The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-03 00:00:00

ITALY.

Accounts from Genoa of the 27th ult. state that con-
siderable fermentation existed in that city, and that
General de la Martnora was obliged to employ troops
in the suppression of an incipient agitation. A ma-
nifestation of an unfriendly nature was, according to
other accounts, made against the French Consul, and
the people extended their to all who made
use of French manufactures of any kind ; the very
name of France being, it is added, held in horror by
the unruly populace of that city.
The French Assemblee Nationale has the fol-
lowing :
" 1Y e receive officially through our private correspon-
dence the compl.te confirmation of the treaty of peace be-
tween Piedmont and Austria. The conditions are as fol-
low:—' The pecuniary demaeds of Austria have been
reduced to 75,000,000 L, 20,000,000 to be paid down,
and the remainder in annual sums of 11,000,000. (It
is believed that M. de Rothschild consents to a loan
which serves as guarantee.) Piedmont renounces all
sovereignty over, and even all claims to, the Duchies of
Parma and Placentia. Austria consents to an amnesty
in favour of the Lombards who, having taken refuge in
Piedmont, wish to return into the Austrian possessions
of in conforming themselves to the general police
regulations.' The treaty has been sent to Vienna to be
ratified. It is to be presumed that there are secret con-
ditions attached to this public treaty, and that an offen-
sive and defensive alliance has been agreed upon between
Piedmont and Austria, in which all eventualities are
provided tor. It is also known that the Radical party
is actively at work in Piedmont, and there is reason to
believe that Austria has engaged to assist the King of
Sardinia in case the revolutionists should again endea-
vour to compromise the safety of the country."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ARCHES' corm'', Aug. 2.
(Before Sir HERBERT JENNER FUST.)
GORHAM v. THE BISHOP OF EXETER.
The arguments in this case were concluded in the
Easter term, and judgment was given to-day.
The Learned JUDGE stated that this question con-
cerned the religion of the Church, and had excited
therefore more than ordinary interest in the public mind,
besides imposing great responsibility upon him (Sir H.
J. Fusty. The case had been elaborately argued, and it
was deeply to be regretted that. any misunderstanding
between a clergyman and his diocesan should ever
occur. The facts of the case were—that Mr. Gorham
bad been presented by thee Lord Chancellor to the living
of St. Just in January, 1840, and in consequence of the
testimonials of winch Mr. Gorham was possessed, the
Bishop did not think it necessary to examine him.
Suiisequently Mr. Gorham was presented by the Lord
Chancellor to the living of Bampton Speake, in the
county of Devoe. This was in November, 1847. Mr.
Gorham wrote to the Bishop, and several letters passed
between him and Mr. Barnes, the secretary of the
Bishop. Whether rightly or wrongly the Bishop sus-
pected that Mr. Gorhatn did not entertain sound doc-
trines on the subject of baptism; and after an examina-
tion of Mr. Gorham had taken place, the Bishop was
of opinion that he did not entertain soured doctrines
on the subject of baptism. Upon his translation to
the living of &leapt= Speake, three beneficed clergy-
men certified to the Lord Chancellor that Mr. Gor-
ham entertained sound doctrines; and the testimonials
ot these three clergymen were forwarded to the Bishop,
wh,., after the examination of Mr. Gorham, endorsed
upon the testimonials that he was of opinion that Mr.
Gorham did not entertain sound doctrines. The testi-
monials were then forwarded to Mr. Gorham, and the
Bishop communicated the circumstance to the Lord
Chancellor, and his Lordship wrote to Mr. Gorham,
saying that he would still sign the fiat for the presenta-
tion, notwithstanding what had been written by the
Bishop, because he could not take upon himself to give
any opinion as to the doctrine of Mr. Gorham, and
in doing so the Lord Chancellor had acted with pro-
priety, and upon that there could be no doubt whatever.
Whether the Bishop exceeded his authority or exercised
his discretion soundly, was not for the Court at present
to enter into. It may be doubted whether he did not
go somewhat farther than was usual, but be that as it
alight, Mr. Gorham was subsequently examined on
several days for a considerable period, and ou the 20th
of March, 1848, the Bishop delivered a certificate to Mr.
Gorham of unsoundness of doctrine, and the matter
rested until June, 1848, when Mr. Gorham stated that
he was willing to subscribe the three articles required
by the 36th canon, and a monition to that etfe-it
was presented to the Court, and requiring the
Court to admit Mr. Gorham to the living. The
i3i,hop appeared by his Proctor to that monition, and
both parties having been heard by the Court, it now
stood for its decision. As the case came before the
Court it was impossible for the Court to offer an opinion
as to the manner in which the examination of Mr. Gor-
ham had been conducted, or to decide whether or not
:he doctrines he entertained were according to the doc-
trines of the Church of England. On the part of the
Bishop a book was laid before the Court which contained
the aoctrines of Mr. Gorham; that was a most inconve-
nient course, and left. the Court to find its way through
the book as it best could. The proceeding should have
been by plea and proof instead of the course whi,th had
been adopted by the Bishop, and the same irregularity
had been tollowed on the part of Mr. Gorham. In the
petition of the Bishop the averments were loose and
vague. In the course of the discussion a question had
been raised as to who was to be considered the originator
Hof the proceedings, and on whom the onus probandi lay.
Now, although Mr. Gorham was nominally the origt-
na•or, still Mr. Gorham had made out a prima facie case,
which the Bishop was bound to answer; and the onus
probandi therefore lay upon the Bishop. Upon exami-
nation it appeared to the Bishop that Mr. Gorham held
unsound doctrines on the point of baptism, which he did
not consider to confer regeneration, and the Bishop,
therefore, refused to institute him, and he had already
decided that that was a ground of refusal to admit Mr.
Gorham. Now in the proceedings the Court had not
pointed out to it what the doctrines of the Church of
England on that point were, and the Court was left to
gather them for itself. Mr. Gorham stated that he had
beena
ofmemtbhee Church
uthreh sinceeUnive 1812,rsi and hadtyforeigh heldteenyears,and
a priest livings
in six several dioceses, and that was a prima facie case of
qualification. The Bishop maintained that in the exa-
mination of Mr. Gorham that gentleman held unsound
doctrines on the subject of baptism, and Mr. Gorham, on
considerable
doctrines
the other hand, contended that he did not do so—and on
that point they were at issue. Both the charge and de-
nial were, however, loose and vague. The particular
nu unsound
points between the parties,l nd
wouldshouldthen
have
havebeen
beenspe-
cific specifi-
cally
stated, anal
g which
l
h wtt he u rope
ea n
also. He thought the Court had a right to com-
plain that the case had not been so specifically laid be-
fore it. The arguments of counsel had, however, thrown
and great learning and ability had been displayed by the
learned counsel on both sides. A good deal was said
upon the conduct of the Bishop in requiring an
examination at all; and it certainly was not
a common course to pursue with respect to a gen-
tleman who was removed from one living to another in
the same diocese, but such a course might be necessary,
and instances of it had occurred. Mr. Gorham denied
that the Bishop had the right to make the examination,
and complained of .the mode in which it had been con-
ducted; but that was a matter in the discretion of the
Bishop, and upon which the Court was not called upon
to give any opinion, nor was it for the Court to deter-
mine whether there was a greater or lesser degree of
courtesy shown on the one side or the other in the course
of the examination. It was not for the Court to give
any opinion upon an expression attributed to Mr. Gor-
ham, as to whether or not the Church was the National
Church, nor to expressions attributed to the Bishop with
respect to Tractarianism in the course of his charge.
The real question was as to the efficacy of baptism in the
case of infants only, and had no relation to the question
of the efficacy of baptism generally, or in the case of
adults. But although that was the real pint, still,
in the examination the efficacy of baptism in the case
of infants and in the case of adults, had been so
much mixed up, that it was difficult to separate them.
He was not going to give an opinion upon the
theological question, since that was not the duty of the
Court—the duty of the Court was to ascertain what the
Church had decided upon the point, and to be guided by
that decision. Toe first question, therefore, was,
whether or not the Church had pronounced any opinion
upon the point? And that :gave rise to a second ques-

