f
 
 (JN!VER% 
 o 
 T S 
 
 5 = 
 
 UNIVER% ^clOS-ANCeUr.*, .^E-UBRABYOc 
 
 e o t^s .^^^ : "->L f~* * * *-** 
 
 J 
 

 
 REV. ROBERT O'KEEFFE, P.P. 
 
 v. 
 
 fflS EMINENCE CARDINAL CULLEN
 
 LOS DOS : PUIXTED BY 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE ASD CO., 3CEW-STRET5T SQUARK 
 AND PARLIAMENT bTRKKT
 
 COUET OF QUEEN'S BENCH (IRELAND) 
 
 EEPOET 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ACTION FOB LIBEL, 
 
 BROUGHT BY THE 
 
 REV. EGBERT O'KEEFFE, P.P. 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL CULLEN 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION 
 
 HENEY CLAEE KIEKPATEICK 
 
 BARRISTER- AT-LAW 
 
 LONDON 
 LONGMANS, GEEEN, AND CO. 
 
 1874 
 
 A II lights rtsfrred
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 2067914 
 
 Stack 
 Annex 
 
 PROCEEDINGS ON THE DEMURRER, 
 
 JUDGMENTS OP THE COURT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 MR. JUSTICE BARRY . . . . . . .12 
 
 MR. JUSTICE FITZGERALD ..... .39 
 
 MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN. . . * . .. . 51 
 
 LORD CHIEF JUSTICE WHITESIDE 75 
 
 TRIAL AT NISI PRIUS. 
 
 SECOND DAT. 
 Examination of Father O'Keeffe . . . . .121 
 
 THIRD DAT. 
 
 Examination of Father O'Keeffe (continued) . . . 150 
 
 Cross-examination of Father O'Keeffe . . .. . 216 
 
 FOURTH DAT. 
 
 Cross-examination of Father O'Keeffe (continued) . . . 244 
 
 FIFTH DAT. 
 
 Cross-examination of Father O'Keeffe (continued) . . .317 
 
 Re-examination of Father O'Keeffa ..... 335
 
 vi Contents. 
 
 SIXTH DAT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Examination of Cardinal Cullen ..... 341 
 
 SEVENTH DAT. 
 
 Examination of Cardinal Cullen (continued) . . . 358 
 
 Cross-examination of Cardinal Cullen ..... 393 
 
 EIGHTH DAT. 
 
 Cross-examination of Cardinal Cullen (contintied) . . . 415 
 
 Examination of Archbishop Leahy ..... 460 
 
 NINTH DAT. 
 
 Cross-examination of Archbishop Leahy .... 476 
 
 Re-examination of Archbishop Leahy ... . 502 
 
 Examination of Bishop M'Evilly ..... 508 
 
 Cross-examination of Bishop M'Evilly ... . 519 
 
 Examination of Rev. Caesar Roncetti ..... 532 
 
 TENTH DAT. 
 
 Cross-examination of Rev. Caesar Roncetti . . 539 
 
 Re-examination of Rev. Caesar Roncetti .... . 549 
 
 Examination of Dr. A. Jacobini .... . .550 
 
 Cross-examination of Dr. A. Jacobini ..... 551 
 
 Re-examination of Dr. A. Jacobini ... . 551 
 
 Examination of Rev. H. Neville ..... 555 
 
 Cross-examination of Rev. H. Neville ... . 564 
 
 JUDGE'S CHARGE ....... 570 
 
 APPENDIX ....... . 577 
 
 INDEX . . ... 595
 
 INTEODUCTION. 
 
 THE TRIAL of which, a report is contained in the following 
 pages may fairly be regarded as one of the most singular 
 events in the modern history of Ireland. The simple fact 
 of a person in the comparatively humble station of a parish 
 priest calling to account in a court of law an ecclesiastical 
 superior, who occupies the high position of Cardinal of the 
 Church and delegate of the Pope, is of itself calculated to 
 attract the notice and excite the interest of the community ; 
 but apart altogether from this circumstance, the insight 
 which the evidence affords into the structure and adminis- 
 tration of the ecclesiastical system which exercises so 
 powerful an influence in this country, renders it worthy 
 of the consideration and study of every thoughtful man. 
 
 The laws and organization of the Roman Catholic 
 Church have engaged the attention of many persons, who 
 have spared neither time nor labour in the investigation 
 of the subject, but whose conclusions from their imperfect 
 opportunities of information have not unfrequently proved 
 to be erroneous or defective. Too often also, prejudice in 
 some form or other has perhaps unconsciously influenced 
 the opinion of inquirers, and their representations must 
 therefore be received with some measure of hesitation and 
 distrust. The case reported in this volume possesses this 
 rare recommendation, that it is a narrative of incontestable 
 and admitted facts related by the prominent actors in the events 
 recorded. The views put forward with respect to the govern-
 
 viii Introduction. 
 
 ment and discipline of the Church are not the speculations 
 of mere theorists, or the rash assertions of excited contro- 
 versialists ; they are the deliberate statements of men whose 
 position necessitates a full and accurate knowledge of the sub- 
 ject of which they speak, and whose life is spent in the actual 
 administration of the laws which they profess to expound. 
 
 The Rev. Robert O'Keeffe, the plaintiff, was the parish 
 priest of Callan, in the County of Kilkenny : the defendant 
 was the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, Primate of Ireland, 
 and Legate of the Pope in this country. The action was for 
 libel alleged to have been published by the defendant of the 
 plaintiff, and contained in two sentences of ecclesiastical cen- 
 sure. One of them the first in point of time, dated Nov. 13, 
 1871 was a sentence purporting to suspend the plaintiff 
 from his office of priest, and was in the following words : 
 * We suspend and declare suspended, you, Robert O'Keeffe, 
 parish priest of the town named Callan, from all spiritual 
 jurisdiction, from the administration of sacraments, and 
 especially from hearing confessions, from celebrating the 
 most holy sacrifice of the mass, from preaching the word 
 of God, and from every ecclesiastical office, until you come 
 to your right mind and make full satisfaction, in our opinion, 
 
 to the Church We deprive you, and declare you 
 
 deprived of all benefit ecclesiastical or conferred on you by 
 the Church, and of all dignity or rank conferred on you in 
 the same way.' l 
 
 The second libel complained of was contained in an in- 
 terdict published by the Cardinal against the chapel of the 
 parish in which Father O'Keeffe had continued to officiate 
 notwithstanding his previous suspension. It was as follows : 
 ' Since it has been told to us by credible witnesses that in 
 a church or parochial chapel of which the priest Robert 
 O'Keeffe is said to have possession, in the town of Callan 
 and in the diocese of Ossory, the censures of the Church 
 are violated or set at naught, that the mass is illegally 
 
 1 See p. 200.
 
 Introduction. ix 
 
 celebrated, that the sacrament of the Eucharist is adminis- 
 tered contrary to the discipline of the Church, and confes- 
 sions heard without jurisdiction, and with no regard for ec- 
 clesiastical suspension, and that several other things which 
 infringe the ecclesiastical law and episcopal authority are 
 almost daily performed ; when we were informed about all 
 these things, we immediately determined to lay the aforesaid 
 parish church under an ecclesiastical interdict, according to 
 the mode of proceeding of the canon law, which we now do,' 
 &c. &C. 1 
 
 The ' summons and plaint,' the issuing of which is the 
 first step in an action at law in Ireland, was dated the 26th 
 February, 1872. It set forth the words complained of, 
 alleged that in consequence of their publication the plain- 
 tiff had been dismissed from the office of chaplain to the 
 Callan Union Workhouse, and claimed as damages the sum 
 of 10,OOOZ. It consisted of four ( counts ' or paragraphs, in 
 which the complaint, substantially the same, was differently 
 stated according to legal practice. In the first count the 
 words of the suspension were recited, and an ' innuendo ' or 
 interpretation was given to them. They were alleged to 
 mean that Father O'Keeffe ' had been guilty of such conduct 
 and had acted in such a manner as to render himself unfitted 
 to discharge the duties of parish priest,' and * that he ought 
 to be deprived of his office.' In the second count the same 
 words were set out with a different innuendo, viz., that ' the 
 plaintiff had been legally suspended from the office of parish 
 priest.' The third count repeated the same words, but con- 
 tained no innuendo, leaving to the jury the task of interpret- 
 ing them, and of saying whether they constituted a libel. 
 In the fourth count the words of the interdict were com- 
 plained of, and the innuendo attached to them was that 
 Father O'Keeffe ' had been legally suspended from his office 
 of parish priest, and had disregarded the rules and disci- 
 pline of the Church, binding on him as such.' 
 
 1 See p. 208.
 
 x Introduction. 
 
 The defence put in by the Cardinal was to the effect that 
 he was an Archbishop and Cardinal of the Church to which 
 Father O'Keeffe belonged, and by the laws, ordinances, and 
 discipline of which he was bound ; that the Pope, whose 
 right to do so was acknowledged by all members of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, had issued a rescript l authorizing 
 him to inquire into the conduct of Father O'Keeffe, and to 
 pronounce such sentence as might seem just ; and that in 
 pursuance of this rescript he had made the required investi- 
 gation, and had subsequently pronounced and published the 
 sentences complained of by the plaintiff. 
 
 In his subsequent pleading, Father O'Keeffe, while not 
 denying the authority of the rescript issued by the Pope, or 
 his own obligation to observe the rules and discipline of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, so far as they were compatible with 
 the law of the land, contended that he could not be justly 
 suspended unless he had violated some law of the Church ; 
 that the only law which he had infringed was one by which 
 ecclesiastics were prohibited from impleading each other in 
 Her Majesty's Courts ; that this rule was illegal, and one 
 which could not bind any citizen of this country, as it would 
 tend to oust the courts of their jurisdiction ; that he was not 
 therefore required to observe this rule ; that consequently 
 a sentence of suspension founded on his violation of it was 
 illegal and void, and that the publication of such a sentence 
 could not be justified in a court of law. 
 
 Upon these pleadings two great questions were raised 
 for judicial decision. First, whether a religious society 
 could adopt and enforce a rule by which its members should 
 be precluded from seeking redress for civil injuries in Her 
 Majesty's Courts, and whether connection with an association 
 in which such a rule existed created a privilege which would 
 sanction and protect in the case of its members acts which 
 in the case of other persons would assuredly be forbidden 
 and punished by law. Behind this was a second and not 
 
 1 See p. 345.
 
 Introduction. xi 
 
 less important question, viz., whether an edict issued by the 
 Court of Rome could be regarded as valid in this country, 
 or could be held to justify and permit conduct which other- 
 wise would be indefensible. This last question arose as 
 follows : In his capacity simply of Roman Catholic Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin, and Cardinal of the Church, the defendant 
 had (as he himself admitted) no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over 
 the priest of a parish not within the limits of his diocese. 
 He therefore, as such, had no power to suspend Father 
 O'Keeffe, and no right to publish the censures complained of. 
 The Cardinal indeed in his defence did not claim this autho- 
 rity. He justified his proceedings on the ground that he 
 had received from the Pope a special rescript J addressed to 
 him as delegate of the Apostolic See, and investing him with 
 ' necessary and suitable powers, whereby he was authorized 
 to proceed in the matter of the plaintiff.' It was by 
 virtue of this rescript that he asserted himself to have, ac- 
 cording to the laws and usages of the Church, full power 
 and authority over Father O'Keeffe. Thus the question 
 of the validity of a papal ordinance to confer jurisdiction 
 and to justify proceedings which without its protection 
 would be manifestly illegal, was once more submitted for 
 the decision of an English court of law. 
 
 These were the two main points raised upon the plead- 
 ings in this case, and argued before the Court of Queen's 
 Bench in November, 1872. In delivering judgment the 
 Court disagreed. One judge 2 decided both points in favour 
 of the Cardinal. Two others 3 held that the rule which pro- 
 hibited ecclesiastics from suing each other was not contrary 
 to public policy, and that the Cardinal was privileged to 
 issue his ecclesiastical censures. With regard to the rescript, 
 they were of opinion that it was illegal under statute, 4 and 
 could not be pleaded as a defence to the action ; that, how- 
 ever this might be as a matter of pleading, the plaintiff had 
 
 ' See p. 345. 2 O'Brien, J. 3 Fitzgerald and Barry, J.J. 
 
 * 2 Eliz. c. 1, sees. 5 & 12 (Irish).
 
 xii Introduction. 
 
 contracted, when entering the Church, to obey all such papal 
 ordinances, and by his appearance before the Cardinal had 
 recognized the jurisdiction which it purported to create, and 
 that therefore he was now estopped from raising the question 
 of its illegality. Both parties were in pari delicto, and the 
 Court would not interfere on behalf of either, or lend its 
 assistance to compensate with damages a plaintiff who com- 
 plained of injuries attributable to his own misconduct. In 
 their judgment, therefore, the illegality of the rescript did 
 not invalidate the pleas of privilege. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice decided in favour of the plaintiff 
 on all the points raised by the demurrer. He held that 
 the rule of the Church which forbade ecclesiastics to resort 
 to the civil courts without providing any other means of 
 procuring redress for injuries inflicted upon them, was a rule 
 which the law of the country would not permit or recognize ; 
 that it was not competent to any man thus to renounce his 
 natural liberty and his civil rights ; that the rescript of the 
 Pope was void by statute; that all the proceedings of the 
 Cardinal based on that document were consequently illegal, 
 and that no privilege could be created by a contract between 
 parties to submit to the authority of an ordinance which the 
 laws of England disallowed and condemned. 
 
 In the result, then, the Court of Queen's Bench, by a 
 majority of three to one, allowed the defence of privilege 
 put in by the Cardinal to be good and valid, and the case upon 
 these pleadings was sent for trial before a jury. 
 
 In view of the issues raised in this action, it is interesting 
 to refer to the debates which took place in Parliament upon 
 the Religious Disabilities Eelief Bill in the year 1846. The 
 object of this bill, which subsequently became law, 1 was to 
 repeal the old statutes which had been directed against 
 nonconformists, and amongst them the statutes which pro- 
 vided against the dangers or supposed dangers incurred by 
 the claim of the Pope of Rome to exercise authority by bulls 
 
 1 Stat. 9 & 10 Viet. c. .59.
 
 Introduction. xiii 
 
 or rescripts in this country. This bill was introduced by 
 Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst in the House of Lords, and gave 
 rise to animated discussions, chiefly with reference to its pro- 
 bable effect upon the relations of the Court of Eome with the 
 United Kingdom. In the debate upon the second reading, 
 which took place upon the 30th April, 1846, Lord Brougham 
 said : ( According to law the Queen was supreme in all 
 matters, whether civil or ecclesiastical. This being the case, 
 how could this or any other well-governed country allow that 
 foreign potentate, without let or hindrance, to send over 
 bulls or rescripts? He agreed that the Pope might send 
 over a bull which would be a libel on the Church of Eng- 
 land as by law established, or on the Parliament, or the 
 Sovereign of England, and which might be dealt with 
 accordingly. It might be said it was not necessary to have 
 a prohibition for the introduction of such instruments, as the 
 persons publishing them, would, if they were libels by law, 
 be liable to criminal prosecution ; but the Vatican would not 
 be checked in this way, for they could frame a rescript which 
 would operate most injuriously over the minds of the priests 
 and of their followers, and which was not a libel, technically 
 speaking, and the publication of which, therefore, could not 
 be punished a publication working mischievously through 
 the country and producing the worst results ; and yet, unless 
 such publication could be proved to be a libel, either a trea- 
 sonable, or seditious, or defamatory libel, it could not be suc- 
 cessfully prosecuted. He would not state a very decided 
 opinion as to what should be done, as he saw difficulties on 
 both sides, but he wished to state that he entertained grave 
 doubts whether he could consent to remove a punishment for 
 receiving rescripts from the Bishop of Rome, who claimed 
 supremacy as well in temporal as in spiritual matters.' l 
 
 On a subsequent occasion, when the bill was in com- 
 mittee, he said : ' He thought that danger might accrue if 
 there was not some check. He thought that it was a great 
 1 See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 86 (3rd series), 1266-7.
 
 xiv Introduction. 
 
 anomaly a grievous anomaly to allow the orders and 
 commands of a foreign potentate to be received without 
 let or hindrance. 5 It was not so with Austria, France, 
 Portugal, or Naples. * In all these countries they refused to 
 receive, or to allow the publication of bulls from Rome, 
 without the sanction of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. 
 They were not regarded as the worse Catholics for this. 
 . . . He thought such bulls should have the sanction of 
 the civil authorities before they could be promulgated or 
 considered valid.' l 
 
 During the same discussion Lord Stanley (afterwards 
 Earl of Derby) said : ' Eoman Catholic subjects of this 
 realm might resist the authority of the Pope, and if any 
 Roman Catholic clergyman by a bull or rescript attacked any 
 Roman Catholic subject of the crown, the law would step in 
 and would protect the right of any person, and would give 
 damages against the priest making the attack. There were 
 many instances which he could cite in which the law had 
 stepped in and protected the rights of the people. Indeed, 
 within the last few months a conviction of this kind took 
 place in the county of Cavan. In this instance a priest had 
 excommunicated from the altar a Catholic layman, who ap- 
 pealed, not to the Pope, but to the civil jurisdiction of the 
 country, which gave to the layman damages against the 
 priest. That was what was meant by saying that the Pope 
 had not any right to have civil or spiritual jurisdiction, and 
 this was not altered by the bill.' a 
 
 Lord John Russell introduced this Bill into the House of 
 Commons in August of the same year. On that occasion he 
 said : ' It has been laid down by the greatest authorities of 
 former times, by Lord Hale and Lord Coke, that the supremacy 
 of the crown of these realms in matters ecclesiastical and 
 spiritual, is part of the common law of the land. The same 
 opinion has been given within the last few weeks by Lord 
 Denrnan, Lord Campbell, Lord Lyndhurst, and therefore we 
 
 1 See Hansard, vol. 86 (3rd series), 607-8. 2 Ibid. 611.
 
 Introduction. xv 
 
 may assume that there is no danger whatever that in taking 
 away these penalties (i.e., for maintaining the authority of 
 the Pope) we do in any way touch upon the doctrine of the 
 supremacy of the crown. We take away penalties against 
 those persons who maintain the supremacy of any foreign 
 power or potentate over this realm. It cannot be seriously 
 said that there is any advantage in keeping up penalties of 
 this kind for the mere assertion of the spiritual power of the 
 Pope in these realms. If it is only an opinion held by 
 persons of the Roman Catholic religion, it ought not to be 
 punished so far as it is an opinion, and nothing is done in con- 
 sequence of that opinion by which the course of law is dis- 
 turbed. If in any way a person were to question the Queen's 
 supremacy, so as to bring the question before a court of law, 
 no doubt the doctrine which I have mentioned would be 
 maintained, and the law would make provision accordingly 
 for the settlement of that doctrine.' 1 The result of the dis- 
 cussions in Parliament on this occasion was that certain 
 clauses were inserted in the Act, 1 of the utmost importance in 
 considering the questions raised upon the present case. The 
 preamble recites the statutes which it is intended to repeal, 
 and after referring to the 2nd Eliz., c. 1 (Irish), it contains 
 the following proviso : * Provided always, and be it declared, 
 that nothing in this enactment contained shall authorize or 
 render it lawful for any person or persons to affirm, hold, 
 stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend any such foreign 
 power, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, or authority, nor shall 
 the same extend further than to the repeal of the particular 
 penalties and punishments therein referred to, but in all 
 other respects the law shall continue the same as if this 
 enactment had not been made.' 2 
 
 The preamble also states that the statute 13th Elizabeth, 
 c. 2, which forbade the bringing in of papal bulls &c., shall 
 be repealed * so far only as the same imposes the penalties 
 
 1 Ilan.iard, vol. 88 (3rd series). 361. 
 
 2 8t.it. 9 & 10 Viet. e. 59.
 
 xvi Introduction. 
 
 or punishments therein mentioned ; but it is hereby declared 
 that nothing in this enactment contained shall authorize or 
 render it lawful for any person or persons to import, bring 
 in, or put in execution within this realm any such bulls, 
 writings, or instruments, and that in all respects save as to 
 the said penalties or punishments, the law shall continue the 
 same as if this enactment had not been made.' 
 
 The anticipation expressed by Lord John Russell, that 
 any attempt by the Pope to exercise authority in this country 
 by means of rescripts would be resisted by the courts of law, 
 has not proved unfounded. The Court of Queen's Bench, 
 true to its ancient traditions, has declared in this case the 
 first in which the question has been raised in modern times 
 that the papal ordinance from which the Cardinal sought 
 to derive authority and jurisdiction, and by virtue of which 
 he claimed to be exempt from legal liability, was wholly 
 invalid and inoperative, and could not be admitted as a justi- 
 fication of proceedings by which an injury was inflicted upon 
 a person entitled to the protection of the law. 
 
 The circumstances which gave rise to this remarkable 
 case extend over a series of years. Father O'Keeffe, the 
 plaintiff, took orders in the year 1840, and in 1863 he was 
 appointed parish priest of his native town of Callan, in the 
 County of Kilkenny. Dr. Walsh was at that time bishop of 
 the diocese. For some years all went smoothly, and Father 
 O'Keeffe and his ecclesiastical superiors continued on friendly 
 terms with each other. The events in which all the subse- 
 quent disputes appear to have originated took place in the 
 year 1868. Father O'Keeffe, who seems to have been active 
 in setting up a complete machinery for parochial work, 
 became desirous of establishing a convent of nuns in Callan. 
 Having obtained the approval of the bishop, he took a house 
 and expended a considerable sum of money in preparing it 
 for the reception of the sisters whom he had engaged to come 
 from France. The bishop, however, for some reason which 
 does not clearly appear, subsequently changed his mind with
 
 Introduction. xvii 
 
 reference to this scheme, and withdrew his sanction. In. a 
 conference which took place at Kilkenny in May, 1869, l the 
 subject was discussed, and the bishop used some expressions 
 in presence of other clergymen, in consequence of which 
 Father O'Keeffe sued him in an action for slander. The 
 case, however, never came to trial. The bishop consented 
 to pay a sum of 550Z. damages and costs, and the record was 
 withdrawn. From that time the ecclesiastical affairs of the 
 parish of Callan fell into confusion. 
 
 In April, 1869, there had been a * mission ' held at 
 Callan for the purpose of raising funds required for various 
 parochial objects. Upwards of 200 L was obtained, and on 
 Sunday the 8th August Father O'Keeffe gave his congre- 
 gation an account of the manner in which the money had 
 been expended. On the following Sunday, while he was 
 officiating in a chapel of ease, at a distance from Callan, his 
 curates declared to the congregation assembled in the parish 
 chapel, that some of the statements which had been made on 
 the preceding Sunday were altogether untrue. Thereupon 
 Father O'Keeffe wrote to the bishop of the diocese (Dr. 
 Walsh) reporting the circumstances, and requesting him to 
 remove the curates from the parish. 2 A copy of this letter he 
 sent to Cardinal Cullen, with whom he had had a correspon- 
 dence relative to his previous dispute with Dr. Walsh. It 
 does not appear that Dr. Walsh took an}- notice of Father 
 O'Keeffe's letter of complaint, but Cardinal Cullen replied on 
 the following day, urging him to be reconciled to his bishop, 
 ' to submit to him, and to endeavour to obtain absolution 
 from any censures that may have been contracted.' The 
 Cardinal's counsel and admonitions produced the desired 
 effect, and on the 1st September, 1869, Father O'Keeffe sent 
 an apology to Dr. Wa,lsh, in which he expressed regret for 
 having taken legal proceedings against him, promised sub- 
 mission to his authority for the future, and withdrew his 
 demand ' for the removal of the curates or anything else.' 3 
 
 1 See p. 125. ! See p. 140. * See p. 421. 
 a 2
 
 xviii Introduction. 
 
 This apology was read at the bishop's request * by Father 
 O'Keeffe to his congregation, and all cause of difference 
 between them seemed to be at an end. 
 
 Shortly after this, Father O'Keeffe wrote to Cardinal 
 Cullen with reference to the old scheme of establishing a con- 
 vent of nuns at Callan, for which, as he asserts, his parishioners 
 were exceedingly anxious. 2 The Cardinal replied, recom- 
 mending him to abandon the project altogether, as the bishop 
 was opposed to it. This advice, however, Father O'Keeffe 
 was not disposed to follow, and he informed the Cardinal that 
 as he considered that Dr. Walsh, in resisting their united 
 wishes, was denying his people and himself ' their just 
 canonical rights, he would use every proper means within his 
 reach of enforcing them.' 3 
 
 Thus the war between the bishop and the priest broke 
 out afresh. Father O'Keeffe, believing that his curates in 
 denouncing him to the congregation had been instigated 
 by Dr. Walsh, now brought a second action against his 
 bishop for ' procuring and inciting ' the curates to speak the 
 slanderous words of which he complained. 4 
 
 The case was tried in July, 1870, and resulted in the 
 nonsuit of the plaintiff, there being no legal proof that the 
 bishop had authorized the conduct of the curates. In the 
 month of October following Father O'Keeffe was served with 
 a document signed by the vicar- general of the diocese, in the 
 following terms : 
 
 ' DEAR SIR, In punishment for the action at law taken by you against 
 the Right Rev. E. Walsh, R.C. Bishop of Ossory, and tried before the 
 Hon. James O'Brien, second Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in 
 Irelnnd, on the 5th and 6th days of July last, I, vested with the re- 
 quisite powers, do hereby suspend you from your " office," from all its 
 functions, from all administration in thing* spiritual. 
 
 ' Your humble servant, 
 
 ' E. M'DONALD, V.G., Diocese of Ossory.' 5 
 
 1 Sec p. 143. 2 Sec p. 144. f See p. 145. 
 
 > See p. 147. 5 See p. 149.
 
 Introduction. xix 
 
 To this Father O'Keeffe replied by a letter 1 in which he 
 stated that the simple assertion by the vicar-general that he 
 was ' vested with the requisite powers ' could not be taken as 
 conclusive ; that he had been denounced as a liar at the altar 
 by authority alleged to have been given by the bishop ; that 
 he had asked in vain for redress from his superior, and had 
 therefore been compelled to seek it before a lay tribunal ; that 
 in so doing he had violated no law and incurred no guilt, 
 and that he would pay no regard to an attempt to inflict 
 a punishment which he did not deserve. 
 
 The only notice taken of this letter by the vicar-general 
 was by the service of a second sentence of suspension, 2 which 
 was afterwards followed by a third, dated the 10th December, 
 18 70. 3 This last suspension was issued in view of an action 
 at law then pending against the Eev. John Walsh, one of 
 the curates who had denounced Father O'Keeffe from the 
 altar of the parish chapel. It has been already mentioned that 
 a former action brought against the bishop in respect of the 
 slanderous words then spoken had resulted in a nonsuit. 
 Father O'Keeffe had therefore instituted proceedings against 
 the curate himself. The vicar-general accordingly wrote the 
 following letter : 
 
 ' St. Kyran's College, Dec. 10, 1870. 
 
 ' EEV. SIR, From a subpoena served on me, and in other ways, I 
 have become aware of your action at law against the Rev. John Walsh, 
 to be tried before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. It is my duty 
 to teli you that your proceeding is a grave offence against the sacred 
 canons. Of course I do not find fault with the eminent and impartial 
 judges who preside in the court referred to, but in common with every 
 Catholic I feel that respect for the discipline of your own Church 
 should keep yoti from bringing a brother priest before any lay tribunal. 
 Some communications already received from you leave me no grounds 
 to hope that you will desist from your present proceeding by reason of 
 any mere remonstrance of mine. At the same time it is my duty to 
 employ the powers which I possess, to stop it if I can. Therefore I 
 hereby command you to withdraw the case of the Kev. Robert 
 
 1 See p. 150. * See p. 151. 3 See p. 157.
 
 xx Introduction. 
 
 O'Keeffe against the Rev. John Walsh from the Court of Queen's 
 Bench, under pain of suspension ab officio et benejlcio to be ipso facto 
 incurred the moment your counsel begins to state the case to the court 
 and jury. 
 
 ' Your obedient servant, 
 
 ' E. M'DONALD, V.G., Diocese of Ossory.' 
 
 To tliese various sentences of suspension Father O'Keeffe 
 paid no attention, all of them being, as he alleged, informal, 
 invalid, and wholly contrary to the rules of the canon law. 
 His objections to the proceedings of the vicar-general were 
 subsequently drawn up and submitted to Cardinal Cullen. 
 They were as follows : 
 
 ' I. The constitution Apostolicce 8edis 2 has not been 
 received in this country any more than the bull In Coenou 
 Domini. The Bulla Ccence was never received in France and 
 some other countries of Europe, and we have the testimony 
 of our ablest Irish divines that it was never received in this 
 country. Our most distinguished prelates and other theolo- 
 gians stated this before Royal and Parliamentary Commis- 
 sioners. When the great Dr. Doyle was asked before 
 a Parliamentary Committee on the 16th March, 1825, 
 " whether the Catholic Clergy insist that all bulls are entitled 
 to obedience ?" his answer was, "By no means; the Pope 
 we consider as the executive authority of the Catholic Church, 
 and when he issues a bull enforcing a discipline already 
 settled by a General Council, such bull is entitled to respect: 
 but he may issue bulls which would regard local discipline 
 and other matters not already defined, and in these cases 
 the bull would be treated by us in such manner as might seem 
 good to us. Did we find that it was unreasonable, we would 
 refuse to accept it." The other divines that were examined 
 
 1 Supra, p. 157. 
 
 2 Apottolica Scdis. This Bull or 'Constitution' -was issued by the Pope in 
 1869. Its object, as explained by Archbishop Leahy in his evidence (p. 508), is 
 ' to collect in a small compass the various censures scattered up and down through 
 the large body of canon law.' See Clauses VI. and VII. in Appendix No. VII., 
 p. 590.
 
 Introduction. xxi 
 
 gave similar testimony, and no Irish divine that I am aware 
 of ever publicly maintained that the Bulla Ccenc& was ever 
 received in this country. Surely all these distinguished 
 men would on the same principles hold the same opinion 
 regarding the binding force in this country of the new con- 
 stitution, Apostolicce Sedis. 
 
 ' II. Assuming for argument sake that the Apostolicce Sedis 
 was in force here, Dr. M'Donald had no right to take cogni- 
 zance of its violation unless deputed to do so, and he has 
 never shown me any such authority to act. 
 
 * III. My proceeding against the bishop was not in any 
 way intended or calculated to impede him in the exercise of 
 his jurisdiction, but simply to enforce a money compensation 
 for an injury done me. 
 
 IV. The documents of October, 1870, (i.e. the first and 
 second suspensions *) handed me were not official. There 
 was nothing to show me that they even came at all from Dr. 
 M'Donald, except the knowledge I had of his handwriting. 
 What would be thought of a civil judge, who on satisfying 
 his own mind that some one had committed an offence 
 punishable by a fine of 10(H., would immediately write to 
 this person requiring him to pay the fine ? 
 
 ' V. The proceedings against me did not commence with 
 citation to a trial, a preliminary which all canonists look 
 upon as essentially necessary to every judicial proceeding. 
 
 * VI. There was no trial, or any offence proved. 
 
 ' VII. There was no denunciation of me in any canonical 
 form, although nothing is plainer than the words of the bull 
 of Martin V., in the Council of Constance, forbidding my 
 people to withdraw themselves from me, or to decline my 
 ministrations, in the absence of a formal denunciation by the 
 judge who had passed the sentence of censure, or some one 
 acting with authority from him. 
 
 ' VIII. The trial in the lay court only took place after 
 a hearing in the ecclesiastical court was refused. 
 
 1 See pp. 149-151.
 
 xxii Introduction. 
 
 ' IX. The superior was a judge in his own cause. The 
 suspension was issued by Dr. M'Donald, because I had taken 
 an action at law against Dr. Walsh. 
 
 ' X. I add, on the suggestion of a learned canonist, that 
 Liguori would consider probable the opinion of Roncaglia 
 that the bull Apostolicce Sedis would require publication in 
 this country. See Liguori de Legibus, lib. i. tract, ii. 
 No. 96. ' ROBERT O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 These were the points relied on by Father O'Keeffe, and 
 which he believed justified his resistance to Dr. M'Donald. 
 In consequence of his continued disregard of these ecclesi- 
 astical censures, the bishop (Dr. Walsh) on the llth January, 
 1871, addressed the following communication to him : 
 
 'Kilkenny, llth February, 1871. 
 
 ' EEV. SIR, As you have disregarded the ordinary mode of pro- 
 cedure, I, after mature deliberation, send you hereby a suspension " ex 
 iaformata conscientia, ab ordine, officio et beneficio." You are aware 
 that from this suspension there is no appeal, and that should you violate 
 it you will incur an irregularity. 
 
 (Seal) + < EDWARD WALSH.' 
 
 (Suspension enclosed.) 
 
 ' It having been established to us that the Rev. Mr. Robert 
 O'Keeffe, priest, is guilty of misconduct, for reasons which worthily 
 influence our mind, and for which we are bound to give an account to 
 God and to the Apostolic See, as we are commanded, and from an in- 
 formed conscience, we suspend and declare him suspended from rank, 
 office, and benefice, and order the decree of suspension to be made 
 known to him. 
 
 ' Given at Kilkenny, llth January, 1871. 
 'EDWARD (Bishop). 
 ' THOMAS KILBY (Actuary).' 
 
 No attention whatever was paid to this suspension by 
 Father O'Keeffe. He continued still to officiate in the chapel, 
 and to discharge all the functions of a parish priest. As might 
 be expected, the district was greatly disturbed. The parish- 
 
 1 Sec p. 168.
 
 Introduction. xxiii 
 
 ioners were divided in tbeir allegiance between tlie priest 
 on the one side, and the curates who took part with the 
 bishop, and who were at no pains to conceal their hostility 
 to their immediate superior, on the other. It should be 
 mentioned that in the Roman Catholic Church the bishop 
 has the right of appointing curates to all the parishes of 
 his diocese without reference to the parish priest, who may 
 or may not be consulted in the selection. In Callan at 
 this time there were two curates who were retained in their 
 position in spite of the repeated remonstrances of Father 
 O'Keeffe. He had sued both in a court of law for libel, and 
 in both cases had recovered damages. It was hardly, there- 
 fore, to be expected that the relations between them could 
 be of a friendly character, or likely to promote the spiritual 
 welfare of the parish. 
 
 The report of these proceedings had now reached Rome, 
 and the Papal authorities took prompt measures for their ter- 
 mination. On the 31st May, 1871, a decree was issued by the 
 Sacred Congregation de Propaganda fide, authorizing Cardinal 
 Cullen, as delegate of the Apostolic See, to inquire into the 
 scandals that had arisen in the parish of Callan, and to adopt 
 such means as he might think necessary to suppress them. 1 
 
 This ordinance was received by Cardinal Cullen about 
 the middle of June, 1871, and in July he wrote to Father 
 O'Keeffe, deploring the condition of the parish of Callan, 
 which was notorious, and stating that * being now in a posi- 
 tion to restore peace in that locality, he was determined to 
 make every effort to obtain so desirable a result.' 2 This 
 letter was the beginning of a correspondence in which 
 Father O'Keeffe reiterated his complaints of ill-treatment by 
 his bishop, while the Cardinal on his part declared that all the 
 troubles had arisen from inexcusable resistance to episcopal 
 authority, and insisting with great earnestness on the enor- 
 mity of the offence of which Father O'Keeffe had been guilty 
 ' in dragging ecclesiastics, and especially bishops, before lay 
 
 1 See p. 345. * See p. 163.
 
 xxiv Introduction. 
 
 tribunals and there charging them with criminal offences ' 
 besought him to avoid giving rise to further scandal, and at 
 once to make full and absolute submission to his bishop. 1 
 
 It seemed as if the Cardinal's efforts were about to be 
 crowned with success. Father O'Keeffe withdrew from legal 
 proceedings which he had instituted against the vicar- 
 general and one of the curates, and received a letter from the 
 Cardinal, expressing gratification at this result, and exhorting 
 him ' to continue in the path on which he had entered until he 
 should be fully reconciled to his bishop and to the Church.' 2 
 
 Unfortunately, however, this prospect of peace was not 
 destined to be realised. Early in the month of August, 
 Father O'Keeffe felt him self obliged to complain to the vicar- 
 geiieral and to the Cardinal of the conduct of one of the 
 curates, whom he accused of using violent language against 
 him in the streets of Callan. 3 No notice appears to have 
 been taken of this complaint, except by a short letter of 
 acknowledgment in which the vicar-general stated that he 
 had written to the curate for an explanation of his alleged 
 misconduct. 4 
 
 Dr. Walsh, the bishop of the diocese, was now completely 
 prostrated by illness, and it was thought desirable that a co- 
 adjutor-bishop should be appointed. According to the usage 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, as explained in his evidence 
 by Cardinal Cullen, such an appointment is made by the Pope 
 himself, to whom three names are submitted by the beiieficed 
 clergy of the diocese in question, including the chapter of the 
 cathedral. Curiously enough, the two most prominent candi- 
 dates on this occasion were the Rev. Dr. Moran, nephew and 
 secretary to the Cardinal, and the Rev. Matthew Keeffe, a 
 cousin of the parish priest of Callan. The meeting of the 
 clergy for the purpose of selecting the three persons to be 
 proposed for the office was fixed for the 19th September, 
 1871, and the Cardinal was invited by the bishop to preside. 
 Father O'Keeffe, notwithstanding his alleged suspension, duly 
 
 1 See p. 160. 2 Sec p. 174. * See p. 175. 4 .See p. 176.
 
 Introduction. xxv 
 
 received a summons to attend. 1 On the 8th of the month the 
 Cardinal wrote a letter stating his intention to be present, and 
 warning Father O'Keeffe to be prepared in case any question 
 should be raised with regard to the ecclesiastical censures 
 under which he lay. He also informed him now, for the first 
 time, that he had been deputed by the Pope to put an end to 
 the scandals existing in the parish of Callan, and that he 
 had determined to apply himself at once to the task. 2 Father 
 O'Keeffe replied, that if any objection should be taken to 
 his vote at the meeting he would be ready to meet it. 
 
 On the day appointed, the meeting of the clergy took 
 place under the presidency of the Cardinal. 3 The names of the 
 proposed candidates were submitted to the assembly, and the 
 list of the persons presumably entitled to vote was read aloud 
 by the Cardinal's secretary. When Father O'Keeffe's name 
 was called, the Cardinal inquired if that was the priest who 
 was under censure. The vicar-general replied in the affirma- 
 tive. Thereupon Father O'Keeffe stood up and said he was 
 prepared to satisfy his Eminence that he had not been canoni- 
 cally suspended, and that therefore he could not be regarded 
 as under censure. The Cardinal declined to enter upon the 
 question then, but stated that prima facie the censures were 
 valid, and that he could not receive the vote. He added, 
 however, that Father O'Keeffe might forward his vote to 
 Rome, sealed up, pending the decision of the matter. Father 
 O'Keeffe at once retired from the meeting, and the Cardinal's 
 nephew was elected coadjutor-bishop by a majority of one. 
 
 Iii the correspondence that took place subsequently with 
 the Cardinal, Father O'Keeffe complained that he had been 
 unjustly treated on this occasion. He had been warned, he 
 said, to be ready to prove his title to vote, and accordingly 
 had fully prepared himself to do so, and yet his vote had 
 been rejected without any opportunity having been afforded 
 him of establishing his right. On the 21st October the Car- 
 
 1 See p. 244. " See p. 176. 
 
 * See pp. 179 ami 353.
 
 zxvi Introduction. 
 
 dinal wrote the following letter, which speedily brought the 
 dispute to a crisis : 
 
 ' Dublin, 21st October, 1871. 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, As it is necessary to settle the 
 affairs of Callan, I have determined to send you a regular ecclesiastical 
 citation to appear before me on Friday, 27th October, at 11 o'clock, at 
 my house in Eccles Street. I will send the citation to you on Monday 
 next, but I mention the day so that you may let me know if it be in- 
 convenient before Monday afternoon. 
 
 ' I will examine whether you have incurred suspension or excom- 
 munication, either ab homine, or a lege or canone, whether you have in- 
 curred irregularity, and whether any or what penalty is to be inflicted 
 on you for having neglected those censures or ecclesiastical penalties, if 
 you have done so. 
 
 ' Other matters connected with the unhappy state of Callan, so well 
 described in your letters, must also be examined. 
 
 4 Wishing you every happiness, I remain, 
 * Your faithful servant, 
 + < PAUL CARDINAL CULLEN.' 
 
 Father O'Keeffe replied by a letter 2 in which he stated 
 that he would be happy to attend his Eminence 011 the day 
 mentioned, and he enclosed at the same time a draft of the 
 nine points above set out, upon which he intended to rely 
 in defence of his conduct. 
 
 In consequence of this ready acquiescence in the course 
 proposed by the Cardinal, the latter subsequently wrote 
 to say that he did not consider it necessary to send the 
 formal citation of which he had spoken in his note of the 
 21st, and that he would expect Father O'Keeffe, according to 
 his engagement. 3 
 
 At the appointed time Father O'Keeffe presented him- 
 self before the Cardinal. No other person was there except 
 Dr. Forde, one of the vicars -general. He unfortunately died 
 shortly after, so that the only evidence obtainable as to what 
 took place on this critical occasion is that of the judge and 
 
 ' See p. 183. * Seep. 184. * See p. 185.
 
 Introduction. xxvii 
 
 of the accused, and their recollection of the proceedings is 
 unhappily not the same. 
 
 The interview lasted for some hours. 1 The matters at 
 issue were discussed at length, but no final arrangement 
 satisfactory to both parties could be arrived at. A com- 
 promise was at last suggested, as to the terms of which 
 Cardinal Cullen and Father O'Keeffe are not agreed. Ac- 
 cording to the account given by the latter, the whole case 
 was to be referred to Koine for decision, and in the mean- 
 time the offending curates were to be dismissed, and the 
 parish of Callan placed under the care of missionaries 
 selected for the purpose. According to the Cardinal, there 
 was one other point which he regarded as essential, viz., that 
 Father O'Keeffe should retire from Callan pending the settle- 
 ment of the question. This, Father O'Keeffe declares was 
 never mentioned, and if suggested would have been in- 
 dignantly rejected by him. He admits that a ' retreat ' 
 was proposed, to which he at once consented, but he 
 positively denies that he ever acceded to any arrangement 
 which would have the effect of disconnecting him, even 
 temporarily, from his parish. 
 
 Whatever were the terms of the agreement then con- 
 cluded, Father O'Keeffe was requested to put them into 
 writing, in order that he might read them to his congrega- 
 tion on his return to Callan. The document so prepared 
 was to be submitted to Cardinal Cullen on the following day. 
 Early next morning Father O'Keeffe waited upon his 
 Eminence, and presented the paper which he had drawn up. 2 
 The following is his account of the interview that took 
 place. * The Cardinal read the draft: "Oh," said he, "this 
 will not do at all. You have put nothing into this paper about 
 your leaving the parish as well as the curates." " What is 
 the meaning of that, my Lord Cardinal ? " said I. " Who 
 would be there to look after the missionaries or look after 
 the affiiirs of the parish." " Oh," he said, " we will take caie 
 
 1 See pp. 183 and 3o9. 2 See p. 192.
 
 xxviii Introduction. 
 
 of that." I just put my hand to my hat ; I took my stick 
 in my hand, said " Good morning, my Lord Cardinal," and 
 walked away.' 
 
 A few days afterwards the Cardinal wrote to Father 
 O'Keeffe again, requiring his attendance in order that they 
 * might conclude the business which they had commenced.' 1 
 Father O'Keeffe, however, declined to appear, stating that 
 his defence was already in the Cardinal's hands, and awaited 
 his lordship's decision. 2 A second invitation 3 met with a 
 similar response, and on the 13th November, 1871, the sen- 
 tence of suspension 4 was issued by the Cardinal. On the 3rd 
 December, Father O'Keeffe wrote the following letter : 
 
 'Callan, Dec. 3, 1871. 
 
 ' MT LORD CARDINAL, A document was read in the Friary Chapel 
 here on last Sunday, which pretended to be a sentence of suspension 
 passed on me by your Eminence. You have thus for the sixth time 
 passed censure on me behind my back, without any trial or citation to 
 me, and without alleging any crime, as far as I have been able to learn, 
 except that I went to law with Dr. Walsh. I think in the circum- 
 stances no one can reasonably expect me to make an apology for going 
 to law with your Eminence. I proposed before to leave the whole of 
 my case to the professors of canon law and theology at Maynooth, and 
 I propose now to leave it to the saying of the three other archbishops in 
 Ireland. I made every effort to keep all the former cases out of court, 
 and in virtue of my love for peace and religion, I make this final effort 
 to keep the present one out of court also. No doubt another half- 
 dozen suspensions will be flaunted before my face ; but, my Lord 
 Cardinal, I tell you plainly that until I degrade myself first by the 
 commission of some crime, I laugh at the folly of the attempts of 
 others to degrade me. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, 
 
 ' Your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 <K. O'KEEFFE.' 5 
 
 The Cardinal's reply was the sentence of interdict 6 upon 
 the parish chapel of Callan, issued upon the 16th December, 
 
 1 See p. 193. 2 Ibid. 8 See p. 19o. 
 
 4 See p. 199. * See p. 207. See p. 208.
 
 Introduction. xxix 
 
 and accompanied by an address to the parochial clergy, in 
 which they were required to explain to the people the penal- 
 ties to which they would subject themselves should they 
 continue to attend public worship in a building thus eccle- 
 siastically censured. 1 
 
 Shortly after this, the Poor Law Commissioners dismissed 
 Father O'Keeffe from the office of chaplain to the workhouse, 
 as being no longer competent to discharge the duties of that 
 position. Alleging the dismissal as the special damage 
 suffered by him in consequence of the sentences of suspen- 
 sion and interdict, Father O'Keeffe brought his action for 
 libel against the Cardinal. 
 
 The foregoing is a narrative of the circumstances in 
 which this remarkable trial originated. Being perfectly 
 unconscious of any bias in favour of one side or the other, I 
 have endeavoured impartially to present the simple facts as 
 they appear upon the evidence. To many persons the con- 
 duct of both the plaintiff and defendant may seem to have 
 been such as to prevent sympathy with either. It is not, 
 however, merely as individuals submitting a personal quarrel 
 to the decision of a court of law that the parties here can 
 claim for themselves or for the question at issue between 
 them any share of public attention ; but if we regard them 
 rather as the representatives of great principles, the conflict 
 of which has produced nearly all the most important events 
 of modern times, we shall find in the history of the case, 
 and in the evidence given at the trial, matters which can 
 hardly fail to excite our interest and to be regarded as of 
 some consequence to the community. Those who profess the 
 Roman Catholic faith form no inconsiderable portion of the 
 population of the United Kingdom. In Ireland they are 
 largely in the majority. Considering, then, the position, 
 both social and political, which the Roman Catholic Church 
 must necessarily hold in this country, we cannot be indif- 
 ferent to the information which this trial affords, with respect 
 
 1 See p. 209.
 
 xxx Introduction. 
 
 to the laws recognized as binding by the members of that 
 Church, and the mode in which those laws are administered. 
 
 In the defence put in by the Cardinal it was averred that 
 he had acted in accordance with the ( laws, ordinances, and 
 discipline of the Church, ' which Father O'Keeffe, as an 
 ordained priest, had contracted to observe and obey. This 
 statement rendered it necessary for him to produce evidence 
 to the court for the purpose of explaining the nature of the 
 ' laws, ordinances, and discipline ' referred to, and of thus 
 establishing the truth of his defence. He himself was, of 
 course, no mean authority upon the subject. Dr. Leahy, 
 Archbishop of Cashel; Dr. McEvilly, Bishop of Gal way ; the 
 Rev. Csesar Roncetti, doctor of civil and canon law, and 
 one of the officials of the Propaganda at Rome ; Dr. Angelo 
 Jacobin i, and the Rev. Henry Neville, were also examined 
 as witnesses, and stated with great candour and clearness 
 the rules which they believe to be binding on every adherent 
 of the Church of Rome. 
 
 One of the questions most prominently raised on this 
 occasion was with reference to the papal bulls recognized and 
 enforced in Ireland, and claiming obedience from the clergy 
 of this country. In former times it seems to have been held 
 that these ordinances were not necessarily or universally 
 binding ; that unless formally accepted and promulgated by 
 episcopal authority they might safely be disregarded, and 
 hence that it was possible for the discipline applicable to the 
 clergy of one country to be different in some respects from 
 that observed and carried out in another. 
 
 In his examination before the Commissioners of Irish 
 Education, in 1820, the following question referring par- 
 ticularly to the bull In Ccena Domini was put to Dr. 
 M'Hale, Roman Catholic Bishop of Tuaui: 'You will 
 observe that so late as the year 1741 there is a bull excom- 
 municating all persons, without exception, or without any 
 limitation of time or placo, who bring Roman Catholic eccle- 
 siastics before lay tribunals. Can you explain how it is that
 
 Introduction. xxxi 
 
 that does not apply to the case that is put ? ' He replies : 
 ' With regard to bulls of this sort, they are never binding 
 upon us unless w.e receive and publish them ; that bull was 
 probably never published in this country, and therefore we 
 have nothing to do with its contents.' Again, he is asked 
 whether the excommunication of heretics contained in this 
 bull was confined to any particular country, or extended to 
 heretics wherever found. He says : ' It extends to those 
 
 / 
 
 heretics, wherever they are found, in the sense I have ex- 
 plained the bull provided the bull is received and published in 
 those countries where they think it necessary to receive and 
 publish a bull in order that it should have force. In Italy, 
 for example, it is considered sufficient that it be published at 
 Rome in order that it should have its effect ; it is not so in 
 other countries.' * 
 
 Evidence to the same effect, expressed in terms perhaps 
 more striking and emphatic, was given by Dr. Boyle, Bishop 
 of Kildare and Leighlin, when examined before a Committee 
 of the House of Lords in the year ]825; and Dr. Slevin, 
 then professor of canon law at Maynooth, on the same 
 occasion stated as follows : f Bishops are not considered 
 bound to receive all the decrees of discipline that may be 
 issued by Popes. The present practice of the Church is, that 
 decrees of discipline do not bind in any particular country 
 till they are received or promulgated there, and therefore 
 bishops do not bind themselves to receive indiscriminately 
 all decrees of discipline issuing from the Holy See.' 2 
 
 It appears, however, either that these learned men, who 
 were at that time accepted as the exponents of the Catholic 
 system, were incorrect in their statements, or that the 
 discipline of the Church has been considerably modified 
 within the last forty years. 3 In answer to questions put by 
 the Lord Chief Justice as to whether papal bulls were con- 
 
 1 See Appendix to Eighth Eeport of the Commissioners of Irish Education 
 Inquiry, pp. 290-1. * Ibid., p. 211. 
 
 3 As to the impression produced by Dr. Doyle's evidence upon the statesmen 
 of the time, see Stapleton's Life of Canning, ch. xvii. 
 
 b
 
 xxxii Introduction. 
 
 sidered binding in any country until promulgated in every 
 parish, Cardinal Cullen says : ' According to the doctrines in 
 the laws which I learned, the legislator can determine how 
 and when the law which he makes is to begin to bind. 1 . . . 
 The Pope himself, who is the lawgiver, declares that when 
 he publishes a bull at Rome it is to bind everywhere. It is 
 binding over the whole Church.' 2 
 
 Archbishop Leahy is equally emphatic in giving his 
 opinion upon this subject, and does not hesitate to dissent 
 altogether from the views put forward by Dr. M'Hale with 
 respect to the reception and promulgation of papal consti- 
 tutions. He goes somewhat further even than Cardinal 
 Cullen in speaking upon this point. The latter stated his 
 opinion, and admitted it to be possible that some might 
 not be prepared to concur with him. The archbishop, how- 
 ever, when asked whether the authority of papal bulls which 
 have never been received and promulgated is not a ' matter 
 of opinion,' boldly answers, ' I would say it is not a matter of 
 opinion. . . . The bishops are free to refer to the Pope, 
 to remonstrate with him respectfully if they are of opinion 
 that the peculiar circumstances of their country are such 
 that a papal constitution would not be adapted to it. They 
 are perfectly free, then, not all at once to publish and put it 
 in force, but respectfully to make this known to the Pope ; 
 but if the Pope were then to insist on the application of the 
 constitution to their country, there would be no alternative 
 for them but to accept it and put it in force ; and I say, with 
 due respect to Dr. M'Hale and every other doctor, that no 
 opinion but that is defensible.' 3 
 
 A good deal of discussion arose during the trial with 
 respect to the bull In Coena Domini. This celebrated bull 
 was formerly published at Rome on Holy Thursday of each 
 year, and derives its name from this circumstance. Its 
 authorship is not accurately known, but it has received 
 alterations and additions at various times, and was published 
 
 1 See p. 378. 2 See p. 406. ' See p. 494.
 
 Introduction. xxxiii 
 
 in its latest form by Benedict XIV. so recently as 1741. It 
 excommunicates all heretics, all who appeal from a decree of 
 the Pope to lay tribunals, all who impose new taxes without 
 the Pope's leave, all who bring ecclesiastics directly or indi- 
 rectly, on any pretence whatever, before civil courts, and in 
 the most emphatic language asserts the universal supremacy 
 of the Holy See and the independence of the clergy. 1 
 
 In consequence of the manifest tendency of this bull to 
 infringe upon national liberty and the rights of sovereigns, 
 every State in Europe raised a vigorous protest against it, 
 and prohibited its observance within their boundaries. 
 France, Spain, Germany, Naples, Venice, and the minor 
 States authoritatively forbade its publication, and refused 
 to recognize its provisions. It is needless to add that Eng- 
 land has been from the earliest periods of her history fore- 
 most in resistance to papal interference, and to all attempts 
 to establish the immunity and independence of the clergy. 
 
 In his examination before a Committee of the House of 
 Lords in April, 1825, Dr. Doyle, in reply to the question 
 whether the bull In Ccena Domini was in force in Ireland, 
 said: 
 
 ' There are portions of that bull that were in force from 
 the time of Christ ; but the bull, as a bull, is not in force nor 
 ever was in force in Ireland, and has been rejected from 
 nearly all the Christian countries of Europe. If that were 
 in force, there is scarcely anything would be at rest among 
 the Catholic States of Europe, and they have been as solemn 
 and as earnest in protesting against it as we have been at 
 any period in England or Ireland.' 
 
 ' Was not,' he was asked, ' the same bull, namely, 
 the bull In Ccena Domini, declared to be in force in the year 
 1793?' 
 
 'Not only that,' he replied, 'but it may, for aught I 
 know, have been declared during the last year to have been 
 in force, but their (the Pope's Nuncios') declaring it to be so 
 
 1 See Appendix No. VI., p. 584. 
 
 b2
 
 xxxiv Introduction. 
 
 in force does not make it to be in force with us : we have 
 never received it, and surely never will.' 1 
 
 Dr. M'Hale, in his examination before the Commissioners 
 of Irish Education in November, 1826, was asked, ' Is there 
 anything to prevent this bull of 1741 being now received in 
 Ireland, or at any future time, supposing it has not been re- 
 ceived there already ? J He replied, ' There is the collision 
 that would be supposed to result from the reception of that 
 bull with the established authorities of the country. This is 
 an insurmountable objection.' 2 
 
 These are the opinions, as stated on oath, which were 
 held by the most eminent dignitaries of the Roman Catholic 
 Church of Ireland forty years ago upon this important sub- 
 ject. Their successors of the present day by no means coin- 
 cide in the views which were then so emphatically expressed. 
 It will be observed that in their evidence Cardinal Cullen and 
 Archbishop Leahy declare it to be their belief that the bull 
 In Ccena, Domini has been in force in Ireland, and is so still, 
 except so far as it has been repealed by the bull Apostolicce 
 Sedis, recently issued by Pope Pius IX. To some it may 
 appear that this latter ordinance stops not far short of its 
 famous predecessor, and that if enforced it would produce 
 very much the same consequences as those of which our 
 forefathers were so apprehensive. The decline of the re- 
 ligious spirit which is so marked a feature of the present 
 time, deprives these Papal manifestoes of much of their 
 former significance and weight, and any difficulties that 
 may hereafter arise from the claims put forward in the 
 'new constitution' may be safely left to those who will 
 have to deal with them ; but it is interesting to become ac- 
 quainted with the views held by the most learned and in- 
 fluential ecclesiastics of our own day upon a subject which 
 in time past excited violent controversies, and gave rise to 
 political events the influence of which is still perceptible. 
 
 1 See evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords upon the 
 state of Ireland, April 21, 1825, pp. 311-12. 
 
 2 See Appendix to Eighth Report of th Commissioners of Irish Education 
 Inquiry, p. 291.
 
 Introduction. xxxv 
 
 Outside these larger questions, which may be held to 
 affect not only those who profess the Eoman Catholic faith, 
 but the whole community with which they are connected, 
 there were some matters of minor importance relating to the 
 internal discipline of the Church, and the rules of its admi-r 
 nistration, concerning which much interesting information 
 was given at the trial. The position and rights of parish 
 priests and other classes of the clergy the jurisdiction of 
 bishops the various kinds of ecclesiastical censures, and the 
 penalties attached to them these and many other details were 
 investigated and discussed. The order and completeness with 
 which the vast system is arranged, the silence and regularity 
 with which its multitudinous and complicated affairs are 
 conducted, impress the imagination, and compel unwilling 
 admiration from the most prejudiced observer. Provision 
 appears to be made for every contingency that can arise. 
 The canon law prescribes the rules of discipline and the 
 forms of procedure, and with this extensive body of juris- 
 prudence all must be familiar who aspire to reach positions 
 of distinction and influence in the Church. 
 
 There was one singular point of ecclesiastical discipline 
 disclosed at the trial, which excited much attention and 
 remark. It will be remembered that on the llth January, 
 1871, Bishop Walsh wrote to Father O'Keeffe, 1 informing 
 him that he had been suspended * ex informata conscientia,' 
 and this, moreover, after no less than three previous sen- 
 tences of suspension had already been served upon him. 
 A great deal of evidence was given with reference to this 
 particular species of ecclesiastical censure. It appears that 
 an unrestricted power of issuing suspensions of this kind 
 rests with the bishop. In ordinary cases it is presumed that 
 no censure will be inflicted except it be preceded by certain 
 well-ascertained legal formalities. There must be a citation ; 
 a definite and intelligible charge ; a fair and impartial 
 trial ; an opportunity given to the defendant of making his 
 
 1 See p. 158.
 
 xxxvi Introduction. 
 
 defence. But the bishop has the option of taking another 
 course. He may choose to deal extra- judicially with 
 any ecclesiastic within his jurisdiction. Of the propriety in 
 any particular case of selecting this mode of procedure, he is 
 the exclusive judge. Should he prefer it, he may thus relieve 
 himself from the necessity of observing any form of law 
 whatever. His rule of conduct is that prescribed by his own 
 sovereign will and pleasure. The accused may be wholly 
 unconscious of the offence with which he is charged, or the 
 persons whose enmity he has provoked, yet the bishop, with- 
 out assigning any reason for his proceeding, and without hear- 
 ing a word in explanation or defence, has power and authority 
 to issue against him a sentence of suspension, from which 
 there is practically no appeal. It does not appear whether 
 these formidable powers are frequently exercised by the 
 dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church, but the mere 
 knowledge of their existence must prove a most effectual 
 means of repressing any insubordination among the clergy, 
 and of retaining them in complete subjection to episcopal 
 authority. Cardinal Cullen describes a case in which this 
 mode of procedure might be necessary : ' If it happened 
 unfortunately, as it might happen, as we are all men, that 
 a parish priest was doing a great deal of mischief scan- 
 dalizing his people corrupting his people if the bishop 
 had full proof of this, but could not get witnesses to come 
 forward and prove what he knew perfectly, then he might, in 
 order to save the souls of the people, suspend the priest with- 
 out giving him a reason why he suspends him. That is the 
 nature of the suspension.' J It might be suggested that the 
 Cardinal's admission that ' we are all men,' is an argument 
 of no inconsiderable force against the wisdom and justice 
 of entrusting to any class of officials, whether ecclesiastical 
 or secular, a power like this, which may be made the 
 weapon of the most arbitrary oppression and the means 
 of inflicting serious and irreparable wrong. 
 
 ' See p. 385.
 
 Introduction. xxxvii 
 
 There seems to be considerable diversity of opinion 
 among the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church with 
 respect to the cases in which, according to canon law, this 
 particular kind of suspension may be applied. Archbishop 
 Leahy asserts that it is applicable only in cases of secret 
 crime, and that it cannot be used against a clergyman whose 
 offence is notorious. This, he says, is not only his own 
 opinion, and that upon which he himself would act in the 
 administration of his diocese, but is also the rule which is 
 generally accepted as the law in Rome. 1 The Bishop of 
 Galway, 2 Dr. Eoncetti, 3 and the Rev. Henry Neville, 4 how- 
 ever, think otherwise. They declare that this suspension is 
 not thus limited in its application, but that it may be in- 
 flicted for any offence, public or private, and that the bishop 
 may use it at his uncontrolled discretion. The importance 
 of the point in the present case arose from the fact that the 
 suspension ex informata conscientia* was issued by Bishop 
 Walsh against Father O'Keeffe, apparently in consequence 
 of his having sued his curate, the Rev. J. Walsh, in a court 
 of law an offence which could hardly be regarded as 
 occultum crimen. Cardinal Cullen, however, who appears to 
 concur with Archbishop Leahy as to the cases in which this 
 censure can alone be legally inflicted, suggests that Bishop 
 Walsh may have been acquainted with some secret miscon- 
 duct on the part of Father O'Keeffe which would justify the 
 course of procedure which he adopted, irrespective altogether 
 of the notorious transgression of suing a brother ecclesiastic 
 in a civil court. ' The bishop,' he says, * might have had a 
 dozen charges against Father O'Keeffe. If one of them 
 was proved or two proved, he might have wished to sus- 
 pend him for these causes. We are not to presume that he 
 suspended him for anything public. We are to presume 
 that he wished to make the censure valid. We can't know 
 now what grounds Dr. Walsh had, and that sentence does 
 not show that he had no private grounds.' 6 
 
 1 See p. 48-1. 2 See p. 516. 3 See p. 533. 
 . * See p. 565. * See p. 158. 6 See p. 455.
 
 xxxviii Introduction. 
 
 Another important question was raised by Father O'Keeffe 
 with reference to this species of suspension : he contended 
 that it was applicable not to parish priests, but only to the 
 ' regular ' clergy of the Church, who by their vows have 
 wholly surrendered themselves to the will of their ecclesias- 
 tical superiors. 1 He cited numerous authorities from the 
 canon law in proof of his position. On the other hand, the 
 Cardinal and all his witnesses as emphatically declared that 
 a suspension ex informata conscientia might be directed by 
 the bishops against any order of the clergy, and that from 
 their sentence there was no appeal except to the Pope. In 
 this conflict of opinion among those best acquainted with 
 the subject, it is difficult accurately to ascertain the truth. 
 The men who assert the power are those who claim to wield 
 it, and for whose benefit it would exist while those by whom 
 it is denied are the representatives of the class against which 
 it would be exercised, and are therefore interested in dis- 
 puting its legality, and in resisting its ultimate establishment 
 and recognition. 
 
 In the above sketch of this great ecclesiastical cause, only 
 the main points in controversy have been alluded to ; but an 
 attentive perusal of the evidence given at the trial will sug- 
 gest to the reader many questions of historical interest, and 
 some which may possibly become hereafter of political impor- 
 tance to this country. 
 
 HENRY CLARE KIRKPATRICK. 
 January, 1874. 
 
 1 See p. 159.
 
 COUET OF QUEEN'S BENCH 
 
 (IRELAND) 
 
 REV. ROBERT O'KEEFFE, P.P., v. CARDINAL CULLEN 
 
 REPORT 
 
 OF 
 
 THE ARGUMENT OF THE DEMURRER 
 
 AND THE 
 
 JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT. 
 
 THE various points of law argued before the Court of Queen's 
 Bench, some months previous to the trial of the case at Nisi 
 Prius, have been already referred to. As, however, it has 
 been thought desirable, that the arguments then submitted 
 to the Court and the judgments subsequently delivered by the 
 judges, should be included in this volume, it is perhaps neces- 
 sary in order that these may be intelligible to the general 
 reader to explain the nature of the action brought by the 
 plaintiff against the Cardinal, and to describe a little more par- 
 ticularly the pleadings upon which the questions in contro- 
 versy arose. 
 
 Any publication without justification or excuse, which is 
 calculated to injure the reputation of another is at law held 
 to be a ( libel.' Father O'Keeffe believing that the sentences 
 of suspension and interdict fulminated against him by the 
 Cardinal were of this character, issued his ' summons and 
 plaint,' setting forth the words complained of, and claiming 
 damages for the wrong. The Cardinal in his defence pleaded
 
 2 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 that by the laws of the Church of Eome, to which both he 
 and the plaintiff had promised obedience, the Pope had the 
 power to confer upon him a jurisdiction over the plaintiff ; 
 that by ordinance or rescript, dated May, 1871, the Pope had 
 authorised him to enquire into the 'conduct and proceedings' 
 of the plaintiff, and to pronounce such sentence as might 
 seem just ; that in compliance with that ordinance he had 
 heard the plaintiff's case, and had pronounced sentence of 
 suspension upon him ; that by the laws of the Roman 
 Catholic Church the plaintiff was thereupon suspended, and 
 that the statements contained in the sentence being true, 
 he (the Cardinal) was justified in publishing them. 
 
 In reference to this defence it may perhaps be well to 
 explain that in actions of libel a plea by the defendant that 
 the statements which he has made respecting the plaintiff 
 are true in fact, is considered at law a sufficient answer, and 
 if at the trial he can prove their truth, the plaintiff must 
 fail, and a verdict is given for the defendant. The Cardinal 
 accordingly in this defence alleged that the statements con- 
 tained in the sentence complained of were literally true 
 that acting in pursuance of the papal rescript he had sus- 
 pended the plaintiff from his office of priest, and that he was 
 therefore justified in publishing the fact. 
 
 The Cardinal also put in a further plea of " privileged 
 communication," in which he alleged that as Archbishop and 
 Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, it was his 
 interest and his duty to make known the judgment and 
 sentence of suspension pronounced upon the plaintiff to the 
 parishioners of Callan who were members of the Church of 
 Rome. 
 
 The nature of this defence is fully explained in the 
 judgments of Mr. Justice Barry } and the Lord Chief Justice. 2 
 If the injurious statements made by one person of another 
 be true they are justified, as already shown, and the publica- 
 tion cannot be made the ground of an action of libel ; but 
 even assuming them to be false, yet, if they are made bond 
 fide by a person who believes them to be true, and whose 
 interest or duty it is to communicate them to another whose 
 interests also require that he should be informed of the facts 
 to which they relate, the law, upon the ground of public 
 
 1 Seep. 35. * Seep. 111.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 3 
 
 policy, regards such communications as privileged, and 
 will not permit an action to be brought against the person 
 making them. The duty of pronouncing whether the 
 position of the parties concerned, or the occasion, as 
 described in the pleadings, upon which the words are 
 published, renders a communication privileged, is imposed, 
 not upon the jury but upon the judges, and this accordingly 
 was one of the questions submitted to the Court of Queen's 
 Bench in the present case. 
 
 In the subsequent pleadings, Father O'Keeffe contended 
 that according to the laws of the Church of Eome, no 
 sentence of suspension could be pronounced upon him unless 
 he had been guilty of violating some of the " laws, ordi- 
 nances, and discipline of the Church ;" that the only law 
 which he had infringed, on the Cardinal's own showing, was 
 one by which ecclesiastics are prohibited from impleading 
 each other in her Majesty's Courts for slanderous words 
 spoken of them in relation to their position and character as 
 priests ; that such a rule was contrary to public policy, as 
 tending to oust the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals of this 
 country, and therefore illegal, according to the laws of the 
 realm, and that consequently the sentence of suspension 
 being founded on an alleged infringement of a rule itself 
 illegal, was altogether void, and its publication libellous. 
 
 The case came on for argument upon the plaintiff's 
 " demurring" to the pleading of the defendant. By this 
 proceeding he admitted, argumenti gratia, the truth of the 
 facts stated by the Cardinal, but called upon the Court to 
 decide whether, assuming their truth, they constituted in law 
 a good defence to his action. 
 
 Upon the various questions raised by these pleadings, the 
 Court was divided in opinion. Three of the Judges (Barry, 
 Fitzgerald, and O'Brien, J. J.) held that the above rule of the 
 Eoman Catholic Church was not illegal, although no temporal 
 Court in this country would lend its aid to enforce it. They 
 were also agreed that the publication of the sentence of sus- 
 pension by the Cardinal was a * privileged communication,' 
 and therefore allowable. On one point, however, they dif- 
 fered. Barry and Fitzgerald, J.J., held that the papal re- 
 script under which the Cardinal had acted was illegal, being 
 in direct contravention of stat. 2 Eliz. c. 1 (Irish), and that 
 
 B2
 
 4 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 therefore the plea of ' justification ' was bad in law, so far at 
 least as it averred that the plaintiff had been legally sus- 
 pended, while on the other hand, O'Brien, J. was of opinion 
 that this statute had been impliedly repealed by subsequent 
 legislation, and that consequently the papal ordinance was 
 not illegal in this country. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice (Whiteside) gave judgment for 
 the plaintiff upon all the questions raised by the demurrer. 
 He held, 1st, that the rule of the Roman Catholic Church 
 forbidding ecclesiastics to sue in her Majesty's Courts was 
 illegal ; 2nd, that the papal rescript was illegal ; 3rd, that 
 the publication of the sentence of suspension was not a ' pri- 
 vileged communication ; ' 4th, that the Cardinal's plea of 
 ' justification ' was bad in law. 
 
 Besides the defences above-mentioned, upon which the 
 legal argument arose, there were some formal pleas put in ; 
 among others, a plea that the sentences of suspension and 
 interdict did not constitute a libel. 
 
 In the following pages the arguments on behalf of the 
 plaintiff, the defendant, and the judgments delivered by the 
 judges are given at length. 
 
 iKs? Holmes (with him Purcell, Q.C., G. Fitzgibbon, Q.C., and 
 
 (Ireland) Meredith), for the plaintiff. 
 1873. 
 
 If the plaintiff can show that the sentence pronounced by 
 the defendant is not in accordance with the laws of the 
 Roman Catholic Church the defence must fail. 
 
 The defendant in his defence says : There was a legal 
 sentence passed upon the plaintiff, and the only thing I did 
 was to publish it. The plaintiff replies : There was no legal 
 sentence : to make it legal there should have been a previous 
 violation of the law of the Church. The defendant rejoins 
 The law which forbids the impleading of ecclesiastics has 
 been violated, and therefore the sentence is legal. The 
 plaintiff, thereupon, submits If there be such a law that 
 law is itself illegal by the law of the land. It is as if that 
 law were blotted out of the statute-book of the Church, and if 
 it were so blotted out, then there has been no violation, .on my 
 part, of any law so as to justify the conduct of the defendant. 
 
 The foundation of the defence is the position occupied by
 
 R&v. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Oullen. 5 
 
 the plaintiff as a priest, and the relations as such in -which Argument 
 he stood towards other members of the Roman Catholic for the 
 
 Church. This raises the question as to the position which 
 
 the Roman Catholic Chnrch holds in this country, and how 
 far courts of justice will interfere in the management of its 
 internal affairs. 
 
 The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is a voluntary 
 Church. As to the relations between courts of justice and 
 such religious societies in this country, see Long v. Bishop of 
 Capetown. 1 The Courts will regard the proceedings of 
 ecclesiastical tribunals just as they would regard the pro- 
 ceedings of arbitrators, and if there is any illegality will set 
 the decision aside. The cases of Bishop of Natal v. Glad- 
 stone* Forbes v. Eden, 3 and Dunbar v. Skinner, 4 show that 
 when the matter is brought before the courts of law they will 
 regard these ecclesiastical affairs just as they would regard 
 any contract between laymen. From these cases three con- 
 clusions may be drawn. 1. That the Roman Catholic Church, 
 as such, has no jurisdiction over its members. It simply 
 subsists by contract, and the jurisdiction of its bishops is 
 founded on the contract or agreement of the members of the 
 Church, and in that respect resembles the jurisdiction exer- 
 cised by arbitrators. 2. That although the Civil Courts of 
 this country will not interfere with a bishop's authority in 
 matters of speculative opinion and belief, yet, where any civil 
 right of a Roman Catholic is called in question they will 
 interfere, and if necessary examine any judgment passed by 
 an Ecclesiastical Court, and the foundation upon which it 
 rests. 3. That when the Civil Courts do inquire into a 
 judgment of a religious court they do so by the light of the 
 law of the land, and they investigate and determine any 
 question arising upon it just as they would in the case of a 
 dispute arising upon any ordinary contract. 
 
 The rules and observances of a voluntary Church in this 
 country are simply the terms of the contract into which its 
 members enter, and by which they are bound. If one of 
 these terms be illegal the Court will blot it out of the con- 
 tract. If the jurisdiction here be founded upon contract the 
 
 1 1 Moo. P. C. C. (N.S.) 411. 2 L. K. 3 Eq. 1. 
 
 8 L. K. 1 Sc. Ap. 568. 
 
 * Law of Creeds iii Scotland. By A. T. Innes, p. 252.
 
 6 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 plea is defective, for there are no words showing any con- 
 tract, except the words in the 9th defence, that the plaintiff 
 * had consented and agreed to be bound by ' the rules and 
 ordinances of the Church. The parties to this contract are 
 not stated, nor the consideration shown. But we will assume 
 there was a contract, and that the defendant rests his de- 
 fence upon it ; then the question arises, whether the Court 
 will sanction and enforce, as part of that contract, the rule by 
 which he is forbidden to implead another ecclesiastic for 
 slander. If the rule be illegal the sentence founded upon it 
 is illegal. This rule leaves him without any remedy for an 
 acknowledged wrong, and the law forbids a man to give up 
 a legal right. [BAEEY, J. Suppose I employ a gardener, and 
 I give him a house, and one of my regulations is that he 
 shall not go to law with any of his fellow-servants. He 
 breaks that rule ; may I not take from him the use of the 
 house ?] There the employer gives a benefit, and may take 
 it away according to any arrangement which may be made : 
 but here a judge is justifying a judgment and sentence 
 founded upon the violation of an illegal rule. The plaintiff 
 held his office as priest until deprived of it by a valid judg- 
 ment and sentence. The case suggested is one in which the 
 person is in effect employed at the will of the employer, who 
 makes any rules that seem good to him. Here it is not so. 
 There is no analogy between the cases. 
 
 There is a class of cases to which this case might be said 
 to bear some analogy viz., those in which a voluntary 
 benefit is conferred upon one person by another. Suppose a 
 condition was attached to the gift, that the recipient should 
 not go to law. That condition would be void, although the 
 benefit was a voluntary one. The donee would keep the gift, 
 but the condition being illegal would fail : Scott v. Tyler. 1 
 [FITZGEEALD, J. There is a rule in the Roman Catholic 
 Church that priests shall not marry. The law of the land 
 would not enforce that rule, as being opposed to public policy; 
 but would it not be a good ground of suspension by the 
 ecclesiastical authorities ?] Yes ; it is not every restriction 
 against marriage that is opposed to public policy, but only 
 some restrictions ; but a general rule in restraint of marriage 
 is against public policy, and so is a rule like this against 
 going to law. 
 
 1 White and Tudor, L. C. 126 (3rd Ed.)
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 7 
 
 The Cardinal had no means of enforcing the sentence; 
 but if it was a legal sentence he might come to the Civil 
 Court and have the plaintiff prevented from obtaining any 
 of the profits of his office, and the ground upon which such 
 assistance could be obtained would be that the sentence was 
 legal and valid. Such assistance would never be granted in 
 this case. 
 
 We contend that a general condition attached to an 
 office that the holder of it shall under no circumstances sue 
 another ecclesiastic for actionable wrongs, is opposed to 
 public policy. One great object for which courts of justice 
 exist is to prevent redress being sought by force. If the 
 Courts are closed to a large class of persons there is danger 
 that violence will be resorted to, and illegal means of redress 
 will be found. The case of Egerton v. Brownlow l shows 
 that no rigid rule with respect to the contracts that are 
 opposed to public policy is laid down, but that each case is 
 to be considered by itself as it arises. Even in a case in which 
 a Spiritual Court had jurisdiction the Civil Court would not 
 permit a man to be punished for going into a court of law : 
 Fitz. N. Br. 2 Where there is a proceeding extra judicial 
 the Civil Court may investigate it : Philips v. Bury ; 3 Scott 
 v. Avery.* 
 
 There are recent cases in which a person who has received 
 a benefit under a contract which provides a means of redress 
 if there should be a breach, has yet been permitted to sue at 
 law : Kill v. Hollister. 5 Here the only right existing 
 arose from the instrument which prescribed the mode of 
 redress ; and it might seem natural to say, if you take the 
 right given by this contract you must also be content with 
 the remedy which it provides : nevertheless, the latter term 
 of the contract was held bad, or rather non-existent, and the 
 plaintiff was permitted to sue at law : Thompson v. Charnock ; 6 
 Horton v. Sayer. 7 [BARRY, J. Does not the case of 
 Livingston v. Ralli 8 show that you are pushing the 
 argument too far?] The above cases have been cited to 
 show the rule of law. In all of them a mode of redress was 
 provided, but here there is nothing of the sort. They show 
 
 1 4H. L. C. 1. * Vol.1. 142. G. 
 
 * 1 Lord Eaym. 5. 4 5. H. L. C. 811. 
 
 * 1 Wils. 129. 8 T. E. 139. 
 
 7 4 H. & N. 643. 5 E. & B. 132.
 
 8 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Argument that the Court should not hesitate to reiect a term of a 
 
 P *!. 
 
 Plaintiff extract which is contrary to public policy. The rule here 
 
 alleged to be violated by the plaintiff provides no other 
 
 means of obtaining redress for an actionable wrong. We 
 must assume on these pleadings that none really existed. 
 Suppose there were an ecclesiastical tribunal for this purpose, 
 and damages had been given to the plaintiff, still there 
 would be no means of recovering them without coming to a 
 Civil Court, and that in itself would be a violation of the 
 rule here stated so that the wrong complained of must 
 remain unredressed. Is it legal, then, for a subject of this 
 realm to stipulate that, under no circumstances will he seek 
 from a court of law redress for an actionable wrong ? That 
 would be to divest himself of a right conferred on him by 
 law. If one man be permitted to do this, then a hundred 
 men may do it also ; and if it be done in respect of one class of 
 injuries why not in respect of any other class ? and thus the 
 courts of law may be ousted of their jurisdiction, and the 
 subject left wholly without redress. 
 
 The defendant here rests his jurisdiction over the plain- 
 tiff upon the ordinance issued by the Pope. If we show 
 that ordinance to be illegal according to the laws of this 
 country, then the jurisdiction claimed, and all the proceed- 
 ings taken by the defendant, must also be illegal, and the 
 defence fails. We contend that no jurisdiction in this coun- 
 try can be based upon an ordinance of any foreign prince 
 or potentate, nor can such an ordinance be pleaded in a 
 court of law : stat. 2 Eliz. c. 1 (Irish) ; Caudrey's Case ;* 
 2 Eliz. c. 12 ; 9 & 10 Viet. c. 59. 
 
 These are the two great points of the case ; but with 
 respect to the form of pleading it is to be observed that the 
 9th and 10th defences are pleaded to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd 
 counts of the plaint. An innuendo is put upon the words 
 complained of in the first count, and this 9th defence does 
 not show either a justification or privilege in respect to this 
 innuendo. The defence states that it was the duty of the 
 plaintiff to publish the judgment and sentence, but it does not 
 state that it was the duty of the defendant to publish that 
 the plaintiff had so misconducted himself as to be unfit to 
 discharge the duties of his office. Here the innuendo is 
 
 > 6Kep.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Oullen. 9 
 
 admitted, for if this defence be a justification it must justify Argument 
 in the sense put upon the libel complained of, or if it be a *j or . ^ 
 
 defence of privilege it must show such a privilege as covers 
 
 the innuendo : M'Manus v. M'Enroe. l 
 
 Carton (with him Armstrong, Serjt., and O'Hagan, Q.C.) 
 
 The general rule applicable to such cases as the present 
 is this that Churches not established are founded on con- for the 
 tract ; that their authority is founded on contract ; that the Defendant - 
 Court will not assume them to have authority till it is proved, 
 and that when it is proved as part of the contract the Court 
 will generally sustain it. 2 In the cases which frequently 
 come before the Court of Chancery with respect to Dissent- 
 ing ministers, the Court only examines the rules of the 
 Church in question, and acts upon them ; and where a 
 Church body has set up a forum for the purpose of trying 
 disputes within the body, the Civil Court will not interfere 
 if that forum has heard the case and pronounced judgment 
 in accordance with the rules of the Church and with justice, 
 and will not relieve a defendant from the consequences of 
 his own submission to the domestic tribunal : Bishop of Natal 
 v. Gladstone. 3 There is always a strong disinclination to 
 interfere with a domestic forum : Hopkinson v. Exeter. 4 
 Here the plaintiff voluntarily came into the Church and sub- 
 mitted to the rule forbidding one ecclesiastic to go to law 
 with another for words spoken of him in respect of his 
 character as a priest. This rule is not to be carried further 
 than as stated on the pleadings. It is not a general prohibi- 
 tion to go into a court of law. It deals only with a par- 
 ticular case. 
 
 The status of a minister of a non-established Church is 
 denned in Cooper v. Gordon.* The case of Innes v. Wylie 6 
 shows that a voluntary society may make rules for its 
 internal government; see also Dr. Warren's Case. 1 The 
 
 1 1 I. 0. L. 332. 
 
 2 Law of Creeds in Scotland. By A. T. Innes, 263. 
 8 L. 3 Eq. I. The King v. Hart, 1 W. Bl. 386. 
 
 4 L. E. 5 Eq. 63. 
 
 s L. K. 8 Eq. 249. 1 Car. & K. 257. 
 
 7 Compendium of the Laws of Wesleyan Methodism. By E. Grindrod, Ap. 
 371.
 
 10 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Argument only limitation is, that these rules must be consonant with 
 Defendant. na ^ ura l justice. They may make rules respecting the admis- 
 
 sion or expulsion of members. The present case is analogous. 
 
 Here a suspension was pronounced by a person endowed with 
 authority by the rules of the Church. Suppose a club make 
 a rule that cases of disputes among the members shall be 
 referred to a committee, and that a member who does not 
 abide by the decision of that committee shall be expelled, 
 that rule could not be pleaded, but a member violating it 
 could be expelled. It is said that a man cannot contract 
 himself out of the law. That is too wide a proposition. A 
 man may agree to arbitration : Dimsdale v. Robertson ; 1 
 Scott v. Corporation of Liverpool; 2 Thomas v. Fredericks. 3 
 This rule is not against public policy. It tends to pre- 
 vent scandal, and thus to preserve public morality. The 
 case of Richardson v. Mellish 4 shows how carefully the 
 Courts will consider this question. The cases cited are of 
 no force here. In them the rule was pleaded as a defence ; 
 here it is not pleaded. Similar conditions to that imposed 
 by this rule are recognized and enforced by law ; where, for 
 instance, legacies are left on condition that the will shall not 
 be disputed. Such a condition is no answer at law ; but, at 
 the same time, a legatee who violated it would be deprived 
 of his legacy: Cook v. Turner. 6 So in this case, the rule 
 against impleading an ecclesiastic could not have been 
 pleaded as a bar to the action brought by the plaintiff; but 
 the Church might enforce the rule and exclude him from its 
 membership. [WHITESIDE, C. J. If there was a rule that 
 an ecclesiastic should not prosecute another for a crime, 
 would that be good ?] Once a crime is committed the State 
 must interfere. [WHITESIDE, C. J. If the rule forbade 
 ecclesiastics to go to law at all, could it be made the ground 
 of depriving a man of some temporal benefit?] The rule 
 here does not oust the Court's jurisdiction. It only expels a 
 member from a society. A similar regulation is to be found 
 in almost every non-established Church : among the Wesleyan 
 Methodists; 6 in the Free Church of Scotland; the Cardross 
 
 1 2 Jon. & Lat. 68. * 3 De G. and J. 334. 
 
 8 10 Q. B. 775 4 2 Bing. 229. 
 
 4 15 M. & W. 727 ; 8. C. H Sim. 493. 
 Compendium of the Laws of Wesleyan Methodism. By E. Grindrod, p. 30.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 11 
 
 Case-, 1 Duribar v. Skinner;* among the Society of Friends. Argument 
 In the Scotch cases the person appealing to a court of law D g^ |f e t 
 
 was suspended bj the Spiritual Court without hearing him. 
 
 In this case it is admitted that the plaintiff was summoned, 
 but refused to attend. With respect to this, the first branch 
 of the argument, the demurrer should be overruled, on the 
 ground that the plaintiff had agreed to be bound by the 
 rules of the Church ; that by those rules, as admitted on the 
 pleadings, the Pope had power to issue the rescript, and that 
 by virtue of the rescript the Cardinal held a court, and 
 issued the sentence complained of, because of the violation 
 by the plaintiff of one of the rules which he had contracted 
 to observe, which rule was perfectly legal, and one which 
 the courts of law will recognize. 
 
 The next point is with respect to the legality of the 
 papal rescript, upon which the Cardinal's jurisdiction was 
 founded. We do not say the rescript gave the Cardinal 
 authority per se. It was the compact entered into by the 
 plaintiff as a priest that conferred this authority. The 
 rescript is merely the machinery by which the contract is 
 enforced. The mere fact that the Pope was the person who 
 under the contract had power to issue the rescript does not 
 affect the matter at all. It is not as Pope he acts, but as 
 the person named in the contract. The Emperor of Germany 
 was recently appointed by Government to decide a question 
 between England and America. His decision was recognized 
 and enforced, although it was a decision of a foreign power. 
 
 The statute of 2nd Elizabeth, c. 1 (Irish), which has 
 been referred to, was a continuation of previous statutes 
 passed for a particular purpose, viz., the statutes of Pro- 
 visors. These statutes, however, applied only to a State 
 Church, and referred to its revenues, and were intended to 
 prevent interference with the appointment to benefices in 
 that Church. 3 In the time of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, 
 it is true, they had a twofold object, viz., to protect the 
 revenues of the Church, and also to uphold and secure the 
 supremacy of the Crown. With respect to the statute of 
 Elizabeth, it is repealed by 9 & 10 Viet. c. 59. The 6th 
 
 1 Law of Creeds in Scotland. By A T. Innes, pp. 255, 284. 
 
 2 Ibid. By A. T. Innes, p. 252. 
 
 3 Reeves' History of the Law, vol. ii. p. 381.
 
 1 2 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Argument section defines the sort of authority which it is intended 
 sna U n fc be exercised by the spiritual power, but by the 
 Crown. That statute had reference to a State Church ; but 
 it has been practically repealed by later statutes 10 Geo. 
 4, c. 7 ; 29 Viet. c. 18 ; 30 & 31 Viet. c. 75 ; 32 & 33 Viet. 
 c. 42. 
 
 As to the point of pleading which has been raised, viz., 
 that we do not show any matter of fact to justify the innu- 
 endo ; that the plaintiff had acted in the manner stated in 
 the innuendo ; that therefore the innuendo is admitted ; we 
 submit that is not a ground of demurrer, but is rather a 
 matter for the jury when considering the question of malice. 
 We do not, it is true, show facts which rendered the plaintiff 
 unfit to hold his office ; but we show facts which create a 
 privilege to publish the words complained of. The privilege 
 flows from the duty imposed upon the defendant by the 
 laws of the Church : Whitely v. Adams ; * Halloran v. 
 Thompson. 2 
 
 We submit first, that the rule of the Roman Catholic 
 Church upon which the defendant acted was legal ; second, 
 that the statutes by which it is pretended that the rescript 
 was illegal do not apply to a voluntary Church, but only to a 
 State Church, and that they are repealed by subsequent 
 legislation ; third, that the question raised upon the pleading 
 is not for the Court, but for the jury. 
 
 BAKBY, J. : 
 
 This is an action of libel, in which the Rev. Robert 
 O'Keeffe is the plaintiff, and the Cardinal Archbishop of 
 Dublin is the defendant. The writ of summons and plaint 
 contains four counts. The first three counts set forth (as 
 the libel complained of) a sentence or judgment pronounced 
 against the plaintiff by the defendant, and purporting to 
 suspend the plaintiff from his office of parish priest of Call an, 
 and the fourth count alleges as the cause of action a certain 
 interdict promulgated against or in respect of the parish 
 chapel of Callan by the defendant, in connection with or as 
 consequent upon the sentence of suspension mentioned in the 
 three preceding counts. The sentence or judgment of suspen- 
 
 1 15 C. B. N. S. 392. 
 
 14 I. C. L. K. 334.
 
 R&v. Edb&rt O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cull&n. 13 
 
 sion, as translated into English in the three first counts, is as Mr. 
 follows: [The learned judge read them as above set out.] Justice 
 
 The innuendos attached to the statement of the alleged 
 
 libel in the first count are as follows : ( Meaning thereby 
 that the plaintiff had been guilty of such conduct and had 
 acted in such a manner as to render himself unfitted to 
 discharge the duties of his said office of parish priest of 
 Callan, or to administer the sacraments of the Roman Catholic 
 Church, or to hear the confessions of such of the parishioners 
 of the said parish as might come to him for that purpose,' 
 and * meaning thereby that the plaintiff was a person who was 
 not fit to fill the office of parish priest in the Roman Catholic 
 Church, or to officiate as such, and had so misconducted 
 himself as to render himself unfitted for the said office, and 
 that he ought to be deprived of the same.' The second 
 count uses the innuendo, ' meaning thereby that the plaintiff 
 had been legally suspended from and deprived of his said 
 office of parish priest.' The third count set out the sentence 
 of suspension as the libel, without any innuendo. The three 
 counts alleged by way of averment of special damage, that 
 by reason of the publication of the libel the plaintiff had 
 been dismissed from his office of chaplain to the Callan 
 Union Workhouse by the Poor Law Commissioners. The 
 interdict, as translated into English, in the fourth count 
 and the innuendo attached to that alleged libel are as 
 follows: [The learned Judge read the fourth count as 
 above set out.] The defences to these four counts and the 
 pleadings subsequent to the defences are as follows : 
 [The learned Judge stated the defences, replications, 
 rejoinder, and demurrers.] Such being the state of the 
 record as it is before us on these demurrers, it is obvious 
 that the action is brought for the purpose of questioning the 
 legality or justifiability of the sentence of suspension pro- 
 nounced by the defendant against the plaintiff; and for the 
 determination of that controversy the first topic submitted 
 for our consideration was, as might be expected, the status 
 (as it is called), in this country and under our laws, of the 
 Roman Catholic Church. Upon this point it was agreed 
 that the status of the Roman Catholic Church in this country status of 
 is the same as that of the Church of England in a colony ^ a e t j^ a 
 where it is not by law established of the non-established Church.
 
 14 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr Church in Scotland, and of the Wesleyan, and other Dissent- 
 Justice ing Churches in the United Kingdom namely, the status of 
 arry ' a voluntary association, the members of which subscribe or 
 assent to certain rules and regulations, and bind themselves 
 to each other to conform to certain laws and principles, the 
 obligation to such conformity and observance resting wholly 
 in the mutual contract of the members, enforcible only as 
 matter of contract by the ordinary tribunals of the land, 
 when brought within their cognizance, and not enforcible 
 under any independent coercive jurisdiction. This status of 
 such a Church or religious community is clearly established 
 by authorities cited, to one or two of which I shall refer. 
 In the case of Long v. The Bishop of Capetown, 1 the 
 appellant, a clergyman of the Church of England, and the 
 incumbent and minister of St. Peter's, Mowbray, in the 
 colony of the Cape of Good Hope, had been suspended by 
 his bishop from his ministry and deprived of his emoluments 
 as incumbent. To test the legality of this suspension and 
 deprivation he instituted in the Supreme Court a suit which 
 ultimately came on appeal before the Privy Council in 
 England. For the purpose of determining the question at 
 issue, it became necessary to consider and determine the status 
 in the colony of the Church of England, which it is admitted 
 in the argument here is the same condition as that possessed 
 by the Roman Catholic Church in this country, and the 
 law on this subject was thus laid down by Lord Kingsdowu. 
 His Lordship says at p. 461 : 
 
 'The Church of England, in places where there is no Church estab- 
 lished by law, is in the same situation with any other religious body, in 
 no better, but in no worse position ; and the members may adopt, as 
 the members of any other communion may adopt, rules for enforcing 
 discipline within their body, which will be binding on those who 
 expressly or by implication have aasented to them. 
 
 ' It may be further laid down that where any religious or other 
 lawful association has not only agreed on the terms of its union, but 
 has also constituted a tribunal to detennine whether the rules of the 
 association have been violated by any of its members or not, and what 
 shall be the consequence of such violation, the decision of such tribu- 
 nal will be binding, when it has acted within the scope of its authority, 
 has observed such forms as the rules require, if any forms be prescribed, 
 and if not, has proceeded in a manner consonant with the principles 
 of justice. 
 
 1 iMoo. P. C. C. . S.)4H.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Oullen. 15 
 
 1 In such cases the tribunals so constituted are not in any sense M>. 
 Courts; they derive no authority from the Crown ; they have no power Justice 
 of their own to enforce their sentences ; they must apply for that pur- arr 7- 
 pose to the Courts established by law, and such Courts will give effect 
 to their decision, as they give effect to the decisions of arbitrators, 
 whose jurisdiction rests entirely upon the agreement of the parties. 
 
 ' These are the principles upon which the Courts in this country 
 have always acted in the disputes which have arisen between members 
 of the same religious body, not being members of the Church of 
 England. They were laid down most distinctly, and acted upon by 
 Vice- Chancellor Shad well and Lord Lyndhurst in the Case of Dr. 
 Warren, so much relied on at the Bar, and the report of which in Mr. 
 Grindrod's book seems to bear every mark of accuracy. 
 
 ' To these principles, which are founded in good sense and justice, 
 and established by the highest authority, we desire strictly to adhere ; 
 and we proceed to consider how far the facts of this case bring Mr. 
 Long within their operation. 
 
 ' To what extent, then, did Mr. Long, by the acts to which we have 
 referred, subject himself to the authority of the bishop in temporal mat- 
 ters ? With the bishop's authority in spiritual affairs, or Mr. Long's 
 obligations in foro conscientice we have not to deal.' 
 
 And at p. 465 Lord Kingsdown proceeds : 
 
 ' It was strongly pressed, both before us and in the Court below, 
 that, supposing these sentences to be erroneous, Mr. Long had no remedy 
 against them, except by appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury under 
 the provisions of the Letters Patent. What authority his Grace might 
 possess under the Letters Patent or otherwise, to entertain such an 
 appeal, if it had been presented, it is unnecessary, and we think it is 
 inexpedient to discuss. It is sufficient to say, no such appeal has 
 been presented, and that the suit in which this appeal is brought 
 respects a temporal right, in which the appellant alleges that he has 
 been injured. It calls for a decision as to the right of property, and in- 
 volves the question, whether Mr. Long has ceased by law to be what in 
 England is termed cestui que trust of funds of which the bishop is trustee. 
 Whatever else Mr. Long may by his conduct have done, we cannot hold 
 that he has precluded himself from exercising the power which, under 
 similar circumstances, he would have possessed in England, of resorting 
 to a Civil Court for the restitution of civil rights, and of thereby giving 
 to such Courts jurisdiction to determine questions of an ecclesiastical 
 character essential to their decision. Indeed, in this case the appellant 
 and respondent have alike found it necessary to call upon the Civil 
 Court to determine the right of possession of the church of Mowbray.' 
 
 The same subject came under the consideration of Lord 
 as Master of the Rolls in England, in the case
 
 16 Cowrt of Queens Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. of The Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone. 1 That was a suit in- 
 justice stituted by Dr. Colenso, the Bishop of Natal, to compel the 
 ' trustees of ' The Colonial Bishoprics' Fund ' to pay him the 
 income of the endowment of his see, which they had refused 
 to pay, on the ground that a decision of the Privy Council 
 had declared that the Letters Patent creating him bishop 
 had failed to confer on him any coercive jurisdiction in the 
 colony, which had no independent Legislature. Lord 
 Romttly lays down the law as to voluntary Churches. He 
 says at p. 35 : 
 
 ' In order satisfactorily to explain my meaning in this matter, it is 
 necessary to point out what I consider to be the real position of the 
 Church of England in these colonies. It is declared in the judgment of 
 the Judicial Committee that the Church of England in the colonies, 
 which have an established Legislature, and no Church established by 
 law, is to be regarded in the light of a voluntary association, "in the 
 same situation with any other religious body, in no better, but in no 
 worse position ; and the members may adopt, as the members of any 
 other communion may adopt, rules for enforcing discipline within their 
 body, which will be binding on those who, expressly or by implication, 
 have assented to them." ' 
 
 And at p. 36, he proceeds : 
 
 ' The rule by which the Courts are bound is this : If any number 
 of persons, either in England or in any of its dependencies, associate 
 themselves together, professing to follow a particular religion, not being 
 the religion of the State, the Court must, when applied to, inquire into 
 what the doctrine and discipline of that religion are, and must then 
 enforce obedience to them accordingly. Thus, if they be Presbyterians, 
 or Independents, or Wesleyans, or Baptists, or the like, the Court 
 ascertains, as a matter of fact, upon proper evidence, what the doctrines, 
 ordinances, and rules are by which the particular sect of religionists is 
 bound, and enforces obedience to them accordingly. It is needless to cite 
 authorities to establish this proposition. The books abound with 
 decisions on the subject, all of the same character, many of which 
 have been cited and referred to in the case of Long v. Bishop of Cape- 
 town, and in the present case, and are familiar to every one conversant 
 with this subject. 
 
 'Thus, to apply that principle to the present case in illustration of 
 the observations I am now making, and explanatory of the passage I 
 have read from the case of Long v. Bishop of Capetown, if a class of 
 persons in one of the dependencies of the English Crown, having an 
 
 1 1 L. R. 3 Eq. 1.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 17 
 
 established Legislature, should found a Church, calling themselves Mr. 
 members of the Church of England, they would be members of the -Justice 
 
 Church of England, they would be bound by its doctrines, its ordinances, l 
 
 its rules, and its discipline, and obedience to them would be enforced by 
 the civil tribunals of the colony over such persons ; but if a class of 
 persons should, in any colony similarly circumstanced, call themselves 
 by any other name, such as for instance the Church of South Africa, 
 then the Court would have to inquire, as a matter of fact, upon proper 
 evidence, what the doctrines, ordinances, and discipline of that Church 
 were ; and when these were made plain, obedience to them would be 
 enforced against all the members of that Church.' 
 
 And at p. 49, Lord Romilly says : 
 
 ' The members of the Church in South Africa may create an 
 ecclesiastical tribunal to try ecclesiastical matters between themselves, 
 and may agree that the decisions of such a tribunal shall be final. 
 Whatever may be their nature or effect, upon this being proved, the 
 civil tribunal would enforce such decisions against all persons who had 
 agreed to be members of such an association, that is, against all the 
 persons who had agreed to be bound by these decisions, and it would do 
 so without inquiring into the propriety of such decisions.' 
 
 The same principle respecting non-established Churches 
 is to be found laid down by Scotch Judges in cases collected 
 in a very interesting work, ' Innes on Creeds ; ' but I do not 
 deem it necessary to refer in detail to these cases, because 
 the doctrine is so clearly established in the English cases 
 from which I have read. It will be found laid down in the Powers of 
 Scotch cases that the sentences of these voluntary ecclesias- tribunals 
 tical tribunals are examinable, and will be examined, by voluntary 
 the civil courts ; and this liability to examination, or, if I Churches, 
 may call it so, examinability of these sentences, has been 
 over and over again referred to in the course of the argument 
 of this case as a matter which, if once established, was con- 
 clusive on this demurrer against the defendant. I entirely 
 agree that the sentences of these voluntary tribunals are ex- 
 aminable, but such examination can only be had according 
 to the form and with the consequences belonging to our 
 ordinary tribunals and their modes of suit and defence. In 
 Scotland, there is a form of proceeding termed the ' reduc- 
 tion of sentence,' in which I believe the sentence or judg- 
 ment complained of is subjected to immediate and direct 
 review, and may be annulled or declared void, although even 
 
 c
 
 18 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. in Scotland, as would appear from the remarks of one dis- 
 arry 8 tinguished judge, reported in Mr. Innes' book, the sentence 
 of such a voluntary or consensual tribunal would not in the 
 proper sense of the term be reviewed, but would merely be 
 deprived of any validity as an obstacle to the prosecution of 
 civil rights and interests. But however this may be in Scot- 
 land, the sentence of a voluntary ecclesiastical tribunal 
 cannot be thus directly dealt with in our Courts ; such a 
 sentence can only be examined as a matter collateral or 
 necessarily and materially incidental to some other ground 
 of suit cognizable in our Courts, as for instance in a suit by 
 the person deprived for recovery or restitution of temporal 
 rights attached to the ecclesiastical office, as in the instances 
 of the Rev. Mr. Long and the Bishop of Natal, in the cases 
 referred to ; or the question of the legality of such sentence 
 may be raised, and, subject to certain limitations and con- 
 ditions, determined, in an action of libel. I say subject to 
 certain limitations and conditions, because it was perse- 
 veringly taken for granted by the learned counsel for the 
 plaintiff here, that if once it could be shown that the 
 sentence of suspension was for any purpose or in any manner 
 illegal, invalid, or inoperative, it followed as a matter of 
 course and inevitable necessity that this action of libel was 
 sustained, a proposition from which I must express my 
 dissent. From a consciousness of this difficulty it was 
 suggested in the progress of the argument, that because the 
 writ in this case contains, by way of averment of special 
 damage, a statement that the plaintiff was by reason of this 
 judgment or sentence deprived by the Poor Law Com- 
 missioners of a temporal office, therefore this may be regarded 
 as a suit to establish or assert a temporal right. But the 
 able counsel did not seriously press this argument, being too 
 learned and too experienced not to feel that such an argu- 
 ment was wholly untenable, and that an averment of special 
 damage cannot in such a manner alter the nature, the 
 character, or essential attributes of an action of libel. 
 
 Such then, as established by the authorities, to some of 
 which I have referred, being the status in this country of the 
 Roman Catholic Church in respect of its internal laws, its 
 discipline, and its tribunals, I shall now proceed to consider, 
 as briefly as possible, the specific questions raised for our
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 19 
 
 determination on these demurrers and although it may seem Mr. 
 an unnecessary remark, I deem it right to say that I propose 
 to decide these questions upon the only materials legitimate 
 for my consideration ; namely, the facts stated on the record, 
 and, for the purposes of this argument and our decision, 
 admitted to be true. I say this, because during the progress 
 of the discussion reference was made more than once to 
 extraneous matters or allegations of fact, and we were asked 
 to draw inferences and arrive at conclusions based upon these 
 extrinsic and foreign materials. Of these matters I have no 
 knowledge personal or judicial, and I entirely disclaim any 
 notice of them, as they were stated or suggested during the 
 argument. I form my judgment on this case, as I am bound 
 to do, solely and entirely upon the statements on the record, 
 construed by the ordinary rules of legal construction. For 
 convenience sake, I shall deal first with the second count, 
 the eleventh defence, the replication and rejoinder, because 
 on that section of the pleadings the chief points of con- 
 troversy between the parties are most broadly and simply 
 developed. The second count, it will be remembered, 
 attaches to the sentence of suspension (being the alleged 
 libel) this innuendo, * meaning thereby that the plaintiff 
 had been legally suspended from and deprived of his said 
 office of parish priest.' Now if I were at liberty in con- Nature 
 sidering this count to put my own construction upon the sentence 
 sentence of suspension as therein set forth, I should say that of suspen- 
 
 . . T , , , f . . sion corn- 
 
 it merely purports to pronounce a sentence of suspension in plained of. 
 
 accordance with the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, by 
 which the plaintiff (as it averred, and for the purposes of the 
 demurrer was admitted) agreed to be bound ; and such being 
 the construction of the alleged libel, the same meaning might 
 perhaps be ascribed to the words of the innuendo ; but the 
 plaintiff has by his counsel construed these words as mean- 
 ing that the alleged libel asserted and conveyed that the 
 sentence of suspension was such as would be valid and bind- 
 ing according to the law of this country, and enforced by 
 the ordinary tribunals, if the ecclesiastical superior were (as 
 described by Lord Kingsdown in Mr. Long's Case, or by Lord 
 Romilly in the case of The Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone) to 
 appeal to such ordinary Court to give effect to the judgment 
 of the Court of consensual jurisdiction. This interpretation 
 
 c 2
 
 20 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. of the words of the innuendo has been accepted by the 
 "Barry 6 defendant, who has by his counsel avowed that he has in the 
 
 eleventh defence justified the libel in that sense, and we are 
 
 therefore, I think, called upon to decide the issue of law so 
 knit between the parties ; and that issue is, whether using 
 the words in the sense so agreed upon between the parties 
 the plaintiff was ' legally ' suspended ? The plaintiff con- 
 tends that this sentence of suspension is, on the facts stated 
 on the record, illegal, invalid, and such as no Court of Law or 
 Equity would lend its aid to enforce, and in support of this 
 contention he relies on two grounds ; the first ground does 
 not appear on the defence, but on the replication and re- 
 joinder combined. Both these latter pleadings are very 
 vaguely framed, neither of them stating the terms or precise 
 tenor of the rule or ordinance the violation of which is 
 alleged to be the ground of the suspension. It was, how- 
 ever, admitted on the argument that the replication and re- 
 joinder taken together amount to this, that one of the rules 
 or ordinances of the Church which the plaintiff bound him- 
 Eule of self to obey was a rule that no ecclesiastic should implead 
 Catholic*" 1 an t ner ecclesiastic before a civil tribunal for slander 
 Church spoken of the complainant in his character of a priest ; and 
 be violated ^ e plaintiff contends that such rule is illegal, and so taints 
 by with illegality the sentence based upon the violation of such 
 
 11 ' rule as to render that sentence illegal, and that, therefore, 
 the plaintiff was not ' legally ' suspended. This branch 
 of the case was ably and elaborately argued. The discussion 
 was somewhat discursive, and amongst other matters it was 
 suggested by the plaintiff's counsel that the proposition in- 
 volved in the defendant's contention was, that ecclesiastics 
 of the Roman Catholic Church were exempt from the jurisdic- 
 tion of the ordinary tribunals of the land. The advocates 
 of our Bar are not, and I hope never will be, deficient in 
 courage, and sometimes, especially in cases involving the 
 disturbing elements of religious and political controversy, we 
 hear very startling assertions, but I do not believe that in 
 the whole range of the Irish Bar a sane man could be pro- 
 cured who would argue before this Court in support of such 
 a proposition. I shall not occupy time in laying down such 
 truisms as that no man is above the law that, layman or 
 cleric, every man is subject to the law and amenable to the
 
 Rev. Eobert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 21 
 
 Queen's Courts, nor shall I pause to recall to mind how very Mr. 
 many years it is since, in Catholic times too, such pretensions Barry 6 
 
 of ecclesiastics were rejected by our laws. Suffice it to say, . 
 
 that no such preposterous case is made on the defendant's 
 part, either in pleading or argument. The main, if not the Argument 
 only, ground upon which it was contended by the plaintiff's j^Ljdfty 
 counsel that the rule in question was illegal and invalid was, of Kule. 
 that it is a breach of the well-known maxim that private 
 parties cannot, by contract or agreement, oust the jurisdic- 
 tion of the Queen's Courts. That such a maxim exists can- 
 not be doubted, and I am of opinion that this rule of the 
 Church falls within it, but I do not agree that the maxim of 
 law referred to has the scope or operation attributed to it 
 by the plaintiff's counsel. The authorities, and the only 
 authorities upon which they relied in support of their 
 argument, and which they contended to be conclusive in their 
 favour, are the well-known cases upon contracts containing a 
 stipulation that differences arising between the parties are 
 not to be decided by suit at law or in equity, but referred to 
 the forum domesticum of an arbitration. It is perfectly true 
 that in these cases the terms * illegal ' and ' unlawful ' are 
 sometimes applied by Judges to designate such a stipulation ; 
 but in my opinion it is clear that these authorities establish 
 no more than this, that such contracts are unavailing to oust Nature of 
 the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals, or, in other words, n^to^e 
 that a stipulation not to sue cannot be pleaded in bar to an at law. 
 action brought in violation of the contract, but that such 
 agreement or stipulation not to sue is not ' illegal ' in any 
 more extended sense of the term. The counsel for the 
 plaintiff cited Kill v. Hollister. 1 That was an action on a 
 policy of insurance, which contained a clause that any loss 
 in dispute should be referred to arbitration, and the Court 
 held that if a reference were depending or determined, it 
 might have been a bar, but that the mere agreement to refer 
 could not oust the jurisdiction of the Court. It seems to me 
 an authority rather against than for the plaintiff here, for 
 the Court suggests (though the contrary is since decided) that 
 the pendency of a reference to arbitration might have been a 
 bar ; and it is difficult to understand how that could be if 
 the agreement to refer was ' illegal ' in the sense here con- 
 
 1 1 Wils. 129.
 
 22 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. tended for by the plaintiff. We were next referred to 
 Barry. Thompson v. ChamocJc. 1 That was an action of covenant, 
 
 and the defendant pleaded that in the deed there was a 
 
 covenant that differences should be settled by arbitration, and 
 the plea was, of course, held bad, Lord Kenyon saying, * It 
 is not necessary now to say how this point ought to be deter- 
 mined if it were res Integra, it having been decided again and 
 again that an agreement to refer all matters in difference to 
 arbitration is not sufficient to oust the Courts of Law or 
 Equity of their jurisdiction ; ' and nobody here contends 
 that it is. But the case relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel 
 as absolutely conclusive, being a decision, as they contended, 
 upon the very point by the Court of final resort, was Scott v. 
 Avery.* That was an insurance case. The policies con- 
 tained a condition that if a difference arose it was to be 
 referred to arbitration, f provided always that no insurer who 
 refused to accept the amount settled by the committee should 
 be entitled to maintain any action at law or suit in equity 011 
 his policy until the matter had been decided by the arbitra- 
 tors, and then only for such sum as the arbitrators should 
 award.' To an action on the policies this condition was 
 pleaded in bar. The Court of Exchequer held the plea bad. 
 The Court of Error held it good. There was an appeal to the 
 Lords, and the judges summoned gave their opinions seriatim, 
 and from these opinions and the judgments of the Lords I 
 shall extract such passages as bear upon the point now under 
 consideration. 
 
 Mr. Justice Crowder says, at p. 823 : 
 
 ' In this view the doctrine referred to by plaintiff's counsel, that no 
 agreement of parties can oust the Courts of Law of jurisdiction is inapplic- 
 able to the present case ; for in all the cases in which that doctrine has 
 been applied there has been a clear cause of action existing upon the 
 covenant or agreement, independently of the particular covenant or 
 agreement to refer. Such were the cases of Kill v. Hollister, and 
 Thompson v. Charnock, relied upon by the plaintiff.' 
 
 Mr. Justice Wightrnan, at p. 831, is thus reported : 
 
 ' The only question in this case is, whether the effect of the 25th 
 rule of the association, referred to in the policy, is to withdraw the 
 cognizance of the whole cause of action from the Courts of Law, and to 
 
 1 8T. R. 139. 5H. L. C. 811.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 23 
 
 oust them of their jurisdiction, or only to impose upon the assurer a Mr. 
 condition preliminary to his right to sue for a loss, that the amount of v^ 8 
 the loss shall be ascertained by arbitration. It may be that if the effect . 
 
 of the 25th rule would be to oust the Courts of Law of their jurisdiction, 
 and to oblige the assurer to submit his entire right to recover to the de- 
 termination of arbitrators, the pleas relying upon that rule Avould be 
 bad, and the plaintiff in error would be entitled to judgment.' 
 
 Mr. Justice Crompton says (p. 832) : 
 
 ' On the argument of this case the counsel for the defendant in 
 error, admitting the general rule that an agreement to refer and not to 
 sue upon a cause of action cannot be pleaded as a bar to an action, con- 
 tended that the present case did not fall within that rule on two 
 
 grounds I think, however, that the case falls 
 
 within the rule of law which will not allow a stipulation in a contract 
 forbidding the party to have recourse to a court of law to prevail as a 
 bar to an action on the contract. Here the effect of the provision is, 
 that there shall be no action on the policy in which the matters really 
 in dispute can be decided, but that they shall be referred to a private 
 tribunal, and that the only action shall be on the award of the private 
 tribunal. 
 
 ' If such a clause were valid as a bar to an action, there might, in 
 every contract, be a clause that there should be no right of action in the 
 courts of law until the matters had been referred to arbitration, or to 
 some private or particular tribunal, and then only on the award or 
 decision of that tribunal, which would effectually take away the juris- 
 diction of the legal tribunals, contrary, as I think, to the long-established 
 rule which has hitherto prevailed on this subject. 
 
 ' It is a legal incident to every contract that the parties should have 
 a right to resort to a court of law for the settlement of their disputes ; 
 and a stipulation to the contrary is void, as being repugnant to the rest 
 of the contract.' 
 
 Mr. Justice Cresswell says (p. 837) : 
 
 ' The whole of the doctrine as to ousting the jurisdiction of the 
 Courts appears to have been based upon the passage quoted by Mr. 
 Baron Parke from Coke Littleton. " If a man make a lease for life, and 
 by deed grant that if any waste or destruction be done that it shall be 
 redressed by neighbours, and not by suit or plea ; notwithstanding an 
 action for waste shall lie, for the place wasted cannot be recovered with- 
 out plea." The case is not to be found in the Year Book, 3 Edw. 3, 
 referred to, but is in Fitzherbert's Abridgment, 'Waste,' placitum 5, 
 and the whole of it is given in Coke Littleton. It seems that this deci- 
 sion proceeded on the ground that the neighbours could not redress the
 
 24 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Mr. wrong done ; that it could only be done by plea ; therefore, notwith- 
 Justice standing the deed, an action of waste would lie. There is not a word 
 
 leading to the supposition that an action would have been maintainable, 
 
 if neighbours could have given the appropriate redress, or that it might 
 not have been granted by deed ; that if a dispute arose about waste, 
 neighbours should say whether there had been waste or not. But in 
 subsequent cases it has been considered to have established that parties 
 cannot by agreement oust the jurisdiction of the Courts of the realm. 
 But if this point of the rule is not illegal, as at- 
 tempting to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts, and not void as 
 repugnant to the contract, it appears to me that the subsequent part of 
 the rule cannot be objected to, for it merely substitutes another mode of 
 ascertaining the amount to be paid if the claimant is dissatisfied with 
 the adjustment by the committee.' 
 
 At p. 841, Mr. Justice Coleridge is thus reported: 
 
 ' The principle of law which is relied on by the plaintiff in error is 
 agreed on. The difference between the parties is upon the qiiestion, 
 whether it governs the present case; and this must be decided by 
 determining the true construction of the agreement. If two parties 
 enter into a contract, for the breach of which in any particular an action 
 lies, they cannot make it a binding term, that in such event no action 
 shall be maintainable, but that the only remedy shall be by reference 
 to arbitration. Whether this rests on a satisfactory principle or not 
 may well be, questioned ; but it has been so long settled that it cannot 
 be disturbed. The courts will not enforce or sanction an agreement 
 which deprives the subject of that recourse to their jurisdiction, which 
 has been considered a right inalienable even by the concurrent will of 
 
 the parties I certainly am not disposed to extend 
 
 the operation of a rule which appears to me to have been founded on 
 very narrow grounds directly contrary to the spirit of later times, which 
 leaves parties at full liberty to refer their disputes at pleasure to public 
 or private tribunals.' 
 
 Mr. Baron Alderson says (p. 844) : 
 
 ' Two propositions were conceded on all hands as being true. First, 
 that any agreement which is to prevent the suffering party from coming 
 into a court of law, or, in other words, which ousts the courts of their 
 jurisdiction, cannot be supported ; and, second, it is allowed that there 
 may be lawfully introduced into any contract a condition precedent as 
 to settling the amount of damage or time of paying it, being a condi- 
 tion which does not go to the root of the matter in dispute.' 
 
 The Lord Chancellor, in moving that the judgment below 
 should be affirmed, says (p. 845) :
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 25 
 
 ' This question appears to me to be one merely of construction of Mr. 
 the policy. For there is no doubt of the general principle, which was Justice 
 
 argued at your Lordships' Bar, that parties cannot by contract oust the " 
 
 ordinary courts of their jurisdiction. That has been decided in many 
 cases. Perhaps the first case I need refer to was a case decided about 
 
 a century ago, Kill v. Hollister There is no 
 
 doubt that where a right of action has accrued, parties cannot by con- 
 tract say that there shall not be jurisdiction to enforce damages in 
 respect of that right of action. Now, this doctrine depends upon the 
 general policy of the law, that parties cannot enter into a contract which 
 gives rise to a right of action for the breach of it, and then withdraw 
 such a case from the jurisdiction of ordinary tribunals.' 
 
 In expressing his concurrence in the conclusion of the 
 Lord Chancellor, Lord Campbell says (p. 851) : 
 
 ' In the first place, I think the contract between the shipowner and 
 the underwriters in this case is as clear as the English language could 
 make it, that no action should be brought against the insurers until the 
 arbitrators had disposed of any dispute that might arise between them. 
 Tt is declared to be a condition precedent to the bringing of any action. 
 There is no doubt that such was the intention of the parties ; and upon 
 a deliberate view of the policy, I am of opinion that it embraced 
 not only the assessment of damage, the contemplation of quantum, 
 but also any dispute that might arise between the underwriters and the 
 insured respecting the liability of the insurers, as well as the amount 
 paid. If there had been any question about want of seaworthiness, or 
 deviation, or breach of blockade, I am clearly of opinion that upon a 
 just construction of this instrument, until those questions had been 
 determined by the arbitrators, no right of action could have accrued 
 to the insured. That being the intention of the parties, about which, 
 I believe, there is no dispute, is the contract illegal ? There is an 
 express undertaking that no action shall be brought until the arbitra- 
 tors have decided, and there is abundant consideration for that in the 
 mutual contract into which the parties have entered ; therefore, unless 
 there is some illegality in the contract the Courts are bound to give it 
 effect. There is no statute against such a contract ; then on what 
 ground is it to be declared illegal ? It is contended that it is contrary 
 to public policy ; that is rather a dangerous ground to go upon. I say 
 that with great deference before your Lordships, after the view that was 
 taken in a very important case lately decided in this House ; but what 
 pretence can there be for saying that there is anything contrary to 
 public policy in allowing parties to contract that they shall not be liable 
 to any action until their liability has been ascertained by a domestic 
 and private tribunal, upon which they themselves agree ? Can the
 
 26 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Mr. public be injured by it? It seems to me that it would be a most 
 Justice inexpedient encroachment upon the liberty of the subject if he were not 
 
 _ allowed to enter into such a contract. Take the case of an insurance 
 
 club, of which there are many in the north of England ; a noble Lord, 
 now present, who is connected with that part of the country, is probably 
 aware of it; there are insurance clubs of this sort in Newcastle and in 
 all the seaports of the north. Is there anything contrary to public 
 policy in saying that the company shall not be harassed by actions, the 
 costs of which might be ruinous, but that any dispute that arises shall 
 be referred to a domestic tribunal, which may speedily and economically 
 determine the dispute ? I can see not the slightest ill consequences that 
 can flow from such an agreement, and I see great advantage that may 
 arise from it. Public policy, therefore, seems to me to require that 
 effect should be given to the contract. 
 
 ' Because all that has been hitherto decided 
 
 in Thompson v. Charnock, and the other cases referred to, is this, that if 
 the contract between the parties simply contains a clause or covenant to 
 refer to arbitration, and goes no further, then an action may be brought 
 in spite of that clause, although there has been no arbitration.' 
 
 It seems to ine perfectly clear, whatever meaning isolated 
 expressions may be susceptible of, that, taken as a whole, 
 these opinions of the judges, and the judgments of the Lords 
 in that case, affirm only that an agreement not to sue cannot 
 be pleaded in bar to an action, and are inconsistent in 
 language and result with the existence of any such illegality 
 as the plaintiff here asserts. I have not, however, as yet, 
 referred to the opinion given to the Lords in that case by- 
 Mr. Baron Martin. The views of that learned judge are 
 entitled to special consideration, because he examines the 
 doctrine in detail, and deals in express terms with the very 
 point now in dispute; and differing, as he did, from the 
 decision of the Lords, that the plea was good, he may be 
 assumed to have stated the rule, as strongly as the law per- 
 mitted, in favour of the view advanced by the plaintiff in 
 this action. The learned Baron, at p. 825 of the report, 
 says : 
 
 ' In the argument before your Lordships, it was not contended but 
 that the law upon this subject was correctly laid down in the case of 
 
 Thompson v. Charnock Lord Kenyon, 
 
 in delivering the judgment of the Court, said it had been decided again 
 and again that an agreement to refer to arbitration is not sufficient to 
 oust the courts of law or equity of their jurisdiction. The authority 
 of this case has, I believe, never been doubted The
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 27 
 
 manifest object of the parties was to keep away from the jurisdiction of Mr. 
 the ordinary Courts of Law and Equity any question of difference which Justice 
 might arise upon the contracts, and merely to make use of the courts to 
 enforce the award of the arbitrators. This, in my judgment, the law 
 will not permit ; and whether it be attempted to be done directly or 
 
 indirectly, I think the attempt is equally unavailing 
 
 It was asked, were these conditions illegal ? The answer is, they are 
 not ? that they are of the same class of contracts as all submissions to 
 arbitration were before the statute 3 and 4 Wm. 4, c. 42, and as such 
 submissions now which are not included within its provisions, viz., 
 binding and operative if the parties choose to act upon them, but re- 
 vocable at their will It has been said that parties 
 
 best understand their own affairs, and ought to be permitted to make 
 their own contracts : and the less courts of law and equity interfere 
 except merely to enforce them, the better. There can be no doubt of the 
 truth of this as a general rule : but there are certain contracts which no 
 one would contend ought to be binding ; for instance, suppose a man 
 to contract to commit a crime, or to become the slave of another for 
 life, all would agree that such contracts were not binding, and could not 
 be enforced in any court. There, therefore, must be some limit. I 
 quite agree it is and ought to be a very narrow one ; but in my 
 opinion, the law has included within the limit stipulations whereby a 
 man agrees that questions arising upon his contracts and transactions 
 shall be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals 
 cf the country ; such stipulations, I think, are of the same class as 
 simple submissions to arbitration are at common law, and in their 
 essential nature revocable. I cannot see any distinction in this respect 
 between contracts made to submit a contemplated difference to 
 arbitration and a contract made after one has actually arisen. 
 
 'It was said that the real ground of the judgment in the cases where 
 the agreement to refer was held not to bar the action was, that they 
 were independent covenants ; but this is most certainly not so. The 
 true ground I believe to be, that a prospective agreement not to have 
 recourse to the courts of law or equity of the country in respect of future 
 causes of action to arise, is against the liberty of the law, which secures 
 to every one the right of submitting to the Courts any matter in respect 
 of which he claims redress.' 
 
 In my opinion, the law is there fully, accurately, and Contracts 
 distinctly stated by Baron Martin, viz., that such agreements to law not 
 are not illegal, but inoperative to oust the jurisdiction of the | lle g al . but 
 Courts. Counsel for the plaintiff also cited Horton v. Sayer. 1 tim 
 That was an action on a covenant contained in a lease, and 
 the defendant pleaded in bar a covenant that all matters 
 
 1 4 H. & N. 643.
 
 28 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Mr. o f dispute should be referred to arbitration. The plea was 
 Barry. held bad, because it went to oust the jurisdiction of the 
 
 Court. Chief Baron Pollock states the ratio decidendi in a 
 
 few words : 
 
 ' It appears to me that this case is distinguishable from Scott v. 
 Avery : but it is sufficipnt to say that not being governed by Scott v. 
 Avert/, it falls within the rule which has been acted on for above a 
 century, and according to which the superior courts of law cannot be 
 ousted of their jurisdiction by the mere agreement of the parties; or in 
 other words, that an agreement to refer does not prevent the parties 
 from resorting to a court of law to enforce their rights or redress their 
 wrongs.' 
 
 These cases then, in my opinion, clearly decide no more 
 than this, that an agreement not to sue, but to refer to arbi- 
 tration, cannot be pleaded in bar to an action. In the 
 course of the argument for the Plaintiff, I referred to the 
 case of Livingston v. Ralli, 1 which is certainly strong against 
 the plaintiff's contention that such a stipulation is 'illegal,' 
 for it decides that an action can be maintained for the breach 
 of such an agreement. That was an action on a contract 
 containing a prospective agreement that any difference arising 
 should be referred to arbitration, and the breach alleged was 
 a refusal by the defendant to concur in the reference; and it 
 was held on demurrer that the action lay. Lord Campbell 
 says : 
 
 ' Why should not such a promise be binding, and one for the breach 
 of which an action will lie ? Can it be said that such an agreement is 
 
 void as being immoral, or as contrary to public policy ? 
 
 There seems at one time to have prevailed in our courts a horror of a 
 domestic forum which I can neither sympathise with nor account for.' 
 
 And he refers to the provisions of the Common Law 
 Procedure Act, enabling the Courts to stop an action where 
 there is an agreement to refer. Mr. Justice Coleridge 
 says : 
 
 ' The fallacy of the argument consists in confounding two separate 
 cases ; one where the defendant relies on such an agreement as a bar 
 to an action, a defence which if successful would oust the Court of its 
 jurisdiction; the other, which is the present, where the plaintiff seeks 
 damages for not fulfilling the agreement.' 
 
 1 5E. &B. 132.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 29 
 
 The distinction between absolute illegality and mere Mr. 
 inoperativeness as a bar to an action is there clearly and 
 unequivocally taken. I am therefore of opinion that, although 
 the cases clearly show (what indeed could not be disputed) 
 that this rule of ecclesiastical discipline could not be pleaded in Catholic 
 bar to an action brought in violation of its provisions, yet Church not 
 they entirely fall short of establishing that the rule is illegal 
 and void in the sense contended for by the plaintiff. But it 
 was suggested that this rule of the Church differs from the 
 stipulations not to sue in the cases referred to, because in 
 these cases there was an agreement to refer the dispute to 
 arbitration, whereas here the party aggrieved would have no 
 remedy at all against the slanderer. If that were so alleged Are the 
 on the record as a matter of fact, it would, in my opinion, p 01 ? 3 ?. 
 very materially alter the position of affairs upon the point I Clergy 
 am now considering. It would be difficult indeed to main- Wlth ut 
 
 1 m . remedy? 
 
 tain that any court in this country would lend its aid to 
 enforce a rule that a man should submit "without redress to 
 defamation, and the loss through slander of that good name 
 which is to many a man more precious than life itself. But 
 no such case is made by the plaintiff on his replication. He 
 does not aver in that pleading that the plaintiff was by the 
 rule of the Church excluded or debarred from any redress for 
 the slander in respect of which he had sued the other eccle- 
 siastics. No such averment appears by implication. We can- 
 not presume facts to constitute illegality. In truth, this point 
 of the absence, under the rules of the Church, of any redress 
 for the slander, was suggested by an observation of a member 
 of the Court, and was palpably not in the contemplation of 
 the pleader who framed the replication, which it is clear was 
 never intended to raise such a point. The fair construction 
 of that pleading raises only the one question, namely, that 
 the exclusion of the plaintiff from the Queen's Courts renders 
 the rule of the Church illegal, irrespective altogether of the 
 existence or non-existence of any other mode of obtaining 
 redress. But, then, it is said that the rule of the Church Is the 
 under discussion differs from a mere stipulation in a specific rttle a . 
 
 conspiracy 
 
 contract between parties, and, being a general agreement against 
 between the members of a religious community that the 
 ecclesiastics should not in certain cases resort to the civil 
 tribunal, is illegal as a conspiracy, such as that alleged in the
 
 30 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. case of The Queen v. O'Gonnell and others, 1 and we were re- 
 Justice ferred to the charge delivered to the grand jury in that case by 
 Mr. Justice Burton. That learned judge says, in his address to 
 the grand jury : ' I here allude to the charge of endeavour- 
 ing to bring into contempt and disrepute the legal tribunals 
 of the country ; to diminish the confidence of the Queen's 
 subjects in the same, and to assume and usurp the prerogative 
 of the Crown in the establishment of courts for the adminis- 
 tration of the law.' On this point I shall only say that I 
 would hold such a conspiracy as there described by Mr. 
 Justice Burton to be grossly illegal and criminal ; but the 
 existence of such a conspiracy is not averred here, and, unless 
 we are to subvert all the well-known rules of pleading and 
 Is the presumption, we cannot presume it. But then, it is said 
 contrary that, independently of all the before-mentioned considera- 
 te public tions, or of any express authority, we should, on abstract 
 principles, decide that this rule of the Church is void as 
 against public policy or the policy of the law. If the matter 
 were wholly res integra I am not prepared to say that I 
 would regard it as at all against public policy that there 
 should be a rule in any Church that the ministers of religion 
 should not bring actions of slander against each other for 
 words spoken in relation to ecclesiastical matters. I see 
 nothing immoral in such a rule, or against the public good, 
 and such a regulation may be the means of avoiding miser- 
 able scandals, useless for any good purpose, but disastrously 
 Similar injurious to the interests of religion. But the fact is, that 
 ot ] 1M . rules similar in character, but more extensive in their scope 
 Societies. an <l operation, have existed and prevailed in various commu- 
 nities in England, Ireland, and Scotland. For example, such 
 a rule exists in Trinity College, Dublin, in the Society of 
 Quakers, and in the Wesleyan community. The rule of 
 Trinity College, Dublin, is found in the Letters Patent of 
 13 Chas. 1 : 
 
 ' Omnes lites domesticse intra Collegium et cognoscantur et (si fieri 
 potest) dijudicentur. Qui foras vero aliquem in jus vocaverit, sine 
 Praepositi et majoris partis Sociomm Senioruui consensu, Collegio 
 amoveatur : appellationem tamen ex justa caus& gravaminis ad Visita- 
 tores Collegii non impedimus.' 
 
 1 Thf Queen v. O'Conrell, p. 6 [Reported by J. S. Armstrong and E. S. Trevor].
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 31 
 
 The rule and discipline of the Wesleyans is to be found Mr- 
 in * Grindrod's Compendium,' at p. 30 : Barry. 
 
 ' That no charge brought by one preacher against another in the 
 same district shall be heard in the Conference, unless previously 
 examined in the district meeting, if the matter alleged in such charge 
 were then in existence ; and that all charges shall be previously an- 
 nounced, personally or in writing, to the brother against whom they are 
 directed. 
 
 'In case a preacher is charged with immorality, or has a private dif- 
 ference with a brother-minister in the same district, each party is at 
 liberty to choose two preachers of the same district ; and they, with the 
 Chairman, are competent to decide and settle the same, until the annual 
 district meeting. And in every case an accused preacher can, without 
 any obstruction, carry his cause from the inferior to the superior court 
 when he is dissatisfied with the decision of the former ; but in order to 
 this he must give to the Chairman of his district, and the party by whom 
 he is accused, due notice of his intention to appeal to the Conference. 
 Every preacher under suspension, who intends to appeal to the higher 
 court, must in the interim, peaceably submit to his sentence, and conform 
 to the general discipline of the body. An appeal to any civil jurisdiction 
 is a violation of an established rule of our society, as well as of the law 
 of the New Testament ; and he who takes such a step forfeits his right 
 of appeal to the Conference.' 
 
 We find a similar rule existing in the non-established 
 Church of Scotland, and I believe the law of Scotland is 
 substantially the same as the law of England with respect 
 to contracts against public policy or the policy of the law. 
 An instance of the enforcement of this rule is given in 
 ' Innes on Creeds/ at p. 254 : 
 
 ' Seventeen years after the High party in the Establishment finally 
 left it, protesting that they were the true representatives of the Free 
 Church of Scotland, one of their ministers was accused of misconduct in 
 his Presbytery, and the libel, partly sustained by the Presbytery, but 
 wholly refused by the Synod, came by appeal to the Assembly. The 
 Assembly, having all the evidence in the case in their hands in print, 
 insisted on taking up the whole matter as it had originally come before 
 the Presbytery, and found the accused guilty to a considerably larger 
 extent than the Presbytery originally had done. This course was taken 
 only after long reasoning on Church law, and the nobile officium of the 
 Assembly, the constitutional objections to it being strongly urged by 
 Mr. Macmillan before the sentence, which was resolved upon by a 
 majority, was pronounced. He at once appealed to the civil court 
 against a judgment which unquestionably drew after it results affecting
 
 32 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Mr. his civil interests and emoluments, by presenting a Note of Suspension 
 Justice an( j interdict. A copy of the Note f Suspension having been served 
 
 arry ' upon the Assembly in ordinary form while it was still sitting, they 
 instantly resolved " to cite Mr. Macmillan to appear at their bar on 
 Tuesday, the 1st day of June next, at 12 o'clock noon, to answer for 
 his conduct thereanent." He appeared accordingly (preceded by a 
 messenger-at-arms, who served upon the Moderator a Summons of 
 Eeduction of the previous sentence, the interdict against its execution 
 having been refused in the Bill Chamber), and being ordered by the 
 Assembly to say (yea or nay, without explanation or defence), whether 
 or not he had authorised the application to the civil court, he answered 
 Yes; upon which, by the immediate and unanimous resolution of the 
 Assembly, and " in respect of the reply so given," he was deposed on the 
 spot from the office of the holy ministry.' 
 
 We were also referred to the case of Egerton v. Brownlow, 1 
 and other authorities on the law of e conditions subse- 
 quent ' attached to gifts of property, and it was asserted by 
 the plaintiff's counsel that the non-observance of this rule 
 of the Church would be void and illegal as such a condition. 
 I do not think it necessary to consider these authorities. It 
 is not at all clear that a good condition or limitation might 
 not be framed determining an estate upon the breach by the 
 grantee of such a rule of ecclesiastical discipline ; but, even 
 assuming it to be otherwise, and the assertion of the plain- 
 tiff's counsel to be in this respect well-founded, the point 
 would not be decisive in favour of the plaintiff's contention 
 in this case. It does not follow that because the non- 
 observance or violation of a rule of a Church may not con- 
 stitute a good condition subsequent for the determination 
 of an estate, that therefore such breach of discipline cannot 
 be a good and valid ground of suspension. For example, 
 nothing is more clearly settled than that a condition in 
 restraint of marriage is illegal and void, and yet it would 
 not, I presume, be argued that a Eoman Catholic priest in 
 Ireland cannot be suspended for violating his vow of celibacy. 
 Tor these reasons, I am of opinion that, on the first ground 
 relied upon, the plaintiff has failed to establish the ' ille- 
 gality ' of the sentence of suspension. Before proceeding 
 to examine the second ground relied on, I may pause for a 
 moment to refer to a suggestion I cannot call it an argu- 
 
 ' 4 H. L. c. i.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 33 
 
 ment thrown out during the discussion, namely, that the MJ.. 
 plaintiff was not cited before the tribunal by which he was Justice 
 
 sentenced, and it was alleged that the only notice he had * 
 
 of any proceeding was a letter put into his hand announcing 
 his suspension. This may be true or it may be false, all I 
 can say is that such a state of facts does not appear on this 
 record. It is clearly and distinctly averred that the plaintiff 
 appeared before the tribunal, and made his defence, and that 
 the whole proceedings were in accordance with the rules and 
 discipline which he had bound himself to conform to and obey. 
 
 I shall now proceed to examine the second ground upon Wag 
 which the plaintiff contends that the sentence of suspension sentence 
 must be regarded as ' illegal ' in the sense imputed. This : ega ' 
 contention is based upon the statements of the defence 
 showing the papal constitution and authority of the tribunal 
 to which the plaintiff submitted, and by which the sentence 
 of suspension was pronounced. The plaintiff contends that 
 the sentence of a tribunal so constituted is, within the meaning 
 of the innuendo, ' illegal ' at the common law and by statute. 
 In support of this view, counsel for the plaintiff referred us 
 to several statutes, all of which, together with many more, 
 ranging from a very early period up to the 27 Eliz., will be 
 found collected and set out in Cawdrey's Case. 1 One only 
 of these statutes is it necessary for the purpose of this case 
 to consider, namely, the 2 Eliz. c. 1 (Irish), corresponding to 
 1 Eliz. c. 1 (Eng.). [The learned judge read the 5th and 
 12th sections of 2 Eliz. c. 1 (Irish).] In order to show that 
 this statute is recognised in modern legislation as being, 
 so far as is necessary for the plaintiff's contention, still in 
 force, we were referred to the statute of the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 
 59. [The learned judge read the portion of the statute.] 
 And the counsel contended, on the authority of Cawdrey's 
 Case, that the statute of Elizabeth is in its principle merely 
 declaratory of the common law. On the part of the defen- 
 dant it was argued that the provisions of the statute of 
 Elizabeth had only regard to encroachments by the papal 
 power on the Church temporalities of the kingdom, and did 
 not apply to the exercise of a jurisdiction purely spiritual, 
 such as was exercised in the present case ; and further, that 
 at all events these provisions must be regarded as impliedly 
 
 1 5 Kep., Part. I. 
 D
 
 34 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 Justice 
 Barry. 
 
 The 
 
 Cardinal's 
 
 tribunal 
 
 illegally 
 
 constituted 
 
 under 
 
 papal 
 
 rt'script. 
 
 As to 
 canonical 
 validity of 
 sentence. 
 
 repealed by subsequent legislation by the Emancipation 
 Act, the Charitable Bequests Act, and the Ecclesiastical 
 Titles Act. I have carefully weighed these arguments, so 
 ably advanced by the defendant's counsel. I do not deem 
 it necessary to determine how far persons exercising or 
 maintaining the jurisdiction described in this defence 
 might, prior to the Act 9 & 10 Viet. c. 59, have been subject 
 to the penalties of the 12th section of the statute of Eliza- 
 beth, or whether subsequent legislation may not, for some 
 purposes, or with respect to some matters, have repealed by 
 implication some of the provisions of that statute, nor 
 whether, in the administration of a charitable bequest, regard 
 should not be paid to the sentence of such a tribunal ; but I 
 am of opinion (though not without doubt and hesitation), 
 that the positive and comprehensive 5th section of 2 Eliz. c. 
 1 (Irish), has not been repealed ; that the constitution of 
 the tribunal, and the exercise by it of jurisdiction, as 
 described and set out in the defence, fall within the prohibi- 
 tion of that section ; that, consequently, no court in this 
 country would lend its aid to the ecclesiastical superior 
 to enforce the sentence, and that, therefore, to that extent 
 at all events, the sentence is ' illegal ' within the meaning of 
 the word, as used in the pleading, and that judgment must 
 be given for the plaintiff upon this llth defence, upon the 
 ground that he was not ' legally ' suspended as alleged. 
 
 I shall consider the third count next, because to that 
 count also there is a defence of justification. That count 
 merely sets out the sentence of suspension without any 
 innuendo. In my opinion, the sentence, upon its fair con- 
 struction, and in the absence of any innuendo, purports to 
 convey or allege no more than a suspension according to, 
 and in conformity with, the rules and discipline of the 
 Church, by which the plaintiff consented to be bound. The 
 defence justifies it in that sense, and sets out facts which, if 
 true, as we are bound on this demurrer to assume them to 
 be, show a suspension de facto, valid and binding according 
 to these rules and that discipline. It is unnecessary to 
 observe that I do not profess to give any opinion whatever 
 as to the validity or invalidity, as matter of fact, in a 
 canonical point of view of this sentence. There is indeed 
 very recent and very high authority for thinking that the
 
 Pev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 35 
 
 allegation of the consensual authority of the Pope is well Mr. 
 founded in fact. Earl Russell, in his recent work, ' The 
 History of the Christian Religion,' speaking of the very con- 
 troversy out of which this case has arisen, says (p. 320), * The 
 Pope, as the head of the Roman Church, had the right to opinion, 
 appoint and to displace the parish priest of Callan.' I do not 
 pretend to give any opinion on the point ; all I say is, that, 
 if the facts stated on this defence be true, the plaintiff appears 
 to have been duly suspended according to the laws and discip- 
 line of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 I shall now proceed to what are called the defences of 
 ' privileged communication.' These defences are pleaded to 
 each of the three counts which complain of the sentence of 
 suspension, and are, in numerical order, the 9th and 10th 
 on the record. I may here observe that these defences, as 
 well, indeed, as the other defences, underwent some verbal 
 criticism from Mr. Holmes, who argued that the consensual 
 character of the jurisdiction exercised by the defendant did 
 not with sufficient distinctness appear. This line of argu- 
 ment, however, was relinquished by Mr. Purcell in his able 
 reply, and I think wisely so, for such a controversy would 
 probably have resulted only in an amendment, whilst on the 
 other hand, by accepting the defendant's construction of 
 the pleading, the plaintiff cannot be damnified at the trial, 
 because the defendant must there adopt the same construc- 
 tion, and if he fails to prove that the plaintiff had contracted 
 to be bound by the rules of the Church, and that the judg- 
 ment of suspension was in conformity with these rules, there 
 must be a verdict against him on all the special defences. I 
 shall, therefore, deal with these defences as sufficiently aver- 
 ring that the plaintiff had agreed and bound himself to obey 
 and conform to the rules and discipline of the Church, and 
 that the proceedings against him, and the sentence of his 
 suspension, were in accordance and conformity with such 
 rules and discipline. These defences do not aver the truth Was the 
 of the alleged libel. Admitting its untruth, admitting the f 01 ^"^' ' 
 defamatory meaning ascribed to it by the innuendo, they communi- 
 profess to show that it was published under such circum- catlOQ>? 
 stances as to divest it of its libellous character and constitute 
 it what is called a ' privileged communication.' The legal 
 canon as to what communications are privileged is stated in 
 
 D 2
 
 36 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. the first volume of the late edition (1871) of the notes to 
 Barry. William's Saunders, at page 143, in the following terms : 
 
 ' A communication made bond fide upon any subject-matter in which 
 the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he 
 has a duty, is privileged, if made to a person having a corresponding 
 interest or duty, although it contain criminatory matter which, without 
 this privilege, would be slanderous and actionable.' 
 
 This canon is taken from the judgment of Lord Campbell 
 in Harrison v. Bush, 1 where that experienced judge adds 
 
 ' Duty, in the proposed canon, cannot be confined to legal duties 
 which may be enforced by indictment, action, or mandamus, but must 
 include moral and social duties of imperfect obligation.' 
 
 The defence thus consists of two branches, one involving 
 a question of law, namely, whether on the facts proved or 
 admitted an interest or duty creating the privilege exists ; 
 and the other branch, a question of fact, namely, whether 
 the communication was made bond fide, which includes a 
 belief in the truth of what is stated, and the absence of 
 malice. I have observed from time to time some strange 
 confusion of ideas to exist as to the functions of the judge at 
 Nisi Prius, respecting a defence of this kind ; but the solution 
 seems to me exceedingly simple. In England the defence is 
 not necessarily, but almost invariably, raised on the plea of 
 not guilty, and it is, therefore, for the judge at the trial to 
 decide whether the facts proved establish an occasion of 
 privilege. But in this country the practice has, unfortu- 
 nately, and, in my opinion, erroneously, grown up, under the 
 Procedure Act of 1853, of pleading such a defence in the 
 most elaborate detail. Sometimes, however, the existence of 
 * interest ' or ' duty ' is averred as a matter of fact, or rather 
 of mixed law and fact, and then it is the province of the 
 judge at the trial to decide in the same manner as under 
 the general issue in England. Sometimes, on the other 
 hand, all the facts relied upon as creating the interest or 
 duty are fully set out, and the existence of the interest or 
 duty is averred only as a mere legal and untraversable 
 inference from the facts stated. Under that form of plead- 
 ing, the judge at the trial has only to take the verdict of 
 
 1 5 E. & B. 344.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 37 
 
 the jury upon the facts alleged, and if the plaintiff wishes to Mr. 
 contend that such facts, if proved, do not in law establish 
 the privilege, he should raise the question on the record by 
 demurring or forcing the defendant to demur, or (after trial) 
 should apply for judgment non obstante veredicto, if the issue 
 on the plea be found against him. The question is, on this 
 demurrer, opened before us upon the facts as appearing on 
 the defence, replications, and rejoinders, and admitted to be 
 true. What are these admitted facts? That the plaintiff Facts of 
 became a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, and obtained show^ 6 
 the office of parish priest under the obligation and contract 'privilege' 
 that he would obey and conform to the laws and discipline of tne pu 
 that Church ; that he violated one of these rales ; that the sentence, 
 defendant was the judge appointed, according to these rules 
 and discipline, to hear and determine this charge against the 
 plaintiff; that the plaintiff submitted to the jurisdiction, 
 appeared before the defendant as such judge, and made his 
 defence ; and that the defendant, in accordance with the 
 laws and rules of the Church, which the plaintiff had bound 
 himself to obey, and in exercise of the jurisdiction to which 
 the plaintiff had submitted, pronounced the sentence of 
 suspension, and published it according to the same laws or 
 rules, or communicated it to persons having an interest 
 in knowing such sentence, and that such publication or 
 communication was bond fide, without malice, and with a 
 belief in the truth of the matter stated. The question is, can 
 an action of libel be maintained under such circumstances 
 for such a publication ? It may possibly be that, notwith- 
 standing these facts, the plaintiff might retain possession of 
 any property which he had obtained as parish priest ; it may be 
 even that he might be able to restrain by injunction persons 
 from interfering with the temporalities of his ministry ; he 
 may in any suit or action on the contract, or involving 
 property, be able to defeat his own contract, by showing its 
 illegality, but I do not think he can, under the circumstances 
 stated, maintain this action of libel. The defences are good 
 as pleas of privileged communication. It may be said, how 
 can there be an interest or duty to publish a sentence which 
 is so illegal under the statute of Elizabeth, that it could not 
 be enforced in the courts of law or equity ? The answer is, 
 that, although the sentence may be so illegal under the
 
 33 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Justice 
 Barry. 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 by 
 
 contract, 
 gave the 
 Cardinal 
 the 
 privilege. 
 
 Plaintiff 
 assented 
 to the 
 publica- 
 tion of the 
 sentence. 
 
 Plaintiff 
 consented 
 to illegal 
 acts, and 
 BO cannot 
 complain. 
 
 statute, or by reason of its being based on the rule against 
 suing in the Queen's Courts, it does not follow that its con- 
 sensual operation between the plaintiff and defendant may 
 not, and must not, for many purposes, be recognised. The 
 plaintiff has by his contract and by his own acts and conduct 
 created, or professed to the defendant to create, defac.to, the 
 duty and interest. He may be able to resist an action 011 
 the contract, or a claim to recover property founded 011 the 
 contract, by showing the contract to be illegal, but he 
 cannot, in my opinion, in this action of libel, be heard to 
 question the existence of the privilege which he himself so 
 created, and on the faith of which he induced the defendant 
 to act. 
 
 But, independently of this question of privilege, I think 
 these defences are, or at least the . 9th defence is, a good 
 answer to this action upon another ground. I think the 
 maxim of law, volenti non Jit injuria, applies. The proposi- 
 tion so often repeated by the plaintiff's counsel ' that a 
 void stipulation is for all purposes the same in result as if 
 there were no stipulation at all ' is not true. A stipulation 
 may be void as a contract, and yet relied on as a license or 
 consent, and may bar an action of tort. I gave instances of 
 this in the course of the argument. It appears on the 
 defence that the publication of which the plaintiff complains, 
 and for which he demands damages,, took place with his own 
 consent, express or implied, and the maxim referred to lays 
 down that a man cannot ask a court to treat as an injury 
 that to which he has himself assented. It is a maxim not 
 alone of law, but of obvious sense and natural justice, and I 
 do not believe that the jurisprudence of any civilised country 
 in ancient or modern times, in which justice between man 
 and man is recognised, would permit an action for libel to be 
 maintained under the circumstances stated in that 9th defence. 
 
 Again, assuming that the rule as to suing ecclesiastics in 
 the Queen's Courts is illegal, and that the constitution and 
 proceeding of the tribunal were also illegal, I think another 
 maxim of law renders the facts stated, at all events in the 
 9th defence, a good answer to the action, viz., the maxim 
 In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis. This maxim is 
 found to be applied usually in actions of contract arising out 
 of illegal agreements ; but I see no reason why the principle
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullcn. 39 
 
 should not apply here. If there were illegality, the plaintiff Mr. 
 was a party to it, and cannot, in my opinion, base a claim to Barr 
 
 damages upon the existence of an illegality in which he 
 
 himself participated. The plaintiff's counsel contended that 
 although his contract of obedience was, in fact, unqualified 
 in its terms, he must be considered by a legal implication as 
 only contracting to obey such rules of the Church as are 
 conformable to our law, but this is only another form of 
 stating their fallacious proposition, 'that avoid stipulation 
 is the same as no stipulation.' 
 
 From the reasons which I have assigned for my decision 
 on the 9th, 10th, and llth defences which are pleaded to the 
 counts on the sentence of suspension, it will by seen that as 
 to the 4th count my judgment on the 16th and 17th defences 
 is for the defendant, and on the 18th, which (like the llth) 
 avers that the sentence of suspension was ' legal,' my judg- 
 ment is for the plaintiff. I may observe that the special 
 replication to the 16th, 17th, and 18th defences differs from 
 that pleaded to the 9th, 10th, llth, and 12th defences, by 
 averring 'that certain of the said laws, ordinances, rules, * 
 canons, and discipline purported to prohibit any ecclesiastic 
 from impleading any other ecclesiastic in any of Her Majesty's 
 Courts for any cause whatever.' No stress, however, was 
 laid in argument on this difference, and the same construc- 
 tion was adopted for that replication, and the rejoinder 
 thereto, as was adopted respecting the replication and re- 
 joinder to the 9th, 10th, llth, and 12th defences, and the 
 same reasoning will therefore apply. I do not mean to sug- 
 gest that even if the words to which I have referred in the 
 replication to the 16th, 1 7th, and 18th defences were to have 
 their full force, uncontrolled by the rejoinder, these words 
 would materially affect the conclusions at which I have 
 arrived. 
 
 FITZGERALD, J. : 
 
 The clear and masterly judgment to which we have just Mr. 
 listened renders it unnecessary for me to consider the plead- r . Justlc< f d 
 
 ings in detail, or to observe upon the authorities which were 
 
 so numerously cited in the course of the argument ; but the 
 importance of the questions which the case involves calls on
 
 40 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. me to state at large the reasons for the judgment I have 
 Fitzgerald f rrae( l. I deem it essential, in the first instance, to extract 
 
 from the record the matters of fact which are to be taken as 
 
 admitted for the purposes of our judgment. I feel, too, that 
 in such a case as the present I am imperatively called on to 
 confine myself to the very record, and to avoid, as far as 
 practicable, the introduction of extraneous matter, or the 
 use of any observations that might tend in the least to pre- 
 judice the trial which is to take place. The facts, which on 
 Facts of a critical examination of the record I find to be admitted, 
 lse> are that the plaintiff was in holy orders as a priest of 
 the Church of Rome in Ireland, and held the office of 
 parish priest of Callan, in the diocese of Ossory, and 
 that he became such priest and parish priest subject to the 
 laws, ordinances, and discipline of the Roman Catholic 
 Church, and had consented and agreed to be bound thereby, 
 and was subject to the said laws, ordinances, and discipline ; 
 that the defendant was an archbishop of the said Church, 
 having ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction over the 
 Roman Catholics of the diocese of Dublin, and was, according 
 to the said laws, ordinances, and discipline, Primate of Ire- 
 land and Metropolitan of the ecclesiastical Province of 
 Leinsier, of which the Roman Catholic diocese of Ossory 
 was a suffragan diocese ; that according to the laws, ordi- 
 nances, and discipline of the Church, it was not lawful to 
 pronounce judgment or sentence of suspension on the plaintiff 
 unless and until he should have committed some violation of 
 the said laws, ordinances, or discipline ; that the plaintiff 
 had been visited with suspension from the ministry by the 
 bishop of the diocese, upon the ground that he had im- 
 pleaded the said bishop, and one the Rev. John Walsh, in Her 
 Majesty's Courts of common law for the alleged speaking of 
 certain slanderous words of the plaintiff in his character 
 of a priest of the said Church, and in relation to his office 
 of parish priest of the parish of Callan, which irnplead- 
 ing was contrary to, and in violation of the laws, ordi- 
 nances, canons, and discipline of the Church ; and the 
 plaintiff alleges that he had not, save by such impleading, 
 in any manner violated or acted contrary to any law, ordi- 
 nance, or discipline of the Church, and that he disregarded 
 that suspension, and celebrated mass notwithstanding it,
 
 Rev. Robert 0'K.eeffe v. Cardinal Cull&n. 41 
 
 and publicly stated that the bishop had no power to visit Mr. 
 him with such suspension : that complaints and representa- 
 tions were made in respect of the acts and declarations of 
 the plaintiff in disregarding the said suspension and cele- 
 brating mass as aforesaid ; and thereupon, by an ordinance 
 of Pope Pius IX., issued by the Sacred Congregation de 
 Propaganda Fide at Rome, dated the 31st May, 1871, signed 
 by the Cardinal Prefect of the said Sacred Congregation, and 
 sealed with its seal, reciting that, ' Whereas, it has been 
 represented to the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide 
 that grievous scandals have arisen in the diocese of Ossory 
 from the proceedings of the E-ev. Mr. O'Keeffe, parish priest 
 of Callan, who, although visited by suspension from the sacred 
 ministry by the right reverend bishop of the diocese, pre- 
 sumes, notwithstanding, not only to celebrate mass, but 
 also in public harangues to inveigh against the bishop him- 
 self, now suffering from illness,' the said Pope Pius IX., 
 the Pope of the said Church, granted to the defendant 
 necessary and suitable powers, whereby the defendant, as 
 delegate of the Apostolic See, was authorised to proceed in 
 the matter of the plaintiff; that according to the laws, 
 ordinances, and discipline of the said Church, the said Pope 
 Pius IX. had full power and authority to make the said 
 ordinance; that the plaintiff had notice of the ordinance 
 and of the investigation to be held by defendant under it, 
 and appeared before the defendant on the same, and defended 
 his said proceedings and conduct ; and that the defendant 
 heard all that the plaintiff had to say in relation to the 
 matters aforesaid ; that the said inquiry having been duly 
 adjourned to a future day, of which the plaintiff had notice, 
 and at which he was required to attend, the defendant did 
 pronounce judgment of suspension against the plaintiff as 
 alleged. The defendant then alleges ' that the said judg- 
 ment and sentence were conformable to the laws, ordinances, 
 and discipline of the Church, and did to the defendant seem 
 just, and that all things happened, and all conditions were 
 performed, to render the said judgment and sentence valid 
 and binding on the plaintiff, according to the laws of the 
 Church, unless and until the same should be reversed by due 
 ecclesiastical authority, and that it was the duty of the 
 defendant to publish it to the parties interested.' Although
 
 42 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Mr. there are other issues joined, which raise a controversy as to 
 Fitzgerald. s m e of the matters of fact which I have assumed to have 
 
 been admitted for pleading purposes, such as a denial of the 
 
 truth of the plaintiff's allegation that he was suspended 
 solely on the ground that he had instituted actions against 
 his bishop and curate, yet, at present, we have nothing to 
 do with them, and must confine ourselves to the line of 
 pleading brought before us by the plaintiff's demurrer. We 
 must look to the matters admitted on this portion of the 
 record, and give judgment for the party who appears to be 
 entitled to judgment, as if these matters had appeared on a 
 case stated. 
 
 In considering the questions which arise, it is important 
 to bear in mind that the action is for defamation alone, and 
 does not involve any question of right to property, or pos- 
 session of property, or profits. It is not alleged that the 
 plaintiff has been ousted from his parish or deprived of the 
 emoluments of his office of parish priest, and it may be that 
 the plaintiff* is still acting as parish priest, in full possession 
 of the profits of the office, and uninjured so far in his financial 
 position. The suspension, if illegal, deprives the plaintiff 
 of nothing ; he has not lost his cure or its profits, nor has he 
 been dispossessed of his parochial residence. Mr. Purcell, 
 in his reply, went so far as to admit that in this action the 
 Court cannot determine whether the plaintiff had been pro- 
 perly removed as priest, nor could the Court restore him, but 
 he alleged that the Court may give him damages for the 
 defamation if the judgment proves to be invalid according 
 to the law of the land. It may be questionable to what 
 extent the law recognises the temporal position of the parish 
 priest ; yet I apprehend that the office is such that defamatory 
 words published of a person filling that office, and in refer- 
 ence to his position as parish priest, would be actionable 
 without showing special damage, and it therefore becomes 
 unnecessary to consider whether the special damage alleged 
 in the plaint, of the plaintiff's dismissal from the office of 
 chaplain to the workhouse can be sustained as the natural 
 and reasonable result of the libel. That allegation of special 
 damage can have no effect whatever on our present deter- 
 mination. My brother BARRY has clearly pointed out the 
 several questions which the argument has developed, and I
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 43 
 
 now proceed to express my opinion on the most material of Mr. 
 them. The first in importance seems to be Was the papal Fi t ^ e raH 
 
 ordinance illegal, and prohibited by the law of the land ? 
 
 On this question I refer in the first instance to the 2 Eliza- papal 
 beth, c. 1 (Irish). From the preamble to that Act it seems ordinance 
 that there were at least two objects to be accomplished, viz., 
 to restore the supremacy of the Crown which, it was sup- 
 posed, had been affected by the 3 & 4 Philip and Mary, c. 
 8, which repealed the Acts passed in the reign of Henry 
 8 and, further, to ' extinguish and put away all usurped 
 and foreign power and authority out of the realm.' The 5th 
 section, in very clear and forcible language, provides that no 
 foreign prince or prelate shall exercise any manner of juris- 
 diction or authority, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within the 
 realm. The question, then, which I am now dealing with 
 seems to be whether that ordinance or rescript of the 
 Propaganda is in any manner an exercise of jurisdiction or 
 authority within this realm. There is no question but that 
 it emanated from a foreign prince or prelate namely, Pope 
 Pius IX. We have not before us any copy of that ordinance 
 or rescript, but we can collect its import from the 9th 
 defence. It is there described as an * Ordinance of Pope 
 Pius IX., issued by the Sacred Congregation de Propa- 
 ganda Fide at Eome, signed by the Cardinal Prefect, and 
 sealed with the seal of the said Sacred Congregation ; ' 
 and it states that ' the said Pope Pius IX. granted to the 
 defendant necessary and suitable powers whereby the defen- 
 dant, as delegate of the Apostolic See, was authorised to 
 proceed in the matter of the plaintiff.' The defence then 
 alleges that, according to the laws of the Komaii Catholic 
 Church, the Pope had authority to make the ordinance, 
 and that under and by virtue of it the defendant acquired 
 full power to inquire into the proceedings and conduct of 
 the plaintiff and to pronounce on him such judgment and 
 sentence, being conformable to the laws of the Church, astothe 
 defendant should seem just. I have before me also a full copy 
 of the sentence of suspension, in which the authority conferred 
 by the Pope is thus stated: 'Cum Smus.Dnus. noster PiusPP, 
 IX., qui omnium ecclesiarum curam et solicitudinem gerit, 
 iiecessarias et opportunas facultates nobis tribuere dignatus 
 sit, ut de querelis et accusationibus qute adversus te circum-
 
 44 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Justice 
 
 Fitzgerald. 
 
 Ordinance 
 illegal by 
 statute of 
 Elizabeth. 
 
 That 
 statute 
 not 
 repealed. 
 
 feruntur, inquirere et sententiam proferre possemus, 
 auctoritate ita nobis collata innixi, causain tuam diligenter, 
 examinare non omisimus.' The term 'ordinance' in the 9th 
 defence, as used there, must be taken to mean a decree or 
 law emanating from the sovereign authority of the Pope as 
 the head of the Church ; and there can be no doubt that 
 such is the correct interpretation of the term, when we take 
 it in connexion with the words ' facultates nobis tribuere ut 
 de querelis et inquirere, et sententiam proferre possemus,' 
 and call in aid the allegations of a ' grant of authority,' 
 and the acquisition thereby of ' full power and authority. 5 
 We have thus a decree of a foreign prince and prelate, pur- 
 porting of his sovereign authority to create a tribunal and 
 appoint a judge to hear and determine within this realm 
 complaints and accusations against the parish priest of 
 Callan, in his character of parish priest. Does that ordi- 
 nance or decree come within the 5th section of the statute 
 of Elizabeth? In my opinion it comes within its letter, 
 and is prohibited by that section. It was scarcely con- 
 tended in argument that the ordinance did not come 
 within the terms of the statute, but it was alleged that 
 the statute of Elizabeth was but one of the statutes of 
 Pro visors, such as the 12 Richard II., the scope of which 
 was to prohibit appeals to Rome and suits or processes in 
 the Roman courts in derogation of royal authority, and 
 that it should be so interpreted; and further, that the 
 object of the statute of Elizabeth was only to uphold the 
 supremacy of the Queen over the established Church, as 
 its lawful and recognised head. The language and pro- 
 visions of the repealed Acts of Henry VIII. and of the statute 
 of Elizabeth reach beyond the statutes of Provisors, and 
 it is plain from the latter statute and the contemporaneous 
 enactments of the same reign, that Queen Elizabeth's Par- 
 liament had a purpose much more extensive than the mere 
 restoration of the Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, 
 and that their object was the entire overthrow and extinction 
 in the country of the Roman Catholic religion. It was, how- 
 ever, contended by the defendant's counsel that the statute of 
 Elizabeth had been virtually repealed by modern legislation, 
 and he relied principally on the statutable abandonment of 
 the oath prescribed by the 7th section, and the penalties im-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 45 
 
 posed by that Act, and for this purpose referred us to the Mr. 
 Emancipation Act *, and the form of oath there given, in Fitzgerald. 
 
 which the term ' spiritual ' is omitted, and also to the Par- 
 
 liamentary Oaths Act 2 , and the form of oath there given. 
 He further contended that the recognition of the Roman 
 Catholic Church in Ireland, and its usages, discipline, and 
 government, and archbishops and bishops and others in holy 
 orders of the Church of Rome, and their successors, to be 
 found in the Charitable Bequests Act 3 , together with 
 the preamble of the Irish Church Act, 1869 4 , were entirely 
 inconsistent with the statute of Elizabeth, and must be con- 
 sidered to have effected its repeal by implication, as far as 
 the present question is concerned. For more than two cen- 
 turies after 1560, legislation and the administration of the 
 law went hand in hand in the spirit of the statute of 
 Elizabeth, and to effectuate its object. The first real altera- 
 tion was in 1793, but on a critical examination of the 
 Relief Act of that year 5 , as well as of the subsequent 
 statutes of a similar character, and the Acts making altera- 
 tions in the form of parliamentary and other oaths, so far as 
 these statutes may bear on the questions now before us, I 
 can find nothing in them to repeal by necessary implication 
 that provision of the statute of Elizabeth which prohibits 
 the exercise of any manner of foreign power or jurisdiction 
 within the realm. It may truly be said of the statutes 
 referred to that they relieve subjects of the realm from 
 penalties, disabilities, and incapacities ; that the Roman 
 Catholic Church is thereby recognised under certain con- 
 ditions, and the exercise of its religion tolerated, but that 
 they do not give any authority for the enforcement of spiri- 
 tual or religious jurisdiction. 
 
 The State practically recognises the internal arrange- 
 ments of the Roman Catholic Church, but not its government. 
 It gives no aid in the enforcement of its rules or discipline, 
 leaves it to maintain its internal government as best it can, 
 but looks with extreme jealousy to see that it assumes no 
 temporal power within the realm, and exercises no coercive 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction emanating from foreign authority. 
 
 1 10 Geo. 4, c. 7. 2 29 Viet. c. 19. 
 
 3 7 & 8 Viet. c. 97, ss. 6, 15, 17. 4 32 & 33 Viet. c. 42. 
 
 5 33 Geo. 3, c. 21 (Ir.).
 
 46 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Mr. It seems to me that the policy of these enactments is to be 
 Justice collected from the Religious Opinions Toleration Act, 1 viz., 
 to relieve from penalties and disabilities on account of reli- 
 gious opinions, but to leave the law in other particulars 
 unaltered. The statute I have last adverted to affords a 
 conclusive answer to the supposed repeal by implication of 
 the 5th section of the statute of Elizabeth. I am of opinion 
 that the rescript or ordinance in question comes within the 
 prohibition of the statute of Elizabeth, and is illegal at 
 least to the extent that no court of law or equity in this 
 country would become active to enforce a judgment or decree 
 founded upon it. 
 
 The opinion which I have arrived at on the statute of 
 Elizabeth, in accord with Mr. Justice BAKRY, renders it 
 wholly unnecessary for me to express any judgment on the 
 question, whether that statute was merely declaratory of 
 the common law, and also frees me from any obligation to 
 consider Lord Coke's reading, De jure Regis ecclesiastico in 
 Cawdrey's Case,* or the legal or historical accuracy of the 
 dissertation of the Attorney-General, as given by Sir John 
 Davies in the report of ' The Case of Proemunire ' in 1606. 
 The point which I have just discussed was put forward by 
 the plaintiff's counsel apparently with some hesitation, and 
 was not the question which was mainly pressed upon us. I 
 can quite appreciate the embarrassment of counsel repre- 
 senting the plaintiff, in relying strongly on a point which 
 goes far to undermine the foundation of the government of 
 the Roman Catholic Church in this country, and tends to 
 relegate that Church to the position that its government 
 must not be carried on in the open day, but secretly, and 
 accompanied by the danger of infringing on the statute of 
 Elizabeth, or of overstepping the common law. 
 
 As to the The point emphatically relied on for the plaintiff, and 
 
 forbiddin wn i c h we were confidently called on to decide in his favour, 
 
 ecciesias- was that the rule, or supposed rule, of the Roman Catholic 
 
 tol-iw 8 Church, which prohibits a priest from impleading another 
 
 priest in the temporal courts in respect of matters relating 
 
 to his office and character of priest, under pain of suspension 
 
 from ecclesiastical functions, or expulsion from membership 
 
 in the Church, is illegal and void, as being against public 
 
 policy. This question, which is of importance to the government 
 
 1 9 & 10 Viet. c. 59. 2 5 Hep.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffc v. Cardinal Cullcn. 47 
 
 of all voluntary Churches, has been so fully and ably h andled by Mr. 
 
 my brother BARRY that I have but little to say on it. There can 
 
 be no doubt that if the rule in question, or the rule of any 
 
 Church, had for its object the exemption of the clergy from 
 
 secular authority, or their immunity from civil jurisdiction 
 
 or civil punishment, it would be our duty at once to declare 
 
 that such a rule was utterly illegal. Upon this there ought 
 
 to be, as there is, no doubt. No Church, no community, no NO Church 
 
 public body, no individual in the realm, can be in the least ex 01 "? 1 
 
 from 
 
 above the law, or exempted from the authority of its civil authority 
 or criminal tribunals. The law of the land is supreme, and of lbe law> 
 we recognise no authority as superior or equal to it. Such 
 ever has been, and is, and I hope will ever continue to be, 
 a principle of our constitution. It is equally clear that the 
 rule now under consideration, is in one sense inoperative ; 
 that in a court of law it would afford no answer or defence 
 to any civil action or suit, or criminal proceeding, nor would 
 a court of equity restrain any suit or proceeding in violation 
 of its letter or spirit. There is no doubt, too, that an agree- 
 ment ousting the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals of the 
 country cannot be enforced, and that it would be against the 
 policy of the law to give effect to a stipulation that a right of 
 action once complete should not be enforced through the 
 ordinary tribunals. In my judgment, however, the agree- Nature of 
 ment or rule now under consideration is not of that character. the rule - 
 There is no question of the right of the plaintiff to submit 
 any complaint he may have to the decision of any of our 
 courts ; but it is alleged that as the plaintiff became a mem- 
 ber of a voluntary association, subject to the rule in question, 
 and to which he consented, he cannot complain if, in con- 
 sequence of a breach of it, he is liable to be suspended from 
 membership. In my opinion, the rule, limited as I have ^ic ro t 
 stated it, is not contrary to the public good or the liberty of illegal, 
 the law, and may be a very wholesome rule of practice and 
 discipline. Scott v. Avery * was, on this branch of the 
 argument, mainly relied on by the plaintiff. It is there laid 
 down by the highest authority that parties cannot by con- 
 tract oust the ordinary courts of their jurisdiction ; and 
 that is true in this sense that, notwithstanding such an 
 agreement, an action will lie. Lord Campbell accurately 
 states the true purport of the decision thus : ' Where an 
 
 1 5 H. L. C. 853.
 
 48 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. action is indispensable you cannot oust the court of its juris- 
 Justice diction over the subject, because justice cannot be done with- 
 
 out the exercise of that jurisdiction. That is all, and there is 
 
 no doubt about that. This is the foundation of the doctrine 
 that the courts are not to be ousted of their jurisdiction.' 
 The rule established by Scott v. Avery is explained by Baron 
 Bramwell in Elliott v. Royal Exchange Company, 1 and its 
 authority is unquestionable. My brother BARRY has referred 
 Nor to abundance of authority to establish that the rule of dis- 
 
 to'wabHc cipline now under consideration cannot be deemed illegal and 
 good. void, as being contrary to the policy of the law, and I can 
 only add that, in my opinion, it is not contrary to the public 
 good. In addition to the numerous instances which he has 
 referred to, in which a similar rule is to be found regulating 
 the internal discipline of other Churche > and public bodies in 
 the United Kingdom, I may add the high authority of the 
 Presbyterian Church, as indicating that such a rule is not 
 contrary to morals, and is in accordance with Christian 
 teaching. In inculcating the duty of avoiding unnecessary 
 lawsuits between members of that body, the answer to the 
 142nd question of the larger Catechism adopts the authority 
 of the 1st Corinthians, ch. vi., verses 1, 5, and 6 ' Dare any of 
 you having a matter against another go to law before the 
 unjust, and not before the saints ? ' * Is it so that there is 
 not a wise man amongst you no, not one, that shall be able 
 to judge between his brethren ? ' ' But brother goeth to law 
 with brother, and that before the unbelievers.' I concur with 
 my brother BAERT in the reasons he has given why we ought 
 not to assume on the pleadings that the rule which pro- 
 hibited ecclesiastics from impleading each other provided no 
 remedy for actionable wrongs ; but I shall add for myself, 
 and for myself only, that if the rule was general that no 
 ecclesiastic should seek redress against another ecclesiastic 
 in any of the Queen's Courts for any wrong or injury what- 
 ever, and provided no other remedy, such a rule would be 
 illegal and void, as being against the public good. 
 
 The argument developed a third question, of novelty and 
 
 importance, which may be thus stated viz., assuming both 
 
 or either of the preceding questions to be decided in the 
 
 plaintiff's favour, yet is an action sustainable at his suit for 
 
 1 L. E. 2 Ex. 237.
 
 Rev. Robert O^Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 49 
 
 alleged defamation in the publication of the sentence to the Mr. 
 parties interested ? In considering this question, we have 
 to bear in niind that the plaintiff became a priest of the 
 Eoman Catholic Church and parish priest of Callan on 
 his consent to be bound in his character of priest and parish becoming 
 priest by the rules and discipline of the Church, and, on the a pn< 
 condition that if he violated those rules he became liable to 
 suspension. To constitute any individual a member of a 
 voluntary Church two matters are essential 1st, a profession 
 of its faith, and, 2nd, a submission to its rules, discipline, 
 and government. It is further to be observed that, assuming 
 the Papal rescript to be contrary to law, yet it was in accord- Plaintiff 
 ance with the rules by which the plaintiff had agreed to be l n ^Q te ' 
 bound. The plaintiff, with full notice, submitted to the Cardinal's 
 jurisdiction of the Cardinal under that rescript, appeared ^ " s ' 
 before the tribunal to which he had consented, made his case 
 before the judge, and did not at any time withdraw from or 
 revoke his consent to the tribunal to which he had volun- 
 tarily submitted. The defendant, it may be assumed, had 
 no coercive authority or jurisdiction ; but in his position of 
 consensual judge or arbitrator he proceeded to determine the 
 cause submitted to him, and to pronounce and publish his 
 sentence. It is a maxim of our law that a man who neglects 
 to speak when he might and ought will not be heard when 
 he desires to do so. The plaintiff now says the ordinance 
 was illegal, and the rule of the Church contrary to the policy 
 of the law; but the defendant replies ' You knew all that; Both 
 you consented to my jurisdiction, and induced me to act.' F^^ 
 If the proceeding was illegal, both parties were inpari delicto, delicto.' 
 and in such a case the Court will not interfere. In Gould v. 
 Oliver, 1 Tindal, C. J., in applying the maxim volenti non fit 
 injuria, speaks of ' the general rule of English law, that no 
 one can maintain an action for a wrong where he has con- 
 sented or contributed to the act which occasioned his loss.' 
 It seems to me that, under such a state of facts, there is no 
 precedent or authority for this action, and that the view I 
 am prepared to adopt on this point is equally applicable to 
 the pleas of privilege now before us, and to the pleas which 
 allege that the sentence is not a libel. An action does not 
 lie against the judge even of an inferior court for an libel- 
 
 1 4 Bing. (N. C.) 134. 
 E
 
 50 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Justice 
 Fitzgerald. 
 
 Plaintiff 
 
 therefore 
 
 precluded 
 
 from 
 
 suing. 
 
 lous statement which accompanies his sentence, if it can 
 fairly be considered to form pa,rt of the judgment. In 
 Jekyll v. Sir John Moore, 1 the plaintiff had preferred a 
 charge against Colonel Stewart, who was tried by court- 
 martial ; the defendant was president of the court ; and, 
 after pronouncing an acquittal of Colonel Stewart, added 
 ' The Court cannot pass without observation the malicious 
 and groundless accusations that have been produced by 
 Captain Jekyll, . . . and the Court do unanimously 
 declare that the conduct of Captain Jekyll, in endeavouring 
 to falsely calumniate the character of his commanding officer, 
 is most highly injurious to the good of the service.' The 
 plaintiff was non-suited, and the Court held the action did 
 not lie, as the whole might fairly be considered to form part 
 of the judgment. No case was cited of an action of defama- 
 tion against an arbitrator or of a judge constituted by the 
 consent of the parties for any statement forming fairly part 
 of his judgment or sentence ; and, in my opinion, such an 
 action could not be maintained in the absence of express 
 malice. It will thus be seen that on the main questions of 
 the case I am in entire accordance with my brother BARRY. 
 I concur with him as to the extent to which, and the circum- 
 stances under which, the judgment or sentence in question 
 is examinable in our courts, and also in the result of the 
 application of our decision to the pleadings now before us. 
 I also agree with him in his view of the position of the 
 Roman Catholic Church in this country, as not less than 
 that of any voluntary Church, but beset with peculiar diffi- 
 culties in relation to its headship, government, and catholic 
 or universal character. We may well apply to it the language 
 of the judgment in Long v. The Bishop of Capetown, 2 " The 
 members of that communion may adopt rules for enforcing 
 discipline within their body which will be binding on those 
 who have expressly or by implication assented to them. It 
 may be further laid down that where any religious or other 
 lawful association has not only agreed on the terms of its 
 union, but has also constituted a tribunal to determine whether 
 the rules of the association have been violated by any of its 
 members or not, and what shall be the consequence of such 
 violation, the decision of such tribunal will be binding when 
 it has acted within the scope of its authority, has observed 
 
 1 2 B. & P. (X. E.) 341. * 1 M. P. 0. C. (N. S.) 461.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 51 
 
 such forms as the rules require, if any forms be prescribed, Mr. 
 and, if not, has proceeded in a manner consonant with the p- Y^ 
 principles of justice ; " and I may add for ourselves the general 
 proposition that we do not profess to have jurisdiction over 
 any Church or religious association as such. We do not 
 undertake to decide for them ecclesiastical questions or 
 questions of discipline or internal government. All that we 
 undertake to do is to enforce the law of the land, to protect 
 civil rights, and to uphold and preserve the public peace. I 
 quite concur with the argument of the plaintiff's counsel 
 that we cannot determine whether the plaintiff is parish 
 priest or has been properly suspended from ecclesiastical 
 functions, nor if removed can we restore him, but I am 
 equally clear that on the pleadings before us this action of 
 defamation cannot be sustained. 
 
 O'BRIEN, J. : 
 
 Mr. 
 
 The pleadings in this case have been so fully stated by Q'B^ 
 my brother BARRY, that it will be sufficient for me to refer 
 very briefly to them. The plaintiff complains that two 
 documents, written and published with reference to him by 
 the defendant, were libellous ; one document being that 
 mentioned in the first three counts of the summons and 
 plaint, in which the defendant suspended the plaintiff from 
 his office of parish priest of Oallan ; and the other document 
 being that mentioned in the 4th count, and called the inter- 
 dict of the parish chapel of Callan. 
 
 The legal questions for our decision as to both those 
 documents are substantially the same, and it will, therefore 
 be sufficient to consider those arising on the four special 
 defences (9th, 10th, llth, and ] 2th) pleaded to the first three 
 counts, and on the plaintiff's second replication thereto, 
 and the defendant's rejoinder thereon. 
 
 The plaintiff has traversed those special defences as not 
 being true in fact, and their truth will be investigated before 
 a jury on the trial of this case ; but in now deciding on de- 
 murrer the legal questions which have been raised before us, 
 we must assume that the several statements in those 
 defences, as to matters of fact, are true, and decide the case 
 as if their truth had been admitted. 
 
 E 2
 
 52 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 Justice 
 O'Brien. 
 
 As to the 
 legality 
 o* the rule 
 forbidding 
 resort to 
 law. 
 
 Effect to 
 be given 
 to such 
 rules. 
 
 Nature 
 of the 
 rule in 
 question. 
 
 I shall refer to those questions in the order in which 
 they were argued by counsel the first question being as to 
 the legality or illegality of the rule of the Roman Catholic 
 Church which has been so much discussed, and as to the 
 extent to which the plaintiff's violation of that rule would 
 affect his right to hold his office in that Church ; and in 
 coming to a conclusion on that question, we should have 
 regard to the principle laid down in the cases of Long v. The 
 Bishop of Capetown, 1 and The Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone,* 
 as to the effect which should be given in general to the 
 rules and regulations of Churches or religious communities, 
 such as the Roman Catholic Church, which, though tole- 
 rated, are not established by law. That principle is, that 
 such Churches or religious bodies should be regarded as 
 voluntary associations, the members of which may adopt 
 rules and regulations for enforcing discipline within their 
 body and that those rules (if not illegal) would, so far as 
 they affect the connexion and dealing between any such 
 Church and its members, be held binding on those who ex- 
 pressly or by implication had assented to them. The passages 
 cited by my brother BARET from the decisions in those cases, 
 and which I need not repeat, clearly establish this principle. 
 
 With respect to the rule in question, it will be seen, on 
 referring to the defendant's rejoinder, that it is not stated 
 to be a rule for prohibiting priests of the Roman Catholic 
 Church from bringing any action at law against other eccle- 
 siastics of that Church ; but that (so far as it is relied on in 
 that rejoinder, and as its legality is now to be considered) 
 it only purports to prohibit a Roman Catholic priest from 
 bringing an action against other ecclesiastics of his Church 
 for alleged slanderous words spoken by them of and concern- 
 ing him in his character of a priest of that Church. This 
 limitation, as to the extent of the rule now to be considered, 
 has been overlooked during much of the argument. 
 
 What then, in its terms, is the effect of this rule ? It 
 does not purport to impose upon any member of that Church 
 the doing of any illegal act, or to prohibit him from doing 
 what he was legally or morally bound to do; but it merely 
 purports to prohibit him from doing an act which (indepen- 
 dent of that rule) it would be perfectly optional for him to 
 
 1 1 Moo. P. C. C. (N. S.) 461. L. R. 3 Eq. 1.
 
 Ttev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 53 
 
 do or not to do, as lie should think fit. Various reasons Mr. 
 might be assigned why it would be for the well-being and O'Brien. 
 
 interests of all religious bodies, that complaints by clergj- 
 
 men of slanderous words spoken of them by their fellow- 
 clergymen should not be investigated by a civil tribunal. 
 The adoption of a rule prohibiting clergymen of a Church 
 from bringing actions in a court of law against their fellow- 
 clergymen is not peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church, as 
 rules of a similar character have been adopted and acted on 
 by members of several other religious communities, who 
 showed, by their adoption of them, that they considered 
 them expedient and for the interest of their respective 
 Churches. The plaintiff's counsel, however, contend that 
 such a rule, even of so limited a character as that in 
 question, is illegal, on the ground that ^,ny agreement pro- 
 hibiting a party from suing in a court of law for any future 
 cause of action is against public policy and illegal, as it 
 tends to oust the jurisdiction of the established Courts of the 
 country. We have been referred to several authorities on 
 this subject, which clearly establish (what was not, indeed, 
 controverted by the defendant's counsel during the argu- 
 ment) that if a party who had entered into such an agree- How far 
 ment thought fit afterwards to disregard it, and to sue in T 
 a court of law for some subsequent cause of action, then that 
 his previous agreement could not be relied on as a bar to 
 such action, but would, on the contrary, be wholly inopera- 
 tive for the purpose of defeating that subsequent action. 
 But it is another and a different question, whether such an 
 agreement should be considered as being altogether illegal 
 and void, and one to which no effect whatever should be 
 given. The difference between these two questions is illus- 
 trated by the case of Livingston v. Ralli, 1 referred to by 
 my brother BARRY during the argument, and the facts of 
 which he has already stated. In that case it was contended 
 that an agreement to refer future differences to arbitration 
 was illegal, as tending to oust the courts of law of their 
 jurisdiction ; but Lord Campbell, in his judgment, stated 
 expressly that his own opinion and that of the profession 
 was to the effect that, although such a prospective agree- 
 ment would not be a bar to an action brought in respect of 
 
 1 5E. &B. 132.
 
 54 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Mr. any such future differences, yet that an action could be 
 O'Brien maintained for the breach of that agreement against the 
 
 party who refused to refer those differences to arbitration. In 
 
 page 135 he states : * Can it be said that such an agree- 
 ment is void as being immoral, or as contrary to public 
 policy ? It seems to me, on the contrary, that it is a very 
 judicious and proper arrangement, and that it would be a 
 strange restriction on the liberty of the subject if parties 
 could not make such an agreement if they please.' Mr. 
 Justice Coleridge also in his judgment (p. 137) pointed out 
 the distinction between the case of such an agreement being 
 relied on as a bar to an action (which defence, if successful, 
 would oust the Courts of their jurisdiction), and the cases of 
 a party bringing an action for the non-fulfilment of that 
 agreement. And Mr. Justice Erie stated that he thought it 
 an important principle of law that parties should be at 
 liberty to make what contracts they pleased, so that they 
 stipulate to do nothing but what they are at liberty to do. 
 
 With respect to several of the cases which have been 
 relied on during the argument, as showing the illegality of 
 this rule, it will be seen that they really go no further than 
 to establish that an agreement to refer future differences to 
 arbitration could not in those cases be relied on as a bar to a 
 subsequent action for such differences ; but those cases do 
 not decide that such an agreement would be of itself illegal, 
 and I think it unnecessary for me to refer further to them, 
 after the full review of the authorities in the judgments of 
 my brethren who have preceded me. 
 
 If, therefore, those cases establish (as in my opinion they 
 
 do) that an agreement to refer to arbitration any future 
 
 differences as to matters of contract, is not illegal and 
 
 against public policy, as tending to oust the' courts of 
 
 law of their jurisdiction, what reason is there for holding 
 
 that the rule in question is objectionable on that ground? 
 
 This rule It has not the effect of ousting or interfering with the juris- 
 
 oustthe diction of the Courts to any greater extent than the 
 
 Courts agreements for references of future differences which were 
 
 fLaw. discussed in those several cases, because the Plaintiff 
 
 (though he had agreed to be bound by that rule) might 
 
 still, if he thought fit, bring his action in a court of law 
 
 against hi? fellow- clergy man for such slanderous words;
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeff'e v. Cardinal Gullen. 55 
 
 and the fact of the plaintiff's having agreed to observe that Mr. 
 rule could not be relied on as a bar or defence to such action. O'Brien 
 
 On what other ground, therefore, besides the alleged ousting 
 
 the Courts of their jurisdiction, can the rule in question be 
 held to be illegal ? By agreeing to that rule, the plaintiff 
 (as I have already observed) did not stipulate to do any 
 illegal act, or to omit complying with any legal or moral 
 obligation, but he merely stipulated thereby to relinquish a 
 right which he was not obliged to exercise, and to refrain 
 from bringing an action which (independent of that rule) he 
 would be at liberty to bring or not as he thought fit ; and, 
 according to the principles laid down by Mr. Justice Erie, 
 in Livingston v. Ralli, 1 the plaintiff was at perfect liberty to 
 enter into a contract for the observance of that rule, as he 
 thereby i stipulated to do nothing but what he was at 
 liberty to do.' It has been already observed that although 
 similar rules have been adopted and put in force very 
 decidedly, in various other religious communities in the 
 kingdom, no case is known or reported to have occurred in 
 which it was held or contended that they were illegal. With 
 respect to the plaintiff's objection to the legality of this rule, 
 on the ground that, while it prohibits a priest from bringing 
 an action against his fellow- ecclesiastics for such slanderous 
 words, it does not provide any other remedy for him, but 
 leaves him without any means of obtaining redress for that 
 wrong, I concur with my brother BARRY in opinion that 
 there is nothing in the pleadings to warrant our assuming 
 the fact of no other remedy being provided for the slandered 
 party by the laws and discipline of the plaintiff's Church ; 
 and that in the absence of any statement in the pleadings to 
 that effect, the question of the legality or illegality of the 
 rule should be considered without reference to the fact 
 whether or not any such other remedy was provided. For This rule 
 these several reasons, 1 am of opinion that the rule of the ??, not , 
 
 * illegal. 
 
