The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-23 00:00:00

~
incurred in their cultivation. We have, indeed,it THE !BENCH PR 'SS ON DOMESTIC
seldom, if ever, seen a collection so creditable, soP A FF.AIRS .
I varied, and so extensive from any similar public
establishment ; (every item in which, to use the
words of the judges, ' possessed merit such as they
have seldom seen before.' We trust that many
Id the other similar institutions throughout the
,!country will imitate the praiseworthy example of
'the North Dublin, by contributing such excellent,
and interesting displays of agricultural produce at
tathe subsequent shows of the society."

The report presented by M. Troplong in. the Senate is
spoken of in unusually eulogistic terms by several of the
,Paris journals, and some of them seize on the opportunity
Ito
pass a high encomium on the policy and acts of the Se-
cond Empire. The Patrie commences with the following
i
observations :—" This document, in which are explained
the principles of authority and liberty which are the basis
of our institutions, is not only a report made to the first of
our deliberating assemblies, but a learned and complete
icommentary on the memorable acts of the 14th of Nov.
In reading with the serious attention they deserve these
pages in which the first magistrate-of-France expresses the
!most elevated ideas of polity, one feels that the great tradi-
tions of the French magistracy, which has never ceased to
take interest in the grave problems that affect the destinies,
of our country, are revived. The eminent reporter has first
indicated the real chaxacter of the measure, the object of
which is to redder public control efficacious in financial
matters. Going back on the past, he has, by giving details
remarkable for Pai liaraentary erudition, endeavoured to as-
certain what were in this respect the conditions of the for-
Inter power in the State,, and has retraced the long conflict
between the Chambers and the Crown, a conflict which
ended in displacing the sovereignty, in lowering the throne
by compromising the rept •esentation, and in which preten-
sions were too often taken Ivor rights, and encroachments on
power for guarantees of liberty.."
Referring to the charge of oxoessive expenditure brought
against the empire, the writer a•Jts what person there is
that would wish to efface from. the page of history the
names of Sebastopol, Magenta, and Solferino ? Tranquillity
re-established at home, French hn
,h fluencegr earetsatcohreiedveambrenoatds:
extreme Asia thrown open, the Boa, ru
a, Phss made free, Italy
• delivered, and in the midst of sut
France advancing steadily in new
psu+hs of progress by the
• power of manufactures and free trade —such, the Patrie
declares,
be p
'Anted to in return
then proceeds in
declares, are the results which may
for the money expended. The article
w desires to
these terms :—" The Emperor, inspired ,:,), the services
his reign has rendered to the country, no
'endow France with institutions which shaN associate
'the nation more intimately with the governmoni of pub-
Pc affairs. He abandons in prerogatives which are
henceforth useless what he acquires in historical Popu-
larity. It cannot, however, be denied that this libered and
generous consequence of a reign which counts so many
memorable events disquiets several persons. By a singu.lar
accord, men whose devotedness is not suspected, and par-
ties systematically hostile, unite in the same sentiment.
' Liberty,' say they, 'is incompatible with the empire. It
presents in the actual state of France immense perils, and
wal inevitably produce a catastrophe.' That sentiment,
which is to be perceived in the fears of some and in the
hopes of others, is ‘at times expressed even in official docu-
