The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-28 00:00:00

mand that the defendant should celebrate the mar-
riage on or before the day named in the certificate—
the 14th of August, when it would expire, and Hard-
man made a similar demand. The defendant said,
" I will marry him when he (Fisher) has expressed
a desire to be confirmed." The parties made no
reply. At witness's request they both repeated the
demand. Mr. James then said, "I have given you
my answer."
Cross-examined by Mr. Buss.—Did not Mr. James
refer them to the rubric of the Prayer-book as his
reason ?—Not in my presence.
Did he not say, "You will find my answer in the
printed forms ?"—I am not aware of it. Mr. White-
head might have said, " We are aware of that."
Mr. James allowed the certificate to be valid, but,
notwithstanding, he refused to marry the parties.
Mr. James had been minister seven years. Witness
attended the Wesleyan chapel. He was present when
the notice was read at the board of guardians, and
read it immediately after the minutes of the previous
meetings.
Re-examined—My Learned Friend has thought it
worth while to ask you if you attended the Wesleyan
chapel ; did you once attend the church ?—I
When was it you left?—About four years ago.

His LORDSHIP—Is that material ?—fthink

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Why did you leave
the Church? Witness—l have reasons, but would
rather not express them.
His Loensuie—Do let us try this case as if it
were an action between John Thorn is and Peter
Jackson. What can this inquiry have to do with the
question ?
Henry Fisher stated he lived at St. Thomas's
crescent, Bedford. He was a stripper and grinder,
and had lived there eleven years. Had known Anne
Hardman two years. She worked in the same place
as he. In May last he and Anne Hardman had
agreed to be married. Previously to that she had
lived at Tinsley, and before the 14th of May she had
lived a•month in Bedford, at St. Thomas's-crescent.
The notice produced was signed by him, and he gave
it to Mr. Hayes on the 14th of May. The certificate
produced he got from Mr. Hayes on the 12th of
June. After he had got it he called on Mr. James,
the defendant, the same night. He was not at home,
but he saw him the night after. He told Mr. James
that he was come to give him notice that he intended
being married at St. Thomas's Church next morning.
Mr. James asked him if he had been baptized. Wit-
ness answered "Yes." He asked witness what his name
was, and he told him. He asked him if he had been
asked at church. "Witness said "No." He asked him
where he had been asked, and witness said at the board
of guardians. He then asked him if he had been
confirmed, and witness said `• No." He then said
" He could have nothing at all to do with me." Wit-
ness asked for what reason. He told him he was
not compelled to tell me his reason. Witness said,
" Very well, I will go to the board of guardians and
see what they say." He said "If people will be so
foolish as to get asked at the board of guardians, I
must go and let the board of guardians marry me."
He saw him again, and he was again referred to the
board of guardians. He afterwards went with Mr.
Hayes, and also a fourth time, to see him, when Anne
Hardman was with them, and demanded him to fix a
time to marry them on or before the 14th of August,
and Anne Hardman did the same. lie said he would
marry them when witness had expressed a desire to
be confirmed.

Cross-examined—His father was living; his mother
was dead. He used to go to church some time ago,
for about twelve months. He did not go to Mr.
James to learn his catechism. He never learnt the
Church catechism.

His LORDSHIP—How is this material P However,
I will give you credit fur asking it with some motive
material.

Mr. Buss—My Lord, I think it is.
Witness—His mother never went with him to Mr.
James to learn the Church catechism. After the first
notice, he gave another to the guardians on the day
he should have been married, on the 14th of June, to
be married at Tinsley Chapel—a Dissenting chapel.
His father did not attend that chapel. He did not
attend that chapel himself. He himself went to the
Methodist chapel in Bedford. Tinsley Chapel is two
miles off.

His L3RDSHIP—Then why were you not married ?
Witness—Because they wanted this case to be tried
on, whether Mr. James would marry us or not.
His LORDSHIP—Then you and your child are the
victims of this case ? Witness—Yes, to be sure.
His LORDSHIP—Then I think there is folly on both
sides now.

Anne Hardman, a good looking girl, very young,
was sworn, but not examined.
Cros.-examined—Her child was born on the 18th
of October. She was not married yet. She had been
confirmed about six years ago.
His LORDBII/P-Why were you not married, my
poor girl ? Are you under orders from anybody not
to be married till this cause is tried ? Witness—
Yes, till this is tried.

