THIS was a proceeding by articles against Henry Hatchard, of the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, at the promotion of the Rev. Dr. Charles Fynes Clinton, prebendary of the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, and incumbent Curate of the said parish. The articles, after pleading, first, the general law touching the orderly demeanour of persons who repair to their parish churches; and, secondly, that part of 5 and 6 Edward VI. c. 4, which respects quarrelling, chiding, or brawling, in any church, went on to charge, that the said Henry Hatchard did, in the afternoon of Sunday the 10th of December, 1820, whilst at the Church of St. Margaret, Westminster, and during the celebration of divine service therein, behave in an irreverent and disorderly manner, and annoy and interrupt the Rev. William Johnson Rodber, assistant Curate of the said parish, whilst he was passing from the vestry-room to the pulpit, and endeavour to prevent him from preaching a sermon therein that he, the said Henry Hatchard, in order to effect his said purpose, had caused, or induced a number of persons to collect about the vestry door, by shouting, in a loud tone, "We want some friends about the vestry-room door;" so that the said Rev. William Johnson Rodber could, with difficulty, effect a passage from the said vestry-room to the pulpit -that, during the said Rev. William Johnson Rodber's passage from the said vestry-room towards the pulpit, the said Henry Hatchard took hold of his gown, and, addressing himself to him, said, "Here is Mr. Saunders, ready to do his duty; why wont you let him preach?". that upon the said Rev. William Johnson Rodber's disengaging his gown, and still proceeding towards the pulpit, he, the said Henry Hatchard, followed him, repeating the word "Shame!" and

adding, in an angry, chiding, and reproachful manner, "For shame, Mr. Rodber! Mr. Saunders was regularly elected why not let him preach? For shame!"-and that, by such irreverent and improper conduct, he, the said Henry Hatchard, greatly annoyed and disturbed, as well the said Rev. William Johnson Rodber in the performance of his duty, as the congregation then assembled in the said Church, for the purpose of divine worship.

A responsive allegation was given, and admitted, on the part of the said Henry Hatchard, which pleaded, in substance, that in the autumn of the year 1820, the afternoon parochial and unendowed lectureship of the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, having become vacant, the Rev. Isaac Saunders, Rector of St. Ann's, Blackfriars, was chosen lecturer, against several competitors, by a majority of parishioners, at a poll taken by the Churchwardens on the 6th, 7th, and 8th of December in that year-that it being doubted, during the said election, whether Dr. Clinton, the incumbent, would grant Mr. Saunders the use of the pulpit, if elected, much curiosity was excited among the parishioners to know the result, which led to the assemblage of an unusual number of persons at the afternoon service, at St. Margaret's, on the ensuing Sunday, being the 10th of December-that, among others, the said Henry Hatchard went, and arrived there towards the conclusion of prayers; and having learnt, upon his arrival, that the said Mr. Saunders was in the vestry, he went thither to inquire whether he was, or was not, allowed to preach.— that being answered by that gentleman in the negative, he withdrew from the vestry into one of the aisles of the Church, where, having learnt, soon afterwards, from one of the beadles," that the said Mr. Saunders had retired

into the Church-yard, upon the vestry being cleared, he also went there, and found him in conversation with a friend, who suggested that it would be proper to give formal notice to Mr. Rodber, the officiating Curate, that Mr. Saunders was in attendance, as a matter of courtesy; and that the said Henry Hatchard, as a supporter of the said Mr. Saunders, was a proper person to communicate such notice to Mr. Rodber-that the said Henry Hatchard thereupon proceeded towards the vestry, for the purpose so suggested; but that encountering Mr. Rodber in his way from the said vestry, which he had just left, to the pulpit steps, he said to him, in a very low tone of voice, and in a mild and respectful manner, "Mr. Rodber, Sir, the Rev. Isaac Saunders is here to perform the duty to which he has been elected "— that the said Rev. William Johnson Rodber, taking no notice thereof, the said Henry Hatchard immediately turned away, and left the said Church, which he did not re-enter during that afternoon-that, on the said Henry Hatchard so turning away, several persons cried out "Shame! Shame!' and "For shame, Mr. Rodber!" or to that effect; and there was a noise, and a hissing, and a considerable tumult in the said Church; but that the said Henry Hatchard took no part in the same that he had not previously shouted or said, in a loud tone of voice, or otherwise, "We want some friends at the vestry-room door;" and that he did not, subsequently, accompany the said William Johnson Rodber towards the pulpit steps, exclaiming, "For shame, Mr. Rodber!" or to that effect; or address him in any other words than those before pleaded.

No evidence was adduced in support of this allegation; but three witnesses were produced and examined upon the articles.

