of the founders of the society, and had sown the seed which was branching out now among them, as in other directions, to the recall of whatever was pure and imaginative, whatever was not merely utilitarian, to the service of both church and state; their visitor would appreciate the propriety with which the meeting had made no stranger of him; he had seen them as they were; he had seen them at work; and would gather from that view that they were endeavouring to carry out the purposes he (the president) had never failed to encourage them to follow-namely, the increase of their scientific knowledge of ecclesiology and church architecture, as a fertile source of congenial relaxation, always in subordination to the severer studies and more serious interests which claimed their primary attention, whether as students of the university, or children of the church.

The meeting broke up about ten o'clock.

It is stated that this society has been for some time considering as to the most appropriate style and manner of building and fitting cemetery chapels.

THE following letter from Archdeacon Thorp, with reference to this matter, has since appeared :—

To the Editor of the Cambridge Chronicle.

SIR-It having lately become a common practice, and one not unlikely to be imitated, for anonymous publications to issue from the press, purporting to be written by "A member (or members) of the Cambridge Camden Society," I feel it to be due to the society and myself, with your permission, to remind the readers of any works so published, that these are in no way to be considered as having the approval or sanction of the society, or of any of its members.

I might extend this remark to publications, not anonymous, issued by writers known to be, officially or otherwise, connected with the society; but my present communication has more immediate reference to a new publication, which has just met my eye, and of which I should be sorry to leave any doubt as to my sentiments of disapprobation.

I address you in my personal character, having no opportunity of consulting the committee, which has broken up for the vacation.

I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,

Trinity College, Friday, December 13, 1844.

THOMAS THORP.

P.S.-I shall be obliged to the editors of any other journals who shall transfer this letter to their own columns.

DWELLINGS FOR THE POOR.

In the New Metropolitan Buildings Act, which comes into operation on this day, (Jan. 1,) provision is made in regard to dwellings for the poor. The officers named in the statute have been appointed since the 1st of September, and forms have already been sent to the overseers of the metropolitan parishes to secure the practical working of the section, requiring a return of all rooms in the several parishes which are considered, in the language of the act, to be unfit for dwellings, but which are, nevertheless, occupied by the poor. The returns will be used to improve the existing habitations of the poorer classes in the metropolitan parishes. Close, undrained, and unventilated rooms are not to be used after a certain period. By the 53rd section it is enacted, that from the 1st of July, 1846, it shall not be lawful to let separately to hire as a dwelling, any such room or cellar not constructed according to the schedule annexed, nor to occupy, or suffer to be occupied, any such room or cellar built underground for any purpose, except for a ware-room or store-room, and that if any person wilfully let, or suffer to be occupied in any manner aforesaid, any underground cellar or room, contrary to the provisions of this act, then, on conviction thereof before two justices of the peace, such person shall

be liable to forfeit, for every day during which such cellar or room shall be so occupied, a sum not exceeding 20s., and one half shall go to the person who shall sue for the same, and the other half to the poor of the parish. It is further provided, that on or before the 1st of January, the overseers should return to the official referees the number and situations of the dwellings within their respective parishes of which any underground room or cellar shall be so occupied; and thereupon it shall be the duty of the referees to direct notice to be given to the owners and occupiers of such dwellings as shall appear best calculated to give such owners and occupiers full notice of the existence, nature, and consequence of the enactment; and it shall be the duty of the district surveyors to give full effect to the directions of the official referees. By the schedule it is enacted, that with regard to back-yards or open spaces attached to dwelling-houses, every house hereafter built or re-built must have an enclosed back-yard or open space of at least one square of 100 square feet, unless all the rooms of such house can be lighted and ventilated from the street. If any house already built be hereafter re-built, there must be at least threequarters of a square, unless it be lighted from the street. The lowermost rooms of houses, being rooms of which the surface of the floor is more than three feet below the surface of the footway, and the cellars of buildings hereafter to be built or re-built, if any such room or cellar be used as a separate dwelling, then the floor thereof must not be below the surface or level of the ground immediately adjoining thereto, unless it have an area, fire-place, and window, and unless it be properly drained. To every lowermost room or cellar there must be an area not less than three feet wide in every part, from six inches below the floor of such room or cellar to the surface or level of the ground adjoining to the front, back, or external sides thereof, and extending to the full length of such side; such area, to the extent of at least five feet long and two feet six inches wide, must be in front of the window, and must be open, or covered only with open iron gratings. To every such room or cellar there must be a fire-place, with a window to be opened for ventilation. This act contains upwards of 100 sections, with numerous schedules annexed.

LAW.

ARCHES COURT, NOV. 2.

THE OFFICE OF JUDGE PROMOTED BY NURSE AGAINST HENSLOWE.

