The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-03 00:00:00

friend and brother in Christ,

"11. EXETER."
That letter afforded so good an explanation of what the
Bishop of Exeter meant to do, that it was only necessary
for him to add that there were 800 clergymen in that
diocese, and that the Bishop proposed they should be re-
presented by 60 of their number, and by two members
from each rural deanery. With regard to the animus
in which ecclesiastical questions were likely to be dis-
cussed in the proposed synod, he would say nothiug
more than merely to read one or two extracts from the
pastoral of the Bishop of Exeter, which bad just been
published. These extracts related principally to the
questions involved in the Gorham case, which were the
great questions the synod would have to consider. The
Bishop of Exeter said:—
" I grieved to read the statement of the Archbishop, in
answer to an address from a portion of you, my clergy, in
which he declared, that in issuing the fiat for institution in
Mr. Gorham's case, tie had acted not judicially, but mini-
sterially. To affect to act ministerially in such a case, to
give mission and authority over souls, as the minister of
man, is to renounce the Divine authority of the office in
which the power of mission is lodged—to fling the commis-
sion of Christ under the footstool of an earthly threne! And
this, too, when the Crown itself had too just and true a sense
of its own duty, as well as of the duty of the Archbishop, to
require to accept, or even to be prepared for such a sur-
render ! That surrender can be regarded only as the volun-
tary betraying of a high and most sacred trust. ' Traditor
potestatis quam Sancta Mater Ecclesia a Sponso suo acce-
perat.' It could not but be manifest to me, that if I was
wrong—if the Archbishop had not, by instituting Mr. Gor-
ham, become a fautor of the heretical tenets held by him—
and if he had not, as such, forfeited his rights to Catholic
communion, any one of his comprovincial bishops who there-
upon derenounced communion with him, would himself, by
so doing, have deserved to be put out of the pale of the
Church."

The Bishop of Exeter then went on to remark upon the
charge delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the
clergy of the diocese of Chester in 1841, and he said :
"After all this, is it possible for any minister of the Eng •
lish Church who could speak 'the words of truth and sober-
ness,' to hesitate what he must say of the statements which
we have read from this unhappy charge ? I declare solemnly,
and with a deep sense of the responsibility which attaches
to such a declaration concerning a document proceeding from
such a quarter, that I could not name any work of any
minister in our Church, which, though of double the bulk,
contains half so many heretical statements as are contained
in this one charge."
The Archbishop, in his charge, expressed a hope that his
clergy would never be wanting in resistance to any attempts
which might be made " to weaken or subvert the Protestant
faith," and upon this the Bishop of Exeter said :
" Now it is not with anything like a wish to carp at
words, that I avow my ignorance of what is meant by the
phrase the Protestant Faith,' Protestant' and ' Faith' are
terms which do not seem to me to accord together; the ob-
ject of Faith' is Divine truth, the object of Protestant' is
human error. How, therefore, can one be an attribute of the
other 2"
In conclusion, he (Mr. Childers) bad only to ask her Ma-
jesty's Government how they intended to deal with a propo-
sal to hold in the diocese of Exeter a synod, which would be
presided over by a prelate who had used such language as
that which he had just quoted ?—(Hear, hear.)
'Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, as the Honourabi
Member had given notice of his question, he had
thought it necessary to take the opinions of the
law officers of the Crown with regard to dio-
cesan synods. The Honourable Gentleman had
correctly stated that the Bishop of Exeter proposed to
call together a certain assembly of clergymen of the
diocese, elected after a certain manner, to confer on
subjects to which the Bishop of Exeter referred in his
letter. It did not appear to him (Lord John Russell)
that that assembly, though called by the Bishop of
Exeter, bore in any respect the character of a
synod, either as to the mode of assembling, or the sub-
jects which were proposed to be brought before it. The
25th of Henry VIII. bad reference to provincial and
diocesan synods—provincial synods could not be
called except by the King's writ, or pass any
canons without the consent of the Crown, and if
any person offended against this law he was liable
to imprisonment during the pleasure of the Crown. Dio-
cesan synods, however, could be called by the bishop.
The restriction as to passing canons might certainly
be held to apply to diocesan synods; but whether
that was so or not it did not affect te question, as
the Bishop of Exeter had expressly declared that the
assembly which he proposed to call should not declare
any canons. It was, therefore, very clear, whatever
purpose the Bishop had in view, he did not intend
to contravene the Act of Henry VIII., or, as it was
called, the Act of Submission. The Attorney-
General and Solicitor-General did not think such

