The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-09-01 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMEIr' 4 ASSIZES, CROWN COURT.-FRIDAY. ALLEGED PERJURY AT WIGAN Henry Pennington, surgeon, of Wigan, who had sullen.: dered himself in discharge of his bail, was indicted for per jury.—Mr. Brandt and Mr. Wilkins appeared for the prose cution. The Hon. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Atherton for the The offence was alleged to have been committed before the revising barrister, at Wigan, at his court, on the 12th of October. The charge consisted of his having sworn e had occupied a house from the 15th of July, 1838, 31st of July, 1839, when, in fact, he had not occupied louse in question till the 15th of August, 1838. Several asses were called to prove the facts, and that the mis ment must have been made with a guilty knowledge by the defendant, inasmuch as he had claimed a reduction of the charge for the highway rate, on the ground that he had not occupied the house until the later date.—The evidence hav ing been gone through, Mr. Wortley objected that there was no proof, as regarded an averment in the second count that the list of voters had been published on the doors of the churches and chapels.—Mr. Brandt argued that the word ' chapel" in the statute had reference merely to those of the Church of England, and that there was proof of the publica ion of the lists on the doors of the parish church.—Mr. , rt Wortley addressed the Jury for the defence, contend - as regarded the defendant, a respectable young man, son of a clergyman, the prosecution was an affair of great Itiveness—that all the evidence against him proceeded ' , is political opponents, and that his sole offence was Tory.—Mr: Wortley called the following witnesses `er :—Mr. Robert Wortley, coal-proprietor, of Bol that he had known the defendant many years, as —i remarkable for his integrity and truth.—Mr. Tyson, .p manufacturer, of Liverpool, had known the defendant everal years, and always considered him to be a person of the greatest honour and highest integrity.—Mr. James Owen, wholesale and retail chemist and druggist, had been ac quainted with the defendant since 1831. He was a very re spectable young man, of rather a religious turn, and attended very regularly to business.—The JUDGE remarked that the question for the Jury to decide was not whether the defend ant had sworn rashly, but whether he had wilfully and de liberately sworn that which was false. His lordship was , ro through the evidence, when the Jury intimated as quite unnecessary, as they were perfectly satisfied of the defendant's innocence. They returned a verdict of acquittal.—The JUDGE remarked that persons in such ex aminations should be very cautious.—M r. Wortley observed that it would have been but candid had Mr. Robinson put the defendant on his guard.—The costs of prosecution were disallowed. from I ton, stated that it w THE MILITARY OUTRAGE AT WIGAN Adolphus Frazer , and Charles Luxmore Bennett, were arraigned, and pleaded not guilty for an assault and rescue at Wigan. No evidence being offered, a verdict of acquittal was taken . THE MANCHESTER CA ARTEII .-THE RIVAL CORONERS aIJEEN V. RUTTEP Rutter was indicted for an assault upon , at Manchester. Mr. Brandt and Mr. Crompton appeared for the prosecu lion, and Mr. Wilkins for the defence. Mr. BRANDT stated that this was an indictment for as sault. It was a case which the magistrates bad thought pro per to send to the assizes, and probably the jury• would think that it was a very proper course to pursue, and that the case should not lecided in the town Of Manchester, where so much excitement prevailed on the subject which had given rise to the charge in question. It was not a very material assault, but circumstances gave to it a very serious aspect. Mr. Chapman, the complainant, was the coroner for the bo rough of Manchester; Mr. Rutter, the defendant, was coro ner for the county. The occasion of the assault was, these two parties meeting together to assume the right of holding an inquest, each independent of the other. If the defendant should prove to be right, the plaintiff would regret the result. If wrong, the plaintiff would naturally look for some security that the offence should not be repeated. The learned coun sel regretted that he should have to conduct this case against Mr. Rutter, because be had a personal knowledge of his exemplary conduct in private life, and of his having acquitted himself with the greatest respectability and integrity in his official capacity until this occurrence. He could not but think, from these and other circumstances, that the defendant at the time of the assault laboured under some degree of ex citement, and that he forgot the situation held by himself and that of the gentleman whom he had assaulted. The jury had heard that a charter kad been granted for Manchester. Where there was a quarter-session held in a chartered bo rough, they would understand that the magistrates in that session assembled were called upon to appoint a coroner for le borough, and this was done in Manchester. The validity f the charter was disputed, but the decision of the judges ad not yet been given. Had that decision arrived earlier, pro- bably this affair might not have occurred. They were not to inquire to-day whether the charter was valid or invalid. That Mr. Rutter, the coroner for the county, would not dis- pute, nor that Mi. Chapman was the coronet: for the borough, if the charter should be found to be valid. Mr. Rutter, though he had brought an action to determine this point, it to go on holding inquests within the borough, which waswas to be deplored, as it gave rise to these disputes. Mr. Brandt then proceeded to detail the facts of the case. On the Bth of July, notice had been given by the borough coroner for an inquest on a child named Marsham, at the Robin Hood public-house, at half-past three o'clock on the following day. The messenger for the county coroner, on hearing of this, fixed the inquest to he taken by his employer a quarter of an hour earlier. The juries met, and Mr. Rutter got the start. The principal witness was the mother of the deceased, who, when she had finished her examination, sat down in a chair in the room. The mother was taken from this room to that where Mr. Chapman was sitting, and the jury of that gentleman then went to a house across the road to vi the - body. When they had left, Mr. Rutter went into the filling-bar, which Mr. Chapman would neces sarily have to pass in returning. After the inspection be was proceeding to his room, when Mr. Rutter, who appeared :0 be in a state of great excitement, said to him. " What are you doing with my business ? I have not done with her." Mr. Chapman replied, "Neither have I done with her." Mr. Rutter, on this, seized and struck him, and threw him with his back against a table. Mr. Rutter said that this was not true, but that Mr. Chapman assaulted him first ; that he _ _ put up I hands before hini, and in fact touched him. Now Mr. Rutter, as a lawyer, must know that, even if this were the case, the law did not recognise anything in the way of re taliation, except no other mode was left of defending himself from imminent danger; and he could be under no danger from so weak a man as Mr. Chapman, and whilst he had hit constables about him. Mr. Chapman was then called and examined at some length.—The learned judge interfered and said, these two coroners appeared to be wasting the time of the public on a very trifling matter.—Mr. Wilkins observed that his client had not instituted the proceedings, and if a mutual concession were made there might now be an end to the matter.—Mr. Brandt remarked that he shouid have no objection to hear what the other side had to say. The prosecutor thought that his honour was concerned.—The Judge smiled and said, there appeared to be no imputation. His lordship inquired were there not ictments.—Mr. Brandt replied there was only one at mizes.—Mr. Wilkins observed that there was one at ;ions. He did not mean to say that Mr. Chapman lty of a wilful perversion of the truth, but that he was state of excitement that he was not capable of stat- the ses ing the facts with correctness.—The Judge said it appeared to be a misunderstanding. Both the parties were highly re pectable, and he thought it ought to be carried no further. Mr. 'Wilkins said Mr. Rutter had been always willing to Mr. Chapman half way.—Mr. Chapman said that what dship might direct he should submit.—Mr. Brandt er what his client had said, he wished to further. He hoped it would lead to such s he had suggested in his opening._His s well as - ever with the World was no imputation on his character.—Mr. Wilkins : Nor on that of Mr. Rutter.—Mr. Brandt, of course not.—The Judge again .commended an arrangement.—Mr. Rutter said it had been -ish to be on amicable terms with Mr. Chapman fror com►r- —A Juror was then withdrawn by co! It. The business of the Crown Court terminated at 'c k, and his lordship immediately retired. i the commencement NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY. (Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) LONCRIDGE V. MANCHESTER AND LEEDS RAILWAY. At the opening of the court this morning, Mr. Alexander ddressed the jury on the part of the plaintiffs. He called a Teat ounber of witnesses, whose examination occupied till even o'clock in the evening. The JUDGE then summed up, nd the jury returned a verdict as follows :—For the road rustees in pleas 1,2, 3,4, 5,6, 7,8, 9, 10, 14. For the com iany in pleas 11, 13, 15. Specially in plea 12. The case was peculiarly uninteresting. NISI PRIUS COURT.—SATURDAY. (Before Mr. BARON ROLFE and a Special Jury.) HEARNE, CLIME V. STOWELL, CLERK. The trial of this ease excited intense interest among all classes of Protestants and Catholics. Every part of the court was crowded, for some time before the proceedings com menced, and many were compelled to retire unable to obtain ,diniAsion en were sworn of the special jury Prescot, verpool, merchant do. do. Toxtetli-park, do do. do James Harrison, Liverpool, do Peter Murray. Robert M'William, Liverpool, merchant. William Richardson, do. do. Edw. Jones, Walton-on-the-Hill, do. el for the plainti f f —Messrs. Dundas, Q.C. , W ig ht- Diggins, and Murphy. Solicitor—Mr. —. Gibson, Manchester Counsel for Alexander, Q.( ke defendant—Messrs. Cresswell, Q.C., and Watson. Solicitor—Mr. —. Goulden, Mr. MURPHY opene'd the pleadings. In this case the Rev. Daniel Hearne, of Manchester, was the plaintiff, and the Rev. Hugh Stowell, also of Manchester, was the defendant. The first count of the declaration set forth that the plaintiff had been and still was a clergyman and priest of the Roman Catholic religion ; and that the defendant, intending to injure him in that character, had published of him a false, scanda lous, malicious, and defamatory libel. The second count of the declaration stated that the defendant had spoken of him certain words for the purpose of bringing him into disrepute, tnd injuring him in his profession. To these allegations the laintiff pleaded not guilty ; and thereupon issue was joined. Mr. DUNDAS then arose to address the court and jury. spoke nearly as follows :—May it please your lordship— ,tlemen of the jury : I have the honour to attend you as tiff iu this action ; and, upon rising to address you on half, I do most unfeignedly bespeak your earnest at whilst I ant stating to you the circumstances of the ''st I ant spewing to you the grounds upon which 's, that my client, the plaintiff, is compelled to court of justice to demand it, and to ask at s for injuries inflicted upon him by the de -n, I dare say you caught from my learned "Mr. Murphy) what is the nature of It is defamation of a clergyman, man in his office, defamation of such a ue, Mr. Hearne, the plaintiff, would be v of which he is now an ornament, he a gentleman among the persons who would be dishonoured in his calling •utd the bishops, or those with ...ongs, would be justified in suspend lid be bound to suspend him—and deprive Very serious matter this, therefore, the issues you liaxT to try f it vier .eeive, into which you are to inquire ; very „tore, I should entreat your earnest attention, , between the parties justice may fairly be done. in part, in the name ()Piny client, Mr. Hearne, I manner of doubt, any more than I have of the fact Awn existence, that justice will be done him if he has to it at your hands—and that, according to the injury i-such violence