The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-18 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOIT,R,NALS.
FROM TUB EVENING PAPER!! OF 'SATURDAY.
GL OBE.— The Rev. Herbert Mar sh—whose course
of scandalous immorality
sensation 11" neited a very painful
in all quarters w',iere clerical consistency is
regarded as essential to.
y Is,© purposes for which the
Christian ministry
% vr,tke instituted, and the Church 1
exists—is not lik,,el",f"to escape the consequences of his
emsdnet Had bi-re law been powerless to punish such
conduct bY":44- acted suspension, or absolute depriva-
tion, the
sear')al would have passed from the indivi-
duald to tl•4e: body. The Church must have received
:?rfat incurable, injury, both in character and
ewe"
her • 11v b this serious defect of discipline within
infr
oafs. by
this habitual frequenter of houses of
- imy—this intimate associate and paramour of
ti
eet " dress girls" of these establishments of vice—who
prosecuting one of them for extorting large sums
fel' money from his purse, by threats of exposing his
•conduct to the public eye, was compelled to become
the herald of his own shame, the narrator of his own
Pss fold continued immoralities—we say, had the
ishoAp of Peterborough's exposition of the state of
disc*ine in the Church been established as the
act ,nal state of the law, and the Rector of Barnack
a' all Prebendary of Peterborough remained unaf-
ted in his clerical office, and in. 'the receipt of the
revenues of his valuable eccies;:astical preferments,
every friend of the Church; bf England would have
mourned the inefficiency tai' her discipline, while her
enemies would have el.:Alwed over her humiliating-posi-
tion, and Infidels "s•onl,el have triumphed in her dis-
grace. 'This, leappil-f, is not the case. A reference to
the report of what took place last evening in the House
of lim,rds in this. painful case, will show that the Church
this,
is not quite so incompetent to deal with
'Arch delinquencies as the Bishop of Peterborough had
supposed. Lord Campbell clearly showed that though
•the Act barred proceedings against Mr. Marsh, on
account of the time which had elapsed—in this
respect the Act may be designated " a statute of
limitations"—yet that the Bishop is not tied up
from instituting proceedings to remove from the
Church so unworthy a minister, though the
offenstes he has committed were perpetrated out
of the diocese in which his living is situated.
It is matter of regret that the means of reaching
cases of disgraceful conduct in clergymen—notwith-
standing the i'.nprovement effected by the Church
Discipline Ae's—are still very inferior to the laws and
regulations, for the same purpose, by which the other institutiotse of the country are protected from the con-
sequence As of having persons unworthy of their profes-
siohn fa stened upon them. In the army or navy, a
carge. tagainst an officer is immediately placed in a
cours'a of investigation. A court-martial is directed
to bee " Conduct unworthy the character of an
off seer and a gentleman," if preived against the indi-
Mdual thus accused, is necessarily followed by "dis-
znissal from the service." If the case be marked by
•circumstances of aggravation, he is declared "hereby
incapable of again serving her Majesty in any
military or civil cap",city.'' Why might not the
" Commission of InTsiry, which the Church Disci-
pline Act empowesrs the Bishop to issue, have
authority to Pror.ounce upon the case—not merely
to the extes4 of determining that there is
sufficient 81:"er,nd for proceeding against the
party, but upon the facts stated—the finding
being sti,bj,efst to the revision of the Archbishop, who
Ai serious cases, summon to his assistance
two or . three Bishops, by whom the whole proceed-
ings might be reviewed, and the finding of the
Co'‘-' omission of Inquiry upon the facts either
c .unfirmed or modified. Surely, conduct un-
worthy of the character of a clergyman and a
Christian, ought to be dealt with as promptly, and
the party proved to have committed it be deprived
of his spiritual functions as entirely, as " con-
duct unworthy of the character of an officer and a
gentleman," certainly incurs dismissal from the army
or navy ! So strict was the practice of the early
Church -with reference to the morals of its clergy, that
a minister once deprived of office for any gross
seal-dal—although, upon affording proofs of peni-
teacc, he might be received hack to its communion—
Nees never restored to his clerical functions. The
.o.l4.';cipline might be severe ; but it was salutary.
Though individuals betrayed into vicious indul-
gence might suffer deeply—in some instances,
perhaps, tco deeply—for their faults, vet the
effect was beneficial. The Church was tlius pre-
served. from the reproach which immorality in its
ministers never fails to occasion. The offending
member was cut off, that the whole body might avoid
the scandal and contamination of his retention. With
one more remark we shall dismiss this unwelcome sub-
ject. The Bishop of Peterborough's explanation of,
and spology for, his non-interference in the case of
iMr. Marsh, when first brought before him, will he
