The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-03 00:00:00

COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

L. (Before Sir JOHN DODSON.)
74' OFFICE- OP JUDGE PROMOTED BY HODGSON v,

GLADSTONE, CLERK
'To.elay having been fixed for the hearing of this im-
portant case, the court was crowded with visitors, the
IDs p. thy consisting of ladies:
tee'. Bayford and Mr. Dyke, a proctor, appeared for
n jsishop of London, and Mr. Gladstone attended to
-one
°et hia defence in person.
thi• 'Lousier) said the office of judge was promoted in
ate! ease against the Rev. Mr. Gladstone, a bachelor of
and clerk in holy orders of the United Church of
e gland and Ireland, touching and concerning
petl7,ain delinquencies, and more especially for
tee holy
reading prayers, preaching_ and adaninstering
ee:fee bacrament, and performing other
ca'ast'e duties, according to the rites and
ceremonies • a‘
,•
lan of the United Church o. England and Ire-
redi in a certain unconsecrated building tr chapel, com-
gi94,lY *known as Long Acre Chapel, in the parish of
benartin's, without any licenae or authority, and cAi-
grYto, and in defiance of, the prohibition of the Lord
11111.4°P of London. The articles accompanying the
Ite"°P's prohibition had been brought into court andr
eiitted without opposition. On the last court day M•
e 'Aston° presented his allegations, and these bad stood.
Dart
I,lc':l' for admission. He (Dr. Bly!ord) was entirely op-
d to them, because it seemed to him that no
misteddof them were admissible. Mr.Gladtone
the the majority of the articles, ands that
case was properly, before the court under
° statute but he -denied the validity of the
offti`Vb; prohibition,' or that he had committed any
i'nne which rendered him nafit to, hold the office ef
knister of the chapel. Dr. Belford then went through
le9a_lmiious allegations of Mr. Gladstone, observing that
1,,,;e present case his private character was not in any
44`'Y called into question or assailed. The allegations
1 out that Mr. Gladstone had :not been cited or ad 7
te°„nishvd • to show cause why his licence should not be
ctelit led, but the law was clear upon- that point, no
ilLoll or admonition being necessary; every case which
im.414 been decided proceeded on the assumption that those
"aliniinary proceedings were notrequired. Mr:Glads:one
tome reason
alleged that the Bishop Might to have assigned
1,-"gie reason for revoking his licenee; but the law and the
authoritiesari were againit him on that point, the
tin o.p having it in his power to prohibit' a clergy man
lfeill-PreaChiug. without stating his reasons for d9ing.so.
01- Peat alleged that he wax -lawful minister ot the
thttPel, and authorised and bound to perform therein all
e ecclesiastical duties appertaining to his office, and
that
the act of_the Bishop was not such 'as: he pledged
'llleaalf to obey when- he received.heiy orders, but was
affect a severe judicial sentence of perpetual Baguette
h:11 from performing .the duties of his (Ace. Now
•
(D r Bayford) contended that the prohibition
6_,in the ordinary form, and that' the Bishop
at''q proper jurisdiction in issuing it egainst. Mr. Glad-
-I,9tie; all the decisions supported that assertion, and it
41!-therefore quite unnecessary tb enter into any abe
shifat questions on the eubject. lie twit went on to say
•
.at notwithstanding the service of 'the prohibition, he
W4s bonnd, not only iu law, but in conseiendo, to act" as
minister of the chapel.. No*, it was impossible' that`the
Lours could go into the question as to what was binding
()o
4.his conscience, the mutter for its decision being'oie
entirely of law. Be next stated that he was not justified
1111. abandoning his congregation whdo the
eOl,Bl2°P neglected to make any provision
tell 'ioßa service at the chepel.
est -not prereely come before the Court. The 'chapel.
t)Lgilalls, ieelo-need to the Dissenters; but in 1758
was Purchatiedieom thim and bectiine a chapel of emed
to th
Church of Sr.. Martins. It he itoftherefore simply
-ea;l3el.<3f ease, the alleged neglect of the Bishop Ilene;
4.13-L
:nUligei minister to it in the place of It r. Gladstone
w°,nld not operate in the way. mentioned by Mr. Glad
because the
tiparch. congregation could go to the parish
The only queStion, in fact, that arose, on
_theus:
allegations was whether the" prohibition was Pass!
inn..
ae°Per, and'this was decided in the alfiritati.v:
07.
as "1755; when the Court 114 f- ,
th 0414.11. V. Lowgrove," that it Wa3 6Di:rely wn
ato mscre,:ion of a Bishep to reveke . a liceece,
prohibit from preaching. *That Tres
leiceded in
lei el:Pont decisions, and if MreGledstone !nee
coritirea, a by
Nvliite,fenoo, a new state of lax Would be introduced
1110" there WfIS no record to show had ever been ad=
i,'"elstered in that court: His' 'allegations' were wholly
tll,"missible, and he trusted his Lordship would field
tie rto be so. There was only ce.isiriaPle fact disputed,
the result of Mr. Gladstono'o case proceeded entirely
u en incorrect assumptioreof the law.
poiTr? GLADSTONE then didresied the Collet and said,
hot"Pa the laW:weiesteataeed by.the Lesrued Docat.eud
the
!18 he hoped it was, but he trueted he would receive
eeiLuthilgence the Court while endeavourieg to she*
is3u"'Y that the':eillegatieni lied to do with the gent.inl
fro: of the trial, hut that they ought-to restrain the court
bocq Passing ;any sentence upon him. The Limit:led
it jet° 11,,id admitted that no attempt had been made to
• teei itatieseeelTuff? character or
thatbreeccurt:ttib°en'llrlitionistaioYn is'ubi' de" hied.Dn d
13;,,Ctia .that pity which ho "might well entertain in: his
thilst for one his unfortunate position, ignorant of
aw he directed his attention to the' fact that only
to or,eu:rge was brou_ght. against him, and advised'him
teee'll'unel his attentiiin, to- that alone. Now, he eon-
44that the &legations' were a complete and clear
it
thincation point of lams of hie conduct, and he belled,
it te Court: did e not . think they .Were
,ti.,ootild at any:rate consider them. to operate in.
On of costs. • :He admitted that every person under
the•
e°litY was hound to Submit to- the authority; but
Tnfe," Must be shown-that the authority was 'legitie
rcised.. The eircumstaace of the chapel'
a.vine . -
~seee4e no minister appointed to it sines the prohibition
was an ituportant consideration, for he erg-iv-el
thatectl° clergyman or bishop was justified in narrowing•
pati
Lurch ac,commodation provided for the people the
ava,B". never c=old submit to an authority which
legitimately exercised. Was the Apostolic
;eai ox on to be S aside without any reason being
ed , and simply
by the stroke of -a bishop's
pig? When he entered holy orders; beWas