** 
 
 * 
 
 ■ »
 
 LIBRA R.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 U N I V LRSITY 
 OF 1 LLI N OIS
 
 THE CASE OE THE REV. MR. SHORE. 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 HIS GRACE 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, 
 
 HENRY, LORD BISHOP OF EXETER. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1849.
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by William Cr.owEs and Sons, 
 
 Stamford Street.
 
 A L E T T E R, 
 
 8fc. Sfc. 
 
 My Lord Archbishop, Bishopstowe, March 28, 1849. 
 
 The great excitement which has been caused 
 by the case of the Bey. James Shore, and the intro- 
 duction into the House of Commons of a Bill, which 
 is likely soon to reach the Upper House, inconsequence 
 of that excitement, have made me deem it expedient 
 to state publicly the real facts of the case itself; and I 
 know not any more proper mode of executing this pur- 
 pose, than by making the statement, as your Grace has 
 permitted me to do, in this public letter addressed to 
 my Metropolitan. 
 
 Before, however, I commence this statement, I re- 
 joice to be able to say that your Grace, as well as 
 myself, is entirely disposed to favour and support any 
 well-considered measure (as the Bill now before the 
 House of Commons must be expected to be) for re- 
 lieving any Clergyman who, after he has been admitted 
 to Holy Orders in the Church, shall conceive con- 
 scientious scruples against a continuance in its com- 
 munion. So far indeed from wishing to chain to the 
 service of the altar any whose conscience bids them 
 renounce that service, the true Churchman would urge 
 them, rather, quietly to withdraw, than to persist in the 
 performance of offices which they can no longer perform 
 
 b 2
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 without peril to their own souls, and a serious offence to 
 the souls of others. 
 
 I have myself, on more than one occasion, acted on 
 this principle, and I have had the satisfaction of re- 
 ceiving from the parties concerned an earnest expression 
 of their thankfulness for the kindness and forbearance 
 with which I parted from them. 
 
 If Mr. Shore had testified a similar feeling of con- 
 scientious objection to a continuance in our Communion, 
 he would have experienced from me a similar respect 
 for his feelings, and a similar desire to afford every 
 facility to his departure. 
 
 That very different was the nature of his case, and 
 very different the duty imposed by it on myself, will, I 
 think, be manifest from the facts which, without further 
 preface, I proceed to narrate. 
 
 But, in order to a clear understanding of the matters 
 which relate specially to Mr. Shore, it is necessary that 
 I first explain at some length the position which he 
 occupied, and which brought him within the indispen- 
 sable exercise of the discipline of the Church. If this 
 cannot be done without stating facts which may be 
 deemed to affect a nobleman of the highest rank, of 
 advanced age, and now unfortunately in very impaired 
 health, while I lament the necessity, I have the satis- 
 faction of knowing that it has been imposed upon me by 
 the proceedings of others. 
 
 In the summer of the year 1832, his Grace the 
 Duke of Somerset requested me to meet him at Bridge- 
 town, a hamlet of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, recently 
 made part of the borough of Totness, in which his 
 Grace had much improved the size and quality of the 
 houses, and had erected a building designed to be its 
 Church. The Duke was desirous of knowing what 

 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 must be done in order to his obtaining the consecration 
 of the building. 
 
 I informed his Grace that the object might be ef- 
 fected in one of two ways ; either by the building being 
 made a chapel-of-ease to the church of Berry Pomeroy, 
 or by its being endowed as the chapel of a district to 
 be taken out of the parish : that in the former case, the 
 duty of providing for the service of the chapel, and the 
 consequent right of nominating the minister, would 
 belong to the vicar; but that in the latter case, the 
 Duke might acquire the right of patronage by making 
 an endowment. 
 
 His Grace, having first expressed his fixed resolution 
 to take such a course as should secure to himself the 
 right of nominating the minister, declined coming to an 
 immediate decision respecting the endowment to be 
 made for that purpose ; but he shortly afterwards in- 
 structed his solicitor, Mr. Maberley, to communicate 
 with my secretary, Mr. Barnes, who was duly authorized 
 on my part. 
 
 The following are the main particulars of the cor- 
 respondence which ensued between those gentlemen. 
 
 Extracts from Correspondence previous to the Bishop granting his 
 Licence for the Opening of Bridgetown Chapel. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Mr. Maberley to Mr. Barnes. — August 18, 1832. 
 
 I am directed by the Duke of Somerset to put myself in com- 
 munication with you on the subject of the Consecration of the 
 Chapel lately built by his Grace at Bridgetown. His Grace has 
 made known to me the very satisfactory interviews that have taken 
 place between the Bishop and him, and las Grace's conviction that 
 the Bishop and yourself are disposed to facilitate his views, so far as 
 may consistently be done.
 
 ( o ) 
 
 The Duke was not aware, I find, that it would be necessary for 
 him, in order to consecration and licence, to establish an endow- 
 ment to such extent as seems necessary. The Duke is, as you are 
 aware, the patron of the living, and a firm friend of the Church 
 Establishment, nor do I think it at all likely that the chapel would 
 ever go out of his family. Under these circumstances I confess 
 that I am inclined to recommend his Grace to keep his new build- 
 ing, at any rate for the present, as a proprietary chapel. I believe, 
 but in this you can set me right, that all that will be required in such 
 case will be for his Grace to request a licence of the Bishop for the 
 minister who may officiate, and that the Incumbent of the Parish give 
 his sanction. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Mr. Barnes to Mr. Maberley. — August 27, 1 832. 
 
 Has consulted the Bishop on the subject. 
 
 " The Duke may, perhaps, be under the impression that a larger 
 endowment was required than the Bishop would deem necessary for 
 consecration. The Bishop, considering the liberal intention of his 
 Grace with regard to the ultimate provision for the minister, would 
 only consider it necessary to require to have legally secured on land, 
 or money charged or secured on land, or money in the funds, a sti- 
 pend of 50/. a year. 
 
 " The Bishop, on hearing your proposal to license the chapel, at 
 present only as a proprietary chapel, desires me to say that he has a 
 strong disinclination to a licence of that description. The Bishop 
 hopes that the Duke will be able to make at once an arrangement 
 satisfactory to himself for endowment and consecration." 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 Mr. Maberley to Mr. Barnes. — August 31, 1832. 
 
 Refers to the Statute 1 & 2 Wm. IV. cap. 38. 
 
 " I appi-ehend that the sole objects of the Duke are, to have the 
 chapel consecrated, to retain the sole patronage, and to give a com- 
 petent stipend by pew-rents or otherwise, or both, to the minister 
 for the time being. I am well assured that in the attainment of 
 these objects liis Grace is must ;in\inus to pursue the course which 
 the interests of the Establishment most require, and consequently of 
 which the Bishop should approve."
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 No. 4. 
 Mr. Barnes to Mr. Maberley. — September 8, 1832. 
 
 Refers to the Statute 1 & 2 "Wm. IV. as not applicable to the 
 case, unless through the Church Building Commissioners. " The 
 Bishop, however, looks only to the endowment mentioned, and is 
 ready to do everything that may be in his power to carry into effect 
 the purposes of the Duke, as expressed by you." 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 Mr. Maberley to 3Ir. Barnes.— September 14, 1832. 
 
 I begin to apprehend that the mutual objects of the Duke of So- 
 merset and the Bishop will not be attainable but through the Church 
 Building Commissioners. It will require some consideration to de- 
 termine what proposition to lay before them. It may also turn out 
 that the Duke's apprehension of its being necessary to let a twelve- 
 month to go round is well founded ; and this would be much waste 
 of time, and the chapel is ready, I believe. It seems to me also, 
 that it might assist the Duke in determining definitively what he 
 may be inclined to do, relative to the endowment, &c, if an experi- 
 ment could be first made how the chapel is likely to answer. Under 
 these considerations, I would beg to suggest whether it would be 
 better to request of the Bishop in the first instance a licence, as if it 
 were a proprietary chapel only, which need not by any means imply 
 thereby that the idea of endowment and consecration is abandoned. 
 The opening of the chapel in this way will, in the course of a few 
 months, probably enable the Duke to judge what may be the best 
 arrangement to propose for the ultimate adjustment. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 Mr. Barnes to Mr. Maberley.— September 19, 1832. 
 
