The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-23 00:00:00

VI:, he said, did not contain this one: the Statute of
Elizabeth refeiied to the articles itgfeea iitiOn in 1502.
Archbishop Parker added the 29th to the otter artie'leSi
making in all 42. They were introduced to convocation,
which reduced them to 39. Whether these articles ever
received the Royal assent might or might not be a matter
of doubt; but beyond all question the printed edition of
1562, put forth by Royal authority and purporting to con-
tain these articles; did not contain article 29. In siippott of
this i'..SSertion the learned Counsel quoted from the works
of Drs. Lambe, Cardwell, and Bennett, and continued—
On the sth of December, 1566, a bill was brought into
Parliament, with a little book, printed in 1562, appended
to it, and which did not include the 29th article. Lambe's
book, in a note, stated that there were no copies of this
little book published till 1563. Its contents were the
articles agreed upon by Convocation in 1562. The bill of
1566, with the book annexed, was progressing through
the Legislature, but its course was then arrested by
Queen Elizabeth, on the ground that it encroached on her
prerogative. The Puritan members of the Legislature
resisted the clause in the 20th article, asserting the church's
power to determine controversies as to ceremonies and
doctrine ; and as Queen Elizabeth in 1566 stopped her Par-
liament for, as she alleged, denying her supremacy, so in
1571 she was not likely to scruple to add an article of
her own accord, and without their authority. Dr. Lambe's
work gave a fac-simile of the imprinted book referred to in
the 13th of Elizabeth from a copy in the library of St.
John's College, Cambridge, and which did not contain the
29th article or the first clause in the 20th. Convocation
itself took no step in 1566 for framing articles of religion,
but it petitioned the Sovereign to pass the bill of that year.
This showed that that body did not wish to press upon the
clergy the 29th article or the beginning of the 20th. Then
comes the year 1571. Parliament met in April, and on the
7th of that month the measure was introduced which
eventually became the famous statute the 13thlof Eliza
beth. This bill was invariably called the bill of last se
sion—that was of 1566. Sir Simon Dawes, a high autho-
rity on the Parliamentary history of this period, exactly

