# Newbery v. Goodwin

The English reports, Volume CLXI, 985
Newbery v. Goodwin :
| Wikipedia:Arches Court ||
| Date decided: | 1811 |
| Full case name: | Newbery v. Goodwin |
| Citations: | EngR 444; (1811) 1 Phill 282; 161 E.R. 985 (B) (4 July 1811) |
| Judges sitting: | John Nicholl |
| Cases cited: | |
| Legislation cited: | Act of Uniformity 1548 |
| Case history ||
| Prior actions: | |
| Subsequent actions: | |
| Keywords ||
The office of the Judge promoted by Newbery v. Goodwin. Arches Court, Trinity Term, July 4th, 1811. – A clergyman in the performance of divine worship not at liberty to alter or omit any part of the service.
[Referred to, Martin v. Mackonochie, 1879, 4 Q. B. D. 774; Girt v. Fillingham, [1901] P. 1831]
(Brought by letters of request from the Consistory Court of Chichester)
This suit was promoted by Francis Newbery, Esq., an inhabitant and parishioner of Heathfield, in the county of Sussex, against the Rev. Dr. Goodwin, vicar of that parish.
The facts and circumstances of the case are fully set forth in the judgment.
Judgment – Sir John Nicholl. This is a suit against a clergyman for “irregularities in reading the Holy Scriptures, and for quarrelling, chiding, and brawling in the church.”
The usual proceedings have been had, and the articles containing the circumstances of the charge stand for admission.
The two first articles plead the law upon the subject – the canons and the statute. The law directs that a clergyman is not to diminish in any respect, or to add to the prescribed form of worship; uniformity in this respect is one of the leading and distinguishing principles of the Church of England – nothing is left to the discretion and fancy of the individual. If every minister were to alter, omit, or add according to his own taste, this uniformity would soon be destroyed, and though the alteration might Begin with little things, yet it would soon extend itself to more important changes in the public worship of the Established Church, and even in the Scriptures themselves; the most important passages might he materially altered, under the notion of giving a more correct version, or omitted altogether, as unauthorized interpolations.
The law also, not merely the statute of Edward VI. [Act of Uniformity 1548] but the general ecclesiastical law, protects the sanctity of public worship, and still more endeavours to prevent every circumstance which may lead to the disturbance of persons engaged in solemn acts of devotion; it prohibits all quarrelling, chiding, and brawling in the church, or churchyard, and requires decent and orderly behaviour.
The third article pleads, generally, that the defendant frequently leaves out portions of the Holy Scriptures appointed to be read, and often acknowledges that he has so done, and declares that he will do so again.
The fourth article pleads a specific instance, viz. “that on the preceding Sunday he omitted part of a verse in the first lesson,” and if the fact had happened simply (though, strictly speaking, not legally justifiable to omit any part), yet, probably this suit would not have been brought; but the article proceeds to state that, after he had omitted the verse, he looked round to the pew of Francis Newbery, and said, “I have been accused by some ill-natured neighbour of making alterations in the service, I have done so now, and shall do so again, whenever I think it necessary; therefore mark”
This gives a very different colour and complexion to the act, the omission seems to have been made, not from mere feelings of delicacy, which, though not a legal justification, would greatly extenuate the omission; but the omission seem to have been selected, as affording a favourable opportunity of asserting the general right, and even of reflecting, in the midst of the service, upon those who questioned the general right.
The violation, therefore, of the law was aggravated by circumstances which render the correction of the offence necessary and proper.
If this article should be proved, it will not only subject the party to admonition, but further, to the payment of costs.
The fifth article pleads that, in publishing in the church a citation for a faculty for appropriating a vault to Francis Newbery, Esq., he declared as follows: – “It appears by this paper that Mr. Newbery is endeavouring to obtain a right to this vault, which he has hitherto used only by sufferance, and thus provide a permanent place of interment for his family and himself. You see, therefore, that he wishes to be buried amongst you, though he never attends the sacrament, and seldom comes to church; if you have any objections to this grant, you will state them to the Bishop's Court, which will be held at Lewes on Friday, the 16th inst.”
This was not the proper time, nor the proper place, to explain to the parishioners what their rights were, and how they were to proceed if they thought fit to oppose this grant; much less was it a lawful or justifiable occasion of reflecting upon, chiding, and reproaching the individual applying for the faculty, for never attending the sacrament and seldom coming to church. It would be difficult to put any other construction upon this conduct than that the opportunity was taken as a mere pretext to give vent to his malevolence, and for the purpose of exciting opposition to the grant, it amounts to illegal chiding, to reprehension leading to quarrelling, and to an attempt to render the church a place of public dispute and confusion. The effect which such conduct, if not corrected, must have upon the minds of the congregation assembled for very different purposes, need not be described.
The sixth article pleads that a poor man near eighty years of age, on approaching the altar to receive the sacrament, was addressed by the minister in the following words: – “Does not your conscience prick you? how can you think of coming to receive the sacrament when you are rich, and have suffered your son to go to the parish for relief.”
These articles are certainly proper to be admitted; whether they can, or cannot be proved, I am not to anticipate; but if they can, I am of opinion that the conduct of the minister is illegal, and will subject him to censure, and to the costs of the proceeding. He therefore will consider well whether he will act discreetly and adviseably in defending the suit.
(a) The articles were admitted to proof.
(a) An affirmative issue was given by Dr. Goodwin to these charges, – whereupon the Court suspended him from the ministration of his office for a fortnight, – decreed a monition against him to refrain in future from offending in the manner charged in the articles, – and condemned him in costs.
This work is in the public domain worldwide because it was created by a public body of the United Kingdom with Crown Status and commercially published before 1974.
See Crown copyright artistic works, Crown copyright non-artistic works and List of Public Bodies with Crown Status.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse