W. A. Greenhill, M D. Trinity college. J. O. Goodchild, M A. Exeter college. There is no doubt that the foregoing signatures will shortly receive important additions, as lists are opened for that purpose at Mr. Parker's, Oxford, and Messrs. Rivingtons', Waterloo-place. The following letter, enclosing the Declaration to us, will be read with interest: To the Editor of the Morning Post. "Sir,-The enclosed declaration, the publication of which has been entrusted to me, is not now put forward as representing the support which the amendment, whereof it is the subject, may be supposed likely to have obtained if it had been put to Convocation. The object of that amendment was to enable members of Convocation, while strongly condemning the sentiments and assertions of Mr. Ward, to protest at the same time most emphatically against the irregularity and injustice of the whole proceedings against him. The opportunity of publicly maintaining this protest was sought to be obtained first, by a previous application to the Vice-Chancellor for his permission to move the amendment in the Convocation then about to be holden; and, secondly, by the public tender of the amendment during the proceedings in the theatre. The Vice-Chancellor acting on the (not altogether uncontested) practice of the House, refused to allow the amendment to be put, and accordingly, under protest, the motion for its adoption was withdrawn. The public support of the amendment in Convocation, therefore, became impossible; and thus many of those who concurred in it, have been induced to take the only course left to them for expressing the sense in which they voted for the rejec tion of the propositions of the hebdomadal board, and to draw up and sign the declaration which I now enclose. But there are many others who have expressed their full concurrence in the terms of the proposed amendment, and their intention of voting for it, if it had been put, and who have, for various reasons, declined signing any public declaration to that effect; and there are many more, who have voted against both the resolutions of the 13th, and who have expressed views in various ways similar to those embodied in the amendment, but have objected to one or other of its clauses or expressions. "As the rumour, however, is industriously propagated that all who voted against the first resolution of the 13th themselves approve of the passages selected from Mr. Ward's book, and as the publication of the amendment and enclosed declaration may be supposed at least to imply that all who, not having signed this declaration, voted in the minority, are more or less favourable to those passages, I must, in forwarding to you the declaration for publication, beg to disclaim most distinctly the suggestion of any such inference. It is indeed obvious, that the non-concurrence in this specific amendment by any person, who, for whatever reason, was unable to affirm the first resolution, implies by no means any opinion whatever on the intrinsic merits or demerits of the passages selected from The Ideal.' The main issue raised by that resolution was a very specific one—whether or not, the passages, each and all, are inconsistent, not with the opinions of the voter, but with the Thirty-nine Articles. To assert the strict affirmative of that issue was confessedly difficult, to prove it, impossible. How then can those who, whether reasonably or not, acted upon this objection, be fairly charged with the expression of any opinion whatever upon a question wholly distinct from it? The fact, too, that the first resolution was to be made the foundation of a (confessedly) unstatutable sentence of degradation, was another amply sufficient reason for justifying even those who could have affirmed, if necessary, the literal words of the resolution, in refusing to lend any sanction to its passing. There were, of course, besides, many other reasons to the same effect. "In justice to Mr. Ward, on the other hand, it must be stated that a large number, even of those persons who differed from this view, did certainly feel, in addition to the reasons already alluded to for negativing the resolutions, that the points of difference between him and them did not involve any denial of the fundamental truths of the faith, and that it was therefore unjust, in their opinion, to censure him, while others whose errors were said to be fundamental, were left untouched. Many persons declined signing the enclosed declaration on these and similar grounds-and many more, it must of course be supposed, from other reasons equally or more favourable to Mr. Ward. I subjoin the extract from the statute, De Statutis et decretis in Domo Convocationis condendis et interpretandis,' which bears upon the power claimed by Convocation to alter or amend any proposition submitted to it by the Hebdomadal Board. “.... Statum est, quod priusquam lex roganda, vel statutum explanandum suffragiis magistrorum Regentium et non-Regentium permittitur primo, ad Hebdomadalem Consessum Præfectorum Collegiorum et Aularum per Vice Cancellarium referatur negotium. "Atque ubi re mature perpensa inter eos convenerit de verbis conceptis, sub quibus lex roganda, aut statutum explanandum, vidibitur, sub iisdem terminis ad magistros regentes in Domo congregatisnis, per Procuratores re feretur: "In Convocatione autem sequente, iisdem verbis quibus in congregatione proposita fuerat, per Registrarium, mandato Vice Cancellarii palam recitetur. Ac demum, ubi Vice Cancellarius, Procuratores, et major pars Regentium et uon-Regentium in terminos consenserunt sub quibus lex sciscenda aut statutum explanandum vidibitur, subiisdem terminis per Registrarium palam ibidem recitetur, et de iisdem suffragia Regentium et non-Regentium rogentur. Sub iisdem etiam terminis, in quo sconsensum fuerit, in acta redigantur.' "I am, Sir, yours faithfully, CLERGY ORPHAN CORPORATION. On Saturday afternoon (Feb. 8th) the annual court of governors of this charity was held at the Freemasons' Tavern. The chair was taken by the Lord Bishop of London, vice-president. The Rev. Dr. Shepherd, treasurer, on the part of the general committee, made a most gratifying report of the efficiency of the schools. The number now in the institution is 143, who were fully maintained and educated until of an age to be put out apprentice, or otherwise provided for. C. F. Barnewell, Esq., joint-treasurer, read the account for the past year: annual subscriptions, 11047. 