Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

PROCEEDINGS IN THE VICE-CHANCELLOR'S sity, particularly the statute “ De ConcioniCourt,

bus." FIRST COURT Day.

“ Now the violation of the statute “ De At a court holden before the right worship

Concionibus” being made the principal charge ful Isaac Milner, D.D. vice-chancellor of the against me, I apprehend, that I ought not io university of Cambridge, and John Smith, cellor's court, but before the vice-chancellor,

have been cited to appear in the vice-chanRichard Farmer, William Colman, Lowther and a majority of the heads of colleges, ali Yates, John Barker, Joseph Turner, Francis offences against that statute being made coga Barnes, William Craven, and Thomas Postlethwaite, doctors in divinity, and John Fisher, there is no instance of any person being cited

nizable by him and them jointly; and that LL.D. his assessors, between the hours of ten and one, on Friday the 3rd day of May, ference between the vice-chancellor's court,

to appear

here for such an offence. The dif1793, in the law-schools of the said univer- and a meeting of the vice-chancellor and a sity. Me present. Geo. BORLASE,

majority of the heads of houses, I suppose to Not. Publ. and Registr.

consist in the following particulars :

“ 1. The vice-chancellor's court subsists On which day a sum- by ancient custom, and charters confirmed by mons, heretofore is

an act of parliament, and ought to be held at The office of the judge sued against William stated times, for the purpose of receiving com

promoted by Frend, M. A. and fel- plaints, and hearing and determining causes. Thos. Kipling, D.D. low of Jesus college, Whereas the other meeting derives its exagainst

was returned by John istence and authority wholly from queen Eli

Beverley, esquire be- zabeth's statutes, and from the nature of it, William Frend, M.A. del, who made oath, can only be occasionally assembled, in the and fellow of Jesus that the same had

same manner, that the same or other persons college.

been personally serv- meet occasionally in the senate or other place, ed on the said William for the execution of other parts of the same Frend.

statutes. Mr. Frend appeared, and the Court was

“ 2. The vice-chancellor's court is a court adjourned to the Senate-house.* Dr. Colman of record, from which no appeal can go to any appeared at the adjourned court. When and of the courts in Westminster-hall

, but only to where, Mr. Frend excepted to the court, as in the senate of the university.—Whereas, I apthe following paper, purporting to be a re- prehend, that no appeal can go to the senate nunciation of the jurisdiction of the said from a determination of the vice-chancellor court; which paper he read and signed in the and heads, acting under the statute “ De Conpresence of the registrary, who attested the cionibus,” though such determination, like same, and delivered it to the vice-chancellor. that of a mayor and aldermen in any civil

corporation, may be liable to a review in the “ Mr Vice-Chancellor;

court of King's-bench. " I desire leave, before my accuser enters “ 3. The vice-chancellor sitting in his court, on his office, to offer a few things, in the way possesses the power of punishing all offences, of objection to the mode of trial, adopted by cognizable in it, without the concurrence of a him, and authorized by you. They will, I majority of the heads of houses, such conhope, be found not unworthy of your at-currence being in no case necessary to punish, tention.

but only to punish in a particular manner.“ I acknowledge the receipt of a citation Whereas in the exercise of the power given from you, to attend in this place at this hour, in the statute “ De Concionibus," such conand my presence here is intirely owing to that currence is in every step made absolutely necircumstance: but I wish it to be considered, cessary, as proceeding more from civility and respect, “ 4. The immediate object of a citation than duty or obligation. The reason of which into this court is punishment; whereas the distinction will be obvious from what I am immediate object of a citation, before the going to allege.

vice-chancellor and a majority of the heads My accuser charges me with the public under the statute “ De Concionibus," is not cation of a pamphlet, intituled “ Peace and punishment, but the revocation of error. Union recommended to the associated Bodies " 5. There is no pretence from the statute, of Republicans and Anti-Republicans," and nor from any practice under it, for the apby such publication, with impugning religion, pointment or allowance of a promoter, such as established by public authority within this Office being peculiar to ecclesiastical courts. realm, and also all ecclesiastical ranks and “.5. The yice-chancellor has undoubtedly dignities; and by such impugning, with having in his court the power of compelling evidence, violated the laws and statutes of this univer- and that upon oath, neither of which can, I

suppose, be done by him and a majority of * This adjournment was made, as the Law- the heads, assembled for the purpose of enschools were too small to contain the au- forcing the statute “ De Concionibus." dience.

