[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] Superior Courts of New South Wales

You are here: 

Rev Russell [ 1849 ] NSWSupC 32 (25 July  1849 )

[clergy, discipline of]

Rev. Russell

Consistorial Court of New South Wales

25 July  1849 

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, 26 July  1849 , in Supreme Court Collection, Vol. 3, pp 23-24

CONSISTORIAL COURT.

YESTERDAY the Consistorial Court of the Bishop of Sydney was assembled in the vestry of St. James's Church; and was attended by the Registrar of the Diocese, James Norton, Esq., in accordance with the Canon. The Bishop of Newcastle sat on the right hand of the Metropolitan, and the Archdeacon of Cumberland on his left. There was also present a rather numerous assemblage, both of clergy and laity.

The proceedings consisted in recording the sentence passed by the Bishop upon the Rev. F. T. C. Russell, minister of St. Mark's, Alexandria, for the following offences against discipline:--

1. For having, on Trinity Sunday last, when attending at the Church of St. Andrew for the purpose of being ordained priest, delivered to the Bishop a letter of an insulting nature, and tending to excite strife and offence, contrary to his duty as a deacon, especially at such a time and in such a place.

2. For having by a question addressed to the Rev. Mr. Naylor, calumniously attributed to him, and to the Rev. W. H. Walsh, a confederacy in some design to debar Mr. Russell from the priesthood.

3. For having printed and circulated under his signature an insinuation that a Romanising clique and an unprincipled party had engaged in the like combination to the detriment of Mr. R., and a plain assertion that he condemned the Romish teaching which had taken place in St. James's College.

His Lordship entered at considerable length into the proofs which were to be relied on in support of these charges; in refutation of which no sufficient evidence had been tendered by Mr. Russell.

That the letter delivered by him to the Bishop was intended to insult was deduced from a review of Mr. Russell's demeanour and conduct on the preceding day, Saturday, 2 nd June, when during his attendance on the Bishop for the purpose of taking the oaths and making the subscriptions required by the rules of the Church, he had conducted himself in a manner very disrespectful in presence of the Bishop, in consequence of the latter refusing to admit Mr. Beamish to an interview, or to Holy Orders, at that time; and it was shown, by a statement of the Deputy Registrar, that he had quitted his office with an expressed determination that all must be published, and other intimations betokening a spirit of revenge.

That at a later hour on the same day, the Rev. T.B. Naylor had occasion to pay a visit to the Rev. Mr. Russell, the nature of which has already been made public, and that during this interview Mr. Russell's conversation turned on ecclesiastical law, and who among the barristers was best acquainted with it; and he expressed a desire to know whether such cases were reported, and where he could obtain a copy of the trial in a case between a clergyman of this diocese and the Bishop, against whom Mr. Russell stated the former had recovered heavy damages.

The Bishop said that rather than enter into the question whether Mr. Naylor or Mr. Russell had most correctly stated the purport of their conversation, he would abide wholly by the report given of it by the latter; and from this His Lordship proceeded to show that the motives stated by Mr. Russell for his making such enquiries, and desiring to obtain Burn's Ecclesiastical Law at that time, could not be the true and genuine ones; inasmuch as every reason which he assigned had long ceased to operate. It was also scarcely credible, said his Lordship, although it was unquestionably true, that the entire statement as to any such action having been brought by any clergyman against the Bishop was false from beginning to end. No such thing had ever occurred, or had ever before been heard of. It was, therefore, impossible not to attribute Mr. Russell's ready belief of its occurrence to any other cause than to a prevailing ill-feeling towards the Bishop, and a desire to turn everything in the utmost degree to his disadvantage: and this furnished the key to his conduct on the subsequent day, which could be regarded only as a violation of the engagements entered into by every Deacon at his ordination, and must be visited with due severity, or all discipline must be overthrown.

