The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-26 00:00:00

TTIR rSITN, LONDON, WEDNEg DAY ,L E NINO., FEBRUARY 23,- MM.

launch out on a wide sea by adopting the motion-without
having the class of statutes and the undertaking to which
they pledged themselves defined. The work of amending the
law—which would be interfered with by that course—was
progressing. Under the act of last session two gentlemen of
great ability were engaged in it under the superintendence
of the Lord Chancellor, and he (the Solicitor-General) hoped
during the present session to submit a bill by which the ob-
solete and repealed statutes from the commencement of legis-
lation in this country down to the reign of King Henry VII.
would be removed from the statute-book. (Hear, hear.)
That denoted no inconsiderable progress, and the work was
going on with as much expedition as possible. It would be
a great matter to have the ecclesiastical statutes sifted, and
those no longer in use separated from those now in force,
and they would not be indisposed to give priority and prece-
dence to that part of the work which would conduce most
to publio convenience. There was, however, no considerable
pressure of uncertainty or difficulty as to the ecclesiastical
law, except as to the Church Building Acts and kindred
statutes, and as to these they would apply themselves to
the work of amendment and consolidation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. FREELAND entirely sympathised with the motives
which had induCed his hon. friend to bring the subject be-
fore the house, but hoped his hon. friend would not press
his resolution to a division. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HADFIELD hoped the attention of the Government
would not be confined to the consolidation of the Church
Building Acts, but that something would be done to reduce
the size of the statute-book, which was in a great state of
confusion.

Mr. LOCKE said he should like to ask whether a great
portion of the labour which had been bestowed on the con-
solidation of the statute law had not been entirely thrown
away, because he recollected that the hon. and learned
member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) when in office adopted
the principle of consolidating particular parts of the law,
and that other gentlemen who had been employed had taken
a different course, and had prepared a great many bills for
the purpose of their being submitted to the house. As, for
instance, the whole of the law upon aliens had been con-
densed and put into one bill to be submitted to the house.
He hoped the Solicitor-General would take the matter into
his consideration and see what his predecessors had done,
and also what remained to be accomplished. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. L. KING said he would merely state that he felt
glad the. Statute Law Commissioners were got rid of, be-
cause so long as they occupied the ground, nothing was
done in the reform of the law. He thought they ought to
proceed first with the expurgation of the old statutes, and
then go on with the consolidation of the remainder. With
regard to the matter now under consideration, he was of
opinion that his. hon. friend had done good service, and he
hoped that the Church Building Acts would at once be con-
solidated.

Lord FERMOY said the object of the house ought to be
to make the law of the country clear and concise, and ho did
not see why theyshould be deterred by any difficulties which
might present themselves. It should be remembered that
the church of Ireland was by Act of Union united with the
church of England; and in-consolidating the Church Build-
ing Acts the Government should deal with the churches of
both countries alike. (Hear.). .
Mr. H. SEYMOUR, in reply, said the work of consolida-
tion was not going on in the spirit which ought to be dis-
played at this time, when so little public business was be-
fore the houses of Parliament ; and at the present rate of
expurgation and consolidation he feared that half a century
would pass away before anything satisfactory would be
effected. As the hon. and learned gentleman (the Solicitor-
General) had undertaken to consolidate the Church Build-
ing A3ts, and some other groups of acts of great importance,
he would withdraw his motion. (Hear,)
The motion was accordingly negatived without a division.

