opinion, that revelation of the knowledge of God by means of any book is impossible, that all true knowledge of God comes directly from the law of God written in men's hearts, that all knowledge of God comes only from men's own senses of what He requires them to do, and that the only true revelation possible by God to man is through the sense of God's presence, and is originated in the heart of man independently of God's written Word, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport and effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, those parts respectively of the 6th and 20th of the Articles of Religion, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer referred to in the 35th article of charge.

Article 32 alleged that in the passages set out and referred to in the 29th and 30th articles respectively, the appellant had maintained, or affirmed, and promulgated the doctrine, position, or opinion that in God's Word written, Holy Scripture, and Holy Writ, there are found manifest, palpable, and irreconcilable contradictions, and many places which cannot be expounded, but so that they be repugnant to others, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport and effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, those parts of the 6th and 20th of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the 35th article of charge.

Article 33 alleged that in the passages referred to in the 30th article of charge, the appellant had maintained, or affirmed, and promulgated in derogation and depraving of Holy Scripture, the doctrine, position, or opinion that the authority of the Gospel according to St. John is doubtful, and that the said Gospel ought not to be applied to establish any doctrine, and that whole chapters of the said Gospel are crowded with passages which represent Jesus Christ as speaking words which He never could have spoken, and which, if spoken, would not have been believed, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that purport and effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, those parts respectively of the 6th of the Articles of Religion, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the 35th article of charge.

Article 34 alleged that in the passages and in each of them referred to in the 30th article of charge, the appellant had maintained, or affirmed and promulgated, the doctrine, position, or opinion that the Gospel according to St. John contains passages which can only be expounded so that they be repugnant to each other, or to other places of God's Word written, or Holy Scripture; and that the character of our Lord Jesus Christ, as set forth in the said Gospel, is quite irreconcilable with the idea of His being a true teacher sent from God, and is entirely different from the character of the Christ of the other three Gospels, or a doctrine, position, or opinion to that effect; which said doctrine, position, or opinion is contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, those parts of the 6th and 20th of the Articles of Religion respectively, and those parts of the Book of Common Prayer set forth or referred to in the next article of charge.

Article 35 set out the Articles of Religion and parts of the Book of Common Prayer, and also part of the Homilies, which the appellant had contravened in the passages referred to in the articles of charge No. 29 and 31. The 36th article of charge referred to the four volumes of the appellant's

work "The Sling and the Stone," in proof of the charge. The 37th and 38th articles were merely of a formal character.

The appellant prayed that these articles might be rejected. He also moved that they might be reformed. On the 2nd of December, 1869, the Official Principal, by his decree, admitted the articles, and condemned the. appellant in the costs.

From this Judgment Mr. Voysey appealed to the Privy Council, before whom he appeared, and was heard in person on the 10th November, 1870. The Solicitor-General (Sir J. Coleridge), Sir R. Palmer, Mr. Archibald, and Mr. Cowie, appeared against him; and on the 11th of February, 1871, the Lord Chancellor (the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chelmsford, and the Dean of Arches being also present) delivered the following Judgment :

In this case the Rev. Charles Voysey, Vicar of Healaugh, in the diocese of York, appeals from a sentence or decree of the Judge of the Chancery Court of the province of York, in a cause wherein the office of the Judge was promoted by the respondent against the appellant by virtue of letters of request from his Grace the Archbishop of the province.

The appellant is charged with having offended against the laws ecclesiastical by writing and publishing within the diocese of London certain sermons or essays, collected together in parts or volumes, the whole being designated by the title of "The Sling and the Stone," in which he is alleged to have maintained and promulgated doctrines contrary and repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the Articles of Religion and Formularies of the Church of England.

The offence being alleged to have been committed in the diocese of London, a Commission of Inquiry was issued by the Bishop of that diocese, and the Report of the Commissioners and the depositions of witnesses were transmitted to the Archbishop of York, in whose diocese the preferment held by the appellant is situate.

On the 28th of October, 1869, articles were exhibited on behalf of the respondent containing the several charges made against the appellant.