On the second charge it was observed that the interval which had since passed was quite sufficient to enable Mr. Russell to collect and furnish the Bishop with proofs, if any existed, in support of his open accusation of Mr. Walsh; or else to retract and apologise for it. Mr. Russell had done neither; but although Mr. Walsh had written to him a most pacific and conciliatory letter, earnestly desiring to know in what manner he had given him offence, it had been contemptuously passed over without notice or reply. Happily, his Lordship observed, the character of Mr. Walsh was so well established that no one would for an instant give the least credit to the accusation brought against him. Still the character of every clergyman was the public property of the Church, and the bishop was unwillingly compelled to insist upon Mr. W. obtaining that reparation to which he was justly entitled; or to punish Mr. Russell for having so maligned him.

As to the charge under the third head, his Lordship observed it stood upon different grounds from the other two. No evidence was required in proof of them, as the Bishop had personally witnessed the facts; and it was, therefore useless to call upon Mr. Russell to defend himself as regarded them. But in the other case there was this difference, that Mr. Russell might have it in his power to furnish proof that a Romanizing clique, or unprincipled party, had combined to debar him from ordination. He had, therefore, placed the matter in the hands of the Archdeacon and two other clergymen; directing them to receive from Mr. Russell any statements which he might be desirous of putting in, in support of his assertion, which, if so supported by evidence, he might be justified in publishing, but not otherwise. It was not until the 19 th instant that he had been able to obtain such statement from Mr. Russell: and having since attentively read and considered it, he must pronounce his judgment to be that it contained no proof or justification of the assertion that a Romanizing clique or unprincipled party had in any manner combined to injure Mr. Russell. It must be the pure effect of imagination that the latter so believed. The course taken by him was to state reasons in support of the persuasion that there existed a Tractarian party in the Church of England. It might be so. He (the Bishop) did not mean to dispute it. But this was wide of the question put to Mr. Russell, which was how he would show that he had grounds of complaint against such a party, not in the Church of England; but here, in this diocese.

These two positions were evidently quite distinct: of that which was really the point pressed upon him, namely, the endeavours to debar him from ordination, not a shadow of proof had been offered. In support of the existence of a Tractarian party in this diocese, one or two circumstances were urged. The first of such overt acts was the baptism by the incumbent of a Sydney parish, of an individual in holy orders, in presence of two other clergyman; which was a Tractarian proceeding it was said. The Bishop would not deny that it was an irregular act, and opposed to the dogmas of the Church. He had so fully stated his opinion upon this subject in his charge to the clergy, in 1841, (a year after the occurrence of this baptism), and the decision which he then laid down had been so universally accepted and acted upon ever since, that he could not but question the utility or justice of bringing forward at this time a circumstance so remote in date. It was plain that even if this act denoted a Tractarian feeling in 1840, it could not afford any proof that the same feeling continued in  1849 . But in reality this repetition of baptism, upon the plea that the party by whom it eas administered was nit duly ordained, was not of Tractarian origin; but came from the directly opposite quarter, the ultra-puritans in the reign of Elizabeth, who first maintained, in opposition to the Church of England, that the minister was an essential part of the Sacrament; or that unless he were a true minister he could not give a true Sacrament.

But before Mr. Russell brought forward this case he ought to have known that the ground upon which the baptism had been administered here was not any sympathy with the Tracts, but a charitable desire to give comfort to one who entertained a strong apprehension that his own baptism was invalid. The compliance with that feeling was wrong: but the motive was charitable, and Mr. Russell should in candour have stated that the person who gave him information of the circumstance was the very incumbent who had ministered, who at the same time expressed his deep regret at having done so, a regret in which all now participated. What would Mr. Russell think if a recent act of his, done from a charitable feeling, but totally at variance with the order of the Church, were to be brought forward years hence in proof that there was a party here disposed to Presbyterianize the Church, and that he belonged to it?

