The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-29 00:00:00

officiating minister. During ',this Correspondence it was
understood by the Bishop that the chapel should be ex-
clusively applied to the worship according to the rites of
the Church of England, and that although it was not
then required that the church should be immediately
consecrated before service should be performed, it was
distinctly understood that the church should be ulti-
mately consecrated, and upon this understanding a
license was granted by the:Bishop to!perform divine ser-
vice until consecration should take place. The Rev. Mr.
Edwards was the vicar of the parish at that time, and the
rectorial tithes being in the Duke of Somerset it was
necessary that the incumbent should nominate the indi-
vidual before the Bishop could grant a license. The in-
cumbent accordingly nominated the Rev. Mr. Shore, a
minister of the Church of England, and a license was
granted. In 1836 Mr. Brown became the incumbent of
the parish, and under him also Mr. Shore continued to
officiate in Bridgetown Chapel. In 1843 Mr. Cozens be
came the incumbent, and in consequence of some sup-
pesed difference with Mr. Shore with respect to his
doctrine being the proper doctrine of the Church of
England, Mr. Cozens deemed that Mr. Shore was
not a fit and proper person to be nominated and to
preach in Bridgetown. Mr. Shore applied to Mr. Co-
zens, but he refused to nominate him, and the Bishop
was, therefore, bound to refuse any new license, and he
revoked the license that had been granted ; and in the
early part of the year 1544, in consequence of this, Mr.
Shore declared himself to be a Protestant dissenting
minister, and for the purpose of continuing the service
in the chapel of Bridgetown, in February, 1844, the
chapel was registered by the Duke of Somerset, as a
place for the performance of dissenting worship in that
district, under an Act of Parliament authorising that
proceeding. Mr. Shore continued to officiate as the
minister, and in so doing was brought before the Court
of Arches, and condemned. He subsequently ap-
plied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a pro-
hibition, but failed; and then he presented a peti-
tion to the House of Lords, which was laid be-
fore the House by Lord Brougham. Having pre-
sented the petition, Lord Brougham made some obser-
vations in the House of Lords, and in consequence of
these 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 license to Mr.
Shor‘ upon receiving the assurance of the Duke of
Somerset—first, that he would endow the chapel refer-
red to; and secondly, that the building should only be
used for divine worship according to the rites and cere-
monies of tho Church of England. He (the Bishop) was
grieved to say thatlhie Grace had departed from both
engagemenls, and that subsequently, when the rector
who had succeeded to the rectory of Berry Pomeroy,
refused to nominate Mr. Shore, he (the Bishop) had re-
voked the license, and that Mr. Shore continuing to
officiate in the chapel, afterwards registered as a dissent-
ing chapel, he thought it necessary to proceed against
him for this breach of ecclesiastical discipline. This
having taken place in the House of Lords a short time
afterwards, Lord Seymour, son of the Duke of Somer-
set, and a Member for Totnes, called a meeting
of his constituents for the purpose of adverting to cer-
tain misstatements that had been made in the House of
Lords respecting the Duke of Somerset ; at that meet-
ing Lord Seymour addressed them, and in the course of
his remarks charged the Bishop of Exeter with having
uttered a deliberate falsehood in the statement he had
made in the House of Lords. This speech was after-
wards inserted in the newspaper, of which the defendant
is the editor (the Western Times), and upon which the
editor commented. 'rho comment of the editor upon
that speech was the subject of the present indictment.
This indictment against Mr. Latimer was preferred in-
stead of an action against Lord Seymour, because the
speech of Lord Seymour, not imputing any crime to the
Right Rev. Prelate, and not being written; could not be
made the subject:of an action against Lord Seymour, but
when printed and commented upon by Mr. Latimer
in his newspaper, it gave the Bishop" the opportunity
of commencing these proceedings, which he did at the
earliest possible period, and, which, by reason of the
illness of the Duke of Somerset on one occasion, and the
pressure of business at the assizes on a second occasion,
has been postponed for the last two assizes. Mr. Crow-
der said that he might content himself with simply
putting in the paper containing the libel, and so leave
Mr. Latimer to produce the correspondence relative to
the chapel at Bridgetown, which has been the cause of
the observations containing this libel, and thus he might
again have an opportunity of addressing them, but he
was instructed by the Right Rev. Prelate to lay before
the Court all the correspondence, and to state every-
thing which induced the Bishop of Exeter to act as he
had done in reference to the chapel at Bridgetown, and
for which he had been so libelled and held up to public
slander and ridicule, by a coarsely abusive, scurrilous,
and scandalous attack upon him by Mr. Thomas Lati-
mer, in his newspaper, which circulated extensively in
the diocese of Exeter.
The Bishop of Exeter was then called and examined,
supporting all that had been stated by Mr. Crowder.
On his cress examination ho admitted havine, made the
speech alluded to, although he stated that he had not
used the word imputed to him in the paper. He thought
he had said " violated" in reference to the Duke of
Somerset; he also stated that Mr. Brown had excharged
with Mr. Cozens, and that when the latter gentleman
came to the Evil g he had a conversation with him, and
particularly cautioned him in strong terms in relation O.
his duty with regard to that part of the parish over
which Mr. Shore exercised his influence, namely Bridge-
town. He did not give him instructions not to appoint
Mr. Shore ; 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, iu which
the inhabitants have a right to elect the minister. Mr.
Shore having been a candidate with Mr. Palk, and Mr.
Cummings had addressed a circular to the electors resign-
ing in favour of Mr. Palk. He reproved him, think-
ing it a most indecent thing to treat an election of that
kind in the same way as an election for a municipal
officer, or for a Member of Parliament. There had also
been a disgraceful canvass carried on ; he did not make
a claim to the presentation of Chudlcigh, although he
was advised to do so, conceiving that it had lapsed to the
see by reason of non-presentation. Ho had particularly
cautioned Mr. Cozens with regard to Bridgetown, and
probably advised him to make inquiry as to Mr. Shore.
Ile had not given the same warning to Mr. Brown,
although he had continually seen him from time to time.
The time that lie had given the caution was after the
Chudleigh election. He was appointed Bishop in 1831,
and the first debate in which he took part was relating
to tithes.
Mr. COCKBURN, for the defence, was about to examine
his Lordship as to certain statements which he had made
in the House of Lords in 1831, and in consequence of
which Lord Grey had accused him of misstating the cir-
cumstances, and that the Bishop had thereupon con-
fessed himself to be in the wrong, when
Mr. CROWDER objected to this mode of examination,
as the question turned entirely upon the correspondence
and the documents connected with it.
Mr. COCKBURN said 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 tho case; and he was, therefore, desirous
of showing that the Bishop of Exeter had on many oc
casions made statements which he had afterwards been
compelled to withdraw ; whereas, in no one instance
could it be alleged that the Duke of Somerset had been
guilty of similar conduct, and that it was open for him
to prove the want of credibility in the Bishop of Exeter
by these means.
Mr. Baron PUTT thought that such evidence was
inadmissible; that the whol issue depended upon the
correspondence and the documents connected therewith.
Tho correspondence between the parties was then put
in. There were several letters from Mr. Moberly, the
agent for the Duke of Somerset, and Mr. Barnes, the
Bishop's secretary, in which the matter was treated as a
negotiation to obtain consecration, and not merely to
obtain a lioense for a proprietary chapel. After several
letters, the following was addressed by Mr, Maberly to
Mr. Barnes:—