The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-10 00:00:00

ARCHES COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(lief S r JOHN D.WSC,N.)
IRE OFFICE OF JUDGE FRO.:IOTED BY HODGSON V. GLAD-
STONE.— JUDGMENT.
The Learned Judge delivered the judgment of. the
Courtin this impoetant case to-day. Us said the suit
„was instituted by virtue of loners at' request from the
-otsbop of London, pursuant to the statute of the 33 end
4th of Vic., c. 86, certamonly called the Church Disci-
Kilo(' Act, by tech he wos enabled to send ended of
thin deteriptiou by letters of request to the Court
of
Appeal of the province, ts be there heard and determined
)according to the lew seal practice oft thet court. It iris
i'ardlyitn,oes,:-.ary to state the proceedings in the case,
,as that had already been done on one or two occasioes,
at he might as well o'ts,rve that by virtue of thsso
let.
e o-, request anitatien issued from the Court, which
"'IS returned with a certificate stating it had been per-
teclitY served upon Mr. Gladstone; that an appearance
givenfor him by his proctor,who preyed for articles;
that those articles were afterwards brought in an ad-
zelt:ad by Me, G d
Gladstone without any oppoeidoe. Upon
the followicg cottrt day, after t'ee admiseior of the anti-
'e'es, he denied the Ist, 4th, sth, 10,h, a:M.llth articles,
'nee" admitted the truth of the remainder, viz.: the 2d,
6th, 7th, and Bth. The Learned Judge thee
detailed the subsenuentstages which were gone through,
and said, as the -publication of the articles had been
„Pte's6°Gi, the ease now stood for judgment. The offence
1,-"arged twainst Mr. Gladstone was contained in the
"eadieg of the articles, and was publicly reading prayers,
Preaching, administering the holy sacrament, and per-
"
te7thing other divine offices, in an unconsecrated chapel,
,ealled Lon acre Chive!, in the parish of St. Martin's,
arld g
in the diocese of London, without any hoence from
the Bishop, the previous licence having teen revoked by
ica, and contrary to the prohibition of the Bishop,
The first of the articles set iorth the law of the cast,
but the Court having pronounced its judgeeept on the
law as applicable to the facts charged in the artieler, and
as to the right of the Bishop to revoke the licence, and
to prohibit Mr. Gladstone from performing divine ser-
vice in the chapel, it would not be necessary to discuss
that point again. The cases which had been cited ap -
Peered to him to put the matter beyond all doubt—at
least so far as to prevent the Court coming to a con-
trary conclusion. The remarks, which were somewhat
irregularly made, in reply to what fell from the Court,
ise had listened to with great attention; but, in hi,
Opinion, they were not such as to induce him
la the slightest degree to doubt the correctness
Of the conclusion he had arrived at, or the principle as
laid down in those authorities. Adhering, then, to his
View of the law, and the Lets charged in the articles,
the of
remaining question was whether those
facts were established by sufficient proof; but before
entering upon that, it might not be improper to notice
certain of the objections offered by Mr. Gladstone's
oansel to the irregularity of the proceedings. First,
l
said, that in consequence of the omission of the
Ny A
Or, 44 to :_7l,
in the citation served on Mr. Gladstone, the
33ishop of London was described in that document as
" Father God," instead of "Father in God." This
ilfatter, it was contended, must be deemed of high
traPortance, and of essential value, inasmuch
1
1,,, a title of a blasphemous character was attributed to
e Bishop, fromnvhich it might be supposed he intended
lic
aseame the title " Father God," which it was men-
red was given to the Pope. Papa noctrum doatinus
eSts• He scarcely knew whether the Learned Counsel
W4e serious in taking this objection, but in his opinion
i:_certeinly did not carry tht weight wi it to which
seemed to think it was entaitled'. The omth ission of this
er tTosyllable was, in fact, a mere clerical error, and it
hod been almost admitted to be so. The Bishop was
!Itehtly described in every other part of the instrument
tteitation and the accidental omission of the word could
not, therefore, mislead anybody; it did not, at any rate,
triead
Air, Gladstone, for he duly appeared to the cite-
Thia then was a very trifling matter, for it was
]"possible gravely to suppose that the Bishop meant to
assume the blasphemous title which the Learned Coun-
tio "lid he did. Another objection was, that the cite-
thn,Was served in the diocese of Winchester, whereas
4: letters of request were issued in the diocese of Lon-
b;11, and this was said to be informal under the Church
4deeeipline Act; but the Learned Counsel laboured un-
confusion as to the constitution of the Court of .
6 eh", and did not distinguish between that court in its
l)Peal character and in its more limited jurisdiction
toilegalating tho peculiars of the Archbishop. There
be no doubt that if a citation, issued from nn sp-
at be
court to a clergyman in the province over which
limits of d,lurisdiction, was served anywhere within the
lii7„„
the province, that service would be binding if
the
followed by an appearance. Thet was precisely
e Present case, and it was vain, therefore, to contend
thatb Mr. Gladstone was not properly before the court,
that the
of undue service. A further objection was
qiaa tho proceedings were instituted against Lir.
