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

ARCHES COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(13efors Sn. JOHN DoDSON.)
TIM OFFICE OF JLDGE PiioMoTED BY HODGSON v. GLAD-
STONE.—JUDGMENT.
The Learned Judge delivered the judgment of the
Court in this important ease to-day. He said the suit
n`st'es instituted by virtue cf letters of request from the
seishop of London, pursuant to the statute of the 3d and
4th of Vic., c. 86, commonly called the Church Disci-
Pant. Act, by which he was enabled to send cases of
this description by letters of request to the Court of
Appeal of the province, to be there heard and determined
according to the law and practice of that court. It wns
hardly necessary to state the procredingi in the case,
as that had already been dope on one or tem occasions,
but he might as well aserve that by virtue of these
letere of request a citation issued from the Court, which
was returned with a eertificate stating it had !teen per-
sonally served upon Mr. Gladstone; that an appearance
Was given for him by his proctor,who prayed for articles;
that those articles wore afterwards brought in and ad-
mitted bY Mr. Gladstone without any opposition. Upon
the following court day, after the admietion of the erti-
cies, be denied the Ist, 4th, sth, 10J), and 11th articles,
and admitted the truth of the remainder, viz.: the 2,1,
3d, 6th, 7th, and Bth. The Learned Judge then
detailed the subsequent stages which were gone through,
and said, as the publication of the articles had been
Passed, the case now stood for judginent. The t ffeece
charged against Mr. Gladstone was contained in the
heading of the articles, and was publicly reading prayers,
Preaching, administering the holy sacrament, and per-
• funning other divine noires, in an unconsecrated chapel,
called Long-acre Chapel, in the parish of St. Martin's,
and in the diocese of London, without any licence from
the Bishop, the previous licence having been revoked by
_him, and contrary to the prohibition of the Bishop.
. The first of the articles set forth the law of the case,
but the Court having pronounced its judgment on the
law as applicable to the facts charged in the articles, 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 corning to a con-
, trary conclusion. The remarks, which were somewhat
irregularly made, in reply to what fell from the Court,
he had listened to with great attention; but, in his
opinion, they were not such as to induce him
in 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 facts charged in the articles,
the principal 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. Gle.dstone's
,Counsel to the irregularity of the proceedings. First,
no said, that in consequence of the omission of the
worn ein"in the citation served on Mr. Gladstone, the
Bishop of London was described in that document es
" Father God," instead of " Father in God." This
!tatter, it was contended, must be deemed of high
importance, and of essential value, inasmuch
as a title of a blasphemous character was attributed to
the Bishop, from:which it might be supposed he intended
• (,) assume the title " Father God," which it was men-
-I°Tied was given to the Pope. Papa nostrum dominus
e 24. He scarcely knew whether the Learned Counsel
was serious in taking this objection, but in his opinion
it certainly did not carry that weight with it to which
tt," seemed to think it was entitled. The omission of this
inuesyllable was, in fact, a mere clerical error, and it
rightly
been almost admitted to be so. The Bishop was
• ttlY described in every other part of the instrument
of citation
%Wien, and the accidental omission of the word could
, lot, therefore, mislead anybody; it did not, at any rate,
mislead Mr. Gladstone, for he duly appeared to the cita-
tion. . : This then was a very trifling matter, for it was
. aee_ •
s ausstble gravely to suppose that the Bishop meant to
sal said
the blasphemous title which the Learned Come-
' tionlsaid he did. Another objection was, that the cita-
th was served in the diocese of Wiachester, whereas
doe letters of request were issued in the diocese of Lon-
dn+ and this was said to be informal under the Church
„sciPlino Act; but the Learned Counsel laboured un-
II41; rule confusion as to the constitution of the Court of
cues, and did not distinguish between that court in its
ttl:Peal character and in its more limited jurisdiction
00
beanoregulng the peculiars of tho Archbishop. There
111€1 doubt that if a citation, issued from an ap-
, repentt court to a clergyman in the province over which
lit!ltaodaijurisdiction, was served anywhere within the
the province, that service would be binding if
themas followed by an appearance. That was precisely
present case, and it was vain, therefore, to contend
that Mr. Gladstone was not properly before the court,
by
reason of undue service. A further objection was
that the proceedings were instituted against Mr.
agetTads ntaises celerikis—that fourteen days were
by the Church Discipline Act, for issuing
that before a party was obliged to appear;
o4t here the 'proceedings were taken against him at
her 2 in the Arches Court, and without any opportunity
et rase;
afforded him to consider what course he should
n't.".l.Bnet that he was in op* 'will, and was led into
11;°r in consequence of the speed which was unduly
• Proctor
on the occasion. Now, Mr. Gladstone appeared by
nuctor in the usual way; he had full opportunity to con-
• salt his professional advisers ; and he could not see to what
i:rttadvantage he was exposed. The Court only fol-
-11:!ti the usual course which was adopted in all cases.
lie admitted
Mr. Gladstone was resident on the spot, and
stllnitted all the main facts charged against him, and
furthermore, on every occasion when he applied for
delay.
the Court acceded to his application. The
tanrraed Judge having thus expressed his opinion on the
to" aPplicable to the facts, and on the objections urged
tplitbe Jurisdiction of the Court, proceeded to consider
• The
the proof of the facts was sufficient or not.