 Roman Catholic Church, relied on in the defendant's re- 
 joinder, is not illegal, and that, so far as regards that 
 objection, the plaintiff's demurrer to that rejoinder should 
 be overruled. 
 
 I shall next consider the question how far, upon the fa?ts 
 stated in the pleadings, the plaintiff's admitted violation of 
 
 1 5 E. & B. 132.
 
 56 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Justice 
 O'Brien. 
 
 Voluntary 
 Churches 
 may adopt 
 rules of 
 discipline 
 and create 
 tribunals. 
 
 Decisions 
 
 of such 
 
 tribunals 
 
 final 
 
 in certain 
 
 Jurisdic- 
 tion of 
 civil 
 courts 
 over such 
 tribunals, 
 
 that rule affected his position in his Church, and his right 
 to hold the office of parish priest, from which he has been 
 suspended. I have already referred to the general principle 
 laid down in the cases I mentioned with respect to Churches 
 or religious bodies not established by law. Those cases clearly 
 decide, not only that the members of any such Church or 
 body may adopt rules and regulations for enforcing discipline 
 within their body, which will be binding on those who 
 expressly, or by implication, have assented to them, but also, 
 that the members of such Church or body may create a.n 
 ecclesiastical tribunal (designated by Lord Eomilly as a 
 domestic tribunal), for the purpose of trying ecclesiastical 
 matters, and of determining whether the rules of that Church 
 have been violated by any of its members, and what should be 
 the consequence of such violation ; that the members of the 
 Church may also agree that such tribunal should have the 
 power of suspending, for such violation, any member holding 
 a religious office in their Church ; and that the decisions of 
 such tribunal should be final, whatever was their nature and 
 effect. Those cases also show that the decision of such tri- 
 bunal would be final when they had acted within the scope of 
 their authority, and had observed such forms as the rules of 
 its Church required. Those principles are more fully stated 
 in the passages already read from the judgments of Lord 
 Kingsdown in Long v. The Bishop of Capetown, 1 and of Lord 
 Eomilly, in The Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone. 2 
 
 If such a domestic tribunal, acting under the power given 
 to them by the express or implied agreement of the members 
 of a Church, should sentence any clergyman of that Church to 
 suspension from his office, on the ground of his having vio- 
 lated any of the rules of that Church, it may in some cases 
 be requisite, for a collateral purpose, that the constituted 
 tribunals of the country should investigate the circumstances 
 connected with that suspension, in order to ascertain that 
 such tribunal had power to pronounce that sentence under 
 tne rules and regulations of the Church by which that clergy- 
 man agreed to be bound, and had, in pronouncing that 
 sentence, proceeded in conformity with those rules and 
 regulations. Thus the question of the validity of the suspen- 
 sion may involve the right to property, as in the case already 
 
 1 Moore, P. C. C. (N. S.) 461. 2 L. R. 3 Eq. 49.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 57 
 
 mentioned -df Long v. The Bishop of Capetown. 1 In that case Mr. 
 Mr. Long had been suspended by his bishop from the office O'Brien 
 
 of clergyman of a church in the parish of Mowbray in the 
 
 colony of the Cape of Good Hope, to which office there was 
 annexed the right to the enjoyment of property which had 
 been vested in the bishop to provide a salary for the clergy- 
 man of the parish. The bishop had appointed the Rev. Mr. 
 Hughes to officiate in Mr. Long's place, and to receive half 
 the income annexed to such office. Mr. Long took proceed- 
 ings in the colonial civil court, for the purpose of restraining 
 the bishop and Mr. Hughes, not merely from interfering with 
 the performance of Mr. Long's duties as incumbent of the 
 parish, but also from disturbing him in the enjoyment of his 
 lawful emoluments as such incumbent. The bishop also had 
 taken proceedings in the colonial civil court, for the purpose 
 of restraining Mr. Long from occupying the church at Mow- 
 bray, or otherwise interfering with the duties of the minister 
 of that church. The decision of the colonial civil court was 
 against Mr. Long. He appealed to the Privy Council, who 
 reversed that decision, and Lord Kingsdown, in delivering 
 their judgment in Mr. Long's favour, stated (p. 466) that the 
 case was one which called ' for a decision as to the rights of 
 property, and involved the question whether Mr. Long had 
 ceased by law to be the cestui que trust of property of which 
 the bishop was trustee.' [See also Lord Cranworth's judg- 
 ment in Forbes v. Eden?] 
 
 In the case now before us the question of the validity of 
 the suspension is raised, not in a suit or action brought for 
 the purpose of reversing it and restoring the plaintiff to his 
 office, but in an action against the defendant for libel, on the 
 ground that the defendant had pronounced and published the 
 suspension and the interdict consequent on it, and that in so 
 doing he had libelled the plaintiff. But in whatever manner 
 the investigation of the circumstances connected with such 
 suspension and interdict devolves upon the Court, I think it 
 clearly follows, from the authorities referred to, that the 
 questions for the Court to consider are, whether, according to Questions 
 
 the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the Roman Catholic ^ r fcl ? e . 
 ' Court in 
 
 Church, the defendant had power to pronounce that suspension this case. 
 and interdict ; and whether, in exercising that power, he had 
 1 Moore, P. C. C. (N. S.), 461. 2 L. E. 1 H. L. Scotch App. 568.
 
 58 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Mr. proceeded in accordance with such laws, ordinances, and dis- 
 O'Brien. Spline. In the case of Long v. The Bishop of Capetown, the 
 
 cause assigned by the bishop for Mr. Long's suspension was 
 
 that he had disobeyed the directions of the bishop by refusing 
 to take part in the arrangements for the election of lay dele- 
 gates to a synod for the diocese of Capetown. Mr. Long had 
 been ordained as a clergyman of the Church of England, and 
 the Privy Council were of opinion, upon the facts before them, 
 that Mr. Long, in accepting his office from the bishop, had 
 only bound himself to the doctrine and discipline of the Church 
 of England; and that, for the purposes of the contract 
 between the bishop and Mr. Long, they should be taken as 
 having contracted that the laws of the Church of England 
 should govern both so far only as they were applicable in the 
 colony. 1 They were also of opinion that the obedience 
 required by the bishop from Mr. Long with respect to the 
 election of the synod was not in accordance with the rules 
 and ordinances of the Church of England ; that Mr. Long 
 was, therefore, justified in refusing to comply with those 
 directions of the bishop, and that, accordingly, Mr. Long's 
 refusal was not a valid ground for his suspension. [See also 
 Lord Romilly's observations on this case in The Bishop of 
 Natal v. Gladstone. 2 ] The case now before us is, however, 
 Pkintift different, as it appears from the facts stated in the pleadings 
 blfbound ( an< ^ wn i c ^ on this argument we must assume to be true), 
 by this that the rule of the Catholic Church violated by the plaintiff 
 was one of those by which he had agreed to be bound. 
 
 Reference was made during the argument to that part of 
 Lord Kingsdown's judgment, 3 in which, with reference to the 
 decisions of the ecclesiastical tribunal appointed by the 
 members of any non- established Church, he states to the effect 
 that, in order to render such decision binding, it was requisite 
 that the tribunal should have acted within the scope of its 
 authority, and have observed such forms as the rules prescribed 
 (if any forms were prescribed), and if not, then should have 
 proceeded in a manner consonant with the principles of jus- 
 tice. With respect, however, to the case before us, it is to be 
 observed not only that all the proceedings taken by the de- 
 fendant on the inquiry before him are stated in the pleadings 
 
 1 1 Moore, P. C. C. (N. S.) 463. * L. E. 3. Eq. 46. 
 
 1 Moore, P. C. C. (N. S.) 461.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 59 
 
 to have been in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and Mr. 
 discipline of the Koman Catholic Church, but also that Q^ 
 
 there is nothing in the pleadings to show that such pro- 
 
 ceedings were not consonant with the principles of justice. Proceed- 
 The omission of any statement that a formal citation to c^inai 
 attend the inquiry was served upon the plaintiff has according 
 been relied on ; but it is expressly stated in the special de- O f ch^ c h 
 fences that the plaintiff, having had notice of the investiga- 
 tion and inquiry, appeared before the defendant on the same, 
 and defended his proceedings and conduct, that the defendant 
 heard all that the plaintiff had to say in relation to the said 
 matter, and that the said inquiry and investigation were 
 afterwards, in pursuance of the said laws, ordinances, and 
 discipline, adjourned to a future day, of which the plaintiff 
 had notice, and at which he was required to attend. In my 
 opinion, these statements supply the omission of any state- 
 ment of the service of a formal citation. 
 
 The Case of Dr. Warren (reported in Grindrod's Compen- Dr. 
 dium, 1 which report is stated by Lord Kingsdown in Long v. ^^ 
 The Bishop of Capetown 2 to be accurate), further shows what 
 questions we are to consider in inquiring into the validity of 
 the suspension of a clergyman of a non-established Church. 
 Dr. Warren had been suspended by a Wesley an Methodist 
 District Committee from his office of a preacher in a chapel 
 in Manchester, and he filed a bill in the English Court of 
 Chancery against the trustees of the chapel and others, for 
 the purpose of being restored to the exercise of his minis- 
 terial functions, and for an injunction to restrain them from 
 excluding him from the chapel. His application for an 
 injunction was refused by Vice-Chancellor Shadwell, and 
 also by Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, on appeal. In Lord 
 Lyndhurst's judgment (p. 394), he said that the question 
 was first, whether the District Committee had power to 
 suspend a preacher ; and, second, whether they had regularly 
 exercised that power. Lord Lyndhurst then reviewed the 
 evidence in the case as to the constitution and rules of the 
 society, and came to the conclusion that the committee 
 had power to suspend, and that they had exercised that 
 power in accordance with those rules. It appears from the 
 
 1 Compendium of the Laws of Wesleyan Methodism (E. Grindrod), 371. 
 * 1 Moore, P. C. 0. (N. S.) 462.
 
 60 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. report 1 that one ground relied on as justifying Dr. Warren's 
 O'Brien, suspension was that, having attended a meeting of the Com- 
 
 mittee, held for the purpose of investigating some charges 
 
 against him, he afterwards withdrew, and refused to attend 
 his trial, whereupon the Committee suspended him, because 
 he had so refused and did not choose to attend the investiga- 
 tion of his case. Lord Lyndhurst considered that to be a 
 suspension for ' contumacy,' and that the committee had 
 power to inflict it. In a subsequent part of his judgment, 
 observing upon the fact that no evidence of the charges 
 appeared to have been gone into, Lord Lyndhurst said ' He 
 presumed that was because Dr. Warren was absent and did 
 not choose to attend ; that whether the evidence supported 
 the charges or not was a question for the District meeting, 
 and that he had no jurisdiction with respect to it.' He 
 further stated that, whether the committee acted wisely, 
 discreetly, temperately or harshly, were matters with which 
 he had no concern, and on which he desired to express no 
 opinion : and that on the two grounds merely of the 
 regularity of the proceedings and his being satisfied of the 
 authority of the body, he was bound to affirm the Yice- 
 Chancellor's decision. 1 
 
 If, therefore, the defendant, under the laws, ordinances, 
 and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church (by which the 
 plaintiff agreed to be bound), had power and authority to 
 inquire into and investigate the plaintiff's conduct and to 
 pronounce the sentence of his suspension, and if the defen- 
 dant had regularly exercised that power in accordance with 
 such laws, ordinances, and discipline, then it would follow 
 from the foregoing authorities, that we should hold the 
 suspension valid subject, however, to the question raised as 
 to the illegality of the Pope's rescript of May, 1871 upon 
 which question my opinion is different from that expressed 
 by my brothers BARRY and FITZGERALD. 
 
 As to With respect to this question the plaintiff's counsel con- 
 
 rescri t ^ en ^ that the fact of the defendant's acting and proceeding 
 under that rescript was an affirmance, maintenance, and 
 assertion by him of the spiritual and ecclesiastical power, 
 jurisdiction, and authority of a foreign prelate or potentate, 
 and was, therefore, illegal, under the 5th & 12th sections of 
 
 1 Compendium of the Laws of Wesleyan Methodism (E. Grindrod), 407-8.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 61 
 
 the Irish Statute 2 Elizabeth, c. 1, which have been already Mr. 
 stated. The severe penalties imposed by the 12th section of O'Brien. 
 
 that statute upon the affirmance or assertion of such spiritual 
 
 or ecclesiastical jurisdiction or authority were repealed by the 
 Religious Opinions Relief Act of 1846, 1 which, however, Proviso 
 provided that nothing in that enactment contained should O f 
 authorise or render it lawful for any person to affirm, main- 
 tain &c., &c., any such foreign power, jurisdiction, or 
 authority, and that the said enactment should not extend 
 further than to the repeal of the particular penalties and 
 punishments referred to in the said Statute of Elizabeth, 
 but that in all other respects the law should continue the 
 same as if that enactment had not been made. The plaintiff's 
 counsel rely on that proviso as establishing that the main- 
 tenance, affirmance, or assertion of such spiritual or eccle- 
 siastical jurisdiction or authority continued after that Act of 
 1846 to be as illegal as it was before, although the penalties 
 on it were repealed ; and they contend, accordingly, that 
 although the issuing of such rescript, and the defendant's 
 power to proceed thereunder, were (as stated in the pleadings) 
 in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the 
 Roman Catholic Church by which the plaintiff had agreed to 
 be bound, and although the plaintiff himself attended on the 
 inquiry and proceedings thereunder, he is, nevertheless, now 
 entitled to insist, as against the defendant, that the defendant 
 had no jurisdiction or authority authorising or empowering 
 him to hold such inquiry or to declare the plaintiff suspended, 
 and that, accordingly, such sentence of suspension was illegal 
 and void. It is admitted that if, at and immediately before 
 the passing of the Act of 1846, the exercise, affirmance, or 
 assertion of the merely spiritual authority expressed to be 
 conferred by such a rescript as that before us was illegal and 
 void under the Statute of Elizabeth, then that the Act of 
 1846 would not have rendered it legal; but I think it equally 
 clear that, if (by reason of legislation subsequent to that 
 Statute of Elizabeth) such a rescript and the affirmance and 
 assertion of purely spiritual authority under it could not 
 (consistently with such legislation) be considered as illegal at 
 the passing of the Act of 1846, then that that Act did not 
 render such rescript, affirmance, or assertion illegal, or revive 
 
 1 9 & 10 Viet. c. 59.
 
 62 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Mr. 
 Justice 
 O'Brien. 
 
 Effect of 
 proviso. 
 
 Nature of 
 
 Papal 
 
 rescript. 
 
 in that respect the Statute of Elizabeth, but that the question 
 of the legality or illegality of such rescript, affirmance, or 
 assertion continued to be the same after as it had been before 
 the Act of 1846. That Act did not in terms provide that every 
 affirmance or assertion of spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
 tion, authority, &c., &c., which was illegal at the time of 
 passing the Statute of Elizabeth, should be illegal after the 
 passing of the Act of 1846 ; but the effect of the proviso 
 was, that if any such affirmance, assertion, &c., was illegal 
 at the passing of that Act of 1846, it continued to be so after 
 that Act was passed. 
 
 With respect to the nature and import of the ordinance 
 or rescript in question, it was one purely spiritual in its 
 character : it related to the usages and discipline of the Roman 
 Catholic Church : it did not purport to be addressed to or to 
 affect any who were not voluntary members of that Church : 
 and it related to the conduct of a priest of that Church who 
 had agreed to be bound by its laws, ordinances, and 
 discipline, in accordance with which it is admitted on the 
 pleadings that it was issued. It is true that the proceedings 
 under that rescript as to the religious office held by the 
 plaintiff would incidentally affect his temporal interests. 
 But in every case where proceedings are taken by the 
 authorities of a Church, which may terminate in the sus- 
 pension of any of its members from a religious office in that 
 Church, such proceedings might incidentally affect his 
 temporal interests. There is no religious body in which 
 religious offices do not, in a certain degree, conjoin with 
 temporal interests ; and the authorities which have been 
 referred to show that, notwithstanding such conjunction, the 
 power of suspending from religious offices in any Church 
 is recognised as existing in those tribunals in whom the 
 members of that Church have consented and agreed it should 
 be vested. It further appears that complaints had been 
 made of the conduct of the plaintiff in relation to his 
 religious office in his Church ; and I need not say that it is 
 essential for the proper order and regulation of the spiritual 
 affairs of every Church tolerated by the State that there 
 should be some tribunal to investigate and decide on such 
 complaints. With respect to the Roman Catholic Church 
 and the various other religious bodies not established by law,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 63 
 
 such, complaints as those made against the plaintiff could Mr. 
 not be investigated by any civil or other tribunal recognised ^" st . lce 
 
 as such by the law of the land, but only by a tribunal 
 
 appointed for that purpose by the respective laws and 
 ordinances of such religious bodies a tribunal which (to use 
 the words of Lord Romilly in The Bishop of Natal v. 
 Gladstone 1 ) may be regarded, not as a State tribunal, but as a 
 domestic tribunal claiming jurisdiction only over those per- 
 sons who assented to it, and claiming that species of juris- 
 diction which Lord Romilly designated as what is usually 
 called ' consensual jurisdiction.' In the case now before us 
 the complaint against the plaintiff was referred by that 
 rescript to a prelate of his Church, and there is nothing to 
 show that the selection of such a tribunal was not fit and 
 proper for the purpose. 
 
 With respect, then, to the effect of this Statute of Effect of 
 Elizabeth upon the rescript in question, and the proceedings Statute of 
 thereunder, I am of opinion that so far as that statute would upon 
 have formerly applied to such rescript and proceedings, it r^ 11 ? 1 - 
 would be altogether inconsistent with a long course of sub- 
 sequent legislation if we held that they were now illegal 
 under that statute. It is true that during the reign of j n time of 
 Elizabeth, and several subsequent reigns, the several penal- Elizabeth 
 ties of that statute would have attached upon any affirmance wou ld 
 or maintenance of the fact that the Pope was the spiritual have , , 
 head of those who belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. 
 But during that period the Roman Catholic religion, both in 
 England and Ireland, was proscribed under severe penalties 
 by various other statutes, to which I need not refer in detail. 
 The oath which during that period Roman Catholics might 
 by some of those statutes have been required to take, in . 
 order to avoid various penalties, contained an express denial 
 that any foreign prelate or person had or ought to have any 
 jurisdiction or pre-eminence, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within 
 this realm, and the legislation requiring them to take that 
 oath (which, as Roman Catholics, they could not take) was 
 quite consistent with the enactments of that Statute of 
 Elizabeth. But when, by subsequent legislation, the free Subse- 
 
 exercise of the Roman Catholic religion was expressly tole- 2 UP . n , t . 
 
 f . legislation 
 
 rated ; when Roman Catholics were exempted troni various permitted 
 
 1 L. K. 3 Eq. 40.
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 Justice 
 O'Brien. 
 
 exercise of 
 Roman 
 Catholic 
 religion, 
 
 and 
 
 therefore 
 
 assertion 
 
 of mere 
 
 spiritual 
 
 authority 
 
 permitted. 
 
 Supremacy 
 of Pope 
 part of 
 Roman 
 Catholic 
 creed. 
 
 Papal 
 
 rescripts 
 essential 
 for ap- 
 pointment 
 of Roman 
 Catholic 
 bishops. 
 
 penalties, to which they had been formerly liable, for the 
 profession of their religion, and when, by various statutes, 
 commencing with that of 1773, and ending with the Eman- 
 cipation Act of 1829, the oath required to be taken by 
 Roman Catholics for admission to various offices omitted 
 any denial of the spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction or 
 authority of the Pope (the affirmance or assertion of which 
 had been declared illegal by the Statute of Elizabeth), could 
 it, after such legislation, be said that the affirmance or asser- 
 tion by Roman Catholics of such merely spiritual or ecclesias- 
 tical authority (which was an essential part of their creed) 
 continued to be illegal, and rendered them liable to the 
 severe penalties of that statute ? 
 
 In considering the effect of those subsequent statutes, we 
 must have regard to the fact (of which no doubt can be 
 entertained) that the Legislature, when passing them, were 
 aware of several of the well-known doctrines and rules of the 
 Roman Catholic Church. The recognition by Roman Catho- 
 lics of the spiritual supremacy of the Pope as their spiritual 
 head was a well-known part of their creed ; the appointments 
 of Bishops or Vicars-general in these countries all emanated 
 from the Pope, and were made by bulls, rescripts, or letters 
 apostolic issued by him ; the jurisdiction to make those 
 appointments, and the spiritual authority which they pur- 
 ported to confer, were recognised by the Roman Catholics, 
 and were essential to the due administration of the spiritual 
 affairs of their Church; and it was equally essential for that 
 purpose that the Roman Catholic Bishops and Vicars-general 
 in these countries should be allowed to receive from time to 
 time, from the recognized head of their Church, rescripts or 
 letters, containing such directions or communications as 
 were required for the proper administration of those spiritual 
 affairs. When, then, with knowledge of those several mat- 
 ters, the observance of the Roman Catholic religion in these 
 countries was tolerated, when the Legislature declared that 
 Roman Catholics should no longer be required to take the 
 oath denying the spiritual or ecclesiastical supremacy of the 
 Pope ; and when, accordingly, in framing the oath to be 
 taken by Roman Catholics, the Legislature struck out from 
 the former oath the words ' ecclesiastical or spiritual,' and 
 inserted in place of them the words ' civil or temporal,' may
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Carditial Cullen. 65 
 
 it not be truly said that the law and Legislature of the Mr. 
 country not only recognized and sanctioned the fact, that /^> st - ice 
 
 persons professing the Eoman Catholic religion looked up to ' 
 
 the Pope as their ecclesiastical and spiritual superior, but ^egisla- 
 also iuipliedly permitted that such several communications impliedly 
 as I liave mentioned might be made between the Pope and ? 
 the prelates appointed by him ? 
 
 In support of the opinion I have expressed as to the 
 effect of these legislative measures subsequent to the Statute 
 of Elizabeth, I will now refer to several statements which, 
 on the discussions in the House of Lords as to the passing 
 of this repealing Act of 1846 appear to have been made by 
 Lord Lyndhurst (then Lord Chancellor), and by Lord 
 Campbell, of their opinions upon the question how far the How far 
 introduction of the Pope's bulls or rescripts into this coun- Scripts 
 try, and the affirmance or assertion by Roman Catholics of considered 
 the mere spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction or authority \^f^ 
 of the Pope were then illegal. I refer to them, not of course 
 as judicial decisions, or as governing authorities, but aa 
 statements made by judges of eminence, as to the then state 
 of the law with respect to matters then before them in their 
 legislative capacity. Some of those observations refer to the 
 English statute, 1 which prohibited the introduction of the 
 Pope's bulls or rescripts, and which did not extend to Ire- 
 land ; but such observations are equally applicable to the 
 question before us upon the Irish statute 2 Elizabeth, c. 1, 
 which corresponds with the English statute 1 Elizabeth, e. 1. 
 
 In the 85th vol. of Hansard (p. 1261), it appears that Lord Opinion 
 Lyndhurst, with reference to the statute of the 13 Elizabeth, klnd^ 
 stated as follows : hurst. 
 
 ' They tolerated the Catholic prelates, and they knew that these pre- 
 lates could not carry on their Church establishment or conduct its 
 discipline without holding communication with the Pope of Rome. No 
 Roman Catholic bishop could be created without the authority of a 
 bull from the Pope of Rome, and many of the observances of their 
 Church required the same sanction. The moment, therefore, that they 
 sanctioned the observances of the Roman Catholic religion in this 
 country, they, by implication, allowed the communication prohibited 
 by this statute, and for which it imposed the penalties of high treason. 
 If the law allowed the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic 
 
 1 13 Eliz. c. 2. 
 F
 
 66 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. Church, it should be permitted to be carried on perfectly and properly ; 
 
 Justice an( j ^at cou j(j no t b e without such communication.' 
 OBnen. 
 
 On a subsequent occasion, after referring to the oath im- 
 posed by the Act of Elizabeth upon persons holding certain 
 offices, and in which it was sworn that no foreign prince, 
 prelate, or potentate had or ought to have any ecclesi- 
 astical or spiritual dominion in these realms, Lord Lyndhurst 
 said : 
 
 ' That oath was in force until of late years. Their Lordships them- 
 selves had altered that oath they had altered it out of deference to 
 persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. They found it impos- 
 sible to impose such an oath upon their fellow-countrymen, and accord- 
 ingly they struck out the words " ecclesiastical and spiritual," and in- 
 serted in place of them " civil and temporal." After this, did it not 
 appear clear that the law and the Legislature of the country had by this 
 change sanctioned the doctrine that persons professing the Roman Catho- 
 lic religion looked up to the Pope as their ecclesiastical and spiritual 
 superior ? Did not their Lordships themselves allow it ? By this 
 alteration in the oath, had they not permitted and sanctioned it? 
 When they had allowed the free exercise of the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion in this country, and when they knew that this was a funda- 
 mental principle of that religion, how could they say, consistently 
 with themselves, that when the professors of that religion faithfully 
 discharged their duty by maintaining and defending this foreign 
 ecclesiastical and spiritual authority, they would subject those persons 
 to the penalties of high treason 7' 1 
 
 Again, Lord Lyndhurst states : 
 
 ' It was no crime in a prelate of the Roman Catholic Church to maintain 
 and defend the supremacy of the Pope ; if he did it for mischievous 
 purposes, and circulating immoral doctrines and opinions, he was liable 
 to punishment by the common law ; but if he merely maintained and 
 defended, as he was bound to do, the spiritual authority of his superior, 
 then he was guilty of no offence against the laws of his country.' 2 
 
 And again (with respect to the right of the Eoman 
 Catholics to maintain and defend the supremacy of the Pope 
 in spiritual matters), he stated : 
 
 * It was no offence at common law for them to do so. But on the 
 other hand, he said that if any person improperly, wantonly, or sedi- 
 tiously called in question the supremacy of the Crown of England 
 
 1 Hansard (3rd series), rol. 86-311. 2 Ibid., p. 314.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 67 
 
 and that, it wa3 to be observed, included the temporal as well as the Mr. 
 
 spiritual power of the Crown if any person, from any improper motive /^.T^- 10 
 
 or purpose, or in any improper manner, questioned that supremacy, 
 
 then that person would be liable to a prosecution at common law.' 1 
 
 The only other statement of Lord Lyndhurst to which I 
 shall refer is the following one : 
 
 ' It Avas quite impossible for a moment to contend, after the various 
 Acts that had been passed with reference to the Roman Catholic reli- 
 gion, after the facilities given for the performance of the duties of that 
 religion, and above all, that material alteration in the oath of supremacy 
 in favour of the Roman Catholics, and in permission of their principles 
 - it was quite impossible, he said, for any person to maintain that a 
 Roman Catholic, moderately and temperately maintaining the supre- 
 macy of the Pope in ecclesiastical matters, could be considered as 
 offending against the laws of this country.' 2 
 
 Lord Campbell also states as follows : Opinion 
 
 of Lord 
 
 ' With regard to the question whether, after these penalties should Campbell, 
 be abolished, a Roman Catholic could assert the spiritual supremacy of 
 the Pope, he should say, that undoubtedly would and ought to be the 
 case that supremacy being only the spiritual supremacy, and not 
 implying any temporal control or power in this country. If any bull 
 should be issued calling upon the subjects of this country to act in any 
 manner contrary to law, the persons importing such a document and 
 the persons obeying such injunctions would be liable to punishment.' 3 
 
 I repeat, what I have already stated, that I do not refer 
 to those statements of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Campbell 
 as judicial decisions or governing authorities ; but the deli- 
 berative and positive opinions of two such eminent judges 
 are entitled to serious consideration, and should not be dis- 
 regarded without sufficient reason. And I refer to those 
 statements as containing a clear expression of their opinion 
 of the then state of the law upon the question how far, 
 either under the statutes of Elizabeth or under the common 
 law, such rescripts as that before us, and the exercise of 
 merely spiritual authority under them, continued to be 
 illegal at the time when that Act of 1846 was under 
 discussion. 
 
 As a further instance of legislation wholly inconsistent 
 
 1 Hansard (3rd series), vol. 86, p. 314. * Ibid., p. 591. 
 
 * Ibid., p. 321. 
 
 F 2
 
 68 Court of Qiieen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. witli the supposition that every affirmance or assertion of 
 
 O'Brien. ^ ne spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction or authority of 
 
 the Pope (though confined exclusively to the spiritual affairs 
 
 7 & 8 Viet. f the Roman Catholic Church) was illegal at the time of 
 
 c - 97, passing: the Act of 1846, I refer to another Act which had 
 
 sllOWS til; it 
 
 assertion been passed two years previously, namely, the Irish Cha- 
 aiuhont rital:)le Donations and Bequests Act of 1844. 1 The 2nd 
 was not section of that Act provided for the appointment of Commis- 
 iiiejral in sioners to administer it, of whom three were to be ex-officio 
 members, and ten were to be appointed by the Crown, of 
 which ten persons, five and not more, were at all times to be 
 persons professing the Roman Catholic religion. Under the 
 provisions of the 6th section the consideration of all cha- 
 ritable donations and bequests, and matters relating to 
 them, on which any question should arise concerning the 
 usages or discipline of the Church of Rome, should be 
 referred to a committee consisting of the Eoman Catholic 
 Commissioners ; and that committee was directed, in cer- 
 tain cases, to certify to the Commissioners what person 
 was, according to the uses and intendments of the Roman 
 Catholic Church, entitled for the time being to take the 
 benefit of any donation or bequest ; and also to certify any 
 other facts concerning the usages or discipline of that 
 Church, necessary to be known for the due administration of 
 the trust according to the intent of the donor, and the Com- 
 missioners were directed to receive such certificate as evidence 
 of the facts certified. The 15th section empowers every 
 person to grant by deed or will any land or personal pro- 
 perty to the Commissioners in trust (amongst others) for 
 1 any archbishop or bishop or other person in holy orders 
 of the Church of Rome, officiating in any district or having 
 pastoral superintendence of any congregation of persons pro- 
 fessing the Roman Catholic religion, and for those who shall 
 from time to time so officiate, or shall succeed to the same 
 pastoral superintendence, or for building a residence for his 
 and their use.' And that section further provided that such 
 property should be held by the Commissioners, subject to 
 the trusts of said deed or will respectively, without any other 
 license. Then follows the clause excluding donations or 
 bequests in favour of male monastic orders. 
 
 1 7 & 8 Viet., c. 97.
 
 Rev. Robert O^Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 69 
 
 Considering- these several provisions of the Act, can it be Mr. 
 Said that it could be duly and properly administered, consis- 
 tently with the supposition that all rules, rescripts, and 
 letters apostolic from the Pope, and every affirmance, main- 
 tenance, or assertion of spiritual or ecclesiastical authority 
 under them, were illegal at the time of passing that Act ? 
 
 Supposing that property was vested in the Commis- 
 sioners under the 15th section, in trust 'for any Roman 
 Catholic bishop officiating, or having such pastoral superin- 
 tendence in any particular district,* and for those * who 
 should from time to time so officiate or succeed to the same 
 pastoral superintendence,' or in trust for building a resi- 
 dence for them, the right of any person claiming the benefit 
 of such trust as being the Roman Catholic bishop officiating 
 in that district, would, according to the usages and discipline 
 of that Church, depend entirely upon his having been 
 appointed under a bull, rescript, or letter apostolic, issued A bishop 
 by the Pope ; and the Commissioners, on being satisfied that property 
 the claimant had been so appointed, would be bound, under unde * 
 the 15th section, to give him the benefit of that trust. It is mus t be* 
 true that the Commissioners might come to that conclusion, appointed 
 upon its appearing that the claimant was in fact the person rescript* 
 officiating as Roman Catholic bishop in that district, and 
 without their requiring other proofs of his appointment ; but 
 their conclusion would, in fact, rest upon the supposition 
 that he had been so appointed ; and, in either case, the act 
 of the Commissioners in giving to the claimant the benefit 
 of that trust would be necessarily founded on the supposi- and thus 
 tion that such a bull or rescript had been issued by the Pope authority 
 claiming spiritual jurisdiction to make that appointment, and asserted. 
 also on the supposition that the claimant, by accepting the 
 appointment under that bull or rescript, and claiming (as 
 the Roman Catholic bishop in that district) the benefit of 
 that trust, had thereby expressly affirmed and maintained 
 the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of the Pope. In 
 the event of the death or resignation of any bishop enjoying 
 property under that trust, a similar duty would devolve upon 
 the Commissioners of ascertaining who was entitled to that 
 property as his successor, and their decision would be 
 grounded upon similar suppositions. If, again, property 
 was vested in the Commissioners in trust for the parish.
 
 70 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 Justice 
 O'Brien. 
 
 A priest 
 must be 
 duly 
 
 appointed 
 by a 
 bishop 
 having 
 authority 
 from Pope, 
 so that 
 papal au- 
 thority is 
 recognised. 
 
 No 
 
 distinction 
 
 between 
 
 papal 
 
 rescripts. 
 
 priest of any parish, the Commissioners, in administering 
 that trust, should act upon the supposition that the party 
 claiming the benefit of it had been appointed to that parish 
 by his bishop, and that the bishop in making that appoint- 
 ment affirmed, claimed, and exercised the spiritual juris- 
 diction and authority expressed to be conferred upon him 
 by the bull or rescript &c. under which he himself had 
 been appointed bishop. In either of those cases, whether 
 the property was vested in trust for a Roman Catholic 
 bishop or parish priest, the decision of the Commissioners as 
 to the due administration of that property according to the 
 provisions of the Act, would necessarily involve their recog- 
 nition of the fact that the bishop had asserted and exercised 
 the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority expressed to be 
 conferred upon him by the Pope's bull or rescript, although, 
 according to the argument of the plaintiff's counsel, such 
 bull or rescript would be void, and every episcopal act done 
 by the bishop under that appointment, in ordaining clergy- 
 men, appointing parish priests, or otherwise, would be 
 illegal, as being an affirmance of the spiritual and ecclesias- 
 tical authority of the Pope to make that appointment. 
 Cases might also frequently occur, on references to the 
 Roman Catholic committee under the 6th section, in which 
 not only their certificate as to the usages or discipline of the 
 Roman Church, but also the proceedings of the Commis- 
 sioners on that certificate, would also necessarily involve the 
 assumption that spiritual authority, in regard to the usages 
 and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, was exercised 
 by the Pope over the members of that Church in this 
 country, and was recognised and assented to by them. 
 
 It has, however, been suggested that any inferences to be 
 drawn from these provisions of the Bequests Act in favour 
 of the legality of bulls and rescripts from the Pope should 
 be confined to those that were issued for the appointment of 
 bishops, and should not apply to rescripts such as that in 
 question ; but I do not see how, in considering the effect of 
 those provisions as indicating the opinions of the Legisla- 
 ture, we could reasonably make such a distinction. Those 
 provisions show that, in the opinion of the Legislature, the 
 appointment of bishops by the Pope's bulls and rescripts, 
 the acceptance by the bishops of those appointments, and
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 71 
 
 their exercise of the authority expressed to be thereby Mr. 
 conferred upon them, were not illegal, though they had been O'Brien. 
 
 formerly so. And can it be reasonably contended that if a 
 
 rescript or letter was issued by the Pope to a bishop after 
 his appointment, authorising him (like the rescript in 
 question) to discharge some duty or do some act relating 
 only to the spiritual affairs of the Church, then, the acting 
 of the bishop under that rescript would be illegal and void ? 
 The Legislature by that Act expressly provided for the Bishops 
 beneficial enjoyment of property by bishops of the Roman permTtted 
 Catholic Church, and imposed upon the Commissioners the to hold 
 duty and obligation of holding and administering such pro- ^bishops. 
 perty in trust for those prelates. This was done with full 
 knowledge by the Legislature of the fact that the claims of 
 those prelates to the benefit of that trust would necessarily 
 be founded upon their having been appointed bishops by Bishops 
 bulls or rescripts from the Pope, and upon their having appointed 
 accepted and acted under such appointment ; and these pro- n iy by 
 visions were made although the exercise of the spiritual rescript, 
 authority thereby recognized would incidentally affect the 
 right to property and involve matters of a temporal 
 character. It is, therefore, but reasonable to hold, that by so that 
 these provisions the Legislature impliedly allowed and meLt*' 
 sanctioned the doctrine, that in case not only of bulls or impliedly 
 rescripts for the appointment of bishops, but also of all these 1 **' 
 such rescripts as that in question, of a purely spiritual papal 
 character, the parties to whom they were addressed might, 
 without illegality, and notwithstanding the former state of 
 the law, affirm and exercise the spiritual authority expressed 
 by such documents to be conferred upon them. And it will 
 be seen that the observations of Lord Lyndhurst, in 85th 
 Hansard, p. 1261, to which I have already referred, apply, 
 not only to bulls or rescripts for the appointment of bishops, 
 but also to all communications between the Pope and the 
 bishops, that were requisite for the proper administration of 
 the spiritual affairs of their Church. 
 
 It has been further urged by the plaintiff's counsel that 
 the fact of the statute of 1846 repealing only that portion of 
 the Statute of Elizabeth which inflicted the penalties therein 
 mentioned would imply that the rest of that statute continued 
 in force ; that whatever was declared to be illegal by it con-
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. 
 Justice 
 O'Brien. 
 
 Act of 
 
 1846 
 
 applied 
 
 only to 
 
 rescripts 
 
 for illegal 
 
 purposes. 
 
 Ancient 
 statutes 
 
 tinned to be illegal after the Act of 1846 ; and that other- 
 wise there would be nothing for the proviso in the Act 
 to operate upon. In answer to this, however, it is to be 
 observed that the legislation intervening between the Statute 
 of Elizabeth and that of 1846 could not be relied on as im- 
 pliedly rendering lawful any bulls, rescripts, &e. which (as 
 stated by Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Campbell) might be 
 circulated or acted on for any of the mischievous or improper 
 Proviso in purposes they mention ; that, accordingly, at the time of 
 passing the Act of 1846, the circulating or acting on such 
 bulls, rescripts, &c., for such purposes would be then illegal, 
 as well under the Statute of Elizabeth as under the com- 
 mon law, and would, under the said proviso in the Act of 
 1846, continue after the passing of that Act to be as illegal 
 as it had been before. It follows, therefore, that this proviso 
 in the Act would not be rendered inoperative by holding that 
 such rescripts as that in question, and the exercise of merely 
 spiritual authority under them, though formerly illegal, were 
 not illegal when that Act was passed. 
 
 We have been also referred to various statutes, passed 
 donotlnow before the Reformation (16 Rich. II., c. 5, and the previous 
 a ppty statutes of Edw. III.), and to some cases formerly decided with 
 respect to the authority and jurisdiction claimed by the Pope, 
 and to bulls, rescripts, &c. issued by him. When, however, 
 those statutes were passed, considerable territorial possessions 
 and other descriptions of property were annexed to bishop- 
 rics, benefices, and other ecclesiastical offices ; and the asser- 
 tion of the Pope's authority to appoint to such bishoprics, 
 benefices, and offices, by his bulls or rescripts, without the 
 concurrence of the Crown, involved the assertion of his au- 
 thority to dispose of and affect the rights of property in this 
 kingdom, which it was insisted could not be done without the 
 concurrence of the Crown, as the supreme authority in the 
 realm. At that time, also, several of the bulls or rescripts, 
 and assertions of the Pope's authority, which were referred to 
 in those statutes, directly involved and concerned other mat- 
 ters of a temporal character. But the case was different 
 when the Pope's appointments to bishoprics or other ecclesias- 
 tical offices no longer carried with them or affected any right 
 to property ; when the bulls and rescripts issued by the Pope 
 were merely of a spiritual character, and did not purport to 
 
 as ecclesi- 
 astical 
 offices 
 not now 
 connected 
 with 
 property.
 
 Ber> Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 73 
 
 deal witli any matters of a temporal character, and when the Mr. 
 only authority or jurisdiction expressed to be conferred thereby O'Brien 
 
 was a spiritual authority over the members of his own Church, 
 
 who voluntarily submitted to it. It is further to be observed 
 that, whether the illegality which formerly affected such re- 
 scripts as that now in question, and the exercise of the 
 spiritual authorities thereby conferred, was under the Statute Rescripts 
 of Elizabeth or under the previous statutes, still the subse- on ] y 
 quent legislation to which I have referred would furnish the spiritual 
 same grounds for holding that such illegality no longer con- 
 tinues; and the opinions expressed by Lord Lyndhurst and 
 Lord Campbell as to the effect of that subsequent legislation 
 would equally apply. 
 
 The Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851 l was also referred to Statute 
 in the argument. That Act, however, was passed with reference ykt c GO 
 to such bulls, briefs, rescripts, or letters apostolic from the referred 
 Pope as purported to appoint archbishops or bishops with certain & 
 territorial titles, as archbishops or bishops of any city, place, class of 
 &c. in the United Kingdom, and it declared them to be 
 unlawful and void. It did not, however, contain any such 
 declaration with respect to other bulls, briefs, rescripts, &c., 
 whether they were issued for the appointment of bishops with- % 
 out such territorial titles, or were issued for any other purpose 
 of a purely spiritual character ; and so far as any inference can 
 be drawn from the omission in that Act of any reference 
 to such other bulls, briefs, rescripts, &c., it would rather im- 
 ply that the Legislature did not consider them to be unlawful 
 or void. That Act of 1851 was itself repealed by the 34 and That Act 
 35 Viet. c. 53 (1871), with a proviso that such repeal should 
 not authorise the conferring of any rank, authority, &c., &c. 
 on or over any subject of this realm, by any person in or out 
 of this realm other than the sovereign thereof. 
 
 Independently, however, of any reference to these two Rescript 
 latter statutes, and whatever inferences may be drawn from and^ro- 
 them, I am of opinion that, although such rescripts as that ceedings 
 now in question, of a purely spiritual character, and the "o t ei 
 exercise, affirmance, or assertion of the spiritual power or illegal, 
 authority expressed to be thereby given, were formerly illegal, 
 they were not so when the Act of 1846 was passed, and con- 
 sequently, are not now illegal ; and that, therefore, the 
 
 14 & 15 Viet. c. 60.
 
 74 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Mr. rescript in question, and the inquiry and proceedings under 
 
 O'Brien, i*? were no * illegal or void. 
 
 It would follow from this (for the reasons I have already 
 
 mentioned) that, upon the facts stated in these four special 
 defences, the judgment and sentence of suspension were valid; 
 and the further result would, in my opinion, be that those 
 defences should be held good in law. Two of them (the 
 llth and 12th) are pleaded as 'justification.' An objection 
 has been raised to the llth defence, on the ground that it 
 adopts the meaning attributed to the publication by the 
 innuendo in the 2nd count, and alleges that plaintiff had been 
 * legally' suspended from and deprived of his office. But as 
 the rescript, in my opinion, is not illegal, I think the aver- 
 ment in that defence that the judgment and sentence were 
 ' conformable to the laws, ordinances, and discipline' of the 
 Eoman Catholic Church sufficiently sustains the allegation 
 that the plaintiff had been 'legally' suspended. There is, in 
 fact, no tribunal constituted by the laws of this country for 
 the suspension of a clergyman either of the Roman Catholic 
 Church or of any other non-established Church ; and there is 
 110 power or machinery whatever for effecting such suspension 
 except what is prescribed by the rules and regulations of 
 those several Churches. This objection does not apply to 
 the 12th defence, which does not use the word 'legally' with 
 reference to the suspension, as the 3rd count, to which that de- 
 fence is pleaded, did not by any innuendo ascribe to the judg- 
 ment and sentence the meaning that the plaintiff had been 
 ' legally ' suspended ; and I agree with the opinion already ex- 
 pressed, that, even if the rescript was illegal, the 12th defence 
 should still be held good upon the facts stated in it. 
 Pleas of The other defences (9th and 10th) are on the ground 
 
 good 6S ^at the publication of the judgment and sentence complained 
 of was a ' privileged communication.' Those defences have 
 been fully stated and commented on by my brother BAEKT; 
 and I concur with him in opinion that, even supposing the 
 rescript to be illegal, those defences should, nevertheless, be 
 held to be good as pleas of privilege. Amongst other state- 
 ments in those defences, it is stated that the plaintiff, when 
 he was appointed parish priest, had agreed to be bound by 
 the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the Roman Catholic 
 Church ; that according to such laws, ordinances, and disci-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 75 
 
 pline the defendant had power and authority (of which the Mr. 
 plaintiff had notice) to inquire into and investigate the pro- o'Brien. 
 
 ceedings and conduct of the plaintiff, and did so inquire and 
 
 investigate ; that the plaintiff, having had notice of such 
 investigation and inquiry, appeared before the defendant at 
 same and defended his proceedings ; that the defendant 
 heard all that the plaintiff had to say in relation to those 
 matters ; that the judgment and sentence subsequently pro- 
 nounced by the defendant were in accordance with the laws, 
 ordinances, and discipline of the Eoman Catholic Church; and 
 that the defendant published the said judgment and sentence 
 bond fide and without malice, and believing them to be true. 
 With respect to the 4th count (complaining of the publi- 
 cation of the interdict), it will be seen that the questions 
 arising on the 16th and 17th defences thereto, and on the 
 replications and rejoinders thereon, are substantially the same 
 as those arising on the 9th and 10th defences and on the sub- 
 sequent pleadings in that line ; and that in like manner the 
 questions arising on the 18th defence to the 4th count, and on 
 the subsequent replications and rejoinders thereon, are sub- 
 stantially the same as those arising on the llth defence and the 
 subsequent pleadings thereon, and that therefore the decision 
 on both sets of pleadings should be the same. I am accord- 
 ingly of opinion that our judgment on both sets of pleading 
 should be in the defendant's favour. 
 
 WHITESIDE, C. J. : 
 
 In this case there are some questions to be decided The 
 interesting only to the parties litigant. Other questions of a j ^ 
 constitutional character are involved, of paramount import- 
 ance as affecting the administration of justice to all classes of 
 her Majesty's subjects in this country. The plaintiff is a Facts of 
 priest in holy orders in the Church of Eome in Ireland, and the case> 
 occupies the position of parish priest of Callan, an office of 
 trust and profit, with which he formerly held the office of 
 Eoman Catholic chaplain in the Callan Union Workhouse, 
 an office also of trust and profit ; and he seeks compensation, 
 in the way of damages, for injuries alleged to have been 
 suffered by him in his sacred profession and character, by 
 reason of the writing and publishing of two defamatory libels
 
 76 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 The by the defendant, resulting, according to tlie averments in 
 Justice 6 three of the counts, in his dismissal from his valuable office 
 
 of chaplain to the Callan Union Workhouse. 
 
 It has not been disputed that since the passing of the 
 several statutes securing the toleration of religious opinions 
 in these kingdoms, and the free exercise of religious worship 
 among all religious denominations of Christians, the status 
 and position of a Roman Catholic priest, especially when 
 entrusted with the pastoral charge of a particular district or 
 parish, has been recognised and protected by law. The plain- 
 Pleadings, tiff here alleges that he occupied that position, and claims to 
 be protected in the lawful exercise of the functions attached 
 to it, and he seeks redress against the defendant, whom he 
 charges to have contrived and intended to injure him by 
 falsely and maliciously writing and publishing of him certain 
 defamatory words, described in one count (the 1st), as 
 attributing to him that he (the plaintiff), was not fit to fill 
 the office of parish priest, or to officiate as such, and had so 
 misconducted himself as to render himself unfitted for the 
 said office, and tnat he ought to be deprived of the same ; and 
 as put in another count (the 2nd) that he had been legally 
 suspended from and deprived of his office of parish priest ; 
 and as put in the 4th count that he had been legally 
 suspended, and had ceased to have any right to discharge the 
 functions of a parish priest, and had disregarded the rules 
 of the Eoman Catholic Church, binding on him as such parish 
 priest. The libel as set forth in the 3rd count has no par- 
 ticular meaning attached to it, but is a written declaration of 
 suspension of the plaintiff from every ecclesiastical office and 
 function, until he comes to his right mind, and makes full 
 satisfaction to the Church, in the opinion of the defendant ; 
 and is, moreover, a written declaration of the plaintiff's being 
 deprived of all benefit, dignity, or rank conferred on him by 
 the Church to which he belongs. 
 
 To all these counts (except the 1st) there are pleaded 
 defences in the nature of pleas of justification. 
 
 To the 1st count there is no justification, but there are 
 several special defences (the 9th, 10th, the 16th and 17th) 
 pleaded to the several counts which rely on the libel being 
 what is called a 'privileged communication,' by reason of its 
 being the interest and duty of the defendant to publish on a
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 77 
 
 lawful occasion the sentence, as already described, of suspen- The 
 sion and deprivation. To these several defences by way of justice! 
 
 justification and privilege there are pleaded two replications, 
 
 substantially to the effect that according to the laws of the 
 Roman Catholic Church it was not lawful to pronounce the 
 judgment or sentence of suspension in the defences mentioned, 
 unless or until the plaintiff should have committed some 
 violation of the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the Roman 
 Catholic Church; that the sentences of suspension pronounced 
 against the plaintiff were pronounced against him solely on 
 the ground that the plaintiff had, as a subject of the Queen 
 and as he lawfully might impleaded certain ecclesiastics 
 in her Majesty's courts of law in Ireland, in respect of action- 
 able wrongs and injuries complained of by the plaintiff, 
 within the jurisdiction of the courts of law, and for no other 
 reason or ground whatsoever; that the plaintiff as he law- 
 fully might disregarded the said suspension, and celebrated 
 mass that his doing so was the offence in respect of which 
 the Pope's ordinance was issued, and the inquiry and sentence 
 held and passed ; that save as aforesaid he had not in any 
 manner violated any law of the said Church, and that there- 
 fore, the judgment and sentence were illegal and void 
 according to the laws of the realm. To this the defendant 
 has rejoined that the actionable wrongs and injuries referred 
 to, in respect of which the plaintiff impleaded the ecclesiastics, 
 were the alleged speaking and publishing of the plaintiff of 
 certain alleged slanderous words by the said ecclesiastics, 
 alleged to have been spoken and published of the plaintiff in 
 his character of parish priest of the parish of Callaii ; and 
 the defendant insists that such impleading by the plaintiff of 
 the said ecclesiastics was contrary to and in violation by the 
 plaintiff of the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the said 
 Church. To this the plaintiff has demurred, assigning for 
 cause, that the rejoinder does not contain any matter of 
 rejoinder good in substance, for that the alleged laws of the 
 Roman Catholic Church, in the rejoinders mentioned, in so 
 far as they are alleged to have been violated by the plaintiff, 
 were and are illegal and void. 
 
 Beginning, then, with the demurrer to the rejoinder, and 
 assuming for the present that the Cardinal had jurisdiction 
 by virtue of the papal ordinance to inquire into the conduct
 
 78 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The of the plaintiff, and to pronounce a sentence of suspension 
 or deprivation, the first question to be considered is Whether 
 the sentence so pronounced was a lawful sentence? The 
 plaintiff, by his replication, insists that it was not lawful to 
 suspend him until he (the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe) had committed 
 some offence against the laws of the Church, and that the 
 only offence which he did commit was that of impleading an 
 ecclesiastic in her Majesty's courts of law for an actionable 
 wrong. The defendant, by his rejoinder, has narrowed this 
 averment by stating that the alleged actionable wrong, in 
 respect of which the plaintiff had impleaded an ecclesiastic, 
 was in respect of words stated to have been spoken and 
 published of the plaintiff in his character of parish priest 
 of the parish of Callan, and that such impleading by the 
 plaintiff of the ecclesiastic who spoke and published the 
 defamatory words was a violation by the plaintiff of the laws 
 Is the and discipline of the Church. This raises the question 
 rule which whether such a rule of the Church, or such a term of the 
 impiead- contract alleged between the members of it, was one by 
 ing legal ? w ] 1 { c ] 1 ne plaintiff can be bound. The plaintiff insists that 
 the rule is a rule against the liberty and dominion of the law 
 (as expressed by Baron Martin in Elliott v. Royal Exchange 
 Assurance Company), 1 and contrary to public policy, and 
 therefore, that it cannot be recognised by a court of law as 
 giving validity and sanction to a sentence of suspension 
 founded upon it. The defendant, on the other hand, has 
 contended that there is neither authority nor any principle 
 which prevents a voluntary religious association from making 
 a rule to prohibit its members from going to law with one 
 another, and that such a rule, so far from being contrary to 
 public policy, is in furtherance of it by its tendency to pre- 
 vent public scandal. Before we can duly estimate the 
 arguments on either side we must examine critically the 
 particular rule which is relied on here. Several instances 
 have been referred to, in which it would appear that par- 
 ticular Churches, such as the Free Church of Scotland, and 
 certain religious societies, such as the Wesleyan Methodists, 
 and the Quakers, and even secular and social bodies, such as 
 clubs, have adopted and acted on some rule of this nature. 
 Now, in the first place, the rule set forth in this rejoinder 
 
 1 L. R. 2 Ex. 244.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 79 
 
 (carefully considered and carefully framed, as no doubt it is) The 
 is not a rule that all matters relating to disputes between 
 members or office-bearers of this particular religious com- 
 munity shall be referred to and be adjudicated upon by a 
 tribunal constituted for that purpose within the body itself, 
 so that the original wrong may be certainly redressed. On 
 the contrary, the rule as set forth is nakedly this : that no Nature 
 ecclesiastic shall, under any circumstances whatever, implead of th . e 
 another ecclesiastic in respect of defamatory words spoken of question. 
 him in his character of parish priest. It is not alleged or 
 pretended that the plaintiff had any remedy open to him 
 other than impleading, or that any other means of redress 
 had been provided for him. The rules referred to as pro- p ec u- 
 hibiting Quakers and Wesleyans from going to law with each h an ty of 
 other, when examined, will be found to be based on a refer- 
 ence to a domestic tribunal specially provided for the purpose, 
 and open to the aggrieved members for the adjustment of 
 their complaints inter se ; and the rules of the Society of 
 Friends, as stated in the argument, provide for a reference 
 to the tribunals of law and equity in some cases deemed to 
 be incapable of solution before the domestic tribunal ; but jj 
 in the case before the Court, so far as it appears, either there domestic 
 was no such domestic tribunal open to the plaintiff, or its provided 
 doors have, with determined purpose, been closed against 
 him. 
 
 Let us suppose it had been stated in the rejoinder as the 
 rule of the Church, that no ecclesiastic should implead 
 another ecclesiastic until he had first, according to an 
 alleged contract, brought his complaint before a tribunal 
 constituted for the purpose and open to the plaintiff and that 
 the plaintiff had by way of surrejoinder set forth ' True ; 
 there is such a rule, and I acted in obedience to it ; I pre- 
 ferred my complaint to that tribunal (say the bishop), and he 
 refused to entertain it, or to do justice in the premises ; I 
 appealed to the archbishop, and he refused to hear it ; and 
 finally, I preferred my complaint to the head of the Church, 
 and there also it was declined : I had suffered a grievous 
 wrong, and my subsequent impleading in the ordinary 
 tribunals of my country was of necessity, and neither in 
 violation of the laws of the Church nor of natural justice : 
 I had no alternative open to me by which I could clear my
 
 80 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 A rule of 
 despotism 
 
 contrary 
 to policy 
 of law. 
 
 Contracts 
 not to sue 
 are legal 
 where 
 property 
 only is 
 concerned, 
 
 character from the foul slanders poured upon it, but to resort 
 to this tribunal : I could procure no mandamus to compel 
 my bishop to hear me : I was denied even a hearing of my 
 case against the man who deeply injured me ' would not 
 this have been a complete answer to the rejoinder ? But the 
 rule as alleged is significantly silent respecting the existence 
 of any such domestic forum accessible to the plaintiff, and in 
 which full and impartial justice might have been ad- 
 ministered. As stated, it is a rule of despotism, inconsistent 
 alike with the liberty of the law and with reason. It is that 
 in no possible case shall an ecclesiastic appeal to the law 
 against another ecclesiastic for slander uttered by him. in his 
 sacred character of priest ; and we are compelled to take it 
 that he is required to seek no redress, no remedy, but to 
 submit to the defamation of his character, whether it be for 
 truthfulness, honesty, sobriety, continence to have his good 
 name and fame brought into public odium, infamy, and dis- 
 grace, while his grievance is to be hushed up and his mouth 
 to be closed for ever. 
 
 It scarcely requires authority to prove that such a rule is 
 contrary to the liberty and policy of the law. Has the State 
 no interest in the unsullied character of its members ? Has 
 it no interest that a regularly ordained and inducted parish 
 priest, to whom is committed the religious instruction of a 
 large district, shall be reputed to be a man of character, of 
 good conduct, of honesty, of piety, well esteemed amongst 
 his people, and worthy of their respect ? What resemblance 
 has such a rule to the condition imposed by a testator on the 
 object of his bounty, that he shall not dispute his sanity after 
 he is dead, on pain of forfeiture of his legacy ? The State 
 is interested as Baron Eolfe put it 1 that its subjects shall 
 marry, that they shall embark in trade and the like ; that 
 they shall not violate the laws ; but it has no particular in- 
 terest whether a certain legacy shall fall to A B or fall into 
 the residue. It is true the law leaves parties free to make 
 what contract they may think expedient as to raising or not 
 raising questions of law or of fact among themselves, the 
 result of which may be to give the enjoyment of property to 
 one claimant rather than to another ; but can such con- 
 
 1 Cooke T. Turner, 15 M. & TV. 756.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keefte v. Cardinal Cullen. 81 
 
 tracts be entered into as will bind a man to suffer the loss of The 
 his life or his limb, or of his liberty, or what is dearer than 
 liberty his character, without redress ? ' Suppose/ as Baron 
 Martin put it in Scott v. Avery, 1 ( a man to contract to com- 
 mit a crime or to become the slave of another for life, all a contract 
 would agree that such contracts were not binding, and could vo1 ' 
 not be enforced in any court. There therefore must be some 
 limit.' Now. amongst conditions set forth as void are such 
 as these ; conditions which enable masters to place hardship 
 on their apprentices or servants conditions which tend to 
 oppression, such as that a man shall bind himself not to go 
 to church, or a condition to forbid a man doing his duty. 
 A condition that a man shall not hurt or molest the obligee 
 in his lands or goods is a good condition, for it shall be intended 
 that he shall not hurt tortiously, but not to restrain him from, 
 pursuing the obligee for felony or other just cause. Courts of 
 justice have been established for the redress of wrongs, and to 
 discourage men from taking the law into their own hands. 
 Every citizen of a civilized State surrenders some portion of his 
 natural liberty, and in return is guaranteed by the State full 
 protection for his life, liberty, property, and reputation. Every 
 contract or condition which affects to close the doors of the 
 temple of justice against the complaint of an injured man is 
 regarded with jealousy. Baron Martin says, ' No case says 
 that the parties may contract that a matter shall never be 
 heard in court, and my impression is, that it would be 
 against the liberty and dominion of the law.' 2 In the times 
 of Lord Macclesfield, and perhaps of Lord Eldon, it was con- 
 sidered, as stated by Lord Cranworth, 3 to be against the 
 policy of the law, to give effect to an agreement that 
 questions arising in dispute between parties in regard to their 
 contracts should not be enforced through the medium of the 
 ordinary tribunals. Lord Eldon seemed to doubt whether 
 such a contract was not altogether nugatory. It is true, the private 
 spirit of modern times has been more favourable in reference tr ^ unals 
 to private tribunals. They have not merely been recognized, permitted. 
 but have been clothed with certain judicial powers, as to the 
 summoning of witnesses &c:, and their decisions, although 
 
 ' 5 H. L. C. 830. 
 
 2 Elliot v. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., L. R. 2 Ex, 244. 
 
 3 Scott v. Avery, 5 H. L. C. 848. 
 
 O
 
 82 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 Rights 
 created by 
 contract 
 may be 
 referred 
 to them, 
 but not 
 rights 
 existing 
 indepen- 
 dently of 
 contract. 
 
 unfortunately not in the result always satisfactory, have 
 been sanctioned with a certain degree of authority. It 
 should be observed that all these cases in which there has 
 been a reference of future disputes have been conversant 
 with special contracts and with rights which flow from the 
 mutual stipulations of the parties. But there has been no 
 case or dictum cited from the books in which it has been held 
 or stated that rights which every man possesses indefeasibly 
 and independently of contract, rights acquired from God 
 and nature, life, liberty, property, reputation can be con- 
 tracted away, so as to render it impossible for the sufferer to 
 assert and vindicate such rights in a court of justice. I 
 regard this as a novel and perilous application of a principle 
 admitted with reluctance and hesitation to an entirely 
 new field of judicial decision . Agreements to refer differences 
 arising on contracts have been supported and enforced (as in 
 Livingston v. Ralli), 1 on the ground that they only suspend 
 the right of action till after the decision of the arbitrator, 
 and that they do not finally and conclusively prohibit the 
 resort to the ordinary tribunals, as the rule pleaded here 
 affects to do. Lord Campbell, in that case, says, ' Can it be 
 said that such an agreement is void as being immoral, or as 
 contrary to public policy ? . . . . There seems at one time 
 to have prevailed in our courts a, horror of a domestic forum 
 which I can neither sympathize with nor account for.' Such 
 a case has no application here. But if the question put by 
 Lord Campbell were applied to a rule which purported to 
 prevent an ecclesiastic who had been slandered by being 
 charged with gross theft or immoralitj^ or with having 
 sacrilegiously purloined the oblations and offerings for the 
 poor, and which forbad him seeking to clear his character in 
 the face of his parishioners, would such a rule not be pro- 
 perly described as immoral and contrary to public policy ? 
 It would, at all events, have not the slightest resemblance to 
 the contract enforced in Livingston v. Ralli, in which it was 
 agreed to refer matters in difference regarding an existing 
 special mercantile contract to a domestic tribunal. I need 
 not now consider how far the decision in Livingston v. Ralli 
 itself can be reconciled with the doctrines laid down by Lord 
 Cranworth in Scott v. Averyf a later case, decided in the 
 1 5 E. & B. 132. 5 H. L. C. 847.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 83 
 
 House of Lords, where he says, that if the right of action The 
 had accrued, it would be against the policy of law that such j ust i c e. 
 
 a right should not be enforced through the medium of the 
 
 ordinary tribunals. I do not enter into this consideration 
 
 now. It is not material to the present inquiry it is enough 
 
 to say that such cases have no bearing on the principal case, 
 
 and that I doubt how far the actual decision in Scott v. Avery 
 
 - - viz., that by contract a man may so qualify his right of D ou btful 
 
 action as to render its accruer dependent on some precedent whether a 
 
 material inquiry can have application to future actions of ^ntract 
 
 tort, and whether there can be any such antecedent quali- qualify his 
 
 fication attached to a man's right to redress for an injury action for 
 
 done to his character, or liberty, or person. The right to tort - 
 
 redress in such cases does not flow from any contract between 
 
 the parties to that particular action ; it rather flows from a 
 
 contract with society at large ; and can any stipulation make 
 
 it an incident to the office of a parish priest that he shall 
 
 renounce his natural liberty and submit to slander which he 
 
 knows to be false, and to a denial of justice ? But then it 
 
 is said that the rule does not oust the jurisdiction of the 
 
 Courts, because it may be disregarded, and an action brought 
 
 in defiance of it and full redress had that the Church only 
 
 deals with the status of the priest which the Church itself 
 
 conferred upon him, and that it is to the contract by which 
 
 the Rev. Mr. O'KeefFe acquired his status that the condition 
 
 is attached. But I do not see how this can remove from the 
 
 rule under consideration, as one of the terms of a contract, 
 
 its inherent infirmity and illegality as being contrary to 
 
 public policy ; for, says Baron Martin, 1 ' The manifest object 
 
 of the parties was to keep away from the jurisdiction of the 
 
 ordinary courts of law and equity any question of difference 
 
 which might arise upon the contracts, and merely to make use 
 
 of the courts to enforce the award of the arbitrators. This, in 
 
 m J judgment, the law will not permit ; and whether it be 
 
 attempted to be done directly or indirectly, I think the 
 
 attempt is equally unavailing.' 
 
 It is true that the rule against iin pleading does not and A man 
 cannot hinder impleading directly. Why? because it is mus , t 
 
 VT T~ -it J.1 n0tLe 
 
 contrary to public policy ; but neither is there any case 111 punished 
 which such a contract has been recognized or enforced ; and for 
 
 resorting 
 1 Scott v. Avery, 5 H. L. C. 827, 
 
 a 2
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 to civil 
 courts. 
 
 Court will 
 not 
 
 sanction a 
 rule by 
 which a 
 man is 
 thus 
 punished. 
 
 Pleas of 
 justifica- 
 tion.' 
 
 if its consequences are to make a violation of this rule penal, 
 involving forfeiture of rank, status, and emoluments, as said 
 by Mr. J. Coleridge, 1 f the courts will not enforce or sanction 
 an agreement which deprives the subject of that recourse to 
 their jurisdiction which has been considered a right inalien- 
 able even by the concurrent will of the parties.' In 
 Fitzherbert's Natura Breviumf it is said, 'Where a man 
 sueth in the spiritual court for spiritual causes, and the de- 
 fendant purchaseth a prohibition directed unto the judges 
 there, and delivers the same, and for so doing the judges do 
 excommunicate him for the offence he did to the Church in 
 bringing a prohibition to them upon a spiritual cause ; the 
 party excommunicate shall have a new prohibition upon 
 that matter, commanding them to revoke the same. For a 
 man shall not be punished for suing forth writs in the 
 King's courts whether he have right or wrong;' a rule of 
 many centuries. If the judge of an Ecclesiastical court 
 might have been sued for indirectly punishing a man for 
 becoming a suitor in the Queen's courts, can this court 
 give its sanction to a rule or contract, assuming it to 
 exist, of two parties so contrary to its policy ? The rule, as 
 stated, is a direct punishment for entering the Queen's 
 courts is not this an obstruction and hindrance to the 
 administration of justice ? Is it not almost, if not altogether, 
 constructively a contempt of court ? The court here may 
 not have power to compel the defendant to revoke his sentence 
 founded on the non-observance of this rule which the law 
 condemns ; but will it on the other hand sanction and adopt, 
 as a lawful term of a contract, that by virtue of which 
 the status of a priest is to be affected, and his right to 
 vindicate his character abrogated? 
 
 If the court should be against the plaintiff on this 
 demurrer to the rejoinder, the plaintiff, as is his right, 
 falls back upon the special defences, and contends that 
 they are not sustainable in law. There are, as I have said, 
 three pleas of justification (llth, 12th, and 13th defences) 
 addressed respectively to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th counts. The 
 1st and 3rd are substantially to this effect : ' The libel is 
 time, because you were legally suspended and deprived, inas- 
 much as the sentence was pronounced by the authority of 
 
 1 Scott v. Awry, 5 H. L. C. 841. Title Prohibition, p. 42.
 
 Rev. Robert 0*Keeffc v. Cardinal Cullen. 85 
 
 the Pope, and was conformable to the laws of the Church.' The 
 And the other the 12th defence, by way of justification is ^S.^ 
 
 to this effect : ' The libel is true, because I did suspend you 
 
 and did deprive you, and the sentence was conformable to the 
 laws of the Church.' 
 
 Now, as regards the two former defences, which justify Meaning 
 the libel by saying ( you were legally suspended.' What is f 
 the meaning of ' legally suspended ' ? We must ascertain suspended. 
 that, and the pleader who has framed the defence must 
 justify the averment in the same sense in which it is em- 
 ployed by the pleader who framed the plaint. Does it mean 
 merely suspended according to the laws of the Roman 
 Catholic Church, or according to the laws of the land? I 
 apprehend that nothing can be recognised as law in this Court can 
 Court but the law of the land. The rules and regulations of recognise 
 a voluntary Church may be called 'laws,' by way of law of the 
 courtesy or convenience, but they can have no force or land - 
 acceptance here but as the terms of a contract ; and the 
 Court could take no notice of them even as such, unless to 
 enforce some civil right or redress some civil wrong, and can 
 regard them as binding so far only as they are consistent 
 with the laws of the land. But then it is said suspension is 
 an ecclesiastical sentence, and a libel stating ' I have sus- 
 pended you,' or 'I have legally suspended you,' must 
 mean I have suspended you according to the laws of the 
 Church, and it is a thing not to be decided according to the 
 laws of the land, but by the laws of the Church. This 
 might be a sufficient answer if the act or sentence of sus- 
 pension involved merely spiritual or ecclesiastical rights. 
 This Court has no concern with the private affairs of eccle- 
 siastical bodies not established by law. They may make 
 their own rules of discipline and order, and enforce them in 
 such a manner as they please, and this Court will not inter- 
 fere ; but the moment the temporal and civil rights of a 
 citizen are trenched upon, the Court is bound to inquire into 
 the terms of the alleged contract, how far they -are binding 
 and legal, and how far they have been violated. Lord 
 Colonsay, in the Cardross Case, says : 
 
 ' That body (i.e. the Church) has a constitution and rules by which 
 the society ds governed, and to which its members have voluntarily 
 subjected themselves; and in so far as they have subjected themselves
 
 86 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Facts to 
 justify 
 publica- 
 tion must 
 be shown. 
 
 The to these rules and to that constitution, the civil courts will not hold 
 Lord Chief that they are entitled to complain when these rules are observed, unless 
 ' there is something in them contrary to the public law of the land.' l 
 
 Here a sentence, primd facie defamatory of the plaintiff, 
 lias been formally pronounced and proclaimed by the defen- 
 dant, and he must give some good reason to warrant his 
 defamatory publication. No private individual in this king- 
 dom, however exalted, has a right to pronounce a sentence 
 affecting the temporal rights of any subject, and justify it 
 by saying ' true, I did it.' What he is called on to show 
 is not merely that it is true in point of fact that he did 
 suspend or pass sentence, but that he passed a lawful and 
 a rightful sentence, valid according to the terms of the 
 contract or the rules of the Church ; above all, consistent 
 with the laws of the realm. No man's ipse dixit will justify 
 his having pronounced and repeated a libellous sentence ; 
 something more is involved than the factum of the sentence. 
 The elements of authority and of jurisdiction, lawfully and 
 bond fide exercised, are essential parts of the defence, inas- 
 much as it is these which give the libel its whole sting and 
 force, so that I apprehend the matter of jurisdiction lawfully 
 derived and exercised is involved in the pleas of justification, 
 as I will show they are also in the pleas of privilege. If 
 an alleged defamatory sentence were pronounced, or if com- 
 ments were made by a judge of the superior courts or by a 
 county court judge while sitting in court and trying a cause 
 in whieh the plaintiff was a party, and if an action of libel 
 or slander were brought, it would be a sufficient defence to 
 say, 'I was a judge duly appointed to administer the law; 
 I had full jurisdiction to try the cause ; I am protected in 
 all I uttered for the benefit of the public and for the sake of 
 the jurisdiction entrusted to me, and I am responsible only 
 to public opinion and Parliament.' If a private individual 
 constitutes himself a judge of the conduct of his fellow- 
 subject and pronounces a sentence which is primd facie 
 slanderous, he must justify his conduct by something more 
 than by saying * true, I did it.' Suspension of a parish 
 priest from office and deprivation of his means of existence 
 are something more than matters of dogma or opinion ; they 
 are acts of high jurisdiction exercised by one man over his 
 
 1 The Law of Creeds in Scotland, by A. T. Innes, p. 289. 
 
 Lawful 
 jurisdic- 
 tion is 
 necessary. 
 
 A duly 
 appointed 
 judge is 
 protected. 
 
 Private 
 individual 
 assuming 
 to act as 
 judge is not 
 protected 
 by law.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keefe v. Cardinal Cullen. 87 
 
 fellow, involving serious consequences loss of status, rank, The 
 office, and emoluments ; and a libel saying ' I have sus- j ust j ce | e 
 
 peiided and deprived you,' would not be justified as being 
 
 true, unless the defendant had pronounced a lawful and 
 effectual sentence, warranting and drawing after it the in- 
 fliction of those serious consequences, and unless the libel 
 was conversant with such a sentence and gave a correct 
 narrative of it. It must state, not that the defendant Sentence 
 had said the plaintiff was suspended, but that he said he "^jst be 
 was lawfully and effectually suspended ; so that the pleas of 
 justification rest on the validity of the sentence. And if the 
 statute of Elizabeth be in force, and applies to an exercise but as 
 of jurisdiction such as this, it is fatal to the defence of justi- Elizabeth 
 fication ; and any individual who pronounces, or narrates makes 
 that he has pronounced, such a sentence affecting the t ion 
 temporal rights of any subject of the realm must be prepared illegal, 
 to prove not merely that he passed such a sentence, but to cannot be 
 establish its validity as resulting from the terms of the yalid - 
 contract, and as being consistent with the laws of the king- 
 dom. Even a Judge of a Court of Eecord, whose acts and 
 language are challenged, is bound to show that what he did 
 or said was in the exercise of jurisdiction lawfully committed 
 to him. If he transgresses the bounds of that jurisdiction A judge 
 he is responsible for his acts. In Houlden v. Smith } the exceeding 
 Court held that ' the defendant had not only no jurisdic- diction is 
 tion to commit the plaintiff to gaol, but he had no jurisdic- 
 tion to summon him to show cause why he had not paid the 
 debt. . . . His mistaking the law cannot give him even 
 a primd facie jurisdiction or semblance of any.' So also a 
 celebrated judge of the Ecclesiastical Court was held 
 responsible in damages for unlawfully excommunicating a 
 plaintiff because he (the plaintiff) refused to obey an order 
 which the Court had no power to make. This was the cause 
 of Beaurain v. Scott. 2 The defendant there was that in- 
 comparable scholar, Lord Stowell, whose judgments are 
 master-pieces of learning and ability. Even he was held 
 liable in an action on the case, because he had made and 
 enforced an order which he had no authority to make, and 
 because the party, although he had received notice to appear 
 before him, had not received a regular citation or summons, 
 
 1 H Q. B. 852. 2 3 Camp. 388,
 
 Court of Queen'' s Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 Authori- 
 ties 
 
 showing 
 jurisdic- 
 tion of 
 Spiritual 
 Courts to 
 be limited 
 l>y law. 
 
 The principle of this case, although in a different form of 
 action, applies strongly to the present. The reporter of this 
 case afterwards Lord Campbell appends a note to this 
 effect ' That where the Spiritual Court has excommunicated 
 a person for a cause for which they have not by the law of 
 the land authority to do so, he has a right to some such 
 writ.' When we refer to Blackstone, cited in the note to 
 Campbell's report, we find this passage : t But if the judge 
 of any Spiritual Court excommunicates a man for a cause of 
 which he hath not the legal cognizance, he is also, (i.e. in 
 addition to the civil action,) liable to be indicted at the suit 
 of the King.' * In the 2nd Institute (chapter Articuli 
 Cleri, 9 Ed. 2, p. 598), Lord Coke states that one of the 
 demands of the clergy was, that ' none of the possessions or 
 liberties which any of the clergy had in the right of their 
 church should be tried before any secular judge, so as they 
 would not have cognizance of things spiritual, but of tem- 
 poral also.' They complained against the perverse interpre- 
 tation by the judges of the realm of charters granted to 
 them and in substance against the ancient and just writs of 
 prohibition in cases where, by the laws of the realm, they 
 were maintainable ; so ancient do we find the claim of the 
 Church to govern and to overrule the common law to have 
 been. In his 2nd Institute 2 Coke treats of the remedy 
 which the subject had against an unjust excommunication, 
 i.e., an excommunication for a matter which belonged not 
 to ecclesiastical cognizance. Here he writes of the writ out 
 of Chancery to the sheriff to deliver the excommunicated, if 
 taken under process ; and at the latter part of the note AVC 
 read ' And also the party grieved may have his action upon 
 his case against the bishop in like manner as he may when 
 the bishop doth excommunicate him for a matter which be- 
 longeth not to ecclesiastical cognizance. And also the 
 bishop in those cases may be indicted at the suit of the 
 King, as by many notable records may appear.' 
 
 Thus we see how old is the practice of clerical encroach- 
 ment ; we perceive the mischief arising therefrom, and the 
 remedies prescribed by the ancient law of the Catholics for 
 the correction of such mischief, within the principle of which 
 remedies the present action falls. Indeed, the pleader who 
 
 1 Bl. Com. vol. iiLp. 107. * Chap. vii. p. 623.
 
 Rev. Robert CfKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 89 
 
 framed the defences of justification has carefully prefaced The 
 them by a narrative of facts setting forth the position of the 
 
 plaintiff as a priest, the rescript of the Pope, the notice (not - 
 summons) to the plaintiff, his appearance, the trial, the 
 sentence, and then he proceeds to aver its validity by alleging it 
 was conformable to the laws of the Church of Eome. Mr. 
 Carton admitted that he was obliged by his pleas of justifica- 
 tion, especially those applicable to the 2nd and 4th counts, to 
 show a suspension such as would be recognised by a court of 
 law ; in other words, he must show that the defendant had a 
 lawful authority to pass the sentence, and that he exercised 
 it in a lawful manner. I think this concession was inevit- Private 
 able, and that voluntary and self-constituted tribunals have *"^" t als 
 no exemption from the obligation to state and prove the legal exceed 
 basis of their jurisdiction more than have the regular ecclesias- j^" 
 tical courts of the realm. When they transgress the bounds diction ; 
 of their jurisdiction, they cannot shelter themselves from the 
 inquiry into the validity of their sentences by saying it was 
 an ecclesiastical matter that a sentence has been pronounced cannot 
 which is conformable to the rules of the Church, that there *?*** 
 can be nothing to be redressed in respect of it, that there can astical 
 be no inquiry instituted into its validity, except by these laws character - 
 of the Church, and that it is privileged from being tested by 
 the laws of the land. All this was strongly expressed by 
 Lord Campbell in the House of Lords, in the celebrated 
 Auchterarder Case : l 
 
 ' From the time of St. Thomas a Becket till now there has been no such 
 pretension in any part of this island as that ecclesiastics, in the exercise 
 of n Itbenan arbitrium inherent in them, are of their own authority con- 
 clusively to define and declare their own power and jurisdiction, and . 
 
 that no civil tribunal can call in question the validity of the acts or 
 proceedings of any ecclesiastical court. In the most palmy days of 
 Popery in England, if " the Courts Christian " exceeded their jurisdic- 
 tion, as if they were seeking to enforce an unlawful canon, instead of 
 appealing to the archbishop or to the Vatican at Eome, an application 
 was made to the Courts of Westminster Hall for a prohibition ; the 
 prohibition was granted, and the law would easily have vindicated its 
 dignity if the bishop had insisted on proceeding in the face of the 
 prohibition.' 
 
 In this way the sentence of suspension and deprivation 
 by a bishop of the Church of England in the colony of Cape- 
 
 1 Ferguson v. Earl of Kinnoul, 9 Cl. & F. 323.
 
 90 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The town 1 was held to be open to challenge in the temporal courts. 
 Justice 6 ^ was insisted that the sentences were judgments ecclesias- 
 
 tical and spiritual, issued under the powers conferred by her 
 
 Majesty's Letters Patent ; that the plaintiff was removed for 
 
 Cases in lawful cause ; and that the Court was not entitled to examine 
 the sentence or disturb it. But this contention failed. The 
 
 tical whole j udgment of that eminent jurist, Lord Kingsdown, is 
 
 fitters applicable to the present case, and highly suggestive of prin- 
 
 in courts ciples not to be denied. So again in the Cardross Case* where 
 a minister of the Free Church of Scotland appealed to the 
 civil courts against a sentence of suspension and deprivation, 
 and it was pleaded in bar that the sentence complained of 
 was a spiritual act done in the ordinary course of discipline 
 by a Christian Church tolerated and protected by law, the 
 plea was rejected. So again in the case of a member of the 
 Episcopal Church of Scotland. 3 And the same law was 
 applicable even to the Queen's ecclesiastical courts. The 
 case of Free v. Burgoyne* shows that a prohibition will be 
 granted if the ecclesiastical courts proceed to deprive for that 
 which is not just cause of deprivation, and a sentence of de- 
 privation, showing ex facie that it was founded on that which 
 would not be just cause of deprivation, would be nullity. As 
 said by Lord Campbell in the Auchterarder Casef 'All proper 
 respect is to be shown to ecclesiastical authority, but authority 
 must be denned, or despotism would be established.' 
 
 Assuming, then, that the validity of this sentence is a 
 matter open to discussion 011 the demurrer to these defences, 
 and that so far as the facts stated on the face of these 
 pleadings may enable the Court to form an opinion on the 
 subject the Court is bound to weigh those statements in the 
 golden scales of the law of England, and not by an ecclesias- 
 tical or spiritual standard, let us see on what the defendant 
 has rested the jurisdiction which he has professed to exercise, 
 and from what source he has derived it. As stated by Lord 
 Deas in the Cardross Case : 6 e No man in this country has any 
 
 1 Long v. Bishop of Capetown, 1 Moore, P. C. C. (N. S.) 411. 
 
 2 The Law of Creeds in Scotland (A. T. Innes), p. 257. 
 
 8 Dunbar v. Bishop SJcinncr, The Law of Creeds in Scotland (A. T. Innes), 
 p. 252. 
 
 * 5 B. & C. 400. 
 
 5 Ferguson v. Earl of Kinnoul, 9 CJ. & F. 318. 
 
 The Law of Creeds in Scotland (A. T. Innes), p. 297.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 91 
 
 power over another, in matters either religious or civil, beyond The 
 what the civil law itself confers, except by that other's own 
 consent.' The defendant here has placed upon a slight basis 
 of contract a very lofty and weighty superstructure, consist- 
 ing of the papal rescript or ordinance, the trial, the sentence, 
 and the publication of that sentence pronounced on the plain- 
 tiff. He has cited cases which establish that members of a 
 Church may create an ecclesiastical tribunal and try eccle- 
 siastical cases between themselves. 1 They may establish a 
 domestic tribunal, such as the Wesleyans did in Dr. Warren's 
 Case, with ample powers ; they may vest jurisdiction in a 
 majority of a congregation to dismiss the minister without 
 cause, as in Cooper v. Gordon, 2 just as a private social club 
 may entrust authority to a committee, and if that authority 
 be exercised bond fide, without legal fraud, and in accordance 
 with the constitution of the society or club, this Court can- 
 not and will not interfere with its decision. But, although Church 
 the discipline of any Church not established, is thus far ^^e 6 
 matter of voluntary arrangement, which may be regulated by consistent 
 the will of the members, yet it is presumed to be consistent T 
 with law, and it cannot be permitted to rise above the level 
 of the law. It must first be established as a fact ; it must rest 
 on consent, and conform to general law and public policy, 
 and to this extent, and no further, will it be sanctioned and 
 sustained. So, in this case, the discipline of the Church of 
 Home must be proved as a matter of fact. Its validity must 
 be tested by the law of the land, including public policy, and. 
 by no other standard. 
 
 On what, then putting aside for the present the real or 
 colourable foundation of contract is the jurisdiction rested? 
 It is not rested on the episcopal character or authority of the 
 defendant as a bishop, or as a Cardinal of the Church, or as 
 metropolitan of the province ; and having regard to che title, 
 character, and functions of such prelates or personages, it 
 would be impossible so to do. Mr. Carton admitted that the 
 statements of these official titles were introduced merely to 
 show the privilege arising out of the duty and interest of the 
 Cardinal in promulgating his sentence. The plaintiff insists 
 that qua bishop the defendant had no more episcopal authority 
 
 1 Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, L. K. 3 Eq. 1. 
 
 2 L. E. 8 Eq. 249.
 
 Court of Queen' 's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 Cardinal's 
 juris- 
 diction 
 based on 
 papal 
 rescript 
 alone. 
 
 Can papal 
 jurisdic- 
 tion be 
 given by 
 private 
 contract ? 
 
 Irish law 
 same as 
 English. 
 
 to interfere in this matter than if he (the plaintiff) had sued 
 another ecclesiastic for the price of a horse sold to him or 
 upon a money bond for a just debt. Mr. Carton admitted 
 that the defendant's jurisdiction to do the act complained of 
 rested on the papal rescript alone, by virtue of which any 
 other official selected would have had equal jurisdiction if it 
 had been addressed to him. 
 
 And now we have raised before us a serious question of 
 constitutional law, viz., whether and how far the jurisdiction 
 assumed by the Pope, in pursuance of an alleged contract of 
 the plaintiff, or by virtue of the general discipline of the 
 Church, has arisen above the level of the law, and has 
 infringed on that long and ancient series of statutes which 
 assert the principles of the common law and the supremacy of 
 the Crown. This all-important question must be answered 
 by a close examination of the common law and statute law 
 which we are bound to administer. Every student of history 
 is acquainted with the great quarrel that broke out between 
 the Court of Some and England in the reign of Henry VIII., 
 and which was continued in the reign of Elizabeth, on the 
 question of supremacy, which included the question of the 
 undivided jurisdiction of the Crown, i.e., the authority of 
 the law and the independence of the State. But it is with 
 Ireland and with positive existing law I am concerned. The 
 impetuous Sovereign Henry VIII. declared that he would 
 be Lord of Ireland no longer ; accordingly, a statute made 
 him King. Then he said he would not be half a King, but 
 a whole one; and, accordingly, the principles of the old 
 common law and the doctrine of the undivided jurisdiction of 
 the Crown were embodied in the legislation of the Parliament 
 of Ireland. 
 
 Lord Bacon has written a history of Henry VII., and 
 describes him as one of the best of law-givers the poor 
 man's King, * a title,' writes Barrington, 1 ' which deserves 
 to last to remotest ages, when his elegant and expensive 
 monument in Westminster Abbey is not to be found in its 
 place.' In the reign of this King was passed, at a Parlia- 
 ment held in Ireland, what Lord Coke terms ' a right profit- 
 able Act,' called < Poyning's Law.' 2 By this Act all the 
 statutes made within the realm of England belonging to the 
 1 ' On the Ancient Statutes,' p. 349. 2 4 Inst, 351, 352.
 
 Rev. Robert 0*Keeffe v. Cardinal Cull&n. 93 
 
 common weal were thenceforth, to be deemed good in Ireland. 
 This included, Lord Coke writes, Magna Charta and all 
 beneficial public statutes made in England before the 10 
 
 Henry VII. We got the statute la,w and the common law to pa p ^ ds 
 in their entirety and fulness. I take Caudrey's Case for a authority 
 legal history of the common law on this head of it, which England. 
 affects our subject. With respect to the authorities referred 
 to in that case on the 1st Elizabeth, it was resolved 
 
 ' That the said Act of the first year of the late Queen concerning Ecclesi- 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not a statute introductory of a new law, ast ical 
 but declaratory of the old, which appeareth as well by the title of the O f Crown 
 said Act, viz. "An Act restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdic- in time of 
 tion over the State, ecclesiastical and spiritual " &c., as also by the 1Ea e 1- 
 body of the Act, in divers parts thereof. For that Act doth not annex 
 any jurisdiction to the Crown but that which in truth was, or of right 
 ought to be, By the ancient laws of the realm, parcel of the King's 
 jurisdiction, and united to his imperial Crown, and which lawfully had 
 been or might be exercised within the realm.' l 
 
 In the reign of Henry III. it was held that 
 ' By the ancient canons and decrees of the Church of Rome, the issue p p e ( s 
 born before solemnization of marriage is as lawful inheritable (marriage bull 
 following) as the issue born after marriage, but this was never allowed ^. OK J1 l 
 or appointed in England, and therefore was never of any force here ; Henry III. 
 and this appeareth by the Statute of Merton, made in the 20th year of and E<i ' 
 
 \VL1*CL I 
 
 King Henry 3 In the reign of King Edward 1, a subject 
 
 brought in a bull of excommunication against another subject of this 
 realm, and published it to the Lord Treasurer of England ; and this 
 was by the ancient common law of England adjudged treason against 
 the King, his crown and dignity, for which the offender should have 
 been drawn and hanged ; but at the great instance of the Chancellor 
 and Treasurer he was only abjured the realm for ever.' 2 
 
 Here jurisdiction was asserted by the Pope's bull. 
 
 In the reign of King Edward III. 
 
 ' An excommunication by the archbishop, albeit it be disannulled by p p e ' s 
 the Pope or his Legates, is to be allowed, neither ought the Judges bull void 
 give any allowance of any such sentence of the Pope or his Legate. 
 . . . . An excommunication under the Pope's bull is of no force m. 
 to disable any man within England ; and the judges said that he that 
 pleadeth such bulls, though they concern the excommunication of a 
 subject, were in a hard case if the King would extend his justice against 
 him. ... By the ancient common laws of England, no suit for 
 1 Caudreys Case, 5 Kep. 8a. 2 Ibid., Hi, 12.
 
 94 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 Statute 
 of Ed- 
 ward III. 
 
 Statute 
 of Rich- 
 ard II. 
 against 
 papal 
 bulls. 
 
 any cause, though it be spiritual, rising within this realm, ought to be 
 
 determined in the Court of Rome In an attachment upon 
 
 a prohibition, the defendant pleaded the Pope's bull of excommunica- 
 tion of the plaintiff. The judges demanded of the defendant if he 
 had not the certificate of some bishop within the realm testifying the 
 excommunication ; to whom the counsel of the defendant answered 
 that he had not, neither was it, as he supposed, necessary ; for that the 
 bulls of the Pope under lead were notorious enough ; but it was 
 adjudged that they were not sufficient, for that the Court ought not to 
 have regard to excommunication out of the realm.' l 
 
 Again, by statute 27 Edward III., reciting 
 ' How that divers people were and had been drawn out of the realm 
 to answer to things whereof the conusance pertained to the King's 
 court ; and also that the judgments given in the same court were im- 
 peached in other courts, in prejudice and disherison of the King and 
 his crown, and of all the people of his said realm, and in the undoing 
 and destruction of the common law of the same realm at all times used ; 
 whereof upon good deliberation had with the great men and others of 
 his said Council, it was assented and accorded by the King and great 
 men and Commons aforesaid, that all the people of the King's allegiance, 
 of what condition that they be, which should draw any out of the realm 
 on plea whereof the conusance pertained to the King's court, or of 
 things whereof judgments were given in the King's court, or which did 
 sue in any other court, to defeat or impeach the judgment given in the 
 King's court, should incur the danger of prsemunire, as by the said 
 Act appeareth.' 2 
 
 The famous statute of 16 Richard II., c. 5, expounded 
 fully in Lalor's Case, 3 is as follows : 
 
 ' If any purchase, or pursue, or cause to be purchased or pursued in 
 the Court of Rome, or elsewhere, any such translations, processes, and 
 sentence of excommunication, bulls, instruments, or any other things 
 which touched the King their lord, against him, his crown, his regalty, 
 or his realm, as is aforesaid, and they which bring within the realm, or 
 them receive or make thereof notification or any other execution within 
 the same realm or without ; that they, their notorious procurator?, 
 maintainers, and counsellors, should be put out of the King's protec- 
 tion, and their lands and tenements, goods and chattels forfeit to tho 
 King, and they be attached by their bodies and brought up before the 
 King and his Council, there to answer the cases aforesaid.' 
 
 In the reign of King Henry VI. it was held that 
 ' Excommunication made and certified by the Pope is of no force to 
 
 1 Caudrey's Case, 5 Rep. 146, 156. 2 Ibid., 19. 
 
 8 Sir J. Davies' Rep., 230.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 95 
 
 disable any man within England ; and this is by the ancient common The 
 laws before any statute was made concerning foreign jurisdiction. L( ;| rd V e 
 
 " The Pope Avrit letters in derogation of the King and his regalty, and 
 
 the churchmen durst not speak against them ; but Humfrey, Duke of Papal 
 Gloucester, for their safe keeping, pub them into the fire." ' l nicatioi 
 
 ' In the reign of King Edward IV. the Pope granted to the Prior of void in 
 St. John's to have sanctuary within his priory ; and this was pleaded tV me / 
 and claimed by the prior ; but it was resolved by the judges, that the an( j E<J_ 
 Pope had no power to grant any sanctuary within this realm, and ward IV.; 
 therefore, by judgment of the law, the same was disallowed. There it 
 appeareth that the opinion of the King's Bench had been oftentimes 
 that if one spiritual person sue another spiritual man in the court of 
 Rome for a matter spiritual, where he might have remedy before his 
 ordinary, that is, the bishop of that diocese within the realm, Quiet 
 traltit ipsum in placitum extra regnum, incurreth the danger of a 
 prannunire an heinous offence.' 2 
 
 ' By an Act of Parliament made the 24th year of King Henry VIII. in time of 
 that is to say, by the King, twenty-four bishops, twenty-nine abbots 
 and priors (for so many were then Lords of Parliament) by all the 
 Lords temporal and the Commons in that Parliament assembled, it is 
 declared that where, by divers sundry old authentic histories and 
 chronicles, it was manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of 
 England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed 
 by one supreme head and King ... he being also institute and fur- 
 nished by the goodness and furtherance of Almighty God with plenary, 
 whole, and entire power, pre-eminence, authority, prerogative, and juris- 
 diction, to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner 
 of folks, resiants or subjects within this his realm, in all causes, matters, 
 debates, and contentions happening to occur, insurge, or begin within 
 the limits thereof, without restraint or provocation to any foreign princes 
 or potentates of the world,' &c. ... to keep it from annoyance as well 
 of the See of Rome as from the authority of other foreign potentates.' 3 
 
 Then reciting that appeals were sued out of the realm in 
 causes testamentary, of matrimony, &c. 
 
 { To the great delay and let to the true and speedy determination of 
 the said causes, forasmuch as the parties appealing to the said Court of 
 Rome most commonly did the same for delay of justice ; and foras- 
 much as the great distance of way was so far out of this realm, so that 
 the necessary proofs nor the true knowledge of the cause could neither 
 be so well known or the witnesses there so well examined as within 
 this realm, so that the parties grieved by means of the said appeals 
 were most times without remedy,' &c. 4 
 
 1 Caudrey's Case, 5 Kep., 2Ga. * Ibid., 2Gb. 
 
 8 Ibid., 5 Kep., 28a, 2Sb, 296. * Ibid., 30a.
 
 96 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The It is enacted that 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. ' All causes &c., whether they concern the King, his heirs or succes- 
 
 sors, or any other subjects or resiants within this realm, of what degree 
 
 soever they be, should be from thenceforth heard, examined, discussed, 
 clearly, finally and definitely, adjudged and determined within the 
 King's jurisdiction and authority, and not elsewhere, . . without 
 having any respect to any custom, use, or sufferance in hindrance, let, 
 or prejudice of the same . . . any foreign inhibitions, appeals, 
 sentences, summonses, citations, suspensions, &c., or any other process 
 of what names or qualities soever they be from the See of Rome, or 
 any other foreign potentates of the world, notwithstanding.' l 
 
 The observations of Lord Coke 2 on this marvellous col- 
 lection of authorities, statutes, and cases on this interesting 
 subject deserve the attention of all constitutional lawyers. 
 I have one observation here to make, namely, that all the 
 judgments above reported, and nearly all the statutes referred 
 to, were delivered and enacted in Roman Catholic times. 
 Existing We now approach the consideration of the existing sta- 
 
 law.on the tute law affecting the case. Of these statutes the one most 
 relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel was 2 Eliz. c. 1 (Irish), 
 the purport of which is (s. 5) ' to the intent that all 
 usurped and foreign power and authority, spiritual and 
 temporal, may for ever be clearly extinguished and never to 
 be used or obeyed within this realm,' and it enacts that no 
 foreign prince or prelate shall ' use, enjoy, or exercise any 
 manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, pre- 
 eminence, or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this 
 realm.' But this statute does not stand alone. The 28 
 28 Henry Henry YIIL, c. 13, sec. 1 (Irish), an elaborate and remark- 
 Urisi' T 13 a ^ e historic statute, enacts that any person inhabiting this 
 land who shall, by act, or deed, or writing, hold or stand 
 with to extol, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority of 
 the Bishop of Rome, as heretofore claimed or -used within 
 the realm shall incur the penalties of prseniunire. Again, 
 28 Henry the 28 Henry VIII., c. 19, s. 2 (Irish), prohibits the King or 
 (Irish)? l an y * kis su ^J ec * s su i n g t the Pope for any faculty, rescript, 
 or delegacy, for any cause or matter for which such used to 
 be obtained from the See of Rome. This statute corresponds 
 with 25 Henry VIII., c. 21 (English), and is not repealed. 
 The common law and national basis on which these laws 
 
 1 Caudreys Case, 5 Hep., 30a, 30b, 31a. 2 Jbid., 40b, 41a.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 97 
 
 rested is set forth in the preamble to the 28 Henry VIII., The 
 c. 6 (Irish), which corresponds to the 24 Henry VIII., c. 12 
 (English), and is not repealed. After reciting that the 
 Crown of England ' of itself and by itself is fully, wholly, 2g Henr 
 entirely, and rightfully endowed and garnished with all Vlll. c. 6 
 power, authority, and pre-eminence, sufficient to yield and ' m '' 
 render to all and singular subjects of the same full and 
 plenary remedies in all causes of strife, debate, contention, 
 or division, without any suit, provocation, appeal, or any 
 other process to be had, made, or sued, to any foreign prince 
 or potentate, spiritual or temporal ' it prohibits resort to 
 any external jurisdiction, under the penalty of a prsemunire. 
 
 Now, if these statutes have any force or meaning which Object 
 the judges of this Court are bound to regard, their object O 5. t t h f e 
 was to exclude every kind of interference on behalf of foreign 
 princes or prelates in the suits, causes, and strifes of the 
 subjects of this realm, when that interference assumes the 
 character of jurisdiction, authority, or power. It is a mis- 
 take to say that these statutes even the statute of 2 
 Elizabeth were passed merely with reference to a state 
 Church. No doubt, to protect the state Church from the 
 interference of the Pope with its bishoprics and revenues, 
 was one of the objects of the statute of Provisors ; but it 
 was a still more important object to protect the Common- 
 wealth and the rights of the temporal crown from papal 
 encroachment and usurpation. The 38 Edward III., statute 33 Ed- 
 2 one of the earliest of the statutes of Provisors was to ward In - 
 prevent citations out of Borne ' against all manner of persons 
 of the realm upon causes whose cognizance and final dis- 
 cussing pertaineth to our Lord the King and his Royal 
 Court.' The statute of Elizabeth was not so much a reli- 
 gious as a civil and a national measure. The state Church 
 was then no longer Roman ; but from the earliest times, even 
 when it was Roman Catholic, the King of England and the 
 common law denounced and denied the right of intermed- 
 dling in the affairs of the country on the part of any foreign 
 power whatsoever. The State ever regarded with jealousy jealousy 
 the authority exercised by a foreign power over any large off rei sn 
 body of its subjects. Other countries France, Austria, 
 Naples, Portugal have refused to allow the publication of 
 bulls and rescripts without the previous sanction of the civil 
 
 H
 
 98 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 The law in 
 Ireland. 
 
 Papal ju- 
 risdiction 
 forbidden. 
 
 Arbitra- 
 tion of 
 fellow- 
 subjects 
 permitted : 
 but not 
 foreign 
 authority, 
 
 authorities. These statutes were not introductory of any 
 new law, but declaratory of the old. Lord Coke asserts, as 
 already shown, that ' by the ancient common law of England 
 no suit for any cause, though it be spiritual, rising within 
 this realm, ought to be determined by the Court of Rome.' 
 Well, if the cause were of a temporal or a civil nature, would 
 not the usurpation or assumption of authority to determine 
 it by the Court of Home have been regarded as more extra- 
 vagant still? We have no cases in Ireland reported upon 
 the effect and construction of the statutes of Henry and 
 Elizabeth, to which reference has just been made. But the 
 effect and principle of those and the earlier statutes are 
 thoroughly expounded by the celebrated historic proceedings 
 the case of prseinunire Lalor's Case reported in the first 
 book of Irish reports by Sir John Davies. It is a cardinal 
 fact in this case that the original indictment against Lalor 
 was on the statute of Elizabeth ; but it was for a wise pur- 
 pose ignored, and a new indictment framed on the old 
 statute of Richard II., already noticed, and introduced into 
 Ireland by Poyning's Law. This statute was, of course, the 
 work of the old Catholics, a thoroughly independent race. 
 And what does the exposition in Lalor' 's Case prove ? Why, 
 that the exercise of jurisdiction by legate, or bull, or decree 
 of the Pope was utterly forbidden by the ancient statute of 
 Richard, which affirmed the common law. The law as 
 asserted in this memorable historic precedent has never 
 been altered. It may be, as was thrown out in the course 
 of the argument, that little turns on the ecclesiastical posi- 
 tion of the Pope of Rome, any more than on the position of 
 the Emperor of Russia, and that the Pope is named in these 
 statutes, and not the Czar or the Sultan, because he and not 
 they had pretended to exercise jurisdiction within the realm 
 of England. It may also be admitted that the law has recog- 
 nized to the fullest extent the rights of subjects to submit 
 their disputes to the arbitrament of any person within the 
 realm, whether he be called a bishop or an archbishop ; but 
 when the subjects of the realm profess to invoke or to submit 
 to the authority or jurisdiction of any foreign prince or 
 potentate, I apprehend that the common law and the statute 
 law step in alike and forbid it, and that it is immaterial 
 whether the cause or matter in which the foreign potentate or
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 99 
 
 prelate assumes jurisdiction be ecclesiastical or civil, spiritual The 
 or temporal; his intrusion is in every case unlawful. 
 
 The Pope's interference by way of jurisdiction with the 
 
 Roman Church, when it was the state Church, was illegal. e ; t j ler ^ n 
 His interference with its affairs, by way of jurisdiction, spiritual or 
 when it is not a state Church when its laws are no longer Batters! 
 laws ecclesiastical, but civil contracts is equally illegal, 
 because it is an interference with the civil rights of the sub- 
 ject and of the Crown. The statute of Elizabeth in express 
 terms repudiates and disaffirms all temporal as well as spiri- 
 tual authority derived from any foreign source. The oaths 
 of abjuration and supremacy were but declarations and 
 embodiments of the ancient common law of the realm re- 
 garding ( the supremacy of the King over all estates, and as 
 supreme governor of the realm as well in spiritual things or 
 causes ecclesiastical as temporal.' 
 
 But then it is said that the Irish Church Act } is incon- Is gtatute 
 sistent with the statute of Elizabeth, and has in fact abro- of 
 gated the supremacy of the Crown in matters ecclesiastical re petied? 
 and spiritual, which by the statute of Elizabeth, or (to 
 speak more correctly) by the common law, was inseparably 
 annexed to the Crown of this realm. All this, it was 
 argued, had ceased, and therefore there is no statutory 
 illegality in a Church taking its rules from a person outside 
 the kingdom. This is a superficial and inaccurate view of 
 the effect of the Irish Church Act. The Church of Ireland 
 has ceased to be established by law ; its ecclesiastical courts 
 are no longer 'courts' in the exact sense of the term. 
 They have no coercive jurisdiction ; the ecclesiastical law is 
 no longer ' law ' in a proper sense ; it has ceased to be the 
 Queen's ecclesiastical law, and is reduced to a matter of con- 
 tract. The Queen no longer exercises the right of patron- 
 age as regards its bishops, because they are no longer 
 officers of State. She does not convoke or dissolve the 
 assemblies of the Church, because they are no longer the 
 ecclesiastical parliament of the nation. So far the statute i r ish 
 has interfered with the Queen's supremacy in ecclesiastical Church 
 matters, because these matters have lost their ecclesiastical ecciesias- 
 character in the eye of the law, and in its contemplation tical 
 have entered into a new phase of existence as merely civil 
 
 1 32 & 33 Viet. c. 42. 
 H 2
 
 TOO Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland]. 
 
 The and consensual. But the Queen's supremacy over the 
 Lord Chief bishops and clergy and laity of the Church of Ireland 
 
 remains as it was before. She is supreme over all courts and 
 
 over all causes referred to their determination; and although 
 Causes causes formerly regarded as ecclesiastical, and governed by 
 
 formerly ^ Q Q ueen ' s ecclesiastical law, are no longer such, yet, when 
 
 spiritual ^ ' ' J 
 
 no longer they come to be considered and dealt with in the temporal 
 
 and civil courts, the royal supremacy attaches to them as 
 heretofore. In like manner the law does not recognise or 
 acknowledge the Church of Rome, its laws or its judica- 
 tories, in any higher sense. Disputes between ecclesiastics 
 so called are not causes ecclesiastical, and cannot be re- 
 moved from the jurisdiction of the Queen by being called 
 ecclesiastical or spiritual. If they were, properly speaking, 
 causes ecclesiastical or spiritual, the statute of Elizabeth 
 still forbids it ; if they be civil and temporal, the common 
 law and the statutes equally forbid it. 
 
 Effect of Another argument equally inconclusive has been derived 
 
 of^oaths'of f rorn ^ ne alteration of the oaths of abjuration. It was con- 
 abjuration, tended that the statute of Elizabeth was impliedly repealed 
 by the toleration of the Roman Catholic religion, and by the 
 fact that the oath prescribed by section 7 of that Act that 
 no foreign prince or person hath or ought to have any juris- 
 diction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within the realm was 
 first relaxed, and finally dispensed with. The denial of the 
 authority of any foreign prince or potentate was dispensed 
 with as regards persons of the Roman Catholic religion by 
 the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, which followed in 
 this respect an earlier statute in Ireland * ; and in more re- 
 cent times it has been dropped altogether out of the oaths of 
 allegiance administered to Roman Catholics and Protestants 
 indifferently. Now, the object of these oaths or declarations 
 was, that they should act as tests imposed upon individuals 
 entrusted with particular functions for the protection of the 
 State. But in the progress of that large and enlightened 
 spirit of toleration which has obtained in these kingdoms, 
 these tests have been one after another dispensed with 
 partly in deference to the consciences of individuals, and 
 partly because the State feels itself strong enough to be able 
 to do without them. But did the dispensing with the oath 
 
 1 13 & 14 Geo. III. c. 35 (Irish).
 
 Rev, Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 101 
 
 involve the abnegation of the fact or principle which the The 
 oath embodied? Did the relief of the Eoman Catholics 
 from the obligation of taking this oath imply that the 
 
 Sovereign was no longer supreme governor of the realm in * ' A 
 
 all causes and matters, whether spiritual or temporal ? Be- over all 
 cause, if it did, the admission would have been inconsistent 
 with the fact that the oath has been, until recently, adminis- 
 tered to all other subjects of the realm. The oath was first 
 dispensed with out of regard to the conscientious feelings 
 and scruples of Eoman Catholics, who acknowledge the 
 authority of the Bishop of Rome as their supreme head and 
 ultimate guide in spiritual matters. This was a mere 
 matter of opinion ; the law was content that it should be 
 held, and it instituted no inquiry into what it regarded as a 
 mistake, or even a mischief, so long as it was not forced 
 upon public attention by some overt act of authority, by the 
 promulgation of the Pope's laws, and the upholding and 
 extolling of his authority. The frame of the oath was 
 accordingly modified * by the omission of all allusion to 
 the spiritual authority claimed by the Pope, and the abjura- 
 tion was confined to any temporal or civil jurisdiction, 
 * power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, 
 within this realm on the part of any foreign prince or pre- 
 late.' All this was done that the consciences of Roman 
 Catholics might not be embarrassed ; but it involved no altera- Principle 
 tion or abrogation of the principle of the common law of Eng- ^^^ 
 land, and perhaps of every independent State in Europe, viz., law still 
 that there can be but one external jurisdiction with sove- 
 reign authority, having no superior or equal under God. 
 Latterly even this abjuration of foreign jurisdiction, as re- 
 gards civil and temporal matters, has been dispensed with; 
 and if the argument I am considering be well-founded, it 
 will involve the monstrous consequences that the supremacy 
 of the Crown over its subjects, ecclesiastics and laymen, and 
 over all causes, whether spiritual or temporal, has been 
 abandoned, and that the old principle of the common law, 
 which was asserted as resolutely in Eoman Catholic as in 
 Protestant times, has been renounced. The Pope therefore 
 might have forwarded his rescript to the Commissioners of 
 the Poor-law Board directly, and have commanded them to 
 
 1 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, s. 2.
 
 102 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Po e has 
 exercised 
 
 stat. 9 & 
 
 10 Viet. 
 
 c. 59. 
 
 bulls still 
 
 unlawful 
 by statute. 
 
 dismiss the Eev. Mr. O'Keeffe from his office of chaplain, 
 witll out offending against the law of England. Mr. Carton 
 avowed his contention to be that if the statute of Elizabeth 
 did not stand in the way of such an exercise of usurped 
 authority, that might be done. To insist, after this state- 
 ment of the consequences flowing from the repeal of the 
 statute of Henry and Elizabeth, that the Pope would not 
 have and exercise authority within the realm would be 
 impossible. In point of fact, he has done so, and has been 
 obeyed. 
 
 Like observations apply with still greater force to the 
 statute 9 and 10 Viet. c. 59, which, while relaxing the un- 
 
 . 
 
 reasonably severe and almost savage penalties for asserting 
 the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, or for importing his 
 bulls, nevertheless emphatically re-affirms the prohibition of 
 the statute of Elizabeth and of the common law, and says 
 (while repealing the penalties) ' that nothing in this enact- 
 ment shall authorise or render it lawful for any person or 
 persons to affirm, hold, stand with, set forth, maintain, or 
 defend any such foreign power, pre-eminence, jurisdiction, 
 or authority. 5 
 
 So, also, this Act of Victoria, modifying the statute 13 
 
 ' .,- ,. L -11 i j_i 
 
 Elizabeth, c. z, against importing bulls, repeals the unreason- 
 afo[ e penalty of prsemunire, but declares that it shall not 
 authorise or render it lawful to import or put in execution 
 any such bulls, writings, or instruments. Here, again, the 
 Legislature, whilst regardful of the conscientious opinions 
 of Roman Catholics, and knowing that it was part of their 
 creed to believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and 
 being aware, perhaps, that in practice the discipline of the 
 Church was to some extent accomplished by means of com- 
 munication with the Pope, and from him, in the shape of 
 certain bulls regulating Church matters, nevertheless re- 
 fused to give any legal sanction to or recognition of the law- 
 fulness of these opinions or communications, and has con- 
 tinued in full force and activity the common law and 
 statutable prohibition of all overt acts in violation of the 
 supremacy of the Crown in these realms, and in assertion of 
 the civil or spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope within this 
 kingdom. So long as these matters rest on opinion and on 
 conscience, the law will allow them to remain without moles-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Oullen. 103 
 
 tation or interruption, or even inquiry; but when the The 
 validity of an ordinance of the Pope, as giving authority to L r<i 9 lnef 
 
 his delega te to hearand determine judicially matters in dis- 
 
 pute in this kingdom, whether ecclesiastical or civil, is 
 insisted upon, I consider myself bound to have regard to the 
 statute and common law of the land, and to declare such 
 ordinance to be illegal, and incapable of conferring any 
 authority or jurisdiction of any kind upon the person so 
 delegated : and that whether the individual is specially 
 chosen or appointed for the purpose, or acts as legate a 
 latere from the Pope, which latter office has not, that I am 
 aware of, been recognised as lawful within the British 
 Islands. 
 
 I must notice with more particularity the statutes which i s old law 
 are relied on as effecting a repeal by implication of the ancient r e Pf ale( | 
 statutes of the realm. The recent Act, which is said to cation? 
 have impliedly repealed the 5th section of the statute of 
 Elizabeth, is, as I have said, the 10 Geo. 4, c. 7, s. 2, which 
 substitutes a new form of oath for Roman Catholics in lieu of 
 the declarations formerly required, and which they declared 
 they could not conscientiously take. But in the oath substi- Stat. 10 
 tuted in the 2nd section are these words ' I do not believe ^ e ' Iv< 
 that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, 
 person, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any 
 temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre- 
 eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm.' If, by a 
 rescript directed to a board or public body in this country, 
 the Pope can command the removal of a chaplain from a 
 lunatic asylum, a prison, or a poorhouse, which chaplain is 
 paid by moneys provided by the State, the Pope exercises 
 not indirectly, but, in my opinion, directly, a certain jurisdic- 
 tion within the realm. It is as illegal to receive and obey 
 as it is to exercise this usurped authority. The statute * for 
 the more effectual application of charitable donations and 
 bequests in Ireland was referred to. Why ? because by 
 section 15 any person may, by will or deed, give and grant to stat. 7 & 8 
 the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Vlct - c - 9 ?- 
 Ireland, lands &c. in trust for building any chapel or place 
 of religious worship of persons professing the Roman Catholic 
 religion, or in trust for any archbishop or bishop or other 
 1 7 & 8 Viet. c. 97.
 
 104 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The person in holy orders in the Church of Rome officiating in 
 L Just?ce Cf an ^ di^ri *- I presume the use made of this statute is to 
 contend that, because the office of bishop of the Church of 
 Rome is recognised as really existing, although no particular 
 diocese is named, therefore it was meant by the Legislature to 
 repeal the ancient statutes of Henry and Elizabeth. Such 
 an implication is not only remote, but I think impossible. 
 To assist or allow Roman Catholics to endow out of their own 
 property their own Church, and in more ample measure than 
 the Protestants can do, is quite consistent with preserving an 
 undivided jurisdiction within the realm, and forbidding all 
 foreign interference, including that of the Pope, in our 
 Stat. 29 internal affairs. The 29 Yict. c. 19, s. 6, being the Act to 
 ict. c. 19. su ]3 3 titute for former oaths the uniform oath of members of 
 Parliament, contains these words : ' Provided always that the 
 repeal of these Acts, or any of them, or of any parts thereof, 
 shall not be construed to weaken, or in any manner to affect 
 any laws or statutes now in force for preserving and uphold- 
 ing the supremacy of our lady the Queen, her heirs and 
 successors, in all matters civil and ecclesiastical, within 
 this realm and other her Majesty's dominions.' I regard 
 these words as reasserting the principle contained in the 
 statute of Elizabeth, and expressed by the common law. 
 The supremacy of the Crown in all matters civil and ecclesi- 
 astical necessarily excludes all other, especially foreign juris- 
 diction. 
 
 StHt. so & The Office Oath Act * was next referred to ; but statutes 
 81 Viet prescribing a form of oath which will relieve the conscience 
 of individuals, or enabling Quakers to make an affirmation 
 instead of taking an oath, could never be reasonably con- 
 tended to operate as an implied repeal of a fundamental 
 statute against the intrusion of a foreign jurisdiction within 
 the kingdom. Why should Quakers or Nonconformists raise 
 any such question, and why should relieving statutes, such as 
 referred to, be held to repeal the statute of Elizabeth, to 
 which, as excluding foreign jurisdiction, these conscientious 
 persons never objected ? 
 
 Stat. 32 & Lastly, the statute 32 and 33 Viet. c. 42, entitled * An 
 83 Viet. ^ c t to put an end to the establishment of the Church of 
 
 C. 42. c 
 
 Ireland,' was referred to, because, by section 20, the Parlia- 
 
 1 30 and 31 Viet, c. 75.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keefft v. Cardinal Cullen. 105 
 
 ment allowed the spiritual Church to exist by contract The 
 amongst its members, as other religious bodies may exist. It L ^ rd | uof 
 
 seems to me a non sequitur to argue that because religious 
 
 bodies may exist by contract within the realm in conformity 
 with the law, therefore foreign jurisdiction cannot be intended 
 longer to be excluded, and that rescripts of the Pope may be 
 openly addressed to public bodies within the kingdom, to be 
 by them blindly accepted, used, and obeyed; and that, 
 although affecting to deal with things spiritual, such rescripts 
 may control the temporal rights of subjects within the 
 realm. 
 
 The 34 and 35 Viet. c. 53, repealing 14 and 15 Viet. c. 53, Stat. 34 & 
 which forbad the assumption of certain ecclesiastical titles, c 5 3 ict ' 
 is the last in the long series of generous concessions on the 
 part of the Legislature to the feelings and opinions of the 
 Eoman Catholic people of these kingdoms. Yet, what aid 
 does it afford to the argument founded on implication? Tt 
 distinctly negatives all pre-eminence or precedence of rank 
 or title, save under the authority of her Majesty, and accord- 
 ing to the laws of this realm ; and, to prevent the possibility 
 of misinterpretation, it is expressly provided that such repeal 
 shall not, nor shall anything in the Act contained be deemed 
 * in any way to authorise or sanction the conferring, or 
 attempting to confer, any rank, title, or precedence, authority, 
 or jurisdiction on or over any subject of this realm by 
 any person or persons in or out of this realm other 
 than the Sovereign thereof.' In my opinion, this proviso 
 negatives all implications such as those ingeniously but 
 fallaciously contended for on the part of the defendant. 
 Penalties are removed, but the law remains unaffected. 
 
 To conclude this question of repeal by implication. In 
 the Statute Law Revision Act, 1863, the Act 2 Elizabeth, c. 
 1 (Irish), is stated to be repealed in part by 9 and 10 Viet. c. 
 59, s. 1. Nowhere is there any repeal of the statutes of 
 Henry or Elizabeth which affect this case. Concessions were 
 made to the scruples of the Eoman Catholic subjects of the 
 Queen, all penalties were removed, but the ancient law was 
 steadfastly maintained. No inquiry was made into the pro- 
 ceedings of the Church of Home, so long as they were not 
 forced upon our attention by the promulgation of tlie Pope's 
 laws, or rescripts, or mandates, or by insisting on the validity
 
 106 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The of his commissions in a court of law. Here a commission 
 hief f rom ^ke PP e is formally pleaded in a suit as a defence to 
 
 an action, and this is, in my opinion, forbidden by the 
 
 ere , common law, and therefore the defences resting on such 
 rescript commission are not sustainable. 
 
 leadecL But, then, it is said that the papal ordinance is not relied 
 
 on as having conferred jurisdiction on the defendant except 
 Can by virtue of the contract or consent of the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe ; 
 
 contract to an< ^ that, although it is not especially alleged that he (Mr. 
 obey laws O'Keeffe) agreed to be bound by the papal ordinance, yet, if 
 give force & can ^ e shown that it has been the ancient and universal 
 to rescript, usage in the Church to obey papal ordinances, and the 
 universal law of the Church to admit the validity of such 
 ordinances, the usage is imported into the contract entered 
 into by the plaintiff at his ordination, as one of its terms. 
 The pleader has, no doubt, covered the introduction of the 
 ordinance of Pope Pius IX. with a slight fringe of contract ; 
 he has introduced an averment to the effect that the plaintiff, 
 as parish priest, had consented and agreed to be bound by 
 the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the Eoman Catholic 
 Church. But, notwithstanding that averment, I think he 
 has, throughout the defence, unmistakably challenged for 
 the rescript of the Supreme Pontiff an innate and independent 
 authority. He expressly states that it was under and 
 by virtue of the said ordinance (not by virtue of the con- 
 tract) that the defendant inquired and at the time had full 
 power and authority to inquire into and investigate the 
 proceedings and conduct of the plaintiff, and to pronounce 
 the judgment and sentence complained of. As I read it, the 
 basis of the jurisdiction is colourably, but very faintly treated 
 as a contract, but it is substantially and boldly alleged to be 
 derived from a source higher than contract and above the 
 laws of this realm. But surely the consent and agreement 
 of the Eev. Mr. O'Keeffe to be bound by the laws and usages 
 of the Church of Eome, however emphatically alleged or 
 Limitation proved, must be taken to mean a consent to be bound so far 
 of contract. as fl lose l aws are ^ot contrary to the laws of the realm ; and if 
 it be a law or usage of the Church to admit and to obey 
 papal rescripts and ordinances, even affecting temporal 
 matters, and if the common and statute law of the realm de- 
 clare such admission and obedience to be illegal and perilous
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 107 
 
 to the independence and repugnant to the constitution of the The" 
 kingdom, no consent of the Eev. Mr. O'Keeffe can give L rd 9 ilief 
 
 . . . .... Justice. 
 
 validity to this usurpation of jurisdiction. The defendant's 
 
 counsel admitted that it would be a violation of the statute 
 of Elizabeth if the Pope, without any compact amongst the 
 clergy of this Church, had sent a rescript into this country 
 affecting to deprive a man of any advantage. The Pope, as 
 he put it, was nothing more than the person whom the 
 parties had agreed to name as a delegate to try this case. But 
 let us suppose that the Convention Act was still in force in 
 Ireland, and the members of the Church of Ireland had agreed 
 to submit any differences amongst their members to the 
 arbitrament of a General Synod sitting at Dublin, being a 
 body of delegates meeting in defiance of the statute, could any 
 judgment which the Synod might pronounce be set forth in 
 pleading in this Court as a justification of a defamatory sen- 
 tence ? Certainly not. 
 
 There are many cases which establish that no amount of Acquies- 
 consent, or concurrence, or submission, or acquiescence in ?encein 
 respect of a transaction which is prohibited by law, can bind does not 
 or estop the party from afterwards insisting on its illegality. bin< ? a 
 I will refer to three cases of this class. In the Stratford and 
 Moreton Railway Company v. Stratton, 1 a director of a rail- 
 way company who had joined in making an illegal call was 
 held not to be estopped from disputing the payment. Mr. 
 Justice Taunton says 'It was not competent to him to 
 dispense with the statute under which he and the rest of the 
 
 committee professed to act The calls being 
 
 contrary to law, it lies in his mouth to take that objection, 
 though he was a party to their being made. 3 Again, in 
 Preece v. Howells^ where the plaintiff had acted upon a deed, 
 and then insisted that it was void under the 9 George II., 
 c. 36, s. 1, for want of enrolment, Lord Tenterden asks * Is 
 there any authority for saying that a party is estopped from 
 showing that a deed is void in law ? ' Then, as to whether 
 attendance under a summons from a tribunal having no 
 proper jurisdiction waives the right to object, I may refer to 
 the case of Rogers v. Wood, 3 where a citizen of Chester 
 attended under summons issued by a tribunal consisting of 
 
 1 2 B. & Ad. 518. 2 Ibid., 747. 
 
 * Ibid., 245.
 
 108 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 The the Lord High Treasurer of England, the Chancellor of the 
 L j rd C l nef Exchequer, the Under Treasurer, and the Chief Baron, upon 
 
 a complaint made against the citizens of Chester on the 
 
 hearing of which a decree was pronounced ; and when this 
 document was produced and offered in evidence against the 
 plaintiff, the Court held that it could not be received, be- 
 cause it was not a decree of any court known to the law at 
 the time when it purported to be made, nor could it be 
 received as an award made between the parties, because ' an 
 award must be founded on a voluntary submission, whereas 
 in this case the citizens were not voluntary parties. They 
 were called before the persons who made the decree by an 
 authority which at that time of day they might not think 
 it convenient to resist.' In Green v. Rutherforth, 1 Lord 
 Hardwicke said : 
 
 ' A third point was attempted for the defendant that the answer by 
 the Master &c., particularly by the plaintiff before the visitor, and by 
 several acts, there had been a submission to the jurisdiction of the 
 visitor, which is conclusive. But there is no colour for it ; for in case 
 of a private, particular, limited jurisdiction, and of courts proceeding 
 by rules different from the general law of the land, no appearance, 
 answering, or pleading of the party will give a jurisdiction to the court; 
 but if there is a want of jurisdiction in the cause, it may be called in 
 question at any time, even after sentence ; which is the case of all pro- 
 hibitions granted every term by the common law courts, for a nullity 
 of jurisdiction ; so that it may be applied for even against the party's 
 own suit; and the same holds in a collateral action or suit.' 
 
 Was When it is contended that the plaintiff here was bound 
 
 bound by ^J his contract to obey all the laws of his Church, and was 
 contract to bound to obey his ecclesiastical superiors by his vow or 
 spi'rituHi obligation of canonical obedience, we must remember that it 
 superior? was put forward in the AucJderarder Case as an excuse for 
 the conduct of the defendants, that they were under the 
 most solemn obligation to conform themselves to the disci- 
 pline of the Church and the authority of its judicatories ; but 
 this excuse was disallowed, and Lord Campbell thus ex- 
 pressed himself: 'It is my duty to say that all oaths of 
 obedience to superiors are attended with the implied condi- 
 tion that their commands are lawful.' 2 So, again, in the case 
 
 1 1 Ves. Sen. 470. 
 
 2 Ferguson v. Earl of Kinnoul, 9 Cl. & F. 323.
 
 Rev. Robert O^Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 109 
 
 of Long v. Bishop of Capetown, 1 the plaintiff's oath of canoni- The 
 cal obedience was relied upon as a consent to submit to Lf ! r<i 9 hief 
 
 . , i . Justice. 
 
 every sentence, however questionable ; but it was expounded 
 
 by Lord Kingsdown to mean no more than 'that he will 
 obey all such commands as the bishop by law was authorized 
 to impose.' 
 
 Again, it was contended that the question of the validity Demurrer 
 of the suspension does not properly arise, because it is Admits 
 alleged as a matter of fact, and consequently is admitted by stated, 
 the demurrer. Now, what is admitted by the demurrer, 
 which admits nothing that is not well pleaded, is the matter 
 of fact that there are such laws or regulations of the Roman 
 Catholic Church as are stated, and perhaps also that the 
 sentence of suspension did flow from those laws ; but what is 
 challenged by the demurrer and contested here is not the 
 validity of the sentence of suspension according to the laws 
 of Rome, but its validity when tested by the common and 
 statute law of England, a wholly different matter. By 
 admitting as a matter of fact a foreign law, and the conclu- 
 sions which might result from its provisions, the pleader is 
 not excluded from maintaining the incompatibility of that 
 law with the law of the land ; and if he can establish that tut this - a 
 the particular law is contrary to the law of England, no a question 
 justification based upon it can stand in this court ; and there 
 is no admission on the record, nor could there be, of the 
 matter of law involved in the validity of this sentence. The 
 plaintiff, no doubt, must be considered on these pleadings as 
 having contracted to abide by all the laws and regulations 
 of the Roman Catholic Church ; but, as was held in respect 
 of the oath of canonical obedience, the contract binds him 
 only so far as these laws and regulations are conformable to 
 the laws of his country. So again, the admission that, 
 according to the laws of the Church, the Pope had full power 
 to make the ordinance set forth by the defendant that by 
 force of that ordinance the defendant had acquired full power 
 and authority to inquire and investigate and pronounce any 
 judgment against plaintiff, for his conduct and proceedings, 
 which was conformable to the laws of the Church, and that 
 as a fact the defendant did suspend Mr. O'Keeffe according 
 to the regulations of the Church all these so-called admis- 
 1 1 Moore P. C. C. (N. S.) 465.
 
 110 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The sions of the pleader are qualified by the necessity of the case 
 ^Stic 1 ^ ttat tlie y be sllown * be compatible with the law of the land. 
 Then, it is said, that this is not the proper form of action 
 As to ky which to raise the question of the invalidity of the sen- 
 form of tence. The plaintiff's real grievance, it is said, is that the 
 Cardinal Archbishop has wrongfully suspended him, not that 
 he libelled him by saying that he had suspended him. I 
 apprehend that, although the original act of suspension, 
 whenever or wherever it was accomplished or attempted, was 
 a grievance, the repetition, or recital, or proclamation of that 
 wrongful act in writing is not the less a grievance, or less 
 properly to be described as a libel, as being either in itself 
 a libellous sentence or the narrative of one. It was said, 
 why not challenge the suspension directly, either at law or 
 in equity? Why not ask to have it set aside, and restore 
 Mr. O'Keeffe to his office and its emoluments ? I apprehend 
 that the plaintiff's case is not that he has been removed from 
 his office of parish priest. From all that this court at pre- 
 sent can know, he may be in full enjoyment of his office and 
 of all its emoluments, and even if he were removed from his 
 office of parish priest, neither this Court nor the Court of 
 Chancery would have power to restore him to his office, or 
 to that of chaplain to the poor-house. No doubt if property 
 e.g., the chapel or the clergyman's house was vested in 
 trustees for the lawful parish priest of Callan, the Court of 
 Chancery might and would inquire whether the plaintiff was 
 the lawful parish priest, and, if he were, would compel the 
 trustees to permit him to have the use of both. The same 
 redress would be open equally to the defendant or the heads 
 of the Church, if they were to go into the Court of Chancery 
 and insist and prove that the plaintiff had been legally sus- 
 pended and removed ; but the plaintiff, I consider, was fully 
 justified, and did not mistake his appropriate remedy, in 
 framing his complaint for libel to recover damages for the 
 injury which he alleges he suffered by the publication of a 
 defamatory, because unjust, sentence. This was the form of 
 action adopted in the case of Dunbar v. Skinner l which 
 was an action brought against a bishop of the Episcopal 
 Church of Scotland by a minister, for having pronounced 
 and published of him a sentence of deposition. In con- 
 
 1 The Law of Creeds in Scotland, bj A. T. Innes, p. 253.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. Ill 
 
 eluding this portion of my judgment, I add merely that I The 
 approve of the wholesome rule laid down and resolutely in- 
 sisted on by the Courts in Scotland, of always examining 
 every ecclesiastical sentence complained of, as essential to 
 the administration of justice. 
 
 Having considered the defences pleaded in justification, As to 
 I next propose to examine the defence of privileged com- 
 munication. What is the principle upon which such a plea communi- 
 rests ? An action lies for the malicious publication of 
 statements false in fact, and injurious to the character of 
 another, and the law regards such publications as malicious, 
 unless fairly made by a person on a suitable occasion in the 
 discharge of some public or private duty, either legal or 
 moral, or unless made in self-defence, or in the conduct of 
 his own affairs, in matters in which his own interest is con- 
 cerned. Duty is the groundwork of such a qualified defence, 
 and public policy the ground of its admission ; and as the 
 occasion which it is alleged excused the publication must be 
 determined by the Court, and as by the Common Law Pro- 
 cedure Act (Ireland) the defence must be specially pleaded, 
 it follows that the facts and circumstances which create the 
 occasion must be set out in the plea, in order to enable the 
 Court to pronounce whether the occasion permitted or shel- 
 tered the publication complained of. It is impossible for a More 
 defendant to create or invent an occasion for himself and assertlon 
 then to publish his defamatory matter, damaging or ruinous sufficient. 
 to the character of another ; his duty, legal or moral or 
 social, must be shown. No man can assert simply ' it was 
 my duty to proclaim that you, the plaintiff, were a degraded 
 priest, and therefore I did it ; ' the accuser must make out, Facts 
 by facts and circumstances why it was his duty to publish stat d 
 
 J must show 
 
 his anathema ; nor can an individual, if applied to, even on a duty. 
 a matter in which he takes some interest, avail himself of 
 the opportunity given to him of aspersing the character of 
 the applicant. In illustration of my argument I refer to the 
 case of Huntley v. Ward. 1 The plaintiff's attorney in that 
 case, at his desire, wrote to the defendant, demanding pay- 
 ment of an alleged debt; to this the defendant sent an 
 answer containing gross aspersions on the character of the 
 plaintiff. The plaintiff brought his action on the libellous 
 1 6 C. B. (N. S.) 514.
 
 112 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The character of the defendant's letter, and the defendant's 
 counse l alleged that the letter was fairly warranted by the 
 occasion &c. Mr. Justice Willes interposes : ( If you have 
 any case where such a communication as this has been held 
 to be privileged, I should like to see it.' The Court held 
 that there was no legal or moral duty warranting the 
 defendant in writing such a letter, and that the occasion did 
 not protect the defendant from answering for his defamation. 
 The case of Wenman v. Ash l supports the same principle. 
 The defendant, an elderly gentleman, had resided for some 
 time in the house of the plaintiff. After he quitted the 
 house, he addressed a letter to the plaintiff's wife, praising 
 her conduct towards him while in her house, but reflecting 
 upon her husband for unlocking his box and extracting 
 papers, and threatening that, unless the articles were re- 
 turned, he (the defendant) would expose the husband. The 
 husband brought his action on this defamatory letter, and 
 the defendant's counsel plausibly argued that the defendant 
 had an interest in the subject-matter ; that he was only 
 endeavouring to get back his property ; and, furthermore, 
 the counsel persuaded the jury to negative malice by their 
 verdict. But the Court reviewed the whole case, and held 
 that the occasion did not excuse or warrant this publication. 
 Moreover, the Court held that the circumstance of the jury 
 having negatived malice did not make the communication 
 privileged. The point of the case, as explained by Mr. 
 Justice Maule, was, that the circumstances did not present 
 any justifiable occasion for writing the defamatory matter, 
 or show it to have, been done either in pursuance of a duty 
 or for the purpose of endeavouring to enforce a right, and 
 that, therefore, the communication was not privileged. The 
 circumstances of the case of Gilpin v. Fowler? are very 
 applicable to the principal case. The plaintiff, Gilpin, was 
 master of a National School in England, in the parish of 
 Crawley, of which the defendant was rector and one of the 
 managers of the school. The rector requested the school- 
 master to teach a Sunday-school in connection with the 
 National School, which he declined on account of the in- 
 creased labour, and was, in consequence, unfairly dismissed. 
 The plaintiff, stripped of his place, resolved to teach a school 
 
 1 13 C. B. 836. 2 9 Ex. 616.
 
 Rev, Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 113 
 
 of his own in the same parish and so earn his livelihood, The 
 whereupon the rector, calculating upon the relation in which L r(i 9 hief 
 
 he stood to his parishioners and towards the schoolmaster, ' 
 
 who had been so long subject to his authority, seized the 
 occasion, and proclaimed it to be his duty to publish and 
 circulate in his own and the adjoining parish the pamphlet 
 which was complained of as a libel. In the pamphlet the 
 rector addressed the parishioners as their pastor whose office 
 it was to watch for their souls, narrated the history of the 
 National School and the other circumstances of the case, 
 and then complained of the plaintiff for attempting to set 
 up a school in the same parish, stating that ' the very 
 attempt betrays a spirit of opposition to authority, and is a 
 justification of the conduct of the managers of the school, 
 who have nevertheless thereby incurred no little odium. No 
 rightly disposed Christian,' writes the rector, ' who receives 
 in simple faith, the teaching of inspiration, " obey them that 
 have rule over you, and submit yourselves," can expect God's 
 blessing to rest upon such an undertaking.' Then the 
 rector warns all the parishioners who aid and abet the 
 schoolmaster in any way, that they ' will be partakers with 
 him in his evil deeds,' and he quotes Scripture. At the 
 trial, the matters noticed having been given in proof, the 
 Lord Chief Baron Pollock was persuaded to tell the jury that 
 the pamphlet was a privileged communication ; the plain- 
 tiff's counsel took a bill of exceptions to this direction, and 
 in the Exchequer Chamber the case was fully argued before 
 seven learned judges. The first point presented to the 
 Court by the plaintiff's counsel was, that the occasion did 
 not permit or excuse the libel. The defendant's counsel 
 relied on the relation which had subsisted between the 
 rector and the schoolmaster as rendering the communication 
 privileged : Mr. Justice Erie interposed with this observation 
 ' Instead of the expression, " privileged communication," 
 it would be more correct to say that the communication was 
 made on an occasion which rebutted the presumption of 
 malice.' The correction by that eminent judge denotes 
 that he thought that the occasion is to be closely considered 
 in such cases. The counsel for the rector pressed on the 
 Court that he had acted under a sense of duty, as he con- 
 sidered the plaintiff's conduct likely to produce disunion in 
 
 I
 
 114 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Chief 
 
 Belief in 
 truth of 
 statement 
 does not 
 give a 
 privilege. 
 
 the parish. The Court gave judgment without a dissentient 
 for the plaintiff, through one Judge, who said ' We are all 
 of opinion that the occasion on which the libel in question 
 was piiblished was not privileged ; ' and, having stated the 
 facts, observes ' Such being the nature of the libel, is there 
 anything in the position of the defendant, or in the circum- 
 stances of the case, which renders it a privileged communi- 
 cation? .*.)*&;>.. What, then, was there in the position 
 of the defendant, as rector of the parish, which entitled 
 him to circulate a defamatory letter, not only in his own but 
 in the adjoining parish, and so endeavour to prevent persons 
 from subscribing or sending their children to the plaintiff's 
 school? It is difficult to understand how the slightest 
 right to do so can be suggested. As rector he might, no 
 doubt, visit and remonstrate with any of his flock; but when a 
 meritorious individual is about to set up a school of which he 
 disapproves, because he thinks it may rival the school in which 
 he takes an interest, that he should on that account cast 
 serious imputations on that individual, and still be considered 
 as having published a privileged communication, certainly 
 seems a strange and inconvenient doctrine.' He lastly ob- 
 serves in an admirable spirit on the endeavour by the defend- 
 ant to make the plaintiff's conduct a matter of spiritual delin- 
 quency. We have in this well-reasoned judgment a clear 
 exposition of the principles by which, having regard to the 
 facts and circumstances, the occasion of the publication and 
 the duty of the publisher of the scandal are to be ascer- 
 tained. Belief merely in the assertions contained in the 
 defamatory publication will not screen the writer from the 
 legal consequences of his act. If a writer were to publish 
 that the plaintiff was a degraded priest, and then, being 
 sued upon his libel, were to plead that he wrote and pub- 
 lished the charge because he believed it to be true, and 
 insisted that it was therefore a privileged communication, 
 the plea would be futile. The grounds for a reasonable 
 belief must be shown by the facts and circumstances, and 
 in obedience to our Procedure Act must be set out in the 
 plea. 
 
 The result of the authorities, in addition to what I have 
 already said, I take to be that, in order that matters other- 
 wise libellous shall be entitled to the protection afforded to
 
 Rev. Robert 0*Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 115 
 
 what are called privileged communications, two elements The 
 must concur first, that the communication shall be made in Lord 9 hief 
 
 fulfilment of a duty whether legal, moral, or social to in- ' 
 
 quire and report upon the matters under the party's own Condltlolls 
 
 f, ~ e J necessary 
 
 cognizance, or to report matters coming to his knowledge to create a 
 from external sources ; second, that the party publishing P rivile g e - 
 must honestly believe the information which he communi- 
 cates to be true. As regards the first element, it must not 
 be a voluntary, officious, wanton interference, or an assump- 
 tion of a right to supervise or criticise the conduct or 
 character of others, much less the usurpation of an authority 
 to judge which the law does not recognise or permit. In 
 stances are to be found in the books such as these : A 
 superior military officer forwarding to head quarters, in the 
 course of his duty, a report affecting the military status of 
 an inferior officer, will be protected, because it was his duty 
 to inquire, consider, and report upon the matter. 1 Again, 
 the paid officer of a Poor Law Union, whose duty it was to 
 see that the wine forwarded for the use of the hospitals 
 was good and proper wine, and who was bound to report to 
 the guardians upon the matter, was protected when he in- 
 formed them, tenders being before them, that no good wine 
 was to be had in the quarters whence the tenders came. 2 
 So it was the duty of the directors of a company first to in- 
 quire into and then to consider and communicate to their 
 shareholders the report of the auditor, as to the manager's 
 supposed defalcation in his accounts, and such report was 
 primd facie privileged. 3 Wallace v. Carroll* was a similar 
 case ; there the secretary of a charitable institution charged 
 the matron with abstracting the property of the ladies who 
 sent their laundry work to be done in the establishment. 
 The principle of this class of decisions is clear. But, on 
 the other hand, as shown in the case of Bell v. Parke, 5 an 
 officious voluntary inquiry into the conduct of another 
 person, and a promulgating of the results of that inquiry, 
 will have no protection. In that case the duty was not 
 
 1 Dawkim v. Paulet, L. K. 5 Q. B. 94. 
 
 * Murphy v. Kellett, 13 Ir. C. L. E. 488. 
 
 s Lawless v. Anglo-Egyptian Cotton and Oil Colliery Company, L. E. 4 Q. B. 
 262. 
 
 * 11 Ir. C. L. E. 485. 
 5 10 Ir. C. L, E. 279. 
 
 i 2
 
 116 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) , 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 Definition 
 of 
 
 privileged 
 occasion. 
 
 If sentence 
 contrary 
 to law, its 
 publica- 
 tion must 
 be illegal. 
 
 Basis of 
 plea of 
 privilege 
 13 the 
 i llegal 
 rescript. 
 
 shown, nor was the occasion connected with any duty. 
 Neither will the repetition of rumours injurious to another be 
 protected, unless it can be shown that the propagator spoke 
 the words on a justifiable occasion. In the case to which I 
 refer, 1 the proper definition of what is a justifiable occasion 
 is given by the learned Judge Blackburne, who pronounced 
 the judgment, not in his own language, but in what he dis- 
 tinguishes as c the accurate language ' of Mr. Justice Little- 
 dale, in M'Pherson v. Daniels. 2 To justify words defamatory 
 of another, they must be, he says, ' spoken on an occasion or 
 under circumstances which the law, on grounds of public 
 policy, allows, as in the course of a parliamentary or judicial 
 proceeding, or in giving the character of a servant.' Ex- 
 amined by this test, the Court must ask itself, did the law, 
 on grounds of public policy, permit or sanction the defendant, 
 under the circumstances set forth in the defences, to enter 
 into the inquiry and pronounce the injurious sentence con- 
 cerning the conduct of the plaintiff set forth here ? And if 
 that question must be answered in the negative if there 
 was no warrant or justification for that inquiry or sentence, 
 if they were in direct violation of the common and statute 
 law of the kingdom, how can it be held that the law which 
 prohibits and condemns the sentence can deem it calculated 
 to promote public policy to have such sentence promulgated 
 and advertised over the country ? As regards duty, the de- 
 fendant can have no duty at least none which the court can 
 recognise to announce to the world his unjustified and 
 illegal condemnation of the conduct of his fellow-subject. 
 The parishioners of Callan can have no possible correspond- 
 ing interest in being informed of this abortive and unjustifi- 
 able attempt to degrade and deprive the parish priest, in 
 whom they may confide and whom they may respect ; and 
 so on the grounds alleged of public policy, duty, and interest, 
 the claim of privilege to utter the defamatory matter con- 
 tained in the pleadings must, in my opinion, be disallowed. 
 
 Reverting to the special defences of privilege, let me ask, 
 on what do they rest ? Unquestionably upon the rescript of 
 the Pope. The references to the defendant's episcopal or 
 archiepiscopal position do not even pretend to point at any 
 authority to publish what is impugned. If any episcopal or 
 1 Watkin \. Hall, L. E. 3 Q. B. 396. 2 10 B. & C 272.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 117 
 
 archiepiscopal authority did exist to warrant the defendant The 
 in doing what he did, why apply to Eome for this special and 
 extraordinary authority to sit in judgment on the plaintiff's 
 proceedings in having asserted his right in a temporal matter 
 in a court of law ? The structure of this defence of privilege 
 proves that the pleader had nothing upon which to construct 
 it but the papal rescript. Save the cursory allusion to con- 
 tract in the preface, from the first to the last, the rescript 
 of the Pope is the great fact relied on. In what position 
 does the defendant now stand in regard to this defence ? 
 Why, upon the pleas of justification, this same rescript has 
 been condemned as illegal and void, forbidden by the prin- 
 ciples of the common law; expressly prohibited by the 
 statute. Well, the same rescript being the foundation of 
 the defence of privilege, its publication must receive the like 
 condemnation. It is as void in one defence as in the other. , , 
 
 Ihe plea 
 
 It never had any foundation in law. It is a breach of the therefore 
 law to assume the jurisdiction which the defendant assumed badt 
 thereunder, and it is equally a violation of law to publish, 
 under colour or pretext of lawful judgment, the sentence 
 branding the plaintiff as a priest unfit for his sacred office. 
 Nor can I agree in what has been stated as to the mode of p r ; nc i p i eg 
 procedure adopted by the defendant. I fail to discern in the of justice 
 mode of procedure in this case that the principles of natural Jwd in 
 justice have been pursued. I observe that the cautious pleader procedure, 
 does not even say that a citation or summons was served, 
 stating the cause of complaint, upon the reverend defendant. 
 The pleading states that he went once before the Cardinal, 
 and never went again. 
 
 As to the question of avoiding scandal by bringing an AS to 
 action against an ecclesiastic, of the nature referred to, my a j 1<Janco 
 opinion is that the scandal begins with the denial of justice. 
 References to the rules of Quakers and Methodists &c. can- 
 not mislead the clear and accurate judicial mind from this 
 circumstance, viz., that from beginning to end of the pro- 
 ceedings it is not asserted that any Church tribunal was con- NO other 
 stituted, or was open even to hear the plaintiff. And I 
 never will decide that a proceeding such as that of bringing for 
 an action against a wrongdoer gives the name of scandal to a P lamtlfl 
 man who asserts his natural and inalienable right I will not
 
 118 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 The 
 
 Lord Chief 
 Justice. 
 
 There is no 
 privilege 
 to publish 
 an un- 
 lawful 
 sentence, 
 or to 
 exorcise a 
 usurped 
 jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 
 say as a parish priest, but as a citizen of a free country to 
 ask this question of his contumacious curate, { Why, sir, 
 have you said before my congregation that I am a liar ? ' 
 That was the question that should have been inquired into ; 
 and the preventing of that inquiry, and the turning round on. 
 the plaintiff and saying, 'Sir, you will be tried for your conduct 
 and proceedings,' and then attacking him in the way I have 
 pointed out, is not a practice which I, sitting in a court of 
 British law, will ever sanction or encourage. The defendant 
 is the actor the author of this unlawful sentence ; and the 
 singular argument addressed to us from the Bar was, that 
 out of this confessedly unlawful sentence a privilege in favour 
 of the defendant arises, from the performance of duty, which 
 duty, as represented, is one of a very peculiar character 
 viz., to usurp a jurisdiction which the defendant never 
 possessed. Here we have a plea dressed out under a fringe 
 of an alleged authority, expressed in a dead language, and 
 then when that authority is repudiated by the law, and the 
 sentence thereunder is pronounced to be invalid, the defendant 
 alleges that at least he was privileged on the occasion in 
 question to publish to the parishioners of Callan the defama- 
 tory sentence pronounced to be invalid and void, in order to 
 induce them to believe and act on that sentence, to the pre- 
 judice of the plaintiff, as if it was true. True, as has been 
 said, the plaintiff had notice it is not averred that he 
 was summoned to answer before the defendant under an 
 unlawful rescript : for what ? ' his conduct and his pro- 
 ceedings.' It would be impossible from such a vague 
 notification to know for what he was wanted. He attends, 
 and hears what the Cardinal is about to do. He with- 
 draws and never appears again. Does this conclude, or 
 bind, or estop the plaintiff? This circumstance, it is said, 
 affords an excuse for publishing the defamatory narrative 
 of an unlawful adjudication. Suppose a gentleman in 
 court were summoned by a magistrate to attend before 
 him to-morrow and answer for his ' conduct and proceedings,' 
 and did not throw the summons into the fire, but attended 
 to know what the justice of the peace was about to do in 
 regard to his proceedings, and to inquire who made the 
 justice an inquisitor over his conduct, would the circum- 
 stance of his appearing before the justice afford to the latter
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 119 
 
 any shelter from the consequences of his illegal act, or The 
 create a privilege to publish what was injurious to the j* lBt j ce ie 
 
 person thus illegally summoned? I have already shown 
 
 that the greatest scholar and lawyer of his time, Lord 
 Stowell, sitting in an ecclesiastical court warranted by 
 law, had to answer for the act unlawful because beyond his 
 jurisdiction of excommunicating a person for not having 
 obeyed an order which the ecclesiastical judge had no 
 authority to make. Can I excuse the defendant on the ground 
 that he thought he had authority to do what he has 
 vainly attempted to do? He is eminent, learned, and of 
 the highest station in his Church. The maxim of the law 
 is Ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur neminem excusat 
 a maxim enforced against the humblest peasant. Am I 
 to shrink from applying it to one versed in history, skilled 
 in languages, trained to careful investigations, accustomed 
 to deep studies, and, doubtless, advised by lawyers of con- 
 summate skill in their profession? Am I to believe that 
 the defendant never read the history of England, or of the 
 grand conflict between the Crown, representing the State, 
 and the Church governed by the Pope, and of the result of 
 that conflict embodied in statutes which have existed for 
 ages, and which are as fresh to-day for the purpose for which 
 they were drawn as on. the day on which they were passed ? 
 Am I to believe this ? Is it possible is it fair to ask me to 
 believe it ? Might not another view be suggested, viz., that 
 these formal pleas and the sentence under the commission 
 from the Pope were deliberately drawn and issued in the ex- 
 pectation that this was the country and this the time at 
 which a skilful attempt might be made to recover and re- 
 assert a jurisdiction long repudiated and forbidden ? 
 
 I have at too great length, perhaps, investigated the 
 several questions arising in this unusual and remarkable 
 case, but the extreme importance of the subjects touched 
 upon will be my excuse. I believe the attempt made here 
 (possibly from motives satisfactory to the defendant's mind) 
 is to exempt a numerous and influential clergy from inter- 
 course with the civil magistrate, and to subdue them to the 
 will of one man ; to set up, as it were, a State within the 
 State, and to govern that inner State by laws other than 
 and in flat opposition to the laws of the land, ' This plan of
 
 120 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland), 
 
 The pontifical power ' (writes Blackstone) * has been indefatigably 
 P ursue ^ by the unwearied politics of the Court of Eome 
 through a long succession of ages ; ' but, ' notwithstanding 
 it was polished and improved by the united endeavours of a 
 body of men who engrossed all the learning of Europe for 
 
 centuries together yet it vanished into 
 
 nothing when the eyes of the people were a little enlight- 
 ened, and they set themselves with vigour to oppose it. So 
 vain and ridiculous is the attempt to live in society without 
 acknowledging the obligations which it lays us under, and to 
 affect an entire independence of that civil State which pro- 
 tects us in all our rights, and gives us every other liberty, 
 that only excepted of despising the laws of the community.' 1 
 I am of opinion, therefore, for the reasons I have assigned, 
 that not only on the pleas of justification, but upon 
 the pleas of privilege, judgment should be given for the 
 plaintiff; but as the majority of the Court are of opinion 
 that the pleas of privilege are maintainable, of course it 
 will follow thab in the result judgment will be given for the 
 plaintiff only on the two counts to which pleas of justification 
 are applied ; and judgment will be given for the defendant 
 upon the pleas of privilege. 
 
 1 4 Bl. Comm. 259.
 
 TRIAL AT NISI PEIUS 
 
 BEFORE 
 
 THE EIGHT HON. THE LOED CHIEF JUSTICE. 
 
 THE trial commenced on Monday, 12th May, 1873. The 
 counsel for the plaintiff were Mr. Purcell, Q.C., Mr. G. Fitz- 
 gibbon, Jun., Q.C., Mr. Hugh Holmes, and Mr. J. C. Mere- 
 dith; and for the defendant, Serjeant Armstrong, Mr. J. 
 O'Hagan, Q.C., Mr. E. P. Carton and Mr. J. Naish. The 
 first day and part of the second were occupied by the 
 opening statement of Mr. Purcell. 
 
 Tuesday, May 13, 1873. 
 EEV. EGBERT O'KEEFFE, examined by MB. FITZGIBBON, Q.C. 
 
 Mr. O'Keeffe, are you the plaintiff in this action ? Yes, pirect ex- 
 sir, animation 
 
 I believe you are a native of the town of Callan, in the Robert^ 
 county of Kilkenny? I am a native of Callan, in the 0' Keeff e- 
 county of Kilkenny. 
 
 And you are in holy orders in the Eomau Catholic Church? 
 Yes, sir, since the year 1840. 
 
 Mr. O'Keeffe, where was it that you were educated for the 
 Church ? I was at school in Callan. 
 
 But I am. speaking of your ecclesiastical education ? In 
 Saint Kyran's College, Kilkenny. 
 
 Were you afterwards in Maynooth? I went to Saint 
 Kyran's College, Kilkenny, after having acquired some
 
 122 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- classical knowledge Latin and Greek in my own town, 
 
 Vthe^ev aT1< ^ ** WaS in ^ e ^ ear 1831 ^ at * W6nt t0 Kilkenny. 
 Eobert ' In what year did you go to Maynooth? In the year 
 O'Keeffe. 1334 a vacancy occurred in Maynooth. There was a free 
 place vacant, and the bishop, Doctor Kinsella, put it up to 
 competition. Thirteen of us were competitors for it, and the 
 place was given to me. 
 
 Having entered Maynooth by competition in the year 
 1834, how many years did you spend there in your ordinary 
 course ? I finished my ordinary course in five years, I 
 entered the class of logic, and finished my ordinary course 
 in 1839. 
 
 After that did you take any special education ? I was 
 appointed to the Dunboyne establishment for the purpose of 
 remaining three years more in the house at the ordinary 
 studies of theology and also canon law. 
 
 I have to ask you, did you in the course of your studies 
 at Maynooth, become educated in the canon law of your 
 Church ? Yes ; I acquired a knowledge of canon law. 
 
 Have you continued those studies since? I have been 
 always a reading man. 
 
 Were you afterwards appointed a professor in Saint 
 Kyran's College ? I was appointed by the late Dr. Kinsella 
 to teach classics and science in Saint Kyran's College, Kil- 
 kenny. 
 
 From 1840 to 1850 you were professor in Saint Kyran's 
 College ? In Saint Kyran's College. 
 
 Did you then become a missionary clergyman ? Yes, sir. 
 
 How many years did you spend at that? Ten years 
 more. 
 
 That was till 1860 ? Yes, when I was appointed to the 
 parish of Rathdowney. 
 
 Was that the first occasion on which you became parish 
 priest ? Yes. 
 
 You became parish priest of Rathdowney in 1860? 
 Yes; shortly afterwards the bishop made me vicar foraue 
 or rural dean, representing the bishop over about one-third 
 or more of his diocese. 
 
 Who at that time was the bishop ? Doctor Walsh. 
 
 Was Rathdowney in the diocese of Ossory also ? Yes, in 
 the Queen's County ; it is a portion of the diocese of Ossory.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 123 
 
 Were you appointed in 1863 to be parish priest of Direct ex 
 Callan ? Yes, sir. a JT a p ior 
 
 ' . pi the Ke~ 
 
 Is that the letter of your appointment ? (witness is handed ' Kobert 
 a letter) That is the letter of my appointment as parish Keefff 
 priest of Callan. Appointc 
 
 < 31st January, 1863. |J ^llS 
 
 ' I do hereby appoint the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe Parish Priest of S. 
 M. assumpte de Callan cum annexis. 
 
 + ' E. WALSH. 
 'Dated 31st January, 1863.' 
 
 Dr. Walsh was at that time the bishop? He was the 
 bishop. 
 
 This is dated 31st January, 1863 < I do hereby appoint 
 the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe parish priest of S. M. assumptee de 
 Callan cum annexis ' ? ' Saint Mary assumed in Heaven,' 
 that is the title of the church. 
 
 Were you also appointed to any other office in the dio- 
 cese besides those you have mentioned ? I was appointed to 
 the honorary office of treasurer of the diocese. 
 
 Treasurer to the chapter? Yes; of the diocese of 
 Ossory also. 
 
 Do you continue to hold this office down to the present 
 time ? Yes. 
 
 When you went to the parish of Callan what schools had Schools 
 you under your charge there? There were four national Callan - 
 schools in the parish of Callan when I went into it. 
 
 There were four schools ? Male, female, and infant 
 schools ; two schools in the town and a school at each of the 
 other chapels. 
 
 How many chapels had you to serve in the parish? 
 Two chapels of ease besides two in the town. 
 
 And those still remain attached to the parish ? Yes, one 
 at Newtown and one at Coola. 
 
 Were there any schools except those connected with the 
 National Board ? That is all ; four altogether. 
 
 Did you yourself establish any of these schools ? I es- 
 tablished a fifth school. 
 
 What was the nature of that school ? It was an addi- 
 tional female school, and it afterwards became an infant 
 school. I established it principally for the purpose of giving
 
 124 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the Eev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Proposal 
 to bring 
 nuns to 
 Cttllan. 
 
 the grown females employment, keeping them knitting and 
 so on. 
 
 Did you in 1867 take proceedings to have a Christian 
 Brothers school built at Callan ? I did. 
 
 Was that with the approbation of the bishop ? Yes. 
 
 Who was the bishop at that time ? Dr. Walsh. 
 
 When were these completed, Mr. O'Keeffe ? They were 
 completed in 1868. I laid the foundation stone in May, 1867, 
 and the buildings were completed in September, 1868, when 
 the Christian Brothers came to occupy them. 
 
 From December, 1868, when they came, have they kept 
 their school in the town ? Yes ; we built a school and resi- 
 dence, two separate houses. 
 
 And the number that was attending the male national 
 school fell away ? The attendance fell away to seven boys 
 shortly after the establishment of the Christian Brothers 
 school. 
 
 Did you then make any alterations in your male school 
 at Callan in consequence of the falling away in the attend- 
 ance ? Yes, I made arrangements for the teaching in the 
 male school; I engaged the services of an able teacher, 
 and I undertook to teach myself. 
 
 What did you teach at the school ? I taught some classes 
 in Greek and Latin, and as far as I could accomplish it, I 
 endeavoured to make French the language of the school for 
 all the boys, not only those learning from a book, but for 
 the boys also that were not able to read at all. 
 
 Did you get the numbers up in the school in consequence 
 of teaching these matters? The attendance gradually in- 
 creased from one week to another and from one month to 
 another, until, in December, 1871, the inspector counted 121 
 boys present in the school. 
 
 That was the national school in which you were teach- 
 ing yourself and in which you employed those other teachers 
 you mentioned? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember an application being made by you to 
 Bishop Walsh in reference to inviting some nuns over to 
 Callan; when was that first? It was in August, 1868. I 
 reported to the bishop that there was a house at Callan 
 vacant. 
 
 Was this by letter or by word of mouth ? I spoke to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 125 
 
 him in August, 1868. I informed him that there was a Direct ex- 
 large house alone then vacant, and I thought it would be aminatio1 * 
 
 a u i- M. * x i, v -u ^ J.T. oftheEev. 
 
 desirable to have a community of nuns established there. Kobert 
 
 Was there any establishment of nuns in Callan up to Q' Keeffe - 
 that time ? No ; but there was about forty years ago. 
 
 Did you make any arrangement about their coming ? 
 I said to the bishop that I had been in Dublin and had gone 
 to some of the convents there to endeavour to make ar- 
 rangements with ladies in Dublin to come to Callan. One 
 of the institutions I visited was Cabra, under Mrs. Meagher, 
 the lady superioress. Mrs. Meagher thought it very admir- 
 able to have a branch of her order in Callan. 
 
 We need not go into details. Did you enter into com- 
 munication with a community of nuns in France ? I spoke 
 to the bishop, and he approved of my taking the house. 
 
 What is that house called ? It is called Callan Lodge. 
 
 Did you take Callan Lodge for the nuns ? Yes, from Mr. 
 Smith, of Paris, who was the agent. 
 
 Did you get a sum of 50 OZ. for fitting up the place? 
 Yes, I went to France. 
 
 And you made arrangements with a community there ? 
 Yes, of Beziers, in the south of France. 
 
 Did you get 500Z. to fit up the Lodge for them ? Yes, I 
 got money from, friends of theirs in Kilkenny ; I got about 
 600 1 entirely. 
 
 Did you then apply to the bishop in reference to bringing 
 them over ? I had applied to the bishop and got his per- 
 mission to bring them over. I had been expending money 
 on the establishment ; I had it about nine or ten months. 
 
 After that expenditure was made, did you attend a con- Conference 
 ference of clergy? On the 5th May, 1869, I went before ^i? 7 
 the conference. I told the bishop that Callan Lodge was in kenny in 
 a proper state for the reception of the nuns, and I asked the l 
 bishop to give me a letter to the bishop of the nuns certify- 
 ing to the Bishop of Montpelier that the place was in a 
 proper state for the nuns to come to it. 
 
 Did he give you that letter? No, he gave me no answer. 
 
 He did not reply ? He gave answer to the first appli- 
 cation that I made, and said that before he allowed the nuns 
 into his parish, he should understand what class they were, 
 whether they could support themselves by their own means,
 
 126 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 
 Tth^R " 
 Robert 
 
 Mode of 
 appointing 
 
 curates in 
 
 Roman 
 
 Occasion 
 
 action for 
 
 against his 
 bishop, 
 Dr. Walsh. 
 
 and whether they were an accredited order of nuns. I sent 
 ki m papers to satisfy him on the point, and I wrote to him 
 twice after, and he gave me no answer. 
 
 j) o y^ remem b er the occasion of the conference ? Yes. 
 It was on the 5th May. 
 
 On the 5th May, 1869. Who were your curates at that 
 time ? The curates at that time were the Rev. James Carr 
 and the Rev. James Walsh. 
 
 Had you been always on good terms until then ? Always 
 on the best terms ; going to stations and conferences on 
 all occasions. 
 
 According to the regulations of your Church, who has 
 f^e appointment of the curates ? The bishop of the diocese 
 
 . ff 
 
 in Ireland. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Does the bishop appoint and 
 the bishop remove the curates ? Yes. 
 
 Without any reference to the parish priest? He may 
 refer to the parish priest, but the late Dr. Walsh never did 
 refer to the parish priest. It is a voluntary act if he does. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : On the occasion of this conference do 
 you remember the bishop saying anything to you as the 
 other clergy were leaving ? Yes, when the conference was 
 over the bishop told me to remain, and he also told Mr. 
 Carr and Mr. Walsh, my two curates, to remain, and he told 
 one of the priests of the college to call Dr. MacDonald, the 
 president of the college at the time. 
 
 He was president of the college at the time ? He was. 
 
 Was what occurred after the conference the subject 
 ma tter of the first action that you brought of those actions 
 that have been spoken of? Yes. 
 
 Who were present on that occasion? The five of us ; 
 my two curates, Dr. M'Donald, the bishop, and myself; five. 
 
 Tell ^ j urv s h or tly what passed ? Before this passed I 
 had written to the bishop. 
 
 Say what passed then. You told us that you had 
 written and got no answer ? I had written to the bishop that 
 I wished he would put in writing his objections to have the 
 nuns come, because I said I should write to Cardinal Barnabo 
 on the subject, and would not be able to state his reasons un- 
 less he put them in writing. 
 ' Then at the conference he first said, 'There is no preach-
 
 Eev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 127 
 
 ing from the Callan altar.' What is the meaning of that ? Direct ex- 
 I said ' What do you mean by that, my lord ; if you mean a f m [ na p n 
 that I don't preach, I can tell you the subject on which I Robert 
 preach every Sunday in the year, the length of time I am 
 speaking, and the places in which I give instruction.' 
 
 Did he make any reference to the nuns ? He looked 
 round to Dr. M'Donald and he said, ( Do you hear that ? ' 
 
 What occurred about the nuns? About the nuns. He 
 said with regard to the nuns the Bishop of Montpelier had 
 not written to him asking him to send a letter with regard 
 to the convent being in a state fit for the nuns. ' Oh,' I 
 said, ' my lord, have not the nuns told me that the Bishop of 
 Montpelier wished to have a letter on the subject?' ( Well,' 
 said he, ' I will give no such letter.' ( What do you mean,' 
 said I, ' after my laying out 400?. or 500L ? ' 'I don't care,' 
 said he ; ' why did you lay out money ? I will give you no 
 letter.' ' Well, my lord,' said I, ' I won't take that answer ; 
 if you won't put your answer in writing I will consider it no 
 answer.' ' I am your bishop,' said he. c I don't care if you 
 were my bishop fifty times,' said I ; 'I will take no answer 
 but a written answer to my communications.' 
 
 Did he say anything about your own conduct ? Well, 
 then he got into a violent rage and abused me in a violent 
 manner. He said I was not fit to have the care of nuns, 
 that I was a shopkeeper when I went to Callan first, and 
 that I then turned schoolmaster. 
 
 Had you been acting as a schoolmaster except by teach- 
 ing in the school as you have mentioned ? Not in the 
 slightest. 
 
 Had you been in any way concerned in trade ? Not in 
 any manner. 
 
 Did he say anything about your conduct in reference to 
 having care of nuns ? Yes ; he said when I was in charge 
 of nuns before, he had to remove me. 
 
 Had you been in charge of nuns ? I was chaplain to the 
 nuns in Kilkenny, but I never dreamt until he said that, and 
 I did not know, that there was any charge against me. The 
 truth is he got into such a rage he did not know what he 
 was saying. 
 
 I believe you then consulted your attorney? No, I 
 wrote to the bishop the next day, and I said to him
 
 128 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 nmi nation 
 of the Rev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Action 
 compro- 
 mised. 
 
 Terms of 
 compro- 
 mise. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong objected, on the ground that the 
 letter could be produced. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Did you get any answer to that? No. 
 
 You then consulted your attorney? Yes; I wrote to 
 Mr. Meredith, and Mr. Meredith wrote to Dr. Walsh. 
 
 That is May, 1869? I believe you brought an action 
 against him complaining of the words spoken at that con- 
 ference in reference to your conduct ? Yes. 
 
 Was there ever in your conduct anything whatever to 
 justify the charges that had been made ? Oh, there was 
 nothing at all. 
 
 There was no foundation for them? Not a word of 
 foundation. 
 
 Had you up to that time had any uiikindness with the 
 bishop, or any difference with him ? No, sir, I had not. 
 
 Was that action against the bishop ever tried ? No. 
 
 Was it settled ? It was settled outside the court. 
 
 Did you receive any money from the settlement of that 
 action ? Yes ; I received 550?. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: What was the 550Z. for? Well, 
 it was meant, I suppose, to compensate the nuns for the 
 expenditure of their money on premises at Callan. 
 
 That is 500Z., and what was the 50Z. for? 550Z. for com- 
 pensation and costs. 
 
 What was done with Callan Lodge, the place on which 
 the expenditure had been made ? I gave over the possession 
 of Callan Lodge to the bishop. I was given to understand 
 that, if the bishop was not pressed by me, he would admit 
 the nuns ; if left to himself, that he would bring them him- 
 self. I gave over Callan Lodge. 
 
 An arrangement was come to, and you gave up Callan 
 Lodge ? I gave up possession of Callan Lodge. 
 
 When was it that the settlement took place ? In June, 
 1869. 
 
 That was about a month after you brought the action ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Did the bishop, on the occasion of the settlement, give 
 you to understand that he would not allow the nuns to come? 
 No ; on the contrary, I was led to believe 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I object to what you believe. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : How soon after that was one of your 
 curates removed by the bishop? It was in August, 1869.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffev. Cardinal Cullen. 129 
 
 Who was removed ? The Eev. James Carr. 
 
 Who was appointed in his place? The Eev. Patrick 
 Neary. of the 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Had you known that gentleman, j^ert 
 Mr. Neary, before ? Oh yes. I had known him well before. O'Keeffe. 
 He was a pupil of mine twenty years before that. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Where was he a pupil of yours ? In St. 
 Kyran's College. 
 
 I believe you had a mission of Oblate Fathers in Callan ? 
 
 -, r Mission of 
 
 * 6S. Oblate 
 
 When? In April, 1869. Fathers to 
 
 Did you make a collection of money at the time? Yes; 
 a collection at the door from persons coming to the mission 
 from several places. 
 
 Had you announced what it was for ? Yes ; I announced 
 it before the mission. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: How many clergymen were 
 engaged in it ? Three gentlemen from Inchicore, the Oblate 
 Fathers of Inchicore, and then there were from ten to fifteen 
 clergymen from the surrounding parishes every day assisting 
 in hearing confessions, so that I had to prepare a dinner for 
 about twenty every day. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Did you announce then what the col- 
 lections were to be applied to ? Yes. I said that in the 
 first place the expenses of the mission itself should be met, 
 and that, secondly, the church required considerable im- 
 provement, that it required to be plastered down, and put tion . of 
 into the same condition as the Christian schools, and also 
 that the premises attached to my house had become quite 
 dilapidated, and required to be repaired ; and I said, that after 
 the expenses that would be necessary for these purposes, what 
 remained of the contributions would be applied to reducing 
 the debt due on the Christian Brothers Schools in the bank. 
 
 How much was that ? It was over 300?. 
 
 Was there any surplus over the expenses of the mission ? 
 The expenses attending on the mission itself were paid ; 
 150Z. 
 
 How much was the residue ? Well, about 69Z. more. 
 
 What was the balance expended on ? The 69Z. was quite 
 insufficient for doing the repairs of the church, and there 
 
 K
 
 130 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- was nothing left for renewing the offices and, of course, nothing 
 amina ^ lon for reducing the debt on the Christian schools in the bank. 
 Eev. Do you remember, on the 8th August, 1869, addressing 
 
 your congregation from the altar about the way the mission 
 funds had been spent? I do, sir. 
 
 Had you announced the Sunday previous that you would 
 do so ? On the second Sunday previous I gave a fortnight's 
 notice that I would address the people on two subjects. 
 
 What were the two subjects? One subject was the 
 manner in which the funds contributed during the mission 
 had been applied, and also with reference to the existing 
 national school in its improved state. I was informed that 
 persons were finding fault with the manner in which the 
 money had been expended, and were complaining that it had 
 been mismanaged. I wished to explain so far as I was 
 concerned in the whole matter. 
 
 Did you address the people from the altar on those two 
 subjects ? On those two subjects. 
 
 And did you explain, as we have heard here, what was 
 done about the collections ? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember on the 8th August speaking to the 
 people about what the bishop's part had been ? I spoke 
 twice that day : I celebrated eight o'clock mass and addressed 
 the people. The Rev. Mr. Walsh celebrated mass at noon, 
 and I addressed the people then also. I used the same 
 language on both occasions as well as I was able to repeat it. 
 
 Tell the jury what you said about the bishop in reference 
 to the matter. I said with regard to the manner in which 
 the funds had been expended that I had given them notice 
 before I received one penny, what would be done with it ; that 
 I felt myself bound to apply it in the manner I had before 
 announced, and that, if they were finding fault, they had no 
 reason to find fault, for it would be improper for me to 
 consult them after having informed the congregation before 
 I received it, what would be done with it. I gave them an 
 account then of the amount of money that had been received 
 and how it had been applied. I said with regard to the 
 application of the money to the repairs of the church, ' You 
 all saw in what condition the church was, and how necessary 
 it was that some repairs should be made, and all I propose 
 to do with it is to put it in the same state as the Christian
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 131 
 
 schools were,' which were schools I erected for the instruc- Direct ex- 
 tion of the poor; and I said with regard to the offices amina t lon 
 attached to my place that they all saw the necessity of Rev. 
 attending to them, as they had become completely dilapi- 
 dated, and that at the last visitation the bishop said to me 
 that those offices ought to be repaired. That was the only 
 thing I said about the bishop. With reference to the 
 national schools, I explained to the people that the national 
 schools were never condemned by the Church. I read an 
 extract from the decree of Propaganda issued in 1841, when 
 there was a great controversy about national schools. The 
 matter was decided at Rome by the Court of Propaganda. 
 A decree was issued, and I read an extract from it, by which 
 it was left to the bishop of each diocese whether he would 
 have them or not. I said that Dr. Walsh did approve of 
 national schools in the diocese, and that, when I showed 
 him the plans of the Christian schools, he told me that I 
 should keep open the national schools after the Christian 
 Brothers came to Callan. That was all I said about that, 
 and it was true. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Was it true ? It was perfectly 
 true. He swore it himself in this court. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Did you know, when you were addressing 
 the people, where Mr. Walsh, your curate, was? No; I did 
 not know for eleven months afterwards. He left me on the 
 pretence of going to have his breakfast. He asked me to 
 finish the mass and address the people, in order to allow 
 him to go to breakfast. I wished to accommodate him, and 
 we were on very good terms. 
 
 On the following Sunday after that, where did you cele- 
 brate mass ? I went to Newtown. 
 
 Was that one of your chapels of ease ? Yes. I visit all 
 the chapels of my parish, even the workhouse. I constantly 
 go there on Sundays to celebrate mass for the paupers. 
 
 Did you leave the curates behind? Yes. One, Mr. 
 Walsh, was to celebrate the first mass, and the other the 
 second mass. Mr. Neary in the parish chapel of Callan. 
 
 Up to that time had you any difference with Mr. Walsh? 
 None whatever. 
 
 Was Sunday, 15th August, the first occasion on which 
 
 ic 2
 
 132 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Eev. 
 
 Kobert 
 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Direct ex- Neary attended as your curate ? It was ; in the chapel at 
 amina ^ lon Callan. He was in a country chapel the Sunday before. 
 
 Then he was only about a fortnight in the parish ? Ten 
 days. 
 
 You cannot tell us at present what it was they said, but 
 did you hear after you came back what they had said about 
 you ? I heard of one of them on my return. 
 
 Which of them? Mr. Walsh. I was at home about 
 half-past eleven, before Neary celebrated the second mass, 
 and if I dreamt that he 
 
 Don't make observations. Did you, after you heard this, 
 write to Dr. Walsh? Four days afterwards. 
 
 Did you write on the 1st August to Dr. Lynch, of Carlow, 
 in consequence of a statement you heard about him ? Yes ; 
 I was informed of something he said. 
 
 And got his reply? And got 'his reply. 
 
 Did you enclose that correspondence to Cardinal Cullen 
 on the 7th August, 1869, with the letter you wrote to him 
 then ? Yes. 
 
 Is that (handing witness a letter) the document you sent 
 the Cardinal ? Is it your writing ? This is my writing. 
 
 Was Dr. Lynch a bishop at that time? Bishop of Carlow. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : It is addressed to Dr. Lynch, the metro- 
 politan of Carlow, and is as follows : 
 
 'Callan, August 1, 1869. 
 
 Letter of ' MY DEAR LORD BISHOP, I have been informed that when you 
 
 rvir^ff were l ate ty gi v i n g a refcreat at Maynooth, to the Dublin clergy, you 
 took occasion to say that the Irish Church had fallen upon truly 
 deplorable times, when a parish priest was found in it capable of 
 dragging his bishop before the world into a secular Court, and that 
 you were understood to allude to the action brought by me against the 
 bishop of this diocese. Assuming the correctness of this information, 
 allow me to say to you that you have done me a grievous wrong. I 
 believe you to be incapable of intentionally doing an injury to anyone, 
 yet the gravity of the wrong inflicted upon rne is not on that account 
 diminished. Still, I assure your lordship I forgive you from the 
 bottom of my heart. I have often listened with attention to your 
 admirable instructions on the charity due from ecclesiastics to one 
 another, and I hope that this present writing is a proof that God has 
 given me grace to profit by them. 
 
 ' In point of fact, my lord, it is untrue that I brought the bishop 
 into a secular Court. I threatened to do it ; but I knew well that, if 
 
 the Bishop 
 of Carlow.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Reeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 
 
 133 
 
 the bishop refused me the satisfaction which I felt bound in justice 
 and honour to demand, he would be made to grant it by any respectable 
 lawyer whom he might employ to defend the action. The event has 
 occurred as I knew it should : the case has been settled outside the 
 Court, and I have been given by the bishop's lawyers more than I 
 demanded from the bishop himself. I ask your lordship to take my word 
 for these facts ; but as we are personally unacquainted, I must inform 
 you that the records of the house in which you unconsciously did ine 
 the grievous wrong of which I complain could give you information 
 about me which should convince you that I am not the man to bring 
 disgrace on the Irish Church. I sat for five years in the same halls at 
 Maynooth with the learned Bishop of Galway ; and if we were usually 
 honoured with the same high distinctions at the close of each collegiate 
 year, it was not always so, there being sometimes a difference in my 
 favour. Another distinguished ecclesiastic of your order was a con- 
 temporary of mine at Maynooth, and was remarkable there for the 
 number of honours which he secured during his course of studies. 
 I refer to the Lord Bishop of Kerry. Now, will you believe that the 
 man whom you have so grossly calumniated within the walls of his 
 " Alma Mater " can refer you to the records of the house to prove 
 that, if David Moriarty, of Kerry, were called to more premiums than 
 anybody else of his time, there was one exception, and that in the 
 person of Robert O'Keeffe, of Ossory ? 
 
 'I might end this letter here, and leave your lordship to do what is 
 right and proper in the matter ; but seeing that, if such a thing as you 
 supposed to have occurred had actu-illy taken place, you would desira 
 at retreats to caution ecclesiastics against falling into this crime, it is 
 not out of place to inform you that, if you look into the books of the 
 Rolls Court for the year 1857, you will find that a decree was obtained 
 then and there by one ecclesiastic against another, for a debt which it 
 is notorious the latter never personally contracted nor honestly and 
 fairly owed. Execution in this case has never been levied ; not, how- 
 ever, in consequence of any tenderness on the part of the plaintiff, but 
 because the Protestant sheriff absolutely refused to seize and sell the 
 poor priest's effects, alleging that all the police in the county would 
 not be able to protect him from the vengeance of the pastor's flock. 
 These facts are known to everyone in this part of the world, as the 
 plaintiff in the action is a mitred ecclesiastic not many miles from the 
 city of Kilkenny, and the defendant an archdeacon of his own crea- 
 tion not much farther from the small town of Ballyhale. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, your lordship's most faithful servant, 
 
 'ROBERT O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Kecffe. 
 
 The last portion of the letter, my lord, refers to an action in
 
 134 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Eev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Letter of 
 
 Father 
 
 O'Keeffe to you in any way 
 
 Cardinal 
 
 Cullen. 
 
 Direct ex- the Rolls Court, brought by one ecclesiastic against another. 
 Then there is the reply of Dr. Lynch, dated 3rd August, 1869, 
 as follows : 
 
 'August 3, 1869. 
 
 ' MY DEAR SIR, I lose no time to assure you that I did not say a 
 word or make any allusion to the subject of your correspondence, 
 during the retreat I gave at Maynooth. 
 
 ' I remain, dear Rev. Sir, yours faithfully, 
 
 + < J. LYNCH.' 
 
 And then, my lord, the letter to the Cardinal, dated 7th 
 August, 1869: 
 
 ' Callan, August 7, 1869. 
 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, When you read the inclosed correspondence 
 between Dr. Lynch and me, you will best know whether or not it concerns 
 I consider I made a great sacrifice for the good of 
 religion by not stating in court my case against Dr. Walsh. This 
 sacrifice has not been appreciated in quarters where it ought to be. 
 It is now my intention to write out a history of the whole case, and to 
 send a copy to your Eminence and some other ecclesiastics in high 
 station. You will all then see whether I have been fairly treated or 
 not. You will also see whether I shall be justified or not in saying to 
 Dr. Walsh, " either withdraw your threat of writing to Propaganda to 
 get the document issued to me cancelled, or let my case go before the 
 world." If Dr. Lynch would come and spend a few hours at Callan, he 
 could in five minutes arrange a difference which may otherwise end in 
 a manner " truly deplorable." I seek nothing but the good of religion. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 'ROBERT O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 The reply is the first letter from the Cardinal. It is dated 
 17th August, 1869: 
 
 'Dublin, 17th August, 1869. 
 
 ' VERY REV. SIR, I have received your letter of August 7th, which 
 reached Dublin whilst I was absent on visitation, and also the copy of 
 your letter to Dr. Lynch. In reply I beg to say, that in -any observa- 
 tions made in Maynooth I merely stated, without further comment, and 
 without mentioning any names of persons and places, that certain 
 things relating to ecclesiastical proceedings were reported in the public 
 press. As, however, you have written to me on this matter, I trust 
 you will allow me to say that you ought seriously to examine the 
 position which you seem to occupy. The 16th article of the Bull in 
 Coena Domini, which is as follows " Impedientes prelates ne sua juris- 
 dictione utantur quique illorum t delegatorum judicia eludentes ad 
 
 Letter of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 135 
 
 curiam ssecularem recurrent aut contra illos decernunt prgestantes Direct ex - 
 ve auxiliurn " enacts an excommunication, reserved to the Pope, amination 
 against the proceedings referred to. Cardinal Petra, in his Commentary Re V 6 
 in Constit. Apost., vol. iv. page 241, gives the following summary of a Eobert 
 bull of Martin IV., beginning Ad reprimendas " Prohibet iste Keeffe. 
 Papa ne quicumque laici vel persons Ecclesiastic* trahant ad fcrum 
 laicale personas Ecclesiasticas sub pcena excornmunicationis S. Pontifici 
 reservatse," &c., &c. Several other passages from canon law, or from 
 writers on canon law, clearly imply that those who bring a bishop or 
 priest before a lay tribunal, and that for something done in the dis- 
 charge of his duty, incur an excommunication reserved to the Pope. 
 
 ' In my humble opinion, if anything of this kind exist, it is your duty 
 to submit to your bishop, to repair whatever wrong has occurred, and 
 to endeavour to get absolution from any censures that may have been 
 contracted. It is a sad misfortune for persons discharging the most 
 sacred duties to have even the doubt of an ecclesiastical censure hang- 
 ing over their heads which censure, if it exist, might involve them in 
 innumerable irregularities. 
 
 ' I have written these lines in a very hurried way, as I am about to 
 leave town, but I think it better to send them than to leave you with- 
 out an answer any longer. Wishing you every happiness, I remain, 
 
 1 Your faithful servant, 
 
 + 'PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Translate the Latin to the jury. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : It is the 16th article of the bull : ' Those 
 preventing prelates from using their own jurisdiction, and Bull In 
 who, escaping from judgments of them and of their delegates, C(K . nCL Do ' 
 have recourse to a secular court, or who make decrees against 
 them, or lend aid to those who do so.' The bull enacts an 
 excommunication reserved to the Pope against the proceed- 
 ings referred to. 
 
 Are you both as a clergyman and from your studies 
 acquainted with the rules of your own Church ? I consider 
 I am. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I object to his being examined as 
 an expert to prove canon law. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : It is the rules of his own Church he is 
 asked. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think he has a right to ask 
 the witness whether he knows if that particular bull is in 
 force or not. I think that is a legitimate question. Before 
 us is a subject on which none of us are fully acquainted.
 
 136 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 
 Eev. 
 
 Kobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Bull In 
 Ccena Do- 
 mini not in 
 force in 
 Ireland. 
 
 Bull of 
 Pope Mar- 
 tin IV. 
 
 We must hear it from persons who have studied the law, and 
 if he has studied the law and says he understands it, I am 
 of opinion he may be asked what the law is. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgiblon : I asked had you studied the canon law ; 
 I now ask him, my lord, whether he is acquainted with the 
 rules of his own Church. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Well, Mr. O'Keeffe, what is 
 your answer ? My answer is that I consider I am. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Have you, as an ecclesiastic of your 
 Church, studied the rules that govern your conduct as such ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And you are acquainted with them ? Yes. 
 
 And among these have you studied the rules relating to 
 excommunication for offences against the regulations ? Yes. 
 
 Is there any regulation of your Church in. force, and 
 binding on you as an ecclesiastic, not to bring an action 
 against another ecclesiastic ? Certainly that does not apply 
 at all. 
 
 The question I asked, my lord, is whether there was any- 
 thing to prevent him from bringing an action. Now, Mr. 
 O'Keeffe, among the other matters that you have studied and 
 become acquainted with, have you studied the matter as to 
 the bulls and how far they are binding on you ? Yes. 
 
 Do you know the bull referred to here ; the bull in Ccena 
 Domini ? I do well. 
 
 Is that binding or in force on ecclesiastics of your Church 
 in Ireland? No. 
 
 Has it ever been to your knowledge published in Ireland ? 
 It never has been. Can I say that the rules have no 
 application to my case at all? I never interfered with the 
 jurisdiction of any prelate at all. It can scarcely be part of 
 his duty to denounce a man from the altar ; that is the only 
 interference that I ever meddled with. That is merely protec- 
 tion to prelates in discharge of their duty. 
 
 The next part of the letter is * Cardinal Petra in his 
 commentary in Constitutiones Apostolicee, volume iv., page 
 241, gives the following summary of a bull of Martin IV.' 
 The Cardinal gives a summary of the bull : ' This Pope pro- 
 hibits anyone, whether lay or ecclesiastic, from bringing to lay 
 courts ecclesiastical persons, under punishment of excommu- 
 nication reserved to the Pope himself.' (Witness): That
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 137 
 
 supposes that a person is charged with crime. None of those Direct ex- 
 papal Constitutions regard the question of civil actions at all. "^"jj^* 1 
 It was a grievous blunder on the part of Cardinal Cullen to Rev. 
 think they apply to such a case as mine. They do not o'Keeffe. 
 apply to civil proceedings at all. It is only where a charge - 
 of crime is made ; it is only in these cases that the Church t ^s not 
 claims immunity for ecclesiastics in criminal proceedings. referred to. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Is there any such immunity according 
 to your knowledge claimed to be applicable to civil actions ? 
 No, I never knew anything of the sort. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If another priest owed you a 
 sum of money, is there anything to prevent you suing ? I 
 do not consider that there is anything in the Constitutions 
 that was ever published to prevent it, whether it is in force in Nature of 
 Ireland or not. The exemption claimed by clergy, and they ^^for 
 claim it to this day and all legislation in Rome proceeds on the clergy. 
 the supposition that it exists relates to criminal actions, and 
 all persons, no matter who they are, Protestants, Episcopa- 
 lians, everybody else, are forbidden to charge an ecclesiastic 
 with crime before a lay tribunal. That is what is in all 
 those Constitutions ; there is nothing about proceeding 
 against an ecclesiastic for debt in any of those Constitutions 
 or bulls. 
 
 A Juror : What do you mean by crime ? Such a crime 
 as theft, I will say. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : In which there might be a verdict 
 against him ? Yes, an assault. 
 
 Several other passages from canon law, or from writers 
 on canon law, clearly imply that those who bring a bishop or 
 priest before a lay tribunal, and for something done in the 
 discharge of his duty, incur an excommunication reserved to 
 the Pope ? That is, bringing the civil law to bear against 
 an ecclesiastic to impede him in the exercise of his jurisdic- 
 tion, then you come under the bull In Ccena Domini, and 
 also under the new edition of it, the Apostolicce Sedis. 
 
 Have you ever done anything to impede your bishop in 
 the discharge of his duty ? Never in any way whatever. 
 
 He says, ' It is your duty to submit to your bishop, to 
 repair whatever wrong has occurred, and to endeavour to 
 get absolution from any censures that may have been con- 
 tracted. It is a sad misfortune for persons discharging tha
 
 138 Court of Queen's BencJi (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- most sacred duties to have even the doubt of an ecclesias- 
 
 ai ofthe n ti ca l censure hanging over their heads, which censure if it 
 
 Rev. exist might involve them in innumerable irregularities.' 
 
 O'Keeffe. (letter handed in and marked.) The next letter referred to 
 
 was dated Callan, 18th August, 1869. 
 
 Letter of 'Callan, August 18, I860. 
 
