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

ing in good reputation both with the clergy and laity of his
community. Gentlemen, such_ is the plaintiff, with whom

you have to do in this action

I will now turn to the defen-

dant, the Rev. Mr. Hugh Stowell, who is here to answer to
Mr.llearne for the injury he has done to Mr. Hearne. Mr.

Hugh Stowell, as I understand, is a clergyman of the esta-
blished Church of England, himself residing in Manchester
too—a person in cure of souls in that town, being the incum-
bent of Christ Church, one of the churches or chapels of the
place—a gentleman, as I am informed, of great attainments
—a person who is a most popular preacher—a man who has
a great name and following in the church—a most eloquent
man, and a man accustomed to public speaking. Gentlemen,
it is that fatal gift of eloquence which has brought him into
his present position ; for if the reverend defendant had but
governed his tongue ; if lie had but, upon the cccasion I am
going to look to, kept in order that unruly member; if
he had only remembered that, though it is a very little
member, and boasteth great things, yet behold what
mighty matter a little fire kindled' ; if he had but re-
membered, that if he had said what he was able to say
well for the subject he had in hand-which he had a right
to have in hand—and kept off that which he had no right
to take in hand, but which when he did take in hand he
slandered and abused—you should not have this case to try
to-day, nor lie to stand in the unfortunate condition for any
clergyman of any church in Christendom to stand in—aa a
person who has to answer the impeachment of evil speaking
and slandering. Gentlemen, I think I told you that the
plaintiff, Mr. Hearne, was educated at Maynooth. It is ne-
cessary for the right understanding of the enquiry we are
engaged in that I , should say a word in passing upon the
nature of that establishment. You know, it is historically
true, that Maynooth is au institution in Ireland for the pur-
pose of educating Roman Catholic youth who are destined
for holy orders in that church. Before the union of Ireland
and this country it was an institution founded, and existing,
and supported by the state. It was a foundation laid in the
wisdom—l care not whether persons differ from that or not—
I sin not here to defend the wisdom any more than to depre-
cate their wisdom who deny that wisdom—l am not here for
any such purpose; but I am here to say it was a foundation
laid in the wisdom of Mr. Pitt, who at that time was the
government of the country, and it has ever since that time,
now nearly 50 years ago, gone on supported by parliamentary
grants annually and specifically given—and this not only since
the Roman Catholic relief bill, but before the. Roman Catholic
relief bill passed at all, when men's minds were not favourable
in the least degree to Roman Catholic claims—but still it
was thought that the faith of the country was pledged in some
way or other to the support of that establishment. Whigs
and tories, one government after another, people in power
and out of it, with but very few and those not very remarkable
exceptions, have always continued arid combined up to the
very year in which I have the honour to stand before you,
in giving by parliamentary grants so many thousands a year
for the support and maintenance of that institution. Now,
gentlemen, as I said before, whether that foundation was
prudently laid I shall not discuss. I believe it was laid from
such notion as this, that if you educated the Roman Catholic
priesthood at home, instead of sending them abroad, as upon
their travels elsewhere to find education, you could not only
ensure the makirs: of them into quite as sound scholars and
divines, but you. ould ensure the making of them into better
subjects, because they would not be so likely to feel attached
to other interests, and their foreign attachments would be
made likely to cease and be forgotten. Whether that notion
was a right one, whether the scheme has succeeded, whether
it has failed, and whether it ought to be abandoned, these
are all general questions fitting for the proper time and occa-
sion to be discussed. This, however, is not the place, nor is it
the occasion to enter upon that subject. It is out of a dis-
cussion respecting Maynooth that the question which you
have to decide entirely arose. Now, gentlemen, as I have
just told you, although the question arises out of some such
discussion, perhaps this is the proper time for me to lay be-
fore you distinctly such views as I have upon the subject of
how far every free man in a free country like ours has a right
to discuss questions of public policy. It is our privilege, and
our birthright, as Englishmen, that every man has a right
freely to discuss all matters and institutions, men and things,
which as a subject of the realm he has a right_ to consider,
and that both things temporal and things ecclesiastical. If
any man, in this country, really and truly believes that
the foundation of the college of Maynooth is wrong,
if any man really and truly believes that it is improper
to have it for the support of Roman Catholics and of
the Roman Catholic religion, if any man really and
truly believes that such an establishment, so supported,
is a disparagement to the christian religion, which belongs to
this land—if he really and truly believes that the support of
such an institution as Maynooth, does, in some way or other,
compromise the safety, the honour, and the christian princi-
ples of the protestant establishment of this land—that man
is justified in doing his very best to make parliament, by
reasonable measures, to withdraw its annual support. He
may, to be sure, hold doctrines in private which he would
not hold in public respecting it; but if he discuss the ques-
tion fairly like a man, if he use no violent or vituperative
terms at which common sense revolts, why should he not, if
he acts in fairness and simplicity of mind, endeavour to
mend the constitution of the land if he thinks it wants to be
reformed, remodeled or reconstructed—for all that is law-
ful and possible—in order to give the greater energy, strength,
