New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-11-14

that In the opinion Of Lord Coke and other Learned
Judges there were thirty nine Articles upon wnicu tne
statute opersted and in addition TO this there are ee
cded cases and according 10 tne OPINION sCdSS unon
the presumption that the statute referred TO thirty
pine articles II the case stopped here we conceive
that II would be impossible 70 deny the conclusion tna
from all the circumstances the Articles referred 70 oy
the statute of Elizabeth thirty-nine in numbec
and contained the present twenty ninth article thus
CONCLUSION. however, has been denied by the
nrotest; ard the first consideration Is what
= admissible evidence 10 contradict the usage
,bo .nh,eonent statutes the canons Of 1904
the LEGAL authorities, and the decided cases
0uoted No argument was addressed to the Court on
this most important question, ana wa .nal ~n ra
81 Parliament had been produced TO show that all thus
loro usage had been founded in mistake, we might
have been justified in giving 1t every consideration
So if it had distinctly appeared from zoe recgds VI
conyocation that no such Thiynine Articles had been
sanctioned BY convocaton till after the passing OF tue
statute but no evidence of this description has been
offered to u.s. no dctum of any Judge no decision OF
any court no expression OF any JUDICIAL DOUBT
what is the evidence we called upon to admit, ana
what il the proposition il is adduced to establish IL
il difficult to si1 denomination to that IL
appears TO the Court to be collection OF ingenious IN
ferences from some facts undoubtedly true, ana SONS
more than doubtful Can the Court receive such evl.
dencel Is it admissible for the purpose attended
We doubt the admssibiy nearly all the evidence ad'
duced hy the learned counsel for the Venerable the Arch
deacon but supposng il to be admissible at ALL what
the nropostion Il seeks TO establish That Queen Ez
abefh The statute having passed and certain articles
referred to therein by her own authority added 10
them another artcle-a proposition not supported
by any historical evidence whatever, and solely
grounded upon the supposed assertion by thar sovc,
reign of absolute power in all matters Of region-and
that too in violation of act Of Parliament the arti-
Gle added not being in unison with the known predl-
lections by her entertained. The Court VIII not al
tempt TO enter into the ingenious cOnjectures and
subtle arguments of learned persons but will content
Itself with declaring its opinion that the evidence Of
fered is in part at least not legally admissible, and II
all were received, totally inadequate to support the
proposition for which is produced or TO satisfy that
onus proband in other words, the burden OF proof
which unauestonaby falls upon those who deny
usage of such long sardng, and supported by sucn a
thofy The Court therefore oyerrules the objection
All these points being ruled against him, the
Archdeacon offered, and had it put upon the
record that he was perfectly willing and ready, to
re.subscribe .r amino to the Thrty-nine Articles.
But this was not regarded as satisfactory equiv
aent for the retractiOn required b. The statute, and
instead of that retraction the ArchdeacOn put in a
paper containing restatement Of his views, and
the quotations in support of them from Scrip
ture, and the formularies, and from theologan',
which the Court had refused to hear Upon this
paper DR.. LushiDd0n comments at length, con-
Guiding as follows:
Ths Court il most anxious that its Judgment should
not be misunderstood that 1t should not be supposed
to express any opinion that the clergy OF this realm
should be restrained in their just liberty OF fully dis
cusspc or interpreting what is really subject ito use
the words of Lord StoweD of dubious interpretation
or of advocating in such case their own opinions
What the Court condemns is the imposition by refer
ence TO extrar eous sources of meaning contrary and
repugnant to that which the plain words OF the Articles
import which, in fact, is tantsmount to the alteration
of The Articles themselves. The Arch6eacon having
declined to make the revocation required of him, and
having declared his firm adherence to the substance OF
that teaching which the Court has declared to be con-
rary andrepugnant to the Articles it becomes the duty
of the Court to the sentence required by the
staue-the sentence of deprivation"
The complainant waived costs, and the defendant
claimed an appeal. The case will, therefore, go up
to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
before whom this high theological question is to be
discussed and decided, along with appeals from the
West Indies about rum and molasses and other
similar csrnal concerns.