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

#4- trieiting tni

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1850.

A more important judgment has seldom been prof
nounced in any court of justice than that yester-
day delivered by Vice-Chancellor Sir J. KNIGHT
Bauce 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 " A gapemone," 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 v. 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 Loan."
Whatever Mr. PRINCE announced to be the " will of
Gon" 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 posiessed of
respectable fortunes, between S,OOO/. 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 AGM NOTTIDGE
—the mother of the petitioner—alone attempted to
impose some qualification. She naturally desired
that "her property should be settled on herself,''
in pursuance of a promise which shTHehomadAmade
eto her
parents. But although Brother ,
tended husband, apparently assented to this
condition for a time, he speedily discovered
that " GOD would not have it so," and
that "the principle was entirely contrary to
GOD'S word." The pour dupe bowed ,to the
authority thus expressed, and relinquished her de-
mand. The three marriages were accordingly cele-
brated in the month of July, 1845. From that time
Mr. and Mrs. THOMAS lived together as man and
wife until the 2d of February, 1846, when that:gentle-
r,. was summoned to attend at Bridgewater, and he
t his partner, then in the fifth month of her preg-
tnhaantetyi per ot
orc promising
prengtosenrt heetu harnisn a few days, but from
completely abandoned
his wife. She had, it appears, given some degree
of offence to Mr. Panic; probably by exhibiting
a greater degree of independence 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 that you would
not be in your present state unless you bad rebelled
months ago, and thus you will suffer for it in not
being able to go about with me as you otherwise
would."

The unfortunate woman, thus shamefully deserted
by her natural protector, found refuge with her
mother, and was there delivered of a male child,
the petitioner. It is but justice to Mr. TIIONIA:
to say, that although he abandoned his un-
offending 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 deprive 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 NOTITDGE v. RirLEY ; and
Mr. THOMAS then wrote to her, saying, " Should you
write again, or speak so knowingly contrary to my

wishes and to the truth, I will immediately remove I
your residence, take . the child under my
own eye, and superintend the expenditure of
the money for GOD'S glory." In pursuance of the
determination thus expressed, he endeavoured to ob-
tain possession of the infant's person, to remove it from
the roof under which it had been sheltered and pro-
tected when deserted by him. A petition was ac-
cordingly presented on behalf of the infant, praying
" that some proper person might be appointed to be the
guardian, and to have the care of the infant during
his minority—that proper directions should be
given for his maintenance and education, and that
the father and hie agents:should be restrained from ap-
plying for any writ of habeas corpus for the
purpose of obtaining possession or custody of the
infant, and also from taking forcible or other means
of obtaining possession of, or otherwise interfering
with, him," and an order has been made substantially
in accordance with this prayer.
We have stated that " the principle of interference
has thus been carried further than on any former oc-
casion." According to the common law the father
alone has legal power over his children, which power
he may exercise until they attain the age of 21 years.
He is entitled to their custody and care, and
may retake them if they are removed from him. He
can obtain a habeas corpus for their recovery, and
bring actions of tresp ass against parties taking them
away from him.
The Court of Chancery, however, in some degree in-
terfered with this right. In WELLESLBY v. Duke of
BEAUFORT it was held, that where children had pro-
perty within the jurisdiction the Court would interfere
to withhold the custody and education of
his children from a father whose conduct,
as by living in open adultery, had been
grossly criminal. But Lord Emort declared that
"there was no jurisdiction where the children had
not property for their maintenance." Now, in the
present instance, the petitioner his no property,
neither was there any gross or open immorality even
alleged against Mr. TUOMAL His religious opinions, and
more especially his state of spiritual serfdom, was all that
could justify the decision. The 2d and 3d Victoria,
chap. 54, did not apply, for, although the child is
under seven years of age, the mother did not apply,
and the judgment was pronounced on totally dif-
ferent grounds. The judgment has, therefore, over-
ruled all former precedents, although we confess
that we most earnestly desire that it may be affirmed
and maintained to the fullest extent.

