Sitting of 14 June 1821

CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATION—PETITION OF EDWARD KING.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that he had been intrusted with a petition from an individual who considered himself aggrieved by the Association of which the House had recently heard so much. It was from a person of the name of King, against whom an indictment had been preferred by this Constitutional Association, supported before the grand jury by the evidence of only one witness, Horatio Orton. Indignant at the attempt that had thus been made to render him amenable to the laws, when the indictment was thrown out, Mr. King published his case in the newspapers. This step had induced Mr. Orton to make an affidavit, which the petitioner asserted contained direct falsehoods. He did not know that in a legal point of view, the offence was of that extent; but assuredly in a moral sense Orton had been guilty, if the petitioner were believed, of the crime of perjury. It was said that Orton had inquired of King who was the publisher of the pamphlet on which the prosecution was founded, when he must have known at the time that it was Dolby, because an indictment was preferred against Dolby on the 17th May, and his name as the publisher was on the back of the first part of the work, bought by Orton on 16th May. It seemed quite clear that some person or persons had suborned Orton to what appeared to the petitioner very like perjury. One point was undeniable, viz. that King had committed no crime whatever. When it was inquired for, he had not the objectionable publication in his possession. This was on the 16th of May; consequently, the individual sent out by the Association endeavoured to entrap an innocent man in the commission of a crime. The object of the petitioner was, that some means might be devised by which he should be able to get at the real names of the committee which induced Orton to go to the shop of Mr. King. The case was one of a most atrocious nature; it was an attempt to ruin an industrious man by bringing him into a court of justice for a work of which He was not only not the publisher, but which he had not even in his shop. The individuals forming this association seemed resolved to make crimes if they could not find them ready Made to their hands. The Society for the Suppression of Vice
1182
had stated, that the prosecution of Davidson cost it 177 l. If, then, a prosecution cost a whole body of men so much, what must a defence cost an individual? How were these small traders, selected as victims, to find funds to resist this powerful Association? Prosecutions might be suspended over the heads of innocent men to eternity. In crown prosecutions copies of the indictment or information were to be given to the party accused; but in proceedings instituted by this body, such copies might cost the person charged from 10 l. to 20 l. This was a state of things not to be endured. As to the legality of the society, the solicitor-general had said that the judges of the King's bench had declared that the Association was legal. That was not the fact: the point of legality never came before the court, and the judges had said nothing about it. It had been said, that as a society to prosecute felons was legal, this Association must be so: but the distinction was clear. When a felon was committed, there was a corpus delicti; a criminal act had been done; and the question was, who had done it s but in a case of libel there was no corpus delicti; and it was a question for the jury to decide, whether any offence at all had been committed. Whatever doubts, however, might exist as to the legality of the Association, there could be but one opinion as to its tendency. If its object had been fair and honest, it would have prosecuted Dolby the publisher at once, and not have sent its agent three or four times to the shop of the petitioner. The effect of the Association would unquestionably be, to foment and extend political animosities.
The petition was read, and ordered to be printed.

SCOTCH BURGHS.
Lord A. Hamilton,on presenting the Report of the Committee on the state of the Scotch Burghs, which he was called upon to do as the chairman of that committee, took occasion to observe, that he dissented from the Report, and disapproved of the conduct of the committee, because they had not sufficiently investigated the subject. It was due to himself, ay well as to other members of the committee who concurred with him in sentiment, to make this declaration. This Report was drawn up by others in his unavoidable absence from town, although upon his departure he promised to have a report prepared. He found fault, indeed, not so much with what the committee had done as with what

1183
it omitted to do; but to shew the imperfection of the inquiry which had been gone into, he would move, if there were no objection, for the production of the Minutes of Evidence.
Lord Binningsate, he had no objection to the production of the Minutes. As to the Report it was drawn up in the noble lord's absence, no doubt; but, from the long sitting of the committee, his return could not conveniently be waited for. The committee did not think it necessary to go into the extent of investigation required by the noble lord; but in the report now presented, suggestions were contained, which, if acted upon, would, he had no doubt, remedy all the evils complained of by the petitioners.