“ For these reasons, at least till stronges

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ones to the contrary shall be allered, I think

ARTICLES. myself obliged to renounce the jurisdiction of this court, and do hereby renounce such juris.

University of Cambridgo, diction, so long as the violation of the statute

May 3, 1793. “ De Concionibus” is made the principal or In the name of God, Amen. We Isaac any part of the charge against me. And, Milner, doctor in divinity, vice-chancellor of though I should in the first instance have the university of Cambridge, and judge of the willingly submitted to answer for any supposed court of the chancellor, masters and scholars, breach of that statute, before the vice-chan- of the said university, lawfully constituted cellor and a majority of the heads of houses, and appointed; to you William I'rend, master or before the vice-chancellor in this court for of arts, and one of the fellows of Jesus colthe breach of any other law of the university lege, in this university, do give and minister properly cognizable in it, I now desire time all and singular the articles, heads, or interto be advised, whether having been wrong. rogatories under-written, for certain crimes fully cited to appear in this court, on a sup- and offences, said by you to have been composed offence against that statute, with mitted; but more especially for having writthe acquiescence at least, if not the appro- ten, published, and caused io have been disbation of the heads of colleges, I am any persed, within the said university, a book or longer liable to a trial for the same offence, pamphlet, intituled “ Peace and Union reeither before the vice-chancellor and heads commended to the associated Bodies of Reunder the statute so often mentioned, or to publicans and Anti-Republicans; by William the vice-chancellor alone, under any other Frend, M. A. Fellow of Jesus College, Camlaw and statute of the university.

bridge. Printed for the Author, by P. C. « W, FREND."

Croft, St. Ives, 1793, (price one shilling)."

In which said book or pamphlet, religion, Signed by W. Frend, in the presence of me, as established by public authority within this

Geo. BORLASE, realm, and also all ecclesiastical ranks and Not. Publ. and Registrary. dignities, are impugned. At the promotion

of the Rev. Thomas Kipling, doctor in diviThe vice-chancellor, after deliberating with nity, and a member of this university. And the assessors, pronounced for the jurisdiction, we do object and article as follows: (that is of the court : and ordered Dr. Kipling to bring to say) forward his charge. Mr. Frend desired, that In the first place, we article and object to the renunciation might be entered on the you, the aforesaid William Frend, that the records of the court, and that the Grace “ Cum university of Cambridge was founded and enStatutis Academia," Oct. 24, 1609, might be dowed, and by an act of parliament, made in read, part of which was read by Mr. Frend- the thirteenth year of the reign of queen the vice-chancellor objecting to the reading Elizabeth, was incorporated by the name of the whole at that time, and saying it might the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the be read in the course of his defence.

university of Canıbridge, for the maintenance Dr. Kipling desired that the charges might of good and Godly literature, and the virtuous be exhibited in writing; which was allowed : education of youth, within the said university : and the said charges or articles were read; and moreover, that the letters patents granted and a copy of the same was ordered by the to the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the vice-chancellor to be delivered to Mr. Frend, university of Cambridge, in the third year of and was so delivered.

the reign of our then sovereign Jady, queen Then the promoter rose, and Mr. Frend, Elizabeth, and all other letters palents granted rising at the same time, addressed the vice to the said university, by any of the progenichancellor, and desired that the accuser might tors or predecessors of our said queen, were, not be permitted to speak till he had put on by the said act of parliament, declared to be his proper academical habit. At this a vio- thenceforth good, effectual, and available in lent burst of laughter and clapping from the law, to all constructions and purposes; and audience ensued. The vice-chancellor seemed we object and article the premises jointly and vehemently moved, and looked up to the gal- severally, and every part thereof. lery, as it going to reprimand the young men; 2. Also, we article and object to you, the but the burst was over, and the noise had aforesaid William Frend, that in this present ceased before the vice-chancellor could speak year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred to order.

and ninety-three, you did publish, and cause The promoter said, that the vice-chancellor, to be dispersed, within this university, a he supposed, would be required next to put scandalous book or pamphlet, of which you on his robes too. The vice-chancellor treated are the author, intituled “Peace and Union reMr. Frend's requisition as frivolous; and commended to the associated bodies of Re. Dr. Kipling began by praying, that the charges publicans and Anti-Republicans; by William might be accepted in writing, and a copy of Frend, M. A. Fellow of Jesus college, Camthem, with a copy of the pamphlet annexed, bridge. Printed for the Author, by P. C. given to the defendant. This was allowed, Croft, St. Ives, 1793 ;” which said book or and the charges were read by the promoter. pamphlet is annexed to these presents, and VOL. XXII,

