in the intervals of the Conference, the spiritual and ecclesiastical concerns of the body. With this view, they give to the President various important powers and authorities, which have been before read, and which, as I understand them, are an express increase of the President's power, in opposition to a regulation made in the year 1792, which prescribed that the President's power should cease and de. termine at the period of the Conference breaking up. So that, so far from there being any intention on the part of the Conference, that the District Committee should cease to act, this rule expressly annuls the resolution of 1792, and gives increased power to the President, in order that there may be an increased force and authority given to the proceedings of the District Committee.

Reference has been made to a Resolution of the Conference in 1829; and I observe that in the passage which Sir C. Wetherell referred to, the Conference, in answer to a question, "What is the judgment of the Conference in reference to the general discipline and government of the Connexion ?" say, "Certain novel interpretations of the laws and usages of the body having been recently circulated in different publications, obviously tending to produce faction, and calculated to disturb the peace of our societies, the Conference, whilst it thankfully acknowledges the almost total failure of these attempts, and the settled and peaceful state of the Connexion at large, and of the great majority of the people, even in those few Circuits where such efforts have been chiefly made, unanimously resolves and declares that it will continue to maintain and uphold the Articles of Pacification, adopted in the year 1795, and the regulations which are arranged under various heads in the Address of the Conference, dated Leeds, 1797, with the 'Miscellaneous Regulations' which follow them, as hitherto acted upon in the general practice of the body, and explained and confirmed by the decisions of the Conference, recorded in its Minutes of the last year, on the dissensions at Leeds: rules which, taken together, equally secure the privileges of our people, and the due exercise of the pastoral duties of Ministers; and which the Conference regards as forming the only basis of our fellowship as a distinct religious society, and the only ground on which our communion with each other can be continued." Here it is to be observed, that the usages of the body are expressly recognised in connexion with their laws. And on examining those resolutions on the Leeds

case, to which reference is made in 1829, as recorded at length in the Minutes of 1828, I find resolutions to the following effect after eulogizing certain eminent persons who, in reference to the Leeds disputes, had, under very trying circumstances, acted very much to the satisfaction of their brethren, the Conference especially mentions the support which had been given by their friends to "the rules and usages of the Connexion." So we find that, in this authorized document also, usages are again expressly noticed, in connexion with the laws of the body. Therefore, I must say, that it does appear to me, moderately instructed, as of course I must be, on all matters regarding this great and important body,—that the Conference, which must be considered as the supreme governing body of the society, does, over and over again, take notice of the powers exercised, not only through the medium of what are called laws, but through the medium of what are termed usages.

The numerous affidavits which have been filed leave no room to doubt that District Committees have interfered in cases similar to the present; that is to say, in instances which were not cases of immorality, or any of the other three charges in the investigation of which the laity were allowed to interfere, but also in cases independent of them. And then I must say, that it does appear to me, that, if there was a case so constituted, as not to fall within one of the four cases especially provided for by the Articles of Pacification, the District Committee would, in my view of the law,-and still more of the usages,-have a right to interfere. Then the question comes to this: Whether there did exist in the present instance a case in which the District Committee, in the discharge of its proper functions, ought to interfere? If I understand the affidavits correctly, supposing there were a case made out which justified the interference of the District Committee, then there has not been any departure from the rules and regulations, and every thing has been done which would make the proceeding of the Distict Committee, simply considered as a proceeding, perfectly fair and lawful. There was a complaint made by a particular individual; that complaint is reduced into writing, and sent to the party accused. The President of the Conference is sent for, and the persons competent to form a District Committee assemble with him. It really appears to me, that although the Court has a jurisdiction over trusts, it cannot exercise any jurisdiction, in the

nature of an appellant jurisdiction, over a local court of a voluntary society, who have agreed that certain affairs shall be managed in a certain manner by that local court; and I cannot say that all the District Committee have done is a nullity, even if I were to think differently from that court, over which I have no jurisdiction. But I must say, that I cannot think the proceedings of this District Committee are justly subject to the vehement charges that I have heard made against it. I do not myself think, that the accusations of tyranny, and violence, and malevolence, and so on, have been substantially made out. I admit, that if there had been any thing in the shape of a legal fraud charged, that that is a case which, on general principles of law, we might have been able to understand; but I do not discover any such allegation, and of course we must take it that none exists. It does not appear to me that there has been any thing like a fraud, or any of that unwarrantable tyranny, or disregard of the principles of justice and humanity, which might, in a very gross case, authorize me to say, "The whole thing is a farce, the whole matter has passed in a violent gust of passion and prejudice, and cannot be sanctioned by the Court." Now, I do not think that has been the case.