THIS was a proceeding against the Rev. William Henry Henslowe, perpetual curate of the parish of Wormegay (or Woringay), in the county of Norwich, for refusing, on two occasions, the 17th of February and the 3rd of March, 1844, to bury the corpse of Sarah Bowden, a parishioner, who had been baptised by a preacher of a congregation of primitive methodists. This case was brought by letters of request from the Bishop of Norwich. The reverend defendant, who conducted his case in person, at first, on the admission of the articles, had given a negative issue thereto, but afterwards he retracted that plea, and gave an affirmative issue, thereby admitting the facts as pleaded. Dr. Harding and Dr. White, for the promoter, merely opened the case, observing that it was exactly the same as that of "Martin v. Escott."

Sir H. Jenner Fust said, that however the court might lament that the reverend gentleman should have placed himself in such a situation, it must pronounce sentence in the terms of the canon, for the proceeding was not under the general ecclesiastical law, so that the court had no discretion to diminish or increase the punishment, which the canon had fixed at suspension from the ministry for three months. He (the learned judge) must observe, that a long protest, in arrest of judgment, had been delivered to the registrar by Mr. Henslowe, which he (the learned judge) had read, and he was sorry to say that it went into a history of which the court could take no notice, referring,

as it did, to persons not before the court, to whom malevolent motives were imputed, and to matters with which the court had nothing to do. The court lamented that a case of this kind should be brought to its notice, and that a clergyman should place himself in a situation from which the court could not relieve him; and it would be wise on the part of clergymen to recollect, that in every case of this kind, an opposition made to a claim of a large body of persons in the country of a legal right, should it prove unsuccessful, only afforded an additional triumph to persons who were seeking the downfall of the established church. Under these circumstances he must pronounce that Mr. Henslowe had incurred the penalty affixed by the canon, unless he had anything to urge to the contrary.

Mr. Henslowe. I wish to explain myself. The end of the law is to elicit the truth, and to establish justice; but the truth has not been elicited, nor justice established in my case.

The Court. You have admitted the facts.

Mr. Henslowe.-I did so because I was intimidated on the ground of the costs. I complain of the proceedings.

The Court. It is too late to complain of the proceedings. You have admitted the facts.

Mr. Henslowe.-I admitted the facts because I was sensible there was a predetermination.

The Court. I cannot hear this. I must desire the registrar to record, that the Rev. W. H. Henslowe is suspended from the ministry for the space of three months, and condemned in the costs of the proceedings.

Mr. Henslowe. I solemnly protest against this judgment, and I appeal to the great council of the realm, and to the convocation.

The Court. If you mean to appeal, you must appeal to her Majesty in council. Let the sentence take effect from the 10th of November.

THE OFFICE OF JUDGE PROMOTED BY TITMARSH V. CHAPMAN.

THIS is a criminal proceeding, by way of articles, against the Rev. H. Chapman, vicar of Basingbourne, in the diocese of Ely, for having refused to bury the body of a parishioner, in defiance of the canons and constitutions of the church of England. The facts have been frequently stated. The articles charged the reverend defendant with having twice refused to bury the corpse of a girl (Jane Rumbold), the daughter of John Rumbold, a parishioner of Basingbourne. Rumbold belonged to the sect of independents, and his child had been baptised by a minister of that persuasion. This baptism Mr. Chapman considered heretical and schismatic, and, consequently, not entitling the recipient to be buried according to the rites and service of the church of England. The corpse was carried by the father to the porch of the church. He there left it, and at once proceeded to the vicarage, at the door of which he met the vicar, who declined to read the service over the body. This refusal led to the present proceedings, which have been instituted under the 58th canon, which directs the clergy to read the burial service of the church over all persons, except those unbaptised or excommunicate, convenient warning having first been given. The articles laying the charge having been admitted, a responsive allegation was offered on behalf of the Rev. H. Chapman, disputing the validity of a baptism performed by a heretic or schismatic, and contending that the child, Jane Rumbold, was unbaptised within the meaning of the canon. This allegation was rejected, and the case now came on for hearing. The depositions of the witnesses having been read, her Majesty's Advocate and Dr. Haggard contended that the offence was clearly proved. The reverend defendant was well aware that the body was to be brought on the occasion to the church-yard, and therefore had that due notice which the canon insisted upon. He had twice refused to bury the corpse, under a mistaken belief that dissenters, though baptised, were not entitled to the privi

lege of the church burial. In that view the court had already decided that he had erred, but he could not now avail himself of the petty legal excuse that he had not had sufficient warning. Dr. Phillimore and Dr. Elphinston contra. The only evidence as to notice was, that the body was taken to the churchyard, there left while the child's father ran for the vicar, and requested him to read the service. Was this the necessary warning required by the canon? That warning was enjoined that the clergyman should make inquiry whether the person to be buried had been baptised, and was not excommunicate. Could he do so on the instant? To hold that the notice in this case was sufficient, would be to introduce scandal and confusion into every parish of the land. It was true that the reverend defendant had objected to bury the corpse for another reason; but, in a criminal suit, was he to be barred from a legal defence, because he had not raised it on the spur of the moment?

After the reply, Sir H. Jenner Fust regretted that the evidence was so scanty as to the facts connected with the notice. Taking it, however, as it was, he Wou. look into it, and pronounce his judgment on a future day.