as has been offered to his character, re .s compensation—for compensation at your hands will client undoubtedly receive. Gentlemen, before I pro d to )3tate to you the details of the libel and the slander ich we lay at the door of the defendant, Mr. Stowell, bear Me, whilst I lay before you some facts inci dental to the question you have to enquire into, but, a s I think, necessary to the proper understanding of the issues you have to try•. I will tell you, then, what you probably know much better than I do, but I state it for the sake of convenience, that in the town of Manchester there are thou- with me for a v ... sands,,,, .;ands of our p,onian Catholic brethren. I 1 • 1 * ; within bounds, and at a moderate aver . ~ar‘flotalesa than from betwcon 70,000 to 41111 (Pif, g \ 4 ;kkr 11 gb,coo human souls in Manchester of that persuasion 1 and right, meet, and tit and necessary it should be, surely,. that this vast number of persons should have the due administra tion of the sacramenti . according to the services of their church—that they shoithl have religious instruction and spiritual edificatiOn, being responsible beings as we all of us are, travelling through this world to another. There. fore, I say the Roman Catholics have done what_ I I hope is j reasonable service in your eyes, Besides providing for those who are in the Infirmary of their own people, they wait in the gaols. Besides allow ing the sick to be visited there, and the persons who are in prison to be come unto, they have provided, for a flock so large as I have described, places of worship, chapels, four in number, I think, in the town. They have provided these chapels with suitable ministers, for the due celebration of the services of their church, and for carrying on, in the man ner belonging to their communion, divine service, to the be nefit of the Christian public. There may be in Manchester . , and elsewhere persons who think all this very wrong, or very vain, and of no effect whatsoever ; there may be persons who think that, after all, this is but the blind leading the blind; there may be persons—l hope none of us here are such—who think that within the pale of that ancient church salvation is not to be found, and that if you speak of a Roman Catholic who is living in piety and faith, and good works within him, you are speaking only of one who lives in the midst of dark ness, and who does not see his way at all. Gentlemen, such things might be thought at Manchester, such things might be said at Manchester, and they might be said and thought elsewhere too; but the persons of that persuasion, they who attended on the ministry, the ministers of religion themselves, nevertheless, proceeded with their work of duty, going through what is theirs to perform for the edification of their flock ; and I believe, gentlemen, you will find Mr. Hearne, who is one of those - clergymen, , has carried on, as a clergyman, the duty of several chapels, in piety towards God, and in useful ness towards men. Mr. Hearne, the plaintiff in this action, . is, as I have already told you, one of those clergymen. He is a gentleman who was educated at the College of Maynooth for the Roman Catholic ministry. He came over out of that country to Garstang, in your county, where he served as Ro man Catholic clergyman for a considerable time, with credit to himself and with usefulness to the people. He removed from Garstang, many years ago, to Manchester, and he was appointed one of the junior priests of St. Mary's Chapel, in that town. After some years of labour there, he was remov ed from that to a higher position—that which be now holds at St. Patrick's, one of the other chapels of the town. Since the year 1831 Mr. Hearne had officiated as one of the clergy men of that chapel, esteemed by all who knew him, and liv ing in good reputation both with the clergy and laity of his community. Gentlemen, such is the plaintiff, with whom you have to do in this action. I will now turn to the defen dant, the Rev. Mr. Hugh Stowell, who is here to answer to Mr. . Hearne for the injury he has done to Mr. Hearne. Mr. Hugh Stowell, as I nuderstand, is a clergyman of the esta blished Church of England, himself residing in Manchester too—a person in cure of souls in that town, being the incum bent of Christ Church, one of the churches or chapels of the place—a gentleman, as lam informed, of great attainments —a person who is a most popular preacher—a man who has a great name and following in the church—a most eloquent man, and a man accustomed to public speaking. Gentlemen, it is that fatal gift of eloquence which has brought him into his present position ; for if the reverend defendant had but governed his tongue; if he had but, upon the occasion I am going to look to, kept in order that unruly member; if he had only remembered that, though it is a very little member, and boasteth great things, yet behold what mighty matter a little fire kindleth ; . if he had but re membered, that if he had said what he was able to say well for the subject be had in hand—which he had a right to have in hand—and kept off that which he had no right to take in hand, but which when he did take in hand he slandered and abused—you should not have this case to try to-day, nor he to stand in the unfortunate condition for any clergyman of any church in Christendom to stand in—as a person who has to answer the impeachment of evil speaking and slandering. Gentlemen, I think I told you that the plaintiff, Mr. Hearne, was educated at Maynooth. It is ne cessary for the right understanding of the enquiry we are engaged in that I should say a word in passing upon the nature of that establishment. You know, it is historically true, that Maynooth is an institution in Ireland for the pur pose of educating Roman Catholic youth who are destined for holy orders in that church. Before the union of Ireland and this country it was an institution founded, and existing, and supported by the state. It was a foundation laid in the wisdom—l care not whether persons differ from that or not — I am not here to defend the wisdom any more than to depre cate their wisdom who deny that wisdom—l am not here for any such purpose ; but I am here to say it was a foundation laid in the wisdom of Mr. Pitt, who at that time was the government of the country, and it has ever since that time, now nearly 50 years ago, gone on supported by parliamentary grants annually and specifically given—and this not only since the Roman Catholic relief bill, but before the Roman Catholic relief bill passed at all, when men's minds were not favourable in the least degree to Roman Catholic claims—but still it was thought that the faith of the country was pledged in some way or other to the support of that establishment. Whigs and tories, one government after another, people in power and out of it, with but very few and those not very remarkable exceptions, have always continued and combined up to the very year in which I have the honour to stand before you, in giving by parliamentary grants so many thousands a year for the support and maintenance of that institution. Now, gentlemen, as I said before, whether that foundation was prudently laid I shall not discuss. I believe it was laid from such notion as this, that if you educated the Roman Catholic priesthood at home, instead of sending them abroad, as upon their travels elsewhere to find education, you could not only ensure the making of them into quite as sound scholars and divines, but you could ensure the making of them into better subjects, because they would not be so likely to feel attached to other interests, and their foreign attachments would be made likely to cease and be forgotten. Whether that notion was a right one, whether the scheme has succeeded, whether it has failed, and whether it ought to be abandoned, these are all general questions fitting for the proper time and occa sion to be discussed. This, however is not the place, nor is it the occasion to enter upon that subject. It is out of a dis cussion respecting Maynooth that the question which you have to decide entirely arose. Now, gentlemen, as I have just told you, although the question arises out of some such discussion, perhaps this is the proper time for me to lay be fore you distinctly such views as I have upon the subject of bow far every free man in a free eountry like ours has a right to discuss questions of public policy. It is our privilege, and our birthright, as Englishmen, that every man has a right freely to discuss all matters and institutions, men and things, which as a subject of the realm he has a right to consider, and that both things temporal and things ecclesiastical. If any man, in this country, really and truly believes that the foundation of the college of Maynooth is wrong, if any man really and truly believes that it is improper to have it for the support of Roman Catholics and of the Roman Catholic religion, if any man really and truly believes that such an establishment, so supported, is a disparagement to the christian religion, which belongs to this land—if he really and truly believes that the support of such an institution as Maynooth, does, in some way or other, compromise the safety, the honour, and the christian princi ples of the protestant establishment of this land—that man is justified in doing his very best to make parliament, by reasonable measures, to withdraw its annual support. He may, to be sure, hold doctrines in private which he would not hold in public respecting it ; but if he discuss the ques tion fairly like a man, if he use no violent or vituperative terms at which common sense revolts, why should he not, if he acts in fairness and simplicity of mind, endeavour to mend the constitution of the land if he thinks it wants to be reformed, remodelled or reconstructed—for all that is law ful and possible—in order to give the greater energy, strength, and vital principle to the institutions of the glorious land in which it is our blessing and our privilege to live. That, is our mind ; that is all freemen's mind. I therefore believe and think that they ought not to be judged too narrowly who, in discussions of that kind, honestly and fairly under taken, make a slip here and there, provided thatthe real pur pose of their mind be truly and faithfully honest. But gentlemen, such being the true principle, and being, as I be lieve the practice—l hope it will never cease to be the prac tice—there are reasonable restraints to be laid even upon a liberty like this. No man may use this liberty as a cloak for maliciousness. You must not go to a public meeting, and then bear down and destroy private character, under the guise and mask of some political disputation. You must not go to some such meeting with any such purpose. The law will not permit it. You must answer for it if you do. You must not at some such public meeting or public discussion, say what is false of a man which, if it were true, would go to the disinheriting of him from the way in which he makes his bread, to degrade him in the estimation of society, to put him out of those friendships and acquaintances he loves, and to lower him in the condition of life to which he belongs. You must not do that. I must not, forinstance, go to a dis cussion on Maynooth, either about the giving or the with drawal of the grant, and whilst I am aiming a blow at May nooth in the distance, stab Mr. Hearne in Manchester behind his back. If that is the law of the land it is consistent with common sense and with justice; and gentlemen it is the law of the land as far as I understand it. And, neither if Igo to a place for the purpose of discussing some public matter, and speak in the way of an instance of some private person whose name or station will help my argument, to stir up the malignant passions, or rouse up any other passion, in the audience as I shall show the defendant did, to swell the gale and carry all along with me. I must not say, " I have what lam saying upon authority." I must not say a thing of a person, and then add, " I do not know myself that it is true, but I pledge myself that it is, because I have some person who tells me so, and I will bring him before you publicly if you think what I have said is false." And why ? Because the repetition of slander is just as bad a thing as the origina tion of slander—nay, the person who repeats slander after wards is often worse than he who originated it, because it is done with more deliberation, with more malice, as we call it, and he may do