The Express.
London, England, 1852-05-04 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1852.

' COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Yarrinmet.
18.111., harien.—barma Came JUMICY Juny ML JUITICS
CIMIPPWII.I., Ms. Aimee Vi 11.1.1•11/. ape Ma. Jena TALFOOM
BARR V. FRAME Alen ANOTRIEIL—ACTION TOR • STREW.
sierlill'a SALARY.
This ease wee tried before Mr. Baron Parke, in Surrey,
ahem a mmesit wee entered, but in the course of the
rem* term a tale was obtained to enter a verdict for the
eldsMmeter Ilk. mad muse was shown to-day against
R
bso.gamle abided-
The plaintiff wait in September, 184 i, appointed street-
keeper of Bmwaskey, at a salary of 255. a week, by the
esmmisiemeee of the garish, to which body the defendant
helemged. lel 141414 isemplaints were made against him of
usigemeket, said the matter was referred to a committee of
Earliwho made a report, recommending in substance
ttesrattiffl4 should be suspended. This report was
ea the 4th of December, and the plaintiff stood
samemled until the nest meeting, which was on the 18th
of Desember. At the lest meeting, the resolution by
wldeb he was appointed was rescinded, but he was not in
terms dismissed until May following, and the question now
wee, whether he wee entitled to recover salary for the time
between December and May.
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to enter a
verdict for 311. 10s., and they made the rule absolute.

