has long since laid down. There were different doctrines or opinions prevailing or under discussion at the times when the Articles and Liturgy were framed, and ultimately made part of the law; but we are not to be in any way influenced by the particular opinions of the eminent men who propounded or discussed them, or by the authorities by which they may be supposed to have been influenced, or by any supposed tendency to give preponderance to Calvinistic or Arminian doctrines. The Articles and Liturgy, as we now have them, must be considered as the final result of the discussion which took place, not the representation of the opinions of any particular men, Calvinistic, Arminian, or any other; but the conclusions which we must presume to have been deduced from a due consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including both the sources from which the declared doctrine was derived and the erroneous opinions which were to be corrected.' (Judgment of Privy Council, Gorham Case.) "Citations from established authors may be of use to show that the liberty which was left by the Articles and Formularies has been actually enjoyed and exercised by the members and ministers of the Church of England.' (Judgment of Privy Council, Gorham Case.) But, to say the least, very few of the quotations in the judgment exhibit the same freedom of language as do the extracts from Mr. Bennett. And after every authority had been examined there would still remain the question that is before this Committee, whether the licence or liberty is really allowed by the Articles and Formularieswhether anything has been said by the respondent which plainly contradicts them. If the respondent had made statements contradicting the Articles or Formularies, the citation of great names would not have protected him; if he has not done so, he is safe without their protection. There is one passage in the judgment which seems especially to call for comment: 666 With respect to the second and corrected edition of his pamphlet, and the other work for which he is articled, I say that the objective, actual, and real presence, or the spiritual, real presence, a presence external to the act of the communicant, appears to me to be the doctrine which the Formularies of our Church, duly considered and construed so as to be harmonious, intended to maintain. But I do not lay down this as a position of law, nor do I say that what is called the Receptionist doctrine is inadmissible; nor do I pronounce on any other teaching with respect to the mode of presence. I mean to do no such thing by this judgment. I mean by it to pronounce only that to describe the mode of presence as objective, real, actual, and spiritual is certainly not contrary to the law.' 66 Their Lordships regret that the learned Judge should have put forth this extra-judicial statement, in which he adopts words that are not used in the Articles or Formularies as expressing their doctrine. The word 'Receptionist' is as foreign to the Articles as the word 'objective.' Their Lordships have already said that any presence which is not a presence to the soul of the faithful receiver, the Church does not by her Articles and Formularies affirm. They need not ask whether there is really any doubt as to the admissibility of the doctrine of Hooker and Waterland, who appear to be described as 'Receptionists,' in the Church of which they have been two of the greatest ornaments. Their Lordships have not arrived at their decision without great anxiety and occasional doubt. The subject is one which has always moved the deepest feelings of religious men, and will continue to do so. There might have been expected from a theologian dealing with this subject, if not a charitable regard for the feelings of others, at least a careful preparation and an exactness in the use of terms. The very divine whose opinions Mr. Bennett seems to have sought to represent, was obliged himself to point out how erroneous was his statement of those opinions. The respondent corrected the manifest error without an expression of regret at the pain he may have caused to many by his careless language. Even in their maturer form his words are rash and ill-judged, and are perilously near a violation of the law. But the Committee have not allowed any feeling of disapproval to interfere with the real duty before them, to decide whether the language of the respondent was so plainly repugnant to the Articles and Formularies as to call for judicial condemnation, and, as these proceedings are highly penal, to construe in his favour every reasonable doubt." VI. THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE" LIBEL CASE. In the Court of Common Pleas on November 26 an action for libel, brought by Mr. Hepworth Dixon against Mr. G. Smith, the proprietor of the Pall Mall Gazette, was commenced. Mr. Serjeant Parry, Mr. Day, Q.C., and Mr. Gladstone appeared for the plaintiff; and Sir John Karslake, Q.C., Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, Q.C., and Mr. Murphy for the defendant. The Lord Chief Justice was on the bench at the opening of the case by Mr. Serjeant Parry, but was obliged to retire from the court. After a delay of about ten minutes, Mr. Justice Brett made his appearance on the bench, and said he was sorry to say that the Lord Chief Justice had been taken very unwell, and that it was impossible he could go on with the case. He was, however, ready to take the place of the Lord Chief Justice, but as the case was partly opened the learned serjeant would state shortly over again the main points. Mr. Serjeant Parry, in opening the plaintiff's case, said that his client was one of the most successful authors of the day. For twenty-five years he had followed the profession of a literary man. He was a J.P. for Middlesex, had been a barrister for many years, and was also a member