The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-01 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 1, MIL

CORRESPONDENCE OF ARCHBISHOP OF
CANTERBURY AND BISILOP OF ESE MR WITH
HEY. W. HASKELL.

[No I ]
Lesion, Coveservatiee Club, S:. Jaaresstnet,
April 23, 18*(0.
My Lord Arehbiallop,—l enclose to your gram
mile of a resistless of a anti ag of the inhabitant. of say
pal* St. May Church, to the dictated Barter (a], and 01
• from the mate parish to the lord biome of the
diereses [s].
Both t • nviolution and the memorial were agreed to in
OSM•liaoso, of a normal communication made by me to my
potassium, amezabled in vestry, on April 6, informios
thou that it was my intention to reign my cure of souls on
the following Monday, the 6th inst.
I enclose atm to your grins a capy of a " Second Letter on
the pen set p ninon or the nigh church party in the Church
of England, which was published on the 10.1 of this mouth
sad which explains at some length the reasons by which I
was induced to behove it to be my duty to resign my cure of
gouda
Woos I roteivod the enclosed revolution and a copy alas
of Os memorial aidreseed to tho Lord B shop of Baster, I
have end. scoured t• give the subject of them the belt end
soot genial consideration in my power. It is impossible
mot to anthowleese that such an spinal from those
who have been committed to my charge. is not
lo be lightly passed over. And, moreover, it is right
that 1 should infons your grace that the Bishop of Easter
Ms given me his opinion, that ;hare is so anftledest muss
as shows In my published " Sewed Letter," ite., for which
I should ledge my cure of tools. A copy of his lordship's
latter to me is also enclosed. Pio. 6 ]
ftitll, my lad, the same dies:tittles press painfully upon
me. it vow to me that, (sceptics the doctrine of the
Zen tressed Trinity, I have an doctrines and no faith to
teach, as certainly the faith and doctrines of the church of
England. I may, perhaps, tench what I believe to be true ;
bat—es it seems—it h quite open to me, if I thought it to
be tight, and that I should be no lea Justified, to teach the

agrettnre therefore to ask your Mee, ae Archbblop of the
pin/visa—ant watt my duty a with regard to resignation of
My able of sites, tut—what doctrines I cught to teach my
peop:e to believe ? And, without entering now upon many
bteriare, suffer meta name the billowing, by way of pito.
nod tole generally :
Ouctit I. to teach, and hare I the mrhority Mae Church
of Eaglead to MLA, that the grace of reg tion, toge-
Mier with the ere ton of original sin, Is certainly given to
all infants in the sacrament of holy b.iptism ?
Again, upon the a. ase and equal authority, that justifies-
Men is always eoueurrirat with the due reception of the
Sacrament el baptism ?
Or, sg .i.; that as especial gift of the Holy Ohost is, in a
eamantebtil manner, given to faithful recieieets, tic mar-
egation, b 7 the laying on of the hands of the bishop ?
Or, again ; that orders transmitted through the episcopate
is of the essence of the Christian church ?
Or, once more, that the words in it. Ordinal, Whomso-
ever eine thou dolt forgive, they are forgiven," dte., matey
• the oriesth•ied dm power of absolving r ultimata, to he
esereived, in its fulsome, only atter particular concession, as
iadiceed is the oMce of Holy Coenmuabou, and the Visaa-
ties of the Sick ?
These subjects, iay lord, I amider to be intimately con-
nected with the founnationa of religious faith, and, accord-
ing as they are believed, with the daily life and prectiee of
every Christian Etta. It is impossible, I suppose, that the
Church of Christ should have Lit them undetermined. If
ft may its, I am anxious to continue labouri, g and feeding
is the Church of England ; sad l do sincerely trust that
your crew will pardon the application, which, as a pastor of
souls, I have now made to you as A rchbisbcp of the pro-
vince. My perplexity is the greater, becmse of the increased
ambiguity which has lately heat thrown upon our doerinel
formularies._ _ .

As my difficulties are already in some mesmire public, and
ae my parish b in a state of doubt and suspense, lam
obliged, however unwillingly, to Wren your gram that this
iserrespnadeam probably must also be made public.
May I reqseet en answer addressed as above ? and, if it
ehotald be desired, I would wait upon your grace, any day,
at any hour, which it may he convenient to ycu to anoint.
I remain, my lord, your graoet most obedient and dutiful
smear, W. Mamma..
To his Grace the Lord Atcbbi.hop of Canterbury.
Poel.misd with the etym. were the fobowine copies of the
rtesbation sad memorial referred to; and a colt' of the
letter below, No. 6.]

