The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-12-22 00:00:00

THE IcIVIGHTSBRIDGE CASES.—SENTENCE.
—,------
BEFORE SIR 1 DODSON.

ILIDDEE (CLERK) AND HORNE V. "WEATYRTON.—LIDDLR-
C(Col.gurrir) von;
aB s
decision y was
r. aLnusahpi
npge atol to; the
with
yArcheseg regard
to the legality of. certain ornaments and articles of
church furniture in the church of St. Paul's Knights
bridge, and the chapel of St. Barnabas, Pimlico. The
suits Were originally applications on behalf of Illeerrs.
Westerton and Beal, ,praying :the court to direct the',
removal, in both cases, ,of the altars, the " credences "
(i.e. the side tables, on which the elements were laid, until
they were directed .by the rubric ,to , be, placed on the
communion, table), the altar erosses anti candlesticks,
and the elaborree series of altar vestments used'according
to the seasons of the ecclesiastical year. In_ the case
of St. Barnabas, the court was also prayed io direct the
removal of the chancel screen, its brazen gates, and its
cross; and to order the fen Commandments to be set up
against the east end of the chancel. ,The learned judge
of toe Consistory Court of London granted the application
of the; promoters. so far as regarded the removal of the
altar, crosses, and vestments, thecredenees,'' the cross
on the chancel screen, and-the communion tables (being ,
of stone). at St. Barnabas, and the setting up of the
Commandments ;. but he, declined to pronounce agaitist
the altar canrilesticks, the altar of carved wood at St
Paul's and the rood screen or its gates at St. Barnabas.
sir John 'Dodson now gave men:enee on the appeal.
He commenced by. recapitulating the
,particulars of
the case as disclosed in the records befPre the court, and
expressed his obligation to the counsel on both sides, for
the learning and ability:which theY had manifested in
the discharge of their duty, and the assistance which he
had derived therefrom. He'' 'then observed that
the placing of the crosses in the altar and on the
communion table formed the principal subject of dispute,
and that his attention would, in the fist instanee,..be
confined to-that matter. It was admitted by -counsel for
the appellants that crosses must be considered as orna-
ments, and the question was whether such ornaments
were legally admissible in the church. It was also
admitted that the rubric, as at present contained in the
Book of Common Prayer, must determine what was the
law on this subject. Having thus intimated the nature
of the primary issue to be decided, the learned judge
proceeded to examine the various ancient statutes of the
realm bearing on the discipline and service of the
Established Church ; and in the course of his review of
these he remarked that both the equrt below and counsel
for the appellants and respondents, in their treatment of
the case, had omitted to take notice of an act of par-
liament passed towards the close of the first year of the
reign of Edward VI. That act was, he said, of a
miscellaneous character, dealing -with a variety of
subjects, and repealing.a number of acts which imposed
penalties for offences of high treason, and in matters of
doctrine and religion. Before the passing of this
miscellaneous act the statute book contained many acts
which imposed penalties for the use of prohibited chnrch
ornaments, and It was to be suppOSed that_ this repeal-
ing statee of the Ist otEdward VI., contravened those
penalties. It must, howeyer, be observed tharat -the
very commencement of the second year of the reign 'of
the same king, the act of Parliatnent Was passed which
established the Book' of Common P ayer. In this book
was, of. course, contained 'the rubric., wbjeh it was ad-
mitted must' determine the primary law 'on 'the subject
of the' use of crosses. The rubric directly prohibite'd
the use of these. ornaments, and if, as he believed, the
rubric was to be understood, as having repealed the Ist
of Edward VI., there was 'no statutory authority what-
ever for the use of these ornaments.. The learned judge
then referred at considerable length to the Act of
Uniformity, and to e.‘..e proceedings connected With. it.
Adverting to the ease of Bishop Gardiner, he remarked
that that prelate was the only church dignitaliy 'of the
day who disptiterl,the validity of the ordinances, issued
under the authority of the act, which prohibited the use
of the orninietiti in question,' and that he was thrown
into prison for his contumacy, and afterwards liberated
on his submission. As regarded the validity of the ordi-
nances which, on the authority of the Act of Uniformity,
forbade thc,useoftheornarnentsunderconsideration, it had
been argued that there was no pro if that the parties by
whom they were signed held the offices which they were
require Itodo by the act of parliament. The ,diffieulty
in connection with this point was increased by the fact
that the
_parties who signed the ordinances subscribed
their names withoht appending to them the iaties of the
'offices Which they filled ; but his researches had enabled.
him to -discover, that out of the fourteen persons who .
signed the ordances,,eleven held at the time the offices
Specified in the' act of parliament; and it was but
reasonable to suppose that the ether Lffices were-held by
the other persons who slgned. After an elaborate analysis '
of the whole matter, the judge ailinned the judgment of
the court below, and condemned the appellants in the
costs of the appeal.. A furtlier appeal was instantly
asserted. The court was exceedingly crowded throughout.

