The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-20 00:00:00

LETTS'S DIARY FOR 1855.

With the return of cold weather Letts's Diary is
sure to make its regular appearance, but with a
correctness and regularity to which the season lays
no claim. We have examined the present diary
minutely, and find many improvements, with ab-
stracts of Parliamentary acts relating to trade,
commerce, and other useful matters.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

QUEEN'S BENCH.
THE CASE OF ARCHDEACON DENISON.

Sir F. Thesiger applied to the court for a rule to show
cause why a prohibition should not issue to his Grace the
Archbishop of Canterbury, prohibiting him from proceed-
ing under the 3 and 4 Victoria, commonly galled the Church
Discipline Act, in a case of erroneous doctrine against the
Venerable George Anthony Denison, Archdeacon of
Taunton and Vicar of East Brent, in the diocese of Bath.
This proceeding arose out of two sermons preached by the
Archdeacon in the Cathedral Church of Bath and Wells,
on the 7th August and 16th November, 1853, in which it
was alleged the Archdeacon advocated the doctrine of the
real presence in the Holy Eucharist, which was repugnant
to the 39 Articles of the Church of England. In conse-
quence of those sermons, the Rev. Joseph Ditcher, th
vicar of a parish in the same diocese, made a formal com-
plaint to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the Arch-
bishop seemed to have thought that the proper course for
the reverend gentleman to pursue was to cite the Arch-
deacon before his diocesan, with the view of being prose-
cuted in the Court of Arches, and he wrote a letter to Os,
then Bishop of Bath and Wells calling his attention to the
case, and giving that opinion upon it. In consequenee
of this correspondence the Rev. Mr. Ditcher was
induced to proseut to the Bishop a series of
formal charges against the Archdeacon in the shape of
articles to be filed in the Court of Arches, and those arti-
cles were founded upon sermons preached by the Arch-
deacon, which were directly repugnant to the Articles of
religion as by law established, and against the provisions
of the 13th of Elizabeth, chap. 12, sec. 2, which gives the
Bishop the power of deprivation. Instead, however, of
causing these Articles to be exhibited in the Arches Court
the Bishop called upon the Archdeacon to give some ex-
planation of his conduct, and after receiving his explana-
tion the Bishop admonished him for the error he had com-
mitted, but declined to issue letters of request to the
Dean of the Arches for proceeding further in the matter,
because he did not think it would be for the interest of
the Church that the case should be kept alive. Soon after-
wards the Bishop died, and upon the appointment of his
successor, Lord Auckland, the Rev. Mr. Ditcher made
another attempt to have the matter carried into the Arches
Court, but Lord Auckland refused to interfere, declaring
that, as tho case had been disposed of by his predeces-
sor, he had no right to do so. Thereupon the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury gave the Archdeacon notice
of his intention to issue a commission under the 3d and
4th Vic., for the purpose of ascertaining what were thoroal
opinions of the Archdeacon, and it was with the -view of
prohibiting the issue of that commission that the present
motion was made. It was contended that the Rev. Mr.
Ditcher haying chosen in the first instance to proceed
under the old statute of Elizabeth, the Bishop had the
power of either sending the case to the Court of Arches or
dealing with it personally, and having elected to take the
latter course it must be taken that his decision was finals
If the Bishop had no right to exercise such a discretion
under the statute, but was bound to issue letters of request
as a ministerial act, then the parties should have come to
this Court for a mandamus to compel htra to perform that
act; but the Bishop had the power to adopt either of the
alternatives, and his decision being therefore final, the
matter could not again be re-opened by an inferior tri-
bunal like a commission under the Church Discipline Act-
Lord Campbell said the Court would take time to look
into the acts, and if there was no doubt about the matter
a rule would bo granted ; but it was to be lamented that
questions of religious doctrine like that involved in this
case should have to be discussed in a lay court, and if there
should be any doubt in the matter the Court would not
hesitate to refuse the rule.

LORD DUDLEY STUART, M.P.—During the last two
or three days an extensively circulated rumour has Pr'
vailed throughout the metropolitan borough of 14Iaryle"
bone that a vacancy had occurred, or was likely to occur,
in its representation, by the demise of Lord Dudley
Coutts Stuart, M.P. The following circumstances have
given rise to this rumour, which, unhappily, we regret
to say, has too good a foundation in fact :—lt appears
that, on Thursday last, a telegraphic message was re'
ceived at his lordship's residence, in Stratford-place, and
the English embassy at Stockholm, in which capital the
noble lord has been staying for some weeks past an-
nouncing that his lordship, who has undergone a serious
attack of small-pox and typhus fever, was then lying in
a dangerous state, arising from inflammation of the lungs,
Mich had supervened, and without the slightest hope Of
recovery. Great alarm prevailed on Friday amongst the
relatives and friends of the noble lord, arising from the
circumstance that, although a telegraphic message viad
sent from England, inquiring as to the state of Lord
Dudley Stuart, no reply whatever was received. O 3
inquiry being made yesterday in Stratford-place, the
statement was that a telegraphic message had been re-
ceived that morning from Stockholm, announcing that
the noble lord was better, but by no means out oi.
danger.—QMlTCl'.