identified the bills of 1566 and 1571. If there was any evi
deuce of the existence of a printed book containing the
Thirty-nine Articles it ought to be found before the 29th
of May, 1571, on which day Parliament was dissolved.
Now, these was nothing to show that Convocation had
ordered any work to be published in which the 29th article
appeared. In support of this view the learned counsel
quoted as authorities the works, of Lambe and Bennett.
He maintained, first, that there was no edition of the ar-
ticles before 1571 which included the 29th article and,
second, that the first known edition which contained it
was a quarto edition, which could not have been published
before the 4th June, but which was perhaps in type on that
date. The uncertainty in which the whole point as to the
29th article was involved was made more apparent by the
conduct of convocation, which, by its 36th canon, passed
in 1604, and making the articles binding on the clergy,
took no notice of the 13th of Elizabeth, but made the
quarto copy the basis of its deliberation. The learned coun-
sel then quoted from a correspondence between Archbishop
Parker and Lord Burleigh, with reference to the 29th ar-
ticle in connection with a marginal note (viz., Sup. Johan
tractat., 26) from St. Augustine, to show that the article
was still sub ju.iice on June 4, 1571. Archbishop Parker
afterwards struck out this note, and the article was printed
without it. This point was the more important, as the
Archdeacon of Taunton had all along maintained that his
interpretation of this article was strictly consistent with
the authority of St. Augustine. If an imprinted book was
made binding on the clergy by one of the severest acts
which Parliament ever passed, inflicting deprivation on
those who put an erroneous interpretation on the articles
of the Church, it was most important to inquire whether
this tremendous weapon was to be wielded against
the clergy in respect of all the articles, or only in respect
of a certain number of them. If this article had formed
part of the statute of Elizabeth on the 29th of May, 1571,
how could Archbishop Parker have canvassed the possi-
bility of altering it on the 4th of June, the date
of his letter relative to the marginal note from
St. Augustine ? Having referred to the authority of
Hallam's Constitutional history as to the famous dispute
respecting the first clause of the 20th article, which Laud
was accused by the Puritans of having forged and foisted
into the articlel, and contended that that clause wanted
confirmation of the Legislature, the learned counsel in-
sisted that the principal part of the 20th article must have
been introduced by the Royal authority alone. In fact,
the 20th and 29th articles, to use a common expression, ran
in couples throughout the whole of Queen Elizabeth's
reign, both being either omitted together or included to-
gether ; and nobody could suppose that the monarch who
did not scruple to put in the important part of the 20th
clause would have hesitated to insert a clause of such infe-
rior significance as the 29th article was in those times con-
sidered to be. Bennett did not assert that there was, on
the 29th of May, 1571, when Parliament dissolved, a book
containing the 29th article; What that authority con-
tended for was that Parliament, when it separated, knew
that the Convocation intended to print such a book, and
that, therefore, the article had &binding authority. That
position was, however, wholly untenable, and the only in-
ference could be that the article was put in by the Queen's
authority. In winding up kis elaborate and intricate ar-
gument the learned counsel observed that the penalty of
the 13th of Elizabeth could not fairly be visited on his
client for the misinterpretation of an article which the
whole current of authority showed never to have belonged
to that statute. He deliberately defied any judicial mind
calmly to weigh the authorities on the subject and not
admit—whichever way the balance of evidence might in-
cline—that there was the greatest possible doubt whether
the 29th article was, or was not, in the book referred to by
the:statute of Elizabeth. He might say it was demonstrable
that that article was not in the book, but he would content
himself with taking lower ground and saying that there was
at least the greatest doubt upon the point; and he put it to
the Court with confidence that this most severe penal sta-
tute ought not to be awakened from its sleep of ages—not
against a clergymen claiming to hold doctrines opposed to
the articles of the church, but ,against one who said he
advisedly maintained and was ready to subscribe all those
articles—against one who said, bona fide, "I think this a
correct interpretation of the articles of the Church of Eng-
land; and, if I err, I err in the company of the greatest
divines of that church." To defy all the high authorities
he had cited on this question, and to smite such a man with
a sentence of deprivation, would be to act in contravention
of the spirit, and, he humbly but boldly added, in contra-
vention also of the letter, of the statute.
A short adjournment then took place.
On the return of his Grace and the assessors into court,
Dr. Lushington said—Dr. Bayford, his Grace will hear
you.

Dr. Bayford then rose, and, after expressing some sur
prise that all the arguments had not been exhausted on the
former occasions, observed that he now found an argument
had been omitted which had been embodied in a protest, and
which had now been elaborately brought before the Court.
Numerous references had been made to Bennett and to Dr.
Lamb, but nothing had been advanced from Cardwell, whe
was an equally eminent authority. Without pretending tod
any of the research of his learned friend he had anticipated
that the point now brought forward would be raised, and
was prepared to have dealt with it on the
hlaisethven ohcacdashieoenn.
Before proceeding to answer the arguments w h e
adduced he would refer to the protest of tvenerable
archdeacon, respecting which Dr. Phillimore had said very
little. This was a proceeding under articles by authority
of the 3Gth canon as well as under the 13th of Elizabeth,
and that canon, it was admitted, embraced the 29th
'article. Objection was taken that the archdeacon had
maintained doctrine contrary to the articles of the Church
of England, agreed upon by the Convocation of 1662, and
words upon which the artiCle was founded were
thet taken from the 36th canon, and not from the statute of
Elizabeth, which was only referred to in the next article
of the suit, as pointing out the punishment to be inflicted
if the case of the promoter were made out. This dis-
tinction prevailed throughout the articles which had been
drawn up in the suit. It was true that it was a proceed-
ing under the statute of Elizabeth, but it also charged a
breach of the articles as certified by the canon, about which
there could be no dispute. Supposing it were made out,
that the articles under which the offence was alleged were
not the articles referred to by the statute of. Elizabeth, his
learned friend had not attempted to show what would: be
the result of establishing that fact. He totally ignored the
articles recognised by the 36th canon. Supposing, spiv.,
that the 29th article was got rid of, no doubt the finding of
the Court was that the archdeacon had preached doctrines
contrary and repugnant to the 28th and 29th articles, and
about the 28th article there was not a shadow of doubt
that it was included in the statute of Elizabeth. The pro-
test blinked the real question, and made no reference to
the fact that the Court had deliberately expressed an opi-
nion that the archdeacon was guilty of preaching doctrine
contrary to the 28th article ; but if the case were exactly as
Dr. Phillimore had argued it, it would only amount to this,
that the archdeacon was guilty of preaching doctrine 'con-
trary to one instead of two articles. He was, consequently,
undoubtedly amenable to punishment, and the only effect
he protest could have would be to omit all reference to the
29th article in the sentence passed by the Court. The real,
true matter at issue in the cause remained untouched by the
protest and by the argument of Dr. Phillimore, which
seemed to amount to this, that, under the statute of Eliza-
beth, there were only 31 articles. The matter thus seemed
to be reduced to a rule of arithmetic.
Dr. Phillimore said under the statute of Elizabeth the
articles were not numbered. He would take this opportunity
of asking whether the Co art would now allow Dr. Bayford
fur the first time to say that the proceeding was founded
upon tho 36th canon as well as upon the 13th of Elizabeth ?
Dr. Lushington could not advise his Grace to stop Dr.
Bayford after Dr. Phillimore had been allowed to put in and
argue his protest.
Dr. Bayford resumed, and pointed out that in the
little book referred to by Dr. Lambe, and which had been
so much relied upon, there were only 37 articles enu-
merated ; and he asked what number of articles the
clergy were required to subscribe in the time of Eliza-
beth so as to arrive at identification. He cited cases to
show that the recognised number of articles in that time
was 39, and he challenged his friend to point out any
number which had been subscribed from 1571 to the
present time. On the authority of " Comyn'a Digest"
he argued that, under the statute of Elizabeth, 39 was