 The Bishop directs me to say that the Duke of Somerset having 
 stated his wish and purpose to endow the chapel, and convey the 
 same for consecration, the Bishop will license the chapel till that 
 purpose can be conveniently carried into effect. 
 
 " It is only necessary that the Duke should sign a petition, and 
 I will drair a form and send l» >/ou." 
 
 Asking for a plan of the chapel, and to be assured that the Duke 
 is seised in fee.
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 No. 7. 
 Mr. Maberley to Mr. Barnes. — September 19, 1832. 
 
 Since my last, circumstances have come to my knowledge which 
 confirm the opinions I then expressed as to the most advisable course 
 to pursue, under present circumstances, with respect to Bridgetown 
 chapel. I understand that great inconvenince will arise from delay 
 in the opening, particularly as the clergyman, the Rev. J. Shore, 
 has left his curacy, and is already settled in Bridgetown. The 
 Duke was much pleased at the satisfaction expressed by the Bishop, 
 and his Grace is thoroughly aware that the Bishop is disposed to do 
 all he can to promote the early opening. I am informed that you 
 must be mistaken in supposing that there are no licensed chapels in 
 the diocese. I am told there is one at Dartmouth, and elsewhere. 
 In the present case we do not look to the chapel remaining perma- 
 nently thus ; on the contrary, we trust to be able to procure the con- 
 secration on regular endowment. 
 
 No. 8. 
 Mr. Maberley to Mr. Barnes.— September 22, 1830. 
 
 Acknowledges receipt of letter of the 19th. 
 
 I write, however, in consequence of some expressions in your letter, 
 and to prevent all possibility of any future misunderstanding, un- 
 likely as it may be to arise. 
 
 I think that the communication of the Bishop's consent to license 
 is accompanied by words from you that, if unqualified and unex- 
 plained, would amount to an implied engagement on the part of the 
 Duke, at all events, and under any circumstances, and with what- 
 ever inconvenience attended, still peremptorily to endow and convey 
 the chapel for consecration. As the Duke is a man who would be 
 scrupulous, to the letter, in the performance of every iota ofivhat he 
 could be considered either directly or by implication to have engaged 
 for, it becomes the more necessary for me to take care that his Grace 
 does not lay himself under obligations calculated by any possibility 
 to bring him into a dilemma. It is his Grace's most serious and de- 
 termined intention and ivish to do his best, through the medium of 
 the Church Commissioners, or otherwise, to procure the consecra- 
 tion of his chapel and to make for it a permanent regular endow- 
 ment of proper amount. With the expression of this intention the 
 Bishop /rill, I doubt not, knowing his Grace's attachment to the Es- 
 tablishment, feel satisfied and rest content. But it is possible that
 
 ( ) 
 
 there may be impediments — unlooked-for requisitions — objections 
 made — interference with patronage — or the like, that may make it 
 unadvisable in the view of his Grace, or of any reasonable man, to 
 proceed to the conveyance and consecration, and may rather induce 
 his Grace to wish to wait till some further legislative regulations 
 afford better facilities, or remove difficulties, that may, in the pre- 
 sent state of the laws, exist. I must therefore claim for his Grace a 
 discretion in these matters beyond what your words convey. That 
 the Bishop is content that the Duke should have this, 1 do not doubt, 
 nor do I think that you meant to imply the contrary ; but if you 
 read again your words, I think you will find that Me qualification 
 is necessary which I have taken the liberty to make. 
 
 I will send you the plan, &c, as soon as I receive it, and shall be 
 obliged by the form of petition you propose to send me. 
 
 I am, Sir, your very obedient and humble servant, 
 
 Joseph Maberlev. 
 
 Endorsed on this letter, in the Bishop's own hand : — 
 " I am content to license the building on the declaration in this 
 letter.— H. E." 
 
 No. 9. 
 Mr. Barnes to Mr. Maberley.— September 26, 1832. 
 
 Has consulted the Bishop on the letter of the 22nd. 
 
 " The Bishop's authority, as stated in my letter of the 19th, was 
 founded correctly, as his Lordship thinks, on the previous communi- 
 nications ; but the Bishop, on perusing your letter, authorises me to 
 say, that he is content to license the building on the declaration 
 therein contained.''' 
 
 THE PETITION. 
 
 To the Right Reverend Father in God, Henry/, by divine permission 
 Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 The petition of the most noble Edward Adolphus, Duke of 
 Somerset. Whereas I, the said Duke, have lately erected in my 
 manor of Bridgetown, within the parish of Bury Pomeroy, in your 
 Lordship's diocese of Exeter, a building designed for a chapel for 
 religious worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the 
 United Church of England and Ireland, and have fitted up the 
 same with reading-desk, pulpit, communion table, and convenient
 
 ( to ) 
 
 pews and seats, calculated to accommodate with sittings above seven 
 hundred persons, and provided with Bible, Book of Common Prayer, 
 and all other things necessary for the due performance of Divine 
 Service ; and the ground-plot of the said intended new chapel is 
 laid down in the plan hereto annexed, identified by my signature ; 
 and it is my intention to provide a permanent endowment for a 
 minister to serve the scad chapel ; and as soon as such endowment 
 can he settled to your Lordship's satisfaction, to give and grant 
 the site of the said building for the purpose of the same being 
 consecrated as and for a chapel for religious worship according to 
 the rites and ceremonies of the United Church of England and 
 Ireland : Now being desirous of supplying accommodation for the 
 inhabitants of the said parish to attend the performance of Divine 
 Service in the said intended chapel, which is conveniently situated 
 for a considerable portion of the population who are at a distance 
 from the parish church, I request that your Lordship will be 
 pleased to grant your licence for the performance of Divine Ser- 
 vice in the said intended chapel according to the rites and cere- 
 monies of the United Church of England and Ireland : and I do 
 hereby engage that if your Lordship shall think Jit to grant such 
 your licence, the said intended chapel shall be set apart and appro- 
 priated exclusively for that purpose. 
 
 Witness my hand this 28th day of October, in the year of our 
 Lord 1832. 
 
 (Signature) " Somerset." 
 
 Plan annexed. 
 
 (Signed) " Somerset." 
 
 The Bishop's Fiat Indorsed. 
 
 " Having personally inspected the building herein mentioned, 
 and highly approving it, I hereby direct that the licence issue a^ 
 prayed. , 
 
 Nov. 2, 1832. (Signed) " H. E." 
 
 THE LICENCE. 
 
