The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-03 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 3,

en this matter, because he had a great apprehension that
unless they took care they would bring the institution of
a representative government into discredit with the
country, for as they had been gciog
on hitherto it would
almost seem that the House was not only incompetent
but afraid to decide upon questions of vital interest to
the people.—(gear, hear.) He alluded now to the mo-
tion which had been twice brought forward on the sub-
ject of Maynooth.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable
Gentlemen who are charged with that motion had
admitted that for all practical purposes the
motion was useless. Certainly so far as obtaining
inquiry in the present session, it was useless, and that
being so, he put it to the House and the Government if
any good could be obtained by continuing a discussion
which would lead to no practical result, but which was
calculated to excite anger and discontent amongst
different classes of the community. (Hear, hear.)
He did not deprecate a decision on the Maynooth ques-
tion, but he was against endless discussion upon it, and
he thought the question could never be determined at a
morning sitting. Some course ought certainly to be
adopted to prevent that House, which was considered
an example for representative assemblies, from being
brought into disrepute by their misconduct on the debate
on Maynooth.
Mr. SPOONER said he never admitted that no prac-
tical good would result from the debate on the College of
Maynooth.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—That no practical result
would arise from the inauiry this session.
Mr. SPOONER would admit there could not be an
entire inquiry—(Cheers)—but there was something else
besides inquiry. Ile wanted to know the determination
of the House, "Aye" or " No," whether the subject of
Maynooth deserved inquiry. The country called for a
decision on the point, and he would press for a division.
Mr. SANDFORD expressed his willingness to yield
to the appeal of the Government. He would withdraw
his motion respecting betting houses, in order to facili-
tate the labours of the Committee of Supply, though he
considered that motion to be one of very great im-
portance.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL hoped the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would give an answer to the inquiries
of Sir James Graham on Monday or Tuesday next, for
they deserved the serious consideration of tho Govern-
ment. The Honourable Member for North War-
wickshire was wrong in stating the nature of the
question of Maynooth, which was not for ascertaining
the opinion of the House in regard to that College, but
whether an inquiry should be instituted by a Select
Committee on the Bth of June. He (Lord J. Russell)
thought it would be far better for the Government to
institute an inquiry on its own responsibility, than to
refer the subject to the investigation of a Select Com-
mittee. If the Hon. Member were really desirous for an
inquiry, he had taken the verfworst course for the pur-
pose of obtaining it.—(Hoar.) In regard to Supply, he
considered the best mode of proceeding was for the Go-
vernment to appoint consecutive days for the sitting of
the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it.
was his intention to state, on Monday next, the views of
the Government generally with regard to the conduct
of public business, and he would reserve any
observations he might have to make in reply
to the inquiries of Sir James Graham until then. He
would now merely say he did not despair of being able
to effectually accomplish this session all the business that
was absolutely necessary. It was not his wish to depre-
cate the fullest discussion on the items brought forward
in the Committee of Supply, but be appealed to Hon.
Members not to press any questions which had no par-
ticular reference to the vote under consideration.

In reply to Mr. HORSNIAN,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
did not anticipate taking any other business after the
Committee of Supply this evening. The Government
would certainly not proceed with any other orders of the
day at a late hour.
MR. MATHER.

In reply to Mr. B. OSBORNE,
Tho CHANCELLOR cf the EXCHEQUER said he
would lay the pper3 connected with the case of Mr.
Mather on the Lbio of tho House tomorrow.
SUPPLY.

The House then went into Committee of Supply, Mr,
BERNAL in the chair.

The first vote of 113,476/, for the repairs of royal
palaces and public buildings, &c., was agreed to, after
some opposition by Mr. W. WILLIAMS, and a short dis-
cussion, in which Mr. HAMILTON explained the various
items of which the vote was composed.
On the next vote of 60,5461,, for maintaining and
keeping in repair the royal parks and pleasure-grounds,
Lord DUNCAN inquired why there was an excess of
24,000/. as compared with the vote last year?
Mr. HAMIL FON said the increase was composed of
7,857/. for alterations and improvements in the parks of
Richmond, Bushy, and Hampton; of 4,9501. for widen-
ing the roads in Hyde-park and draining the Regent's-
park ; of 4,9761. for the maintenance of the royal
parks, which was hitherto defrayed out of the
land revenues, and also of other sums which
had been transferred to this particular account.
The question as to the continuance of the office of ranger
was, no doubt, deserving consideration.
Mr. SLANEY considered that great credit was due
to the heads of the Woods and Forests, for improving
the walks and drainage of the parks, and otherwise at-
tending to the comforts and convenience of the public.
Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to know how soon
Battersea Park would be finished and opened to the
people?

