the palmary argument of Protestants, 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 a 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."

Dr. Newman and the Church he represented were too zealous and too exasperated to blench from the storm they had raised. He put in a general plea of "Not

Guilty" and then a justification, consisting of 23 counts, in which he deliberately, with time, date, and circumstance, charged Dr. Achilli with as many crimes or damnatory facts, being those named in the libel, and others.

The plea of justification threw the burden of proof on the defendant, and for the remainder of the trial the attention of the audience was occupied with details of extraordinary profligacy, which of course neither space nor a sense of propriety will permit to be literally admitted into these pages.

The first witness was Elena Giustini, a woman about 40 years of age, and married two years ago. She deposed that she had visited Dr. Achilli in the convent at Viterbo, 23 years back; having previously seen him at the countryhouse of a Sinora Gentili. The place of their assignation was the sacristy; but she described herself as being under some degree of compulsion. I spoke to him on the sin of it, and he replied, that "there was no sin. I told him that it was a hellish matter; but he said, "Not at all, otherwise hell would be quite full." "Did he give you any presents?" asked the Attorney-General. "He gave me a silk handkerchief, which was older than himself;" another time he gave her three sausages. The witness said that she had confessed, "but the confessor prohibited me from saying anything to anybody, on account of Achilli being an ecclesiastic.

Sofia Maria Balisano, born Principe, a middle-aged woman of the humbler class, knew Dr. Achilli before her marriage at Naples when she 13 or 14 years of age. She went to the church of St. Peter, to make a small offering

of money at the image of one of the saints; and there she met with Dr. Achilli. His presents were "a bit of sweatmeat from time to time." The sacristy was again the part of the church retired to.

Pietro Boccheciampi deposed to having seen Achilli in parts of Corfu frequented only by persons of bad character.

William Reynolds, a resident at Zante, who assisted Dr. Achilli in establishing a Protestant chapel, used to see in the chapel a woman who acted as doorkeeper, and also as laundress in Dr. Achilli's house. She was the wife of a chorus singer, and of character so notoriously bad that Mr. Reynolds remonstrated with Dr. Achilli on that subject. The style of her dress unmistakably indicated a profligate mode of life. The windows of Mr. Reynolds's house overlooked Achilli's house; but the latter closed the blinds of his own window. His governess witnessed familiarities in the opposite house, which obliged her to discontinue her observations, she was so shocked.

The Rev. George Hadfield, Principal of St. Julian's Protestant College in Malta in 1847, knew Dr. Achilli as the Italian theological teacher. Two members of the College, formerly priests, were accused of profligate conduct. Dr. Achilli made light of the charge; called one witness "a calumniator," and sent another out of the way, "on an important mission "-to distribute Bibles in Sicily.

The Earl of Shaftesbury, a member of the London Committee managing the College, corroborated the statement as to Dr. Achilli's being dismissed, and afterwards added, that they "cut the Gordian

knot by dismissing Dr. Achilli and the other priests, without carrying the investigation further, or ascertaining whether he was personally implicated or not, for we felt it our duty to wipe our hands of so foul a scandal.'

Several witnesses deposed to Dr. Achilli's immoralities in England, since 1850. They were Harriet Harris, a servant-girl in Dr. Achilli's house; Jane Legg, servant of all work in the house of the Doctor; Sarah Wood, another servant-girl in his house; and Catherine Forman, servant to Miss Lambert, at whose house Dr. Achilli lodged. Sarah Wood said that he gave her a book, the title of which was "Come to Jesus.”

Many other witnesses were examined on other allegations.

On the third day Dr. Achilli was placed in the witness-box; when the interest of the trial reached its height. "He is a plain-featured, middle-sized man, about 50 years of age; and his face is strongly Italian. His forehead is low and receding, his nose prominent, the mouth and the muscles around it full of resolution and courage. He wears a black wig, the hair of which is perfectly straight; and being close shaved, this wig gives to his appearance a certain air of the conventicle. Yet he retains many traces

of the Roman Catholic priest, especially in his bearing, enunciation, and gestures, which have a sort of stealthy grace about them. His eyes are deep-set and lustrous; and with his black hair, dark complexion, and sombre, demure aspect, leave an impression 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 cleverness. 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 feelings deeply roused. Sometimes a slight contemptuous smile accompanied his denials of opposing evidence, and once or twice he even seemed to treat points merrily. His general bearing, however, was serious without any excessive display of anxiety or much apparent admixture of cant. Yet at certain portions of his examination, without losing his self-possession, he became more animated. His dark sunken eyes flashed fire as he listened and replied to the questions put. This was particularly the case when he was cross-examined by Sir Alexander Cockburn on the more material points of the libel, and especially when he was confronted by the Italian women who have sworn that he debauched them. The effect produced by these meetings was quite dramatic; the poor women eyeing their alleged seducer with halftimid, yet steady glances, while he, his face overcome for the moment with a slight pallor, turned upon them looks that seemed to pierce through them. Dr. Achilli's manner in the witness-box considerably diminished the effect of the sanctimonious expression which his singularly-fashioned wig gives to his face. He is evidently a man of strong passion and uncom

mon nerve.

Dr. Achilli's evidence comprised a kind of biographical sketch of his ecclesiastical career: his entering the Dominican order at 16 VOL. XCIV.

years of age, in 1819; his various promotions and appointments; his secularization, at his own request, in 1835; his imprisonment in the Inquisition; his coming to England in 1847; his visit to Malta, appointed by the London Committee as Professor in the Protestant College; then his return to England; and finally his marriage to Miss Heley, in 1849, at Rome. He met the evidence of the female witnesses by a direct negative. He never knew Elena Valenti or Giustint. There is no Gentili family that has a country-house at Viterbo.

