The Express.
London, England, 1862-12-05 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS,

tato Intelliana.

EQUITY COURTEL—Dsc. 4.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Kr R. T. Kiodenley.)

ATTORNIT-GINTIAL o. ITHEBIDGE.—PARTICULAR BAPTISTS.
The arguments for the plaintiff in this case, which were
commenced on the 11th November, and have since coon-
pied the court at intervals for eight or nine days, were
brought to a conclusion today. The relators and plaintiffs
are Miss Mary Spencer, Morn. Thomas Hodgman, George
Lyson, and others, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons interested in the trust deed of Cavendish Chapel,
Raiusgete ; and the defendants are Benjamin Copeland
Etheridge, the minister, Thomas Best Flint, John Berry
' Flint, and others, the trustees of the chapel ; and the
question in dispute was the right of the defendants and
others, members of the church, to admit to the holy com-
munion and to church membership persons who have not
been baptised when adults by immersion. It appeared that
in 1834 the Particular or Strict Baptists, who bold that it
is not lawful to admit to the Lord's Supper any per-
son who has not when an adult been baptised by
immerse°, founded a chapel in Ramsgate, which was
called Beulah Chapel, and in 1837 the Rev.
Mortlock Daniel was appointed as the minister. The congre-
gation increasing, it was determined in 1839 to sell Beusb
Chapel. and to build a new one. This was done at a oat of
some 4,860 f., and it is alleged that the greater portion of
the money was contributed by the strict communioniste.
Miss Spencer alone giving 3,200/. The trust deed of the
new chapel, which is called Cavendish Chapel, and which
was erected in May, 1841, takes no cognizance of the former
chapel, and the trusts were, that the trustees for the time
being should, from time to time, and atall times thereafter,
permit the said chapel to be used, occupied, and engaged
as a place of public religious worship and service of God,
by the society of protestant dissenters, at Ramsgate,
the denomination called Particular or Calvinistic Baptists,
and by such other persons as should thereafter be united to
the said society, and admitted members thereof, and should
attend the worship of God in the said chapel ; and should
permit such person of the denomination of Particular or
Oilvinistic Baptists, as two-thirds of the members of the
said society present at a meeting should from time to time
elect and chowe to be their minister or pastor, to preach
and expound the holy scriptures, and otherwise officiate in
the said chapel according to the usual order and customs
of societies of protestant dissenters of the denomination
aforesaid. About 1840, Mr. Daniel, who had up to
that time been a Strict Baptist, changed his opinion on
that subject, and he proposed to admit to the Lord's Supper
unbaptised believers ; bet the great majority of the church
disapproving of that proposition it wee abandoned, and the
subscriptions for the new chapel, ea alleged by the plaintiffs,
went on on the understanding that the chapel was to belong
to the Strict Baptists. In 1844 Mr. Daniel again mooted
the subject of open communion, and proposed to the church
to admit "unbaptised" persons to the Lord's Table. The
effect of that proposition was at once to induce Miss
Spencer, the relator, and some other individuals, to request
their dismission from the church, and they were accordingly
transferred to a strict communion church at Broadstairs.
This state of affairs continued till 1848, when, in the month
of December, a resolution was unanimously passed at a
church meeting to the effect that the Lords Table be
restricted to baptised believers. Mr. Daniel resigned either
the name day or shortly afterwards, and the church wor-
shipping at Cavendish Chapel remained without a pastor
till December, 1847, when Mr. Wills was elected to that
office, and continued to bold it till September,
1853. During the whole of his pastorate the com-
munion was strict, and on the sth of May,
1848, a declaration of faith was agreed to at a church meet-
ing, in which they re-affirmed the principle of strict com-
munion. After the resignation of Mr. Willa, Mr. Etheridge
was elected the minister, and the practice of strict com-
munion was continued to December, 1859, when Mr.
Etheridge proposed a resolution at the church meeting to
open the communion to nnbaptised believers. A vote by
ballot was taken on this resolution, and it was carried by a
Isms majority, sad at a subsequent church meeting the re-
solution was confirmed. After some endeavours on the
part of the strict communionista to induce Mr. Etheridge
to revert to the practice of strict communion this
suit was instituted, and the plaintiffs by their bill
asked the court to restrain the defendants by injunction
from permitting the chapel to be used by any other persons
than Particular Baptista ; and for a declaration that on the
true construction of the trust deed none but Particular Bap-
tiste were entitled to the benefit of the trusts or participa-
tion in the Lord's Supper. In order to show that strict com-
munion had been the practice of the Particular Baptista
ever since they were constituted as a body in 1633 and con-
tinued tobe so to the present time, the counsel for the plain-
tiffs quoted largely passages from Crosby's History of the
Baptists, a book published in 1740; from Ivimey's His-
tory of English Baptists. Dr. Wall's Book on English
Baptism, published in 1707 ; from the writings of Mr.
Kittle, the Father of the Particular Baptista ; from
The Confessions of Faith, published in 1643 and 1689;
from the writings of John Buoyan (who WAS an open corn.
munioeist, and who had a controversy with the Particular
Baptiste of that davl, from the writings of the Rev. Robert
Hall, and from various other works. A great mass of evi-
dence which had been taken before a special examiner was
also read and commented upon at great length.
Mr. Loyd, Mr. Hardy, and Mr. Davey were counsel for
the relator plaintiffs ; Mr. Babb:leen for Mr. Ilousfield,
one of the trustees ; Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr. Marten for
the defendants.
On the conclusion of the arguments for the plaintiff,
The Vice-Chancellor said, having heard the arguments on
the part of the plaintiff and the evidence on both sides, be
did not think be should have occasion to call on the counsel
for the defendants; but he would look into the matter fur-
ther between the present time and Monday morning, and he
would then state whether he should bear the counsel for
the defondants, but his present impression was that be
should be able to give his judgment on Monday morning
without hearing them.