13s.; from district committees and donations, 9417. 19s. 4d. ; interest on Bank Stock, 3000l.; together with legacies and other sources of income making a total of 64131. 10s. 6d. The expenditure amounted to 62227. 78. 11d., leaving a balance of 1911. 2s. 7d. in favour of the society. The Rev. Dr. Shepherd announced that the receipts on behalf of the ap prenticing fund (a separate account) amounted to 10817. 9s. 4d., and of which 3251. had been paid within the last year in apprentice fees varying from 20l. to 40%. each. The above statement of accounts having been received, the Archbishop of Canterbury was re-elected president, the Bishop of London vice-president, the Rev. Dr. Shepherd and C. F. Barnewell, Esq., joint-treasurers, and the Rev. J. D. Glennie, A.M., secretary. The committees and auditors, with some slight variations, were re-appointed. The next business being the election of children into the school, The Bishop of London expressed his regret that the committee had been compelled to diminish the number of orphans usually proposed for election. There were but four boys to be admitted and no girls, the female department being full already. It might be proper to refer the subject to the special consideration of the committee, with a view to an increase of the means of accommodation, and, should it be found necessary even to draw on the funded capital, he was confident that by a proper appeal to the public the deficiency would be speedily made up. Four boys having been elected, thanks were voted to the right rev. chairman, and the court adjourned. DIOCESE OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. THE following letter has been addressed by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol to the clergy of his diocese: "Stapleton, Jan. 20th, 1845. "Rev. and Dear Sir,-In the charge delivered to you at my late visitation, I mentioned the special fund established for the purpose of building churches in the poor and populous districts to be constituted in this diocese, under the provisions of the Endowment Act of last session; and I intimated my intention of requesting all my clergy to recommend this object to the charitable attention of their respective congregations on Palm Sunday next, which will fall on the 16th of March. "Allow me to remind you of this subject, and earnestly to request that you will use your best endeavours to stimulate your flock to give a liberal aid to this undertaking. Though the immediate object is only to erect ten churches in certain crowded neighbourhoods, which by the late act are to be provided with a pastor, yet I am persuaded that no measure can more effectually promote church extension throughout the whole diocese; since, by providing for these necessitous cases, whose peculiarly pressing claims would otherwise absorb all the revenues of our church building associations for many a year to come, that charity will be enabled to assist in building and enlarging other churches in the diocese. "If you should judge that any other Lord's day would prove more convenient for this purpose than Palm Sunday, you will fix it at your discretion; and in making the collection you will adopt that mode which you consider most likely to prove effectual in obtaining the contributions of all classes in your flock, poor as well as rich, according to their means, towards this truly Christian enterprise. Believe me to be, with all respect, dear Sir, your faithful brother and servant, "J. H. GLOUCESTER and BRISTOL." LAW. ARCHES COURT, FRIDAY, JAN. 31. THE STONE ALTAR CASE. FAULKNER AGAINST LITCHFIELD AND STEARN. SIR H. JENNER Fusr-This is an appeal from a decree of the Chancellor of the diocese in the Consistorial Court of that diocese, in which court an application was made on behalf of the churchwardens of the parish of the Holy Sepulchre, in the town of Cambridge, for a faculty to confirm certain alterations, repairs, and restorations which had been made under a former faculty granted for that purpose, and the prayer of the petition also extended to other alterations and repairs which were not comprised in the former faculty. Now, it was on the behalf of the churchwardens and minister that the faculty was prayed in the first instance, and the former faculty was granted to them: but to the second application the minister was not a party; on the contrary, he appeared to oppose the grant of the faculty, and therefore the question before the Chancellor of the diocese of Ely was between the churchwardens on the one hand, and Mr. Faulkner, the minister, on the other. The churchwardens to whom the former faculty had been granted were Mr. Benjamin Jordan and Mr. William Ekin: but when the confirmatory faculty was applied for, Mr. Litchfield and Mr. Stearn were the churchwardens. The faculty was originally granted on the 25th of February, 1842, and by that faculty the minister and churchwardens were authorized, "To repair the church, and, as to such parts thereof as had been rendered unsightly by injudicious repairs, to restore the same as near as may be according to the original design, and according to a design and plan deposited in the registry of the court." Under this original faculty the works were proceeded with, and had nearly arrived at completion, and the church was nearly prepared for being re-opened for the performance of Divine service, when Mr. Faulkner, the minister of the parish, appears to have received, for the first time (as he states) an intimation respecting the articles which are now the subject of discussion-namely, a stone communion-table, and also a credence-table, and Mr. Faulkner states, that if he had been aware of the proceeding he would not have allowed them to be erected in the church, but would have opposed their erection. The works were, however, proceeded with, and on the 29th of February last year a vestry meeting of the parishioners was called, and a report was made