day of his Ilk, Male suig treated God would grant the
venerable prolate lewillegentence. He must, however,
defend his character, which was as dear to him as the cha-
racter of any, and which had been cruelly abused by the
proceedings taken against him. lie thought plain dealings
oftentimes put down tho most clever, astute, and learned
argument. He was bound to say he had never been con-
victed our accused before any competent tribunal fur an
offence against the laws ecclesiastical, nor been senteamid
to be suspended from his functions, but that the
bishop in teaching his authority by the pretended
revocation had exceeded his legitimate power, and in the
mind of COMMOII. Ittlie men, he,did not say according to
law, that he hail acted in plain contradiction to the law of
the land. He contended the cases cited in opposition to
the allegation did not at all touch the present proceeding.
In referring to the case of Mr. Dillon, ho thanked the
learned advocate for not attempting to detract from his
(Mr. Gladstone's) moral character in the slightest degree.
He stood condemned without having committed any crime
—without having in any degree failed in his duty, and
with a character irreproachable, and he would even say,
high. lie believed his character would stand investigalloo,
and he thought it due to himself, his family, position, and
character, to assert again what had been admitted, that
no attempt was made to injure such character. He
hoped this would have weight with the court when it came
to consider the question. Everybody said he would be
sacrificed, and he answered be believed he should ; but
would maintain the troth to the In speaking with
gentlemen learned in the law, and with gentlemen of his
own profession, he found a bishop had this power, which
appeared so irresponsible, so arbitrary, that it was impos-
sible to believe it English law, for it was a power above
that of the Pope of Rome, or any European king or miff
tart commander. The great duke himself could not go to
thelione Guards and order an officer before his regiment to
go to the drum-head and be cashiered. lie (Mr. Gladstone)
had also inquired if the law gave the bishop such autho-
rity. Could any one cite him the law to that effect ? He
had asked the bishop by correspondence for the law, but
had received no answer. It therefore seemed all that could
bo produced was general custom, and the belief that such
and such things were law ; but standing, as he did,
for his character, for his livelihood—standing for the
sustenance of his four dear, young motherless chil-
dren —he contended he had a right to ask for
the clear, decisive, determined law on the matter.
Allowing for the frailty of human nature, he was not anx-
ious to eisobey the law. He was as jealous for the true
exercise of authority as any man, but not such a stretch of
aethertiy es had been exercised: in this case, where he
would submit the bishop himself had acted in defiance of
his own vows and contrary to law. He complained of the
different form of the proceedings in this case and in that of
Hodgson v. Oakley, ' and the pronouncing a summary
seaters, upon him, not for a limited period, but sine die,
and apse a man whom the law had determined once a e'er.
gram sloop a clergyman. Ile could not dig; himself
and his family were dependent on his profession for a bee-
lihood ; he had given himself to the study of God's holy
word that he might minister to the people, and be had
not yet acquired but a bare and scanty pittance. Un-
der such circumstances a sentence of unlimited beggary
and ruin is pronounced. If such were the law, the only
men in England not free were those whose special duty it
was to watch other men—to stand free in that liberty in
which Christ had made his people free. It it were not the
law, he broke no law in defying it as he did. lie firmly'
believed his license to be still in full force, and the prohibi-
tion to have been utterly illegal. The learned counsel said
that doubtless the bishop would have provided for the per
formanee of the service, if he (Mr. Gladstone) had given it
up. No such thing, however; for the instrument in slum
tion was attempted to be served on him one quarter of an
hour before divine service on the Sunday morning, and he
was that morning to preach for a charity, which would
have gone minus 171. had the bishop's proceeding
been successful. On that occasion be wrote a pro-
test and sent it to the bishop. It would be
remembered, that the bishop when he was ordained a
priest and when he was consecrated a bishop, signed his
hand to the three articles of the 36th canon, one of which
was, that it was his bounden duty to keep the vows he had
taken to preach the Gospel, and to preach it as a part of
the canon law until a good reason he shewn why he should
not do so. It also told the bishop that the very law he had '
deliberately broken was binding on bins, and he (Mr.
Gladstone) submitted the bishop had gone right through
the article in the present proceedings. if any sentence,
therefore, should be given against him upon the face of
that article, it would be, in his judgment, a fearful mils-
take. He also referred to the 37th article, which spoke of the
" Queen as the supreme head of the church.' He was afraid
there was a deeply ramified conspiracy in the kingdom. If'
he were asked in this country, in a case where two decisions
were of opposite tendency, which it was his duty to obey
the Queen or the bishop, he should answer her most gracious
Majesty the Queen, might God ;reserve and bless her.
Supposing a man of property left his estates under the
direction of a bailiff or steward, so long as the party wu
faithful to the trust reposed in him, all the inferior servants
would be bound to obey him, but if some of the servants'
on good grounds discovered that the bailiff was taking into
his master's employment servants who were trifling with
his muter's property, and were encouraging the servants
there before to do likewise, that one sheep after another
was led out by this dishonest shepherd into the fold of his
mater's enemy, in such a case was the servant who ilia
covered to be obedient to the bailiff, or to
be faithful to his muter ? He asserted there
was at this moment a deeply laid conspiracy. He was not
going to mention names, but there were those who were
ready to rebel against the lawfully constituted supremacy
of her gracious Majesty as head of the church.
Sir John Dodson said he believed that was not before
the court at present.
Mr. Gladstone said it had, however, to do with his re-
sistance to the authority of the bishop.
Sir J. Dodson informed Mr. Gladstone that it was
incompetent for him to make those charges against indi-
viduals,
Mr. Gladstone was going to deal with the spirit, and not
with individuals. _ _

Sir J. Dodson said the remarks of the reverend gentle-
man seemed to him to have nothing whatever to do with
the question before the court. He was willing to give the
defendant every possible latitude, but not to bring charges
against persons. The court was eady to hoar all thetcould
be reuonably urged, but It would never allow persons to be
calumniated who were see before it. _ _ _

