The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JAN YA Y. 17, 186.

his uncle was trying to get his property from him,
As far as witness knew. Roberts, he considered him
to be a respectable and responsible man. Roberts
has an income of £5,000 a year. He had never
drawn such a marriage settlement before, and he
tried to make it for life, only in this case Mr. Wind-
ham said he had no relative that he cared for, and
he should leave all his 'property to his wife. He
did not dispose of the jewels, as it would have been
a breach of trust.
The inquiry was then adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 16.

ARCHES COURT.
(Before Dr. Lnshington.)

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP OF
SALISBURY V. THE REV. DR. ROWLAND WILLIAMS (CLERK).
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and
Dr. Swabey appeared for the Bishop of Salisbury;
and Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Fitzjames Stephen ,for
the Rev. Dr. owland 'Williams.

Dr. Deane resumed his argument this morning.
Having replied to the arguments of the counsel for
the promoter on the question of inspiration, he
proceeded to deal with the question of prophecy,
and inquired whether the views on that subject ex-
pressed by the defendant were opposed to the doc-
trines laid down by the standards of the Church of
England. The question was not whether Bishop
Chandler and Dr. Hay were right, as put by his
friends on the other side, but whether Dr. Williams
had said anything inconsistent with the Articles of
Religion, which he contended he had not. The doc-
trine of verbal inspiration had been given up by the
other side, and it was admitted that each prophecy
might have a double sense. The learned counsel again
adverted to the three divisions that obtained in all
systems of divinity—lst, doctrine; 2d, ritual; and
3d, evidence. Dr. Deane argued that prophecy was
to be regarded as evidence, and, as such, subject to
examination and criticism. On that point he had
two authorities to which he would refer. For one
he was indebted to his learned friend, Mr. Cole-
ridge, who had quoted it in support of the promo-
ter's views. He meant Dr. South's sermon on the
first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. He also
referred to " Cudworth," and maintained that there
was good authority for the position Dr. Williams
had taken up in reference to the prophecies of
Isaiah. Before Dr. Williams could be condemned
he would ask the Court to pause. Where, supposing
the defendant to be wrong, was the doctrine of the
Church that made such opinions heretical ? Com-
mentators might say so, but not the Church. As to
the ninth count, be remarked that it had been framed
very negligently, for Dr. Williams had expressly
stated in his Essay that he did not deny the reality
of the Prophet Jonah. It had been said that to
deny that Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel was
to jeopardize Christianity, rand Mr. Coleridge,
with that admiration for Dr. Arnold that every
man feels, quoted from his writings in support of
that proposition ; but he would read a letter of that
distinguished man, of the 25th of January, 1840,
which was to be found in his biography, the effect
of which was that there were very likely " genuine
fragments" in the Book of Daniel. Dr. Arnold
held that opinion more than 20 years ago, and he
was not the man to conceal his views from the
world. When the defendant wrote, "It provokes a
smile on serious topics to observe the zeal with
which our critic vindicates the personalty of
Jonah," he meant that the contradiction of the
author provoked the smile. The defendant was
charged in the ninth count with having maintained
that the revelation of St. John, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the 2d Epistle of St. Peter were not
parts of the Holy Scripture, and that their autho-
rity was not binding on the Church. That charge
was founded upon the passage in the Essay where,
in quoting Baron Bunsen, it is said that "the
fourth Gospel is the latest of all our genuine
books." That implied:the genuineness of the other
books. That observation applied only to the
chronology and authorship of the books. It had
been contended that it was heretical to say that
the Epistle to the Hebrews bore " traces of being
post Apostolic," but that could not be maintained,
seeing that Dr. Williams admitted that it was au-
thentic. Dr. Williams said the book had authority
in the Church, that its contents had a strong bear-
ing on the great scheme of redemption. The 11th
count charges Dr. Williams with affirming " that
the statements of Holy Scripture as to historical
facts may be read and understood in a wholly
figurative sense, and in a non-natural sense." Dr.
Williams did not entertain any doubt as to the
truth of the history contained in the Old Testa-
ment; but he inquired whether the events brought
about by the providence of God—the Deluge, for
instance—could not be accounted for by the opera-
tion of fixed and immutable laws. That was not
heresy. As to the smiting of the Assyrians, diffe-
rent views had been entertained by Bibilic tl critics
as to the agency by which their destruction was ac-
complished. Some had accounted for it by suppos-
ing that the Assyrian host had been destroyed by
pestilence ; others that the agency was the blast of
a hot wind.

