Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tion, and in 1858 he undertook for two months, under Lord Derby's Administration, his former office of President of the Board of Control. After this time he did not again take office, but he continued to be a most powerful and eloquent speaker in the House of Lords. Lord Ellenborough was twice married, but left no children; his earldom consequently expired with him. He was succeeded in the barony by his nephew, Charles Edmund Law.

MR. GASPEY.

Mr. Thomas Gaspey died on the 8th at Shooter's Hill at the age of 83. For more than sixty years he was connected with English periodical literature. He was early in life employed as a parliamentary reporter for the Morning Post, and subsequently became sub-editor of the Courier and part proprietor and editor of the Sunday Times. Some years later he was engaged upon the Morning Chronicle, and edited the evening edition of that paper, in which "Sketches by Boz" first appeared. Mr. Gaspey also wrote several novels.

JUSTICE GEORGE.

Mr. Justice George was the son of a Dublin merchant, and was born in that city in 1804. He was called to the Irish Bar in 1826, and to the English in the following year. He sat in Parliament, in the Conservative interest, for the county of Wexford from 1852 to 1857, and again from 1859 to 1866, when he was appointed Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland, and member of the Privy Council for Ireland. He died on the 15th inst.

MR. GREATHEAD.

The oldest Freemason in England, probably the oldest in the world, Mr. Matthew Greathead of Richmond, in Yorkshire, died on the last day of the year, in his 102nd year. He entered the Lennox Lodge, No. 123, of Freemasons, in the year 1797, and was a member seventyfive years. At the annual appointment of officers, on the 27th of this month, he was appointed inner guard.

GEORGE HUDSON.

Mr. George Hudson, once well known by his sobriquet of the "Railway King," died on the 14th of December, at the age of 70. Shortly after the first railways were opened in England, Mr. Hudson's name appeared among shareholders and directors, and when the York and North

Midland Bill was passed in 1837 he became chairman of that company. In the course of the next few years, he had made enormous sums by his speculations, till, in 1848, came the great railway crisis which shook his prosperity. From 1845 to 1859 he represented Sunderland, in the Conservative interest; he was a deputy-lieutenant for Durham, and three times Lord Mayor of York. During the latter years of his life he was in great pecuniary difficulties, and several of his friends in the North subscribed to purchase an annuity for him. His popularity was great at Sunderland and Whitby, to both which places he had been a generous benefactor.

LORD KENMARE.

Thomas Browne, third Earl of Kenmare, in Ireland, and Baron Kenmare in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, was born in 1789. He served with the 40th regiment, in the Peninsular war, from 1808 to 1813, earned clasps at most of the great battles fought during its course, and was one of the gallant band who stormed the castle of Badajoz, under Sir Thomas Picton. He afterwards exchanged into the 16th Lancers, and was with the Army of Occupation in France, after the battle of Waterloo. Lord Kenmare died on the 26th of December, and was succeeded by his son Valentine, Viscount Castlerosse.

MR. MARRIOTT.

The Rev. Wharton Booth Marriott, B.D., who died on the 16th inst., at the age of 48, was known as a sound scholar and theologian. He held for some time a mastership at Eton College, and though obliged by ill-health to resign it a few years before his death, he continued to reside at Eton, and laboured zealously to benefit the poor of the neighbourhood. He held an appointment, as Public Lecturer and Select Preacher, in the diocese of Oxford. A treatise of Mr. Marriott's on the "Origin of Ecclesiastical Vestments," adducing the testimony of antiquity against the exaggerated views of the Ritualists, was especially distinguished for ability and research.

SIR EDWARD MORRIS.

Sir Edward Finucane Morris, K.C.B., colonel of the 49th regiment of Foot, who died on the 4th of December, was born in 1792; he entered the army in

1810, as ensign in the 49th Foot, and served with that regiment till November, 1843, when he retired on half-pay on account of ill-health. He served in Canada at the actions of Fort George, Stoney Creek, and Plattsburg, and also at the Cape of Good Hope and in Bengal. He commanded a brigade at the storm and capture of the heights above Canton, and for his services there he was nominated a Companion of the Bath. He subsequently commanded the troops at Ningpo, in the absence of the Commander-inChief; and was afterwards appointed an Aide-de camp to the Queen. He attained field rank in 1854, became a full General in 1868, and was appointed to the colonelcy of the 49th regiment of Foot in 1861.

ADMIRAL RAMSAY.