frequented- K.c.r sin trten-gardens, but he found a
large number who had never penetrated their
centre. (Laughter.) The road would proceed along that
broad gravel walk, and if made those who now
used the walk would have an opportunity of walking
in two avenues on each side of the road, which would be
much pleasanter. (Laughter.) These avenues would be
planted with trees, and look much prettier than the gravel
walk. The road would commence at Lancaster-gate on the
north, and terminate at the wrought-iron gates in Rotten-
tow on the south. It was quite clear of the Serpentine, be-
ing distant one-eighth of a mile from it. The road at the
bottom would be 40 feet wide, and at the top of the slopes
80 feet. It would not interfere with the walks which the
pedestrians now took. (Laughter.) If he desired to pass
through the park he could go by the avenues, and if he
wished to cross the road he could do so by light bridges
which would be constructed for the purpose ; so that
although the number of places where pedestrians might
cross would be diminished, there would still be ample pro-
vision for pedestrians to cross. Then he did not believe
that the noise and dust would have any serious effect on
the enjoyment of the people. Tho road would not interfere
with Rotten-row ; it would not interfere with the carriage
drive—as in both cases the new road would pass underneath.
The new road being in a direct line would form a shorter
communication between Paddington Station than any alter-
native road which had been proposed. The other road which
had been spoken about was a similar sunk fence, beginning
at the northern part of the ha-ha and crossing the river,
and following the boundary between Hyde Park and Ken-
sington Gardens. The great difficulty of adopting that
road was crossing the Serpentine. If, as Mr. Page proposed,
in that place they were to have a tunnel under the Serpen-
tine, he thought it would be disagreeable. If they were to
have a new bridge it would be unsightly, as they would
have two bridges near each other of different elevations.
A third plan was to widen the present bridge, but he be-
lieved that would cost £20,000. The road he proposed had
this advantage, that whatever be the amount of annoyance
to arise from the passage of vehicles, it would in the case
of the middle walk in Kensington-gardens be felt by the
smallest number of persons, because that was the least fre-
quented part, whereas the boundary between Kensington-
gardens and Hyde-park was the most frequented. The bill
proposed that the road should be made by the Metropolitan
Board of Works, and that the expenditure should be de-
frayed out of the proceeds of the penny coal duty, which
had been accumulating since 1859. By the act of the 8 and
9 Vic., that duty was to accumulate for some metropolitan
improvement which Parliament might hereafter direct ; and
it was quite open for Parliament, therefore, to say whether
that fund should be devoted to this purpose. It had received
the sanction of the vestries. Other districts might object
to such an appropriation of the money; but the real ques-
tion was whether the road he proposed was not the most
urgent and most desirable work that could be undertaken
at the present time for the improvement of the metropolis.
He did not think the parishes would defray the eost, even
if they had the legal power to do so. The Metropolitan
Board of Works considered that the expense of making the
road could not be properly thrown on the taxes they were
authorised to levy. Therefore he thought practically the
question was whether they were to have a permanent road
or not. If it could not be paid for out of the penny coal
duty they could have no road. As particularly devoted to
the interests of the park he had no particular desire for this
road. (Hear, hear.) If he looked only to the interests of
those who frequented the park they could do perfectly well
without the road ; but if they were to lcok to the improve-
ment of the metropolis, to public utility and advantage, this
was an improvement which ought to be made. It had been
stated, with regard to the interests of the Exhibition, that
the permanent road could not be made in time to provide
both the temporary accommodation required this year and
the permanent accommodation which would be required in
future years. If they could combine the wants of the pre-
sent year and the wants of future years in the same road,
they would be economising the expenditure of the public
money. A question was raised on a former evening as to
the time in which the road could be made. Now, he could
state that several engineers of the highest authority had
stated that such a road as he had described could be made
in two months, and an eminent contractor would engage to
make it in three months, on the condition of not getting a
farthing for the work if it were not completed within the
time. If the bill he proposed had been received with the
favour he anticipated, and if it had been allowed to pass
rapidly, he had no doubt the road could have been com-
pleted by the Ist of June; but his expectations had
not been realised. Advantage was taken of the slender at-
tendance to force on a division, and thus to cause a delay of
four days. As there might not be time to make a perma-
nent road, he had inserted in the bill powers to make a
temporary road at a comparatively small expense, and the
question for the house to decide was really between the
permanent and the temporary road. In any case a tempo-
rary road must be made in order to give a northern access
to the Exhibition.

