The Express.
London, England, 1864-03-23 00:00:00

TSB OXFORD DECLARATION.

The proposers of the above declaration have
obtained the following opinion u to its legality from the
Attorney-General and Sir H. Cairns :

" orz lON.

" We understand that theqestious put tom relate merely
to the legality of the declaration drawn up at the meeting
held at Oxford on the 23th of February, 1864, and do sot
invite us to express any opinion oe the expediency of pro-
posing or subscribing such • declaration.
" We are clearly of opinion that the lit and 37th articles
referred to in the 36th canon simply affirm the proposition
that the cognisance and determination of all canoes' sale-
tiastical and temporal, belong to the sovereign, and to the
courts established and allowed by the sovereign ; and that
no other tribunal for this pupae" ought to be acknow-
ledged either in or out of the realm.
' The observance of these articles will of course involve,
among other things, obedience and respect to any judg-
ment, that is, to any sentence which the 'overawe may
pronounce in an ecclesiastical Mule on the recommendation
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but this is
wholly distinct from an smut to or acquiescence in the rea-
soning or statements pursued or advanced by members of
the Judicial Committee as the grounds of their nommen-
' dation to her Majesty.
" It is to be observed that the Judicial Committee menet
under any obligation that we 'snow of to state to the
public- what are the reasons for their recommendation to
the sovereign in any particular case. The reasons may be
inadequate to justify the recommendation ; different mem-
bers of the committee may express or act upon different
resume. The communee may in one case base their re-
commendation on reasons widely differing from the reasons
on which they have previously based their recommendation
in • case precisely similar. The sovereign may proceed
upon the recommendation given without concurring in the
reasons assigned, it, indeed, remain ere assigned in the
report or recommendation to the sovereign. But it is not
necessary, or even, as we believe, usual, to assign reason
in the report or recommendation to the sovereign; it is to
the sentence of the sovereign, and to that alone, that the
subjects of the sovereign, both lay and clerical. have to
look ; and it is the sentence which those who are affected
by it have to obey. The sentence in the can of Wilson v.
Feodall is not before us, but we understand it to be simply
a sentence reversing a decree of the Court of Arches,
which had suspended the appellant on a charge of heretical
teaching or writing.
",We believe that these observations answer in substance
all the questions put to us ; but we add, by way of specific
reply to question 4, that we are clearly of opinion that it
is not in any way unlawful for clergymen, either singly or
together, in their preaching or otherwise, to affirm that the
Church of England and Ireland maintains, without re-
serve or qualilicatioc, the inspiration and divine authority
of the whole canonical scriptures, as not only containing
but being the Word of God ; and further, in the words of
our blessed Lord, that the punishment of the cursed,
equally with the hie of the righteous, is everisating.
" ROCNDSLL PALMER.
" li. M. CAWS.
" March 12, 1864."

• 3 and 4 WM. IV., C. 41. requires the nature of the
report or recommendation to be stated in open coon.