The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-24 00:00:00

HE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JIMY
,24, 1856.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

ARC.HDEACON DENISON' S CASE.

BATH, WEDNESDAY.
Yesterday the Court ruled that the citation which had
been objected to by Dr. Phillimore was good ; that the
articles being informal should be amended ; and on the
question as to filing the report in due time and in the
proper place,
Dr. Lushington said it was a question which would
take him time to consider, and he, therefore, deferred it
till this day.
Dr. Phillimore then said that if his objections were
overruled by the Court he should appeal for an adjourn-
ment of the case before its merits were gone into, so
that he might appeal to the superior courts, which were
not now sitting, to see if they would confirm or nega-
tive the decision of his Grace.
Dr. Phillimore told the Court that the articles had
been re-formed, and that he had no fault to find with
the amendment.
Dr. Lushington then proceeded to deliver his opinion of
the question which was brought before him yesterday, and
which we have alluded to above. The learned doctor
observed :—The objection to be disposed of arose in the
following manner—lt was alleged on the part of the
archdeacon, that in these proceedings the directions by
the statute had not been complied with, and it was
argued that the consequence of non-compliance was that
his grace must dismiss the defendant. On the other side
it was averred that the prosecutor had done all in his
power, and that he ought not to be made responsible for
the portions of the statute which it was not in his power
to prevent. He could not accede to the argument on
the part of the defendant, that to the extent to which it
had been embodied it might be legitimately received.
He thought if the statute had been so framed that it was
all but impossible to carry its provisions into effect,
or from whatever cause directions contained in it had
not been obeyed, if these directions were essential
to the administration of justice, or if the defen-
dant had been deprived by the non-observance
thereof of any means of defence, he was entitled to
avail himself of such error, and not to be subjected to
this prosecution. The solution of the question appeared
to depend on the nature, quality, and effects of the
directions said to be violated, and how far such direc-
tions have been neglected, or in what respect they affect
the essential parts of the case. It could not be success-
fully contended, in proceedings wherein the statute it-
self gave so much latitude as to the course to be pursued,
that every unimportant direction should, even in a cri-
minal case, vitiate the whole, and entitle the defendant
to be dissatisfied. Let them first consider the conse-
quences. Such a principle, if adopted, would apply not
only to a case like this, but to those of a more serious
nature, both to the Church and defendant, and would
equally throw a shield of protection over charges of
blasphemy, and evils of the grossest nature. The fear of
such consequences ought not to deter him from following
the due course of law, if that course be clear; but none could
deny that they would deserve most serious consideration.
He did not forget that the accused was liable to the bene-
fit of all reasonable doubt, but he did not accede to the
arguments advanced on either side as to the mode
by which he was to arrive at such conclusion. He be-
lieved that for the last 30 years the judges of the land—
and beyond all doubt the legislature—had discouraged
technical objections ; and though the ecclesiastical law
had not undergone similar legislative change he appre-
hended that the disposition which had animated courts
of justice ought not to be wholly discarded by him as
legal assessor for his grace under a new course of pro-
ceeding established by parliament. At the same time
he disclaimed the reasoning that had been offered on the
part of the prosecution, as any excuse for the omission
of any essential conditions. The learned gentleman
then proceeded to show what course the statute pre-
scribed, and remarked that he was of opinion that the
transmitting of the report was simply ministerial, and it
was wholly incompetent for the commissioners when
they had pronounced an opinion to alter the report in
any respect whatever that was not conformable to the
opinion declared. The report was to be filed in the re-
gistry of the diocese, and no time was fixed when the re-
port should be filed. It was not for him to justify the whole
of the statute, but he could not fix a period when the
legislature had fixed none. The report was filed, if he
were right, originally in the registry of London, and an
office copy was filed with it in August, 1855, in the dio-
cese of Bath and Wells ; but the office copy and the
original depositions were not transmitted to Wells until
the beginning of June, after the articles now attempted
to be acted upon were filed, and the question now asked
was, whether the Court should pronounce that filing of
the articles before the original depositions were filed was
or was not a fatal error ; and if they wer3 called upon to
dismiss the defendant ? It was quite clear, he thought,
that the defendant had suffered no real injury from any
irregularity, and he was not prepared to say that an
office copy was not equivalent to the original depositions
themselves. He concluded that the archbishop had no
other choice bat to proceed, and that the objection could
not be sustained.
The application of Dr. Phillimore to be allowed to ap-
peal to a superior court, was now by implication re-
fused; and the Rev. W. James, of Wells, was called, and
examined on the part of the prosecution. The rev.
gentleman simply spoke to baying received certain
pamphlets from Archdeacon Denison, being copies of
sermow preached by him.
The Rev. C. E. Ditchard offered similar evidence.

Mr. Everitt, mayor of Wells, was also examined upon
the fact of having heard and read some of the defendant's
sermons, in ono of which he found the following :
"The bread and wino, retaining their very natural sub-
stance, become in some ineffable way the body and
blood of Christ, through the consecrating power of the
priest." This passage struck him more forcibly than
any other part of the sermon. He heard this preached
by the rev. defendant on the 7th of August, 1853.
Cross-examined by Mr. Phillimore—l do not recollect
the context. It caused a great sensation among 'those
who sat near me. I sent a copy of the sermon to Arch-
deacon Law, who came to me, and asked if I would
swear to having heard these words preached by the de-
fendant, and after some hesitation, I said I would do so.
Mr. T. Syrreil was next examined, and subsequently
Bishop Carr—His lordship recollected sitting on the
commission at Clevedon, and reporting upon the case of
the defendant to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Cross-examined—l refused to receive a plea on behalf
of the rev. defendant, and we came to the conclusion
that we would not hear counsel or the party in person
on the question of doctrine.
Dr. Phillimore now addressed the Court at great length
on two objections. The first was that the archdeacon
had not been tried by impartial judges ; secondly, that
the common right of the meanest individual had been
refused to the accused. The learned advocate quoted
several high authorities with a view of proving that the
commission was not properly constituted, and that in
consequence his grace must dismiss the archdeacon, whom
he considered to be a cruelly ill used and persecuted, but
good man, whose triumph over his accusers was morally
certain.
Dr. Bayford having combatted the various legal argu-
ments adduced by Dr. Phillimore,
The Court decided that the objection raised did not
vitiate the report, so as to prevent the case being fully
heard.
Dr. Phillimore subsequently applied for the case to be
adjourned, in order that he might appeal to a superior
Court, when
Dr. Lushington said he thought the defendant was
entitled to make an application, and also to have it over-
ruled. It was open for him to apply to the Lord Chan-
cellor or the Master of the Rolls.
A question was then raised on behalf of the defendant
as to the insufficiency of the evidence respecting the
printing and publishing the three sermons, when it was
decided that as regards two of them the objection was
not good, but respecting the third it was held that
the evidence was insufficient.
The Court was then adjourned till to-morrow.