The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-16 00:00:00

Tbirb Mbttion

THE FUNDS-(C

BRITISH

FUNDS.
Indian Stock pm.
Ditto Eonds B6 pm
Ditto Old Annuities
Ditto New Annuities —
Ex. Bills, 1,0004 I•Xd
Ditto 5001.
Ditto Small pm.
,Bank Stock for Acct 198%
Consols for Acct. 98%
India Stock for Acct
I FUNDS.
Aust'Aan, 5 per Cent — IPortuguese, 5 per Cent ...... '79
Belgian, 5 per Cent — Ditto, New Ditt0.......... .....
Brazilian Bonds — Prussian, 5 per Cent ..... ....
Buenos Ayres, 6 per Cent — ;Russian, 5 per Cent IIS
thllian, 6 per Cent 'Ditto, Metallic —
Colombian, 6 per Cent
5 per Cent 24
Ditto, 1824 :Ditto, 3 per Cent 3;;{s
Cuba Bonds, 6 per Cent 93 'Ditto, Deferred —
Danish, 3 per Cent
Greek, 18...5, 5 per Cent...... Exchange —4. —c.
Mexican, 5 per Cent
Ditto, 6 per Cent., 1837 Dutch, 2% per Cent_ 571 A
Peruvian, 1825, 6 per Cent — 'Ditto, 5 per Cent lO2

OSING PRICES.)

Bank Stock .......
3 per Cent. Red.
3 per Cent. Cons. • 973%
3y, per Cent. Re-1
New 3Y, per Cent 102%
New 5 per Cent. —
Long Annuities to expire
Jan. 1860
Oct. 1859. .....
Jan. iezo

- pm-
- pm.

SHARES.
Birmingham and Derby (100 paid) —
Ditto Thirds (25 paid)
Ditto Eighths (1/. lOs paid) 4IA
Birmingham and Gloucester (100 paid) Bl
Chester and Holyhead ( 5 paid) 634
Eastern Counties (23 paid) ... 134
Ditto Registered (8/6s 8,1 paid)
Edinburgh and Glasgow (50 paid)
Gravesend, Rochester, and Chatham (234 paid) 1 %
Great North of England (100 paid) 991,1
Great Western (75 paid)
Ditto Half Shares (50 paid)
Harrowgate and Knaresboro' ( 3 paid).........
Hull and Selby (,50paid) 6O
Lancaster and Carle ( 5 paid) 7%
London and Brighton (50 paid)
London and Birmingham (Stock)
London and Guildford Junction ( 5 paid)
London and South Western (41/. 68. 10d. paid) —
Ditto Eighths (15s. paid)
London and Croydon (Trunk)
Manchester and Leeds (70 paid) ll5
_.. - .

Ditto Half Shares (30 paid) 4914
Manchester and Birmingham 46
Norwich and Brandon ( 2 paid) 7%
Northern and Eastern (45 paid)
Ditto Scrip (15 paid) 25
Paris and Orleans (20 paid)
Paris and Rouen (20 paid) 345'
South Eastern and Dover (50 paid) 3.5
West London Thames Extension 1 2 paid)
York and North Midland (50 paid) 122
Ditto New Shares (20 paid)
York and Scarborough Branch (2).. paid)