 Henry, by divine permission Bishop of Exeter, greeting. Whereas, 
 we have received a petition from the most noble Edward Adolphus, 
 Duke of Somerset, setting forth that he had lately erected in his 
 manor of Bridgetown, within the parish of Bury Pomeroy, in our 
 diocese of Exeter, a building designed for a chapel for religious
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 worship according- to the rites and ceremonies of the United Church 
 of England and Ireland, and had fitted up the same with reading- 
 desk, pulpit, communion table, and convenient pews and seats cal- 
 culated to accommodate with sittings above seven hundred persons, 
 and provided with Bible, Book of Common Prayer, and all other 
 things necessary for the clue performance of Divine Service ; and 
 the ground-plot of the said intended new chapel is laid down in 
 the plan annexed to the said petition, identified by the signature of 
 the said Duke, and also copied in the margin of this our licence ; 
 and that it is the intention of his Grace to provide a permanent 
 endowment for a minister to serve the said chapel ; and as soon 
 as such endowment can be settled to our satisfaction to give and 
 grant the site of the said building for the purpose of the same 
 being consecrated as and for a chapel for religious worship according 
 to the rites and ceremonies of the United Church of England and 
 Ireland ; and his Grace, being desirous of supplying accommodation 
 for the inhabitants of the said parish to attend the performance of 
 Divine Service in the said intended chapel, which is conveniently 
 situated for a considerable portion of the population who are at a dis- 
 tance from the parish church, prayed that we would be pleased to grant 
 our licence for the performance of Divine Service in the said intended 
 chapel according to the rites and ceremonies of the United Church 
 of England and Ireland ; and His Grace thereby engaged that if 
 we should think ft to grant such our licence, the said intended 
 chapel should be set apart and appropriated exclusively for that 
 purpose : Now we, the said Bishop, having ourself visited and 
 inspected the said intended new chapel, and being entirely satisfied 
 of the fitness of the same for the purpose of a chapel, do by these 
 presents as far as in us lies, and we lawfully can by the laws, canons, 
 and constitutions of this realm, give and grant our licence or faculty 
 that the said new chapel may be forthwith opened and used for the 
 celebration of Divine Service according to the rites and ceremo- 
 nies of the United Church of England and Ireland, by a priest or 
 minister in holy orders to be for that purpose licensed by us until 
 we shall be enabled and shall think fit to consecrate the said chapel, 
 or make some other order in this behalf. 
 
 Given under our hand and episcopal seal this 9th day of 
 November, in the year of our Lord 1832, and in the 
 second year of our consecration.
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 No. 10. 
 Note j rom the Duke to Mr. Barnes. — November 11, 1832. 
 
 The Duke of Somerset sends his compliments to Mr. Barnes, and 
 has duly received the Bishop of Exeter's licence for opening the new 
 chapel at Bridgetown. 
 
 The foregoing Letters, the Petition of his Grace for 
 a Licence of the Building for the purposes of Divine 
 Worship, until Consecration should be obtained, and the 
 Licence which was granted thereupon, show the conditions 
 required by me as indispensable, and the engagement 
 entered into by the Duke, in compliance with this 
 requisition. 
 
 On the Licence especially it is right to remark, that 
 the effect of it, taken in conjunction with the Duke's 
 Petition, was to secure the perpetual appropriation of 
 the building as a Chapel for the performance of Divine 
 Service according to the rites of the Church of England ; 
 unless the Duke should violate his engagement. For 
 the Duke bound himself to secure that point as the con- 
 dition of the licence being granted ; and this obligation 
 did, in truth, extend even beyond his Grace's life, if he 
 should die before Consecration. 
 
 This is not the form, either of the Petition or the 
 Licence, which is used in the case of a building not per- 
 manently pledged as a place of Church Service. In 
 such cases, the petitioner engages, that only while it is 
 so used it shall not be used for any other purpose. 
 
 And this great security, insisted on by me, and given 
 by the Duke in his petition, did also virtually ensure 
 endowment — inasmuch as the Duke could not otherwise 
 obtain a right to nominate the minister, which had been 
 declared by him to be his great object.
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 In laying these matters before my Metropolitan, it is 
 not necessary for me to tell your Grace, but it may be 
 necessary for the information of others, that in all which 
 I did and in all which I required, I only discharged a 
 plain duty to the Church, and especially to the Incum- 
 bent of Berry Pomeroy, by thus taking care {effectual 
 care, I hoped — and such as I should still be confident 
 would be effectual in any similar case) that his spiritual 
 rights, connected as they were with his highest duties, 
 should be preserved inviolate ; in other words, that no 
 strange clergyman should be intruded into his parish, 
 and establish a rival place of worship within it. 
 
 The licence of the building having thus been granted, 
 the Rev. J. Edwards, vicar of Berry Pomeroy, at the 
 request of the Duke of Somerset, nominated the Rev. 
 James Shore, who was licensed accordingly, to perform 
 Divine Service in the new building. 
 
 In 1834 Mr. Edwards died, and was succeeded by 
 the Rev. E. Brown, on the presentation of parties who 
 had purchased that turn from the Duke. 
 
 Mr. Brown, after a while, finding the chapel and 
 hamlet of Bridgetown an unpleasant portion of his 
 charge, consulted me on the expediency of effecting a 
 separation ; and, having obtained my consent, proposed 
 to the patron, the Duke of Somerset, to contribute a 
 part of the vicarial tithes of the parish towards the en- 
 dowment of Bridgetown as a separate district. The 
 Duke took time to consider this proposal ; but two or 
 three years afterwards, Mr. Michelmore, the Duke's 
 steward, having first ascertained that Mr. Brown was 
 willing to contribute all the vicarial tithes accruing 
 within Bridgetown, to the amount of about 80/. per 
 annum, stated to him that " it was the wish of the
 
 ( 14 ) 
 
 Duke to ascertain whether the Bishop would accept 
 this portion of tythes, to be given by the vicar, as a suf- 
 ficient endowment for the purpose of consecration." 
 
 On this being communicated to me, I authorized Mr. 
 Brown to announce my acceptance ; but at the same 
 time added, that if the endowment were made altogether 
 out of the vicarial tithes, I could not consent to the 
 nomination of the minister being taken from the vicar, 
 to whom, of common right, it belonged ; if, however, 
 his Grace would augment the endowment with 701. per 
 annum, and give a house of residence, I would assent 
 to the patronage being vested in the Duke. It may be 
 right to say that the rectorial tithes of Bridgetown, the 
 property of the Duke, as lay impropriator, were under- 
 stood to amount to the sum thus required as the con- 
 sideration for transferring the patronage to his Grace, 
 who was also the proprietor of all, or almost all, of the 
 houses and lands in Bridgetown. The proposition was 
 submitted to the Duke in the following letter of Mr. 
 Brown to Lord Seymour. 
 
 My Lord, Berry Pomeroy, August 6, 1841. 
 
 Mr. Michelmore having stated it to be the wish of his Grace 
 the Duke of Somerset to ascertain whether the Bishop would consider 
 the tithes of the manor of Bridgetown a sufficient endowment for the 
 consecration of the chapel there, I have since had an interview with 
 the Bishop on this subject. 
 
 His Lordship thus stipulates : — Should the chapel be consecrated 
 as a district church, endowed solely with a portion of the vicarial 
 tithes of the parish, the Bishop would require the patronage to be 
 vested in the vicar ; but if endowed with such tithes, conjointly with 
 an endowment on the part of his Grace making up the sum of loO/. 
 per annum, with a house for the minister, his Lordship would give 
 his full consent to the proposed district church, and to the patronage 
 remaining with his Grace the Duke of Somerset. 
 
 The interest which your Lordship appeared to take in my pro-
 
 ( 15 ) 
 
 posal, while it constitutes my apology for thus troubling you. 
 encourages me to hope that you will promote by your influence the 
 attainment of so important and desirable an object. 
 I have the honour to be, my Lord, &c. 
 
 Edward Brown, 
 The Light Hon. Lord Seymour. Vicar of Berry Pomeroy. 
 
 To this letter Mr. Brown received an answer from 
 Lord Seymour, stating that he must consult the Duke. 
 Subsequently, Mr. Brown met his Lordship on this sub- 
 ject, by appointment, at Mr. Michelmore's ; but there 
 was no result. 
 
 Such was the only proposal ever made to me for the 
 endowment of the Duke's building at Bridgetown ; and 
 I have ascertained that no application whatever has 
 been made to the Church Building Commissioners, 
 " through the medium of whom, or otherwise," Mr. 
 Maberley, in his letter, No. 8, had declared it to be 
 " his Grace's most serious and determined intention and 
 wish to do his best to procure the consecration of his 
 chapel, and to make for it a permanent regular endow- 
 ment of proper amount." 
 
