The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-20 00:00:00

THE IMPRISONMENT OF THE

REV. MR. SHORE.

MEETING AT EXETE—R-lIALL.—(THIS DAY.)
A public meeting was held this day in the large room
of Exeter-hall with a view to adopt such measures as
may lead to the liberation of the Rev. J. Shore, M.A.,
now imprisoned in the gaol of St. Thomas, at Exeter, at
the suit of the Bishop of Exeter.
The meeting was convened for eleven o'clock, but long
before that hour the body of the hall was pretty well
filled by an audience the larger portion of whom were
ladies. The side galleries, which were exclusively set
apart for ladies, were also filled some time before the eh air
was taken.
The platform was occupied principally by Dissenting
ministers, amongst whom we observed the Rev. J. 11.
Hinton, the Rev. Mr. Eckett, the Rev. Dr. Leifehild, the
Rev. Messrs. Richardson, Craig, Ainslie, Altos, Dr.
Henderson, Burn, Mannering, Ashton, Prom-, Dr. Fer.
guson, Wilkinson, and many others.
At eleven o'clock the chair acs taken by CHARLES
LUSHINGTON, Esq , M.P., amid loud cheers. Ile said
he telt at all times very incompetent to address a large
public meeting like that before him in that style of
eloquence, rhetorical argument, and brilliant manner
that they were accustomed to in the addresses of his
reverend friends around him ; but he would not
plead ignorance of the circumstances of the case
respecting which they were assembled toge-
ther.—(Here the Hon. Gentleman was interrupted
by the cheers which greeted the entrance to the meeting
of the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel.) He was delighted
to be so interrupted.—(Cheers.) He was not ignorant
of the circumstances of Mr. Shore's case, for he had had
the satisfaction a few nights ago of attending a meeting
on the same subject as that cn which they were
called together to-day, in Wickliffe Chapel,Whitecharel,
and that edifice was filled up to the very ceiling, and
the expression of disgust and execration at what had
been the miserable treatment of the Rev. Mr. Shore, was
unanimous. He understood Mr. Shore, feeling con-
scientious scruples at continuing to preach in the Es-
tablished Church, officiated at a Dissenters' chapel, and for
doing so incurred the censure of the Ecclesiastical Courts.
He would stand up against those steel hearted prelate,.
—(Cheers.) Throughout the length and breadth of the
land the public feeling was spreading against the parties
by whom this persecution had been instituted. A Bill
had been introduced into the House of Commons to put
an end to proceedings of that kind. It had yet to go
before the House of Lords, and if it was thrown out, the
prelates in that House n ould draw down the reprobation
of every enlightened man in England.—(Cheers.) The
meeting might rely upon his best exertions to support
the Bill in its future stages through the House; and
he hoped to be able to introduce a retrospective
clause into the Bill which would include in
its operation the case of the Mr. Shore, for
whose liberation they were there to adopt measures.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman called upon the Rev.
Mr. Hinton to offer prayer, which having been concluded,
The Rev. Mr. BINNEY said he had been re-
quested to propose the following resolution—" That
this meeting having fully considered the case of
the prosecution and imprisonment of the Rev. James
Shore, affirms that he has stroug claims to
the cordial sympathy of all the friends of civil and reli-
gious liberty, and resolves that an affectionate address
from this meeting, signed by the chairman and the
committee, be presented to him at Exeter by such
deputation as the committee shall appoint."—(Cheers.)
He could hardly tell how it happened that he had been
brought to come forward thus early and prominently i❑
this matter, but there he was, and he had got the work
to do.—(Laughter.) He hoped be did not come there
as a partizan of dissent—(Hear, hear)—or as a mere
partizan and advocate of James Shore. He wanted to
look at James Shore, Henry of Exeter, Sir Herbert
Jenner Fust, Lord Denman, and the Privy Council as
so many institutions.—(Cheers.) Ile had a most unfor-
tunate tendency of mind. He was always feeling there
was a❑ adversary looking over his shoulder.—(Loud
laughter.) That was a very bad habit for a
mere advocate. He was going to try to persuade them
to pass the resolution before them with honour and
honesty. He had no objection to the weak points in
the case being noticed. He was to look at the result
which Mr. Shore, whether right or wrong, had con-
trived to bring out as the condition of the law. He
should put the case fully and honestly before them,
weak points and all.—(Laughter.) Mr. Shore was a
deacon and priest in the Church of England; he took
priest's orders in 1829, and was then curate of the
parish of Berry-Pomeroy, in the diocese of
Exeter, under the incumbent, Mr. Edwards, and
officiated there until 1832. The Duke of So-
merset built a chapel at Bridgetown, in the
same parish and diocese. That chapel was licensed but
not consecrated; it had been a chapel of ease, a dissent-
ing chapel, and it might become a dissenting chapel
again. Now if Baptist Noel's chapel bad been his own
property he might have sold it to him (Mr. Binney),
and why should not that reverend gentleman, if he
chose to leave the Established Church, be permitted to
preach in a dissenting chapel? The nomination to the
chapel at Bridgetown was given to Mr. Shore; shortly
afterwards, Mr. Edwards, the vicar, died, and a Mr.