of many important literary societies both here and abroad. In 1870 Mr. Dixon published his book called "Free Russia," which had a very extensive circulation, and was most favourably reviewed. It was in reference to this publication that the first libel was published in the Pall Mall Gazette on May 18, 1870. It was contained in an article commencing "We have received from Mr. Hepworth Dixon another of those insolent, ingenious letters with which he contrives to puff his books, obscene, inaccurate, or both, as soon as they appear. Nobody knows better than Mr. Dixon that to make a racket' (as they call it who employ the expedient) is the best of all ways of promoting its sale, and obviously the more worthless a book is, the greater its dependence for commercial success on being pushed into all the libraries before its real merits are made known, the more desirable is this 'racket.' Mr. Dixon's letters to the papers show him to be a master of the art; indeed, we are almost inclined to think that he is wrong of forethought and indecent on purpose, so that opportunities for 'Letters to the Editor' may arise, and the name of Mr. Dixon's books and Mr. Dixon's own name may be kept in the papers for a while. We know that for such an expedient a monstrous deal of hardihood and as much ingenuity are needed; but there is no reason to suppose that Nature stinted Mr. Dixon of the first of these good qualities, and the other he has cultivated with all the care and industry which he has denied to the acquirement of facts. A very pretty specimen of his style when driven into a corner may be seen in that correspondence with Admiral Ommanney which Mr. Dixon has so joyfully sent to all the papers; a rare piece of luck; a whole column of letters to and from a rear-admiral, all about the blunders in Free Russia."" The second libel was published in an "Occasional Note" in August following, and is as follows: "It is curious to observe the antics of men who, hungering after celebrity, can only just succeed, by dint of the most frantic efforts, in procuring from time to time some crumbs of notoriety. Mr. Hepworth Dixon made his first appearance on Saturday, at St. George's Hall, in the character of the Shakers' friend.'" The libel went on to state, "Mr. Dixon spoke of the 'beautiful Eden' produced by Shakerism, which seemed to be, according to Elder Evans, the holding of wives in common,' and was 'nothing more than Quakerism divested of its ordinations relative to the giving and taking in marriage.' Of course, Mr. Dixon and the Shakers can fraternise in public if they choose, but it is surely a strange and almost incredible irony to find a writer who is best known as a successful compiler of obscene literature and vamped-up travels announced as the presiding genius at the London Festival in honour of Scott." to Mr. Serjeant Parry added that the defendant, upon being called upon give particulars of what was charged against Mr. Dixon, viz., that he was best known as the author of obscene literature and vamped-up travels, had ventured only to refer to certain passages in three of Mr. Dixon's books-his "New America," "Spiritual Wives," and "Free Russia," and none of these passages he (the learned Serjeant) submitted to the jury would support either. Mr. Dixon was the author of twenty or thirty works of sterling merit, which had circulated by thousands and thousands. From 1848 until now there was not an hour of his life in which he had not been labouring in the fields of literature, and in the most varied. He had published biographies of John Howard, Penn, and Blake. One of his most interesting works was the Personal History and Public Career of Lord Bacon. "Vamping-up," the learned counsel supposed, meant trying to polish up wares which were unsalable— not his own-but other people's. But Mr. Dixon had not written a single book of travel without having visited the country described, and endeavoured honestly to make himself acquainted with it. The learned counsel concluded by saying that he did not know of any literary man who had ever been put through so fearful an ordeal as that to which Mr. Dixon was subjected by this action; but, however severe it was, he was satisfied he would come out of it scathless. Mr. Hepworth Dixon was called, and stated that he had devoted himself to literature for twenty years, and had been seventeen years editor of the Athenæum, and that he had written more than twenty works and edited others. His attention had been drawn to the subject of religious enthusiasm as part of a larger system, and he had visited, with the object of informing himself on this subject, the Holy Land, America, and Rome, and had published the result of his researches in each of those countries. When in America his attention had been called to some religious communities, and he had visited the Shakers at Mount Lebanon, their chief station. He found that community visibly prosperous and beautiful to look at, and the persons, so far as he could see, leading a perfectly chaste life, He was received with the usual hospitality, and they were very kind to him during the four or five days he remained there in 1866. Elder Evans, the apparent leader, visited London in 1871, and wished to take an opportunity of explaining his views to the English people. Witness was asked by him to preside at a meeting in St. George's Hall. He did not at first consent, till his request was backed by some English friends. It was absolutely false that the Shakers held wives in common, so far as he knew. There was nothing of the kind spoken about at the meeting; on the contrary, it was stated that they led a celibate life. The observations made at the meeting entirely accorded with what he had seen at Mount Lebanon. He saw a report of the meeting in the Pall Mall Gazette of August 7, 1871 (which was read). All his books and