ALLEGED LIBEL ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY OF DUNEDIN.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 172, 14 July 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

ALLEGED LIBEL ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY OF DUNEDIN.

(Continued from Supplement.) The Witness : I will not answpr you, tlien. Mr. Howorth : Then niy client will not have justice, then. His Worship : It is not usual to go into the defence in a preliminary examination. Counsel have no legal right to be present at a preliminary enquiry. Mr. Howorth : I understand your Worship to say that it is an unnecessary question. The Bishop says that he is quite able to answer it. I asked how long since this rule or practice of celibacy has prevailed in the Church. His Worship : It is not a fitting question — going into historical matters. Here it is sworn that there is an existing vow. Afterwards, imagining you may refer to it, the Court is supposed to have its own knowledge of history. You may then quote history. But at present it is taking up time unnecessarily. Mr. Howorth : Then your Worship simply says that I am at liberty to state, in argument, what authorities I can on the matter, •without lieinsr allowed to ask the witnesses any questions? His Worship : You will be left in this difficulty always. Supposing the hierarchy of the Catholic Church had certain institutions 100 years ago. or 20 years ago. The question is, have they one now ? What the people did in the last generation, or the one preceding that, cannot have any bearing upon this subject. There is an existing institution sworn to, namely, a vow and obligation of chastity. Have I any right to listen to anything done in bygone days ? Mr Howorth : I submit that your Worship has. His Worship : If you bear in mind that I am not trying the case Mr Howorth : If you are going to send the case to a higher Court, I may as well sit down. His Worship : I am not saying that, but I musi, limit your enquiries. Mr Howorth to the witness : You do not consider, for a moment, that the paragraph applies to yourself ? The Witness : I cannot say ; it applies to a clergyman in Dunedin. Mr Iloworf h : Supposing you were at Salt Lake City, and thnt a paragraph appeared stating that a Mormon had thrown off the trammels of Mormonism, which allows polygamy, and was living with one wife, woi^d that affect you, or would you be concerned about it ? The Witness : Your supposition is beside the question, and without meaning, with all due respect. His Worship : I think Mormonism is contrary to Ihe United States law. Mr. Howorth : The Catholic body has no status in New Zealand His Worship : The witness is not a Mormon. Mr. Honorth : Nor am I a Roman Catholic [To the witness." You do not see any analogy in the case which I have put in regard tc Mormonism ? The Witness : Ido not see its bearing. We nre here seeking the protection of the law for our characters, and I do not see whai Mormonism has to do with it. Mr Howorth : In consequence of your Worship's ruling, I am shut out from asking a great many questions which I wished to put to Bishop Moran. Mr. Macassey : That is the case for the prosecution. Mr. Howorth : After your Worship's ruling, I would like to consider whether I shall adduce evidence or not. It was then agreed that the case should be postponed until Saturday morning, at 10 o'clock. The defendant to enter into his own recognisance of £100 for his appearance. The Court then adjourned.

From the 'Daily Times.' (Before John Batbgate, Esq., R.M.) The Resident Magistrate's Court-house was crowded on Tuesday afternoon on the occasion of hearing the information which had been laid by Dr. Moran, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese, -against Mr. George Bell, of the * Evening Star,' for an alleged libel of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Dunedin. Thero was also a large attendance of the legal profession and members of the Roman Catholic Church. The information was as follows : — " Thnt the defendant wilfully caused to be printed and published in the ' Evening Star' newspaper a false, scand ilous, and malicious libel of and concerning the Roman Catholic Clergy of Dunedin afore aid, being office-bearers, branches, or organisations of the Ron?an' Catholic Church, Uirler the control and supervision of the Most Reverend Patrick Moran, Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin aforesaid, in the words following :: — c The 'luapeka Times' says it is reported that a ray. father of the Roman Catholic Church has thrown off the trammels of the Church, and followed the example of Perc Hyacinthe, of Parisian celebrity, by taking unto himself a wife. The fair one is reported to possess considerable personal charms, and at one time is said to have been numbered with the Dunedin Sisters of Mercy, to the scandal of the religious body known as the Roman Catholic Church, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity, being an indictable offence." On the charge being read over, Mr. H. Howorth said : I appear for defendant, may it please your Worship, and plead Not Guilty. Mr. Macassey : I appear for the informaut, with my friend Mr. M'Keay. Mr. Howorth : Before the] case is proceeded with, I feel it my duty to draw attention to an article which appeared in the New Zealand Tablet, reflecting upon this case, aud which is likely to prejudice the defendant. Mr. Macassey : My learned friend is not in order in