Mr. RICARDO, who wore his arm in a sling, said
that, as he had been put forward by the Noble Lord be-
low as a victim of the incompetency of the Noble Lord
opposite (Manners) for the cffice which he held, he
begged to say that he owed bis accident to the bad
shoulders of his horse and to his own clumsiness, and
not to the stat 3 of the road on which he war riding.
Lord J. MANNERS said that he was taking all the
means in his power to hasten the formation of Battersea-
park, so fast as the different plots fell in.
(LEFT SITTING.)

Art. 29. Any sentinel who abandons the post com-
mitted to his care shall be pinched with red•hot tongs
until he expires. After this his body shall be exposed
pablicly during eight days; after which it shall be burnt,
and its ashes cast into the air.
Given in the Camp of Punta Arena, Dec. 13, 1851.

HEROISM ON THE TIGHT-ROPE.
(From Punch.)
Poor old Madame Saqui! How many of us can look
a long, long way—we will not think how long—back,
when that marvellous woman stood, the centre, the
human speck of a burning Vauxhall-star—who shall
say how many feet above the earth? Madame
Saqui ! Marvellous, indeed, were the wonders of
Vauxhall ! The millions of lights that made dim
the very story-books, and gave to childhood
an actual knowledge, a breathing experience of glories
and effulgences, that made even Sin bad pour and colour-
less. Tne Arabian Nights! Could they be anything
like that night—our first night—in Vauxhall Gardens;
a night whose wonders were crowned by that astounding
Frenchwoman, Madame Saqui! There she stood in
burning state, with balls of red and blue fire rising and
breaking like a thousand bubbles about her—and rained
upon by golden showers that seemed a real, enduring
wealth !
And Madame Saqui—having, like a spider, run a long
thread of life—jumped to the ground full of ready money.
She had foregone the rope, and resolved to walk the
earth, when—

,‘ Her brother," says the Parrie—
" Who was the manager of the Roam Theatre, was on
the point of becoming bankrutot, with debts amounting to
600,000 E, and to save his credit, Madame Saqui paid the
whole amount, and reduced herself to poverty."
Well, with a heavier load of years upon her should-
ers, the devoted sister had her shoes chalked once more,
and once more mounted the rope, balancing and dancing
away, but somehow not dancing fortune back to her.
However, she managed to save some 30,0001. in Spain;
but as Spaniards rarely suffer so much to leave their
country, she was stripped by banditti—by fellows who
deserved every inch of the rope by which the money
had been earned—stripped of every sou.
And now, here she is again! Here is the poor old
woman—aged 75—once more on the tight-rope, dancing
for bread at the Hippodrome, in Paris!
Reader, does not that old rope-dancer teach a touch-
ing lesson? Is she not in her wrinkles a noble object of
self-devotion? Poor old soul! She may dance—dancing
on a rope, with seventy-five years upon her head!—
dance amidst showers of fireworks—but there is a halo
of goodness brighter than Bengal lights, more radiant
than "golden drops."
Granted, it may b© possible to find selfishness even
upon a throne. May it not be equally possible to behold
self-sacrifice even upon a rope?

