New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-02-16
Bath and Wells, but be declined 10 cad tho ossst 10
the Archbishop; and then an application wa made

the Archbishop; and then an application vn made
directly to the Archbishop himself under the act Of
Parliament. to issue commission 10 inquire int
the circumstances Of the case.
The Archbishop Issued bis commission 10 Eve
persons, who declared ii ss their opinion that
there was prma facie case for proceeding against
the Archdeacon. The Rev. J. Ditcher then filed
articles against the Arshdeaeon under tho act Of
Parliament, and afterward served notice on The
Archbishop Of Canterbury, requiring him to pro-
coed. The Archbishop replied by letter that hs
would take the earliest opportunity Of consulting
his legal adviser on the subject, and would COM
municate his reply at later day. An answerwa
accordingly returned by the Archbishops secrets
nv. which, after stating that his Grace had con-
sidered the application. went on to say that 10
was not Of opinion that any good purpose could Be
answered either by hearing before the Bishop
according to section of the statute, or by the
process subsequently prescribed, by which the
Bishop could try the case by three assessors nom
mated BY himself and assented to BY the sovereign
1t was therefore the intention Of aae Archbishop
10 use the discretion which he ccsceived to be
allowed by the act Of Parliament and he 6s-
cned to proceed further in the case, unless it wss
declared by proper legal authority that tho no
cessity was laid upon him.
Upon this state Of facts the Rev. J. Ditcher, the
prosecutor, applied to the Court of Queens Bench
for writ of mandamus to the Archbishop to
proceed with the hearing Of the case. Sir ksea.
erick Thesger and Mr.. Sumner in showing
cause against the rule for the issue Of the writ.
took the ground that under the act of Parliament
the Archbishop had discretion to proceed or not.
The Court admitted that he had such discretion
ns 20 commencing proceedings, but they held that
having once commenced, then be was bound to go
on, and they so decided without stopping to hear
Sir Fitzroy Kelley, who had moved for the rule.
The rule to show cause against the issue OF the
mandamus had also been served on Archdeacon
Deniscn. His counsel stated that, so far as no was
personally concerned, he did not shrink in any way
from meeting the charges against him-justitying
his conduct As to the grounds Of the present dis
oussion. the ArchdeacOn had nothing whatever to do
with them; all he desired to state was that he would
meet the charges in any Court legally constituted,
and which had right to decide the question that
would be submitted to it. Ii the act meant that
the party complaining must be party aggriovcd.
then the proceedings which had hitherto taken
place were not statutable proceedings. This was
a grave point for the consideration Of the Court.
fer these proceedings would entail considerable
cost and give rise to vast amount OF irritation, and
unless there was clear authority the very object In
view of having complete sentence pronounced By
a properly authorized tribunal, would fail.
The Puseyites it would appear from this, are
not disposed to submit quietly to Parliamentary
interference with the government and doctrines Of
the Church, agreeing as to this point almost OK.
actly with DR.. Chalmers and the Scottish Free
Church. however differing from them on other
points. One of the objections to this Parliament
AIRY tribunal for adjudication upon the orthodoxy
of doctrines u.s. that one of its members is re-
quired to be either an advocate sergeant at law.
or barrister
The case, as reported, closes as follows:
"SnF Kelly Pc rhaps may be permitted to say,
before sit down, that must acknowledge with per.
feet sincerity that the Archbishop Of Canterbury, in all
he has done throughout these proceedings has acted
0pt.nu fde and with earnest desire at once TO do
Justice and promote the beet interests of the Church.
Lord Campbell have not the smallest doubt
that his Grace proceeded 0Ptime fde and with view
to the good of the Church which he presided;
but with the most profound respect and reverence for
bis sacred character and high position must express
my regret that he did not exercise his discretion in the
first instance, and refuse to proceed upon the CON-
plant of the Rev. j. Ditcber. H. following the exam
Die of the Bishop of Bath and Wells be had refused,
think it would have been well for the Church Of
England
INT Sumner-'w VIII your ordship allow me to make
one observation merely as TO the reason-
"Mr. Justice Coleridge-' We cannot, Mr.. Sum-
ner."
1t is, we suppose, not 30 much the Archdeacon's
heresies as the question how cognizance Is to be
taken OF them, that Lord Campbell thinks 30 dan
gerous TO the Church. Nor is it he only who
sounds the alarm The Literary Chnehman men,
tons with well-founded anxiety that notices were
on the books of Parliament Of twelve distinct mo-
tons or measures relating to the Church. either
directly or indirectly: "To retranslate and re-
"construet our Bible; to amend and curtail our
liturgy and prayers; ignore by law our Episcopal
"orders; put down our Sunday; abolish Church
crates; put the cathedrals into commission; re-
"medel our parOchia system; hand over the edu-
"cation Of the poor to State Minister of Instruc-
'tion change the law Of marriage; abrogate
Ecclesiastical Courts; manage Queen Anns's
BOUNTY; take into the hands Of Parliament all
"the Irish Church Temperatures, and put the last
"stroke anti-C Christian legislation by admitting
Jews to Parliament. This, surely, is eccle-
statistical purge which would satisfy the veriest
Puritan. But churchmen," adds this indignant
champiOn of the establishment, must not 'bs-
"eeive themselves into thinking that even this d
the end Of the coming troubles
IN. Lob have