read with regret. His Lordship was made acquainted
with the circumstances—if not to the full extent, yet
to a sufficient extent to show that great profligacy had
been committed by a clergyman of his diocese and a
dignitary in his Cathedral church. lie appears, how-
ever, to have been rather influenced by feelings of
sympathy for the mother of the offender, than sti-
mulated by duty to investigate the scandal. A tre-
mulous apprehension of the consequences to the re-
latives, should he be compelled to exert himself in the
matter, restra;ned him from performing his duty to
the Church of which he is an overseer. The respon-
sibility of actin.- in such a case ought to he removed
from an individual, however elevated, and transferred
to a number of persons, on whom should devolve
the duty of acting promptly and efficiently in
such matters. If the lax be capable of reaching Mr.
Marsh's case, we presume, after what took place last
night, that it will he immediately enforced—in mercy
both to him and the Church of which he has proved
himself unworthy. If it be defective, and thus
suffer him to escape, a very strong case for increased
'powers is supplied. The necessity of a more vigorous
discipline could not be more clearly established.
If there ever was a time when flagrant misconduct
in clergymen could be allowed to pass unvisited with
the severest censures from those who are constituted
the guardians of its purity, that time has passed
away. The only security of the Church, as a na-
tional institution, is feund in the estimation in
which it is held for character and efficiency by the
nation ; and those are its best friends who labour to
preserve it from whatever tends to lower it in public
opinion.
STANDARD.—The unhappy case of Mr. Marsh
was again notice! in the House of Lords last night.
Lord Campbell expressed an opinion that the Bishop
of Peterborough was mistaken in supposing that he
could not take cognisance of the offences of his clergy,
if committed beyond the limits of his diocese. The
Noble and Learned Lord, however, did not dispute
the other objection to a proceeding against Marsh—
the lapse of time ; this objection must, therefore,
he considered as insurmountable. The Bishop of
Peterborough thanked Lord Campbell for the, infor-
mation he had commAicated, and wasted an eloquent
and complete vindication upon his own conduct,
which needs none. It is now quite too evident
that the Bishop has no power of remov-
ing Marsh from the Church, let his Lord-
ship exert himself as he may ; but here another ques-
tion arises. Supposing that the Ecclesiastical Court
were still open for the admission of the case, who
ought to pay the heavy costs of a suit for the
removal of the delinquent ? We know who must
in the present state of the law pay these costs—
riot the delinquent, not the patron who has pre-
sented the delinquent, or the patron's representatives,
not the Crown, which, as representing the people
and the Church, is the ultimate gainer, none of
these—but the bishop—the bishop who is thus required
to protect the Church, not merely by vigilance in
watching for offenders, but by punishing the offender,
preppie marti. Is this fair ? Is it
just that the
I3ishop should be punished by a heavyjflne, sh 11
see how heavy, for the offences of the
man of whom,
in the majority of cases, he knows nothing; whom he either finds established in his diocese, or is com-
pelled to receive from the hands of a patron? Is it
politic thus to impose a penalty un the Bisho's
vigilance, and to make it thus his iponterest to copn-
nive at the offences of those whom he is appointed
to superintend ? This interest, we are firmly
convinced, would not have the slightest weight
with any one Bishop of the Right Reverend Bench
of the United Church, as it is now filled ; but we
may not always have such Bishop's ; and even now,
the consideration that in denouncing the offences of
one of his clergy to a Bishop
, you put your hand dee
into his Lordship's pocket, t occasionally preventp such denunciations and screen offenders. If the
thing happens but occasionally and rarely, it is be-
cause offences are rare indeed. But were the state of
affairs different, the fear of ruining the Bishops would
frequently make good men pause before calling for
an exercise of the episcopal authority. About ten
years ago the public was scandalised by a case
not very unlike that of Marsh—such cases occur
about once in ten years among 15,000 clergy..
men !—the case of Dr. Free. 'We have heard,
and we believe, that the removal of that
wretched man from the Church cost his suc-
cessive diocesans, Pelham and Kaye (for the
litigation ran through two incumbencies), no less a
sum than thirteen hundred pounds. Nor are we quite
certain that the suit came to a regular termination;
for Free was run over and killed in Gray's Inn-
lane in a state of drunkenness, much about the
time when the suit would regularly have ended.
Be this, however, as it may, the removal of this
hundred pounds, paid
Marsh is a much
perfectly within his
more expensive to the
We regret that the
of the unworthy
we own that our
by the considera-
that unworthy per-
Peterborough a fine
2,0001. We have
public attention to