Brown succeeded him. There was no fresh nomination,
and so Mr. Shore continued the minister of the chapel
for nine years afterwards. Nine years was a long time
anywhere, but in the diocese of Exeter it was a little
eternity. In 1843 Mr. Brown exchanged livings with a Mr.
Cousins. On Mr. Cousins coming into the possession of
the living, the Bishop wrote to him to say he should
expect a fresh nomination from Mr. Cousins, or else he
could not continue Mr. Shore as the minister. Mr.
Cousins refused eventually to nominate Mr. Shore, and
the Bishop, in consequence, refused to continue the
licence to Mr. Shore. He (Mr. Binny) though the head
and front of Mr. Shore's offending against the Bishop
might be summed up in four lines from a hymn by Dr. .
Watts—

" The men that keep thy law with care,
And meditate thy word,
Grow wiser than their bishops are,
hireling rtehl ien parish,
gflo e e t
flock'."—(Cheers.)
. h
_ because And better know the Lord.'
—(Great cheering.) Well, then, Mr. Shore was si-
o
enced for six months, and for no moral offence what-
ever. The Bishop admitted that himself, on the trial
of Mr. Latimer, at Exeter. Mr. Shore was eventually
avoid(c heteh res he.) In
p e
is e
a c uhltBi ir3on
e2n.
the chapel was registered as a place of Protestant Non-
o
conformist worship, by the request of the agent
offbn
hire-
ling, , eehg
anddß it
Garethh ° fleep. from
not e the
h for
of the Duke of Somerset, and Mr. Shore preached for
a Sunday or two previous to his having qualified himself
by his secession from the Church. That was Mr.
Shore's first false step. In that step, the Duke of
Somerset, his agent, and Ur. Shore, committed a great
blunder and a wrong. But on the 16th March, a fort-
night after registering the chapel, Mr. Shore felt it
right to put himself into his sight position ; he went
voluntarily before a magistrate, and took the oaths and
signed a declaration; he then
stood as a separatist
from the Church, under the Toleration Act, and
had the rights and privileges of a Nonconformist
minister. He then considered he was a perfectly free
man, and he then continued to use the prayers as many
other clergymen did; but being also a free man, he made
some alterations in those prayers in using them. The
Bishop remonstrated with biro, and kindly informed him
that be had appointed a commission of six or eight
clergymen to come to Totnes, and to sit in a room there
of a house called " The Seven Stars," not the seven
stars of the Apocalypse, and to call him before them to
answer for a misdemeanour. The commission had to
inquire whether there were prima facie grounds for furs
ther proceedings, and they returned the Bishop the
reply that there were grounds for further proceedings.
Mr. Shore was then cited by the Bishop in the Arches'
Court. The Bishop went on the indelibility of holy
orders, on the principle of "once a clergyman, ale ays a
clergyman." The sentence of the Judge of the Arches'
Court was that Mr. Shore was thenceforth not to preach
in the diocese of Exeter, or in the province of Canter-
bury; and he had to pay the costs. Now Mr. Shore
was in a position to say to the Bishop, " Do what you
like, but keep your hands off—a bishop is to be no
striker."—(Laughter and cheers.) Well, Mr. Shore
said, " Here lam in the broad realm of England, Bri-
tannia rules the waves'—(Laughter)—cannot Victoria
rule the bishops?"—(Roars of laughter.) Well, Mr.
