The Express.
London, England, 1850-04-25 00:00:00

LA IF INTELLIGENCE.

THIS DAY.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

Simi LORD Cum Junta CANraati., Ma. Jr•ncr Eats, Ma.
Jrrnat WlOll7 111• X. AXD 1111. J von= I'AITIJON.

Tai 00811 AM CASE.

On the learned judges taking their seats,
Lord Campbell said—ln the case of the Lord Bishop of
Hutu end the Rev. Mr. Gorbant the wart had considered
the application, and, on behalf of his lamed brothers, he
was prepared to givo judgment. The noble and learned
had said this was an application for a rule to show clue why
a writ of prohibition should not issue out of this court against
the Dean of Arches and the Archbishop of Canterbury, re•
straining them from presenting the Rev. Mr. Gorham to the
Aurae* of Brampford Slake, and also to prohibikthem from
lutitutiog the said Rev. Mr. Gorham to the said num,
ender an order of her Majesty in Council of the 9th of
March last. lie (Lord Camihell) having sat as
a numbs r of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
would have abstained from expressing any opinion as to the
propriety of granting or refusing the rule, if the points upon
which it was moved had been raised before the Privy Coun-
cil ; but the Lord Bishop of Exeter in his affidavit stated that be
was not, at the time when the cue came on for argument
before the Privy Couch, aware of the objection that had
sine* been raised, and he (the 1 arned judge) certainly did
not hear anything of the point in the course of the 'moment
before that tribunal, and it was therefore as new to him as
any of his learned brethren who sat upon the bench. The ob-
jection was that Mr. Gorham had no right to bring
the appeal from the decision of the Judge of the Archie.
Court to the Privy Council, and it was contended that that
appeal should have been to the Upper House of Convoca-
tion. If this oujection be well founded it does not come too
late, and the prohibition should go, and the proceedings
must be wholly void. But, after a very careful consderation,
we are all of opinion that the objection is unfound( d, and
that Mr. Gorham had a right to pursue the course h he
took to have the judgment reversed. It was contended that,
by the statutes of 24 of Henry VIII., chap. 12, and 26 of Henry
VIII., chap. 19, that all appeals should be to the Upper
Court of Convocation. But upon this point we do no:
think it necessary to give any opinion. Sir Fitzroy Kelly,
in moving for the rule, very properly admitted that under
the 24 of Henry VIII., and before that monarch had
entirely seceded from Rome, the appeal could not have been
made to the Upper Home of Convocation ; and Sir Thomas
Moore, who was a rigid Roman Catholic, bad so construed
an.l acted upon the enactment, that that enactment applied
only to wills, matrimony, divorce, and tithes, and with res-
pect to these, there was the right of appeal from the Dee ef
Arches to the Archdeacon, from the Archdeacon to the
Bishop, and from the Bishop to the Archbishop, but there
was no power of appeal from the Archbishop's Court to
Rome, except upon points of unsound doctrine. In the fol-
lowing year, vie., With of Henry VIII and when Henry
VIII. had resolved to break with Rome, and when lie
Thomas Moore had resigned the great seal, the second statnle
to which he had referred was passed. By that statute theme
was no appeal at all allowed to the Bishop of Rome. Auden
doubt is removed upon that point by section 4, which masts
that appeals from the decision ef the Court of Arches shall
be gluey' te his Majesty in the High Court of Chancery; Ind
that right of appeal applied to all spiritual as well se
temporal rotten connected with the church. The intention
ef the legislature was further proved by section 6 of the act,
which enacted that appeals should be to the King in Council
instead of to the Bishop of Rome ; such was the construc-
tioen put upon the statute for three hundred years without
tiny doubt being raised. There had been many suits in the
Archbishop's Curt, with respect to tithes,, under those ate
tutu, and the appeals had invariably been to the King in
Council, and there wee no casein which the appeal was to the
Upper House of Convocation. If questions arising under
the statutes to which he had referred were to be left to
divines they must suppose ell lawyers ud stateemea of the
last three centuries had acted in error, and if they unused
that, there would be no safety for property or liberty. The
judges who had sat to administer justice were paid judges,
removed from the temptation and above suspicion of corrup•
tion. The judges had put the construction on the statutes
he had mend Hoed, and it was the duty of the court to pay
attentioa to that construction. Sitting there, they wild

.
only interpret the law as they found it, and as no reason
had been established egainst the Bente as on the ground
that the Privy Council had no jurisdiction, he, as oleo his
hairnet brothers were et opinion that the aFpliistion for the
rule ought to be refustd, and the writ not allowed to go.—
ltsfused seepordingly.
Tun •
Quinn
L4TINBI.—Tms 8111718 or MIZOT.
_ _ _

Sir F. thetior applied for and obtained a role to show
puss whet a criminal infutmation should not be filed against
the defendant, for a libel publielted by him in the flyrisouth
fostering upon Kiss Seam and the Sisters of Mercy.