Ills LORDSHIP—So then you are living in a state
of sin, in order that this cause may be tried ? Are
you living with the young man now ? Witness—Yes.
His LORDSHIP—So they have kept you in a state
of sin in order to try this cause. Very well ; if that
is not a sin, I don't know what is. It is disgraceful.
At the present day there is a determination to drive
everything to extremities. Perhaps the young man
won't marry you now. "Witness—Yes, he will.
Henry Fisher was recalled, and, in answer to the
Learned Counsel for the prosecution, said he was
living with the girl, and had not marriffd her until this
cause was tried, because of his ow❑ personal feeling
in one sense, and because it was ordered he should
not be married till this was settled.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Who ordered you?
Witness—Why, I had warning from the registration•
office.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Buss then addressed the jury for the defence.
He said the case required more nerve than he pos-
sessed, not to feel embarrassed on rising to address
them on such an occasion, for the subject was one
which involved subjects strange to that Court, and
which he felt himself neither able nor quite worthy
to urge. The consequences of their verdict to the
defendant, for his interests in this world, were most
serious, for he believed the defendant would count
their condemnation of his conduct as one of the
greatest misfortunes of his life. The consequences
were also important to the order of which he was a
humble, a faithful, and an earnest member, to the
Church itself, and tosociety at large, which the Church
had been the means of reclaiming from barbarism,
infidelity, or superstition. The Learned Counsel was
proceeding to contend that the enforcement of the
doctrines of the Church and of its strict discipline
had never for these objects been more required than
at the present day, when
His LORDSHIP said he supposed there was no dis-
pute about the facts, and he should like to hear the
legal objections raised.
The Learned COUNSEL then, at great length and
with much ingenuity and research, which our limits
do not enable us to do justice to, proceeded to contend
that the defendant had committed no legal offence ;
that he was bound by the canons and the rubric ; and
that if he were wrong his offence, if any, was cog-
nizable only by the ecclesiastical courts. By the
ancient law of the Church the communion was re-
quired to be administered at the marriage ceremony ;
and now it was by the rubric enjoined that "it is
convenient that the new married persons shall receive
the holy communion at the time of their marriage, or
at the first opportunity after their marriage." This
change had been made to meet the objections of the
Puritans in Charles ll.'s reign. That requirement
presupposed a certain degree of fitness in the parties
to receive the communion, and it was imperative,
under the canons, before a party received it, that he
should be so far advanced in Church doctrine and
discipline as to be fit to partake of it, which Fisher
was not, never having been confirmed, and he evi-
dently having lived in a state of fornication.
His LORDSHlP—Unfortunately in this case the ob-
jection taken by the defendant was only that one
party had not been confirmed. He don't object to the
parties having lived in fornication. He swallows the
camel.
Mr. Brass contended that. it was not too late for
him now to take that objection. It might be that the
defendant had refused to marry the parties for a bad
reason when he could have urged a good one.
His LORDSHIP—If the good reason had been as-
signed the parties might have amended their lives.
Mr. Buss then contended that a clergyman was not
bound by the statute to administer the solemn rights
of the Church to persons who were not in a fit state,
to persons of any or no creed. Otherwise lewd women
might demand to be churched after giving birth to
their bastards.

His Loansuir—l do not see any reason why a
woman may not thank God for her safe deliverance.

Mr. Bid3s the❑ contended that this was an offence
at common law. The certificate was put in the place
of banns, and a clergyman was not bound to marry
where the banns had been published, but was required
first, by the 62nd canon, to see that the parents give
their consent, if the parties were under age. He had
a jueicial power conferred upon him, with his exer-
cise of which the law would not meddle ; and if he
did wrong his error was only cognizable in the eccle-
siastical court.

His LORDSHIP expressed himself to be with the
Learned Counsel on that point. He, however, could
not he 1p thinking that it was very unwise to raise
these points either in one court or the other. The
best way in such matters was to use good advice, and
to exhor t men to do right. He -could not but ex-
press his utter disapprobation of persons continuing to
live in sin for the purpose of raising such a question
as this. It was shocking.
Mr. Buss then: said he had taken the objections
he was, instructed to take, but there were others
which, as an advocate, he felt it his duty to take. He
then o'njectea, that the defendant's refunl to marry