asking the Court to take judicial notice of any newspaper/ He is drawing the attention of the Court to something beyond the range of the present enquiry. Mr. Howorth : If the matter was in the Supreme Conrt, there would not be the slightest difficulty in bringing the proprietor of the Tablet before the Court. But, as far as lam aware, there is no process of this Court by which a similar course can be followed. It is but a matter of justice to my client that I should bring the matter under your Worship's notice, and that before the case proceeds. As counsel I draw your Worship's attention to this article as reflecting upon the case. His Worship : Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you have grounds of complaint, can I give you any remedy ? I apprehend that I am not sitting here strictly speaking as a Court, but as a Justice of the Peace or Magistrate, making an inquiry as to whether there is a prima facie case against the party accused. That confers upon me no power to call upon the publisher of the newspaper to appear before me for contempt, and can therefore give you no remedy. If you think that the article has any bearing upon the case you can adduce it«inyour defence ; but I cannot take it into consideration at this stage. Mr. Howorth : I felt it my duty to call your Worship's attention to the article. It is for your Worship to take such action in the defence of thp Court as you may think tit. His Worship : I am in the hands of the informant at present. Mr. Macassey, in opening the case for the prosecution, said that it was the first time that Bishop Moran felt bound to arraign the proprietor of any newspaper in a Court of justice for what he had written. If the alleged libel was a purely personal one, and affected the Bishop himself only, he could have afforded to treat it with the contempt which it deserved. But it -would be seen that the imputation was one which effected the clergy, of which he was the head, in this diocese, and it also affected the character of a number of ladies in the Dominican Convent here. It was not on personal grounds that Bishop Moran had proceeded against Mr. Bell for the libellous statement which had appeared in the • Evening Star' newspaper. Under ordinary circumstances, anyone feeling aggrieved in this manner should seek redress by an action in a civil Court of justice. But it was impossible for Bishop Moran to institute proceedings having for their object the recovery of damages, as the imputation contained in the paragraph complained -of was most general, and it would be impossible for any person to Vpoint to that paragraph and say, "I am the person alluded to there." The paragraph was not an original one, inasmuch as it previously appeared in the ' Tuapeka Times,' from which it was copied into the ' Star.' It would possibly be urged on behalf of the defendant, that he was not the originator of the scandal. That might be a mitigation of the offence in some cases, but it was not so in the present one, as the ' Tuapeka Times,' circulating in a small district, might be allowed to publish a paragraph of this kind without attention being especially drawn to it. But when the libel was transferred from an insignificant local paper to one possessing the circulation of the 'Star,' the matter became very different. The locals and paragraphs appearing in the Dunedin papers were communicated to different parts of the Colony and the world. It was impossible, therefore, to have the scandal reproduced in the ' Star ' without it very much enchancing its original importance. It was difficult to understand how a newspaper claiming the respectable pretensions of the ' Star' should deal with a scandal of the kind complained of in the paragraph. Jf it were true, it could do no good except to give offence to a large number of persons interested in the welfare of their clergy, but when it was false, the injury was ten times greater. He would place before His Worship the evidence of a number of tbe adherents of the Catholic Church

who Lad read the local, and who would put their, construction upon it. The learned counsel then read the paragraph in question, and said that the case of Fere Hyacinthe was well known. He had married a wife and dissolved his union with the Church. To make an imputation of this kind against a Catholic clergyman wiu to say that he had violated the vows of his Church, and rendered himself liable to suspension and excommunication. The same result .would follow in regard to a Sister of Mercy who became involved in marriage. He then pointed out that there was no such order of nuns here as the Sisters of Mercy, and that the imputation therefore must be consicleied as implying that one of the ladies of the Dominican Convent had also violated her vows and engaged in marriage. Bishop Moran, as head of the Catholic Church here, would be put in the box, and prove that the paragraph was absolutely untrue. A question might be raised as to whether Bishop Moran, who was not directly pointed at, had any right to interpose. But it was held in the case, of the General Government re Mr. G-. B. Barton, when editor of the ' Daily Times,' that any stranger could lay the information, and in that instance it was done by Mr. Spencer Brent, who was a clerk in the office of the Crown Prosecutor. Bishop Moran had come forward for the purpose of protecting his clergy, and also the ladies of the Dominican Convent. It might be further said that as the imputation did