AN ALLEGED FORCIBLE BAPTISM

New Zealand Tablet, 12 October 1916, Page 49

AN ALLEGED FORCIBLE BAPTISM

Reasoning from our experience in, the past, we anticipate that the following story of the alleged forcible Baptism of a child by a priest which has evidently created some sensation at Home, will soon be going the rounds of the colonial press. We give the story, with the sworn contradiction, from the Tablet of August 5, so that-our readers may be forewarned, which is to be forearmed. We note the unjust attitude of the Fall Mall Gazette in giving currency to the story and refusing to publish the contradiction. Mr. E. Raymond Barker writes to us (London Tablet) from 100, Grosvenor road, Westminster, as follows : Sir, —Last week there came before the King’s Bench Divisional Court a case concerning the religious education of the children of a Catholic father and of a Nonconformist mother. One alleged episode as described in an affidavit on the Nonconformist side, fully quoted in the Full Mall Gazette of July 26, was an attempt made by a Catholic priest to administer baptism by force to an unwilling and struggling 13-year-old girl at the desire of her Catholic father. This allegation was, in the'said affidavit, accompanied by a wealth of highly-seasoned detail, every word of it being —to any Catholic reader, or, indeed, to any ordinarily well-informed pagan reader —on the face of it, absolutely false. The writer at once drew the attention of the Fall Mall Gazette to the omission, from its report, of the Catholic priest’s affidavit —duly published in the reports of contemporaries in the London press—corroborated as this was by other evidence giving the simple facts of the case and denying the truth of the Protestant allegation. A courteous letter of thanks, dated July 28, was received from the editor, who wrote that, owing to the case having now being satisfactorily settled, he did not think it would serve any good purpose to re-open it. That a Protestant allegation embodying a grotesque travesty of the Catholic Church’s administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, and calculated to hold up to ridicule the person of a blameless priest, should be thought good enough for readers of the Fall Mall Gazette without a word being vouchsafed as to evidence proving the falsity of the said allegation, is a circumstance passing comprehension. Enclosed is the letter which was sent to the Vail Mall Gazette and declined with thanks; ‘ Sir, —Your report under the heading “Religious Education Problem,” in the Fall Mall Gazette of July 26, is manifestly unjust to the Catholic Church. The statement of a witness in the casea statement false on the face of it to any Catholic reader—to the effect that Father Jones attempted to baptise a girl by force, was in your report elaborated in minute detail. On the other hand, neither in the afore-mentioned issue of your paper, nor in the next day’s report of this legal case, is any mention made of Father Jones’s version of events. * As reported in your contemporaries, the Rev. W. Ellis Jones having ascertained from the two children that they did not wish to be baptised, explained to their father that baptism could not be administered to an unwilling person. Father Jones pointed out, also, in court, that it was untrue to say that he tried to force the girl’s head over the font, that there was a struggle, or that he attempted to baptise the children, or that they screamed. ‘ This version of the affair, corroborated by other witnesses, shows up in its true light the story Wished in the Pall Mall Gazette of July 26. * Yours faithfully, ‘ E. Raymond-Barker.’ The Priest’s Affidavit. We append the summary given by the Times on Thursday of last week, of the priest’s affidavit, which, according to Mr. Raymond-Barker, the Fall Moll Gazette omitted to mention;

The Rev. William Ellis Jones,* rector of St. Ed- ‘ ward’s Catholic Church, Runcorn, in his affidavit denied the allegations made against him by Mrs. Brooker. He said that Mr. Brooker brought his two children to ' church and asked him to baptise them. He asked if the children had been baptised before. Mr. Brooker said that he did not know, and he (Father Jones) then said that he would have to baptise them conditionally. The children seemed a little afraid. When they were asked if they wished to be baptised they said that they ' ;: did not. lie (the priest) then told Mr. Brooker that he could not baptise an unwilling person, and that he (Mr. Brooker) would have to take the children home until they understood the meaning of the Sacrament. It was absolutely untrue that he had tried to force the girls’ heads over the bowl at the font, and that he had attempted to baptise them, or that any struggle took ace.