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

WM, THURSDAY EVENINO, JULY 24,

315110P3 OF LONDON AND DURIIA3I RETIRE-

ill ENT BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,
" That the Bill be now read a second time :"—Question
again proposed :—Debate resumed :—Atneadment pro-
posed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of
the Question to add the words " upon this day three
months :"—Question put, " That the word ' now' stand
part of the Question :'—The House divided ; Ayes 151,
Noes 72•

ATES-151.
Agnew, Sir A. Gower, F. Osborne, R.
Antrobus, E. Greene, Thomas Paget, Lord A.
Baines, Rt. Hon. M. Gregson, Samuel Palmerston, Viscount
Baldock, E. 11. Grenfell. Charles Patten, Col.
13all, J. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Peel, Sir R.
Ld. R. Peel, F.
A.
Baring, Sir F.
Groevesor,Grey',
Bass, M.
Beckett, W. Gurney, J. 11. Pinney, Col.
Bark eley, F. Gwyn, /Towel • Ponsonby, A.
Bethell, Sir R. Hall, Sir Benjamin Portman, W.
Black, Adam Hankey, T. Price, W.
Blandford, Marquis or Hardy, G. Pugh, D.
B .nham-Carter,lJ. Hastie, Archd. Ramsden, Sir J.
Bouverie, Hon. E. P. Hayes, Sir E. Reed, J.
Bowyer. G. Headiam, T. Ricardo, S.
Brocklehurst, J. Herbert, P. Rich, 11.
Brockman, E. D. Heywood, J. Rid'ey, George
Bruce, Lord E. Horsman, E. Robertson, P.
Buckley, Gen. Howard. C. Bolt, P.
Butler, C. S. llutt, W. Russell, F. W.
Cardwell, E. Ingham, R. Sandon, Viscount
Castlerosse, Via. Ingram, H. Sawle, C.
Carley, E. S. Ilion, S. Seymour, 11.
Challis, T. Jones, D. Seymour, W. D.
Chaplin, W. Kinnaird, A. Shelley, Sir J.
Chelsea, Viscount Kirk, W. Smith, H.
Cholmondeley, Lord Labouchere;Rt.Hon.H Smith, R.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Langton, Fl. (1. Spooner, R.
Cocks, T. S. Lemon, Sir C. Stanley, Lord
Coffin, W. Lewis, Sir .G. C. Stuart, Captain
Carry, 11. T. L. Lindsay, Col. J. Thomason, G.
Cowper, W. Littleton, E. Thornely, T.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Lockhart, A. E. Tynte, Col. C.
Cubitt, W Lowe, R. Villiers, C.
Dashwood, Sir G. M'Gregor, John Walcott, Admiral.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Magan, W. WEL:pole, S.
Denison, J. E. Matins, Richard Watkins, Col.
De Vere, S. E. Marjoribanks, D. Wigram, Loftus T.
Ms-ea. E. Martin, J. Wilkinson, W.
Drumlanrig, Vie. Martin, P. Willcox, B.
Duncan, Viscount Massey, W. Williams, W.
Dune's'', George Milnes, R. Williams, S r W.
Dundm. F. Moffat, G. Wilson, J.
Esmonde, J. Monett. Via. Wood, Sir C.
Farnham, E. Moncreiff, J. Wrightson, W.
Feilden, M. Mostyn, E. Wynn, S r W.
Ferguson, Colonel NI owatt, F. Wyvill, M.
Ferguson. J. Mowbray, J. R.
Forster, John Mullings, J. R.
Fort/ scue, C. S. Neeld, John
Freestun, Colonel Nisbet, R
Glyn, G. Norreys, Sir D.

TELLERS.

Ilayter, W.
Mu'grave Earl of,

ARCHDEACOv DRNISoIV'S CASE.

BATH, WEDNZSDAY.

Ye,terday the Court ruled that the citaticn which !lad
been ()Ejected to by Dr. Phiaimore was goo I ; that the
artic;es being informal should be amended ; and on the
question a+ t ) filing the report in due time and in the
proper place,
Dr. Lusbington 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 court°, 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 bad
been re-lornied, and that he had no fault to find with
the amendment.

