The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-19 00:00:00

VTR AIM," LONDON, RAPrunriAv. JUNE 191

REPRESENTATION OF ?fIARYLE-

DAL)
An important fact was ascertained this morning, on a com-
parison of the canvass-books for the district of Camden-town,
in w hich Mr. Cabbell and Sir J. Hamilton are personally
canvassing, and in which the relations of Sir James have eon-
sii:erable influence. The promises for Hall and Napier are
exictly FOUR to ONE against those given to Cabball and Ha-
milton. This •act is the more encouraging, as the personal
canvass of Cabbell and Hamilton has been aided by the active
and per,evering canvass of the influential and popular ladies
who reside in the district, and are connected with the families
of the Tory Candidates.
In the other districts the returns up to one o'clock were
equally promising. The zeal of the Tory ladies was exhibited
in the most open and earnest manner in Somers Town and
South Pancras. It was amusing to observe the eage:aess and
activity with which they distributed their smiles, orders for
goods, and blue tickets amongst the shops of the Small trades-
men. The result has been that, in one broker's shop, and one
small grocer's, the blue billsof the Torieshave been substituted
for Young's. 'Tis fact. But neither of the exhibitors have
a rote

SUCCESSFUL. CANVASS OF WORKMEN.
Sir Flenjamin Hall and Sir C. Napier this morning visited
the pianoforte fac ory cf Messt s Collard, in Tottenham-court-
road (as has been usual for all candidates in late elections),
for the purpose of soliciting the votes of the numerous
electors, who are to be found amongst the large body
of first class mechanics, employed in this extensive
establishment. The candid-des were greeted with cordial
cheering, and after having held long conversations with the
workmen in the several departments, and with the high-
est mutual satisfaction, all the electors in the establish-
ment (amounting to upwards of fifty,) except four,
promised their votes, and early attendance at the
poll, to Hall and Napier. Of the four electors who did not
promise one was absent, but his principles are known to be
Conservative; one Conservative frankly refused his vote, as
did two of the supporters of the new Chartist, or dis-union
candidate.

•
QUEEN'S BENCH -(THIS DAY.)
THE QUEEN V. THE PROPRIETORS OF THE RAILWAY TIMES.
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which was an
application for a criminal information against the defendants
for an alleged libel upon the Eastern Counties Railway Com-
pany. The libel charged the Directors of the Company with
the wilful publication of false reports of the state of the affairs
of the Company with a view to deceive the public or the Share-
holders, or both. Now, bearing in mind that the Court re-
quired a direct denial of the statements, whatever they might
be, in the alleged libel, and considering the manner in which
that denial had been given, without intending in the slightest.
degree to question the veracity of the party by whom the denial
had been made, it appeared to them that ti.ere was some
ground in these reports and proceedings for the allusions made
to them, and for raising a doubt as to the accuracy of these re-
ports, although not to the extent of making injurious remarks
to the prejudice of the Company. Upon the whole, however,
bearing in mind the opportunity given to the Directors to deny
these allegations fully and entirely, and that another remedy
was open to them if they chose to avail themselves of it, the
Court was of opinion that the application would be most pro-
perly disposed of by discharging the rule on the payment of
costs.--Rule discharged. _ _

THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND DR.

