New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-12-18

We gave some time since an account Of the case
of the Rev. Mr. Poole late curateSOf the Pusey.
itlsh church Of ST. Barnabas, Belgrayia, London,
whose license as curate the Bishop of that diocese
had revoked on the ground that, in admitting fe-
males to confession he addressed questions to them
calculated to bring scandal on the Church. From
this decision against him the cuIate appealed, under
the Church Discipline Act e Wet, ch 1867, to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, who, however in
summary manner confirmed the act Of the Bishop.
There the case stopped, in the account we
formerly gave of it; but now it has gone further
On the 23d of November Mr Poole appeared, by
his council, in the Court of Queens Bench, aud,
in the Queens name, moved for rule upon the
Archbishop Of Canterbury to show cause why
msIdamus should not issue commanding him to in.
yestigate, or to cause to be investigated the mat
ter of the appeal of Mr.. Poole, according to the
provisions of the Church Discipline Act, and to
hear the said appeal and to decide upon its merits.
The counsel stated, in spite Of the efforts Of Lord
Campbell TO prevent him on the ground of its
immaterialty, that Mr. Poole had, for seven years
preceding the revocation of his license, filled the
Office OF Citrate OF st. Barnabas without complaint
or objection Of any Sort and to the entire satisfac
ton of Mr. Liddell, tue incumbent Of the parish,
and that even the Bishop Of London testified TO his
merits; but that, in consequence Of the revocation
of his license by the Bishop of London, two other
bishops had refused 10 license him, and that be
was thus deprived Of the means of livelihood. The
gist Of tte present application, however, was no.
the impending starvation Of Mr.. Poole, but very
common, and not unfrequently We'll. sustain ed
complaint against the proceedings of ecclesiastical
tribunals that both bishop and archbishop had, in
the revocation of Mr. PoOes license, totally disre-
garded not merely the duties imposed upon them
by the Church Discipline Act, but the commonest
principles of ordinary justice, which require that
no man sh,ll be condemned without having fret bad
all opportunity to defend himself.
The charge against Mr. Poole originated With a
Re-. Mr. Barring, as it would seem, 8 pretty hot
nti.Puseyite zealot. That person obtained the
aiidayits Of certain women, loose women, as it af
terward appeared, who stated that they had been
induced BY certain female distributors Of charity
attached TO St. Barnabas, and ss q condition Of
being recipients thereof to 60 to Mr. Poole to con-
fes.ioD, and that wb e confessing he had pu. to
them, as a part of the ceremony, certain indecent
and filthy questions which they in their sfhdsyits
detailed at length. These sffdavits were laid
before the Bishop Of London, who called on Mr..
Poole to explain. At private interview with the
Bishop, he totally denied the imputed indscency,
but admitted the having heard the confessions Of the
women, and having in 60 doing asked one of them,
at her own request, certain questions respecting
breaches Of the seventh copmandment-questions,
however, within the strict limits of deoorum and
his duty, a. be conceived it. The Bishop suSse'
quenty caused the witnesses to he examined WIZ
out, however. the knowledge Of Mr. Poole and no
stated to Mr. Poole, 1T second interview, that
from this examination be was entirely satthed as
to the fAlehood Of the alleged indecency. Suose-
quenty, according to the statement OF Dir. Poole
in his petition to the Archbishop he was Invited By
the Bl.hop Of London to be present, aid was pres.
en. s. party q, Lordon House, at which the Rev..