at Viterbo, in the neighbourhood of Monte Fiasconi, did you debauch, 
 &c., one Vincenza di Guerra ? In 1835 I was not at Monte Fiasconi, 
 nor at Viterbo, nor do I know Vincenza Guerra. Did you debauch 
 any woman at Capua? No. I was at Capua in 1835, occupied 
 preaching morning and evening. I resided in the house of the cardinal 
 archbishop. I resided all that time under the eyes and nose of the 
 archbishop. Did you, in that year, or at any other time, have any con- 
 nection with any woman who was "chaste and unmarried." No. 
 (The witness Principe, now Balisano, was here brought into court.) 
 I am now going to ask you about Naples in 1840. Do you know that 
 woman ? d No ! You were in 1840 living at Naples as a secular priest, 
 having obtained your letters of secularization ? Yes. Did you ever see 
 that woman in the sacristy of the church at Naples ? No. I have never 
 seen that woman. This is the very first time I have seen her. The 
 Attorney General (handing to him the paper which had been identified 
 by Principe). I know this paper very well. The filling up in writing 
 is mine. This paper was given for an image in the church of St. Pietro 
 Martyro to collect money. I did not collect the money, but there was 
 one specially charged to do it. Persons came to write their names, but 
 they did not come into the sacristy ; they stayed at the door. I never 
 had connection \\dth that woman in the sacristy, or in any rooms off the 
 
 b The reader will remark the peculiarity of the answers in this and other 
 instances. 
 
 c The Attorney General, in repeating the different averments of the plea, 
 made merry with" their formality, to hide the formality of his questions. 
 
 d Similar remarks apply in this as in the former case. The Times stated, 
 "The effect produced by these meetings was dramatic, the poor women eyeing 
 their alleged seducer with half-timid yet steady glances, while he, his face 
 overspread for the moment with a slight pallor, turned upon them eyes that 
 seemed to pierce through them." The impression made upon every one in 
 court by this confronting was the reverse of unfavourable to the witnesses; and 
 the Attorney General, conscious of it, did not venture to repeat the experiment. 
 He did not dare confront Achilli with Principe and her mother together, nor 
 with any of the English witnesses.
 
 126 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 sacristy, or anywhere. Do you remember, while you were at any time 
 walking in a procession, the* mother of Principe addressing you ? No. 
 Were you ever before the police on the subject of any charge made 
 against you respecting Principe? No. You were never before the 
 police on the subject of the charge? No. When I came away from 
 the Dominicans the brethren began to make war upon me, and they 
 spread charges against me. I made no account of this, as is my custom. 
 My friends, irritated at such proceedings, tried in every way to subvert 
 and destroy such charges. Did the duke of Lavrino interfere ? Sir 
 A. E. CocTcburn, How can he swear to what the duke did? Lord 
 CAMPBELL. Unless he were present. The Attorney General. Had 
 you communications with the duke on the subject ? With all my friends. 
 Were you ever before the police with the duke of Lavrino and your 
 friends ? No. In Corfu did you know a tailor, named Garimoni ? 
 Yes. Did the wife live with her mother? Yes. Did you live next 
 door to them at Corfu ? Yes. Did you ever commit adultery with 
 Garimoni' s wife? 6 No. I remember a fact that happened.'' One 
 night I was passing before the house of the wife of Garimoni. She 
 was at the door and called me, asking me to answer certain questions. 
 She began to ask these questions, when we were surprised by her 
 husband. The questions were but begun, but not finished. I believe 
 she meant to ask me if I had heard any noise in her house on the 
 previous night ; and I believe she alluded to certain screams or cries 
 that in fact I had heard. Before the questions were finished Garimoni 
 came up. He began very furiously to inveigh against his wife. I 
 was at the door of the house. It appears to me that he pushed me 
 inside the house.* Certain it is I made a step within the door. I 
 reproved Garimoni for this his bad conduct to his wife. I made way 
 with my hands and got out. That is the only occasion I was ever 
 in the house. I never met her in any place. Was any complaint 
 made against you for adultery with her? Some days after I heard 
 that Garimoni spoke against me through the city. I went to com- 
 plain to the secretary of the lord high commissioner, Mr. Fraser. 
 Do you know anything more of your own knowledge, as to Garimoni 
 and his wife ? I have heard that Garimoni wrote certain letters, but 
 no more. 1 " When you were at Corfu had you two persons in your 
 service, Coriboni and his wife? Yes. They remained in my service 
 all the time I remained at Corfu, and all the time 1 remained 
 at Zante. They did not come with me to Zante, but they 
 came some weeks after I had gone. I knew Mr. Reynolds at Zante 
 very well. I did duty in a chapel at Zante. Mr. Reynolds was 
 one of my congregation. I lived near him. His house did not look 
 into mine, but mine did into his. My house was higher than his, and I 
 could see his house only from my upper windows. There were two upper 
 
 e It was remarked at the bar that this was a case in which the police proceed- 
 ings precluded total denial. 
 
 f The reader will observe how strongly all this confirms the witnesses for 
 the defence, and let him compare it with the cross-examination of Garimoni's wife, 
 who quite contradicted him. Lord Campbell never remarked on these discre- 
 pancies. 
 
 8 Even this is quite consistent with the story told by the witnesses for the 
 defence, for they said Garimoni tried to detain Achilli, and this " pushing in," 
 which he speaks of, may have been as he was pressing out. 
 
 h The reader will observe the evasive character of the answer, and the cautious 
 way in which the next question is conceived.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 127 
 
 windows. I think it would have been necessary (for me) to have put 
 the person out of window to be seen. I never committed any indecency 
 with Coriboni's wife. Did Mr. Reynolds ever remonstrate with you on 
 any conduct of yours towards her ? Non mi ricordo. 1 I recollect that 
 Mr. Reynolds, after an event that happened between us, did speak to me 
 relative to the persons in my service. I had in friendship and charitably 
 given some slight reproof to Mr. Reynolds because he was in the habit, 
 at that time, of drinking a little too much in the evening, and being- 
 drunk. (Laughter.) The first time it appeared to me that he received 
 it (the reproof) with resignation. At the second time he became a little 
 displeased. After this he began to absent himself from the congrega- 
 tion. After a certain time I saw no more of him at my congregation. 
 After the reproof I went to pay him a visit, to make friends with him 
 ftgain, and then he, assuming an altogether serious tone, began to 
 reprove me about my servants. He said that they had been, before 
 coming to me, persons not of good morals. I answered that / should 
 be satisfied if they behaved well while they were in my house. * I 
 begged him to tell me if he had anything to say against them at 
 that time. I remember that he himself spoke in eulogy of them, k only 
 he would have me, at his will, send them away. Coriboni lived 
 with his wife in the house with me. They had a child. Coriboni's 
 wife never slept with me. She never dined with me. I never told 
 Mr. Reynolds that Coriboni's wife, " poor Albina," was going to dine 
 with me. I never walked arm-in-arm with her in the public streets. 
 The band used to play late at night. I never went with Coriboni's 
 wife, late at night, to hear the band play, nor did I ever go alone. 
 My congregation increased very much after Mr. Reynolds left it. I 
 continued to do duty in the chapel about six or seven months after 
 he left as long as I continued in Zante. I did duty in the chapel to 
 the last moment I was at Zante. The congregation increased up to 
 the last moment. Do you know that woman (Principe's mother,' 
 who was now placed opposite him) ? No, no, no ; I do not know her 
 at all. When I left Zante Coriboni and his wife left my service. "When I 
 Avas at the college at Malta there were two priests there, Saccares and 
 Leonini. They had been converted from the Romish Church. The 
 accusation against Saccares and Leonini was made while I was in Lon- 
 don, and the alleged faults were committed while I was away. m The 
 accuser was an Armenian priest, to whom, according to my judgment, 
 no credit ought to be given. I was charged by the committee of the 
 Malta College in London to make inquiries into these charges, although 
 
 1 Here, again, tha reader will remark the reply. 
 
 J This answer excited so much attention, that Sir A. Cockburn caused it to 
 be repeated, and specially animadverted upon it in his reply. It need scarcely 
 be said, that Lord Campbell took no notice of it in his charge. 
 
 k The reader will appreciate the probability of this, after the admissions 
 already made by Achilli, and the evidence of the other witnesses, as to the woman's 
 character. 
 
 1 She had been brought into court directly after the daughter, and the Attor- 
 ney General did not confront them together with Achilli, and delayed for some 
 time confronting them at all, during which time the poor woman sat in court ; 
 and, of course, Achilli had time to prepare for it, and was evidently bracing 
 himself up for it; but his hands and his face evinced considerable agitation 
 of mind. 
 
 m It was stated in the evidence for the defence that Achilli was residing in the 
 house with these persons at the time.
 
 128 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 I had advised the secretary of the committee not to institute proceed- 
 ings against these accused persons. I gave as a reason because I knew 
 very well the character of the accused, and that no credit ought to be 
 given to the accusation. I afterwards investigated the matter on my 
 return to Malta. My result was that there was not any credit to be 
 given to the charge, and I have pleasure in adding that neither Mr. 
 Hadfield nor any other person has ever found that the charges were true. 
 It appeared that our inquiries were finished when it came to my know- 
 ledge that they were continued still on the part of Mr. Hadfield. I 
 complained of this to him and to the vice-principal. The principal 
 answered that he had been charged by the committee thoroughly to in- 
 vestigate. I sent Saccares somewhere. Before I sent him I communi- 
 cated to Mr. Hadfield that Saccares was going on a commission into 
 Sicily." I did not send him away to hinder and stifle the investigation. 
 Were you implicated in the charges ? I fancy not ; as they were in 
 Malta, and I was in London. As far as I know I was not implicated 
 in the charges. Were you dismissed from the college of Malta for 
 several acts of vice and immorality ? No. Did you ever preach against 
 the laws of chastity and morality ?' No. You were not an infidel ? I 
 believe not. Was there ever a time when you did not believe in the 
 truths of Christianity'? No. Lord CAMPBELL. Was there ever a 
 time when you did not believe in the divine mission of our Saviour ? 
 No. The Attorney General. After your marriage you came to this 
 country with your wife ? Yes. I was lodging, when in England, in 
 1847, at No. .3, St. James's-street, at the house of Miss Lambert. I 
 knew Catherine Gorham there. I never took any liberties with the 
 servant of Miss Lambert. When you came to England with your wife 
 where did you live ? I was living at No. 20, Northumberland-street ; 
 afterwards 'in Shaftesbury-crescent : I had there a servant named 
 Harriet, I think. I never conducted myself indecently to Harriet 
 Harris. I never attempted to seduce Harriet Harris. I think I had a 
 servant named Jane Legge. I had two of the name of Jane. One fol- 
 lowed Harriet Harris. That Jane lived about six months or so, but I 
 do not recollect exactly. I never had criminal intercourse with her. I 
 never behaved indecently to her, nor did I ever attempt to seduce her. 
 I remember Sarah, who came from the House of Mercy, at Windsor. 
 I never had criminal intercourse with her, nor attempted it. You were 
 in the prisons of the Inquisition upon two occasions? Yes. Was there 
 any proceeding in the courts of the Holy Office against you? No ; 
 (correcting himself) Yes. The first time you were at the Inquisition, 
 were you questioned by the Inquisition ? Yes ; every day. Lord 
 CAMPBELL. What charges were made? I was charged with regard to 
 my teaching in the school, and in the pulpit, and my conduct in the 
 confessional. The Attorney General. Was there any charge brought 
 against you except upon account of your teaching ? No. Not for 
 your moral conduct? No ; the Inquisition is not competent to judge 
 of those offences. p I do not ask what passed when you were not pre- 
 sent, but were you to your face never charged in the Inquisition 
 with immoral conduct? No. Personally? No.' 1 Do you know of 
 
 B By a letter written the day he went away, and which of course could not be 
 received till he had left. See the cross-examination. 
 
 A Mahomedan could say the same. 
 
 P This is in direct opposition to the evidence of the bishop of Southwark. 
 
 1 Perhaps not, literally ; but suppose the proceedings were in writing, and
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 129 
 
 any charge of immorality being made against you to the Inquisition? 
 No. Did you ever hear of such a charge made against your moral cha- 
 racter ? I think not. Did you ever make any confession to the Inqui- 
 sition of having had carnal intercourse with any women at Viterbo or 
 elsewhere ? No. (The judgment of the Inquisition, which had been 
 put in yesterday, was here shown to him.) You see the statement there 
 of your confession, and throwing yourself on their mercy ? Yes ; I 
 see it. Did you make any confession, and throw yourself on their 
 mercy ? No. Perhaps they might have asked me, at the commence- 
 ment, whether I was content to stand or throw myself upon their mercy ? 
 Upon that supposition I should have answered " yes ;" and then the 
 chancellor of the Inquisition would naturally have written that I threw 
 myself upon their mercy/ This is not simply throwing yourself on their 
 mercy, but acknowledging the sentence and submitting to punishment 
 (he reads it). I believe that the first words may be admitted, but not 
 the last. I did not ask not to be chastised, if I merited it. On the 
 contrary, I should desire that proceedings should be instituted in such 
 manner as justice required. I may have said I should receive with 
 resignation whatever orders or dispositions might emanate. I cannot 
 admit the rest. Not the part in which it is stated or said, if they 
 wanted to proceed with greater rigour, your confession would be suffi- 
 cient ? It is probable I may have put in the first part, but not the 
 second. The first part applies to charges as to your teaching, but not 
 to any charge made against you about deflowering women ? No, Lord 
 CAMPBELL. On what charges did these proceedings take place ? Rela- 
 tive only to my teaching. Was there any sentence or judgment ? No. 
 No judgment, no sentence was pronounced upon me ; only a decree of 
 the Congregation of the Holy Office, ordered by the Pope, that I should 
 be set at liberty. I was set at liberty under certain conditions, that I 
 should become reconciled again to the Holy See, and, in the meantime, 
 that I should abstain from the exercise of my ministry. This recon- 
 ciliation, according to the secret instructions given, consisted in that I 
 should write and publish some book in favour of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. I must correct an observation I made, not having sufficiently 
 reflected. 8 My incarceration at the Inquisition took place in 1841, and 
 after my liberation I remained a certain time at Rome, and afterwards, 
 as I said, I went into the country, in the neighbourhood of Rome. 
 These are all the conditions upon which I was released from the Inqui- 
 sition on the first occasion.* 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir A. E. Cockbum. You became a monk of the 
 order of St. Dominic in 1820 ? Yes. You were professed, and took 
 the vows? Yes. What are the vows you took? The Dominicans 
 profess one single vow ; it is in these words : " I, Giacinto Achilli, pro- 
 mise obedience to God, to the blessed Virgin, to the patriarch St. Do- 
 minic, and to you, most Reverend Father General of the order, till 
 
 he received a copy of the charges, and confessed them ? The Attorney General 
 would have put that question if he durst. 
 
 r The reader will remark the cautious character of questions and answers 
 here, and compare them with the judgment, and the affidavit and narrative of 
 Achilli, ante. 
 
 * A remarkable expression, coupled with the fact that he carefully reflected on 
 every reply he gave. 
 
 1 The examination in chief lasted from half-past nine till a quarter to one. 
 The Court then adjourned for a few minutes for refreshment an opportunity 
 of which Achilli availed himself. 
 
 K
 
 130 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 death." Do you mean to say, on the oath you have taken, that you 
 did not take a vow of poverty and chastity ? ( Achilli was silent, pro- 
 fessing not to understand question repeated.) I helieve not. Are 
 you not in a condition to swear positively on the subject, one way or 
 the other? (Achilli was silent, professing not to understand.) Oh, 
 you understand me perfectly ! Do you mean to tell the Court you do 
 not know what vows you took on becoming 1 a monk ? I believe the 
 vow of obedience. Do you swear that ? Yes. And that you took no 
 vow of poverty or chastity ? Yes. And that these vows are not taken 
 by persons who become monks of the order of St. Dominic ? If it is 
 not their intention to profess and to take those vows, certainly they do 
 not take those vows. That is not an answer ! What I ask you on 
 you* oath is, whether, when persons become monks of the order of St. 
 Dominic, they are not under the obligation to take the vows of poverty 
 and chastity ? It depends upon their own will, Is it not a necessary 
 condition to their being admitted into the order? The necessary con- 
 dition is the vow of obedience alone." You became a priest in 1824? 
 Yes. Is chastity part of the vocation of a priest ? Yes (with a sar- 
 donic smile). You were resident at Viterbo, with occasional absences, 
 until 1833 ? Yes. Now can you state that, from the time you were 
 professed, in 1819, until you left in 1833, you had no intercourse with 
 any women whatever? (Achilli was silent, smiling in the same man- 
 ner.) Answer the question ! Have you, during the time you were at 
 Viterbo, from 1826 until 1833, had intercourse with women ? (Some 
 moments silent, with the same unpleasant smile, half convulsive.) I 
 have not had intercourse with any women, according to the tenor of 
 the imputation which has been made against me. v Have you had in- 
 tercourse with other women besides those? (Silent, with the same 
 disagreeable sort of smile.) The Attorney General objected. Lord 
 CAMPBELL. I cannot compel him to answer, but Sir Alexander has a 
 right to put the question. Sir A. Cockburn. Then, Dr. Achilli, I put 
 this question, whether you had not, during your residence at Viterbo, 
 intercourse with other women (silent), I am not speaking of those in 
 the libel, I speak of others? (Still smiling). I could answer, no. 
 But I ask whether you will answer no ? (Silent, with the same smile.) 
 I am privileged by the judge not to answer. You decline to answer 
 on the ground of privilege ? I accept the privilege, and beg not to 
 answer. From 1819 to 1833 I had no intercourse according to the 
 imputation cast upon me. Have you had intercourse with many 
 others? Whether I have had intercourse with others I decline to 
 answer, because I am privileged by the judge. Did you ever have in- 
 tercourse with women during that period in the sacristy of a church ! 
 No, never. Were you, in 1826, sent to Quercea for three months for 
 penance ? No. Were you, in 1826, sent to Quercea for three months ? 
 I went of my own accord. You mentioned that the provincial, while 
 you were at Viterbo, took you with him on a tour of visitation ; who 
 was he? He is changed every two years. In 1833 was Brochetti 
 provincial ? And Spaletti vicar of the bishop ? Yes. He was a great 
 
 The reader will compare this with the evidence of the Dominican monk, 
 previously examined, and that of Achilli's own witness, the apostate monk. 
 
 * /. e. according to the terms of the libel. This answer caused a visible sensa- 
 tion in court. Assuming him to be guilty of the crimes there charged, by swear- 
 ing thus he would avoid (as far as possible) any proof of them, while at ^he 
 same time, by decUning to deny such offences, he would secure himself against an 
 indictment for perjury.
 
 REPORT OF Till!* TRIAL. 131 
 
 friend of yours, was he not ? Oh, yes. Now, at the time when Brochetti 
 took you, had not complaints been made against you as to your moral 
 character? (Silent.) There were charges against you ? (Still silent.) 
 Come, come, answer that ! Some things may have been said about it, 
 but I did not hear them ; or if I did, it would make no impression 
 upon my mind. Were there not charges made against you by Spaletti, 
 the vicar of the bishop ? Yes ; I think there were. Some charges ? 
 Yes. Is that the man of whom you say in your book, "There was 
 one crafty man who used to calumniate me behind my back ; a cer- 
 tain Spaletti, vicar of the bishop : he raised various reports against me, 
 and also made use of some Dominican monks who were displeased 
 with my advancement"? Yes. Then he did make complaints about 
 you ? Yes. And the other monks too ? I believe so ; I was told so. 
 Now, did you not go on this visitation tour to get out of the way of 
 these "reports" or charges made against you? No, no. Did you 
 not know, when you started on the visitation, that these charges were 
 in circulation against you ? I was then at a distance from Viterbo, 
 and did not know what passed in Viterbo : I started from Rome. How 
 long had you left Viterbo before you went on the visitation ? Some 
 weeks, I think. When you left Viterbo to go to Rome, did you not 
 know of these complaints and accusations against you ? There was not 
 a word to say against me when I left Viterbo. How came you to go 
 to Nepi in 1834? To make a visitation of a convent. Was there not, 
 in 1834, a charge made against you of having attempted the virtue of 
 a woman in the cardinal's house ? No. Will you swear that ? Yes. 
 Have you ever heard anything of that charge ? I may have heard it 
 among other stories, but without foundation. Did you not hear it in 
 1834, before you left to go to Nepi ? (Achilli professed not to under- 
 stand.) Oh, you understand me perfectly. I ask whether that 
 charge had not been made against you before you left for Nepi ? I 
 cannot exactly recollect whether it was made a little before or after my 
 journey. I ask you whether you did not go to Nepi to get out of the 
 way of that charge ? No, no. ' What was this charge about the woman 
 in the cardinal's house ? I do not recollect ; I may have heard it, but 
 I do not know. Did you hear of such a charge being made, it is a 
 serious thing to have attempted the virtue of a woman in the house of 
 a cardinal ! did you hear of it ? Nan mi ricordo ! Why, is it not 
 a thing to make an impression upon a man ? No, thousands of such 
 accusations have been made against me : I am indifferent to such accu- 
 sations. Then the accusations have been made? At Rome, for in- 
 stance, it was said that I had killed a nun! Now, in 1835, you 
 obtained the brief of secularization ? Yes. On condition of obtaining 
 a patrimony ? Yes. Are not the words in the brief in the plural, re- 
 ferring to the vows you had taken? " Votoruin" Do you still persist in 
 saying that you took only one vow ? Yes ; that is a common form of 
 the brief of secularization. Well, but if it be the common form, to 
 speak of the monks' vows, do you still persist in saying that they only 
 take one vow ? There are two Dominican monks to be called ; you may 
 ascertain from them the real nature of the vow. Yes ; but at present 
 I must ascertain from you. When did you obtain your patrimony ? 
 Soon after I obtained the decree of secularization from the government. 
 When was that? It is dated 6th August, 1839 : I produce it. It is 
 the authorization of the government, the royal exequatur. Is that 
 required by the law ? Yes. That the government should concur with 
 the Pope before a monk can be secularized ? Yes. You obtained that 
 K 2
 
 132 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 in 1839 ? Yes. And soon after you got your patrimony ? Yes. Then 
 up to that time you continued to be a monk? (Smiling.) According 
 to the law of Naples, I was no longer a monk ; and I did not then 
 belong to the diocese of Naples. Is it not necessary to the seculariza- 
 tion that you should get a patrimony and royal authorization, which 
 you did not obtain till 1839 ? Yes. And do you then mean to say 
 that you did not continue a monk in the interval between 1835 and 
 1839 ? No, no ; I was a monk from 1835 to 1839, under a monastic 
 vow. Now, to give effect to the Pope's brief of secularization, is it not 
 necessary that you should be accepted by some ordinary ? Yes. Was 
 that ever done ? Yes. When an ordinary accepts a secularized monk, 
 does he not write what he has done on the Pope's brief, and return it to 
 Rome as the record of the secularization ? It is not necessary that he 
 should write it on the same document. Is not that the ordinary course? 
 Yes or no. Now, when you were at Viterbo I understood you to say 
 that you never saw Elena Valente ? No. Never before to-day ? No. 
 Had not the Christopher family a house in the neighbourhood of Viterbo? 
 Yes. Was Christopher dead? Yes. Had he married a Gentili 
 (smiling) ? In the house of Christopher, where I went, there was a lady 
 and her son. Now this lady was she not the widow of a Christopher'? 
 Yes. And was she not a Gentili ? I think so. Was she not a Gentili ? 
 (Silent.) Yes or no ; upon your oath, was she not a Gentili before she 
 married ; and at that time was she not a widow ? (After a pause) Yes. 
 And did you not pass a month in the year referred to at that lady's house ? 
 Yes. Was there not a young woman named Elena Valente, a servant 
 in the house? (Achilli professed not to understand.) Oh, you under- 
 stand the question ! I never saw that face before. I think I can 
 recal it all to your recollection. Was there not a lame girl there ! I 
 do not know. Was there not a lame servant girl there? Non mi 
 ricordo. I had no reason to recollect it. But the girl says she has much 
 reason to remember you. (Laughter, in which Achilli joined.) Was 
 there not a servant girl there at that time ? Non mi ricordo : it is im- 
 possible to recollect. Do you remember going out to see shooting ? I 
 may have done so. I used to go out shooting. Is that part of the 
 vocation of a monk ? (Achilli laughed.) The grand vicar used to go out 
 shooting too ! (Laughter.) Lord CAMPBELL. Sir Alexander, in Roman 
 Catholic times bishops used to keep hounds. Sir A. Cockburn. Not 
 monks, my lord. (To Achilli.) Did you never take out that girl on any 
 occasion to see the shooting ? No. I took no woman with me, because 
 I took the son of Madame Christopher. Did you ever take any female 
 out with you? No, never. Did you never see her before" to-day ? 
 Never. Have you friends at Viterbo at the present time ? I do not 
 know ; because I am not allowed to keep up a correspondence. Have 
 you relations there ? Several. And you mean to say you cannot corre- 
 spond with them ? I cannot. Is it that they refuse to have anything 
 to do with you ? No. Have you attempted to correspond with them ? 
 Since I came to London I have not tried. You have no difficulty in 
 getting friends for this prosecution? (Smiling sardonically) I hope 
 that the providence of God will furnish me with the means. Yes, but 
 Providence is expected to work through the agencies of this world. Who 
 provides the funds for this prosecution ? The providence of God. (Still 
 smiling.) Through whom? My friends. Who are they? They do 
 not exist yet ! Explain. I mean that I hope friends will have the 
 kindness to provide for this need of mine. Lord CAMPBELL intimated 
 some doubt as to the relevancy of this. Sir A. Cockburn. I mean to
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 133 
 
 show that funds ai'e not wanting. Lord CAMPBELL. From what I 
 can see I believe funds are not wanting on either side. Sir A. Cock- 
 burn. Have you caused inquiries to be made at Viterbo, with respect 
 to Elena Valente or Guistini? No ; nor about any other of the 
 women named in the plea ; but I have caused that which was done 
 by my adversaries at Viterbo to be observed. Through whom ? If I 
 were to name the person it would tend to compromise him. I gather 
 from your last answer that you have the means of communicating 
 with Viterbo? It is not proved (smiling) that I have the means of 
 communicating with Viterbo. I have only the means of communicating 
 by the Roman States. At all events I understand you to say you have 
 caused observations to be made in Viterbo ? w Yes. Now I have to ask 
 you about Rosa di Alessandris : Did you never know a person of that 
 name besides the nun ? No. I am speaking of a person with light 
 hair, now married ? No. There is no such person among the other 
 women you will not tell me about ? No. Did you ever give money 
 to the father of any girl ? No, no, never. Or caused it to be given ? 
 No. Did you ever know of the convent giving money to hush up an 
 affair in which you were concerned? No. According to your account 
 the monks at Viterbo were very wicked people? 1 I am not come 
 here to cry out against monks. But you have cried out against them, 
 and written against them. Yes, when time and circumstances allowed 
 of it. But now that you are not writing but speaking upon your oath, do 
 you abide by what you have written, that they are such profligate people? 
 I have not said that the monks at Viterbo were so. Well, what sort of 
 people were they ? Some good and some bad. ? Were you not reproved by 
 the superior? So long as I remained among the Dominicans I was their 
 idol. You left in 1833? Yes. In 1835 you were at Capua? Yes. When 
 were you at Naples ? After I spent a Lent at Capua. Now I must ask 
 you whether, while you were at Capua, you had not intercourse with 
 women ? I must give the same answer as before : I said before, I spent 
 at Capua a Lent, under the eyes and nose of the cardinal archbishop. 
 That is not an answer to my question ! I appeal to the privilege granted 
 by the judge. Now, while you were there, under the eyes and nose 
 of the cardinal archbishop, did you not make an attempt on the virtue 
 of one of his chamberlains ? No, never. Were you charged with it ? 
 No, never ; it is quite new. As to any others, you put yourself upon 
 your privilege ? I could answer no ; but I have a privilege, and I 
 mean to avail myself of it. Do you consider a charge of unchastity a 
 serious imputation on your character as a Roman Catholic priest, while 
 you were one, or as a Protestant clergyman, since you have become 
 one ? I consider these are real crimes for any Christian, and I do not 
 make much difference between a clergyman and a layman. Would 
 you not be glad to have an opportunity of clearing yourself from these 
 imputations, if you could do so ? The Attorney General objected, and 
 
 w The inference of course would be, that if he could have discovered anything 
 to the discredit of the witnesses he would have done so. Surely this was im- 
 portant ? Yet Lord Campbell never adverted to it. 
 
 x The only ones he could know much about, since, after leaving Viterbo, he 
 was constantly shifting from place to place. 
 
 y Which of course is, and has ever been, the truth, and is a mere truism a truism, 
 however, on which the whole fabric of falsehood against the Catholic priesthood 
 or religious orders is built. No one doubts there may be bad monks and bad 
 priests ; but the history of Achilli and his associates shows that they all become 
 Protestants. And he says he never was a monk.
 
 134 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL interposed. Sir A.Cockburn then directed the woman, 
 Maria Principe, whom he had previously called in, to be placed where 
 both the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury could see her. There 
 (to Achilli) ; have you ever seen that woman before this day ? No. 
 Do you mean to swear that? (Achilli looked confused under her 
 quiet, steady glance ; his hands moved nervously, his countenance 
 changed, he hesitated, and faltered), I see before me an Italian face 
 (hesitating again) : it is more of a Neapolitan (still hesitating) : her 
 dress confirms me in the notion that she is a Neapolitan. Did you, on 
 your oath, never see that woman before to-day ? My word is an oath : 
 I believe the oath of a Christian superfluous. Do you mean to say 
 that there is no sanction in an oath? No ; but that my word is of the 
 same value as an oath. Now, I ask you, on your oath, do you mean 
 to say that you never had criminal knowledge of that woman ? I do. 
 (Sir A. Cockburn had the question repeated in Italian, with the same 
 answer.) Let the mother stand forward ! (Mother and daughter now 
 stood together before Achilli.) Did you never see that woman? 
 Never. You never saw her before ? (To the interpreter : Put the 
 question in Italian !) Never. Did not that woman and her husband call 
 him from a procession and charge him with having debauched their 
 daughter? No, never. Did any one call him out from a procession 
 and charge him with a crime ? No ; for this reason : it is impossible 
 to ask for any monk who is going in procession. z Was it not in 
 consequence of the scandal caused by the incident that your friends 
 instituted proceedings before the authorities? No. Did you make 
 any complaints before the police ? No. Did your friends, at your 
 instigation ? No, not through my instigation ; but they made com- 
 plaints. Did you know at the time that they were making com- 
 plaints? They used to tell me they had done so. How long were 
 these proceedings going on ? I do not know ; they told me of them 
 many times. How long was it these proceedings lasted? A little 
 time. Well, did you not learn from your friends the name of the family 
 they had caused to be brought before the police ? No. a What ! did 
 they not tell you the name of the family they had summoned before 
 the police ? They may have given me the name, but I cannot now 
 recollect. b When you learnt from your friends that they had insti- 
 
 z The confraternity of Santissimo Salvatori, at Rome, provides dowries for 
 poor maidens. It is usual to conduct the latter in procession to the Dominican 
 Church de S. Maria sopra Minerva (where Achilli) was, on the 25th of March. 
 The confraternity has filiations all over Italy, and very likely such was the pro- 
 cession the Principes alluded to, i. e., a procession of girls, not of monks. (It 
 is observable it occurs in March ; and the Principes said the interview occurred 
 at that time.) In this supposition Achilli's denial of the possibility of interrupt- 
 ing him in a procession, was of the same character as his denial of having been 
 at the house of a " Gentili," because he had married a Christopholi ! Achilli 
 would naturally be present, but not in the procession ; and neither he nor she 
 positively alleged that he was in it, or forming part of it, but present, and 
 assisting at some procession, not necessarily of monks. 
 
