Truth on Trial: John Henry Newman, Giacinto Achilli, and the Limits of Justification in Victorian Criminal Libel

On 21 June 1852, John Henry Newman, a Catholic priest, appeared before the Queen’s Bench in Westminster, England, to defend himself in a criminal libel prosecution concerning Giacinto Achilli, a Protestant preacher.1 Newman pleaded not guilty and entered a plea of justification. This required him to present evidence proving both the truth of the twenty-three allegations he had made against Achilli and that their publication was for the public benefit.2 Of those allegations, twenty-two were ultimately not sufficiently proven to the satisfaction of the special jury. The accusations against Achilli appeared in Newman’s 1851 Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England, alleging repeated sexual misconduct, adultery, hypocrisy, violations of his religious obligations, and misconduct involving a girl described in the plea as fifteen years old.3 The proceedings were held over four days, with the final verdict delivered late on 24 June 1852. Lord Campbell, the presiding judge, oversaw the proceedings, ruled on evidentiary matters, and instructed the jury on the applicable law. The special jury found Newman guilty of criminal libel.4 Since the controversial verdict, scholars have debated how the statutory defense of justification was applied in Newman’s trial, particularly Campbell’s treatment of the evidence offered to establish the truth of Newman’s allegations.5 Religious tension, scandal, and conflict within the United Kingdom created the perfect environment for the Achilli v. Newman trial to end so controversially. The controversy of the verdict rests upon Lord Campbell’s repeated narrowing of what Newman’s witnesses’ testimony and what the foreign documentary record could legally prove. At the same time, Campbell’s final directions encouraged the jury to evaluate that evidence within the religious suspicions already surrounding the case.6

The socio-political state of the United Kingdom during the Victorian era was deeply intertwined with religious conflict. Many Protestants were reluctant to embrace the Catholic revival, which further heightened tensions between Christian denominations. In 1829, the Roman Catholic Relief Act allowed Catholics, subject to the statutory oath and certain exceptions, to sit in Parliament, vote in elections, and hold most public offices.7 This created greater legal visibility and toleration for Catholics, but political emancipation did not end anti-Catholic sentiments in Britain.8 In the 1830s, reform politics unsettled the old Anglican-Protestant order. The Irish Church Temporalities Act of 1833 reduced the institutional structure of the Church of Ireland and represented increased government interference in the established church.9 Amid these reform controversies, John Keble preached “National Apostasy” at St. Mary’s, Oxford, on 14 July 1833, a sermon subsequently associated with the beginning of the Oxford Movement, also known as the Tractarian Movement.10 As the movement gained traction in its attempt to restore Catholic traditions and authority within the Church of England, it sparked controversy around figures associated with it, including Newman, one of its leading figures. Newman was received into the Catholic Church in October 1845.11 While Newman’s conversion made him an increasingly visible figure within the Catholic revival, Giacinto Achilli’s religious trajectory moved in the opposite direction. Achilli had been a Dominican friar and a Catholic priest before separating from the Catholic Church. He later presented himself as a Protestant convert. After arriving in England, he began lecturing and writing publicly against Catholic doctrine and the Roman Inquisition. By 1850, his background as a former Catholic insider gave Achilli particular value to Protestant and Evangelical audiences, who could rely upon his claimed firsthand experience when criticizing the Catholic Church.12

In 1850, religious tensions shifted once again, fueling greater Protestant aggression and fear of Catholicism. Pope Pius IX restored the Catholic diocesan hierarchy in England and Wales through the encyclical Universalis Ecclesiae. The restored hierarchy consisted of the metropolitan see of Westminster and twelve suffragan dioceses, with Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman becoming the first Archbishop of Westminster under this restored hierarchy.13 In 1850, Wiseman published an account of Achilli in The Dublin Review in an article titled “Dr. Achilli.” He accused him of heinous acts and publicly challenged the character of Achilli, who was being promoted as an authoritative witness against the Catholic Church.14 Many Protestants viewed the restoration of the hierarchy as an attempt by Rome to reclaim authority over England. The restoration prompted public anti-Catholic demonstrations, including anti-Popery processions and the burning of effigies of Pope Pius IX and Cardinal Wiseman.15 Parliament responded with the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of1851, which prohibited the unauthorized assumption of certain archiepiscopal, episcopal, and deanery titles attached to places within the United Kingdom.16 This political and religious response demonstrated that Catholicism was not merely viewed as a competing denomination, but as a threat to national and institutional authority. By the time Newman published The Present Position of Catholics in England, the reputations of both Newman and Achilli had gained significance beyond their individual conduct: Newman had become associated with the Catholic Revival and Roman authority, while Achilli had become a valuable Protestant witness against them.

