The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-15 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAI, NOVEMBER 15, 1870

ME CHARGES OF HERESY AGAINST THE
REV. C. VOYSEY.

Yesterday this case again came before the Judicial
Committee of the Privy CounciL The Rev. C. Voysev,
vicar of Healaugh, a parish in Yorkshire, appealed against
a decision of the Chancery Court of the Province of York,
which admitted to proof a number of articles alleging that
he had promulgated and circulated doctrines in contra-
vention of the Articles of religion. The appeal was heard
last week, and theirlordships now delivered judgment. The
members of the Judicial Committee present were the
Lord Chancellor (Lord Hatherley), Lis Grace the Arch-
bish. p of Canterbury, Lord Chelmsford, and Sir R. J.
Philli ro ore.

The Rev. C. Voysey appeared in person to conduct his
case.

The Lord Chancellor, in delivering the judgment of
their lordships, said the defendant (the Rev. C. Voysey)
was cited to appear before the Chancery Court of York
by authority of letters of request by the Arch-
bishop of that province. Certain articles were
exhibited against him, in which it was alleged
that he bad offended against the laws ecclesiastical.
The defendant objected to the admission of the articles on
the ground that the passages quoted did not mention any
statement, doctrine, or opinion which_contita,vened the
law. The official Principal of the Court, aftdr hearing
the arguments made at the time, delivered jUdgment, and
ordered the articles to be admitted to proof,
and from that time to the present an appeal
against this decision had been prosecuted before
the Judicial Committee. Their lordships now having
heard the defendant at great length, expressed their
opinion that the articles, with the exception of the 13th,
were admissable ; and the counsel for the' prosecution
having withdrawn that particular article, they directed
the case to proceed. In giving this judgment, _they were
desirous that they might not bilk misunderstood. It
amounted to this, that, in their judgment, the
passages set forth in the articles exhibited were
prinuffacie at variance and inconsistent with the law as
contained in the formularies of the Church, which they
were alleged to have contravened. It would,:therefore,
be competent for him (the defendant) to remove this
opinion by proving that the passages entered in the
articles did not bear the meaning ascribed to them by the
promoter, and he might have recourse to the whole of
the work in which the passages occur in order to substantiate
this view. Or further, he might say that the sense
ascribed to them being correct, they did not exceed the
limits which the law prescribed, and for this purpose he
might refer, as their lordships had-decided on hearing this
cause, to the authority of eminent who had
written on the subjects which formed the !natter of the
charges. It would then be competent for their lordships to
erase such other articles as they might see fit, and it was not
until then that they could form an opinion as to the real
merits of the case. They had been earnestly requested to
retain the cause in their own hands instead of sending it
back for trial, and therefore they 'had resolved to proceed
to the hearing at once in pursuance of this request.
They would therefore proceed with the cause, but instead
of giving final sentence, they could do no more than
report to her Majesty, who would affirm or disaffirm what
they had done. They wished, in doing4hus;_ukut to form
a legal precedent, nor to interfere with the power of the
court below, but considered it was a coufse*.which in this
case should be adopted.
The case was then proceeded with.
Sir Roundell Palmer opened the case for the promoters,
and went seriatim through the articles upon which the
general charge is based. He argued, quoting largely
from the Scriptures, that the doctrines set forth by the
defendant were antagonistic to the Articles of the Chris-
tian religion, and pointed out in what particular instances
the latter had been offended against.
The Solicitor-General argued on the mime side,
The Rev. C. Voysey then entered upon his defence, and
said he felt that it was the duty of every minister
freely to express his opinions, and this was all he
had done. He considered it was not only his right
and his privilege to teach the Scriptures according to his
own ideas, but his duty also, and he was still 'ready to
affirm that the views he had promulgated were net antago-
nistictic to the articles of the Christian religion.
The rev. gentleman had not completed his defence when
their Lordships adjourned.