 11 The reader is requested to remark this part of the cross-examination ; 
 Achilli had sworn he never saw mother or daughter : the object of this cross- 
 examination was to test the probability of that even assuming the charge against 
 him to have been false, on the supposition that he would naturally hear or 
 learn the name of his accusers ; and he admitted that the charge was brought 
 before the police. 
 
 b He was not asked to recollect the name, but whether he had been told it, 
 or had known it at the time.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 135 
 
 tuted a complaint before the police, did you not think it worth your 
 while to go before the police yourself? No ; I knew these things had 
 no reality. c Now, with respect to this society at the Church of St. 
 Peter the Martyr, was there not a book in which the names and pay- 
 ments of the members were entered ? Yes. Did you not sometimes 
 enter the receipt of the money in the book? Yes. You recognise 
 the paper (handed to him) ? Yes. d Did you fill up the writing ? Yes. 
 Now, with respect to the secularization, which was completed in 1839, 
 were not charges made against you by the principal of the order? 
 Yes. At that time? Yes. By Ancorani and Cardinal Lam- 
 bruchini ? Yes. These were the persons of whom you speak in your 
 book, " Ancorani died, loaded with infamy ; Lambruchini is still, 
 for his greater punishment, among the living"? Yes. These were 
 the persons of whom you thus speak in this Christian spirit ? I speak 
 for the purpose of making a revelation to Christians. It is sometimes 
 neccessary to give the names of persons. I ask you whether, at the 
 time you completed your secularization, there were not charges pending 
 against you, with the assent of the head of your order, Ancorani ? 
 When I obtained my secularization, Ancorani was not my superior. 
 I am speaking of 1839, when you completed your secularization : were 
 not charges then pending against you ? When I exhibited my degree 
 for secularization bitter war was declared against me. That is not an 
 answer to my question. I ask you whether, at the time you left the 
 order, and perfected your secularization, there were not charges pend- 
 ing against you on the part of the principal of your order? ( Achilli,who 
 had hesitated a good deal, here grew rather angry.) I am not come to 
 continue these answers, which cannot have to do with what I have 
 come to state.* Lord CAMPBELL. The question is perfectly admis- 
 sible. Sir A. Cockburn. At the time when the secularization was 
 perfected, were there not proceedings pending against you with the 
 concurrence of the general of the order ? There were no accusations 
 pending no proceedings. Were there no accusations against you 
 without actual proceedings, which you may have anticipated? I can- 
 not know of any accusations brought against me by Ancorani, because 
 there were no communications between him and me. Lord CAMP- 
 BELL. That is a precise answer. f Did you not quit the order to avoid 
 proceedings being instituted against you ? No. My petition for the 
 royal exequatur was before 1 heard of the complaints against me. 
 How long after the petition did you hear of the charges ? A few 
 weeks. When did you first hear of any charges being brought against 
 you ? There was some gossip talked about : I knew of this gossip 
 after I had given the petition for an exequatur. Now, were you not 
 
 c But the charge was a reality, and the person who made it ; and the question 
 was, whether he had never had the curiosity to learn who it was, or to look at 
 him ? Conceive a clergyman having such a charge investigated at a police-court, 
 and never being present to confront the girl ! ! 
 
 d The confirmation this gives to Principe is obvious ; and it raises a strong 
 presumption of probability that he must have seen her at the sacristy of that 
 church. 
 
 e The reader will have observed that this is not the first time Achilli was 
 betrayed into an expression indicating that he had come to make certain pre- 
 pared statements rather than unreserved disclosures of the facts. 
 
 f If this were so, why did he not give that answer before ? But see what 
 follows.
 
 136 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 suspended from your office of prior of the convent and ordered to 
 go to Scurcola for penance for three years ? I have never been sus- 
 pended from my office. I terminated my priorate in peace and good 
 harmony with the monks, who were on the point of re-electing me 
 again when I was secularized. When did the priorship cease? In 
 July, 1839. Were you ordered to go to Scurcola at any time for three 
 years ? After I had sent a petition to the government for an exequatur 
 I received a curious letter from Ancorani. And among other curious 
 things in it, was there an order to go to Scurcola ? To go somewhere ; 
 possibly Scurcola. Was it not in fact Scurcola 1 I received three orders : 
 one to go to Benevento, another to Pensi in the Abruzzi, and the 
 third, possibly, to Scurcola. Are not these convents houses of severe 
 observance ? No ; because all these are small, and wherever the 
 family is small there is no strict observance. Did not the letter of 
 Ancorani order you to proceed to one or other place for three years ? 
 No ; because such an order is never given for a determined time. 
 Were you ordered to proceed to one of these convents until he should 
 permit you to leave it? All the orders so given are in this way 
 according to the will of the superior. Did not the letter state that the 
 order proceeded upon the ground of these immoralities which are charged 
 against you ? * As I said, the letter of Ancorani contained many curious 
 things he was an old man and had lost his wits. That is what you 
 mean by saying in your book " he died loaded with execrations," and 
 that he had been for forty-seven years Inquisitor, and had committed 
 all kinds of iniquities ? Did he not order you to go to the convent on 
 the ground that you had been guilty of gross immorality? No, no. 
 Was it so stated in the letter among the other curious things it con- 
 tained ? No, no. What were these curious things, then ? There was, 
 among other things, a question in which I was involved, because 
 Ancorani wanted to bring about a reformation in Naples (Achilli caught 
 himself up at the word reformation, and immediately added) "to 
 change some good habits into bad ones." " A reformation to change 
 good habits into bad ones ! " Is that why you said he lost his 
 wits? Now I ask you, when you were at Naples, 11 did you not 
 have intercourse with several women? To the same question I 
 return the same answer. 11 How came you to leave Naples in 1841 ? 
 (Achilli affected not to understand.) Oh, you understand! I ask 
 what caused you to leave Naples in 1841 ? ' (Still he paused, and as- 
 sumed an unintelligent look.) You understand me ? It was for family 
 matters (hesitating). I went there with the intention of going on to 
 Viterbo. Why, you were arrested, were you not ? No, afterwards ; not 
 then. Were you not arrested by the police at Naples, and taken back 
 to Rome ? No. Do you mean to state that deliberately ? ( He hesitates). 
 That you were not arrested, and taken back by the police to Rome ? 
 No. Where were you arrested ? ' At Rome. Were any proceedings 
 instituted against you at Naples ? No. Were you removed from the 
 Neapolitan dominions? No. Nor taken out of Naples ? No. Neither 
 then nor at any other time? No. In September, 1840,f were you not 
 
 s The reader will not fail to remark these answers, and particularly the 
 next! 
 
 h It will be recollected, the Principes' case was alleged to have occurred 
 there. 
 
 ' The object of this part of the cross-examination was to show, that after the 
 scandal caused by the Principe case he was removed from Naples.
 
 REPORT OP TUB TRIAL. 137 
 
 conducted by the Neapolitan police out of Naples, and a passport given 
 you to Rome ? Never was I conducted by the police of Naples out 
 of the territory of Naples. j I left Naples in company with an uncle of 
 mine. I went as far as Fransoni, a town between Naples and Rome ; 
 I stopped there, and then returned to Naples, without having heard a 
 word from the police. Now attend ! did not the police direct you to 
 leave Naples, and give you a passport for Rome, and did you not leave 
 Naples and go back again secretly ? No ; I never was told by the 
 police in this matter to leave Naples at all. I asked for my passport 
 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and he sent it to me ; and with 
 that I went to Fransoni. and then returned openly to Naples. If you 
 got a passport to Rome, why did you return to Naples ? Because I 
 was lame. I had something the matter with my foot, and as a proof of 
 this when I returned I was obliged to keep my bed. How long ? I do 
 not know. On the second occasion, did not the police remove you from 
 Naples ? After I got well I returned freely, and began again my jour- 
 ney for the same purpose that had induced me to begin the first. That 
 is a long answer ! I wanted a short one yes or no to this question : 
 did not the police remove you from Naples after you had returned there 
 from Fransoni ? The police had not given any such orders. Now how 
 long were you at Rome before you were arrested ? I was a few weeks 
 in Rome, and then I left it and went into the neighbourhood. How 
 long was it after you went there that you were arrested ? (Achilli 
 hesitated.) Lord CAMPBELL. How long was it after you went to Rome 
 before you were arrested ? Several weeks. Sir A. Cockburn. Were 
 you arrested in Rome ? In Rome. Had you any office at that time in 
 Rome? Having left the Dominican order, I had therefore renounced 
 all those employments I had held while I was in the order . k Does the 
 Minerva College belong to the order ? Yes. Had your professorship 
 there been appurtenant to the Dominican order ? Yes. Now, as to the 
 proceedings in the Inquisition, you say no charge was made against you 
 on the score of immorality ? No. You say it is not within the jurisdic- 
 tion of the Court ? It is not. You never admitted any criminality of 
 any kind ? No. Did you admit that you had preached in the pulpit, 
 or taught in the confessional any erroneous doctrines ? No ; ' there was 
 no occasion. Why ? Because they did not urge it. m Now answer the 
 
 J The reader will remark these replies. 
 
 k Then what honours, or employments, or emoluments did he renounce, or 
 the Inquisition deprive him of, after this, his return to Rome, in the year 1841 ? 
 He represents (let it be observed) that he lost all in 1841, for heresy alone. Yet 
 he now admits he had nothing in 1841 to renounce. 
 
 1 The object of this part of the cross-examination was to reduce Acbilli to this 
 assertion, either that there was no confession at all on his part, or no confession 
 of immorality ; and in the very next answer it will be observed, he said no heresy 
 was charged. It is only after some reflection that he gives a different reply 
 that he had been charged with heresy. And then, again, he appeared embar- 
 rassed when pressed to say if there were a confession as to heresy, not only as 
 having already denied that there was any confession at all, but as perceiving 
 that this would be tantamount to such a charge of forgery against the Inquisition 
 as might appear incredible. He underrated, however, the credulity of an English 
 jury. He might well hesitate, however, for soon after he alleges that he was 
 instructed to write a theological book a curious commission for a convicted 
 heretic. 
 
 m Let it be observed this was before he had professed to be a Protestant, and 
 before he was commissioned to write a book, as he says.
 
 138 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 question, not inferentially, but, yes or no, did you make any admission 
 in respect of any matters with which you were charged ? (He reflects.) 
 Oil yes ; about justification by faith : I was charged with having 
 preached justification by faith. Well, did you, in respect of that, throw 
 yourself on the mercy of the Court ? (Achilli paused professing not 
 to understand.) Do you understand me? (He hesitated.) Did you 
 not in respect of that preaching, throw yourself on the mercy of the 
 Court? (He reflected, and then replied), I confessed and justified my- 
 self by St. Thomas of Aquinas. Did you throw yourself on the mercy 
 of the Court? (He was again silent, affecting not to understand.) 
 You understand me ? I ask yon did you throw yourself on the mercy 
 of the Court ? No. They passed upon you a sentence of deprivation, 
 did they not ? It is a general rule that whoever is accused before the 
 Court, remains suspended until he comes out of it. What ! if he be 
 found guiltless ? Whoever comes out of the Inquisition who is not 
 absolutely absolved. Then you were not absolutely absolved ? (He 
 hesitates,) You were suspended ? I was under surveillance. How long 
 did you continue so ? There was no time specified : it was until my 
 final reconciliation with the Holy See. And during the time you re- 
 mained under surveillance would you be excluded from the exercise of 
 the various functions of the priesthood? Yes. And consequently 
 incapable of any benefice or appointment in the church ? Yes. 
 Now, as well as being under surveillance, were you not ordered to 
 remain for three years in one of the religious orders of more rigid 
 observance ? I do not know. (Hesitating.) I have not known of this 
 condition. Lord CAMPBELL. Was such a sentence ever pronounced 
 upon you ? No, no sentence at all was given against me ; n all that 
 was done was a decree, in virtue of which I was allowed to go out of 
 the Inquisition. Sir A. Cockburn, Surveillance was a condition of 
 liberation ? Yes. Was it not also a part of the decree that you were 
 to spend three years in some religious house of rigorous observation? 
 No (hesitating), not in those words, but in other words ; I was advised, 
 admonished, warmly recommended, to pass some time in retirement ; 
 to go through what is called in Rome " spiritual exercises." (Reflect- 
 ing.) You must observe that all those who come out of the Inquisition, 
 even those who are declared innocent, are recommended to make these 
 exercises. What I ask you is this : whether you were not ordered, 
 as part of the decree, to spend three years, prior to your reconciliation 
 with the Church, to spend three years in a house of religious observance ? 
 (He hesitates.) Yes or no ! No. Were you not taken to Nazali for 
 that purpose ? I went from my choice. So a man may, and yet have 
 police officers with him ! Did you ? No, no. You swear that positively ? 
 Yes. Is there a house of more rigorous observance at Nazali ? No 
 (hesitating), not of strict observance, but a religious house. Did you 
 go there in consequence of the advice so warmly given you to perform 
 
 n In his narrative, he says there was a " decree" against him ; and the jury 
 have found that, in the words of the plea, he was by a decree or sentence, " sus- 
 pended and deprived." 
 
 Probably those of St. Ignatius ; and let those who partake in the popular 
 prejudices against the Jesuits, only read this immortal work, on which the 
 Jesuits are formed, and an admirable edition of which, in English, has recently 
 been published by Cardinal Wiseman, who, in his excellent and eloquent preface, 
 at once describes the marvellous effects produced on the hearts of all who pass 
 through these exercises (a series of meditations on the great truths of Christianity 
 and the life of our Lord), and discloses the real causes of these results.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL, 139 
 
 religious exercises ? (He hesitates; question repeated.) I went also 
 for this purpose. I went to collect myself. And when you had suc- 
 ceeded in collecting yourself, at the end of a fortnight, you took your- 
 self off? Yes (with a laugh). Well, then you went to Ancona. Yes. 
 For the purpose of getting out of Italy altogether ? Yes. There you met 
 Sig. Bocchiampi, who gave you a passport. Yes. Did you not put your 
 own name in it ? No. What was the necessity for this mystery : 
 why did you not get a passport for yourself? I had written to Rome 
 to a friend of mine, and he answered that the government would not 
 give me one to go out of the Roman States ; and I was recommended 
 to go back to Rome. Well, you went to Ancona, and thence to Corfu ; 
 and you went and lived next door to Garamoni ? No, not at first ; 
 afterwards. How long ? Some months. How long after you went to 
 live in that house did this affair happen about the husband surprising 
 you at night ? I lived in the first house some months ; I believe it was 
 about the middle of my stay in Corfu that it happened. Before it 
 happened had you ever spoken to the woman, Ms wife I Never. Did 
 you know who she was ? (He hesitates.) Then or immediately after ? 
 I have some doubts, because I had no regard for Garamoni, and did 
 not care much about the family. Had anything happened to cause 
 dissension between him and you ? I employed him at first as a tailor. p 
 Where was he living ? not with his wife ? No. Did you not know 
 that? Corfu was a small town ; everybody knew it. Did you not know 
 that they had separated because not on good terms? At that time, I 
 believe, I did not know it. Yet you say all Corfu knew he was not 
 living with her? A fact may be known without the reason being 
 known. At what time in the night did this surprise take place ? I do not 
 know exactly, but it was not my habit to go to my house much before 
 eleven o'clock. Was it not nearer twelve ? I cannot speak to a quarter 
 of an hour. You say she called out to you, and put questions to you, 
 which were interrupted by the arrival of the husband? Yes. Did 
 you go to the door ? I went near the door. Were you in the dress 
 of a priest ? No. Did she begin to put any question to you ? No. 
 Then how did you know what she wanted? (He hesitates.) You 
 suggested some questions as being put to you ? She was about to put 
 to me ! About to put to you ! then it was your imagination ? Yes, 
 from a few words. What were the few words ? For instance, " have you 
 heard" referred to the noise I had heard the night before. In your 
 imagination? She did not use the word " scream "? No. Were you 
 living next door ? (He hesitates) No, not next door ; at an angle. 
 Did Garamoni charge you with having been in the house with his 
 wife ? Not that . evening. Did he seize you ? No ; (hesitating) 
 Yes (hesitating again) ; No. Did he not take hold of you ? No, no. r 
 Did you not try to get away ! I believe he pushed against me. 
 Did he not take hold of you, and did you not struggle to get loose ? 
 No ; he had nothing to say to me, only to his wife. But did he not 
 charge his wife in your presence with having admitted you into her 
 
 P Yet she swears positively she did not know him , which he does not venture to 
 do, however! The reader will remark the phrase "at first" in connection 
 with the question. Let the reader remark there was documentary evidence in 
 this case, so a general denial would not do, as in the other cases. 
 
 i The reader will remark this reply, as compared with the other answers, 
 and even compare these with the cross-examination of Garamoni's wife. 
 
 * Which might be for the purpose of preventing him from leaving the house , 
 as he was going to escape; and that confirms the evidence for the defence.
 
 140 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 company ? That was his usual habit : (after a pause) he was a man 
 without civility. Oh ! I am not talking of civility ! I ask you if he 
 did not charge his wife with admitting you for improper purposes? 
 (He hesitated, and affected not to understand). This is the third time I 
 have asked you, and you understand English as well as I do : Did he 
 not charge his wife with admitting you for improper purposes ? I think 
 not (pausing) ; I don't recollect his words precisely (pausing again), but 
 they appeared to have been these : " Worthless woman ! I have caught 
 thee ! s Did he not, while he held you, make her hold the candle to 
 you ? (He professed not to understand, and the question was repeated 
 in Italian.) Oh, you know what I said! Did he not hold you? 
 (He still hesitated.) Did he not hold you, and make his wife^ bring a 
 candle ? Oh no ; he did not put his hands on .me. Did you not use 
 your hands to get away? The door was small, and there were the 
 husband and wife there, and I believe another person, and I was 
 obliged to open my way and make a passage to get out. And when 
 you did get out you ran ? No, I had no need of it ; my own door was 
 a few steps off. (Pausing.) Now that I recollect, my own house had 
 two doors. Yes ; and one of them was the back door ? Yes. And did 
 not the people in the street try to stop you ? No, no, no. But you 
 got in at the back door? Yes. Now, did you know Garamoni after- 
 wards said you had been there with his wife ? (He hesitated.) Were 
 you ever before the tribunal about it ? No. Have you got Madame 
 Garamoni here ? (Achilli here smiled with sardonic triumph, and was 
 silent.) Don't stand there grinning at me, but give me an answer! 
 Yes, yes (still smiling) ; you will have the pleasure of seeing her ! 
 Well, have you got Madame Coriboni here ? No; Where did you 
 make the acquaintance of Coriboni? At Corfu. When you were 
 there, you had put off your priestly character, had you not, and 
 were travelling as the Cavalier Achilli ? It was my name. Yes, but 
 " cavalier," did you make use of that title in your passports (a nod) 
 and on your card? (He hesitates.) Is not that the card you used 
 (handed up to him)? Yes. Now, when did you make the acquaint- 
 ance of Coriboni ? In the summer of 1843. What was he ? He was 
 a small merchant ; he went about with an operatic company ; he was 
 then engaged in business about the theatre. Why, he was a chorus 
 singer, was he not ? I do not know (hesitating) ; I have never seen him 
 as such in the theatre I believe he was so. And the wife, was she so ? 
 (Hesitates.) She had no occupation of her own. Where did they live ? 
 At Corfu ? Yes, while living at Corfu ? Non mi ricordo. I ask you 
 where they were living when first you made their acquaintance ? I 
 cannot recollect. How came you to have their acquaintance ? All the 
 Italians who were at Corfu sought my acquaintance, and took pleasure 
 in it. Did you leavn what was this woman's character? No. Did 
 you take any trouble to ascertain ? No. Was she dressed peculiarly ? 
 No. How was she dressed ? Very modestly. ' When you took her 
 into your service, you knew nothing about her character ? No. Who 
 recommended the chorus singer to you ! He himself came and re- 
 quested me to engage him. Did you take any trouble to ascertain his 
 character? No ; I had known him habitually from sight, and he 
 
 8 The reader will remark the many confirmations all this presents to the 
 evidence of the witnesses for the defence, to which he is requested to refer. 
 
 * The reader will remember the evidence of several respectable artizans, as to 
 her gross immodesty of dress.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 141 
 
 appeared to be a good man. Where had you occasion to see him ? 
 About the streets. He appeared a good man from his outward appear- 
 ance? Yes. So you judge of people in that way ? No. And the 
 lady, did she appear from her outward appearance to he a good woman? 
 I had no objection to her ; I had nothing to find fault with about her. 
 You mean her appearance I suppose : was she good-looking? Neither 
 the one nor the other. You took them with you to Zante? I did not 
 take them with me. How soon did they come after you ? A few weeks 
 after. As soon as you were settled ? No ; I was three months in 
 Zante before they came. When did you engage them as your servants 
 in Corfu ? In the summer of 1843. Did you engage them to come into 
 your service before you left Corfu for Zante ? Yes. Then they w r ere to fol- 
 low you whenever you got a house ? No, no ; that was not our compact. 
 What was your compact ? I took them when 1 left Corfu. They were 
 in your service at Corfu ? Yes. And when you took your house at Zante, 
 you sent for them again to Zante. Yes. You used part of your house 
 for purposes of public worship, for your congregation ? Yes. Now, 
 the first time vou opened it for that purpose, did Coriboni officiate 
 as clerk? Yes. (Great laughter.) Was he a Catholic? (Achilli 
 laughed, as he replied) Neither a Catholic nor a Protestant, like 
 most of the Italians. Well, then, he might have done for either a 
 Protestant or Catholic church : were you one of that class ? No ; 
 he had an antipathy to the Roman Catholic Church, but nevertheless 
 he was not a Protestant. Oh, he was in a state of transition, like 
 the chrysalis : not good enough for a parson, but good enough for a 
 clerk ! ' (Achilli laughed, as did every one else.) You were the par- 
 son : you had got to a farther stage of transformation, and had 
 become a Protestant ! he had not gone so, far, and could only 
 be a clerk ! (Laughter, in which Achilli joined, but with an 
 air of annoyance.) And the lady, did she officiate? No. She was 
 doorkeeper ? No, no. Did she not sit at the door ? Oh no, never ! 
 Did Coriboni continue to officiate as clerk, or did he cease after 
 the first time ? No, no ; he continued in that office to the last. 
 Did not Mr. Reynolds speak to you on the impropriety of having 
 these two persons in your service in the chapel? (Achilli paused, 
 then replied) And I remember, as I have said, that after I had re- 
 proached him about drunkenness, he spoke with me about the ser- 
 vants. Lord CAMPBELL. He gave a full explanation before." Sir 
 A. CocJcburn. Did he not, on the occasion of the opening of the chapel, 
 remonstrate with you upon the impropriety of those persons being 
 employed? No; on the contrary, he has often used my servants. 
 The question I asked was, whether he did not remonstrate against 
 your having them connected with the church? No, no. Now, you 
 have represented that, on two occasions, you reproved him for his 
 habits of intemperance? Yes ; and I will add, that on the second 
 occasion I was requested to do this by his own wife. (Achilli said 
 this with a savage sort of air.) Pray, did you ever see him addicted 
 to intemperance ? I have had opportunities of seeing him. v Was 
 he an habitual drunkard ? Oh, yes. By day and by night. (He 
 
 u "A full explanation!" A flat contradiction to the evidence of several 
 respectable and unimpeachable witnesses. " A full explanation!" It will be 
 observed that in every instance Lord Campbell interposed to check, discourage, 
 or destroy the effect of questions or observations of the defendant's counsel. 
 
 " The reader will remark this reply.
 
 142 KEl'OKT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 nodded assent.) You have seen him drunk? Sometimes. How long 
 had you known him when you remonstrated with him upon this 
 hahit? (He hesitated: the question was repeated.) Some months. 
 What has become of Coriboni? He is in the Roman States." Oh, 
 he went back to Catholicism? I believe there are few Catholics 
 there. x Oh, then, they are all becoming Protestants ? They are ne- 
 gative. (Laughter.) Did you ever say Madame Coriboni was a 
 Magdalen? No; it is a story. Is it a story that Mr. Reynolds re- 
 marked to you that he saw two pillows in your bed there? He 
 never saw it ; neither he nor any other man have ever seen my bed- 
 room. That is no answer to my question : I ask whether it is un- 
 true that he spoke to you about you having a double bed ? It is 
 untrue. Lord CAMPBELL. That is quite satisfactory. * Sir A. Cock- 
 burn. Have you ever walked arm-in-arm with the wife of Coriboni ? 
 I should say I should have lost rny position if I had been seen so. * 
 Were you ever in the streets with her? (Hesitating) I may have 
 met her in the streets, and come home with her. " What made you 
 leave Zante ? I determined to go to Malta, because I intended to open 
 an Italian church there ? Did you ever open it ? Yes. In your 
 house ? Yes. How long did you officiate there ? As long as I con- 
 tinued in the house ; a few months afterwards, being employed in 
 the college at Malta, I opened another Italian chapel. Had you sub- 
 scriptions at Malta ? No. Any at Zante ? A few friends collected 
 some money among themselves, which lasted a short time. What 
 means of sxibsistence had you during the time from your leaving the 
 Roman States until you went to Malta ? I received some money from 
 my family, and I earned some by literary labours. Now, as to the 
 college at Malta, in reference to Leonini and Saccares, you have said 
 that, before you sent Saccares to Malta, you communicated that to 
 Mr.Hadfield? Yes. Was that by letter? Yes. Was not Saccares 
 gone at that time ? When I sent the letter he had not gone. But 
 he was in the act of leaving? Yes. You sent him, you say, 
 to Sicily, on an important mission : was that to distribute Bibles 
 in Sicily? Yes. What number of Bibles? Fifty or sixty. Were 
 they procured from the college at Malta ? They were sent out from 
 the committee in London. Did you not afterwards deny that you had 
 sent Saccares away at all ? I never denied sending him away ; b I only 
 denied sending him away to obstruct the further investigation. Did 
 you not know that a day was fixed by Mr. Hadfield for resuming the 
 inquiry ? No ; I did not know it at all ; c I thought the investigations 
 
 w Probably his correspondent, by whom he communicated with Viterbo, 
 through the Roman States as he had said he did. 
 
 * Then the supposed state of morals there is no test of the Catholic religion. 
 The fact is, however, that, as he said of the monks, " There are some bad, and 
 some good," and the bad are everywhere in the majority. But those who do 
 not believe in a religion, nor realize it, are no fair specimens of its results. 
 
 y Very satisfactory ! 
 
 z And it appears he left the place in a few months. 
 
 a The reader will remark these answers. 
 
 b In a publication issued by his friends last year, it is stated that he did not 
 send him away, but he went voluntarily. Let the reader refer to the replies issued 
 by the committee of the Malta College, which will materially assist him in appre- 
 ciating Achilli. 
 
 c The Times truly says, "This answer caused sensation." See Mr. Hadfield's 
 evidence.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 143 
 
 were at an end. Did you not say before that you conceived there was 
 no foundation for the charges, and that after that the principal told 
 you he was charged thoroughly to investigate the matter ? Yes. Was 
 not it after that he told you he was employed for that purpose you 
 sent Saccaces awav? Because the investigation was at an end. Did 
 he not tell you he was going to resume it ? No, no, no. Lord CAMPBELL. 
 He says he did not know. d Sir A. Cockburn. You came to Lon- 
 don, and first resided at Northumberland-street, and engaged Harriet 
 Harris ? Yes. Mrs. Achilli came soon after ? Yes. Was a person 
 named Castellini employed in the house at the time ? Yes. How late 
 did he remain ? All day, till late in the evening. You never took 
 any liberties with that young woman? No. Never put your hand 
 upon her ? No, no ; never touched her. You say the same of Jane 
 Legge, you never touched her ? No, no. Do you know her sister, 
 Mrs. Logan? Yes. Did she send you a message as to her having 
 been served with a subpoena ? No ; but having some occasion to go 
 to her, I knew of the business. Did you look at the subpoena ? No. 
 You did not say she need not attend court, or that the day was 
 gone by ? No. You are sure of that ? She told me she was forced to 
 accept it, by a man who put it into her hands. Did you give her any 
 advice ? No. (Hesitating) I may have said it was a curious thing. 
 I put it to you distinctly : did you not tell her, if any one else came, to 
 shut the door in their face ? Not in that sense. Not in that sense ! 
 did you tell her, if anybody came again to shut the door in their face ? 
 Not about that. She told me that it was with violence this paper had 
 been put into her hands, and I answered that in the houses in England 
 I did not believe that violence could be used. Did you not use these 
 words, " shut the door " ? Oh no. Did she say any one had forced them- 
 selves into the house ? Yes ! Did she not speak to you about your 
 being improperly intimate with her sister ? No. (Hesitating.) I think 
 not. Think not ! why surely it is a thing that would have struck you ? 
 She said she had been forced to receive the papers. I am not speaking 
 of the papers, but of the intimacy with her sister, which is a very dif- 
 ferent thing. (He hesitates.) Did she not speak to you on the subject of 
 your being intimate with her sister ? No, never. Did she speak to you 
 on the subject ? Never. Did she not say, " You must know best whether 
 you have been intimate with my sister ? " She never said these things to 
 me ; on the contrary, she said she was sorry the thing about her sister 
 had been mooted at all. I did not ask whether she was sorry or not. 
 But did she not speak to you about your intimacy with her sister ? 
 (He hesitates.) Did she not say, " Sir, you must know if it be true " ? 
 No. Now about .Sarah Wood : you never took any liberty with her ? 
 No, no. Did her uncle ever see you on the subject? No. Nor her 
 father? I do not know. Well, now I put the same question as to 
 England as to the other places where you have been : have you ever 
 had connection with any other women besides these ? The foreman of 
 the jury rose indignantly, and said, the question was unfair. Lord 
 CAMPBELL. I think the learned counsel has a right to put the question. 
 Sir A. Cockburn. I think the question is relevant : but I will pxit a 
 specific case. Did you ever know a girl named Louisa Colchester? 
 The Attorney General There is no charge about that. Sir A . Cockburn. 
 Is that a reason why I should not put the question ! Lord CAMPBELL. 
 You cannot ask as to a specific case. You should have put it upon 
 
 d Another kind interposition.
 
 144 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 the record. Sir A. Cockburn. My lord, how could we, when we did 
 not know of it at the time ? and indeed it lias happened since. I submit 
 that his having been guilty of offences similar to those charged in the 
 plea, raises a strong inference as to the probability of those charged 
 having been committed. There are certain offences charged : he denies 
 these upon his own testimony ; and of course the question is as to the 
 credit of the witnesses. Am I not entitled, then, to support their 
 credit by showing, out of his own mouth, that he has been guilty of 
 similar offences ? Lord CAMPBELL. You cannot put the question. Sir 
 A. Cockburn. When did you openly renounce the Church of Rome, 
 and become a Protestant? So soon as I arrived at Corfu I began to 
 write letters to the cardinal and the Pope. When did you become 
 convinced of the untruth of the Catholic doctrine as to the mass ? As 
 to the real presence. Lord CAMPBELL. Transubstantiation. I began 
 to have doubts upon the doctrine when I was explaining it as professor 
 of philosophy at Viterbo. Did you continue to celebrate mass long after 
 that ? I had doubts. e Does this truly describe the state of your mind 
 (reading from his book) ? " From this time, in saying mass, I was no 
 longer a Christophagus. I had ceased to believe in what I did. What 
 then in reality was the act I performed ? I know not. I was like 
 Luther and many others who no longer believed the mass, who had 
 rejected its doctrines, and learnedly refuted its errors, but still con- 
 tinued to celebrate it." And again,'" With respect to the mass, thougli 
 I was thoroughly persuaded of its imposture, I still continued to 
 perform it without devotion, yet with a show of earnestness." Now I 
 ask you, after hearing these passages, whether, when persuaded of the 
 imposture of the mass, you continued to celebrate it ? It would have 
 been only in me what happened with all the reformers who seceded 
 from the Church ! Am I to take that as an answer in the affirmative ? 
 Did you continue to celebrate the sacrifice of the mass after you had 
 ceased to believe in its reality ? I was not perfectly satisfied (hesitating) : 
 I had not my heart touched, although I was persuaded. But you say 
 you were perfectly persuaded of the imposture of the mass. Did you, 
 after that, continue to celebrate it? Yes. I had that persuasion in 
 my mind ; I had not felt the strength of it in my heart. You were per- 
 suaded of its imposture in your mind, but not in your heart ! I 
 believed that conversion rests more in the heart than in the mind. f 
 Now, as to the convent at Viterbo, was it not made matter of complaint 
 against you that you did not attend choir with regularity ? As pro- 
 fessor of philosophy I was not obliged to attend choir. I asked whether 
 it was not made matter of observation against you ? No, never. 8 
 
 e This was at Viterbo. Now, supposing the evidence against Achilli to be 
 true, he was then in mortal sin, and not of a state of grace, which any Catholic 
 theologian would conceive a perfectly satisfactory explanation of these doubts of 
 his, and this want of faith. 
 
