The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-25 00:00:00

-92
.:.,,5,,,,.,..:7,..i. .t.,...,4;...2, . - - --w---
-- - (.--' _- - - --. ,„,
Et 4 e.WSPAPEIt
.--.4::;.-
.0. V, • ir,,
- . ...,i..- : -
.41ji
TIM PRIVY .' vii .--,qi,L'is4-. - l'e
•• - eeert, •
—7.---" V-711
The anxiously-expected judgment of The Judicial
Committee of the Privy Connell, in the appezd
Liddell v. Westerton, was pronounced on Saturday
te.-cybPdbeaimiieb,berton Leigh, in the presence of Lo:,d
tbwhyeeMliA.srl
Archbishop *lf
°ChannPteartbtuesry°,n'-aSnidr Wtheilßistp-:&
London. A more lucid summary of the great points
W. H. Mettle,
of a long-agitated and dee )ll.ntric-ate 9uestioi,
or rather string of questions, it' -has never been our
wlseitllti?,e
rreaeaedi,veadndbywtehecoenhfiudrec
afallrdais,
istheieiyq
awee,ret-h.ree-;
hntlgyenaneraticlilpyatweitthha44t,
e Evangelicals will bf
cere satisfaction. The eixe.itrnrteoeinno
pcoremetebde chagrined,byiur.wfoeri
are substantially defeated, having succeeded in -
Wishing only two points out of five, and those ehe
two of least importance in the issue. But the msjb-
rity of Churchmen, who do not wish to see 'our
parochial fabrics stripped as bare as a Scotch con-
venticle, and are equally reluctant to assimilate
them to a Roman Catholic chapel, will acknowledge
thankfully that the law leaves so much liberty in
the mettir of Church ornament-, and will. readily
give up the two points on which the Court of 2143-
peal has affirmed the decision of the Court below.
We shall probably b 3 doing the. general reasir a
service if we condense into a small cempass 'this
elaborate judgment, an 1 prezent a summary of its
leading points, divested of its legal phraseology
and technicalities.
-It will be-remembered that the first suit was in-
stituted early in 1855 by Mr. 'Neste eon, a b x,)-
seller, and .Churchwardera of St. Paul's, Knights-
bridge, against Mr. Liddell, and Mr. orne,, the
other Churchwarden. The other suit was instituted
by a Mr. Beale against Mr. Liddell and the
Churchwardeus of St. Barnabas. The first case took
the form .of an application to ,the Consistorial
Court of London for a faculty to remove fr{kaine
St. Paul's Cloirch " the alt tr or high sitar," as it
was calla d ; also, certain cloths of various colours
used for covering the same, together with the
wooden cross elevated thereon and affixed the:l3'o •
r.
as well as the candlesticks theroorsesseeteeelee.wit
the credentia, or credence tab'e, and' for substitut-
ing in lieu there)f "a dec nt and proper table,"
and a decent cloth "for the covering thereof."
Dr. Lu,hington, in giving judgment, allowed t%e
communion table, which is of wood and moveably,
to remain, and also the candlesticks ; but he de-
creed the removal-of the cross, the credence table,
and the cloths. With regard to St. Barnabas; a
monition was obtained on the 17th January, 18i55,
against Mr. _Liddell and the Churehwardens to re •
move the rood screen and brazen gates, together
with the cross elevated and fixed en tee said screen,
and also the stone altar and the cloths now used for
covering the same, and the cross ornamented with
jewels elevated thereon, and fixed thereto, with the
candlesticks and candles, and also the marble cre-
dentia, and to set up on the east end of the chancel
the Ten Commandments. Dr. Lushingto_n, in
givingjudgment on this case, orde,el the removal
of the stone altar or table, together with the cre-
dence table, the cross on the screen, and the cross
on the tatle, and the coloured-cloths. Both these
suits came by appeal before the Court of Arches,
and as they involved the same principles of law
they' ware argued and decided together. The
Dean of Arches Sir John Dodson—affirmed the
judgment of Dr. Lushington, condemning the apel-
!ants in the costs. On the subject of crosses, ;Sir
John Dodson and Dr. LuShington differed, inas-
much as the formorclassed them under images and
the latter under ornaments, but both came to the
same cenelusion as to their removal. But the Ju-
dicial Committee have taken broader ground. They
hold that by ornaments is meant all those articles
the use of which is enjoined by the Prayer-book of
Edward VI. The term ornaments is not confined
in ecclesiastical law to articles of decoration,' but
is taken pro quocum,que apparato seu inifitemento
—vestments, books, cloths, bells, organs, and
the like. • ence, the Rubric, inserted in the .