Another fact relied on was, the publication of a pamphlet about six years since in which Tractarian, if not even Romish views were advocated; which was sold at the Depository of the Diocesan Committee; the editor of which being then in deacon's orders, was afterwards admitted to the priesthood, and appointed to the Cathedral parish. Mr. Russell apparently must have exercised a large share of curiosity in collecting together so many minute particulars, but every one of the statements was wrong. The editor of the pamphlet was ordained priest in December, 1842; the publication did not take place till the December following. He (the Bishop) was at that time absent on a distant visitation, and he confessed had lost sight of the publication altogether. If he had even seen it, he certainly had never paid particular attention to it until his observation was drawn to it by an anonymous letter which he still had in his possession, dated in June, 1844. He then read the book, and certainly found in it some objectionable matter; but the book had then fallen into oblivion, and he saw no good purpose likely to arise from bringing it afresh into general notice. As to its sale in the Depository he did not remember having heard of it before. But if it were so it could have arisen only from some remissness; as it would be contrary to the rules of the Committee, and he was quite sure could not have been continued with their knowledge or sanction.

As to the Romish teaching at Lyndhurst, there really was so little to support the charge that he could not but wonder it should ever have been brought forward. He had heard in that very room the statement upon which it was assumed to rest, and he might appeal to his venerable friend the Archdeacon, and to the other clergyman who were present at the time, whether they ever listened to a less convincing statement. He would read to them a statement in contradiction, signed by the three clergyman who were fellow-students at Lyndhurst, about May, 1847, when Mr. Sconce was delivering a course of lectures, in which he was charged with affirming that in his opinion the tenets of the Council of Trent on Justification were more evangelical and accordant with Scripture, than those of the Thirty-Nine Articles. He did not believe that Mr. Sconce did at that time make, or would have made any such avowal. He had many reasons for thinking the contrary. But in addition to his own persuasion, he had the explicit declaration of the rev. Messrs. Macarthur, Hassall, and Priddle, that no such sentiment was ever uttered during the lecturers in their presence or hearing. It is impossible, they say, that any such expression should have been used without some of them noticing it at the time; and they were in the habit of meeting together after the lecture to compare their recollections of the instruction they had received. Had any such sentiment been advanced they must have recollected it; and had they done so they would have felt it their duty to mention it to the Principal. This was all that was alleged in support of the accusation of Romish reaching at Lyndhurst; and he (the Bishop) thought it might very well be dismissed without further notice.

In Mr. Russell's statement concerning a Romanizing party, there were many allusions and insinuations, but no facts or clear statements; and he would therefore not enter at any greater length into a review of them. He was quite satisfied Mr. Russell had altogether failed to afford such proof of the existence at this time of any such party here; and equally so of any confederacy on the part of any number of persons to exclude him from ordination.

He considered the perpetual repetition of charges of this nature had a most injurious effect upon the public mind, as it engendered suspicion, distressed and unsettled the minds of church-people; and he must consider that the Church was betrayed and undermined by the propagators of such rumours; especially if clergymen. He considered this charge as of the gravest character, by far, of all; and as Mr. Russell was clearly shown to have set forth such accusations without sufficient proof, or without any proof at all, he must consider this in the sentence he had now to pronounce, which was, that Mr. Russell be suspended ab officio , and inhibited from discharging any of the offices of a deacon for three months; and further, until he made due acknowledgment of his fault to the Bishop. The Court then broke up.

It was afterwards intimated to Mr. Russell by the Registrar, that this sentence was passed by the Bishop to mark strongly his displeasure at the violations of discipline which had taken place; but that in case Mr. Russell still had any concessions to offer, or grounds to urge why the sentence should be reconsidered, he (the Registrar) would be in attendance at the Vestry on Monday, for the purpose of receiving such representations, which would obtain the full degree of attention which they should appear to be entitled. It was stated to be the intention of the Bishop to entrust the duties at St. Mark's to the Rev. R. Allwood, and the Rev. George King, of St. Andrew's, during the continuance of Mr. Russell's suspension, the Rev. G. F. Macarthur having charge of the parochial school, and the duty of visiting the sick.

It was also understood that the reason of the judgment upon the Rev. P. T. Beamish not having been pronounced at the same time was, that he expressed his purpose not to officiate, as he had stated his intention of doing, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the Bishop's license; and that expectations are held out of his making such other acknowledgments as may be satisfactory to his Diocesan.