3. Mr. Maiden having comsynale:ited to the vestry his intention to
range his ministry in this parish, It is the wish of the ucdervigned
inhabitants to sierras their deep regret that be should come to this
determination by coasidevieg that the question sh,ch hiv occaseined
Mr. Mask'll to take this step bse not yet been finally settled,
and earnestly to request him, at lead, to defer doing so for the
present.
[2;l
Mary Church, .tptil 6, 1130.
Yy Lord.—We, the undereigned inhabitants of the parish of fa.
Mary Church, bare thi- day beard with the deepest regret from our
vknr, that it is his intention to tender his resignation oi the ministry
of this carob to your lordship on Monday next. The reason
assigned for so doing is the recent judgment pronouseed by
the Judicial Committee of the Piney Coined in the cise of
your lordship v. Gorham. It is not our purpose la ad-
dressing your lordship now to enter into • rtudied eulogy
of Mr. Masked; we would merely remark that, with compardirely
yew exceptions, we believe teat all el ions of the inhabitants of this
parish, and, perhaps, w.th no exception, those who are members of
our church, will feel the retirement of Mr. 31saitch from among as no
• grievous law more ',acidly at the prevent time. We think that
the anomalous praition in which the church is placed at this moment
by hohting ea the subject of baptism two options absolutely
contradictory the oce to the other, so far from having set the gyra-
tion finally at rest, must hare tne effect, whether through es 111•011110
bon or otberwier, of °Marling from the church • more simple and
at the mine time more defined view of the &etree in queetion.
We allude to this now incidentally In addressing your lordship
In explaution of our opinion which we desire to express,
that in stay cam Mr. Modell Is preo attire in resigning at this
prevent juncture, and to request that sour lordslip, shoold your
opinion coincide with our., will dean: accepting Mr. Misvhdre
resignation. We beg, in conclusion, totally to disclaim any wish
to appear to dictate to your lordship, or interfere la the
slightest Mitres with your Lordship's undoubted prerogithe : we
merely desire to place before your lordship our sentiments upon this
painful oramicia, in the hope that we may still continue to retain
among us • minister to whom we all entertain a most effectionate
regard.
[No. 2 ]
L tntbetb, April 26, 1850.
Reverend 84,-1 am much obliged by your seeding to
me, together with your own letter, the hater of your dio-
cesan ; because it removes much of tho burden "Phial I

should otherwise feel to be laid upon me, when putt mention
the doubt and uncertainty of your mind at the present
moment, whether to resign your cure of saute or no.
Your bishop justly states that then are many subjects
connected with our holy religion upon which we hare no
reason to ezpeet the dogmatic teaching of the church. In-
deed your mono published letter complains of matters left
undetermined, upon which the church could not possibly
pronounce a decision, nukes it were her otfize to reveal
what is to be believed, rather than to teach what has been
revealed.

