Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

4 corrections, most recently by anon - Show corrections

DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE.  

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.  

IT will be remembered that during the last term the Rev. C. F. Brigstock was convicted, in the Supreme Court, of having libelled Mr. C. O'Brien, by publishing a letter in the He- rald, accusing him of hunting on Sundays. As Mr. Brigstock did not attempt to prove his assertions, but simply pleaded the general

issue, the Bishop of Australia directed that   a commission should be issued to enquire whether Mr. Brigstock was guilty of having published a false and malicious libel, knowing

it to be so.

The Commissioners met on Monday, and examined the evidence, but it appearing that Mr. O'Brien had been misinformed as to the day on which the enquiry was to be held, the Bishop quashed the proceedings, and directed they should be commenced a-new.

On the opening of the enquiry on Wednesday, the Rev. R. ALLWOOD, the Commissary of the Diocese said, before   this Court is constituted, I wish to make a few observations, with a view to clear away any idle and unfounded rumours which may have arisen respecting our meeting to- day. Upon the finding of the verdict of the Court of Law in the case O'Brien v. Brigstock, the Bench immediately communicated with Mr. O'Brien's legal adviser to ascertain whether Mr. O'Brien would prefer any charge against Mr. Brigstock. This Mr. O'Brien declined to do, stating thut he was satisfied with the verdict of the law. A commission of inquiry, as to the grounds of the scandal al- leged against Mr. Brigstock, was then issued by the Bishop, to be held on the 12th April. Notice of the inquiry, and of the time and

place when and where it was to be held, was,

as an act of courtesy, sent to Mr. O'Brien, in order that by himself or by his agent he might, if he pleased, attend and watch the proceed- ings. On Mr. Brigstock's arrival in Sydney, he found that one of his witnesses would be compelled to leave town on the evening of Monday, the 11th. Under these circum- stances he prayed the Bishop to allow the inquiry to take place on that day. To this the Bishop acceded, and the Commissioners met and went into the evidence offered to them, lt was not till yesterday at midday that they were informed that Mr. O'Brien s legal advisor had received no regular in- timation of the change of day. As soon as this was known to the Bishop, he, with the advice of the Commissioners, immediately decided that the proceedings of the day be- fore should be null and void, and that the commission should meet as to day, and that a formal notice should be sent to Mr.O'Brien's

legal adviser. I have felt it right to make these remarks, because (although Mr. O'Brien has nothing directly to do with this in- quiry, and has had notice of our meeting merely as an act of courtesy) I am anxious at once to put it out of the power of any honest man to hazard an insinuation that the Com-

missioners have been actuated by any indirect or covert motives to change the day first ap- pointed for this meeting.

The Commission, which was issued by tho Bishon of Australia, pursuant to the terms of the Church Discipline Act, was then read, and Mr. Norton, the Registrar of thc Diocese, administered the oath to the Rev. R. Allwood B. A., and Mr. Allwood, to thc Rev. W. IS. Clarke, M. A., Rev. G. E. Turner, Rev. ll. II. Boban, M. A., and the Rev. II. Forrest, truly to try, and report to the Bishop, the case

before them.

, T''e K?.vYÇ-F- Ung*tock Was accompanied

by Mr. Michie, as counsel, and ' '

attorney. Mr r" ' . "". oreel, as .-; . .., v/ arlen was also present, "an tho Attorney-General and Mr. Foster, as counsel, and Mr. Want, as attorney.

'.I he Conuilissary theil addressed the Com

lhi*.sioiit>rs ¡th follows i

My Reverend Brethren,-In compliance j with the réquisition of ourrc'spéeled Diocesan, andin accordance with the provisions of the Act for better enforcing Church Discipline, we are this day met together, as members of a com- mission specially issued by the Lord Bishop, to make inquiry as to the grounds of tho

scandal allcuged against one of our brother Presbyters. The course of defence adopted by thc defendant in the case of O'Brien versus Brigstock, and the result nt which the'Jury arrived, under the charge of the, Chief Justice, have lci't a very stiong impréásltfn; Î iiiáy sriy a very strong presumption, that our brother has been guilty uf having knowingly written, and caused to be published, a false and mali-

cious libel.

This in any Christian man would be a grave «nd serious offence, but in a Christian mi- nister in a clergyman of the Church of En- gland, an offence most grave and serious ; solemnly pledged as he ls by his ordination vows lö inilintain, and set forward as much nS lielliinhimquictiiessandpcace,aiidloveam<iiif all Christian people, to take heed that neither he himself o fi end, nor be occasion that others offend, and to be in his life and conversation an example and pattern to the flock of Christ.

Accordingly, our Chief Pastor, ever mindful of thc duties of the high and most responsible)

oflice to which he has been called in tho

Church of God, and knowing that, as in the «nfc fering of one member the whole body suffers, so by the indiscretion or misconduct of one, the whole is scandalized,-has felt it to be his duty to institute this commission of inquiry, swayed doubtless on the ono hand by a deep sense of the obligation that is upon him, that the Church, of which he is overseer, should receive no detriment through the ab- sence of the exercise of wholesome discipline, when needed : and, on the other, by the ear- nest hope that our brother may make this thc opportunity of clearing himself of thc scan- dal that is against him. And as it has be- come the duty of our Diocesan to institute this inquiry, so does it become us, (bia Pres- byters), upon whom he has laid this solemn charge, to aid him with our counsels to tho best of our ability ; to bring to the investi- gation minds free alike from prejudice and partiality ; to consider the- evidence which may be brought before us this day patiently and dispassionately - neither influenced, on the one hand, by the very strong censure which was passed upon our brother from the highest scat of justice in this land, nor moved, on the other, by any apprehension of incon- venience to ourselves and danger to the Church from the result of this inquiry, but ta bear in mind, that her true interests and stability can be promoted only hythe pro- motion of Truth-tile everlasting foundation upon which she is built. Gentlemen, on this mojt trying, most painful occasion, I will not detain you by offering any observa- tions, but such as 1 believe to be absolutely necessary to assist us in the inquiry, 1 will therefore proceed at once to read to you those rules which have been adopted by the Bishop, in accordance with the Ecclesias- tical Laws of England, for the guidance of his Clergy in matters of this nature. The Rev. Connnissnry then read at some length the rules and course of proceeding pursued in

Ecclesiastical commissions.