Thursday, Nov. 21.-Sir H. Jenner Fust gave sentence in this case, which was a proceeding under the 68th canon against the Rev. W. H. Chapman, vicar of Basingbourne, Cambridgeshire, for refusing to read the burial service over the corpse of an infant, the child of a parishioner. The defensive allegation pleaded that the baptism of the infant, which had been performed by a minister of the class of dissenters called independents (to which the parents belonged) was heretical, and, consequently, the child was unbaptised, or excommunicated, within the meaning of the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, prefixed to the order for the burial of the dead. This allegation was rejected by the court, which held that the child had been "sufficiently " baptised, notwithstanding the person performing the rite might be a heretic. The case consequently came now to be decided upon the evidence adduced, to show that the canon had been violated. The canon declares that no minister shall refuse or delay to bury any corpse that is brought to the church or church-yard, "convenient warning being given him thereof before," unless the party deceased was denounced excommunicated, majori excommunicatione, on pain of suspension for three months. The learned judge was of opinion that it had been proved that Mr. Chapman did refuse to bury the child, and that the child was not unbaptised within the meaning of the rubric; the only question was, whether he had had sufficient notice, which was essential to the proof of a canonical offence. There was no evidence, however, that Mr. Chapman had had notice until the corpse was brought into the porch of the church. Each of the witnesses, J. Rumbold, the father of the child, Mr. Morse, the independent minister who had directed the proceedings, and Hopkins, the only other witness, had expressly denied having given him notice before that time, and the learned judge was of opinion that this was not the "convenient warning" to be given "before," within the intent of the canon, which meant "before the corpse was brought to the church-yard." It might be extremely inconvenient to the minister, who might be absent from home, or engaged in other clerical duties, to be called upon to perform the services instanter, and it was a part of his office to meet the corpse. Preparations were, moreover, necessary for decent interment, and the warning contemplated by the canon must be one convenient to all parties. The articles expressly pleaded that "convenient warning" had been given; the promoter, upon whom the onus lay, had not, therefore, been taken by surprise, and as this was a criminal proceeding, the court was bound to require strict proof. Unless proper notice had been given, no canonical offence had been committed; no such notice had been proved, and he (the learned judge) therefore pronounced that the promoter had failed in his proof, and dismissed Mr. Chapman, with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 6тн.

(Sittings in Banco.)

THE RECTOR AND SCHOLARS OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD, v. BUTLER, WYATT, AND WALKER

MR. Serjeant Talfourd (with whom was Mr. Pigott) moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict which had been given for the plaintiffs for the sum of 19. should not be set aside, and a new trial granted. He moved on the ground of misdirection. The case had been tried, before Mr. Serjeant Atcherley, at the last Oxford Assizes. This was an action of trespass, brought by the plaintiffs against the two first defendants, who had issued, and a third, who had executed a warrant of distress, under which the goods of the college had been taken to satisfy a claim of poor-rates, ordered to be levied on the ancient part of the college. Up to this time that part of the college had been treated as exempted from liability to rates; but on a recent occasion a rate was assessed on the parish of St. Michael's, Oxford, within which the college was locally situated, and an inhabitant appealed against the rate, on the ground that the college had not been included in the rate. The appeal came on to be heard, no one appeared for the college, and the recorder therefore directed the rate to be amended by inserting the college. The plaintiffs refused to pay, so far as the ancient part of the college buildings was concerned, and the warrant of distress was therefore levied, and the goods were in form taken as a distress, for the purpose of raising the question. The chief question was as to the situation of the ancient buildings, and that the effect of the merger of the parish of St. Mildred in the parish of St. Michael, and on these questions he contended that the learned judge (Mr. Serjeant Atcherley) before whom the cause was tried, had misdirected the jury.

The Court granted a rule to show cause.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DUBLIN, December 6TH.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AT THE RELATION OF GEORGE MATHEWS AND OTHERS V. THE REV. JOSEPH HUTTON AND OTHERS.

Ar the sitting of the court, his lordship proceeded to give judgment in this important case. He said that the late act 7th and 8th Victoria, had enabled the defendants to come before the court and seek that the information should be dismissed; and that but for that act he would have been compelled to give judgment for the attorney-general. He then proceeded to recite the provisions of the act, and read the second clause, which he considered as applicable to the present case. He considered that the twenty-five years' usage to which the act is limited in respect to the opinions held and preached, gave the property to the unitarians. The defendants had produced the sermon of Philip Taylor, and the affidavit of Mr. Hutton, which proved that unitarian opinions were preached in the congregation twenty-five years ago. He therefore thought that the present congregation fell within the provisions of the act; for they had twenty-five years' usage in their favour. The act provided, unless the deed or instrument by which any trusts were created, declared in express terms" the particular doctrines or opinions, for the promulgation of which the donors intended to have them applied, that twenty-five years' usage should secure them to the present possessors. Unless the doctrine were so specified, he was now prevented from referring to history or contemporaneous opinions to ascertain the meaning attached to the words used by the donors. This principle applied to the funds created by Damer in 1719, and by Lowton, 1741, which were for protestant dissenters of the presbyterian persuasion, and

་