To • certain extent, the same remark is applicable
to the qu•stioas which you now address to me; in replying
to which I disclaim all right to answer authoritatively, or
ammo a respons.bilil which does not belong to the °Mc*
which I hold. Still, I will not refuse to state, though very
bei. fly, the few remarks which scar to me on the several
enbje of your inquiry.
I. You ask, first, " Ointht I to teach, and have I the
authority ot the church of Eeglend to teach, that the grace
of r, generation, together with the remission of original sill,
is certainly given to all infants in the sacrament of holy I
baptism I" What is included in the grace of regent-
retina is not declared in the articles of our church,
neither is regeneration limited in Scripture to the
sacrists% of baptism (See James i. 18, and
1 John v. 1.) But the nbria furnishes some answer
to the latter pan ot the question, asserting that " it is cer-
tain from God's word that chUdna which are baptised
dying Wore they commit actual sin an andiubtedly saved.
Our Lied also commended kis apostles to " in and teach all
nations, haptis;ng them in IS name of the Father, and of
the Son, end of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. :evil 19.) In
obediesee to this command, the church sachems to Sp
tin r infants, " sot daubing, but steadfastly believing, that
God will Iseenably receive them ; will embrace them with
the arms of his limy ; will give unto them the blessing of
stored life, sad rusks them partaken of his everlastisg
kiNdoe."—Paplitsid Santee.
11. You sok again, Am I to teach, on the same and equal
authority, that juetillestise is always concurrent with the
due reception of the sacrament of baptism? The church
an only speak se Scripture speaks, sod do. a not intrude into
" the secret things which belong to the Lord our God."
You have authority to teach, with all plainness, as regard.
justafi:ation, that "we are accounted righteous before God
oily for the merit of our Lard and Saviour Jesus Christ, by
faith." Art. XL And in lizards baptism, the church
teach,, that by It, "oe by as instrumen., the promise of tor.
11.0111101 of elan" (which is equivalent to justificatioe) " is
Selig, domed sad staled to them that receive it rightly."
An =vit. Farther than this we are not clearly Shamed.
la the same, her Winans, of Said, see Aye ix. 15,18, or of
434essilin, AeS n. 31.34, 44, 48, of eta we are told that he
was " aeceptsi et Got ," of the other, that he was a
" chess veer-1 sato 0G4." Bet whether they wen jud-
ged before baptism, or in Singes. I. e. whether their
"justification was essennent with their baptism," Scrip-
ture does not say, And the chunk dee. dot teach ea to
Madero.
111. IV. V. Von inquire farther, " Oisgbt Ito teach that
as especial gift of the Holy ghost u, in a sacramental man-
se, given to faithful recipients in aufirenation, by the
laying on of the handset the bithop ? Or, main, that orders
traaamitted tkroork the Bpiscopate are of tau ease soot the
Christian chumb ? Or, cos more, that the words in the
ordisel, ' Whosoever Ss thou dust forgive, they are forgiven,*
ac., convey ti the priesthood the power of absiving rani-
tests, n be exercised, in its fulness, only after particular
cosheitioa. a indisted in the office of holy communion, and
the visitation of the ark ?"
I take these three questions together, because they admit
of the same eosins reply—namely, that the church, in her
character ee " • keeper and witness of holy writ," Art. an.,
does not give authority to teach more than is there
led On the matter of confirmation, for instance,
the sides of the church are prudently silent; the
confirmation described in Scrip's. being duff rent in many
motets from the norm of Mee rite prescribed in the Book of
Commas Prayer. So With regard to episcopacy, as being
" of the essence of the church." Our church is satisfied
with &tying, that from the apostles' time " then have been
in she church the three orders of bishop% priests, and
deacons; and that se man shall be suffered to exercise any
of those functions except he be called, tried, examined,
and admitted thereto,' according to the form wh•ch
is prescribed.—Prelate to Ordination Sento. Assist,
cone. ruing absolution : the church has dedarcd, ge-
nerally, the power which God hath sires to his
otiantan; namely, to promotes on the part of God, "the