There is one other point on which I think it necessary to offer a very few observations, with the hope of being able to remove any misconception which may have arisen as to the object of this commission, and the nature of this inquiry, which we are instructed to make. The case, it may be said, has alreadv bean decided, a verdict has been pronounced, and the opening of thc question again may present the unhappy result of the report of a Church Commission in direct collision with tl e verdict of a court of law. This would be much to be deplored, but I r.m bold to say, that no such collision can take place if we adhere strictly, as we are bound to do, to the inquiry for which this commission was issued. The law, it is true, has spoken. A verdict has been given, which has left a very strong presumption of moral guilt against our brother, No wetnesses were called forthc defence-no jilea put in, in justi- fication ; had this been done, the question, which we are now met to consider, would have come before the court of law, and this com- mission would probably not have been re- quired.

With the plaintiff in the above case we have nothingtodo; we are not his judges ; whether or not he was guilty of the act charged against him, is not for our ? decision. It is with our brother's conduct only that we have to deal ; and even here our inquiry is limited by very clear and well-defined bounds. The indiscretion, the great imprudence, the moral offence, whatever may be its nature, of writing and publishing anonymously, a charge tending to the injury of a neighbour's reputation, is not the quostion b.efore us. _ The point of inquiry to which we have to direct our atten- tion is simply this-what evidence can our brother lay before us to show that when he made the accusation, he had every reason to believe that it was true?

I hope, gentlemen, I have made myself sufficiently clear. We are not, I repeat, here as judges of ourbrother's conduct, but com- missioners'instructed to make inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of the scandal alleged against him, and to report the result of our enquiries to our diocesan. There is a very strong presumption that he has written and caused to be published^ a false and malicious libel, knowing at the time that it was false. We call upon him to offer such evidence before us as may clear him of this most grave and serious charge.

The witnesses were then examined by Mr. MICHIE on behalf of Mr. Brigstock, and by permission of the Court, by the ATTOBNEY

GF.NKKAL 'and by Mr. FOSTKB, on behalf of j

Mr. O'Brien.

Hamilton Hume, Esq., being duly sworn, states, I reside at Yass; I was therein the early part of 1841 ; I know the Rev. Mr. Brigstock,and Mr. Cornelius O'Brien; 1 live within aqiiartcr of a mile ot Mr. O'Brien's resi- dence; f have had opportunities of noticu'i;. what, occurred on Ina premises ; I have ob- served the Yass subscription hounds out on Sabbath-days on two occasions. On thc first occasion, a quarter of an hour before the hounds went out, aman posted through my premiso»» with a drag, from Mr. O'Brisn's

liefe of the river; flt Vit irflüraf ffflmtthintf on the ground; 1 took it to be a drag ; a quar- ter of an hour afterward«, I saw the hounds follow in the aame direction ; this was at the latter end of March. Mr. O'Brien has the hounds in his charge ; they are on his pre- mises; tho dogs came from Mr. O'Brien's premises in thc direction of the shearing-shed; the hounds were in full cry ; it was the noise of them which attracted my attention ; it was between breakfast and dinner hour ; between eight a.m., and two p.m. ; I believe it was between eleven and twelve a.m.-The second occasion was in April about three p.m. ; might have been later; could not be earlier; the bounds were in cry on Mr. O'Brien's property near to my own ; tho noise

attracted my attention ; the hounds were returning home ; they were running through the fence into Mr. O'Brien's ground ; the land on both sides of the fence is Mr. O'Brien's. The hounds were in full cry as if following game. I did not see who was ont with them. I did not seo any one ; the hounds were running in full cry as if in a hunt.' I did not see a drag on the second occasion, nor have 1 seen the hounds out on a Sunday on other occasions. I was not near enough to the spot to swear who it was took out the drag on the iii st occasion. Mr. O'Brien was at

home on both occasions; in his gardens, oppo- site my house. I saw him. Mr. O'Brien must have seen and heard the hounds on the second occasion j he was within 100 yards of the place. I saw Mr. O'Brien on the second

occasion. On the first occasion I saw the hounds in the morning; I saw Mr. O'Brien before 2, p.m., on the same day. On the second occasion other persons were with Mr. O'Brien on his premises. I was once a sub- scriber to the hounds, but not then. I know that the ñólittdü Were kept at Mr. O'Brien's. .Thc kennel was then within 50 or ß0 yards . ,' , » bnve heard from Dr. Allen , from his house. * . ? i,owe from him I that Mr. O Brien borrowed » .. . ..^ on a

(Dr. Allen) for the purpose of a' nu».

Sabbath-day. I heard this last Thursday week ; the circumstance took place months lbicl"; _ l3r. Alldri stated that Lieutenant

Christie and others were at Mr. d'Brien's; Dr. Allen said tile horse was expressly bor- rowed for hunting; he himself was also in- vited to lui lit oh (tlic Occasion; but declined. The horse was afterwards rciuriiedj ridt hav- ing been required. The occasions referred to were before tho letter appeared in the Herald signed "A Lovcrof Justice and Consistency." I read tho letter in question, and believed its contents to be in a great measure true. I "believe that the letter lind the effect of pre- venting the hounds going out since.

CrOSá-exaniined : IJiavd tfn unfriendly feeling towards Mr. O'Brien. 1 never saw Mr. O'Brien following the hounds on a _ Sun- day ; I never heard Mr. O'Brien hallooing in chorus with the hounds with his assigned ser- vant on a Sunday : I never told Mr. Brig- stock that I had seen Mr. O'Brien with the hctmds on a Sunday ; I never furnished Mr. Brigstock with information of the facts which are alleged in the letter in the Herald. On the second occasion), when 1 saW the hounds I saw no person with thcui ; on Hie first oc- casion, I saw a person I believe to be tile keeper; I think Mr. O'Brien must have known that the hound? were taken out. I was not a subscriber to the hounds at the time

in question ; I do not know that Mr. O'Brien ever forbade the hounds going out on a Sun- day, or that he gave permission for so doing.