It is to be observed, that the matter which attracted the notice of the parties now opposed to Dr. Warren, is one about which there is no doubt. It was the publication of a certain speech, which I now hold in my hand; and it strikes me, that that is not immaterial to be taken into consideration, when it is made part of the complaint against the proceedings of the District Committee, that they excluded the witness of Dr. Warren from the room. One is almost tempted to exclaim, in the language of a tribunal which certainly was very much prejudiced, "What need have we of any further witness?"-because the District Committee had the publication before them, of which Dr. Warren never attempted to deny he was the author. I am extremely unwilling to make any observation on a person whom, had he belonged to the established Church, I should have been almost justified in considering in the light of a father; and whom, belonging to the persuasion that he does, I must still reverence and respect, on account of the very high character which he has always so deservedly borne; but, called on to exercise the functions of a Judge, I must speak without respect to persons, and I must say that this document, this speech of Dr. Warren, appears to me to contain pas

sages which, I do think, whenever a cooler moment arrives, and Dr. Warren shall be able to reflect calmly and seriously on what it contains, he will be seriously sorry that he has committed to paper. In the first place, we must consider the peculiar objects of the Methodist society. The sole and principal object of the late John Wesley, as it appears from the Minutes of Conference, was to spread scriptural holiness over the land," and by means of a society, voluntarily attached to himself, to set forth such an example of unblemished holiness and humility, as could only emanate from the purest principles of the Christian religion, In proof of this I find, that so early as 1744, the question was proposed in the Conference, "Do not Sabbath-breaking, dram-drinking, evil-speaking, &c., prevail in several places? What method can we take to remove these evils ?" In the same year, the Preachers are expressly called upon as follows: "Speak evil of no one; else your word especially would eat as doth a canker." In the Minutes of the Conference for 1792, is this Direction :-Qu. 27. "Expressions have been used by some, through a false zeal for their own peculiar sentiments, which were very unjustifiable. How shall we prevent this in future? — A. No person is to call another heretic, bigot, or by any other disrespectful name, on any account, for a difference of sentiment." In the Minutes of 1796, it is said, "Be tender of the character of every brother. If accused by any one, remember, recrimination is no acquittance; therefore avoid it. Be quite easy if a majority decide against you." But, independent of any such suggestions or exhortations, every Preacher of the Wesleyan Methodist society, and indeed every person in the Connexion, must be fully aware, that, among the class of individuals who, as an Apostle has declared, shall be excluded from the kingdom of heaven, the reviler is expressly mentioned. It appears, that Dr. Warren considered himself justified in publishing a pamphlet in opposition to the Wesleyan Theological Institution; and he commences by using these words :"I think it my duty to give the body generally an opportunity of examining the validity of the grounds on which I opposed this measure, to record my protest against it; and, at the same time, to set myself right with those who may have received impressions artfully circulated to my disadvantage, for the purpose of prejudicing my cause, and rendering my statements unavailing." He

then proceeds to describe what took place towards the conclusion of the meeting of Conference, and, speaking of the Rev. Robert Newton, he says, "That individual, with an affected air of frankness, volunteered the following communication to me." Now, every body must see what is implied by the word "affected;" and I think such a phrase, applied to a gentleman of Mr. Newton's respectability, is very unseemly, and not what one would have expected from Dr. Warren. Again: Dr. Warren speaks of "the silly calumny communicated to me by the credulous Secretary ;" and in page 9 there is the following passage:"It was on this occasion that Mr. Bunting first presumed, amidst the surprised silence of the Committee, to insinuate that I was under the influence of some mean, some unhallowed motive, in dissenting from my brethren; adding, in a tone and manner peculiarly his own, that my opposition was the most unprincipled that he ever knew,-subjoining, after a pause, and I speak advisedly."" To use that expression concerning Mr. Bunting, "in a tone and manner peculiarly his own," was most indecent. And then there are several other passages of a similar description, which it is unnecessary for me to refer to. Now I quite agree with Sir Charles Wetherell, that, as between private individuals writing in reviews or public newspapers, such expressions as these would go for nothing; but I am to consider that this gentleman, from his position and connexion with the Wesleyan body, was bound to hold out himself to be a person, who, however severe and unmerited might have been the reproach and provocation he had received, ought to have exhibited a calm and dignified demeanour, and not have allowed himself to make any recrimination, especially one of a bitter and insulting kind, to any human being whatever. There is one other expression that much struck me, among the remarks in one of Dr. Warren's pamphlets, which I do think Dr. Warren must be very sorry that he allowed himself to use. Speaking of the Rev. Joseph Taylor, the President of the Conference, he takes occasion to compare him to Judge Jeffreys, whom he has represented, in the language applied to an unhappy individual in the New Testament, as having "gone to his own place." The reason why that paragraph struck me so particularly was this: -I lately had an opportunity of looking at that invaluable and excellent work (for such I shall always consider it) of the late Dr. Adam Clarke, in which he has