abeolaties or remission of their rise to all them that Map
repeat, and unfagnedly believe hts holy repel." And If
upon any of these subjects the choreal hes not Mimed
non thaa this, it P. not that her teaching is defeetive, bat
that eh* finds no instructi.ss in Sc. iptare which justly her
In saying more : it is, father, because she has both strongly
enkiled in avoid all questions which rather tend to " pa-
rlor MAIM" than to prostate "godly edifying," 1 Timi. 4,
2 Tim. 11.23: aid that she profeeses„ai a (rudimental prin.
ciple, to "require cf no one the boned of any thing which
is not read in holy Scripts», or may be proved thereby."
Art. vit.
I as scarcely hops that this esperficial reply to gaieties@
which it would r. quire a volume to discuss will appear to
you either sufficient or satisfaitorry. But such as it is, it may
servo to suggest thoughts whisk climates your serious man-
@Mention, before you take the dangerous stop which you
have bees lately meditating. Ethocially it may lead you to
inquire whether in the exerciser of year ministry you have
not both in the holds of paying too much attention and
attributing too muck authority to something else, rather
than to that as which we an alone depend, sad which is
the deposit sommitted to our clinks—the Word of God.
" Colansoading you, therefore, to God, and to the word of
his anus," I remain. reverend sir, your faithful servant,
The Roy. W. Maskell. J. B. CANSUAZ.
[No. 3.1
Conservative Club. St. Jamee's-streiet, April 26.
My Lwd,—l thank your Grace very much for your latter,
received last evening. Even it for no other reason except
your grace's kindness, I should deeply regret the appearance
of unduly preisirg.any questions, or of the least demo to
argue them. But in a matter so very important, may I
venture sti.l to ask your grey whether I am right in so
understanding your ',plies to say queetioas as to conclude
that I ought not to Utah, and that 1 have not the authority
of the *hutch of England to teach, any of the doctrines
spokes of in those five questions, in the dogmatical terms '
there stated? I would again thank your arum very sin-
cerely, and I remain, my lord, your very obtd:ent and dutiful
servant. W. Maize:U.
The Virg Archbishop of Canterbury.
[No. 4 ] Lambeth, April 27.
Reverend Sir,—l can only answer your second inquiry by
another. You a,le me, " whether you are to conclude that
you ought not to teach, and have not the authority of the
church to teach, any of the doctrines spoken of in y..ur five
former questions, in the dogmatical terms there stated?"
To which I reply, are they contained in the word of God ?
St. Paul says, ' Preach the word." The church, at your
ordination, gave you "authority to preach the word of
God," and took an engagement from yen that you would
" be diligent in reading theMoly Scriptures," " were per.
leaded that they contained sufficiently all doctrine required
of necessity to sternal salvation," and " out of the said
scriptures would instruct the people committed to your
eharye." Whatever is not there found, and nothing which
cannot be proved thereby, is to be taught as an article of
belief, or thought requisite or necomary to salvation. Art.
6. Now, whether the doctrines concerning which you in-
quire aro contained In the word of God, and can be proved
thereby, you have the same mesas of discovering as myself,
and I hate no special authority to declare.—l remain, rev.
sir, your faithful servant, J. B. CANT 11•11.
Rev. William MaskelL _ _

[No. 5.]
Conservative Club, April 27, 1850.
My Lord,—lf I should attempt to enter upon the queg
lion how far, or rather, with what degree of cleaner and
plainness., the doctrines ePectified in my former kitten are to
be found in holy scripture, it would now certainly seem as
if I desired to commence en argument with your grace upon
subjects which would require, as your grace has already re-
marked, volumes to discuss. Let me repeat, my lord, that
my sense of your kindness to me would thine be sufficient to
prevent my intruding upon your grace beyond the limit of
what might seem to be, under the circumstances of the pre-
sent time, reasonable and just.
But, my lord, I must say that I believe all those doctrines
specified are to be found in Holy Scripture, according to
the terms which I have used is my questions, and that they
may be fnUy proved thereby.
But I consent entirely to your grace's epieion, that I am
not authorised by the reformed church of England to teach
those doctrines, in the terms stated, as being certainly true;
I mean, authorised in such a manner, as would forbid and
condemn my teaching the contrary.
In saying, I take this to be your grace's opinion, I venture
to conclude it so to be, because, if I were authorised to teach
distinctly a particular and defined statement of the truth as
to those dretrines, I cannot doubt but that your grace would
!evilly have told me.
So that it seems to be es I bad supposed and I have no
faith and no do-trines to teach on acy subject—except per-
haps relenting the ever-blessed Trinity—as certainly the
doctrines and the faith of the church in which I am a
minister. In other words, if there is anything which I
ought to teach, it is this, that the church of England has no
distinct doctrine except on a single subject..
For, my lord, and I write it with pain and sorrow, I may
tell my people to believe, according to their own view of
scripture, either that all children are regenerated in holy
baptism, or that they are not: that cocfirmation is a spiritual
gilt, conveyed by laying on of hands, in a sacramentel man-
ner, or, that it is not : and so of tie other doctrines which I
have named, and many besides thcse. And all this, speak.
log with authority, us an ordained and commissione4oscher,
sent and appointed by the cht.reh itself.
lily lord, can there be any religieus system devised on
eanh so destructive of epiritual life, and so opposed to the
re lity of spiritual prima, e, as one which, under the guise of
purity and moderation, throws open all doctrines, except
one, to the determination of each man's private judgment,
and suffers us to believe (as we will) either this or that, or, if
we dare to do so, nothing at all ?
Nor do I see how such a system, ones openly avowed, cut
fail to lead thousands fate infidelity.
In now closicg this correspondence, again and most sin-
cerely do I thank your grace, for ,the kind consideration
which you have given to my letters,
And I remain, my Lord, your Grace's most obedient end
dutiful servant, W. MANCELL.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.
[No. 6.]
BISHOP OP EXITIM TO Ma. MASISLL.

