The Central Glamorgan Gazette, and General, Commercial, and Agricultural Advertiser. — 1876-02-18 (Bridgend, Mid Glamorgan, Wales)

DOWN.-Wmr I SUNDAY& of life and property, and that the abolition of such pro- word "Hibernian." A man named Douelly had his 1,2,3. 1,2,3.(' 1,2,3. 1,2,3. 1,2,3. 13.3, hibitiori was the Intuit of hasty mid mistaken kgisla- skull fractured, and lies in a dangerous condition. TROY RAM li,M. 1 p.m-p.m. a.m. p.m tion, for it appears to be an undoubted fact that all the Merthyr ...... ... 7 .. k ,6 40 .. 9 5 416 evidence given was in favour of its continuance • and : Troedyrhiw ... 8 3 .. 11 6' 648 .. 913 423 this meeting also desires to record its disapproval Of the Quaker's Yard mode in which the abolition of the prohibition was 8 1 ~ 11 3 40 effected." "  The Standard, commenting upon the present attitude of the reverend defendant in the Folkestone ritual case, says :—"Mr. Ridsdale justifies his resistance on the ground that the courts before which he is arraigned are not those of the Church, but merely secular tribunals. Neeertheless, he does not hesitate to quote, because it is on his own side, the decision of the Judicial Committee in the Bennett case. But the court by no means affirmed the orthodoxy of Mr. Bennett's doctrine. The judgment censured it in the strongest terms, and.only refrained from condemning it as heretical on the ground that it was expressed in immune° which might be explained in a sense not absolutely contrary to the tencli ing of the Church. The judement is b 3 no.nteans a strolls, tower of defence for the extreme sacramental party, but it is curious to find Mr. Ridsdale quoting it in that sense while denying the competency of the tribunal which pronounced it. Mr. Ridsdale commits himself to the preposterous contention that the clergy are not bound to obey the decision of the existing courts because they are not the courts of the church. The objection would be more plausible if it were not notorious that the ritualistic clergy have never hesitated to appeal from the Church I courts to the Final Court of Appeal when I the judgments of the former were against them. In such cases they have gone from the Diocesan Court to the Provincial Court, and thence to the judicial Committee. it is too late now for them to put in their refusal to be bound by the decision of the Latter. The recognition of Mr. Richairtles doctrine would be subversive of all order and discipline. Ile justifies his refusal to conduct his services in accordance with the requirements of the Porches judgment, on the ground that 'it was delivered by a court that had no I authority from the Church to say what was right and what was wrong.' It may be the law of the land, but he denies that 'it is the law of God and of the Church.' Hence, he comes to the conclusion that • when we are convinced that the Church orders one thing and the State orders the contrtry, we have nothing to do bnlrto follcw the example of the apostles and the ancient Church, and obey God rather than man; But upon what authority are we to discriminate between the law of the land rind the law of the Church ?' Who is to tell us how they are at variance, and nitich we are to obey? So far as we east under. ml end Mr. Rids:tale he appears to hold that each individual clergyman is to interpret the law for himself, and to ho permitted to net upon that interpretation without being responsible to any authority whatever. The claim is preposterous. It involves the es.suntption that each clergyman is to be accepted as an infallible guide on matters of doctrine, and that our tribunals are destitute of any authority. We art afraid that Mr. Ritisdale does not stand alone in holding such grotesque and extravagant opinions. They are in strong conflict with the obligations undertaken by the clergy at their ordination, and so long as they ! Tomlin wit hie the Church they are bound to fetal those Aligatietts. It is too late to repudiate the ; authority of the Supreme Court of Appel in all causes, ecelesia-thed as well as civil. The clergy were bontnit. an' -owl.llr.e nutt oky it from the moment thk 5- el. :1-.1 the CI ntrA."  r  Mr. Rinke was surnsinded by his supporters and hurried into a shop in Broad street, from the upstait, window of which ho addressed about a thousand people, stating that the victory was owing to the appreciation of the principles of Liberalism in a borough for many years entirely at the mercy of the Tories. He promised to leave Leominster for London the following morning to appear in the House of Commons that night. Mr. Lennox walked down Bread street accompanied by a small party of staunch friends. The Liberals are exultant, and view the resslt not only as a victory for Nonconformists over the Established Church, but as emancipating Leominster from the di.% grace of being a pocket borough. At the last contest, in 1868, Mr. Arkwright (Conservative) beat Mr. Spink, (Liberal) by 258, the numbers.being—Arkwright 432. Spinks 174. One hundred and twenty-eight did not vote. The contituency at present consists of 929 voters.  St-icniii.—Dr. Turner, of "is.inrthampten, committee suicide on Tuesday by taking a dose ot aconite. The Glob is authorised to contradict the statement that the Duke of Abercorn is about to resign the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland.  Tau