shown such a singular exuberance of Christian charity and love, in the observations which he makes in respect to Judas Iscariot, of whom the expression was used that has been applied to Judge Jeffreys; but while I admire the charity of the amiable and learned Commentator, I cannot adopt his conclusion. I cannot but think that, however competent it may be to an inspired Apostle to decide on the final destiny of an individual, it ill becomes poor short-sighted, fallible mortals to pronounce so decidedly on the awful fate of one of their brethren; and I cannot but hope that Dr. Warren will, ere long, deeply regret, that he inserted this passage in his pamphlet, wherein he has ventured to represent a notorious individual as incurring the fate of Judas, and has then compared him to an excellent and worthy individual, who, I doubt not, for his many virtues has been raised to the distinguished situation that he now fills in this society. My opinion is, considering the situation in which Dr. Warren stood as a member of the Conference, and as Superintendent of a Circuit, collecting, as I think I have collected, from some of the documents, that it is considered an improper thing to make a statement of what passes at Conference beyond what is authorized by the Conference itself, and considering that no human being could read Dr. Warren's speech without being prejudiced against some of the most eminent persons connected with the Methodist society,-my opinion is, that the publication of this speech would go a great way to create that very schism in the Methodist society, which, if it is not put an end to, will infallibly destroy the society itself.

Looking at all these circumstances, it does appear to me, that these gentlemen forming the District Committee had such a case brought before them as they might fairly recognise; and that it was their duty to entertain the question, as to how they should deal with Dr. Warren. There has been much special pleading upon the refusal to allow Mr. Bromley to remain in the Committee. I do not see what necessity there was for a witness. It might possibly have been better to let Mr. Bromley stay; but I do not think it is of any importance. That seems to me to be a matter quite beside the question. -The case comes to this. A competent tribunal did, on a case which fairly called for their interference, exercise a judgment, and suspend Dr. Warren. This being the case, I am now called upon to say, that it is clear that all has been wrong:

I am to say to the Trustees, "Every

His Lordship said: In this case, I entirely agree with the observations made by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor, in the commencement of his judgment, which has been handed up to me, that this cannot justly be considered as a case of trifling importance. It is a case of some importance, even in a pecuniary point of view, to Dr. Warren: not with reference to his actual position, but as it may affect his future position and inter est as connected with this society. But independently of that, every question that comes into a Court of Justice, affecting the feelings of great masses of people, particularly where they are associated together for objects of religion, can never be considered as of trifling import

ance.

I have looked with considerable attention into the volumes which have been handed up to me, containing the Minutes of the proceedings of the society. They breathe a spirit of meekness and of Christian feeling throughout; and I trust I may be permitted to express my regret that, in a society so constituted, for such objects, with such motives, and with such feelings, dissensions of this description should have been introduced; and I must suggest whether it would not be advisable to make some endeavour for the interests of the society, by some attempt towards accommodation, to put an end to those dissensions which have given rise to the present proceedings.

However, having made these observations, the only duty which I have to discharge is a duty of a widely different nature. I am called upon merely to determine as to the legal rights of these parties. I am to decide the question, (for that is the main question,) as to whether or not Dr. Warren has been legally suspended from his functions as a Minister by the District Committee. To this point, therefore, I shall direct my sole attention, not introducing any observations with respect to the conduct of the different parties, except what the course of proceedings shall strictly and of necessity require.

First, then, the question resolves itself into two points,-Has the District Committee power to suspend a Preacher? And, if the District Committee have the power so to suspend, the next question will be, Have they regularly exercised that power in the present instance?

The first document that was referred to by the Counsel on both sides, and naturally referred to, was the trustdeed, or, I should rather say, the trustdeeds, under which these chapels are

held. By the provisions in two trustdeeds, the Trustees hold the chapels subject to the trust, to permit the Preacher who is appointed by the Conference to use the chapels for the purpose of religious worship. It it said, that Dr. Warren was the Preacher appointed by the Conference; that they were bound, therefore, to allow him to use the chapels, and that they had no right to permit them to be used by any other person or persons. But I apprehend, that if the Conference, which is the legislative body of this society,—if the Conference have appointed a mode by which a Preacher may be suspended, or removed accordingly, and he is regularly and legally suspended or removed, he can no longer be considered, within the meaning of this trust, as the Minister appointed by the Conference. Therefore, it appears to me, that that argument, considering the nature and object of the trust-deed, entirely fails.

Another clause in the trust deed is of this description: there is a proviso, that the Trustees shall proceed according to the Act of Pacification, where it shall appear to them that any Preacher has offended in the manner therein described. It does not appear to me, however, notwithstanding this proviso, that it leads, necessarily, or even naturally, to the conclusion, that a Preacher may not be removed by other modes pointed out by the society. No such consequence, as it appears to me, legitimately flows from that provision. These are the arguments arising out of the trustdeeds.

The trust-deeds, however, were not much relied upon, in argument, by the Counsel on either side. I have no doubt they saw the arguments by which they might be met: and, therefore, not much reliance seems to have been placed upon them.

This, then, brings me to the consideration of the arguments arising out of the acts of the Conference. It is by the acts of the Conference principally, that this question must be decided: and what, taking all those acts together, is the legiti mate and proper construction of them, with reference to the point now under consideration? There is no doubt that Mr. Wesley himself possessed and exercised the power of suspension and of removal. During his time, he possessed so much influence, and so much just authority, with the society which he had himself established, that much was left to his discretion, and very few laws and regulations were necessary for the purpose of preserving the harmony of this society;