ARCHDEACON DENISON'S DEPRIVATION.
In August last, the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, sitting at Bath to try the suit instituted by the Reverend Mr. Ditcher against Arch- deacon Denison, adjourned after hearing the arguments and making a de- claration of its opinion. The Court found that the Archdeacon, in two sermons preached at Wells, had taught doctrines repugnant to those con- tained in the 28th and 29th Articles of Religion ; and gave the Archdeacon the alternative of revoking his opinions before the 1st October, or of being deprived of his preferments by the sentence of the Court. On the 30th September, Mr. Denison lodged two papers in the registry of Bath and Wells ; one of them a statement of his views, not a revocation ; the other a protest. The Court reassembled on Tuesday, to pass sentence. The Guildhall of Bath was crowded with clergymen. Dr. Lushington and others sat with the Archbishop as assessors. The counsel for Mr. Ditcher was Dr. Bayford; for Mr. Denison Dr. Pbillimore. The Archdeacon was accompanied into court by Mr. Joseph Henley M.P. At the outset of the proceedings, Dr. Phillimore was allowed to argue in support of the protest; which had for its object to show that the 29th Article was not one to which the Act of 13th Elizabeth applied. He first explained why he had not taken that ob- jection in limine, by remarking that he had been induced by the weight of prima facie evidence against that proposition to refrain from urging it. Subsequently, he had looked into the matter and had arrived at a different conclusion. His argument was, that the Articles referred to in the statute were contained in a book put forth in 1562. Now, Article 29 was not even in the book printed in 1571, when the statute was passed ; and he argued, that the Article must have been subsequently placed there by an authority, whether that of the Crown or any other totally debars the statute, and after the statute had become the law of the land. Dr. Bayford, on the other side, opposed this view; and argued, that even if it were correct, Mr. Denison would still be liable to sentence of deprivation under the 28th Article. This terminated the proceedings of Tuesday. The Court met again on Wednesday. Dr. Phillimore, permitted to reply, again insisted on the view he had taken. on Tuesday. Dr. Lushington then delivered the opinion of the Court on the protest. Some book or gaper con- taining the Articles must have been referred to in the statute. That book or paper was not forthcoming; and the question was, by what evidence could its contents be established ? Usage supports the position that the Articles mentioned in the statute included Article 29; the Act of Uni- formity, the Act of William and Mary, the 36th Canon, the opinion of Lord Coke and other Judges, support the same inference. There is the high legal opinion of Lord Coke that there were thirty-nine articles in which the statute operated. Dr. Phillimore had not produced any admissible evidence to sustain his position. In fact, the proposition sought to be established was, that Queen Elizabeth by her own authority added an article contrary to her known predilections. -
The conclusion being against the protest, Dr. Phillimore wished to argue on the other paper; but the Court decided not to hear him. He then stated, that the Archdeacon was ready to sign the Thirty-nine Articles ex animo. Dr. Lashing-ton replied, that if Mr. Denison would even then make the re- vOriation rewired, it would be received. Dr. Phillimore retired ' and, after a eonsaltation of an hour or more with his client, returned with an answer, which the Court held to be a reiteration of the doctrine taught at Wells. Dr. Lushington therefore pronounced judgment, elaborately repeating, in substance, the declaration of August. The Court adhered to its opinion that the sermons had been advisedly preached and published ; that they con- tained doctrines repugnant to the Articles of Religion ; that the Articles must be taken in their plain meaning, and, "where anything has been clearly expressed by the words of the Articles, no other meaning should be rittempt- to be put upon them by reference to any authority whatever —neither by reference to Scripture, nor to the Fathers, nor to usage, nor to any authority prior or subsequent to the Reformation." The Archbishop's Court was not a school of theology, but a court of justice, bound to adminis- ter the law as it found the law. As the Archdeacon declined to revoke his Opinions, it was the duty of the Court to pronounce the sentence required by the statute—the sentence of depriyation. The sentence was accordingly passed. Having set forth the offence, and the opinion of the Court thereon, it concluded in these words- " We, the said John Bird, the Archbishop aforesaid, having first called upon the name of Christ, and setting God alone before our eyes, have, with the assistance of the said Right Honourable Stephen Lushington, the Very Reverend George Henry nacheverell Johnson, Dean of Wells, and the Reverend Charles Abel Heurtley, our aforesaid assessors, and of the Right Reverend