The Jesuit Libel Case.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 32, 7 August 1902, Page 2

The Jesuit Libel Case.

The full accounts given in recent exchanges of the libel action brought by the Rev. Father Bernard Vaughan, S.J. (brother oi Cardinal Vaughan), against The Rock — a London Protestant paper run by the- notorious Kensit — make most interesting reading. Kensit's lawyer, who tried to ' work off ' the regular stock calumnies against the Jesuits in the form of questions to Father Vaughan, was completely beaten at every turn and it is impossible to read the report of the trial without enjoying his repeated discomfiture. The libel itself was a particularly silly and offensive piece of writing. Kensit, knowing that under the Emancipation Act of 1829 any Jesuit was liable — at the instance of the Attorney-General — to be sentenced to banishment from the United Kingdom and stupidly imagining that Jesuits were therefore ipso facto • outlaws ' who might be libelled with impunity, admitted to his paper a letter in which Father Bernard Vaughan was specifically described as ' one of the infamous sons of Loyola . . . . one steeped in sedition .... an outlaw having no legal rights ' etc., and in which other papers were significantly reminded that no matter what was said against the Jesuits the Order could not be libelled. Father Vaughan accordingly issued a writ against The Rock, on receipt of which the paper tendered a so-called apology, but an apology so lame and offensive that Father Vaughan could not possibly accept it and the matter had to be threshed out in the Courts. At the trial the defendant set up as his defence that the words were not defamatory, that they were published bona fide and without malice, and were fair comment on matters of public interest.

As we have said, Father Vaughan was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, and he took full advantage of the opportunity thus afforded to publicly deny and refute the foul charges that are so frequently brought against the Order. He was closely examined, lor example, as to the alleged claim of the Church to the right, applicable to the present day, to punish heretics by persecution and even death, and he gave to the Court and the world a splendid vindication of the Church from this odious charge. We quote from the report :

' Counsel put. to witness passages from " The Institutions of Canon Law," by Marianus de Lula, Professor of the Text of the Decretals in the Gregorian l'nivcr s ity, Rome, and bearing the irnpiimatur of the then Provincial, since deceased, Professor Carini. (To plaint.fi) — In the view ol your Society the Church has the power to punish heresy? — Speculativdy, jes.

'And by punishment, I suppose, is meant cc; sure, excommunication, fine, exile, and, it may be, death nn — I beg to say publicly, and I am glad of the opportunity, that in practice, I reject and repudiate all these speculatne theories and views in Father de Luca's book as monstrous anachronisms. I beg to state that Father de Luca is Professor of ihe Text of the Decretals; that is, he explains to his pupils the text and meaning of the Decretals which form a main part of the Canon Law of the Church. These Decretals are derived, many of them, from the Theodosian and Justinian Codes. They were first gathered into a corpus juris in 1 153, and were finally republished, with additions, in 1313 by ( leinent V. In these Decretals were embodied the provisions of the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, making heresy punishable by death as a civil crime. I beg to say, therefore, that these Decretals formed part of the common law of Christendom 200 years before the Jesuits ever came into existence, and, therefote, Father De Luca is bringing up nothing new, nothing original, and the Provincial did not reluse his imprimatur, because there is nothing new put into the book. It i-. simply a compilation of the old laws which regulated the relations between Cnurch and State in a bygone day, and can never have any practical existence in the future. So that I say, with Cardinal Manning, that since the unity of Christendom was bioken up, the use of persecution for those who hold religious opinions contrary to ours would be a crime and a heres} .'

There was some attempt, says the r( port, at applause in Court, but the Judge ordered it to be stopped.

Father Vaughan also got in a \ery neat and conclusive reply to the suggestion that the Jesuits are disloyal and seditious. He was asked :

Do you think it fair to describe you as ' one of the infamous sons of Loyola? ' — It is very. painful to me to be told (.hat I am disloyal to my King. I would never allow anyone to stand between me and my King. For a thousand ye.us my family have lived here, ttue to their King and country, ;:nd it is a painful thing that I should be btoii^ht into Court to clear myself of these foul imputations. 1 reject them ontirtl) .

As to the loyalty of the students of your colleges, how many of the students of Stonyhurst College have fought during the recent war ?— More than 100, and three students of that college have at various times received the Victoria Cross. That is what we have taught them to do. How many from Beaumont College? — More than 100. And many have lost their lives ? — Yes.

This was of course a ' clincher ' and furnished a final and unanswerable vindication of the patriotism and loyalty of the Order.

The very satisfactory result of the trial is known to our readers and has been already commented on in these columns. The Judge, Mr Justice Wills, gave an excellent summing up, urging the jurymen to adminster the law ' free from sympathy, free from passion, and free from prejudices,' and the jury, after only half an hour's deliberation, returned with a verdict for Father Vaughan, including damages to the amount of Judgment was accordingly given for that amount, together with costs of the trial, costs of a certificate for a special jury, and costs of an application for interrogatories prior to the trial. Altogether Kensit will have a very pretty little bill to pay and will have been taught a lesson which he and his followers are not likely to soon forget.