Lie 4th and sth articles were in reality the only ones
. :Ned by Mr. Gladstone; they set out that the Bishop
h London did, by instrument under his overnhand, on
t
16th January, 1852, duly revoke and make void the
cenee which he had previously—to wit, on the Ist day
olti
August, 1851, granted to Mr. Gladstone, during his
pleasure, to perform the office of minister in the uncon-
' secreted chapel known as Long-acre Chapel. in the
P_atish of Bt. Martin's, &e., and further prohibit him
°Pciating or discharging any ecclesiastical duties in that
"apel or elsewhere, in the diocese of London, and that
he •
nid admonish and require him to desist therefrom;
which instrument was duly served on him on the 19th
day of January. The fifth article simply annexed
'Proof of the instrument of revocation and prohibition.
Though Mr. Gladstone denied the truth of those articles
be admitted the two subsequent ones, that the instru-
ment bore the signatere or the Bishop, and also his
episcopal seal. The question was whether it had been
duly served. It was first said the service of the revoca-
tion 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-
sence of witnesses was not necessary. That Mr. Gladstone
was made acquainted with the natureof 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 18th, previous to divine service, and as be denied
the validity of the service on that occasion, it was sub-
sequently served at his residence, in accordance with his
utvri appointment. The next objection was that the licence
to preach was not given during the Bishop'a pleasure,
but absolutely; but a witness stated that ho saw the li-
cence in the registry, and that it was " daring pleasure."
But even supposing it was an absolute one, the authority
of Dr. Dillon was directly applicable to the present
ease, because he 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- therefore legal and le-
gally served, • and Mr. Gladstone having ad-
flitted 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
, made his admissions, there appeared to him complete
proof, either in the evidence of witnesses or in the ad-
missions 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, and had power to prohibit Mr.
Gladstone from continuing to perform divine service in
the chapel; and that, notwithstanding the revocation of the
license, and 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 proof, and I therefore admonish Mr. Glad-
stone to refrain from reading prayers, from publicly
Preaching, or administering divine offices in the uncon-
secrated chapel of Lonansere for the future, until he
obtains a license from the Bishop, and from performing
dirtne service there or elsewhere within the diocese of
L
. London, in the province of Canterbury, until he obtains
ma l ce
M • se, and I likewise condemn him in costs.
„ar* TEtans, the proctor, said he would appeal
°"*24l't d,the decision.
MX4E—Very well.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
• A (Before JAMES BURCHELL, Esq., Under-Sheri ff.)
—• CURIOUS VIND-UP OF A CHANCERY SUIT—BIs""
• This Was V. LLOYD.
an inquiry under a process in outlawry to
tiaßeerertain what lands, tenements, goods, and chattels the
silendant was possessed of within the bailiwick of the
iff of Middlesex.
theAIreu..TROMPSON CHITTY appeared for the plaintiff in
tt, and stated that. the plaintiff had obtained a
judgmenteo against the defendant in one of the courts of
:won law, and the present, proceeding had been
r °Pied .to obtain any property belonging to the de-
.endant b
Rum --, on as to secure the plaintiff .to the extent of the
—unt due; and although tho present proceedings were
wiTituted by the . Crown, and the property
b:5, .!lotuall forfeited to tho Crown, dit tithe
present Up for the creditor. The defendant
• •o o
action hnl been the plaintiff in a suit of Chan-
cery,
by
a cross bill had -been made a defendant in
another suit.
(.4 31241. ir.,,. In the first suit he was entitled to a sum
, and in the other to a larger amount, never-
the ess subject to any decree of the Ma :.ter.
CoAurtl"g di'cussion ensued, for the judgment of tho
time, af)tthee4.llll3.,cory had not been drsvitt up for want of
Tho rainu - Juugrnent was only delivered in April las:.
minuses ot
so unintell• ' the judgment were produced, but w(re
I%ible
quested that th th.at, the Learned Under-Sheriff re•
The LEARNp,DeY•Pight he put in form.
the minutes weoci'°lThlexi. said that the transcribing
The UNDER-SR nelt take a minute.
take the other cases Ft then, go OD, and I will
Mr. Howell Leach, the registrar, deposed
minutes of the judg to the
Mr. CHITTY WC-It:lien% ~,
but th rawin up th°
judgment could not be altered,
the deferd*ut iug tli. of tbe
order was another matter, for
la ActAert tniotht t.tr. nn the order in