Prayer-book from.the Statute Ist Elizabet 1, cap. 2,
when it speaks of such ornaments continuing iu use
as were in use by authority of Pa,liament in the
second year of Edward VI., adopts the word ern t-
meats as covering both the vestments of the minis-
ters, and the several articles used. in the services,
and is confined to such things as in the perform-
ance of the service the ministers were to use.. But
none of these could have any reference to articles
not used in the services, but set up in churches as
decorations ; therefore their lordships have d.ecieted
that although the Rubric excludes alt use of crosses
in the service, the general question of crosses not
used in theeervice is unaffected by the Rubric. No
objecti ,n, then, to crosses on the score of ornament
can be sustained. . Are they then forbidden under
the wo:d images, as Sr J. Dodson thinks? Tueir
lordships rote that they aro not, but that, on the
contrary, " crosses, as distinguished from cruci-
fixes, have been in use frOm the earliest periods of
Christianity; that when used as mere emblems of
I the faith, and not as objects of superstitious reve-
rence, they may still be lawfully erected as archi-
tectural decorations in churches ; that the wooden
cross erected on the chancel screen of St. Barnabas •
is to be considered as a mere architectural orna-
ment ; and that, as to this article, they must ad-
vise her Majesty to reverse the judgment com-
plained of." This decision, however, do _a not apply
to the crosses fixed upon the communion tables at
St. Paul and St. Barnabas, which are afterwards
dealt with.
The communion table comes next under review.
The Court lays great stress upon the words, alt .r
and communion table, as marking a great distinction
bet 'keen the doctrine of the Church of England and
Rome on the subject of the Lord's Supper. Revert-
ing to ancient precedent and the history and changes
of the law on this subject, their lordships are satis-
fied that the judgment in the well-known case of
Faulkner v. Lichfield ought to remain, and, there-
fore, that the stone altar at St. Barnabas be removed
and a wooden one substituted, and that the cross
fixed to it, and also to the one at St. Paul's, be re-
moved, as making in it such an alteration as re-
moves it out of the definition of a table in the ea-
des'astical sense. On the subject of credence
tables, thsir lordships rule that they are to remain,
as being merely unobjectionable "side tables from
which the elements may be conveniently reached
by the minister, and at th: proper time transferred
to the communion table." The embroidered cloths
for the communion tables are not to be interfered
with. The canon on which Dr. Lushingion and
others relied, as requiring only one cloth, being
held by their lordships to have only the intention
of securing a handsome • re, and not to guard againi t
having one of too much splendour. The -embroi-
dered linen-and lace are to be disused as not failing
within the definition of a "fair linen cloth." The
decision cf the Court below as to costs is reversed..
Both parties in both suits are to bear their own.
Such is the substance of this important judgment.
It will be seen that it is a victory for the appellants
on all the points but two—the stone altar and cross
on it and the lace.
We trust that in its effects upon the Church this
long-expected decision may be the harbinger of
peace. It will now be seen what is in accordance
with the spirit of the Reformation and what is not.
The hitherto uncertain state of the law—uncertain
because undeclared—has embarrassed both clergy
and laity. The absence of positive and direct autho-
rity in the matter of Church decoration, and some
points of ritual observance, has thrown merle, upon
the resources -of their own private judgment,
and so some with an antiquarian bent have
desired the restoration of this ; others given up to
architectural inquiries have sought the adoption of
that. Some have desired a florid, others a simple,
celebration of Divine worship ; and the lovers of
a i plain and the admirers of a decorated church .
have striven together, often not in the most seemly
spirit, for victory. But the points that have been
determined in these Knightsbridge suits ought to
go far towards preventing the like want of unity
and confidence in future, since it is now ruled by
the highest authority in the land both what the
law is and what are the grounds of it. It only re-
mains for all parties to accept this final decision.
with a good grace. Let the clergy take caw how
they strain its permissions too far, and the laity
howthey complain too readily of the adoption of
this or.that practice, ornament or custom, to long
as it remains sanctioned by the, law. Mr. Wester-
ton and his party, who have made themselves no-
torious by their indecent interference on various
occasions with the solemnities of Divine worship,
will do well to practise for the future glees
:
obtru-
sive course, and to take care how, under
the cloak
•ty, they transgress the
of zeal for liturgical P
itself unseemly.—.
ruffed up, and doth not behave
nteth not itself, is not
limits of the grace that
Morning Post.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE. INTELLIGENCE.

GREAT WESTERN OF CANADA.
it appears that the grim; revenue of this company for
the half-year ending Jan. 31,1857, amounted to 393,8801.,
and the net revenue available for dividend to 146,750/ ,
from which is deducted the sum of 14,0881. as a sinking
fund towards redeeming the loan from the Canadian Go-
vernment, leaving 130,2381. for dividend on the slier.)
capital of the company at the rate of 9 percent. per an-
num, with a surplus of 2,4281. The sums mentioned are
all in Halifax currency.