and vital principle to the institutions of the glorious land in
which it is our blessing. And our privilege to live. That, is
our mind ; that is all freemen's mind. I therefore believe
and think that they ought not to be judged too narrowly
who, in discussions of that kind, honestly and fairly under-
taken, snake a slip here and there, provided thatthe real pur-
pose of their mind be truly and faithfully honest. But
gentlemen, such being the true principle, and being, as I be-
lieve the practice—l hope it will never cease to be the prac-
tice—there are reasonable restraints to be laid even upon a
liberty like this. No man naayuse this liberty as a cloak for
maliciousness. You must not go to a public meeting, and
then bear down . and destroy private character, under the
guise and mask of some political disputation. You must not
go to some such meeting with any such purpose. The law
will not permit it. You must answer for it if you do. You
must not at some such public meeting or public discussion,
say what is false of a man which, if it were true, would go
to the disinheriting of him from the way in which he makes
his bread, to degrade him ill the estimation of society, to put
him out of those friendships and acquaintances he loves, and
to lower him in the condition of life to which he belongs.
You must not do that. I must not, for instance, go to a dis-
cussion on Maynooth, either about the giving or the with-
drawal of the grant, and whilst I am aiming a blow at May-
nooth in the distance, stab Mr. Hearne in Manchester behind
his back. If that is the law of the laud it is consistent with
common sense and with justice; and gentlemen it is the law
of the land as far as I understand it. And, neither if I go
to a place for the purpose of discussing some public matter,
and speak in the way of an instance of some private person'
whose name or station will help my argument, to stir up the
malignant passions, or rouse up any other passion, in the
audience as I shall show the defendant did, to swell the gale
and carry all along with me. I must not say, " I have what
I am saying upon authority." I must not say a thing of a
person' and then add, " I do not know myself that it is true,
but I pledge myself that it is, because I have some person
who tells me so, and 1 will bring him before you publicly if
you think what I have said is false." And 'why ? Because
the repetition of slander is just as bad a thing as the origina-
tion of slander—nay, the person who repeats slander after-
wards is often worse than he who originated it, because it is
done with more detibpration, with more malice, as we call it,
and he may do a great deal more mischief by it. I beg you
to carry these remarks with you when we enter upon the
question which we are about to try ; but as I have found in
one of the books in our learning, a very exact passage in
point, stating more correctly than I can what is the law upon
the subject, with your leave I will read it to you, and you
shall see what it is. • -
. The learned gentleman here quoted two passages from a case
which he did not specify, in which two judges 61 the court or
King's Bench ruled that the circulation of a calumny was
much worse than the invention, as the author might be insane
or intoxicated, or a man of bad character • and the repeater
of it might give it the weight of great diaraeter, of sound
mind, and of reputation for judgment ; the bare statement
by such a person that such an imputation had been made,
might circulate it snore widely and more prejudicially than it
could be even by the author.] That, the learned counsel con-
tinued, is the law. It is founded on plain understanding and
common sense, and I think that every man who hears me will
allow it is founded on absolute justice. You have followed
me gentlemen thus far in these preliminary remarks. I am
very sorry to have detained you so long ; but now I will en-
ter upon the immediate subject before you. In the month
of April last, on the 28th of the month, in the evening, at
Manchester, there was called a great public meeting to con-
sider the question of Maynooth, or rather, to correct myself,
it was not a case where there was to be discussion—which
might be very proper—they were to meet rather to shew their
own strength and their own feeling upon the subject, which
was also very proper. It was a meeting to petition parliament
to withdraw the Maynooth grant. As I said before, that may
be, and no doubt is, a very legitimate object. Had the meet-
ing conducted itself in all respects properly, no person could
have blamed them for assembling on such a subject. They
might have said a bitter thing here, or an acrimonious thing
there, hut all offence would have gone by like the idle wind ;
no persons against whom attack was directed would have
troubled their heads about the matter. The meeting was at-
tended by many persons—by between two and three thousand
as I understand. it soon was full of men and of ladies—who
are excellent audiences—all eyes and all ears, when not allow-
ed to speak themselves. They attended—most diligently at-
tended, as did all the audience—to the speakers. Mr. Hugh
Stowell, the defendant, was appointed chairman of the meet-
ing.ilm e
froth
ilmtaawl taking
eirngfor itlehe
chairfact wa
whichs the
tionswhat a
nse
present,a
good or for evilhad upon this occasion,
and that if this highly gifted and truly eloquent man was to
choose the better side always, and never the worse, how in uch
real good might be done by that glorious gift. He took the
chair, and was the first to address the meeting. He spoke,
as I understand, in a very animated strain for some half-hour.
As the question before them was the withdrawal of the grant
from Maynooth, you may expect that Maynooth was the
principal object of his animadversion. I shall say nothing about
what he said except that lie breathed out his threatcnings
against the institution ; he said a great deal against popery ;
and then lie came to the part in question, to which I call your
serious attention. Of coursers very likely topic to be argued
was the education of the persons who were to become future
priests, at the college of Maynooth. Lettn, therefore, by
first speaking upon that subject, and he said lie should

