The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF TIM PRIVY
COUNCIL, Dec.
GORIIAM V. THE 1115110 P OF EXETER.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of )esterday.
Mr. BADELEY continued to say, that it was the
most presumptuous thing to take upon ourselves
opinions such as were entertained by the appellant on
the subject of baptismal regeneration. The question
was what doctrine had the Church held, and what had
she handed down? He (Mr. Badeley) held that the
opinion that prevenient grace was necessary to confer
regeneration to infants in baptism, was unsound
doctrine ; it was certainly not the doctrine of the
Church of England, and was nowhere • to
be found in her formularies. The idea of
prevenient grace was putting a limitation upon the
sacrament of baptism, and attaching a condition which
the Church had not done. Mr. Gorham had no right
to put such a limitation upon it, seeing that the
Church bad laid down the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration generally and absolutely. It seemed to
him (Mr. Badeley) that Mr. Gorham's doctrine was a
most fatal heresy. It was a lowering of the doctrine
of the sacrament of baptism by preceding it with
something of which the Church knew nothing.
If that were so, then he contended that Mr.
Gorham was rightly rejected by the Bishop of
Exeter from the living of Bampford Speke. If he
(Mr. Badeley) had proved that Mr. Gorham held
doctrine inconsistent with the doctrine taught in the
Book of Common Prayer, then 'he contended that the
Bishop was bound to refuse him institution. Mr.
Gorham had done more than contradict the doctrine
in the Book of Common Prayer ; he had done some-
thing worse ; he had contradicted the Nicene Creed,
in which we were taught to believe " one bap-
tism for the remission of sins." It was by bap-
tism, and by baptism alone, and not by any
prevenient grace, that that remission of sins
was given. If there was one part
of the formularies of the Church of England which
we should preserve with more religious tenacity than
another, it was the Nicene Creed, since it had been
handed down to us from the earliest period of the
Church, and had alwaysbeen regardedwith the deepest
veneration. He had little more to urge on their
Lordships on this question. He had laboured under
some disadvantage he believed, because he saw before
him two Right Rev. Prelates, 'one of whom it was
supposed at least, if not both, had during the pen-
dency of this suit committed themselves more or less
to the opposite side of the question.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY, with some emo-
tion, said—Upon what authority is that supposed, so
far as I am concerned ?
Mr. BADELEY—SimpIy, if your Grace asks me,
it is supposed that your Grace has preferred
a gentleman in the Church who has taken a
very violent part in this matter—a very strong part
as a partizan, and who has also taken it upon him to
express himself very strongly indeed about the
Right Reverend Prelate whom I have the honour to
represent.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY—I gave that pre-
ferment to that gentleman in consequence of a work
he published five or six years ago, entitled " The
Rule of Faith and Practice," which I consider to be
a most important work with regard to the Church,;
and I had no thought at all of his book about infant
baptism, which I believe had not been published at
the time ; indeed, I am sure it had not.
Mr. BADELEY—I thank your Grace most sincerely
for that explanation. It will be received most
thankfully by a large body in the Church ;
and, whilst I most sincerely apologise for the
remark which has elicited that statement from your
Grace, yet I cannot say I regret it very much when
I think of the explanation it has been the means of
drawing from your Grace, and which will be received
most thankfully by a considerable number of persons
in the Church.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY—It only shows
how mistaken it is to make observations of that kind
founded upon imperfect or erroneous information.
Mr. BADELEY—I most sincerely apologise to your
Grace.
Lord CAMPBELL (emphatically)—l must say the
observation was extremely indecorous, more par-
ticularly when it is contrasted with Mr. Badeley's
previous argument, than which anything more
learned, able, or temperate I have never heard.
Mr. BADELEY bowed and repeated his apologies.
In conclusion he sai I—lf your Lordships should
reverse this judgment the consequences will be most
tremendous. It will be regarded as a sen-
tence declaratory, by the highest authority in
the land, that the Church has forfeited her trust,
that she has ceased to hold that primitive
doctrine which is at once her privilege and her boast,
and that she has lost that which is her only hold upon
the affections and obedience of her children. But I
do hope from such circumstances your Lordships will
save the Church of England. With that remark I
shall leave this momentous question in your Lordships'
hands; and I can only pray God Almighty to guide
you to a right decision.—(Murmurs of applause.)
It being now a little after three o'clock, their