He had known one

Rosa de Allesandris (the name of one of the women mentioned in the justificatory plea), but she was older than himself, and a relation of his.

He had never seen Principe or Balisano in the sacristy. Garimoni's wife had only called him to speak to him about her husband's ill-treatment. He had been obliged to remonstrate with Reynolds for drinking too much. The relative situation of their houses is such that you can see into Reynolds's house out of Dr. Achilli's, but not vice versa. The alleged faults of the teachers at Malta were committed while he was away; and he discredited the charges, from knowing the character of the accused. The accusations preferred by the English servants he denied point-blank. Dr. Achilli denied having been charged in the Inquisition with immoral conduct; that tribunal did not take cognizance of such charges. The charges were only of a doctrinal kind. He had submitted himself to the judgment of the Inquisition, but not on any immoral charges; and the statement ascribed to him in a document produced in court was so far C C

false. It may be observed that Dr. Achilli denied all the specific charges point-blank, but he did not do so in respect to general charges. He was at some pains to make it understood that he had taken a vow of obedience, and that chastity is part of the obligation of a priest, but that "a Dominican friar does not take a vow of poverty and chastity." He remained at Viterbo principally until 1833; and " during that time" he had no relation with any woman "according to the accusation." Asked if he had such with other women; he replied, "I could answer, No,' but I have the privilege of the Judge not to answer. He used this "privilege" several times.

In reply to Sir Alexander Cockburn, who asked whether Cariboni was a Protestant, Dr. Achilli said "The greatest part of the Italians are neither Catholics nor Protestants: Cariboni had an antipathy to the Romish Church, but he was not a Protestant. Again being asked whether Cariboni and others, who had gone back to the Roman States, had become Roman Catholics, Dr. Achilli said "No, nor Protestants; but negatives.' Asked whether he had performed mass after he believed it to be an imposture; he said, rapidly, that the same charge might be brought against all reformers. He had not had his heart touched: conversion depended more on the heart than on the mind.

For the defence a few other witnesses were produced. Dr. Domenico Poggi confirmed what Dr. Achilli had said as to the vows. Marianna Crisaffi Garamoni (one of the women) would not have known Dr. Achilli if she had met him.

Mrs. Achilli was examined, and made statements as to the misconduct of her servants in England.

On Thursday, Sir Alexander Cockburn addressed the Jury for the defendant Newman, and the Attorney-General spoke for the prosecutor Achilli. Their addresses were both very skilful. Sir Alexander Cockburn rested much on the balance of probable motives in the opposing evidence: theartless" women have no motive to come from Italy to perjure themselves; whereas Achilli, with all his future in this country, depending upon his being purged of the charges at all price, had the strongest of motives for the evidence he gave.

In reply, Sir Frederick Thesiger rested upon the character and balance of the evidence.

Lord Chief Justice Campbell summed up with great care, reading over the evidence with passing remarks, on the value of the evidence; he accepted the abstract of the proceedings before the Inquisition; but showed that it was not a copy of the judgment, or of the pleadings, only a note of some person's opinion of the result of the pleadings, with extracts from the judgment; he thought that judgment most probably referred to heresy rather than immorality; and he viewed Dr. Achilli's declining to answer general questions in regard to chastity as a point which perhaps strengthened his evidence on the specific charges, since he might easily have made a sweeping denial. The Chief Justice explained as to the two pleas, that the Jury must find for the Crown on the one of "not guilty," if they considered that the libel, whether true or false, had been

published; but that on the justification they must consider the whole of the plea and each of its 23 allegations separately; and he handed to them the copy of the plea in justification with this direction"Now, that document contains, as I am informed, a correct copy of the allegations of the plea what I direct you to do is attentively to consider these, to bear in mind the evidence for and against, and to tell me when you return whether you find any of them proved, or all of them; and then I will direct how the verdict on that is to be given. I have done my duty to the best of my ability, and I am sure now you will do yours.

The Jury retired, and remained absent for two hours. They then found a verdict of guilty as to the first plea (publication and libel); as to the justification, they found the 19th plea only proved. The Lord Chief Justice directed the verdict on the ground of justification to be also entered for the Crown.

A new trial was subsequently granted in this remarkable case, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; but the matter went no further.

COMMISSION COURT,

DUBLIN. December 9, 1852. CASE OF MR. KIRWAN. William Bourke Kirwan, aged 45, was indicted for the murder of his wife Sarah Maria Louisa Kirwan, on the 6th September last.

The mystery in which this case was involved-the silence in which the death of the unhappy lady was in the first instance passed overthe gradual awakening of suspicion -the discovery of motives pointing

to a violent solution-and the final uncertainty in which the whole affair remained balanced-gave to this case an universal interest. It is difficult in a case of circumstantial evidence, where the inferences are to be drawn from facts stated by prejudiced or insufficient observers, and where the judgment of the juror must be guided in some degree by the manner of the witnesses, to give an abstract which shall present the same aspect as the case at length.

The statement of the counsel for the Crown was to the following ef fect, that the prisoner had been married to the deceased for twelve years, but had no family; during the whole of that period, however, the prisoner had lived with another woman, by whom he had a large family of children. The prisoner, during the greater part of each day, was occupied in his profession as an artist, as an anatomical draughtsman, or in colouring maps for a respectable gentleman residing in this city; but the greater part of his time was spent with Teresa Kenny, the woman to whom he had alluded, and although he had been twelve years the husband of Maria Kirwan, and had eight children during that period of time by Teresa Kenny, neither Maria Kirwan nor Teresa Kenny had the slightest idea that he was attached to another person. Mrs. Kirwan believed that she was the sole possessor of his affections, and the same belief was entertained by Teresa Kenny - the thing was so well managed that it was not until within the last six months that either of these knew there was another person who had a claim upon his attentions. However, at that time such a discovery did actually take place.