The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-10 00:00:00

THE DENISON CASE.

The following letter from Mr. Archdeacon Denison,
relative to his case, appeared in the Union of last
night :
Sir,—l am advised that, in applying to the Queen's
Bench for a mandamus to the Judge of the Court of
Appeal of the Province to entertain my appeal, it
would be irregular in me to place before the Court of
Queen's Bench, by way of affidavit, the wrong which has
been done me, under pretence of administration of law,
throughout these proceedings.
Now, no instance of worse or more flagrant wrong is
to be found in the history of our courts of law ; and
as it appears to me that, even now, the public are
scarcely sensible of the fact, and as, however little many
of them may agree with me, they would all desire that I
should have a fair trial, I wish to be allowed, as briefly
as may be, to place before them in your columns the
principal ingredients of which the wrong has been com-
pounded.
The final issue of these proceedings is, no doubt, of
great moment to me, because, if adverse, it is my tem-
poral ruin ; but it is, I apprehend, of much greater
moment to the Church of England that false doctrine
in respect of the Holy Eucharist should not be
established by construction of courts of law, as will be
the case if the doctrine of the Court at Bath be allowed
to stand. It is again of even greater moment to the com-
munity at large than to myself that the denial of sub-
stantial justice—which has, hitherto, boon the rule in
these proceedings - should not e-cape exposure and
censure at the hands of a higher Court, and general
reprobation at the hands of the public.
My proposition is, that there has been the show, Lut
not the reality, of an inquiry—the pretence, and at the
same moment, the refusal of a trial—that the tribunals
before which the case has been brought have been wholly
unfit to adjudicate upon it—and that there has been no
bona fide adjudication, because up to the present time
there has been no bona fide hearing.
I proceed to set out in detail the proofs of this propo-
sition :

1. The commission was not constituted upon any just
and equitable, or even intelligible, principle ; the con-
stitution of it was left to the prosecutor, who appears,
from the letter of the Archbishop to myself, published
in the Times, October 11, 1854, to have been allowed
to nominate all the members of it.

Upon this it became my duty to challenge every
member of the commission, in accordance with an old
and acknowledged rule of the law ecclesiastical ; and
more particularly the Rev. C. O. Mayne. My chal-
lenge was disallowed generally and particularly.
2. A hearing was refused me either in person or by
counsel, upon the question before the commission.
3. Certain material words were omitted in the finding
of the commission, as in charge ; so tbat the doctrine
complained of and condemned is not myldoctrine.
4. The commissioners, having found themselves under
the necessity of acquitting me of holding any " Romish"
doctrine, and particularly the doctrine of transubstantia-
tion—that is to say, having found themselves under the
necessity—and this without bearing me—of acquitting
me of everything as alleged against me in respect of the
Holy Eucharist, which the Church of England has
condemned or censured, proceeded, nevertheless to con-
demn my teaching in toto, and to affirm that there was
thereupon prima facie ground for further proceedings.
6. Under the special and exceptional provisions of the
Sd and 4th Vic., c. 86, now applied for the first time,
the Archbishop of Canterbury became the President of
the Court at Bath. _

I am ready to make oath that, to the best of my know-
ledge and belief, the archbishop had dec:ared beforehand
—i.e., in 1855--;n what manner he should decide the
case, and to produce a witness to prove this fact.
6. The Court at Bath refused to hear material evidence
disproving the truth of all the several charges against me.
7. As at Clevedon, so at Bath, by the omission of
certain material words, the doctrine condemned is not
my doctrine. There is even less palliation here for the
Court at Bath than for the Commission at Clevedon ;
because the words, though omitted in the charge at
Clevedon, had been inserted in the criminal articles at
Bath.

8. The proceedings at Bath were pressed on through-
out by the learned assessor, and without interference on
the part of any other member of the Court, with the most
indecent haste; showing very plainly a foregone conclu-
sion.

8. The right of appeal, which was never questioned,
but rather assumed throughout by the counsel for the
prosecution and by the Court at Bath, is now sought to
be interfered with on the part of the prosecution, and
has actually, at its instance, been denied by judgment of
Court of Appeal of the Province; so that I am now
compelled to go to the same Court which required the
archbishop to constitute his court in the diocese of Bath
and Wells, and of which it is impossible to suppose that
it, at that time, contemplated any difficulty in the way
of the ordinary remedy by appeal, for a mandamus to
require the Judge of the Court of Appeal of the Province
to entertain my appeal.
The interference with the free course of appeal on the
part of the prosecution, is the climax of wrong done me
under [pretence of law ; and, much as I had been pre-
pared to expect from the whole character of the pro-
ceedings against me, I confess myself to have been at
this point taken by surprise. I could not have supposed,
till now, that all considerations of common fairness and
decency could have been so resolutely put out of sight
by those who have originated and conducted this prose-
cution.

Certainly, if I bad had the most remote suspicion that
difficulties would be thrown in the way of a free and full
appeal (or appeals if necessary), so that those very provi
sions of the act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 86, which have been
made for the protection of the &ensued, should be wrested
to his injury, I should have refused to allow any appear-
ance to be made on my behalf at Bath, and have let
judgment go by default ; because, as it was not possible
to expect justice at the hands of the Court at Bath,
if I had thought that there was any prospect of the law
being so wrested as to make the sentence of that Court
a final sentence—or even anything more than the sen-
tence of a Diocesan Court— I could have bad nothing to
do with so grievous a mockery of law and justice as that
presented by the entire conduct and proceedings of the
Court at Bath.

The above are the principal, but by no means the
only, ingredients of about as hideous an injustice as has
ever been sought to be perpetrated under the cover of
English, law. I cannot expect that others should feel
each and every one of these things as I do myself ; but
it is my plain duty to others, no less than to myself, to
place them, as they are, before the Church and the coin
munity.
T be
To be
judged deprivedto
be of
unfitmy byendoooy court of law—howeverwments, and ranch more,
to
incompetent—to have cure of souls in the Church of Eng-
land, is doubtless a heavy blow. But it is a small matter
when weighed in the balance against the reproach of
distorting a charge—packing a court—refusing a hear-
ing—wresting a statute—nullifying a Liturgy—dispa-
raging !the Scripture—suppressing or rejecting facts—
prostituting forms of law, and denying justice.
Very faithfully yours,
GEORGE ANTHONY DENISON,
Archbishop of Taunton.
East Brent, Jan. 5, 1867.