 O'Keeffe to ' ^ Y -^ ORD CARDINAL, I am very thankful for your kind letter of 
 Cardinal yesterday's date, and the fatherly advice contained therein. I was 
 Cullen. aware of the opinions you entertained regarding the provisions of the 
 bull In Coena Domini, and before I instituted legal proceedings against 
 the bishop I studied the matter well, and was firmly convinced that 
 rny proceeding was not in any sense improper. 
 
 ' I may tell you now, my Lord Cardinal, that I could claim the 
 honour of addressing you as an acquaintance. I was introduced to 
 you twenty-five years ago by our mutual friend, the great and good 
 man who then wore the mitre of Ossory, and who invited me to form 
 one of a small party that met you at his dinner-table. This great 
 prelate walked with me on the following day, and said to me " Did 
 you notice Dr. Cullen yesterday ; what an humble man he is. I 
 tell you, sir, he is a clever man." Dr. Kinsella gave more of his confi- 
 dence to me than to any other priest of his diocese ; and for the last 
 five years of his life I was more intimately acquainted than any other 
 with his habits and his morals. He died on the llth December, 1845. 
 On the morning after his death the public car from Kilkenny conveyed 
 the news to a certain parish priest, who was holding a station in a 
 house near the bridge of Waterford. This parish priest, you will 
 expect me to say, immediately placed himself on his knees at the altar, 
 where mass had just been celebrated, and offered a prayer for the 
 departed soul. No ! my Lord Cardinal, he walked deliberately across 
 the room to his youngest curate, and said " He is gone now; he was 
 a bad man, and a worse Christian." The Lion was dead, and the 
 Phrygian philosopher has told you the rest. This same parish priest 
 happening to be named an executor in the good bishop's will, was 
 asked by the bishop's senior curate to name a priest to preach the 
 funeral oration. His answer was Let Father John preach it. This 
 was a priest to whom the bishop had made unfavourable allusion in a 
 public document. Now, my Lord Cardinal, be not astonished that this 
 same parish priest has been charged with slander in the year of grace 
 1869 ; nor be surprised at being told that while he continued parish 
 priest, one of his three curates would not be permitted to baptize a child 
 if the fees were not laid down before the ritual was opened. But you 
 may say that he is now a bishop, and incapable of extortion or oppres- 
 sion of the poor ; yet, my Lord Cardinal, I was his vicar for two years, 
 and my instructions were to grant no dispensation, even in a single
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 139 
 
 publication of banns, unless the pound note were forthcoming ; and the 
 same instructions have been delivered to my successor. A poor man from 
 the ' Height of Ireland ' must walk to the city of Kilkenny, a distance of 
 thirty Irish miles, and home again, if the near approach of Lent or any 
 other cause should make it necessary for him to seek a dispensation in 
 a single publication of his marriage banns. Now, Dr. Kinsella often 
 told me that there was no authority from Rome for such fees at all in 
 this diocese, and that he only demanded them for a charitable object, 
 when there was otherwise no sufficient cause for a dispensation. Why 
 do I state these facts ? I believe through a good motive. I consider 
 that Dr. Lynch and your Eminence have presumed the bishop to be 
 right and me to be wrong in the difference which has occurred between 
 us, and I want to destroy that presumption in your minds. For the 
 present no one else will know what I have written, nor the history of 
 this difference which I am about to write and send to both of you. 1 
 trust in God I shall neither now, nor at any other time, do anything 
 injurious to our holy religion, but I will not fail to use every proper 
 means of effecting the great object I have in view, namely to establish 
 in the Callan Lodge, where I have expended 600Z. of their money, a 
 community of holy Irishwomen, now living in the Convent of the 
 Sacred Heart of Mary at Beziers. I have established Christian 
 Brothers here to teach my male population. I shall have, with God's 
 help, also a nunnery for my females. I have the sanction of Rome, 
 and have even obtained a privileged altar for the oratory of the 
 institution. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 <R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Did you study the canon law on the matter before you 
 entered on this proceeding ? I did, well. 
 
 In order to see whether you would incur censure or not? 
 Certainly. 
 
 Did you write on 20th August to Dr. Walsh, the bishop, 
 and did you also send a copy of the letter you wrote to him 
 to the Cardinal ? Yes, to Dr. Walsh and the Cardinal the 
 same day. 
 
 You sent both ? Yes, just because I had been in corre- 
 spondence with both of them at the time. 
 
 The letter to the Cardinal was dated ' Callan, August Letter of 
 20th, 1869. My Lord Cardinal, I send you a copy of a O'Keeffe to 
 letter I have this day sent Dr. Walsh. If you will not send Cardinal 
 Dr. Lynch to bind Dr. Walsh and me to the Queen's peace, 
 
 I know not where the contention will end. 
 most humble servant, R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Your Eminence's
 
 140 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- (The following is the letter here referred to) : 
 
 animation 
 of the ' Callan, August 20, 1869. 
 
 Robert ' ^ Y ^ OET> BISHOP, I had occasion to refer to you lately from the 
 
 O'Keeffe. altars of this parish, arid I was particularly careful to make use of the 
 
 same respectful language that I had always previously employed when 
 
 Father " men ti ne d your name in public. I stated that you informed me 
 
 O'Keeffe to it was your wish that I should continue to keep open the male national 
 
 his bishop, sc h oo l a t Callan after the establishment of Christian Brothers here, and 
 1 
 
 I read an extract from the decree of Propaganda, dated 21st January, 
 
 1841, to show that your judgment was to guide me in the matter x>f 
 the management of national schools. I also stated that at the last 
 visitation you very properly directed me to rebuild the offices attached 
 to the parochial residence here, which had become dilapidated. I said 
 nothing else about your lordship. Now, my two curates announced to 
 the congregation on Sunday last that I had, in the two particulars re- 
 ferred to, stated a falsehood from the altar, and that they were directed 
 by you to make the announcement. I therefore inform you hereby 
 that I shall, on the 6th September next, take the necessary steps to have 
 the whole matter investigated in a court of justice. Before I summoned 
 you to a court on a late occasion, I asked you either to prove or with- 
 draw your slanderous charges. You were silent ; and the " summons 
 and plaint" issued. Your lawyers, Catholic gentlemen of high cha- 
 racter, begged of me to withdraw the record, and I did so. I made a 
 sacrifice, and it has not been appreciated ; but I did it for the good of 
 religion, and I seek no gratitude from men. I am still the moderate 
 and reasonable man that I was then and always, and I am prepared to 
 make the same sacrifice over again. This, however, I feel bound in 
 duty to insist upon, namely that you will remove my present curates 
 to another parish. The good of religion in this parish requires it, and 
 the violence of their most unjustifiable attack upon me has so disgusted 
 my good people, that these curates can never enjoy a day of happiness 
 in this parish. Moreover, they are not disposed to submit to me in 
 the discharge of their duty in this parish. This parish, having a work- 
 house in it, requires some priest to be always at hand for sick calls ; 
 yet these curates will leave the parish together for many consecutive 
 hours, without informing me that they are doing so. When I returned 
 home on Friday week, after an absence of three days, I found an infant 
 had been waiting eight hours for baptism, and a woman for the same 
 time with a pressing sick call. No one could give any information 
 about the curates. On Monday last I sent each of them the annexed 
 notice, yet they again both have absented themselves for hours without 
 making their absence known to me. 
 
 ' Your most faithful servant, 
 
 'R. O'KEEFFE.'
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 141 
 
 Now, Mr. O'Keeffe, I ask you did you truly state in that Direct ex- 
 letter what you had learned had been said by your curates in 
 
 the chapel? Yes. Rev. 
 
 On Sunday previous ? The Sunday previous. O'Keeffe. 
 
 Are the instances that you state there of matters of neglect - 
 that you refer to, true? Yes, they came under my own 
 knowledge. I had to baptize a child after coming home. 
 
 (Counsel then read the following letter from the Car- 
 dinal) : 
 
 '55, Eccles Street, Dublin, 21st August, 1869. 
 
 ' REV. DEAR SIR, I have received your letter of yesterday, but it Cardinal 
 has not changed my mind in regard to the course which I proposed to ^ u ^ en to 
 you to adopt. I think you ought to put yourself in the hands of your o'Keeffe, 
 bishop, to submit to him, and to endeavour to obtain absolution from advising 
 any censures that may have been contracted. A proper submission s ? mis " 
 will save you from much trouble and anxiety of mind, and will tend to 
 bring things to a happy issue. Any contentions on ecclesiastical matters 
 brought before piiblic tribunals occasion much scandal. Wishing you 
 every happiness, I remain, 
 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CARDINAL CULLEN.' 
 
 Then there is a letter of the 23rd August, 1869, from 
 the plaintiff to Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 'Callan, August 23, 1869. 
 
 'Mr DEAR LORD CARDINAL, I am thankful for your kind letter of 
 the 21st inst. I was taught humility by the grand Kinsella, and it was 
 giving me a lesson in that virtue he was when he brought your de- o'Keeffe to 
 
 meanour under my notice. I enclose a submission for Dr. Walsh, and Cardinal 
 
 on 
 if you think it on any grounds insufficient, I will add to it anything 
 
 you recommend. I assure your Eminence I sincerely dislike even the 
 appearance of opposition to lawful authority ; and I tell you moreover 
 the cause of all this was the unpleasant position I was placed in with 
 reference to the Beziers nuns, after expending their money in Callan. 
 ' I remain, with profound respect, 
 
 ' Your Eminence's most faithful servant, 
 
 ' R. O'KEEFFE. 
 
 ' P.S. This evening I am informed that I was denounced on yester- 
 day to a fourth congregation as a liar on the altar ; but I protest to 
 your Eminence I care nothing at all about it, and I have no unkind 
 feeling to any human being.' 
 
 Had you been informed on your return that evening that 
 you had been denounced as a liar on the altar ? Yes, just 
 as I was writing the letter a person from Newtown, I think, 
 came in and told me I had been denounced in Newtown.
 
 142 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Key. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe to 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 You sent that letter with the postscript to it ? Yes, with 
 the postscript to it. 
 
 (Counsel then read the following letters) : 
 
 ' 55, Eccles Street, Dublin, 28th August, 1869. 
 
 ' DEAR AND REV. SIR, Having been frequently absent from home, I 
 could not give an immediate answer to your letter. In my humble 
 opinion, you ought to make a full and ample apology to the bishop, 
 and express your determination to abide by anything he may decide. 
 In the next place, it would be well to make a spiritual retreat, and to 
 seek for absolution for the censures incurred. I think if you do all 
 these things you will repair any evil that has been done, and remove 
 every cause of anxiety about your position in reference to censures. 
 Wishing you every happiness, I remain, 
 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 + 'PAUL CARDINAL CULLEN.' 
 
 ' 55, Eccles Street, Dublin, 31st August, 1869. 
 
 ' DEAR AND REV. SIR, I think it will be well to send the letter of 
 which you sent me a copy to Dr. Walsh. 
 
 ' The best place for a retreat will be either at the Jesuits at Miltown 
 Park, where there are some learned and skilful men, or among the 
 Missionaries of St. Vincent of Paul, who are excellent spiritual guides. 
 I will give any faculties I can give ; but it will be well to get powers 
 also from Dr. Walsh. 
 
 ' Wishing you every happiness, I remain your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN. 
 
 <P.S. I hope God will direct all matters so as to bring them to a 
 happy issue.' 
 
 'Callan, September 3, 1869. 
 
 ' MY DEAR LORD CARDINAL, I have sent the apology 1 to Dr. Walsh, 
 having added to it that I withdraw the demand I had made upon him 
 for the removal of my curates, or for anything else. His lordship has 
 kindly informed me that he is quite satisfied with the apology, and 
 that he approves of my going to Dublin for the retreat. It is my in- 
 tention, therefore, to go to Miltown Park on Monday next. 
 
 ' I will leave the coming of the nuns entirely in the hands of the 
 bishop and my parishioners, and if it should be necessary for me to 
 interfere at all in the matter, I will only do it through Dr. Lynch, of 
 Carlow. I regret that I have taken up so much of your valuable 
 time, and I am very grateful for your Eminence's kind condescension. 
 ' With profound respect, your most faithful servant, 
 
 1 R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 1 See letter of apology, p. 420.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 143 
 
 Had Dr. Walsli informed you that he was quite satisfied Direct ex 
 with the apology ? 'Yes, sir. "ifST 
 
 Up to the time that the letter was written had it been Rer. 
 conveyed to you by the bishop or the cardinal or anybody that o'Keeffe. 
 
 you were to give up the idea of the nuns coming? No, 
 
 quite the contrary, I was fully of the impression that they 
 were to come. 
 
 You had not been told that they were to come ? No. 
 
 Did you then go to Dublin ? Yes, sir. 
 
 How long did you remain? A week. 
 
 Was this apology 1 of yours published in any way? I 
 read it to my own congregation at first mass. Father 
 
 Was that after you came back from Dublin ? Before I '^ eeffe ' s 
 
 * apology to 
 
 went ; when I learned from the bishop that he required to his bishop. 
 have one of the curates read it. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Did he speak to you ? Was it in 
 writing or by word of mouth ? Yes, in writing. 
 
 Have you got the bishop's letter ? I suppose it is here. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Did you read the apology yourself? I 
 read the apology at mass. 
 
 You read the whole of it at mass ? I read it at mass, 
 the whole of it. 
 
 After that, and after your return from Dublin, did anyone 
 go to Dr. M'Donald about bringing the nuns ? Yes, Dr. 
 Ryan, of Thurles. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Were you with him ? Dr. Ryan ? 
 I sent him. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : He returned, at any rate, from wher- 
 ever he went ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : In your letter to Cardinal Cullen, dated 
 14th September, 1869, you say, 
 
 ' MY DEAR LORD CARDINAL, I thought it would not be necessary for 
 
 me again to trespass on your valuable time, but I now find I must do Letter of 
 
 it. Dr. Walsh thought it expedient that my apology should be read to Father 
 
 a congregation at Callan on a Sunday by one of my curates, and I rj r<r 1* 
 
 volunteered to read it myself.' Cullen. 
 
 Is that true ? That is true. 
 
 (Letter continued) 
 
 ' I read every word of it at the parochial mass on the 5th instant, and 
 everybody knew on the following morning I was setting out for Mil- 
 town Park.' 
 
 1 See letter of apology, p. 420.
 
 144 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 "Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 That was to go to the retreat ? Yes. 
 (Letter continued) 
 
 ' On a day of last week one of my most respectable parishioners, Dr. 
 Ryan, called on Dr. M'Donald, to learn from him in what way the 
 bishop Avould wish to be applied to by my parishioners for permission 
 for the nuns to come to Callan, and he was informed that the Bishop 
 was firmly resolved never to sanction the coming of the nuns during 
 my lifetime. Can I do anything under the circumstances but to beg 
 your Eminence will ask Dr. Walsh to sign the inclosed letter addressed 
 to the Bishop of Montpelier ? I am under the impression that the 
 ladies in question could properly come to Callan and make me their 
 chaplain without Dr. Walsh's permission, and that as I have obtained 
 from Propaganda an oratory with a privileged altar &c. for their 
 convent, I could give them mass &c. without any special approba- 
 tion from Dr. Walsh. I have consulted Dr. O'Hanlon, of Maynooth, 
 and Dr. O'Reilly, of Miltown Park, and neither of these learned men 
 can see that I would be doing anything against canon law by acting as 
 I have said I could, as the nuns have as yet only episcopal approba- 
 tion ; but the ladies themselves will not come unless Dr. Walsh will 
 sign the letter addressed to their bishop. 
 
 ' With profound respect, your most faithful servant, 
 
 ' R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Now is the fact stated in that letter true, that you had 
 consulted these eminent men, and that that was what they 
 informed you? Yes, that is all true. I consulted Dr. 
 O'Hanlon by letter, and Dr. O'Reilly. 
 
 Is it true that they had made the statement embodied 
 there ? It is true. 
 
 (Letter from Cardinal Cullen, dated 20th September, 1869, 
 to plaintiff, read) : 
 
 '55, Eccles Street, Dublin, 20th Sept., 1869. 
 
 <DEA.R AND REV. SIR, I have been very busy this last week, and 
 unable to write. As the bishop does not wish to have you bring nuns 
 to Callan, I think you ought to abandon the project altogether. As 
 the spiritual head of the diocese, he has a right to decide whether it is 
 expedient to have a convent in a town or not, and the faithful ought to 
 abide by his decision, unless it be set aside by higher authority. 
 
 The rescript for a privileged altar does not give a priest power or 
 permission to celebrate mass in any particular house or parish. The 
 privileged altar is granted only on the supposition that all things, qucn 
 sunt de jure observanda, have been observed. In my humble opinion,
 
 Rev. Robert CfKeeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 
 
 the only safe way for you to act is to submit fully to the bishop's Direct ex- 
 authority, and to act according to his instructions. animation 
 
 ' If you cannot satisfy the bishop whilst you remain in Callan, I think R ev< 
 
 the best way for you would be to resign that parish, and to beg of his Robert 
 lordship to give you another. Wishing you every happiness, 
 ' I remain, your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 Was that the first communication made to you in any 
 way about resigning ? Oh yes, it was. 
 
 Had you heard anything to that effect suggested by the 
 Cardinal or any other person ? No. 
 
 (Letter from plaintiff to Cardinal Cullen read.) 
 
 'Callan, Sept, 21, 1869. 
 
 ' MY DEAR LORD CARDINAL, I have been sadly disappointed by the Father 
 receipt of your favour of yesterday. I believe that I have as good a O'Keeffe to 
 right to spend my life in the holy ministry at Callan as Dr. Walsh to 
 do the same at Kilkenny ; and if he should propose to me to resign my 
 parish, I would say to him that he was adding insult to injury. It 
 was not because the nuns had been given a privileged altar that I con- 
 sidered they could call upon me to read mass at all, but because they 
 had been granted an oratory, and been empowered to fulfil the precept 
 of the Church by hearing mass in it on Sundays and holidays. I 
 believe that Dr. Walsh is denying those ladies, my people, and me our 
 just canonical rights, and unless your Eminence or Dr. Lynch will, in 
 the interests of religion and charity, recommend him to concede them, - 
 I will use every proper means within my reach of enforcing them. Dr. 
 Walsh has brought great odium on himself by his opposition to the 
 coming of the nuns, who, as they are all from this diocese originally, 
 have numerous friends in every part of it. Your Eminence cannot 
 imagine how unfavourably he is spoken of throughout his diocese, and 
 what sympathy is everywhere felt for me. One word from you is 
 enough, and I beg of you again, but for the last time, to say it. With 
 profound respect, 
 
 ' Your most faithful servant, 
 
 1 E. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Did you get any reply to that letter? No; I got no 
 answer to it. 
 
 You say you got no answer from Cardinal Cullen. Did 
 you write in November to Cardinal Barnabo, at Rome ? 
 Yes, the first Sunday of Advent ; on the 28th November. 
 
 L
 
 146 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Eev. 
 
 Kobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe to 
 Cardinal 
 Barnabo. 
 
 (The following was the plaintiff's letter to Cardinal Bar- 
 uabo, the original of which was in Latin) : 
 
 'Callan, 28th November, 1869. 
 
 ' MOST REV. AND MOST EMINENT LORD, I am the parish priest of 
 Callan, in the diocese of Ossory, in Ireland, and am desirous of going 
 to Rome whilst the Irish bishops, with many of whom I am acquainted, 
 are there, in consequence of a difference which I have had with my 
 bishop about the introduction into my parish of a community of nuns 
 from the south of France. I have expended a large sum of money in 
 repairing a house in this town for them, which I took with the express 
 consent of the bishop, who now, however, objects to receive the nuns 
 into his diocese, and declines to give me any reason in writing for his 
 refusal. It is, therefore, necessary for me to go to Rome, and explain 
 all the circumstances of the case to your Eminence. I most humbly 
 beg your Eminence will be pleased to grant me leave of absence from 
 my parish for three months, and also leave for some one of the four 
 Augustinian Fathers of this town to celebrate mass twice on holidays 
 and Sundays during my absence. I have two curates, who can dis- 
 charge the other duties of the parish. There are five public masses 
 celebrated in the parish (which is large) on Sundays and holidays, 
 besides four masses in the Augustinian Chapel. 
 
 'Your most faithful and devoted servant, 
 
 'ROBERT O'KEEFFE, 
 
 ' Priest of Callan, in Ireland.' 
 
 Did you get a reply in the month of January following ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And none until then? None until then, and it cost me 
 2s. 6d. 
 
 Do you remember communicating this reply to Cardinal 
 Cullen. Is that the document you got ? Yes, I got this 
 and a small book, both enclosed in an envelope. 
 
 (The following is Cardinal Barnabo's reply, the original of 
 which was in Latin) : 
 
 '20th January, 1870. 
 
 Cardinal ' REVEREND SIB, I answer your letter of the 28th November last. I 
 
 Barnabo to have inquired from his Eminence the Archbishop of Dublin how you 
 
 O'Keeff conducted yourself towards your bishop, and have learned that, 
 
 forgetful of your condition, you have dared to cite him before a lay 
 
 tribunal, causing him great loss ; and from a paper now before me, 
 
 written and signed by you, it is apparent that you acknowledge the 
 
 gravity of your error. Why, therefore, do you contradict yourself by 
 
 seeking leave to come to Rome to accuse again the Bishop of Ossory, 
 
 to whom you should rather feel bound to render a strict account Lr the
 
 Rev. Robert CPKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 1 47 
 
 injury done him ? This being the state of things, we send you enclosed Direct ex- 
 
 in this letter the constitution lately published by our Most Holy Father animation 
 
 the Pope, that from the severity of the ecclesiastical penalty you have R ev 
 
 incurred, you may learn the grievousness of your crime, and what you Robert 
 
 must do to make atonement to God and men. In the meantime, I pray Keeffe. 
 that the Divine Spirit may enlighten your thoughts and your heart. 
 
 ' Given at the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith 
 in Rome, the 20th day of January, 1870. 
 
 'Your devoted, 
 
 ' AL. C. BARNABO, Prefect. 
 ' JOHN SIMEON, Secretary.' 
 
 Is that the book that you got ? This is another edition 
 with commentaries. I got the constitution itself. 
 
 Have you got the copy you received ? I haven't it about 
 me here. It is simply the ' Constitutio Apostolicce Sedis.' 
 
 You got no communication from the Cardinal subsequent 
 to the one I have read, nor any answer to the last letter ? 
 No ; not in connexion with this business. 
 
 Did you then commence an action against the bishop ? Action-at- 
 Yes. law fe y 
 
 In what month was it ? December, 1869 ; before the re- O'Keeffe 
 ceipt of that. Jgjj^t his 
 
 Were the words spoken by the curates calling you a liar Dr. Walsh, 
 before that? for words 
 
 alleged to 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong objected that the document ought be spoken 
 
 to be put in. by curates 
 
 * . by bishop s 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : The words complained of were spoken authority. 
 on the 18th December, 1869, and were as follows : ' It is not Words 
 true for Mr. O'Keeffe to say that I approved of his keeping con }- 
 open the national school at Callan, and it is not true for him E 
 to say that I directed him to repair the offices of the paro- 
 chial house J (meaning that he had knowingly made an untrue 
 statement from the altar, and had been guilty of deliberate 
 falsehood) . Then the two first counts are one for procuring 
 and inciting the Rev. Patrick Neary, then being curate to 
 plaintiff, to speak and publish from the altar of the Roman 
 Catholic chapel in Callan, with regard to the plaintiff in his 
 capacity as a priest, these words : ' It was untrue for the 
 parish priest to say that he was directed by the bishop to 
 say he was to repair the out-offices, and that the bishop had 
 directed him to keep open the national school' (meaning that 
 
 L 2
 
 148 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- he had made an untrue statement from the altar, and been 
 
 of the*" guilty of deliberate falsehood). The next one is substantially 
 
 Eev - the same. Then there is a traverse. (Document handed 
 
 O'Kceffe. * w ) The case came on for trial I believe? Yes, on the 
 
 5th and 6th July, and the 7th, I believe. 
 
 Before Mr. Justice O'Brien? Yes. 
 
 Was Mr. Walsh examined ? He was examined. 
 
 He was called for you, I believe ? He was called for me. 
 
 Did you hear him examined ? I heard him examined. 
 
 Did you hear him asked as to authority from the bishop 
 to speak ? He said the bishop only permitted him. 
 
 Permitted him ? To denounce me. 
 
 That resulted, I believe, in your being nonsuited? I 
 was nonsuited. 
 
 And you had to pay 158Z. odd ? I had. 
 
 Did you hear Mr. Walsh state at the trial that he had 
 been taking notes of what you said ? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong objected. (Objection disallowed.) 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Did you hear then for the first time how 
 Mr. Walsh had taken notes ? Yes, I heard it here. 
 
 And you had not heard it before ? No, I learned it from 
 him at the trial for the first time that he had taken notes in 
 the way described, and that he had gone with the notes to 
 the bishop in a stealthy way. 
 
 Therefore as far as you are concerned it was stealthy ? 
 It was stealthy. 
 
 You brought an action against Father Walsh in October, 
 1870. Do you remember being given that ? (Letter handed 
 to witness.) Yes. 
 
 How did that come to you ? I was handed this in the 
 chapel at Newtown. 
 
 In the chapel ? Yes, by Father Neary, in presence of 
 Father Walsh. We were together at a station ; when the 
 station was over and the people gone away, they remained in 
 the chapel until I was prepared to leave it, and when I was 
 leaving the chapel, Father Neary put this into my hands. 
 He said, ' Commands from the vicar-general ;' it was in a 
 sealed envelope. I did not read it until I went home. 
 
 When did Dr. Walsh, the bishop, die ? Was he living 
 when this was sent to you ? He was. 
 
 Dr. M'Donald was the vicar-general ? Yes.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 149 
 
 (Letter from Very Eev. Dr. M'Donald to plaintiff, dated Direct ex- 
 October, 1870, read.) TfThT 
 (FIRST SUSPENSION.) R ev . 
 
 ' St. Kyran's College, Kilkenny, October, 1870. Robert 
 
 / T\ n T i < i ii-i Keeffe. 
 ' DEAR DIR, In punishment for the action at law taken by you 
 
 against the Right Eev. E. Walsh, R. C. Bishop of Ossory, and tried First 
 before the Hon. James O'Brien, Second Justice of the Court of Queen's ^vedon 11 
 Bench in Ireland, on the 5th and Gth days of July last, I, vested with the Father 
 requisite powers, do hereby suspend you from your " office," from all its O'Keeffe. 
 functions, from all administration in things spiritual. 
 ' Your humble servant, 
 
 ' E. M'DONALD, V.G., Diocese of Ossory.' 
 
 This suspension was put into your hands by the curate. 
 Had you received notice or citation of any sort in connection 
 with it ? None of any sort. 
 
 Had you known of any investigation of any kind taking 
 place ? I never heard of anything of the sort. 
 
 According to the regulations by which you hold your p, u ] es as to 
 
 benefice as an ecclesiastic, has the vicar-general any power suspension 
 i i i TT i j--u x of a priest, 
 
 to suspend a parish priest ? He has no power except he gets 
 
 a special deputation from the bishop. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Let me hear what you say ? Power of 
 The vicar-general, as such, has no power to inflict censures viear ' 
 unless he be specially delegated or deputed. 
 
 I would like to know once for all, is it by the laws of 
 the Church possible to get rid of a parish priest except 
 he is convicted of what they call a canonical offence ? Ah ! 
 certainly not, my lord ; but with regard to the competency 
 of the vicar-general to inflict censure, he has no power 
 ordinarily, he must be specially appointed by the bishop 
 and have special faculties to inflict censure. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Supposing him to have the special facul- 
 ties to inflict censure, must there be a general jurisdiction 
 also ? Oh ! of course, and his additional power should be 
 communicated to the person. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I wanted to know whether vicar- 
 general, bishop, or other person, can depose or turn out a 
 parish priest, unless he is convicted of a canonical offence ? 
 And gets a regular trial. 
 
 I will take that as you say it is the law ? It is the law ? 
 undoubtedly,
 
 150 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Kev. 
 Bobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Occasion of 
 the first 
 suspension 
 of Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe 
 to Rev. Dr. 
 M'Donald, 
 the vicar- 
 general. 
 
 THIRD DAT. 
 
 Wednesday, May 14, 1873. 
 (Examination of Plaintiff resumed.} 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : The last document I handed in was the 
 vicar-general's letter, dated October, 1870, called the 'first 
 suspension.' Did you, on the receipt of that, Mr. O'Keeffe 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: To avoid mistake, are we to 
 understand that this now has nothing whatever to do with 
 the former transaction that was settled by the apology ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Yes, my lord. This is a new thing. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I want the jury to understand it. 
 The suspension alleged to be issued by the vicar-general 
 was for the action brought against the Rev. Dr. Walsh, the 
 bishop, supposing him to be the author of the words that 
 were spoken of the plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Yes, it is in respect of the action in which 
 Mr. O'Keeffe was nonsuited, in the case against Dr. Walsh. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When you speak of the bishop 
 and curate of the same name, mention which you mean. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon (to witness) : On account of the suspension, 
 Mr. O'Keeffe, did you write to Dr. M'Donald the letter of 
 the 12th of October? Yes. 
 
 (Counsel read the following letters) : 
 
 ' Callan, October 12, 1870. 
 
 ' VERY REV. SIR, I have been handed a letter of yours without 
 date, in which you say you have been vested with the requisite powers 
 to suspend me for having taken an action at law against Dr. Walsh. 
 You must be very silly, indeed, to think I could take your word for 
 such an absurd statement ; or you must suppose me to be as ignorant 
 as you appear to be yourself of the course of proceeding to be followed 
 in the infliction of censures. After having been publicly denounced 
 as a liar, on the altar, by authority alleged to have been given by Dr. 
 Walsh, I wrote his lordship a letter of complaint on the 20th of August 
 last year, and I have never since heard a word from him on the subject. 
 I sent a copy of this letter same day to Cardinal Cullen, and finally I 
 proposed to Cardinal Barnabo to bring my cause of complaint against 
 the bishop before a Roman Court. I could get no redress for the 
 grievous wrong inflicted upon me in any ecclesiastical court, and I 
 have consequently been compelled to seek it before a lay tribunal. My 
 proceeding is at variance with no law, human or divine, and I shall 
 treat as it deserves any attempt at punishment. It is as true now as it 
 was when written three hundred years ago, that
 
 Rev* Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 151 
 
 Man, proud man, Direct ex- 
 
 Dross'd in a little brief authority, animation 
 
 Like an angry ape of the 
 
 Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven i^iT ' 
 
 As make the angels weep. ~, e ~ 
 
 ' Your obedient servant, * 
 
 'ROBERT O'KEEFFE.' 
 (SECOND SUSPENSION.) 
 
 ' St. Kyran's College, Kilkenny, October 13th, 1870. 
 
 < REV. SIR, I have received and filed your communication. It is Second 
 no part of my duty to argue with you. Whether you " take my word " sus P cns i n 
 for it or not, I am certain that I possess the powers necessary for deal- O'Keefte 
 ing with your case ; it is my fixed purpose to exercise them. Where- by vicar- 
 fore I repeat the sentence of your suspension, in punishment for the genera 
 action at law taken by you against the Right Rev. Edward Walsh, 
 R. C. Bishop of Ossory, and tried before the Hon. James O'Brien, 
 Second Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, on the 5th 
 and 6th days of last July. I, vested with the requisite powers, do 
 hereby suspend you from your office, from all its functions, from all 
 administration in things spiritual. By "these presents" I signify and 
 declare that you are so suspended, and if after their receipt you con- 
 tinue to exercise the functions of your office, you shall hear again at 
 the proper time from 
 
 ' Your obedient servant, 
 
 E. M'DONALD, V.G.' 
 
 Now, is this letter (produced) your answer that you sent 
 to the last ? Yes, that is the answer. 
 
 (Counsel read the following letter of Mr. O'Keeffe in 
 reference to the second suspension by Dr. M'Donald.) 
 
 ' Callan, October loth, 1870. 
 'VERY REV. SIR, I have been again handed a letter of yours, dated Father 
 
 the 13th inst., in which you repeat your insolent assumption of power O'Keefle 
 
 . a . . . , J / i 111 toEer. Ur. 
 
 to inflict punishment on me for having exercised my just and legal 
 
 right to resort to a court of justice in order to protect my character the vicar- 
 from a vile slander. With God's grace, I shall perform my duties eneral - 
 towards my people in the blameless manner in which I have hitherto 
 discharged them, and treat any invasion of my civil or ecclesiastical 
 rights with the moral or physical resistance which may be necessary to 
 repel aggression, " juxta moderamen inculpate tutelse." 
 
 ' In a correspondence with Cardinal Cullen and Dr. Lynch, of 
 Carlow, last year, I informed these ecclesiastics of the infamous life of 
 traffic in sacraments and dispensations which Dr. Walsh has led for the 
 last forty years, and of his wicked slanders on the memory of his 
 predecessor. If you or anybody else should assail me publicly on his
 
 152 .:. ' Court of fyieen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- behalf, these letters will be printed and given to the public. I would 
 
 amination recommen ^ y OU t rea( j them before you do any act which may render 
 
 Xtev. their publication necessary. You may hear with regret, when too late, 
 
 Robert a dying man exclaim, " Save me from my friends." 
 O'Keeffe, J 8 / , 
 ' 1 our obedient servant, 
 
 ' R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 As to vicar- The Lard Chief Justice : Is there, according to your know- 
 general's ledge of the canon law, any authority existing in anybody 
 to suspend, to inflict the punishment of suspension without previous 
 citation or hearing of the matter ? Is there any authority 
 in the Vicar-General to suspend the parish priest ? Certainly 
 not, my lord. 
 
 Action by Mr. Fitzgibbon : The date of the last letter I read is the 
 Father 15th October. Did you then, Mr. O'Keeffe, having received 
 
 O'Keeffe 
 
 against his that, commence the action for the words as actually spoken 
 curate for by Mr. Walsh, the curate, against himself? Yes ; shortly 
 after that, proceedings were commenced against the curate. 
 
 It is dated 28th October, 1870. That was the action 
 against Mr. Walsh, the curate, in respect of the words 
 spoken by himself on his own responsibility. Now, do you 
 remember, Mr. O'Keeffe, getting this letter of the 16th 
 November from Dr. M'Donald, or do you remember if it was 
 handed to you, or how you were served with it? I do very 
 well. 
 
 Who gave it to you ? It was handed to me first by the 
 Rev. Mr. Neary. I got it twice over. Mr. Neary handed a 
 copy of it to me in the chapel of Callan, on the 18th of 
 November, 1870, I think. I was after celebrating mass and 
 giving communion to the faithful at a station, and Mr. 
 Neary placed himself in the sacristy to meet me coming in 
 from the chapel. Going from the chapel to my own house, 
 through the sacristy, he and the Rev. Mr. Walsh placed 
 themselves in the way, and Mr. Neary produced a paper and 
 began to read it. I did not wish to pay any attention to 
 him. I wished to go through and have nothing to say to 
 him. He forcibly detained me while reading the paper, and, 
 in order to get out from him, I retired backwards. He put 
 another paper into my hand as I was coming out. 
 
 Is that the other paper (produced) ? This is the other 
 paper. I left him reading one and retired backwards, and 
 through the chapel and chapel-yard into my own house,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 153 
 
 That was the letter of the 16th November? Yes. Direct ex- 
 (Counsel read the following letter) : 
 
 ' St. KjTan's College, Kilkenny, November 16tli, 1870. 
 'REV. SIR, In letters written on the 10th and 13th of last month,! O'Keeffe. 
 called your attention in an earnest way to the case of O'Keeffe u. . T" 
 Walsh, tried in Dublin on the 5th and 6th days of last July. You general to 
 cannot but be aware that the proceeding referred to was a grave th 
 offence against Catholic discipline. In your communication of the 12th ee c * 
 October you say : "My proceeding is at variance with no law, human 
 or divine." Let me remind you of a paper written by you on the 1st 
 September, '69, and directed to the Right Rev. Dr. Walsh, Bishop of 
 Ossory. A copy of that paper lies before me. It is an apology for a 
 proceeding similar to that of the 5th and 6th of last July ; and further 
 states that you meant to make a retreat in Dublin, and to seek absolu- 
 tion from any censures or irregularities you might have incurred. 
 Moreover, you ask from his lordship any jurisdiction he thought you 
 might require in the matter. People do not apologise for an act that 
 "is at variance with no law, human or divine," nor seek for powers to 
 be absolved from any censures involved in it. In hopes of your taking 
 the necessary steps to repair the scandal you have given, the ecclesiasti- 
 cal authority of the diocese has treated you with the greatest forbear- 
 ance. Representing that authority, I wrote to you in terms that seemed 
 to me most conducive to bring you to a sense of your present position. 
 Unhappily, you have disregarded those communications; and now it 
 seems, for the third time, you are travelling over the same ground. 
 Anxious, however, to push forbearance to its extremest limit, and to 
 give you another chance of setting yourself right, I now ask and lest 
 you should shelter yourself under any legal technicality formally 
 require you, by the enclosed documents, to present yourself on the 
 19th day of next month (December) at the sacristy of the Catholic 
 cathedral of this city, where anything you have to allege in explanation 
 or extenuation of the line of conduct you have adopted shall be care- 
 fully heard. If you can show any cause against your being declared 
 to have incurred and being again visited by the censures of the Church, 
 or, failing to do so, offer such satisfaction as shall appear sufficient, it 
 will, I am sure, afford all who have your own welfare and the disci- 
 pline of the Church at heart the greatest pleasure. But should you, on 
 the contrary, fail to appear, or refuse to make the necessary reparation, 
 you will be proceeded against to the utmost extremity of ecclesiastical 
 penalties. 
 
 ' Your obedient servant, 
 
 'E. M'DONALD, V.G. 
 
 'The hearing of your case is fixed for eleven o'clock, a.m., on the 
 day named above. E- M'D,'
 
 154 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Citation 
 enclosed 
 in vicar- 
 general's 
 letter. 
 
 Then, the citation which accompanied that was in Latin? 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : The letter says that for the ' third time 
 you are travelling over the same ground ?' That must refer 
 to the third action, which was against the curate. It had 
 been commenced on the 28th October. 
 
 Did this document (produced) also accompany the letter ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Translation of Citation from Dr. M'Donald to Rev. Robert 
 O'Keeffe (original in Latin), enclosed in Dr. M'Donald's 
 Letter of 16th Nov., 1870, 
 
 St. Kyran's College, Kilkenny. 
 'Edward M'Donald, Vicar-General of the Most Rev. Bishop of Ossory. 
 
 ' Whereas, from the public notoriety of the act, which by no tergi- 
 versation can be concealed, it has become known to us in the discharge 
 of our office of Vicar-General of the Most Reverend Bishop of Ossory, 
 acting also under special directions for inquiring into crimes and 
 excesses of whatever kind, and for inflicting on the transgressors the 
 punishments which are determined by our sacred canons according to 
 our discreet judgment, and for decreeing excommunication and suspen- 
 sion, even for life, and deprivation of benefice; that Priest Robert 
 O'Keeffe, parish priest of Callan, in this diocese, contrary to the sacred 
 canons, especially those which forbid clerics from drawing other eccle- 
 siastics, of whatever rank, to lay tribunals, has grievously erred by 
 citing to trial before the Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench his own 
 bishop and the bishop of this diocese, the most distinguished and Most 
 Reverend Lord Edward Walsh. 
 
 ' Desiring, moreover, to heal the wound inflicted on ecclesiastical 
 discipline, and also to bring the aforesaid priest, as far as can be done, 
 to a better state, by these presents we cite him to appear, on the 19th 
 of December 1870, which is definitely fixed, at the episcopal audience 
 for this occasion, to be held at the sacristy of the Cathedral church, in 
 this city of Kilkenny, on the said day, and there to show any excuses 
 or reasons he can why, for the fault he has committed, sentence of 
 excommunication, or other penalties of the sacred canons, should not be 
 decreed against him, even to the deprivation of his benefice, or shutting 
 him off from holy things, until he come to his senses and make suitable 
 reparation for the scandal in the judgment of the Episcopal Court. 
 
 ' In the event of his reasons or excuses being insufficient, or in 
 case of his failing to appear on the day and at the place appointed, or 
 refusing to make suitable satisfaction, the aforesaid Rev. Mr. Robert 
 O'Keeffe is informed that we will proceed against him in his absence, 
 and as confessing his guilt, and as contumacious, to the utmost ex-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 155 
 
 tremity of the law, and that sentence will be pronounced as above, Direct ex- 
 even though it should be to deprive him of his parish of Callan. ^"tho" 1 
 ' This single warning, or intimation, or citation, will be considered Eev. 
 
 as if sent three times. Kobert 
 
 Keeffe. 
 ' Given at Kilkenny, the 16th day of November 1870. 
 
 <E. M'DONALD, V.G. 
 
 ' MAETIN HQWLEY, Notary.' 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : The following is an authority from the 
 Eight Eev. Mr. Walsh to Dr. M'Donald to adjudicate upon 
 criminal cases, inflict censures, and perform all services as 
 specially commanded. It is dated 25th October, 1870, under 
 the bishop's seal. 
 
 Translation of Letter from Right Rev. Dr. Walsh to Dr. 
 M'Donald (original ivritten in Latin), also enclosed in Dr. 
 M ( Donald's Letter of the 16th November, 1870. 
 
 Kilkenny, 25th October, 1870. 
 ' To the Very Eev. Edward M'Donald, Vicar- General of Ossory. 
 
 ' VERY REV. SIR, AVe empower you, as our vicar-general, in ~, ... 
 
 . * J i , Tno bishop 
 
 respect of your office to absolve from cases reserved to us, to hear and totho 
 
 adjudicate upon criminal causes, inflict censures, and perform all such vicar- 
 things as require special command. 
 
 ' Given at Kilkenny, the 25th of October, 1870. 
 
 (Seal) 'EDWAED, Bishop. 
 
 ' THOMAS KELLY, Secretary.' 
 
 (Counsel then read the following letter from the plaintiff 
 to the vicar-general, acknowledging the receipt of his letter of 
 the 16th,and complaining of an assault committed upon him.) 
 
 ' Callan, Nov. 20, 1870. 
 
 'VERY EEV. SIR, I have your communication of the 16th inst. -p.^ 
 Your agent, in its delivery, on yesterday, made an assault on me, O'Keeffeto 
 forcibly prevented me from walking through the sacristy of my church, the vicar- 
 and compelled me to find my way through the church and churchyard 
 to my own house. I will teach both you and him that the laws of this 
 free country cannot be trampled upon with impunity. 
 
 ' I am happy to find that you have come down from your stilts, and 
 condescended to deal a little in argument. You say people do not 
 apologise for acts at variance with no law, nor seek powers to be 
 absolved from the censures such acts involve. I made the apology 
 referred to, and sought the powers of absolution, simply because 
 Cardinal Cullen recommended me to do so, and informed me that he
 
 156 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Denial of 
 bishop's 
 jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 
 thought such a proceeding would bring about a good understanding 
 between Dr. Walsh and me. I expressly informed his Eminence that 
 I was convinced I had done nothing wrong, and incurred no censure. 
 I gave him distinctly to understand that I was acting solely on his 
 recommendation, for the sake of peace. In truth, the very fact of 
 asking the powers from Dr. Walsh for a retreat in Dublin shows every 
 one of any theological information that my request implied no admission 
 of guilt. I love peace, and for the sake of it I would then and always 
 make any sacrifice consistent with truth and honour. If I expressed in 
 the apology regret at having cited Dr. Walsh to a secular court, I 
 express equal regret now that I shall have to cite both him and you to 
 a secular court in a very few days. It is painful to me to be compelled 
 to bring before the public the differences between ecclesiastics; but 
 " Necessitas inihi incumbit." 
 
 ' Since writing your letters of last month, you have made, I am 
 happy to find, some progress in acquiring a knowledge of your duties 
 in the matter of censures ; but you have yet to make the acquaintance 
 of one of the first maxims of executive justice, namely, that no one 
 should be a judge in his own cause. 
 
 ' Your humble servant, 
 
 R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Counsel read the letter, and asked the meaning of the 
 sentence, ' The very fact of asking the powers from Dr. Walsh 
 for a retreat in Dublin shows every one of any theological 
 information that my request implied no admission of guilt.' 
 
 Witness: It meant that Dr. Walsh and Dr. M'Donald 
 had no jurisdiction in the archdiocese of Dublin, and it was 
 in the archdiocese of Dublin that I was to make a retreat. 
 They had no jurisdiction outside their own diocese. I was 
 supposed to come to Dublin to make a retreat in Dublin and 
 to ask absolution from the censure, and Dr. Walsh could not 
 exercise any jurisdiction in the archdiocese. The very fact of 
 my asking Dr. Walsh to give such a jurisdiction to comply 
 with the wishes of Cardinal Cullen showed I was not guilty 
 of any crime. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon: He could not give any powers for an 
 offence out of his diocese? No ; he could not give any power. 
 
 Had you any further communication from Dr. M'Donald 
 or anyone connected with him until you got these two letters 
 (produced) ? No. 
 
 Was this the next you heard after writing your letter ? 
 Yes.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 157 
 
 (THIRD SUSPENSION.) Direct ex- 
 
 amination 
 
 'St. Kyran's College, Kilkenny, December 10th, 1870. of the 
 
 fiov 
 ' REV. SIR, From a subpoena served on me, and in other ways, I Robert 
 
 have become aware of your action at law against the Rev. John Walsh, O'Keeffe. 
 to be tried before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. It is my ij hird su 
 duty to tell you that your proceeding is a grave offence against the pension K 
 
 sacred canons. Of course I do not find fault with the eminent and ^ker 
 
 i -i i -i i ,". r> i U -tveeiie 
 
 impartial j udges who preside in the Court referred to ; but, in common by ricar- 
 
 with every Catholic, I feel that respect for the discipline of your own general. 
 Church should keep you from bringing a brother priest before any lay 
 tribunal. Some communications already received from you leave me 
 no grounds to hope that you will desist from your present proceeding 
 by reason of any mere remonstrance of mine. At the same time, it is 
 my duty to employ the powers which I possess to stop it, if I can. 
 Therefore, I hereby command you to withdraw the case of the Rev. 
 Robert O'Keeffe against the Rev. John Walsh from the Court of 
 Queen's Bench, under pain of suspension ab officio et beneficio, to be 
 ipso facto incurred the moment your counsel begins to state the case 
 to the court and jury. 
 
 ' Your obedient servant, 
 
 ' E. M'DONALD, V.G., Diocese of Ossory.' 
 
 How were they delivered, or how did you receive them ? 
 I was after celebrating mass one Sunday morning in Callan 
 chapel 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : From whom are the letters ? 
 From Dr. M'Donald. I was after celebrating mass in my 
 church on a Sunday morning 
 
 When? I believe the llth of December the llth or 
 12th December, 1870. I was going from the church through 
 the sacristy into my own house for breakfast, when the clerk 
 said to me, ' Don't go that way ; there are bailiffs there.' 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I object to all this. 
 
 Witness : I will explain it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You may say what is done, but 
 if the messenger in the act of giving you that document said 
 anything you may state it ? Very well, I will state how 
 I received it. It was put into my hand in the train. 
 
 What train ? At Gowran station. I drove from Callan 
 to Gowran on the Sunday evening. By some one I was told 
 it was a bailiff who handed me the letter. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Where did you get this copy of the
 
 158 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Bishop 
 Walsh to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Suspension 
 ex infor- 
 mata con- 
 scientia. 
 
 Explana- 
 tion of 
 term. 
 
 letter ? In the hall of the Four Courts when coming into 
 this court on the morning of trial. 
 
 Did you come up to Dublin for the trial ? Yes, and on 
 my way up, I was served with the first paper at the station 
 of Gowran. 
 
 Which is the first paper? The one read. As I was 
 coming through the hall I saw Dr. M'Donald standing there 
 with a man that I was informed was a bailiff, and in Dr. 
 M'Donald's presence the man put this second document into 
 my hand. I put it into the hands of the Chief Justice. 
 
 Then that trial proceeded, and you got a verdict for 100?.? 
 Yes. 
 
 Was this the next communication you got? (produced) 
 Yes. 
 
 'Kilkenny, llth Jan., 1871. 
 
 ' REV. SIR, As you have disregarded the ordinary mode of proce- 
 dure, I, after mature deliberation, send you hereby a suspension " ex 
 informata conscientia ab online, officio et beneficio." You are aware that 
 from this suspension there is no appeal ; and that should you violate it 
 you will incur an irregularity. 
 
 (Seal) + < EDWARD WALSH.' 
 
 Translation of Suspension (the original in Latin), enclosed 
 in foregoing letter. 
 
 (FOURTH SUSPENSION.) 
 
 ' It having been established to us that the Rev. Mr. Robert O'Keeffe, 
 priest, is guilty of misconduct, for reasons which worthily influence 
 our mind, and for which we are bound to give an account to God and to 
 the Apostolic See, as we are commanded, and from an informed con- 
 science, we suspend, and declare him suspended, from rank, office, and 
 benefice, and order the decree of suspension to be made known to him. 
 
 'Given at Kilkenny, llth January, 1871. 
 
 (Seal) ' EDWARD ( Bishop). 
 
 ' THOMAS KELLY (Actuary).' 
 
 Now before being served with this suspension, had there 
 been any citation, or trial, or inquiry in reference to it ? 
 None whatever. 
 
 What is the meaning of a suspension ex informata con- 
 scientia? It is a sort of suspension adopted sometimes in 
 the case of regulars, when the superior or the prelate in au-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 159 
 
 thority over the regular ascertains beyond possibility of Direct ex- 
 doubt that the regular is guilty of gross misconduct. ^f^tho 
 
 Do you mean one subject to the vows of an order ? A. Rev. 
 person who makes vows of obedience. We do not. We o'Keeffe. 
 
 promise obedience, which means canonical obedience, but 
 
 the regular clergy and regulars generally make vows of 
 absolute obedience. 
 
 Is that proceeding ex informata conscientia, according to Where 
 the rules of your church applicable to secular clergy ? Not a PP llcable 
 applicable to such a case as mine. Regulars give up their 
 own will altogether, and make a vow to be guided by the 
 direction and will of their superiors, and sometimes when a 
 superior ascertains that a subject or inferior is guilty of some 
 grievous crime, it is private and not public, for the good of 
 religion and the advantage of the person himself. He does 
 not want to expose him. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the meaning of the ex- 
 pression ' from this there is no appeal ' ? There is only an 
 appeal to the Pope in those cases. 
 
 That case you last spoke of? That I last spoke of. 
 
 Would you say it does not apply in the case of a parish 
 priest '? Not at all to the case of a parish priest. 
 
 Does the right of a parish priest to be tried and con- 
 demned for a canonical offence apply as much to this 
 particular description of offence, as much as to any other ? 
 Certainly. 
 
 The right to be tried ? Certainly. He cannot be con- Father 
 deinned unless a canonical offence is brought against him at objection 
 a regular trial. I may say with regard to all these censures to le s alit y 
 they were issued by a man in his own cause, and for that pensions, 
 reason alone totally and entirely invalid. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Is there any regulation to that effect ? 
 There is. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Who is the man ? The bishop or 
 the vicar-general. The bishop and the vicar-general we 
 consider as the one person, and the offence I was charged 
 with, or supposed to have committed, was bringing the 
 bishop into a secular court ; that is, that the person who 
 served me with suspension, issued that suspension because I 
 simply quarrelled with himself. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : When you speak of a man being a judge
 
 160 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Direct ex- in his own cause, are you speaking of general principles, or 
 tne regulations of the Church ? Both. It is the established 
 rule of the canon law that no one can be a iudere in his own 
 
 Cause. ^ 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : What canon ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: You will very likely have to 
 comment upon this. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I know that, my lord, but I ap- 
 prehend the man is talking of things with respect to which 
 he is altogether innocent of any knowledge. 
 
 Witness : I know the canon. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I object to statements of the canon 
 law by word of mouth. 
 
 Witness : I will produce the law. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I object to the evidence. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon (to witness) : Besides your position as 
 parish priest of Callan, were you chaplain to the Union 
 Workhouse ? Tes. 
 
 What was the salary for that office? 60 1. a year. 
 
 And what were the duties ? The duties were to celebrate 
 on Sundays and holidays, and to attend to all sick calls, and 
 to attend on Saturdays for confession, and on every occasion 
 on which a priest was required. 
 
 Were all those duties to be performed in the building of 
 Ihe Workhouse ? In the building of the Workhouse. 
 
 I suppose there was a chapel there ? There was a chapel 
 there, and mass celebrated in it every Sunday, and confession 
 held in it. 
 
 Did you yourself before the differences, officiate yourself, 
 or had you an arrangement for doing the duty between 
 yourself and the curates ? I went about once a month, and 
 the curates on other occasions and on Sundays. The curates 
 generally attended sick calls, but I always attended to sick 
 calls when sent for to the Workhouse. 
 
 Do you remember on the 4th of March, 1871, your 
 curates changing the place where they were in the habit of 
 celebrating mass ? Yes, they left my church, and discon- 
 nected themselves with me altogether. 
 
 Where did they go ? To the Friary Chapel. The Au- 
 gustinian Chapel, in the town of Callan. 
 
 Had you got any intimation before that of their intention 
 to go ? None whatever. 
 
 Conduct 
 of the 
 curates.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 161 
 
 Did you get any intimation of their not going to the Direct ex- 
 Workhouse on the following day, Sunday the 5th ? No ^thl 
 intimation. Kev. 
 
 Did they go ? No, they did not. They left the paupers o'Keeffifc 
 without mass. 
 
 Then there was no mass at the Workhouse ? There was 
 no mass at the Workhouse. 
 
 Now, between that and the following Sunday, did you 
 make any arrangement about having mass in the Workhouse 
 chapel ? I did arrange with a clergyman named O'Dwyer 
 to celebrate mass on the 12th, the following Sunday. 
 
 Did he go there ? No, he did not go there. 
 
 When did you first get notice he was not going what 
 day of the week ? I am not sure whether it was on Saturday 
 night late, but I think it was on Sunday. 
 
 You went yourself then to the Workhouse ? I did not 
 go to celebrate mass. 
 
 However, you went up there ? I went up there and gave 
 out devotions for half an hour, as the paupers had not the 
 opportunity of hearing mass, and repeated prayers for the 
 paupers. 
 
 Did you then get permission afterwards for the paupers 
 to go to the chapel ? Yes, I got permission. 
 
 How long did that continue ? For two or three Sundays. 
 
 From that time down to the month of July following, did 
 Mr. Walsh and Mr. Neary continue to officiate in the Friary 
 chapel ?- -Yes. 
 
 And you in the parish chapel ? In the parish chapel. 
 
 What terms were you on with them during the time ? 
 We had no intercourse whatever after they separated from 
 me. 
 
 Now do you remember commencing an action against Action for 
 Mr. Neary on the 15th of April, 1871 ? I do. S e b / 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon (to the Chief Justice] : This, my lord, is O'Keeffe 
 an action for libel, for having written as follows : M^Neary 
 
 his curate. 
 
 Observations written by the Rev. P. Neary in the Chaplain's 
 Book in the Callan Union Workhouse. 
 
 '23rd March, 1871. 
 
 ' As a ratepayer of this union, and as a priest of this parish, con- 
 sequently as one interested in the -welfare, spiritual and temporal, of 
 
 M
 
 162 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 the inmates of this house, I respectfully submit that these poor people 
 ought not to be sent out on Sundays to hear mass celebrated by a 
 suspended priest, in a church where the altar has been turned into a 
 platform for slander and buffoonery ; where, Sunday after Sunday, the 
 bishop of this diocese, in the eightieth year of his age, is slandered and 
 lampooned ; where a deliberate, systematic, and persistent effort is being 
 made to bring the bishop's person and authority into contempt, and to drag 
 into schism such of the parishioners as can be duped by sophistry or terri- 
 fied by altar denunciations. If the poor are to be sent out surely they ought, 
 at least, to have the option of going to the convent, where they would 
 hear the gospel preached and mass celebrated by unsuspended priests. 
 
 ' I also beg respectful!}' to submit that the poor of this workhouse are 
 in justice entitled to the services of an unsuspended chaplain, and 
 ought not to have forced on them a chaplain of whose ministrations 
 they cannot in conscience avail themselves. 
 
 ' Meanwhile, I and my fellow cura,te will continue as heretofore to 
 discharge the chaplain's duties, with one exception. We cannot cele- 
 brate in the Workhouse chapel ; just as we cannot in any of the four 
 public churches of the parish, except the church of the Augustinian 
 Fathers, in the town of Callan, where, on Sundays and holidays, there 
 is a continued succession of masses, from morning to mid-day. 
 
 'In reference to the resolution proposed at the Board, on the 16th inst., 
 for allowing the poor out to mass, pending the settlement of the contention 
 or misunderstanding of the priests of the parish, I have to inform the Board 
 that there is no contention or misunderstanding to be settled between the 
 priests ; but there is one of a most serious nature between the Rev. Mr. 
 O'Keeffe and the bishop of the diocese. 
 
 ' On Sunday, the 12th inst., I find the following entry made by the 
 Chaplain in this book : " Officiated at the altar." As I learned that 
 there was no mass that day at the Workhouse chapel, I felt quite 
 puzzled to know what such an entry meant. Upon inquiry I found 
 that the chaplain on that Sunday simply recited the rosary, a form of 
 prayer daily recited by the faithful, without ever once imagining that 
 they are thereby officiating at the altar. 
 
 ' There was no necessity for having two or even one mass celebrated 
 in the parish church on the 5th, 12th, and 19th inst., as on these Sun- 
 days five or six Masses were celebrated in the Augustinian church, 
 distant only about two minutes' walk from the parish church. The 
 non-celebration of mass by the chaplain in the Workhouse on these 
 Sundays afforded him three additional opportunities of publicly de- 
 nouncing his ecclesiastical superiors, and three additional chances of 
 promoting a schism in the parish. 
 
 'P. NEARY, C.C.' 
 
 Now that was afterwards tried, and yon got a verdict 
 for 100?. Yes.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 163 
 
 Where was the publication of the words you complained Direct ex- 
 of in that ? Part of it was written in the chaplain's book of ami f na t ion 
 the Callan Union Workhouse, by Mr. Neary. Kev. 
 
 [Copy of above entry in chaplain's book on 23rd March, 
 1871, handed in.] 
 
 Now, it is stated here that ' the altar has been turned 
 into a platform for slander and buffoonery, where Sunday 
 after Sunday the bishop of this diocese, in the 80th year of 
 his age, is slandered and lampooned.' Was that true? It 
 is a wicked libel upon me. 
 
 Was there any foundation whatever for it ? No founda- 
 tion whatever for it. 
 
 Had this gentleman, Mr. Neary, been officiating himself 
 elsewhere during the time he is referring to there ? Yes. 
 
 I believe you were not present at any of his ministra- 
 tions ? No. 
 
 Do you remember getting this letter (produced) from the 
 Cardinal ? Yes ; I got that letter from his Eminence on the 
 1 7th July, in the evening. 
 
 (Counsel read the following letter from Cardinal Cullen) : 
 
 'Dublin, 59, Eccles Street, July 16th, 1871. 
 
 ' EEV. DEAR SIR, The accounts which have reached me of dissen- Cardinal 
 sions and disputes in Callan have afflicted me very much. Cullen to 
 
 ' Being now in a position to attempt to restore peace in that locality, I (yK ff 
 am determined to make every effort to obtain so desirable a result. 
 
 ' Before I take any step in the matter, I would be glad to have an 
 intervieAv with you, in regard to the present state of things. 
 
 ' I shall be at home on the 19th, 20th, and 21st inst. (Wednesday, 
 Thursday, and Friday next), from 10 to 11 o'clock each morning. If 
 any other hour will be more convenient to you, I will try to make a 
 different arrangement, if you will write me a line. 
 
 ' If you call at any of the hours above mentioned, I will be happy 
 to see you. 
 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CAED. CULLEN; 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : This, as I understand, is the first 
 letter of the Cardinal's for a long time. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : It is the first letter since the month of 
 September, the year but one previous. The last preceding 
 one was immediately before Mr. O'Keeffe had written to 
 Borne namely, in September, 1869. 
 
 M 2
 
 164 
 
 Court of Queers Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 a n t a jf e on 
 
 R ev 
 Kobert 
 Keeffe. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe to 
 
 Cullen 
 
 (Counsel here read the following letters from Father 
 O'Keeffe to Cardinal CuUen.) 
 
 ' Callan, July 17, '71. 
 ' His Eminence Card. Cullen. 
 
 i j^ y L ORD CARDINAL, I have just now, on my return from a con- 
 sultation with my lawyers at Kilkenny, found on my table your 
 Eminence's favour of yesterday's date. I am under an engagement to 
 ^ me w ^h Lord Desart on Thursday, but, if you wish it, I will call upon 
 your Eminence on Friday next. It can scarcely be necessary, however, 
 that I should do so. I want nothing in the wide world but to be allowed 
 to do my duty to God and man in peace and charity with all mankind. I 
 have, however, a heavy bill against Dr. Walsh, which I shall certainly 
 insist on being paid by his lordship, or somebody else. It amounts to 
 about 700/. I will write fully to your Eminence on to-morrow, and 
 send you the particulars of this demand. I will content myself at 
 present with sending you copies of papers I have this day put into the 
 hands of my lawyers for the case of O'Keeffe v. M'Donald, at the 
 Wicklow Assizes. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 < R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Callan, July 18, 1871. 
 
 Father ' MY LORD CARDINAL, The nonsuit in July last cost me over 
 
 CtmliSl* 200Z., including 108Z. 12s. Qd. paid the Bishop's solicitor; the action 
 Cullen. against Father Walsh cost me about 150/., and the action against 
 Father Neary has cost me another 100Z. On the Sunday after the last 
 trial, both Father Neary, in the chapel at Kells, and Father Walsh, in 
 the Friary Chapel here, repeated the slander for which I took the 
 action. Father Walsh said : " Father Neary was fined 1001. by 
 British law for saying that Mr. O'Keeffe was a suspended priest ; and 
 I tell you now that he is a suspended priest, and let him fine me now 
 another 100/. if he can. Dr. M'Donald was present in court, prepared 
 to swear that he was a suspended priest, but he would not be allowed to 
 swear it." On the following Sunday I informed my congregations at 
 both masses that I accepted Mr. Walsh's challenges on the part of 
 himself and Dr. M'Donald, and that I had sent for two writs to Dublin. 
 Oneof these was served on Dr. M'Donald on the 29th June ; and Avhen the 
 bailiff called at the Callan Lodge to serve Mr. Walsh, he was assaulted in 
 the most violent manner by Mr. Neary. I obtained a summons to petty 
 sessions for service on Mr. Neary ; but he fled from service before the last 
 sessions, which were held here on the 6th inst., and I have got a new 
 summons for the court to be held on the 3rd proximo. I believe that this 
 new summons has been served on him. 
 
 ' There were fifty-two cases for trial at the last sessions, nearly all
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 165 
 
 arising from contentions between my supporters and those of tlie curates ; 
 and Mr. Hort, K.M., remarked that a fearful responsibility lay on the 
 shoulders of whoever was accountable for the state of things at Callan. 
 I am quite prepared with the case against Dr. M'Donald for the Wicklow 
 Assizes, and it has cost me, up to this, about 50Z. All these sums of 
 money, with the 100Z. damages in each case against the curates, amount 
 to 700/. ; and the authorities of the diocese owe me this money. I 
 cannot make them pay it by law ; but unless I be paid it, I will 
 proceed against Dr. M'Donald at Wicklow ; and if I fail to get paid the 
 700Z., I will renew the action against the bishop, in the event of his 
 recovering his mind. I was nonsuited in consequence of the open and 
 barefaced perjury of Father Walsh, who swore that he was not 
 directed by the bishop to contradict me on the altar on the 15th 
 August, 18G9 ; but Father Neary swore truly at the last trial, that the 
 bishop did direct and authorise the contradiction. I left nothing 
 undone to keep all the cases out of court ; and, when everything else 
 failed, I wrote, before the last trial, to Lord O'Hagan, begging of him 
 to insist on your Eminence's interference to keep the case out of coiirt. 
 I concluded my letter in these words : " Your position gives you a 
 right to insist that our holy religion will not be disgraced by conten- 
 tions which were unmeaning from the beginning, and which, in the 
 end, will inflict a wound on religion which will not be cured for gene- 
 rations yet to come. My desire to avoid giving pain to your lordship, 
 and everyone like you who loves his religion, is my apology for begging 
 your interference in this matter, in the interests of religion and charity." 
 ' I submit, as a matter of course and dut}', to the authority of your 
 Eminence, and I entertain the highest respect for your person and holy 
 office ; but your Eminence cannot expect me to forgive a debt which 
 is fairly and honestly due to me. The first Sunday that Mr. Neary 
 celebrated mass in my church, he said he was directed by the bishop 
 to say to my congregation that the bishop thought I was misspending 
 my time in the parish by becoming a schoolmaster. I know that 
 I have been unfairly represented to your Eminence in the matter 
 of this teaching, and I wish that your Eminence would send a Dublin 
 priest to spend a week in my house, and report to you how I employ 
 my time. I answer all sick calls by night and day, as soon as possible 
 after they are delivered to me ; I baptize all the children, and witness 
 all the marriages. I go in turn to the four chapels on Sundays, in- 
 cluding the Workhouse, and always give the people instruction. I am 
 always present at the afternoon devotions in my church, including 
 vespers &c. on Sundays and holidays. I give mass and communion, 
 at all the stations; and whenever a parishioner wants me on any 
 business whatever, the person is at once ordered into my parlour, and 
 invited to take a seat. I make myself useful to innumerable people ; 
 and what, perhaps, no other P.P. in Ireland has done, I have made out 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Ilev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe.
 
 166 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 
 Kev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen to 
 Father, 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 an index to my parochial registers, which enables me at once to find 
 out the name of any child whose baptism is recorded on the books, or 
 of any man whose marriage is entered in them. I have now one 
 hundred boys in my national school; about twenty-five are reading 
 Latin, and about forty French. I have made, to a great extent, French 
 the language of the school, and no boy pays fees. Many of the boys 
 are the sons of small farmers in other parishes, who have come to live 
 in town to qualify under me for a profession. I swore in the Queen's 
 Bench that, as a general rule, I spend three and a half hours every day 
 in reading and writing, in addition to the time I spend in the school, and 
 that the time I give in the school does not in any way interfere with 
 my parochial duties. Send, for instance, the Rev. Michael Cody, of 
 Phibsborough, a native of this parish, to spend a week with me, and 
 I promise your Eminence he will report to you that he is not 
 acquainted with any other P.P. who does his duty with more regularity 
 and exactness than I do. My dear deceased friend, Dr. Renehan, of 
 Maynooth, was fond of saying "Audi alteram partem;" and I wish 
 Cardinal Barnabo had thought of it when he was refusing me leave to 
 make a visit to Rome. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 ' R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Have you paid for the nonsuit in Mr. Walsh's case ? 
 Yes ; to Mr. Poe. 
 
 In the actions you got damages against Mr. Walsh, 250?., 
 and against Mr. Neary IOC/. ? Yes. 
 
 Have you received any of the amounts you recovered ? 
 No. 
 
 Have you to get them still ? I have no expectation of 
 them. 
 
 Did you hear Mr. Hort, the magistrate, speak of the 
 perjury at the petty sessions ? Yes, I was present. 
 
 Was any clergyman sent down from Dublin, or was 
 there any reference made to your request in that letter ? 
 JS"one. 
 
 Did you truly state in that letter to his Eminence the 
 matters contained in it? I did, truly. 
 
 (Counsel read the following letters) : 
 
 1 Dublin, July 20, 1871. 
 
 ' REV. AND DEAR SIR, I received on yesterday your letter dated July 
 the 18th, 71. It was with great regret I learned from it that your 
 parish was so much disturbed, and that " there were 52 cases for trial 
 at last sessions, nearly all arising from contentions between your
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 167 
 
 supporters and those of the curates." Such a state of things is most 
 deplorable, and I believe no other parish in Ireland of the same popula- 
 tion can exhibit such a picture. In my humble opinion the evils 
 referred to owe their origin to resistance to episcopal authority ; and I 
 think it would be your interest, as well as your duty, to re-establish 
 that spirit of obedience which is so necessary in the Christian dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 'As to all the law-suits which you mentioned, I think it is a misfor- 
 tune that you ever engaged in them. They are generally the occasion 
 of great affliction of mind, to say nothing of the scandal they give when 
 carried on by ecclesiastics, and of the great loss with which they are 
 accompanied of money, which would be, if properly expended, of so 
 much use to religion, and charity to the Church and the poor. 
 
 ' I am persuaded that the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 7, are especially 
 applicable to any ecclesiastic who brings his brother ecclesiastic before 
 the tribunals of this world : " Jam quidem omnino delictum est in 
 vobis, quod judicia habetis inter vos. Quare non magis injuriam 
 accipitis ? Quare non magis fraudem patimini ?" 
 
 ' I shall say no more upon this matter, but I implore of you, per 
 viscera misericordia; Dei nostri, to consider the evils and scandals which 
 have arisen from the law-suits in which you have been engaged, and to 
 endeavour by every means in your power to extricate yourself from 
 your present position, and to set yourself right with God and the 
 Church. 
 
 ' I humbly pray that our Divine Lord may give you every necessary 
 grace to do His holy will, and wishing you every happiness, 
 
 ' I remain your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN; 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Rer. 
 Eobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 O'Keeffe to 
 
 Cardinal 
 
 Cullen. 
 
 Callan, July 21, 1871. 
 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, I have the honour to acknowledge your Emi- Father 
 nence's letter of yesterday's date. The evils prevailing in this parish 
 are not attributable to resistance to episcopal, but parochial authority ; 
 and I have done all in my power to remove them. I have constantly 
 impressed on my parishioners the obligations of peace and charity to 
 all men, and the strict observance of the laws of the land ; but it is idle 
 to think that anything but disorder will prevail here, while priests con- 
 tinue to preach to parishioners that " their P.P. is not a priest ot 
 God, but of the devil ; that he is leading crowds after him into hell ; 
 that everyone who hears his mass commits a mortal sin ; and every 
 one receiving a Sacrament from him commits a sacrilege." This 
 language has been uttered frequently by a man holding up the holy 
 Sacrament to public view, and swearing by the body and bkod of 
 Christ that the P.P. of Callan is a suspended priest. This language is
 
 168 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 dinned into the ears of everyone in the confessional ; and, if questioned, 
 is repeated with an oath. This language was repeated in the public 
 street at 11 o'clock on the night of Sunday, the 14th of May, by a 
 priest so much under the influence of drink as that he had to be removed 
 by another priest from the street to his house ; and this language was 
 uttered in the chapel of Kells on the 16th of April by a priest who, I in- 
 formed my congregation, was in the same state while expressing it on the 
 altar that he was in when he repeated it in the street. I said to many 
 thousands of people (several persons who were in the Kells chapel on the 
 16th of April told me so) that the priest was unable to read the mass or 
 the prayers before it ; and I say to your Eminence now that Mr. William 
 H. Butler, who proved the utterance of this language by Mr. Neary in 
 the Kells chapel at the last trial, called on Dr. M'Donald on the 19th 
 of June to complain that Mr. Neary had denounced him on Sunday, 
 the 18th, at Kells (the next Sunday after the trial), and said to him 
 (Dr. M'Donald) that he ould have said of Father Neary much more 
 damaging things than he did say, if he were not anxious to say as little 
 as he could. All this, my Lord Cardinal, is only a sample of the means 
 that have been resorted to in order to destroy my character, and 
 degrade me before my own people. Send a commissioner to Callan to 
 report the state of things to your Eminence. 
 
 ' The law-suits all originated in the denunciations of me as a liar on 
 the altar, by authority alleged to have been given by Dr. Walsh, and 
 proved by Mr. Neary at the last trial to have been given by his lord- 
 ship. Does your Eminence think that St. Paul looks upon ecclesiastics 
 as privileged to ill-treat everyone to whom they have a spite, and to 
 defame and vilify, by pretended censures, everyone who does not 
 express his thankfulness for the most wicked and unholy slander ? I sin- 
 cerely respect your Eminence, and would do at your desire anything at 
 all that I could, but what is the use of asking me to do impossibilities ? 
 Lives will be lost at Callan if order be not restored. Four thousand 
 people hear my two masses every Sunday, and the lessons of peace 
 which I inculcate to them will not much longer avert the occurrence of 
 terrible crimes. The Oblate Fathers, who gave a mission here in 
 April, 1869, know me; and Mr. Duffe, the Vincentian, made a visit to 
 Callan, to inspect the Callan Lodge for Mrs. Maher, of Cabra. Send 
 one of those gentlemen to report the state of things to your Eminence. 
 I send you papers by book post that will give your Eminence some 
 further information. 
 
 ' I complained of the Commissioners of Education to Lord Spencer, 
 and the Lords Justices, in his absence, directed the case of my school 
 to be settled. I have received an apology from the Commissioners for 
 the delay of payment of salaries to the teachers, and receipts filled up 
 for the amounts due. I have been obliged to introduce Dr. Walsh dis- 
 paragingly into the correspondence, but through necessity, as in other
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 169 
 
 cases. I have never resisted his authority, or disrespected any order or Direct ex- 
 command given me. Mr. Harkin was gained over by the bishop's amination 
 friends to report against my school ; but truth and justice have in this R ev 
 case triumphed, as they must ultimately in every other. Robert 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 ' E. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 From what did you quote the language in your letter 
 about the Eev. Mr. Neary ? From what I heard. 
 
 Had you informed your congregation about his being re- 
 moved intoxicated to his house ? I had. 
 
 Was that true ? It was true. 
 
 Where is the Kells chapel? It is an adjoining parish, 
 and when they had no chapel in Callan they took advantage 
 of the chapel of Kells being near my parish, to celebrate 
 mass. My curates went there for the accommodation of the 
 people. 
 
 In reference to the statement in your letter about being 
 degraded before your own people, was that statement made 
 that you have put into the mouth of Mr. Butler ? Yes, it 
 was proved by Mr. Butler in this chair. 
 
 What trial was that ? That was the action against the 
 Eev. Mr. Neary. 
 
 In Avhich you recovered 100Z. damages? Yes. 
 
 Was it a fact that the number of people you refer to in 
 the letter were in attendance at your chapels ? Yes ; I con- 
 sidered there used to be about 4,000 at the two masses. 
 
 You say in the letter that two of the chapels were closed. 
 Which of the chapels were closed ? I refer to the chapels at 
 Coolagh and Newtown. 
 
 The country chapels mentioned at the beginning ? Yes. 
 
 (Counsel here read the following letters) : 
 
 'Dublin, July 22nd, 1871. 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, T have received your letter of yester- Cardinal 
 day, and I must say in reply that, in my opinion, nothing can explain S u H en to 
 the disturbed state of your parish, so accurately described in your o'Keeffe. 
 preceding letter, but past and present resistance to episcopal authority. 
 Perfect peace prevails in almost every parish in Ireland ; and it will 
 continue to exist, unless attempts be made to resist those who have 
 been placed by the Holy Ghost to feed the flock of Christ, and who 
 have inherited their episcopal authority from the holy Apostles. In 
 other countries the state encourages occasionally the clergy to resist
 
 170 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 
 aminatio 
 
 of the 
 
 Eev. 
 
 Robert 
 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 their bishops ; and in that way great wounds are inflicted on the 
 Church. Such schisms and dissensions have been always the source of 
 great grief to our Holy Father; and I have reason to know that, even 
 in the midst of his great sufferings, Pius IX. feels very much for the 
 present state of Callan, and is anxious that peace should be restored to 
 that afflicted district. Whilst our Holy Father has so much to suffer 
 from his enemies, and is fighting so gloriously the battles of the Lord, 
 should not his children avoid everything calculated to aggravate his 
 sorrows? Hence, I think if I had no other motive for acting but a 
 determination not to increase the troubles of the Church and of her 
 Supreme Pastor, I would abandon at once all litigation, and seek to be 
 reconciled with my bishop and other priests. I would say with St. 
 Paul, " Si quis autem videtur contentiosus esse ; nos talern consuetu- 
 dinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei." 
 
 ' Some time ago I read in the life of St. Francis de Sales that some 
 one charged him with having committed a serious offence, and that 
 the saint, rather than undertake angry discussions, and occasion 
 divisions among the clergy, bore patiently the calumny, until it pleased 
 God to supply, without any effort on his part, proofs of his innocence. 
 Were this system more generally adopted, and were we to place the 
 vindication of our rights in the hands of God, those who have been 
 really injured, and those who imagine that they have been injured, 
 would suffer very much less than they have to bear when they under- 
 take to place their own justification before the public. 
 
 1 1 will now merely add, that the present Pope, whilst limiting and 
 abrogating other censures, confirmed all penalties of the canon law 
 against those who drag ecclesiastics, and especially bishops, before lay 
 tribunals, and there charge them with criminal offences. The Pope's 
 bull regarding censures was handed to every bishop in the Vatican 
 (Ecumenical Council last December twelve months, and is now known 
 over the whole world. While such penalties as those I refer to are 
 hanging over his head, I cannot conceive how any priest can venture 
 to charge other ecclesiastics with calumny, lying, drunkenness, and 
 endeavour to prove such charges before a Protestant judge, and in the 
 presence of numbers of persons who must be sorely scandalized by 
 what they hear in such a case. Moreover, I cannot understand how 
 any priest, having once incurred the censures reserved by the Pope, 
 can continue to officiate, and to bring on himself innumerable irregu- 
 larities. 
 
 ' In conclusion, I implore of you again to give up all litigation, and to 
 set yourself right with the Church. The gaining of a law-suit may be 
 pleasing for a moment to the priest who gains it over his brother priest; 
 but such an event does not tend to raise the character of the person 
 concerned, or to merit for him the applause of the just and virtuous.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 171 
 
 In any case we must say, what doth it profit a man to gain the whole Direct ex- 
 world if he lose his own soul. amination 
 
 of the 
 ' Wishing you every happiness, I remain your faithful servant, Kev. 
 
 + ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' msSfo. 
 
 Callan, July 23rd, 71. 
 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt 
 of your letter of yesterday's date. 
 
 ' I admire your Eminence's charity, and the Christian spirit with Father 
 ,. , \ .. , . , , , V M r , f O'Keeffeto 
 
 which you preach it ; but let me beg of you not to allow the zeal ot Cardinal 
 
 your charity, though queen of virtues, to eat up your sense of the Cullen. 
 cardinal virtue, justice. Your Eminence's letter would be very appro- 
 priate, coming from a preacher of the Word ; but in the matter of 
 restoring peace to this disturbed parish, I must look upon you as a 
 judge. Viewing your Eminence in that light, I feel that I can satisfy 
 you, that from the day I was denounced by rny own two curates to 
 four congregations of my own flock as a liar on the altar, I have done 
 nothing whatever that could fairly be construed to express on my part 
 an unkind feeling to any human being. I have not unnecessarily given 
 publicity to anything damaging to religion ; and I have defamed no 
 one, except where I knew, as a theologian, that I was warranted in 
 doing so. I need not tell your Eminence that every theologian specifies, 
 as one of the cases in which defamation is lawful, one's own just 
 defence. I have acted all through with full deliberation ; and have 
 made up my conscience to it, that I have all through conducted my 
 defence "juxta moderamen inculpatae tutelse." Your Eminence can- 
 not hold, as a theologian, that the censures of the constitution Apostolicce 
 Sedis are binding sub gram nocumento ; and our common Holy Father 
 would be aggrieved if he were told he was understood to mean by the 6th 
 and 7th censure, page 5, that, if one ecclesiastic be ill-treated by 
 another, the aggrieved party must not be allowed to make his appear- 
 ance in any court. I assure your Eminence that it was publicly 
 announced by Mr. Walsh here, after I had published my letter to the 
 Poor Law Commissioners, which I herein enclose, that the reason why 
 I was not denounced was, that the bishop was afraid of the law. I 
 firmly believe the matter was so. If your Eminence has any fear that 
 I have incurred censui'e, I will discuss the matter fully with any theo- 
 logian you may name, and make out, I hope to your satisfaction, that 
 a shadow of ecclesiastical censure has never fallen on my shoulders. 
 If there must be a trial at Wicklow, several " experts " will prove that 
 I have not been suspended ; but as in all the other cases, I will do my 
 utmost to prevent a trial. I will go to Kilkenny on to-morrow to see 
 Mr. James Poe, Dr. M'Donald's solicitor, and I will lay down to him 
 the very lowest sum I can accept. I have got execution against Mr.
 
 172 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Eev. 
 Kobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe, 
 advising 
 his with- 
 drawal 
 from 
 litigation. 
 
 Neary for 203Z. 17s. 5cZ., as you may see by the enclosed letter, and I 
 am sure to get execution against Mr. Walsh for more than 250Z. next 
 November. These gentlemen were supported against me by the acting 
 authority in the diocese, and is it fair to have these sums paid me by a 
 certificate of bankruptcy ? Your Eminence knows how I wrote to Lord 
 O'Hagan before the last trial ; and Dr. Lynch can tell you how 1 wrote 
 to his lordship and Dr. O'Hanlon before the case against Mr. Walsh 
 was tried last December. I have made an appointment with my three 
 lawyers to meet them at Waterford on Thursday ; but if Dr. M'Donald 
 will do what I think James Poe will recommend him on to-morrow, 
 the law is at an end. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 ' B. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Was Mr. Poe Dr. M'Donald's attorney in the action ? 
 He was. 
 
 [The following letter from defendant to plaintiff, read 
 by counsel.] 
 
 'Dublin, July 26,71. 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, One of the Fathers says that per- 
 severantia boni operis virtus est ; and encouraged by that authority, I 
 have determined to write to you again, and to implore of you to 
 abandon your present position, and to endeavour to settle everything 
 with the bishop. It is a sad case to have so much money thrown 
 away on law, and to see so many cases of litigation in your parish. It is 
 still worse that there should be great danger, as you state, of bloodshed 
 among your people. It must be a sore affliction to you to live in such 
 a state ; and I am sure it would be a great relief to yourself to have 
 things brought to the condition in which they are in other parishes, 
 where the people live in peace, and where there is no risk of bloody 
 collisions. 
 
 ' I am most anxious to see peace restored, and I think you ought to 
 make every sacrifice to bring about so desirable a consummation. I 
 would counsel you to give up all claims on those with whom you have 
 been at law, to abandon all lawsuits for the future, and to make a full 
 and absolute submission to the bishop. 
 
 ' If you do all this, I am sure the past contentions will be forgotten, 
 and you will acquire merit in the sight of God and man. Wishing you 
 every happiness, 
 
 ' I remain your faithful servant, 
 
 + 'PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 When you got that letter did you withdraw the action 
 against Dr. M'Donald and the summons against the Eev. 
 Mr. Neary? Yes.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 173 
 
 Without any further communication from the Cardinal Direct ex- 
 
 but that letter ? Without any further communication. "Safe * 
 
 Having withdrawn them, did you then write this letter Rev. 
 
 of 27th July ? Yes. * 
 
 ' Callan, July 27, '71. ' 
 
 ''Mr LORD CARDINAL, It is painful to me to be such a trouble to Father 
 your Eminence. CaS 
 
 ' I have withdrawn the action against Dr. M'Donald, and the sum- Cullen. 
 mons in Mr. Neary's case. 
 
 ' Dr. Lynch and Dr. O'Hanlon, at my urgent entreaty, interfered as 
 peacemakers last December, and they can tell your Eminence how 
 they failed to bring it about. I would ask your Eminence to refer the 
 money demand now to them as arbitrators, or at least to allow me to 
 make my case to them with a view to their making a report on it to 
 you. I want money for no purpose but to pay the debts 1 have in- 
 curred in connection with the suits, and I would get three times the 
 amount I claim from my own and the surrounding parishes; but I 
 have said to friends who proposed a public subscription, that such a 
 proceeding would be considered by your Eminence as the celebration 
 of a triumph over authority a victory I have never sought and never 
 will seek. If I die possessed of money, you can see by the enclosed 
 will the last I have made what would be done with it. 
 
 ' I have been put to great expense in several other ways, and it has 
 cost me more than 100/. to maintain my position as head of the educa- 
 tion of the youth of my parish. The religious instruction of the 
 children at the Christian Brothers Schools has been taken out of my 
 hands altogether ; and these children would be punished in the school 
 if they came to receive instruction from me on Sundays. Your Emi- 
 nence knows very little of the ill-treatment in many ways from which 
 I have been suffering for the past two years. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, 
 
 ' Your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 'K. O'KEEFPE.' 
 
 Now was it a fact that it cost you 100Z. to maintain your 
 position at the head of education ? Yes, money out of my 
 own pocket. 
 
 How was it spent ? It was spent on the improvement of 
 the schools. 
 
 National schools ? National schools ; paying salary to a 
 superior teacher, and giving books and requisites to the chil- 
 dren free, and various other ways like that. 
 
 (The following letter was then read) :
 
 174 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Eev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 'Dublin, 29th July, 1871. 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, I am happy to learn that you have 
 withdrawn proceedings against Dr. M'Donald and Father Neary. 
 
 ' I hope that you will now continue in the path on which you have 
 entered, and not stop until you shall be fully reconciled to your bishop 
 and to the Church. The world is now so much disturbed, and religion 
 and the faithful have so much to suffer, that every good Christian 
 ought to avoid everything calculated to increase dissensions or to 
 aggravate the sufferings of the Church and its Supreme Head. 
 
 'As to money matters, I would advise you to follow the counsel of 
 our Lord " Quserite primum regnum Dei et justitiam ejus et castera 
 omnia adjicientur vobis." Settle first the spiritual matters, submit to 
 the bishop, and God will settle everything else. Wishing you 
 every happiness, 
 
 ' I remain your faithful servant, 
 
 + 'PAUL CARD. CULLEN. 
 
 ' P.S. I return the will, which I hope may not be required for a 
 long time.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice ; May I ask, did that settle the 
 action against Dr. M'Donald ? Yes, my lord. Notice of 
 trial was withdrawn by consent of both parties. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Were there any further proceedings 
 taken after that occasion ? No. 
 
 Any further proceedings taken in Mr. Neary's case ? 
 There were subsequently. I was obliged to fall back on it in 
 self-defence. 
 
 After you had withdrawn the action against Dr. M'Donald 
 in that way, where did you go ? I went into the retreat of 
 the clergy of the diocese. 
 
 Where ? At the college of Kilkenny, on the 23rd July. 
 
 How long did you remain there ? A week. 
 
 Did you meet Dr. M'Donald there ? Yes. 
 
 Were you on friendly terms ? Yes, we shook hands with 
 one another, and exchanged friendly conversation. 
 
 Do you remember anything occurring with Mr. Neary on 
 the Sunday you went back after coming out of the retreat ? 
 Yes. 
 
 (Counsel read the following letter) : 
 
 ' Callan, August 8th, '71. 
 
 Father ' My DEAR DOCTOR, I promised you on Saturday that I would not 
 
 O'Keeffe to again speak unfavourably of anyone in public if a fresh attack were not 
 
 Action 
 against 
 vicar- 
 general 
 with- 
 dra\ra.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 175 
 
 made upon me. This attack has, however, been made, and I think it Direct ex- 
 will be necessary for me to bring Mr. Neary's conduct before my con- animation 
 gregation on Sunday next. On last Sunday he was only prevented R ev 
 from entering my church at twelve o'clock, in order to tear the vest- Robert 
 ments off my shoulders, by my clerk, who, anticipating his visit, e> 
 
 adopted the precaution of locking the outer gates. There were more general 
 than 3,000 people in and around my church, and I firmly believe if complain- 
 he assaulted me in their presence he would never leave the church cura t et 
 alive. . He paraded the streets very late at night, escorted by a gang of 
 the very worst characters of the town, abusing me everywhere in the 
 most violent manner. It will give you an idea of the sort of persons 
 by whom he was accompanied when I inform you that the leader of 
 the party was the notorious Fenian, Heffernan Dunne, the former mock 
 candidate for the county, and a ruffian who was convicted three times 
 of violent assaults at the single sessions held here on the 6th ultimo. 
 It is commonly believed here that Father Neary was under the influ- 
 ence of drink from before the time he read eleven o'clock mass in the 
 Friary Chapel till he left the streets for the last time at one o'clock on 
 Monday morning. I feel it my duty to send a copy of this letter to 
 Cardinal Cullen. I would recommend you to come out at once, and 
 see what can be done. You know I shall be happy to see you. 
 ' I remain, my dear Doctor, yours faithfully, 
 
 <R. O'KEBFFE.' 
 
 Did you send a copy of that letter to Cardinal Cullen ? 
 I did. 
 
 Did you make the promise mentioned in the letter? 
 Yes, after the retreat was over I made him that promise. 
 
 You say in the letter ' I would recommend you to come 
 up at once and see what can be done. Did Dr. M'Donald 
 come up, or anyone for him ? No, he did not. 
 
 Was he then acting as vicar-general ? He was. 
 
 At this period was the bishop incapacitated from illness? 
 He was. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I would like to know if the 
 statement in this letter is true. I am referring to the letter 
 of the 8th ? Perfectly and literally true. 
 
 Did you complain to the proper authority that the curate 
 of your parish was about to tear the vestments from your 
 shoulders ? I did. 
 
 Did he give you any redress ? He gave me an answer. 
 Eead it. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : I am going to read it. (To Witness) :
 
 176 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Vicar- 
 general to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Did anyone in authority visit Callan after you wrote that 
 letter ? Not that I know of. 
 
 (Counsel read tlie following reply) : 
 
 ' Kilkenny, August llth, 71. 
 
 ' DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, I was from home when your communi- 
 cation reached my address. This note goes to you a few posts late in 
 consequence. No discourtesy was meant in the delay. I write to-day 
 to Father Neary for his explanation of Sunday's business. He and 
 Father Walsh had distinct instructions from me to avoid everything 
 that could possibly give offence. 
 
 ' Believe me, faithfully yours, 
 
 <E. M'DONALD.' 
 
 Did you hear any statement from Dr. McDonald or any- 
 one else in reference to the charges made in that letter ? 
 No. 
 
 Was the next letter after that on the subject, the letter 
 you received from Cardinal Cullen on the 8th September, 
 1871 ? I believe it was. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I am looking at the former 
 letter. I see at the end of this that you were to send a copy 
 of the complaint to the vicar-general to Cardinal Cullen. 
 Was it sent ? I sent it to Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 The same thing as here ? The very same. 
 
 (Counsel read the following letter from the Cardinal) : 
 
 'Dublin, 8th Sept., 71. 
 
 ' REV. DEAR SIR, I expect to be in Kilkenny on next Tuesday 
 week, 19th Sept., to take part in the meeting of the clergy to be held 
 on that day. 
 
 ' As questions suggested by the Rescript of 1829 will necessarily 
 arise at that meeting, in reference to the censures with which the Y.Q., 
 Dr. M'Donald, and his lordship the Bishop of Ossory have visited you, 
 I think it right to give you notice of what is to occur, in order that 
 you may be prepared for the emergency. 
 
 ' All the papers with which you kindly furnished me on several 
 occasions are in my hands, and I have studied them carefully. If you 
 have any other papers calculated to throw light on the subject referred 
 to, or connected with the condition of the parish of Callan, I will be 
 thankful for copies of them. 
 
 ' Much against my own inclinations, I have been deputed by his 
 Holiness 1 to put an end to the present state of things in that parish, and 
 
 1 For papal rescript, to which the Cardinal here refers, see p. 345.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 177 
 
 to repair, if possible, the evils produced by recent feuds among the Direct ex- 
 faithful. In obedience to the wishes of the Supreme Pastor of the animation 
 Church, I will apply myself to this difficult task with a deep sense of R ev 
 the responsibility placed upon me. Bobert 
 
 ' I write to the V.G., Dr. M'Donald, asking him also for all neces- ' K - eeffe - 
 sary documents and information. 
 ' Wishing you every happiness, 
 
 ' I remain your faithful servant, 
 
 + 'PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 He refers to a meeting on the 19th September. What Meeting of 
 was the purport of that meeting ? To recommend three nominate 
 
 clergymen to the Pope for appointment as coadjutor-Bishop coadjutor- 
 
 ^ e bishop. 
 
 of Ossory. 
 
 In consequence of the illness of Dr. Walsh ? Yes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: Was there any other answer 
 given to the complaint ? None. 
 
 May I ask what are all these papers : ' all the papers fur- 
 nished to me on several occasions are in my hands ? ' 
 They were chiefly letters. 
 
 Were they in existence before you brought the action 
 against the vicar- general which the Cardinal so properly ad- 
 vised you to withdraw and settle ? I think so. 
 
 (The following letters, from plaintiff to the Cardinal and 
 Dr. M'Donald, were read by counsel) : 
 
 'Callan, September 10th, 71. 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt Father 
 
 of your Eminence's favour of the 8th instant. There is one way, and 2' K ?. effe , to 
 
 ^ , Cardinal 
 
 no other, to restore peace to Callan, and re-establish charity and religion Cullen. 
 
 in the parish. Put the Rev. Messrs. Walsh and Neary out of the 
 Callan Lodge, and put into it the nuns for whom I took the place from 
 Mr. Smyth, of Paris. Mr. Smyth was a most benevolent man, and he 
 intended to give the place for nothing to the nuns ; but he has died, 
 and his property is all gone with his only daughter to the Marquis de 
 Boissy. Probably, however, your Eminence will think it better to let 
 the case of the nuns lie over for a settlement by the new bishop ; and 
 as for me, I do not at present think it my duty to make any mention 
 whatever of the matter, except in this private manner to your 
 Eminence. 
 
 'If any objection should be made to my vote on the 19th, I am 
 quite prepared to meet it. I am sincerely willing to forgive everyone 
 his trespasses against me, as I beg Almighty God to forgive me mine. 
 Many people wonder that I have survived all the persecution that I 
 
 N
 
 178 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe to 
 the vicar- 
 general. 
 
 have endured for the past two years ; but God has blessed me with a 
 good temper, and it has never been ruffled during the entire time. I 
 have been always conscious of having truth and honour at my side, 
 and I had great faith in the maxim, " Magna est veritas et prasvalebit." 
 Moreover, the 28th of the third book of the Imitation of Christ was a 
 favourite chapter with one of the great men that I have rubbed to in 
 my time. I was so often recommended of a Saturday to read it by 
 your Eminence's successor at Armagh, when I was in his scripture 
 class at Maynooth, that I have it by heart ever since. As a conse- 
 quence, persecution has come upon me like water on the back of a 
 duck. I make no demand except to have all the costs paid which have 
 been incurred by me, in my necessary defence ; and as for the imme- 
 diate appointment of curates here, I content myself with what I have 
 said in my letter of Friday last. I will merely add to what I said then, 
 that the police of the surrounding stations are brought into Callan 
 every Sunday evening, and still collisions cannot be prevented ; chiefly 
 because, there being no mass in the country chapels, the people come 
 numerously into town, and many spend the evening in the public- 
 house. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, 
 
 ' Your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 <R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 'Callan, Sept. 8th, 71- 
 
 ' MY DEAR DOCTOR, There were eighty cases for trial at the sessions 
 here on yesterday, and the court (four justices) sat from eleven to 
 half-past seven o'clock. 
 
 ' About seventy of these cases were for assaults and battery by the 
 adherents of the rival P.P.'s of the town. Eighteen men and women 
 were sent into the Kilkenny jail at ten o'clock last night, and about 
 fifty others were either fined or imprisoned here for forty-eight hours. 
 Wai-rants were issued against three men whose assaults were of a 
 murderous character, and who had fled from justice. More than 200 
 persons were summoned to the court, and in my own presence very 
 many of them committed the reserved sin of 'perjurium formale.' The 
 J.P. who presided declared more than once that the state of things 
 revealed in court was too barbarous, he thought, to exist in any civilized 
 community ; yet Callan was as peaceful as most other places until an 
 opposition P.P. set himself up in the Friary Chapel and denounced the 
 lawful pastor as a follower of Martin Luther. I am promised .redress 
 by the Poor Law Commissioners for the ill-treatment I have received 
 in the workhouse at the instigation of my rival ; and at the sworn 
 investigation which I expect will shortly be held there, I am prepared 
 to give evidence of language used by him to persons on their sick bed 
 which will bring disgrace on the Church which has met with the mis-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 179 
 
 fortune of having him for one of her ministers. In view of this state Direct ex- 
 of things, which is growing every day worse, I feel called upon to animation 
 withdraw, unless the Rev. Messrs. Walsh and Neary be immediately j^ ev 
 taken away from Callan, the letter which I wrote to Cardinal Cullen on Eobert 
 the 27th July, expressing my intention to abandon law proceedings 
 against yourself and Father Neary. I send a copy of this letter to his 
 Eminence. 
 
 ' I remain, my dear Doctor, 
 
 ' Yours most faithfully, 
 
 <R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Did you send a copy of the letter of the 8th September 
 to the Cardinal also ? I did, sir. 
 
 Did you attend the meeting on the 19th September of 
 the clergy of your diocese ? I did. 
 
 To recommend three names to the Pope ? Yes. 
 
 The Lord CJiief Justice : Where was the meeting held ? 
 In the Catholic Cathedral, Kilkenny. 
 
 By Mr. Fitzgibbon : Who presided at the meeting ? 
 Archbishop Cullen. 
 
 Was it as archbishop of the province he presided there ? 
 No ; he was specially deputed to preside by Propaganda, 
 by the Pope. 
 
 What clergy, according to your rules, attend and have a Eight to 
 right to vote on these occasions ? Everyone that is a parish 
 priest, and if there be a Chapter, then the canons who may 
 not happen to be parish priests. 
 
 That is, cathedral clergy and parochial clergy? Yes. 
 
 But not curates ? No ; they have 110 voice. 
 
 What you would call beneficed clergy ? Beneficed clergy. 
 
 Did you receive any invitation to attend there ? Yes, I 
 received an invitation from Dr. M'Donald. 1 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Have you got it there ? It is a 
 printed one. 
 
 You attended the meeting ? I attended on invitation. 
 
 The other clergy of the diocese were there also ? Yes, 
 with few exceptions. I was entitled to vote in a double capa- 
 city, both as parish priest and as treasurer of the Chapter. 
 
 Just say what occurred ? A list of all parties who were Proceed- 
 entitled to vote was read out by the secretary, Dr. Lee, and ^ s ti ^ 
 when he came to my name the Cardinal enquired was that 
 
 1 For invitation here referred to, see p. 244. 
 
 N 2
 
 180 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Eev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe to 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullon tc 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 the person that was under censure. I stood up and said I 
 was prepared to satisfy his Eminence that I was not canoni- 
 cally suspended. The Cardinal said he had no time to go 
 into an examination of that matter now, that he would en- 
 quire into it at another time. He said that as I was primd 
 facie suspended he should consider me disentitled to vote, 
 but that if I wished I might send on my vote to Propaganda. 
 I made my bow to his Eminence and retired. 
 
 You took no further part in the meeting on that occasion ? 
 I took no further part. I left the meeting. 
 
 (The following letters were then read by counsel) : 
 
 ' Callan, September 24, '71. 
 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, The opposition P.P. here published stations 
 this morning for the people of Newtown, to be held in the Friary 
 Chapel next week ; while the same stations were published by me for 
 the Newtown Chapel next week also. Only one householder was 
 absent from these stations last March ; and I expect as good an attend- 
 ance this time. This opposition is therefore a source of profit to me ; 
 but still I feel called upon to make known to your Eminence its conti- 
 nuance, and to demand respectfully that you will have it put an end to. 
 
 ' I make a formal demand on your Eminence for the removal of the 
 Rev. Messrs. Walsh and Neary from Callan, on the grounds of their 
 having denounced me as having incurred censure, without any authority, 
 written or otherwise, from the Ordinary of the diocese. That these 
 clergymen denounced me is a notorious fact ; and that they had any 
 authority to do so is denied in writing by Dr. M'Donald. They have 
 clearly, therefore, acted in open violation of the statutes of Thurles 
 (De parochis, Nos. 18 & 19), and on this ground alone I found my 
 demand for their removal. I have drawn up a statement of my case, 
 as far as I am concerned with the authorities of the diocese ; and I 
 think I have made it out in such a way as must satisfy any theologian 
 or canonist that I have not incurred suspension or any other censure 
 before God or man. I will send this statement to your Eminence 
 whenever you require it ; but I must look upon the removal of the Rev. 
 Messrs. Walsh and Neary from Callan, on the grounds stated, as pre- 
 liminary to any inquiry into my conduct, or the validity of the censures 
 passed on me. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, 
 
 ' Your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 <R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 ' Dublin, 2nd October, 1871. 
 
 ' REV. AND DEAR SIR, As I mentioned in a former letter, I have 
 een charged to examine into the condition of the parish of Callan, and
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 181 
 
 to put an end to the evils therein prevailing. The Holy See has given Direct ex- 
 me most ample powers in the case ; but I am anxious not to be placed agination 
 under the necessity of using them. Hence I would wish to have a jj ev> 
 conference with you on the matter. If you could come up on Friday, Robert 
 I can be at home that day at one o'clock p.m. If you prefer any other 
 day, I can suit myself to your convenience. If Friday suit you, be so 
 good as to write me a line. 
 
 ' Wishing you every happiness, 
 
 ' I remain yours faithfully, 
 
 + 'PAUL CAED1NAL CULLEN.' 
 
 ' Callan, October 4th, '71. Father 
 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt O'Keeffe to 
 of your favour of the 2nd inst., and to say in reply that it is impossible 
 for me to recede from the terms of my letter to your Eminence dated 
 the 24th ultimo. 
 
 ' Lest I should be considered to acquiesce in the refusal of my vote 
 on the 19th ultimo, I wish to say to your Eminence that I think I have 
 not been fairly treated in the matter. Your Eminence informed me on 
 the 8th September that I should be ready to establish my right to vote 
 on the 19th, and I informed you on the 10th that I was quite prepared 
 to do so ; yet, nine days afterwards you rejected my vote without 
 having afforded me an opportunity of proving my right to give it. 
 Notwithstanding this, I would still do anything that I could to oblige 
 your Eminence, whether you had jurisdiction over me or not ; but the 
 humblest man in the Church may sometimes have to say, as well as its 
 Supreme Head, non possum. 
 
 ' I have lately submitted my defence to some of the ablest divines in 
 the Irish Church, and I am assured by them that it is irrefragable. 
 For myself personally, I care not how soon or how late authority may 
 decide the question at issue between Dr. M'Donald and me ; but I 
 desire from my heart to see peace restored to my unhappy parishioners, 
 and to live in charity with all mankind. To secure this result imme- 
 diately and perfectly, nothing is required but the removal of the Rev. 
 Messrs. Walsh and Neary from Callan. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, 
 
 ' Your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 'R. O'KEEFFE. 
 
 'P.S. I hold over this letter till to-morrow, in order that I may 
 send with it a copy of the letter I shall then write to Dr. M'Donald.' 
 
 Letter from Rev. Robert O'Keeffe to Dr. M'Donald, referred to 
 in postscript of foregoing Letter. 
 
 ' Callan, October 5th, '71. 
 ' MY DEAR DOCTOR, The Rev. Messrs. Walsh and Neary have, in
 
 182 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- connection with the publication of opposition stations, resumed their 
 amination denunciations of me in the Kells and Friary Chapels ; and they allege, 
 B eVi for their conduct, directions from the bishop. I could not believe 
 Kobert that the governing authority in the diocese would authorize this pro- 
 ceeding, only that I find that a marriage was celebrated in the Friary 
 Chapel on Tuesday, after one publication of banns. Under these 
 Father circumstances I have had a new summons taken out for Father Neary's 
 assault on my bailiff; but he has evaded service, and I have been 
 unable to bring him up before the court on this day. 
 
 ' The Newtown stations are ended, and out of seventy householders 
 only six have come in to the opposition stations. The Coolagh people, 
 with two or three exceptions, will all attend my stations ; and, with the 
 exception of some thirty families, all the townspeople will come to me. 
 On every Sunday and holiday I address at. both the masses certainly 
 4,000 people. Will you, then, ask yourself cui bono the rival altar and 
 confessional ? If you had denounced me, I could understand your 
 having a conscientious feeling that my people should be kept from me ; 
 but so far from denouncing me, the greatest difficulty I had in making 
 up my case against you for the Wicklow Assizes was to prove that you 
 had not kept the censures you wrote on me a profound secret. Can 
 you be so ignorant as not to know that my parishioners commit a sin 
 by refusing to receive holy things from me, on pretence of a censure 
 not canonically denounced, or is it possible that you have never read 
 the bull of Martin V. in this matter ? 
 
 ' You have been these two years violating my rights in many parti- 
 culars. During all this time you have given permission, without any 
 reference to me, to the Rev. Messrs. Walsh and Neary to leave this 
 parish as often and as long as they liked, in open violation of the 
 statutes of the diocese. In open opposition to the General Council of 
 Lateran, you have led people to think that they are not bound to 
 receive Paschal Communion from their own priest; and, in open 
 violation of the Council of Trent, you have authorized clandestine 
 marriages. Any well-read theologian can inform you that you have 
 just the same right to do these things as to collect the dues of my 
 parish. You cannot reasonably blame me, therefore, for doing what- 
 ever is necessary for my own protection, and seeking it in a lay court 
 if I cannot get it in an ecclesiastical one. 
 
 'In God's name, provide a mission somewhere else for the priests 
 who are out of place here, and do not continue to give pain to Cardinal 
 Cullen, Pius IX., and all good Catholics. If I must again declare war, 
 it will be in the spirit of the words of Cicero (De Officiis), " Quare 
 suscipienda quidem bella sunt ob earn causam ut sine injuria in pace 
 vivatur." 
 
 'The number of cases at sessions, to-day exceeded fifty, and there
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 183 
 
 would have been many more only that the magistrates have declined to Direct ex- 
 
 take fines from persona convicted of " religious quarrels " amination 
 
 i I remain, my dear Doctor, yours faithfully, Rev. 
 
 'R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Had any of the previous suspensions been announced? 
 Not canonically. 
 
 What is the canonical form of publishing them after sen- As to pub- 
 tence is properly passed upon a clergyman : a sentence of censure*. 
 suspension as the result of trial and investigation? He is 
 suspended by the judge. His people should not withdraw 
 from him even after that is done until the judge announces to 
 them, either himself personally, or by authority from him in 
 writing, that that sentence has been pronounced upon him, 
 and that for the future they shall withdraw from his minis- 
 trations. 
 
 Now did you get any further communications from the 
 Cardinal, or any answer to the letter to Dr. M'Donald until 
 you got this letter of the 21st October? I believe not, 
 sir. 
 
 (The following letter from the Cardinal was then 
 read) : 
 
 ' Dublin, 21st October, 1871. 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, As it is necessary to settle the affairs Cardinal 
 
 of Callan, I have determined to send you a regular ecclesiastical Cullen to 
 
 Father 
 citation to appear before me on Friday, 27th October, at eleven o'clock, o'Keeffe 
 
 a.m., at my house in Eccles Street. I will send the citation to you on 
 Monday next, but I now mention the day so that you may let me 
 know if it be inconvenient before Monday afternoon. 
 
 'I will examine whether you have incurred suspension or excommuni- 
 cation, either ab homine or a lege or canone, whether you have incurred 
 irregularity, and whether any or what penalty is to be inflicted on you 
 for having neglected those censures or ecclesiastical penalties, if you 
 have done so. 
 
 ' Other matters connected with the unhappy state of Callan so well 
 described in your letters must also be examined. 
 
 ' Wishing you every happiness, I remain your faithful servant, 
 
 + < PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 (The following letter from Father O'Keeffe to the Cardinal, 
 in which he stated the grounds upon Avhich he disputed the 
 legality of his suspension, was then put in) :
 
 184 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- ' Callan, October 22nd, '71. 
 
 "of the* 11 ' ^ Y -k RE> CARDINAL, I shall be happy to present myself before 
 Kev. your Eminence on Friday ; and, to save your Eminence's valuable 
 time as far as I can, I send you my defence, that you may submit it to 
 some of the eminent divines by whom you are so numerously sur- 
 rounded in Dublin. 
 
 O'Keeffe to ' I have the honour to remain, your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 Cardinal , R O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Cullen, 
 
 legality ' ^ n nme distinct grounds I maintain that the censures passed upon 
 
 of his sus- me were of no force or validity whatever. I maintain that any one of 
 
 pension. these nine objections, if established, disproves the validity of the 
 
 censures; and I undertake to establish every one of them beyond 
 
 possibility of contradiction. 
 
 ' I. The constitution Apostolicce Sedis has not been received in this 
 country any more than the bull In Ccena Domini. The Bulla Ccence 
 was never received in France and some other countries of Europe ; and 
 we have the testimony of our ablest Irish divines that it was never 
 received in this country. Our most distinguished prelates and other 
 theologians stated this before Royal and Parliamentary Commissions. 
 When the great Dr. Doyle was asked before a Parliamentary Committee 
 on the 16th of March, 1825, "Whether the Catholic clergy insist that 
 all bulls are entitled to obedience," his answer was " By no means ; 
 the Pope we consider as the executive authority in the Catholic Church, 
 and when he issues a bull enforcing a discipline already settled by a 
 General Council, such bull is entitled to respect ; but he may issue 
 bulls which would regard local discipline, and other matters not already 
 defined, and in these cases the bull would be treated by us in such manner 
 as might seem good to us. Did we find that it was unreasonable, we 
 would refuse to accept it." The other divines that were examined gave 
 similar testimony ; and no Irish divine, that I am aware of, ever 
 publicly maintained that the Bulla Ccence was ever received in this 
 country. Surely all these distinguished men would on the same 
 principles hold the same opinion regarding the binding force in this 
 country of the new constitution, Apostolicce Sedis. 
 
 1 II. Assuming for argument sake that the Apostolicce Sedis was in 
 force here, Dr. M'Donald had no right to take cognizance of its viola- 
 tion unless deputed to do so ; and he has never shown me any such 
 authority to act. 
 
 ' III. My proceeding against the bishop was not in any way intended 
 or calculated to impede him^ in the exercise of his jurisdiction ; but 
 simply to enforce a money compensation for an injury done me. 
 
 ' IV. The documents of Oct. 70 handed me were not official. There 
 was nothing to show me that they even came at all from Dr. M'Donald, 
 except the knowledge I had of his handwriting. What would be
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 185 
 
 Rev. 
 Robert 
 
 thought of a civil judge who, on satisfying his own mind that some one Direct ex- 
 had committed an offence punishable by a fine of 100Z., would imme- a n ^ n 
 diately write to this person requiring him to pay the fine ? 
 
 ' V. The proceeding against me did not commence with a citation 
 to a trial, a preliminary which all canonists look upon as essentially 
 necessary to every judicial proceeding. 
 
 ' VI. There was no trial or any offence proved. 
 
 ' VII. There was no denunciation of me in any canonical form ; 
 although nothing is plainer than the words of the bull of Martin V. in 
 the Council of Constance, forbidding my people to withdraw themselves 
 from me or to decline my ministrations in the absence of a formal 
 denunciation by the judge who had passed the sentence of censure, or 
 some one acting with authority from him. 
 
 ' VIII. The trial in the lay court only took place after a hearing in 
 the ecclesiastical court was refused. 
 
 ' IX. The superior was a judge in his own cause ; the suspension 
 was issued by Dr. M'Donald because I had taken an action at law 
 against Dr. Walsh. 
 
 ' X. I add, on the suggestion of a learned canonist, that Liguori 
 would consider probable the opinion of Eoncaglia that the bull Apos- 
 tolicce Sedis would require publication in this country. See Liguori, 
 De Legibus, lib. i. tract, ii. No. 96. 
 
 'EGBERT O'KEEFFE, P.P.' 
 
 Where did you get the quotation from Dr. Doyle ? From 
 a Parliamentary paper. 
 
 You say he (the Cardinal) had no authority to act. Is 
 that the case ? Yes. 
 
 He had shown you no authority? He had not. 
 
 You say in the paper I have just read that you had the 
 suggestion of a great canonist on the subject ; to whom did 
 you refer ? I referred to the late Dr. O'Hanlon, Maynooth. 
 
 He is since dead ? He is since dead. 
 
 Was it true that on his suggestion you added that ? 1 It 
 was true. 
 
 Now did you go to Dublin on the day fixed, the 27th 
 October ? Yes, I went up on that day. 
 
 (Counsel read the Cardinal's letter requesting an inter- 
 
 view) : 
 
 'Dublin, 25th October, 1871. 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, As you have showed such willing- Cardinal 
 
 ness to come up on Friday next, I have not considered it necessary to Cullen to 
 J ' Father 
 
 1 See Appendix, No. 3. O'Keeffe.
 
 186 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Kev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Interview 
 with the 
 Cardinal. 
 
 send you a formal document. I will, however, expect you on Friday 
 next at 11 o'clock, a.m., at 59, Eccles Street. 
 ' I hope God will direct us in the whole case. 
 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN: 
 
 You went to Eccles Street? I went to Eccles Street. 
 
 At the hour appointed ? -Yes. 
 
 Were you shown into the Cardinal's presence ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Up to this day had you any notice 
 of any commission or authority from Rome, or the nature of 
 it, given to the Cardinal ? None whatever. 
 
 Had you received it in any shape or form ? I never sus- 
 pected any such authority was given. I had received no 
 such intimation. I know this much in connection with the 
 election which took place on the 19th September, that the 
 Cardinal was appointed in Kome to conduct the election, and 
 I know as a consequence when he undertook the duty of con- 
 ducting the election, it was his further duty to enquire into 
 the validity of the censure passed upon me. 
 
 Was that in reference to your vote ? In reference to the 
 vote ; and that he was not justified in rejecting my vote with- 
 out enquiring into the circumstances under which the sus- 
 pension was issued. It was in fact condemning me without 
 a trial. I had given him ten days' notice. 
 
 On the 27th October you went to Eccles Street? Yes. 
 
 Were you shown into the Cardinal's presence ? I was 
 shown into a room where the Cardinal was present with 
 Canon Forde, now deceased. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : At ten in the morning ? I think 
 about eleven. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Tell slowly what passed, and who were 
 present there? Cardinal Cullen and another ecclesiastic; 
 the Cardinal introduced him to me as Dr. Forde. 
 
 You had not known him before that? I had not known 
 him previously. 
 
 When he had introduced you to Canon Forde he told you 
 to be seated? I took a chair at the table, and the Cardinal 
 sat opposite to me, and Canon Forde sat between us. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think it better to let this gentle- 
 man state what was said and done without putting questions.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Jteeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 187 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : That is scarcely possible, as it has 
 lasted five or six hours. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : As well as he can. (To witness) : 
 How long were you there ? I was there till two o'clock from 
 eleven. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : You say you took your .places at the 
 table as described. What was the next thing done? 
 The Cardinal produced a bundle of papers and began to read 
 the censures that were passed on me by Dr. M'Donald. I 
 explained to him, taking them all in order, that these cen- 
 sures had no validity whatever in them. I explained the 
 ground on which they were invalid. 
 
 Would you state here, not in that general way, but as 
 well as you recollect, what the grounds were as you gave 
 them ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Had you previously sent up that 
 paper with the grounds of objection set out ? I had. 
 
 He had that ? He had. 
 
 The Cardinal had a copy of it ? He had. 
 
 Did you state all these over again? I did not go over 
 the nine objections ; when we came to the question of the 
 Apostolicce Sedis I stated to the Cardinal that I never heard 
 any Irish divine maintain that the bull In Coena, or the bull 
 Apostolicce Sedis as a consequence, was in force in Ireland. 
 
 Was that true ? It was true. I never heard that any 
 divine ever expressed his opinion in public that the bull In 
 Coena had any binding force in Ireland, but I was aware of 
 Cardinal Cullen's opinion in that matter, which was that the 
 bull In Ccena was in force in Ireland. 
 
 When you came to the Apostolicce Sedis now go on ? 
 They both said, as well as I can recollect, that if I wanted 
 to know if this bull was in force in Ireland, I could write to 
 Rome and get an opinion on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon: Was that in reference to the ancient 
 bull In Ccena, or the new constitution ? The new consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Do you remember whether any answer was made to the 
 statement as to the bull In Coena not being in force ? No, 
 I think there was no reference to the bull In Ccena being in 
 force. 
 
 Did you refer to it yourself? I think not then, but I 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Kev. 
 Kobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Bull in 
 
 Ccena 
 
 Domini.
 
 188 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Kev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 called on Dr. Forde when this was expressed, to answer the 
 nine objections I had made to the validity of the censures. 
 He still persevered in saying that no matter what other 
 divines may have said there was no doubt that the bull 
 Apostolicoe Sedis was in force in Ireland. 
 
 Do you remember anything further ? I again called on 
 him for an answer emphatically. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : May I ask had this last bull ever 
 been delivered to the bishop of your diocese, or was it ever, 
 by the bishop or by any other person, delivered to you? 
 It was sent to me from Rome. 
 
 From Rome ? It was sent to me from Rome in answer 
 to an application I made to Cardinal Barnabo. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Was it ever delivered to you by the 
 authorities of your diocese ? No. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Was this bull that you are now 
 speaking of, this Apostolicce Sedis, was it to your knowledge 
 ever published by the bishop of your diocese ? Never to my 
 knowledge. 
 
 Was it ever delivered to you by the vicar-general with 
 authority to declare that it was part of the canon law to your 
 people ? No. 
 
 Did you say that, in a letter that you wrote to Cardinal 
 Barnabo, he in reply enclosed you a copy of it ? Yes, for 
 the purpose, he said, of showing me 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Mr. O'Keeffe, you say that you called then 
 for an answer emphatically. What further was said? 
 When I insisted on getting an answer from Canon Forde he 
 said he would take time to consider it, and asked me to leave 
 him the copy that I produced on that occasion. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The copy that you had got from 
 Cardinal Barnabo? No, my lord. I sent a copy to the 
 Cardinal, and I also brought another copy in my pocket. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : You mean a copy of your nine points ? 
 Yes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : He said he would take time to 
 consider? He would take time to consider, and give an 
 answer. 
 
 He asked you to leave it with him ? He asked me to 
 leave it with him, that is, the second copy.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 189 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Do you remember anything more being Direct ex- 
 said about referring it to Koine ? tell what passed after that. a f n *^ n 
 Before there was any mention of referring the matter to Rev. 
 Eome I said to Cardinal Cullen, ' Why don't you prevent ^^ 
 
 Father Walsh from carrying on law against me ? ' It was 
 
 after I had taken the action against Father Walsh, I got a 
 verdict from the jury ; he moved on his part to have the verdict 
 set aside, and the case was adjourned from one court to 
 another for two years. ' Oh,' the Cardinal said, ' he is only 
 defending himself.' * Well then,' I said, ' my Lord Cardinal, 
 don't you know that Dr. Walsh took an action against one 
 of the priests ; why didn't you suspend him ? ' ' Oh,' he 
 said, 'he is a bishop; that is a causa mater, and I can't 
 entertain it.' 
 
 Who did he take the action against ? The late Dr. 
 Walsh took an action at law against the Eev. Robert 
 O'Shea. It was decided in the Eolls Court in 1851. The 
 bishop got a decree against Father O'Shea. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Was anything more said ? * Why, my 
 Lord Cardinal,' said I, ' I think what is sauce for the goose is 
 sauce for the gander.' Well, when we could not come to an 
 understanding or agreement, the Cardinal said, ' Would you 
 have any objection to have the case referred to Eome, and will 
 you agree to the decision that will be given there ? ' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What did you say ? I said I had 
 no objection to that, and I would agree. I would agree to 
 any decision that would be given at Eome, and I requested 
 him to forward all my papers that I had put in his hands. 
 Then we began to consider what would be done in the mean- 
 time at Callan. 
 
 Was that agreed to ? That was agreed to. 
 
 Between you ? Between us. 
 
 What next? After it was agreed that the case was to be 
 referred to Home, for decision there, we began to consider 
 what would be done in Callan in the meantime, and the 
 Cardinal proposed to have me receive missionaries at Callan, 
 pending the decision of the question in Eome. He said he 
 would remove Father Walsh and Father Neary, and that he 
 would send me any priest of the diocese that I might name, 
 as curate, to answer sick calls during a mission. He said to 
 Dr. Forde then, * I am afraid, Doctor, we can't get mission-
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 aries on so short a notice.' Dr. Forde said, ' Certainly we 
 can. Any missionaries we apply to in Dublin will accommo- 
 date your Eminence.' Well, they asked me then if I would 
 put in writing the arrangement we had come to. I said 
 I would, and I was handed a pen by Dr. Forde, and a 
 leaf of paper. 
 
 Are you sure, sir, that you have stated accurately every- 
 thing that passed in relation to this part of the business ? 
 Well, I can't say that I stated it accurately, but I have given 
 the substance. 
 
 You said you would, and you were handed a pen. What 
 next ? I took the pen in my hand to write, and immediately 
 a thought occurred to me that it would be safer for me 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong: Don't mind your thoughts. (Wit- 
 ness) : I said to the Cardinal, ' Perhaps it is better that I 
 would wait till I go to the hotel to write the agreement 
 come to, and I can bring it up in the morning.' 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Was there anything said at this time to 
 you how you were to look on the agreement ? Yes, the ob- 
 ject of writing the agreement was : 
 
 State what was said. What was said was that I might 
 write the agreement come to in order to read it to my con- 
 gregation on the following Sunday. 
 
 A Juror : Up to this date you were acknowledged by the 
 Cardinal as a parish priest ? I suppose so ; he always ad- 
 dressed me as parish priest when writing to me. 
 
 Although suspended ? He always put P. P. on the letters 
 that he sent to me up to that. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : This was that you might read it 
 to the congregation ? That I might read to the congrega- 
 tion the arrangement agreed on between us. 
 
 What day of the week was this ? It was Friday the 27th 
 of October. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Do you remember who it was that used 
 the words about reading it to your congregation ? They both 
 seemed to be of one mind in every particular. I would say 
 both of them agreed at any rate in the arrangement, and 
 they approved of my waiting till I got at the hotel to make 
 the memorandum, and the Cardinal said that I was to bring 
 it up at twelve o'clock next day, Saturday. I said that hour 
 would not suit me, as I was to go home by the mail day
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 191 
 
 train leaving at half-past twelve, and then the Cardinal asked Direct ex- 
 Canon Forde, could he be in at ten o'clock next morning, and *' n the n 
 Canon Forde said he could without inconvenience, and ten Rev. 
 o'clock was appointed for me to return with the paper that I o'Keeffe. 
 was to write at. the hotel. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Did you part then ? I left and 
 went to the hotel. 
 
 Did you part good friends ? Oh, the best of friends ; we 
 shook hands, and parted on the most friendly terms. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : During the time that you were there that 
 day, do you remember anything being said of the authority 
 under which Cardinal Cullen was acting? No; there was 
 nothing said about it. 
 
 When you were leaving was there anything about ad- 
 journing the enquiry to a future day ? Oh, there was nothing 
 except the arrangement to call in the morning with the paper 
 at ten o'clock. We agreed to have the matter carried to 
 Kome. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That was the finale ? That was 
 the finale. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Take that paper in your hand. Did you 
 write the paper there agreed upon when you went back to 
 the hotel ? When I went back to the hotel I wrote this 
 paper. 
 
 Did you write two copies ? Yes. 
 
 Were the two the same ? The two were the same. 
 
 Did you return on the following morning to Eccles Street ? 
 I returned on the following morning with this paper at 
 ten o'clock, having kept a copy for my own use to read to 
 the people. 
 
 Were you again shown into the presence of his Emi- 
 nence '? Yes, I was shown up stairs into the same room. 
 
 Was he by himself on that occasion ? He was by him- 
 self on this occasion. 
 
 When you entered the room, what did you say ? I said, 
 'I have brought the paper with me.' I put it into his 
 hands, and he looked at it. 
 
 Did he read it ? Yes. 
 
 (Counsel read the following document) :
 
 192 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland} . 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keefie. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe's 
 statement 
 of arrange- 
 ment made 
 at inter- 
 view with 
 Cardinal 
 to be read 
 to congre- 
 gation. 
 
 Copy of Paper left with Cardinal Cullen, by the Rev. Robert 
 O'Kee/e, on October 28, 1871. 
 
 ' MY GOOD PEOPLE, As I informed you on last Sunday I would do 
 it, I have presented myself before his Eminence Cardinal Cullen, who 
 has thought fit to refer to the Holy See the whole case of this parish. 
 Pending a decision of the case in Rome, I have agreed to the proposal 
 of his Eminence to put the parish into the hands of missionary priests 
 whom he will send from Dublin to preach to the faithful the charity of 
 Christ and the truths of the Gospel. His Eminence hopes that this 
 holy mission will put an end to all dissension and uncharitableness in 
 the parish. 
 
 1 E. O'KEEFFE. 
 'October 27, 1871.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is that a true statement of the 
 arrangement you had come to ? That is a true statement of 
 the arrangement we had come to. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : When you put it before his Eminence 
 he read it ? He read it. 
 
 What did he say ? ' Oh,' he said, ' this would not do 
 at all. You have put nothing into this paper about your 
 leaving the parish as well as the curates.' 
 
 Had anything been said on the day before about your 
 leaving the parish ? No, nothing whatever, except they said 
 would I have any objection to make a retreat. I said, * Of 
 course not.' 
 
 When he said that, what did you reply ? I said, ' What 
 is the meaning of that, my Lord Cardinal? Who would be 
 there to look after the missionaries, or look after the affairs 
 of the parish ? ' He said, ' Oh, we will take care of that.' 
 I just put my hand to my hat, I took my stick in my hand, 
 and I said ' Good morning to you, my Lord Cardinal,' and 
 walked away. 
 
 Except the reference to the missionaries and to your going 
 into retreat, was that the first time you had been asked about 
 leaving the parish yourself? Oh yes ; I never dreamed of 
 such a thing. 
 
 Had it been spoken of before ? Oh no. 
 
 You say he had spoken to you about removing the 
 curates? Yes. 
 
 You took that copy of the paper away with you and kept 
 it yourself? Yes, I left the other.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 19JJ 
 
 What did you do with the copy you took with you ? I Direct ex- 
 read it to the people on the following Sunday, and explained a 1 f n ^ 1 e n 
 how the Cardinal had broken word with me, and that the Rev. 
 matter was still unsettled. o'Keeffe 
 
 Was that according to your recollection all, or the sub- 
 
 stance of all, that passed on those two occasions, between 
 yourself and the Cardinal? That was all. There was a 
 great deal of time lost reading papers, and making observa- 
 tions on them, and so on. 
 
 (Counsel then read the following letter) : 
 
 'Dublin, Nov. 3rd, 1871. 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, As we were not able to finish your Cardinal 
 case on Friday last, 27th October, or on the following morning, I Cullen to 
 request that you will come up on Wednesday next, 8th November, to T^r 16 ^ 
 conclude the business which we commenced. We can meet at 11 
 o'clock, at 59, Eccles Street, as on the two former occasions. 
 
 ' I cannot delay the settlement of this affair any longer, as I must 
 give an account of my stewardship to the Holy See, whose representative 
 I am in the case. 
 
 ' In my former letter, dated the 21st October last, I indicated the 
 heads of the matters which I am called on to decide. 
 
 ' Wishing you every happiness, I remain your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 You received this letter ? Yes. 
 
 Counsel then read the following letter from the plaintiff 
 
 to the Cardinal : 
 
 'Callaii, Nov. 5th, 1871. 
 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, I have the honour to acknowledge the -p t ij 
 receipt of your Eminence's favour of the 3rd inst. O'Keeffe to 
 
 ' It had been rumoured here on the Saturday that I was in Dublin Cardinal 
 that your Eminence had been able to adopt measures for the restora- 
 tion of peace ; and the consequence was, I was met outside Callan by 
 several thousands of people with banners and music, in such a state of 
 joyous excitement that I was more than an hour on the last mile of the 
 road.' 
 
 Did that occur ? Yes, it occurred. 
 (Counsel continued reading) : 
 
 ' Thanks to Almighty God, no injury was done to anybody ; but all 
 my influence over the crowds that surrounded me would not have been 
 able to prevent calamitous occurrences if the police authorities had not 
 adopted the precaution of bringing into Callan all the men of the 
 
 O
 
 194 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- surrounding stations. In this state of things, your Eminence would 
 am ' n ation not wish me to make you another visit. I have, besides, placed in 
 Rev. your Eminence's hands my whole defence, and I call upon you to 
 Kobert decide, as having authority to do so, that I have never incurred any 
 ecclesiastical censure. I am willing to let the whole case be laid 
 before the professors of canon law and theology at Maynooth ; and if 
 these learned men say that I have incurred any censure, I will make 
 the most humble apology for having, even unwittingly, violated in any 
 way ecclesiastical discipline. 1 pride myself on my loyalty to Church 
 and State, and it has given me the greatest pain to be considered dis- 
 respectful to lawful authority. 
 
 ' The scandals that have turned up in the trials in which I have been 
 engaged are attributable to others, and not to me. Some of them I 
 knew nothing about, such as, for instance, the skulking in the house of 
 God, and none of them were made public by any voluntary act of 
 mine.' 
 
 Was that in reference to the Kev. Mr. Walsh taking notes 
 of your address ? Yes. 
 (Counsel continued) : 
 
 ' After I left your Eminence on yesterday week I called on my 
 solicitor to inform him of our disagreement, and to instruct him to 
 renew the lawsuit against Dr. Walsh ; but he informed me I was late 
 for the after sittings of this term, and also that I must wait for the 
 Wicklow Assizes to proceed against Dr. M'Donald. I arranged with 
 him, however, for the defence of the verdict had against Father Walsh, 
 in the new trial motion which is set down for argument at the present 
 term. I also directed him to give notice of trial in my case against 
 Mr. Cody, a poor-law guardian, against whom I have commenced an 
 action for slander in the workhouse. 
 
 ' Father Neary appeared before the petty sessions bench here on 
 Thursday ; but when the case was called in court, he begged a post- 
 ponement for a month, and was given it, with the consent of the com- 
 plainant, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, civil bill officer.' 
 
 Who is Mr. Patrick O'Brien ? A civil bill officer. 
 
 What was the case about ? When the man went to serve 
 the writ on Father Walsh he was met by Father Neary, who 
 assaulted him. He was convicted. Father Neary was con- 
 victed in court. 
 
 (Counsel reads remainder of letter) : 
 
 ' The justices sat till 7 o'clock, and were still obliged to postpone a 
 great number of cases, which they promised to hear at a special sessions 
 on Friday next. They again announced their determination not to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 195 
 
 accept fines in cases of collisions between the Schismatics and " Red Direct ex- 
 Lights," so that Father Neary runs a very serious risk of 48 hours' animation 
 confinement in the common bridewell. Now, my Lord Cardinal, all R ev 
 these lawsuits and contentions, and all the scandals and numberless Robert 
 other evils that have occui'red and may happen hereafter, are attribut- 
 able to no other cause whatever but the one, and that is that two priests 
 have been forced upon me as curates who were proved to the satisfac- 
 tion of a judge and jury to have untruly denounced me to four con- 
 gregations of my own flock as a liar on the altar, more than two years ago. 
 ' I spent the whole of Thursday in the court-house waiting for judg- 
 ment in my case against the opposition school-mistress, who continues 
 to go every day from my N. School to the one in the curate's house. 
 The justices had given me a decree for possession, but the teacher 
 appealed to Quarter Sessions, whence the case was sent back to the 
 justices, who granted me again a decree for possession. 
 
 ' I was again horrified at witnessing an amount of perjury which Mr. 
 Hort, the resident magistrate, more than once declared that in all his 
 experience he had never seen equalled. The disregard for the sanctity 
 of an oath at Callan he said was fearful. This Protestant gentleman's 
 surprise at what he had witnessed would not be so great if he knew 
 how much habituated these unfortunate people were to the perjuries of 
 the priests who assume to be their exclusive guides, uttered not only 
 in law courts, but in the sacred tribunal of penance, and, " horresco 
 referens," even on the altar of God, with the holy Sacrament itself 
 held up to public view. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 1 K. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Who were the schismatics? The schismatics were the 
 people who had separated themselves from me in the parish 
 of Callan. 
 
 And who were the ' red lights ' ? The red lights are the 
 people who had adhered to me. 
 
 Now, sir, was that which you wrote the true result of what 
 you had observed yourself? Certainly. 
 
 (Counsel read the following letters) : 
 
 ' Dublin, 6th November, 1871. 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, I have received your letter of Cardinal 
 yesterday, 5th November, and regret that you have declined coming Cullen to 
 up on Wednesday next, 8th November, as I requested of you to do. o*Keeffe 
 
 ' As the case in which we are engaged must be settled, I now require 
 of you to present yourself here, at 59, Eccles Street, on Monday next, 
 
 o 2
 
 196 
 
 Court of Queen's Bcncli (Ireland^. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Kev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe to 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 13th November, at (one o'clock) 1 o'clock, p.m., to hear the final 
 judgment which, as a delegate of the Holy See, I shall pronounce in 
 your case, on which you were so fully heard on the 27th of October 
 past and the following day. 
 
 ' The disturbed state of Callan which you so fully describe in your 
 letter of yesterday, requires an immediate remedy. lam most desirous 
 to restore peace to the inhabitants of that parish, and it is my convic- 
 tion that so desirable a result cannot be obtained until a final decision 
 shall be come to in reference to the ecclesiastical questions which are 
 the source of the evils that afflict the locality. 
 
 ' I will act with the authority of the successor of St. Peter, which hns 
 been delegated to me, and I trust that whatever decision I come to will 
 contribute to the peace of your conscience, and to the re-establishment 
 of ecclesiastical discipline and spiritual obedience in that portion of the 
 fold of Christ which has been so afflicted and agitated for many 
 months. 
 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 + < PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 'Callan, November llt.h, 1871. 
 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, I profess the highest respect for your person 
 and holy office, and most sincerely express my willingness to do any- 
 thing that I can at the desire of your Eminence ; but there are many 
 things which I cannot do, and one of these is to admit that I have been 
 leading my people astray for the last twelve months. I have taught 
 them over and over again the canon law of the Church, as applicable to 
 the case of my alleged suspension. In a letter to the Poor Law Com- 
 missioners, and in connection with the trial of O'Keeffe v. Neary, I 
 published the same teaching to the wide world, and in the court of 
 justice I pledged my oath to its truth. I have submitted my case to 
 some of the ablest divines in the Irish Church, and I am assured by 
 them that my proofs are irrefragable. I have put these proofs into the 
 hands of your Eminence and Dr. Forde, and there has been no attempt 
 to reply to them. If, after all this, I submitted to a judgment pro- 
 nouncing me suspended from my sacred office, I would give most con- 
 vincing evidence to the whole world that I was what my unholy 
 slanderers pronounced me to be, on the altar itself, a priest non Dei 
 sed diftboli. 
 
 ' When the clergymen that were my curates withdrew themselves 
 entirely from my control on the 4th of March last, and set up the 
 opposition altar and confessional in the Friary Chapel, they informed 
 the public that they had the sanction, not only of the Ordinnry of the 
 diocese, but of Cardinal Cullen himself, for all their proceedings ; and 
 it was by the use of your Eminence's name that they were able to draw 
 a section of my parishioners into schism. I have ever since laboured
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 197 
 
 under the great disadvantage of a struggle believed by many to be with Direct ex- 
 a party under the direction of the highest ecclesiastic in the realm ; ' '"^"j^ 01 
 and yet thanks to truth and justice I have been able to bind my R ev . 
 people to their P.P. in bonds of such strong aifection that nothing but ^l be ~ 
 
 the hand of death can sever them. Of course I know not whether 
 
 your Eminence was really pitted against me or not in this protracted 
 encounter ; but my solicitor has lately informed me that your 
 Eminence was prepared to go into the witness chair against me at 
 Wicklow, and that a subpccna from the court was actually issued for 
 service upon you. He has further informed me that he has the best 
 authority for stating that the censures were all made out under your 
 advice and direction. In the light of these facts anybody can see how 
 little weight the formalities of a court can add to the foregone con- 
 clusion, and how childish it would be of me to go into that court, where 
 I would meet openly, for the first time, the opponent on the Bench, 
 that 1 have been unconsciously contending against, with great success, 
 for more than eight months. 
 
 ' My unscrupulous clerical defamers here have been for months 
 assuring the faction which they head that, if they must leave this 
 parish, Card. Cullen is pledged to them to send away the P.P. along 
 with them ; and they openly boast of having thus attained all they 
 aimed at my humiliation ; but my strength is in the justice of my 
 quarrel before God and man. May the Almighty defend the right. 
 
 Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just ; 
 And he but naked, though locked up in steel, 
 Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, my Lord Cardinal, 
 
 ' Your most humble servant, 
 
 <R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Now, did you get any further communication at all from 
 Cardinal Cullen. down to the time of your suspension in the 
 parish ? No. 
 
 Do you remember immediately after the 13th November, 
 a registered letter coming to you ? Yes, I got two registered 
 letters addressed to me in the Cardinal's handwriting. 
 
 Who brought them ? The first letter was left at my 
 house in the morning before I had come down stairs. 
 
 What day was that ? T cannot say what day. 
 
 Was that after the 13th November, do you know ? It 
 was after I wrote this letter. 
 
 The letter is dated the 1 Ith ; how long was it before the 
 suspension was taken down off the door ? It was before 
 that. The first document called a suspension was put
 
 198 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Eev. 
 Eobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 First letter 
 returned 
 unopened 
 by the 
 plaintiff 
 
 Second 
 letter 
 returned 
 by the 
 plaintiff. 
 
 up on the 26th November. Well, I suppose about perhaps 
 the 15th, I found a registered letter on ray desk when I 
 came down stairs in the morning. I suppose about the 
 15th. I looked at it and I saw that it was in Cardinal 
 Culleii's handwriting. I examined it closely and saw his 
 Eminence's seal on the letter. I said simply ' That will do ; ' 
 I laid it aside. 
 
 What did you do with it? I laid it aside until 
 evening. 
 
 What became of it then ? In the evening I said to my 
 
 servant 
 
 Did you return it? I returned it. 1 I told the servant to 
 take it back. 
 
 Mr. Fitzyibbon : Was there another after that ? There 
 was; some days after that I received another registered 
 letter in which the title of parish priest was omitted from 
 the address. 
 
 How was the first letter in the Cardinal's handwriting 
 addressed ? It was addressed to the Rev. Eobert O'Keeffe, 
 parish priest, Callan. 
 
 Did you open it or read it at all ? No ; I did not open it 
 or read it. 
 
 Did you know what was in it ? No. 
 You subsequently saw another addressed to you ? I saw 
 another addressed to me. 
 
 How soon after was that ? About four or five days. 
 How was it addressed? It was addressed to the Rev. 
 Robert O'Keeffe, Callan. 
 
 Was that the first letter you had got from him with the 
 designation of parish priest omitted ? It was. 
 
 Did you open it ? No ; I treated it like the other. 
 You sent it back ? Yes. 
 
 Did you know what was in that ? No, I did not. 
 When did you get the first registered letter ? I got the 
 first registered letter I would say, to the best of my recollec- 
 tion, about the 9th or 10th, and the second about the 14th 
 or 15th ; that is the best of my recollection on considering 
 the matter. 
 
 Did you get a copy of that ? (witness is handed a docu- 
 ment) I got a copy of this. 
 
 1 For this letter, see p. 369.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 1P9 
 
 Translation of Suspension (the original in Latin) by Cardinal Direct ex- 
 Cullen, dated I3th November, 1871. 1 TntST 
 
 (FIFTH SUSPENSION.) -r> R i ev ' 
 
 ' Robert 
 
 ' To the Reverend Father Robert O'Keeffe, Priest of the Diocese of ' Keeffe - 
 Ossory, Parish Priest of the town called Callan, Paul Cardinal Sentence of 
 Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin, Primate of Ireland, Delegate of the suspension 
 Apostolic See, greeting : Cardfnaf 
 
 ' Whereas our Most Holy Father Pope Pius IX., who has the care Cullen. 
 and burden of all ecclesiastical matters, has deemed fit to bestow on us 
 the necessary and suitable faculties that we might be able to inquire 
 into and express an opinion concerning the complaints and accusations 
 which are brought against you; therefore, relying on the authority 
 conferred upon us, we have not omitted diligently to examine your 
 case. Since we have carefully weighed all things which you have 
 acknowledged in writing in several letters given to us, and which were 
 known elsewhere by public report, and afterwards heard you yourself 
 freely urging all the arguments which could be adduced for the defence 
 of your case on the 27th day of October last past, at our house, in the 
 presence of the Reverend Father Laurence Forde, one of our Vicars- 
 General, and again briefly recapitulating the same on the following 
 day, the 28th of October. We have also received from you your 
 defences and the answers sent to us in writing, which you thought 
 should be given to your accusers, and we understand their import. 
 
 ' In this state of things we summoned you to appear before us on the 
 8th day of November, that we might bring to an end your case, which 
 we have in hand, and might declare our judgment on it; but you 
 refused to lend an ear to our voice. Afterwards we fixed another day 
 for you, namely, the 13th of this same November, that you might meet 
 us, to hear our decision, and that your case might be dismissed for the 
 future ; but again, although it was very well known to you that we 
 were acting under the Apostolic authority of the Holy Pontiff Pius IX., 
 you refused to obey. 
 
 ' But now, since you have refused to obey these citations, and have 
 signified to us by letter that you have made up your mind not to come 
 to us, and that you are no longer willing to stand in our presence, this 
 only remains, for us to pass our judgment on you in your absence, and 
 in contempt, in order that ecclesiastical discipline may not be set at 
 nought with impunity. 
 
 ' Wherefore, having offered prayers to God, and having invoked the 
 aid of the Most Holy Trinity, taking account of all things which we 
 have heard from you in person, or have read in letters from you ; 
 moreover, having weighed the arguments which you submitted to us 
 in your defence ; in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by 
 1 For Latin copy of Suspension, see Appendix, No. IV., p. 582.
 
 200 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 animation 
 
 of the 
 
 Kev. 
 
 Robert 
 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Direct ex- the authority conferred on us by the successor of St. Peter, we suspend, 
 and declare suspended, you, Eobert O'Keeffe, Parish Priest of the town 
 named Callan, from all spiritual jurisdiction, from the administration 
 of sacraments, and especially from hearing confessions, from celebrating 
 the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass, from preaching the word of God, 
 and from every ecclesiastical office, until you come to your senses and 
 make full satisfaction, in our opinion, to the Church. Moreover, by 
 the tenor of this decree, by the same authority we deprive you, and 
 declare you deprived, of all benefit ecclesiastical or conferred on you by 
 the Church, and of all dignity or rank conferred on you in the same 
 way. 
 
 ' But wishing to care for the safety of your soul, which is exposed to 
 so many dangers, we earnestly ask God mercifully to bring you to good 
 results ; and by the bowels of compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ, who 
 for us men and for our salvation suffered death on the cross, we implore 
 and beseech you, having laid aside the old man, according to your 
 former conversation, to put on the new man, which after God is created 
 in righteousness and true holiness. 
 
 ' Dated at Dublin, the 13th day of November, 1871. 
 
 + 'PAUL CARD. CULLEN, 
 
 ' Archbishop Dub., Primate of Ireland, Delegate 
 of the Apostolic See.' 
 
 Where did you get it ? I got it from a boy named John 
 Cooke. 
 
 Was he one of your parishioners? He was at that time. 
 He is in Dublin at present. 
 
 Where is he in Dublin? In the Meath Hospital; he met 
 with an accident. 
 
 He gave you a copy of this ? He gave me a copy of 
 that. 
 
 Did you see any copy of this posted anywhere before 
 Cooke gave it to you ? No, I did not. 
 
 Was the one Cooke gave you the first copy you saw ? 
 Well, I had seen one before. 
 
 Where ? I will tell you how it happened. The Saturday 
 before the paper was posted up at the Friary Chapel, a man 
 came to me and he said 
 
 Don't mind what he said. I am asked now, did I ever 
 see a copy of that before it was posted on the Friary Chapel. 
 1 did. I want to explain where I saw it, how it came into
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 201 
 
 my hands. On the Saturday, that is, the 25th November, a Direct ex- 
 man came to the door and said he had a letter for me. 'TfThfT 
 
 You cannot mention what he said. Did he hand you a Rev. 
 copy of that ? I went out to him and he proposed to hand o'Keeffe. 
 
 me a letter. ' Who gave you this letter/ said I, ' to hand 
 
 me ?' Father Neary,' said he. ' Well, tell Father Neary 
 that I don't want his letters/ I said ; * take back the letter 
 to Father Neary.' ' I won't take it back,' said he. ' I don't 
 care whether you do or not,' I said ; ' I will throw it away.' 
 T flung it on the ground. The man went away, and the 
 paper remained on the ground opposite my house. 
 
 Was it a copy of this ? I allowed it to remain there for 
 a considerable time ; after an hour or two, when I found 
 that nobody was taking it, I picked up the letter at any rate, 
 opened it to see what it was all about, and found a copy of 
 this document. 
 
 Did you know in whose handwriting it was addressed ? 
 No ; I did not mind the envelope. 
 
 Mr. O'Keeffe, in reference to this document which I have p roc eed- 
 read, signed by the Cardinal, I have to ask you some questions. iu g s 
 Assuming for a moment that the Cardinal had authority, to make 
 what according to the regulations binding on you is the sen .tence 
 course of proceeding that should be adopted in reference to 
 the sentence of suspension ? First of all the person under- 
 taking to sit in judgment on me should show his competency 
 to act as judge. That is the first thing to be done. 
 
 Was any document, or copy of any document, purporting 
 to give authority shown to you at any time before this con- 
 ference, or before the action ? Certainly not. The eccle- Denial of 
 siastic who undertook to issue that sentence was. not a com- cardinal 
 petent judge to sit in judgment on me ; he had no juris- jurisdic- 
 diction over me. tlon - 
 
 That is, in his own person he had none ? He had none. 
 I am not bound to acknowledge him; he is not my superior 
 at all. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : How is that ? Because I belong 
 to the district of Ossory, and the Archbishop of Dublin has 
 no ordinary jurisdiction over the priests of the diocese of 
 Ossory. 
 
 Then any jurisdiction he had was by authority of this 
 document ? Yes, if he had any.
 
 202 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Kev. 
 llobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Authority 
 should 
 have been 
 shown. 
 
 Accuser 
 not to be 
 judge. 
 
 Procedure 
 in such a 
 case. 
 
 Mr, Fitzgibbon : Where there is no ordinary jurisdiction, 
 but where an extraordinary jurisdiction is claimed, what 
 course of proceeding must be taken to make it known ? The 
 person who proceeds to act under an extraordinary jurisdic- 
 tion should intimate to the party concerned that he had 
 received that extraordinary authority, and that he was made 
 competent to sit in judgment on that party. That is the 
 first thing to be shown, the competency of the judge. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : My objection extends to all this 
 class of evidence. 
 
 Have you made this matter of the canon law of your 
 Church a subject of special study ? I have, of long and 
 tedious study. 
 
 For how many years have you made it your study ? I 
 have made it my study for the last forty years. 
 
 Have you read the authorities recognized in your Church 
 as authorities on the subject ? I have been reading them 
 these forty years. My studies are chiefly confined to theology 
 and canon law. I seldom read what is called light litera- 
 ture at all. 
 
 In what you have been telling us have you given the 
 knowledge you have acquired in that way ? I have. 
 
 Are you prepared to give us the authorities if required ? 
 I am quite prepared. 
 
 Are you able to say that you know the canon law of 
 your Church? I consider I do. 
 
 Assuming extraordinary powers to be given to an eccle- 
 siastic in the position of the Cardinal in your case, was the 
 Cardinal in a position by the laws of your Church to pronounce 
 this decision ; was he personally competent as a judge ? He 
 was not. 
 
 In what respect? He was not a proper person to be 
 appointed judge in my case. 
 
 In what respect ? Because he was my accuser. 
 Where extraordinary powers are granted to a person in 
 the position of an accuser, is there, according to the law of 
 your Church, a course of procedure to be taken by the 
 accused ? Certainly. 
 
 What is that ? To put in an objection, to take excep- 
 tion to his appointment as judge. That is the privilege of 
 the party charged.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 203 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Was any notification sent to you Direct ex- 
 from Rome that you would be tried under a special jurisdic- a f n ^e U 
 tion granted to any gentleman ? None whatever, from Rome Rev. 
 or from any other quarter. O'Keeffe. 
 
 Was any authority, or alleged authority, at any time 
 
 produced to you before the sentence ? Certainly not. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Or read for you ? Nor read for 
 rae ; I never heard of it. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon: Did you know anything of it except 
 what appears in the correspondence ? Nothing whatever ; I 
 never knew there was any complaint made of me at all. I 
 was charged with misconduct, and never heard of it until all 
 was over, till three months after the service of the writ. 
 
 Which writ ? The writ on his Eminence. 
 
 Is there a regular course of procedure in reference to 
 contumacious persons ? Contumacious ? 
 
 Yes. You cannot be contumacious under such circum- 
 stances if you do not get a summons or citation. After the 
 competency of the judge is established, it is necessary he 
 should serve a citation on the party accused. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Did you ever get a citation ? I 
 never got a citation, my lord. T got a citation from Dr. No cita- 
 M'Donald, but in this case I never got any citation. 
 
 * C3. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Where a citation is served, what evi- 
 dence of authority ought it to be accompanied by? The 
 citation should state the competency of the judge, assuming 
 that he is not an ordinary judge. 
 
 Where he is acting under extraordinary powers as a 
 judge? Under extraordinary powers. It should be fully set Authority 
 forth. The commission under which he acts should be fully f^teli be 
 set forth. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And the offence ? Oh ! the 
 offence of course in all cases. In all cases the offence and offence 
 should be specified. specified. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Take that [handing witness the suspen- 
 sion] in your hand. What offence, if any, is there in that ? 
 I do not know. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: What are you reading? It is 
 the suspension, my lord. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I would like to know, have you any 
 particular experience of such matters. Did you ever know
 
 204 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Sentence 
 should be 
 result of a 
 trial. 
 
 No charge 
 made in 
 this case. 
 
 a case of a citation issued by an extraordinary authority, 
 and all these forms observed ; have you ever seen it in prac- 
 tice ? In practice, no. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Is any statement of the offence required 
 in proceedings of this kind ? Yes ; the summons or citation 
 should state the offence with which the party is charged, and 
 call upon him to appear and answer the charge. 
 
 Where sentence is passed a formal sentence pronounced 
 ought it to contain a reference to the offence ? It should 
 be the result of an investigation or trial. A sentence could 
 not be pronounced except as the result of a trial. The first 
 step to be taken in connection with the trial is, to serve the 
 party with a citation, assuming the competency of the judge 
 to be established. When the party appears, he should be 
 met by his accusers, and he should get the heads of the 
 charges made against him. These charges should be made 
 in his presence, and in the presence of the judge, and the 
 crime charged should be at least what we call in the Catholic 
 church a mortal sin ; not a slight offence, but a very grave 
 offence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You mean an offence to warrant 
 such a judgment ? Yes, my lord. It would not do, in one 
 word, to prove a slight offence. A very grave offence should 
 be established, such for instance, I will say, as public drunk- 
 enness. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Have you ever been informed by Cardinal 
 Cullen or anybody else of any charge having been made 
 against you by any particular person ? Never. 
 
 You told us yesterday no evidence was taken before the 
 Cardinal. Was any accusation made or mentioned to you ? 
 Certainly not, I never dreamed there was any charge 
 made against me at all. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What were you doing there ? 
 I went there to get his Eminence to declare that the sentence 
 was bad, and I say in this court that it was his duty to in- 
 vestigate the matter, because when the election took place 
 he intimated to me that I should have an answer as to 
 whether the sentence pronounced on me by the bishop and 
 Dr. M'Donald was valid or not. I told him ten days before 
 the election that I was prepared to show him that they were 
 not valid. I say it was the Cardinal's duty before he pro-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 205 
 
 ceeded to the election to decide on the validity of those cen- Direct ex- 
 sures, in order that I might have had the benefit of my vote. llB ^ n ^ 1 
 He refused my vote at the election, saying that I was primd Rev. 
 facie suspended, and that he would go into the matter at o'Keeffe. 
 
 another time, and I say that was condemning me without a 
 
 hearing in a matter where he was competent to act. Ha 
 was competent to do so by the commission that he had to 
 conduct the election. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon: Supposing all to have been regularly 
 done after the citation, what is the regular and proper form 
 of pronouncing judgment ? There is no specific form, but 
 the judge declares the offence proved, and he either excom- 
 municates or he suspends, to this, that, or the other extent. 
 He may suspend to the extent of depriving me of the living. 
 
 Where judgment is pronounced in that way, should the 
 judgment show the offence? The judgment should show the 
 offence. 
 
 Answer this question, yes or no. Did you know till after 
 the present action was commenced of that supension being 
 accompanied by any letter to the clergy in the neighbour- 
 hood ? I did not know of any letter. 
 
 You did not know of any letter being sent ? No. 
 
 (The following letter is the one here referred to) : 
 
 Letter from Cardinal Cullen to the Parochial Clergy of Callan, 
 enclosed with Suspension. 
 
 , '23 November, 1871, Dublin. 
 
 ' Our venerable and beloved Pontiff Pius IX., though a prisoner in Cardinal 
 the hands of his enemies, and oppressed by the weight of years and Cullen to 
 afflictions, is not forgetful of the spiritual interests of his children even c-inan 
 in the remotest parts of the earth, and is ever watchful to preserve 
 them from the snares of the enemy of their immortal souls, who goes 
 about like a lion seeking whom he may devour. Hence, having 
 received complaints against the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe, pastor of Callan, 
 and having learned that the course of things in that parish was calcu- 
 lated to offend the piety of the faithful, to diminish the respect and 
 obedience due to episcopal authority, and to lessen the force of eccle- 
 siastical discipline, His Holiness, in his paternal solicitude for the 
 welfare of every portion of the fold of Christ, has thought fit to appoint 
 me to act as his apostolic delegate in this case, with power to apply 
 proper remedies to existing evils, and to make religious provision for 
 the pious inhabitants of Callan. '
 
 206 
 
 Court of Q ueen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Ber. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 ' In order to accomplish the task imposed on me, I considered it my 
 duty to enter into correspondence with the Eev. Robert O'Keeffe, to 
 hear him defending in person his own cause, and to afford him every 
 opportunity of justifying himself in the eyes of the Church. I must 
 add that he supplied me with written or printed documents, in which 
 the arguments in his defence were fully developed. 
 
 ' Having thus acquired a full knowledge of the case, I called on the 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe to present himself to me on the 8th of the pre- 
 sent month, to hear the final settlement of the matters at issue, but he 
 refused to attend. Again I called on him to present himself for the 
 same purpose on the 13th of this same month, but he did not attend, 
 and before that day had arrived he informed me by letter that he 
 declined attending, though he knew that I was acting with the authority 
 of the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church. 
 
 'Having thus, according to canon law, rendered himself contumacious, 
 I was compelled, much against my inclinations, to adopt severe mea- 
 sures and to suspend the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe in his absence. The 
 decree which I enclose, and of which I forwarded a copy to him, will 
 show you in what terms and to what extent he has been suspended. 
 Having poured forth prayers to God, and invoked the aid of the Holy 
 Trinity, having weighed impartially all the arguments adduced by word 
 of mouth or in writing in his defence, I, acting as delegate of the 
 Apostolic See, suspended and declared suspended, in the name of the 
 Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, the said Rev. Robert 
 O'Keeffe from all spiritual jurisdiction, from hearing confessions, saying 
 mass, administering sacraments, and preaching, until he shall repent 
 and make ample satisfaction to the Church ; I also deprived him of all 
 ecclesiastical benefice or dignity conferred on him by the Church. 
 
 ' This decree was drawn up, read, and published on the 13th Novem- 
 ber, in the presence of several ecclesiastical dignitaries. It was also 
 immediately forwarded to the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe, who refused to 
 receive it. 
 
 ' Lest the Catholics of Callan should suffer in their spiritual concerns, 
 by not knowing the facts just stated, you, reverend brethren, will be 
 pleased to read to the people at one of your masses on Sunday the 
 decree herein enclosed, and, if necessary, you can read this letter. After 
 doing so it will be well to call on the faithful to pray for the welfare of 
 their recent pastor, imploring of God to give him grace to provide for 
 the salvation of his soul, and humility to reconcile himself with the 
 Church of God. 
 
 ' Exhort the people also to be fervent in prayer, to abound in good 
 works, to approach the sacraments, and to do everything possible to 
 strengthen their faith, to confirm their attachment to their holy religion, 
 and to promote a spirit of obedience to the Catholic Church, and to its 
 Supreme Head on earth. We are living in times of danger and tempta-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal Cullen. 207 
 
 tion. God Himself is insulted by atheists and other infidels, the Direct ex- 
 foundations of society are undermined by socialists and communists, an na tion 
 the doctrines of the Catholic Church and its authority are rejected by ^ ev 
 heresy and schism ; whilst all the enemies of God, carried away by a Robert 
 wild revolutionary spirit, and by the pride of their hearts, endeavour to * 
 
 overthrow the See of St. Peter, the rock upon which Christ built His 
 Church. It is our duty, when surrounded by so many dangers, to 
 arm ourselves with patience and humility, to protect ourselves against 
 pride, to banish from our hearts the prevailing spirit of insubordination 
 and resistance to legitimate authority, in all things following the 
 example of Jesus Christ and walking in His footsteps. Let us recollect 
 that if we partake of His sufferings, we may confidently hope that, when 
 His glory shall be revealed, we shall be glad with exceeding joy. 
 
 ' Begging of our divine Lord to protect the faithful people of Callan, 
 and imploring of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mother to obtain 
 every grace, for them by their intercession, I conclude by wishing you 
 and them peace and happiness, and every other blessing through the 
 merits of Jesus Christ. 
 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 + 'PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 
 (Counsel then read the following letter) : 
 
 ' Callan, December 3, '71. 
 
 ' MY LORD CARDINAL, A document was read in the Friary Chapel Father 
 here on last Sunday, which pretended to be a sentence of suspension O'Keeffe to 
 passed on me by your Eminence. You have thus for the sixth time 
 passed censure on me behind my back, without any trial or citation to 
 one, and without alleging any crime, as far as I have been able to 
 learn, except that I went to law with Dr. Walsh. I think in the 
 circumstances no one can reasonably expect me to make an apology for 
 going to law with your Eminence. I proposed before to leave the 
 whole of my case to the professors of canon law and theology at 
 Maynooth, and I propose now to leave it to the saying of the three 
 other Archbishops in Ireland. I made every effort to keep all the 
 former cases out of court, and in virtue of my love for peace and 
 religion I make this final effort to keep the present one out of court 
 also. No doubt another half-dozen suspensions will be flaunted before 
 my face ; but, my Lord Cardinal, I tell you plainly that until I degrade 
 myself first by the commission of some crime, I laugh at the folly of 
 the attempts of others to degrade me. 
 
 ' I have the honour to remain, 
 
 ' Your Eminence's most humble servant, 
 
 'R. O'KEEFFE.'
 
 208 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Eev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe 
 continues 
 to officiate 
 in chapel. 
 
 Interdict 
 on pfirish 
 chapel 
 
 After the publication of the suspension, did another 
 clergyman come down to the parish? The Rev. Mr. Martin. 
 
 When did he come? He first celebrated I think on 26th 
 November. Father Neary remained in the parish up to the 
 previous day, the 25th November, 1871. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : How long did the other clergy- 
 man remain ? He left three days before. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : The two curates left after the suspen- 
 sion and before the publication? Yes, it was the new 
 curate or administrator that published it, the Eev. Mr. 
 Martin. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Both curates left ? Yes, both 
 curates left within the week ending the 25th November. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Where did the Rev. Mr. Martin proceed 
 to do duty ? In the Priory Chapel, where the other clergy- 
 men were celebrating. 
 
 Did you continue to do your duties in the parish chapel ? 
 Yes ; in the same way. 
 
 And still at the workhouse ? Yes, up to that time. 
 
 Look at that document [handing witness the interdict, of 
 which the following is a copy] . 
 
 Translation of Interdict (the original in Latin), dated 16th 
 
 December, 1871. 1 
 ' Paul, of the Order of St. Peter on the Golden Mount, Priest of the 
 
 Holy Roman Church, Cardinal Cullen, Primate of Ireland, Delegate 
 
 of the Apostolic See, &c., &c., to all the faithful whom it may 
 
 concern. 
 
 ' Since it has been told to us by credible witnesses that in a church 
 or parochial chapel of which the Priest Robert O'Keeffe is said to have 
 possession, in the town of Callan, and in the diocese of Ossory, the 
 censures of the Church are violated or set at nought, that the mass is 
 illegally celebrated, that the sacrament of the Eucharist is administered 
 contrary to the discipline of the Church, and confessions heard without 
 jurisdiction, and with no regard for ecclesiastical suspension ; and that 
 several other things which impeach the ecclesiastical laws and episcopal 
 authority are almost daily performed : when we were informed about 
 all the,e things we immediately determined to lay the aforesaid parish 
 church under an ecclesiastical interdict, according to the mode of pro- 
 ceeding of the canon law, which we now do by the force of this decree, 
 and by the authority granted to us by the Sovereign Pontiff in the case 
 of the Priest Robert O'Keeffe, and we moreover declare that church 
 
 1 For Latin Copy of Interdict, see Appendix, No. V., p. 583.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 209 
 
 interdicted. Moreover, we warn all the faithful, and exhort them in Direct, ex- 
 the Lord, that they cautiously and diligently observe this censure of a n '' 1 ^ 101 
 interdict, lest by chance they provoke on themselves the anger and R e v. 
 vengeance of Almighty God, who does not permit His Church to be ?kert 
 despised with impunity, or run into other ecclesiastical punishments. 
 ' Dated Dublin, IGth day of December, 1871. 
 
 (Seal) + ' PAUL CARDINAL CULLEN, 
 
 ' Archbishop of Dublin, Primate of Ireland, Delegate 
 of the Apostolic See in the case of the Priest 
 Robert O'Keeffe.' 
 
 Whose handwriting is it in ? It is in the handwriting of 
 his Eminence Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 The whole of it? The whole of it. 
 
 Is the upper part in his Eminence's handwriting or only 
 the body of it ? It is all in his Eminence's handwriting. 
 
 Where did you get this document? I got it from a 
 young lad of the name of Gleeson. 
 
 I believe he brought it to you in the town of Callan ? 
 
 He brought it to me in the town of Callan. 
 
 Is he here ? He is. 
 
 Where did he tell you he got it ? Posted on the chapel. 
 He told me he tore it down from the Priory Chapel the 
 pillar of the gate of the Priory Chapel. 
 
 He had taken it down from the Priory Chapel where it 
 was posted, and brought it to you ? Yes, to me. 
 
 According to the constitution of the Church, have eccle- 
 siastics in the position of Cardinal Cullen authority to inter- 
 dict a parish church in another diocese ? That will depend 
 on the nature of the commission given. 
 
 I mean is he intrinsically ? Not ordinarily. 
 
 I ask you again, did you know until after the bringing of 
 the action, of any letter having been written or sent with 
 copies of that? No, I did not. 
 
 (The following is the letter referred to) : 
 
 Letter from Cardinal Cullen to the Parochial Clergy of Callan, 
 enclosed with the Interdict. 
 
 ' 16th December, 1871. 
 
 ' With this letter I send you a decree by which, acting on the Cardinal 
 authority of our Holy Father Pius IX., I have placed the Roman Cullen to 
 Catholic Parochial Church or Chapel of the town of Callan under the c-uSn^ 
 ecclesiastical censure of interdict. I was compelled, much against my 
 
 P
 
 210 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Effects of 
 interdict. 
 
 wish, to have recourse to this severe measure by the information which 
 I had received that the censures of the Church were freely violated in 
 that church or chapel ; that the holy Sacrifice of the Mass was unlaw- 
 fully celebrated, the sacraments of the blessed Eucharist and Penance 
 improperly or invalidly administered, and other things carried on well 
 calculated to undermine ecclesiastical discipline, and to lessen or destroy 
 the respect due to episcopal authority. These reasons are briefly 
 indicated in the enclosed decree, and are sufficient to explain the course 
 I have adopted. 
 
 ' When bringing this matter before the faithful, you will do well to 
 explain to them some of the effects of an ecclesiastical interdict. I 
 shall mention one or two of them. 
 
 'In the first place, as long as a church remains under interdict, any 
 priest, whether secular or regular, celebrating mass in it, or adminis- 
 tering the holy Eucharist or other sacraments, grievously transgresses a 
 law of the Church, and becomes irregular. 
 
 ' Secondly, if any of the laity hear mass in such a church, or receive 
 sacraments, they become guilty of a serious offence against ecclesiastical 
 discipline, and are liable to be visited by the Church with seveie 
 spiritual penalties. 
 
 ' To these observations I will add that absolution given by a sus- 
 pended priest, whether in an interdicted church or elsewhere, is null 
 and void, unless in articulo mortis ; and that a penitent having made his 
 confession to such a priest is obliged to confess his sins over again to a 
 priest enjoying jurisdiction from his Ordinary; and, moreover, that a 
 priest suspended from his office, and deprived of his parish, has no 
 right to assist at any marriage ; and that parties giving their consent 
 before him contract a clandestine marriage, of no value in the eyes of 
 the Church, wherever the decree of the Council of Trent on clandesti- 
 nity has been published. 
 
 'Before I conclude, I beg of you to point out to the faithful the 
 great evils to which all those expose themselves who resist the Church 
 and despise its censures. Such persons too often incur the misfortune 
 of losing their faith, of leading a corrupt life, and of ending their error 
 by falling into schism or heresy. Raising themselves up in a spirit of 
 folly against the sacred authority of the Church, and despising the 
 humility of the Cross, they are frequently abandoned to the pride of 
 their hearts, and miserably fall into the abyss. As they hear not the 
 Church, the faithful, looking on them as heathens and publicans, can 
 only pray that God may not inflict His severe punishments upon them, 
 but rather visit them in His mercy, and bring them to penance. 
 
 + 'PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 (Counsel then read the following letter from the Poor Law 
 Commissioners to Father O'Keeffe) :
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal Cullen. 211 
 
 ' 17th January, 1872. Direct ex 
 
 'REV. SIR, The Commissioners for Administering the Laws for ami ' nil ti 
 Relief of the Poor in Ireland have to inform you that their attention R ev> 
 has been officially directed to the fact that you have been suspended Robert 
 from the performance of certain clerical duties by the Cardinal Arch- 
 bishop, and a printed copy of the document suspending you therefrom 
 has itself been submitted to the Commissioners for their information. 
 
 ' The Commissioners apprehend that under these circumstances you sioners to 
 are not qualified to perform the ordinary duties of a chaplain in the 
 Workhouse of Callan Union, and unless you can satisfy them that you 
 are so qualified, they must require your resignation of the office. 
 
 1 By order, &c., 
 
 ' B. BANKS, Chief Clerk.' 
 
 Did you, on 17th January, 1872, receive this letter? I 
 received it on the 18th; it is dated the 17th. 
 
 Had you, up to the date of that letter, continued to dis- 
 charge your duties at the workhouse, and received the 
 salary ? Yes. 
 
 Did you reply to that letter? Yes, I replied to it. 
 
 (Counsel then read the following letters) : 
 
 ' Callan, January 18th, 1872. 
 
 ' GENTLEMEN, I have received your letter of yesterday. The Father 
 Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin has no more jurisdiction over me than p e t e 
 the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna; and even if he had, he would Commis- 
 have no more power to suspend me without alleging some fault than I si oners- 
 would have to suspend him. If, therefore, you will have the goodness 
 to send me a copy of any communication you have received on this 
 subject, I shall be able to refute at once any assertion, by whomsoever 
 made, that I have been canonically suspended. In the meantime, I 
 send you a pamphlet lately published by me, from which you can get 
 much information regarding the alleged caulse of my suspension. 
 
 ' I have, &c., 
 
 ' ROBERT O'KEEFFE, P.P., 
 ; R. C. Chaplain, Callan Union Workhouse.' 
 
 ' 24th January, 1872. 
 
 ' REVEREND SIR, The Commissioners for Administering the Laws Poor Law 
 for Relief of the Poor in Ireland acknowledge the receipt of your letter gj m e l ' s t 
 of the 18th instant, in reply to their letter of the previous day, stating Father 
 that their attention has been directed to the fact that you have been 0' Ke effe. 
 suspended from the performance of certain clerical duties by the 
 Cardinal Archbishop, and that unless you can satisfy them that you 
 are qualified to perform such duties they must require your resignation 
 
 f 2
 
 212 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 of the office of Roman Catholic Chaplain of the Callan Workhouse, in 
 which you observe that the Cardinal Archbishop has no jurisdiction 
 over you, and that he has no power to suspend you, and you forward, 
 for the information of the Commissioners, a printed paper which you 
 recently published, containing information regarding the alleged cause 
 of your suspension. 
 
 'In reply, the Commissioners have to inform you that they have 
 read the printed paper submitted by you with attention, but it is not 
 for them to judge of the merits of the controversy which has arisen in 
 regard to yourself as parish priest of the parish of Callan. 
 
 ' It is plainly and unmistakably before them that you have been 
 suspended from the ordinary functions of a Roman Catholic priest, and, 
 therefore, you are no longer, in the opinion of the Commissioners, 
 qualified for the office of chaplain of the Callan Workhouse. 
 
 ' The Commissioners request, therefore, that you will resign into 
 their hands that office to which you were appointed by them in their 
 order of the 5th of March, 1863. 
 
 ' By order, &c., 
 
 1 B. BANKS, Chief Clerk.' 
 
 1 Callan, January 25, 1872. 
 
 1 GENTLEMEN, I have been informed that a letter addressed to me, 
 and professing to be a reply to my communication to you of the 18th 
 inst., was read at the workhouse board meeting this day. I cannot 
 believe you capable of treating me intentionally with such a gross want 
 of courtesy ; and I therefore will consider the communication was put 
 into a wrong envelope by some one in your office, and merely request 
 you will send me a duplicate. 
 
 ' I am, Gentlemen, &c., 
 
 <R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 ' Dublin, 26th January, 1872. 
 
 ' REV. SIR, The Commissioners acknowledge the receipt of your 
 letter of yesterday's date, and, in reply, have to inform you that a 
 letter written to you on the 24th inst. was enclosed in an envelope 
 addressed to you in the usual manner, and that the one which appears 
 to have been read at the Board of Guardians on the 25th was a copy 
 sent by the Commissioners to the Guardians for their information. 
 
 ' By order, 
 
 'B. BANKS.' 
 
 'Callan, January 2"th, 1872. 
 
 Father ' GENTLEMEN, I have your letter of yesterday's date, and I have 
 
 ) Keeffe to a ] go received your former one, dated the 24th inst. It was sent by 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe to 
 Poor Law 
 Commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 Poor Law 
 Commis- 
 sioners to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keewe v. Cardinal Cullen* 213 
 
 mistake in the post-office to Castleblayney, instead of Callan. The Direct ex- 
 
 npparent want of courtesy, therefore, on your part is thus accounted 
 
 for, and the value of the rule Audi alteram partem according to which R GV 
 
 I have acted in not charging you with guilt before the guilt was proved Robert 
 
 is illustrated. I beg of you to impress your minds strongly with the 
 
 paramount necessity of keeping this rule in view when dealing with the 
 
 case of a clergyman who has been certified by the Board of Guardians Q or . aw 
 
 here, in their unanimous resolution on yesterday, to have done no act siouers. 
 
 during the nine years that he has been chaplain unbecoming his sacred 
 
 calling as a clergyman. 
 
 ' When you informed me that some one alleged that I had been 
 suspended by the Archbishop of Dublin, I immediately informed you 
 that it was utterly impossible that I could be canonically suspended by 
 an ecclesiastic who had no jurisdiction over me, and who, as far as I 
 am aware, charges me with no guilt, and I requested you to send me 
 copies of any documents you had received relating to my case, that I 
 might refute any allegation of my being suspended. You have not 
 thought fit to comply with this request, which was made simply for the 
 purpose of enabling you to act in accordance with the rule above re- 
 ferred to, and ,to do me the simple justice of hearing my case. As the 
 matter presents itself to my mind at present, I only know that some 
 one sent you a paper professing to be a suspension of me, and that you 
 consider yourselves bound, without any inquiry whatever into the 
 validity of this document, as if it were an utterance of infallibility 
 itself, to deprive me of the chaplaincy of the Callan Workhouse, as if 
 I were a dishonoured and degraded priest. I don't want you to enter 
 into the merits of the quarrel I have had with other ecclesiastics ; but 
 I have a right to expect that you will not, at the mere bidding of any 
 one, stigmatize me as an outcast, and pronounce me unfit to perform 
 my duties to the poor of the Callan Union Workhouse. 
 
 ' I am, &c., 
 
 <R. O'KEEFFE, P.P.' 
 
 'Dublin, January 31st, 1872. 
 
 ' REV. SIR, The Commissioners for Administering the Laws for p oor j^ w 
 the Relief of the Poor in Ireland acknowledge the receipt of your Commis- 
 letter of the 27th instant, in which you complain that the Commis- pfjf rs 
 sioners have formed an opinion as to your qualifications for chaplain of O'Keeffe. 
 a workhouse without first complying with a request for a copy of the 
 document laid before them, by which you were alleged to have been 
 suspended. 
 
 ' In reply, the Commissioners have to state that they never doubted, 
 and do not now doubt, that a copy of the document in question had 
 been sent to you at the time of its promulgation. 
 
 1 The document in question, which bears the signature of the Cardi-
 
 214 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Rev. 
 
 Robert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 nal Archbishop of Dublin, purports to suspend you, for reasons therein 
 stated, from the exercise of any spiritual function, specifying particu- 
 larly the administration 01 sacraments, the celebration of mass, the 
 hearing of confession, and preaching the Word of God. 
 
 ' It is the official duty of the Commissioners to provide religious 
 service for Roman Catholic inmates of the workhouse, by the appoint- 
 ment of a duly qualified Roman Catholic clergyman as chaplain of the 
 workhouse ; and it is impossible for them to continue you, under these 
 circumstances, in that capacity. 
 
 ' The Commissioners must, therefore, require your resignation of the 
 office of chaplain of the Callan Workhouse. 
 
 ' By order, 
 
 <B. BANKS.' 
 
 Poor Law 
 Commis- 
 sioners to 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe, 
 dismissing 
 him from 
 chap- 
 laincy. 
 
 Bishop 
 
 Moran 
 
 succeeds 
 
 Bishop 
 
 Walsh. 
 
 'No. 3174 '72. 'Poor Law Commission Office, Dublin : 7th February, 1872. 
 
 ' Callan Union. 
 
 ' REV. Sm, The Commissioners for Administering the Laws for 
 Relief of the Poor in Ireland have received your letter of the 1st instant, 
 relating to the document by which you have been suspended from the 
 exercise of the functions of a Roman Catholic priest. 
 
 ' Your remarks upon the controversy which has unfortunately 
 arisen regarding your case do not alter in any degree the view 
 which the Commissioners have felt bound to take of your present posi- 
 tion ; nor do they see any reason to doubt that your suspension has 
 proceeded from competent authority. 
 
 ' The Commissioners infer at the same time from your letter that 
 you are not prepared to resign, as requested by them, the chaplaincy of 
 the Workhouse of Callan Union, and they have, therefore, removed you 
 from that office by an order, of which a copy is enclosed. 
 ' By order of the Commissioners, 
 
 ' B. BANKS, Chief Clerk.' 
 
 Now, you state that the Bev. Mr. Martin came down to 
 act as administrator in your parish. In some capacity you 
 understood him to come to be administrator? Adminis- 
 trator or parish priest. 
 
 When was it the late Bishop Walsh died ? August last, 
 I think. 
 
 Who then became bishop? Dr. Moran succeeded. 
 
 Dr. Moran had been acting as coadjutor-bishop before 
 that ? He had. 
 
 From what date did he act as coadjutor-bishop? From 
 about the commencement of March, 1872.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 215 
 
 Did he claim any title to your parish ? I was informed Direct cx- 
 he claimed to be parish priest of Callan. a f n tho n 
 
 By what right ? I don't know. Rev - 
 
 Does the coadjutor-bishop hold more parishes than one ? o'Keeffe. 
 
 It is a very unusual thing to have a coadjutor-bishop in 
 
 a diocese, and I am not aware of the arrangement made 
 during the lifetime of the bishop to provide support for the 
 coadjutor. 
 
 Did he assume authority ? He came to Callan one day. 
 I was given to understand that he came to take possession 
 of the parish. 
 
 When was that ? I think it was in March. 
 
 Immediately after his appointment as coadjutor? 
 Shortly after. 
 
 Of course since that sealed order of the Commissioners 
 you have not been chaplain of the Workhouse ? No. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : To whom was the sealed order 
 sent ? It was sent to me. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : What was the value of the office ? I was 
 paid 601. a year. 
 
 You had held it since 1863 ? Yes. 
 
 Had you, till that sealed order was sent, got on harmoni- 
 ously and well with those under your charge in the work- 
 house and with the Guardians ? Oh yes, quite well. I still 
 visit the workhouse when any inmate of it chooses to send 
 for me. I see any inmate that wishes to receive me as priest. 
 I am sent for by the master. 
 
 You have not been paid for that ? No ; but whenever I 
 have been sent for I attended. 
 
 Has there been any interference with your emoluments as 
 parish priest by reason of this interdict ? There has been. 
 
 To what extent ? Oh, it is nearly all gone latterly. I 
 fought it out a long time, but there were missionaries brought 
 there. 
 
 When was the last mission ? I cannot be sure ; I suppose 
 about April last. 
 
 To what extent, since the suspension, have the emolu- 
 ments of your office been interfered with in amount ? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong objected to the evidence. 
 
 After discussion, 
 
 His lordship received the evidence subject to objection.
 
 216 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Direct ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Eev. 
 
 Kobert 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Effect of 
 suspen- 
 sion. 
 
 Income of 
 parish 
 priest of 
 Callan. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the date of the interdict ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : The suspension is dated the 13th Novem- 
 ber ; the interdict 16th December. The action was com- 
 menced 26th February, 1872. 
 
 Have your emoluments been diminished by reason of the 
 suspension? Yes, very seriously diminished. 
 
 Can you say at all to about what amount ? I would say 
 to the amount of about two-thirds ; that for the year ending 
 that date I received only one-third of what I ought to receive. 
 
 I am speaking from the time of the Cardinal's suspension, 
 that is, from the November previously ? The amount has 
 been diminished two- thirds. ] did not receive more than 
 one- third of what I ought to receive. 
 
 I have now to ask you what was the value of your place 
 as parish priest before this interdict and suspension ? Well, 
 it partly arises from contributions. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We are not going into detail. 
 What was it ? About 2001. for myself; 4-001. for myself and 
 the curates. 
 
 Out of that you had to pay the curates ? Yes, I gave 
 200?. a year to the curates, and had about 2001. myself; 
 400?. for myself and the curates. 
 
 Out of that you had to pay the curates? Yes, I gave 
 200 1. a year to the curates, and had about 200?. myself. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : You say the 200 1. was reduced about 
 two-thirds ? Yes. 
 
 Cross-examined by Serjeant Armstrong : What do you mean 
 by saying that 2001. was reduced by two-thirds ? That in 
 place of receiving at the rate of 200L, I only received at the 
 rate of one-third of 200?. a year. 
 
 From what time to what time? From the time of the 
 interdict up to the time of the commencement of the action. 
 Of course I can't be accurate. I am only speaking from con- 
 jecture. 
 
 I thought your case was that all your people kept with 
 you and agreed with you ? Yes, but a set of missionaries 
 were sent. 
 
 Is it a fact that your people acted with you, or that 
 they abandoned you ; did they despise the interdict or hold 
 to it? They have been drawn away from me very much 
 latterly.
 
 Hev. Robert O'Keefte v. Cardinal Cullen. 217 
 
 You that understand canon law understand plain ques- Cross- 
 tions ? It is latterly they fell away; after the Cardinal ^i^of" 
 
 Listen to me, sir. The time from the publication of the Father 
 interdict to the bringing of the action ; apply your mind to ee _ e ' 
 that. During that time the people chiefly fell away from 
 me. 
 
 During that time ? The time you speak of. 
 
 Between the publication of the interdict and the bringing 
 of the action ? Yes. 
 
 They fell away from you ? Yes, up to the present time. 
 
 And gave up your ministrations in large numbers ? To 
 a great extent. 
 
 So that the great falling away of your people was from 
 the middle of December until February ? From the time the 
 Cardinal published these documents. 
 
 What is canon law ? Give me one of those books. You 
 told me you were an expert. What is canon law ? I am 
 not a child to be put through an examination. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The question may be asked, and 
 it is your business quietly to answer. 
 
 Witness : The canon law is an immense collection of 
 canons. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I will apologise to the reverend 
 gentleman for asking him so impudent a question. You 
 have sworn that you know canon law. What is canon law ? 
 The canon law consists of an immense collection of 
 canons, general councils, and decrees of Popes, extending 
 over a number of years a great many centuries. 
 
 What books ' of authority on canon law have you 
 studied? A good many writers on canon law. When I 
 was in the Dunboyne establishment at Maynooth, there 
 were two books there ; one was Scavini on Canon Law, and 
 another Cabassutius on Canon Law. These books I pro- 
 vided myself with while a student at Maynooth, and I have 
 them since, and constantly read them and other writers, and 
 I have a copy of Van Espen. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Was he read when you were at 
 Maynooth ? He was referred to occasionally ; he is a very 
 excellent authority. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : How long since is it since you have 
 read canon law ? It is my duty to read every day in theo-
 
 218 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- logy, and you can't read one without making acquaintance 
 ''tion'of " w ith the other, they are so intermixed. 
 Father How long were you on the Dunboyne establishment ? 
 
 ee e< About seven months. 
 
 And were you reading canon law during that time? 
 
 Yes, the late Bishop of Clogher was professor of canon law. 
 
 You have stated you were not acquainted with any case 
 
 on the extraordinary jurisdiction of an extern archbishop ? I 
 
 was not concerned. These cases are of very rare occurrence. 
 
 First What was the first quarrel you had with your bishop, the 
 
 ^ rel late Dr. Walsh ? The first quarrel was, I will say, on the 
 
 Bishop 5th of May. 
 
 Walsh. j n what vear ? _. The 5t]l Q f May5 1869> 
 
 It was for something you alleged him to have said on that 
 occasion that you brought the first action against him ? Yes. 
 
 Where was it he said it ? In the college at Kilkenny. 
 
 On what occasion ? On the occasion of the conference at 
 Conference the college. There are four great conferences every year, 
 at Kii- an( j a f. fag conclusion of one of these conferences it occurred. 
 
 kenny. 
 
 Was it in discharge of his duties as bishop that the 
 bishop was there ? I don't know in what capacity he was 
 there at the time this occurrence took place. 
 
 Have you any idea in what capacity his lordship is sitting 
 now as judge ? The conference was over when this conver- 
 sation took place between the bishop and me. 
 
 Is there a formal way of dissolving conferences? Yes. 
 
 What is it? The conference is said to be over, and a 
 prayer is said by the bishop. 
 
 Was whatever he said, said in the room where you were ? 
 Prayer was over, the conference dismissed, and before we 
 left the bishop said to me he wished me to remain, and he 
 said to the Rev. James Carr and the Rev. Mr. Walsh that 
 he wished them to remain, and he told some clergyman to 
 call Dr. M'Donald. 
 
 Were you parish priest of Callan at the time ? I was 
 parish priest of Callan at the time. 
 
 Was Dr. M'Donald present ? Yes. 
 
 And the two curates ? Yes. 
 
 And yourself? Yes. 
 
 And the bishop ? Yes. 
 
 Are you able to swear to what he said to you ? Are you
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 219 
 
 able to swear to what he said which you made a foundation Cross - 
 of an action ? Oh, I can't swear to every word generally e ** "^ " 
 what he said. Father 
 
 Did you make a note of it at the time or soon after ? No. ,. ee a 
 
 What did you say he alleged to offend you ? He first 
 said that he got 2001. from a gentleman in America who 
 wished it to be distributed amongst the poor of Callan. I 
 said to him, I thought the best thing to do with the 200Z. was 
 to give it to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, that I had 
 lately established in Callan, with the permission of the 
 bishop. The bishop said, ' Perhaps the society would not 
 dispose of the money according to your wishes. ' * Oh, cer- 
 tainly/ said I, * I am the chaplain of the society, and the 
 other two clergymen are members of the society, and the 
 society would dispose of it in any way we wished.' Then he 
 said, ' There is no preaching from the Callan altar.' Well 
 now, there had been sixty sermons preached from the Callan 
 altar the previous month. 
 
 What did you say ? I said, * My lord, if you allude to me 
 in this matter, I can tell you where I preached every Sunday 
 of the year, the subject of which I addressed the people, and 
 the number of minutes I am speaking.' He turned round to 
 Dr. M'Donald : * Do you hear that ? ' I said, * I can do it, 
 my lord, because I always keep a record of those facts when- 
 ever I address the people. I note down the length of time 
 I am addressing them, and I note down the subject and 
 place.' 
 
 Tell me all that was said that huffed you ? Well, then, 
 he said, ' Going to the workhouse is not preaching.' ' Well, 
 my lord,' I said, ' I think I ought to take my turn at the 
 workhouse as well as every other chapel in the parish. It is 
 my practice to visit all the chapels occasionally.' Welly 
 then, with regard to this letter to the Bishop of Mont- 
 pelier, ' I don't mean to write a letter to him,' says he ; 
 'he didn't ask me to write him.' 'Well, my lord,' said 
 I, ' didn't the nuns of Montpelier tell me that the Bishop 
 of Montpelier requested your lordship to write to him before 
 he would dismiss the nuns and send them under your care.' 
 ' Well,' said he, ' I don't wish to have the nuns come.' * It 
 is a very awkward time to say it after I expended 4QOL of 
 their money/ said I. He said, ' Why did you oxpencl it ?' and
 
 220 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- * I won't write a letter to the Bishop of Montpelier.' ' Well 
 ^foTof now > m j lord, I won't take that answer. I won't take that 
 Father as an answer to my communications from you; put it in 
 _ e> writing.' * Well, I won't put it in writing,' said he. ' Well, 
 I won't take that answer,' said I. I had informed him pre- 
 viously that I wished he would state in writing his objection 
 to the ladies coming, as I would write to Cardinal Barnabo, 
 and I could not do so unless he stated in writing his reason. 
 I placed myself in a most unpleasant position. I had ex- 
 pended their money, and had been doing it the previous nine 
 or ten months. 
 