Lordships adjourned until about a quarter past four.
On the re-assembling of the Council,
Mr. TURNER proceeded to reply upon the argu-
ments advanced on behalf of the respondent's case.
Ile should abstain from giving one single answer to
the observations which had been used respecting
himself personally by the Counsel on the opposite side,
as to the manner in which he had opened the appel-
lant's case. The argument which had been chiefly
employed against Mr. Gorham by the Counsel for
the respondent was, that he had dissevered
regeneration from the sacrament of baptism. It was
important for him (dr. Turner) to state exactly what
Mr. Gorham did actually believe on this point. Mr.
Gorham might have differed upon the extent of the
grace given in the sacrament, but that the sacra-
ment, worthily received, did give grace, he had never
attempted to deny, and never had thought of denying.
Mr. Gorham held that the doctrine of regeneration
being tied to the sacrament of baptism was a tenet
of the Church, and not of the Church of England.
It would be found, on a reference to page 86 of Mr.
Gorham's book, that though he might have differed
as to the extent of the grace conferred in baptism,
that he did not deny that baptism was an effectual
sign of grace, and that grace was given to the worthy
recipient of that sacrament. If Mr. Gorham had
fallen into any error at all, it was in
,holding that
grace might be given by God when and where he
willed, and not in denying the efficacy of baptism.
The question was, whether that opinion was contrary
to the doctrine of the Church of England. Dr. Adlams
had said that the doctrine of the Church of England
with respect to baptism had never varied since the
Reformation. Now, in the Articles of 1536 and of
1552 there were very great discrepancies on the sub-
ject of infant baptism. The declaration that infants
should be saved thereby, in the Articles of 1536, was
similar in the Articles of 1552. It had been
contended that the doctrine of the Church
of England was, that in baptism there was
remission of sins ; but it might be open
to very great doubt whether remission of sins
meant regeneration in the sense in which it was used
in the Articles. Remission was something done for
us; regeneration what was worked in us. The
question was not whether sacraments conferred grace,
but whether regeneration was tied to the sacrament.
It was said that infants must necessarily be worthy
recipients of baptism ; but had we any right to assume
that infants must necessarily be an object of God's
mercy? Had the Church of England ever under-
taken to declare the inscrutable purposes of God ? In
the 9th Article the Latin word "renatis" was in one
place translated " regenerated," and in another
" baptized," and it was argued from this that " rege-
neration' and " baptism" were equivalent terms.
That argument, if argument it could be called, was
entirely destroyed by the word " baptized" being used
in the passage in St. John, from which the Article
wets drawn up, and Mr. Gorham's view was
strengthened by the fact that the words " credentibus
et renatis " were used in the Article. With regard to
the argument from the Prayer Book, be should like to
know on what ground it was assumed that the Ar-
ticles and Prayer Book were in pari materia.
Lord CAMPBELL—I should say they were generally
in pari materiA but alio intuitu.
Mr. TURNER continued—Not one word had been
said about the statute 13 Elizabeth. The Prayer
Book was not intended, like the Articles, as a decla-
ration of faith, but as a form for insuring a uniform
mode of worship. They had been told that the lex
supplicandi was the lex credendi, and that might be
true in :some cases ; but where the lex credendi was
separate, was there any ground for saying that the
lex supplicandi was the same, because it had been
withdrawn from the lex credendi, of whieh at one
time it formed part ? Then, with
regard to the canons,
a direction in them to the minister to instruct
that
in the catechism was construed into a declaration
the doctrine of thrt Church of
Englandwdasha to be
adbe not
found in the catechism. His Learned Friends
only omitted any reference to the statute 13 Elizabeth
but they hail omitted saying anything of the King',s
declaration prefixed to the Articles, in which it was
said that any matter of doctrine not to be found in
the Articles should be referred to convocation, and be
judged of by convocation alone. On the office of
private baptism, Mr. Badeley had stated that the
matter and the words were the essentials of baptism ;
but he did not saywhether promises of faith and repent-
ance were implied in that office. Nor had any
answer been given to his (Mr. 'Turner's) argu-
ment that in the office of confirmation the promises
given in baptism were required to be renewed by
the party confirmed. The whole argument from
sponsorial promises—the whole question of
ovheisr
con-
dition or no condition—had been
without a single observation on the ppasarstedof
Learned Friends. There were Articles in the Church
of England which left a latitude for private judgment,
like that which referred to Christ'sdescending into 1.