I do not believe that the hounds could have been taken out without Mr. O'Brien's know-

ledge, and unless I-were deaf or blind I could have seen and heard them at a similar dis- tance ; I was not at church on the first occa- sion), on the second occasion I believe I had been at Church. I did not give any informa- tion unon the subject to Mr. Brigstock, until after the letter appeared in the lierald. Mr. Brigstock stated to me, long before the trial, that he had been to Mr. O'Brien's to remon ! strate against his hunting or allowing his

hounds to hunt on the Sabbath day. This was in April : ho told nie this on the same doy that, ha had called, on Mr. O'Brien ; I cannot recollect seeing the hounds out after thc remonstrance referred to.

John Watson, Esq., being dui}' sworn, states : I reside at Yass : was there in April or May, 1841. I know Mr. Brigstock and Mr C. O'Brien, but I am not personally acquainted with the latter. I have frequently seen the hounds, under Mr. C. O'Brien's care, out a» the Sabbath-day ; they generally were running t»n a scent, and crying as ifhuntmg: generally

in the afternoon. 1 have seen them some- times at other hours. They were running close by Mr. O'Brien's house ; within sighfof if. I was generally at leisure in the afternoon. I have seen Mr. O'Brien's men with', tho hounds on these occasions. Once I saw Mr. O'Brien's government man ; he was running with the drag. There were one or two persons generally ; not on horseback ; there might have been more. The hounds were in full

cry. I have repeatedly heard thc horn, the same as on other days. -I could observe the hounds distinctly between Mr. O'Brien's and my house ; my house ¡J a quarter of a mils from Mr. O'Brien's ; on an eminence. Mr. O'Brien was at Yass on these occa- sions generally ; I have seen him about his premises before and after I have seen the hounds on the Sundays ; I do not believe that Mr. O'Brien could have been ignorant of the hounds going out ; they were kept at the back of his house. I have read the letter in the Herald, signed "A Lover of Justice and Consistency," and from my genera} know- ledge of the circumstances, I believe the leading points contained in the letter to be true. I do not say that 1 saw Mr. O'Brien

I with the hounds; I think the. party writing

the letter could not have believed he was writing what was false ; the impression on my

I mind, when I read the letter was, that it was

generally true. I have seen the hounds out a score of times on different Sabbaths from

1810 to April, 1811, such is my imprussion ; I i have not seen the hounds since the letter

appeared ; I left Yass at the end of May.

Cross-examined: The hounds might have been out when I did not see them ; I will not swear positively that I have seen more than one person with the hounds at one time. Tlio mun whom I saw with the drag was Mr. C. O'Brien's servant. I swear he was'Mr. O'Brien's. I recognised him as I passed him ; I had seen the man before. I never heard Mr. O'Brien hallooing in chorus with his assigned servant on a Sunday. I think it a less crime or offence, morally, for a master to allow a servant to hunt on a Sunday than to do so himself. I never stated Iliad seen Mr. O'Brien, with his servants, hunting

on a Sunday. I cannot say exactly where thc

horn was blown on the occasions.mentioned ; it was in the direction of Mr. O'Brien's resi- dence. I have seen the man running with the horn after the dogs, but cannot swear this was on a Sunday. I consider the master of a convict, allowing a servant to do what he would not do himself, is a minor offence.

George M'Donald, Esq., J.P., being duly sworn, states, I am in the commission of the peace ; I reside at Yass ; I was there in 1840 and 1841. I then knew Mr. Brigstock inti- mately, but was not on terms of intimacy with Mr. O'Brien. I have repeatedly seen the Yass subscription hounds out on the Sabbath-day, before and after Mr. Brigstock

told mc that he had remonstrated with Mr. O'Brien upon the impropriety of the act. This was before the appearance of the letter in the Herald, signed " A Lover of Justice and Consistency." I have seen thc hounds, from my verandah, out in the morning be- fore church time and in the afternoon, in the afternoon probably about three o'clock. One day I saw the hounds in a body running through Mr. O'Brien's fence; I have only seen one man with them; I do not know him. I read thc letter in the lierald, signed, "A Lover of Justice and Consistency." I had the impression at the time I read it that the writer had stated the truth, judging from my own knowledge and thc remarks ot others. 1 have heard persons, with whom I'associate at Yass, comment upon the hounds being out on a Sunday. The mau wassonietimesrunningafter the dogs. One day the dog*, I think, must have been upon a scent, but I did not see anything before them, The day they went before Mr. Henry O'Brien's house they ran as if ou a scent; the man was not on horseback. I thought it a profanation of tho Sabbath, and Mr. Brigstock must have, thought so too. I

MUve the hound* li th»t time »ná«r Mr. O'Brien's care.

Cross-examined ! I never «aw Mr. O'Brien himself with the hounds, nor heard him halloo in chorus with his assigned servant, with the dogs. The hounds might have boen out for training or exercise. I think even that a profanation of the Lord's Day. Mr. O'Brien has grossly insulted nie. I am not upon speaking terms with Mr. O'Brien, but I have no animosity towards him, nor any malicious feeling, but take very good care to steer clear

of him.

The following depositions were then read : Samuel Agnew Ritchie, being duly sworn, deposeth : 1 am a settler, residing about five miles from Yass. I remember- on one Sunday, about the end of the year 1838, seeing the Yass hounds, then under Mr. C. O'Brien's charge, leave his house, accompanied by a mau who, I suppose, was the huntsman ; they went towards Yass Plains. I do not remem- ber actually seeing them out except on this j occasion, although I have frequently, on

other Sabbath-days, heard the huntsman's horn at a distance, and can further positively swear that the fact of the said hounds being so frequently taken out on thc sabbath was long the subject of frequent remark from many persons, and of severe comments from

all.

