The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-15 00:00:00

ertirD Ntrittort

TIE FUNDS-(CLOSING PRICES.)
BRITISH FUNDS.
Bank. Stock ........................... 211
3 per Cent. Reduced
3 per Cent. Consols ...... ........... 10014
New 31A per Cent ...........••• ... 104
Long Annuities to expire Jan. 1860 12%
Ditto 30 years, Oct. 10, 1859 ... 12
Ditto 30 years, Jan. 5, 1860 ... 11 15-16
India Bonds, 1 ,000/.. ...•..... ..... 77
Ditto under 1,000/. • .....-. ..... . 77
South Sea Stock ... 116:!4
Bank: Stock for Account.. . 2191.;
Consols ..»..........
Exchequer Bills, 1,000/., 1%d.... 60 pin.
Ditto 5001.
Ditto Small
FOREIGN FUNDS.
Brazilian 'kinds
Columbian Bonds 6 per Cent l4lpl
Portuguese Bonds, 5 per Cent
Dutch, 2% per Cent
Ditto, 5 per Cent 99%
SHARES.
Birmingham and Gloucester, 100 paid
Bristol and Gloucester, 30 paid
Cambridge and Lincoln, 11,4 paid
Dublin and Belfast Junction, 21,4 paid
Eastern Counties, 25 paid..
Great Southern and Western (Ireland), 5 paid
Ditto Extension, 21/.12 paid... ............... ...
Great Western, 75 paid... . .. .. 169%
London and Birmingham (Stock) .. .. 230
London an• I South Western, 41i paid SI
London and Croydon, 131. 15s. 9d. r aid •• • 17%
Newcastle and Darlington:Junction, 24 paid... 64
Newaaatte and Berwick, I% paid
North British, 7% paid
Northern and Eastern, 45 paid —
Ditto Scrip, 30 paid
Ditto Quarter Shares, 121 paid
Richmond and West End Junction, I paid 3./1
South Eastern and Dover, 33i} paid 43
South Wales, 2% paid 3
FRENCH RAILWAYS.
Boulogne and Amiens, 2 paid
Great Northern of France, 4 paid
Orleans and Vierzon. 2 paid lO
Orleans and Bordeaux. 2 paid 8
Paris and' Orleans, 20 paid
Paris and Rouen, 20 paid 405,

