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

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE

(Renewed applause.) He had left the colony of the
Cape of Good Hope—alluding to its civil administra-
tion—without one particle of its public business left un-
done, and he had left a treasury without a debt—Hear,
hear)—a people improving among themselves, and only
in want of the active operation of the constitut ion he
had so strenuously endeavoured to get for them. But he
must admit that her Majesty's late Government were
very desirous of giving to the Cape the advantagf as of a
constitution. Therefore, whilst he submitted reedily to
the position in which he was now placed, he cou'ld with
safety state that he had done all that lay in his ptwer to
lead the army to success, and to the good civil admiinistra-
tion of the colony committed to his charge--so as to leave
matters to his Gallant Friend, his successor, in a. fair
position as regarded bringing to a termination that con-
dition of the Cape which had been of so much mischief
to itself and expense to the mother country. The ad-
dress presented to him breathed a hope that Provi-
dence would still vouchsafe its protection to him. This
reminded him of the past, that when adjutant of three
companies at the storming of Monte Video, he happened
to be fast asleep when the regiment was ordered to fall
in. He was called up by a brother officer, when his
first ejaculation was, "Oh Lord, in Thee have I put my
trust, let me never be confounded."—(Loud applause.)
And he came out of that terrific storming unscathed;
and ever since those words had been his safeguard and
guide. In conclusion, he said, that as it was Ports-
mouth that cheered him on his departure to the Cape,
he felt bound to be more explicit with them on re-
turning triumphant and victorious from that plane. Ho
could assure thorn that any trouble in which be had
been involved had been amply repaid by their kindness.

PRICES OF SHARES

IN BANKS, ASSURANCE, AND OTHER COM,
PANIES' STOCK.
From the Official List.

PUBLISHED EVERT TUESDAY AND FRIDAY EVENING,
L9NDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 1.

SOINT-SIVOCZ a& XS.

MORTALITY in the METROPOLIS.
NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM ALL CAUSES REGISTERED IN
THE WEEK ENDING SATURDAY, MAX 29, less.
Epidemic, Endemic, and Contagious Diseases —.4'205
Diseases of Uncertain Seat ••• ••• ••• ••• 44
Tubercular Diseases ...
... 177
Diseases of the Brain, Nerves, and Senses... ... 104
Diseases of the Heart and 8100d-vessels ... 40
Diseases of the Lungs, and other Organs of
Respiration ••• ••• 4r•• .........115
Diseases of the Stomach, Liver, and other Organs
of Digestion... ••• .1••• .•• ••• ••• 50
Diseases of the Kidneys, &c.
•• • ••• ••• 11
Childbirth, Diseases of the Uterus, &C. ... 9
Diseases of the Joints, Bones, and Muscles ••• 10
Diseases of the Skin, &o. 0
Malformations... ...
Premature Birth ... 3'(5:1
Atrophy ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 20
Old Age ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 41
Sudden ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 5
violence, Privation, Cold, and Intemperance ... 15
Causes not specified ...

DEATIIS FROM ALL CAUSES ...
Population Deaths in cone-
Enumet aled, sponding week
1051. of 1851.
West Districts... 376,427 153
North Districts.. 490,396 177
Central Districts 393,256 157
East Districts ... 485,522
••• 218 •
South Districts.. 616,635 ... 285