(Signed) S. A. Ritchie. Sworn before mc, nt Yass,

this 31st day of March, 18*2, (Signed) J. It, Hardy, J.P.

At Yass, this thirtieth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, ap- peared bfefore mo, John Richard Hardy, Esq., one of the Commissioners of tile Supreme Court of New South Wales, John Williams, servant to James Ellis, Esq., surgeon, Yass, and deposcth ns follows :

About u fortnight before the last Ynssrnces,

which I believe were in October or November last, I saw the Yass paclf of hounds, which I '?now to bc under the charge of Mr. Cornelius I n-n "ut-on Sabbath, hunting, on a drag: O Brien, .. ^i-as. because I saw a man ! I W!>«. » -,. "...'.er, Mr. O'Brien's

running with it, and M"t».».. _ ,4 ¡t wa, (l huntsman told me so. I saw it, n.... ..',,} dog's skin wet with turpentine. I was invivw. by M'Kiver some days previous to join them dt Mr. O'Brien's on the above hunting excursion On tho succeeding ^Sabbath. M'Kiver told irie they were to run the drag across before Capt. M'Donnld's house round thc Plains by 'thc township, and by Mrs. Manley's station, a mile on the other side of I Ynss. Mr. O'Brien's house, from whence

tile hounds started, is about three miles from Yass ; I joined them at Yass, and followed them for nbout nine miles and 11 half, but tiley wänt further! M'Kiver was mounted on a crtíam-coíoitrCu. horse of Mr. O'Brien's, and there were several other persons on

horseback with them.

(Signed) John williams. Sworn before me at Yass,

this thirteenth March, 1842.

J. R. Hardy, J. P.

! At Yass, this thirteenth day of March, on0

thousand eight hundred and forty-two, ap- peared before me, John Richard Hardy, Ejq., one of the Commissioners of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, James Hurleigh Sharp, of Addalong Creek, -and deposeth as

follows :

I am a settler at Addalong Creek, Tumat River, and one of tho trustees of the j Protestant Church at Yass. I was re-

siding at Cooma, Yass Plains, the residence I of Hamilton Hume, Esq., in the months of j February, March, and April, IfHl, and while ' there, I saw, ort two or three separate occa ! sions, on the Sabbath, the Yass pack of hounds which were thou, and are" now, under the charge of Mr. Cornelius O'Brien, outrunning, on one occasion, about three o'clock in the after- noon, in full cry, in pursuit of some thing, I whether a dog, or what, I cannot say. I

should say, from the noise they maùo, n,1(l the situation in which they were, that it could not have been done unknown to Mr. O'Brien, j or whoever was in charge of the place. 1 I believehe wasat home. I amawarc that it is a j matter of common notoriety in thc neighbour

hood of Yass, that the above-mentioned hounds were very frequently out on the

Sabbath.

(Signed) J. H. Sharp. Sworn before me, at Yass,

this 30th March, 18+2. .

(Signed) J. lt. Hardy, J. P.

James Ellis, Esq., heine; duly sworn, states: I am a surgeon, practising at Ydss ; was for- merly in Her Majesty's Navy ; I was living at Yass in the year 1841. I know Mr. Cor- nelius O'Brien and thc Rev. Mr. Brigstock. I was once intimate with Mr. O'Brien. I re- member having on one occasion seen the Yass subscription hounds qut on the Sabbath-day, but I cannot swear that Mr. O'Brien was witli them. Mr. O'Brien calls them Ais hounds; they are under hin care. I cannot state the precise date when I saw the hounds out on a Sunday, but it was previous to the publication of a letter signed "A Lovnr of Justice and Consistency," which appeared in the Herald newspaper (between January and May, 1841), it was early in the year, I cannot name the party who had the hounds out, nor tho precise time, but it was either before or alter church. My acquaintance with Mr. O'Brien had not terminated at the time I re- fer to. We have subsequently b;en on un- friendly terms ; I amawate that Mr. O'Brien's magisterial conduct is not approved of by the respectable settlers at Yass. Thc dogs were running and making a noise; they went past the back of my house, I saw two or three persons following; thecc might have been more. I made the remark that Mr. O'Brien might as well have kept the hounds at home on that day; I reside two miles from Mr.

O'Brien's residence. Sworn befove me.

(Signed) lt. Allwood.

When the evidence was concluded, the Attorney-General applied for leave to ad- dress the Commissioners on tho evidence, which, after some conversation as to the authority of the Court, was agreed to.

Thc ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he felt it to he unnecessary to oller any remarks on the publication of an anonymous letter, because he thought the consideration more properly belonged to the reverend gentlemen who were placed in authority on this occasion than to himself, and he had no doubt it would have due weight with them ; hut he thought it was important that the commissioners-should not shut out from their minds that the publication was an anonymous letter from the pen of a clergyman, and that the writer saiu he had given his statements with the most scrupulous fidelity ; bearing that in mind, the commis- sioner's would please to turn to the statements contained in that part of the letter in which the writer spoke ot himself, and then he would ask of them, could they lay their hands on their hearts, and say, whether he had writ- ten with that scrupulous fidelity to truth which he asserted he had done. How- ever painful it might be to them to come to tlie conclusion that a gentleman holding the sacred situation which Mr. Brigstock did, should, in the statements he had niadv, have borne false witness against his neigh- bour, he felt sure that, if such was the con- viction on the minds of the commissioners, they would not shrink from declaring it in their report. He asked them, was there any think in the evidence which had been adduced to support the statements made in the letter ; and tlicy were to take into consideration that every witness who had been culled had an unfriendly feeling towards Mr. O'Brien, and yet not any one of them had supported the statements in the letter. The letter staled that Mr. Brigstock, in common with many others, ,had seen Mr. O'Biian hallooing in chorus with his dogs, and in company with his assigned servants on a .Sunday ; but not ono of the witnesses who had been called had ever sean any think of the kind, they had never once seen Mr. O'Brien present; and notwith- standing the ingenuity which had been dis- played in endeavouring to show that if Mr. O'Brien's servants were out with the hound* without Mr. O'Brien being present, there wa< as much moral guilt attached to him as if ii« had been present, he must maintain thal there was no proximity in the case ; because, to say rio thin g'of the degradation to thc character of a gentleman to be seen so employed on the Sabbath in company with his convict servan ti,

