The Queen against The Archbishop of Canterbury
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1859 |
| Date | 28 January 1859 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 1014
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Q. B. 154; 5 Jur. N. S. 958. Referred to, Smith v. R., 1878, 3 App. Cas. 624.
[345] the queen against the archbishop of canterbury. Friday, January 28tb, 1859. Under sect. 98 of stat. 1 & 2 Viet. c. 106, which enacts that a curate, whose licence shall have been revoked by the Bishop under that section, " may, within one month after service upon him of such revocation, appeal to the Archbishop of the province, who shall confirm or annul such revocation as to him shall appear just and proper," the Archbishop is bound, if requested by the curate, to hear him, either in person or by counsel, as to the validity of the grounds of such revocation, and to receive fresh evidence tendered on his behalf upon that point. The Archbishop may regulate the mode in which the proceedings at such hearing are to be conducted : but he cannot, if so requested to hear, confirm or annul the revocation merely upon the statements made by the curate in his petition of appeal, and the written documents referred to in such petition.-Where the Archbishop had confirmed a revocation upon such last mentioned written evidence only, the Court issued a mandamus to him "to hear the said appeal and decide the merits thereof." [S. C. 28 L. J. Q. B. 154; 5 Jur. N. S. 958. Referred to, Smith v. R., 1878, 3 App. Cas. 624.] Bovill, in last Michaelmas Term, obtained a rule calling upon the Archbishop of Canterbury " to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue, directed to him, commanding him to make or cause to be made inquiry into the appeal of the Rev. Alfred Poole, clerk, and the matters complained of, according to the provisions of" stat. 1 & 2 Viet. c. 106, "and to hear the said appeal, and decide the merits thereof." From the affidavit of the Rev. Alfred Poole, upon which the rule was obtained, it appeared that, on 26th September, 1851, he was licensed by the late Bishop of London as assistant curate in the church of St. Barnabas, in the District Chapelry of St. Paul, Knightsbridge, iu the county of Middlesex, and that he had served as such curate till 25th May, 1858, upon which day the present Bishop of London revoked his licence. On 24th June, 1858, he presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury a petition of appeal, signed by him as petitioner, against such revocation. The statements made in the said petition, so far as they are material, were as follows. [546] On 22d March, 1858, the petitioner received from the Bishop of London the following letter. "Fulham, March 22d, 1858. "Rev. and dear Sir,-I have received a formal complaint from the Hon. arid Rev. F. Baring against you, respecting the practice of confession at St. Barnabas. The practices attributed to you are of such a character that, for your own sake as well as that of the Church, this matter must be fully investigated. I therefore shall feel obliged by your calling on me tomorrow at London House, and, if you will send your name to my chaplain, I will see you at once.-I remain, yours faithfully, "Rev. Mr. Poole. "A. C. london." On the following day the petitioner had an interview with the Bishop, who informed him that certain statements, made by certain women, which the Bishop then read to him, had been forwarded to the Bishop by Mr. Baring. The petitioner thereupon solemnly denied to the Bishop that ha ever put to those women, or to any persons, the questions specified in those statements, or any questions of a similar import; and asserted that those statements, so far as they expressed that he did so, l EL. & 0, B47. THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY 1015 ware entirely and deliberately false. To many questions which the Bishop then put to him respecting those statements, and also respecting the petitioner's opinions upon the general subject of confession, the petitioner gave answers at the moment, of the purport of which, as the petition alleged, be had now no distinct recollection. At a subsequent interview the Bishop stated to the petitioner that he had satisfied himself that no reliance was to be placed upon the evidence of the women by whom [547] the said statements had been made. Upon this occasion the Bishop again questioned the petitioner as to his opinions on the subject of confession, and took notes in writing of his replies, bat did not read over those notes to the petitioner, nor had the petitioner ever seen them, or obtained a copy of them. On 5th May, 1858, the Bishop told the petitioner that ha should give his judgment upon the subject in a few days, and asked the petitioner if he had anything further to say upon it; to which the petitioner, believing that ha had satisfied the Bishop upon the matter, replied that he had not On 8th May, 1858, the petitioner received the following letter from the Bishop. "London House, May 8th, 1858. " Rev. and dear Sir,-I have very carefully, and with a very earnest desire to do what is right, considered the complaint made against you by the Hon. and Rev. F. Baring, and the communications which have passed between myself and you in connection with that complaint. "While I fully admit that the statements you have made to me tend to make me look with much suspicion upon the particular evidence laid before me, I regret to say that, quite independently of that evidence, I am led by your own admissions to regard the course you are in the habit of pursuing, with reference to confession, as likely to cause icandal and injury to the Church. I feel especially that this questioning of femalei on the subject of violations of the seventh commandment is of dangerous tendency; and I am convinced, generally, that the sort of systematic admission of your people to confession and absolution, which you have allowed to be your practice, ought not to take place. [548] " Under the circumstances I feel I ought to mark my sense of the impropriety of what you describe as your practice, and I shall therefore feel myself bound, though with great pain, to withdraw your licence as curate of St. Barnabas, and shall send you formal notice accordingly." On llth May, 1858, the petitioner replied to this letter, asking to be allowed the fullest opportunity of defending himself against the charge, and requesting the Bishop to point out what were the particulars, as regarded either the admissions referred to or anything that the petitioner had done, on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v Police Commissioner
...v. Cambridge Univ. (Dr. Bentley”s case)(1718), 1 Stra. 557; 93 E.R. 698. (42) R. v. Canterbury (Archbishop of)ENR(1859), 1 E. & E. 545; 120 E.R. 1014, applied. (43) R. v. Electricity Commrs., ex p. London Elec. Joint Cttee. Co. (1920) Ltd., [1924] 1 K.B. 171; [1923] All E.R. Rep. 150, dictu......
-
Brandt v The Attorney General and Austin
...the statements of the local authority, and to show that their facts arid inferences were wrong.” 101 In Reg. v. Archbishop of Canterbury, 1 E. & E. 545, a curate's license had been revoked by the bishop and there was an appeal to the Archbishop. Lord Campbell, C.J., in giving judgment said:......
-
Massy v Rogers
...L. R. 1 C. P. 679. Pleus v. BakerELR L. R. 16 Eq. 564. Smith v. The QueenELR 3 App. Cas. 614. Reg. v. Archbishop of CanterburyENR 1 E. & E. 545. Reg. v. Cheshire Lines CommitteeELR L. R. 8 Q. B. 344. Reg. v. LittledaleUNK 12 L. R. Ir. 97. Scott v. AveryENR 5 H. L. C. 811. Brown v. OverburyE......
-
Mourilyan and Spinks, Appellants, against Labalmondiere, Respondent
...the statute, the owner to whom (a) Bail Court, before Crompton J., 24 L. J. M. C. 56. 1014 THE QUEEN V. THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY 1 EL. & EL. 545. the order under sect. 73 should have been directed. It has been contended that he is not iu actual "occupation" of the premises. But there is......