a great deal more mischief by it. I beg you to carry these remarks with you when we enter upon the question which we are about to try ; but as I have found in one of the books in our learning, a very exact passage in point, stating more correctly than I can what is the law upon the subject, with your leave I will read it to you, and you shall see what it is. The learnedgentleman here quoted two passages from a case which he did not specify, in which two judges of the Court of 1 King's Bench ruled that the circulation of a calumny was much worse than the invention, as the author might be insane or intoxicated, or a man of bad character ; and the repeater of it might give it the weight of great character, of sound mind, and of reputation for judgment ; the bare statement by such a person that such an imputation had been made, might circulate it more widely and more prejudicially than it could be even by the author.] That, the learned counsel con tinued, is the law. It is founded on plain understanding and common sense, and I think that every man who hears me will allow it is founded on absolute justice. You have followed me gentlemen thus far in these s p o re lo li u mina ; hryutreumowartsw.illl am very sorry to have detained y g o t efrAupproiln last, the 28 i a t t e h subject j e c the t before h y , o i n n . t 1 1 1 n e e the u i month o i m n m t h e e d Manchester, there was calleda grea r t a p th u e b r l , ic to m c e o e r t r i e n c g t t ol o y e s o e n lf: con sider the question of Maynoo th , or it was not a case where there was to be discussion—which might be very proper—they'were to meet rather to chew their own strength and their own feeling upon the subject, which was also very proper. It was a meeting to petition parliament to withdraw the Maynooth grant. As I said before, that may be, and no doubt is, a very legitimate object. Had the meet ing conducted itself in all respects properly, no person could have blamed them for assembling on such a subject. They might have said a bitter thing here, or an acrimonious thing there, but all offence would have gone by like the idle wind ; no persons against whom attack was directed would have troubled their heads about the matter. The meeting was at tendedaa rs e I excellentun d b e y m r sta a nna duy audiences—all e e r nl s tc o es n so_ s o — na bi wasE y e b y e e f su t wlal and o e df n a 1 two eena r a as n n, d dic t oh h fe r l n e a e dn t ioe h ts o a— u l l s wo a %nhv ladies—who t s e t n o d w e e d i , i , a t s h d e i d d e a f l e l n t d h a e n a t u , dwi was s n c a e p — p o t i o n t t e h d e c s i p m e i a r k u e l li r i s i . ed to speak themselves. Th ey attended—most diligently at ing. His taking the chair was the si g n a l for looufdMtahrce.cmlliameuegath: l e i i v e i l l i h l e n h o a t d i c u e p t o o n s t h h e i s w o c w c h a s a t i o a n n , immense npower all rfeosre goodnt , a o f a r c f t o w r and that if this highly gifted and truly eloquent man was to choose the better side always, and never the worse. how much real good might be done by that glorious gift , He took th e chair, and was the fi rst to address the m eeting. He spoke, as I understand, in a very animated strain for some half-hour. As the question before them was the withdrawal of the grant front Maynooth, you may expect that Maynooth was the principal object of his animadversion. I shall say nothing about what he said except that he breathed out his threatenings against the institution_,. he said a great deal against popery ; and then he came to the part in question, to which I call your serious attention. Of course a very likely topic to be argued was the education of the persons who were to become future priests, at the college of Maynooth. He began, therefore, by first speaking upon that subject, and then he said he should give them an instance. Then he gave that instance from a document which he then held in his hand, and which he said had been given to him by certain persons whose names he would' not disclose upon that occasion, but that if the papists afterwards required him to give his autho rity, that authority should be forthcoming. Now mark who was the man about to give this instance. He was a person well known to that vast audience ; he was a man followed by cheers and' admiration up to that time, as I dare say he had all his life before ; lie was a man who had not only the power of saying in words what he thought, but of making his words well understood by th e manner an d t one i n which he uttered them: he was likely, therefore, with his character, with his attainments and with his office, to command a willing au- dience. Judge ye whether or not upon that occasion he had not full authority. Gentlemen, he said— " I will just give you a specimen of what these priests, in doctrinated at Maynooth, teach these poor creatures in refe rence to the way of salvation, bow they grind them down and debase them almost as low as the beast that perisheth." Hard words these, gentlemen, from a minister of peace! Hard words these from one who might have learned—l am sure he knows where it is written—hat " the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated—full of mercy !" Hard words _these from the Mr. Stowell! They were hard words, too, front one who ought to have remembered what is the meaning of cha rity and love towards his brother—that charity is kind and speaketh no evil However he spoke in generals up to this time. He merely said these things to the disadvantage cf Maynooth, but he was drawing the eye of the audience to that particular point of his instance which pointed at Mr. Hearne as the party upon whom the execration of the meet _ _._ ing should fall, in proportion as they believed Mr. Stowell was right in denouncing him. Accordingly I shall read every word of the passage ; but I shall first give you what he said: He gave the authority of some nondescript persons, of peo ple without a name, whom he affected to be able to bring for ward upon some occasion when the papists should call for them ; and then he charged upon Mr. Hearne a story that Mr. Hearne, the clergyman of St. Patrick's chapel, for there is no doubt about the name—there is no doubt about the of fice, that he upon some occasion, about a fortnight before, adjudged a penance upon some poor creature, some poor Roman Catholic brother. It turned out to be a story about some factory man of so revolting, so abominable, so incredi ble, and so disgraceful a character, that if it were true, there being no authority in the church for a priest to inflict any such penance, he would not only be, as I said before, lost in the esteem of every person who loved and esteemed him be fore, but he would be degraded and deprived of his benefice by his bishop. The story goes on to say that Mr. Hearne told the man that the penance must be fully satisfied or else he should not allow him to come to the sacraments, again charging upon the plaintiff. a clerk in holy orders in the Catholic church, an offence which, if it were true, would en title the bishop to deprive him of his benefice. But I will read to you, almost without comment, what fell from Mr. Stowell upon that occasion— " The circumstance which I am going to narrate did not occur in Ireland, in the darkness of popery there ; but here, in Manchester, in the midst of all our daylight. (Hear, hear.)" I am reading now from the report which was published in the paper, but I shall give you exactly the same statement from the short-hand notes of the reporter whom I will call to give evidence. At the end of this sentence there occurred the words " hear, hear," which you know is an expression of admiration or applause usual in public meetings. Then there came the following— " You will perhaps not believe it ; but the witnesses are prepared to come forward and prove the fact, or I would not eve it to you." Was there ever ushered in a story more likely to lead the audience to believe he had authority for it? And remember the man who is telling the story. He proceeds— " I will not mention their names, lest it should expose them to persecution ; but if the papists choose to come for ward, and demand the evidence, that evidence is forthcom ing. I bear in my hand, then, a document subscribed by three of the police of Manchester ; one is not a policeman at the present moment, but he was at the time that he furnished this document." You see he came prepared with something ready cut and dried in his hand. The law will say that is a presumption of premeditated malice, much more than if the speaker had been carried away by the excitement of the moment. Mr. Stowell, however, came prepared with this document, and it was out of that document he was to convict Mr. Hearne. He proceeds— " He states, that he was a policeman then, in Smedley lane, and that, one morning, a fortnight from that period"— Then he gives this statement— - " ' A dyer, going to his work, asked me if I had seen a man walking on his hands and knees, the last two nights. I said that I had not, but that I had seen him doing it the last two mornings, and that I at first thought he was making his escape, or concealing himself from some pursuers, but that I subsequently took him for a cripple.' .. Thea, says Mr. Stowell, " Whii . was this mysterious per son?" still keeping up the attention of his audience. He then goes on from the document— " In about ten minutes after this, the dupe (these are the witness's own words) made his appearance, crawling with his hands and knees, on the roughest part of the pave ment.' " Certainly a very degrading condition for any poor creature to be in. You will see how it came according to the author that he was there, and that alone— " ' I then resolved to satisfy himself, when I elicited the following answers from him :—I asked him, What are you doing all that about ?" It is penance for my sins.' Then the audience say " Hear, hear," and there is a laugh. Mr. Stowell took occasion from that circumstance to bring the audience back again, for lie said— " I am more disiosed to weep than to laugh, my dear friends ; for allow me to say, I lament that a man should think he was saving his soul, arid suffering the work of the Lamb of God, by thus degrading himself under the ban of a popish priest." Hard words again, I say, gentlemen. What think you of it ? Still, you see, no name is mentioned. " I say, I deeply la ment it," adds Mr. Stowell. Hard words again. But to proceed— " Could you not atone for your sins without doing that ?' No.' Why ? " Because the priest will not administer the sacrament to me till I have done it.' How long have you done it?' Four days.' How man more days will it take before you finish ?" I cannot tell. ' But when will you go to your priest to know ?" When I have done it nine days more I shall go.' How many hours do you do it each day ?" Four hours.' At one time?' No ; two in the morning and two at night." Do you work at any thing ?" I work in a factory. " _ _ _ _ Then Mr. Stowell breaks off again, and conies iu with this observation— " Poor fellow ! working in a factory for_ twelve hours a- day, and then dragging On his hands and knees over the rough Stones, for four hours a-day more ! The priest should have taken his place, and done it for him. (Loud cheers.)" . . You see the influence he had with his audience—that they shouted as far as the story had gone, although no name was yet mentioned, no person or any particular place pointed out ; they submitted to be told all this by Mr. Stowell, who roused them to such a degree of indignation against the priest, that they gave him loud applause for saying the priest should have done that penance himself. Then the document goes on— . . . " ` Who is your priest?' ' Mr. Hearne.' (Hear, hear, and cries of Shame !')" Now I dare say, gentlemen, you have some times attended public meetings, and that you know what sort of a thing what is called an honest burst of execration is ; and I have no doubt you will be satisfied when you have heard the evi dence, of the way in which Mr. Hearne's name was received when he was pointed out as the priest who had enjoined this abominable, degrading. and disgraceful penance which Mr. Stowell told them of. I have not the least doubt I say, that the audience thought as ill of Mr. Hearne as it was possible for them to do : _ _ " Who is your priest?' Mr. Hearne.' What chapel do you go to?" St. Patrick's.' What is your name ?' ' John O'Hara." You had better come on the path, or go into that