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

ARCHES COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Befere Se. JOHN DODSON.)
TliF OFFICE OF JUDGE PROMOTED BY 110DC.'SON V. GLAD-
STONE.—JUDGMENT.
a,The Learned Judge delivered the jteigment of the
ourt in this important case to-dry. Ii said the suit
a.,s instituted by visor) of letters of raciesst from the
4th of of Landon, pursuant to the sesewe of the 3d and
Vie., C. 86, commonly called the Church Disc--
rue Act by which he was enabled to send cases of
';11,113 description by letters of request to the Court of
Paeal of the province, tc be there heard and determined
bCCerding to the law and practice of that court. It was
dly necessary to state the proceedings in the case,
;Is that had
already been done on one or two occasions,
?at he
might as well observe that by virtue of these
let Or o
request a; citation issued from the Court, which
was returned with a certificate stating it had been per-
-snallY served upon Mr. Gladstone; that an appearance
t 4 given for him by his procter,wlo prayed for articles;
"4 those articles were afterwards brought in and ad-
-Inittod by Mr. Glathenne without any opposition. Upon
the following court day, after the admission ef the arti-
", he denied the Ist, 4th, sth, 10th, and 11th articles,
neacl admitted the truth of the remeinder, viz.: the 2d,
a-cl' 6th, 7th, and Bth. The Learned Judge then
detailed the subsequent stages which were gone through,
1341:4 said, as the publicution• of the articles had been
elesed, the case now stood for judgment. The offence
heading
against Mr. Gladstone was contained in the
b-,,-4uitig of the articles, and was publicly reading prayers,
„fs.'„eahing, administering the holy sacrament, and per-
riming other divine offices, in an unconsecrated chapel,
and Long-acre Chanel, in the parish of St. Martin's,
",,..ao in the diocese of London, without any licence) from
e Bishop, the previous licence having bran revoked by
The first
and contrary to the prohibition of the Bishop.
first of the articles set lorth the law of the case,
bat the Court having pronounced its judge-lent on the
111 W as applicable to the facts charged in the articles, and
2.3
to the right of the Bishop to revoke the licence, and
to .
Prohibit Mr. Gladstone from performing divine ser-
/ice in the chapel, it would not be necessary to discuss
that point again. The cases which had been cited ep-
Peered to him to put the :neater beyond all doubt—at
least so far as to prevent the Court coming to a con-
trary conclusion. The remarks, which were somewhat
itteeularly made, in reply to what fell from the Court,
,had listened to with great attention; but, in his
?Pinion, they were not such as to induce him
the slightest degree to doubt the correctness
Of the
conclusion he had arrived at, or the principle as
\ vAlia down in those authorities. Adhering, then, to his
thew of the law, and the Lets charged in the articles,
e .
Principal remainig uestion was whether thoso
Loots P
were establishedn byq sufficient proof; but before
certain
upon that, it might not be improper to notice
of the objections offered by Mr. Gladstone's
he angel to the irregularity of the proceedings. First,
w said, that in consequence of the omission of the
la?red " in" in the citation served on Mr. Gladstone, the
CailoP Of London was described in that document as
,?ather, God," instead of " Father in God." This
importance,
it was contended, must be deemed of high
4-lortanee, and of essential value, inasmuch
atatide of a blasphemous character was attributed to
tee -ciishop, from:which it might be supposed he intended
ticralline the title " Father God," which it was men-
./4"as given to the Pope. Papa nostrum dominus
wa • Ile scarcely knew whether the Learned Counsel
it certainl§ serious in taking this objection, but in his opinion
did not carry that weight with it to which
eloeeemed to think it was entitled. The omission of this
herraYllable was, in fact, a mere clerical error, and it
sa,a,°,eoll almost admitted to be so. The Bishop was
Ot°6'4.LLY described in every other part of the instrument
hot,itttticln, and the accidental omission of the word could
laioe.,ll,..afore, mislead anybody; it did not, at any rate,
ties, ad "'lr. Gladstone, for he duty appeared to the cite-
nsl,4o This then was a very trifling matter, for it was
Beltita-
ssible gravely to suppose that the Bishop meant to
84°1,8‘. thet blasphemous title which the Learned Conn-
-404 he did. Another objecion was, that the cite-
th,,,,Jas served in the diocese of Winchester, whereas
do suers of request were issued in the diocese of Lon-
bieejand this was said to be informal under the Church
dexesPlale Act; but the Learned Counsel laboured un-
rarelicale confusion as to the constitution of the Court of
appeal and did not distinguish between that court in its
le re character and in its more limited jurisdiction
eetririg?lating the peculiars of the Archbishop. There
peli;er no doubt that if a citation, issued from an ap-
h.': court to a clergyman in the province over which
liteit"`" jurisdiction, was served anywhere within the
it 1,02/ °f the province, that service would be binding if
the followed by an appearance. That was precisely
thettseat ease, and it was vain, therefore, to contend
by ,dh Gladstone was not properly before the court,
Cason"
that ' of undue service. A further objection was
, proceedings were instituted against Mr.