 Tell us what occurred at this meeting that gave you such 
 offence that you never forgot it yet. He said he would give 
 no written answer, and I said I would take 110 answer but 
 an answer in writing. * I am. your bishop,' said he. ' Well, 
 my lord, if you were my bishop fifty times I will take no 
 answer but a written answer. I will consider it no answer.' 
 I consider it more respectful to the memory of Dr. Walsh to 
 say no more, but if you wish for it I will tell you. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Go on and tell us what occurred ; tell 
 me what it was that gave you such undying offence. ' A 
 nice thing,' he said, ' to put nuns under your care ; you are 
 not fit to have the care of nuns. You were a shopkeeper 
 first when you went to Callan, and now you are turned 
 schoolmaster neglecting the duty of the parish.' He said, 
 * When there were nuns under your care before, I was obliged 
 to remove you.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : To remove you or them ? To 
 remove me. The nuns were not under nay care for more 
 than twenty years before. Well, he also said, ' A charge 
 was made on your morals since you went to Callan ; ' and if 
 you allow me I will explain that, as his Eminence knows 
 something about it. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : A charge was made on your morals 
 since you went to Callan. Go on and tell us all that was said. 
 Will you allow me to explain ? 
 
 It will be better to give us the narrative first ; tell me 
 what he said. ' No, iny lord, I am not prepared for this,' 
 said I ; ' if you have any charge to make against me you 
 should have summoned me and given me an opportunity of 
 defending myself, and I am not prepared for this, and I say
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 221 
 
 it to you that your conduct is quite improper ; ' that was Cross- 
 what I said to the bishop that his conduct was quite im- e ; a "f " 
 proper. ' Well/ he said, ' improper !' * Yes,' said I, ' highly Father 
 improper.' That put an end to the whole conversation. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is that the whole ? That is the 
 whole of it, I think. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Now have you stated all that he said 
 about your morals or morality ? I think so ; I think so. 
 
 Try and recollect. Well, I think so. 
 
 Now you are at liberty just to reflect. I think so. 
 
 He did say since you went to Callan you were charged ? 
 He did. 
 
 Was that for something that occurred in Callan? I 
 don't know. 
 
 Oh, you understand it. No, it was not for something 
 that occurred in Callan. 
 
 What was it ? I will tell you what it was. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Was this the first time that this 
 subject had been communicated to you ? The first time, oh 
 no ; I am going to explain. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : He says he knew what it referred 
 to ? I knew what it referred to. There were two nieces of 
 mine in Callan in business, and they wanted a foreman to 
 conduct their business grocery and general business and 
 they saw an advertisement in the newspaper from a person 
 that proposed to conduct the business of a grocery establish- 
 ment, and they engaged this man ; his name was shall I 
 mention his name ? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : It is immaterial. Well, this man 
 came to Callan in the capacity of foreman to my nieces in 
 their establishment at Callan. He conducted himself very 
 badly ; he was an habitual drunkard, and when he was 
 spoken to he promised reformation, and he even took a 
 temperance pledge from me. I administered to him the 
 temperance pledge, and it produced no reformation on him. 
 My nieces were obliged to dismiss him ; he demanded a 
 certificate of good conduct from my nieces, and I told them 
 they would not be justified in giving him a certificate. He 
 went away from Callan -without the certificate ; he wrote to 
 me to write to my nieces, and asked for a certificate of good 
 conduct. I wrote to him to say that it was impossible for
 
 222 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- me to give him the certificate he required, as I was unable 
 examma- to cer tify that he was a man of good conduct. He wrote to 
 Father my nieces and wrote again. My niece, now Mrs. Laherty, 
 3'Keeffe. wag (j eg i roug to give him a certificate because she thought 
 him a dangerous character. She thought it would be better 
 to put him oft 7 some way, as he was a man that would be 
 troublesome. I said ' No, he brought certificates here that 
 caused you great loss, and don't be the cause of loss to anyone 
 by giving a certificate of character. Well, then he wrote 
 threatening letters that if he didn't get certificates of 
 character he would resort to some means that would not be 
 pleasant. I took no notice of his letters, and directed my 
 nieces to take no notice. He then wrote a letter to Dr. 
 Walsh, Bishop of Kilkenny. He reported to Dr. Walsh that 
 I was a shopkeeper, and that I employed him for a certain time 
 in a shop that I kept at Callan, and that I refused him a testi- 
 monial when he was leaving ; and he asked the bishop to 
 direct me or my niece to give him the testimonial that he 
 required. The bishop sent the letter to me and asked me 
 for an explanation. I sent the bishop an explanation, and 
 stated to the bishop that the man was so badly conducted 
 that I told my niece she would not be justified in giving 
 him a testimonial of good conduct, and that was the only 
 reason he got no testimonial. I said he had been pardoned 
 several times without reformation, and that I had ad- 
 ministered to him the temperance pledge, and still he was as 
 bad as ever. The bishop was quite satisfied with the ex- 
 planation, and he sent no letter to this man. The man wrote 
 to him again when he got no letter from the bishop, and the 
 second time the man made very wholesale charges against 
 me and my niece, charging us with very vile conduct. The 
 bishop took no notice of that letter ; he neither sent it to me, 
 nor sent any reply to the man who wrote it. The man then 
 wrote to Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 Did Cardinal Cullen tell you so ? He wrote to Cardinal 
 Cullen, and Cardinal Cullen forwarded his letter to Dr. 
 Walsh. Dr. Walsh, when he got this letter from Cardinal 
 Cullen, wrote to me. ' I would not,' said the bishop, 
 ' write to you again about this man, only that I had a letter 
 from Cardinal Cullen, from the satisfactory explanation 
 which you gave me before in reference to this matter. But I
 
 R&v. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal OuUen. 223 
 
 now,' said he, 'forward you a letter that he has sent to Cross- 
 the Cardinal, and I also forward you, as I am sending that ^j^of " 
 letter, a second letter that I received from this man, and Father 
 that I would not forward you in consequence of the expla- ee e< 
 nation you gave me. But as I have received the letter from 
 Cardinal Cullen, I wish to let you see all the papers I have 
 received.' I wrote to the bishop when I received this com- 
 munication, and stated to the bishop what I supposed the 
 bishop forwarded to the Cardinal. I stated it in such a way 
 that I supposed the bishop would send it to Cardinal Cullen, 
 I again explained to the bishop the reason he received no 
 testimonial from my niece, so that she could not in con- 
 science give him the recommendation he wanted. I also 
 stated that my niece found out after he had left her place 
 that he had been, during the time he was with her, a married 
 man separated from his wife ; that his wife was unable to 
 live with him by reason of his vicious habits ; and I said ' if 
 Cardinal Cullen wishes to inform himself any further let him 
 send for his wife, who is a dressmaker in such a place in 
 Dublin, and she will be able to tell his Eminence. She has 
 been for many many years unable to live with him by reason 
 of his vicious habits.' I never heard anything about the 
 whole thing from that day, about a year and a half, until it 
 was thrown in my face on the 5th May, when the bishop 
 got into a passion with me. I understood him at once to 
 mean the charges that this man invented in reference to 
 me. 
 
 And that happened about a year and a half before the 
 occurrence of the 5th of May ? Yes. 
 
 And there was an end of it during a year and a half? I 
 think so. 
 
 How long before that had you any business with the con- 
 vent in Kilkenny ? I left the convent in the year 1849. I 
 left Kilkenny in 1849. 
 
 That was twenty years before ? Yes. 
 
 So that any allusion to your morals made by the bishop 
 in 1869 didn't stretch back to your connection with the 
 convent twenty years before ? I understood him to refer to 
 the time I had been with nuns, which was twenty years 
 previously. 
 
 Did he say, ' I don't think your morals are the best ' ?
 
 224 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 First" 
 
 action 
 
 against 
 
 Bishop 
 
 Walsh. 
 
 He said lie had to remove me when I was in charge of nuns 
 before ; that was the first I heard of it. 
 
 Did he say anything about your morals in Callan ? He 
 said I was not fit to have the care of nuns ; and that when 
 nuns were under my care before, he had to remove me. 
 
 He made a reference to some allegation brought up 
 against your morals at Callan, and you explained what you 
 understood by that ? Yes, that man's letter. 
 
 Did he charge you with having been immoral when con- 
 nected with the convent twenty years before ? He didn't 
 charge me with being immoral, but he said, ' You are not fit 
 to have the charge of nuns ; and when nuns were under 
 your care before, I had to remove you.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Did he appoint you to a parish 
 afterwards ? In the meantime he had appointed me parish 
 priest, and he had transferred me to Callan, and made me a 
 vicar-forane, representing him over one-third of the diocese ; 
 and he had made me treasurer to the chapter of Ossory. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Did he say to you on the 5th of 
 May, 1869, that when you were connected with a convent 
 before, you were immoral, or that your morals were bad ? 
 No, he didn't. 
 
 Did he mention the word morality, or moral, or morals, 
 in connexion with anything but that Callan fellow ? No. 
 He didn't? No. 
 
 You brought your action against him for what he said 
 on that occasion, of the 15th May, 1869, that was in ten 
 days, claiming 3,OOOZ. damages ? I believe 5,OOOZ. 
 Who was your attorney ? Mr. Meredith. 
 Did you instruct him in the words that you charged the 
 bishop to have used ? I repeated as well as I could to Mr. 
 Meredith what I have stated. 
 
 Now I will read from the summons and plaint what you 
 charged the bishop with having said on the 6th May, 1869. 
 Witness : I gave Mr. Meredith one of this man's letters. 
 (Counsel reads from summons and plaint) : 'The defendant 
 in presence and hearing of divers persons falsely and mali- 
 ciously spoke and published of the plaintiff, in his character 
 of a priest of the Church of Rome, in relation to his office 
 of parish priest of the said parish of Callan, the words fol- 
 lowing, that is to say : * I will have the nuns prevented from
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 225 
 
 coming to Callan at all, and will write to Rome for that pur- Cross- 
 pose ; you are unfit to have nuns under your care, inasmuch ^^"f " 
 as your morals are bad.' On your oath, did he ever say that Father 
 to you on the 5th of May ? I don't think he said that in Q ' Keeffc * 
 reference to nuns but in reference to Callan. He said 
 charges were made upon my morals since I went to Callan, 
 but he didn't speak of that in connection with the nuns. 
 
 Now listen to this further : * meaning thereby that the 
 plaintiff had been guilty of incontinence, and was a person 
 of immoral and dissolute habits.' 
 
 Mr. Pwcell : You know we are answerable for that. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : That is a most irregular observation 
 that you are answerable. You know nothing at all about 
 this present case in my hands. (To witness) : Did you under- 
 stand him to impute to you incontinence in saying there was 
 a charge against your morals ? That is, in reference to the 
 Callan business ? 
 
 No, in reference to the nuns ? Did you understand him 
 to mean that ? I only understood him to refer to the morals 
 in connection with Callan. 
 
 There was nothing about incontinence in that. 
 
 Witness : In the letters of this man ? If you saw them, 
 you'd know that. 
 
 But not about the nuns ? I did not understand him to 
 say that in connection with the nuns. 
 
 Listen to this : ' When you were connected with a convent 
 before, your morals were bad also;' did he say that? I think 
 what he said was 
 
 Did he say that? answer my question. Well, I won't 
 undertake to say that he said that. 
 
 Don't you undertake to say that he did not ? Have you 
 not sworn that if he used the word morals or immoral it 
 was not in reference to the nuns in the convent ? I don't 
 think he did speak of the nuns, but in reference to 
 Callan ; he said that charges had been made upon my morals 
 since I went to Callan. 
 
 Listen to this (Counsel reads) : 'When you were connected 
 with a convent before, your morals were bad also ' (that is, 
 also as well as at Callan), 'meaning thereby that the plaintiff, 
 at a former period, when discharging the duties of a priest of 
 the Church of Eome, in connection with a convent of nuns, 
 
 Q
 
 226 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- had been guilty of improper and immoral conduct in his 
 Tkmof 1 " character of such priest, and in relation to the discharge of 
 Father his duties.' Did you understand him to impute that to 
 ;_ e ' you ? Well, I cannot say whether he used that language. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' Since you went to live at Callan your 
 life has been a public scandal.' Did he say that ? Yes ; yes, 
 he said that. 
 
 Why didn't you recollect that before when I asked you to 
 recollect all he said ? Yes, he said that ; he said that I was 
 a shopkeeper before, and that I had turned schoolmaster now. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' I shall represent to Rome the impro- 
 priety of having nuns allowed to come into your parish.' 
 Witness : He said he would write to Rome. 
 
 Did he say that he would represent the impropriety of 
 
 letting nuns into your parish? Well, he said something 
 
 like it. Those are not the exact words that he said, but he 
 
 said that he would write to Rome to prevent the nuns coming. 
 
 I am not accountable for what is there. I put one of the 
 
 letters that this man wrote into the hands of Mr. Meredith. 
 
 Compro- You got 550Z. out of that out of the bishop ? 550Z. were 
 
 mii : t ' of paid over to me. 
 
 From the bishop ? Yes, from somebody. James Poe 
 gave me a cheque for it. I don't know where he got it. 
 
 He was the bishop's attorney? He was the bishop's 
 attorney. 
 
 And a portion of that was to indemnify you against 
 costs ? I made no arrangement of that sort. 
 
 Wasn't it a part of the settlement? The terms of the 
 settlement were that the 550L was to be put absolute^ into 
 my possession 
 
 You told me yesterday that it was to pay back the nuns 
 with a part of it, and your own costs with the rest ; is not 
 that what you got it for ? No ; I got it absolutely transferred 
 to myself to do what I liked with it, but I meant to return 
 it to the bishop as soon as he would send the nuns to Callan, 
 or agree to receive them. 
 
 Did you say yesterday ' I got 550Z. for the settlement ; it 
 was intended to compensate the nuns for their expenditure, 
 and to pay my costs.' Did you say that yesterday ? Can I 
 explain ? 
 
 First answer my question. Did you swear that yester-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 227 
 
 day? I will repeat what you said 'I got 550/. for the settle- Cross- 
 ment, it was intended to compensate the nuns for their ex- ^o^'of" 
 penditure and to pay costs, and I gave up Callan Lodge to Father 
 the bishop?' 
 
 Witness : It was as it were, quasi, intended. It was a 
 sort of contrivance in order to make it appear which I was 
 willing to consent to that the bishop was not assessed in 
 damages for a slander ; it was put in that way. 
 
 Who contrived that ? It was arranged between Mr. 
 Meredith and friends of the parties. 
 
 Don't put it on the shoulders of the unfortunate solicitor; 
 was not that your own contrivance ? I was no party to the 
 arrangement at all. On the contrary, Mr. Purcell was there 
 and Mr. Butt was with him, and I said, 'Now I mean to 
 give back this money to the bishop when the nuns come to 
 Callan, but do you see that the money is transferred to me 
 absolutely.' 
 
 Aye, aye. So that I may have it in my own name. 
 
 Under your control ? I intended to do what was right 
 with it. 
 
 Didn't you yesterday tell the jury that it was intended 
 to reimburse the nuns for their expenditure of money upon 
 Callan Lodge, and to pay you jour costs, and that the nuns' 
 money had been expended on Callan Lodge, and that you, in 
 pursuance of the settlement, gave up Callan Lodge to the 
 bishop. That face was put on the transaction, was it false ? 
 That face was put on the transaction. 
 
 Was it false? was it false, Father? Well, it was fictitious; 
 I allowed that face to be put upon it. 
 
 And that was a false face and a mask ? Well, there 
 was nothing dishonourable in giving the transaction that 
 appearance. 
 
 Where is the money now ? Did the nuns ever get the 
 money back ? They never got it, or it was never intended 
 that they should get it ; it was intended to be returned to 
 the bishop, that was my intention. 
 
 Who got it ? It was never 
 
 Who got it ? It was never intended 
 
 Who got it ? Who got it from me ? 
 
 Who got it from the man that gave it to you ? I don't 
 
 mid erstand 
 
 Q 2
 
 328 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Did you get a cheque for the money ? I got a cheque 
 
 Ton'o?" fr m Mr ' JameS Poe ' 
 
 Father Did you lodge the money in your own name in the bank? 
 O'Keeffe. /-^ , . -, 
 Certainly. 
 
 Did you ever pay a penny of it to man or woman living, 
 nun or bishop ? It was due to no one. 
 
 Why did you say yesterday it was intended to pay the 
 nuns the money they laid out on the house ? I intended 
 that. 
 
 Your intentions were good ? And I made no secret of 
 my intention. 
 
 But your performances were a little short ? I intended 
 to pay it to the bishop when he established the nuns at 
 Callan. 
 
 After he had said that he would write to Eome to prevent 
 the nuns coming there ? Friends interfered before that, and 
 before I took the action against the bishop, I asked him 
 would he pay the expenses that I had been at in fitting up the 
 place for the nuns ; and if he did that or allowed the nuns to 
 come, I did not want to take advantage of his words at all. 
 But I was in an exceedingly awkward position, and I was 
 after laying out the money of the nuns, and to the knowledge 
 of the bishop I had been laying it out for nine or ten 
 months, and at the end of that time he asked, * Why did 
 you spend it ? ' 
 
 And had the money of the nuns been laid out on Callan 
 Lodge ? About 6007. of the money of the nuns. 
 
 Had been laid out for preparing Callan Lodge for their 
 reception ? Yes. 
 
 That money had come from the community, had it ? 
 No, it came from the nuns. 
 
 Now, sir, didn't you represent that your object in getting 
 the 550?. was not to punish the bishop at all, or to get any 
 damages from him, but to put you in a situation to return 
 their money to the nuns ? Oh ! not at all, not at all ; I told 
 everyone. 
 
 What did you mean by swearing yesterday that the 
 money was intended for the nuns? I told the bishop and 
 his friends and everyone, that I did not want his money, but 
 that I wanted to be put in a right position, and repeatedly 
 before I took the action, I stated to his friends and to my
 
 Rev. Robert CfKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 229 
 
 own to Dr. McDonald, who is here present in court and Cross- 
 knows it that if he was willing to let the nuns come, or ^f^ 1 "*" 
 was willing to repay me the expenditure I had made on the Father 
 house in fitting it up for them for the last ten months, I did 
 not want to force him into a court of law. 
 
 But you said yesterday that it was intended partly to pay 
 the nuns and partly for your own costs? Witness : In- 
 tended, by whom? I intended always to return the money; 
 I did not want to get money for being slandered. 
 
 Was your great object, on the contrary, to bully the 
 bishop ? No, but to establish the nuns in the house that I 
 had fitted up for them, and where I had expended their 
 money for nine or ten months. I did not understand being 
 put into a false position. 
 
 Everybody is wrong but Father O'Keeffe. How many 
 actions and summonses have you had since you launched 
 that action ? Taking them altogether, have you had a hun- 
 dred? No. 
 
 Fifty ?_ No. 
 
 How many ? Well, I suppose three or four. 
 
 How many summonses to the sessions at Callan? Wit- 
 ness : Is it in Father Neary's case ? 
 
 All the cases ? One summons. 
 
 Two actions against the bishop, one against Father 
 Walsh, one against Father Neary, one against Dr. M'Donald. 
 Have you brought any action against the Poor Law Com- 
 missioners? Not yet; but they will hear from me after 
 some time, and the Board of Education too. 
 
 How much have you made altogether in a lump out of 
 your several actions? I have made a loss of 7001. or 800Z. 
 
 Taking the debit and credit side of the account, you. are 
 out 700Z. or 800Z. ? Oh, at least. 
 
 Was there a more disgraceful character in the Irish 
 Church than the late Dr. Walsh ? I don't want to say any- 
 thing about Bishop Walsh or anybody else ; what I stated 
 in private about Bishop Walsh was placed in my hand here 
 against the protest of myself and my counsel, and the Chief 
 Justice knows that. 
 
 Did you expect to walk up there and allow yourself to be 
 represented as a blameless, harmless man, that never attacked 
 anybody. I am a harmless man, and never attacked a
 
 230 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- mortal, but I must defend myself when I am attacked, and 
 
 ^iou'of " I have a perfect right to defend myself by those means, be- 
 
 Father cause I must tell you, Serjeant, that it is an established prin- 
 
 O J\ i'l.'lri't i * ii i 
 
 ciple in theology 
 
 Theology; don't tell me about theology. Witness : And 
 in canon law too ; that if you have no means of defending 
 your character except by defaming your assailant, you are 
 warranted in defaming him ; not in calumniating him, but 
 in publishing his life and character in defending yourself. 
 
 If anybody defames you, you are at liberty to defame 
 him ? You are warranted in defaming your assailant, and 
 I asserted that before Dr. Cullen, and lie was not able to 
 contradict it, and I stated that every theologian holds it, 
 and 1 say so in this chair. I do not mean to calumniate or 
 to slander but by telling the truth ; I defy theologian to 
 contradict it, or any lawyer. 
 
 Is not this one of your broadsheets, 1 published by you ? 
 (Document produced.) Not published printed. 
 
 Did you never give them to anybody ? I did ; I got that 
 printed for private circulation. 
 
 Is that your handwriting (letter produced) ? Yes. 
 
 That was sent on the occasion of your sending one of 
 your -broadsheets to the person to whom you wrote the 
 letter? It is the Very Rev. Mr. Crean. 
 
 Who was he ? Provincial of the Augustinian Friars. 
 
 Counsel reads letter. 
 
 I asked you did you publish that, and you hesitated. 
 Did you read it from the altar? Witness : Did I read it 
 before I gave notice to Dr. Cullen that I should read it? 
 
 I am putting a legal question ; didn't you read that from 
 the altar ? I read a portion of that from the altar. 
 
 Didn't you read every word of it ? I did not. 
 
 Do you swear that ? I do. 
 
 Look carefully over it and eliminate for me what part of 
 it you did not read (handing witness the printed document) ? 
 Well, I should say I read as far as that (pointing to near 
 the end of the third page, i.e. to end of passage referring to 
 the bishop's conduct.) 
 
 That is three sheets of it. Now you say that it is a priii- 
 
 1 For contents of the Broadsheet here referred to, see Appendix No. I., p. 577.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullcn. 231 
 
 ciple of theology that if you are defamed you may defame Cross- 
 your defamer ? I do not, Serjeant. ^oTof " 
 
 Well, what is your principle ? I said that if the defa- Father 
 mation of any assailant be necessary for the just defence of 
 my own character, I am warranted in defaming him ; not in 
 calumniating him, or telling lies about him. Defamation 
 means simply taking away his good name, and I am war- 
 ranted in that, when it would be the only means I have of 
 protecting my own character. 
 
 I suppose your congregation came there to attend Divine 
 worship ? Yes. 
 
 To see the Sacrifice of the Mass, to partake of the Com- 
 munion, and hear a sermon, if you chose to preach one ? 
 That was the purpose for which they assembled, of course. 
 
 Here is what you read from the altar to them : ' Callan, 
 1st August, 1869.' Didn't you preface this by saying, * My 
 friends, I would have you to give your attention to what I 
 am about to read to you. As I proceed, the subject will ex- 
 plain itself,' or words to that eflfect? I dare say. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Read the heading of it. Do you see at the 
 top : ' The following letters are printed only for private 
 circulation.' 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : What nonsense that is. 
 
 You didn't read that ; look at that, and say whether 
 you read out that? I would not undertake to say that I 
 read it. 
 
 I will read it if Mr. Purcell likes. ' The following letters 
 are printed only for private circulation.' 
 
 Counsel then read from the printed document the heading 
 of the broadsheet referring to Bishop Walsh, as follows : 4 His 
 life of traffic in sacraments and dispensations being notorious 
 throughout the whole extent of it, if any injury to religion 
 arise from anything I may say or write, let those look to it 
 who have refused me justice,' and also the letter to the 
 Bishop of Carlow, dated 1st August, I860, 1 containing the 
 following : ' I have been informed that when you were lately 
 giving a retreat at Maynooth to the Dublin clergy, you took 
 occasion to say that the Irish Church had fallen upon truly 
 deplora,ble times when a parish priest was found in it capable 
 of dragging his bishop before the world into a secular court. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 132.
 
 232 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 You say lie thought it was a deplorable thing for a parish 
 priest to bring his bishop into a lay court. Don't you think 
 it was a matter of regret all over Ireland ? I didn't bring 
 the bishop into a lay court. 
 
 Well, you knocked 550?. out of him. Then you say in 
 your letter that you distinguished yourself at Maynooth. 
 But do you think that if Dr. Lynch, or any other person at 
 that conference of the clergy, had said * it is a very deplorable 
 thing to find any parish priest bringing an action at law 
 against his bishop, in connection with words that the bishop 
 said to him in the exercise of his office as bishop/ you would 
 see anything wrong in such a declaration ? Oh, there was 
 a great deal more said than that. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' You took occasion to say that the Irish 
 Church had fallen upon truly deplorable times when a parish 
 priest was found in it capable of dragging his bishop before the 
 world into a secular court.' That is all you imputed to the 
 man that he said ? It was not necessary to go through the 
 history of all he said. 
 
 Supposing nothing more was said than that, was there 
 anything to take fire at ? Oh, there was a great deal more. 
 
 But supposing there was nothing more than that, would 
 you think there was any great harm in saying it ? Well, 
 there would be harm in it. 
 
 Then do you think it is not a deplorable, but a commend- 
 able thing ? I consider that this language would be ascri- 
 bing to me that I had done what was very improper. 
 
 It is a pleasant thing to see a priest and bishop of the 
 same Church pitted against each other in an action at law ? 
 If it cannot be avoided it is right. It is only justifiable 
 when it is necessary. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' Seeing that if such a thing as you sup- 
 pose to have occurred, has actually taken place, you would 
 desire at retreat to caution ecclesiastics against falling into 
 this crime, it is not out of place to inform you that if you will 
 look into the books of the Rolls Court for the year 1857, you 
 will find that a decree was obtained then and there by one 
 ecclesiastic against another for a debt which it is notorious 
 the latter never personally contracted, nor honestly and fairly 
 owed.' Didn't you allude to the bishop there ? I did. 
 And one of the priests of his diocese ? Yes.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keefe v. Cardinal Cullen. 233 
 
 Did you allude to a suit for administration in the Bolls Cross- 
 Court ? I don't understand you. It was a suit instituted ^^"f " 
 by the bishop against an administrator. Father 
 
 Of an intestate ? No, not an administrator of an intes- 
 tate, but against an executor and administrator under a will. 
 
 Against the personal representative of a dead man ? 
 Just so. 
 
 Didn't you tell your congregation from the altar, * Here 
 is what the bishop did ; he brought a suit against his own 
 priest ? ' Certainly. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' Execution in this case has never been 
 levied; not, however, in consequence of any tenderness on 
 the part of the plaintiff, but because the Protestant sheriff 
 absolutely refused to seize and sell the poor priest's effects, 
 alleging that all the police in the county would not be able 
 to protect him from the vengeance of the pastor's flock.' 
 You announced that from the altar ? I did. 
 
 That the Protestant sheriff would not seize ? Yes ; he 
 would not seize. 
 
 What was your authority for saying that ? I had the 
 authority of the bishop's own attorney. 
 
 Who was that ? Mr. James Poe. And I had abundance 
 of authority besides. He told me that Mr. M'Cready would 
 not seize for them. 
 
 Do you recollect the people saying, 'Hut, tut, tut/ 
 throughout the chapel, and making expressions of mur- 
 mur and amazement? I don't remember that. 
 
 Don't you remember that the people began to sigh and 
 sob ; on your oath ? I think not. 
 
 Will you swear that it did not occur ? (Counsel reads) : 
 ' These facts are known to every one in this part of the 
 world, as the plaintiff in the action is a mitred ecclesiastic, 
 not many miles from the city of Kilkenny.' That was the 
 bishop ? Yes. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' And the defendant, an archdeacon of 
 his own creation, not much farther from the small town of 
 Ballyhale. I have the honor to remain your lordship's most 
 faithful servant, Robert O'Keeffe.' Now you read out this 
 further this is poor Bishop Lynch. 1 'My dear Sir, I 
 lose no time to assure you that I did not say one word, or 
 
 1 Supra, p. 134.
 
 234 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland} . 
 
 Cross- make any allusion to the subject of your correspondence 
 "tkra'of " Curing the retreat I gave at Maynooth. I remain, dear Rev. 
 Father Sir, yours faithfully, J. Lynch.' Now, you read also, ' Callan, 
 JKeeffe. August 7thj 1869> To hig Eminence Cardinal Cullen. 1 My 
 Lord Cardinal. When you read the enclosed correspondence 
 between Dr. Lynch and me, you will best know whether or 
 not it concerns you in any way. I consider I made a great 
 sacrifice for the good of religion by not stating in court my 
 case against Dr. Walsh. This sacrifice has not been appre- 
 ciated in quarters where it ought to be. It is now rny intention 
 to write out a history of the whole case, and to send a copy 
 to your Eminence, and some other ecclesiastics in high 
 station. You will all then see whether I have been fairly 
 treated or not. You will also see whether I shall be justified 
 or not in saying to Dr. Walsh, ' either withdraw your threat 
 of writing to Propaganda to get the document issued to me 
 cancelled, or let my case go before the world.' 
 
 That was the old story about the nuns ? Yes. 
 
 That was the first letter you ever addressed his Eminence 
 upon this subject ? I think so. (Counsel reads] : ' The bishop's 
 abuse of the sacred tribunal of penance is fearful. He has 
 rendered the divine institution so odious that many sinners 
 would prefer to die in their sins rather than confess to him 
 reserved cases.' 2 
 
 Repeat the vow of obedience and reverence for that bishop 
 which you took at your ordination ? The bishop says on the 
 occasion of the ordination, ' Do you promise me reverence 
 and obedience ? ' and the clergyman, the ordinandus, the 
 person about to be ordained priest, says ' I promise.' 
 
 And that was observed in the case of your ordination ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you know the Decree of the Synod of Thurles on the 
 same subject ? Yes, I am acquainted with the statutes of 
 Thurles of 1850. 
 
 And the profession of obedience ending with the words 
 (they will bring it to your memory), Spondeo et juro, 'I vow 
 and swear ' ? I never made any vow of obedience. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : 1 object to Serjeant Armstrong reading any 
 vow or promise made except at the time of the plaintiff's 
 ordination. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 134. J See Appendix No. I., p: 579-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 235 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I will read any oath. I please. Cross- 
 
 Witness : I never made any vow of obedience, simply a ^"'oST 
 promise. I was ordained in 1 840, by the late Dr. Kinsella, Father 
 in Kilkenny. The words used by the bishop are : Promittis ee 
 tnihi et successoribus meis reverentiam et obedientiam ; and the 
 answer is, Promitto. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Did you make a profession of faith 
 on being appointed to a benefice ? Yes. 
 
 Is this a part of it ? ' J acknowledge the Holy Catholic and 
 Apostolic Church, to be the Mother and Mistress of all 
 Churches, and to the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Saint 
 Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ, I vow and swear true 
 obedience.' (Counsel continues reading the broadsheet] : 'I have 
 frequently met such penitents in the sacred tribunal, and 
 other confessors can say the same. At the last visita- 
 tion of this parish, the bishop sent my curates to seek 
 publicly, in the church, a certain man who had come 
 to receive confirmation, and who had been with the bishop 
 some time previous to confess the reserved sin of drunken- 
 ness on a Sunday. When he was found in the con- 
 gregation and brought to the bishop in the sacristy, the 
 bishop, in presence of many priests and lay persons questioned 
 him on the Christian doctrine, and then publicly asked him 
 whether he had received absolution from his confessor. When 
 the man said he had, the bishop publicly reproached him 
 with having made a sacrilegious confession, inasmuch as, 
 he added, no jurisdiction had been given by him for the 
 man's confession of the reserved sin of drunkenness. The 
 bishop had no knowledge whatever of the man except from 
 his confession of the reserved sin. After the bishop had 
 given confirmation, about twenty penitents who had fallen 
 into reserved sins came to him to obtain jurisdiction for their 
 confession, and he said to them all, pointing out with his 
 finger a corner of the church, " Let all who have been drunk 
 on a Sunday go into that place." About ten went into the 
 place indicated. The bishop then said to them, in the 
 hearing of all in the church, "You drunkards, I will not 
 listen to one of you here ; you must all come to Kilkenny." 
 Thus with the hope of obtaining sacramental absolution, they 
 were induced to make a public confession of their sin, and 
 yet no jurisdiction would be given by the bishop. In these
 
 236 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- and like cases the bishop pays no respect whatever to the seal 
 tion of f confession. ' 1 (To witness) : Do you know that according to 
 Father the canon law, of which you say you are a professor, a bishop 
 
 ' for revealing what is told under the seal of confession, might 
 
 be deprived of his bishopric ? Yes, and he ought, and shut 
 up in a convent for the remainder of his life. 
 
 And you told your congregation that ? I state facts that 
 I witnessed ; you pronounce judgment if you like. (Counsel 
 reads) : 'And this is well known throughout the diocese. His 
 avarice is equally notorious, but I will only mention to your 
 Eminence one case out of many. A man named George 
 Kehoe, who died some years ago, directed his executor 
 Edward A. D'Evereux, to give 100/5. for the celebration of 
 masses, as soon as possible after his decease, but the bishop 
 induced Mr. D'Evereux to invest the money in the public 
 funds, for an annual office to be celebrated in the bishop's 
 own church, and he and his curates divide between them every 
 year the income of the investment.' J (To witness) : Where did 
 you get that ? I got it from Mr. D'Evereux, the man who 
 was the executor of Kehoe. 
 
 This was part of the letter to Cardinal Barnabo ? Yes. 
 
 You are proud of it? I was bound to do it. I could 
 not avoid doing it. 
 
 Why do you say you were bound ? If you understood the 
 circumstance under which this was done. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' His thirst for money is insatiable, and 
 he is unscrupulous in satisfying it. ... Religion suffers 
 every day the mitre remains on his head.' * Is not that the 
 same bishop, to whom you had long before made a most 
 penitential apology for having said anything against him a 
 whining apology ? For having said anything against him ? 
 
 Or offended him in any way ? I never said ought dis- 
 respectful of the bishop in public. 
 
 Is there anything disrespectful in that which you read 
 from the altar ? I did not do it until I was forced. 
 
 Do you think you are fit to be a priest after that ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is this a part of the case, or are 
 you putting it in now. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I am putting it in now. I am cross- 
 examining him. It is a broadsheet which the witness on 
 
 See Appendix No. I., p. 080.
 
 Rev. Robert (fKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 237 
 
 the table printed and sent to different people, amongst Cross- 
 
 i-i i examina- 
 
 others to tion of 
 
 Witness : I sent it to all the bishops in Ireland : to try and Father 
 get peace. O'Keeffe. 
 
 Mr. Purcell: I don't think a ' broadsheet' rightly describes 
 that document. It is a printed copy of certain letters pre- 
 viously addressed by him to the defendant and other 
 parties. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : That is a very long name, but I will 
 call it a broadsheet. Part of this ' broadsheet ' is an extract 
 from his letter to Cardinal Cullen. (Counsel reads) : ' I may 
 tell you now, my Lord Cardinal, that I could claim the 
 honor of addressing you as an acquaintance. I was intro- 
 duced to you twenty-five years ago, by our mutual friend 
 the great and good man who then wore the mitre of 
 Ossory, and who invited me to form one of a small party 
 that met you at his dinner table. This great prelate 
 walked with me on the following day, and said to me, 
 " Did you notice Dr. Cullen yet ; what an humble man 
 he is. I tell you, sir, he is a clever man." Dr. Kinsella gave 
 more of his confidence to me than to any other priest of 
 his diocese, and for the last five years of his life I was more 
 intimately acquainted than any other with his habits and his 
 morals. He died on the llth of December, 1845. On the 
 morning after his death, the public car from Kilkenny 
 conveyed the news to a certain parish priest who was holding 
 a station in a house near the Bridge at Waterford ' l (To wit- 
 ness) : Who was that clergyman ? That was the late Dr. 
 Walsh. 
 
 The bishop? Yes. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' This parish priest you will expect 
 me to say immediately placed himself on his knees at 
 the altar, where mass had just been celebrated, and offered a 
 prayer for the departed soul. No, my Lord Cardinal, he walked 
 deliberately across the room to his youngest curate, and said, 
 " He is gone now, he was a bad man, and a worse Christian." 
 (To witness) : Who told you that? The curate to whom 
 the bishop said it. 
 
 Who was that ? Well, I don't know whether I ought to 
 mention his name. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 138.
 
 238 , Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Indeed you will. He is the Rev. Thomas O'Shea, P.P. 
 
 ^orTof 1 (Counsel reads) : ' The lion was dead, and the Phrygian 
 
 Father philosopher has told you the rest.' 
 ,0'Keeffe. was tte ,^ Kinsella. 
 
 That was the grand Kinsella. He said it the instant the 
 breath was out of him. 
 
 Do you know the allusion to the Phrygian philosopher ? 
 Who was the Phrygian philosopher ? I meant ^Esop. The 
 allusion was that when the ass was roaming about and 
 found the lion dead, he lifted his heel and gave him a good 
 kick. 
 
 And you wrote to the Cardinal representing the bishop as 
 the ass ? I ]eave the application to you, Serjeant. 
 
 On your oath, didn't you intend to represent your bishop 
 as an ass ? Certainly I could not use a more moderate ex- 
 pression under the circumstances. 
 
 (Counsel reads} : ' This same parish priest happening to 
 be narmed executor in the good bishop's will, was asked by the 
 bishop's senior curate to name a priest to preach the funeral 
 oration.' (To Witness) : That the departed bishop named 
 Dr. Walsh as executor in the will? Yes, he was named 
 one of the executors. 
 
 (Counsel reads): 'His answer was, Let Father John 
 preach it. This was a priest to whom the bishop made 
 an unfavourable allusion in a public document.' (To Wit- 
 ness) : Who told you that? The Rev. Robert O'Shea, 
 P.P. Ballybate. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ( Now my Lord Cardinal, be not as- 
 tonished that this same parish priest has been charged with 
 slander in the year of grace 1869.' That is the action? 
 Yes. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' Nor be surprised at being told, that 
 while he continued parish priest, one of his three curates 
 would not be permitted to baptize a child if the fees were 
 not laid down before the ritual was opened. But you may 
 say that he is now a bishop, and incapable of extortion or of 
 oppression of the poor. Yet, my Lord Cardinal, I was his 
 vicar for two years, and my instructions were to grant no 
 dispensation, even in a single publication of banns, unless 
 the pound-note were forthcoming. And the same instruc- 
 tions have been delivered to my successor. A poor man
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 239 
 
 from the ' Height of Ireland ' must walk to the city of Cross- 
 Kilkenny, a distance of thirty miles, and home again, if ^-^"f " 
 the near approach of Lent or any other cause should make it Father 
 necessary for him, to seek a dispensation in a single publica- oe 
 tion of his marriage banns.' 
 
 To Witness : Where is the Height of Ireland ? There is a 
 mountain called the Height of Ireland about thirty miles 
 from Kilkenny, in the parish of Commins. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : 'Why do I state these facts ? I believe 
 through a good motive. I consider that Dr. Lynch and 
 your Eminence have presumed the bishop to be right and 
 me to be wrong in the difference which has occurred between 
 us, and I want to destroy that presumption in your minds.' 
 (To Witness) : Is that the principle of theology to which 
 you refer ? It was a false presumption. 
 
 And you wanted to blacken the bishop in every way you 
 could ? No, I didn't want to blacken him, but I wanted to 
 show them that they were not justified in assuming that 
 because there was a quarrel between the bishop and me, I 
 should be wrong and the bishop right. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' I trust in God I shall neither now nor 
 .at any time do anything injurious to our holy religion, but 
 I will not fail to use every proper means of effecting -the 
 great object I have in view, namely, to establish in the 
 Callaii Lodge, where I have expended 6001. of their money, 
 a community of holy Irishwomen now living in the Con- 
 vent of the Sacred Heart of Mary at Beziers.' (To Witness) : 
 That was your darling object all through ? Yes. 
 
 Do you know that according to the canon law, and the 
 rules and regulations of your Church in Ireland, the bishop 
 has a veto in reference to the introduction of nuns into a 
 diocese ? No, I don't know any such thing. He had no 
 veto in this case, but the nuns would not come without his 
 letter. But they had a perfect right to come. 
 
 Were you entitled to force them into the diocese against 
 his wish ? I did not want to force them. 
 
 Didn't you say you were determined to do everything you 
 could to bring them-? Everything proper, Serjeant. 
 
 Were not you determined to bring them against the wish 
 of the bishop if you could ? I would be justified. 
 
 Were not jou in your mind determined to bring them
 
 240 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- even against the bishop's wish? No, on the contrary, I 
 ^fon'of recommended the nuns not to coine if they did not get the 
 Father bishop's leave. 
 
 Had you not resolved to bring them without his leave ? 
 No, I had not resolved. 
 
 Had you any expectation of getting his leave at the time 
 you wrote those scurrilous letters about him ? He knew 
 nothing about those letters. I wrote them in confidence to 
 Cardinal Cullen, and to Dr. M'Donald afterwards. 
 
 And to all the bishops in Ireland ? Oh, that was a long 
 time afterwards years afterwards. 
 
 It is not years after ; it is a year and a half after. Well, 
 it was not I made them public, and I never would do it. 
 
 You made them public in March, 1871 ? No, they were 
 put into my hand in the public court here, and I was re- 
 quired to identify them. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And was that the first time ? 
 That was the first time they came before any one in public. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Was anything whatever made public 
 in the public court except one letter to Dr. M'Donald about 
 the bishop ? Yes, that referred to the letter you are after 
 reading about traffic in the sacraments and dispensations. 
 The whole thing was made public. 
 
 But didn't you know that there was no part of your letter 
 to Cardinal Barnabo read in court ? It could not be read. 
 
 Was there any part of your letter at all which reflected 
 on the bishop read, but the one letter written to the vicar- 
 general, Dr. M'Donald ? That is the only one. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The only one what ? Reflecting 
 on the bishop. I wrote to the vicar-general, telling him 
 that I had written a letter reflecting on the bishop, and 
 stating that he had had a life of traffic in sacraments and dis- 
 pensations, and I stated that in my own defence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What was the date of the letter 
 to the vicar-general? October, 1870. 
 
 When was that produced ? At the trial in December. 
 
 Against whom ? It was produced against me on the trial 
 of the action against Father Walsh. It was first read by 
 Serjeant Armstrong in the court. He thought it would 
 damage me in the eyes of the jury, I suppose. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Now that letter that you wrote to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 241 
 
 the vicar-general was the only one that was read in Walsh's Cross- 
 case. Now, have I read one word of that letter in this broad- ^Tof 1 " 
 sheet ? Oh, it is all the same matter. Father 
 
 It is totally different ; your excuse is that because the 
 letter which you had written to Dr. M'Donald was read in 
 court, you published all these things. Oh no. 
 
 But it is, and I have not come to that letter at all yet. 
 I told Dr. M'Donald to read the letter that I had sent to 
 Cardinal Cullen and to Dr. Lynch, and to consider what he 
 was about. 
 
 When was that letter written that you are now telling 
 us about? It was written in August, 1869. 
 
 Which letter was not read in the case of the witness 
 against Walsh at all? It was the same thing. 
 
 Nor was the letter to Cardinal Barnabo read? It was 
 read in one of the cases ; it was read in the action against 
 Father Neary. 
 
 That letter I have not approached yet. It is at the tail 
 end of the broadsheet. I will read it now. 
 
 (Counsel reads letter, dated October 15, 1870, to Dr. 
 M'Donald.) 1 
 
 Was the letter you wrote threatening ? No ; but to deter 
 him from publishing the suspension on me. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : To deter him ? To deter Dr. 
 M'Donald. I was afraid he would publish those suspensions 
 he was sending me through Father Walsh and Father Neary. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' If you do that I will publish the letters 
 I wrote eighteen months ago, scandalising my own bishop ' ? 
 On the principle that I stated before and that cannot be 
 controverted. I defy any theologian in this court to say that 
 the principle is unsound. Where a man is assailed, and he 
 has no other means of protecting his character except by 
 defaming his slanderer, he is perfectly warranted in de- 
 faming him, and explaining what sort of character he is. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What do you mean by ' de- 
 faming ' ? do you mean inventing charges ? No ; simply 
 taking away his good name, without telling lies of him ; 
 telling the public what sort of person he is. It was with the 
 view of preventing Dr. M'Donald from making public the 
 attack on me. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 151. 
 K
 
 242 Court of Queen? s Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- Serjeant Armstrong : Was it not to depreciate the bishop 
 
 "tion of ~ * n * ne e y es * ^ e P e pl e ^ -ft was after the attack had been 
 Father made on me. 
 
 Was not that your object? My object was to show the 
 characters of the people who were endeavouring to degrade 
 me and run away with my good name. 
 
 You have said he was trafficking in sacraments for forty 
 years ? Certainly, it is the fact. 
 
 On your solemn oath give me a single instance of it. 
 Give you a single instance ? 
 
 Give me an instance. Do you mean to say an instance 
 did not occur in my own presence ? 
 
 Give an instance, sir. Didn't I tell you that I was his 
 vicar for two years, and that over and over again 
 
 Give me an instance on your oath. What do you mean 
 by giving an instance? 
 
 Give me an instance which justified you in making such 
 a statement. I was the bishop's vicar for two years when 
 I was parish priest of Eathdowney, and it was my duty to 
 give dispensations in banns of marriage. If they wished to 
 get married without publishing the banns I was directed to 
 demand 1Z. before I issued the dispensation, and if parties 
 came to me to seek dispensation in the publication of their 
 marriage banns, and if they had not 1Z., my hands were tied 
 up by the arrangement of the bishop. No matter who or what 
 the party was, I could not relax the rule as to publication 
 unless I received \l. for the bishop. Some of those parties 
 had to come thirty miles in order to get a dispensation from 
 the bishop. 
 
 Is not this that you call a dispensation, a special license ? 
 Not exactly, but it is a special license. 
 
 Is not that simply dispensing with calling the banns three 
 times ? Yes, or once. 
 
 Can the bishop do it ? Yes. 
 
 Was not the \l. given for granting the special license? 
 It should not be given or required ; he had no right to re- 
 quire it. 
 
 How did you expect him to be paid? He had no right to 
 require it at all. It was unfair to require it from a poor man. 
 Why didn't you throw off the yoke ? He didn't extort 
 from me.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 243 
 
 Didn't you ever hear that he who allows oppression shares Cross- 
 the crime ? In order to be entitled to receive anything he e ^ ( ^ 1 f" 
 should have got authority from Rome. Father 
 
 Did you know that you were acting against the law of 
 the Church ? I was not acting against any law. 
 
 Was not he acting against it ? Certainly. 
 
 Didn't you do it ? I had to obey orders. 
 
 Couldn't you throw up your situation? I had no situa- 
 tion. 
 
 Were you the vicar-general ? I was not. 
 
 What were you ? I was vicar-forane. 
 
 And then you co-operated? No, I did not; I had 
 nothing to do with this extortion. 
 
 Did you ever complain to him that he was extorting ? 
 T did not ; I would be very sorry. 
 
 You never found any fault with him ? Never. 
 
 You suggested that at a time when he was unable to de- 
 fend himself? I did not. 
 
 Was he alive at the time you spoke this from the altar ? 
 I did not wait till the breath was gone out of him, as he 
 did in the case of a poor man. T was not the ass that put 
 his heel on the lion. 
 
 What condition of mind and body was Dr. Walsh in 
 when you harangued the people from the altar about him. 
 Was he alive ? Alive. 
 
 Wasn't he fast declining in mind and body ? What is 
 the date of that? 
 
 March, 1871. Serjeant Armstrong, I didn't read a word 
 of these letters to my congregation until after I gave notice 
 to Cardinal Cullen that I would do it in my own defence if 
 he would not remove the men that were slandering me from 
 the Friary Chapel. 
 
 Did you know that the bishop was fast declining in mind 
 and body in March, 1871 ? He was. 
 
 AYhen you spoke from the altar ? He was. 
 
 Didn't you know that he was not in a state to respond 
 to your citation ? Can't I explain ? I wrote a letter. 
 
 (The Court adjourned.) 
 
 H 2
 
 244 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 (FOURTH DAT.) 
 Thursday, May 15, 1873. 
 
 At the sitting of the Court, Mr. Purcell said : 
 ' Before my friend resumes his cross-examination, we 
 produce the two circulars addressed to and received by 
 Mr. O'Keeffe which have been referred to in his direct 
 evidence, 1 inviting him to attend the election of coadjutor- 
 bishop. The first is dated 31st August, 1871, and is in 
 these terms. 
 
 'St. Kyran's College, Kilkenny, August 31, 1871. 
 
 ' VERY REV. DEAR SIR, I forward you a copy of a letter addressed 
 to me by his lordship the Bishop of Ossory, commanding me to 
 convene the clergy of this diocese that is to say, all those who have a 
 right to vote in conformity with the rescripts of His Holiness Pius 
 VIII., dated 17th October, 1829, for the purpose of selecting the names 
 of three ecclesiastics out of whom the Pope may appoint a coadjutor 
 for his lordship. 
 
 ' In compliance with this order, I hereby convoke the members of 
 the Chapter and the parish priests, as above, to meet me on the day 
 and at the place appointed by his lordship that is to say, in the 
 cathedral, at ten o'clock a.m. on Tuesday, the 19th of next 
 September. 
 
 'You will please attend in choral dress (biretta, surplice, and soutane), 
 and bear in mind his lordship's directions that to each mass in the 
 meantime all the priests in the diocese are to add the collect, secret, and 
 post-communion of the mass of the Holy Ghost. 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 'EDWARD M'DONALD, D.D., 
 
 ' Vicar-General of Ossory.' 
 
 The other circular is one that was enclosed in that: it 
 was addressed by the bishop to the vicar- general.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Did the vicar-general send these 
 to the plaintiff 9 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : He did. 
 
 Mr. Purcell then read the bishop's letter or circular to 
 Dr. M'Donald, stating that in compliance with his desire 
 a coadjutor-bishop would be elected, and requesting Dr. 
 M'Donald to convene the clergy for the 19th September, at 
 the Cathedral, Kilkenny, to proceed with the election, at 
 which Cardinal Cullen would preside. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 179.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 245 
 
 Cross- 
 
 Oross-examination of the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe, resumed by 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong. Father 
 
 Were you as a priest subject to the laws, ordinances, and _ 
 discipline of the Catholic Church ? That is to be understood 
 as the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the Church in 
 which I live, the Church of Ireland. 
 
 And no doubt at your ordination you agreed to be bound 
 by them and subject to them ? I promised canonical obe- 
 dience to my bishop and his successors. 
 
 And to the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the Church 
 of Ireland ? Of course, that is the meaning of canonical 
 obedience. 
 
 Who is to decide, according to your view, whether a sus- 
 pension is rightly pronounced or not ? Is it the suspended 
 priest or the superior authority? The canon law on that 
 matter is this : if the essential forms of a trial be observed, 
 such as intimating the charge to the accused party, citing 
 him to appear before a judge of competent jurisdiction, 
 going through a form of investigation in his presence if 
 these be observed and still an unjust sentence is passed upon 
 him, or a sentence he considers unjust, he can appeal from 
 that court to another tribunal. A sentence may be unjust 
 though still valid, and the person may be bound to respect 
 it until it is set aside by a higher court. But suppose 
 the essential forms of a hearing or trial, of an investigation 
 in court, be altogether set at nought, the sentence then is 
 evidently not only unjust but invalid, and entitled to no 
 respect whatever ; none but a fool would appeal from a court 
 such as that, for it is no court. It would be the same as 
 appealing from a sentence that a man meeting you in the 
 street would pronounce on you. 
 
 So that the party against whom the sentence is levelled is 
 to decide, according to your view, whether the forms are ob- 
 served or not ? He is not to decide according to my view. 
 
 Is it your view that according to the canon law you were 
 entitled to decide whether formalities were observed or not ? 
 I will illustrate it. 
 
 Is it your view, based on the canon law, that it was 
 for you to decide, and that you were competent to decide on 
 these questions of form? No, I don't consider I am compe-
 
 246 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Difference 
 between 
 uppcal to 
 Pope and 
 r< course to 
 Pope. 
 
 tent to decide on anything in that way, but I will state it 
 again. I may illustrate it in this way. Suppose a man goes 
 into the Recorder's Court in Dublin, and swears before the 
 Recorder that I owe him 10Z., and the Recorder immediately 
 grants a decree against me for 10Z., and that decree is put 
 into the hands of the sheriff, and the sheriff sends a bailiff 
 to levy the decree for the amount of 10Z. Do you think I 
 am bound to pay any respect to that decree ? I was never 
 cited before the Recorder, I never heard of the decree until 
 the bailiff came to my house : don't you think I would expel 
 him, or call in the police to expel him from my house? 
 How could I appeal against a sentence like that ? Is not 
 the man a thief coining to my house to take my property. I 
 got no more a hearing or citation or trial than the man in 
 question. I was rushed at without any ceremony whatever, 
 never knew there was any complaint made against me, never 
 knew there was any charge whatever, never knew I was 
 accused of anything, never knew I was cited to a tribunal. 
 Of course 1 never knew that any guilt was established against 
 me ; I never knew anything at all of this charge ; why should 
 I appeal ? 
 
 Now I will repeat my question. According to your view of 
 the canon law was it competent for you yourself, against 
 whom the suspension was directed, to decide that it was in- 
 valid for want of form ? It wa,s in my case. 
 
 And because it was invalid for want of form it couldn't 
 be the subject or ought not to be the subject of appeal ? 
 Certainly not ; I would only be making a fool of myself. 
 
 Don't talk about making yourself a fool. It wasn't a 
 matter on which I could make an appeal. 
 
 Are you aware of the distinction between an appeal to 
 the Pope and recourse to the Pope ? Yes. 
 
 What is the difference ? An appeal to the Pope is sup- 
 posed to be made from the sentence of a judge pronounced 
 in some court according to regular form, and recourse to 
 the Pope is simply making application to his Holiness, which 
 any subject in the world has a right to do, and I did that. 
 
 Is there an appeal to the Pope from a suspension ex 
 informata conscientia ? There is. 
 
 Is there a recourse to him from it? There is. 
 
 Now you have very much observed on the impropiiety of
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 247 
 
 making a man a judge in his own case ; you said yesterday Cross- 
 that no man should be a judge in his own case ? Yes. tfo^of ~ 
 
 Tell me on what portion of the canon law or on what Father 
 authority do you say, that you have a right to decide 
 that the suspension was invalid for want of form ? Upon 
 what portion of the canon law ? 
 
 Yes. Do you wish me to refer you to the book ? 
 
 Yes, if you know it ? John Devoti. Devoti is a book 
 of the highest authority in the Catholic Church. It was 
 written by a bishop who was all his life conversant with 
 proceedings of courts of justice in .Rome : John Devoti, 
 Archbishop, who died in 1820. 
 
 What does it purport to be? Institutions in canon law 
 by the Archbishop of Carthage. 
 
 Is it anything more than compilation of bulls and decrees 
 and councils ? It is not by any means a compilation of bulls 
 and decrees of councils. 
 
 Has any bishop or archbishop a power to make a Power of 
 canon ? He may have power to make a canon for his j^ k p t( 
 own diocese. canons. 
 
 I am talking of canons affecting the Church at large. 
 He has no right to introduce a canon affecting the Church 
 at large ; even general councils have been adopted from pro- 
 vincial councils. 
 
 Have not the canons affecting the Church been adopted 
 from general councils ? Don't you know the words of unusual 
 canons have been only approved of by general councils or by 
 the Popes ? Yes. 
 
 Don't they form the Corpus Juris Canonici ? Yes ; Devoti Devoti's 
 says: ' All judgments must commence with a citation to a r! tu ^ as 
 trial, and if that be omitted there is no force or authority rity of 
 in the judgment ; 'that is not only the statement of 
 Devoti, but of every canonist that ever wrote, ' for not only 
 the civil law but natural justice forbids him to be condemned 
 who is neither heard nor defended.' 1 Make a note of that. 
 Natural justice forbids any one from being condemned who 
 is neither heard nor defended. 
 
 Have you ever read the Decretum Gratiani ? Do you 
 ask me have I read the whole book, or all the volume ? 
 
 I have asked my question. I have not ; it forms a large 
 portion of the canon, law. 
 
 1 Devoti ; Institutiones Canonicae, Lib. III., Tit. V.
 
 248 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Have you ever read any portion of it ? I doubt if I ever 
 opened a book of it. 
 
 Do you know what it is about at all? I may have 
 seen it in the library at Maynooth, but I doubt if I ever 
 opened a book of it. 
 
 Do you know what it treats of? It forms a large portion 
 of the canon law. 
 
 Do you know then to what time it comes ? What year 
 of our Lord? I believe it comes down to the 13th cen- 
 tury to about the year 1300. 
 
 Did you ever read the decrees of Gregory IX. ? I say 
 the same of that ; it forms a large portion of the canon law. 
 
 Did you ever read it ? No, I don't remember having 
 read it. 
 
 Do you recollect reading iJecretalia Gregorii Noni ? No. 
 
 Did you read the decrees of Boniface VIII. ? I don't 
 remember having looked at them. 
 
 Did you ever read the Clementine constitutions ? I 
 think not. 
 
 Did you ever read the constitutions of John XXII. ? 
 I say the same ; I don't remember, I may have taken a 
 chance look at it. 
 
 But you don't say you ever read a line ? I won't under- 
 take to pay I read a line except when I might read a 
 quotation from it. 
 
 Or the Extravag 'antes of John and his successors ? No. 
 
 Having admitted you never read one of them, do they form 
 the Corpus Juris Canonici ? Form the Corpus Juris Canonici? 
 
 Can you give me any other instance, having a night to 
 think over it, in which to your own knowledge the late Dr. 
 Walsh carried on a scandalous traffic in the sacraments 
 beyond the one you told about the marriages? It is 
 specially mentioned in the letter. 
 
 Don't mind letters, I want you to swear to them. The 
 rule he had in his parish while parish priest, was that not 
 one of his three curates would be allowed to baptize a child 
 unless the fees were laid down. Were you the vicar when 
 that rule was in practice? No, I was not, that was the 
 time he was parish priest. 
 
 How do you know it? I know it from the man who 
 brought the orders from him ; I know it from a gentleman
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 249 
 
 who was a curate to him for years, and obliged to act on it 
 for years. 
 
 Is that O'Shea? The very man. 
 
 Is that the man he sued in the Probate Court ? No, he 
 is well known, the Eev. Thomas O'Shea. 
 
 He was another O'Shea? He was; the Rev. Thomas 
 O'Shea is a well-known character in Ireland. 
 
 Now, any other instance of scandalous traffic in the 
 sacraments for forty years? That was the forty years 
 whilst he was parish priest and bishop. 
 
 Do you insist that he was guilty during the whole of his 
 episcopacy and during the time he was parish priest of a 
 scandalous traffic in the sacraments of his Church ? Cer- 
 tainly, if you will allow me to call that traffic. I give you the 
 facts, it is very disagreeable to me to be obliged to state 
 them, but I cannot keep them ; it is very painful to me. 
 
 And you were vicar during two years of the scandalous 
 traffic ? I was vicar when I was parish priest of Bath- 
 downey. 
 
 And you never remonstrated with him ? No, I took my 
 directions from him, and the directions were, that I wasn't to 
 give a dispensation to any one, no matter who it was that 
 wanted it, rich or poor, high or low, unless I got a pound- 
 note ; otherwise the party was to be referred to himself. I 
 had no further concern in the matter. It wasn't my business 
 to remonstrate with him on any rule he chose to make. 
 
 And that is the infamous traffic in the sacraments of the 
 Church ? No, not in the sacraments of the Church ; a 
 regular traffic in dispensations is the word I used. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : May I ask. was the letter that 
 was read in court, which had been written to the gentleman 
 that sent you the citation, the same letter that was read in 
 the proceedings against Walsh? No; there are two letters, 
 but they are substantially the same. 
 
 But was the letter the same as that in which you made 
 this statement as to Bishop Walsh. That was in August, 
 1869, and to whom was it written ? That was written to 
 Cardinal Cullen in strict confidence. 
 
 And did you write a letter to Dr. M'Donald on this sub- 
 ject ? To Dr. M'Donald, stating that I had so written a year 
 and a half before to Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe.
 
 250 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Which of the two, the letter you wrote to Cardinal 
 
 e ^ooT Cullen or the letter you wrote to the vicar-general, was 
 father published? The one to the vicar-general. 
 
 That is the same gentleman that asked you to attend 
 afterwards as a priest at the election of the bishop 'P Yes. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : You say that you did not charge 
 him with an infamous traffic in the sacraments ? Not while 
 I was his vicar. 
 
 At any time ? I am after explaining that. 
 
 You said you charged him with a scandalous traffic in 
 dispensations ? Yes. 
 
 Did you charge him with an infamous traffic in the 
 sacraments ? Yes. 
 
 Why did you say this moment you did not ? It was 
 when he was parish priest he was trafficking in the sacraments. 
 
 I will read your correspondence (Counsel reads words 
 of the plaintiff) '; you charge him with infamous traffic in the 
 sacraments ? In the sacraments and dispensations. 
 
 And you do still ? I state the facts on my oath. 
 
 And you still charge him with infamous traffic in the 
 sacraments ? I don't want to charge anyone with guilt 
 
 Was it false ? What I stated in that letter was perfectly 
 true. 
 
 Is it false to say he carried on an infamous traffic in the 
 sacraments ? It is literally true. 
 
 Then did he carry 011 an infamous life of traffic in the 
 sacraments for forty years ? I didn't say in the sacraments 
 for forty years, I said in sacraments and dispensations. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' I informed the Cardinal of the infamous 
 life of traffic in sacraments and dispensations which Dr. 
 Walsh has led for the last forty years.' It is literally true. 
 
 Is it true he carried on an infamous traffic in the sacra- 
 ments and dispensations for forty years 9 Yes. 
 
 And you persevere in it ? I do. 
 
 Have you given all the instances ? I have given you in- 
 numerable instances ; it was the rule of his parish. 
 
 Give us any instance beyond what you have mentioned ; 
 what foundation have you for charging him with carrying on 
 an infamous traffic in the sacraments ? It was of everyday 
 occurrence. 
 
 1 See letter to Vicar-General, p. 151.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejf'e v. Cardinal Cullen. 251 
 
 What was of everyday occurrence? It was of everyday Cross- 
 occurrence, if a child was to be baptized, and the child was ^oTof 
 brought to the curate as they generally are, the curate had Father 
 instructions to demand the fees from the person, and if the ee e ' 
 person was not prepared to pay the fees, not to baptize 
 the child, but to send the party to the parish priest. That 
 was the rule of his parish, and I give my authority for that, 
 the man that was for years in his parish. 
 
 Have you anything else to base your charges on that he 
 led an infamous life of traffic in the sacraments ? I only 
 refer to that. 
 
 Are the only two matters marriage and baptism ? You 
 misunderstand the meaning of my words. 
 
 Are these the only two matters on which you rely for 
 your charge, that the bishop was an infamous trafficker in 
 sacraments and dispensations ? Have you any other matter 
 to allege in justification of that language beyond what you 
 have stated ? Allow me to explain. What I have stated as 
 to traffic in sacraments relates to the rule of his parish, while 
 he was parish priest for thirteen or fourteen years, and that 
 rule was that no child was to be baptized until the fee was 
 first paid. That is as regards the traffic in sacraments. 
 As regards the traffic in dispensations it refers to the entire 
 time he was bishop. 
 
 And about the marriages? The dispensation of the 
 banns ; dispensation in the publication of the banns. That 
 refers to the entire time he was bishop. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : How long was he bishop ? About 
 twenty-six years. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Beyond the instances you have given, 
 have you any other matter to allege against your bishop ? 
 These instances. 
 
 Have you any other, sir ? I don't want to go into any- 
 thing else. 
 
 On your oath, have you, I don't want to take any com- 
 pliment from you. Have you anything to say against the 
 dead bishop ? No, I don't want to be saying anything. 
 
 Have you anything to say to justify this language ? 
 Have you any other instance to justify this sweeping charge 
 of traffic in the sacraments ? I don't understand what you 
 mean.
 
 252 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland), 
 
 Cross- Do you think it a serious charge against a bishop, that 
 
 ^lon'of" ke use< l to traffic in sacraments and dispensations ? Is this 
 Father what you mean 
 
 You'll answer my question ; attend to me. Do you think 
 it a serious charge againt a bishop to charge him with an 
 infamous traffic in sacraments and dispensations ? Certainly, 
 nothing more infamous. 
 
 Now you have stated two matters upon which you base 
 that allegation, have you not ? Two rules, call them rules, 
 on which you base your allegation ? Two rules applying to 
 every case. 
 
 Have you any other rule for anything else? No. 
 
 Now you recollect the letter you wrote on 1st August, 
 1869, to Bishop Lynch ? > Yes. 
 
 Do you recollect the substance of that letter? I do. 
 
 Why did you write that letter ? Because I was informed 
 that Bishop Lynch had spoken unfavourably of me at a 
 retreat at Maynooth he was conducting for the clergy of 
 the archdiocese of Dublin shortly before that. 
 
 What did you hear he said of you ? Dr. O'Hanlon wrote 
 to a friend of mine 
 
 What did you hear yourself he heard of you ? That the 
 friend understood that I was spoken of very unfavourably. 
 
 In what terms? unfavourably is a very general expression. 
 In reference to the action at law that I instituted against 
 the bishop. 
 
 What did you hear from your friend was said about you? 
 This was what I heard ; that I was spoken of very un- 
 favourably in reference to the action at law that I had 
 taken against the bishop by some one conducting the retreat 
 at Maynooth ; the persons who spoke to me thought it was 
 the bishop, and he said the Church of Ireland had fallen 
 into very sad times when a parish priest was found in it 
 capable of dragging his bishop before a lay tribunal. 
 
 That is what you heard ? These are the particular words. 
 
 When was it you got the 550Z. from Mr. Poe ? About a 
 fortnight after the trial. 
 
 Could you fix the date of getting the money ? The case 
 was brought to the court in June, 1869 ; I would say the 
 first week in July the money was paid to me. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 132.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 253 
 
 And that case of course was at an end by that pay- Cross- 
 ment ? The case was at an end. "tfon'of " 
 
 Did you understand so? Was it a settlement of the Father 
 case ? The suit in the court was at an end. ee e ' 
 
 Now you sent to the Cardinal in August, 1869, a copy of 
 the letter you sent to the Bishop of Carlow ? Yes, when I 
 found it wasn't Dr. Lynch that made an allusion, then I 
 understood it was Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 Then the Cardinal wrote you this letter of the 17th 
 August, 1869. * (Letter read.) You received that? Yes. 
 
 Now allow me to ask, did you consider there was any- 
 thing off3nsive in that letter of the Cardinal to you? No. 
 
 Allow me to ask you, wasn't the first action brought 
 against the bishop for words spoken as a bishop to you ? I 
 don't say for words he spoke as a bishop ; I don't know in 
 what capacity he spoke the words. He was the bishop, and 
 he abused me, that is all I know. 
 
 He told you you weren't fit to have nuns under your 
 care ? Yes. 
 
 And you don't know in what capacity he spoke to you ? 
 No ; there are the facts for you. 
 
 You swear you don't know in what capacity he spoke to 
 you? No. I know he wasn't exercising his jurisdiction. 
 I did not impede him in the exercise of his jurisdiction. 
 I don't believe he had any jurisdiction to slander people. 
 
 Suppose, that for every reprimand given by a bishop at a 
 conference of clergy, for every check, if } 7 ou choose fco say 
 it, for every snub (I'll carry it that length for you), that a 
 bishop gives a parish priest or curate, suppose I say an 
 action was brought for that all over the country, do you 
 think that would be practically impeding the bishop in the 
 exercise of his jurisdiction? It would be introducing a 
 great deal of confusion into the Church. 
 
 I want your opinion ; do you think it would be impeding 
 the bishop in the exercise of his jurisdiction ? It would be 
 practically giving a great deal of annoyance to the bishop. 
 
 Would it be practically impeding him in the exercise of 
 his jurisdiction ? What has it to say to his jurisdiction ? It 
 has nothing to say to his jurisdiction. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 134.
 
 254 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Then you think it wouldn't be impeding him in the exercise 
 
 6 tion'of " f bis jurisdiction. Has a bishop a right to open his mouth 
 
 Father at a meeting of the clergy, and call them to account, and 
 
 '_ e ' censure them for anything he thinks wrong in their conduct ? 
 
 He has no such right. He could not say anything of a 
 
 priest in a public assembly discreditable to the man without 
 
 having given him private notice. 
 
 If it was discreditable ? Certainly he should not impute 
 anything discreditable. 
 
 Could he say to a man it was discreditable of him to sue 
 his bishop ? That depends on the nature of the suit. 
 
 Now, canonically speaking, would it be discreditable for a 
 man to sue his bishop ? A man may find it necessary to 
 sue his bishop ; a man may do what is right and what is 
 wrong in suing his bishop. I must know the circumstances 
 of the case. 
 
 I will put the circumstances. Suppose a man sues his 
 bishop for finding fault with his conduct as a priest in 
 some way or other ; suppose the priest for this brings an 
 action, would it be any harm to say of that case that it 
 is to be regretted that such an action is brought by a priest 
 against his bishop ? It would depend on whether the bishop 
 acted properly or improperly. 
 
 Do you admit any authority at all in church or out of 
 church? What authority do you admit? I was never a 
 rebel to authority. I state in this chair, and I swear to the 
 best of my knowledge, that I never disregarded any order 
 from a bishop or any other superior. 
 
 You would vilify him while respecting his orders ? I 
 would not say anything that I wasn't justified in saying, nor 
 do anything that I wasn't justified in doing. I should defend 
 my character, I don't care whether against the bishop, or 
 cardinal, or the Pope. I owe it to myself. It is an obliga- 
 tion on me to preserve a good name. 
 
 At the expense of everybody else ? At nobody's expense. 
 
 There was an end to the case against Bishop Walsh, and 
 you got 500Z. I ask you what necessity there was under these 
 circumstances to write the following of your bishop to the 
 Cardinal. (Reads letter of the 18th of August, 1869). ' Now 
 will you tell me what was the good object or motive you had 
 
 1 Supra, p. 138.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 255 
 
 in view in raking up these allegations against the bishop to Cross- 
 the Cardinal ? I stated there I wished to destroy the false e3 tfof " 
 presumption that was in the mind of Cardinal Cullen and Father 
 
 . T O'Keeffe. 
 
 Dr. Lynch. 
 
 Wasn't the action at an end? The suit at law was at 
 an end. 
 
 Wasn't there peace between you and the bishop? I 
 thought there was peace, but there wasn't. 
 
 Did you get any lease or agreement of the land on which 
 Callan Lodge was ? I got a letter from Mr. Smyth, of Paris, 
 in reference to it. 
 
 After you got the 550?. you gave up Callan Lodge, which 
 was intended for the nuns ? I did. 
 
 And did you not negotiate with Mr. Smyth to get out of 
 the agreement with Mr. Smyth ? No, not at all. 
 
 Was there any agreement between you and Mr. Smyth ? 
 There was an agreement, but Mr. Smyth wrote me a letter 
 saying that he would make everything satisfactory for the 
 nuns. I wrote to Mr. Smyth to represent to him that Callan 
 Lodge was in a very bad state, that it would require a large 
 outlay of money to make it habitable. 
 
 Who is Mr. Smyth ? He was a gentleman who lived in 
 Paris ; he was the landlord of the place. And I gave him to 
 understand that the nuns and I would expect he would make 
 a large allowance in the rent, but that I would leave it to 
 himself to say what allowance he would make. He wrote 
 to say that he was under great obligations to the nuns, who 
 took great care of him when he was ill, and that he 
 would make every allowance. 
 
 But there was no agreement between you ? Except 
 that. 
 
 At the time you wrote the letter of the 18th of August, 
 1869, was there any quarrel going on between you and the 
 bishop ? There was the quarrel that I hadn't yet got the 
 nuns, and I was expecting to get them. 
 
 Wasn't the 550Z. given to you that you might return it 
 to the nuns, and put an end to that matter altogether? It 
 was not ; I will allow that face to be put on the transaction. 
 It was while the correspondence was going on between me 
 and the Cardinal that all the denunciations took place. 
 
 On the 20th of August, you wrote to your own bishop ?
 
 256 Court of Quec.n's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- (Letter read.} 1 When did you first hear that anything was 
 of sa ^ about you by the curates ? On the 15th of August, after 
 
 Father returning from Newtown. 
 
 That was the first you heard of it ? That was the first 
 I heard of it. 
 
 Did you, as you state in your letter to the bishop, read 
 the decree of the Propaganda to the people in the chapel? 
 I did ; I read a passage from that decree. 
 
 Is that a matter of authority in your Church ? Of very 
 high authority. It was on the decision of the controversy 
 that prevailed between the bishops at the time, as regarded 
 the expediency of the national system. 
 
 Are you by the rules of your Church bound to yield 
 obedience to a decree of the Propaganda on a matter of 
 doctrine or discipline ? Yes. 
 
 If you heard you were spoken of disrespectfully by your 
 curates, and that they had announced that they spoke with 
 the bishop's authority, why did you not write him a civil 
 letter, asking him if he had given any such authority, instead 
 of writing such a letter as that I have read ? That is what 
 I think I did ; at least I think so. 
 
 You threaten him with an action on the 6th of September. 
 Why didn't you write to the bishop civilly that ' so and so 
 having been said about me by the curates, which I think 
 very grievous, and they having stated that they spoke with 
 your lordship's authority, I request you to say, whether 
 they were authorised in doing so ' ? I gave the bishop to 
 understand in that letter that all I wanted was to remove 
 the curates. 
 That was your requisition ? That was all I wanted. 
 
 To turn them out at once ? To turn them out at once, as 
 a matter of course. 
 
 Did you expect they would undergo a trial or get 
 notice ? No, it is not usual to give notice to curates. The 
 bishop removes them at his discretion from one place to 
 another. 
 
 So that the curates would be removed and condemned 
 without a trial? I didn't want them to be condemned. It 
 is no condemnation to remove a curate from one parish to 
 another. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 1 40.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 257 
 
 Wasn't your requisition to remove them because they Cross- 
 had slandered you? They had slandered me, and I said *Q{~ 
 ' they stated they did it by your authority, and call on you to Father 
 
 IT , O'Keeffe. 
 
 remove them. 
 
 If they were to be removed for slander, would it not be 
 just to ask him to ascertain whether they had slandered 
 you ? Did I not state they slandered me. 
 
 There is not a word in your letter about a previous 
 investigation ? Of course it was understood. 
 
 "What was understood? One reason why I asked the 
 bishop to remove them was that they had denounced me, 
 and of course the bishop should inquire whether they had 
 before he removed them at all. 
 
 Have you not told me they wouldn't be entitled to any 
 trial ? That is the bishop's affair. A curate is not entitled Position of 
 to any explanation or information from the bishop, because cumtes - 
 he is removable at the bishop's own will. I think the bishop 
 would act an improper part if he did not inquire and learn 
 whether these parties were guilty of the conduct I alleged 
 against them. 
 
 And would he give them notice ? That is his own affair. 
 I made a distinct charge against them, and it was the duty of 
 the bishop to inquire into the nature of that charge and its 
 truth. 
 
 Do you think he ought to investigate the matter without 
 any notice to them of what they were charged with ? I 
 think it would be improper to investigate a matter in which 
 it was alleged they were guilty of misconduct, without 
 notice to them. 
 
 Then you think he ought to give them notice ? I think 
 it was the duty of the bishop, when he received the letter, 
 to investigate the case, and ascertain whether the curates 
 were guilty of the misconduct I imputed to them, or not. 
 
 Do you think it was his duty to give notice to them ?- 
 Certainly. 
 
 And investigate the charge ? Certainly, because I 
 charged them with guilt. 
 
 Was it becoming of you to apprise him in the same letter 
 of your intention to bring the whole matter into a court of 
 law? I told him I wouldn't bring it if he removed the 
 
 s
 
 258 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Bishop of 
 Ossory a 
 suffragan 
 bishop 
 of Arch- 
 bishop ol 
 Dublin. 
 
 Axithority 
 of metro- 
 politan 
 bishop. 
 
 curates, because I wanted to be in peace, and I could not 
 live in peace with these two curates. 
 
 When did they begin that practice of going away for 
 several hours without telling you ? It was an old practice 
 of Father Walsh. It was necessarily a new one for Father 
 Neary, as he had been only ten or twelve days in the parish. 
 
 How long was Father Walsh there ? Some years. 
 
 And Father Neary, how long? About ten or twelve 
 days. 
 
 And will you swear that during those ten or twelve days 
 a novice in the place went without your leave 9 He did. 
 
 You swear that? Yes. 
 
 And stayed away without your leave ? Yes. 
 
 It was an old practice of Father Walsh ? It was. 
 
 Did you ever complain to the bishop about him ? No ; 
 I am not fond of making complaints. 
 
 You did not tell him the facts ? I did not. 
 
 You sent a copy of that letter to the Cardinal ? Yes. 
 
 Will you tell me what business you had to apply to the 
 Cardinal at that time? While the matter was unsettled 
 between Dr. Walsh and me, the Cardinal had formed an un- 
 favourable opinion of me, and I sent the letter, wishing him 
 to understand that when a bishop and priest quarrel it is 
 not a matter of course that the bishop is right and the 
 priest wrong. He came to that conclusion all at once with- 
 out any call. 
 
 Is the Bishop of Ossory a suffragan bishop of the Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin ? Yes. 
 
 The Archbishop of Dublin is Metropolitan in your 
 Church ? Yes. 
 
 And would you have a right of appeal to him from any 
 order of your own bishop ? Oh ! 
 
 Would you according to your views of the canon law ? 
 It is not the practice at present. 
 
 Would you have a right of appeal to the Metropolitan 
 from an order of your bishop ? It is not the practice. 
 
 No matter ; would you have it ? Well, I consider not. 
 The Metropolitan does not exercise jurisdiction, at least in 
 the Irish Church, except on visitations, and they have been 
 entirely given up. 
 
 Therefore if the Archbishop of Dublin is to interfere, it
 
 Rev. Robert CfKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 259 
 
 must be from some special authority, and not as Metro- CTOBS- 
 politan ? I did not want him to interfere. *m~ 
 
 Is that your answer ? I did not want him to interfere in Father 
 any official way. I wanted him to interfere as a friend in the 
 interests of religion. 
 
 You have told us you could not appeal to him as Metro- 
 politan ? But I could appeal to him as a man interested in 
 religion. 
 
 Suppose you had left the matter to his decision, must it 
 be by virtue of some special authority vested in him? I 
 didn't want 
 
 Suppose it to be, for argument's sake ? Suppose I left 
 the matter for his decision ? 
 
 Suppose you submitted to him to decide whether the sus- 
 pension ex informata conscientia was binding on you or not, 
 must it not have been upon the notion that he had some 
 special authority as Metropolitan? He would not have 
 any none. 
 
 I am satisfied. Then the Cardinal having received your 
 letter of the 20th August, 1869, sending him a copy of that 
 pleasant letter threatening more law, replies on the 21st. 
 Here is his answer (reading it). 1 
 
 Do you agree with him when he says that contentions in 
 ecclesiastical matters brought before lay tribunals occasion 
 much scandal ? I do very fully. 
 
 You accepted that letter in the spirit in which it was 
 written ? Yes. 
 
 Having received this letter from the Cardinal on the 23rd, 
 you wrote this answer ? Yes. 
 
 (Counsel reads letter of 23rd August, 1869.) 2 
 
 ' I tell you, moreover, the cause of all this was the un- 
 pleasant position I was placed in.' Explain that. The 
 cause of the unpleasant position I was placed in. I was 
 laying out their money (the nuns' money) for eight or nine 
 months, with the knowledge of Dr. Walsh, understanding 
 that there would be no difficulty or objection made to their 
 coming. And then at the end of that time he asked me, 
 ' Why did you lay out the money ? ' 
 
 But then you had 550L in your pocket to pay it back ? 
 
 1 Supra, p. 141. 2 Supra, p. 141. 
 
 s 2
 
 260 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Not at that time. That was the unpleasant position I was 
 placed in. 
 
 Was it not your darling object at all times to get the 
 nuns there ? It was. 
 
 Whether the bishop liked it or not? I thought he 
 would like it. If Cardinal Cullen told him that the nuns 
 might come, there would be no second opinion about it. 
 
 (Counsel then read the Cardinal's letter of 28th August, 
 1869, 1 the Cardinal's letter of the 31st August, 2 and plain- 
 tiff's letter of the 1st September.) 3 
 
 Were you sincere in saying in that letter of the 1st 
 September, that you would withdraw all demands for the re- 
 moval of the curates or anything else? Perfectly sincere. 
 
 It conveyed your real sentiments ? Perfectly sincere. 
 
 You had no underhand object at all ? No underhand 
 object, but to try and secure peace and charity. 
 
 Had you it in your mind that by making that statement 
 you would coax him to your view about the nuns ? I did ex- 
 pect, as a matter of course, that the nuns would be admitted 
 to Callan after making that apology. 
 
 One word of that is not stated on the face of the apology ? 
 It was not my duty to state it on it. If I put any con- 
 ditions of that kind it would make the apology worthless. 
 
 You had it in your mind ? Yes. 
 
 It was your object ? Yes, but I did not want to coerce 
 the bishop. 
 
 Didn't you mean by ( anything else,' the suggestion 
 about the nuns? Yes. 
 
 Now, sir, you wrote to the Cardinal again on the 14th 
 September. In the meantime, between the writing of that 
 letter of the 3rd September, which I have read, and before 
 you wrote to the Cardinal on the 14th, did you apply to the 
 bishop to give his consent about the nuns ? Yes ; on the 6th 
 I left home for Dublin, and spent a week at Miltown Park, 
 and then I returned home. I thought everything was done 
 that could be expected, and I sent Dr. Byan, of Callan, to 
 Dr. M'Donald, to ask him in what way the bishop would 
 wish to be applied to for his consent to let the nuns come to 
 Callan, and I thought it would be given as a matter of 
 course. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 142. 2 Supra, p. 142. 3 See p. 421.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 261 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : On what date was that ? I think Cross- 
 on the 12th. (Counsel read letter of 14th September, 1869.) l e *^~ 
 
 Didn't you there set up the horns of opposition ? No. Father 
 
 Didn't you raise the question ? I did not raise a ques- 
 tion, but stated a fact. 
 
 That they could make you chaplain without his permis- 
 sion ? So they could. 
 
 To give masses without the special approbation of Dr. 
 Walsh? Yes. 
 
 How did you receive from the Propaganda a letter of 
 privilege ? I received it through a friend of my own. 
 
 Was it by word of mouth ? No. 
 
 Show me any authority of the Propaganda? It is at 
 home in my desk. 
 
 I would like to see it. That was your view, that you were 
 entitled, without the approbation of the bishop, to have an 
 oratory in the chapel, and say masses there ? Yes. 
 
 Against the wish of the bishop? I did not want his 
 consent. I had the consent of a higher authority. 
 
 You took advice upon the matter from two canonists ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And they were of opinion, that without any approbation 
 from your bishop, you might do so under this authority ? 
 1 had a higher approbation. 
 
 What I only want to know is that that was your view. 
 Now, sir, didn't you revive the subject of contentions between 
 yourself and the bishop, namely, the getting of the nuns 
 there ? Sure that was the whole object ; it was revived. 
 
 The bishop said he would never consent, and you sup- 
 posed you could have them in spite of him ? No, I don't 
 want to say that. I thought that having done all the Car- 
 dinal recommended me to do, he would recommend to the 
 bishop everything to be done. 
 
 Did you ask him to do that ? Your letter does not sug- 
 gest that. The Cardinal gave me to understand that if I 
 did all these things 
 
 How ? is it by letter ? By letter he said it would lead to 
 a happy issue, and establish peace between the bishop and 
 myself. 
 
 To have your own way, and the nuns, in spite of him ? 
 
 1 Supra, p. 143.
 
 262 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- I did not want my own way, but to have the right and 
 SSrf" Proper done. 
 
 Father Now we will assume, Father O'Keeffe, that the grown - 
 
 _ e< up members of a family suppose a father and his grown- 
 up sons, cannot agree together, or live in the same house 
 in peace, do you think it would be unchristian or un- 
 becoming to separate peaceably? I think it would be good 
 advice. 
 
 Hadn't you advised it in some cases yourself? I have 
 offered that advice. It was on that principle I wished to 
 have the curates removed, because we could not live peaceably 
 together. 
 
 I will show you that they were removed at your instance, 
 and that then you were worse than ever. We have now got 
 your speculative opinion as to people not living together in 
 peace. Had you a difference with the bishop about the 
 introduction of the nuns ? Is that not what we were 
 fighting about all through? 
 
 Answer the question. Had you a difference about the 
 introduction of the nuns ? Yes. 
 
 It is that which appears in all your letters. Have 
 you a copy of the letter you wrote to the Cardinal 
 Barnabo on the 28th November, 1869 ? Yes ; I have a copy 
 at home. 
 
 (Counsel then read letter of 28th November, 1869, from 
 plaintiff to Cardinal Barnabo.) 1 
 
 You had an approbation that overruled the bishop ? Yes, 
 superior to the bishop. 
 
 Overruling the bishop's authority ? Not overruling it, 
 but superior to it. 
 
 Didn't it overrule it ? Don't you know the bishop would 
 not allow the nuns to come if he could help it ? Answer the 
 question ; I am entitled to it. I am giving an answer. 
 
 Say yes or no. I got an approbation from Propaganda 
 long before 1 knew the bishop would make any objection to 
 the nuns coming months before I knew he would make 
 any objections. I applied to the proper quarter, and 
 got it. 
 
 And wrote youi letter in spite of the bishop ? I did not 
 want to do anything in spite of the bishop. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 146.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 263 
 
 (Counsel then read letter of 20th September, 1869, from Cross- 
 Cardinal Cullen to the Eev. E. O'Keeffe.) 1 Ton 1 "?" 
 
 Don't you believe with the Cardinal about the privileged Father 
 altar ? I did not relj upon the privileged altar. 
 
 Do you think there was anything improper in his sugges- 
 tion about resigning, under all the circumstances ? I say it 
 was something unreasonable. 
 
 You would not agree with Cardinal Cullen ? I was will- 
 ing to agree with every one. 
 
 Provided you got your own way ? No, I did not want 
 niy own way; I wanted what was reasonable, right, and 
 proper. I was led to understand for ten months that the 
 bishop would make no objection, and then when the money 
 was paid out he did make objections. 
 
 You have got all the money for it in your pocket like a 
 wise man. Now did you consider the Cardinal's suggestion 
 of a friendly kind ? I thought it most unreasonable. 
 
 Did you think it was made in a kindly or friendly spirit ? 
 (No answer.} 
 
 Answer the question. I could not tell you. 
 
 You decline to answer. 
 
 (Counsel then read letter of the 21st September, 1869, 
 from plaintiff to Cardinal Cullen.) 2 
 
 What canonical rights was he denying you ? He was 
 refusing permission for the nuns coming to Callan without 
 just reason. They had a right to come to Callan. My people 
 had a right to the benefit of the nuns in Callan, and the 
 bishop was therefore denying those ladies and my people 
 their canonical rights. 
 
 Do you consider that a serious charge against a bishop ? 
 It is no charge at all. He would not give his reasons for 
 refusing. I asked him by letter to do so. 
 
 Where is the letter ? In the bishop's library, I suppose. 
 
 Have you a copy of it? I will allow you to give any 
 copy of a letter calling upon the bishop to state his reasons 
 for not giving you the benefit of the nuns? Didn't I state 
 that I called and asked him to give his reasons in writ- 
 ing? 
 
 That is all apologised for. I wanted a written answer. 
 
 You say in this letter that you will use every proper 
 
 1 Supra, p. 144. * Supra, p. 145.
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland} . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 means to enforce your rights ? That is, to enforce your 
 rights against the bishop. Why not, by proper means. 
 
 (Counsel reads above letter) : ' I will use every proper means 
 of enforcing them.' Now you have the money in your pocket, 
 did you ever take any steps to enforce their coming there? I 
 could enforce them only by proper means ; the proper means 
 were to require the bishop to state in writing the objections 
 that he had to the coming of the nuns to Callan, in order 
 that I might forward a document to Rome 'enclosing his 
 reasons and making my own comment upon them, and then 
 the question would be settled by the council of Propaganda, 
 or Cardinal Barnabo, in Rome. That was the very reason 
 for asking him to state his reasons. 
 
 Did you ever, after getting the 550Z., ask him to state his 
 reasons ? I had humbled myself sufficiently. 
 
 You didn't humble yourself by getting the money ? That 
 was raising myself. 
 
 Did you ever ask him ? No ; I did not. 
 Then you announce to the Cardinal that you will use 
 every proper means of enforcing your rights ? Yes. 
 
 Then you didn't ask the bishop to state his reasons after 
 you got the money ? No. 
 
 What would be proper means of enforcing them ? The 
 proper means would be for me to have recourse to Rome, to 
 make a visit to Rome, and to explain my case there to 
 Barnabo, or some one in authority in Rome, when I would 
 not be furnished with any paper that would enable me to ex- 
 plain it by writing ; that was what I meant to do. 
 
 After you got the 550Z. you never asked for any written 
 statement ? There was no use. 
 
 How did you know there was no use ? Were you not 
 condemning the bishop behind his back ? I was positively 
 refused. 
 
 Did you ever apply ? I was not to be writing every day. 
 You say, ' Dr. Walsh has brought great odium upon him- 
 self by his opposition to the coming of the nuns, as they are 
 all from the diocese originally.' What was he .spoken about 
 throughout the diocese for? For his opposition to the 
 coming of the nuns to Callan. 
 
 Have you the letter which you received from Cardinal 
 Barnabo ? Yes, the letter is at home in Callan.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 265 
 
 Mr. Purcell : It is here, and it is in evidence. Cross- 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : You considered when the first action e3 ^ 1 ^ " 
 against the bishop was settled that peace was restored? Father 
 I thought so; I was led to think that by the bishop's 
 friends. 
 
 And you expected that he would have allowed the nuns 
 to come there after that ? I had fully expected it. 
 
 And you found that he would not? I found that he 
 would not. 
 
 And you never asked him to state his reasons in writing ? 
 I never went near himself. I went in to his attorney to 
 remonstrate against his putting the curates into the posses- 
 sion of Callan Lodge. 
 
 You have a copy of your candid letter to Cardinal Barnabo. 
 (Counsel reads plaintiff's letter to Cardinal Barnabo of 28th 
 November, 1869. ) J Bad as the curates were, you represented 
 to Cardinal Barnabo that they would do well in your absence ? 
 Of course they should do the duties. * 
 
 You found no fault with them at all ? It was not my 
 business. 
 
 You don't say a word in that about the former action 
 against the bishop or its settlement. Would not any ordinary 
 man, reading that letter, think that the bishop had recently 
 before you wrote that letter refused to state his reasons 
 in writing for not allowing the nuns to come ? There is 
 nothing in the letter to show that it was of very recent oc- 
 currence. 
 
 Do you think it is a candid letter ? It is a very candid 
 letter. 
 
 Do you think there is no suppression in it ? No suppres- 
 sion. I stated what I thought was a sufficient reason that 
 I should be allowed to go to Eome ; then I would state 
 everything connected with the whole business. 
 
 That letter is dated the 28th . of November ? Yes, the 
 first Sunday in Advent. 
 
 When did you send your instructions to your attorney 
 for your first action after that ? I believe about three weeks 
 after that. 
 
 When did you send instructions to your attorney for the 
 action ? I can't say positively. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 146.
 
 266 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- On your oatli, were not they gone when you wrote that 
 
 *3JJf letter? Were they not gone, eh? We had some corre- 
 Father spondence I think on the subject. 
 
 'f 9 ' Had you instructed him to bring the action against Dr. 
 Walsh against the bishop himself Dr. Walsh, which 
 ended in the nonsuit? I cannot say positively. 
 
 You must find out for me. I think we had correspon- 
 dence on the subject. 
 
 Then you cannot say whether you instructed your 
 attorney to sue the bishop before you wrote the letter of the 
 28th of November, 1869 ? I won't undertake to say. 
 
 But you know the writ issued on December the 18th? 
 So it appears. 
 
 Before you got any answer from Rome ? So it appears. 
 
 You didn't write a second time to Rome ? No ; I did not. 
 
 Will you tell me what had occurred between your sincere 
 apology to your bishop on the 1st of September, 1869, 1 
 which was the day on which you made the apology and ex- 
 pressed so much regret for what had happened, and for suing 
 him at all, which you said was sincere what occurred between 
 that and the institution of the action on the 18th of Decem- 
 ber, that induced you to bring that action ? This circum- 
 stance, that I despaired of his consenting to the coming of 
 the nuns. That was the only thing I had in view and was 
 concerned in at all, for I felt myself in a most unpleasant 
 position after laying out their money. 
 
 Then you brought the action in revenge for the bishop 
 not agreeing to let the nuns come ? Was not the action for 
 denunciation. 
 
 Did you bring it in revenge -I am talking about the 
 condition of your mind ? I never did anything in revenge. 
 
 Was it in the hope of coercing him to consent to the 
 nuns coming that you brought the action on your oath ? If 
 the bishop 
 
 Answer the question, sir. I am entitled to an answer. 
 No. 
 
 But the thing that had occurred between that period and 
 the bringing of the action, was his refusal to let the nuns 
 come. On the 1st of September was the full apology? Yes. 
 
 And expression of regret ? Yes. 
 
 1 Seep. 421.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 267 
 
 Sincerely made ? Yes. Cross- 
 
 The withdrawal of every demand for the nuns, and for ex t ^' of 
 the removal of the curates ? I saw that I was deceived and "Father 
 entrapped. 'f!5 
 
 Who deceived you ? His Eminence. 
 
 His Eminence deceived you ? He did. 
 
 And in revenge you brought your action? Not in 
 revenge; I never did anything in revenge (the witness 
 laughed) . 
 
 Do you call that a white laugh or a black laugh ? Am I 
 bound to answer that question ? 
 
 I confess I don't like a man who is always laughing in a 
 serious case like this I don't like the look of it. Well, I 
 won't laugh, to satisfy you. 
 
 Was not that the motive of the action, because his Emi- 
 nence had deceived you ? In what had he deceived you ? 
 He deceived me inasmuch as he said that it would lead 
 to a happy issue and establish peace between the bishop 
 and me, and it didn't do that ; and after making that apology 
 he proposed to me to leave my parish to give up my parish 
 that was the happy issue it led to ; to ask me to resign 
 my parish. 
 
 And in your apology l you withdrew the claim about the 
 nuns ? 1 did. 
 
 And you had the mental reservation of intending to re- 
 agitate it ? Not re-agitate it. 
 
 Well, to reserve it ? I had the expectation that it would 
 be acceded. 
 
 Why don't you state it expressly ? That would not be 
 my business. It would defeat the whole thing, if I spoke 
 in a positive way or made it a condition that the nuns should 
 come ; that would be no apology at all. On the contrary I 
 gave the Cardinal and Dr. Walsh to understand that I would 
 make no demand at all. 
 
 Do you mean by the letters ? I told them plainly. 
 
 By the letters ? Yes ; I withdrew every demand. 
 
 But you did not intend in your mind to withdraw them ? 
 I did fully ; there was the deceit, I expected 
 
 Who was the deceiver ? I expected that my withdrawal 
 would result in a very happy issue, and it resulted in a very 
 
 1 See p. 421.
 
 268 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- unhappy one for me to call on me to abandon my 
 
 examina- > 
 
 tionof Parish. 
 
 Father Is this what you hoped for and interpreted as a happy 
 
 ' issue, that the bishop would consent to the nuns coming 
 
 there ? That the Cardinal would advise the bishop, after I 
 had made the apology and humbled myself in a way that no 
 man ever would before. 
 
 Surely you felt you were bound to make that apology ? 
 I did not. 
 
 You thouglit the bishop was entitled to it ? He was not 
 entitled to it. 
 
 You degraded yourself by it? I did not degrade my- 
 self by it. I did it at the desire of Cardinal Cullen, and 
 I stated so, and I did not think it dishonourable to do what 
 the Cardinal said. 
 
 But you never stated in any letter between the 1st of 
 September and the 15th of December, that you were in the 
 expectation that the nuns would have been permitted to 
 come there ? Oh, it would have defeated the whole thing if 
 I made that a condition. 
 
 Consequently you suppressed it ? I didn't suppress it. 
 
 Did you think it was right to deal with them and not 
 let them know your real mind ? The Cardinal led me to ex- 
 pect that a happy issue would result from my making a sub- 
 mission to his lordship, and I told him that I would make 
 any submission he pleased, and if the apology was not per- 
 fectly satisfactory he might introduce any phrase he liked 
 into it. 
 
 In your apology you withdrew every demand about the 
 curates and the nuns? I did. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : That was introduced by the Cardinal. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : It is in his own handwriting. I 
 did. 
 
 And though you withdrew it, you had it in your mind all 
 the time ? I expected that it would be conceded without my 
 demanding it. 
 
 That the Cardinal would tell Dr. Walsh to agree to the 
 nuns coming, and because that was not done you brought 
 your action on the 15th December? No; if that had 
 been done the action would never have been heard of. But 
 I found I was entrapped and deceived.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 269 
 
 Entrapped and deceived ? Yes. Cross- 
 
 By the Cardinal ? Certainly. "SStf 
 
 In October, 1870, you got the suspension signed by the Father 
 vicar-general, and you made this reply (reads the plaintiff's 
 reply). 1 Where did you get that quotation at the end of 
 your letter ? From Shakespeare. 
 
 That is the letter you thought proper to send to the 
 vicar- general ? Very well. 
 
 Do you think that under the circumstances a becoming 
 letter ? I do, certainly. 
 
 He replied to you in October, 1870, but allow me to ask 
 you why didn't you appeal from that suspension ? What do 
 you mea.n by suspension ? Can I ask the Serjeant a question, 
 iny lord ? 
 
 Will you tell me why you did not appeal from it ? Will 
 you tell me what is a suspension ? 
 
 I won't. I think you won't. 
 
 Well, T will tell you if you like ; it is what was served 
 upon you four times. A suspension is what was served 
 upon me ? Would you call a plate of meat, Serjeant, a 
 suspension if it was served upon me ? 
 
 Oh, you are a wit. You have asked me what my 
 idea of a suspension is ; I have told you practically. You con- 
 sider that humour. This is a very jocular case in your 
 mind. If anything served on a man be a suspension, sus- 
 pensions are very numerous. 
 
 Do you think, if you were trying, you could write a more 
 impertinent letter ? I say that letter was perfectly justifiable. 
 
 Do you think it a very impertinent letter ? I think it 
 a very proper letter. 
 
 Do you think it a very insolent letter? I think it a 
 very proper letter. 
 
 You may think a very insolent thing very proper. 
 Under circumstances. 
 
 Do you consider it an impertinent, insolent letter, though 
 you may think it proper at the same time? Not by any 
 means impertinent, but quite pertinent. 
 
 And not insolent ? Quite pertinent and quite proper. 
 
 And not insolent ? Not insolent, but quite pertinent and 
 quite proper. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 150.
 
 270 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- (Counsel reads letter of Dr. M'Donald to plaintiff, re- 
 
 tion > of a " peating the suspension, and plaintiff's reply to that letter.) ' 
 
 Father What did you mean by f physical resistance ' in that letter ? 
 
 ' I was afraid that Dr. M'Donald contemplated at that time 
 
 the publication of those documents. 
 
 Was it to fight them with your fists, or get out a mob in 
 the streets? I was apprehending that Dr. M'Donald was 
 about to create a disturbance in Callan by the publication of 
 those documents, and I wanted by all means to deter him 
 from resorting to such a course. 
 
 What did you mean by ' physical resistance ' ? Any 
 insolence that he might offer, any violence he might offer, 
 I didn't care of what character. 
 
 Did you apprehend his bringing a mob ? I apprehended 
 his exciting a great disturbance in Callan by his publication 
 of these papers. 
 
 Did you apprehend his bringing any violence to bear 
 upon you to expel him? I considered it would come to 
 that. 
 
 And you announced to him that you would resent that 
 by force ? I told him privately. 
 
 'Juxta moderamen inculpatse tutelse.' What is your 
 interpretation of that passage ? It is a rule of morals. 
 
 Put it into English. ' Within the moderation of 
 blameless defence.' That is a rule of morals, Serjeant. 
 A man is not to use more force than is necessary to repel 
 aggression. 
 
 Did you mean to convey in this letter, that you would 
 print and publish these charges against your bishop if 
 they published this suspension against yourself? If they 
 attempted to take away my character, or use violence of any 
 sort. 
 
 If they suspended you ? If they suspended me in a law- 
 less manner ; suspended me by violence. If they had any 
 charge against me they ought to cite me to appear before 
 them, and I am sure I am not the man then to object. 
 
 You say a dying man may exclaim ' Save me from, my 
 friends.' Who was the dying man ? The man referred to 
 there was the bishop, and I wanted to prevent Dr. M'Donald 
 from doing anything that would bring disgrace upon the 
 
 1 Supra, p. 151.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 271 
 
 bisliop and bring disgrace upon myself. I wanted to deter Cross- 
 him from publication. ^of" 
 
 To put the screw upon him, by threatening that you Father 
 would publish these things of the bishop ? I told him so to 
 deter him from using lawless violence. 
 
 As a Christian clergyman, do you think that was a right 
 course to pursue? I adhere to every line of that letter. 
 It was of course open to me to try and get protection for my 
 character. 
 
 (Counsel read Dr. McDonald's letter to plaintiff of 16th 
 November, 1870.) > 
 
 You received with that letter a citation ? 2 You complain 
 greatly of the unfairness of being tried without a citation. 
 
 Why didn't you obey the citation you got to go into the 
 bishop's court ? After being hanged twice, to go into a trial ! 
 
 Didn't you deny the reality of the two suspensions already 
 served on you : didn't you deny their validity ? Was there 
 ever anything so monstrous, my lord. A man to be con- 
 demned twice ! 
 
 Give your evidence like an ordinary man. There is no 
 necessity for this appeal to the Court. Answer my questions. 
 Didn't you deny the validity of the two suspensions? Of 
 course I did. 
 
 Didn't you receive a citation to go to the bishop's court 
 at Kilkenny ? I did. 
 
 Why didn't you go ? Didn't he condemn me twice. The 
 man had no authority to cite me. 
 
 What were the documents enclosed in this letter of Dr. 
 M'Donald to you ? There was a document I think from the 
 bishop directed to Dr. M'Donald, giving him authority to 
 inflict censures. 
 
 Here are the two documents that were inclosed in the 
 vicar-general's letter. You say he had no authority to issue 
 a citation ? He had no authority to issue a citation in this 
 case. 
 
 In any other case, he would, I suppose ? In ordinary 
 cases. 
 
 You have been talking of men being judges in their own 
 cause ; who was the authority to decide whether the vicar- 
 general, acting under the authority of the bishop, had power 
 to cite ? The canon law. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 153. 2 Supra, p. 154.
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 You are to decide it outside court, and not to appeal to 
 bishop, pope, or anybody else ? The canon law. 
 
 (Authority from Bishop Walsh to Dr. M'Donald, vicar- 
 general, dated Kilkenny, 25th October, 18 70, ' and the citation 
 from Dr. M'Donald, dated 16th November, 1870, 2 read.) 
 
 Now, sir, you had denied the validity of the previous 
 papers that you got, we will not call them suspensions at all, 
 why didn't you answer that citation if you wanted an ex- 
 planation to be heard? Why didn't T answer that cita- 
 tion? 
 
 Yes, why didn't you go ? why didn't you answer ? I did 
 answer. 
 
 Did you appear ? In ten days^ before the time for the 
 appearance I was served with a suspension. 
 
 Did you appear in obedience to that citation? No, I 
 made no appearance. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is this the authority, * We em- 
 power you in respect of all cases to adjudicate in criminal 
 cases ' ? That purposes to be the authority. 
 
 Was it sent to you ? It was sent to me. 
 
 What I understand is, that the previous papers were 
 sent in punishment of what was done. Therefore he was 
 punished first. You must explain that. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : He had been perhaps well advised 
 not to recognize these first papers. Now we have the 
 citation. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice to Witness : What do you mean by 
 that answer? I mean that before the day named for me to 
 appear at Kilkenny, the 19th December 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : He says the reason he did not appear 
 was because he was suspended in the meantime. 
 
 (Letter of the plaintiff, dated Callan, 20th November, 
 1870, to Dr. M'Donald, read.) 3 
 
 What were you going into retreat for? Going into 
 retreat because Cardinal Cullen gave me to understand 
 that if I went into retreat and made an apology, that a 
 happy issue would result. 
 
 That is by his letter? Cardinal Cullen's letter. He 
 recommended me. 
 
 Now, sir, does not that letter state your reason for not 
 
 1 Supra, p. 155. Supra, p. 154. * Supra, p. 155.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 273 
 
 appearing in answer to the citation? Did not that letter Cross- 
 amount to an absolute refusal ? I had not my mind made up e *^of" 
 at the time. At the same time it was not my intention to Father 
 
 . i ,. O'Keeffe. 
 
 take no notice. _ 
 
 Would you consider it reasonable on the part of Dr. 
 M'Donald to infer from the whole tone of that letter that 
 you would decline to appear on the citation ? Well, he 
 might, I think, reasonably infer it. 
 
 (Letter dated 10th December, 1870, from Dr. M'Donald 
 to plaintiff, read. 1 ) 
 
 You received that letter ? Yes. 
 
 (Letter from Bishop Walsh to plaintiff, dated llth 
 January, 1871, read. 2 ) 
 
 (Translation of suspension, dated llth January, 1871, 
 read. 3 ) You received that ? Yes. 
 
 And on a post-card, a half-penny post-card, open to the Father 
 world, you sent this answer back to the bishop ? ' Callan, 
 
 13th January, 1871. The Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe can hold no Walsh. 
 private correspondence with a man who was capable of 
 throwing his private and confidential letter on the table 
 of a public court'? Yes. 
 
 You compared your vicar-general to an ape, and your 
 own bishop to an ass, and charged him with all sorts of 
 delinquencies ; you wrote the letters that you did ; I ask you 
 now do you think you were fit to continue one hour a 
 priest in any church ; on your oath ? Do I consider I was 
 fit to continue a priest in any Christian church? Do I 
 consider I had done anything ? 
 
 Do you consider yourself fit to be a priest in any church 
 on earth ? I consider I did nothing wrong. 
 
 Do you consider yourself fit to be a priest for one hour in 
 any Christian church ? I consider that only a proper reply. 
 
 Do you think yourself, after what you have admitted, 
 worthy of being a priest for one hour, after having calum- 
 niated in your audacity by sending that post- card to the 
 bishop ? Do you consider yourself worthy of being a priest ? 
 Do you, sir ? It would be rather an unscriptural expression 
 to say 1 was worthy of being a priest, because, Serjeant, after 
 we have done all we ought to do, we are still useless servants, 
 
 1 Supra, p. 157. 2 Supra, p. 158. * Supra, p. 158. 
 
 T
 
 274 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Suspension 
 Ex Infor- 
 mata Con- 
 scientia. 
 
 Not appli- 
 cable to 
 a parish 
 priest. 
 
 Nature of 
 this sus- 
 pension. 
 
 Answer my question, sir. Do you consider yourself worthy 
 of remaining a priest for one hour ? I do. 
 
 That is an answer : now state your reason ? I do not 
 consider that I did say anything at all improper in sending 
 the answer that I did send to this ridiculous paper that 
 was served on me. I sent that answer. No one has a right 
 to say that he is worthy to be a priest, because even after we 
 have done all that we should have done, we are still useless 
 servants. 
 
 Do you think you are a disgrace to the priesthood ? 
 I do not. 
 
 That is an answer. Is this your opinion as what we will 
 assume you to be a canonist, as you said you are. Is it 
 your opinion as a canonist that a bishop has no power to 
 suspend a parish priest ex informata conscientia ? No. 
 
 What do you mean by no ? I give you the shortest 
 answer I can. 
 
 In your opinion a bishop has no power to suspend a 
 parish priest ex informata conscientia ? No power. 
 
 Can you give me any authority for that ? I can give you 
 the right authority the Church. 
 
 Read to me your authority for the position that a bishop 
 has no power of suspension ex informata conscientia over a 
 parish priest. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And before you do so, explain to 
 me what that means. What means { ex informata consci- 
 entia ? ' 
 
 What is it ? It is the censure that is resorted to in some 
 cases depriving a priest of the free exercise of his order and 
 of his office. It is not applicable to the case of a parish priest 
 at all. It can only deprive a priest of the exercise of his 
 order and his office, but it does not deprive a priest of the 
 exercise of the function of a parish priest, or deprive him of 
 his parish, and it is only applicable to the case of a class of 
 clergy who have taken vows of absolute, or what we call blind 
 obedience, to be guided in every particular by the will of their 
 superior. If the superior tells them to black his shoes, or 
 to do any menial office, it is their duty to do it. But the 
 secular clergy do not owe any such kind of obedience to that 
 superior, but only canonical obedience; and they do not 
 make vows giving up their own will as the regulars do, to be
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 275 
 
 guided by the arbitrary will of a superior. But with all Cross- 
 those clergy it is in force. 'Hflrf' 
 
 8erjeant Armstrong : ' Ex informata conscientia ' means the Father 
 bishop's informed conscience ? The informed conscience. 
 
 Of a bishop ? Not a bishop, of a superior. 
 
 Has a bishop any power at all to issue a suspension ex 
 informata conscientia ? Not in the case of the secular clergy. 
 If he be a superior of friars he can, under proper circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Show me your authority. I will. The fourth general Canon of 
 council of Lateran was held in Rome, and it was the most Q 0urth i 
 celebrated council ever held in the Latin Church. The canon Council of 
 of that council is expressed in the following terms. Lateran. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the number of this 
 article ? The eighth canon of this great council, the fourth 
 canon of Lateran. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Mention the name of the book ? 
 Dupin's New History of Ecclesiastical Writers, page 450, 
 second volume. The eighth canon regulates the process 
 which ought to be maintained in the accusation of ecclesias- As to pro- 
 tics. ' It is therein declared that it is not to be tolerated to ceec ! m f s 
 
 Jl^ftlllSu 
 
 accuse them lightly ; that they ought to be present when clergy. 
 they are informed against, unless they absent themselves out 
 of contumacy ; that they ought to be told the heads of the 
 informations against them, and to know their accusers, and to 
 be admitted to put in their replication and lawful exceptions.' 
 It is said that * there are three ways of proceeding against a 
 criminal, viz., by way of accusation, by denunciation, and by 
 imposition ; that the accusation ought to be ushered in 
 by the complaint of the accuser, the denunciation by a 
 charitable admonition, and the imposition by common report. 
 That yet it was not requisite to observe this method pre- 
 cisely with respect to regulars, and that one might divest 
 them of their office whenever it was expedient without 
 observing all these formalities.' 
 
 That is your authority ? There is no higher authority in 
 canon law. 
 
 What has that to do with the matter at all ? As I read it 
 certain forms may be dispensed with in the case of regulars." 
 
 Is there a word about ex informata conscientia ? Because
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Council of 
 Trent. 
 
 that is the form of proceeding that dispenses with these 
 formalities ; that is the form of proceeding to pronounce 
 guilt without giving a man a hearing ; that is the form for 
 persons who have made vows of absolute obedience. 
 
 Have you given me authority ? I have given you, I think, 
 that of the Church. I give you authority that the council of 
 Trent re-enacted. 
 
 You rely on the decree of the Lateran council as showing 
 that a bishop cannot suspend a parish priest ex informata 
 conscientia ? Without giving him a trial. 
 
 Is that your authority ? If you want other authorities I 
 will give them. The general council of Trent re-enacted 
 that canon. 
 
 Give me any other authority? The general council of 
 Trent says : c A person therefore ought to be present who is in- 
 formed against unless he absents himself through contempt.' 
 The same thing over and over again. 
 
 Then you rely on that as showing that the bishop cannot 
 suspend a parish priest ex informata conscientia ? I do. 
 
 Have you any other authority? Sure I have every 
 authority. 
 
 Have you any other authority in canon law ? Every 
 man that ever wrote on canon law. 
 
 Can you point out any other? Every man that ever 
 wrote on canon law. 
 
 Can't you refer to them ? * All judgments should com- 
 mence with a citation to a trial, and if that be omitted, there 
 is no force or authority in the judgment. For not only does 
 the civil law, but moreover natural justice, forbids any one to 
 be condemned who is not heard or defended.' l That does not 
 apply to regulars, for they give up their rights, but a parish 
 priest does not give up his rights. 
 
 From what is that ? From Cabassutius. * A sentence 
 passed against a person who is in no way cited, is null by 
 the law itself.' 2 
 
 Is there anything there treating of this class of suspen- 
 sion at all ? Don't you know there is not ? He is treating of 
 all suspensions. This is applicable to all suspensions, save 
 and except in the case of regulars, as I have read to you 
 
 1 Devoti : Institutiones Canonicae, Lib. iii., Tit. v. 
 
 2 Juris Canonici Theoria et Praxis (Cabassutius), Lib. v., cap. x., xix.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal Cullen. 277 
 
 from the general council of Lateran, that they can be sus- Cross- 
 pended without all these formalities, but the seculars cannot. ^ 1 "f " 
 There is nothing better established. Father 
 
 Then I understand you to say, that a citation must pre- 
 cede any judgment of suspension, except in the case of a 
 regular? Yes; it does not apply at all. Anything that 
 violates natural justice must be ineffectual. Natural justice 
 cannot be violated by anything. 
 
 If a parish priest is cited to attend his bishop's court, citation 
 and the citation apprised him of a charge made against him, necessary 
 and apprises him also that in his absence the charge will case of 
 be proceeded 011 and judgment given, and if he does not choose 
 to attend, is it contrary to natural justice to proceed against 
 him ? Do you put in whether the bishop is competent or not 
 to proceed? The bishop was not competent in my case. 
 It was a papal case in which he was proceeding, an excommu- t j on of 
 nication reserved to the Pope, and he should not have in- Bishop, 
 terfered in it at all without authority from the Pope. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is the offence alleged ? The 
 offence charged was that I took an action at law against an 
 ecclesiastic. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I am on the general doctrine of the 
 Church applicable to all cases. Assume the case of a 
 bishop who has jurisdiction over the subject matter, and 
 that his vicar- general, by his authority, cites a parish 
 priest for an alleged offence, and states that if he does 
 not attend and obey the citation by his presence, the case 
 will be pursued and judgment given in his absence. If 
 after all that intimation he does not appear, is there any- 
 thing contrary to natural justice in investigating the case, 
 and giving judgment against him? Certainly not, that 
 I can see. It is the proper way to proceed. Assuming that 
 the bishop is competent to hear the case, and that he 
 authorizes the vicar-general to hear and determine it, and 
 that the vicar-general issues a citation to the party con- 
 cerned, defining the offence, and citing him to appear and 
 defend himself before them, and stating further that if he 
 does not appear the case will be proceeded with in his 
 absence : then if he does not appear, I think the bishop or 
 vicar-general is competent to go into it, to examine witnesses 
 arid ascertain the degree of guilt.
 
 278 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Incom- 
 petency of 
 bishop. 
 
 Papal 
 jurisdic- 
 tion in 
 Ireland. 
 
 Extent of 
 the rule 
 against 
 suing ec- 
 clesiastics. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What do you say is reserved ? 
 He was not competent, my lord. 
 
 On what ground is it that he had no jurisdiction to do 
 these things ? Because he was interfering in the law of a 
 higher superior. If I did wrong in taking an action against 
 an ecclesiastic, it was because I violated the papal consti- 
 tution, and the crime of violating that papal constitution is 
 visited with excommunication reserved to the Pope. There- 
 fore the bishop, or inferior, has no right to entertain it. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Well then, the Pope would have 
 power to consider the matter ? Yes, exactly. 
 
 Would the Pope, according to the law of the Church, be 
 entitled to inquire into the matter if one ecclesiastic in 
 Ireland sues another ecclesiastic in Ireland for words spoken 
 by the latter defamation ? Would you allow me to correct 
 a mistake that has gone through all this proceeding ? The 
 other side talk of its being a rule ; it is not applicable to 
 ecclesiastics at all. 
 
 I know the whole world is wrong in your opinion, and 
 you will set it right. But listen to me. If in Ireland a 
 Roman Catholic priest sues another Roman Catholic priest 
 for defamatory words spoken about the plaintiff in his office 
 as priest, and touching his conversation as priest, and if the 
 man who has been defamed brings an action in a civil court 
 for words so spoken, is that a matter that the Pope would have 
 jurisdiction to inquire into according to the canon law? No, 
 not in Ireland, because the Pope's bull on that subject has 
 never been received in Ireland. 
 
 The Pope would have no power to consider that matter ? 
 -No. 
 
 Where, then, is the authority to do so in Ireland ? I 
 acknowledge the Pope 
 
 Mr. Pur cell objected. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The answer that I heard was, 
 that the bull in which the offence is supposed to be recited, 
 namely, that one ecclesiastic can never sue another, is not in 
 force in Ireland. He has said that already. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Would the Pope have power to decide 
 whether it was in force or not ? Well, I will give the expla- 
 nation now. There is no such rule in force anywhere as a 
 prohibition to an ecclesiastic to implead another in a court.
 
 Eev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 279 
 
 The general prohibition is for any one to do so. The other Cross- 
 side have been putting a wrong construction on this matter ^fj^of" 
 for purposes of their own. Father 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong objected. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think he has a right to state this. 
 
 Witness : Even the Court of Queen's Bench was led astray 
 by being taught to suppose that there was a rule in the 
 Catholic Church that one ecclesiastic was forbidden to mi- 
 plead another in a lay court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the rule ? The rule is, 
 that any one, priest or layman, Catholic or Protestant, Turk, 
 Jew, or Atheist; any one is forbidden by certain papal 
 constitutions any one at all is forbidden, under pain of ex- 
 communication, by certain papal constitutions, from charging 
 an ecclesiastic with crime before a lay tribunal. 
 
 You say it relates to crime ? To that only; charging him Rule for- 
 with crime, and it is not confined to ecclesiastics at all. blds an y 
 
 person to 
 
 The meaning of it is that he should be tried before an charge ec- 
 ecclesiastical tribunal, and any one as well as an ecclesiastic cl ? si astics 
 
 7 with crime. 
 
 would incur that penalty. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Does it prevail here? It does not prevail Ruienotin 
 
 here ; it never did. ? or f '" 
 
 ' . . Ireland. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong: You denied the bishop's jurisdic- 
 tion, because it was a matter reserved to the Pope ? Yes. 
 
 Didn't you tell me that you denied the bishop's jurisdic- 
 tion because the subject matter was one reserved for the 
 Pope ? Yes. 
 
 Was it reserved for the Pope ? Wherever the papal bull 
 was in force. 
 
 Was it because it was reserved for the Pope that you 
 declined ? That was one reason. 
 
 Then it was reserved for the Pope ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell objected. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I have taken down twice over 
 that it is so where those papal constitutions prevail. 
 Whether he is accurate or inaccurate, it is a matter for 
 inquiry whether such a papal constitution prevails here, 
 and whether if it does it is consonant with the law of 
 the land. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Do you deny the authority of the 
 Pope to decide on the propriety or impropriety, canonically
 
 280 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- speaking, of your conduct in suing the bishop ? I admit the 
 examma- p O p e h as universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. 
 Father Do you admit the authority of the Pope for spiritual 
 
 O'Keeffe. purposes, and to investigate and to decide on the propriety, 
 canonically speaking, of your conduct in suing the bishop ? 
 The Pope can sit for any matter. 
 
 Then you admit his authority to decide on that ? I do ; 
 he is my superior. 
 
 Power of Can he delegate by Act of Propaganda, through which 
 
 delegate ^ e speaks ? I believe you know the announcements of the 
 his powers. Pope are made by Propaganda? In some missionary coun- 
 tries, and also in Ireland, though it is not a missionary 
 church. We claim to be a national church. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I am sure you do. Propaganda is 
 free as to missionary countries. We, though not a missionary 
 country, are a poor country, and we are not charged for any 
 of our business done in Rome. 
 
 Do you admit the authority of the Pope to delegate to 
 ecclesiastics in this country the power of considering that 
 question ? Yes, certainly. 
 
 I am only speaking canonically, as amongst yourselves. 
 Oh, of course, I want nothing but the benefit of the laws of 
 my own Church. 
 
 If you paid that money to the nuns, I would be talking 
 to you ? I don't despair after all of your coming round, 
 Serjeant. 
 
 Oh, you love the whole world ? I think I have charity 
 for every man. 
 
 Was the condition of Callan amongst the people your 
 parishioners very frightful and scandalous, owing to these 
 dissensions ? Oh, the place was very much disturbed. 
 
 In the summer of 1871 ? Yes. 
 
 Was that a matter of public and general notoriety ? 
 Yes ; known all over the country. All over the world. 
 
 Rival mobs ? Yes, oh yes ; constant breaches of the peace. 
 
 Followed by summonses and cross-summonses at the 
 sessions ? Yes. 
 
 In May and June, 1871 ? Yes; constant quarrelling. 
 
 Some of Paul and some of Apollos? Yes. 
 
 Some of Cephas, and possibly very few of Christ. And 
 it came to that state of things ? It came to this state of
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keefe v. Cardinal Cullen. 281 
 
 things, that very few were free from sin. It was a very sad Cross- 
 
 II /> IT . . T j examina 
 
 state of things indeed. tion of 
 
 And in that sad state of things you received this letter Father 
 from the Cardinal. 
 
 (Letter from Cardinal Cullen to plaintiff, dated 16th July, 
 1871, read.) 1 
 
 I suppose you gave his Eminence credit for sincerity in 
 saying that the accounts which had reached him of dissensions 
 and disputes in Callan had afflicted him very much ? Oh, of 
 course. 
 
 Expressing his affliction at the news from Callan, and 
 begging to have a conference with you ? Yes. 
 
 Did you consider there was anything impossible in the 
 suggestion that he was in a position to attempt to restore 
 peace ? Certainly not. 
 
 Then, sir, I will read you your reply. 
 
 (Letter of plaintiff to Cardinal Cullen, dated 17th July, 
 1871, read.) 2 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : You say ' I have a heavy bill against 
 Dr. Walsh, which I sfiall certainly insist on being paid by 
 his lordship or somebody else ' did you mean that the 
 Cardinal was to pay that ? I mean the authority of the 
 diocese. 
 
 Who was the authority of the diocese ? The acting 
 authority of the diocese was Dr. M'Donald. 
 
 You commenced an action against him for the suspen- 
 sion ? Yes. 
 
 (Plaintiff's letter, dated 18th July, 1871, to Cardinal 
 Cullen, read.) 3 
 
 The tenor of your discourse and the order was as you 
 have written ? Yes, for my own protection. 
 
 All you wanted was to get the money and drop the law ? 
 I could not drop the law without getting the money, 
 because I should go to bankruptcy. 
 
 You wanted the money? I wanted to be saved from 
 bankruptcy. 
 
 You knew the bishop's mind was gone or going at the 
 time ? I didn't know, but there were rumours. 
 
 Didn't you know that he was losing his mind ? I con- 
 sidered that he was, partially. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 163. 2 Supra, p. 164. * Supra, p. 164.
 
 282 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- You spoke of the open and barefaced perjury of your 
 
 examiua- Brother-priest, Father Walsh ? Yes ; open and barefaced. 
 Father Do you swear now that Father Neary swore what you 
 
 j Keeffe. j^ye wr itten here? I heard him swear it. 
 
 Do they speak French well down there in Callan ? They 
 do ; they used it at the time. 
 
 Do they fight in French in the street whenever they have 
 rows ? My children never quarrel. 
 
 (Letter from Cardinal Cullen to plaintiff, dated 20th 
 July, 1871, read.) 1 
 
 You received that letter? Yes. 
 
 (Letter of plaintiff to Cardinal Cullen, dated 21st July, 
 1871, read.) 2 
 
 You heard it was said that those resorting to your minis- 
 tration committed sacrilege ? I did. 
 
 Who dinned language into the ears of the people, and 
 repeated it when questioned with an oath ? A priest sitting 
 in the confessional. 
 
 How do you know ? I was told it constantly. 
 
 You were told by penitents of what had passed between 
 them and the priest in the confessional ? I was. 
 
 Were you confessing them yourself at the time ? No. 
 
 Were you a witness to the priest being removed by 
 another priest from the street to his house ? It was proved 
 in this court. 
 
 Did you inform your congregation that the priest was in 
 a drunken state at the altar as in the street ? I didn't use 
 the word drunk, but I used the language I use there. 
 
 Did you mean under the influence of drink that he had 
 to be removed by another priest to his house, and did you 
 inform them from your own altar that he was in the same 
 state at his altar that he had been in the street ? I did. 
 
 And you thought that a proper thing to do ? I did. 
 
 Is it a part of your plan to run down your adversary ? 
 It was thrown upon me. It was a necessary thing for me to 
 expose the character of the persons that were assailing me. 
 I had no other means of defending myself. 
 
 And to inform the congregation ? Not to inform the con- 
 gregation. I had no other means of defending myself. I was 
 perfectly justified in adopting this in my necessary defence. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 166. 2 Supra, p. 167.
 
 R&v.< Robert O'Keelfe v. Cardinal Gullen. 283 
 
 Who was the priest that was under the influence of Cross- 
 drink '? That priest was the Eev. Patrick Neary. "STUf ~ 
 
 You swear that ? It was proved in this court by William Father 
 Henry Butler. O 'f!f e - 
 
 You did your best to degrade Neary to the public ? I 
 was justified in doing it. 
 
 What authority would the archbishop have to send 
 missionaries to Callan ? I thought he would take an interest. 
 
 What do you mean by ' send a commissioner ' ? I 
 thought he would send some person in a friendly way, if he 
 had any interest in religion. 
 
 Do you sincerely respect his Eminence ? I do. 
 
 After having deceived you about the nuns, and played a 
 double part, do you sincerely respect him? I sincerely 
 respect him. 
 
 You do, though he has deceived you ? And I would do 
 anything at all to gratify him that I could in honour ; but I 
 was not going to make a bankrupt of myself to gratify him 
 or anybody else. 
 
 Are you in earnest in saying that you sincerely respect 
 him? He entrapped me. 
 
 But still you sincerely respect his Eminence? I do 
 respect his Eminence. 
 
 And would do at his desire anything you could ? I would. 
 
 What was the impossibility ? The impossibility was to 
 forego six or seven hundred pounds which I could not afford. 
 
 The impossibility was asking you to come up and have a 
 conference ? I gave him to understand that I would come 
 up at great inconvenience on Friday if he wished. 
 
 Did you believe that lives would be lost at Callan if order 
 was not restored ? I did. 
 
 And was there any authority competent to deal with what 
 was going on at Callan if the time had come for it? Had it 
 come for its exercise ? Was there anything so monstrous as 
 law proceedings going on for years ? 
 
 Was there anything so monstrous as to hear you telling 
 the congregation from your altar that your curate was so 
 drunk that he could not read the gospel? I had no other 
 means of meeting this slander except by telling the people 
 that he was unworthy of belief, and showing his character ; 
 but I said nothing untrue about him or of anybody else.
 
 284 Court of Queen's Benvh (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Did you lodge a complaint with the bishop about him ? 
 
 "icm'of" Ok> ^ e was doing the bishop's work; he was his special 
 
 Father agent in the parish ; he was sent there specially to do that 
 
 O'Keeffe. i 
 
 business. 
 
 To do what business? To vilify ine in every shape and 
 form. 
 
 You swear that ? I do. 
 
 Who sent him there to do it ? Dr. Walsh. 
 
 When did he send him there to do it? He sent him 
 there in August, 1869. 
 
 I suppose you heard him give instructions to vilify you 
 in every way ? No. 
 
 You swear that your bishop sent a curate with instruc- 
 tions to vilify you, the parish priest, in every way ? I say 
 he sent him there for the purpose. 
 
 You swear that? There is no use in swearing it. 
 
 Are you not swearing it? It is a matter of belief; and 
 I am not stating that I heard it said, that I was present when 
 it was said, but he was sent for the purpose of vilifying me. 
 
 Did you inculcate this at the same time that you were 
 informing them that your curate was drunk ? I was obliged 
 to state those things, Serjeant. 
 
 On your oath, do you believe in your heart that Father 
 Neary was drunk on the altar with the sacrament in his 
 hand ? Did I believe it ? Of course I did. 
 
 Would you believe anything at all that could be said of 
 him ? I believe what I know to be a fact. 
 
 Do you know that to be a fact ? I had a man here in 
 court at the time to prove that he frequently saw him hold 
 up the Holy Sacrament in his hand, and swear that I was a 
 suspended priest, and it fell from his hand on two occasions. 
 Mr. Meredith would allow me to put him up. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : How long was this gentleman, 
 Mr. Neary, in the parish before he made his first speech 
 about you ? He was about ten days in the parish. It was 
 the first time he addressed my people in the parish chapel. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : And you had a fortnight before 
 addressed the people about what the bishop said to you. 
 Didn't you announce from the altar that on a future Sunday 
 you would make a statement to the congregation in reference 
 to what the bishop had said to you ? I said no such thing.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 285 
 
 You did not come up as a matter of fact to Dublin ? Cross- 
 The Cardinal did not ask me. Ton'of ~ 
 
 Now, Mr. O'Keeffe, we know you were in communication Father 
 
 /YTT ff 
 
 with Dr. M'Donald, and I will now just come to a letter ee e ' 
 which you addressed to him on the 8th of August, 1871. 1 
 (Counsel reads) : * My dear Doctor I promised you on Satur- 
 day that I would not again speak unfavourably of anyone in 
 public if a fresh attack were not made upon me.' I made 
 that promise. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' This attack has, however, been made, 
 and I think it will be necessary for me to bring Mr. Neary's 
 conduct before my congregation on Sunday next.' That 
 appears to be your habit, when anything annoyed you during 
 the week to address your congregation on Sunday about it ? 
 That has not been my habit. 
 
 But you have done it several times ? No. 
 
 Did you not do it several times ? When it was necessary 
 to defend myself, and to show that I was not guilty of improper 
 conduct that might be imputed to me, then in the discharge 
 of my duty I addressed my people upon the subject. 
 
 Were you annoyed at what he said, or not? Not annoyed. 
 
 You liked it ? I don't think I ever lost my temper. 
 
 You kept cool all through ? I acted with great delibera- 
 tion all through, and I never did anything I did not think 
 myself justified in doing. 
 
 You never committed a fault in your life ? I will not 
 say that. We are all sinners. 
 
 / 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' This attack has, however, been made, 
 and I think it will be necessary for me to bring Mr. Neary's 
 conduct before my congregation on Sunday next. On last 
 Sunday he was only prevented from entering my church at 
 twelve o'clock, in order to tear the vestments oft my shoulders, 
 by my clerk, who, anticipating his visit, adopted the precaution 
 of locking the outer gates.' I want to know your authority 
 for writing to the vicar-general that it was your clerk who 
 prevented Father Neary from entering the church to tear the 
 vestments off your shoulders ? My authority is the clerk. 
 
 What did he tell you? He told me that he had locked 
 the door against Father Neary. He saw Father Neary 
 coming up the street before mass commenced. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 174.
 
 286 
 
 Court of Queen's Bencli (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Is that what the clerk told you ? The clerk was usually 
 about the gate keeping order, and showing people to their 
 places in the church, and Father Neary, shortly before mass, 
 commenced to walk up the street, and went as far as the 
 poor-house. The clerk considered he was too early for 
 coming in. He thought that perhaps he was coming to tear 
 the vestments off me. 
 
 What put that in his head ? The clerk told me that. 
 
 When the clerk saw him go up as far as the workhouse, 
 and saw him turn back, he locked the gates; and when 
 Father Neary came he could not get in. He attempted to 
 get into the gates and could not, and then he went to a 
 house adjoining the church, and went out through it to a 
 yard backward, from "whence he could come by climbing over 
 a fence into the chapel yard, but he was prevented. 
 
 The clerk told you that he came to tear your vestments ? 
 If you wish to hear the clerk, he is summoned here by the 
 other side. 
 
 Did the clerk tell you that Father Neary's object was to 
 tear the vestments off your back ? Yes ; he told me that. 
 
 And you believed that ? I did. He told me that when 
 Father Neary came he had the gates locked against him. I 
 think he is in court. He was summoned by the other side 
 against me. 
 
 You adopted his view of Father Neary 's intention? I did. 
 
 Did you hear him say he heard that was Father Neary's 
 intention ? He did not tell me he said that. He said that 
 he was informed that Father Neary intended to come in and 
 take the vestments off my back, and as a precaution he 
 locked the outer gates ; and that after he had done so Father 
 Neary attempted to come in through the gate. 
 
 And you believed that? I saw no reason for disbe- 
 lieving it. 
 
 (Letter continued) : * There were more than 3,000 persons 
 in and around my church, and I firmly believe if he assaulted 
 me in their presence he would never leave the church alive. 
 He paraded the streets very late at night, escorted by a gang 
 of the very worst characters of the town, abusing me every- 
 where in the most violent manner.' What is the authority 
 for that? A great many people it is a public fact. 
 
 Who told you ? I don't know.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 287 
 
 You were in bed at the time, or at least not in the street? Cross- 
 Next morning I might hear it. "STof ~ 
 
 You did not see these things ? I can name people who Father 
 saw him. 
 
 (Letter continued] : ' It will give you an idea of the sort of 
 persons by whom he was accompanied, when I inform you 
 that the leader of the party was the notorious Fenian, 
 Heffernan Dunne, the former mock candidate for the county, 
 and a ruffian who was convicted three times of violent 
 assaults at the single sessions held here on the 6th ult.' 
 You knew that man ? I was in court. 
 
 A ruffian ? Yes, a notorious bad character. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' It is commonly believed here that 
 Father Neary was under the influence of drink from before 
 the time he read eleven o'clock mass in the Friary Chapel, 
 till he left the streets for the last time at one o'clock on 
 Monday morning.' What time would he be solemnizing 
 mass ? Eleven o'clock in the Friary Chapel. 
 
 And he was out till one o'clock on Monday morning? I 
 don't say continuously. 
 
 From eleven o'clock till one o'clock would be fourteen 
 hours. Do you believe he was under the influence of drink 
 for that time ? That is the common impression. 
 
 That he was under the influence of drink all that time ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And you believed all this ? I did. 
 
 (Counsel read reply of Dr. M'Donald, dated August llth, 
 1871.) ' 
 
 Then you received a letter on the 8th September, 1871, 
 from the Cardinal in reference to the approaching meeting 
 of the clergymen to elect a coadjutor-bishop or to recommend 
 him ? Yes. 
 
 Was the rescript of 1829 for regulating the proceeding? Rescript 
 For regulating the mode of proceeding in cases of recom- 
 mendation. 
 
 Was that by Propaganda ? Yes. 
 
 Were you bound to attend to that ? Yes ; it was a sort 
 of concordat between the Irish Church and Rome. 
 
 (Counsel read letter of Cardinal Cullen, dated 8th Sep- 
 tember, 1871.) 2 
 
 1 Supra, p. 176. * Supra, p. 176.
 
 288 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Now he suggested in that letter the likelihood of a 
 question arising as to your being entitled to vote while 
 being under censure ? Yes. 
 
 Now I will read your answer. 
 
 (Counsel read letter of 10th September, 1871.) J 
 
 You also wrote to the vicar-general, and I will read your 
 letter as showing the condition of things on your own 
 statement. (Letter read) : ' Callan, 8th September, 1871. 2 
 There were eighty cases for trial at the sessions here on 
 yesterday, and the Court (four justices) sat from eleven to 
 half-past seven o'clock.' Were those all arising out of 
 this ? No, not at all. 
 
 What were they ? They were chiefly arising from colli- 
 sions. 
 
 From the religious feuds ? Yes, between the parties. 
 
 (Letter continued) : 'About seventy of these cases were 
 for assaults and battery by the adherents of the rival P.P.'s 
 of the town.' Who were the rival P.P.'s ? The Eev. Mr. 
 Walsh was one and 1 the other. 
 
 Was he a P.P. ? He called himself that. 
 
 Was that the curate ? Yes, the curate, the Eev. Mr. 
 Walsh. 
 
 Was he a P.P. ? I don't think he was. 
 
 Don't you see you call him that? If he chooses to 
 take it. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ( Eighteen men and women were sent 
 into the Kilkenny jail at ten o'clock last night, and about 
 fifty others were either fined or imprisoned here for forty- 
 eight hours. Warrants were issued against three men whose 
 assaults were of a murderous character. More than 200 per- 
 sons were summoned to the court, and in my own presence 
 very many of them committed the reserved sin of perjurium 
 formale.' What is that? That is a reserved sin in the 
 diocese of Ossory. 
 
 What sort of perjury is that ? Wilful perjury in a court 
 of justice. That is reserved sin in a court of justice. That 
 is a sin for which the party must refer to the Ordinary of 
 the diocese. I could not deal with such a case. 
 
 These were all your own flock ? They ought to be my 
 own people. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 177. 2 Supra, p. 178.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal Cullen. 289 
 
 People of your own congregation ? Many do not ac- Cross- 
 knowledge me. examina- 
 tion of 
 
 (Letter continued) : f The J.P. who presided declared more Father 
 than once that the state of things revealed in Court was too 
 barbarous, he thought, to exist in any civilized community, 
 yet Callan was as peaceful as most other places until an 
 opposition P.P. set himself up in the Friary Chapel and 
 denounced the lawful pastor as a follower of Martin Luther.' 
 Who is the opposition P.P. ? The Kev. John Walsh. 
 
 Were you present when he denounced you as a follower 
 of Martin Luther ? No. 
 
 Who told you that ? I heard it often. I was constantly 
 denounced, 
 
 Who told you that ? Oh, a hundred people. 
 
 I will he satisfied with the name of one ? He was con- 
 stantly denouncing me. 
 
 Tell the name of one. Well, Councillor Heron in this 
 Court represented me as Martin Luther in a court of 
 justice. 
 
 That is not the point. Who told you that Father Walsh 
 denounced you as a follower of Martin Luther ? It is im- 
 possible for me to say. 
 
 You cannot name any person who told you? No, I 
 cannot indeed. 
 
 Except Mr. Heron ? Mr. Heron called me by that name. 
 
 Don't you think that a clever thing now ? What harm 
 in saying it ? 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' I am promised redress by the Poor 
 Law Commissioners for the ill-treatment I have received in 
 the workhouse at the instigation of my rival ; and at the 
 sworn investigation which I expect will shortly be held here.' 
 Did you ask for an investigation ? I did. 
 
 You have every sort of law ? I did not ask for an inves- 
 tigation, but I made reports that I thought would lead to an 
 investigation. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' And at the sworn investigation which 
 I expect will shortly be held here, I am prepared to give 
 evidence of language used by him to persons en their sick 
 bed which will bring disgrace on the Church which has met 
 with the misfortune of having him for one of her ministers.' 
 That is Mr. Walsh ? Yes. 
 
 u
 
 290 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- ' In view of this state of things, which is growing every 
 ^ioTof ^ a y worse > I f ee l called upon to withdraw, unless the Eev. 
 Father Messrs. Walsh and Neary be immediately taken away from 
 f e- Callan, the letter which I wrote to Cardinal Culleii on the 
 27th July, expressing my intention to abandon law proceed- 
 ings against yourself and Father Neary.' That means, if 
 you don't send away the two curates I will go on with the 
 law ? Yes, that I will go on with the law for my own pro- 
 tection, not for any other purpose. 
 
 Now on the 24th September you addressed Cardinal 
 Cullen, not in answer to any letter of his Eminence to you, 
 but you volunteered to write to him ? Yes, about the state 
 of the parish. 
 
 He had ceased correspondence with you at the time ? I 
 received no letter at that time. 
 
 And you had not for a length of time ? No. 
 
 Your letter commences, 1 ' My Lord Cardinal, The oppo- 
 sition P. P. here published stations this morning for the 
 people of Newtown to be held in the Friary Chapel next 
 week/ Now you call him the opposition P.P. Do you mean 
 to admit him as that ? I do not. 
 
 Do you mean to regard the superscription of the P.P. 
 as an admission of it ? No, I do not. 
 
 You ha,ve called this very man an opposition P.P. 
 They are words of courtesy ? No, I don't say that. 
 
 (Letter continued] : ' Only one householder was absent 
 from these stations last March, and I expect as good an 
 attendance this time. This opposition is therefore a source 
 of profit to me.' So you were making money by it ? At 
 that time I was. 
 
 It was afterwards you began to lose ? Chiefly from the 
 missions sent from Dublin to preach up my suspension. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ( but still I feel called upon to make 
 known to your Eminence its continuance, and to demand 
 respectfully that you will have it put an end to. I make a 
 formal demand on your Eminence for the removal of the Rev. 
 Messrs. Walsh and Neary from Callan on the grounds of 
 their having denounced me as having incurred censure, 
 without any authority, written or otherwise, from the Ordi- 
 nary of the diocese.' Wha.t power had his Eminence, who 
 
 1 Supra, p. 180.
 
 Rev. Robert O^Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 291 
 
 was not the bishop, to remove the curates ? What letter is Croes- 
 
 ,1 . n exMnina- 
 
 that ? tion of 
 
 The 24th September, 1871 . What power had he to remove Father 
 the curates ? I was told by Dr. M'Donald that he could not 
 interfere with Callan, as it was all in the hands of his Emi- 
 nence. He told me at the retreat in the previous July that all 
 power was out of his hands. I asked him in a friendly way to 
 remove the curates, and he said he could not, as all power was 
 taken from his hands, and I then asked Cardinal Cullen to 
 do it. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' That these clergymen denounced me 
 is a notorious fact, and that they had any authority to do so 
 is denied in writing by Dr. M'Donald.' Is that his letter? 
 It is in his pleas in the action. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' They have clearly therefore acted in 
 open violation of the statutes of Thurles (De parochis, Nos. 
 18 and 19), and on this ground alone I found my demand for 
 their removal. I have drawn up a statement of my case as far 
 as I am concerned with the authorities of the diocese, and I 
 think I have made it out in such a way as must satisfy any 
 theologian or canonist, that I have not incurred suspension 
 or any other censure before God or man. I will send this 
 statement to your Eminence whenever you require it, but I 
 must look upon the removal of the Rev. Messrs. Walsh 
 and Neary from Callan, on the grounds stated, as preliminary 
 to any inquiry into my conduct, or the validity of the 
 censures passed on me.' Now I ask you, weren't you willing 
 to have the question of the validity of the censure passed 
 upon you inquired into, provided Walsh and Neary were 
 removed? I was always desirous that the validity of the 
 censure should be inquired into, and I pressed on Cardinal 
 Cullen to do his duty when he undertook to preside at Kil- 
 kenny, and to inquire into the question. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What was the date of the 
 meeting in Kilkenny ? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : The 10th September, 1871. We have 
 passed that. (To witness) : Now don't you admit that pro- 
 vided the curates were removed you were anxious for a,n 
 inquiry into the validity of the censure? I was most 
 desirous for it. I was always in an extremely unpleasant 
 position, most naturally. 
 
 u 2
 
 292 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Here is the Cardinal's answer, dated 2nd October, 1871 ; 1 
 that was not long after the 19th September ? It was too long. 
 
 I suppose you will admit he has a great deal of public 
 business to attend to? It was too long. An hour would be 
 too long to leave me in the position I was in. 
 
 Here is his letter : 
 
 ' REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, As I mentioned in a former letter, I 
 have been charged to examine into the parish of Callan and to put an 
 end to the evils therein prevailing. The Holy See has given most 
 ample powers in the case, but I am anxious not to be placed under 
 the necessity of using them.' 
 
 What did you understand by ' the Holy See giving most 
 ample powers ' to the Cardinal ? I do not know. 
 
 You understand the meaning of plain English. Didn't 
 you understand he had derived the authority he had 
 stated ? Did you believe the statement ? I did not know 
 what to make of it. 
 
 Did you believe it? I did not like it. 
 
 I am sure of that. Did you believe it or did you think 
 he was deceiving you? I did not know what to think 
 of it. 
 
 ' The Holy See has given me most ample powers in the 
 case ; but I am anxious not to be placed under the necessity 
 of using them.' On your oath, what did you understand by 
 that ? The Holy See ? I do not know. 
 
 Did you believe the statement ? I did not know what to 
 think of it. 
 
 Did you believe the statement that the Holy See had 
 given him most ample powers in the case that is, the case 
 you were so anxious to have discussed and disposed of? Of 
 course I supposed the Cardinal 
 
 Did you believe the statement ? I supposed the Cardinal 
 was writing the truth ; of course I supposed that. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' Hence I would wish to have a conference with 
 you on the matter. If you come up on Friday I can be at home that 
 day at one o'clock, P.M. If you prefer any other day, I can suit 
 myself to your convenience. If Friday suit you, be so good as to 
 write me a line. Wishing you every happiness, 
 
 ' I remain yours faithfully, 
 
 ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN: 
 
 <upra, 
 
 180.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 293 
 
 Now, sir, I ask you upon your oath, didn't you collect and Cross- 
 understand from that letter that he had got power from the e *j i 1 "f " 
 Holy See to investigate the case ? No, I cannot say that. Father 
 He got some power, and I don't know what the nature and 
 extent of it was. 
 
 If he got power, from what authority did you think? 
 From the Holy See. Of course I took his word. 
 
 Now on the 4th Oct., having received that letter, you 
 replied thus : 
 
 (Counsel read letter 4th Oct.) 1 
 
 At that meeting of the clergy the fact of your being 
 under censure was openly stated ? Yes ; the Cardinal said 
 he considered 
 
 Didn't he say there was a prima facie case against you? 
 - He said he should consider me prima facie under censure, 
 and that therefore he could not receive my vote, as he had 
 not time to go into an investigation of the matter. 
 
 Didn't he say you had lodged no appeal, and that he 
 should treat the case as such until the reverse was proved ? 
 He asked was there an appeal, and I said no. What he 
 said was that he should look upon me as prima facie sus- 
 pended, and I told him 
 
 Didn't he ask if there was an appeal? Yes. 
 
 Didn't he say, ' I must regard it in that case as judg- 
 ment ' ? There could be no appeal from a lawless sentence. 
 
 You are a judge of the lawlessness? (Letter read) : 'I 
 have lately submitted my defence to some of the oldest 
 divines in the Irish Church, and I am assured by them that it 
 is irrefragable. For myself personally, I care not how soon 
 or how late authority may decide the question at issue be- 
 tween Dr. M'Donald and me ; but I desire from my heart to 
 see peace restored to my unhappy parishionei'S, and to live in 
 charity with all mankind.' Of course you will include Messrs. 
 Walsh and Neary ? Yes. 
 
 Although Mr. Walsh was drunk ? Yes ; I never had ill- 
 feeling towards either of them. 
 
 You say, ' To secure this result immediately and perfectly, 
 nothing is required but the removal of the Rev. Messrs. 
 Walsh and Neary from Callan.' Now there is your own 
 announcement that nothing more was necessary to satisfy 
 
 1 Supra, p. 181.
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 you, and you did not require any inquiry into censures? 
 Nothing was required to restore peace except their removal. 
 
 You gave up the nuns again? The nuns had nothing to 
 do with the peace of Callan. 
 
 Then you say (reading] : ' P.S. I hold over this letter till 
 to-morrow, in order that I may send with it a copy of the letter 
 I shall then write to Dr. M'Donald.' Now you wrote next day 
 to Dr. McDonald, and you deferred despatching that letter 
 on the 4th, till you would send one to the Cardinal, which 
 you did. I will read the one to Dr. M'Donald * ' My dear 
 Doctor, The Kev. Messrs. Walsh and Neary have in con- 
 nection with the publication of opposition stations, resumed 
 their denunciations of me in the Kells and Friary Chapels, 
 and they allege for their conduct directions from the bishop. 
 1 could not believe that the governing authority in the 
 diocese would authorise this proceeding, only that I find 
 that a marriage was celebrated in the Friary Chapel on 
 Tuesday, after one publication of banns. Under these cir- 
 cumstances I have had a new summons taken out for Father 
 Neary 's assault on my bailiff, but he has evaded service, and 
 I am unable to bring him up before the court on this day.' 
 Because he was guilty of some irregularity, in your mind, 
 you summoned him for an assault on the bailiff? Because 
 he assaulted the bailiff I summoned him and convicted him. 
 
 You say that a marriage was celebrated in the Friary 
 Chapel 011 Tuesday, after one publication of banns ? Yes ; 
 I saw by that, that the bishop was supporting him, because 
 they could not celebrate the marriage without permission 
 from the bishop, unless the banns were published three 
 times, and I inferred from that very naturally of course, and 
 very properly that the bishop or vicar-general was sup- 
 porting them in their denunciation of me. 
 
 And you issued a summons 'against him for beating the 
 bailiff? For my own protection. 
 
 (Letter continued): 'The Newtowii stations are ended, 
 and out of seventy householders only six have come in to 
 the opposition stations.' Now, here, on the 5th October, 
 1871, you say out of the seventy householders only six had 
 abandoned you at that time ? I told you it was since the 
 mission 1 was overpowered. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 181.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 295 
 
 (Letter continued] : ' The Coolagh people, wibh two or Cross- 
 three exceptions, will all attend my stations, and with the e tf of " 
 exception of some thirty families, all the townspeople will Father 
 
 come to me. On every Sunday and holiday I address at ' 
 
 both masses certainly four thousand people. Will you then 
 ask yourself cui bono the rival altar and confessional? If 
 you had denounced me, &c.' What do you mean by de- 
 nounced? I mean caiionically denounced. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Explain that. When a priest, suppose, is 
 tried, convicted, properly and rightly before a competent 
 judge when he is tried and convicted, and suspended by 
 reason of his crime, the suspension is the sentence pro- 
 nounced by the judge. Now, all that having been done, no 
 one of his subjects, no one of his people, is still warranted in 
 withdrawing from him, or refusing his spiritual minis- 
 trations. Any one that, on pretence of a censure having 
 been passed upon him in that way, would withdraw from 
 his spiritual ministrations, as if he were suspended and un- 
 able to administer, would commit a grievous sin until the 
 sentence is canonically promulgated to his people. 
 
 That is by denunciation? By promulgation or de- 
 nunciation, and then they are bound to withdraw, but not 
 till then. They commit a sin if they withdraw until that 
 is done, and that by decree of Martin V. in the Council of 
 Constance. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong (reading letter) : You say, ' You have 
 been those two years violating my rights in many particu- 
 lars. During all this time you have given permission, with- 
 out any reference to me, to the Rev. Messrs. Walsh and 
 Neary to leave this parish as often and as long as they liked, 
 in open violation of the statutes of the diocese.' How do 
 you know he gave that permission ? Father Neary boasted 
 frequently that he could get it. 
 
 Did you ever hear him say anything of the sort ? I was 
 not in the habit of talking with him. I know he did it. 
 
 That is hearsay. You further write (Letter continued) : 
 ' In open opposition to the General Council of Lateran you 
 have led people to think that they are not bound to receive 
 Paschal communion from their own priest, and in open viola- ciandes- 
 tioii of the Council of Trent you have authorised clandestine tine . 
 
 ,__, i -i j -I -i i marriages. 
 
 marriages. What clandestine marriages did he authorise?
 
 296 . Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- He authorised marriages to be celebrated without the 
 Tion'of " Presence of the solemnising witness for the celebration. 
 Father Is that yourself? Not myself alone. The essential 
 
 witnesses where the Council of Trent is received are the 
 parish priest and two witnesses, or the two witnesses with 
 some priest deputed by the parish priest. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is for the purpose of pre- 
 venting irregular marriages by strolling friars? Yes, my lord. 
 
 Therefore that they should be witnessed by the parish 
 priest ? Yes ; or some priest deputed by him, and two 
 witnesses. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Because marriages were allowed by 
 somebody else and not by you, they were clandestine ? Yes ; 
 just so. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' Any well-read theologian can inform 
 you that you have just the same right to do these things as to 
 
 collect the dues of my parish The number of 
 
 cases at sessions to-day exceeded fifty ; and they would have 
 been many more, only that the magistrates have declined to 
 take fines from persons convicted of " religious quarrels." 
 Did the magistrates call them religious quarrels ? No. 
 
 Where did you get the quotation? They were so called. 
 The people thought they were fighting for their religion. 
 
 That state of things, you admit, was horrible in Callan ? 
 It was horrible. 
 
 And desirable by any just means to be put an end to ? 
 Yes. 
 
 (Counsel read Cardinal Cullen's letter of 21st Oct., 1871 ; > 
 also the reply of the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe, of 22ud Oct. 2 ) 
 
 Now coupling those with his Eminence's letter of the 
 2nd Oct., in which he announced to you that the Holy See 
 had given him ample power in the case, I ask, coupling 
 that with the intention of sending a citation, didn't you 
 know and believe he was deputed by the Holy See to inquire 
 into the Avhole matter? I did not like his talk of the 
 citation. 
 
 Didn't you believe he was deputed by the Holy See to in- 
 vestigate the matter? I really do not know the authority 
 he had from the Holy See ; I knew he had some authority. 
 
 Did you know he had authority from the Holy See ? I 
 
 ' Supra, p. 183. - Supra, p. 181.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kce/e v. Cardinal (fallen. 297 
 
 knew he had authority from Rome to declare whether the Cross- 
 censures were ffood or bad, and I was most anxious he e ^ mi "a- 
 
 7 tion of 
 
 should declare they were either good or bad. I demanded Father 
 that he would declare them bad, as I knew they were, and 
 I was grieved that he would not. 
 
 You did not like to listen to the talk ? I did not like 
 the talk of the citation. 
 
 You knew that that would be regular? If he sent a 
 citation I would not go to him. That is the reason I said I 
 would be very happy to see him. 
 
 Had you a stone in your sleeve all the time about getting 
 the citation ? I had no stone in my sleeve. 
 
 Wasn't that your point ? I had no stone in my sleeve. 
 
 You say if he had served you with a citation you would 
 not have gone? I would not like to be caught a second 
 time in a trap. 
 
 You had the stone in your sleeve, and you would present 
 yourself before him ? I wrote to show him it was my desire, 
 and that I was anxious to have decided what he was em- 
 powered to decide, and also to propose that he should not 
 send me a citation., because if he did I would not go. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Why ? That would be an ac- 
 knowledgment that he had jurisdiction over me.. I never 
 acknowledged he had jurisdiction over me, but I acknow- 
 ledged that hehad a right todecide that the censureswere bad. 
 
 Then you went to a sort of conference ? I went to a sort 
 of conference, desirous that he would denounce them bad, in 
 virtue of the power he got in Kilkenny, and which he did 
 not exercise, and which I complained of. 
 
 Now, at the election in Kilkenny, was that paper read by Confer- 
 any person that authority ? There was a paper read in ^t. 8 ^ 
 virtue of which Cardinal Cullen was appointed to preside at 
 the election, but there was no paper in reference to me. 
 
 None at all ? No ; not at all. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : That is a common fact in the case, 
 my lord. (To witness) : Now, sir, listen to me ; you went 
 innocently there, not knowing what you were about, and 
 would like to know how it happened. Here is the Cardinal's 
 letter. 1 After stating his intention of sending a regular 
 citation, the second paragraph is this ' I will examine 
 
 1 Supra, p. 183.
 
 298 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'KetfFe. 
 
 Witness 
 denies that 
 he knew 
 of Papal 
 Rescript. 
 
 whether you have incurred suspension or excommunication, 
 either ab homine or a lege, or canone, whether you have in- 
 curred irregularity.' Would not that be disobedience if a 
 censure was properly passed ? That would be one way. 
 
 (Letter continued) : ' and whether any or what penalty is 
 to be inflicted on you for having neglected those censures or 
 ecclesiastical penalties, if you have done so.' Didn't that dis- 
 tinctly apprise you that he would inquire into the validity of 
 the prior censures, and whether you were guilty of irregularity 
 in disobeying them, and whether he should impose a penalty 
 upon you ? What I say is, that if he sent a citation along 
 with that letter I would not obey it. But T went up in order 
 that he might decide that the censures inflicted upon me 
 were bad ; and I well knew he had power so far from the 
 Holy See. But not under any circumstances did I mean to 
 acknowledge he had jurisdiction over me, except to the extent 
 I name. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When you say ' the jurisdiction 
 named,' is that the jurisdiction he clearly had to hold the 
 inquiry, and to proceed to the election in Kilkenny ? I don't 
 consider that jurisdiction. I mean authority to try or judge 
 me or entertain complaints. I would not admit that juris- 
 diction over me, but I would acknowledge he had a right to 
 say that, in connection with the authority to conduct the 
 election at Kilkenny. But I never dreamt he had any other 
 power relating to me at all until months after the writ was 
 executed. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Didn't you understand by his letter 
 what he proposed to examine whether you had incurred 
 suspension or excommunication ; ' whether you incurred ir- 
 regularity, and whether any or what penalty is to be inflicted 
 on you for having neglected those censures or ecclesiastical 
 penalties if you have done so.' Didn't you understand him 
 there to be assuming or asserting a jurisdiction to consider 
 whether you were guilty of irregularity, and to punish you if 
 he thought you were? He was assuming more than I 
 thought he was entitled to assume, but I did not want to get 
 into any controversy with him as to the nature of the power 
 he had, and I wished to keep clear of a citation, for as I said, 
 if after that letter he had sent me a citation, 1 would not feel 
 wan-anted in going to him in answer to such citation.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 299 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Tell ine why ? Because people Cross- 
 might say this : You complain you got no trial, you say 
 this ecclesiastic had no jurisdiction. Weren't you cited, and Father 
 didn't you answer the summons ? And people would say it 
 is too late now to show he had no jurisdiction. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Didn't you keep that as a stone in 
 your sleeve, ' Don't send ine a citation.' And weren't you con- 
 templating the controversy, though you did not want to be 
 cited ? I had no controversy. 
 
 By your oath, in the presence of God, when you wrote 
 that letter to the Cardinal dispensing with the citation, weren't 
 you planning that you should not have a citation ? I did 
 not dispense with a citation. 
 
 You did ? I dispense with it ! What do you mean, 
 Serjeant? 
 
 How innocent you are ! I could not dispense with it. 
 
 Listen to this l My Lord Cardinal, I shall be happy to 
 present m^ self before your Eminence on Friday, and, to save 
 your Eminence's valuable time as far as I can, I send you my 
 defence.' 1 What is the Cardinal's answer? Here is the 
 answer the next day 2 ' As you have shown such willingness 
 to come up on Friday next, I have not considered it necessary 
 to send you a formal document.' Now didn't you waive the 
 necessity of it? I did not. But when I found that he was 
 not bringing me up on Friday by a citation, then I went. 
 But if he were attempting to bring me up on Friday on a 
 citation I would not go an inch. I was not bound to ac- 
 knowledge any. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is onlj just to the case of both 
 parties to say that the Cardinal himself in a letter says that 
 before using any powers, and not wishing to use them, he- 
 would wish to have a conference. 3 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I have come on for nineteen days- 
 past that letter. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think that a letter of such im- 
 portance as to say ' I don't wish to put my powers in force 
 against you, but I wish to have a conference ' seems to point 
 to something different from a controversy. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I will have the case understood. 
 On the 2nd October, his Eminence wrote : ' As I mentioned 
 
 1 Supra, p. 181. 2 Supra, p. 185. 3 Supra, p. 181.
 
 300 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 in a former letter, I have been charged to examine into the 
 condition of the parish of Callan, and to put an end to the 
 evils therein prevailing. The Holy See has given me most 
 ample powers in the case, but I am anxious not to be placed 
 under the necessity of using them. Hence I would wish to 
 have a conference with you on the matter. If you could 
 come up on Friday, I can be at home that day at one o'clock 
 P.M. If you prefer any other day, I can suit myself to your 
 convenience.' * As his lordship says, that suggests a confer- 
 ence and not a controversy. But then, sir, you wrote on the 
 4th of October, 2 ' I have the honour to acknowledge the 
 receipt of your favour of the 2nd inst., and to say in reply 
 that it is impossible for me to recede from the terms of my 
 letter to your Eminence dated the 24th ultimo.' That was 
 as a condition precedent to any conference. Now on the 
 21st October, nineteen days afterwards, the Cardinal writes 
 to you, ' My dear Father O'Keeffe As it is necessary to settle 
 the affairs of Callan, I have determined to send you a regular 
 ecclesiastical citation.' 3 Did you understand that it was to 
 be a mere conference ? I wanted to keep clear of a citation. 
 
 Do you understand it to be a mere conference ? I under- 
 stood him to be assuming more authority or control or power 
 over me than I was willing to admit, and therefore I did not 
 think it meant the mere conference I wanted to keep it to 
 
 To keep it to ? To keep it to a mere conference. 
 
 Did you not intend to leave the Cardinal under the im- 
 pression that you were yielding without a citation ? I did not 
 mean to convey anything. 
 
 Answer me. Did you not intend to leave the Cardinal 
 under the idea that you were willing to have the case investi- 
 gated ecclesiastically ; on your oath did you not intend to 
 leave him under that impression ? I did not intend to leave 
 the Cardinal under any other impression except this, that I 
 would go up to meet him to confer with him for the purpose 
 of giving him any explanations that he might require, in 
 order that he might declare the censures to be invalid, as he 
 said he had not time to do it on the occasion of the meeting 
 in Kilkenny. 
 
 You were informed fully of the subject matter on which 
 he proposed to hold the meeting to inquire whether you were 
 1 Supra, p 180. * Supra, p. 181. * Supra, p. 183.
 
 Rev. Robert O^Keeffe v. Cardinal Oullen. 301 
 
 guilty of irregularity in disregarding past censures, and Cross- 
 whether, if he found you to be so, he would inflict any tfcn of* 
 penalties on you ? That was the object. Father 
 
 It is too plain for argument. Your answer is here ; you 
 
 took no exception to his jurisdiction ? No, because 
 
 You did not suggest that he was assuming too much ? 
 No, for he did not state to rne what his jurisdiction was. 
 
 You told us already you knew he had authority from the 
 Holy See ? Oh, authority from the Holy See to declare the 
 censures invalid. 
 
 If he had decided in your favour, would you have accepted 
 his decision ? If he decided where ? 
 
 In Eccles Street, on the 2 7th of October. Would you have 
 accepted his decision if it was not you who had been guilty of 
 impropriety? Of course; but there was no question of im- 
 propriety at all. 
 
 Would you not have accepted his decision if it was in 
 your favour ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : On what ? 
 
 Witness: On what? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : On the question of whether you were 
 guilty of the canonical offence of disobedience to the orders 
 of the bishop in celebrating mass and so forth after you 
 were suspended? Guilty of what? 
 
 After what you don't admit to be suspensions, and which 
 I will call ' suspensions ' merely for the purpose of identi- 
 fying the documents, did you not proceed to celebrate mass ? 
 Of course I did. 
 
 And baptize children ? I did. 
 
 And discharge all the duties of a parochial clergyman ? 
 All the ordinary duties of a parish priest. 
 
 If he had decided that you were justified in doing all 
 that, would you not have been satisfied with his decision ? I 
 would of course, and I say he was bound to decide it, and to 
 decide it before the election held in Kilkenny, for when he 
 undertook the duty of presiding at the election, it was part 
 of his duty to inquire before the election, and ascertain 
 whether any of the parties who ordinarily had the right to 
 give their votes were disqualified or not. And I gave him 
 ten days' notice that I was prepared to show I was not dis- 
 qualified.
 
 302 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O Keeffe. 
 
 Denial 
 of the 
 Cardinal's 
 jurisdic- 
 tion. 
 
 You are very clear in answering everything bnt what yon 
 are asked. Listen to your letter of the 22nd October, 1871. 
 
 (Letter of October 22nd, 1871, read.) ' 
 
 On your oath, did you not intend to convey by that letter 
 that you did not require a citation ? I did not, but I will 
 tell you what I meant. 
 
 You are at liberty to tell that too ? I meant to show 
 such a desire to go before him, as that no citation should be 
 sent. I said not. I was quite willing to go before him, but 
 had he written a citation he should specify his commission, 
 and specify the nature of the offence with which I was 
 charged, and if he sent me a citation of that kind I would 
 not acknowledge his jurisdiction at all. I would disregard it. 
 
 You had all that in your mind at the time ? I had this 
 in my mind, that I did not want to go near him, being afraid 
 of a citation, for people would say if I did, I acknowledged 
 his jurisdiction. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Would you not acknowledge his 
 jurisdiction, supposing he had sent you a citation containing 
 a statement of the offence, supposing there was something of 
 a canonical offence ; and if he had set out his commission 
 from the Pope to inquire into that, and if it was a matter 
 the Pope had authority to give him a commission to inquire 
 into ? If that was the purport of the citation, what then 
 would you have done? I would object to his jurisdiction. 
 
 Why ? As being a person who was not proper to be ap- 
 pointed judge. 
 
 Why so ? Inasmuch as he had condemned me without 
 a hearing, and inasmuch as I had good reason to know he 
 was my accuser in E-ome, and the accuser is certainly not 
 the man to be appointed the judge by the canon law or any 
 other law. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : When you went before him at his 
 house, did you tell him your suspicions, and that you re- 
 garded him as your accuser? I did not do any such thing. 
 
 You had that in your sleeve also ? I had nothing in my 
 sleeve. I had no secrets at all. 
 
 Did you not regard him at that time as your accuser ? 
 I never had any secrets in the whole of this case from any 
 one ; not from my own people, or any one. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 184.
 
 Rev. Robert O^Keeffe v. Cardinal C alien. 303 
 
 When yon went to his house, did you think he had been Cross- 
 your accuser ? had you. that in your mind also ? It was after e ^ ) 1 "f " 
 leaving the house that I got fresh information upon the sub- Father 
 ject. '^l ffe - 
 
 Had you it in your mind at the time you went to his 
 house, Mr. O'Keeffe, that he had been your accuser ? I had 
 this in my mind, that he had condemned me without a hearing. 
 
 What was the condemnation ? Not to receive my vote. 
 
 That was condemning you telling you he could not re- Refusing 
 ceive the vote at the time ; that he could not investigate the vot< ? . 
 
 equivalent 
 
 matter at the time? Yes ; that was equivalent to a declara- to con- 
 tioii that I was validly suspended, and I had the highest demnatlon - 
 authority in the Irish Church to say that the late Dr. 
 O'Hanlon, of Maynooth. He is dead now. 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : His letter is here. 1 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Don't be talking of the letter of a 
 man in his grave. 
 
 To witness : The clergy met on the 19th September to 
 vote for a new bishop ? Yes. 
 
 Was not that their business? Yes. 
 
 Is it your idea that the business they came about ought 
 to be stopped in order to hold a collateral inquiry as to 
 whether your vote should be received or not? No, but this 
 was my idea, that ten days before that there was time to go 
 into the case of my alleged suspension, and it was not done. 
 I told Cardinal Cullen I was ready to show that the suspen- 
 sion passed on me was invalid, and I don't think the inquiry 
 would take ten days, Serjeant, nor do I think it would take 
 ten minutes. 
 
 Did you ask him to hold an inquiry between the 10th 
 and the 1 9th ? Between the 10th and the 19th. Yes, I told 
 him I was prepared to show I was qualified to vote. 
 
 You did not show it ? He did not ask me. 
 
 You did not offer to show it ? You deferred it till the 
 19th, when he could not go into it? I did not defer it. I 
 told him by my letter ten days before 
 
 Mr. Purcell : That you would answer any objection. 
 
 Witness : That, if there was any objection to my vote on 
 the 1 9th, I was quite prepared to meet it. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong (to ivitnesz) : You wrote to the Cardi- 
 1 See Appendix, No. III., p. 581.
 
 304 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench ( Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Interview 
 with the 
 Cardinal. 
 
 nal to say that if there was any objection to the validity of 
 your vote, you would be able to show the validity of your vote? 
 Certainly. 
 
 Did you not admit that it was not fit that the investiga- 
 tion should take place on the 19th? Why, what was to 
 prevent it taking place? 
 
 Did you not tell me that the priests met for the purpose 
 of electing a bishop? Yes, and could they not spare ten 
 minutes ? 
 
 Do you think it could be settled in ten minutes ? T think 
 it ought. I think if I could tell Cardinal Cullen that I never 
 knew of any charge made against me, that I neither got a 
 trial nor a citation to trial, I think that ought to settle it at 
 once. How can a man be condemned is there justice in the 
 world? how can a man be condemned without imputing 
 guilt, without informing him of the charge? How is a man 
 to keep out of the bankruptcy court if he does not get money ? 
 
 Now listen to me. On the 22nd October, 1 having written 
 to the Cardinal that you would attend with great pleasure 
 before him, he on the 25th writes to you this letter : 2 
 
 'My DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, As you have shown so much 
 willingness to come up on Friday next, T have not considered it neces- 
 sary to send you a formal document.' 
 
 That is a citation ? Yes. And if he had sent it to me I 
 would stay at home. 
 
 But you would wish to have the benefit of a decision in 
 your favour, and if not, to have a dozen stones in your 
 sleeve ? No, don't be talking of stones. I was always 
 desirous of being put into a right and proper position. It 
 was treating me with the greatest cruelty leaving me in the 
 state I was. 
 
 Was it not all like water on a duck's back ? Well, thanks 
 be to Almighty God. 
 
 You snapped your fingers at the whole of them, Pope and 
 all. You came up on Friday, the 27th of October ? Yes, on 
 the previous day. 
 
 You came up on Friday, the 27th of October, and you 
 saw Canon Forde and the Cardinal ? Yes. 
 
 And I believe you were about three hours and a half 
 tli ere ? Yes, we were there from eleven o'clock till after two. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 184. * Supra, p. 185.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 305 
 
 Now, during that time was the discussion going on with Cross- 
 respect to the matters we have been speaking of? Yes, they ^^f " 
 commenced reading the papers. Father 
 
 Did you make out your case as fully as you possibly could 
 fully and at large before the Cardinal? My case was written 
 out and sent up to the Cardinal beforehand, and I told him 
 he might show it to any of his * great guns ' in Dublin. 
 
 Any of his great guns? To perforate it, if they were 
 able. I told him he was surrounded with numerous theolo- 
 gians in Dublin, and let them examine my paper and see 
 whether or not they could pick a hole in it. 
 
 Of course you are speaking in figurative langua.ge : you 
 did not call them ' great guns ? ' 
 
 Mr. Purcell : No, ' distinguished theologians.' 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong (to witness] : You regarded your paper 
 as impenetrable armour ? I did. I knew it to be quite right. 
 
 I want to know, besides the impenetrable armour of the 
 'ten points' * that you had in your paper already, did you make 
 a viva voce statement of your views ? Oh, we talked over it 
 generally, and the Cardinal asked me what I had to say to this 
 and to that, and I gave him my answers and showed him the 
 absurdity of these different papers professing to be censures. 
 
 Did he hear all you had to say with patience ? We were 
 talking for a long time 
 
 Did he hear all you had to say with patience ? In point 
 of fact, I had nothing to say. 
 
 Did he hear all you had to say with patience? My 
 objections to the validity of the censures were written out. 
 I laid down nine objections. If I was able to establish any 
 one of the objections, the censures were invalid, and I was 
 able to establish every one of the nine beyond the probability 
 of contradiction. 
 
 To your own satisfaction? Beyond the possibility of 
 contradiction. 
 
 Let me ask you, did you urge your views by word of 
 mouth ? We talked of the censures. 
 
 Did he hear you with patience ? Yes. 
 
 Did he hear you with courtesy ? Of course. 
 
 Did he say anything sharp or unkind or unbecoming to 
 you ? Certainly not. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 184. 
 X
 
 806 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffo. 
 
 There was nothing in his demeanour unkind or arbitrary? 
 Nothing but what was kind and condescending 
 
 Reasoning the matter with you? Yes. 
 
 Canon Forde was there ? He was. 
 
 Was he vicar-general ? Yes, one of the vicars ? 
 
 Of Dublin? Yes. 
 
 And I believe an eminent man in your own Church ? 
 Oh yes. 
 
 Was his manner also courteous towards you ? Certainly. 
 
 Now, from whom did the proposition come that you 
 stated yesterday, that the curates should go away or be put 
 away, that missionaries should be sent for, and that the 
 matter should be referred to Rome ? Who proposed that ? 
 It all came from Cardinal Cullen and Canon Forde. When 
 we could not agree about the censures, and Cardinal Cullen 
 and Canon Forde were insisting that these bulls were in 
 force in Ireland, I called on Canon Forde in a strong and 
 decided way to give some answer to my paper ; and when he 
 would give his answer to my paper I demanded that he would 
 answer the objections I had written down in the paper. He 
 suggested that if I would have the goodness to leave the 
 paper, he would apply himself to it and give an answer in a 
 day or two. I said by all means. 
 
 Was it after that that the proposition was made about 
 the curates going away and the missionaries coming, and the 
 case being referred to Rome ? Yes. 
 
 Now, sir, was it not an express part of that suggestion 
 one of its specific terms that you should leave the place upon 
 retreat for six or eight weeks ? What place ? 
 
 That place. You understand me well. No, it was 
 not. 
 
 And that the missionaries should go there, and the curate 
 be sent away, and that in the meantime the matter should be 
 referred to Rome ? In. the meantime ? The matter was to 
 be referred to Rome at once. 
 
 Now, now, you don't understand me, I am sure. Was it 
 part of the proposition towards an arrangement or reference 
 to Rome, that you should go out of that for six or eight 
 weeks ? No ; it was no part of a proposition. 
 
 Was it suggested ? It was not. 
 
 Not a word said about it? No.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 307 
 
 No, not a word ? No. Cross- 
 
 You swear that ? I do ; it was asked had I any objection e tf of " 
 to make a retreat, and I said not. Father 
 
 Was it a feature of the terms that if the curates were 
 sent away you should go on a retreat for six or eight weeks ? 
 What did I want going on retreat ? 
 
 What sort of retreat ? I don't know ; go out of that ? 
 
 Go out of Callan to any place you pleased ; that you 
 should be out of Callan for six or eight weeks; was that 
 the proposition, sir? That the curates should go away 
 that you should go away in fact, that the two belligerent 
 parties should be out of that, and the missionaries should 
 go there and preach peace and religion ; and that while 
 you were away the matter should be going on before the 
 Pope, in Rome, and that there should be an ad interim 
 administrator to conduct the affairs of the parish. Was all 
 that proposed ? I never heard it. 
 
 You never heard it ? I would laugh at it. 
 
 You would laugh at it ! why you seem to laugh at the 
 whole of it. We could not come to an understanding of Bull 4? 05 
 the binding nature of this document, the bull called Apostoliccs Sedis. 
 Sedis. Both the Cardinal and Canon Forde were maintaining 
 that it was of obligation in this country ; and I asked, 
 how did they answer the points I made, and * what will you 
 say to the evidence of Dr. Doyle. Isn't the same thing to be 
 said in regard to the bull Apostolicce Sedis as to the bull In 
 Ccena ?' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Did you say all this ? I said all 
 this before and then ; and they said, ' If you have any doubt 
 whether this bull Apostolicce is in force in Ireland, can't you 
 write to Eome ? ' I knew what answer I would get from 
 Rome if I wrote there. Then the Cardinal asked me, would I 
 be willing to leave the settlement of the whole matter to 
 Rome, and I said of course I would. He asked me would I 
 abide by the decision there, and I said yes. Then we began 
 to talk over the state of the parish in the meantime, pend- 
 ing the decision from Rome ; and it was proposed that 
 missionaries be sent to Callan some members of one of the 
 communities in Dublin. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : The Vincentians ? Well, there was 
 no particular order mentioned to be sent ; the Cardinal said 
 
 x 2
 
 308 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- that perhaps missionaries could not be got on such short 
 
 ^lon^f " n ti ce J an( i Canon Forde replied and said, f Oh yes,' said he, 
 
 Father ' any gentleman you ask to go won't refuse your Eminence ; ' 
 
 ) Keeffe. an( j ^ CLQn ^g sa j^ ? that I could get any curate I liked to attend 
 
 the sick calls ; that they would write to Dr. M'Donald to 
 
 send any curate I would like to name. 
 
 To the Lord Chief Justice: That is, any curate of the diocese 
 that I would wish to name ; and the Cardinal I believe it was 
 that asked would I make any objection to go on retreat. I 
 said, of course not. Then I was asked to put the terms of the 
 agreement in writing. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : His lordship now has taken down 
 your representation, and I must refresh your memory. Was 
 it part and parcel of the proposition, and in terms plainly 
 expressed, that you should be absent from Callan on retreat, 
 and that immediately ; and that the curates should be put 
 away 9 For what time ? 
 
 Until such time should elapse say six or eight weeks 
 until the matter should be investigated at Rome ? Certainly 
 not. 
 
 Certainly not that is an answer. Certainly not. 
 
 Was it a term of that proposition that you should be 
 absent at all ? No ; but I said I had no objection to go on 
 retreat. 
 
 On retreat you would be absent ? Perhaps not ; I could 
 make a retreat in my own house, Serjeant. 
 
 And had you that in your own mind at the time ; though 
 the curates you knew were to be sent away, that you would 
 retreat in your own house ? I had nothing particular about 
 it at all in my mind. 
 
 Had you that in your mind, sir ? When you say that I 
 should go to this, that, and the other particular place on 
 retreat, I tell you a man can make a retreat in his own 
 house. 
 
 Did you think that was what the Cardinal meant ? I 
 can't tell what he meant he meant I should go on retreat. 
 
 In your own house ? I don't know where he mea,nt. 
 
 Had you that in your mind when you entered into this 
 arrangement? I had nothing particular in my mind. I 
 did not intend to make a retreat in any particular place. 
 
 When the Cardinal asked you had you any objection to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 309 
 
 go on a retreat, and you said not, had you it in your mind Cross- 
 that it should be in your own house you would go ? Certainly ^^f " 
 not ; I had no particular place in view simply to go on Father 
 retreat. But I tell you a man can go to his own house as _ e> 
 
 well as any place else ; what I mean is, that it was not 
 necessary for me to go out of my own house. 
 
 Was it part of the proposition that when the curates 
 were to go out of the way, you were to go too ? Certainly 
 not. What a simpleton you think I am ! The very thing that 
 the curates were trying to manage. 
 
 I did not ask you whether you were a simpleton or not 
 every one knows you are not. But did you hear that stated ? 
 I did not hear it. 
 
 And you were asked to reduce it to paper? Yes. 
 
 And you said you would not do it then, but that you 
 would do it at your hotel ? Yes. 
 
 And they had no objection? None. 
 
 And then you went away, and the next morning you came 
 back again and produced the following paper ? Yes. 
 
 (Counsel read the paper indicated, which commenced ' My 
 good people, as I promised you,' &c.) * 
 
 Now do you observe that you did not introduce anything 
 into that about the curate who was to attend to the sick 
 calls ? No. 
 
 You did not ; nor did you say anything at all about 
 that ? I had no business telling the people that. 
 
 Nor anything about the curates being sent away ? I had 
 no business telling the people about that ; it was not their 
 affair. It was a private arrangement, and they had nothing 
 to say to it. 
 
 You did not say anything about yourself going on retreat? 
 Certainly not. 
 
 When the Cardinal read it, didn't he say, ' There is not a 
 word in this about your leaving Callan ' ? Yes. 
 
 And you took your hat and walked out ? No. 
 
 What did you say? (Counsel reads from notes of direct 
 examination) : " I said, ' What do you mean by that, my 
 Lord Cardinal, my leaving the parish? Who would be 
 there to look after the missionaries or the state of the parish ?' 
 He said, * We will take care of that.' I then took my hat 
 
 1 Supra, p. 192. .*-
 
 310 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 ' Adminis- 
 trator' dis- 
 tinguished 
 from 
 parish 
 priest. 
 
 in iny hand and my stick in my other hand, and I made my 
 bow, saying, ' Good morning to you, my Lord Cardinal,' and 
 retreated." That was beautiful ! I thought the proposal 
 was so monstrous that I would not listen to it. 
 
 You intended to bind the Cardinal by that as a true 
 representation of what had occurred the day before? I 
 intended to put in writing the form of agreement we had 
 come to that day. It was in the evening I wrote it at the 
 hotel. 
 
 Yes ; did the Cardinal tell you that he never agreed to 
 leave the whole case to Rome, except on the terms specifically 
 stated between you ? No. 
 
 That he would do nothing of the sort ? No ; we had no 
 conversation next morning except what I said. 
 
 Was it stated on the 27th, when you were talking of 
 leaving the arrangement of the matter to Rome, that that 
 Avas not to be listened to unless on the terms that yourself 
 and the curate should go out of that in the meantime ? 
 There was not any such thing stated. 
 
 The parish was to be commended to the special care of 
 the missionaries, the curates and yourself to go away on 
 retreat, and an administrator to be appointed to attend to 
 sick calls ? Nothing of the sort nothing 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Let me understand. That an 
 administrator was to be appointed ? I never heard that. 
 
 Is an administrator a substitute for the parish priest ? 
 When the parish priest is ill or incapacitated from any cause, 
 as for instance from receiving censure, or in case he is un- 
 able to discharge the duties of parish priest, then another 
 clergyman is appointed to represent him in the parish, and 
 to attend to it and act for him. 
 
 And if he likes he may appoint an administrator ? He 
 may appoint an administrator or another priest. 
 
 What is the difference between them ? The parish priest 
 has a title. The parish priest, as such, has what might be 
 called fixity of tenure a life interest a freehold for life. 
 
 Did you say anything at that time, at your interview, 
 agreeing to an administrator being appointed ? Oh, certainly 
 not ; oh, I would not do such a thing as that at all. It is 
 monstrous. I am claiming protection and claiming justice; to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Gullen. 
 
 311 
 
 submit to be condemned! I never heard anything more 
 monstrous than that. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : If you were sick, could an adminis- 
 trator be appointed ? Oh yes. 
 
 Suppose now you were not able to attend to the duties at 
 all ordered away, say for change of air, for half a year, to 
 recruit your health could one be appointed ? Not without 
 my consent. 
 
 Can't there be one appointed by consent of the parish 
 priest ? By consent of the parish priest. 
 
 Without any delegation from a superior at all? Certainly. 
 It is a common thing for a parish priest to name the curate 
 as administrator. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Suppose now you were suspended, 
 could your bishop send down an administrator to take posses- 
 sion of your parish ? Oh, certainly not. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Was this what Canon Forde 
 suggested ; that you should retire for some weeks from the 
 parish, that the Cardinal should appoint an ad interim ad- 
 ministrator, some one not in any way hostile ? No ; but 
 that I should get any curate I pleased; that they would 
 write to Dr. M'Donald to send any curate I wished to 
 name, to answer sick calls during the time of the missionaries, 
 because they don't attend to sick calls. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : They don't do what ? They 
 don't attend to sick calls ; all they do is to preach in the 
 church. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : And they would write to Dr. 
 M'Donald to send a,ny curate you wished to name ? Yes. 
 
 And that the Vincentians would take care of the parish ? 
 Not the Vincentians. 
 
 Are you sure they were not mentioned? Certainly; 
 because when the Cardinal said that missionaries might not 
 be got on such short notice, Canon Forde said that any 
 gentleman he would ask would go. 
 
 Are you sure they were not mentioned ? They were 
 not. 
 
 He might have suggested them to you ? They were not ; 
 missionaries were named. 
 
 And all the facts of the case were to be submitted to the 
 Pope, and you would abide his decision ? That was all. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Duties dis- 
 charged by 
 ' Mission-
 
 312 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 But not that you should leave the parish in the mean- 
 time ? I am very sure of that. 
 
 Then this inquiry or conference, call it by what name 
 you please, ended in nothing ? Ended in nothing. 
 
 It was broken off the next morning ? Just so. 
 
 The Cardinal was proceeding to investigate the matter 
 then, because the suggestion of the arrangement broke 
 off ? No ; the Cardinal put it out of hands on Friday, 
 and took it back on Saturday. 
 
 What do you mean by putting it out of hands? By 
 referring it to Rome. 
 
 On the terms you agreed to ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Let what the witness stated be taken 
 down he does not say that. 
 
 Witness : The Cardinal put it out of his hands on Friday, 
 by referring it to Rome with my consent. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Now, on the next morning, the 28th, 
 when the Cardinal referred to the absence from the docu- 
 ment of all mention of your leaving Callan, did you say you 
 would not leave, and that it would take three regiments of 
 soldiers to put you out of Callan ? Oh, not at all ; I never 
 said such a thing. 
 
 Oh, very well, you never did ? Oh no. 
 
 Didn't you on that morning of the 28th refuse to intro- 
 duce into that written statement which you prepared, 
 anything about your leaving the parish? He did not 
 ask me. 
 
 Didn't he observe that it was not in it ? He did. 
 
 And you said you would not go ? I did not. I said, 
 ' What is the meaning of that ? Who would be there to look 
 after the missionaries or the interests of the parish ? J And 
 he said, * We will take care of that.' He did, and I made my 
 exit. 
 
 Did he say then, ' You must come back here and have 
 the case finished ' ? He said no such thing he said no such 
 thing. 
 
 Did he there and then suggest several days in the next 
 week upon which you should come back to finish the case ? 
 He did not ; he had only a few. 
 
 Now answer my question. He did not name any day ? 
 No.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 313 
 
 Didn't he peremptorily fix Friday, the 3rd November P Cross- 
 Oh, certainly not. ' 
 
 Did the Cardinal say in reference to this, ' This is not Father 
 what I agreed to. I cannot agree to it ; it would be making 
 a fool of myself? ' No, he said no such thing ; we had no 
 conversation except what I stated. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Would there be any objection 
 if the witness was now, to prevent mistake, to say what he 
 represents to have occurred on the Saturday morning. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Not the least objection on earth. 
 Do you mean all that occurred? 
 
