some of them were or was disqualified according to the law of ecclesiastical courts and the general law of the land, from sitting as judges or judge in the said matter, and which said plea the said Commissioners wrongfully and unlawfully refused to allow to be given in as in and by the original minutes or records of the said proceedings, on reference being thereto had will appear.

2. That the said preliminary proceedings and report are also null and void, by reason that both the said George Anthony Denison the party accused in person, and counsel on his behalf respectfully applied to the said Commissioners, to be heard by them on the main question submitted for the decision of the said Commissioners, to wit, whether the doctrine complained of and which was alleged to have been preached and published by the said George Anthony Denison, was or was not directly contrary or repugnant to the doctrine of the Church of England, and especially to the Articles of Religion as by law established, that notwithstanding such application the said Commissioners refused to hear the party accused either by himself or his counsel on such question, but having so refused nevertheless gave their decision and made their formal report on such question in the words following:

"The Commissioners having carefully examined the aforesaid "sermons and the charges specified in the commission, declare "their unanimous opinion that the proposition of the Venerable "the Archdeacon of Taunton-that to all who come to the "Lord's Table, to those who eat and drink worthily, and to "those who eat and drink unworthily, the Body and Blood of "Christ are given, and that by all who come to the Lord's "Table, by those who eat and drink worthily and by those "who eat and drink unworthily, the body and blood of Christ, are received-is directly contrary or repugnant to the "doctrine of the Church of England, and especially to the "Articles of Religion; and that the doctrines, as set "forth in the aforesaid sermon, with reference to the Real "Presence in the holy eucharist, are unsupported by the "Articles taken in their literal and grammatical sense, are contrary to the doctrines and teaching of the Church of 'England, and have a very dangerous tendency. The Commissioners are therefore of opinion: That there is sufficient "primâ facie ground for instituting further proceedings. The "Commissioners at the same time think it due to the venerable "the archdeacon to state, that in the sermons under considera"tion he has expressed his full assent and consent to the "Articles of Religion, and that he has ex animo condemned

86

"the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and particularly the "Roman doctrine of transubstantiation," as in and by the said proceedings and Report, reference being thereto had, will appear.

3. That the said preliminary proceedings, including the deposition had and taken by or before the said Commissioners under the said Commission, and also the aforesaid Report, were all subsequently filed and deposited in the principal registry of the province of Canterbury, that is in the registry of the Vicar-General of his Grace the Archbishop of the said province, which is situate in Doctors' Commons, in the diocese of London, and such preliminary proceedings, depositions, and report remained filed in such registry until some time subsequent to the 28th day of May in the present year 1856.

That in consequence of the said preliminary proceedings and report, and subsequently to the filing of the same as aforesaid, articles, drawn up and signed by an advocate in the Doctors' Commons, were filed in the said Vicar-General's registry in London, by or on behalf of the said Joseph Ditcher, and a copy of such articles was served on the said George Anthony Denison on or about August 4, 1855.

That subsequently to the filing of the said preliminary proceedings and the said report and the said articles, and in consequence thereof, and for the purpose of proceedings upon the said articles, the said Archbishop did, in and by a certain instrument in writing or citation under his hand and seal, bearing date the 5th day of May, 1856, and served upon the said George Anthony Denison, and purporting to be issued under and by virtue of the power and authority given to the said Archbishop of Canterbury, in and by aforesaid statute, the 3rd and 4th Victoria, c. 86, cite or require the said George Anthony Denison to appear personally, or by his agent or proctor duly authorized, before his Grace the said Archbishop, in the Common Hall of Doctors' Commons, situate in the parish of St. Benedict, near Paul's Wharf, in the City of London, and province of Canterbury, and place of judicature there, on Tuesday, the 27th day of the said month of May, at the hour of eleven o'clock in the forenoon, to make answer to certain articles, to wit the said articles which in the said instrument in writing or citation were recited to have been filed on the part and behalf of the said Joseph Ditcher, or to that effect, in the said principal registry of the province of Canterbury, and of which articles so filed it was in the said instrument in writing or citation recited that a copy had been

served upon the said George Anthony Denison on the 4th day of August, 1855. That the said instrument in writing or citation was not afterwards cancelled or recalled, and accordingly in pursuance of the said citation, he Bathurst, having been duly aforesaid and authorised for such purpose, did appear at the appointed time and place for and on behalf of the said George Anthony Denison, and being cited as aforesaid in the forenoon, did remain with counsel on behalf of the said George Anthony Denison in the said Common Hall until the afternoon of the said day, that notice of his attending as aforesaid for such purpose was given in writing by him Bathurst, to the registrar of the said Vicar-General, and that the exhibit hereto annexed, marked Z, is a true copy of the said notice; that a notice of the same tenor was likewise served on Henry Blackburn the proctor, or agent of the said Joseph Ditcher, but no charge was at such time and place preferred against the said George Anthony Denison. Wherefore Bathurst alleged that his said party, the said George Anthony Denison was, according to the law and practice of Ecclesiastical Courts in criminal suits, entitled to be, as he then and there claimed to be, dismissed from all further observance of justice in the cause in which he was so cited, and cannot now legally be called upon to answer the said or any articles of the same tenor in these proceedings at any other time and place.