field, where it will be softer and easy for you.' Oh, no ; that will not be doing penance.' We now looked at his knees, which were much lacerated. We expostulated with him, but it was of no avail. He said he was a great sinner. We insisted on his desisting, but he resisted vio lently, took the sergeant's stick from him ; and laid on us with it furiously. It was with great difficulty that we suc ceeded in subduing him, when I deprived him of his beads, his crucifix, and ' The Garden of the Soul,' which are now at the police station. The undersigned police constables are ready to give testimony of this.' " That gentlemen—that document—so read upon that occa sion by Mr. Stowell, is the libel of which Mr. Hearne the plaintiff complains ; and your province it is to judge of the effect of that which was then attributed to Mr. Hearne, the clergyman of St. Patrick's Chapel by name—l mean that sort of penance which is 'degrading a rational being into something like the beast th a t perisheth, if it were true. But it is absolutely and entirely false that Mr. Hearne ever en joined any such penance; it is absolutely and entirely false that he could by any will or authority of his office enjoin such penance ; it is absolutely and entirely false that he did by reason of any such penance not being performed, interdict the sacraments from John O'Hara or any other person. He never did so in his life ; he had no authority to do so from the discipline of the church ; and if he had done either the one or the other he would have been declared unfit for his office, and have been deprived of it by his superiors. Is that libel, therefore, upon him to be borne? The document being ended, I shall only trouble you with one or two words which come in by way of end, and then I have done with what is the libel and slander complained of. Says Mr. Stowell— " Now, my friends, is that an education which a protes tant British government is authorized in supporting for a free-born people like the English people? (Applause.) Are we warranted in paying our money to educate priests thus to grind down, into the dust, their fellow-subjects ? Did you ever bear of a protestant minister thus lording it over God's heritage, and debasing and degrading his flock ?" And there is something more not set out in the declaration, and with which, therefore. I need not trouble you. But, however, what has Mr. Stowell acknowledged by asking this question ? When he asks who ever heard of a protestant minister thus lording it over God's heritage, I will tell him that no man in his senses ever heard of a protestant minister in any country, or of any man not full of the darkest suspi cions of the Roman Catholic clergy, and of Mr. Hearne in particular, venturing to believe such a miserable fabrication of such a story as that of Mr. Hearne or any Roman Ca tholic priest. I have the privilege, to be sure, of being a protestant in this land; if I had been asked such a question I should have laughed, and said no, I never heard of such a charge against a protestant priest, but I will tell you what I have heard : I have heard of charges as monstrous and as false not long ago made against persons who are not christi ans—l mean the Jews—a most incredible story about their having mingled christian blood with their bread. Though we should disbelieve it, it is historically true, that Jews have been prosecuted even to death for such things, because some persons have been found who persuaded their own minds that such things were possible. If any man were to christianto you mixed d eal whe ther su ch . a falsehood would not be injurious to the allege e l e i sp e t a l fu g i axetrast reputat ion such: a f e nna t ybs h ar e tocehchfai J hasda e rt ir w ghsgoee i , ef s Jewish ti 0. s the rabbi, p a s s o that ve r he I chief is ainhejaoult whom uo r ilu i ta e sti s es t tdoa of the attributable our h ewt e apebur J ltea e l w i eoi and snhmo man religionlnasanyny per sonitfhi the opithe n w i o a n y 9 in f aN‘ll,h7clhiorlelpeoard rts i i t n a t t h th e e n t e i w m s e p . a A er n s d ca w r h ry en an y d ou sp k r n e o a w d mouth b yo r um o t a hr d . fors t otwh the m o me nt , an , d t h t a h t u sb h y u bh n y d i rs the e gi d v s fn o og f o ltihspihs instance nn thousandssigtauni iniquity oa fb e a r o pe rsons nasni Mr.,ns a few hours would be led to b e li eve t h e same statement made Hearne and this unhappy person, you find Mr. Hearne's good fame, his name, and his credit destroyed an d lowered among all his friends and acqua intan ces , till he set hi mself to work to shew the statement was ent i rely untrue. Th en Mr. Hearne does set himself straight aga in in society, then he does, by co ming into a court of justice call upon his tradu cer to snake good his word, to shew what he had been telling is true, and if be cannot do so to take the consequences. Mr. Hearne was not present when this attack was made upon him. We cannot expect he should be. I believe the persons at the meeting were all of one way of thinkin •g , they went there rather to support their opiniob thanto have it discussed. Mr. Hearne was in Ireland at the time attend ing his fath er who was ill; but the moment he heard of it, that instant he took steps to clear his character and to have this thing put right before the public. The meeting was on the 28th April. i On the 6th of May, Mr. Hearne being at that time in Ire land, instructed Mr. Gibson his attorney, to take immediate steps to refute this base calumny. Mr. Gibson accordingly wrote a letter—to whom should he write ? — to Mr. Stowell himself, the gentleman who had said only the week before that at the proper time and place be was ready to come for ward with evidence in support of his charge. Mr. Hearne could not sit down under the imputation. He a clergyman, to be attacked and prejudiced by a clergyman of high name and station In the Church of England, like Mr. Stowell, he could not brook it, and he took immediate steps therefore to vindicate his honour and to clear his character. Mr. Gibson accordingly wrote to Mr. Stowell the following letter : _ [This letter was put in, and willbe found in the evidence.] A very proper step to take on behtlf of his client, in order to be certain whether or no this monstrous thing had been cor rectly stated. It appeared that at that time Mr. Stowell was absent from Manchester, but Mr. Gibson not knowing that, wrote a second letter, in which he repeated the first with a little addition [This letter was also put in.] No answer came from Mr. Stowell to either of these two letters. The second was not answered at all, but probably there might be some mistake about it because Mr. Stowell was not in Manchester. On the 12th, however, there came an answer to the letter of the 6th • it was from Mr. Goulden, the attorney for Mr. Stowell. Mr. Goulden says— " Manchester, May 12, 1840. " SlR,—The Rev. Hugh Stowell has forwarded to me your letter to him of the 6th inst., which he received in London on Friday. In answer to the question therein contained, he • instructs me to say that the report in the Manchester Courier to which you allude is, as usually happens from the rapidity with which he speaks, far from being correct." Now mind, The question put to him was this—" What you said of Mr. Hearne, is that correct?" His answer is in ge neral that from the rapidity with which he speaks the report is as usual far from being correct—no answer to the question whether the document relating to John O'Hara was read at the meeting by him. We shall probably have that document to-day, for we have given the defendant notice to produce it, and you will see whether it is a true document that we set up against him. • Mr. CRESSWELI shall produce it Mr. DUNDAS.—I am sure my learned friend will do every thing that is candid, and every thing to promote the progreis of the cause, Mr. Goulden's letter concluded thus : " I am satisfied that from the absence of Mr. Stowell, he has not had any opportunity of comparing the document in the paper with the original, therefore any further communi cation upon the subject you will please address to me as his attorney. I am, &c. W. W. GOULDEN." " Chas. Gibson, Esq. Manchester. This was very unsatisfactory. Of course, Mr. Hearne, or the gentleman who acted for him , would never be satisfied with that. One would have thought that Mr. Stowell would have been glad to have come, at least half way, to meet Mr. Hearne, if Hr. Hearne conceived lie had been libelled—and, have afforded the earliest explanation.' This was not a defi nite answer, and Mr. Gibson accordingly wrote another letter on the next day to Mr. Goulden in which he said— _ " I have to acknowledge the receipt of yours of yesterday's date; and I shall be glad to know whether I am to deem it a final reply to mine of the 6th . instant, addressed to Mr. _ _ Stowell, and whether Mr. Stowell is prepared to point out in what particulars the report is not correct ?" Nd'answer came to this letter of the 13th till the 17th ; and then there came this reply from' Mr. Goulden to which I call particular attention. At this time there could be no manner of doubt, that Mr. Stowell must be perfectly sure Mr. Hearne was in earnest about setting his character straight. I should say so from these letters which I have read, should you not ? In point of fact, although at that time the defendant did not know it, my client had issued out the writ in this action, namely, on the 15th, although it was not served till some days afterwards. Upon the 17th, there came this letter from Mr. Goulden, Mr. Stowell's attorney, to Mr. Gibson, Mr. Hearne's attorney : " In answer to your letter of the 13th, I have now to state that Mr. Stowell is quite willing to enter into any explanation of any statement made by him in public, and upon sufficient evidence that he had been betrayed into any mistake at once, and frankly to acknowledge it. But in the present instance, an application has been made to him through a solicitor —." I should not have thought that extraordinary seeing that the plaintiff was in Ireland. " Without any previous communication with Mr.,Stowell upon the part of your client, and questions have been put to him by such solicitor, any more explicit answer might lead to admissions capable of being turned to improper purposes, and not merely affecting the merits of the case." You see, gentlemen, that Mr. Stowell had been taking right good advice from his lawyer ; he found he had got into one scrape, and he was not going to fall into any more; but then was added this passage:- - " At the same time Mr. Stowell entertains the strongest conviction that your client is perfectly conscious of the sub. stantial truth of the allegations used by Mr. Stowell at the meeting of the 28th." This was written on the I7th, a month, or twenty days after the meeting, and still he puts it to Mr. Hearne that Mr. Hearne is guilty of this thing, and that he knows he is guilty. Does not that show a degree of malice you should not have expected to find in Mr. Stowell ? Does not that show he was the man to have spoken premeditatingly on the 28th, when twenty days afterwards he maintains the same ground and the same opinion, and upon what evidence did he speak? Upon the evidence of that document—we cannot tell whose it was—he reiterated this miserable story, a story as false, from the first to the last of it, as any that can be, which has no truth whatever. Mr. Goulden went on— " Under these circumstances I must, on the part of Mr. Stowell, decline for the present any other answer to your letter of the 13th inst. Mr. Stowell, however, will hold him self prepared to prove, before any legal tribunal to which your client may be pleased to summon him, the general truth of the statement read by him at that meeting." Gentlemen, he cannot prove the truth of that statement respecting Mr. Hearne. He ought to have put upon the record it was true if he would prove it now. He has put upon the record that he did not speak the words imputed to him, or that they were not spoken of the plaintiff in his office. The letter went on, " Your letter of the 13th inst. to myself conveyed the first intimation to him of your letter dated the Bth inst. Mr. Stowell also wishes me to add that he had not and has not the slightest particle of personal feel ing against your client." Really this is too bad. If I who do not know Mr. Stowell at all, who never had the pleasure to see or hear that gentle man—which, I believe, would be a great pleasure and instruc tion—if