 1 Here some of the vulgar portion of the audience gave a cheer, to which 
 Lord Campbell complacently listened. What was cheered, the practising reli- 
 gious imposture, or the explanation of it as " conversion " ? 
 
 K In his book he says, one of the friars said to him, " Why do you attend 
 choir so seldom?" He gives as his reason, not exemption, but objection, and 
 concludes, " These, are the reasons why I come to choir so seldom." To 
 ittend choir is to recite the " office " of the Breviary (consisting chiefly of 
 the Psalms of David), from which the Morning and Evening Prayer of the 
 Church of England is composed. Achilli speaks sneeringly of reciting the 
 Psalms of David in this office.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 145 
 
 Re-examined by the Attorney Gensral. As professor I was exempted 
 from attending choir on week days ; on Sundays I attended choir and 
 preached. Is this a true account 'of your state of mind (reading from 
 his book) ? "I had for years received the doctrine of the JBible. I was 
 a Christian in mind, but not in heart. If Christianity were as some 
 suppose, a mere opinion, or belief, it would suffice, in order to become a 
 Christian, to admit the truth of the Scriptures ; the absurdity of which 
 is manifest from the consideration that in this case the first Christian 
 could have been no other than the devil. I possessed the understanding 
 of faith, but not faith itself. I could instruct others in its precepts, but 
 was not myself capable of obeying them.'" 1 Yes. Now with regard to 
 your leaving Naples, when did you return there from Fransoni ? In 
 November.' 
 
 Dominico Pogge, examined by the Attorney General. I was brought up 
 in the Church of Rome, and was a Dominican father. I am now principal 
 of a Protestant educational establishment at Seacombe, near Liverpool. 
 I was in Viterbo from the beginning of 1831 to June, 1833. I lived in 
 the convent of Gradi when Dr. Achilli was sub-prior. I remember his 
 preaching there. I was afterwards at Rome, and in 1837 he went then 
 to reside at Naples. He was confessor to the princess of Saxony. Dr. 
 Achilli was then universally and very highly esteemed. At Rome I 
 never heard anything against him, but at Viterbo I did, for there he had 
 many enemies. The monks and priests greatly esteemed him, but not 
 the bishop. His appointment to preach the Lent sermons, to visit con- 
 vents, and to be prior of the convent of St. Pietro the Martyr, at Naples, 
 are great marks of distinction, and could only have been conferred on 
 a man whose character for morality stood high. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir A. Cockburn. You were one of the fathers ? 
 Yes. What vows did you take ? I took the vow of obedience as a 
 Dominican, but always thought that though not explicitly, implicitly 
 those of "poverty" and "chastity" were included.J The book of 
 "Ferrares" is one of authority, but there are things in it which have 
 been obsolete. But this is an edition of 1783, and it states, " Tria vota, 
 
 paupertatis, castitatis, et obedientce, sunt essentice religionis ex jur<i dimno. 
 Now is that so, that the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience 
 are of the essence of the religious life? All that is perfectly true, 
 
 according to the belief of the Church of Rome. So that it would be 
 an essential part of the vow taken by a Dominican, to obey the injunc- 
 
 h This was when he was " first laid hold of by the Inquisition." Now, if the 
 evidence for the defence were true or even if the inference drawn from his 
 declining to answer the general questions about fornication be correct, he was 
 then in mortal sin, "and out of a state of grace, which would perfectly explain this 
 state of mind on the principles of Catholic theology ; and the ensuing remark- 
 able words strikingly coincide with the theory, and with what theologians 
 describe as the state of mind succeeding much mortal sin. 
 
 ' This examination closed at half-past four ; he had been in the box seven 
 hours. 
 
 J Hear how one spoke 800 years ago, who had been bred up by monks. Odel- 
 rius, councillor of Roger, earl of Shrewsbury, in 1083 : " Who can worthily 
 relate all their vigils, hymns, and psalmody ! prayers, alms, and sacrifices ! What 
 shall I say of their chastity, their poverty, their obedience ! From my tender 
 youth I have been admitted to familiar relations with monks, and have learned 
 thoroughly what were their manners, and I am sure all men are inferior in 
 tht-ir lives to monks who live canonically, according to their rule." Orderic 
 Viterb. lib. v. 
 
 L
 
 146 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 tion of chastity ? Certainly. Pray when did you leave the Church of 
 Rome ? I decline answering that question. What ! not answer as 
 to when you left the Church of Rome ? Why ? I did not come here 
 to give an account of my actions. Why is 'there anything in your 
 idea derogatory to character in becoming a Protestant? I did not 
 come here to give an account of my actions : it is enough to say that 
 I have had the happiness to leave that Church. Well, when did your 
 happiness begin? Lord CAMPBELL. He cannot say what had been 
 passing in his own mind, perhaps. Sir A. Cockburn. I am speak- 
 ing, my lord, of outward acts. When were you received into the 
 Protestant Church? I have not been admitted into the Church of 
 England formally, though I have been in fact. When did you 
 cease to frequent the worship of the Church of Rome, k and attend 
 the worship of a Protestant congregation ? That is another question : 
 I must beg to repeat, I have not come here to give an account of 
 my actions. Why, what objection can you have to answer such a 
 question ? I have one in my own mind ; I may be wrong ; but you 
 must excuse me. (The manner of the witness made the Court and 
 counsel very merry.) You cannot tell me, then, the first time that 
 you went to a Protestant Church ? No. Lord CAMPBELL. I can- 
 not imagine what objection you have to answer that. I cannot an- 
 swer questions upon extraneous subjects. Sir A. Cockburn. When 
 did you leave Italy ? In 1840. At that time had you seceded ? I 
 have it in my own mind. (Much laughter.) Well, so soon as you came 
 to England ? I have not come here to answer questions about myself. 
 Well, I won't ask you any more ? Thank you. (Great laughter.) 
 
 Dominichi Paoli examined by the Attorney General. I was formerly 
 a friar of the order of Serviti, at Viterbo. I lived in that town from 
 the end of 1831 to near the end of 1837. I knew Dr. Achilli there. I 
 have nothing to say against him. I know nothing of any charges against 
 Dr. Achilli during that time. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir A. Cockburn. I am here a year, a free man, 
 having left the Roman Catholic Church. I came originally, engaged 
 by a society to evangelize foreigners during the time of the Great 
 Exhibition. (Much laughter.) What society? It was a society for 
 the evangelization of foreigners. I was at Geneva, and was called to 
 England by that society. When did you leave the Roman Catholic 
 Church? I have been severed from the communion of the Catholic 
 Church for two years : I say so, because I have left Italy two years.* 
 I left Italy freely, in order to profess freely my religious opinions. I 
 have known Dr. Achilli and treated him as an acquaintance. Between 
 leaving Italy and going to Geneva I went here and there, wherever I 
 was sent by my superior. Who supports you now? I live on the 
 means afforded by Father Gavazzi. I act as his secretary. Is Father 
 
 
 
 k Perhaps lie bad not ceased at all. It is a doctrine of Catholic theology, 
 that a Catholic can never thoroughly lose the grace of faith imposed by baptism, 
 until he have become reprobate. If this be so, none of these supposed "con- 
 versions ' ' can be sincere, in cases where all sense of religion is not lost ; and 
 the most remarkable reluctance of this man strikingly confirms this hypothesis ; 
 as also does the contemptuous conduct of Achilli in having a Catholic clerk to 
 perform Protestant services at Corfu; and his own language in his book, 
 explaining that he had not faith; as to which, see former note on his cross- 
 examination. See also evidence of next witness. Of course the argument does 
 not affect those born Protestants.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 147 
 
 Gavazzi the man who, being formerly in the Church of Rome, now 
 goes about speaking against it ? Yes. 
 
 Captain William Hudson Lawrence, R.A., on half-pay, Inspector- 
 General of Police in the Ionian Islands, examined by the Attorney 
 General. In consequence of an application from the solicitor for the 
 prosecution in this case, I sent for a copy of the proceedings between 
 Garamoni and his wife at Corfu. (A witness produced other documents 
 in the same case.) I was employed to find the wife of Garamoni, and 
 she is in this country. I also tried to find out Coriboni and his wife, 
 but could get no information about them. What is the character of 
 the witness Russo, who has been brought over here ?' I only know it 
 from documents at the police-office. 
 
 Mr. Kirkpatrick called and examined by the Attorney General. I 
 was chief justice of the Ionian Islands. I have perused the papers 
 produced by the last witness. It appears that there was a suit for ali- 
 mony on the part of the wife. Does it appear that witnesses were ex- 
 amined? No. Lord CAMPBELL. To what length did the suit go? 
 There was a compromise, which is stated in the proceedings ; but it 
 came before the court. 
 
 Marianna Crisaffi Garamoni n called and examined by the Attorney 
 General, through an interpreter in Italian. I am the wife of Gara- 
 moni, a tailor, who carried on business at Corfu. I remember Dr. 
 Achilli living next door to me and my mother there. My husband 
 did not reside with us. I remember one night speaking to Dr. Achilli 
 as he was passing. My husband used violence towards me many times, 
 and many accusations have been made against him on that account. I 
 wish I had him here. (Laughter.) My face has been disfigured by 
 him. I said nothing to Dr. Achilli. I had not spoken to him when 
 my husband came up. Dr. Achilli was passing. I wished to call Dr. 
 Achilli because my mother pointed him out to me, and said that pro- 
 bably he being a neighbour had overheard the quarrel between me and 
 a lady friend of my husband. I said to her that I would wait till the 
 evening and ask him if he had heard it. I did so. I got to the win- 
 dow for the purpose of calling him, and as I was going down to speak 
 to him, my husband and Dr. Achilli rushed in together. I wished to 
 call him, that he might be a witness in my favour, but I did not know 
 him. I should like my husband to be here ; but he is not he has run 
 away. (Laughter.) He rushed up stairs on the occasion referred to, 
 and said many tlungs he ought not to say, because the cause was 
 given in my favour. Dr. Achilli was outside the door when my hus- 
 band pushed him up to it. Dr. Achilli never was in the house before. 
 I know nothing . of these calumnies about him. I know not who this 
 
 1 And if they had known anything against him they would have been produced. 
 Lord Campbell did not notice this, though he dropped something to the dis- 
 credit of Russo. See his charge. 
 
 m That is quite clear, and is what the plea alleges. Surely, that part of it 
 ought to have been found for the defendant ? Lord Campbell thought so. 
 
 n Very smartly dressed, but very ugly, with a nose battered in. She wore a 
 veil over her face, and Sir A. Cockburn desired her to raise it, that her counte- 
 nance might be seen. The prosecutor's counsel was rather pleased at this, as 
 her present repulsive appearance raised a plausible inference of the improbability 
 of the charge. This, however, would depend upon whether her nose were bat- 
 tered before or after the alleged event ; and, of course, from the character of 
 Garamoni, it was likely to be inflicted after the event, supposing it to have 
 happened. 
 
 L 2
 
 148 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 Dr. Achilli is. Now I know him, as he has been pointed out to me, but 
 before, I did not know him : the daughter of the landlady where I now 
 reside pointed him out to me. There were proceedings in the court 
 between you and your husband? Yes, and I came out victorious. 
 (Laughter.) Dr. Achilli wished that we should make peace; I had 
 forgiven him before a hundred times, and so I forgave him this also. 
 We lived together some years, but now we are separated again, and 
 have been for more than seven years. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir A. Cockburn. I have been married about 
 sixteen years, and my husband has always led me a miserable life. 
 Did not your quarrels arise from his accusing you of being intimate 
 with other men ? Oh, no, no, no ; I have always come out with proofs 
 of my innocence. (Laughter.) Did the quarrels arise from his im- 
 puting to you improper conduct with- other men? It was I who 
 accused him. Why did you bring forward proofs of innocence 
 unless you were accused? I was always beaten, because he had to do 
 with other women. (Laughter.) Was it not because he said you had 
 to do with other men? No, there are many proofs of what I say : two 
 doctors, four lawyers, and many other men. (iMuch laughter.) What, 
 to prove your innocence? No, no ; they will all prove that he is a bad 
 man. (Continued laughter.) When did Achilli come to live near your 
 mother's house? I don't know.? How long before this affair? I 
 don't know. Was it one month, or two, or more ? I cannot say any- 
 thing about it. Did you not know who lived next door to you ; did 
 you never see Achilli before that evening when you called to him ? 
 No. Had you not been waiting up for him? It was for the pur- 
 pose of calling the gentleman, whom I did not know. Did you not 
 know it was your next door neighbour? My mother told me that 
 evening that this gentleman was my neighbour. Did you see him go 
 out of his house ? No ; I had not seen him before.* 1 I saw him then 
 passing, and I called to him, and I was going down stairs. How did 
 you know that he was out ? My mother told me that he was not at home, 
 and I said, "I will remain all night, if necessary, in order to see 
 him." Did you say anything to Dr. Achilli besides calling him? I 
 did not even call him, but my intention was to call him for the pur- 
 pose I have mentioned/ (Sensation.) I was still up stairs with a 
 light when they came to the door. Did your husband call you to bring 
 a light ! No ; but I, wishing to go down and speak to the gentleman, 
 brought it down. Did you hold it up to the gentleman's face ? No ; 
 but I had it in my hand. Did your husband say, "Worthless woman, 
 I have caught you"? He tormented me, and the whole of that night 
 he went about telling every one that he had caught me with this gen- 
 tleman." (Laughter.) Two persons passed at the time, and my hus- 
 band said to them, "See, I have caught my wife with this gentleman." 
 Did he take hold of Achilli ? He came up stairs and insulted me. 
 Did he lay hold of Achilli ? He was outside, in the street. That is 
 not an answer. Did not your husband hold Dr. Achilli against the 
 
 Let the reader particularly attend to this cross-examination, which completed 
 the evidence on the Garamoni charge. See the plea. 
 
 P The reader is requested to compare this evidence with that of Achilli's and 
 the other witnesses, on this charge. 
 
 1 How, then, could she have known him when she saw him return ? 
 
 r Achilli had sworn she came down and was speaking to him, having actually 
 commenced a question. 
 
 8 Here is a complete confirmation of the witnesses for the defence.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 149 
 
 wall ? Yes ; and insulted him in various ways. Did he struggle to 
 get loose ? Oh no. How did he get loose ? I don't know, for I was 
 up stairs. I did not come down to the door. I could not come. I 
 was at the window. I never came down. I was at the top of the 
 stairs ; they lead down to the door. How came the door to be opened at 
 11 at night ? I opened it from above ; it is common with the women in 
 Italy to do so by a string passing from a latch up stairs. I had opened 
 the door, and was preparing to come down to speak to him. 1 
 
 Mrs. Achilli called and examined by the Attorney General. I was 
 married at Rome, in 1849. I met my husband in Paris after his escape 
 from the Inquisition. I took a house in Shaftesbury-crescent, and had 
 a servant named Harriet Harris, who was with me three months. I 
 found the kitchen very dirty, and she said it was not a usual thing for 
 English ladies to go there. I said I was not English ; " I have not the 
 custom of the English ladies, and I will come when I like." She then 
 gave me notice, but wanted to stay at the end of the month. I, however, 
 would not allow her to stay. Sir A. Cockburn. The girl said all this 
 herself. Witness continued. Jane Legge was also in my service. I 
 came home one night at 11 o'clock, and found a young man in the 
 back kitchen, and I ordered her to leave next day. She never com- 
 plained to me of any liberties being taken with her. Sir A. Cockburn. 
 She said so herself. ^ The Attorney General. Was Sarah Wood a 
 Catholic ? I think she 'was ; she would not eat meat on Wednesday 
 or Friday. 
 
 This concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and it being half- 
 past six o'clock the Court adjourned. 
 
 This closed the case in reply. 
 
 THE FOURTH DAY. 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn rose to address the Court in reply on the part 
 of Dr. Newman : u 
 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, The course which has been pursued 
 on the part of the prosecution in laying their evidence before 
 you after that for the defence, entitles me to address you on 
 the evidence which has now been adduced ; and I shall discharge 
 that duty with as much brevity as possible. Possibly after the 
 length of time the case has occupied, some of you, or even all of you, 
 
 1 The cross-examination was very skilful and successful. In a common case 
 it would have secured the defendant the verdict. This and the few preceding 
 questions were very acute. 
 
 u Of this splendid speech the Times says : " Sir A. Cockburn addressed the 
 jury for the defendant during a period of four hours, and in a speech which was 
 listened to throughout with breathless attention. We cannot hope to convey 
 more than a very faint idea of the nervous eloquence by which it was charac- 
 terized. It is very rarely indeed now-a-days that our courts of justice are so 
 thoroughly roused from their habitual state of dull repose ; and some difficulty 
 was experienced in suppressing the spontaneous bursts of applause with which 
 the highest efforts of the advocate's forensic powers were received."
 
 150 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 may have formed conclusions as to the result at which you ought to 
 arrive. Nevertheless, I am sure, that even if you should have 
 formed any such opinion, you will listen with attention, in the dis- 
 charge of your duty, to the observations I feel it necessary to make 
 to you in the discharge of mine. Gentlemen, this case has assumed 
 in my mind, and probably in the minds of every one connected 
 with it, a deep and most powerful interest. I have not, and cannot 
 of course be expected to have, any religious sympathy with 
 Dr. Newman ; but I have an interest in the case, not only that 
 which the advocate ought always to feel for his client, but an in- 
 terest that justice shall be done. And I have an additional interest, 
 derived from the peculiar form which the case has now assumed. 
 Gentlemen, the issues have become complicated in this matter. 
 You have no longer the simple question, whether Dr. Newman has 
 been guilty of publishing a libel without facts to sustain the charge 
 he has made, or whether, on the other hand, Dr. Achilli has been 
 wantonly assailed in his character. A new question has now 
 arisen one of not less painful interest for it is this : By whom 
 gross, foul, deliberate perjury has been committed in the evidence 
 which has been adduced ! For from that there is no escape ! On 
 the one side or the other we have wicked and deliberate falsehood ! 
 It is a case which admits of no compromise, on which conflicting 
 testimony cannot be reconciled, or any supposition of mistake, mis- 
 understanding, or misdescription. The women who come forward 
 and state that Dr. Achilli was the man who robbed them of their 
 virtue, cannot be mistaken as to the identity of the man. No 
 woman, whatever the length of time that may pass, forgets the man 
 by whom she was first initiated into the arts and mysteries of vice ! 
 And although one might conceive the possibility that a licentious 
 libertine, in the number of bis victories, might forget an individual 
 one, still, when time and place, and circumstances, are brought 
 vividly to his recollection, there can be no mistake on his part ; 
 and there can be no possibility, that in the generality of his criminal 
 intercourse with women, the particular case should not be present 
 to his mind when he denies its truth ! On the one side or the 
 other, there is foul and deliberate perjury. The women who swear 
 that Achilli seduced them from virtue, the mother who swears that 
 she assailed him as the man who had effected the ruin of her child, 
 either they spoke the truth or they wickedly invented the story 
 they came here to tell! On which side lies the truth? That, 
 gentlemen, you have to determine. And in order to determine it 
 rightly, and in determining it to do justice, you must bring to the 
 consideration of the case impartial and dispassionate minds; not 
 assuming, until you have carefully considered and weighed all the 
 circumstances which ought to be taken into account on the one 
 side or the other, that truth is with our party or the opposite. 
 
 Now let us pass in review the evidence we have laid before you 
 for the defence ; and on the other hand, contrast it with the evi-
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 151 
 
 dence adduced on the part of the prosecution. If you believe the 
 witnesses of Dr. Newman, the charges against Dr. Achilli, all or 
 most of them, are substantially proved ; if you believe Dr. Achilli, 
 these witnesses are perjured, the accusations made against him 
 are unfounded, and Dr. Newman is without defence. v On which 
 side lies the truth ! Do the witnesses we have called declare the 
 truth, or is Achilli to be believed when he asserts that all that is 
 said is false ? I am aware, gentlemen, that every attempt will be 
 made to prejudice the witnesses I have brought before you. Every 
 topic ingenuity can suggest, or prejudice adopt, will be put forward 
 with the consummate skill of my learned friend, and he will have 
 the advantage of following me, so that I can only by anticipation 
 grapple with the observations he is likely to make. He has, in 
 addition to the advantage he must always have over me, he has on 
 this occasion the advantage of answering instead of being answered ; 
 and he has the still greater advantage of addressing those, who, 
 unless a rigid sense of duty interpose between him and their pre- 
 judices and feelings, must offer a congenial auditory to the observa- 
 tions he addresses to them. But nevertheless, gentlemen, I despair 
 not in the strength of what I believe to be the truth! And I will 
 proceed to compare the evidence on both sides, and to point out to 
 you what appear to me strong and cogent grounds for maintaining 
 and believing that the truth is on the side of Dr. Newman on this 
 occasion. With these preliminary observations, I will pass on to 
 the material matters for consideration, and will follow this case 
 through the different chapters of the life of Dr. Achilli, and the 
 charges which attach to the various epochs of his career. 
 
 We nd that he was educated a Jesuit, that he became a Domi- 
 nican and a monk, and passed a portion of his life at Viterbo. 
 Thence removing to Rome (where he stays a short time), he goes 
 to Capua, from Capua to Naples, from Naples back to Rome, where 
 he is proceeded against before the Inquisition ; then to Corfu, thence 
 to Zante, next to Malta, and lastly to England.* Each of these 
 residences forms a chapter in the history of his life ; and I will 
 follow him through each. 
 
 We begin with Viterbo. We call a witness from Viterbo, who 
 states that he was the occasion of her seduction. Is she a witness 
 to be believed ? She comes forward here and tells her story in an 
 apparently artless manner. She has no advantages of a Jesuit 
 education, or of a mind trained in the subtleties of casuistry or 
 metaphysical research ! She comes and tells a plain tale. She 
 states that she was a servant in a country-house, that Achilli was 
 there on a visit, that he induced her to walk out with him, that 
 
 v That is, at the trial. The question of law would remain, whether the occa- 
 sion were not privileged. See Introduction. 
 
 w The reader has already remarked how ambulatory he was, which of itself 
 answers the imputations of negligence or connivance levelled against the Church. 
 He was continually removing, or being removed.
 
 152 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 he ultimately succeeded, and in a place of which the sacredness 
 she might have supposed would be her protection. What doubt is 
 cast upon this statement? who comes to contradict it? It is 
 clear, from Achilli's statement, that he has had every opportunity 
 of investigating the past life of this woman. Since that period in 
 her life many years have elapsed; she has married, she has lived 
 in Viterbo ever since, she is settled there. He has communica- 
 tion with Viterbo ; he has stated to us that he has carefully watched 
 the movements of his adversaries in that place. He knew that 
 Elena Valente was a witness through whom it was intended to 
 prove the plea, which was filed several months ago. He has had 
 every opportunity of inquiring into the whole course of her career, 
 and ascertaining what has been her character ; x and yet not a 
 single word has been or can be suggested against her ! not a single 
 imputation can be cast upon her ! And even after a very strict and 
 severe cross-examination this woman's character is blameless and 
 unimpeachable, with the exception of that one transaction, in which 
 she was misled (if she speak the truth) by Achilli himself. Well ; 
 but then it is to be said she was under the influence of her priest. 
 Her priest told her it would be for the glory of God and the honour 
 of the Church that she should stata what had happened ; and, 
 therefore, I suppose, from the way in which the question was put, 
 and the effect he seemed to give to it, that is to be insisted upon 
 as proof that this is a story got up by the priests for the purpose of 
 putting down Achilli. I suppose that is to be the case set up against 
 her ! and against a good deal of the evidence, personal or docu- 
 mentary, which has been laid before you on our side. You will be told 
 of the acts of the Jesuits, and the tricks of the Catholic priesthood, 
 and of pious frauds for the advancement of the Catholic religion, and 
 of the doctrine that the sacredness of the end sanctifies the means ; y 
 and other such topics as these will be addressed to you. But it is 
 a two-edged sword, and cuts two ways ! You will be told of Italian 
 perfidy, and how little Italian witnesses can be relied upon. z Again, 
 I say, it is a two-edged sword ! be careful how you use it ! 
 
 For what is Achilli ! on whose oath these witnesses are to be con- 
 victed of perjury ? Is he not an Italian ? Was he not educated by 
 Jesuits? Was he not initiated into all the craft and artifice which 
 is ascribed to that well-known fraternity ? a (whether rightly or 
 
 * And such efforts had been made in other cases, as that of Russo, though 
 with scarcely better success. The strength of this argument is evident ; yet 
 Lord Campbell never noticed it ! 
 
 i Condemned by all Catholic theologians (as every Catholic well knows), but 
 acted upon by the promoters of the Reformation and Revolution. On no other 
 principle could Cranmer and his associates have traitorously conspired to set 
 aside the lawful heir to the crown, or Burnet and his colleagues have traitorously 
 thrust out their sovereign from his throne. 
 
 z This coarse prejudice surely should now be destroyed, after the awful exhi- 
 bitions of perjury this country has witnessed since the new Act came into opera- 
 tion, for examining the parties to a suit. 
 
 a Alas ! ill known to those who calumniate them !
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 153 
 
 wrongly I stop not to inquire. 1 *) Is he not a subtle disputant, and 
 an ingenious casuist ? brought up amidst Italian priests and monks, 
 himself an Italian, a priest, and a monk ? You saw him in the 
 witness-box ! Gentlemen, I would not be guilty of the injustice of 
 judging a man's heart by the externals of his physiognomy ; bnt I 
 cannot help thinking that if, instead of appearing in the garb of a 
 Protestant preacher, he had appeared in the monk's cowl, it would 
 have struck many of us that, having our minds imbued with notions 
 we are apt to entertain respecting the characteristics of that portion 
 of the Catholic clergy, that the man and his habit were by no means 
 ill-suited ! c And I say, gentlemen, if you are going to hear it 
 urged against the testimony of the witnesses I have adduced, that 
 they are Italians, and under the influence of priests and monks, I 
 tell you that the man who is brought to meet them is an Italian, a 
 Jesuit, a priest, and a monk ! d and I claim for my simple peasants 
 unless circumstances, intrinsic or extrinsic, denote that they are 
 disentitled to the credit I claim for them, at least, as much 
 consideration at the hands of an English jury as the Italian priest 
 who is produced against them can secure ! 
 
 Well ; but is there no other circumstance to be taken into con- 
 sideration in testing the value of the evidence? There is. It is 
 the interest which the parties have, and under which they speak in 
 the witness-box. How stand the parties here ? What interest 
 can these women have to come here and proclaim their own dis- 
 grace, that a confessor, or priest, has told them to go forward and 
 speak the truth for the glory of God and the honour of his Church ? 
 Gentlemen, do you suppose that Dr. Newman has been suborning 
 testimony, and inducing witnesses to come forward here and lay 
 perjury upon their souls in order to protect himself against this 
 information ? e Gentlemen, we may differ from Dr. Newman we 
 all of us probably do ; we may have regretted to see him falling off 
 from the faith in which he had been bred, but it has never occurred 
 to any living soul to impute to him anything which can affect his 
 morality, his honour, or his integrity ! 
 
 b " Jesuitae vero qui se maxime nobis opponunt aut necundi, aut si hoc com- 
 mode fieri non potent, ejiciendi aut certe mendaciis et calumniis, opprimendi 
 sunt." Calvin, apud Becan. t. i. Opusc. xvii. Aphoris. 15 : de modo propa- 
 gandi Calvinismum. Pascal, their great calumniator, when asked if in reality 
 he were sure all he bad written against them was just, made the excuse of an 
 unscrupulous counsel, " that it was those who furnished him with information 
 to look to that ; not for him, who only arranged the materials." Moret Ca- 
 tholici, lib. vi. c. 8. 
 
 c This was more cruel to the monks than to Achilli. 
 
 d What a disgrace to the age so " liberal and enlightened," that such a curious 
 species of argument should be resorted to by so acute an advocate, as the only 
 way of neutralizing so coarse a prejudice ! 
 
 e This atrocious insinuation had been originally suggested from the judgment- 
 seat ; and now, not only was the Attorney General silent, instead of indignantly 
 disclaiming it, but the Lord Chief Justice of England sat still and listened to 
 its repetition with serenity and complacency.
 
 154 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Will it be said that these persons have been brought for the pur- 
 pose ? No one surely can suggest it ? The obvious answer is, 
 that if the principle upon which this defence has been conducted, 
 was to suborn testimony, we might have accumulated case upon case 
 against Achilli. But is there no such interest on the other side ? 
 Ask yourselves this question before you determine on this contest of 
 oaths ! Consider the position in which Achilli stands, and the 
 circumstances under which he is brought into the witness-box, 
 Everything he has in the world is at stake ! Your sympathies will 
 be appealed to on that ground but observe, on the other hand, what 
 an important circumstance that is to take into consideration, when 
 you come to consider the evidence he has given, and the amount of 
 credit to which it is entitled. One thing is perfectly clear, whether 
 by his own act, or by the act of the authorities of the Catholic 
 Church, he has quitted or has been driven from that Church for ever. f 
 All hope of preferment, honour, or emolument is in that quarter cut 
 off for ever ; and his hope of maintenance and existence in the 
 country to which he has transferred himself depends upon the posi- 
 tion he has assumed as a Protestant preacher : adopted by a parti- 
 cular body, anxious for the propagation of Protestantism, and for 
 proselytism among the members of the Catholic Church. He has 
 been adopted by them as a great and shining light in this work of 
 conversion ; and to his utility in that respect, his character is abso- 
 lutely essential if that fails, there is an end to Dr. Achilli, and an 
 end to all those pleasant prospects which no doubt stand out for him 
 in the future. Observe, then, the deep interest he has in denying 
 these charges. What interest, which the witnesses who have been 
 called can have, is to be compared with his ? None that can possibly 
 be suggested ! Surely this is a circumstance which demands your 
 serious consideration before you come to the conclusion that the 
 witnesses who swear to these facts are perjured ! 
 
