The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1869-04-27 00:00:00

Sotnersrusbill.

BATH AND WSW OF INGLAND AND BOOTIOUIN
COUIFFINS AolllnniroNAL Boollll.—On Thursday of ter-
noon a publie meeting of sitheariben to the fond being
rained in furtherance of the securing the show of the
above society for 1870 in Taunton, wail convened by
the bailiffs, Yarn. Chinning and Foveae. 'The
oomraittee reported that the total amount of miiisertp-
lions promised by the town, inciledbig £143 promised by
Me books, amounted to £1727 12s. The eoeimittes
were of opinion that, after setting aside aster of £l5O
to meet their incidental expenses, the subscriptions pro-
seined were about sufficient to meet the oast of sow plpng
with the requiremeota of the sanity, but not to provide
bands, or for the deeoration of the town. It was
resolved —" That this meeting authorises the bailiffs
of the borough to give to the coupon of the society an
assurance that the requirements of the @misty in
reference to their 1870 meeting will be complied
with." The show for that year will therefor* be held
at Taunton.

TOLUI AT TAONTOII.—A greet meeting was held at
Taunton on Tuesday to condom the restrietions
of the Market Hones Ad as prejudieial to the best
interests of the town, and to promote its re jowl. A
letter was read from the Bev. J. 1414
_BMW, of
Hillfarranoe-vicarage, regretting his Inability to be
present through indispodation. In it he says "The
present local government of Taunted, by a selidected
body of irresponsible trustees, is in my opinion • fruit-
ful worse of serious and perpekuil injury to the town.
What will the Bath and Wed of England Agricultural
Society say when they and that they bare been invited
to • town where tAt market has become a Imp for fines,
a prorision shop as inipossibility, and a poor kuside
render of better wed clips is martyr I"
TIN CAS. OF MI. BRIM?, OF Funds. —ln the
Court of Arches, on Friday, before Sir IL Phillimore,
this etas came bet re his lordship on an application on
the part of the promoter, tbat the letters of request
from the Bishop of Bath sad Wells should be accepted
by the Arches Court, in order that& decision should be
obtained on the alleged false doctrine taught by Mr.
Beenett, the vicar of Frome.—Mr. A. J. Stephens,
Q.C., (with whom was Dr. Tristram), moved the court
tbat the letters of request from the Bishop of Bath and
Wells be accepted, in order that disease should be beard
aad determined. Mr. Bennett had published certain
works in the diocese of London against the Thirty-nine
Articles and the formularies of the church, and thereby
bad offended against the laws eaclesisaticaL The Bishop
of London, now his Grass the Archbishop of Canterbury
had, under a writ of mandamus, leaned • commission
directed to his chancellor and the commiss'.oners, before
O
whom evidence was taken In November. n that
report, which had been forwarded to the Bishop of Bath
and Wells, in whose diodes Mr. Bennett held
preferment, his lordship had sent his letter of request
to this eoart, and all he had to do now was bask the
court to amid the ease that the ease might proceed to
a hearing. - Sir 8.. Phillimore observed that he did not
find any reason alleged why the 000 rt should accept
the letters of request—why the came should be sent from
an inferior to • superior wort He could not And any
reason set forth in the letters.—Mr. Stephens submitted
that it was not emissary. The application was under
the Church Discipline Aet.—His Lordship said the point
of the learned counsel, then, was that they were not
letters of request, but, in effect, letters of command
from an inferior court to • superior eosin ?—Mr.
Stephens thought his lordship had sorra:lily pot the
point, and cited the 13th section of the Church
Discipline Act, which he read,—&r Bohai Phillimors
Your proposition is that I have no option,—Mr.
Stephens: That is so, my lord, provided they are
properly made and eseouted.—Dr. Tristram, on the
same side, said the practice, under the Church Discipline
Act, was not to assign any reissod.—Mr. Stephens said,
but for the new rule of the court, the present applica-
tion would not have been neeessary.—His Lordship said
the question was certainly an importens one, and he
would consider it before he gave his opinion. —Judgment
reserved. (The decision in this case will be of more
importance to the Church of England than perhaps any
decision given by the goolesisAtisal Courts in modern
times, Enter the cardinal doctrine of ritualism will be
affirmed as the doctrine of the Church of England, or
the rittudists be driven into easessioa.]