give them an instance. Then he gave that instance from a
document which he then held in his hand, and which be
said had been given to him by certain persons whose
names he would not disclose upon that occasion, but
that if the papists afterwards required him to give his autho-
rity, that authority should he forthcoming. Now mark who
was the man about to give this instance. He was a person
well known to that vast audience; be was a man followed by
cheers
.and admiration up to that time, as I dare say he bad

all his life before
,; be wawa man who bad not only the power

of saying in words what he thought, but of making his words
well understood by the manner and tone in which he uttered

them : he was likely, therefore, with his character, with his
attainments,: and with his office, to command a willing au=

dience. Judge ye whether or not upon that occasion he had
not full authority. Gentlemen, he said—
" I will just give you a specimen of what these priests, in-
doctrinated at Alaynooth, teach these poor creatures in refe-
rence to_the way of salvation, bow they grind them down and

debase them almost as low as' the beast that perisheth."
Hard words these, gentlemen, from a minister of peace!
Hard_ words these from one who might have_ learned—l am

sure he knows where it is written--'that " the wisdom that

is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be
entreated—full of mercy !" Hard words these from the
Rev. Mr. Stowell! They were hard words, too, from one

.
who ought to have remembered what is the meaning of cha-
rity and love towards his brother—that charity_is kind and

speaketh no evil. However be spoke in generals up to this
time. He merely said these things to the disadvantage of
Maynooth, but he was drawing the eye of the audience to
- -

that particular point of his instance which pointed at Mr.
Hearne as the party upon whom the execration of the meet-
ing should fail, in proportion as they believed Mr. Stowell
was right in denouncing him. Accordingly I shall read every
word of the passage; but I shall first give you what he
-said.