Mr. Abercrombyconcurred in what had fallen from lord A. Hamilton, and contended, that the usual courtesy of a committee towards its chairman had been violated.
Sir. R. Fergussonsaid, that, having withdrawn from the committee, he felt it his duty to state the reason which had induced him to do so. The House would recollect that a committee had sat in 1819, to consider the state of the Scotch burghs. Ministers, who wished to keep abuses from the public eye, found that committee about to do rather too much; and when, in 1820, the same subject was again brought forward, they declined renewing the committee of 1819, and substituted one chiefly composed of their own official friends. He did not mean to say that the gentlemen so appointed had not acted conscientiously; but he must say that he found them on all occasions the protectors of abuses.
Mr. K. Douglasdenied that the committee had failed to discharge their duty. If the measures they recommended were carried into effect, every practical inconvenience would, he was satisfied, be removed.
Mr. Humesaid, that the complaint of his noble friend, that he had not been treated with common courtesy, was well-founded. The eight allegations contained in the complaint of the petitioners had all been affirmed, yet they were all lightly treated by the committee. After the labours of three years, no practical benefit would result from them, because a majority of the committee had set themselves against every attempt at, amelioration.
The report was ordered to be printed.

AGRICULTURAL HORSE TAX.
Mr. Curwen,in rising to call the attention of the House to this important subject, said, that the object which he had in view was one most material to the interests of Agriculture. The tax had always been unjust in principle, and oppressive in practice. Formerly, he had felt it to be his duty to propose some substitute to supply the deficiency which the repeal of the tax in question would occasion in the revenue. But things were now in a different state. The right hon. gentleman had since had abundant opportunities of obviating the evil. Not only must the right hon. gentleman have been aware of the extent of the existing agricultural distress, but he must have well known what had passed in the committee appointed to investigate the causes of that agricultural distress which every one acknowledged to be unprecedented in extent. The result of the inquiries of that committee had. been, that although there existed a variety of opinions in it on other parts of the subject, on that of the agricultural distress, and of the necessity of affording speedy relief to that distress, the committee came to an unanimous resolution, that the distress of the country was fully proved. With such a resolution, what would be the impression on the country if it should turn out that parliament throughout the whole session had abstained from taking a single earthly step to afford the relief acknowledged to be indispensable. To the vote of that night, therefore, the country would look, that they might estimate what they might expect from parliament; for, it: Was evident, that if the report of the committee were to be made in the present session, it was too late to found any measure upon it. He put it, therefore, to the House, what answer they would make to their constituents, if they were asked why they did not adopt the proposition which he was about to submit to them? Would it be becoming in them to say, that because they found they could not give all, they therefore refused to give any thing? It was with him a matter of no doubt, that there never could be any prosperity in this country, while agriculture remained in a distressed state. The chancellor of the exchequer had, during the last two months, been repeatedly intreated to reconsider his estimates. He (My. C.) was persuaded that if the session were now to recommence, the majority would declare that those estimates ought to be reduced.