I were to night to pick up in the street some story against him, which would vilify him, bring him into great contempt, and place Isis benefice in jeopardy, if I were to state upon my authority in the place where I spoke that I had a document which I would bring forward at the proper time (when he dared to call for the proof), could I say I had no personal ill will against Mr. Stowell if I tell a falsehood of him ? What is the meaning of words and acts? If I fire a pistol into a mob, strike some person whom I never saw before, and kill him, will it do to say I had no ill will against that man ? If a man traduce another, has uo grounds for taking away his good name, and ,has not truth upon his side to back him, I say he has in point of law ill will against that man. His tongue gave vent to his angry passions whilst he ought to have kept himself in order ; he ought not to have allowed his zeal outrun his discretion. Gentlemen, I will now call evidence before you to prove in the first place what passed at that meeting with regard to the libel ; in the next place I shall put into the box some grave and learned autho rities of the Romish church in order to give proof before you that according to the discipline of that church, in all modern times for a certainty, that there never was such a penance imposed as is stated in that document so read upon that occasion to be enjoinsd by Mr. Hearne upon O'Hare, is beyond the authority of any priest in the church, and that it is all vanity and nonsense ; 1 shall also chew from the mouths of these learned persons, that if any priest of the Roman Catholic persuasion were to interdict the sacraments to any man, because he had not performed such penance as that, he would be suspended for it, and be deprived of his benefice by his superior. I shall call before you clergy and laity well acquainted with Mr. Hearne, who will tell you there is not the slightest doubt in their minds that the application of the charge is to him ; indeed no rational being could have a doubt it. Then it will be for the other side to make their defence. I will not speculate upon what sort of a defence will be set up. Surely it will not be said—it cannot be listened to for a moment if it is, I should think, by plain men of common sense, that this was fair discussion—that to single out a man and hold him up to public execration in reference to some part . of his conduct, which is mani festly false, its justifiable by the rules of fair discussion, or by the law of the land. I hope you will not hear such a proposition as that, because, if it were allow ed, no man would be safe. You have only to call a public meeting to place every man's character in jeopardy. I need not say a word to you ypon the value of character to any man whatever. To a priest of any persuasion it is valuable beyond all count and estimation; and it is therefore that my client comes into this place for you to judge upon him—and as he would trust his life in your hands, so does he place his character. He tells you that in this hall of justice, where high and low, rich and poor, Catholic and Protestant—here at least both one and the other meet upon common ground— here he knows he shall have justice. He asks of you, if you think he has been thus grossly, unjustifiably, and unwarrant ably injured, as gentlemen, to give him that for his character, by way of reparation, which, as a gentleman, he has a right to look for at the hands of an English jury ; and in the name of the plaintiff I demand it. The learned counsel then re sumed his seat. John Davison, examined by Mr. WIGHTMAN.—Are you reporter to the Manchester Courier I—l am. Was there a meeting called on the 28th April last, to con sider the propriety of petitioning against the parliamentary grant to the College of Maynooth ?--Yes. Was it to petition parliament against the grant ?—So it was stated in the advertisement. It was called by public advertisement ?—By handbill I be lieve. Was it held in Bywater's rooms ?—lt was. Are those rooms in Manchester, where public meetings are sometimes held ?—Yes. Did you attend the meeting there on the 28th April, as a reporter for the newspaper ?—I did. Was the meeting numerously attended ?—I think by about 1500, as near as I can tell. Who took the chair ?—Mr. Stowell. Did he address the meeting upon the object of it ?—Hc did. Did you take notes of what he said?—Yes. Were they in shorthand ?—Yes. During the course of his speech, had Mr. Stowell a paper in his hand from which he read?—He said so; but as I was busy writing, I never saw it. He seemed to have one. Have you your notes here ?—Yes. Just turn to them : begin with these words—" I will just give you a specimen of what these , priesta indoctrinated at Maynooth," &c. Did you report that in the Manchester Courier ?—Yes. Mr, CRESSWELL called upon the witness to read the whole of the speech from his notes. Mr. DUNDAS.—Let. the newspaper be put in, and read from. It is difficult to Make out shorthand notes after such a length of time. Mr. CRESSWELL.—We will take from the newspaper all that is oral, but we will require the document which consti tutes the libel to be read from the shorthand notes. The CLERK of the COURT then read the report from the newspaper, and when he came to the words " cheers and applause," Mr. CRESSWELL objected that they should be read, as they were not words used by Mr. Stowell. Mr. WIGHTMAN.—Yes, leave out " applause," for it is likely it did not begin till the libel was read. (Laughter.) Mr. CRESSWELL.—WeII then, read all, the " applause and cheers." The Clerk then continued to read the report, until he came to the portion of it where the speakers read from the docu ment alluded to. Mr. WIGHTMAN.—Mr. Cresswell said he would produce the original ; let him do so now. Mr. CRESSWELL.—Here it is, recollect you have called for it ; let it be put in and read. Mr. WIGHTMAN, (upon looking at it,) I don't think we will use this at all. Mr. CRESSWELL contended that his learned friend was highly irregular. Ile had first called for a paper, and when it was produced he would not put it in. He apprehended his learned friend was bound to put it in. Mr. WIGHTMAN withdrew the objection, and the docu ment was read by the officer of the court. It was the same as that set forth in the libel, with the exception that it was signed by a sergeant of police, at Manchester, and three others, who purported to be able to give testimony to the truth of it. The reading of the speech was then concluded, and Mr. Davison retired from the witness box. The Rev. James Crook was next called and examined by Mr. HOGGINS, as follows: Are you a Catholic clergyman I—l am a Catholic clergy. man. Do you belong to any Catholic chapel in Manchester?— Yes, I am senior priest of St. Augustine's chapel - in Man chester. Do you know the plaintiff ?—Yes, I know him well. Is he senior clergyman and priest of the chapel of St. Pat rick?—He is. Can you inform me how many years he has been so ? More than fourteen years. How many years have you held an appointment at your chapel ?—More than fifteen years. Have you heard that statement read which alleges a pe nance commanded by Mr. Hearne ?—I have heard it read. The JUDGE.—We will call that the original paper. Mr. HOGGlNS.—According to the discipline and practice of Roman Catholic worship, has any individual priest autho rity to impose that penalty upon any sinner ?—He had no such power. Does that statement which has been read refer to the plaintiff, the Rev. Daniel Hearne ?—I believe that it does. In your judgment, sir, would that statement be calculated to bring into disparagement Mr. Hearne with his brethren of the Roman Catholic persuasion ? Mr. CRESSWELL objected to this question. He appre hended that this was no question for his learned friend to put to the witness. The issue was, whether the letter natu rally tended to that effect, and whether the person who pub lished it must have known it. He submitted, therefore, that the question was not admissible. Mr. HOGGINS said the question was, what was the natu ral tendency of the libel as published by Mr. Stowell ; there fore it was that he asked the witness what was the effect of the libel among the Roman Catholic priesthood. The JUDGE thought the question could not be put in that form. They had shewn that the original paper represented the plaintiff as having done something which, according to the constitution of the Roman Catholic church, he had no right to do. He did not think it was a question of evidence whether the plaintiff had exceeded his duty, and was thereby brought into disrepute, but a subject of inference. Mr. HOGGINS.—Very well, my lord. If a Catholic priest [to the witness] had imposed that penance, would it have led to the interference of the bishop ?—Most decidedly it would. If a Roman Catholic clergyman imposed that penance, would the bishop have power to deprive him, if he thought proper, of his office or appointment ?—Most unquestionably he would. Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—I observe that one question put to you was, whether an individual priest had any power to impose such penance : is there any power in your church to impose such a penalty ?—I believe there is no power to impose such penance as is represented there to have been imposed. Is there no power in your church to impose a penance by crawling upon the ground ?—There is no power which would authorise an individual priest to impose it. That is not my question; that has been answered already. My question is, is there any power in your church, in any of the functionaries of your church, to impose penance by crawling upon the ground know of none. Then am I to take your evidence as being, that there is no authority in the Church of Rome to impose penance by crawling upon the ground ?—Similar to the one represented there, there is none. I did not ask that question. My question is, is there no power in the Church of Rome to impose a penance by crawl ing upon the ground ?—None which would degrade him be fore the public or in his own eyes. I did not ask that question. My question is this—is there no power in the Church of Rome to impose a penance by crawling upon the ground ?—I know of none. Then why did you give me a short time since the more limited answer to my question, and why are you now pre pared to give, me a general answer that there is no power in the church of Rome to impose penance by crawling upon the ground ?—Because it is not always easy to foresee the ques tions that may arise on the different constructions that men place upon them. You thought it very easy to see at the time the meaning of my question. Are not, in point of fact, penances frequently _ performed by members of the Romish church, I do not mean by clergymen, by crawling upon the ground ?—I never saw anything of that nature. I know nothing of any authority that could enjoin them, and of my own personal knowledge I know nothing of any such. Of your own personal knowledge ? Ido not mean. to ap ply myself, sir, to such a penance as this-1 mean you dis tinctly to understand, that I put it as a general question— are there any penances in the Romish church by crawling upon the ground ?—I know of none. Do you mean to represent to me, as your evidence, that there is no such authority in the church of Rome ?—I mean to say I know of none. Have you ever resided in Ireland ?—I have never resided in Ireland. 1 have only been there two or three days. Have you ever been at Rome ?—I have not been at Rome. Is it an article in the creed of the church of Rome that penances are to be imposed by the priests ?—Penances may •be imposed. As a satisfaction for sin?—Partly medicinal, and partly as satisfaction as united with the merits of Christ ; but of them selves of no value if not united with the merits of Christ. Is it not part of the creed of the church of Rome that priests by adjudging small penances to heinous crimes be come partakers of other men's transgressions ?—That may be. I ask if it is not so ?--I think it is the opinion of some divines, but I am not bound by that. I did not ask you that question : are different divines in the church of Rome bound by different creeds ?—Certainly they are not, but we are allowed to entertain our own opi nions. We do not give up our opinions. Do von recognize the authority of the council of Trent ? The council of Trent, in doctrinal matters, is recognized. Is it not pare of the doctrine of the council of Trent that priests by adjudging small penalties to heinous sins become partakers of other men's transgressions ?