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 Marmora 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 ot France being, it is added, held in horror by
the unruly populace of that city.
The French Assemblee .Nationale has the fol-
lowing : •
" vr e receive officially through our private correspon-
dence the complete confirmation of the treaty of peace be-
tween Piedmont and Austria. The conditions are as fol-
low:—' The pecuniary demat ds of Austria have been
reduced to 75,000,000 f., 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 ot
Parma and Placentia. Austria consents to an amnesty
in tavour of the Lombards who, having taken refuge in
Piedmont, wish to return into the Austrian possessions
ot Italy, 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 for. It is also known that the R idical party
is actively at work in Piedmont, and there is reason to
believe that Austria has engaged to assist the King ot
Sardinia in case the revolutionists should again endea-
vour to compromise the safety of the country."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ARCHES' COURT, 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. Fust). The case had been elaoorately argued, and it
was deeply to be regretted that any misunderstanchng
between a clergy man and his dig cesan should ever
occur. The facts ot the case were—that Mr. Gorham
had been presented by the Lord Chancellor to the living
of St. Just in January, 1840, and in con,equence of the
testimonials of which Mr. Gorham was possessed, the
Bishop did not think it necessary to examine him.
Subsequently Mr. Gorham was presented by the Lord
Chancellor to the living of Bainpton Speake, in the
sounty of Devon. 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. a4orhain did not entertain sound doc-
trines on the subject of baptism; and after an examine-
:ion of Mr. Gurham had taken pl ice, the Bishop was
of opinion that be did not entertain sou' :d doctrines
on the subject of baptism. Upon his translation to
the living of Bamptor Speake, three beneficed clergy-
men certified to the L eat Chancellor that Mr. Gor-
nem entertained sound doctrines; and the testimonials
ot these three clergymen were forwarded to the Bishop,
wh s, after the examination of Mr. Gorham, endorsed
upon the testimonials that he was of opinion that Mr.
Gorham did not entertain sound doctrines. Tne teati
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, notwithstandine 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
(eight, Mr. Gorham was subsequently examined on
several days for' a considerable period, and on 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 canoe, and a monition to that effect
was presented to the Court, and requiring the
Court to admit Mr. Gorham to the living. The
tai-hop appeared by his Proctor to that monition, and
moth 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
the doctrines he entertained were according to the doc-
trines of the Church of England. On the part of the
Bishop a book was laid belbre the Court which contained
the doctrines 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 which had
been adopted by the Bishop, and the same irregularity
had been followed 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
ot the proceedings, and on whom the onus probandi lay.
Now, although Mr. Gorham was nominally the origo
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 }-e did
not consider to confer regeneration, and the Bishop,
therefore, refused to institute him, and he had already
decided that that was a ground ot' refusal to admit Mr.
Gorham. Now in the proceedings the Court had not
pointed out to it what the doctrines of the Church of
Eiunsgilxanstel several
taihdaioctpeosienst, were, and the Court was left to M
gather them for itself. r. Gorham stated that he had
been a member of the University for eighteen years, and
a priest of the Church since 1812, and had held livings
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
the other hand, contended that he did not do so—and on
that point they were at issue. Both the charge and de •
vial were, however, loose and vague. The particular
doctrines which were unsound should have been specifi-
cally stated, and the answer would then have been ape
cific 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
considerable light upen the points between the parties,
and great learning and ability had been displayed by the
learned counsel. on both sidss. 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, I
and instances of it had occurred. Mr. Gorham denied
that the Bishop had the right to make the examination,l
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 decisibn. Tne first question, therefore, was,
whether or not the Church bad pronounced any opinion
upon the point? And that
,gave rise to a second quee.