Mr. AYRTON asked for further explanation respecting
the heights of the bridges, and the nature of the road.
Mr. COWPER said the engineer he had consulted pro-
posed to make flat girder bridges. He did not propose large
headways, as he could carry the road as low as he might
think necessary to clear the, surface.
Sir J. SHELLEY had opposed the motion of the right
hon. gentleman the other night, because he thought that an
object in which they were all interested should not be dis-
cussed in a house of about 25 members. It was usual to
allow a bill to be brought in without opposition, that the
house might see what it was; but his right hon. friend had
given so full a description of his measure, that they had
nothing more to learn concerning it, and upon his descrip-
tion the metropolitan members were satisfied that there was
no cause for allowing the bill to proceed. And he believed,
supposing they were right in their ideas, that the scheme
was not one that ought to be supported, and he thought it
much better that it should be at once understood that the
bill would not be allowed to go on, in order that proper ar-
rangements might be made in other ways for the forth-
coming Exhibition. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman
bad rather shirked one part of the question which he brought
before the house the other night, and that was where the
funds with which this road was to be made were to come
from. The right hon. gentleman had told the house that it
was by an oversight that this sum of £32,000 was not in-
cluded in the Act of last year appropriating the proceeds of
the coal tax to the Thames Embankment, and that he
thought the money might now be employed in the construc-
tion of this road. He (Sir J. Shelley) did not believe there
was any difference of opinion as to the great advantage that
it would be to Kensington and Paddington to have access
from one side to the other. But the question was whether
the proposition of his right hon. friend was the best for the
purpose. He was anxious, if this was to be called a per-
manent metropolitan improvement, that the Exhibition
should be put altogether out of sight, and that the matter
should be carefully considered before any plan was decided
upon. If, on the other hand, it was to apply only to the
Exhibition, he thought there were roads sufficient for all
purposes if his right hon, friend only made use of them.
(Hear.) What disadvantage was there to any one at the
time of the last Exhibition, when the traffic was allowed to
go in front of Knightsbridge Barracks to the building ? If
they threw open the Marble Arch and the other roads across
the park, under proper restrictions, for cabs and other
vehicles, there would be more access to the new Exhibition
than there was to the one in Hyde-park. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Fowler had undertaken that this road, if it were sanc-
tioned, should be opened for traffic by May; but even then
omnibuses heavily laden would be unable to draw their bur-
dens over a road recently opened for public traffic. As a
temporary road for the purposes of the Exhibition it could
not be ready in time, and as a permanent metropolitan im-
provement the matter required more consideration before a
decision was come to upon it. (Hear.) He believed that
Loth the localities which would be benefited by it would be
perfectly ready to contribute to the improvement if they had
the power, and if such power were conferred the Metro-
politan Board would be justified in coming forward to carry
out the work,

Lord PALMERSTON—I so far agree with ray hon.
friend who has just sat down that, as this question has been
fully explained by my right hon. friend, and this is a full
house, we may as well declare to-night upon the motion:for
leave to bring in the bill as to wait for the second reading.
(Hear.) No more information can be given of the bill
than has been given by my right hon. friend in his open-
ing speech. This really is a question upon which the Go-
vernment have no particular interest ; it relates merely to
the convenience of the metropolis. I think everybody must
admit that there is a want of communication between that
great mass of town which lies on the north of the park and
Kensington-gardens and that increasing city—l may
almost call it—that is growing up in the south. There are
two questions involved—in what direction the road is to be
Made, and who is to pay for it. My right hon. friend has
proposed a road which will be most central, and most con-
venient therefore, for those who have to pass from one side
to the other. Some persons may think that a sunk road is
less good than a road on the level, but these are matters of
opinion. A road on the level would be less convenient for
those who use the gardens, and a sunk road would be less
convenient for those who use the road. That is a matter of
convenience between two classes of persons, but that is a
question that may be reserved for future consideration.
Then as to the funds from which the cost of construction,is
to be provided. It is said by some that the parishes ought
to provide the funds, but parishes are bounded by arbitrary
lines, and why are persons living in a particular street which
is contained within the parochial boundary to contribute to
the cost, though they may not use the road, and those who
live a few streets off, and who may want to use the road to
be exempt ? If you make all those who use the road pay for
it that would be intelligible, but I cannot see the justice of
calling upon people to pay for the construction of a road
which they may never use, because they :happen to live in
a parish which adjoins the place through which the road is
to go. Whatever may be the fate of this proposal we must
all agree that some additional communication with the
Exhibition should be provided. My hon. friend who
spoke last said that the passage through the Marble-
arch and through the road parallel with Park-lane would be
sufficient. The only advantage you would gain by that load
would be that you would avoid, perhaps, obstruction in the
narrow part of Park-lane, but it would save nothing in dis-
tance. We should be glad to have the opinion of the house
whether they consider it desirable that a permanent road
01101114 be wade, The 080 ig very simple. 110mi/540111..

