FREEMAN’S JOURNAL AND DAILY COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER (Dublin, Ireland)
31 January 1855

DUBLIN POLICE YESTERDAY

Capel-Street Office.

(Before Dr. Kelly).

THE MORMONS IN DUBLIN

A respectable-looking man named Henderson appeared on summons to answer a complaint preferred against him by Henry Bowring, for that “he did, on the 21st instant, at Great Britain-street, wilfully and maliciously disturb and break up a religious meeting of the ‘Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day Saints,’ whereby the window, forms, and doors were broken, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.”

Mr. Rogers appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Edward A. Ennis defended Henderson.

The complainant was examined and deposed that on the evening in question the defendant, on being refused liberty to interrogate the witness, who officiated as elder or preacher on the occasion, was voted into the chair, and whilst there declared the meeting dissolved; defendant was not a member of the sect, but was one of many others who came to witness the proceedings; there were about sixty persons in the Gymnasium, where the meeting was held at the time; of these only fifteen were belonging to the sect; it was not in order for the defendant to ask questions on a Sunday evening; on Thursday evenings they were willing to give answers to any questions that might be put to them regarding their opinions; witness called in a policeman and had the defendant removed to the police station, but did not press the charge on ascertaining his name; he then proceeded by summons against him; after the defendant was removed a riot took place, some panes of glass were broken, and the police entered and cleared the place.

On cross-examination by Mr. Ennis, the witness stated that he was connected with the sect for about five years; he was now an elder, for which office he had been consecrated by a party in London; had been previously a coachmaker; did not undergo any probation or pursue a course of study before consecration; plurality of wives was allowed amongst the members and elders; was a widower himself; knew of some members in these countries living with two wives; there was no limit set to the number of wives a man might have; the head quarters of thee sect were in America; had seen, read, and circulated a pamphlet entitled “Patriarchal Order, or Plurality of Wives” by a person named Orson Spencer; to all the doctrines contained in that pamphlet he subscribed. (Mr. Ennis here put the pamphlet alluded to into the hands of the witness, and examined him in reference to a blasphemous passage in it.)

Thomas Routledge was next examined by Mr. Rogers – He corroborated the evidence of Bowring as to the conduct of the defendant. He said he was not a member of the sect, but a Protestant.

Mr. Ennis – Do you, as a Protestant, believe that being present at this meeting was a proper way of spending the Sunday evening?

Witness – I heard Bowring preach from a text of Scripture, and I heard nothing but what a Protestant could believe, except one little matter of doctrine regarding original sin; I heard nothing said against my religion.

Mr. Ennis – Is there anything else in their faith opposed to your principles of belief as a Protestant?

Witness –Not that I heard that evening.

Mr. Ennis – Do they advance the doctrine that our God is a God of human feelings and passions?

Witness – I have heard this doctrine from Bowring on other occasions (sensation).

Mr. Ennis (handing the pamphlet before referred to) – Were pamphlets of that description for sale or in circulation in the room?

Witness – No.

Mr. Ennis addressed the bench on the defense. He regretted very much that any respectable man was so imprudent as to enter a place where, under the semblance of religion, the most blasphemous doctrines were inculcated. he felt considerable reluctance in even referring his worship to the pamphlet he had put into the witness’s hands – the doctrines therein laid down being so opposed to Christianity, and to every moral feeling that was ever yet inculcated in the mind of any man professing the Christian religion.

Dr. Kelly – I take it for granted that that pamphlet was sold in the room on this night?

