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

EVENING,

JUNE 3, 1852.

in God " No doeht this wee a clerical error, hut •o far tie
the (teen 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 enti-Christ, and was the epithet formerly applied to
the Bishop of item, as appeared from Gregory's Deere
talc, where the title given to the Pope was Dominus
Deus nester pater. It wad 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. SPINES bad no more to say upon it if the appear-
ance had cured the objection; but he submitted that, for
its own Bette, the Court must take cognizance of it. The
citation bad 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 frem 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, had 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 this
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 etsth 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. These circumstances ought to have been pleaded
in order to constitute a charge of disobedience to his
Lordship. The apparitor in his evidence merely sated
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 nut 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 quetion 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 differeece between never having received
a license and a licteise 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 °tighten. Proprietary chapels were recognised in
the Church Discipline Act, although it was pleaded that
Mr. Gladstone was without preferment, and this pro-
ceeding must be 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
w. 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 case 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 mo 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 grievous 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 were unknown to the law, for
that the ministers had a nonbddeescrritpbtetiatlreb,itattry per of
and that was
the reason why they were u
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. preacher There
nwd a lee ce t close
ana-
logylind between the office
..or
rd chapel. In all cases
the minister of unconsecrated
the license was the same; it was an admission of the
qualification of the party, and, as the bishop had no
power over the license granted to a lectureship, 50
no power over th.tavtbgrantede
application had been
he had erto a minister of
an unconsecrated chapel.
made for a mandamus to compel a bishop to grant a
license it bad been invariably refused, but there were no
cases in the books, either. here or at common law, where
the question had been raisod and discussed as to whether
the bishop could revoke a license.b In the 11th article of
preechere, to which he replied that he
Archbishop Laud's impeachment he was charged with
silencing orthodox
had not done it except upon just cause proved in court,
and according to law—a proof that he did not claim the
rieit. °tighten gave 447 forme of Proceeding, but
note,
Bin:ve form for revoking a license.
argument.b That was
AYliffe gave a long
a strong negative
chapter on suspension., le• e never spoke of the power
as being exercised arbitrarily and without process. The
in Mr. Gladstone's case was, in fact, suspen-
suspension b d
son ab officio et une co.. The promoter must prove
that be had power to prohibit a clergyman from doing
duty throughout the whole of the diocese, as was ate
tempted in this Case, and, unless he did, the
instrument was bad, for it could not be d •
part and bad in part. (" Rea v. page, 5 East, go°
343
n
The evidence given by the apparitor afforded a strong
argument that the power now claimed by the
Bisho was against public policy.
He stated that he attempted
to serve the instrument on Sunday morning just befor
e
the service, whereas the Legislature had passed a lawre
to prevent the 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'sDecretals" that a bishop could not proceed without it.
The service of the instrument was proved by ono 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 18tb. It was served by an ap-
paritor of London in the diocess 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 bad 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 he
appeared.

Dr. BAYFORD, in reply, said that he hoped the Court
would scrutineze 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 firat 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 was no crime for which to proceed. Theomis
sion of the word " in" occurred in the recital of the let-
ters of request, and it would be going a 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. Gcntleman being cited
out of the diocese; but he contended that he had been
duly cited according to the requirements of the Church
Discipline Act. This was a court of appeal, and its ju-
risdictioa extended throughout the province. It was
impossible to contend successfully that Mr. Glarlgtone
held preferment in the diocese of London. The Bishop
had given notice to Mr. Gladstone of the revocation of
his license, and he immediately entered a formal protest,
denying the right of the Bishop to do it, and then, on
the following Sueday, conducted the service as usual.
What necessity was there for a commission to inquire
whether he performed the service on that day? Mu'h
had been said 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 powerwns
to revoke the license. It bad been said thatdthweirth
the
no proof that the instrument had been serovße
,ohop;
but
knowledge and under the directions of.th
put h
for what purpose did his Lord,hiand it
In
affix his seal, it be did not intendPittoblesdh:lievderteod
" Barnes V. Shore" the proceedings tookplace on the
assumption that Mr. Shore was still a clergyman; the