munication wanted that-would be a great advantage anti
convenience to the public at large ; here is a fund that is
not now applicable to any other purpose—that cannot bo
applied except by act of parliament. And we ask parlia-
ment to apply it to this purpose of great public convenience.
(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS hoped that his right hon. friend
would, for the future, confine himself to the discharge of
his own most important public duties. And he made that
observation because the right hon. gentleman had told the
house distinctly that, as far as he was the guardian of the
royal parks, he had no wish to see this particular road
made. (Hear. hear.) Let the house support the right hon.
gentleman in the discharge of his duty. Taking a wider
view, however, and regarding this as a metropolitan im-
provement, his right hon. friend wished the house to sup-
port him in making the road. But great metropolitan im-
provements were now, by Act of Parliament, delegated to a
different tribunal ; and if this were a measure of that charac-
ter, it was for the Metropolitan Board of Works to decide
whether it should be undertaken or not. (Hear.) No doubt,
if a metropolitan improvement interfered with any of the
public parks, the right hon. gentleman was justified in
seeing, and even bound to see, that nothing was done to
prejudice those interests of which he had charge, but the
duty of the Metropolitan Board Was definite, and ought not
to be transgressed as it was now attempted to bo trans-
gressed. He now understood that the Government
would not persevere in that portion of the bill which dealt
with the question as a permanent metropolitan improve-
ment, but they still resolved to have this as a temporary
road. The nab!, lord said that a temporary road ought not
to be charged to the parishes, and therefore that this bill
should be adopted by the house. The noble lord asked why
should the parishes make or maintain the road ? The only
answer he could give was that that was the law of the
land. (Hear, hear.) But he thought it had yet to be
proved that this temporary communication was necessary.
There was no great likelihood of a greater number coming
to London this year than there was in 1851, and it was
quite probable that the roads that were found sufficient in
1851 would be sufficient in 1862. Admitting, however,
that this was not so, and that some temporary provision,
such as that proposed by this bill, was necessary, if a
few hundred pounds were required to provide temporary
accommodation for the Exhibition, let the right hon. gen-
tleman bring in an estimate for the money. It would then
be voted, and there would be an end to the matter. (Hear.)
Lord FERMOY complained of the course which had
been pursued by the right hon. gentleman in mixing up
the question of providing a road across the park with a par-
ticular crotchet of his own, which had perilled that very de-
sirable object. On the north of the parks there had grown up
a property which was now rated at more than £BOO,OOO a
year. The inhabitants of that part of the metropolis were
exceedingly anxious for a communication with the south,
but so distasteful was the right hon. gentleman's project
that rather than consent to it they would prefer not having
a road at all. (Cheers.) He thought that those persons
had good grounds for complaining, as he (the noble lord)
complained, of the right hon. gentleman's obstinacy.
Mr. B. STANHOPE observed that if we had-anything
worth showing foreigners in our metropolis it was the parks
and Kensington-gardens ; and he protested against a scheme
which would utterly ruin them. (Cheers.)
. When the hon. gentleman resumed his seat a great num-
ber of members rose, but
Mr. COWPER obtained possession of the house. He
said that he felt in the position of a camel whose back had
been broken by the last feather ; for it was what had fallen
from the noble lord who had just spoken that had deter-
mined him. He perceived that the feeling of the house
was so strong against the permanent road that he should
only be wasting time to insist on the scheme any longer.
He ventured to observe that it was within his province to
propose a measure relating to the royal property ; and that
it would have been beyond the jurisdiction of the Metro-
politan Board of Works to do so. He might add, however,
that he had received a vote of thanks from that board for
the plan he had proposed, and he thought, therefore, that
he had a right to expect the cordial support of the metro-
politan members. (A. laugh.) Finding that his anticipations
were not realised he would move that the chairman leave
the chair; and he would then consider the other branch of
the subject, namely, the arrangements to be made for the
temporary passage of vehicles across the parks. (Loud
cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN then left the chair.
SUPPLY.

The report of supply was brought up and read.
In committee on Exchequer Bills (Consolidated Fund),
resolutions were agreed to on which to found a bill.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (4973,747) BILL.

This bill was read a second time, and the house adjourned
at a quarter to 11.

ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.