Lion, which was, how that was to be ascertained? Mr.
Tham founded himself upon the articles ot the Church,
and beyond that he would not go. Upon that, and that
alo ,e, he took his stand. The Lamed Judge com-
mented at great length upon the questions put to and
and answered by Mr. Gorham. The Bishop asks,
" Does our Church hold, find do you hold, that every
infant baptised, by a lawful minister with water in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, is made by God in such baptism a member of
Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven?"
" Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that such
children, by the laver ot regeneration in baptism are
received into the number ot the children of God, and
heirs of everlasting life?" "Does our Church hold,
and do you hold, that all infants so baptised are born
again of water and the Holy Ghost?" To these
questions Mr. Gorham (-lid not give a direct answer,
but refers to the thirty-nine Articles; and it was used
in argument, that this was sufficient with the
services performed. Mr. Gorham says:—" In reply to
these propositions, being stated in the precise words of
the Ritual Services, or of Catechism, undoubtedly must
be held by every honest member of the Church to con-
tain in these nothing contrary to the Word of God, or to
sound doctrine, or which -a godly man may not with a
good conscience use and stibmit unto, or which is n tt
fairly defensible—if it shall be allowed such just and
favourable construction as in common equity ou4ht to
be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are
set forth by authority ; " and said that the first impor-
tant point which was raised was, that Mr. Gorham was
of opinion that in placing a construction upon the
articles and formularies of the Church it was necessary
to consider their meaning with reference to the opinions
of the Reformers by whom they were framed. Now all
the writers who had been quoted went to say that the
doctrines of the Church were to be found in the Thirty-
nine Articles alone; but if they were silent upon any point
then they were to inquire to what authority they were to
refer, and he found that Bishop Burnett laid it down that
they were to refer to the formularies of the Church and
the officers of the Church. S.iveral other writers laid
down the same doctrine. He thought that doctrine was
the doctrine of common sense, and it was the doctrine
laid down in a decision of Lord Brougham's in the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; they were
not therefore to lay any stress or weight upon the
opinion of any private individual, however eminent. He
thought that by the 25th article no one could receive
baptism efficaciously who had it not by worthy reception;
and then they had to consider what worthy reception
was, and the article said in was by faith and repentance;
but young children could have neither faith nor repen-
tance at the time, although they might have them after-
wards. Mr. Gorham admits that children who die before
they commit actual sin may be saved, but they must be
regenerated by a prevenient :act of grace ; he denie,
that the regeneration is conferred by the act of baptism.
After going through the whole of the service of bap-
tism, the Learned Judge said that what the child was to
receive by it was spiritual regeneration according to the
plain construction of the language used. He was of
opinion, therefore, that Mr. Gorham was wrong in dis-
puting that regeneration was effected in and by baptism.
Has then the Bishop shown sufficient cause for not in-
stituting him in the living of the Church. He (the
Learned Judge) considered the Bishop had, and in
consequence was entitled to be dismissed with costs.
Notice of appeal was then eiven.

SHERIFFS' CuUit7, August 2.
(Before Mi. Under-Sheriff BuncuELL.)

DUCKWORTH AND OTHERS V. ENGLISH.--SMITHFIELD