Page images
PDF
EPUB

Thou that breath'st life into th' unthinking clod,
Be Thou my Light, as Thou hast been my God.
Thou took'st me from the womb, since me upheld;
Be Thou my strength, as Thou hast been my shield.
And surely so Thou art: from death, from tears,
Thou'st oft preserv'd me, oft renew'd my years,
Dispell'd my sorrows, banish'd all my fears.
To dangers oft expos'd, thy help implor'd,
By follies lost, as oft I've been restor❜d.
When duty call'd me forth to risk my all,
Just was my lot, but easy was my fall.

The griefs and sufferings that mean souls annoy,
Thou mak'st 'em light to me, and turn'st to joy.
So light, that if in ought I bear thy cross,
It grieves, that nought I merit by the loss.
My sins more justly scourges might demand,
Should justice strike, as mercy holds thy hand-
In that's my refuge: there I place my rest;
Not hurt by frowns, in spite of fortune blest.

For all these mercies, just returns from me
Are due; but even these I owe to Thee-
My prayers, and vows, and all that should be mine,
Even these are due to Thee, and truly thine.
O, were I thrice myself!-The offerings made,
Were it as worthy Thee, as freely paid!
But worth! forbid the word: my sins forbid;
Pardon's my plea, and sins by mercy hid.
Fixt there I stand, in hope of crimes forgiven,
I trample earth, and antedate my heaven.

In brighter mansions may I have my share,
And follow thoughts that are already there;
But low therein, for lowly is my prayer.

}

Febr: 12. Die meo natali.

COLLECTANEA.

MALACHY.-The famous prophecies of the Irish Saint, Malachy (Abbot of Bangor, and Archbishop of Armagh), in which the vicissitudes of the papacy are foretold, are believed to have been fabricated in the conclave of 1590, by the partisans of Cardinal Simoncelli.

GLASS BELL.-Another church bell of glass has been cast in Sweden; its diameter is six feet, and its tone is said to be beyond comparison finer than that of any metal bell.

PSALMODY.-It was in the course of the sixteenth century that the psalmody of England, and the other protestant countries, was brought to the state in which it now remains, and in which it is desirable it should continue to remain. For this psalmody we are much indebted to the Reformers of Germany, especially Luther, who was himself an enthusiastic lover of music, and is believed to have composed some of the finest tunes, particularly the Hundredth Psalm, and the hymn on the Last Judgment.

LAW REPORT.

44444444

No. VI.-BRAWLING.*

ARCHES COURT OF CANTERBURY, EASTER TERM, 1824.
DAWE AND NOCKOLDS v. WILLIAMS.

(By Letters of Request from the Archdeaconry of Huntingdon.)

THIS was a cause or business of the office of the Judge promoted by William Dawe and Martin Nockolds, respectively, parishioners, inhabitants, and churchwardens of the parish of Tring, in the county of Hertford, Archdeaconry of Huntingdon, Diocese of Lincoln, and Province of Canterbury, against Henry Williams, also a parishioner of the said parish, for his soul's health, &c. and, especially, for having "created a disturbance in the parish church of Tring aforesaid, during the time of divine service therein," and for having "quarrelled, chode, and brawled, by words, in the said Church, during such time." It was a proceeding in this Court, the Court of Arches, in the first instance, by virtue of "letters of request," under the hand and seal of the "Commissary of the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, in, and throughout the Archdeaconry of Huntingdon."

