The Trial of Terence McGee

Glasgow Daily Herald

Tuesday December 9th 1862

Page 2, Column 6 of 7

 

THEFT OF MONEY FROM A LETTER

A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST AND THE CONFESSIONAL

Yesterday at the Justice of Peace Court — William Kidston Esq. presiding — a labourer named Terrence M'Ghee, residing in Tollcross, was accused of having on the 2^nd Nov., last, stolen from an envelope or letter which he had received from Terrence Ferguson for the purpose of posting to James Ferguson, his father, then residing in Ireland, two half sovereigns in gold. The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

It appeared from the evidence of Terrence Ferguson that he got the prisoner's daughter, a girl between 11 and 12 years of age, to write a letter to his father, as he could neither read or write himself. She wrote the letter, and after it was written, he sewed upon one of the sheets two half sovereigns, and then gave the letter to the prisoner to post having previously moistened the gum and secured the envelope. Some time afterwards he received a letter from his father, stating that he had received the letter, but that it contained no money, which must have been stolen. He informed the postmaster at Tollcross that the money had been stolen, and about three weeks after receiving his father's letter he got an anonymous letter through the post containing a £1 note. The latter contained the following sentence, "This is the £1 note you sent to your father, that went amissing." He then caused prisoner's daughter to write to the postmaster in Glasgow and say that he had received his pound, and she did so.

The girl M'Ghee [Rosanna] corroborated this evidence.

The Rev. Mr. M'Lauchlan, R.C.P. was next called. He said — I have an objection to be a witness in this case.

Mr. Crawfurd — You must take the oath.

Witness — If I am not bound to be a witness in this case I am not bound to take the oath. I am not at all bound to be examined in this case, and I cannot be put upon my oath.

Mr. Crawfurd — Do you object to take the oath?

Witness — No ; but in this case I cannot be asked to take the oath.

Mr. Crawfurd — You cannot know what you are to be examined upon.

Witness — I mean no disrespect to the Court ; but I cannot take the oath.

Mr. Kidston — You can't object to be put on oath in this case.

Mr Crawfurd — You must take the oath.

Witness — I have been summoned as a witness in this case, but I do not admit the competency of the summons. Whether or not the law admits my status as a priest of the Catholic Church, the law admits my right to exercise my official duty so long as I do not transgress against the law. If I transgress against the law, I am amenable to the law, and if I offend I can be punished. But I have not offended against the law, and I deny the right of any official tribunal to ask me, what I did, where I did it, and why I did it. I decline to be put upon oath upon my official duty.

Mr. Crawfurd — You admit there is no crime in taking the oath, and you must take it.

Mr. Douglas (Fiscal) — What is your first name?

Rev. Patrick M'Lauchlan, R.C.P., Eastmuir, about a mile from Tollcross.

Mr. Douglas — I have to ask the Court to put him upon oath.

Witness — I deny the competency of being put upon oath in the present case.

Mr. Crawfurd — The taking of the oath does not trench upon your privileges, but you must take it. Any question put to your duty as Roman Catholic priest, you can decline to answer it.

Witness — I deny that the summons is competent.

Mr. Crawfurd — The Court decides it is competent. Suppose you saw a man shoot another in the street, do you mean to say you could not be examined as a witness?

Witness — No ; I do not say that.

Mr. Crawfurd — You must take the oath ; but you are entitled to object to any question which is put to you.

Witness — I should like to hear the oath.

Mr. Kidston repeated the oath.

Witness — I am willing to swear that anything I shall say shall be the truth, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Crawfurd — Is that binding upon your conscience?

Witness — Yes.

Mr. Douglas — By permitting such a reservation as Mr M'Lauchlan suggests, it will be equivalent to no oath at all. Now, I submit that unless he is a Quaker or a Jew he must take the oath without the least reservation at all. When the time comes, he will likely get the protection of the Court, if necessary. I decline to proceed with the examination if there is any reservation.

Mr. Crawfurd — He only excludes the words "whole truth." There may be some things within his knowledge that he will not divulge.

The witness then took the following oath: – "I swear by God I shall tell the truth and nothing but the truth, and whatever I shall say in this case shall be truth."

