The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-18 00:00:00

I.btrtt Wtittion

SUN OFFICE, Seven o Clock.

JUDICIAL COMAITTEE OF THE
PRIVY COUNCIL-(THIS DAY.)

GORHAM V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER,
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
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 had laid down the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration generally and absolutely. It seemed to
him (Mr. Bedeley) 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 rightry rejected by the Bishop of
Exeter from the living of Bsmpford Speke. If he
(Mr. Badeley) had proved that Mr. Gorham held
doctrine inconsistent with the doctrine taught in the
Book of Ctansnon Pea) er, then he contended that the
Bishop was bouod to refuse him institution. Mr.
Gorham had done more than contradict the doctrine
in the Bords of Cowman 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." E was by bap-
tism, and by baptism alone, and not by any
prevenient graea, 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 always been regarded with the deepest
vensration. 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 Grece has preferred
a gentleman in the Church who has taken a
very violent part in this matter—a very strong part
as a partizen, and whis has also taken it upon him to
express himself vesy strongly indeed about the
light 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
Ruts of Faith and Practice," which I consider to be
a most impertant 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
fur that explanation. It will be received mot
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
mot 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 sni 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.
lle 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 be 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,(lllr.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.
(The Learned Counsel had not concluded his reply
when our paper went to press.)

QUEEN'S BEN CH.-(THIS DAY.
GIBS3 V. LONDON AND NORTII WESTERN RAILWAY

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
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 Huisla
was the general manager of the company.
Mr. WATSON now objected that there was no evi-
dence of a devise of land, entitlirg 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• thei 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 wav over certain premises, and with 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
licE nce.
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 claim 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
was taken for the plaintiff on the first and laid 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.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
(Sittibgs at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)

DADCOCK AND ANOTUER 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 1,500/., the value
of a box of specie which had been entrusted to them
for conveyance between Padding!un and Taunton.
The pleai 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 prrid. 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. Hill Appeared for