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

-,:._:ltrinting glut

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1850.

A more important judgment has seldom been pro!
nounced 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 " A gapemone," the strange doctrines
professed by its inmates, and the extraordinary influ-
ence exercised by the chief of the sect," the servant of
Gon," as be 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 Tuomas," 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
Gun" 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 5,000/. and 6,0001. eacht
had unhappily attended the ministry of Mr. PRINCE,
and that gentleman had speedily discovered that it
was " the will of Gon" 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 ♦GNES 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 she had made to her
parents. But although Brother THomes, her in-
tended husband, apparently assented to this
condition for a time, he speedily discovered
that " GOD would not hare 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. TBOMAS lived together as man and
wife until the 2d of February, 1846, when thatgentle-

man was summoned to attend at Bridgewater, and he
left his partner, then in the fifth month cf her preg-
nancy, promising to return in a few days, but from
that time to the present he has completely abandoned
his Wife. Sh© had, it appears, given some degree
o
of otTence to Mr. f
independencePßlNCE, probablythen blyi e eexrhni
ib iting
a greater degreepitted,
and he accordinglyprTonounced a sentence of " sepa-
ration." As " Brother
not be in your presenLtOsyßilta:°;
"the servant of the
0 that
h aydo ur wouldel
e d
rel.idiediseanicyelared in his letter,
mosueffseryofour sinoittherwnisoet
months ago, and thus
being able to go about with
deserted
would."
The unfortunate woman, thus shamefully
with her
by her natural protector, found refuage
1 mother, and was there delivered of
Inglej:, child,
I the petitioner. It is but justice to Mr.
(to say, that although be abandoned hisll "As
n
offending wife, and refused to acknowledge eti;
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 NOTTIDGE v. RIPLEY ; and
Mr. THOMAS then wrote to her, saying, " Should you

write again, or speak so knowingly contrary to my