The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-04-07 00:00:00

SURREY ASSIZES, KINGSTON, APRIL 2d.

TRIAL OF THE Bissioe OF WINCHESTER FOR ANAsSAI'LT.--
This was au indictment preferred at the sessions and removed
into the upper court against the Bishop of Winchester, Henry
Goss, a magistrate of the county, the Rev. Mr. Percival, the
Rev. Mr. James, and the Rev. Mr. Pollen, William Lumley,
an innkeeper, Edward Lipscombe, his waiter, and others, for an
assault upon the Rev. Cornelius Griffin.
The Rev. Cornelius Griffin.—Had been ordained its a priest
by the Archbishop of Canterbury whilst Bishup of _London.
Had corresponded with the defendant on many occasions, and
knew him, and had been in his house in St. James's-square.
Attended the meeting. When he first went there were about
twenty ladies and five or six gentlemen. - The number gradu-
ally increased, and in about half tin hour the bishop came; a
number of clergymen followed, and the room was then pretty
full. The bishop took his scat and requested the company to
join in prayer for the success of the undertaking. The prayer was
made by the bishop, all standing. Witness was on the second
bench. Thought the bishop must have seen him. Afterwards
they heard read by Mr. Percival the report of the proceedings
of the society, containing the usual misrepresentations. [His
lordship desired the witness to confine himself to matters offact,
and not to give opinions.] Archdeacon Hoare moved that the re-
port be. printed. When he ended there was a cessation. Witness
then rose to addressthe meeting but the bishop told him to wait un-
til the motion was seconded, and a gentleman seconded it. Witness
then rose to move an amendment, and begged to say a few words
iu explanation. The bishop inquired his name. Witness told him
his name, and that he was a clergyman of the Church of England,
and added that there was a gentleman there, Mr. James, who
knew him very well. The bishop said, " Here is a man who
calls himself Cornelius Griffin, and says he is a clergyman of
the church of England, of which 1 have some doubt; but be
must not be heard, for he is come here to create a riot." Wit-
ness attempted to speak, asserting his right as a man, as a cler-
gyman, and as an Englishman, and also as having been in the
service of the society, and that he wished to speak something in
his own knowledge. Witness considered that he was temperate
ana civil, and had not given the least provocation. When he
again attempted to address the meeting, the bishop rose and
said, " I cannot suffer you to speak, for you are no subscriber.
This is a meeting of the subscribers and friends of the society :
it is not to be made an arena for public discussion, as it would
prove of great inconvenience." The bishop had alluded, in his
address to the meeting, to the withdrawing of £16,000 a year.
Witness had presented a memorial to parliament, and had given
evidence on the subject. Witness persisted in his attempt to
address the meeting. The bishop told him it could not be done.
He complained that the bishop had represented him to the meet-
ing as an iinposter and a disorderly person. The.hishop had
said that he did not know him. Witness again endeavoured to
speak. The bishop called upon the meeting not to hear him,
and told two persons to do something. Witness was close to
Archdeacon Hoare, who appeared desirous to act friendly, and
said, "If you will let me sec the papers, it will enable me to
judge if it is proper that they should be placed before the meet-
ing." Witness did not hand the papers, because the bishop,
who was between them, waved his hand to separate them. The
defendant Goss came up and laid his hand upon witness, and
said that he should turn him out of the room, by his authority
es a magistrate, unless he desisted. The defendant Pollen first
laid hands upon him, and then withdrew them. Mr. Wither-
force then spoke for a long time. Witness had walked fourteen
miles that day. He sat on the edge of the table, not with any
view of behaving uncivilly to the bishop, but for the purpose of
whispering to Archbishop Hoare, but the bishop jogged the
archdeacon by the elbow, and said, " Have nothing to do with
him," and other persons cried out "order." Archdeacon Hoard
drew back, and that put an end to the conversation. When Mr.
Wilberforce sat down. witness again presented himself to afford
explanation. Goss came up and laid hold of him the second
time, and said, " I will tam you out of the room unless you re-
main quiet without speaking." liamediately a man approached
in a very violent manner, took !fold of his (witness's) collar
with both his hands, said he was the landlord, and that witness
should nut remain a moment longer in the house. The bishop
beckoned to them, and desired them to turn witness out. A
person dressed in the bishop's livery also took hold of witness,
who was pressed on by several other persons. Witness was re-
solved to maintain his ground if he could; he made a passive
resistance. His trousers were torn in several ',Flees. They
put him out of the room. Witness then requested them to
leave him. " No, no," said the fellows, "we have not done
with you yet." Lumley accompanied him all the way, and
thrust him into the street. His hat was thrown after him.
Lipscomb, the beadle, had an enormous red waistcoat on; he
told witness he should never conic there again, he would take
came of that. He, with Lumley, had hold of witness when he
was thrust out.
Cross-examined.—Witness was ordained for the colonies.
He had been a missionary of the society, for Nova Scotia and
Prince Edward's Island, lie had been deprived of his salary.
lie never circulated a handbill (which Mr. Thesiger handed
sip to him,) but had given away two or three copies'of it. He
saw one' of them in the bishop's hand. The bishop did say
" (witness) is come to create a riot. As to his saying he,
has been a missionary or a member of the church of England,
I very much doubt it, for no man who is a clergyman would
put this into a bill;" and the bishop then read a portion of
the handbill accusing the society of endeavouring to extract
money under false pretences. Witness requested the bishop
to read out the whole of the bill, but he would not. The ques-
tion might have been put more than once to the meeting that
witness might speak,. but witness thought it was only put once.
Witness did not admit that he was not a member of the society,
because he considered that the society had a great sum belong-
ing to ,him, and therefore that he was a compulsory member.
Mr. Goss might have said that has he was no member he had
no right to address the society. Witness did not endeavour to
iuterrupt Mr. Wilberforce. Ile might at first, but not after be
had commenced his speech. He never said he had instituted
the prosecution to kick up a bit of a row. They owed him £lOO
to this day.

