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

SHEFFIELD.

Every day furnishes fresh evidence of the severe
nature of the struggle for the second seat for this
borough. Tory canvassers ate in every district
endeavouring to obtain split votes for Roebuck and
Overend, as against Mr. Hadfield.

ISLE OF WU:MT.—There are now three candidates
in the field, Charles Cavendish Clifford, Esq., pri-
vate secretary to Lord Palmerston ;R. ynne
Williams, Esq., and Thomas Willis Fleming, Esq.
The first has made a successful canvas of the elec..-
tors, the second has published an addreas to them,
and the third has lectured them for not supporting
his friend Colonel Harcourt, which has so pleased

his Tory admirers that they have determined on
starting him for the island. They lately held a
meeting at the Tory head-quarters (the Star Inn,
Newport)—Roscoe Sheddeu, Esq., in the chair—
formed a central committee, and commenced a can-
vas of the farmers attending the market.

NEWPORT. —Alderman -Willi:nu A. Rose, of
Qucenhithe, bas joined his iortunes with R. W.
Kennard, Esq., of Porchesterierrace, Hyde-park,
and the Liberals have starts n Captain Charles
Edward Mangles, and Charles Buxton, Esq. Both
parties express themselves perfectly satisfied with
their canvas, and profess themselves to be confident
of success.

[ADVERTISEMENTA—Jane Hallett, ofWhitty tread,
near Netherbury, Dorset, suffered for many years from
a bad leg. From the knee to the ancle it had several
_ou.
wounds, so that she was unable to stand or move about.
the house. She tried a variety of means "bleas,,PiPng „I
tions, but without obtaining a cure.
God and using only three pots of Ponoyr rij;
ftectly cured.
and taking three boxes of pills,
she "8
perfectly
and erup-
Dr.lloberta's Poor Man's Friend, for wounds
_.s.
1 lAd. and
tions of every description, is sold in pull u-s
Friend,
2s. 9J. each. His Pilule Antiscxror
11s. ,ilifcin.r, 21:.19itnii.,
purities of the blood, is sold n
i throughout the United Kingdom
4s. 6d., 11s., and 225, each, i byb:anldl
C'moelodnicieins.e vendors

as well as the candlesticks thereon, together sitli
the credentia, or credence table, and fo: substitut-
ing in lieu thereof "a des Lae and proper table,"
and a decent cloth "for the covering thereof."
Dr. Lushington, in giving judgment, alltrWed tee
communion table, which is of wood and moveable,
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, 18i5,
against Mr. Liddell and the Churehwartiees to re •
move the rood. screen and brazen gates, together
with the cross elevated and fixed on toe 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
candlewicks and candles, and also the marble ere-
deutia, and to set up on the east end of the chancel
the Ten Cemmaniments. Dr. Ltusaington, in
givingjudgment on this Case, orde'ei the removal
of the stone altar or table, together with the cre-
dence table, the trots on the screen, and the cross
on the table, and the coloured cloths. Beth these
suits came by appeal before the Court of 'Arches,
and as they involved the same principles of law
they were argued - and decided together. Tue
Dean of Arches—Sir John Dodson—affirmed the
judgment of Dr. Lushingtonrcondemning the ape'.-
lasts in the costs. On the subject of crosses, Sir
John Dodson and Dr. Lushingtou differe 1, inas-
much as the former classed 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 qu,ocumque dpparato seu implemento
—vestments - books, cloths, bells, organs, and
the like. —vestments, the Rubric, inserted in the
Prayer-book from the Statute Ist Elizabeth, cap. 2,
when it speaks of such ornaments continuing in use
as were in use by authority of Parliament in the
second year of Edward VI., adopt'S the word orna-
ments 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 decidel
that although the Rubric excludes all use of crosses
in the service, the general question of crosses not
used in the service is unaffected by the Rubric. No
olkjecti‘m, theti, to dosses on the score ef ornament
can be sustained. Are they then forbidden under
the word images, as Sir J. Dodson thinks/ Tueir
lordships rule that they are not, hut 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
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 come
plained of." This decision, however, dos 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 Cuutt Jays great stress upon the words, alt .r
and communion table, as marking a great distinction
bet A een 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-.
cleWastical sense. On the subject of credence
tables, their 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 the proper time transf reed.
to the communion table." The embroidered cloths
for the communion tables are not to be interfered.
with. Tne canon on which Dr. Lushington and.
others relied, as requiring only one cloth, being
held by their lordships to have only the intention
of securing a handsome • tie, and not to guard agaiat t
having one of too much splendour. The embroi-
dered linen and lace are to be disu,el as not faeling
within the definition o/ a "flit-linen cloth." The
dei-ion of the Court below as to costs is reversed.
Both pat tam 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 sceordar es
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 many upon
the r.sources - of their own private judgment,
and so some with an antiquarian bent have
desired, the restoration of this ; others given up to
archit.:ctlral inquiries have sought the adoption of
that. Some have desired a florid, others a sample,
celebration of Divine worship ; and the lovers of
a plain and the admirers of a decorated churclt
have striven together, often not in the nao_st-seem'y
spirit, for victory. But the points that have hemn
determined in these Knightsbridge suits ought to
go far towards preventing the like want of unity
and confidence in future, since A is now rulei by
the highest authority in the land both what the
law is and what are the
,rounds of it. It only re-
mains for all parties to accept this final decision
with a good grace. Let the clergy take care how
they strain its permissions too far, and the laity
how they complain too readily of the adoption of
this or that practice, ornament, or custom, 1.0 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 a less obtru-
sive, course, and to take care how,
_under the clotahe
c
of zeal for liturgical purity, theytransgress
limits of the i
ee that vaunteth not itself, is not
e,
puffed up, and (loth not
behave itself unseemly.
Morning Post.—