this view of the question, because it seems to us
a monstrous thing to throw upon the Bishop the
whole expense of the expulsion of unworthy clergy-
men. There is no other such anomaly ; everywhere
else the public pays the services rendered to the
public, or, as we suspect, the public would be worse
served than it is. The Bishop only is expected to
give his money for the public good. As it is likely
that the subject will come before Parliament, we hope
that this important point will be considered.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, March 16.
(Beforo Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN ARDLET

A solicitor, whose name we were unable to learn, in
the course of the day addressed the Learned Commis-
sioner, saying, that if his Hon.tur was at leisure, he was
anxious to call his attention to, and to ask his opinion
on, a question which appeared to him to be one of the
last importance with Teference to the meaning and intent
of the sth and 6th Victoria, as applicable to the filing
retitions by parties who, being in a state of insolvency,
fly for relief to the provisions of that statute. The in-
solvent in question had filed a petition, which had come
before Mr. Commissioner Evans, by whom it had been
dismissed. But—

Mr. Commissioner HOLROTD was of opinion, that, as
the matter had already been before Mr. Commissioner
Evans, any application on the subject had better be
made to that gentleman.
The solicitor observed, that Mr. Evans was not sittint:.;
at the present time, and as he conceived the questior, he
meant to raise was one of general importance, ond far-
therrnore that it was a point which called for a, decision
by the Commissioners as an authority ana guide for the
profession, as well as for the public, he was inclined to
press for liberty to open and submit the question upon
the present occasion, the more especially as, living at
some distance from the metropolis as he did (Colchester),
he might not be able to do so before the object he had
in view had been altogether frustrated.
Mr. Commissioner bkoLneyn still thought that, as the
ease had been before another Commissionec, any obser-
vation in reference to it ought to be submitted to that
gentleman. At all events, he himself should be careful
to avoid offering any opinion on the matter until he had
conferred with his brother Commissioner.

The solicitor said, that although the first petition of
the insolvent had undoubtedly been before Mr. Commis-
siener Evans, it by no means followed that the threat-
ened second petition of the same insolvent would like-
wise come before him. The first petition had been brought
before Mr. Commissioner Evans, by whom it was dis-
missed. But now the insolvent had given notice by ad-
vertisement of his intention under the same Act of Par-
liament to seek relief from his liabilities by means of a
second petition. Then the question arose, and of very
great importance—
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD could not entertain the
matter. There was quite enough business which, of ne-
cessity, would come before him that day to occupy the
whole of his time, and he could not attend to any other
matter. It would be quite sufficient for him to enter upon
this question when it should, if it ever did, arise in the
regular proceedings of the Court.
The solicitor with firmness said, that the case in
point of fact was not before Mr. Commissioner Evans,
nor indeed before any Learned Commissioner; but the
question was, nevertheless, one of the utmost importance.
Here was an insolvent who had filed a petition for relief
under a particular Act of Parliament, which petition the
Commissioner before whom it had been brought had
dismissed. Well, now the insolvent had given notice of
another petition, and his Honour must well know that
upon the party coming up under that petition, he would
obtain his " protection." The question, therefore, arose
as to whether, for the same liabilities, an insolvent was
empowered (one petition for relief having been dis-
missed) to file a second petition, and so gain a
protection against his creditors? That was the point he
was anxious to offer to the notice of the Commissioner,
and he apprehended that it was one not simply of indi-
vidual interests, but one of the greatest public and ge-
neral importance, and of so imperative a character,
especially in the present instance, as to demand the con-
sideration and public judgment of the Commissioners of
that Court. In itself the simple question was, whether
an insolvent, who had had one petition dismissed, could,
under the Act of Parliament, present a second petition
for relief from the liabilities which had been set forth on
his first application?
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD here said, that if the ap-
plicant would put his question and observations into
writing, and forward them to the Court, the Commis-
sioners would take them into consideration.
The solicitor remarked, that as his Honour did not
feel competent, under the circumstances, to entertain the
case, it might probably be better that he should offer
his objections when his second petition should come
before the Court. After all, perhaps, he ought to op-
pose the second petition, on the ground to which he had
adverted.

The COMMISSIONER thought that would be the better
course.

unworthy person cost thirteen' I
by hie; dvith : • A., - • and as
ocher 4't rii.7.`• id be p
7. Aver to .. . PUri', . moval me
ei
:ishop . 4
' : -.30:f;. ~. gh. W
t, .urcli , iiiitiot joi. relieved
':,.r it AiriAli4 but 'w
reg'r'et is sciniels'WOV alleviated
tion that the - of th
eon spares the Bishop of h
of 1,0001•, and it might be
thought it right to direct P