During the events leading up to Achilli v. Newman, a substantial amount of controversial material was published in lectures, newspapers, pamphlets, and other print media. Yet, the law governing criminal libel placed important restrictions on how the truth of such publications could be treated in court. Before 1843, truth could not be given as evidence at the trial of an indictment or criminal information for libel. Lord Campbell criticized this restriction during the parliamentary debates preceding his reform, arguing that it could prevent the publication of information the public had a legitimate interest in knowing. He also criticized abuses associated with the existing law, including publications used as a means of extortion, and questioned the traditional reliance upon an anticipated breach of the peace as justification for treating libel as a criminal offense.17

The law of criminal libel, which governed England during 1851 and 1852, remained rooted in the common law, but it had been significantly amended by the Libel Act of 1843, commonly known as Lord Campbell’s Act. Most importantly for Newman’s later prosecution, section 6 created a statutory plea of justification. A defendant charged with criminal libel could plead that the allegedly libelous matter was true and that its publication was for the public benefit. Truth alone therefore did not automatically defeat the prosecution. Both truth and public benefit formed part of the statutory defense, with the question ultimately submitted to the jury.18

Lord Campbell’s connection to Achilli v. Newman was therefore more substantial than simply serving as the judge who presided over the trial. Campbell had introduced the legislation that created the statutory plea of justification and, less than a decade later, presided over its application in Achilli v. Newman. During the trial, he ruled upon the admissibility and treatment of evidence and ultimately instructed the special jury on the application of the legal requirements governing Newman’s pleas. The contemporary trial report itself emphasized this unusual connection, describing the change in the law as resulting from legislation introduced by “the noble and learned Lord who presides.”19 Campbell’s involvement in both the reform of criminal libel and its later application in Newman’s prosecution makes the plea of justification central to understanding both the trial and the controversy that followed Newman’s conviction.

After reading Wiseman’s article in The Dublin Review, Newman considered including its contents in his in-progress lecture. Newman was concerned about potential legal repercussions and decided to consult legal counsel. On 16 July 1851, Newman consulted with James Hope-Scott, his legal advisor and confidant. Hope-Scott advised Newman that action was indeed possible, but highly unlikely. Hope-Scott also concluded that the risk was worth taking.20 His legal assessment was based partly on how Giacinto Achilli had responded to Wiseman’s allegations the previous year. Achilli had not brought legal proceedings against Wiseman over the 1850 article, although accusations concerning his conduct had been publicly denied.21 Due to the lack of legal protest, Hope-Scott assumed Achilli would not want to expose the accusations concerning his conduct to public scrutiny in the courtroom. Hope-Scott believed that due to the Libel Act of 1843, Lord Campbell’s Act, a defendant in a criminal libel case could be entirely vindicated if they could prove the allegations were both true and published for the public good.22 Ultimately, Newman decided, based on this advice, to include these accusations in his lecture The Present Position of Catholics in England. He presented “Lecture V: The Logical Inconsistency of The Protestant View” on 28 July 1851.23 However, Newman and Hope-Scott did not foresee Achilli gaining substantial public and institutional support. In August 1851, the Evangelical Alliance publicly supported Achilli’s legal action, transforming the case from an individual conflict over reputation into a broader religious controversy involving Protestant opposition to the Catholic Church.24

Charge of Libel Brought against Newman

Newman received an initial warning in August 1851, shortly after delivering his lecture in late July. The Evangelical Alliance publicly announced its intention to support Giacinto Achilli in a criminal libel prosecution against Newman. Rumors of the expected prosecution began to spread, and Newman started writing letters to his bishops and friends warning them of proceedings to come.25 By early November 1851, Achilli had applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench for permission to file a criminal information against Newman. Because the application required Achilli to deny Newman’s specific accusations under oath, Achilli submitted an affidavit denying them. On November 4, Sir Frederic Thesiger moved before the court for a rule to show cause as to why the criminal information should not be issued.26 Newman then sought additional time to obtain evidence from Italy that he believed would allow him to justify the accusation he had published. The application for additional time was argued on November 21, but Lord Campbell discharged the rule.27 The criminal information filed on November 21 alleged that Newman had maliciously published the statements concerning Achilli in order to bring him into “great contempt, scandal, infamy, and disgrace.”28 Newman responded by pleading not guilty and relying upon the plea of justification, filed on 30 December 1851, which contained twenty-three distinct allegations through which Newman undertook to establish the truth of the accusations he had published.29

Leading up to the trial, Newman had to create a defense plan to support his plea of justification. Under the Libel Act of 1843, it became imperative that Newman obtain this evidence to defend the publication by establishing that the allegations were true and that the publication was for the public benefit. Newman and his legal team organized the twenty-three distinct allegations concerning Achilli into a chronicle spanning years. The pleas identified particular persons, approximate dates, locations, ecclesiastical punishments, and other circumstances connected to the individual allegations. These locations included Viterbo, Capua, Naples, and Malta.30 Achilli’s own biographical account, Brief Sketch of the Life of Dr. Giacinto Achilli, confirmed his presence in several locations connected to the accusations. Although this did not inherently prove misconduct, it helped establish opportunity.

Newman then reached out to Cardinal Wiseman for the evidence that Wiseman had relied upon when publishing his Dublin Review article titled, “Dr. Achilli.” In this article, where the original allegations appeared, Wiseman claimed he had “obtained authentic information from official sources” concerning the conduct of Achilli that “gave evidence of anything but virtue.”31 However, when the documentation necessary to be produced for Newman’s defense was required, Wiseman was initially unable to do so. Some documentation was later located, but only after a crucial preliminary ruling concerning Newman’s request for additional time had already occurred.32 Rather than abandoning the plea of justification with the original documentation not immediately available, Newman shifted his defense from presenting the original documentation to coordinating an international search for admissible evidence.