 Witness : On the 28th ? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Yes ; repeat now all that occurred. Second 
 
 I called at Cardinal Cullen's house and was shown upstairs ^terview 
 
 A with the 
 
 to the room we had been in on the previous day. The Cardinal. 
 Cardinal was there, and I simply handed him the paper. 
 * Here is the paper, my Lord Cardinal, that I wrote yester- 
 day.' He opened and read the paper. He said, ' Oh,' said he, 
 ' that won't do at all. You put nothing in here about your 
 leaving the parish as well as the curates.' I said, ' What do 
 you mean by that ? ' ' Oh,' said he, ' that was the agreement, 
 that you should leave as well as the curates.' * And who 
 would be there to look after the missionaries and the 
 interests of the parish? ' said I, and I took my hat and stick, 
 and made my bow and retired. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Let me ask this question. 
 During the time you sat in the room as you have described, 
 with the Cardinal and Canon Forde, was anything produced 
 and read to you, describing the authority or stating what 
 authority there was for that particular business or trial if it 
 was a trial which the Cardinal got from Rome ? No, there 
 was no paper at all. I never knew anything about it for 
 months : not until I served the writ ; and the first I heard 
 of it was from Mr. Meredith. I was told the paper would 
 not suit at all on Saturday morning. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : No, I meant Friday. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : As I understand it, my lord, Canon 
 Forde was not there on Saturday morning at all. 
 
 Witness : He was not there, I merely went there to bring 
 back the paper.
 
 314 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Serjeant Armstrong : Yes, to be sure ; you stated fully all 
 
 'SToT you said ?-Yes. 
 
 Father Now on the 3rd November lie wrote this to you. (Ser- 
 
 ;_ e> jeant Armstrong here read the letter of the Cardinal, dated 
 
 3rd November, 1871.) 1 You knew he had no jurisdiction as 
 
 Metropolitan. Did you not believe he was representative 
 
 of the Pope by appointment ? I did not ask him. 
 
 Had you any doubt of it? I did not know anything 
 about it. 
 
 Did you believe his statement that he was representative 
 of the Holy See in that investigation ? Of course I believe 
 he stated what he considered to be the truth. I would 
 not acknowledge him to be the representative of the Holy 
 See in sitting on me. I would acknowledge him to have 
 authority from the Holy See to decide upon the validity 
 of the censures passed upon me by the bishop and Dr. 
 M 'Donald, but I did not acknowledge his authority to con- 
 demn me. 
 
 You would acknowledge his authority to acquit you ? 
 Yes, certainly, to declare that the censures were bad. I was 
 ill-treated most grievously. I do not think there was ever 
 such persecution since the creation of the world as the pure 
 unmitigated tyranny exercised towards me. 
 
 Where is the 550Z. ? I suppose the lawyers have got it. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong then read Father O'Keeffe's letter of 
 November 5th, 18 71, 2 in which he acknowledged the Cardi- 
 nal's letter of the 3rd November, and described the state of 
 Callan. * In this state of things your Eminence would not 
 wish me to make you another visit. ... I call upon you to 
 decide, as having authority to do so, that I have never 
 incurred any ecclesiastical censure/ Now had he any 
 authority? He had authority in connection with the autho- 
 rity given him to hold the election at Kilkenny. 
 
 Is the action against Cody, the poor-law guardian, over 
 yet? Well, I had not time to attend to it; there is too much 
 law business on hands. 
 
 You stated in your letter that the Protestant gentleman 
 was not only aware of the perjury of the priest in the law 
 court, but in the great tribunal of penance. What do you 
 mean by the 'tribunal of penance '? Swearing that I was 
 
 1 Supra, p. 193. 2 Supra, p. 193.
 
 R&v. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 315 
 
 a suspended priest. When the penitent would not believe Cross- 
 them, they would swear it and swear it on the altar. I told ^^"f " 
 you I had a man here to prove that Father Neary held up Father 
 the Sacrament on the altar, and swore by the body and blood eo e ' 
 of Christ that I was a suspended priest. 
 
 Why did you not say that you would or would not come 
 up 9 I did not want to get into a controversy with him. 
 
 You say that ? Yes. 
 
 Had his Eminence authority ? He never had. I do not 
 want the civil law to come to my aid. I want only the laws 
 and constitutions of my own Church to come to my aid. It is 
 my duty, Serjeant, to protest against tyranny, and I will do 
 so while I have a voice. 
 
 You are a man ; now listen to this (reading above letter) : 
 ' I call upon you to decide that I have never incurred 
 any ecclesiastical censure.' You are a logician ; now had he 
 authority to decide that? I admit he had authority to 
 decide that. 
 
 Did not that involve the question whether there was 
 a violation of the canon law ? Yes. 
 
 Did you not admit in that letter that he had authority to 
 decide that matter ? To decide the suspension, whether it 
 was good or bad. 
 
 Did you not admit that he had authority to decide that 
 matter? To decide whether the suspension was good or 
 bad ; not only had he authority to do it, but it was his duty 
 to do it. 
 
 He could not do that as archbishop ? He could do it as 
 being appointed to preside at the election at Kilkenny. 
 
 Could he do it otherwise than as delegate of the Pope ? 
 As agent of the Propaganda. 
 
 Is not the Propaganda the same as the Pope ? Yes ; it 
 was competent for him to decide that matter, and I 
 complained that he did not. I complained that I had been 
 treated with the greatest injustice. 
 
 Is it not the case that he decided against you ? He did 
 not decide at all. 
 
 Did he not suspend you ? He says he did, but he had no 
 power. No man has power from Almighty God to calum- 
 niate or slander his neighbour.
 
 316 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Had lie not jurisdiction to exculpate you ? Certainly, 
 
 examina- How could he have jurisdiction to exculpate you if he 
 Father had not jurisdiction to suspend you ? He should have decided 
 O'Keeffe. mv right to vote at the election. I was qualified. The fact 
 of his not deciding it was a condemnation of me without 
 trial. 
 
 (Serjeant Armstrong here read the Cardinal's letter of the 
 21st of October, 1871, intimating to plaintiff his intention of 
 inquiring whether he had incurred suspension or excom- 
 munication, or whether he had incurred irregularity.) 1 
 
 Did he not announce to you distinctly what he would 
 inquire about ? I did not want to get into any controversy 
 with Cardinal Cullen at all ; I did not like his language in 
 that letter. 
 
 Did you not know that he assumed jurisdiction to decide 
 these questions ? I did not know exactly what he assumed, 
 but I thought he assumed more than he had a right to 
 assume. 
 
 Do you swear you did not understand this passage in his 
 letter as amounting to an assumption of authority ? Did you 
 think he was assuming authority to decide whether you were 
 guilty of an irregularity, and that he could punish you ? I 
 would say so. 
 
 And you went to him ? I did not go to him in virtue of 
 a citation ; I went to him in a friendly way to confer with 
 him and talk and deliberate over the matter, but I did not 
 do any act that would bind me as having submitted to his 
 jurisdiction to sit in judgment on me. 
 
 When you went to his house on the 27th of October, 
 were you thinking of that ? I was thinking of this, that I 
 went to him simply in the capacity of a friend to a friendly 
 conference, in order if possible to bring about peace in 
 Callan, and in order that I might satisfy him fully that I 
 was never validly suspended. 
 
 Did you think he was assuming a jurisdiction to decide 
 the question ? I wished to keep clear of it. I did not want 
 to get into a controversy, but if he sent me a citation, I 
 would not come in virtue of it. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 1 83.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 317 
 
 FIFTH DAT. Crosg- 
 
 examina- 
 
 Friday, 16th May, 1873. tion of 
 
 Father 
 
 The cross-examination of the REV. MR. O'KEEFFE resumed by O'Keeffe. 
 SERJEANT ARMSTRONG. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong: Mr. O'Keeffe, having received the 
 Cardinal's letter of the 3rd of November, requesting you to 
 come up, you replied to it in the letter I read. On the 6th 
 of November he wrote to you as follows (reads letter). 1 You 
 answered on the llth November, 2 and by that letter you 
 declined to come up ? I did ; I knew at that time the 
 decision he was going to give. 
 
 And for that reason you refused to come up ? No, not for 
 that reason. 
 
 What reason ? Because I wasn't bound to go up. 
 
 Now there is a letter of yours of the 4th of November. 
 This is going back a little, and for this reason, it hasn't been 
 yet read, the 4th of November, 1870, addressed by yourself 
 to the Right Rev. Dr. Lynch, of Carlow : ' I have now com- 
 menced a new suit in the Queen's Bench, nominally against 
 one of my curates, but really for the purpose of getting evi- 
 dence of Dr. Walsh's altar denunciations of me. I was non- 
 suited on the previous occasion by the curate's evidence.' Of 
 course that was a representation of the true state of your 
 mind, the object of the action ? Of course. 
 
 Against one of the curates, but really to get Dr. Walsh 
 on the table, and on his evidence to have a foundation for 
 proceedings against him ? I was nonsuited on the previous 
 occasion by reason of the evidence the curate gave, which I 
 knew to be untrue. 
 
 Have you taken any steps to get redress from the Church ? 
 I applied to iny bishop in the first instance. I got no re- 
 dress from him. I didn't even get an answer to my letter. 
 I applied to the Cardinal, but he took no notice of my letter, 
 and I applied to go to Rome, and couldn't get leave to go. 
 I asked for permission to go to Rome for three months, and 
 I say I could get redress nowhere in the Church. 
 
 Did you make an application then to the bishop in the 
 letters now before the court ? I could make no other appli- 
 cation. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 195. 2 Supra, p. 196.
 
 318 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- The application that you refer to ? Did they appear in the 
 
 "tbTof " letters yesterday referred to ? Is that what you refer to ? 
 
 Father No ; I wrote several letters to the bishop, complaining of the 
 
 O'Keeffe. CQnduct Q f tlie cura tes. 
 
 I think they are all in evidence ? No, they are not. 
 
 Give any other letters, if you rely on them. I don't want 
 to rely on them; I have evidence enough. I am merely 
 stating a fact. 
 
 We have a long correspondence between yourself and the 
 bishop. Have you any other letters ? I wrote other letters. 
 
 Where are they? They are not in evidence; I don't 
 want them. 
 
 (Serjeant Armstrong reads remainder of the letter to 
 Dr. Lynch.) 
 
 At the meeting at the Cardinal's house on the 27th of 
 October, was the subject of your first suspension discussed ? 
 Yes ; the Cardinal read the suspensions and other letters. 
 
 And was the subject of your second suspension discussed ? 
 I think we went through the whole of them. 
 
 And the third suspension ? Yes, I think we went through 
 all of them. 
 
 And the suspension ex informata conscientia ? Yes, I 
 think we went through them all. 1 think I showed them, 
 and said that they were totally invalid. I really thought I 
 convinced them. I wasn't contradicted. 
 
 That was your own view ? Yes, I thought so. 
 
 And of course the facts of the several actions which you 
 had brought against the bishop and the curates were all men- 
 tioned ? I suppose so. 
 
 You must tell me whether they were or not ? I couldn't 
 recollect everything that happened. 
 
 Was the subject of the action against the bishop referred 
 to ? The subject of the action against the curates was re- 
 ferred to. 
 
 The first action against the bishop ? The first action of 
 all that was compromised ? Yes. The Cardinal was going 
 into that, and I said, * My Lord Cardinal, there is no use 
 going into that. If I gave any disedification, you got me 
 to make an apology, and that was iny satisfaction for any 
 disedification.' And he said, 'Very well, I won't go into that.' 
 
 The matter was referred to as an action you brought? Yes.
 
 R&v. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 319 
 
 Did you not admit the action was settled by the payment 
 of 500Z. ? Did you not admit you got 550Z. in settlement of 
 that action ? Of" course I did. and the Cardinal told me they ^ r 
 
 xi t, i j.v O'Keeffe. 
 were going to make me pay back the money. 
 
 Yes ; because you put it in your own pocket. No matter, 
 he told me that. 
 
 Did he tell you the distinct arrangement was, the ladies 
 were to get back the money ? did he tell you in substance 
 that a part of the arrangement was that the money should 
 be restored to the nuns, and that you kept it? No, he 
 didn't say any such thing. He only referred to it in that 
 way : ' We are going to make you pay back the money.' 
 
 Did he refer to the fact that you kept the money con- 
 trary to the agreement ? No. 
 
 Did he say the nuns ought to get the money ? No, I 
 don't think he did. 
 
 Will you swear he did not? Did he say part of the 
 arrangement was that the money should be paid back to the 
 nuns, and that you ought to pay it? I don't swear he 
 did. 
 
 Will you swear he did not ? I rather think he did not. 
 I don't think he said any more than what I have stated : 
 'We are going to make you pay back the money.' 
 
 Did you ask him why ? No, I didn't ask him why. I 
 said I was willing to do what was right with the money. 
 
 Did you ask what claim they had on you, that you should 
 restore the money ? No ; I wished to get out of it as quietly 
 as I could. I didn't wish to get into conversation with him 
 at all. 
 
 Then the action against the bishop, in which you were 
 nonsuited, was also referred to ? Yes. 
 
 Did you complain you had been nonsuited in that ? I 
 did. 
 
 And that you had to pay the costs ? Yes, certainly. 
 
 And didn't you know that was then to be revived on 
 Father Neary's evidence ? Yes, I said that, and I thought 
 it was at the time. 
 
 Was the action then against Father Neary for what he 
 wrote in the workhouse book ? Yes. 
 
 Was that referred to ? I suppose it was. I have no dis- 
 tinct recollection. I consider it was.
 
 320 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Did you not tell you had received 100Z. in that action? 
 Yes, I suppose so. 
 
 Then the action against Dr. M'Donald, in which the 
 venue was at Wicklow was referred to ? Yes, I think so. 
 
 And I take for granted you admitted that, what we'll call 
 ' suspensions ' for identification's sake, were served upon you 
 in some way or other ? Yes, I told him how they were served 
 on me. I told him particularly how a double copy of the 
 third suspension was served on me, and I can tell you now 
 if you like to hear it. 
 
 What do you mean by me liking to hear it ? Why, it was 
 served on me in a railway carriage. 
 
 Well, do you think there is anything wonderful in that ? 
 There is something extraordinary. I was addressing my 
 congregation on the Sunday before the trial of the action 
 a.gainst Dr. Walsh, and I was reading the very letter the 
 Serjeant is after reading now, and explaining to my people 
 how anxious I was to keep out of court, for nothing to me was 
 more painful than coming into a public court to explain the 
 difference between ecclesiastics. That was the chief subject 
 of discourse that day with me the llth December, I think. 
 Two men came into the chapel at the time, having the ap- 
 pearance of bailiffs. When mass was over, and I had given 
 communion, I returned to the sacristy, to pass through it 
 to my own house. The clerk said to me, ' There are two 
 bailiffs waiting for you outside.' There were two bailiffs 
 outside the door to serve me with a paper in passing from 
 the sacristy through the yard to my own house. The clerk 
 and my servant man put me out through the window of 
 the sacristy in order to escape the men who were waiting 
 outside for me, and I was enabled in that way to pass to my 
 own house to take breakfast. The men remained about my 
 place till about two o'clock in the day, coming and going, 
 knocking at the door, and calling for me, and asking to see 
 me. Then I hired a car to go to Gowran, and when they 
 found I had taken this circuitous way to come to Dublin, 
 having waited for me at the station at Kilkenny, they came 
 on by train to Gowran, and I was served with the sus- 
 pension in the train at Gowran. I don't know whether you 
 heard of Sunday work like that, Serjeant. 
 
 Of course you told the Cardinal about the citation you
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 821 
 
 got from the vicar-general to appear in the cathedral ? We Cross- 
 went through all the papers ; he had copies of all the papers. e tf of 
 And you went through that as well as the rest ? I should Father 
 
 J O'Keeffe. 
 
 say so. 
 
 Then did the Cardinal speak to you about having a sus- 
 pended friar saying mass in your chapel against the orders of 
 the vicar-general? He spoke to me about a priest he was 
 informed used to say mass. 
 
 Will you swear he was not a suspended friar? I will 
 swear he is not suspended to my knowledge. 
 
 Do you know he was put out of his order? I don't ex- 
 actly say he was out of his order, but I tell you what I know 
 about him. He was a friar of the Augustinian order in 
 Callan, and had gone on the mission to Australia, and after 
 being some years on the mission in Australia he returned 
 home. It is unusual when a friar chooses to go on the mis- 
 sion to give him a letter of release from his obligations ; as a 
 friar has vows, it is unusual to release him. from the per- . 
 forman ce of his obligations. After being some years in 
 Australia this gentleman came home, and he lived again in 
 the Augustinian convent at Callan, and after being there 
 for some time he expressed a wish to go on the mission to 
 America, and he got this letter, and he showed me one from 
 the Provincial, authorising him to leave the convent, and 
 leave -subjection to his superiors, and go on the mission. 
 When he went to America he was unsuccessful in getting any 
 bishop to adopt him as a missionary priest, and he returned, 
 and after he returned he lived with his father. His father 
 is a parishioner of mine. He used to say mass in my chapel 
 on Sundays and holidays. 
 
 Did the Cardinal speak to you as to having read what we 
 call the broadsheet, 1 containing the charges against your 
 bishop, to your congregation from the altar? Hadn't he 
 that paper in his hands ? He had. 
 
 Did you not tell him you had read that in self-defence, 
 and that you justified it on the same ground that you have 
 stated from the chair ? My recollection is, he said, * Wasn't 
 it an unhandsome thing for you to send this paper about 
 the bishop to Cardinal Barnabo ? ' ' Well,' I said, ' 1 couldn't 
 keep it. I was obliged to do it.' 
 
 1 See Appendix No. I., p. 577. 
 Y
 
 322 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- That is one of those you got printed (hands paper to 
 
 iorTof " w ^ ness )' How many hundreds of them did you get printed? 
 Father Between 500 and 600 ; I ordered 500, and the printer sent 
 ' me 550. 
 
 And you admitted that you read that from the altar ? I 
 don't recollect that part of the transaction ; he found fault 
 with me for sending that letter to Cardinal Barnabo. 
 
 On your oath, didn't he say it was a shameful thing to 
 have read that from the altar to your own people ? I don't 
 think he did ; I told him before I would do it. 
 
 Do you swear it wasn't a subject of complaint with the 
 Cardinal ? I don't recollect that that was made the subject 
 of complaint. 
 
 Was it a subject of complaint your sending a paper of 
 that kind to Cardinal Barnabo, making such very grave and 
 serious charges against the bishop ? He said that it was un- 
 handsome or unkind. 
 
 Did he say it was still worse to read it from the altar ? 
 I don't recollect his saying anything about reading it from 
 the altar. I felt justified in reading it from the altar, but I 
 didn't read it from the altar until I gave the Cardinal due 
 notice I should do so unless he gave me orders, and I will 
 tell you the parties through whom I gave that notice. 
 
 Did you not justify yourself in having read it from the 
 altar on the ground it was necessary to show the people 
 what manner of man the bishop was ? I don't recollect that 
 that was discussed. 
 
 Wasn't it spoken of? I don't think it was. 
 
 But now you say you were present as a priest, and that 
 the bishop having reproved you, you said soinetftiing to 
 retaliate ; that you were warranted by every principle of 
 theology in defaming him in every way ?- Defaming is not 
 necessarily to slander him. 
 
 Do you swear you never slandered anyone ? Never. 
 
 But defaming your antagonist in every way consistent 
 with truth, is that your Christian principle ? I was justified 
 in explaining and showing what sort of a creature it was 
 that was calumniating me, and that is a principle of theology 
 that cannot be contradicted, for it is necessary for the 
 just defence of your own character. If it be necessary to 
 explain or to state what sort of character he is that is
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 323 
 
 maligning you or calumniating you, you are warranted in Cross- 
 
 <Mng " "f" 
 
 Did you hear that divine injunction, ' If ye are reviled, Father 
 
 revile not again ? ' We have a great many counsels in the 
 Holy Scriptures that are not precepts. I heard of a person 
 being advised if he is struck on one jaw to turn the other ; 
 do you recommend me to do it ? Would it be a counsel from 
 you, if a man takes my coat, to give him my cloak also ? 
 Would you too advise me to do that, Serjeant ? 
 
 Would you think it right and proper if anyone of your con- 
 gregation was slandered or calumniated, to tell him it would 
 be right and proper of him in every way to defame the 
 character of his antagonist ? Certainly not. 
 
 So far as he could do it with truth ? No. 
 
 But you practised it yourself? I did not. I did not 
 practise anything that I wasn't justified in doing. There is 
 a rule of morals that in the just defence of your own 
 character you are warranted in exposing the character of 
 your slanderer, in order to show that he is not worthy of 
 credit when he slandered you. There is no theologian that 
 doesn't lay down that as a principle of theology. 
 
 Against your bishop ? I don't care who he is. 
 
 Who is the theologian that lays down that sublime 
 doctrine, c an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ' ? No ; but 
 defend yourself by proper means and you do no wrong. If 
 you are attacked by a highwayman who wants to take your 
 life, you are perfectly justified in taking his to save your own, 
 on that principle. 
 
 If the Pope told you that he was of opinion that this 
 conduct of yours at Callan church disentitled you in his 
 judgment to continue as an acting priest, and he would 
 suspend you, would you submit to him? I would not; I 
 would not submit if any angel of heaven told me. I wouldn't 
 believe it. 
 
 You would have your own way though a Gabriel told you? 
 No ; I would have the right way. 
 
 The right way is your way ; they are synonymous terms ? 
 You are pleased to say so. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : By the laws of your Church, The 
 could the Pope get rid of a bishop or a parish priest without Ga li; c an 
 a trial ? Certainly not ; he must go by the canons of the 
 
 T 2
 
 324 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Church. He can no more overrule the canons of the Church 
 Tkm'of " ^ an the Queen of England can overrule the law of England, 
 Father and that is laid down in the Gallican liberties. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You had better not mind the 
 Gallican liberties. Doctor Murray did not say you adopted 
 the Gallican liberties ; the substance of what these eminent 
 men, Dr. Murray, Dr. Doyle, and Dr. Curtis have sworn is 
 that the bishop himself could not get rid of a priest without 
 a trial. 
 
 Witness : I don't adopt myself all the Gallican liberties. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I understand Dr. Murray and 
 Drs. Doyle and Curtis to say that the parish priest has the 
 freehold of his office, and cannot be displaced without a trial 
 for an offence, and that the sentence is to be conformable 
 to the offence. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : They were not speaking of the 
 ultimate jurisdiction. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I am positive Dr. Murray stated 
 the bishop could not be got rid of, and I am not aware 
 whether there is any difference between a bishop and a 
 priest. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Supposing the suspension ex informata 
 conscientia had been valid, would you incur an ecclesiastical 
 irregularity by celebrating mass afterwards ? Sometimes an 
 irregularity is incurred by discharging the duties of an 
 office after suspension, and sometimes not ; in my case not. 
 
 Why ? Because I was suspended for a past offence, and 
 it wasn't a proper suspension ; for suspension is defined as a 
 medicinal correction. 
 
 Suppose it was valid for argument's sake ? Confine 
 yourself to the first suspension. No ; I put my own case ; 
 if you don't make a definite case I cannot answer. 
 
 Supposing a bishop's suspension ex informata conscientia 
 was in all respects valid, would you incur an irregularity by 
 celebrating mass until it was revoked? I may or I may not. 
 
 Would you, sir ? I might or I might not ; that would 
 depend on the circumstances of the case. 
 
 Putting a definite case of a bishop's suspension ex 
 informata conscientia ; supposing it to be valid, would you 
 commit an irregularity by celebrating mass afterwards ? If 
 that sentence was passed on me for a past offence, I would
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 325 
 
 not commit an irregularity by disregarding it even if it was Cross- 
 valid, because in that case it is not properly speaking a cen- ^Tof " 
 sure at all ; a punishment is spiritual and medicinal, but such Father 
 
 a punishment as that is not medicinal, and properly speaking 
 
 it is not even a censure. 
 
 Suppose you cannot be suspended for a past offence, is it 
 for a future offence you would be suspended ? No. 
 
 What would you be suspended for? I should be sus- 
 pended contumaciously ; if I committed the offence I should 
 have notice. 
 
 What do you mean by a past offence ? No one can be sus- Law of sus- 
 pended unless he is contumacious. It won't do if you violate P ensiou - 
 the law ; you cannot be suspended for violating the law, you 
 must be contumacious. 
 
 You say it is not valid at all in pointing to you ? I 
 couldn't say that. I said supposing it to be valid it did not 
 tie up my hands. 
 
 What do you mean by a past offence? It was for bringing 
 the action against the bishop ; it was medicinal. 
 
 What sort of medicine was it ? It was spiritual medicine 
 for the correction of the offender. 
 
 If a man be suspended, must it not be either for a past 
 offence, or a present offence, or a future offence ? I tell you 
 a censure must be medicinal ; it must be used with a view to 
 the correction of the offender. 
 
 And his benefit ? And medicinally. 
 
 I say supposing an offence that is past and gone, that 
 cannot be revoked : whose duty is it to give notice to the 
 party and to intimate to him that he has done wrong, and to 
 call on him to explain ? Eecollect you are assuming now. 
 
 You must assume for me ; it is a proper question and here 
 it is. Supposing for argument sake it was a valid suspension 
 in all respects, and that notwithstanding your objections to 
 it it was valid, would you incur irregularity by saying mass 
 afterwards? That would depend on the nature of the sus- 
 pension. If the suspension issued against me for an offence 
 that is past and gone, like bringing an action 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : These eminent men in the Church 
 I have referred to say there are two classes of priests, one a 
 parish priest and the other a curate ; that they (the bishops) 
 had arbitrary power to remove the curate, but they could not
 
 326 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- suspend either ; that they could take from the curate the right 
 "tiorTof ~ ^ sa yi n mass on ly on cause shown, but the parish priests 
 Father had a title to their office, and that from that office they could 
 '_ e< not remove them. Is that accurate ? That is undoubtedly 
 the canon law of the Church in Ireland, and I wasn't without 
 telling that to Cardinal Cullen, that Dr. McDonald's suspen- 
 sion couldn't tie up my hands. I don't know whether he 
 agreed with me, but certainly he didn't contradict me. 
 
 Suppose the suspension of the defendant in this case was 
 valid in' omnibus, would you incur an ecclesiastical irregu- 
 larity by celebrating mass after its promulgation ? Assum- 
 ing it to be valid in every respect, I consider I would. 
 
 And then your absolution would be worthless ? No, not 
 at all ; that is heresy. That is a proposition of Wycliffe 
 that a sinful priest cannot give sacraments condemned in the 
 Council of Constance. A sinful priest can give sacraments 
 as well as a saint. It would be a very sad thing if a person was 
 depending for the validity of the sacraments on the mind or 
 conscience of the priest. 
 
 If he is publicly suspended ? If the suspension is not 
 canonically proclaimed. 
 
 Suppose it is canonically proclaimed? Oh, that is another 
 matter. 
 
 Suppose a parish priest or anybody else is properly sus- 
 pended, and that the sentence is properly proclaimed by the 
 judge who condemns him to the people, you say he is dis- 
 qualified from administering the sacraments and that his ad- 
 ministration would be worthless ? Certainly ; it would not be 
 necessary to proclaim the sentence to the priest himself; he 
 is supposed to have heard the sentence himself on his trial. 
 
 If the sentence is sent to him in a registered letter ? 
 Will you put that in the hearing of the Chief Justice ? 
 
 If the suspension is sent to the priest, who knows right 
 well what is inside of it, and sees the Cardinal's handwriting 
 on the back, and he won't take it? I think he acts properly 
 if he is placed under the circumstances in which I was, to do 
 what I did. 
 
 To send it back ? Yes, and if a dozen came I would treat 
 them all the same. 
 
 You got a knowledge of the sentence that was in the 
 registered letter ? I got a knowledge of it.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 327 
 
 Did the suspension come to you after you sent it back ? Cross- 
 John Cooke brought it to me. examina- 
 
 B tion of 
 
 You got the interdict afterwards ? In a similar way. Father 
 Another young man tore it down and brought it to me. 
 
 And you treated it with contempt ? Yes, certainly. 
 
 And you treated your bishop with contempt when you 
 sent him a post-card ? I never treated anyone with contempt. 
 
 Do you think sending a post-card through the post- office, 
 saying you would hold 110 communication with the man, wasn't 
 a contemptuous proceeding ? I couldn't act otherwise. He 
 got a private communication which he put on the file, and 
 then he takes that letter off the file and throws it down in 
 this court. How could I treat the act of that man with 
 respect ? How could I write a private communication to him? 
 
 That was Dr. M'Donald ? I identify the two, the bishop 
 and him. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Let me ask you whose letter are 
 you speaking of? The letter that I wrote, a private and 
 confidential letter I wrote to Dr. M'Donald. 
 
 And in reply you insulted the bishop in every way in 
 your power ? I never insulted anyone, but I defend myself 
 by proper means when I am attacked, and if I was on my 
 dying bed I could not express an act of sorrow for anything 
 I have done in this matter, for there never was such perse- 
 cution since the beginning of the world. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You stated, if I recollect rightly, 
 that for nine or ten days after the curate came to the parish 
 he denounced you ? For nine or ten days. 
 
 Did you put that fact before the bishop ? That was well 
 known to the bishop. 
 
 I want to know, did you bring it under his notice ? I did 
 not express it in the letter ; it was he appointed him to 
 Callan, and removed Mr. Carr, so it was quite unnecessary to 
 tell the bishop he was the new curate. 
 
 I mean to ask you, did you formally make known to the 
 bishop the fact that you had been denounced by Mr. Neary ? 
 Yes ; four days after I was denounced. 
 
 Did he ever hold any inquiry into that ? He never took 
 any notice of it or answered my letter. 
 
 Did anybody ? Nobody, to my knowledge. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Nobody was ever asked.
 
 328 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- By a Juror : In consequence of this inquiry not being 
 
 e ticm ^f 1 " held, vou hold you were not regularly suspended ? Certainly ; 
 Father I never got any redress. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : A most logical conclusion. Do you 
 insist that your suspension was illegal, and against the canon 
 law, because an inquiry was not held into the conduct of the 
 curates ? No. 
 
 Is that your position ? No ; but because a suspension 
 was issued against me without any previous inquiry. 
 
 Don't you think it great nonsense to say that your sus- 
 pension was illegal according to the canon law, because 
 there was not an inquiry instituted into the conduct of the 
 curates ? It has nothing to do with it. 
 
 Don't you see you are getting into this mess ? I know 
 it has nothing to do with it. 
 
 (Counsel then read letter of plaintiff to Cardinal Barnabo 
 of 28th November, 1869.) ' 
 
 You wrote that letter, and without waiting for any answer 
 took the proceedings we are aware of ; I believe that is his 
 answer (handing document to witness) ? Yes. 
 
 Now I will read it ; I have the English here, and look 
 you that I read it correctly. 
 
 (Counsel then read Cardinal Barnabo's letter to the 
 plaintiff, dated January 20, 1870.) 2 
 
 Is a curate called a coadjutor ? Yes. 
 
 Does that apply to you ? Yes, that is the law prevailing 
 Law in the Irish Church at present. 
 
 denumfa- Does the law, the excellent law, stated in the book forbid- 
 
 tion from ding anyone to be denounced by name, does that apply to 
 thealtar. , J ,, J , . , ^ J 
 
 clergymen as well as laymen r* Certainly. 
 
 If a priest, without authority, denounces a person by 
 name from the altar, that is a violation of the law of the 
 Church? Yes, and it is a graver violation to denounce a 
 clergyman than a layman. 
 
 Does it include clergymen ? Yes, and the fault is the 
 greater when a clergyman is denounced. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : You should not denounce anybody 
 by name. What do you mean by denouncing? We may 
 have a difference about that. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 146. 2 Supra, p. 146.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 329 
 
 What did you mean when giving that answer? I mean 
 imputing misconduct to any person. 
 
 Whether spiritual or temporal ? I don't care. 
 
 If you read out a person's name because he did not attend 
 the communion, would that be denouncing ? I have never 
 done it. 
 
 Would it be denunciation ? It is allowed to be done in 
 some cases. 
 
 Would it be denunciation ? I don't consider it would. 
 
 Then would you read the names from the altar before the 
 whole congregation ? I know it is done. It is done in the 
 archdiocese of Cashel with the knowledge of the bishop. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is this law, No. 19, 1 repealed, or 
 still in force ? It is not by any means repealed. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Read that. ( Witness reading] : * We 
 forbid any priest, from any cause, to inveigh against anyone 
 from the altar, to mention his name, or to publicly denounce 
 anyone.' 
 
 On your oath, didn't you denounce your own bishop from 
 the altar again and again ? I explained that before. 
 
 Didn't you denounce him from the altar ? I read that 
 paper. 
 
 Was it denunciation to say that his life had been spent 
 in an infamous traffic in sacraments ? (No answer.) 
 
 Did you denounce him ? Was that denunciation ? I did 
 not read that paper until I gave Cardinal Cullen notice that 
 I would read it if he would not give me redress. 
 
 Was it denunciation ? I read that paper from the altar. 
 You may call the act by that name if you like. 
 
 I will not call it by anything. I will call upon Father 
 O'Keeffe to do so. I am not bound to give it a name. 
 
 I appeal to your lordship to ask the witness to answer a 
 fair question or commit him. You may give it what name 
 you like. Listen to me. You have been reading the laws of 
 the Synod of Thurles, where the word denunciation occurs. 
 Now, according to the interpretation you put upon that word, 
 and you have put an interpretation upon it did you 
 denounce your bishop? I have no objection to say 
 
 Yes or no? I have no objection to say that what I stated 
 
 1 Referring to statutes passed by Synod of Thurles, chap, 'de paroehis,' 19. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe.
 
 330 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- from the altar in Callan in reference to the bishop was a 
 
 examina- -, ... 
 
 tion of proper denunciation. 
 
 Father Quite right ; I am satisfied. And you were to judge what 
 
 ' was a proper denunciation from God's altar of your own 
 
 bishop ? It was a proper and justifiable denunciation. 
 
 You admitted to Cardinal Cullen you had read that paper? 
 I don't think we went into that. 
 
 Tou admitted it three or four times. Didn't you tell him 
 you had read it on several Sundays ? I had sent the paper 
 to Cardinal Barnabo. 
 
 Didn't you tell that to the Cardinal ? I don't think we 
 had any conversation about it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Did you send it to Cardinal 
 Barnabo ? I did. I had sought redress everywhere, and 
 could not get it. That is what he complained of me having 
 sent that paper to Cardinal Barnabo as it was. The greatest 
 crime in the world to complain of being ill-treated by a 
 bishop ! That is my crime. 
 
 You are a spotless lamb ! Is that your handwriting 
 (handing letter to witness) ? Yes. 
 
 (Counsel read a letter of April 11th, 1871, from Rev. Mr. 
 O'Keeffe to John Lynch. 1 ) 
 
 Now at this time the religious feuds were bitter in 
 Callan? Yes, they were. 
 
 And law was going on between the rival parties ? Yes. 
 It was not so bad at that time. 
 
 They got worse after that? Yes, they were getting 
 worse every day. 
 
 Do you call that letter a threatening denunciation ? No. 
 It was an act of duty. 
 
 You may denounce people ? If scandals prevail in the 
 parish, the parish priest is bound to raise his voice. 
 
 And if he has a scandalous 'bishop, he should raise it 
 aloud against him ? Yes, it was my duty to do it. Scandals 
 were prevailing extensively at the time, and I wanted to do 
 my best to put an end to them. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: What is the meaning of the paper? 
 The faithful of the Catholic Church are bound to receive 
 communion once a year if they have the opportunity. They 
 
 1 This was a letter written by the plaintiff to a parishioner, requiring him to 
 attend to his religious duties in the parish chapel.
 
 Rev. Robert CfKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 331 
 
 are bound to observe that precept which is called the canon Cross- 
 of the Council of Lateran. Many of the faithful of the e ^ ) 1 "f 
 parish were being withdrawn from me at that time, and I Father 
 wished to give them notice that it was their duty to come to ee ' 
 me and receive communion in my church. I sent several 
 notices intimating that it would be my duty, in order to put 
 an end to the scandal, to read the names every Sunday from 
 the altar until they would reform and comply with that 
 general canon of the Council of Lateran. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : These were people abstaining from 
 coming in consequence of the suspension? I don't know 
 what reason they had. 
 
 On your oath, didn't you know that was the reason ? In 
 consequence of the denunciations of Fathers Neary and 
 Walsh, swearing that I was a suspended priest. 
 
 Don't you know that that man named on the back of the 
 paper (John Lynch) declined to come to your ministrations, 
 as he believed your suspension was good ? I don't think he 
 knew anything about it. He often heard Fathers Neary and 
 Walsh swear that I was incapable of giving sacraments, and 
 that I was no longer parish priest. 
 
 You circulated a great many such papers through the 
 parish ? I did. I gave notices of this kind to everyone 
 whose names I had missed. 
 
 Insisting that you were the only proper parish priest, and 
 that nobody else had a right to be in your parish ? Nobody 
 else, and they could not comply with the paschal precept by 
 receiving communion anywhere else except in my church. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong (to witness) : I will read you a letter 
 which you wrote to the Poor Law Commissioners. I need 
 not be going through the whole series. They wrote you 
 alleging they had received a copy of the suspension of the 
 Cardinal, and you wrote back this. 
 
 (The following are the letters here referred to) : 
 
 Letter from the Poor Law Commissioners to the Rev. R. CfKeeffe. 
 
 'Dublin, 31st January, 1872. 
 
 ' REV. SIK, The Commissioners for Administering the Laws for 
 the Kelief of the Poor in Ireland acknowledge the receipt of your 
 letter of the 27th instant, in which you complain that the Commis- 
 sioners have formed an opinion as to your qualifications for chaplain 
 of a Workhouse, without first complying Avith a request for a copy of the
 
 332 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 
 examiiia- 
 
 tion of 
 
 Father 
 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 document laid before them, by which you were alleged to have been 
 suspended. 
 
 ' In reply, the Commissioners have to state that they neVer doubted, 
 and do not now doubt, that a copy of the document in question had 
 been sent to you at the time of its promulgation. 
 
 ' The document in question, which bears the signature of the Cardi- 
 nal Archbishop of Dublin, purports to suspend you, for reasons therein 
 stated, from the exercise of any spiritual function, specifying particularly 
 the administration of sacraments, the celebration of mass, the hearing 
 of confession, and preaching the Word of God. 
 
 ' It is the official duty of the Commissioners to provide religious 
 service for Roman Catholic inmates of the Workhouse, by the appoint- 
 ment of a duly qualified Koman Catholic clergyman as chaplain of the 
 Workhouse ; and it is impossible for them to continue you, under these 
 circumstances, in that capacity. 
 
 ' The Commissioners must therefore require your resignation of the 
 office of chaplain of the Callan Workhouse. 
 
 ' By order, 
 
 <B. BANKS.' 
 
 Letter from Rev. R. O'Keeffe to the Poor Law Commissioners. 
 
 'Callan, Feb. 1st, 1872. 
 
 * GENTLEMEN, I have received your letter of yesterday's date, in 
 which you inform me that you have never doubted that a copy of Dr. 
 Cullen's document, professing to be a suspension of me, has been sent 
 me ; yet I can assure you most positively that what you have considered 
 certain is absolutely untrue. No doubt, it must be difficult for you to be- 
 lieve that any one, claiming the right to sit in judgment on another, and 
 to pronounce sentence upon him, would be capable of pronouncing this 
 sentence behind the back of the accused, and cautiously withholding the 
 judgment from him ; yet this has been done in my case ; and I assure 
 you, without fear of contradiction, that I had never seen a copy of the 
 document in question, nor known of its existence, till a shoemaker of this 
 town brought it to me on the 26th November last, after he had indig- 
 nantly torn it down from the door of the Friary Chapel here ; and I can 
 further assure you, without fear of contradiction also, that the citation 
 said in the document to have been sent me has never reached me. You 
 that are acciistomed to the courts and the laws of this free country 
 must find it difficult to believe these facts ; but you little know with 
 what absolute sway an ecclesiastical despot, brought up in a foreign 
 country, and claiming to be above the laws of his own, can affect to 
 rule. You have been dazzled with the glare of the scarlet robes, and 
 your disordered vision has transferred the black colour of the cloth of 
 my order to my very soul. At the bidding of a man who has no right 
 whatever to sit in judgment upon me, you take it upon yourselves to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cull&n. 333 
 
 enforce a sentence uttered in the dark, and hidden from the accused. Cross- 
 I told you before, and I repeat it now, that "by the canon law o oxamma- 
 the E.G. Church in Ireland, a P.P. does not forfeit his rights or his Father 
 fitness to discharge the functions of his office until he is condemned by O'Keeffe. 
 a tribunal of competent jurisdiction as guilty of some gross impropriety, 
 on the testimony of at least two witnesses, and denounced by proper 
 authority publicly to his people as having lost his jurisdiction over 
 them," and I challenge contradiction to my assertion. I have never 
 been tried, and I have never been justly condemned. I know you have 
 acted in this matter through what you consider a sense of public duty ; 
 but I will ask you to reflect seriously on the grave responsibility you 
 take upon yourselves of executing the sentence of a judge who has no 
 right to sit in judgment, and who pronounces his sentence in the dark. 
 
 ' I am, Gentlemen, &c., 
 
 < R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 
 Didn't you mean to convey that you had never got a 
 copy of the suspension ? From Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 Never got it at all ? From Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 Didn't you mean to convey you never saw it ? I meant 
 to say that Cardinal Cullen had never sent it to me. 
 
 (Letter quoted) : ' What you have considered certain is 
 absolutely untrue.' What is the meaning of that ? I be- 
 lieved it untrue. 
 
 What did you think was in the registered letter ? ' I did 
 not know what was in it. 
 
 On your oath ? I could form no opinion. 
 
 Listen, sir. You had got the Cardinal's handwriting. 
 What did you think it was ? Didn't you think it was the 
 judgment? I did not think he would be capable of con- 
 demning a man in his absence, and without bringing a 
 charge against him. 
 
 On your oath, didn't you think the sentence was in it? 
 On my oath, if I had been told two years ago that such a 
 thing was possible, I would have laughed at the idea. 
 
 On your oath, didn't you think the sentence was in it ? 
 I will say this, Serjeant 
 
 You will answer my question. On your oath, when you 
 got the registered letter, didn't you think the sentence was 
 in it ? On my oath, I did not. I did not think there was 
 such a thing in it. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 198.
 
 334 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland} . 
 
 Cross- I am not asking the character of the sentence or the 
 
 ^iorTof" P ur P or t f it. Didn't you think it was the sentence was in 
 
 Father it? I did not. 
 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Had you any idea ? I had none. I thought it was some- 
 thing it would be better to ignore than receive. That is all 
 I know about it. In this chair I certainly swear I did not 
 think such a thing possible in a civilized country. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You did not open the seal ? I 
 did not open the seal. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong (reading above letter) l : ' No doubt it 
 must be difficult for you to believe that anyone claiming the 
 right to sit in judgment on another, and to pronounce 
 sentence upon him would be capable of pronouncing this 
 sentence behind the back of the accused, and cautiously 
 withholding the judgment from him. Yet this has been 
 done in my case.' There you tell the Commissioners that it 
 would be difficult for them to suppose that anyone would 
 pronounce sentence behind the back of the accused. Hadn't 
 you been invited to come and hear the sentence, and didn't 
 you refuse? What sentence? If you invite me to come 
 and hear a sentence, can I answer that ? 
 
 * Cautiously withholding the judgment from him.' Hadn't 
 you received it before you wrote the letter ? I never dreamt 
 there was a judgment in the registered letter. 
 
 I ask you, on your oath, is it not as deliberate a lie as 
 man ever wrote ? Perfectly true. I could not believe such 
 a thing possible. I am sorry now I must believe it. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong then read the remaining portion of 
 the letter, and asked, * Why did you suppress the fact that 
 you were asked to come and hear the sentence ' ? Come and 
 hear whose sentence ? 
 
 Did you think it an honest thing to keep back the fact 
 that you would not hear the sentence ? What ? 
 
 I won't condescend to put the question twice. Was it an 
 honest thing to suppress from the Poor Law Commissioners 
 that you were invited and requested to come and hear the 
 sentence ? That is an honest letter. 
 
 Was it an honest thing to suppress that fact ? I am pre- 
 pared to prove everything stated in that letter. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 332.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 335 
 
 Was it an honest thing to suppress the fact that you Cross- 
 had been asked to hear the sentence ? I suppressed what ^Tof " 
 
 fact ? Father 
 
 Didn't you complain in the letter that you were sentenced 
 behind your back ? Didn't you ? I did. 
 
 Were you not asked to come and hear some sentence ? 
 Who asked me ? 
 
 The Cardinal, by his letter ? Am I bound to take notice 
 of every invitation I get? 
 
 Was it an honest thing to suppress the fact that you 
 were asked to come by the Cardinal ? Didn't I tell the Poor 
 Law Commissioners he had no more jurisdiction over me 
 than the Archbishop of Vienna ? 
 
 Re-examined by MR. FITZGIBBOF. 
 
 Re-exami- 
 
 Do you know the books of the canon law to which the nation of 
 Serjeant referred ? Yes. OMe. 
 
 Are you acquainted with the books? I am acquainted 
 with writers on these books. canon la-w. 
 
 What is the subject matter of the books of Devoti and 
 the others referred to? The entire body of canon law. 
 
 Is the body of canon law treated of in these books the 
 same collection as the Serjeant referred to ? Yes ; the same 
 collection. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Have you read the chapter on 
 * the promulgation of laws ' ? I don't recollect reading it. 
 
 Do you know there is such a chapter ? Yes. 
 
 Is it read in Maynooth ? Yes, as a book of reference. It 
 is not in the hands of the students. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon: Are these books of authority in your 
 Church as dealing with this body of canon law ? Oh yes. 
 
 You mentioned to the Serjeant that the books he read to 
 you were what is called the ancient body of canon law ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Is there subsequent canon law to that? Yes. 
 
 Do they come down as far as the Council of Trent ? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : They come far later. You will 
 find it in Blackstone. I don't pretend to any higher 
 authority. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Did you know the occurrence to which 
 Bishop Walsh referred when he spoke to you about removing
 
 336 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 Ke- 
 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Power of 
 
 Pope's 
 delegate. 
 
 the nuns before ? No, I did not. I knew that he had removed 
 me from Kilkenny. 
 
 How many years before that had he removed you? 
 Exactly twenty years. 
 
 Was it he that subsequently appointed you to Callan ? 
 Yes ; to Rathdowney and Callan. 
 
 Did he give you this letter of appointment (handing 
 letter to witness) ? Yes. 
 
 (Letter of appointment dated 18th January, 1863, read 
 by counsel.) * 
 
 You were also asked in reference to the powers of a dele- 
 gate of the Pope in dealing with your case. According to 
 canonical law, is the power of the delegate subject to law ? 
 Yes, of course. 
 
 Assuming that you were right, and the bull In Coena was 
 not in force in Ireland, could the Pope loj authority create a 
 crime that did not exist before ? Certainly not. 
 
 Where the delegated power is granted, is there any 
 regular way or rule of your Church as to the way in which 
 the extent and nature of that power is to be communicated 
 to the accused ? Certainly. 
 
 Tn what way ? The commission under which the dele- 
 gated superior proposes to act should be communicated to 
 the accused. 
 
 The Lord CJiief Justice : Read like our commission when 
 going circuit ? The very same ; in order that the accused 
 party may take exception if he has ground. 
 
 Were you asked about that commission ? I think not. 
 
 What do you say about it ? A person being the ordinary 
 superior, such as the bishop of the diocese, can hear cases 
 and proceed to judgment without being questioned as to his 
 authority, as it is assumed that he performs it by virtue of his 
 ordinary jurisdiction. But where a party receives what is 
 called extraordinary jurisdiction to act as a judge, then it 
 is his duty to communicate the commission under which he 
 proposes to act, to the party accused. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : You were asked as to authority in the 
 matter. Is that the authority to which you referred (handing 
 book to witness) ? Yes. 
 
 What book is that ? John Devoti on the Canon Law. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 1 23.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 337 
 
 You were asked as to writing to some of your parishioners Ee- 
 who did not attend to the paschal communication. Are you ^^^f " 
 subject to the statutes of the diocese of Ossory ? Yes. Father 
 
 rVTT #* 
 
 What is the regulation of your diocese in reference to ee e * 
 persons who absent themselves from the paschal com- 
 munion service ? Do you know the statute ? Yes ; it was 
 my duty by all means possible to bring public sinners to 
 a sense of their duty, and to make every effort to restore 
 them to the obedience and submission of the canons and 
 rules of the Church. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I cannot take this which has been 
 read here unless it is fortified by an oath. I therefore ask 
 you this question : Is this true ? I am reading from Dr. 
 Doyle's evidence. He is asked, ' Is the bull In Ccena Domini 
 in force in Ireland ? ' The answer is : ' There are portions of Bull In 
 the bull that were in force from the time of Christianity, but 
 the bull as a bull is not in force nor ever was in Ireland. It 
 has been rejected from nearly all the Italian countries in 
 Europe. If it were in force there is scarcely anything that 
 would be at rest among the Catholic states of Europe.' ! Do 
 you believe that to be the law ? I do ; I quite concur in every 
 word. 
 
 In answer to a question as to the Pope's nuncio having 
 in 1768 sent a letter to the archbishops of Ireland ex- 
 pressing his disapprobation of their acceding to any oath 
 disclaiming the dispensing doctrine, the answer is, ' He 
 may have done so. . . . . Surely we are not less 
 competent to determine such a matter than a nuncio ? ' Oh, 
 certainly ; I quite concur in that. 
 
 Again he is asked, ' Was not the same bull, namely, the 
 bull In Cosna Domini, declared to be in force in 1793? 
 Answer : ' Not only that, but it may for aught I know be 
 declared last year to have been in force, but their declaring 
 it to be so in force does not make it to be in force with us. 
 We have never received it, and surely never will.' I do not 
 ask you to swear the latter part, but the former part is 
 accurate according to your knowledge 9 I believe it to be. 2 
 
 ' To the present we have never received it, and surely 
 
 1 See evidence of Dr. Doyle before Committee of House of Lords on the state 
 of Ireland, April 21, 1825, p. 311. 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
 Z
 
 338 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Ee- 
 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Father 
 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Evidence 
 of Dr. 
 Doyle as 
 to limited 
 power of 
 Pope. 
 
 never will.' I only ask you to state on your oath, if you can 
 answer it, whether the former part is correct ? I consider it 
 to be. 
 
 You consider it to be accurate. There is one question 
 more. Attend to this answer of the same Eight Rev. Dr. 
 Doyle : ' Of course we would obey him (the Pope) in 
 those things to which his authority extends, namely, spiritual 
 matters, or the execution of decrees regularly defined 
 by general councils and accepted by us, for they are not 
 all the decrees of even general councils which are received 
 in each kingdom. For instance, the decrees of the Council 
 of Trent regarding discipline are not received in the kingdom 
 of France. The decree of the Council of Trent regarding a 
 particular discipline is not received in the province of Dublin 
 in Leinster, though it is received in the other parts of Ireland. 
 All the decrees then even of general councils, much less all 
 the decrees of the Pope, cannot have force unless they are 
 received formally by the nation which they regard, or whose 
 discipline is affected by them. Each church has its rights, 
 and those rights cannot be subverted or affected by any pro- 
 ceedings on the part of the Pope, without the concurrence 
 of the hierarchy of such church.' 1 Is that accurate? I 
 consider that to be very accurate. 
 
 Is this accurate ? * Do the Roman Catholic clergy insist 
 that all bulls of the Pope are entitled to obedience ? By no 
 means. The Pope we consider as the executive authority 
 in the Catholic Church, and when he issues a bull en- 
 forcing a discipline already settled by a general council, 
 such bull is entitled to respect, but he may issue bulls which 
 would regard local discipline and other matters not already 
 defined, and in that case his bull would be treated by us in 
 such manner as might seem good to us. For instance, did it 
 trench upon our local discipline we might treat it as we did 
 the receipt of Quarrontotti, about which I was questioned 
 here the other day. Did we find it was unreasonable we 
 would refuse to accept of it.' 2 Is that correct ? I believe 
 that to be correct. 
 
 There is also this answer : * I should advert to the two 
 
 1 See evidence of Dr. Doyle before Committee of House of Commons, March 
 18, 1825 ; Second Report on the State of Ireland, p. 192. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 191.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Oullen. 339 
 
 classes of priests we employ ; the one are parish priests, Ee- 
 
 the other are coadjutors. We have an arbitrary power to e ^f f " 
 
 remove from his situation a curate, but we cannot suspend Father 
 
 him without a canonical cause : that is, we cannot take from 
 
 him the right of saying mass unless for cause shown. But Position of 
 
 the parish priests have a title to their office, and from that a^parish 
 
 office we cannot remove them unless on a charge defined by Priests. 
 
 law being proved against them, and then we pass sentence 
 
 on them, and either reprimand them, suspend them for a 
 
 time, or suspend them altogether.' l Is that according to 
 
 your knowledge the law of the Church ? It is very hard. 
 
 As to the mode of trial of a bishop, it is said that the 
 Pope cannot remove a bishop, except on trial in the usual 
 manner. Is that accurate ? It is accurate. 
 
 A Juror: Did your bishop intimate to you before he 
 removed the curates his intention to do so ? No. As to ap- 
 
 He did not ? He did not. He did not intimate to me ^ ltment 
 that he was about to remove the Eev. James Carr from the removal of 
 parish. He gave me no intimation of his intention to remove curates - 
 the Eev. James Carr. 
 
 Is that the usual custom ? It is the usual custom. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is? It was the practice 
 with Dr. Walsh to remove a curate from a parish priest with- 
 out intimating to the parish priest that it was his intention 
 to remove him. 
 
 Then you did not know at all he was coming? That is not 
 it, my lord, but the gentleman that was going. I did not know 
 he was going. When the Rev. Mr. Neary came he presented 
 a letter to me in these words, or nearly so : c Rev. Sir, I 
 hereby appoint the Rev. Patrick Neary curate to Callan.' 
 
 Was that the first communication ? That was the first 
 communication. 
 
 He came with the letter ? He came to me and showed 
 me that letter, but did not leave it with me. 
 
 A Juror : You admitted that you denounced your bishop ? 
 I read certain papers here, in which his name is introduced. 
 
 Was it after that the curates denounced you ? Oh, the 
 curates had been denouncing me, for I might say years, at 
 least for a year and a half. And before I read one portion of 
 
 1 See evidence of Dr. Doyle before Committee of House of Commons, March 
 16, 1825 ; Second Eeport on the State of Ireland, p. 186.
 
 340 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 a letter to my people at Callan I wrote to the Rev. Mr. Crean, 
 tion of who was the provincial of the order of Augustinians 
 
 Father The Lord Chief Justice : Only answer the question. 
 
 _ ' A Juror : Was it after you denounced the bishop that 
 you got the citation? The citation? What citation? To 
 appear at the election ? 
 
 Yes ; to attend at the conference ? I was summoned to 
 appear at the election to give my vote on the 19th September, 
 1871. 1 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Was that before or after ? Long 
 after. 
 
 A Juror: Assuming the citation to meet his Eminence in 
 Eccles Street to be good and valid, did it state the charge 
 against you ? I got no citation to meet his Eminence at all. 
 I never dreamt there was any charge. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The juror asked you, supposing 
 the citation was right, did it give a statement of the charge 
 against you ? I never got a statement of any charge. 
 
 A Juror : Didn't you meet his Eminence in Eccles Street ? 
 He never told me to come up. 
 
 Didn't you meet his Eminence in Eccles Street ? I did, 
 on the 27th October. 
 
 Was the charge stated then against you ? No ; I didn't 
 know it until after the writ was served ; it was through Mr. 
 Meredith I learned it. 
 
 Were the curates there? No; I didn't know of any 
 accusers. There was nobody there but Canon Forde and 
 the Cardinal and myself. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : After you saw the suspension by 
 the Cardinal, did you continue to celebrate mass ? Oh, I 
 disregarded the suspension. 
 
 A Juror : Was the suspension served on you on a Sunday ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Is that legal in your Church ? Well, I really don't know 
 about that. I never heard of such a thing. It was mon- 
 strous to serve a suspension on me at all without giving me 
 some previous notice. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : The date of his reading the letters to 
 his congregation is fixed by this fact, that he mentions in the 
 letter that Serjeant Armstrong produced, that he was going 
 
 1 Supra, p. 244.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 941 
 
 to read them on the following Sunday. That is dated 7th Examina- 
 March, 1871, therefore it was about the llth he read them ^Jjj^ 
 to the congregation. Cullen. 
 
 I hand in the order of the Court of 10th June, 1872, 
 containing admission of publication. The order relates only 
 to the publication of the suspension, and it contains a formal 
 admission of the publication of it to one of the courts. 
 The interdict itself, the whole of it, is proved by Mr. O'Keeffe. 
 The other documents have all been marked and we enter them. 
 
 The plaintiff's case here closed. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong addressed the jury and stated the 
 case for the defence. 
 
 SIXTH DAY. 
 
 Saturday, 17th May, 1873. 
 
 CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. 
 
 His Eminence CARDINAL CULLEN examined by ME. 
 
 O'HAGAN, Q.C. 
 
 Your Eminence is defendant in this case ? Yes. 
 
 You are Archbishop of Dublin ? Roman Catholic Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin. 
 
 And as such Metropolitan of the Roman Catholic 
 province of Leinster ? Yes. 
 
 Is the diocese of Ossory a suffragan diocese of that 
 province ? Yes. 
 
 Are you also Cardinal of the Church of Rome ? Yes. 
 
 Now may I ask your Eminence if you have studied and 
 become acquainted with the canon law of the Church ? I 
 studied it for some time, and I have had a deal of practice 
 in administering it. 
 
 As bishop are you a judge of the matters of canon 
 law ? Certainly ; I am every day engaged in hearing and 
 deciding on matters of canon law. 
 
 You are therefore peritus virtute officii in canon law ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Do you remember having been in Maynooth in the month 
 of May, 1869, at a conference ? Not in May. 
 
 In the year 1869 ? No, not in the month of May. 
 
 Oh ! I thought it was about that time ? No, the month
 
 342 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Departure 
 to Rome. 
 
 of July. It was not a conference; it was a retreat of the 
 
 clergy. 
 
 Did your Eminence upon that occasion make some 
 observations to the clergy assembled there ? Yes, it is quite 
 the custom generally for the bishop to make some obser- 
 vations to the clergy on those occasions. 
 
 Did you make any observations then with respect to 
 priests suing their ecclesiastical superiors ? In addressing 
 the clergy, I told them that it was necessary to be very 
 much attached and devoted to the Church at the present 
 time ; that on the Continent great efforts were made to 
 destroy the authority of the Church; that, unfortunately, 
 attempts were made nearer home ; that in England a man 
 was engaged in a lawsuit against his own superior ; and that 
 in Ireland a priest had cited his bishop, who appeared before 
 a civil court for something done in the exercise of his juris- 
 diction. I don't say these are the precise words, but it is 
 the precise sense of what I said on the occasion. 
 
 Did you name any individuals in the course of that 
 address ? I did not name either places or individuals. 
 
 Did you afterwards, on the 7th or 8th of August, in the 
 year 1869, receive a letter l from the plaintiff here, Mr. 
 O'Keeffe ? Yes. 
 
 That is the letter that has been proved. Has your 
 Eminence been in court and heard the correspondence 
 proved here ? Yes, I was in court on that morning. 
 
 That is the letter of the 7th of August, 1869 the 
 plaintiff's letter. Did your Eminence answer that by that 
 letter of the 17th of August, 1869 ? 2 I answered it soon after. 
 
 Did the plaintiff's letter to you enclose a letter from him 
 to Dr. Lynch of Carlow ? Yes. 
 
 Well now, putting these letters into your Eminence's 
 hands they have been already proved I will merely ask 
 you, did the correspondence between you and the plaintiff 
 in the months of July, August, and September of the year 
 1869, which has been already proved in this court, take 
 place ? Certainly. 
 
 That is quite enough. Did your Eminence go to Eome 
 
 in the latter end of the year 
 at the Vatican Council. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 134. 
 
 1869? Yes ; I went to assist 
 
 2 Supra, p. 134.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 343 
 
 What was the date of your going ? do you remember Examina- 
 about what month ? About the 29th of November, 1869 ; I c^inli 
 arrived at Eome about the 6th of December, and the Cullen. 
 Council commenced on the 8th of December. Vatican 
 
 Your Eminence is very well acquainted, I believe, with council. 
 Cardinal Barnabo, the Cardinal Prefect 9 Certainly ; I have 
 the honour of being acquainted with him. 
 
 Did Cardinal Barnabo, when you were in Eome, show 
 you a letter he received from the plaintiff? He showed me 
 a letter to him by the plaintiff. It was the secretary of 
 Cardinal Barnabo that showed it to me ; it was in the name 
 of the Cardinal. 
 
 Now was that the letter that was read in evidence here, 
 the letter of the 28th of November, 1869, 1 in which he 
 asked leave to go to Eome ? Yes, precisely. 
 
 Did your Eminence speak to Cardinal Barnabo, or to his 
 secretary, on the subject of that letter ? To his secretary. 
 
 May I ask your Eminence what you told the secretary ? Interview 
 The secretary told me that the Cardinal was anxious to know ^ ^ m 
 something about this gentleman who was corresponding Cardinal 
 with him. He had written a letter for the purpose of getting arna "- 
 permission to come to Eome. He was about making some 
 alterations in his parish, and he wrote begging of the Holy 
 See permission to establish nuns in his parish. Hearing 
 this, I told the Cardinal that 
 
 The secretary ? The Cardinal's secretary ; it was for the 
 cardinal I told the secretary that I had just received a letter 
 from Dr. Walsh, in which he informed me that the present 
 plaintiff had served a writ on him on the 24th, Christmas- 
 eve the 24th of December for a new lawsuit. I told the 
 Cardinal 
 
 The secretary ? I told the secretary that, a few months 
 before, he had instituted proceedings against the same bishop 
 his own bishop and that he had compelled him to pay to 
 himself 500L or 600L, and that he had been mulcted also in 
 his own expenses, for that thereby the bishop had lost by 
 him, the plaintiff, who was now in correspondence with the 
 Propaganda, about 1000?. 
 
 Did you mention anything about the action, and the 
 apology that Mr. O'Keeffe had made ? Certainly. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 146.
 
 344 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Retiirn to 
 Ireland. 
 
 Mention what it was. I mentioned also that the 
 plaintiff had made an apology * in the previous September, at 
 my instance ; that I had had a correspondence with him ; 
 that he made the apology, and promised, at that time, to be 
 obedient and respectful to the bishop, in future. I happened 
 to receive at that time a copy of the apology, and I handed 
 it to the Cardinal. 
 
 Did anything further occur ? The Cardinal immediately 
 said, or the secretary said, What use would it be bringing 
 a man like that to Rome ? I did not interfere any further 
 in the matter. 
 
 You had no further communication ? No further com- 
 munication. I never spoke to the secretary, and the Cardinal 
 never spoke to me after, all the time I was in Rome. 
 
 When did your Eminence return to Ireland ? About the 
 1st of August following. 
 
 I believe the Council broke up by reason of the war 
 breaking out ? The Council broke up on the 18th of July, 
 1870, and I got home about the 1st of August. 
 
 Now, your Eminence, when you came home, were you 
 made aware, or did you become aware of the action which Mr. 
 O'Keeffe had brought against his bishop, and against Father 
 Neary and Father Walsh ? Whilst I was in Rome I did. 
 
 In Rome you became acquainted with them ? Yes, from 
 the newspapers and letters I received. 
 
 Yes, before your return, and while in Rome, you became 
 aware of these actions brought by Mr. O'Keeffe, not only 
 against his own bishop, but also against the curates? I 
 heard it said that he had taken them before I left Rome. 
 
 After you returned from Rome, did your Eminence 
 hear of further actions he had brought ? I heard of them 
 through public report, and correspondence with the bishop 
 and clergy. 
 
 Are you in the habit of corresponding with Cardinal 
 Barnabo with reference to the ecclesiastical affairs of Ire- 
 land ? Continually. 
 
 Has he, as Prefect of the Propaganda, jurisdiction over 
 Ireland ? He had the same jurisdiction as the Pope on all 
 affairs which are referred to him ; he representing the Pope. 
 
 Is the College de Propaganda the college through which 
 
 1 See p. 421.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 345 
 
 the ecclesiastical affairs of Ireland are managed ? They call Examina- 
 it the Congregration. The Congregation de Propaganda is Cardinal 
 the organ through which all the ecclesiastical affairs of Cullen. 
 Ireland referred to Rome, are managed and decided. Jurisdic- 
 
 I believe it embraces for the most part the affairs of ^ on of the 
 missionary countries ? All the missionary countries ; all the ga uda. 
 affairs of this empire, I think, except Malta. All the Chinese 
 and Turkish empires. Nearly all Africa, except a few spots. 
 All North America, except Mexico. 
 
 I believe the course of procedure in it is less expensive Functions 
 than in other Roman courts ? Its sittings are for the pur- paganda. 
 pose of carrying on business expeditiously and with little ex- 
 pense. In other courts affairs are conducted as in the public 
 courts here. In the Propaganda they are conducted with a 
 regard more to natural justice and with a real knowledge of 
 the affairs, than with legal forms. 
 
 Your Eminence is of course well acquainted with the 
 writing of Cardinal Barnabo ? Oh, certainly. 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : I must object to this. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : You cannot till I ask a question. As 
 yet I have done nothing any mortal can object to. (To 
 witness) : Is that the handwriting of Cardinal Barnabo (docu- 
 ment produced) ? ] That is the handwriting of Cardinal 
 Barnabo, and the handwriting of the Secretary of the Con- 
 gregation, the Sacred Congregation. 
 
 Is the seal of the Sacred Congregation affixed to that? 
 The seal of the Sacred Congregation. 
 
 Did your Eminence receive the document that I hold in 
 my hands from Cardinal Barnabo at any time in June, 1871? 
 I received it at some time in the month of June. 
 
 June, 1871 ? June, 1871. 
 
 The following is the translation of the document here 
 referred to, viz., the Papal Rescript issued by Cardinal 
 Cullen in May, 1871 : 
 
 ' 31st May, 1871. 
 
 ' Decree of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda fide. Since it Papal re- 
 has been reported to the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda fide that 
 grave scandals have arisen in the Diocese of Ossory by reason of the 
 fact that the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe, Parish Priest of Callan, though sus- 
 pended from Holy things by the Most Rev. the Bishop of that diocese, 
 
 1 See Latin copy of Papal Rescript, Appendix No. II., p. 581.
 
 346 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Universal 
 jurisdic- 
 tion of the 
 Pope. 
 
 has still the audacity, not only to celebrate mass, but even in public 
 assemblies to inveigh against the Bishop, now afflicted with illness, 
 Our Most Holy Lord Pius IX., Pope, at the relation of the under- 
 signed Secretary of the said Congregation in audience of the 14th day 
 of May, 1871, has deigned to confer on his Eminence the Most Rev. 
 Paul Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland, the neces- 
 sary and proper faculties, that as a delegate of the Apostolic See he 
 may be able and have power to proceed in the case of Priest O'Keeffe, 
 and he has ordered the present decree in this matter to be expedited. 
 
 ' Given at Rome from the Offices of the Sacred Congregation de 
 Propaganda fide, the 31st day of May, 1871. 
 
 ' A. CARD. BARNABO, Prefect. 
 ' JOHN SIMEONI, Secretary.' 
 
 Now, I am asked by my learned friends to ask your 
 Eminence to fix as nearly as possible the exact date at which 
 you received it. Yery possibly it may not have been sent 
 away from Eome for a few days after, because the registry of 
 these documents has to be filled up, and then five or six 
 days more would bring it to me. 
 
 That would be about the 10th? Before the 10th. 
 
 Now I may ask your Eminence is it or is it not the fact 
 that at that time you were very much occupied? I was 
 exceedingly occupied, and, if you allow me, I can tell a great 
 number of the occupations in which I was engaged. 
 
 I don't think your Eminence will be troubled with that. 
 I may mention we had two meetings of the bishops at that 
 time on account of the disestablishment 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I must object to this. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Now reverting to the canon law of which 
 your Eminence is an expert ; by the rules and ordinances of 
 the Roman Catholic Church, has the Pope direct and imme- 
 diate jurisdiction over all the Catholic Church in the world ? 
 By the rules and ordinances of all ecclesiastical laws, 
 commencing from the words of Christ, ' Thou art Peter, and 
 on this rock I build my church/ down to the decision of the 
 Vatican Council in 1870, the Pope has full power directly 
 to interfere in the affairs of every part of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 And that not merely by way of appellant jurisdiction, but 
 direct and immediate? Direct and immediate jurisdiction.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 347 
 
 I may ask your Eminence, has that jurisdiction been ever 
 denied by any writer on canon law belonging to any school ? 
 That jurisdiction of the Pope has never been denied by 
 any true Catholic. It has been denied by people calling 
 themselves Catholics. I think Yan Espen, whose name I 
 heard here, denied it; but he was a Jansenist, and not a Catho- 
 lic. He denies it partially, and admits it to a certain extent. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I may mention that it has been 
 returned to the Parliament of the country as one of the 
 works read in Maynooth. I know it was mentioned in the 
 parliamentary return, and, conceiving it to be true, I referred 
 to it. 
 
 Witness : It appeared from history, my lord, that he lived 
 and died a Jansenist, and that he was separated from the 
 Church. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I assure you I excuse myself if I 
 referred to one whom the most eminent Catholic lawyer who 
 ever lived in England I mean Dr. Butler has pointed out 
 as the very gem of authors on the subject. 
 
 Witness : I would be very sorry to be guided, my lord, 
 by Dr. Butler's authority on anything Catholic. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But he was a very great lawyer ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : He was a very great lawyer, my lord, but 
 a very bad Catholic. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I take the answer this way then : 
 it was never denied by any true Catholic, but it was by some 
 that call themselves Catholics. That is the answer, Cardinal ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : But amongst the received and accredited 
 authors of the Catholic Church, has that jurisdiction been 
 ever denied ? Never. It has been exercised in every century 
 from the days of the Apostles down to the present time. 
 
 Would the Pope, therefore, have power to try any priest 
 in any part of the world who might be accused of any cano- 
 nical offence? Certainly, as pastor of the flock, supreme 
 pastor, he has care of the whole flock of the inferior shep- 
 herds, as well as of the sheep themselves. 
 
 May he delegate that power to any ecclesiastic he may 
 choose to select? Certainly. He has the power of dele- 
 gating his authority to others ; otherwise he would not be 
 able to carry on the business of the universal Church. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 The Pope 
 may 
 delegate 
 his power.
 
 348 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Examina- 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cuiien. 
 
 Would the person delegated by him have the same power 
 in reference to the subject matter to which he was delegated 
 as the Pope himself would have ? It depends on the form of 
 the delegation. Sometimes the Pope delegates his power 
 with restrictions, and under these restrictions the delegate 
 would have otherwise the same power as the Pope, but on 
 other occasions the Pope delegates his power in a particular 
 manner without any limitations, and then the delegate has 
 the same power as the Pope himself, with this difference, that 
 he would be obliged to render an account to the Pope if he 
 acts improperly. 
 
 Now I believe your Eminence was a long time in Rome 
 before you came to this country ? I was, for years about 
 thirty years. 
 
 Is your Eminence acquainted with the ordinary mode of 
 the acting of the Pope through the several congregations, 
 including the Congregation of the Propaganda? I had a 
 great deal of practice. I am pretty well informed of the way 
 they act. I am a member of the Sacred Congregation de 
 Propaganda. 
 
 Now, take this document l in your hands, of the 31st of 
 rescript of May, 1871 (document handed to witness). Is a document of 
 ay> ' that kind, signed by the Cardinal Prefect, countersigned by 
 the Secretary, and sealed with the seal of the Sacred Con- 
 gregation, is that in reality and truth an acting of the Pope 
 through the Congregation ? It is an act of the Pope through 
 the Congregation, even were it a mere document of the Pro- 
 paganda. But in this particular instance in this particular 
 document, it is mentioned that the Pope himself gives viva 
 voce all necessary and proper faculties in the affair of the 
 priest O'Keeffe as a delegate of the Apostolic See. 
 
 Would a document such as that confer upon you, being 
 named a delegate therein, the same power in the affair of 
 the priest O'Keeffe as the Pope himself would have had? 
 The very same power ; and I may add that I asked the Pope 
 himself, and he said he gave me his own powers pre- 
 cisely. 
 
 That is by letter? Viva voce. I saw him last October. 
 
 Mr. Purcell: Do you mean 1872 ? 1872. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Last October ? Now would you, Cardi- 
 
 1 See Eescript, p. 345 ; and for Latin original see Appendix, No. II., p. 581. 
 
 Papal
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 349 
 
 nal, be good enough to explain perhaps I may ask you Examina- 
 to translate, the document in your hand, and read it for the cardinal 
 jury ? I daresay there is some translation made already. Cullen. 
 
 I will read for your lordship now the translation we have. 
 I believe it is a very good one. Is this a correct translation 1 
 of it, your Eminence (document read] ? Perfectly right. 
 
 Well, now your Eminence perceives the Latin word that 
 has been translated ' in the case ' of the priest O'Keeffe is in 
 negotio ? Yes, that means the whole business of the priest 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 Chief Justice : What do you say ? It means the whole 
 business. 
 
 How do you make that out ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : The translation I read for your lordship 
 was * in the case of the priest O'Keeffe.' The Latin words 
 used are ' ut in negotio. 9 
 
 Chief Justice : In the business. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Well, ' in the business ' would, perhaps, be 
 the more proper translation. I see the word mulctatus used 
 fined or punished in some way. 
 
 Witness : That he is punished, or punishment in- 
 flicted. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Then, instead of ( fined,' the more correct 
 translation would be ' punished ' ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Now would that document give you juris- 
 diction to hear and decide upon the whole case of Mr. 
 O'Keeffe ? Upon the whole case of Mr. O'Keeffe, so far as it 
 was concerned with the scandal of Callan. 
 
 Would it enable your Eminence to hold a canonical Power 
 inquiry into his conduct so far as it related to the scandals in con 5f re<J 
 
 * J on the 
 
 Callan? It would enable me to hold a canonical inquiry, Cardinal 
 and to punish or admonish as the case might be. ky re- 
 
 That is, it would enable your Eminence to pass such 
 canonical sentence upon him as you might deem just ? Any 
 canonical sentence which I should consider just. 
 
 Did the correspondence then pass between your Eminence 
 and Mr. O'Keeffe in the months of July, August, and Sep- 
 tember of the year 1871, which has been already read in 
 court? As soon as I got that decree, I entered into the 
 correspondence with Mr. O'Keeffe. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345; and for Latin original see Appendix, No. II., p. 581.
 
 850 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Meeting of 
 clergy at 
 Kilkenny 
 to elect 
 bishops. 
 
 Who 
 should 
 preside on 
 such occa- 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the date of that docu- 
 ment ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : The 31st of May ; and it was received a 
 little before the 10th of June, 1871. (To witness) : And 
 the letter with which this correspondence commenced, in 
 the month of July, 1871, was your letter of the 16th of 
 July ? 1 Precisely. 
 
 That letter was in these terms (letter read). I assume it is 
 not necessary to go through all the letters which have been 
 already read, and, in order to shorten the case, I will ask your 
 Eminence in a general way, did the correspondence which 
 has been already proved in court, extending over the months 
 of July, August, and September of the year 1871, take place 
 between you and Mr. O'Keeffe ? Certainly. 
 
 Now do you remember the occasion of the election of a 
 Coadjutor-bishop at Kilkenny? Certainly. 
 
 Your Eminence presided at that election ? Yes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When was that ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : In July. 
 
 Witness : Oh no ; in September. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : On the 19th of September, 1871, your 
 Eminence presided at that election? Yes. 
 
 Was it by virtue of your position as Metropolitan, or by 
 virtue of any special power, you presided there ? I presided 
 there at the request of the bishop of the diocese as delegate 
 apostolic. The rule observed upon such occasions is, that 
 where there is a question of the election of bishop, the 
 Metropolitan presides in his own province. Where the 
 question is the election of his own coadjutor, the bishop of 
 the diocese presides by right. If the Metropolitan cannot 
 preside, he has the power of appointing another bishop to 
 supply his place. It is the same with the bishop in the 
 election of a coadjutor. If he cannot attend himself, he has 
 the power to appoint another to preside in his place. 
 
 So it is by request you presided ? Yes, and if you will be 
 so good as to read the summons sent out by Dr. M'Donald, 
 the clergyman, you'll see it stated at the end that, at the 
 request of the bishop, Dr. Walsh, the Cardinal Archbishop 
 will preside. 2 
 
 This is the document to which your Eminence refers 
 
 1 Supra, p. 163. 2 Supra, p. 244.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 351 
 
 (reads document) : ' At my request his Eminence the Car- Examina- 
 dinal Archbishop of Dublin will preside '? Yes ; at the Si 
 bishop's request I presided. Perhaps you will allow me to Cullen. 
 add that as a general rule the archbishop has very little Juris(i j c . 
 right to interfere in the affairs of his suffragan bishops. He tion of 
 can only interfere in three cases ; first, when an appeal is over su f. 
 made to him from the judgment of his suffragan bishop ; fragan 
 secondly, when in a provincial council he is deputed by the 
 other bishops to hold a visitation of any particular diocese ; 
 thirdly, when any one of his suffragans has let any ecclesias- 
 tical cause hang over for two years without deciding it. 
 Then the archbishop can call that cause to himself, and 
 decide it. I heard here the other day the question fre- 
 quently put, why did not Cardinal Cullen send down Father 
 Cody ; why did he not send Dr. Lynch, or this one or that 
 one, to settle the affairs of Callan. The reason was, I had 
 no power whatever to send any deputy there to act in my 
 name. 
 
 Would your Eminence be good enough to mention who Persons 
 are the persons entitled to vote on this recommendation of a en ^ ltled to 
 
 vote at 
 
 bishop ? According to the decree of the Propaganda of election of 
 1829, all the parish priests of each diocese, and all those blsh P s - 
 who are of the chapter, or members of the chapter, have a 
 right to vote on the occasion, provided they be free from 
 censure. 
 
 Then under that decree a priest under censure is pre- 
 cluded from the right of voting ? Precluded from the right 
 of voting. 
 
 Amongst the other letters which you received from Mr. 
 O'Keeffe in the month of September, 1871, there was one of 
 10th September, 1871, 1 containing these words : ' If any 
 objection should be made to my vote on the 19th, I am quite 
 prepared to meet it.' Did Mr. O'Keeffe in any way ask 
 you to investigate his case in the interval between that letter 
 and the assembly for the election ? Never. I wrote him a 
 letter. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What letter are you speaking of 
 now, Mr. O'Hagan ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: I have spoken of the letter of Mr. 
 O'Keeffe of the 10th September, 1871. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 177.
 
 352 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is this the same transaction you 
 are examining about as that mentioned in the Cardinal's 
 letter of the 8th September, 1871 ? l 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Yes, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And in that letter he informs, 
 and very properly, I think, Mr. O'Keeffe that he is to be pre- 
 pared to enter into the subject in dispute. He says, * Rev. 
 dear Sir : I expect to be in Kilkenny on next Tuesday week, 
 19th September, to take part in the meeting of the clergy 
 to be held on that day. As questions suggested by the 
 rescript of 1869 will necessarily arise at that meeting, in 
 reference to the censures with which the vicar-general, Dr. 
 M'Donald, and his lordship the Bishop of Ossory, have visited 
 you, I think it right to give you notice of what is to occur, 
 in order that you may be prepared for the emergency.' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan (to witness) : I will read the whole letter 
 (reads letter) : That is your letter ? Yes, I did not invite, in 
 that letter, the plaintiff to prove that he was not visited with 
 censures. I wrote for him to be prepared for any emergency 
 that might arise. If he wished to stay away he might stay 
 away; if he was to be excluded he should think of that also, as 
 such a thing coming on him suddenly, he might be annoyed. 
 The interpretation put on these words here was that I had 
 promised to discuss the validity of his censures at that meet- 
 ing a thing I never did. 
 
 And he wrote to you then the letter of the 10th Sep- 
 tember, which I have already read. May I ask your Emi- 
 nence this : When such a circular as you have read from Dr. 
 M'Donald, summoning the parish priests of his diocese, is 
 issued, is it customary to send them to all parish priests? 
 All those who are in possession of parishes; those only 
 can vote who are free from censure. The vicar-general had no 
 right to decide what priests he was to send them to; he must 
 summon all of them, and whoever presided at the meeting 
 was under the obligation of determining according to the 
 reports he should hear, whether or not they were under 
 censure. 
 
 Did the fact of that summons having been sent to Mr. 
 O'Keeffe determine in any one way whether or not he was 
 under censure ? Nothing whatever. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 176.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 353 
 
 Will you state to the jury what in fact occurred, to the Examina- 
 best of your recollection, at that election, with reference to c^inai 
 Mr. O'Keeffe and his vote ? The names of all the parish Cullen. 
 priests were called over : they were read by my secretary, p r( ^~i_ 
 Dr. Lee, parish priest of Bray. After they were all read, I 
 asked, as a matter of public notoriety, was not Father 
 O'Keeffe under censure. The vicar-general told me he 
 had censured him, and I asked Father O'Keeffe was that true. 
 He said it was, and that the bishop had censured him also. 
 I asked Father O'Keeffe then, * Have you appealed to the 
 Metropolitan against these censures ? ' ' No,' he said. ' Have 
 you appealed to the Pope?' 'No.' < Well, then,' said 1, 
 ' according to the canon law you are presumed to be under 
 censure, and I cannot receive your vote.' He had a mass of 
 papers prepared, and he said, ' If you give me an oppor- 
 tunity, I will prove beyond doubt that I am not under 
 censure.' 'We have other more important business here,' 
 said I to him, ' and I cannot hear so long a case as that at 
 present, otherwise we cannot proceed with the business for 
 which we have assembled ; but as I have been charged by 
 the Holy See to investigate your case, I will apply myself to 
 it with the least possible delay. Besides,' I added, ' if you 
 wish to seal up your vote if you think you have any claim 
 to vote in a bit of paper, I will send it on to the Pro- 
 paganda with the regular open votes of the others. I will 
 send it sealed, or if you wish to send it yourself you may do 
 so.' 1 added also, 'I content myself now that there is 
 primd facie evidence from what publicly appears. I am 
 not entering into a discussion of the validity of the cen- 
 sures. You are presumed by canon law to have con- 
 tracted these censures. I am not declaring their validity 
 or invalidity, but I intend to do so, and I expect to 
 be able to do so very soon.' The rev. gentleman then retired. 
 
 After that, was the letter of Mr. O'Keeffe, of the 24th 
 September, 1871, 1 the first communication that took place be- 
 tween you ? I think it was. I don't recollect anything else. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I suppose, Mr. O'Hagan, that the 
 vote was disallowed ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan (to witness) : The vote was then refused ? 
 Oh, certainly I refused the vote. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 180. 
 A A
 
 354 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Excommu- 
 nication 
 and sus- 
 pension 
 distin- 
 guished. 
 
 Censure 
 ajege. 
 
 Mr. O'Keeffe's letter of the 24th September was the next 
 communication. 1 It begins thus : ' My Lord Cardinal, The 
 opposition P.P. here published stations for the people of 
 Newtown, to be held in the Friary Chapel next week ; ' and 
 makes a formal demand on your Eminence for the removal 
 of the Rev. Messrs. Walsh and Neary from Callan. That I 
 believe was the first ? Yes, I believe that was the first. 
 
 Did your Eminence then write him the following letter of 
 the 2nd October, 1871 ? 2 (Letter read.) Yes, I wrote that 
 letter. I was anxious to avoid any judicial investigation in 
 the case ; I thought it might be settled in a charitable and 
 peaceable way. 
 
 You received then from Mr. O'Keeffe his letter of the 4th 
 October, 3 which has been proved here, inclosing a letter to 
 Dr. M'Donald. Did you write then the following letter of 
 the 21st October, 1 871 ? 4 (Letter read.) I wrote that letter. 
 I wished to treat him with the greatest kindness, therefore I 
 left the selection of the day to himself, and I indicated there 
 all the matters I intended to treat of. 
 
 Would your Eminence be good enough to interpret and 
 explain to the jury the meaning of suspension ab homine, 
 suspension a lege, and suspension a canone ? Suspension 
 and excommunication are quite different things, and it is 
 well we should understand what excommunication is, as it is 
 so often mentioned in this case. When a person is excom- 
 municated he is separated from the Catholic Church by ex- 
 communication ; he is prohibited to hear mass, to assist at 
 mass, or to celebrate mass if he be a priest ; to hear con- 
 fessions if he be a priest, or to go to confession if he be not 
 a priest, or to join in the public prayers of the Church ; so 
 that excommunication is of very little importance to those 
 who don't belong to the Catholic Church. Suspension is 
 only applied to those who are in orders. Take both under the 
 same name viz., censures. They come from the law. When 
 an action or crime is declared to be a subject to bring on ex- 
 communication, the moment it is committed for instance, 
 if a man strikes a priest violently, tempted by the devil to do 
 so excommunication is incurred without any sentence from 
 the judge, that is, a lege ; the law declares him excommuni- 
 
 1 Supra, p. 180. 
 Supra, p. 180. 
 
 2 Supra, p. 181. 
 4 Supra, p. 183.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 355 
 
 cated ; there is no admonition, no citation, because the law Examina- 
 itself supplies both. A censure ab homine is when the judge, cawHimi 
 after examining a case as to whether a person is guilty of a Cullen. 
 crime or not, convicts him of the crime, and inflicts a Censure 
 censure on him. That is the act of the judge, and that is b homine. 
 said to be ab homine. 
 
 When the judge inflicts on him a sentence which to the 
 judge seems just and lawful, that is said to be ab homine ? 
 Yes; for a crime to which no censure is annexed in the 
 canon law. For example, an ecclesiastic may get drunk ; 
 there is no censure in the canon law for it, but the bishop 
 may punish him with suspension for that offence, if it be 
 well proved ; that is ab homine, suspension. A canone is only Censure 
 in particular cases, and it takes its name from a canon of the a 
 Second Council of Lateran, published by Innocent II. 
 It is, ' If anyone, at the instigation of the devil, strikes an 
 ecclesiastic, let him be anathema.' That is excommunication 
 a canone. Some of these censures are ipso facto contracted; 
 others, though the censure is laid down by the law, are not 
 ipso facto contracted, because the law requires that these 
 sentences should be applied by the judge, ferendce sententice. 
 
 What are the technical distinctions between latce sentential 
 and ferendce sententice ? In one case the censure is con- 
 tracted outright, and in the other the offence may be worthy of 
 excommunication, but you don't contract that excommunica- 
 tion until it is fulminated against you by the judge. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It requires a definitive sentence. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : The answer, as I understood his Eminence, Censures 
 is, that whenever there is a censure latce sententice, it occurs &< - 
 simultaneously with the commission of the offence, and cen- ferendce 
 sure ferendce sententice is where the censure has not occurred sententt(e ' 
 until it is absolutely pronounced by the judge himself. 
 
 (To witness) : In answer to your letter of the 21st 
 October, 1871, did you get the following letter of the 22nd 
 October ? l (Letter read.} I received that letter. 
 
 And did it contain a document, setting out nine or ten 
 grounds on which he contested the validity of his sentence ? 
 Yes ; I think ten grounds. 
 
 You followed that by your letter of the 25th October, 
 1871 ? 2 (Letter read) : 
 
 1 Supra, p. 184. 2 Supra, p. 185. 
 
 A A 2
 
 356 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 As to 
 necessity 
 for a 
 citation. 
 
 Waiver of 
 citation. 
 
 Nature of 
 citation. 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, As you have showed such willingness 
 to come up on Friday next, I have not considered it necessary to send 
 you a formal document. I will, however, expect you on Friday next, 
 at 11 A.M., at 59, Eccles Street. I hope God will direct us in the 
 whole case. 
 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 + 'PAUL CARDINAL CULLEN.' 
 
 (Witness] Yes, I wrote that letter. 
 
 Now did your letter of the 2nd of October, 1871, which 
 I have already read to your Eminence, sufficiently apprise 
 Mr. O'Keeffe, according to canon law ? 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : I object to that the letter speaks for 
 itself. 
 
 Mr O'Hagan : I am asking an expert in the canon law, 
 whether, according to the canon law, that letter of the 2nd 
 October was sufficient information to give the JRev. Mr. 
 O'Keeffe of what powers were confided to him by the Holy 
 See. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I cannot allow this question to be 
 asked, whether the construction that can be put on that 
 paper document may not be a construction the very opposite 
 of what it appears to be. The letter speaks for itself ; but you 
 may ask, if you think fit, whether in a proceeding of this 
 kind it is necessary to send a citation at all. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: That is the very question I want answered. 
 (To witness] : Ordinarily speaking, is an ecclesiastical citation 
 necessary to bring the accused ecclesiastic before his judge ? 
 As a general rule ; but it has its exceptions. 
 
 Can the necessity for such a citation be waived by the 
 accused person ? Certainly ; if he come of his own free 
 accord. 
 
 If the accused person was informed that a citation was 
 about to be sent to him, and if he wrote a letter saying it 
 was not necessary to send him that citation, and if that was 
 followed by a letter from the judge saying he would not send 
 him a formal document, and if afterwards the accused 
 appeared before the judge; then, according to canon law, 
 would the necessity for the citation be deemed waived ? 
 Certainly ; the most esteemed canonists state that expressly. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Might I take the liberty of asking 
 the Cardinal, if there is a citation sent, what is it to contain ?
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 357 
 
 It is to contain an indication of the matter which is to be Examina- 
 treated of in the judgment. Cardinal 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: If the letter of the 2nd October, 18 7 L, 1 Cullen. 
 was written to Mr. O'Keeffe ; if also the letter of the 21st 
 October, 1871, 2 was written to him ; if he wrote the letter of 
 the 22nd October, 3 which you have heard, and that were 
 followed by your letter of the 25th October, 18 71, 4 stating 
 that you did not consider it necessary to send him any formal 
 document, and if he then appeared before you ; then I ask 
 your Eminence, as an expert, whether, according to canon 
 law, he, the accused person, would be considered as having 
 waived the right to be formally cited and also the right to 
 have the offence specified in that citation 9 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I object to that question ; that is a question 
 for the jury to decide. (Question disallowed.) 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I proceed to put the next question. That 
 being so, I will first read the letter of the 21st October, 1871, 
 before I put the next question ; and the question I will 
 put will be one excluding this letter. (Letter read.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is very explicit and very 
 satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Hag an : The letter of the 22nd October was from 
 Mr. O'Keeffe, and includes these nine points. (Letter read.) 
 Then in that of the 25th October, 1871, the Cardinal writes 
 to him : ' My dear Father O'Keeffe, You have shown suck 
 willingness to come up on Friday next, I have not considered 
 it necessary to send you a formal document.' The question 
 I propose to put to his Eminence, as a canonist, is, whether 
 these letters, followed by the actual appearance of the 
 accused, would, according to the canon law, be held to amount 
 to a waiver of the necessity for citation ? (Objected to and 
 disallowed.) 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I propose to ask his Eminence whether 
 the letter of the 21st October, 1871, specifying as it does the 
 subject matter of the proposed examination in these words : 
 'I will examine whether you have incurred suspension or 
 excommunication, either ab homine, or a lege, or canone, 
 whether you have incurred irregularity, and whether any 
 or what penalty is to be inflicted upon you for having 
 
 1 Supra, p. 180. 2 Supra, p. 183. 
 
 3 Supra, p. 184. 4 Supra, p. 185.
 
 358 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- neglected those censures or ecclesiastical penalties, if you 
 Cardinal ^ ave ^ one so ' whether that letter, followed by the letter 
 Cuiien. of the 22nd October by Mr. O'Keeffe, stating that he 
 would be happy to present himself; and followed again by 
 the letter of the Cardinal of the 25th October, in which he 
 states : ' As you have shown such willingness to come on 
 Friday next, I have not considered it necessary to send you a 
 formal document ' whether these three letters, followed by 
 the actual appearance of the plaintiff, would, according to 
 canon law, waive the necessity for a citation to be present at 
 an inquiry as to whether he had incurred suspension or 
 excommunication, either ab homine, a lege, or a canone ; whe- 
 ther he had incurred irregularity, and whether any and 
 what penalty was to be inflicted upon him for having neg- 
 lected those censures or ecclesiastical penalties ? (Objected 
 to and disallowed.) 
 
 SEVENTH DAY. 
 Monday, May 19^, 1873. 
 
 At the sitting of the Court the direct examination of his 
 Eminence CARDINAL CULLEN was resumed by MR. O'HAGAN, 
 Q.C. 
 
 There is, I believe, a matter your Eminence desires to 
 explain. When you spoke on Saturday of your being very 
 busy on your return home, you spoke as if that business was 
 connected with the disestablishment of the Church. 1 Now I 
 ask your Eminence whether you intended to convey this with 
 respect to the business that occupied you and the bishops, 
 that it was the altered state of the college of Maynooth 
 under that Act ? Precisely ; I wanted to say that the bishops 
 were obliged to hold two very long meetings to provide in 
 some way for the wants that would arise in the college of 
 Maynooth on account of its disestablishment or disendow- 
 ment on that occasion. 
 
 Mr. G'Hagan : His Eminence was afraid of there being 
 some misconception. 
 
 The Chief Justice : I understood it was something of that 
 sort. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 359 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : It was only with respect of Maynooth. Examina- 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan (to witness) : On the 27th of October did ^^ 
 
 Mr. O'Keeffe present himself before you in Eccles Street ? Cullen. 
 
 Yes, he presented himself. 
 
 7 * Interview 
 
 Who was present when he came ? Dr. Forde. of Cardi- 
 
 Was Dr. Forde one of your vicars-general? Yes. He | h Cullen 
 was one of my vicars-general, and to my great regret he Father 
 has died since. 
 
 He was a very eminent canonist ? A very eminent 
 theologian and canonist ; a learned man in every way. 
 
 Will your Eminence be good enough to detail to his lord- 
 ship and the jury, according to the best of your recollection, 
 what occurred on the 27th, when Mr. O'Keeffe came before 
 you in Eccles Street? Mr. O'Keeffe arrived in Eccles Street 
 about 11 o'clock the time fixed for it. I had had a conversa- 
 tion for some time with Dr. Forde in preparation for our 
 meeting. Dr. Forde had taken it into his head 
 
 Mr. Purcell : What passed between your Eminence and 
 Dr. Forde in the absence of my client cannot be proved. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : But you had been prepared for the meeting 
 with Mr. O'Keeffe ? Yes, we had been talking about it some 
 days before. Dr. Forde, 1 want to state 
 
 You cannot state what Dr. Forde thought or said, but 
 when Mr. O'Keeffe came in, be good enough to state what 
 occurred. I asked him to take his place, and he did, and I 
 introduced him to Dr. Forde, and told him who he was. Then 
 we all sat down, and in a few words I told the plaintiff that 
 I had called him up in order to examine into the charges 
 made against him, and into the state of the whole case at 
 Callan which had been remitted to me by the Propaganda. 
 I said that as the business was very extensive, it would 
 be well to avoid confusion. I added that it would be most 
 important that we should understand everything clearly in 
 the beginning, and see what he admitted and what he did 
 not admit. I did this in order to avoid 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Your reasons cannot be given. 
 
 Mr. 0' Hag an : My friend won't allow you to state your 
 motives, nor can 1 ask you, but the inference is obvious. 
 (Witness) I then asked him in succession regarding every 
 matter that was to come before us that day. I asked him 
 first, ' Is it true that you took an action against your bishop
 
 360 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Gullen. 
 
 in 1869 ? ' He answered it was perfectly true, but, said he, 
 c I compromised it and got out of the bishop 550., and also 
 made him pay his own expenses.' I next asked him * In 
 the following year or at the end of that year, and in the 
 following year, did you take an action against the bishop ? ' 
 * Oh,' he said, * these things are all in the public papers ; they 
 are all notorious. I took an action against the bishop, but 
 unfortunately I was put out of court ; nonsuited. And I had 
 to pay a very large ' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : He said he did, but unfortunately was put 
 out of court ? He said, ' The expense on me of that action 
 was very heavy ' and he repeated this several times after- 
 wards ' but I will make somebody pay for it.' I asked him 
 then, had he taken actions against his curates. He said he had, 
 and that he had got damages against I think he said against 
 each of them for 100L, but that one of them had applied for 
 a new trial, and the case was to come on again. I asked 
 him then, had he taken an action or commenced an action 
 against his vicar- general, Dr. M'Donald. He said he had, 
 and he had given it up for love of peace. * We are then,' I 
 said, ' fully agreed on all these points ? ' * Oh ! I admit all 
 that,' he said. ' I admit all these points.' Perhaps it was 
 not in this order, but this is the substance. 
 
 What occurred, to the best of your recollection? All 
 this happened, one after another. I asked him, f Were you 
 suspended by your vicar-general in 1870 ?' ' October I think 
 it was. I don't recollect the date, but it was in October.' 
 ' Were you suspended by your vicar- general ? ' He said, 
 ' I was.' ' Did you observe that censure ? ' ' No,' said he, 
 ' I despised it and violated it.' ' Did you, in your answer to 
 your vicar-general, call him an ass and a fool, or something 
 similar ? ' ' He deserved it,' said he. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : He said he did? Witness: 
 He said he deserved it. I said ' a censure ' from the vicar- 
 general. There are two ; one is a repetition of the other, 
 and I call it ' the censure.' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : His Eminence in dealing with Mr. O'Keeffe 
 treated his two suspensions as one ? 
 
 Witness : As one. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: Proceed. I asked him again, 'Did the 
 vicar-general send you a conditional suspension ? That is,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 361 
 
 did your vicar-general inflict a suspension on you for Examina- 
 bringing your curate before a lay tribunal? ' Cardinal 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What answer did lie give to that ? Cullen. 
 He said he did bring the curate before a lay tribunal, and 
 that he laughed at the censure. I don't say he used precisely 
 the word ' laughed,' but he said he scoffed at it or despised it. 
 I then asked him, ' Did your bishop in the following January, 
 1871, send you a suspension ex informata conscientia? ' He 
 said he did, and he acknowledged that he received it. I 
 then asked him did he obey that censure. He said he 
 did not ; he looked on it as not binding, as of no value. I 
 asked him then, * Did you send an answer to that on one of 
 the common post-cards, saying you would have no private 
 correspondence with a man who would betray a private 
 letter ? ' He said the bishop deserved no respect from him, 
 on account of the way in which the bishop had treated 
 him. 
 
 Did he admit having sent the post-card ? He did ; he 
 admitted it. 
 
 What followed ? The next thing was whether he had em- 
 ployed in his parish a friar who had been obliged to leave 
 his own convent; and he stated he had employed him in 
 Callan to say mass on Sundays and festivals. I asked him 
 then, had he permission from the bishop. He said he had 
 not. I asked, had the vicar- general prohibited this friar 
 from saying mass. He said he had. I then took up the 
 paper which Serjeant Armstrong called ' the broadsheet.' 1 I 
 had it in my hand. I asked him whether he had got this 
 printed, and whether he had circulated it. He said he got it 
 printed and had circulated it amongst the bishops and other 
 friends of his. I asked him then wasn't it an awful offence 
 against his lordship to charge him with an infamous traffic 
 in sacraments and dispensations, and to charge him also with 
 what is an awful crime amongst Catholics the revelation 
 of secrets which are heard in confession ? 
 
 What reply did he make ? He admitted he made those 
 charges, and that he believed them all to be true. Having 
 received all these admissions, which put the facts in the 
 clearest light, I said, * Now we will examine the matters in 
 succession. We began to discuss the first ground of accusa- 
 
 1 See Appendix No. I., p. 577.
 
 362 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 tion against him, that is, his having called the bishop into 
 court twice, and his curates and the vicar-general after- 
 wards. He began to defend himself by stating that the 
 Bulla in Cosna Domini, as it is called, is not in force in Ire- 
 land, and that the Apostolicce 8edis is not in force, and conse- 
 quently that he did not offend against the laws of the Church 
 by what he had done. I think he spoke at intervals passing 
 from one subject to another, but referring to this very 
 often for about an hour. On that point he repeatedly 
 challenged me and Dr. Forde, or any other person in the 
 world, to answer his objections. Dr. Forde told him we were 
 not there to enter into disputes with him, but to hear his 
 case and afterwards to decide on it. Both Dr. Forde and 1 told 
 him repeatedly that the case we were engaged in there had 
 nothing to do with the bull In Ccena Domini, or the other con- 
 stitutions. We told him that the bull In Ccena Domini treated 
 altogether of excommunications, whereas in his case there 
 were questions only of suspension. We told him that he 
 was charged with an offence against the canon law of the 
 Catholic Church, and if the bull or the constitution of the 
 present Pope had never been published, we could still punish 
 him if he was guilty of that offence against the canon law 
 of the Catholic Church. He appealed continually to the 
 authority of Dr. Doyle, Dr. Murray, and Dr. Slevin. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Who was Dr. Slevin ? A pro- 
 fessor of canon law and dogmatic theology in the Dunboyne 
 establishment. 
 
 Witness continued : We said we had nothing to do with 
 their authority, and, whatever their opinions were, we had 
 a right to hold our own, and their opinions or our opinion 
 had no bearing on the case. We stated that it was not 
 the censure that made the offence, but that the sentence of 
 excommunication or suspension was a proof that there was 
 an offence underlying it, which could be punished otherwise 
 than by the censure. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The sentence showed there was 
 an offence there under which he could be punished if there 
 was no censure ? 
 
 Witness continued : Father O'Keeffe talked a great deal 
 then in favour of his own opinions, but alleging the same 
 authorities and repeating the same thing over and over
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 363 
 
 again until we were tired. I asked him then, was it not 
 a horrible thing to persecute a poor old man, beyond 
 eighty years of age ? I asked him who promoted him to the 
 parish which he held ? He said ' Dr. Walsh.' I asked him 
 who made him a canon of the diocese ? I think, as far as I 
 recollect, he also said Dr. Walsh. 'Then Dr. Walsh,'! said, 
 ' has been your friend and benefactor, and you respond to his 
 kindness by attributing to him the grossest crimes of which 
 a Catholic bishop could be guilty.' He stated again that the 
 bishop was really guilty of these crimes. I asked him what 
 proof he had of the bishop's guilt. He replied that the 
 bishop was accustomed to take fees for the dispensation in 
 banns for marriage that he never gave dispensations 
 without charging a pound for it. I replied that it was quite 
 customary over every part of Ireland for bishops to take fees 
 for the dispensation of banns, and that there was nothing 
 simoniacal or worthy of blame in doing so. He then spoke 
 about the fees on baptism, and said that children were often 
 kept a long time waiting for baptism because the parents or 
 godfather or godmother could not pay the fees. He didn't 
 bring any proof of it, and he was obliged to admit that the 
 general custom in Ireland is to give some special fee to the 
 priest or bishop who may act on occasions of baptism. I 
 then asked him about the revelation of the secrets of con- 
 fession. I said that was looked on as one of the most 
 atrocious crimes that if a charge of that nature were 
 proved in Borne against a bishop he would be set aside. He 
 said that it was true, and that the bishop had made the 
 tribunal of penance most odious by acting as he did. I then 
 asked him what proof had he of the revelation of the secrets 
 of the confessional. He said that the bishop had compelled 
 all those who had contracted reserved cases for drinking on 
 Sundays, or for fighting, or public offences of that nature, 
 to go to Kilkenny from whatever part of the diocese they were 
 in, and that he afterwards gave them a public scolding and 
 revealed their sins, and sent them home to the parish priest 
 to be absolved. I said there were two forums or tribunals of 
 the Church one an external tribunal, and the other an in- 
 ternal tribunal of conscience the secrets to be kept belong 
 to the internal tribunal, or private tribunal of conscience, 
 but not to the public tribunal. When a penitent comes to 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Secrets 
 not to be 
 revealed 
 by priests.
 
 364 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examin.i- confession, and confesses his crimes in order to obtain abso- 
 C^dinal l u ^ on ^ or them in the tribunal of penance, everything he 
 Cullen. says is to be kept as the profoundest secret; it would be 
 treason to the Church to betray it. But when a penitent is 
 sent by his confessor to the bishop he goes forward openly, 
 and tells what he is sent for, that ' I was drinking on such a 
 day,' or * I was fighting on such a day, and the parish priest 
 would not absolve me till I would come to your lord- 
 ship.' That is recourse to the public tribunal of the Church, 
 and is done openly, and without any secret connected 
 with it. 
 
 Is that a well-known distinction in the Church? Per- 
 Public and fectly well known. There is public confession and private 
 private confession. Public confession is when one eroes before the 
 
 confession. 
 
 public tribunal of the bishop ; there is no secret about that ; 
 the other his private tribunal of conscience, to which the 
 greatest secrecy is attached. 
 
 Now proceed with the narrative. I think these are the 
 principal points. 
 
 How long did the interview last altogether ? Very nearly 
 four hours, but we had heard Father O'Keeffe several times 
 over, and he generally repeated the same matter over and 
 over. 
 
 Then what occurred afterwards ? I have mentioned 
 briefly what occurred. 
 
 Was any proposal then made upon any side with respect 
 to any agreement to be consented to ? Dr. Forde made a 
 proposal calculated to put an end to all our proceedings, as 
 he imagined. He addressed Father O'Keefte, saying ( I 
 perceive that the Cardinal is very unwilling to punish you. 
 Would it not be well, then, to compromise the matter?' He 
 turned to me and said, ' I do this without any permission from 
 your Eminence, and I will not continue to make this offer of 
 compromise unless you permit me to do so.' I said I would 
 be happy to hear what he wished to propose. He then 
 said 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Dr. Forde ? Yes ; Dr. Forde then 
 said, * Let Father O'Keeffe retire from his parish for four or 
 five "weeks, and let the two curates also retire from the parish, 
 and let a company of missionaries be sent to Callan to give 
 religious instruction to the people, and to restore peace as
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 365 
 
 much aspossible.' Hethen added, ( An administrator should be Examina- 
 appointed to take care of the parish, and of Father O'Keeffe's carciiuai 
 interest in the parish.' Father O'Keeffe, after some relnc- Cullen. 
 tance, said he would consent to these proposals. There was 
 one thing, however, I have omitted, viz., that I was, during 
 the time of the absence of Father O'Keeffe, to send a report 
 of everything to the Pope, and to get him to decide what 
 was to be done as to the future aspect of the case. After 
 some reluctance and discussion, he agreed to accept all these 
 four proposals. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : The four were his retirement, the with- 
 drawal of the curates, the appointment of missionaries, and 
 the reference to the Pope? (Witness) And the appointment 
 of an administrator ; there were five. I have to mention some- 
 thing more. This was what passed between Dr. Forde and 
 Father O'Keeffe. I did not introduce the matter; it was Dr. 
 Forde. After the matter was pretty well agreed to, I said that 
 Father O'Keeffe ought to stay away at least seven or eight 
 weeks from the parish, because it would be necessary to have 
 at least that space of time in order to prepare the case to be 
 sent to Eome, and to give time to the Holy See to discuss 
 and settle the matter there. I added that I would take care 
 to get Dr. M'Donald, the vicar-general, to appoint a worthy 
 priest to be administrator, and a priest who would not be 
 any way hostile to Father O'Keeffe ; and these points were 
 briefly agreed to. I proposed to have the thing put in writing, 
 but as Dr. Forde was unwell, we agreed that the writing 
 should take place the next morning. We separated then, and 
 the moment Father O'Keeffe was gone I went to the mis- 
 sionaries of St. Vincent, and 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You have not said one thing. Was 
 it arranged who was to put these things in writing ? It was 
 arranged we should meet next morning 1 proposed at twelve 
 o'clock to put everything in writing. Father O'Keeffe said 
 he had to go off by the one o'clock or half-past one o'clock 
 train. I then agreed to see him at ten o'clock. The writing 
 was to be arranged, and all the terms agreed on were to be 
 put in writing. When this was done Father O'Keeffe re- 
 turned, and T went immediately to the missionaries. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I must object to that. 
 
 Mr. O'Hacjan : The fact is quite right to be proved.
 
 366 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 The Chief Justice : I think it is quite right myself. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Did he come back next morning ? He 
 came back next morning. 
 
 At what hour ? About ten o'clock. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is, the plaintiff came back 
 at the hour appointed ? Yes. 
 
 That was Saturday 9 Yes ; on Friday we met, and Satur- 
 day was the time of his return. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Were you alone when he returned ? I 
 was alone ; Dr. Forde had not arrived. 
 
 When he came, what occurred ? I said to him, * You 
 have now come to put the matter we agreed on to-day in 
 writing.' He replied that he had done so already himself; 
 that he had prepared an address to his people, which con- 
 tained everything connected with our interview. He then 
 handed me a paper which he had prepared, and which 
 has been given in evidence. (Address read.) 1 
 
 Was that the paper ? That is the paper, precisely. 
 
 What further occurred ? When I read that paper I said, 
 ' That is not the agreement to which we came on yesterday. 
 In this paper you say that I have agreed to send the whole 
 case back to Rome just as it came to me. I cannot, however, 
 consent to act so improperly towards my ecclesiastical supe- 
 riors. Yesterday you agreed to be absent from your parish for 
 seven or eight weeks, until a reply would be received from 
 Rome ; there is no mention of that arrangement in this 
 document. You agreed to put the administration of your 
 parish into the hands of a priest, to be sent there by the 
 vicar-general or by me. There is not a word of that 
 arrangement in your address ; it is impossible that I could 
 stultify myself by approving of such a document as that.' 
 Father O'Keeffe replied that he would never consent to leave 
 Callan, that he would go back and remain there, and that he 
 would manage the affairs of the mission. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is the mission that you 
 were to send ? Which I was to send. He would not agree 
 to anything else but what he had proposed. I think, how- 
 ever, at the interview of the evening before, or on that 
 occasion I believe it was in that interview that he said at 
 the wind-up of the conversation that it would take three 
 
 1 Supra, p. 192.
 
 Rev. Robert 0*Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 367 
 
 regiments of Her Majesty's soldiers to put him out of Examina- 
 Callan. * ion r of , 
 
 Cardinal 
 
 When do you recollect was that said, Cardinal ? On the Cullen. 
 last morning, and at the last moment of the interview. I 
 told him before he went away that he should come back on 
 the following Friday or Tuesday ; but the date is mentioned 
 in the letter. 
 
 Mr. 'Hag an : The letter l says on Wednesday the 8th. 
 Well, that was the date ; I told him he must come back on 
 that day. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : About a week's interval ? About 
 four days. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Did he say anything in answer to that ? 
 He said he had great affairs in Callan, and he could see 
 about them ; he did not refuse. That was the end of my 
 second interview with Father O'Keeffe. 
 
 Did you on the 3rd November, 1871, write him the fol- 
 lowing letters ? (Letter dated 3rd November, 1871, read.} 1 
 I sent him that letter. 
 
 Can you remember whether the day that you had verbally 
 appointed with him to resume the business, had or had not 
 passed when you wrote the letter ? I wrote before the day 
 came. I wanted to write to him to show that I was deter- 
 mined to see him on that day. 
 
 In answer to that you received the letter of the 5th 
 November, 1871, which has been given in evidence ? (Letter 
 of 5th November read)* Yes. 
 
 Did you receive that letter in answer from him? I 
 received that letter. 
 
 Did you then, on the 6th of November, write the follow- 
 ing letter : 
 
 ' MY DEAR FATHER O'KEEFFE, I have received your letter of yester- ,. , 
 day, 5th November, and regret that you have declined coming up on Cullen to 
 Wednesday next, 8th November, as I requested of you to do. As Father 
 the case in which we are engaged must be settled, I now require you 
 to present yourself here, at 59, Eccles Street, on Monday next, 13th 
 November, at one o'clock, P.M., to hear the final judgment, which, as 
 delegate of the Holy See, I shall pronounce on your case, on which 
 you were so fully heard on the 27th of October past and the following 
 days. The disturbed state of Callan, which you so fully describe in 
 
 1 Supra, p. 193. z Supra, p. 193.
 
 368 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- your letter of yesterday, requires an immediate remedy. I am most 
 tion of desirous to restore peace to the inhabitants of that parish, and it is my 
 Cul/eii conviction that so desirable a result cannot be obtained until a final 
 
 . decision shall be come to in reference to the ecclesiastical questions 
 
 which are the source of the evils that affect the locality. I will act 
 with the authority of the successor _of St. Peter, which has been 
 delegated to me; and I trust that whatever decision I come to will 
 contribute to the peace of your conscience and to the establishment of 
 ecclesiastical discipline and spiritual obedience in that poi-tion of the 
 fold of Christ which has been so afflicted and agitated for many 
 months. 
 
 ' Your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN.' 
 
 Witness Yes, I wrote that letter. 
 
 Did you on the 9th of November, 1871, write a further 
 letter to Mr. O'Keeffe ? I did. 
 
 Will you see is that the letter (document handed to 
 witness), and is that the envelope in which it was enclosed 
 (envelope handed to witness) ? That is the letter, and that 
 is the envelope. 
 
 Was that letter returned to you from the post-office ? 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is this the last letter ? 
 
 'Mr. O'Hagan : This, my lord, is the letter of the 9th of 
 November, 18 7 1. 1 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And was there any answer to 
 the letter announcing that the parties would proceed to 
 justice ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : My lord, there is an answer of the 1 1th of 
 November, 1871, but I am following the order of dates, and 
 it is the letter of the 9th of November, which the Cardinal 
 wrote, I have proved. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We have not had that yet. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: No, my lord. (To witness) : Did you 
 receive that letter back from the post-office ? Yes. 
 
 With the word ' refused ' written on it ? ' Eefused ' 
 on the envelope, which envelope I lost. 
 
 That is an official envelope from the post-office ? Yes. 
 
 Which you have lost ? Yes. 
 
 The official envelope enclosing this, with the word 
 ' refused ' written in red ink on it ? Precisely. 
 
 1 See p. 369.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 369 
 
 Did you on the llth of November, 1871, receive the Examina- 
 following letter from Mr. O'Keeffe? (Letter read.) 1 Yes. SSL 
 
 Now I ask your Eminence, is it true that the previous Culleu. 
 censures on Father O'Keeffe, namely, the censures pro- 
 nounced on him by the vicar-general and the bishop, were 
 made out under your advice and direction ? It is utterly 
 false. 
 
 Was any of them made out? Not one of them was 
 made out under my direction. 
 
 Had you anything whatever to say to them? I had 
 nothing at all to say to the censures; Father O'Keeffe had 
 received them before I heard they were published at all. 
 
 Did you advise them ? I did not. 
 
 Now, my lord, I propose to read the letter of the 9th First letter 
 of November, 1871, written by the Cardinal, directed 'Sift' 7 
 by him to the Rev. Eobert O'Keeffe, P.P., Callan, and re- 
 fused by the plaintiff. I propose to read it as an act of the 
 defendant, which was done under the authority which he 
 had received from the Holy See, in the prosecution of an 
 inquiry against Father O'Keeffe. It is as follows : 
 
 'Dublin, 59, Eccles Street, 9th November, 1871. 
 
 * Rev. R. O'Keeffe, P.P., Callan. Cardinal 
 
 4 REV. AND DEAR SIR, I wrote a letter to you on the 6th Novem- Cullen to 
 her, requiring of you to present yourself here on next Monday, 13th (yKff 
 November. Lest there should be any mistake about my letter of the 
 6th, I write again, and I repeat the injunction to you to appear here 
 on Monday next, the 13th November, at one o'clock, P.M., to terminate 
 your case. It is necessary that things should be brought to a con- 
 clusion, and I am determined not to delay any longer, or at least to 
 have no unnecessary delay. 
 
 4 Wishing you every happiness, 
 
 4 1 remain your faithful servant, 
 
 + ' PAUL CARD. CULLEN; 
 
 To witness : On Monday, the 13th of November, were 
 you in Eccles Street ? Yes. 
 
 At the hour of one o'clock ? Yes. 
 
 Did Father O'Keeffe appear there ? He did not. 
 
 Is that in your handwriting (document handed to witness) ? 
 It is all in my handwriting. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 196. 
 B B
 
 370 
 
 Court of Q,ueen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 
 ctdinll 
 Ciillen. 
 
 second 
 
 letter re- 
 fl ]aintiiK 
 
 Was that enclosed by you in that envelope (envelope 
 
 lift tin 
 original 
 
 f su 
 pension 
 
 Was that sent by you through the post, directed to the 
 Eev. Mr. O'Keeffe ? Yes, registered and sent by post. 
 
 And registered ? Yes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is the lettef which was 
 returned ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Yes, that is the document of the 13th of 
 November ; ! that is the second returned document, my lord. 
 I have put a document in the Latin language into his 
 Eminence's hands; he says that the entire of it is in his 
 handwriting ; that he enclosed it in an envelope, and directed 
 it to the Eev. Mr. O'Keeffe. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Which he produces ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Which he produces ; and I ask him 
 whether that envelope, with the document enclosed, was 
 returned to him through the post-office, with the word 
 ' refused ' written upon it ? 
 
 Witness : Certainlv- 
 
 " 
 
 Will your Eminence be kind enough to look over the 
 katin, while I am reading the English translation, and see 
 whether the translation is correct? 1 (Reads) : 'To the Eev. 
 Father Eobert O'Keeffe, Priest of the diocese of Ossory, 
 Parish Priest of the town called Callan.' 
 
 Witness : There is no ' town ' in it. 
 
 Mr. CfHagan (reading) : ' Paul Cardinal Cullen, Archbishop 
 of Dublin, Primate of Ireland, Delegate of the Apostolic See, 
 greeting. Whereas our Most Holy Father, Pope Pius IX - 
 
 Witness : There are some words wanting : 'In the cause 
 of the defendant, the said Eobert O'Keeffe.' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: Your Eminence will be good enough to 
 correct me in the same way, in the Latin, as you have been 
 doing. (Reading.) ' To the Eev. Eobert O'Keeffe, Priest 
 of Ossory, Parish Priest of Callan ; + Paul Cardinal 
 Cullen, Archbishop of Dublin, Primate of Ireland, Delegate 
 of the Apostolic See, greeting. Whereas - ' 
 
 Witness : There are the words : ' In the case of the 
 aforesaid Eobert O'Keeffe.' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan (reading) : ' Whereas our Most Holy Father, 
 1 Supra, p. 199 ; and for Latin original, see Appendix No. IV., p. 582.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 371 
 
 Pope Pius IX., who has the care and burden of all ecclesias- Examina- 
 
 fiVal Tnafi-Pra ' tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 
 Witness : That is not correct. It is ' Who has the care Cullen. 
 and solicitude of all the churches.' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Yes, in the words of St. Paul. It continues 
 (reading) : ' has deemed fit to bestow on us the necessary and 
 suitable faculties, that we might be able to inquire into, and 
 express an opinion, concerning the complaints and accusa- 
 tions which are brought against you ' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : In the original, is it ecclesiastical 
 matters, or churches ? Churches. 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : It is merely the critical difference of a 
 scholar. 
 
 Witness : There is a very serious difference here. It was 
 you supplied the translation. It says, * Expresses an 
 opinion,' but here it is sententiam prof err e, ' to pronounce 
 sentence.' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan (reading) : ' That we might inquire into, and 
 pronounce sentence or judgment regarding the complaints 
 and accusations which are circulated against you, and express 
 
 an opinion ' Is not that the way ? We are using their 
 
 translation, my lord, in order that it may be corrected. It 
 continues (reading) : 'therefore, relying on the authority 
 conferred upon us, we have not omitted diligently to examine 
 your case. Since we have carefully weighed all things 
 which you have acknowledged in writing, in several letters 
 given to us 
 
 Witness : ' Which you have committed to writing,' it 
 should be. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Tour lordship sees it is of great im- 
 portance to correct the translation on which they rely. How 
 does your Eminence translate that passage, ' quce in pluribus 
 nobis datis epistolis scripto consignavisti ? ' 'Which were con- 
 signed to writing in many letters addressed to us ' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan (reading ) : ' And which were known else- 
 where by public report ? ' ' Which was known otherwise.' 
 
 (Reading) : ' and afterwards heard you yourself, freely 
 urging all the arguments which could be adduced for the 
 defence of your case on the 27th day of October last 
 past, at our house, in the hearing and presence of the "Rev. 
 
 B B 2
 
 372 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 .tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Laurence Forde, one of our vicars-general, and again briefly 
 recapitulating the same on the following day, the 28th of 
 October. We have also received from you your defences, and 
 the answers sent to us in writing, which you thought should 
 be given to your accusers, and we understand their import.' 
 The words ' breviter recensentem ' are not in the document 
 you have in your hand? No. 
 
 (Reading] : f We have also received from you your defences 
 and answers, sent to us in writing, which you thought should 
 be given to your accusers, and we understand their import.' 
 Is that well translated ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the word used for 
 accusers ? ' Adversarias,' and the translation is, ' And we 
 have taken them into account.' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : ' In this state of things we summoned you 
 to appear before us on the 8th day of November, that we 
 might bring to an end your case, which we have in hand, 
 and might declare our judgment on it, but you refused to 
 lend an ear to our voice. Afterwards we fixed another day 
 for you, namely, the 13th of this same November, that you 
 might meet us to hear our decision, and that your case might 
 be dismissed for the future ; but again, although it was very 
 well known to you that we were acting under the apostolic 
 authority of the holy Pontiff Pius IX., you refused to obey. 
 But now since you have refused to obey these citations, and 
 have signified to us by letter that you have made up your 
 mind not to come to us, and that you are no longer willing to 
 stand in our presence, this only remains for us, to pass our 
 judgment on you in your absence and in contempt, in order 
 that ecclesiastical discipline may not be set at nought with 
 impunity.' 
 
 Witness : The words are ' absent ' and ' contumacious.' 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: That would be a more correct translation. 
 Yes, it is not ' contempt.' 
 
 ' And having signified to us by letter that you have made 
 up your mind not to come to us, and that you are no longer 
 willing to stand in our presence, this only remains for us, to 
 pass our judgment on you in your absence and contempt, in 
 order that ecclesiastical discipline may not be set at nought 
 with impunity. Wherefore, having offered prayers to 
 God '
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 373 
 
 Witness : That is not very correct. There is a thing Examina- 
 changed in that. ^ 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: Here it says, 'Wherefore, having offered Gulien. 
 prayers to God, and having invoked the name of the Most 
 Holy Trinity, taking account of all things which we have 
 heard from you in person, or have read in letters from you ; 
 moreover, having weighed the arguments which you have 
 submitted to us in your defence ; in the name of the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost ' 
 
 Witness: There is a change: 'We shall pronounce sen- 
 tence, and communicate it to you by these letters, and, if 
 necessary, by other means.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Will you read the line ? (The 
 Cardinal read the line from the Latin document.) 1 
 
 Mr. O'Ragan: There are some words in the document which 
 his Eminence has in his hand which are not before your 
 lordship. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : It is right for your lordship to know that 
 the additional words or sentence to which his Eminence refers 
 are not in the printed copy served in Callan. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I don't see that it is in the least 
 injurious to you. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Nor am I objecting. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The thing to be excused or 
 privileged is the thing you have proved ; what effect this will 
 have, I don't know. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I am only drawing your lordship's attention 
 to the fact. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : The difference is not worth any- 
 thing. 
 
 Witness": It is nearly the same thing. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : The translation goes on, ' by the authority 
 conferred on us by the successor of St. Peter, we suspend 
 and declare suspended, you, Eobert O'Keeffe, Parish Priest 
 of the town named Callan, from all spiritual jurisdiction, 
 from the administration of the sacraments, and especially 
 from hearing confessions, from celebrating the most holy 
 sacrifice of the mass, from preaching the word of God, 
 and from every ecclesiastical office, until you come to your 
 senses, and make full satisfaction, in our opinion, to the 
 
 1 See Appendix No. IV., p. 582.
 
 374 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Con- 
 
 tumacy 
 according 
 to canon 
 law. 
 
 Church. Moreover, by the tenor of this decree, by the 
 same authority, we deprive you, and declare you deprived of 
 all benefit ecclesiastical, or conferred on you by the Church, 
 and of all dignity or rank conferred on you in the same 
 way. But wishing to care for the safety of your soul, 
 which is exposed to so many dangers, we earnestly ask God 
 to bring you to good results, and by the bowels of com- 
 passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, who for us men and for 
 our salvation suffered death on the cross, we implore and 
 beseech you, having laid aside the old man according to 
 your former conversation, to put on the new man which 
 after God is created in righteousness and true holiness ' 
 
 Witness : The words 'In the name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost ' are wanting in the document which I have 
 in my hand, and there are other words different, I think, a 
 little lower down. I don't think the word ( resipueris ' means 
 precisely ' come to your senses ; ' it means, ' shall be freed ' 
 or ' changed.' (The document vms then put in and marked.) 
 
 Was that document sent by you, as you say, and refused 
 by Mr. O'Keeffe ? Certainly. 
 
 Now I ask you this : does that document contain your 
 sentence upon Mr. O'Keeffe ? Certainly ; the sentence of 
 suspension and deprivation. 
 
 Was that sentence pronounced by you on that 13th day 
 of November? It was, in the presence of the three vicars- 
 general. 
 
 After Mr. O'Keeffe had failed to appear ? Yes. 
 
 Now I will ask your Eminence whether, according to the 
 canon law, the refusal of Mr. O'Keeffe to appear upon that 
 day, after your letters of the 3rd l and 6th of November, 2 and 
 your letter also of the 9th of November, 3 which was returned 
 to you, amounted to contumacy ? Certainly. 
 
 Had your Eminence powers, according to canon law, to 
 proceed against him as a contumacious person ? Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I object, my lord, to that. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I will take this question, and I 
 will ask it, if you allow me (to witness) : Was the judgment 
 and sentence which you have just read, conformable to 
 your view of the law and ordinances and discipline of the 
 Church ? Certainly. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 103. 
 
 2 Supra, p. 195. 
 
 Supra, p. 369.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 375 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Did that sentence seem to your Eminence Examina- 
 to be just? It seemed to me to be rather too mild. Cardinal 
 
 You must answer affirmatively or negatively. Did it Cullen. 
 seem to be just ? Perfectly just. 
 
 Was that sentence binding on the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe as 
 a priest, until it was reversed by your ecclesiastical autho- 
 rity ? Certainly. 
 
 Was it your duty to publish it? It was my duty to pub- 
 lish it. 
 
 Was it your duty to publish it to any persons specially ? 
 It was my duty to publish it to those who were concerned 
 in the matter. 
 
 Who had an interest in the matter ? Yes. 
 
 Had the Roman Catholic parishioners of Callan an in- 
 terest in the matter ? A deep interest. 
 
 Was it therefore your duty to publish and make known 
 this sentence to the Roman Catholic parishioners of Callan ? 
 It was my duty to make known the sentence which I had 
 issued against Father O'Keeffe. 
 
 Is that sentence still valid and in force as far as you 
 know ? It is still valid and in force, unless it has been re- 
 moved by the Pope. 
 
 That suspension being in force, was it unlawful for the Effect of 
 Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe, according to canon law, to say mass and 
 to hear "confessions ? It was unlawful for him to celebrate 
 mass and hear confessions. 
 
 Or to administer the sacraments ? Or to administer the 
 sacraments ; and every time he administered the sacraments, 
 or performed one of the sacred rites, he incurred what is 
 called irregularity. 
 
 Did he every time that he said mass, or heard confes- 
 sions, or disobeyed the suspension, incur the guilt of mortal 
 sin? (Objected to and disallowed.) 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I ask your Eminence You have said it 
 was unlawful for Mr. O'Keeffe to celebrate mass, to hear 
 confessions, or to administer the sacraments ; what was the 
 character of the illegality? (Objected to and disallowed.) 
 
 According to the laws of the Church, were confessions 
 heard by the plaintiff after he had notice of the suspension, 
 and while the sentence of suspension was in force, heard 
 without jurisdiction? Certainly, except in articulo mortis.
 
 376 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examma- Were they so heard without regard to the ecclesiastical 
 Cardinal suspension pronounced by the sentence ? Certainly. 
 Cullen ' Was his performance, after he had notice of the sentence, 
 
 of any functions appertaining to the office of parish priest, 
 an infringement of ecclesiastical law? Certainly. 
 
 Was it a violation of the censures contained in your sen- 
 tence of suspension? Certainly. 
 
 Did you in fact hear that Mr. O'Keeffe did continue to 
 say mass and administer the sacraments after the sentence of 
 suspension ? I heard it repeatedly. 
 
 Did you believe that to be true ? I believed it to be 
 true. 
 
 Sentence of Having heard and believed that he did so continue to say 
 interdict. mag g an( j ^o administer the sacraments, and to hear con- 
 fessions, had you by the law of your Church, or by virtue of 
 the powers delegated to you, authority and jurisdiction to 
 subject the people of Callan to an interdict? I had, most 
 certainly. 
 
 Is that document in your handwriting? (Witness is 
 handed the interdict.} 1 The interdict itself is; the title 
 above is written by my secretary, and the remainder is 
 written all in my own handwriting. 
 
 Latin Is this a translation of the body of the paper? It begins 
 
 sentence of ^y c j^i n g your power ? I think the translation is wrong. 
 
 translated. The translation of the title is, * Paul of the title" of the 
 
 Church of St. Peter in Monte Aureo, Priest Cardinal of the 
 
 Holy Roman Church, Archbishop of Dublin, Primate of 
 
 Ireland, Delegate of the Apostolic See, to all the faithful.' 
 
 Is this a correct translation (reading) : ' Since it has been 
 told to us by credible witnesses that in a church or parochial 
 chapel, of which the priest, Robert O'Keeffe, is said to have 
 possession, in the town of Callan and in the diocese of Ossory, 
 the censures of the Church are violated or set at nought, 
 that the mass is illegally celebrated, and the sacrament of 
 the Eucharist is administered contrary to the discipline of 
 the Church, and confessions heard without jurisdiction, and 
 with no regard for ecclesiastical suspension, and that several 
 other things which impeach the ecclesiastical laws and epis- 
 copal authority are almost daily performed?' (Witness): 
 There is no ' since ' at the beginning. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 208 ; and for Latin original see Appendix No. V., p. 583.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 377 
 
 (Reading] : ' When we were informed about all these Examina- 
 things we immediately determined to lay the aforesaid n tl I J. of I 
 
 J Cardinal 
 
 parish church under an ecclesiastical interdict, according Cullen. 
 to the mode of proceeding of the canon law, which we 
 now do.' (Witness] : To be observed according to canon 
 law. 
 
 (Reading}: 'Which we now do by the force of this decree, 
 and by the authority granted to us by the Sovereign Pontiff 
 in the case of the priest Eobert O'Keeffe ; and we moreover 
 declare that church interdicted. Moreover we warn all the 
 faithful, and exhort them in the Lord, that they cautiously 
 and diligently observe this censure of interdict, lest by 
 chance they provoke on themselves the anger and vengeance 
 of Almighty God, who does not permit His Church to be de- 
 spised with impunity, or run into other ecclesiastical punish- 
 ments. Dated, Dublin, 16th day of December, 1371.' Was 
 it your duty to publish that interdict ? It was my duty to 
 save the people from the risk of receiving sacraments in- 
 valid, and of assisting at public and sacred rites which were 
 performed contrary to the canons and discipline of the 
 Church ; that is a first principle. The sacrament of penance 
 requires jurisdiction, but a priest suspended from his office 
 has no jurisdiction, and consequently every time he adminis- 
 ters penance the sacrament is invalid. 
 
 I need hardly ask you if the Roman Catholic parishioners 
 of Callan had an interest in being made aware of the fact? 
 They had the greatest interest in the world ; the interest 
 of their immortal souls. 
 
 We have it in evidence that that interdict is in your hand- 
 writing, and was affixed to the Augustinian Friary Chapel 
 in Callan. Was that done by your authority ? It was done 
 by my authority. 
 
 Were both the suspension and the interdict published by 
 you in good faith ? They were published in perfectly good 
 faith by me. 
 
 Were they published without malice ? Without malice. 
 
 Were they published by you, believing them to be true ? 
 I believe them to be perfectly true. 
 
 And you make these answers both in reference to the 
 suspension and the interdict? I make these answers both 
 in reference to the suspension and the interdict.
 
 378 Court of Queen 9 s Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- According to the canon law of the Roman Catholic 
 
 Cardinal Church, is it an offence for the priest to bring an action before 
 
 Culien. a lay tribunal against his bishop for an ecclesiastical matter ? 
 
 Law as to ^ ^ s a V61 7 serious ecclesiastical offence ; an offence in 
 
 suing ec- canon law. It is an offence against the common law of the 
 
 1 Church, and if you wish for proof of that I can give it. 
 
 By-and-by. Is it an offence, therefore, according to the 
 common law of the Church, apart from the Bulla In Coena or 
 the Apostolicce Sedis ? It is quite a different thing, the com- 
 mon law of the Church. A great many of the common laws 
 have no censure annexed. The Bulla Coence has censures 
 annexed, but of different classes. 
 
 Is not the law of the Church the recognized traditional 
 law ? It is recognized traditional law which is found in the 
 councils, in the corpus juris canonici, in the rules of the 
 Council of Trent, and in the constitutions of the Popes 
 which have been promulgated after the corpus juris canonici* 
 May I ask your Eminence whether the rules of the early 
 provincial councils or synods are evidence of what the canon 
 law of the Church is ? They are considered as evidence of 
 what the tradition of the Church is, and when they are 
 adopted by general councils, or by the constitutions of the 
 Popes, they become general laws of the Church. 
 Universal rpfo orc Chief Justice : May I ask, do those laws require to 
 
 J 
 
 authority . . 
 
 of the laws be promulgated in any country, or is it a matter of course that 
 
 they pervade the whole world? The laws of the Catholic 
 
 when pub- Church, when they are published in Rome, bind all over the 
 
 hshed m earth, just as the laws published in London bind in every 
 
 part of Ireland, England, and Scotland, as I am informed. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Has not there been a very great 
 
 dispute on that very question as to whether or not the laws 
 
 made in Rome, which I suppose are drawn up in Italian or 
 
 Latin, affect any country unless they have been actually, by 
 
 the episcopal body, promulgated in every parish, and by 
 
 them made known to the districts in which they live ? Is 
 
 Need not that so ? According to the doctrines in the laws which I 
 
 pedaiiy learned, the legislator can determine how and when the 
 
 promuiga- j aw -which he makes is to begin to bind. When a Pope 
 
 make them or general council makes a law in Rome, and declares that 
 
 binding in that law is to bind the whole Church after a certain 
 
 trict. number of days or months, it begins at that time to
 
 Eev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal Gullen. 379 
 
 bind the whole Church. It may happen that a great many Examina- 
 will not know the law, will not know anything about it, Q^^I 
 and consequently if they transgress it they do not commit Cullen. 
 any sin, but as soon as the law comes to their knowledge 
 they are obliged to accept it. 
 
 Suppose the Propaganda draw up a declaration to-morrow, 
 and settle it amongst themselves, and that the Pope approves 
 of it ? I don't understand, my lord. 
 
 If whoever draws up the laws, presents a bull to the Pope, 
 and he approves of it, and it is then received there, does 
 that take general effect ? Oh, it must be published in Rome ; 
 that would be only writing a letter and putting it in the 
 desk. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If published in Rome it is 
 binding. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: With respect to what you call the common Common 
 law of the Church, which we all understand here, does it church. 
 extend of its own force all over the world ? It extends of 
 its own force all over the world. It was made for the whole 
 world excepting the Greek Church. The law won't bind 
 them in consequence of some privileges they have, and 
 practice they have, but this law of which we are treating is 
 the acts of general councils, and it is contained in pontifical 
 constitutions, and it has been published by provincial and 
 diocesan synods. I could quote to you the Council of Council of 
 Chalcedon, a general council held in the middle of the 5th (i on> 
 century, in the year 450, a council which was received I 
 believe by the Church of England, in which there is a canon 
 prohibiting in strict terms any priest or ecclesiastic from 
 bringing his brother priest or ecclesiastic before a lay 
 tribunal. That is as far back as 451. Then I could refer 
 you to the decrees of Innocent III., in which he inserts the Decrees of 
 decrees of two councils, in which it is prohibited for any 
 priest or any cleric to bring another before a lay tribunal, but 
 desires them to bring them before their bishop or some other 
 ecclesiastical authority; and the decrees of these two councils 
 are approved of and renewed by Innocent III. After all 
 this, the great Council of Trent approved and sanctioned all Council of 
 the decrees which were obligatory on the Church before the 
 Council of Trent ; and since the Council of Trent a great 
 number of provincial synods have been held in different parts
 
 380 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Diocesan 
 Statutes. 
 
 Council of 
 Macon. 
 
 Status of 
 a parish 
 priest. 
 
 of the Church ; and again in Ireland ecclesiastical laws were 
 made prohibiting clergymen from bringing their brother 
 clergymen before a lay tribunal. There is one statute of the 
 diocese of Dublin, published by Dr. Russell in the year 1676: 
 I have the book here : it is either 1676 or 1686, in which 
 the statute prohibits this bringing of ecclesiastics by brother 
 ecclesiastics before a lay tribunal. There is another statute 
 of the same tendency adopted by the provincial synod of the 
 Province of Cashel, of which I have a copy also. Well, to 
 show how much this is the discipline and spirit of the 
 Church, I may say that very lately in 1866 there was a great 
 national synod held in the United States (Objected to.) 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I don't see any harm in ask- 
 ing what was done in America. If it is a case of contract, 
 how could a man who entered the Church I don't know how 
 many years ago be bound by what they did in America 
 in 1866 ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : His Eminence is merely giving an instance 
 of the regulation pervading the Church from the earliest 
 times to the latest, and from the centre to the extremities of 
 the earth. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I have received all that, but in 
 my opinion a recent transaction in America could not affect 
 the plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I do not think your Eminence mentioned 
 the early Council of Macon, in which the same rule was laid 
 down? Yes, I recollect. 
 
 And the Roman Council ? 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : I object to that. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think you may ask the question. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Was it so laid down ? It was. 
 
 Will you please tell his lordship and the jury what is the 
 status of a Roman Catholic priest ? A parish priest, by his 
 appointment, has a right to a parish until he is canonically 
 removed. There are some offences for which he can be 
 removed. But a parish priest may be suspended, and still 
 remain a parish priest ; he does not cease to be a parish 
 priest until he is removed, and until his appointment is 
 cancelled by some offence. It was on that account that I 
 always called the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe 'Parish Priest of 
 Callan,' and addressed my letters to him so, until he was
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 381 
 
 deprived of the parish by an act of deprivation, which is Examina- 
 different from an act of suspension. Cardinal 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the difference between Culleu. 
 an administrator and a parish priest? An administrator is 
 one who is employed in a parish only provisionally, as long Bistmc- 
 as he is allowed to remain there administering the parish, between a 
 Suppose a parish priest dies, and the bishop cannot imme- P a . nsh 
 diately appoint a parish priest ; he wishes to make inquiries ; and an 
 he does not like to leave the parish without appointing one ^Qp ls " 
 to manage the affairs. To supply that want he appoints one 
 to manage the affairs of the parish as if he was a parish 
 priest, and only until the bishop provides a parish priest. 
 
 Has the bishop the power of removing an administrator 
 as he pleases ? Any day he likes ; he is appointed con- 
 ditionally. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : But a parish priest has a right to remain 
 in possession of his parish ? He has a canonical right until 
 he is deprived of it by the sentence of a judge having power 
 to do so. 
 
 If such a priest be suspended by canonical sentence Effect of 
 db officio, that is to say, from his office, would that deprive ^^a* 
 him of his position or status as parish priest? No, he 
 remains still a parish priest a suspended parish priest. 
 
 The suspension db ordine would not have the effect Of sus- 
 of removing him? No; no mere suspension, by itself, will ^dinT* 
 remove a parish priest. 
 
 There must be a sentence ? Some other sentence. 
 
 The sentence of suspension or deprivation a beneficio ? 
 There are some cases in which the law, ipso facto, deprives a 
 parish priest of the parish. 
 
 Is the offence of impleading his bishop in a lay court Punish- 
 about ecclesiastical matters, an offence for which a parish ^jf^e 
 priest can be canonically .punished, not merely by sus- bishop. 
 pension, but also by depriving him of his parish ? It is an 
 offence for which he may be deprived of his parish, or for 
 which he is actually deprived of his parish. There are two 
 canons on this point. 
 
 Confining ourselves to the first, do you say that it is an 
 offence by which he can be deprived of his parish ? It is 
 an offence by which he may be deprived of his parish, 
 undoubtedly.
 
 382 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Law 
 
 relating to 
 slander of 
 the bishop. 
 
 Effect of 
 disregard- 
 ing 
 censures. 
 
 Is the offence of slandering and calumniating- his bishop, 
 in documents published and disseminated by the priest, an 
 offence by which he can, according to canon law, be sus- 
 pended and deprived of his parish ? I think not. 
 
 You think not ? There are several cases ; I don't think 
 defamation is one. He could be punished most severely 
 according to canon law, but I don't think he can be deprived 
 of his parish. 
 
 Can he be suspended ab ordine for it? Undoubtedly 
 he can be suspended for any serious and scandalous offence. 
 
 Supposing a priest ha.d been validly suspended ab ordine 
 and ab officio, according to canon law, and that he dis- 
 regarded these censures, and continued to officiate, and to 
 administer the sacraments, would that be an offence for 
 which he could be according to canon law deprived of 
 his parish? He contracts an irregularity, and, according 
 to canon law, irregularity is a cause for which a parish 
 priest could be deprived of his parish. It is one of the 
 reasons. Perhaps you would wish to hear a couple of other 
 reasons ? 
 
 If your Eminence pleases ? There is another reason for 
 suspending a parish priest. If he continues to wallow in 
 the mire of suspensions, he may be removed from his parish. 
 Then there is another scandal. If a priest be a great scandal 
 to his parish, if he introduces schism, if he encourage the 
 people to resist legitimate authority ; that is scandal, and 
 the canon law authorizes his deposition. Taking an action 
 against the bishop, as I said, is another canonical crime for 
 which he can be removed. 
 
 His bringing an action against his bishop as to matters 
 ecclesiastic, is that not merely an offence in itself, but also 
 an offence as being a scandal? It is an offence as being a 
 great scandal, but it is an offence in itself, and the censure 
 annexed to it would show that the Church looks upon it as a 
 great offence, for the Church never annexes a censure to any 
 offence unless it be grievous. 
 
 It has been proved that Dr. M'Donald, the vicar-general 
 of the diocese of Ossory, in October, 1870, wrote and sent the 
 following letter to the Eev. Mr. O'Keeffe. (Letter read.} l 
 I ask your Eminence, as a,n expert, was that in your judg- 
 
 1 Supra, p. 149.
 
 Rev. Robert CfKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 383 
 
 ment a valid suspension of Mr. O'Keeffe from his office? I Examina- 
 think it was perfectly valid. It is a supension in punishment Ordinal 
 of an offence, and that offence was notorious, and on that Cullen. 
 account it did not require a citation. 
 
 It has been impeached on the following grounds ; one of Firs ^ sus ' 
 them as you mentioned that it was not preceded by a citation; Father 
 the other is this, that it did not set out in full the authority ' Keeffe - 
 underwhichhe acted. What observation has your Eminence to Citation 
 make with regard to the second ground of objection ? Any not . 
 
 J * required, 
 
 judge, when he sits, is supposed to have authority. The offence 
 vicar-general, when he is vested with official authority, and bein s 
 
 7 . . notorious. 
 
 says that he has authority to try a case, is to be believed. 
 In this case Dr. M'Donald was the vicar- general. He 
 asserted that he was vested with full power to act in the case, need not 
 He was to be believed. If the plaintiff had grounds to 
 believe that he had not the power, he might have impugned 
 his power, but he should have abided by it until he proved 
 that the sentence was issued without authority. 
 
 Is it by canon law to be presumed that a judge has au- Authority 
 thority until the contrary is proved ? It is distinctly laid 1S P re : 
 
 * J J sumed. 
 
 down in the canon law. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe having written a letter to the Rev. 
 Dr. M'Donald on the 13th October which letter has been 
 read here Dr. M'Donald writes as follows. (Letter read.) 1 
 That letter has been termed here the second suspension. 
 Was it, or was it not, in your judgment a different suspension Second 
 from the first? Oh, it is a repetition of the first. Dr. suspension 
 M'Donald's first suspension was turned into ridicule by the o'Keeffe!" 
 plaintiff. He was so scrupulous about the matter that he 
 sent the second censure with the date to it. The month 
 was to the first, but not the date. However, that would 
 not invalidate it. It was a mere accidental circumstance. 
 If Dr. M'Donald had not been so scrupulous, he need not 
 have sent the second censure. 
 
 On the 10th December, 1870, Dr. M'Donald sent the Third sus- 
 following letter to the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe. (Letter read.)* pension of 
 In your opinion, supposing that the terms of that menaced o'Keeffe. 
 suspension were violated, and that Mr. O'Keeffe did the act 
 forbidden by it, did he thereby incur, ipso facto, the censure of 
 suspension ? Dr. M'Donald forbade a certain action under 
 
 1 Supra, p. 151. 2 Supra, p. 157.
 
 384 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- suspension : ' If you perform that act you will be suspended 
 Cardinal ^ so f ac ^' Father O'Keeffe performed that act, and ip so facto 
 Cuiien. he was suspended. There is no doubt of it. 
 
 On the llth January, 1871, Dr. Walsh, the bishop, sent 
 
 Fourth the following letter to Mr. O'Keeffe. (Letter read.} 1 Would 
 
 suspension . . ,, . . . . V ' 
 
 of Father J ou kindly explain to his lordship and the jury the nature of 
 O'Keeffe. a suspension ex informata conscientia, according to canon law? 
 Here is the translation of the suspension that was inclosed 
 in it. (Reads). 2 
 
 Witness : I think that translation there is not very ac- 
 curate either; misconduct, ' culpa," 1 that expresses a lighter 
 quality of offence. 
 
 Suspen- I h ave asked your Eminence to explain as clearly 
 
 sion ex as you can to the court and jury the nature of a sus- 
 
 vnformata . /. , , . . , 
 
 conscien- pension ex injormata conscientia ; suspension in general ; 
 tia. having special regard to a statement that has been made 
 
 here, that a suspension ex informata conscientia only applies! 
 to private offences, and only applies to regular clergy as con- 
 Judicial tradistinguished from the secular. (Witness) : There are 
 and extra- two ways of proceeding in canon law, judicially and extra- 
 proceed- judicially. When a person proceeds judicially he is obliged 
 ings at to observe the essential conditions which are laid down by 
 the canon law for the validity of the suspension. When he 
 proceeds extra-judicially he is obliged to attend to natural 
 justice, and to perform everything that is required for the 
 justice of the sentence. There are distinct ways. At 
 the Council of Trent the method of suspension was intro- 
 duced in the first chapter of the fourteenth session, I think. 
 Finding that in many cases it was very dangerous, and 
 an occasion of great evil, to leave certain persons in pos- 
 session of parishes, benefices, and other clerical dependencies, 
 on account of the evils they might be performing in private 
 life, the Council of Trent, I say, then determined on passing an 
 act for the suspension of persons in such cases when required. 
 They did away then with the judicial form, and authorized 
 bishops to promote clerics to a higher order, or to sus- 
 pend clerics from, their office and their order, without 
 going through all the legal process, on the condition that 
 they should be themselves personally cognizant of the offence 
 for which they suspended the person in question ; on that 
 1 Supra, p. 1 58. - 2 Supra, p. 1 58.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 385 
 
 account it was called extra-judicial suspension. Since the Lamina- 
 Council of Trent, the Council in Rome called this sus- Cardinal 
 pension 'suspensio ex informata conscientia : ' that is, a bishop Cullen. 
 who suspends a person in this way must have a full knowledge 
 of the offence of the person he suspends. There is another Sus P e " sw 
 
 ex injor- 
 
 condition, viz., that he must be prepared to give an account mata con- 
 of those offences, or of the reasons for which he suspended scientm - 
 the person, to the Pope, if called on. This suspension re- No f ? rn ? s 
 
 . ., ' f ... "'*. required. 
 
 quires no previous citation; from this suspension there 
 is no appeal to the Metropolitan; from this suspension 
 there is a recourse to the Pope. The person who considers 
 himself aggrieved can represent his case to the Pope ; the 
 Pope calls on the bishop to explain everything he has done, 
 and if the Pope find the person aggrieved, he absolves 
 him from censure ; if he finds the bishop acted properly 
 he confirms the proceeding of the bishop. This suspen- 
 sion is most necessary, at certain times, in a parish. If it 
 happened, unfortunately, as it might happen as we are 
 all men that a parish priest was doing a great deal of 
 mischief, scandalizing his people, corrupting his people, if 
 the bishop had full proof of this, but could not get witnesses 
 to come forward and prove what he knew perfectly, then 
 he might, in order to save the people to save the souls of 
 his flock suspend the priest without giving him a reason 
 why he suspends him. That is the nature of the suspension. 
 
 May I ask your Eminence's attention to this : I think 
 you used the phrase that the Council of Trent did away with 
 the necessity of judicial form; that is, as I understand, in 
 certain cases? Only in this case, and when the bishop is 
 proceeding so, he need not adopt the judicial form, when it 
 is necessary to save the souls of the people from the scandal 
 of a bad pastor. 
 
 Is the phrase ' ex informata conscientia ' a term of art 
 applied in the canon law to extra-judicial suspension? 
 Oh yes ; applied since the Council of Trent. 
 
 Adopted as a term of art? Adopted by the Pope and 
 Council. 
 
 Had the Council of Lateran anything whatever to say to 
 that species of suspension? The Council of Lateran, which 
 was held before the Council of Trent, could not act on the 
 Council of Trent, or abrogate the law of the Council of Trent. 
 
 c c
 
 386 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- The Council of Trent could interfere with the regulations 
 
 Cardinal ma ^ e by the Council of Lateran and change them, adapting 
 
 Cuilen. itself to the circumstances of the time in which the Council 
 
 of Trent was held. You asked me, I think, whether such law 
 
 applied to a parish priest. 
 
 This sus- To a secular as well as a regular ? It applies to secular 
 
 aTdicabie as we ^ as re g u l ar priests. It applies to persons having 
 
 to secular benefices, having parishes, having any rank in the Church. 
 
 kr priests They mav De suspended ex informata conscientia. I brought 
 
 down here Giraldi's Canon Law. He is a very distinguished 
 
 author on canon law. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When did he write, Cardinal ? 
 Author!- I think about 140 years ago, the time of Benedict XIV., who 
 e ' ' was a great canonist also. He declares that this suspensio ex 
 informata conscientia can be applied to every person of what- 
 ever rank he may be among ecclesiastics. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : The plaintiff in his evidence stated that a 
 different view was held by Scavini, a great theologian ? Yes. 
 Would you take this volume of Scavini in your hand and 
 tell the court whether he lays down the doctrine that you 
 have been propounding as to the doctrine of suspensions ex 
 informata conscientia ? I think every theologian lays it down. 
 Would you just read the passage marked ? ' So great is 
 the power of a bishop in inflicting suspension, that he can 
 inflict it on ecclesiastics subject to himself not only in the 
 manner of a censure, but also in the mode of a simple pun- 
 ishment for a past crime, and from causes known to himself, 
 or, as is said, from an informed conscience, and without any 
 previous admonition of the ecclesiastic ; and in the same way 
 he can prohibit an ecclesiastic from ascending to orders, and 
 from the exercise of his orders, for example, from celebrating 
 mass. Thus the Council of Trent and Benedict XIV. The 
 same is evident from the bull Auctorem Fidei, which in the 
 forty-ninth clause solemnly condemned the proposition which 
 teaches that suspensions from an informed conscience are 
 null and void, as false, pernicious, and injurious.' ! 
 
 There is another question immediately following with 
 reference to parish priests ? ' Moreover a bishop can suspend 
 a parish priest from every exercise of his benefice in the 
 same way ; ' and the Sacred Council of the Congregation, 
 
 1 See Scavini' s Theologia Moral is Vniversa ; De Ccnsuris, vol. i.. p. 390.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal Gidlen. 387 
 
 which interprets the canons of the Council of Trent, on Examina- 
 the 21st June, 1625, declared that a parish priest had con- J^^i 
 tracted irregularity who, having been suspended by his Cullen. 
 bishop ex informata conscientia from eveiy exercise of his 
 parochial office, even for causes known to himself, and having 
 undertaken to appeal, still continued to celebrate the sacra- 
 ments and exercise his office as parish priest.' ' I heard 
 here the other day that Devoti is against this suspensio ex 
 informata conscientia. There is in Devoti a passage there in 
 the same sense as this. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : May I ask, Cardinal, are the Decrees of 
 decrees of the Council of Trent received in Ireland ? They Trent- * 
 were received here in Ireland, my lord, at a very early period, ceived in 
 I have here present a decree of the province of Dublin, which 
 emanated from a synod held in Kilkenny in 1613, reciting Synod of 
 all the canons of the Council of Trent and publishing them, i6i3? nny> 
 According to that it appears that on account of the circum- 
 stances of the time, they could not publish the canon regard- 
 ing clandestine marriages or the canon which had reference 
 to the examination of priests of parishes, or concursus, as 
 they call it. 
 
 Were they in force all through Ireland ? That was the 
 testimony of the document. There was another provincial 
 synod at Dublin under Dr. Russell in the beginning of the Synod of 
 reign of James II., and in that Council they enforce the 
 canons of the Council of Trent. Each of the other pro- 
 vinces did the same, but that canon regarding clandestine 
 marriages was not passed absolutely so as to be binding 
 immediately by the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent 
 inserted this clause, that that canon should not bind any 
 place until thirty days after it had been published. 
 
 As I understand you, each province in Ireland passed a 
 separate decision as to receiving the decrees of the Council Exception 
 of Trent ; but were they all, one way or other, actually in as to canon 
 force throughout Ireland before 1829 ? Was that notorious dandes 5 - 
 to the Church ? It was notorious to every part of Ireland H" 6 mar " 
 
 rijiffcs 
 
 except the canon about clandestine marriages. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I believe that that particular decree with 
 respect to clandestine marriages was not received throughout 
 
 1 See Scavini's Theologia Moralis Uni versa ; De Censuris, vol. i., p. 31)0. 
 
 c c 2
 
 388 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- the whole of Ireland until afterwards ? It was not received 
 
 Cardi until 1828 in tne province of Dublin. 
 
 Cullen. The Lord Chief Justice : But I understand that it was no 
 
 matter whether it was received in a particular place or not if 
 it was promulgated in Rome ? My lord, if you look to the 
 terms in which the canon is expressed, you will find that in 
 the canon it is expressly stated that this prohibition of clan- 
 destine marriages is to have no force in any part of the world 
 unless it be promulgated, and no force until thirty days 
 after the promulgation. It requires to be published in every 
 diocese and every parish of the diocese, and after that thirty 
 days are given. 
 
 What was to be the form of the promulgation to make 
 a thing binding on the different countries of the world? how 
 was it to be promulgated ? Is it this law ? 
 
 Any of them, for I somewhere read that the decrees of 
 the Council of Trent were not received in Ireland ? All were 
 received in Ireland except this upon clandestine marriages. 
 They were simply not put in practice because they could not 
 be put in practice in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: As your Eminence explained, it stood 
 apart because the very words of the canon prescribed that it 
 should not be in force. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Except for that, it would not have 
 required any promulgation at all, and would have bound the 
 whole world. 
 
 Witness : Certainly, in canon law and in conscience. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : As to the words that you referred to in 
 Devoti ? I heard the plaintiff say that a passage that appears 
 in Devoti declared or taught that no suspension could ever 
 be valid without citation or admonition. Well, here Devoti 
 teaches quite the contrary to what was attributed to him. 
 After speaking of some conditions which are attached to sus- 
 pensions, he says that 'these apply when the suspension is 
 inflicted in a judicial manner, but that the bishop is not 
 prohibited, on account of causes known to himself, which 
 are not known in the forum externum, from inflicting a sus- 
 pension, and the ecclesiastics who do not obey the command 
 of the bishop incur irregularity.' * What is stated here is 
 
 1 See Dev oii's Institutiones Canonicae, Lib. iv., Tit. xx.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal Cullen. 389 
 
 in accordance with the laws of the Council of Trent in Examina- 
 chapter i., Session 1 4, de reformations. Cardinal 
 
 So he distinctly lays down the contrary of what was Culleu. 
 alleged? Yes. 
 
 Does this particular mode of suspension ex informata Limi . ted 
 
 . . apphca- 
 
 conscientia extend to the power of suspending a parish priest tion of sus- 
 in that way from his benefice? No, some say it does, but P e sion * r 
 
 J _ . inforniata 
 
 the general opinion is that it does not suspend him from conscientia. 
 his benefice. He can be suspended from his order and from 
 his office. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But this document before me, 
 Cardinal, includes the word ' benefice ' ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : The suspensio ex informata conscientia of the 
 llth January purports to declare Mr. O'Keeffe suspended The sus- 
 uot merely from office and order, but also from his benefice. P en ? 10 " 
 
 > ' against 
 
 Now, in your opinion, as I understand, the vicar-general Father 
 had not power so to suspend him from his benefice ; it was ^"^rf 6 
 ultra vires ? It is not in accordance with the decree of the ultra vires. 
 Council of Trent. The Council of Trent says 'rib ordine and 
 rib official 
 
 Was that suspension, because it purported to suspend him Not there- 
 also from his benefice, thereby rendered invalid ? Oh, not at ^ ^_ 
 all unless the two could not be separated. Here by suspend- valid. 
 ing ' ab ordine et officio,' the act has not the power of taking 
 away the benefice, but it takes away the other two. 
 
 Taking it to have been a valid suspension so far as Effect of 
 regards order and office, would it prohibit him from hearing 
 confessions ? It prohibited him from saying mass, hearing 
 confessions, and from doing anything which in virtue of his 
 order or office that is, the holy orders he received he did 
 as parish priest. 
 
 Did it render it irregular in him to do any of those things 
 after he had received that suspension ? It certainly did. o , 
 
 I understood you to have said that there was but one mode 
 of getting rid of the effects of that suspension, and that that c 
 is by having recourse to the Pope ? That is the only way. from sus- 
 
 Did the power which you had by the ordinance of the P ension - 
 31st May, 1871, 1 subsequent to this, confer authority on you Rescript 
 similar to that which the Pope had, to remove the effect of nalftifl 
 that suspension ? I had full power, the same power as the powers. 
 Pope, to treat the whole case. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 346,
 
 390 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 Culleu. 
 
 Law pro- 
 hibiting 
 ecclesias- 
 tics from 
 suing ec- 
 clesiastics, 
 distin- 
 guished 
 from 
 ancient 
 claim of 
 general 
 immunity. 
 
 Certain 
 cases may 
 be brought 
 before civil 
 tribunals. 
 
 National 
 ('.ccrees 
 must 1>o 
 approved 
 at Rome. 
 
 Now, referring for a moment to the question of the 
 actions brought against ecclesiastics by the plaintiff, and 
 to the law of the Church laid down by your Eminence as 
 applicable to them ; it is, you say, the rule to which 
 you have admitted numerous exceptions that it is an eccle- 
 siastical offence to bring a brother ecclesiastic before a lay 
 tribunal about matters connected with ecclesiastical things. 
 Is that a different law from what had at first been put 
 forward, namely, a general immunity of the clergy from 
 responsibility to lay tribunals altogether ? It is a different 
 thing; one is a very limited law, one is for clergymen 
 in reference to other clerics and about matters amongst 
 themselves. That was the law I was speaking of; that is 
 the law in the Catholic Church that has always existed. 
 There was a law which was introduced by degrees after the 
 Christian religion was established ; introduced through rever- 
 ence for the clergy by Christian emperors and Christian 
 kings, exempting ecclesiastics in every case from civil 
 tribunals. Ecclesiastics had their own tribunals ; they were 
 tried there, and punished or acquitted as the case may be, 
 without any reference at all to the civil tribunals. 
 
 Could it therefore at present be in any degree considered 
 a violation of canon law in this country if a layman brought 
 an action against a priest in a civil matter? The law has 
 been greatly changed in nearly all the countries of Europe, 
 and in all the Catholic States of South America. The 
 law has been changed in this way that all cases of debt, 
 of wills, and other cases like thai all such cases may be 
 brought before and decided upon by a civil tribunal. In 
 those countries where these controversies have not arisen, 
 Benedict XIV. says that the custom which has been intro- 
 duced regulating these temporal offences is winked at, and 
 I might mention a fact which illustrates this. In the Synod 
 of Baltimore a few years ago the bishops made a decree, and 
 a very strong one, prohibiting any person from bringing 
 ecclesiastics before lay tribunals. Before this law could 
 have any force it was necessary to have it examined in 
 Home. All decrees of provincial and national synods must be 
 examined in Rome before they have force. This decree was 
 examined, and the prefect of the Propaganda ordered it to be 
 struck out, and to limit the proposition to cases of the clergy,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 391 
 
 bishops, and nuns bringing actions one against the other, so Examina- 
 that it was left out altogether ; and it further limits actions cardinal 
 to things strictly ecclesiastical. However, in all the con- Cullen. 
 cordats everything connected with faith, with morals, with 
 the discipline of the Church, with the celebration of the 
 sacraments, with the action of bishops over their subjects in 
 ecclesiastical matters, is always exempted from any inter- 
 ference of lay tribunals. 
 
 Now, according to the law of the Church, is it entirely Bishop has 
 within the bishop's authority to admit or prohibit the in- e^de 
 troductioii of an order of nuns into any parish in his nuns from 
 diocese ? It is always within the power of the bishop to ex- 
 clude them or to receive them. Everything that is connected 
 with religion in a diocese is under the immediate control of 
 the bishop. The bishop is responsible for whatever happens. 
 If a strange preacher comes in, the bishop is answerable for 
 his preaching, and therefore has a right to exclude him if he 
 thinks he is not good. The same with nuns. They are 
 calculated to do a great deal of good or a great deal of mis- 
 chief. The bishop is answerable for their actions. Unless 
 he had power to control them he would be answerable for 
 things for which he shouldn't be responsible. 
 
 Would the obtaining from Rome of a privileged altar or 
 special oratory have any effect in dispensing with the consent 
 of the bishop ? No effect whatever. The faculty of a privi- 
 leged altar is a matter of course which is given to any party 
 who applies for it where the altar is regularly established. 
 It means that there are certain indulgences to those who say Meaning 
 mass at that altar, and that has nothing to do with the 
 
 introducing of nuns or giving any other power. To do that tar. ^ 
 it assumes that the oratory is clearly established. 
 
 It assumes that the consent is given, and the altar regu- 
 larly established ? Yes. 
 
 The plaintiff, Mr. O'Keeffe, referred to a rule of the canon 
 law which his lordship said was a rule of universal justice 
 that no one 'can be a judge in his own case. Has 
 that rule in your opinion any application to the suspension 
 of Mr. O'Keeffe by Dr. Walsh ? I think it was applied in 
 this case. Father O'Keeffe in his own case has declared all 
 these suspensions invalid, and trampled upon them. 
 
 Now has it any application to the position of Dr. Walsh ?
 
 392 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- No; no application. It is, I believe, a maxim of law I know 
 Cardinal ^ * s a max i m of the Church that where the interests of the 
 Cullen. Church are concerned, or where the interests or dignity of 
 the judge himself are concerned, that he can punish the delin- 
 quent who offends against his own dignity or the dignity of 
 the Church which he represents. I believe it is the same 
 in law. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: Without any investigation at 
 all ? Yes ; contempt of court. Here the dignity and the 
 authority of Dr. Walsh were grossly insulted. It was the 
 dignity and authority of the bishop he was vindicating, not 
 his own. Besides that, the rights and interests of the Church 
 were assailed. A schism almost a real schism had been 
 established in Callan, and it was necessary for the bishop to 
 take proceedings. It was not his own case he was pleading, 
 but the case of God and His Church. 
 
 Suppose a bishop acting in the performance of his duty 
 is insulted by a priest, is there anything to prevent him 
 punishing him? Not at all; it is quite in conformity with 
 common law, just as his lordship could punish any one who 
 would insult him on the bench. 
 
 Now so far as you yourself are concerned, you sat and 
 judged Mr. O'Keeffe. Would you in any way be a judge in 
 your own case ? Not in the least. I may observe also that 
 in his letter Father O'Keeffe expressed the greatest respect 
 for me, and I had no ground to condemn him for any want of 
 respect. 
 
 He says in one of his letters that you were his accuser as 
 well as his judge. Were you his accuser in any sense apart 
 from that of being a judge ? I was asked about the case in 
 Rome, and I stated the facts just as they were. I handed in 
 a letter. 
 
 He stated that the marriages which were celebrated 
 in his parish after he had been suspended were invalid or 
 clandestine by reason of not being in his presence as parish 
 priest, or in the presence of some priest authorised by him, 
 according to the decrees of the Council of Trent ? He is 
 quite mistaken. Where the decree of the Council of Trent 
 is published, any marriage celebrated without the presence 
 of the parish priest or a priest deputed by him, and twa 
 witnesses, shall be considered as invalid, but the bishop
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 393 
 
 himself is parish priest in every parish. He can assist at Examina- 
 marriages without consulting the parish priest or any priest Q"^ 
 in his whole diocese. He can give leave to persons to con- Cullen. 
 tract marriage in any part of the diocese without the consent 
 of the parish priest. He is the ordinary of the whole diocese. 
 The vicar-general has the same authority as the bishop. 
 Just as the Pope, if he came over, could celebrate a marriage 
 in any diocese without asking permission of anyone, so the 
 bishop can celebrate a marriage where he wishes, and depute 
 persons to attend them. 
 
 It was stated in one of the letters that you got a subpoana 
 to attend in one of these actions at the Wicklow Assizes? 
 Not at all ; nor was I asked to go. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Pur cell : As I understand you, you Cross- 
 inentioned to my friend Mr. O'Hagan that you had resided examina- 
 
 J J tion of 
 
 for about thirty years in Rome ? For about thirty years. Cardinal 
 
 I believe you received your education for the priesthood Cullen - 
 in Home ? Yes ; I received a preliminary education before 
 I went to Rome, but I finished my studies there. 
 
 You were not in Maynooth ? No ; I never was in May- 
 nooth. I was in Carlow, and I was at a Quaker school. 
 
 I hope you had never to unlearn anything you learned 
 there ? I have been always very friendly with the Friends. 
 
 What office in the Church, Cardinal, did you fill in Rome ? 
 I filled several offices. I was rector a great many years of 
 the Irish College, and some time rector of the Propaganda. 
 
 Did you ever fill any parish cure ? No ; but I had a great 
 deal of communication about parish matters. 
 
 But you yourself never were a parish priest ? Never. 
 
 I think it was in 1350 your Eminence was appointed Appointed 
 Archbishop of Armagh ? Precisely. A . rch " 
 
 Was that the first office in the Church in Ireland you Armagh, 
 filled ? No ; I was agent of the bishops of Ireland in Rome 
 for several years. 
 
 But it is the first office in Ireland that you filled connected 
 with the Church ? Yes. 
 
 I believe, as a matter of fact, the appointment came from 
 the Holy See ? I am not aware of that. I understand the 
 bishops in Ireland recommended my appointment. 
 
 At all events your Eminence was not one of the three Mode of 
 persons postulated* by the clergy of Armagh? No, there is JS. ing
 
 394 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Translated 
 to Dublin. 
 
 110 obligation whatever to appoint any of these three persons. 
 The Pope can set them all aside, so that any appointment 
 that was made was made in perfect conformity with the law. 
 
 Bat not quite in conformity with the antecedent practice ? 
 The antecedent practice was a very short one. The re- 
 script was given in the year 1829, and I was elected in the 
 year 1850. So that there must have been but few cases. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I am sure you are right in any- 
 thing you say about the Church, but I remember I may be 
 wrong that Archbishop Murray states that there never was 
 in his recollection any instance in which though the Pope 
 might do it he had set aside the appointment. I suppose 
 lie was speaking of Dublin, and there was no election in 
 Dublin during the time he was alive. The first origin of 
 this goes back to the year 1829, and there must have been 
 very few cases since. 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : There was a rescript of 1829 ? It was a 
 decree. That was the first time this custom, was established. 
 
 But wasn't it the recognised custom long before 1829, 
 though not systematised or embodied in any decree or re- 
 script ? I think not the general custom. There used to be 
 so-called elections held, but in Dublin certainly there was 
 no election from the beginning of the last century. Dr. 
 Murray was appointed without any election. 
 
 He was translated? No, he was appointed coadjutor- 
 bishop to Dr. Troy, at the request of Dr. Troy himself, with- 
 out consulting the clergy. Dr. Murray was translated from 
 Ossory to Dublin without any election; Dr. Murray himself 
 was appointed to the diocese of Ossory directly in Rome. 
 
 I believe in 1853 you were translated to Dublin ? No ; 
 in 1852. 
 
 From Armagh to Dublin ? Yes. 
 
 Now, when you became Archbishop of Dublin I believe 
 Bishop Walsh was Roman Catholic Bishop of Ossory ? He 
 was. 
 
 Was the occasion referred to in the letter of Mr. 
 O'Keeffe of the 7th of August, 1869, 1 the first occasion on 
 which you were brought into direct com munication with the 
 transaction at Callan between him and the bishop ? I heard 
 reports about proceedings that were going on, and saw some- 
 
 1 Supra, p. 134.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 395 
 
 thing about the trial in the papers, but I had no direct con- Cross- 
 nee tion with him before that. ^km'of 
 
 You knew Doctor Walsh ? Yes, very well ; a most re- Cardinal 
 spectable, venerable man. ^ ' 
 
 Had he been in personal communication with you in re- 
 ference to this matter of the action before you received this 
 letter of the 7th of August from my client? I don't think 
 he ever spoke to me about it at all. I don't think I heard of it 
 until I read it in the papers some time in June or July, 1869. 
 
 Then your reference to it at the retreat arose from the 
 reading of the matter in the papers ? And the public reports. 
 I referred to several things of the same nature. 
 
 You said you mentioned no names or places, but I pre- 
 sume there can be no doubt as to whom you alluded ? I was 
 giving a few words of instruction. I thought it right to 
 refer to what was going on on the Continent, in England, and 
 around us at home. 
 
 As I understand you, you were in total ignorance as to 
 the merits or demerits of the case, beyond the mere fact that 
 the parish priest had brought his bishop before a court of 
 law? That was sufficient to give me an idea that it was a 
 very wrong thing. 
 
 Under circumstances of wrong inflicted by a bishop As to a 
 supposing such a thing possible would the parish priest be su i n g his 
 justified in resorting to that remedy? You must distinguish j> lsho P at 
 several sorts of offences. If a bishop owed money to a 
 priest, and there was no way of recovering it, he -should 
 apply the canonical means first, and do it only under such 
 circumstances as that he would not give scandal. 
 
 Supposing, for argument sake, that a bishop had pub- 
 licly slandered his parish priest, would the parish priest be 
 guilty of a canonical offence in bringing his bishop into a 
 court of law ? There is a canonical tribunal at which he 
 could get redress. He might bring it before the Pope, and 
 the Pope would depute some one to judge it, and in that way 
 he would get redress, without going before the civil tribunal. 
 If he could get no redress, I think he should rather bear 
 patiently than reveal the secrets of his own father. 
 
 That is not what I ask your opinion of. Suppose the 
 bishop grossly slandered him, not in the exercise of his juris- 
 diction, would the priest be guilty of a canonical offence in
 
 396 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- bringing his lordship into a court of law? It is very diffi- 
 
 ^jon'of ~ cu ^ to decide some general questions. It would be the duty 
 
 Cardinal of the parish priest to' seek redress in every way possible 
 
 ^_ n< within the Church, and if he could not obtain redress to 
 
 bear with patience what he had suffered ; and if he could not 
 
 do that, then he could have recourse to the Pope, and state 
 
 his case, and he would be sure of redress. 
 
 Eule as to You have already stated in your evidence that the suing 
 
 clerics 
 
 suing each & bishop any cleric suing another in a court of law is, 
 other at according to the canon law, a canonical offence, provided that 
 it was for something done qua cleric ; or is it an absolutely 
 unqualified rule that one cleric suing another in any case 
 whatever offends against the law ? That is the general rule 
 of the Church. Any cleric suing another before a lay tri- 
 bunal would be deprived of his benefice. That is for any- 
 thing that was between clerics, such as between the parish 
 priest and his bishop. 
 
 For any cause whatever ? That is a rule of the Church. 
 If a parish priest wishes to violate that rule he can do so, 
 and summon his bishop before a civil tribunal, and obtain 
 that redress which he wishes, but by so doing he incurs the 
 displeasure of the Church. 
 
 If one cleric sue another for any offence whatever, 
 though unconnected with his clerical office or position, is 
 that an offence against canon law? That is the law of the 
 Church, because the persons of the clergy are looked upon 
 as sacred, from their holy and sublime office, and anything 
 which will tend to lower that character is contrary to the 
 spirit of the Church. Bringing a man for slander into a 
 court tends materially to injure his influence and position. 
 
 Though he happen to have been guilty of slander, in 
 fact ; though he has so far forgotten his clerical office as to 
 be a slanderer, still, to sue him in a court of law is a 
 canonical offence ? If he wishes to be a Catholic priest he 
 must abide by the laws of the Catholic Church. 
 
 But that is the law ? It is the law. If he wishes to go 
 outside the law he has a public tribunal to go to, but he 
 incurs responsibility. 
 
 That is, as a subject of the Queen, he has the right ? 
 Yes, to go where he likes. 
 
 As I understand you, if one cleric slanders another (I
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 397 
 
 am speaking now of slander not arising in the execution of Cross- 
 his clerical office), and if the man who has been publicly ^-^"of " 
 slandered brings the case into a public court, he commits a Cardinal 
 canonical offence ? Yes. 
 
 Subjecting him to deprivation? It depends upon the 
 offence. It does so if the offence be a proper offence. 
 Recollect that a bishop and priest are looked upon by the 
 Catholic Church as having a most sacred office. The bishops, 
 as successors of the Apostles, are fathers of the priests ; they 
 are their superiors, and have to direct and guide them. If a 
 priest took an action against a bishop for every little thing, 
 their authority, influence, and character would be ruined. 
 
 And do you think this a little thing? When priests 
 have engaged under that rule to follow the forma ecclesice, 
 they must abide by it. A priest pledges himself not to get 
 married ; he has a legal right to get married, but if he do 
 so he is cut off from the Church. 
 
 Does that rule apply equally to lay members who sue As to lay- 
 ecclesiastics, as to clerics ? At present it does not. 
 
 When you say that, what do you mean ? In the middle astics. 
 ages it applied equally to laymen and clerics, but when 
 two separate tribunals a civil and an ecclesiastical tribunal 
 were established, a cleric always had the right to call on 
 those who were prosecuting to bring him before an eccle- 
 siastical tribunal. They were two distinct bodies existing at 
 the same time, the one giving to Caesar the things that are 
 Caesar's, the other to God what belongs to God. 
 
 As a matter of fact, does a Roman Catholic layman incur 
 any and what censure ; is he guilty of any and what offence 
 against the common law, or against the systematized law of 
 the Church, if he sues a cleric in a court of law ? In nearly 
 every country now there are concordats with the Holy See 
 which expressly declare that all civil cases of the clergy, 
 such as debts, wills, rights of property, and matters of that 
 kind, may be decided in a civil court. In these cases a 
 layman has nothing at all to answer for. In countries 
 where there is no concordat, such as this country, England, 
 and the United States of America, the Holy See has 
 declared that breaches of ecclesiastical immunity are to be 
 overlooked. 
 
 Tolerated and winked at ? Yes.
 
 398 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Applica- 
 tion of the 
 bull In 
 Coena 
 Domini to 
 this case. 
 
 Different 
 
 kinds of 
 fxcommu- 
 
 n ir; it ion. 
 
 But still breaches of the law ? It is a breach of the law 
 as it was ; not a breach of the law as it is now brought down 
 by custom. 
 
 I just call your attention to a letter of yours of the 17th 
 of August, I860, 1 written to Mr. O'Keeffe, in which you 
 refer to a particular clause (clause 16 of the bull In Ccena 
 Domini}* as being, in point of fact, the law which made the 
 offence ? The law does not make the offence. 
 
 It declares it? The law is added on account of the 
 offence. 
 
 It declares and punishes the offence. Did the case of 
 Father O'Keeffe, according to your judgment, come within 
 the 16th clause of the bull In Coena Domini ? I was writing 
 that as a private person entering into a full discussion of 
 the case, but I supposed it to come within it. I had not, 
 at that time, a full account of the case as I know it now. 
 I say it did apply to Father O'Keeffe. 
 
 Then what did you understand? I understood that 
 Dr. Walsh was in the exercise of one of the most important 
 duties of a bishop. One of the great duties of a bishop is to 
 correct and reprimand their clergy, and keep them in the 
 right path. Dr. Walsh was performing that duty at the 
 time he gave offence to Father O'Keeffe, and it was for per- 
 forming that duty that he was brought before a lay tribunal. 
 
 The point I am on now is this, that you now know it 
 came within the 16th clause of the bull In Coena ? I 
 took it prima facie, just as it was represented in the papers 
 at the time. Now I have heard the judicial investigation 
 here, and all the evidence, and can have no doubt in the 
 world it was. 
 
 Have you now no doubt it comes within the 16th 
 clause? I won't say the 16th. 
 
 You said it yourself? I am not infallible in my references. 
 The bull In Coena inflicts penalties on those who drag an 
 ecclesiastic before a lay tribunal. 
 
 The penalty is excommunication ? Yes. 
 
 What are the effects of excommunication ? There are 
 two sorts of excommunication, and two sorts of persons ex- 
 communicated. Some persons are excommunicated by name 
 public excommunication and are to be avoided ; others 
 1 Supra, p. 134. - See Appendix No. VI., p. 584.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal (fallen,. 399 
 
 incur excommunication not public, and they are not persons Cross- 
 
 , i T T rru n examina- 
 
 to be avoided. There are scarcely any persons excommuni- tion of 
 cated by name at all. The Pope receives persons of all Cardinal 
 
 ,. . J , . ,, .,, Cullen. 
 
 religions as kindly as possible. 
 
 They are excommunicated for all that ? They are not 
 members of the Catholic Church, and cannot go to mass, 
 receive the blessed Eucharist, or go to confession. They 
 cannot do any of these things, which I am sure Protestants 
 generally would not like to do. 
 
 I am sure of that, but I think you told my friend in the 
 early part of your examination that they had not much effect 
 upon those who were outside the pale of the Church ? They 
 have no effect upon all those not baptized. 
 
 Because they are already sufficiently done for? They 
 have done for themselves. If they wish to get rid of the ex- 
 communication they can do so without much trouble. 
 
 I am not so sure of that. Have you explained that to 
 my friend the Serjeant ? I hope I will. 
 
 As a matter of fact, is it your evidence that Father 
 O'Keeffe, by suing his bishop in a court of law, incurred the 
 penalties pronounced by this bull? He sued his bishop for 
 discharging his duty, for correcting and reprimanding him, 
 and trying to put him in the right path, and for having done 
 so he incurred the penalty of the Church. 
 
 What was the effect upon Father O'Keeffe of that 
 penalty ? The effect was that he was answerable for what 
 he had done in the sight of God ; he was under excommuni- 
 cation. It was an affair for his own conscience, and he went 
 on just as if he had not been excommunicated. 
 
 Could he rightly celebrate mass, hear confession, and ad- 
 minister the sacraments, so long as he was not openly 
 denounced or publicly suspended ? As long as he was 
 tolerated. He sinned every time he performed these acts. 
 If he celebrated mass whilst under excommunication he was 
 going against conscience, but his acts were valid. If anyone 
 went lo confess to him he had still jurisdiction because he 
 was not declared non toleratus. 
 
 What penalty did he incur ? He incurred irregularity, 
 but it was not irregularity in a public way. You should dis- 
 tinguish cases which affect a man's conscience, and matters 
 which can come before the public tribunal of the Church.
 
 400 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cull en. 
 
 Bull In 
 Ccena 
 Domini 
 now set 
 aside. 
 
 Some persons excommunicated are tolerated, others are not 
 tolerated. Those tolerated go on just as others ; those not 
 tolerated 
 
 Those publicly denounced as excommunicated come under 
 the effects you have named ? Yes. 
 
 Those excommunicated, and the effect of whose excom- 
 munication is not public, only suffer privately? Suffer 
 privately. If a parish priest be excommunicated, and has 
 excommunication not published, those going to confess to 
 him can make a valid confession ; but if he was not tolerated 
 the confession would be invalid. 
 
 Is it by the authority of this bull he was excommuni- 
 cated ? I don't think he was excommunicated with private 
 excommunication. 
 
 Did he come under the penalty of this bull? I think 
 so. There are several other bulls explaining that which 
 enact excommunication; there may be a difference in the 
 phrase. 
 
 May I ask, Cardinal, is it your evidence that this 
 bull is at present in force in Ireland ? It is my evidence 
 that this bull has been set aside by Pius IX. in the 
 Vatican Council. He did away with nearly the whole of 
 the bull, but he retained some articles which are now 
 published in the new constitution, and that bull now as a 
 name would be forgotten. There are a number of excom- 
 munications there which were excellent things in their 
 time, but are no use at present ; such as excommunicating 
 men who sold arms to the Turks when they were over- 
 running Europe and Asia, and attacking the Christians ; 
 pirates on the Mediterranean shores ; those who murdered 
 shipwrecked crews ; those who killed bishops, priests, or 
 cardinals ; those who prevented the bringing of provisions 
 to Rome. Inferior lords who oppressed tenants were also 
 excommunicated . 
 
 Was this bull, which was only superseded by the late 
 Vatican Council, in force in Ireland previousl}' ? If you 
 want my private opinion I will give it very freely. I am one 
 individual in the Church of Ireland; my opinion does not make 
 the opinion of the Church of Ireland, but if you are anxious 
 to hear it I will tell you. 
 
 I am anxious to hear it? I think it was in force in
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 401 
 
 Ireland, and I think I can prove it. I think it was in force Cross- 
 in the diocese of Ossory. I brought a manuscript copy of ^-^"f ~ 
 the statutes of the diocese of Ossory, in 1676, in which I find Cardinal 
 a statute to this effect that every priest in the diocese of _^_ 
 Ossory should have a table posted up in his oratory contain- 
 ing cases reserved in the diocese of Ossory, besides the cases f or ce in 
 reserved to the Pope, especially those contained in the bull Ireliind - 
 In Coena, in order that they might know in what limits their 
 faculties were restricted. That is a proof that in the diocese 
 of Ossory the bull In Coena was in force. The Bishop of 
 Ossory is accustomed to apply to the Holy See, every sixth 
 year, for power to have all the reserved cases of excommuni- 
 cation reserved to himself. The Bishops of Ossory have 
 been accustomed always to apply to the Holy See for permis- 
 sion to absolve in all cases contained in the bull In Coena. 
 There is another little matter which I might add. In the 
 statutes of the diocese of Ossory, which I have with me, a 
 good many cases which occur in the bull In Ccena are named, 
 and the following observation is added, ' Besides the cases 
 for suspension mentioned in canon law, we add the following.' 
 This statute therefore supposes that cases of canon law were 
 still in vigour in that diocese, and added a few to them. 
 
 Were those statutes public or private ? They are there 
 published to the world. This book (produced) contains the 
 statutes of the province of Dublin. 
 
 For the province of Dublin ? No ; the diocese of Dublin. 
 These statutes were drawn up in common, but not published 
 in the provincial synod ; consequently they have no provin- 
 cial force, but each bishop within his own diocese held a 
 synod and published these statutes in that synod, so that they 
 are diocesan, not provincial. They are adopted, but they are 
 merely provincial statutes. 
 
 Can you refer me to the section where it refers to the 
 bull In Coena Domini ? It says : * We add the following 
 censures to those that are in the canon law.' That is a proof 
 that that bull was in force. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When was that book published ? 
 In 1829, by Dr. Murray. 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : Do I understand you to state that from 
 beginning to end, from cover to cover- - any where within those 
 
 D D
 
 402 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 statutes the bull In Coena Domini is mentioned by name ? 
 I did not say such a thing. 
 
 I want to have that clear? It may be stated in the 
 notice. 
 
 Is it ? I am not sure. 
 
 Do you draw the inference that the bull was in force in 
 Ireland because certain censures provided by those statutes 
 are identical with the censures in the bull In Coena Domini ? 
 Yes, certainly, when it states * besides cases of suspension 
 and such things in the canon law we add others ; ' that sup- 
 poses they had what was in the canon law. 
 
 There is no declaration there, that the bull is in force 
 in Ireland ? It comes to the same thing. 
 
 Wouldn't your Eminence rather come to the conclusion 
 that this is evidence that the bull was not in force in Ireland, 
 because when you select portions of a particular law and 
 re-enact them, isn't it a fair conclusion that the remainder of 
 it is not in force, and that as a law in its entirety it is not in 
 force? If I was writing a treatise on this matter I would 
 do so, but if I was drawing up a very small body of statutes 
 for a diocese that a priest could have in his pocket or in his 
 hand at any moment, I would not do anything but take 
 extracts from these censures. 
 
 That would not follow necessarily? If you admit all the 
 censures it would follow. 
 
 Does this admit all the censures ? All those comprised 
 in canon law. 
 
 Were not these in point of fact all those in the canon law 
 which were in force in Ireland? That is what I say, that 
 they were all in force in Ireland. 
 
 Are you not aware that the evidence of Dr. Murray, Dr. 
 Doyle, Archbishop M'Hale, Professor O'Hanlon, Professor 
 Slevin, points to a different conclusion ? I mentioned in the 
 beginning that I was a mere individual, and I say the same 
 Of each of those persons. If the bishops of Ireland assembled 
 and held a synod, and declared that the bull In Gonna Domini 
 was not in force, it would be an act of the Church of Ireland. 
 A bishop coming forward to say so has no more authority 
 than a private individual. He may have more practice or 
 skill than another. 
 
 Then I understand your evidence to go to this, that these
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 403 
 
 prelates in stating what they did on their oaths merely gave Cross- 
 
 a matter of opinion ? They stated what they believed them- ^i^of " 
 
 selves. I think it is not in force, and I swear to that, and Cardinal 
 I think it right. If I believed it in force, and swore it was 
 
 O 9 
 
 not, that would be wrong. They were individual authorities. 
 
