The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-04 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 3.
The LORD CHANCELLIR took his seat upon the Woo
sack at Five o'clock.

PETITIONS.
Lord REDESDALE presented several petitions
agianat Papal aggression.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER presented several
petitions with a similar prayer.
The Earl of STRADBROKE presented a petition
from some place in Somersetshire, praying for an alter-
ation in the laws of settlement and of rating.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented several petitions
against Papal aggression; also a petition from some place
in Sussex praying that the ratepayers might have a voice
in the assessment and disposal of county rates;-also a pe-
tition against Jewish emancipation; also a petition from
certain of the clergy complaining of the manner in which
the clergy wero assessed to the poor-rate; also a petition
from Horsemunden against free trade, and several from
the county of Lincoln with a similar complaint.
REFUSAL TO BURY A DISSENTING MINISTER
IN CHICHESTER.

The NOBLE DUKE then rose to present a petition
complaining of the proceedings of the Rev. Mr. Ken-
rick, incumbent of St. Peter's, Chichester, and he felt
that he was placed in a most painful position in bringing
forward a complaint against a clergymau, who, he be-
lieved, was a good and chnritable m in, but who on the
occasion referred to had exhibited what he must consi•
der a great deficiency of Christian charity and a neglect
of duty. There had resided for many years in Chi
chaster an Independent minister, the Rev. Mr.
Parsons, a reverend gentleman with whom he was well
acquainted, and who had borne a most exemplary cha-
racter. Mr. Parsons had purchased a piece of ground in
the churchyard of St. Peter's, in which his wife had been
buried; and on his deathbed Mr. Parsons had expressed a
desire to be buried by the side of his wife. Application
had been made to the rector, and he had replied that the
body of Mr. Parsons might be buried in the churchyard,
but that he would not read the burial service over it;
and he had added, that he was aware that he was
violating the law, but that ho was determined to
refuse at all hazards, because, unless he refused
there was no chance of any alteration being made in
the law. Now he (the Duke of Richmond) could con-
ceive nothing more dangerous than that respectable
gentlemen of education should hold and maintain
such opinions.—(Cheers.) If clergymen of the Church
of England could not conscientiously conform to the law,
it was their duty at once to resign their situations, or
to conform to the law. The Bishop had been applied to,
and he had written a most proper and Christian letter to
Mr. Kenrick, who still refused to read the burial service
over Mr. Parsons, who had been baptized, because he
had been a Separatist and a teacher among Separatists;
and the result was, that Mr. Parsons was buried in his
own chapel. It might be said, why did they not apply
to the Ecclesiastical Court? But that would involve an
enormous expense ; and, although he believed every
country gentleman in Sussex and every inhabitant
of Chichester would have subscribed towards the
expenses, yet there would have been a technical
answer that that body had not been taken to the church-
yard and burial demanded, but had that been done a
riot might have been occasioned. There was another
case against the same clergyman: an unfortunate woman,
named Sarah Rogers, had been found drowned in
the canal, the coroner's jury had returned a verdict
that she had destroyed herself, being at the time insane;
yet Mr. Kenrick had refused to read the burial service
over her on the ground that he was convinced that she
had destroyed herself being of sound mind; thus,
without making any inquiry, setting up his own
judgment against the verdict :of the coroner's jury,
delivered upon the oath of twelve men. It would
be most dangerous if such things were permitted
to pass unreproved, and clergymen were allowed in
this manner to outrage the feelings of the peaceable in-
habitants of a town. If in some towns such occurrences
had taken place as had taken place in the case of Mr.
Parsons, the public peace would have been endangered.
He attributed the conduct of Mr. Kenrick to an entire
want of judgment, but he would say, that if a law
was passed that he felt he could not conscientiously
carry into effect he should resign the commission of the
peace, and not refuse to perform his duty, and it would
be much better that this gentleman should resign his
living than refuse to execute the law. He presented the
petition, which was from the town council of Chichester,
ncge of such n
for theasdcoepteis.