Fr. Joseph Gordon and a lawyer were in Rome to examine ecclesiastical and police records, as well as locate witnesses connected to Achilli’s misconduct.33 Fr. Nicholas Darnell was also in Rome and later witnessed the authentication of material obtained from the inquisition.34

Newman’s correspondence conveys the urgency surrounding the investigation. In August of 1851, he wrote “I am told no time is to be lost” and by November complained that Achilli occupied “a good deal of my time,” while also contemplating the possible result of his imprisonment.35 As the defense continued searching for witnesses, the committee sent Miss Maria Giberne to assist the female witnesses. Believing the women witnesses would be more willing to travel under the care of another woman, the committee directed Giberne to leave on December 6th and meet Fr. Gordon, who was already in Rome with a lawyer.36 Eleanor Valente agreed to testify and travel with her husband, while additional witnesses from Naples joined them in Paris. Paris then served as a temporary gathering and waiting place during repeated delays in the English proceedings. After remaining there for several months, the witnesses eventually continued to Dover.37 The delays placed their transportation, lodging, and continued maintenance upon Newman’s defense; by March, he complained that “our witnesses are costing 40I a week and wish to go.”38 When the court of Queen’s Bench finally opened on 21 June 1852, Newman’s plea of justification would depend upon whether the evidence and witnesses secured through these months of preparation could withstand Achilli’s denials, cross-examination, and Lord Campbell’s direction to the jury.

The Trial

When the day came for Achilli and Newman to stand in court before Lord Campbell and the special jury at the Court of Queen’s Bench, only nine members of the selected jury initially appeared, so others were called to complete it. The prosecution then read the allegedly libelous passage from Newman’s fifth lecture, “Logical Inconsistency of the Protestant View,” from The Present Position of Catholics in England, followed by his twenty-three detailed allegations contained in his plea of justification. Newman’s plea maintained that the publication served the public benefit because Achilli had become a public anti-Catholic lecturer whose claims concerning Catholicism and the Roman Inquisition were receiving considerable attention and being relied upon.39

The Attorney General’s opening statement presented Achilli as a former Dominican friar who had embraced Protestantism and gained public attention through his accounts concerning the Roman Inquisition. The prosecution argued that Newman had acted as a defender of Catholicism and attempted to destroy Achilli’s reputation by gathering every accusation made against him and then proceeding to publish them together. The Attorney General emphasized that the twenty-three allegations required Newman to prove approximately twenty-six years of allegations about Achilli’s life. He also explained the legal importance of Lord Campbell’s 1843 Act and the requirements of truth and public benefit. Even if he proved the allegations to be true, Newman’s plea also required that publishing them genuinely served the public. Because the prosecution did not yet know how Newman intended to prove the majority of allegations, it reserved its rebuttal witnesses until after the defense presented its evidence and pledged that Achilli himself would testify. After establishing Newman’s responsibility for publishing the statements, the prosecution concluded its initial case.40

Sir Alexander Cockburn then opened Newman’s defense by addressing the religious tension surrounding the trial. He described Newman and Achilli as converts who had become representatives of opposing churches and warned the jury against allowing religious prejudice to influence judgment. Cockburn even observed that the jury consisted “perhaps, without a single exception” of men belonging to the faith Newman had abandoned.41 Cockburn then went on to argue that Newman had not invented the allegations, maintaining that substantially the same accusations had already been published in Cardinal Wiseman’s account of Achilli, approximately fifteen months earlier. Although Achilli had publicly denied and condemned Wiseman’s accusations, he had not brought legal proceedings against him. Cockburn argued that Newman’s intention was not personal revenge or the unnecessary exposure of Achilli’s private conduct but the defense of the Catholic Church against a man who publicly attacked it. If Protestant audiences were relying upon Achilli’s character and claimed firsthand experience when judging the Catholic Church, then the public had a legitimate interest in knowing whether Achilli was a credible witness. 42

The defense then began presenting the witnesses. Eleana Giustini (née)Valente was the first witness called and testified in Italian through an interpreter. She stated that she had known Achilli in Viterbo when she was approximately seventeen or eighteen years old. Giustini testified that Achilli first had sexual intercourse with her in rooms connected to the sacristy of the Dominican convent and stated that additional encounters followed. During cross-examination, she stated that she had resisted during the first encounter and later said, “the first time he forced me.”43 The Attorney General questioned the amount of time that had passed, her continued contact with Achilli, and the arrangements made for her journey to England.44

The Reverend Mr. Groite, a Catholic priest from Viterbo, testified next. He stated that Achilli’s reputation in Viterbo had been “very bad,” although he acknowledged he did not know why. Groite also explained that Newman had employed him to travel through Italy and gather evidence in connection with the investigation. He testified that the records of the Bishop’s Court and police at Viterbo had been destroyed during the revolution of 1849.45 When the defense attempted to present a copy of a private police memorandum believed to contain information lost with the original records, the court ruled it inadmissible, despite the memorandum bearing the arms of the city of Viterbo. This ruling demonstrated the difficulty Newman and his defense faced in transforming documentation gathered abroad into evidence accepted by an English court.46