-?-1774-I:dit;:a." too with a desire to

calumniate.
Sir J. Dodson—No. I only think it would be better if
you confined yourself to the matter before me.
Mr. Masten said he felt all he bad advanced was inti-
mately coaseeted with hie own justileaties, mad, moreover,
that it wesebsdately required of dawns to defend them-
selves by *Meg thh Line t,
Sr J. Dodson slid the bean him ices as to the
el as de kr es Mr. Gladstone con-
litatr=f to that, mart was bound and willing to
bear him, bat it could het dhow him to go into doctrinal
points, not one of whisk wen raised in the proosedings.
Mr. Gladstone mid he amid fleatifilff limeeif a deeply
end cruelly Wand meif he wen on allowed to deal with
the question as freely ea might be neemeary. The court
might believe it would injure them, bet he believed it
would be for their good. He believed mom awe were
ready to explain away the duty we shed& ahem show es
loyal Womb of the Queen, and • poled wig* to be en-
tered again sub a spirit. These men pined their Own
cametemosien on the articles of the ones, sad the *tides in
the prayer-bosellead said they understood by them en-
nanny to the Moen of Brunswick, as fez as
matters were oneened, but as far es ecolesiostiedis=
wen easeensed then wee imam . Therneend
the inhered to • tell teak *me
gimme
TM cep *dint arekbiehop, &diTrive
of lop to Wren the tree reffgion aidion, set up
Petah sites, end reendie as to the chunk of PAM.
If falls ass Mahal say aro be would say, let them repent
and ..satin
Sir Jul. Delma—Lst thin repent and amend, but it
certainly has nothing* de with this can.
Mr. Gladstone salt es the nun did not se= inclined to
the tall liberty Oat would be requisite to deal
with the am he shield appal dna that Jura-
glve
=li to the Pridieles of her Kelesty is Osseall.
Dr. Dayead elided es the are Med.
The emit lair this wee • peseesdiag ember the Zee.
Mr. Gladden he pobtleir rue* progoes. adsraistering
the satemest tithe Lords Bagr4al:poMmers other
ecarkethal dodos in a mars wawa dieliesnes
of As hishoporil imam Se Ids sad pelibition.
It dem ma NM Xt. eboblamis dotooker in any
dime whatever. The ally we** as mart bad to con-
doler MS the point of law in the penceeding and the ques-
des at posesat wee this,—whether the who s,
le or any, or
what pat of the adoption said be admisted as a defence
to the Marge made Nair the rev. gostitars, that charge
being radius* to the ass meat shook stead. Yr. Glad-
stone had eartamded this was a mere arbitrary revocation,
and the aria point in law would be, whether the
bishop lad not a right ore sr he did, with-
out exdping any MOM,
makinge=teha2r.
=the defsadaat of Mesmer
bad prepsely ralbried the lasimmesS which
reveled dr Miami osoi Ids pedrivalai Use hies
of the abapoL IS did Maw, be rose- trait ihe hhhey's
eat that he meld Meese sine wad reason t a eases of
Akre ea this pet of Se It might be very
er ad ass dm that the shwa in ware should be
moo so • *Mel Moms bet at ether times it might he
knot bteessenient and improper.* Of as dame!
s ad-
Mimi churches end chapel bad been wets,, the
emmsbaoei
ght have thought it more cornet min
of this wish, more dement sad botembsg, that
IMAM meths should be malbomed to a ItZ
eeneaseensd ger the very wpm Keay
grounds might easily newt themeshas without
at all reflecting on the diaterrir, or rariert, or
ministry of Mr. Madan* Ille sneak des the mo-
tives which bad bens attributed to the Mem. The
question was simply _whodest the lois Mader the
law or not. TM 61111111111 bap Mae fl,ett to the 'ni-
-1 Cleo, end odd IS was methotto alleged Ms chapel was a
f bona tide chapel dean It win a mere proprietary chapel
belonging to the Drapers' Compory, who might at any time
. they choose convert it to another use. The present mean
. was clearly brouOt within the mese cited.
iLvtlizg
w Mon s tilr . Gledetark that mentismas bed
r &Nay high chamber_ , end se-doebt cc,
, but • the wink subjoin had no bearing whatever ou
the use. TM salt solar Kr. Oakley proceeded at
o very dillies* meads be then of the present geodes ;
there • len sadone drip an to be met, sad the dead-
, eat ommeasememig am to swifter is his &knee.
I The earl eggisharled Ns %rims, cos bound to ehey
the lawful taaAsidble Mbiary, sad the assods, will
I be, whether the Wen a lerefd mormal et sot.
The present brows, weld rig swab Si pee-
r mat Mr. GlatMeas pmt e
nnui dads

