ST. AIDAN'S LIVING

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 122, 26 May 1930, Page 3

ST. AIDAN'S LIVING

BISHOP OF BJJRJ iIINGHAM

AN ORDER OF THE COURT

r (From "The Post's" R spresentative.)

LONDO: X, 4th April,

The refusal of Dr. Ba rues, Bishop of Birmingham, to instit (itc the -Rev. George Doyle Sinimonds to the living of St. Aidan's, Small Heat b, Birmingham, had a sequel in the Ch; lacery Division, on 2nd April, when M r. Justice Bennett made an order that.' Mr. Simmonds was to be admitted and -licenced to the living in question, and that Dr. Barnes was to pay the plaintii I's taxed costs. " The order, it is thou'jht in ecclesiastical circles, may have .' far-reaching effects. - ; ' r - ':; ■ ' . ' ' The plaintiffs in Hie a jefcion- heard thi3 : week wore .the patrons c-.jL the living, Dr. Not.ley, the Rev. Canon pC. Newell Long, 'the Eev. J. J. Agar-Lillis, Mr. S. B. Shore, and Dr. Frere, J 3ishop of Truro. ; The matter was adjo turned last week , so: that authority mighl \ be given as to the precise form of all order which should be drawn up. 11 ; was then alleged that' Dr. Barnes had I refused to permit the Eev. G. D. Si jnmonds to subscribo the deelaratioi k and take the oaths, and had refuse) 1 to licence him to the benefice. Plaintiffs alleged th. at these refusals - were unlawful, counsel . stating that Dr. Barnes had given no g round for his refusals, and did not c ©me to Court to justify them. Eefusir sg the patrons,' nominee was, counsel < sontended, unlawful. DR. BARNES DOES NOT DEFEND. Mr. H. B. Vaiscy; . K.C., who appeared for the plaintiffs ; mentioned that Mr. Erringtou held a watching brief for the Bishop of B: h'.miiigliam in this action. "I am very sorry,-?' he added, "that Dr. Barnes hAs not seen fit to defend the action a rid put in an appearance, so that the ■ Court would have had the benefit of Mr. Errington's experience in this branch of law." Both the Court and the 1 plaintiffs had been to some extent, einl Jarrasscd by the non-appearance of X jtr. Barnes. Referring to the. possibility of the Bishop being attb/>«hed or imprisoned, Mr.'Vaisey said tli :vt it' was very distasteful to discuss Mbat question except theoretically. It -\ras difficult to say how the right of tl1« patrons was going to bo made effective.

Mr. Justice Bcmnett: "Tho Bishop may be advised thi it the form of relief you are asking for is one to which you aro not entitled."

Mr. Yaiscy saitfi that if the Court ordered tho Bisho]» to admit Mr. Sinimonds ho might h five an answer were proceedings for nor i-compliancp with the order to bo taken : against him in the naturo of attachme lit or committal. Th& Court was left en tircly at large as to tho Bishop's reasons" for not instituting Mr. Sinimoml c. If an order were made and not obc ryed, and proceedings were taken to bri fig the Bishop before the Court to explain why he had notobeyed the order, the Bishop might advance an infinity of reasons which would entitle thn Court to say, in the exercise of its discretion, that it would not follow the : ijmlnr with . tho usual penal relief aga/iufit him. "STRICTi:^r SPEAKING." . Mr. ErringtoiJ. observed that, without speaking in ilofence of the Bishop, he would like 'to draw attention to the question of whlather tho Court was exceeding its jurisdiction. Mr. Justice. Bennett: "That is the danger of not. setting the case argued." Mr. Vaiscy : ''This puts me in a great difficulty. I do not think the Bishop is treating the Court in the way litigants usually 'do." Mr. Justice Bennett: 'f Strictly speaking, he is i'o contempt." Mt. Barrington: "I am afraid that is so, strictly speaking." Mr. Jus-Wee Bennett considered that tho Bishop should enter an appearance; , he need uot defend the action. ■ The Jutfigc then gave his decision as stated above.