Thomas Carr, a Bishop of the Church of England, and Rector of St. Peter and St. Paul's in the city of Bath, in the county of Somerset and diocese of Bath and Wells, and the Reverend Charles !away Mayne, clerk, Prebendary of the Cathedral Church of Wells aforesaid, and the Reverend John Thomas, Doctor of CivilLaws, sitting with us in the said cause, with whom we have fully communicated on this behalf ; and having maturely de- liberated upon the proceedings had therein, and the offence proved, exacting by law deprivation of ecclesiastical promotion, have thought fit to pronounce, and do ac- cordingly pronounce, decree, and declare, that the said Venerable George Anthony Denison, by reason of the premises, ought by law to be deprived of his ecclesiastical promotions, and especially of the said archdcaconry of Taunton, and of the said vicarage and parish-church of East Brent, in the county of Somerset, diocese of Bath and Wells, and province of Canterbury, and all profits and benefit of the said archdeaconry, and of the said vicarage and parish-church, and of and from all and singular the fruits, tithes, rents, salaries, and other ecclesiastical dues, rights, and emoluments whatsoever, belonging and appertaining to the said archdeaconry and to the said vicarage and parish-church : and we do deprive him thereof accordingly, by this our definitive sentence or final decree, which we read and promulge by these presents." Dr. Bayford stated that his client waived the costs. Mr. Bathurst, on be- half of Archdeacon Denison, asserted an appeal ; and the Court gave hint until the 5th December to prosecute that appeal, which will be before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
At the Birmingham Quarter-Sessions on Monday, Owen Owens was con- victed of picking pockets. Asked what he hod to say why judgment should not be passed on him, he made a little speech for the purpose of softening the heart of his judge. He effected his object in a way that he did not an- ticipate, perhaps did not understand. " I was sentenced in April 18.53," he said, to seven years' transportation. I was first taken to the Borough Gaol at Leicester where I was detained eleven months. I was then sent to the Defence hulk, Woolwich, where I was kept for two years and one month. Then I received a ticket-of-leave, and was sent back to Binning- ham. I found my father a cripple, and unable to support me ; but I felt determined and resolved to lead a new life and seek for employment. This I succeeded in doing ; but I had only been at work a day when it became known that I was a ticket-of-leave man, and I was discharged immediately. Afterwards I procured work in two other places ; but directly it was dis- covered I was a ticket-of-leave man I was discharged from my employment. What could I do then ? I could not starve, and so I was compelled to steal to get my living. I hope your Honour will take these circumstances into consideration, and have mercy upon me." Mr. Recorder Hill in passing sentence addressed him thus—" Owen Owens, you have committed mani- fold crimes; but, as you are what the law considers a great offender, you can be permitted to work yourself out of gaol by good conduct—a privilege the Legislature does not concede to the minor offender. If I were to sen- tence you to penal servitude, you would not be allowed this privilege ; there- force in mercy I sentence you to be transported for fourteen years."
Edward Williams, a commission-agent at Birmingham, and a member of the Societyof Friends, has been committed for embezzling 4381., the pro- perty of Messrs. Johnson, of Runcorn.
Bury, an ostler at an inn in Worcester, has been committed for attempt- ing to poison a number of persons by putting opium in ale which he gave them. The victims were witnesses in a case of robbery which was coming on for trial ; the object was, apparently, to render them incapable of appear- ing in court; but Bury put enough opium in the ale to kill all the drinkers had they taken the whole. They swallowed but a portion, and then went to a surgeon. Bury, it would seem, must have drugged the ale to oblige a friend, one of the men accused of the robbery.
Bristol has of late suffered from the forages of an active gang. of burglars, who have made several successful expeditions, carrying out their schemes in a very scientific style.
Staffordshire has also recently been afflicted with many burglaries. The police have laid hold of two robbers who were engaged in several depreda- tions at Cheadle.
Mr. John Morton, a person ofproperty at the village of Carlton near Nottingham, has been committed for arson—setting fire to a corn-stack be- longing to Mr. Davison, a surgeon, with whom he had had a quarrel.
Women have not been distinguished as horse-stealers, but one has turned up in Wales. Ann Harris has been committed by the Llanelly Magistrates for stealing a horse. She took it from a field, carried it to Abergwilly fair, and sold it to Mr. Thomas ; when Mr. Thomas got home, his labourers re- cognized the animal as the property of Mr. Morgan, whose farm adjoins the farm of Mr. Thomas.
Previous page
