The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-19 00:00:00

THE REV. JAMES SHORE AND
THE BISHOP OF EXETER.
The following statement of facts respecting this case
of eccletl;stical oppression has just been made public :
The Roy. J. Shore was, in the year 1832, appointed
minli ter of a chapel at Bridgetown, in the parish of
Berry Pomery, Devon, then lately erected by the Duke
of Somerset ; and havine, received a nomination from the
Bev. J. Edwards, then vicar of the parish, he was
licensed, by the Bishop of Exeter, to officiate in the
chapel, which was not consecrated, but was opened as a
chapel in connexion with the Established Church, under
the license of the same Bishop. In April, 1834, Mr.
Edwards died, the Rev. E. Browne was inducted to the
living, and Mr. Shore continued to officiate in the chapel
without any fresh nomination being required by the
Bishop or given by the Incumbent. In the year 1843,
Mr. Brown (the Vicar) wishing to exchange the living
of Berry Pomeroy for another, obtained the consent of
the Duke of Somerset to the arrangement, and in Sep-
tember, 1843, the Rev. W. B. Cosens was inducted to the
living on the presentation of the Duke of Somerset.
Shortly after the induction of Mr. Cosens, the secretary
of the Bishop of Exeter informed Mr. Shore that it was
necessary for him to obtain a nomination from the new
vicar, and that unl-its he obtained it his license
would be withdrawn. Mr. Cosens refusing to give the
nomination, the chapel was closed in October
1843, and after many attempts to procure from the
Bishop and' Mr. Cosens an arrangement of the affair, the
chapel was, in the month of
_February, 1844 (after an
interval of nearly six months), by the direction of the
Duke of Somerset, certified in the Archdeacon's Court
of Totnes, as a place for religions worship of Protestants,
under the provisions of the Toleration Acts, and Mr.
Shore resumed his duties as the minister of the chapel,
conducting the services nearly in accordance with the
forms of the Church of England as before. On the 13th
of March, 1844, Mr. Shore was served with a document,
withdrawing his license, whereupon a correspondence
ensued between Mr. Shore and the Bishop, in which
Mr. Shore stated that he could no longer conform to
the discipline of the Church of England, and had se-
ceded from the establishment ; and requested to be
informed if anything more was necessary to complete
the separation which he desired. To this inquiry he
received only evasive replies. Mr. Shore then having
consulted his legal advisers, took the oaths, &c., required
by the Toleration Acts, and qualified himself in a way it
had never before been denied a clergyman could do, to
preach and teach as a protestant dissenting Minister.
But the Bishop of Exeter would not permit an evan-
gelical clergyman thus to throw off his yoke, carrying,
with him his church and a large congregation, and ac-
cordingly commenced legal proceedings in the Eccle-
siastical Courts. After a Commission, under the Church
Discipline Act, had sat on the case at Totnes (at which
Mr. Slim appeared under protest), and had reported, in
the firstrinstance, that Mr. Shore was liable to punish-
ment as a clergyman disobeying his Bishop, Mr. Shore
was cited in the Arches Court, and he appeared to such
citation under protest. This protest, although ably
argued by Sir John Dobson (the Queen's Advocate)
and Dr. Twiss, for Mr. Shore, was overruled by the
Judge, and Mr. Shore assigned to appear absolutely.
He did so, and prayed articles. These exhibit and charge
no other fault or crime, but that Mr. Shore was, at
the time of exhibiting such articles, a priest in holy
orders of the Church of England, and that being such,
he, "on the 14th April, 1844, and 28th July, 1844, took
upon him to read prayers, preach, administer, (to wit on
the 28th July, 1844) the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, and perform ecclesiastical duties and divine
offices, according to the rites and ceremonies of the
United Church of England and Ireland, in the said un-
consecrated chapel or building, situate in the said parish
of Berry Pomeroy, in the county of Devon, &c., without
any license or authority for so doing, and contrary to,
and in spite of, the aforesaid injunction or monition of
the said Bishop of Exeter." To this Mr. Shore presented
to the Court a responsive allegation, setting forth the
license of the chapel as a dissenting place of worship, and
his having taken the oaths, &c., &e., under the
Toleration Acts, the protection of which he claimed
against this prosecution. This question was ably
urged in the Court of Arches, by Sir J. Dobson and
Dr. Twiss for Mr. Shore, but the allegation was
dismissed. Mr. Shore thereupon in Michaelmas term
last, moved, by Sir F. Kelly, for a prohibition in the
Queen's Bench, to restrain the Arches Court from
proceeding further with the case. A rule nisi was then
grranted, and in Hilary Term this question was ably and
fully argued- by the late Attorney-General, Dr. Adams
and Mr. Montague Smith, for the Bishop, and Sir F.
Kelly, Mr. Sergeant Manning and Dr. Twins for Mr.
Shore ; and in the term following, Lord Denman pro-
nounced judgment, discharging the rule, notwithstanding
the able and energetic arguments of Mr. Shore's counsel,
and deciding that no clergyman could voluntarily quit
the establishment ; and Mr. Shore was consequently
driven back to the Court of Arches, where he has been
sentenced to abstain from again preaching, &c., and to
pay the costs. At the commencement of this unprece-
dented prosecution, a committee of the friends of civil
and religious liberty in Totnes, and its neighbourhood,
was formed, and considering that the great question of
religious liberty was directly assailed in this attack on
Mr. Shore, they determined to support him in resisting
to the utmost this unconstitutional invasion of religious
rights, and set about raising subscriptions. These, at
present, we hear, amount to about 2001., but Mr. Shore
has already incurred upwards of 4001. for his own ex-
penses, and as he was determined, with the advise of his
counsel, and at the request of the committee, to proceed
yet further, a largr amount will be required.— Wes
Briton.