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS,
111tOM THE EVENING PIPERS OF TILLS DAY.
STANDARD.—The letter of the Archbishop of Can,
terbury must go far in restoring peace to the Church
His Grace distinctly instructs his clergy to abandon all
recent changes that have not been made with the general
acquiescence of their respective congregations, and to
attempt no now alterations. The command extends, in
fact, to a prohibition of all the recent changes, though,
for form's sake (no doubt), it is divided under three
heads. First, as respects the case of churches in which
the changes have been made with general acquiescence.
There are no such churches; but there were any such,
the public would have no right to complain that the con-
gregations should be permitted their superstitious indul-
gences even to the setting up of the mass. They would
no more belong to our Protestant Church, than does the
Roman Catholic Chapel at Moorfields. It is part of our
religious liberty to allow all men to worship
as they please ; and while our cathedrals and
parish churches, chapels of ease, and other churches and
chapels legally connected with the Established Church,
are preserved pure, we have no right to complain.
In none of these, however, have the recent
changes been introduced without more or less
of dissatisfaction, if not of resistance ; but either
dissatisfaction or resistance is not general acquiescence.
Next, the Primate enjoins that where changes
similar to . those made elsewhere have not been
attempted hitherto, they must not be attempted
hereafter. Thirdly, where the changes are still the sub-
ject of dispute, the dispute must be abandoned ; but the
only party that can properly abandon the dispute—the
party, too, over whom the Archbishop has more direct
power—the party who is single against many—must be
the party to submit, in order to ensure that " general
acquiescence" which, under the first head, his Grace de •
scribes as indispensable to justify a continuance of the
changes. A respectful but tirm remonstrance from any
considerable portion of any congregation must, in the
terms of the injunction, be a conclusive reason for
their discontinuance. His Grace is at great pains
to console such as may be, or may pretend to be, dis
tressed by the necessity of this sacrifice to peace, by
telling them in the first place, that their interpretation
of the rubric is by no means so certain as they may
imagine. " Upon careful examination," says the
Lord Primate, with a modesty deserving all respect and
worthy of universal imitation, " I have found reason to
think that some of these questions are snore difficult
of solution than is commonly imagined ; and
" that the meaning which occurs at first sight is not
always the most correct." The clergy have it, therefore,
upon the highest authority in the Church, that the
question of the rubrical interpretation is, at least,
extremely doubtful, but "in dulais presumitur pro
neganti" is the rule of the civil law as it is the maxim of
common sense—to " stand fast when we are not sure of
our read." The doubts of the Archbishop of Canterbury
must afford great relief to the distress of the rubricians;
but his Grace has other topics of consolation, for he in-
timates that the practice of the last I SO year s is very proba-
bly the practice intended by the lawgivers of the Church.
The opponents of the changes may, says the Primate,
plead an usage opposite to the interpretation lately given
to the rubric " reaching back to the time when the in-
tention of the lawgiver was best understood." Usage, as
a Contemporary has remarked, is acknowledged the best
interpreter of any law, but usage contemporary with the
enactment of a law, and continued downward without
interruption, is in every case decisive of the intention of
the legislator. Another consideration which must aot
only alleviate the distress of the rubricians, but alarm
such tender consciences as theirs, with a suspicion
that their interpretation may be all wrong and the
practice from which they would depart perfectly right.
The most important, and what to really modest men
would be the most effectual consolation is, the areumen-
tem ad verecundianz, as Mr. Locke calls it. "The most
conscientious clergymen," says the Primate, " have felt
themselves justified sin treading in the steps of their pre-
decessors." We cannot go wrong in quoting Locke,
end therefore we will transcribe his description of the
argument here employed, because we think that it very
exactly describes the state of the question before us :
" First, the first is to allege the opinions of men whose
parts, learning, eminency, power, or some other cause
has gained a name, and settled their reputation in the-
common esteem with some kind of authority. When
men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought
a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from
it, and question the authority of men who are in posses-
sion of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying with
it too much of pride, when a man does not readily yield
to the determination of approved authors, which is
wont to be received with respect and submission by
others ; and it is looked upon as insolence for a man to
set up and adhere to his own opinion, against the cur
rent stream of antiquity ; or to put it in the balance
against that of some learned doctor, or otherwise ap-
proved writer. Whoever backs his tenets with such
authorities thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause,
and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall
stand out against them. This, I think, may be called
argumentum ad verecundiarn," " Pride," " insolence,"
" impudence," are the rough names that Locke gives to
the temper of those uninfluenced by the " argu-
mcntum ad verecundiani." What name would Locke
give to those who should not be influenced by
the authority of the whole Church's practice for 180
years upon a question of interpretation which
in the text interpreted, and apart from all external
argument, appears to the learned and pious Archbishop
of Canterbury to be extremely doubtful; and who
should resist their metropolitan in a matter which,
as he says, and as all rational men must agree
with, has been advisedly left in a great degree to
the discretion of the Church and its governors?—" It
must also be granted that the intention of the Church
is not always clearly discoverable from the language of
the ruble, nor determinable with ab,olute certainty from
the records of early practice. In such cases it may with
some show of reason be said, that, as the eminent men to
whom the several revisions of the Liturgy were succes-
sively entrusted (lid nut see the necessity of giving direc-
tions so precise as to ensure a rigid conformity in every
particuhir, we may be contented to acquiesce in slight
deviations from rule, suggested by convenience, and
sanctioned by lone.' usage." Here, then, surely, we have
enough to rescue from distress the most sensitive con-
science.
GLOBE.—It is recommended, in Whately's "Ele-
ments of Rhetoric," that oratorical action should precede
rather than follow the words :—" Boys are generally
taught to employ the prescribed action either after or
during the utterance of the words it is to enforce. The
best and most appropriate action must, from this circum-
stance alone, necessarily appear a feeble affectation. It
suggests the idea of a person speaking to those who do not
fully understand the language, and striving by signs toex-
plain the meaning of what he has been saying. The very
game gesture, had it come at the proper, that is the
natural, point of time, might perhaps have added greatly
to the effect, viz., had it preceded somewhat the
utterance .of the words. That is always the natural
order of action. An emotion, struggling for utterance,
produces a tendency to a bodily gesture, to express that
emotion more quickly than words can be framed; the
words follow as soon as they can be spoken. And this
being always the case with a real earnest, unstudied
speaker, this mode of placing the action foremost, gives
(if it be otherwise appropriate) the appearance of
earnest emotion actually present in the mind." The ac
cordance of the above with the fitness of things must at
once strike every reader. Arid it appears to have parti-
cularly struck the Hon. Mr. Grantley Berkeley—that is
to say, providing always the Hon. Mr. Grantley:Berkeley
has read it. If he has i,ot, the coincidence of his theory
of rhetoric with Archbishop %Vhateley's only affords
a fresh illustration of the adage that " Great wits
jump." " A word and a blow," has hitherto been
the expression of rough readiness for action. On the joint
authority, Ihowever, of Archbishop Whately and the
11. n. Mr. Grantley Berkeley, the better reading, hence-
forth, will be " a blow and a word." The action should
precede the word. " The reverse of this natural order,"
says the above-cited authority (nut the Honourable but
Archiepiscopal) " would be sufficient to convert the ac-
tion of Demosthenes himself into an unsuccessful and
ridiculous mimicry." It a ill not be the fault of the Hon.
Mr. G. Berkeley, if any Demosthenes in dog-skin gloves
shall henceforth have his action converted "into an
unsuccessful and ridiculous mimicry." He has laid
down ruhs of rhetorical efficacy, which carry out in
practice all that Aristotle, or Archbishop Whately, pro-