Hell. What was there in the Articles on baptism
which showed that no room for private judgment was
left there ? They bad been told that the doctrine of
the Church of England as well as of the Church of
Rome on the subject of baptism had been the same
for 1,500 years. The doctrine of the Church of Rome
was explained by Archbishop Laurence to be that
the infant was considered to be in a middle state,
and it was a dispute among the members of that
Church whether grace was conferred by baptism. If
he were asked what was the state of an infant after
baptism, before the grace of God was given to him
—his answer was, that it was one of God's myteries,
into which he ought not to be anxious to inquire.
With respect to the argument used by his friend Mr.
Badeley that day, he was sure that their Lordships
would not expect him to follow that argument with•
out preparation ; indeed, anything short of a year's
preparation would have been insufficient for that
purpose.
Lord LANGD ALE said, at the conclusion of Mr.
Turner's reply, that their Lordships would take time
to consider this case, which was one of great im-
portance.

COURT OF QUEEA'S BENCH, Dec. 18.

GIBB 3 V. LONDON AND NORTH. WESTRRN RAILWAY.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yestt rday.)
It was then proposed to put in the receipts. Mr.
Watson objected, and they were ultimately rejected
as evidence. The witness then proved the receipt of
601. per annum, by half-yearly instalments of 301.
each, during the time the plaintiff was in possession
of the stall. He understood from the late Mr. Long
that the money was for rent. In 1848, Captain Huish
was the general manager of the company.
Mr. WATSON now objected that there was no evi-
dence of a devise of land, entitling the
plaintiff to pass and repass over the station,
as he claimed by his declaration. The
testimony which had been put in proved no such
right, but rather that the case was granted to the
plaintiff in consideration of 601. per annum to sell
newspapers and publications in the station. He sub-
mitted therefore that the plaintiff ought to be non-
suited.
Mr. CHAMBERS, on the other side, insisted that the
declaration made no such claim. It did not aver
that the company devised land to the plaintiff,
nor did thel plaintiff claim any such right.
It declared simply that the company, in
consideration of a certain sum of money
to be paid in the way of rent, gave the plaintiff the
right of way over certain premises, and vcith a licence
to sell publications on a portion of those premises ;
and he submitted that, before the defendants could
have deprived him of that right, they ought to have
given him a legal notice, determining the leave and
licence.
Mr. BRAMWELL, on the same side, insisted that
there was evidence to go to the jury of even a demise,
since it had been proved that the plaintiff held a, stall
from the company under contract, which was a fixture
to the freehold.

The Learned JUDGE ruled that the evidence dis-
closed no cause of action such as that declared upon.
The plaintiff's declaration alleged that the company
devised a portion of the freehold, giving him a certain
estate in it, but he was of opinion that the evidence
failed to establish any such elaitn or contract. The
next question raised by the declaration was, had the
defendant wrongfully converted the goods of the plain-
tiff. The evidence, so far from making out that count
distinctly proved that they had done no such thing,
inasmuch as on the night previous to the ejectment
the plaintiff was requested to remove his goods, and
he refused to do so.

Under the direction of the Court, therefore, a verdict
w!as taken for the plaintiff on the first and last counts,
and for the defendant on all the other counts, with
leave to move the Court above for a new trial, or to
amend on declaration.

This decision, in point of fact, is tantamount to a►
verdict for the defendants.

' COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 18.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)

BADCOCK AND ANOTHER V. GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY

COMPANY.

This was an action brought by Messrs. Badcock,
who are bankers at Taunton, to recover from the
Great Western Railway Company 1,5001., the value
of a box of specie which had been entrusted to them
fur conveyance between Paddington and Taunton.
The pleas were, first, not guilty; second, denying
that the box and money were delivered to the de-
fendants to be carried ; and third, that the defendants
were discharged from liability by the Carriers' Act,
as no insurance was paid. To the third plea there was
a replication that the box and money were stolen by
one of the servants of the company.
Sir Frederick Thesiger and Mr. 11111 appeared for
the plaintiffs ; and Mr. Cockburn and Mr. [Loggias
for the defendants.