2 M

[ocr errors]

a

prayed to be admitted as if inserted herein ; | aforesaid William Frend, that by the laws and and we article and object as above.

statutes of this university, particularly by the 3. Also, we article and object to you the forty-fifth statute, intituled "DeConcionibus;" aforesaid William Frend, that in the twenty- and by a decrce passed in the senate of this ninth page of the aforesaid book or pamphlet, university, on the ninth day of June, one you have defamed the public liturgy of the thousand six hundred and three, it is ordained established church, by aflirming that“ it is and provided, that all and every person or very far from that standard of purity in doc- persons, impugning religion, as by law estatrine, which is required in such compositions ;" blished within this realm, or impugning ecand we article and object as above.

clesiastical ranks and dignities, may, and 4. Also, we article and object to you the ought to be proceeded against and punished, aforesaid William Frend, that in a paragraph by suspension from academical degrees, by contained in pages 36, 37, 38, of the aforesaid expulsion, or by banishment; and we article book or pamphlet, beginning at the words and object as above. “ The same passions,” and ending with the 9. Also, we article and object to you the words “ Episcopal convocations," you affirm, said William Frend, that of and concerning that the public worship of the great body of the premises, complaint hath been, and is Christians is idolatrous; including in this rightly and duly made, by this party promocharge the members of the church of Eng- vent, to this Court and the judge thereof. Jand, as evidently appears from the context; Wherefore the party promovent in this and we article and object as above.

cause, prayeth right and justice to be done, 5. Also, we article and object to you the and administered to him efiectually; and that aforesaid William Frend, that in the thirty- the said William Frend, in regard to his great ninth page of the aforesaid book or pamphlet, rashness and presumption in the premises, you have asserted, that " ecclesiastical courts, may be duly corrected and punished as the ecclesiastical ranks and titles, are all repug

law requires. nant to the spirit of Christianity;" and we article and object as above.

The articles having been read, Mr. Frend 6. Also, we article and object to you the objected to article 1st, as far as it concerned aforesaid William Frend, that you have pro- the cause in question. The vice-chancellor fanely reviled and ridiculed the most sacred declared that objection already over-ruled by offices of religion, as enjoined by the church the Court. of England, and performed by its ininisters, Mr. Frend. By your own authority, or in the following passage, contained in the conjointly with the heads : thirty-ninth and fortieth pages of the afore- Mr. Vice-Chancellor. By my own, and the said book or pamphlet (that is to say),“ The heads as my advisers. laity, like brute beasts, sit tamely under this Did they concur with you?—They did. usurpation: a man, if a priest or minister Do they now? coters, is not a master of his own house, he The vice-chancellor turned to the bench, must not thank God for the blessings of Pro- and now asking the heads, declared, They vidence at his own table, he cannot pledge concurred before, and do now. his faith to a lovely woman without the in. The second article was then read, and Dr. terference of the priest, his offspring must be Kipling proposed to call witnesses. MI, sprinkled by sacred hands, and at death he is Frend objected to the calling any witnesses, not committed to his long home, without an- until the secundus dies juridicus, and read part other spiritual incantation.

of the grace“ Cum Statutis," &c. beginning “ These superstitious prejudices are, with at the words,“ Secundo die juridico," to the out doubt, highly beneficial to the interest of words " per reum datis,” and required time to the clerical community, but the morals of answer according to the statutes. ncither party are consulted. The laity are The vice-chancellor said, it was not neces apt to imagine, that there are some practices, sary to comply literally with that grace. in which they may be indulged without any Being askel by Mr. Frend, on what account; imputation on their Christian character ; and the vico-chancellor said, 'That the difficulty of the gentleman in black is supposed to put on observing it would be very great; that it a particular set of features and behaviour with never had been accurately observed; that it his clothes ;” and we article and object as would clash with some of the statutes, and above.

particularly it would limit the power of sum7. Also, we article and object to you the mary proceedings. Mr. Frend still urging aforesaid William Trend, that at the time of the propriety of its being strictly attended 10, publishing the aforesaid book or pamphlet, was asked by the vice-chancellor, Do you you were a master of arts, and member of this then insist on the promoter's witnesses not university; and that you now are a master of being called till the second day? arts and a fellow of Jesus college, in this uni- Frend. I do. versity, and therefore notoriously subject to Mr. l'ice-Chancellor. Do you wish for time the jurisdiction of this Court; and we article to prepare your defence ?-I wish for all the and object as above.