Mr. Douglas — Being shown an envelope with the Glasgow postmark, 23d Nov., addressed to Terrence Ferguson, care of Terrence M'Ghee, and a piece of paper bearing the following words written upon it: – "This is the pound note you sent your father, that went amissing." Interrogated — Did you write these notes? Witness — I did. Did you seal the envelope? I did. Was there a pound note enclosed? There was. To whom did you deliver it? I decline to answer that question.

Mr. Crawfurd — What is your objection to state the name of the person?

Witness — Because, on conscience, I cannot. It trenches on my official rites, and, on conscience, I have not come here to do it. I cannot express to you the mental torture I have endured by being brought here as a witness.

Mr. Kidston — What is your reason?

Witness — I cannot explain it. Suppose that this had happened in the Confessional, I could not speak of anything out of the Confessional ; and the priest must be ready to lay down his life rather than disclose anything in connection with the Confessional, and I cannot therefore answer the question.

Mr, Douglas — I shall be very sorry to put any question regarding any matter that had taken place in the Confessional. It is a simple matter of fact. If he is to be permitted to go beyond his Confessional, and to take the duties .... civil magistrates, he is going beyond his official duties ....

Witness — I deny that I went beyond my .... I am a faithful supporter of the law, and if .... thing wrong I am amenable to the law .... law, we support the law, and should .... go upon my rites.

Mr. Kidston — You are .... the latter.

Witness — On con ....

Mr. Kidston — .... act.

Mr. Douglas — .... of the most conscientio .... gation, and he has done .... he labours ; but still I mus .... answered.

Mr. Crawfurd to witness — Can y .... clergyman regarding the matter?

Witness — No. I could not on my consc .... els. [?]

Mr Crawfurd — If a person were coming .... the street and disclosing some crime, you are .... answer ; but if it was done in the Confessional you are not bound to answer?

Witness — If a priest comes to the knowledge of a thing because he is a priest, he is not bound to disclose it.

Mr. Crawfurd — The court considers that you are bound to answer the question.

Witness — Well, on my conscience, I can't.

Mr Douglas — Then I have to move that he be committed to prison for contempt of Court.

Mr. Crawfurd then read the opinions of several lawyers on the matter, and said that Mr. M'Lauchlan has not written the letter sent in the capacity of a clergyman, and had given the letter to post.

Witness — I believe, before Almighty God, that I did my best to put the matter right. I found that a person had committed a sin against Almighty God, and that a third person had been injured. I enabled that person to make restitution, and if I had not done so, it never would have taken place. That person said he had committed a sin against Almighty God, for which he was very, very sorry, and if that money had not been recovered, I would never have been called up as a witness. But because I did my duty before Almighty God – did what was right to have the law supported – I have been annoyed.

Mr. Douglas — There was a necessity for bringing up this case for the purpose of clearing another person, and it is an act of Providence that the matter has been so far explained. Had this case not been brought up the Postmaster at Tollcross would have been suspected, and probably dismissed from his situation. It would be an act of charity, on Mr. M'Lauchlan's part, were he to answer the question.

Witness — I am ready to clear every innocent person in connection with the matter.

Mr Douglas — Oh, but that won't do.

Mr. Kidston — The question does not come under the category of anything disclosed by the prisoner.

Witness — If I am to be annoyed and to be tortured I will not interfere again in the same way. The knowledge of this matter came to me because I was a priest.

Mr. Crawfurd — You should consult some official person or some lawyer to guide you in this matter. You have your own privileges, but you do not take the legal view of it.

Witness — It is according to the law of God, and according to the law of my conscience.

Mr. Crawfurd — The motion is made that you be committed to prison. Now that is harsh. Could you not call for anyone to consult with?

Mr. Douglas — Could you not call for the Bishop?

Witness — With all respect for the Bishop, he is not the keeper of my conscience. I care not what the Bishop may think, I am not going to do anything against my own conscience. This will be a lesson for me for the future.

Mr. Crawfurd — I have no desire to hurry any person to jail for contempt of Court ; and the Bishop might tell you that you were stretching your privileges too far.

Witness — It would be very mean if a man was to go against his conscience for fear.

Mr. Kidston — But your conscience does not tell you to offend the law?

Witness — I have not done so.

Mr. Crawfurd — Could you not take time to consult some person?

Mr. Kidston — Do you never consult the Bishop?

Witness — Yes ; but I can never go against my conscience.

