The Sun.
London, England, 1869-10-27 00:00:00

THE SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST SIR E.
G. C. EARDLEY, .BART.

On Tuesday, at the Guildhall, Sir Eardley Gideon
Cullen Eardley, Bart., was brought up on remand, before
Aldermann Finnis, charged with obtaining various sums of
money under false pretences. Mr. Beard, who prosecuted,
now applied for a further remand on the ground
that a material witness, the wife of one of
the prosecutors, was unable to attend through illness.
—Mr. Wea.therhead said he did not oppose the application,
but suggestja that it was a case in which bail might be
taken.—The clerk asked whether the prisoner had a fixed
residence. There being no reply to this question bail was
refused, and the prisoner was remanded for a week.

THE CHARGE OF EMBEZZLING £24,000.

On Tuesday William KLauchlin, a stockbroker,
wns again placed before Alderman Sir R. Carden, at
the Mansion louse, charged with embezzling securities to
the anr,unt of £2.1,000, entrusted to him to invest cn
behalf of the trustees of a gentkman named Douglas.

The evilence offered was properly explanatory of certain
prc- c a.ngs that took place en the Stock Exchange, but
the pro ;it:ing alderman said it might tend to shcw
the recklessness of certain transactL.ns, but it did not in
the slightest drgree go towards invalidating the serious
Charge against the prisoner of aprropriating those securi-
ties to his own use. Major-General Douglas, one of the
trustees, gave the particulars of the shares entrusted to the
prisoner to realise, which were the same as those spoken
to by the witness on Tuesday last. The case was re-
manded.

THE PROSECUTION OF THE REV. W. J. E.

BENNETT, OF F.ROME.

The Dean of the Court of Arches sat on Tuesday at West-
minster for the purpose of deciding on the admission of
articles in the case of the prosecution of the Rev. W. J. E.
Bennett, M.A., of Frome Selwood. Sir Robert Phillimore
having taken his seat on the bench, and it having
been stated that the rev. defendant did not
appear by counsel, an order was given to the
usher to call him into court if he was within the building.
This was done three several times, but done, as everyone
present knew it would be, without producing any effect,
there being no intention on the part of Mr. Bennett
to appear at this stage of the case. The first proceedings, it
may be stated, taken in the matter of the suit were by the
Bishop of London, who opened a commission, consisting of
Sir Travers Twiss, Archdeacons Jackson and Hale, and Pre-
bendaries Bloomfield and Kempe, to inquire whether Mr.
Bennett had published heretical doctrines in the London
diocese. The commissioners reported it as their unani-
mous opinion that there were sufficient prima facie grounds
for instituting further proceedings. Under the provisions
of the Church Discipline Act (3 and 4 Vict., c. 86), pro-
ceedings were then taken, under the authority of the
Bishop of Bath and Wells, in whose diocese Frome Selwood
is situate, and his lordship, instead of hearing the case in
his own court, sent the matter, by letters of request to the
Court of Arches. The letters of request accused Mr.
Bennett of having committed an offence against the
laws ecclesiastical by having caused to be printed
and published within the diocese of London certain
works in which ho advisedly affirmed and maintained
doctrines directly contrary and repugnant to the Articles
of the Church of England, the said works being entitled
respectively, " Some results of the Tractarian Movement
of 1833," forming one of the essays in a volume entitled,
" The Church and the World " (edited by the Rev. Orby
Shipley), and "A Plea for Toleration in the Church of
England," in a letter to the Rev. Dr. Pusey. The letters of
request then set out the passages objected to which had
reference to these doctrines :-1. The real objective Pre-
sence of our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist ; 2. The
sacrifice offered by the priest ; and 3. The adoration die
to the presence of our Blessed Lord therein. The letters
of request further stated that the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, acting under the provisions of the Church Discipline
Act, had thought fit to send the case to the Preivincial
Court of Appeal. Sir R. Phillimore, after hearing the case on
the 30th April last, decided on refusing the letters of request,
for the following reasons That the Court of Arches
always had a discretion to accept or refuse, and that dis-
eretion was not restricted by the Church Discipline
Act. 2nd. That the
,Court could exercise its discre-
tion in favour of a refusal in this case, because
no grounds for acceptance were stated in the
letters of request, and because they were ten-
dered "in a matter of alleged heresy connected with
some of the most awful mysteries of our religion," a
charge which Mr. R. Phillimore thought the Bishop ought
to hear in his own court. On an appeal to the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council, Sir R. Phillimcre's decision
was over-ruled. This brought the matter before his lord-
ship again to-clay. Mr. Stephens, Q.O , was leading counsel
fcr the promotion of the suit. Mr. Sheppard having
suggested a few verbal alterations in the construction of
the articles, alterations which were sanctioned by the
Dean of Arches, proceeded to inquire what in a legal point
of view was the office of the Commission issued by the
Bishop under the Church Discipline Act; what was
the office of the letters of request, of the citation, and of
the articles, and then to examine whether the articles
charged an offence of a different nature to that named in
the letters of request and the citation. The technicality
of the argument is divested of everything like popular
interest.
Dr. Tristram was heard on the same side.