cautioned against speaking to plaintiff; I don't recollect who cautioned me, it's so long since; I had some conversation with Mr. Walsh that day; he spoke about teaching the Irish language; he said he would put man, woman, and child from speaking to me, if I would not quit teaching or reading the Irish language; it was the Testament I was in the habit of reading; I remember purchasing corn for M'Loughlin, between November and Christmas, last year, in Ballycastle; the reason I went to make purchases for M'Loughlin was, that the people would run from the cart when he came to it; I went to purchase corn from Patrick M'Garry; I went, because he would not sell it to M'Loughlin; I don't know, of my own knowledge, of any person having refused to sell corn to M'Loughlin, but this person, M'Garry.

[Counsel here differed on a point of law, as to special damages.] Cross-examined by Mr. O'Hagan.-I am a Roman Catholic, and I was an Irish teacher; was paid by Mr. Bellis; he is Mr. Bellis, of Belfast.

Charles Collins, examined by Mr. Tomb.-I live in Culfeightrin ; am a Protestant; I know the Rev. Luke Walsh, P. P. of Culfeightrin; on 18th August, 1844, I went to the chapel of Culfeightrin; I saw Mr. Walsh there; I don't know if his curate was there; mass was celebrated when I was there; I heard Mr. Walsh deliver an address to his congregation; there was a woman in front of the priest; I don't know her name; the priest explained the ways of excommunication; he took out a letter he had received from the bishop; he said he had suffered these people long after he had received authority from his bishop; he said he was loth to excommunicate them, hoping that they would come forward, and give satisfaction; he said he would suffer them no longer; he named four men that he he was going to excommunicate-Charles M'Loughlin, H. Shields, John M'Cay, and Michael Butler; some people in the congregation prevailed upon him not to denounce Michael Butler till next Sabbath-day; he named the other three over again; he said "I'll give," or "I give them my curse, or God's curse, and any person that would speak to them, or salute them on the road, or eat at the same table, or work in one field with them;" he turned round and put out the candles that were on the altar; he rang the bell, and closed the book that was lying open; he (the priest) did this himself, after the curse; I could not say much as to what effect that had on the congregation; I was at one side of the chapel; the congregation broke up shortly after; a neighbouring man called upon me, and I went to see it.

John Butler, examined by Mr. Joy.-I have lived for a good many years in the parish of Culfeightrin; I know Charles M'Loughlin and Priest Walsh; I am one of his parishioners; I remember being in his chapel on the 18th of August, 1844; I was there during the celebration of mass on that day; Mr. Walsh was there; I think there was no second clergyman there; I heard Mr. Walsh addressing the congregation; he took a large book in his hand, and stated to the people how they were to behave towards these people after they were excommunicated; I supposed he had read what he had said out of the book: he said they were to hold no communication with these men, meaning Charles M'Loughlin, Hugh Shields, John Donaghty, and John

M'Intosh-not to salute them if they were to meet them on the road; not to eat at one table with them; and that if they came in while he was celebrating mass, he would quit it till they were gone out; he then took the bell in his hand, and said, "The curse of God, and the curse of Jesus Christ, would pursue those men, or attend them," rung the bell, and extinguished the two candles. The candles were on each side of the altar; the people of the parish have not held intercourse with M'Loughlin, since the excommunication, as they did before.

Cross-examined by Mr. Holmes.-Mr. Walsh produced a letter that he had got from the bishop; that was before he pronounced the words I have mentioned; the letter was from the bishop, giving him authority to excommunicate these people. [Mr. Tomb.-Let them produce that authority.] I am a Roman Catholic myself; I did not know much about excommunication before; I knew M'Loughlin before this, and have seen him at chapel.

John Pincher, an officer of Excise, was then examined by Mr. Vance, to show that the mill had been idle during the winter or milling season.

John M'Cay examined by Mr. Tomb, Q. C.—I live in the parish of Culfeightrin; I know Charles M'Loughlin; I live about a mile from him; I remember Sunday, the 18th of August, 1844; since that day the parishioners of Culfeightrin have not kept intercourse with him, the same as they did before; he keeps a mill for grinding corn; I saw her commonly working before this, in the winter season; since that Sunday the mill has not been kept just so throng as before. [No cross-examination.]

William Simpson was examined, to show that the people did not generally hold intercourse with Charles M'Loughlin.