2V/CE..T MAIRMETB.
SOUTHALL, JUNE 2.—Our market has been firm for
each kind of stock, and, in some instances, prices have
further advanced. Beef, from 2s 6d to 3s 10d; Mutton,
23 10d to 3s 10d; Lamb, 4s to 58; Veal, 3s 6d to 4s;
Pork, 3s to 3s 6d per 81bs, to sink the offals.
RONFORD, JUNE 2.—Beasts sold readily at 2d per Blbs.
more money. Other stocks firm.—Beef; from 2s 6d to
3s 10d; Mutton, 3s to 4s; Lamb, 4s to 53 2d; Veal, 3s 6d
to 4s 4d ; Pork, 3s to 3s 6d per sibs; Suskting Calves,
20s to 253 each.
IiAILSLIAM, JUNE 2.—The general demand has ruled
steady, as tollows:—Beef, from 3s 2d to 49; Mutton,
35 4d to 4s 2d; Lamb, 4s 6d to ss; Pork, 38 8d to 43
per Blbs.
ARUNDEL, JUNE I.—The demand is firm, and prices
have an upward tendency. Beef, from 3s to 4s; Mut-
ton, 3s 2d to 4s 2d; Lamb, 4s 6d to 5s per 81bs.
CHICHESTER, JUNE 2.—Beef has sold at from 33 4d
to 4e; Mutton, 3s to 4s 23; Lamb, 4s 43 to 53; and
Veal, 3s 4d to 4s per 81bs.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 2.
(Sittings in Middlesex, at Nisi Prins, in Trinity Term,
before Mr. Baron PARKE and Common Juries.)
rAnx.Es V. MAYER.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. H. A. Simon con-
ducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Edwin James,
with Mr. Bovill, represented the defendant.
This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for an alleged false imprisonment and assault.
It appeared that the plaintiff was formerly a partner in
the firm of Parke:, Smith, and Co., solicitors, Bedford-
row, but had some time Once failed for a sum of 45,000/.
On the Ist of July, 1831, being pressed for money, he
made an application to a person of the name of Barnard,
a clerk in the Royal British Bank, to whom be was
known, to discount for him. This application, how-
, ever., was refused, es being contrary to the rules of the
bank. Barnard wishing to assist the plaintiff gave
him a card of introduction to the defendant, a plate-
glass manufacturer, iu Great Queen-street, Lin-
coln's Inn-fields, at the moment supposing that the former
had a good account at the b. .ink, although it afterwards
turned out that that account was overdrawn by about
121. The defendant was in the habit of discounting
bills. The plaintiff, when at the defendant's, produced
three acceptances by different persons, one for 120/., one
for 401., and one for 301. At first the defendant refused
to comply with the request to discount, but subsequently,
upon the plaintiff depositing with him fifty shares in a
lime-quarry in Cornwall, the defendant made an advance
of 501,, which sum was either to be repaid in three days,
or the discount was to be completed with a deduction of
101. The plaintiff, however, having obtained the 501.,
did not again visit the defendant, as bad been agreed
upon. Upon this a correspondence was opened between
the parties, the defendant demanding the repayment of
the 50/., as he had discovered that the bills were unsafe.
And so it proved, for on their arrival at maturity they

were dishonoured. The money for the 404 bill was a,
terwards recovered. It happened that as the defendant
was walking along cheap_si,le on the 4th of October
he met the
P-ainiitY, whereupon he gave him into
custcdy upon a charge of having obtained money from
him under false pretences. This was on the Saturday;
and on the Monday, having been brought up before the
magistrate, the case was dismissed, upon the ground that
the false pretences had not been established. The pre-
sent action was therefore brought to recover compensa-
tion for this imprisonment,
1,0004 and the damages were laid at
transaction, and added that he banked at the Royal
Bit
having been called, proved the original
plaintiff
transaction,and that he had applied to Mr. Barnard,
chiefthrel'isell cashier, who eventually gave him a card of intro-
duction to the defendant.
Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES—At the time of his
application his account was overdrawn 121., which ba-
lance against bias had not, up to the present moment,
been diminished. Ho had not told the defendant that
the clerk at the bank would endorse the bills. Of that
fact was quite certain, and would swear it. He had
depositedhe some shares with the defendant as a sort of
security. These shares he had purchased of a
Mr. Pace, but ho had not paid for them. He
gave a bill for them, which had not been paid. The
bills ho had deposited with the defendant were
bills which had been accepted for his own accommoda-
tion, and they had not been honoured. Ile took the
benefit of the Insolvent Act in 1849, when his
liabilities
were as much as 45,000/. In the course of his pro-
fessional transactions large sums had come into his pea-
i° but bad not afterwards been forthcoming when
required by the parties. Hence the large amount of his
liabilities.
Further evidence was given to prove the custody and
the dismissal of the ease by the Lord Mayor.
Mr. JAMES addressed the jury for the defendant in a
very able speech, commenting in terms of great severity
on the conduct of the plaiutiff, who, having once been in
a respectable practice as an attorney, had subsequently
existed on his ruined reputation, and by practising frauds
ou the unwary. tia
would leave the matter in the hands
be he jury, by
of t
whom he felt assured due justice would
done.

Mr. Baron PAIIIiE then summed up tho evidence.
__
The jury, atter a little consultation, returned a verdtc
for the Omuta__
Dameges, One Farthing.

