The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-23 00:00:00

eiTtatill#

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1850.

A more important judgment has seldom been pro,
flounced in any court of justice than that yester-.
day delivered by Vice-Chancellor Sir J. KNIGHT
BRUCE in the case of THOMAS v. ROBERTS.
Although highly approving of that decision, and de-
lighted at the rescue of the infant petitioner from the
' soul-debasing fanaticism of the "Agapemonites," we
feel bound to confess that the principle of interference
has been carried much further than on any former
occasion, and that a new precedent has been estab-
lished which may be carried to a very considerable
extent, so as to overturn authorities and rules that
have been long considered as settled beyond
the possibility of doubt or controversy. We do not
feel disposed on this account to censure the Learned
Vice Chancellor ; on the contrary, we think that he
has earned for himself the thanks and gratitude of the
country, for having the boldness and courage neces -
sary to emancipate himself from the fetters and
trammels by which he was restrained, and affording
adequate relief where it was so urgently required.
Although the parties were " remediless in the pre-
mises" (not only) " by the strict rules of the common
law," but according to the usual course of proceedings
in the Courts of Equity, we believe that
his Honour possesses the authority which he assumed.
But if such should not be the case, we have no hesi-
tation that ample powers should be forthwith con-
ferred by the Legislature.
There are few persons in the community who have
not heard of the " Agapemone," the strange doctrines
professed by its inmates, and the extraordinary influ-
ence exercised by the chief of the sect, " the servant of
GOD," as he is usually termed, over his deluded fol-
lowers. The trial in the well-known case of NOT.
TIDGE U. RIPLEY brought all the facts connected with
that establishment prominently before the public.
Many persons of both sexes, addressing each other as
" brothers and sisters," reside together under the con-
trol of HENRY JAMES PRINCE, formerly a clergy-
man of the Church of England, but now regarded
as a species of prophet—the founder of a new reli-
gion. These parties do not attend any place of wor-
ship, indeed, they profess the doctrine that the "prac-
tice of prayer, whether private or public, is useless,
and ought to be abandoned," " that there is not
any particular day which ought to be set aside or
respected as a Sabbath," and that the " day of
judgment" has already commenced. We shall
not, however, enter into a discussion of the
peculiar tenets of these parties. Religious
opinions, however erroneous we may suppose them to
be, if truly and conscientiously entertained, are not
fitting subjects for comment in a public journal, nor
was it on such grounds alone that the decision to
which we are alluding was pronounced.' It was the
total absence of free-will of the Agapemonites, more
particularly of " Brother THOMAS," the father of the
infant, and their unqualified subserviency and mental
slavery to the behests of " the servant of the LORD."
Whatever Mr. PRINCE announced to be the " will of
GoD" should be implicitly obeyed, without hesitation
or remonstrance, and any resistance thereto was
forthwith denounced as rank rebellion against the
CREATOR, and punished to the utmost extent practi-
cable by the spiritual despot.
The marriage of the parties was thus "com-
manded" by Mr. PRINCE. Three ladies possessed of
respectable fortunes, between 5,0001. and 6,0001. each,
had unhappily attended the ministry of Mr. PRINCE,
and that gentleman had speedily discovered that it
was " the will of GOD" that they should contract
marriage with three of his male disciples, men so
far as it has appeared, having no income
or means of livelihood whatsoever. They all
were obedient, as their spiritual director assured
them that the will of a mere. earthly parent was of
no account, and should not be opposed to the re-
vealed will of the CREATOR. Miss AGNES NOTTIDGE
—the mother of the petitioner—alone attempted to
impose some qualification. She . naturally desired
that "her property shouldlm settledbad
made to heron.heraelf,'
in pursuance of a promis.e which she
parents. But although Brother THOMAS, her
in-
tended husband, apparently assentedto
this
condition for a time, he speedily discovered
that " clon would not ,have it so," and
that " the principle was entirely contrary to
GOD'S word." The poor- dupe bowed to the
authority thus expressed, and relinquished her de-
mand. The three marriages-were accordingly cele- 1
brated in the month of July, 18.45. From that time
Mr. and Mrs. THoMAs lived together as man and
wife until the. 24 of February, 1846, when that:gentle-.
mlefittnhwisaspagruttnnemr,otnd
heentoi attendn t
hthe
fifth
fat
ht Bridgewater,mo month
th oof
her a
preg-
nancy, rde he
Raney, promising to return in a few days, but from
that time to the present he has completely abandoned
his wife. She had, it appears, given some degree
of offence to Mr. Patswa,. probably by exhibiting
a greater degree of independende than he permitted,
and he accordingly pronounced a sentence of " sepa-
ration." As " Brother THOMAS" declared in his letter,
" the servant of the LORD" told me
at you would
not be in your present state unless you had rebelled
months ago, and thus you will suffer fur it in not
being able to go about with me as you otherwise
would."

Tho unfortunate woman, thus shamefully deserted
by her natural protector, found refuge with her
mother, awl wag there delivered of a male child,
the petitioner. It is but justice to Mr. Tnoms.s
to say, that although he abandoned his isn-
ot-rending wife, and refused to acknowledge the
communication made to him respecting the birth of
his son, he for some time permitted her to receive
the income arising from her property, and did not
endeavour to depri►e her of the care and society of
her only child. A new cause of dispute, hoWever,
arose in the evidence which this unfortunate lady
gave in the cause of NOTTIDGE v. RIFLE! ;: and
Mr. Taossas then wrote to her, saying, " Should you
write again, or speak so knowingly contrary to my

'7
:• 4- • ...-;.-eit'y )i ~.- -
tf ...,.‘,„,,;;C.7...,/'',' •
- ,40b5,... „_,....-. ..,
...-.3.< , ~.,.,
.., • lik cf , •
' - W-.'1'.71-). I', . a 7.1,1-. ,!`",•,-.,d--'• ' ' ' - -4,. -,. -.-
-41. '— • ',..- . , ',.....;* ' • ."--.:',. _