The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-16 00:00:00

LAW IN7ELLIGENCE, Dec. 15.

COURT OF ARCHES.
(Before Dr. Lushington, Dean of Arches.)

THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY V. THE REV. DR

WILLIAMS.-" ESSAYS AND REVIEWS."

This protracted case came on for hearing this day
on the " reformed" articles against Dr. Williams.
Another case was in the list, " Fendall v. Wilson,"
arising out of the samo publication. The matter
seemed to have created renewed interest on the pre-
sent occasion.

The Queen's Advocate (Sir R. J. Phillimore) and
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., were for the Bishop of Salis-
bury, Dr. Deane, Q.C., with Mr. Fitstephens, ap-
peared for Dr. Williams.
The Queen's Advocate recapitulated the proceed-
ings in the case already before the public, Dr.
Williams had in his essay declared that the Bible
was the expression of devout reason, and the united
voice of the congregation, and also that justification
by faith was not by the sacrifice of Christ. His
lordship had pronounced that the passages were
contrary to the Articles of the Established Church.
The question was new what was to be the sentence
of the Court, as a punishment of the individual
clerk, and for the good of the Church ; and the
punishment would be one of the gravest kind. The
bishop had not proceeded under the statute of Eliza-
beth, but under the general law, as he might have
been deprived of his position in the Church. He
had to ask the Court for a sentence of suspension, in
the case of Mr. Oakley, and for such a period that
ho might repent of his errors. But Dr. Williams
could now withdraw the passages condemned by the
Court, and if so, the proceedings would be
abandoned.

Mr. Coleridge followed on the same side.
Dr. Deane proceeded to aodress the Court on the
part of Dr. Williams.
At this point the Court, at the request of the
learned gentlemen on both sides, adjourned, as it
was understood, for a settlement of the case, Sir R.
Phillimore having made some propositions, on
which, in the event of their being accepted, he pro-
posed to withdraw from the prosecution.
Dr. Deane said there was one point involved on
which he would wish to have the judgment of the
court, after which he should be inclined to make
certain concessions.
Sir R. Phillimore said he could not consent to
that, and the case must therefore go on, and, if need
be, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The attempt to settle the intricate question in-
volved in "Essays and Reviews," therefore failed.

Dr. Lushington said that he had nothing to re-
tract, alter, or explain in reference to his previous
judgment when deciding upon the admissibility of
the articles. It was necessary for the welfare of
the Church that punishment should be awarded
against Dr. Williams for the security of the Church,
the punishment of the individual being a secondary
consideration. It might be thought by some that
the sentence he was about to pronounce would be
too lenient ; but he hoped it would be sufficiently
severe to show Dr. Williams how seriously he had
erred, and be a warning also to other clergymen
throughout the country. The sentence was that Dr.
Williams be suspended, ab officio et beneficio, for the
space of one year, and that he be admonished not to
offend in like manner again.
Dr. Williams was condemned in costs.
Mr. Dubois, his proctor. gave notice of appeal.