It appeared that the box, which contained 1,2001.
in gold, and 300/. in silver, was sent, in the month of
January, 1848, by Messrs. Ransom, the London
bankers, to the Paddington station, for the purpose of
being transmitted to the plaintiffs. One of Messrs.
Ransom's clerks had the box booked at the station,
paying the ordinary charge of twopence, and then
saw it placed in a compartment of a passengers'
carriage, which was set aside for parcels and pack-
ages. When the train arrived at Bristol it was
discovered that the lower panelling dividing the
luggage compartment from the passenger compart-
ment had been cut through, and that the lid of the
box had been taken off and the contents abstracted.
Experiments were afterwards made which showed
clearly that it was impossible for any one on the passen-
ger side to have forced the 'panelling underneath
the seat, or to have broken open the box, and suspicion
consequently fell upon a person named Billings, who
was the guard of the train, and who had charge of the
parcels compartment, and he was given into custody,
but there being no direct evidence against him, he
was acquitted, and the company immediately dis-
charged him from their service. The supposition that
Billings committed tho robbery was strengthened a
short time afterwards by his buying for 1201. the
lease and goodwill of a public-house, upon which he
spent a considerable sum in repairs. It appeared
that Billings, previous to his being employed by the
company, had been an omnibus conductor and a po-
liceman.

Several witnesses were called on the part of the
plaintiffs, and they all agreed in thinking that the box
had been opened, and the panelling forced on the
luggage-side of the partition.
(The can had not concluded at the rising of the
Court.)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
William Hickey, 28, labourer, was indicted for the
manslaughter of William M'Cartby, by stabbing him
with a knife.

Mr. Ballantine defended the prisoner.
The facts of the case have been recently given in
the police reports. It appeared that on the 6th of
June the prisoner and the deceased quarrelled and
fought, and upon the former getting the worst off in
the struggle, he was observed to draw a knife from
his pocket and to stab the deceased on the left side,
and he then ran away and succeeded in making his
escape. The deceased was taken to the University
Hospital, where he remained for three weeks, and
was then discharged, apparently cured. He subse.
quently enlisted into the army, and soon afterwards
he was found to be suffering from some disease of
the lungs, and he died on the 12th November. The
surgeons who were examined stated that the imme-
diate cause of death was an abscess in the lungs, but
they at the same time expressed a confident opinion
that this abscess was the result of the wound that had
been originally inflicted by the prisoner.
Ur. BALLANTINE made an ingenious address to the
jury for the prisoner, and endeavoured to show that
they would not be justified in convicting him of felo-
niously killing the deceased by stabbing him, when
the evidence made out that the death was caused by
an abscess on the lungs.
The Comacom SERGEANT told the jury that, not-
withstanding the able address of the Learned Counsel,
if they should be of opinion that the evidence made
out that the abscess, which no doubt was the actual
cause of death, was consequent upon the wound in-
flicted by the prisoner, he would be, in law, amenable
to the charge of manslaughter just as much as if the
death had followed upon the wound itself.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
The COMMON-SERGEANT, in passing sentence, said
that this un-English practice of using the knife must
be repressed by severe punishment. There was no
end of such cases in every calendar, and he oonsidered
they were a disgrace to the country, and so far as he
was concerned, he determined to put a stop to them.
He then sentenced the prisoner to transportation for
seven years.
Johanna Brown, 21, a tall masculine Irishwoman,
and Margaret Forbes, 18, were indicted for the
capital offence of robbery upon William Williams.
The indictment alleged that at the time of the rob-
bery the prisoners cut and wounded the prosecutor.
It appeared that the prosecutor met Brown in
Westminster, and accompanied her to a notorious
brothel in Castle•court, where they were joined by
the other woman, and on his refusal to comply with
their demands for money, they made a most mur-
derous attack upon him with a poker and cut his head
open, and inflicted severe injury upon him, and at
the same time robbed him of a halfcrown and some
other money._ _

The jury found both prisoners Guilty.
The COMMON SERGEANT said it was a very serious
offence, and be bad no alternative but to order judg-
ment of death to be recorded against them.

The prisoner Brown upon hearing this began to
bellow most stoutly, and 23 she left the dock she
shrieked out, ," Oh,. shall I be, hanged—am I going
to be hanged?'