 In 1843 Mr. Brown exchanged the vicarage of Berry 
 Pomeroy for a benefice in another diocese, then holden 
 by the Rev. W. B. Cosens. 
 
 AY hen this change of incumbents occurred, it was 
 found that, through the inadvertence of the Bishop's 
 registrar, Mr. Shore, not having received a nomination 
 from Mr. Brown, had remained without a licence during 
 the whole of that gentleman's incumbency. Such an 
 instance is of very rare occurrence — a fresh nomination 
 of every assistant, and a new licence, being always re- 
 quired, and never intentionally dispensed with. The 
 practice is necessary for the protection both of the in- 
 cumbent and of the assistant ; of the incumbent, that he 
 may exercise his discretion in respect to the qualifica-
 
 ( K3 ) 
 
 tions of the minister who is to act under him — of the 
 assistant, that he may be secured against any subsequent 
 arbitrary act of the incumbent, who may displace him, if 
 he be not licensed, at any time, for any or no cause. 
 
 The same inadvertence did not occur on occasion of 
 the institution of Mr. Cosens. Mr. Barnes wrote to 
 Mr. Shore on the 15th of August, 1843, "to remind 
 him, that on the change of incumbents a new nomination 
 was required." Mr. Shore not answering this letter, 
 Mr. Barnes wrote to him again on the 29th, saying that 
 unless the nomination was made, the Bishop would con- 
 sider him as officiating without a licence, and might be 
 obliged to take the proceedings which would be neces- 
 sary in that case. 
 
 Mr. Shore answered on the 3 1st in the following 
 terms : — 
 
 g JR Bridgetown, August 31, 1S43. 
 
 I am sorry your former letter should have remained so long- 
 unanswered, but I have not yet had any opportunity of seeing Mr. 
 Cosens on the business, he not being in residence, and I was anxious 
 to have a personal interview with him ; I was also given to under- 
 stand that the Duke of Somerset considered that I received my 
 nomination from his Grace, — I thought it right therefore to aj>prise 
 his Grace, that as the chapel ivas not endowed and consecrated, I 
 had my nomination from the vicar of the parish, anil I understand 
 his Grace has had some communication with Mr. Cosens on the 
 subject. I will give immediate attention to the business, and if his 
 Lordship wishes, I will cease to officiate in the chapel till the 
 nomination can be procured. 
 
 I am, Sir, your very obedient servant, 
 Ralph Barnes, Esq. James Shore. 
 
 Meanwhile, I had seen the new vicar, Mr. Cosens, 
 and in conversing with him on the circumstances of his 
 new parish, I heard with surprise that he knew nothing 
 of his responsibility for the more populous and very im-
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 portant part of that parish, the hamlet of Bridgetown. 
 He added, that if he had been aware of this circum- 
 stance, he should not have accepted the benefice. In 
 conclusion, he said that he should take no step in the 
 matter without consulting me ; but as he was altogether 
 a stranger to me, I gave him no encouragement to 
 expect my advice ; and on occasion of the first letter, 
 which he afterwards wrote to me, I made him under- 
 stand that he must act altogether upon his own judg- 
 ment.* 
 
 In our conversation (as he has recently informed me 
 from notes made by him) I had asked whether he knew 
 Mr. Shore ; and on his answering that " he had heard 
 he was a very troublesome person," I abstained from 
 making any remark whatever. In truth, of Mr. Shore's 
 conduct at Bridgetown I had heard little ; though I 
 had conceived an unfavourable opinion of him from his 
 proceedings elsewhere. But this unfavourable opinion 
 would not have prevented me from accepting Mr. 
 Cosens's nomination of him, if it had been made, and if 
 on inquiry I had not found grounds of specific and grave 
 objection to him. 
 
 But I declined to comply with a request of Mr. 
 Cosens that I would allow him to remain unlicensed 
 for an indefinite time ; and in the course of the two 
 following months, I more than once desired Mr. Co- 
 sens to state whether it was his intention to nominate 
 
 * Mr. Cosens, in a published letter, has made the following statement in 
 reference to this matter : — 
 
 " In ray first interview with Mr. Festin, the Duke's steward, towards the end 
 of August, 1843, I promised, at his request, to apply to the Bishop on a par- 
 ticular point ; I did so ; but the Bishop's answer so effectually showed me that 
 he would not interfere in my appointing or rejecting Mr. Shore, six weeks 
 before that person applied to me on the 16th of October, that I never applied to 
 his Lordship again upon the subject until I had finally rejected Mr. Shore in 
 December of that year." 
 
 C
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 Mr. Shore. On the 9th of October, I desired an 
 immediate answer, and having waited another week 
 without receiving any answer, on the 16th of that 
 month, being on the point of leaving home for a distant 
 county, I wrote to Mr. Shore as follows : — 
 
 Rev. Sir, Exeter, October 16, 1843. 
 
 Having in vain waited in expectation of hearing from Mr. 
 Cosens, that he has determined to give you a nomination, I am 
 bound to consider you as not having his sanction for officiating in 
 the parish of Berry Pomeroy, and therefore I am also bound to 
 forbid your continuing to perform any clerical offices within that 
 parish. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, &c. 
 To Rev. James Shore. H. ExETER. 
 
 Mr. Cosens has recently placed in my hands the 
 following memorandum of what passed between himself 
 and Mr. Shore, in reference to this letter : — 
 
 "Oct. 16th. — Mr. Shore called, and asked for a nomination. 
 He began, ' I have taken the earliest opportunity of waiting upon 
 you.' Of course I knew this was untrue, and reminded him of the 
 three opportunities afforded him in my three visits to Berry. He 
 confessed to me that, had our positions been changed, he would not 
 have nominated me without knowing anything of me. He pro- 
 fessed the strongest attachment to the Church, and I have promised, 
 on my return from Teignmouth, to inquire into his character, and 
 to nominate him if I found I could certify, as in the nomination, that 
 he was a Jit person to be my curate. 
 
 " I returned from Teignmouth on Tuesday evening. 
 
 " On Wednesday morning the 18th, he came again, and said, 
 ' He had a letter from the Bishop, which he hoped would put an 
 end to all difficulties, as his Lordship wished me to nominate him.' 
 I expressed my disbelief of it. He said, ' Why, it was not exactly 
 a wish, perhaps ; but his Lordship had no objection to my nomi- 
 nating him.' I said, his Lordship would have a right to object, if 
 I had nominated him ; and I cannot think that he Avould express 
 his opinion till I had so done. ' Pray, Sir, let me see the letter.' 
 He produced the letter ; and it was forbidding him to officiate till 
 he Mas nominated. I rebuked such an attempt at imposition ; and
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 he then lost his temper. He told me that he was driven out of the 
 Church ; that he could not support his wife and children if he lost 
 the 200/. paid him by the Duke.* I reminded him that he might 
 be prevented from officiating in a particular parish, but that the 
 rest of the diocese was open to him ; and indeed, all the others. 
 He said, that if he lost the chapel, he was sure the Bishop would not 
 license him to any other place ; nor should he be received into any 
 other diocese ; that he should officiate there without the Bishop's 
 licence. I reminded him of his ordination vows. He said, 
 he could not help it, as he was driven out of the Church." 
 
 Such was the memorandum made by Mr. Cosens of 
 Mr. Shore's mode of dealing with my letter to him of 
 the 16th of October, 1843. 
 
 On that same day I wrote to Mr. Cosens, expressing 
 my surprise and disappointment, that after repeatedly 
 desiring to be informed whether it was his intention to 
 nominate Mr. Shore, I had obtained no answer; add- 
 ing, that I had in consequence prohibited Mr. Shore 
 from officiating. 
 