THE ce,TQTT,\,,—ftES' COURT, June 2.
.11...' '.l. ': OF LONDON e. THE REV. J. E.
GLADSTONE.
This case havling
t liefore Sir J. Doi:lsom.)
morning,
Dr. Bayford
appeared for the Bishop of London, and
Dr. Spinks for the
hibition a the
case on former Rev. J. E. Gladstone.
been called on at ten o'clock this
Dr. BaYeeept.
having detailed the proceedings in the
see that the
with that greater number of the articles of citation had
been admitted h
-Y Mr. Gladstone, and that his substantial
objections were °e.easions, observed that the Court would
ie.] ej'a against the 4th and sth articles. The
princ-r— objections of Mr. Gladstone were that the pro-
could h
served. Th
--“e prohibition had been served by an officer of
the court upon
Mr. Gladstone, and in due accordance
Bishop had not been duly and properly
however, asked
Todd
' /vent ee the 17th of January last, being a Satur- '
day, to T
Long-acre Chapel, and made an attempt to serve
gentletora'n's request. The officer, George
the prohibition. elle could not see Mr. Gladstone, nor
duo service of
servations the
tnhext mornie-,
e kern where that gentleman resided. On the
g being Sunday, the officer called again at
Hon the uourt toL
Mr.e Li:mg-acre Chapel, where, at eleven o'clock, he saw
rimdti.)bGeelandiiitorne
.. Gladstone, and upon offering the prohibition it was
,c'DJeeted to be received on that day. Mr. Gladstone,
and prevent
the officer to come to his residence
eh. the following day
at Brixton, where he would re-
ceive the prohibition. This was done, and it was therefore
idledn" en the part of Mr. Gladstone to object to the
after SPIN
the prohibition. After some further ob-
The JuDGE Doctorecaornnfierdmthe
prohibition,
Dr. Son
said he appeared for Mr. Gladstone, and,
because it iereojffitocihatiimn: in
defiance
of
his
Bisb°l9.
Bottle preliminary observations, remarked that his
The JUDGE—If
elientd - the . . ,
err ,in ignorance of teclesneeticat law, pro-
cededoneously before the Court on former occa-
P 60146, and consequently upon ouch proceeding judgment
—Do you mean to contest my judgment—
s irregular?
this Court, Bud to ereue against as intended to raise the whole question of
the law on the case.
than judgment I have nothing to say against it, more
you intend to raise any objection to
_an to inform you that it is not regular. Of course
Mr. Gladstone has against the judgment of
an appeal
nt at this
moment is most informal.b
the
prohibition validity
Dr. SPINKs would not at that moment go into the mat-
oTfhtehree waspprohibition,
alsohit
its°
o,ainstthat judgment
ter, though there were cases of precedent for his doing
se. So far as the Bishop called his license a license at
pleasure, he (Dr. Spinks) denial The license of the
Bishop allowieg Mr. Gladstone to officiate was
not a license at pleasure, and to be revoked with-
out good cause assigned, but was to all intents and
purposes full and without limit.
a license in
of the 4, Ei il Rear. Fer,r God,' instead of sc p
g w V. . ' athiar
mostwhi
eh
was important
worded objection
a sti,t oe