An earnest appeal having recently been addressed
by the poor-law union surgeons to the public, and
more particularly to that aggregate organ of public
opinion over which we, as one of its members, exer-
cise the responsible functions of journalism, we feel
ourselves impelled to respond at once, however briefly,
from an appreciation of the united influences of
justice, prudence, and humanity. The document to
which we would here direct popular attention, as
affording the exposition of a. great grievance to the
community, an enormous cruelty to the destitute,
and a lamentable indifference to the over-toil and
under-remuneration of an important body of medical
practitioners, appeared in our columns as recently as
the 17th instant, and has doubtless also been distri-
buted widely throughout the country, through re-
publication in those of our metropolitan and pro-
vincial contemporaries. This direct reference of the
matter to the consideration of the Press and of the
Population is formally authenticated by the signature
of Dr. HODGKIN, the chairman, and of Mr. LORD, the
zealous and indefatigable secretary, of the Poor-law Me-
dical Convention: and hence the general multitude will
feel itself compelled to place implicit confidence in the
accuracy of statements which must otherwise have
appeared altogether incredible. With ourselves the
melancholy particulars referred to, although suffi-
ciently startling on their reiteration, excited no sur-
prise comparable to that which must inevitably be
experienced on their perusal by the mass of the
community. For those mournful facts have be-
come long since familiarised to our apprehension
in consequence of our previous and sedulous regard to
the revelations made during the course of this very
laudable movement.

According to the statements signed and counter-
signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Poor-
law Medical Convention, the appeal now addressed to
the public generally has been necessitated in conse-
quence of the practical inattention to the question of
all the administrative and legislative authorities
of the United Kingdom. Petitions to Parliament
have proved unproductive of any improvement,
whatever. Deputations to the Right Honourable the
Secretary for the Home Department have been found
equally ineffectual towards the remedy of the griev-
ances personally complained of to that Administrator.
References of the matter to the Poor-law Board
having turned out not only suite as' unsuccessful,
but having been actually followed of late by supple-
mentary orders from that board, tending materially
to enhance the amount of an evil al-
ready sufficiently burdensome, the Society
constituted for the purpose of agitating
for reforms in the distribution of medical relief to
the pauper population, in the supervision of 'that re-
lief, and in the examination of the officers employed
in affording it, have deemed it requisite to beseech
the consideration of the multitude to an evil cm..
templated by the Legislature and disregarded by the
Government.

A ready cognizance of the exact nature of the
grievances complained of may be obtained from the
simple but touching and comprehensive peti-
tion some time singe submitted by the
medical officers of unions .in England and Wales to
the Commons House of Parliament. From that peti-
tion it will be observed that the defects in the exist-
ing system are thus epitomised. First, in the dif-
ficulty of obtaining orders for medical relief from the
relieving officers in cases of sudden illness, of acci-
dents, or of midwifery—a difficulty which must obvi-
ously tend to increase the mortality, not merely among
the pauper population, but among the poor
and industrious classes indiscriminately. Secondly,
in the frequent refusal and general uncertainties of
remuneration to the medical officer for his attendance
on a poor patient under such circumstance?, and the
consequent hardship either to the patient, the medical
officer, or both together—a result deplorable to con-
template, seeing that it must, in many instances, tend
to increase the sufferings of the destitute and to
lessen the exertions of the practitioners. Thirdly,
the undue restriction on the medical officer, in re-
ference to his power of ordering the necessary ali-
ment for the cure of his patient, and the frequent
neglect of such orders when given—a restric-
tion and a neglect as cruel to the unfortunate
patient as it is unfair to the medical attendant.
Fourthly, the want of the requisite inspection
over the working of the system by intelligent
and duly qualified physicians. The introduc-
tion of the last mentioned paragraph in the enu-
meration of the defects of the prevailing sys-
tem appears to us to indicate very forcibly
the unselfish and disinterested philanthropy
out of which the present agitation of the medical
bode' has emanated. In endeavouring to place the
poet-law medical officers in a position more befitting
their character as gentlemen, and more justly appor-
tioned to their labours as alleviators of the ills of
humanity, the Medical Convention is also solicitous
to place them, as they are not now, in a situation of
responability. This is but, just, and fair, and
honourable. While the sufferings of the poor must be
more carefully attended to, so as to insure their diminu-
athcceommepdainciaeldobfflycearsseocfartihtye
fdt
oi orffn e ,tr
he tenh t
fe
unal i
aonndscompensation
cs ha ro ea f udl
bopeferformance of their duties.
What is actually desired to be introduced by way of
improvement by these medical officers throughout the
kingdom is very readily particularised. Instead of
their payment being made partially from the
money raised by way of poor-rates, they are
solicitous that it should be made henceforth
entirely from the Consolidated Fund. Instead
of the remuneration being in the average
2s. 7d. per case for the country districts, and Is. 61d.
for the metropolitan districts (ranging from the
muximunt at the Pocklington Union of 143. 4d. per
case, down to the mininnon of 3d. per case at the
union of Newton Abbott), they would fain see it
fixed at an average in town and country of at least
Gs. per case—a sum most undeniably reasonable,
seeing that 73. per head i? paid for the
police, and no less than I3s. 7d. per head
fur the sick felons in the hulks and prisons.
Instead of the present fluctuating mode of appoint-