Frederick Price, one of the bearers. of the parish, deposed (in substance)— that he was at the parish Church of St. Margaret, Westminster, on the afternoon in question, and that, just after the evening prayers were finished, he observed Mr. Hatchard (whom he had never seen at the said Church before, but at a funeral, he being an

undertaker) standing very near the vestry door, by the deponent, whose office it was to attend the officiating Clergyman from the vestry to the pulpit-that he distinctly heard him say to a person who stood close to him, "We want a few persons near the vestry-room door"-that, as Mr. Rodber was passing from the vestry towards the pulpit, he was closely followed by Mr. Hatchard, who said to him, in the deponent's hearing, plainly and distinctly, "Shame, Mr. Rodber! Mr. Saunders is regularly elected-why not let him preach?— for shame of you!"-that immediately upon Mr. Rodber's ascending the pulpit, a number of persons began to hiss and shout, and call out "shame!" -whereby so great a tumult was excited, that a very few of the congregation could possibly distinguish Mr. Rodber's sermon, although preached in his loudest tone,-and that after the service was over, the crowd, which was greater than ever the deponent had seen there, either before or since, would not quit the Church till a magistrate was sent for, and arrived from the Queen Square Police Office, accompanied by several constables-and that it was between five and six o'clock before the Church was cleared. This witness further deposed, that "although there was some talking, and a kind of murmuring noise, before Mr. Hatchard addressed Mr. Rodber, as above-yet there was nothing violent or outrageous until after he had so addressed him."

The Rev. William Johnson Rodber (in substance) deposed, that on Sunday, the 10th of December, 1820, he attended the afternoon prayers at the parish Church of St. Margaret, Westminster, as the assistant curate of that parish-that as soon as the Clergyman who read the prayers, had finished, he left his pew, and retired to the vestry that, on leaving the vestry for the pulpit, where the deponent was about to preach, his progress was impeded by a great number of people about the vestry-door, among whom was Henry Hatchard, the party proceeded against, so that the deponent had great difficulty in effecting a passage towards the pulpit-that he had proceeded but a short way from the

vestry, when he felt the left sleeve of his gown pulled, and heard his own name called out; whereupon he turned round, and saw the said Henry Hatchard, who immediately said, "Mr. Rodber, here is Mr. Saunders, ready to do his duty, will you choose to let him preach?" [The deponent says, that he had observed the said Rev. Mr. Saunders in the said Church during the afternoon prayers, and knew him to have been elected afternoon preacher, by the parishioners, although he had been denied the use of the pulpit, even for a probationary sermon, and had been told that it would still be denied to him, in the event of his being elected]-that the deponent did not make any reply to the said Henry Hatchard, but passed on-that the said Henry Hatchard kept close to the deponent; and, as he was passing near the rail of the altar, again addressed him, saying, angrily, "Mr. Rodber, why won't you let Mr. Saunders preach he has been regularly elected?-for shame!"-that deponent still not answering, but forcing his way through the crowd, a most violent outcry and noise immediately took place that in his passage through the crowd, to the pulpit steps, which the deponent, with difficulty, effected, by aid of two of the Church beadles, he was kicked till both his legs were black and blue, and hissed at, and spit upon whilst there were many persons crying out, "Mr. Rodber, come back, don't disgrace yourself" that the deponent delivered his sermon in the midst of an uproar, which continued during the whole service, and was loud enough, at times, to drown the sound of the organ, and the voices of the congregation and the charity children—that this uproar was such as the deponent had never, upon any occasion, before witnessed, and that after the service, the crowd was obliged to be dispersed by constablesthat it was evidently the intention of the persons who hustled the deponent in his way to the pulpit, to prevent

him from reaching it-and that the said Henry Hatchard was principally instrumental in this attempt, and in exciting the tumult and disorder which otherwise existed in the said Church.

The evidence of John Woodward, also, one of the bearers of the parish, was precisely corroborative of that of Price, the first witness, and that of Mr. Rodber. Judgment. Dr. Swabey, [after stating the charge and recapitulating the evidence.]

Upon this view of the case I conceive it impossible to deny that the offence imputed to this defendant, and which, as appears, may be one of grave consequence, is brought home to him by the clearest and most indisputable evidence. In particular, no language can be a "chiding and brawling " within the statute of Edward VI., in a truer sense of the word than the defendant's expostulations, or remonstrances, with Mr. Rodber, as spoken to by the several witnesses, upon the occasion in question. The attempted justification set up (in plea) can be regarded in no other light than that of a mere pretext. Not only was a "formal notice to Mr. Rodber that Mr. Saunders was in attendance purely superfluous, but its delivery can scarcely, I think, under the circumstances, be ascribed, by any stretch of charity, to a laudable motive. But be that as it may, it is certain that the scene of tumult and disorder which ensued was the actual, if it was not the designed, consequence of the delivery of this "notice" by the defendant; who therefore has been selected, in my judgment, with great propriety, as the person against whom these proceedings have been instituted. A very little inquiry, which it was his duty to have made, if inclined to meddle in this matter at all, would have instructed him, that in the case of every, at least unendowed, lectureship, no choice by the parish, of a Lecturer is effective, without the consent or approval of the Rector; whose