The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-26 00:00:00

were absurd, and that an admission of them should
, be opposed. He thought the promotion of the case un-
!i warrantable, and unless the issue were mismanaged the
plaintiff must be dismissed with full costs. That was Dr.
1 Addams's opinion, but the result did not verify
it. He should have occasion to refer to the competency
and disinterestedness of the Judge of that Court, be-
fore
which the p
said, "petitioner had been cited. Dr. Haggard
In his opinion the articles were not proved, and
_,that on the evidence •
the defendant was entitled to his
cuui sl
amtiestslatl'o
(Hear, he•
aanssdistthe proceeding altogether was little cal;
the question of diocesian jurisdiction."
(Hear. er_
~ er.) Yet, in
.the face of these authorities,
‘Z,,.P "eeding he had detailed was persevered in, and. it
--- no credit to a Reform Government, to permit Minor
!e4eee'esiasical Courts to have so long exerted such a
ot
ltehme ra
ac an-
case,
distinguished
4wer•--(Hear, hear.) Now, be would refer,
ltoo.aerin--
teiabgicallstheed skaimmesemlf.eeAk grid charitable
farmer,'b
named James, the occupier of 200 acres of land—a re-
spectable Dissenter, was appointed parish Churchwarden
for Lanelly, of which Mr. Morris was also Vicar. Mr.
James was chosen almost by compulsion—he was not
of
"are of his election. However, in the discharge
his duties, he les ne performed some services to the
country ; but', in e l lection o 18,
Mr. James voted forth thegenera Liberale candidatef (Sir 37 J.
%Warn). who had been formerly a Member of the
House, and the Vicar voted for the Tory candidate.
Soon after Mr. James was cited by the Vicar, who knew
that he had been elected without his knowledge, and
that he was a Dissenter before the Bishop of St.
David's, on the charge of having absented himself from
church on several Sundays.---( Hear, hear.) He was
condemned in costs, and as he could not pay, he was
committed to gaol for contempt.—( Hear, hear.) He
,14. r• H.) really thought it was most harsh and disgrace-
.l the law should be strained in such a manner ; true
Mr. James had not petitioned; but he (Mr. H.)
bad
refer to a case of hardship,although the sufferer
"ad not complained of it.—(Hear, bear.) But who was
thee
eJudge of the Court ? it was the Rev. Dr. Williams,
Rural Dean and Surrogate, and the holder of another
ace, which, though perhaps not very profitable, had at
least a material bearing on this case. Hewes the Editor of
the Tory Carmarthen Journal.---(Hear, and laughter.)
So both the prosecutor and Judge were opposed in poli-
ties to the defendant, and they were both clergymen—
men who could not be supposed to be competent either
by experience or information to administer the law. He
would remind the House that in 1812 Lord Colchester,
now Earl Radnor, brought the jurisdiction of the Eccle-
slaw.Al i
Courts', before the House, on a petition not un-
like that he had referred to. The facts were these :
-11 the course of a quarrel between two women one ap-
plied to the other an epithet for which she was cited
nbefore the Ecclesiastical Court, and ordered to do pe-
atee, which having failed to do she was excommuni-
befed ; she was then prosecuted, and upon a process
ore the Court of Queen's Bench she was arrested
and detained two yews in Bristol
altho gaol for 301. costs,
then ugh she was a pauper. He thought such cases as
e went far to prove that the alliance between
Church and State was prejudicial to the Church.—
(Hear, hear.) As for David Jones, he asked nei-
ther for help
the es nor for money for himself, but that
Proms&Louse might adopt some course to prevent others
uffering in a like manner.—(Hear.) He would refer
to the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners ap-
Pointed in 1830, and amongst whom were the Arch-
Isiah
is °P of Canterbury, for corroboration of some views
•,!. had expressed asititi the nuisance of some of the
Miner Ecclesiastical Courts. Only one measure recom-
tmended by that Commission had been carried out—that
as by the removal of the power of the Delegates to the
' rivY Council. There were altogether about 300
thCourts Peculiar and Alinorial, which :extended from
e Archbishop down to the Vicar—some including in
eir jurisdiction large districts, others single towns,
and others several in distant places. The jurisdiction
of those Courts ought to be altogether abolished or ex-
itensively modified ; at present it was exceedingly ob-
re and difficult to be defined, and it was a disgrace
the law and the Government that their cruel
and capricious power should be permitted to exist.
He must also add, that in 1812, when this case was
brought before the House, upon petitioning upon a simi-
lar case to that which he had stated, the views then taken
were supported by Sir Samuel Romilly and other gentle-
men. and in the end, Sir William Scott, afterwards
Lord Stowell, brought in a Bill which passed the House
of Commons for the purpose of putting the Inferior Ec-
clesiastical Courts immediately under the higher provin-
cial Courts. He regretted exceedingly that clergymen
should be permitted to have anything
to do with the ad-
ministration of the law ; but lie regretted it the more
when they had the opportunity of doing it without ade-
quate publicity; because if sufficient publicity were given
there would be some chance of the gross injustice
he had mentioned not being perpetrated. Ha did not
wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily in
is case of this kind, but he thought it of great importance
to do so when he saw the clergy everywhere acting as po -
Weal partizans—(Cheers)—and when lie saw them act-
in; as Judges in these Courts which placed them in a
Condition perpetually to violate the rights of conscience.
