Libelling a Priest.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 21, 12 June 1902, Page 29

Libelling a Priest.

The following cable message appeared in Friday's daily papers :—: — ' The religious paper the ' Rock ' has been mulcted in £300 damages for describing Father Bernard Vaughan as an outlaw, a Jesuit, and a member of a seditious Order.' Some time ago the ' Rochester and Chatham News ' accused Father Vaughan of having taken a sham ' Jesuit Oath,' with the result that the newspaper was sued for libel. An apology was tendered, and the action was withdrawn. The following was the editorial apology : ' In our issue of July 6 we published a letter under the heading of " The Attack on the King," in which the writer, who signed himself " Loyal Protestant," asserted that. Father Vaughan, brother of Cardinal Vaughan, had taken the " Jesuit Oath," which was quoted at length. One of the sentences ran . "I do renounce and disown my allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, or Statenamed Protestant, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates or officers, etc." A few days after the publication of this letter, Messrs. Witham, Roskell, JVLunster, and Weld of 1, Gray's Inn Square, W. 0., solicitors to the Rev. Bernard Vaughan, commenced an action for libel against us. We applied to the ' Loyal Protestant ' to furnish us with the evidence upon which he had made such a definite and emphatic statement, and our correspondent was then obliged to admit that he could procure none. He had seen the so-called " Jesuit Oath " in print somewhere, and assumed and took it for granted that, as the Rev. Father Bernard Vaughan is a member of the Society of Jesus, " he must have taken that oath." We then went) carefully into the matter of the " Jesuit Oath " ourselves, and having, come to the conclusion that the statement of " Loyal Protestant " is absolutely unfounded, and that the, Jesuits take no. such oath as that alleged, we felt in. honor bound to express our regret that we had inadvertently allowed any such fraudulent imputation upon the loyalty and good faith of the Rev. Bernard Vaughan to appear in the columns of the ' News.' Messrs. Witham, Roskell, Munster, and Weld, on behalf of the Rev. Bernard Vaughan, have accepted this explanation, and have acceded to our request to withdraw the' action. This is fortunate for 'i«Loyal Protestant " as well as for ourselves. In putting fof ward ridiculous inferences as positive facts, our correspondent abused the hospitality of our columns, and forfeited all claim to be sheltered from the consequences of his own act.' It is evident that the " Rock " had also accused the Rev. Father Vaughan of taking the sham oath, and hence the action.