Dr. Luehington 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 be 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 it 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.obs-rvance
thereof of any means of defence, he was entitled to
avail himself of such error, and not to be subj-cted to
this prosecution. The solution of the question appeared
to depend on the nature, quality, and effects t.f the
directions said to be vielaterl, 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 he pursued,
that every unimeortaret direction should, even iu a cri
urinal 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 C-iurcti and defendant, and would
equally throw a shield of protection over charges of
blasphemy, and evils of the grossest not tare. The fear of
such cense 4u-races ought not, to deter him from following
the due cnurse of law, if that course be clear; butnenecould
deny that tiny 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 he
lteved that for the last 30 years the judges of the lowl—
and beyond all doubt the legislature—had di-couraged
technical obj-ctions ; and-though the ecclesiastical law
had not undergone s miler legis!ative change be appre
headed that the disposition which bad 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 he 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, 1355, 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 aiticlea now attempte3
to be acted upon were filed, and the question now asked
wai, 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 were 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 bet to proceed, and that the objection could
not be sustained.
Toe application of Dr. Phillimore to be allowed to ap-
, pe tl 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. Tne rev.
gentleman simply spoke to having received certain
pamphlets from Archdeacon Denison, being copies of
sermons preached by him.
The Rev. C. E Ditchard offered similar evilence.
Mr. Everitt, mayor of Wells, was also examined upon
the fact of having heard and read some of the defendant's
sermons, in one 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-examint-d by Mr. Philiimore—l do not recollect
the c intext. It calked a great sensation among those
who sat near rne. 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-
fiaetant, and atter some hesitation, I said I would do so.
Mr. T. Syrrell was next examined, and sub-equenfly
Bishop Carr—His lordship recollected sitting on the
counros.ion at Clevedon, and reporting upon the case of
the defendant to his Gr.ce the Archbishop of Caeferbury.
Cross-examined—l refused to receiva 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. Peillitnore now addressed the Court at great length
on two objections. Toe first was that the archdeacon
had not been tried by impartial. judeee ; secondly, that
the common right of the meane4 individual had been
refused to the accused. The learned advocate voted
several high authorities with a view of proving that the
commission gas not properly constituted, and that in
consequence his grace must dismiss the archdeacon, whom
he considered to be a cruelty ill used and persecuted, but
good man, whose triumph over his accusers was morally
otrain.

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. Phillirnore 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 hilve 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 tho 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.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, Jelly 23.
kCrown Side.—Before Mr. Justice Erle.)

•
Robert Osborne, 19, was indicted fur stealing; two post
letters c mtaining money, the property of the Postmaster-
Gen

Mr. Wordsworth and Mr. Woollett conducted the
prosecution ; the prisoner was defended by Mr.
Campbell.

It appeared that the prisoner was in the service of a
person who keeps the post-office at Bexley-heal), but
wasti not employed in any way in cooneetion with the
duties of that office ; but, of course, he had opportuni-
ties of going to the letter box, and it would seem that
he contrived to abstract letters therefrom. In conse-
quence of numerous complaints of the loss of letters,
two "test letters,"as they are called—oneof which con-
tained three halfisovereigns, and the other a half-sove-
reign and two sixpences, the whole of which coins were
marked so as to render them cspahle of being identiEedy
were posted at the General Post office for delivery in the
Bexley•heath district. At the time whee, in the
ordinary course, t,iey would have arrived at their
destination Mr. Sculthorpe, one of the principal clerks
in the Post-nffioe, accompanied by Peake, the offic,r of
the establishment, proceeded to Bexley, and upon exa-
mining the box it was found that the letters ha i been
abq•acted. Mr. Sctethorpe at once suspected, from
the inquiries he made, that the prisoner was the disho•
nest person, and he asked him to produce what money
he had in ;is pocket. The prisoner did so, and among
it WAS nne oft e marked sixpenceQ, which Mr. Sc d-
thorpe immediately idol] iGed, and he thee direr ly ac-
cused the prisoner of stealing the two letters, and he ad
:pitted he had done so, and said that he had bought,a
watch with the three balf-sovereigns he had taken out
of the letter.

The jury found the priaorer guilty, and he wag sen-
tore. Fto be imprisoned and. kept to hard labour for 12
months.