so it was clear
-11 con-

,
the numter of aitieled, fctiti if that
that the little book referred to 1:1Y Dr: lambs,
tined only 37 articles, was not the one Alai vasan-
flexed to tEd 4tPUte. He produced copies of the Artioie
published in 1571, cones-Pct.:ling in every particular with
those now in use with the exceptlun of the omission of
that demi-semi article of which so much had bon said by
his learned friend.
Dr. Lushington—What is the " demi-semi article ?"
Dr. Bayford—The first sentence or paragraph of the
20th article. There was no pretence for saying that from
the time the statute of Elizabeth came into operation the
29th article did not form one of the 39 which the clergy
were required to subscribe. After going over the history
of the Articles, and especially that of the 29th, as detailed
in Dr. Lambe's book, Dr. Bayford. argued that at the time
the statute of Elizabeth was passing the Houses of Convo-
cation were engaged in drawing up those articles which it
was understood upon all hands should be made binding by
and annexed to the statute.
Dr. Phillimore asked permission to reply on the new
matter urged by Dr. Bayford.
Dr. Lushington expressed the concurrence of the Arch-
bishop, and
The Court adjourned till 10 this morning.

BANK RETURNS.

A.n Account, pursuant to the Act seventh and eighth
Victoria, cap. 32, of the Ayerage Amount of Bank
Notes of the several Banks of Issue in England and
Wales, in Circulation during the Week ending Satur-
day, the 4th day of October, 1856

PRIVATE BANKS. Average
Amount.
Andover Bank, Andover—Heath and Co.
Ashford Bank, Ashford—Jemmitt and Pomfret 14,431
Aylsham Bank, Aylsham—G. and T. Copeman 4,196
Aylesbury Old Bank, Aylesbury—Z. D. Hunt 33,026
Baldock Bank and Baldock and Biggleswade
Bank, Baldock—Wells, Hogge, and Co 10,671
Barnstaple Bank, Barnstaple—Marshall and Co 10,772
Basingstoke and Odiham Bank, Basingstoke--
Seymour, Lamb, and Co.
Bedford Bank. Bedford—T. Barnard and Sons 33,349
Bewdley Bank, Bewdley Nichols, Baker,
and Co
Bicester and Oxfordshire Bank and Oxford
Bank, Bicester-11. M. and Tubb 14,657
Birmingham Bank, Birmingham —Attwoods,
Spooner, and Co 23,980
Birmingham and Warwickshire Bank, Bir-
mingliarn—J. L. Moilliet and Sons 9,615
Blandford. Bank,' Blandford—Oak and Co. 7,000
Boston Bank, Boston—Garfit and Co 75,241
Boston Bank, Boston—H. and T. Gee and Co 14,838
Bridgwater Bank, Bridgwater—J. and J. L.
Sealey
Bristol Bank, Bristol—Miles, Miles, and C 0... 36,953
Broseley and Bridgnorth and Bridgnorth and
Broseley Bank, Broseley—Pritchards, Boy-
cott, and Co.
Buckingham Bank, Buckingham—Bartlett, Par-

