6 APRIL 1850, Page 14

re/M.

A CONSTRRIJTIONAL VIEW OF TILE CORM% tf DECISION. TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR. Oxford, la April 1850. Bra—It seems to me that neither you nor your correspondents have done full justice to the decision of the Privy Council Committee on the.Gorham case. At the risk of adding one more to those who have manifested "a dis- like either to a strictly logical or an entirely comprehensive view of the sub- ject," as well as an "obstinate not to say cowardly onesidedness," I venture to trouble you with a statement of the way in which I think the matter should be regarded. I presume that, you intend your strictures on the judicial fitness of the Privy Council Committee to apply equally to the Court of Arches ; as I can- not suppose you to believe in the mysterious sanctity which the partisans of the Bishop of Exeter were willing to attach to Sir H. J.. Fust as the represent- ative of the Archbishop, or to doubt that his was anything more than a lay judgment. To my mind it appeared simply the judgment of a lawyer, called upon to say what was the meaning legally to be got out of certain docu- ments. Whether it is desirable or not that the " dry light" of legal inyes- -tigation should be shed on such questions, I leave you to settle with "F." and the "Suffolk Vicar." The effect of the legal decision was to fix a cer- tain determinate sense on the documents, which sense happened not to be that of Mr. Gorham. This result obtained, the matter, as I understand it, was removed to a different court, consisting indeed mainly of laymen and lawyers, but charged with other functions than those of the Arches Court. The question had been argued legally; it was now to be argued constitu- tionally. Statesmen had to decide whether Mr. Gorham was fit to be a min- ister in a State church. Many other elements now entered into the .ques- tion than those which presented themselves to the mind df the -legal inter- preter. Everything had to be viewed in the light of the Duke of Welling- ton's inquiry, "How is the.Queen's Government to be carried on ?" It became, in short, an essentially political question, in the broad sense of the word—a question of national expediency. To persons regarding it in that way, such considerations as the following would naturally appear forcible. There was the standing feet of the existence of two large parties in the Church, distinguished more or less by the two views of baptism which formed the subject of dispute ; and it became matter for thought, whether a.decree formally excluding one or other of these sties would be of service to the 'Church. To guide them in determining t • there was the further fact— one unaccountably .overlookedin almost all the " opinions of the press "— that these two parties, or parties substantially answermg•to them, had ex- isted virtually in the Church from the very time of the Reformation; and Renee arose a probability that each party had a sort of prescriptive right to its present place. There was the fact, that the Church at the Reformation abandoned to some extent a purely dogmatieposition, and avowedly respect- ed liberty of conscience more than had been done under the old regime. lastly, there was the fact, that apparent changes in the language of the . Church on the subject of the doctrine at issue had been going on for-some time, and that the later expressions appeared, as a general rule, to be less stringent than the earlier; whence it might be inferred that the Reformers were disposed to increased latitude in the case of this particular article. Tutting all these facts together, and making allowance -for the alteration in terms and forms of thought which the lapse of three hundred years could . hardly-fail to bring about, the Jur .6.11 Committee had to say whether Mr. Gorham's doctrine fell within the reasonable construction of the Reformers' _intentions. Their decision, it seems to me, is valuable not so much on legal -as on constitutional grounds, just (for example) as that of a man like Mr. Ilallam's might be. They have not been able, as you have rightly shown against some of their well-moaning but illogical apologists, to avoid pro- 'trouncing on the doctrinal question; but they have ruled it in a literary historical spirit, which renders their Judgment as unobjectionable as a lay judgment, or perhaps any other, couldpossibly be. I fully admit that there is a prim& facie, .possibly .a real grievance, in the decision Of Church doctrines by any but a Church tribunal. Every member of the Church-admits this, forming his -own views not by legal judgments but by the writings of his favourite divines. But I wish-to press most strongly the absolute constitutional _need of some such external court under the cir- cumstances of the Church as an establishment. So long as the Church is_a body the 'highest officers of which are Peers of Parliament, it must be ex- pected that late.Goveniment should decide more or less directly the terms on which her emoluments are tenable. Possibly the ease of the •Church of Scotland may show, -that if :the Bishops were :removed from the House of Lords, the English Church might constitutionally be allowed to enjoy State endowments without submitting to special State control. Rut as things stand, I do not see how any statesman can aafelypropose to relieve the Church from the grievance complained of. The latitudinarian character which the Legis- lature has been _gradually:acquiring is no argument for doing so. It 'can only he an argument to Churchmen agaarstaavelltmgfrom a power now no longer in strict communion with themselves, obligations which necessitate a more than ordinary aurveillanee. If they still continue the compact, (and I am .far from saying that they are unwise in so doing,) they cannot complain ofa 44;rievanec ef,conscience ' even if Mr. Gorham's views should hereafter he aleolared not only admissible but absolutely essential.