27, Conduit-street. 14th April, 1860.
My dear Maikell,—l have read your" second letter" with
the lettings which you anticipated—with much pain for the
church, with much apprehension for the effect it will pro-
duce, by causing strong prejudice against you and three who
may be considered as, is greater or less measure, symbolising
with you, and with sincere pity fur ynurselt. For it is
im-
possible not to pity a friend whom mind is hammed and
perplexed by the doubts which pram upon him in relation to
high points of faith. I mean whether they are sufLiently
recognised as such by the church in which he has unnertalien
' to minister.

But I at once frankly say, that I think your main position
u-tenable—that every sound branch of the catholic church
is bound to have dogmatic teaching on the particulars stated
by yea.
Dogmatic teaching, beyond the acceytance sed enforce.
went of the creeds, is not, of its-If, essential to the catholicity
of a church. It her formularies of divine worship are based
on those creeds, and if her ministration of the ticramants of
baptism and the eucharist includes what is necessary to the
due administration of those sacraments, I conceive that all
which is essential is stujt.yed in her communion, and all neees-
s reta
ined.
Dogmatic teaching is
Dogmatic teaching, besides the creeds and the authorita-
tive condemnation of emergent heresies, was not a part of
the system of the church in her purest days. Itt truth, till
the sixteenth century, I apprehend that in no church was
there en attempt made to draw outs body of doctriaes to be
taught by her ministers.
The first attempts of this kind were made fora particular
purpose, to state the particular grounds on which the bodies
of Christians who used them justified their refusal to submit
to the decrees of Rome.

If, then, we had no further dogmatic teaching than the
creeds, and the admission of the first four general councils,
and if our administration of baptism and the Eucharist be
sufficient, I cannot see that we should be, so far es dogmatic
teaching goes, so deficient' as to cut off our church from the
church catholic; so far from ir, we should have all that
the church catholic had fee six centuries.;
That it is not desirable that we should have more dogma-
tical teaching, in order ad: quatily to meet the enormous
and heretical statements put firth from time to time among
us, I am very far from saying or thinking. I wish our
articles were clearer and more conclusive; I wish other
particulars were, for the purpose I have mentioned, intro-
duced into them: but I submit without misgiving to the
actual state of matters in this respect, though I should
glenly, acd with a conviction of its being my duty, labour
to make her state less imperfect.
Your 'lineation of the necessity of our having precise
dogmatic teaching on the various matters enumerated in
pp. 34-39, seems to me wholly untenable. A scheme of
dogmatic teaching on those matte,. could tof be proscribed
by the church, without cutting off from her commanion all
mlniaten who should dissent from it in any particular. But
it so, se many of those matters are not fundamental, the
church must excommunicate all who differ from her on
points which neither the werd of God nor the tradition of
the church has prescribed as aecesmary.
To go into details would be at present impossible. I have
already stated enough to slow tt at I differ very widely
from you as to the neesesity of demanding all that you de-
mand of dogma from the church, eve if I could agree with
you (which Ido not think it likely that I should) as to the
catholic truth of some of the points enumerated by you.
But then oomss the practical question—ls there anything
in this pamphlet which makes it your duty (because you
have published it) to leave the charge which you have un-
stertsken ?

Without atteraptieg to deal accurately with subjects so
extensive, I du not thiek that there u anything in it, which
exceeds the kande of (I do not say diacreet—l do not say
charitable—l do not so dutiful, but Ido say) tolerable
dimaisioa.

Teo have a right to Mout to indite* your fellow ministers
sal lay brethren to urge • removal of what you esteem
blemi a supply of what you think di ficieaciii, a nearer
approach in short to eomplete•ess of doctrine in your church.
And, if t►is has been done in a ni which very many
(myself among the number) shall think undutiful, I do not
think thieve are thereby justified—on the contrary, I think
we should be schiantatioal—in telling you to quit uc. Si far
from b, it would be oar wiu.om to tensider well sod calmly
with minds as little as possible disturbed by disci tiofactioa
at your tons—the Important matter which your work brings
before u.