24,167

rott, and Co.
Bury and Suffolk Bank, Sudbury Bank, and
Stowinarket Bank, Bury St. idmunds—
Oakes, Bevan, and Co.
Banbury Bank, Banbury Gillet, Tawney,
and Co.
Banbury Old Bank, Banbury—Cobb and Son 28,472
Bath City Bank, Bath—G. Moger and Son
Bedfordshire Leighton Buzzard Bank, Leighton
Buzzard—Bassett, Grant, and Co ............. 34,840
Birmingham Bank, Birmingham—Taylor and
Lloyds 28,301
Bradford Old Bank, Bradford, Yorkshire—H.
A. and W. M. Harris and Co
Brecon Old Bank, Brecon—Wilkins and Co 62,933
Brighton Union Bank, Brighton—Hall, West,
and Borrer
Burlington and Driffield Bank, Burlington—
Harding, Smith, and Co
Bury St. Edmunds Bank, Bury St. Edmunds—
J. Worlledge
Cambridge Bank, Cambridge—Mortlock &Co 12,259
Cambridge and Cambridgeshire Bank, Cam-
bridge—Messrs. Fosters 49,422
Canterbury Bank, Canterbury—Hammond and
32,032
Co
Carmarthen Bank, Carmarthen—David Morris
and Sons 23,374
Chertsey Bank, Chertsey—La Coste and Son 3,245
Colchester Bank, Colchester—Round & Green 18,386
Colchester and Essex Bank, and Witham and
Essex Bank, and Hadleigh, Suffolk, Bank,
Colchester—Mills, Ba,wtree, and Co 36,469
Cornish Bank, Truro—Tweedy and Co 48,329
Coventry Bank, Coventry—Little & Woodcock 8,430
City Bank, Exeter—Milford and Co 19,420
Craven Bank, Settle—Alcocks, Birkbecks, and
Co
Cardiff Bank, Cardiff—Towgood and Co
Chepstow Old Bank, Chepstow Bank, Mon-
mouth Old Bank, Monmouth Bank, Brecon
Bank, and Ross and Herefordshire Bank,
Chepstow—Bromage, Snead, and Co 8,546
Derby Ralik, Derby—W. and S. Evans &Co 9,373
Derby Bank, Derby—Samuel Smith and Co 43,946
Derby Old Bank and Scarsdale and High Peak
Bank, Derby Crompton, Newton, and Co
Devizes and Wiltshire Bank, Devizes—Locke

77,089

and Co
Diss Bank, Diss—Oakes, Fincham, and Co
Doncaster Bank and Retford Bank, Doncaster
—Cooke and Co
Darlington Bank, Durham Bank, and Stockton
on-Tees Bank, Darlington—Backhouse & Co
Devonport Bank, Devonport— llodg. and Co
Dorchester Old Bank and Dorsetshire Bank,
Dorchester—R. and H. Williams
East Cornwall Bank, Liskeard—Robins, Fos-
ter, and Co
East Riding Bank, Beverley—Bower and Co
Essex Bank and Bishop's Stortford Bank
Chelmsford—Sparrow, Round, and Co
Exeter Bank, Exeter—Sanders and Co
Fakenham Bank, Fakenham—Gurneys, Birk
beck, and Co
Farringdon Bank and Bank of Wantage, Far-
ringdon—Barnes, Medley, and Co
Farnham Bank, Farnham Messrs Knight
Faversham Bank, Faversham—Hilton and Co.
Godalming Bank, Godalming—Mellersh and

