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

Then-ani 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
there, there is none.

'—Similar to the one represented

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 a,k 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 yon give me it 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—l 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 au 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 : arc 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 you recognize the authority of the council of Trent ?
The council of Trent, in doctrinal matters, is recognized.
Is it not part of the doctrine of the council of Trent that
Rriests 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 btit you ate.

The JUDGE.—What is the question?
Mr. CRES:SWELL.--I 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 acdord,
such as fasting, prayers, alms giving—I ask whether mac 4 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 epdence.
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. CRESSIVELL.—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 Juncz.-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. CRESSWEI.L.—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 lord,
to enter into controversial doctrines, or to 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 see 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 tliat
religion, should bear upon the present case.
Mr. CRESSWELL.-1 hope by-and-by, my lord, I shall be
able to satisfy youi 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. CuEsswELL.—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 1. anted 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. WIGHTMAN.—WiII 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 Appal, 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.
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 tome.
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. WIGIITMAN.—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
1 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 happ6n.
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 JIIDGE.—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. CRESSWELL.—Does it not accord with your expe
rience ?

Mr. HoornNs.—ls it within your own knowledge?

'Mr. CREsswELL.—Mr. noggins! Mr. Hoggiris ! I beg
my friend will leave his leader to object.
The JUDGE.—Are you able to say, from attending the
services of your own church, that persons are held up to
admiration by reason of having inflicted severe penalties upon
themselves ?—Not merely in consequence of those extraor-
dinary things, but as individuals who have put them in prac-
tice ; not merely on account of those extraordinary things
imposed upon them, but which they might either practice or
not. _ . _

Is the power of suspension or deprivation discretionary in
the bishop ?—Discretionary.
Re-examined by Mr. D UNDAS.—You said it was the pro-
vince of the priest to enjoin penance ?—I did.
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.Patriek's ?
—Yes. .

May I ask you, if you please, what arc 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. Muaripr.—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

'—l think I may

have held if for twelve years

Is it your duty, in tblit capacity, to teach the highest class
there of students in divinity ?—lt is—students in their last
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 stated to have been imposed by the Rev. Daniel Hearne
upon John O'Hare 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 ?—lt is quite opposed
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 ?
think-it should.

Would the bishop so interfering have power to suspend a
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 he 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. He can when
he thinks the party is not properly disposed,; or where the
party has uniformly neglected private penance, the priest
can regnire 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. MURPHY.—WiII you explain what von mean by the
words " well disposed" ?—I mean not sufficient sorrow for
sins past, or sufficient prOmise of amendment for the future.
Cross-examined by 'Mr. CRusswEt.t...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' are a 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

Is it a part of the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church
that there should be priests stationed there ?—lt is certainly
no part of the discipline of the church that there should be
priests there ; but the bishop may have power to appoint
them. Ido not know they are there of my own knowledge.
Dr. Murdoch, examined by Mr. Domes,—What is your
Christian 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
loeument read to-day ?—I have.

Has a priest of the Roman Catholic Church any authority
o enjoin such a penance as that ?—lle has none.
Crawling upon Lis hands and knees in the road

—He has

For two hours in the morning and one at night ?.
lot for one minute.

I—He has

As you are a bishop, I will ask you this question—lf a
iriest were to enjoin such a penance, and if it were brought
,o your notice, should you consider it your duty to interfere?
—I should consider it my duty at once.

Would it subject a priejst, so misbeliaving himself; to ec-
clesiastical 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 hint incapable of filling the office again.
Cross-examined by CRESSWELL.—You would think
he had not exhibited such a quantity of sense as would pro-
hibit you from interposing ?—Yes, I shOuld.
Have you ever beetkat Rome have never been at Rome.
Nor at Loch Darrig ?—I have heard 'of the name, but I
have never been there. _ _ _• _ _ _

Have you been principally resident in Scotland ?—Some-
times I have resided 00 of it, but I am principally resident
in the Glasgow district. , 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, Gth 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, to inform
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, 1810.
" Sin,—Not having received an answer to my letter dated
the 6th 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 Gth instant, together with the
names of the parties by whom it is signed, and their ad-
dress'es. 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. 18.10.

" SIR,—I 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 do
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.—l am, &c. " CHARLES GIBBON.
" W. W. Goulden, Esq., 54, King-
street, Manchester."
_

" Manchester, 17th May, 1840

" Sin,—ln 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 part 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. Udder these circum-
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. Dosows.—That is the ease for the plaintiff, my lord.
Mr. CRESSIVELL 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-4 might almost say compassionate
—feeling ; fora 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. Hearfte, that this ac-
tion was brought. His learned friend's speech on the contrary,
which was the speech of his client; was 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 iniblicatiop, 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,

, in corning forward to enlighten his hearers in 141 an

cheste'r,in seekiUg to.advocate and urge the cause of the

Peotestiint Church, which he (the lear-ned 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 people upon the errors of the Romish Church,
but the gratification of a base, malignant feeling he had im-
bibed again,t the plaintiff. Such was the attack upon Mr.
Stowell. Ile (Mr Cresswell) did not impute, upon the other

hand, that thiss was an attack on Mr. -StoWell from malice

instructed Lis
Mr. Stowell

against him : he Old not impute to those
learned friend, that they were desirous of injurine,

individually and particUlarly : no, 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 case, would
protect that right, the right of exposing the doctrines which
they might deeni erroneous, and to bring the professors of
such doctrines to a rational faith. Let thm 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 was no part of their
daily contemplations to prepare to argue such questions. He
would avoid theological discussion. Ile thought lie 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. Bow was that right won ? It
was won by the Perseverance and by The courage of those who
exposed theniseltes to and endured hardships in prison, ty-
ranny from the governors of the state, and death upon the
scaffold at the' hands of the civil power, death at the stake by
fires lighted by bigotry and intolerance. And should we
lightly forego such a right ? , Should a christian clergyman
and a member of the Protestant Church, if lie could prevent
it, allow that spiritual darkness again to pervade the land
which was attended with such disastrous cmisequences 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 had 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 toits 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 he
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. Cresswell) 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 he
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 ror
in thinking nein 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 prescributi.by.hirnsell.—wbc"
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. Cresswell) reminded the jury of
the speech he then delivered, let hini ask fhem if they be-
lieved Mr. Stowell had any malice against any individual,—
whether he had any malicious intention against any collection
of individuals,—whether lie 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. Cresswell) 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 be 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 1810. 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 bound 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 lie (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. Ile merely mentioned this in
order, that, if therd should be any suggestion that the de—
fendant might have called him, that the jury might know
there was a reason why lie 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. Ile 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. Hearne, 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
him 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, 141
evince it. It is to be the triumph of the Roman Catholic
Church over the reverend defendant,—the triumph or 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 10
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 lnin 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.