..... 2,362,236
Males ...
Females ... •••

990

883
Deaths
in tile
Week.
138

... 883

... 477
... 406

... 776
... 640

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. Giadstone 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 •
tats, where the title given to the Pope was Dominus
Deus nester pater. It was an error that could not be
alloveed to remain on the records of the Court.
Dr. BA.YFORD 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 had 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 th©
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 JUDOM inquired whether this was not
the court of the province?
Dr. SPINKS replied, that the archbishop was the ordi-
nary of the bishops, not of the subjects of the bishops.
Dr. Addam3, 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. Ho 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 of 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 licento could not be revoked; the pro-
moter
presumed that it could. The question was,
whether doing duty on the £sth 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 steted
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?
Por 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; hut, it the Learned Judge confirmed the
instrument, although Mr. Gladstone might appeal against
the decision on the point of law, yet ho would submit to
the sentence of the Court, end wait until the judgment
of the superior court had been obtained. It eras with
him merely a question of conscientious duty; he thought
that the bishop had assumed a power which ho 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 VMS laid down in Sir George Lee',e cases, and also
in Oughton. Propzietary chapels were recognised in
the Ce arch 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 ho 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 Emus,. 01 the
cases cited ho was only concerned with two, " Hodgson
v. Dillon," and " Barnes is. Shore." The question as to
revocation of the license was never raised in tho 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 me without a
trial;" but the Bishop said, " No, my will is the
law." In Dr. Dillou'a case: there was an exercise of
usurped power for good, but Hallam, in his work on the
middle ages, showed to what gzievous abuses such an
exercise of power was liable. The doubtful precedent
in " Hodgson is. 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 punishment, the most serious consequences
might result. By the ancient law, as laid down in
Gregory's Decretals," a bishop could not
had been
a
I
clergymen without giving him a trial.
to the l said
that proprietary chapels were unknown d
law, for
that the ministerstad a nondescript andtitle, that was
the reason why they were under the arbitary politer of
the bishop; bat he contended that the law was so expo_
sive in its nature that its circle enlarged by the
aele applica-
tion of principles to particulars. Thera w
ana-
logy between the office of preacher and lecturersnd
the minister of an unconsecrated chapalnl
had
a. cases
the license was the same; w
bano
it as an admission of the
qualification of the party, and, as the bishop
a ice
Onrahinabids.
tures tp, so
power over the license granted to
beenerf
ho had no power over thlavthgerreanatpepdlietostai
an unconsecrated chapel.
compel a bishop to grant a
to
made for a menden:lnsrefaced, but there license it bad been invariablyhe i were no
oror at common cases in the books,
either
and discussed aw, where
the question had been raised as to whether
the bishop could revoke a license. In the 11th article of
Archbishop Laud's impeachment he was charged with
silencing orthodox preachers, to which he replied that he
cans© proved in
had not done it except upon just
that he did court,
and according to law—a proof not Claim the
Mon gave 447 forms of proceeding, but
right.
single •revoking a license. That, for
nse. ...hat, was
not a single term
argument. Ayliffe gave long
chapter strong negative a
chapter
on suepension, but he never Spoke of the power
as being exercised arbitrarily and without process. The
's case et,
on in Mr. Gladstoneas, in fact, suspen-
susponsi
b neficio. The promot
sion ab officio of e or must prove
h.b. el
©remoter
that be had power to pro it ac er yman from doing
h le of the diocese, as was at..
duty
case, and, unless he did, the
instrument was bad,
tempted in this
for it could
not be good in
part and bad in part. ( Rex is, Page," 5 East, 3430
given by the
The evidence apparitor afforded a strong
that the power now claimed by the
argument Bishop
policy. $® stated was against public that he attempted
to serve the instrument on Sunday morning just before
the service, whereas the Legislature had passed a law
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'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,i t must be given in favour of the party for whom he
appeared.
Dr. BAYIGED, 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-was no crime for which to proceed. Theo:mils
sion of the word " in" occurred in the recital of the let.
tors 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. Gentleman being cited
out of the diocese; bat 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-
risdiction extended throughout the province, It was
impossible to contend successfully that Mr.
Gladstone
held preferment in the diocese of n
Londo T •
had given notice to Mr. Glatisto _ . he Bishop
ne or the revocation of
his Loewe' and he immediately, entered
denying the right of the Bishop
to do it, and then, on
a formal protest,
the following Sunday, conducted p
the service as usual.
What necessity was there
whether he performed the se
for a commission to inquirervice on that day ? Mush
had been said as to the
building being unconsecrated,
but it made no difference whether it was consecrated or
not. He
did
not depend upon that, but upon the power
to revoke the
_license. It had been said that there was
n 0 proof that the instrument had been served with the
knowledge and under the directions of the Bishop; but
for whet purpose did his Lordship put his hand to it and
affix his seal, if ho did not intend it to be delivered? In
" Barnes v. Shore" the proceedings took place on the
assumption that Dir. Shore was still a clerglinani the

