The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-09 00:00:00

the respent's wife la that month, leaving her to find her
way, as he did, alone, to Cumartberehire, to the house of
the respondent's mother, who treated her with great kind-
new. She wu then in the sixth month of her pregnancy, on
aseoant of which she wu expelled from the house, as it was
alleged in support of the petition, by her husband's dire.-
tions. Mrs. Thomas was dangerously ill after her confine-
ment, of which fact her husband was informed by letter'
and he waned:lx asked by letter what name his child should
be baptised by, but to none did he reply. About a fortnight
after the birth Mrs. Thomas herself wrote to him, spiting his
directions respecting the name of the child, and what she
was to do for her subeieteece and support. This letter was
returned to her through Williams. Tea respondent in the
meantime mote his wife the following letter :

My best beloved —I herewith enclose you a sm. II portion; eat,
drink ; yea, drink abundantly, and let your soul delight in fatness.
Let the will of Ood be gone home and re.ting pl ce, but of his will
there can be no happiness. Out in his will there is life, and joy, and
peace. The servant of the Lord told me that you would not be in
your present state unless you had rebelled months ago: and thus you
will huger for It, In not being able to go ab tut with me, a. you other-
wise would ; but when I Dee you I will tell you all about It :This
was signed) Your unchanging and affectionate brother, T/101141.