not refer to any one particular clergyman, it could not be libe'lous. Bnt to make general imputation upon a body of men was without doubt libellous. Tuerewasa celebrated cisc to that effect, in which Lord Brougham appeared. lie meant the case of Sex v. Williams, 5, B. and Al., 595, which was that of a libol against the clergy of .Durham, in which th^y were charged with preventing the bells from being tolled on the deconse of one of the Queens of England. In conclusion, he submitted that from the evidence he would adduce there could be no question but the case was one for further enquiry. He then proceeded to call the following witne-ses : James Cahill deposed: lam a clerk ',,in the employ of Mr. W. H. M'Keay. I know Mr. George Bell. I purchrsed the copy of the ' Evening Star' now produced on the evening of July 6, at the ' Star' office in Bond street. lam a member of the Koman.Catholic Church, and have seen the local complained of. — [Paragraph read.] If any Catholic priest were guilty of taking to himself a wife, neither I nor any of my friends would associate with him. I infer from the paragraph that a clergyman of the Catholic Church had cast aside his vows and married one of the ladies of the convent. Besides Bishop Moran and Father Crowley, there are only two other Catholic clergymen in Dunedin. To Mr. Howorth: I would shun a Catholic clergyman who married a wife, as I would a convict. There is no unchastity in members of the Church marrying. A priest could not be absolved from his vows of chastity. I respect all Christians, but I. would not respect a priest who would trebly perjure himself. .1 would regard a priest who threw off the trammels of his Church, as stated in this paragraph, as a perjurer. Colin M'Kenzie Gordon, Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court, proved that the defendant had, in November last, iiled an affidavit that he was the proprietor of the ' Evening SfcarA John Griffen deposed : lam a merchant, carrying on business in Dunedin, and a Justice of the Peace also. I aui a Roman Catholic. I read the local in the * Star ' of the 3rd July. >As a Roman Catholic and a colonist of 15 years' standing in New Zealand, I never read a paragraph in the whole course of my colonial_career which gave me as much pain as the one alluded to. 1 interpret the local as meaning that a priest belonging to Dunedin had ceased to be a priest, ana taken to himself a wife. From the local, it would appear that a Sister of Mercy had thrown off her vows, and become a wife. lam not aware that there is such a society of nuns in Dunedin as the Sisters of Mercy. There is a convent here of the Order of St. Dominic. I believe it contains eight nuns. ,In the absence of the order of the Sisters of Mercy, I would infer that it was one of the Dominican nuns who was referred to. I observe the reference in the local to Father Hyacinthe. His case occasioned scandal to the Church, and I would simply detest a Roman Catholic clergyman who had thrown off his vowa and got married. To Mr. Howorth: I do not know what happened to Father Hyacinthe. I believe that he was a Catholic priest. Ido noi know that he was absolved from his vows by the Church. Father Hyacinthe is reputed to have married a wife. Ido not knowr it from my own knowledge, but from what I have read. I did not read that Father Hyacinthe was absolve 1 from his vows as a priest, because that could not be. I have heard of Martin Luther, but never read much about him. I believe that he was a very naughty man. (Laughter ) I do not know that celibacy was not practised in the e.irly days of the Church. Ido not claim to be an historian. I never heard of a Pope marrying. Mr. Howorth : Do you know did any of the apostles marry ? (Laughter.) The Witness : That is too far back. I daresay his Lordship is better posited up in those matters than I am. I felt pained at the local, because it might be regarded as a domestic scandal, and come home to every Catholic in the place. I do not believe there is any such thing as the trammels of the Church. A person joining the Church is free to secede from it when ha pleases. It is quite possible for a priest after ceasiug to be a priest to secede from the C itholic Church. A priest must cease to bs such before he becomes a believer in any other religion. There is no such word known in our Church as trammels. I cannot tell you whether a priest can be relaasod ftom his vows or not. F. W. Petre, architect, residing in Dunedin, deposed : I belong to the Catholic Church. I heard the local in the 'Star' read and discussed. I have now read the paragraph myself which appeared in the 'Evening Star.' I was in England at tue_time when the occurrence referred to in connection with Father. Hyacinthe topk place. It was considered to be a very great scandal.. The impression created in my mind by the paragraph would be that the. individual referred to had committed perjury, and of such natura that, looking at it in a