Mr. Douglas — I have no objection that he gets time to consider. There are a number of other witnesses, but I cannot go on further until this matter is settled.

Mr. Crawfurd — The opinion of the Court is that if you do not answer the question you will be committed to prison, but the Court are unwilling to take that course.

Mr. Douglas — If you had told the prisoner to confess the crime the matter would have been at an end.

Mr. Crawfurd — Have you anything to say why a warrant should not be issued to commit you to prison?

Witness — I believe it is trenching upon my official duty as a priest of the Catholic Church.

Mr. Douglas — Then I move that he be committed till next Court day. I am very sorry to make the motion, but it is for the ends of justice.

Mr. Crawfurd — Then there is a warrant for your apprehension and committal till Thursday at one o'clock ; and I would advise you to consider the course you have taken.

Witness — If I am granted time I will consider the matter.

Mr. Crawfurd — Then, in place of the warrant being immediately issued, delay is granted till Thursday at one o'clock.

The court was crowded during the hearing of this case.

Glasgow Daily Herald

Wednesday December 10th 1862

Page 4, Column 5 of 6

ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST AND THE CONFESSIONAL

To the Editor of the Glasgow Herald

Eastmuir, Shettleston, Dec. 9th, 1862

Dear Sir, — In today's impression of your paper, I see a case reported in which my name appears, headed a "Roman Catholic priest and the Confessional." I distinctly state that the case has no connection whatever, either directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, with the Confessional, and that my ground of objection to answer the question arose not from any dread of breaking the seal of Confession, but from a dread of offending against conscience, in revealing a thing confided in me in sacred, solemn confidence as a Catholic clergyman, the knowledge of which would never be intrusted to me, or would never come to me, unless I were a priest. In that case I considered I was acting in my official capacity, and that I would not be called upon to manifest such knowledge. I beg you will do me the favour of inserting this letter in tomorrow's Herald. – I am, dear Sir, yours, ever faithfully P. M'Laughlin.

Glasgow Daily Herald

Friday December 12th 1862

Page 5, Column 1 of 6

JUSTICE OF PEACE COURT

A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST COMMITTED TO PRISON FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

Yesterday, at one o'clock, the case of Terence M'Ghee who was accused of the theft of two half sovereigns from a sealed letter, was called in the Justice of Peace Court – Mr. Kidston, Esq., presiding. The court was crowded, and hundreds outside could not obtain admission.

The Rev. Mr. M'Laughlin, who had been examined in connection with this case on Monday last, and against whom a warrant was about to be issued for declining to answer a question, was first called. He said — Will you permit me, if you please, to say a few words before the case proceeds?

Mr. Kidston — Repeat the oath please.

Witness then repeated the oath - I swear by God that I will tell the truth, and nothing but the truth.

Witness — Is that the manner in which I took the last oath?

Mr. Crawfurd — That is the customary oath.

Mr. Douglas (to witness) — You were shown two documents last day – a letter and envelope? — Yes. You said they were in your own handwriting? — Yes. That there was a £1 note enclosed? — Yes. And that the letter was sealed up? — Yes.

Mr. Douglas — I now show you a letter, addressed to "A. M'Call, Esq., Central Police Chambers," bearing no date, and signed by you. Did you write that letter? — Yes. I did. It was a mistake on my part that it was not dated ; it was not intentional. It was despatched to Mr. M'Call in answer to a letter I received from him. When I wrote the reply I was in a hurry. I was about to go to the confessional. I cannot say whether or not I kept Mr. M'Call's letter.

Mr. Douglas then read Mr. M'Call's letter as follows :-

Central Police Chambers

Glasgow, 29th Nov., 1862

Sir, — The officers of this force have been engaged in an investigation into the abstraction of money from a letter that passed through the Post Office, and had been posted by Terence Ferguson, residing in Tollcross. Our attention has been directed, as a matter of course, to those through whose hands the letter had passed, and, amongst others, Terence M'Ghee, residing in Tollcross. I understand M'Ghee and Ferguson are members of your congregation, and it [?] would be obliging were you to let me know what opinion you have of the character of both or either of them.

A. M'Call, Supt. of Police

The Rev. Patrick M'Laughlin,

St Paul's R.C. Church, Eastmuir.