The appellant, in person, appeared and opposed the admission of those articles, and on the 22nd of December, 1869, the Judge, after hearing counsel for the respondent, admitted the articles and condemned the appellant in the costs of the opposition to their admission. From that sentence the appellant presented his present appeal, by which he asked that the sentence or decree so made might be reversed, and further that this Committee would retain the cause and hear and fully determine the same. The respondent in the case also made the same request as to the retaining and final determination of the whole cause.

The Committee heard the appellant in person on that part of his application which sought to reverse the decision of the court below as to the admission of the articles, and at the conclusion of his argument informed the counsel for the respondent that they were of opinion, subject to further discussion on the part of the respondent, that the 13th article could not be sustained, but that the other articles had been properly admitted. They at the same time informed the appellant, that such admission of the articles would not prejudice his right at the hearing to dispute the validity of the charges contained in the articles, as constituting an offence against the laws ecclesiastical.

Their Lordships, after consideration of the peculiar circumstances of the

case, further stated that they would be ready to retain the cause if both parties should continue to be desirous that that course should be taken, and should enter into proper admissions for that purpose. Accordingly, after taking time for consideration, the counsel for the respondent agreed to the withdrawal of the 13th article of charge, and both parties entered into formal admissions, enabling the Committee to retain and finally determine the case on its merits.

The respondents were then heard by counsel in support of the charges made by the articles, and the appellant was heard in person in answer to the whole case as contained in the articles (reformed by the omission of the 13th), and the Solicitor-General was heard in reply.

The Committee have now, therefore, to determine whether or not the offences charged by the articles, or any of them, have been established.

The articles have been framed in accordance with the principles laid down in several cases by the Court of Arches and by this Committee. The incriminated passages of the appellant's work are fully cited. The Articles of Religion and Formularies of the Church which those passages are alleged to contravene are specifically referred to, and are also fully set forth.

The first of the articles of charge formally states the character of the alleged offence.

The next five articles of charge aver the publication of the appellant's work. The 7th, 8th, and 9th articles of charge contain copious extracts from such publications.

By the 10th, 11th, and 12th articles of charge the appellant is charged with asserting, in the extracts above-named, several propositions inconsistent with the doctrine contained in the 15th and 31st Articles of Religion and certain parts of the Book of Common Prayer (set out in the 14th article of charge) with reference to the atonement or reconciliation for sin made by Christ.

The 13th article we rejected, because it charged the appellant with opposing "commonly-received doctrines," which received doctrines, not being distinctly specified, their Lordships could not assume to be the same as those contained in the Articles of Religion or Formularies of the Church.

The 14th article of charge sets forth in full the Articles of Religion, and parts of the Book of Common Prayer, alleged by the previous articles to be contravened.

The 15th and 16th articles of charge set forth a second set of extracts from the appellant's publications.

By the 17th article the appellant is charged with contravening the doctrines of original sin and the fall of man as specified in the 9th of the Articles of Religion, and the parts of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the 19th article of charge.

The 18th article of charge alleges that the appellant has contravened, in the second set of extracts, the doctrine of justification by faith, as asserted in the 2nd and 11th of the Articles of Religion, and the Homily in the 11th of such Articles, and the parts of the Book of Common Prayer mentioned in that behalf in the 19th article.

The 19th article of charge then proceeds to set forth the particular passages of the Articles of Religion, and of the Book of Common Prayer, and of the Homilies alleged to be contravened.

The 20th, 21st, and 22nd articles of charge set forth a third set of passages from the appellant's publication; and

By the 23rd, 24th, and 25th articles of charge the appellant is alleged to have contravened in these passages the doctrine of the Divinity or Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of incarnation, as contained in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 8th Articles of Religion, and the parts of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in subsequent articles of charge.

By the 26th article of charge the appellant is charged with denying the return of Christ to judge the world, in contravention of the 4th and 8th Articles of Religion and the parts of the Book of Common Prayer set out in a subsequent article.

By the 27th of the articles of charge, the appellant is charged with contravening the doctrine of the Trinity, contrary to the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 8th of the Articles of Religion and the parts of the Book of Common Prayer set forth in the next article.

The 28th article then proceeds to set out the Articles and parts of the Book of Common Prayer alleged to have been contravened by the third set of extracts, and also certain Homilies of the Church on the same subject.