in God." No doubt this was a clerical error, but so far as
the Court was concerned it was a fatal error inasmuch as
Mr. Gladstone was brought into the court upon the
prohibition, or upon what purported to be one; and
upon which the Court was called to give judgment.
It was anti-Christian, it described the Bishop of London
as anti-Christ, and was the epithet formerly applied to
the Bishop of Rome, as appeared from Gregory's Deere •
tals, where the title given to the Pope was Dominus
Deus foster pater. It was an error that could not be
allowed to remain on the records of the Court.
Dr. BAYFORD would remind his Learned Friend that
Mr. Gladstone had given an appearance.
Dr. SPINKs had no more to say upon it if the appear-
ance bad cured the objection; but he submitted that, for
its own sake, the Court must take cognizance of it. The
citation had been served in the diocese of Winchester,
whereas the letters of request were from the diocese of
London. The Church Discipline Act required that the
Court should proceed according to its law and practice;
and antecedent to that enactment it was governed by the
Statute of Citations of Henry VIII., which provided that
no person should be cited out of the diocese where he
dwelt without letters of request from the bishop of the
diocese in which he resided.
The Learned JUDGE inquired whether this was not
the court of the province?
Dr. :SPINES replied, that the archbishop was the ordi-
nary of the bishops, not of the subjects of the bishops.
Dr. Addams, in his reports, at page 18, bad appended
a note to the effect, that if the citation had de-
scribed the party as resident in Ireland, the error
would have been fatal. He also objected that these pro-
ceedings had been, if not against the letter of the act for
the correction of clerks, yet against its spirit, and, as tbis
was a criminal proceeding, the accused ought to have
the advantage of it. In the case of a preliminary in.
quiry being directed by a bishop the defendant must
have at least 14 days' notice of the proceedings; but here
the offence was charged to have taken place on the 25th
of January, and the citation was decreed two days
afterwards. There had been the greatest hurry, and
Mr. Gladstone had been obliged to appear without
knowing the law applicable to his case. He now ad-
vanced to the articles themselves. The article which
pleaded the general law made no mention of the build-
ing being unconsecrated, yet throughout the whole of
the proceedings that fact had been prominently put
forth. The charge was indistinct, and he could not now
tell whether or not it was intended to charge the want
of consecration as an aggravation of the offence alleged
to have been committed by Mr. Gladstone. The citation
did not appear to him sufficiently to raise the question
which was really at issue in the cause. The instrument
of revocation said, " We revoke, as far as in us lies,
and by law we may and can." Mr. Gladstone thought
that by law the license could not be revoked; the pro-
moter presumed that it could. The question was,
whether doing duty on the 25th of January was made
criminal by the service of the instrument on Mr. Glad-
stone, and the citation did not raise the question as to
whether it was a valid instrument or not; the whole
question turned upon that. The articles, in fact,
charged no crime, for they did not allege that the
instrument served on Mr. Gladstone was served
either with the knowledge or by the directions of the
bishop. Those circumstances ought to have been pleaded
in order to constitute a charge of disobedience to his
Lordship. The apparitor in his evidence merely stated
that he received it from the registry, without stating
from whom. But, supposing the service to be good, then
the question recurred, was the instrument valid or not?
Per se, disobedience was not a crime; it must be disobe-
dience to lawful authority. That was laid down in
Hooker's" Ecclesiastical Polity." It was assumed that
Mr. Gladstone had been acting in defiance of the bishop
and somewhat obstinately, whereas it was not his inten-
tion to oppose lawful authority. He (Mr. Gladstone)
could not satisfy himself that this was a lawful exercise
of authority; but, if the Learned Judge confirmed the
instrument, although Mr. Gladstone might appeal against
the decision on the point of law, yet he would submit to
the sentence of the Court, and wait until the judgment
of the superior court had been obtained. It was with
him merely a question of conscientious duty;
he thought
that the bishop had assumed a power which he did not
possess, and he had not yielded to it. The onus rested
on the promoter of the suit to show that law-
ful authority had been exercised. There was a
marked difference between never having received
a license and a license being revoked—between non-
admission and expulsion. The insertion of the words
" during pleasure" would be nothing unless the bishop
proved that he had the right to insert them. That prin-
ciple was laid down in Sir George Lee's cases, and also
in Oughton. Proprietary chapels were recognised in
the Church Discipline Act, although it was pleaded that
Mr. Gladstone was without preferment, and this pro-
ceeding must bo forbidden unless it came under the 26th
section of the Act. Could the Bishop have power to
dismiss from an office to which he did not appoint? His
Lordship had accepted the nomination of Mr. Smith,
and the consent of the vicar, and had allowed Mr.
Gladstone to accept it by granting him a licence. Of the
cases cited he was only concerned with two, " Hodgson
v. Dillon," and " Barnes v. Shore." The question as to
revocation of the license was never raised in the latter
case. Mr. Shore, in fact, revoked the license by regis-
tering his chapel as a Dissenting chapel, and defended
the action on the ground that he was a Dissenter. In
the ease of " Hodgson v. Dillon," with all deference to
the Learned Judge, the sentence was founded on a fal-
lacy—that of calling on the accused to prove his in-
nocency, and not on the accuser to prove him guilty.
Mr. Gladstone said, "Do not punish me without a
trial;" but the Bishop said, " No, my will is the