That there is much Mtruth in what you say I feel—that
Wee is so such as you believe, I cannot assent.
I regard your publication as one of the perplexing facts in
oar valet state. May fled enable us to deal with all of
then in such moaner as shall be but fur Hie church.
The /MUM /MO, diatel7 ntcessary—the necesidty of
whkh is pressing upon us—ts the restoration of eyoodical
amine. I us sorry to be obliged to edd, that I do nit
think that you km, in this, your late effort, fasilirated
I Om ristastioa, fories.l4 I think, have exasperated the

disissableaties le it is men of authority—though you will
presteehisheire ineeessed in many misadsowyou have in HUM,
as serum braise Ise it.
La expressing my *Wee that It Is act your duty to resign
your cheese, 1 useematilyiaqk that 1 think it your duty to
retain it.
In coming to this uselessioa I has nieleavenred, I believe
seessesfelly, to cut Wide 11.11711 gal late the wine Wilma
dismayed wishes and feelings.
lam, my deer Easkell, yours always very faithfully,
Bar. W. ilaakelL H. Bute*.
P.S.—To ;provost nebappreheasiee, I think It secessary
to add, that to me every thing like invocation of the blessed
virgin, or of the wish, would seem to imply, what we have
no warrant to believe, that she or they are cognisant of what
we do or say—and that I should feel it difficult to cousin
any actual invocation of them, se cogaisant, to be other than
unseriptural and preenuptuous, and leading, by pretty
plain induction, to will.wonhip, if not (as it too often
would) to idolatry.
I must specify another particular, In. which I strongly dis-
sect from your statements—l Man those which respect the
Irish chunk. Whatever may have been done, said ft intended
by individnab, the sysodical adoption of the articles of the
English church in 1834—tor the purpose declared in the
canon, as cited In your pamphlet, " for the manifestation
of our [the Irish church] a/resilient with the church of Eng-
land, in the confession of the same Christian faith, and the
doctrine of the sacraments"—must be held to repeal the
articles of 1815, either en Pau, or at least so far as they are
at variance with " the same Christian faith, and the doctrine
el the sacraments" which is held by the church of England.
Accordingly, the only subscription to articles, required as
admission to holy orders, sines the reformation, as Dr. El-
limiter, in his Life of Archbishop Usher, assures us, is sub-
scription to the let canon, enfurcieg articles.
Conservative Club, April 28, 1860.
My dear Lord,—There h one passage in your letter to me,
of which soma others besides myseit are anxious to know
the meaning in which it is to be undentood, and more espe-
cially since this ceirespondenu is to be published. The
words to which I allude are, "the authoritative condemne-
shin of emergent heresies." May I ask, in what sense are
we to understand that the church of England at the present
time condemns as heresy the denial of the unconditional
efficacy of baptism in the eau of all infants ?
Believe me, my Lord, your very sincere servant,
W. Methxxxx.
P.S. By the " unconditional efficacy of baptism in the
ease of all infants," I mesa this doctrine, viz., that all
infants, without exception, certainly receive io baptism the
remission of original sin, together with the gift of spiritual
regeneration.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter.
[No. B.]
28, thelvillestreet, April 27, 1860.
My dear Maakell,—Though I decline discussing with you
any further particuhn, yet I hesitate not to say, in answer
to your question proposed in your letter of yesterday, that
I " understand that the (hutch of England, at the present
tints" implicitly "condemns as heresy the denial of the
unoondizional efficacy of baptism in the case of all infants"
duly baptized, by holding that doctrine in her articles and
homilies, by teaching it in her catechism, the acceptance of
which La precedent condition of communion, and by basing
em it all her offices of baptism, as v ell as recognising it in
ether parts of the Book of Common Prayer, especial:v in
the office cf confirmation.—l am years faithfully,
Rev. W. Maskell. 11. EIZTZR.

Raw intelttgence.
EQUITY COURDS.—YESTERDAY.
BLP3III au Runs or MR ROLLS.
OIZOORT 9. DATIII.-LIAHILITT OP PARTNERS.

