The Express.
London, England, 1851-06-13 00:00:00

'THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY AND
THE BISHOP OF EXETER.

The following correspondence has taken place be-
tween the Rev. H. E. Head and the Chaplain to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury :
"Rectory, Feniton, June 10, 1851.
"Rev. Sir,—ln pawing sentence against Mr. Gorham,
tie Judge of the Court of Arches went oat of his way, and
waded out of his depth, by meddling with, misrepresenting,
caricaturing, and slandering, the doctrines taught by Luther,
Calvin, and the principal Reformers of the sixteenth century.
His sentence was based or supported by a false and injuri-
ous statement of Calvinistic tens ts, and would have ex-
cluded,
if carried into effect, a large class of conscientious
clergymen from the ministry of the national church.
And now, because the archbishop of the province has
not thought tit to surrender his own judgment to be
fettered by the theological opinions or prejudices of a
judge appointed by one of his predecessors—such defame- ,
tory statements are circulated against the Archbishop by
the Bishop of Exeter, as would fix no small stain upon this
diocese, if believed or consented to by silence. I therefore
publish your letter which places in a true point of view one,
at kast, of those subjects on which the archbishop has been
misrepresented and defamed. The Bishop of Exeter is
thoroughly aware of the distinction pointed out in your
poetcript. But what is to be said of the venni.), of that
prelate, or of th it man, who calmly and deliberately con-
founds that which is theoretical with that which is practi-
cal, in order to lead men, less experienced than his lordship
in litigation, to make false inferences, and to believe that
which is contrary to truth. " I remain, rev. sir,
" Your very obedient servant,
" The Rev. J. Thomas " H. E. HEAD.
" Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury."
"Lambeth, June 4th 18.51.
.• Rev. Sir,—l have received your letter of the 30th May.
You speak of ' an idea having been conveyed that when the
Judge in the Court of Arches passed sentence against Mr.
Gorham, he (the Judge) passed that sentence in the name,
with the consent, by the authority, and at the command of
the archbishop, and that it was to every intent and purpme
the archbishop himself who passed that sentence by the mouth
of Sir 11. 'Fenner Fast,' and you request me to afford you a
few words in explanation of the real state of the case. Ido
not quite understand the meaning of those assertions which
you wish me to explain. The decisions of the Judge of the
Court of Arches are practically no more the decision of the
archbishop than the judgments in any of the Queen's
courts are the judgments of the Queen. Her Ma-
jesty appoints the judges of the courts, and so
does the Archbishop appoint the Judge of the
Court of Arches. Sir H. lust was, I think, appointed by
the late archbishop. But the archbishop generally exercises
no control or superintendence over the judge. Thejudg-
meats are in practice given as independently of the arch-
bishop as the judgments of other courts. The judge dues
not apply to the archbishop for his advice or opinion ; nor is
the archbishop's concurrence asked or required in order to
make the judgments binding. Of course I need not say that
there was no deviation in the case of Mr. Gorham 's trial from
what I have described to be the usual practice of the court.
" I am, Rev. Sir, your faithful servant,
" The Rev. H. E. Head. " J. THOMAS.
- - -

- - - ----
" P.S.—Probably the writer to whom you allude was
giving some theoretical account of tho Court of Arches.
But such oescriptions will not bear application to the prac-
tical working of the courts—or we might, in cases of appeal,
regard the Queen as reversing in one court the judgment
which she had delivered in another, and then reversing her
second decision after a third trial, and so on."