New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-02-19
JUDGMENT AGAINST An ARCHBISHOP

JUDGMENT AGAINST AN ARCHBIsHOP.
We have referred more than once to the case Of
the Rev. Mr. Poole Citrate of ST. Barnabas, IN
London. Those interested in the case will recol-
leet that the Rev. and Hon. Mr.. Barring, cler-
eyman residing in tho same parish, addressed
communication to the Bishop of London, inclos-
ing the afidayits Of three women, inhabitants OF
the Parish Of St. Barnabas to TIE effect that, intro
ductory to taking the sacrament, these Opponents
had goIe through the ceremony of auricular con-
fesson to Mr. Poole, in the course OF which, as
they alleged, certain questions had been put BY him
of highly indecent character. Mr.. Poole, upon
being called upon for explanation, Indignantly de-
MED the charges of indecency; and the Bishop,
having caused the women to be reexamned,
came to the conclusion that they were not
worthy of belief 1t appeared, however, from
Mr.. Poole's own account, that these women, pre-
yious TO their admission to the sacrament had gone
through the ceremony Of auriculsr confession, and
that in the course Of il he had put certain questions
to one of them, as he said at her special request,
in relation to breaches of the seventh command.
ment, all which, as Mr.. Poole cOntended, he was
fully warranted to do, and was required to do by
the Book Of Common Prayer. The Bishop, how.
ever while admitting that the original charge
against Mr. Poole had been satisfactorily rebutted,
vet, under some pressure, it would seem from the
Hon. and Rev. Mr.. Barring, declared his opinion
that systematic admission of people to confession
and absolution as Mr.. Poole admitted his practice
TO be, was contrary to the doctrine of the Church
of England, and that, especially, he highly disap-
proved the putting questions to women touching
violations Of the seventh commandment. Upon
those grounds exclusively, and without wat
ing to hear what Mr. PQals might have to
say on these points, he proceeded to revoke
Slr. PoOle's license as curate, on the strength
OF the statute first aud second Victoria cap.
LOG, which gives to Bishops the power, after
having given to the party concerned sufficient
opportunity to show cause to the contrary to
revoke summsrly and without further process, any
"Icense granted to any curate for any cause which
"to such bishop might appear good and reason
able" The same statute, however, goes on to
provide that the curate may, within month, ap-
peal to the Archbishop, "who shall confirm or
"annul such revocation as to him shall appear just
"and proper" Mr. Poole did appeal, and in his
petition to the Archbishop set forth the whole mat
ter at length, complaining among other things that
he had never been heard by the Bishop upon the
matters upon which the revocation of his license
was based, and prayiDg the Archbishop to appoint
time and place for bis being heard. Instead of
doing that, the Archbishop sent the petition to the
Bishop of London, asking his attention thereto;
who, 10 reply, merely referred the Archbishop to
his letter of revocation addressed to Mr.. Poole as
containing full statement of his reasons there
for. Thereupon the Archbishop proceeded, as he
stated in his affidavit to consider carefully the ad
missions and statements Of Mr.. Poole, as set forth
in his petition, and being OF opinion thererom that
the Bishop of London had good grounds for what
he had done, he gave bis decision 10 writing, con-
frmipg the revocation.
Still, however, Mr.. Poole was not satisfied. He
complained that the Archbishop had followed the
example Of the Bishop in refusing to hear him upon
the point at issue, namely, whether he had done
anything that the Prayer Book did not justify and
be applied to the Court of Queens Bench for a
Iulc Oh LILO dICApIsnoP w suOW cause why nc
should not be compelled by mandamus to give him
such hearing. The Court somewhat reluctantly,
as it seemed at the time, granted him the rule;
and on the 2Sth of January his Grace the Arch
bishop appeared in COur. BY his counsel, the
Attorney General and others, to show cause as re-
quired. In this he was not very successful In
reference to the Attorney Generals statement that
the Archbishop sent the petition to the Bishop Of
London and requested his answer thereto, Chief.
Justice Campbell dryly observed, He consults
the party appealed from as TO the merits Of the
"sppear"-a comment upon the Archbhhops
proceedings which, according to the report
before US, excited general laughter, both at
the bar and on the bench-which laughter
was sgsin renewed after the reply of the Bishop
of London had been read, by Lord CampbeTs
remarking-"T This is the answer Of the respondent
+" behind the back. of the appellant" Without
bearing the council for Mr.. Poole, the Court
ordered the maldauu to issue. Lord Campbell,