This suit wee instituted IsTtitePlainiiif,t;;;;;;;from
the personal representative of Mr. 1). Davies, deceased, who
formerly carried on business u a solicitor, at Liverpool, in
partnership with a Mr. J. Evans, a sum of 3001. received by
Evans during the continuance of his partnership with
Davies, on the plaintiff's account and improperly appro-
priated by Evans to his own use.
It appeared that Messrs. Davies and Evans were, in 1847,
the solicitors as well of the plaintiff' as of Messrs. Wrigley,
merebants, of Livereord, and the plaintiff being requested by
Evans, on behalf of Meson. Wrigley, to pay a debt which
the plaintiff owed them, the plaintiff directed Evans to
proceed aganst one Mrs. Sarah Matters, to recover a sum
from her which she owed the plaintiff, and to pay the money
when recovered to Messrs. Wrigley, and accordingly Evans
commenced an action against Saran Matters, which on the,
9th of June, 1817, was compromised on the,terms of her
giving three promise ay notes for 501. each to the plaintiff,
and paying him the sum of 1511. se. in cub. Toe 1511. 51.
was received by Evans for the plaintiff, who also indorsed the
notes on the understanding that they, together with the
1511.55., were to be pail over by Evans to Mews. Wrigley,
in satisfaction:of the, plaintiff's elect to them. Instead of
paying the money and notes over to Wrig,ey and Co., Evans
appropriated them to his own use. It appeared that Mr.
Davies had no knowledge of Mr. Evans's conduct in the
matter, but his estate was now sought to be charged with
the amount misappropriated, on the ground that he was at
the time in partnership with Evans, and liable for his acts.
It appeared tint on the sth May, 1847, an afire, mint was
cline to between Evans and Davies for the dissolution of
their partnership, but no notice was given of it to their
clients, t,r published, prier to 9th July, 1647, after Evans
had received the money, as appeared by an affidavit made
by Davies himself in a suit between him and Evans.

Mews. Walpole and B+ale was for the plantaff, and
Blessre,Tarner and Shebbetre h.r the defendant.

The Muter of the Mulls was of opinionnat7t7u regarded
their clients, the partnerlip of DILVIeI and Etats must be
considered as existing when the money was paid to Evans,
and that, tharaf.age, Dave.' state was liable. It well a hard
we, but when the question was whether the client or the
partner was to sutler by the act of the copartner, there
could be no doubt that the loss must tall on the partner,
and there must be a decree fur payment of the money with
colts.

BIJOItI TIM VIC6CMINCILLOR or ENGLAND.
Ex PARTE FLETCHER.
The hearing of this case, which concerns a ward, and
has occupitd the court for two days in private, is no: yet
concluded.

BAIL COURT.-YESTrRDAT.
Bgrus MIL JURICII CoLitmus.

TRI QI:ERN 01-Cll-1711-C-HRTaI7I6IIII7I4aNCIIIETZI.-

MANDAMUS.

The Attorney.Oenerel (with whom was Mr. Crompton)
moved for a rule calling on the churchwardens of Manchester
to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing
them to call • meeting for the election of churchwardets
and sidesmen for that parish. In Easter, 1849, the rthirieg
churchwardens gave notice of a meeting on Easter Monilsy
in the cathedral for the election of churchwardens and sides-
men f r the ensuing year. and it was arranged that if a poll
was demanded it should be taken at the Town hall. At the
meeting a Mr. Willis was in Ve chair, who stated that so he
entertained an objection to Sturges liourne's Act, which
gave 'plurality of votes to or.e man, as contrary to'Aatural jus-
tice, if • poll was demanded he should refuse it. A poll was
demanded, but the chairman declared the election to have
fallen on the persons in favour of whom was the show of
hands. The other party adjourned to the Town hall, and
took a poll, where they were elected, of course none of their
opponents voting. There were in tact two sets of church
wardens, neither of whom were duly elected. There had
been a difficulty in framing the rate, as it was thought that
the rector ought to be incluted in it. Now the parish of
Manchester was in a very anomalous position, inasmuch as
before the change of the ecclesiastical establishment, the dean
and canons were in the position of rector, but they main-
tained that they were no longer in that office. It was not
desirable to open this question, and therefore it was thought
that the rule should only go to the churchwardens under
Sturges Bourne's act, which provides that where there was
no rector, such rules should be directed to the church-
wardens alone.—Bale granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-YESTERDAY.

not Puce ♦T GUILLUAII. Btroas Mu. B♦aoa AIDIASON •XD ♦

LONDON COMMON
BRISTOW V. Di SLCQUISVILLE.—TaII DUISBURG IRON

.
COMPANY.