 Again, when we are comparing the evidence of two witnesses 
 diametrically opposed to each other, it becomes important to look at 
 any of the surrounding circumstances which may show on which 
 side the balance should incline. And there was a circumstance 
 connected with Elena Valeute, which I think tends to show some- 
 what the unscrupulous character of the man whose answer is in 
 question. Achilli is prepared to have her placed before him ? 
 He is asked if he had ever seen her before ? " Oh, no, no ! " 
 Well, she has stated, that in a certain year, he was on a 
 visit at a house where she was living as servant : the house 
 of a lady who was a Gentili ; and he is asked : were you ever 
 in the house of a Gentili ? " Oh, dear no ! it is impossible there 
 are only two Gentili families in Viterbo, and there are two brothers 
 heads of families : besides, I always passed the month's vacation 
 
 f Not necessarily so. The very prelates and priests he has most cruelly 
 calumniated, would be the first to hail his reconciliation and return.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. J 55 
 
 in the houses of three friends." (Whom he mentions, and one of 
 whom he says was a Christopholi.) That seemed conclusive. 
 However, when I come to cross-examine him, it comes out that 
 though it is true he went to the house of a Christopholi, the 
 lady was a widow, and had been a Gentili. Christopholi, her 
 husband, was dead, leaving her and a young son, and she had 
 been a Gentili ! And this lady had a country-house in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Viterbo, as Elena Valente described it. That lady was 
 in the habit of receiving Achilli as a visitor, and she received him 
 (with her brother-in-law) that very month in which criminal 
 relations are represented to have subsisted between him and Elena 
 Valente ! And if it be asked how she came to call the lady by the 
 name of Gentili, the answer is, that the Italian ladies do not always 
 drop their first name when they marry ; and we have proof of it in 
 this very trial, for instance, the witness Giustini is better known by 
 her maiden name of Valente ; so Maria Principe, though married, 
 continues to be called by that name; and my learned friend himself 
 calls Madame Garamoni by her maiden name of Crisaffi, and she 
 answers to that name ; just so was it with Madame Gentili, her 
 husband Christopholi died soon after marriage, and she goes on, 
 being called by the name of Gentili, some times by one name and 
 sometimes by another. Now I ask any one who has a mind 
 unprejudiced, and an intellect unclouded, whether he can doubt 
 that when Achilli stated there was no Gentili whom he had visited, 
 and it was impossible, because the name of the lady was Christo- 
 pholi, he did not know who was alluded to, and that she was 
 a Gentili ? That shows you gentlemen, the casuistry of the man 
 you have to deal with ; and it is calculated to throw a very consider- 
 able light on the whole of the case. I ask you whether, under 
 these circumstances, you can hesitate to give your credit to the 
 witness Valente instead of to Achilli ? That is, then, the case which 
 happened at Viterbo. 
 
 Gentlemen, this brings me to the next chapter, which is Capua ; 
 but as that case rests on documentary evidence, I pass it over for the 
 moment, preferring first to follow the oral evidence of living wit- 
 nesses ; and this takes me to Naples. There occurred the case of 
 Maria Principe. According to her account, Achilli took advantage 
 of her going to the church of St. Pietro Martyro, at Naples, for the 
 purpose of paying her contribution to an association that had been 
 formed in honour of the Virgin Mary. She proved afterwards with 
 child, and tells her father and mother ; and her father died a year or 
 two afterwards, his death being accelerated, according to her account, 
 by the grief occasioned by his daughter's shame. But that, perhaps, 
 is a delusion ! 8 An Italian and a Catholic, I suppose, has not the 
 common feelings of humanity ! and it is not to be believed that he 
 
 s The advocate's voice here changed, by one of those sudden inflections which 
 at once mark and excite deep feeling, and the next sentence produced thrilling 
 effect.
 
 156 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 can have grieved in sorrow and anguish over the ruin of his daughter ! 
 all that of course is a delusion ! However, gentlemen, according to 
 her evidence the father and mother, when they found out who it 
 was, although to address a monk in a procession might have been 
 in the Neapolitan States an offence, called him aside and addressed 
 him in the language of remonstrance ; and it is with difficulty that 
 he breaks away from their importunity ! But all that is a delusion ! 
 When the mother and daughter are introduced into court Achilli 
 looks with profound contempt upon both, and says he has never seen 
 their faces ! h It is all falsehood ! But there are corroborating cir- 
 cumstances ! It is clear that there was a society such as the girl 
 represents ; and a paper is produced, such as was given to every 
 person who was a member of the society. The paper produced has 
 actually Achilli's writing upon it ! And he admitted that he often 
 made entries in the books containing the account of moneys received. 
 So far there is confirmatory proof 1 which cannot be got over. Pos- 
 sibly, if the paper had not been produced, we should have heard 
 Achilli declare that he had nothing to do with such an association ! 
 that it was all imagination or invention ! So far, then, she was 
 clearly speaking truth. As to the rest of her story, why should 
 you presume, gentlemen, that these two witnesses are perjured ? If 
 the object has been to produce perjured testimony, why are we 
 reduced to the necessity of proving some of these cases by docu- 
 mentary evidence, upon which we know that the whole thunder of 
 the Attorney General's eloquence will be discharged the judgment 
 which comes from the Vatican ? Observe that these two witnesses 
 are persons upon whose character not the slightest imputation is cast ! 
 though inquiries have no doubt been made with respect to them ; 
 and if Achilli cannot go to Rome there is nothing to prevent his 
 agents from going to any place in Italy ; the names of the witnesses 
 were given long ago, and he had no difficulty in ascertaining whether 
 they were respectable and reputable, or persons whose conduct was 
 open to reprehension, or whose character was tainted by any crime 
 or offence. Yet all we have is the simple denial of Achilli ! who 
 declares that he has never seen them ! 
 
 Now observe, gentlemen, the rest of the evidence ! It seems that 
 the parents, in their resentment, did not spare him even when they 
 met him in the pomp of a Catholic procession ; and they told on 
 every occasion this story of the ruin of their daughter. The matter 
 became serious, such a charge against a monk, and a priest, and the 
 prior of a convent ! This was a matter too serious to be hushed up. 
 Some one goes before the police ; it matters not who, whether Achilli 
 or his friends ; the material fact is that all this charge is brought for- 
 ward against him. The commissary of police investigates the matter. 
 
 h If this were untrue, of course the other general denials could not be relied 
 ujon ; and it is, therefore, of the utmost importance to consider the probabilities 
 as to this case. 
 
 1 Which Lord Campbell did not advert to.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 157 
 
 If you believe Achilli, he was profoundly indifferent to the whole 
 matter ! It was only the anxiety of his friends, who induced him to 
 interfere at all in it ! He, like the Roman, wrapped himself in his 
 virtue (or his monk's gown), and treated it all with supreme con- 
 tempt ! Do you believe it ? Do you believe that he never took 
 the trouble to inquire who the persons were who preferred this 
 charge against him ! Can you believe it possible ? Or, if you 
 believe it possible, does it not argue an utter insensibility to such an 
 imputation ? That he should know himself charged with such a 
 shocking crime, and not rush at once to the police to know who 
 made the charge ! It was only (as he says) his friends who chose 
 to come forward and have the matter inquired into. Gentlemen, if 
 it be true, it-argues either an utter insensibility to such accusations, 
 or it leads to the inference that he durst not meet them face to face 
 in the place where all parties were known, and where the result of the 
 inquiry, if pursued actively by him, might have been to make mani- 
 fest the truth of the charge, to pull him down from his place of 
 honour and dignity, and consign him to condign chastisement ! But 
 at all events, mark this, the matter was investigated ! In Naples 
 the Church stands high the priesthood is exalted : a charge against 
 a priest is a most serious matter ! There would be no indisposition 
 on the part of the authorities to protect a priest against what appeared 
 unfounded calumnies. On the contrary, the leaning would be the 
 other way. The disposition would be to silence calumniators, who 
 dared to ascribe to him a crime so monstrous and so foul ! But 
 what does the commissary of police ? He has the parties before 
 him ; he tells the parents to send the girl to him ; he hears her 
 artless tale ; he believes her, and sends them away, leaving the case 
 to take its course; and the priest remains silent! The parents 
 continue their complaints : he treats it with indifference, and goes 
 elsewhere, leaving them without reparation ; and when they come 
 forward to tell their tale, the victim of his lust is to be the victim of 
 his falsehood, and to the shame which he has already affixed upon 
 their brow is to be added the brand and infamy of perjury ! J 
 Pause, gentlemen, whatever may be your feelings in the case, and 
 take care that you do justice between these parties ! This is an old 
 matter ! It is no- invention ! It is clear from Achilli's own account 
 that this charge was preferred against him by these very people at 
 Naples. Does not this of itself show there was a ground for the 
 charge ; and that is not to be dismissed on the simple denial of 
 Achiili, his unsustained denial ; and that all these persons have 
 stated is not to be disposed of as a charge preferred by perjured wit- 
 nesses, who have invented and fabricated their story ! k 
 
 Gentlemen, this brings me to the case of Garamoni at Corfu. 
 
 J No one who heard will e,ver forget the terrific effect of this powerful passage. 
 k Lord Campbell put this to the jury (the only point against Achilli which he did 
 put), but they of course disregarded it, and found this charge also false ! !
 
 153 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 We have accused Achilli of improper intimacy with Garamoni's 
 wife, and with having figured in some court of justice in some suit 
 between them. Now, upon the documents produced before you, it 
 clearly appears that Garamoni was before the civil tribunal of 
 Corfu on a petition for alimony, which he refused to pay on 
 account of the alleged unfaithfulness of his wife with Achilli; to which 
 he alleged in answer, that the matter came before the tribunal, and 
 was afterwards compromised on the terms of her abandoning her 
 claim to alimony. This satisfies one part of the plea, alleging that 
 the charge came before the court. * Then as to the truth of the 
 charge, we have the evidence of two or three witnesses : that 
 Garamoni believed his wife was playing him false (she gives of 
 course the version which might be expected from her, that she sus- 
 pected him of unfaithfulness ; but when a husband beats the wife, it 
 appears more probable that he suspected her), and this led him to 
 observe the house. These two witnesses state (and they are as to 
 this in a great degree confirmed by the wife), that one evening, find- 
 ing his wife was watching at the window, he and Patriniani see 
 Achilli go in ; and then he calls Russo, and opens the door, where 
 he finds, as the witnesses allege, Dr. Achilli. A struggle ensues ; 
 Achilli escapes he gets away, and goes in (as he himself says) at 
 the back door of his house ! It is to be said that Russo is not to 
 be believed because he has been imprisoned on some trivial charge 
 when he was a child ! But there appears nothing against him that 
 should disentitle him to credit. And he is confirmed by other 
 witnesses. What say Achilli and the wife of Garamoni ? He gives 
 his own evidence, and calls her to assist him. It would have been 
 wiser for him to have left her alone ! for out of their own mouths 
 will I convict them of irreconcilable discrepancy and palpable false- 
 hood ! Achilli states, " I lived next door. One evening, between 
 eleven and twelve, she was at the door, and calls me to her, and 
 says she had some question to put to me. I went across ; and she 
 had just begun it, so that I heard the first words, ' Have you 
 
 heard ?'" Had Achilli stopped there, one might perhaps have 
 
 believed him. But he produces the wife of Garamoni ; and she 
 says, " I was waiting at the window to see him. My mother had 
 told me to wait and ask him if he had heard cries." (What his hear- 
 ing cries could have had to do with any interest of theirs, I do not 
 quite see, especially as he could not have known from whom they 
 proceeded, or from what cause). " My mother had gone to bed." 
 (Strange that the mother of a young woman, with a jealous husband, 
 separated from him, should go to bed, and leave her, between eleven 
 and twelve at night, to see a man whom she says she had never 
 seen before, just to ask him about some noise ! Surely, if she were 
 so interested in the solution of that question, she might have sat up 
 
 1 Lord Campbell himself said this was proved, yet the jury found it not proved 
 " to their satisfaction !"
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 159 
 
 a little longer, or postponed putting it till next morning ! Strange 
 and improbable story to any one who is not resolved to believe 
 every syllable Achilli chooses to swear to ! and you will see she 
 contradicts him. And now comes this striking fact, that whereas 
 Achilli stated she came down and spoke to him, she says she never 
 came down stairs at all ! You see she is anxious not to be placed 
 too near him, from fear of suspicion of anything improper between 
 them ; but Achilli, who does not see that so strongly as she does, 
 says " she came down and was speaking to me !" And then he says, 
 the " husband came and pushed me into the honse !" Obsequious 
 husband ! What an improbable story is this ! What an insult to 
 our understanding, to ask us to believe it ! Gentlemen, we are not 
 Italians, but we are Englishmen : we are not so subtle as Dr. 
 Achilli, but we possess plain reasoning faculties, which lead us to 
 reject such stories so utterly irreconcilable. We have here a direct 
 and deliberate contradiction, in a matter most material, and in 
 which the witnesses cannot be mistaken. Gentlemen, they learnt 
 their lesson, but they did not learn it well ! On one point they 
 agreed, that they were both to say that he was called over in order 
 that some question might be put to him ; but they forgot to 
 agree as to whether she came down and spoke to him or not. He 
 says she did ; she says she did not. Nor is this all. It is part of our 
 case that Garamoni seized Achilli ; he says Garamoni never seized 
 him : the wife says he did seize him, and held him against the 
 wall ! There is another contradiction. Is such testimony entitled 
 to the slightest credit ? And on such contradictory testimony are 
 you to reject the evidence of two witnesses who agree, and who are 
 confirmed by the very testimony thus adduced in opposition ? 
 
 Gentlemen, the next case is that of the wife of Coriboni, at 
 Zante ; and if here the balance of evidence does not incline deci- 
 sively in favour of the defendant, I understand not the nature of 
 testimony at all ! Achilli could not have been unaware that there 
 had been serious imputations made upon his moral conduct. He 
 admits that accusations had been made against him, unfortunate 
 man ! He has gone through a long career of innocence and virtue ; 
 but, somehow or other, it has happened that tk thousands of 
 charges" have been (as he admitted) made against his character. 
 Surely, it behoved such a man to walk circumspectly ! But what 
 does he do ? Before he leaves Corfu, he engages these two per- 
 sons, Coriboni and his wife ; and who were they ? Coriboni was 
 a chorus singer : he had a fair wife. To be sure, Achilli says she 
 was neither well-favoured nor ill-favoured ; but, however, she 
 sought, it seems, to make up for any deficiencies in the perfection 
 of her charms by a liberal disclosure of such as she possessed. 
 According to the evidence of several witnesses, she was a woman 
 of loose character. Well, he takes these persons into his service, 
 without the slightest inquiry as to who or what they are. He 
 says he saw Coriboni in the streets, and heard he was a chorus
 
 160 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 singer. He waits not to inquire into their character : all Corfu 
 would have given it to him. She was not exactly the person for a 
 minister of religion to have about him, but he engages them both. 
 He goes to Zante. They coine there after him, and are taken into 
 his service ; and he having opened a chapel, Coriboni, to his great 
 astonishment, finds himself converted, though a Catholic, into a 
 Protestant clerk. (Laughter.) In Shakspeare's language, he had, 
 in the exercise of his vocation, played in his time many parts, 
 sometimes a peasant, sometimes a soldier, sometimes a prince, 
 sometimes a priest of Isis, but now he was a Protestant clerk. 
 (Great laughter.) He had not yet gone beyond the chrysalis stage, 
 which had produced the butterfly Achilli ; he was still in the grub 
 condition (renewed laughter), looking to the bread and cheese ; 
 ready to exercise this or any other vocation that might be sug- 
 gested to him. He had no objection to be a Protestant clerk, 
 although he had never thought of the Protestant religion. I dare 
 say it never occurred to his mind but as a heresy ; but the moment 
 he is told by Achilli to go through certain ceremonies, and make 
 certain responses, he is perfectly ready, for a reward, anything 
 for an honest livelihood (like Achilli himself, in that respect), 
 and accordingly he becomes the Protestant clerk, as Achilli had 
 become the Protestant parson. Gentlemen, talk to me of the dis- 
 tinction which Achilli spoke about, between " the religion of the 
 heart and of the mind," as if such expressions were applicable to a 
 case like this ! Gentlemen, there is a religion of the understand- 
 ing, and there is a religion of the heart ; and the true religion is 
 that which combines both when the faith which is found in the 
 recesses of a man's heart is in unison with the reason and the intel- 
 ligence with which God has endowed us ! But there is a religion 
 which is detestable, and it is the religion of the breeches pocket ; 
 and that, gentlemen, is the religion which too many, if they do 
 not profess, practice ; and when a man is expelled from the Catholic 
 Church, he is ready enough to join the Protestant Church, or 
 vice versa ; m and he is caught up by people who are foolish enough 
 to believe that every man who professes to be a convert is so in 
 truth, from conscience and conviction ; though, when his motives 
 come to be ascertained, they are found to be of the most sordid and 
 interested character of which human nature is capable. Take the 
 case of Achilli. He professes to have abjured the errors of Rome, 
 
 m Has there ever been a convert from the Catholic Church as to whom it 
 cannot be shown that he was stained by immorality, or influenced by worldly self- 
 interest ? It certainly cannot be said of the first Reformers ; rior could the 
 evidence in this case support a contrary theory as to modern " conversions." It 
 is to be observed that a Catholic has to give up a faith a Protestant to get one. 
 Of course this reasoning does not apply to those who are born and bred Pro- 
 testants, whose sincerity is unquestionable. But, on the other hand, from the 
 Reformation downwards, have not converts to Catholicism been, as a body, men 
 of good moral character, and acting against their earthly interest ? The argu- 
 ment is not suggested offensively, but as really worthy of serious consideration.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 161 
 
 and to have become a convert to the Protestant Church. He 
 establishes a Protestant chapel, and takes a Catholic chorus singer 
 for a clerk, making him participate in the public worship of the 
 Church of England. Does not this show the real feelings and 
 motives of Achilli ? "Was it not a wanton desecration of all that 
 is sacred in religion ? Well, he is remonstrated with by Mr. 
 Reynolds, who, when he first enters the chapel, is astounded to 
 see Coriboni acting as clerk, and his wife as doorkeeper. He 
 says, " What are you doing ? You have a woman here of bad 
 character, unfit for any service in a Protestant place of worship !" 
 What does Achilli reply ? He says himself that his answer was, 
 that it was indifferent to him, so long as they behaved well in his 
 house. A large charity, truly, to consider this a sufficient reason 
 for placing them in a Protestant chapel, to cause scandal to the 
 virtuous ! Such, however, was Achilli's view of the subject. Ac- 
 cording to Mr. Reynolds, the result of his remonstrance was, that 
 the Coribonis were removed from the chapel, and never acted there 
 again. Achilli, on the contrary, says that there was no remon- 
 strance as to the chapel, and that they acted there throughout. 
 That is a flat contradiction : it is for you to say whom you believe. 
 Mr. Reynolds goes on to speak to familiarities between Achilli and 
 the woman Coriboni ; and the same things were witnessed by the 
 young lady who was likewise called. Mr. Reynolds says, fur- 
 ther, that he remonstrated with Achilli about them. He says he 
 never so remonstrated : but he says that, after he had accused 
 Mr. Reynolds of drunkenness, he spoke to him about the em- 
 ployment of these persons. Now, gentlemen, there can be no 
 doubt of this, that Achilli has a strong interest in making out 
 his case. Mr. Reynolds does not, on the other hand, appear 
 to have any interest to induce him to swear falsely. Has he in- 
 vented these things ? Are they unlikely to have happened ? 
 Achilli denies it all ! He says, also, it was impossible. Why ? 
 " Because my house commanded his not his mine ! " Well, gentle- 
 men, you have here oath against oath ; and remember the oath of 
 Achilli is the oath of a man whose all is staked upon the issue ! 
 And how Mr. Reynolds is to be considered as having fabricated 
 falsehoods is to' me incomprehensible. The Attorney General pro- 
 duced a letter, however, to disparage his testimony ; a foolish letter 
 to a gentleman, whom Mr. Reynolds refers to as capable of confirming 
 his statements, and who, it appears, was unwilling to come up from 
 Plymouth to London unless his full expenses were paid, being an 
 officer on half-pay, with a large family. Something had passed on 
 the subject between them, and Mr. Reynolds writes to assure him 
 that he need have no fear on that score, for that he would be 
 dealt with " liberally." And that, it is to be pretended, was pur- 
 chasing testimony ! Why, could he have conceived that an officer 
 in her Majesty's service was capable of being bribed, by the ocn-
 
 162 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 sideration of having his expenses paid on a liberal scale, to come 
 and give false testimony ? The proposition is monstrous ! unless, 
 indeed, the fact that this gentleman was mean enough to hand over 
 a letter which had l)een written to him confidentially by a friend, 
 may lead to the conclusion that this would have been only a true 
 estimate of his character ! Is this the ground on which we are to 
 come to the conclusion that all which Mr. Reynolds has stated was 
 false ! Gentlemen, it shows the very reverse. That letter which 
 my learned friend produces refers to the transaction as to which 
 Mr. Reynolds testified. It says, " You remember the matter we 
 were talking about ? " That shows there was such a transaction ! 
 Besides this, is there no other evidence about it free from all im- 
 putation ? Yes, there is the evidence of the young lady, the 
 nursery-governess. What is to impeach her testimony ? she is no 
 longer in the family of Mr. Reynolds ; she resides elsewhere ; she 
 is not an Italian ; she is not a Catholic ; she is a most respectable 
 person a Protestant. She has no interest in supporting Dr. New- 
 man, of whom probably she never heard ! She says she saw the 
 Coribonis at the chapel the first time, and that they never officiated 
 there again ; and she says she saw what passed between Achilli 
 and the woman. If these things did not take place, then not only 
 is Mr. Reynolds perjured, but this young lady too ! And what 
 motive can she have to come here and lay perjury upon her soul for 
 the sake of Dr. Newman, whom she has perhaps never heard of, 
 and for whose religious persuasion she can have no sympathy ? It 
 is to be said, " The windows were open, and is it supposable that a 
 man officiating, as minister of religion, having a character to main- 
 tain, would be so mad as to expose his conduct thus at an open 
 window to public view ? " Yes, but if you believe Achilli, he be- 
 lieved that they could not command a view of his window. That 
 puts an end to the whole argument. 11 Is that young woman to be 
 deemed unworthy of credit because it suits the purpose of Achilli to 
 say that she is perjured ? What right has any one to ascribe per- 
 jury to her ? She has no interest, Achilli has. Who is it who 
 is ou his trial ? The legal defendant is Dr. Newman ; but he is 
 forgotten, the real defendant is Achilli, and he has all the ad- 
 vantage of the sympathy which a party accused generally engages. 
 And he has the further advantage of swearing in his own favour. 
 According to the law of England, if he had been the party legally 
 accused in the proceeding, he could not have been examined. 
 Whether that is a wise state of the law is another thing; and 
 whether, in every case, civil or criminal, a man should not be ready 
 to state, on oath, all he has to state, is deserving of consideration. 
 But why has the law been established on its present principle ? 
 Because the party accused of crime will, in the position in which he 
 
 n Will it be believed that Lord Campbell actually put this argument for the 
 prosecutor to the jury, with his own approval, and suppressed the answer 
 afforded by Achilli's own oath !
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 163 
 
 is placed, hardly be able to resist the overwhelming temptation to 
 save himself from the consequences of his offence even at the 
 expense of the false evidence which may be necessary to his 
 exculpation. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. It must also be considered whether, if he were 
 permitted to give evidence in his own favour, he must not likewise 
 give evidence against himself. 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn. The principle, however, on which the law at 
 present proceeds is well worthy of serious consideration, as an 
 important ingredient in the question. And certainly to that prin- 
 ciple this case is an exception ; for Achilli swears in his own de- 
 fence, his character, his all is at stake ; and one would scarcely 
 be supposed, to put that under the influence of motives so over- 
 whelming, he could give evidence such as he might not give in a 
 cause affecting another. On the other hand, I repeat, there is 
 nothing in the shape of interest or undue influence to induce this 
 young lady to come forward; and I ask you, are you justified in 
 disbelieving her when you can only do so on the supposition that 
 she has committed perjury ! Surely Achilli has an interest infi- 
 nitely stronger than any which can be ascribed to Mr. Reynolds ? 
 and this we have by confirmatory testimony. It has pleased 
 Achilli to ascribe his evidence to resentment at having been re- 
 monstrated with for habitual drunkenness. Mr. Reynolds denies 
 that. And is it to be supposed that an habitual drunkard would 
 have been continued for twenty-five years in the service of the 
 British Government as collector of customs and inspector of health ? 
 Do you imagine that it would not have been discovered, and that 
 he would not have been disgraced ? That, I think, is a tolerable 
 answer to the charge thrown out against him by Achilli. And you 
 will observe that in every instance wherever he has an accuser to 
 deal with, he brings a charge against him. At Viterbo there is 
 somebody connected with the convent who is dissatisfied with his 
 conduct ; and he is handed down to the world as a man of villanous 
 character, capable of any atrocity. The superior of his order finds 
 fault with him, and threatens to bring him to trial for alleged 
 offences ; and he is said in this book to have " died loaded with 
 execrations ! " -A cardinal, also, who thought the proceedings of 
 Achilli ought to be inquired into, is said to have been living only 
 that he may add to his crimes. Such is his habitual course ; and so 
 
 Why not ? The writer believes such originally to have been the law of this 
 country, and that the early criminal trials show it to have been BO. In such 
 a case as the present, surely common sense would indicate that, if a man be 
 allowed to come and swear in his own defence, against the evidence adduced by 
 the defendant the latter ought to have been able to call him to examine him 
 before he knew what the exact amount of that evidence would be, that it might 
 be seen how much he would admit and how much deny. And it is believed 
 that this, as it is even now the usual, was originally the regular course. See 
 remarks on this point in the Introduction ; and see Sir A. Cockburn's opening 
 speech. 
 
 M 2
 
 164 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 the moment Mr. Reynolds appears against him he is set down as an 
 habitual drunkard ! Well ; so much for the case at Zante. 
 
 Next we come to Malta. There he is in the college where there 
 was a department for priests who had seceded from the Church of 
 Rome, and it turned out that these converts were not the best of 
 men. It appears that the conduct of two of them, Leonini and 
 Saccares, was such as brought scandal on the college. Inquiry was 
 made, and charges brought forward which at first were not sub- 
 stantiated. Certain communications are made to the committee, 
 and they order a more strict and searching investigation to take 
 place, to be conducted partly by Achilli himself. The day is fixed 
 for resuming the inquiry, when just before it is going to commence, 
 Achilli sends away the principal party, Saccares, whereby the 
 whole inquiry becomes a nullity. This is a suspicious circumstance, 
 the more so, since the committee having taken it into consideration, 
 dismissed Achilli from the college. He says in answer, " I did not 
 believe the truth of the charges." What answer is that to the 
 order of his superiors to institute a new inquiry? Then he says, 
 he did not know that there was to be another inquiry, and thought 
 the inquiry had concluded ! But here he is contradicted by every 
 witness who is called from the committee or the college, by Lord 
 Shaftesbury, by Mr. Watts, by Mr. Hadfield, and by Dr. Bonavia ; 
 all agreed that the inquiry was to be resumed by Achilli himself! 
 Then again, he says, " I gave Mr. Hadfield notice, that I was going 
 to send Saccares away, ' so he could have stopped him.' " Is that 
 so ? He " gave notice," in a letter dated the very day Saccares 
 went, and stating " he goes immediately ; he no longer belongs to 
 the college ;" so that Mr. Hadfield's jurisdiction over him had 
 already ceased, as he had no authority over him except as a member 
 of the college. Remember, Achilli had been the intimate friend 
 of these two priests, Leonini and Saccares, and had lived in the 
 same house,? and if there had been immorality, of course the blame 
 would have attached to him. It was no doubt very convenient to 
 send Saccares away. Had he been examined, who knows what 
 might have come out ? Who knows, if ladies visited the convent, 
 whom they visited ? It would never do to let all this out ; so all 
 in a sudden there arises an urgent necessity for sending bibles into 
 Sicily, so Saccares was sent away as fast as possible. Gentlemen, 
 this is not a view taken for the first occasion in this case. You 
 have heard it from Lord Shaftesbury and other witnesses, who are 
 not Italians nor Catholics, but English Protestants, who can have 
 had no feeling against Achilli ; on the contrary, he was a great 
 convert from Catholicism, he was a great gain from Rome. Never- 
 theless, they see that it will not do to maintain Achilli any longer 
 of the college, and they dismissed him, and now he comes forward 
 
 p It is hardly necessary, to those who are acquainted with the character of 
 Achilli's book, to say, that these were ecclesiastics venerable for piety and 
 learning.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 1 65 
 
 and says, as usual, that this is all false, and that he has been treated 
 in the most unjust way! And there is another thing in this part 
 of the case. What say you, gentlemen, to the conversation with 
 Dr. Bonavia ? Is he not to be believed ? No ! For he comes 
 forward against Achilli. Everything alleged against him is to be 
 disbelieved ! Yet he is a Protestant ; he is neither a Catholic nor 
 a Traetarian, but a zealous Protestant. What interest has he in 
 misrepresenting the matter? Why is he to be disbelieved? Is 
 this conversation imaginary ? If not, and it be true, then when 
 there was a question of flagrant immorality a charge of intro- 
 ducing women for improper purposes would you expect to hear 
 the man who has been denouncing the alleged immoralities of 
 Catholic priests, and who represents himself to have been actuated by 
 his abhorrence for them in leaving the Catholic Church would you 
 expect to find him saying to a person remonstrating about similar 
 practices in a Protestant college, " Oh, you are too scrupulous ! " 
 
 Now we come to the last stage of the history London. In 
 the meantime he had married, and surely where he had induced a 
 young lady to associate her happiness with his, he becomes bound 
 to her virtuously. But, at the first house he takes, he solicits the 
 chastity of a girl in his service ! If that be true, what a light 
 does it throw back on the early history of his life ! If a man who 
 has already entered into the holy state of matrimony be so forgetful 
 of his duty, that he is unfaithful to his wife, we can judge of the 
 credit to be given to him when contradicting similar charges of the 
 same character. And is this witness a Catholic, or an Italian ? 
 Is she come here to perjure herself ? Has Dr. Newman brought 
 her ? If so, why should she not have stated all which the other 
 woman swore to? And how is her testimony to be destroyed? 
 Why, it is said that Mrs. Achilli accused her of being dirty ! But 
 Mrs. Achilli gave her a character, and is it to be supposed that after 
 finding another service she should come here to swear falsely against 
 her former mistress ? Was that all which Mrs. Achilli was called 
 here for ? No gentlemen ! She was called here to excite your 
 sympathy ! There you see a little of the art with which the case 
 has been conducted. She was not called here to state things which 
 the witnesses had already admitted. She was called to excite your 
 sympathy, and 'for no other purpose ! I pass on to the next wit- 
 ness, Jane Legge. She, I admit, was of a bad character, but she 
 showed some honesty and conscience ; and declined to swear what 
 she did not know to be true. Now her sister, Mrs. Logan, is a 
 respectable person ; and she ha v s no interest in the matter, and is 
 indeed a reluctant witness. It appears that when subpoenaed she 
 sent for Achilli, who says, " Nonsense, you need not attend ; shut 
 the door in their faces !" Then a conversation ensues as to bow 
 they had discovered that her sister had anything to say against 
 Achilli ; and Mrs. Logan says Mrs. Castellini must have told them ; 
 at which she is very angry; and then as the conversation goes on,
 
 166 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 she says, " You must know best what has passed between you and 
 Jane." He maintains a discreet silence ! Then we come to Sarah 
 Wood ; is she perjured ? She tells her simple story. She came 
 from the House of Mercy, where unfortunate women who have 
 fallen into guilt and shame are restored to virtue and society. She 
 is recommended from that place, which is in itself strong evidence 
 of her being reformed in character ; and her very going there shows 
 that the poor girl (still very young) was resolved to try and live 
 virtuously in future. After what happened at Achilli's her health 
 fell off, and she had to leave : her father is sent for, and takes her 
 away. Why ? Who can doubt it ! What should detract from the 
 truthfulness of her story ? Is she too perjured ? Yes. Good 
 God ! am I in England? am I in a court of justice ? Shall I 
 hear it said that because it is surmised that she is a Catholic 
 that she has a book with the cross upon it ! that therefore she 
 is to be presumed capable of conspiracy and perjury ! Is that too 
 not to be believed ? How monstrous ! It is possible there may 
 have been a mixture of Catholicism at the House of Mercy. But 
 you, gentlemen, will not, I trust, administer justice upon such a 
 principle ! You will not permit your minds to be clouded by pre- 
 judice, and to be perverted by this fanaticism and bigotry (for so it 
 is) ! I trust these miserable feelings will not be allowed to inter- 
 fere. I hope you will be enabled to hold the scales of justice fairly 
 even, though your hands may be shaken by the excitement of reli- 
 gious passion, and the warmth of religious zeal ! These will be 
 appealed to, I doubt not ; but I appeal to your sense of justice, to 
 your consciences as men and as Christians, and I ask you to look 
 on these things with the recollection that however great may be 
 faith and zeal, justice is one of the earliest born and the dearest 
 emanations from God, and from religion !i (A burst of cheering.) 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL (with great gravity.) These expressions of 
 feeling must not be repeated. 1 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn continued. It is a curious thing, gentlemen, 
 that my learned friend, the Attorney General, though he confronted 
 two of the Italian witnesses with his client, did not venture to con- 
 front him with any of the English witnesses against him, who came 
 forward one after another to testify to the same kind of things. It 
 is for you to say whether the whole testimony be not overpowering, 
 and whether it is rebutted by his general denial. 
 