The following is the priest's reply :-

Eastmuir, Shettleston

Sir, — Your favour of 29th inst. is just come to hand and in answer thereto I beg to say that, as regards Terence M'Ghee, I have always looked on him as a quiet, steady, and honest man. As regards Ferguson I can't state anything from my own personal knowledge, as he is not, if I mistake not, long in Tollcross. I also heard about the abstraction of the money you allude to, and I also, if I mistake not, heard about its recovery. — I am. Sir, yours ever faithfully,

P. M'Laughlin

A. M'Call, Esq.,

Central Police Chambers, Glasgow.

[The postmark on the envelope of this letter bore date 29th Nov.]

Witness — With regard to M'Ghee, I had known him for 9 years, and thought him a quiet, harmless man.

Mr. Douglas — Will you say now whether Terence M'Ghee, the accused in this case, is the person to whom you delivered the letter to be posted?

Witness — I respectfully decline to answer the question. The same reason exists for my not answering it now as existed on Monday.

Mr. Crawfurd — Have you any reason for refusing?

Witness — Is that the same question that was put to me last day?

Mr. Crawfurd — It is somewhat differently shaped. The question now is – Did you deliver the letter to the accused for the purpose of being posted?

Witness — Will you give me the question as put to me the last court day?

Mr. Crawfurd — I put the question again to you – Did you deliver the letter to Terence M'Ghee for the purpose of being posted?

Witness — Well, I respectfully decline to say to whom I gave the letter to be posted. When I give that answer, I mean the same thing as I did the last court day.

Mr. Douglas — I have to move the court to repeat the question to the witness.

Mr. Kidston (to witness) — I have to request you, upon your oath, to say whether Terence M'Ghee is the person to whom you delivered the envelope and contents to be posted.

Witness — I respectfully decline to answer the question, but I mean no disrespect to the court.

Mr. Kidston — It is necessary to put the question in another form. You are requested to name the person to whom you delivered the envelope to be posted.

Witness — I decline to answer the question.

Mr. Crawfurd — You are bound to answer these questions, and now is the time for you to state any reason for not answering them.

Witness — I have already given you my reasons. Money was stolen, and restitution of the money was effected through me. The guilty party came to me in strict confidence. It was not in the Confessional ; it had nothing to do with the Confessional. The thing came to my knowledge in strict confidence ; it came to me as a priest, otherwise I would have known nothing about the matter. The restitution could not have been made without me assisting ; and I consider myself bound to enforce/inforce [???] the restitution out of the Confessional as well as in it. The man came to me as a priest and if I had not been a priest I would have known nothing about the matter. I consider myself bound before Almighty God not to divulge who the person was. I consider it would be a sin against my own conscience to do so. As the information came to me as a priest, and as I could not have known it unless I was a priest, I look upon it as an official act, and on conscience I cannot divulge the person's name.

Mr. Crawfurd — Your refusal obstructs the course of justice.

Witness — Put a clergyman of any denomination in my place, and I would consider any one a traitor who would reveal a communication made under the circumstances.

Mr. Kidston — The question here is in reference to a subsequent act of your own.

Mr. Crawfurd — The writing of this letter was no part of your duty, and in doing so you went beyond your duty ; and [?] even although you did not do that, that is no protection for any clergyman, whether Roman Catholic or otherwise.

Witness — In respect for my honour, and in respect for my character as a clergyman, I cannot answer the question.

Mr. Crawfurd — The penalty is imprisonment if you -??- to answer it. You are told you are bound to answer the question. By refusing to answer the question you may enable this man to escape. We do not say you have done so with that intention, but practically that would be the result. You would be erecting yourself into a sanctuary to which guilty parties might apply, believing that they could divulge what they had done, and get your assistance in aiding them to conceal their crime. Restitution does not atone for the crime. You may have punished the p??? privately, but I do not know that ; but even that would not do. If he is guilty he must be punished according to the laws of the land.

Mr. Kidston — As a subject of Queen Victoria you are bound to answer the question.

Witness — I still decline to answer the question.

Mr. Douglas — I feel very much at the painful and distressing duty that calls upon me to ask your Honour to commit this witness for contempt of Court. I hope that your Honour, and I trust the witness, will not suppose I press the case any more than I would do if it was any other gentleman than a clergyman. In these circumstances, however painful the duty, I have no alternative but ask your Honour to commit him to prison.

