The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1848-07-11 00:00:00

THE REV. MR. SHORE'S CASE.

It is well-known that the Bishop of Exeter has pio-
ceeded with great severity against the Rev. Mr. Shore,
late a clergyman in his diocese of the Established Church,
for exercising the functions of a Non-conformist minister,
Mr. Shore being anxious to separate from the church.
Having stated his grievances before several clergymen and
dissenting ministers of this town, a meeting on the sub.
ject was called on Friday, at the Concert-hall, Lora
Nelson-street.

On the platform we noticed the Revds. W. W. Evv-
bank, Dr. Raffles, Mr. Crichton, Mr. Shore, Mr. Kelly,
Mr. Graham, Mr. Osborne. Mr. Fergusson, with several
dissenting ministers, and Mr. Walker, and Messrs. A. C.
Dunlop, J. J. Godfrey, T. R. Arnott, B. Bloore,
Crossfield, J. Priestley, and W. Fergusson.
The Rev. W. W. EWBANK having been called to the
chair, stated the circumstances which had led to his
brief acquaintance with Mr. Shore. For his own part,
he (Mr. Ewbank) was a most conscientious churchman,
and that was the reason why he appeared before them,
and because he did not choose, as a churchman, to be
mixed up with the proceedings of the Bishop of Exeter.
The Rev. Mr. SHORE next addressed the meeting at
considerable length, but as the grievances of which. he
complained have frequently appeared in print, there is no
necessity for giving the details. He expressed a hope,.
that as they would not allow him to be in the church,
the would quietly allow himself to separate from it. 1-10
alluded to a letter of the Bishop of Exeter, in which his
lordship stated that Mr. Shore was not liable to imprison.'
ment for preaching the gospel. This he (Mr. Shore) con-
tended was a mere quibble, for he would be imprisoned
for contempt of the Ecclesiastical Court. By the ordina-
tion service, he had bound himself to obey the bishop's
Godly commands, and because he supposed that he was
not Puseyite enough for the bishop (and not being able to
obey those commands), he supposed that was the cause,.
of his suspension. He also entered into a number of
details with respect to the proceedings to which he had
rendered himself liable.

The meeting was subsequently addressed by the Rev.
Mr. Osborne, Dr. Raffles, Rev. Mr. D. Fergusson, and
Mr. A. C. Dunlop, and a vote of sympathy with Mr.
Shore, and a petition to the House of *Commons upon his
case was adopted.
With reference to this case The Record says,—"W-e
hear, on authority, which we have no reason to doubt,
that the Bishop of Exeter has at length resolved to drive
matters to extremity in the case of the Rev. Mr. Shore.
We are informed that a writ or warrant was issued last
week, which must lead to his committal to prison, for
continuing to officiate in the Duke of Somerset's chapel
at Bridgewater, without the bishop's license and against
the bishop's prohibition. On the same principle if the
lordship of Exeter were inflicted on the see of London,
we might expect even now to see the Rev. J. H. Evens
sent to Newgate ; and had such promotion happened to
Bishop Phillpotts, formerly, in the lifetime of the late
Rowland Hill, that venerable and useful minister of the
list,e ua Gospelon: mighttwtiot
nti
ehthae
crowds
portion of the diocese of London, which be
oe
dsen c
walls
n
wohr called
tl lhte r e
Queen's
:0
eeffirdi
Surreya officiate
Bench
a s
Chapel,a
pn Ev
ri is
ona n.bg ;
in that
,!"