of what had been done under the faculty originally granted, and this report contained a detail of all the different items (under 24 heads.) At this meeting Mr. Faulkner took the chair, and a resolution was proposed and seconded, which was carried with only the dissentient voice of the minister, to this effect: "That the report be adopted; that the works therein detailed, as done or intended to be done, had the full sanction and approval of the meeting, and that the churchwardens should take such measures by obtaining a further faculty, or otherwise, as might be deemed necessary, for the due ratification of the said works and otherwise, in order to carry into effect the former resolutions of the vestry relative to a restoration of the church, and also for selling the three bells, now no longer necessary, and appropriating the proceeds of such sale in aid of the expenses incident to the restoration of the said church." A further resolution was also proposed and carried, "That the thanks of the meeting and of the parish generally, were due to the members of the Camden Society, for their assistance in restoring the church, and to the Rev. Archdeacon Thorp especially, for his courtesy in explaining the various forms necessary for ratifying the former faculty, and applying for another to confirm it." Now, this resolution having been proposed and seconded, the minister declined to put it, and he resigned the chair, which was taken by Mr. Litchfield, the senior churchwarden at the time. In pursuance of this resolution, an application was made for a further faculty to the effect I have stated, on the 26th of March, last year, and a citation issued reciting the former faculty, and stating what had been done, as detailed in the report made to the vestry, and calling upon the minister and churchwardens, and all other persons having any interest "To appear and shew cause why a faculty should not be granted ratifying and confirming the before-mentioned faculty and also (so far as may not be comprised therein) the restorations, renovations, repairs, alterations, erections, and other works in the said church and chancel, specified in the aforesaid report, and also for selling the bells, no longer necessary, heretofore belonging to the said church." Mr. Faulkner, the minister of the parish, appeared to oppose this faculty. The cause came on for hearing on the 25th of July, before the Rev. the Chancellor of Ely, assisted by a learned advocate of this court, as his assessor. The cause was elaborately argued by two of the learned advocates, who have addressed this court, and the result was, that the chancellor, with the advice of his assessor, decreed the faculty to issue. Mr. Faulkner immediately appealed from this decree, and in the course of the last term the cause was very elaborately and ably argued by all the learned counsel engaged in it. It now remains for the court to pronounce its judgment upon the whole case, which being one of a somewhat novel character, and having excited considerable interest, the court thought it right to take time to consider the arguments, and to look into the authorities cited in support of them; and many of these not being of very ready access, the court requested it might be furnished with a list of them, which request was readily complied with by the learned counsel. This request was addressed only to the learned counsel in the cause; but it seems that this intimation was considered by some parties as a general invitation, and I have received various communications, some with signatures attached to them, and others anonymous, to many of whom I have to express my thanks for reference to authorities not mentioned in the argument, and to which I have had recourse. I have also received communications from other persons, to whom I do not think any thanks are due, as their object was to produce an impression upon the mind of the court in respect to the judgment which it has to pronounce in this case. Amongst other communications of this kind is one in the shape of a pamphlet, purporting to be a copy of a sermon preached by a rev. gentleman, entitled, "The Restoration of Churches is the Restoration of Popery, proved and illustrated from the authenticated publications of the Cambridge Camden Society," with extracts (said to be so) from certain publications of that society, and containing the opinions of the writer of that sermon (as it is called) upon subjects connected with the architectural alterations of churches. By whom this communication was made to me I know not, but that it was done to prejudice the mind of the court is evident from a written paper placed within the leaves of the book to this effect: "Mr. Faulkner, like Mr. Henslowe, is, I maintain, contending for a great and vital principle in his resistance to the innovations of the Cambridge Camden Society; and we are bound to give him credit, likewise, for genuine courage, acute perception, and a tender conscience." This was an unfortunate course to be taken by the person who sent this communication, and it was an entire misapprehension to suppose that this attempt to interfere with the administration of justice could produce the effect intended; the only effect it could produce was, to make the court more cautious how it adopted the views advocated by the writer, and to doubt whether the view he took was a correct one. I may also mention that I have received a letter addressed to me by Mr. Faulkner, in the shape of a circular, -not addressed to me as Dean of the Arches, but as presiding over one of the colleges in the University of Cambridge,-soliciting a subscription to enable him to defray the heavy expense of prosecuting this appeal, the object of which was to assert a great and important principle. To address such a letter to the judge who has to decide this cause could not but appear an act deserving of reprehension; but I believe it was addressed to me as Master of Trinity Hall, in the University of Cambridge, the circular being sent to other heads of colleges, and I acquit Mr. Faulkner of any intentional disrespect to the court, or of any intention to prejudice the impartial administration of justice. The |