Prince afterwards piked her, " Can your heart assent to
Gad's right to dispose of you sod tee chill you have called
yours 1' To which she replied she oould never acknowledge
man as God, and that she would not give up the care of the
child. Upon this the respondent sent her a letter, renounc-
ing her for ever, and containing an authority for her to re •
eeive the future dividends of her property, which ale had
aecerdingly since received. Since the beginning of the year
1847 Prince and about thirty followers had lived at " the
Agapemone," at Bridgewater, a large building having a
flag on the top, inscribed with the words, " Oh, hail, holy
bee." To prevent intruders blood hounds IVO placed in the
ground,.
Mrs. Thomas and her child were residing with Mrs. Not-
tidge, Mrs Thomas's mother. It was contended, that upon
the facts disclosed upon the affidavits filed in support of the
petition, it was clear that the respondent had abandoned his
wife and child, and that there were sufficient grounds for
exercising the jurisdiction thet the court had exercised in
other ewes of taking the child from the modesty of its father.
Mr. Thomas, the respondent, then addressed the court.
He said he was quite sure that, as the father of the infant
petitioner, the court would give him attention whilst he
claimed the right, and the only right, to the education
and care of the infant. An attempt had been made to
obtain from this court the sanction of its authority to inter-
fere with the natural right of a father to have the custody
of his nffspring. A quantity of extraneoue master had been
introduced on this occasion which had nothing to• do
with the question, which he could not look upon
as anything but an attempt to villify, slander, and
malign those who resided at Agapemone. Ile was the
natural guardian of the child ; it Welled to him. Ile had
• right to its custody, to give it his care, and to superintend
its education. He could not believe that, even if thee allega-
tions contained in the petition were true (which they were
not) his right could be questioned. It was a very 'leered
right, a very important right, and one not to be interfered
with upon slight or trivial grounds. But the grounds upon
which it was sought to interfere with teat right were wholly
untenable. It had been alleged in the petition that be wet
wholly under the influence of Henry James Prince; and
that, therefore, he should do with the infant whatever he
(Prince) might direct, regerdless of rig well-being, or his
moral or mental cultivation. That he utterly denied.
It had been alleged, also, in the petition, that Prince
held blasphemous or irreligious doctrine,. That was wholly
denied, and altogether untrue. The ground• on which the
petition was rested were, that he, tl.e respond nt, was
entirely under the control and authori.y of Prir.ce, and that
he, consequently, should act towards the infant according to
Prince's will, and not accotding to his own will and views,
without any reference to the well hieing of the cneel ; and,
secondly, that in consequence of his bold', g blasphemous
and irreligious doctrines touching prayer, he was there-
fore an unfit person to have the custody of
the infant. The respondent then proceeded to
read his own affidavit, whereby be deposed that Prince
and he and many of those called in the petition foilowers of
Prince, were pro-eminently dioinguiehed us men of prayer;
but as the consequence of holding that the day of grace was
passed and the day of judgment commenced, Prince and
the respondent and oth• rs of his friends discontinued the
use of prayer as a means of communion with God, alt.Lough
the respondent maintained that he wes still in intimate
communion with God But the respondent denied that
I.e ever on any occasion whatever informed his wife, re
stated in the petition, that God's will was only made known
to him through Prince ; and he denied if he obtained
possession of the petitioner's person he should act
in every respect as Prince might direct ; on the
contrary he deposed that neither the said petitioner's
health or personal security would be in any way endan-
gered. And be deposed that there were at the Az epomene
tour children, three gir.s and one boy, of tOe respective ages
of nine, three, two, and four, or thereabouts, who were all
in good health, and well taken care of, and that Prince did
not in any way or manner interfere with the management
or bringing up of the children. In a fumer affidavit the
respondent said that the assertion in the prtitton, that he
had for the last five years and upwards Men one of a num-
ber of persons, who under the influence and di.
rection of one Henry James Prince, have formed a
species of community desiguated by them as a
brotherhood or fame', and bad adopted, taught,
and inculcated ci !lain blasphemies and irreligious doctrines
and practices which they still hold, teach, and purote, was
scandalous and false. He admitted that he bad been in
deacon's orders of the established church, but denied that he
bad up to that time officiated as a minister of such church,
saying that he had, on the contrary, preached cut of the
mai:dished church some time previously, and that it was his
own earnest desire and prisilege to be allowed to preach at
Adullam Chapel without any invitation from or even the
knowledge of Prince. He deposed that it was the temper
and oisposiion of the said Agnes Thomas that prevented
communion between her and him and others in the house,
and that the slid Agnes Thomas repeatedly acknowledged
this, and admitted herself to be in a state of ?anthem
against Gad. He denied that Prince tap d great
anger against Mrs. Agnes Thomas in consequence of her
pregnancy, or was at all angry with, or that he prohibited,
the respondent from returning to Weymouth from Bridg
water, as stated in the petition. He dep,sed that he and
others at the Arespemone amuse themselves in various ways,
both for health and exercise, and that they soree time since
did so with hockey, which was a game like football, and
that they did so on Sundays and other dal s, and he admitted
that he did not regard one day more than another, but
every day alike, and each day unto the Lord. lie said that
Prince bad not to his knowledge or belief propounded any
blasphemous or irreligious doctrines, and he selemely denied
that Prince taught his followers that he had a divine cha-
racter, or was a proper object of worship, or that his
followers treated him as a proper object of worship.
Ile said that at the trial of " Nottidge v. Ripley," Emily
Nottidge gave evidence, and acknowledged that she bad
caused the imprisonment of Louisa N melee, her laughter,
in a medhouse, and that she had so done because the said
Louisa Nottidge would live at CharFneh He deposed that
on the Ist of March last he west to Itosehill, to see the
child and his mother; that he took the path leadi• g to the
house by the yard, and met the child and a man servant.
Being at hand, he was about to take the child to the tront of
the house, and to see his mother, and not to take him away,
and so he explained to the man• t; but when he
got to the front door, the men and another, and Cor-
nelia Nottidge, violently rushed upon and dragged the
child from him, and refused to admit him into
the house, or to confer with him. The respondent
proceeded in his address to the court, and said this was a
matter between husband and wife, and that such matters
were always secret, and ought not to be lightly treated upon
or revealed. When Mrs. Thomas married him, see knew
what his sentiments were. She entertained the sum?. She
adopted them of her own free will, before he knew her,
or had any connexion or intercourse with her, and Meg of
one mind, and, as he supposed, wholly of the same views
and admiring the same truth, and loving the same God—
holding these views in common, they were married It
was absurd to say under these circumstances that the marriage
took place under the influence or at the request of Prince.
She was a lady between 2S and 30 years of age, quite old
enough to know her own mind, and to act for herself. It
was assuredly of her own free will that she declared her at-
tachment to him. But it did appear afterwards, that whilst
she outwardly professed to be of the same mind and pre-
tended to hold the same views, and to have no difference of
opinion, yet in secret she maintained other views, mid acted
contrary to that which she bad formerly proteteed. In son-
sequence of this she wrote letters to her sister at It we-hill.
After expressing sorrow for what she had done, quite con-
trary to what she had professed, and so acting hypkriiieally
and deceitfully, yet she wrote another without his know-
ledge. If she had candidly said she was of his opinion
formerly, but afterwards thought and felt differently.. if she
hail come forward epenly and acknowledge, what
her mind was, he should have thought nothing
of it. Again, it bad been asserted that Mr.
Williams wee sent to Weyeseuth by his authority to deal
harshly and unk-noly 111 turning his wise out of doors.
That was utterly untrue, and was denied by Mr. Williams's.
own affidavit. He merely requested her to leave the house
at Weymouth, and to go to has (the respondent's) mother's
in Wales, whither she went. That she was turned out he
utterly denied. It was also asserted that her sister, when
residing at Weymouth, released to afford her any assistance
in packing up her things, or to bid her farewell, from the
fear that her sister would incur the displeasure of Prince...
That was also untrue, and was denied by her sister, when
g eve her every assistance, and saw her off when she started
on her journey to Wales.
Mr. Thomas continued as follows:—It has been stated in
the petition that on various occasions it was the practice of
Henry James Prinse to ape ik of the Holy Scriptures in
terms of eontempt and derision, thin I utterly doily. The
Holy Scriptures are the word of the living awl, by means
of which, as a chart to guide us, we have all the blessings
of that light from above, and what we enjoy at the Agape-
mone, by which we were brought to know God, to love
llim, and to possess Iles love. That has been
our chart to bring as to the good land which we have and
entered upon. That has been our guide to obtain posses.
session for us of the goodly heritage which we now enjoy.
Yea. 1 repel with inilignatran the assertion that has been
made in that respect. It is utterly false. It has been said
that we do not regard one day more than another. This
is no new doctrine. I need set inform this honour-
able court that this is set the first time that
the Sunday has not been regarded. It is true,
perfectly true, that we do not regard the Sunday—we
regard every day as the Lord's. It is true. perfecty true,
that we make no distinctions between it and the Ott Sr days,
because every day we Eve, as to God ; we have no other life,
no ether will, no other inclination, than to live in the glory
of God. We do not live to His glory one day, laying aside
the ether days. He that regardeffs the day regardeth it to
the Lord he that regardeth not the day, to the
Lord he (loth not regard it. Is is because our lite is a life
which it really devoted to Clod, to love Him, and to do His