Mr. Kidston — The Court has been very indulgent to you in giving you time to consider the matter. I am obliged now, in the discharge of my duty, to commit you to prison for 30 days, for contempt of Court. (Sensation and al??? hissing.)

Mr. M'Laren, the prisoner's agent — Although the prisoner still adheres to his plea, he is now willing to alter it, if it would have any effect on the sentence now pronounced.

Mr. Douglas — It is too late now, the offence has been committed.

Mr. Crawfurd — If the prisoner had made this proposal at the first diet it would have altered the case ; but now it is too late.

After some further consideration, Mr. Crawfurd read the warrant, and the rev. gentleman left the court in charge of an officer. He was shortly after consigned to prison in a cab. The case was then proceeded with, and after several witnesses had been examined, and the court addressed by Mr. Douglas and Mr. M'Laren,

Mr. Crawfurd said that the first step in a charge of theft, or a crime of any kind, was to prove that a crime had been committed. It was clearly proved that this man at the bar was entrusted with a letter with two half-sovereigns in it, which letter had been written in his presence, and that he had got it to post. He said that he put it into the Post office; but it is clearly proved that, although he got it in good time to post it that Sunday night, yet he could not have directly posted it. It was proved that it had been stamped the next morning in the Post Office, but whether the coins were then in it or not is unknown.Now, the only indication they had that a theft had been committed was a letter addressed to the secretary of the General Post Office, Glasgow, which asked him to make enquiries into an alleged theft. That was all the proof they had that the money did not properly reach the person to whom it was sent, and there was no evidence to prove that the man had not actually received it. The Magistrate, therefore, could not, in the absense of proof that a theft had been committed, convict this man. But the evidence of this clergyman might have led to his conviction, had he been able to say that the prisoner had come to him and confessed the crime, which would have supplied the missing link. But the clergyman had defeated that object, and in consequence this man must be discharged. There was, however, grounds for believing that the prisoner took the money out, and that he afterwards knowingly posted the letter without it, but there was no proof to convict him, so that the Justice must dismiss the case as not proven.

The prisoner was then liberated.

From The Cork Examiner, (Friday) 12 December 1862 -

COMMITTAL OF THE REV. MR. M'LAGHLAN.

GLASGOW, THURSDAY.--The interest felt in the issue of the refusal of the Rev. P. M'Laughlan, Roman Catholic clergyman, to answer certain questions put to him, relative to what he knew of a theft said to have been committed by Terence M'Kee, a labourer, attracted a large number to the Justice of the Peace Court to-day. Mr. M'Laughlan was brought forward, and asked what resolution he had come to on the subject. He reiterated his refusal to answer the question, on the ground of conscientious scruples. He was then sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment. Some marks of disapprobation ensued in court, which were speedily suppressed.

Glasgow Daily Herald

Saturday December 13th 1862

Page 6, Column 4 of 6

The Rev. Mr M'Laughlin's Case.

To the Editor of the Glasgow Herald,

Glasgow, 12th December 1862

Sir, —I am not a lawyer, thank God for it ; but really it seems strange to the uninitiated that the man who has done everything in his power to get stolen property restored to its proper owner, and has been successful in his endeavours, should be consigned to the Bridewell as a reward for this. This may be law, though I doubt it, but it is not justice, I am sure of it.

As one of the reverend gentleman's co-religionists, allow me to express in a few words the feelings of Catholics with regard to this matter. Sir, they regard it as a studied insult to their whole body. We are in the minority here, and we feel that advantage has been taken of this to insult and annoy us by consigning to prison one of our most respected clergymen.

Where is the Baillie or Justice (?) of the Peace who would have dared to commit to prison, say these two lights of your Church, Dr. Caird or Dr. Norman Macleod, if they had been in the same position as the Rev. Mr. M'Laughlin? Glasgow would have been too hot to hold such a man. I can fancy how the great city of Glasgow would be stirred up, and would not rest until ample restitution was given, and the real offender punished.

Mr. M'Laughlin did not get the information he withholds in the Confessional, but he got it told him as a matter of conscience, and consequently under the same seal of secrecy as if it had been in the Confessional. Such is the invariable practice amongst Catholics and Catholic clergymen, and Mr. M'Laughlin could never have faced them again if he had not done as he did. As it is, he has gained our applause, if he has not gained common justice.

In conclusion, Sir, allow me to say, that if the Catholics of Glasgow do not take immediate steps to petition Government against such a monstrous act (done by such a Court, too), they are a set of poor-spirited cowards and deserve no better treatment.

If the same thing had been done to a Protestant clergyman, I would have signed such a petition myself, and would have canvassed myself for signatures among the Catholic body, for I am no bigot.

I therefore ask all impartial Protestants to do the same, and show that, though of a different creed, they have the same idea of right and wrong implanted in the hearts of all men by the Almighty.— Yours Truly, A Scotch Catholic.

Glasgow Daily Herald

Monday December 15th 1862

Page 6, Column 5 of 6

DANGER OF SENDING MONEY IN LETTERS.

To the Editor of the Glasgow Herald.

Sir, — The recent case, involving such serious consequences to a rev. gentleman, has induced me to offer, through the medium of your columns, a few remarks on the subject of sending money through the post in letters.

Complaints of money going amissing in this way are of daily occurrence, and, although the public are not generally aware of it, such complaints almost invariably terminate in the dismissal of some individual from the postal service on the grounds of suspicion ; and those suspicions, I may add, are in many instances, very slight indeed. I am quite satisfied of the justice of rigorously protecting the public in such an important matter as their postal correspondence ; but as a matter of justice, some protection ought to be given to those engaged in this important branch of the public service. The Post Office authorities very justly and strictly forbid parties sending money in letters ; yet, not withstanding, money is sent in this way every day of the week,and thus temptation in not only put in the way of the dishonestly inclined, but there is a strong temptation put in the way of parties themselves, who are permitted to send money, to be dishonest, in the belief that the Post Office authorities are responsible for the safe delivery of such letters. It not unfrequently happens that during the sorting of letters in the Post Office coins of all values, from a sixpence to a sovereign, slip out from the edge of of the envelope, which, in many cases, is imperfectly closed. Of course, when such a thing happens, it is sometimes impossible to say from which of the letters it came, and the money is consequently handed to the postmaster for safety, and recovery by parties inquiring after such losses. Now, if such a thing occur in the sorting of letters, might it not also take place in the hands of the letter carrier, and even without his knowledge, as he is bustling along our crowded streets? and still a loss even in that way would most assuredly result in the dismissal of some official on the grounds of suspicion. Moreover, it is quite possible that the money may drop out of letters in the same way before they are posted al all, and still, in all probability, it would terminate in the same way. Now, such a state of matters is very unjust to those engaged in the postal service, and I would suggest that parties smuggling money in this way should be subject to a fine on such coming to the knowledge of the proper officials, and if such were the case I feel confident that there would be fewer complaints and fewer men dismissed from the postal service with permanently injured characters and blighted prospects. Money orders are so easily and cheaply obtained that the very reprehensible practice of the sending of money in letters can only be regarded as an illicit traffic for the purpose of evading the usual money order commission. In the hope that something may be done to check this evil, I trust you will pardon the space I have taken up with this matter. — I am, Sir, your obdt. servant, Justitia

Glasgow, 13th Dec., 1862

The Glasgow Daily Herald

Tuesday December 16th 1862

Page 4, Column 1 of 6

The Case of the Rev. Mr. M'Laughlin.

(From the Manchester Guardian)

A Bench of Magistrates in Scotland has just had to perform one of the most disagreeable tasks that can be imposed on the administrators of justice. It is always painful to punish a man for doing what he believes to be his duty ; but were it once admitted that the motive could excuse an act committed in violation of law and in disregard of injury to society, the machinery by which offences are brought home to their perpetrators would be seriously crippled, if not altogether paralysed. The case which calls at present for the application of this general remark is one of the not uncommon instances of refusal to give evidence in a court of justice. Not long ago a gentleman was most properly committed to prison for declining to answer questions necessary to the investigation of a charge of bribery at an election. There was no disposition on the part of the judge or the public to doubt that the hero of this adventure was sustained, in his own imperfect conscience, by a fancied sense of honourable obligation to his friends or his party. This plea for exemption from one of the most manifest and imperative of public duties could not, however, have been accepted without showing the way by which all such enquiries might be defeated for the future. Those who maintain that greater weight should be attached to it when it is advanced by a minister of religion hold a doctrine which invests the clerical character with special sanctities and immunities long ago disallowed both by social opinion and the law.