travels absolutely showed what he had seen in the countries he had visited. On being cross-examined by Sir John Karslake, the witness said he was in America in 1866, and in 1867 his book "New America" was published, in which he gave an account of the religious societies. The words "Spiritual Wives" occur in "America." He published a book with the "Spiritual Wives" in 1868. That book was not mainly circulated through the circulating libraries to his knowledge. The witness was then for several hours examined as to passages in that book, which were read at length by Sir John Karslake, some of which excited great amusement. He did not wish to add a word to his chapter on "Celestial Love," at page 88 of that book-"The theory of spiritual wives as it appears to the carnal mind may be stated in a few words, since to the carnal mind this mystical doctrine is but a religious and romantic disguise for an abomination known in Boston and New York under the name of free love. This theory is, that a man, who may be either unmarried before the law, or wedded to a woman whom he cannot love as a wife should be loved, shall have the right, in virtue of a higher morality and a more sacred duty than the churches teach him, to go out among the crowd of his female friends and seek a partner in whom he shall find some special fitness for a union with himself; and when he has found such a bride of the soul, that he shall have the further right of courting her even though she may have taken vows as another man's wife and of entering into closer and sweeter relations with her than those which belong to the common earth: all vows on his part and on her part being to this end thrust aside as so much worldly waste." Similar passages to this were read from the book, at considerable length, as the tenets of the Shakers, some of them of very questionable propriety. Quotations were read as to the Ebelians, or followers of Ebel. "In Ebel's system women were to be nearly all in all." At page 137 of this book a description of the Ebelians was given. Ebel was said to be "a very good young man, very handsome and winning; all the girls were in love with him. He wore his hair long: it was dark curling hair, and it fell in ripples of shining coils around his neck; and what was then thought very strange in a male, he parted his hair down the centre of his head like a young lady, and was said to resemble the portraits of St. John." At page 145 he said, "to teach, to scold, to coax, was the woman's part in the female church. They were supposed to understand the masculine nature perfectly; and every man in those circles who wanted guidance, comfort, and instruction, had to wait on them. The ladies are said to have been very hard and searching as to secret sins, and to have wrung confessions from the most unwilling penitents. They are said to have been extremely keen in tracing out any suggestions of disloyal love,” “using their nimble faculties to suggest offences." The authority for this description and of many other passages read of a similar tendency was contained in an appendix to the book printed in German, a translation of which was produced, and Mr. Dixon was cross-examined as to much of this translation whether it was not accurate. His description was that it was a coarse one, though substantially accurate. 66 He was then cross-examined as to a chapter in his book styled "The Abode of Love," in which the author gives a description, in very glowing language, of a visit to the Agapemone in Somersetshire, of its inmates, its church with three ladies in it playing a piano, and a billiard-table, and of Sister Zoe, one of its inmates" one of those rare feminine creatures who lash poets into song, who drive artists to despair, and cause common mortals to risk their souls for love"-" young, lithe, and dressed in the purest taste." " But for a beaming light in her eye, Guercino might have painted such a girl for one of his rapt and mourning angels. A high brow, an oval face, a small mouth and chin, a brown head of hair, pearl-like teeth, and those lustrous orbs." The connexion of this lady with the head of the establishment and the child born to her, and supposed to have been seen by the author running about the place, was described, and the description was said to have been got partly by his observation on a hasty visit of two days, partly from what the inmates told him, and partly from what he had heard outside of the means of Prince, and the measures he had taken to entrap unwary women into his establishment who were possessed of money. "I received," said Mr. Dixon, "from Father Noyes, the founder of Bible Communion in America, a circular complaining that in my heat and haste I had done them some injustice, and Father Noyes said therein that he was disposed to think that indigestion had something to do with it, as the plain truth was that I did not like their living, as they had no meat, tea, coffee, or wine. He also complained of the absence of all mention of his scientific discovery of the doctrine of male continence. I had never heard one word from Father Noyes about that doctrine at Oneida Creek. I do not understand the doctrine, though called by Noyes the first principle of the scheme of communism, theoretically and historically, without which complex marriage never would have been attempted. I believe the circular sent to me has been destroyed, as other similar papers are usually destroyed at the Athenæum office after a time.” Sir John Karslake then read long passages from the plaintiff's works on "Bible Families," "Complex Marriage of its Members to each and to all," "Brother Noyes on Love," in one of which there occurs the expression, “We live well, and do not multiply beyond our wishes." He then read from "Noyes on Spiritual Love," vol. ii., "Spiritual Wives," p. 179, passages relating to Shakerism : |