The adoption of measures to prevent the re-
cpraurryein
Bishop of CHICHESTER said it was with in-
tense pain that he rose on this occasion. He felt grate-
ful to the Noble Duke for the testimony which he had
borne to the character of the Reverend Gentle-
man concerned, and for the temper with which he
had stated the case. The Reverend Gentleman
was a man of most benevolent and irreproachable
character, and was actuated, he was convinced by
conscientious motives, however mistaken his views
might be. He lamented most deeply that
the Rev. Gentleman had taken the view of the subject
which he had taken. The Rev. Gentleman had, on
several occasions, read the burial service over Dissenters,
but he had refused to read the service over the body
of this Dissenting clergyman, because, as he
.under-
stood, there were several Dissenting clergymen at
the funeral. He deeply regretted the conduct which
this reverend gentleman had pursued, and had no
sympathy with the reasons which he had adduced; on
the contrary, he had always felt that it was a most for-
tunate circumstance that the Dissenters had contented
themselves with erecting their own places of worship, and
had buried their dead in one churchyard, thus keeping
up, as it were, a connexion with;the Church, and facili-
tating a return from the principles of dissent
to those of the Church, and he thought that
no consideration should induce clergymen of
the Church to throw obstructions in the way of this
usage. He had repeated this to Mr. Kenrick, and also
that he was guilty of a breach of duty in violating the
laws of his country. Unfortunately those representations
had been disregarded. He could bear his testimony to the
high respectability of Mr. Parsons, who had been bap-
tised, and who was among the most respectable and
most respected of the inhabitants of Chichester,
and he could not but regret that Mr. Kenrick had
taken such a view of the subject. Mr. Parsons had
not been convicted of schism, and therefore could not
be so regarded, and was consequently entitled to have
the burial service read over him. He could well un-
derstand that the consciences of clergymen might be
wounded when they bad to read the burial
service over persons who bad died perhaps
in the commission of a crime—in such a
case the minister of the Church felt himself placed in a
most difficult situation. He said this not with a view to
justify the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, but in the
hope to induce their Lordships to consider his
conduct with as much forbearance as possi-
ble. With regard to the case of the unfor-
tunate woman who destroyed herself, he could not
but ask what power a clergyman had of instituting any
inquiry into such circumstances that could be satis-
factory? It was the duty of the clergyman to be
guided by the decision of the proper legal tribunal; yet be
might be permitted to observe, in excuse for this gentle-
man, that coroner's juries were often somewhat lax
in the execution of their duty, and were not in-
clined to sift too nicely in such cases the evidence
as to insanity, and to assume that the fact of com-
mitting suicide was itself sufficient proof of in-
sanity, but still he admitted that the verdict of the
coroner's jury should have been conclusive with this
Reverend Gentleman, and merely urged these
considerations on their Lordships, in the hope
of inducing them to view the conduct of the Rev. Mr.
Kenrick with less disfavour. That conduct he did not
attempt to justify, as he admitted that the Rev. Gentle-
man was bound in duty to obey the law, and begged to
bo understood as not attempting to defend or extenuate
the conduct of the Rev. Mr. Kenrick.
The Bishop of LONDON took that opportunity of
stating, in reference to this subject, that it was not his
intention to re-introduce the Church Discipline Bill du-
ring the present session, but next session he intended to
introduce a measure to facilitate the institution of pro-
ceedings for the correctionnf criminal and contumacious
clerks; and also for the institution of a tribunal of appeal
to decide ecclesiastical causes.
Lord BROUGHAM bore his testimony to the defective
state of the law in ecclesiastical cases, and mentioned an in-
stance in which a Right Rev. Prelate had to pay several
thousand pounds costs for merely having done his duty, and
nothing more nor less than his duty, and for doing less than
which he would have been censurable.
The Bishop of EXETER said that the Noble Duke who
had introduced the subject of the proceedings at Chichester
spoke with great discretion when he said that the verdict of a
coroner's jury was a prima' facie ground for supposing that a
person had really died in a state of lunacy. He rejoiced
that the Noble Duke had used that phrase instead of saying
that it was absolutely conclusive, for he apprehended that
many cases had occurred, in reference to insurances and
other matters, in which such verdicts had not been held to
be conclusive evidence of the state of a man's mind. If a
clergyman, then, had good reason to believe that a man
had died by his own hand while in a sane state of mind, lie
(the Bishop of Exeter) held that he would be quite justified
in withholding from him the rites of the Church, notwith-
standing any verdict to the contrary. In saying this he was
not speaking his own sentiments only, but the sentiments of
one of the best, the most pious, and not the least learned of
the prelates that had ever adorned the Church of England,
he meant Dr. Wilson, the Bishop, of Sodor and Man.
The matter here dropped. '
COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM having presented several petitions in
favour of this Bill, moved that it be re-committed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose and contended that the
state of the law was not such as to require the alterations
which the Bill proposed to effect. He objected that it was
inexpedient to give a general authority to persons to go
into the county court, and refer matters in their own discre-
tion, without leaving the Court an option whether it would
or would not take upon itself the office with which the par-
ties proposed to clothe themselves. He did not see any ne-
necessity for any such legislation. This applied to the five
first clauses. The facilities they afforded were already pro-
vided by other Acts of Parliament. The next series of
clauses referred to the Court of Reconcilement; but it did not
appear to him to be suited to the feeliags and constitution of
the people of England. It would enable a cunning man to
know the case of his opponent • and having done that
he would go to law with him.—(Hear.) If it were to be
said this would do no harm, he answered that was not
enough; they shout t not pass laws except to do a positive
good.—(Hear.) Al to the clauses which dealt with equity,
it did not appear to him expedient to adopt them. What
they proposed would be found, in a great degree, already
done by the 9 and 10 Vict., c. 22, s. 13, for this Bill did the
same thing as that Act. As to the proposal for judges on the
circuit hearing causes, he would say that from his experience
it was seldom that they had the time or the opportunity for
doing so As to the proposal for permitting clerks to at-
torneys to appear for their principals, he said there could not
be a greater nuisance. The proceedings at the criminal
courts showed that such persons, that is persons attending
about the courts in the names of attorneys, have been proved
to have despoiled the poor of their money, tinder the pretence
of procuring counsel and having a legal !, defence for them on
their trial'.—( Hear, hear.) - lie could speak from personal
experience of the mischief caused by persons acting
as sttgrnev were not attorneys. What :93 of