Attriuste Windier, 23, one of the German Legion, was
indicted for feloniously cutting and wounding Henry
Deena, one of his °miracles, with intent to do him
grievous bodily harm
It appeared that on the 10th of May last the prisoner,
the prosecutor, and another foreign so'dier were at a
public-house called the Alma Tavern, at Foihestone,
when some altercation took place between them, aria
the prosecutor laid hold of the prisoner and pushed Lim
away from him, The prisoner upon this retreated two
or three paces, drew a knife from his socket, and rushed
at the prosecutor and stabbed bim on the shoulder, and
then ran out of the house. The prosecutor was not at
first aware that he bad been wounOe 1, but shortly af-
terwards Le found that be was bleeding, and upon fxa•
mining his clothes be found that they had been com-
pletely stabbed through. The actual injury infi cited
upon his person appeared, however, to 'be of a very
trifling character.
The prisoner was found guilty of :unlawfully wound-
in;, and sentenced to six Meeks' hara labour.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—TuesIay, July 22.

(Bef9re Mr. Creaqv.)

. .
James ray/or, 42, was finod guilts of having stolen
a c a', vaitLf; 205.. toe pruperty of George ?,louts
It was proved that he had been previ,usly c-nvicted,
and that he had been fr• qiiently in prison, whyre he was
re,,,arded as a bights skilled workman at his trade, that
of a carpenter. In 1842 he was sentenced to 12 months,
and his last term was nine months in 1855.

Mr. Creasy said be appeared to be a regular thief, and
sentenced him to four years' penal servitude.
Edward Etans, 31, labourer, was indicted for having
stolen a clarionet, the property of John M`Carthy, from
his person.
The prosecutor was an itinerant musician, and his
evidence was that on the 25th of June he was on his way
back to London from a fair he had been to, when he
called at a public-house at Ealing to get some beer, and
to earn a few pence by playing his clarionet. There were
a number of persons assembled there, among them the
prisoner, and some disturbance took place about a pot of
beer. Prosecutor arid a companion, a man named Bod-
gers, went out, followed by the prisoner and two others,
who asked him to play them a tune. He did so, and
they told him that by going up a certain lane they would
save a mile and a half in the journey to London. When
they got up the lane they found there was no thorough-
fare, and on turning round they saw the prisoner fellow
ing them. The prisoner went up to M`Carthy and said
as he had bad so much to say about the pot of beer
he might take that, at the same time giving him a blow
on the right eye. He was knocked down, and the
prisoner then snatched thw clarionet from his hand and
ran away. After searching for a policeman for some
time he at length fount one, and they then began to
search for the prisoner, who, with his companions, was
ultimately discovered on the top of a hayrick, pretend.
ing to be asleep. Every effort was made to find the
clarionet, but without success.

The prisoner said it was only a fair fight, and he knew
nothing of the clari,met.
Bodgers, in reply to the jury, said that M‘Carthy was
quite sober at the time, and that be saw the clarionet in
his left hand at the moment the prisoner struck him.

The jury fotind the prisoner Guilty, and a document
was produced showing that the prisoner hail been *en
tenced to three months' imprisonment at Reading for
stealing lead from the Great Western Rail ay
Mr. Creasy sentenced him to four months' hard labour,
and hoped this would be a caution to him, as no such
leniency c .uld be shown him again.
Joseph Simpson, who wa. convicted last week of as-
saulting Henry Loinack Eluonds, with intent to rob
him by the "garotte" method, was brought up fot
judgment.
Mr. Creasy said it was a most fortunate circumstance
for the prisoner that the robbery, which clearly was the
object of the assault, was not effected, because if ii bad
been he would have been sentenced to a long term of
transportation or penal servitude. The offence he was
found guilty of was an asault only, but it was ono of a
most serious character—a case of garotting, and all such
cases must be visited by severity of punishment. He
then sentenced Lim t•o 18 months' hard labour.

William Thompson, 27, was found Guilty of stealing a
pint pewter pot and a knife, the property of Martin
Gahekiss, a publican, and for assaulting Henry Clark
and Joseph Norton, two constables, who took him in
charge.
Mr. Creasy sentenced Min to eight months' hard
labour.—Adjourned.