Sophia Maria Balisano (née) Principe was the final witness examined that day. She testified that she had encountered Achilli at the Church of St. Peter in Naples when she was approximately thirteen or fourteen years old. According to Balisano, Achilli shut the sacristy door, prevented her from leaving, threw her onto a sofa when she attempted to resist, and had sexual intercourse with her. She also testified that she later became pregnant.47 The Attorney General questioned her about the arrangement of the church, why she had not called for help, when she disclosed what had happened, and the assistance provided for her journey to England. Her cross-examination continued until after four o’clock, when the court rose and reserved her re-examination for the following morning. By the conclusion of the first day, Newman had presented direct testimony from two women connected to his accusations. Still, the exclusion of the Viterbo police memorandum had already revealed the evidentiary barriers his defense would continue to face.48

The second day began with a brief delay because Newman’s witnesses had not arrived at the court on time, causing Lord Campbell to question Newman’s attorney about their absence. Once the witnesses arrived, Sophia Maria Balisano returned to the stand and provided further details about the police investigation in Naples. Her mother, Gaetana Principe, then testified that her daughter had disclosed what happened after becoming visibly pregnant. She described confronting Achilli with her husband while he was participating in a religious procession and stated that Achilli denied the accusation. According to her testimony, Achilli later complained to the police that the family had calumniated him, causing the family and Sophia to appear before the police commissioner.49

The defense then moved from Naples to the accusations connected to Corfu and Zante. Antonio Russo testified that he had discovered Achilli late at night near the residence of Marianna Garamoni, a married woman with whom Achilli was accused of committing adultery. Russo testified that Achilli appeared frightened and left after a lamp was brought and he was identified. Pietro Boccheciampi testified that he had helped Achilli leave Italy by permitting his name to be added to his passport. Giovanni Patrignani then described observing a man whom he believed, from his stature, to be Achilli, leaving the house connected to Garamoni’s wife’s residence. William Reynolds, a retired British official and Protestant, then testified concerning Achilli’s conduct with Albina Coriboni. Reynolds stated that he had repeatedly observed familiar conduct between them through the windows of their adjoining houses and had personally warned Achilli that his behavior was improper and damaging to the Protestant congregation. Rosina Lavandrie, who Reynolds had employed, gave similar testimony and stated that she had also witnessed acts of familiarity between Achilli and Coriboni.50

The trial then moved to Achilli’s position at the Protestant College in Malta. The Reverend George Hadfield and the Reverend Alexander Watt testified about accusations of sexual misconduct made against two former Catholic priests, Leonini and Saccares, who were connected to the college. According to Hadfield, the accusations had initially been denied and were not considered proven, but the investigation continued as additional information emerged. Hadfield testified that shortly after he informed Achilli of new information concerning Saccares, Achilli sent Saccares away on a mission. Watt testified that Achilli had attempted to persuade him to suppress the documents connected to the accusations and stated that the Bishop of Gibraltar later declined to investigate because Saccares had been sent away.51 The Earl of Shaftesbury and Dr. Bonavia also testified concerning the investigation. The testimony differed over whether Achilli had resigned, abandoned his position, or had been deprived of it, but members connected to the college maintained that sending Saccares away had interfered with the investigation and contributed to the committee’s withdrawal of confidence from Achilli.52

The defense next called several women who had worked in houses where Achilli lived in England. Harriet Harris testified that Achilli had repeatedly attempted to kiss her and take improper liberties with her before Achilli’s wife arrived in London. Her aunt confirmed that Harris had complained about his behavior shortly after it occurred. Jane Legge testified that she had sexual relations with Achilli and later became pregnant. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that she had also had relations with another man and could not swear who had fathered the child. Legge and her sister also testified that Achilli had discouraged them from cooperating with the subpoenas and told them to shut the door against those attempting to involve them in the case. Sarah Wood testified that Achilli first made unwanted advances toward her and later bolted the door of his dressing room, threw her onto the bed, and had intercourse with her against her will. Catherine Foreman, another former servant, described occasions when Achilli attempted to take improper liberties with her.53 The prosecution used the women’s personal histories, delayed disclosures, and circumstances surrounding their involvement in Newman’s investigation to challenge their credibility.54

The most legally significant portion of the second day concerned the documents Newman’s investigators had gathered abroad. James Vincent Harting testified about traveling through Rome, Viterbo, Naples, and Malta in search of evidence. Documents obtained or sought from the Viterbo and Naples authorities were excluded because they did not satisfy the English court’s requirements necessary for their admission. Harting also produced a copy of a judgment bearing the seal of the Roman Inquisition. Bishop Grant testified that the Inquisition possessed jurisdiction over serious acts of immorality committed by ecclesiastics and that he believed the seal was genuine, although he had not previously seen the seal in that particular form.55

