The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-11 00:00:00

finality in the services of the Church of England ? That
was stated in its very preamble. Now, le', their Lord-
ships ccAnider wi,e:,Ler the Book of C. mmon
,Ptayer
and the admintsmition of the SacrAments laid down any
d-ctriue of the Church of England. The tole and only
purpose of this statute wig to introduce one common
.order of service in the Church throughout the whole
kte&'dom. The sth and 6th Edward VI., cap. 1,
was an Act for providing for the uniformity of ser-
vice in the Sacraments throughout England and %Vales.
Inuneditately after that Act ciwe in Queen Mary, and
With her coming to the thr me the Prayer-book and all
the Acts relating to it were swept away. On the acces-
sion of Queen Eliztbeth there was restored the Act for
the uniturmity of Common Prayer and the administration
a! the Sacraments. This Act revived the statute of
Edward VI., with several additions. It could never
have been the intention of Queen Eliz tbeth's Act to
aher the Articles of the Church of England, for
•it absolutely ga*e the Qeeen the power to
add new fora:whales to those already in existence.
The 13th and 14.11 Charles 11., c. 3U. followed,
which made further provision for the uniformity of
Common Prayer and service tied the administration of
the Sacraments, and introduced several modifications
into the Book of Common Prayer. Now he submitted,
from a view of th ,so statutes, that it was never iu con-
templation to change the doctrine of the Church of
Eng( nd, extept by that pa,sed to Queen Mary's titt.e.
If their Lordships tot k this ca,e upon the Article*, upon
the Canons,
or upon the Prayer-book, they would tied
that the Articles were the code of faith, and
the Prayer- bade the c..de of devotion. The
Articles wtre certain deductions true-. Scripture,
and the Prayer-book was intended to reduce
1b055 deductions into devotional practice. Ile (Mr.
Turner) contended that the law of the country warranted
him in maintaining the doctrine chat their Lordships were
not to collect the doctrines of the Chinch of England
from the expressions contained in the devotional services
inserted in the Prayer-book. He submitted that
he bad satisfactorily shown that the doctrine of
the Church of England was from the Articles,
and the devotion from the Prayer-book. Nuw,
to what extent had the-Church sty. England declared
her views on the subjt ct of baptism? The doctrine of
the Church of Rome on the subject of baptism was set-
tled in the Council of Trent before the preparation of
the Articles in 1552. In the Church of Rome in 1547 the
doctrine of euchis operatem, which had been vexed in
that Chuch for centuries, was first and finally settled,
lad by that doctrine it was held that the sacrament of
baptism was efficacious whether it was received
rightly or not; whereas the 27th Article of the
Church of England negatived that proposition. That
article said, ei Baptism is not only a sign of pro-
fession and marking of difference, whereby Christians
are discerned from others, but it is also a sign of regene•
ration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they
that receive baptism rightly are engrafted into the
Church." He bad thus proved what the Articles of the
Church of England had negatived. He would proceed
!nohow what they affirmed. The 29th Article said that
baptism was " a sign of regeneration- or new birth."
That Article said that " baptism is not only a sign
et profession, and a mat king of difference, whereby
Christian men are discerned from others, but it is also
Sign of regeneration or new birth." And what were
Ile effects? 'Why, these, that baptism "is also a sign of
_regeneration or new b:rth, whereby, as by an instru-
"'eta, they that receive baptism, rightly are grafted into
the Church, promises of the forgiveness of sins are
!hereby signed and sealed, faith is confirmed, and grace
is increased by virtue of prayer." When he looked
at the construction of this Article, he could
not help concluding from it that the sign and the in-
terest
fo conveyed by the sign were purposely separated
the -purpose of introduciug into the conveyance the
wr
ords as to the baptism being " rightly received."
Yhe Learned Counsel had not concluded his argument
lo
"en we went to press.

The LORDCH CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.
th)
e Old
ri CHANCELLOR sat in his court in
4'414 Lincoln's Inn, and heard appeal motions to-day.

LASSENCE V. TIERNEY.—JUDGMENT.
The onn CHANCELLOR gave his judgment partly
Yesterday in this ca,.e, which came betore him upon
I,llP,Peal trona the decision of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram.
"e citiestion in the case was as to the construction of
ktl6 will of Matthew Cannon, of West-ecd, Hampstead.
Court-below held that Mr. Cannon, in consequ,,nce
rthe uncertainty of the expressions in his will died
-13teatIto, and from that decision the parties appealed to
this branch of the Court. His Lordship this morning
g‘te his final judgment, dismissing the appeal.—Judg-
uleht loth: med.
11FIE SHREWSBURY AND CHESTER RAILWAY COMPANY V.
TIRE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY CUM-
PANT AND OTHERS.
he arguments in this part- heard case were resumed
'nil morning. The case came before his Lordship upon
" app..4l motion from the judgment of the Vice Chan-
cellor Knight Bruce, griming an injunction restraining
the defeiidauts from interfering with the plaintiffs' sta-
tion accommodation at. the joint station at Chester.
There was a cross- appeal motion for the reversal of that
part of his Honour's order which refused the admission
of the emnibusses connected with the plaintiffs' line into
the enclosure of the station.
Mr. Melina, with whom wis Mr. R. Gifford, were
heard yesterday in support of the appeal, and Mr.
Ilethell was heard against it on behalf of the North
Western Company.
Mr. Bacon cud Mr. Follett followed on thu same side
to-day. •
Mr. J. Psrke, Mr. Wilcock, and Mr. Glatle are also
counsel in the case for other parties.
The further arguments occupied the Court the
Whole day.