 I subsequently received from Mr. Cosens a letter, 
 dated the 16th, but which,, as I had set out on my 
 journey, did not reach me till the 21st. In this letter 
 he still forbore expressing an intention to nominate 
 Mr. Shore, but requested me to allow him still longer 
 time. As I had already waited nine or ten weeks, 
 and had issued my prohibition to Mr. Shore, I declined 
 to withdraw it ; but I continued to intimate a readiness 
 to receive, and give due consideration to, a nomination 
 of Mr. Shore, whenever Mr. Cosens might think proper 
 to make it. 
 
 A correspondence ensued between Mr. Shore and 
 myself, of which the following are the material parts : — 
 
 * The chapel is used as a proprietary chapel ; the sittings are paid for ; the 
 stipend of the minister being secured to him by the proprietor. I am informed 
 that the free sittings are very few. 
 
 c 2
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 My Loud Bishop, Bridgetown, Nov. 11, 1843. 
 
 I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter 
 of the 9th inst., received this morning, intimating that a rumour 
 had reached your Lordship of an intention on my part to continue 
 officiating in Bridgetown Chapel, notwithstanding the Vicar of the 
 parish refuses to nominate me, and your Lordship on that account 
 has forbidden me. Whether this rumour has reached your Lord- 
 ship from the same quarter that I received the painful intelligence 
 it was not your Lordship's intention to allow me to officiate again 
 in Bridgetown Chapel, even if nominated by the Vicar, I know not; 
 but I can assure your Lordship that nothing but necessity would 
 induce me to take such a step, and under no circumstances should I 
 think of adopting such a course without myself communicating to 
 your Lordship my intention. The perusal of your Lordship's letter 
 has led me to think, either that your Lordship has been grossly mis- 
 represented to me, or that I must have been shamefully and cruelly 
 slandered to your Lordship. It has been intimated by Mr. Cosens, 
 and that to more parties than one, that the objection to my con- 
 tinuing to officiate at Bridgetown originated and is maintained by 
 your Lordship, and that he should have given the nomination had 
 your Lordship sanctioned it. Mr. Cosens has stated to the effect, 
 that when he first learned from your Lordship that I required a 
 new Nomination from him, without leaving him to make the in- 
 quiries he may deem necessary respecting me, and then refusing to 
 continue my licence, should your Lordship consider the case re- 
 quired it, that your Lordship thought fit to communicate to Mr. 
 Cosens such an impresssion respecting me, that lie said it was 
 utterly impossible for him, as an honest man, with any regard for 
 his character, to nominate me, and that even if he did so it woidd 
 only make him ridiculous and contemptible, as your Lordship would 
 not license me. And on my telling him that my circumstances 
 would not allow me to support my family without employment, and 
 asking what I could do, he replied, that I may perhaps get a curacy 
 in another diocese; whereas your Lordship well knows, that if there 
 be valid ground of objection to my being licensed in this diocese, it 
 is not likely that I should receive your Lordship's recommendation 
 for another, and may therefore, consequently, remain all my days 
 without being able again to exercise my ministry in the Esta- 
 blishment. 
 
 If I could find any reason or cause for this persecution, it may 
 (might?) be different; but notwithstanding all my inquiries upon 
 this point, I can find no other valid reason than that such is the 
 law, which not only appears to myself, but also to many others, ex-
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 ceedingly oppressive and cruel ; but as I before intimated, my cir- 
 cumstances are such that if this course be pursued towards me, I 
 have no other alternative but the painful one of freeing myself, as I 
 best may, from the obligation of such legal jurisdiction. I feel my 
 position the more distressing, for I am sincerely attached to the 
 Liturgy and Articles of our Church, and however I may be cir- 
 cumstanced, I shall still, as I have hitherto done, to the best of the 
 ability and power God has given me, labour and pray for the 
 welfare and prosperity of the establishment. I can assure your 
 Lordship, whatever may have been said to the contrary, that I am 
 sincerely attached to the establishment, and although I may now 
 be placed in a position to withdraw not only without temporal loss, 
 but also with the prospect, which I had not before, of permanence, 
 yet I cannot sever myself from your Lordship's jurisdiction without 
 pain and reluctance. If, however, the alternative be the shutting 
 up of Bridgetown Chapel, the dispersing of the congregation, to 
 which from various ties I should be ungrateful indeed, were I not 
 sincerely attached, and also the leaving of my family in destitute 
 circumstances, and all this for no fault on my part, that I can learn, 
 I must candidly confess to your Lordship, that I shall feel it my 
 duty under such oppressive, and I feel I may say cruel proceedings, 
 severe and painful though the trial may be, yet I shall avail myself 
 of the hind permission of his Grace, for which indeed I can never 
 be too thankful, and shall, notwithstanding the difficult pressure of 
 reluctance, still continue to minister to those whom I love, and by 
 whom I have now had such demonstrative proof that I am sin- 
 cerely loved. 
 
 As they have followed me in prosperity, so they have not, and 
 I am sure will not, forsake me in adversity. I cannot but hope, 
 however, that the present course will not be persevered in towards 
 me. I hope this, not only on my own account, but for the Church 
 and common Christianity ; but if I am doomed to disappointment, 
 I shall at least be consoled by the reflection that the painful alter- 
 native is forced upon me, and though censured on earth my record 
 will be on high, and I shall leave without self-condemnation the 
 final result to that God who "judgeth not according to appearance, 
 but judgeth righteous judgment." With your Lordship, therefore, 
 it remains to decide what my future course will be. 
 
 I take this opportunity also of bringing another subject 
 
 I have, &c. 
 (Signed) James Shore.
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 Bishop of Exeter to Rev. James Shore. 
 Rev. Sir, Bishopstowe, Nov. 13, 1343. 
 
 I have received your letter of the 11th. There are parts 
 of it, which, if it were necessary to consider it as deliberately 
 written, would make it impossible for me to hold any communication 
 with you as a clergyman, or even as a member of the Church : I 
 allude especially to your threat, that if you are not licensed to 
 officiate at Bridgetown, you " shall avail yourself of the kind per- 
 mission of the Duke of Somerset, for which you can never be too 
 grateful, and shall continue to minister there," and (as you also 
 say) without any one's permission, elsewhere. The law of the 
 Church and State, which forbids such a course, you characterize as 
 cruel, and therefore you feel yourself at liberty to set it at nought. 
 Now, I am willing to make allowance for irritation caused by the 
 pressure of adverse circumstances, and I permit you to withdraw 
 that letter ; and to leave your case as if it had not been written. 
 In order too that you may the more clearly judge of the real hard- 
 ship which the law inflicts, I will state what it is, and how it affects 
 both your position at Bridgetown and the Duke of Somerset's right 
 to grant you permission to officiate there as a clergyman. But I 
 am bound by my respect for his Grace to express my confident 
 belief that there must have been some very great misapprehension 
 of his meaning, when you announce to me that he has given you the 
 permission which you mention. 
 
 The law is this — as the Incumbent of every parish has the cure of 
 the souls therein, no person whatever, not even the Bishop, can 
 authorize any clergyman to minister in any way in the parish, with- 
 out the express consent of the Incumbent. 
 