hours had been 00Seamed in its delivery, and even at the
expiration of this time it was finished somewhat abruptly.
Mr. Johnston, a clerk at the Hoine-offiee, was called to
speak in referoice to some documents. but it appeared that
he had not got them and knew very little about them.
Lord Westbury was next examined ea a witness, and said
—My letter of the 11th March, 1858 (a document spoken
of as an award) I have no doubt was sent to Mr. Walpole.
There was no official decision at all upon your case. The
only document I recollect is a note to Mr. Walpole.
The Attorney• General, in consequence of a question by
the plaintiff, objected that he could not give evidence in
reference to matters that took place previous to the 24th
April, 1861, the date of the petition of right.
Mr. Irvin oontended that such evidence was necessary, in
order to show the damage which he had sustained.
The Lord Chief Justice thought that the truth or false-
hood of the allegations in the petition of right was not LOW
in issue • and, after some discussion, he added that the
greet question was whether there bad been any breach of
duty on the part of Sir G. Grey, and the circumstances to
show this were that the petitlou was left at the Home-
office whilst Sir G. C. Lewis was Home Secretary. that sub.
sequently Sir George Grey was appointed, and there were
repeated applications to him upon the matter without any
satisfactory result.
Upon this point two letters by Mr. Irwin were put in evi-
dence to show that he had made application to the HOMW•
office, but he refused, though repeatedly appealed to by his
lordship and the Attorney-General, to put In evidence the
answer received to one of these applications, saying that be
bad no notice to produce it, and he was not to be dictated
to as to how he should frame his case.