Mr. Ennis said he would be able to show that they were in the habit of circulating the pamphlet. The one he now held as purchased some time previously to this occurrence. Mr. Ennis then proceeded with the defence. He contended that unless the bench was satisfied that this was a place of worship within the meaning of the act of parliament, and that the parties assembled had the bona fide object of worship in view, the defendant could not be convicted on the summons, even supposing him guilty of the disturbance, which was not the case. It was sought by this summons to make the defendant amenable to the penalty prescribed for disturbing a religious assembly. But was this a religious assembly, “permitted or authorised by law,” and held in a place of meting registered according to the statute? They had failed to prove this; and he now submitted that on that ground the summons ought to be dismissed. He was quite prepared to defend the conduct of Henderson, who had pursued a proper, moral course, and one calculated to preserve the peace, not to provoke a breach of it. After the refusal to answer the question put, perceiving a growing impatience and symptoms of a riot on the part of some parties present, not of the sect, he asked the assembly to move him into the chair with a view of dissolving the meeting and letting the parties proceed quietly to their homes. His object would have been effected and no injury been done had not the complainant had him arrested. As long as he remained in the room no glass was broken, nor any other mischief done. Mr. Ennis concluded his observation by submitting that as the place of meeting did not come within the meaning of a place of public worship, the parties who assembled therein should be subject to the rules regulating public assemblies – namely, that the majority could appoint any chairman they pleased, and that the proceedings were to be conducted under his control.

Richard Henderson, a brother of the defendant’s, was then examined. He deposed that on the evening in question, in consequence of having ascertained that his nephews were in the habit of frequenting the Mormon meeting-house, he went there, accompanied by his brother; previous to Bowring commencing his sermon, or lecture, he announced that, at its termination, questions would be answered; in the course of half or three-quarters of an hour the defendant asked Bowring to connect the book of Mormon with the sacred scriptures; the latter having refused to answer, there was some noise made by parties three or four forms back from the place where defendant and witness were sitting; at his own request made, as he stated to preserve pace, the defendant was proposed, seconded, and voted by nearly the entire meeting as chairman; having waited for some time, and no observations having been addressed to him, he declared the meeting dissolved; shortly afterwards Bowring brought in a policeman, and had the defendant taken into custody; whilst the defendant was in the room no injury was done.

On cross-examination by Mr. Rogers, the witness admitted that the defendant had refused his name to the policeman when asked for it in the room.

Samuel Coleman, who stated he was a conductor of a “controversial class” for “free discussion,” which was held in Dorset-street, was next examined, and gave evidence similar to that of the previous witness.

Mr. Ennis then proposed to put the pamphlet on “Plurality of Wives”in evidence, but as he expressed his inability to prove that it was sold or used in the room on this particular evening it was objected to, and Dr. Kelly would not receive it.

Mr. R.M. Allen described the scene of riot and disorder which he witnessed at the gymnasium, as it would appear, shortly after the arrest of the defendant.

This closed the case for the defence.

Mr. Rogers submitted that it had been proved that this was a place of public worship.

Dr. Kelly said that the offence charged in the summons was a statutable offence, to prove which it would be necessary to show that the congregation which had been disturbed was one authorised or permitted by the act 6 Geo. I., cap. 5, and that the place of meeting had been registered in conformity to the statute. The complainant would have to prove this before he could obtain the protection afforded by the statute already cited. As there had been no proof of the law having been conformed to in this respect the protection sought could not be afforded. His worship then proceeded to analyze the evidence as it affected the defendant, and expressed his opinion that he was justified, under the circumstances, in attending the meeting. He then addressed the complainant and his friends on the efforts, which he was confident would prove futile, they were making for the purpose of obtaining converts to their opinions in this country.

A burst of applause from the crowded office followed the remarks of the magistrate.

The parties then left the office.

(If you aren’t sure what happened, here’s a summary: Hooligans had disrupted a Mormon meeting in Dublin, not only breaking up the meeting but causing significant damage to the building and contents. Henry Bowring, the elder presiding in Dublin, brought a charge against the leading rioters, not only on the grounds of general disturbance of the peace and damage to property, but specifically for breaking the law against disturbing religious meetings. In the end, the Mormons lost their claim because they had not fulfilled one condition of the law: Yes, they had held a religious worship service; yes, the service was open to the public as required by the law; yes, members of the public had disrupted the meeting; but no, they had not previously registered their meeting place as an official “Protestant Dissenter” group entitled to the protection of the law.

Many Mormon meeting places *were* registered as “Protestant Dissenters'” meetings under that law; when something similar happened in London the year before this Irish incident, the branch won a legal decision because they *had* so registered.)