3, 1852,

ease, therefore, was not open to the distinction which
had been drawn. In " Hodgson v. Dillon" it was
said that the judgment was based on a fallacy, but
before he could assent to that statement he must hear
stronger grounds than had been urged by his Learned
Friend. That decision merely carried out the principle
which had been adopted in other cases. In an unen-
dewed lectureship there was no reason why the bishop
should not withdraw the license if ho deemed it neces-
sary. Archbishop Laud said he never punished without
good cause, and Mr. Gladstone would not ; be punished
unless there was ground shown for ft. The tact that
Oughton gave no form for revoking a license only
proved that no form was required. In "Freeland r.
Neale," a private letter from the bishop was held to be
sufficient. The Duke of Portland, as lay rector,
cited a clergyman to bring in a license granted by the
bishop, The statements made as to the effect 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
clergyman could not be arrested when going to church,
but ho (Dr. Baylord) 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
ha 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 was the
Persona' 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-
ceediege.

The Learned JUDGE raid 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.
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 19th 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 Daykin attempted to rescue him with
some of the mob, and got Shipp down and kicked him
about the heed and body, saying that he would tety him
out. Some of the people also throw brickbats and tiles
at them from the tops of the houses. During the affray
Daykin assaulted the other policemen, and Blackmore
struck one of them with a bludgeon on the head. He
became insensible from tho blow, and Shipp was so in-
jured that ho 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'Bunie said that he should call a witness to
prove that one of the policemen struck Daykin on the
head before ho interfered at all, and that this unprovoked
assault on him made him commit the offence) he was
charged with. He then called
Marianne Florent, who stated that, seeing a crowd, she
went up to see the row. Dobson was fighting, and was
taken into custody. Daykin was standing by, and only
asked the policemen to let the man go quietly and ho
struck him over the head with hie staff. Day kin asked
hire what he did that for, anclhit him again, and she
then wont away.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE having briefly summed up,
The jury returned a verdict of
Miiman, 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 had twelve
months' imprisenment for " ringing changes" at Wool-
wich (this., he explained, was gcetiug change at a shop,
subsituting a bad shilling for a good one among the
change, end 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
Daykin to eight months', Blockmore to four months',
and Dobson to two months' imprisonment with hard
labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WESTIIHNSTE It.
The public sympathy, at all times alive to cases of
distrees, 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, bad 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 he 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 man named Gibbons and his wife, who had
known her in her prosperity. Although she had re-
ceived affectionate letters from her husband, mho was
a gentleman of property, he had in no way contributed
since ho loft 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 her con-
duct as a wife to have been must 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 quo itiOD, 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, till on the following day,
in cute,equeece of certain communications the public were
cautioned against contributing anything to the relief 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 on 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
as 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
fetchingt h et he r
spirits for her from a (applicant's) children
dmriignhktinhgavwe woman, and ne dn
fr pud blic-
she:
house in d she herself, unwilling to lose the only
ien had i her misery, and thus lose the shelter
of her humble roof, had on twooer three occasions herself
procured cordials for her. Although a drinking woman,
her hostess had been very kind to her, and had afforded
her children shelter.
Mr. ARNOLD intimated that he 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
nny
Infa us 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 ho did.
Mr. ARNOLD inquired what he knew of her.
occasions
drunk; replied that ho had seen her on several 0 f
tl3O
drunk; on one occasion so drunk that she fellbad seen
out
door of the Globe public•house, at Chelsea.
her with Life Guardsmen, and about 10 or
he saw her go into a brothel with a man in Hooper's-
i weeks ago
court, Keightsbriige. l
-a be had frequently
and said Wright, 39 B, was called,
seen her drunk.
Mr. ARNOLD said the inquiry
;was a very painful one,
wished to mike any reply to it.
Applicant, who had
and asked whether she
sobbed considerably during these
s not a particle of env h in them.
She said there
"the streots four or five - e
ve w e..
She had been wandering
d imputed imprener
had before stated, and they ho •
as sire
motives to
her in consequence. She neither knew the
Globe, nor uooreeee-court, and felt quite shock d at
said.
what had been.d
th
e applicant ino• •
Q)
stoutly dt -.lntim her innocence,
1.-; declare that she could disprore the allegations, that
an<
Mr. ARNOLD said he should be extremely sorry to
"me to a hasty conclusion, and, a; applicant leadheeen
taken by surprise, he Would adjourn the ease for fui.her inquiry.

Applicant expressed a hope that she should not be
PreiLicliced caIoIDY Or adataken identity, and en-