Shorn could not pay the Bishop's costs, and Mr. Shc•re
carried the matter into the Queen's Bench, and Lord
Denman pronounced it as his opinion that Mr. Shore
could not divest himself of a priest in holy orders.—
(Hissing.) Mr. Shore would appeal directly to Caesar
—(A laugh)—and he appealed to the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council; and the Privy Council said
nothing, but referred the matter back to the Arches'
Court, just as a judge said to a culprit, "You must go to
the place from whence you came."—(Laughter.) The
Bishop's costs amounted to 180 L The Judge of the
Arches' Court said, that by continuing to preach out of
the Church he was guilty not only against his diocesan
but against the authority of the Church, and admonished
Mr. Shore to abstain from offending in like manner in
future. He condemned Mr. Shore in the costs, and that
was the final decision of a Court Christian.—(Laughter.)
Now that was the case. The head and front of Air.
Shore's offending was the preaching as a Nonconformist
minister. He had paid every shilling of his owe
costs (Cheers) —of that appeal ; but he would
not pay the Bishop's costs, because he considered they
were incurred, though under the form of law, by what
he called constructive persecution. Well, how was Mr.
Shore to be got out of prison? He (Mr. Binney) did
not think there was any power in the kingdom that
could liberate Mr. Shore without payment of the costs.
Three classes must pay them. In the first place the
Bishop.—(Laughter.) The second party was the evan-
gelical clergy 4 whose battle Mr. Shore was fighting as
really as Mr. Gorham was. The poet Wordsworth had
said, and Mr. Shore might re-echo the sentiment—
" The prison into which we doom ourselves
No prison is."
—(Cheers.) Thirdly, there was a certain sort of liberal
politicians, who made grand speeches in the House of
Commons. Caring for the Church as they did, those
parties should first sign a cheque for those costs, and
send it down to Exeter.
The Earl of Deere seconded the resolution, and in
doing so said he thought the simple way of showing his
sympathy with Mr. Shore was to come down to the
meeting and contribute his mite to the fund for liberat-
ing Mr. Shore. This proceeding was a great attempt to
oppress the consciences of the people.
The Hey. GEOReE H. STODDART spoke in support of
the resolution.
The resolution was then put to the meeting, and carried
with acclamation.
A letter of condolence to the Rev. Us. Shore was read
by the Rev. Mr. AxNsese to the meeting, and signed by
the Chairman, on behalf of the meeting.
The Hon. and Rev. BAPTIST NOEL rose to move the
second :resolution amidst loud cheers. He had first to
thank them for their cordial reception. His Reverend
Friend who had introduced those proceedings had
brought powerfully before them the discredit to this

country arising from the unknown state of the law.
The meeting was called to express their sympathy with
Mr. Shore. It was to him a pleasant task to state how
right it was that they should express sympathy with
Mr. Shore for the injustice he had suffered in this matter.
Mr. Shore, he begged to remind them, was a mi-
nister of unblemished reputation in that church
over which he had so long presided, namely
for ten years, and which was gathered together
solely by his labours. He had been himself
in his pulpit, and witnessed the prosperity of his con-
gregation. After ten years of public exercise of his
ministry, to which he was introduced by a prelate, who
asked him if ho was called by the Holy Ghost to
the ministry, and believing he was so called
to that Church, a stranger arrived in Berry-
Pomeroy, and assumed the management ot that
parish, who had no sympathy with the parish•
ioners, and announced to them that M . Shore must re-
sign the oversight ot that flock which he had gathered
from the wilderness, when this gentleman refused to
n iminate his Rev{ rend Friend (Mr. James Shoe, ).
There were reasons for reviesiing that decision
if the Bishop had represented to Mr. Cousins
the wrong that might result from that step ; but, un-
happily, the Bishop of Exeter did not exercise his in-
fluence to counteract that proceeding; but instead of
that he acted with Mr. Cousins in taking that step.
There might be no mental or moral infirmity in Mr.
Shore's conduct, but the Bishop deprived the act cf re-
fusing him a license of the censure which would other-
wise have elicited by putting it upon Mr. Cousins. Mr.
Shore had no alternative but either to leave the
Established Church or the oversight of the flocks
among whom he had so long and beneficially
ministered. Mr. Shore took the only step which re-
mained for him to take, namely, to secede from the
Established Church. He found by the discipline of that
Church, of which he was a minister, he might be torn
from his flock for no misconduct or error in doctrine.
That he rightly thought justified him in seceding
from that Church. He was cited into the Court of
Arches. Would persecution be likely to make Mr.