The case of the Rev. S. Fendall v. the Rev. H.
B. Wilson was resumed, yesterday morning, in the
Arches Court, before Dr. Lushington.
Dr. Phillimore, in opening his arguments on the
part of the promoter, observed that the special dif-
ferences which distinguished this case from that of
the Bishop of Salisbury v. Williams, were few,
and he should therefore avoid as far as possible any
repetition of the arguments, upon certain great
branches of the subject common to both cases, which
he addressed to the court on the former occasion.
He should only briefly, if at all, touch upon the
question of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
or upon the meaning of the words in the articles
relating to the canonical books of Scripture, both
which points had been discussed at very great
length, and illustrated with numerous authorities
on both sides, in the case of the Bishop of Salisbury
v. Williams. The first point of distinction was, as
Dr. Deane had pointed out, in the promoter of the
judge's office. Mr. Fendall was proctor for the
clergy of the diocese of Ely, and he proceeded by
letters of request from his diocesan, the venerable
and, he regretted to say, infirm Bishop of Ely, who
was now in his 84th year. Another special circum-
stance in this case was that while in common with
the case of the Bishop of Salisbury v. Williams, the
defendant claimed for the clergy the liberty of
denying the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
and denying that by the Word of God was meant
the Holy Scriptures, there was in Mr. Wilson's
essay a direct statement of the wish of the writer to
be free from all the fetters which at present the
formularies of the Church imposed upon him, and a
suggestion amounting almost to an invitation to
other clerks in holy orders, or candidates for holy
orders, to subscribe to the articles of religion in a
sense thoroughly and entirely different from that
which the composer of those articles intended. This
opinion, with the extract in which it occurred,
were set out in the articles for the purpose first, of
charging that such opinions were an offence per se
by a clerk in holy orders ; and, secondly, as show-
ing the animus and intention with which this part
of the essay was written. In maintaining and pro-
mulgating doctrines which were not consistent with
the plain grammatical and generally understood
meaning of the formularies, Mr. Wilson was acting
a dishonest and a treacherous part towards the
Church of England. Attention had been drawn to
the fact that the promoter was not proceeding in
this case under the statute of Elizabeth. The
reason that in this case, as in the case of Dr. Wil-
liams, the prohecution chose rather to proceed
under the general law was that it gave greater
scope to the lenity and mercy of the court—that if
these proceedings had been taken under the statute
of Elizabeth, and they had succeeded, no option
would be left to the court as to the sentence it
would have to pronounce. Authorities had been
referred to by defendant's counsel to show that
others bad entertained opinions which they con-
sidered might justify the writings of Mr. Wilson,
and his learned friend had:appealed to the court not
by its decision in this case to bind the clergy down
to formularies which could not conscientiously be
literally observed. But it was not within the pro-
vince of the court to consider whether the formu-
laries of the Church were or were not too stringent,
and in the case of " Burder v. Heath," the court in
giving its judgment declined to open doors for dis-
cussion which the Legislature had closed. Great
importance had been attached to the fact that in
the articles there was no positive direction that
every part of the Scripture must be believed to
be the Word of God. Such a declaration would
never have been thought of, for m ithout the Bible
there could be no Church, and the whole of the
articles were framed upon the acceptation of the
whole of the Scriptures as inspired by God. The
very object of the collection of the books of Scrip-
ture in the Bible was to exclude from the teaching
of the Church uncertain stories and legends, and
retain nothing but the pure Word of God. The
contention of learned friends was that the Bible
was partly the Word of God and partly the impure
word of man, and that a clergyman was not bound
to accept the whole as the Word of God. A clergy-
man was then at liberty to question the literal
truth of any part of the Scriptures he pleased, and
with this teaching what he wanted to know was
what was to become of the uniformity of the
Church. Proceeding to refer in detail to the articles
of indictment, Dr. Phillimore addressed his obser-
vations in the first instance to those articles which
relate to the subscription of the clergy. He de-
scribed the object of the writer in the extract
quoted in these articles as to get rid of the bondage
of subscription and to substitute a system of greater
liberty. Mr. Wilson proposed to set at nought the
first five articles of religion, which were the most
solemn of the whole 39, not by a direct contradic-
tion, for that might incur the penalties of the
statute, but as the essayist expressed it by "pass-
ing by the side" of them, though they contained
such doctrines as the incarnation of our Lord and
the Holy Trinity. These might be doctrines which
a clergyman of the Church of England was at liberty
to entertain, but he should be surprised if any
judgment of the court should sanction such a
liberty. This evasion by Mr. Wilson of his sub-
scription, in which he invited others to fallow him, k
was contrary to principled of common honesty, and t