Robert:Shirley, the waiter.—The bell was rung violently.
Ile went into the room. Defendant Lumley joined him.
'('here was a very great disturbance. The servant of the bishop
had his hands upon the prosecutor, whose clothes were torn.
.Ile was agitated d staggered.
Another witness, who was on the outside of the house, saw
t hat the prosecutor was forced down a steep landing-place, and
heard the defendant Lipscomb, the beadle, call hint a rascal.
William Darling, bookseller at Epsom.—Was at the meet-
tag. He thought no more violence was used than was neces-
sary.
Mr. Thesiger rose to reply, but his lordship said, that as to
all that passed in the room he was of opinion that the defendants
ere justified; it was no more than could be done et every
ioeeting, agricultural, or commercial, where a per-
s,,n insisted upon speaking, contrary to the declared will of the
meeting : but that with respect to turning the prosecutor out
of the house, he had some doubt whether Lutnicy and Lips-
...tribe had not dune more than the law authorized.
Mr. Thesiger then addressed the jury upon that point, and
-contended, that it was clear that it' it had been possible the
,:efendant would have returned to the room and have recom-
menced his indecent interruptions and conduct so unbecoming
his sacred calling. it was the landlord's duty to take care that
the disturbance in his house should not be renewed, and he was
sure 'the jury would not think there had been any excess of
en ce on his part. He regretted the use of the word " rascal"
l.y Lipscoinbe, but it appeared that the prosecutor's resistance
uontinned until he was actually out of the house, and the last
avttness for the prosecution had said that no more violence was
used than was necessary.
Lord Denman regretted that such a case had been brought
before the jury, and hoped that it would not disturb the good
.order that so generally prevailed at meetings of this sort. The
iolence had been brought upon the prosetaitor by his own im-
i•roper conduct; he had nu right to go to the meeting to con-
% ert it to debates of his own raising, when the party assembled
%, ere not disposed to listen to him, but his lordship thought that
iler he had-been removed from the room, the landlord should
have said, " You must leave soy house," and then that he ought
to have left him free to do it, and not have taken the law into
his own hands. The same observation applied to Lipscombe.
If, however, the jury thought that the defendant had been so
iolen t, that to keep the peace in the room, it was absolutely
necessary to turn the prosecutor out of the house, for that
otherwise he would again have obtruded into the room, then
' -upon that ground the expulsion from the house might be justi-
fied, but it appeared to his lordship that when they had got.him
out of the room, they had done all that was necessary.
The jury deliberated abont two minutes, and then found a
verdict for all the defendants.

A nevigarnbling-house has been opened in St..Tames's-street,
d another in the unfashionable neighbourhood of i
street, Tettanhain-court•road. At the latter woteen are
admitted !

A HIGHLAND DIRECTION.—A pair of trousers were, oti
Thursday, brought by one of the carriers from Paisley to
Glasgow, on which was written the following direction.—
.4' Hear she goes for Mairten Mac Arthur, thrue aback
Cloace, up a back Stair, if that Ilqes not find him out the deil
%rill no finde him out, Glasgow."

imperial Vazlianunt.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, WEDNESDA Y, Aram 1.
(Continued from theST .Arsp.t RD if Friday.) •
ADJOURNED DEBATE ON THE IRISH CHURCH BILL.

[The great length of-this and the two subsequent night's de-
bate on this question precludes us trout giving more than a very•,
brief outline et the speeches.]
Mr. Serjeant TA I.FOURD supported the motion of Lord-John
Russell.
Dr. LUSHINGTON followed on the same side. The learned
doctor contended that the rejection of the noble lord's motion
would be tantamount to a perpetual civil war against the re-
ligion professed by a large majority of the people of Ireland.
Mr. Lismiv THOMPSON, wlthollt being actuated by any politi-
cal feeling on the subject, declared his intention of voting against
the motion. As a protestant, and he hoped not a bigoted pro-
testant, he respected the feelings and honoured the devotion of
his catholic fellow-subjects in endeavouring to promote the te-
nets of their religion. He had hoped for better things from catho-
lic emancipation than had come to pass. As a protestant he felt
the injustice levelled at the protestant .church in Ireland; his
second objection wls that the resolution was an interference
with church property which endangers the security of every
other species of property; and thirdly because all the arguments
he had heard were founded, as in the case of the debates on the
emancipation, on the contingency of future benefits to be de-
rived from it. _

Mr. LITTLETON spoke at great length in support of the mo-
tion. He contended that the resolution before the house was
no more an attack on the establishment than the church tem-
pot ality act was; and denied that the protestant church of Ire-
land was a part of the English establishment. .
Sir HENit Y HARDINGE replied to the arguments of Mr. Lit-
tleton, who he thought had advanced farther than any speaker
in the debate, in calling not for, an appropriation of church
property but for the destruction of the church.
Mr. SPRING Rteiz, followed in support of the motion.
Lord STANLEY addressed the house in a long and powerful
speech. The noble lord said that his opinions on this question
were well known; that he had nothing to modify or to qualify;
and nothing to retract ; he could' not consent to any other than
strictly ecclesiastical purposes.
At the close of the noble lord's speech it was suggested that
the debate should be adjourned to Friday.
Sir R. Peru, hoped it would go on'ana be brought to a close
to-morrow; and he would suggest that hon. members who in-
tended to speak would each make a contribution out of his
speech to enable the noble lord (John Russell) to make his re-
ply early.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house
adjourned at two.o'clock.