The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-05 00:00:00

ARCHDEACON DENISON'S CASE-
REJECTION OF THE APPEAL.

ARCHES COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Sir J. Dodson, Dean of the Court of Arches).
To-day was appointed for the delivery of the judgment
of the learned judge of this court relative to the appeal
of the Venerable and Reverend Denison, Arch-
deacon of Taunton, in the diocese of Bath and Wells,
against the sentence of deprivation recently pronounced
against him by the Archbishop of Canterbury relative
to his erroneous doctrine on the Holy Eucharist.
The learned judge took his seat on the bench punctu-
ally at 10 o'clock. But few persons were in the court,
and little interest appeared to be manifested in the result
—partly owing, probably, to the locality of the court
being unknown to the public, and the disinclination of
those who knew its whereabouts to thread the intricate
mazes of the neighbourhood in a dense fog, with a
drizzling rain falling at the same time.

The learned judge, in delivering his judgment, which
was a very lengthy and elaborate one, said that in this

case proceedings were commenced against the Archdeacon
of Taunton by the Rev. J. Ditcher, vicar of South
Brent, for having preached at the cathedral
church of Wells, and also for having published
within the same diocese several sermons with notes,
prefaces, and appendice, and therein maintained doc-
trines repugnant and contrary to the articles of religion
agreed to by Convocation in 1562, and against the
statute of 13th of Elizabeth. The proceedings, in refer-
ence to this charge, took place at Bath before the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, and after hearing evidence on
both sides, he pronounced judgment of deprivation
against the venerable Archdeacon of Taunton, and from
that sentence it was proposed to appeal to him (the
Dean of Arches). He confessed he was much surprised
when he heard of such a proposal as an appeal from the
decision of the Primate of all England, and metropolitan
to him (the Dean of Arches), his inferior, and which was
anomalous, and contrary to practice, that ofappealing from
a superior to an inferior officer that had been appointed
by the superior, and was very much like what the coun-
sel for the Venerable Archdeacon had said on a former
occasion, "turning things topsy-turvy." The question
which the Court had to consider was, whether the act
entertained the question of appeal as now proposed.
With regard to the merits of the case, as between the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Venerable Arch-
deacon, he had nothing to do, and be should confine
himself to the statute (the Church Discipline Act) in
considering this application. After minutely and exten-
sively considering the various sections of the
act, the learned judge said that he could hardly
conceive that, when the Archbishop of Canterbury
sat at Bath in this case, that he was merely
the mouth-piece of the Bishop of Bath and] Wells,
who was unable to take part in the proceedings. The
act expressly stated that when the archbishop sat in
such a case as this the appeal should be to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. That he believed to
be the true meaning of the act, and it was not for him
to say whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council would entertain it or not—that Court being com-
petent to decide for itself whether it would entertain it or
not after it had heard the arguments. It never could
have been the intention of the Legislature that there
should be an appeal, the archbishop sitting in such
court, to the same archbishop in the Court of
Arches of his own province, and before an inferior
officer of his own appointing. Under theg circumstances
he pronounced against the appeal, and rejected the libel
that had been offered. He knew that the case was sur-
rounded with difficulties, and that the Act of Parliament
was worded in a very extraordinary manner ; but at the
same time he must repeat what he had already said, that
he did not believe that it was ever intended by the Legis-
lature that there should be an appeal from the decision
of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a case of this kind,
to the same archbishop in an inferior court.

The Clerk of the Court—The Court declares the rejec-
tion of the libel in the usual way, without relaxing the
inhibition.

Dr. PhiMinor° said that he trusted that the Court
would not relax the inhibition until he bad had an oppor-
tunity of ascertaining wbat course would be taken in
consequence of the decision of the Court.

Sir J. Dodson—Very well. Then I will only reject the
Lbel in the usual way.

Tue libel was accordingly rejected, and the appeal
will now have to be made to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, which will have the effect of causing
considerable delay, and give an opportunity of depriving
the sentence of the Archbishop of any practical effect.

MARKET NEWS.—(This Day.)