 Before I pass from the oral evidence, let me say a single word as 
 to the witnesses who are called to speak as to Achilli's character ! 
 
 i Nothing could be finer than his delivery of this noble sentiment, which was 
 obviously the genuine effusion of a generous and noble nature. The burst of 
 cheering which ensued was enthusiastic ; and there was not, I believe, a person 
 of education present, who did not sympathize, if they did not share in it. 
 
 r He never said that, when the coarser portion of the audience cheered him. 
 Those were gentlemen who cheered now ; and judge and jury were evidently 
 disgusted.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 167 
 
 Who are they ? They are seceders, like himself, from the Church 
 of Rome, his associates, having a common interest with him ; who, 
 of course, give him the highest possible character. But it is 
 curious that if he should have borne such a remarkably good cha- 
 racter, he should have had (as he himself tells us) hundreds of 
 charges made against him ! Let this evidence pass for what it is 
 worth ! It may be true that he was placed in responsible positions ; 
 many a man is placed in such positions, who, if his life were really 
 known, it would be impossible, even for his patrons and supporters, 
 to uphold him any longer. 8 
 
 Gentlemen, I now come to a part of the case on which so much 
 was said yesterday, the judgment of the Court of Inquisition. It 
 is an important document, if you take its sentence as true ; for it 
 recites the various offences I have already referred to, and others of 
 which we have not been able to offer oral proof. You will under- 
 stand the difficulty which there necessarily must be in obtaining 
 evidence of matters of this nature. And you have observed that 
 some evidence offered has been excluded, on account of its not 
 having been proved in regular form of law, and witnesses not being 
 produced to prove the facts necessary to make it admissible. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL said, I have examined the document since 
 yesterday, and though I do not at all regret having admitted it in 
 evidence, I must remark that the first portion of it merely seems to 
 state the result of the examination by the notary;* then afterwards 
 
 8 The question is, supposing Achilli to have been rightfully accused, when his 
 conduct became really known to the authorities ; and, still more, to the Holy See. 
 So soon as the Holy See heard of it, it seems, he was perpetually deprived. 
 
 ' But the notary is declared to be " Notary of the Congregation of the Inqui- 
 sition," and this is (like all the rest) attested and authenticated ; so that it 
 seems exactly analogous to the official act of the master, or other officer, who 
 draws up a judgment of one of the superior courts in this country : for instance, 
 in the Court of Chancery, the Chancellor dictates merely the minutes of his 
 decree, which are afterwards drawn up by the master. Every judgment is, in 
 fact, drawn up by some such officer of the court ; the judges only pronounce 
 they do not record. The only difference between the English and the Italian judg- 
 ment is, that the former does not state that it is drawn up by an officer, whereas 
 the latter does, which is more truthful. And when the Lord Chief Justice said, 
 " the first portion appears to be the result of the notary's examination," what 
 did he mean ? How did it appear ? The words are, " After a complete investi- 
 gation " (which, it is to be presumed, was judicial), " it is proved from the same 
 acts," &c. (i.e., to the court); and then follow the words, "After having 
 weighed, &c., their eminences, the Inquisitors, decree," &c. The whole is abso- 
 lutely one sentence ! Lord Campbell's separation of it into " two portions " is 
 not only arbitrary, but absurd. The notary (i. e., the master), states the whole 
 continuously as equally the act of the court. It is as plainly as possible 
 expressed, that the same judicial persons who had weighed the proofs had 
 received the proofs (or how could they have weighed them ?), and having 
 " weighed the proofs," they decree ; and the weighing the proofs is clearly the 
 inducement of the decree, an integral part of it, as much as the recitals of a 
 deed ; and the same officer who certifies the latter portion certifies the former 
 portion ; so that if the former part " appear " to be the result of his examination, 
 so must the latter ; all alike is equally authenticated, as constituting an entered
 
 168 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 there comes judgment. I should have hesitated more in receiving 
 it if I had been made more acquainted with the commencement; 
 but as it is, I do not regret having admitted it, as I feel disposed to 
 open the doors as widely as possible, so as to admit evidence which 
 may throw light on the issues. It is an informal document. 11 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn. It is the best that could be got, my lord. 
 We cannot dictate to continental courts, in what form they shall 
 draw up their judgments ! We can only take them as we find 
 them. It professes to be founded on certain accusations preferred 
 against Achilli, and his acknowledgment of the charges : we have 
 proved the document in proper form. We were not able to procure 
 witnesses as to some of these charges having been preferred against 
 him. He says they were not. That is for you to judge of. He 
 denies it ; for the reason, he says, that questions of immorality are 
 not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Inquisition ; and that 
 they exercise jurisdiction over matters of religion alone, and not 
 over the morals of the clergy. But this is the evidence of a 
 deeply interested party ; and, on the other hand, we have the evi- 
 dence of a perfectly competent party, Dr. Grant, a Catholic bishop. 
 Where his see might be I do not think at all material to the truth 
 or value of his testimony, which, therefore, I press upon you. He 
 says he was a long while resident at Rome, and acted for parties there 
 who exercised jurisdiction in other ecclesiastical courts : and that it 
 was his duty to ascertain the jurisdiction of those different courts, 
 and to ascertain the limits of each. Speaking from the knowledge 
 thus acquired, he is enabled to state that the Court of Inquisition 
 takes cognizance of matters relating to faith, and, as regards the 
 clergy, of cases of gross immorality. It is natural to suppose that 
 it should be so. It is the highest court of ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; 
 and what is more likely than that it should comprehend within the 
 sphere of its powers, cases of gross offences against morality 
 among the clergy ? Accordingly, we find that this particular docu- 
 ment professes to be the record of a sentence pronounced upon 
 inquiry into immoralities committed by Achilli. Do you believe 
 the evidence of Achilli on the point, who is interested, or of Dr. 
 
 judgment. In a judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench, the master or other 
 officer (after reciting the pleadings on which judgment is given) writes, " there- 
 fore, it is considered by the court, that," &c. Now, though he does not say 
 he wrote it all, it is known he wrote it all ; and what would be said of a judge, 
 who, on the record of a judgment being "returned" to him, should reject all 
 the pleadings, on the ground that what followed the " idea consideration est " 
 was the act of the court, and the previous part was only the result of the 
 master's examination ? The judgment would be, of course, utterly useless, as 
 it could not be known what state of facts it was pronounced upon. 
 
 u Because foreign courts are not so formal as ours. It is formal enough, 
 however, on any practical, if not on any technical, consideration ; and if n-jected 
 on that ground, no foreign judgment could be received. "An informal docu- 
 ment," according to our special pleading ideas of formality ! Is that a fair way 
 of treating it ? Besides, how can we know that it is " informal ? " Enough for 
 us, that it is duly authenticated.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 169 
 
 Grant, who is not interested, and who has a competent knowledge 
 on the subject ? Besides, this observation, surely, is on the surface 
 of the case ; it is obvious that it must have been known that the 
 judgment would be produced in this case; and canonists and jurists 
 acquainted with the ecclesiastical law of Italy, could easily have 
 been brought to prove (if it were so) that it had professed to pro- 
 ceed in a matter over which it had no jurisdiction. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. We must draw a distinction between the 
 judicial part the sentence, and the previous portion/ It does 
 not set out the offences for which the sentence was pronounced.* 
 
 Sir A. Cockburn. It sets out no other but the immoralities 
 alleged ; and if these were not the true grounds on which the 
 judgment proceeded, there is no ground at all set forth ! x This is 
 a court not conducted with such formality as the judgments in this 
 court. It is said, too, that this is the first time a judgment of the 
 Court of Inquisition has been proved in this country ; y which of 
 itself might show that any particular technicality ought not to be 
 expected. But is it to be presumed to be a wicked imposture in 
 reciting that Achilli had confessed certain offences, for which he 
 was sentenced ? Is it to be assumed a fabrication ? Achilli says 
 he never was suspended or deprived by any sentence. Now, he 
 admits he was before the Inquisition. Were these charges, then, 
 brought against him ? He says they were not ; why ? because 
 they do not come within the jurisdiction of the court. But we 
 have it proved, by a perfectly competent authority, that they do. 
 Was then a sentence passed ? He says not. He admits, however, 
 that he may have thrown himself upon the mercy of the court ; 
 not for what is stated here, but for teaching false doctrine ; and 
 
 T See previous note. 
 
 w Not set out the offences ! " Having confessed himself guilty of," &c. (see 
 the judgment, end of second day). Besides, what a curious objection, after having 
 ruled that the offences recited were to be rejected ! The defendant's counsel 
 remarked this at once. 
 
 1 Therefore, either there were no grounds at all, or these were not the true 
 ones. In the former case, there could be no judgment ; in the latter case, as 
 the document is entire, and with an entire authentication, the whole must have 
 been fabricated which was the atrocious theory of the Attorney General. But 
 the Lord Chief Justice rejected that theory, and admitted it as a valid judgment, 
 so the whole ought surely to have been received as of equal validity ; for 
 who ever heard of a judgment one half genuine and the other half forged ? 
 And who ever heard of assuming fabrication against a record ! or even the 
 judgment of an inferior court, not of record. But the Inquisition, as it had 
 been proved in evidence, is the supreme court of Rome. It is to be observed, 
 also, that the judgment is accompanied with the chancellor's certificate, " given 
 in testimony of all these facts," of which, one fact is the confession of the charges 
 recited ; and another fact is that the court had considered these facts. Again, 
 the judgment recites that, "The court having considered the defences " (to 
 the previous charges), " and other matters, &c. decree," which is exactly 
 analogous to the " ideo consideratum est," of a judgment in our Queen's Bench. 
 Is it rational to reject not merely what comes before, but after, the " con- 
 sideratum esl ? ' ' 
 
 - T See former note.
 
 170 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 what [follows? He says, the Pope interfered in his behalf (that 
 same pope whom he abuses so outrageously !), and he was set at 
 liberty on certain conditions! one of which was reconciliation to 
 the Church, and in the mean time he was to be under strict sur- 
 veillance. What does that imply ! Total and entire suspension 
 from all functions of an ecclesiastical character : and then he was 
 recommended "to go for sometime to a place of penance." What says 
 the judgment ? So far he confirms it to be true. It says distinctly 
 that he was to be suspended and deprived, and sent for three 
 months to a house of rigorous observance. Is that true or false ? 
 Gentlemen, we have heard a great deal about the Inquisition 
 though the Roman must not be confounded with the Spanish z 
 ami none of the atrocities can be imputed to the former which are 
 ascribed to the latter. It is not a court which is approved of in 
 this free country, 3 where religion and everything is unfettered, 
 limited only by the laws necessary for the peace and good order and 
 welfare of mankind. We desire no secret tribunals. 1 * But do not 
 let us be unjust on that account ! Do not let us assume that a 
 court, sitting under the authority of their sovereign to discharge the 
 duties of their office, will put upon record, and send into another 
 court, a judgment which does not exist, or on grounds which were 
 not true, or for a punishment which was not decreed. Can you 
 discredit this document ? I think not. And if you believe it, it 
 goes a long way towards confirming the testimony given by the 
 witnesses who have been called. 
 
 Let me now, gentlemen, call your attention to a part of the case 
 which is not unimportant. What is the account which Achilli and 
 his friends give of him ? Why, that up to 1840 or 1841, he was 
 a man esteemed, honoured, and promoted ; the idol of the monks 
 and friars ; the confidential friend of his superiors ; taken by the 
 provincial on visitations ; upheld by bishops, supported by cardi- 
 nals, loved, honoured, and revered. He goes to Rome : honours 
 await him ! Professorships' benefices are offered him ; everybody 
 is his friend ; the Pope himself is disposed to be his benefactor. 
 Well, this is a feeling and prosperous state of things ! How 
 comes it, then, that if these representations be true, in 1841 he 
 was seized by the Inquisition ? d For erroneous doctrine ? What ! 
 
 z Very commonly it is so, by the ignorant. 
 
 a How many persons know anything about it ? 
 
 b But we have them : grand juries, Court of Chancery (in taking evidence), 
 civil courts, commissions under Church Discipline Act, &c. &c. 
 
 c And let it be remarked that Achilli declares that for ten years before this, he 
 departed from the doctrines and practice of the Church, in teaching, and was 
 openly at variance, as he was known all along to have heretical tendencies; 
 whereas his friends, the friars, say at Rome nothing was known of his alleged 
 immoralities ; and he himself declares that it was not for those things he was 
 deprived. Then what was it for ? Not for heresy, as that was an old story. 
 
 6 So summary a process is not usual in cases of heresy ; and, on the other 
 hand, such is the course taken when flagrant immorality is discovered in a
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 171 
 
 he, the beloved and the courted, esteemed and revered of all man- 
 kind he seized and thrown into the Inquisition ! Do not these 
 contradictions show that an attempt is made by Achilli to palm off 
 untruths upon you, presuming upon your want of knowledge of 
 the position in which he was placed ? Is it not much more pro- 
 bable that what is related by those who have come to give evidence 
 against him, and what is recited in the judgment, is true ; and 
 that his excesses had at last reached to such a head, and been so 
 discovered, as to render it necessary for the Church to interpose ? 
 He was not removed from Naples, he says ; but yet he returns to 
 Naples almost as soon as he had left it, and tells rather a loose 
 story about a lame foot. Is it not improbable, that if, when he 
 reached Rome, he was surrounded by honours and favours, without 
 any imputations upon his moral character, he should have been sud- 
 denly cast into prison ? And immediately after, a sentence is passed 
 against him, which, he admits, puts him out of the pale of the 
 Church. There was an end of all hope of honour, or dignity, or 
 advancement for Achilli in the complicated hierarchy of the Ca- 
 tholic Church ! Can you doubt that he said to himself, " This will 
 not do ; I will go to Corfu, or Malta, and get up a Protestant 
 chapel and Protestant congregation." We have it, surely, clear as 
 proof can make it, on the admission of Achilli himself, that he con- 
 tinued in the Catholic Church, ministering its sacraments, until, 
 after having left Naples for. Borne, he got into the prisons of the 
 Inquisition. Now, if he had then in bis heart and soul abjured the 
 Catholic faith, how came he so long to continue in the ministry of 
 that Church ? He had left Viterbo in 1833 ; and ten years before, 
 while yet there, he tells us in his book that, though perfectly per- 
 suaded of the imposture of the mass, and of the heresies of its 
 doctrines, he continued to celebrate it with a show of devotion. 
 Does not this show you that he was what Dr. Newman has called 
 him, " a hypocrite under a cowl ? " "Who can dispute it ? The 
 men who minister one of the most solemn and sacred acts of reli- 
 gious worship when their hearts do but despise what their hands 
 perform who will deny that they are hypocrites ! Hypocrites in 
 the matter of religion ! hypocrites on the most sacred of subjects ! 
 hypocrites, not only before men, but before God, at whose altars 
 their very presence is a sacrilege and a profanation ! Gentlemen, 
 is a man of that character to be believed upon his oath? e And, 
 
 priest. He is at once put into prison. See numerous instances in the life of 
 St. Thomas of Villanueva, for instance, or St. Charles Borromeo, or any other 
 eminent bishop. 
 
 e There is a striking parallel between this part of the speech and the argument 
 of Lord Stafford's counsel as to Titus Gates : " He objected that this witness, 
 according to his own testimony, not only pretended to be a Catholic, while he 
 was in reality a Protestant, but during his voluntary transactions with the Jesuits, 
 had lived in the practice of a religious worship, which in his conscience (at least 
 so alleged ! ) he believed to be idolatrous. Was a man of this degraded character, 
 a miscreant of such deep dissimulation and hypocrisy, admissible as a wit-
 
 172 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 on bis sole and supported assertions, are a whole body of witnesses 
 to be consigned to tbe shame, perchance the penalties, of perjury ? 
 Is that justice ? I hope I do him no wrong ; but I own I cannot 
 bring myself to understand how, consistently with honesty, truth, 
 or anything that bears the remotest resemblance to religion, a man 
 can bring himself to convert religion into a mockery that which 
 should be a sacrifice to God, into a hideous farce ! I cannot com- 
 prehend how such a man is to be credited against the evidence of 
 witnesses who have no such shameful hypocrisy as that to answer 
 for ! Observe how complete, and systematic, and sustained the 
 hypocrisy must have been ! The cardinal, under whose eyes he 
 was living at Capua ; the provincial, who took him on his visita- 
 tion tour would these and other ecclesiastics have supported the 
 man if they had believed that he thought their faith an imposture ? 
 He now does his utmost to hold up the practices of the Catholic 
 Church to odium and detestation : yet for years he was mixed up 
 in them, and continued to participate in them, until he is disco- 
 vered and brought to trial, and sentenced to deprivation ; and then, 
 and not till then, he professes himself a Protestant, and he makes 
 us a present of his conversion ! And is he a gain to us a glory 
 to us ? He, forsooth, has sacrificed all for conscience sake ! He 
 might have been anything in the Church, and he represents him- 
 self as having sacrificed all this that he might satisfy the dictates 
 of his conscience and the inspirations of his God ! God grant it 
 may be so, but I cannot bring myself to believe it. 
 
 Gentlemen, it will be for you to determine upon the conflicting 
 evidence in this case. There is -one topic I must advert to before I 
 set down. In pressing certain questions upon the prosecutor I fear 
 1 incurred your reprehension, manifested (you must forgive me for 
 saying so) in rather a remarkable manner. Matters of evidence are 
 usually left for the consideration of the judge. I felt it my duty to 
 press some questions as to his general incontinence ; and I will 
 explain the grounds upon which I did so. Gentlemen, there may be 
 differences of opinion as to the degree of the religious or moral 
 obligation which attaches to all men as regards continence or 
 chastity. Some men may look upon a departure from the religious 
 or moral law in that respect as a venial matter, others may attach 
 to it a greater gravity. But do not forget, whatever may be the 
 view you take on this subject, that this is the very matter before 
 us, the very subject of the present inquiry. We are considering 
 
 ness ?" Lingard, vol. xii. chap. vi. p. 236. Let the reader judge, if there were 
 force in the reasoning of Dr. Newman's counsel, let him judge of the unfair- 
 ness of Lord Campbell in omitting all allusion to it, or any comments on the 
 value or character of Achilli's evidence, though he went out of his way to have 
 a fling at the Tractarian clergy, he imputing to them what Achilli had acknow- 
 ledged of himself ! That is, Lord Campbell took no notice of a certain matter 
 affecting the credit of the chief witness and party in the case before him, but 
 took notice of a matter supposed to affect the conduct of parties not at all 
 before him !
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. l?o 
 
 whether a charge brought against Achilli of having been guilty of 
 certain excesses is an unfounded charge. Witnesses are brought 
 who depose to certain instances which he denies. How are we to 
 decide between the conflicting testimony ? Is it of no importance, 
 by way of ascertaining on which side the truth lies, to ascertain 
 what are the habits of the man in this respect. Is it possible that 
 any men can shut their eyes to the importance of such a test in 
 determining upon a particular instance, whether a man has com- 
 mitted an act of criminality ? It does not determine the question ; 
 but surely with any person capable of reasoning, the fact that a man 
 is in the habitual practice of violating a moral obligation, must be 
 material in deciding whether he is to be credited when he contra- 
 dicts a witness who deposes to a particular instance ? A man may 
 decline to answer, but his silence is equivalent to an admission that he 
 could say much more ; and it may justly be said, " As you profess to 
 come here to clear your character, what matters it whether you were 
 guilty of incontinence with A. B. and C. or D., E. and F. ? How 
 comparatively unimportant is a single isolated instance as contrasted 
 with the general tenor of a man's conduct ? What do you think of 
 a man who says, " I am ready to answer you in a particular instance 
 I will swear I am innocent ; but, though I profess to have come 
 here to clear my character from these aspersions, I will not say a 
 word as to my general habit ! Here is a man who professes to have 
 instituted these proceedings against Dr. Newman, to clear his 
 character from these imputations : witnesses are brought against 
 him ; he denies their statements ; then, to test the evidence, he has 
 been asked what has been his conduct in other cases, and he declines 
 to answer ! " I could answer no, but will not." Why do you not ? 
 Why clearly because, in the face of your own friends, and intimates, 
 and associates, the apostate monks you dare not deny it ! Does 
 such a man vindicate his character ? Is he the man to say, " The 
 witnesses who have spoken against me are perjured, and are not to 
 be believed ! " 
 
 And now, gentlemen, I have gone through this case. I have only 
 to beg you, in conclusion, to bring to the consideration of it calm and 
 dispassionate minds. It must be apparent to you that if the matters 
 that have been alleged against Achilli by Dr. Newman be true, he 
 was justified in calling attention to the character of the person who 
 was, as a witness,* impugning the Catholic doctrines and the practices 
 of the Catholic Church ; denouncing licensed immoralities as well as 
 erroneous principles ; and doing so by stating things as of his own 
 knowledge. Surely in such a case there must be a right to inquire 
 into the character of such a man who conies forward as accuser and 
 witness. And that is what Dr. Newman has done in this case. 
 He was not the first to do so. As I have already said, this very 
 book of Achilli's discloses that these matters were brought before the 
 world in the Dublin Review in 1850. Why was that allowed to 
 sleep, unvisited by any legal proceedings on the part of Ac.hilli, for
 
 174 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 a year and a half ? Then, when these matters had come repeatedly 
 under the attention of his fostering patrons, with whose favour and 
 protection he has ministered in this country, and who bring him 
 forward as a great conversion ; they, who felt that unless these 
 imputations were removed, his usefulness in that capacity would be 
 destroyed, they call upon him to come forward and " vindicate 
 his character" from these aspersions. Plis everything his existence 
 his all is at stake and on his sole oath you are asked to dis- 
 believe them all, and place implicit reliance upon it in opposition 
 to the evidence of many respectable witnesses ! 
 
 Gentlemen, I ask you to take these things into your calm and 
 dispassionate consideration. I know the difficulty I encounter, I 
 have felt it from the commencement. I have felt all along the 
 disadvantageous ground upon which I am placed in defending 
 Dr. Newman. We have here two great champions of opposing 
 Churches two converts from the faiths in which they were bred : 
 both come forward, each to assert and maintain the truth of the Church 
 he has joined ; and I am pleading for one, a Catholic, before a Pro- 
 testant tribunal. And the difficulty I feel must be, in such times as 
 these, greatly enhanced. The spririt of proselytism, re-enkindled 
 after a long sleep, has again arisen ; and the Catholic, with upraised 
 cross, and the Protestant with open bible, have entered into the 
 arena to contend for domination over the interests of mankind. 
 God prosper the truth, say I ! Of course we are all interested, 
 from the natural feelings of our minds, for the religion to which we 
 belong ; in the triumph and success of one of these two causes, our 
 feelings have been recently kindled afresh, with an energy, which, 
 until then, we had not known in our own time, elicited by any 
 contests which had arisen. And with these feelings fresh in our 
 minds, we have a case like the present, where the religious 
 opinions seem to have come concentrated into one focus. Forgive 
 me, gentlemen, if I ask you to bring to the case the best and 
 calmest judgment you can bring to bear upon the evidence ! I 
 cannot shut my eyes to the manner in which your feelings on the 
 subject of religion may in this case bias your understandings in de- 
 termining this case. Gentlemen, these halls, in which this inquiry 
 is now taking place, have not to day for the first time been 
 witnesses of justice miscarrying upon questions of religious con- 
 troversy ! There remain (unhappily for our fame) in the pages of 
 our history, transactions, here done here in this great hall, which 
 is associated with (I grieve to say) the darker as well as the more 
 glorious epochs of our history, here have taken place in former 
 times, in justice and judicial proceedings: over those periods, 
 history would willingly draw a veil, were it not that by holding up 
 her beacon-light she warns posterity against the errors of the past, 
 and guards them against those passions which deaden the conscience 
 and steel the heart. Those days, when human life was sacrificed 
 to religious bigotry, thank God the time is gone by ! We
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 175 
 
 now know that innocence rests safe under the judges and the 
 libei'ties of the land. Still there have been times when juries, and 
 even judges, have lent themselves to judicial murders on the score of 
 religion ! The present are different times, but the same feelings 
 that then preponderated may with insidious subtlety shut your 
 ears and blind your eyes to reason, and may induce you not to bring 
 to the present case the same clear understandings that I know you 
 would exercise on any other. I ask you, if you can, to give the 
 evidence your calm consideration ; and if you do that, I entertain the 
 strongest confidence your verdict will be for the defendant. (Ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 The Attorney -General then rose and addressed the jury in reply 
 on the part of the prosecution : 
 
 Gentlemen of the Jury, My learned friend, in one of the most 
 impassioned and eloquent addresses ever delivered in a court of 
 justice, after urging every topic calculated to excite your passions, 
 has exhorted you to calmness, and has spoken of the great ad- 
 vantage which Dr. Achilli possesses from the course which this 
 investigation has taken. But I must beg leave to remind you that 
 this is the first time his counsel has been heard upon the matters of 
 which he was accused/ My learned friend virtually opened the 
 case upon these various charges, in a speech, almost as powerful and 
 impressive as that we have just heard, commenting upon and 
 pressing the proofs as against Dr. Achilli, before the voice of his 
 counsel had been heard. The whole case is now before you, subject 
 to his observations and the directions of the judge. All that the 
 bitterest hate, the most unwearied industry, the most unbounded re- 
 sources, and unlimited means could combine for the destruction of 
 one man a most formidable adversary has been accumulated ; 
 and it is for you to say whether the whole body of the evidence 
 produced is of such weight as to crush the prosecutor, or whether it 
 will crumble into dust at the touch of impartial investigation \s 
 
 1 Which was his own counsel's fault, who shrunk from going into the case 
 until he had put Dr. Newman to the proof of it, throughout treating it as a 
 question not whether the charges were true, but whether they were proveable, a 
 prudent course for any client, but surely scarcely satisfactory as to innocence. 
 
 s The most fitting comment upon the very scrupulous speech of the 
 Attorney General, may be found in a brief extract from a description of the 
 conduct of the prosecuting counsel in the case of Lord Stafford : " They 
 detailed to the audience all the pernicious doctrines so often and so falsely attri- 
 buted to the Church of Rome, as, that faith is not to be kept with heretics, and 
 that actions vicious of their own nature, become virtuous when their object is 
 the benefit of the Church. They spoke of the Jesuits they called on the lords 
 to display their love of truth, and zeal for the Protestant cause. The condemna- 
 tion of an innocent man seems not to have alarmed their consciences. They 
 acted as if they thought it their duty to employ all the resources of their inge- 
 nuity to procure a conviction, leaving it to the Court to detect the fallacy of 
 their reasoning, to remove the web which they had so artfully woven, and sift out 
 the truth from the chaff under which they had buried it. If injustice were done, the 
 judges and not the advocates were responsible." Lingard,vo\. xii.chap. 6, p.230. 
 (If Sir Frederic relied on this, it was a poor reliance in this case.) In both
 
 176 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 Gentlemen, there never lias been an instance in an English 
 court of justice, in which a trial has taken place under .similar circum- 
 stances ! My learned friend has told you, that though this is a 
 complaint against Dr. Newman for having published a libel on 
 Dr. Achilli, the charges are those on which Dr. Achilli is accused. 
 Now every court of justice allows to the meanest criminal that 
 privilege which has been studiously taken from Dr. Achilli. h Re- 
 member that my learned friends desired all the witnesses to be 
 removed out of court, and the necessary consequence was, that 
 Dr. Achilli was removed, and was thus prevented from giving in- 
 structions for their examination as the case proceeded. i Gentle- 
 men, I think that as my learned friends have been studying the 
 proceedings of the Inquisition, they have rather followed the Roman 
 form on this occasion ! Notwithstanding this, however, I have 
 never known an instance in which a man stood so fearful an ordeal 
 as did Dr. Achilli, in an examination which lasted seven hours. 
 And I ask you whether anything but his consciousness of truth could 
 have enabled him to stand such a trial ! J 
 
 Gentlemen, my learned friend has suggested that this is a subject 
 of religious controversy ; he has referred to the flames of religious 
 bigotry as re-enkindled in this country ; he has stated that two 
 champions of antagonistic Churches are before you ; and he has 
 supposed that I might possibly seek to excite your religious pre- 
 judices, and appeal to your religious feelings. But, gentlemen, I 
 shall call upon you to decide from no motives of such a nature ! k 
 I should be perfectly ashamed of myself if I were to endeavour to 
 excite prejudice on such grounds ! l This is not a question of reli- 
 gious controversy! 111 If it had been, you would never have been 
 troubled with this inquiry ! But Dr. Achilli says : " In the conflict 
 between us, you, Dr. Newman, have chosen to use poisoned arrows ; n 
 
 instances, a monstrous and unscrupulous theory was invented, of a conspiracy 
 between pope, cardinal, and Jesuits. (p. 231.) In each case there was a pre- 
 tended plot which in both cases no one can doubt was not in the least believed, 
 but put forth to inflame the passions and prejudices of the vulgar. Has no 
 greater improvement taken place in the morality of the bar ? 
 
 h In a case where he is indicted and arraigned for punishment ; but who ever 
 heard of such a principle in cases of criminal information for clearing of charac- 
 ter. The one is a compulsory proceeding, the other voluntary. 
 
 ' Much he must have required this opportunity after about two years' notice 
 of the charges. Besides, he had it after all, for he had the evidence taken ver- 
 batim, and written out each night. 
 
 J But did he stand it ? He stood in the box, it is true ; but the question is if 
 he stood it morally, not physically. The writer believes it was the general 
 opinion at the close of his cross-examination, that he had not " stood it," but 
 had, notwithstanding general denials, confirmed every witness against him. 
 
 k Only suggesting that friars and eminent ecclesiastics had conspired to suborn 
 perjury and commitforgery, and that every Catholic must be capableof such crimes. 
 
 1 It is a pity he was not ashamed to do so. 
 
 m Not properly, no doubt. But was it not made so ? 
 
 n Had Achilli not used them? (See the note on his book.) It was the advo- 
 cate as well as the client who used them. The poison exists only where there is 
 falsehood. And let the reader judge as to the truthfulness of this speech.
 
 v REPORT OF THR TRIAL. '177 
 
 and you have assailed my character : if you can establish the truth 
 of your charges, the law will protect you, but if not, you must be 
 convicted as a malignant libeller!" 
 
 My learned friend has said, indeed, that Dr. Newman had no 
 personal feeling. Gentlemen, we cannot dive into men's hearts, 
 and discover the secret motives lurking there! We must judge of 
 men by their acts, and if we find, in coarse language, P serious 
 attacks upon the character of Dr. Achilli, we must presume that 
 there is some motive which actuated him f and we can attribute it, 
 to nothing else but that feeling of hatred which does not require 
 personal knowledge of the individual to be engendered. Dr. New- 
 man has exhibited all the energy and zeal of a proselyte ; 1 he, too, 
 turned from the Protestant faith to the Catholic. My learned friend 
 admits that Dr. Achilli, who has embraced the Protestant faith, is 
 a man of great learning and eloquence ; he is a most formidable anta- 
 gonist of that faith which Dr. Newman has embraced ; and these 
 feelings may well be enkindled, even although Dr. Achilli be un- 
 known to him ; and his hatred may be as strong as if they had 
 come into personal collision. 
 