The criminal charge, as contained in the third of six articles, exhibited on the part of the promovents, was as follows-that " on the morning of Sunday, the 24th of August, 1823, and during the time of divine service in the parish Church of the parish of Tring aforesaid, he, the said Henry Williams, (the defendant) not being a churchwarden, overseer, or officer of the said parish, did enter into the porch of the said Church, and affix, and leave affixed, on the door of the said Church, a written notice, in the words and figures, or to the effect following, to wit-Take notice, that a vestry will be held in this Church on Friday next, the 29th day of August, at three o'clock, to choose new Churchwardens in the place of the present ones.'Signed George Kingsley, Charles Belcher, Overseers; Adam Morton,

[ocr errors]

William Firth, Thomas Woodman ;' that he, the said Henry Williams, then entered the said Church, accompanied by Adam Morton, an inhabitant of the said parish, and having taken his seat with the said Adam Morton, in his pew, did, during the time of divine service therein, and immediately after the Rev. Charles Lacy, the minister then officiating in the said Church, had concluded reading the Nicene creed, stand up in the said pew, and, not regarding the sacredness of the place in which he then was, and without any lawful authority whatever, did, irreverently, read aloud a notice in the words, or to the precise effect, of the said written notice, so affixed, as aforesaid, on the door of the said Church—and did, moreover, then, and there, irreverently, and indecently, chide and brawl, in the presence and hearing of the congregation then assembled in the said Church-and did, thereby, and by so reading aloud the said notice, as aforesaid, interrupt the performance of divine service, create a great disturbance in the said Church, and give great offence to the congregation assembled therein." The articles concluded by praying that the defendant might be "duly corrected for such offence according to the exigency of the law"-might be "admonished to refrain from the like behaviour in future"-and might "be condemned in the costs of the suit."

In opposition to the admission of the "articles," it was submitted, that the act charged upon the defendant had nothing of that malus animus on the face of it, which, it was contended, was essential to the offence of "brawling." What, it was said, is the intrinsic character of the act? When any thing is

* Articles against a parishioner for "brawling," &c. by reading a "notice of vestry," in church, during divine service, without due authority, admitted to proof.

An objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit for "brawling" by "letters of request," overruled.

to be proposed to the parishioners relative to the general management of the parish, the Churchwardens are the proper persons to call a meeting of the parish. If the object of that meeting be personal against the Churchwardens (as in this instance), it may be (as the fact was in this instance) that they refuse to call a vestry. What, then, are the parish to do? Are they not to meet in vestry at all? That can hardly be. But if parishioners are to meet, legally, in vestry, a prior "notice," in Church, similar to the one in question, is absolutely requisite under Mr. Sturges Bourne's act; which says not a word as to whom vestries shall be called by, or at all prescribes the course to be pursued, when the Churchwardens, the persons authorized to call them in the first instance, refuse or decline-an omission, possibly, fit to be supplied in the event of any revision of that act. Under these circumstances, it should seem, prima facie, that such notice of vestry must be given in Church, without the authority of the Churchwardens; and that the parish, in deputing one of their body to that office, took the only step capable of being taken. The notice in question, even as pleaded, was signed by the overseers, and other (respectable) parishioners so that the parishioner deputed to the office of reading it in Church, was, surely, sufficiently authorized, to protect him from being dealt with, for having merely executed that office, as a "brawler." Other modes, indeed, may be suggested, in which the parish, possibly, might have proceeded. It may be said, for instance, that they might have moved the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus to the Churchwardens to call a vestry. But, not to mention the circuity and expensiveness of this (the only mode which readily suggests itself) such suggestions, it was said, are foreign to the argument; that confining itself, as it does, merely to shewing, that the act charged evinces nothing of that malus animus on the face of it, essential to the offence of brawling; and which unless the Court infers, from the intrinsic character of the act itself, it is bound, it was argued, to reject the articles.

