Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-01-25 00:00:00

THE NORTHERN TIMES TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1859

country was utterly ruined. We have adduced,
over and over again, the fact, that it is still a
progressively increasing Interest,—that British
Shipping has continued to increase, along with the
general commerce of the country, which ministers
to its prosperity. We have never shrunk from
acknowledging, that under the operation of this
liberal policy, which has :had so powerful an effect
in advancing our manufactures and our commerce,
Shipping has had great difficulties to contend
against—that the transition from a state of pro-
tection to one of freedom has produced depres-
sion, arid has required a system of economy
and good management which it has been very
trying to a hitherto protected Interest to have to
pursue. But we have maintained that, notwith-
standing, our Shipowners were not all ruined, and
that Shippirig, as a staple Interest of the country,
was still enabled to hold up its head, and maintain
its position. And this, we repeat, we have done,
not upon any " fine-spun theory," but altogether
upon the facts themselves of the case, that
British Ships were still built as much as, if not
more than, ever,—that the tonnage of British
Ships in our ports was still increasing,—and that
British Shipping still maintains its supremacy in
the mercantile marine of the world.

We had adduced two facts in the article which
appears more particularly to have affected our
friend and mentor, certainly of extraordinary force
in such an argument as that we have pursued,—
those, namely, of the Commercial Docks of the
great port of London, and the still more extensive
Docks of our own port, having each had a greater
tonnage in the past year than for any previous
year. The London Directors had to report, that
great fact in their case, and the Liverpool Direc-
tors a similar great fact in theirs. The Docks in
question, in the port of London, had received a
larger amount of tonnage of Shipping than was
ever known before ; and to our own Docks the
past year was the most productive one that has
been experienced since Liverpool has been a port.
These, we say, are facts—not theories of any
quality of spinning whatever. We can easily
understand that they are puzzling, perhaps incre-
dible, to those who have been in the habit of
predicting that the very reverse would be the case.
Neither is it very difficult to imagine, that they
are facts which must rather mortify, as well as
confuse, those who have prophesied the decay of
our Shipping and our Docks, under the free-trade
policy, rather than their progressive prosperityl
But surely this does not impugn their validity or
their force as facts.

Then, again, we have our Dock Company pro-
posing to furnish still more extended Dock accom-
modation. They are about to borrow half-a-
million sterling to expend in erecting more Docks.
The Shipping of the port still goes on increasing
at such a rate, that the Docks, vast though their
capacity is, are yet found insufficient. There
cannot possibly be any mere theory in this—it is a
strong and stubborn fact, showing most indis-
putably that our Shipping is not only not ruined,
but is rapidly progressing. Take, also, this further
very significant faet, which has been presented to
the world within the last few days,—the fact,
namely, of three of the finest vessels ever built on
the banks of the Mersey having been launched
into that river in one day, —and all, we believe,
intended for the Liverpool trade. Here was a
large venture of British Shipping. Their united
measurement, we believe, was between two and
three thousand tons. They are reputed, we
repeat, to be three of the finest ships ever launched
here,—and launched, too, all in one day. And
this vast, this splendid accession was made, they
tell us, to a ruined, a fallen Interest !
Now what is the answer, does the reader sup-
pose, which our correspondent gives to such
overwhelming facts as these ? He sets out, in the
communication with which he has favoured us " for
private reading," be it remembered, by declaring
that we " would be the better of knowing a few

facts." Well—and what are these few facts?
Here they are, as given to us, verbatim et literatim,
—" A friend of mine had two ships arrived here
latet from India : on the voyage the one sunk

£1,500, the other £3,ooo—no mishaps, but just

from low freights." This is fact one, we suppose,
which only just amounts to this, that an individual
Shipowner had had the misfortune to be a loser by
two of his ships on their voyages from India.
Facts two and three are of a similar character—
substituting the American for the Indian trade.
But what does it all prove ? Why just nothing
at all against the free commercial policy against
which our correspondent directs it, unless it can
be shown that the enterprise was in all respects so
well projected and so well performed that
it could not possibly have failed had the
policy not been in operation. But this is
not attempted to be done. We know not
what blame there may have attached, or what
misfortune, to the Shipping speculation that is
adduced, to account for its being a losing one,
quite independently of low freights. But suppo-
sing it were altogether free from blame, and from
misfortune, still individual instances of loss, like
this, prove nothing against a general principle.
There are no rules without exceptions. And even
when British Shipping was protected, there were
losses, ever and anon, in individual cases. We
take up the question as a great whole. We judge
of it by general results. We find the Interest that
is concerned a progressively increasing one ; and
we argue from this that, although not so prosper-
ous as one would wish to see it, it is not a ruined
Interest by any means, but is only suffering a

degree of depression which a great change has in
part occasioned, and from which there are already
unmistakable signs of gradual recovery,—so
unmistakable, that in this, the second port of the
world, they are launching finer vessels than they
have ever done before, at the rate of three in one
day ; and that another half-million sterling is
about to be expended, in the same port, in
extending its Dock accommodation. These, and
such as these, are our facts; and they are too
stubborn things, by far, to be overthrown by
setting off against them one or two instances
of individual loss by Shipping speculations...
iustances which, for. anything that appears to the
ooutrary, may be accounted for on grounds which

do not affect, in the slightest degree, the real

question at issue.

CHARACTER AND EFFECT OF THE
ECCLESIASTICAL CANONS.