 Such briefly is the law ; now for the facts of this case — 
 
 (After stating the communications with the Duke of 
 Somerset — ) 
 
 On the recent vacancy of the vicarage of Berry Pomeroy, it. was 
 discovered that you had not had a nomination, and had been, conse- 
 quently, without a licence during the incumbency of Mr. Brown. 
 I desired Mr. Barnes to write to you on the necessity of your having 
 a nomination from the new vicar, and was informed by him (if my 
 memory does not deceive me) some considerable time afterwards, 
 that you had not answered or acknowledged his letter. I cannot 
 go into the details of matters, with some of which I am utterly un- 
 acquainted, and of others very imperfectly informed in respect to 
 Mr. Cosens' statements. Thus much, however, I will say, that if he 
 had nominated you, I should not then have refused to license you,
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 without giving to you full opportunity of vindicating yourself 
 against anything tliat may have appeared unfavourable, or may have 
 been stated to your disadvantage. I will add further, that if you 
 withdraw your letter of the 11th — not else — I authorize you to 
 state to Mr. Cosens that his nominating you would not before have 
 given, nor will now give, the slightest personal offence to me. It is 
 a matter in which he ought to be guided, and I wish him to be 
 guided, solely by his own conscientious judgment (informing himself 
 by due inquiry respecting your doctrine, conduct, and sentiments, 
 in the place and neighbourhood where you have lived), whether you 
 are a proper person to be nominated by him to the charge of so 
 large a portion of the flock committed to his care. If he decides 
 that you are, and shall nominate you to me accordingly, you may 
 rely on my not refusing to license you — without doing full justice 
 to you ; in other words, without giving you full liberty and oppor- 
 tunity to answer anything which may be suggested against you. 
 I am, Rev. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 Rev. James Shore. H. Exeter. 
 
 Mr Lord Bisiiop, Bridgetown, Nov. 23, 1843. 
 
 I had hoped that I had shown, what I really feel, a sincere 
 desire to meet the wishes of your Lordship. It is my misfortune 
 to have most deeply to regret, when it was intimated to me that 
 I was virtually excluded from ministering in the establishment, that 
 my circumstances should be such as to compel me to act contrary 
 to my expressed wishes under that impression, or indeed that I 
 should have acted at all under it as being correct, and have 
 written my letter to your Lordship of the 11th without first apply- 
 ing to your Lordship on the subject. I can assure your Lordship, 
 however, that I have never considered it otherwise than as con- 
 trary to my duty, as a minister of the establishment, to officiate id 
 Bridgetown without your Lordship's licence ; and as it appears 
 (for which I am truly sorry) that my letter to your Lordship of 
 the 11th conveyed a contrary impression, I cannot of course have 
 the slightest objection, but am most willing to subscribe the decla- 
 ration proposed, that I request your Lordship's permission to with- 
 draw my letter to your Lordship of the 11th instant, because I see 
 and acknowledge that my continuing to exercise my ministry in 
 Bridgetown without the licence of my Bishop is contrary to my 
 duty as a minister of the Church. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, my Lord Bishop, your Lordship's 
 very obedient humble servant, 
 
 To the Right Rev. (Signed) James Shore. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Exeter .
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 Mr LORD BISHOP, Bridgetown, Nov. 24, 1843. 
 
 Since despatching my last letter to your Lordship, it lias 
 occurred to me whether I fully apprehended your Lordship's mean- 
 ing. Your Lordship expresses surprise that as a presbyter of the 
 Church I should express my anxiety to continue my connection 
 with the establishment ; but surely the reason of my so expressing 
 myself ought not to be forgotten. I had been given to understand, 
 whether right or wrong, that I was virtually excluded from minis- 
 tering in the established Church, and, whether I expressed it or 
 not, I certainly have felt and do feel anxious to retain that connec- 
 tion. Indeed I can assure your Lordship that I have gone through 
 that in this painful business, which, if my family were above cir- 
 cumstances of absolute need, I would not go through for the best 
 preferment in the kingdom. If there were no other reason, the 
 alternative to me would be most distressing, that of either leaving 
 the establishment or leaving my family in absolute want. I have 
 not the slightest hesitation in saying, what I have always main- 
 tained, that, with my views of the Church, it would be inexcusable 
 indeed under ordinary circumstances to think of officiating apart 
 from your Lordship's jurisdiction ; but I fully considered from what 
 I had been told as coming from your Lordship, that I was virtu- 
 ally excluded from ministering in the established Church, and it 
 was under such circumstances alone that I contemplated officiating 
 without your Lordship's licence, rather than leave my family in want ; 
 and I am satisfied there is not a clergyman in your Lordship's dio- 
 cese, whatever may be professed, but must feel in a fearful strait 
 under such circumstances. No one, indeed, can tell the feeling 
 without being placed, and that with a sickly body, in my position. 
 
 I beg to apologise for again trespassing on your Lordship's atten- 
 tion, and I have the honour to remain, my Lord Bishop, your 
 Lordship's very obedient humble servant, 
 
 To the Right Rev. (Signed) JAMES Shore. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 Reverend Sir, Bishopstowe, Nov. 25, 1843. 
 
 I yesterday received your letter of the 23rd, withdrawing 
 your letter of the 11th instant, and making the declaration which I 
 found it necessary to require. 
 
 I have this day received your letter of the 24th, in which, not- 
 withstanding your declaration that " you see and acknowledge it to 
 be contrary to your duty as a minister of the Church to continue to 
 officiate in Bridgetown without your Bishop's licence," you say that 
 you contemplated doing what you thus acknowledge to be contrary
 
 ( 25 ) 
 
 to your duty " rather than leave your family in want." You add 
 that " you are satisfied there is not a clergyman in my diocese, 
 whatever may be professed, but must feel in a fearful strait under 
 such circumstances." 
 
 I have no doubt that every clergyman in this diocese would 
 " feel in a fearful strait under such circumstances," but I have 
 also no doubt that very few indeed would adopt that part of the 
 alternative which you avow that you contemplated adopting ; they 
 would almost all, I hope, by the grace of God, have too deep a sense 
 of their duty to the great head of the Church, and too much faith 
 in Him, to act deliberately under any pressure in a manner which 
 they know to be contrary to their duty as his ministers. I might 
 dwell on this matter, and should feel myself bound to dwell upon it 
 if I did not confidently hope that what I have said must be enough ; 
 I spare you therefore, and will give you, as I promised, the benefit 
 of the declaration which you have made. 
 
 You may state to Mr. Cosens what I authorized you to state to 
 him in my letter of the 13th instant ; it was to this effect, " that I 
 have no personal feeling whatever in the case ; that if, after making 
 Avhat he shall think due inquiry, he shall consider you a fit person 
 to whom he may entrust the spiritual instruction of a large and 
 important part of the people, the care of whose souls was committed 
 to him at his institution," I shall receive his nomination with full 
 confidence that he has conscientiously given it, and shall then pro- 
 ceed to make more particular inquiries than I have yet thought it 
 necessary to make into your conduct and doctrine. These inquiries 
 will be made by me with no prejudice or prepossession which shall 
 prevent me from doing full justice to you, or from granting your 
 licence if I find you deserving of it. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 To the Rev. James Shore. (Signed) H. Exeteu. 
 
 My LORD BlSHOP, Bridgetown, Nov. 28, 1843. 
 
 I have received your Lordship's letter of the 25th instant, 
 and beg to observe that the " fearful strait " I contemplated was 
 not. whether I should leave my family in want or act contrary to 
 what I deemed to be my duty as a minister of Christ, for this I 
 trust no consideration would induce me to do, but whether, under 
 the trying circumstances of the case, not being as I thought per- 
 mitted to minister in the establishment, I should leave them in want 
 rather than leave the establishment, there being no charge against 
 me. It might and doubtless would have been better to have left
 
 ( 26 ) 
 
 the matter in faith and prayer entirely to God, committing it alto- 
 gether to Him to order my way without at all contemplating future 
 contingencies. I can assure your Lordship, however, that it has 
 been and is my earnest prayer and desire to know my duty in this 
 matter and act accordingly. 
 
 I have the honour, &c. 
 
