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

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 see 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

liacity, 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 perilous"
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 church upon him.
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 clergymen, 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.