Should it be said that "this was a calling of a vestry for an illegal pur

pose," and that hence the Court will infer "malice," the answer is. 1st, non constat, that this was a calling of a vestry for an illegal purpose-but even granting it to have been, still, 2dly, it was not a calling of a vestry for any purpose so illegal, on the face of it, that the Court will infer any malus animus in the defendant on that account. The power of parishioners to remove their Churchwardens, in case of their wasting the goods of the parish (or, it may be presumed, in case of their other misbehaviour) is pretty broadly laid down in many books of authority. "Churchwardens," says Mr. Justice Blackstone,"may not waste the Church goods, but may be removed by the parish, and called to account." And it is said to have been ruled by the Court of King's Bench, two centuries ago, that parishioners may displace their Churchwardens, though chosen for a time certain, before the expiration of that time. And indeed it should seem, as the law now stands, pretty essential that parishioners should have some such power. "In ordinary repairs," says Bishop Gibson, "the Churchwardens need not take the sense of the parishioners; and, though indiscreet or over expensive, are entitled to be reimbursed by the parish for what they have expended, so it hath been truly expended, and without profit to themselves; because the parish have constituted them their trustees. Nor have the parishioners, he adds, any remedy but by complaint to the ordinary, in order to their removal." And Prideaux, in his "Office of Churchwardens," is even still more pointed as to parishes being, in these respects, in the discretion, (it might almost be said at the mercy) of their Churchwardens. Gibson, it will be seen, has coupled this power of parishioners to remove their Churchwardens with the necessity, or at least the propriety, of a complaint to the ordinary, in the first instance, in order to such their removal. But this, probably, might be the very course meant to be pursued in the present instance: it was not necessary in the published "notice of vestry" objected to, to enter into any particulars of the course meant to be pursued by the parish. "In order to choose new Church

wardens," might well stand for "in order to take the requisite, legal steps, for the choosing of new Churchwardens" - leaving those steps to be ascertained by the vestry when actually

met.

Under these circumstances, it was submitted, that the mere reading of a notice of vestry, at the time and in the manner charged, was no brawling on the face of it-the Churchwardens, the proper persons to call vestries on parish matters, refusing to convene a vestry (as they naturally would) for the purpose specified - and Mr. Sturges Bourne's act providing that no vestry shall be holden without a previous notice in Church of the holding of such vestry, and of the purpose for which it is intended to be held.

Should the alleged offence be argued to consist in the violation of the rubric, the answer is, that the proceeding in this instance is not as for any (real or supposed) violation of the rubric, but for the offence of brawling. The citation is in that form-so are the articles-which are silent as to any violation of the rubric, and only object to the defendant the offence of brawling. Indeed, as to a violation of the rubric, any proclamation in Church during the time of divine service, unless "by the minister himself," and "of something, either prescribed in the book of common prayer, or enjoined by the king, or the ordinary of the place," is a violation of the rubric-so that the rubric, in the particular question, is violated, without offence, in too many instances, to render it probable that the Court would deem its violation, in the present instance, a fit subject for a criminal prosecution; detached from that other offence, the offence of brawling, which the articles charge it to have involved.

Lastly, it was submitted, that some objections lay to the Court's entertaining a suit for brawling by "letters of request," on the following considerations:

By the "bill of citations," none are to be cited out of their dioceses, except in certain excepted cases, the fifth being, "in case that any bishop or any inferior judge,having under him jurisdiction in his own right and title, or by commission, make request or instance to

the archbishop, bishop, or other superior ordinary, to take, treat, examine, or determine the matter before him or his substitutes-and that to be done in cases only where the law, civil or canon, doth affirm execution of such request or instance of jurisdiction to be lawful and tolerable." Now it is to be collected from this correction [and that to be done in cases only, &c.] that execution of such request, or instance, of jurisdiction, is lawful and tolerable but in certain cases: it were a vain correction (as laid down by the Court of King's Bench in the case of Jones v. Jones, reported by Lord C. J. Hobart,) if it were lawful and tolerable in all. "No doubt," said the Court of King's Bench in the case in Hobart, "the statute in question was not made without advice and hearing of the canonists, and therefore cannot be supposed to be so ignorantly penned; and the case, concerning so much the ease of the subject, deserves much consideration." Now certainly neither the law, civil or canon, can affirm the execution of such instance or request of jurisdiction to be "lawful or tolerable" in the case in question. For it is a proceeding, in substance, under a statute, and consequently, it cannot be supposed to be one of those cases ever in the contemplation of the law, civil or canon-it is a proceeding too, under a statute, subsequent, in date, to the "bill of citations"-but that is not all-it is a proceeding under a statute which expressly limits the proceeding to be "before the ordinary of that place where the offence shall have been committed." Consequently this was denied to be one of those cases in which it was "lawful or tolerable" that the suit should be sent up, by letters of request, from the inferior to the superior, ordinary. Nor is the position, it was said, so taken up upon principle, destitute of authority, for there is a "suggestion" in Winch Entries 570] for a prohibition to a proceeding before the archbishop, in a cause for brawling, transmitted by letters of request, (the identical case in point) on this very ground. The suggestion is express-" quod cognitio offensæ (si qua offensa) per statutum prædictum ad ordinarium loci, et non ad alium quemcunque judicem spiritua