He gave the authority of some nondescript persons, of peo-

ple without a name, whom he affected to lie able to bring for-
ward upon some occasion when the papists should call for
them ; and then he charged upon Mr. Hearne a story that
Mr. Hearne, the clergyman of St. Patrick's chapel, for there
is no doubt about the name—there is no doubt about the of-

fice, that he upon some occasion, about a fortnight before,
adjudged a penance upon some poor creature, some poor
Roman Catholic brother. It turned out to be a story about

some factory man of so revolting, so abominable, so incredi-
ble, and so diggraceful a character, that if it were true, there
being no
,authority in the church for a priest to inflict any

0
such penance, he would not only be, as I said before, lost in
the esteem of every person who loved and esteemed him be-
fore, but he would be degraded and deprived of his benefice
by his bishop. The story goes on to say that Mr. Hearne
told the man that the penance must be fully satisfied or else
he should not allow him to come to the sacraments, again
charging upon the plaintiff, a clerk in holy orders in the
Catholic church, an offence which, if it were true, would en-
title the bishop to deprive him of his benefice. But I will
read to you, almost without comment, what fell from Mr.

Stowell upon that occasion—
" The circumstance which I am going to narrate did not
occur in Ireland, in the darkness of popery there ; but here,
in Manchester, in the midst of all our daylight. (Hear, hear.)"
I am reading now from the report which was published in
the paper, but.l shall give you exactly the same statement
from the short-hand notes of the reporter whom I will call
to give evidence. At the end of this sentence there occurred
the words " hear, hear," which you know is an expression of
adniiration or applause usual in public meetings. Then there
came the following—

" You will perhaps not believe it; but the witnesses are
prepared to come forward and prove the fact, or I would not
give it to you."
Was there ever ushered in a story more likely to lead the
audience to believe he had authority for it? And remember
the man who is telling the story. He proceeds—
" I will not mention their names, lest it should expose
them to persecution ; but if the papists choose to come for-
ward, and demand the evidence, that evidence is forthcom-
ing. I bear in my hand, then, a document sub Scribed by
three of the police of Manchester; one is not a policeman at
the present moment, but be was at the time that he furnished
this document." .

You see he came prepared with something ready cut and
dried in his baud. The law will say that is a presumption
of premeditated malice, much more than if the speaker bad
been carried away by the excitement of the moment. Mr:

Stowell, however, came prepared with this document, and
it was out of that document he was to convict Mr. Hearne.

He proceeds—
" He states, that he was a policeman thcn, in Smedley-
lane, and that, one morning, a fortnight from that period"—

Then he gives this statement—
" ' A dyer, going to his work, asked me if I had seen a
man walking on• his hands and knees, the last two nights. I
said that I had not, but that I had seen him doing it the last
two mornings, and that I at first thought he was making his
escape, or concealing himself from some pursuers, but that
I subsequently took him for a cripple.' "
.

Theß, days Mr. Stowell, " Wli.was this mysterious per-
son?" still keeping up the attention of his audience. He
then goes on from the document— _ _ _ _

" ''i
` n about ten minutes after this, the dupe (these are
the witness's own words) made his appearance, crawling
with his hands and knees, on the roughest part of the pave-

ment.' "
Certainly a very degrading condition for any poor creature
to be in. You will see how it came according to the author
that he was there, and that alone—
" ' I then resolved to satisfy himself, when I elicited the
following answers from him :—I asked him, ' What are you
doing all that about ?" It is penance for my sins.' "
Then the audience say " Hear, hear," and there is a laugh.
Mr. Stowell took occasion from that circumstance to bring
the audience back again, for he said—
" I am more disposed to weep than to laugh, my dear
friends ; for allow me to say, I lament that a man should
think he was saving his soul, and suffering the work of the
Lamb of God, by thus degrading himself under the ban of a

popish priest."
Hard words again, I say, gentlemen. What think you of it
Still, you see, no name is mentioned. " I say, I deeply la-
ment it," adds Mr. Stowell. Hard words again. But to

proceed—
" Could you not atone for your sins without doing that ?'
No.' Why?' Because the priest will not administer
the sacrament to me till I haVe done it.' How long have
you done it?' Four days.' How many more days will it

take before you finish ?" I cannot tell:" But when will
you go to your priest to know ?" When I have done it
nine days more I shall go.' Bow many hours do you do
it each day ?" Four hours.' At one time?' No ; two
in the morning and two at night.' Do you work at any-
thing ?' _ I work in a factory. _ _