 To the Right Rev. (Signed) James Shoee. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 Soon after this correspondence between Mr. Shore 
 and myself, the following letters passed between Mr. 
 Cosens and the Duke of Somerset (without any pre- 
 vious communication with me on the part of Mr. 
 Cosens) : — 
 
 My Lord Duke, Vicarage, Berry Pomeroy, Dec. 19, 1843. 
 
 It is with the greatest pain and regret that I have found it 
 quite impossible, with any regard to the spiritual care of this parish, 
 to certify that Mr. Shore " is a fit person to be licensed to the 
 chapel of Bridgetown." I think it my duty, therefore, to say that 
 I am quite ready to nominate any curate appointed by your Grace, 
 whose views and practices afford me a fair hope of carrying on the 
 duties of the parish, for which I alone am responsible, with advan- 
 tage to the people committed to my care. Or should your Grace 
 wish to delay any such appointment, I am perfectly willing, in 
 addition to my two full services here, to perform an evening service 
 in the chapel, every Sunday for a time, without fee or reward. I 
 beg to observe that each of these offers was distinctly made by me, 
 and intended for your Grace's consideration, from six weeks to two 
 months since. Lord Seymour suggested that I ought to provide 
 for the chapel ; let the matter therefore, if your Grace pleases, be 
 put upon that ground, and I am willing to enter into any engage- 
 ment to resign the chapel into your hands or those of your repre- 
 sentatives whenever it shall be required. I will only add, that I 
 am ready to afford your Grace all reasonable explanation upon the 
 subject of the chapel, should you desire it, and that I am, with 
 great respect, your Grace's very faithful servant, 
 
 To His Grace W. B. Cosens. 
 
 The Duke of Somerset. 
 
 SlR, Brighton, Dec. 31, 1843. 
 
 Your obliging letter of the 19th instant duly reached me, 
 and I have always regretted extremely that any difficulties should
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 have arisen with regard to the performance of Divine Service in the 
 chapel at Bridgetown. Indeed, the prohibition came upon me like 
 a clap of thunder ; and I have not, to this day, been able to com- 
 prehend the reason of it. But as you are so good as to offer me 
 some explanation, in case I should desire it, I must avail myself of 
 the intended favour ; for, after all the correspondence that, I am 
 told, has passed upon the subject, and the different conjectures that 
 have been suggested, I am at a loss to know why you refuse to 
 nominate Mr. Shore, whether it be in regard to doctrine or cha- 
 racter, or with respect to what other cause your objection has arisen. 
 
 I have to thank you for the civility of the various proposals con- 
 tained in your letter, and I have the honour to be, Sir, with much 
 respect, your faithful servant, 
 
 To the Rev. W. B. Cosens. Somerset. 
 
 My Lobd Duke, Vicarage, Berry Pomeroy, Jan. 8, 1844. 
 
 I had the honour of receiving your very kind letter, just as 
 I was on the point of leaving home to attend the Quarter Sessions. 
 
 The congregation, nearly half of whom were Dissenters 
 
 from Totnes, were as nearly unchurched as I could imagine pos- 
 sible. Of the leading partisans of Mr. Shore one, I am told, had 
 been the clerk in a dissenting meeting-house, another a well-known 
 Dissenter, and a third, who was a Churchman, boasts that he 
 advised Lord Seymour to get a first-rate Dissenting preacher to serve 
 the chapel. These and all that party attend the meeting-house, 
 though Totnes Church is within one hundred yards of it, and is not 
 half full, and the general tone of their language, as far as I have 
 heard it, is the grossest reviling of my predecessor, as good a man 
 as ever lived, joined to an open expression of their desire that the 
 chapel should be opened without the authority of the Bishop, in 
 short, as a meeting-house. Many of the congregation who have 
 remained true to the doctrines and discipline of the Church, re- 
 garded the chapel as a means by which the Church was made to 
 give place to the meeting-house ; and this they especially recog- 
 nised in their minister's omitting, at the bidding of some Dissenters, 
 the term " religious " before the words " gracious Queen " in the 
 prayer for the Parliament ; at a former period, I am most credibly 
 informed, the Communion Service was repeatedly omitted, though 
 Mr. Shore took especial care to inform me that he had left it out 
 once. These sentiments expressed to me by Mr. Shore rendered it 
 impossible for me to say that " I believe him to be a fit person to be 
 licensed to the chapel." If the only alternative to nominating
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 Mr. Shore were the resignation of the living, I should consider it 
 my duty to take that course, rather than become an instrument to 
 betray the interests of the Church, or to commit a suicide upon my 
 character as a clergyman." 
 
 On the 16th of February Mr. T. Michelraore, as 
 agent of the Duke of Somerset, did what Mr. Cosens 
 had thus informed his Grace the dissenting portion 
 of the congregation at Bridgetown urged Lord Sey- 
 mour, then representative of the borough in Parliament, 
 to do : he certified the building under the provisions of 
 52 Geo. III., c. 155, " as a place of meeting of a congre- 
 gation for religious worship of Protestants." 
 
 This extreme measure was taken without even wait- 
 ing for the issue of a correspondence, which was still 
 passing between Mr. Shore and Mr. Cosens respecting 
 Mr. S.'s nomination to the chapel. On the 2Sth of 
 February Mr. Shore addressed to me the following 
 letter, enclosing the correspondence to which it re- 
 ferred : — 
 
 My Lord Bishop, Bridgetown, Feb. 20, 1844. 
 
 I beg to enclose for your Lordship's perusal the correspond- 
 ence which has passed between Mr. Cosens and myself on the 
 subject of Bridgetown Chapel ; and I take the opportunity also of 
 informing your Lordship, that it being found impossible to obtain 
 your Lordship's sanction or licence for me to resume my duties, 
 Bridgetown Chapel has been licensed apart from your Lordship's 
 jurisdiction ; and as I cannot think it right, particularly under 
 present circumstances, to leave my congregation, to whom I am 
 sincerely attached, or to allow them to continue without the public 
 ordinances of religion now I have it in my power to resume my 
 ministrations among them, I feel under the painful necessity of 
 stating to your Lordship that, as your Lordship's sanction cannot 
 be obtained, I can no longer consider it as contrary to my duty to 
 officiate in Bridgetown Chapel without further licence from your 
 Lordship. Indeed, as the chapel is now licensed apart from your 
 Lordship's jurisdiction, I am given to understand that further 
 licence from your Lordship is unnecessary.
 
 ( 29 ) 
 
 ' Although I cannot but be deeply grieved at the lamentable result 
 
 of this affair, yet I am consoled by the reflection that, as I am 
 
 altogether ignorant of any reason for the opposition so unjustly 
 
 maintained against me, so I have done all in my power to prevent 
 
 the painful alternative which lias been forced upon me. 
 
 I have the honour, &c. 
 
 To the Right Rev. (Signed) James Shore. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 Now from all this it is manifest, if there be any 
 hardship in Mr. Shore's case, 'that the cry which has 
 been raised of his having been persecuted for conscien- 
 tiously dissenting from the Church is absolutely without 
 foundation, is contradicted by his own statements. For 
 it is manifest that he not only did not profess to dissent 
 from the Church, but that he professed the very con- 
 trary — that he vaunted his adherence to its Articles 
 and its Liturgy — expressed his warm attachment to it — 
 claimed to be its minister up to the very last hour, 
 when he renounced obedience to its laws — laws which 
 he was under the most solemn vow to obey — simply 
 and solely because his Bishop would not — rather, in- 
 deed, could not — make them bend to Mr. Shore's 
 convenience. 
 
 About this time the following handbill was circulated 
 at Bridgetown : — 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 The Bridgetown Chapel, having been duly registered in the Court 
 of the Archdeacon of Totnes, will be again opened for Divine 
 Service, under the ministry of the Rev. James Shore, on Sunday 
 next, at the usual time, a quarter before 11 o'clock. 
 