There is, indeed, a signal exception to this general rule, but we have a frank and definite admission that it is one which cannot be advanced in support of the claim to silence set up by the Rev. P. M'Lauchlin. This gentleman, a Roman Catholic priest at Eastmuir, has among his congregation two Irish labourers who lived in the same house. One of these men, named Ferguson, entrusted to the other, Terence M'Ghee, a letter containing money to be posted. The money never reached its destination, but a few days after its miscarriage had been made known, Ferguson received an anonymous letter enclosing an equivalent of the sum which had been abstracted. That this note was written by Mr. M'Laughlin is admitted without hesitation by the rev. gentleman himself ; but when summoned as a witness against M'Ghee, who had been apprehended on suspicion of the theft, the priest, though not al all desirous to conceal his own share in the transaction, refused to say anything which could show on whose behalf he had acted. He had written the letter making restitution of the stolen property, but he would not say to whom he had given it, because, there can be no doubt, his answer would have led by a very easy process to the fixing of the guilt on the person accused. No argumentative force which the Glasgow Magistrates could bring to bear on Mr. M'Laughlin was able to shake him from this position. It is most important to observe that, according to his own account, his knowledge of the crime had not been communicated to him in the confessional, and, as he says, "had nothing to do with it." Had it been so, there is no doubt that the usual practice would have been followed, and the peculiar confidence entrusted to him would have been respected. But Mr. M'Laughlin had not received the thief, whoever he may have been, in the character of a penitent, on this occasion at least. His knowledge of the crime had come to him "in the capacity of a priest," that is, we presume, exactly as the minister of any other religion might be made the depositary of an embarrassing secret. It is due to him to acknowledge that he is perfectly straightforward in that respect. Though standing, as might be expected, on his character as a priest, he seems disposed to maintain that this position is not essential to the justification of his conduct. In his own phrase, he declines, "as a gentleman, as a clergyman, and a Christian," to divulge matters which were doubtless revealed to him with the expectation that they would not be used against the offender. The question is thus brought down to an every-day aspect and very manageable dimensions. Is man to be spared his part in the detection and punishment of crime because the information which it is in his power to give has been conveyed to him under the seal of confidence? Were this principle once to be admitted, it is clear that there would be no end to the abuses and anomalies that it might be made to cover. A few clearly defined cases there are in which it is held desirable that personal intercourse — such as that, for instance, between attorney and client — should not be restrained by any fear of consequences. But to multiply these recognised exceptions to a general rule would be fraught with danger, and no innovation of the kind could well be more objectionable than assigning a privileged character to ordinary communications between ministers of religion and members of their "flocks."

The assertion of the claim of public justice to be paramount over all obligations presumed to have been contracted between individuals is far more important than the bearing of parties engaged in a conflict of this kind. We are glad, however, to observe that in the present instance the preponderance of dignity and temper was altogether on the side of the administrators of the law. The insinuation that the Glasgow Bench betrayed symptoms of being in the slightest degree influenced by theological antipathies is unfounded. They argued with Mr. M'Laughlin with great patience and moderation, as well as with a logical force, which it required no small amount of obstinate prepossession to resist. Finally they adjourned the proceedings for several days, expressly with the view of allowing him time for consideration and consultation with his friends before they took the extreme step, ultimately forced upon them, of committing him to prison for contempt. We venture to say that no Bench of English Judges would have been more indulgent, and we believe that the Scotch Magistrates would have done just the same if the ends of justice had been defeated by a Presbyterian minister instead of a priest of the Church of Rome. Mr. M'Laughlin, on the other hand, though not unwilling to go to prison in defence of a crotchet, appears to us to be a poor hero. It is manifest that he supposed himself to have played a part between the thief and the person defrauded which entitled him to extraordinary credit and favour, though, in using his influence to procure the restitution of the stolen property, he was simply doing what is incumbent on every man, whether priest or layman. "If he had not exerted himself for the recovery of the money," he stated many times over, "he would never have been called upon as a witness ;" "but because," he adds petulantly, "I did my duty before Almighty God, I have been annoyed." Nor is that all. If Mr. M'Laughlin be suffering unmerited persecution for having done right, he ought, according to Protestant ethics, and, we presume, according to those of his own Church, to be ready to do the same thing at the cost of the same penalty again. Such, however, does not appear to be his own reading of his duty. "If I am to be annoyed and tortured," he says, "I will not interfere in the same way again," and, when advised to consult his bishop, he replies, "I care not what the bishop may think ; I am not going to do anything against my own conscience ; this will be a lesson to me for the future." The "lesson" which apparently harmonises with Mr. M'Laughlin's conscience is, therefore, that the next time he hears of a crime having been committed, he will consider himself absolved from the duty of endeavouring to cause reparation to be made by the offender, With many thanks to him for his past zeal to protect society, we think that, under the circumstances, the authorities charged with the maintenance of the law in Glasgow have not gained much by his assistance and can well dispense with his services in future. His moral sense is hardly more acute than his intellectual discernment, and, altogether, he is not of the clay of which martyrs are composed.