' was, the learned counsel contended, censurable and
punishable in an ecclesiastical court; complaint
had been made in reference to the seventh count,
that the opinions charged were not a fair in.
ft-rence from the passages quoted from the essay.
It was said that but for the insertion of the word
" mere" to describe tho Saviour as a mere
moral reformer, the charge in this case could
not have been pointed. But it was necessary that
the court should consider the whole gist of the
essay, and see whether any other construction could
be put upon the passage quoted than that which the
prosecution had embodied in this article. The dis-
tinguishing doctrines of the Christian religion were
spoken of as " speculative doctrines ;" the scheme
of redemption from sin and misery was designedly
omitted in furtherance of the object of the essayist,
which was to promote the multitudinist or national
church, to prepare for which all the doctrines and
distinctions of the Christian religion were to be done
away with. With regard to the question of inspira-
tion, he had nothing to add to the arguments he had
used in the case of Dr. Williams, and he need only
say that if Mr. Wilson was at liberty to interpret
one scriptural statement as an allegory, other clergy-
men might deal in the same way with other parts
of the Scripture till, as he had said before, there
would be no uniformity in the teaching of the
Church of England.
Dr. Lushington—Then they meet you, Dr. Philli-
more, with the question, "Do you hold that belief
in the literal truth of every word of the canonical
books is necessary ?"
Dr. Phillimore knew no authority in the Church
of England for denying any of the facts described
in the Bible. The next point to which he had to
draw the attention of the Court was the charge of
ideal interpretations of the Old and New Testament.
Of the system of ideology there referred to Strauss
had the unenviable position of founder ; and though
it was true, as Mr. Wilson states, that he had not
gone in this system of interpretation the lengths
that its founder had gone, yet he had adopted
enough of Strauss's principle to leave open to those
who followed in his footsteps to deny the whole of
the Gospel, and to say that the taking up of Elijah
to Heaven and the Temptation of Christ were un-
certain stories, and legends no more to be believed
than "Robinson Crusoe" or the "Arabian Nights."
It was contended by his learned friends that the
clergy were at liberty to believe anything that was
not in so many words absolutely denied—a prin-
ciple which an ecclesiastical court could not for a
moment accept, for it was one that would permit
clergymen to preach that Alahomet, who believed in
the Bible, and claimed that his coming was in it
foretold, was the prophet God. If the facts of the
Old Testament were merely ideas, as Mr. Wilson
went the length of asserting, they could not get
over the dilemma which he had put on a former
occasion, that our Lord and the Apostles were either
ignorant or were impostors. Then it was main-
tained in the essay that the miracles ascribed to
Christ—the opening of the eyes of the blind, the
cleansing of leprosy, making the dumb to speak
and the deaf to hear, the Temptation and the
Transfiguration—would have the same effect upon
the mind if they were ideas as if they were facts.
This was a theory that no one could accept—the
story of the Saviour's life could not have the same
weight and influence regarded merely as an allegory,
and it would hardly be understood that Ridley and
Latimer should have died at the stake for that which
was nothing more than the product of two ideas.
Mr. Wilson disposed of Adam and Eve as an alle-
gory; he disposed of the facts from which original
sin was derived, and then disposed of original sin
itself. It had been explained that upon this point
those to whom the essayist referred were persons
who had never heard of the Lord, and that with
regard to such he had only expressed the hope that
their ignorance would not be the cause of their
eternal punishment. But this was not a correct
statement, for the doctrine of Mr. Wilson was, that
those who had not heard of God's name could not
have original sin, a doctrine which was distinctly
and unquestionably opposed to the doctrines of the
Church of England. Passing to the fourteenth
count of the indictment, in the passage cited there
was a distinct proposition conveyed in the words,
" The Roman Church has imagined a limbus infan-
tium. We must rather entertain a hope that there
shall be found, after the great adjudication, recep-
tacles suitable for those who shall be infants—not
as to years of terrestrial life, but as to spiritual
development—nurseries as it were, and seed grounds
where the undeveloped may grow up under new con-
ditions, the stunted may become strong and the per.
yerted be restored." The essayist might as well have
at once advocated the Romish doctrine of purgatory,
and certainly the words of the article, which was
directed against the doctrine of purgatory. "It is
a fond thing, vainly invented, with no authority
from the Scriptures," would apply with equal force
to Mr. Wilson's belief. This was not the first time
it had been held that though there would be a final
adjudication, all would go ultimately to the bosom
of the Creator ; it was, no doubt, a very comfortable
doctrine, but it was one that must not be allowed to
a clergyman of the Church of England to teach.
Dr. Scvabey followed upon the same side.
The court adjourned till Monday next.