Dr. Lushington —ls there an atom of evidence to
support such a proposition in reference to the slay-
ing of the first-born of the Egyptians?
Dr. Deane—No, but that is a construction that
is permissible.
Dr, Lushington—Then, it was only an ingenious
construction.

Dr. Deane—This is a criminal prosecution. If
the Court should hold that only a literal interpreta-
tion of this and other passages in Scripture is allow-
able, then the ranks of the Church will be thinned.
However, so far as regards the passing through the
Red Sea, no ingenious construction was necessary,
for the Bible says that the waters were divided by
a strong east wind. The defendant in his " Essay,"
so far from impugning, had really vindicated the
historical accuracy of the book of the Exodus from
the attacks of the men with whom the pro-
moter desired to class him—Volney and others.
A great deal had been made of the extract
in the 12th charge, containing the words, "The
deep drama of the heart and mind became exter-
nalised into a commercial transfer, and this effected
by a form of ritual." It had been said by his learned
friends that if Dr. Williams alluded in that passage
to the corruptions of the Romish Church he should
have removed any misconception as to his meaning
by a note in some of the many editions the volume
had passed through. That was not necessary, for
it was abundantly clear from the immediately,
preceding passage, in which the word "transub-
stantiation" occurred, that it was applicable to the
Roman Church and ritual. Having very briefly re-
marked upon the 13th count, he passed to the 14th,
and maintained that Dr, Williams had not given ex-
pression to views with reference to the incarnation of
our Lord inconsistent with Romans, chapter 1, 4th
verse, and referred to the "Homilies" and " Dr.
South's Sermons" (37th.) As to the 16th count, in
which were quoted the passage from the Essay,
" How long shall we bear this fiction of an external
revelation," these words were applicable to the
Roman Church, and that was evidenced by the con-
text. How otherwise could the following sentence be
explained,—" If Protestant Europe is to escape
those ehadows of the twelfth century, which, with
ominous recurrence, are closing round us, to Baron
Bunsen will belong a foremost place among the
champions of light and right." There was no neces-
sity for the author to explain his meaning here, for
any intelligent man would understand the applica-
tion of the passage. It had been called " offensive
doctrine." 'Would the Court punish for offensive
doctrine ? It might be offensive to the disciples of
Loyola, but the prosecutor had failed to show that
it was contrary to the doctrine of the Church of
England. Much confusion had been caused by
neglecting to distinguish the parts of the Bible to
which inspiration was attributed by the Church.
The essay of the defendant did not militate against
the true theory of the Church of England, that
Holy Scripture is the Word of God—that the
Word of God is contained in it. It was an
error in the highest degree misleading to say
that any isolated passage, because found in the
Bible, is to be regarded as the Word of God, and re-
ferred to the Dean of Canterbury's "Commentary on
the Acts of the Apostles" (chapter 7). As to the
charges brought against Dr. Williams in reference
to prophecy, he said that the defendant had not
dealt so much with prophecy as with its treatment ;
the views he had expressed coincided with those of
Bacon's " Advancement of Learning," book 11. He
argued that the counts relating to propitiation and
original sin, as they stood, could not be admitted.
The learned counsel concluded as follows :—Mr.
Coleridge had said that the readers of this Essay of
Dr. Williams, " if, unfortunately, they should fol-
low him on the path which he has traced out, will
arrive not merely at the dreary country of doubt
and infidelity, but eventually at the barren and
hopeless strand of a despairing atheism." That
sketch was drawn by a master hand; but possibly
one might suggest something else than infidelity
indicated, not only in the unextracted but in the
extracted passages of this Essay. Has not super-
stition had its victims ? There may be a ritual,
there may be a faith, and a system of religion that
may speak to the senses and the imagination, and
yet leave the heart untouched and unpurified. The
eye, the ear, the very sense of smell, may each and
all be gratified, while no light can reach the souls
of those who travel through a country where super-
stition dominates. Scarce a ray of light reaches
the unhappy soul, and if it penetrates it is obscured.
It:resembles an ignis fatuus, having no mark of its
Divine origin ; for the priest has stepped in between
man and his God ; the Virgin or a saint stands in
the place of our Saviour. There is a medium course
that eau ho pursued, The Court knows full well