The 29th and 30th articles of charge set out a fourth set of extracts from the appellant's publication.

By the 31st, 32nd, 33rd, and 34th articles of charge the appellant is alleged by the last-cited passages of his work to have expressed himself in derogation and depraving of Holy Scripture, and especially with reference to the Gospel according to St. John.

The 35th article of charge accordingly sets forth the Articles of Religion and parts of the Book of Common Prayer, and also part of the Homilies applicable to the last set of charges.

The 36th article of charge refers to the whole of the publications of the appellant from which extracts have been given, and the last two articles of charge (the 37th and 38th) are formal.

The charges, therefore, against the appellant are thirteen in number, which may be arranged under the following classes:-1. Alleged errors concerning the reconciliation of God to man by the sacrifice or propitiation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and as to the necessity of such reconciliation.-2. Alleged errors as to the Incarnate Godhead of our Lord, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. -3. Alleged errors as to the authority of the Scriptures or Holy Writ. Before examining the charges and comparing the proofs adduced from the appellant's publications with the charges founded thereon, and with the Articles and Formularies of the Church alleged to have been contravened, it will be well to enunciate briefly the rules of judicial exposition with reference to the Articles and Formularies of the Church. In this respect we have the guidance of previous and recent decisions of this tribunal expressed in clear and definite language.

In the cases arising on the work called "Essays and Reviews" (Williams v. Bishop of Salisbury, and Wilson v. Fendall, 2 Moore, N. S. 425), Lord Westbury, in delivering the opinion of the Committee, said, "Our province is, on the one hand, to ascertain the true construction of those Articles of Religion and Formularies referred to in each charge according to the legal rules for the interpretation of statutes and written instruments; and, on the other hand, to ascertain the plain grammatical meaning of the passages which are

Meetings were convened and subscriptions opened in the principal commercial towns throughout England and Scotland for the same purpose.

16. FATAL ACCIDENT ON THE NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY.-The afternoon express train from Helensburgh had arrived within half a mile of the Ferryhill station, when the driver saw that the danger signal was up, and he at once lessened the speed of the train and whistled. This was followed by the lowering of the danger signal, which is always accepted as giving liberty to proceed. The driver accordingly put on full speed, but had scarcely done so when he saw a travelling crane standing on the down line with its point projecting over the six feet of clear space which separates the up and down lines. The driver reversed the engine and put on the breaks, but was unable to bring the train to a standstill in time to avert a collision, which took place about forty yards from the station. The travelling crane first crushed in the boiler, carrying away the safety valve, then tilted over the boiler and tender across the roof of a first-class carriage, and finally crashed through the roof of a thirdclass compartment, killing a young woman and a boy, and tearing away the side of the compartment. The train ran on to some little distance beyond the station before it was brought up. Only those passengers who were in the third-class compartment which was smashed received personal injuries. These were fifteen in number, and some of them were seriously injured.

17. FUNERAL OF SIR JOHN BURGOYNE, GOVERNOR OF THE TOWER. -The little chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower was by command of the Queen selected as the burial-place of this gallant veteran officer, and the funeral ceremonies were conducted with almost the pomp of a State funeral. Royal recognition was shown by the attendance of representatives of her Majesty and the Prince of Wales in the royal carriages which formed part of the funeral procession. The mourners assembled at the house of the deceased Field-Marshal in Pembridge-square, Bayswater, and the body was borne in a hearse, followed by four mourning coaches and the royal carriages, and went at a walking pace the whole way. The route was by way of Oxford-street, along Holborn, over the new Viaduct, and thence through Cheapside to Tower-hill. Many of the shops along the route were closed while the procession passed, and on the Thames most of the vessels dropped their flags to halfmast high. The Tower was closed to the general public, but officers in uniform of all services were admitted, and there was also a large assemblage of spectators who had been invited, all of whom were in mourning. As many as could be accommodated were admitted to the chapel where the burial took place. The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar were among

them.

18. MM. LEON SAY AND VAUTRAIN AT THE MANSION HOUSE.— The Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress entertained M. Léon Say, the Prefect of the Seine, and M. Vautrain, the President of the