ments."
The writer declares that he sees no ground for such ap-
prehensions, for this raison especially—that the govern-
ment of the empire is esseniially different from those which
preceded it. The article says—" Is the empire, which has
been elected by the free suffrage of the nation, and is sur-
rounded by parties who have exhausted their chances of
governing, and each of whose• defeats was a revolution—is
the empire placed in conditions similar to those of the poli-
tical establishments which preceded it ? It is combated as
the Reston tion was, both by reminiscences of glory and
the aspirations of liberty ? Is it co.uclemned as the Orleans
monarchy was, to take one by one from insurrection all the
attributes of the sovereign power ? Nt.'; nothing in its
origin or its past career, nor in the social .elements which
form the basis and guarantee of the empire, p.lrmits such a
comparison. Ten years after its double accession, in 182.5
as in 1840, the monarchy of the charter was obliged to dis-
pute with parties and factions the remnant of power; and
we ask of every impartial roan if the case is the same at
present ?"
The language of the Pays is even perhaps more compli-
mentary to M. Troplong than that of the journal just
quoted. It says :—" Under the form of a report M. Trop-
long has presented to the country a complete treatise, in.
which we admire at once the impartiality of the historian,
the learning of the jurisconsult, the profound and accurate
views of the statesman. Party spirit has neglected no means
of attacking the Government of the Emperor. Even th,stte
who waged a deadly war against liberal ideas, under pre-.
ceding Governments, have been foremost in reproaching,
the empire with a want of liberality. Liberty with them
is like a corsair's flag, and changed according to circum-
stances. We are indebted to M. Troplong for having ones
more asserted the great truth that it is liberty in political
life which alone produces liberty in the institutions of a
country ; and that, after all, that liberty, which some par-
ties seem so much to lament, still really exists in France,
though it is no longer compromised by dramatic scenes and
'tumultuous cries. All the historical part of this admirable
report is treated with the utmost clearness and elegance.
IM. Troplong gives a graphic description of the hereditary
struggle perpetuated from 1816 to 1830, and from
1830 to 1848, between the elective assemblies and
the Crown. He shows us the action of the chambers ex-
ceeding the limits of control, and gradually encroaching
'upon the whole Administration. What were the results of
this usurpation of anew kind ? What did the Chamber of
Deputies gain by this extension of its power ? The con-
trollers controlled nothing, and caused a great expenditure;
,to such an extent, indeed, that the finances presented a de-
ficit in time of peace. In the one session of 1847 there were
'amendments proposing reductions of 600,000 fr., while those
!for additions to the expenditure arnciunted to 4,000,0002 r.
The floating debt now amounts to 800 millions ; it was above
600 millions in 1848, and the Government of July was then,
about to negotiate a loan of 350 millions. Had it stood a
few months longer, it would have bequeathed as a floating
debt the 1,000 millions which have so often appeared, like
the Ghost in Hamlet, in the columns of certain journals.
Yes, the empire has borrowed 2,000 millions for war I
These 2,000 millions paid for the siege of Sebastopol, Ma-
genta, and Solferino. Yes; the empire has borrowed 5000
millions fur peace ; but it has executed works of public
utility to the value of 900 millions ; it has also lent its sup-
port and credit to railways, and has thus led to An outlay
,of 3,000 millions in improvements."