Mr. 111. Chambers and Mr. Brown were conned for ;he
plaintiff, and Mr. Scotland for the defendant.
This was an action to recover 2001. from the defendant,
which had been paid as the prices of 25 shares in a Bohemian
iron mining company, on an :prase agr.ement that if the
company should not be formed within three months from the
time the money was paid, or, having been f ;tined, should be
abandoned, the money should be immediately refunded.
For the detente an attempt was male to show that the cum-
any had been termed, and had not bees sines abandoned
but it was not made out to the satisfaction of the jury, and
they without hesitation found for the plaintiff for the fall
amount claimed.

ARCHES COURT.—YESTERDAY.
BILFOILL tillt HARBERT JINNI' Yvnr, K.
LAKIN V. LAKIN.
This was a suit. brought by letters of inquest from the
diocese of Lichfield, instituted by Mn. Lakin against her
husband for restitution of soojugal rights. The parties were
married in 1836, and there were six children, the issue of
such marriage. In October, last year, Mr. Lakin withdrew
himself from cohabitation, since which ;mind the parties hul
lived sepuate. The usual proceedings had been taken; the
husband had been cited, but there was no appearance put In
on hie behalf.

Upon the motion of Dr. lisgrard,
The Court now pronounced for tho marriage, and decreed
Mr. Lakin to receive his wile home, to treat her with con-
jugal affection, end to signify to the court by the first maim
of next term that he had done so.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.—YESTERDAY,
Ewalt FILUICIII BATLEY FAA.
FLAIR V. LOYD GLIIDNin —Palms, COOED, AND

ACKTRASEII.

Mr, Delimit., for the plaintif, stated that his client sued
a'. peer of the realm " for 4e 15-4. Bd. for services rendered
as cook. In the month of March last, his client, in conse-
quence of an adgertia-went, weited upon Mary Crowe.
housekeeper to the noble defendant, at 40, D,ver street, Pio
cadet,. She then engaged kennel( to act in the oepacity of
professed took at a salary of 201. per annum. Soon after
ship had entered the noble peer's service she ascertained that
it was not in the establishment of a peeress
she had entered—that it wet the establishment of
Yfts Coniston?, a lady whose name, perhar,
was not known in the " play bills," but was e
dialing.? on the " boards." His client, according to terms,
cooked a trial dinner, and his lordship, if he had no unities.
mutt remintseende in the boudoir, did appear le come into
the dining-room with au appetite far from gastronomic,
tor, the defeece be tolderstood to be set up was that
the trial awl was so badly sorra up that he,

eating' aside Pour, pasties, sod heaven knew what &hap
ie... um himself, ae a peer, down to bread sad deem.
His 11011111 f has expeerWies he this wart to observe that
domestic sensate to the meant" were sake an atbitrary
Waage ; that a steward, ea, as in skis tustaage, a by...
i keeper, Managed, sal his sliest was a saran under this
ensues. leggy& to soak the nisi dinner, she found her-
self witbeat the amass requisites ; the housekeeper even
ladled up the easua, and Ikea " egerked," how mould it he
separated his sliest geoid week a dinner for a peer. The
lammed gentlemes, is a humouring smash, called the
plasatiffoolto after esemborsting her sonata% statement,
said that eke demanded the Main for cooking dinners sad
breath of atatriat, that she had lived with the late Mr.
Satinet Spankie for may yen, god with other" epicures,"
but weld not make a soup out of water, not • Ash pate est
of a Periwinkle.
Mr. Oliver, for Lord Gardner, asked the plaiatlf if she
were aot engaged conditionally to cook a dinner for trial,
and that if the issue were not satisfactory she were to con-
sider herself disengaged.
The plaintiff, in answer to these questions, replied exactly
to her evidence already given.
Mr. Oliver then called Mary Crowe, housekeeper to Lord
Gardner, who deposed to having engaged the plaintiff.
Mr. Detainers, in croon-examinadon, elicited from the wit-
ness that she was net accountable alone to Lad °eviller—
that he bad visitors at Dover-street, not Lady Gardner—it'
was Mrs. Couletone who soled there ; and that Mrs. Coul.
stone ate heartily of the dinner, and es did they, the servants,
without finding fault with the viands.
Mr. Oliver (who endeavoured to keep his name from the
reports) urged upon his Honour that no contract had yet
been proved.
The learned judge said that the question he had to consider
was, whether the plaintiff had been engaged ebenate or
conditional. Front the evidence adduced he °moldered it
conditional, and would therefore nonsuit the plaintiff.