—That is matter of opinion, with regard to which I am at liberty to entertain an opinion according to my own views ; we are not all of us bound by it. Are the canons promulgated by the council of Trent re ceived in your church ?—ln doctrinal matters they are. Is it one of the doctrines of the council of Trent that any person affirming that penance as used in the Catholic church is not truly and properly a sacrament is accursed ?—That is one of the canons. Is it one of the canons if any person shall affirm that we can by no means make satisfaction to God for our sins through the merits of Christ, as far as temporal penalty is concerned, either by punishment inflicted upon us by him, and patiently. borne, or adjudged by the priest, is not held accursed ?—I must object to receive your translation or in terpretation of the council. You may object, sir, if you please, but nevertheless I will thank you for a plain answer to my question.—That question I am not obliged to answer. Mr. CRESSWELL.—Yes but you are. The JUDGE.—What is the question? Mr. CRESSWELL.-1 was asking him, my lord, whether any person who affirms that we can by no means make satis faction to God for our sins through the merits of Christ, as far as temporal punishment is concerned, either by punish ments inflicted upon us by him and patiently borne, or ad judged by the priest, or by works done of our own accord, such as fasting, prayers, alms giving—l ask whether such a person is not held by their church to be accursed ? The JUDGE.—It is a subject for discussion, but I hardly think it is for evidence. Mr. DUNDAS.—It is a very long and difficult question, my lord. Witness.—lt would require long investigation, and a very long collation of different passages to ascertain whether this is a correct translation of the council of Trent. Mr. CRESSWELL.—I did not ask you that. Witness.--Were I to admit that I should not have an op portunity of ascertaining here whether that is a correct trans lation of the council of Trent. The J tirmz:The question is not whether this is a correct translation ; and 1 say you are bound to answer that ques tion. The question is—whether according to the doctrines of your church he is held accursed to whom that question applies ? Mr. CEESSWELL.—Now Mr. Crook, is it a doctrine of your church that the priest has absolute power of absolution ? —He has the power of forgiving sin, under the words of Christ. That is part of our doctrine. Is it part of your doctrine that any person who denies that power is accursed ?—Certainly it is. The JUDGE.—Really, I think, Mr. Cresswell, you are going upon dangerous grounds, to sift into a clergyman's views in this way. I don't s ee how you will make it bear on the case. ' Mr. CRESSWELL ,--It is no part of my desire, my lo to enter into controversial doctrines, or Co take upon myself an office for which lamby no means fit. I hope, my lord, I may take credit with your lordship for so much discretion in the management of the case, as not to take any course that may offend the most fastidious. The JUDGE.—AII my difficulty upon the subject you know. If this cause was pursued with any other object, I should think it my duty to interpose. Though I think there is no other object in view, yet, not being able to sce myself how it bears upon this case, I am afraid of suffering it less in the progress of the case something may occur which persons not in your position may take advantage of. I confess Ido not see at this moment how any evidence given by a priest of the Roman Catholic religion, as to the peculiar doctrines of that religion, should bear upon the present case. Mr. CRESSWELL. - 1 hope by-and-by, my lord, I shall be able to satisfy your lordship's mind. The JUDGE.—I think I have only done my duty. Mr. DUNDAS.—We understand, my lord, that my learned friend is examining this witness in order to show it is no libel in point of law, or no slander to say these things of Mr. Hearne. Mr. CRESSWELL. — My friend really has no right to make these observations. Any question which his lordship may think proper to put, I shall be happy to answer. The JUDGE.—If you do not object to the question. Mr. DUNDAS.—I have no doubt my learned friend is ask ing these questions with a view to raise the point of law. The JUDGE.—WeII, what is the answer of the witness? I will take it. Mr. CRESSWELL.—The witness says, my lord, that any person who denies the power of the priest to absolve from sin is accursed. Mr. WIGHTMA N.—Will your lordship allow me to make one observation. As far as my learned friend had proceeded down to these matters of doctrine there was no objection, the point being whether or not, according to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church, such penances were legitimate or not ; but a general inquiry into certain doctrines is, I appre hend, totally irrelevant. The JUDGE overruled the objection. Mr. CRESSWELL then resumed his cross-examination of the witness. Is it, the learned counsel asked, within the province of a priest of the Roman Catholic church to pre scribe to a number of his flock penances for his sins ?—lt is within his province. • 7 Are there certain penances prescribed for certain sins, or is that matter left to the discretion of the priest ?—More or less to the discretion of the priest. Is there any defined limit to that discretion ?—lt is diffi cult to define that limit, just in the same way as you see a parent has dominion over a child and has power to correct it. The exact limits of correction it is difficult to define. Are there many instances in which persons—many of them I presume have been canonized in your church—who have inflicted severe penances upon themselves, are held up as ob jects of admiration to the members of your congregation ? These are matters of ecclesiastical history about which each individual is allowed to entertain what opinion he likes. I did not put the question, sir, as a matter of faith upon which every gentleman might entertain his own opinion, but simply as a question of fact—whether many persons have in flicted severe penances upon themselves are not held up as objects of admiration to the members of your congregations ? —Those are matters of ecclesiastical history about which every one may have his own opinion. I ask you not as matters of fact, because you cannot have knowledge of them ?—I know of no present instance. I do not ask about present instances, we will take past in stances if you please, those who have been canonized centu ries ago. Are not those who have inflicted severe penances upon themselves held up to the admiration of your flocks ? These are matters of history. Do not Roman Catholic clergymen hold up such persons to admiration ?—What may be their opinions are not matters of rule to me. I do not wish to deal with their opinions; I wish to deal with general and not with particulars : is it not a fact that in your church such persons are held up as matters of admira tion to your flocks? Mr. WIG EITMAN.—The witness can only speak of his own knowledge? —Of my own knowledge I am not acquainted with those things; they are matters of ecclesiastical history. Mr. CRESSWELL.—Do you not attend sometimes the preaching of other ministers of your church ?—Occasionally I do. Has it never occurred to you to know that the clergymen of your church hold up such persons as objects of admira tion ?—I have no perfect or distinct recollection of any parti cular instance. I do not ask you for such particular instance : have you not a general recollection that such a practise is common in your church ?—Things of that sort may happen. I am afraid that is not a legal answer : I must take the liberty of pressing it a little further. Do not such things take place ? The JUDGE.—Which you have known of your own know ledge ?—I do not recollect, my lord ; I cannot charge my memory with any particular name. Mr. CuusswxLL.—Does it not accord with your expe rience ? Mr. 110GGixs.,, —ls it within your own knowledge ? Mr. CRESSWELL. - Mr. Hoggi ns ! Mr. Hoggitis ! I beg ,v friend will leave his leader to object. The JUDGE.—Are you able to say, from attending the ;rvices of your own church, that persons are held up to Imiration by reason of having inflicted severe penalties upon ►emselves ?—Not merely in consequence •of those extraor- inary things, but as individuals who have put them in prae [ce ; not merely on account of those extraordinary things nposed upon them, but which they might either practice or Is the power of suspension or deprivation discretionary in the bishop ?—Discretionary. Re-examined by Mr. DUNDAS.—You said it *was the pro vince of the priest to enjoin penance ?—I Is it the province of the priest in any circumstances, or of any dignitary of any kind, in your church, by the authority of the Council of Trent or otherwise, to enjoin such penance as is described in this document, should he be enjoined by the priest ?—ln none. You say the penance is discretionary with the priest, ac cording to the sin of the man—is that as to private penance ? —No private priest has the power to impose public penance —no priest, I should say. Do you mean such a priest as Mr. Hearne is at St. Patrick's ? —Yes. . May I ask you, if you please; what are the private pe nances usually enjoined ?—Prayer, fasting, and alms-deeds, with the practice of self-denial. The JUDGE,—Did I take this answer down correctly— " There is no power of imposing such a penance as is men tioned in that paper in any priest?"—ln no priest, my lord. Dr. Hanlan, examined by Mr. MURPHY.—What is your Christian name, Dr. Hanlan?—John Hanlan. Dr. Hanlan, I understand you are professor of theology in the college of Maynooth ?—I am. How long have you held that situation ? have held it for twelve years Is it your duty, in that cal there of student I think I may l iacity, to teach the highest class year of divinity I presume you are acquainted with the discipline of the Catholic church upon matters of enjoining penance ?—Yes, I think I am. Have you heard from the libel read to-day the penance there statedto have been imposed by the Rev. Daniel Hearne upon John O'Hare ?—I have. Is it consistent with your knowledge of the discipline of the Roman Catholic church, that Mr. Hearne had any au thority to impose such a penance ?—I am convinced he had no such authority. Is it consistent with that discipline? to the discipline of the Catholic church. Would the imposition of such a penance by the priest, in your judgment, lead to the interference of the bishop ? I think it should. • Would the bishop so interfering have power to susper priest from the exercise of his functions, for the excess of his authority ?—I think he would most grossly violate his duty if he did.not. Do you think be would have power to deprive him, for a term, of his benefice in the Roman Catholic church ?—Yes. Do you know, in the Catholic church, of any power the priest has to suspend the giving of absolution to the penitent till after the time of penance has been fulfilled ?—Until after the penance has been fulfilled, in some instances the priest can withhold absolution, in some he cannot. Ile can when he thinks the party is not properly disposed; or where the party has uniformly neglected private penance, the priest can require he should observe private penance before he gives absolution ; but if the party has been faithful in the period of penance, and is otherwise well disposed, the priest cannot, according to the present discipline of the church, withhold absolution. The JUDGE.—Let me take that answer more generally : the priest has no power to withhold absolution except where the penance has been neglected before, or the party is not well disposed ?—Yes, my lord. Mr. Mu RPIIY.—WiII you explain what you mean by the words " well disposed" ?-1 mean not sufficient sorrow for sins past, or sufficient promise of - amendment for the future. Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—Dr. Harlan, are not penances sometimes performed by crawling upon the ground ?—I never heard of any ; I never heard of a penance by crawling upon the ground. Penance performed by kneeling bare-kneed upon the ground ?—I do not know anything, from personal know ledge, of such penance having been performed. Have you had much personal knowledge of the manner in which penances are commonly performed ?—I have had the knowledge of twelve years' experience ; I am a priest myself. In the college?