tillewL°ne maim) celeritue—that fourteen days were
4,, nom --sm; by the Church Discipline Act, for issuing
leat.Csaion before a party was obliged to appear;
oats • 're the proceedings were taken against him at
being 111 the Arches Court, and without any opportunity
Parsee, fteorded him to consider what course he should
esrerll7; that he was in ups amcili, and was led into
ttsed consequence of the speed which was unduly
Preston occasion. Now, Mr. Gladstone appeared by
lath hs:' 'a the usual way; be had full opportunity to con-
d' se 13 Professionaladvisers; and he could not see to what
leiV"alata'e
.ed te_ he was exposed. Tlse Court oniyfol-
tieside ue,i.usual course which was adopted in all cases.
admitheat Alla Gladstone was resident on the spot, and
fur% ted all the main facts charged against him, and
dewerTore. on every occasion when 'he applied for
Leak:',; !,°0 Court acceded to his application. The
hoe 37eu Judge having thus expressed his opinion on the
to ti;epPlieahle to the facts, and on the objections urged
*hem Jurisdiction of the Court, proceeded to consider
The ter the proof of- the facts vas sufficient or not.
denied and sth articles were in reality the only ones
of x4-0",037 Mr. Gladstone; they set out that the Bishop
tits le did, by instrument under his own hand, on
lieeld" January, 1852, duly revoke slid make void the
Of 4" Which he had previously—to wit, on the Ist day
Plea 1851, granted to Mr. Gladstone, during his
leosse, to perform the office of minister in the uncon-
pktisated
h Chapel known as Long-acre Chapel, in the
affaC,:°' St. Martin's, &c., and further prohibit him
the tug or discharging any ecclesiastical duties in that
(111e_," or elsewhere, in the diocese of London, and that
Vehi„l,' admonish and require him to desist therefrom;
thiv-u tinstrument was duly served on him on the 19th
14.0'ne.11" January. The fifth article simply annexed
'4,' of the instrument of revocation and prohibition.
he ugh Mr, Gladstone denied the truth of those articles
admitted the two subsequent ones, that the instru-
tneat eatsbore the signatere of the Bishop, and also his
th;t4coPal seal. The question was whether it had been
CY served. It wat first said the service of the revoca-
a`dn and prohibition ought to be proved by two wil-
t:lees; but he was of opinion that it was only necessary
`° bring the issuing of the instrument to the knowledge
Of Mr. Gladstone, and that a formal service in the pre-
lahatice of witnesses was not necessary. That Mr. Gladstone
was made acquainted with the nature of the document was
„e'lced beyond all doubt by the evidence adduced in the
the
It was first served on him at his chapel on Sunday,
the
18th, previous to divine service, and as he denied
ele validity of the service on that occasion, it was s
-e.9,14ni1y served at his residence, in accordance with his
°t
--11„aPPointment. The next objection was that the licence
13° t'4ach was not given during the Bishop's pleasure,
but eh
„ solutely; but a witness stated that he saw the
Zttee in the registry, and that it was " daring pleasure.