Sir William Ramsay, K.C.B., son of Sir Alexander Ramsay, of Balmain, Kincardineshire, was born in 1796, and entered the navy in 1809. He was present at the battle of Navarino, in 1827, and served as first lieutenant on board the " Atholl," on the coast of Africa. In 1831, while in command of the "Black Joke" tender, he fell in with, and after a long action, boarded and carried the "Marinerito," a Spanish slaver brig, of 303 tons, equipped in complete man-of-war order. He attained flag rank in 1864, and became a full admiral in 1870. He was nominated a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath in 1869. Sir William died at Edinburgh, on the 3rd of December.

MRS. RYVES.

Mrs. Ryves, whose case was frequently before the law courts as claiming to be recognized as a princess of the blood royal, died on the 7th inst., at the age of 74. She was daughter of John Thomas Serres, a painter, and marine draughtsman to the Admiralty, and granddaughter of one of the original Royal Academicians. Her mother believed, or pretended herself to be the Princess Olive of Cumberland, daughter of his Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, brother to George III. Mrs. Ryves was married to Anthony Thomas, son of Captain Ryves, of Ranston Hall, Dorset, but had obtained a divorce from him in the Ecclesiastical Court.

SIR JAMES SCARLETT.

General Sir James Yorke Scarlett, C.C.B, was the second son of the first Lord Abinger, many years Chief Baron of the Exchequer. He was born on the 1st of February, 1799. He entered the army in the year 1818, having obtained a commission in a Hussar regiment; he subsequently exchanged to the Carbineers, and in 1830 was appointed Major in the 5th Dragoon Guards. He became a colonel in the army in 1851; at the commencement of the Russian war, in 1854, was appointed to the command of a brigade of cavalry, and in the following year he was promoted to the command of the cavalry division. General Scarlett was among the foremost at Balaklava, and was wounded before Sebastopol, and for his services in the Crimea was nominated a Knight Commander of the Bath, and also a Commander of the Legion of Honour. In October, 1865, he was appointed to the command of the troops at Aldershot, which he held till 1870. He became a Major-general in 1854, and Lieutenant-general in 1862, and was appointed to the colonelcy of the 5th Dragoon Guards in 1860; in 1869 he was promoted to the Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath. Sir James was for several years honorary Colonel of the 40th Middlesex, and also of the 3rd Lancashire Rifle Volunteers. He died on the 6th of December.

THE BISHOP OF VICTORIA.

The Right Rev. George Smith, D.D., first Bishop of Victoria, died on the 14th at the age of 56. The first few years of his clerical life were passed in parochial work in Yorkshire, but he soon resolved to devote himself to missionary labours, and in 1844 was nominated to a station at Hong Kong. This mission he worked with such extraordinary assiduity and success that the church rapidly extended, and it was determined to establish an episcopal see, to include the island of Hong Kong and the congregations of the Church of England in China. Dr. Smith was consecrated the first bishop in 1849, and continued to discharge the duties of his office until 1865, when ill-health compelled his retirement. Bishop Smith was the author of several books of travel in the Chinese countries, as well as of some theological works.

REMARKABLE TRIALS.

I.

THE VOYSEY CASE.

THIS celebrated ecclesiastical case, involving a charge of heresy against the Rev. Charles Voysey, Vicar of Healaugh, Tadcaster, and instituted by the Archbishop of York, was argued before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in November, 1870.

On the 14th of June, 1869, the Bishop of London issued a commission under the Church Discipline Act, to his Vicar-General and certain clergymen, and by a report, dated the 10th of July, 1869, the Commission reported that there was sufficient primâ facie ground for instituting further proceedings against the appellant, for the commission of an offence against the law ecclesiastical, by having printed and published, within the diocese of London, certain books, in which he maintained doctrines contrary and repugnant to the Articles of Religion and the Formularies of the Church of England.

The Archbishop of York thereupon requested the official Principal of the Chancery Court of York to issue a citation or decree under the seal of the Court, citing the appellant to appear and answer certain articles; and on the 28th day of July, 1869, a citation was accordingly issued.

The appellant appeared, and articles were exhibited on behalf of the respondent.

The articles were thirty-eight in number.

Article 1 stated that, by the laws, statutes, constitution, and canons ecclesiastical of this realm, all clerks and ministers in holy orders of the United Church of England (hereinafter called the said Church) are required in their preachings, teaching, writings, and publications, faithfully and without reservation, to adhere to and maintain the doctrines of the said Church as set forth in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole clergy in the Convocation holden in London in the year 1562, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion, and ratified by royal authority, and in the book entitled "The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the United Church of England and Ireland; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons” (hereinafter called the Book of Common Prayer): and that any minister or clerk in Holy Orders of the said Church who shall maintain or affirm, or pro

mulgate, or declare in his preaching, teaching, writings, or publications, any doctrine contrary or repugnant to or inconsistent with any of the doctrines of the said Church, as contained in the said Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and the said Book of Common Prayer, is by the said laws, statutes, constitutions, and canons ecclesiastical, to be punished and corrected according to the gravity of his offence, and the exigency of the law.