—ln the college, and sometimes upon the mission. Generally speaking, I act in my college ; but in the vacation I follow my profession, and of course I have derived some experience from that. Have you never seen penances performed by penitents on their knees ?—Never in my life. Do you know, by personal experience, of persons setting out upon pilgrimages to different places of holy repute in Ire land ?—Do I know of persons setting off? Yes, of your own knowledge ?—I do not know of my own knowledge of any individuals. I have, of course, heard of such persons. I suppose you mean Lord 's ? You have never been there when parties have come ?—No ; I have never been there. Do you know that there area number of priests who set off for Loch Darrig, for the purpose of assisting penitents there ?—I can answer that ; but I speak from hearsay. There '—lt is quite opposed Is it a part of the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church hat there should be priests stationed there ?—lt is certainly io part of the discipline of the church that there should be nests there ; but the 'bishop may have power to. appoint hem. Ido not know they are there of my own knowledge. Dr. Murdoch, examined by Mr. DUNDAS.—What is your Thristian name, sir ?—John. Are you a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in Scot and ?—I am. Have you heard of the penance which is mentioned in the locument read to-day ?-1 have. . Has a priest of the Roman Catholic Church any authority :o enjoin such a penance as that?—He has none. Crawling upon his hands and knees in the road I—He has lone. For two hours in the morning and one at night ?—He has lot for one minute. ...... --- As you are a bishop, I will ask you this question—lf a priest were to enjoin such a penance, and if it were brought to your notice, should you consider it your duty to interfere? —I should consider it my duty at once. Would it subject a. priest,. so misbehaving himself,. to ec rclesiastical censure ?—Undoubtedly : I should consider it my duty to suspend him, and probably for ever, because I should think such a want of common sense and conduct would render him incapable of filling the office again. Cross-examined by Mr. CitusawELL.- - -- - --You would think lie had not exhibited such a quantity of sense as would pro hibit you from interposing ?—Yes, J should. . _ Have you ever been at Romc ?—I have never been at Rome. Nor at Loch Darrig ?--I have heard of the name, but I have never been there. Ilave you been principally 'resident ih 'Scotland ?—Sorne times I have resided out of it, but 1 am principally resident in the Glasgow district. — . 1 have not performed permanent duty elsewhere. The following letters were then put in, and read by the CLERK of the COURT : _ _ _ " St. James's-square, Manchester', Bth May, 1840. Sir,—The Rev. Daniel Hearne, of St. Patrick's Chapel. in this town, who is at present in Ireland, .attending upon the death-bed of his father, has sent me instructions to take the necessary steps to refute the libel upon his character, published in the Manchester Courier, in the report of a speech delivered by you respecting the government grant to May nooth College. I have to request you, therefore,. toinform me whether the report in that paper is a correct report of what you said upon the occasion, and whether the document copied into that paper, !elating to John O'Hara, was read by you at the meeting. An immediate reply will oblige, &c. " The Rev. Hugh Stowell." " CHAS. GIBSON. " St. James's-square, Manchester, May Bth, 1840. " SIR,—Not having received an answer to my letter dated the Gth instant, respecting the libel upon the Rev. Daniel Hearne's character, I beg to send you a copy of that letter lest the original may have miscarried. You are reported to have said that if the papists chose to come forward to demand the evidence of your charge, that evidence was forthcoming. I have, now, upon the part of the Rev. Daniel Hearne, to re quest you to furnish me with a copy of the document re ferred to in my letter of the 6th instant, together with the names of the parties by whom it is signed, and their ad dresses. You will also oblige by appointing a time and place, at your earliest convenience, when the original may be in spected.—l am, Sir, " CHARLES GIBSON. " The Rev. H. Stowell." " Manchester, 13th May. 1840 " Sig,—l have to acknowledge the receipt of yours of yes terday's date, and I shall be glad to know whether I am to deem it a final reply to mine of the 6th instant, addressed to the Rev. H. Stowell, or whether Mr. Stowell is prepared to prove, and in what particulars, the report of his speech in the Manchester Courier is incorrect. With regard to my second letter to Mr. Stowell, dated the Bth instant, requesting to be furnished with a copy of the document read by him, together with the names and addresses of the parties who are said to have' signed it, and for the appointment of a day to inspect the original; I must beg to know whether that request is to be complied with.-1. arh, &c. CHARLES GIBSON. " W. W..Goulden, Esq., 54, King street, Manchester." " Manchester, 17th May, 1840. _ " SIR,—In answer to your letter of the 13th - instant, I have now to state, that Mr. Stowell is quite willing to enter into an explanation of any statement made by him in public ; and upon sufficient evidence that he has been betrayed into any mistake, at once and frankly to acknowledge it. But in the present instance an application has been made to him through a •solicitor, • without any previous communication with Mr. Stowell, upon the p•rrt of your client ; and questions having been proposed to him by such solicitor any more ex plicit answer might lead to admissions capable of being turned to improper purposes, and not really affecting the merits of the case. At the same time Mr. Stowell entertains the strongest conviction that your client is perfectly con scious of the substantial truth of the allegations read by Mr. Stowell'at•the meeting on the 28th. Under these-eireurn stances I must, on the part of Mr. Stowell, decline for' the present any other answer to your letter of the 13th instant. Mr. Stowell, however, will hold himself prepared to prove, before any legal tribunal to which your client may be pleased to summon him, the general truth of the statement read by him at that meeting, and to convince the public of its accu racy. I may add that your letter of the 13th instant, to my self conveyed the first intimation to him Of your letter dated the Bth instant. Mr. Stowell wishes me to say that he had not, and has not, the slightest particle of personal feeling against your client.—l am, &c. "W. W. GOULDEN. " Charles Gibson, Esq., St. James's square, Manchester. Mr. DUNDAS. — That is the case for the plaintiff, my lord. Mr. CRESSWELL then rose to address the court and jury, on the part of the reverend defendant. He spoke to the following effect :—" May it please your lordship, and gentle men of the jury. My learned friend in opening this case before you, was pleased to state that he felt under a consi derable weight of anxiety and embarrassment, on account of the very grave and important duty which he had this day to discharge. Gentlemen, if that was the case with him, I shall show you in a very few words, that my situation is much more deserving of—l might almost say compassionate —feeling ; for I do indeed consider the task which I have to grapple with, of such intense, of such momentous importance, that I dare not enter upon it without bespeaking your most favourable and your most indulgent verdict. Believe me, gentlemen, I trust that all who have known me for years, will believe that I am very far above affecting a feeling by which I am not oppressed, that I am very far above the mise rable affectation of trying to appear alarmed and anxious, when in truth no such difficulties stand in my way. And indeed, gentlemen, I have been too long practised in the ways of courts of justice to feel oppressed at any case which in volves merely a trifling amount of money upon one side or the other, which in truth is a matter of very trivial impor tance. But in this case a much more weighty responsibility rests upon the advocate who has to defend this action against the vigour, the learning, the labour, the talent, and the tact of my learned friend. For, gentlemen, at the outset it is plain, I have to defend my client, the Rev. Mr. Stowell, not against a demand of money, not against any attempt upon his pocket, but against an attempt upon that which he values more than money, aye, more than life itself—an attempt upon his character. It was not, proceeded the learned coun sel, because Mr. Stowell had libelled Mr. Hearne, that this ac tion was brought. His learned friend's speech, on the contrary, which was the speech of his client, was a libel,—a slander of the deepest dye and character upon the defendant, Mr. Stowell. His learned friend was not content, in opening his case, to say, as he had, at the outset, that Mr. Stowell had allowed his zeal tO outrun his discretion ; that he had suffered himself to be imposed upon without considering who he was about to attack, and without inquiring whether what he said was with or without foundation, and that, therefore, he was responsible to the law for what he had stated. His learned friend was not content with allowing the legal interference of malice in that publication, but he imputed to the reverend defendant, that, in coming forward as an advocate for the Protestant Church, of which hs was a member and a minister, —that, in coining forward to enlighten his hearers in Man chester, in seeking to advocate and urge the cause of the Protestant Church, which he (the learned counsel) hoped would ever triumph, he used it as a cloak for maliciousness, imputing to him the base and malicious design of not intend ing to advance the Protestant cause ; of not intending to enlighten the peoplq - upon the errors of the Romish Church, but the gratification of a base, malignant feeling he had im bibed against the plaintiff. Such was the attack upon Mr. Stowell. He (Mr Cresswell) did not impute, upon the other hand, that this was an attack on Mr. Stowell from malice against him : he did not impute to those who instructed his learned friend, that they were desirous of injuring Mr. Stowell individually and particularly : po, but he said they were desi rous, by means of this attack upon him, of putting down free discussion on matters of religion. He declared that; and when his learned friend talked about the rights of English men, and the value he put upon those rights, and that he would claim for all the right of free discussion, it was mere pretence on the part of hiS client ; for the object of this action was not to vindicate Mr. Hearne's character, but that the Roman Catholic Church might frighten the advocates of the Protestant Church from coming forward again to petition Parliament to withdraw the annual grant from Maynooth. If, therefore, his learned friend had an anxiety to press the defendant, it must only have been as the advocate for Mr. Hearne, because he could feel no sympathy with the large motives or his client. He must only feel as an advocate for the character of the man whose cause was in question. He (Mr. Cresswell,) upon the other hand, had the character of Mr. Stowell to protect against this charge of wilful malice. He had the sacred right of Englishmen to protect; and he trusted, that the jury, by their verdict, in this ease, would they might deem erroneous, and to bring the professors of such.doctrines to a rational faith. Let them not imagine he was about to enter into a theological discussion. Far be it from him to presume upon a flight so far above that which belonged to his province. His learned friend and himself Were not educated for such things : it, wall no part of their daily contemplations to prepare to argue such questions. He would avoid theological discussion. He thought he had ample materials before him to show, that Mr. Stowell had acted as every Englishman had a right to act, and as every conscien- tious clergyman must feel himself bound to act, in making the attempt which he did at this public meeting to prevent any future grant to a college which he and many others thought was the means of diffusing erroneous and dangerous maxims. The right which he was now claiming on his be half was a right which his learned friend might well call sacred; but it was somewhat extraordinary, that he should. this day, appearing on behalf of his client, insist, that that right should not be invaded. Now was that right won ? It was won by the perseverance and by the courage of those who exposed themselves to and endured hardships in prison, ty ranny from the governors of the state, and death upon the scatfo:d at the hands of the civil power, death at the stake by fires I ghted by bigotry and intolerance. And should we lightly forego such a right ? Should a christian clergyman and a member of the Protestant Church, if he could prevent it, allow that spiritual darkness again to pervade the land which was attended with such disastrous consequences be fore, and out of which state of darkness we could only be lighted by those fires which were the means of destroying the martyrs before? His learned friend had given them the history of the College of Maynooth ; he had informed them, that for many years past it bad been the yearly practice to the House of Commons of the united empire to vote a certain sum of money for the maintenance of students in that college to be educated in the Roman Catholic faith, for the purpose of their afterwards teaching the people. He had put two or three questions to a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church to-day, not for the purpose of entering into theological discussion, but for the purpose of pointing out that there were matters in the creed of that church which might well be supposed to shock and alarm a clergyman of the Protestant Church of England,—to make him feel it his duty to come forward whenever he could and prevent the spread. of those doctrines. Such was the feeling of the rev. defendant upon the occasion of the meeting in question. The period of the year was approaching when Parliament, accord ing to its wonted custom, might be expected to make the usual grant to Maynooth. What was Mr. Stowell to do ? He hav ing these views in common with many, many others, and deeming this grant a national sin, for the effect of the grant was to diffuse religious opinions which, in his view, were er roneous,—calculated to mislead those who were instructed in them, and not to lead them to salvation. Mr. Stowell, hav ing these views, went to that meeting. Who would quarrel with him for attempting to controvert errors of so grave a nature ? Who could blame him for entertaining the opinion, or for propagating it, that to support such doctrines was a national sin ? , It was admitted, that parties who felt inter ested in any questions before Parliament had a right to peti tion Parliament, either for or against them. Would it be said, that, upon a question of this description, Mr. Stowell had no right to address an assembly of the people in that town in which his church and congregation were? It might be said, he ought not to have introduced an argument of this description ; but the meeting was public : it was for a perfect legitimate object, and Mr. Stowell was justified in ad dressing it provided he did so without malice against any in dividual, if he did it to instruct the people, on which l►e deemed the errors of the Church of Rome, to point out her errors and her dangers, and to excite them to petition Parliament against doing any thing that might assist them. As to the speech of the reverend de fendant, it was addressed to one particular doctrine of the Church of Rome. He (Mr. Cresawell) had taken the liberty of inquiring a little what that doctrine was ; and he found that the doctrine of penance, as enjoined by the Ro man Catholic Church, acknowledged it was a sacrament, a duty imposed at the discretion of the priest as a satisfaction for sin, and, moreover, that those who denied the absolute , power of the priests to remit sin upon such terms were to be held accursed. What was a Protestant clergyman to think of this ? Was it not likely to alarm and shock him, that man should presume to set himself up as the judge between God and his creatures,—that he should pretend to say that he should assume the Almighty's province, and prescribe the satisfaction that was to be made to him ? If these doctrines were true, then, of course, Mr. Stowell would be in ei roe in thinking theni erroneous ; if they were false - , how per ilous" must be the positions of that man who had been instructed to rely upon such false doctrines,—who had no sounder ground for his hope of salvation prescribed by himself,—who went on to the last hour in the vain hope, that, so long as he had obtained absolution from his priest, all was safe? He disclaimed all intention of entering upon a discussion of this subject, and he merely pointed it out as the reason why Mr. Stowell felt it his duty, as a Protestant minister, to endea vour, by all the means in his power, to save if it were but one individual from the dangers into which such doctrine might unhappily plunge him. To that meeting, then, he went; and, when he (Mr. Cresawell) reminded the jury of the speech he then delivered, let him ask them if they be lieved Mr. Stowell had any malice against any individual, — whether he had any malicious intention against any collection of individuals,—whether he had any design to injure them, or any other object but the single one which a Protestant clergyman ought always to find praise for, namely, the object of protecting the ignorant against the errors and the super stitions of the Popish church. And he (Mr. Cresawell) now proclaimed the ground upon which he rested this case. If Mr. Stowell acted fairly,—if he discharged his duty faithfully,— if he had no malice in his heart,—if he had stated nothing but what he believed to be true,—then, in point of law, that was no libel, and the plaintiff could not maintain this action for it. His learned friend had introduced to them, in the course of his speech a view of the law taken from a case .which he quoted ; but they would find that was appli cable to a bypoint only, and not to the true one which they would have to decide. Let him see what it was the reverend gentleman had said. It was admitted, on all hands, that the object of the meeting was to prevent the renewal of a grant which he deemed dangerous. He came to the discussion of the question thus :—" The great question of education, in all its bearings, is now before us : whether it be the education of Maynooth, or whether it be education according to the mongrel system of Ireland ; or whether it be education ac cording to the motley rubric in England, the offspring of the privy council committee." Did his learned friend mean to say, that the members of the privy council might havebrought an action against Mr. Stowell for a libel upon them ? Then, the defendant went on to say, " We thought that a petition, on such a subject, could not but command the hearts and hands of all sound Protestants." The first object, therefore, that they petitioned for, for they petitioned for several things —against the Irish system of education and against the order of the privy counci', which were carried, after long speeches and short majorities ; " The first object," proceeded the rev. defendant, " against which we protest, on the present occasion, is that long granted, but not, therefore, legalized and justified grant to the Popish College of Maynooth." Then, he proceeded to discuss the errors of Popery, with great powers of eloquence. The learned counsel proceeded to analyze the entire speech and the letter, and to contend, that no malice could be inferred from them to exist in the mind of the defendant against the plaintiff. The first remark that struck him, with reference to the letter, was the fact, that it was never addressed to Mr. Stowell. It was not con cocted and prepared by him for the purpose of display at that meeting; but it was addressed to Mr. Pratt, printer, Bridge street, so late as February 1840. His learned Friend had not called John O'Hara, or produced any evidence that the penance was not performed, as described. He (Mr. C.) did not mean to say, that his learned friend was hound to do that ; but surely, when he was upon the point of malice—when he was to prove that the whole was an invention—when he was to prove, that Mr. Stowell knew it to be false, and that he produced it for the purpose of destroying Mr. Hearne's character, how important would it have been had John O'Hara shown he had never made such a statement to the policeman. That would have been legitimate evidence, which would have been extremely important ; but he (Mr. Cresswell) did not impute to the plaintiff, that he shrunk from calling John O'Hara from an improper motive, because both he (Mr. C.) and his learned friend knew perfectly well why John O'Hara could not be produced as a witness. He merely mentioned this in order, that, if there should be any suggestion that the de fendant might have called him, that the jury might know there was a reason why he could not be called. But did he put the defence upon th t ground ? No. He denied that there was malice ; he denied that this was a libel, provided the jury, upon the face of the letter, coupled with the reve rend defendant's speech, were of opinion, that Mr. Stowell was acting fairly and honestly in the spirit of a christian clergyman. In that case there was no libel. He would draw their attention now to that of which the plaintiff com plained. He put his own construction upon the alleged libel, and said, it was calculated to injure him in his office. The jury would observe, that he did not put truth as the ground which might bring the censures of the chur c h upon hi m . Now, Mr. Stowell 's motive was not a powerful one against Mr. Ilearne, but merely to hold up the Roman Catholic doc trines as erroneous, which he was duty bound to do, and, therefore, there was no libel. A word now upon the manner in which the alleged libel was stated. Was there any term of reproach; was there any manifest and glaring intention to injure the plaintiff as an individual? Was moral turpi tude imputed to him ? Was there any imputation upon Min that he had violated his duty as a priest? No. The libel was, that he had done that which, as a priest, believing and teaching the doctrines of the church of Rome, he was bound to do. The learned gentleman con cluded his speech in these words : Connected with this case, also, is the privilege of public speaking, the privilege of freely uttering our opinions without fear of consequences, without apprehensions of evil results, upon all subjects, whe ther civil or religious, and all questions of government, pro vided there be no malice. I say I believe that to be the true point in this case. The manner in which it was opened. the parade we have had of Roman Catholic clergyme n , all evince it. It is to be the triumph of the Roman Catholic Church over the reverend defendant,—the triumph of the Roman Catholic Church over Protestantism in his person : it is the first step to put down free discussion, by means of which light first dawned upon this land. No object could be more sacred to the defendant than the propagation of the Protestant faith as established by law ; but remember, that our freedom as men depends much upon our freedom in matters of religion. Once fetter the mind upon such subjects and the body will soon learn to put on fetters too : civil and religious liberty must stand and fall together ; they are the twin glories of our land, the protectors of our happiness here and the condition of our hopes of happiness hereafter. That liberty is now asked in the person of my client. In his person I commit him to your charge, surrendering, with trembling anxiety, his interests that were committed to me. a too feeble advocate, to the enlightened, the dispassionate judgment of those who have always been the first and the firmest guardians of our happiness. The learned gentleman then sat down, his address having lasted exactly an hour. The !narks they n . - -- taw, a „, entirel dividuz of soci as to o !earne pret a I had po the san man wo to that would I held ac lordshi malice, whole ( deratio party m liciousl gone t( th e cha Would that th del ibex; initirin i The Minute 40 8 . Prev co rn In , dismiss Yond f be relic The This neY-Gi so n a Gene s for the At si RAI, Ii gentle r M. 13 r e'Pon InlrPo4 th e a nd to In ti co mpel ,Peech The Beieed show n active genera er a , e , i great a the pr li ne o r Hi opei the sh late 41 , hold er lereat o 'noat 0 Th t ha e t di Longr i (jualit3 Lanca' that lii tw o gr ha% e d B aW in WkIS CN be one k good dertak most 4:triaegi 44,1 ° L ,Petti for viL be tral t rader bra n d ver, th e ra b oas , t ; of th( h ave her Ti,, an x i o have au►l fi ro ily h eigi them Fire th e i r and ()i, for tt i dlii