IS IT A CONSPIRACY?

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 72, 28 March 1921, Page 3

IS IT A CONSPIRACY?

; ARCHDEACON FOUND GUILTY. APPEAL FROM ECCLESIASTICAL, POWERS. (Special to "Star.") LONDON, February !), 1921. What is a consistory court? Imcmnse interest is being taken in the case tried by one in Lincoln Cathedral last Saturday, in which the Archdeacon of Stow, the Venerable John Wakeford, was found guilty of misconduct. In other ages ecclesiastical law claimed to be superior to civil law, and although this is no longer true, a certain compromise has been arrived at, whereby discipline in the Church may be maintained. Even as late as 1806 it was true that "once a clergyman, always a clergyman." It gave rise to some scandal, for a minister of the Established Churn)) might reskrn his living and live in open defiance of the moral law. and yet he would still rernafli a clergyman. Under the above Act the Bishop has the assistance of a barrister, well versed in ecceesiastical law, and known as the Chancellor of the He is president of the consistory court, and with him are 'assessors —clergyman from another diocese—who assist the chancellor in arriving at a final decision as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. If the party cited is unrepresented by counsel and ignores the citation, he is declared to be contumacious, and the trial proceeds in his absence. One curious ditlerence exists as to evidence in a consistory court. The ordinary rules of evidence govern procedure, but the mandamus of the Bishop to a witness to attend is not in the nature of a supoena, and may be ignored without penalties. The Church can in fact be flouted. The innocence or guilt of the accused is determined by the Chancellor, assisted by the assessors, and then they simply report the issue to the Bishop. The court has no power to inflict punishment ; this is entirely in the hands of the Bishop. On what evidence was the Archdeacon condemned? This is what he said in the witness box. He said he was at the Bull Hotel, Peterborough, on March 17 last. He wanted a quiet time to prepare his sermons for Passion Week at Liverpool. There was no lady with him. He was alone. He was given a doublebedded room. Xo one had any meals with him in the hotel during the whole time of his visit. He went to the cathedral, where he made notes for his sermons. When he left he saw in the nave a girl who was wet through. She looked in a pitiable condition. She was about 17 years of age, and she struck him as being a pupil teacher. Later he saw the girl again. Rain was falling very heavily at the time. She was in the porch and he took her to a stationer's shop where she got a card. He never saw her again.

Is it true that the register book was . brought up to your bedroom for your signature and that of a lady?—Xo. It was not true Then the statement of Mr. and Mrs. Pugh bringing up the book is xintrue? — Absolutely untrue. And as to the statement of Fanny Wileock, who said she saw you with a woman in the bedroom, what of that?— It is untrue. Nothing of the kind took place. To other questions the Archdeacon said the pyjamas spoken about were not his. In cross-examination he said he never had any marks on his underclothing by wbich they might be distinguished. There are eight witnesses who have spoken as to your presence with a lady on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, including four hotel witnesses and three policemen, with Mr. Tuplin, an independent witness. Have they been telling de- j liberate untruths?— Yes. As to the evidence of Mr. Tuplin, it is deliberately untrue that he saw mc at the hotel with a lady. He has told a deliberate lie. And is the evidence of the police also untrue?— Yes. They have made a mistake. Do you suggest, that Mrs. Pugh has been secured by 'Moore tn perjure herself? Yes. in the group. I suggest that from the second week in March, from the 16th or 17th, there were Tuplin ami King and Pugh all concerned to promote this case against mc. and that the people of the inn. the satellites, were all concerned to bring this home upon mc. Is it your suggestion that Mr. Worthington is conspiring with Mr. Moore to ruin you? —Thank you for the opportunity Answer the question.—The late ibishop was approached by Mr. Worthington with papers from 'Moore against mc. The Chancellor: Will you answer the question yes or no?— Yes. Canon Woolley. of Lincoln Cathedral. said he had known Archdeacon Wakeford for about 1"> years, and his opinion was that such a charge against such a man was absurd and monstrous. The Rev. H. E. Worthington, Mrs. Wakeford's brother. was cross-ex- i amined. 'He said he never employed the detective Agar. The detective was employed hy the Rev. T. iMoore- ITe had been ordered by his bishop to discover all he could to verify the statements. He therefore went to Mr. 'Moore, knowing he know a good deal. It would not, he added, be true to say that Air. Moore was the worst enemy the archdeacon ever had. The archdeacon was in the Consistory Court when Mr. Moore was charged with immorality— charges of which he was found not euilty. 'Mrs. Wakeford. in the witness-box. said she and her brother had discussed the possibility of the charge, and he had tolrl her it was absolutely true, but witness replied: thing cannot be true." She added that the writing "andwifa" in the hotel register was not her husband's. None of her husband's clothing was marked John Wakeford. It was all marked ''Archdeacon of Stow." And never had he worn pyjamas. After lengthy evidence, including that of the archdeacon himself and his wife, the Court retired, and after an absence of an hour and twenty minutes, the decision was announced by the Chancellor of the Diocese as follows. "We find the defendant guilty on each charge, and that is the decision of uall, and I shall report to the bishop in pursuance of statute. The archdeacon has the right of appeal to the Provincial Court." When the news spread in the city there was a 9ensation. The archdeacon, in an interview yesterday, said he was considering the advisibility of an appeal to the Higher Court. Within an hour of the rising of the court on Saturday, he said, he had received three important pieces of new evidence, and if there were any persons who could come forward and iur-

ther evidence of his movements on the dates concerned in March and April of last year, he would appreciate it if they woul(J write to biroThe archdeacon'has declared that he will not appeal to the Provincial Council—an Ecclesiastical Court—but to the Privy Council, the court of final appeal. It is an expensive -business. The Dominions know that -when they said a case before it, but their costs are ot course swollen by distance. Clergy, old colleagues, and many others have come forward with offer of monetary help, over £1000 having already been proffered, so that <what the Archdeacon calls a conspiracy will yet come before the highest court in th« land. He has had much sympathy and. guilty or innocent, it is very clear that the case was .hastily brought up before he could get witnesses. Moreover there is a general impression that the consistory court, however anxious it may be. to arrive at the truth, has not the experience in sifting evidence required to elicit it, certainly nothing like tbe experience of the civil courts.