law." In Dr. Dillon 's case' there was an exercise of
usurped power for good, but Hallam, in his work on the
middle ages, showed to what grievcus abuses such an
exercise of power was liable. The doubtful precedent
in " Hodgson v. Dillon," where it was assumed that
without a trial, without a charge, a bishop might debar
a clergyman of his profession, was growing into positive
law, and unless the Court interfered, and showed] that
clerks were within the pale of the law, for protection as
well as for pnnishment, the most serious consequences
might result. By the ancient law, as laid down in
Gregory's " Decretals," a bishop could not suspend a
clergymen without giving him a trial. It had been said
that proprietary chapels wore unknown to the law,
for
that the ministers had a nondescript title, and that was
the reason why they were under the arbitary power of
the bishop; but he contended that the law was so expan-
sive in its nature that its circle enlarged by the applica-
tion of principles to particulars. There was a close ana-
logy between the office of preacher and lecturer and
tie minister of an unconsecrated chapel. all cases
t e
license
was
the same; it was ant admission of the
qualification of the party, and s
_a e bishop had no
power over thelicense granted toth a lectureship, so
tee had no power
over that grane iontpepdlictost a ministerad
he
been
an unconsecrated chapel. Where
made for a mandamus to compel a bishop to grant a
license it had heen invariably refused, but there were no
cases in the books, either here or at common law, where
the question had been raised and discussed as to whether
the bishop
revokep
eaa
hlicense.aen t
he In the 11th article of
Archbishop
could
Laud's
as charged with
orthodox preachers, to which
silencing he replied that he
had not done it except upon just cause proved in court,
and according to law--a pr4o7ot_that he did not claim the
right. Oughton gave 4 forms of' proceeding, but
not a single form for revoking a license. That was
a strong negative argument._ Ayliffe gave a long
chapter on suspension, but he never spoke of the power
as being exercised arbitrarily and without process. The
ion in Mr. Gla one's case was, in fact, suspen-
T
sp
fi
sious n ab ens
officio et baned cio , he promoter must prove
that he had power to prohibit a clergyman from doing
duty throughout the whole of the diocese, as was at..
in this case,
tempted and, unless he did, the
instrument was bad, for it could not be good in
part and bad in part. (" Rex v. Page," 5 East, 343.)
The evidence given by the apparitor afforded a strong
argument that the Power now claimed by the Bishop
was against public policy. He stated that he attempted
to serve the instrument on Sunday morning just before
the service, whereas the Legislature had passed a law
to prevent tbe arrest of a clergyman on his way to do
duty. There had been no Witness examined to prove
that there was any report or fame against Mr. Glad-
stone; yet it was expressly laid down in " Gregory's
Decretals" that a bishop could not proceed without it.
The service of the instrument was proved by one witness
only instead of two. It was pleaded that the service
took place on the 19th of January, whereas the witness
proved that it was on the 18th. It was served by an ap-
paritor of London in the diocese of Winchester. It
might be said that that was done by the authority of
Mr. Gladstone; but according to the decision in "Ho-
mer and Jones v. Bloomer," 9 Jurist, if a commission
issued, the inquiry must be limited to what took place
in the particular diocese. The service, therefore, was
bad. He trusted he had brought forward sufficient to
raise a doubt with regard to the law and also the facts
of the case; and if there was a doubt in the mind of the
Court, according to all the principles of criminal proceed-
ing, it must be given in favour of the party for whom ho
appeared.
Dr. BAYBORD, in reply, said that he hoped the Court
would scrutinize the evidence for the prosecution in every
way, but he could not admit that Mr. Gladstone had
acted in ignorance of the law. He was not inops concilii
when these proceedings commenced, because a proctor
appeared for him in the first instance, and, if any objec-
tions could then have been taken, they would have been
insisted upon. The license had not been brought in,
therefore it must be assumed that it was in the usual
form. It was inherent in the grant of a license that the
same authority which granted it had the power of revo-
cation. The way to have treated the case would have
been to move for a prohibition; if the bishop was acting
without authority the temporal courts would have said
that there as no crime for which to proceed. Theornis
Ilion of the occurred. in the recital of the let-
ters of request, a Would be go.ing long way to say
that that rendered the proceedings null and void. Mr.
Gladstone, however, had appeared to the citation. The
same remark applied to the Rev. Gentleman being cited
out of the diocese; but he contended that he had b
duly cited according to the requirements of the een
Discipline Act. This was a court of appeal,
Church
and its ju-
risdiction extended throughout the province. It was
impossible to contend successful]
held preferment in the diocesethat of London. The Bishop
had given notice to Mr. Gladstone of the revocation of
his license, and he cl. imme lately entered a formal protest,
denying the right of
the Bishop to do it, and then, on
the following Sunday, conducted the service as usual.
What necessity was there for a commission to inquire
me he performed the service on that d ? Mu -h
had been said ay
as to the building being unconsecrated,
but it made no difference whether it was consecrated or
not. lie did not depend upon that, but upon the power
to revoke the license. It had been said that there was
no proof that the instrument had been served with the
knowledge and under the directions of the Bishop; but
for what purpose did his Lordship put his hand to it and
affix his seal, if he did not intend it to be delivered?
" Barnes v. Shore" the proceedings took P1"o on
the
assumption that Mr. Shore was still a clergyman; the