 But, then, my learned friend said that these matters had been 
 made public long ago in the Dublin Review, which Dr. Achilli 
 himself has attributed to Cardinal Wiseman, by the Pope's crea- 
 tion, archbishop of Westminster. Very true ; and if Dr. Wiseman 
 could have thrown off his mask, and avowed the article, 1 " Dr. Achilli 
 would have been quite ready to enter the lists with him at the 
 earliest opportunity. But Dr. Wiseman preserved his \ncoynito. 
 
 Not at all. Such an inference of course would suit Achilli and his coun- 
 sel, who shrunk from producing him till he had put his answer to the strictest 
 proof. But the question with puhlic opinion will be, not whether the charges 
 were proved, but whether they were true : the verdict does not even show that 
 they were not proved, for it is notorious that it was not a fair trial. Besides, 
 legal proof is one thing, moral evidence another. Again, the man is in no danger 
 of being deemed a malignant libeller who states what he believes to be true. Now, 
 did Sir F. Thesiger really believe the atrocious charges he put forth without the 
 semblance of a reason ? If not, then it is the Attorney General who must 
 defend himself from the charge. Can he do so by the " licence of the bar ? " . 
 
 P This was as bad taste as the " ribaldry " of Lord Campbell. Nothing more 
 severe need be said of it, or could be said. 
 
 1 It should be mentioned that Sir Frederic has a great power of sarcasm ; 
 he shines in sneering. This is not a usual attribute of a generous mind ; and 
 though no doubt he is in private character honourable, and high spirited, no 
 traces of a truly noble nature will be found in his speeches no genuine bursts 
 of feeling such as constitute eloquence, and are to be found, for instance, in the 
 speeches of Sir A. Cockburn. Sir Frederic is, as an advocate, audacious, artful, 
 and sarcastic ; and this speech will amply exemplify the description. But no 
 noble forbearance will be discerned in it. 
 
 * This argument was an imposition. Achilli could of course have compelled 
 the publisher to give up the author, under pain of bearing all the consequences 
 himself. Now, is it fair for counsel to impose on juries by such misrepresenta- 
 tions ? And if they do, ought not the judge to correct them ? 
 N
 
 17& REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 It was not until be saw these "Lectures" appear under a name once 
 respected, 8 that he felt lie had met an adversary who was visible, 
 and ready to come forward in the open course of day, and with whom 
 he could contest. He therefore proceeded against the publishers. 
 Dr. Newman at once fairly came forward ; and this was the first 
 opportunity Dr. Achilli obtained of meeting his adversaries in a 
 court of justice. 
 
 Gentlemen, you have heard the charges which are now brought 
 forward against him on the plea of justification, extending over the 
 whole history of his life. 1 Was there ever a man placed in such a 
 situation ? It is admitted that he is virtually on his trial. u If he 
 were actually so for the purpose of punishment, some specific oflence 
 would have been selected and established against him, and no other 
 matters could have been entered into, nor could he have been put to 
 the question ; and, under these circumstances, he would have been 
 in a far more favourable position as an accused person than he can 
 possibly be in the present prosecution ; for he is now called upon 
 to answer for twenty-six years of his whole life ! v arranged into 
 twenty-three charges. And it is almost impossible, when his coun- 
 sel is addressing himself to one of these charges, to avoid entering 
 into others. But notwithstanding all these disadvantages, and 
 though your minds have been twice over-impressed by the powerful 
 addresses of my learned friend, I have not the slightest appre- 
 hension that, without any prejudice being appealed to, without 
 your minds being led to anything but a desire to do justice to this 
 most important case, I shall ultimately satisfy you that there is 
 no ground for supposing that he has succeeded in establishing any 
 one case against Dr. Achilli, and that consequently I am entitled 
 to your verdict. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, in the first place, that we may narrow the field 
 of observation, and be better able to direct our minds to that which 
 I admit the most important part of the case, it is right to draw 
 your attention to various charges which have been placed upon this 
 record, but of which there is not the slightest proof. w 
 
 Another sneer. For his own sake, it is well for Sir Frederic if he be as 
 truly respected as Dr. Newman is, and ever will be. 
 
 * Was not the burden far greater on Dr. Newman to have to prove them, than 
 on Achilli to have to meet them ? especially as the latter would not answer to 
 them until they were put to the proof? 
 
 u Voluntarily, not compulsorily, which makes all the difference. He challenged 
 inquiry first by his book, and next by his prosecution. 
 
 T Not at all. He called on Dr. Newman to enter into all that history. 
 
 w Is that so ? Dr. Achilli declined to answer as to any acts but those specifi- 
 cally stated in the plea ; and by a strict application of those rules of special plead- 
 ing which have just been swept away by the Common Law Procedure Act, his 
 counsel forced Dr. Newman to so particular a specification, that it was scarcely 
 possible to procure positive proof to correspond precisely with it ; and Achilli 
 only swore to the negative of that strict specification. Of the value of such a 
 species of swearing, the reader can easily satisfy himself by referring to his cross- 
 examination on the Gentili case, where he swore he had not been visiting in the
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 179 
 
 It is alleged in charge 4 that Dr. Achilli, as early as 1826^ was 
 deprived of his faculty to lecture. Now, the only lectureship he 
 obtained at Viterbo was in 1 827 ; yet he is, in 1 826, accused of being 
 deprived of his lectureship, for an offence which his superiors wished 
 to conceal ! x He continued in that lectureship till 1833 ; and here 
 we have an example of the rashness with which the charges against 
 him have been made. The fifth charge is that, in 1827, Dr. Achilli 
 had already earned the reputation of a scandalous friar. It has 
 been said, " Slander well, and some of it is sure to stick." y Yet two 
 monks at Yiterbo have been called, and have sworn that Dr. Achilli 
 held a high reputation at the period referred to, z and this character 
 has been proved to have been maintained by him for ten years 
 after. a It is established that he was employed in offices of trust, as, 
 for example, to confess persons of both sexes ; that in 1835 he was 
 sent a visitor to the convent of Neppi ; that when at Rome he 
 preached the Lent sermons ; that at Naples he was sent for to 
 preach before the duchess of Saxony; and that in 1837 he was 
 appointed prior of the Dominican Convent. Can you believe, with 
 such evidence before you, then, that in 1827 he was a friar of 
 scandalous reputation ? Can you think so with the fact that he 
 held various offices down to 1835, when he obtained his letters of 
 secularization, which were not completed until 1839 ? 
 
 It was alleged, in the seventh charge, that Dr. Achilli debauched 
 Rosa di Allessandris, and in September, 1833, was found guilty by 
 the bishop of Viterbo. In the twelfth charge, this is alleged to have 
 been committed in the sacristy of the church of St. Gradi, Viterbo ; 
 and in the twentieth charge he is alleged to have given fifty scudi 
 to the father of Rosa di Allessandris, as hush-money. Now, no 
 evidence has been given on this subject for the defendant ; but Dr. 
 Achilli has stated that he had a relation, a nun, of that name, 
 that her father died when he was a child, that he had never had such 
 an accusation brought against him, and that the whole was untrue. 
 It has been said that the papers of the police-court in Viterbo have 
 
 house of a Gentili, when it turned out she was a Gentili, and went by that name, 
 though she had married a gentleman who had left her a widow. Therefore the 
 very acts he would not speak to, may have been the very acts alluded to in the 
 plea, with some trivial or nominal mistakes. 
 
 x Sir A. Cockburn had mentioned a mistake in the date! 
 
 v Probably the reader will think, referring to the note upon Achilli's book, 
 that he rather acted upon that principle ; for, as Sir A. Cockburn justly 
 remarked, there is this difference between his charges and Dr. Newman's, that 
 the former were so vague and general, that they could not be grappled with, and 
 at the same time so sweeping that they involved whole bodies and classes ; 
 while the latter were distinct and specific, and pointed at a particular person, 
 who had every possible facility for meeting them. 
 
 z One of them declined to answer any questions as to his previous conduct, 
 even the time of his alleged conversion ! and the other was a poor refugee, private 
 secretary to Father Gavazzi. 
 
 Achilli himself discloses that during the whole time he had been the sub- 
 ject of repeated remonstrances, representations, and reports, and his history is 
 one series of removals. 
 
 N 2
 
 180 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 been burnt during the revolution ; but this was not a police case. b 
 Then I come to the eighth charge, in which it is alleged that, in 
 July, 1834, Dr. Achilli debauched another woman, whose name is 
 unknown ; but who, nevertheless, it is said, " was chaste and un- 
 married." c (Laughter.) But the jury have it in evidence that the 
 greater part of that year he was on a tour of visitation, with time 
 and place given, and means of contradiction, which, had proof been 
 attempted, would have been incontrovertible. d Then there was 
 the ninth charge, which sets forth that, in 1835, Dr. Achilli had 
 debauched Vincenza Guerra, at Viterbo. Now, in 1835, Dr. Achilli 
 never was in Viterbo, but preached the Lent sermon that year. 
 The patent of his appointment has been produced, dated 21st April, 
 1835, with a patent to confess persons in Capua; and he exercised 
 that office in that year. It is said that he was convicted of these 
 things before the Inquisition, whereas the fact is that he was never 
 within many miles of the place. e The thirteenth charge is, that 
 in 1841, at Rome, Naples, and Malta, Dr. Achilli spoke against 
 the Eucharist and chastity, and by this corrupted various persons. 
 Now this shows how these charges have been fabricated, for here 
 some persons, who it is said had been debauched in 1831, appear 
 as again led astray by the preaching and teaching of Dr. Achilli in 
 1841. f The twenty-first charge sets forth that, by an official 
 document in the archives of the police-court at Naples, Dr. Achilli 
 was convicted of habitual incontinence. In support of this charge, 
 my learned friends produced a document, procured from the minister 
 of ecclesiastical affairs at Naples. Gentlemen, we have recently 
 had a little revelation as to the character and credit of the 
 Neapolitan police ; and it was necessary, if they proposed to give 
 one of its reports in evidence, to go to the fountain head, or satisfy 
 us that the ecclesiastical department was the proper depository for 
 documents of that description. A Roman Catholic solicitor, of 
 great respectability, who was sent abroad for the purpose, was 
 unable to give any information as to its authenticity, though he 
 
 * How so ? The Principe case came before the police. Then why did he ex- 
 clude the document, if it could have nothing to do with the charge ? 
 
 c A sorry jest upon the formality of the plea, which the prosecutor's lawyers 
 had stickled for with the utmost strictness. 
 
 d This tells against Achilli, for if he were absent from Viterbo at the time at 
 which the charge is laid, he could have proved the fact. 
 
 e Lent does not commence till about March ; and he might have been back 
 after Easter. 
 
 ' A repetition of the wretched jest upon the necessary formalities of the plead- 
 ings. The time was not material ; and as to the substance, it was sworn by 
 several witnesses that Achilli had told them " it was no sin." Sir Frederick of 
 course did not mention this. He shrunk from the evidence, and contented him- 
 self with sarcasms and sneers. 
 
 What a monstrous misrepresentation ! He gave full information about it. 
 Where should a report about ecclesiastics be but in the Ecclesiastical Depart- 
 ment ? Who ever heard of reports from the police being found at the Department 
 of Police?
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 181 
 
 had the means of doing so, as he had resorted to the police autho- 
 rities ; and so the document was excluded upon an objection I felt 
 it my duty to take. My learned friend said, on one occasion, 
 "What! do you shrink from the truth ? Are you afraid of an 
 investigation?" an observation intended to create prejudice in 
 your minds. I know the case will not be decided on such grounds ; 
 but I have felt it my duty to confine the investigation strictly to 
 the charges which Dr. Achilli came here to meet. h 
 
 These, gentlemen, are the matters upon which no evidence has 
 been adduced, and upon which Dr. Newman must necessarily be 
 found guilty. And now I will proceed, step by step, to the other 
 heads of accusation against Dr. Achilli ; and I shall be able to 
 satisfy you that there is no ground for any of them. 
 
 Gentlemen, the first of these charges is, that Dr. Achilli has 
 been an infidel. Now it will hardly be asserted on the other side 
 that any peculiar meaning for the occasion is to be given to this 
 expression. Everybody understands, by the term " infidel," one 
 who denies the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the Divine origin 
 of the Christian religion. Gentlemen, Dr. Achilli has never been 
 an infidel in that sense of the word. It is alleged that he preached 
 against the Eucharist and absolution. If it be meant that, because 
 Dr. Achilli did not believe in transubstantiation or auricular con- 
 fession, that he is therefore an infidel, I say, without the least 
 levity, but with a strong feeling, I hope the number of such infidels 
 will daily increase ! Gentlemen, with all the trembling anxiety 
 suited to such sacred subjects, I make only those remarks which are 
 necessary to show that the charge is not substantiated. Dr. Achilli 
 is next charged with being a hypocrite under a cowl ; and you 
 have heard some eloquent passages from his book to support this 
 accusation. I will read another passage from it, in which he says,* 
 " I already disbelieved in the virtue of the cross ; take away 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the mass is nothing but a 
 lie, a solemn imposture." Then he goes on : " From this time, 
 in saying mass, I had ceased to believe in what I did. I was like 
 Luther, and many others, who no longer believed in the mass, 
 who had rejected its doctrines and refuted its errors, but still con- 
 tinued to celebrate it. * * * Although I myself no longer 
 adored ' yet there never failed to be some who adored, 
 
 believing ; and therefore I could not help looking upon myself as 
 the agent of idolatry." And upon this it is said that he was a 
 
 h Exactly so ; he first pins Dr. Newman down to technical strictness of plead- 
 ing, and then to technical strictness of proof. And this is called " clearing his 
 character ! " 
 
 ' " While advocating and teaching with great zeal the Romish doctrine." 
 Achilli's own words (which his counsel took care not to read), just before the 
 passage cited. And directly afterwards the unhappy man says, the more he 
 advanced in spiritual light, the more he was averse to the hypocrisy of the priests ! 
 They were hypocrites for doing what they believed in ; he is " averse to hypo- 
 crisy," doing what he did not believe in !
 
 182 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 hypocrite ; because for ten years he practised what he believed an 
 imposture, and was the agent of what he considered idolatry. 
 Gentlemen, here you have the description of a strong mind 
 struggling with doubts ! You have an example of the course 
 which is followed on all occasions.} It is difficult for a man to 
 tear himself from his ancient faith. k There are so many asso- 
 ciations intimately interwoven with it, that it is almost impossible 
 for a person all at once to disengage himself from it. A reference 
 is made to Luther, you all remember how he struggled with 
 himself till his strong mind was bowed down with exhaustion ; 
 and it was only by degrees he advanced to the position he after- 
 wards assumed. So with the great .Reformers of our own Church. 
 From year to year they progressed to conversion. 1 And docs 
 anybody believe that because Luther remained in the Church 
 in which he had been born and bred, until his thoughts had 
 ripened into conviction, and the full light of truth poured upon his 
 mind, Luther would properly be characterized as a hypocrite?" 1 
 But, gentlemen, who is the person from whom these charges pro- 
 ceed ? From Dr. Newman ! Was he suddenly converted ? Did 
 no doubts intrude into his mind while he was a member of our 
 Protestant Church ! Did conviction flash at once upon his soul ? 
 Did he lie down at night a satisfied and contented Protestant dis- 
 believing in transubstautiation, confession, and absolution and rise 
 up in the morning a full blown Romanist ? n Strange that such an 
 
 J Even Lord Campbell shook his head at this, and evidently was disgusted ; 
 yet so resolved was he not to say a single word against Achilli, that in his charge 
 he vents his disgust, not at him, but at the Tractarian clergy ! 
 
 k But he had "torn himself from his faith," being persuaded it was an 
 imposture. The only thing he had not torn himself from was his professorships, 
 and so forth. 
 
 1 It will he seen, Sir Frederic argues all along on the Protestant theory, that 
 faith is obtained by reason ; but St. Augustine wrote an essay on the " Advan- 
 tage of believing," in which he shows that conviction does not necessarily involve 
 it ; and a greater than Augustine (though he is quoted in the homilies of the 
 Church of England), teaches, that " faith is the believing of what is not seen ; 
 i.e., neither by mind nor sense : in conformity with which the Catholic doctrine 
 is, that faith is infused in baptism, and is only lost by sin, and accordingly 
 the sublime baptismal service commences, " Quod petis ecclesise Dei ?" to 
 which the answer is " Fides." On this theory, no one baptized and bred in the 
 Catholic faith would ever lose it except through falling into sin. The reader is 
 invited to scrutinize the history of all converts to Protestantism from Luther to 
 Achilli, to satisfy himself on this point. 
 
 m Those who have read even such a life of Luther as Michelet's, will pro- 
 bably think him rather chargeable with brutality than hypocrisy ; and those who 
 have read such a history of the Reformation as Maitland's, may perhaps think 
 our Reformers chargeable with both. Luther was expelled from the Church before 
 he disbelieved in the mass, but he believed in it long afterwards ; and so with 
 the English Reformers ; and if they are chargeable with hypocrisy, it was rather 
 in professing to reject doctrines they really believed than in pretending to believe 
 doctrines they rejected. 
 
 n The fallacy is flagrant of comparing the cases. The one was the case of a 
 man who had lost his faith for ten years, the other the case of a man by degrees
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 183 
 
 argument should proceed from such a course. If this is to be the 
 hypocrisy which is attributed to Dr. Achilli, he shares ft in common 
 with the ornaments of our faith, our church, and our religion ; and 
 he is contented to suffer the imputation, more especially in conse- 
 quence of the quarter from which it comes ! 
 
 Gentlemen, I now came to the case of Elena Valente. My 
 learned friend anticipated that I should offer some observations 
 about Italian witnesses. I think that there has been some intima- 
 tion of the interest felt in Roman Catholic countries in this inquiry. 
 It is clear that great facilities have been given to persons seeking 
 evidence, and that a Roman Catholic solicitor of great respectability 
 was in communication with a personage high in the Romish Church, 
 whose name he wished to communicate privately to his lordship. 
 Why this mystery in respect of matters to be made the subject of a 
 judicial inquiry ? Did Mr. Harting think it was at all wrong in 
 going abroad to procure evidence? Why, then, this anxiety to 
 conceal the name of this individual ? Was he afraid that it was 
 coming too near the precincts of the Vatican, and that a suspicion 
 might arise that in the highest quarters in the Romish Church so 
 great an interest was taken in this contest ? upon which must de- 
 pend whether Dr. Achilli is to continue a formidable antagonist, or 
 be crushed ? Gentlemen, I think it is due to the interests of justice 
 and truth to remind you of this circumstance, and to beg you for 
 yourselves to consider, whether it is capable of any satisfactory 
 explanation, consistently with a desire that only the truth should be 
 arrived at. Again, we have the fact that Elena Valente has been 
 sent over to this country for the glory of God and the honour of 
 holy mother Church. Nor is this all. She next says she concealed 
 the fact for twenty years from all but her confessor; yet her 
 curate, who could have known nothing of the matter,? is found 
 advising her to come over, for the glory of God, and the good of 
 the Church ! Gentlemen, in judging between the witnesses, let me 
 remind you of some circumstances as to their credit. Where do 
 they come from ? They are Italians, who return to their native 
 country when their work is done, uninfluenced by public opinion, 
 and likely, even if they have failed in the truth, for the honour of 
 the Church and the glory of God, to obtain from their tender- 
 hearted confessors a very easy absolution. <i Dr. Achilli, on the 
 
 acquiring conviction. And who says that Dr. Newman remained in the Church 
 of England after he had acquired that conviction ? 
 
 This is the deliberate suggestion of a complicity in conspiracy, perjury, and 
 forgery, on the part of the Holy See. If this be not the meaning of the insinua- 
 tion, it meant nothing ; but the tone, and emphasis, and countenance of the 
 speaker sufficiently showed there was a meaning, and a most malignant 
 meaning. 
 
 i' This is a most monstrous perversion of the evidence : the witness stated that 
 Achilli had mentioned it to one of his friends, and that messages went from him 
 to the girl. 
 
 1 Sir Frederick found fine scope for his sneering here ; and no one can con- 
 ceive the contemptuous expression of his sarcasm. But he forgot his client.
 
 184 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 other hand, is a preacher of the Gospel here, r is bound to England, 
 as shut out from Roman Catholic countries, and is exposed to all 
 the consequences of perjury. But how do these witnesses come 
 here ? Valente and the Principes have been living together; they have 
 compared notes ; and now let me refer to a curious coincidence in 
 the evidence which they gave. The offence as to Rosa di Alessan- 
 dris is charged to have been committed in the sacristy ; and as to 
 the girl Principe is said to have occurred on Good Friday. In the 
 plea of justification no allusion is made to the offence as to Valente 
 or Principe, that it took place in the sacristy ; but when the two 
 witnesses came here they both said so. 8 Gentlemen, this leads me 
 to remark on the course, in my opinion, very unfair, which my 
 learned friend adopted in the cross-examination of Dr. Achilli. 
 Gentlemen, Dr. Achilli came into court to meet the specific charges 
 against him ; l he was ready to answer on each charge, but was 
 pressed whether he had not been incontinent with other women. 
 Dr. Achilli availed himself of the privilege of the law ; but is a 
 man to be denied the justice which the law allows him because at 
 any u period of life he may have forgotten those rules of morality 
 which are obligatory on us all? If such a question were put to 
 the wisest and best among us, we should find it very difficult to 
 answer in the affirmative, with truth, and according to conscience. 
 I know of no distinction between persons in holy orders and lay- 
 men in this respect ; nor between the vow made by a monk or 
 priest, and that which is made for us all at our baptism, and which 
 binds all to chastity. And is Dr. Achilli to be prejudiced because 
 he refused to say if at any time he had broken this obligation ? 
 On the contrary, I say that it tends to his credit as a witness. If 
 Dr. Achilli had come determined to deny everything, what pre- 
 vented his contradicting that he had ever sinned ? How could his 
 credit have been impeached, except from our knowledge of human 
 nature, and our knowledge of the operation of that law of celibacy, 
 which prevailed in the Roman Church ? I ask you, therefore, 
 
 What evidence is there in the case of " tender-hearted confessors," and " easy 
 absolution," except as to him ? Other confessors are shown to have given good 
 advice, to abstain from sin and avoid the occasions of it the notorious con- 
 dition of absolution as Sir Frederick can scarcely fail to know. What shadow 
 of evidence, what semblance of pretence was there for this coarse and calumnious 
 imputation, except as to his own client, who, it was sworn repeatedly, said it 
 was no sin, and asked one of the girls to " confess to him !" 
 
 * He himself stated that he had ceased to be so two weeks before the trial, at 
 least where he had been for a year or two. Another of his numerous removals. 
 Surely the whole argument applies rather to him than them. For the last twelve' 
 years he has been ambulatory, whereas they have lived in the same place all their 
 lives. And pray are they not punishable for perjury in their own country ? 
 
 8 Queer reasoning this ! that anything not stated by the pleader is not to be 
 believed. 
 
 1 Exactly so ; in other words, only to put Dr. Newman to technical accuracy 
 of proof on precise specification. 
 
 " The questions were as to every period.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 185 
 
 whether the withholding of that denial does not add to the credit 
 of Dr. Achilli's testimony in other respects ? Gentlemen, I now 
 turn to the evidence of Elena Valente. How is she confirmed ? 
 She gave no dates. j^Mr. Badeley. Dates are not material.] My 
 learned friend says dates are not material, and he is technically 
 right but morally wrong ! T I ask then, again, how is she confirmed ? 
 Stress has been laid on a contradiction or equivocation in the evi- 
 dence of Dr. Achilli, who at first stated that he had not visited at 
 the time in the house of a Gentili, and afterwards admitted that he 
 had then at that time visited a lady whose maiden name was Gentili, 
 but who had been married and was a widow. But Elena Valente 
 said two brothers of the husband (Christopholi) were there ; and if 
 ladies in Italy retain their surnames on marriage, the rule does not, 
 I suppose, apply to gentlemen, or they would be Christopholi, and 
 not Gentili. Therefore, the argument falls to the ground. w But, 
 observe, twenty years after the events they go to hunt up evidence ; 
 they make inquiries ; they find the name of a Gentili, and never 
 hear of the other name of Christopholi. Elena Valente, on the 
 other hand, would know nothing of the lady's maiden name of Gentili, 
 but only the married name of Christopholi, and thus it is clear 
 the persons who were at work to procure the evidence, were led 
 into a mistake, in consequence of there once having been a lady 
 named Gentili, who was afterwards a Christopholi, of which they 
 were not aware. Well, gentlemen, twenty years afterwards, 
 this accusation is brought against Dr. Achilli. At that time he 
 was publicly lecturing and preaching, no one breathing anything 
 against his character ; x and, twenty years afterwards, in the streets 
 of London, there is heard a voice calling him to account for this 
 act, alleged to have been committed so long ago, no person having 
 heard of it in the mean time, except the confessor, who is dead, not 
 even her mother ! y Yes, I am mistaken, there was a remarkable 
 fact stated by the witness, that on one occasion a person came to her 
 and told her that Achilli had mentioned it to him, and she supposed 
 he had told her this for the purpose of inducing her to commit 
 the sin with this person, his friend ! and yet Dr. Achilli is supposed 
 to have preserved his reputation in the Church, and passed from one 
 office to another ! z Gentlemen, Dr. Achilli solemnly denies ever 
 
 v Here is an instance of professional audacity. The reader will think Mr. 
 Badeley " morally right," in thinking the substance of a charge alone is in 
 question. 
 
 w Why ? The whole of this part of the Attorney General's argument was, 
 and at the trial, and is to me still, perfectly unintelligible. 
 
 * In his book (which is in evidence), he states that the general of the order 
 refused to allow him to remain at Viterbo, and ordered him to renounce his pro- 
 fessorship, and repair to Rome, that there were then "evil" reports against 
 him, and that he was forced to leave Viterbo. 
 
 > A woman seduced, and wishing to continue in sin, would naturally keep it 
 secret, and she says she gave up confession after the second commission. 
 
 ' Who supposes that ? The evidence shows just the reverse. (See note above.)
 
 186 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 having seen her, and it is for you to say whether you believe her 
 statement under these incredible circumstances. Here is the whole 
 case at Viterbo, though five are charged ; that of Valente and four 
 others, those of Rosa di Alessandris and Vincenza di Guerra; and 
 two strangers, as to whom no proof is offered. a 
 
 The next witness is Principe, and to her the same remarks apply 
 as to Valente. b The crime here is charged to have been committed 
 on Good Friday; and though it happened in 1840 this might have 
 enabled Dr. Achilli to fix on the day, and state where he was during 
 the whole of it. But she states it to have occurred in November or 
 December. Again, she states her age to have been about fifteen, 
 and she was twenty-five years old when her daughter was born, 
 but her mother says her own age is fifty-nine, which makes her to 
 have been born in 1793 ; and so the daughter must have been born 
 in 1818, and therefore twenty- two years old in 1840, and not fifteen. 6 
 There is another circumstance, also, to which I must call your atten- 
 tion : the girl, in her first examination, only spoke of one occasion. 
 My learned friend, the Solicitor General, in his cross-examination, 
 confined himself to that ; but on re-examination, the next morning, 
 she stated that it had happened on several occasions ; no doubt her 
 memory had been refreshed by sleep ! d What confirmation is there 
 of her story? 6 Is it not incredible? These are the two Italian 
 
 Valente says, she is forty years old : then she was born in 1812. She says this 
 happened when she was eighteen years of age : then it would be about 1830. 
 Now, in 1833 he states in his book (which is evidence), that he was forced to 
 leave Viterbo ; and that there were "evil reports " against him. And from that 
 time forward, if he passed from one office to another, he passed from one place to 
 another. In 1835 he got leave to secularize, and in 1839 he left the order. In 
 1840 the affair of Principe is stated to have occurred, and in 1841 he is perpe- 
 tually deprived of the priesthood. 
 
 a This is not true. The judgment states his confession of crime, with many 
 women at Viterbo, and he on oath did not deny it. Now, what do names matter 
 in a proceeding to clear character ? The reader will remark the monstrous and 
 repeated misrepresentations of the evidence by the Attorney General. 
 
 b Namely, that she is not to be believed, first, because an Italian ; secondly, 
 because she is a Catholic ; thirdly, because Achilli contradicts her. 
 
 c An old woman of sixty years of age, examined in a foreign country, through 
 an intrepreter, makes, or is imagined to have made, in the hands of the most 
 crafty and subtle cross-examiner of the day, a slip in recollection as to her exact 
 age at the time of her marriage, a quarter of a century ago ; therefore she has 
 committed perjury ! And after all there is not even a slip. The poor woman said 
 she could not recollect well how old she was at her marriage ; and her error 
 is the substratum of the argument more ingenious than ingenuous. 
 
 d Why, the girl was only asked on the first occasion, on her first examination. 
 What would have been said of her if she had volunteered half-a-dozen others ? 
 
 e 1. The evidence of her mother. 2. The fact that they were before the 
 police about it. 3. The fact that Achilli appears never to have claimed to be 
 confronted with her at that time. 4. The fact that they were not punished for 
 making a false charge. 5. The fact (shown in Achilli's evidence) that he soon 
 after found it convenient to leave Naples, and is immediately after that im- 
 prisoned. 6. The judgment of the Inquisition in 1842, reciting this very offence. 
 The reader will remark how Achilli's counsel shrank from the greatest portion of 
 the evidence.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 1ST 
 
 cases ; and I submit, gentlemen, that these two cases are disposed 
 of! 
 
 Proceeding to Corfu, I now come to charge 14, in which it is 
 asserted that Dr. Achilli committed adultery with the wives of Gara- 
 moni and Coriboni. Now anything short of the entire proof of these 
 charges is entire failure of evidence, and I contend that that has 
 been the case. No witnesses are brought by Dr. Achilli from Italy, 
 for obvious reasons, but there are some from Corfu. Garamoni was 
 brought over by the defendant, but afterwards Captain Lawrence 
 came over ; he was well known to Garamoni, and Garamoni was 
 well known t6 Captain Lawrence ; and as soon as the latter arrived 
 in this country the former left, and could not he prevailed oil to 
 return, (Laughter.) f Coriboni and his wife have left the island, and 
 could not be traced. 
 
 In the case of Garamoni the defendant called two witnesses, 
 Patriuiani and Russo ; but the value of their evidence may be 
 tested by these two facts, that Russo had not seen Dr. Achilli before 
 the night in question, and Patrianini only knew him by his " stature"! 
 Then there is the documentary evidence as to the proceedings before 
 the court, which were, however, compromised. What does the 
 evidence in this case amount to ? That Dr. Achilli is passing, and 
 the wife calls him to ask him a question ! On such evidence you 
 are asked to convict Dr. Achilli of adultery with her ! Gentlemen, 
 I am sure you will not find him guilty on such slender grounds ! 
 
 Next as to the case of the wife of Coriboni. It is said she was a 
 chorus singer, and a person of bad repute, and that Dr. Achilli 
 ought to have known it, as all Corfu did, and then it is imputed to 
 him that he could only have engaged them from a bad motive. Yet 
 it appears that Dr. Achilli lived in repute, and, as he says, he would 
 have lost his character if this were known, z The charge rests chiefly 
 on the testimony of Mr. Reynolds, who has been connected with 
 the getting up of the defence. It is for you to say whether you 
 believe his statements as to the conduct of Dr. Achilli, which, if 
 they be true, must have shown unblushing effrontery in acting thus 
 at an open window ? h You will recollect that the house of Dr. 
 Achilli was higher than Mr. Reynolds', and the distance was not 
 above twenty feet between the two windows ; and further, the room 
 in which all this is alleged to have so openly occurred was the room 
 in which Coriboni's wife was at her work, and where her husband 
 would naturally come if he wanted to see her. There is another 
 circumstance also : the young woman stated that her jalousy blinds 
 were down to keep the sun out and the sun would strike from 
 
 f Let the reader refer to Garamoni's affidavit (ante, Introduction), and he will 
 appreciate the policy of the prosecution, and the candour of the advocate. 
 