- .. i '

tam wa« ih* publia wsn<î*J, «hlcft, ai 4 magistrat*, he would give-to tho whole neigh bourhood. ThToughout the whole transaction an attempt had been made to point out Mr. O'Brien as the actor and principil on these occasions, but from the evidence ;f the wit- nesses who had been called, it wai clear that he had not been seen at all in then; and if I Mr. Brigstock had been in possesiion of all

< the facts which had been adduced b-day they would not have justified him in stating what he hod done, for the fact was, that Nr. O'Brien was not with thc hounds, yet that was made the gravamen, the sting of the charge, the rest part of the letter was a mei» nothing. None of the witnesses had shown that there had been anything approaching to» hunting party ; but it was evident that whu.had been done was merely for the purpose ofexerciaiug the hounds ; and if the huntsmen-lad used a drag, or piece of meat, to produce aicent, that was only thc usual mode of acting; and sup- posing that the hounds were thus exercised on a

Sunday, there was no great impropriety in that. Thc commissioners would iot fail to observe that not more than one marat a time was with the hounds ; and the necessary ex- ercise which was thus given to themmight, in the opinion even of a very moral nun, be no profanation of the day. The whole tiing in fact came to this, that whether or not, tlnrb Doing a little truth in thisstatcment, itmightieexaggo rated to such a degree as to make bat which was in itself trivial an enormous ofence. If Mr. Brigstock was not actuated by»n unkind, feeling, to say the least of it, hecpuld. not

have tortured the circumstance ts he had done. He had stated as follows :-'fThe only independent magistrate, too (Mr. C'jO'ßrien) who now acts with Mr. Hardy, dherts him- self with taking out thc Yass sibgcriptioR puck of hounds (which are under lis charge) on thc Sabbath day; and so long as he can get a drag and halloo chorus withthe dogs, in company with his assigned seyants, he cares little of the outrage he is comiitting, or thc profanation he is guilty of. Tlis I know is a startling accusation to bring rçainst any man, particularly a magistrate, bit it is ne- vertheless true, too true : for I nari, in com- mon with many others, witnessed it more than once." Now he would ask, had any

' been shewn to bear out that'i It stated r "V'ii V'r> O'brien himself tod out the irst mat . au tjie witnesses aositivelv hounds; but thiu . .,. nf *!,"'£.,"*, y

denied. It was true so.Jc 0{,T,nctfes

had said something about a IL."5^"''

thought because they hud a knowle^ 01 "» that Mr. O'Brien must also, He )vas charged with making an outrage oBthe com-' munity'by his own personal acts, but n'othiiig of the kind appeared from the evidence; and ho must say, that taking tl« facts as stated in the letter, and the evidwee, theie was not one fact made out ; and tethought that, taking into view the whole casethe Con*

missioners could not come to the cmelusioii

that Mv. Brigstock was conscious ohhe truth of what he was writing. If be hal gone to Mr. O'Brien, and remonstrated will him in a

proper and becoming manner, Mi O'Brien could not certainly have been ofieided ; but such conduct as was displayed in ihe letter was not at all dignified or chantalle, for it was plain that Mr. O'Brien hadnot been guilty of any one of the actions hputcd to him ; but, come what may, he woiúí say, lot justice be done. _ }.

Mr. MICHIE, in reply, said, that alttpugh the Attorney-General had delivered i:speech, which would have been a very gooi and ap- propriate one, if the question ¿efore thc rex e 'end Commissioners had been (nether or not Mr. Cornelius O'Brien had a had not taken out tho hounds on the Sabbatltday. Yet that speech was altogether wide of he mark, when the only matter about whichihey were assembled to iuquire,^ was, whethethe Rev. Mr. Brigstock, in writing the letterehich ori- ginated the inquiry, was aware ol' tlifalsehood of the same, or whether he hadsufficient grounds tn believe its contents tfbe true.

Throughout the Attorney-General'iahimated . auJress, he appeared to be lubouringiiider the error that acquitting Mr. Brigstosfruin the

imputation'of TH.';.0»OOD>, Mr. O'Hen must

stand convicted of the ">rKes coUined in the letter. This by no mean».'.,49ecesslty followed: for Mr. O'Brien might biïîV10""1 of having habitually desecrated, tb sabbat J; and at thc same time Mr. Brigstck might have written the letter in the piiest good faith,-part of the matter confuted in it, being the results of his own observion, and part made up of information fmtished to

lum by others. Now, without goig further than one answer matte by several a; the wit- nesses, he Mr. Michie, submitted that that answer, frc ely uttered by gentlemh of edu- cation and respectable rank in thoetghhour hood of Yass, was by itself amply efficient to clear away 'any momentary douit which might have existed _ in any mini, in re- ference to Mr. Brigstoek's chancter for honour and veracity. On Mr. Wilson a';d Captain Macdonald being askid, whe- ther, from their own obscrvationi of what had taken place, on und near Mr*O'Brien's premises before the appearance of (ho letter in May last, they had had thc ingression in

reading the letter, that the writsi munt in - composing it have been conscious fiat he was composing a string of falsehoods? Those res-

pectable witnesses unhcsitatinglyjinswered, "certainly no|;" and the reason;they ren- dered for giving that answer, wait that from their own observations as to the bawds being frequently out on the Sabbath, on MlO Brien's land, they knew the letter in the min to be true. But since the Attorney-Gaeral was not satisfied with this short, and Mue friends

of Mr. Brigstock satisfactory, sejtljment of ,

the matter at issue, and persistT in going .' more particularly into the cviden<feiof.c'>urso

he, Mr. M., could not refuse theijiiltation to look at the matter a little mo* jin detail.