an assembly of clergymen would be unlawful;
but the bishop had given a term, and he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) thought very unfortunately, to the assembly which
was calculated to give rise to the appearance that it was
contrary to law. It was most unfortunate, to use no
harsher term, that the bishop had given the
name of synod to an assembly framed in a different
way, and called together for a different purpose.
The Bishop of Exeter had called into question the
judgment of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York,
and it was to impugn that decision that he had called
together the synou. With regard to the language
which he bad used towards the Archbishop ot Can-
terbury, it was well known that that Most Rev. Prelate
was a man of peculiar mildness, and of truly Christian
forbearance—(Hear, hear)—and it was precisely be-
cause he was a man of such mildness and forbearance
that this language had been used against him.
But there was no doubt but that without
any interposition of the Government or of Parliament,
the Primate of all England would so conduct himself as
to meet with that general veneration which he had al-
ways obtained; and that nothing that could be said
against him by the Bishop of Exeter could weaken
his adherence to the doctrines which he be-
lieves to bo the true doctrines of his own
Church, conformable to the letter and spirit of Scrip-
ture, at least he would never depart from his venerable
character by using opprobrious language and epithets, at
all to diminish the purity and holiness which belonged
to his exalted rank.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. 1101ISMAN said there was no need to defend
the character of the Archbishop of Canterbury from the
attacks of a mall like the Bishop of Exeter. He thought,
however, that the consequences of the act proposed by
the Bishop> of Exeter would extend farther than the
Noble Lord anticipated, and he would like to know from
the Attorney- General whether it was not directly for-
bidden by the 73d canon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that canon ap-
plied more particularly to provincial synods. The
Act which it was thought the Bishop had offended
against was the 24th and 25th Henry VIII.
The canon was either invalid or insufficient. Ile should
say the latter, for it was clearly evident that unless a■
Act was passed for enforcing it more strongly it would
be quite incapable for effecting any alteration in the
Bishop of Exeter's movements.—(Cheers.)
FOREIGN PASSPORTS.

Mr. J. B. SMITH rose to ask a question of which he
hod given notice in words as definite as he could devise,
of the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Depart-
ment, as to whether ho intended to make any alteration
in the system of passports to be granted to passengers from
the continent to this country. When several passengers
were landing at Dover the other day, they were not only
examined, but their passports were demanded and they
were subjected to no small amount of unpleasantry.
While lately making a tour through different parts
of the Continent, it was true that on enter-
ing Franco he had to submit to the ordeal
of his passport, but when afterwards passing out
of France into Belgium, and on afterwards returning to
France no passport was demanded. It appeared, then,
that a foreigner, in coming to this country, was abso-
lutely subjected to greater inconvenience than en
Englishman had to endure in going abroad. What
he wished to know, therefore, was, whether the Noble
Lord at the head of the Foreign Department had caused
any measures to be taken for obviating this inconve-
nience?
Lord PALNIERSTOIC said that it was quite unneces-
sary for any foreigner to show his passport on landing on
British shores. By the law of 1836, it was enacted that
every foreigner on disembarking from his vessel should
give his name, either by showing his passport or doing
so verbally. It was not required that ho should show
his passport, but it was necessary to get his name
in order that it might be recorded. That was all that
was required.
Mr. COBDEN said that it ought to be clearly
known that no passports whatever were required
for foreigners entering this country. It was
evident that the system was totally inopera-
tive, and therefore ought to be abandoned. If
a passenger landed at Newhaven or at Shoreham no
passport was demanded, because there was nobody there
to take it, but it he landed at Dover or Folkestone,
unless he produced a passport, he was subject to a fine
of 40s. It would only be commensurate with good sense
if the system were to be altogether abandoned.
The subject then dropped.
EMIGRATION TO AMERICA.
Mr. M'CULLAGII rose to call the attention of the
House to the subject of a return recently presented to
the House respecting the treatment of passengers on
board the emigrant ship Washington; also, to ask the
Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there
would be any objection to lay upon the table a copy of
the letter lately addressed by him to the Mayor of Li-
verpool, with reference to the death of the late Edward
Rushton, Esq., stipendiary magistrate of that town.
In putting this question, he said that he hoped the Rie,ht
Hon. Gentleman was aware that not less than 200,000
persons sailed fur America every year, and he
wished to know whether the Secretary for the Home
Department had made any arrangements to prevent the
evils of which emigrants had had so much reason to
complain during the last twelve months?
Sir G. GREY said ho should have no objection to
produce the document which the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tlezean referred to. The Government regretted these
abuses as much as he did, and they were
now in communication with the authorities
of Liverpool. All emigrant ships, before they left port,
no matter whether foreign or British, were examined by
a proper officer, to see that they were furnished with
everything necessary to insure the safety aed comfort
of the passengers, and many of the abuses which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman complained of occurred
out of the jurisdiction of the English law.
The subject then dropped.
EXETER SYNOD.
Mr. MANGLES, adverting to a previous topic of