4110-:t"e nsala's cderitur—that fourteen days were
ft wed by the Church Discipline Act, for issuing
that
before a party was obliged to appear;
:t here the proceedings were taken against him at
bj.c in the Arches Court, and without any opportunity
afforded him to consider what course he should
Pars
6,, Ile; that he was in ape vancili, and was led into
4-4.°r io consequence of the speed which was unduly
erector
on the occasion. Now, Mr. Gladstone appeared by
riZeter in the usual way; he had full opportunity to con-
it ehis professionaladvisers; and he could not see to what
te'eovantage ho was exposed. The Court only fol-
lowed the usual course which was adopted in all cases.
ba'"rs, Mr. Gladstone was resident on the spot, and
ea admitted all the main facts charged against him, and
dluer,thermore. on every occasion when he applied for
LeLaY, the Court acceded to his application. The
Itt.erried Judge having thus expressed his opinion on the
W applicable to the theta, and on the objections urged
to
the jurisdiction of the Court, proceeded to consider
Thedith and sth articles were in reality the only ones
etfedtrd by Mr. Gladstone; they set out that the Bishop
'uthealtdon did, by instrument under his own hand, on
16th January, 1852, duly revoke and make void the
licence which he had previously—to wit, on the Ist day
6
eenikagust, 1851, granted to Mr. Gladston© during his
4,7eaure, to perform the office of minister in the uncon-
erorated chapel known as Long-acre Chapel, in the
e,.l"tiljsh of St. Mardis's, &co and further prohibit him
rieting or discharging any ecclesiastical duties in that
llappi or elsewherialn the diocese of London, and that
:mtttd admonish and require him to *desist therefrom;
'etch instrument was duly served on him on the 19th
„"37 of Janhary. The fifth article simply annexed
&;itoof of the instrument of revocation and prohibition.
e "(igh Mr. Gladstone denied the truth of those articles
"e admitted the two subsequent ones, that the instru-
ment bore the signatere of the Bishop, and also his
depisoopal seal. The question was whether it had been
tillly served. It was first said the service of the revoca-
on and prohibition ought to be proved by two wit-
nesses; but he was of opinion that it was only necessary
to bring the issuing of the instrument to the knowledge
of Mr. Gladstone, and that a formal service in the pre-
,sett6O of widaesaes was not necessary. That Mr. Gladstone
was made acquainted with the nature of the document was
placed beyond all doubt by the evidence adduced in the
,case. It was first served on him'at his chapel. on Sunday,
the Han previous to divine service, and as he denied
the validity of the service on that occasion, it was sub-
sequently served at his residence, in accordance with his
own appointment. The next objection was that the licence
,to preeeti was not given during the Bishop's pleasure,
bat absolutely; but a witness stated " that he sea the li-
cence..t in'the registry, and that it was daring pleasure."
44dt even supposing it was an absolute One, the authority
of Dr. Dillon was directly applicable to the present
ea"e, because ho held, and he thought properly, that in
all cases the same power which gave a license had the
Power to recal it. But there was every reason to sup-
Pose the license to Mr. Gladstone was during pleasure.
The instrument being theirfore legal and le-
gally served, and Mr. Gladstone having ad-
mitted that on the following Sunday he publicly
Preached and read prayers, &c., and continued
to do so up to the present time, or at least until he
blade his admissions, there appeared to him complete
Proof, either in the evidence of witnesses or in the ads
Misiiona of the party himself, that he was guilty of the
offence with which he was charged. After alluding to
some other technical objections the Learned Judge con-
cluded thus:—l am, therefore, of opinion that the
Bishop of London had power to revoke the license at
his will and pleasure, rend had power to prohibit Mr.
Glatlitone from continuing to perform divine service in
the chapel; and that, notwithstandieg the revocation of the
license, acid the prohibition of the Bishop, he has still
continued to perform divine service. That being so, I
consider the facts charged in the articles are supported
by sufficient pool', and itherefore admonish Mr. Glad-
stone to refeein from reading prayers, from publicly
Preaching, or administering divine offices in the uncou-
secreted chapel of Lens-acre for the future, until he
13,th, tains a license from the Bishop, and from performing
divine service there or elsewhere within the diocese's{
".-4ondon, in the province of Canterbury, until ho obtains
license, and I likewise condemn him in cost&
TEBBs, the proctor, said he would appeal
4gdiest the decision.
The JUDGE—Arery well.

SRERIFFs' COURT.--(THIS,DAYS).
(Before. JAMES BIIRCHELL, Esq., Under-Sheriff.)
- colizotrs. WIND-UP OF A CHANCERY SIIIT--DISGOOD
I
V. LLOYD.
ThiB Was an inquiry under a process in outlawry to
48'Prtain what lands, tenements, goods, and chattels the
`grdatit was possessed of within the bailiwick of the
"Ziff 'of Middlesex.
the llia
.r. THOMPSON CHITTY appeared for the plaint'
._2' suit, aud • stated that the plaintiff bad .obtained a
Judgment against the defendant in one of the courts of
two tn°ll •la 4/, and the present, proceeding had been
fe,2441 to obtain any property belonging to the de-
ttz‘;ent, so as to secure the plaintiff to the extent of the
I,.uunt due; and although the present proceedings were
w..;;luted by, the .Crown, and the property"
he Cown '
b© deliveredly forfeited. to t, it would
,I, up to tho creditor. Th ernefendant in the
Pueeseht action had been the plaintiff in a suit of Chan-
rY' 411 d by a cross bill had been made a defendant in
Of anotheri snit. In the first suit.he was entitbd to a sum
vae324`. 15%, and in the other to a larger amount, never-
ik".': subioat to, any decree of the Master.
'ag diseunion ensued, for the judgment of the
curt °I: thiancery had not been drawn op for want of
The' a:1 the Judgment was only delivered in April lase.
so nlrti.t-6' of the judgment were produced, but wcro
queatertelliligible that the Learted Under-Sheriff re-
The that they might be put in form.
the ny. "" COUNSEL 'd that the trenscriting
Mines wo 1,
The IzlNDx,t °' not take a minute.
take the otber'nErap
• Mr. Howell eaL.s:* 1, F—Well, then, go on, and I will
minutes of the j ,;2"e", the registrar, deposed to the
Mr. CHITTY :I id-t,nt.
bilt the drawing `r,judgroent could not be altered,
he defendant in op - tTa order a another matter, for
WS
Is soh
-on might tow up the order in