The Lord Chief Justice, after a good deal more discussion,
expressed his opinion that the only damages which Sir Geo.
Grey could be held responsible for were those arising from
the delay in presenting the petition, and not for the
100.0001. which was claimed from the crown in the petition
of right.
After more time spent in discussion it was arranged that
the defendant should give evidence upon the question whe-
ther Sir G. Grey had or not refused to present the petition.
Sir George Grey, however, was called by the plaintiff and
examined at length, but the greater part of the questions
put seemed to be by no means pertinent to the principal
point in the cause. He said, amongst other things, I re-
ceived a imbixena duces tecnm, but I have not any of the
documents mentioned in it with nie. Many of them are not
in the office, and others are of a confidential nature. I be-
lieve Mr. Waddington and Mr. Fitzgerald have 'earthed for
them, and they will be better able to speak *bout them. I
have not got your petition of right of 1844 which Sir Wm.
Follett as attorney-general submitted to the crown ; bat I
do not know whether Mr. Waddington or Mr. Fitzgerald
has it.
Mr. Irwin—Then, Mr. Waddington, or Mr. Fitzgerald,
hand it to me. (A laugh.) I submit that the Secretary of
State is bound, like everybody elm, to obey a subixena.
The Lord Chief Justice—Yes, according to law. He says
he has not the document in question.
Sir George Grey—All the documents that were in the
office are in the possession of Mr. Waddington and Mr.
Fitzgerald.
Mr. Irwin—l my it is the duty of the head of the office
to produce the documents.
The Lord Chief Justice---If he does wrong in this matter
he is answerable, and you can, if you think fit, proceed
against him hereafter.
Mr. Irwin—l am open and fair ; and where there is so
much shuffling about a document, I am the more anxious to
see it.

Mr. Fitzgerald—l could not find the petition, though I
have made strict search. . .

Sir G. Grey (to his lordship)—l have not seen the docu-
ment, and I do not know whether it exists or not.
Mr. Irwin—l contend that that is not a sufficient answer.
The Lord Chief Justice—lt will answer for today, and if
Sir George has done wrong you have your remedy.
Mr. Irwin—There is an original letter which Earl Russell
ham sworn in his affidavit that he bad in his possession on
the 10th of June, 1839, as Secretary of State—the letter of
the 20th of May, 1834, on which Lord Westbury states that
the case depends. Do you produce that document in obe-
dience to your subpnioa.
Sir G. Grey—A search was directed by me to be made, to
ascertain whether all or any of the documents mentioned in
the subpoena were in the Home-office, and the gentlemen
who are in attendance from the Horne-office will produce all
that there were there. Many were not in the office, and I
am not sure whether this letter was there.
Mr. Irwin referred to a case in "7 Dowling," to show
that a Secretary of State was bound to produce documents
in his possession.
The Lord Chief Justice—But the document is not in his
hands. You can all the other gentlemen, who will pro-
duce it if it midi.
Sir G. Grey—lndorsements are made upon petition.
of right, or memoranda upon separate pieces of paper,
but these simply contain the substance of the answers to be
sent to the persons sending them in.
Mr. Irwin—Did you get a letter on the 21st of May,
1862, referring you_ to a letter of the 15th of July, which
steam that the Lord Chancellor had refused his fiat ?
Sir G. Grey—l got an answer from Mr. Pullen, your
solicitor, informing me of your intention to apply for •
mandamus, and asking me in the first instance whether I
refused to present to the Queen the petition of right. This
was the first intimation 1 had received as to the petition
of right, except a letter addressed to moon the 7th Septem-
ber, requesting that the petition might be returned.
Mr. Irwin—Did you or not present that petition to her
Majesty, and if you presented it was it with the advice not
to grant it ?
Sir G. Grey—l submitted it to her Majesty with that
advice which I thought it my duty as Secretary of State to
tender, her Majesty acting always on the advice of her
responsible ministers. I found, after receiving Mr. I'ullen's
letter, that my predecessor in office bad treated the petition
in the usual way ; be bad informed himself by the best legal
opinion at his command as to what advice be should
tender to the Queen, and acting upon that I advised her
Majesty. that the petition should not be endorsed with the
flat, Let right be done." This was the advice, not of
Lord Westbury when Lord Chancellor, but when he was
Attorney-General.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf the jury believe the evidence
of Sir G. Grey, I shall inform them that the verdict ought
to be for the defendant. He says that he presented the pe-
tition to the Queen, and that he accompanied it with such
advice as be, being a responsible adviser of the crown, felt it
his duty to oiler. If that is so, he has not been guilty of
that breach of duty which is referred to upon this record.
Sir C. Grey—l am told that Mr. Pullen was informed of
the circumstances of the petition being presented to the
Queen by letter.
The Attorney-General—That was the letter which the
plaintiff refused to have read.
The Lord Chief Justice (to Mr. Irwin)—And which if you
bad had any regard for your fellow-creatures would have
been read five hours ago. Do you think that you have
gained anything by indicting this burden upon the suitors
and the gentlemen who have been detained in attendance?
Mr. Irwin contended that Sir G. Grey bad not acted in
accordance with the Petitions of Right Act.
The Lord Chief Justice—And I dare my if you were
supreme he would be made to suffer, but he is not at your
mercy.
Mr. Irwin submitted that Sir G. Grey bad not acted in
accordance with the statute in advising the crown to refuse
the petition of right.
The Lord Chief Justice—lt is my duty to decide what is
the law, and I am of a contrary opinion.
Mr. Irwin—And I bow to that opinion—(lsughter)—but
I have the beat professional advice that Sir G. Grey has

