The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-25 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,—In your paper of Thursday last I am reported as hav-
ing, at the dinner given to Mr. Fitzroy at Lewes, made use of
certain expressions on returning thanks for the toast—" The
Army and Navy." Not having been present at that dinner,
I shall feel much obliged by your inserting this, my contradic-
tion of the paragraph.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient humble servant,
Bedford, March 24, 1835. J. VILLIERS SHELLEY.

COURT OF CHANCERY.--THIS DAY.

WARREN V. BURTON.

The Lord CHANCELLOR having appointed this morning for
giving judgment in this case, long previous to his Lordship's
taking his scat the Court was crowded to suffocation.
His LORDSHIP, immediately upon taking his seat, proceeded
to give judgment. He entirely agreed with the observations
made by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor at the commence-
ment of his judgment, that the present case could not justly
be considered as a case of trifling importance. It was a case
of some importance even in a pecuniary point of view to
Dr. Warren, not with reference to his actual position, but as it
might affect his future position and interest as connected with
the society ; but independent of that, every question coming
into a court of justice, affecting the feelings of a great mass
of the people, particularly where they were associated toge-
ther for purposes of religion, could never be considered as of
trifling moment. His Lordship had looked with considerable
attention into the volume containing the minutes of the pro-
ceedings of the society, and they breathed a spirit of meek-
ness and Christian feeling throughout ; but he must be
allowed to express his regret, that in a society so constituted
and for such an object, motives and feelings of dissension
of this description should have been introduced, and to suggest
whether it would not be advisable to make some endeavours
towards accommodation, in order to put an end to the dissen-
sions that had given rise to the present proceedings. Having
made these observations, the only duty his Lordship
had to perform was to determine the legal rights of the
parties; he had only to decide whether or not Dr.
Warren had been legally suspended from his functions
as minister by the District Committee. To this point
alone, he should, therefore, now direct his attention, only
adverting to those grounds of difference which the ne-
cessity of the case required. The question resolved itself into
two points; first, had the District Committee power to sus-
pend a preacher, and if they had, had they regularly exer-
cised that power in the present case. Now, the first docu-
ments referred to by the Counsel on both sides were the
trust deeds under which the chapel was held. By those
deeds the trustees held the chapel, subject to the
trust to permit the preacher who was appointed by the
Conference to use the chapel for the purposes of religious wor-
ship. It was said that Dr. Warren was the preacher ap-
pointed by the Conference, ai;l therefore that he could only be
removed by that body ; his Lordsh:;' apprehended if the Con-
ference, which was the legislative bo',dY of the society, had
pointed out a mode by which a 'pro cher might be
suspended or removed, according to that. mode,
he
could no longer be considered as coming the
meaning of the trust as the minister appointed by the L,Ofe-
rence. Another regulation in the trust in the deed was, that
the trustees should proceed according to the Act of Pacifica-
tion, whenever it should appear to them that any preacher had
offended in the manner therein described. Now, it appeared
to his Lordship that notwithstanding that provision, the con-
clusion was not to be drawn that a preacher might not be
removed by any other mode pointed out by the So-
ciety. This led his Lordship to the arguments arising
out of the acts of the Conference, for it was upon these
acts the question must be decided. No doubt could be enter-
tained that Mr. Wesley possessed and exercised the power of
suspension and removal during his time, he possessed so much
influence and just authority with the Society he had osta-
blished ; and while he lived, much was left to him as
to the laws and regulations necessary for the purpose
of preserving the harmony of the Society. Upon his
death, however, in 1791, it became necessary, for the pur-
pose of regulating the connection in future, to pass certain
laws. In that year, for the first time, districts throughout the
kingdom were established, and provisions were made to the fol-
lowing effect: that the assistant to the Circuit should have the
power of convening together the preachers of the district upon
any critical case; they had the power to appoint a chairman,
and their decision, in all cases, was final, till the next Confer-
ence, at which the chairman was to report their proceedings,
and the Conference were to act with respect to them as they
thought the justice of the case required. Nothing was said
then with respect to the offences committed by preachers, or
to the mode of trial ; but no person, looking at the scope of
this law, could doubt that if a preacher had introduced discord
(his Lordship did not here allude to the case of Dr. Warren),
and disturbed the harmony of the society, it could not but
be considered a critical case, which justified the Assistant
in calling a meeting of the preachers. If such was
the case, was it not obvious, in order to promote the ex-
istence of this society that the meeting should have the
power of suspending or removing a preacher, subject. to the
revision of the conference. In the year 1792 alterations
were made on this law ' • as it stood in 1791 the chairman was
to be appointed pro hoc vice by the District Committee
when assembled. An alteration was made to the effect of ap-