Despite the prosecution’s objection, Lord Campbell admitted the judgment quantum valeat, meaning that it was received only for whatever evidentiary value the court and jury believed it might properly possess. Campbell described its admission as “the first precedent of the kind.” The document recited that Achilli had confessed to sexual misconduct in Viterbo, Capua, and Naples and stated that he had been permanently deprived of his ecclesiastical functions and sentenced to spend three years in a stricter religious house. However, the extent to which the document established the misconduct it described remained disputed. The Reverend William Nicholls then testified that the Dominican vows included obedience, poverty, and chastity. After Achilli’s counsel indicated that separate evidence of public benefit would not be required if the libel allegations were proven true, Cockburn closed Newman’s defense. The court adjourned at approximately half-past eight that evening, ending the second day with Newman’s entire evidentiary case now before the jury.56

The third day began with the prosecution presenting evidence intended to contradict Newman’s defense. Before Giacinto Achilli took the stand, Cockburn attempted to admit Cardinal Wiseman’s earlier article in The Dublin Review. Cockburn argued that the article showed the accusations had been published before Newman prepared his plea of justification and had not been created solely to support his defense at trial. The Attorney General objected, and Lord Campbell ruled that the article was not evidence.57

Achilli then took the stand and gave a detailed account of his ecclesiastical appointments, movements, imprisonment by the Inquisition, separation from the Catholic Church, and eventual conversion to Protestantism. He directly denied the accusations connected to Viterbo, Naples, Corfu, Zante, Malta, and England. When Eleana Giustini and Sophia Maria Balisano were brought before him, Achilli denied having previously seen either woman before the trial and denied having sexual relations with them.58 He also disputed the account contained in the Inquisition judgment, denying that he had confessed to sexual misconduct and maintaining that the proceedings against him concerned his religious teaching rather than his moral conduct. Although the document had been admitted the previous day, Achilli denied that the misconduct described within it had formed the basis of his treatment by the Inquisition.59

During Cockburn’s cross-examination, Lord Campbell repeatedly determined the permissible extent of questioning. Achilli acknowledged that chastity was an obligation of the priesthood but maintained that obedience was the only vow he had formally taken as a Dominican. When Cockburn asked whether Achilli had engaged in sexual relations with women other than those specifically named in Newman’s plea, Achilli relied upon his privilege not to answer. Campbell stated that he could not compel Achilli to respond. However, Cockburn was permitted to ask generally whether Achilli had been involved with other women in England, despite the foreman of the jury objecting that the question was unfair. However, when Cockburn attempted to ask specifically about a woman named Louisa Colchester, Campbell refused to permit the question because that alleged incident had not been included in Newman’s plea of justification. Campbell therefore permitted the broader questioning while preventing the defense from introducing a new specific allegation that had not been placed on the record. Achilli remained in the witness box from approximately half past nine in the morning until half past four in the afternoon.60

After Achilli’s examination concluded, the prosecution called witnesses intended to support his account and contradict Newman’s evidence. Dr. Domenico Poggi, a former Dominican who had become Protestant, testified that Achilli had been highly esteemed during his earlier years and argued that his ecclesiastical appointments reflected a favorable reputation. Domenichi Paoli, another former friar, testified that he knew of no charges against Achilli during the years he had known him at Viterbo.61 Captain William Hudson Lawrence produced information concerning the Corfu proceedings, while Mr. Kirkpatrick explained that the dispute between Garamoni and his wife had ended in a compromise. Marianna Crisaffi Garamoni denied having an adulterous relationship with Achilli and maintained that she had intended to speak with Achilli about a separate matter when her husband appeared. During cross-examination, however, she admitted that her husband had accused her of being with Achilli and had held him against the wall during the confrontation.62 Mrs. Achilli then gave evidence concerning Harriet Harris and Jane Legge, describing the circumstances surrounding their employment and departure from her household and stating that neither woman had complained to her about improper conduct by her husband. The prosecution concluded its evidence at approximately half past six, ending the third day.63

On the fourth day, Sir Alexander Cockburn addressed the jury in response to the evidence presented by Achilli and the prosecution. Cockburn argued that the opposing testimony could not be reconciled as an ordinary mistake or misunderstanding. Either Newman’s witnesses had collectively committed perjury, or Achilli had falsely denied his own conduct. Cockburn reviewed the accusations chronologically through Viterbo, Naples, Corfu, Zante, Malta, and England. He defended the women against the prosecution’s attempts to discredit them and emphasized that they had little personal benefit from traveling to England and publicly disclosing their experiences. Achilli, by contrast, possessed a direct interest in preserving the reputation upon which his position as a Protestant lecturer and opponent of Catholicism depended. Cockburn also argued that Achilli’s refusal to answer broader questions concerning his sexual conduct weakened his credibility and again warned the jury not to allow religious prejudice to decide the case.64 The Attorney General then responded for the prosecution by urging the jury to consider each of Newman’s allegations separately and compare the evidence presented with what Newman had actually undertaken to prove. He challenged the credibility of the witnesses, the circumstances under which the evidence had been gathered, and the evidentiary value of the foreign documentation. In particular, he maintained that the Inquisition document could establish that a sentence had been pronounced against Achilli, but not that the allegations of sexual misconduct recited within it were true.65