LAW INTELLIGRNCE.—Dec. 21.

ARCHES COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington.)
"ESSAYS AND REVIEWS."
THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP
OF SALISBURY V. THE REV. DR. ROWLAND WILLIAMS,

D D.
Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, following Dr. Deane, ad-1
dressed the Court on behalf of the defendant. It
this had been an ordinary case he should, he said,i,
have occupied a subordinate position only ; but,
considering the importance of the issue involved,
the counsel for Dr. Williams had thought it
better to pursue their independent resources,
to lay their conclusions independently before the
Court. The real issue involved in this case was this!
—Did the law of England forbid the clergy of the!
Church of England to exercise their minds in the
interpretation of Scripture ? The first question in
every case of this kind must be—What is the law
• under which the defendant is to be tried, and what

the principle upon which the judge is to regulate
his decision ? The judge of that court was not sitting
as a divine to decide upon the truth of Dr. Wil
liams's opinions, but would have to consider only
whether the defendant was forbidden by law to en-
tertain those opinions under penalty of deprivation
of his living of Broadchalk. The ground upon which
he intended to argue this case was, that in ecclesi
astical courts open questions were permitted, and
'that, upon questions which had not been decided,
.full and entire liberty was left to the Church. That
which was contained in the articles was conclusive,
and though the rubrics and formularies of the
Church were also conclusive, greater distinctness
1
and precision were required in them than in the
articles. If there were any ambiguity in the formu-
laries, it was not to be understood that the Church'
meant by them to establish indirectly that which
.
at did not establish directly by the articles of faith.
IFrom reading the indictment in this case he was led
to the conclusion that this was a skilful, artful, and
insidious attempt to overthrow the fundamental
doctrine laid down in the Gorham case ; and he
'called upon the Court, therefore, to strike out from
the articles of accusation everything except the
articles of religion, the rubrics, and formularies, and
to strike out especially any reference to any text of
Scripture cited upon the assumption that every
text which the Church ordered to be read on parti-
cular occasions was to be accepted as part of the
doctrine of the Church. If the principle of admit-,
ging these texts were conceded, the result would be
that the judge would be called to put a judicial
construction upon every passage of the Bible which
was read in the course of the year, and the ulti
mate result, that a clergyman would not be able
to publish at all, and would be able to preach no-
thing but homilies. As the friend, as well as the
advocate of Dr. Williams, he should not adopt the
course of taking extract by extract quoted from the
" Essay," and showing that there was no law of the
Church against this or that opinion, for orthodoxy
'was not merely the question to be tried. The cha-
racter of an Englishman and an English gentleman
was at stake, and his client would, he was sure,
sooner lose his living than gain his cause upon a
technicality of law or by the sacrifice of his convic-
tions. Ho took, therefore, the bolder course, and
contended that if Dr. Williams had entertained un-
familiar opinions, opinions which startled many
people and some divines, he had a right to entertain
those opinions, because he had from the Church,
according to his ordination vow, the right and duty
to follow studies profitable for the understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. That the Bible was the laa
of the Church, and contained all things necessary to
,salvation, was no ground for asserting that every-
thing contained in the Bible was literally true, and,
this prosecution was an attempt to impose dogmas
upon the Church which the Church itself did not
impose. There was a great difference between un-'
feigned belief in the eanonieal Scriptures as declared
in the ordination service, and unfeigned belief in
every word of the authorised version. The liberty
of interpreting Scripture according to private judg-
ment was allowed in the writings of every divins
of the Church, and he was convinced that so far
from lessening the authority of the Bible, free criti-
cism would do more than anything else to remove
'the doubts tbrown upon it by the discoveries of
science and the comments of learned men. The
questions of inspiration and interpretation were left
open by the articles, and having regard to the con-
troversies at the time of the Reformation, he con-
tended that this was no accidental omission, but
that the articles were as carefully and advisedly
framed as any legal document. At that time
there were three parties holding different opinions
with regard to the Bible. The Roman Catholics
founded the Bible upon the Church. The Cal-
vinists based it upon itself, and the Church of
England, as shown by incontrovertible evidence.
based the reception of the Bible upon the grounds
of piety, reason, and historical evidence. 111 proof
of the opinions that the discussion of Scriptural
interpretation was not intended to be limited by the
articles of religion, but was purposely left an open
question, the learned counsel proceeded at great
length to refer to the Westminster Confession, the
Eleven Articles upon which the Thirty-nine Arti-
cies were framed, the authority of Chillingworth,
Baxter,Cartwright,,Jackson,Hooker,Jeremy Taylor.
and others, and in conclusion expressed a hope that
he had satisfied the Court that the sixth and seventh'
articles, the most important in some respects of the
whole thirty-nine, were not drawn up at random
• and that the Church of England had never actor,
more wisely, more maturely, or with fuller consi-
deration, than when it left open toe questions of
inspiration, criticism, and interpretation. Th(
question of inspiration was left open because tht
Church felt the danger of drawing any harsh lint
between the truth which God revealed to mat,
through Scripture and the truth revealed through
man's reason. The Church left open the questior
;of criticism for reasons which he proposed to argot
: more particularly on a future occasion, but amongst
others because, though when the articles were drawl)
up they had not the learning of the present day,
they were far too learned to endorse the fatal and
monstrous assertion of the Westminster divines that
the Greek and Hebrew texts wero inspired by God,
and by His care preserved from alteration. They
left open the question of interpretation for the rea
son assigned by Jeremy Taylor, that they knew well
how difficult it was to get at the truth in the midst
of the obscurities with which it was surrounded, and
that it was unjust to take the liberty of thought
from man unless they could secure him from error.
At this stage of the learned counsel's argument
,the court adjourned to the 7th of January.

CROWN LANDS 1N SCOTLAND.