In doing this, then, how stood tMcsse on thc evidence I It was established in keb a man-

ner as no longer to be disputed Jlithe other

'side, that the Yass hounds, m~t*> tinder > Mr. O'Brien's care had frequentest almost

all hours of the Subbath, been see' running in a body in full cry, on and near M. O'Brien's laud. It was also shewn that m, some of these occasions, an assigned levant of Mr. O'Brien's had been seen with tbje hounds. So fur it was manifest the reprefhtations of Mr Brigstock had been proved i the letter. But one part, and that it seemed* ánost im- portant part of the letter, had not sen proved, viz.-that Mr. O'Brien hud ever iaiself been coen out with the hounds. Th was true: and although it had been shewniy the gen- tlemen they had had before the: that day, that Mr. O'Brien hud been seen \ifking about his grounds on the same days OJ-irhicli the hounds had been- seen out,-altVugh it had been proved that they had ma* iso much noise, that it was impossible he.auld have

been ignorant of the fact that tlu were out, .till it was at the same liinetrue, that none of the witnesses had stutei that they had actually seen Mr. O'Brien aiself out. From this defect in evidence, afreat point was attempted to he made, both bthe Attor- ney-General and by Mr. Foster^ /Mr. Brig stock's words,-" I myself, in camon with many others, have seen Mr. O'lJen halloo- ing in chorus with hil dogs and ;i» assigned servants on a Sunday,"-were unfed against Mr. Brigstock ; and the questict had been asked by Mr. Foster, and aftsrwrds ingeni- ously treated by the Attoriiy-General, whether the assertion of Mr. O'iaen's having himself taken out the hounds wi proved, by shewing that tho hounds had btw taken out by other people ? This questa, put so in- geniously as it had been, might MM a diffi- cult one to answer, to any one *>fc keeping steadily before hi» mind what vtothe object of the present inquiry : which wa,'-the con- viction or acquittal of Mr. Briçiobk of, or from, the charge of having knowißly written false charges agaiust Mr. O'fldeV and not to ascertain the perfect truth or false- hood of every part of the letter, jKeeping the object of the inquiry fairly befcètheir at- tention, it would be seen that tlievfds which

had so prominently figured in tlieittorney General s speeeb, would admit ofnfeasy in- terpretation, not in the slightest d*ee com- promising Mr. Brigstoek's characttrîor truth and integrity. Mr. Brigstock bjaself had seen Mr. Q'Brien out with the h'.iml* on the Sabbath; but, unfortunately, beiréítbe de- fendant on the present occasion, liwbuld not prove the fact himself. " But spDiaroe of the

others," it had bien asid, " migaí?fove it,"

ff Mrlrifttok íouia Hoi.: Vdtrén«v«ranJ I Comnwoa«ri would hear in mind, that the moit ojcientioua and guarded men-indeed all-m^were daily ana hourly «peaking and witto es Mr. Brigstock had done, upon generrreputation artd hearsay, and in doing BO oftt-made statements, which however true ifact, they would find considerable difflcuyV in proving, if they wero sud oenlyjàlled upon to do so, in a court of la\ . " Hearsay " "was, as a general rule, 1 common law courts excluded ; yet »nany ¿j just man made statements on hearsajsvidence, of the truth of which, from his imjfit confidence in the informants, lia never tfertained a doubt. If, therefore, Mr. Brigstik had himself seen Mr. O'Brien with the no\iJs, and had moreover heard from the genera'tallc of respectable persons, to which one of Ke witnesses had adverted, that Mr. O'Brieiwas in the habit of occasionally takingut the hounds on the Sabbath, this would«: quite sufficient to account for the oonâJiiMse of the expression, " I myself, in cominti'Sfith many others, have seen him out with tlflhounds on the Sabbath-day." Still if calle-^ipon for his proofs, (from himself being ifçludcd, and from inability to find and bing forward witnesses who had also actuall ieen Mr. O'Brien,) he might fail in l»rovinj| an assertion, made with the

most enscientious conviction of its truth.

But thi| would perhaps be called strain- ing aftri a conclusion, which not being the obyiouione, shewed the weakness of Mr. Bngstok's case. Fortunately however for his, Mr.Mi.chie's reverend client, the present court w» not bound down and tramclled by tile strident rules of evidence, obtaining in courtsocominon law. " Hearsay," which every bdy knew, when coming from friends on whge characters we can rely, con- stitutes i ground of belief, and a guide to action; infrequently as any other kind of evi- dence, night here be called into assist in vindicairig Mr. Brigstock, and in obviating any posible damage his case might sulfer in "other mn's minds, from what byithcm might be deenèd a forced construction of his words. Dr. Allen had said to Mr. Hamilton Hume, that on one occasion, * long time before tia appearance of the letter, Mr. Cor- nelius O'Brien had requested of him, Dr. A., the ban of a horse, for the purpose, of a hunt onthe Sabbath. Now thia was a part of th« general conversation of tho district, and nf cotirsi was an item among the diffère*-^ kinds cf evidence satisfying M- Q^'" «tock, >ith what he; hinr e'lf £¿d

Î.T-fdVithat.- Mr* °^rien was in the 'habit of hunting o;" the Snubath> Loifcei[ a, in this ran^ nnd regard being had tQ thc circu.T,isUnce that witnesses could not bc lompelltd in that court to come forward bj subpoem, as in a court of common law, those respectable gentlemen who had come forward; having ebne so entirely from personal respeei for Mr. Bttgstock. He, Mr, Michie, was con- fident er»ry impartial man would see, tha' Mr. Brigstock had passed most trhimphantli through the inquiry, and that when he statei what he had stated, he had every reason ti believe (hat he was stating the truthv Bu conceding, forthe sake of argument, that ther was no moral evidence of Mr. O'Brien him self having taken out the hounds, in hov much better plight was he, if he had allowci his servants to do so. The Attorney-G.enern had Qtttntioned the witness, Mr. Watson,Upo: mf.i point, who agreed with him, that amaste Nylien albwing a servant to do what, from rc ligiousscruples, he wouldabstainfromhimsel! waa not jeting so criminally, as if he were i fact, the oflender. Mr. Watson, it appeared agreed »¡th the Attorney-General, thu the alluring a servant to sin, wa not so had as sinning one's-sel with submission toboth, he, Mr, M., althoug thc consideration appeared to be ono entire! for the Court, must say, he could see little, i «ny, moni distinction between the two easel If there vas a difference, lt Bcemed to be on making against the master, who could, as i v»er?' deliberately carry the selfishness of th life into the world to come, and allow a sci vant to endanger his salvation, when he woul not peril his own. It had been attempted \ t be shewn that the dogs when out, had bee