4. That neither the aforesaid depositions of the witnesses taken by or before the said Commissioners nor the said report of the said Commissioners were filed in pursuance of the aforesaid Statute in the diocese of Bath and Wells at any time prior to the 4th day of June, 1856. Bathurst further alleged that on or about the 28th day of the said month of May notice in writing was given by him, as agent of the said George Anthony Denison, to the registrar of the said Vicar-General, not to permit the said depositions or the said report on the said Articles, nor any of the documents, instruments, or other papers in any way relating to or connected with these proceedings which had been filed or deposited in the said registry, to be moved or taken out of the same for any purpose whatsoever; that notwithstanding such notice, on some day subsequent to the 28th day of May, the said depositions and the said Report were, as he submits, irregularly and illegally removed from and taken out of the said principal registry of the province of Canterbury or VicarGeneral's registry, and on or about the 4th day of June, 1856, were deposited or filed for the first time in the diocese of Bath and Wells. That since the said Depositions and Report were

so filed or deposited in the said diocese of Bath and Wells, no Articles have been filed in the registry of the said diocese of Bath and Wells in pursuance of the 7th section of the said Statute; nor since such last mentioned filing of the said Depositions and Report has any copy of any Articles whatsoever been served upon the said George Anthony Denison in pursuance of the 8th section of the said Statute: Wherefore Bathurst alleged that there are no Articles filed at this time to which the said George Anthony Denison can be lawfully required to make answer.

5. That the suit or proceeding (if any) now pending before His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, was commenced or instituted by the service upon the said George Anthony Denison on the 10th day of June, 1856, of a certain instrument in writing or citation under the hand of the said Archbishop, dated the 5th day of the said month, and calling upon the said George Anthony Denison to appear at the Guildhall, in the city of Bath, either in person or by his agent duly appointed, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, of the 22nd day of July, 1856, then and there to make answer to certain (pretended) articles therein alleged to have been filed in the Registry of the diocese of Bath and Wells, and of which (pretended) articles it is therein also alleged that a copy was served upon the said George Anthony Denison on the 4th August, 1855; that the said pretended articles do not set forth any alleged offence, which was the subject of enquiry before the said Commissioners, as having been committed by the said George Anthony Denison within two years of such the commencement or institution of this Suit, according to the provisions of the hereinbefore recited act, and therefore the party accused cannot be called upon to make answer to the said articles.

Wherefore referring to the aforementioned preliminary proceedings and Report wheresoever filed, and to the said instrument in writing or citation under the hand and seal of His Grace the said Archbishop, bearing date the 5th May, 1856, and to other proofs and attestations to be by him brought in, if need be, Bathurst prayed his said party might be dismissed from all further observance of justice herein.

ROBERT PHILLIMORE.

H. A. BATHURST,

Agent for Archdeacon Denison.

CITATION,

DATED 5th MAY, 1856.

JOHN BIRD, by Divine Providence, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, To all and singular clerks and literate persons whomsoever and wheresoever in and throughout our whole province of Canterbury, greeting, Whereas on or about the twentieth day of October, One thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, under the provisions of the Act or Statute made in the Parliament holden in Westminster, in the third and fourth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, entitled "An Act for better enforcing Church Discipline," an application was made to us by or on behalf of the Reverend Joseph Ditcher, Vicar of South Brent, in the diocese of Bath and Wells, complaining that scandal and evil report existed concerning the Venerable George Anthony Denison, a clerk in holy orders, of the United Church of England and Ireland, Archdeacon of the Archdeaconry of Taunton, and Vicar of the Vicarage of East Brent, in the county of Somerset, and the said diocese of Bath and Wells and our said province of Canterbury, the said archdeaconry and the said vicarage being respectively in the patronage of the bishop of the said diocese of Bath and Wells, as having, on certain days or times within two years then last past, within the said diocese of Bath and Wells and province of Canterbury aforesaid, offended and committed divers offences, as therein and hereinafter mentioned, against the laws ecclesiastical and more especially against the Act or Statute made in the Parliament holden at Westminster, in the thirteenth year of the reign of Her late Majesty Elizabeth, Queen of England, and so forth, intituled "An Act for the Ministers of the Church of England to be of sound Religion," and praying that we would issue our commission under our hand for the purpose of making enquiry as to the grounds of such charges. And Whereas we did, under and by virtue of an Act of Parliament, passed in the session of Parliament holden in the third and fourth years of the reign of Her present Majesty entitled "An Act for better enforcing Church Discipline," on the twentieth day of October, in the said year One thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, issue a notice under our hand, to the said George Anthony Denison of our intention to issue such commission, and which notice contained an intimation of the nature of the offence, together with the names, addition, and residence of the said Joseph Ditcher, being the person on whose application the said