The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-16 00:00:00

truer notes'mAe by t im) I li4:1 ask. d whether he k .
Mr. Shore; and on hie answering that ' he had heard he
was a very troublesome person,' I abstained from making
any remark whatever."

A silence that spoke trumpet-tongued. Dull, in-
deed, must Mr. COSENS have been, if he could not un-
derstand this broad hint. Who can mistake the mean-
ing of this most eloquent silence P " The dodge," for
it deserves no other appellation—" the dodge " be-
tween COSENS and PHILLPOTTS is evident. The Bishop,
in the course of his letter, thinks it decent to sneer at
the conscientious scruples of those who, like Mr
SHORE, feel compelled to quit the church of HENRY,
Lord Bishop of Exeter. The speech of the Rev.
THOMAS BINNEY at the great meeting held at Exeter
on Wednesday week, affords a complete answer to the
episcopal insinuations. That Rev. Gentleman said :
" I have very little doubt now that there must be
something lying at the bottom of this Mr. Shore's case,
connected with Mr. Shore's want of sympathy with those
certain peculiarities of opinion which distinguish a cer-
tain section of the Church—l suppose there is something
in that.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, it is a very serious matter,
indeed, the state to which we are coming at present.
Separation from the Church, sir! Why, a young man
may, 20 years ago, have conscientiously subscribed the
articles and bound himself to the Church of England on
entering it; but now, sir, if you talk about his leaving
the Church, I say ho is not leaving the same Church—
(Hear, hear.) It has become so altered in its spirit, in
its opinions—there has been such a rise, such a gigantic
rapid growth of it all the land over; the ecclesiastical
spirit of this country, or of the Establishment of this
aouitry, has become altogether a different thing from
what it was 20 or 30 years ago; and I can conceive,
therefore, that a man who had signed the articles and
gone into the Church at the age of 23, with great sim-
plicity and seriousness of mind, may now, sir, at the age
of 4$ or a little older, with all his matured experience
and inward life and feeling, look upon the state of things
with which he is mixed up, and wish from the depth of
his soul to depart from it, as a duty towards God—and
he ought certainly to have the power of doing so."
Not only was there in Mr. SHORE'S case a want of
sympathy for " those certain peculiarities of opinion"
by which the Bishop of EXETER sets so much store,
but there was also " a private grief," for a knowledge
of which we are indebted to the searching cross-
examination of the Bishop by Mr. Cocx-auttp4, in the
case of the QUEEN a. LA.TIMSR. The Bishop, on his
cross-examination, said "he had no difference with
Mr. SHORE, but on one occasion he had reproved him
in reference to the part he had taken in the Chudleigh
election, in which place the inhabitants have a right
to elect the minister. Mr. SHORE having been a can-
didate, with Mr. PALK and Mr. CUMMINGS, had ad-
dressed a circular to the electors, resigning in favour
of Mr. PALE. He reproved him." He "had particu-
larly cautioned Mr. COSENS with regard to Bridge-
town, and probably advised him to make inquiry as
to Mr. SHORE. He had not given the same caution
to Mr. Bxowri" (the former rector), "although he bad
continually seen hit. from time to time. The
time that he had given the caution was after the
Chudleigh election." After this it is scarcely neces-
sary to state that Mr. PALL. was a clergyman of
evangelical principles, like Mr. SHORE, and that had
both stood, the Puseyite candidate would have been
elected. In the Western Times of Saturday we find
the following letter from the Rev. JAMES SHORE :
St. Thomas's Gaol, April 13, 1849.
" Dear Sir,—l write you a hasty line, just as your
paper is going to press, to tell you that I have this
morning received a pamphlet, written by the Bishop of
Exeter, on my case.

" lam glad that the Bishop of Exeter has taken this
step. We shall now be able to test his statement by the
facts, when ti will be seen that the Bishop's letter greatly
damages his etwn case as it regards myself. He begins
by admitting that the law ought to be altered, and yet
he has been enforcing against me a law which ho now
condemns by that admission.
" The Bishop has endeavoured to make out bis case
with his usual ingenuity, but ingenuity is badly exer-
cised, if it be not accompanied with candour. The
Bishop has mutilated my correspondence, leaving out
parts the most important, and entirely misrepresenting
the matter throughout as it regards myself.
" What his Lordship states on the authority of a me-
morandum from Mr. Cosens, is entirely a fabrication, so
far as I am concerned, from beginning to end.
" I reserve myself for a full answer to these misrepre-
sentations. " I am, &c.,

" JAMES SHORE."

