The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-12 00:00:00

WhieL
she was a menila.r ;
and it aas urged it must be
tll(en to be used in the Roman Catholic Church, because
the quotation from the Book of Maccabees was taken fron
e Roman Catholic version of the Bible, and not from
that authorised by the Church of England. He could not
Put such
a construction on the words. He had no autho-
rity to add to them, or to put any other construction on
them than that they would bear on the face of them. The
invitation was----to " pray for the soul of Joseph Wool-
frey ," and the quotation from the Book of Maccabees
de. d, ."" It is a good and wholesome thought to pray for the
Now it was certainly true, that that did not agree
With the English translation, but the question was not
Whether the version was a correct version or not, but
whether the meaning of the expression was or was not
Inconsistent with that which was in the English version.
Whether that doctrine was taken from the Romish version
or from the English version—was it or was it not a viola-
tion of the Articles of the Church. Was it contrary
of the Scripture ? was there any part of the Word
God against it? for that was the view the
L
Church of ngland took of it, and that which he (the
earned Judge), sitting there, must take of it, as far as
1,!!3 means would enable him to judge of the law of the
tl;turch, as expounded in its canons and articles. If any-
thing arose from the circumstance of the party being a
'man Catholic, or that the sense in which those words
were to be used and construed by the Court was to be
taken from a Roman Catholic version of the Bible, that
shouldl,;;—urt have been specifically pleaded, because the
had no cognizance of any such book,
further into this case, it was mentioned in the course of
tot e argument that similar inscriptions had been put on
bs of eminent divines of the Church, and the case of
8,41°P Barrow, 1680, had been alluded to. Was it pos-
,leole to conceive, therefore, that such an inscription would
allowed to remain on the tomb of a Bishop
of the
Church if it were considered that it was
,e_Pognant to the doctrines of the Church, and contrary to
te words of Scripture ? He was of opinion that the facts
imputed by the articles exhibited in this cause, as against
. • Woolfrey, were not sustained by the authorities
nich had been cited. There was no article or canon
Pointed out to him by which this practice was expressly
Prohibited , and it was agreed by all commentators on the
subject that it was not expressly prohibited, but
Could only be considered as discouraged by the
Church of England. He was bound to administer
the law as he found it ; and he was of opinion that the
Articles, so far as the Court was cognizant of them, and
so far as they were admitted and proved, would not subject
the party to ecclesiastical censures, and therefore that part
of the Articles which related to an inscription on a tomb-
stone must be rejected. There was another branch of the
ease that must be considered, but which was not by any means
subject to the same considerations that were to be applied
to the other part, which must be considered as the most
Important and the most difficult. The other branch de-
pended upon the practice of the Court in cases of this de-
scription. It arose upon that which was stated in the first part
of the first article, viz., that by the laws and customs
of this land it was forbidden to erect in a Church-yard
any tomb or head-stone without the consent of the Rector,
Or Vicar, or faculty for the purpose ; and that any
Person so acting would be admonished immediately to
'remove the same ; and in the second article it was
alleged that the tombstone was erected without the
faculty
of the Vicar of the parish, or without any
e'aFulty for that purpose. Now, that offence undoubt-
ilY Would be punishable by the Ecclesiastical Court, in
the, case of a criminal proceeding, the form here
i'lltleopte.d, supposing the party was called upon by
be citation to answer such a charge as that. It had
,part
suggested as an objection to the articles on this
11„..rt of the case, that the proper way of proceeding
have been by a civil proceeding—by a mo-
nition,, calling on the party to show cause why the
"air" should not be removed ; but it was not ne-
essarY for him , in the view he took of this part of the case,
t-,,
say whether or not that was a course of proceeding that
Would
have bad sufficient effect. The Learned Judge
"• en referred to the cases that had been cited on- this
tint. It was not stated in the citation that the incurn-
nt of the parish had not consented to the erection of the
tombstone, and the practice of the Court always had been,
bat the citation should express the ground on which the
party was called upon to appear. The only illegality stated
ag) that she had caused the stone to be erected
Aad a certain inscription to be made on it, contrary to the
tltieles and canons
of the Church. That could not be held
Mean she was called upon to answer for having erected
tombstone without the consent of the incumbent. It
therefore appeared to him that this part of the case was
11° afterthouaht when the articles came to be considered,
L4:14 without' reference to the letters and citation first
e", because, as this was a proceeding by letters of
I,eireat, it was necessary the citation should agree
13 those letters of request, for it was only
that extent those letters authorised the Court to
Zt°kleed, or that it had any cognizance of the offence
all ; 6ind he never recollected a case in which
tie•
tPartY had been called upon to answer to ar-
i4 Is where the illegality had not been specifically stated
atotne citation . The offence of having erected a tomb-
be without the consent of the incumbent was quite
A
erected separate and distinct offence to that of having
„
,eca tombstone contrary to the doctrines of the
Iv; ureb ; and if the citation had been taken out simply
:!tit reference to the fact of the erection of the tombstone
have
the consent of the incumbent, the party would
tlial:e been at liberty to appear, under any p
eo rotest, to
-, citation, and to deny it contained any charge she
t4'd answer ; and he thought the Court would have
11414 bound to have pronounced for the protest if she
la appeared. He was of opinion according to the
ha, and practice of the Court, the citation was
,hOffieient to raise the question of whether the consent of
e Rector was obtained or not. If it had been intended
he nave made that a part of the charge against Mrs. Wool-
tY, On
ile' it should have been stated in distinct terms.
at).
.4,BlPart. of the case he was also of opinion the articles were
9
misstble, and having already pronounced stis
pinion that the former part of the articles were inadmi .1-
be was of opinion on the whole, lie must reject these
'titles and dismiss the party cited.
441'. BLAKE (for Mrs. Woolfrey), in the absence of Dr.
,1;2315, applied for costs.
Vsue QUEEN'S ADVOCATE stated that lie had not urged
s• Woolfrey was a Roman Catholic, but that the inscription
blast be taken in a Roman Catholic sense ; and hence that
peo-ple:lljury might be done to the religious opinions of the
teSit HERBERT JENNEII.—I understood your argument to
that the inscript;on must be taken in a Roman Catholic
eia",!e• If the costs are pressed for, I must say the party is
',lied to be dismissed with costs.
.14ie delivery of this Judgment occupied the Learned
ge two hours.