Theil Mr. Stowell breaks Lie again, and conies in with this
observation—
" Poor fellow ! working in a factory for twelve hours a-
day, and then dragging on his hands and knees over the
rough stones, for four hours a-day more ! The priest should
have taken his place, and done it for him. (Loud cheers.)"
You see the influence he had with his audience—that they
shouted as far as the story had gone. although no name was
yet mentioned, no person or any particular place pointed
out ; they submitted to be told all this by Mr. Stowell, who
roused them to such a degree of indignation against the
priest, that they gave him loud applause for saying the priest
should have done that penance himself. Then the document
goes on—
" Who is your priest?' Mr. Hearne.' (Hear, hear,
and cries of Shame!')"
Now I dare say, gentlemen, you have some times attended
public meetings, and that you know what sort of a thing
what is called an honest burst of execration is; and I have
no doubt you will be satisfied when you have heard the evi-
dence, of the way in which Mr. Hearne's name was received
when he was pointed out as the priest who had enjoined this
abominable, degrading. and disgraceful penance which Mr.
Stowell told them of. I have not the least doubt I say, that
the audience thought as ill of Mr. Hearne as it was possible
for them to do :
" Who is your priest?' Mr. Hearne.' What chapel
do you go to ?' St. Patrick's.' ' What is your name?'
John O'Hara." You had better come on the path, or go
into that field, where it will be softer and easy for you.'
Oh, no; that will not be doing penance.' We now looked
at his knees, which were much lacerated. We expostulated
with him, but it was of no avail. He said he was a great
sinner. We insisted on his desisting, but he resisted vio-
lently, took the sergeant's stick from him ; and laid on us
with it furiously. It was with great difficulty that we suc-
ceeded in subduing him, when I deprived him of his beads,
his crucifix, and "fhe Garden of the Soul,' which are now
at the police station. The undersigned police constables are
ready to give testimony of this.' "
That gentlemen—that document—so read upon that occa-
sion by Mr. Stowell, is the libel of which Mr. Hearne the
plaintiff complains ; and your province it is to judge of the
effect of that which was then attributed to Mr. Hearne, the
clergyman of St. Patrick's Chapel by name—l mean that
sort of penance which is degrading a rational being into
something like the beast that perisbeth, if it were true. But
it is absolutely and entirely false that Mr. Hearne ever en-
joined any such penance ; it is absolutely and entirely false
that he could by any will or authority of his office enjoin such
penance ; it is absolutely and entirely false that he did by
reason of any such penance not being performed, interdict
the sacraments from John O'Hara or any other person. lie
never did so in his life; he bad no authority to do so from
the discipline of the church ; and if he had done either the
one or the other he would have been declared unfit for his
office, and have been deprived of it by his superiors. Is that
libel, therefore, upon him to be borne? The document being
ended, I shall only trouble you with one or, two words which
come in by way of end, and then I have done with what is
the libe! and slander complained of. Says Mr. Stowell—
" Now, my friends, is that an education which a protes-
tant British government is authorized in supporting for a
free-born people like the English people? (Applause.) Are
we warranted in paying our money to educate priests thus to
grind down, into the dust, their fellow-subjects ? Did you
ever hear of a protestant minister thus lording it over God's
heritage, and debasing and degrading his flock ?"
And there is something more not set out in.the declaration,
and with ,which, therefore. I need not trouble ypu. But,
however, what has Mr. Stowell acknowledged by asking this
question? When he asks who ever heard of a protestant
minister thus lording it., over God's heritage, I will tell him
that no man in his senses ever heard Of a protestant minister'
in any country, or of any man not -tun of the darkest suspi-
cions of the Roman Catholic clergy, and of Mr. Hearne in
particular, venturing to believe such a miserable fabrication
of such a story as that of Mr. Hearne or any Roman Ca-
tholic priest. I have the privilege, to be sure, of being a
protestant in this land ; if I had been asked such a question
I should have laughed, and said no, I never heard of such
a charge against a protestant priest, but I will tell you what
I have heard : I have heard of charges as monstrous and as
false not long ago made against persons who arc not christi-
ans—l mean the Jews—a most incredible story about their
having mingled christian blood with their bread. Though
we should disbelieve it, it is historically true, that Jews
have been prosecuted even to death for such things, because
some persons have been found who persuaded their own
minds that such things were.possible. If any man were to
allege of the Jewish rabbi, that he mixed christian blood
with the bread of the passover, I appeal to you whe-
ther such a falsehood would not be injurious to the
reputation of the chief' priest of the Jewish religion ?
I say such a charge is injurious to the reputation of any per-
son in any charge to whom it is attributable ; and I say if it
ptobrattsre in
hundreds the newspapers
be false, as this is, it is calculated to lower the man in the
opinion of all who heard it at the time. , And when you know
of
tzosa cnadrsr yofapnedrssopnresaind
intelligence,atibierowadayinwhich
a few hours would be led to believe the same statement made
by Mr. Stowell, and thus by the foolish iniquity of a man's
mouth for the moment, by his giving this instance about Mr.
Hearne and this unhappy person, you find Mr. I ' learne s good
fame, his name, and his credit destroyed and lowered among
all his friends and acquaintances, till he set himself to work
to shew the statement was entirely untrue. Then Mr. Hearne
does set himself straight again in society, then he does, by
coming into a court of justice call upon his traducer to make
good his word, to shew what he hail been telling is true, and
if he cannot do so to take the consequences. Mt. Hearne
was not present when this attack was made upon him. We
cannot expect he should be. I believe the persons at the
meeting were all of one way of thinking; they, went there
rather to support their opinion than to have it discussed.
Mr. Hearne was in Ireland at the time attending his father
who was ill ; but the moment he heard of it, that instant he
took steps to clear his character and to have this thing put
right before the public. The meeting was on the 28th April.
On the 6th of-May, Mr. Hearne being at that time in Ire-
land, instructed Mr. Gibson his attorney to take immediate
steps to refute this base calumny. Mr. Gibson accordingly
wrote a letter—to whom should he write I—to Mr. Stowell
himself, the gentleman who had said only the week before
that at the proper time and place he was ready
ward with evidence in support of his charge. Mr. Hearne
could not sit down under the imputation. He, a clergyman,
to be attacked and prejudiced by a clergyman of high name

