The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-07-05 00:00:00

ht to a suc

t us.
Rum
ated tl
LY that

of which was a great primary cause of the di
- - • • - -

)licyby which not only the French,

and th 6 Levantine markets were closed

attributed the distress to the corn laws, and

principles of free trade as the most certain

vrr woon 'Was convinced that all the notions
'en recently taken up respecting free trade and
rere utterly fallacious, and were repudiated by
; who maintained the protective system in their
believed the distress was great and extensive,
ais in its character, and was therefore of opinion
Lent ought not to be prorogued until they bad
ered upon an inquiry to ascertain what could be
ove or ameliorate it. He thought the govern-
-1 not have accepted office without being prepared
ae public distress, and it was now bound to take
d step to relieve it.

said the government had erred in making
:ountry their primary, and its trade and
mdary consideration, when, in fact, they
stance to have given a stimulus to trade
hen turned their attention to the financial
le lord then contended that government
res they brought forward, acted con-
liples they avowed, and contended that
duty on corn would have done much,
o relieve the distress, which too un-
enormous extent. The right hon.
pursuing an erroneous course with
,licy of this country. lle
~se they might be made matters

e foreign markets to our manu-

tof this policy ? France
at a high duty, and there-
v on French wines and

French government

iFrance, therefore the

Ceoole of this country

considering the

the government

upport, yet hecoult

in a motion pc

honourable member for

ought that such an

kcal result-he should

•lier period of the s
&ld not be right to g

ion of the motion, of affording
ht be unable to realise. He was

Attwood, who had means as
.ment to judgeof the measures

~iie condemning those measures he
,zst a remedy. By his negation, bow-
ie might be supposed to entertain, he
.) to infer that his favourite remedy
a paper currency not convertible into gold. The
101, Wonet then proceeded to defend the measures of
'A 1 int

R. Peel

interest

sing to

mat they 441 proaeeded as
go without so far interfering'with existing
s to lead to greater evils ; and in judging whether
they ought to have gone further, the house would do well to
remember the difficulties by which they were surrounded.
In conclusion, he condemned the anti-corn law agitation, as
calculated to disturb, to no purpose, the patience with which
the people bore their sufferings.
Mr. M. GIBSON defended the anti-corn law agitation, and
said he had no better mode of creating a public opinion
through the country, than by sending missionaries to teach
and enlighten the people. He would not say that the corn
laws were the sole cause, because there were other mischie-
vous restrictions, but they were, in his opinion, the main
cause of the distress.

Mr. Wn.mAms then moved that the debate be adjourned
until Monday next, which was assented to by Sir R. Peel.

The other orders of the day were then dis Posed of, and t e
house adjourned.

PRIVY COUNCIL.-SATURDAY

THE VICAR OF GEDNE

AND THE WESLEYAN METRO-

Escorr V. MASTIN.—Their lordships gave judgment in
this case, which was argued last week, and which has excited
so much interest in the church and among the dissenting bo-
dies. It was an appeal from the Ecclesiastical Court in a
suit against the Rev. Mr. Escott, vicar of Gedney. in Lin-
colnshire, for refusing to read the burial service over the body
of a child, the daughter of Thomas and Sarah Cliff, the 16th
and 17th December, 1839, on the ground that she was un-
baptised, i.e., had been baptised by a Wesleyan minister,
which, according to the appellant's construction of the canons
and rubrics of the church, amounted to no baptism at all.
The foundation of the suit was the canon of 1603, entitled,
" Ministers not to refuse to christen or bury," by which it
was ordained, that •' no minister shall refuse or delay to
christen any child according to the form of the Book of Com-
mon Prayer that is brought to the church to him upon Sun-
days or holidays to be christened, or to bury any corpse that
Is brought to the church or churchyard, convenient warning
being given him thereof before, in such form as is pre-
scribed in the said Book of Common Prayer ; and if he shall
refuse to christen one or bury the other, (except the party
deceased were denounced excommunicated majori excommu-
nicalione for some grievous and notorious crime, and no man
able to testify of his repentance,) he shall be suspended by
the bishop of the diocese from his ministry for the space of
three months." The sentence of the judge below was,
" That the Rev. Thomas Sweet Escott, clerk, be accordingly
suspended for the space of three mouths, from all discharge
and functions of his clerical offices."
Lord Brougham went at great length into the arguments
on the part of the appellant, on which it was contended, that
baptism, by a person who had not received episcopal ordina-
tion, was of no more effect than baptism by a layman, and
forbidden by the canons and rubrics from
to ; that, consequently the rite so performed

performing this,ri,

rson receiving it un baptize(

the ministers of the Church were not only justified in refu-
vere bound
as were of

to do so under sever

opinion, that, taking Wesleyans and other ministers, not
episcopaly ordained, to have no more authority to baptize
than laymen, there was nothing in the canon of 1603, or the
rubrics of Edward the Sixth and Elizabeth, to show that lay
baptism was invalid. There were passages in each which
showed that cases were contemplated in which the attendance
of aslergyinan could not be procured, from want of time and
distance of place ; and, although lay persons were subject to
ecclesiastical censures, if they obtruded themselves unneces-
sarily into this or any other office of the Church, it was plain
that the rite was valid by whomsoever administered, if done
in the prescribed form. viz., by the sprinkling of water in
the name of the Trinity. After going very ably and elabor-
ately into the other points, his lordship concluded by ex-
pressing their Lordships' strong disapprobation of the lan-
gnage in which a judgment of Sir John Nichol in a former
case (in which he had come to the same conclusion) had been
spoken of by the appellant, and " other reverend persons,"
and which he could only ascribe to " that heat of temper
which is unfortunately too commonly found in theological
controversies" ; and stated that the sentence of the Court
below must be affirmed with costs.