 * He did not remain long at Corfu ; and he states in his own book (which is 
 part of the evidence against him), that he was in such " repute," that the very 
 populace followed him about the streets. 
 
 > From which, however, Achilli swore he believed he could not be seen.
 
 188 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 above so that the jalousies would be so pulled that no one could look 
 through them upwards, which they must have done to see what 
 was passing in the room in Dr. Achilli's house. 1 I do not impute 
 perjury to that young woman, but she may have seen the familiarities, 
 and Mr. Reynolds may have told her it was Dr. AchilliJ With 
 reference to the testimony of Mr. Reynolds, Dr. Achilli stated dis- 
 tinctly that it was only after he had remonstrated with him for 
 drunkenness that Mr. Reynolds remonstrated, and then not about 
 these familiarities, nor about the Coribonis officiating in the chapel. 
 Mr. Reynolds says this caused scandal ; if so, should any of the con- 
 gregation have been ignorant of the fact, and should we not hare had 
 some of them here ? Dr. Achilli states distinctly that he never 
 walked out with her, and if this were untrue he could be contra- 
 dicted by some of the persons who must have seen him. At the 
 same time he admits that when he met her near the house he may 
 have walked home with her. If he had been seen walking with her, 
 however (he added), his congregation would have left him, yet he 
 states that the congregation had increased when he left the place. k 
 And then, gentlemen, he went to the Protestant college of Malta : 
 and I ask you, if he had been living in so profligate and scandalous 
 a manner at Zante and Corfu, the infamy of it would not have 
 travelled to Malta? 1 And if it were known in Malta, would the 
 committee of the Protestant college have engaged him ? m Surely this 
 alone is an answer to all that Mr. Reynolds states with respect to 
 what occurred at Zante or Corfu. 
 
 Well, gentlemen, Dr. Achilli is now come to Malta, professor of 
 the Protestant college ; and the plea of justification asserts that he 
 was dismissed, not only for hindering an investigation concerning 
 charges of immorality against others, but also on account of being 
 implicated in these charges, and on account of the former offences 
 charged against himself. Now, as respects the immorality charged 
 against Leonini and Saccares, Dr. Achilli says he was in London at 
 the time ; and a conversation with Dr. Bonavia is relied upon, in 
 which Dr. Achilli is represented to have said that the witness was 
 
 ' And could not the jalousies be turned upwards ? This argument, ingenious 
 but frivolous, shows how hard pressed Achilli's counsel were for topics to speak 
 upon. 
 
 J And would not this be perjury ? To swear positively she saw a person 
 whom she did not see ? Would seeing some man be seeing Achilli ? The absurdity 
 of the argument shows how hard up the Attorney General was for some way 
 of getting rid of her evidence, and how he shrunk from imputing perjury to her. 
 
 k Contradicted by two respectable witnesses, one saying the matter made a 
 great stir, and the other that the congregation declined. 
 
 1 It would take some little time to follow him there ; but when he is there, it 
 is in evidence (in his book), that the papers exhorted the people to pelt him with 
 offensive missiles, and that he was stigmatized as an impostor and a hypocrite. 
 
 m They of course did not know it at the time they engaged him ; but did they 
 at the time they dismissed him ? And how long was that afterwards ? A few 
 months. What was it for? In his own affidavit (Introduction, ante) he dis- 
 closes that they had heard unpleasant stories of his past life.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 189 
 
 too scrupulous about such things, and would do worse if he were a 
 bachelor ; but Dr. Achilli said he did not believe the charges ; and 
 is it because in an angry conversation he says such words he is to 
 be presumed guilty of them himself? And in common justice, the 
 authorities of the college must be presumed to have given the true 
 reasons of his dismissal in their minutes and resolutions on the 
 subject. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. It was on your objection I held that they 
 could not be asked as to reasons not mentioned in those resolutions, 
 or communicated to Dr. Achilli, but I now think that they might 
 be asked that question, and I beg that Lord Shaftesbury may be 
 sent for. 
 
 The Earl of Shaftesbury recalled and re-examined by Sir A. Cock- 
 burn. What were the reasons for which Dr. Achilli was dismissed 
 from the college at Malta? Lord CAMPBELL. Were they ever dis- 
 cussed by the committee? Yes. Were they discussed? "Yes. And 
 communicated to Dr. Achilli ? Oh yes. By letter? Yes. The Attor- 
 ney General. Have you the letter ? Not with me ; all the documents 
 were in Court yesterday. Sir A. Cockburn. They shall be sent for. 
 The Attorney General. I must have the letter, my lord. Sir A. Cock- 
 burn. I will ask this question, then, what were the matters discussed 
 before the committee as the grounds of his dismissal ? Certain charges 
 were made against certain priests, and we charged Dr. Achilli to make 
 an investigation. Lord CAMPBELL. We have had all this before. 
 Lord Shaftesbury. My lord, I am not conversant with courts of justice, 
 and can only answer the questions which are put to me ; and if I am to 
 be interrupted every moment I do not know how I can give evidence at 
 all. This inquiry being pending, we received information that the 
 principal witness, Saccares, is removed ; and that the bishop of Gibraltar, 
 as visitor of the college, declined to go on with the investigation. Lord 
 CAMPBELL. What we desire is, the other reasons, besides those reduced 
 in writing, and communicated to Dr. Achilli. Sir A. Cockburn. Were 
 there any other reasons besides the fact of Dr. Achilli having sent away 
 Saccares ? Am I to be confined to facts or opinions ? Lord CAMPBELL. 
 To facts. Sir A. Cockburn. Whatever was discussed before the 
 committee, and which in the general opinion of the committee operated 
 to induce his dismissal. The Attorney General. I cannot acquiesce in 
 that. Lord CAMPBELL. There is an allegation in the plea that there 
 were other reasons which the committee could not get themselves to 
 describe ; other reasons besides those expressed in the resolutions. 
 That is the question before us. Lord Shaftesbury. .The reasons that 
 governed the committee were these. We felt that if the whole matter 
 were to become public, so great a scandal would be brought upon the 
 college, that we felt that for the sake of the institution itself, for the 
 sake of morality, and for the credit of the Protestant religion, there 
 was nothing left for us but to break up the concern, get rid of the whole 
 transaction, and wash our hands of so foul a business. Sir A. Cock- 
 burn. Were these specific charges brought under the consideration of 
 the committee? I am speaking of general reasons, not of charges 
 officially made before the committee. 
 
 The Attorney General continued his reply. Gentlemen, I urn 
 glad this additional evidence has been given, for so far from esta-
 
 190 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 Wishing the truth of the plea, it has utterly failed, and the matter 
 is set at rest, I hope, for ever. n 
 
 Gentlemen, I now pass to the sixteenth charge, respecting the 
 English girls. Four servants in succession are mentioned (as well 
 as another person of whom we have had no evidence), and in no 
 one instance was any complaint made to Dr. Achilli or his wife ! 
 Upon this subject, I would observe, that the legislature have of 
 late years taken into consideration the facility with which cases 
 could be brought forward, and passed an Act requiring corroborative 
 proof in support of the statement of the woman in cases of at- 
 tempted affiliation. This, I think, is entitled to your serious con- 
 sideration, in weighing the credit to be given to these witnesses. 
 One of them admits she was accused by Mrs. Achilli of being dirty, 
 which is a serious thing, you know, with a servant. In the case of 
 Jane Legge, though expenses had been incurred, no application ap- 
 pears to have been made to Dr. Achilli on account of it ; and if he 
 were implicated, why should her sister, Mrs. Logan, be so angry at 
 the idea of being summoned to give evidence against him ? You 
 need not be reminded of the character of Jane Legge, and the same 
 remark applies to Sarah Wood. This witness says Dr. Achilli 
 gave her a religious book. Why was it not produced ? It would 
 have been at least a confirmation to her story. P Then, as to the 
 case of Catherine Gorman, no indecency is alleged ; and if it had 
 occurred, is it likely that if she had made charge against him he 
 would have continued at the lodging-house ? It is clear on what 
 principle these charges have been got up. " Get the servants of 
 every house he has been in ! If Catholics, all the better !" Such 
 are the sort of cases brought forward against Dr. Achilli. Gentle- 
 men, you have seen Mrs. Achilli ; and after seeing her, and looking 
 on these girls, for instance, Sarah Wood, I ask you, in your own 
 judgment and experience of mankind, whether the mere comparison 
 does not discredit their stories ! 
 
 And, now, gentlemen, we come to the extraordinary document 
 
 n A fine specimen of forensic audacity of assertion. The earl had just stated 
 that which distinctly proved the plea, viz., that there were matters the disclosing 
 of which would cause such scandal, that in order to avoid it, they not only dis- 
 missed Achilli but destroyed the whole concern. 
 
 Suppose Achilli had sworn he never saw it ? 
 
 v How so ? Even supposing him to have admitted it, what would the gift of 
 such a book show ? It was otherwise with the girl Principe, for he swore he 
 never saw her ; and the paper she produced had his writing on it ; and he ad- 
 mitted he entered names of the members in the book sometimes. There the 
 thing formed a link in a chain of evidence, to which Achilli's counsel took care 
 not to advert. It cannot fail to be observed how the Attorney General avoided 
 the most material points, and dwelt diffusely on the most frivolous. 
 
 1 This infamous insinuation, that Catholics are to be assumed to be capable 
 of perjury, only deprived of its effect, not of its atrocity, by the fact that Sir 
 Frederic imputed perjury to every one who swore against his client. Charges 
 so reckless and unscrupulous are of course contemptible, and recoil on the per- 
 son capable of making them.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 191 
 
 from the Holy Inquisition. r You will observe that the defendant 
 relies on that document for proof of several of his charges, of 
 which there has been no oral evidence, but which, he says, proved 
 upon the confession to be found in this document. I quite agree in 
 the propriety of the course his lordship has adopted of admitting 
 this document, as he expressed it, valeat quantum. His lordship 
 held that as there was an allegation in the plea, that Dr. Achilli 
 was found guilty by the Court of Inquisition, and certain 
 punishment awarded, in support of that allegation, the document 
 professing to come from the Court of Inquisition, was evidence to 
 show that there was such a judgment ; but, observe, not evidence to 
 establish any of the facts contained in the judgment. s And here I 
 must call your attention to the terms of this extraordinary document. 
 It is the first time that a judgment of the Court of Inquisition has 
 been produced in evidence in an English court of justice, and I 
 hope it will be the last ! I think probably it will be, after the fate 
 which awaits this judgment, now before us. * You will see that in 
 1851 Mr. Harting went to Rome, and there is put in communica- 
 tion with certain authorities there. Now mark, there could be no 
 harm in getting a judgment of the Court of Inquisition. There is 
 nothing discreditable in it ; but, somehow or other, Mr. Harting 
 was unwilling publicly to announce the name of the individual who 
 exerted himself to get a copy of the judgment ; and now it turned out 
 that it was Monsignore Talbot, private secretary of the pope. u 
 And I suppose he thought the interference of Monsignore Talbot was 
 a matter which would not bear the light, that it was something 
 which would turn to the prejudice of the defendant's case or other- 
 wise he would at once have communicated, without any hesitation, 
 the name of the individual. v He goes, through the instrumentality 
 of Monsignore Talbot, to the office of the Inquisition, where he 
 obtains the document. How does he obtain it ? Let us see how 
 these matters are " authenticated," and the credit we may attach to 
 their *' authentication." w And observe, so secret are their proceedings, 
 that even a gentleman who is now a bishop of the Church, going to 
 the office for papers, was not allowed to enter, but was kept at the 
 door the clerk, or notary, or other official person, coming out to 
 deliver to him the papers. x There has been, therefore, no examina- 
 
 r The Attorney General reserved this, as a bonne bouche for the jury, to the 
 last, and gave it them just after exciting their disgust about poor Sarah Wood. 
 There was certainly consummate art in his address. 
 
 5 Did it not prove the whole of the judgment ? If so, the confession it recited 
 was proved too, for it was part of the judgment. See Notes to the judgment. 
 
 ' In an ordinary case a counsel would not dare so to assume the decision of 
 the jury. This is one of the many symptoms of the " foregone conclusion." 
 
 u What evidence was there of that? And if it were so, what shadow of 
 reason would it give for so foul an insinuation as follows ? 
 
 ' This is truly ridiculous. There may be private reasons for not mentioning 
 names, and Achilli himself had declined to do so. 
 
 > r Sir Frederic found full scope for his sneering here. 
 
 x To prevent scandal transpiring from disclosure of any of the charges.
 
 192 RKPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 tion of the copy with the original, y and no opportunity of investiga- 
 tion as to whether any original exists at all. z We are left entirely 
 to uncertainty or conjecture. The notary, I suppose, delivered out 
 to Mr. Harting the paper in question ; and whether that paper be 
 the representative of any other which previously existed, or whether 
 it were then created for the first time, a we are wholly unable to 
 suggest. 1 " Now you will remember that Dr. Achilli says, though 
 he may possibly have thrown himself upon the mercy of the Court, 
 he never was charged with the offences set forth in the judgment, 
 but the accusation was confined to heresy ; whereas this document 
 states, that he having been examined by judicial functionaries, con- 
 fessed himself guilty of immorality. You will observe that this 
 document was obtained in September, 1851, and the pleas were 
 filed in February this year ; so that first this document is pro- 
 cured, in which this is inserted, which is to be used as the confession 
 of Dr. Achilli ; then in this document are found the different 
 charges contained in the pleas ; and then, lastly, the proof of the 
 pleas is referred back to the judgment ! c And observe, the judgment 
 states that he is " to be imprisoned in one of the houses of his order," 
 though, in 1839, he had completed his secularization, and was a monk 
 of no order at all. That, no doubt, is not conclusive, but it surely 
 is a circumstance worthy of consideration in connection with the 
 other facts which are stated in the judgment, and with the reliance 
 which we can place upon those facts. His lordship has said that this 
 document is not evidence of the facts it sets forth, and rather inti- 
 mated that if he had more narrowly examined it, he might not have 
 admitted it at all. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. I said it was evidenced that a sentence was 
 pronounced, not of the facts it recited, and which are simply stated 
 by the notary as the result of his examination.* 1 I think I must 
 take it as evidence of such a sentence having been pronounced ! 
 
 The Attorney General. Gentlemen, considering the course which 
 
 y The authentication or exemplification of a copy by a court is of more force 
 than that of any private person. See Gilbert on Evidence, cited ante (Notes on 
 judgment). 
 
 1 If there were forgery, what could be the value of any examination by the 
 witness ? 
 
 Is not the suggestion of forgery, as it is without the semblance of a reason, 
 unscrupulous ? and was it not utterly unjustifiable in law ? See Notes on judg- 
 ment, ante. 
 
 b Then why suggest so shocking an insinuation ? 
 
 c If this do not imply that there was a conspiracy, forgery, and perjury, it was 
 nonsense ; and any one who heard Sir Frederic, could not question the meaning 
 he wished to convey to the jury. 
 
 d For this monstrous misrepresentation, there not only is not the slightest pre- 
 tence, but it is utterly in opposition to the whole tenor of the document, which 
 speaks of their eminences' examination, not of the notary. The officer only 
 certifies that their eminences had considered and adjudged ; and the Secretary of 
 State certifies that there is such a court with such a jurisdiction, and with such 
 an officer, and with such a seal.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 193 
 
 Dr. Achilii had pursued up to 1841, in gradually breaking off from 
 the Roman Catholic Church, I don't think I am interested in 
 contending that the Holy Inquisition did not pronounce this 
 sentence against him. 6 But, as to the other matters the docu- 
 ment sets forth, I maintain that it is a scandalous fabrication ! f 
 and that there is not a pretence for any of these charges, of which 
 this is to be made the foundation. 
 
 Gentlemen, with confidence I say, that on all the other matters 
 Dr. Achilii is absolved and acquitted ; and he now stands before 
 you, ready to receive your verdict, anticipating, with entire con- 
 fidence, that the verdict will be one which will clear his character, 
 and vindicate him from the foul slanders which Dr. Newman has 
 thought proper to promulgate against him, and pronounce a con- 
 demnation upon Dr. Newman, upon which he may be answerable to 
 the law. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have now gone through, with anxiety, with the 
 deepest interest, and with a consciousness of my own inability to do 
 justice to the case, the various matters in this case, but with a 
 firm confidence in your deliberate judgment, which, I trust, will be 
 found justified by the result of the case. I appeal to you, whether 
 I have, in any way, endeavoured to excite any prejudice ;% whether 
 I have not endeavoured to detach this anxious and painful inquiry 
 from all those religious considerations h in which it has been said to 
 be involved. 
 
 Gentlemen, I have represented to you the cause of a man, who, 
 under unprecedented and unparalleled difficulties, has, I may say, 
 been called before you (because it was impossible for him not to 
 challenge his accuser to substantiate the truth of his statements in a 
 court of justice) to answer for a considerable period of his life, on 
 charges of a most serious description, and which necessarily, from 
 their nature, are complicated with one another. I have endeavoured 
 to disentangle them from the complexity in which they are involved. 
 I have been anxious that your duty should be discharged in the way 
 my lord desires, by a specific application of your minds to each 
 distinct particular charge in succession. And, notwithstanding the 
 formidable character of my task, I trust that, at all events, I have 
 
 e Here for once the Attorney General forgot. He forgot his client had 
 sworn that he never was sentenced to deprivation at all. See his affidavit and his 
 evidence ! 
 
 f There can be no doubt, now, as to the Attorney General's intention to make 
 these shocking and unscrupulous suggestions of criminality in some of the most 
 venerable and virtuous men in Europe, whom even Lord Campbell was com- 
 pelled to say were men of " learning and piety." Did the Attorney General 
 believe what he suggested ? If not, is this the morality of the English bar, of 
 which he is ex qfficio the leader ? 
 
 The audacity of this is almost amusing, just after imputing a conspiracy to 
 suborn perjury to the heads of the Catholic Church, and after insinuating that 
 Catholics were by reason of their religion peculiarly addicted to perjury. 
 
 h See his previous references to "auricular confession" and " transubstan- 
 tiation." 
 
 o
 
 194 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 performed my duty fairly ; that I have not confused any statement* 
 which have been made on the part of the witnesses, or misrepresented 
 any single fact which has been proved in evidence before you, 
 I am sure, the more this case is sifted tlie better will it be for 
 Dr. Achilli ; the more light that can be thrown 'upon it, the more 
 the truth will appear ; and I am desirous that no part of it should 
 escape from your most minute and careful examination. It is a 
 perilous issue which awaits him, and I rejoice, with confidence, in 
 the force of truth, in the circumstances by which he is enabled to 
 show it, and I trust this case to your impartial determination. 
 
 The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. Gentlemen of the jury, I am sure 
 you will devote your earnest attention to this case, and consider 
 it with the utmost impartiality. Gentlemen, some apprehension 
 has been expressed that you might be biassed by difference of 
 religion. Of that I sincerely believe there is not the remotest 
 chance ! i even if you were all Protestants. Even had the 
 credit of the Protestant religion been at stake, I am sure you 
 would give a verdict founded upon the evidence before you. 
 But I cannot see how it can be said that in this case the credit 
 of the Protestant religion is at all involved. The character of 
 Dr. Achilli is at stake in the deepest manner ; but the charges 
 which are imputed to him took place when he was still of the 
 Roman Catholic religion, J and I cannot see how it could affect the 
 Protestant faith that there should have been a Roman Catholic 
 priest, who pretended to come over to the Protestant persuasion, 
 and who deserves no credit for his professions. Then, as to 
 Dr. Newman, there is no danger of his being looked upon by you 
 unfavourably, though he has left the Protestant religion, and is now 
 of the Church of Rome. Gentlemen, no doubt he has acted from 
 the purest motives, and I give him credit for the course he has 
 adopted. What I dislike to see is, clergymen (if there be any 
 such) remaining in the Protestant Church, who, while they are 
 Roman Catholics in heart, and wish to be so in their practice, 
 remain in the Protestant Church ; k but when a man of piety, 
 honour, and education 1 (like Dr. Newman), feels that he does not 
 belong to the Church of England, and resigns his position in that 
 
 1 The first thing the judge does is to try and destroy all the effect of the 
 powerful appeal made to them by the defendant's counsel, to discard prejudice, 
 by assuring them that there was not the least danger of any prejudice. Acting 
 on that assurance, they would of course make no effort to discard it, nor feel the 
 least distrust of their predispositions. 
 
 J The jury would not be so blind as not to see that Achilli had been rather 
 a Protestant ever since 1829, at least ; and he says so in substance himself. 
 
 k No allusion to the admission of Achilli, that he had for so many years retained 
 the emoluments of a Church he believed an imposture. Yet did not this go to 
 his credit ? 
 
 The jury had read Lord Campbell's insinuations of the possibility of a con- 
 spiracy to suborn perjury. The next sentence actually assumes the whole ques- 
 t.on not only of Dr. Newman's legal but moral guilt.
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 195 
 
 Church, and all the advantages arising from it, there is no reason to 
 cast any imputation upon him. 
 
 Gentlemen, I, however, must say that Dr. Newman, in attacking 
 Dr. Achilli as he has done, has acted rashly and recklessly, even 
 though he might well believe in the truth of what he said. m He 
 has asserted a number of things of which he could have no per- 
 sonal knowledge, and as to which he might be mistaken. At 
 this juncture, I must do him the justice to say, that when an appli- 
 cation was made for this rule, he acted with perfect propriety, and 
 at once stepped forward. 
 
 This being a criminal information, filed by the authority of this 
 Court, I may explain, all that the Court says by permitting it to 
 issue is, that there are reasonable grounds for bringing the case 
 before a jury. 
 
 Gentlemen, as to the libel, there seems to be no doubt that the 
 statements made by Dr. Newman aft'ecting Dr. Achilli amount to 
 a libel, for it contains imputations on the character of Dr. Achilli ; 
 and there is nothing in the occasion of making these charges which 
 would exempt Dr. Newman from the responsibility which ordi- 
 narily attaches to any one who makes such charges. n 
 
 Gentlemen, two pleas have been placed upon record, the first is 
 " Not guilty ; " and there can be no doubt that your verdict upon 
 that plea must be for the prosecutor, because Dr. Newman admits 
 the publication ; and it will be for you to say whether this is a libel, 
 t. 0., containing criminatory charges against the prosecutor. 
 
 Formerly that would have been the only question to determine ; 
 but now the law is altered ; and those who were charged with libel 
 have an opportunity of alleging in justification that they have stated 
 the truth, and were actuated by laudable motives. I am happy to 
 believe that this is a great improvement in our jurisprudence, for it 
 has taken away the reproach embodied in the saying, " The greater 
 the truth the greater the libel." Now if the truth be established 
 there can be no blame, but rather commendation for speaking the 
 truth. 
 
 There is, therefore, a plea of justification on the record ; and it 
 will be for you to say, on the evidence before you, whether the 
 various imputations justified in the second plea by Dr. Newman have 
 been established. As to some of those imputations, hardly any 
 
 ra Was not this a rash and reckless assertion in a judge, who had it in evidence 
 that a year and a half before Dr. Newman published bis lecture, Cardinal Wiseman 
 (as Achilli knew) had published a circumstantial statement of every one of the 
 charges (citing official documents), and that this had not been legally answered ; 
 and who, moreover, had heard witnesses depose to some of the charges as having 
 rome before public courts : and had in evidence a judgment of the Inquisition, 
 reciting Achilli's confession, which also is referred to by the Cardinal, and had 
 doubtless been seen by him, and probably by Dr. Newman ? Was it not unjust, 
 after such evidence, for the judge to tell the jury the defendant had no fair 
 foundation for making his charges ? Must not this have biassed the jury ? 
 
 " Sed quaere. See the Introduction. 
 
 o 2
 
 196 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 proof has been adduced, while upon others most serious evidence 
 has been offered ; and it will be for you to say whether you believe 
 that evidence, and whether you consider the allegations established. 
 You will be furnished with a copy of the twenty-three charges ; and 
 I shall ask you whether all or any, and if any, which of them, be 
 in your opinion proved. 
 
 Gentlemen, you can hardly recollect all the evidence which has 
 been adduced in support of some of the most material of these 
 charges ; and I should not be satisfied to leave you to come to a 
 conclusion without reading over to you the whole of the evidence, 
 with a few observations which may suggest themselves to me, merely 
 for your assistance, advising you to form your own opinion, and not 
 in the slightest degree to be influenced by anything I say, except 
 so far as you may concur in them. I think that, after the eloquent 
 speeches we have heard, and which have done the highest credit to 
 the English bar, you cannot come to a calm and satisfactory con- 
 clusion without hearing the evidence again. 
 
 Now there is no direct evidence respecting the five first charges,? 
 as to his being deprived of his faculty to lecture, &c. ; and the evi- 
 dence begins with the sixth charge, relating to Elena Valente. If you 
 believe her evidence, that charge is substantiated. But, at the 
 same time, there are improbabilities in her story, 1 and, so far as I 
 observe, it is unconfirmed. r If you believe her, however, 8 her 
 evidence is sufficient. (Here the learned judge read his notes of 
 her evidence ; and when he read the sentence, " I saw the curate," 
 he observed) You must not be swayed by these peculiarities in a 
 Catholic country; she might very innocently see her curate before 
 she came. (After reading the answer as to not telling any one, he 
 observed) This is a remarkable thing ! She made no complaint 
 to her parents ! i (After concluding the evidence, laying emphatic 
 stress on the words " The curate told me it was for the glory of 
 God and the honour of mother Church," he said, shaking his head 
 most incredulously) Gentlemen, these are extraordinary circum- 
 stances ! but you must decide ! The next witness called does 
 
 Including the Attorney General's unscrupulous imputations, of course. 
 
 p Let the reader refer to the evidence, and judge how far this is so. 
 
 What were they ? The learned judge could point out none. He shook his 
 head, however, so solemnly and gravely, that he implied the most utter unworthi- 
 ness of credit. It is not only what he said, though that, it is conceived, was 
 enough to destroy any chance of a fair trial, even with a fair jury, but the way in 
 which he said it. 
 
 r She was confirmed by Achilli himself in his cross-examination, to which 
 Lord Campbell does not refer. 
 
 s Another shake of the head. 
 
 ' Did Lord Campbell ever hear of a girl seduced complaining to her 
 parents ? Would anything but a sense of religious obligation, and the belief in 
 the sacrament of penance, ever induce her to reveal her shame to any one ? 
 Would not her parents be precisely the last persons she would wish to know 
 of it ?
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL, 197 
 
 not confirm her, nor do I find any confirmation of her evi- 
 dence ! u 
 
 The next witness is the Rev. Mr. Giotti, who says (reading his 
 evidence), " I saw Rosa di Alessandris, and told her to come, but 
 she would not." Gentlemen, this deserves consideration ! No 
 doubt the means were afforded her to come. v 
 
 This, then, is all the evidence relating to Elena Valente, and 
 there is nothing in corroboration of her own evidence ! w 
 
 Then we come to the next witness, and to the most serious case of 
 all, that of Maria Principe, which deserves your most careful consi- 
 deration. It is clear that this is no recent invention, x for many 
 years ago this charge was brought against Dr. Achilli. It may 
 have been unfounded, but it is not a new invention. So far as 
 Elena Valente is concerned, there is nothing to show that it might 
 not now be brought against him for the first time ; but as to Maria 
 Principe, it is clear that complaints were made soon after the time 
 at which the outrage is supposed to have been committed. v She 
 says (reading her evidence), if you believe the mother, the com- 
 plaint was made to her by the daughter, and that immediately 
 Dr Achilli was charged with having seduced the girl. It is true 
 he denies it, but the charge he admits was brought against him im- 
 mediately. This is certainly evidence for your consideration, as 
 supporting the statements of the girl. z Dr. Achilli says, he never 
 applied to the police, but his friends did, and it is evident there had 
 been some scandal about it. a 
 
 u Here again wholly omitting to call attention to the cross-examination of 
 Achilli, who, after swearing he never saw her, and never was at the house of a 
 Madame Gentili, where she said she was at the time, confessed he had been at 
 the house, and at the very time. 
 
 T It is hardly credible that Lord Campbell should have forgotten the fact, 
 stated that she was ill, and in the family-way, and could not come. Yet his 
 manner implied that she would not come because she could not prove the charge 
 respecting herself. 
 
 w ' See the previous note as to this most monstrous mis-statement. 
 
 * Implying that others were, or might be. Is that a usual course for a 
 judge, without the least evidence, to assume and suggest that sworn evidence 
 may be false ? 
 
 y And Achilli left Naples just after the time the girl was delivered ! 
 
 z This is the fairest, the only fair portion of the charge, so far as the evidence 
 is concerned ; and it serves as a contrast to show the unfairness of the rest. Why 
 did not Lord Campbell at least allude to Achilli's cross-examination as to 
 Valente, as he did with respect to Principe. In this case, however, it is only an 
 allusion, and a very indistinct one. He does not notice the paper the girl pro- 
 duced. The circumstance that he used to make entries in the books about the 
 members of the confraternity, the extraordinary fact that he swore that he never 
 asked to see the girl who made such a charge, and other confirmations. He 
 could call the evidence of Valente simple, straightforward, and natural " extra- 
 ordinary," and shake his head at it; but did not say "extraordinary!" and 
 shake his head at the marvellous assertions of Achilli. 
 
 a Here he omits to mention Achilli's departure from Naples just after one 
 of the most pregnant and important facts of the trial ; and on which the whole 
 case as to the judgment of the Inquisition very much turns.
 
 198 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Gentlemen, we now come to the Corfu case ; and here I think 
 the evidence is not at all satisfactory. 1 * (He read the evidence as 
 to the Garamonis.) I think the evidence, to show the adultery, is 
 not at all satisfactory! Then there is the case of the Coribonis. 
 (He read the evidence, remarking on that of Mr. Reynolds.) 
 Gentlemen, this is a very extraordinary story ! He reports 
 that Dr. Achilli was living in adultery with this woman ; and that 
 still in the day time he could see them toying in this familiar 
 manner ! It is for you to consider the probability of this ! c It 
 is extraordinary that Dr. Achilli should have committed these inde- 
 cencies at an open window ! d It must be observed that Mr. Rey- 
 nolds certainly has been active in getting up the case ; e and the 
 letter he wrote to Lieutenant Stoney is worthy of being attended 
 to, where he says, " they are disposed to be very liberal ! " f You 
 saw the way in which Mr. Reynolds gave his evidence, and it is 
 for you to say what credit you attach to it. 
 
 Gentlemen, we now come to the charge as to Malta, which is, in 
 substance, that Dr. Achilli sent away Saccares to prevent inquiry 
 respecting his misconduct and immorality. No doubt he sent him 
 away ; it is for you to say whether it was from improper motives. 
 (His lordship read the evidence.) Gentlemen, I do not think that 
 the evidence makes out the charge that Dr. Achilli was dismissed 
 on the ground of immorality, or complicity in immorality. With 
 respect to the conversation spoken of by Dr. Bonavia, no doubt it 
 is very discreditable to Dr. Achilli if it ever occurred ; but the 
 witness never mentioned it to any one before he came over on this 
 
 P.J1.SP " 
 
 b Here is a downright destruction of a whole case, supported by the concur- 
 rent testimony of three witnesses, supported by documentary evidence, and 
 confirmed not only by the prosecutor, but by the inconsistency between his 
 statements and those of the wife, who was his witness ! 
 
 c This seems somewhat of an extraordinary argument ! 
 
 d How is it Lord Campbell omitted to mention that Achilli swore to his 
 belief that he could not be seen from that window ! 
 
 e An utter assumption nay, a perfect perversion of the evidence ! Mr. Rey- 
 nolds had simply seen the case in the newspapers, as an honest man communicated 
 what he knew, and wrote to Stoney to tell what he knew ; took some subpoenas 
 in his pocket to a witness who lived near his destination ; and one morning, as he 
 spoke Italian, came down with the Italian witnesses ! These are good grounds 
 for a judge to discredit a gentleman of twenty-five years' standing in a govern- 
 ment office, whose evidence was confirmed by a young lady of unimpeachable 
 character, and indirectly confirmed by other evidence. 
 