atid 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 will be found in the evidence.]
A very proper step to take on behalf 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 1201, 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.
" Sin,—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 hirn 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. CRESSWELL.—I shall produce it.
Mr. DUNDAS.—I am sure my learned friend will do every
thing that is candid, and every thing to promote the progress
of the cause, Mr. Goulden's letter concluded thus :
" I am satisfied that from the absence of Mr. Stowell, he
las not had any opportunity of comparing the document in
he paper with the original, therefore any further communi-
sation upon the subject you will please address to me as his
ittorney. I am, &c. W. W. GOULDEN."
" Chas. Gibson, Esq. Manchester.
This was very unsatisfiictory. , 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 he 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 ?"
No answer came to this letter of the 13th till the 17th ;
and then there came this reply frail Mr. Goulden to which
1 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 lie 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 his 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 kilt hint, will it do to say Iliad no ill will against
that man ? If a man traduce another, has no 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 hi the church, and that it
is all vanity and nonsense; I shall also shew 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 upon 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, xamined by Mr. WIGHTMAN.—Are you
reporter to the itanchester Courier ?—I 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
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 ?—He 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 thenrfqtegin-wlth.these words-4 I 4.411 just
give you a specimen of what these priests indoctrinated at
Maynooth,' &c. Did you report that in the Manchester
Courier
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
I 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.--Well 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. WronTst ANT.—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. WIGUTMAN, (upon looking at it,) I don't think we
will use this at all.
Mr. CRESSWELL contended that his learned friend was
highly irregular. He 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. WIGUTMAN 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. Hoobrics, as follows :
Are you a Catholic clergyman ?—I 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 Sc. 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. HoomNs.—According to the discipline and practice
of Roman Catholic' worship, has any individual priest autho-
rity to impose that penalty upon .any sinner 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 Homan 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 shown tbat 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. HOGGING.—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 be thought
proper, of his office or appointment 1--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,isthere any power in your church, in any of
the functionaries of your church, to impose penance by
crawling upon the ground ?--I know of none.