acted contrary to the statute.
The Lord Chief Justice—l have spent the greater part of
my life in listening to words, and I am perfectly sure that
no words of yours will alter my derision. (To the jut')
The question for you, gentlemen, is, whether you believe
Sir George Grey.
The jury at once said that they did, and a verdict was
entered fur the defendant.
Subsequently the plaintiff applied for leave to tender a
bill of exceptions, but the application was not granted, and
he wu told that he could move for misdirection.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
DEC. 4.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BARNARD r BCRIOUGH3.—PART-ItEARD.
(Concluded from yesterday's Erpre.o.)
The jury, without troubling the judge to sum up, found
for the will ; sod
The Court condemned the plaintiff in the cista.
DORMAT AND DORMAT r. CABLE AND CABLE.—SPECIAL

J1:111%
The Queen's Advocate and Dr. Spinks appeared for the
plaintiffs, who propounded the will of Miss Ann Wells, late
of Chasm, Surrey ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Dr. Tristram, and
Mr. Searle were counsel for the defendants, who pleaded
that it had been obtained by undue influence.
The cue had only just been opened when the court rose.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Dec. 4.
(Before Mr. Coramirioner Goulburn.)

LI Bt NTSTBROOC.-AT•OTBER VICTIM OF THE DIVORCE

COO UT.

The bankrupt, described as a gentleman, of Kensington-
square, late a prisoner for debt, applied for kis discharge.
Debts of trifling amount.
Mr. Bagley opposed for Messrs. Earl and Clark, solicitors,
who were creditors for costs incurred in the Divorce Court.
It appeared that the bankrupt's son had sued for a divorce
from his wife ; he had to beooms responsible for her costs ;
and his father bad guaranteed the amount (about 501.) He
now came to the court without assets. It was contended
that this was incurring debts without probable means of
payment. as the bankrupt bad been living on his friends
since a former bankruptcy in connexion with the Islington
Cattle-market.
After hearing Mr. It. Griffiths for the bsokrupt,
His Honour did not think there was any preteinieforsaying
that the debt bed been contracted without probable ground
of payment. Now that the discretion of the court was
narrowed, this motion was too often brought in with a view
to condemn bankrupts. The care before the court wee •
very bard one. An old gentleman had been made maroon.
sable for his son, and had been imprisoned for his debt.
This was the only debt ; there was no other creditor to
complain of the bankrupt. It was said this man had been
bankrupt before ; but that arose from his 00111161i011 with
the Islington Cattle-market, whereby he had been made
liable for a very large amount of the debts of others ; and
he came out of that bankruptcy vary creditably, with •