1852.

( case, therefore, was not open to the distinction which
had been drawn. In " Hodgson v. Dillon" it was
said that the judgment was b.se.tl on a fallacy, but
before he could assent to that stat tnent he 111Glii; hear
stronger grounds than had been urged by his Liarned
Friend. That decision merely carried out the pieciple
which had been adopted in other cases. In eri
uaen-
dewed lectureshie there was no reason why the bishop
should not withdraw the license if he deemed it neces-
sary. Archbishop Laud said ho never punished without
good cause, and Mr. Gladstone would not be punished
unless there was ground shown for it. The tact thee
°tighten gave no form for revoking a license only
proved that no form was required. In "Freeland V.
Neale," a private letter from the bishop was held to be
sufficient. The Duke of Portland, as ley rector,
cited a clergyman to bring in a license granted by the
bishop, The statements made as to the t ff-et which
would be produced on Mr. Gladstone by revoking the
license were based on the supposition that he intended
to persist in such a line of conduct that he would never
be able to obtain his license again. The sentence, after
prohibiting him from doing, duty in the diocese of
London, would go on to say, " Without license, first
had and obtained. " Mr. Gladstone would only have to
put himself in a proper position, and again procure
the license of his diocesan. It had been said that a
I clergyman could not be arrested when going to church,
but he (Dr. Bayford) believed that if the officer had been
conteni; with the Sunday service it would have sufficed.
It was directed in the Prayer- book that citations should
be read at a particular part of the service. Sunday was
selected because the parishioners were supposed to bo all
at church. As to the celerity of the proceedings, Mr.
Gladstone had been allowed a week between the service
of the notice and the period at which it was to come into
operation. There was only one witness as to the service,
but it had never been held that it was necessary to do
more than prove the principal matter by two witnesses.
The service was a point of minor consideration. It was
no hardship to Mr. Gladstone whether he was served
with the notice at Brixton or elsewhere. It was the
personal act of the Bishop, and if the service had taken
place at Paris it would have been perfectly valid. He
trusted that the Court would consider the articles
proved; that it would admonish Mr. Gladstone to ab-
stain from officiatine in the diocese of London, and,
as he before said, condemn him in the costs of the pro-
ceedings.
The Learned JUDGE said that he would deliver his
judgment on the next court-day, June 12.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, June 2.
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant Judge, and a
Bench of Magistrates, at the Guildhall, Westminster.)
The Court today heard the bailed cases.
William Daykin, William Blackmore, and Charles
Dobson were charged with assaulting three constables
of the metropolitan police force in the execution of
their duty.
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Poland appeared for the prosecu-
tion, instructed from the office of the Solicitor of the
Treasury; and Mr. O'Brien for the defence of Daykin.
The other prisoners were undefended.
It appeared that Dobson was fighting with another
man on St. Herman's-hill, Westminster, with a crowd
of people collected round, on the night of the 16th of
May, end the policeman went up to put a stop to it.
Shipp, one of the policemen, went up and took Dobson
in custody, when Daykin attempted to rescue him with
some of the mob, and got Shipp down and kicked him
about the head and body, saying that he would pay him
out. Some of the people also threw brickbats and tiles
at them from the tops of the houses. During the affray
Daykin assaulted the other policemen, and Blackmore
struck orie of them with a bludgeon on the head. He
became insensible from the blow, and Shipp was so in-
jured that he was taken to a surgeon, and was bleeding
all about his head. Dobson, it seemed, only attempted
to get away and threw down the policeman who was
holding him, and then Daykin came up and kicked and
struck him.

Mr. O'llitixic said that he should call a witness to
prove that one of the policemen struck la 3 kin on the
head before he interfered at all, and that this unprovoked
assault on him made him commit the offaic:3 he was
charged with. He then called
Marianne Florent, who state d that. seeing a crowd, she
went up to see the row. Dobson was fighting, and was
taken into custody. Dsykin was e•tarJ(itug b), and only
asked the policeman to let the man go quietly and he
struck him over the head with his statf. Daykin asked
him what he did that for, and,;hit him again, and she
then went away.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE having briefly summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
Milman, a police-constable, was then called, and
stated that Daykin had been summarily convicted be-
fore for an assault on the police, and had also had two
months' imprisonment for breaking a plate glass shop
window in Oxford-street. In 1849 he bad twelve
months' imprisonment for "ringing changes" at Wool-
wich (this, he explained, was getting change at a shop,
subs ituting a bad shilling for a good one among the
change, and insisting on the shopman giving another in
its stead), and six months previously for a felony. The
woman who was called as a witness he knew as a bad
character.