let out for exercise; but it seemed curioi that thc tSercise should bc so faithful a cop of ac'cualservice, when the voices, as well i the bodiis of the dogs must be exercise almost all of the witnesses proving that tl hounds 'viere running in a »ody, and in fu cry. The Attorney General had most just" said, apparently however forgetful of a po rion of the evidence, that it would have bec more like a generous man, and a Christii minister 'especially, when one of anoth communion was about to be complained of before writing a letter to a naper, to cs on the party, and request a discontinuant of. the practice disapproved of. From tl evidence pf Captain Macdonald, it would a pear, thai this was the very thing Mr. Bri stock haddonc ; lie having actually called < Captain M., beforo the appearance of tl letter, and stated that he had been remo strafing vhth Mr. O'Brien upon the subjec And most iinportnnt was this in assist!) them to ¡he conclusion that Mr. Brigstoi had written the letter with the most hon« intention ; for the Commissioners would be in mind twit Captain Macdonald had stat that subsequent to this remonstrance, ai only wheo by the repetition of* the oft'eni the remonstrance was found to be fruitlei had Mr. Brigstock; determined to appeal that last rewrt, thepublic, through themedii of the Preiis. This appeal might or might r bt considered an error of judgment, or b taste in Mr. Brigstock, and perhaps it wns.r utterly free from such an imputation ; I that it waswitten in any other spirit than censcientiliW'One, he, Mr. Michie, could 1 believe, lit must be borne in mind, tl Mr. BrigsÄclff not merely as the censor mor I of his trlilflock, but as a minister

the ProtesBn|~persuasion, entertaining a c sense of ?« devout deportment due fr . the membÄüf their own communion, on i

Sabbath-dBs must frequently have had feelings wcHtfed by such exhibitions as 1 been descMWt' hy the various witnesi These exhiBöons, at the same time, pain as they mi/Hitbe to Mr. Brigstock, .were t therefore, íMirtaceful to Mr. O'Brien, wh creed admiMeil perhaps of somewhat ni

license on tje Sabbath than Protestants vs wont to indl'Ige ; but, at the same time. '. Brigstock, regarded as he must and ought bc, as a Protestant minister could do no ot than attempt, in every becoming way, to press a practice, which he knew to be an ( rage on the moral sensibility of his Hock. W therthe modf adopted for affecting his end, in every respect an unexceptionable one,

not thc question to be tried ; but whet U'Mr. Brigstock, in writing the letter had ' ' sufficient moral grounds for believing that

wa« writing the truth, and upon this quest after the evidence they had heard, it was i mitted there/could not be two opinions.

When Mr. Michie had concluded, the C was adjourned for a short time, ana upon being re-openod the COMMISSARY said, Commissioners wero of opinion that t I was no primó facie case for instituting fur i proceedings against Mr. Brigstock.

The Commission was then dissolved.

The following is a copy of the report, w tho Commissioners made to the Bishop : I Wo, thc: undersigned members of a ( II mission appointed by the Lord Bishop of. I tralia, in accordance with the course poi

out in the act "for the better enforcing Ch I disciplino," forthepurpose of making inr

into the grounds of scandal alleged ag the Rev. Charles Ferdinand Brigstock, c incumbent sf Yass, in thc county of Mu by thc verdict ofa Jury in the Supreme ( of New South Wales, m the cause O'Bri Brigstock, having duly heard evidence r delivered upon oath, and received deposi atcsted upon oath before the Police Magif of Yass, have found as follows :

That the» is proof that thc Yass Sub; tion Hound», whilst under thc care of Cornelius O'brien, and kept (mon his prer have frequently been seen in full cry, a¡ díase, uponpe Lord's Day.

' That thcrpis proof that Mr. O'Brien'i I via servanliave been seen in one or mi

these occasbns, trailing a drag befor . hounds. ** " ? That then is proof a horn ha* been b

svs usual tuon occasious wh«n< hound actually hwtÜDB

t ÎW étti ii feàof/tUat Mr. O'Brien'« j huntsman, mounted upon ahorse belonging to Mr. O'Brien, lins taken out the hounds on the Lord's Day. The deponent, John Williams

hunting with them.

That there is proof that the continual oc cunence of these practices was the subject of general complaint at Yass.

That there is proof that Mr. O'Brien was at home on thc days mentioned.

That there is evidence that Mr. Brigstock remonstrated with Mr. O'Brien upon the sub-

ject.

That there is proof that there was a general impression on the part of the witnesses, that Mn Brlgstock's letter was in the main true.

That there is proof that the practice of taking out the hounds on the Lord's Day, though continued after the remonstrance, was not continued after the publication of Mr.

Brisstock's letter.

'that there is no proof that Mr. O'Brien was seen on any of the above occasions out

with the hounds.

Duly weighing and deliberatiilg on the proofs ami evidence tims brought before them, and considering that Mr. Brigstock's evi- dence has not been taken ns to the latter fact, which he has asserted he could prove, and' viewing his conduct in remonstrating I with Mr. O'Brien as the proof of having so

far discharged his duty, and, inasmuch as no reason as been adduced, imputing cause of malice to Mr. Brigstock, regarding also the desecration of the Lord's Day Which lia» been λroved before them. The Commissioners

lave to report lo the Lord Bishop their unani- mous and conscientious opinions.

That there ls no prima facie ground for in-

stituting further proceedings against Mr. Brigstock in thc Soclesiasticol Court.