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—The Rev. Herbert Marsh—whose course
of scandalous immorality has excited a very painful
sensation in all quarters where clerical consistency is
regarded as essential to the purposes for which the
Christian ministry was instituted, and the Church
exists—is not likely to escape the consequences of his
conduct. Had the law been powerless to punish such
Conduct by protracted suspension, or absolute depriva-
tion, the scandal would have passed from the indivi-
dual to the body. The Church must have received
deep, if not incurable, injury, both in character and
efficiency, by this serious defect of discipline within
her pale. Had this habitual frequenter of houses of
infamy—this intimate associate and paramour of
the "dress girls" of these establishments of vice—who
in prosecuting one of them for extorting large sums
of money from his purse, by threats of exposing his
conduct to the public eye, was compelled to become
the herald of his own shame, the narrator of his own
gross and continued immoralities—we say, had the
Bishop of Peterborough's exposition of the state of
discipline in the Chur,Ai been established as the
actual state of the law, and the Rector of Barnack
and Prebendary of Peterborough remained unaf-
. fected in his clerical office, and in the receipt of the
revenues of his valuable ecclesiastical preferments,
every friend of the Church of England would have
mourned the inefficiency of her discipline, while her
enemies would have exulted over her humiliating posi-
tion, and Infidels would have triumphed in her dis-
grace. This, happily, is not the case. A reference to
the report of what took place last evening in the House
of Lords in this painful case, will show that the Church
Discipline Act is not quite so incompetent to deal with
such delinquencies as the Bishop of Peterborough had
supposed. Lord Campbell clearly showed that though
the Act barred proceedings against Mr. Marsh, on
account of the time which had elapsed—in this
respect the Act may be designated " a statute of
limitations"—yet that the Bishop is not tied up
from instituting proceedings to remove from the
Church so unworthy a minister, though the
offences he has committed were perpetrated out
of the diocese in which his living is situated.
It is matter of regret that the means of reaching,
cases of disgraceful conduct in clergymen—notwith-
standing the improvement effected by the Church
Discipline Act—ate still very inferior to the laws and
regulations for the same purpose, by which the other
institutions of the country are protected from the con-
sequences of having persons unworthy of their profes-
sion fastened upon them. In the army or navy, a
. charge against an officer is immediately placed in a
course of investigation. A court-martial is directed
to be held. " Conduct unworthy the character of an
. officer and a gentleman," if proved against the indi-
vidual thus accused, is necessarily followed by "dis-
missal from the service." If the case be marked by
circumstances of aggravation, he is declared " hereby
incapable of again serving her Majesty in any
military or civil capacity." Why might not the
" Commission of Inquiry," which the Church Disci-
pline Act empowers the Bishop to issue, have
authority to pronounce upon the case—not merely
to the extent of determining that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
party, but upon the facts stated—the finding
being subject to the revision of the Archbishop, who
might, in serious cases, summon to his assistance
two or three Bishops, by whom the whole proceed-
' ings might be reviewed, and the finding of the
Commission of Inquiry upon the facts either
confirmed or modified. Surely, conduct un-
worthy of the character of a clergyman and a
Christian, ought to be dealt with as promptly, and
the party proved to have committed it be deprived
of his spiritual functions as entirely, as " con-
duct unworthy: of the character of an officer and a
gentleman," certainly incurs dismissal from the army
or navy ! So strict was the practice of the early
Church with reference to the morals of its clergy, that
a minister once deprived of office for any gross
scandal—although, upon affording proofs of peni-
tence, he might be received back to its communion—
' was never restored to his clerical functions. The
discipline might be severe ; but it was salutary.
Though individuals betrayed into vicious indul-
gence might suffer deeply—in some instances,
perhaps, tco deeply—for their faults, yet the
effect was beneficial. The Church was thus pre-
served from the reproach which immorality in its
ministers never fails to occasion. The offending
member was cut- off, that the whole body might avoid
the scandal and contamination of his retention. With
one more remark we shall dismiss this unwelcome sub-
ject. The Bishop of Peterborough's explanation of,
and apology for, his non-interference in the case of
Mr. Marsh, when first brought before him, will be
read with regret. His Lordship was made acquainted
with the circumstances—if not to the full extent, yet
to a sufficient extent to show that great profligacy had
been committed by a clergyman of his diocese and a
dignitary in his Cathedral church. He appears, how-
ever, to have been rather influenced by feelings of
sympathy for the mother of the offender, than sti-
mulated by duty to investigate the scandal. A tre-
mulous apprehension of the consequences to the re-
latives, should he be compelled to exert himself in the
matter, restrained him from performing his duty to
the Church of which he is an overseer. The respon-
sibility of acting in such a case ought to be removed
from an individual, however elevated, and transferred
to a number of persons, on whom should devolve
the duty of acting promptly and efficiently in
such matters. If the law be capable of reaching Mr.
/larsh's case; we presume, after what took place last
night, that it will be immediately
vehnifeoirched— in mercy
both to him and the Church of
himself unworthy. If it be Ndefecti. e has provedh
suffer him to escape, a very strong
ocfasaelf.eo'or increased
powers
powers is supplied. The necessity
established.
rzeuds
discipline could not be more clearly
If there ever was a time when flagrant misconduct
in clergymen could be allowed to pass unvisited with
the severest censures from those who are constituted
the guardians of its purity, that time. has passed
away. The only security of the Church, as a na-
tional institution, is found in the estimation in
which it is held for character and efficiency by the
nation; and those are its best friends who labour to
preserve it from whatever tends to lower it in public
opinion.
STANDARD.—The unhappy case of Mr. Marsh
was again noticed in the House of Lords last night.
Lord Campbell expressed an opinion that the Bishop
of Peterborough was mistaken in supposing that he
could not take cognisance of the offences of his clergy,
if committed beyond the limits of his diocese. The
Noble and Learned Lord, however, did not dispute
the other objection to a proceeding against Marsh—
the lapse of time ; • this objection must, therefore,
be considered as insurmountable. The Bishop of
Peterborough thanked Lord Campbell for the infor-
mation he had communicated, and wasted an eloquent
and complete vindication upon his own conduct,
which needs none. It is now quite too 'evident
that the Bishop has no power of remov-
ing Marsh from the Church, let his Lord-
ship exert himself as he may; but here another ques-
tion arises. Supposing that the Ecclesiastical Court
were still open for the admission of the case, who
ought to pay the heavy costs of a suit for the
removal of the delinquent ? We know who must
in the present state of the law pay these costs—
not the delinquent, not the, patron who has pre-
sented the delinquent, or the patron's representatives,
not the Crown,. which, as representing the people
and the Church, is the ultimate gainer, none of
these—but the bishop—the bishop who is thus required
to protect the Church, not merely by vigilance in
watching for offenders but by punishing the offender,
proprio marti. Is this fair ? Is it just that time
Bishop should be punished by a heavy fine, we shall