spiritual light, it- would be the gravest description .which could be committed by a Catholic. Any Roman Catholic clergyman who would have married, as suggested by the paragraph, would be shunned by all his co-religionists. Great importance is attached to the vow of celibocy taken by the holders of the priestly office. I would infer, from reading the local, that the person who wrote it had mistaken '«ac Dominican Order for that of the- Sisters of Mercy Substituting the Order of St. Dominic for the Order of Sisters of Meicy, I would regard it as a direct attack upon the Order of St. Dominic, and infer that one of that Order had broken her vows by marrying. To Mr. Howorth : r lhe marriage of Father Hyacinthe gave considerable scandal to the Roman Catholic Church; but I do not think that the Protestant community looked npon it in the same light. Ido not think Father Hyacinthe would be received into the greater part of what is understood as respectable society in England. I made use of no such word as spiritual perjury, but perjury in a spiritual light in refertnee to the next world. I cannot repeat the forms of the vows of celibacy. The substance of them is to abstain from matrimony. lam not aware that I ever saw the forms laid down. John Joseph Connor deposed : lam a printer, and reside in Dunedin. I belong to the Roman Catholic Church. I read the local in the ' Evening Star ' of the 3rd July. It produced the impression in my mind that a very great wrong had been done to the Catholic body of this Colony. As a matter of fact, I understood it to mean that ore of our clergy residing in Dunedin had broken through, his vows taken as a Catholic priest ,and married one of the nuns resident in Dunedin. All Cai holies would regard such a priest as having fallen to the lowest depths to which a person could possibly fall. The local in the * Star ' has created a feeling of great wrong among the Catholic body in Dunedin. To Mr. Howorth : lam prepared to say that the Dunedin public ontside the members of the Catholic Church are very much concerned in regard to the publication of that paragraph. lam a printer, and an overseer in the office in which the Tablet is printed. Mr. Howorth : Who is the proprietor of the Tablet ? Mr. Macassey : I submit that we have nothing to do with that. His Worship agreed with Mr. Macassey. Mr. Howorth remarked that the Bench was very indulgent to his learned friend. His Worship : Ido not admit that. Mr. Howorth submitted that the question should'be put. His Worship : Ido not see the bearing of the question. If you wish to ascertain who is the proprietor you can do so by calling the Deputy-Registrar of the Supreme Court. Mr. Howorth : The affidavit does not give us the information. Mr. Macassey : Did you prepare it ? Mr, Howorth replied that he did not. Hi ? Worship said that he would not decide the question finally then. If Mr. Howorth would refer to the matter in his defence he would then consider it. Mr. Howorth : Did you see this article in last week's Tablet ? Mr. Marassey : ahe witness shoujd be put on his guard before answering the question. Mr. Howorth : I put it forward as a matter of contempt of Court. That question I will leave your Worship to deal with. I am not putting it forward as a matter of libel. Unless the witness feels that it contains libel he will answer the question. Did you print this article. • Mr. Macassey : I ask that your Worship will conduct one enquiry at a time. If Mr. Howorth wishes to bring it forward, we will be quite prepared to meet it at a proper time. But the question now before the Court is whether or not the paragraph in the • Star ' is of a defamatory character- ° His Worship : lam clenrly of opinion tint the question is not ndnnssable at this stage of the enquiry. If Mr Howorth wishes to have n put in his defence, I will take the matter into careful consideration then. But Ido not see how the article in the Tablet bears upon a libel published previously. You assume that lam trying the case, w bile lam not doing aiy t hing of the kind. The question before the Couit being, Is there o. prima focie case to warrant a committal ? Mr Howorth : 'lhat is the greater reason why you should co into these matters. ° His Worship : I think you should confine your questions te what the witness stated in his examination in chief. That is my ruling. Mr Howorth : You rule that I am not at liberty to ask who the proprietors of the paper are, or to read any portion of the article which it contains ? His Worship : Not just now. Mr. Howorth : I hope, before the case is over, your Worship will see the necessity of these questions. His Worship : You cannot be in the slightest degree prejudiced by anything that I may do here to day. MrHowonh: Is the New Zealand Tablet written in the interests of Roman Catholics of this diocese? Question disallow ci. Mr. Howorth : J ask permission to read to the witness an extract from tbe Tablet of July 7th. Permission refused. Miclmel Fleming deposed : I am a produce dealer in Dunedin, and nm a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I read the paragraph in the ' Evening Star ' of July 3rd. I considered it a great wrong and insult to »he Catholics of New Zealand. I would regard a priest who got married as a ro'ten branch of the Church. The paragraph in question has canted great feeling among the Roman Catholics. Dr. Moran deposed : I hold the office of Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin, and arrived in Dunedin on the 1 8th February, J871; but was appointed in 1869. I was previously Bishopin Grahamst own, Cape of Good Hope. During the whole of my life, I have been connected with the Catholic Church, and have been a Bishop tor twenty years. I read a local in the • Star' of July 3,