In his cross-examination he stated that he knew Mr. Bellis; he is Secretary of the Home Mission.

Mr. Holmes-What is the Home Mission, as I am not acquainted with it?

Witness-Well, I'll instruct you; its object is to extend the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures through the length and breadth of Ireland.

Mr. Holmes-That is Orthodoxy.

Witness To be sure it is; the Home Mission supply books; I have read some pamphlets written by Dr. Edgar; I don't remember a book of his in which occur the words " Unitarians, and other enemies of Christianity."

The case for the plaintiff here closed.

Mr. Nelson, Q. C., submitted to his Lordship, on behalf of the defendant in this case, the plaintiff had not proved any case sufficient to maintain an action, and, therefore, ought to be called. He argued that the averments, in none of the counts, had been sustained by evidence, and that no special damages had been proved.

Mr. Tomb, Q. C., contended that the first count had been fully proved, and that it contained an offence clearly actionable, without any special damages having been proved, and cited a case exactly similar to that before the Court, from 1st Viner, page 396, in which damages had been given, without any special damages having been proved. He

argued also that the second count had been proved generally, though the witnesses had slightly differed as to the exact words of the "curse' used by Mr. Walsh on the occasion.

After some observations from Mr. Nelson, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Holmes,

His Lordship ruled that the defence should be proceeded with. Mr. Nelson then rose to address the jury for the defendant. He said, if the jury remembered correctly, the learned counsel on the other side began by calling upon them, in the exercise of his new-born zeal, to vindicate the Roman Catholics of this country from a system of oppression, and of most stringent discipline, which would reduce that body to a condition of the most abject slavery. It was stated, as the first ground of this action, and upon that ground the plaintiff stood, that he had a clear right under the common law of the country, and under the constitution, not only to read for himself the Scriptures in the Irish language, but also to teach others to do the same thing. But it appeared that the defendant, in the exercise of his official duty, it might be, had refused to allow this to be done; and this in reality was the cause of action. It appeared to him that the only thing objected to by his client in this case, was the fact of the plaintiff's having acted as an agent of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, formerly the General Synod of Ulster, before the two bodies of that Church were united. This body extended their labours into the glens of the county of Antrim, and supplied copies of the Scriptures in the Irish language, that was to say, both Testaments and Bibles, to the people there. This had been proved by the witnesses who had been brought forward; and to the practice he, as an individual, could not object; indeed, in the same sense, he must say, that he approved of it; he believed it to be proper and correct. But, when a version of the Scriptures was put into the hands of Roman Catholics, which they and their clergy did not, and could not approve of—which they believed to be wrong-and which the latter did not consider it right to be placed in the hands of their people, he did not consider their interference altogether uncalled for. It appeared from the evidence that the defendant had spoken and remonstrated with his people upon the subject, and had even threatened, when obliged to do so, that if they did not cease the reading and teaching of this version of the Scriptures in the Irish language, he would be obliged to resort to extremes. It could not be denied that the power of excommunication was claimed not only by the Church of Rome, but by the Church of England and the Presbyterians; though, in modern times, it was rarely exercised, and seldom even in the Roman Catholic Church. The plaintiff in this case had refused to abstain from a certain course which had been forbidden by his spiritual superior, and disobeyed the commands of his priest, in teaching books that had been translated into the Irish language, notwithstanding the threat of the priest to excommunicate him. The plaintiff, it was admitted, was a Roman Catholic, and as such, he was amenable to the discipline imposed by that Church, and was bound to obey her laws as long as he continued to be a member of it. If he were displeased with the regulations of that Church, it was open to him to withdraw from her communion. He might have

left the church, and the common law would have protected him in the assertion of his conscientious convictions. But, so long as he remained a member of the Church of Rome, he had no right whatever to break through the laws by which that Church was governed, to violate its regulations, and to claim exemption from the penalty which those laws pronounced upon such as transgress. The plaintiff in this case had rendered himself liable to excommunication; but although this was the case, evidence had been produced, showing that the priest had with reluctance passed that sentence upon him, and that he was for a considerable period in possession of the directions of his Bishop to do so, before he actually pronounced it. The evidence given by Butler, one of the witnesses, shows clearly with what unwillingness the priest had adopted the extreme course complained of by the plaintiff. When he did, at length, resort to it, it was only in the performance of his duty as a clergyman, in obedience to the laws of his Church, and to the authority of his superior. He (Mr. Nelson) would, therefore, submit that if such motives had actuated his conduct, if no malice could be imputed to him, then there must be a verdict for his client.

