The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-25 00:00:00

7:11E REV. JAMES BONTVELL'S CASE.

COURT OF ARCHES (THIS DAY.)
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
THE BISHOP OF LONDON V. BONWELL.
This case.nwas resumed this morning. Sir J. Harding
and Dr. Tristram appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Best, of
the Oxford Circuit, instructed by Mr. Sorrel, of Mark-
lane, appeared for Mr. Bonwell.
Mr. Best stated to the court that he was a barrister and
not a doctor, but under the Act of Parliament under which
the present proceedings took place, the judge had power to
alter the practice of the court.
Sir J. Harding said he had no notice of this application
until the sitting of the court, and he must object to it.
There was no precedent for it.
The Court decided in favour of Mr. Best's application.
Sir J. Harding proceeded to call attention to the evi-
dence, which he considered completely proved his case.
Great scandal had been caused by Mr. Bonwell's conduct,
and the Court was left without any apology, defence, or
explanation, quoad the scandal, in reference to which Mr.
Bonwell appeared to be utterly insensible and indifferent.
The defendant had wanted for neither time nor opportu-
nity for defence. The coroner's inquest on the child was
held in Sept. last, and in the following month the bishop
gave notice of his intention to issue a eommission. On the
6th of February, the commission reported, on the 3d of May
the articles were issued, on the 22d of May there was an
appearance, and on the 13th of June the articles were
adinitted after opposition. From the articles the defend-
ant had had the fullest opportunity of knowing the
charges against him, and he had certainly shown him-
self to be a person of considerable ability, and pre-
sence of mind, but he had cross-examined the witnesses
merely on the fringe of the case, without touching the
damning parts of it. Many of the most important witnesses
he did not cross-examine at all—many of the least important
were cross-examined on the least important point. There
was nothing in his cross-examination beyond a general
denial of the charge, and an assertion that the whole
case had been concocted against .him for the purpose
of extorting money, for some of the witnesses had been
asked how much money they had received for coming
forward to give evidence. As far as the prosecution was
concerned, no witnesses had been kept back, and the main
facts remained entirely untouched. At first the association
between Mr. Bonwell and Miss Yorath was of the most open
character, butmore lately it had been conducted with what
in the old matrimonial courts was known by the barbarous
term " clandestinity." He should press very strongly upon
the court the fact that Mr. Bonwell had stated to
Mr. Lewis Yorath that he was engaged to his
sister Elisabeth, but that he had not commu-
nicated it to the family, as he considered that his
position as a clergyman was a sufficient guarantee
of his good faith. He (Sir J. Harding) had known many
cases in which Anglican clergymen had been guilty of in-
continence, but he had never known a case until the present
in which a clergyman had made his position in the Church
the groundwork of his crime. His position in the Church
was his great weapon, and was constantly put forward. He
contended that the whole of the preliminary part of the case
had been proved materially and substantially, and quite
sufficiently for all practical purposes. With regard to that
part of the case relating to London, ho contended that
the evidence of Mrs. Meanie, taken in connection with
cthonatofsivMelry
Mrs. BonwellB 'pupils, Mrs. Gunn, and others,
clu
established Mr. Bonwell's guilt. Even if
Mr. Bonwell were innocent his conduct was an absolute
pollution, in consequence of the scandal which it had
caused. He r3gretted to say that, upon the grounds stated,
he would have to ask the Court to pass a sentence of depri-
vation, for this case had been promoted by the bishop
• of the diocese in support of tLe discipline of the Church,
and not out of private malice, and the bishop would cer-
tainly have failed in his duty if he had not taken these
proceedings, and asked for this severe sentence. The
learned council cited many cases in which sentences of de-
privation had been pronounced for far less offences.
Mr. Best then proceeded to address the court on behalf of
Mr. Bonwell. He said that to his client the issue was almost
as important as one of life and death. He contended, upon
the case of Homer and Jones, that adultery committed out
of the diocese could not be taken as adultery committed
within it. Pr, ceeding to an analysis of the evidence,
he pointed out discrepancies as to Mr. Bonwell's
conduct both at Newport and Margate. Coming to Lon-
don he urged that Miss Yorath, having taken Ler lodgings
in the name of Harvey, did not affect Mr. Bonwell, but
wP s her own act. The most material charge was that
which had reference to Thornhill-erescent, and the
principal witness was Mrs. Green, whose evidence
had been positively denied by Mr. Beely, who engaged
her. With regard to the prosecution, he contended that
they ought to have put Miss Yorath in the witness-box.
They knew perfectly well where to find her, and her evidence
would have been conclusive on the point. It had
not been attempted to show that it was Miss Yorath
who went to the vestry room, or the school room—for aught
they knew it might have been Mrs. Bonwell herself who
went into the school-room. He complained that the cheap
press had treated Mr. Bonwell unfairly, having called Mr.
Bonwell a poisoner and a murderer, stating that he ought
to have been handcuffed and taken off to prison immediately.
While Dr. Smethurst was lying in prison, one paper called
for his release, while it held up Mr. Bonwell to reprobation.
lle contended that the evidence was not sufficient to justify
Mr. Bonwell's conviction.
Dr. Lushington said the case was one of great import-,
ance and he should take time to consider his judgment._

-•- •

4,111
'....,..',..1.3./.°"2,2:411;;4,!5.2.7.!:::- • ,4•-•