of
supposing it was an absolute one, the authority
e.'-'1h Dillon was directly applicable to the present
eft"; because he held, and he thought properly, that in
pe eases tho sumo power which gave a license had the
,htiver to recal it. But there was every reason to sup-
Vise the license to Mr. Gladstone was during pleasure.
instterument being therefore legal and le-
gal'
served, and Mr. Gladstone having ad-
pcQd
that on the following Sunday he publicly
to Itched and read prayers, &c., and continued
"0 so up to the present time, or at least until he
; rade his admissions, there appeared to him complete
°°f, either in the evidence of witnesses or in the ad-
eillialeions of the party himself, that he was guilty of the
ence with which he was charged. After alluding to
B"'T
°11:11e other technical objections the Learned Judge con-
BClUded thus:—l am, therefore, of opinion that the
ishop of London had power to revoke the license at
his will and pleasure, and had power to prohibit Mr.
4Gladstone from continuing to perform divine service in
V'lo chapel; and that, notwithstanding the revocation ot the
ctuse-and the prohibition of the Bishop, he has still
Continued to perform divine service. That being so, I
h Consideru the facts charged iu the articles are supported
et3:ohatifficient proof, and I therefore admonish Mr. Glad-
prayers, from publicly
Dre" to refrain from reading
divineoffices in the uncon-
the
future, until he
oh rated chapel of Long-acre for
t!killsl a license from the Bishop, and from performing
1,1,71,,,e0 service there or elsewhere within the diocese of
Itteli6,ll, in the province of Canterbury, until be obtains
I,l;:eeTrla°, and I likewise condemn. him in cots.
against Elll3B, the proctor, mid ho would appeal
the decision.
--utie the
—"'E---Very

S RI, -r,
11-71--ers' COURT.—(IIIIS DAY.)
*'C fore JAMES BURCHELL, Esq., Under Sheriff.)
C"4"3 WIND-UP OF A CHANCERY SUIT--InSGOOD
This V. LLOYD.
aseert . was an inquiry under a process in outlawry, to
defend what land, tenements, goods, and chattels the
Sli 7"„aut was possessed of within the bailiwick of the
itti`",..,(4 Middlesex.
the r• 4.lloalr'sorr CHITTY appeared, for the plaintiff in
itid suit, and stated that, the plaintiff had obtained a
totit„Merli against the defendant in one of the courts of
adopts 4 law end the present - proceeding had been
te,cld to obtain any property tielonjng to the de-
atii. 144,80 a 8 to secure the plaintiff to the extent of the
lwast9itituiltte:d:le; and although the present proceedings were
by the Crown, and the property
be delivered a'tuallY foifeited to the Crown, it would
delivered up to the creditor. Tee defendant in the
present,e action bad been the plaintiff in a suit of Clian•
an? L 4114 by a cross bill had been made a defendant in
et -•"' amt. In the first suit he was entitled to a sum
the 244 15i., and
in the other to a larger amount, never-
leassubject to any decree of the Master.
of the
etiellartl°ollg.edhiscu'aion ensued, for the judgment
,me, as theittnucrY had not been drawn up for want of.
Judgment was only delivered in April last,
84.01'9u14-inutes °rlahe judittnetit were produced, hut were
cluTrltree7tfel:alitgtis,..,,i3e—y
nituilt the Learned tinder-Sheriff re•
. LEARNED colnisEL
might be put in form.
the minutes would not take a minute.
The UNDER SH said that the transcribing
take the other cases.
- Ellirl.
W on, and I will
-- ell, then, go
Mr. Uovvell Leach, the '
Ininutes of the judgment.
Air cu reg&strar, deposed to the
ordeernwt
, • ITTY said the jiicigm
out the drawing uof the the defendant .
manc ln this action mi I- could
aothneort be altered,
—ut take up the order in