 They had no authority to speak for the Church? No 
 authority to speak for the Church. 
 
 Now let me call your attention to the bull which is sub- constitu- 
 stituted for the bull In Coena Domini. These 6th, 7th, and 8th tion Apos- 
 clauses, I suppose, Cardinal, would be the clauses you refer J^* 
 to. ' Those who impede directly or indirectly the exercise of 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external 
 forum, and those who for this purpose have recourse to a 
 secular court, and those who procure or declare its mandates, 
 or lend aid or counsel or favour thereto.' 7th. ' Those who 
 compel directly or indirectly lay judges to draw before their 
 tribunals ecclesiastical persons contrary to the disposition of 
 the canon law; likewise those who enact laws or decrees 
 against the liberty or rights of the Church.' 8th. 'Those 
 who have recourse to a lay power to impede letters or decrees 
 of any kind issuing from the Apostolic See, or any of its 
 legates or delegates, and those who directly or indirectly 
 prevent their execution or promulgation, or those who on 
 their account either injure or terrify the parties themselves 
 or others.' * I suppose those clauses are the clauses within 
 which or some of them you consider that the case of Mr. 
 O'Keeffe comes ? I don't apply this constitution at all to his 
 case, nor the bull In Coena Domini. I apply to his case the 
 bull of Martin V. and several other bulls, and I apply to his 
 case the general discipline of the Church, which condemns 
 those who drag the bishops or their brother clergy before 
 secular tribunals. Before the day I undertook to examine 
 Father O'Keeffe's case, I made up my mind, and so did Dr. 
 Forde, not to enter into any defence of the bulls In Coena 
 Domini and Apostolicce 8edis, for they were not necessary to 
 his case. 
 
 In one letter you refer to one of them ? I referred to 
 both of them. 
 
 Of course, when referring to them, it was as being obli- 
 1 See Appendix No. VII., p. 590. 
 D D 2
 
 404 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 Cross- 
 ex.amma- 
 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal 
 ' 
 
 Domini 
 
 
 Nature of 
 
 gatory upon Father O'Keeffe ? In iny opinion ; I knew there 
 were others who differed from me, and if he had a fair case 
 
 J 
 
 to stand, I would not condemn him on that account ; but I 
 did not go on either the bull or the new constitution, I went 
 upon the general discipline, doctrine, and traditions of the 
 Church. 
 
 Now, as a matter of fact, down to the interview on the 
 27th October, throughout the correspondence, is there any 
 letter of yours which refers as a law declaring and punishing 
 the offence to any canon or to the canon law of the Church, 
 or to anything except the two bulls, the bull In C&na, and 
 the other, Apostoliccs Sedis? There was in 1869, I think. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is the bull In Ccena Domini by 
 name expressly repealed now ? It is repealed in this way, 
 that the Pope declares that he collects into one body all 
 excommunications which were scattered in different others 
 before, and if he did not repeat certain excommunications in 
 that Apostolicce Sedis, he declares also that those excommu- 
 nications cease to exist. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Does he by name repeal it ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I think not. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is the bull In Ccena Domini ex- 
 pressly repealed? All the bulls, I believe, are repealed. I 
 don't know whether he puts a name on them or not, but he 
 says, 'All the bulls ' (Cardinal Cullen read from the ' Nova 
 Constitutio' the portion repealing other bulls). The Pope 
 declares in that bull that the censures which he leaves 
 in vigour in the present bull have the same authority as in 
 the old bulls, and he confirms them over again. The sentence 
 remains in regard to the election of a Pope, and for colleges 
 and congregations, for assemblies, and for special purposes 
 mentioned. The Pope abolishes the other censures, but 
 leaves those having reference to the election of the Pope, 
 and those having reference to the rules and constitution of 
 religious orders and pious congregations. 
 
 Then this is in the nature of a codification of the existing 
 censures ? It is in the nature also of an abolition of a great 
 number of censures. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I would be glad to know, is the 
 bull specifically and expressly repealed? It is repealed in 
 this way : any censure, any excommunication, latee sententice,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 405 
 
 which is now in the bull is repealed, if it be not found in Cross- 
 the constitution Apostolicce Sedis. examma- 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I was going to call attention, Cardinal, to Cardinal 
 this year 1871. I ask whether, in any of the correspondence 
 with my client, you referred to any other law as bearing upon 
 his case except the bull In Goena Domini which you referred 
 to in 1869, and the Apostolicce Sedis which you referred to in 
 July, 1871, in these words? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What are you reading from ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : From the letter of the 22nd July, 1871 : I 
 will now merely add that the present Pope, whilst limiting 
 and abrogating other censures, confirmed all penalties of the 
 canon law against those who drag ecclesiastics, and especially 
 bishops, before lay tribunals, and there charge them with 
 canonical offences. The Pope's bull regarding censures was 
 handed to every bishop in the Vatican (Ecumenical Council 
 last December twelve months, and is known over the whole 
 world. While such penalties as those I refer to are hanging 
 over his head, I cannot conceive how any priest can venture 
 to charge ecclesiastics with calumny, lying, drunkenness, 
 and endeavour to prove such charges before a Protestant 
 judge, and in the presence of numbers of persons who must 
 be sorely scandalized by what they heard in such a case.' * 
 Now you say you there refer to the Apostolicce Sedis as 
 declaring the law to which my client had made himself 
 obnoxious? T think his conduct was clearly within the 
 terms of the Apostolicce Sedis. I did not act judicially 
 through a declaration that he was excommunicated or sus- 
 pended. It was giving an opinion and a very good advice, 
 and it was very unfortunate for him, I think, that he did not 
 follow it. 
 
 Perhaps if he had known to what extremities he would 
 be driven, he might have followed it. I want to know this : 
 although you shifted the ground of your decision in October, 
 is there in the correspondence with my client a reference to 
 any portion of the law of the Church as bearing on his con- 
 duct except the bull In Ccena Domini and the Apostolicce 
 Sedis ? I spoke in general about censure and excommunica- 
 tion, and expressed to Father O'Keeffe my feeling that it 
 was a great loss for any clergyman to allow himself to 
 
 1 Supra, p. 170.
 
 406 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Promul- 
 gation 
 of the 
 Apostolic 
 Sedis at 
 Eome 
 renders it 
 univer- 
 sally 
 binding. 
 
 remain under censures and excommunications in general. 
 There was an indirect reference to others, but it was to cen- 
 sures in general. 
 
 Is it your opinion that the Apostolicce Sedis by promulga- 
 tion binds the people of this country and people all over the 
 world? That is my opinion, and I would act on it myself; 
 but I would not enforce it on those who say it has not been 
 sufficiently promulgated in any place. That was the reason 
 I did not act on it when I came to act judicially. It was 
 handed to every bishop in the Vatican Council, and by that 
 means it was made known all over the world. The Pope 
 himself, who is the lawgiver, declares that when he pub- 
 lishes a bull at Rome it is to bind everywhere. It is binding 
 ever the whole Church. I do not mean to say that everyone 
 is to become acquainted with it all at once, and become 
 aware of it. The moment it becomes known over the Church 
 it is binding as a penalty. Any particular act by the 
 Parliament in England will bind in Ireland as soon as the 
 time for its promulgation arrives. If there was an act that 
 a certain clause made a will invalid, and that act was pub- 
 lished in London, in a year or two afterwards a poor man in 
 Ireland, without knowing of it, might insert that clause, and 
 his will would be null and void, though he knew nothing of 
 the act making it invalid. There is another thing in regard 
 to the censures that shows the mercy of the Church. There 
 is a law that declares that a man is not bound by a censure 
 who does not know anything about it. In the greater part 
 of the world they do not know of them. 
 
 As a matter of fact, do you know whether that opinion of 
 yours is shared by the other bishops and archbishops in 
 Ireland ? I think a great many share it, and a great many 
 priests, but I would not say all. 
 
 As a matter of fact, do you know a good many that 
 dissent from it ? I never heard of any. No one ever told 
 me so. When the lawgiver publishes a law, and wishes it 
 published in a certain way, the rule is to receive that law as 
 published as binding everywhere upon everyone within the 
 dominion of the lawgiver. 
 
 And the dominion of the lawgiver is the world ? Wher- 
 ever Catholics are is the dominion of the Pope in spiritual 
 matters.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 407 
 
 Is the 5th clause in the Bull In Ccena l binding, which Cross- 
 excommunicates all who impose new taxes without the Pope's e * 0* " 
 leave ? There are many things omitted. Cardinal 
 
 At the time you wrote on the 17th of August, 1869, 2 to u 
 Mr. O'Keeffe and in that letter, when you referred to the 
 bull although these things were general report, you knew 
 nothing of the exact controversy between the bishop and 
 himself? I just knew in a general way what happened. I 
 suppose the greater part of the priests of Ireland knew it too. 
 
 I mean you had not investigated or inquired as to the 
 particulars ? I had not. 
 
 But you considered that under any circumstances Mr. 
 O'Keeffe was to be condemned for doing what he did ? I did 
 not consider any such thing. I considered he was in great 
 danger ; that if he was under suspension he ought to do every- 
 thing to remove the censure. 
 
 When I say condemned I do not mean judicially, but 
 that he ought to be if I may use the word reprobated for it. 
 As a matter of opinion you considered his conduct culpable ? 
 I had not formed any opinion upon his conduct ; it was a 
 public act, and if what was stated was correct, it was most 
 certain he incurred censure j and if he did, it was his duty to 
 submit to the bishop. 
 
 Your advice was that if anything of this kind existed, it 
 was his duty to submit to the bishop ? To repair a great 
 wrong, and get absolution from, the censures incurred. 
 
 That was a fair advice ? But I assumed that the bishop 
 had been quite right in deciding that the censures were 
 incurred. 
 
 What I am asking you, Cardinal, is this. You recom- 
 mended him, without holding any inquiry, to submit to the 
 bishop, and to endeavour to get absolution from the censures 
 incurred? Having brought his bishop into a public court 
 for discharging an ecclesiastical duty, and this being re- 
 ported in all the papers, I thought it was most prudent of 
 him to submit to the bishop, and get free from any censures 
 he might have incurred. 
 
 You had not any knowledge, at that time, that he 
 brought his bishop before a public court for something done 
 in discharge of an ecclesiastical duty ; you only knew he 
 1 See Appendix No. ^ 7 I., p. 584. 2 Supra, p. 134.
 
 408 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Mutual 
 relations of 
 bishop and 
 clergy. 
 
 was brought before the court upon an alleged charge of 
 slander, which rather negatived than otherwise the idea that 
 it was in discharge of an ecclesiastical duty ? The suspension 
 showed that it was in discharge of an ecclesiastical duty, 
 and as I heard it sworn here the other day it was not only 
 for his discharge of that duty, but for a very moderate dis- 
 charge of it. 
 
 Is a bishop warranted, after his conference is over, in 
 assuming that a man has been guilty of conduct which dis- 
 qualifies him for having nuns under his care, without 
 making an inquiry ? I think a bishop generally knows the 
 characters and qualifications of the clergy in l.is diocese. 
 He will say, one man, perhaps, is not fit to have the care of 
 nuns, while he might say of another, that he was fit. I 
 suppose the bishop acted in this way in this case of Mr. 
 O'Keeffe. He saw Father O'Keeffe was not fit to have the 
 care of nuns, and I think anyone who heard him will say that 
 the bishop was perfectly correct. 
 
 Is a bishop warranted in assuming, without investigation, 
 that a man's character and conduct was such as is imputed 
 to Mr. O'Keeffe ? I don't think he would assume anything 
 unless the person's character was well known to him, and he 
 had examined it. Bishops have great opportunities of know- 
 ing their clergymen, and if they think they are going wrong, 
 they are obliged to correct and reprimand them ; and that is 
 of the greatest service to the clergymen themselves. 
 
 Is the bishop himself not limited by law in the discharge 
 of his duty ? He is limited by law and by conscience. 
 
 But is he at liberty to act without any formal inquiry 
 without any opportunity being given to the person against 
 whom he makes the imputation of giving an explanation or 
 making a defence, is he acting in accordance with the law of 
 the Church ? By the law of the Church, the bishop is 
 looked up to as a father, and he can correct his children 
 as a father would correct his own children. Sometimes he 
 may be wrong, but he clings with affection to his children, 
 and they should be most thankful to their father for the cor- 
 rection. 
 
 But you know, Cardinal, that natural fathers, sometimes, 
 have been anything but fathers in the treatment of their 
 family, and it is quite possible, you know, that a bishop, who,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeft'e v. Cardinal Cullen. 409 
 
 after all, is but a man, may be guilty of wrong towards his Crosb- 
 children in the same way ; is he at liberty then to be so ^^^f " 
 with impunity ? There are remedies in the Church for men Cardinal 
 who feel aggrieved which they can have recourse to, but a 
 bishop is not to be dragged before a court for every trifling 
 little thing he does. If that was to be done there would be 
 no authority in the Church, and no power to promote the 
 salvation of souls. 
 
 Don't you think it would exercise a wholesome restraint, 
 and make those in authority more careful of the justice of 
 their interference, if they knew that whenever they acted 
 outside the limit of what was right and just, they 
 would be answerable for their conduct? I think a great 
 means for promoting the salvation of souls, and harmony 
 between the bishop and his subjects, is, that the bishop 
 should love his clergy as a father loves his children ; that 
 there should be no little rivalry between them; that the 
 priest should not call the bishop to account for every little 
 thing that occurs, and that the bishop, in the same way, 
 should show a loving forbearance towards them. If the 
 clergy were allowed to bring their bishop to court for every 
 little matter that occurred to displease them, the sacerdotal 
 authority would be completely destroyed. 
 
 And with that view you recommended him to submit ? I 
 recommended him in obedience to the precepts of the gospel. 
 
 He did yield to your advice ? Yes, he did on that 
 occasion. 
 
 And he wrote an apology * and a submission, which, at 
 that time, you considered to be full and complete ? Well, I 
 expected that he would have carried it out. If he had even 
 not made it so strong, and acted on it, it would have recon- 
 ciled all. 
 
 Now that submission was made after you had been 
 informed of the conduct pursued in the town of Callan, or 
 the parish of Callan, by his two curates, who, before his own 
 congregation, from the altar of his own church, denounced 
 the parish priest as a liar, and alleged the authority of their 
 bishop for their doing so ? I am sorry that the priests could 
 not be examined here to state the truth upon that case, 
 because 1 have heard so many statements. 
 
 1 See p. 421.
 
 410 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- You know, as a matter of fact, that they were examined 
 
 Ttoa'of ~ an ^ avowed every opportunity of explaining. I do not recol- 
 Cardinal lect when they were examined. 
 
 Well, they were both examined at the trial. What trial ? 
 
 In Trinity Term Father Walsh was examined. In 
 what year ? 
 
 In 1870. I was very far away at that time. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : July, 1870, was the time of the nonsuit. 
 
 Mr. Purcell: But it was after that the apology was 
 written. You were very far away, no doubt, Cardinal, but 
 the fact was communicated to you ? It was afterwards. 
 
 In August, 1869, you were not away? No, I was at 
 home at that time. 
 
 In August, 1869, you were informed, I find, that these 
 two men had been guilty of this conduct. In your opinion, 
 could there be a grosser scandal committed than the act of 
 which these two men were guilty ? I would be very sorry to 
 pass sentence upon them until I heard their defence. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Well, assuming them to have been well- 
 founded, would you consider a grosser scandal could be 
 committed ? Assuming that a man committed murder, he 
 would be very wrong. 
 
 I am not asking you about murder, Cardinal ; but, 
 assuming now that this conduct was proved by witnesses 
 here, and that full opportunity was given both to Mr. Walsh 
 and Mr. Neary to contradict the statement ; suppose it was 
 proved here, and it was found by juries by two juries in the 
 case of Mr. Walsh, and one in the case of Mr. Neary that 
 they did act thus : I ask you now, assuming that they were 
 guilty, could a grosser scandal be committed? I do not 
 know precisely what they were charged with. 
 
 Well, it was with having stated that Mr. O'Keeffe had told 
 something that was not true ? I think there might be a 
 greater scandal than that ; a great many things would be 
 further from the truth. But in the case you propose 
 to me, if it belonged to an ecclesiastical tribunal, I would 
 pass no judgment till I heard the case. 
 
 Were you informed that immediately after the commis- 
 sion of this act by his curate, Father O'Keeffe wrote to his 
 bishop, complaining to him of the conduct of the curates ; 
 stating that they alleged it was done by his authority, and
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 411 
 
 calling upon him to remove the curates from the parish under Cross- 
 those circumstances ; and that the bishop never even vouch- ^Tof 
 safed to reply? I think I saw it stated in one of Mr. Cardinal 
 
 O'Keeffe's letters, but then it would be necessary to know ' 
 
 whether his report was considered accurate by the bishop or 
 not. 
 
 Had you as a matter of fact any communication or con- 
 versation with the bishop in reference to these allegations of 
 Father O'Keeffe ? I think you are under some mistake in 
 this matter. I had no power to enter into any of these 
 affairs in the diocese of Ossory, unless in case of appeal 
 from sentence of the bishop, or in the other cases which I 
 mentioned already. I could not go down to Callan and enter 
 into controversies with the curates. 
 
 Just allow me to repeat my question. Had you any com- 
 munication, either verbal or written, with the bishop or Dr. 
 M'Donald, in reference to the allegations of Mr. O'Keeffe as 
 to the conduct of the curates ? I do not think I had. I 
 may have written some time or other to Dr. M'Donald to 
 tell him to take care of his curates, that they should not act 
 improperly towards Mr. O'Keeffe. I think I wrote that some 
 time, but nothing more. 
 
 You recollect that at the time that Mr. O'Keeffe wrote 
 to his bishop, making a complaint and asking for redress, 1 
 he sent a copy of his letter to you also ? Yes. 
 
 Do you not think, Cardinal, that having already given a very 
 fatherly advice to Mr. O'Keeffe, counselling submission under 
 any circumstances, that it would not have been out of place, 
 as archbishop of the province, and Cardinal in the Church, 
 to write a friendly letter to the bishop, suggesting that he 
 ought to inquire into the conduct of these two men who were 
 accused of this scandal ? I think I did write occasionally. 
 I have written that the bishop or vicar-general should look 
 after those curates, and see that they would not do anything 
 displeasing or wrongful towards Mr. O'Keeffe, but I had no 
 power to go down to settle this question, or enter into little 
 quarrels of that nature. 
 
 You think that the conduct of a man who thought he was 
 wronged in bringing the bishop into a law court was a fear- 
 ful scandal, but that the curates' statement from the altar, 
 
 1 See pp. 139-140.
 
 412 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- that the parish priest had stated what was false, was a little 
 I think the parish priest ought to have settled it 
 
 Cardinal without going to law about it. It was an offence committed 
 in the Church, and on that account an ecclesiastical 
 offence, and he ought to have adopted an ecclesiastical course 
 to settle it, and if he could not get redress to bear it with 
 patience. 
 
 What course could he adopt beyond complaining to the 
 bishop, from whom he got no reply. What was he to do ? 
 Very probably he did not bring the case properly before the 
 bishop, and very probably the bishop did not think he was 
 all right. I am certain the bishop had very strong grounds 
 for thinking he was not acting properly towards the 
 curates. 
 
 Did he inquire? did he give him an opportunity of 
 bringing forward the evidence to prove what he complained 
 of? I suppose if we had the bishop here he would tell you, 
 but I cannot tell you. 
 
 But I may tell you, as I told you already, that he got no 
 answer to his complaint. I am now asking you, Cardinal, 
 do you think that, having failed even to get a hearing to 
 get the slightest attention paid to his complaint, he was 
 to be entirely remediless against these men proclaiming to 
 his own congregation that he was a liar; he, the head 
 of his own parish, to whom the curates were bound to 
 be 'reverential and obedient'? Do you think that he ought 
 to put up in silence with that, and allow the world to 
 think that the statement of his own rebel curates was 
 true ? I think if he put up with that he would be much 
 more respected by the public, and I think when the bishop 
 did not investigate it he must have had good grounds for ex- 
 pecting little good from the investigation. 
 
 Then in point of fact if he was to vindicate his character 
 before the world, was he not bound to do so the more 
 when his bishop's conduct gave credence to the curate's 
 statement ? I think, so far from vindicating his conduct by 
 these proceedings, he damaged himself materially with all 
 good people whose good opinion was worth having. 
 
 Then, is there any limit to the endurance on the part of a 
 parish priest, where redress is refused him by the bishop? 
 He has no limit. He has a course open to him, if he likes to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 413 
 
 take it, by applying to the Holy See, and the Holy See, if Cross- 
 there is any serious charge proved, would then call the bishop ^o^of " 
 
 to account. Cardinal 
 
 Aye, if there happens not to be a person there who ad- u 
 vises the Holy See not to hear the appeal or allow him to 
 come to Rome. But we will come to that presently. You 
 left Ireland in November, 1869, Cardinal? Yes. 
 
 And you were kept au courant with all that occurred ? 1 
 heard of it all. 
 
 Did you repeatedly advise him to put up with everything? 
 I did ; and I think if he did it would have been better. 
 
 Of course, if a man never resists there can be no con- 
 tention. Then I understand there are no circumstances 
 under which a parish priest should move. Now do I under- 
 stand that to be your opinion, Cardinal, as head of the 
 Church of Ireland ? I am not ; I am Archbishop of Dublin 
 and Primate of Ireland. 
 
 I beg your pardon, I thought you were ? Oh ! you are 
 very complimentary. 
 
 There is no man better qualified to fill that office. I was 
 just asking you, Cardinal, was it your opinion that Mr. 
 O'Keeffe, under the circumstances, ought to have allowed his 
 parishioners to remain under the belief that their parish 
 priest, who was born in their town, who had been nine years 
 serving in that parish, who was loved and esteemed by all 
 his parishioners, was a liar a belief which was countenanced 
 by the fact that it was declared by his curates, and declared 
 by them with the statement that they did so by direction of 
 the bishop, and further countenanced by the fact that having 
 asked for an inquiry, his bishop did not condescend to take 
 any notice of his application is it your opinion, that under 
 these circumstances he ought to have allowed his character 
 to be sullied and disgraced ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is a long question. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : It is, my lord, but not too long for the 
 Cardinal. 
 
 Witness : I will try very fairly to answer it. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : lam sure you will (Witness) : My opinion 
 then, is, that if what you have stated be true, that Father 
 O'Keeffe was beloved, esteemed, worshipped by his parish- 
 ioners
 
 414 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- I did not use that term. Well, if he was beloved then 
 
 ''tkm'of ~ i n ^is way, there was not the least danger that his good 
 
 Cardinal character would be injured by what the curates said of him, 
 
 u and in one week, by continuing these good relations and 
 
 opinion of the people towards him, every idea of that 
 
 calumny would have evaporated. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Does that answer imply, Cardinal, 
 that each Sabbath day the plaintiff here should stand by and 
 hear his curates say, * I have to acquaint you, my good 
 people, that everything the parish priest said last Sunday is 
 false ; ' does it imply a repetition of that ? I would punish 
 any curate who would do such a thing in my diocese. 
 
 I am sure you would ; but assume that it was done ? 
 If it was done if a curate does wrong, a parish priest has 
 his remedy, and I say the curate ought to be dismissed. 
 There is a statute of the synod of Thurles, in which it 
 is decided that no one shall denounce another from the 
 altar. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Don't you think there would have been a 
 very easy method of preventing any further scandal in the 
 parish by removing the curates and sending them elsewhere, 
 even on the score altogether of peace ? Yes, if the curates 
 were known to be respectable men and had a good name ; 
 otherwise it might not be a ground for removing them. If the 
 curates acted contrary to the statute of Thurles, they ought 
 to be removed. 
 
 That is not my question. Casting aside the question of 
 law, do you think it would have been a wise, and politic, and 
 prudent thing? I am not pretending that Dr. Walsh or 
 Dr. M'Donald acted always wisely and prudently ; they were 
 men who may have made mistakes, but I would be sorry to 
 condemn them. 
 
 But you know all the condemnation and advice were 
 showered on Mr. O'Keeffe, and he got a good deal of it. 
 Don't you think now, Cardinal, you might have spared a 
 little on the other side ? I think I did give some on the 
 other side. 
 
 It does not seem to be followed then ? The other side 
 was not much inclined to publish it. 
 
 Don't you think it would have been better to distribute 
 the censures more equally ; dat veniam corvis vexat censura
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 415 
 
 columbas?! think in this case the censures fell a good deal Cross- 
 
 ., examina- 
 
 on the corvus. tionof 
 
 (The Court adjourned.) G C^ 
 
 EIGHTH DAT. 
 
 Tuesday, May 20, 1873. 
 
 Cross-examination of Cardinal Cullen resumed. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Just before we leave the part of the exami- 
 nation we closed at last night, I wish to ask your Eminence one 
 question. You are of course aware of the provision in the 
 statute of Thurles imposing upon curates the duty of rever- 
 ence and subjection to their parish priest; and also of the 
 provision prohibiting the denunciation of any person by 
 name under any pretext from the altar? Yes; the curates 
 are obliged to be respectful and obedient to their parish 
 priest, but having regard at the same time to the instructions 
 they get from their bishop as to the relations between the 
 parish priest and themselves. 
 
 Assuming that the parish priest as in the case of Father 
 O'Keeffe had reason to believe (I don't care whether rightly 
 or wrongly) that his curates had been guilty of a breach of 
 these provisions of the statute by denouncing him from the 
 altar in the manner he has stated, and that he had com- 
 plained of it to his bishop, had he, according to the law of the 
 Church, a right to an inquiry, and to have an opportunity 
 afforded him of establishing his charge? That depends 
 upon the discretion of the bishop. 
 
 Then the bishop has an absolute discretion to grant or 
 withhold such an inquiry? If by absolute discretion you 
 mean to go against justice 
 
 I don't mean that. Is it a matter within his discretion ? 
 A matter of discretion in which he has to decide whether 
 the case merits investigation or not. 
 
 In other words, there is no legal right, if I may say so, 
 in the parish priest to insist upon having an inquiry, 
 if the bishop is indisposed to grant one ? It depends 
 upon the bishop's will, as it depends upon the good will of 
 Parliament to grant an investigation in any particular 
 case.
 
 41 6 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- As an analogy your Eminence won't take me as at all 
 
 px&niinft* -IT 1 1 i i * i - n 
 
 tion of concurring with you that it is an apposite one. It is a fact 
 Cardinal as to the law of the Church ? It is very like the law of the 
 u land upon that matter. 
 
 Then it is entirely discretionary ? That is, the bishop is 
 to act according to justice, from the information which he has 
 in the case. A great many persons, without any reason, apply 
 for investigations, and then their bishop investigates their 
 reason for asking the inquiry ; if he finds they are not well 
 founded and not likely to produce any good effect, he abstains 
 from granting the investigation demanded. 
 
 And he is the sole judge of all these particulars ? He is 
 the judge in his own diocese, just as in temporal matters 
 those in power have the same discretion. 
 
 But you know the difference is this, that in temporal 
 matters there are certain laws which bind the judge, as well 
 as the suitors ? Not in the case of investigation. 
 
 This was in the month of August, 1869. Then came the 
 apology 1 which my client submitted to the bishop, at your 
 instance, and dated the 1st of September. Do you recollect 
 the first draft of the apology which was sent to your 
 Eminence, and of which you did not approve? I sent it 
 back to him. 
 
 That, I believe, did not contain any relinquishment upon 
 the part of Mr. O'Keeffe of his demand to have the curates 
 sent away ? I think, in my letter, I did not ask him to send 
 away the curates. I wished him to make it as full as he 
 could. 
 
 Your objection was that it was not sufficiently full and 
 ample ? Not being sufficiently explicit, it did not contain 
 directly what it should have contained. 
 
 And this second one contained the condition that he 
 relinquished his demand to have the curates sent away ? It 
 was not at my demand he did that. 
 
 But you approved of it? I approved of it. I don't 
 recollect whether it was in the form he sent me. I know it 
 is in the published form, but I cannot recollect if it was in 
 the one he sent me. 
 
 That brings us to the 1st of September. Do you re- 
 collect getting a letter of the 3rd of September, 2 in which 
 
 1 See p. 421. 2 Supra, p. 142.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 417 
 
 he informed you that he had sent forward an apology to the 
 bishop, who had received it, and in which he proceeded to 
 state that he would leave the question of the nuns entirely 
 in the hands of the bishop and his parishioners ? I think 
 he must have added it himself. 
 
 He interpreted your letter that his apology was not 
 sufficiently ample ? I suppose he interpreted my letter in 
 the sense that it would be well to give full satisfaction to 
 the bishop. He says, in the letter, that he leaves the 
 question of the nuns in the hands of the bishop and his 
 parishioners. 
 
 Did you understand him to have looked forward to that 
 result in the event of complying with your suggestion, and 
 making an apology to the bishop ? Certainly I did not. I 
 would have considered that the bishop would have acted very 
 incautiously if he had allowed him to establish a convent. 
 
 You left for Rome at the latter end of November, 
 1869? Yes; I arrived at Eome about the 5th or 6th of 
 December. 
 
 Before the time you left to go to Rome, had you any 
 communication, either verbal or written, with Dr. Walsh 
 or Dr. M'Donald, in reference to Mr. O'Keeffe? I don't 
 think I heard anything directly or indirectly from them 
 before I went to Rome, as far as I can recollect. 
 
 Now can your Eminence recall how soon after your 
 arrival in Rome it was that you had an interview with 
 Cardinal Barnabo's secretary ? I think it must have been 
 about the middle of January. 
 
 Had you any communication at all with the Cardinal, or 
 his secretary, in reference to Mr. O'Keeffe ? None what- 
 ever. We were exceedingly busy at the time in the General 
 Council, and it was not an easy thing to go and steal any 
 time to speak about matters of minor importance. 
 
 Your Eminence stated that when you had the interview 
 with the Cardinal's secretary, you told him of Father 
 O'Keeffe having made the apology and submission of which 
 we are speaking, and showed him a copy ? Certainly. 
 
 How did it happen your Eminence had a copy of the 
 submission with you ? It happened that the bishop wrote 
 me on the 31st of December. I think I handed him the 
 letter. The bishop wrote to me, stating at the time, the 
 
 E E 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Interview 
 of Cnrdinal 
 Cullen 
 with the 
 authorities 
 at Rome.
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 Cross- plaintiff had commenced a new action against him in the 
 ^ioTof " Q ueen ' s Bench, and added in the same letter that he had 
 Cardinal directed his attorney, Mr. Poe, to send me some documents. 
 
 ^' I received some documents, I suppose, from Mr. Poe. One 
 
 was the submission, and the other was a brief which the 
 lawyer was preparing. 
 
 That is what you call a case. I suppose he requested 
 your Eminence to interfere ? No ; he merely laid these 
 things before me. I may say that in the end of the letter 
 he adds, ' Can Propaganda do anything for me ? ' 
 
 And was it in consequence of that letter that you had the 
 communication with the secretary ? No, it was in conse- 
 quence of being applied to by the secretary to know who 
 Father O'Keeffe was before they would correspond with him. 
 Then did your Eminence take any action at all upon the 
 bishop's letter ? Not until a few days after that. 
 
 When in the close of the letter the bishop made inquiry 
 
 whether Propaganda could do anything for him, he pointed, 
 
 I suppose, to interference upon the part of the Congregation, 
 
 to prevent this law-suit and the scandals that were going on ? 
 
 Pope's I think your Eminence stated that the Pope has direct 
 
 ""tlTrit 1 1 anc ^ i mm ediate authority over the whole Church ? Yes, the 
 
 in spiritual Pope has direct and immediate authority in every diocese in 
 
 articlTof D ever J P ar * ^ * ne world ; that was denned by the recent 
 
 faith. Council as an article of faith. 
 
 Is that confined exclusively to spiritual and ecclesiastical 
 matters ? It is confined exclusively to spiritual and ecclesi- 
 astical matters. 
 
 If the Pope considered it would be for the spiritual 
 benefit or advantage of the Church to prevent a lay member 
 of the Church in this country continuing a case he has taken 
 before a lay tribunal, would a prohibition from him be bind- 
 ing on the layman, suppose it were accompanied by a 
 penalty of excommunication in case of disobedience? I 
 never heard of the Pope doing so unreasonable a thing. 
 
 Suppose he considered it necessary to do so, would it be 
 binding ? It is impossible for me to examine every suppo- 
 sition that could be imagined. I am speaking about the 
 general order of the Church. I could not recollect every 
 little distinction, or every little difference of opinion, that 
 might arise upon such subjects.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 419 
 
 Are you not aware that it has been a part of the teaching Cross 
 of some of the doctors of the Church, that the Pope, though "Jjjjfj* 
 not possessing, directly or immediately, any temporal autho- Cardinal 
 rity, yet, on account of the spiritual power, possesses power 
 in temporal matters indirectly, that is, where spiritual power 
 could not be freely exercised without having recourse 
 to temporal means ? That means in temporal matters where Limit of 
 there is a question of conscience. Suppose, for example, Pope's au- 
 that a man comes to me and confesses that he stole 100Z., temporal 
 and I tell him to make restitution, and that if he does not matters. 
 make that restitution I will not absolve him ; I compel him, 
 by retaining the power to absolve which I have, to do his 
 duty and make restitution. 
 
 Suppose a man was doing what at the time he considered 
 to be a lawful and proper act, but that a spiritual judge 
 wished to restrain him from doing it ; would the prohibition 
 from the Pope, with the penalty of excommunication in case 
 of disobedience annexed, be binding on his conscience ? I 
 don't think that the Pope does such things, and I would not 
 take the trouble to examine each case and see what it was. 
 
 Is there not at this moment an actual universal law of Law as to 
 the Church, that no layman shall bring a cleric before a lay brin g iu g 
 tribunal ? No. before lay 
 
 Is not that laid down in the Apostolicce Sedis ? Not uni- tribunals, 
 versally ; it is nearly abrogated. I mentioned that by the 
 concordat this law was abrogated in nearly all the countries 
 in the world. 
 
 But in fact it is the law, though that may be so ? No ; 
 it is done away in these countries. 
 
 That is where there is a concordat? Well, that is in 
 nearly every part of the world except Great Britain and 
 America. 
 
 Well, let us take Great Britain and America. It is not 
 the law of the Church in Great Britain and America ? Not 
 all who compel or who draw ecclesiastics before a lay tri- 
 bunal incur excommunication ? No. The law is there, but 
 it does not bind. 
 
 It does not bind ? It does not bind. The Church has 
 declared in all these concordats that clerics or ecclesiastics 
 may be brought before the lay tribunal in all cases of money 
 interest, wills, temporal concerns ; clerics may be brought 
 
 E E 2
 
 420 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- before the lay tribunal in all such matters, and Benedict 
 
 ^ioTof " XIV. a great canonist, and a great authority in the Church, 
 
 Cardinal and a Pope declares in a work he has published that the 
 
 u practice of bringing ecclesiastics before a lay tribunal, where 
 
 it is formed, is to be tolerated. 
 
 That is the exception from the law ? But when you have 
 made that exception you have excepted the whole world. 
 
 But is not this exclusively confined to cases where the 
 exception is grounded upon, or is in pursuance of, or by 
 virtue of, a concordat ? Oh no ; Benedict XIV. is treating 
 of places where there is no concordat, and makes it a general 
 rule. 
 
 I don't recollect exactly when Benedict XIV. was Pope ? 
 About the year 1740 or 1741. 
 
 Well, the ApostoliccB Sedis is in 1870? No, 1869. 
 *! rovi : ., And I find in the Apostolicce Sedis no limitation at all to 
 
 eions in the 
 
 ApostoliccB the rule you have laid down? Well, that don't interfere 
 with the concordat or with the practice prevailing in the 
 Church. 
 
 It is overlooked ; I think you used the term ' winked at ' ? 
 It is c tolerated ; ' that is the word expressed. 
 
 But the law is there notwithstanding ? The law is there, 
 but it is not observed. In fact there are a great many laws 
 that have become antiquated. 
 
 You would not call a law re-enacted in terms in 1870 ah 
 obsolete law? Well, it depends on the wishes of the autho- 
 rity who enacted the old law, and by their acts we know that 
 they don't wish to include any of these cases in that 
 law. 
 
 That law was enacted and published at a time when the 
 bishops for the most part of the world were present ? Pre- 
 sent : certainly. 
 
 And they then re-enacted in general terms the former law 
 without any qualification ? With the full knowledge of all 
 the bishops there, of the concordats with the countries and 
 the decree of Benedict XIV. 
 
 And of course it is optional at any time with the Holy 
 See to withdraw the concordat ? No, there are two sides 
 in the concordat ; the king or the government which makes 
 the concordat, and the Pope : they both have agreed, and 
 one cannot withdraw without the other.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 421 
 
 But it is not everlasting ? I don't think any law of the 
 British constitution everlasting. 
 
 The concordat is an agreement? Of course it is an 
 agreement binding the Pope and his successors, and binding 
 the king or prince and his successors. It is like a regular 
 treaty until it is abrogated by just authority, that is, by the 
 authority that made it. 
 
 I think you stated you returned in August, 1870 ? In 
 the beginning of August or last day of July. 
 
 Did your Eminence see the answer sent on 20th January, 
 1870, from Cardinal Barnabo to Father O'Keeffe 1 ? I have 
 seen it lately ; he (the Cardinal) did not consult me about the 
 answer at all. I stated the facts, just as they were, to him. 
 
 Did your Eminence mention at the time, that in making 
 an apology Father O'KeefFe vigorously denied that he was to 
 blame, notwithstanding that the apology was made ? Father 
 O'Keeffe, in his apology, did not deny that he was to blame, 
 I think. 
 
 (Counsel read Father O'Keeffe's letter of apology.) 
 
 'Callan, September 1, 1869. . 
 
 ' MY LORD BISHOP, An eminent ecclesiastic, for whose opinion I 
 entertain the highest respect, thinks that it would be proper for me, 
 under existing circumstances, to make to your lordship a formal pro- 
 fession of my submission to you as my bishop. I accordingly hereby 
 express my intention and desire to exhibit to your lordship on all occa- 
 sions the reverence and obedience which I owe to you by the promises 
 of my ordination. I regret exceedingly the annoyance which a late 
 proceeding of mine has caused your lordship. I desire to make the 
 fullest and most ample apology for having commenced this proceeding, 
 and to express my determination in future to abide by anything you 
 may decide in the discharge of your duty wherein I may be concerned. 
 Your lordship is free to make what use you please of this profession of 
 my respect for your authority. 
 
 ' With the kind permission of Cardinal Cullen, I shall make a 
 spiritual retreat in Dublin next week, and seek absolution from any 
 censures or irregularities that I may have incurred in consequence 
 of the proceeding referred to. I beg also from your lordship any 
 jurisdiction which you may think I require in this matter, and I with- 
 draw any demand I have made upon you for removal of curates or any- 
 thing else. 
 
 ' Your lordship's faithful servant, 
 
 'R. O'KEEFFE.' 
 1 Supra, p. 146. 
 
 Cross 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Apology of 
 Father 
 O'KeefFe to 
 his bishop, 
 Dr. Walsh.
 
 422 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Is not that quite consistent with Father O'Keeffe's 
 
 ex.amma- thinking he was right. Is there any apology in it? I think 
 
 Cardinal the letter was a very proper one, and that it apologised to 
 
 Cullen. ^. ne bishop f or -the annoyance caused by having commenced 
 
 the proceedings against him. 
 
 Is that your Eminence's view ? Yes ; there is a matter 
 connected with the interview in Rome which I think ought 
 to be mentioned. I heard the letter read which Father 
 O'Keeffe wrote to the Propaganda or to Cardinal Bar- 
 nabo, in which he asked leave to absent himself for three 
 or four months from his parish. In that letter he said he 
 had two curates who would take very proper care of his 
 parish during that time. I have been asking who these 
 curates were, and they are no other than Father Neary and 
 Father Walsh. 
 
 Let me read Father O'Keeffe's letter (letter read} 1 . He 
 says it is necessary to go to Home to explain the matter, and 
 that his two curates can discharge the duties of the parish. 
 That is telling the Cardinal that they were fit and proper 
 persons to discharge the duties during his absence. 
 
 Surely so long as they were not under censure they were 
 fit and proper persons in an ecclesiastical sense? They 
 never were under censure it appears. 
 
 Therefore there is nothing inconsistent in his saying that 
 the two curates could discharge their duties ? The object of 
 his writing that is to show that the parish would be properly 
 provided for during his absence, but it could not be properly 
 provided for unless these were men of good intentions and 
 men well calculated to carry out the duties of the parish. 
 
 Does not your Eminence see that he proposes leaving 
 the parish in the hand of one of the Augustinian fathers ? 
 Well, it merely proposes to get him to say mass ; saying 
 mass has nothing to do with parochial duty. The adminis- 
 tration of a parish consists in administering the sacraments, 
 in preaching in the parish church, in attending the sick, and 
 watching over the temporalities of the parish ; and Father 
 O'Keeffe, in his letter, says that the two curates are quite fit 
 persons to supply these duties during his absence. 
 
 You drew that inference from the mere statement of the 
 fact that his two curates, placed there by his bishop however 
 
 1 Supra, p. 148.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 423 
 
 objectionable to him were not under censure ? If they were Cross- 
 not fit and proper it would be very wrong for him to leave ^^f " 
 his parish to them ; he should not do that if his curates were Cardinal 
 two unworthy men. 
 
 Your Eminence heard in Rome of the action against the 
 bishop ? Yes ; I heard of the nonsuit. 
 
 You heard that in Rome ? Yes ; I saw it in the papers, 
 at least I think I did. 
 
 On your return there was a fresh action commenced in Action by 
 the following year (April, 1871) against Father Neary ; did Q^ he ^. 
 your Eminence hear of it ? I heard of it. against his 
 
 Now, the authority under which the inquiry was held by curate - 
 your Eminence, is dated 31st May, 1871 P 1 Yes. 
 
 Was that granted on the application of your Eminence ? 
 I spoke about it or I wrote about it. After I came home 
 I wrote to the Cardinal (Barnabo) just stating, as nearly as 
 possible, what I had stated to him in Rome ; that it was a 
 notorious fact that the state of Callan was disturbed, that 
 the parish priest had been suspended, and that the parish 
 priest had also denounced the bishop, and that it would be 
 necessary to take some remedy to restore peace in that un- 
 happy parish. As metropolitan, hearing these things, I gave 
 them as stated, not juridically or judicially. I wrote that, and 
 in about a month afterwards, or some weeks afterwards at all Issue of 
 events, I got this decree from the Pope charging myself to do it. the . 
 
 On the 31st of May? On the 31st May I was ready to 
 do it, because, being the metropolitan, it was natural that 
 the commission should be given to me. 
 
 I suppose your communication with Cardinal Barnabo 
 corresponds with the commencement of the action against 
 Father Neary on the 15th of April. Shortly after that, I 
 presume you wrote to the Cardinal ? I could not tell pre- 
 cisely the date. 
 
 The date of the rescript is the 31st day of May? Well, 
 I think it would take about a month. They are very slow 
 in their proceedings, having so many affairs on hand. 
 
 That would be about the latter end of April ? It might 
 be about that time. 
 
 Was your communication with the Cardinal made at the 
 instance of the bishop ? I think not. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345.
 
 424 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). . 
 
 Cross- Or Dr. M'Donald. Had any communication been made 
 
 To'' to 7 n ? l don>t think Dr - M'Donald or the bishop corn- 
 Cardinal municated to me about the matter ; but I heard about it. I 
 f_ n> read about it every day, and I heard different persons say 
 that things were in a most desperate state in Callan, and 
 that it might be necessary to take some remedy. Other 
 bishops spoke to me > and said I would not be doing my duty 
 unless I took some steps to get proper authority in the case, 
 so that an end might be put to the disturbances. 
 
 Accordingly then you made a communication to the 
 Cardinal? I wrote to the Cardinal, setting out all the 
 rumours and the reports. 
 
 And the grounds of delinquency on the part of Mr. 
 O'Keeffe ? The reports. 
 
 Your Eminence did not think it would be either desirable 
 or necessary to include in the inquiry the conduct of the 
 two curates, of whom also you must have heard a good 
 deal ? It would come as a matter of necessity that if an 
 investigation was to be held into the conduct of the parish 
 priest, it should also refer to the curates. 
 
 There was no authority you know given you in that re- 
 script, which you state was inquisitive and punitive ? Which 
 rescript ? 
 
 Of the 31st of May, 1871 ? It is not punitive, I think. I 
 don't understand you. 
 
 I think those were the terms you used yourself? I got 
 power to exercise them. I thought you meant that the 
 decree itself was punitive. 
 
 No, but the power conferred was both punitive and in- 
 quisitive ? Inquirere et punire. 
 
 The rescript was entirely conversant with Priest O'Keeffe? 
 Your Eminence did not think it necessary when making 
 your complaint to Rome to refer to the two curates of whose 
 conduct you must at that time have heard a good deal, so as 
 to give you authority to inquire into their conduct and 
 punish them ? The parish priest had been suspended at 
 that time by the bishop and by the vicar-general, and he 
 was acting in open defiance of their authority. That was 
 then the principal thing to be mentioned, and whether he 
 was right or wrong was the matter to be decided after 
 investigation.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 Then, in point of fact, as I understand your Eminence, 
 the ground of complaint was his disregard of the censures ? 
 His disregard of the censures, and his denunciation of the 
 bishop, and the publication of that broadsheet. 1 I sent a 
 copy of the broadsheet to the Cardinal, that he might him- 
 self judge of the state of things. 
 
 Then was the rescript of the 31st of May, 1871, sent to 
 you, founded entirely upon the information communicated 
 by your Eminence ? Oh, I do not say that at all. 
 
 You are not aware of any other ? I am not aware of any 
 other, but it is probable he had other information. 
 
 Quite possible ? And probably he* had information even 
 from the newspapers. 
 
 The Cardinal scarcely reads the Irish newspapers ? Well, 
 one of his secretaries reads English perfectly well. 
 
 Your Eminence arrived in Ireland about the 10th of 
 June ? About that time. 
 
 It would take you that time to arrive here ? Yes. 
 
 You recollect hearing of the action against Dr. M'Donald, 
 I presume ? I heard of it. 
 
 Your Eminence did not act upon that rescript until, in 
 the first instance, the 16th of July, 1871 ? I was exceedingly 
 busy at that time. I got a few days' freedom, and I wrote 
 immediately to Father O'Keeffe, expecting that he might 
 
 We have the letter. Expectations are not evidence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the date of the first letter? 
 
 Mr.Purcell: The 16th July, 1871. 2 At that time you 
 had had the rescript a month in your possession ? About a 
 month. 
 
 Had you communicated to the bishop or to Dr. M'Donald 
 the fact that you had been armed with these powers? I 
 cannot say. I did not keep my correspondence, nor do I 
 remember any letter I wrote. 
 
 From memory could you say ? I don't think I wrote then. 
 
 Did either the bishop or Dr. M'Donald communicate to 
 you the fact of the action against Dr. M'Donald? I saw Dr. 
 M'Donald in Dublin, and he told me about the action. 
 
 And that it was coming 011 for trial at Wicklow ? He 
 told me that he was going to Wicklow to the trial that 
 month. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Action by 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe 
 against Dr. 
 M'Donald. 
 
 1 See Appendix No. I., p. 577. 
 
 Supra, p. 163.
 
 426 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 With- 
 drawal of 
 action 
 against Dr. 
 M'Donald. 
 
 And tlien you wrote on the 16th July? Yes, on the 16th 
 July. 
 
 Now was that letter of the 16th July, 1871, in point of 
 fact, written in order to prevent the action from proceeding ? 
 I don't think it was. It was written in order to prepare Father 
 O'Keeffe for an interview. I did not refer directly to the 
 action. 
 
 The letter is in these terms : ' The accounts which have 
 reached me of dissensions and disputes in Callan have affected 
 me very much. Being now in a position to attempt to restore 
 peace in that locality, I am determined to make every effort 
 to obtain so desirable -a result. Before I take any steps in 
 the matter I would be glad to have an interview with you in 
 regard to the present state of things.' Then you mention 
 that you would be at home on the 19th, 20th, or 21st from 
 ten to eleven o'clock each day. Now at that time Dr. 
 M'Donald was in town, and he communicated to you about 
 the action ? I cannot say what time it was. It was when 
 the time for trying the action was approaching. 
 
 The notice of trial was for the 31st July, 1871 ? Well, it 
 must have been very near the time. 
 
 Your Eminence does not refer in this letter to the action 
 at all directly ? No, I did not. 
 
 Then Mr. O'Keeffe writes to you, on the following day, 1 a 
 letter in which he expresses his willingness to go up if neces- 
 sary, but stating that he did not think it necessary to wait 
 upon your Eminence. And he states in a further letter of the 
 18th July* all that he had suffered and the terms as he says 
 upon which he was willing to withdraw the action? I 
 saw that he was looking for money from reading the letter, 
 but I expected, by kindness, to overcome that obstinacy and 
 that desire for money. 
 
 Your Eminence hardly describes the letter when you say 
 it is a desire for money. It is an expression of a desire of 
 being paid what had been lost. Then a correspondence 
 ensued, which ultimately terminated by his withdrawal of 
 the action against Dr. M'Donald ? Yes. 
 
 And that occurred upon the 29th of July, 1871 ? How- 
 ever, he did not give me to understand that it was through a 
 desire of peace he was withdrawing the action. He enclosed 
 
 1 Supra, p. 164. * Supra, p. 164.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v, Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 427 
 
 me a letter, written by his own attorney, in which the attor- 
 ney threw out some doubts serious doubts about the 
 success of the action, and cautioned him that the expenses 
 would be very heavy. I got that letter from him. I had 
 preserved it, but could not find it when giving the papers to 
 my solicitor. 
 
 From whom was this letter ? Mr. Meredith. 
 
 Do I understand that the letter was addressed from Mr. 
 Meredith to your Eminence ? No ; Father O'Keeffe enclosed 
 to me the letter. 
 
 In the absence of the letter you cannot make that state- 
 ment, and Father O'Keeffe was not asked about it. Now in 
 your letter of the 29th July, 1871, 1 your Eminence says, 
 ' My dear Father O'Keeffe : I am happy to learn that you 
 have withdrawn proceedings against Dr. M'Donald and 
 Father Neary ? ' Yes, anything in the way of peace. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' I hope that you will now continue in the 
 path in which you have entered, and not stop until you shall 
 be fully reconciled to your bishop and to the Church.' You 
 then refer to the manner in which the world is disturbed ? 
 I think that was a very fair advice. 
 
 Then as to money matters you quote a portion of the 
 counsel of our Lord, ' Quserite prim um regnum Dei et justi- 
 tiarn ejus, et csetera omnia adjicientur vobis/ which your Emi- 
 nence translates, ' Submit to the bishop, and God will settle 
 everything else ' ? I did not translate the passage, for I 
 thought Father O'Keeffe would understand the Latin. 
 
 You say, ' God will settle everything else ? ' Very well. 
 It is a deduction or an inference from the good maxim of the 
 gospel, which Father O'Keeffe, being a priest, and being 
 obliged to attend to the perfection of his state, should have 
 studied and should have acted on. 
 
 But at all events the submission to the bishop would have 
 been a fulfilment of the 'justitiarn ejus '? It would bring 
 about that, whatever just was in it. 
 
 That was on the 29th July, and then there is no farther 
 communication from your Eminence until the 8th of Sep- 
 tember following.* Now during the interval Mr. O'Keeffe had 
 enclosed to you a letter he had been obliged to write to Dr. 
 M'Donald of the 8th of August, 1871, 3 complaining of the 
 
 1 Supra, p. 174. 2 Supra, p. 176. * Supra, p. 174. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen.
 
 428 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- continued misconduct of the curates. Do you recollect re- 
 examma- ce i v i n or that letter in which he describes the conduct of the 
 
 tion of 
 
 Cardinal curates ; the attempt of Mr. Neary to burst into the church 
 
 Cullen - and tear off his vestments, the parading the streets at night 
 
 escorted by a gang of the worst characters in the town, and 
 
 so on ? He states he enclosed a copy of that to the Cardinal ? 
 
 I don't know whether I wrote on that or not. 
 
 You did not write upon that, but in the interval the 
 necessity for inquiry into the affairs of Callan remained? 
 It remained, certainly, but when a person is occupied in 
 business which cannot be put off, he could not undertake the 
 investigation of the matter. I was engaged in other most 
 important public business. 
 
 The next letter of your Eminence is the 8th September, 
 1871. You were unable to attend to Callan affairs in the in- 
 terval. On the 8th of September, on the approach of the elec- 
 tion of the coadjutor-bishop, you addressed Father O'Keeffe in 
 the following terms : l ( E.ev. Dear Sir, I expect to be in Kil- 
 kenny on next Tuesday week, 19th September, to take part 
 in the meeting of the clergy to be held on that day. As 
 questions suggested by the rescript of 1869 will necessarily 
 arise at that meeting in reference to the censures with which 
 Dr. M'Donald and his Lordship the Bishop of Ossory have 
 visited you, I think it right to give you notice of what 
 is to occur in order that you may be prepared for the emer- 
 gency. All the papers with which you have kindly furnished 
 me on several occasions are in my hands, and I have studied 
 them carefully. If you have any other papers calculated to 
 throw light on the subject referred to, or connected with the 
 condition of the parish of Callan, I will be thankful for 
 copies of them. 
 
 ' Much against my own inclination I have been deputed by 
 his Holiness to put an end to the present state of things in 
 that parish, and to repair, if possible, the evils produced by 
 recent feuds among the faithful. In obedience to the wishes 
 of the Supreme Pastor of the Church I will apply myself 
 to this difficult task with a deep sense of the responsibility 
 placed upon me.' In that letter, after referring to the possi- 
 bility or likelihood of these questions arising, you state that 
 the communication is made in order that Father O'Keeffe 
 
 1 Supra, p. 176.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 429 
 
 may be prepared for the emergency. Now in his reply 1 Cross- 
 Father O'Keeffe, after acknowledging the receipt of your e> ~ 
 Eminence's favour of the 8th, goes on to state what in Cardinal 
 his judgment would procure peace for Callan, and then u 
 he has this line : ' If any objection should be made to 
 my vote on the 19th, I am quite prepared to meet it.' I Election of 
 believe for the filling of the office of coadjutor-bishop three 
 persons are named by the parochial clergy ? Yes, three 
 persons. 
 
 That is, all the parish priests are entitled to vote who are 
 not under censure? All the canons, and all the parish 
 priests who are not under censure. 
 
 Your nephew, I believe, Cardinal, was a candidate for Candidates 
 the office ? I don't think he had the least idea of being f r the 
 elected. He was not what you would call a candidate. He 
 did not offer himself. 
 
 Wasn't his name mentioned as a candidate? I don't 
 think he imagined himself that he would be elected. I had 
 no notion he would be elected. 
 
 But there was a possibility of it ? There was a possibility 
 that they would elect any clergyman in Ireland, if they 
 thought fit. 
 
 But do I understand you that the possibility or proba- 
 bility of your nephew's election was about the same as any 
 of the other clergy? I mean to say that any clergyman 
 may be elected, and I mean to say that I did not think my 
 nephew would be elected. I was persuaded that my nephew 
 would not be elected. 
 
 You did not think he had a good chance? I did not 
 think of any chance, or that there was any project to elect 
 him. 
 
 Were you aware that another person spoken of as likely 
 to be elected was the Rev. Matthew Keeffe ? I did not know 
 of the persons likely to be mentioned. 
 
 But had you heard his namp? I heard his name a 
 thousand times. I heard he was a very respectable man. 
 When a respectable man is mentioned in my part of the 
 diocese, everyone speaks of him, and they speak of electing 
 this one and that one. 
 
 Don't you think it extremely likely that a tolerably fair 
 
 1 Supra, p. 177-
 
 430 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- and accurate conclusion may be arrived at as to the chance, 
 6 tioof " *f -"- ma 7 use a profane term ? I could not arrive at that, for 
 Cardinal I did no t know how many men well qualified to be bishop 
 
 Cullen. . ,. ... J 
 
 were in the diocese. 
 
 Your nephew was not in the diocese at the time? No, 
 he was my secretary, and I was very sorry to lose him. 
 
 At the same time it is not a bad change from being 
 secretary to be a bishop ? I am afraid it is. If I was secre- 
 tary I would not be up in this chair now. 
 
 That is the fate of place. Well, it is a very important 
 right and privilege which parish priests exercise on the 
 occasion of an election of bishop ? A most important and 
 responsible duty. 
 
 Now I ask your Eminence to take your letter of the 8th 
 of September, 1871, in which you call upon my client to 
 be prepared for the emergency of having his vote disputed, 
 and his reply, that if any objection should be made to his 
 vote on the 19th he would be prepared to meet it, I ask 
 . you can any conclusion be drawn from those two state- 
 ments than that my client understood your Eminence to 
 mean that on the 19th you would be prepared to consider 
 the question ? I did not state that I would be prepared, or 
 even insinuate it. I told him to be ready for any emergency 
 that might arise. 
 
 That, with great respect, is not the question I took the 
 liberty of putting to your Eminence. The question I put 
 was, whether taking your statement to be prepared for an 
 emergency that might arise, and his answer that he would 
 be prepared on that day to meet it, wasn't the reasonable 
 conclusion in the mind of any man, not criticising very 
 closely your Eminence's language, that on that day you 
 would be prepared to enter into an inquiry on it, and decide 
 whether it was invalid or not? I think not. He might 
 have taken the hint to stay away. 
 
 Of course he might never have asserted his right at all. 
 Do you not think, considering the importance of the ques- 
 tion, that it would have been only just and fair to have 
 told Father O'Keeffe, * unless in the meantime you satisfy 
 me that the censures are invalid, I now tell you that, as at 
 present advised, I will refuse your vote on the 19th'? I 
 had not made up my mind upon that matter, because I was
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 431 
 
 to act as the representative of the bishop there. I was not Cress- 
 acting as delegate ; I was not acting as archbishop. I was ^tfoTof " 
 going there to act the part of the old bishop himself. Cardinal 
 
 Didn't the decision rest with your Eminence, no matter in ' 
 
 what capacity you were there ? No, there was no appeal to 
 me from the sentence of the bishop. 
 
 Didn't it rest with your Eminence to receive or refuse, 
 on that 19th September, the vote of Father O'Keeffe? It 
 rested on whoever presided to see that no one who was under 
 censure should give his vote. 
 
 May I ask your Eminence what was the meaning of this ? 
 'All the papers with which you kindly furnished me on 
 several occasions are in my hands, and I have studied them 
 carefully. If you have any other papers calculated to throw 
 light on the subject referred to, or connected with the con- 
 dition of the parish of Callan, I will be thankful for copies 
 of them. Much against my own inclinations, I have been 
 deputed by his Holiness ' and so forth ? I was speaking to 
 him of the fact that I had been appointed delegate, and I told 
 him to be prepared for the day on which I would be calling 
 him before me. I did not tell him I would examine it iu 
 the presence of all the clergy of Ossory. 
 
 I don't impute to your Eminence's letter any such state- 
 ment, but I am asking whether any man reading your Emi- 
 nence's language in that note of the 8th September, 1871 
 that Father O'Keeffe should be prepared for the emer- 
 gency that is, for what should occur on that day, that 
 in the meantime the papers were with you, that you had 
 studied them carefully, that if he had any other papers 
 he should send them to you; and then stating also as 
 follows : ' Much against my own inclinations I have been 
 deputed by his Holiness to put an end to the present state of 
 things in that parish, and to repair, if possible, the evils pro- 
 duced by recent feuds among the faithful. In obedience to 
 the wishes of the Supreme Pastor of the Church, I will apply 
 myself to this difficult task with a deep sense of the respon- 
 sibility placed upon me,' surely, taking the object of the 
 letter, which was to inform him of what you intended to do 
 upon the 19th of September at the election, your reference 
 in the same letter to the fact that you had studied the papers 
 which you had received, and that you were willing to study any
 
 432 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- farther papers, coupled with his letter that he was prepared 
 
 ^icm'of ~ ^ mee ^ objections, the fair, reasonable, and patent meaning 
 
 Cardinal was that on that day you would be prepared to investigate and 
 
 decide whether he was entitled to vote ? If you couple the 
 
 two paragraphs together the last with that which you have 
 
 read a very fair interpretation is that I wished to convey to 
 
 him instructions to prepare himself for his defence, for any 
 
 time I would be able to give him a hearing. I don't think 
 
 he could have imagined it would be possible for me to hold 
 
 an investigation 011 the day of the election. 
 
 Couldn't your Eminence have held an investigation be- 
 tween the 8th and the 19th September? I might have held 
 a very useless investigation, because I see he would not have 
 obeyed. 
 
 Pardon me for saying that that has nothing to do with 
 the question I have asked you. At that time, between the 
 8th and 19th of September, wouldn't it have been only 
 common justice to this man whose right to vote was ques- 
 tioned, that your Eminence should have given him an oppor- 
 tunity of satisfying you either that he had or had not a right 
 to vote ? I knew that he was under censure on the part of 
 the bishop, and I was certain that the bishop and the vicar- 
 general would object to his giving a vote, and I suggested to 
 him that I did not like to say anything offensive to him. I 
 suggested that he should be prepared for any emergency that 
 would arise. 
 
 I ask your Eminence, is not the fair meaning that on that 
 occasion you must satisfy me of your right to vote ? No, I 
 think not. 
 
 Then I ask you another question ; whether it would not 
 have been only just and fair towards Father O'Keeffe that 
 he should have had an opportunity afforded him in the in- 
 terval between the 8th and the 19th of September, of either 
 establishing to your Eminence's satisfaction, or the reverse, 
 the question as to his right to vote ? Father O'Keeffe never 
 applied to me for any investigation, and I never considered it 
 my duty to force it on him. 
 
 Wasn't your letter calculated to throw him off his guard 
 in this way that is to say, it led him to suppose the inves- 
 tigation would be on the 19th? I don't think he was so 
 simple as to believe that.
 
 Rev. Robert O^Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 433 
 
 Very well. We can all read the letter. Now, as a matter Cross- 
 of fact, you refused to receive his vote on the 19th? I ^"^ 
 inquired, when the list of the clergymen was read, if there Cardinal 
 was anyone under suspension. Father O'Keeffe's name came ^_' 
 out then. I asked himself was it true that he had been sus- 
 pended by the bishop. He said he had. ' Have you appealed 
 to the metropolitan ? ' . c No,' said he. ' Have you appealed to 
 the Pope, and been absolved ? ' ' No.' * Then,' said I, * you 
 are not immunis censurarum. You do not correspond to the 
 quality or character of these priests who are allowed to 
 vote.' 
 
 Didn't that very act upon the part of your Eminence 
 publicly declare that the suspension was valid ? No, I pub- 
 licly declared at the same time that I did not enter into the 
 question of the validity of the censures. 
 
 Would not the fact of his vote being rejected amount to 
 a declaration that he was not qualified to vote as a parish 
 priest? He was actually suspended by the bishop, and he 
 admitted that. The suspension had not been set aside by 
 any superior authority. All this was sufficient to give the 
 presumption that he was under censure, and that he admitted 
 the censures himself, not having appealed against them ; and 
 on that ground he should be rejected his vote could not be 
 accepted. I expressly told him, however, that I did not 
 enter into the validity of the vote. I only took the matter 
 as it came there, without entering judicially into it, but said 
 that in a few days I expected to be able to investigate the case 
 as delegate apostolic. I was the bishop then for the moment. I 
 could not admit a person to vote who was under censure on 
 my part. 
 
 But between the 8th September and the 19th of Septem- 
 ber you were the delegate of the Apostolic See to investigate 
 the validity or invalidity of the censures ? I announced that 
 to Father O'Keeffe, but that I was not acting then as dele- 
 gate apostolic. Sometimes I have acted for another bishop 
 or another priest. The authority of the delegate apostolic 
 was limited to the affairs of Father O'Keeffe and the affairs 
 of Callan. 
 
 That is what I say. Although on the 19th September you 
 were Bishop Walsh, presiding in the diocese ; in the interval 
 between the 8th and the 19th September you were, with refer- 
 
 p P
 
 434 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- ence to Robert O'Keeffe, the delegate of the Apostolic See 
 power to ascertain whether he ought or ought not to be 
 
 Cardinal deprived of his vote on the 19th? No, he did not present 
 1 en ' himself to me, or submit to my jurisdiction as delegate apos- 
 tolic up to that time. I was not acting as delegate apostolic 
 on that day. 
 
 But your Eminence is under rather a misapprehension in 
 stating that you had informed him in the letter of the 8th 
 September that you were appointed to investigate his conduct 
 or the censures, for here is what you say : ' Much against my 
 own inclination, I have been deputed by his Holiness to put an 
 end to the present state of things in that parish, and to repair, 
 if possible, the evils produced by recent feuds among the faith- 
 ful.' * Could there be anything more indefinite to convey the 
 idea of the powers vested in your Eminence than the language 
 used there ? It was only a general intimation, but I think 
 the language is not indefinite. Anyone reading it would 
 know I had power to put an end to the feuds in Callan. The 
 feuds were occasioned by the conduct of the parish priest, or 
 at least they were said to be occasioned by the parish priest. 
 
 Was that your foregone conclusion? I know it was the 
 fact. 
 
 Did you know that they were caused by the parish 
 priest ? I knew the fact that he was suspended three times 
 by the bishop or vicar-general, and in consequence of this 
 great disputes had arisen. Whether he was absolutely guilty 
 or not guilty, I could not say at that time judicially or 
 officially. 
 
 Didn't he dispute the validity of those censures ? But 
 he did not dispute them legally or properly as he ought. He 
 never appealed. He took authority in his own hand. Ego 
 judex sum in causa med. 
 
 We will see when we come to deal with the suspensions. 
 But there is no intimation in the letter that you were 
 deputed to investigate the validity or invalidity of the 
 censures ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I wish to ask, is this correct, 
 the way the plaintiff represented what occurred at the 
 election ? When your Eminence took your seat, he said 
 just as you say that the names were called over, the list 
 
 1 Supra, p. 176.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 435 
 
 of all parties entitled to vote. 'The Cardinal,' he says, Cross- 
 ' inquired if there was a person tinder censure. I stood np e ^ > 1 Qf " 
 and said, I was prepared to satisfy his Eminence that I was Cardinal 
 not canonically suspended. The Cardinal replied that he had e ' 
 
 no time to go into an investigation of the matter now ; that 
 he would go into it another time. He said I was primd facie 
 suspended, and was not entited to vote, but if I wished I 
 could send in my vote to the Propaganda, and I then made 
 niy bow to his Eminence and went away.' Is that sub- 
 stantially correct ? No, I think not. 
 
 How is it not? I think all the names were read out 
 first. It is not accurate in that respect. In the second place 
 it is not accurate, because it is a great suppressio veri. I asked 
 him when his name was mentioned, whether he was under 
 suspension. I asked expressly, < were you suspended by the 
 vicar-general and the bishop,' and he said he was. ' Have 
 you appealed,' said I, ' to the Metropolitan ? ' I was the 
 Metropolitan myself, and I knew he had not. He said he 
 had not appealed to the Metropolitan. I asked him then, 
 1 Have you appealed to the Pope ? ' He said not. ' Well 
 then,' said I, 'you are under censure according to the dis- 
 cipline of the Catholic Church, because you have been sus- 
 pended by your own bishop, and you have not got yourself 
 absolved by any authority competent to do so.' 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Did you not when under direct examination 
 say that he was a parish priest suspended ? Did you not 
 then state that you had not time to inquire on that occa- 
 sion, but that you would do so on some subsequent occasion ? 
 I am not able to tell everything that I said. Also he said 
 he was ready 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Ready to do what, Cardinal ? I 
 said it was quite impossible ; that we had a most important 
 duty to perform ; to hold an election ; that I could not enter 
 into a long and difficult question at that moment, but that I 
 would do so as soon as possible, and that in the meantime I 
 would not decide whether his suspension was valid or invalid. 
 I left the intrinsic validity in doubt, but as far as the forum 
 externum he was suspended. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Then you would not be of the same opinion 
 as Dr. O'Hanlon, that your refusal to receive his vote was 
 
 F F 2
 
 436 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Eesult of 
 election. 
 
 tantamount to a declaration that he was validly suspended ? 
 Is that the letter written by Dr. O'Hanlon ? l 
 
 Yes. Can I see it ? 
 
 (Serjeant Armstrong objected.) 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I am asking whether he would agree with a 
 certain statement or not. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If the objection is taken, it is 
 quite clear as he didn't write it himself, and as it was not 
 sent to the Cardinal that he can't be affected by it. 
 
 Mr. Purcell: It was in accordance with his Eminence's 
 request. 
 
 Witness : My reason for asking to see it was simply this, 
 that some other letters in which 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I can't force anyone, Cardinal, to 
 give it to you ; and you are not bound by anything in it. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I believe that the result of the voting was 
 that your nephew had thirteen votes, and that the Rev. 
 Matthew Keeffe had thirteen votes ? Yes. 
 
 After that, your Eminence I presume owing to the pres- 
 sure of occupation first moved in the matter of the rescript 
 by your letter of the 2nd October, 1871 ? 2 That was not a 
 very long time ; a few days a few days. 
 
 But a good while had intervened between the 10th June 3 
 and the 2nd October ? I had a great deal of occupation. 
 
 Your Eminence's letter is this : (Reads letter.) 
 
 Does not that letter distinctly declare that you didn't 
 intend to act under those powers ? It distinctly declares 
 that I was anxious not to act if I could have got Father 
 O'Keeffe to do what I suggested ; to manage the case with- 
 out exercising the powers of delegate. I would have been 
 very anxious to settle it. I wanted to act kindly and pater- 
 nally, and not to exercise any authority at all. 
 
 Your Eminence's letter states, ' I am anxious not to be 
 placed under the necessity of using those powers ' ? Yes. 
 
 * Hence I would wish to have a conference with you on 
 the matter ; ' that is, if you have a conference with me, that 
 conference will be a conference not in the execution of 
 the powers vested in me, but a friendly conversation? I 
 wished to have a friendly conversation with him, and I 
 
 , J See Appendix No. III., p. 581. 2 Supra, p. 180. 
 
 1 Pate of receipt of rescript, supra, p. 345.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keefe v. Cardmal Cullen. 437 
 
 thought I might induce him to some arrangement Cross- 
 which would be satisfactory, without having all the trouble e tk>Tof " 
 and annoyance of a regular investigation. Cardinal 
 
 Then this letter of 4th October l is written by Father Cullen ' 
 O'Keeffe to you, in which he acknowledges the receipt of 
 your letter of the 2nd ; and then he goes on to state that he 
 does not acquiesce in the refusal of his vote on the 19th, and 
 he says that notwithstanding this, ' I would still do anything 
 that I can to oblige your Eminence ;' and then he says he 
 had submitted his defence to some able divines, and finally 
 he says that he holds over a letter until he sends you a copy 
 of the letter he has written to Dr. M'Donald. That was 
 neither a compliance nor a refusal ? He refused to come up. 
 
 He didn't refuse, but he didn't come? He didn't come; 
 from the letter I understood perfectly well that he would not 
 come. 
 
 Then you wrote to him this letter of the 21st October, 2 
 in which you state that you had determined to send him a 
 regular ecclesiastical citation, and that you would send it to 
 him on Monday next ; but that you wished to know if that 
 day would be inconvenient to him ? Yes ; I wished to treat 
 him with every respect. 
 
 You then stated that you would examine whether he 
 had incurred suspension or excommunication, either db 
 homine, a lege, or canone, and whether he had incurred 
 irregularity, and whether any, and what penalty was to be 
 inflicted on him for having neglected those censures and 
 ecclesiastical penalties, if he had done so; there you 
 see that the specific inquiry pointed out is as to the 
 validity of the censures incurred db homine or a lege or 
 canone, and whether he had incurred an irregularity, and 
 whether any penalty was to be inflicted. Then it is added 
 that other matters connected with the unhappy state of 
 Callan are also to be examined. Is there any suggestion 
 there as to what would be embraced in it? Everything 
 connected with the disturbance of Callan. 
 
 He sends a letter to your Eminence on the 22nd October, 3 
 in which he sets out the grounds upon which he disputes the 
 censures ? Yes. 
 
 And then on the 25th you wrote to him : 4 ' As you have 
 
 1 Supra, p. 181. 2 Supra, p. 183. 3 Supra, p. 184. 4 Supra, p. 185.
 
 438 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 As to 
 necessity 
 of citation. 
 
 shown such, willingness to come up on Friday next, I have 
 not considered it necessary to send you a formal document. 
 I will, however, expect you on Friday next at eleven o'clock.' 
 Would not anyone reading that understand you to mean, 
 ( inasmuch as you are willing now to comply with my request 
 to come up here, I will waive the intention of proceeding 
 judicially which I announced in my letter of the 21st in- 
 stant ' ? I would not admit that interpretation at all. 
 
 Is it capable of it ? I think not fairly ; I think not 
 fairly. 
 
 Coupled with the fact that it was an answer to a letter 
 from him solely confined to a discussion about censures ? 
 He only wished to supply me with the arguments by which 
 he wished to defend his conduct, so that I would have less 
 trouble in trying the matter. The censures required some 
 study. There was no conversation about the law of the 
 matter ; he did not state his arguments with regard to them. 
 My view is that it was a perfect citation. I cited him regu- 
 larly in the first letter. 
 
 In the first letter? The first letter coupled with the 
 second ; the two letters make a regular citation. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' I have determined to send you a regular 
 citation ' P Yes, I told him that, and he expected the cita- 
 tion : but he replies, ' You need not trouble yourself sending 
 a citation ; I will come without a citation.' 
 
 What he says is, 'I shall be happy to present myself 
 before your Eminence on Friday ' ? l Before that he says, 
 * Don't trouble yourself to send a regular citation ; I will 
 attend without a citation.' I told him to come up. 
 
 In the previous letter 2 he says he will be happy to do any- 
 thing to oblige your Eminence, and you say, ' As you have 
 shown such willingness to come up, I have not considered it 
 necessary to send you a formal document ' ? Yes, I took it 
 for granted that he would come up, as he had shown such 
 willingness to do so, and therefore I wrote, ' I don't think it 
 necessary to trouble you with a regular citation.' I meant 
 to say a formal judicial citation. If I was proceeding extra- 
 judicially, I need not send a regular citation. But as I saw 
 he was inclined to cavil, I would have sent him a citation in 
 Latin. A citation in English is as good as in Latin ; a citation 
 
 1 Supra, p. 184. 3 Supra, p. 181.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 439 
 
 in any words is good when the person understands that he is 
 to come up on a certain day. 
 
 Was not the mode of procedure under the rescript l what Cardinal 
 is called proceeding per viam inquisitionis, by way of com- u 
 mission of inquiry ? The way I determined to proceed was Mode of 
 
 extra-judicial. procedure 
 
 What I asked your Eminence is whether the form of the ad P ted < 
 power is not a delegation of power to proceed per viam in- 
 quisitionis ? That is part of it ; the part that is required. 
 You can do that extra judicium. 
 
 There is nothing in the document that says you would 
 proceed extra judicium ? I was appointed by the Holy See 
 for settling all the matter ; that is, I had the same power as 
 if the Pope was there himself; and the Pope, if there, can Pope not 
 proceed in a paternal way or in an extra-judicial way, without f s of ? r 
 observing the forms of law. law. 
 
 No forms ? He must observe the essential forms which 
 are necessary to secure justice in the case. 
 
 According to his judgment ? He must take the steps 
 which are necessary to render him certain of the innocence 
 or guilt of the person. 
 
 In the case of the Pope, there is his own knowledge of 
 the matter ; by delegating- power he does not delegate any 
 portion of his infallibility to the judge? No one ever ima- 
 gined that. 
 
 Is not therefore the delegate obliged to proceed, and to 
 acquire information according to the ordinary course of pro- 
 ceeding ? There are two ways of proceeding in canon law, Two modes 
 ordinary and extraordinary, judicially and extra-judicially, ^Jf~ 
 and I had authority to proceed either way. according 
 
 In any event the rescript itself recites that the cause of k^** 
 it is that certain reports had been made to the Holy See as 
 to the conduct of the priest O'Keeffe. Now, is not that a 
 famosa insinuatio, which precedes, or ought to precede a com- 
 mission of inquiry? It is merely a commission. It did not 
 commence the inquiry. 
 
 Is it not a rule of canon law that a commission of in- Mode of 
 quiry should be preceded by a famosa insinuatio or publica j^Tr jj 18 
 famosa ? In this case there was public opinion, on the mat- cpmmia- 
 ter. The disturbances in Callan were known ; it was known 8 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345.
 
 440 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Sworn 
 witnesses 
 not neces- 
 sary. 
 
 Meaning 
 of the term 
 ' extra- 
 judicially.' 
 
 that the parish priest was suspended everyone knew that. 
 It was known that the town was disturbed. It was known 
 that Father O'Keeffe had published that broadsheet, 1 con- 
 taining so many comments on the poor bishop. 
 
 Is it not a settled rule of canon law that in a procedure 
 of that kind the very first step of the delegate to ensure the 
 condition of his proceeding validly under it is, that he was 
 inquiring per viros honestos et validos on their oaths ? There 
 is no such necessity at all, and, if there was any such neces- 
 sity, it was removed by Father O'Keeffe's coming himself 
 and admitting everything that he was accused of. 
 
 You say that there was no necessity, or that it was 
 waived. Now do I understand your Eminence as a canonist 
 to declare that it was not necessary that the preliminary 
 proof should have been offered to you on the oaths of those 
 honest, prudent, or cautious men? Certainly not, when I 
 was proceeding as delegate of the Apostolic See and extra- 
 judicially. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is it necessary in such commis- 
 sions to have any witnesses at all? When the person 
 accused comes forward and admits everything with which 
 he was charged, and when he gives in a written document 
 containing the greater part of the charges, it is unnecessary 
 to produce other witnesses. 
 
 I did not mean as to this case at all : I mean according 
 to canon law. I want to get information. When you are 
 proceeding extra-judicially, can you get on without any 
 witnesses in any case ? You can. 
 
 I don't know what ' extra-judicially ' is ? Laying aside 
 the forms of judgment which are not essential for obtaining 
 a knowledge of the truth such as issuing citations, sending 
 them by bailiffs, and all that. 
 
 Could you come to a decision on that principle ex in- 
 formata conscientia ? Could anybody, according to your 
 canon law, announce that he was not acting judicially, but 
 extra-judicially, and then go on and make up his mind ? If 
 he knows the fact himself, he can proceed. 
 
 If he knows it himself? I think the judgments here are 
 the same, my lord. 
 
 No, I have to correct that opinion. I saw persons fined 
 
 1 See Appendix No. I., p. 577-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 441 
 
 for not attending on a jury, and there was no trial, no -wit- 
 nesses ; nothing. 
 
 I did not decide against anybody. I only decided when 
 a man does not come up, that he does not come. My lord, 
 there was evidence that he did not come. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : You stated that you were freed from the 
 necessity of observing any judicial procedure, being the 
 delegate of the Apostolic See ? And proceeding extra- 
 judicially. 
 
 So I said. May I ask your Eminence, is it on these words 
 that you rely for that proposition which state that the Pope 
 has deemed fit to confer upon your Eminence the necessary 
 and proper faculties that, as the delegate of the Apostolic 
 See, you may have power to proceed in the case of priest 
 O'Keeffe ? Being appointed delegate of the Apostolic See, 
 without any restrictions put upon me by the Pope, I received 
 all the power of the Pope to act in the case, and, as the Pope 
 is supreme in these cases, he can always proceed extra-judi- 
 cially, without observing the ordinary forms observing only 
 the forms which are necessary to procure truth. 
 
 Is not every person to whom a commission of inquiry is 
 given a delegate of the Apostolic See ? No. 
 
 In what other form would a commission per viam inquisi- 
 tionis be expressed? Persons are often commissioned to 
 write a letter, or to give information, or to do some particu- 
 lar thing. They are not ' delegates apostolic.' The Pope 
 does not appoint everyone a delegate. 
 
 Is not every commission of this kind to inquire into the 
 conduct of an individual framed on the form of this rescript ? 
 Not at all ; they are framed on a different form : there are 
 restrictions introduced into the decree. 
 
 That, of course, would limit the extent of the power, no 
 doubt, but what is there in this to state that a delegate may 
 not proceed according to the ordinary course of proceeding ? 
 The very fact of being delegate apostolic ; and then in this 
 particular instance, where the question of correcting morals 
 is involved, the bishop can proceed extra judicium. 
 
 In an ordinary commission of inquiry would it not be 
 necessary to have furnished to the accused a copy of the 
 mandatum or the literas under which the inquiry was pur- 
 sued ? It is customary in an ordinary case. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Nature of 
 commis- 
 sion given 
 to a dele- 
 gate apos- 
 tolic.
 
 442 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- Is it not an actual rule of canon law? It is an actual 
 
 ^on'of " ru ^ e f canon law that when a cardinal asserts he has power 
 
 Cardinal from the Pope to make an appointment or to decide on a 
 
 ' case, he is to be believed without exhibiting his power. If 
 
 Assertion vou w ^ s ^ * see that, I have marked it in one of these books, 
 
 ofautho- You know Schmalzgrueber, the canonist? Yes. 
 
 cardinal* is ^ s ne an emuieir t canonist? Very eminent. 
 
 not to be He lays down in his Jus Ecclesiasticum that the literce are 
 
 ispute . ^ Q ^ p ro( j uce( j p jj e <j oes no sa y t na t a cardinal is obliged 
 
 to do so. 
 
 Oh then, there is an exception ? He says judges, when 
 they are known to be judges, are to be believed on their 
 word, but there is a special rule for cardinals. 
 
 Privilege Is there an express rule with reference to cardinals ? 
 
 cardinal. ^ es ^ ^ s a privilege of the cardinal, that even when a car- 
 dinal goes to a prince as ambassador of the Pope, he is not 
 obliged to exhibit his letters. 
 
 Now, may I ask your Eminence what was the offence for 
 which on that occasion you tried Father O'Keeffe ? I ex- 
 plained that very fully, I think, here yesterday. For several 
 offences : two suspensions, which were one. Then there was 
 a further suspension, and then there was a suspension ex 
 informata conscientia by the bishop. Then there was further 
 a contempt of judicial power, which was most expressly 
 declared, and which could have been punished as contempt 
 of court. Then there was a violation of a censure admitted by 
 the accused himself and boasted of. He admitted that he had 
 trampled on eveiy one of those censures. Then there was 
 the irregularity : he incurred irregularity for every violation 
 of the censure. These are the things that I was to examine. 
 Well, then everything connected with the parish of Callan, 
 especially the occasion of the disturbance; and on that 
 account I inquired of him about the priest whom he em- 
 ployed to say mass for him in the church. I was to inquire 
 about the defamation of the bishop, because these were all 
 things which I supposed were very much at the bottom of 
 the disturbance in Callan. 
 
 In extra- Is it the course of procedure I don't care whether it is 
 
 J roce'ed extra-j udicial or judicial that a judge proceeds to interro- 
 ings the gate and prove the charge by examination of the accused
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 443 
 
 himself? In cases extra judicium, lie can do it. I believe Cross- 
 
 T ni j i examina- 
 
 judges often do it. tion of 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That, Cardinal, is an important Cardinal 
 
 point. Can you bring up a man before you, and prove the .' 
 
 case by cross-questioning himself? There was no cross-ques- offonce 
 tioning in this case. may be 
 
 Well, by questioning. I wish merely to know the law. 
 The general custom is that a person must be cited, and that the ac- 
 is natural law. When he conies up, the person who is going c 
 to judge him, or who wishes to act in a friendly way with 
 him, mentions the charges, and says, ' Do you admit all these 
 charges.' If the witness says, ' I admit them,' and goes over 
 them, and admits them, consents to have them charged to 
 him, and acknowledges himself guilty of those things, then if 
 these charges be not absurd in themselves if there be not 
 some ground for believing them absurd, the judge may accept 
 them as proved. When a person admits that he has com- 
 mitted all the offences charged, there is no necessity of 
 bringing witnesses to prove them, especially as some of 
 the charges were proved by written documents, and by that 
 broadsheet. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : It was not necessary then in that course of Had 
 proceeding that he should have been cautioned or warned o'Keeffe 
 that every statement he may make would be taken against notice of 
 him ? That is a formality. ' powcrT^ 
 
 Did you at any time whatever exhibit to Father O'Keeffe conferred 
 the power under which you professed to act? Father cardinal. 
 O'Keeffe entirely denied my power until I had passed cen- 
 sure on him. 
 
 Does your Eminence think that an answer to my ques- 
 tion ? I asked you did you ever, at any time, exhibit to 
 Father O'Keeffe the powers under which you professed to 
 act ? I did not exhibit them because he did not express any 
 desire to see them. I had the powers there when he came 
 to my house, and I would have shown them to him if he re- 
 quired. Having told him that I was delegate apostolic, he 
 acquiesced, and knew I had the privilege, being a Cardinal ; 
 and I did not consider it necessary, nor was it necessary in 
 law, to show him the documents under which I was acting. 
 
 Was there in any letter of yours a statement that you
 
 444 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- were delegate of the Apostolic See ? It is in one of them, 
 
 ox<iniiD<i 
 
 tion of I could not tell you which it is, f and shall act as delegate of 
 Cardinal ^ e Apostolic See/ or, ' have full powers from the Apostolic 
 IT' See. 5 
 
 Would not that be completely answered by an ordinary 
 commission per viam inquisitionis ? Certainly not. 
 
 Would you have full powers to proceed in the matter of 
 the Rev. Robert O'Keeffe, supposing a commission of in- 
 quiry, such as I have spoken of, was formed ? You would not 
 have full powers to proceed extra judicialiter., but there is not 
 a word in any letter of yours about extra judicialiter : the 
 words you use are 1 1 have full power ' ? Yes. 
 
 Would not these words be fully satisfied by that commis- 
 sion ? I used the words in one of the letters. 
 
 There is not a word. You say ' the Holy See has given, 
 me most ample power in the case 'P 1 That is equivalent. 
 
 Of course it is equivalent in one sense ; but I ask you 
 whether the very same words would not be satisfied fully 
 satisfied by a commission per viam inquisitionis in the 
 ordinary way. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Look to the letter of the 6th 
 November, 1871.* 
 
 Mr. Purcell : That is after the trial. 
 
 Witness : It was not after the sentence. If the trial were 
 over it would have been absurd for me to summon him up 
 again on the same business. 
 
 Then why did you think it necessary on the 6th Novem- 
 ber to express the nature of your power in this instance, 
 when you had not in any of the previous letters, nor on the 
 27th or 28th October? Because up to that time I had hopes 
 that events would have gone on in a peaceful way without 
 opposition. When I saw that he was inclined to stay away, 
 then I used my power more openly. 
 
 Then, in point of fact, at the time that the investigation 
 of the 27th and 28th October was pending, you had not con- 
 veyed to him the extent of the powers under which you 
 acted ? I conveyed to him that I had the fullest powers. I 
 could not have done anything more openly than that. 
 
 But would not ' the fullest powers ' be quite consistent 
 with the statement that you should proceed not extra- 
 
 1 Supra, p. 180. z Supra, p. 195.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 445 
 
 judicially but judicially ? When I had the power, the full Cross- 
 power, I could proceed as I wished. ^km'of " 
 
 Had you any knowledge that he could have any notion Cardinal 
 that you were intending to proceed extra-judicially? No e ' 
 
 one knew it before ; if we were proceeding judicially we 
 should have commenced by swearing him and violating the 
 law of the country. I did not think myself called upon to 
 do that. He came up : he saw that he was not sworn : he 
 saw that it was going on without any form, and he submitted 
 to it. 
 
 Did he see that it was in the nature of a commission ? 
 It was in the nature of a judgment, of a trial without any 
 formality. 
 
 Without witnesses, without swearing, without caution, 
 without any official citation ? When a man accepts a cita- 
 tion it is an official one. When he submits, it is as good as 
 an official one. 
 
 But would not common justice require to make a sub- 
 mission worth anything that the party submitting should 
 be informed of the nature of the tribunal which he was sub- 
 mitting to ? He was informed of it. He was informed that 
 I had the fullest power from the Holy See, and he submitted 
 to that. 
 
 That the Holy See had given you the fullest power of 
 inquiry ? I spoke about the case. I did not get the fullest 
 power of the Holy See. I got the fullest power in this case. 
 
 If you proceeded in a judicial way you would still have 
 the fullest power ? I could proceed in this case, having the 
 fullest power. I could proceed in it just as I wished. I did 
 not think it necessary to call witnesses, because he admitted 
 everything himself. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : May I ask you, Cardinal, when a 
 priest is guilty of what they call irregularity, what is his 
 condition then ? Irregularity is an ecclesiastical word. 
 
 Supposing you are satisfied that a priest in your diocese 
 is guilty of irregularity, what is the effect then on him ? 
 He does not be guilty of it ; he incurs it. 
 
 When a priest is suspended, what can he do ? When he Meaning 
 is suspended, if he exercises the public offices of the Church, of the . 
 
 torin irrc 
 
 if he says mass and hears confessions, he incurs what is gularity' 
 called ' an irregularity,' that is, an impediment or state which in the
 
 446 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Roman 
 
 Catholic 
 
 Church. 
 
 Has the 
 vicar- 
 general 
 power to 
 suspend 
 parish 
 priests. 
 
 Assertion 
 of a judge 
 assumed to 
 be true 
 until dis- 
 proved. 
 
 would prevent him from holding any office or being pro- 
 moted to any office in the Church. 
 
 In that sense, which you have so fully and clearly ex- 
 plained, is he guilty of irregularity ? He incurs irregularity. 
 
 In celebrating mass ? Every time he celebrates mass. 
 
 Every time ? Every time it is an irregularity. An irre- 
 gularity is a penalty inflicted on him by the Church. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : With reference to what is called the first 
 suspension ; has the vicar-general of the diocese any autho- 
 rity, by virtue of his office, to suspend a parish priest for 
 anything? That is disputed amongst canonists. Some 
 hold that he has, and defend it very well ; others hold that 
 he has not. 
 
 At present I am asking your Eminence whether the vicar- 
 general, by virtue of his office, has the right of suspending a 
 parish priest ? It is a disputed question whether the vicar- 
 general can suspend a priest or not. 
 
 Is it not a principle of canon law in that case, that the 
 censure is not binding if there be a doubt as to the power of 
 inflicting it ? If there be any doubt about the vicar-general 
 having obtained the power from the bishop, or if it is certain 
 that he has not obtained the power, it would be a doubtful 
 censure. 
 
 Did I understand your Eminence to say yesterday that it 
 is a principle of canon law that where a judge, who ordinarily 
 has not by virtue of his office power to discharge certain 
 functions, asserts that he has power, his assertion must be 
 accepted as true until it is disproved ? It is quite in accor- 
 dance with the canon law, and Dr. M'Donald in this case 
 asserted that he had power. 
 
 Then I understand that where a judge claims jurisdiction, 
 unless the accused is able to disprove it, that assertion is to 
 be taken as a fact ? He may ask for a proof. He may ask 
 for a proof, and ask Dr. M'Donald to show his authority from 
 the bishop. He did not do that, and therefore the censure 
 went on properly. 
 
 Just as if a police magistrate takes upon himself to sen- 
 tence a man to be hanged; if he asserts that he has the 
 power, it is to be enforced, though he has not ? A bishop 
 has no power of hanging any man. 
 
 Only suspending him P
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 447 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Supposing the vicar-general was 
 to write to the parish priest, ' Rev. Sir, I beg to inform, you 
 that I have suspended you, 3 would the parish priest be 
 affected by that under ordinary circumstances ? The parish 
 priest would have a right to believe the vicar-general. 
 
 He should believe it ? Yes ; but he could ask the vicar- 
 general to show his power. He may write to the vicar- 
 general. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : If he does not assert authority. The vicar- 
 general is obliged to show it ? That is the whole question. 
 The vicar-general acts as a man having authority. The 
 parish priest receives his letter, and he says, { He must show 
 me his authority.' 
 
 Suppose he says he has no authority ? If he goes on and 
 resists the vicar-general's authority without asking him to 
 prove or show his credentials, he incurs guilt. 
 
 If the vicar-general says, ' I have authority,' and the 
 parish priest says, ' You have none,' is he not bound to show 
 it? I said he was bound to show it. When the parish 
 priest applies to the vicar-general for his authority, he is 
 bound to show it. If he does not apply for it he submits. 
 
 Supposing the vicar-general had power to issue this first 
 suspension, was it necessary for him, or was he obliged to 
 have observed any previous judicial formalities before he 
 sentenced a man, or might he sentence him first and try 
 him afterwards ? There is a rule in canon law that when 
 a crime is notorious, the person who committed it may be 
 punished for it without citation. 
 
 May I ask your Eminence what is it that constitutes 
 notoriety ? A fact, for example, that is proclaimed in the 
 public streets and published to all the world, is notorious. 
 
 Then in that case, without citation, without any oppor- 
 tunity of an explanation or of defence, a judge is warranted 
 in inflicting a sentence ? When the fact is notorious. 
 
 That is a rule of canon law? That is in the canon law. 
 There is another rule in canon law that for facts which are 
 not notorious, but which are private and well known to the 
 bishop, a priest can be suspended. 
 
 That is suspension ex informata comcientia ? Yes. 
 
 We will come to that in a moment. Assuming now that 
 Dr. M'Donald had power; assuming that the offence was 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 No citation 
 needed 
 where 
 guilt is 
 notorious.
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross : 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Bishop 
 Doyle's 
 evidence 
 as to 
 
 position of 
 u parish 
 priest. 
 
 notorious, and that a man may be sentenced without any 
 trial, may I ask your Eminence is it not a rule of canon law 
 that in such a case as that, where the suspension is for such 
 an offence, that it should be preceded by a monition ? It is 
 a rule in canon law that where a suspension is inflicted as 
 punishment, as in this case, and when the crime is notorious, 
 there need be no citation and no admonition. 
 
 Then in point of fact it was quite competent for Dr. 
 M'Donald to suspend him ? In punishment ; it is a part of 
 canon law that he was obliged to observe ; he submitted to 
 that law. 
 
 But the complaint is that he did not submit ? He is 
 bound by it by the law of the Church. 
 
 Could the bishop, or his vicar- general vested with power, 
 suspend a parish priest, not only ab ordine but a beneficio, 
 without a question, a trial, a judgment, or a sentence? A 
 trial in the form ex informata conscientia. 
 
 I am not speaking of that now, I am talking now of the 
 third suspension ? ! I think he could suspend ab officio et 
 benejicio et ordine when the crime was notorious. 
 
 This is a threatened suspension ; I will read it to you. 
 (Reads letter.) 1 Had Dr. M'Donald (supposing him to have 
 been vested with power by the bishop) authority to issue that 
 prospective suspension ab ordine et benejicio, without any 
 charge made, or any trial or investigation? One of the 
 commonest things in canon law is to make such censure con- 
 ditionally. * If you violate a law of the Church you will be 
 suspended ipso facto.' It is for the violation of a law of the 
 Church that he is suspended, and no admonition or citation 
 is necessary. 
 
 And no proof of the offence ? The proof of the offence 
 is nothing ; he incurred it without any proof, ipso facto, by 
 committing the crime ; ipso facto he incurs the censure. 
 
 A beneficio ? He is suspended from his benefice as well 
 as office. 
 
 Then it is merely illusory to say that ' a parish priest 
 has a title to his parish, of which he can only be deprived 
 on a charge duly made, a trial duly made, proof of his 
 offence, judgment and sentence,' as stated by Dr. Doyle ? 
 Are you aware that the position of a parish priest is different ? 
 
 1 Supra, p. 157.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 449 
 
 There are two forms of suspension from a parish ; they are 
 quite different things. A man may be suspended, which 
 happens every day ; a priest is suspended, he retains his 
 parish, and the day he is absolved from the suspension he 
 begins to act again ; he is not nominated again. 
 
 Does he touch a sixpence of the income ? That ceases 
 the minute of the suspension from the benefice. 
 
 Then the poor man, though apparently remaining the 
 same in name, gets nothing of the benefice ? One is quite 
 different from the other ; he does not get the revenues of the 
 parish, but he has a right to the parish still, and the very 
 moment he submits and does penance and gets himself 
 absolved, everything conies back without further nomination. 
 
 But so long as that does not occur? He is in a state of 
 punishment. 
 
 Then your Eminence's evidence is, that according to 
 canon law it was competent for Dr. M'Donald to issue that 
 suspension ? Certainly. 
 
 Is it not necessary that when an offence is committed in 
 violation of an inhibitory mandate, the sentence should be 
 then repronounced ? Not at all ; the very moment the 
 crime is committed the suspension is incurred, without any 
 judgment or judicial proceeding. 
 
 And in the case of the first, second, and third suspensions, 
 the accused had no opportunity before he was sentenced of 
 objecting to the judge as being himself the accuser; and he 
 had no opportunity of entering into any defence? In the 
 first case there was a punishment, and he was not asked for 
 permission to be punished. 
 
 In the first ? Yes, in the case of the first and second 
 suspensions. He is never cited nor a defence made, if the 
 fact be so notorious that it cannot be denied. In the third 
 case it was a conditional suspension, the suspension itself 
 intimating to him not to commit the crime. If he commits 
 the crime he does it with his eyes open, so that there is no 
 injustice or harshness in the case. 
 
 In the first case the punishment is inflicted without any 
 opportunity of objecting to the judge ? Yes ; because the 
 fact is notorious. Mr. O'Keeffe submitted when he swore 
 obedience to the Catholic Church ; he submitted to the law. 
 
 To come to the fourth suspension the one ex informata, 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Suspension 
 ex infor- 
 mata con- 
 scientia. 
 
 Is a sus- 
 pension ex 
 informata 
 coiiscicntia 
 inflicted in
 
 450 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland]. 
 
 Cross- conscientia, 1 your Eminence has already stated that it is in- 
 ^tiorTof " va lid. so far as it professes to suspend a beneficio ? Yes ; it just 
 Cardinal strikes me now I did not think of it yesterday Father 
 ^ ' O'Keeffe was suspended a beneficio already ; the bishop sus- 
 pended him again in another way. I declared again that 
 whatever he was deprived of he still continued to be 
 deprived of. 
 
 Then if the bishop had no power according to canon 
 law to suspend him a beneficio, his inserting that in a judg- 
 ment of this kind would not do it. Has a bishop any right 
 to repeat a suspension ? Well, if he has no right it does 
 not invalidate the suspension. 
 
 So your Eminence stated yesterday. Is it not also in- 
 formal inasmuch as it is indefinite ? Is it not a settled rule, 
 "and one recognised by the Congregation as late as 1848, that 
 a suspension ex informata conscientia cannot be in perpetuum ? 
 I don't think there is any such rule ; I don't think there is. 
 The rule that I referred to is a rule of the Congregation 
 found in the Thesaurus Resolutionum Congregationis Concilii. 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the name of the book ? 
 Mr. Purcell : Huguenin. 
 
 Witness : He states this, but he is not correct. 
 Mr. Purcell : He is not correct ? No, he is not correct. 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What does he state ? 
 Mr. Purcell : What he states, my lord, is this ; he says 
 suspensio ex informata conscientia is not inflicted in perpetuum. z 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What do you say to this, 
 Cardinal ? I say it is all a mistake of the author. In the 
 discussions of the Congregation of the Council there are 
 very often long reports inserted or connected with them, 
 drawn up by different canonists. These reports are veiy 
 voluminous, contradictory one of the other; drawn up by 
 different persons, and they do not form at all any part of the 
 judgments of the Congregation. When these reports are all 
 examined, simple questions are laid down which the Car- 
 dinals answer negative vel affirmative. These reports, which 
 are published afterwards by the Congregation, are published 
 just for erudition's sake, being useful as theological discus- 
 sions, not as being authorities. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 158. 
 
 2 Expositio Methodica Juris Canonici (Huguenin), Lib. II., Tract, II., Diss. II., 
 Cap. U.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 451 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is this a matter of discussion Cross- 
 amongst learned men, such, as you describe, whether or not e ^oof " 
 under these particular and summary proceedings a suspen- Cardinal 
 sion can or ought to be limited or for ever ? _ 
 
 Witness: It can be limited at any time by the bishop 
 when the priest comes to his proper senses. That passage 
 you have read is not a declaration really there, it is merely a 
 narrative. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : A narrative ? Is that a narrative 
 of the case decided ? A case was proposed to the Congre- 
 gation of the Council. They examined the case, and where 
 they do act they depute if the question be very important 
 four or five distinguished canons. Each of these draws 
 up a report ; these reports are printed and handed in to the 
 Cardinals. The Cardinals then get one of their high officers 
 to propose the questions which are to be decided by the 
 Council. The Cardinals then, after examining, answer these 
 questions merely affirmative vel negative, but they do not 
 enter into the questions at all. 
 
 And this was a case of that kind ? This was a case of 
 that kind ; a very long case, in the year 1848. 
 
 And in that case the censure was, as I collect from Mr. 
 Purcell, limited, but your opinion is that it maybe either one 
 or other? What Huguenin states is, that formerly these 
 censures might be perpetual, but latterly he says that the 
 teaching has been changed, and he brings as a proof of that 
 an extract. It is not a sentence he brings here, but an 
 extract from one of the reports of the canonists which were 
 handed to the Council. These reports of the canonists have 
 110 authority whatever, except such as that the authors may 
 be learned men. We have, fortunately, one of the gentlemen 
 here who was engaged for very many years in examining 
 these reports and proposing the matters to the Sacred Con- 
 gregation of Cardinals. 
 
 That is a report of a particular case, and it has been dis- 
 posed of in that way ? In 1848 that case was proposed to 
 the Cardinals. They prepared fifty-six pages, and published 
 their own reports. The reports were printed, and the Car- 
 dinals examined and decided affirmative vel negative. That 
 is merely a report of what was laid down and proposed to the 
 Cardinals. 
 
 G G 2
 
 452 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- Mr. Purcell : Do you know the character of Huguenin as a 
 
 'STo?" canonist? Elementary. 
 Cardinal What do I understand your Eminence to say ? That an 
 
 C^ 11 
 
 ^' undefined censure is valid. 
 
 Is valid ? Yes. 
 
 Should any monition be practised ? No, none whatever. 
 If the bishop wishes to call a person and to admonish him, 
 he generally does it. It would be a very good thing. I 
 know that bishops generally do it. They call a person ; if 
 they find anything wrong they are able to pass sentence. 
 
 Ought that sentence to be publicly declared by the 
 
 bishop ? It ought not to be mentioned at all. When it is 
 
 Suspension e informata conscientia there is no appeal to the primate, 
 
 ex infor- k u t there is an appeal or a recur sus to the Pope, not to the 
 
 matacon- ,_ , ,.. 
 
 tcicntia. Metropolitan. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It is accurate to say here, ' from 
 this suspension you are aware there is no appeal ' ? l No 
 appeal to the Metropolitan. 
 
 To anybody in this country ? No appeal to the Metropo- 
 litan. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : In a sentence of this kind, the offence on 
 which it is founded should not be declared? Not made 
 intelligible. 
 
 Would it cease to be a suspension ex informata conscientia 
 if it was ? Yes. 
 
 Does not, in point of fact, the bishop declare the offence 
 for which he is inflicting it when he says, ' As you have dis- 
 regarded the ordinary mode of procedure, I, after mature 
 deliberation, send you hereby a suspension ex informata con- 
 scientia ah ordine, officio, et beneficio.' 2 Does he not there 
 declare that his suspension ex informata conscientia is founded 
 on the disregard of that authority ? I think not ; that is not 
 a suspension. It is only a little note accompanying it. 
 
 I thought you said that the bishop's suspension ex infor- 
 mata conscientia should not declare the offence ? The sus- 
 pension should not declare the crime. 
 
 Then is the bishop at liberty, although the law says it 
 should be occultum crimen, to impart the thing that he leaves 
 out of the suspension, to publish to the world what it is ? 
 I suppose the bishop did not publish it to the world. 
 1 Supra, p. 158. 2 Ibid.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 453 
 
 Or to declare it? The bishop is at liberty if he is 
 cognizant of certain offences to call him, remonstrate with 
 him, endeavour to correct him,- but if he be incorrigible the 
 bishop, after doing all that, can suspend him ex mformata 
 conscientia. 
 
 That is hardly the question I asked you ? It comes to 
 the same thing. 
 
 I think not. This question depends on the sentence 
 itself. 
 
 Should not the judgment ex mformata conscientia state 
 that it is pronounced by virtue of the 14th session of the 
 Council of Trent ? No,' it is not essential. 
 
 What I was proceeding to ask you was whether it is 
 competent for a bishop who does not declare in a suspension 
 ex informata conscientia what the crime is, in another docu- 
 ment, publicly and openly to say what is the crime for which 
 the suspension is so used ? The other document accompany- 
 ing the suspension does not invalidate the suspension. The 
 suspension is a judicial act in the case, and quite independent 
 of any private act. 
 
 Does not the law, when it requires that a crime or offence 
 shall not appear on the suspension, contemplate that it should 
 be observed, not merely in form but in fact ? When the law 
 orders a thing, the terms of the law ought to be strictly ad- 
 hered to. 
 
 As to the spirit ? The spirit does not annul the law. 
 
 If the letter is observed ? If the letter is observed, and 
 110 offence is expressed in the sentence, that sentence is valid, 
 though a judge may have done something outside that sen- 
 tence which was not in conformity with the law by which 
 that suspension is expressed. 
 
 Had your Eminence at any time any doubt as to the ex- 
 tent of the powers conferred upon you by the rescript of the 
 31st May ? 'Not the least. 
 
 Because you mentioned yesterday that you had spoken to 
 the Pope in October last? That is since the time that the 
 trial began ; when I was in Rome, the Pope spoke himself 
 about the subject. 
 
 You stated that you asked him then ? He asked about 
 the trial. I mentioned to him that the plaintiff had impugned 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345.
 
 454 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 Cross- the powers that I had. ' Oh,' said the Pope, 4 1 gave you all 
 ^tkm'of " the powers I have ; I gave you every power I could, and 
 Cardinal besides that,' he added, * if you wish I will write for you.' 
 
 I object to any statement of the Pope stating what he 
 would do ; any statement of the Pope as to what had already 
 passed I have no objection to. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the meaning of the word 
 'facultas ;' I don't mean the ordinary meaning ? The power 
 of dispensing is called facultas disponendi. When we get 
 power from Rome for dispensing impediments to marriage 
 it is called 'facultas.' 
 
 They gave you the full power to proceed to the trial of 
 Father O'Keeffe ? Yes ; all the spiritual power that is 
 necessary canonical powers. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Is an irregularity incurred by a disregard 
 of censure ex informata conscientia ? Most certainly. 
 
 By the violation of it ? By the violation of it. 
 
 Will you allow me to refer to Scavini, 1 who gives the 
 canon? He is wrong. Scavini is not a great authority, 
 and he happens to be wrong in this. Have you Giraldi ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That authority is wrong, he says ? 
 This authority is wrong ; there is no authority at all ; here 
 is the real authority. (Witness is handed Giraldi.} This 
 is Giraldi on Canon Law. He happens to quote here 
 the authority of Benedict XIV., and the authority of the 
 Congregation of the Council. 
 
 Translate that for the jury and myself; just the substance 
 of it. * From this it appears that if anyone be suspended 
 for a great crime by a bishop, and if after being suspended 
 he appeals, and under the appearance of having appealed, he 
 celebrates mass or exercises other functions, he falls imme- 
 diately into irregularity ' or * he contracts this irregularity.' 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Is not that the statement of an occultum 
 crimen ? This- is as to an occultum crimen. 
 
 Here the case is manifest ? Then here is a definition of 
 the Congregation of Council ; here are the words : ' The 
 Sacred Congregation of Council decree that from this sort of 
 suspension there is no appeal, and a parish priest who ad- 
 ministers sacraments contracts irregularities.' 
 
 That is the suspension ob occultum crimen? This is ob 
 1 Theologia Moralis Universa ; De Censuris, Vol. I.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Oullen. 455 
 
 occultum crimen. The author of that book has made a mis- 
 take when he wrote. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Was Canon Forde a professor ? 
 He was professor, in the Catholic University, of canon law. 
 He had been professor in the Irish College in Paris of moral 
 theology, when I was in connection with it. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : You see by that it is expressly limited to 
 cases of occultam causam ? Very well. How do you know 
 what crime Dr. Walsh suspended Father O'Keeffe for ? 
 
 (Counsel read the suspension. 1 ) 
 
 Witness : Oh, but he has stated in the document that 
 accompanied the suspension : what is known ceases to be 
 unknown. What does he state precisely ? 
 
 He states : ' As you have disregarded the ordinary mode 
 of procedure, I, after mature deliberation, send you hereby 
 a suspension ex informata conscientia, ab ordine, officio, et 
 beneficio.' The bishop might have had a dozen charges 
 against Father O'Keeffe. If one of them was proved, or two 
 proved, he might have wished to suspend him for these 
 causes. We are not to presume that he suspended him for 
 anything public. We are to presume that he wished to make 
 the censure valid. We can't know now what grounds Dr. 
 Walsh had, and that sentence does not show that he had no 
 private grounds. 
 
 Are we not right to presume when the bishop thought 
 it right to communicate with Mr. O'Keeffe, and give that as 
 a reason for his suspension, that he stated the entire of the 
 facts ? Oh, he does not state the entire of the facts. He 
 says, ' You have been resisting the public authority of the 
 diocese. 5 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Do you mean that a sentence in 
 this form of suspension must be for a reason that is not ex- 
 pressed ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell: For a secret cause known only to the 
 bishop and not declared. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Does that mean that it is not to 
 be expressed in the judgment ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Quite so, my lord ; his Eminence states that 
 it is not named in the suspension. 
 
 Witness : There is another matter which I just want to 
 
 1 Supra, p. 158.
 
 456 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Suspension 
 ex infor- 
 mata con- 
 scicntia 
 as applied 
 to seculars 
 dates from 
 Council of 
 Trent. 
 
 mention, that pOAver is given to the bishop to suspend a priest 
 from his office or from his order, even for a hidden crime. 
 That might be done for the public good ; it may be done, 
 but it is not mentioned in the decree. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Would the bringing an action 
 against another ecclesiastic fall within the description of a 
 public offence that was notorious ? In canon law it is an 
 offence contrary to the law of the Church. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Did you see a statement of Innocent III. 
 Is not he the institutor of this very form of proceeding which 
 was afterwards re-enacted by the Council of Trent? He 
 didn't do anything of the kind. He lived about the year 
 1200, and the Council of Trent was going on about 1550. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : We know the history and date 
 of the Council of Trent. Did it clear away, as a modern 
 Act of Parliament does sometimes, all prior laws, or did it 
 leave all the principles of the old canon law enacted except 
 where it specially touched them ? The Council of Trent left 
 the old canon law in force. The corpus and decretals were 
 left in force, but this particular practice of suspending ex 
 informata conscientia was introduced for the first time for 
 the secular clergy by the Council of Trent. 
 
 Had it before existed as to the regulars ? The regulars 
 had something, and I believe have something still in their 
 order for removing persons from the discharge of their duties. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Was I not right in saying that Innocent 
 III. was the inventor of this form of censure, though it was 
 then limited to regulars ? I think not. There is something 
 like it, but it is not the same. 
 
 That passage of Innocent III. that I was referring you 
 to is an expression of opinion at all events, and does not 
 refer to bishops ? He says he declares that for the future he 
 would suspend only in cases where it might be proved. 
 
 I am referring your Eminence to a passage in Giraldi, in 
 which, quoting Innocent III., there is a condemnation of 
 any bishop who would act as is stated there ? This is a 
 decretal of Benedict XIV. 
 
 Would you kindly read the passage, and tell the substance 
 of it? The substance is this, that some bishops were abusing 
 this power, and Benedict XIV. states that it would be very 
 reprehensible for a bishop to make the state of his diocese
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v, Cardinal Cullen. 457 
 
 such that he would suspend generally in this way whenever Cross- 
 a case could not be properly proved in the public court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is Gratian an authority still on Cardinal 
 canon law ? Gratian's authority is for his documents. He ^L!?' 
 inserts different authorities. 
 
 As to Gratian you only depend on him when you find him 
 telling the truth ? When he quoted the general councils, 
 when he quoted the decrees of particular councils, when he 
 quoted the decrees of the Popes. There are a great many 
 things that are rejected altogether. 
 
 Here the cross-examination of the Cardinal ended. He 
 was then re-examined by ME. O'HAGAN, Q.C. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I wish to ask a few questions arising out Re-exami- 
 of the cross-examination a very few. My learned friend ^rdhial 
 Mr. Purcell asked your Eminence some questions with re- Cullen. 
 spect to your appointment to the See of Armagh. May I ask, 
 when you were appointed to the See of Dublin were you 
 postulated for by the clergy of the Diocese of Dublin ? Oh, 
 certainly. 
 
 By a majority of the clergy an absolute majority P A 
 large majority. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The meaning of this is, I take it, 
 that although not postulated for in Armagh, he was in 
 Dublin. 
 
 Mr. 0' 'Hag an : He was, after being here a few years, 
 largely postulated for. Now, my learned friend spoke to your 
 Eminence with respect to what had occurred when Father 
 Neary and Father Walsh contradicted Father O'Keeffe from 
 the altar, and he asked you as follows : ' Were you informed 
 that immediately after the commission of the said act, Mr. 
 O'Keeffe wrote to his bishop complaining of the conduct of 
 the curates, and calling on him to remove them, and that he 
 did not vouchsafe to reply ? ' The answer you made to that 
 was, that it was so stated in Mr. O'Keeffe's letter, and that if 
 it was necessary you were sure the curates would be repri- 
 manded. But you said also : e Very probably he did not 
 bring the case properly before the bishop, or very probably 
 the bishop did not think he was all right.' Now, suppose 
 that any complaint he had made to the bishop of the conduct 
 of the curates was couched in the following terms : ' 
 
 1 Supra, p, 138.
 
 458 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 He-exami- 
 nation of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 'Callan, August 20th, 1869. 
 
 ' MY LORD BISHOP, I had occasion to refer to you lately from the 
 altars of this parish, and I was particularly careful to make use of 
 the same respectful language that I had always previously employed 
 when I mentioned your name in public. I stated that you informed me 
 it was your wish that I should continue to keep open the male national 
 school at Callan, after the establishment of Christian Brothers here, 
 and I read an extract from the decree of Propaganda, dated 21st of 
 January, 1841, to show that your judgment was to guide me in the 
 matter of the management of national schools. I also stated that at 
 the last visitation you very properly directed me to rebuild the offices 
 attached to the parochial residence here, which had become dilapidated. 
 I said nothing else about your lordship. Now my two curates an- 
 nounced to the congregation on Sunday last, that I had in the two par- 
 ticulars referred to, stated 'a falsehood from the altar, and that they 
 were directed by you to make the announcement. I therefore inform 
 you hereby that I shall on the 6th of September next, take the neces- 
 sary steps to have the whole matter investigated in a court of justice. 
 Before I summoned you to court on a late occasion I asked yoii either 
 to prove or withdraw your slanderous charges. You were silent, and 
 the summons and plaint issued. Your lawyers, catholic gentlemen of 
 high character, begged of me to withdraw the record, and I did so. I 
 made sacrifice, and it has not been appreciated, but I did it for the 
 good of religion, and I seek no gratitude from men. I am still the 
 moderate and reasonable man that I was then and always, and I am 
 prepared to make the same sacrifice over again. This, however, I feel 
 bound in duty to insist upon, namely, that you will remove my present 
 curates to another parish. The good of religion in this parish requires 
 it, and the violence of their most unjustifiable attack upon me has so 
 disgusted my good people, that these curates can never enjoy a day of 
 happiness in this parish. Moreover, they are not disposed to submit 
 to me in the discharge of their duty in the parish. The parish, having 
 a workhouse in it, requires some priest to be always at hand for sick 
 calls, yet these curates will leave the parish together for many consecu- 
 tive hours without informing me that they are doing so. When I 
 returned home on Friday week, after an absence of three days, I found 
 an infant had been waiting eight hours for baptism, and a woman for 
 the same time with a pressing sick call. No one could give any infor- 
 mation about the curates. On Monday last I sent each of them the 
 annexed notice ; yet they have again both absented themselves for 
 hours without making their absence known to me. 
 
 ' Your most faithful servant, 
 
 <R. O'KEEFFE.'
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 459 
 
 Now I ask your Eminence, having read that letter, do you Ee-exami. 
 consider that it was a proper appeal from a parish priest to cardinal 
 
 Mr. Pure-ell: I really must object to this. This letter Cullen. 
 speaks for itself. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I will put it in a brief form, my lord. 
 What we propose to ask the Cardinal is, whether in his 
 opinion the letter of the 20th of August, 1869, was a due 
 appeal to the bishop on the question of the conduct of the 
 curates. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I will rule against that question. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Be it so; my lord. You will make a note 
 of it. (To witness) : Now I understand your Eminence to 
 tell the court and the jury that the rescript of 1829 pre- 
 cludes from voting at the nomination of bishops those priests 
 who are under censure ? Oh, certainly, it excludes them all. 
 
 Now at the election or nomination of a bishop, can 
 there be properly an inquiry into the validity of those cen- 
 sures for the purpose of determining whether the priest shall 
 vote or not ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell: In. that form I object to the question, 
 because it is indefinite and ambiguous. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Now I ask your Eminence, as a canonist 
 and an expert of the canon law, and as one acquainted with 
 the statutes of the Church in Ireland, supposing a priest 
 being under actual censure, and supposing an election or 
 nomination of a bishop was to be held, can the question as 
 to whether that censure which has been actually imposed 
 upon him is or is not valid according to canon law, be in- 
 quired into at the election ? Certainly not, and I will show 
 you why. 
 
 I don't think we need to go any further, your Eminence, 
 on that branch. You were asked now by my learned friend 
 about your letter of the 25th of October, 1871, in which you 
 stated, f My dear Father O'Keeffe, as you have shown such 
 willingness to come up on Friday next, I do not consider it 
 necessary to send you a formal document.' l You were asked 
 whether that letter was or was not a waiver of your letter of 
 the 21st of October, 1871, 2 requiring him to attend before 
 you for the matter specified in that letter, and referred to in 
 your letter of the 25th 9 
 
 1 Supra, p. 185. * Supra, p. 183.
 
 460 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Re-exami- 
 nation of 
 Cardinal 
 Cullen. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Papal 
 rescript of 
 1871. 
 
 Authority 
 conferred 
 by it. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : T object to this question. 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I merely asked his Eminence to expand 
 an answer that he gave, but on reflection I will not. 
 
 Most Bev. PATEICK LEAHY, Eoman Catholic Archbishop of 
 Cashel, examined by ME. CAETON. 
 
 Your grace is Archbishop of Cashel ? Yes. 
 
 How long have you been archbishop ? This month 
 sixteen years I was appointed. 
 
 Has your grace studied canon law ? Yes, I have. 
 
 Are you conversant with the practice and principles of 
 canon law ? I have a right to be so, for very soon after my 
 ordination as priest I was living under my revered prede- 
 cessor, Dr. Stirling, and for almost the entire of his episcopacy 
 I was his consulting theologian and canonist, and I also 
 taught moral theology, with which canon law has a good 
 deal to do, at our college in Thurles. I also had the honour 
 of being my predecessor's theologian at the National Synod 
 of Thurles, and at the Provincial Synod which was held three 
 years afterwards, and of being secretary of both. 
 
 As archbishop, have you frequent opportunities of putting 
 the principles of canon law into force ? I have had to study 
 it and constantly apply it. 
 
 Has your grace made a copy of what we call the rescript 
 of 1871 ? ! I have seen it. I read it. 
 
 Was there any power in Pope Pius IX. to issue that 
 decree ? Certainly. 
 
 And is that decree, issued as it is by the Sacred Congre- 
 gation, and signed with the seal of the Cardinal Prefect, 
 according to canon law an ordinance or decree of the Pope ? 
 It is. 
 
 According to canon law, did Cardinal Cullen under that 
 decree acquire the same power as the Pope himself would 
 have had ? Yes, he did, and could have proceeded in the 
 same way as the Pope could have proceeded in the case if he 
 had undertaken to try or determine it. 
 
 Had the Cardinal under that decree full power to inquire 
 into and investigate the conduct of Mr. O'Keeffe? Full 
 power not only to inquire into but also necessarily to acquit 
 him or absolve him from the charges brought against him, 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Reeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 461 
 
 or punish, him if he thought he was guilty of these 
 charges. 
 
 Did he acquire such power as to pronounce against him 
 such judgment and sentence as to the Cardinal should seem 
 just, provided, of course, the sentence were conformable to the 
 laws of the Catholic Church ? Certainly. 
 
 And did that power include a power to suspend Father 
 O'Keeffe ? Yes. 
 
 And power to suspend him ab ordine, a beneficio, et db 
 officio ? Yes ; and more than that, to deprive him. 
 
 I was just going to ask you that. Might I ask your 
 grace, did you hear any of the evidence ? The only portion 
 of the evidence I heard was that of his Eminence Cardinal 
 Cullen, given yesterday morning and this day. 
 
 Did you hear his Eminence give an account of the inter- 
 view he had at Rome with the secretary prefect ? I did. 
 
 You heard that ? Yes. 
 
 This is a letter proved of the 20th of January, 1870, from 
 Cardinal Barnabo to Mr. O'Keeffe. 1 Now, assuming the 
 account the Cardinal gave yesterday of his interview with 
 the secretary prefect, who had been informed of the matters 
 stated here, was there anything according to canon law to 
 make the Cardinal incompetent to hold the inquiry? 
 Nothing whatever, in my opinion. The utmost that I think 
 could be said in the way of making out incompetency to act 
 as judge, the utmost was that he made that report the 
 Cardinal told you of. That is the utmost, and I may add 
 that such report would not certainly disqualify from acting as 
 judge after wards; a report is one thing, an accusation is 
 another. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Which is the one thing ? A 
 report is one thing a report of facts and an accusation is 
 another. To become a formal accuser of a person is a 
 different thing from simply reporting the state of facts. 
 
 Mr. Carton : But you state that these things did not render 
 the Cardinal incompetent ? Certainly not ; the Pope under- 
 stood very well that Cardinal Cullen had made only a simple 
 report of the facts, and if the Pope thought there was any- 
 thing inconsistent with the provisions of the canon law he 
 never would have appointed Cardinal Cullen as a delegate to 
 
 1 Supra, p. 146. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel.
 
 462 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 try that case. To say there is any impropriety in it is 
 simply to throw back the charge of impropriety on the 
 Pope. 
 
 The letter of the 2nd of October, 18 7 1, 1 from the 
 Cardinal, contains this sentence, 'As I mentioned in a former 
 letter, I have been charged to inquire into the condition of 
 the parish of Callan.' Did that letter contain, according to 
 canon law, a sufficient notification to Mr. O'Keeffe of the 
 power vested in the Cardinal ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : This question, my lord, is subject to the 
 same objection we made before. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Even on matters of canon law I 
 see great difficulty in allowing a witness to be asked if a 
 man's expression of one thing meant a different thing. 
 
 Mr. Carton : I am not asking as to the construction of 
 the document at all, my lord : I am asking as to the legal 
 construction of the document. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Very well ; what is the legal con- 
 struction of that document? 
 
 Mr. Carton : Was there according to canon law do not 
 answer this for a minute a sufficient intimation in this 
 letter to Mr. O'Keeffe of the authority vested in the Cardinal 
 by the Pope? [Question objected to and disallowed.] 
 
 May I ask you this question : According to canon law 
 is the performance of any function by the priest after the 
 suspension ex informata conscientia, an offence against the 
 canon law ? Yes, certainly ; a priest who so acts incurs an 
 irregularity every time he violates the censure. 
 
 Suppose the sentence be not valid, is it an offence against 
 canon law to go on exercising the functions of a priest ? I 
 should distinguish my answer. If a censure upon a cleric be 
 manifestly unjust, so that no person in his senses could ques- 
 tion the injustice ; if for instance I should suspend a priest 
 because he preached charity to Protestants, or to all men, 
 that would be manifestly unjust. No person in his senses 
 questions the invalidity of that censure ; and the person cen- 
 sured is not bound to observe it, when it is manifestly null 
 and void because it is manifestly unjust. But applying that 
 principle to "the present case, I don't think that any person 
 could say the sentence is unjust. 
 
 Supra, p. 180.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 463 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I beg your pardon, Archbishop, you cannot Examina- 
 give evidence according to the particular case. theArch- 
 
 Witness : I am telling you the canonical view of the bishop of 
 question put to me. If you will allow me I will put it in 
 general terms without reference to this case. If a sentence 
 is not manifestly unjust, it is the duty of the person upon 
 whom the sentence has been inflicted to conform to it, and if appeal 
 he feels aggrieved, to appeal. That is the unanimous 
 opinion of our canonists and our moral theologians; he unjust sen- 
 is bound to yield, and then appeal ; and that lies on 
 
 the priest in virtue of the ecclesiastical law, but it does must . 
 not lie on him in virtue of the ecclesiastical law -alone, 
 it lies also in virtue of divine law, which forbids the giving 
 of scandal by open resistance to the judicial opinion of a 
 regularly constituted judge, which is good, and held to be 
 good until annulled or reversed by a competent authority. 
 That is the unanimous opinion of all our canonists and 
 theologians as to the duty of a person under censure if he 
 be innocent, and it is based on a very remarkable passage 
 in the Fourth Council of Lateran, where the very case is made 
 of a person who is innocent, and who has been excommu- 
 nicated though innocent, and it provides that the innocent 
 person who has been unjustly excommunicated should 
 appeal to a superior tribunal, and the superior judge is 
 directed either to hear the case himself or commit it to 
 some other judge to absolve the person if innocent. 
 
 And in case of the suspension by the vicar-general, to 
 whom should Father O'Keefle, according to canon law, 
 have appealed P He might have appealed either to the 
 Metropolitan of the province, or to the Pope. He wasn't 
 obliged to appeal directly to the Metropolitan, he could 
 appeal directly to the Pope. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: How is he to prosecute the 
 appeal ? Is he to go out to Italy ? He is not. If he would 
 only write a letter to the Holy Father himself, saying that 
 he was aggrieved by the censure of a particular ecclesiastical 
 judge, even a bishop, I am perfectly sure he would have jus- 
 tice done him. If there was a wrong done him, he would get 
 redress. The simple writing of a letter to the Holy Father 
 himself would have proved sufficient. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: Are the proceedings so rapid
 
 464 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Suspension 
 ex infor- 
 mata con- 
 scientia 
 applies to 
 ill 
 
 priests. 
 
 Bishop 
 
 Doyle's 
 
 evidence 
 
 as to 
 
 position 
 
 of parish 
 
 priests. 
 
 there? Sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not. 
 It all depends on the nature of the case. Some cases are 
 extremely complicated and involve a vast variety of detail, 
 and of course these cases could not be dealt with in so short 
 a time as another case which would present little or no 
 difficulty. 
 
 Mr. Carton : It was stated by Mr. O'Keeffe that a suspen- 
 sion ex informata conscientia applied only to regulars? It 
 applies to seculars as well as regulars, and even to parish 
 priests. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Do all the parish priests of Ireland 
 know that there are two systems of proceeding, judicial and 
 extra-judicial ? The evidence Dr. Doyle gave on the subject 
 is this : He is asked, How would you try a priest &c. ? He 
 says, * you can only try a priest in this manner : first, there 
 must be a charge ; second, a defined offence ; third, the 
 hearing and the sentence.' Is there co-equal and co-ordinate 
 another system of trial, that sets aside all the requisites 
 which he states in his evidence are essentials in the trial 
 of a parish priest, as distinguished from a curate? No, 
 the general law of the Church alluded to by Dr. Doyle holds 
 good. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : That is the general law ? That is 
 the general law. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And the priest has a right to a 
 trial in the way he describes? It depends on the nature of 
 the case. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Dr. Doyle has been repeatedly re- 
 ferred to, but nothing that he has ever said is the slightest 
 evidence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I read out the whole passage, and 
 the witness swore positively it was the law of Ireland. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : That was his own statement, and not 
 on Dr. Doyle's evidence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I wished to know what the fact is. 
 Dr. Doyle says, ' There are two classes of people we employ, 
 one are parish priests and the other are coadjutors. We have 
 an arbitrary power in us to remove from his situation a curate, 
 but we cannot suspend him without a canonical cause that 
 is, we cannot take from him the right of saying mass unless 
 on cause shown ; but the parish priests have a title to their
 
 Rev, Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullcn. 
 
 465 
 
 office, and from that office we cannot remove them unless 
 upon a charge denned by law being proved against them, and 
 then we pass sentence on them, and either reprimand, 
 suspend them for a time, or suspend them altogether.' * 
 (To witness] : Is that the law of Ireland? It is not ample 
 enough ; it leaves out the question of suspension ex informata 
 conscientia altogether ; therefore it is not sufficiently extensive. 
 
 As far as it goes, is it right ? As far as it goes it is right 
 in this sense, that a parish priest cannot be deprived of his 
 parish unless he is guilty of some grievous offence, and unless 
 he is convicted by some form of law of the oifence. 
 
 I was going to ask the very thing. Is there with that the 
 other mode of trial ex informata conscientia, which dispenses 
 with all these rules ? Yes, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Carton : When you say he must be convicted accord- 
 ing to some form of law, do you mean judicialiter or extra 
 judicialiter ? Either one way or the other. 
 
 Is the suspension pronounced by the Cardinal according 
 to canon law a valid suspension ex informata conscientia ? 
 Except the words which refer to 'benefice ; ' because a bishop 
 cannot suspend a priest from his benefice in virtue of the 
 proceeding ex informata conscientia. He has the power in 
 virtue of a passage in the Council of Trent. The Council of 
 Trent in that passage speaks only of gradus, dignitatus, 
 honores. The benefice does not come within any one of 
 these three. Therefore that passage of the Council of Trent 
 did not confirm or propose the power to suspend the parish 
 priest ex informata conscientia from his benefice. So far the 
 sentence is inoperative ; but the sentence as regards the rest 
 of it is a good one, according to the principle that is acted 
 upon here, 'utile per inutile non vitiatur.' It is a maxim of 
 common sense. Then the difference is between a suspension 
 ex informata conscientia ab ordine et officio, and a suspension 
 ex informata conscientia ab officio et bencficio. 
 
 You said that in your opinion as a canonist that was a 
 valid suspension ab officio ? Ab officio. 
 
 I ask, was it an offence for the Eev. Mr. O'Keeffe to con- 
 tinue to perform his functions as a priest after he had re- 
 ceived that suspension ? Yes ; every time he administered 
 the sacraments, celebrated mass, or discharged any of his 
 
 1 See Second Report on the State of Ireland, 1825, p. 186. 
 II H 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 No suspert' 
 sion from 
 benefice by 
 proceeding 
 ex infor- 
 mata con- 
 scientia.
 
 466 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- functions that required the exercise of orders, or did anything 
 
 thcrAnL- ^at was an ac ^ ^ kis omce as P ar i sn priest, he violated that 
 bishop of suspension. 
 
 Would that have been sufficient in itself to have war- 
 ranted the Cardinal in pronouncing the sentence he did ? 
 Yes ; it would to suspend him. 
 
 Is the employing of an Augustinian who is living out of 
 his convent, and against the vicar-general's prohibition, by 
 the parish priest, an offence against the canon law ? Yes, 
 and it is the canon law of the Church. 
 
 And what penalty would the parish priest incur who was 
 guilty of that offence ? A penalty would be inflicted on him 
 for doing it. 
 
 What penalty according to canon law would be inflicted 
 on him for doing it ? Suspension. 
 
 Were you in court when what we call the ' broadsheet ' * 
 was read, containing the charges against the bishop? I 
 cannot say that I was, but I think I know what the contents 
 of the broadsheet are. 
 
 Have you heard read the charges made by Father 
 O'Keeffe against his bishop? Yes; of his bishop having 
 violated the seal of confession, and carried on a traffic in the 
 sacraments for years. 
 
 Was his reading that denunciation from the altar of the 
 chapel an offence against the canon law ? Yes, it was, and 
 a grievous offence against canon law, because one -of the 
 things mentioned by canon law is a calumny against a priest, 
 and especially the bringing a charge against a bishop of so 
 grievous a nature, one which if founded on truth and fact 
 would have subjected the bishop, according to the terms of 
 the canon law of the Catholic Church, to a deprivation of his 
 episcopal office. 
 
 Have you such a rule as is mentioned here ? (Counsel read 
 passage from the ' broadsheet ' ! referring to the bishop, and 
 his conduct towards persons guilty of drunkenness.) Is the 
 charge made by Mr. O'Keeffe, that the bishop was in the habit 
 of openly accusing the persons brought to him of the reserved 
 sin of drunkenness on Sunday, a violation of the seal of con- 
 fession ? Certainly not ; I have done the same thing myself 
 hundreds of times, in the hearing of my clergy and of my 
 
 1 See Appendix No. I.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 467 
 
 people, and I never heard that it entered into the head of any Examina- 
 man to say that I violated the seal of confession. We have a theArch- 
 Sunday temperance law in my diocese to the effect that anyone bishop of 
 who goes into a public-house to get liquor or sell liquor on 2. ' 
 Sundays, is not to be absolved by a priest, whoever he is, 
 but must be put to the trouble of making a journey to the 
 bishop in order to make it a bitter thing to him every time 
 he violates that temperance law; and I have hundreds of 
 times received such persons, who were thus sent to me, and 
 have done it in the open daylight. It is altogether outside 
 of confession, and it is precisely the same case in Ossory as 
 regards the bishop ; the two cases are precisely similar. 
 
 This is a letter proved to have been read by Father 
 O'Keeffe (reads letter of the 6th of November, 1871) ; J and it 
 is a letter which he knew to be in the Cardinal's handwriting. 
 Now would neglecting to obey the summons in that letter of 
 the 6th November, amount, according to canon law, to the 
 offence of contumacy ? Yes. 
 
 And would that offence of contumacy, according to canon 
 law, have wan-anted the Cardinal in pronouncing the judg- 
 ment he did ? It did. 
 
 Has your grace seen a copy of the suspension 2 that was 
 issued by the Cardinal ? I have. Contu- 
 
 Accordiug; to canon law, was that sentence conformable ^ c y J us " 
 
 tifies sus- 
 
 to the laws, ordinances, and discipline of the Catholic Church? pension. 
 
 -Yes, it was ; it contained everything which a sentence, to 
 be a good canonical sentence, should contain. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What, in your opinion, is the 
 offence specified in the judgment ? My opinion is that it 
 contains all the things that were laid in charge against Mr. 
 O'Keeffe, absence and contumacy, when summoned by the 
 ecclesiastical judge. It mentions these in terms, but it also 
 very plainly refers to all the things that were brought in 
 charge against Mr. O'Keeffe. The preamble, if I may so call 
 it, of the sentence, sets out the case having been committed 
 to the Cardinal, the charges against Mr. O'Keeffe, his defence, 
 and his summons to come up to hear the final judgment. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The offence is the very thing I 
 was going to ask about. The defendant says that according 
 to these laws he had full power and authority to inquire 
 
 1 Supra, p. 19o. - Sxipra, p. 199. 
 
 H H 2
 
 468 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 CasheJ. 
 
 Hature of 
 suspension 
 a lege. 
 
 Suspension 
 ab homine. 
 
 Suspension 
 a canony. 
 
 ' Irregu- 
 larity ' 
 defined 
 
 into and investigate the conduct of the plaintiff. What 
 would you call that? I don't understand your lordship's 
 question. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Eead the letter of the Cardinal, 1 in which 
 his Eminence intimated that he had intended to send a cita- 
 tion to the plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. Carton : The question is whether that letter was an 
 intimation to the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe, that the Cardinal was 
 about to proceed as a judge with an investigation into the 
 conduct of the plaintiff. 
 
 Mr. Purcell objected, and the question was disallowed. 
 
 (Counsel here read that portion of the letter in which the 
 Cardinal stated that he would examine the plaintiff as to 
 whether he had incurred suspension ab liomine or a lege.} 
 
 To Witness : Will your grace explain what is meant by 
 a suspension ab homine and a suspension a lege ? 
 
 Witness: Better take the latter first. A suspension 
 a lege is one of the law, or under a mandate from a superior, 
 general in its nature, or particular. A suspension a lege is 
 where by letter of the law, or by the command of a supe- 
 rior, anything is to be done, or not to be done, under 
 penalty of censure, or suspension, or excommunication. It 
 is set out in the terms of the law forbidding a thing to be 
 done under penalty of the law. A suspension ab liomine is 
 one issued by a judge who tries a particular case. He lays 
 on a censure or suspension in that particular case, whether 
 that censure exists in the law or not. It is his own act, the 
 laying of it on. A suspension ab homine may be where a 
 thing is forbidden or commanded by the law, but it is laid on 
 immediately by the judge. A suspension a canone is where 
 there is a particular censure inflicted, as in the case of a 
 cleric, when he strikes another cleric. That censure was 
 laid on by the Council of Lateran. 
 
 There is a suspension for incurring irregularity ? Yes, 
 an irregularity is an impediment to the receiving of orders, 
 and to the exercise of them. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What do you mean by the exer- 
 cise of them ? When one is already in orders, the exercise 
 of them is the doing of those things which only a person 
 regularly ordained can do. An irregularity may arise from 
 
 1 Supra, p. 183.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal (fallen. 469 
 
 what is called a defect, or a crime, ' delicto.' An irregularity Examina- 
 
 ex defecto, for instance, may arise where the clergyman's theArch- 
 
 right hand is disabled, and he is rendered unfit for the cele- bishop of 
 
 bration of mass. An irregularity ex delicto arises if a per- _ ' 
 
 son in holy orders incurs censures. 
 
 According to the canon law, would the Cardinal, as Arch- Ex dellcto - 
 bishop of Dublin, have power to inflict on Mr. O'Keeffe . , 
 any penalty for neglecting ecclesiastical censure ? None bishop of 
 whatever, unless he was specially deputed to act in his case, ^"^has 8 
 But as Archbishop of Dublin he has no power to inflict any no power 
 punishment on a priest of the diocese of Ossory. priests 
 
 Nor has he as Cardinal ? Nor as Cardinal. diocese of 
 
 Now, according to canon law, if a person in the ecclesias- 
 
 tical position of the Cardinal states to a priest that he has Cardinal ; 
 authority in a certain case, is the priest bound to admit that cardinal 
 he has that authority ? Certainly he is bound to believe that asserts 
 
 that he has 
 the Cardinal has the authority which he says he has. It is authority 
 
 a maxim, of the canon law, acted on in all the Catholic courts e I s to be 
 of the world, that the Cardinal's mere word is to be believed 
 when he asserts that he has those powers. 
 
 You heard his Eminence examined yesterday as to the 
 interview between himself and Mr. O'Keeffe on the 27th of 
 October, 1871? Yes. 
 
 Now, assuming that the evidence of the Cardinal is true 
 as to the admissions which he deposed were made by Father 
 O'Keeffe, would these be sufficient in canon law to dispense 
 with any formal proofs, or with the presence of an accuser ? 
 
 (Mr. Fitzgibbon objected on the grounds that the pro- 
 ceedings were conducted not according to the canon law, 
 but were extra-judicial.) 
 
 Mr. Carton (to Witness] : Is a proceeding extra judi- Proceed- 
 cialiter a well recognised mode of proceeding according to l jwtic 
 canon law ? Yes, it is ; but there seems to be a misappre- liter - 
 hension of very great consequence involved in what I have 
 been hearing ; and it is this, that because a trial is conducted 
 extra judicialiter, it must exclude all the forms of canon law. 
 There is one extraordinary judicial proceeding, very sum- 
 mary in its process, and not exactly like a summary proceed- 
 ing in an English court. There is a trial ex informata con- 
 scientia, which is an extraordinary and extra-judicial pro- 
 ceeding:.
 
 470 
 
 Court of Queen' 's Bench (Ireland} . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 In extra- 
 judicial 
 proceed- 
 ings the 
 accused by 
 appearing 
 waives 
 necessity 
 for proof. 
 
 A priest 
 suing his 
 bishop for 
 slander 
 guilty of 
 canonical 
 offence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It seems to be so. 
 
 Witness: There is a summary trial which shortens the 
 proceedings and dispenses with several of the formalities pre- 
 scribed in the canon law, but it requires some of them. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is all this laid down in any book ? 
 It is well understood by those who are conversant with the 
 canon law, and there is no treatise on the canon law which 
 does not show what I am saying. I say that although the 
 proceedings by the Cardinal were extra-judicial, they did not 
 exclude all the forms of the canon law. 
 
 Mr. Carton : In a proceeding extra judicialiter according 
 to canon law, if the accused appears and admits his offences, 
 does he thereby waive the necessity for formal proofs and 
 accusers P My answer, my lord, to this, is, yes. 
 
 In a proceeding extra judicialiter, if the accused appears 
 and admits the facts with which he is charged, may the judge 
 proceed as if these facts had been proved? Yes, he may 
 proceed without formal proof or the presence of an accuser. 
 The facts in the case, if I may make the observation, appear 
 to have been admitted. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon objected. 
 
 Witness : I asked to be permitted to make the observa- 
 tion, and I did not intend to make it without his lordship's 
 permission. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You may depend upon it that if 
 you say more than you are asked about you will be stopped. 
 
 Examination resumed : Is it an offence according to canon 
 law for the parish priest to bring an action against his bishop 
 for words spoken by the bishop of him as a parish priest ? 
 It is. 
 
 Is your answer to that question irrespective of either the 
 bull In Coena Domini or the bull Apostolicce Sedis ? Alto- 
 gether ; my reasons are that it is an ecclesiastical law 
 coeval with Christianity. I think that the origin of that 
 law is found in the passage of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 
 where he chides the Corinthians for going to law before 
 Gentile judges. And if the Apostle Paul forbid laics to 
 litigate with laics, and clerics to litigate with laics, before 
 Gentile judges, how much more would he forbid clergymen 
 to litigate with clergymen, because there is a much greater 
 indecency and unbecomingness in a cleric bringing a brother
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keefe v. Cardinal Cullen. 471 
 
 clergyman before a lay tribunal. One of the earliest authori- Examina- 
 ties is that of the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451 A.D. ; t A r c h- 
 one of the canons of which is that if a cleric has a contro- idshop of 
 versy with another cleric, he is not to take cognizance <|*J>' 
 of it from the ecclesiastical judge to the secular judge. So 
 far for the Council of Chalcedon, which was a general council 
 of great authority admitted by all the Churches ; and after 
 the Council of Chalcedon you have the canon 8i diligenti. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Does that apply to a criminal 
 court as well as to a civil, and does it apply to the case of 
 one cleric with another who has committed a crime? If 
 your lordship asks nie whether the passage from the Council 
 of Chalcedon bears that construction 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: 'If any cleric brings another 
 before a lay tribunal/ I want to know whether that rule ap- Rule 
 plies, and whether it includes within it as well criminal as apples to 
 civil cases ? That council was a general council, and applied W eli as to 
 to both. The expression of the council is in the Greek civil cases. 
 ' pragma,' that is, a ' negotium,' a business, a controversy ; 
 and it is to be understood without any limitation, and it 
 therefore covers both civil and criminal cases. 
 
 Mr. Carton : I want to know, my lord, whether it is an 
 offence against the canon law for a parish priest to bring an 
 action against his bishop for words spoken of him as a parish 
 priest by the bishop ? 
 
 Witness: There is a canon beginning with the words 
 ' Si diligenti,' from the Council of Milan, and another from 
 the Council of Carthage. These two canons were after- 
 wards adopted and enforced by Innocent III., in a remark- 
 able letter by him, and this letter, adopting and enforcing 
 them, makes them a portion of the canon law. This passage 
 from the letter of Innocent III. is contained in the decretals, 
 and, quoting the two Councils I have mentioned, says that 
 if any cleric shall bring another cleric before a criminal judge 
 he shall lose his rank ; and if in a civil cause, that he shall 
 lose the cause if he wish to preserve his right ; and it is 
 added further that this shall be so even though the cleric 
 had bound himself by an oath to renounce his privilege of 
 bringing it before an ecclesiastical judge, because no terms 
 can bind against the public law. 1 This passage I consider 
 
 1 1 Decretal, Greg. IX. lib. ii. tit. ii. cap. xii.
 
 472 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Rule in 
 force in 
 Ireland. 
 
 important, and if there were no other matter in the canon 
 law, it would be quite enough to settle the question. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When did Innocent III. live ? 
 In the year 1210 he wrote this letter, which was subsequently 
 embodied in the decretals of Gregory IX. The whole passage, 
 taken as it stands, supplies you with four different arguments 
 an argument derived from the Council of Milan, from the 
 Third Council of Carthage, from the individual authority of 
 Innocent III. as Pope ; and there is this further argument, 
 that the whole is embodied in the decretals of the canon law 
 and of Gregory IX. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When did Gregory IX. live ? 
 In the middle of the thirteenth century; two years after 
 Innocent III. 
 
 Mr. Carton: Is that rule of canon law in force in the 
 canons of the Catholic Church of Ireland? Yes; it is in 
 force in the Catholic Church of Ireland. I should require to 
 look to the Council of Trent. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Are you quite sure it is in force 
 in Ireland ? I am quite sure it is. The Council of Trent, 
 in a very remarkable passage, which is found in the 20th 
 chapter of the 25th session, after calling upon secular princes 
 not to allow their officials or inferior magistrates to violate 
 the immunity of ecclesiastical persons, proceeds to pass a 
 decree to this effect that the sacred canons, and the general 
 councils, and the other apostolic ordinances of the Pope in 
 favour of ecclesiastical persons, and of the liberty of the Church, 
 and against the violators thereof, are hereby renewed, and 
 all such passages of the canon law pre-existing are embodied, 
 and it then commands that these shall be exactly observed lay 
 all men. Now the canons of the Council of Trent and that 
 amongst the rest were adopted in Ireland very soon after the 
 holding of the Council, with the exception of the one relating 
 to clandestine marriages. We have historical proof of the 
 fact that there were provincial councils held in each one of 
 the four ecclesiastical provinces, and in these provincial coun- 
 cils distinct express canons were passed, thereby publishing 
 and enforcing the canons of the Council of Trent relating to 
 discipline, with the exception of the one regarding clandes- 
 tinity of marriage. These canons were adopted and enforced 
 in each one of the four ecclesiastical provinces in Ireland,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe, v. Cardinal Oullen. 473 
 
 and in particular they were adopted and enforced in the eccle- Exannna- 
 siastical province of Dublin, and therefore rendered obligatory t he Arch. 
 in the several dioceses of the province of Dublin. In the pro- Bishop of 
 vince of Dublin they were adopted, in 1616, in a council held ! ' 
 under Dr. Matthews, Archbishop of Dublin, and in another 
 held in 1683, or about that time, under Dr. Russell, another of 
 the Archbishops of Dublin. From these constitutions, then, it 
 is an historical fact that the ecclesiastical law of which we 
 are speaking, forbidding clerics from impleading clerics in 
 spiritual matters before secular tribunals, was published and 
 enforced in Ireland in the 1 7th, and in the beginning of the 
 18th centuries, and it has never since been revoked by any 
 authority ; on the contrary the supreme authority of the 
 Catholic Church, the Pope, the other day re-imposed it in 
 virtue of the constitution Apostolicce Sedis. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You have answered most fully and 
 satisfactorily, but I want to know whether amongst eminent 
 scholars and theologians there was not a difference of 
 opinion as to how far that bull was received in Ireland. Dr. 
 Doyle was asked whether the last article in the code declared 
 that everything done in the Council of Trent was binding, 
 and he said that everything was binding as far as regards As to 
 
 ,.,,,, ,,..,. % -, T , . f , , ^ & , whetherall 
 
 faith, but not discipline ; and after speaking of the French decrees of 
 Church, he says that in part of Ireland such decrees were ounci1 ? 
 received, in another part of Ireland they were not received, binding in 
 He says that the mode of receiving a council is this. The Ireland - 
 bishops of the provinces assemble and deliberate whether 
 the discipline enacted at the Council of Trent would or would 
 not be useful to their Church, and if they think it would be 
 useful, they cause it to be read, and thus the decree regarding 
 discipline was in force. 
 
 Witness : Part of Dr. Doyle's answer refers, I think, not 
 only to Ireland, but to the Continent ; because it alludes to 
 the French Church, and with respect to Ireland I think his 
 lordship must have had before his mind the canon of the 
 Council of Trent regarding clandestinity of marriage, be- 
 cause that was not received in all the dioceses of Ireland. 
 If there was a hesitation about receiving it before, it is not 
 at all to be considered as disrespectful to the Council of 
 Trent, because the Council of Trent expressly arranged that 
 it should not bind for thirty days in any part of Ireland.
 
 474 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- Therefore, it was perfectly open to the bishops of the several 
 
 theArch- dioceses of Ireland to adopt the portion of the Council of 
 
 bishop of Trent regarding clandestinity of marriage, or not to adopt 
 
 " ' it. They were, in fact, left by the Council at full liberty to 
 
 do so. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The words convey that in some 
 parts of Ireland the Council of Trent was received ; in others 
 it was not ? Quite so. The decrees have no force till declared, 
 because the bishops were left at liberty to adopt or not the 
 canon respecting clandestinity, and that must be what Dr. 
 Doyle meant. 
 
 Mr. Carton : There were two actions brought by plaintiff, 
 one against Father Neary and the other against Father 
 Walsh, for alleged slanderous words spoken from the altar 
 by these gentlemen. There was an action taken against 
 Father Walsh for words spoken by him of the reverend 
 plaintiff. Was that an offence against the canon law? 
 Yes. 
 
 And there was an action brought by the plaintiff against 
 the bishop for the use of alleged slanderous words. Was 
 that an offence against canon law ? Yes. 
 
 It was also proved on this trial that Father Neary wrote 
 in the chaplain's book of the workhouse certain statements 
 against Father O'Keeffe, and that Father O'Keeffe brought 
 an action against him for that. Was the bringing of that 
 action an offence against discipline ? Yes. 
 
 For the same reason ? Yes. 
 
 Would the bringing of all these actions be sufficient, ac- 
 cording to the canon law, to have warranted the Cardinal in 
 suspending Father O'Keeffe? Yes; but the Cardinal did 
 not proceed solely on that ground. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I do not think that the witness 
 can enter into that. Suppose a priest brings an action, and 
 that he comes before you, and you tell him he has done 
 something wrong, and he makes an apology, is there any 
 power of condonation in the Church, or could you after- 
 wards fall back upon that in an investigation against him ? 
 There is nothing that I know of in the canon law that would 
 prevent these things from being brought up in a case, 
 suppose, of great aggravation, and in which the person con- 
 doned proved himself unworthy of the condonation. I was
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 475 
 
 just observing that the points of contumacy and absence Examina- 
 
 ,. , fo . . ,, . tionof 
 
 are mentioned in express terms in the sentence, and there is the Arch- 
 a particular reference to them, as being brought in charge Wshop of 
 against him ; because after the preamble referring to these ,.,.,.. ' 
 things and reciting them, the Cardinal proceeds to pronounce 
 the punishment, the word * therefore ' being the connecting 
 link between the preamble and the sentence. It means that, 
 because of the other things recited in the preamble, ' there- 
 fore, I proceed to pronounce ' such and such a punishment 
 on you. So that the sentence does mention contumacy and 
 absence, and also substantially conveys the other things in- 
 volved. 
 
 Mr. Carton: And in all other respects it was a perfectly 
 good canonical sentence ? It was. 
 
 Was that sentence binding on the plaintiff until reversed 
 or annulled by due ecclesiastical authority ? Certainly. 
 
 Was it the duty of the Cardinal, according to the law of 
 the Catholic Church, to publish that sentence ? It was. I j 
 
 It was proved here that the Cardinal sent a copy of the 
 suspension in a registered letter to Father O'Keeffe, and that 
 a copy of it was posted on the Friary Chapel at Callan. In 
 your opinion, was that a proper publication of the sentence ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : I object to that. You cannot sentence a 
 man by registered letter. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I cannot receive that evidence. 
 He did not open the letter. 
 
 Mr. Carton : I will ask your grace, was the posting a copy 
 of the suspension on the chapel a sufficient announcement 
 to Mr. O'Keeffe, according to canon law, of the sentence ? 
 It was. 
 
 Now after the pronouncing of that judgment and sentence, 
 and while it was in force and unreversed, and was posted on 
 the Friary Chapel, was it against the laws, ordinances, and 
 discipline of the Church for Father O'Keeffe to celebrate mass 
 or administer the sacrament of the Eucharist? It was 
 against the canon law. 
 
 Were confessions heard by the plaintiff under such circum- 
 stances, heard without jurisdiction ? Yes. 
 
 And without regard to the ecclesiastical suspensions ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Was the performance by the plaintiff, while that judg-
 
 476 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- ment and sentence remained unreversed, of any office of the 
 the Arch- Church, a violation of the laws of the Church and of the 
 b p sh f of censures passed upon him, and a setting at nought of epis- 
 
 ' copal authority ? It was. 
 
 Under the rescript of the 31st of May, 1871, 1 did the Car- 
 dinal acquire jurisdiction to interdict the chapel of Callan ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Have you seen a copy of the interdict ? I have. 
 It was proved that it was posted up on the Friary 
 Chapel. Was that interdict so posted up valid and binding ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And was it the duty of the Cardinal to publish that 
 interdict to those persons who were interested in knowing 
 it ? It was his duty, as the person charged by the Pope, to 
 try the case and determine it. 
 
 According to the rules of the Catholic Church, has a 
 parish priest power to introduce nuns into his parish without 
 the authority of his bishop ? Certainly not. 
 
 The Court adjourned. 
 
 NINTH DAY. 
 Wednesday, May 2lst, 1873. 
 
 At the sitting of the Court, 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong said : My lord, before the cross- 
 examination of the archbishop proceeds, in reference to a 
 name which was mentioned in the course of the trial Canon 
 Forde, who has been removed by death I desire to state 
 that we have in attendance Dr. Cruise, who was his medical 
 adviser, to account for his absence in this way 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is it necessary ? You need not, 
 I think. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I am in a situation to prove that 
 never after the early autumn of last year was he in a con- 
 dition to be examined even by commission. 
 
 Mr. Purcell: I take the statement of the learned Ser- 
 jeant, my lord. There was a question I omitted to ask the 
 Cardinal in my lengthened cross-examination. I wish to ask 
 whether these letters (produced) 2 accompanied the suspension 
 and the interdict to the clergy of Callan ? 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345. 2 Supra, pp. 205. 209.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cutlen. 
 
 47? 
 
 Cardinal Cullen : I think they were given in already. 
 Mr. Purcell : They were referred to and not proved, and I 
 merely wanted formally to prove them. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : He published them, and there they 
 are. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : There is one other question. Was it with 
 your Eminence's authority that a communication was made 
 to the Poor-Law Commissioners, announcing the fact of the 
 suspension? I spoke to Dr. M 'Donald about the matter, 
 and I told him that the rule was that a suspended priest 
 could not occupy the office of chaplain of a workhouse, or of 
 patron of a school. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : That is all I want. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon: Would your lordship allow me to 
 mention another matter? Assuming that the evidence 
 would close to-day (and I mention this not only for myself, 
 but on behalf of my friend Mr. O'Hagan), to-morrow is 
 Ascension Thursday, a day appointed to be kept holy in the 
 Catholic Church, as well as in our own Church, and I would 
 ask your lordship whether you would think of adjourning 
 over to-morrow, or of sitting at a later hour ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I have a most invincible objection 
 to adjourn a trial once it begins. 
 
 A Juror : And so have the jury, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I shall take care you shall not be 
 called again for a long time, gentlemen. I would be happy 
 to accommodate you, gentlemen, in regard to to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : It is our common wish that you should 
 give us something of a later hour. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Very well. It is a proper request 
 under the circumstances, and I shall do so with pleasure. 
 
 The Most Rev. Dr. LEAHY, Archbishop of Cashel, re-called 
 and cross-examined by Mr. FITZGIBBON. 
 
 Your grace mentioned yesterday, in speaking of the com- 
 petency of a judge, that, under the circumstances stated, you 
 did not consider that the Cardinal stood in the position of an 
 accuser. I want to ask yoiir grace what is the technical name 
 of an accuser an accuser, I mean, in the Latin language ? 
 Accusator ; sometimes denunciator, and sometimes delator. 
 There is no doubt that a person who occupied the position of 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina* 
 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 
 Cashel.
 
 478 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 As to pro- 
 ceeding ex 
 informata 
 conscientia. 
 
 Did not 
 
 apply to 
 
 regular 
 
 clergy 
 
 before 
 
 Council of 
 
 Trent, 
 
 Requisites 
 of a 
 
 regular ec- 
 clesiastical 
 citation. 
 
 delator, accusator, or denunciator, would according to canon 
 law be an incompetent judge certainly. 
 
 You were also asked as to the proceeding ex informata 
 conscientia. In that proceeding is it not of the essence of it 
 that there is no person in the position of delator or accusator 
 at all ? No person need be. 
 
 Then the subject matter of the judgment must be some- 
 thing in the mind of the judge ? It need not be ; it ought 
 to be something capable of proof by the judge, for, if there 
 is a recourse to the Holy See, he must be prepared to estab- 
 lish the justice of the sentence he has pronounced, and it 
 must not be a thing solely in his own mind. 
 
 The question is, whether, in that form of proceeding, the 
 position of delator or accusator is not entirely removed ? It 
 is not entirely removed, because it may be that there is an 
 accusator that the judge, proceeding ex informata con- 
 scientia, has a knowledge of the delinquency of the person. 
 
 Would it be your evidence that in a proceeding ex in- 
 formata conscientia a person could be condemned on the 
 accusation of a third party ? Yes, a private accusation, 
 which does not render the delictum, as it is called, public. 
 
 Now we have it already from his Eminence that, except 
 under the decree of the Council of Trent, that form of pro- 
 ceeding did not apply to the secular clergy ? Not until the 
 Council of Trent ; it is only by virtue of the passage of the 
 Council of Trent that was referred to. 
 
 Lord Chief Justice : Did it before apply to the regulars ? 
 It did, but not to the seculars. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Does its application to regulars depend 
 altogether upon the absoluteness of their vow of obedience ? 
 Not entirely upon the absoluteness of their vow of obe- 
 dience, but also upon this, that it was a proceeding sanc- 
 tioned by the canon law. 
 
 As against them ? Yes. 
 
 You were asked as to the different jurisdiction of the 
 Cardinal in a case such as this, but there was one capacity 
 you were not asked about. He would have a jurisdiction in 
 this case as Metropolitan if there -was an appeal ? Yes. 
 
 Now what are the requisites of a regular ecclesiastical 
 citation ? Do you mean by a regular ecclesiastical citation, 
 a canonical citation in the strict sense of the word, or such a
 
 > Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 
 
 479 
 
 citation as, according to the provisions of the canon law, will 
 suffice ? 
 
 I will tell what I mean exactly. There is a sentence in 
 the Cardinal's letter of the 21st October, 1871: 'As it is 
 necessary to settle the affairs of Callan, I have determined to 
 send you a regular ecclesiastical citation. 5 * Now you are 
 giving evidence as an expert, and dealing with technical terms. 
 I ask, what are the requisites and essentials of such a regular 
 ecclesiastical citation as is mentioned there ? The ecclesias- 
 tical citation referred to there is a citation that ordinarily 
 would be written in the Latin language, and which would 
 have the essentials of a citation; and the essentials of a 
 citation are (its being written in the Latin language is only an 
 accidental circumstance), that it should be a judicial act, and 
 that it should sufficiently intimate to the person accused that 
 a charge was to be brought against him. It need not be 
 specified even in terms, but it should be stated that some 
 special delinquency is brought in charge against him, and 
 that he will have to answer for it. It is not necessary that 
 the words of the citation should be mandatory. It is quite 
 sufficient if it intimates to the person accused that he is to 
 be put on his trial for some delinquency, and that it names 
 a special day and place for the investigation. It is quite 
 enough if there be an intimation conveyed to the party. 
 We have a most remarkable example of that, perhaps one 
 of the first examples recorded in history of a citation. It is 
 that which occurs in the acts and proceedings of the Council 
 of Chalcedon. The Bishop of Alexandria (Dioscorus) was 
 summoned before the Council of Chalcedon, and three 
 bishops were sent by the council to cite him. The words in 
 which the bishops did cite him were simply words of request 
 or entreaty. ' Be so good as to come,' or ' Deign to come.' 
 That shows that the words of a citation to be a citation 
 need not be mandatory, if from all the circumstances it can 
 be gathered that it is really mandatory, that he is to come 
 and stand his trial. So it can be gathered in this case to 
 which I refer, yet the simple words of request were enough 
 to constitute it a citation. The Bishop Dioscorus did not 
 come to the council, and he was condemned as con- 
 tumacious. 
 
 Supra, p. 183. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel.
 
 480 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Distinc- 
 tion be- 
 tween a 
 simple 
 citation 
 and a 
 canonical 
 citation. 
 
 I want to ask about the contents of a regular citation. 
 Must it not contain a nomen judicii, nomen actoris, and no- 
 men citandi ? Not necessarily the nomen actoris, for if there 
 be no plaintiff, his name cannot be given. 
 
 Well, where there is no plaintiff it cannot contain his 
 name, but if there be, it should contain it ? It should con- 
 tain it, that is, if it is a regular judicial proceeding. 
 
 I am speaking of a regular ecclesiastical proceeding 
 according to judicial forms? Are you speaking of the 
 ordinary judicial procedure, or asking what things are abso- 
 lutely necessary to any citation to have it valid ? 
 
 I am asking what are necessary to the validity of a 
 regular citation where there is nothing extraordinary, nothing 
 extra-judicial ? I don't understand whether you speak of a 
 regular ecclesiastical proceeding, or an ordinary proceeding, 
 or an extraordinary ? 
 
 I speak of an ordinary procedure ? The ordinary pro- 
 cedure must contain the things you have stated. 
 
 In an ordinary judicial proceeding, is it not a fact, that it 
 is a condition requisite to contumacy that the citation shall 
 be three times sent ? That is what is called a canonical cita- 
 tion, but you must understand there is a great difference be- 
 tween what we call a simple citation > and canonical citation. 
 A canonical citation, to which I suppose you are referring, is 
 when there are three simple citations with an interval of two 
 days between each one, or one peremptory citation, allowing 
 six days ; the same length of time as would be included be- 
 tween three several simple citations, if they were issued. A 
 canonical citation, in the meaning of the canon law, is either 
 three simple citations with an interval of two days between 
 each, or one peremptory citation, giving a person to under- 
 stand * that you are to take this one citation as good for the 
 three.' That, now, is a canonical citation in the strict sense 
 of the word. We have an instance of that in a letter of 
 Dr. M'Donald of 16th November, 1870, 1 where he issues a 
 citation, and says this single warning is to be taken as if 
 sent three times. 
 
 Isn't that necessary in the case of an ordinary canonical 
 citation, where you intend to substitute a peremptory for 
 three simple citations? In the case of an ordinary pro- 
 
 1 Supra, p. 154,
 
 Rev. Robert O'KeeJfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 481 
 
 cedure, yes ; but in the case of an extra-judicial proceeding Cross- 
 such as this case- iSSSf 
 
 Now, is it entirely in the discretion of the judge whether the Arch- 
 he will proceed ex informata conscientia, or proceed in the Cashel 
 regular canonical form ? To a certain extent it is. 
 
 To what extent ? To this extent ; that he is not to issue H OW far 
 a proceeding ex informata conscientia as the ordinary mode of the mode 
 proceeding in dealing with the delinquencies of his clergy, dnreirin 
 He is not to issue it as the ordinary or settled mode of discretion 
 proceeding. On the contrary, Benedict XIV. said that if a JU 
 bishop made an announcement to his clergy that from this 
 day forward he would proceed ex informata conscientia against 
 any of the transgressions of which the clergy of his dioce?e 
 might be guilty, he would do an improper thing, and he 
 ought not to do it, and of course if he were to act so it would 
 be a great deal worse. A bishop is not to have recourse to 
 the proceeding ex informata conscientia at his own discretion, 
 and as the ordinary mode of dealing with his clergy. It is 
 only on occasions of general occult delinquencies that the bishop 
 should proceed ex informata conscientia, or in cases outside 
 occult delinquencies, where there would be extreme difficulty 
 in convicting a person. 
 
 Was it not the fact that by the Council of Trent the pro- 
 ceeding ex informata conscientia was extended to the cases of 
 occult delinquencies, mainly in order to avoid scandal in the 
 publication of the crime ? I think there is a contradiction 
 in terms in the question you have put. Will you please 
 repeat it ? 
 
 The question is whether the extension of the proceeding Extension 
 ex informata conscientia to the cases of secular clergy was not p f p r ceed- 
 made in order to avoid disclosing occult cases, and was not informata 
 that the main reason of the extension ? The main reason of ********* 
 
 . . * ^0 secular 
 
 the extension of the power of bishops in these cases was, that clergy. 
 before the Council of Trent a bishop could proceed against a 
 clergyman only when his delinquency was public, and he had 
 no means of correcting occult delinquencies of the clergy 
 except by persuasion. They could only use suasion. A 
 great number of transgressions would remain unpunished 
 if a bishop had no means of preventing them except by simple 
 suasion. The Council of Trent extended the powers of the 
 bishop to punish delinquencies from public crime to occult 
 
 i I
 
 482 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 As to 
 
 citation 
 
 where the 
 
 judge 
 
 exercises 
 
 delegated 
 
 authority. 
 
 Is accused 
 to be 
 informed 
 of mode of 
 procedure. 
 
 crime, and therefore ex quacumque causa etiam ob occultum 
 crimen, although many persons say that the power of pro- 
 ceeding ex informata conscientia refers to occult cases. That 
 forms a very strong argument to prove that the powers refer 
 not merely to occult crime, but also to public crime. The 
 meaning seems to be that not only should bishops have the 
 power of punishing public delinquencies as they had before, 
 but occultum crimen. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Have you passed from the matter 
 of the citation, Mr. Fitzgibbon? 
 
 Hr. Fitzgibbon : No, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice (to witness) : Is there anything to 
 be stated in a citation where the author is a delegated 
 authority ? Is that to be communicated to the party in the 
 body of the citation, by the principles of the canon law ? 
 Yes, my lord, in a regular judicial proceeding ; if a person is 
 a delegate, and acts upon delegated authority, he should 
 certify the person accused of his authority to proceed in the 
 case. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Now, in addition to the question I asked 
 as to whether it was in the discretion of the judge to proceed 
 ex informata conscientia, I ask you, is the accused not entitled 
 to be informed whether it is ex informata conscientia or by 
 the canonical mode of proceeding he is to be prosecuted ? 
 He is not entitled to be informed unless in a case where 
 occult and public crime are mixed up altogether, and the 
 bishop proceed against him for the one and for the other. 
 The ecclesiastical judge should I don't say he is bound 
 but in his own protection he ought to inform the accused 
 party that he is proceeding ex informata conscientia, because 
 otherwise the accused person, not knowing that he was pro- 
 ceeding ex informata conscientia, might appeal, and would 
 have a right to appeal. But when he proceeds ex informata 
 conscientia, the right to appeal is taken away altogether, and 
 therefore the judge, in his own protection, and to prevent 
 this, ought to inform the persons when it may be a matter of 
 doubt as it is a matter of doubt when occult and public 
 crimes are mixed up together that he is proceeding ex 
 informata conscientia. 
 
 You say the case in which he ought, in his own protec- 
 tion, to tell the accused, is where the two crimes are mixed
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 483 
 
 up together. Isn't that because the open crime may be pro- Cross- 
 ceeded against canonically? The person so accused may ^^Tof" 
 appeal. the Arch- 
 
 That is not an answer to the question, with great respect, ^ashel^ 
 
 If he is in ignorance of how the judge is proceeding he 
 
 may appeal, and therefore the judge ought to let him know 
 how he is proceeding. 
 
 That is because the crime that is the subject matter of 
 the proceeding is a crime of a nature that might be included 
 in one proceeding or the other? No; the judge in the 
 case may proceed one way or other, either in the ordinary 
 form, or if he think better he may proceed ex informata con- 
 scientia ; he has the choice of the two. 
 
 Now if a crime is altogether an open crime, wouldn't it 
 be equally necessary at least equally necessary as in a case 
 where there was a mixed offence, that the bishop should give 
 information to the accused as to the form of procedure ? 
 The question is ambiguous. 
 
 The last answer was ambiguous, and I want to clear it 
 up. You say in the case of a mixed offence, partly occult, 
 partly public, it would be prudent in the judge to give the 
 information how he is proceeding, in order that the accused 
 may appeal or not ? Excuse me for saying you put in con- 
 trast with one another the proceeding ex informata conscientia 
 and the proceeding ordinarily. The proceeding ex informata 
 conscientia is a canonical proceeding. 
 
 I mean a regular proceeding. Now in a case where a is suspen- 
 crime is not occult at all, but is wholly open, doesn't the * lon ^ in ~ 
 
 ...f. formata 
 
 same reason apply with greater force ? I don't say that a conscientia 
 judge ought to proceed ex informata conscientia when a crime ^^ase of 6 
 is altogether public, but I say that it is a defensible opinion, public 
 and that looking to the context of the passage of the cnme- 
 Council of Trent, it may be defended. 
 
 Isn't it a fact that it is a proposition of canon law on 
 which diametrically opposite opinions are entertained by 
 canonists of position, whether wholly open crimes may be 
 proceeded against ex informata conscientia in the case of 
 secular clergy ? It is an open question. 
 
 Now, it being an open question, I ask your grace your 
 own opinion as a canonist, is the proceeding ex informata 
 conscientia in your opinion a canonical proceeding against a 
 
 i i 2
 
 484 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- secular clergyman in the case of a crime called public ? I 
 
 e tkTrf~ sa ^ ifc ma y be Defended. 
 
 the Arch- I ask your grace's own opinion. You have told me there 
 
 b ctstei f are PP os ite opinions, and I want your own ? I am just after 
 
 - saying that the question whether a judge could proceed ex 
 
 informata conscientia against a crime while public, is an open 
 
 question, and I will add that the opinion in Rome is alto- 
 
 gether against it ; against an ecclesiastical judge proceeding 
 
 ex informata conscientia in the case of a public transgression. 
 
 And a secular clergyman ? And a secular clergyman. 
 
 You have given the Roman opinion, but I want an 
 opinion nearer home. What is your own? That is my 
 opinion, and one I would act upon practically, although I 
 think the other -- 
 
 Is defensible? Is an abstract question. 
 
 Isn't the defence of it based upon chapter i. of the 14th 
 session of the Council of Trent ? Upon the words of it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : How are the laws of the Council 
 divided? Divided into 25 sessions, and the sessions are 
 divided into chapters. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon: Before I proceed to this I wish to ask, 
 isn't it a fact that before this law there was no mode of pro- 
 ceeding open to a bishop against a secular clergyman, ex- 
 cept a regular canonical proceeding ? There was the extra- 
 judicial proceeding in cases where the judge might proceed 
 ex notorio ; where the delinquency was notorious. There was 
 another extraordinary proceeding outside the ordinary pro- 
 cedure ; that is what is called in canon law the ' summary 
 1 Summary proceeding,' where some of the forms of the strictly canonical 
 proceed- procedure are to be observed, but not all. Before the Council 
 of Trent derogated from the pre-existing law, it was com- 
 petent for judges to proceed in cases ex notorio, by way of 
 summary process. 
 
 Now what authority could you give for a summary pro- 
 cess ? Look to the ( Clementine Constitutions,' in the corpus 
 juris canonici, and you will find two passages which set out 
 the form of proceeding. (The witness pointed out the pas- 
 sages, which were read.) Now was it the fact that in that 
 * Clementine Constitution,' the cases in which the summary 
 proceeding might be taken, were divided into two ? No. 
 
 Perhaps you would take the text; they are all set down,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullcn. 
 
 485 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Casliel. 
 
 ten in number ? The form of procedure is not set out ; it 
 neither states the case, in which it may be used 
 
 These are the important ones ? Yes. 
 
 Is not the passage to which those refer who uphold the 
 contrary opinion the following ? (Counsel reads.} 1 * He to 
 whom the admission to holy orders by his own prelate for 
 any cause, even extra-judicially, has been forbidden, or who 
 shall have been suspended from his orders, or from his eccle- 
 siastical authorities,' &c. These words may not mean shall 
 be suspended according to the course of proceeding existing 
 under this, but prior to it. 
 
 Does it include any new mode of proceeding? Yes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You say this is the only authority 
 that is used to maintain the contrary opinion to the Arch- 
 bishop? Precisely. If you will allow me I will read the 
 passage and explain it, because without a little explanation 
 it is not easy to take it in. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The obscurity is in those who 
 drew it up. 
 
 Witness: The Council in this passage charges bishops 
 in an especial manner to look to the morals and the con- 
 duct of clerics, and especially those who are charged with 
 the care of souls, and after by preamble setting out the 
 necessity of the bishops looking to the morals of their clergy, 
 seeing that they are fit persons especially to have the care of 
 souls, and that it is an important thing to bear in mind, 
 in the following passage refers most simply to the young 
 candidates for orders, but in an especial manner to those who 
 are in orders and charged with the care of souls, and then 
 proceeds to lay down as follows : ' Cum honestius, ac tutius Council of 
 sit subjecto, debitam propositis obedientiam impendendo, in Trent, 
 inferiori ministerio deservire, quam cum prsepositorum scan- 
 dalo, graduum altiorum appetere dignitatem;' 'since it is more 
 becoming and safe for the subject, yielding due obedience to 
 those who are placed over him, to serve in a lower degree, 
 than to the scandal of those who are placed over him, to 
 seek the dignity of a higher ; ' then it ordains as follows : 
 <Ei cui ascensus ad sacros ordines a suo prselato ex qua- 
 cumque causa, etiam ob occultum crimen quomodolibet 
 
 1 See Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session XIV., Decrctum de reformatione, 
 caput i.
 
 486 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 CIWR- 
 examina- 
 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 
 Cashel. 
 
 etiara extra-judicialiter, fuerit interdictus ; aut qui a suis 
 ordinibus, seu gradibus, vel dignitatibus ecclesiasticis fuerit 
 suspensus,' &c. 1 There are two distinct passages in that 
 referring to the two classes of persons that I said the Council 
 had in view ; first, those who are simple candidates for 
 orders, who wish either to be ordained or to ascend from a 
 lower order to a higher order, that is one class of persons ; 
 and the other class of persons referred to are those already 
 in orders, and the Council says, first, that if the superior 
 issues a protestation against any man's ascending from a 
 lower to a higher order, or being ordained at all ; if the 
 prelate does so for any cause whatever, not only for a public 
 cause but for an occult cause ; if he forbids in any manner 
 whatever, even extra-judicially, then no license or authority 
 from any other prelate shall be of the least use; the in- 
 terdict is absolute and without an appeal. As to the second 
 class of persons, the Council proceeds to deal with their cases, 
 and it says that where any such person is suspended from 
 his orders or ecclesiastical dignities, no license from any 
 person to get themselves promoted to orders shall be of 
 use ; and with respect to the former class that no license 
 or power from any person should restore them to the orders 
 they are already in. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : How do those who hold the 
 opposite opinion from yourself make out that it applies to 
 proceedings ex informata conscientia ? 
 
 Witness : If you will allow me I will explain the 
 matter. There are two classes in it in the first class men- 
 tioned, viz. of those who are to be ordained, the passage 
 clearly gives the bishop power, not only to prevent the ascent 
 to orders, but to suspend from the exercise of orders ; to 
 prevent the ascent of persons to orders who are not in orders, 
 ard with respect to those who are in orders, to suspend the 
 exercise of those orders. But as to the circumstances in 
 which this may be done, that is the matter in dispute, and it 
 turns on these words, which are contained in the first clause, 
 whether the bishop is entitled to interdict the one class and 
 the other, even for an occult crime, from any cause or in any 
 manner whatever, even extra-judicially. The question is, 
 did those extraordinary powers conferred in that clause 
 1 Supra note, p. 483.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 487 
 
 relate not only to the first class of persons who are not in 
 orders, and are prevented from ascending to orders; does 
 that clause refer also to the second class of persons mentioned 
 in the second clause that is, those who are already in orders 
 does it refer to the suspension of them ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Do you give the benefit of that 
 to the parish priest ? Is it your opinion that it does not ex- 
 tend to him ? Excuse me, my opinion is that that clause, 
 ' ex quacumque causa etiam ob occultum crimen quomodolibet,' 
 refers to the two classes of persons ; they are not men- 
 tioned in the second clause, they are only mentioned in the 
 first clause, but it seems to refer to the whole matter. 
 
 Didn't you say that you held a different opinion from 
 those who thought this summary proceeding could be applied 
 against the parish priest ? I said my opinion was, and that 
 the opinion in Rome was, that the suspension should be 
 applied in occult cases, but that whether the words ' ex qua- 
 cumque causa etiam ob occultum crimen quomodolibet ' are to 
 extend to the two classes of persons is another question ; 
 and I say it does extend to the two classes of persons, just 
 from the whole tenor of the passage, from the context, and 
 from the preamble set out by the Council, in which it dwells 
 more particularly on the correction of the manners of 
 those already in orders, and who had the care of souls. 
 The Council evidently felt this case more important than 
 the case of young candidates who are ascending to orders ; 
 and it evidently intends to give the bishops the power to cor- 
 rect the morals of those who are already ordained. Those ex- 
 traordinary powers of the bishops would not be given unless 
 you extend these words I have quoted to the more important 
 class of persons, viz., those who are already in orders ; and 
 more than that, this interpretation is acted on at all times 
 in Rome by the Congregation, and the only one acted upon ; 
 that is quite sufficient authority. There is one particular 
 Congregation called the Congregation of the Council there 
 are several Congregations of the Cardinals in Home, some 
 appointed for one purpose, some for another but there is 
 one Congregation of very great authority that was appointed 
 after the Council of Trent, and which was invested with the 
 special duty and power of interpreting the canons of the 
 Council of Trent, and to see' to their execution, and also to 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel.
 
 488 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 intei-pret the meaning of the canons of the Council of Trent. 
 Now the Congregation of the Council, which is nearly the 
 greatest authority, acting under the eye, and with the autho- 
 rity of the Pope himself, has at all times declared that that 
 is the proper interpretation of that passage, and it has 
 always acted on it. The very thing we are now speaking 
 of was called in question under Pius VI. by a Catholic 
 bishop in Italy, the Bishop of Pisa. He called in ques- 
 tion the power of bishops suspending priests ex informata, 
 conscientia, which is the question before us. He raised the 
 question in a synod, and his opinion was condemned, and is 
 no longer defensible, that is to say, the opinion that the pro- 
 ceeding ex informata conscientia is not applicable in any case 
 to a secular clergyman. 
 
 Then you consider it only applicable in case of occultum 
 crimen ? That is the opinion in Rome. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : You stated yesterday that if a suspension 
 manifestly unjust was served on a man he would be at liberty 
 to treat it as null and void? If it was manifestly unjust, it 
 would be manifestly null. 
 
 Does not Benedict XIV. also say this that the proceed- 
 ing ex informata conscientia should be taken only where a 
 judicial order could not be observed ? I should like to hear 
 the words. 
 
 (Counsel read the words.) 
 
 Witness : That passage dealt with two cases, there, you 
 see, and you confine it to one. It gives considerable latitude 
 to the bishop ; it states that generally speaking a bishop 
 ought not to use the proceeding ex informata conscientia. 
 
 But does not Benedict XIV. say it ought not to be 
 used except when the fault is one that cannot be conclusively 
 met in a public court, or in a case in which the nature of the 
 crime is such that it ought not to be brought to the know- 
 ledge of others ? He does not say it ought not, but I have 
 no objection to admit that it ought not generally to be used. 
 
 I do not want the word ' generally.' I want your opinion : 
 ought it to be used in any case except in the two he gives ; 
 first, a case where the crime cannot be conclusively proved, 
 and secondly, where it is inexpedient to bring the case to the 
 knowledge of others ? A bishop ought not to use it except 
 in occult cases. If the Pope said that a bishop abused his
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Oullen. 489 
 
 power, and that lie proceeded ex informata conscientia when Cross- 
 he ought not to do so, the sentence of the bishop would, be e ^ ) 1 of" 
 reversed, as many sentences of bishops who have proceeded the Arch- 
 ex informata conscientia have been reversed on application to cashei! 
 
 Rome. 
 
 Benedict XIV. was Pope, I believe, only about 120 years 
 ago ? Yes. 
 
 Now, do you know this little book, Gury's Compendium? 
 Yes, I have some idea of it. 
 
 Is that a book of authority ? Well, it is a good book, it 
 is not any recognised authority. It is a small treatise, but good. 
 Is it used as a class-book in Maynooth ? I don't know 
 whether just now it is used as a class book in Maynooth or 
 not, because very recently the bishops have changed the 
 books there, I amongst the number. But I don't just now 
 remember whether Gury is one of the books. 
 
 But there is no doubt that until very recently it was a 
 class-book ? It was not a class-book as far as I know. I 
 can't tax my memory, because I really don't know. I don't 
 think it was. It is a very good little book, but no authority. 
 Except so far as he quotes his authorities ? Just so, 
 I will not at all bind myself to any of his opinions. The 
 editor of Gury has called in question the peculiar opinions 
 of one of the most distinguished theologians of the 
 Catholic Church, Liguori. I have the greatest possible re- 
 spect myself for the opinions of Liguori in moral matters 
 and matters of canon law, and I should not be disposed to 
 put very great faith in the editor, if I had no other reason 
 greater than that he is so decided an opponent of my 
 favourite Liguori. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : On the subject that you have just 
 mentioned, let me ask were there not many that objected to 
 Liguori very much ? Has not his system been very much 
 objected to by some ? No, it has not ; on the contrary there 
 is no writer on moral theology, or on canon law, whose 
 opinions have such universal acceptation throughout the 
 Church as this Liguori. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : I suppose you are conversant with the 
 book of Cardinal De Lugo ? Yes ; a high authority 
 A high authority on moral theology? Yes. 
 Are you aware that a principle of moral theology is put
 
 490 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Grose, forward on the authority of Cardinal De Lugo, as follows : 
 tk>Tof " ' Hence also if anyone injuriously attacks your character, 
 the Arch- and you can't protect it, or recover it in any other way than 
 by attacking also the character of the other, it is lawful, 
 provided always that you don't speak what is false, so far as 
 it is necessary for the protection of your own character, and 
 provided you don't injure more than you were injured, com- 
 paring your own character with that of the other ' ? Is that a 
 recognised principle ? It is not at all convenient to bring 
 forward abstract principles, without any application whatever 
 to a particular case. If you apply the principle to some 
 particular case in the concrete as the solution of a case 
 will always depend upon circumstances you will be able to 
 say what ought to be said of it. It is quite inconvenient to 
 introduce a discussion about abstract principles. 
 
 Did your grace hear Serjeant Armstrong state that it 
 was necessary to tear the fangs out of the hypocritical 
 monster who would make such a proposition as that ? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I said no such thing ; that is not 
 the proposition that Father O'Keeffe has made very dif- 
 ferent. I adopt all that myself. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I certainly have a note of some 
 such observation, and remember being very much surprised 
 at the evidence itself. I was at first surprised, and I am a 
 little so still, but it is quite legitimate to ask if certain 
 canonists held such opinions. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : I was wrong in saying that this is from 
 Cardinal De Lugo ; it is a quotation from St. Liguori himself. 
 
 Now here is another passage : * It is never lawful to im- 
 pose a false accusation upon another, as is manifestly ap- 
 parent from the 44th proposition condemned by Innocent XL, 
 but it is lawful for a just cause to publish a secret crime, 
 even with the injury of the character, whenever the public 
 or private good requires it, and then the right of your 
 neighbour to have his character preserved ceases. The 
 causes, moreover, for which lawfully the crimes of another 
 may be revealed are the following : the notable necessity of 
 the person revealing it himself,' &c. And then he says : ' The 
 reason of these things is because the publishing of the sin 
 of another does no injury to either justice or charity. It 
 does not injure justice : because your neighbour has no such
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 491 
 
 strict right to his own character, that others are obliged to 
 conceal truth when the manifestation of it is necessary to 
 avoid a grievous loss either to themselves or to others. It does 
 not injure charity, because charity is of no obligation when 
 accompanied with such loss. For if you are not bound to 
 prevent the loss of your neighbour, although greater, with 
 loss of your own, so neither are you bound in the same case 
 to conceal the secret crime of your neighbour.' * 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is that ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : It is ' Gury,' page 202. I simply ask 
 your grace, are these propositions held by persons of autho- 
 rity? 
 
 Witness : I would say that what you have read out here 
 just now is in the main quite fair. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Quite fair ? In the main. I don't at 
 all tie myself to every assertion that is in that, but in the 
 main I think it is quite fair. You took the passage at first 
 out of its context, but reading the whole of the context, now 
 I see what it is. The whole question is whether the private 
 sins of others may be revealed in certain circumstances 
 may be published when there are certain justifying causes. 
 
 Here is a proposition : ' Hence also, if anyone unjustly 
 attacks your character, and you can't protect it or recover it 
 in any other way than by attacking his character also, it is 
 lawful, provided always you don't say what is false, so far as 
 is necessary for the preservation of your own character, and 
 provided you don't do more wrong than is done to you, com- 
 paring your own character with that of the other ? ' I quite 
 agree with that in the circumstances in which the case is 
 put, viz. if a person has no other remedy in the world. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Did you happen to hear it stated in this 
 court that the mental obliquity of Mr. O'Keeffe was only 
 equalled by his moral depravity for having laid that proposi- 
 tion down in those very terms. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : That is not what Mr. O'Keeffe 
 stated at all. I will not hear myself misrepresented. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : ' Also if anyone defame you falsely, or 
 accuse you of any improper proceeding, you may lawfully 
 disclose his secret lies and perjuries, and you may prove him 
 a calumniator, and that faith is not to be given to his word.' 
 
 1 Gary's Compendium Theologiae Moralis. De Detraetione, p. 202. 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel.
 
 492 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashtl. 
 
