The Express.
London, England, 1863-10-01 00:00:00

C..)r.P.F.SMNDKNTS.

Aevertfiensents (flauted for "The Erpreee• London Evening
Paper, must be at the °Mee, 10, tiouvertertreet, by Two
on the day of publication.

H AY 2CARIET.

Tart SMOG, UNLUCKY MORTAL. Mr. W. Parrett. -
FINCIPS t or. SPY AND COUNTILSPY. Masora A. Wigan and
Rucketone Mrs. Dualist, Mts. A. W sad Idles Anuel.—To
conclude w ttb TUR.NLYO THE TABI.SIL Mr. Compton.

Tms Emma, PH(EBR HESsELL Mrs. Yarnotd.—THE
GREAT GHOST firrart—Ainging by Mr. Randall, Mr. Parker,
and Mma. ileaa.—And LADY AUDLLYS saLaurr. Mew&
Re 311.14 Craufurd. and Parry; Wages Miles and Durru:ng.

ISIGR WAT?Jt AT LONDO‘ BRIDOL
DAT —ltoreing. 4 , 19r AlSeesam. 4b. 15m
J.-Jimmy —Mambo& 4b Atiorwma. 141. 13,u.

LONDON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1.

THE decision of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, annulling, on appeal, the order of
suspension and sentence of deprivation passed by
Dr. GRAY, the Bishop of Capetown, on the Rev.
JAMES LONG, one of his clergy, reached the Cape
Colony in the middle of August. The measure of
interest which the proceedings in this case before the
Privy Council excited in England, was chiefly due
to the fact that their result would show the extent
of the Bishop's power, and how far it was likely to
be available in the prosecution which, in his assumed
character of Metropolitan, he was expected to
institute against Bishop Cotz_vso. But it appears
from Bishop GRAY'S letter to the Churchwardens
of Mr. LONG'S pariah that the judgment of the
Privy Council has been regarded there as an act
which raises in a practical form ecclesiastical ques-
tions of the utmost gravity, far exceeding in im-
portance the lapse of any individual from ortho-
doxy, and affecting the constitution and essential
character of the Church.

The Rev. Mr. Lose was suspended, and ulti-
mately deprived, for non-compliance with an order
of the Bishop enjoining him to give notice to his
congregation of a Diocesan Synod which the Bishop
desired to convene. Mr. LONG, in the words of
the Judicial Committee, " was required to do
" various acts of a formal character for the pur-
" pose of calling into existence a body which he
" had refused to recognise ;" the Committee add—
" and which he was not bound by any law or duty
"to acknowledge." The Bishop, however, has
throughout proceeded on the assumption that " by
" the Canons of the Church every clergyman of a
"diocese is bound to acknowledge the authority
" of the Synod of the diocese, and to attend it
" when summoned," irrespective of any special
and personal engagement he may or may not have
made to do so. Here the two authorities, the
Head of the diocese and the highest Court of Ap-
peal, are at variance. The Bishop attaches vast
importance to the synodical organization ; but, ac-
cording to the Privy Council, his synods are mere
voluntary assemblies of which nobody is obliged to
take notice. Naturally the Bishop finds it very
difficult to admit this doctrine. His conduct in
these trying circumstances has, however, been
marked with dignity. Being bound by the de-
cision to reinstate Mr. Loss() in possession of his
living and church, he has given that gentleman the
full benefit of the judgment of the Court, and
restored him to the cure of souls and the right
to celebrate sacraments, also recommending the
Churchwardens to remain in their offices and
continue to render their services to Mr. LONG.
But while thus acquiescing in the judgment of the
Privy Council, and fulfilling its requirements ac-
cording to the best advice he could obtain, the
Bishop raises his voice against what he deems a
usurpation of his office by the secular courts. The
decision, he says, does nit affect to give back to
Mr. LONG the cure of souls and the right to
minister sacraments which had been taken away ;
on the contrary, Lord Kisusnowx, who delivered
the judgment of the Privy Council, ex-
pressly repudiated this intention. But, re-
marks the Bishop, " indirectly it does this."
The suspension was purely spiritual, affecting no
temporal right, touching no emoluments. But,
he complains, " the sentence of the Bishop has been
" set side." And this leads Dr. GRAY to announce
Church principles which are certainly not novel, but
which his episcopal brethren in the House of
Lords would find it expedient to leave to the advo-
cacy of the inferior clergy. " If," says the
Bishop, " there be such a thing as the Christian
" Church, all spiritual power in it must he derived
" from Cromer. Neither Kings nor Parliaments,
" nor civil courts' can confer it. It has been
" given by Cantsr to the Bishop." Therein, he
says, lies his difficulty. Would not, he asks
himself, acquiescence in this assumption of the
Privy Council be a surrender of spiritual autho-
rity to a temporal court, and thus a betrayal of the
trust committed to him t The Bishop displays
much subtlety in appearing to accept the testimony
and guidance of the Privy Council as to
the law of the question between himself
and Mr. Lasso while repudiating its authority.
On the ground that Mr. Lox° had justification in
law for his conduct, he, the Bishop, will restore
him, and pray for him that he may have grace to
be dutiful and submissive in future. " But," he
proceeds, " in doing this I desire to guard myself
" against any recognition of spiritual authority in
" the Judicial Committee as regards this Church,
" and 1 therefore feel bound solemnly to protest,
"as in cancelling my spiritual sentence I have
" protested and here again protest, that in accept-
" ing their judgment on a matter of law I do not
" admit the claims of the Court by such a decision
" to set aside a spiritual sentence of a Bishop of
" the Church in Africa." And he concludes with
the declaration, " I hold myself free to give or
" withhold spiritual powers, let the sentence of
" temporal conrts be what they may." We have
no doubt the Bishop is acting on his conscientious
convictions, and will keep his word. But, consi-
dering that the supremacy of the Crown, of which
the Privy Council is the adviser, is here in ques-
tion, the language seems scarcely such as might
have been expected from a Bishop claiming autho-
rity under the QUEENN letters patent.
The Bishop opens a question of much larger
importance when he states his general views re-
sporting appeals from colonial churches in spiritual
cases. The Church, he says, generally approved
when, by royal letters patent, the Archbishop of
CANTYRBURY was appointed a final court of appeal.
But Mr. LONG appealed to the Privy Connell,
and that body, passing over the Archbishop, ad-
mitted the appeal, thus asserting its own right
and lesr'-- that of the and
secular

" and leaving that of the Arehbiaboidoubtfol, ;I;
so " manifestly encouraging appeals to secular
•