PHILLIMORE.
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which hacrbien
argued at considerable length during the present term. The
proceedings in this case might be very shortly strtal. His
Grace the Archbishop. as Ordinary, cited the Dean and Chap-
ter of York to attend a Viqtation, and appointed the learned
civilian, Dr. Phillimore, as his Commissary for the correction
and punishment, by ecclesiastical law, of whoever was contu-
macious, and for the administration of articles, and receiving
their pre-entments and answers, and for doing everything else
pyriaining to the quality of the Visitation. The ancient for-
mula were observed, and there seemed no reason to doubt that
there was sufficient authority to inquire into the ecclesiastical
effences cf everybody concerned. At the first meeting the
Dean attended, and an inquiry was made respecting the sale of
some Church preferment, of which he was said to have re-
ceived the proceeds. He conductedhimself on that occasion in
such a manner as was deemed contumacious, and sentence of
contempt was, by the Commissary, pronounced against him.
He then departed, and the proceedings went on, and, in hi;
absence, the Rev. Mr. Dixon, one of the Canons, made a
direct charge of simony against the Dean. He was accord-
ingly requested to attend, and did an, but the Commis-
sary required bin-, in the first place, to purge him.
pelf of the contempt, but he declined to do so.
He again absented himself, saying, not by way of courting in-
vestigation but of defiance, that Mr. Dixon might go on with
his charge. The Learned Commissary was of opinion that the
charge was established, and that the Dean for that offence
should be deprived of his office. Senterce of deprive. ioa was
afterwards solemnly pronounced by his Grace the Archbishop.
Prohibition was claimed on several grounds, and a late Act of
Parliament, the 2d and 3d Victoria, ch. 86, " for the better
enforcing Church Discipline," was relied upon. The enactment
was qualified by a proviso that nothing in the Act should be
construed to affect any authority over the clergy in their re-
spective provinces which the Archbishop or Bishop might then
exercise without process of Court. The 23d section was also
quoted, which provided that no proceedings in criminal offences
should be instituted, except in the manner provided by that Act.
It was contended that although sec. Ist of the general enactment
extended to all offences, and although " causes," a word well
understood, were the only proceedings mentioned in the pre-
amble, the 23d aec. provided that the statute shall be observed
in all criminal proceedings instituted in matters ecclesiastical.
But the question was, was this a criminal proceeding or arising
out of the visitation ? The answer appeared to be, that as soon
as the visitor proceeded to examine into the ecclesiastical
offences which were alleged against the Dean, and more espe-
cially when that charge was regularly made at the instance of
an accuser, a criminal proceeding was undoubtedly instituted.
It was further alleged that the proceedings in such eases must lie
in some Ecclesiastical Court, and that this was not an Ecclesiasti-
cal Court fur such a purpo-:e. Now that brought them to the ques-
tion of whether the Archbishop, as visitor, was legally entitled to
deprive the Dean of his office for an ecclesiastical offence,without
the interference of a Court of Law. In order to come to that con-
clusion it must be established to their satisfaction that such was
the mode of proceeding in former times, but no example of
such a power having been exercised by the Archbishop and
clergy, even in regular and solemn visitation, had been laid
before them. It was admitted that they were exempted to a
certain extent at these visitations from the forms of common
law, but some forms, as far as regarded the knowing and an-
swering the charge, were absolutely necessary. The different
modes of dealing with the charges had been enumerated; in the
ordinary case articles were exhibited, and the party had time and
place given him, and then sentence waspronounced, but, accord-
ing to all their experience and knowledge of the proceedings in
these Courts,not without process. It was well known that the as-
sumed want of the power now claimed was one reason for intro-
ducing the present law, and the Court was aware that the juris-
diction of visitors had been very distinctly defined by Lord
Holt, Mr. S. Kinner, and other common law authorities.
The Learned Judge here referred to the various authorities
that had been cited and the arguments that had been founded
upon the decisions in these eases. From all these cases, and a
review of all the arguments urged before them, the Court was
constrained to conclude that the most Rev. Prelate, in so far
as he had proceeded at a visitation to deprive the Dean, had
acted beyond his jurisdiction. They declined to enter upon
the consideration of the numerous points of objection that had
been urged en behalf of the Learned Commissary ; but there
was one which the Court thought it was fitting should
be disposed of on the present occasion. it was argued
that the sentence was final, and that there was no power
in that Court to interfere. That argument required to be
narrowly watched, because if carried out to the fullest extent
it might be used to give effect to unlawful proceedings. In
looking at the words of the sentence, they found that the Dean
was aoni,hed not to act, on pain of the greater sentence of
excommunication ; but it should be remembered that the Dean
could not appeal before the sentence had been pronounced,
because the deprivation was the only thing done beyond the
jurisdiction of the Archbishop. Up to that point certainly his
Grace had the power to interfere, with a view to ulterior pro-
ceedings, and it appeared that the Lord Chancellor had in one
case dissolved the prohibition, because the appeal was
made before sentence had been pronounced. The Court,
if it felt any doubt whatever, would feel itself bound to invite
further discussion, by calling upon the Dean of York to de-
clare in prohibition ; but after the full, the long, and the ma-
turely prepared discussion that had taken place, enforced by
the arguments of the most eminent Counsel, and with the
highest legal ability, they owed it to all parties—they owed it
to the public, and in a particular manner they owed it to the
Church, to encourage no doubt where they felt none, on a sub-
ject of such immense importance and so deeply affecting its
rights, its interests, and its duties. The rule for the prohibi-
tion must, therefore, be made absolute.

_
CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.
OLD COURT.

Michael Connor, aged 12, and Catherine M' Grath, aged
10, were isdicted for feloniously breaking and entering the
dwelling-house of .10119 Smith, and stealing one coat, one
pair of trowsers, one waistcoat, and other articles to the value
of 3/.

The female prisoner was admitted as Queen's evidence.
'the prosecutor was brother-in-law to the prisoner, and on
the day in question he had gone out, and while away, the pri-
soner obtained a key with which he entered the room of the
prosecutor, and committed the robbery with which he was
charged. The female prisoner was in company with the pri-
soner, but took no part in the robbery.
The Jury returned a verdict of gui.ty.,
There was another count in the indictment, charging the
prisoner with a previous conviction, when he was transported
for ten yeas, which sentence was commuted. Ho had also
been in prison many times. The prisoner was sentenced to
fifteen years' transportation.