time allowed me by the statute. The com8. Also, wc article and object to you the missary then interposed, and said, These wit

[ocr errors]

nosses might be admitted now by the first | The office of the judge On the opening of part of the statute. On being asked by Mr. promoted by the Court, the judge Frend, What part? he said, That this delay | Thos. Kipling, D. D. asked Mr. Frend, if was dispersed with, if the cause was levior et ordinaria.

be was now ready to

against Mr. Frend asked, Can that cause

answer the charges be called one of the leviores, which may drive William Frend, M. A. laid against him. Mr. the accused from the university, and deprive and fellow of Jesus Frend declared, that him of his degrees? The commissary an- college.

he did not come with swered, That the distinction between leviores the idea of answering to the charges this day; and graviores cuusas did not arise from the but that he was ready to act according to the magnitude of the consequences, but from the laws of the university, and referred again to ease or difficulty of proof.

the grace, passed Oct. 21, 1609. On which Frend. If you allow it to be a causa levior, the vice-chancellor said, that as Mr. Frend on your proceedings, to be sure, may be sum- the last court day urged the necessity of admary.

hering strictly to the grace of Oct. 24, 1609, The promoter observed, the appointment and according to his own explanation of what of a second day seemed intended as an indul- is there stated; he thought it expedient now gence to the actor, to prepare, &c. but this to explain his ideas concerning the meaning indulgence he did not desire, and was ready and authority of it. to proceed now.

The Vice-Chancellor then gave his reasons Mr. Frend replied: I do not know that the at large, in support of the present proceedings, actor is meant to be particularly indulged in and explained, according to the best of his this grace. I conceive it to be for the benefit judgment, in what sense this grace is to be of all parties : and as such I do desire that considered as obligatory, and in what sense its the time

may be allowed, and that the actor authority could not be admitted.-lle said, may be required to proceed according to law. this court had unquestionably authority to

Mr. Vice-Chancellor. You desire time, proceed more or less summarily; and in the then, for your defence?- Frend. I desire the present instance, he did not yet perceive the cime allowed by law.

shadow of a reason for departing from the The vice-chancellor then retired with the usual practice. He added, that he was ready commissary and heads, to the lobby, rc- to listen with the utmost attention and paturned, and desired the registrary to read tience, as long as any thing could be advanced his notes, which were then altered, in va- on either side. His object was to do substanrious instances, by the commissary. А tial justice, and he exhorted both tbe accuser long conversation now took place between and the accused, to use no unnecessary the vice-chancellor and commissary; after delay. which the vice-chancellor, addressing Mr. Question from Mr. Frend. Whether the Frend, said, that though he did not think judge meant to proceed according to the his demand for time, as founded on the sta- statute “ De Concionibus” simply, or whether tute, good; yet, as he judged it reasonable to that statute made a part of the law, under give him time to make his answer, it was al- which the judge was now proceeding ?-I cerlowed: and the Court adjourned till Friday, tainly consider myself as not acting under May 10th, ten in the morning, in the same that statute separately, but as a part of the place.

law on which I mean to proceed. Mr. Frend desired the Court would under- Whether the judge said this from his own stand, that he did not, in this demand, mean authority, or with the assent and consent of to make his defence that day: it was appro- the heads ?-I do not think it necessary to priated to the examination of the promoter's answer that question repeatedly; witnesses, and to that business only he

Mr. Frend protested against the Court now should expect the Court to attend.

proceeding; as he said, there was not now present with the vice-chancellor, a majority of the heads, and therefore, he could not pro

ceed to take the examination of witnesses, on SECOND COURT DAY.

oath, as long as the statute “ De ConcioniAt a court holden before the right worship-bus' is made a part of the statutes on which ful Isaac Milner, D.D. vice-chancellor of the the accusation is founded.* university of Cambridge, and John Smith, Dr. Kipling then read the second article, Richard Farmer, William Colman, Lowther and the vice-chancellor asked Mr. Frend Yates, John Barker, Joseph Turner, Francis whether he admitted or denied the same ?Barnes, William Craven, and Thomas Postle- That he had before generally denied them all, thwaite, doctors in divinity, and John Fisher, asserting them to be false, wicked, and mali LL.D., his assessors, between the hours of cious. ten and one, on Friday the tenth day of May, Witnesses were then called on the part of 1793, in the senate house of the said univer- the promoter. sity, Me present. Geo. BORLASE,

* Dr. Postlethwaite, Master of Trinity ColNot. Publ. and Registr. lege, was absent on this day.-Frend.