1185
Government ought not to have trusted to any committees; but, taking a view of the state of the country, should have made those retrenchments which would have enabled the House to sacrifice to the agriculturists this boon. In the course of the discussions in the committee, a resolution was agreed to, to instruct the chairman to move for the repeal of this tax; though, subsequently, it was decided not to do so until the report was made. This circumstance had occasioned the delay in his motion. He confidently anticipated that the present decision of the House would be now to begin that work which they must afterwards carry to a much greater length. It was most unjust to call on the agriculturists alone to make sacrifices; let them be made equally by all classes of the community. Was it possible that nearly one half of the whole income of the country could continue to be collected in taxes? Unless some permanent protection could be granted to the agriculturist, the only alternative was to cut down the expenses of our establishment at home and abroad, from the king to the lowest officer in the state. But had any disposition been evinced thus to relieve the burthens of the people? None whatever. It had been stated, that the tax was a trifling one: on the light soil it was not much, but on the heavy soils it amounted to 3 per cent on the rent. It was a tax the principle of which was most unjust, feeing a tax on the plough, and fell most heavily on those who were the least able to bear it; the tax not only bore heard, but exposed the farmer to endless vexations. If a farmer once crossed a horse, he was charged with a pleasure horse, and his ploughman was charged as a groom. These were vexations which ought to be corrected. To show how vexatiously the assessed taxes were levied, he instanced the case of a poor woman in the neighbourhood of Berwick, who having paid sixpence to a man to prune a favourite fruit-tree, was surcharged with an occasional gardener, and her goods were actually sold to pay the tax. Some persons thought it necessary the inferior grounds should go out of cultivation; that he expressly denied. Every acre, in the country ought to be brought into cultivation; for what was the evil which the country at present endured above any: other but want of employment? If there, were an increase of employment, an increased price of the necessaries of life
1186
would be of little moment. Cheap bread without work would at length, he was convinced, be found to be a great evil, as destructive of our manufactures as of our agriculture. The country had a right to demand some sacrifices to relieve it. This was the only remaining opportunity to effect such an object, and he called upon the House, therefore, to concur in his proposition, which was "for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the 43rd and 52nd of Geo. 3rd, as relates to the Duties on Horses and Mules employed in Agriculture only."
Mr. Goochsaid, that if ever there was an unjust and oppressive tax, it was the present. He most strongly recommended the repeal. It was a coarse but true saying, that "you could not have more of a cat than its skin;" and the agriculturists were, in fact, unable to pay the tax. If we could not increase our means, we must diminish our expenditure. He thought the hon. member for Aberdeen, by his indefatigable industry and valuable exertions, had done great service to the country.
Mr. Davenportthought this tax the most oppressive and inexpedient that the ingenuity of man ever suggested; always excepting the tax on salt.
Mr. Cokedeclared that it was quite delightful to hear on this occasion the language which was held by the gentlemen opposite. The compliment paid by the chairman of the agricultural committee to the hon. member for Aberdeen, must be highly gratifying to him. For himself, he would say that since he first came into parliament, he did not remember any gentleman to whom the country was so much indebted as to his hon. friend (Mr. Hume), whose exertions had been as important as they were unremitting.
Mr. Crippssaid, it was impossible that immediate relief could be given to the agriculturists, unless the House was prepared to enact that corn should be raised at once to a certain price. He really believed that labourers in general were much better paid when wheat was at a higher price than they were at present. The great object, however, was to keep prices as much as possible on a level, and to prevent fluctuations. The repeal of this tax would be received by the agriculturists as a boon.
Mr. Baringsaid, he was one of these who had used their best endeavours to enforce retrenchment and economy upon ministers during the late grants, but un-

1187
fortunately without effect. Those extravagant grants having however been carried, be could not agree to weaken the revenue by repealing the tax in question. And here he could not help expressing his surprise that gentlemen should expect to return to their constituents with a good grace, after having supported the whole of the present burthens on the country, merely because they advocated the repeal of this solitary tax. Upon no one of all the numerous divisions which had taken place upon the reductions proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen, were the names of the hon. member for Suffolk, or the other gentlemen who opposed this tax, to be found. Yet the whole of those gentlemen had advocated retrenchment, notwithstanding their having supported every grant, however extravagant, proposed by ministers. The first duty of the House was, to look to the expenditure of the country, and that being voted they were bound to provide for it. Convinced as he was of the distress of the agricultural classes, no man could feel more anxious to supply a remedy if a remedy could be supplied; but the impression on his mind was, that for the present the evil must remedy itself. He pointed out the necessity of keeping up a clear sinking fund, and showed the importance of preserving the public credit inviolate, that the government might be able to meet any emergency that might arise. Under all the circumstances of the case, he could not vote for the motion.