(Cheers.) When he saw Courts of Justice appropri
ated to such unjustifiable objects, he must say that if any-
hothing more than another called for inquiry it was such a
eof things. What better claim could that House
re for the confidence o f the people than in correcting
1,4,14, More especially abuses of the nature to which he
th,' referred. In putting an end to such a state of ,'ngs the House was more entitled to the pr iise of the
,i u.NrY than in occupying six nights in a debate, the
ilt,_ision upon which was previously known.—(Hear.)
tease y consolation he had with respect to that debate
l• , to find that on it the Government were fighting
or the
ilia not people.. from Sir C. Burrell.) He
p ot wonder that the subject was unpalatable to the
t xpre:ss
ten• Member for Shoreham—(Cheers)— but he was
his own opinion in the discharge of en im-
rieriat Iv ins e
anty• He would put the motion of which he
w;l'' given notice to the consideration of the House,
10 he sees sure, by the course it would
.4)Pt, would
Ple, that h
give an earnest to the peo-
were cases of oion were brought befoic it, the House ofgross Commonsppress would
r:At be backward in doing its duty.—(Great cheering.)
elation :--"
le Holt. Member concluded by moiing the following
itni England and Wales,
. ati_on of the That, in conformity with the recommen-
Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Courts
this House is of opinion that
sheie jurisdiction of till 'the Inferior Ecclesiastical Courts
uld be abolished without delay:'
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY seconded the motion. If
any
Hon. part of the statements which had been made by
the Member for Lambeth were questioned, he
had the proofs of their correctness in his possession. He
would put it to those who had regard for the Church
A
hi y whether that power eheuld not be abolished
wc say Whether that power sh,uld not be abolished
which was tyrannically ( xercised. He hoped the House
would use its utmost endeavours to purge the Church
from abuse.
Mr. PRYME trusted the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth 'would a little modify his motion, for as it stood
at present he could not assent to it. Admitting the
ease of hardship and grievance to be made out, he
must contend, that making out a case of improper
conduct in the Judge of a Court, or the exercise of an
improper power by that Judge, was not a sufficient
cause for abolishing the Co•art in which that Judge pre-
sided, because there might be cases'in which the Court
might exercise a jurisdiction that would be beneficial.
—(Cri- of nl ) He thought it be better
es —.). would
let the resolution be " abolished" or modified.
Mr. JONES did not think the Honourable Mem-
ber for Lambeth had acted with his usual
courtesy to him inbringing
case of James. The forward this
t subject, for he had suppressed the
non. Member was surrounded by a phalanx of his
friends ; whether they came there by the wish of the
lon.H Member he would not say, but he felt it due to
Morris to say that he had not on his behalf asked a
. ear.)
With re-
single friend of his to attend.—(Hear, h
sPect to the resolution of the Hon.r h '
Member,
and weak
bound to say that it was based
on a narrow and
foundation. Supposing Ecclesiastical Courts- abolished
10 Wales, how, he would ask, were the wills of
Persons Pro
to 'the expense of
residing in that part of the country tobe
wed ? Were parties to be put
erst • •
n had been made
caatoing ghat
to the metropolis ? This was not the
th time that a Welch clergy
published in
_ e.subject of attacks, or Bishops' Courts, for lie had
Accidental' up a book last night, . . .
le„, . y picked
fiddles,
%sot, which was called ‘• The Welch Levite tossed in
4 131 k
e; an et"--(Laughter)—in which organs,
deemed abomi-
ere
.et;-14,ebread, and Bishops' Courts
Member
ard in trßle---(Laughter.) The H:n. had referred
sup-
Port the opinions of Doctors Addams and Ha
hsreilrltly would now
onof his proposition, but he hid not stated the case
it' which those opinions were given. He,
and
state what the real facts of the case were, •
saia
coelgged to state that every word he made use of lie
"itt prove at the bar of that House. It hadbeen -
e on. Member, that although • •
hwY4 was h H Mr David Jones
asked Poor man, be asked for no relief—all that lie
'rid was the abolition of these Courts. Now, if he
lief•• ones 's petition rightly, he asked sead Mr J ' • •
what
as the House thought meet—the truth was, that
ril,;. Mr. Jones wanted was a good round sum of
tha?7, and to be taken out of prison. Mr. Jones stated
posi‘. he was a Dissenter. The Right Hon. Civilian op-
', le
would tell the House that Dissenters were dis-
rens e • the..e ; vyttli from serving the office of churchwarden, if
8. far elannei it under the statute of William 111. Now
tutl
I ebe reserved from the office of churchwarden, he
Morris glad to accept it. It had been said that Mr.
eett„'s, Was a wealthy clergymen and a pluralist—he
undyed was passing rich, for he held a living of two
Canned e Pounds a year in one of the largest parishes in
Sundahen, where he preached four sermons every
whY (two in Welsh and two in English), and the
ve..",te amount of the other income which he had ad-
i_Led to he gave to his curate. So much for Mr.
David Jon being the wealthy man.—(Cheers.) After Mr.
not
purreparreeached
ruitold Jones had been elected churchwarden a
Mr. Morris that he would
table , the bread and wine for the Sacramental
io th .°low what was the duty of the churchwarden
....._ 4t
respect ? Why, by the 85th Canon church.