During the Attorney General’s response, Campbell reconsidered an earlier restriction placed upon the evidence of the Earl of Shaftesbury. Campbell acknowledged that he had previously prevented the committee from being questioned about reasons for Achilli’s dismissal that were not contained in its written resolutions, but now concluded that the question could be asked. Shaftesbury was recalled and testified that the committee feared that public disclosure of the entire matter would create such a serious scandal for the college, morality, and the reputation of Protestantism that it decided to break up the establishment and separate itself from the affair.66 Campbell’s decision then allowed additional evidence concerning the Malta College to reach the jury after it had previously been restricted. When Campbell began his final direction to the jury, he first addressed the religious tension surrounding the case. He stated that he believed there was “not the remotest chance” that religious differences would bias the jury, “even if you were all Protestants.” Campbell also distinguished Newman’s conversion from clergymen who remained within the Protestant Church while being “Roman Catholics in heart.” His direction therefore acknowledged the religious controversy surrounding the proceedings while simultaneously assuring the jury that he did not believe it would influence their verdict.67

Campbell’s treatment of the Inquisition document then became central to his final direction. He distinguished between the earlier portion of the document, which he described as closer to the notary’s account of the proceedings, and the later decretal portion issued by the Inquisitors. Campbell considered the decree strong evidence that a sentence had actually been pronounced against Achilli and rejected the suggestion that the decree itself had been fabricated. However, he separated proof that the sentence existed from proof of the sexual misconduct recited as its cause.68 Campbell therefore treated the document as capable of proving Achilli’s suspension and deprivation of ecclesiastical functions without automatically establishing the truth of every allegation of misconduct contained within its earlier recitals.

During his summation, Campbell also informed the jury how he viewed the weight of several important pieces of testimony. He stated that Eleana Giustini’s account contained improbabilities and appeared unconfirmed, while still acknowledging that the allegation would be proven if the jury believed her. He treated Sophia Maria Balisano’s accusation differently, acknowledging that her allegation was not a recent invention and that a complaint had been made near the time of the alleged conduct. Campbell considered the evidence concerning Garamoni insufficient to establish adultery and questioned the probability of the conduct described by Reynolds concerning Coriboni, while leaving the credibility of those witnesses to the jury.69 Through these comments, Campbell placed his own assessment of the weight and reliability of Newman’s evidence directly before them.

Campbell’s direction concerning Achilli’s refusal to answer questions was especially important. He informed the jury that Achilli’s refusal might suggest that he had committed other acts of sexual misconduct and could therefore provide some ground for believing that he might have acted similarly in the specific cases before them. At the same time, Campbell suggested that the refusal might increase Achilli’s credibility because he could easily have denied the broader accusations but instead chose not to answer. The jury was therefore permitted to consider Achilli’s silence as both potentially damaging to his character and as a possible indication of honesty.70

Newman’s Plea of Justification

Finally, Campbell determined how the jury would apply the evidence to Newman’s plea of justification. The jury received an abstract of the twenty-three allegations and was instructed to identify which, if any, had been sufficiently proven. They retired at approximately half past eight and returned around eleven o’clock. The jury initially reported that only the nineteenth allegation had been proven. Campbell clarified that their finding concerned the Inquisition’s decree itself, not the misconduct cited as the reason for it. The jury therefore found it proven that Achilli had been suspended from the celebration of mass, prohibited from any “cure of souls,” preaching, hearing confession, and exercising his sacerdotal office according to the decree of the Inquisition.71 The remaining allegations were not proven “to our satisfaction.”72 Campbell then directed a verdict for the Crown on both Newman’s plea of not guilty and his plea of justification, resulting in Newman’s conviction for criminal libel. Although one juror specifically stated that the jury had considered the case as a matter of fact, rather than as a conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism, the verdict was followed by loud cheering in the courtroom.

Conclusion

The immediate celebration surrounding Achilli’s verdict disguised the more complicated aftermath of the trial. Although the special jury found Newman guilty after finding only the nineteenth allegation sufficiently proven, his request for a new trial was denied. Newman’s punishment was not imposed until 31 January 1853; he was fined £100 and formally imprisoned until the fine was paid, a sentence that resulted in no actual imprisonment. Newman himself explained that being imprisoned until payment “of course meant no imprisonment at all.”73 The greater financial consequence was approximately £12,000 in costs and expenses incurred throughout the proceedings. Ward records that Newman’s co-religionists ultimately covered these costs and describes support arriving from Catholics across several countries, preventing Newman from being left with the enormous personal debt he had feared.74

The verdict also failed to fully restore Achilli’s public reputation. According to Wilfrid Ward, the testimony that failed to persuade the jury nevertheless influenced public opinion, and Achilli soon ceased to function effectively as the Protestant champion he had been before the trial.75 Ward wrote that the evidence gradually affected public opinion and that Achilli “ceased to be an effective champion” before disappearing from public view. Because Ward wrote decades after the trial, this is best presented as his assessment of the aftermath, rather than as an undisputed fact about all contemporary public opinion. Lord Campbell’s handling of the evidence remained central to the controversy surrounding the verdict. Campbell himself described the admission of the Inquisition judgment as “the first precedent of the kind,” but later restricted what the document could establish by separating the existence of the ecclesiastical sentence from the misconduct recited as its cause.76