pointing a permanent chairman, immediately after the meeting
of the Conference, who was to hold his situation till the next
Conference. By the law of 1791 the meetings were to be
convened by the assistant ; by that of 1792 they were to be
called by the Chairman. By the law of 1792 a copy
of the charge made against any preacher was to be handed
to him, or ordered, that he might be prepared for his defence
when the meeting should be convened for the purpose of de-
ciding the case. In case the Chairman who was to call the
meeting should be the culprit, the assistant was to do so.
Matters thus continued till the end of 1792: in 1793 provi-
sions of a different description were made. By those provi-
sions, if a preacher was charged with immorality he was to be
tried by a domestic tribunal of four persons—two to be ap-
pointed by the preachers, and two by the accuser : the decision
however of that tribunal was not final, as the accused might be
tried if he chose by the District Committee. In 1793 and
94, further alterations were made in the trial of preachers
accused of immorality ; the leaders, stewards, and preachers
of the circuit were to assemble and decide on his guilt or inno-
cence; if the majority were against him the Chairman had
the power to remove him. His Lordship did not much
rely upon them, because when he came to the law of 1795,
the provisions he had referred to were so inconsistent
with that law, that he had no doubt it was intended
that the former should be abolished by the latter. This brought
his Lordship down to the deed of pacification. It was im-
possible to doubt that in the early part of 1795 and before
the Act of Pacification, that the District Committee had the
power to try and remove, or suspend any travelling preacher,
and that being so the question was whether any alter ation
had been made in that law by the Act of Pacification. Now
that Act had been very much considered ; disputes had
taken place in the Society principally with respect to the
administration of the Sacrament. It was unnecessary for his
Lordship for the present purpose to advert further to that part
of the Act, but under the head of discipline, it provided that a
case where the majority of the trustees, or stewards, or leaders,
should find a preacher guilty of immorality, erroneousness of
doctrine, or violation of the clauses thereinbefore inserted with
reference to the administration of the Sacrament, or a defi-
ciency in talents and ability, that under such circumstances they
should have authority to convene a mixed tribunal, to consist of
the preachers of the district, the trustees, the leaders and stew-
ards, and if the majority were against the preacher, he was to be
considered as removed from the circuit. It was then provided
that the District Committee should fill up the vacancy only
until the next Conference. If the case rested there, in his
Lordship's opinion all ambiguity would be taken away. The
doubt in the case arose upon the sth division under the
article discipline, which said that no preacher should
be removed from his circuit, or be suspended by any
District Committee, except he had the privilege of the
trial before-mentioned ; these words taken by themselves were
large and general, and his Lordship confessed that he had
some difficulty in: dealing with the argument, that they took
away all authority of suspending or removing from the
District Committee. The construction of the words were
certainly doubtful, until you came to look at what had since
taken place ; but after adverting carefully to that, his Lord-
ship thought it was clear that the authority of the District
Committee was superseded, not absolutely, but only in
cases on which the trustees, leaders, and stewards chose to
interfere. It appeared to his Lordship, therefore, that it was
impossible to consider that the Act of Specification was in-
tended to have the effect contended for on the part of the
plaintiff. If any doubt, however, existed on that point, it
was, in his Lordship's mind, set at rest by the code of laws of
the Methodists, which had been given in evidence, from which
it was clear that the pa. ties publishing that code (the legisla-
ture of the society) never meant to take from the District
Committee the power of suspending and removing preachers.
From the year 1795 to the present time no less than seventy
cases of suspension or removal of preachers by the District
Committees had taken place. It was said that there was no
resistance in these cases, and therefore they could not be called
in, aid as spewing the usage that had taken place ; it might, and
no doubt was true, that they were not resisted, and why,
because the parties probably felt conscious of their guilt,
and had no desire to have their matters investigated.
It was said that the case of Mr. Moore was an exception,
that he resisted, and his resistance triumphed in oppo-
sition to the District Committee. The facts, however,
of that case were entirely different from the present, and, in
his Lordship's opinion, had no bearing upon it. Upon the
whole, his Lordship was of opinion that t the case was very
strong and clear with respect to the authority of the
District Committee. In his Lordship's opinion, notwith-
standing the Act of Pacification, they had authority to
suspend and remove preachers in all cases, except in those cases
where the trustees and the other parties mentioned chose to
interfere. Such being his Lordship's opinion, the next ques-
tion was, had they regularly exercised that authority, according
to the rules prescribed in the Acts of the Conference in the
present case. His Lordship was of opinion that they had.
Doctor Warren had regular notice, and the meeting
was summoned in the usual manner. Doctor Warren
had refused to stand his trial. He said he would not attend ;
and the District Committee had suspended him for conscience
sake. It was said that Dr. Warren had been harshly treated
in not allowing Mr. Brown to attend. With that his Lordship
had nothing to do, the District Committee exercised the power
vested in them by the laws of the society, and said that no
stranger should be present. let was also said, that publishing
Dr. Warren's speech, with the observations attached, was not
an offence, as it did not support the charge:against him; whether
it did support those charges or not, was a question for the
meeting ; his Lordship had no jurisdiction in the matter, a
particular tribunal having been established by the par-
ties, he had no authority to say whether, within the
rules of this Society, that publication was, or was not,
an offence—that was more particularly for the decision
of the District Committee. His Lordship was of opinion not
only that the District Committee had the power of suspending
a preacher, but that in the present instance they had acted le-
gally. He was not called upon to say more ; he was not
called upon to say whether they had acted discreetly or not :
he desired it to be expressly understood, that upon that
point he gave no opinion. All that he was called upon to
decide, and all that he did decide, was the legal question.
On the whole, therefore, his Lordship felt himself bound to
affirm the decision of his Honour the Vice-Chancellor. He,

however, could not dismiss the case without again expressing
his regret at the dissensions that have given rise to these Po'i
ceedings. Hearing what he had, and knowing what he did
Dr. Warren's learning, piety, talents, and good conduct,
stated as they had been on the one side, and not atempted
to be contradicted on the other--all these circumstances
added together increased his regret that Dr. Warren
should be the sufferer, arising out of contests that had origi-
nated in the establishment of a particular body, which the
Society, or part of the Society, thought right to establish.
His Lordship regretted,. deeply regretted, that Dr. Warren
was the sufferer, he would not say the victim, of such proceed.;
ings He had cnly to give his opinion on the legal point one
the case, and that opinion was in concurrence with the ne
pronounced by the Vice-Chancellor. .Hie Honour's judgment'
therefore, must be affirmed.