We recently examined the description in Sketches by Boz of an incident in the ecclesiastical Arches Court of Doctors’ Commons (Long and Schlicke). This was a case brought by Michael Bumple against Thomas Sludberry. It involved an accusation of “brawling” or “smiting” in the vestry-room of a church and a potential penalty of excommunication – that is, a banning from attendance at church for a set period. Boz’s account has been long recognized as founded on a case Dickens encountered while working in 1830 as a clerk in the Commons. Boz has fun with the arcane and pompous procedures of the Court, contrasting them with the trivial and commonplace matters with which they are concerned, and ends his account hilariously by observing that Sludberry, excommunicated for a fortnight and ordered to pay costs, outrages the court by asking to be let off paying and instead excommunicated for life as he never goes to church anyway (86–91). Inspection of the case on which Bumple against Sludberry was based reveals that the dispute culminated a lengthy wrangle between the ratepayers of the London parish of St. Bartholomew-the-Great and its self-appointed, self-perpetuating and, it was said, self-serving vestry; that is, the body which set its rates and oversaw relief of its poor. Similar disputes were occurring in other metropolitan parishes at the time. Eventually, the Vestries Act of 1831 provided parishioners with the right and mechanism to choose whether or not to elect their parochial representatives annually and so move from the long-established system of “select” or “closed” vestries to a more accountable and “open” arrangement.1

中文翻译：

---

反对 Spruggins：改革“我们的教区”

我们最近检查了 Boz 在 Sketches 中对教会拱门法院的医生下议院（Long 和 Schlicke）事件的描述。这是 Michael Bumple 对 Thomas Sludberry 提起的诉讼。它涉及在教堂的圣堂里“吵架”或“殴打”的指控，以及可能被逐出教会的惩罚——即在一段时间内禁止去教堂。长期以来，人们一直认为博兹的叙述是基于狄更斯 1830 年在下议院担任书记员时遇到的一个案例。博兹对法庭神秘而浮夸的程序很感兴趣，将它们与他们所关心的琐碎和平凡的事情进行对比，并通过观察斯拉德贝里滑稽地结束他的叙述，被逐出教会两周并被命令支付费用，由于他无论如何都不会去教堂，因此要求免除报酬，而是终生被逐出教会，这激怒了法庭（86-91）。对 Bumple 对 Sludberry 所依据的案件的检查表明，该争端最终导致伦敦圣巴塞洛缪大帝教区的纳税人与其自封、自我延续的纳税人之间的长期争吵。 - 服务法衣；也就是说，制定费率并监督穷人救济的机构。当时其他大都会教区也发生了类似的纠纷。最终，1831 年的 Vestries 法案为教区居民提供了选择是否每年选举他们的教区代表的权利和机制，从而从长期建立的“选择”或“封闭”教区系统转向更负责任和“开放”的系统。 ” 安排.1 对 Bumple 对 Sludberry 所依据的案件的检查表明，该争端最终导致伦敦圣巴塞洛缪大帝教区的纳税人与其自封、自我延续的纳税人之间的长期争吵。 - 服务法衣；也就是说，制定费率并监督穷人救济的机构。当时其他大都会教区也发生了类似的纠纷。最终，1831 年的 Vestries 法案为教区居民提供了选择是否每年选举他们的教区代表的权利和机制，从而从长期建立的“选择”或“封闭”教区系统转向更负责任和“开放”的系统。 ” 安排.1 对 Bumple 对 Sludberry 所依据的案件的检查表明，该争端最终导致伦敦圣巴塞洛缪大帝教区的纳税人与其自封、自我延续的纳税人之间的长期争吵。 - 服务法衣；也就是说，制定费率并监督穷人救济的机构。当时其他大都会教区也发生了类似的纠纷。最终，1831 年的 Vestries 法案为教区居民提供了选择是否每年选举他们的教区代表的权利和机制，从而从长期建立的“选择”或“封闭”教区系统转向更负责任和“开放”的系统。 ” 安排.1 制定费率并监督穷人救济的机构。当时其他大都会教区也发生了类似的纠纷。最终，1831 年的 Vestries 法案为教区居民提供了选择是否每年选举他们的教区代表的权利和机制，从而从长期建立的“选择”或“封闭”教区系统转向更负责任和“开放”的系统。 ” 安排.1 制定费率并监督穷人救济的机构。当时其他大都会教区也发生了类似的纠纷。最终，1831 年的 Vestries 法案为教区居民提供了选择是否每年选举他们的教区代表的权利和机制，从而从长期建立的“选择”或“封闭”教区系统转向更负责任和“开放”的系统。 ” 安排.1