I observe a reference in it to Pere Hyacinthe, I understand that this paragraph charges one of the Catholic clergymen of Dunedin with having broken his vow of celibacy, and thrown off his obligation of obedience to the Church and Bishop, and married a wife. Supposing that a priest had done what is stated, or insinuated here as being true, he would have incurred the penalty of suspension, excommunication, and deposition also. In the event of a nun marrying a priest, she would be subjected to excommunication, and, according to the law of the Church, to perpetual imprisonment and penance. I understand the allusion to Pere Hyacinthe to mean that he broke his vot» of chastity, disobeyed the Church, and married wife. When this occurrence took place it gave the most grievous scandal, and the most intense pain to all Catholics. Judging from what I know to have occurred already in this Province, and from my knowledge of the effect produced by similar reports elsewhere Mr. Howorth : You are going beyond your knowledge. The witness : You have no right to make such, an observation. It is open to you to disprove what lam saying. lamon my oath. In my opinion the effect of that paragraph will be most injurious, to the character of the priests here. I do not think that the evil can ever be rectified fully. I have three clergymen in Dunedin, and I have been resident here ever since my arrival in this Colony, with the exception of a short absence at Wellington. lam personally acquainted with all the priests Avho have ever been resident in Dunedin since I came here. They have always resided in my house. The three clergymen who resided with me at the time of the publication of the local in the • Star,' had been staying with me since the beginning of the year. There is not the slightest foundation for saying that one of them has cast off the trammels of the Church, and taken a wife. There is no such Order here as tha Sisters of Mercy, but there is one of the Order of Saint Dominic. There is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that a nun has been married to a priest, or anyone else. To Mr. Howorth : I did not say anything to Mr. Bell before laying the criminal information. It was his business to know that it was not true before publishing? it. I have serious doubts as to whether he would hare published a refutation of it, even if I did tell him that it was not true. I observe that the paragraph commences by stating that the ' Tuapeka Times' gives currency to the report. I have given instructions for proceedings to be instituted against the 'Tuapeka Times/ but I have not yet sworn the information. 1 made no enquiries whatever as to the circumstances under which the ' Evening Star' published the paragraph. I take proceedings against Mr. Bell because he is the proprietor of the paper. It has nothing to do with the case whether Mr. Bell was personally concerned in the publication or not. I did not know that he was personally concerned in it or otherwise. I have seen the same paragraph in otLer papers, but I have not as yet commenced proceedings against any of them. The paragraph also appeared in the New Zealand Tablet, which is the organ of the Roman Catholics of Dunedin. I saw the article which was published in the Tablet of July the 7th. His Worship : I do not think that I can load the depositions with anything which took place before the publication of the allegedlibel. Mr. Howorth : The Bishop has stated that the Tablet defends the views of the Catholics of Dunedin. In the article of which I am speaking this very paragraph is re-published. His Worship : Do you mean to say that it is put in without any remark ? Mr. Howorth : Other papers are copying the Tablet article. His Worship : That does not affect the alleged libel, published previously. The paragraph did not appear in the Tablet the same as in the ' Star/ In reply to a further remark from Mr. Howorth, The Witness said : You do not know what action I may take against the Tablet. — (Laughter.) His Worship said that if Mr. Howorth would keep in mind what he had previously stated, it would save this discussion. Mr. Howorth said that he wished when he would come to the defence, to put the article which appeared in the Tablet in as evidence. His Worship : As you have mentioned it now, I may as well say that I will not allow you to do so. Mr. Howorth : I wish to show the way the Catholics treated the thing in their own organ. His Worship : No more remarks must be made on this point. We must keep some sort of order. Mr. Howorth (to witness) : What is a vow of celibacy ? The Witness : A vow to abstain from matrimony, and all sins against chastity. Mr. Howorth : Marriage, then, is not unehastity ? J The Witness : lam astonished that you ask me such a question in a Christian Court. Ido not wish to be disrespectful to the Bench : but I never heard such a monstrous question. Mr. Howorth : Ido not see anything objectionable in the question. The Witness : Then I pity you. Mr. Howorth : Did priests marry in the early ages of the Church ? The Witness : The present case refers to clergymen who had taken the vow of celibacy. If we go into the historical question we will never be done. Hr. Howorth: I submit that is a question that should be answered. Ido not see why Bishop Moran should suppose himself above other witnesses. I ask his Lordship if he knows how long the vow of celibacy has prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church. The Witness : I have no difficulty in answering the question, but if you enter into it you will never be done. If your Worship says that I am to answer the question I will do so, but not otherwise. His Worship : I say no. (Conoluded on page 12.