Keen
Guildford Bank, Guildford—Messrs. Haydon..
Grantham Bank, Grantham—Hardy and C 0...
Hastings Old Bank, Hastings—Smith, Hilder,
and Co.
Hereford City and Count Bank, Hereford—
Matthews and ............
Hull Bank and Kingston-upo-H C 0.............................
Hull, Smith, Brothers, and Co. ... .... ....
Huntingdon Town and County Bank,
Hunting-
don—Rust and Veaseys ...... ..................
Harwich Lank, Harwich—Cox, Cobbold, and
Co. .......... . .......................................
Hertfordshire, Ilitchin Bank, Ilitchin
Sharpies, and Co.
Arcfield Bank,
Seref ord ,
a
Ro9Band Archenfield hen
Bank. Her ford d
Morgan and Co
Ipswich Bank, Ipswich—Bacon and Co.
Ipswich and Needham Market Bank, Suffolk,
Hadleigh Bank, Manningtree and Mistley
Bank, and Woodbridge Bank, Ipswich—
Alexanderi and Co.
Kentish Bank, Maidstone—Mercer, Randall,
and Co. .......................................
Kington and Radno
gar
hsn htkoi rnea—ndßDßa
ani
vpki
Ripon
ns Koa
ni ndd g
Ct..
Bank,
n
Davies and Co. ....
ni.
k.
......................
111. nn he
st bo no
r Banoughk Kl
d nßi
Kendal
n a r e
Bs baonrko
Kendal—Wakefield,
dlla r ksvo
an k
efi and

74,119

and Co.
Kettering Bank, Kettering—J.C. Gotch and
50n5...............................................
Lane End Staffordshire Bank, Lane End —C
Harvey and Son .....................
Leeds Bank, Leeds—Beckett and Co.
Leeds Union Bank, Leed,a--W Williams,
Brown and Co.
Leicester Bank, Leicester—Pagets and Kirby
Lewes Old Bank, Lewes—Molineux and Co
Lichfield Bank, Lichfield—Palmer and Greene
Lincoln Bank, Lincoln—Smith, Ellison, and Co.
Llandovery Bank, Lampeter Bank, and Llan-
tido Bank, Llandovery—D. Jones and Co
Loughborough Bank, Loughborough—Middle-
ton and Cradock .................................
Lymington Bank, Lymington—St. Barbe and
Co. ......................
Lynn Regis and Lineolnshire Bank, Lynn
Regis—Gurneys and Co.
Lynn Regis and Norfolk Bank, Lynn Regis—
Jarvis and Co
Macclesfield Bank, Macclesfield—Brocklehurst
and Co.
Manningtree Bank, Manningtree--Nunn and
Co. ..................................................
Marlborough Bank, Marlborough and. Wilts
Old Bank, Marlborough Old Bank, Marl-
borough Old Bank and Hungerford Bank,
and Hungerford Bank, Marlborough—Tan-
ner and Co
Merionethshire Bank, Dolgelly—Williams and
Son
Miners' Bank, Truro—Willyams and Co
Monmouthshire Agricultural and Commercial
Bank, Abergavenny—Bailey and
lank,
Monmouth Cld Bank, Monmouth Bre-
con Bank, Chepstow Bank, Chepstow Old
Bank, and Ross and Herefordshire Bank,
Monmouth—Bromage, Snead, and Co
'Newark Bank, Newark—Godfrey and Riddell
Newark and Sleaford Bank, and Sleaford and
Newark Bank, Sleaford—Handley, Peacock,
andCo
Newbury Bank, Newbury—Bunny & Slocock
Newruarkt Bank, Newmarket—Eaton, Ham-
mond,Nonvic and
dCno Bank and Norfolk and Suffolk
Bank, Norwich—Harveys and Hudsons
Norwich and Norfolk Bank, Norwich-- Gur-
neeek
Nottinghamottinghamshire Bank, Not-
tingham, Hart, Fellows, and Co
Nuneaton Bank, Nuneaton—Craddock and Co
Naval Bank, Plymouth, Plymouth—Harris
and Co.
New Sarum Bank, Sarum—Everett and Co
Nottingham Bank, Nottingham—Samuel Smith
and Co.
Oswestry Bank and Oswestry Old Bank, Os
westry—Croxon and Co
' Oxford Old Bank, Oxford—Robinson, Parsons,
and Co.