OLLS' COURT.-(TIIIS DAY.)
The Mater of the Roils did not sit in his Court, in
.s.
Rolle, Yard, to-day, having to attend the Judicial
'Nfloaittee of the Pt ivy C..uneil, to hear theitnportaut
al/Peal of " Gorham v. the DishOp of Exeter."

VICE-CEIANCERY.—('IIIIS DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
ifr 'LIGHT V. PAGE AND OTHERS--INJUNCTION.
l
amr. STuArer moved upon notice in this case for a
ije:).4l injunction to restra in the defendants from pro-
p'll with an action, in the Lord Mayor's Court,
131,()11 a policy of insurance on the life of a person named
tilt,..ge ho died a short time ago, and whose widow had
en out letters of administration to his effects. It
w'
stated that the policy had been improperly obtained
tuilY ?age, inasmuch as he had concealed from the parties
,
k. reel that ho was subject to a disease in the throat,
w
"Leh ultimately ended in his death. Although in
la,k
'Ler policy, he had t fralted in a different office on his
I:, he had stated that tact, and had in consequence to
el Y. Is higher premium. There were also conflicting
I,,heants to the and it was therefore desirable
dthe action should be stsyed till that question was
echuled.
its HONOUR granted the injunction.
(11. tore the Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM )
GRIYFITH V. LUNNELL.
l'ho SOLICITOR-GENERAL resumed his reply in this
It to day, which occupied the whole morning.
bl"he subject of the suit was the title of the plaintiff to
th•treated mortgagor, entitled to redeem an estate in
a county of Gloucester. The original mortgage was
upacte in the year 1800, to one Ricketts. Ricketts trans-
.red the mortgage in 1812 to Solomon Moore. Solo-
-411 Moore died, leaving Ann Frost his heiress at law,
°. With her husband, John logh Frost, entered into
possession of the property. Ann Frost survived her
,sushaud, and in 1842 sold different portions of the pro-
-I,rty, part et which Was purchased by the Great
Zestern Rsilevay Company-, part by a company called
*me Great Western Cotton Company, and part by other
1:"Pne• The purchasers were defendants to the bill,
ii-""claimed to hold the property by an absolute title,
t subject to redemwion.
inThe Viee.Chancellor Knight Bruce did not sit to-day
consequence of having to attend the Judicial Com-
irke of the Privy Council to hear the appeal of " Got,
4111 The Bishop of Exeter."
C

•
MMMON PLEAS.-7—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Common Jury.)
DDOGOOD V. KOBE.
The plaintiff in this case is a Parliamentary reporter
11-a
short-hand writer, and the defendant, who holds a
situation as superintendent at the Coal Exchange, en-
tt"arl into an agreement with hint to teach his son short-
' "Ind. The premium to be paid was 601, of which Si.
Zits to be paid down and the remainder in two bats for
~°4 and one for t5l. The boy remained with Doogood
for
w. about five months, during which time, it was said, he
" taught the moat approved system of shorthand as
tfliV by Parliamrntary and other reporters. Tne the
agreement, at the end of the time refused to complete the
r.g_reetnent, and in consequence an action was brought to
..70Yer the amount alleged to be due under the arrange-
iu,tit which was made.
ill. I.*. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Hill appeared for the 4141 a, and Mr. E. James and Mr. Lush for the de-
rndut.
tThe defence was that the boy had been placed with
°°.Pud on trial; and the father finding that the pro-
te anon was not likely to enable his son to get a liveli-
hood
ml, he declined to co mplete the articles of apprentice-
tPt 4150, that the boy was employed during a great
t..inn of the time in running errands instead of learn-
b g Shorthand and that the defendant was induced to
miteoatkk off the engagement owing to a statement made by
lA, ether apprentice named Jilt, that Doogood wanted the
41" S and not the boy.
CHIEF JUSTICE having summed up,
• ahe jury found a v:rdict for the defendant.

as
DAY.)
" Young man with a very youthful appearance,
"'tautened
.41 04, was charged with having assaulted and
"'tautened the life of his own wife.
The complainant, who had an equally juvenile aspect,
ateted that ehe had been married to the prisoner for
abnat tutu years, and during that time he had been in
in" habit of ill-treating and abusing her. On Sunday,
!,,e"nequenee of her remonstrating with him for pro-
li4ing her with no dinner, be struck her most violently
VI the face
and as this was by no means the first time he
Ek_ild assaulted her in this manner, she and her father
nad him taken into custody.
llENnic asked when the former assault was cora-
s}iltted? This complainant said about two months ago.
a then had him up on a race warrant, but on his pro-
rtilsing to reform she cunsent:d to forego the charge. The
quarrel in the present instance arose out Of his having
devoted 14s. out of his salary of 1/. to redeeming a coat
iljl 'pidr of trousers, instesd of applying it to their house-
__
" purposes. On a rteent occasion, when she was
/6"ed, he threw her and beat her most brutally,
wht hile
he had repeatedly tad her that if she went to her
faer'S at Battersea without him he would murder her.
Blituage.l*; HURT thought this bad been a most unfortunate