that many. a man has left the open free fields of the
Church of England for the barren strand, not of
infidelity or atheism, but for something else which
I need not name. Is the history of the 12th century
to be repeated again ? I trow not. I would not
venture to say this in any ordinary case, but I will
ask, did God, when he uttered that great com-
mand, " Let there be light," mean that men
should walk in darkness ? That they will do so
more or less in darkness if this prosecution suc-
ceeds Ido in all humility affirm. The argu-
ment is over—the result is in your lordship's
hands, and yet lam loth to sit down. For 10 days
this case has been argued with all the ability, learn-
ing, and zeal which belong to my learned friends.
I have laboured with slow and unequal steps, but
each of us has done his best for the interests of his
client. In the courso of the ten days which this dis-
cussion has occupied differences of opinion have
arisen between my learned friends and myself, but
I will say, and I am bold enough to say, I know
they will agree with the last words I shall utter—
that,while we are arguing, your lordship has listenei
with the most unwearied attention and unflagging
patience. On behalf of my learned friends, the pro-
secutor, and the defendant, I beg to thank you.
Dr. Phillimore was glad to have the opportunity
of expressing publicly the deep obligation he and
his learned friends felt towards his lordship for the
great courtesy he had shown during the lengthened
argument in this most momentous snd difficult case.
Dr. Lushington—Of course, I must take time to
consider my judgment.

should be reduced to 40s. upon the property being
given up.
WEAR V. COLBATCH.-ERROR IN WEIGHT NOTE.

The defendant in this case was a storekeeper and,
Custom-house agent in Lower Thames-street, and
he received a case of albumen, which was deposited
in his warehouse, and his clerk gave a weight-note
which described it as weighing 1 cwt. 3 qrs. 161bs.
Martin, who deposited it, sold to Stanton, who sold
to the plaintiff. When the case was sent for it
appeared that the weight was only 3 qrs. 161b5.,
and the plaintiff now sued in trovor to recover the
larger quantity of albumen.
Mr. Ribton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Collier and Mr. Honeyman for the defendant.
Witnesses were called on both sides, and on be-
half of the defendant it was stated that he had
never received more than 3 qrs. 161b5., and that the
weight in the note was an error of his clerk.
His lordship reserved several questions of law,
and asked the jury to consider whether the defen-
dant ever ha& more than the 3 qrs. 161b5., and
whether he had converted what he had to his own
us&
The jury found for the defendant, but said that,
as the plaintiff had bought upon the faith of the
note being correct, he was entitled to some conside-
ration. _

- - ----
His lordship said he was of the same opinion.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco.—(Before the Loid Chief Baron
and Barons Martin, Channell, and Wilde.)
CROFT V. STEVENS-RIFLE VOLUNTEERS.

This was an action for libel tried before Mr. Jus-
tice Wightman at the summer assizes for Surrey,
when the defendant pleaded not guilty and a justi-
fication.

The plaintiff in the action, Dr. Croft, resided at
Mandarin-villas, St. John's-wood, and was captain
commandant of the Ist Middlesex Artillery Volun-
teer corps, in which the defendant, a retired major
of the Madras Cavalry, was adjutant. A letter
purporting to have been written by the defen-
dant was received by Messrs. Richards and Co.,
directing them to send to the headquarters of the
corps, No. 3, Hanover-square, a target of the Go-
vernment pattern. They did so, but the order was
repudiated by the defendant, on the ground that the
letter ordering the target was not in his handwrit-
ing, but fictitious, and that the writing was in the
handwriting of the plaintiff. On this an action for
libel was brought, when the jury returned a verdict
that there was no malice on the part of the defendant,
and for the plaintiff with respect to the handwriting
for £5, leave being reserved by the learned judge to
set aside the verdict and to enter a nonsuit, on the
ground that the communication was privileged.
Mr. Sergeant ghee moved accordingly last term,
and obtained a rule nisi, which he now moved to
make absolute. In the course of his argument,
Mr. Baron Wilde observed that the defendant in
his letter to Messrs. Richards had made no charge
against the plaintiff. It was very doubtful whether
it was a libel at all, and then the other questions
arose, was it, if so, privileged, and then was the alle-
gation true ?
The court said the rule must be mado absolute,
when

Mr. Hawkins, who had been speaking in the
Queen's Bench, came into court and showed cause.
He said that no doubt the corps had been greatly
annoyed. All sorts of orders had been given.
The Lord Chief Baron—What kind of orders ?

Mr. Hawkins—Well, my lord, there were orders
for nurses, and for perambulators, and for cats, and
they all attended, but the dogs which were ordered
did not come, perhaps from an instinct of a little
matter which had occurred to one of their race at
Wimbledon. (Great laughter.)
The Lord Chief Baron 'then said that the court
adhered to their former opinion, and made the rule
absolute.