The 2nd article alleged that the appellant had been for some years past, and now was, a clerk in holy orders, and that in the year 1864 he was licensed to perform the duties of perpetual curate of the perpetual curacy of Healaugh, in the county, diocese, and province of York.

The 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th articles charged that the appellant printed, published, and set forth, within the diocese of London, a book entitled “The Sling and the Stone for the year 1867;” and a certain other book entitled “The Sling and the Stone for the year 1868;" and a certain other book entitled "The Sling and the Stone for January, 1869;" and a certain other book entitled "The Sling and the Stone for February, 1869."

The 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of charge contained passages taken from the appellant's works, "The Sling and the Stone." The material passages will be found referred to in the judgment.

The 10th article alleged that in the passages set forth in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated the doctrine, position, or opinion, that Christ had not made an atonement or reconciliation for sin, and has not been made a sacrifice to reconcile His Father to us, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion, is contrary and repugnant to, and inconsistent with those parts of the 2nd, 15th, and 31st of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer respectively set out in the 14th article of charge.

The 11th article alleged that in the passages set forth in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles, the appellant had maintained or affirmed, and promulgated the doctrine, position, or opinion, that there is no need of any atonement or sacrifice, nor any place for such in the purpose of God, or a doctrine, position, or opinion, to that purpose or effect, which said doctrine, position, or opinion, is contrary and repugnant to and inconsistent with the 2nd, 15th, and 31st of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer respectively set out in the 14th article of charge.

The 12th article alleged that in the passages set forth in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles, the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion, that Christ did not bear the punishment due to our sins, nor suffer in our stead and for us, and that to think that He did, or that it was necessary that He should so suffer, is infinitely erroneous and dishonouring to God, and is the most revolting of all the popular beliefs, which doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to or inconsistent with the 3rd and 15th Articles of Religion respectively, and those facts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the 14th article of charge.

The 13th article charged that in the passages, and in each of them set forth in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of charge, the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that the commonly-received doctrine of intercession and mediation by Christ, and atonement or reconciliation to God by the death of Christ, are all opposed to the

perfect harmony and simplicity of the love of God, and to the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion, so maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, by the appellant as aforesaid, is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 2nd, 7th, and 31st of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the 14th article of charge.

The 14th article set out the Articles of Religion and Formularies of the Church alleged to have been contravened by the appellant in the passages set out in the 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of charge. Articles 15 and 16 set out other passages from the appellant's work, "The Sling and the Stone," the material passages of which will be found in the judgment. The 17th article alleged that in the passages set forth or referred to in the 15th and 16th articles the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that mankind are not by nature born in sin and the children of God's wrath, and are not separated from God by sin, and under His wrath, or under a curse; and that they are not in danger of endless suffering, nor is there any curse to remove by the shedding of the innocent blood of Christ; and that the doctrine of the fall of man is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect, which said doctrine, position, or opinion, so maintained or affirmed and promulgated by the appellant as aforesaid, is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 2nd and 9th of the said Articles of Religion, and those parts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer which are set forth or referred to in the 19th article of charge.

The 18th article alleged that in the passages set forth or referred to in the 15th and 16th articles the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that mankind need no atonement or justification, that salvation is not through justification, and that the doctrine of justification by faith is contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion, so maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, by the appellant as aforesaid, is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 2nd or 11th of the said Articles of Religion respectively and the Homily in the said 11th article mentioned, and that part of the Book of Common Prayer which is set forth in the 19th article of charge.

The 19th article set forth the Articles of Religion and the formularies contravened by the passages contained in the 15th and 16th articles of charge. Articles 20, 21, and 22 set out other passages from the appellant's work, "The Sling and the Stone," the material parts of which are referred to in the judgment. Article 23 alleged that in the passages recited and referred to in the 20th, 21st, and 22nd articles of charge the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ is no more very God, or very God begotten, not made, than we men are, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport or effect, which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 8th of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts respectively of the Book of Common Prayer which were referred to in the 28th article of charge.

Article 24 alleged that in the passages set forth and referred to in the 20th,

« AnteriorContinuar »