WE gave insertion yesterday to the communica-
tion of a correspondent, under the signature of A
Lover of Freedom and of the Church, which,
although professing to correct what it appeared to
consider an error into which we had fallen, really
went to confirm what we had stated on the very
point that was taken exception to. We were
remarking upon the fact of the State Services,
which have just been ordered by Her Majesty the
Queen to be discontinued, having always been ob-
jected to by many of the clergy, as not only unautho-
rised by the Church of England, but as being con-
trary to the Church's canon law. We showed that
there was a statute law virtually against their use
—quoting Burns's Ecclesiastical Law in our sup-
port of that opinion; and we added that, as well as
this statute law, there was " the canon law of the
Church, equally binding, which strictly prohibits,
as regards the Services provided in the Prayer
Book itself, the adding anything to the matter or
form thereof."' Equally binding, then, upon
whom ? Why, of course, we meant to imply, in
this instance, upon the clergy, who were expected
to use those Services : not the laity, who were not
in a position to do so. Yet our correspondent,
without hesitation, apparently, declares, " This,
sir, is an unintentional, but a most impor-
tant error, which I am sure you will

Of course

be the first to rejoice in correcting
we should be the first to correct it, if it were an
error. But not only do we contend that it is not
an error, but our critic himself substantially

maintains the same thing. He says,—
term canon law of the church,' it is clear that
you refer to the Constitutions and Canons

By the

Ecclesiastical, agreed upon by the convocation,
and published by his Majesty's authority, A.D.
1603.' " Certainly we do, and they are as much
the law of the Church, as regards the clergy, as
the statute law is to the laity. Our correspondent,
however, proceeds, it is evident most inconsis-
Now, Sir, I deny that these
canons are at all binding ; and I repeat that it is
well for the English laity and clergy that they are
not binding. To prove that the canons are of no
authority, I adduce the following quotations :
Certain constitutions and canons ecclesiastical,
141 in number, enacted by the clergy in the year
1603, sanctioned by the charter of JAMES 1., but
never confirmed by Parliament, do not bind the
laity, whatever regard the clergy may be bound to
pay them.' Warren's Blackstone, p. 61."
But what does this amount to as respects the

tently, to say,—'

clergy ? "Do not bind the laity, whatever regard
the clergy may be bound to pay them." Here is a
granting of the whole case, as put by us. We are
really at a loss, therefore, to understand what
there could be to take exception to, in anything
that we said. Where is the error,—the " unin-
tentional, but most important error," which we are
to be " the first to rejoice in correcting ?" Why, so
far from correcting it as an error, our correspon-
dent himself has confirmed it as a fact !

Now, as regards the authority of these Canons
of 1603. We are as much opposed as A Lover of
the Church and of Freedom can possibly be
to their being binding on the laity by compul-
sion. We are opposed to all compulsion,

legal or otherwise, in matters of religion

But if we voluntarily place ourselves in
the position of members of a religious society, we
must submit to its rules and regulations. And it
is in this light that we regard the Canons of the
Church. They are to be considered as the rules
of the Christian Society called the Church of
England. The following history of those at
present in force so fully explains the case, that we
shall be excused, we trust, for presenting it here :

When Queen Elizabeth was settled in her government,
all Church affairs were debated in convocations authorised
by her power ; and several canons were made in her reign
and confirmed by her letters patent : but because she did
not bind her heirs and successors to the observance of
them, those canons expired with that queen. The old
canons were still in force in all those reigns above
mentioned. But 1 James, A.D. 1603, the clergy being
lawfully assembled in convocation, the king gave them
leave by his letters patent to treat, consult, and agree on
canons, which they did and presented to him, who gave
his royal assent ; and by other letters patent, for himself,
his heirs and successors, ratified and confirmed the same.
These canons thus established were not then invented, but
were collected out of ordinances which lay dispersed in
several injunctions published in those former reigns, and
out of canons and other religious customs which were
made and used in those days ; and being thus confirmed
are the laws of the land, and by the same authority as
any other part of the law ; for being authorised by the
king's commission, according to the form of the statute
25 Henry VIII., they are warranted by act of parliament;
and such canons made and confirmed, shall bind in eccle-
siastical matters as much as any statute. An act of par-
liament may abrogate any canon, unless it consists in
enjoining some moral duty; but a canon not confirmed
by an act of parliament cannot alter any other law. It is
agreed that canons made in convocation, and confirmed
by letters patent, bind in all ecclesiastical affairs ; that no
canons in England are absolutely confirmed by parlia-
ment, yet they are part of the laws of the land, for the
government of the church, and in such case bind the
laity as 'well as the clergy ; that though such canons
cannot alter the common law, statutes, or queen's pre-
rogative, yet they may alter other canons, otherwise the
convocation could not make new canons. All that is
required in making new canons, is, that the clergy con-
fine themselves to church affairs, and do not meddle with
things which are settled by the common law. But though
no canons are absolutely confirmed by act of parliament,
yet those which are neither contrary to the laws of the
land, nor to the Queen's prerogative, and which are con-
firmed by her, are made good and allowed to be so by
the statute 25 Henry VIII. And as to those canons,
which tend to promote the honour of God and service of
religion, they' must necessarily bind our consciences.
And such are those which enjoin the sober conversation of
ministers, prohibiting their frequenting taverns, playing
at dice, cards, or tables ; this was
_anciently prohibited
by the Apostolical canons, and in the old articles of
visitation here, and in several diocesan synods. Such are
those canons which relate to the duties of ministers in
praying, preaching, administering the sacraments, and
visiting the sick.
Now this, wa believe, is a correct account
of the whole matter. And it is one
which places the question, we think, in a
much less objectionable light than that in which
A Loner of the Church and of Freedom would
apparently wish it to be regarded. Of course

in common justice, no such rules should have any
force or effect whatever out of the body to which
they belong. Were it otherwise, we repeat, it
would be intolerant, and therefere intolerable.
But that the bona fide members of the Church of
England, both clergy and laity, should be subject
to rules and regulations, is not only most proper,
but most necessary. Every religious community
finds it to be so ; and th 3 Church of England,
even though an Establishment, can be no
exception.