The Glasgow Daily Herald

Wednesday December 17th 1862

Page 4, Column 6 of 6

The Imprisoned Priest — Irishmen.

To the Editor of the Glasgow Herald.

Glasgow, 16th Dec., 1862

Sir, — In reference to a letter by a "Parish Minister," on the imprisonment of Priest M'Laughlin in your journal of yesterday, I am sure that every intelligent Protestant and Catholic in Glasgow is perfectly convinced of the justice in sending him to prison for contempt of court, though I believe all are sorry for him in his present position (as our forefathers lamented the stern policy that dictated the execution of Emmett). Still, the law of the land must be obeyed by both minister and layman. But surely this "Parish Minister," who styles this priest his brother, is ion jest when he says so, or else he means a son of Adam in common with us all. Ministers are a class of men I honour and respect for their work's sake ; but I think all will agree with me in saying they ought to use becoming language, and act in a Christian spirit towards all men. Mark what he says in his letter of yesterday — "I do not suggest this from any of that mawkish sentimentalism which would coddle crime and soft sawder scoundrels, &c., to shelter peculating Paddies. I never heard of this good man, &c., except in connection with this rascally Irishman, who has troubled him, as his countrymen have done in every portion of the globe which they inhabit." Such language, used towards the Irish, as a people or nation, I consider unjust ; for, although I am no Irishman, I feel indignant to hear them, as a nation, thus tauntingly spoken of, as if they were a race of inferior beings and pests of society, whereas, it is a well known fact to every intelligent — shall I say "Parish Minister?" that Ireland has produced men of whom either Scotland or England might be proud of ; and I know we have two or three Irish ministers settles in our city, worthy men indeed. And was not J. S. Knowles and Irishman? In conclusion, I might add, a list of divines, poets, statesmen, and warriors, all Irishmen, whose names and works the world will not readily let die, but I think I have said enough to this "Parish Minister" to teach him to have more of Christian charity in future towards not only the Irish, but to men. — I am &c., J. A. H.

[Note — The previous day's edition has only four pages archived in both the Mitchell Library and on Google News. I presume the letter from the "Parish Minister" must have been on page 5 or 6.]

The Glasgow Daily Herald

Tuesday December 23th 1862

Page 2, Column 6 of 7

The Rev. Mr. M'Laughlin's Case. — The memorial to the Home Secretary in reference to the liberation of the Rev. Mr. M'Laughlin was signed within a few hours, yesterday, by 8000 persons, among whom were many Protestants. To the signature sheet laid down in the Exchange, 200 signatures were attached. Among the Protestant signatures, it was gratifying to notice that of one of our most eminent Presbyterian ministers. The memorial was sent to Sir George Grey yesterday evening by Messrs. Burns & Maclean. We understand that these gentlemen have placed themselves in communication with their Edinburgh agents and counsel, with a view to raising an action of suspension and liberation in the event of the memorial not meeting with a favourable response.

The Glasgow Daily Herald

Thursday December 25th 1862

Page 3, Column 4 of 6

The M'Laughlin Case. — The petition against the sanctioning any alteration of the sentence against the Rev. P. M'Laughlin, except upon an application direct from himself, containing an acknowledgement without any reservation of his error, was despatched yesterday to the Home Office. The petition was commenced, after intelligence reached the city and had become widely known that Sir George Grey had declined to advise and alteration in the sentence ; and in consequence of this the Protestant inhabitants did not feel the same necessity for appending their signatures to it as they would otherwise have done. — Communicated.