The Sun.
London, England, 1869-01-13 00:00:00

hand the exaction of a rigid uniformity must be produc-
tive of great vexation and mischief." The memorial
concludes by requesting the persons to whom It
is addressed to vindicate the primitive and Catholic
character of the Church disparaged by the judgment, to
claim for themselves the liberty now denied, and to relieve
them from the contradictions, the difficulties, and the
dangers in which they are placed by the late interpreta-
tion of the law.
This memorial is followed by six resolutions. The first
and second are formal. The third is to the effect "That this
meeting does not recognise the existing Court of Appeal
is competent to declare the law of the Church upon either
doctrine or ceremonial,. and that while the fundamental
principle of connection with, and reference to, the practice
if the Church Primitive and Catholic is disregarded, the
meeting nevertheless acknowledges the duty of submitting,
ander protest, to the law of the land upon that law
being put in force, so far as such law is expressed
in the decree 'of the said judgment, and until
such law shall be further declared or amended." The
rourth resolution expresses the meeting's deep regret at
the late decision, and sees in it " a call to use their respec.
Live positions in the Church and in the world to spread in
all possible ways the doctrine of the Real Presence." The
fifth expresses joyat the knowledge "that all manner of denial
or deprecation of the doctrine of the sacraments has issued
only in the truer understanding and the wider and heartier

acceptance of the doctrine itself. The concluding resolu-
tion complains of the hardship of condemning Mr. Macho-
nochie to costs in an action which he did not originate, and
on matters which had not been previously tried, and which
many eminent counsel bad declared to be legal.
The CHAIRMAN then called upon Mr. Turner to move
that the report be considered, remarking that it was merely
a formal mode of getting to the business of the day.
Mr. TURNER then moved the consideration of the report,
which was seconded by Lord ELIOT, and carried unani-
mously.
The Rev. W. H. MATOW then moved the adoption of
the memorial, which was seconded by Mr. Bummed,
who said he had looked with great interest to the produc-
don of the report, which, after hearing it read, he felt
would be very comforting to all true Churchmen. They had
waited for the report of those whom lie looked upon as the
leaders of the great Catholic party of the Church of Eng.

land—(hear, hear)—and that report he felt would be
considered highly satisfactory. If they only remained
loyal to their Church, he felt there was a grand future
before them.

The resolution, on being put to the meeting, was carrier
unanimously.
The Rev. W. H. MOLYNEUX moved the third resolution

in a very eloquent speech. He counselled them to bow to
the decision ; and he advised his brethren to submit to it,
and not to wait until monitions had been served on each
clergyman. (Hear, hear.)
The Hon. C. L. Woon seconded the resolution. He
said what the Church of England wanted was more free-
dom ; but he did not by that mean that there was to he a
separation of the Church from the State. (Hear, hear.)
The Rev. E. W. BENNETT, of Frome, expressed his
regret at being obliged to differ from any of those who bad
been among his dearest friends for many long years of his
life. He did not think he ought to be called a disobe-
dient subject of the Queen because he chose to obey the
law of his God and his Church in preference to that of a
court. That decision was not the law of the land. The
Court of Appeal had not to make the law, hut to inter-
pret the law. It was not possible for that court to
make a new prohibitory law. Therefore he held
that their judgment was not the law of the land.
He should propose to insert as an amendment these
words : " Therefore this meeting is unable to reconcile
submission to the present decree with its paramount and
primary duty of obedience to the Church, and can only
wait in patience the providence of God." (Applause.)
_ _

The Rev. Mr. LE GETT seconded the amendment.
A long discussion followed.
A show of hands was taken, and the chairman declared
the amendment to be lost.

A division was called for, but on seeing that the
majority was against him Mr. Bennett yielded, and the
amendment was negatived amid some hisses.

Various amendments were afterwards passed, and on
the subject being closed, the original resolution stood as
follows :—" That this meeting does not recognise the
existing Court of Final Appeal as a court qualified to
declare the law of the Church of England upon either
doctrine or ceremonial. That with respect to this parti-
cular judgment of the said court in Martin v. Mackono-
chie, the meeting finds, among other things, that that
judgment disregards the Church of England's funda-
mental principle of connection with and reference to the
practice of the Church primitive and Catholic; and at
the same time this meeting, feeling the great difficulty
of the present case, thinks there are many reasons why
those who have used the ceremonials or practices now
condemned by the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council may be anxious to wait rather than to give imme-
diate effect to the decision so pronounced, and considers
it is a matter best left to the individual judgment and
circumstances of each priest who has been accustomed to
use the ceremonials in question."
Other resolutions were passed as follows : "That the
clergy and laity present at this meeting deeply lament the
late decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, and see in it a call to use their respective
positions in the Church and in the world to spread in all
possible ways the doctrine of the Real Presence, and
would use all lawful means in its power to teach
the doctrines sought to be impugned in this
prosecution." " That this meeting, having regard to
the experience of the Church of England for the
last twenty years, rejoices in the knowledge that all
manner of denial or depreciation of the doctrine of the
Sacraments has issued only in the truer understanding
and the wider and heartier acceptance of the doctrine
itself." " That, having regard to the circumstances of
the case, and to precedents of the court, the
condemnation of Mr. Mackonochie in all costs, both
of the original suit and of the appeal, appears to this
meeting to be a course of unusual and excep-
tional severity, inasmuch as the defendant did not
originate the litigation ; inasmuch as the defendant was
only testing the legality of ceremonial which had pre-
viously never been condemned—in one part of which,
viz., the two lights, he was upheld by the opinions of
many eminent counsel ; and inasmuch as the defendant
had been sustained by the court below on the points
uow ruled against him, and had yielded immediate sub-
mission as to the points on which he bad not been so
sustained "