Sir W. W. Wynnsupported the motion, and urged the importance of relieving the landed interest.
Mr. Benett,of Wiltshire, considered the tax to be an impost on the implements of labour, and most unjustand oppressive. He wondered how those could support such a tax who were in favour of cheap bread and opposed to a Corn bill. Measures must be taken for the relief of the agricultural interest: He hoped the honesty of the House would always make them anxious to keep faith with the public creditor; but there was a vulgar adage—" We cannot rob a naked man of a shirt."
Mr. W. Burrellsupported the motion, not from a feeling that it would afford relief, but because it was an unjust tax, and operated rated more severely upon the holders of bad than of good lands. He had supported? ministers during the war, for the had been said by ministersw, "Only
1188
enable us to go on with the war, and you shall be relieved when a peace is obtained." Yet, to this day, they paid the came taxes as in time of war; all but the property-tax; and that he supposed they would-soon have again. Had any reduction been made this year? He allowed that 10,000 men had been reduced; but those had been raised for putting down the riots in the manufacturing districts; and the moment the riots had ceased, they ought to have been reduced. It was impossible for things to go on as they were. The taxes had risen to an amount that would prove the utter ruin of the country. Economy was absolutely necessary of every branch of our expenditure; and they whose salaries had been increased inconsequence of the high prices, ought now to suffer a corresponding reduction.
Lord Miltonexpressed his great satisfaction at the speech of the hon. gentleman who had spoken last. He would go still further, and call on the whole country to stop the career of taxation. He put it to his hon. friend the member for Taunton, whether for the sake of increasing the fictitious value of stock, the grinding taxation which encroached on the capital that formed the foundation of credit, ought to be endured? He put it to his powerful mind, whether it would not be better to leave in the pockets of the people what increased and fructified with them, than, by taking all away, to ruin them and annihilate the revenue? There were other taxes which ought at the same time to be taken off from the manufacturing interests. The noble lord here begged leave to read, in 1821, an extract from the royal speech in 1721, recommending the taking off taxes from the raw material. He agreed that agriculture was the bases but what was the value of the base, if the shaft of manufactures and the capital of commerce were destroyed? Would they bring this happy land, where manufactures and commerce had spread all the arts, refinements, and elegancies of life, and scattered over the face of the country, rich and populous cities, into the condition of agricultural Poland? Other taxes ought to be repealed as Well as the tax on horses, but especially the tax-oft foreign wool. The four million sinking fund might as well be employed in raising the price of land, as the fictitious; value of stock. If this motion should be successful he would move an instruction to the committee to receive a clause for re-

1189
pealing the tax on foreign wool. His hon. friend, by this motion, proposed a relief to the extent of 480,000 l. He (Lord M.) would in addition propose relief to the extent of 180,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the present question involved not only the repeal of 500,000 l. but of every tax of which a particular class of persons might complain. It was the begining and opening of a general assault on the finances of the country—an assault to be varied by every member, according to the interests of his constituents, or his own views of political economy. If such an assault were successful, no minister could support the financial system of this country. That system had been carried to an artificial height, and it could be supported only by constant care, by great sacrifices on the part of the Country, and by the firm and he would say, magnanimous resolution of parliament. This tax had been described by some hon. members to be but a drop in the bucket. Were they, then, for such an object, to encroach on the consolidated fund? Hon. gentlemen had said, that government showed no disposition to practise economy; to that charge he would say, that the estimates for the present year exhibited proofs of a reduction in the public expenditure unexampled at any former period. The House were told that by repealing certain taxes, ministers would be driven to acts of economy: he could assure gentlemen that such steps were unnecessary. The ministers of the Crown were determined to adopt every possible plan of economy, and the estimates for the next year would be as low as could possibly be consistent with the public security; further than that ministers would not go. With respect to the tax in question, it should be recollected that it was but a very inconsiderable part of the expense attending the implements and machinery of the agriculturist. It was also worthy of consideration, that the expense of the farmer, as far as regarded the maintenance of cattle, had considerably decreased. He could not agree to the repeal of the tax, and would move the previous question.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that a more unsatisfactory statement he had never heard from any minister. That the public credit ought to be supported, was a proposition which no one denied; but the question was as to the best means of supporting