 I It will scarcely be credited, but is the fact, that Lord Campbell, while adopt- 
 ing thus the dark suggestions of Achilli's counsel, as to bribing of evidence, said 
 not a syllable as to the explanation, and the disclosure that Stoney had refused 
 to come unless his full expenses were paid, which any witness has a right to 
 require ! This part of the charge is especially submitted to the consideration of 
 all who care for justice. 
 
 K Scroggs did not bully any witness more than Lord Campbell did Mr. Rey- 
 nolds, nor discredit any more recklessly than he did Dr. Bonavia. 
 
 II Why should he ? See note to his evidence.
 
 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 199 
 
 Gentlemen, as to the evidence of Harris, and the other female 
 servants, if you believe it, it shows great immorality ; it is for you 
 to say whether you believe it. (He read the evidence.) As to 
 Sarah Wood, it is remarkable she should have concealed it so long, 
 and disclosed it to no one ! still, it may be true. 
 
 Gentlemen, I need not read the evidence of Mr. Harting, which 
 I thought made the judgment of the Court of Inquisition admissible, 
 as it was only for iny information. Dr. Grant's evidence, also, is 
 immaterial, except as to the Court having jurisdiction over serious 
 moral offences. He is a most respectable witness, and says it has 
 such jurisdiction. The judgment comes in the name of the notary. ' 
 We generally have the proceedings of the judges to speak for them- 
 selves. Here you have the notary of the Inquisition, who says 
 he has inspected certain documents ; and then he gives us his own 
 result from his examination, so that the early part of it is rather in 
 the nature of a deposition or examination, than of a judgment. J 
 But then afterwards come words which distinctly amount to a 
 decree of the Court, because it is contained in these words : " Their 
 eminences the Inquisitors-General decreed," &c. k Now, gentlemen, 
 I think that is not only admissible evidence, but very strong evi- 
 dence, to prove that such a sentence was pronounced. Because, the 
 Court of Inquisition, no doubt, is a regular tribunal in the Roman 
 States, and is presided over by men of learning and piety. They 
 knew that this document was to be used in a court of justice in 
 England ; and I cannot suppose for a moment that they would wish 
 to impose upon us. 1 It is a supposition that we cannot entertain. We 
 cannot come to the conclusion that there has been such a fabri cation. m 
 That such a judgment was pronounced, I, for one, have no doubt. 
 But, then, for what cause it was pronounced is a different thing. 
 We should rather suppose it was heresy ! Dr. Achilli says it was, 
 and that no charge of immorality was brought up against him. It 
 is for you to say whether, looking at the whole document, you 
 believe it was heresy or immorality. It purports to recite a con- 
 fession of Dr. Achilli ; but that he denies. 
 
 They are always in this, and in every other country, certified by an officer. 
 Judges never draw up judgments, still less take copies. 
 
 J It states that depositions had been taken, and that Achilli had been examined 
 by the established authorities. 
 
 k This really is a flagrant misrepresentation. The document runs thus : 
 " After having weighed and considered, &c., and accepted the confession of the 
 accused (so recited), their reverences decree." It is all one sentence, which 
 Lord Campbell cut in two ! It is as though it had been written, " Their 
 eminences having weighed and considered, &c., and accepted the confession set 
 forth, decree," &c. 
 
 1 Then why did Lord Campbell permit the jury to believe that the reasons 
 which these eminent men certified in their judgment (one of them setting his seal 
 to the copy), were not the reasons of the judgment ? 
 
 m But he leaves them at liberty to assume the material part of it to have been 
 fabricated !
 
 200 IlEPOUT OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Mr. Badeley. I beg to call your lordship's attention to this, that 
 the nineteenth charge does not allege for what cause the judgment 
 was pronounced, but only that he was by the court suspended and 
 disabled. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. As I have already observed, I think that 
 allegation is sustained by the judgment produced. Gentlemen, 
 I now come to the examination of Dr. Achilli ; and I will repeat 
 what I said at the opening of the case, that the more natural course 
 was, that the accuser, who is prosecuted, should first come for- 
 ward and make out his charges, before the prosecutor appears for 
 examination. 11 (His Lordship read his notes of the examination, 
 observing on it as he went along.) It is proved that the charge as 
 to Garamoni's wife " came before the court," but not on the merits 
 of the case ; and there is no proof that Dr. Achilli was guilty. 
 
 Mr. Badeley. My Lord, the twenty-second charge states simply 
 that the name of Dr. Achilli came before the court on the charge. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. No doubt that allegation is supported, but 
 there is no proof of the guilt of Dr. Achilli. 
 
 Mr. Badeley. That is not alleged, my Lord, in this charge. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL continued his reading of the prosecutor's evi- 
 dence, and his comments. Gentlemen, there was an insinuation 
 that Dr. Achilli, as he had made a vow of celibacy, that it was 
 discreditable that he should have entered the holy estate of matri- 
 mony. We must remember, however, that Luther married, and 
 married a nun IP With regard to the Inquisition, Dr. Achilli 
 stated that it is not a court competent to adjudicate on questions of 
 immorality. But there he must be mistaken ; for Dr. Grant, who 
 is a canonist, well acquainted with the courts, says it has jurisdic- 
 tion over immorality. It should seem certainly more probable that 
 it should be heresy ! 1 
 
 Gentlemen, Dr. Achilli was cross-examined with great severity ; 
 and it was proper that he should be so. In the course of his cross- 
 examination, he was asked certain questions which he declined to 
 answer. r Now, that is pregnant matter for your consideration m 
 
 n On a criminal information, the object of which is to clear character ? Then, 
 how is it the Court has always required the prosecutor to enter fully into the case 
 on affidavit, and deny, and as far as he can, disprove, the charges, before even a 
 rule nisi is issued ? 
 
 It would be curious to know how the jury reconciled it to their consciences 
 to find this issue against Dr. Newman. The document was produced (see ante), 
 with Achilli's name in it, in connection with the charge ! This may serve as a 
 specimen of the conscientiousness of a " British jury," and the moral value of 
 this verdict. It was in flagrant defiance of the facts ! 
 
 P Which the Lord Chief Justice clearly thought one of his main merits. 
 ' Here is a British judge putting his own misinformed notions, and encouraging 
 the jury to put theirs, in opposition to sworn evidence ! 
 
 1 When Fenwick, on his trial, asked Titus Gates if he had not forsworn 
 himself, by declaring that he came over to England with Hilsley, Scroggs inter- 
 posed, and decided that could not be urged, as Oates had not been convicted of
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 201 
 
 From his declining to answer, one may not unfairly suppose that in 
 some cases he had erred in point of chastity, 3 and that may afford 
 some ground for presuming that he might have done so in other 
 cases. I must, however, point out for your consideration, that so 
 far as his credit goes, this is rather in confirmation of it, for it would 
 have been easy to eay no ; and he declines to do so. You will 
 consider whether this does not raise him in your estimation as 
 regards his credibility as a witness. 4 Gentlemen, I have now gone 
 through the whole of the evidence, and leave the case in your 
 hauds. u 
 
 His lordship then directed the jury to be furnished with an 
 abstract of the plea of justification, and asked them to say whether 
 they found any of the allegations proved, and, if so, which of 
 them ? He had done his duty in the case, and he was sure that 
 they would do theirs. 
 
 The jury then (at about about half-past eight) retired. They did 
 not return into court until eleven o'clock. 
 
 On their return it was asked, " Are you agreed on your verdict ?" 
 
 The Foreman. Yes; on the nineteenth charge we find proved. 
 All the rest we find not proved. (Sensation and partial cheering.) 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. The nineteenth charge respects Dr. Achilli's 
 being deprived of his professorship and prohibited from preaching and 
 hearing confession. You find that to be proved ? 
 
 The Foreman. Yes, my Lord, proved. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. And you find none of the other allegations 
 proved ? 
 
 The Foreman and several of the Jurors. No, none of the others, 
 (Here some of the people in the court, 7 beginning to understand the 
 verdict, burst out into a vigorous cheer, which no one attempted 
 to suppress.) 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. With regard, then, to the plea of not guilty. 
 The first plea is not guilty. You see that involves the publication, 
 and the question whether it was of a libellous nature. 
 
 perjury. The decision Lord Campbell gave as to the questions put to Achilli, 
 is precisely a parallel, and was by no means the worst he gave. 
 
 5 Rather a mild way of putting it ! The man was asked at every place of 
 residence if he could deny having committed criminal acts ; and he was a priest 
 and a monk ! But that probably made them meritorious in the eyes of Lord 
 Campbell and a common jury. 
 
 ' Not in the least. As he could not truly deny the charges he would be deterred 
 by dread of indictment for perjury. The eagerness with which Lord Camp- 
 bell laid hold of this fallacious argument to uphold Achilli 's credit, strikingly 
 shows what an overwhelming influence was at work in his mind. It never 
 occurred to him to observe what a confirmation there was of the credit of the 
 other witnesses against Achilli. Nay, he had declared then- evidence uncon- 
 firmed, or " extraordinary." 
 
 1 The best comment, after all, on this " charge," is a remark of a barrister 
 who heard it : " Another reply on the part of the prosecution !" 
 
 v Most of them of the coarser sort : the better portion of the audience had long 
 left, well knowing what the verdict would be, and too disgusted to wait for it.
 
 202 REPORT OP THE TRIAL. 
 
 A Juror. Not guilty. That's what we find. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. No, understand me. The first plea is not 
 guilty ; and that involves the question whether it is proved that the 
 defendant published this alleged libel, and whether it be libellous. 
 Do not mind the truth of the charges at all. As to this, say only 
 on that do you find him guilty ; and that it was of a libellous 
 nature ? 
 
 The Foreman. Yes, guilty. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. On that you find him guilty. There is then 
 a verdict for the Crown on that. Then we come to the justification ; 
 and on the justification you find that the only part of it which is 
 proved is the nineteenth, respecting Dr. Achilli being deprived of 
 his professorship, and prohibited from preaching, and from hearing 
 confession. 
 
 A Juror. Yes, that is the verdict. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. Wait a moment ; and let me see. That is 
 (after a pause), you find that that is true which is alleged in the 
 decree of the Inquisition, as far as that decree goes ? 
 
 A Juror. Yes. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. So far as that decree goes. You don't find as 
 to the reasons for the decree, but as to the decree itself ? 
 
 The Foreman. Yes, only that. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. Very well. Then you find it to be true that 
 Dr. Achilli was suspended from the celebration of mass, prohibited 
 from any cure of souls, and from preaching, and from hearing con- 
 fession, and from exercising his sacerdotal office in any way, accord- 
 ing to the decree of the Inquisition. And all the rest you find not 
 to be proved ? 
 
 The Foreman. Not to our satisfaction.* 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. Very well. Then on the justification I direct 
 a verdict to be entered for the Crown, on that issue as well as on 
 the plea of not guilty ; and that special finding I, of course, will 
 report to the Court when necessary. (Here again a loud cheer was 
 given by the thronged court.) I now discharge you, gentlemen, 
 from your attendance, and beg to thank you. (Renewed cheers.) 
 
 A Juror. I beg your Lordship to understand that we did not 
 consider this case as regards Protestantism and Catholicism. We 
 only looked at it as a matter of fact. 
 
 Lord CAMPBELL. Oh, I am sure you have dealt with it con- 
 scientiously. x 
 
 w The writer is informed, that one of the jurors, being asked bow he came 
 to give such a verdict, said, " Oh, we believed him guilty, but we were not 
 satisfied." What this meant may be inferred from the answer of another " that 
 they were afraid of the consequences." Such is trial by jury ! And with such 
 tribunals in this country, Lord Campbell thanks God we have no Court of Inqui- 
 sition ! composed of ecclesiastics, whom he acknowledged as eminent for 
 " learning and piety." Perhaps the people of Italy may thank God they have 
 nat such judges and juries ! 
 
 1 Scroggs, at the trial of Coleman, said to the jury " \ou have acted like very
 
 REPORT OF THE TRIAL. 203 
 
 Another hearty cheer was now given, which the learned judge 
 did not for a moment attempt to check. 
 
 Some conversation took place between his lordship, the jury/ and 
 the learned counsel, respecting the fees to be paid to the jury. All 
 parties agreed that it was a " hard case ;" but his lordship said he 
 had no power to grant anything like an indemnity, and, accordingly, 
 only the customary nominal fee was paid to each juryman. Imme- 
 diately afterwards the assemblage dispersed. 
 
 good Christians, and very good subjects ; that is, like very good Protestants." 
 Those good Protestants gave verdicts which every one now regards as judicial 
 murders ; and the reader will judge whether the eulogy of Lord Chief Justice 
 Campbell was worth more than that of Lord Chief Justice Scroggs. The Spec- 
 tator says : " It was a right Protestant jury. The public found it impossible 
 to disbelieve all the mass of evidence in justification of the libel ; but the jury 
 laboured under no such judicial scruple. There is a way out of every difficulty ; 
 and the jury, ably instructed how to pick and choose what to see, think, and 
 believe, proved apt pupils. They disclaimed all consideration of the question of 
 Catholic or Protestant ; but, if the case is not a beautiful example of honourable 
 adhesion to the ' subauditum,' it is a still more perfect specimen of instinctive 
 sympathy. They found that the nineteenth article against Achilli was proved 
 but, with a mental reservation which they were admirably assisted to develop, 
 they accepted the evidence of the note from the Inquisition to prove that Achilli 
 had been permanently suspended from his functions in the Romish Church ; but 
 they rejected the same evidence so far as it testified to the reasons of his sus- 
 pension the scandalous and notorious incontinence of his life." The case, how- 
 ever, is far stronger than is stated here. The Lord Chief Justice almost said 
 they ought to find the charge as to Principe proved ; and did say that one of the 
 charges as to Garamoni's wife was proved. On these two serious charges, then, 
 the verdict was even against the opinion of the judge. With respect to the cases 
 of the women who came forward, the reader will judge whether the verdict was 
 against the evidence. As to the other cases (especially those of women whose 
 names were unknown), and also as to the charges of general immorality, infidelity, 
 and irregularity, the reader will judge whether the verdict was against the prose- 
 cutor's own acknowledgments. They are particularly requested to remark that 
 it is charged that he caused scandal by visiting private houses, and not frequent- 
 ing choir, &c., and otherwise not observing the rules of a religious life, and to refer 
 to the admissions in his own book, and his own evidence as to those and all the 
 other charges. 
 
 y A special jury are entitled to a fee of one guinea. Most of the special jurors 
 in this case, however, were really of the common jury class. They are called 
 " merchants," because the special juries can only be taken from the names so 
 designated (or as bankers or esquires) in the jury lists, which are made up by 
 the churchwardens and overseers ; and no mistake in the designation can be 
 remedied, except on application of the party, or upon notice to him a trouble 
 no one is likely to take ; so that, practically, all the ordinary sort of tradesmen 
 are classed as " merchants." See 6 Geo. IV. c. 50.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The following extracts from the able articles in the Times and 
 Chronicle are inserted, as showing public opinion upon the trial : 
 
 "It is a great thing, no doubt, that in Protestant England the prin- 
 ciple embodied in the national faith should triumph over its Roman 
 Catholic adversaries ; but it is a still greater thing that justice should 
 be administered with purity and impartiality that the landmarks of 
 the law should not be transgressed and that no feelings but those of 
 the calmest and highest morality should sway the decisions, or intrude 
 into the proceedings, of our courts. We cannot afford to buy controver- 
 sial success at the price of our reputation for a calm and immaculate 
 administration of justice, or to subvert the rules upon which testimony 
 is received and estimated, to satisfy a predilection, or to appease an an- 
 tipathy. Time was when, amid the cheers of a brutal multitude, on 
 the faith of the impossible and self-contradictory evidence of Gates, 
 Bedloe, and Dangerfield, English juries consigned innocent men to 
 death, and received from the judge the shameful commendation that 
 they had acted like good Protestants. Has the lapse of 170 years 
 entirely removed us from those narrow prejudices and cruel partialities 
 which in the days of the Popish plot poisoned the pure fountains of 
 justice, and affixed an indelible stigma on the character of a nation not 
 habitually unfair or inhuman? Will the opinion of the educated 
 classes in this country, and of the great European community, ratify 
 the verdict of a jury which absolved Dr. Achilli from every taint and 
 stain, and seemed to aim at placing him on a higher pinnacle of moral 
 purity than even he arrogated to himself. 
 
 " But thus much we say, that Dr. Newman undertook to prove 
 certain acts of incontinence, and produced persons from a vast 
 number of different places to speak to acts ranging over a long period of 
 time, of which, if their statement was believed, they had the most com- 
 
 Elete knowledge. These witnesses did not break down, were not involved 
 i any material contradiction, and stated nothing in which there was 
 any strong antecedent improbability. Many of them made contem- 
 porary statements of the injuries thev had received, and those state- 
 ments and their consequent investigation were followed on more than 
 one occasion by a change of residence on the part of Dr. Achilli. In 
 one instance, that of the wife of Coriboni, two respectable witnesses 
 proved that Dr. Achilli was seen in circumstances denoting undue 
 familiarity with a person whom he chose to retain in his service after 
 having been warned that she was a common prostitute, testimony which 
 the Attorney General could find no other way of neutralizing than by 
 suggesting that they had mistaken him for her husband in the broad 
 daylight. Wherever he bent his steps, scandal, either justly or unjustly, 
 seems to have followed him. The police at Naples, and the Inquisition 
 at Rome, the Bishops' Court at Viterbo, and the Courts of Corfu all 
 seem to have had more or less to do with him, and all for the same
 
 APPENDIX. 205 
 
 alleged propensity, and after a short residence in England we find a 
 number of women ready to bring the same charges against him. Now 
 stopped in a procession at Naples by a clamorous mother, now dogged 
 at Corfu by a jealous tailor, now solemnly remonstrated with by mem- 
 bers of his congregation on account of his maidservant, he is the most 
 unfortunate of men if all these charges have been trumped up without 
 substantial foundation. The charges can neither be ascribed to Roman 
 Catholic nor Protestant malignity, for they began when he was of the 
 one religion, and continued when he was of the other. Roman Catholics 
 accused him while he was a Roman Catholic, and Protestants while he 
 was a Protestant, and always of the same thing. He himself declines 
 to attest his chastity by an oath, and thus seems to admit that if the 
 prosecution succeeds it is because Dr. Newman has selected the wrong 
 instances, not because he has charged an untrue offence. The sentence 
 of the Inquisition, moreover, solemnly recites under respectable attesta- 
 tion his own confession and submission in Italian, and his conversa- 
 tion with Dr. Bonovia clearly shows how lightly he held the offence of 
 which he was accused. Against these positive statements, these accu- 
 mulative and corroborative probabilities, and these dangerous admis- 
 sions, there is nothing to be set except the denial of Dr. Achilli, adhered 
 to with steadiness and pertinacity under a long but not very skilful 
 cross-examination a denial which amounts to little more than a 
 repetition of the affidavit upon which the criminal information was 
 granted. If no amount of evidence could outweigh Dr. Achilli's denial 
 on oath, the solemn proceedings of the trial were a hollow mockery ; 
 and if it could, it is difficult to conceive what testimony the jury 
 could have expected. Many of the witnesses were poor ; but it is 
 among the poor that the profligates seek their victims. They could not 
 be corroborated as to the fact, for that is a matter of secresy ; they were 
 not discredited, they were not broken down, they were simply put aside 
 and disbelieved. The principle upon which this case was decided would 
 put an end to all proof by human testimony. If we are to require pub- 
 licity in matters whose very essence is secrecy, virtue in witnesses the 
 very nature of whose confession degrades them, and confessions by the 
 accused of what even worldly influence binds them to deny, we may 
 shut up our courts of justice, proclaim impunity for crime, or use 
 ordeals and divinations as a substitute for the investigation we have 
 rejected. 
 
 " If there is to he no presumption in favour of assertions attested by 
 oath, no public writer can venture, should the public interest as was 
 admitted in the case of Dr. Newman by the prosecuting counsel ever 
 so imperiously require it, to make statements, however well founded, 
 criminatory of the character of another. Who can hope to be believed 
 when such a mass of evidence has been flung aside as worthless ? We 
 consider that a great hlow has been given to the administration of jus- 
 tice in this country, and Roman Catholics will have henceforth 
 only too good reason for asserting, that there is no justice for them in 
 cases tending to arouse the Protestant feelings of judges and juries. 
 
 " We wish we could conclude our observations on this case without 
 saying anything calculated to imply a censure on the jury or the judge, 
 under whose auspices they have, it seems to us, so signally miscarried. 
 From the time when one of them objected to the exclusion of Dr. Achilli 
 from the court, and another to the searching and reasonable question as 
 to his general chastity, which he did not find it expedient to answer, till 
 the faltering announcement, preceded and followed by unchecked ap-
 
 206 APPENDIX, 
 
 plause, that the justification was not proved to their satisfaction, there 
 is every reason to think that the case was not viewed by the jury with 
 complete impartiality and absence of sectarian feeling. 
 
 " We have every respect for the high judicial character and attain- 
 ments of Lord Campbell, and it is, therefore, with great regret we find 
 him, in a case of so much delicacy and excitement, drawing attention 
 to the Ecclesiastical Titles' Act, "thanking God" that "we have no 
 Inquisition in this country ;" and after he had been sufficiently ap- 
 plauded, renewing the remark that it might be applauded again, and 
 assuring the audience with grotesque solemnity, thatby admitting this 
 document he did so without the slightest degree of danger to the Pro- 
 testant religion of this country a discovery which was received by the 
 enthusiastic audience with a third round of cheers. We now take our 
 leave of this painful subject, trusting we may not soon again be called 
 upon to comment on proceedings so indecorous in their nature, so unsa- 
 tisfactory in their result so little calculated to increase the respect of 
 the people for the administration of justice, or the estimation by foreign 
 nations of the English name and character." Times. 
 
 " No judicial proceeding has, for a long time past, excited so much 
 interest as the present trial of the Queen v. Newman. 
 
 " It is but fair to admit that only an honest zeal and a deep con- 
 viction of the truth of his statements could have led Dr. Newman to 
 originate so dangerous an inquiry. No one will suspect him of being a 
 sharer in the conspiracy which, if we are to believe the verdict of the 
 jury, must have been organized. He has proved that his opinion of the 
 prosecutor's guilt was based on evidence abundantly convincing to his 
 own mind ; for, until the testimony of his witnesses was contradicted in 
 detail, it must have commanded the belief of all except those who may 
 be assumed to have suborned it. If the defendant should ever be called 
 up to receive sentence, the Court of Queen's Bench will, no doubt, 
 intimate, by its judgment, his entire innocence of any proceeding which 
 could give the prosecutor a reasonable ground of complaint. 
 
 " It is greatly to be regretted that Lord Campbell should have been 
 tempted to degrade his high position for the sake of an ill-timed and 
 indecorous burst of applause. 
 
 " Various opinions were expressed in court respecting the prosecutor 
 and the defendant ; but all the instructed part of the audience was of 
 one mind as to the conduct of the presiding judge. We make no com- 
 plaint against Lord Campbell's summing up, nor against any legal 
 decision which he pronounced. 2 In fact, the language which excited 
 
 1 The following letter appeared in the Chronicle of the 28th of June: " I 
 turn to the article in your paper, for the purpose of correcting an error into which 
 you seem to have fallen. You say, ' We make no complaint against Lord 
 Campbell's summing up, nor against any legal decision which he pronounced.' 
 Sir, I regret to say that very serious complaints are made both against the one 
 and against the other. His summing up was extremely partial, as well as im- 
 perfect ; for he made occasional observations upon portions of the evidence, as he 
 read it, as if the circumstances were improbable, or unconfirmed, and carefully 
 avoided all notice of the discrepancies between the testimony of Dr. Achilli him- 
 self and those very witnesses who were called to support him. No attempt was 
 made to balance the conflicting statements no observation offered upon the con- 
 sistency of the story which each of the defendant's witnesses had given no notice 
 taken of the remarkable fact, that not one of those witnesses had been shaken 
 upon cross-examination, or of the extreme improbability, not to say impossibility, 
 that so many could have been suborned from so many different places, and under
 
 APPENDIX. 20? 
 
 universal reprobation was wholly immaterial to the issue. The vulgar 
 obtuseness displayed in the fee'ble jest which was directed from the 
 bench against a Roman Catholic bishop, forms the only excuse for the 
 impropriety of a judge's addressing a political insult to a witness of 
 dignified position. 
 
 such a variety of circumstances as well as characters, to perjure themselves with- 
 out any assignable motive. Lord Campbell never called the attention of the jury 
 to the important, the convincing fact, that all these oaths of all these various wit- 
 nesses were only met in reality by the oath of Dr. Achilli himself ; nor did he 
 remind them of the far greater probability of perjury on the part of Dr. Achilli, 
 who had so deep an interest at stake, than on that of all the witnesses against him, 
 who had nothing to gain. His lordship asserted that the story of Elena Valente 
 was uncorroborated, but he totally suppressed Dr. Achilli's prevarication respect- 
 ing the family of Gentili, and the admissions which he had made confirmatory in 
 some measure of Elena Valente's evidence. He never commented upon the 
 secrecy with which such iniquities are usually committed, or upon the absolute 
 impossibility which must often exist of adducing corroborative proofs, even in 
 cases which have occurred recently, and in places close at hand, and much 
 more in one the date of which was so distant, and the scene so far removed. 
 With respect to the case of Garamoni, he wholly omitted to point out the extra- 
 ordinary and palpable contradictions which there were between the statement made 
 by Madame Garamoni and that of Dr. Achilli contradictions so utterly irrecon- 
 cileable that one or the other of these persons must necessarily have spoken falsely ; 
 and in adverting to the case of Coriboni and his wife, Lord Campbell took care 
 to dwell upon the points which he thought calculated to discredit the testimony of 
 Mr. Reynolds, but said as little as possible of the evidence of Madame Lavanchy, 
 although her evidence was unimpeached, and was a plain and positive confirma- 
 tion of that of Mr. Reynolds. 
 
 " These, and many other observations, might be made upon Lord Campbell's 
 summing up, which would justify the strongest complaints against it as neither 
 able nor impartial calculated neither to assist the jury, if they had been anxious 
 to ascertain the truth, nor to do justice between the parties, nor to save the wit- 
 nesses from unjust and unreasonable imputations. As to his lordship's decision 
 upon the legal points submitted to him, considerable doubt is felt as to the cor- 
 rectness of the view which he took of the judgment of the Court of Inquisition. 
 He allowed that the document was properly authenticated, and admissible as legal 
 evidence ; he even stated that it would be absurd to suppose that the contents of 
 that document had been fabricated, or that those who certified it were capable of 
 misrepresentation ; but yet he declined to take judicial notice of the first part of 
 it, while he adopted the last, and treited the sentence as valid, without any regard 
 either to the acts of profligacy on the part of Dr. Achilli, or to Dr. Achilli's own 
 confession of those acts, upon which the sentence professed to be founded. But 
 if this instrument was available in one part, why not in another ? The whole of 
 it rested upon the same authentication each portion was vouched by the same 
 authority and if credit was to be given, by the comity of nations, to the act of 
 the foreign court in passing such a sentence, why not to the grounds upon which 
 they passed it, those grounds being plainly set forth, and there being direct evi- 
 dence that the matters were within the jurisdiction of that tribunal ? The law of 
 England usually treats the judgment of a foreign court as conclusive upon the 
 points upon which it professes to decide, when those points are proved to have 
 been within the court's jurisdiction, and there is no palpable error or incon- 
 sistency upon the face of it. Dr. Achilli, indeed, had the hardihood to deny, not 
 only that he was charged with such offences before the Inquisition, but even 
 that they were within the jurisdiction of that court a point upon which he 
 received a direct contradiction from Bishop Grant, a witness whose character 
 and whose testimony were alike unimpeachable. Dr. Acbilli, however, 
 went a little too far, for he swore positively that no such sentence had been 
 pronounced against him, and that he had never been deprived of his sacerdotal
 
 208 APPENDIX. 
 
 " A graver breach of propriety was committed when evidence was 
 offered of the judgment pronounced on the prosecutor by the Inqui- 
 sition. The document produced was a copy of the proceedings of that 
 court, and the only dispute was as to its formal sufficiency ' Thank 
 God,' was the remark which the Lord Chief Justice interposed at this 
 point, * Thank God, we have not in this country a tribunal of Inqui- 
 sition.' Of course, the expected cheers of an ultra-Protestant audience 
 greeted this irrelevant appeal to their prejudices." Morning Chronicle. 
 
 functions, although the very court which had sentenced him certified that he 
 had, and if his oath was of so little value (as the jury themselves have told us) as 
 to this latter statement, what is its worth as to the former ? And as he had denied 
 the wicked deeds with which he was charged by Dr. Newman, and which appeared 
 to be, in parts at least, the same as those to which his confession related, why 
 should that confession, which was set forth at length in the judgment, have been 
 excluded from the jury, as a piece of evidence which they were not entitled to 
 consider ? The whole document ought to have been submitted to them, each 
 part of it being connected with the other, and the whole being equally denied by 
 the wholesale abnegations of Dr. Achilli. So much for Lord Campbell's " legal 
 decision ;" and it may, I think, be gravely doubted whether in this respect he 
 was not wrong in law. But whatever may be the legal value of this document 
 in all its parts, of its moral value there can be no doubt, and no doubt Dr. New- 
 man found in it a justification for exposing the conduct of this man, " the 
 accuser of his brethren," who comes forward, as his counsel tells us, only to vin- 
 dicate his character from the charge of profligacy ; and yet, when he is asked, in 
 open court, respecting his immorality with other women than those whose names 
 were specified in the pleadings, declines to answer the inconvenient question, and 
 shelters himself under the protection of the Court ? And this is the man who 
 has been put forward as their champion by the Evangelical Alliance who has 
 been paraded upon platforms, and lauded in pamphlets who is to be regarded 
 as basely calumniated when assailed by Dr. Newman, but as the witness of un- 
 doubted truth when he publishes a book which treats with profane scoffing the 
 most solemn ordinances of the religion of the great majority of the Christian 
 world, and abuses with the most insolent ribaldry and the coarsest imputations, 
 not only the pope himself, but all those also whom he found it convenient 
 to attack. 
 
 " Sir, I regret to think that this trial will fix a lasting stain upon the annals of 
 our judicial proceedings. It tells Roman Catholics that they must not hope for 
 impartial justice from a Presbyterian judge or a Protestant jury ; for I am sorry 
 to say that not only was the judge thus unmindful of his dignity and his duty, 
 but the jury showed, to all who observed their demeanour, the bias which from 
 first to last they felt in favour of the prosecutor. Such, indeed, was the con- 
 duct of some of them, that, if reports are true, it was a subject of grave consi- 
 deration with Dr. Newman's counsel whether it might not become his duty to 
 throw down his brief, and refuse to submit to the farce of arguing before men 
 who seemed scarcely anxious to conceal their determination to decide against 
 him. Happily, however, the evidence which was laid before them has been also 
 laid before the public ; and whatever advantage Dr. Achilli may fancy that he 
 has gained by the verdict of these jurymen, he will find that, in the judgment of 
 an impartial public, his single and interested oath will not outweigh the testi- 
 mony of a host of disinterested witnesses, uncontradicted by anybody besides 
 himself. 
 
 " I am, Sir, your most obedient Servant, 
 
 " ONE WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE TRIAL." 

 
 A 000020191 3