Except as far as Mr. SHORE is himself personally
concerned, we think that he may save himself the
trouble of writing an answer to the statements con-
tained in the Bishop's letter. That letter consists
chiefly of a history of the negotiations with the Duke
of SOMERSET on the subject of Bridgetown Chapel,
and is merely a repetition of the statement made by
the Bishop in the House of Lords, and subsequently
deposed to by him as the principal witness for the
prosecution in the case of the " QUEEN r. LATIMER ;"
a statement which, after the verdict of the jury in that
case, needs neither refutation nor contradiction.
That case, it will be recollected, was a prosecution
instituted at the instance of the Bishop of EXETER
against the proprietor of the Western Time: news-
paper for the publication of a libel. The defendant
admitted the publication of the libel, but pleaded that
he- was justified in uttering the alleged libel because
it was true, and that the publication of it was for the
public benefit. The case was tried at Exeter on
the 27th March, 1848, before Mr. Baron PLATT and a
special jury, the special jury having been struck by
the desire of the Bishop. Mr. CROWDER, the counsel
for the prosecution, having gone through the history
of the persecution, secession, and prosecution of Mr.
SHORE, proceeded to state that after the failure of Mr.
SEIORE'S attempt to procure a prohibition from the
Court of Queen's Bench to stop proceedings in the
Court of Arches, that gentleman petitioned the
House of Lords, his petition being presented by Lord
BROUGHAM. " Having presented the petition," said
Mr. CROWDER, " Lord BROUGHAM made some obser-
vations in the House of Lords, and in consequence of
those observations the Bishop of EXETER conceived it
to be his duty to make a statement, in the course of
which he said that he had originally granted a licence
to Mr. SHORE upon receiving the assurance of the
Duke of SOMERSET, first, that he would endow the
chapel referred to, and secondly, that the building
should only be used for Divine worship accord-
ing to the rites and ceremonies of the
Church of England. He (the Bishop) was
grieved to say that his Grace had departed from
his engagements." After relating the' proceedings
which the Bishop had instituted against Mr. SHORE,
Mr. CROWDER continued—" A short time afterwards
Lord SEYMOUR, son of the Duke of SOMERSET, and
Member for Totnes, called a meeting of his consti-
tuents, for the purpose of adverting to certain mis-
statements that had been made in the House of Lords
respecting the Duke of SOMERSET. At that meeting
Lord SEYMOUR addressed them, and in the course of
his remarks charged the Bishop of EXETER with
having uttered a deliberate falsehood in the state-
ment he had made in the House of Lords. This
speech was afterwards inserted in the newspaper of
which the defendant is the editor, and upon which the
editor commented. The comment of the editor upon
that speech is the subject of the present indictment."
Mr. CocicsußN, the counsel for the defence, said in the
course of the trial, " that as the real question at issue
was between the Duke of SOMERSET and the Bishop
of EXETER, it would be for the jury to decide which
of these exalted persons had been guilty of misstating
the facts connected with the case ;" and Mr. Baron i
PLATT in charging the jury, said, that " if they should
be of opinion, on the second issue, that the Duke of
SOMERSET had broken his engagement with regard to
the chapel at Bridgetown, in that case, as the Bishop
would have uttered that which was perfectly true in
the House of Lords, the justification of that libel
would fail, and it would be their duty to find a verdict
for the Crown on the issue." The jury (a special
jury, be it remembered) found a verdict for the
defendant on the second issue, which was, ac-
cording to Mr. Baron PLATT, tantamount to finding
that that which the Bishop had uttered in the House
of Lords was not perfectly true, and which was really
and in express terms finding that the defendant was
" justified in publishing the libel charging the
Bishop of EXETER with ' deliberate falsehood,' be-
cause it was true, and the publication of it was for
the public benefit." After this solemn decision of a
jury, it is surely unnecessary to notice further any-
thing that may be said by the Bishop of EXETER on
the subject of the Duke of SOMERSET, Lord SEY-
MOUR, Mr. SHORE, or Bridgetown Chapel,

MME. WILSON, THE SCOTTISH VostaList--This
gentleman's career in the United States is marked with
the same brilliant SUCCQSS which distinguished his former
visit to America. Charleston, Savannah, Colombia, and
Camden have lately been the scenes of his triumphs. In
the former city, so great was the enthusiasm with which
his entertainments were hailed, that he paid three visits
there. He states in his letters to his friends, that the
recitation of Tam O'Shanter " told well" at Charlaston
and Savannah ; and that the entertainment on Scott's
the
rks was equally warmly received at both places. By
to
Mobile and Nerolastaceonnts, Orleans.scemst The p
that hewaenGd of his return
was about to proceed
to England is not yet fixed.