The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-24 00:00:00

his Learned Friend's libjections to , the alleetions—now,prO- '
pounded. The tiestaftlek was 41Re of tiecesiity,"-ita introduttory
of. the facts out of which-aroise-the subject matter of the whole
of this proceeding. He eonqnded .that the second article was
,also admissible, though containing a view of those tacts on the
artorMr. Htitcliard whithinightnOt bestrietlfeorrect in itself.
It would have been better, undoubtedly, if Mr. Rodber had
firevicnislf ififiiitiloWthat Saunders'would be ready.
Negative lira* might not avail against positive proof of the
mart'ers set forth la the original articles ; but he submitted that
.theilicts pleaded in this responsive allegation did admit of a ne-
gative proof. If the articles had laid an aggravated charge,
not fully substantiated by the facts alleged, the Court would
feel less difficulty with respect to the question of costs.
Dr. -DODSON was heard on the same behalf.
The Learned Judge (Dr. Mau RICE SWAB!) having recapi-
ulated the particulars of the articles, and of the allegation
now offered, said the present question was, as to the adonis-
SibilifY of that allegation. To the charges which had been pro-
pounded, a general negative issue was now given, and this
was therefore an exculpatory allegation. The first article
waadevoted to thedetail ofanteee.dent• facts, which were cer-
tainly set forth with a degree of diffuseness and irrelevancy
whiCh required. the article to be reformed ; and the Court di-
rected accordingly. On . the-second article he would remark,
that if it teas the case of a lectureship, in which the right of the
pulpit-was. contended for,.the consent of the Ordinary would
have been necessary ; but Mr. Hatchard had alleged that
his- object : was to satisfy his curiosity... What better autho-
rity could he have had for a fact which might have satis-
fied that curiosity than Mr. Saunders's own answer to him,
that he had not yet obtained permission to preach in the pulpit of
the church of St," Margaret If Mr. Hatchard Could have per-
suaded himself that the circumstance of dr. Saunders's being in
attendance might be unknown to Mr. Rodber, the same dif-
ficulty in accepting this as an extenuation of his conduct would
still subsist. If he really persuaded himself that his address
to Mr. Rodber was, according to his own allegation, a tnea
sure either fit or roper, the law could not agree with him in
holding that opinion. It was to be retollected, that at the time
charged the church was full of people ; and .that several of
them cried out "- shame ;" and that a great- ttimult prevailed.
Mr. Hatchard obtained no answer from Mr. Rodber; and this
was, on Mr. Roclber's part, a conduct whist' the Court could
not praise'. too much; The tumult in. question had its. be-
ginning, progress, and end ; all sustained' by similar cir-
cumstances ; ' and "undoubtedly, a • scene' more disgraceful
could not have taken place. That Mr. Hatchard
.had in
no wayinterrupted Mr. Rodber in the performance -of 'divine
service, the Court could not agree. Still this allegation was re-
sponsive ; and if it could be thought that its contents could, in
one shadow, affect the. colour of the charge, or. that this .plea
couldin any wise soften the offence, he would be most reluctant
to deprive the party of such _benefit. • • •
The Court, therefore, would admit-the allegation ; directing
only the first article to be reformed.—(Tisi es.)