 Thos. Michelmore, Agent to the Duke of Somerset. 
 
 As I could not but consider the course thus taken 
 to be in direct violation of the engagement, on the 
 faith of which I had licensed the building, and as Mr. 
 Shore was now acting in open defiance of the duty
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 which he had himself acknowledged as a minister of the 
 Church, I desired Mr. Barnes to institute those pro- 
 ceedings which have been the pretext for so loud a 
 clamour. That they have been very costly is owing to 
 the course obstinately and vexatiously pursued by Mr. 
 Shore. When, in the outset, the Commissioners pro- 
 nounced that there was a prima facie case against 
 him, the Chancellor, who presided, strongly advised 
 him to submit, and to* save himself from the conse- 
 quences of a protracted and hopeless suit. If he had 
 acted on that advice, and if, proclaiming himself a 
 Dissenter, he had sought to be released from the obliga- 
 tions under which he lay, he would have been speedily 
 released, and with little or no cost to any one. 
 
 Instead of this, he made it necessary that articles 
 should be filed against him ; and in resisting those articles 
 he had recourse to the most vexatious and expensive 
 process, applying to the Court of Queen's Bench for 
 prohibition. And, after failing in this application, and 
 being sentenced in the Court of Arches, appealing 
 against that sentence to the Judicial Committee of 
 Privy Council. And all this without the slightest rea- 
 sonable prospect of success. 
 
 Foiled in all his legal attempts, he commenced a tour 
 of agitation, in which, during two or three years, his 
 Bishop was made the object of the most rancorous abuse 
 at public meetings in almost every great town in England 
 and even in Scotland. I follow him not through any of 
 the unfounded statements ascribed to him in speeches 
 which may have been reported incorrectly, but confine 
 myself to a published letter, subscribed with his name, 
 in which is the following sentence : — 
 
 " An offer was made likewise to have the chapel endowed and con- 
 secrated, provided I might continue the minister, but all to no
 
 ( 31 ) 
 
 purpose. As all other means, therefore, failed, the chapel was 
 licensed under the Toleration Act." 
 
 This assertion is utterly untrue. No such offer was 
 made — no offer of endowment by the Duke was indeed 
 ever made on any condition whatever. If an offer of 
 endowment on any lawful condition had been made, it 
 would have been most readily accepted ; and ifj when 
 the building was endowed and consecrated, his Grace, 
 in the character thus acquired of patron, had nominated 
 to me Mr. Shore as Minister, I should have had as little 
 inclination as right to refuse to license him. I might 
 have deemed it necessary to make inquiries respecting 
 him ; but this would have been done not only under my 
 own sense of justice, but also under the responsibility, if 
 I refused him without sufficient cause, of legal proceed- 
 ings against myself. 
 
 But I have done. After so long a course of obloquy 
 heaped upon me in almost every part of Great Britain 
 as the persecutor of a poor Curate, whose only crime 
 was obedience to the dictates of his conscience, it is 
 well that the true character of that persecution, and 
 of that conscience, should be accurately understood ; 
 neither is it otherwise than well, that a portion of the 
 funds so perseveringly sought, and doubtless so liberally 
 given at all those meetings to defray Mr. Shore's ex- 
 penses, should be claimed in payment of the costs which 
 had been awarded against him. I gave no direction for 
 enforcing the decrees of the Courts in this particular ; 
 but neither did I feel myself called upon to prevent 
 their being enforced. 
 
 Upon the whole, painful as the proceeding has been, 
 I regard it as one of the trials to which all who attempt 
 to do their duty in administering the discipline of the 
 Church, are, in these days, necessarily exposed. That
 
 ( 32 ) 
 
 it will not make me less ready to discharge this duty in 
 future, I hope I need not give any assurance. On the 
 most awful occasion of my life, at my consecration to 
 the high office which, however unworthy, I hold in the 
 Church of Christ, I was asked by your Grace's pre- 
 decessor, whether " such as be unquiet, disobedient, 
 and criminous, within my Diocese, I will correct and 
 punish according to such authority, as I have by God's 
 word, and as to me shall be committed by the ordinance 
 of this realm." I answered then, and on my bended knees 
 I answer now, " I will so do, by the help of God." 
 
 I am, my Lord Archbishop, 
 
 Your Grace's most dutiful 
 
 And most faithful Servant, 
 
 H. EXETEK. 
 
 London : l'rinled by WILLIAM Clowks ami Sons, Stamford Strict.
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 The Charge against Mr. Shore was, not for acting as 
 a Dissenting Minister, but that, being " a Priest or 
 Minister in Holy Orders of the Church of England, 
 although the Bishop did strictly enjoin and charge 
 him to abstain from further performing the office of 
 Minister of the Chapel or Building " in Bridgetown, 
 he did "publicly read prayers, preach and perform 
 Divine Service, according to the Rites and Ceremonies 
 of the United Church of England and Ireland, in the 
 said unconsecrated Chapel or Building, contrary to, and 
 in spite of the aforesaid injunction." 
 
 The injunction Mr. Shore admitted ; but he " made 
 oath and said that he had nowhere officiated as a Clerk 
 in Holy Orders of the United Church, fyc, but had 
 constantly, since the service of the said monition or 
 prohibition, officiated as a Protestant Dissenting Mi- 
 nister in Holy Orders, and as a Preacher or Teacher of 
 a Congregation of Dissenting Protestants, in a Chapel or 
 Place of Religious Worship of Protestant Dissenters 
 at Bridgetown (duly certified), and although he hath 
 availed himself (as many other Protestant Dissenting 
 Ministers are accustomed to do) of the forms of Prayer 
 contained in the Book of Common Prayer, according 
 to the use of the United Church, &c, yet he hath so 
 done, not as conforming to the said Book, but with 
 certain variations" Notwithstanding Mr. Shore had 
 so "made oath and said," his counsel defended him, as 
 if he had acted as a Clergyman of the Church, and 
 only as it was his duty to act in that character. 
 
 Sir J. Dodson. — "There is not sufficient proof of the 
 articles upon which to found a sentence. The proof 
 
 D
 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 extends no further than to reading the Book of Common 
 Prayer, which is no ecclesiastical offence ; on the con- 
 trary, it is obligatory upon clergymen to do so." Upon 
 which Sir Herbert Jenner Fust, in pronouncing judg- 
 ment, said, " The argument of the learned counsel for 
 Mr. Shore has been matter of surprise to me; for it 
 goes to this extent, that any Minister of the Church of 
 England is at liberty to go into any house he may 
 think proper, to preach and read prayers there" — in 
 short, " that Mr. Shore had only acted in compliance 
 ivith the Rubric." 
 
 He then stated the evidence of two witnesses, proving 
 that on one occasion Mr. Shore had "performed the 
 whole of the Morning Service according to the Liturgy 
 of the Church of England, as set forth in the Book of 
 Common Prayer, without any deviation" and on another 
 occasion had performed the same Service with "no 
 deviation, except the addition of a few explanatory 
 words in the Epistle,* which Mr. Shore put in after 
 the word 'Abba,' which, he said, being interpreted, 
 means * Father.' And," (Sir Herbert continues) " an 
 interrogatory is put to this witness, whether there were 
 not deviations from the Book of Common Prayer, as if 
 to show that Mr. Shore was not officiating as a Minister 
 of the Church of England. The witness, however, says 
 he observed no other deviation." 
 
 Whereupon the Court "pronounced that the ar- 
 ticles had been sufficiently proved, and admonished 
 Mr. Shore to abstain from offending in like manner 
 again ; and condemned him in the costs." — Barnes 
 v. Shore, Ecclesiastical and Maritime Causes, v. 593. 
 
 * For the Eighth Sunday after Trinity. 
 
 London : Printed by WllLlAM Ct.owes and Sons, Stamford Street.