With regard, also, to the result which this sentence of excommunication had upon the plaintiff, there was in the declaration a great degree of vagueness. No doubt, the sentence would deprive a person of the benefits of ecclesiastical communion; and that a person so situated would be deprived of some of the advantages of intercourse with his fellow-men of that particular communion. No doubt, such might be the case; but he held the case of excommunication to mean that the greater excommunication, at one period so much and frequently used, the effect of which often was, to place a whole kingdom out of the privileges of the Church, and under curse.

The jury must bear in mind that damages were not to be laid on for abusive language in itself; they were to divest their minds of such a consideration, but to look only to the special loss the plaintiff may have sustained by means of this excommunication. There had been no such thing as positive evidence on the point of the diminution of business at the plaintiff's mill-no positive evidence on the subject had been adduced. The jury should mark that there had been no loss to any particular amount proved, but merely the cessation at most of some portion of friendly intercourse, and be careful to guard against the inuendo which had been made, that it had such an effect, and which had not been sustained in evidence. The Learned Counsel then referred to the second count in the declaration, setting forth that a curse had been pronounced on all the teachers of the Irish Bible, which had not been borne out in evidence. He regretted to hear his Learned Friend (Mr. Tomb) use such an insinuation as he had used in regard to the witnesses giving their evidence under spiritual dread, inasmuch as they seemed rather inclined to tell the truth as far as the poor blockheads were able to recollect it. Taking all these things into consideration, the jury could not do less than find a verdict for the defendant. They would not countenance, by finding for the plaintiff, a charge which was perfectly unsupported, that excommunication pronounced was for reading the Bible, instead of teaching Irish scholars to read a version VOL. VIII. May, 1846. New Series, No. 5.

of the Bible of which their Church disapproved-a version, whether right or wrong, was not the question they were there to decide. No witnesses were called for the defendant.

Judge Burton, in charging the jury, said the case was involved in considerable difficulty, but he would so direct the jury as to free them if possible from fresh difficulties, leaving them to fall upon himself, and he might be corrected by a superior tribunal. This was an action of slander or defamation, by which the plaintiff says he is injured, and if the jury thought he was injured at all, they would say what damages they would give him. It is admitted that plaintiff and defendant both belong to the Roman Catholic religion. The plaintiff complains of excommunication, and says that it works a considerable injury to him— that it was unjust, and the defendant was actuated by malicious motives. Now, supposing the defendant could have been warranted at all in excommunicating him, the plaintiff says that if such a right exists in any body, or at all events in the Roman Catholic religion, in this instance, at least, it does not appear to have been warranted; and that is an essential feature in the case. That an excommunication was pronounced is apparent. The next question was, supposing the Roman Catholic Church to have the power of awarding an excommunication of this nature, had the defendant in this particular case the power to exercise that right? It ought to be done by authority of the Bishop of the diocese. If there be evidence of such an authority it is only by inference; but he (the Learned Judge) doubted much whether the evidence was sufficient. If the jury found for the defendant, they must be satisfied that he had such authority. He could not call on them so to find. Such an authority was capable of proof, and therefore he thought they would probably find for the plaintiff. The next thing they must be satisfied of, before finding for the defendant, is, that the sentence of excommunication was proper; that it did not exceed what such a sentence would warrant (supposing such a sentence to be justifiable at all); such an act would amount to this, that no act of charity was to be extended to the excommunicated. The Church could not be justified in cutting a man off from all society, making him a cipher, and depriving him of its aid. As to the amount of damages, he (the Learned Judge) would recommend the jury to be very moderate, because very injurious consequences had not been substantiated. The defendant's mind seemed to have been operated on by the effect of anger on account of the circulation of the Irish Bible. He may have been very sincere in that, and may have had no sentiment of personal ill-will to the plaintiff. If, on the whole of the case, they were satisfied there was a want of authority, or that the defendant exceeded the authority, they would find for plaintiff; but before they found damages to a considerable amount, they ought to be satisfied that considerable injury had been suffered by him. If they thought the injury considerable, they would find temperately proportionate damages. The jury then retired, and in half an hour returned with a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 70%, and 6d. costs. It is some degree satisfactory to be put into effect as far as it goes.

find that the law can thus But we have met with those