That Mr. Brigstock is not guilty of having Written and caused to be published a false ana malicious libel, knowing at tho time ol' wri- ting and publishing that it Was false.

The Commissioners feel it their duty to ex- press their regret, that Mr. Brigstock should have been induced to prefer a charge of so grave and serious a nature in the form of an anonymous correspondence.

Given under our hands and seals, this four-

teenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hnndrcd and

fortv-two.

(L. S.) ROBERT ALLWOOD.

HENRY H. BOBART. W. B. CLARKE.

RODERT FORREST.

GEORGE E. TURNER.

AUSTRALIAN CLUB.-There will be a meet

ing ol' the members to-day, at one o'clock, for the purpose of balloting for members.

CHAROEOP PERJURY.-Mr. Windeyer, sen., was engaged about foür hours, on Wednesday afternoon, in thc police court, hearing evi- dence against John Henry Leopold Von Goebert, a constable in the Water Police, charged with perjury, by Mr. J. J. Cohen, jeweller, George-street, alleged to hnve bec» committed before that Court, in February

last) wbört the prosecutor was defendant in a cause on the complaint of Goebert, for having obstructed him in the discharge of his duty, by exciting a mob, which rescued a prisoner from the said Goebert. The perjury assigned was, that the prosecutor had struck him (Goebert), and excited thc mob. After thc case had been closed, Mr. Windeyer said, although he could see many tilings in favour of the defendant, as thc case appeurod before him, yet as the prisoner's witnesses hud positively contradicted the evidence given Dy the defendant, he would commit lum for trial, but admit him to hail, himself in £00, and two sureties in £30 each.

TRUSTEES' MEETINGS. - The creditors of the following insolvent estates will meet to re- vise the report of trustees as under, by ap- pointment of the trustees :-George Faughtley Wright, and Thomas Cade Bateley, April 18 ; Henry Brook Wray, John Miller, and Charles Nicholl, at Maitland, May 7 ; Edward Has- lingden, May 9 ; Edward Martin Storey, May 7 : George Haggett, and Joseph Wait, May 6 ; Richard Kirkwood Ewing, May 14 ; Duncan McPhee, April 18 ; John Vcecoe, April 30 ; Charles Dee, and William Spence Brown, April 28.

ERRATUM.-In our digest of the cases tried at the Court of Quarter Sessions, published in the Herald of yesterday, thc name of Mr. J. J. Cohen is mentioned as being " con- ditionally free." For this very annoying blunder we have to make an apology to Mr. Cohen; but he is so extensively known in the colony that the mistake cannot affect him. Had it been a more obscure person, to state that he was only conditionally free, when he arrived in the colony as an immigrant, might have been a serious injury.

Music.-Mr. Nathan has just published a piece of Music called the Eagle Chief, upon   which we shall take an early opportunity of making a few critical remarks.

LITERATURE.-We are requested to call the

attention of our readers to the sale of books advertised by Messrs. Moore and Heydon, to take place at their rooms this evening.

OMNIBUS.-Yesterday, an application was made by Timothy Driscoll, for a license to keep an Omnibus plying in Sydney, which

cannot fail to meet with custom while the Quarter Sessions are sitting at the New Court House. The application was granted by Mr.

Brenan.

LANDSALES. - The most important of which (this day by Mr. Stubbs) comprises: 1. A large sheep station, with huts and paddocks enclosed, and ready to enter upon, with im- mense water frontage and run. 2. At Appin, nine well arranged farms, of easy purchase. 3. The Spinning Wheel building ground, near the Wellington Inn, Parramatta Road ; and 4. The remaining portion of the Piperston allotments, only nine will he sold, under most positive directions, and upon liberal terms.

TOWN ALLOTMENTS.-A sale of town allot- ments took place at the Colonial Treasury yesterday. The first series put up was nine allotments at Soldier's Point which were sold as follows: Michael Burn £65, L. Gordon £75, W. Bury £67, W. Bury 70, G. T. Smith £74, G. T. Smith £74, G. T. Smith £76, R. Webb £80, James Greenfield £103; This land sold at the rate of rather more than £2000 an acre. The next series was four allotments at the corner of George-street and Charlotte-place, on which the old Guard House formerly stood, the upset price of which was £20 a foot, they were sold as follows : Anthony Hordern £34, Alexander Douglass £26, John Rickards £20, John Kingdon £23 ; the average price of this piece of land was £21,000 an acre, while the corner lot purchased by Mr. Hordern was at the rate of more than £30,000 an acre. The total amount of the sale was £2700.

ASSAULT.-William Bayley was yesterday committcd to take his trial for an assault ou a person named Maloney.

COMMITTALS.-On Wednesday, Bridget Quig- ley was committed to take her trial for stealing from a dwelling house ; Christopher Clarke was also committed for stealing money from a till ; Daniel McGrath for stealing a jug full of brandy, tho property of a person named Dean, and Helen Daley for stealing a frying- pan, were, also committed for trial.

RAG FAIR THIEVES.-The Rosemary-lane brigade appear of late to have been uncom-   monly active in Sydney. Yesterday six of them were committed for different acts of pilfering, as follows :-Charles Smith, a well-known Par- ramatta fence, for stealing a cloth cap, the  

property of Mr. Marshall, of Market-street, and remanded on a charge of stealing a pair of boots from another person. Mary Cook, for stealing a pocket handkerchief. James Murphy, for stealing a shirt from a person named Quigly. Mary Casey, for stealing two gold pins from Mr. Lamb, of George-street. Edward Wilson, for stealing a horse-cloth, the property of Mr. Riley, from Jolmstone's livery-stables, and Joseph Cruise, for stealing brandy, thc property of Mr. Cunningham, vintner, King and Castlereagh streets. At the same time, Abraham Sand- well, alias Samuels, was committed for three months to thc House of Correction, being a rogue and vagabond, who had got into the hands of the police on suspicion of stealing.

Digitisation generously supported by
Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation
Digitisation generously supported by

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down