 Does the 
 rule 
 against 
 bringing 
 ecclesias- 
 tics into a 
 court of 
 law apply 
 to laymen. 
 
 Is that a recognized proposition of theology ? It is ; it is 
 quite defensible, quite correct. 
 
 And you would not think a man guilty of moral de- 
 pravity who asserted that proposition? Taken nakedly as 
 it stands, and apart from all other circumstances, I would not. 
 
 On the matter of the privileges of the clergy, as I under- 
 stand the canon law that I am referring to here, it comes 
 to this, that for anything done in his ecclesiastical office it was 
 contrary to the canon law to bring an ecclesiastic to a lay 
 tribunal. Is not that so ? Yes. 
 
 Now when the thing is done in his ecclesiastical office, 
 does not the prohibition apply equally to laymen and to 
 the clergy? The question is too vague ; when you ask does 
 it apply to laymen, I should like to know in what sense 
 you apply it to laymen. 
 
 I will make it quite distinct. The question I put is 
 simply this : you stated that it was prohibited to bring an 
 ecclesiastic before a lay tribunal for anything done in his 
 ecclesiastical office. Now I will take the infliction of a 
 censure or excommunication ; that is a thing that may be 
 passed equally on laymen and clergy ; does not the prohibi- 
 tion to bring an ecclesiastic into court prohibit a layman from 
 bringing in an ecclesiastic just as much as it does an eccle- 
 siastic, where the act done has been done by an ecclesiastic in 
 his office. I ask whether the authorities to which your grace 
 referred yesterday don't prohibit laymen as well as eccle- 
 siastics from bringing an ecclesiastic into court for having 
 done an act in his ecclesiastical office ? What I meant yes- 
 terday was simply to establish the maxim of ecclesiastical 
 polity, that ecclesiastics are not to implead ecclesiastics 
 before a secular tribunal on ecclesiastical matters. I estab- 
 lished as well as I could the maxim of ecclesiastical polity, 
 but I don't at all say nor mean to imply that it was not to 
 some extent modified in its application to actual circum- 
 stances in this country in its application to laymen. Some 
 passages which I quoted would go to prove certainly that as 
 ecclesiastics should not bring ecclesiastics before a civil 
 tribunal, so neither should laymen bring clerics ; some of 
 them would go so far as to prove that. But although in the 
 abstract it was a maxim of ecclesiastical polity that neither 
 laics nor clerics should bring clerics before a secular tribunal,
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 493 
 
 yet the general maxim which I sought to establish has been Cross- 
 actually modified by the peculiar circumstances of this ^j^of 
 country, and it does not apply strictly to laymen. the Arch- 
 
 Is there not a spiritual censure for one ecclesiastic castaK 
 bringing another into a law court ? Yes. 
 
 Now does this spiritual censure apply equally to a lay- 
 man if he brings a cleric into a civil court for a thing done 
 in his ecclesiastical capacity ? 
 
 Witness : In an ecclesiastical matter ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : In an ecclesiastical matter ; that is, for 
 an act done in the exercise of his spiritual character. Does 
 a layman incur spiritual censure for bringing an ecclesiastic 
 into a lay court in a spiritual matter ? Yes. 
 
 In an ecclesiastical matter? Yes; well, I should say he 
 does. 
 
 Has that opinion always been entertained ? Yes. 
 
 Let me read for you the words of a Catholic bishop. He Bishop 
 was asked this question. (Counsel reads.) ' Suppose that a 
 Roman Catholic clergyman has excommunicated a layman, 
 and that thereby very serious civil consequences have ensued 
 to the layman; and suppose that layman, being a Catholic, 
 brings his action against his ecclesiastical superior to recover 
 satisfaction for the inj ury sustained ; does not such a case 
 directly fall within the case that is here put by the bull, and 
 made the subject-matter of excommunication ? ' 
 
 Answer : { No ; because on the principles that I have 
 already laid down those bulls are not to be attended to if they 
 interfere with the obligation which we owe to another. Now 
 it is a principle with us that the civil laws of every country 
 bind in conscience; according to the constitution of this 
 country every clergyman is certainly amenable for his con- 
 duct to the laws. If, then, the apparent meaning of any bull 
 should be to annul that obligation of obedience, it is not to 
 be attended to.' 
 
 Then the question is repeated : ' The question is whether 
 the plaintiff in such an action as is supposed, and an example 
 of which has actually taken place, has incurred any spiri- 
 tual censure upon the part of Rome ; he has the civil right of 
 bringing an action if he pleases, but the question is whether 
 in doing so he incurs the spiritual censure ? ' 
 
 Answer : ' No, he does not ; the bull refers to the ancient
 
 494 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina' 
 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 
 Cash el. 
 
 jurisprudence prevailing in Catholic countries throughout 
 Europe generally, and I think it is a common law of England. 
 The clergy were a privileged class ; they have their own tri- 
 bunals, and if any person should cite them before the lay 
 tribunals he was supposed to violate not only the obedience 
 he owed to the Pope but the civil jurisprudence of the 
 country. So far then from violating the obligation by which 
 we are bound to the civil laws, in my mind that bull would 
 confirm the authority of the legislature of any country.' 
 
 Again : f You will observe that so late as 1741 there is 
 a bull excommunicating all persons without exception or 
 without any limitation of time or place who bring Roman 
 Catholic ecclesiastics before lay tribunals. Can you explain 
 how it is that that does not apply to the case that is put ? ' 
 
 Answer : ( With regard to bulls of this sort, they are never 
 binding on us unless we receive and publish them. That 
 bull was probably never published in this country, and there- 
 fore we have nothing to do with its contents.' 
 
 1 Has not a Roman Catholic priest within a few days past 
 prosecuted another Roman Catholic priest before the quarter 
 sessions in the King's County, for the invasion of his civil 
 rights ? Yes, at Birr, without any excommunication.' 
 
 Then he is asked : ' Though no particular sentence of 
 excommunication has ensued upon that act, the question 
 remains whether this general excommunication which has 
 been read to you does not apply itself to that particular 
 case ? It does not in the sense of the bull. It does not on 
 the principles of Catholics.' 
 
 Then he is asked : ' Is this an exercise of spiritual or 
 temporal authority on the part of the Pope ? ' and he says, 
 * As far as spiritual authority extends it is a legitimate exer- 
 cise of it ; if it exceeds that, it is not.' 
 
 * Would you consider it an illegitimate exercise of his 
 legitimate authority as applied to Ireland ? I would, and all 
 the bishops of Ireland would.' 
 
 * Pray state for the sake of illustration any case to which 
 you conceive that excommunication would apply ? ' Answer : 
 ' In a country where clergy are still privileged as they were 
 formerly, where they ought to be tried by their own peers, 
 if any person were to cite before the tribunals of the 
 country in defiance of such law, he would incur the exconi-
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 495 
 
 munieation, provided the bull were previously published in Cross- 
 
 11 i > examina- 
 
 the country/ tion of 
 
 ' You observe there is not the least question that the plain- the Arch- 
 
 tiff has a civil right to bring such an action the only ques- 
 
 tion is, whether, in the exercise of that civil right, he thereby - 
 incurs any spiritual censure under the terms of this bull? ' 
 Answer : ' I have answered, not.' 
 
 I read from the examination of the Rev. Dr. M'Hale, of 
 the 4th November, 1826 ? 1 I dissent altogether from the 
 general tenor of that. 
 
 You disagree with it? I have my opinion, and I quite 
 dissent from several opinions stated there with respect to the 
 reception and promulgation of papal constitutions. I am 
 decided about the principles set out there. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Learned men differ. 
 
 Witness : I have the greatest respect for Dr. M'Hale, but 
 I am entitled to differ in opinion from him, and I do differ 
 in opinion from him. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Having read that to you, and told you 
 where I read it from, I ask your grace this question now : is 
 it not a matter of opinion, and one upon which different 
 opinions are entertained, the subject matter of that evidence? 
 No ; portions of it. Some principles contained in it, some 
 principles with respect to the reception and promulgation 
 and binding character of "bulls ; I would say that is not a 
 matter of opinion. 
 
 That it is not, or that it is, a matter of opinion ? That it As to pro- 
 
 r. . . T , n T ,-. mulgation 
 
 is not a matter 01 opinion. It seems, as iar as I can gather an d au tho- 
 from the passage you were reading, to assert a general prin- rit y of 
 ciple that no particular constitutions are binding in this bulls. 
 country unless they are received and promulgated here. I 
 dissent altogether from that. I don't believe that to be the 
 universal opinion. 
 
 Is it or is it not a matter of fact that a bull respecting 
 discipline is not recognised as binding unless it has been 
 promulgated in a country ? If the Pope, suppose, issues a 
 papal constitution to the bishops of this country, or to the 
 bishops of any other country, the bishops of the country are 
 free where he does issue such a papal constitution either not 
 
 1 See Appendix to Eighth Keport of the Commissioners of Irish Education In- 
 quiry, p. 290.
 
 496 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 to publish it at once or to put it in force at once ; they 
 are perfectly free to withhold it, to wait for a time, and not 
 to publish it or put it in force ; and they are free also to 
 refer to the Pope, to remonstrate with him respectfully if they 
 are of opinion that the peculiar circumstances of their coun- 
 try are such as that that papal constitution would not be 
 adapted to the country. They are perfectly free, then, not 
 all at once to publish and put it in force, but respectfully to 
 make this known to the Pope ; but if the Pope were then to 
 insist on the application of the constitution to their country, 
 there would be no alternative for them but to accept it and 
 put it in force ; and I say, with due respect to Dr. M'Hale, 
 and every other doctor, that no opinion but that is defensible. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : There is no evidence that Dr. M'Hale 
 ever said it. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgiblon : I ask again whether that opinion which I 
 have read here, as a matter of fact is right or wrong ? You 
 see there are half a dozen opinions there. If you give ine 
 some definite principle. 
 
 The definite principle that I put again is this, whether, 
 in the case of a bull of discipline, a bull of discipline requires 
 to be promulgated in a country: whether that is not the 
 opinion of men of eminence ? It has been maintained by 
 men of eminence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Have you looked at Van Espen ? l 
 I have looked at Van Espen, my lord. 
 
 Do you approve or disapprove, as a critic, of a chapter 
 to which my attention was drawn, De promulgatione legum ? 
 Oh, I totally dissent from that chapter, my lord. Yan Espen 
 is not only not an authority with us in the Catholic Church, 
 but he is one not to be altogether used, as having been a 
 Jansenist, especially in the promulgation of pontifical matters. 
 
 But he was professor in a Catholic college in Louvain ? 
 Yes, and a very able man. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgiblon : Is it not a fact that he was used as a class- 
 book in Maynooth ? Never, that I know. 
 
 Yan Espen ? Never, that I know. He may have been 
 referred to. He was oftentimes referred to by professors 
 and students. 
 
 As an authority? But generally referred to, and he 
 
 1 Van Espen's Jus Ecclesiasticum.
 
 Ccena Do- 
 mini. 
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 497 
 
 ought to be referred to as one that ought to be avoided as Cross- 
 far as his opinions were concerned. Jansen himself, I be- ^Tof 
 lieve, died an archbishop. the Arch- 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Was he an archbishop ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : He was. It is right to say that his book 
 was not published till after his death. Besides that, is it not 
 the fact also that the Jansenist controversy was mainly a 
 controversy of doctrine ? Yes. 
 
 And that therefore a man might be a very unsound theo- 
 logian and a very good archbishop all the time ? There is 
 no doubt he was a Jansenist. 
 
 What I ask is this, whether his Jansenist ideas would 
 not affect his theology far tnore than his Jansenist disposition 
 would affect his canonical erudition? His Jansenistical 
 opinions are interspersed through all his works. There are 
 several works of Van Espen besides his Jus Ecclesiasticum. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is that bull that you refer to, the 
 bull In Coena Domini ? No, it is not, my lord. Bull In 
 
 What is your opinion about that bull ? In your opinion, is 
 it or is it not I won't say promulgated but is it or is it not 
 in force in this country ? In this country ? 
 
 Yes. Well, I think that there are very strong arguments 
 to prove that it has been accepted and received partially in 
 some dioceses in Ireland, and put in force. I think that there 
 are very fair arguments to prove it. Some of the argu- 
 ments were adduced by his Eminence the Cardinal in the 
 course of his examination. 
 
 You think that there are fair arguments to show that it 
 has been partly enforced ? Partly at least enforced in Ire- 
 land. 
 
 And that there are fair arguments to show that it has 
 been received in Ireland ? It is a matter of dispute whether 
 it has been received in Ireland, but the ecclesiastical law in 
 its bearing on this case has been and is the ecclesiastical 
 law in Ireland. 
 
 What is your own opinion, which is just as worthy of 
 respect as that of any person I have seen in a court of jus- 
 tice for a long time what is your opinion as a theologian, 
 as a scholar, and as a bishop, on that subject. Is it in force 
 in Ireland ? In force ? 
 
 Is it? My individual opinion is not worth much, niy 
 
 K K
 
 498 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Must de- 
 crees be 
 promul- 
 
 order to be 
 enforced. 
 
 Bulls are 
 binding 
 without ac- 
 ceptance. 
 
 lord, and I thank you for the kind words you have spoken, 
 but I do not think my opinion is of any worth. My opinion 
 is that it is a matter of doubt. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Would your grace tell me whether it was 
 ever, according to your opinion, the practice of the Church, 
 that decrees of ^discipline should not bind in any country 
 until they were received and promulgated ? Do you ask, was 
 it a general principle ? 
 
 A generally recognised practice as matter of opinion ? 
 No, I don't think it ever was. I know that the practice in 
 the early ages of the Church, and the middle ages also, was 
 somewhat different from what it is now, different in some 
 respects on account of the different circumstances of the 
 times. There was not the same facile communication be- 
 tween country and country a few hundred years ago that 
 there is now, and in the early ages of the Church the inter- 
 course of the several Churches at conferences was much more 
 difficult than it is now. The Popes then in the early laws 
 or constitutions that would affect the whole Church did 
 sometimes act in a different manner from what they do now, 
 on account of the different circumstances of the times. The 
 manner in which they acted in the early ages of the Church 
 was on account of the difficulty of communication between 
 country and country ; one of the ways they promulgated the 
 law or constitution was to charge a particular bishop, put it 
 into his hands, and ask him to give it in such and such a 
 country to take it to his own country, and ask another bishop 
 to take it to his own country, and so on ; and at other times 
 they adopted other means of circulating through the whole 
 Church their constitutions and of having them promulgated. 
 So that the practice of the Church in different ages has been 
 different according to the circumstances of the times, but 
 not one of the Popes, from St. Peter to Pius IX., has ever 
 accepted the principle or ever recognised it that the accep- 
 tation of any of their laws or constitutions by each of the 
 other Churches would be necessary in order that these con- 
 stitutions should have binding force ; not one of them has 
 ever recognised the principle that their acceptation by the 
 bishops of any Church should be necessary in order to be 
 binding. 
 
 I will read to you now some of the examination of. Doctor
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 499 
 
 Slevin, and ask you whether you differ from his opinion that Cross- 
 this never was held by anyone. e tioTof " 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : There is no evidence whatever of the Arch- 
 what Slevin says. b S el f 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I am a little doubtful on that 
 
 point. This is all matter of history. If the Parliament of a 
 country direct these inquiries to take place, and itself con- 
 ducts the inquiry, and if learned and eminent men are 
 examined, I think it may be asked whether an opinion then 
 given is or is not correct. Is this gentleman alive ? 
 
 Witness : He is not, my lord. 
 
 You knew him, I suppose? I saw him when I was a 
 young man, when I was in the College of Maynooth. He 
 was then alive. I think about two or three years of the time 
 I was there. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : He was asked, ' Are you a professor of Dr. Sle- 
 canon law at Maynooth?' and replied, 'I am.' He was dence^' 
 asked, ' What is meant by the word decreta ? ' and answered, quoted as 
 'By "decreta" I understand principally all decrees issuing p apa i ce 
 from the Pope on matters of faith or morals, and addressed decrees. 
 to the Universal Church. In the canon law, decretum means 
 an ordinance emanating spontaneously from the Pope.' 
 Rescriptum, one issued on application. ' Do you include dis- 
 cipline in it ? ' Answer : ' I would include only those decrees 
 of discipline that are received by the Universal Church. 
 Bishops are not bound to receive all the decrees of discipline 
 that may be issued by Popes. The present practice of the 
 Church is that decrees of discipline do not bind in any par- 
 ticular country till they are received and promulgated there, 
 and therefore bishops do not bind themselves to receive in- 
 discriminately all decrees of discipline &c.' * 
 
 Having read that, I will ask you this question : Is it not 
 a matter as to which different opinions have been held in 
 your Church, whether decrees of discipline bind until they 
 are voluntarily received ?- If your lordship will permit me 
 I should like to make one or two observations before I 
 give a direct answer to that question. It seems to pre- 
 mise that there were some very distinguished and eminent 
 ecclesiastics in our Church in Ireland, and recently too, 
 
 1 See Appendix to Eighth Keport of the Commissioners of Irish Education 
 Inquiry, 1826; p. 211. 
 
 K K 2
 
 500 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 who studied in colleges and universities on the Continent, 
 and who adopted the principles put forward there by their 
 professors, and it is well known by anybody conversant with 
 our ecclesiastical history for the last two hundred years that 
 opinions were put forward by professors and other learned 
 men professing themselves Catholics, some of which are 
 utterly subversive of the authority of the Pope in disciplinary 
 matters, utterly subversive ; others of them, though they are 
 not utterly subversive of the Pope's authority in disciplinary 
 matters, derogate very much from his power ; others of them 
 are objectionable in many respects. Such opinions were put 
 forward, and with very great freedom, in several of the col- 
 leges and universities on the Continent during the last two 
 hundred years. Several of our distinguished Irish canonists 
 who made their studies in those foreign colleges and univer- 
 sities got those principles of the professors, brought them 
 with them here to Ireland, and it is the fact that some of 
 these highly distinguished ecclesiastics as they were did 
 come home to us here in Ireland, tainted, I will say, with 
 those bad principles. I call them bad as being some of them 
 utterly subversive of the Pope's authority in matters of dis- 
 cipline, and especially as to what relates to the acceptation 
 and promulgation of papal constitutions. I allude to these 
 in particular, and it is to these that I think you have had 
 recourse. But this I will add, that, whilst I believe these 
 learned men did err with respect to these questions of the 
 acceptation and promulgation of papal constitutions, I am 
 bound, in justice to them and to their memory, to add that 
 they were all of opinion that, if the Pope was to issue any 
 papal constitution and insist that it should be put in force in 
 this country, or in any other country if he was to insist that 
 the promulgation of it in Rome should suffice for the whole 
 Church, I am bound, in justice to those learned men much 
 as I would dissent from them in other things to say that 
 every one of them would at once submit to it. And if I pre- 
 sume to find fault with them and with their opinions, I must 
 say of some of them at least that they were like specks in the 
 sun they may slightly dim their character, they slightly dim 
 it, but they cannot dim the splendour either of their learning 
 or of their virtues, and in particular the very person you 
 have quoted from Dr. Slevin whom I remember, and for
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 501 
 
 whom I have a very high respect. I was entitled to have Cross- 
 respect for one in his position. With respect to the question "-^"f " 
 
 you asked, the promulgation the Arch- 
 
 Lord Chief Justice : Would you like to read that before eashei 
 you answer ? I think I have taken it in, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : What I ask you is whether, as a mat- As to pro- 
 ter of fact, and I will put it in your own words, * by men of 
 learning and virtue and distinction,' these opinions were not 
 entertained as regards the promulgation of the decrees of 
 the Pope in matters of discipline in this country ? They 
 were, by some learned and eminent men, but I should add 
 also, in order to make my answer complete, that those 
 learned men would every one of them admit, that if the 
 Pope insisted that the promulgation of any constitution of 
 his in Eome should bind the whole Church, every one of 
 those men would then admit that promulgation in Ireland, in 
 England, in France, or in any other country would not be 
 necessary in order to render such constitution binding. 
 
 That would be provided the decretum itself showed on 
 the face of it that it was intended to be published ? I 
 stated a while ago, what would be the duty of the bishops in 
 case such a question should arise. ' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Who appointed that very professor 
 in Mayiiooth ? Who appoints the professors in Maynooth ? 
 At the time that he was a professor in Maynooth, the pro- 
 fessors were appointed sometimes by concur sus and public 
 examination, and sometimes, where there was a distinguished 
 man, he was appointed by the Board of Maynooth, without 
 concursus. But, generally speaking, the mode of appoint- 
 ment of professors in Maynooth was by concursus and ex- 
 amination. 
 
 Could a man who held erroneous opinions get into the 
 College of Maynooth to teach? Was not he professor of 
 theology ? He was professor of canon law. 
 
 If you were one of the board then, you would not let 
 him in as professor to teach the youth a definite course of 
 doctrine that was all wrong? Well, my lord, if I were a 
 member of the board, and that those opinions were as clearly 
 avowed at the time he came seeking for the appointment of 
 professor if they were as clearly avowed then as afterwards, 
 if I were a member of the board, I would not appoint him.
 
 502 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland] . 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Bishops 
 cannot 
 refuse a 
 Papal 
 decree. 
 
 How many years was this eminent man professor of 
 canon law in Maynooth? He was there half-a-dozen years. 
 
 What became of him then? did he take another pro- 
 fessorship ? He died professor at Maynooth. I was going 
 to revert to something that I said a while ago, which is 
 partly an answer to that, how the bishop of any particular 
 country should act. 
 
 What is it ? With respect to the promulgation of papal 
 constitutions, I was wishing to state, with your lordship's 
 permission, how I am sure that the bishops of a country 
 should act, on the Pope issuing a new constitution. 
 
 That is, you being here, and the constitution issued in 
 Rome ? In Rome. 
 
 And the people of the country knowing nothing about 
 it ? I was going to state how I think the bishops should act. 
 
 Yes? The bishops of Ireland, suppose to make it a 
 particular case if they were of opinion that the constitution 
 in question was not suited to the peculiar circumstances of 
 this country, then they might wait for a while not at once 
 publish the papal constitution, but hold it over for a time, 
 and meanwhile apply to the Pope, and respectfully represent 
 to him, ' such and such a constitution of yours is not adapted 
 to the peculiar circumstances of this country.' Because it 
 may be that the legislature legislating for the whole Catholic 
 world may command a something that would not be adapted 
 to the circumstances of every country ; the bishops of those 
 countries then would be at liberty to represent respectfully 
 to the Holy Father that the constitution did not suit the cir- 
 cumstances of their country, and in all such cases he would 
 give an exemption ; that is what he would ordinarily do ; he 
 would give an exemption, or not apply the constitution to 
 that country at all. But if he insisted, if he said ' I have 
 received your representations, and I do not think them of 
 sufficient weight to exempt your country, I require you to 
 put this constitution in force,' they would have no alternative 
 but to accept it and put it in force. 
 
 In what language is it generally Latin or Italian? 
 Latin. 
 
 And when you publish it do you translate it ? We trans- 
 late it for the people. If there is anything in it that affects 
 the people generally, we translate ifc for them. The bishop
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cidlen. 
 
 503 
 
 publishes it to his clergy, and desires his clergy to publish it 
 in a similar way to the people, that it may come to their 
 knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Has this ever been held to be canonical 
 supposing a thing is made an offence by decree of the Pope? 
 What was not an offence before ? 
 
 What was not an offence before, or what was not an 
 offence in a particular place before ? Could a man be pun- 
 ished after the passing of a decree that made it an offence, 
 that offence having been committed previously? Well, if 
 you were to make a law retrospective in that way, it would 
 be unjust ; it would be against natural justice. 
 
 And therefore against natural law? To give a law ex 
 post facto ? 
 
 To punish a man afterwards for what had been committed 
 before the law came into force? I never would punish a 
 man in that way. 
 
 Let me refer you to a decree of the Synod of Thurles. Is 
 it not a fact that the sacraments are never to be denied to 
 anyone under the pretext that an offering that ought to be 
 given has not been given ? The passage ending the chapter 
 De Sacramentis, states that there are offerings which may be 
 given to the parish priest, and clause 12 says that * on the 
 occasion of baptism some offerings are usually made to the 
 parish priest from ancient and received custom. This 
 custom regarding the presentation to the parish priest 
 of dues appointed by the bishop we think ought to be 
 retained ; but lest by the avarice of any persons abuses 
 should be introduced in this manner, and lest the sacra- 
 ments, by all means necessary to salvation, should not be 
 conferred on anyone, no parish priest, or his vicar, is to 
 enter into any agreement as to the said gifts before the 
 administration of baptism. We forbid also, under pain of 
 suspension latce sententice, that any person should refuse to 
 baptize on pretence of the deficiency or absence of any offering.' 
 Is that the law of the Church in Ireland ? Certainly. 
 
 [Here the cross-examination was concluded.] 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. Carton : Mr. Fitzgibbon asked your 
 grace about the decrees of the Council of Trent. Is the 
 Sacred Congregation of Council the authoritative interpreter 
 of those decrees ? Is not there a declaration of Congregation 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Re-exami- 
 nation of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel.
 
 504 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Ee-cxami- 
 nation of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 As to au- 
 thority of 
 an invalid 
 sentence. 
 
 of Council of the 24th November, 1867 ? (Reads.) Are you 
 sure of that ? Yes, I am quite sure of that. 
 
 Has not that interpretation given by the Congregation 
 always been acted on by the Church 9- --There are some 
 doubts about the introduction of it at first, but no doubt 
 remains in a very short time, as soon as cases occurred 
 requiring the application of it. All doubt was removed by 
 the authority of the Congregation of Council. 
 
 If a priest is suspended by suspension ex informata con- 
 scientia, is he justified, according to canon law, in disregard- 
 ing that suspension, even if the suspension be invalid? 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : I do not think that arises. 
 Mr. Carton : You spoke half an hour about it. 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : And I got the opinion which is down on 
 the notes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I would be most happy to hear 
 the evidence, Mr. Carton, if it was not for the consideration 
 of the prolongation of the trial. What is the new matter 
 that you desire to call up ? 
 
 Mr. Carton : Mr. Fitzgibbon spent at least half an hour 
 examining his grace as to whether this suspension was not 
 invalid, because it was not ob occultum crimen. What I wish 
 to ask is, supposing the suspension be invalid, whether a 
 priest is justified in disregarding it ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I think that a fair question. 
 Witness : If it is manifestly invalid, he is justified in dis- 
 regarding it if it is manifestly invalid; but, if it is not 
 manifestly so, he is bound to observe it, and will be held to 
 it in foro externo. He ought to submit to it unless it is so 
 evident as to admit of no doubt. He is bound, even though 
 he is innocent, to conform to it. 
 
 Mr. Carton : You have read the suspension ex informata 
 conscientia ? * Yes. 
 
 Is there anything on the face of it to show that it is 
 manifestly invalid. 
 
 Witness : He is bound either to conform to it or to 
 appeal,.! said. 
 
 Doctor Leahy, what do you mean by saying ' if a suspen- 
 sion ex informata conscientia is on the face of it manifestly 
 invalid ? ' What would constitute invalidity ? 
 
 1 Supra, p. 158.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 505 
 
 Mr. Purcell : My lord, lie did not say that. Ee-exami- 
 
 Mr. Carton : Am I right in saying that your grace has 
 
 stated that if on the face of it there was what might be bishop of 
 considered a defect in a suspension ex informata conscientia, . _ ' 
 it was manifestly invalid. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The words were 'if manifestly 
 unjust.' 
 
 Mr. Purcell : If a sentence inflicted on a cleric be mani- 
 festly unjust. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : This day he said ' if manifestly invalid.' 
 
 Mr. Carton: Is a priest who receives a suspension ex 
 informata conscientia justified in disregarding it, even 
 although the sentence be invalid ? He is not justified. Am 
 I at liberty to give the answer ? 
 
 Yes. Will you repeat the question ? 
 
 Is a priest who receives a suspension ex informata con- 
 scientia justified in disregarding it, even though the sentence 
 be invalid ? He is not justified in disregarding it unless its 
 invalidity, its nullity, be so manifest as that nobody in 
 his senses or reason could doubt it. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon read you an extract from Benedict 
 XIV. to show that a suspension ex informata conscientia 
 was not to be relied on. Now in a proceeding in canon 
 law, must not witnesses be sworn? Yes, that is one 
 of the formalities, and it is because witnesses cannot be 
 sworn in such a proceeding in this country, that an ordinary 
 judicial proceeding is impossible. 
 
 The swearing of witnesses being illegal in this country, 
 would it, in your opinion, come under the decretal of Bene- 
 dict XIV. ? No, I do not think it would. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You are opening up a new sub- 
 ject. Now where is it laid down that by canon law you can 
 proceed without swearing witnesses ? for if it be a rule of 
 canon law that you must proceed by hearing witnesses, then 
 if you cannot do that, you cannot attempt it. Is it a rule of 
 canon law that you ought to proceed in a judicial way by 
 hearing witnesses sworn to give their evidence? In the 
 ordinary judicial proceedings it is necessary, my lord ; it is 
 one of the formalities prescribed. 
 
 Mr. Carton : Proceeding judicialiter ? Judicialiter ; in the 
 ordinary proceedings, but not in the extraordinary.
 
 506 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 He-exami- 
 nation of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Extra- 
 judicial 
 modes of 
 procedure. 
 
 In a country where oaths cannot be administered, so that 
 a judicial proceeding cannot be adopted, how does the 
 decretal of Benedict XIV. apply? I do not think the 
 decretum of Benedict XIV. would condemn the proceeding ex 
 informata conscientia as an irregular proceeding. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is that you say ? Mr. 
 Carton asked me, my lord, my opinion considering the 
 peculiar circumstances of this country, and the impossibility 
 of opening the ordinary proceedings, one of the formalities 
 of which is the administering of an oath as to the 
 applicability of the proceeding by suspension ex informata 
 conscientiain cases not mentioned by Benedict XIV., and I give 
 it as my opinion that even the exceptional circumstances of 
 this country, and the impossibility of observing the exact 
 form of procedure, even that would not justify the application 
 of a procedure ex informata conscientia as a general rule, or as a 
 general mode of procedure. The application of the procedure 
 ex informata conscientia, in this country, and in the exceptional 
 circumstances, should be the exception and not the rule. 
 
 Mr. Carton : Am I right in saying that a proceeding ex 
 informata conscientia is not the only form of procedure extra- 
 judicial which is known to the canon law? There are 
 other modes of extra-judicial proceeding. There is one 
 where the judge proceeds ex notorio, and another where he 
 proceeds summarily. 
 
 Has the bull Apostoliccs Sedis, or the bull In Ccena Domini 
 anything to do with the answers which you have been giving 
 here yesterday and to-day as to the suspension ? Whatever 
 I said then, 1 hold by. But as to the question of suspension, 
 what I said and what I now repeat was, that the suspensions 
 in question were all good and valid, and can be defended as 
 such ; their justice and their validity can be defended irre- 
 spective altogether of the bull In Ccena Domini and the con- 
 stitution Apostolicw Sedis. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I remember your saying that to me. 
 1 asked the question, and I recollect the answer, that it was 
 by the common law of the canon law that it was to be de- 
 fended. Just so, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Carton : I ask your grace if you know of any book in 
 which this common law of the canon law is treated, and where 
 it is to be found ? The common law of the canon law is to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen* 507 
 
 be found in what is called the corpus juris canonici, which Re exami 
 contains the Decretum Gratiani, the Decretals of Gregory IX. in ttaArch- 
 the five books, also in the Sextum Decretalium of Boniface. bishop of 
 
 Cashel. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is not G-ratian denounced as in- ' 
 
 accurate ? Correctly speaking, he is inaccurate in many re- 
 spects. But the Decretum Gratiani has no special force what- 
 ever ; that is, any decretum found in it has no special value 
 whatever because it is found there ; it has no value there 
 that it has not outside the Decretum Gratiani. Its being in 
 the Decretum Gratiani gives it no special value, but it is not 
 so with the Decretals. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Do you maintain that what you 
 call the common law of the canon law applies to this 
 country ? Yes, my lord. 
 
 Is there any book in which the common law of the canon 
 law is treated of, and can be found ? No, my lord, not that 
 I know, but I was proceeding to mention to your lordship 
 what the constitution of the common law of the canon law 
 was. I was proceeding to mention the whole collection 
 whence it is to be drawn : the Decretum Gratiani, the Decre- 
 tals of Gregory IX., the Sextum Decretalium of Boniface, the 
 Clementine Constitutions, and the Extravagantes of John 
 XXII., the Extravagantes Communes, and then you are to 
 add to these, all the authentic papal constitutions that have 
 been issued since this collection was made, the whole 
 of the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent, and 
 the Bullarium of Benedict XIV. because it has the same 
 value as any of the canon laws and there is the proceeding 
 of the Council the other day. That is the whole of the Common 
 common law of the canon law of the Catholic Church. 
 
 CallOll iil \V . 
 
 But there is no distinct title, or any book giving them? 
 There is no distinct book with which I am acquainted, en- 
 dtled the common law of the canon law of the Catholic 
 Church. 
 
 If there be a common law of the canon law which would 
 be understood in all those countries where the Catholic re- 
 ligion exists, what need of the bull In Cosna Domini, or 
 the bull ApostoliccB Sedis, specifically pointing to the bringing 
 of actions by one ecclesiastic against another, or the other 
 cases that you explained yesterday, when you already had a 
 large collection of common law of the canon law which per-
 
 508 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Ke-exami- 
 natioii of 
 the Arch- 
 bishop of 
 Cashel. 
 
 Object of 
 
 Apostolic<B 
 
 Sedis. 
 
 vaded the wliole world? I will explain to your lordship. 
 There was necessity, Not only was it useful, but it was 
 necessary to compile that constitution Apostolicce Sedis 
 which was issued the other day, because the object of it was 
 to collect together in a small compass the various censures 
 that were scattered up and down through the large body of 
 law I have referred to just now. The object of this Gonstitutio 
 Apostolicce Sedis, that was issued the other day, was to ex- 
 plain them all in a small space before one's eyes, so as to see 
 all the censures incurred in the Catholic Church, and to see 
 those reserved to the Pope, those reserved to the bishop, and 
 those that were not reserved to anybody. It is most useful 
 to the bishop or clergy charged with the duty of administer- 
 ing the sacraments. That was the object of putting to- 
 gether this Constitutio Apostolicce Sedis, the other day, because 
 I confess that if I had not such a document before me, I 
 would find it extremely difficult myself although I have a 
 little experience in those things to make out a clear and 
 collected view of the censures that are in force in the- 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 But then, if you were prosecuting a priest, and that all 
 the bulls you have mentioned fell away from you, what then 
 would you present against him on the question of suing 
 another ecclesiastic in a civil court for a temporal matter. 
 What would you lay your finger on ? As I understand your 
 lordship, the hypothesis you make is, that in case the whole 
 body of the canon law aliunde were to disappear, what should 
 I lay my finger on ? I would lay my finger on the Constitutio 
 Apostolicce Sedis, if I had nothing else. 
 
 I quite understand that. But is not that then in the body 
 of the common law of the canon law that you have referred to ? 
 I could proceed on another ground in this case, my lord. J 
 could proceed on the recognized traditions and practice of the 
 Catholic Church, known historically ; putting out of view 
 these several canons of the Council, and the decrees of the 
 Popes putting them out of view altogether as ecclesiastical 
 authorities, and viewing them singly as so much history 
 they certify me of the discipline and practice and laws of 
 the Catholic Church from the very beginning, and on the 
 ground of such discipline and practice of the Catholic Church 
 I could take my stand, and I could visit a case with punishment.
 
 R&v. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 509 
 
 Is there any principle of canon law on which you would Ke-exami- 
 be justified in bringing in the canon law in opposition and t h e Arch- 
 in contradiction of the laws of any country where these bishop of 
 
 were quite clearly expressed ? As I understand your lord- ' 
 
 ship's question, it is this, whether I should be justified 
 whether in case of a conflict between the civil law and the 
 canon law, I or any other ecclesiastic would be justified in 
 applying the constitution of the Catholic Church ? 
 
 That is it, and it came into my head from a passage in 
 the evidence of Archbishop M'Hale, who said that the 
 reason the bull In Ccena Domini was not in force was that it 
 would bring the people of this country into conflict with 
 the authorities of this state. 1 I should be as desirous 
 as anybody in the world, as far as I could, to secure harmony 
 between the ecclesiastical law of my own Church and the 
 civil law of the country ; but there are cases, unfortunately, 
 where the two codes of law have been so adverse to one 
 another in time past, that it would be impossible but that 
 such cases of conflict should exist ; and I think your lordship 
 will see the perfect reasonableness of my assertion when I 
 say that a Church such as the Catholic Church, spread over 
 the whole world, and having to consult for the interests, not 
 alone of the people of this country, but those of Spain, 
 France, and the whole Catholic world that a Church like 
 that could not be brought into perfect harmony with the 
 civil laws of the country, and still less that its laws may be 
 modified, and some of them annulled, or not put in force at 
 all, in order to establish that perfect harmony between the 
 two systems. It would be impossible that the polity of the 
 Catholic Church, applicable to the whole of the Catholic 
 world, should be made to bend so far to the circumstances of 
 this country as to establish that perfect harmony. That is 
 not possible, and therefore cases have arisen, and cases will 
 arise, unhappily, of conflict between the ecclesiastical laws 
 of the Catholic Church and the civil laws of the country, 
 and in such a conflict we must only manage as well as we 
 can. 
 
 1 See Appendix to the Eighth Report of the Commissioners of Irish Education 
 Inquiry, 1826 ; p. 291.
 
 510 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Bishop of 
 Gal way. 
 
 Acts of 
 Propa- 
 ganda are 
 acts of 
 Pope. 
 
 The Most Eev. JOHN M'EviLLT, Eoman Catholic Bishop 
 of Galway, examined by MR. NAISH. 
 
 Dr. M'Evilly, you are Bishop of Galway? Yes. 
 
 How long have you been so? I have been Bishop of 
 Galway for more than sixteen years. I was sixteen years 
 bishop of Galway on the 21st of last March. 
 
 Have you made canon law the subject of your study? Yes. 
 
 Are you conversant with its practice and its principles ? 
 Yes. 
 
 You have read, I suppose, a copy of the ordinance or 
 decree 1 that has been produced here ? Yes. 
 
 Now, according to the laws, ordinances, and discipline of 
 the Catholic Church, was there power in the Pope to issue 
 that ordinance or decree? According to the ordinances of 
 the Catholic Church it was competent for the Pope to issue 
 that decree in virtue of the full power which faith tells us 
 as defined at the Council of Florence he received from the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, of feeding and governing all the Universal 
 Church. 
 
 Was the act of the Propaganda in issuing that decree an 
 act of the Pope ? The act of the Propaganda in issuing that 
 decree was specially an act of the Pope, the Pope's own 
 special authorisation having been given to it ; but irrespec- 
 tive of that, the acts of the Propaganda, when properly 
 authenticated with the signature and the seal of the Secretary 
 and the seal of the Prefect of the Propaganda, have been 
 declared by several Pontiffs to be acts of the Pope ; but in this 
 case even the Pope's own special authorisation is recorded. 
 
 Did Cardinal Cullen, under that decree, assume such 
 power of trying matters delegated to him as the Pope him- 
 self has? Certainly. 
 
 Did he acquire under it full power and authority to 
 inquire into and investigate the proceedings and conduct of 
 the plaintiff? To inquire into and decide on the conduct of 
 the plaintiff in reference to priest O'Keeffe negotium presby- 
 teri O y Keeffe, and as to the Callan scandal in general. 
 
 Did he acquire power to pronounce upon him such sen- 
 tence as he should consider right? Certainly. 
 
 And power to suspend him ab ordine, db officio, et a 
 1 Supra, p. 345.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 511 
 
 beneficio ? Certainly that includes power to suspend him ; Examiim- 
 and after being suspended a beneficio, he still might retain 
 the title, but it has the power to deprive him of even the 
 title. 
 
 You have been in court since the commencement of the 
 trial? Yes. 
 
 And you have heard the Cardinal's evidence ? Yes. 
 
 And you have heard him describe the interview he had 
 in Rome with the secretary of the Cardinal of the Propa- 
 ganda ? Yes. 
 
 Was there anything in that which disqualified the Car- 
 dinal from acting as judge in this matter? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I object to that question in that general 
 form. 
 
 Mr. Naish : The question I wish to put is, was there any- 
 thing in that interview that would disqualify the Cardinal 
 from acting as judge in this case ? 
 
 Witness : As far as I can see, no. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If you yourself, Bishop, happened 
 to be in Rome, and then brought forward a case against one of 
 your priests ; if you stated the whole case, what evidence you 
 had, and so on, could you afterwards be the judge to try the 
 same case ? is that according to canon law ? Your lordship 
 means if I myself became an accuser in the case. Well, if you 
 mean supposing that I myself became an accuser in the case 
 of this clergyman in question, and was endeavouring to estab- 
 lish by my own authority his guilt at Rome, and that Rome 
 afterwards deputed me to take cognizance of the case I 
 hardly think even then that that would disqualify me from 
 taking cognizance of the case. I hold the opinion that if 
 one becomes what is called a relator that is to say, states 
 in answer to a question put what the real state of the case is, 
 it is no ground of disqualification. 
 
 Mr. Naish : Now I ask you, had the Cardinal, as Metro- Metropoli- 
 politan of the province of Leinster, any power to send a cita- tan bishops 
 tion to the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe ? The Metropolitans of this power ox- 
 country have no power unless they are appealed to. In case ce P fc ^ h ^ n 
 of appeal the Metropolitan has a recognized right, provided to. 
 that the appeal be in consonance with the canons ; but the 
 Cardinal Archbishop, not having been appealed to, as far as
 
 512 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Bishop of 
 Gal way. 
 
 The Cardi- 
 nal, as me- 
 tropolitan, 
 had no 
 power to 
 hold an 
 inquiry. 
 
 Might ob- 
 tain juris- 
 diction in 
 two ways. 
 
 Meaning 
 of suspen- 
 sion ab 
 f/omine, a 
 lege, a ca- 
 none. 
 
 I can see, had no authority whatever to interfere as Metro- 
 politan. 
 
 Assuming that there was an appeal, had he, as Metro- 
 politan, any power to inquire whether the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe 
 had incurred suspension or excommunication, or to say what 
 penalties should be inflicted upon him ? I don't think the 
 Archbishop of Dublin, as such, had any power more than 
 any other bishop in Ireland. 
 
 According to canon law, in what other way could he 
 acquire power to send him a citation, and hold an inquiry 
 and examination such as is spoken of in this letter of the 
 21st October, 1871 ? * There might be two ways. It might be 
 done by consent. The Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe might consent to have 
 the Cardinal exercise jurisdiction over him, and then in that 
 case by consent he might have exercised jurisdiction. But 
 the way in which it would be done would be by obtaining juris- 
 diction from the Holy See, according to which alone it can 
 corne from without outside the consent of the parties. 
 
 Would you explain what is meant in canon law by sus- 
 pension ab homine, et a lege, et a canone ? By suspension a 
 lege is meant a suspension that the law itself involves by its 
 very violation, either ipso facto or ferendcs sententice. By 
 suspension ab homine is meant a mandate from a judge 
 to do a certain thing or to avoid a certain thing, under 
 pain of suspension, either incurred by omission or viola- 
 tion. But suspension a canone refers to one matter, viz., 
 a suspension having reference to the maltreatment of a 
 cleric which is enacted in the Council of Lateran, the striking 
 of a priest or maltreating him. 
 
 Does a statement that he will inquire whether he has 
 incurred suspension ab homine imply exercise of judicial 
 power? Certainly, certainly; because it has reference to 
 the investigation as a judicial act. 
 
 Having read that letter, 2 was it, according to canon law, 
 sufficient notification to the plaintiff that the Cardinal was 
 entrusted with power from the Pope to inquire into his 
 conduct ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I object, my lord, to the question. 
 
 Mr. Naish : The question I put is, whether it was suffi- 
 cient intimation according to canon law to the plaintiff 
 1 Supra, p. 183. * Ibid.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 513 
 
 that the Cardinal was invested with special power from the Examiua- 
 Pope to inquire into his conduct and give judgment. 'Bishop ' 
 
 Mr. Pur cell : I object. The letter speaks for itself. 1 (Ques- 
 
 tion disallowed). 
 
 Mr. Naish : According to canon law, if the Cardinal Cardinal 
 asserts that he is vested with authority to hold an in- ^rhehas 
 quiry or a trial in a case of an ecclesiastic, is the ecclesias- power is 
 tic bound to believe him? It is the privilege, the clear i ev e ( i 
 privilege, of the Cardinal, according to canon law, that when 
 he asserts such a power he is to be believed. 
 
 TheLord Chief Justice : What is that, bishop ? It is a privi- 
 lege clearly recognized in canon law that the Cardinal, when 
 he asserts he has to interfere in such a case, is to be believed. 
 
 Mr. Naish : Is there any canon law in principle calling on 
 him to produce the authority under which he acts ? No. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then, bishop, suppose the Cardinal 
 went down to Gaiway, must he not state his delegated 
 authority to the defendant? Well, if the Cardinal went 
 down to Gaiway and said, ' I am come here to hold an inves- 
 tigation into a case ; I have authority,' by all means he 
 should hold it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That seems quite right, to show 
 proper respect to the Cardinal ; but what would you say to the 
 accused man ? Must not the Cardinal say something to the 
 man accused, about his authority? I would presume, my 
 lord, that he would state to the accused man, 'You are 
 accused of such and such a crime, and I am come to investi- 
 gate it.' 
 
 Mr. Naish : Is there in canon law a legally-established Judicial 
 distinction between judicial and extra-judicial proceedings? ^didal" 
 Yes, they are both canonical. The extra-judicial is just as proceed- 
 much in conformity with canon law as the judicial. 
 
 And in proceedings that are constituted according to the in judicial 
 judicial form, is it not necessary that witnesses must be P rocee 4' 
 examined on their oath? Yes, that is the first thing that nesses 
 should be done. must be 
 
 sworn. 
 
 In the judicial form ? Yes, in the regular judicial form. 
 
 If a priest is accused, appears, and admits the offence 
 with which he is charged, does that warrant the judge in 
 passing judgment and sentence ? There are some occasions 
 
 1 Supra, p. 183. 
 L L
 
 514 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland]. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Bishop of 
 Galway. 
 
 A priest 
 suing a 
 bishop for 
 slander 
 guilty of 
 uii oflbnce 
 
 Ijy com- 
 mon law 
 of the 
 Church. 
 
 from which he can never be absolved, such as blasphemy and 
 crimes like that. 
 
 If the accused appears and admits certain facts, is the 
 judge warranted, according to canon law, in proceeding to 
 pass judgment ? Certainly. 
 
 Would your lordship tell us whether, according to canon 
 law, it is an offence for a parish priest to bring an action of 
 slander in a lay court against his bishop for words spoken of 
 him as parish priest ? It is a very grievous offence against 
 the canon law of the Church, and also against certain consti- 
 tutions. 
 
 I understand, then, that your answer to the question is 
 quite irrespective of the force in Ireland of the bull In Ccena 
 Domini and of the new constitution ? Altogether apart from 
 their publication and their binding force in this country. 
 
 If these constitutions had never been promulgated by the 
 Pope, would it still be an offence against the canon law to 
 bring such an action? My answer is 'just the same.' 
 
 Is that a rule of canon law in force in the Church here ? 
 It is in force in every part of the Church. It is a common 
 law of the Church. 
 
 Was the bringing of an action by a parish priest against 
 his curate, for words spoken by the curate of him. as parish 
 priest, against the recognized canon law? A grievous 
 offence per se. 
 
 Would the bringing of such an action have warranted 
 the Cardinal in suspending the defendant, according to canon 
 law? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If such a thing was possible I 
 don't say it is, but if a bishop in a passion knocked down a 
 parish priest ; what do you say to that case ? Has he any 
 remedy by any tribunal existing in this country? He has a 
 remedy by a tribunal ; he can appeal to the archbishop of 
 his diocese, he can appeal to the archbishop who has juris- 
 diction in that case if appealed to in this country. 
 
 Was the continuing of Father O'Keeffe to exercise the 
 functions of his office by saying mass and hearing confession 
 after the suspension, such as to incur an irregularity? 
 When you speak of functions of his office, I presume you to 
 speak of the exercise of his order. 
 
 Yes, the exercise of his order? If he exercised his order
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 515 
 
 by saying mass or hearing confessions he would have in- Examiim- 
 curred irregularity after being suspended. ^shopof 
 
 Was his continuing to do so sufficient to justify the G-alway. 
 Cardinal in pronouncing sentence of suspension? Every 
 time he continued to do so he incurred a fresh irregularity, 
 and of course the continuance to commit the crime war- 
 ranted the Cardinal in pronouncing suspension, and more 
 than that, it warranted him to visit him with deprivation. 
 
 Have you heard the suspension ex informata conscientia 
 pronounced by the bishop against Father O'Keeffe read ? 
 (Counsel reads it.) 1 I ask you, as a question of canon law, is 
 that sentence of suspension a legal and valid one ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I object, my lord. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You may ask him about the prin- 
 ciple of canon law. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : It is a curious thing that the 
 question was answered by other witnesses except as to the 
 word ' beneficio.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Have you ever seen a case of this 
 kind before P I have myself, my lord, inflicted the same. I 
 will state to your lordship what it is. According to the law 
 of the Church before the Council of Trent, no bishop was 
 warranted in excluding a subject from advancement to holy 
 orders, however unworthy, or in suspending a priest from the 
 orders with which he was already invested, no matter how un- 
 worthy, without a regular judicial process in consonance with 
 the law of the decrees ; the result of this had been that the 
 bishops witnessed the advancement to orders of unworthy 
 subjects, and they also saw unworthy clerics dishonour the 
 sanctuary and ruin souls instead of saving them, because, 
 even though some crimes were public, they could not be 
 proved judicially ; and therefore they saw evils existing with- 
 out a remedy. In order to remove this evil the Council of 
 Trent for the first time, in the first chapter of the 14th 
 session, gave bishops power to prevent clerics from ascending 
 to higher orders, and in the second clause of that decree 
 they also gave them power to suspend from their order, 
 office, and dignity, priests already in orders for the same 
 cause ; there are several decrees of the Sacred Congregation 
 of the Council that were appointed by the Council of Trent 
 
 1 Supra, p. 158. 
 
 T, i, 2
 
 516 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Bishop of 
 Gal way. 
 
 Suspension 
 ex infor- 
 maia con- 
 scientia 
 partly in- 
 valid. 
 
 This sus- 
 pension 
 applies to 
 both secu- 
 lar and 
 regular 
 clergy. 
 
 to interpret the decrees, declaring that the clause applied to 
 the second as well as the first class, and applied to clerics 
 suspending men from orders as well as preventing men 
 from ascending to higher orders. Moreover, Benedict XIV., 
 vho was the highest authority of the Catholic Church 
 besides being a Pope declares that to be the case, and he 
 brings forward decrees from the Sacred Congregation in 
 support of his opinion. A bishop in passing this sentence 
 does not state the cause ; he may inflict it etiam ob occultum 
 crimen ; that * etiam ' would show that he can inflict it for 
 crimes that are not occult ; where it is impossible to in- 
 stitute a proper legal proceeding, but where the crime is 
 brought home to the delinquent, so that in my opinion it 
 is more or less a mistake to say that it is confined to 
 occult crime ; even public crimes, that cannot be proved, fall 
 within it. 
 
 Mr. Naish : I ask you, according to canon law, is that 
 sentence on the face of it a valid one? Yes, it is valid 
 so far as l order ' and ' office ' is concerned, but it is invalid so 
 far as suspension a beneficio was concerned. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : And is that well known? Does 
 every priest know that it is void to have a suspension a bene- 
 ficio included? Oh yes, my lord; there is not a writer in 
 the Catholic Church Worthy of being attended to that does 
 not hold that suspension ex informata conscientia binds the 
 subject concerned until it is reversed, and that its violation 
 entails irregularity. 
 
 That is not what I asked. I asked, would any priest 
 know as well as yourself that if he was suspended ( a beneficio ' 
 it was invalid ? He would know if I suspended ' a beneficio ' 
 only that it was invalid, but if { ab ordine ' was included he 
 would know it was valid for this much. 
 
 Void in part and good in part? Yes, my lord, the effects 
 are altogether separable and distinct. 
 
 Mr. Naish : It was stated by the plaintiff that this form 
 of suspension ex informata conscientia only applied to the 
 regular clergy? Oh, there is not a writer in the Church 
 that does not hold the contrary. 
 
 Does it apply to parish priests? It applies to parish 
 priests as well as to the regular clergy. 
 
 Would it be correct to say that according to the canon
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Ctdlen. 517 
 
 law of the Church, the power of suspension ex informata Examina- 
 conscientia applied only to the regular clergy ? Perfectly Bishop of 
 incorrect. Galway. 
 
 Does it apply to the secular clergy and to the parish 
 priests ? It does. 
 
 Was the employment by the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe of a friar 
 living out of his convent without permission of the bishop, 
 after being prohibited by the vicar-general to do so, against 
 canon law ? A very great offence. 
 
 Your lordship has heard what has been called the ' broad- 
 sheet ' * read, and you have heard the denunciation contained 
 in it against the bishop ? I did. 
 
 You have heard it stated that he had abused the sacred 
 tribunal of penance, and that he had rendered it so odious 
 that many sinners would prefer to die in their sins rather 
 than confess to him ? Yes. 
 
 You have heard it read that the plaintiff charged him 
 with trafficking in the sacraments ? -Yes. 
 
 Was the reading by the plaintiff of that broadsheet from 
 the altar an offence sufficient to warrant the Cardinal in 
 suspending him ? Most unquestionably. 
 
 As a matter of fact, was the requiring of a fee for the 
 dispensation of publication of banns of marriage trafficking 
 in the sacraments ? Not at all ; it is a thing that is done 
 every day in this country in every part of the Church that I 
 know ; a,t least it is done with us. 
 
 You have heard the sentence of suspension 2 that was pro- 
 nounced by Cardinal Cullen ? Yes. 
 
 Was that, according to canon law, a legal sentence ? Yes. 
 
 Was it conformable to the laws, ordinances, and disci- 
 pline of the Church? Yes. 
 
 Did it remain in force until reversed or annulled by due 
 ecclesiastical authority ? Certainly. 
 
 Was it the duty of the Cardinal to have published that 
 sentence ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : I object to that question in that shape. 
 
 Mr. Naish : According to canon law, was it the duty of 
 
 the Cardinal, acting under authority, to have published that 
 
 sentence after he had pronounced it ? It was the duty of 
 
 the Cardinal^ and it would be, it seems to me, dishonourable 
 
 1 See Appendix, No. I. p. 577. z Supra, p. 199.
 
 518 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Bishop of 
 Galway. 
 
 Effect of 
 sentence 
 of suspen- 
 sion. 
 
 of him to avoid it, and to incur all that would follow if he 
 did not publish it. 
 
 Was it the interest of the parishioners of Callan that it 
 should be published ? Certainly. 
 
 Was the posting of that judgment and sentence on the 
 pillar of the Augustinian church in the town of Callan, 
 according to canon law, a sufficient denunciation of the sen- 
 tence ? It was. 
 
 You have heard the interdict * read ? I read it. 
 
 Was the continuing of the plaintiff, after the pronounce- 
 ment of that sentence of suspension, to say mass and hear con- 
 fession, irregularity according to canon law ? Yes ; every 
 time he celebrated mass or exercised solemnly an act of 
 orders, he incurred irregularity. 
 
 Were confessions heard by the plaintiff after the pro- 
 nouncement of that sentence of suspension heard without 
 jurisdiction ? After the denunciation they were : before 
 that, the jurisdiction was not taken away by the suspension, 
 but it was by the denunciation of the suspension. 
 
 Had the defendant, acting under the decrees, and accord- 
 ing to the law of the Church, power to publish that inter- 
 dict ? Most undoubtedly. 
 
 Was it his duty to do so ? The same duty devolved on 
 him to publish as to pronounce the sentence. Because if 
 he did not do so he would, with respect, altogether have for- 
 gotten his duty, and would have compromised himself before 
 the face of the Church. 
 
 Was it the interest of the parishioners of Callan ? Cer- 
 tainly, because they were interested that the ministrations of 
 their pastor should not be sacrilegious ; should bring a 
 blessing instead of a curse. 
 
 According to the rules of the Church in Ireland, has the 
 bishop a veto on the introduction of a community of nuns ? 
 He has. 
 
 Your lordship has heard Van Espen mentioned in this 
 trial. Is Van Espen received as an authority of the Church 
 on matters of canon law ? Well, I remember the Rev. Mr. 
 O'Keeffe and myself entered the Dunboyne establishment 
 together. 
 
 The, Lord Chief Justice : Is it the Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe, the 
 
 1 Supra, p. 208.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 519 
 
 plaintiff here? Yes, my lord, the plaintiff and I entered the 
 Dunboyne establishment together, I think in September in 
 the year 1839. He remained there, I think, for half a year, 
 and I remained three years. I remember distinctly that 
 among the books against which we were cautioned by the 
 professor (the late Bishop of Clogher) was Van Espen. It 
 was in the library, but seldom or ever used. 
 
 It is only just to the bishop to mention the way in which 
 Butler, a distinguished lawyer, speaks of Van Espen's Jus 
 Ecclesiasticum, and I believe it is only truth. ' A work, 
 which for depth, extent of research, clearness of method, 
 and perspicuity of style, equals any work of jurisprudence 
 which has issued from the press, but which in some instances, 
 where the author's dreary Jansenism prevails, must be read 
 with disgust.' l I infer, therefore, that Butler is not such a 
 bad Catholic, for in that respect he agrees with the bishop, 
 that some things were just and good, and others not to be 
 read. 
 
 Witness: Yes, my lord, but we were cautioned against it. 
 It is an admirable book, and well written, but there are very 
 erroneous things in it, and some most excellent things. 
 
 But the jurisprudence matter is good? Yes, in some 
 points the book may be bad, and others received. 
 
 Mr. Naish : In fact the Institutes of Calvin are to be 
 found in the library of Maynooth as well as Van Espen ? 
 They are ; there are a great many very objectionable books 
 to be found there. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell : I suppose theology would 
 be in a very bad way unless these were there ? Unless we 
 had these errors to refer to we could not refute them. 
 
 Before I proceed to the points of your evidence, there is 
 a general question I wish to ask you to clear up what I 
 think is a misapprehension. The word ' common law ' of 
 the Church has been used on several occasions in questions 
 put to witnesses here. Is there a common law apart from, 
 the written law of the Church, or is it to be found only in 
 the written law of the Church ? Yes. 
 
 In the canons, the written law of the Church, which is 
 found in books ? In books ; yes. 
 
 1 See Horce Juridica Subsecivce, by C. Butler, p. 184. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Bishop of 
 Galway. 
 
 Cross-ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Bishop of 
 Galway. 
 
 As to com- 
 mon law 
 of the 
 Church.
 
 520 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross-ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 
 Bishop of 
 
 Galway. 
 
 Bull 
 
 Unam 
 
 Sanctum. 
 
 Bulls not 
 ex cathe- 
 dra. 
 
 Is the 
 suspension 
 tx infor- 
 
 The reason I mention it is that we have an inherent law 
 which we 
 
 Witness : I use it in contradistinction to certain books 
 regarding the reception of which there possibly may be a 
 contest. I mean that the common law is to be found in the 
 works of such writers on theology as St. Liguori, Scavini, 
 &c., which are placed in the hands of everyone who pre- 
 tends to a knowledge of theology, or the doctrines or laws 
 of the Church. 
 
 You stated that the grounds of the authority of the 
 rescript 1 which you read, conferring the delegated authority 
 on the Cardinal, was the Florentine canon ? You mean the 
 decree ; it is not a rescript. 2 
 
 Well, the decree ? Yes, among the rest. In fact, the 
 canon in St. Matthias, ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I 
 will build my church,' is the foundation of all. 
 
 That, I believe, claims all power, jure divino, for the Pope, 
 temporal as well as spiritual ? Not that I am aware of. It 
 is the power of pascendi, regendi, gubernandi in spiritualibus. 
 
 Do you know the bull of Boniface, Unam Sanctam ? I 
 saw it. 
 
 That does in express terms founded on the title of the 
 Pope as Vicar of Christ in the world claim temporal power, 
 does it not? Yes; it claims temporal power, but we must 
 bear in mind the jurisprudence and condition of the 
 Christian Church at the time. 
 
 And that was a declaration that the power resided, jure 
 divino, in the Pope ? It was a declaration, but it was not an 
 ex cathedra declaration. 
 
 Was not it issued in a bull ? There are many bulls not 
 ex cathedra. The Pope may issue bulls on many subjects 
 not addressed to general Church matters of doctrine. 
 
 Was not that issued to the general Church ? It was. 
 
 And was it not that which was called Unam Sanctam ? 
 Yes, of Boniface VIII. 
 
 Was not that a definition of doctrine ? No. 
 
 Was it a dogmatic definition ? No. 
 
 To come to the suspension ex informata conscientia you 
 were examined about, do you concur with his grace the 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345. 
 2 For distinction between a ' decree' and a 'rescript,' see supra, p. 499.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 521 
 
 archbishop in what he has stated to be his opinion, one Cross-ex- 
 that prevails most at Rome, viz., that this suspension ought d f D the 01 
 not to be resorted to except ob occultum crimen, or where Bishop of 
 it is impossible to proceed judicially? Oh yes; where, in a way ' 
 consequence of the difficulty that may be thrown in the way, mata con- 
 either by want of witnesses who would not come forward to 011 ]y to b e 
 prove it judicially, or on account of the threats of govern- ug ed ob 
 ment ; and Scavini stated that in any case where the offence cr i men . 
 cannot be proved judicially, the same reason which the 
 Council of Trent had in view in extending this extraordi- 
 nary power to bishops applies as well to public crimes as to 
 private and occult crimes. 
 
 Then would you consider that the offence of suing his 
 bishop in a public court was of a character that could not be 
 proved judicially ? The suing of the bishop in a public 
 court was not assigned as the reason for the infliction of it. 
 
 But that would be one of the causes ? No, at least I 
 think not. I think that could be proved. 
 
 There could be no difficulty in proving that? I think 
 not. I should say so. 
 
 You stated also that you yourself had a little experience 
 of a similar proceeding? Yes. 
 
 Did you in that case issue any monition ? None what- 
 ever. 
 
 None is required for suspension ex informata conscientia ? NO moni- 
 - None whatever. tlo . n r ?~ 
 
 In the case you mention was it disregarded? It was 
 disregarded. It was inflicted for public delicta which could 
 not be proved, and it was afterwards sanctioned at Rome by 
 the Pope himself. I have it about me. 
 
 Was not there an application afterwards made to Rome 
 for the purpose of sanctioning it? The clergyman, in the 
 first instance without any reference to the suspension vio- 
 lated it, and then went himself personally to Rome and had 
 what is called a recourse or appeal. 
 
 Is it an appeal ? No, a recourse. It is nearly the same 
 thing. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Do you call him before you in the , 
 
 A.CCUS6CI 
 
 case at all ? Is it necessary ? No, my lord. need not 
 
 Not necessary to call the accused before you at all ? You 
 may or may not. In the case I refer to, the clergyman was pear.
 
 522 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross-ex- publicly guilty of an offence against the law of the Church 
 1 ^ 1 e l and the obedience which he vowed to his bishop. This could 
 Bishop of not be proved by me, because the witness would not come 
 
 Galway. 
 
 I am not asking you judicially ; I am merely asking you 
 an abstract question whether in this peculiar proceeding it is 
 necessary for the bishop to call the priest accused before him 
 at all if he does not choose ? No, my lord ; the bishop must 
 not only be convinced in his own mind, but must have evi- 
 dence enough to convict him before your lordship if brought 
 before you. 
 
 Is it necessary by the law the canon law to summon the 
 accused person at all? No, for this reason, that the crime 
 is well known to be committed. 
 
 In a proceeding of this kind you need not call the accused 
 person before you ; may you dispose of the whole affair from 
 your own conscience and knowledge of the case ? Oh, not, 
 my lord, from my own conscience and knowledge, but from 
 the knowledge I have through sources which cannot be 
 questioned, and which could, if brought before a public tri- 
 bunal, bring home guilt. 
 
 I was only trying to learn the procedure, which, as I sup- 
 pose you are aware, is entirely new to me, and which I have 
 not the least idea of. I am asking if you need not send for 
 him? need you do anything more than pronounce your sen- 
 tence ? No, my lord, what I mean to say is, the proceeding 
 ex informata conscientia is an extraordinary remedy the 
 ordinary remedy still remaining and applicable. It is an 
 extraordinary remedy, and the bishop must have a perfect 
 knowledge of the guilt of the party ; and not only that, but 
 he must have means or proof of his guilt that will satisfy 
 others apart from his own testimony. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : You mean, that if recourse is had to Rome, 
 the bishop has to satisfy the Pope of the grounds on which 
 the suspension was inflicted ? And more than that. He must 
 have testimony altogether independent of the bishop's own 
 evidence, so as to satisfy any court in the country if brought 
 before it judicially. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : That is, in point of fact, that he must be 
 prepared to bring forward satisfactory evidence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What if there is an appeal ? If
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 523 
 
 there is a recourse, my lord they call it a recourse, for in Cross-ex- 
 certain cases the appeal sometimes suspends the force of the a f n ^f e n 
 mandate, but the recourse does not. Bishop of 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is the recourse definite ? It is a way ' 
 equivalent to an appeal connected Distinc- 
 
 Mr. Purcell : The difference is this, that the appeal tween a 
 involves more or less of a judicial form ? Yes. 'recourse' 
 
 The recourse is not binding, but it is an individual appli- < appeal.' 
 cation to the head of the Church to hear the case ? Yes, 
 and to see justice done. 
 
 I understood you to say that the mere declaration of Assertion 
 
 f i-Vi 
 
 the Cardinal that he has powers sufficient to entitle him to ^tv b" 
 investigate and pronounce judgment on the case is itself to Cardinal is 
 be taken as conclusive ? Yes. conclusive. 
 
 Now, as to the powers that are occasionally conferred Delegated 
 upon the Cardinal by the Pope or upon any other delegate powers ar e 
 are they not of two classes, limited and unlimited ? Yes. kinds. 
 
 And is not it a question of law I mean canon law, 
 within which class of powers the particular authority may 
 come? I should say so. 
 
 Then the Cardinal, who claims to be invested with un- 
 limited powers, is himself the judge or at least exercises a 
 judgment, and his judgment is final upon the interpretation 
 of the authority under which he acts ? It is final, but even 
 though he may have full and ample powers from the Pope 
 so as to represent the Pope himself, the party in question 
 still has not precisely an appeal, for one cannot appeal as 
 against himself but a recourse to the Pope to see if the dele- 
 gate in the case has exceeded or abused his powers. 
 
 But he has no possible means beforehand of knowing the 
 nature of the power or of representing his knowledge that the 
 delegated authority is not of the character that the Cardinal 
 may have supposed it to be ? No, but he has a perfect power 
 of remonstrating with the Holy See as to the amplitude of the 
 powers conceded to the delegate, and of course the Holy See 
 will know whether it has given these powers or not. Then 
 it would reverse the decision if he exceeded these powers. 
 
 Of course it is understood that the same rule of privilege 
 in reference to the declaration applies to bishops ? I did 
 not say that. 
 
 Do you say it ? Well, bishops have not his privileges as
 
 524 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross-ex- far as I can see, but it is a principle that a judge who exer- 
 a f n the 11 c ^ ses ordinary jurisdiction is to be believed until the contrary 
 Bishop of is shown. 
 
 But supposing a judge exercises extraordinary jurisdic- 
 tion, the rule does not apply ? That depends upon the mode 
 in which the jurisdiction is exercised, and depends also 
 on the mode in which the indication of the power is 
 communicated. If the extraordinary judge proceed extra- 
 judicially, the" intimation, I should say, if it be in accordance 
 with jus naturale, or as you would call it here natural 
 justice, would suffice, but if he were to proceed judicially, and 
 observe all the judicial forms and solemnity laid down in 
 canon law in that case I should say it would be otherwise. 
 Case of a But when a judge is known not to possess the powers ; one 
 
 serting'au- wnose vei 7 office prima facie negatives the possession of the 
 thority power he claims ; suppose a bishop, for instance, who has no 
 priesUn authority to sit in judgment upon the subject of a neighbour- 
 another i n g bishop, calls upon a priest in the next diocese to come 
 before him, and alleges that he has ample powers to sit in 
 judgment upon him, but does not communicate to him or 
 exhibit or give a copy of these powers in a case of that 
 kind the very powers that he assumes to exercise being 
 notoriously powers extra vires outside his authority is a 
 declaration by the bishop a mere declaration by the bishop, 
 ' I have ample power to investigate this case ' to bind the 
 party; is he to assume that that is correct? I don't mean to 
 impute to the bishop that he is stating what he knows not 
 to be a fact, but is the priest to be bound by the bishop's 
 own judgment, and is he to have no opportunity, according to 
 canon law, to investigate it and make objection to the jurisdic- 
 tion? Well, if you allow me I shall explain as best I can. 
 The answer which I gave you just a minute ago had 
 reference to a bishop in his own diocese, or a vicar-general 
 in the diocese in which he is vicar-general, because he has 
 the same tribunal as the bishop. The question which you 
 put now has reference to a bishop of a neighbouring diocese 
 who assumes jurisdiction over the spiritual subjects of his 
 neighbour. 
 
 I don't care about that particular illustration. I put it 
 only as an illustration. 
 
 Witness : In that case the person aggrieved has a remedy
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 525 
 
 even in the country. He can appeal to the archbishop of Cross-ex- 
 the province, who has ordinary jurisdiction in a case of ^f"^ 01 
 appeal to interfere. Bishop of 
 
 I endeavoured to use certainly an illustration which 
 does not run on all fours. You said he has an appeal to 
 the archbishop. Suppose it is the archbishop suppose 
 it is the Metropolitan who as is admitted in this case 
 would have no intrinsic jurisdiction at all, who happened 
 not to be like his Eminence a Cardinal, but an arch- 
 bishop or metropolitan; and suppose in that case that 
 what I have already stated in reference to the bishops had 
 occurred with reference to the Metropolitan is the party 
 suiumoned, called upon to attend and undergo a trial ; is he 
 entitled to see a copy of the authority under which jurisdic- 
 tion is claimed, or is he to take the statement of the judge 
 when he alleges that he has ample powers and does not 
 exhibit them ? Well, if an archbishop said that he has 
 powers which are not vested in him by the common law of 
 the Church, namely, the power of adjudicating 011 a case 
 not a case of appeal if he said that, I think a person might 
 very well take it if he pleased, but if he thought proper not 
 to do so he might refuse. I should say the privilege in ques- Privilege 
 tion is confined to Cardinals. confined to 
 
 -vT- ATI cardinals. 
 
 You say so ? I do. 
 
 But in the case of a Cardinal, his own construction of his 
 authority is to be taken ? By universal consent, and it is 
 expressly laid down in canon law. 
 
 Is it your opinion, as a canonist, that a suspension on the Suspension 
 face of it. good in part, but containing also a decree which is ma y be 
 contrary to the canon law, is nevertheless valid for the portion valid and 
 
 that is good ? I will answer * yes ' and ' no,' and if you allow P a ^y in ~ 
 ine I will explain. If there be a question of a decree all the 
 parts of which are inseparable, constituting one whole, then 
 on the principle that a little leaven corrupts the mass, it is 
 void by a flaw in any part of it ; but if there be a question as 
 to a decree, all the parts of which are separable and virtually 
 distinct, and constitute virtually distinct acts, and produce 
 distinct effects, then in that case it is different. 
 
 Is it your opinion, Bishop, that, according to canon law, Is a . sus - 
 it is competent for a bishop to suspend a priest ex informata 
 
 conscientia in perpetuum ? Well, that is disputed ; but in mv conscieniia 
 
 J perpetual?
 
 526 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross-ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 
 Bishop of 
 
 Galway. 
 
 opinion he can. There is more or less dispute about it, but 
 I think it is morally certain he can. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I suppose it is disputed by the 
 priests? Well, I suppose so, my lord. 
 
 And claimed by the bishop? I was speaking only of 
 those versed in canon law. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Who are some on each side ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : There are some able canonists who dispute 
 it, and say it is not in perpetuum, and others that it is. 
 
 Witness : It is not in perpetuum ; it is indefinite. It is 
 not in perpetuum in any case ; on the contrary, it is some- 
 times only for a very short period. 
 
 Does not some doubt exist as to whether suspension of 
 that kind shall be indefinite or not ? No. 
 
 Then if a decree suspending a man without limiting any 
 time for the termination of that suspension, was issued, is 
 that suspension in perpetuum, or is it an indefinite suspen- 
 sion ? It is indefinite ; it is neither in perpetuum nor tem- 
 porary. 
 
 Then where it is understood to be in perpetuum is where 
 it is defined or declared in the decree that it is in perpetuum ? 
 Shall be for life. 
 
 Then when it is perpetual it is stated on the face of it ? 
 Yes ; inflicted on him for life. But you will allow me to 
 observe that its being indefinite does not imply that it is 
 perpetual. 
 
 Are there settled forms in which these suspensions are 
 couched? There need not be. There are, in treatises 011 
 canon law, forms precisely similar to that which ,has been 
 read, excepting the insertion of the words a beneficio. 
 
 Don't the forms that are in use, or at least given in writers 
 of canon law don't they make a reference to the Council 
 of Trent? Yes. 
 
 Does it not ? Yes, it does. The words ex informata con- 
 scientia are not found in the Council of Trent any more than 
 the word * Trinity ' or ' Incarnation ' in the Scriptures. They 
 are terms used to convey an idea. The words ' Trinity ' and 
 * Incarnation ' are not in the Scriptures, yet all Christians 
 believe and adopt them. The expositors of the Council have 
 given the meaning ; they were authorised to expound it. 
 
 What I was speaking of was the form of suspension.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 527 
 
 The Congregation of the Council of Trent, appointed by the 
 Council itself to expound its decrees and their meaning, have 
 given the decree its meaning, which all Catholics must believe. 
 They declare that it means this, ' And that that suspension 
 ex informata conscientia binds under pain of irregularity.' 
 
 And they use these words as having plainly reference to 
 this Council ? Certainly. Pius VI., in his dogmatic decree, 
 says : ( Cum honestius ac tutius sit subjecto, debitam propo- 
 sitis obedientiam impendendo in inferiori ministerio deservire, 
 quam cum prsepositorum scandalo, graduum altiorum appetere 
 dignitatem ; ei, cui ascensus ad sacros ordines a suo Prselato, 
 ex quacumque causa, etiam ob occultum criinen quomodo- 
 libet, etiam extrajudicialiter, fuerit interdictus ; aut qui a suis 
 ordinibus, seu gradibus, vel dignitatibus ecclesiasticis, fuerit 
 suspensus, nulla contra ipsius prselati voluntatem concessa 
 licentia de se promo veri faciendo, aut ad priores ordines et 
 gradus et dignitates, sive honores restitutio suffragetur.' * 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Let me look at the passage. I 
 thought the Council of Trent decrees were written in a clear 
 and excellent style, and that they did not require a glossary. 
 
 Witness : The Council expressly appointed the Congrega- 
 tion to expound their decrees at the time, and these were 
 binding. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : You said that the suing of his bishop, or of 
 a brother cleric, in a secular court, was an offence which 
 subjected the party not only to suspension, but to deprivation 
 by the canon law of the Church, wholly independent of any 
 of these bulls or constitutions. I don't know whether I said 
 suspension and deprivation. I said irregularity would be 
 established. 
 
 What I want to draw your attention to is that you 
 referred to the general law of the Church, making it an 
 offence for one cleric to bring another into a law court? 
 Yes. 
 
 I was right in that ? Yes. 
 
 Would you refer me, Bishop, to the portions of the com- 
 mon law of the Church, the express canons, or the portion 
 of the law which make it an offence ? The Fourth General 
 Council of Chalcedori, which was referred to here by his 
 Eminence and the Archbishop of Cashel; the decretal 
 
 1 Decrees of Council of Trent, Session 14, De Keformatione, caput I. 
 
 Cross-ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 
 Bishop of 
 
 Gal way. 
 
 As to 
 clerics 
 suing each 
 other.
 
 528 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross-ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Bishop of 
 Galvray. 
 
 of Gregory IX. ' de foro competenti,' and the decretal si 
 diligenti, which inflicts excommunication on a cleric who 
 brings another into court; and the Council of Trent ex- 
 pressly states that the canon law of the Church is binding, 
 and the Council of Trent is received universally on that 
 subject. There is no use passing it over. 
 
 Mr. Purcell: Do I understand you to cite the fourth 
 General Council of Chalcedon? Yes, and the decretal of 
 Innocent III., commencing si diligenti, addressed to the 
 Bishop of Pisa in 1210, expressly visits with excommunica- 
 tion any cleric that will bring any other into a secular court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Were the Council of Trent's de- 
 crees ever published in France ? Well, I should say they 
 were, my lord. There are some persons in France, my lord, 
 who resisted the spiritual authority of Rome, particularly 
 those who were called Gallicans or Jansenists. 
 
 I merely wished to know whether the government or 
 country of France allowed it to be published ? It was. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Please take that in your hand. (Book 
 handed to witness.) 
 
 Witness : This is the decree de foro competenti con- 
 taining the decretal of Gregory IX., addressed by Inno- 
 cent III. to the Archbishop of Pisa in 1210. ' Si diligenti ' 
 (witness read the Latin words of the decree). 1 The following 
 is an English translation : 4 Since, therefore, this law has 
 been specially promulgated in the Councils of Milan and 
 Carthage, namely that clerics shall not draw other clerics 
 before public tribunals, leaving their own bishop, and that 
 otherwise they shall lose their cause and be considered ex- 
 communicated : and as well bishops as deacons or other clerics, 
 who in a criminal transaction wish to exculpate themselves 
 before public tribunals, having left the ecclesiastical tribunal, 
 even though judgment is given in their favour, they shall 
 lose their place, and this in a criminal action. In a civil action, 
 however, they shall lose what they have gained, if they pre- 
 fer to retain their place. It is manifestly evident that 
 not only the unwilling, but even the willing, cannot enter 
 into an agreement to submit to secular tribunals, since this 
 benefit is not a personal one, which ma}' be renounced, but is 
 rather a public one, given or conferred oil the whole ecclesias- 
 
 1 Decret. Greg. IX., Lib. ii.. Tit. ii., cap. xii.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 529 
 
 tical college, which could not be derogated by the compact 
 of private persons. Nor can an oath be lawfully kept which 
 is taken for unlawful contracts against the canon statutes.' 
 
 Mr. Purcell : That is, they must give up the fruits of their 
 success if they wish to retain their places in the Church ? 
 Yes. 
 
 That is the canon law upon which you were saying, under 
 the old tribunals, subjects the party independently ? Yes, 
 that has been re-promulgated in the Council of Trent. 
 
 That is the 20th chapter of the 25th session of the 
 Council of Trent ? Yes. 
 
 There are two or three lines in the middle of that chapter ? 
 Yes ; de reformations. 
 
 I will ask you to translate these three or four lines which 
 constitute the ratification. 
 
 Witness (translating] : ( It also decrees and commands 
 that the sacred canons and all general councils, as well as 
 every apostolic sanction in favour of ecclesiastical persons, 
 of ecclesiastical liberty, and published against its violators, 
 all which things it renews in the present decree, ought to be 
 exactly observed by all.' 
 
 Then the effect of that is to ratify ? To re -promulgate. 
 
 And to ratify all existing privileges and rights then in 
 force in favour of the clergy ? Yes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is there any difference between 
 the adoption of a decree that concerns faith and morals, but 
 leaves untouched and unnoticed what relates to discipline ? 
 There is no promulgation whatsoever for decrees having 
 reference to faith or morals, for the moment that a person 
 knows that a matter is a matter of faith, he is obliged to 
 believe it, and the moment a thing becomes the subject of 
 morals, he is obliged to observe it. With reference to dis- 
 cipline, decrees regarding discipline must be promulgated. 
 The question of mode is another matter, but the fact is 
 necessary. 
 
 They must be P Of course it is necessary. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Is not the law which you have just referred 
 to, and which you have read here, applicable only in those 
 countries that are Catholic, and where the external form is 
 recognised ; or does it apply elsewhere than in Catholic 
 
 M M 
 
 Cross-ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Bishop of 
 Galway. 
 
 As to pro- 
 mulgation 
 of decree?.
 
 530 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross-ex- 
 amination 
 
 of the 
 Hi shop of 
 
 Galway. 
 
 Law as to 
 
 suing ec- 
 clesiastics. 
 
 countries ? It applies in every case ; the reason of that 
 applies everywhere, namely, to prevent the scandals which 
 would arise from clergy bringing their ecclesiastical or other 
 matters into civil courts. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Or other matters? Or other 
 matters. Suppose a bishop borrowed 500L from a parish 
 priest, I see nothing evil or criminal in the priest asking him 
 courteously to repay that money. It is right I should say 
 that although the letter of the law may exist, yet owing to 
 the consuetude that exists, the consuetude or custom would 
 abrogate the law so far as it relates to it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : According to canon law, can the 
 bishop be brought into court for money ? If a bishop owed 
 money to a parish priest, and did not pay it, I think it 
 would be a very good thing to bring him into court. 
 
 But the law remains in the letter ? Of course it does 
 in the letter, but it is abolished by the consuetude or cus- 
 tom. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Supposing the bishop was contu- 
 macious, and would not pay, would not the priest be en- 
 titled to have an opportunity of recovering? I say it 
 would be a very good thing to bring the bishop into court if 
 he did not pay, because it is right. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I quite concur in that. 
 
 Witness : In the late concordats which have been entered 
 into by the Holy See with several countries, they expressly 
 except cases of money transactions, wills, and such matters, 
 and the reason given is habita, ratione mutationis temporum. 
 
 Mr. Purcell: Does the law still exist in this country 
 which prohibits one cleric suing before a secular tribunal, or 
 proceeding against another cleric before a secular tribunal 
 for a criminal injury? Yes, in matters connected with 
 spiritual matters or duties. 
 
 His Eminence yesterday considered that the denouncing 
 of a parish priest as a liar, because it took place in the 
 church, was a matter connected with ecclesiastical matters. 
 Now suppose an assault was committed by a curate on his 
 parish priest on his altar, in that case would it be a violation 
 of his duty as parish priest if he brought the curate before a 
 secular court to punish him for that assault? Well, it 
 would. He should in the first instance have recourse to the
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 531 
 
 properly constituted authorities of the Church ; he should Cross- 
 have recourse to his bishop in the first instance; in case he tkmof th 
 gave him no redress, to the archbishop on appeal ; and in Bishop of 
 case the archbishop did not think fit to exercise his un- a ' 
 doubted jurisdiction in the case, he has the Holy See, and in 
 every case the Holy See looks into the matter. There might 
 be some delay, but we all know there is always delay, more 
 or less, in every scheme in the world where there is an 
 appeal. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But in the meantime you would 
 shut us up the secular courts, I mean. 
 
 Witness: I think your lordship would have plenty of 
 cases to try besides these. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : It follows from what you have 
 said that the criminal judicature of the country may be dis- 
 pensed with? Well, the case I make is this: a clergyman, 
 when he enters the Church, binds himself to certain things 
 with the view of obtaining certain advantages ; it would be 
 hard for him to enjoy the advantages of the contract and 
 violate it ; the same as in the laws of a country, it would be 
 hard for a man to expect to enjoy the privileges and pro- 
 tection afforded by the laws if he tries to violate them. 
 
 Did you never hear that a contract to be violated must 
 be in accordance with the laws of the land in which it is 
 made ; and it is not permitted by the common law not the 
 canon law to make contracts in violation of the law of the 
 land ? I shall be most happy to answer that question, and 
 to tell your lordship that the contract in that case, far from 
 being against the law of the land, establishes the observances 
 of the law, on the principle that the natural law is the 
 foundation of all law is pacta servanda ; take away the 
 observance of the pacta and we may close up the positive 
 laws of the country. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Do I understand you to say that one law is 
 superior, and if the law of the land is opposed to it, the law 
 of the land must give way? I can hardly believe that the 
 law of the land is opposed to contracts that would prevent 
 scandal. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : No person ever said it was. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : What I want to know further is whether 
 
 M M 2
 
 532 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- that rule extends to all other criminal offences as between 
 
 tion of "the ecclesiastics themselves ? In that case they should in the 
 
 Bishop of first place refer to the ecclesiastical authority to settle the 
 
 a way ' case amongst themselves, and to avoid giving public scandal, 
 
 which I conceive tends very much to the injury of society 
 
 and the laws of the country. 
 
 Supposing they did not get redress from the Church, 
 are they then at liberty to refer to the law of the country ? 
 Well, I must say nego supposito ; I deny the supposition. 
 
 But for the argument, let us suppose a case ? Well, I 
 would not give an answer on an impossible supposition. 
 
 Well, it is not impossible in fact ? I think it is. 
 
 Is that the only answer you can give the question? 
 That is the only answer I can give the question. I cannot 
 give an opinion as to what would result if an impossible 
 thing were to happen. 
 
 You consider it is an impossible thing that a clergyman 
 should remain without redress in the Church ? I think it is. 
 
 That is a matter of opinion ? Of course I give my opinion. 
 
 Now, suppose redress was refused, would that release him 
 from the law ? Well, I really cannot give any other answer. 
 
 Then I won't press you : that is all I will ask you. 
 
 Exnmina- REV. CjESAB RoNCETTi, an Italian priest, was then sworn 
 Rev. (Liar and examined by ME. O'HAGAN, Q.C., through the EEV. 
 Koncetti. THOMAS BUEKE, acting as interpreter. 
 
 Are you a priest ? I am. 
 
 Are you a doctor of canon law ? I am a doctor both in 
 canon and civil law. 
 
 Do you hold any office in any of the Congregations in 
 Rome ? I have assisted for three years, being employed by 
 the Congregation of the Council, and I have for the past 
 twelve years been an official connected with the Propaganda. 
 
 Are you well acquainted with the canon law ? Yes. 
 
 (Rescript of the 31s May, 1871, 1 handed to witness.) 
 
 Are you acquainted with the handwriting of the Cardinal 
 Barnabo ? I know it very well. 
 
 What office does the Cardinal hold ? He is prefect of the 
 Congregation of Propaganda. 
 
 What other signature does that document bear ? There 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullcn. 533 
 
 is also the signature of the Secretary of the Congregation of Examina- 
 
 Propaganda. on f the 
 
 Rev. Caesar 
 
 Are you also well acquainted with that ? I know it very Roncetti. 
 well. 
 
 And is that this signature ? Yes. 
 
 Is the seal affixed to that document the seal affixed to 
 the Propaganda? It is. 
 
 Is that document so signed and sealed considered 
 according to the canon law the act of the Pope ? Yes, it 
 is considered the act of the Pope. 
 
 Did the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin acquire, under Papal re- 
 that document, according to the canon law, full power to script con 
 inquire into and adjudicate upon the affair of Mr. O'Keeffe, thority on 
 mentioned in the document ? Without doubt. Cardinal. 
 
 Had he as full power under that document as the Pope 
 would have had himself? Yes. 
 
 According to the canon law of the Catholic Church, has 
 the Pope power to inquire into and adjudicate upon any 
 ecclesiastical matter in the whole Church ? Yes, he has 
 supreme power in the whole Church over all ecclesiastical 
 cases. 
 
 Does the power of suspending ex informata conscientia Suspension 
 extend to secular priests as well as regular ? Without ^aiaTon- 
 
 doubt it does. scientianp- 
 
 Is that power confined to occult cases, or to other offences anTierey 
 as well as occult ? This suspension ex informata conscientia for public 
 may be inflicted for public crimes as well as for private and crimes?^ 
 occult, because it is the general law of the Church. 
 
 If a suspension ex informata conscientia be issued against 
 a priest, is he at liberty to disregard it? He must regard 
 the sentence, or else he becomes irregular. 
 
 Supposing the sentence ex informata conscientia were an Invalid 
 invalid sentence, must he nevertheless regard it until it is fo^ 1 ^ 
 set aside or revoked? In ease that it were invalid, the garded. 
 priest is obliged to observe it until it is revoked by the Holy 
 See. 
 
 According to canon law, when an offence is notorious, is a 
 citation necessary before issuing the suspension, and with 
 respect to a suspension not ex informata conscientia ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You should ask these questions 
 separately.
 
 534 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Examina- Mr. O'Hagan : I will do so. In case of a suspension not 
 
 Rev Caesar ex informata conscientia, is a citation ordinarily necessary ? 
 
 Eoncetti. If the sentence be not ex informata conscientia, there is 
 
 room for what is called the judicium summarium, and in this 
 
 case the citation will be necessary unless the question to 
 
 be treated was notorious. 
 
 In case of an often ce which is notorious, is a previous 
 citation necessary ? No. 
 
 Has the vicar-general the power of inflicting suspension? 
 He can suspend inflict suspension. Then he has a special 
 faculty on permission from the bishop. 
 
 If the vicar-general issue a suspension, asserting that he 
 has that authority, is the person suspended obliged to obey 
 the suspension? The subject is bound to believe the vicar- 
 general's assertion. 
 
 If it were believed that a priest was about to commit a 
 canonical offence, would a suspension issued before he com- 
 mitted that offence be valid ? Yes, it would be a valid sus- 
 pension. 
 
 And would it be incurred ipso facto when the offence 
 was committed ? In this case the moment he commits the 
 offence he incurs the suspension which was threatened, ipso 
 facto. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If he does not commit the 
 crime ? Then he does not incur any suspension. 
 
 What I want to know is this : when a suspension is in- 
 flicted, I have been told that to get rid of it there must be 
 an appeal to the Pope : now if a suspension by anticipation 
 is inflicted, who has power to remove it ? 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : I will make it clear. If a suspension be 
 conditional, does any suspension take place unless the condi- 
 tion takes place ? There is no room for a suspension then. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : But suppose a suspension is issued 
 in anticipation absolutely ? It would have no application it 
 would have no effect. 
 
 Is an absolute suspension communicated to the accused 
 in anticipation ? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : I don't understand that question, I 
 assure your lordship most sincerely. ~No suspension can be 
 absolute and conditional at the same time. I am afraid we 
 are drifting away from the point.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 535 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I was told two or three times that Examina- 
 once this suspension was inflicted there was no way of getting ^" (Lo 
 rid of it but by an appeal to Koine. I wanted to know the Roncetti. 
 law, in case a man is suspended in a remote part of the world 
 say Ireland and gets this suspension by anticipation, and 
 it is absolute on the face of it, * I suspend you, because I have 
 good reason to believe you are going to do so and so.' 
 
 Mr. 0' Hag an : I am asking in respect of a totally 
 different thing. I was asking with regard to one of the sus- 
 pensions that was couched in this way, ' If you do a certain 
 thing you will be ipso facto suspended ' : it was in respect of 
 that conditional suspension I was asking him. (To Witness) : 
 In the proceedings by the Cardinal Archbishop under that or- 
 dinance of the 31st May, 1871, was a previous citation to Mr. 
 O'Keeffe necessary ? Yes, a previous citation was necessary. 
 
 Was it necessary that such a citation should be a formal 
 one? It was not necessary that the citation should be 
 formal, because the Cardinal had power to proceed in a 
 summary or extra-judicial manner; it was quite enough that 
 he should call him to him in any way. 
 
 What essentials was it necessary that the summons 
 should contain ? It was necessary that the Cardinal should 
 intimate to him in general terms the powers with which he 
 was furnished, and it was also necessary that he should in- 
 timate to him the motive for which he called him to his 
 tribunal. 
 
 If the Cardinal did so, and if the accused appeared be- 
 fore him upon the appointed day, could he afterwards raise 
 any point as to the want of a formal citation ? No. 
 
 Had the Cardinal power under that ordinance to suspend 
 him, if he thought it just, ab or dine, ab officio, et a bene/icio ? 
 Yes, he had. 
 
 Had he also power under that to deprive him of his status 
 as a parish priest ? Yes, he had. 
 
 Supposing the Cardinal to have done so, would that sen- 
 tence have been sufficiently denounced by being affixed to 
 the walls of one of the churches in the town of which the 
 accused was parish priest ? Yes. 
 
 If after such denunciation the parish priest in question 
 continued to say mass and to hear confessions, did he incur 
 irregularity by so doing? Without doubt.
 
 536 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- Would his confessions be heard without jurisdiction ? 
 Rev Caesar ^* s confessions would be heard without jurisdiction, except 
 Roncetti. in extreme cases, such as articulo mortis. 
 
 Supposing the priest to have acted in that manner, had 
 the Cardinal power under the ordinance of the 3 1st May to 
 interdict the church in which the priest so officiated ? Yes, 
 he had. 
 
 Was it his duty, according to the canon law, to issue such 
 interdict? In following out the decree the Cardinal was 
 obliged to finish, to arrange this matter, and had the right 
 and the obligation to avail himself of the interdict, if that 
 was necessary, as a means to carry out the decree. He was 
 obliged to do it ; it was his duty to do it. 
 
 Now, reverting for a moment to the suspension having 
 pronounced that sentence of suspension, was it his duty to 
 denounce it ? Yes, it was his duty to denounce it. 
 
 Had the Eoman Catholic parishioners of Callan an in- 
 terest in having the interdict so pronounced ? They had an 
 interest in it, because they should know who was their lawful 
 pastor. 
 
 Now, supposing that the priest had been suspended by 
 the bishop or the vicar- general, and notwithstanding that 
 suspension the priest had continued to officiate ; was that an 
 offence for which the Cardinal could canonically punish 
 him, under his powers, by suspension and deprivation ? Yes, 
 because the multiplication of the offences justify the multi- 
 plication of the sentences. 
 
 If he in writing, published by him, accused his bishop 
 of having violated the seal of the confession, and of having 
 carried on for forty years an infamous traffic in sacraments 
 and dispensations; if he published and made known this to 
 the world ; would that have been an offence for which the 
 Cardinal would have been enabled to suspend him ? With- 
 out doubt. 
 
 And would a sentence of suspension for that offence alone, 
 
 be a lawful sentence ? Yes, because there is a canon in the 
 
 law which says, * a calumniator may be suspended.' 
 
 Refusal to Suppose he was to have appeared before the Cardinal, 
 
 appear be- and had been required to reappear to finish the business, 
 
 dinaHs*" an( ^ su PP os i n g nirn to have refused to appear again before 
 
 contumacy, the Cardinal, notwithstanding his being called so to appear
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 537 
 
 again, would that amount to contumacy in him ? Yes, and Examina- 
 such a one could be punished according to the canon law as ^ (Lsar 
 a contumacious person. Eoncetti. 
 
 Could he be punished as a contumacious person with 
 suspension ? Tes. punishable 
 
 Has a parish priest the right to introduce a community of S i n. 
 nuns into his parish against the wish of the bishop ? He 
 cannot do it. 
 
 Suppose a parish priest permitted a friar who is living 
 out of his convent to say mass in his parish church contrary 
 to the commands of the bishop and vicar-general, would that 
 be a canonical offence ? It would be a double canonical 
 offence, first against the general law that commands priests 
 not to allow persons to celebrate in their churches without 
 commendatory letters from their bishop ; and secondly, 
 against the specific precept affecting this individual in 
 question. 
 
 Is there in canon law what is termed the common law of Common 
 the Church ? Yes, there is. ^ of , the 
 
 Church 
 
 Is it an offence against that common law of the Church 
 for a priest to bring another priest before a lay tribunal con- 
 cerning a matter ecclesiastical? It is prohibited in the 
 canon law in very many places. 
 
 If a priest brought an action against his bishop before a as to 
 lay tribunal for authorising the curates of that parish priest caries 
 publicly to contradict upon the altar a statement made by other.*" 
 the parish priest with reference to parish schools, and with 
 reference to the application of parish funds, would that 
 action so brought be an offence would it come within that 
 prohibition of the common law ? This violation of the law 
 would be condemned by the canons to which I have made 
 reference. 
 
 By the common law of the Church? By the common 
 law of the Church. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Would it make no difference 
 whether the statement were true or false? It might diminish 
 the sinfulness of it if it were false, but it would not justify 
 him in bringing the bishop before a lay tribunal. 
 
 It would diminish the fault? It would diminish the 
 fault. 
 
 Would that be an offence for which the priest, according
 
 538 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- to the canon law of the Church, might incur suspension ? 
 Rev. (LLr ^ es > ^ ^ s P en lj declared in the canon law of the Church. 
 Roncetti. Does that law apply to both? Equally to both ; occasion- 
 
 ally there is some difference in the application of punishment. 
 
 (Third suspension 1 was here handed to witness.) 
 
 In your opinion, as a canonist, was that a valid sus- 
 pension ? It is valid. 
 
 (Fourth suspension 2 handed to witness.) 
 
 Suspen- Was that a valid suspension ? It is valid so far as it 
 
 Pa y extends to the order and office. 
 
 Not to the benefice ? As to the benefice, that is a dis- 
 puted point amongst canonists. 
 
 Suppose it to be invalid as to the benefice, would the 
 portion of it referring to the order and office be invalidated ? 
 No, it does not invalidate the part that relates to the order 
 and office ; they are two distinct things, and though one 
 may be invalid that does not invalidate the rest. 
 
 (The letter that accompanied the suspension was translated 
 to witness.) 3 
 
 According to canon law, is there anything in that letter 
 to render invalid the accompanying suspension ? No, there is 
 nothing; this letter is most regular, except what regards 
 the benefice. 
 
 Supposing him to have disputed the injunction contained 
 in that letter of the 10th December, 1870, 4 would he by 
 such disobedience incur suspension ipso facto ? There is no 
 doubt about it. 
 
 Until he committed the acts so prohibited, would he have 
 remained free from suspension so far as that document is 
 concerned ? Up to the moment that he committed the act 
 he was free from suspension. He would have been free from, 
 it to this day if he had not committed that act. 
 
 (Latin text of the Cardinal's suspension handed to witness.) 5 
 
 Have you read it? Yes. In my opinion it is a valid 
 document, and drawn out in perfect order. 
 
 Supposing that before the issuing of the mandate of the 
 31st May, 18 7 1, 6 more than a year before, the secretary of 
 Cardinal Barnabo had inquired from the Cardinal Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin in respect to Father O'Keeffe, and in 
 
 1 Supra, p. 157. 2 Supra, p. 158. " Supra, p. 158. 
 
 4 Supra, p. 157- * See Appendix. No. IV., p. 582. s Supra, p. 345.
 
 Rev. Robert CfKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 539 
 
 reference to a letter of Father O'Keeffe's desiring to go to Examina- 
 Ronie ; and supposing the Cardinal to have told him that he ^ ^J^ 
 had brought an action against his bishop, then made sub- Koucetti. 
 mission to the bishop, and then brought a new action 
 would the giving of such information by the Cardinal pre- 
 vent him afterwards receiving and acting on the powers 
 conferred upon him by the document of the Pope? I 
 believe that it was not a fact that the decree of the 31st 
 May was at all affected by the Cardinal mentioning those 
 things, because answering these questions or giving this 
 information did not affect the capacity or the capability of 
 the Cardinal to act afterwards as judge in the matter. 
 
 Did it render him in any way an accuser ? No. 
 
 Nor render him a judge in his own cause? No, em- 
 phatically. 
 
 (The Court here adjourned.} 
 
 TENTH DAY. 
 Thursday, May 22nd, 1873. 
 
 The REV. DE. CAESAR RONCETTI cross-examined by Mr. Cross- 
 FITZGIBBON, Q.C., through the Eev. THOMAS BURKE, acting J x ^ n ^ e 
 as interpreter. Rev. Caesar 
 
 Eoncetti. 
 
 Will you ask him whether it would be possible for a 
 
 vicar-general to pronounce a suspension on the face of it p ^ ., , 
 good, that would in reality be invalid ? It would be possible, causes of 
 
 What state of facts could that arise in ? This invalidity j" 1 ^ 
 could arise from the defect of some extrinsic form, or from tence. 
 the defect of power in the person who pronounces it. 
 
 Give some instances of what would be defects in extrinsic Defects in 
 form? In case the vicar-general wished to pronounce a sen- extrinsic 
 tence of suspension in regular judicial form, and that he 
 neglected, for instance, to state the citation; or that he 
 neglected to mention the attestation of witnesses ; then in 
 such cases the suspension would be invalid from defect of 
 extrinsic forms. 
 
 Now give us an instance of what would be a defect in Defects in 
 intrinsic matters ? The defects in intrinsic form would be, i, ntriusic 
 for instance, if the vicar-general applied the penalty of a 
 crime Avithout a canonical cause sufficient to apply that 
 penalty.
 
 540 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- That the crime for which the suspension was pronounced 
 
 examina- ^j^ ^ amount to a canonical cause. Is not that it ? In 
 
 tion of the 
 
 Eev. Cfesar that case it would be a deficiency in intrinsic form. 
 Boncetti. Would not it be defect in intrinsic form if the suspen- 
 sion showed on the face of it what it was for, and that it 
 was not a canonical crime ? It would be valid still, because 
 it is not necessary to recite on the face of the document all 
 the motives or causes that produced it. 
 
 Suppose it does recite on the face of it the cause for 
 which it is issued, and that this is not a canonical cause, 
 would not that be an intrinsic invalidity? It might be 
 always said that the judge, although reciting these things, 
 did not de facto recite all the reasons for which he pro- 
 nounced the sentence. 
 
 Would it be a good canonical suspension to say that you 
 were suspending a man for one thing on the face of the docu- 
 ment, when you were really suspending him for another of 
 which no mention at all was made ? It would, by stating a 
 cause on the face of the document, exempli gratia, while the 
 real cause was not recited. 
 
 Is that canon law? Yes. 
 
 Is it a principle of the canon law that you may suspend a 
 man without saying for what it is? If the cause be 
 notorious and the suspension be ex informata conscientia, a 
 man may be suspended without saying one word to him of 
 the cause of it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Ask whether, if a sentence be 
 passed for one cause expressed, it is good though it is for 
 another cause. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : We have that already. That is accord- 
 
 ing to canon law. (To Interpreter.) Ask him in case of a 
 
 The crime suspension that is not ex informata conscientia, whether the 
 
 alleged^ 6 suspension may be published without alleging any crime at all? 
 
 sentence. There is no necessity to allege the cause in the sentence. 
 
 Is that confined to the case where it is notorious ? The 
 reason for which a man is suspended need not be mentioned 
 in any cause. The practice of the Roman tribunals is that 
 they answer any doubt which is propounded to them, 
 touching a punishment or suspension, without alleging the 
 reasons for which they give that answer. 
 
 Is a suspension equally valid under those circumstances
 
 Rev. Robert CfKeeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 541 
 
 when there has been no citation ? The suspension would be Cross- 
 
 1.1. i i j i /> i j_ examina- 
 
 valid in a case in which the cause of it was notorious ; in tion of the 
 other cases a citation would be necessary. Kev. Caesar 
 
 Is this a principle of the law, as laid down in the insti- 
 tutes of the canon law ? (Counsel reads) : ' A citation is by If cauge . fl 
 all means necessary, and of the very substance of the pro- notorious a 
 cess, because natural justice does not allow that any one 
 should be condemned before he shall be summoned, which is 
 done by a citation, and then he is heard. . . Therefore not 
 even the highest judge can pretermit a citation . . . nor can 
 the notoriety of the fact dispense with the citation, because 
 perchance the accused man may be able to allege something 
 in his own favour, if it were only in mitigation of punishment, 
 which is not to be neglected.' l Is that the law ? This is 
 generally the law, but it is not clear enough with regard to 
 the notoriety of the fact, on which subject I could produce 
 authority which would explain that matter more clearly. 
 
 What case does that not apply to? The citation is 
 adopted as a principle of law generally. 
 
 It belongs to the natural right ? The uncertainty, from 
 want of clearness, is with regard to the notoriety of the fact, 
 which is not clearly expressed by the author. 
 
 Do you agree that a citation is found in a summary pro- 
 cess generally ? Yes. 
 
 In what respect is it not sufficiently clear with regard to 
 notoriety ? As a general rule a citation is necessary, but As to 
 there are exceptions where it is rendered not necessary, and n o e essit y 
 one of these is where the fact is so notorious as to preclude citation, 
 the necessity of citation ; and there are other authors of 
 greater authority upon this point, and if you permit me I 
 will read them for you. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : This book is entitled * Institutions of the 
 Canon Law,' and was published in Paris in the year 1853. 
 
 Witness : This is the most recent (translates passage from 
 book in his hand) : This Schmalzgrueber, is a more ancient 
 author than the other, and he is admitted as a text-book in 
 the Eoman tribunals. He is quoted by Benedict XIY. himself. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon (reading) : ' Is a citation of the accused 
 always necessary ? ' Answer : ' It is so necessary as regards 
 an absent person, that it can by no means be omitted, and if 
 
 1 See Institntiones Juris Canonici : Auctore R. de M. (Paris, 1853), Vol. II., 480.
 
 Cross- omitted, every other judicial act is by the law itself vain and 
 tion of the null.' The writer then refers to an author, and adverts to 
 
 542 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 omitted, every other judicial act is by the law 
 null.' The writer then refers to an author, 
 Rev. Caesar fae fact that not even can the Holy Pontiff, in the plenitude 
 
 Roncetti. . J ' 
 
 - of his power, omit it, and give sentence when a party is not 
 cited. * The reason is, because when it has regard to the 
 defence, it is of natural justice, and in these things, which 
 are of natural law, even the highest princes are judged by 
 the laws of private persons.' ! 
 
 Witness : This, which you have read, is the canonical 
 answer, and so far it is in accordance with the author which 
 has just been read. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Where is the difference ? The 
 other admits and asserts that a citation is necessary always. 
 Schmalzgrueber says, that some cases must be excepted from 
 the general rule. The first exception is when the fact of 
 crime is so notorious that the accused could not extenuate 
 the fault. The second is if the accused person knows from 
 other sources that the process has commenced, or is about to 
 commence against him, and by appearing waives the citation. 2 
 In those cases citation is not necessary. These are not ex- 
 pressed with sufficient clearness in the author quoted before. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Is not the first exception that is, in 
 the case of notoriety limited to the case in which it 
 would be impossible for the accused even to extenuate his 
 punishment. The translation is this : ' For there are several 
 cases to be excepted : first, if the crime of the person 
 accused is notorious to such a degree that for him exception 
 or defence would be useless, even for the purpose of ex- 
 tenuating the offence or the punishment.' Now suppose his 
 offence was suing an ecclesiastic in a lay court, would that 
 not be extenuated by the circumstances under which the 
 action was brought, or by the fact that redress elsewhere 
 had been refused ? In such a case the notoriety of the 
 fact would be such that there would be no excuse or cause 
 to extenuate either the fact or the punishment attached to it. 
 
 According to the canon law, is the mere bringing of an 
 ecclesiastic before a lay tribunal a crime that can neither be 
 extenuated in the nature of the offence or the punishment 9 
 
 1 Jus Ecclesiasticum Univcrsum (Schmalzgrueber), Vol. II., Part I., Tit. III., 
 pp. 208-9. 
 
 2 Ibid.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 543 
 
 Yes, it is precisely one for which neither the guilt nor Cross- 
 punishment can be extenuated. The mere fact of citing falls ticn'of'the 
 under the penalty. Rev. Caesar 
 
 Assuming that it was brought in a country by whose laws 
 it was forbidden to make that a crime at all, would it make 
 any diiference? In that case the various crimes must be 
 distinguished one from another. 
 
 I am confining it to the crime of bringing an ecclesiastic 
 into a lay court ? 
 
 The Interpreter : According to canon law, he says he 
 cannot answer the question without making the distinction 
 as to what causes the offences. There are some cases that are 
 exempt from the civil tribunals by the privilege of canon law. 
 
 Mr. O'Ragan : Ask him to repeat his former answer. 
 
 Witness : There are different causes ; some are exempted Cases 
 from the jurisdiction of lay tribunals by the privilege at- f^m civil 
 taching to the person, others are exempted from the juris- jurisdic- 
 diction of lay tribunals on their own intrinsic merits, as, for tlon> 
 instance, causes regarding faith, the sacraments, and the 
 exercise of ecclesiastical authority. With regard to the first 
 set of causes, we can suppose or admit either custom or some 
 especial compact made with the Holy See, which omits the 
 privilege in this regard, and in that case the lay tribunals 
 can judge and pronounce. 
 
 And no suspension would follow? In case there was 
 a custom legitimately established, or a compact with the 
 supreme authority of the Church, no suspension would follow 
 such an act. 
 
 What do you mean by a custom lawfully established ? 
 If in a country there was a custom of citing persons who 
 were exempted by personal privilege, and that this custom 
 was so far recognised as not to be now contradicted by the 
 proper authorities, or if the supreme authority of the Church 
 gave a tacit assent or toleration to such custom, it would 
 be a legitimate custom. 
 
 Would it be a legitimate custom if it was the law of the Reqiiisites 
 land, and nothing Avas published by the Church about it? No ; j? estab- 
 it would not establish the custom without the requisites, as custom of 
 for instance, the length of time, the frequency of the acts exem P tlon - 
 asserting the existence of the custom, and, above all, it would 
 be necessary to have a consent, either tacit or presumed, of
 
 544 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- the ecclesiastical authority, and this I assert on the autho- 
 
 tio^f The rity of Benedict XIV. 
 
 Bev. Caesar Would the public statements on oath by archbishops and 
 ncettl - doctors on canon law that that was the law of the country 
 be sufficient expression of their approbation ? The extrinsic 
 evidence of such would not be sufficient to establish the 
 custom unless they were able to bring arguments sufficient 
 in their own intrinsic force to certify it. 
 
 What do you mean by ' arguments sufficient in their 
 own intrinsic force' ? It would be necessary that they should 
 bring proofs that this custom was invested with all the 
 necessary conditions. 
 
 Suppose that these archbishops referred to cases in which 
 the actions have been brought ; would that be the kind of 
 argument that would establish the custom ? It would not 
 be sufficient. They would be obliged in addition to prove that 
 the supreme authority had tolerated and connived at the facts. 
 According to the canon law no matter what the law of 
 the land was could anything be sufficient except the tole- 
 ration or connivance of the supreme authority of the 
 Church ? No other circumstance would justify the custom 
 or establish the custom, if this were wanting, as this is the 
 most solemn of all. 
 
 Law in The Lord Chief Justice : In Italy, according to the law at 
 
 Ital y- present, may a layman bring an ecclesiastic before civil 
 tribunals ? No, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : What country can you name that recog- 
 nizes these privileges ? All countries that have a concordat 
 with the Holy See which regulates these transactions, recog- 
 nize the principle and the privilege. 
 
 Now in all these cases where there are concordats, are 
 the privileges limited by the concordat ? Yes, more or less 
 limited, but in all these cases the matters that are not limited 
 by the concordat refer to those cases in which the question 
 is as to the privilege of clerics, or to the first of those ex- 
 ceptions made to the general rule. In many of those con- 
 cordats with the Holy See in which the privilege is limited, 
 there is an express declaration that everything concerning 
 the second category the lay tribunals have nothing to say 
 to that is to say, to questions regarding faith, sacraments, 
 and ecclesiastical authority.
 
 Rev, Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 545 
 
 Is there any country which has a concordat that recog- Cross- 
 nises these privileges that you have been speaking of ? How t ?** n t ^" e 
 can you expect me to say? I do not know the history of Rev. Caesar 
 the whole world. If you give me a week I will answer it. 
 
 I will limit the question to Europe at the present ? In 
 all the Catholic countries there are concordats existing which 
 define these questions. 
 
 Is the bringing of an action in a lay court against an 
 ecclesiastic a canonical crime for which the vicar-general or 
 the bishop might give different punishments ? Yes, it is. 
 
 Then how do you make out that a citation would not be 
 necessary in order to give the accused the opportunity of 
 mitigating the punishment, no matter what the noto- 
 riety? The mere fact of citing a cleric to a lay tribunal 
 incurs punishment, but these punishments are of various 
 kinds, and it is for the bishop or the vicar-general, accord- 
 ing to their prudence, to assign what punishment. Ac- 
 cording to the canon law the citation of a cleric into a lay 
 court is a crime for which a man may be suspended, or 
 excommunicated, or deposed, or declared unfit, or incapable 
 for future benefice. It is for the bishop to determine which 
 of these punishments ; the fact itself falls under the eccle- 
 siastical censures. Therefore, as far as a notorious fact is 
 concerned, there can be per se no diminution or extenuation 
 of the punishment, but it is for the bishop to say which of 
 these punishments or how many of them he will inflict. 
 
 To what cases would you refer these words that ' the 
 citation is necessary in order that the accused may have an 
 opportunity of extenuating his fault ' ? l There are many 
 cases in which the accused may be called and in which his 
 defence may extenuate the punishment ; for instance, if he 
 alleges truly that being cited before his superior he was un- 
 well ; but in these cases of recourse to a lay tribunal there 
 are no such extenuating circumstances to be adduced. 
 
 How is that an illustration? The Interpreter : He speaks 
 in general terms of an extenuation of any punishment ; as, 
 for instance, if a juror, being summoned and not attending, 
 was then able to say he was sick. 
 
 Now as to the case of waiver if the accused, by answer- 
 ing, has submitted to the judgment, is it not essential that 
 
 1 Supra, p. 541. 
 
 N N
 
 546 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Cross- he shall have known the crime that was charged against 
 don of the ^ m ? It is sufficient that he knows that he should defend 
 
 Kev.Csesar himself. 
 
 nce l ' Is a knowledge that one charge is to be made against 
 
 jj ay him, and that he should make his defence as to that charge, 
 
 accused be sufficient to ground a conviction on another charge ? It 
 with g one i g sufficient that he should know that one charge is made 
 offence and against him, and that he should know there is a case or 
 of another, judgment overhanging him, and that he should present him- 
 self to hear all that may be urged against him. 
 
 Is it the canon law, that by appearing before a judge 
 upon the charge, and making your defence on that charge, 
 you give jurisdiction to the judge to commit you on anything 
 else ? It is necessary that the judge should announce the 
 accusation, or the crime of which the man is accused. 
 
 Is it not also necessary that he should have an oppor- 
 tunity of producing any proofs he wants, and making any 
 defence he has in reference to the other charge ? The judge 
 begins by stating, ' You are accused of this, that, or the 
 other.' 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Suppose a man is only accused of 
 this crime, and has to defend himself with respect to this, 
 may he be tried for that and the other ? If the judge pro- 
 duces the new heads of accusation and presents them to the 
 accused, the accused is obliged to defend himself from these 
 also. 
 
 On the spot, without any previous preparation ? That 
 depends on the nature of the charges. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon: Would it make any difference if the 
 accused denied the jurisdiction of the judge in these matters 
 altogether? In such a case there would be room for the 
 prorogation of the jurisdiction. 
 
 Would not the sentence without prorogation of jurisdic- 
 tion in that case be bad 9 The prorogation arises from the 
 very fact itself, that the accused presents himself before the 
 judge. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : May you try him for an offence 
 that is not mentioned in the citation ? Yes. 
 
 Do you believe that to be consonant with natural 
 justice? It is consistent with the principles of natu- 
 ral justice, when the judge has cited or called the accused
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 547 
 
 and there is an enumeration of the charges, and time given Cross- 
 for the defence the sentence then is according to the prin- t ^f n t h"e 
 
 ClpleS Of natural justice. Rev. Caesar 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Does it make any difference if the sup- once '' 
 plemental or second charges are not put forward by way of 
 judicial question, but by way of interrogation to himself? 
 If the judgment be a summary judgment not the strictly 
 judicial form these interrogations are sufficient. 
 
 But should not the accused know whether the summary 
 jurisdiction is intended or not? Yes, he should know it. 
 And he does know it, by the very fact of presenting himself; 
 and knowing about the matter of the proceedings, there is 
 no necessity to tell him that it is an extra-judicial process. 
 
 No matter what the form of procedure is, must not 
 the accused know that this newly mentioned crime is part 
 of the list ? Yes, the accused should know all the heads of 
 the questions on which he is accused. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When is he to learn that ? Is it 
 when he appears ? When he appears before the judge. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Is that right according to canon law ? 
 Yes; it is a general rule. This authority states that the dele- 
 gated judge ought to exhibit his power, and furnish a copy of 
 his delegated powers ; otherwise it is not necessary to obey. 
 
 What are the exceptions to that ? The first exception Privilege 
 to the rule is, when the delegated judge is a Cardinal of the ^ a 9 AT ~ 
 Holy Roman Church. 
 
 But in the case of other delegated judges, it is law ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Would you ask him whether he has any authority that 
 he can refer to for the jurisdiction to inflicb an ipso facto sus- 
 pension to take effect in the future ? 
 
 Interpreter : You mean in case of something being done ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Yes. According to the principles of 
 canon law, the judge has it in his power to threaten, or put 
 forth a suspension depending upon the commission of the 
 crime. 
 
 I asked him, can he refer us to any authority for that 
 principle ? Interpreter : He refers to all the canons ; he says 
 all the canons assert it. 
 
 I want any canon that does ? It is in the chapter on 
 
 N N 2
 
 548 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Cross- canon law De Clerico excommunicato, in the twenty-seventh 
 tion of the title of the Decretals of Gregory IX. 
 Kev. Caesar f} l6 L or d Chief Justice : When were the Decretals of 
 
 Eoncetti. ,,, 
 
 Gregory IX. published? A.D. 1280. 
 
 Is this a separate decree a portion of the corpus juris 
 canonici ? It is a portion of the common canon law. The 
 twenty-seventh title of the Decrees of Gregory IX. is ' If any 
 bishop, priest, or cleric justly deposed from his office shall 
 dare to exercise that office at any future time, he may be cut 
 off from the Church.' 1 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon (reading) : f If any bishop, priest, or deacon, 
 being justly deposed for certain accusations, shall have dared 
 to take again the ministry which has been taken from him, 
 let him be cut off from the Church.' Is not that applicable 
 only to the ca se of a man who has been convicted pro certis 
 criminibus. Can you refer me to any place in canon law where 
 a man who has not committed crime may be visited with 
 conditional suspension to take effect as soon as he does ? 
 I require some time and study to find out these cases. Just 
 at this moment I am not able to put my hand on it, but the 
 nature of the thing and the good sense of the thing shows 
 that such a sentence can be. Here is a case in point : the 
 case of an excommunication upon a country. The canon 
 says that if anyone knowing that excommunication go there, 
 and celebrate there, he may be deposed. 
 
 Here is the literal translation of this (reading) : ' If any 
 person having a knowledge of excommunication, by public re- 
 port alone, celebrates, he ought according to the rule of the 
 law be deprived, though it may be through mercy made a 
 matter of dispensation with him.' 2 Now must not a man 
 be tried for doing a thing before he is deposed, even accord- 
 ing to that law ? No, the mere fact of celebrating brings 
 with it a censure. 
 
 How do you explain that to be sustained by the words 
 ( he ought to be deposed ' ? That does not apply to judicial 
 proceedings, but it applies rather to what follows, namely, 
 that in such cases mercy may be used, and a dispensation 
 from the deposition may be the consequence. 
 
 1 See Decretal. Greg. IX., Lib. V., Tit. xxvii., cap. I. 
 * See Decretal. Greg. IX., Lib. V., Tit. xxvii.. cap. V.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 549 
 
 Ask him, can he find any authority for saying that a Cross- 
 person may be infuturo suspended? tio^Tof^h'e 
 
 It may be gathered from all the canon law. Key. Caesar 
 
 The question I ask is this, and I want an answer to it : 
 Can you refer me to any passage showing that a man can be 
 suspended in futuro ? Interpreter : Make a distinction for 
 him between being suspended and tried ; being in future sus- 
 pended for an act of his own. 
 
 (Counsel reads) : ' One clergyman striking another, and 
 not desisting when warned, deponendus est, is to be deposed.' 
 Is not that an authority against his being ipso facto deposed ? 
 If you refer to the Council of Trent 
 
 I want an answer to the question. I ask, is not the pas- 
 sage read that a man deponendus est is not that an authority 
 that he is not ipso facto deponendus. 
 
 Interpreter : He acknowledges that it is. 
 
 (Here the cross-examination ended.) 
 
 Re-examined by ME. O'HAGAN, Q.C. Ke-exami- 
 
 You have said that in Italy, at this day, the privilege of ^^ of 
 immunity from lay tribunals is not admitted. Does that Caesar 
 refer to the civil law of Italy ? To the civil laws of the Italian 
 Government. 
 
 If in Italy one priest brought another priest before a lay 
 tribunal about a matter ecclesiastic, would not that be 
 followed by suspension ? Yes ; he would be punished by 
 the ecclesiastical tribunals. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : If he brought him before a court 
 for a civil offence, for a debt ? It is the same. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Is it so in countries where there is such a 
 concordat as you mentioned, namely, where there is a con- 
 cordat defining that for certain civil causes one priest 
 may sue another priest ? In that case would there be any 
 cause of suspension ? No ; because the general law of the 
 Church is suspended or limited by the concordat. 
 
 Would it be the same in countries where there is no 
 concordat, but where custom has established the right 
 for priests to bring priests for civil matters before a lay 
 tribunal? If the custom be a legitimate one, and legiti- 
 mately introduced, it would be sufficient to exonerate from 
 censure. 
 
 Now I want you to explain an answer that you gave to
 
 550 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Ke-exami- my learned friend. Suppose a suspension, not being a sus- 
 
 "he'lLv pension ex informata conscientia the sole cause expressed 
 
 Caesar being an insufficient and invalid cause, and that the accused 
 
 nce 1- conceived it to be the sole cause could the suspension in 
 
 that case be maintained by reason of the judge having 
 
 another valid ground in his mind? In such a case, even 
 
 though the sole cause expressed were not sufficient, yet if 
 
 other causes existed they might render the suspension valid. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is it * might render,' he said ? 
 
 Interpreter : ' Might.' 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Now suppose the vicar-general to ex- 
 press on the face of a censure of suspension that he had 
 delegated authority, would it be necessary for him to show 
 or to prove that authority if he were required to do so ? 
 No, there is no necessity in such circumstances. 
 
 Examina- DR. A^GELO JACOBINI examined through an Interpreter, 
 tion of t fo R EV- THOMAS BURKE. 
 
 Dr. Angelo 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: Ask him what he is? He is at this 
 moment a secretary of the Congregation of the Apostolic 
 Visitation. 
 
 Are you a doctor of civil and canon law? I am 
 laureated in utroque jure doctor. 
 
 Have you heard the evidence of Dr. Roncetti? I have ; 
 yes. 
 
 Do you concur in the main with that evidence ? Yes, in 
 the main. 
 
 Are there any points upon which you differ from him in 
 opinion ? I differ from Dr. Eoncetti in the opinion which 
 he gave as to the validity of the suspension where motive is 
 assigned or noticed. If a motive were assigned on the face 
 of the document, and it was insufficient, then the suspension 
 would be invalid; in that case the suspension would be 
 invalid. 
 Suspen- Does that answer apply to a suspension ex informata con- 
 
 sion ex scientia ? It cannot apply to a suspension ex informata con- 
 
 injormata . . rr J 
 
 conscientia scientia, because in such a censure no cause or motive is 
 
 asserted, 
 applicable I s ^ perfectly clear, according to canon law, that a 
 
 censure of suspension ex informata conscientia applies to
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Oullen. 
 
 551 
 
 secular priests as well as to regular? It is most clear. 
 Tlie answer is that there is no doubt but that it applies to 
 the secular as well as to the regular clergy. And this, first 
 because of the decree of the Council of Trent; secondly, 
 because of the decrees of the Congregation, which are the 
 only interpreters of the doctrine of the Council, and which de- 
 clare that the decree was amplified or extended by the Sacred 
 Council to the secular as well as to the regular clergy. And 
 if this law did not apply to the seculars, every word the 
 Council of Trent says upon it would be superfluous, because 
 it already existed in the case of the regulars. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell : With reference to suspen- 
 sions ex informata conscientia, if the bishop who suspends ex 
 informata conscientia declares the cause of that suspension, 
 and that cause is an invalid one, does the point on which you 
 differ from the last witness Dr. Roncetti apply in such a 
 case as that ? In my opinion, if a bishop assign a cause in 
 an ex informata conscientia suspension, and make no reference 
 to other causes that may exist, and if the cause assigned 
 be insufficient, in that case the suspension would be 
 invalid. 
 
 Re-examined by Mr. O'Hagan: In that case might the 
 priest disregard the suspension altogether ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : How does that arise from my cross-exaini- 
 nation? I confined myself to one question alone, and that 
 was with reference to a question put on the direct examina- 
 tion by my learned friend. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I do not see how it arises out of 
 the cross-examination. This has been answered already by 
 perhaps one of the most satisfactory of our witnesses, Dr. 
 Leahy. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan: My learned friend asks whether, under 
 certain circumstances, a suspension ex informata conscientia 
 would be invalid. The question arises out of that which I 
 now put, viz. whether supposing it were so invalid, a priest 
 would nevertheless be bound to obey it. I never knew a 
 question arising more clearly out of cross-examination. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The question has been already 
 answered. I do not see any harm in asking the same 
 questi( n. 
 
 M . O'Hagan : Now I ask the question. Witness : In that 
 
 Examina- 
 
 Jacobini. 
 
 Cross- 
 examiu a- 
 
 Dr. Angelo 
 
 Ke-exami- 
 
 D^A" i 
 Jacobini.
 
 552 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 i- case the priest is obliged to observe the censure, because he 
 Dr. Angelo cann ot pronounce it invalid without constituting himself 
 Jacobini. judex in causa propria; he is obliged to have recourse to 
 the Holy See, and pending the recursus to submit to the 
 sentence. All the more is this true that the priest shall sub- 
 mit, because this recursus, which is made from the suspension 
 ex informata conscientia, does not suspend the execution or 
 observance of the sentence. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Then if the sentence was ever so 
 absurd, ever so unjust on the face of it, is that sentence to 
 be executed before the appeal can be heard? Unless the 
 thing was so absurd as that its absurdity was manifest to all 
 on the very face of it ; in any case of doubt he would be 
 obliged to wait. 
 
 I want to know this you did not answer the question : 
 If it is manifestly unjust on the face of it, must it be exe- 
 cuted first and inquired into afterwards ? In case that the 
 injustice was manifest unmistakably and palpably, then in 
 that case he would not be obliged to observe it. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : There is just one question, my lord, which I 
 wish to ask him. Assuming in a suspension ex informata 
 conscientia that the ground of suspension is declared by the 
 bishop, and that it is doubtful whether it is sufficient, does 
 the clergyman though he may be bound to obey it until he 
 has recourse to Rome incur irregularity by not obeying? 
 He incurs irregularity because he must wait for the sentence 
 of the Holy See the judge in the case. He would incur 
 irregularity inforo externo ; he would be considered as irre- 
 gular in foro externo. If, however, the Supreme Pontiff, to 
 whom he has recourse, pronounces the sentence invalid, the 
 suspension ceases. 
 
 Is it not a vexata qucestio a matter of doubt amongst 
 canonists whether he incurs an irregularity? Do you con- 
 cur with that (a passage in the c Modern Theology of 
 ScaviniJ shown to witness] ? No, I do not concur in that 
 opinion. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is the opinion that he does 
 not concur with ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : That he does not incur an irregularity. 
 
 When did Scavini live? He is almost a cotemporary 
 writer. He came after Liguori.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keejfe v. Cardinal Cullen. 553 
 
 Do you know Scavini as a writer ? Yes, I do. Ee-exami- 
 
 What is the general character of his works ? In moral p^ " ( 
 theology he is a respectable authority; in canon law he is Jacobini. 
 no great thing up to a certain point. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: Is Scavini's book published in 
 Rome ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : It is published in Rome, and with the 
 approbation of the present Pope. 
 
 Has it the approbation of the present Pope ? 
 
 Witness : No. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When was the original edition of 
 Scavini published? I cannot undertake to answer. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Has it not the approbation of the Pope?-- 
 Approbations are either general or specific. 
 
 Is this either general or specific ? There is a great dif- 
 ference in ecclesiastical law between an approbation of a 
 book in general and a specific approbation of a book which 
 would extend to all the propositions in it. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Did Scavini get general or 
 specific approbation, and when was that general approbation 
 given ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell: On the 7th April, 1867? 
 
 Interpreter : He denies that it can be construed even into 
 a general approbation. It is simply a letter from the Pope, 
 thanking Scavini for having dedicated his book to him. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Thanking him? For having 
 dedicated the book to him. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : A book that is unsound ? 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Does that thanking him. for the dedication 
 approve of the contents ? No. 
 
 On a question of moral theology? No; it approves of 
 nothing. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice: Was it possible to publish a 
 book at the time that it was published without the super- 
 vision of an ecclesiastical censor? There may have been a 
 censor, but this censor does not apply himself to every pro- 
 position in the book, but to see that there be nothing there 
 contrary to faith and morals. 
 
 Do you know where the original edition was published? 
 Was he an Italian writer? Yes, he was an Italian, but I 
 do not know where the first edition was published.
 
 554 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Ee-exami- % r% Q'Haqan : Would you be kind enough to take the 
 
 nation of 
 
 Dr. Angelo l&st edition of Scavini into your hand, as it sometimes 
 Jacobin], happens that a text-book in our law is corrected in the 
 second edition. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When was the first edition of 
 Scavini published ? 
 
 Interpreter : He has already told me he does not know. 
 Scavini lived after Liguori. 
 
 Witness : Your lordship was asking if Scavini was an 
 ancient author. I answered he lived after Liguori, conse- 
 quently that he must have lived almost to our own time. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan : Will you read a passage to which I have 
 called attention in the last edition of Scavini. (Witness 
 reads it.) 
 
 Take it, and translate the passage. 
 
 Witness : 'A bishop can also in the same way suspend a 
 parish priest from all exercises of his cure. And the Sacred 
 Congregation of Council, in June, 1625, decreed that a parish 
 priest would incur irregularity, who being suspended by his 
 own bishop ex informata conscientia for causes known to 
 himself from all exercises of his parish duties, having inter- 
 posed an appeal still continued in the exercise and celebra- 
 tion of his office.' * 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When was that ? 
 
 Interpreter: In 1625. It was the usual mode or inter- 
 pretation given. 
 
 When was this published? 
 
 Interpreter : It was published in 1867. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : There might be a nice question, 
 whether a clergyman who takes orders thirty years before a 
 thing is published is bound by it. 
 
 Mr. Purcell : Is that a general rule with reference to 
 suspension not the particular suspension in question ? It 
 is a dispute amongst doctors amongst theologians, whether 
 this which applies with regard to suspension ex informata con- 
 scientia, applies also to other suspensions. Some assert that 
 if a suspension be for a determined time, and inflicted 
 merely as a penalty that in such a case the irregularity 
 would not be incurred by the violation of it. But all agree 
 
 1 Scavini's Theologia Moralis Universa (Chap. De Ccnsuris), Disp. III., 
 Cap. VIII., Art. II.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 
 
 555 
 
 that if a suspension be fulminated or delivered without any Examina- 
 determinatioii of time, or strictly as a censure, that irregu- tlo ^ r 
 larity is incurred by the violation of it. 
 
 Henry 
 
 Neville. 
 
 The REV. HENRY NEVILLE examined by SERJEANT ARMSTRONG. 
 
 I believe you are a parish priest of the Roman Catholic 
 Church in Ireland? Yes. 
 
 In what diocese ? In the diocese of Cork. 
 
 I believe you are a canon in one of the chapters of the 
 Church? Yes. 
 
 Have you been a professor of moral theology ? I was 
 professor in Maynooth for about seventeen years. 
 
 We will not go minutely into it. I was about a year 
 and a half professor of logic, and the rest of the time I pro- 
 fessed moral theology. 
 
 In the course of your reading you made the general law 
 of the Church and canon law your study? We have to 
 teach it. It comes in in the doctrine of censure; and other 
 matters of canon law necessarily enter into moral theology. 
 
 Did you thus acquire, and do you possess, a general 
 acquaintance with the laws, ordinances, and discipline of 
 your Church in Ireland ? I should say so. 
 
 Now, according to the law of the Church of Home in 
 Ireland, is it a violation of the law and discipline of that 
 Church that one ecclesiastic should irnplead another in the 
 civil courts upon ecclesiastical matters ? It is. 
 
 Does the vicar-general in the matter of suspension allege 
 his authority unless the priest demands to see his autho- 
 rity ? It is a very apt authority to be connected with his 
 office. 
 
 Now after a suspension ab ordine et ab officio by the vicar- 
 general, is it a violation of the discipline and law of the 
 Church, that a suspended priest should celebrate the sacra- 
 ments of the Church ? Most certainly, it is a violation of the 
 law and discipline of the Church. 
 
 Is there such a thing in the law of the Church as a con- 
 
 ,... , ... , , 
 
 ditional suspension in this sense a suspension, but not to 
 take effect until a prohibited act is done ? It is quite 
 usual, quite a usual form of pronouncing a suspension, and 
 the suspension is not incurred until the act prohibited under 
 
 As to 
 
 otller at 
 
 IcVW. 
 
 Condi- 
 
 tional sus- 
 
 pensions.
 
 556 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Eev. 
 Henry 
 Neville. 
 
 Suspen- 
 sions ex 
 informata 
 consci- 
 entia 
 
 partly 
 invalid. 
 
 censure is committed. Then it is incurred as it is said ipso 
 facto. The man in fact suspends himself by doing what he 
 has been prohibited under censure from doing. 
 
 You know the suspension that has been so repeatedly 
 referred to. If you look to the letter of December 10th, 
 1870, 1 and the subsequent conditional suspension were all 
 these conformable to and consistent with the law and dis- 
 cipline of the Church ? Yes ; they were all valid either as 
 poence or censures. 
 
 Eeferring to the letter of December 10th, 1870 9 1 It 
 and the two following are conformable and consistent with 
 the discipline and the law of the Church in Ireland. 
 
 Do you know what is meant by the law of the Church 
 as a suspension ex informata conscientia ? Yes ; I am 
 acquainted with it. 
 
 Does it apply to parish priests as well as to regular 
 clergy ? Oh, clearly ; and to the beneficed clergymen, and 
 all regular clergymen. 
 
 Is that doctrine generally received and accepted through 
 the Irish Church, so far as you know ? It is universal. 
 
 Have you known it to be acted upon ? I have. 
 
 What is your opinion as to a portion of that suspension 
 which would affect to deprive the priest ' a beneficio ' ? is it 
 valid pro tanto ? I think the validity of the suspension, as 
 far as that is concerned, is doubtful. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What is doubtful ? The validity 
 of that suspension 2 by which a priest was suspended ab ordine, 
 officio, et beneficio. The part of it that refers to a suspension 
 a beneficio is a doubtful suspension, I would say. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is it doubtful ? Doubtful. I 
 would not hold it invalid because I think there are reasons for 
 defending its validity. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Assuming for argument's sake this 
 invalidity pro tanto, is the integrity and validity of the rest 
 of the suspension affected? Certainly not; because the 
 objects of the suspension are totally distinct and separate 
 in themselves. The object of the suspension ab ordine is 
 to prevent his exercising orders; the object of the sus- 
 pension ab officio is to prevent him exercising the jurisdiction 
 that attaches to him by virtue of his office ; and the sus- 
 
 1 Supra, p. 167. 2 Supra, p. 158.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 557 
 
 pension ( a beneficio ' is a suspension a fructibus beneficii. Examina- 
 They are totally separable, and it could be valid as to one and t101 ^. the 
 not as to the others. Henry 
 
 Does a parish priest, who, after being suspended ex 
 informata conscientia., celebrates mass and hears confessions, 
 incur an irregularity ? He incurs an irregularity on account 
 of the violation of the censure by exercising the sacred order 
 from the exercise of which he has been prohibited. 
 
 If he quarrels with the suspension or objects to it on any 
 ground, is he at liberty, by the law of the Church until it is 
 reversed to proceed to celebrate the sacraments ? Certainly 
 not. 
 
 According to the law of the Church, what is the proper Remedies 
 course for a priest so suspended to pursue ? He has what is P. en t0 ^ 
 
 * * r . priest ob- 
 
 called one of the remedia contra sententiam remedies against jecting to 
 the sentence of the iudge. There are two of them one s l ls P en ' 
 
 . p . sion. 
 
 of them is appellatio and another is recursus. He has the 
 recursus to no one short of the Sovereign Pontiff'; he has 
 a recursus to him, and the bishop who has inflicted the sen- 
 tence is bound to give a satisfactory account to the Pope 
 of the reasons on account of which he has inflicted that 
 suspension. 
 
 A question has been put and raised occasionally through 
 the case as to the right of a priest to disregard a suspension 
 ex informata conscientia, manifestly and grossly unjust and 
 unreasonable on the face of it. Have you ever heard of 
 such a thing? I cannot understand how a suspension ex 
 informata conscientia could be manifestly invalid, except in 
 the one particular case where a person who is not a bishop 
 attempts to enforce it, or a person who is not the bishop 
 of him upon whom it is inflicted. In its very nature it is a 
 secret process, in the carrying out of which the bishop is 
 not required to state any reason whatsoever, except when 
 recursus is had to the Holy See. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That applies to every parish 
 priest in Ireland? -It does, my lord, and to every curate. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : According to the law of the Church, 
 is a suspended priest justified in publishing denunciations 
 of the bishop who suspended him, with the view to impugn 
 the authority of the bishop in the act he has done? Oh, 
 certainly not. A man can defend himself from a charge,
 
 558 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 'Examina- but it exceeds the bounds of legitimate self-defence to en- 
 
 I I Rev t 6 deavour to inflict injury in one department for an injury in 
 
 Henry another : thus, if a man kills my horse, may I burn his house, 
 
 Seville, f com p eilsa tion ? 
 
 You do not find any foundation for that in Christian 
 theology ? I do not. 
 
 Are you aware of the distinction between the judicial 
 and the extra-judicial proceeding by a bishop ? Yes. 
 
 Or of a delegate of the Holy See ? Or of a delegate of 
 the Holy See. In the judicial process certain formali- 
 ties are to be observed beyond those that are required ex 
 justitia rei from the justice of the thing. In the extra- 
 judicial these formalities are not required. 
 
 Distmc- Now in judicial proceedings, are you assuming the cir- 
 
 tween cumstances of a recognized court judges and officers and all 
 judicial na p According to the canon law, would the witnesses be 
 
 and extra- 
 
 judicial sworn? The witnesses should be sworn, the libellus should 
 pro ess. j^ p reseil ted, and a denunciation should terminate the causa, 
 
 Are you aware that, owing to the fact that the Church 
 of Rome is not in any way established by law in this 
 country, or possessed of courts in this country, there is no 
 power in the bishop to swear witnesses ? Yes,Ihave heard so. 
 
 You have heard read the letter of his Eminence Cardinal 
 Cullen, of the 2nd October, 1871, l in which he communicates 
 to Mr. O'Keeffe the fact that he had authority derived from 
 the Holy See to investigate the case at Callan ? Yes. 
 
 And you have heard read also and I daresay recollect 
 accurately the reply to that, declining to come up, 2 and the 
 letter of the 21st October, 187 1, 3 in which the Cardinal says 
 he will proceed to inquire whether any censure had been 
 incurred, and if so, whether any penalty had been inflicted ? 
 Yes ; I am sufficiently acquainted with these. 
 
 Now, according to the law of the Church, was that a 
 sufficient intimation and citation to O'Keefle ? Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : That is the question that has been 
 objected to. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : The same question as was answered 
 yesterday. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You see there is a great vagueness 
 in the whole thing. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 180. * Supra, p. 181. * Supra, p. 183.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 559 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : This question has been put to two Examina- 
 witnesses, and answered without objection, and it is a strange 10I Rev. 
 thing- to raise it now. Henry 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : When you say, ' Is this a sufficient , 
 
 intimation to Mr. O'Keeffe?' intimation of what? 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong: That he intended to proceed judicially 
 to the examination of his business. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : You are quite right. It is an 
 intimation of that beyond all doubt. I always held that. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Just explain the meaning of cen- Excommu- 
 sure or excommunication ab homine. Just explain that, in ukation a b 
 order that we may understand what it would involve. A 
 censure ab homine may be inflicted per modum mandati, 
 that is, by way of mandate or precept, or in the form, of a 
 sentence delivered by way of mandate. It is imposed when 
 the bishop gives a command to anybody to do a certain 
 thing or not to do a certain thing, under penalty of incurring 
 censure or excommunication or any sentence, if he dis- 
 obeyed that mandate. That is the censure ab homine per 
 modum mandati. Then the censure of simple punishment is 
 inflicted on a man on account of some crime committed by him. 
 not entirely past ; he can suffer simple punishment. But a 
 censure because it is a medicinal punishment must be in- 
 flicted for a crime having some connection with the future, 
 and in order to inflict it the bishop must 
 
 Or the delegate ? The ordinary judge or delegate as he 
 may be, who inflicts the censure must admonish the person 
 being censured that if he perseveres in such a course of 
 conduct he will incur such and such a penalty. Then of 
 course the judicial monitions will be formal three of them ; 
 or one peremptorily, in place of the three, with the intima- 
 tion that it is meant to stand for the three. 
 
 Was the celebration of mass and hearing confession after Continu- 
 suspension ex informata conscientia an ecclesiastical offence officiate 
 for which the Cardinal might suspend him? Certainly it after sus- 
 involved an irregularity. It is a cause, not only of suspen- J^f^d 
 sion, but of deprivation of benefice, if an irregularity is Cardinal's 
 persevered in, and not -repented of. ings. 6 ** 
 
 I wish to ask you just at this stage with reference to 
 your answer that the bringing of one ecclesiastic into a civil su i n g ec _ 
 court in Ireland by another in an ecclesiastical matter is a clesiastics
 
 5CO 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland}. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Eev. 
 Henry 
 Neville. 
 
 in civil 
 courts. 
 
 Denuncia- 
 tion of 
 bishop jus- 
 tifies sus- 
 pension. 
 
 violation of tlie laws of the Church whether it is so, inde- 
 pendently of any consideration as to the prevalence or autho- 
 rity in this country of the bull In Coena Domini or the 
 Apostolicoe Sedis ? I think so. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : May I ask you, does it apply 
 equally whether it is for an ecclesiastical or temporal right ? 
 My lord, I believe that in temporal cases an ecclesiastic in 
 certain temporal matters, such as wills and contracts of that 
 kind may be brought into Court. 
 
 I speak generally. Is it the law of the Church that an 
 ecclesiastic cannot bring an action for the recovery of a tem- 
 poral right or the redress of a temporal wrong in the Queen's 
 courts ? That is the question I put. It is not the law at 
 present, my lord, in this country. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : When you say that he cannot be 
 brought into court, I suppose you mean without exposing 
 himself to ecclesiastical censure? That is what I under- 
 stand his lordship to mean. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Yes ; whether, in bringing an 
 ecclesiastic into a court for a temporal right, he incurs by 
 that any penalty ? Not necessarily, my lord. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : If a priest impleads a brother priest 
 for words spoken of him as a priest, and touching his conduct 
 as a priest, and in his priestly character is that the case to 
 which you referred? Oh, certainly not, because that refers 
 to his sacred character and sacred office. 
 
 And that comes within the law of the Church that you 
 have adverted to ? Certain!}-. 
 
 And I presume that your answer would be the same as to 
 bringing an action against a bishop for words spoken about 
 his conduct as parish priest ? A fortiori. 
 
 And so I presume all words written of a priest by a priest, 
 touching his conduct as a priest in his spiritual character ? 
 Certainly. 
 
 Is a denunciation of the bishop by one of the priests of 
 his diocese, printed and published with the authority of that 
 priest, an offence against the law and discipline of your 
 Church? A most grave offence. 
 
 Is it an offence for which the Pope has the power of 
 suspending the priest ? Most certainly. 
 
 And the Pope's delegate ? Or the Pope's delegate.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Gullen. 
 
 561 
 
 Henry 
 
 * 
 
 Is it an offence against the law of the Church in Ireland Examina- 
 and the law of the Church generally the common law of the 10J 
 Church to permit, against the prohibition of the bishop and 
 vicar- general, or either of them, a friar out of his convent to 
 celebrate mass in the parish ? Yes, it is a great subversion 
 of discipline in the parish. 
 
 Is it an offence for which the Pope can suspend the 
 priest ? Certainly. 
 
 Or his delegate ? Or his delegate. 
 
 According to the law of the Church, has the bishop a 
 veto upon the introduction of a convent of nuns into his 
 diocese ? Yes. This is one of the privileges of a bishop, to 
 permit or not to permit the introduction of a new religious 
 body into his diocese. 
 
 Is it an offence against the law of the Church to attempt 
 to get them in, contrary to the prohibition of the bishop ? It 
 is an act of disobedience to the bishop and contempt of his 
 authority. 
 
 Now you state that you could scarcely imagine I believe 
 that was your language such a thing as a suspension ex in- 
 formata conscientia null and void on the face of it? Yes. 
 
 You never heard of such a thing? I have given the 
 two cases in which alone I think it possible. 
 
 That a bishop without grounds at all acted ? Yes, or 
 a person not a bishop. 
 
 You never heard of such a thing? I never heard of it. 
 
 If a bishop suspended a priest for a wart on his nose it 
 would be absurd on the face of it ? On the face of it. 
 
 Or of taking two pinches of snuff instead of one ? Yes. 
 
 That would be absurd on the face of it ? It would not 
 be ex informata conscientia. 
 
 I think not. It would be ex informata facie. Yes. 
 
 Had Pope Pius IX. power to make the ordinance of the 
 31st of May, 187 1? 1 Empowering the Cardinal to proceed 
 in the matter of the Callan case ? 
 
 Yes. He certainly has the power of his primary juris- 
 diction over the universal Church. 
 
 Was the promulgation of that ordinance under the hand 
 and seal of the Cardinal Prefect, his secretary, an act of the 
 Pope ? Certainly. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345. 

 
 562 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- 
 tion of the 
 Eev. 
 Henry 
 
 Neville. 
 
 Contu- 
 macy. 
 
 Now, according to the law and discipline of your Church, 
 had the Cardinal, by virtue of that ordinance, power and 
 authority to inquire into and institute proceedings as to the 
 conduct of the plaintiff, and to pronounce such sentence 
 against him as should seein to him just? He had the most 
 ample power to inquire into and pass sentence on the plain- 
 tiff, as expressly laid down in the suspension ( inquirere et pro- 
 ferre sententiam.' 
 
 Now, assuming that Mr. O'Keeffe had been before the 
 Cardinal, and assuming an inquiry entered upon, and not 
 terminated, and that he was afterwards required by law 
 to appear and proceed in the matter, and to hear sentence 
 in the matter, and that he deliberately absented himself 
 and declined to come, would he incur the crime of contumacy 
 according to the law of the Church ? That is one of the 
 instances of acts of contumacy. 
 
 And would he by the circumstance of his deliberate 
 absence be guilty of contempt? Contumacy necessarily 
 implies contempt contempt of the tribunal whose order or 
 authority you refuse to obey. 
 
 Could the Pope suspend for contumacy the parish priest ? 
 It is one of the ordinary causes of suspension. 
 
 Had the Cardinal authority under that ordinance to sus- 
 pend for that cause ? He had. 
 
 Are you aware of anything to invalidate or affect the in- 
 tegrity of the Cardinal's sentence of suspension, according 
 to the laws, discipline, and ordinances of the Church? 
 Nothing that I know can interfere with it, and I have heard 
 the case put and questions asked about it. 
 
 Was it the duty of his Eminence in effectuating that 
 ordinance, to promulgate, or as it is technically termed 
 denounce the suspension? His work would have been alto- 
 gether incomplete, as the fulfilment of the duty imposed by 
 the Holy See, and imperfect, if he had not done so. Thus the 
 object for which it was conferred upon him would not have 
 been attained. 
 
 Was the circulation, or as we will term it the posting 
 on the public pillars of the church in the town of Callau, a 
 sufficient announcement of it? Oh, most sufficient. Any 
 publication of it is sufficient, but that was the most effectual 
 way of making it public.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kee/e v. Cardinal Cullen. 563 
 
 Was it the interest of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Examina- 
 Callan to be made aware of that suspension? I think so; tl '^ v t 
 so that they should not be receiving sacraments, knowing Henry 
 the priest to be under censure. 
 
 Was he unable to give confession and to say mass after 
 that suspension? Once he is denounced and suspended, 
 a priest has lost all jurisdiction. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : May I ask you, sir, does that 
 apply every time he is suspended, or do you make a distinc- 
 tion between the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth ? 
 
 It applies only, my lord, to the denounced suspension. Effect of 
 
 But does it apply to the four previous suspensions? 'dewunaa- 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : We shall take the vicar-general's 
 suspension and assume it to be good. We know that it was 
 not denounced ? It was not. 
 
 While it was imparted only to the priest himself, his 
 ministrations might have been attended after that ? Yes, 
 because he was not denounced in the face of the church. 
 
 After a suspension ex informata conscientia the essence of 
 the sacrament was not lost? The absolution would be valid. 
 
 To those who were not aware of the suspension? To 
 those who were not aware of the suspension, or to those who 
 bond fide received the sacrament from him. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Here are the words : ' I suspend 
 you from your office, from all its functions, from all adminis- 
 tration in things spiritual.' * What is the effect of that ? 
 That has, first, the effect of prohibiting him from exercising 
 the order, or its functions ; and, secondly, it has the effect of 
 causing him to incur an irregularity if he does exercise those 
 orders. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : But the recipients of the sacrament 
 would not be affected if they were ignorant of the fact ? No. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What do you say to the second 
 suspension? 2 The same with all down to the denounced sus- 
 pension. 
 
 Is that any stronger than the other one ? There is an 
 act of publicity attaching to that suspension by which the 
 people are admonished of their previous pastor having been 
 deprived of his office, order, and jurisdiction, and the effect of 
 that is, that he loses all jurisdiction over them. 
 
 1 Supra, p. 149. 2 Supra, p. 151, 
 
 o o 2
 
 564 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Examina- Serjeant Armstrong : And there is no benefit in the sacra - 
 ti0n Eey the ments? No benefit in the sacraments. 
 Henry Was celebrating mass, hearing confession, and so on, 
 
 Seville. a ft er the vicar-general's and the bishop's suspension, and his 
 denunciation of his bishop and the employment of the friar 
 were these irregularities ? He incurred irregularity by the 
 very act of orders exercised after the suspension . 
 
 Now, assuming that after this denunciation of the Cardi- 
 nal's suspension, he continued, in the chapel of which he had 
 possession, to celebrate mass, and continued also to hear 
 confession, was it the duty of the Cardinal, in working out 
 the authority vested in him, to interdict the chapel? Oh, 
 Cardinal certainly ; the Cardinal was bound to have recourse to the 
 was bound means o f prohibiting the faithful from frequenting his ser- 
 dict the vices, which would be by interdicting the chapel in which he 
 chapel. save them. 
 
 O 
 
 Had the people termed Roman Catholic an interest in 
 knowing that interdict ? Of course they had. 
 
 Was the posting of it on a gate or approach to a place of 
 worship sufficiently public? Quite sufficient. It was one 
 of the most obvious places to publish it. 
 Cross- Cross-examined by Mr. Fitzgibbon : 
 
 examina- you spoke of the distinction between iudicial and extra- 
 
 tionof the . ,. . . ,. , ,. , J.T, -, i 
 
 Kev. judicial proceedings, and mentioned that in judicial proceed- 
 E enr y ings there were certain forms which were outside what 
 we might call the justice of the case; now are not these 
 forms the only forms which are not essential to both j'udicial 
 and extra-judicial proceedings ? In other words, are not the 
 forms that are necessary for the justice of the case equally 
 necessary whether the proceeding is judicial or extra-judi- 
 cial ? Certainly ; they are always. The justice of the sen- 
 tence is always necessary. 
 
 Whether the proceeding be judicial or extra-judicial? 
 Yes. 
 
 And if any form essential to the justice of the sentence be 
 omitted, is not the sentence equally affected, whether the 
 proceeding be judicial or extra-judicial ? I do not know that 
 any form is invariably required for the justice of the case. 
 For instance, in the suspension ex informata conscientia there 
 is no form at all required for the justice of the sentence.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Kecffe v. Cardinal CMen. 565 
 
 You exclude it, then, from the first division you say that Cross- 
 
 the justice of the sentence is essential? It is essential. Jon of"tte 
 
 I ask you if any form essential to the justice of the sen- Rev. 
 
 tence be omitted, does it make any matter whether the NerilLe 
 
 proceeding is judicial or extra-judicial ? Any form that is 
 
 required for the justice of a particular sentence is requisite, 
 unless from the nature of the case that form be substantially 
 present. 
 
 When you were asked in reference to the suspension ex Suspen- 
 
 informata conscientia, you said that it clearly and expressly ? J n "* , 
 J 7 J mjormata 
 
 applied, according to canon law, to all clergy, secular and conscientia 
 beneficed as well as regular. When you used the word j^^V^ 18 
 ' expressly ' there, did you refer to a passage in the Council clergy. 
 of Trent ? I referred not only to a passage in the Council 
 of Trent, but to the declaration of the Congregation of Council, 
 whose decision would be sufficient to constitute it binding all 
 over the Church. 
 
 The decisions that you refer to were all based upon that 
 passage of the Council of Trent? Yes; but I say their autho- 
 rity would be sufficient without going back to the Council. 
 This interpretation of the words of the Council is just as 
 authoritative as the declaration of the Council itself. 
 
 You said that it was a secret process, and that the judge Judge need 
 in pronouncing it was not bound to state any reason what- easonsto 
 ever? To the accused. accused. 
 
 To the accused ? Bearing that in mind, do you concur This sus- 
 in the opinion of the Archbishop of Cashel that it applies P ension 
 properly speaking only to cases of occult crime, or cases that apply only 
 cannot be properly proved ? I do not. 
 
 Then is it your evidence that that process ex informata crime. 
 conscientia is a secret process, or one in which the judge is not 
 obliged to state any reasons whatever to the accused ? 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Or to see him at all ? 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Is it your evidence that that process may 
 be applied to offences in any case ? I give you my opinion. 
 I think the power of the bishop is not limited to secret or 
 occult crime, and that it may be applied to all crimes not 
 brought to an open external court. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : What would you think of such a 
 trial as you see here ? Would that be occult ? No. This is 
 a forum contentiosum.
 
 566 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Cross- 
 examina- 
 tion of tho 
 Eev. 
 Henry 
 Neville. 
 
 Meaning 
 of ' occul- 
 tum cri- 
 men.' 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : Then you agree with the archbishop that 
 bringing the matter to the forum contentiosum would not be 
 a crime to which it would be applicable ? That where the 
 ecclesiastical courts have a forum contentiosum it would not 
 be applicable. 
 
 Bat that it would be applicable where the forum was a lay 
 court ? I await a further decision of the Sacred Congregation 
 on that point. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Is it still sub judice ? There are 
 two or three steps in it, iny lord. There is first a secret 
 crime the strict secret crime. Then there is the occultum 
 crimen, which means crime not easily provable in a public 
 court, though there are witnesses to prove it, because there 
 are circumstances intervening. For instance, where the law 
 of the land will not allow those witnesses to be examined or 
 the manner of the court to be applied. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : That is very good, but I do 
 not understand it. Take the trial you are in now. In the 
 process you have been describing, would a bishop be allowed 
 to suspend in that secret manner a priest for such a trial as 
 this as an occult transaction ? I have not made myself suffi- 
 ciently plain to you, my lord. I first gave my opinion about 
 the two first cases, the case of secret crime and cases of 
 crimen occultum, because they are not easily provable in court, 
 and I say I have a doubt. I say I have no authority yet for 
 saying that a crime provable in court unless where there is 
 some prohibition to holding that court is punishable with 
 suspension ex informata conscientia. It is not yet declared. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I ask you whether a bishop can 
 suspend in this summary manner a priest for bringing such 
 an action as this ? He can, niy lord ; I said that long ago. 
 
 Under this process that you have described, you have 
 explained that for any occultum crimen a bishop may do what 
 you have said, but if the offence be notorious which I have 
 exemplified by such a trial as this can the bishop treat it 
 as an offence which he can deal with precisely as in a case 
 of occultum crimen ? That is, for the crime of causing the 
 trial to come on. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : Yes, a thing known to the whole 
 world ? That is a case that I doubt about, my lord. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgibbon : You were asked the difference between
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 567 
 
 ' censura ' and * poena,' and you answered that a censura should Cross- 
 
 be medicinalis. Now what do you mean exactly by that? don'of'the 
 
 That its object is to restore the person on whom censure has Rev. 
 
 been inflicted to a good sence bringing him back. NevULo. 
 
 And where it is not inflicted in that way it is not censure, . 
 
 but punishment ? When inflicted on account of crime that ^ ~ 
 is altogether past, and which the person cannot mend now, 
 
 it is called poena, but when it is inflicted in connection with 
 
 the future as when a man holds property not belonging 
 to him and is required to give it up that has a connection 
 with the future, and the penalty in that case is a ' censure,' 
 for the purpose of bringing him to a good sense of restoring 
 the property not belonging to him. 
 
 Is it not the fact that the sentence by which that punish- 
 ment is inflicted refers to a thing that is entirely past ? 
 When a 'censure ' is inflicted by a sentence of a judge in a 
 court, it is then inflicted in consequence of a thing that 
 is past, because the trial has been gone through, and the 
 accused by his contumacy has rendered himself liable to 
 punishment. 
 
 But I was asking you about your own distinction. You 
 said that a censure in its nature was -- Yes, a censure 
 may be pronounced by a judgment of a bishop in person, as 
 having sufficient authority. It depends upon the way we 
 take it ; every sentence that finishes a trial must of course 
 refer to the past. 
 
 Where is there room for the distinction at all ? There 
 is room for the distinction in this way, that if a person com- 
 mits a crime that has no connection at all with the future, 
 and that his superior comes to him and says, * I suspend you 
 for that crime,' that crime has not any possible connection 
 with the future, and that suspension will be clearly not a 'cen- 
 sure' but a 'poena.' But if a person commences a course of 
 crime, and the superior wishes to prevent him continuing 
 in that course, and tells him, ' if you continue in that course 
 I will censure you,' there it refers to his conduct in the 
 future; but still when a censure becomes a complete sentence 
 it affects the past. 
 
 Re-examined by Serjeant Armstrong : You stated, Father Re-exami- 
 Neville, that this proposition is an open question as to "he^ev 
 whether a notorious offence against the Church as no- Henry 
 
 Neville.
 
 568 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Re-exami- torious as this trial might be properly, according to canon 
 the Rev. l aw > ^ ne foundation for a suspension ex informata conscientia. 
 Henry Yes. 
 
 ' In reference to that, is it a fact that you have got no 
 
 Church courts in this country recognised by law amongst 
 yourselves ? We have not. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : The Churches are all on a level ; 
 therefore what applies to one applies to all. They are all 
 on a like foundation. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : You have got no Church courts ? 
 No. 
 
 If the bishop cited Father O'Keeffe before him, and 
 asked him whether he had brought an action, and he said, 
 ' I decline to answer,' has the bishop any power on earth 
 to prove the fact? That depends on whether the bishop can 
 hold a lawful inquiry into the apparent conduct of the defen- 
 dant. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong ; The bishop cannot proceed to judg- 
 ment, for sworn testimony could not be produced. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : He is in the same predicament 
 that the Church courts of Scotland and those of the late 
 Established Church of Ireland are in. They are all alike. 
 
 Serjeant Armstrong : Assume a case in which there is no 
 Church court, and in which the bishop cannot get proof by 
 sworn testimony, and in which there may be a practical 
 difficulty in proving what is said to be notorious it is in that 
 case, although it is popularly notorious, that a censure ex 
 informata conscientia would apply? My opinion is that it 
 would apply there. 
 
 Therefore your answer applies to cases where no regular 
 Church court exists ? Yes. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice : I dissent from that exposition of 
 the law. Now let me ask you, are you a professor ? I am, 
 my lord. 
 
 Did you succeed Dr. Slevin? Oh no, my lord. Dr. 
 Slevin was dead before my appointment. 
 
 Then you did succeed him. Is this a correct exposition 
 of the law of the Church. (His lordship read as follows) : 
 ' When you use the words " salvo meo ordine," what are ' the 
 'distinctive privileges of the Irish Church which you reserve ?' 
 It is a bishop that is speaking. Answer : ( By the canons of
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 569 
 
 * the Church, I being once inducted into a bishopric cannot Ee-exami- 
 ' be removed from the bishopric unless I commit a canonical "hellev. 
 ' fault, am tried for it, and sentence passed upon me for it.' 1 Henry 
 Is that right? Well, I think it would be, my lord. Ordi- ^ e - 
 narily and regularly it is, my lord, but I can easily imagine 
 a quite possible exceptional case in which it would not be 
 true. 
 
 I will take the liberty of reading this sentence to you. 
 ' By the canons of the Church I being once inducted into a 
 bishopric, cannot be removed from the bishopric unless I 
 commit a canonical fault, am tried for it, and sentence passed 
 upon me for it,' and he adds ' I have a right from which 
 I cannot be removed any more than the Pope can be re- 
 moved from his see unless I transgress the law of God, and 
 am tried and convicted of the offence ' ? What the bishop 
 wishes to state there is fixity of tenure as it were, but when 
 he says he is as fixed and irremovable from his office as the 
 Pope, he goes too far. 
 
 You have not stated that correctly. He says he is irre- 
 movable. He says he has a right from which he * cannot be 
 removed, any more than the Pope can be removed from his 
 see, unless I transgress the law of God and am tried and 
 convicted of the offence.' Is that right ? I think not ; I 
 think he goes too far, my lord. 
 
 Suppose he committed no canonical offence? Perhaps 
 the general good of the Church might require his removal. 
 
 How would that be ? Perhaps a great revolution might 
 occur, and it might be necessary to change the bishoprics in 
 the country. 
 
 I do not ask you about revolution, but, in ordinary cir- 
 cumstances, is that true ? In ordinary circumstances it is. 
 
 Now, listen : Dr. Doyle says that parish priests have a title 
 of their own from which they cannot be removed unless on a 
 charge defined by law being proved against them, and then, 
 he says, * We pass sentence on them, and either reprimand 
 them, suspend them for a time, or suspend them altogether.' 2 
 
 1 See evidence of Dr. Doyle before Select Committee of House of Lords on the 
 state of Ireland, 1825, p. 225. 
 
 <J Evidence of Dr. Doyle. See second report of Select Committee of House of 
 Commons on the state of Ireland, 1825, p. 186.
 
 570 
 
 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland) . 
 
 Re-exami- 
 nation of 
 the Rev. 
 Henry 
 
 Neville. 
 
 Charge of 
 
 the Lord 
 
 Chief 
 
 Justice. 
 
 Is that the law of the Church, generally speaking ? That 
 is the ordinary way of proceeding, my lord. 
 
 Then, according to your view, is the authority to judge 
 and the proceeding ex informata conscientia co-existent with 
 each other? Oh, certainly, my lord. 
 
 And may tne bishop by that secret process which you 
 have described set aside all that ? He may, my lord, but 
 he must justify himself to the Pope. 
 
 Here the evidence for the defendant was concluded. 
 
 Mr. O'Hagan then addressed the jury for the defendant, 
 and Mr. Fitzgibbon replied for the plaintiff. These speeches 
 occupied the whole of Friday and Saturday, the 23rd and 
 24th May, and part of the following Monday. 
 
 The Lord Chief Justice then proceeded to charge the 
 jury: He explained the state of the record and the issues 
 raised between the parties. With regard to the sentence of 
 suspension alleged to have been pronounced and published 
 by the defendant of the plaintiff, he said that in point of law, 
 and in the abstract, it was a libel ; that the publication of it, 
 if not 'justified' or 'privileged' as asserted in some of 
 the pleas put in by the defendant was defamatory of the 
 plaintiff; and upon that issue the plaintiff was entitled to 
 a verdict. In order that such a sentence was valid it 
 must be shown to be compatible with the law of the land. 
 He then adverted to the other pleas, and especially to the 
 plea of ' privilege,' and to the averment contained in it which 
 had imported so much argument and evidence into the case. 
 He explained how far, and to what extent, the plaintiff was 
 by his ordination vows and by the fact of his being a priest 
 of the Roman Catholic Church, bound to obey his bishop and 
 to submit to what was termed the ' canon law.' With regard 
 to the canon law, he said that none of its rules could be 
 received in this country, which contradicted or opposed the 
 law of the land. The oath of canonical obedience did not 
 bind a priest to obey all the commandments of the bishop, 
 nor even those against which there was no law, but only 
 to obey such commands as by law the bishop was authorised 
 to impose. The Lord Chief Justice read a passage from the 
 judgment of Lord Campbell in the case of Ferguson v. 
 Kinnoull, } relating to this subject. All Churches in Ireland 
 
 1 9 Cl. & F.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 571 
 
 were now upon a footing of perfect equality, and occupied Charge of 
 a position similar to that of colonial Churches. The rights fc hi f 
 and privileges and obligations of bishops and other officials Justice. 
 did not now subsist by law, but were based upon contract, 
 and were to be ascertained simply by the law ordinarily 
 applied to cases of contract. Adverting to the principle 
 laid down in the case of the Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, 1 he 
 said that the courts of law and equity would assist episcopal 
 or other Churches to carry out their discipline and rules, 
 in accordance with the law applicable to valid contracts 
 entered into by parties capable of contracting. He then 
 dwelt upon the circumstances in which the controversy 
 originated, viz., the action brought by the plaintiff against 
 his bishop in a court of law, and he commented upon 
 the letter written by the Cardinal in reference to it. 2 In 
 that letter, the Cardinal accused him of having violated 
 the 16th clause of the bull In Coena Domini. This state- 
 ment by the Cardinal raised two questions 1st, whether 
 that startling papal edict was in force in Ireland; 2nd, 
 whether as a matter of contract, or as creating a ' privilege ' 
 in the Cardinal to censure its violation as a part of the 
 canon law, it could be recognized or enforced in a court of law. 
 The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that it could not be 
 recognized, but that from its character and contents it was 
 altogether void. Accepting the evidence of the defendant 
 and his witnesses, that the bull had been introduced into 
 Ireland, he nevertheless decided that the plaintiff could not 
 be obliged to obey it as a matter of contract, and that an 
 illegal document could give no privilege to the defendant to 
 punish the plaintiff for refusing to obey its mandates. The 
 provisions of the bull In Coena Domini, in its original form, 
 or as contained in the more recent papal constitution Apos- 
 tolicw Sedis, or as comprehended in what was described by 
 Cardinal Cullen as the ' common law of the canon law,' the 
 Lord Chief Justice pronounced to be utterly opposed to the 
 law of the land, and incapable of enforcement or recogni- 
 tion in Her Majesty's Courts. All the censures subsequently 
 issued against the plaintiff were inflicted for the same alleged 
 offence, viz. that of bringing an ecclesiastic before a lay tri- 
 bunal, which offence the plaintiff had committed by bringing 
 
 1 L. E, 3 Eq. 2 Supra, p. 134.
 
 572 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Charge of an action against his bishop, Dr. Walsh, and actions also 
 ^Ch^ef* 1 a a i ns * hi 8 own refractory curates, against both of whom he 
 Justice, had obtained verdicts for the temporal wrong which they had 
 done him. With respect to the first and second sentences of 
 suspension issued thereupon against the plaintiff by his 
 bishop, the Cardinal had proved that they were in fact one 
 and the same sentence. These alleged episcopal sentences were 
 proceedings of a very abrupt nature. They inflicted punish- 
 ment in the name of the bishop without a citation or 
 process of any kind, without even an inquiry or a hearing 
 before the bishop. In addition to this objection it appeared 
 that they were not signed by the bishop, or written by him, 
 and as the bishop was at the time in failing health, and had 
 died shortly afterwards a coadjutor-bishop having been 
 meantime elected at a meeting presided over by the defen- 
 dant and as moreover the Eev. Dr. M'Donald, the vicar- 
 general, by whom these censures were issued, had been present 
 in court during the trial, but had not been called to prove 
 that in sentencing the plaintiff he had had the authority of 
 the bishop to act, and as in fact it had not been proved that 
 the bishop knew anything at all about the proceedings, the 
 Lord Chief Justice held that there was no legal evidence 
 that these documents had emanated from the bishop, or with 
 his sanction, and that therefore they were not to be con- 
 sidered in the present case. He called attention to the fact 
 that this seemed to be the conviction even of the persons by 
 whom these earlier censures were issued, inasmuch as they 
 subsequently served upon Father O'Keeffe a formal, and it 
 would seem a regular citation, 1 which required him to present 
 himself at the Catholic cathedral at Kilkenny, and to show 
 cause why he should not be visited with the censures of the 
 Church. This citation appeared formal on the face of it, 
 and sufficient to initiate a proceeding against the plaintiff 
 consistent with natural justice and with the practice of the 
 common law. It was therefore received in evidence, and 
 might have been the foundation of a regular proceeding, 
 ending with a valid episcopal sentence pronounced for a 
 recognised canonical offence ; and such proceeding and sen- 
 tence, if carried on and pronounced under the terms of the 
 contract between the parties, would if not in any way op- 
 
 1 Supra, p. 154.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 573 
 
 posed to the law or to natural justice have been recognised Charge of 
 in the civil courts of this country. What actually took place, chief 
 however, was matter for astonishment ; for while the 19th Justice. 
 December was the day mentioned in the citation as that ap- 
 pointed for the appearance of Father O'Keeffe at the cathe- 
 dral, and the investigation of his case, on the 10th December, 
 without any notice to him, and pending the citation, a sus- 
 pension ab officio et beneficio was pronounced upon him for an 
 offence similar to that which was to be tried on the 19th. 
 Such a mode of procedure seemed incomprehensible. Sub- 
 sequently, on the llth January, 1871, a further judgment, 
 said to be conclusive on Father O'Keeffe, and described as 
 ex informata conscientia, was issued against him. In the 
 evidence it was asserted that the bishop of a diocese could 
 inflict this sentence on a parish priest whenever he thought 
 fit, without notice, inquiry, hearing, or evidence. The Lord 
 Chief Justice called attention to the document itself, and to 
 the evidence which proved that the bishop could not by this 
 secret process expel the priest ex beneficio, and that therefore 
 the sentence, at least in its most important part, was void. 
 It also appeared from the evidence that a suspension ex 
 informata conscientia could only be inflicted for a crime 
 committed secretly, and not for a fault notorious, such as that 
 of publicly bringing an action in the Court of Queen's Bench. 
 Independently, however, of these objections, the Chief Jus- 
 tice held that this condemnation ex informata conscientia was 
 upon principles of natural justice utterly void, and could not 
 be recognised, either on the grounds of contract or of 'pri- 
 vilege,' inasmuch as it affected to deprive a parish priest of 
 everything dear to him, without the slightest knowledge on 
 his part of an accusation, without his having seen or heard 
 his accuser, without a citation, without the production of wit- 
 nesses, without examination, without any opportunity being 
 given to him either of hearing or of refuting the charge 
 made against him, and without appeal. Such a proceeding 
 the Chief Justice pronounced to be wholly void, and one that 
 he could not recognise nor sanction in a court of law. He 
 could not act on the evidence given by the Italian witness, 
 that there were in the canon law proceedings regular, ordi- 
 nary, extraordinary, simple, canonical, and peremptory ; that 
 all these were recognised forms of procedure, and that a
 
 574 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Charge of judgment might on the fare of it purport to be inflicted for 
 th ^ f rd one cause, and yet in reality be inflicted for another. The 
 Justice. Lord Chief Justice then referred to the rescript issued 
 to Cardinal Cullen by the Propaganda at Rome in May, 
 1871, * and observed that the Cardinal's claim to hold the 
 inquiry into the conduct and proceedings of the plaintiff 
 referred to in the plea was founded upon it, inasmuch as he 
 had admitted in his evidence, that as Roman Catholic 
 Archbishop of Dublin he had no jurisdiction over a parish 
 priest in another diocese, and that the dignity of Cardinal 
 of the Church did not ipso facto confer upon him any 
 additional jurisdiction. The basis, therefore, of the Car- 
 dinal's defence was the papal rescript. The Court of Queen's 
 Bench had decided that the statute of Elizabeth (2nd Eliz. 
 c. i. Irish), which forbad the introduction of papal bulls into 
 this country was, under the proviso contained in the Act 
 9th and 10th Vic., c. 59, still in full force and operation, 2 and 
 consequently that the authority which such a document might 
 purport to confer could not be legally exercised. It there- 
 fore became necessary for him to examine the form and 
 terms of the papal ordinance, 3 which had been produced and 
 proved upon the trial, but which had not been before the 
 court upon the argument of the demurrer. It was his duty 
 to examine that ordinance with reference to the judgment of 
 the court, and with reference to the provisions of the statute 
 of Elizabeth, as amended or modified by the 9th and 10th 
 Viet., c. 59. He found that it affected to confer upon the 
 Cardinal a very large jurisdiction. It bestowed upon him 
 'the necessary and proper faculties, that as delegate of the 
 Apostolic See he may have power to proceed in the case 
 of priest O'Keeffe ' (ut in negotio Presbyteri O'Kecjfe tamquam 
 delegatus Apostolicce Sedis procedere possit ac valeat). The 
 Latin word * negotium ' bore a most extensive signification, and 
 might give the Cardinal indefinite jurisdiction. He had 
 carefully considered the terms of the entire ordinance, and 
 he came to the conclusion that it fell within the prohibition 
 of the statute of Elizabeth ; that as a commission it was null 
 and void ; that the authority which it purported to confer 
 
 1 Supra, p. 345. 
 
 2 See ' Judgments of the Court,' supra, p. 12, et seq. 
 
 3 Supra, p. 345, and Appendix, No. II.. p. 581.
 
 Rev. Robert O'Keeffe v. Cardinal Cullen. 575 
 
 could not be legally exercised, and that so far as the pleas of Charge of 
 j testification and privilege were founded upon the rescript, chief ' 
 the defence must fail ; and he directed the jury accordingly. Justice. 
 The only question then that remained was the question of 
 damages. The Rev. Mr. O'Keeffe was chaplain to the 
 workhouse at Callan, which was a position of pecuniary 
 value to him, and an office held not under his ecclesiastical 
 superiors, but under the law of the land. The guardians of 
 the union were perfectly satisfied with the manner in which 
 he discharged his duties, as appeared from a resolution 
 passed by them unanimously on the 25th January, 1872. 
 The Central Board of Poor Law Commissioners, hoAvever, 
 after the sentence of suspension had been passed, wrote to 
 Mr. O'Keeffe requesting him to resign. These gentlemen 
 were informed that the Cardinal, as such, had no power to 
 suspend the plaintiff, nor had he any power as Roman 
 Oatholic Archbishop of Dublin. They, however, stated that 
 they had received 'official intimation' of his suspension, 
 and that he must therefore resign his office. The plaintiff 
 wrote back to them protesting that he had not been 
 canonically suspended. They replied that they had no doubt 
 that he had been suspended by ' competent authority.' The 
 only thing that could give the Cardinal * competent 
 authority ' was the papal rescript, and he had no doubt 
 that that document had been exhibited to them by the 
 vicar-general. The Commissioners accordingly proceeded 
 to carry into execution the papal mandate. The question 
 had arisen in the argument before the Court in the demurrer, 
 whether, if the statute of Elizabeth had been repealed, a 
 mandate of the Pope could be sent direct to the Poor Law 
 Commissioners requiring them to dismiss a chaplain em- 
 ployed and paid by the State, and not indirectly through 
 a delegate. That statute had been declared to be in full 
 force, and he felt it to be his duty to say that the Com- 
 missioners of Poor Law in giving effect to that illegal 
 rescript, whether they received it directly or indirectly, had 
 disobeyed the statute of Elizabeth, for in the words of that 
 Act they had affirmed, maintained, and defended the 
 authority, power, and jurisdiction, spiritual and ecclesias- 
 tical, of a foreign prince, prelate, or potentate. The Com- 
 missioners thus acted on the information supplied by the
 
 576 Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland). 
 
 Charge of Cardinal, and he must therefore be held responsible to the 
 tl Chief plaintiff in damages. He was of opinion, and so he directed 
 Justice, them, that each and every one of the special defences put 
 in by the Cardinal rested on the papal rescript, and that 
 none of them had been legally established or maintained, 
 and that consequently the publication of the libel being proved 
 and the meaning such as was averred, and the words being 
 unquestionably defamatory of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was 
 entitled to a verdict. Let them not imagine that in giving 
 that direction he was trespassing upon their functions, but 
 there were at times questions upon which it became a 
 judge to speak out. If he was wrong he could be corrected 
 and set right; but he advised them, as he would advise 
 every jury, that in the discharge of this, as of all their duties, 
 they should take their stand on the laws of their country. 
 
 The jury then retired, and after an hour and a half 
 found a verdict for the plaintiff in accordance with the direc- 
 tion of the Lord Chief Justice. Damages, one farthing. 
 
 The above is a very short summary of the charge to the 
 jury, which occupied nearly two days. A motion for a new 
 trial is now pending, 1 on the ground that the questions 
 upon which the Lord Chief Justice directed a verdict for 
 the plaintiff should have been left to the jury. 
 
 1 January,
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 THE broadsheet referred to in the evidence was headed as follows : 
 
 I The following letters are printed only for private circulation. My Broad- 
 case against Dr. Walsh has been refused a hearing in Rome. I have, sheet 
 
 11 i ? i * printed 
 
 consequently, been driven into a lay court, and, in defence of my a & c ircu- 
 
 character, been obliged to state facts which are very damaging to Dr. lated by 
 Walsh. These facts are well known everywhere in his diocese his life f yjl ^ 
 
 of traffic in sacraments and dispensations being notorious throughout 
 
 the whole extent of it, but if injury to religion arise from anything I 
 may say or write, let those look to it who have refused me justice.' 
 
 It comprised the following letters, which will be found in the fore- 
 going pages. Father O'Keeffe to Bishop Lynch, dated August 1, 1869 
 (supra, p. 132); Bishop Lynch to Father O'Keeffe, dated August 3, 
 18G9 (supra, p. 134) ; Father O'Keeffe to Cardinal Cullen, dated 
 August 7, 18G9 (supra, p. 134); same to same, dated August 18, 1869 
 (supra, p. 138) ; Father O'Keeffe to Bishop Walsh, dated August 20, 
 18C9 (supra, p. 140) ; Father O'Keeffe to Cardinal Cullen, dated August 
 20, 1869 (supra, p. 139); Dr. M'Donald (Vicar- General) to Father 
 O'Keeffe (first suspension), dated October, 1870 (supra, p. 149) ; Father 
 O'Keeffe to Dr. M'Donald, dated October 12, 1870 (supra, p. 150) ; 
 the second suspension issued by the Vicar-General (supra, p. 151); 
 Father O'Keeffe to the Vicar-General, dated October 15, 1870 (supra, 
 p. 151). 
 
 It also contained a notice to curates as follows : 
 
 ' Notice to Curates. 
 
 I 1 require, in future, the presence of one at least of the curates at all 
 the afternoon devotional exercises in the parish church. I also require 
 that the two curates will not be absent simultaneously from the parish 
 without acquainting rne of the fact, and that the curate who has charge 
 of sick calls for the week will always, when leaving his house, inform his 
 servant where he may be found in case of urgent calls for him in his 
 absence. I require, moreover, that each curate will celebrate eight 
 
 P P
 
 578 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Broad- 
 sheet cir- 
 culated by 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe. 
 
 o'clock mass in the parish church on the mornings of every third week. 
 I am willing to continue as hitherto to administer all the baptisms and 
 marriages. The curate who has charge of the sick-calls is to sit for 
 confessions with me in the workhouse for an hour every Saturday. I 
 will in future impose a pecuniary penalty for neglect in all particulars 
 stated herein. 
 
 ' Callan, August, 16, 1869.' ' ROBERT O'KEEFFE, P.P. 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe 
 to Bishop 
 Walsh. 
 
 And the following letters : 
 
 The Right Rev. Dr. "Walsh, Kilkenny. Callan, December 13, 1869. 
 
 My LORD, Mr. Neary will give no answer to the annexed letter. 
 I therefore appeal to your lordship. Mr. Neary will have to state on 
 his oath early in February that when he was coming to Callan he 
 boasted to many persons that he was specially sent here to convert the 
 parish priest. I hope there was no foundation for this very improper 
 language; but if there were, it must at least now be apparent that the 
 instrument selected for my conversion was very sadly out of tune. 
 I remain, my lord, yours most respectfully, 
 
 R. O'KEEFFE. 
 
 The Rev. P. Neary, Callan. Callan, December 18, 1869. 
 
 REV. SIR, I sent you a letter on the 17th instant, calling on you to 
 account for your absence from the parish for the previous week without 
 
 Father 
 O'Keeffe 
 
 curate Mr having sought or obtained my permission, and you informed my clerk, 
 who delivered the letter, that you would send me no answer. I now 
 again call on you to account for having left the parish on the 7th inst., 
 and only returned on the llth, again without my knowledge or per- 
 mission. I desire also to inform you that I am aware that you and 
 your fellow-curate, in opposition to my instructions of the 16th August 
 last, frequently leave the parish for many hours both together, without 
 my knowledge. I have been called to answer sick-calls frequently in 
 the absence of both of you, and on the 17th ult., when both of you had 
 gone to a dinner party many miles away without my knowledge, I was 
 called to anoint a sick man in the workhouse at six o'clock P.M., and 
 he died shortly afterwards. I feel it my duty to send a copy of this 
 letter to the bishop of the diocese. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 ROBERT O'KEEFFE. 
 
 Father 
 
 ? ^ u 
 
 to Bishop 
 
 Walsh. 
 
 The Right Rev. Dr. Walsh. Callan, January 4, 1870. 
 
 MY LORD, I desire to inform you that the clergyman who boasted 
 
 at Thomastown last summer that he was specially selected for Callan in 
 
 i 
 order to convert me, when announcing the re-opening of the schools
 
 Appendix. 579 
 
 here on Sunday last, advised the people not to send their children to Broad- 
 my national school, but to the Christian Brothers', where he said they sheet cir ' 
 would be taught to sing national and patriotic songs, and not such songs Father 
 as ' God Save the Queen,' or the abominable ' Doodah,' two songs which O'Keeffe. 
 I had sung by the female children, in presence of Lady Clifden, at her 
 last visit to my schools. There was a time, my lord, when you were 
 attacked in ' The Irish People ' newspaper, for denouncing Fenianism at 
 Callan, and I was similarly held up to odium in the same newspaper 
 for having defended you from the attack. I believe your lordship 
 knows the house at Callan from which these attacks emanated. It3 
 inmates are the most frequent associates of my present curates, arid you 
 need not wonder, consequently, at disloyalty being preached from the 
 Callan altar. I do not expect your lordship will give me any redress 
 in this matter, and I only write to you to let you know that the person 
 who professes to be your special agent in this parish will be questioned 
 on oath in February next as to whether he was acting under your in- 
 structions in endeavouring to put loyalty under a ban from the altar of 
 my church. 
 
 Your lordship's most humble servant, 
 
 R. O'KEEFFE. 
 
 His Eminence Cardinal Barnabo. 
 
 The bishop's abuse of the sacred tribunal of Father 
 
 penance is fearful. He has rendered this divine institution so odious ^ ^- ee ^ e 
 that many sinners would prefer to die in their sins rather than confess Barnabo. 
 to him reserved cases. I have frequently met such penitents in the 
 sacred tribunal, and other confessors can say tho same. At the last 
 visitation of this parish, the bishop sent my curates to seek publicly 
 in the church a certain man who had come to receive confirmation, 
 and who had been with the bishop some days previously to confess 
 the reserved sin of drunkenness on a Sunday. When he was found 
 in the congregation, and brought to the bishop in the sacristy, the 
 bifahop, in presence of many priests and lay persons, questioned him 
 on the Christian doctrine, and then publicly asked him whether 
 he had received absolution from his confessor. When the man 
 said he had, the bishop publicly reproached him with having made 
 a sacrilegious confession, inasmuch as, he added, no jurisdiction had 
 been given him for the man's confession of the reserved sin of drunken- 
 ness. The bishop had no knowledge whatever of the man, except 
 from his confession of the reserved sin. After the bishop had given 
 confirmation, about twenty penitents, who had fallen into reserved sins, 
 came to him to obtain jurisdiction for their confession, and he said to 
 them all, pointing out with his finger a corner of the church : ' Let all 
 who have been drunk on a Sunday go into that place.' About ten went 
 into the place indicated. The bishop then said to them in the hearing 
 of all in the church : ' You drunkards, I will not listen to one of you 
 
 p p 2
 
 580 Appendix. 
 
 Broad- here; you must all come to Kilkenny.' Thus with the hope of ob- 
 sl j eet c '*" taining sacramental absolution they were induced to make a public 
 Father confession of their sin, and yet no jurisdiction would be given by the 
 O'Keeffe. bishop. In these and like cases the bishop pays no respect whatever to 
 the seal of confession, and this is well known throughout his diocese. 
 His avarice is equally notorious, but I will only mention to your Emi- 
 nence one case out of many. A man named George Kehoe, who died 
 some years ago, directed his executor, Edward A. D'Evereux, to give 
 1001. for the celebration of masses as soon as possible after his decease, 
 but the bishop induced Mr. D'Evereux to invest the money in the 
 public funds for an annual office to be celebrated in the bishop's own 
 church, and he and his curates divide between them, every year, 
 the income of the investment. His thirst for money is insatiable, 
 and he is unscrupulous in satisfying it. The following document, which 
 was circulated anonymously through his diocese two years ago, Avill 
 show your Eminence how much he is contemned. Religion suffers 
 every day the mitre remains on his head, and I am only doing a sacred 
 duty in making his disedifying life known to your Eminence. 
 Your Eminence's most devoted servant, 
 
 ROBERT O'KEEFFE. 
 