Shore review the decision to which he had came? That
was exceedingly unlikely to be the result of summoning
him before the Ecclesiastical Court. For his part he
would never resist the operation of law which inflicted
penalties upon him for doing right; he would suffer it
with the meekness of a Christian. No other charge was
laid to Mr. Shore than that he preached as a Noncon-
formist minister. Those proceedings had resulted in
Mr. Shore's incarceration in a prison, from a motive
which he (Mr. Baptist Noel) could not help calling a
spirit of revenge, and it was for them to show their
sympathy with him by seeking to effect his liberation.
Was Mr. Shore to suffer still in prison for the share
which he had been obliged to take in those proceedings ?
He hoped that a retrospective clause would be inserted
into the Bill recently introduced into the House of C.DI
mons, which would prevent not only all ministers who
had acted like Mr. Shore, but also himself (Mr. Noel)
from being shut up in prison.—(Cheers.) Perhaps
there was only one man on the bench of bishops who
could say that while he was, in the course
of nature soon to appear before his od, he had shut up
one of Christ's ministers in prison.—(Cheers.) He
solemnly trusted there would be a noble monument
raised to this the last act of religious bigotry and perse-
cution; and if the costs were to be paid, let every true
man in this country subscribe a shilling apiece
to a " Bishop ,of Exeter fund."—(Loud laughter.)
He trusted the Bishop of Exeter might yet live long
enough to testify by his conduct his sorrow for the
violence done to an uncffending minister of Christ, by
incarcerating him in a prison. The Bishop, he hoped,
had got some feeling akin to that charity which fills the
breasts of the celestial inhabitants, and that he would
peaceably and gravely say that he would not
impose upon a poor man who had already suffered tees
much the burden of these costs, but would pay them
himself.—(Cheers.) The Latin proverb should prevail
in this es in all ather cases—" Summum jus, est summa
injuria."—(Cheers.) The Rev. Gentleman concluded
by moving the following resolution That this
meeting learn with unqualified dissatisfaction, that
the canons of the year 1603, with all their strange
peculiarities, have still in their application to the clergy
of the Established Church the force of law; and that al-
though such a procedure as theß:shop of Exeter has taken
upon him stands almost alone for nearly two centuries,
the successive decisions of courts have only confirmed the
hopelessness of Mr. Shore's case as a sufferer, and shown
the liability of every clergyman who may secede from
the Church of England, and subsequently preach the
gospel, to the loss of personal liberty, and to the enor
mous expenses of a process by which his imprisonment
wonld be ultimately secured.—(Cheers.)
The reso'ution was seconded by the Rev. Mr. BROOKE,
of Norwich, and carried with acri.:metion.
The Rev. Ka BURNET moved the third resolution—
" That as a Bill under the care of the Hon. Mr. Boil-
verie has been already read a second time in the House
of Commons for the relief of all clergymen who may
come under the oppressive, operation of the
renal canon, • and as it is understood that a
clause will be introduced into that Bill having a
retrospective regard to the case of Mr. Shore; this meet-
ing cordially adopts a petition to both Houses of Parlia-
ment, that some measure of righteous provision for the
full liberty of the British subject may be carried through
all its successive stages, and be made statute law with
the least possible delay."
The Rev. Mr. CRAIG seconded the resolution.

The Rev. Dr. BEAUMONT, Wesleyan minister, moved a
vote of thanks to the Chairman, which was adopted
with acclamation, and the immense assembly, amount-
ing to nearly 4,000 persons, separated at three o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(THIS DAY.)
The House sat again to-day to hear appeals. The
Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham,
Lord Campbell, and Viscouet Sidney.
MeEWEN AND OTHERS v. SMITH AND OTHERS,—JUDO-
MENT.