Earlier in the proceedings, foreign police and ecclesiastical materials had also been excluded when the court determined that they did not satisfy the requirements necessary for admission; Wiseman’s earlier publication was rejected as evidence. Cockburn was prevented from questioning Achilli about a specific accusation that had not been included in Newman’s plea. At the same time, Campbell did not simply exclude all evidence favorable to Newman. He admitted the Inquisition decree for a limited purpose, permitted broader questioning of Achilli’s sexual conduct, and even reconsidered his earlier restriction on Shaftesbury’s testimony. The controversy therefore rests not upon a complete refusal to hear Newman’s evidence, but upon the repeated narrowing of what that evidence could legally prove and the weight Campbell assigned to it when directing the jury.77

The Libel Act of 1843 had created the plea of justification through which Newman could attempt to prove both the truth and public benefit of his publication. The Achilli trial demonstrated, however, that the existence of that defense did not guarantee that every form of evidence gathered to support it would be admitted or given the effect the defendant desired. Newman ultimately lost the legal verdict, but escaped imprisonment and the financial ruin he had feared. The testimony presented at trial continued to shape later assessments of Achilli and of the fairness of the proceedings.78

1 W. F. Finlason, Report of the Trial and Preliminary Proceedings in the Case of the Queen on the Prosecution of G. Achilli v. Dr. Newman, 2nd ed. (C. Dolman, 1852), 53–58; Achilli v. Newman: A Full and Authentic Report of the Above Prosecution for Libel, Tried Before Lord Campbell and a special jury, in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Westminster, June 1852 (W. Strange, 1852), 5–9.

2 Libel Act 1843, 6 & 7 Vict., c. 96, sec. 6; Finlason, Report of the Trial, 47–50, 56–59.

3 The Libel Act permitted justification to be pleaded alongside not guilty. The two pleas raised separate issues; at trial, Newman’s admitted publication left the first plea concerned with the libelous nature of the publication, while justification concerned whether the allegations had been established as true and published for the public benefit. Newman, “Lecture V: Logical Inconsistency of the Protestant View,” Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England (Burns and Lambert, 1851); Finlason, Report of the Trial, 45–50.

4 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 201–203; Full and Authentic Report, 64–65.

5 Matthew C. Mirow, “Roman Catholicism on Trial in Victorian England: The Libel Case of John Henry Newman and Dr. Achilli,” The Catholic Lawyer 36, no. 4 (1996): 401–453.

6 W. F. Finlason’s Report of the Trial contains extensive editorial commentary alongside its account of the proceedings. Accordingly, this article relies upon Finlason principally for the reported proceedings and cross-checks significant testimony and rulings against the contemporary W. Strange report. Finlason, Report of the Trial, 103–19, 189–201.The American report, Achilli vs. Newman: A Full Report of This Most Extraordinary Trial, was published in New York by Dewitt & Davenport in 1852 and presented itself as the “only correct edition,” based upon testimony reproduced from London reports. Its sensational and openly polemical framing, including its description of Achilli as an “apostate Catholic priest” and Newman as the “Oxford Puseyite.” It requires caution when treating it as a neutral account. This article therefore uses the American edition principally to supplement or provide additional context to the contemporary English trial reports rather than as an independent neutral record of the proceedings. Achilli vs. Newman.

7 Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, 10 Geo. IV, c. 7; “Emancipation,” UK Parliament.

8 E. R. Norman, Anti-Catholicism in Victorian England (George Allen & Unwin, 1968), especially 52–79; Walter Ralls, “The Papal Aggression of 1850: A Study in Victorian Anti-Catholicism,” Church History 43, no. 2 (June 1974): 242–56.

9 Church Temporalities Act 3 & 4 Will. IV, c. 37; “Religion in the Nineteenth Century,” UK Parliament.

10 John Keble, National Apostasy Considered in a Sermon Preached in St. Mary’s, Oxford, before His Majesty’s Judges of Assize, on Sunday, July 14, 1833 (J. H. Parker, 1833).

11 Newman, Apo (Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green, 1864), 235–36.

12 Giacinto Achilli, Brief Sketch of the Life of Dr. Giacinto Achilli (Philip Dixon Hardy and Sons, 1850); Finlason, Report of the Trial, 49–50, 59–76.

13 Pius IX, Universalis Ecclesiae (Holy See, 29 September 1850).

14 Nicholas Wiseman, “Brief Sketch of the Life of Dr. Giacinto Achilli, including a narrative of his proceedings, &c.,” Dublin Review 28, no. 56 (Thomas Richardson and Son, June 1850): 470–511.

15 Anthony S. Wohl, “The Re-establishment of the Catholic Hierarchy in England, 1850,” The Victorian Web; “Postscript. The Papal Aggression,” Illustrated London News (William Little, 7 December 1850), 451; Ralls, “Papal Aggression of 1850,” 242–56.

16 Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1851, 14 & 15 Vict., c. 60.

17 HL Deb 13 February 1843, vol. 66, cols. 395–409, especially cols. 400–404 (Lord Campbell).

18 Libel Act 1843, 6 & 7 Vict., c. 96, § 6; HL Deb 18 July 1843, vol. 70, cols. 1252–59.

19 The Law of libel: HL Deb 13 February 1843, vol. 66, cols. 395–409; Libel Act 1843, 6 & 7 Vict., c. 96, § 6; Finlason, Report of the Trial, 56–59.