lem, pertinet ac spectat: ac prædicta offensa, in articulis, sive interrogatoriis prædictis, superius contentis (si qua spiritualis offensa fuisset) ab ordinario loci ad aliquem alium judicem spiritualem per aliquas literas requisitionum punienda fore, mitti non debeat." It was admitted, however, at the same time, that suits for brawling, by letters of request, had been entertained by the Court of Arches in some recent instances-but then the objection does not seem to have been taken in either, or any, of those cases. Upon these considerations it was prayed that the Court would put an end to the suit by rejecting the articles.

The substance of the argument in support of the articles will be found expressed in the judgment.

Judgment.—Sir John Nicholl.-This is a proceeding as well under the general ecclesiastical law, as under the statute of Edward the Sixth, against the defendant Henry Williams, a parishioner of Tring, for "creating a disturbance in the parish Church of Tring, during the time of divine service," and for "quarrelling, chiding, and brawling, by words, in the said Church, during such time."

The admission of the "articles" in this case, the third of which expresses the particulars of the charge, is opposed: but they appear to the Court sufficiently to contain the ecclesiastical offence charged. A private parishioner has no right during the time of divine service, and of his own authority, to publish such a notice as is here stated, or any other notice in the Church. The rubric expressly states, that "nothing shall be proclaimed or published in the Church during the time of divine service, but by the minister, nor by him any thing but what is prescribed by the rules of this book, or enjoined by the king or the ordinary of the place." And the rubric, as a part of the book of common prayer, is confirmed by act of parliament, and constitutes a part of the statute law of the land.

Vestries, for church matters, regularly are to be called "by the Churchwardens with the consent of the minister." The late act of parliament neither altered

the general authority under which, nor the persons by whom, vestries are to be called: it only added some further formalities in the mode of calling; such as directing the notice to be put up on the Church door, and that it shall be given a certain number of days before the vestry is to meet.

Suits have been entertained in this Court for offences of the description contained in the present articles; as in the case of "Thompson v. Tapp," and other cases.

Here, then, being an offence sufficiently laid in the articles; and the articles sufficiently conforming to the citation, they must be admitted by the Court.

The proceeding is also under the statute of brawling. That statute was intended to repress all interruption and disturbance, even by words only, of the congregation met for public worship. It has been so construed. Here it is not necessary to express any opinion whether simply reading a notice, wholly unconnected with any other circumstances of irregularity, would amount to such an offence as would form a fit subject for prosecution; since it is obvious, that a private parishioner's proclaiming in the Church a notice calling a vestry, in the middle of the year, for the purpose of choosing new Churchwardens, must be connected, prima facie at least, with some contest and dispute existing in the parish; and consequently, must have tended to disturb the congregation, and to call off their attention from the solemn purpose for which they were assembled. The service was not over; for it is not ended till the grace or blessing is pronounced, dismissing the congregation.

[ocr errors]

The article pleads "that he did moreover, irreverently, there chide and brawl." If it be intended to prove any other words and expressions, they should be set forth in the article, so as to give the defendant an opportunity of cross-examining to, and contradicting

them.

It has been suggested, upon the authority of some ancient dicta, that under the true construction of the

This was disclaimed by the counsel for the promovent; and the word "moreover' was, upon this, struck out of the articles.

VOL. XIV. NO. VIII.

ST

« PreviousContinue »