Their Lortusmes gave judgment to-day in this case,
which was heard before their Lordships a short time
since. The case came before their Lordships, upon
appeal, from the judgment of the Court of Session, and
the facts upon which the appeal arose may be thus
shortly stated:—On the 15th August, 1843, the respon-
dents, as agents for Messrs. James Hopack and Cu., of
Liverpool, agreed to sell James Bowie and Co, mer-
chants in Glasgow, 42 hogsheads of sugar, which had
arrived' at Greenock by the St. Mary, froin Ja-
maica, and were then lying in a warehouse
iu their names. According to the original bar-
gain, the sugar was to be paid for in cash, under an
allowance of the usual discount of 2 per cent., agreeably
to the sale note. Messrs. Bowie and Co. subsequently
applied to the respondents to accept a bill at f ur months
from date of sale, in place of cash. To this the respon-
dents, under the authority of their principals, agreed ;
the hogsheads were accordingly v eigto d, and price was
calculated ; an invoice was made out from the weights,
and this invoice, with a bill for the amount, was handed
to Messrs. Bowie and Co. for acceptance, but the bill has
never bees returned to the respondents. Upon the agree
went being entered into, the respondents arldressel to
Mr. Alexander, their agent in Greenock, a letter autho-
rising him to deliver the sugar to Messrs. Bowie and Co.,
but this letter was never presented to Mr. Alexander, nor
did Bowie and Co.'s agent attend when the sugar was
weighed, although they had notice of the time, nor was
any demand made upon Mr. Alexander for delivery of the
goods until the evening of the 25th of Sept, following.
During the interval the sugars remained in the name of the
respondents, and subject exclusively to their disposal and
control. On the 25 t h ( f September Bowie and Co. stopped
payment, and their estate was sequestrated. On the day
following, upon this fact coming to the knowledge of the
respondents—upon the morning of the 26th of Septem-
ber—they wrote to their agent, Mr. Alexander, coun-
termanding their instructions previously given to him to
deliver the sugar to James Bowie, which letter was re-
ceived by Mr. Alexander, in Greenock, early on the
forenoon of that day. It appeared that on the evening
of the 25th of September, after Messrs. Bowie and Co.
bankruptcy was known in Glasgow, but not at Greenock,
the appellants, or some one on their behalf, called at
Mr. Alexander's place of business, and presented the
respondents' mandate to Bowie and Co. Mr.
Alexander himself was not present, but his
clerk appears in his absence, and without his au-
thority, to have written out a note stating that the sugars
in question had been delivered, of that date, to the appel-
lants. No such delivery, however, actually took place.
The goods remained in the warehouse, in the name and
under the exclusive control of the respondents. In con-
sequence of their instructions to Mr. Alexander, he took
immediate steps to prevent delivery being made of the
goods in question to Messrs. Bowie and Co., or any one
claiming in their right, and the sugars were, on the day
following, removed to another warehouse in Greenock,
where they now stood in the name and subject to the dis-
posal of the respondents. The suit originated in a pe-
tition presented by the appellants to the sheriff of Ren-
trewshire for delivery of the sugars. The Sheriff decided
against them. The Lord Ordinary affirmed the sheriff's
judgment, and the majority of the judges of the Court
of Sessions, agreed with the Lord Ordinary that the re-
spondents were entitled to the sugars. From that de-
cision the appellants appealed to the House of Lords.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, in giving judgment, went at
some length into the facts of the case and the law upon
the subject, and concluded by advising their Lordships
to affirm the judgment of the Court below, with costs.
Lord BROUGHAM and Lord CAMPBELL were of the
same opinion.
Judgment of the Court of Session affirmed, with costs.
MATHESON V. ROSS.
The arguments on this case, which were commenced
yesterday, were resumed to-day. The case came before
their Lordships upon appeal from the decision of the
Court of Session in Scotland, in which a suit
had been instituted for work and labour done.
The son of the plaintiff in that suit had drawn up from
his father's ledger an account of the debts and credits,
making out that there was a balance due of 68/. On
the other side of the same paper was an acknowledgment
of the receipt of this sum of money. The piece of paper
was afterwards separated into two pieces. The parties
subsequently disputed the balance, whether it amounted
to about a sum of 91. 1i s. 3d., or exceeded that amount,
and prccess was instituted thereon. At the trial of the
cause, the two pieces of paper were tendered in evidence
and received, subject to a motion in the court. The case
was brought before the court, which decided that the
acknowledgment of payment being unstamped, was not
receivable in evidence. This appeal was brought against
that decree. There was an objection to this appeal of a
preliminary nature—namely, that the Jury Act for
Scotland did not allow an appeal to the House of Lords,
when the matter was merely that of refusing or granting
a rule for a new trial.
Sir F. KELLY and Mr. ANDERSON for the appellant
contended first that the paper was properly receivable;
and, secondly, that the Jury Act did not apply in cases in
which, as here, the question of law had been reserved for
the consideration of the Court, with power to direct in
what manner the verdict should be entered.
The further arguments in this case ccGupied the
Ccurt the whcle Dunning.