_

--

THE NEW BRITISH TREATY,

.ash Treaty,
We have reason to believe that the new rb'''
which has just been concluded by Mr.
will shortly be laid before the. "..7,-die foSranas, and which
confirmation, is
one of the most inaportent.
lately seen the 110 iploinatic documents that have
*. It will be remembered that when the
United 81116! and Great Britain ratified the famous Clayton
Bllwer treaty, considerable dissatisfaction was felt on this
side of the water. It was the opinion of many that
the United States should not have departed from their
policy of avoiding entangling alliances, and should
have pursued their policy in Central America, lade-
pendint of and without regard to Great Britain.
There was no doubt considerable c-gency in
the arguments. At the same time, one can andetstand the
motives which induced the United States government of
that day to bend their principles in order to gain so desir-
able an end as the 'permanent enfranchisement of Central
America from Bri ish intrigues. It was the belief of the
American negotiator of that treaty and of his friends—a
belief, perhaps, not as fully justified by the strict.
language of the treaty as mighthave been desir-
able=that after the ratification of that treaty,
British aggrandisement and British encroachment upon
Central America would be at an end. How that antici-
pation was disappointed, the world knows. Great
Britain chose to interpret the treaty as debarring
her from future conquests, not from present possessions, or
even a conversion of squatter into actual territorial rights;
and thus the only object which had induced the United
States to make a treaty with Great Britain at all,
on the subject of central America, was lost. Under these
circum-tauces Mr. Buchanan began, and Mr. •Dallas has,
concluded, a negaciation, which it may be presumed, has
fivally settled this vexed matter. As Great Britain could
not be 'expected to seem to be bullied out of her preten-
sions in the Mosquito territory, and at Houluras, and as
the United. Stat es were firmly resolved to resist the further
extension of. British power in that part Of the continent,
and to require the withdrawal .of thu insignia of British,
empire which had been latterly planted there, recourse.
was had by the diplomatists of the two countries to
compromise. The small and obscure States of Honduras
and Nicaragua were made to intervene in the negotiation ;
and apparently, as of, her own mere wilt and gracious
motion,,England surrendered, to the one the. Bay Islands,
to the other the Mosquito territory. Thus far the public
are generally cognizant of the negociation. But now,we.
are told a new treaty in referetwe to Central American'
affairs has been concluded. What material is there
for a treaty in reference' to Central America since
England has renounced her only possessions' there, '
and disclaimed a desire to acquire others? \%e have
every reason to believe that this new treaty, while affirm-
ing the old principle of the Clayton- Bulwer convention,
namely, that neither the United States nor England desire
to colonise or fortify, for their exclusive benefit, any part
of the territory on the Isthmus or in Central America,
contemplates a much larger &Ad of operations than that
memorable convention. Perhaps the old tripartite treaty,
proposed unsuccessfully by Lord John Russell to Mr.
Everett, may have contained the germ of this new one. It
has reference, we understand, to Cuba and the Spanish pos-
sessions, as well as Central America, and has for its object
the consolidation of the present political condition of these
colonies, islands and States,w it h a view to the general paci-
fication of that part of the world, and the extension of trade..
It is in fact a commercial and conservative treaty; if
if the United States depart fromi their past policy in
guaranteeing Cuba to Spain, they do so, no doubts in
return for a grant of commercial privileges, so extensive
that, in a commercial point of view, evert annexation
could give thein nothing more. It may safely be assumed
that the ReciprOcity Treaty with 'Canada has served
the framers of this new treaty as a guide, and in , some',
respects a model ; and aS the Provincial Legislature of
Canada was a party to that, by the act giving force to
the royal treaty, so, no dr,ubt, the government of Spain is'
a party to this, and stipulates, gratefully, for the'changes
by which sae Is by far the greateit gainer. Ruch is no
doubt the general tenor of this most important treaty.
We forbear from comment at present; the document itself
will aopu be before the public, and then.a sounder opinion
Way be formed. But taking for granted that the general
tenor of the treaty is to effect ;:nen alterations, in the
breath'ri
thought,d e a deals aa usnod
did his
others,riv
da
condition of Cuba as to throw insuperable obstacles
o
in the way of its peaceful acquisition by pur-
aititdi sheeMi
eaahrraccityhehaelivltraoaridn.
chase, we cannot but admire the skill with which
the expiring Secretary of State with his last official
Lwtohit
Buchanan to his death when he went to 04end ; lut.N
survived this, the new President is.now assailee, in a new-
and yet more vulnerable place. A treo-
~.y guaraW Cuba to Spate at the inception of M7.-13uchanr.,g ‘l°e;
stration would deprive that g‘zotieman of his
sing Chance of glorificat,loo Most promi-
-1860 of many obnry,:sious rivals. Bet w
hoar the dexter ws maner.u/re •
. „ have yet to see
State. be !lowed in the