Arches Court Monday, June...
The Times, 1824-06-22T00:00:00

n-a case, which was brought up by letters of request fronm the ,C0naIorial Court of Peterborough, articles had been exhibited, and 5JO JUdSe-5 tenipronioted. by John Gates, Esq., a parishioncr of .t~Sc1a? the olO dioce>ss, against the Rev. illr. Chambers, "for rtforrnati6n of his manners and excesses," &c., arid especially n an ofence by him committed against the 48th CJafo.n'. which declares that none shall officiate as tninis- tet or curates in any diocess, without previously obtaining Itcence from the Bishop thereof. In this Court a respon. ive anUegation was to-dav oledred on 'behalf of the Rev. AIr. Cbanbsrs to theart cles. The latter, besides charging that he had committed such offence against the canon, by having, on the 14th cf Scotermber, 1823, taken pussession of the reading.desk attached te:tle pulpitin the psrish chirch df Bgifield, and thereby obstructed he Rev. Mr. Strn'ley P;cris the curate of Byfie1d duly licensed and unihoiked by HYerbert, ti;hop of Peterborough, in the perforntance of his duties r-s guch cutale; and by having himself preached at such titmeznd plgte as ininister or curate of the said parish, without ilaving fit obtzined a like licence from the Bishop of Peterborough, orz othcrconzpCtent7uthority-.et forth the general ecclesiastical law 'on this Obiet&, and the 48;h Canon specially. They recited, that the i:Lfenai:tt(11r. Chambers) was the licensed curate of 'Willoughby, within t'fe borders of the county of WVarwick, and therefore in the .1iocesa Lichfield and Coventry; and that iMlr. Paris was the icist.k curate of the parish of Byfield, just within the borders of .thce&snty of sNorthamoton, and therefore in the diocess of Peter- Cbo?augh-t.hat :Mlr. Chambers, w hose licence was of course htSd urder the Bishop of Lhfield and Coventry, wns, on .ie lay referred to, requested by lr. Shepherd, one of the church- 'ac-rdr; of By field, to leave the reading.desk to Mr. Stanley Paris, and allow him to pe. form the duty *t'hat ilr. Paris also ren.uested'the defenzdant to desist, and not to obstruct him, for that if he perse- d his con,luct would exp"sc him (Mr. Chambers) tn the dis- .Icasdte of the Bishop: but that Mr. Chambers went on to officiate as hesaid, for his friend 111r. NVetherell, the resident rector of By- 'itq4, who was that day compelled by the illness of his lady to be f9l3steL And the conelnding article prayed that this defendant might loe c nonicelly punished, and condernned in the costs of this suit. The allegation viven in on behalf of MNlr. Chambers pleaded that the Rev. 31r. %retherell, the rector of Byfield, had been, in 1822 -Tvl 1823, and now was, resident in that benefice ; that in September, M-2x, he .4feed with Mfr. Stanley that the latter should become his .iasiztant cltate, at a stipend of1001. a year, such agreement to be de. _termiable upon three mortths' notice from either patty ; that the IBishobfPeterbOrou.gh, at ir. Wetherell's application, gave the de- feradit a licence, and assigned him a stipend; but in the month of 1Taaniry followirg, Mr.WethereU becoming very dissatisfied with Ar. r gave him a notice, conformable to the terms of their agree- tnt tWo q>it the curacy of Byfield; that on the 25th of Febnrary 'qr. WAhercll gave notice accordingly to the Bishop, and re. Iq.ut'A that M r. Pans's licence might be withdrawn; and many times, particularly on the 25th of June tendered the latter ldevaent of his stipulated ssalry, and that between February th cend of June, Mr. Paris did not officiate at all, for Mr. 'Wetherell did the whole duty himself. The allegation went on to 'plead that the Rev. Air. WVethereU (who never received any notice from Ur. Paris wrhen he quitted the parish ot Byfield, and naturaUy, therefore, supposed that he had acquiesced in the agreement?) being obliged to go to Malvern on account of the state of his wife's bealth, requexted Alr. Chambers to perform the church duties forbim at Ilield, on the aLrticulate Sunday, the 14th of September, 1E23 ; that Sir. Chamnhers on that morning, having waited on Mr. F.rebrother, one of the churchwaTRdes of Byfield, to whom he khowed his licence under the Bishop of L-chfileld and Coventry, proceeded in that gentleman's company to the church. The re. mnainder of tne allegation pleaded the facts already mentioned as to the protest of Mr. Paris and Air. Shepherd, and the disavowal on Mr. Chambers's part of doing any thing oftensive to Mlr. Paris, in acceding to the request of his friend, the rector, by whom he had been informecd that Slr. Paris was no longer curate. Dr. LuassRIoTow opyposed the admission of this allegation, snd contended, that the Bishop havin granted to Air. Paris his li- cence toact ns curate to the rector of Byfield, it wouild not be in-the rector's power to rescind that appointment without authority from the diocesam or ordinary; and in support of this position, and to show the evils which had always been apprehended as, likely to ;ise from allowing a different doctrine to prevail, the-learned coun. rel cited the 36th Geo. 11. C. 38, sec. 6 ; the 57th Geo. Ill., c. - Bur (Eel-Laz, tt. 1 urate'); Lyndewoo.d; Johnson-, the case of "Fvnde and Martin," (Cowper's Reports); and the dictum of Liord 3fanstfield thereon;, and tne charge of Hlorseley, B3ishop of t Asaph, at his primary visitation, in 1806: all these authorities, the learned counsel contended, went to establish this, fact-that no curate could legally officiate as curate or minister in any diocess without bavin7r helicence of the bishop of that diocess. Now he did not mean tojustify and never would stand forward to vindicate, on the pam of any bis-Aiop, anv unnecessary strictness in respect of this undoubted pnriviege to grant such licences; but he did consider that in the present case Mlr. Chambers was not warranted in his conduct,ardhethereforesuPortedthePreroftheoriginal ariicles. Dr. J. A DDAMS follow on the same side. Dr. ARYiOLDland Dr. PIrrLtssrOIE forbir. Chamibers, main. t2inesl that the doctrine of their legrned IneuLds, acted upon in its full exent, wrould be productive of sing, ular haraship and oppression to the clergy generally, end to curates in parficuslir. Thep learned counsel insisted thatnocanonical ofFenelhad in fact been committed, rud1that this allegation was perfectly admissib)le. Sir JORjX N"OLL, upon a areful r,tstatement of the facts de;, tailed in thse preccedings, coacluded to admit the aLUegation, the rnaucfw~, if xtsouldbepr,e,nigbt turni out to be very rnaersl otoni' o he ricial sse,but also to the question of coat-a onsieraion f n sllht mDotance in a suit like this, of - - ARCFI'Fc OnTTR'P T-.- 01 -.FFICE Or TtrF JUDGE PROMOTED BY GATES V. TRE a, , REV. J. CHAMtERS. CLERK.