fee ever. It would only remain in Rees until he could
obtain • license from the bishop, and no clergyman
could officiate without such license. It was true
where persons have been admitted as incumbents of livings,
that their licenses could not he revoked, without good
cause shown, because they had by law • freehold in their
incumbencies, but with regard to curates, or assistant cu-
rates, the bishop could by law recall their licenses when-
ever he thought proper. The allegation went on to as
that the defendant felt bound, notwithstandisg the seam
tion, to still read prayers, and perform eeeledestieal duty,
end that he accordingly did so. Had the bishop power to
revoke the license, or had he not ? If • WWI of decisions
could settle the law an that point, it had been settled, and
in such a way that he (Sir J. Dodson) sitting there, would
not be at liberty to overrule those decisions—especially one
of them, which was taken up to the Judicial Committee.
The court referred to the UM of " Carr v. Marsh," where-
upon the incumbent of a parish refusing his con-
sent, the bishop was held not to have the
power of granting • license, and said such was the
law, unless under those new acts when parishes were
divided and district chapels built. The case of Mr. Dillon
appeared to go on all fours with the present case, for there
the bishop had not refused the license, but a license had
been granted precisely as in this case, and was revoked
without any reason given. The Court held the cases to
bear out completely the revocation of tho license, and that
it was bound to follow in their wake, and decide that the
facts din this allegation did not constitute • suffi-
cient defence ; that, if they were all duly proved by evi-
dence, they would not be sufficient to take away the power
of the bishop, and it must therefore reject the articles.
Mr. Gladstone said he protested against the decision, and
it appeared to him that, had ho been really guilty of a
crime, his petition would have been infinitely better. Me
should appeal to her Majesty In Council.
Dr. Hayford said the proceedings were under the Church
Discipline Act, which expressly provided that there should
be no appeal from any interlocutory decree without the
consent of the judge himself, and therefore he trusted the
court would withhold its permission, as the only effect of
an appeal would be to protract the suit for nothing.
Mr. Gladstone directed the attention of the court to the
16th clause of the same act, which stated that an appeal
to the Queen in council from the judgment of a bishop or
of that court was allowable, if any of the party to • suit
should think himself aggrieved.
The Court said the case was not yet heard; those articles
bad been merely rejected.
Mr. Gladstone would defend the ease to the last ex-
tremity.
The proctor for Mr. Hodson having prayed publication
of the evidence, publication was decreed.
The case will stand on admission of the exceptive allege-
done, if any, at the next court day.

THE POLICE COURTS.
MANSION-HOUSE.
..

Caroline Belcher, !Larne [lord, and Jane Lloyd, were
charged with having broken into and robbed a warehouse
in Sparrow-corner, Houndsditch, of shawls and other goods,
of the value of between 301. and 401. For all that property
a receiver did not give to the thieves much more than a
couple of sovereigns.
George Scott, the officer, said—l apprehended the pri-
soner Caroline 13elcher, who lodged in the house in which
the warehouse is, upon suspicion of having been concerned
in the robbery. In our way to the station house she said,
" I'll tell you the whole truth. Mrs. Ward and myself
went to a house in Whitechspel, where we saw another
' woman. 'Mrs. Ward asked the other woman if there was
anybody there that could do a job ? She said yes, my old
man can. lice old man objected, that ho was very feeble,
and said he would fetch another man ; and he did
so ; and wo all went off together, three women
and two men, to Sparrow-corner. One of the men
put a screw-driver in the door of the warehouse, and
the other put in seine wedgts, which he brought in
his pocket, and with the assistance of Mrs. Ward they
burst open the door. I was standing outside the hall door
at the opposite aide of the street at the moment, and I went
over and we took up the shawls to my room, where one of
the men tied them up in a shawl. One of the women
carried down the bundle, and at some little distance ono of
the men took it. We went with it to a hoar, in White-
chapel, where a Jew was fetched, who offered IL 13s. for
the ►ot. Mrs. Ward said she would sooner burn them, or
take them back, than take that price for them. Another
Jew was then fetched, and I saw that Jew put into Mrs.
Ward's hands two gold pieces and some silver. Sho then
carried the bundle down stairs, at the Jew's request, and he
took it of her, and she returned, and we all had some gin
together."—ll. Webb, the officer, said that he apprehended
the other two prisoners.—The prisoners were remanded.