 We, your clergy, congratulate you on your attaining your jubilee 
 year in this holy ministry, and we denoiince the slanders of your 
 anonymous assailant. He charges you with nepotism, but do we not 
 all know that you have only given a parish to your nephew long after 
 his distinguished merit liad entitled him to it, and do we not all regret 
 that you have not by any means given him a parish in accordance 
 with his deserts, so old a curate, and so much esteemed for his amiable 
 manners. Through a fear of being thought partial to your own, you 
 have much underrated his eminent services to religion. It Avas a most 
 monstrous calumny of you to say that you selected another nephew as 
 the best boy in your college for a free place at Maynooth, and that he 
 vras found there unfit for the lowest class. This, no doubt, if it hap- 
 pened, would be a gross case of nepotism, but it never occurred. You 
 are incapable of betraying the large trust reposed in you, unselfish to 
 a fault, and generous in the highest degree. They are people who do 
 not know you, that say you have any partiality towards your relatives. 
 Your sense of justice is too strong for that. As for saying that you 
 published in all the newspapers of the kingdom, that certain priests 
 who at the time were in the discharge of missionary duty in your diocese 
 were unchristian, the slanderer might as well have said that you ran 
 away from Cardinal "Wiseman, when he visited Kilkenny. Anony- 
 mous slanders should give you no more concern in your own case 
 than in that of your clergy, and we know your rule is in such cases to 
 throw these letters into the fire. As for the charge of domineering
 
 Appendix. 581 
 
 over the clergy, he knows nothing of your meekness and humility of Broad- 
 spirit. You hold your synod every year, as bound to do, under s ^eet cir- 
 i " r. ,1 ,., , . culated by 
 
 grievous sm, and is not every priest at full liberty to express his Father 
 
 opinion on the statutes made therein ? As for the money-bags, the O'lieeffe. 
 Limerick man might be told you had not half as much as some one 
 nearer home. For the rest, another time. 
 
 Signed on behalf of your clergy, 
 
 JOHN O'GORMAN, Dean. 
 
 Please send your name and to Rev. M. Kavanagh, St. Mary's. 
 No. II. Latin Copy of Papal Rescript, dated 31s May, 1871. 
 
 (For translation, see p. 345.) 
 
 DECRETUM S. CONGREGATIONS DE PROPAGANDA FIDE. 
 
 Cum ad Sacram Congregationem de Propaganda Fide delatum Papal Re- 
 sit in diocesi Ossoriensi gravia exorta esse scandala ex facto R. D. BCT} P*- 
 O'Keeffe, parochi de Callan, qui licet a R. P. D. episcopo illius 
 diocesis, censura suspensions a divinis, mulctatus fuerit audet tamen 
 non solum celebrare missam sed etiam in ipsurn episcopum, infirmitate 
 detentum in publicis concionibus invehere. Ssmus dominus noster 
 Pius Papa IX., referente infrascripto dictae congregationis secretario in 
 audientia diei 14 Maii, 1871 Emo nc Rmo Domino, Paolo Cullen, 
 Archiepiscopo Dubliniensi, atque Hiberniae primati, necessarias atque 
 opportunas facilitates tribuere dignatus est ut in negotio Presbyteri 
 O'KeefFe, tamquam delegatus apostolicae sedis, procedere possit ac 
 valeat ac prassens in rem decretum expediri mandavit. 
 
 Datum Romae, ex eedibus S. Congrionis de Propaganda Fide, die 
 31 Maii, 1871. 
 
 soSrlor AL. CARD. BARNABO, Pr. 
 
 rflSS JOHANNES SIMEON!, Secretarius. 
 
 No. III. Letter from Rev. Dr. O'Hanlon to Rev. Robert 
 O'Keeffe, referred to at p. 303. 
 
 Lisdoonvarna, Butler's Hotel, Sept. 29th, 1871. 
 
 MY DEAR FATHER ROBERT, In consequence of my absence from Dr. 
 Maynooth, it was only this morning I received your favour of the 26th. O'Hanlon 
 After looking over the several reasons you assign for the invalidity of O'Keeffe 
 the censures passed on you, I have no suggestion to make. If the 
 facts you state are true, as I presume they are, your reasons don't 
 admit of any augmentation of strength. Look at Liguori's Treatise 
 on Laws, where he proposes the question, whether or not the 
 promulgation of Papal Constitutions, made solely in Rome, is sufficient
 
 582 Appendix. 
 
 to make them binding through the entire Church, and particularly 
 remark that he pronounces the opinion of Roncaglia to be probable. 
 The bull ApostoliccB Sedis does not contain the clause to which 
 Eoncaglia refers. 
 
 It is rumoured here, and I have reason to know that it is rumoured 
 in Maynooth also, that the Cardinal refused to receive your vote at the 
 late meeting of the priests in Kilkenny. I can scarcely believe this 
 rumour, but I should like to have your authority for denying it. 
 
 The refusal to receive your vote would be tantamount to a declara- 
 tion that you were validly suspended. Unless the Cardinal be invested 
 with special powers from Rome, he has no authority to inquire into the 
 validity of the censures passed on you. I except, of course, the case 
 where you and the bishop would consent to make him an arbiter. 
 Hoping that peace will soon be re-established in Callan, 
 
 I remain, my dear Father liobert, yours faithfully, 
 
 JOHN O'HANLON. 
 
 P.S. Did not Dr. Walsh institute legal proceedings against one of 
 his priests in a secular court ? If he did so, he incurred excommu- 
 nication as much as you did, assuming that Papal bulls on this subject 
 are in force in Ireland. 
 
 No. IV. Latin Copy of Suspension, dated \Sth November, 
 
 1871. 
 
 (For translation, see p. 199.) 
 
 REVERENDO D. ROBERTO O'KEEFFE, Sacerdoti 
 
 Ossoriensi, parocho oppidi dicti, Callan. 
 
 PAULUS CARD. CULLEN, Arch. Dubl., Primas Hibernise, Dele- 
 gatus Sedis Apostolicae, Salutem. 
 
 Sentence of Cum Smus Dnus noster Pius PP. IX., qui omnium ecclesiarum 
 suspension CU ram et solicitudinem gerit, necessarias et opportunas facultates nobis 
 tribuere dignatus sit, ut de querelis et accusationibus quse adversus te 
 circumferuntur, inquirere et sententiam proferre possemus, auctoritate 
 ita nobis collate, innixi, causam tuam diligenter examinare non 
 omisimus. Etenim omnia quse in pluribus nobis datis epistolis scripto 
 consignavisti, quasque aliunde per lamam publicam nota erant, accurate 
 perpendimus, ac postea teipsum omnia argumenta quse ad tuam causam 
 tuendam adferri poterant libere urgentem die 27 Octobris proximo 
 elapsi, in nostris sedibus, prsesente Rdo. Dno. Laurentio Forde, uno ex 
 nostris vicariis generalibus, atque iterum sequente die 28 Octobris 
 eadem breviter recensentem, audivimus : defensiones etiam tuas et 
 responsiones quas adversariis dandas existimasti scripto consignatas a 
 te accepimus, earumque rationem habuimus. 
 
 Rebus ita comparatis, te vocavimus ut die 8 Novembris coram
 
 Appendix. 583 
 
 nobia te sisteres ut ad finem causam tuam de qua agimus, perduce- 
 remus, ac de ea sententiam proferremus ; verum voci nostraa aurem 
 praabere noluisti. Postea diem alterum nempe 13 hujus ejusdem 
 Novembris tibi praefiximus ut ad audiendam sententiam nos convenires, 
 et causa tua denuo dirimeretur ; iterum vero, licet optime tibi com- 
 pertum esset nos auctoritate apostolica S. Pontificis Pii IX. agere, 
 obtemperare noluisti. 
 
 Jam vero cum chationibus istis obedire renuieris, nobisque signifi- 
 caveris per litteras statutum in animo tibi esse ad nos non venire, 
 neqxie coram nobis amplius te velle sistere, id tanturn nobis supererat 
 ut in te absentem et contumacem sententiam proferremus, ne eccle- 
 siastica disciplina impune nihili haberetur. 
 
 Quare precibus ad Deum fusis, et invocato Smoe. Trinitatia 
 auxilio, habita ratione rerum omnium quas a teipso audivimus vel a te 
 conscriptas legimus, necnon perpensis argumentis qua? ad te defenden- 
 dum nobis subjecisti, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti te, 
 Ilobertum O'Keeffe parochum oppidi cui nomen Callan ab omni juris- 
 dictione spirituali, a sacramentorum administratione et prassertim ab 
 audiendis confessionibus, a sacrosancto Mi^sae sacrificio celebrando, a 
 verbo Dei praadicando et ab omni officio eeclesiastico auctoritate nobis 
 a S. Petri successore collata suspendimus et suspensum declaramus, 
 donee resipueris et plenam nostro judicio satisfactionem ecclesiaj 
 exhibueris. Insuper hujus decreti tenore, omni beneficio eeclesiastico 
 aut ab ecclesia tibi collate, et omni dignitate aut personatu eadem 
 ratione tibi collate, auctoritate eadem te privamus atque declaramus 
 privatum. 
 
 Casterum saluti animas tuas, quas tot periculis obnoxia est providere 
 optantes Deum enixe rogamus ut ad bonas fruges te misericorditer 
 perducat : teque ipsum per viscera misericordise Dni. N. Jesu Christ! 
 qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem crucis mortem 
 subiit, obsecramus et obtestamur ut veteri homine secundum pristinam 
 conversationem deposito, novum induas hominem qui secundum Deum 
 creatus est in justitia et sanctitate veritatis. 
 
 Datum Dublini die decimo tertio Novem., 1871. 
 + PAULUS CARD. CULLEN, 
 Arch. Dull. Primus Hibernice, Delegatus Sedis Apostolicw. 
 
 No. Y. Latin Copy of Interdict, dated 16th December, 187K 
 
 (For translation, see p. 208.) 
 
 Paulas Tituli Sancti Petri in monte aureo, S. E. E., Presbyter Cardi- j n t e - ( lid 
 nalis Cullen, Archiepus Dubliniensis, Pi-imas Hibernian, Delegatus 
 Sedis Apostolica3, &c. &c., omnibus fidelibus quorum interest. 
 'A testibus fide dignis relatum nobis est, in ecclesia seu sacello 
 
 parceciali, cujus possessionem habere dicitur sacerdos Robertus O'Keeffe,
 
 584 Appendix. 
 
 in oppido Callan et in diocesi Ossoriensi censuras ecclesiaa violari aut 
 nihili haberi, missam iilicite celebrari, sacramentum eucharistiae con- 
 tra ecclesise disciplinam administrari, confessiones sine jurisdictione, et 
 nulla habita ratione suspensionis ecclesiastics audiri, et alia plura ques 
 leges ecclesiasticas et auctoritatem episcopalem impetunt, quotidie fere 
 patrari. De quibus omnibus cum certiores facti fuerimus, statirn con- 
 stituimus praedictam ecclesiam parcecialem interdicto subjicere eccle- 
 siastico ad normam juris canonici observando, quod vi hujus decreti et 
 auctoritate nobis a summo Pontifice in causa sacerdotis Roberti 
 O'Keeffe, collata nunc facimus, atque prseterea eandem ecclesiam inter- 
 dictam declaramus. Prseterea fideles omnes monemus et in Domino 
 hortamur ut caute et diligenter bane interdicti censuram observent ne 
 forte omnipotentis Dei qui ecclesiam suam impune contemni non sinit, 
 iram et vindictam in se provocent aut in alias poenas ecclesiasticas 
 incurrant. Datum Dublini die decimo sexto Decembris an. 1871. 
 
 + PAULUS CAKDINALIS CULLEN, 
 Archiep. Dubliniensis, Primas Hibernice, Delegatus Sedis 
 ApostoliccB in causa Sacerdotis Roberti O'Keeffe. 
 
 No. VI. Extracts from the Bull In Ccena Domini. 
 
 Bull In I. We excommunicate, and curse on the part of God Almighty, 
 
 Ccena Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by the authority also of the blessed 
 
 Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our Own, all Hussites, Wickliffists, 
 Lutherans, Zuinglians, Calvinists, Huguenots, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, 
 and Apostates whatsoever from the Christian faith, and all and singular 
 other Heretics, under whatsoever name they may be classed, and of 
 whatsoever sect they may be, and those who believe, receive, or favour 
 them, and all those who defend them in general, whosoever they be, 
 and all those who, without our authority, and that of the Apostolic See, 
 knowingly read or keep, print, or in any way whatsoever, from any 
 cause, publicly or privately, upon any pretence or colour whatsoever, 
 defend their books which contain heresy, or treat of religion ; also, 
 Schismatics, and those who pertinaciously withdraw themselves or 
 secede from obedience to us, and to the Roman Pontiff for the time 
 being. 
 
 II. Also all and singular of whatsoever station, degree, or con- 
 dition they may be (but the Universities, Colleges, and Chapters, by 
 whatsoever name they may be called, we interdict), who appeal from 
 the ordinances or commands of us, and of the Roman Pontiffs for the 
 time being, to a future General Council ; as also those by whose aid or 
 favour the appeal shall be made. 
 
 III. Also all pirates, corsairs, and others. 
 
 IV. Also all who plunder wrecked vessels. 
 
 V. Also all who impose new taxes without the Pope's leave.
 
 Appendix. 585 
 
 VI. Also all who falsify letters apostolic, or who falsely publish Bull In 
 letters apostolic, &c. Ccena 
 
 VII. Also all who carry or transmit to Saracens, Turks, and other 
 enemies and foes of the Christian name, or to those expressly or by 
 name declared heretics by our sentence or by that of this Holy See, 
 horses, arms, iron, wire of iron, tin, steel, and any sort of metals and 
 instruments of war, piles of timber, hemp, ropes, as well of hemp as of 
 any other matter, and the matter itself, and other things of this sort 
 with which they fight against Christians and Catholics ; as also those 
 who, by themselves or by others, give information of things concerning 
 the state of the Christian world to the Turks and to the enemies of the 
 Christian religion, to the hurt and injury of Christians ; or to heretics, 
 to the prejudice of the Catholic religion, or for that purpose give them 
 in any way whatsoever aid, advice, or favour ; notwithstanding any 
 privileges whatsoever, which do not expressly mention this sort of pro- 
 hibition, hitherto granted by us and the aforesaid See to any persons 
 whatever, princes or commonwealths. 
 
 VIII. Also all who prevent necessaries from being brought to 
 Home, whether bishops or kings. 
 
 IX. Also all who, going to or returning from the Holy See, 
 mutilate, despoil, seize, or detain their own goods or those of others, 
 or who, without power from the Pope, attempt to assert any power 
 against those who reside at Rome. 
 
 X. Also all who kill or injure travellers or pilgrims to Rome. 
 
 XI. Also all who kill or injure in any way cardinals, archbishops, 
 and other dignitaries, or drive them from their territories. 
 
 XII. Also all who slay or injure those who have recourse to Rome 
 for their causes. 
 
 XIII. Also all, as well ecclesiastics as seculars, of whatsoever 
 dignity they be, who, under pretence of some frivolous appeal from the 
 grievance or future execution of apostolic letters, or of any citations and 
 other decrees issued from us and the aforesaid See, or from our legates, 
 &c., either have recourse to secular courts and to the lay power, or 
 cause appeals of this sort to be admitted by it, or who apprehend, strike, 
 wound, imprison, detain, banish, plunder, frighten, harass, and threaten, 
 publicly or privately, the parties or their agents, their kindred, their 
 connections, their friends, notaries, the executors or sub- executors of 
 the aforesaid letters, citations, monitions, &c., or who in any way pre- 
 sume to hinder, directly or indirectly, any persons whatsoever in 
 general or particular, that they should not go or have recourse to the 
 Court of Rome ; or ordain or command that they should not go or have 
 recourse to the Court to prosecute their affairs of any kind whatsoever, 
 or obtain indulgences or letters, or hinder them from obtaining such 
 indulgences or letters from the said See, or from making use of them 
 when obtained, or presume to retain the said indulgences or letters.
 
 586 Appendix. 
 
 Bull In XIV. Also all who, under pretext of any exemptions whatsoever 
 
 Ccena 
 Domini. 
 
 Ccena or an y Q^QJ. indulgences or letters apostolic, take away the cognizance 
 
 of causes relating to benefices and tithes, and other spiritual causes, and 
 annexed to spiritual matters, from our auditors and commissaries and 
 other ecclesiastical judges, or prevent the course and hearing of them, 
 &c., &c., even though they who commit such things be presidents 
 of chanceries of councils or parliaments, chancellors, or vice-chancellors, 
 counsellors, ordinary or extraordinary, of any secular princes whatsoever, 
 even though they were emperors, kings, dukes, or invested with any 
 other pre-eminent dignity whatsoever, or archbishops, bishops, abbots, 
 commendatories, or vicars. 
 
 XV. Also all who, under pretence of their office or at the in- 
 stance of any party, or any others whatsoever, draw or cause, or pro- 
 cure to be drawn, directly or indirectly, on any pretence whatsoever, 
 ecclesiastical persons, chapters, convents, colleges of any churches what- 
 soever, before them to their tribunal, audience, chancery, council, or 
 parliament, contrary to the disposition of the canon law. As also 
 those who, from any cause or excuse whatsoever, or even under pre- 
 text of any custom or privilege, or in any other way whatsoever, shall 
 make, enact, publish, or use, when made or enacted, statutes, ordin- 
 ances, constitutions, pragmatics, or any other decrees in general or par- 
 ticular, whereby ecclesiastical liberty is violated, or in any way injured 
 or depressed, or in any other way restricted, or whereby the rights of 
 us and of the said See, and of any other churches whatsoever, are in 
 any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly, tacitly or expressly, pre- 
 judiced. 
 
 XVI. Also all who, by imprisoning or molesting their agents, 
 proctors, kindred by blood or marriage, or by any other means, &c., 
 prevent archbishops, bishops, and other superior and inferior prelates, 
 and all other ecclesiastical judges whatsoever, from executing their 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction against any person whatsoever, according to 
 what the canon and sacred ecclesiastical constitutions, and the decrees 
 of general councils, and especially that of Trent, do appoint; and also 
 those who, after the sentences and decrees of the ordinaries themselves, 
 or even of any persons whatsoever delegated by them, or at any other 
 time, eluding the judgment of the ecclesiastical court, have recourse to 
 chanceries and other secular courts, and thence procure prohibitions, 
 and even penal mandates, to be decreed against the aforesaid ordinaries 
 or delegates, and executed against them. Those also who make these 
 decrees and execute them, or give aid, counsel, protection, or favour in 
 the same. 
 
 XVII. Also all who usurp the jurisdictions, fruits, revenues, &c., 
 belonging to us and the Apostolic See, and to any ecclesiastical persons 
 whatsoever, on account of churches, monasteries, &c., or even, upon 
 any cause or occasion, sequester the said revenues, without the express
 
 Appendix. 587 
 
 license of the Roman Pontiff, or of others having lawful faculty for Bull In 
 ttat purpose. SM 
 
 XVIII. Also all who, without the like special and express leave of 
 
 the Roman Pontiff, impose tributes, tithes, tolls, subsidies, or other 
 burdens upon clergymen, prelates, and other ecclesiastical persons, and 
 
 upon their goods and the goods of churches, monasteries, &c. 
 
 XIX. Also all and every magistrates and judges, notaries and 
 scriveners, executors, sub- executors, in any way whatsoever intermix- 
 ing themselves in capital or criminal causes against ecclesiastical per- 
 sons, by processing, banishing, taking them, or by pronouncing against 
 them any sentence, without the special, specific, and express license o 
 this Holy Apostolic See ; and those who extend license of that sort 
 to persons and cases not expressed, or in any other way improperly 
 abuse it, even though persons committing such things may have been 
 counsellors, senators, presidents, chancellors, vice-chancellors, or per- 
 sons named by any other name. 
 
 XX. Also, all who invade the Roman territory. 
 
 XXI. Ordains that this Bull continues in force till superseded by 
 others. 
 
 XXII. Reserves all the cases of those who violate this Bull to the 
 Pope, and commands that none who do so can receive absolution at 
 any but his hands, except in articulo mortis, whether they be kings, 
 emperors, or any others. 
 
 XXIII. But if by chance any persons, contrary to the tenor of 
 these presents, should de facto presume to bestow upon such as are in- 
 volved in excommunication and anathema, or upon any one of them, 
 the benefit of absolution, we include them in the sentence of excom- 
 munication, intending afterwards to proceed against them more severely, 
 both with spiritual and temporal punishments, according as we may 
 know it to be expedient. 
 
 XXIV. Declares that no absolution, even from the Pope himself, 
 can avail anything unless the criminals desist from their offences, and 
 revoke and annul any acts they have done or laws they have passed 
 against ecclesiastical liberty. 
 
 XXV. Abolishes and revokes all privileges, indulgences, &c., 
 exempting from the operation of the Bull. 
 
 XXVI. But that these our present processes may be more easily 
 brought to the public knowledge of all persons, we will cause the papersj 
 or parchments, containing the processes themselves to be affixed in the 
 city to the doors of the Church of St. John of Lateran, and of the 
 Church of the Prince of the Apostles, that those whom processes of 
 this sort concern may not be able to pretend any excuse, or to allege 
 any ignorance, as if they had not come to their knowledge, or as if 
 they were ignorant of them, since it is not likely that that should re- 
 main unknown which is so openly published to all.
 
 588 Appendix. 
 
 Bull In XXVII. Moreover, that these processes themselves, and these pre- 
 
 Cama gen ^ letters, and all and singular the things contained in them, may be- 
 Domim. , . . , , . , ' , -, . 
 come better known the more cities and places they are published in, 
 
 we, by these writings enforce and, in virtue of hcly obedience strictly 
 charging, command all and singular patriarchs, primates, archbishops 
 and ordinaries of places, and prelates, wheresoever constituted, that, 
 after they shall have received these present letters, or have knowledge 
 of them, they, by themselves, or by some other or others, once in the 
 year, or even ofterier if they shall consider it expedient, do solemnly 
 publish them in their churches when the greater number of the people 
 shall be assembled in them for divine service, and bring them (the pro- 
 cesses) back again to the recollection of Christ's faithful people, relate 
 them, and declare them. 
 
 XXVIII. And furthermore, let all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, 
 and other ordinaries of places and prelates of churches, as also rectors 
 and others having cure of wuls, and secular priests and regulars of 
 whatsoever orders, deputed by any authority to hear confession of sins, 
 have a copy of these present letters in their possession, and diligently 
 study to read and understand them. 
 
 XXIX. Our will is that the same credit as would be given to 
 these presents, if they were produced or shown, shall in all places be 
 altogether given, in judgment and out of judgment, to copies of these 
 said presents, even printed ones, subscribed by the hand of a public 
 notary, and fortified with the seal of the ordinary Judge of the Court 
 of Rome, or of any other person in possession of ecclesiastical dignity. 
 
 XXX. Therefore, let no man at all infringe, or with audacious 
 daring oppose this our letter of excommunication, curse, interdict, in- 
 novation, innodation, declaration, protestation, abrogation, revocation, 
 commission, mandate, and will ; but if anyone shall presume to attempt 
 it, let him know that he shall incur the displeasure of the Almighty 
 God, and of his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. 
 
 Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, on the 8th day of April, 1610, in 
 the 5th year of our pontificate. 
 
 No. VII. Extracts from the Apostolicce Sedis. 
 Comtitutio Pius BISHOP, Servant of the servants of God, to perpetuate the 
 
 Al s$b a * memor y of the thin s now decreed - 
 
 * It is pleasing to the clemency of the Apostolic See so to retain those 
 
 things which have been wisely appointed by the authority of the ancient 
 canons as that, if the change of time and circumstances require any- 
 thing to be mitigated by a prudent dispensation, the same Apostolic 
 See may apply to it its forethought, and a remedy suitable to its own 
 supreme power. 
 
 Wherefore, since we have long weighed in our mind that the eccle-
 
 Appendix. 589 
 
 siastical censures, which, by means of sentence pronounced, and ipso facto Constitute 
 to be incurred, have been in every age solemnly declared and promul- Sedis 
 
 gated for the protection of the safety and discipline of the Church itself, 
 
 and for restraining and correcting the unbridled license of the wicked, 
 have sensibly increased to a large number ; and that some of them, in 
 the changes of age and custom, have lost the end and causes for which 
 they were imposed, or their former use and suitability ; and that on this 
 account no unfrequent doubts, anxieties, and twitches of conscience 
 arise in those to Avhom is committed the care of souls or in the faithful 
 themselves : We, wishing to put a stop to inconveniences of this kind, 
 ordered a full review of these censures to be made and laid before us, 
 in order that, having given them our diligent consideration, we might 
 determine which of them we ought to preserve and retain, and which 
 of them it was suitable to moderate or annul. Therefore the review 
 being made, and our venerable brothers, Cardinals of the Holy Roman 
 Church, general inquisitors in the affairs of faith, deputies of the whole 
 Christian republic, being summoned to Council, and the matter having 
 been considered long and maturely, by our own motion, certain know- 
 ledge, and mature deliberation, and of the plenitude of our apostolic 
 power, by this constitution, which is to endure for ever, we decree that 
 of all censures, whether of suspension, excommunication, or interdict, 
 which have hitherto been imposed by means of sentence pronounced, 
 and ipso facto to be incurred, none are hereafter to have any force 
 except those which we embody in this constitution, and in the manner 
 in which we embody them. At the same time, we declare that the 
 same shall receive their force not only from the authority of the ancient 
 canons, as far as they agree with this our constitution, but also from 
 this our constitution, as if they were first pronounced by it. 
 
 Excommunications, ' latce sentential,' specially reserved to the 
 Roman Pontiff. 
 
 Therefore we declare subject to excommunication, latce senlentice (i.e. 
 ipso facto to be incurred), specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff: 
 
 I. All apostates from the Christian faith, and all and singular 
 heretics, under Avhatever name they may be classed, and of whatever 
 sect they may be, and those who believe, receive, or favour them, and 
 generally all who defend them. 
 
 II. All and singular Avho knowingly read, without the authority 
 of the Apostolic See, any books which defend the heresies of those 
 apostates and heretics, also the books of any author prohibited by name 
 by apostolic letters, and those who keep such books, print them, or in 
 any way defend them. 
 
 III. Schismatics, and those who pertinaciously withdraw them- 
 selves or secede from obedience to us and the Roman Pontiff for the 
 time beinsr.
 
 590 Appendix. 
 
 Constitvtio jy_ ^11 an( j singular, of whatsoever station, degree, or condition 
 Sedis ^ey ma y be, w ^ a PP ea l from the ordinances or commands of the 
 
 Roman Pontiffs for the time being to a future general council ; as also 
 
 those by whose aid, counsel, or favour the appeal shall be made. 
 
 V. All who slay, mutilate, strike, capture, imprison, detain, or 
 pursue with hostility the cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops 
 of the holy Roman Church, and the legates or nuncios of the Apostolic 
 See, or eject them from their dioceses, territories, lands, or dominions, 
 and those who command or ratify these things, or lend aid, counsel, or 
 favour thereto. 
 
 VI. Those who impede, di-ectly or indirectly, the exercise of 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether of the internal or external forum, and 
 those who for this purpose have recourse to a secular court; and those 
 who procure or declare its mandates, or lend aid, counsel, or favour 
 thereto. 
 
 VII. Those who compel, directly or indirectly, lay judges to draw 
 before their tribunals ecclesiastical persons, contrary to the disposition 
 of the canon law ; likewise those who enact laws or decrees against the 
 liberty or rights of the Church. 
 
 VIII. Those who have recourse to the lay power to impede letters 
 or decrees of any kind issuing from the Apostolic See, or any of its 
 legates or delegates; and those who, directly or indirectly, prevent 
 their execution or promulgation, or those who, on their account, either 
 injure or terrify the parties themselves or others. 
 
 IX. All who falsify letters apostolic even in the form of a brief, 
 and supplications concerning mercy or justice by the Roman Pontiff or 
 the vice-chancellors of the holy Roman Church, or their vicegerents, or 
 signed by order of the said Roman Pontiff; also those who falsely pub- 
 lish letters apostolic even in the form of a brief, and also falsely sign 
 supplications of this kind in the name of the aforesaid Roman Pontiff, 
 vice-chancellor, or vicegerent. 
 
 X. Those who absolve an accomplice in a degrading crime, even 
 in articulo mortis, if another Driest, even though he be not approved 
 for confession, can, without causing great scandal and infamy, receive 
 the confession of the dying person. 
 
 XL Those who usurp or sequestrate the jurisdiction, fruits, and 
 revenues pertaining to ecclesiastical persons in virtue of their churches 
 or benefices. 
 
 XII. Those who invade, destroy, or detain, either by themselves 
 or others, the states, lands, places, or rights pertaining to the Roman 
 Church, or who usurp, disturb, or retain the supreme power therein, 
 and also those who lend assistance, counsel, or favour in any of the 
 aforesaid matters. 
 
 From all which excommunications before mentioned we declare 
 that absolution has been and is specially reserved to the Roman Pontiff
 
 Appendix. 591 
 
 for the time being, and that for those any general power of absolving Constitutio 
 from curses and censures, or from excommunications reserved to the Apostolwa 
 
 Roman Pontiff, is by no means sufficient. Moreover, we revoke all , 
 
 indults in respect of the same which were granted to any persons, 
 under any form whatever, or to any persons whatever, even regulars, 
 of any order, congregation, society, or institute, even those worthy of 
 special mention, or invested with any dignity. But let those who 
 presume to absolve without due power, on any pretext whatsoever, 
 know that they are involved in the bonds of excommunication reserved 
 to the Roman Pontiff, provided only it is not done in articulo mortis, 
 in which case, however, the obligation of adhering to the commands of 
 the Church will be binding on the absolved if they recover. 
 
 Excommunications, 'latce sententioe,' reserved to the Roman 
 
 Pontiff. 
 
 We declare subject to excommunication, ' latce sentential? reserved 
 to the Roman Pontiff, 
 
 I. All who teach or defend, publicly or privately, propositions 
 condemned by the Apostolic See, under pain of excommunication, 
 ' latcB sententice :' likewise those who teach or defend as lawful the act of 
 inquiring from a penitent the name of his accomplice. 
 
 II. Those who lay violent hands, at the instigation of the devil, 
 on clerics or monastics of either sex, &c. 
 
 III. Those who fight a duel or simply provoke to it, or those who 
 accept it, and any accomplices, or those who lend it any assistance 
 or favour ; also those who intentionally witness it and permit it, or, 
 as far as in their power, do not prevent it, of whatsoever rank they may 
 be, even regal or imperial. 
 
 IV. Those who become members of the society of Freemasons 
 or Carbonari, or other societies of the like kind, which either openly 
 or secretly conspire against the Church or the legitimate powers ; also 
 those affording any favour to such sects ; or those who do not denounce 
 their secret heads and leaders, as long as they do not denounce them. 
 
 V. Those who, in their rash daring, order others to violate, or 
 themselves violate, the immunity of an ecclesiastical asylum. 
 
 VI. Those who violate the privacy of monastics, of whatever kind 
 or condition, sex or age, they may be, by entering into their monas- 
 teries without lawful authority ; and likewise those who introduce or 
 admit them ; and likewise monastics who leave them contrary to the 
 circumstances and the formalities prescribed by St. Pius V., in Const. 
 Decori. 
 
 VII. Women violating the cloister of regulars ; and superiors or 
 others who admit them. 
 
 VIII., IX., and X. Those who are guilty of simony, and their 
 accomplices.
 
 592 Appendix. 
 
 Constitutio XI. All who make gain by indulgences and other spiritual graces 
 Apostollcaa A._ 
 
 Sedis. 
 
 ' XII. Those who collect alms of greater value for masses, and who 
 
 make gain by them, &c. 
 
 XIII. Those who are excommunicated in the Constitutions of 
 Pius V., 28th March, 1567, ' Admonst nos; ' Innocent IX., ' Quse ab 
 hac sede,' 8th November, 1591 ; Clement VIII., * AdRomani Pontificis 
 curam,' 26th June, 1592; Alexander VII., 'Inter ceteras,' 27th Sep- 
 tember, 1660, concerning the alienation and infeudation of the states 
 and territories of the holy Roman Church. 
 
 XIV. Religious persons presuming to administer unnecessarily 
 the Sacrament of Extreme Unction or the Eucharist, without the 
 license of the parish priest. 
 
 XV. Persons taking relics from the catacombs. 
 
 XVI. Those who communicate with one excommunicated by name 
 by the Pope on a criminal offence, by giving him assistance or favour. 
 
 XVII. Clerics who knowingly or willingly communicate in divine 
 things with persons excommunicated by name by the Roman Pontiff, 
 or those who receive them in office. 
 
 Excommunications, ' latcs sententice,' reserved to the Bishops or 
 
 Ordinaries. 
 
 I. Clerics appointed to the holy office, or regulars, or monastics, 
 after a solemn vow of chastity, who presume to contract matrimony ; 
 also, all who presume to contract matrimony with any of the aforesaid 
 persons. 
 
 II. Those who attempt to cause an abortion, if successful. 
 
 III. Those who knowingly use false apostolic letters, or their 
 accomplices. 
 
 Excommunications, f latce sententicej reserved to no one. 
 
 I. Those who command or compel notorious heretics, or those ex- 
 communicated or interdicted by name, to be given Christian burial. 
 
 II. Those who injure or terrify Inquisitors, and denounce wit- 
 nesses or other servants of the Holy Office, or those who steal or burn the 
 documents of that sacred tribunal, or give assistance, counsel, or favour 
 thereto. 
 
 III. Those who alienate or presume to receive ecclesiastical goods 
 without apostolic permission, according to the form Extrav. ambitiosce 
 de Reb. Ecc. non alienandls. 
 
 IV. Those who neglect or culpably omit to denounce within a 
 month confessors or priests by whom they have been solicited to com- 
 mit crime in any cases expressed by our predecessors Gregory XV. and 
 Benedict XIV.
 
 Appendix. 593 
 
 In addition to those thus far mentioned those whom the sacred 
 Council of Trent has excommunicated, whether the power of absolving 
 is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff or the Ordinaries, or is without any 
 reservation we in like manner declare similarly excommunicated, ex- 
 cept the punishment of anathema imposed in Decree, Sess. IV., ' On 
 the publishing and use of Sacred Books,' to which we only wish those 
 to be subject who print books which treat of sacred things without the 
 approbation of the ordinary, or cause them to be printed. 
 
 Suspensions, ' laics sententicB,' reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. 
 
 I. Suspends at the pleasure of the Holy See, chapters and convents 
 who admit bishops and other prelates, before presenting their apostolic 
 letters of promotion. 
 
 II. Suspends for three years anyone ordaining another without a 
 title to a benefice or a patrimony. 
 
 III. Suspends for a year those ordaining anyone under the 
 jurisdiction of another bishop, without letters dimissory. 
 
 IV. Suspends for a year those who ordain without a title to a 
 benefice or a patrimony any cleric living in any congregation where no 
 solemn profession is made, or monastics who are not yet professed. 
 
 V. Visits with perpetual suspension from the exercise of their 
 orders religious persons who live outside their religious order. 
 
 VI. Suspends from the order they have entered those who presume 
 to receive that order from a suspended or excommunicated person. 
 
 VII. Suspends foreign secular clergy who delay more than four 
 months after their ordination in Rome without license. 
 
 Interdicts, ' latce sententice,' reserved. 
 
 Universities, colleges, and chapters, by whatever name they are 
 called, ipso facto incur interdict specially reserved to the Roman Pon- 
 tiff, who appeal from the ordinances or commands of the Roman Pon- 
 tiff for the time being, to a future General Council. 
 
 II. Those who knowingly celebrate, or cause to be celebrated, 
 holy things in places interdicted by the ordinary or by the delegated 
 judge, or by the canon law, or those who admit persons excommuni- 
 cated by name to divine offices, or the sacraments of the Church or 
 Christian burial, ipso facto incur interdict from entering the church 
 until they make full satisfaction according to the judgment of him 
 whose sentence they have despised. 
 
 In fine, whomsoever the Sacred Council of Trent has decreed to be 
 ipso facto suspended or interdicted, we in like manner will and declare 
 to be subject to suspension or interdict. 
 
 Moreover we wish and declare to be firmly established, and to 
 
 Q Q
 
 594 Appendix. 
 
 Consiitutio remain in full force, all those censures, whether of excommunication, 
 Apostolica suspension, or interdict, which have been imposed by our Constitutions, 
 
 and those of our predecessors, or by the sacred canons, in addition to 
 
 those which we have mentioned, and which up to this time have re- 
 mained in full force, either at the wish of the Roman Pontiff, or through 
 the internal regulations of certain orders and institutions of regulars, 
 and also of certain colleges, congregations, societies, and pious places, of 
 whatever name or kind they may be. 
 
 Moreover we decree that it ought not nor can it be in any manner 
 or way supposed that the faculty of absolving from any cases and cen- 
 sures reserved to the Roman Pontiff, is comprehended in any new 
 concessions and privileges which may have been granted to anyone by 
 the Apostolic See, unless formal distinct and express mention is made 
 of them, but those privileges or faculties which were granted at any 
 time whatever, either by our predecessors or by us to any as- 
 sembly, order, congregation, society, and institution, even a regular one, 
 of whatever form, and although invested with a peculiar title and 
 worthy of special mention ; all these by this our constitution we wish 
 to be recalled, suppressed, and abolished ; accordingly, we actually recall, 
 suppress, and abolish them ; no privileges whatever preventing or op- 
 posing, even though they be special ones, and whether they are com- 
 prehended or not in the code of law or in the apostolic constitutions, 
 and established by any apostolic confirmation or immemorial custom 
 or any other stability of form or tenor, and with any derogatory or 
 other more efficacious and unaccustomed clauses, all of which, as far as 
 is necessary, we intend to repeal, and do hereby repeal. 
 
 We wish, however, to remain intact the faculty of absolving 
 granted by the Synod of Trent to bishops, Sess. XXIV., c. VI., de 
 reform., in any censures reserved to the Apostolic See by this our 
 constitution, those only which we have declared reserved in special 
 manner to the same Apostolic See. 
 
 Therefore it is permitted to no one to infringe this page of our 
 constitution, ordination, limitation, suppression, abrogation, and will, 
 or to contradict it with rash daring. But if anyone shall presume 
 to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of 
 Almighty God and of His blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. 
 
 Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, on the 12th day of October, 1869, in 
 the 24th year of our Pontificate.
 
 INDEX 
 
 TO THE 
 
 TRIAL AT NISI PRIUS. 
 
 Actions for slander by Father O'Keeffe against his bishop, 128, 147. 
 
 Administrator distinguished from parish priest, 310, 881. 
 
 Altar, privileged, meaning of, 391. 
 
 Apology of Father O'Keeffe to Bishop Walsh, 143, 260, 421. 
 
 Apostolicee Sedis Constitutio, 137, 187, 307, 403, 420. 
 
 universally binding, 406. 
 
 forbids anyone to sue an ecclesiastic, 420, 473. 
 
 object of, 508. 
 
 Appeal and recourse to Pope, difference between, 246, 623. 
 Archbishop, jurisdiction of over suffragans, 851. 
 
 Barnabo, Cardinal, letter of to Father O'Keeffe, 146. 
 Bishop and clergy, relations between, 408. 
 
 asserting authority in another diocese, case of, 524. 
 
 candidates for office of, 429. 
 
 jurisdiction of, 277, 391. 
 
 may investigate complaint of inferior or not at discretion, 416. 
 
 meeting of clergy at Kilkenny to elect a, 179, 350, 353, 429, 
 
 metropolitan, authority of, 258, 511. 
 
 mode of appointing, 393. 
 
 power of, to make canons, 247. 
 
 power of, to reject papal decrees, 502. 
 
 punishment for suing a, 381, 395, 470. 
 
 slander of, punishment for, 382, 395, 470, 514. 
 Broadsheet circulated by Father O'Keeffe, 230. 
 Bulls, papal, not necessarily binding, 838. 
 
 as to authority of, 496, 499. 
 Bull Apostolicee Sedis, 137, 188, 307, 403, 420. 
 
 universally binding, 403. 
 
 forbids anyone to sue an ecclesiastic, 420, 473. 
 
 object of, 508. 
 
 In Ccena Domini, evidence of Rev. Dr. Doyle as to, 337. 
 
 Q Q 2
 
 596 Index to the Trial at Nisi Prius. 
 
 Bull In Coena Domini, evidence of Dr. M'Hale as to, 492. 
 
 forbids clerics suing each other at law, 135, 398. 
 
 as to whether in force in Ireland, 136, 400, 406. 
 
 now superseded, 400, 403. 
 Bull Unam Sanctum, 620. 
 
 Canons must be observed by Pope, 323. 
 
 power of bishops to make, 247. 
 Canon law, authorities upon quoted : 
 
 Butler, Dr., 347. 
 
 Cabassutius, 217, 276. 
 
 Clementine Constitutions, 248, 507. 
 
 Corpus Juris Canonici, 507. 
 
 Council of Trent, 276. 
 
 Decretum Gratiani, 247, 607. 
 
 Decretalia Gregorii Noni, 248, 607, 648. 
 
 De Lugo, Cardinal, 490. 
 
 Devoti, 247, 276, 387-8. 
 
 Dupin, 275. 
 
 Giraldi, 386, 454. 
 
 Gury, 487, 489, 491. 
 
 Huguenin, 450. 
 
 Institutions of canon law, 541. 
 
 Scavini, 217, 386, 454, 552. 
 
 Schmalzgrueber, 442, 542. 
 
 Thurles, Synod of, 503. 
 
 Van Espen, 347, 496, 519. 
 Cardinal, assertion of authority by, not to be disputed, 442, 469, 513, 523. 
 
 privilege of a, 442, 513, 525, 547. 
 Censure, a canone, 355, 468, 512. 
 
 a leffe, 354, 468, 612. 
 
 ab homine, 355, 467, 512, 559. 
 
 effect of promulgating, 382. 
 
 ferendce sententite, 355. 
 
 lota sententue, 355. 
 
 publication of, 183. 
 
 and pcena, distinction between, 667. 
 Charge of Lord Chief Justice, 570. 
 Citation, as to necessity for, 247, 277, 356, 383, 438, 447, 535. 
 
 by Vicar-General to Father O'Keeffe, 154. 
 
 necessity for may be waived, 356, 545. 
 
 no necessity for, where guilt notorious, 447, 541. 
 
 requisites of a, 203, 357, 478, 535. 
 
 simple and canonical, distinction between, 480. 
 
 where judge exercises delegated authority, 482. 
 Clergy, nature of exemption claimed for, 137. 
 Commission per viam inquisitionis, 441. 
 Common law of Roman Catholic Church, 507, 519, 537. 
 Conference at Kilkenny in 1869, proceedings at, 125, 218.
 
 Index to the Trial at Nisi Prius. 597 
 
 Confession, public and private, 364. 
 Contumacy, 374. 
 
 justifies suspension, 467, 537, 562. 
 Crimen occultum, meaning of, 566. 
 Cullen, Cardinal, advises submission to bishop, 141. 
 
 attends Vatican Council, 343. 
 
 interview of, with Father O'Keeffe, 186, 304, 313, 359. 
 
 issues sentence of suspension, 199, 370. 
 
 incompetent to issue valid sentence, 202. 
 
 letter of, to clergy of Callan, 205. 
 
 interdicts Callan chapel, 208. 
 
 confers with Cardinal Barnabo as to Father O'Keeffe, 343, 417. 
 
 denial of jurisdiction of, 302, 315. 
 
 examination of, 341. 
 
 returns to Ireland from Rome, 344. 
 
 receives papal rescript, 345. 
 
 attends meeting of clergy to elect bishop, 350. 
 
 cross-examined, 393. 
 
 re-examined, 455. 
 Curates, mode of appointing, 126. 
 
 position of, 257. 
 
 Delegate, Apostolic, nature of commission given to, 441. 
 
 papal, powers of, 336, 348. 
 Delegated powers of two kinds, 523. 
 Denunciation by name from altar forbidden, 328, 466. 
 
 canonical, of a sentence, nature of, 295. 
 
 of bishop justifies suspension, 561. 
 
 of sentence, effect of, 535, 563. 
 Doyle, Dr., evidence of as to bull In Ccena Domini, 337. 
 
 as to position of parish priests, 325, 339, 464. 
 
 as to authority of decrees of Council of Trent, 473. 
 
 Ecclesiastics, law forbidding the suing of, 378, 390, 396, 469, 472, 530, 537, 
 555, 559. 
 
 suing, in certain cases lawful, 390. 
 
 as to laymen suing, 397, 419, 493, 544. 
 
 evidence of Dr. M'Hale as to the law respecting, 493. 
 Excommunication and suspension distinguished, 354. 
 
 two kinds of, 898. 
 Ex Informata Conscientia Procedure, applicable to whom, 478, 482. 
 
 does not require accuser, 478. 
 
 how far in discretion of judge, 481. 
 
 is it applicable to public offences, 483, 488. 
 
 accused need not be cited, 521. 
 
 does not require monition, 521. 
 
 (See suspension) 
 Extra-judicial procedure, explanation of, 440, 470, 513. 
 
 No need for proof of offence in, 470.
 
 598 Index to the Trial at Nisi Prius. 
 
 Forms, legal, must be observed according to canon law, 245. 
 
 Gralway, Bishop of, examined, 510. 
 cross-examined, 519. 
 
 Interdict of Callan Chapel, 208. 
 
 sentence of, translated, 376. 
 Irregularity, meaning of term, 445, 468. 
 
 Ex defecto, 469. 
 
 Ex delwto, 469. 
 
 incurred by neglect of suspension, 452. 
 
 Jacobini, Dr. Angelo, examined, 550. 
 
 cross-examined, 551. 
 
 re-examined, 551. 
 Judge, authority of a, to be presumed until disproved, 383, 446. 
 
 Leahy, Archbishop, examined, 460. 
 cross-examined, 477. 
 re-examined, 503. 
 
 M'Hale, Dr., evidence of, as to bull In Ccena, 493. 
 Metropolitan Bishop, authority of, 257, 511. 
 Mission to Callan to raise funds, 129. 
 Moran, Dr., Bishop of Ossory, 214. 
 
 Neville, Rev. Henry, examined, 555. 
 cross-examined, 564. 
 re-examined, 567. 
 
 O'Keeffe, Father, examined, 121. 
 appointed to Callan, 123. 
 established schools in Callan, 123-4. 
 obtains bishop's sanction for convent of nuns, 124. 
 brings action for slander against bishop, 128, 224. 
 complains to bishop of his curates, 140. 
 apologises to bishop, 148, 421. 
 
 applies again for permission to establish convent, 144. 
 writes to Cardinal Barnabo on the subject, 146, 265. 
 brings second action against bishop, 147. 
 suspended by vicar-general, 149. 
 denies vicar-general's authority, 150. 
 suspended a second time, 151. 
 brings action for slander against curate, 152, 
 is cited by vicar-general to a trial, 153. 
 complains to vicar-general of curate, 155. 
 suspended a third time by vicar-general, 157.
 
 Index to the Trial at Nisi Prins. 599 
 
 O'Keeffe, Father, suspended a fourth time (ex informata conscientia), 158. 
 objects to legality of sentence, 159. 
 brings another action against curate, 161. 
 withdraws from litigation on remonstrance of Cardinal, 172. 
 complains to vicar-general of curate, 174. 
 attends meeting of clergy for election of bishop, 179. 
 his vote refused, 180. 
 
 grounds of objection to legality of censures, 184. 
 first interview with Cardinal Cullen, 186, 304, 359. 
 second interview, 192, 313, 366. 
 is summoned again by Cardinal, 195. 
 is suspended by the Cardinal, 199. 
 continues to officiate, 208. 
 dismissed from chaplaincy of workhouse, 214. 
 cross-examined, 216. 
 did not know of papal rescript, 298. 
 denies Cardinal's jurisdiction, 302, 315, 443. 
 had no notice of Cardinal's power, 443. 
 
 Pcena and censura, distinction between, 667. 
 Pope, appeal to and recourse to, distinction between, 246, 523. 
 may delegate his powers, 280, 347. 
 not bound by forms of law, 439. 
 universal j urisdiction of, 346, 418. 
 Priests, parish, cannot be suspended unless for canonical offence, 149, 325, 
 
 326, 569. 
 
 status of, 380, 441, 464. 
 and administrators, distinction between, 381. 
 two classes of, 339. 
 
 Procedure according to canon law, different modes of, 383, 439. 
 extra-judicial, 439, 440, 470, 506, 613, 558. 
 
 accused may be examined, 443. 
 
 Ex Informata Conscientia does not require accuser, 478. 
 in discretion of judge, 481. 
 extended to regular clergy, 478, 481. 
 is it applicable to 'cases of notorious crime, 482, 486. 
 accused need not be called, 521. 
 (See suspension) 
 
 judicial, witnesses must be sworn, 513. 
 under a commission, 439. 
 
 Promulgation of laws of Church, as to necessity for, 378, 388, 495, 496, 
 601, 529. 
 
 Evidence of Professor Slevin as to, 499. 
 Propaganda, functions of, 345. 
 
 acts of, are acts of the Pope, 510. 
 
 Rescript, papal, of 1829, 176, 287, 460. 
 
 of 1871, sent to Cardinal Cullen, 345, 348, 423. 
 
 power conferred by, 349, 389, 460, 510, 533.
 
 600 Index to the Trial at Nisi Prius. 
 
 Roncetti, Rev. Caesar, examined, 532. 
 cross-examined, 539. 
 re-examined, 649. 
 
 Secrets not to be revealed by priests, 363. 
 
 Sentence, unjust, must be submitted to until revoked, 504, 533. 
 
 defects in form of, 539. 
 
 Slevin, Professor, evidence of, as to authority of papal decrees, quoted, 499 
 Suspension a beneficio, 381, 557. 
 ab offido, 381, 556. 
 ab or dine, 381, 556. 
 a kge, 354, 468, 512. 
 ab homine, 355, 468, 512. 
 a canone, 355, 468, 512. 
 conditional, 555. 
 
 first, of Father O'Keefie, by vicar-general, 149. 
 second ,, 151. 
 
 third 157. 
 
 fourth 158. 
 
 fifth, by Cardinal Cullen, 199. 
 Effect of a, 375, 389, 399, 518. 
 excommunication distinguished from a, 354. 
 may be partly valid or partly invalid, 525, 538, 556. 
 possible causes of invalidity of a, 539. 
 proceedings requisite to a valid sentence of, 201. 
 should be result of a trial, 204. 
 of Father O'Keeffe, invalid, 204. 
 neglect of, incurs irregularity, 326. 
 ex informata conscientia, nature of, 274, 384. 
 
 applicable to whom, 159, 274, 386, 456, 464, 481, 516, 533, 
 543, 557, 565. 
 
 appeal to Pope from, 246. 
 
 applicable to what classes of offence, 455, 481, 483, 488, 616, 
 521, 533, 565, 568. 
 
 application of, extended by Council of Trent, 466. 
 
 accused need not be cited, 521. 
 
 can it be disregarded, if invalid, 504, 533, 552. 
 
 cannot suspend a beneficio, 389, 465, 516. 
 
 mode of release from, only by appeal to Pope, 389, 452. 
 
 need not declare the offence, 452, 540. 
 
 no forms required for, 386. 
 
 Trent, decrees of Council of, received in Ireland, 387, 473. 
 Dr. Doyle's evidence as to, 473. 
 
 LONDON : PRINTED BY 
 
 SFOTTIS'WOODE AND CO., NKW-STREET SQUARE 
 AND PARLIAMENT STREET
 
 39 PATERNOSTER Row, E.G. 
 LONDON, April 1874. 
 
 GENERAL LIST OF WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, READER, AND DYER. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ARTS, MANUFACTURES, &c. ... 29 
 
 ASTRONOMY & METEOROLOGY . . 18 
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS 7 
 
 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINE, SURGERY, 
 
 & the ALLIED SCIENCES ... 25 
 DICTIONARIES & other BOOKS of 
 
 REFERENCE 15 
 
 FINE ARTS & ILLUSTRATED EDI- 
 TIONS 27 
 
 HISTORY, POLITICS, HISTORICAL 
 
 MEMOIRS, &c i 
 
 INDEX 45 
 
 PAGE 
 
 MENTAL & POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 9 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS & CRITICAL WORKS 12 
 NATURAL HISTORY & PHYSICAL 
 
 SCIENCE . 20 
 
 POETRY & the DRAMA 40 
 
 RELIGIOUS & MORAL WORKS . . 32 
 RURAL SPORTS, HORSE & CATTLE 
 
 MANAGEMENT, &c 41 
 
 TRAVELS, VOYAGES, &c 36 
 
 WORKS of FICTION 39 
 
 WORKS of UTILITY & GENERAL 
 
 INFORMATION 43 
 
 HISTORY, POLITICS, HISTORICAL 
 MEMOIRS, &e. 
 
 The Life of Napoleon III. 
 derived from State Records, 
 Unpublished Family Cor- 
 respondence, and Personal 
 Testimony. 
 By Blanchard Jerrold. 
 
 Four Vols. %vo. with Portraits from the 
 Originals in possession of the Imperial 
 Family, and Facsimiles of Letters of 
 Napoleon I. Napoleon III. Queen 
 Hortense, &c. 
 
 *#* Vol. I. will be published in April, 
 Vol. II. in the Autumn, and Vols. III. 
 and IV. completing the "work, in the Spring 
 oj 1875. 
 
 The History of England 
 from the Fall of Wolsey to 
 the Defeat of the Spanish 
 Armada. 
 By J. A. Froude, M.A. 
 
 CABINET EDITION, izvols. cr.Szv. 3. 12.5-. 
 LIBRARY EDITION, 12 vols. 8vo. 8. iSs. 
 
 The English in Ireland 
 in the Eighteenth Century. 
 By J. A. Froude, M.A. 
 
 3 vols. &vo. 2. Ss.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Estimates of the English 
 Kings from William the 
 Conqueror to George III. 
 By J . L. Sanford. 
 
 Crown Sew. 12s. 6d. 
 
 The History of England 
 from the Accession of 
 James II. 
 By Lord Macaulay. 
 
 STUDENT'S EDITION, zvols. cr. ?>vo. i2s. 
 PEOPLE'S EDITION, 4 vols. cr. %vo. i6s. 
 CABINET EDITION, 8 vols. post 8vo. 48*. 
 LIBRARY EDITION, 5 vols. %vo. 4. 
 
 Critical and Historical 
 Essays contributed to the 
 Edinburgh Review. 
 By the Right Hon. Lord 
 Macaulay. 
 
 STUDENT'S EDITION, crown %vo. 6s. 
 PEOPLE'S EDITION, 2 vols. crown Svo. 8s. 
 CABINET EDITION, 4 vols. 24$. 
 LIBRARY EDITION, 3 vols. 8vo. $6s. 
 
 Lord Macaulay s IVorks. 
 Complete and imiform Li- 
 brary Edition. 
 Edited by his Sister, Lady 
 Trevelyan. 
 
 8 vols. 8vo. with Portrait, ^5. 5-r. 
 
 Memoirs of Baron Stock- 
 mar. 
 By his Son, Baron E. Von 
 
 Stockmar. Translated 
 
 from the German by G. 
 
 A. M. Edited by Max 
 
 Muller, M.A. 
 
 2 vols. crown 8vo. 2is. 
 
 Essays on the English 
 Government and Constitu- 
 tion from the Reign of 
 Henry VII. to the Present 
 Time. 
 By John Earl Riissell. 
 
 Fcp. %vo. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 On Parliamentary Go- 
 vernment in England: its 
 Origin, Development, and 
 Practical Operation. 
 By Alpheus Todd. 
 
 2 vols. 8z'0. ;i. ijs. 
 
 The Constitutional His- 
 tory of England since the 
 Accession of George III. 
 1760-1870. 
 
 By Sir Thomas Erskine 
 May, K.C.B. 
 
 Fourth Edition. 3 vols. crown Sz'o. i8s. 
 
 Democracy in Eitrope ; 
 a History. 
 
 By Sir Thomas Erskine 
 May, K.C.B. 
 
 2 vols. Sv o. [Iii preparation. 
 
 Lecttires on the History 
 of England from the Ear- 
 liest Times to the Death of 
 King Edzvard II. 
 By W. Longman, F.A.S. 
 
 Maps and Illustrations. 8zv. i$s. 
 
 The History of the Life 
 and Times of Edward III. 
 By W. Longman, F.A.S. 
 
 With 9 Maps, 8 Plates, and 16 Woodcuts. 
 2 vols. Szv. 28s.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 The History of England 
 from the Earliest Times to 
 the Year 1865. 
 By C. D. Yonge. 
 
 Nno Edition. Crown Svo. 'js. 6d. 
 
 Three Centuries of Mo- 
 dern History 1494-1815. 
 By C. Duke Yonge, B.A. 
 
 Crcnan %vo. "js. 6d. 
 
 History of Civilization in 
 
 England and France, Spain 
 
 and Scotland. 
 
 By Henry Thomas Buckle. 
 
 CABINET EDITION. 3 voh. cr. %vo. 2$s. 
 
 History of Mary Stuart 
 Queen of Scots. Translated 
 from the Original MS. of 
 Professor Petit. 
 By Charles de Flandre, 
 F.S.A. Scot. Professor 
 of the French Language 
 and Literature in Edin- 
 burgh. 
 
 With 2 Portraits. 2 voh. $to. 63^. 
 
 The Student's Manual of 
 the History of Ireland. 
 By M. F. Cusack. 
 
 A Student's Manual of 
 the History of India from 
 the Earliest Period to the 
 Present. 
 
 By Col. Meadows Taylor, 
 M.R.A.S. 
 
 Second Thousand. Cr. 8z>0. Maps, "js. 6d. 
 
 The French Revolution 
 and First Empire; an 
 Historical Sketch. 
 By W. O'Connor Morris, 
 sometime Scholar of Oriel 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 Post %vo. With 2 Maps. 
 
 {Nearly ready. 
 
 The History of India 
 from the Earliest Period 
 to the close of Lord Dal- 
 housies Administration. 
 By John Clark Mars kman. 
 
 3 wls. crown 8vo. 22s. 6d. . . 
 
 Indian Polity ; a View of 
 the System of Administra 
 tion in India. 
 By Lieut. -Colonel George 
 Chesney. 
 
 Second Edition, revised, with Map. 8vo. 2ls. 
 
 Waterloo Lectures ; a 
 Stiidy of the Campaign of 
 1815. 
 
 By Colonel Charles C. 
 Chesney, R.E. 
 
 Third Edition. %vo. -with Map, \os.6d. 
 
 Essays in Modern Mili- 
 tary Biography. 
 By Colonel Charles C. 
 Chesney, R.E. 
 
 The Imperial and Colo- 
 nial Constitiitions of the 
 Britannic Empire, inchtd- 
 ing Indian Institiitions. 
 By Sir E. Creasy, M.A. 
 
 With 6 Maps. 8vo. 15^-. -
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 The Oxford Reformers 
 
 John Colet, Erasmus, and 
 Thomas More; being a 
 
 History of their Fellow- 
 Work. 
 
 By Frederic Seebohm. 
 
 Second Edition. &vo. l^s. 
 
 The History of Persia 
 and its present Political 
 Situation; with Abstracts 
 of all Treaties and Con- 
 ventions between Persia and 
 England, and of the Con- 
 vention with Baron Reuter. 
 By Clements R. Markham, 
 C.B. F.R.S. 
 
 82/0. -with Map, 2U. 
 
 The Mythology of the 
 
 Aryan Nations. 
 
 By Geo. W. Cox, M.A. late 
 Scholar of Trinity Col- 
 lege, Oxford. 
 
 2 vols. %VO. 2&S. 
 
 A History of Greece. 
 By the Rev. Geo. W. Cox, 
 M.A. late Scholar of 
 Trinity College, Oxford. 
 
 Vols. L and II. 8vo. Maps, 36^. 
 
 The History of Greece. 
 By C. Thirlwall, D.D. 
 Lord Bp. of St. David's. 
 
 8 vols. fcp. 8vo. 2&s. 
 
 The Tale of the Great 
 Persian War, from the 
 Histories of Herodotus. 
 By Rev. G. W. Cox, M.A. 
 
 Fcp. %vo. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 The History of the Pelo- 
 
 ponnesian War, by Thu- 
 
 cydides. 
 
 Translated by Richd. Craw- 
 ley, Fellow of Worcester 
 College, and formerly 
 Scholar of University 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 $>vo. \In the press. 
 
 Greek History from The- 
 
 mistocles to Alexander, in 
 a Series of Lives from 
 Plutarch. 
 
 Revised and arranged by 
 A. H. C lough. 
 
 Fcp. %vo. Woodcuts, 6s. 
 
 History of the Romans 
 under the Empire. 
 By the Very Rev. Charles 
 
 Merivale, D.C.L. Dean 
 
 of Ely. 
 
 8 vols. post &vo. 480'. 
 
 The Fall of the Roman 
 Republic ; a Short History 
 of the Last Centiiry of the 
 Commonwealth. 
 By Dean Merivale, D.C.L. 
 
 \2rno. is. 6d. 
 
 The Sixth Oriental Mo- 
 narchy ; or the Geography, 
 History, and Antiquities 
 of Parthia. Collected and 
 Illustrated from Ancient 
 and Modern sources. 
 By Geo. Rawlinson, M.A. 
 
 With Maps and Illustrations. 8vo. l6s.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 The Seventh Great Ori- 
 ental Monarchy; or, a 
 History of the Sassanians : 
 with Notices Geographical 
 and Antiquarian. 
 By Geo. Rawlinson, M.A. 
 
 8vo. with Maps and Illustrations. 
 
 [In the press. 
 
 Encyclopedia of Chro- 
 nology, Historical and 
 Biographical ; comprising 
 the Dates of all the Great 
 Events of History, includ- 
 ing Treaties, Alliances, 
 Wars, Battles, &c. Inci- 
 dents in the Lives of Emi- 
 nent Men, Scientific and 
 Geographical Discoveries, 
 Mechanical Inventions, and 
 Social, Domestic, and Eco- 
 nomical Improvements. 
 By B. B. Woodward, B.A. 
 and W. L. R. Cafes. 
 
 Svo. 42s. 
 
 The History of Rome. 
 By Wilhelm Ihne. Eng- 
 lish Edition, translated 
 and revised by the Ait,- 
 thor. 
 
 Vols. I. and II. 8vo. 30?. 
 
 History of Ruropean 
 Morals from Augustus to 
 Charlemagne. 
 By W. E. H. Lecky, M.A. 
 
 2 vols. Svo. 2&s. 
 
 History of the Rise and 
 Influence of the Spirit of 
 Rationalism in Eiirope. 
 By W. E. H. Lecky, M.A. 
 
 Cabinet Edition, 2 vols. crown %vo. l6s. 
 
 Introduction to the 
 
 Science of Religion : Foiir 
 Lectures delivered at the 
 Royal Institution ; with 
 tivo Essays on False Ana- 
 logies and the Philosophy 
 of Mythology. 
 By F. Max Muller, M.A. 
 
 Crown 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 Socrates and the Socratic 
 Schools. 
 
 Translated from the Ger- 
 man of Dr. E. Zeller, 
 with the Authors ap- 
 proval, by the Rev. O. J. 
 Reichel, B.C.L. M.A. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Ss. 6d. 
 
 The Stoics, Epicureans, 
 and Sceptics. 
 
 Translated from the Ger- 
 man of Dr. E. Zeller, 
 with the Author s ap- 
 proval, by Oswald J. 
 Reickel, B.C.L. M.A 
 
 Crown ?>vo. \\s. 
 
 History of the Early 
 Church from the First 
 Preaching of the Gospel to 
 the Council of Nic&a, A.D. 
 325. 
 By Miss E. M. Sewell. 
 
 Fcp. 8vo. 4r. 6J.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 The History of Philoso- 
 phy, from T hales to Comte. 
 By George Henry Lewes. 
 
 Fourth Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. %2s. 
 
 History of the Catholic 
 Church from the Death of 
 John to the Middle of the 
 Second Century ; including 
 an Account of the Original 
 Organisation of the Chris- 
 tian Ministry, and the 
 Growth of Episcopacy. 
 By the Rev. T. W. Moss- 
 man, B.A. 
 
 "&VO. i6s. 
 
 Sketch of the History of 
 
 the Church of England to 
 the Revolution of 1688. 
 By the Right Rev. T. V. 
 
 Short, D.D. Bishop of 
 
 St. Asaph. 
 
 Eighth Edition. Crown 8vo. "Js. 6d. 
 
 History of the Christian 
 Ch^^,rch from the Ascen- 
 sion of Christ to the Con- 
 version of Constantine. 
 By E. Burton, D.D. 
 
 Fcp. 
 
 3-r. 
 
 The Historical Geogra- 
 phy of Europe. 
 By Edward A. Freeman, 
 D.C.L. late Fellow of 
 Trinity College, Oxford. 
 
 Svo. Maps. [In the press. 
 
 Essays on the History of 
 the Christian Religion. 
 By John Earl Russell. 
 
 Fcp. 8vo. 3-y. 6d. 
 
 Epochs of History : a 
 Series of Books treating of 
 the History of England 
 and Europe at Successive 
 Epochs subsequent to the 
 Christian Era. 
 Edited by Edward ' E. 
 Morris, M.A. of Lin- 
 coln College, Oxford, 
 Head-Master of the 
 Bedfordshire Middle- 
 Class Public School. 
 
 Infcp. 8z'<7. volumes of about 2^0 pp. each. 
 
 The Era of the Pro- 
 testant Revolution. 
 By F. Seebohm, Aiithor of 
 ' The Oxford Reformers 
 Colet, Erasmus, More'. 
 
 [In April. 
 
 The Crusades. 
 By the Rev. G. W. Cox, 
 M.A. late Scholar of 
 Trinity College, Oxford. 
 
 [In May. 
 
 The Thirty Years War, 
 1618-1648. 
 
 By Samuel Rawson Gar- 
 diner, late Student of 
 Christ Church, \injimc. 
 
 The Houses of Lancaster 
 
 and York; with the Con- 
 quest and Loss of France. 
 By James Gairdner, of the 
 
 Public Record Office ; 
 
 Editor of ' The Paston 
 
 Letters' &c. 
 
 [In the press.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS. 
 
 A utobiography. 
 
 By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 Svo. js. 6(f. 
 
 Life and Letters of Gil- 
 bert Elliot, First Earl of 
 Minto, from 1751/01 806, 
 when his Public Life in 
 Europe was closed by his 
 Appointment to the Vice- 
 Royalty of India. 
 Edited by his Grand- 
 Niece, the Countess of 
 Minto. 
 
 3 vols. post &vo. 31 s. 6d. 
 
 Memoir of Thomas First 
 Lord penman, formerly 
 Lord Chief Justice of 
 England. 
 
 By Sir Joseph Arnoidd, 
 B.A. K.B. late Judge 
 of the High Court of 
 Bombay. 
 
 With two Portraits. 2 vols. %vo. %2s. 
 
 The Life of Lloyd First 
 
 Lord Kenyon. 
 By Hon. G. T. Kenyon, 
 M.A. 
 
 With Portraits. 8vo. 14?. 
 
 Recollections of Past 
 
 Life. 
 
 By Sir Henry Holland, 
 Bart. M.D. F.R.S. late 
 Physician -in - Ordinary 
 to the Qiieen. 
 
 Third Edition. Post 8w. lew. 6ct. 
 
 Memoir of the Life of 
 
 Admiral Sir Edward 
 William Codrington ; with 
 Selections from his Corre- 
 spondence. 
 
 Edited by his Daughter, 
 Lady Bourchier. 
 
 With Portraits, Alaps, and Plans. 2 vols. 
 
 Shakespeare s Home and 
 
 Rural Life. 
 
 By James Walter, Major 
 \th Lancashire Artil- 
 lery Volunteers. Com- 
 prising a Biographical 
 Narrative, illustrated 
 by about 100 Landscapes 
 and Views prodiiced by 
 the Heliotype Process 
 from Photographs taken 
 in the localities expressly 
 for this work. 
 
 Imp. 4/0. 52^. 6d. 
 
 BibliothecaCornubiensis; 
 
 a Catalogue of the Writings, 
 both MS. and printed, of 
 Cornishmen from the 
 Earliest Times, and of 
 Works relating to the 
 County of Cornwall. 
 With Biographical Me- 
 moranda and copious Lite- 
 rary References. 
 By G. C. Boase and W. 
 P. Courtney. 
 
 In two volumes ; Vol. I. A. 0. Imp. 
 Sz'o. 2is.
 
 IEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 je of Alexander von 
 Humboldt. 
 
 Compiled, in commemora- 
 tion of the Centenary of 
 his Birth, by J . Lowen- 
 berg, R. Ave"-Lallemant, 
 and A. Dove. Edited 
 by Karl Bmhns, and 
 translated by Jane and 
 Caroline Las sell. 
 
 With 3 Portraits. 2 vols. Svo. 36^. 
 
 Biographical and Criti- 
 cal Essays, reprinted from 
 Reviews, with Additions 
 and Corrections. 
 By A. Hay ward, Q.C. 
 
 Second Series, 2 vols. 8vo. 2%s. ; Third 
 Series, I vol. &z>0. l^s. 
 
 The Life of Isambard 
 Kingdom Brunei, Civil 
 Engineer. 
 
 By Isambard Brunei, 
 B.C.L. 
 
 With Portrait, Plates, and Woodcuts. 
 8vo. 2 is. 
 
 Lord George Bentinck ; 
 a Political Biography. 
 By the Right Hon. B. 
 Disraeli, M.P. 
 
 Eighth Edition. Crown ?>vo. 6s. 
 
 Memoir of George Ed- 
 ward Lynch Cotton, D.D. 
 Bishop of Calcutta; with 
 Selections from his Jour- 
 nals and Correspondence. 
 Edited by Mrs. Cotton. 
 
 Second Edition, with Portrait. Croivn 
 8vo. -JS. 6d. 
 
 The Life and Letters of 
 the Rev. Sydney Smith. 
 Edited by his Daughter, 
 
 Lady Holland, and 
 
 Mrs. Austin. 
 
 Crown %vo. 6s. 
 
 The Life and Times of 
 Sixtus the Fifth. 
 By Baron Hilbner. Trans- 
 lated by Hubert E. H. 
 Jerningham. 
 
 2 vols. 8z/0. 24r. 
 
 Essays in Ecclesiastical 
 Biography. 
 
 By the Right Hon. Sir J. 
 Stephen, LL.D. 
 
 Cabinet Edition. Crown Quo. 7-f. 6^/. 
 
 Leaders of Public Opi- 
 nion in Ireland ; Swift, 
 Flood, Grattan, O'Connell. 
 By W. E. H. Lecky, M.A. 
 
 Cro*ii<n Svo. "js. 6d. 
 
 Life of the Duke of 
 
 Wellington. 
 
 By the Rev. G. R. Gleig, 
 M.A. 
 
 Popular Edition, Croivn %vo. with Por- 
 trait, 5.r. 
 
 Fe lix Me n de Is so h n ' s 
 Letters from Italy and 
 Switzerland, and Letters 
 from 1833 to 1847. 
 Translated by Lady Wal- 
 lace. 
 
 With Portrait. 2 vols. crown %vo. $s. each.
 
 NEW WORKS PUELISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Dictionary of General 
 
 Biography ; containing 
 Concise Memoirs and No- 
 tices of the most Eminent 
 Persons of all Countries, 
 from the Earliest Ages to 
 the Present Time. 
 Edited by W. L. R. Cafes. 
 
 The Rise of Great Fami- 
 
 lies; other Essays and 
 
 Stories. 
 
 By Sir Bernard Burke, 
 
 C.B. LL.D. Ulster 
 
 King-of-A rms. 
 
 Crcnon 8v 
 
 12s. 
 
 Lives of tJie Queens of 
 England. 
 By Agnes Strickland. 
 
 Library Edition, with Portraits, Autographs, 
 and Vignettes. 8 z'ols. fast 81 o. "js. 6d. 
 each. 
 
 Memoirs of Sir Henry 
 Havelock, K.C.B. 
 By John Clark Marshman. 
 
 People's Edition, ivith Portrait. Crown 
 
 Vicissitudes of Families. 
 By Sir J . Bernard Burke, 
 C.B. Ulster King-of- 
 Arms. 
 
 New Edition, remodelled and enlarged. 
 2 vols. crown 8r0. 2is. 
 
 MENTAL and POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. 
 
 The System of Positive 
 Polity, or Treatise upon So- 
 ciology, of Aiiguste Comte, 
 Author of the Syslem of 
 Positive Philosophy. 
 Translated from the Paris 
 Edition of 1851-1854, 
 and fiirnished with Ana- 
 lytical Tables of Contents. 
 
 \In preparation. 
 
 In Four Volumes, 8v0. to be published stpa- 
 rately, and each forming in some degree 
 an independent Treatise : 
 
 Vol. I. The General Vieiu of Positive 
 Polity and its Philosophical Basis. Trans- 
 lated by]. H. Bridges, M.B. formerly Fellow 
 of Oriel College, Oxford. 
 
 Vol. IT. The Social Statics, or the Ab- 
 stract Laws of Human Order. Translated 
 by Frederic Harrison, M. A. of Lincoln s 
 Inn. 
 
 Vol. III. The Social Dynamics, or the 
 
 General Laws of Human Progress (the Phi- 
 losophy of History]. Translated by E. S. 
 Beesly, M. A. Professor of History in Uni- 
 versity College, London. 
 
 Vol. IV. The Ideal of the Future of 
 Mankind. Translated by Richard Congreve, 
 M. D. formerly Fellow and Tutor of Wad- 
 ham College, Oxford. 
 
 Essays Critical & Nar- 
 rative, partly original and 
 partly reprinted from the 
 Edinburgh, Quarterly, and 
 other Reviews. 
 By W. Forsyth, Q.C. M.P. 
 
 Essays, Political, Social, 
 and Relights. 
 By Richd. Congreve, M.A. 
 M.R.C.P.L. 
 
 I -col. Stv. 
 
 [/ the press 
 B
 
 10 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Essays on Freethinking 
 and Plainspeaking. 
 By Leslie Stephen. 
 
 Crown 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 Essays selected from 
 Contributions to the Edin- 
 burgh Review. 
 By Henry Rogers. 
 
 New Edition, in -which the Literary and 
 Theological Essays will be classed in two 
 divisions, each of which may be pur- 
 chased separately. [/ preparation. 
 
 Selections from the Cor- 
 respondence of R. E. H. 
 Greyson. 
 By Henry Rogers. 
 
 New Edition, revised. \In the press. 
 
 On Representative Go- 
 vernment. 
 By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 Fourth Edition, crown &vo. 2s. 
 
 On Liberty. 
 
 By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 Post Sue. 7-r. 6d. crown 8z'0. is. ^d. 
 
 Principles of Political 
 
 Economy. 
 
 By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 2 vols. 8vo. 3cw. or I vol. crown $>vo. ^s, 
 
 Essays on some Unsettled 
 Questions of Political Eco- 
 nomy. 
 By John Stitart Mill. 
 
 Second Edition. Svo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Utilitarianism. 
 By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 Fourth Edition. Qvo. $s. 
 
 A System of Logic, 
 Ratiocinative and Induc- 
 tive. By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 Eighth Edition. 2 vols. %vo. 2$s. 
 
 Examination of Sir 
 William Hamilton's Phi- 
 losophy, and of the princi- 
 pal Philosophical Questions 
 discussed in his Writings. 
 By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 Fourth Edition. &vo. i6s. 
 
 TheSzibjection of Women. 
 By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 New Edition. Post 8vo. $s. 
 
 Dissertations and Dis- 
 cussions. 
 By John Stuart Mill. 
 
 Second Edition. 3 vols. Sz'a. 36^. 
 
 Analysis of the Pheno- 
 mena of the Human Mind. 
 By James Mill. New 
 Edition, with Notes, 
 Illustrative and Critical. 
 
 2 Vols. 8v0. 2%S. 
 
 A Systematic View of 
 the Science of Jiirispru- 
 dence. 
 
 By Sheldon Amos, M.A. 
 Professor of Jurispru- 
 dence to the Inns of 
 Court, London.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 11 
 
 A Primer of the English 
 Constitution and Govern- 
 ment. 
 By Sheldon Amos, M.A. 
 
 Nezv Edition, revised. Post Szv. 
 
 [/ October. 
 
 Principles of Economical 
 
 Philosophy. 
 
 By H. D. Macleod, M.A. 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 Second Edition, in 2 vols. Vol. I. >vo. 1 5-f 
 
 The Institutes of Jus- 
 tinian ; with English In- 
 troduction, Translation, 
 and Notes. 
 
 By T. C. Sandars, M.A. 
 Barrister-at-L aiv. 
 
 New Edition. Svo. i$s. 
 
 Lord Bacons Works, 
 Collected and Edited by R. 
 L. Ellis, M.A. y. Sped- 
 ding, M.A. and D. D. 
 Heath. 
 
 New and Cheaper Edition. 7 vols. %vo. 
 3- i3* 6 ^- 
 
 Letters and Life of 
 Francis Bacon, including 
 all his Occasional Works. 
 Collected and edited, with 
 
 a Commentary, by J . 
 
 Spedding. 
 
 Vols. I. to VI. Svo. 3. I2s. Vol. VII. 
 completing the -work, is nearly ready. 
 
 The Nicomachean Ethics 
 of A ristotle. Newly trans- 
 lated into English. 
 By R. Williams, B.A. 
 
 %ZV. I2S. 
 
 The Politics of Aristotle; 
 Greek Text^ with English 
 Notes. 
 By Richard Congreve, M.A . 
 
 New Edition, revised. 8vo. 
 
 [ft! the press. 
 
 The Ethics of Aristotle; 
 
 ^vith Essays and Notes. 
 By Sir A. Grant, Bart. 
 M.A. LL.D. 
 
 Third Edition, revised and partly re-written. 
 [Li the press. 
 
 Bacon's Essays, with 
 Annotations. 
 By R. Whately, D.D. 
 
 New Edition. 8vo. iov. 6J. 
 
 Elements of Logic. 
 By R. Whately, D.D. 
 
 NCT.O Edition. 
 
 o. los. 6J. cr. Sz'o. 4?. 
 
 Elements of Rhetoric. 
 By R. Whately, D.D. 
 
 New Edition. 8z>0. los. 6d. cr. Svc. 4^. 6J. 
 
 An Outline of the Neces- 
 
 sary Laws of Thought : a 
 Treatise on Pure and 
 Applied Logic. 
 By the Most Rev. W. 
 Thomson, D.D. Arch- 
 bishop of York. 
 
 Ninth Thousand, Crown 8z'0. $s. (jj. 
 
 An Introduction to Men- 
 tal Philosophy, on the In- 
 dzictive Method. 
 By y. D. Morell, LL.D.
 
 12 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Elements of Psychology, 
 containing the Analysis of 
 the Intellectual Powers. 
 By J. D. Morell, LL.D. 
 
 Post 8vo. 7-r. d. 
 
 The Secret of Hegel: 
 being the Hegelian System 
 in Origin, Principle, Form, 
 and Matter. 
 By J. H. Stirling, LL.D. 
 
 2 vols. Svo. 28s. 
 
 Sir William Hamilton ; 
 being the Philosophy of 
 Perception : an Analysis. 
 By J. H. Stirling, LL.D. 
 
 %vo. 5-r. 
 
 The Philosophy of Ne- 
 cessity ; or, Natural Law 
 as applicable to Mental, 
 Moral, and Social Science. 
 By Charles Bray. 
 
 Second Edition. &>o. gs. 
 
 Time and Space ; a Meta- 
 physical Essay. 
 By S. H. Hodgson. 
 
 8vo. i6s. 
 
 The Theory of Practice ; 
 an Ethical Inquiry. 
 By S. H. Hodgson. 
 
 2 Vols. ^iVO. 2<\S. 
 
 Ueberwegs System of 
 Logic, and History of 
 Logical Doctrines. . 
 Translated, with Notes and 
 
 Appendices, by T. M. 
 
 Lindsay, M. A. F.R.S.E. 
 
 The Senses and the 
 Intellect. 
 
 By A. Bain, LL.D. Prof, 
 of Logic, Univ. Aberdeen. 
 
 %vo. 15.5-. 
 
 Mental and Moral 
 
 Science ; a Compendium of 
 Psychology and Ethics. 
 By A. Bain, LL.D. 
 
 Third Edition. Crown %vo. los. 6d. Or 
 separately: Part I. Mental Science, 6s. 6d. 
 Part II. Moral Science, ^s. 6d. 
 
 A Treatise on Human 
 Nature. By David Hume. 
 
 Edited, with Notes, &c. by 
 T. H. Green, Fel. of Bal. 
 Coll. and T. H. Grose, 
 Fel. & Tutor of Queen's 
 Coll. Oxford. 
 
 2 vols. "Owo. [/ Apiil. 
 
 Essays Moral, Political, 
 and Literary. By D.Hume. 
 By the same Editors. 
 
 2 vols. 8z'0. [In the press. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS & CRITICAL WORKS. 
 
 Miscellaneous and Post- 
 humous Works of the late 
 Henry Thomas Buckle. 
 Edited,with a Biographical 
 Notice, by Helen Taylor. 
 
 3 vols. 8^. 2. i2J. dd. 
 
 Short Studies on Great 
 Subjects. 
 
 By J. A. Froude, M.A. 
 formerly Fellow of 
 Exeter College, Oxford. 
 
 2 vols. crcu'ii Sr<?. 12s.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 13 
 
 Lord Macaiilays Mis- 
 cellaneous Writings. 
 
 LIBRARY EDITION, 2 zW.r. 8vo. Portrait, 2is. 
 PEOPLE'S EDITION, i vol. cr. %vo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 Lord Macaulay's Mis- 
 cellaneous Writings and 
 Speeches. 
 
 Croivn Svo. 6s. 
 
 Speeches of the Right 
 Hon. Lord Macaulay, cor- 
 rected by Himself. 
 
 Peoples Edition. Crown $vo. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 LordMacaulay'sSpeeches 
 011 Parliamentary Reform 
 in 1831 and 1832. 
 
 i6io. is. 
 
 The Rev. Sydney Smiths 
 Essays contributed to the 
 Edinburgh Review. 
 
 Authorised Edition, complete in One Volume, 
 Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. sewed, or. 3.?. 6d. cloth. 
 
 The Rev. Sydney Smiths 
 Miscellaneous Works. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 6s, 
 
 The IVit and Wisdom of 
 the Rev. Sydney Smith ; a 
 Selection of the most memo- 
 rable Passages in his Writ- 
 ings and Conversation. 
 
 Cro^uH %vo. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Manual of English Lite- 
 rature, Historical and 
 Critical, with a Chapter on 
 English Metres. 
 By Thomas Arnold, M.A. 
 
 Nra Edition. Crcnvn %t'o. "js. 6d. 
 
 Realities of Irish Life. 
 By W. Steuart Trench. 
 
 Cr, %vo. 2s. 6d. sewed, or y. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Lectures on the Science 
 
 of Language. 
 
 By F. Max Mutter, M.A. 
 &c. Foreign Member of 
 the French Institute. 
 
 Seventh Edition. 2vols. crown %vo. ids. 
 
 Chips from a German 
 Workshop; being Essays 
 on the Science of Religion, 
 and on Mythology, Tradi- 
 tions, and Customs. 
 By F. Max Mutter, M.A. 
 &c. 
 
 3 vols. 8vo. 2. 
 
 Families of Speech. 
 Foiir Lectures delivered at 
 the Royal Institution. 
 By F. W. Farrar, M.A. 
 F.R.S. 
 
 New Edition. Crown 8vo. ' 3.?. 6d. 
 
 Chapters on Language. 
 By F. W. Farrar, M.A. 
 F.R.S. Master of Mar l- 
 borougk College. 
 
 Neiv Edition. Crown Sve. $s. 
 
 Southey*s Doctor, com- 
 plete in One Volume. 
 Edited by Rev. J. W. 
 Warier^ B.D. 
 
 Square crown %vo. 12s. 6d. 
 
 Three Centuries of Eng- 
 lish Literature. 
 By Charles D. Yonge, B.A. 
 
 Croivn Svo. "js. 6d.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 A Budget of Paradoxes. 
 By Augustus De Morgan, 
 F.R.A.S. 
 
 Reprinted, with Author's Additions, from 
 the Athenaeum, %-vo. \$s. 
 
 Recreations of a Coztntry 
 Parson. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Two Series, 3^. 6d. each. 
 
 Seaside Musings on Sun- 
 days and Weekdays. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Crown 8z/<?. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Changed A spects of Un- 
 changed Truths ; Memo- 
 rials of St. Andrews Sun- 
 days. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Crown &z>o. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Counsel and Comfort 
 from a City Pulpit. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Crown 8v0. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Lessons of Middle Age, 
 with some Account of Va- 
 rious Cities and Men. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Croivn %vo, 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Leisure Hours in Town; 
 Essays Consolatory, sEsthe- 
 tical, Moral, Social, and 
 Domestic. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Crown Svo. 3^. dd. 
 
 The A^tt^l / )nn Holidays 
 of a Country Parson. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Crown '&vo. $s. 6d. 
 
 S^tnday Afternoons at 
 the Parish Church of a 
 Scottish University City. 
 By A. K. H. B. ' 
 
 Crown &vo. 3-r. 6d, 
 
 Commonplace Phi- 
 losopher in Town and 
 Country. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Crown &V0. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Present-Day Thoughts. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Crffivn Sz'o. 3^. 6c/. 
 
 Critical Essays of a 
 Country Parson. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Crown &vo. 3^. 6d. 
 
 The Graver Thoiights of 
 a Coimtry Parson. 
 By A. K. H. B. 
 
 Two Series, 3^. 6d. each. 
 
 From January to De- 
 
 cember; a Book for Children. 
 
 Second Edition. 8vo. 3^. 6</. 
 
 Principles of Education, 
 drawn from Natiire and 
 Revelation, and applied to 
 Female Education in the 
 Upper Classes. 
 By the Author of 'Amy 
 Herbert! 
 
 2 VOls. fcp. &Z'0. 12S. 6J.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 15 
 
 The OKeeffe Case. A 
 full Report of the Case of 
 the Rev. Robert O Keeffe v. 
 Cardinal Cullen, including 
 the Evidence given at the 
 Trial before Lord Chief 
 Justice Whiteside, and the 
 Judgments delivered by the 
 Court of Queens Bench (Ire- 
 land] ^tpon the Points of 
 Law raised by the Plead- 
 ings. With an Introduction 
 by H. C. Kirkpatrick, 
 Barristcr-at-Law. 
 
 The Election of Repre- 
 sentatives, Parliamentary 
 and Municipal ; a Treatise. 
 By Thos. Hare, Barrister- 
 at-Law. 
 
 Fourth Edition. Post 8z/0 . yj. 
 
 Miscellaneous Writings 
 
 of John Conington, M.A. 
 
 late Corpus Professor of 
 
 Latin in the University of 
 
 Oxford. 
 
 Edited by J . A. Symonds. 
 M.A. With a Memoir 
 by H. J. S. Smith, M.A. 
 
 DICTIONARIES and OTHER BOOKS of 
 REFERENCE. 
 
 A Dictionary of the 
 
 English Language. 
 
 By R. G. Latham, M.A. 
 M.D. F.R.S. Founded 
 on the Dictionary of Dr. 
 S. Johnson, as edited by 
 the Rev. H. J. Todd, 
 with numerous Emenda- 
 tions and Additions. 
 
 4 voh. 6fo. 7. 
 
 Thesaurus of English 
 Words and Phrases, classi- 
 fied and arranged so as to 
 facilitate the expression of 
 Ideas, and assist in L iterary 
 Composition. 
 By P. M. Roget, M.D. 
 
 Crown Szv. lew. 6af. 
 
 English Synonymes. 
 ByE.J. Whately. Edited 
 by Archbishop Whately. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Fcp. 8vo. 3-r. 
 
 A Practical Dictionary 
 of the French and English 
 Languages. 
 
 By Professor L^on Contan- 
 seau, many years French 
 Examiner for Military 
 and Civil Appointments, 
 
 Post 8v0. los. (xt. 
 
 Contanseaus Pocket Dic- 
 tionary, French and Eng- 
 lish, abridged from the 
 Practical Dictionary, by 
 the Author. 
 
 Square \%mo. 3-r. 6</.
 
 16 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 New Practical Diction- 
 ary of the German Lan- 
 guage ; German - English 
 and English-German. 
 By Rev. W. L. J3 lack ley, 
 
 M.A. and Dr. C. M. 
 
 Friedldnder. 
 
 Post Svo. ^s. 6d. 
 
 A Dictionary of Roman 
 and Greek Antiquities. 
 With about 2,000 Engrav- 
 ings on Wood, from Ancient 
 Originals, illustrative of 
 the Industrial Arts and 
 Social Life of the Greeks 
 and Romans. 
 By Anthony Rich, B.A. 
 
 Third Edition. Crown 8vo. Js. 6d. 
 
 The Mastery of Lan- 
 guages ; or, the Art of 
 Speaking Foreign Tongues 
 Idiomatically. 
 By Thomas Prendergast. 
 
 Second Edition. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 A Practical English Dic- 
 tionary. 
 
 By John T. White, D.D. 
 Oxon. and T. C. Donkin, 
 M.A. 
 
 I vol. post Quo. uniform "with Contanseau 's 
 Practical French Dictionary. 
 
 [In the press. 
 
 A Latin-English Dic- 
 tionary. 
 
 By John T. White, D.D. 
 Oxon. and J. E. Riddle, 
 M.A. Oxon. 
 
 Third Edition, revised. 2 vols. 4/0. 42J. 
 
 Whites College Latin- 
 English Dictionary ; 
 abridged from the Parent 
 Work for the use of Uni- 
 versity Students. 
 
 Medium 8zw. i8j. 
 
 A Latin -English Dic- 
 tionary for Middle-Class 
 Schools, abridged from the 
 Junior Student's Latin- 
 English Dictionary. 
 By John T. White, D.D. 
 Oxon. 
 
 i8/;/(7. [In the press. 
 
 Whites Junior Students 
 
 Complete Latin - English 
 and English-Latin Dic- 
 tionary. 
 
 Square izmo. \2s. 
 
 ENGLISH-LATIN, 
 LATIN-ENGLISH, 
 
 ^. 6d. 
 ,. (>d. 
 
 A Greek-English Lexi- 
 con. 
 
 Compiled by H. G. Liddell, 
 D.D. Dean of Christ- 
 church, and R. Scott, 
 D.D. Dean of Rochester. 
 
 Sixth Edition. Crown 4/0. %6s. 
 
 A Lexicon, Greek and 
 English, abridged for 
 Schools from Liddell and 
 Scotfs Greek - English 
 Lexicon. 
 
 Fourteenth Edition. Square I2mo. "js. 6d.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 17 
 
 An English-Greek Lexi- 
 con, containing all the Greek 
 Words used by Writers of 
 good authority. 
 By C. D. Yonge, B.A. 
 
 New Edition. 4/0. 2is. 
 
 Mr. Yonge sNewLexicon, 
 English and Greek, abridged 
 from his larger Lexicon. 
 
 Square I2mo. 8s. (>d. 
 
 A Sanskrit-English Dic- 
 tionary. 
 Compiled by T. Benfey. 
 
 &vo. 52^. 6d. 
 
 M'Culloch's Dictionary, 
 
 Practical, Theoretical, and 
 Historical, of Commerce 
 and Commercial Naviga- 
 tion. New Edition, revised 
 and corrected to the Present 
 Time; with a Biographical 
 Notice of the Author. 
 Edited by H. G- Reid. 
 
 8vo. 63-r. 
 
 The Post Office Gazetteer 
 
 of the United Kingdom : a 
 Complete Dictionary of all 
 Cities, Towns, Villages, and 
 of tJie Principal Gentle- 
 metis Seats, in Great Bri- 
 tain and Ireland, referred 
 to the nearest Post Town, 
 Railway & Telegraph Sta- 
 tion; with Natural Features 
 and Objects of Note. 
 By J. A. Sharp. 
 
 In i vol. 8r<7. of about I, $00 pages. 
 [/;* the press. 
 
 A General Dictionary 
 of Geography, Descriptive, 
 Physical, Statistical, and 
 Historical; forming a com- 
 plete Gazetteer of the World. 
 By A. Keith Johnston, 
 F.R.S.E. 
 
 New Edition, thoroughly revised. 
 
 [In the press. 
 
 The Public Schools A tlas 
 of Modern Geography. In 
 3 1 Maps, exhibiting clearly 
 the more important Physi- 
 cal Features of the Coun- 
 tries delineated, and noting 
 all the Chief Places of His- 
 torical, Commercial, and 
 Social Interest. 
 Edited, with Introduction, 
 by Rev. G. Butler, M.A. 
 
 Imperial quarto, 3^. 6d. sewed; $s. cloth. 
 
 The Public Schools Ma- 
 nual of Modern Geography. 
 Forming a Companion to 
 ' The Public Schools Atlas 
 of Modern Geography.' 
 By Rev. G. Butler, M.A. 
 
 Principal of Liverpool 
 
 College. 
 
 [In the press. 
 
 The Public Schools Atlas 
 
 of Ancient Geography. 
 
 Edited, with an Introduc- 
 tion on the Study of An- 
 cient Geography, by Rev. 
 G. Butler, M.A. Prin. 
 cipal of Liverpool Coll. 
 
 Imperial Quarto. {In the press. 
 
 C
 
 18 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 ASTRONOMY and METEOROLOGY. 
 
 The Universe and the 
 Coming Transits : Pre- 
 senting Researches into and 
 New Views respecting 
 the Constitution of the 
 Heavens ; together with an 
 Investigation of the Condi- 
 tions of the coming Transits 
 of Venus. \Recently con- 
 firmed by a unanimous Vote 
 of the chief Astronomers of 
 Great Britain, ,] 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 With 22 Charts and 22 Diagrams. &vo. l6j. 
 
 Essays on Astronomy. 
 A Series of Papers on 
 Planets and Meteors, the 
 Sun and Sun-surrounding' 
 Space, Stars and Star 
 Cloudlets. 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 With 10 Plates and 24 Woodcuts. 8vo. I2s. 
 
 The Moon ; her Motions, 
 Aspect, Scenery, and Phy- 
 sical Condition. 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 With Plates, Charts, Woodcuts, and Lunar 
 Photographs. Crown %vo. l$s. 
 
 The Sun ; Ruler, Light, 
 Fire, and Life of tJie Pla- 
 netary System. 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 Second Edition. Plates and Woodcuts. Cr. 
 8vo. I4J. 
 
 Saturn and its System. 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 %vo. wit/i 14 Plates, 14?. 
 
 The Orbs Around Us; a 
 Series of Familiar Essays 
 on the Moon and Planets, 
 Meteors and Comets, the 
 Sun and Coloured Pairs of 
 Suns. 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 Crown Svo. *js. 6d. 
 
 Other IVorlds than Ours; 
 T/ie Plurality of Worlds 
 Shidied under the Light 
 of Recent Scientific Re- 
 searches. 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 Third Edition, with 14 Illustrations. 
 %vo. los. 6d. 
 
 Cr. 
 
 Brink ley's Astronomy. 
 Revised and partly re-writ- 
 ten, with Additional Chap- 
 ters, and an Appendix of 
 Qiiestions for Examination. 
 By John W. Stiibbs, D.D. 
 Fel. and Tutor of Trin. 
 Coll. and F. Brunnow, 
 Ph.D. Astronomer Royal 
 of Ireland, and Prof, of 
 Astronomy in the Uni- 
 versity of Dublin. 
 
 Crown Sfo. 6s.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 19 
 
 Outlines of Astronomy. 
 BySirJ.F. W. Herschel, 
 Bart. M.A. 
 
 Latest Edition, with Plates and Diagrams. 
 Square crown &vo, 1 2s. 
 
 A New Star Atlas, for 
 the Library, the School, and 
 the Observatory, in 1 2 Cir- 
 cular Maps (with 2 Index 
 Plates]. Intended as a Com- 
 panion to ' Webb's Celestial 
 Objects for Common Tele- 
 scopes' With a Letterpress 
 Introduction on the Study 
 of the Stars, illustrated by 
 9 Diagrams. 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 Celestial Objects for Com- 
 mon Telescopes. 
 By T. W. Webb, M.A. 
 F.R.A.S. 
 
 New Edition, ivith Map of the Moon and 
 Woodcuts. Crown %vo. "Js. 6d. 
 
 LargerStarA t las, for the 
 Library, in Twelve Cir- 
 cular Maps, i $in. diameter, 
 containing all the Stars 
 visible to the naked eye and 
 about 1,500 Objects of 
 Interest, viz. Red Stars, 
 Double Stars, &c. Photo- 
 lithographed by A. Bro- 
 thers, F.R.A.S. With 2 
 Index Plates and a Letter- 
 press Introduction. 
 By Richard A. Proctor, 
 BA. F.R.A.S. 
 
 Second Edition. Small folio, 25^. 
 
 Magnetism and Devia- 
 tion of the Compass. For 
 the use of Students in Navi- 
 gation and Science Schools. 
 By J. Merrifield, LL.D. 
 
 \$>mo. is. 6d. 
 
 Doves Law of Storms, 
 considered in connexion with 
 the ordinary Movements of 
 the Atmosphere. 
 Translated by R. H. Scott, 
 M.A. 
 
 8vo. IQS. bd. 
 
 Air and Rain ; the Be- 
 ginnings of a Chemical 
 Climatology. 
 
 By R. A. Smith, Ph.D. 
 F.R.S. F.C.S. Govt. In- 
 spector of Alkali Works. 
 
 8v0. 24?. 
 
 Nautical Surveying, an 
 
 Introduction to the Practi- 
 cal and Theoretical Stiidy 
 of. 
 
 By John Knox Laugh ton, 
 M.A. F.R.A.S. 
 
 Small Sz>o. 6s. 
 
 Schelleris Spectrum Ana- 
 lysis, in its Application to 
 Terrestrial Substances and 
 the Physical Constitution of 
 the Heavenly Bodies. 
 Translated by Jane and 
 C. Las sell ; edited, with 
 Notes, by W. Huggins, 
 LL.D. F.R.S. 
 
 With 13 Plates and 223 Woodcuts. 8vo. 28s.
 
 20 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 NATURAL HISTORY and PHYSICAL 
 SCIENCE. 
 
 The Correlation of Phy- 
 sical Forces. 
 By the Hon. Sir W. R. 
 
 Grove, M.A. F.R.S. 
 
 &c. 
 
 Sixth Edition, with other Contributions to 
 Science. %vo. \In the press. 
 
 Professor Hehnholtz 
 Popzilar Lectures on Scien- 
 tific Subjects. 
 Translated by E. Atkinson, 
 Ph.D. F.C.S. 
 
 'With many Illustrative Wood Engravings. 
 %vo. izr. 6d. 
 
 Natural Philosophy for 
 General Reader sand Young 
 Persons ; a Course of Phy- 
 sics divested of Mathemati- 
 cal Formula and expressed 
 in the language of daily life. 
 Translated from Ganofs 
 Cours de Physique, by E. 
 Atkinson, Ph.D. F.C.S. 
 
 Cr. Svo. with 404 Woodcuts, 7s. 6d. 
 
 Ganofs Elementary 
 Treatise on Physics, Ex- 
 perimental and Applied, 
 for the use of Colleges and 
 Schools. 
 
 Translated and edited by E. 
 Atkinson, Ph.D. F.C.S. 
 
 New Edition, revised and enlarged ; with a 
 Coloured Plate and 726 Woodcuts. 
 Post Svo. i5j. 
 
 Principles of Animal 
 Mechanics. 
 
 By the R^v. S. Haughton, 
 F.R.S. 
 
 Second Edition. Svo. 2\s. 
 
 Text-Books of Science, 
 Mechanical and Physical, 
 adapted for the use of A rti- 
 sans and of Stiidents in 
 Public and other Schools. 
 (The first Ten edited by 
 T. M. Goodeve, M.A. Lec- 
 turer on Applied Science at 
 the Royal School of Mines; 
 the remainder edited by 
 C. W. Merrifield, F.R.S. 
 an Examiner in the De- 
 partment of Piiblic Educa- 
 tion^] 
 
 Small &vo. Woodcuts. 
 
 Edited by T. M. Goodeve, M.A. 
 
 Anderson's Strength of Materials, 3-r. 6d. 
 Bloxam's Metals, y. 6d. 
 Goodeve's Mechanics, 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Mechanism, $s. dd. 
 
 Griffin's Algebra &* Trigonometry, 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Notes on the same, with Solutions, 3^. &/. 
 Jenkin's Electricity 6 Magnetism, 3^. 6J. 
 Maxwell's Theory of Heat, 3^. 6d. 
 Merrifield's Technical Arithmetic, 3^. 6d. 
 
 Key, 3J. &/. 
 
 Miller's Inorganic Chemistry, 3^. 6d. 
 Shelley's Workshop Appliances, 3^. 6d. 
 Watson's Plane <$= Solid Geometry, %s. 6d. 
 
 Edited by C. W. Merrifield, F.R.S. 
 
 Armstrong's Organic Chemistry, y, 6d. 
 Thorpe's Quantitative Analysis, 4?. 6d. 
 Thorpe and Muir's Qualitative Analysis, 
 3-r. 6d. 
 
 Text-Books in preparation : 
 To be edited by T. M. Goodeve, M.A. 
 
 Goodeve's Steam Engine. 
 Shelley's Applications of Heat. 
 Stokes's Sound and Light. 
 
 To be edited byC.W. Merrifield, F.R.S. 
 
 Butler's Physical Geography. 
 
 Merrifield's Geometry and Mechanical 
 
 Drawing. 
 
 Preece and Sivewright's Telegraphy. 
 Unwin's Machine Design.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 21 
 
 Introduction to Experi- 
 mental Physics, Theoretical 
 and Practical ; including 
 Directions for Constriict- 
 ing Physical Apparatus 
 and for Making Experi- 
 ments. 
 
 By A. F. Weinhold, Prof, 
 in the Royal Technical 
 School at Chemnitz. 
 Translated and edited 
 by B. Loewy, F.R.A.S. 
 With a Preface by G. C. 
 Foster, F.R.S. 
 
 With numerous Woodcuts. 8z/<?. i8j. 
 [In the press. 
 
 Fragments of Science. 
 By John Tyndall, LL.D. 
 D.C.L. F.R.S. 
 
 Third Edition. %vo. 14^. 
 
 Heat a Mode of Motion. 
 By John Tyndall, LL.D. 
 D.C.L. F.R.S. 
 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. Svo. -with Woodcuts, 
 los. (>d. 
 
 Sound; a Course of Eight 
 Lectures delivered at the 
 Royal Institution of Great ' 
 Britain. 
 By John Tyndall, F.R.S. 
 
 Portrait and Woodcuts. Cr. $vo. gj. 
 
 Researches on Diamag- 
 netism and Magne-Crystal- 
 lic Action; including the 
 Question of Diamagnetic 
 Polarity. 
 By John Tyndall, F.R.S. 
 
 Hit/i 6 Plates and in any Woodcuts. Svo. iqs. 
 
 Lectures on Light, de- 
 livered in the United States 
 of America in 1872 and 
 
 1873- 
 
 By J. Tyndall, F.R.S. 
 
 Crown Svo. "js. 6d. 
 
 Notes of a Course of 
 Seven Lectures on Electri- 
 cal Phenomena and Theo- 
 ries, delivered at the Royal 
 Institution, A.D. 1870. 
 By 7- Tyndall, F.R.S. 
 
 Crown &vo. is. sewed, or is. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Notes of a Course of Nine 
 Lectures on Light, delivered 
 at the Royal Institution A.D. 
 1869. 
 By J. Tyndall, F.R.S. 
 
 Crown 8vo. is. saved, or is. 6d. cloth. 
 
 Elementary Treatise on 
 the Wave-Theory of Light. 
 By H. Lloyd, D.D. D.C.L. 
 Provost of Trinity Col- 
 lege, Dublin. 
 
 Third Edition. 8vo. IDJ. 6d. 
 
 Professor Owen's Lec- 
 tures on the Comparative 
 Anatomy and Physiology 
 of the Invertebrate Ani- 
 mals. 
 
 2nd Edition, ivitk 235 Woodcuts, %vo. 2IS. 
 
 The Comparative Ana- 
 tomy and Physiology of the 
 Vertebrate Animals. 
 By Richard Owen. F.R.S. 
 D.C.L. 
 
 With 1,472 Woodcuts, ^vols. %vo. 3- l&.GJ
 
 '22 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Light Science for Lei- 
 sure Hours; a Series of 
 Familiar Essays on Scien- 
 tific Subjects, Natural Phe- 
 nomena, &c. 
 By R. A. Proctor, B.A. 
 
 First and' Second Series. 2 vols. crown Svo. 
 *]s. 6d. each. 
 
 Kirby and Spence's In- 
 
 troduction to Entomology, 
 or Elements of the Natural 
 History of Insects. 
 
 Crown 
 
 $s. 
 
 Strange Dwellings ; a De- 
 scription of the Habitations 
 of Animals, abridged from 
 ' Homes without Hands! 
 By J. G. Wood, M.A. 
 F.L.S. 
 
 With Frontispiece and 60 Woodcuts. Crown 
 %vo. Js. 6d. 
 
 Homes without Hands ; 
 a Description of the Habi- 
 tations of Animals, classed 
 according to their Principle 
 of Construction. 
 By the Rev. J. G. Wood, 
 M.A. F.L.S. 
 
 With about 140 Vignettes on Wood. Svo. 2 is. 
 
 Out of Doors ; a Series 
 of Essays on Natural His- 
 tory. 
 
 By the Rev. J. G. Wood, 
 M.A. F.L.S. Author of 
 ' Homes without Hands ' 
 
 With 6 Illustrations from Original Designs 
 engraved on Wood by G. Pearson. ~Cr. 
 8z>0. [/ the press. 
 
 The Polar World : a 
 Popular Description of 
 Man and Nature in the 
 Arctic and Antarctic Re- 
 gions of the Globe. 
 By Dr. G. Hartwig. 
 
 With Chromoxylographs, Maps, and Wood- 
 cuts. 8vo. los. 6d. 
 
 The Harmonies of Na- 
 ture and Unity of Creation. 
 By Dr. G. Hartwig. 
 
 %vo. with numerous Illustrations, iSs. 
 
 The Sea and its Living 
 Wonders. 
 By Dr. G. Hartwig. 
 
 Fourth Edition, enlarged. &vo. with many 
 Illustrations, los. 6d. 
 
 The Tropical World ; a 
 Popular Scientific Account 
 of the Natural History of 
 the Equatorial Regions. 
 By Dr. G. Hartwig. 
 
 With about 2OO Illustrations. %vo. lor. 6d. 
 
 The Subterranean World. 
 
 By Dr. G. Hartwig. 
 
 With Maps and Woodcut Illustrations. %vo. 
 2IS. 
 
 Geology Simplified for 
 
 Beginners. 
 
 By A. C. Ramsay, LL.D. 
 F. R. S. Director- General 
 of the Geological Surveys 
 of the United Kingdom. 
 
 (Forming part of the School Series in course 
 of publication, edited by the Rev. G. R. 
 GLEIG, M.A.) iSmo. \Inthepress.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 23 
 
 Insects at Home; a Popu- 
 lar Account of British 
 Insects, their Structure, 
 Habits, and Transforma- 
 tions. 
 
 By the Rev. J. G. Wood, 
 M.A. F.L.S. 
 
 With upwards of 700 Woodcut Illustrations. 
 8vo. 2 is. 
 
 Insects Abroad ; being a 
 Popular Account of Foreign 
 Insects, their Structure, Ha- 
 bits, and Transformations. 
 By J. G. Wood, M.A. 
 F.L.S. 
 
 In I vol. printed and illustrated uniformly 
 with ' Insects at Home.' [In the press. 
 
 A Familiar History of 
 Birds. 
 
 By E. Stanley, D.D. late 
 Ld. Bishop of Norwich. 
 
 Fcp. -with Woodcuts, 3^. 6d. 
 
 Rocks Classified and De- 
 scribed. 
 By B. Von Cotta. 
 
 English Edition, by P. H. LAWRENCE (with 
 English, German, and French ^Syno- 
 nymes), revised by the Author. Post 
 
 The Origin of Civilisa- 
 tion, and the Primitive 
 Condition of Man; Men- 
 tal and Social Condition of 
 Savages. 
 
 By Sir J. Lubbock, Bart. 
 M.P. F.R.S. 
 
 Second Edition, with 2$ Woodcuts. $vo. i6s. 
 
 The Earth and Man ; 
 
 or, Physical Geography in 
 
 its relation to the History 
 
 of Mankind. 
 
 Translated and slightly 
 abridged from the French 
 of A. Guy ot, with Correc- 
 tions, Notes, and Index. 
 
 Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 
 
 A Manual of Anthro- 
 pology, or Science of Man, 
 based on Modern Research. 
 By Charles Bray. 
 
 Crown Svo. $s. 
 
 A Phrenologist amongst 
 the Todas, or the Study of 
 a Primitive Tribe in South 
 India; History, Character, 
 Customs, Religion, Infanti- 
 cide, Polyandry, Language. 
 By W. E. Marshall, Lieut. - 
 Col. Bengal Staff Corps. 
 
 With 26 Illustrations. 8vo. 2ls. 
 
 The Ancient Stone Im- 
 plements, Weapons, and Or- 
 naments of Great Britain. 
 By John Evans, F.R.S. 
 F.S.A. 
 
 With 2 Plates and 476 Woodcuts. 8vo. 28s. 
 
 The Elements of Botany 
 for Families and Schools. 
 Tenth Edition, revised by 
 Thomas Moore, F.L.S. 
 
 Fcp. -with 154 Woodcuts, 2s. 6J.
 
 24 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Bible Animals ; a De- 
 scription of every Living 
 Creature mentioned in the 
 Scriptures, from the Ape 
 to the Coral. 
 
 By the Rev. J. G. Wood, 
 M.A. F.L.S. 
 
 With about 100 Vignettes on Wood. 8vo. 2ls. 
 
 The Rose Amateur s 
 Guide. 
 By Thomas Rivers. 
 
 Tenth Edition. Fcp. 8m qs. 
 
 A Dictionary of Science, 
 Literature, and Art. 
 Fourth Edition, re-edited 
 by the late W. T. Brande 
 (the A uthor) and George 
 W. Cox, M.A. 
 
 3 vols. medium Svo. 63^. 
 
 London's Encyclopedia 
 of Plants ; comprising the 
 Specific Character, Descrip- 
 tion, Culture, History, &c. 
 of all the Plants found in 
 Great Britain. 
 
 With upwards of 12, ooo Woodcuts. 8zv. $2s. 
 
 The Treasury of Botany, 
 or Popular Dictionary of 
 the Vegetable Kingdom ; 
 with which is incorporated 
 a Glossary of Botanical 
 Terms. 
 Edited by J. Lindley, 
 
 F.R.S. and T. Moore, 
 
 F.L.S. 
 
 With 274 Woodcuts and 20 Steel Plates. 
 Two Parts, ftp. 8z/0. I2r. 
 
 Handbook of Hardy 
 
 Trees, Shrubs, Herbaceous, 
 Plants; containing- Des- 
 criptions, Native Countries, 
 &c. of a selection of the 
 Best Species in Cultivation ; 
 together with Cultural De- 
 tails, Comparative Hardi- 
 ness, sidtability for particii- 
 lar positions, &c. Based 
 on the French Work of 
 Messrs. Decaisne and 
 Naudin, and including the 
 720 Original Woodcut 
 Illustrations. 
 
 By W. B. Hems ley, former- 
 ly Assistant at the Her- 
 barium of the Royal 
 Gardens, Kew. 
 
 Medium Sz'o. 2is. 
 
 A General System of 
 
 Descriptive and Analytical 
 Botany: I. Organography, 
 Anatomy, and Physiology 
 of Plants; II. Iconography, 
 or the Description and His- 
 tory of Natiiral Families. 
 Translated from the French 
 of E. Le Maout, M.D. 
 and J. Decaisne, by Mrs. 
 Hooker. Edited and 
 arranged according to the 
 Botanical System adopted 
 in the Universities and 
 Schools of Great Britain, 
 by J. D. Hooker, M.D. 
 &c. Director oftheRoyal 
 Botanic Gardens, Kew. 
 
 With 5 , 500 Woodcuts. Imperial 8w. 5 2s. (>d.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 25 
 
 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINE, SURGERY, and 
 the ALLIED SCIENCES. 
 
 A Dictionary of Che- 
 mistry and the Allied 
 Branches of other Sciences, 
 By Henry Watts, F.C.S. 
 assisted by eminent 
 Scientific and Practical 
 Chemists. 
 
 6 vols. medium 8zv. 8. 14?. 6d. 
 
 Second Supplement com- 
 pleting the Record of Dis- 
 covery to the end of 1872. 
 
 \In the press. 
 
 Contributions to Mole- 
 cular Physics in the do- 
 main of Radiant Heat. 
 By John Tyndall, F.R.S. 
 
 With 2 Plates and 31 Woodcuts. 8vo. i6s. 
 
 A Manual of Chemical 
 Physiology, inchiding its 
 Points of Contact with 
 Pathology. 
 
 By J.L. W. Thudichum, 
 M.D. 
 
 8vo. -with Woodcuts, "js. 6d. 
 
 Millers Elements of 
 Chemistry, Theoretical and 
 Practical. 
 
 Re-edited, with Additions, 
 by H. Macleod, F.C.S. 
 
 3 vols. 8vo. 3. 
 
 PART I. CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 15.?. 
 PART II. INORGANIC CHEMISTRY, 2U. 
 PART III. ORGANIC CHEMISTRY, 24?. 
 
 A Co^lrse of Practical 
 Chemistry, for the use of 
 Medical Students. 
 By W. Odling, F.R.S. 
 
 New Edition, "with 70 new Woodcuts. 
 Crown 8vo. "js. (>d. 
 
 Select Methods in Chemi- 
 cal Analysis, chiefly Inor- 
 ganic. 
 By Wm. Crookes, F.R.S. 
 
 With 22 Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 12s. 6d. 
 
 Lectures on the Prin- 
 ciples and Practice of 
 Physic. 
 
 By Sir Thomas Watson, 
 Bart. M.D. Physician- 
 in- Ordinary to the Queen. 
 
 Fifth Edition, thoroughly revised. 2 vols. 
 8vo. $6s. 
 
 Lectures on Surgical 
 
 Pathology. 
 
 By Sir James Paget, Bart. 
 F.R.S. Third Edition, 
 revised and re-edited by 
 the Author and Professor 
 W. Turner, M.B. 
 
 8v0. -with 131 Woodcuts, 2ls. 
 
 On the Surgical Treat- 
 ment of Children's Diseases. 
 By T. Holmes, M.A. &c. 
 late Surgeon to the Hos- 
 pital 'for Sick Children. 
 
 Second Edition, with 9 Plates and 1 12 
 Woodcuts. 8z>0. 21 s. 
 
 D
 
 26 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Anatomy, Descriptive 
 
 and Surgical. 
 
 By Henry Gray, F.R.S. 
 With about 410 Wood- 
 cuts from Dissections. 
 Sixth Edition, by T. 
 Holmes, M.A. With a 
 New Introduction by the 
 Editor. 
 
 Royal 8vo. zSs. 
 .. J ''" . ' . '. * - * ? v .. t.. ""I 
 
 Quairis Elements of 
 
 Anatomy. 
 
 Seventh Edition [1867]. 
 Edited by W. Sharpey, 
 M.D. F.R.S. Allen 
 Thomson, M.D. F.R.S. 
 and J. Cleland, M.D. 
 
 With upwards of 800 Engravings on Wood. 
 
 ^4 System of Surgery, 
 Theoretical and Practical, 
 in Treatises by Various 
 Authors. 
 
 Edited by T. Holmes, 
 M.A. &c. Surgeon and 
 Lecturer on Surgery at 
 St. George s Hospital. 
 
 Second Edition, -with numerous Illustrations. 
 5 vols. Svo. ^5. 5-r. 
 
 The Science and Art of 
 
 Surgery ; being a Treatise 
 
 oh Surgical Injuries, Dis- 
 
 eases, and Operations. 
 
 By John Eric Erichsen, 
 
 Senior Surgeon to Uni- 
 
 versity College Hospital. 
 
 Sixth Edition, revised and enlarged, with 
 712 Woodcuts. 2 vols. Svo. $2s. 
 
 A Treatise on the Con- 
 tinued Fevers of Great 
 Britain. 
 By Chas. Murchison, M.D. 
 
 LL.D. F.R.S. F.R.C.P. 
 
 &c. 
 
 Second Edition, -with numerous Illustrations, 
 %vo. 245-. 
 
 Clinical Lee hires on 
 
 Diseases of the Liver, 
 
 Jaundice, and Abdominal 
 
 Dropsy. 
 
 By C. Murchison, M.D. &c. 
 
 New Edition in preparation. 
 
 Todd and Bowman's 
 
 Physiological A natomy, and 
 Physiology of Man. 
 
 With mimerous Illustrations. Vol. II. 8vo. 
 
 2$*. 
 
 Vol. I. New Edition by Dr. LIONEL S. 
 BEALE, F.R.S. in course of publication, 
 "with jtumerous Illustrations. Parts I. and 
 II. 7s. 6d. each. 
 
 Outlines of Physiology, 
 Human and Comparative. 
 By J. Marshall, F.R.C.S. 
 Surgeon to the Univer- 
 sity College Hospital. 
 
 2 vols. cr. %vo. -with 122 Woodcuts, 32^. 
 
 On the S^trgical Diseases 
 of the Teeth and Contigu- 
 ous Structures. With their 
 Treatment. 
 
 By S. J. A. Salter, M.B. 
 F.R.S. Dental Surgeon 
 to Guys Hospital. 
 
 8z>0. with numerous Illustrations. 
 
 [hi October.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 27 
 
 Lectures on Diseases of 
 Infancy and Childhood. 
 By Chas. West, M.D. &c. 
 
 Sixth Edition. Sz>o. iSs. 
 
 A Treatise on Medical 
 Electricity, Theoretical and 
 Practical ; and its uses in 
 the Treatment of Paraly- 
 sis, Neuralgia, and other 
 Diseases. 
 
 By Julius AltJums, M.D. 
 M.R.C.P. &c. 
 
 Third Edition, for the most part re-written. 
 With Plate and Woodcuts. Post^vo. iSs. 
 
 Lectures on Fever de- 
 livered in the Theatre of 
 the Meath Hospital and 
 County of Dublin Infirm- 
 ary. 
 
 By W. Stokes, M.D. D. C.L. 
 Oxon. F.R.S. Physician 
 to the Qiieen in Ireland. 
 Edited by J. W. Moore, 
 M.D. F.K.Q.C.P. 
 
 &V0. I$S. 
 
 Dr. Pereiras Elements 
 of Materia Medica and 
 Therapeutics, abridged and 
 adapted for the use of 
 Medical and Pharmaceu- 
 tical Practitioners and 
 Students. 
 Edited by Prof. Bentley, 
 
 F.L.S. &c. and by Dr. 
 
 Redwood, F.C.S. &c. 
 
 With 125 Woodcut Illustrations, Svo. 2$s. 
 
 Cop la n d's Dictionary 
 
 of Practical Medicine, 
 abridged from the larger 
 work, and throiighout 
 brought down to the present 
 state of Medical Science. 
 
 %vo. 36^-. 
 
 The Essentials of Mate- 
 ria Medica and Therapeu- 
 tics. 
 
 By A. B. Garrod, M.D. 
 F.R.S. &c. Physician to 
 Kings College Hospital. 
 
 Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 12s. 6d. 
 
 The FINE ARTS and ILLUSTRATED 
 EDITIONS. 
 
 Grotesque Animals, in- 
 vented, described, and por- 
 trayed by E. W. Cooke, 
 R.A. F.R.S. F.G.S. F.Z.S. 
 
 in 24 Plates, with Ehicida- 
 tory Comments. 
 
 Royal 4/0. 21 s. 
 
 Albert Durer, Ms Life 
 
 and Works; including Au- 
 tobiographical Papers and 
 Complete Catalogues. 
 By William B. Scott. 
 
 With 6 Etchings by tJie Author and other 
 Illustrations. %vo. i6s.
 
 28 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 In Fairyland ; Pictures 
 from the Elf-World. By 
 Richard Doyle. With a 
 Poem by W. Allingham. 
 
 With 1 6 coloured Plates, containing 36 De- 
 signs. Folio, 3U. 6d. 
 
 A Dictionary of Artists 
 of the English School: 
 Painters, Sculptors, Archi- 
 tects, Engravers, and Orna- 
 mentists ; with Notices of 
 their Lives and Works. 
 By Samuel Redgrave. 
 
 The New Testament, il- 
 lustrated with Wood En- 
 gravings after the Early 
 Masters, chiejly of the 
 Italian School. 
 
 Croivn 4/0. 63^. 
 
 The Life of Man Sym- 
 bolised by the Months of 
 the Year. 
 Text selected by R. Pigot. 
 
 2$ Illustrations on Wood from Designs by 
 John Leigkton, F.S.A. Quarto, $2s. 
 
 Lyra Germanica, the 
 Christian Year. 
 Translated by' Miss C. 
 Winkworth. 
 
 With about 325 Woodcut Illustrations by jf. 
 Leighton, F.S.A. and other Artists. 
 2 vols. 4/0. price 42*. 
 
 Cats and Parties Moral 
 
 Emblems; with Aphorisms, 
 Adages, and Proverbs of all 
 Nations : comprising 121 
 Illustrations on Wood by 
 y. Leighton, F.S.A. with 
 an appropriate Text by R. 
 Pigot. 
 
 Imperial %vo. ^\s. 6d. 
 
 Sacred and Legendary 
 Art. 
 By Mrs. Jameson. 
 
 6 vols. square crown &vo. price $. 15^. 6d. 
 as follows: 
 
 Legends of the Saints 
 and Martyrs. 
 
 New Edition, with 19 Etchings and 187 
 Woodcuts. 2 vols. 3U. 6d. 
 
 Legends of the Monastic 
 Orders. 
 
 New Edition, with n Etchings and 88 
 Woodcuts. I vol. 21 s. 
 
 Legends of the Madonna. 
 
 New Edition, with 27 Etchings and 165 
 Woodcuts. I vol. 21 s. 
 
 The History of Our Lord, 
 with that of his Types and 
 Preciirsors. 
 
 Completed by Lady East- 
 lake. 
 
 Revised Edition, with 13 Etchings and 281 
 Woodcuts. 2 vols. 42s.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 29 
 
 The USEFUL ARTS, MANUFACTURES, &c. 
 
 Industrial Chemistry ; a 
 Manual for Manufactu- 
 rers and for Colleges or 
 Technical Schools. Being a 
 Translation of Professors 
 Stohmann and Englers 
 German Edition ofPayens 
 ' Precis de Chirnie Indus- 
 trielle] by Dr. J. D. Barry. 
 Edited, and supplemented 
 with Chapters on the 
 Chemistry of the Metals, 
 by B. H. Paul, Ph.D. 
 
 8vo. with Plates and Woodcuts. 
 
 [/ the press. 
 
 A Manual of Architec- 
 
 tiire : being a Concise His- 
 tory and Explanation of the 
 Principal Styles of Eiiro- 
 pean Architecture, Ancient, 
 Mediceval, and Renaissance; 
 with their Chief Variations 
 and a Glossary of Technical 
 Terms. 
 By Thomas Mitchell. 
 
 With 150 Woodcuts. Crown %vo. ioj. 6</. 
 
 History of the Gothic 
 
 Revival ; an Attempt to 
 shew how far the taste for 
 Mediceval Architecture was 
 retained in England during 
 the last two centuries, and 
 has been re-developed in the 
 present. 
 
 By C. L. East lake, Archi- 
 tect. 
 
 With 48 Illustrations. Imp. 8vo. 31^. 6</. 
 
 Gwilfs Encyclopedia of 
 Architecture, with above 
 i, 600 Woodcuts. 
 Fifth Edition, with Altera- 
 tions and Additions, by 
 Wyatt Papworth. 
 
 8vo. 52J. 6d. 
 
 The Three Cathedrals 
 dedicated to St. Paul in 
 London ; their History 
 from the Foundation of 
 the First Building in the 
 Sixth Century to the Pro- 
 posals for the Adornment 
 of the Present Cathedral. 
 By W. Longman, F.S.A. 
 
 With numerous Illustrations. Square crown 
 8vo. z\s. 
 
 Hints on Household 
 Taste in Fiirniture, Up- 
 holstery, and other Details. 
 By Charles L. East lake, 
 Architect. 
 
 New Edition, with about 90 Illustrations. 
 Square crown Svo. 14?. 
 
 Geometric Turning; com- 
 prising a Description of the 
 New Geometric Chuck con- 
 structed by Mr. Plant of 
 Birmingham, with Direc- 
 tions for its use, and a 
 Series of Patterns cut by 
 it, with Explanations. 
 By H. S. Savory. 
 
 With 571 Woodcut Illustrations. Square 
 crown 8w. 2U.
 
 30 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Lathes and Turning, 
 Simple, Mechanical, and 
 Ornamental. 
 By W. Henry Northcott. 
 
 With about 240 Illustrations on Steel and 
 Wood. Svo. iSs. 
 
 Handbook of Practical 
 
 Telegraphy. 
 
 By R. S. Culley, Memb. 
 Inst. C.E. Engineer-in- 
 Chief of Telegraphs to 
 the Post- Office. 
 
 Sixth Edition, Plates &> Woodcuts. Svo. l6s. 
 
 Principles of Mechanism, 
 designed for the use of Stu- 
 dents in the Universities, 
 and for Engineering Stit- 
 dents generally. 
 ByR. Willis, M. A. F.R.S. 
 Professor in the Univer- 
 sity of Cambridge. 
 
 Second Edition, -with 374 Woodcuts. 8vo. iSs. 
 
 Elementary Introduction 
 to Practical Mechanics, il- 
 histrated by numerous Ex- 
 amples. 
 
 By the Rev. J. F. Twisden, 
 M.A. Prof, of Mathe- 
 matics in the Staff Coll. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. ioj. 6d. 
 
 First Lessons in Theo- 
 retical Mechanics. 
 By the Rev. J. F. Twisden, 
 M.A. Prof, of Mathe- 
 matics in the Staff Coll. 
 
 Crown 8vo. with Diagrams. [/ the press. 
 
 Perspective ; or, the Art 
 of Drawing what one Sees. 
 Explained and adapted to 
 the Use of those Sketching 
 from Nature. 
 By Lieut. W. H. Collins, 
 R.E. F.R.A.S. 
 
 With 37 Woodcuts. Crown $>vo. $s. 
 
 Encyclopcedia of Civil 
 Engineering, Historical, 
 Theoretical, and Practical. 
 By E. Cresy, C.E. 
 
 With above 3,000 Woodcuts. &vo. $2s. 
 
 Catechism of the Steam 
 
 Engine, in its various Ap- 
 plications to Mines, Mills, 
 Steam Navigation, Rail- 
 ways, and Agricidture. 
 By John Bourne, C.E. 
 
 New Edition, with 89 Woodcuts. Fcf. %vo. 6s. 
 
 Handbook of the Steam 
 
 Engine. 
 
 By J . Bourne, C.E. form- 
 ing a KEY to theAiithors 
 Catechism of the Steam 
 Engine. 
 
 With 67 Woodcuts. Fcp. &vo. gs. 
 
 A Treatise on the Steam 
 Engine, in its various ap- 
 plications to Mines, Mills, 
 Steam Navigation, Rail- 
 ways and Agriculture. 
 By J. Bourne, C.E. 
 
 With Portrait, 37 Plates, and 546 Wood- 
 cuts. 4/0. 42^.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 31 
 
 Recent Improvements in 
 the Steam Engine, includ- 
 ing many New Examples. 
 By J. Bourne, C.E. 
 
 With 124 Woodaits. Fcp. Svo. 6s. 
 
 The Engineer s Hand- 
 book; explaining the Prin- 
 ciples which should guide 
 the Young Engineer in the 
 Construction of Machinery, 
 with the necessary Rzcles, 
 Proportions, and Tables. 
 By C. S. Lowndes. 
 
 Post 8w. 5-r. 
 
 Ures Dictionary of Arts, 
 Manufactures, and Mines. 
 Sixth Edition, re-written 
 and greatly enlarged by 
 R. Hunt, F.R.S. assisted 
 by numerous Contributors. 
 
 With 2,000 Woodcuts. 3 vols. medium %vo. 
 4- 14*- &/ 
 
 Guns and Steel ; Miscel- 
 laneous Papers on Mechani- 
 cal Subjects. 
 By Sir Jos. Whitivorth, 
 
 Bt. C.E. F.R.S. LL.D. 
 
 D.C.L. 
 
 With numerous Illustrations. Royal %vo. 
 
 ^s. 6d. 
 
 Practical Treatise on 
 
 Metallurgy, 
 
 Adapted from the last Ger- 
 man Edition of Professor 
 KerVs Metallurgy by W. 
 Crookes, F.R.S. &c. and 
 E. Rohrig, Ph.D. 
 
 3 vols. 8vo. with 625 Woodcuts. ^4. igs. 
 
 Treatise on Mills and 
 Millwork. 
 
 By Sir W. Fairbairn, Bt. 
 F.R.S. 
 
 With 1 8 Plates and 322 Woodcuts. 2 vols. 
 8vo. 32J. 
 
 Useful Information for 
 
 Engineers. 
 
 By Sir W. Fairbairn, Bt. 
 F.R.S. 
 
 With many Plates and Woodcuts. 3 vols. 
 croivn 8vc. %ls. 6d. 
 
 The Application of Cast 
 
 and Wrought Iron to 
 Building P^<,rposes. 
 By Sir W. Fairbairn, Bt. 
 F.R.S. 
 
 With 6 Plates and 118 Woodcuts. 8vo. l6s. 
 
 The Strains in Trusses 
 Computed by means of Dia- 
 grams ; with 20 Examples 
 drawn to Scale. 
 By F. A. Ranken, M.A. 
 C.E. 
 
 With 35 Diagrams. Square cr. %vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 A Handbook of Dyeing 
 and Calico Printing. 
 By W. Crookes, F.R.S. &c. 
 
 Illustrated with numerous Specimens of 
 Dyed Textile Fabrics. %vo. [In May. 
 
 Occasional Papers. 
 
 By Michael Scott, Memb. 
 Inst. C.E. Memb. Inst. 
 N.A. 
 
 (In Two Volumes. ) Vol. I. Civil Engineer- 
 ing, with many Plates of Diagrams. 
 \_Nearlv ready.
 
 32 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Mitchell's Manual of 
 
 Practical Assaying. 
 
 Fourth Edition, revised, 
 with the Recent Disco- 
 veries incorporated, by 
 W. Crookes, F.R.S. 
 
 Svo. Woodcuts, 3U. 6d. 
 
 Bayldoris Art of Valu- 
 ing Rents and Tillages, and 
 Claims of Tenants iipon 
 Quitting Farms, both at 
 Michaelmas and Lady- 
 Day. 
 
 Eighth Edition, revised by 
 J. C. Morton. 
 
 London's Encyclopedia 
 
 of Gardening : comprising 
 the Theory and Practice of 
 Horticulture, Floriculture, 
 Arborictilture, and Land- 
 scape Gardening. 
 
 With 1 ,000 Woodcuts. %vo. 2U. 
 
 London s Encyclopedia 
 of Agriculture : comprising 
 the Laying-out, Improve- 
 ment, and Management of 
 Landed Property, and the 
 Cultivation and Economy 
 of the Productions of Agri- 
 culture. 
 
 With I, IOO Woodcuts. 8vo. 2is. 
 
 RELIGIOUS and MORAL WORKS. 
 
 An Exposition of the 39 
 Articles, Historical and 
 Doctrinal. 
 
 By E. H. Browne, D.D. 
 Bishop of Winchester. 
 
 Ninth Edition. 8vo. l6s. 
 
 An Introduction to the 
 Theology of the Church of 
 England, in an Exposition 
 of the Thirty -nine Articles. 
 By Rev. T. P. Boultbee, 
 LL.D. 
 
 Fcp. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Historical Lectures on 
 the Life of Our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; being the Hulsean 
 Lectures for 1859. 
 By C. 7. Ellicott, D.D. 
 
 Fifth Edition. 8vo. 12s. 
 
 Texts and Thoughts for 
 Christian Ministers. 
 By J. Harding, D.D. late 
 Bishop of Bombay. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 
 
 [In the press. 
 
 Sermons for the Times 
 preached in St. Paul's 
 Cathedral and elsewhere. 
 By Rev. T. Griffith, M.A. 
 Preb. of St. Paul's. 
 
 Crown 8vo. dr. 
 
 Fundamentals; or, Bases 
 of Belief concerning Man 
 and God: a Handbook 
 of Mental, Moral, and 
 Religious Philosophy. 
 By Rev. T. Griffith, M.A. 
 
 Svo. IOJ. 6d.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 33 
 
 Synonyms of the Old Tes- 
 tament, their Bearing on 
 Christian Faith and 
 Practice. 
 
 By Rev. R. B. Girdles f one, 
 M.A. 
 
 Reasons of Faith; or, 
 the Order of the Christian 
 Argument Developed and 
 Explained. 
 
 By Rev. G. S. Drew, M.A. 
 
 Second Edition. Fcp. 8vc. 6s. 
 
 The Eclipse of Faith ; 
 or a Visit to a Religious 
 Sceptic. 
 
 By Henry Rogers. 
 
 Latest Edition. Fcp. 8vo. $s. 
 
 Defence of the Eclipse of 
 Faith. 
 
 By Henry Rogers. 
 
 Latest Edition. Fcp. 8vo. 3-r. 6d. 
 
 The Outlines of the 
 Christian Ministry De- 
 lineated, and brought to the 
 Test of Reason, Holy 
 Scripture, History, and 
 Experience. 
 
 By C. Wordsworth, D.C.L. 
 Bishop of St. Andrews. 
 
 Crown 8vo. fs. 6d. 
 
 The Life and Epistles of 
 St. Paul. 
 
 By Rev. W. J. Conybeare, 
 M.A. and Very Rev. J. 
 S. Hozvson, D.D. Dean 
 of Chester. 
 
 Three Editions : 
 
 LIBRARY EDITION, -with all the Original 
 Illustrations, Maps, Landscapes on Steel, 
 Woodcuts. &*c. 2 vols. ^to. 48^. 
 
 INTERMEDIATE EDITION, with a Selection 
 of Maps, Plates, and Woodcuts. 2 vols. 
 square crown 8vo. 2ls. 
 
 STUDENT'S EDITION, revised and condensed, 
 with 46 Illustrations and Maps. I vol. 
 croivn 8z'0. <)s. 
 
 A Critical and Gram- 
 matical Commentary on St. 
 Paul's Epistles. 
 By C. J. Ellicott, D.D. Bp. 
 of Gloucester and Bristol. 
 
 8vo. Galatians, 8s. 6d. Ephesians, 8s. 6d. 
 Pastoral Epistles, los. 6d. Philippi- 
 ans, Colossians, & Philemon, IO.T. 6d. 
 Thessalonians, "js. 6d. 
 
 The Voyage and Ship- 
 wreck of St. Paul ; with 
 Dissertations on the Ships 
 and Navigation of the 
 Ancients. 
 By James Smith, F.R.S. 
 
 Croivn 8vo. Charts, los, 6J. 
 
 Evidence of the Truth 
 of the Christian Religion 
 derived from the Literal 
 Fulfilment of Prophecy. 
 By Alexander Keith, D.D. 
 
 OfOth Edition, -with numerous Plates. 
 Square 8vo. I2s. 6d. or i-t post 8vo. 
 with 5 Plates, 6s.
 
 34 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Historical and Critical 
 
 Commentary on the Old 
 
 Testament; with a New 
 
 Translation. 
 
 By M. M. Kalisch, Ph.D. 
 
 Vol. I. Genesis, Qvo. iSs. or adapted for the 
 General Reader, I2s. Vol. If. Exodus, 
 15-f- or adapted for the General Reader, 
 12s. Vol. ///. Leviticus, Part I. \$s. 
 or adapted for the General Reader, Ss. 
 Vol. IV. Leviticus, Part II. i$s. or 
 adapted for the General Reader, 8s. 
 
 The History and Liter a- 
 tiire of the Israelites, ac- 
 cording to the Old Testa- 
 ment and the Apocrypha. 
 By C. De Rothschild and 
 A. De Rothschild. 
 
 Second Edition, zvols. crown 8m 12s. fxt. 
 Abridged Edition, in I vol. fcp. %>vo. y. 6d. 
 
 The Antiquities of Israel 
 
 By Heinrich Ewald, Prof. 
 
 of the University of 
 
 Gb'ttingen. Translated 
 
 from the German. 
 
 8v0. [In the press. 
 
 History of Israel. 
 
 By H. Ewald, Prof, of the 
 University of Gb'ttingen. 
 Translated from the Ger- 
 man by J . E. Carpenter ; 
 M.A. with Preface by 
 R. Martineau, M.A. 
 
 5 vols. 8vo. 63^. 
 
 Commentary on Rpistle 
 to the Romans. 
 
 By Rev. W. A. a Conor, 
 B.A. 
 
 Crown 
 
 ^. 6</. 
 
 A Commentary on the 
 Gospel of St. John. 
 
 By Rev. W. A. O Conor, 
 B.A. 
 
 Crown Svo. IQJ. 
 
 The Epistle to the He- 
 
 brews ; with Analytical 
 Introduction and Notes. 
 
 By Rev. W. A. C? Conor, 
 B.A. 
 
 Crown 8z>o. ^s. 6d. 
 
 St. Mark's Gospel. Greek 
 
 Text, with English Vocabu- 
 lary. 
 
 Edited by Rev. John T. 
 White, D.D. Oxon. 
 
 St. Johns Gospel. Greek 
 
 Text, with English Vocabii- 
 lary. 
 
 Edited by the Rev. yohn 
 T. White, D.D. Oxon. 
 
 321110. [Nearly ready. 
 
 Thoughts for the slge. 
 By Elizabeth M. Sewell. 
 
 New Edition. Fcp. Svo. $s. 
 
 Passing Thoughts on 
 Religion. 
 By Elizabeth M. Sewell. 
 
 Fcp. Svo. 3-r. fxl.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Self-examination before 
 Confirmation. 
 By Elizabeth M. Sewell. 
 
 32/7/0. is. 6(f. 
 
 Preparation for the Holy 
 
 Communion ; the Devotions 
 chiefly from the works of 
 Jeremy Taylor. 
 By Elizabeth M. Sewell. 
 
 3-r. 
 
 Readings for a Month 
 
 Preparatory to Confirma- 
 
 tion, from Writers of the 
 
 Early and English Church. 
 
 . By Elizabeth M. Sewell. 
 
 Fcp. &vo. 4^. 
 
 Readings for Every Day 
 in Lent, compiled from the 
 Writings of Bishop 
 Jeremy Taylor. 
 By Elizabeth M. Sewell. 
 
 Fcf. Svo. 5-r. 
 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor s 
 Entire Works ; with Life 
 by Bishop Heber. 
 Revised and corrected by 
 The Rev. C. P. Eden. 
 
 Hymns of Praise and 
 
 Prayer. 
 
 Collected and edited by the 
 
 Rev. J . Martineau, 
 
 LL.D. 
 
 Crown 8z>o. 4?. dd. 
 
 Thoughts for the Holy 
 Week, for Young Persons. 
 By Elizabeth M. Sewell. 
 
 New Edition. Fcp. %vo. 2s. 
 
 Spiritual Songs for the 
 Sundays and Holidays 
 throitghout the Year. 
 ByJ. S. B. Monsell, LL.D. 
 
 Fourth Edition, Sixth Thousand. 
 4-r. 6d. 
 
 Fcp. 
 
 Lyra Gertnanica, trans- 
 lated from the German by 
 Miss C. Winkworth. First 
 Series, the Christian Year, 
 Hymns for the Sundays 
 and Chief Festivals of the 
 Church ; Second Series, the 
 Christian Life. 
 
 Fcp. %vo. 3^. 6d. each. Series. 
 
 Endeavours after the 
 Christian Life; Discourses. 
 By the Rev. J. Martineau, 
 LL.D. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Cr<nvn &vo, Js. 6</. 
 
 An Introduction to the 
 Study of the New Testa- 
 ment, Critical, Exegetical, 
 and Theological. 
 By Rev. S. Davidson, D.D. 
 LL.D. 
 
 2 vols. 8z'o. 30?. 
 
 Supernatural Religion ; 
 an Inquiry into the Reality 
 of Divine Revelation. 
 
 2 vols. 8vo. 24*.
 
 36 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Christ the Consoler ; 
 a Book of Comfort for the 
 Sick. 
 
 With a Preface by Rt. Rev. 
 the Ld. Bp. of Carlisle. 
 
 Small 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Prayers for the Family 
 and for Private Use, selected 
 from the Collection of the 
 late Baron Bunsen, and 
 Translated by Miss C. 
 Winkworth. 
 
 Fcp. 8vo. %s. 6d. 
 
 Lectures on the Penta- 
 teuch & the Moabite Stone; 
 with Appendices, contain- 
 ing /. The Eloistic Nar- 
 rative ; II. The Original 
 Story of the Exodus ; III. 
 The Pre-Christian Cross. 
 
 By J. W. Colenso, D.D. 
 Bishop of Natal. 
 
 A^lthority and Con- 
 science; a Free Debate on 
 the Tendency of Dogmatic 
 Theology, and on the 
 Characteristics of Faith. 
 Edited by Con way Morel. 
 
 Post %vo. 7-r. 6d. 
 
 The Pen tateuch and Book 
 of Joshua Critically Ex- 
 amined. 
 
 By J. W. Colenso, D.D. 
 Bis hop of Natal. 
 
 Crown ?>vo. 6s. 
 
 The Speaker s Bible Com- 
 mentary, by Bishops and 
 other Clergy of the An- 
 glican CImrch, critically 
 examined by the Rt. Rev. 
 J. W. Colenso, D.D. 
 Bishop of Natal. 
 
 8vo. PART I. Genesis, -$s. 6d. PART II. 
 Exodus, 4s. dd. PART III. Lez'iticus, 
 2s. 6d. PART IV. Numbers, y. (>d. 
 PART V. Deuteronomy, $s. PART VI. 
 Joshua (completing the Work], nearly 
 ready. 
 
 TRAVELS, VOYAG-ES, &e. 
 
 The Atlantic to the Pa- 
 cific ; What to see, and 
 How to see it. 
 By John Erastiis Lester, 
 M.A. 
 
 With Map and Woodcuts. Cro*vn 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Slave Catching in the 
 Indian Ocean ; a Record 
 of Naval Experiences. 
 By Captain Colomb, R.N. 
 
 8vo. -with Illustrations from Photographs 
 &c. 2 is.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 37 
 
 Meeting the Sun ; a 
 Journey all round the 
 World through Egypt, 
 China, Japan, and Cali- 
 fornia ; including an Ac- 
 count of the Marriage 
 Ceremonies of the Emperor 
 of China. 
 
 By William Simpson, 
 F.R.G.S. Member of the 
 Society of Biblical Ar- 
 chceology. 
 
 With 48 Heliotypes and Wood Engravings. 
 Medium %vo. 24^. 
 
 The Cruise of H.MS. 
 
 Curafoa among the South 
 Sea Islands in 1865. 
 By Jidiiis Brenchley, 
 M.A. F.R.G.S. 
 
 With Charts and very numerous Illustra- 
 tions, imperial Svo. 42^. 
 
 How to See Norway. 
 By Captain J. R. Camp- 
 bell. 
 
 With Map and 5 Woodcuts, fcp. 8f<7. 5-r. 
 
 Rambles. 
 
 By Patriciics Walker. Re- 
 printed from Frasers 
 Magazine; with a Vig- 
 nette of the Queens 
 Bower, in the New 
 Forest. 
 
 Crown 8vo. ior. 6d. 
 
 Hours of Exercise in the 
 Alps. 
 
 By John Tyndall, LL.D. 
 D.C.L. F.R.S. 
 
 Third Edition, with 7 Woodcuts by E. 
 Whyinper. Crown &vo. 12s. 6d. 
 
 Untrodden Peaks and 
 
 Unfrequented Valleys ; a 
 Midsummer Ramble among 
 the Dolomites. 
 By Amelia B. Edwards. 
 
 With numerous Illustrations engraved on 
 Wood from Sketches by the Author. 
 Medium Svo. 2is. 
 
 The Dolomite Mo2in- 
 tains. Exc^lrsions through 
 Tyrol, Carinthia, Carniola, 
 and Friuli. 
 
 By J. Gilbert and G. C. 
 Churchill, F.R.G.S, 
 
 With numerous Illustrations. Square 
 crown 8vo. 21 s. 
 
 The Alpine Club Map 
 of the Chain of Mont 
 Blanc, from an actiial Sur- 
 vey in 1863-1864. 
 By A. Adams-Reilly, 
 F.R.G.S. M.A.C. 
 
 In Chromolithography, on extra stout draw- 
 ing paper 28 in. x 17 in. IOJ. or 
 mounted on canvas in a folding case, 
 12S. 6d. 
 
 The Alpine Chtb Map 
 of the Valpelline, the Val 
 Tournanche, and the South- 
 ern Valleys of the Chain of 
 Monte Rosa, from actual 
 Survey. 
 
 By A. Adams-Reilly, 
 F.R.G.S. M.A.C. 
 
 Price 6s. on extra Stout Drawing Paper, or 
 Js. 6d. mounted in a Folding Case. 
 
 The Rural Life of Eng- 
 land. 
 By W. Howitt. 
 
 Woodcuts by Bewick and Williams. Me 
 dium &vo. 12s. (>d.
 
 38 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 My IVif e and I in Queens- 
 land ; Eight Years Expe- 
 rience in the Colony, with 
 some Account of Polynesian 
 Labo^lr. 
 By Charles H. Eden. 
 
 Crown 8vo. ys. 
 
 Map of Switzerland and 
 the Adjacent Coimtries. 
 On a scale of four miles to 
 an Inch, extending from 
 Schajfhausen on the North 
 to Milan on the Soiith, and 
 from the Ortler Group on 
 the East to Geneva on the 
 West. 
 
 Constructed under the im- 
 mediate superintendence 
 of the Alpine Chid, and 
 edited by R. C. Nichols, 
 F.S.A. F.R.G.S. 
 
 In FOUR SHEETS as follows : 
 
 SHEET I. Basel, Luzcrn, Interlachen, Bern, 
 
 Fribourg, and Neuch&tel. 
 SHEET II. Comtanz, Zurich, Chur, and 
 
 Landeck. 
 SHEET III. Geneva, Brieg, Aosta, Jura, 
 
 and Mont Blanc. 
 SHEET IV. Splugen, Ortler Sp. Adamello, 
 
 Sondrio, Como, and Milan. 
 
 * # * The ivhole will be published in the 
 Spring ; Sheets I. II. and III. complete, 
 and Sheet IV. -with outline and lettering 
 only ; but when the engraving of the hills on 
 Sheet IV, is completed, the proofs of that 
 sheet ivill be exchanged for the lettered copies. 
 
 Cadore or J^itiaris Coun- 
 try. 
 
 By Josiah Gilbert, Joint- 
 Author of the ' Dolomite 
 Mountains' 
 
 With Map and 40 Illustrations. Imp. Svo. 
 3U. 6d. 
 
 Guide to the Pyrenees, for 
 the use of Mountaineers. 
 By Charles Packe. 
 
 Second Edition, with Maps 6r. and Ap- 
 pendix. Crown Sv0. Js. 6d. 
 
 Visits to Remarkable 
 Places: Old Halls, Battle- 
 Fields, and Scenes illus- 
 trative of striking Passages 
 in English History and 
 Poetry. 
 By W. Howitt. 
 
 With Wood Engi-avings. 2 vols. square 
 crown Sz'o. z$s. 
 
 The Alpine Guide. 
 By John Ball, M.R.I.A. 
 late President of the 
 Alpine Club. 
 
 Post 8v0. with Maps and other Illustrations. 
 
 The Guide to the Eastern 
 Alps. 
 
 Price I or. (>d. 
 
 The Guide to the West- 
 ern Alps, including Mont 
 Blanc, Monte Rosa, Zer- 
 matt, &c. 
 
 Price 6s. 6d. 
 
 Guide to the Central 
 Alps, including all the 
 Oder land District. 
 
 Price is. 6d. 
 
 Introduction on Alpine 
 Travelling in general, and 
 on the Geology of the Alps. 
 
 Price is. Either of the Three Volumes or Parts 
 of the ' Alpine Guide'' may be had with 
 this Introduction prefixed, is. extra.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 39 
 
 WORKS of FICTION. 
 
 Elena : an Italian Tale. 
 By L. N. Corny n, Author 
 of 'Ather stone Priory' 
 
 2 vols. post 8vo. 145-. 
 
 So much of the Diary of 
 
 Lady Willoughby as relates 
 to her Domestic History 
 and to the Event/id Period 
 of the Reign of Charles the 
 First, the Protectorate, and 
 the Restoration. 
 
 Crown Svo. Js. 6d. 
 
 The Burgomaster's Fa- 
 mily ; or, Weal and Woe 
 in a Littte World. 
 By Christine Milller. 
 Translated from the 
 Dutch by Sir J . Shaw 
 Lefevre, K.C.B. F.R.S. 
 
 Crown Sz>o. 6s. 
 
 The Folk-Lore of Rome, 
 
 collected by Word of Mou th 
 from the People. 
 By R. H. Busk, Author of 
 ' Pair anas? ' Sagas from 
 the Far East', &c. 
 
 Crown Sz'o. I2s. 6d. 
 
 Cyllene ; or, The Fall of 
 Paganism. 
 By Henry Sneyd, M.A. 
 
 2 vols. post Svo. 14^. 
 
 Popular Romances of the 
 Middle Ages. 
 By the Rev. George W. 
 
 Cox, M.A. and E. H. 
 
 Jones. 
 
 Crown Svo. los. 6d. 
 
 Tales of the Teutonic 
 
 Lands; a Sequel to ' Popu- 
 lar Romances of the Mid- 
 dle Ages' 
 
 By Rev. G. W. Cox, M.A. 
 and E. H. Jones. 
 
 Crown %vo. I or. 6d. 
 
 Beckers Gallus; or Ro- 
 man Scenes of the Time of 
 Augustus. 
 
 Post %vo. "js. 6d. 
 
 Beckers Charicles : Il- 
 lustrative of Private Life 
 of the Ancient Greeks. 
 
 Post Svo. is. 6d. 
 
 Tales of Ancient Greece. 
 By the Rev. G. W. Cox, 
 M.A. late Scholar of 
 Trinity College, Oxford. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 The Modern Novelist's 
 Library. 
 
 Atherstone Priory, 2s. boards ; 2s. 6d. cloth. 
 MELVILLE'S Digby Grand, 2s. boards; 
 
 2s. 6d. cloth. 
 Gladiators, 2s. boards ; 2s. 6d. 
 
 cloth. 
 Good for Nothing, 2s. boards , 
 
 2s. bd. cloth. 
 Holmby House, 2s. boards ; 
 
 2s. 6d. cloth. 
 Interpreter, 2s. boards ; 2s. 6d. 
 
 cloth. 
 Kate Coventry, 2s. boards ; 
 
 2s. 6d. cloth. 
 Queen's Maries, 2s. boards ; 
 
 2s. 6.Y. cloth. 
 General Bounce, 2s. boards ; 
 
 2s. 6d. cloth. 
 TROLLOPE'S Warden, is. 6d. boards ; 2s. 
 
 cloth. 
 Barchester Towers, 2s. boards ; 
 
 2s. 6d. cloth. 
 
 BRAMLEY MOORE'S Six Sisters of the Val- 
 leys, 2s. boards; 2s. 6d. cloth.
 
 40 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Novels and Tales. 
 
 By the Right Hon. Benja- 
 min Disraeli, M.P. 
 
 Cabinet Edition, in crown 
 %vo. of Stories and Tales 
 by Miss Sewell : 
 
 Cabinet Editions, con 
 crown 8z>o. 6s. ea 
 Loihair, 6s. 
 Coningsby, 6s. 
 Sybil, 6s. 
 Tancred, 6s. 
 Contarini fit 
 Henrietta Tei 
 
 plete in Ten Volumes, 
 ch, as follows : 
 Venetia, 6s. 
 Alroy, Ixion, &=c. 6s. 
 Young Duke, &*c. 6s. 
 Vivian Grey, 6s. 
 ming, &c. 6s. 
 nple, 6s. 
 
 Amy Herbert, 2s. 6d. 
 Gertrude, 2s. 6d. 
 Earl's Daughter, 
 2s. 6d. 
 Experience of Life, 
 2s. 6d. 
 Cleve Hall, 2s. 6d. 
 Ursula 
 
 Ivors, 2s. 6d. 
 Katharine Ashton, 
 2s. 6d. 
 Margaret Percival, 
 3-r. 6d. 
 Laneton Parsonage, 
 3J-. 6d. 
 3-r. 6d. 
 
 POETRY and THE DRAMA. 
 
 Ballads and Lyrics of 
 
 Old France; with other 
 Poems. 
 
 By A. Lang, Fel. Merlon 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 Square fcp. &ve. $s. 
 
 Moore s Lai la Rookh, 
 TennieVs Edition, with 68 
 Wood Engravings from 
 Original Drawings. 
 
 Fcp. 4/0. 2ls. 
 
 Moore s Irish Melodies, 
 Maclises Edition, with 1 6 1 
 Steel Plates from Original 
 Drawings. 
 
 Super-royal < &vo. 3U. 6d. 
 
 The Lycidas and Rpi- 
 taphium Damonis of Mil- 
 ton. 
 Edited, with Notes and 
 
 Introduction, by C. S. 
 
 Jerram, M.A. Trinity 
 
 College, Oxford. 
 
 [In the press. 
 
 Miniature Edition of 
 
 Moores Irish Melodies, 
 with Maclises 161 Ilhis- 
 trations reduced in Litho- 
 graphy. 
 
 Imp. i6mo. ioj. 6d. 
 
 Lays of Ancient Rome ; 
 with ' Ivry ' and the ' Ar- 
 mada' 
 
 By the Right Hon. Lord 
 Macaulay. 
 
 l6mo. 3-r. (>d. 
 
 Lord Macaulay' s Lays 
 
 of Ancient Rome. With 
 90 Illustrations on Wood, 
 Original and from the An- 
 tique, from Drawings by 
 G. Scharf. 
 
 Fcp, 4/0. 2U. 
 
 Miniature Edition of 
 
 Lord Macaulay s Lays 
 of Ancient Rome, with 
 Scharf s 90 Illustrations 
 reduced in Lithography. 
 
 Imp. i6mo. ioj. 6d.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 41 
 
 Southeys Poetical Works 
 
 with the Author s last Cor- 
 rections and copyright Ad- 
 ditions. 
 
 Library Edition. Medium Svo. with Por- 
 trait and Vignette, 14^. 
 
 G o Ids m i t h ' s Poetical 
 
 Works, Illustrated witJi 
 Wood Engravings from 
 Designs by Members of the 
 Etching Club. 
 
 Imp. \6rno. 7-f- &/. 
 
 Bawdier s Family Shak- 
 spearc, cheaper Genuine 
 Edition. 
 
 Complete in I vol. medium 8m large type, 
 with 36 Woodcut Illustrations, 14^. or 
 in 6 vols. fcp. 8v0. price 2\s. 
 
 Horatii Opera, Library 
 
 Edition, with copious Eng- 
 lish Notes, Marginal Refe- 
 rences and various Read- 
 
 ings. 
 
 Edited by the Rev. 
 Yonge, M.A. 
 
 . E. 
 
 8vo. 21 s. 
 
 Poems by Jean Inge low. 
 
 2 vols. Fcp. 8v0. ioj. 
 
 FIRST SERIES, containing 'Divided,' ' The 
 Star's Monument,' 1 6-v. if>th Thousand. 
 Fcp. Sv0. 5j. 
 
 SECOND SERIES, 'A Story of Doom,' ' Gla- 
 dys and her Island,' 6-v. $th Thousand. 
 Fcp. 8vo. 5^. 
 
 Poems by Jean Ingelow. 
 First Series, with nearly 
 100 Illustrations engraved 
 on Wood. 
 
 Fcp. 
 
 o. 21 s. 
 
 The Odes and Rpodes of 
 Horace; a Metrical Trans- 
 lation into English, with 
 Introduction and Commen- 
 taries. 
 By Lord Lytton. 
 
 Post Svo. los. 6d. 
 
 The 
 
 Translated 
 Verse. 
 
 By the late 
 M.A. 
 
 Crown Sz>0. C)s. 
 
 .f 
 
 into 
 
 Virgil 
 English 
 
 Conington, 
 
 RURAL SPORTS, HORSE and CATTLE 
 MANAGEMENT, &c. 
 
 Encyclopedia of Rural 
 
 Sports; a Complete Account, 
 
 Historical, Practical, and 
 
 Descriptive, of Hunting, 
 
 Shooting, Fishing, Racing, 
 
 &c. 
 
 By D. P. Elaine. 
 
 With above 600 Woodcuts (20 from Designs 
 by JOHN LEECH). Sz'o. 2is. 
 
 A Book on Angling: 
 being a Complete Treatise 
 on the Art of Angling in 
 every branch, including full 
 Illustra ted L ists of Sa Imon 
 Flies. 
 By Francis Francis. 
 
 With Portrait and 15 other P/ates, plain 
 and coloured. Post^vo. l$s.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 JVilcockss Sea-Fisher- 
 man : comprising the Chief 
 Methods of Hook and Line 
 Fishing in the British and 
 other Seas, a glance at Nets, 
 and remarks on Boats and 
 Boating. 
 
 With 80 Woodcuts. Post $vo. 12s. 6d. 
 
 The Setter ; with Notices 
 of the most Eminent Breeds 
 now extant, Instructions how 
 to Breed, Rear, and Break; 
 Dog Shows, Field Trials, 
 and General Management, 
 &c. 
 By Edward Laverack. 
 
 Crown 4/0. "js. 6d. 
 
 The Ox, his Diseases and 
 
 their Treatment ; with an 
 Essay on Parturition in the 
 Cow. 
 
 By J. R. Dobson, Memo. 
 R.C.V.S. 
 
 Crown 8v0. with Illustrations, "]s. 6d. 
 
 A Treatise on Horse- 
 Shoeing and Lameness. 
 By y. Gamgee, Vet. Surg. 
 
 8vo. with 55 Woodcuts, \ ^s. 
 
 Youatt on the Horse. 
 Revised and enlarged by W. 
 Watson, M.R.C.V.S. 
 
 8v0. Woodcuts, 12s. (>d. 
 
 Youatt on the Dog. 
 By the same Author. 
 
 8vo. Woodcuts, 6s. 
 
 Horses and Stables. 
 By Colonel F. Fitzwygram, 
 X V. the King s Hussars. 
 
 With 24 Plates of Illustrations, 8vo. IOJ. 6d. 
 
 The Dog in Health and 
 Disease. 
 By Stonehenge. 
 
 With 73 Wood Engravings. Square crown 
 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 The Greyhound. 
 By the same Author. 
 
 Revised Edition, with 24 Portraits of Grey- 
 hounds. Square crown 8vo. icw. (>d. 
 
 Stables and Stable Fit- 
 tings. 
 By W. Miles, Esq. 
 
 Imf. Svo. with 13 Plates, 15^. 
 
 The Horses Foot, and 
 how to keep it Sound. 
 By W. Miles, Esq. 
 
 Ninth Edition. Imp. %vo. Woodcuts, 12s. 6d. 
 
 A Plain Treatise on 
 Horse-shoeing. 
 By the same Author. 
 
 Sixth Edition. Post 8vo. Woodcuts, 2s. 6d. 
 
 Re m a rks on Horses 
 Teeth, addressed to Pur- 
 chasers. 
 By the same Author. 
 
 Post 8vo. is. 6d.
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 43 
 
 The Fly-Fisher s Ento- 
 mology. 
 
 By Alfred Ronalds. 
 With coloured Representa- 
 tions of the Natural and 
 Artificial Insect. 
 
 With 20 coloured Plates. St'o. 145-. 
 
 The Dead Shot, or Sports- 
 mans Complete Guide; a 
 Treatise on the Use of the 
 Gun, Dog-breaking, Pigeon- 
 shooting, &c. 
 By Marksman. 
 
 Fcp. Sz'o. with Plates, $s. 
 
 WORKS of UTILITY and GENERAL 
 INFORMATION. 
 
 Maunder s Treasury of 
 Knowledge and Library of 
 Reference ; comprising an 
 English Dictionary and 
 Grammar, Universal Ga- 
 zetteer, Classical Diction- 
 ary, Chronology, Law Dic- 
 tionary, Synopsis of the 
 Peerage, UsefulTables,&c. 
 
 Fcp. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Maimders Biographical 
 
 Treasury. 
 
 Latest Edition, recon- 
 structed and partly re- 
 written, with about 1,000 
 additional Memoirs, by 
 W. L. R. Cafes. 
 
 Fcp. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Maunder s Scientific and 
 Literary Treasury ; a 
 Popular Encyclopedia of 
 Science, Literature, and 
 Art. 
 
 New Edition, in part re- 
 written,with above 1,000 
 new articles, by J . Y. 
 Johnson. 
 
 Fcp. 6s. 
 
 Maunder s Historical 
 
 Treasury ; comprising a 
 General Introductory Out- 
 line of Universal History, 
 and a Series of Separate 
 Histories. 
 
 Fcp. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Maunder s Treasiiry of 
 Geography, Physical, His- 
 torical, Descriptive, and 
 Political. 
 
 Edited by W. Hughes, 
 F.R.G.S. 
 
 With 7 Maps and 1 6 Plates. Fcp. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Maunder s Treasury of 
 N atural History ; or Popu- 
 lar Dictionary of Zoology. 
 
 Revised and corrected Edition. Fcp. Sv0. 
 with 900 Woodcuts, 6s. 
 
 The Treasury of Bible 
 Knowledge ; being a Dic- 
 tionary of the Books, Per- 
 sons, Places, Events, and 
 other Matters of which 
 mention is made in Holy 
 Scripture. 
 By Rev. J. Ayre, M.A. 
 
 With Maps, 15 Plates, and numerous Wood- 
 cuts. Fcp. Sz'o. 6s.
 
 44 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Collieries and Colliers: 
 a Handbook of the Law 
 and Leading Cases relat- 
 ing thereto. 
 By J . C. Fowler. 
 
 Third Edition. Fcp. Svo. "js. 6d. 
 
 The Theory and Prac- 
 tice of Banking. 
 By H. D. Macleod, M.A. 
 
 Second Edition. 2 vols. Svo. 30?. 
 
 Modern Cookery for Pri- 
 vate Families, reduced to a 
 System of Easy Practice in 
 a Series of carefully-tested 
 Receipts. 
 By Eliza Acton. 
 
 With 8 Plates ^ 1 50 Woodcuts. Fcp. 8m 6s. 
 
 Three Hundred Original 
 Chess Problems and Studies. 
 By Jas. Pierce, M.A. and 
 W. T. Pierce. 
 
 With many Diagrams. Sq.fcp. 8vo. Js. 6d. 
 
 Chess Openings. 
 
 By F. W. Longman, Bal- 
 liol College, Oxford. 
 
 Second Edition, revised. Fcp. &vo. 2s. (>d. 
 
 The Theory of the Mo- 
 dern Scientific Game of 
 Whist. 
 By Wm. Pole, F.R.S. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Fcp. Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 <A Practical Treatise on 
 Brewing ; with Formula 
 for Public Brewers, and 
 Instructions for Private 
 Families. 
 By W. Black. 
 
 Fifth Edition. %vo. los. 6d. 
 
 Hints to Mothers on 
 the Management of their 
 Health during the Period 
 of Pregnancy and in the 
 Lying-in Room. 
 By Thomas Bull, M.D. 
 
 Fcp. 8vo. $s. 
 
 Blacks tone Economised ; 
 being a Compendium of the 
 Laws of England to the 
 'Present Time. 
 By D. M. Aird, Barrister. 
 
 Second Edition. Post 8vo. Js. 6d. 
 
 The Maternal Manage- 
 ment of Children in Health 
 and Disease. 
 By Thomas Bull, M.D. 
 
 Fcp. 8vo. $s. 
 
 Pewtners Comprehensive 
 Specifier ; a Guide to the 
 Practical Specification of 
 every kind of Building- 
 Artificer s Work. 
 Edited by W. Young. 
 
 The Cabinet Lawyer ; a 
 Popular Digest oft/ieLaws 
 of England, Civil, Crimi- 
 nal, and Constitutional. 
 
 Twenty -fourth Edition, corrected and ex- 
 tended. Fcp. 8vo. 9-r. 
 
 A Profitable Book upon 
 Domestic Laiv. Essays for 
 English Women and Law 
 Students. 
 
 By Perkins, Junior, M.A. 
 Barrister-at-Law. 
 
 Post 8vo. I or. 6d.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Acton s Modern Cookery 44 
 
 Aird's Blackstone Economised 44 
 
 Alpine Club Map of Switzerland 38 
 
 Alpine Guide (The) 38 
 
 Althatis Medical Electricity 27 
 
 A moss Jurisprudence 10 
 
 Primer of the Constitution n . 
 
 Anderson's Strength of Materials 20 
 
 Armstrong's Organic Chemistry 20 
 
 A mold's Manual of English Literature ... 13 
 
 A mould' s Life of Lord Denman 7 
 
 Atherstone Priory 39 
 
 Authority and Conscience 36 
 
 Autumn Holidays of a Country Parson ... 14 
 
 Ayre's Treasury of Bible Knowledge 43 
 
 Bacon's Essays, by Whaiely n 
 
 Life and Letters, by Spedding ... n 
 
 Works ii 
 
 Bain's Mental and Moral Science 12 
 
 on the Senses and Intellect 12 
 
 Balls Guide to the Central Alps 38 
 
 Guide to the Western Alps 38 
 
 Guide to the Eastern Alps 38 
 
 Bdyldon's Rents and Tillages 32 
 
 Becker's Charicles and Gallus 39 
 
 Benfeys Sanskrit-English Dictionary 17 
 
 Black's Treatise on Brewing 44 
 
 Blackley's German- English Dictionary 16 
 
 Elaine's Rural Sports 41 
 
 Bloxams Metals 20 
 
 Boast and Courtney's Bibliotheca Cornu- 
 
 biensis 7 
 
 Boultbee on 39 Articles 32 
 
 Bourne's Catechism of the Steam Engine . 30 
 
 Handbook of Steam Engine .. 30 
 
 Treatise on the Steam Engine ... 30 
 
 Improvements in the same 31 
 
 Bawdier s Family Shakspeare 41 
 
 B ram ley- Moore's Six Sisters of the Valley . 39 
 Brandt' s Dictionary of Science, Literature, 
 
 and Art 24 
 
 Bray's Manual of Anthropology 23 
 
 Philosophy of Necessity 12 
 
 Brenchley s Cruise of the ' Cura9oa ' 37 
 
 Brinkley's Astronomy 18 
 
 Browne's Exposition of the 39 Articles 32 
 
 Brunei's Life of Brunei 8 
 
 Buckle's History of Civilisation 3 
 
 Posthumous Remains 12 
 
 Bull's Hints to Mothers 44 
 
 Maternal Management of Children . 44 
 
 Bunsen's Prayers 36 
 
 Burgomaster's Family (The) 39 
 
 Burke s Rise of Great Families 9 
 
 Burke' s Vicissitudes of Families 9 
 
 Burton's Christian Church 6 
 
 Busk' s Folk-lore of Rome 39 
 
 Butler s Physical Geography 20 
 
 Cabinet Lawyer 44 
 
 Campbell's Nonvay 37 
 
 Cates's Biographical Dictionary 9 
 
 and Woodward's Encyclopaedia ... 5 
 
 Cats and Far lie's Moral Emblems 28 
 
 Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths ... 14 
 
 Chesney s Indian Polity 3 
 
 Modern Military Biography 3 
 
 Waterloo Campaign 3 
 
 Christ the Consoler 36 
 
 Clouglis Lives from Plutarch 4 
 
 Codrington's (Admiral) Memoirs 7 
 
 Colenso on Moabite Stone &c 36 
 
 's Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. 36 
 
 Speaker's Bible Commentary ... 36 
 
 Collins's Perspective 30 
 
 Colomb's Slave Catching in the Indian Ocean 36 
 Commonplace Philosopher in Town and 
 
 Country, by A. K. H. B 14 
 
 Comte's Positive Polity 9 
 
 Comyn's Elena 39 
 
 Congreve s Essays 9 
 
 Politics of Aristotle n 
 
 Conington s Translation of Virgil's ^Eneid 41 
 
 Miscellaneous Writings 15 
 
 Contanseaus Two French Dictionaries ... 15 
 Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles 
 
 of St. Paul 33 
 
 Cooke's Grotesque Animals 27-. 
 
 Copland's Dictionary of Practical Medicine 27 
 
 Cotton's Memoir and Correspondence 8 
 
 Counsel and Comfort from a City Pulpit... 14 
 
 Cox's (G. W.) Aryan Mythology 4 
 
 Crusades 6 
 
 History of Greece 4 
 
 Tale of the Great Persian 
 
 War 4 
 
 Tales of Ancient Greece ... 39 
 
 and Jones's Romances 39 
 
 Teutonic Tales 39 
 
 Crawley's Thucydides 4 
 
 Creasy on British Constitution 3 
 
 Cresy's Encyclopaedia of Civil Engineering 30, 
 
 Critical Essays of a Country Parson 14 
 
 Crookes's Chemical Analysis 25 
 
 Dyeing and Calico-printing 31 
 
 Culleys Handbook of Telegraphy 30 
 
 Cusack's Student's History of Ireland 3 
 
 Davidsons Introduction to New Testament 35
 
 46 
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Dead Shot (The), by Marksman 43 
 
 De Caisne and Le Maouts Botany 24 
 
 De Morgans Paradoxes 14 
 
 Disraeli's Lord George Bentinck 8 
 
 Novels and Tales 40 
 
 Dobson on the Ox 42 
 
 Dove's Law of Storms 19 
 
 Doyle's Fairyland 28 
 
 Drew's Reasons of Faith 33 
 
 Eastlakes Gothic Revival 29 
 
 Hints on Household Taste 29 
 
 Eden's Queensland 38 
 
 Edwards ' s Rambles among the Dolomites 37 
 
 Elements of Botany 23 
 
 Ellicotts Commentary on Ephesians 33 
 
 Galatians 33 
 
 Pastoral Epist. 33 
 
 Philippians,&c. 33 
 
 Thessalonians . 33 
 
 Lectures on Life of Christ 
 
 32 
 
 Epochs of History 6 
 
 Erichseri ' s Surgery 26 
 
 Evans's Ancient Stone Implements 23 
 
 Ewald's Antiquities of Israel 34 
 
 History of Israel 34 
 
 Fairbairns Application of Cast and 
 
 Wrought Iron to Building... 31 
 
 Information for Engineers 31 
 
 Treatise on Mills and Millwork 31 
 
 Farrar's Chapters on Language 13 
 
 Families of Speech 13 
 
 Fitzwygram on Horses and Stables 42 
 
 Forsyth's Essays 9 
 
 Fowler s Collieries and Colliers 44 
 
 Francis' s Fishing Book 41 
 
 Freeman's Historical Geography of Europe 6 
 
 From January to December 14 
 
 Fronde's English in Ireland i 
 
 History of England i 
 
 Short Studies 12 
 
 Gairdner's Houses of Lancaster and York 6 
 
 Gamgee on Horse-Shoeing 42 
 
 Ganot's Elementary Physics 20 
 
 Natural Philosophy 20 
 
 Gardiner's Thirty Years' War 6 
 
 Garrod's Materia Medica 27 
 
 Gilbert's Cadore 38 
 
 and Churchill's Dolomites 37 
 
 Girdlestone ' s Bible Synonyms 33 
 
 Goldsmith's Poems, illustrated 41 
 
 Goodeve's Mechanics 20 
 
 Mechanism 20 
 
 Steam Engine 20 
 
 Grant's Ethics of Aristotle n 
 
 Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson 14 
 
 Gray's Anatomy 26 
 
 Griffin s Algebra and Trigonometry 20 
 
 Griffith's Fundamentals 32 
 
 Sermons for the Times 32 
 
 Grove on Correlation of Physical Forces ... 20 
 
 Guyot's Earth and Man 23 
 
 Gwilt's Encyclopaedia of Architecture 29 
 
 Harding' s Texts and Thoughts 32 
 
 Hare on Election of Representatives 15 
 
 Hartwig s Harmonies of Nature 22 
 
 Polar World 22 
 
 Sea and its Living Wonders ... 22 
 
 Subterranean World 22 
 
 Tropical World 22 
 
 Haughtons Animal Mechanics 20 
 
 Hay-ward's Biographical and Critical Essays 8 
 
 Helmholtzs Scientific Lectures 20 
 
 Helmsley's Trees, Shrubs, and Herbaceous 
 
 Plants 24 
 
 Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy 19 
 
 Hodgson s Time &nA Space 12 
 
 Theory of Practice 12 
 
 Holland's Recollections 7 
 
 Holmes' s Surgical Treatment of Children . 25 
 
 System of Surgery 26 
 
 Howitt's Rural Life of England 37 
 
 Visits to Remarkable Places 38 
 
 Hiibner's Pope Sixtus the Fifth 8 
 
 Humboldt'sUtfQ 8 
 
 Hume's Essays 12 
 
 Treatise on Human Nature 12 
 
 Ihne's History of Rome 5 
 
 Ingelow's Poems 41 
 
 Jameson's Legends of Saints and Martyrs . 28 
 
 Legends of the Madonna 28 
 
 Legends of the Monastic Orders 28 
 
 Legends of the Saviour 28 
 
 Jenkins Electricity and Magnetism 20 
 
 Jerram ' s Lycidas of Milton 40 
 
 Jerrold's Life of Napoleon i 
 
 Johnston s Geographical Dictionary 17 
 
 Kalisch's Commentary on the Bible 34 
 
 Keith's Evidence of Prophecy 33 
 
 Kenyan's (Lord) Life 7 
 
 Kerl's Metallurgy, by Crookes&nA Rdhrig. 31 
 
 Kirby and Spence's Entomology 22 
 
 Lang's Ballads and Lyrics 40 
 
 Latham's English Dictionary 15 
 
 Laughton's Nautical Surveying 19 
 
 Laverack ' s Setters 42 
 
 Lawrence on Rocks 23 
 
 Lecky's History of European Morals 5 
 
 Rationalism 5 
 
 Leaders of Public Opinion. 
 
 Leisure Hours in Town, by A. K. H. B 14 
 
 Lessons of Middle Age, by A. K. H. B.... 14 
 
 Lester's Atlantic to the Pacific 36 
 
 Lewes' s Biographical History of Philosophy 6 
 
 Liddell&n& Scott's Greek-English Lexicons 16 
 
 Life of Man Symbolised 28 
 
 Lindley and Moore's Treasury of Botany... 24 
 
 Lloyd's Wave-Theory of Light 21 
 
 Longman's Chess Openings 44 
 
 Edward the Third 2 
 
 Lectures on History of England 2 
 
 Old and New St. Paul's 29 
 
 London' s Encyclopaedia of Agriculture ... 32 
 
 Gardening 32 
 
 Plants 24 
 
 Lowndes 's Engineer's Handbook 31
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 47 
 
 Lubbock's Origin of Civilisation 23 
 
 Lyra Germanica 28, 35 
 
 Lytton's Odes of Horace 41 
 
 Macaulay's (Lord) Essays 2 
 
 History of England ... 2 
 
 Lays of Ancient Rome. 40 
 
 Miscellaneous Writings 13 
 
 Speeches 13 
 
 Works 2 
 
 McCulloch's Dictionary of Commerce 17 
 
 Macleotfs Principles of Economical Philo- 
 sophy ii 
 
 Theory and Practice of Banking 44 
 
 Markham's History of Persia 4 
 
 Marshall's Physiology 26 
 
 Todas 23 
 
 Marshmaii s History of India 3 
 
 Life of Havelock 9 
 
 Martineau s Christian Life 35 
 
 Hymns 35 
 
 Maunder s Biographical Treasury 43 
 
 Geographical Treasury 43 
 
 Historical Treasury 43 
 
 Scientific and Literary Treasury 43 
 
 Treasury of Knowledge 43 
 
 Treasury of Natural History ... 43 
 
 Maxwells Theory of Heat 20 
 
 May s History of Democracy 2 
 
 History of England 2 
 
 Melville's Digby Grand 39 
 
 General Bounce 39 
 
 Gladiators 39 
 
 Good for Nothing 39 
 
 Holmby House 39 
 
 Interpreter 39 
 
 Kate Coventry 39 
 
 Queen's Maries 39 
 
 Mendelssohn s Letters 
 
 Merivale's Fall of the Roman Republic ... 4 
 
 Romans under the Empire 4 
 
 Merrifidd's Arithmetic and Mensuration... 20 
 
 Geometry and Mechanical 
 
 Drawing 20 
 
 Magnetism 19 
 
 Miles on Horse's Foot and Horse Shoeing 42 
 
 on Horse's Teeth and Stables 42 
 
 Mill (J.) on the Mind 10 
 
 (J. S.) on Liberty 10 
 
 Subjection of Women .-... 10 
 
 on Representative Government 10 
 
 Utilitarianism 10 
 
 ' s Autobiography 7 
 
 Dissertations and Discussions 10 
 
 Hamilton's Philosophy 10 
 
 System of Logic 10 
 
 Political Economy 10 
 
 Unsettled Questions 10 
 
 Miller s Elements of Chemistry 25 
 
 Inorganic Chemistry 20 
 
 Mlntos (Lord) Life and Letters 7 
 
 Mitchells Manual of Architecture 29 
 
 Manual of Assaying 32 
 
 Modern Novelist's Library 39 
 
 Monsell's ' Spiritual Songs ' 35 
 
 Moore's Irish Melodies, illustrated 40 
 
 Lalla Rookh, illustrated 40 
 
 More II' s Elements of Psychology 12 
 
 Mental Philosophy n 
 
 Morris's French Revolution 3 
 
 Mossmans Catholic Church 6 
 
 Mailer's Chips from a German Workshop. 13 
 
 Science of Language 13 
 
 Science of Religion 5 
 
 Murchison on Liver Complaints 16 
 
 on Continued Fevers 26 
 
 New Testament Illustrated with Wood 
 
 Engravings from the Old Masters 28 
 
 Nortlicott on Lathes and Turning 30 
 
 O' Conor's Commentary on Hebrews 34 
 
 Romans 34 
 
 St. John 34 
 
 Odling's Course of Practical Chemistry ... 25 
 
 O'Keeffe Case (The) 15 
 
 Owen's Comparative Anatomy and Physio- 
 logy of Vertebrate Animals 21 
 
 Lectures on the Invertebrata 21 
 
 Packe's Guide to the Pyrenees 38 
 
 Paget's Lectures on Surgical Pathology ... 25 
 
 Payen's Industrial Chemistry 29 
 
 Pereira's Elements of Materia Medica....;. 27 
 
 Perkins Profitable Book on Domestic Law 44 
 
 Petit' s History of Mary Stuart 3 
 
 Pewtners Comprehensive Specifier 44 
 
 Pierces Chess Problems 44 
 
 Pole's Game of Whist 44 
 
 Preece and Siveiaright's Telegraphy 20 
 
 Prendcrgasf s Mastery of Languages 16 
 
 Present-Day Thoughts, by A. K. H. B. ... 14 
 
 Proctor's Astronomical Essays 18 
 
 Moon 18 
 
 Orbs around Us 18 
 
 Other Worlds than Ours 18 
 
 Saturn 18 
 
 Scientific Essays (New Series) ... 
 
 Sun . 
 
 18 
 
 Two Star Atlases 19 
 
 Universe 18 
 
 Public Schools Atlas 17 
 
 Modern Geography 17 
 
 Quain's Anatomy 26 
 
 Ramsay's Geology for Beginners 22 
 
 Ranken on Strains in Trusses 31 
 
 Rawlinsons Parthia 4 
 
 Sassanians 5 
 
 Recreations of a Country Parson 14 
 
 Redgrave's Dictionary of Artists 28 
 
 Reillys Map of Mont Blanc 37 
 
 Monte Rosa 37 
 
 Rich's Dictionary of Antiquities 16 
 
 River's Rose Amateur' s Guide 24 
 
 Rogers's Eclipse of Faith 33 
 
 Defence of Eclipse of Faith 33 
 
 Greyson's Letters 10 
 
 Rogct's Thesaurus of English Words and 
 
 Phrases 15 
 
 Ronald's Fly-Fisher's Entomology 43 
 
 Rothschild's Israelites 34 
 
 Russell on the Chri stian Religion 6 
 
 English Constitution 2
 
 NEW WORKS PUBLISHED BY LONGMANS & CO. 
 
 Salter on the Teeth 26 
 
 Sandars's Justinian's Institutes n 
 
 Sanford's English Kings 2 
 
 Savory's Geometric Turning 29 
 
 Schelleris Spectrum Analysis 19 
 
 Scott's Albert Durer 27 
 
 Papers on Civil Engineering 31 
 
 Seaside Musing, by A. K. H. B 14 
 
 Scebohm's Oxford Reformers of 1498 4 
 
 Protestant Revolution 6 
 
 Sewell's History of the Early Church 5 
 
 Passing Thoughts on Religion 34 
 
 Preparation for Communion 35 
 
 Principles of Education 14 
 
 Readings for Confirmation 35 
 
 Readings for Lent 35 
 
 Examination for Confirmation ... 35 
 
 Stories and Tales 40 
 
 Thoughts for the Age 34 
 
 Thoughts for the Holy Week 35 
 
 Sharp's Post-office Gazetteer 17 
 
 Shelley's Workshop Appliances 20 
 
 Application of Heat 20 
 
 Short's Church History 6 
 
 .Simpson's Meeting the Sun 37 
 
 Smith's Paul's Voyage and Shipwreck 33 
 
 (Sydney) Essays 13 
 
 . Life and Letters 8 
 
 Miscellaneous Works ... .13 
 
 Wit and Wisdom 13 
 
 (Dr. R. A.) Air and Rain 19 
 
 SneycCs Cyllene 39 
 
 Southey's Doctor 13 
 
 Poetical Works 41 
 
 Stanley's History of British Birds 23 
 
 Stephen s Ecclesiastical Biography 8 
 
 Freethinking and Plainspeaking 10 
 
 Stirling's Secret of Hegel 12 
 
 Sir William Hamilton 12 
 
 Stockmar's Memoirs 2 
 
 Stokes's Lectures on Fever 27 
 
 Sound and Light 20 
 
 Stonehenge on theDog 42 
 
 on the Greyhound 42 
 
 Strickland s Queens of England 9 
 
 Sunday Afternoons at the Parish Church of 
 
 a University City, by A. K. H. B 14 
 
 Supernatural Religion 35 
 
 Taylor's History of India 3 
 
 (Jeremy) Works, edited by Eden. 35 
 
 Text-Books of Science 20 
 
 Thirlvjalls History of Greece 4 
 
 Thomson's Laws of Thought n 
 
 Thorpe's Quantitative Analysis 20 
 
 and Muir's Qualitative Analysis ... 20 
 
 Thudichum's Chemical Physiology 25 
 
 Todd (A.) on Parliamentary Government... 2 
 
 and Bowman's Anatomy and 
 
 Physiology of Man 26 
 
 Trench's Realities of Irish Life 13 
 
 Trottopes Barchester Towers 39 
 
 Warden 39 
 
 Twisdens Examples in Mechanics 30 
 
 First Lessons in Mechanics 30 
 
 Tyndall's American Lectures on Light ... 21 
 
 Diamagnetism 21 
 
 Fragments of Science 21 
 
 Hours of Exercise in the Alps... 37 
 
 Lectures on Electricity 21 
 
 Lectures on Light 21 
 
 Lectures on Sound 21 
 
 Heat a Mode of Motion 21 
 
 Molecular Physics 25 
 
 Ueberweg's System of Logic 12 
 
 Unwin's Machine Design 20 
 
 Ure's Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures, 
 
 and Mines 31 
 
 Walker s (Patricius] Rambles 37 
 
 Walters' s Home and Rural Life of Shak- 
 
 speare 7 
 
 Watson's Geometry 20 
 
 Principles and Practice of Physic 
 
 Watts' s Dictionary of Chemistry 25 
 
 Webb's Objects for Common Telescopes ... 19 
 
 I Veinhold's Experimental Physics 21 
 
 Wellington's Life, by Gleig 8 
 
 West on Children's Diseases 27 
 
 Whately's English Synonymes 15 
 
 Logic ii 
 
 Rhetoric n 
 
 White and Donkins English Dictionary... 16 
 
 and Riddle's Latin Dictionaries ... 16 
 
 's St. Mark's Gospel 34 
 
 St. John's Gospel 34 
 
 Whitworth on Guns and Steel 31 
 
 Wilcocks's Sea-Fisherman 42 
 
 Williams' s Aristotle's Ethics 11 
 
 Willis s Principles of Mechanism 30 
 
 Willoughby's (Lady) Diary 39 
 
 Wood's Bible Animals 24 
 
 Homes without Hands 22 
 
 Insects at Home 23 
 
 Insects Abroad 23 
 
 Out of Doors 22 
 
 Strange Dwellings 22 
 
 Wordsworth's Christian Ministry 33 
 
 Yonge's History of England 3 
 
 English-Greek Lexicons 17 
 
 Horace 41 
 
 English Literature 13 
 
 Modern History : 3 
 
 Youatt on the Dog 42 
 
 on the Horse 42 
 
 Zellet's Socrates 5 
 
 Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics... 5 
 
 Spottis-juood<! ir Co., Printers, New-street Squire, London.
 
 I 
 
 ^LIBRARY*?/ 
 L*T? > 4 .mi - -^ 
 
 I 
 
 )S-ANCElfj> 
 **> ^ 
 
 dCEZl 
 
 K 
 
 ^OF-CAIIFO^ ^tt-ONIVER3// 
 
 ILsvl l
 
 A 000039456 9 j 
 
 IBRARYQr 
 
 \\eN!VEItt/A 
 
 Q "- 
 a 
 
 Sv^ 
 3 
 S *? 
 
 ^ S -fe 
 
 %130NV-SO^ 
 
 UNIVER% ^lOS-ANCEt^> ^l-UBRARY^