The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said that Daykin was evi-
dently the ringleader in this assault, and had aggravated
his offence by bringing a woman to tell a story that no-
body could believe. On him, therefore, the Court would
pass the heaviest sentence, without any reference to
the character he had just received. He then sentenced
Dsykin to eight months', Blackniore to four months',
and Dobson to two months' imprisonment with bard
labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTAIINb'TEk.
The public sympathy, at all times alive to cases of
distress, has been considerably excited with regard to
an application made at this court a few days ago by a
person of ladylike appearance, who represented that she
and her two children, by a former marriage with a
merchant, had been totally neglected and deserted by
her present husband, late an officer in the Dragoon
Guards, and a member of the Army and Navy Club.
Her tale was of the most pitiable and heartrending cha-
racter, and went to show that after a tour on the conti-
nent with her husband, he had left her at Liverpool to
go to a furnished house ho had taken for her at
Brompton, while he paid a month's visit to his pa-
rents in the Isle of Man, but that she never saw him
afterwards, and, having maintained herself and chil-
dren by disposing of her plate and jewels, she fell
step by step into the most abject state of poverty, and,
after wandering the streets hungry and houseless, was
indebted for a meal's victuals for herself and children
and the temporary shelter of a roof to a poor la-
bouring in named Gibbons and his wife, who had
known her in her prosperity. Although she had re-
ceived affectionate letters from her husband, %she was
a gentleman of property, he had in no way contributed
since he left her at Liverpool to her support, and her
last communications apprising him of her wretched con-
dition had been unanswered. She referred the magis-
trate to the solicitor of her husband's family, who trans-
mitted the income of his estate, and declared le r con-
duct as a wife to have be en most exemplary. There was
a speciousness of manner coupled with her appearance,
which, added to the favourable report resulting from the
inquiry of the moment, was strongly calculated to im-
press the hearers with the truth of her statements, and
Mr. Arnold, having afforded her some temporary relief,
suggested to her the expediency of again visiting the so-
licitor in question, with a view of obtaining the support
to which she was entitled from her husband. The re-
port of her interview with the magistrate was detailed in
the papers ef Thursday last, and on the following day,
in consequence of certain communications the public a ere
cautioned against contributing any thing to the ref ef of
the applicant until further inquiries had been made;
Mr. Bishop, of Bond-street, gave such private informa-
tion as afforded the worthy Magistrate an oppor-
tunity of judging for himself by the most conclusive tes-
timony of the character of the applicant. Mr. Bishop's
account having been confirmed in the most minute par-
ticulars, Mr. Arnold sent for the applicant, and it having
been stated that she was a kept mistress up to the time
she was united to her present husband, the worthy
magistrate interrogated her cn this point, when she de-
clared that her former statement that she was the widow
of a timber-merchant named Eveleigh was true, and that
she had been married at Christchurch in the City; but
she had no certificate, and her treacherous memory pre-
vented her being able to state the date of the marriage,
though she could procure the certificate, and would take
an early opportunity of doing so.
Mr. ARNOLD, having inquired what the applicant
meant by stating in a letter she had written that there
were two or three little things she wished to explain?
Applicant replied it bad reference to the circumstance
that the labourer's wife who had given her shelter was a
drinking woman, and that her (applicant's) children
might have been seen fetching spirits for her from a
public-house, and she herself, unwilling to lose the only
friend she had in her misery, and thus lose the shelter
of her humble roof, had on two or three occasions herself
procured cordials fur her. Although a drinking woman,
her hostess had been Very kind to her, and had afforded
her children shelter.
Mr. ARNOLD intimated that ho had heard applicant
was in the habit of drinking, and received the visits of
common soldiers.
Applicant burst into tears, and declared it was a most
infamous scandal. She had make an application to the
adjutant of the Life Guards on behalf of a poor laun-
dress she was desirous of serving, and she supposed
the calumny owed its origin to an orderly bringing two
notes to her upon the subject.
Page, a police-constable of the B division, was called
in and asked whether he knew the applicant.
The officer replied' he did.
pMarg. e ARNOLDreplied
thatinquired
hie
had whatee e nhhee knew no enw sheoevf
e hr
fella out erl.o of the
occasions
drunk; on one occasion so drunk that s
door of the Globe public•house, at Chelsea. He had seen
g
her with Life Guardsmen, and about a
man in Hooper's-
to or weeks a o
ho saw her go into a brothel with
court, Knightsbridge. d , and said he had frequently
Wright, 39 B, was calle

seen he—r
drunk.
Mr. ARNOLD said the irquiry was a very painful one,
and asked whether she wished to make any reply to it.
Applicant, who had sobbed considerably duri:.g these
statements, said there was not a particle of tru h in them.
She had been wandering the streets four or five niohts
as she bad before stated, and they had imputed improve
t
e;
motives to her in consequence. She neither k
Globe, nor floeper's•court, and felt quite shocnkewed th a
.
'
what had been said.
did the applicant maintain her innocence,
.p roie the allegations, that
andSodeactl°aurta stoutly
Ythat she could d
Mr. ARNOLD said he
should be extremely sorry to conclusion, and, as applicant had:been
taken by surprise,
he would adjourn the case for further
inquiry.

A
piticant expressed a hope that she should not be
prejudicedky calumny or miktikan i(l.lltltY' 424 ell"