20 Wilfrid Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912), 1:278–79.

21 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 59–60.

22 Matthew C. Mirow, “Roman Catholicism on Trial in Victorian England: The Libel Case of John Henry Newman and Dr. Achilli,” The Catholic Lawyer 36, no. 4 (St. John’s Law Review, 1996): 401–453.

23 Newman, “Lecture V: Logical Inconsistency of the Protestant View”; Ward, Life of Newman, 1:278–79.

24 Mirow, “Roman Catholicism on Trial,” 431; John M. Cunningham, “Some Letters from St John Henry Newman Arising from His Denunciation of Giacinto Achilli,” Archivium Hibernicum 73 (Catholic Historical Society of Ireland, 2020): 387–94, at 390.

25 Ward, Life of Newman (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912), 1:278–80; Newman, LD 14; Newman, LD 15;

26 A criminal information was a procedure by which a criminal prosecution could be initiated in the Court of Queen’s Bench without an ordinary indictment. A rule to show cause required the opposing party to appear and provide reasons why the court should not grant the requested order. Finlason, Report of the Trial, 29–35.

27 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 37–45.

28 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 45–46.

29 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 47–50; Libel Act 1843, 6 & 7 Vict., c. 96, § 6.

30 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 47–50.

31Wiseman, “Dr. Achilli,” 470–510, 482.

32 Ward, Life of Newman, 1:280–84.

33 John Henry Newman to Peter Cooper (13 November 1851), reproduced in Cunningham, “Some Letters,” 390.

34 Ward, Life of Newman, 1:281–83; Finlason, Report of the Trial, 113–14.

35 John Henry Newman to Charles W. Russell (31 August 1851) and John Henry Newman to Peter Cooper (13 November 1851) reproduced in Cunningham, “Some Letters,” 393.

36Maria Rosina Giberne, recollection quoted in Ward, Life of Newman, 1:21–83.

37Maria Rosina Giberne, recollection quoted in Ward, Life of JNewman, 1:282–83.

38 John Henry Newman to Sister Imelda Poole (7 March 1852) quoted in Ward, Life of Newman, 1:290. For modern context, 40I in 1852 had approximately the purchasing power of £7,250 in 2026, or about $9,625 at the exchange rate on 28 July 2026. This is a consumer-price comparison and should be treated as an approximate measure rather than an exact economic equivalent.

39 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 53–58; Full and Authentic Report, 5–9.

40 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 56–59; Full and Authentic Report, 9–11.

41 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 59–76; Full and Authentic Report, 11–18.

42 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 59–76; Full and Authentic Report, 11–18.

43 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 76–80; Full and Authentic Report, 18–20.

44 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 76–80; Full and Authentic Report, 18–20.

45 The “revolution” refers to the revolutionary upheavals of 1848–1849 in the Papal States, which culminated in the short-lived Roman Republic of 1849. The contemporary trial report specifically states that the archives of the Bishop’s Court at Viterbo were burned during the revolution of 1849. Finlason, Report of the Trial, 80–81; Full and Authentic Report, 20–21.

46 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 80–81; Full and Authentic Report, 20–21

47 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 81–83; Full and Authentic Report, 21–22.

48 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 81–83; Full and Authentic Report, 21–22.

49Finlason, Report of the Trial 83–85; Full and Authentic Report, 23–24.

50 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 85–94; Full and Authentic Report, 24–28.

51 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 93–99; Full and Authentic Report, 28–30.

52 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 93–99; Full and Authentic Report, 28–30.

53 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 99–103; Full and Authentic Report, 30–34.

54 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 99–103; A Full and Authentic Report, 30–34.

55 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 103–119; Full and Authentic Report, 34–36.

56 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 103–119; A Full and Authentic Report, 34–36.

57 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 120; Full and Authentic Report, 36–37.

58 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 120–32; Full and Authentic Report, 36–42.

59 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 120–32; Full and Authentic Report, 36–42.

60 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 132–44; Full and Authentic Report, 42–48.

61 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 144–49; Full and Authentic Report, 48–50.

62 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 144–49; Full and Authentic Report, 48–50.

63 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 144–49; Full and Authentic Report, 48–50.

64 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 149–78; Full and Authentic Report, 51–58.

65 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 178–92; Full and Authentic Report, 58–62.

66 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 189–90; Full and Authentic Report, 61–62.

67 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 194–95; Full and Authentic Report, 62.

68 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 199–200; Full and Authentic Report, 62–63.

69 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 196–99; Full and Authentic Report, 62–63.

70 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 200–201; Full and Authentic Report, 63–64.

71 “Cure of souls” refers to pastoral responsibility for the spiritual care of a congregation or individuals; “sacerdotal office” refers to the exercise of priestly functions.

72 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 201–203; Full and Authentic Report, 64–65.

73 Ward, Life of Newman, 1:301, 303.

74 Ward, Life of Newman, 1:301, 303.

75 Ward, Life of Newman, 1:292–95.

76 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 103–119, 192–203.

77 Finlason, Report of the Trial, 103–119, 120, 132–44, 189–203; Full and Authentic Report, 34–48, 61–65.

78 Ward, Life of Newman, 1:292–95; Mirow, “Roman Catholicism on Trial,” 401–53.