"get thertiff`re. !rir r ern te
had been drawn. In t. Hodgsen v. Ditten" it w
said that the judgment was hese(' en a fallacy, but
before he could assent to that staVment he must hear
stronger grounds than had been urged by his Learned
Friend. That decisiou merely carried out the principle
which had been Ittloi)ted in other cases. In ae unen-
dowed lectureshi:, there was no reason why the bishop
should not withdraw the license if he deemed it neces-
sary. Archbishop Laud said he never punished without
good Caine, and Mr. Gladstone would nut • be punished
unless there was ground shown for it. The tact that
Oughton gave no form for revoking a license only
proved that no form was required. In "Fr, eland z'.
Neale," a private letter from the bishop was held to be
sufficient. The Dake of Portland, as lay rector,
cited a clergyman to bring in a license granted by the
bishop, The statements made as to :he eff,ct which
would be produced on Mr. Gladstone by revoking the
lieenae 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
clergyman could not be arrested when going to church,
but he (Dr. Bayford) believed that if the officer had been
content 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 be 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 wss 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 officiating 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 o❑ 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 to-day heard the bailed cases.
Daykin, William Blachmore, and Charles
Dobson were charged with assauitirig three cAastables
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. Berman's-hill, Westminster, with a crowd
of people collected round, on the night of the 16th of
May, and the policeman went up to put a stop to it.
Shipp, one of the policemen, went up and took Dobson
in custody, when Day kin attempted to rescue him with
tome of the mob, and gut 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 top of the houses. During the affray
Daykin assaulted the other policemen, and Blackwore
struck One of them with a bludgeon on the head. He
became insensible from the blow, and Shit p 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'BRIEN said that ho should call a witness to
prove that one of the policeawa ntruek Day kin on the
head before he interfered at all, and that this unprovsked
assault on him made him commit the Wenn) he was
charged with. He then called
Marianne Florent, who stat.ll that, seeing, a crowd, she
went up to see the row. Dobson was fighting, and was
taken into custody. Daykin wai stanntng by, and only
asked the policeman to let the man go quietly and he
struck him, over the head with his staff. Daykin asked
him what he did that for, andhit him again, and the
heia 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 p lice, and had also had two
months' imprisonment for breaking a plate glass shop
window in Oxford-street. In 1849 he had twelve
months' imprisonment for "ringing changes" at Wool-
wich (!his, he explained, was getting change at a shop,
subsiituting 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 ho hud just received. no then sentenced
Day kin to eight months', Bllckinoro to four months',
and Dobson to two months' imprisonment with hard
labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
sympathy,cosi d
ea
rt
aabl y times WE STMINS TE R.
Idistress,he
with
o regardcases
to
f
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, ho had left her at Liverpool to
go to a furnished house he had taken for her at
Bromptou, 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 fur herself and children
mid the temporary shelter of a roof to a poor la-
bouring men named Gibbons and his wile, who had
known her in her prosperity. Although she had re-
ceived affectionate letters from her husband, who 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 unanssered. She referred the magis-
trate to the solicitor of her husband's family, who trans-
mitted the income of his estate, and declared her con-
duct as a wife to have been most exemplary. There was
a speciousness of manner coupled with her appearance,
which, tidied 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 of Thursday last, mid on the following day,
in consequence of certain communications the public were
cautioned against contributing anything to the rel of of
the applicant until further inquiries had b.en 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 had 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, herself
procured cordials for her. Although °
eeaslOLS
a drinking woman,
her hostess had been very kind
to her, and had afforded
her children shelter.
Mr. ARNOLD
LD Intimated that he had heard applicant
was in the habit 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 loor 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.
Mr. ARNOLD inquired what ho knew of her.
P•ige replied that he had E e her
that she fell out of thenseveral occasions
drunk; on one occasion so drunk th
door of the Globe public house, at Chi laea. He had seen
her with Life Guardsmen, and ah?ut 10 or 11 weeks ago
he saw her go into a bro!,hel with a man iu Hoop2r's-

court, Knightsbridge.
39 B, was called, and said
Wright,
he had frequently
id the inquiry was a very painful one,
ARNOLD
I wiwther she wiened to make any rc ply to it.
seen herruok.
said Mr.
and ank(er
who had sobbed considerably durii,g these
was not a particle of au, h in them.
ssthaotehruets,
d
been wandering the streets four or five nights,
stated, and thiy had imputed improper
motives
Applicant,
as she had
lbfure
to her in CODS( queue°. She neither knew the
Globe, nor Heeper's-cuurt
, and felt quite shocked at
f:id there
what had been said.

...___
b,) stoutly did tne applicant maintain her innocence,
and dechtre that she cnuld disprove the nlek;ntions, that
Mr. ARNOLD said he sh:1111 be extremely sorry to
come to a hairy nonelucon, and, :IA applicant had.'been
taken by surprise,
inquiry. he %mild adjourn the case for turthtr

Applicant expressed a hope that she should not be
prejndieed by calumny or mistaken identity, and en-