[ocr errors]

Harvey Alger sworn, and (a pamphlet When did you make the two marks?—I being put into his hand by Dr. Kipling) de-made them in the kitchen before I took the posed as follows: book to Dr. Kipling,

Dr. Kipling. Did you ever see that book before?-Witness. Yes.

Did you purchase it of any one?—Yes. Of whom?-Of Mr. Lunn the bookseller. [The commissary asked, Is that the book that was delivered to Alger?-Yes.

Has it been in his possession?

Mr. Frend observed, that it ought never to have been out of court, and conceives that the commissary must join with him. Nothing was said in reply.]

About what time?-On Friday the 19th of April, 1793

Who delivered that book into your hands? -Mr. Lunn's journeyman.

How do you know that to be the very book you received from Mr. Lunn's journeyman?— By having marked it on the cover, and by an L. for Lunn.

Did you make these marks before you delivered the book out of your hands?--Yes. Can you say, on your oath, that it is the very pamphlet you delivered into my hands the last court-day?--Yes.

How do you know it to be very same?-By the letter L. which I know to be my handwriting, and there are other marks.

Did you look at the letter L. particularly, when you delivered the book into my hands, on the last court-day?—I did.

Did you look at it again particularly, when I returned it to you?--I did.

Why were you induced to make those marks and letter, before you gave the book to Dr. Kipling?-By Dr. Kipling's order.

How long did it remain in Dr. Kipling's possession after the first delivery?-About two days.

Who delivered it into your possession at the end of the two days?-Dr. Kipling.

For what purpose did Dr. Kipling deliver
it to you?-He desired me to lock it up.
Did Dr. Kipling assign any reason for its
being locked up?-No.

Did you keep it locked up ?--I did.
With what intention did you keep it locked
up? With no other intention than by Dr.
Kipling's order.

By whose order did you take the book from the place where it was locked up?-By Dr. Kipling's order.

Did you bring the book to court the last court-day by Dr. Kipling's order?—Yes.

Was this book produced in court?-I gave it to Dr. Kipling in the Senate-house-yard, before I came into court; but cannot say what became of it after.

Why could not this book be out of your possession between the last court-day and this?-Because I locked it up as soon as I went home, and have had the key in my pos

session ever since.

Philip Life sworn.

Dr. Kipling. Do you know the last wit

Had it been in possession of any person besides yourself, since the last court day?-ness, my servant?-I know him by sight. No.

Question by the Commissary. At what time was it delivered to you?-At the close of the business in court.

Question from the Court. Where does Mr. Lunn live?--In Trumpington-street. Question to Dr. Kipling. Have you any more questions to ask?-Not any very material or necessary now.

Question to Witness. Can you read?—Yes. Witness was ordered to read the title of the said pamphlet, and read as follows: "Peace and Union recommended to the associated

bodies of Republicans and Anti-Republicans: by William Frend, M. A. and fellow of Jesus college, Cambridge. Printed for the author, by P. C. Croft, St. Ives, 1793. Price one shilling."

Dr. K. Did you deliver the same book into my hands this morning, when I came into court?-Yes.

Mr. Frend cross-examined the said Witness.

Are you not Dr. Kipling's servant?—I am. For whom did you purchase this book?For Dr. Kipling.

With what intention?-By Dr. Kipling's desire. When Dr. Kipling ordered me to buy it, he did not say what was his intention.

Do you recollect ever delivering to that servant a pamphlet, intitled "Peace and Union, &c. by William Frend, M. A.”?—I

do.

Do you recollect about what time you delivered it to him?-I do not.

Can you say from whence that pamphlet came, which you delivered to my servant?— I cannot.

Had Mr. Lunn any of those pamphlets in his shop on the 19th of April last, except the twenty copies which the witness himself had received from Mr. Trend?

Vice-Chancellor as putting words into the [This question was over-ruled by the mouth of the witness. Mr. Frend said, he prompted the last witness, and is now prompting this.]

Did you ever receive any copies of the pamphlet, intituled "Peace and Union, &c." from Mr. Frend himself?-I did.

How many copies?-Twenty copies?
On what day?-On the 3d of April last.
Had Mr. Lunn any copies of this book at
that time unsold:-Not that I know of.

Did Mr. Lunn, to your knowledge, procure any copies of this pamphlet, from any other quarter, between the 3d and 19th of April last? Not that I know of; at least I did not go for any.

« VorigeDoorgaan »