1190
the public credit. Was it by keeping up m oppressive system of taxation? The right hon. gentleman said, that the farmer vas better able to bear the tax on agricultural horses, because the provendor for those horses was cheaper than formerly. Now, to put the argument in plain language, it amounted to this—that the farmer was better able to bear his burthens because his means had been diminished—because the price of his produce had considerably fallen. The right hon. gentleman had cautioned the House against interfering with the public credit. To this he would say, that the revenue of the country was directed to two objects—first, to the payment of the public creditor; secondly to meet the expenses of the enormous establishments which ministers thought fit to maintain. Would it affect the public creditor if these establishments were lessened? He contended that it would materially benefit him. The right hon. gentleman had also said, that ministers next year would still further reduce the estimates. Now, if ministers had the means of doing so, how could it injure the public credit, by repealing oppressive taxes, to make ministers practise by anticipation that system of economy which they were pledged to adopt for the next year. The best means of compelling ministers to practise economy would be to lighten taxation. By their own showing, they had a surplus of four millions; and he submitted that it would be much more beneficial to the country, instead of keeping that surplus, to repeal taxes to the amount of it, and to apply that sum to the service of the year. He hailed the return of gentlemen on the other side to a better estimation of the state of the country; he hailed their conviction as sincere, and trusted it would be lasting. He believed the difficulties felt by the agricultural interests would subside by means of the equalization of prices; but he believed that that very equalization would make it impossible to pay the present establishment. Economy was therefore the only resource: "Magnum vectigal est parsimonia"
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that if all the propositions made by gentlemen opposite were acceded to, the financial system of the country would be completely broken down. He was fully aware of the difficulties under which the agricultural interest was labouring, and could he believe that the repeal of this tax would

1191
afford any material relief to the farmer, he would, notwithstanding the general objection which he felt to interfere with financial arrangements, vote in favour of the motion. Not one of the witnesses who had been examined by the committee had stated that the repeal of the tax would afford any relief to the farmer. He had looked at the petitions, 112 in number, which had been referred to that committee, and he could find but one in which the repeal of the tax was prayed for. Prior to 1815 the tax was imposed equally on all horses employed in agriculture; but his right hon. friend at that period reduced the tax from has to 2s. 6d. on all horses employed on farms under the yearly rent of 200 l. The tax did not fall exclusively on the farmer; but, like all others, it equally affected the consumer, and the general capital of the Country. The observations of the noble lord seemed to involve the principle of a breach of national faith towards the creditors of the country. Did not the noble lord think it was good policy to keep faith with the public creditor, when it was possible that the government might, in the event of a new war, be again driven to apply to the capitalists of the country for money to enable them to meet the exigencies of the state? He could not imagine how hon. members who had voted for the establishment of the sinking fund, could consistently support the repeal of particular taxes without proposing any thing by way of substitute. He was satisfied that agriculture could flourish only in conjunction with commerce and manufactures; and could not agree that the country was borne down with taxation. Admitting that its pressure was severely felt, he doubted not that the country would be able to surmount all its difficulties. Its capital had been progressively increasing for many years, and it was now greater than at any former period. He did not make these observations with the view of deprecating a reduction of the expenditure; he was as anxious for such reduction as any b. member could be.
Sir C. Burrellopposed the tax, on the ground that it was oppressive and unjust.
Mr. Maberlythought the chancellor of the exchequer had no right to call upon the country gentlemen to support him in this tax, especially as he had broken the promise of economy which he had made to them at the time that he imposed it.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that this was a tax' that fell unequally in all cases, and most unequally upon those lands which were least able to bear it. He was asked to give a substitute for it, supposing it to be repealed. This he was not bound to give; and he could assure ministers that the only substitute which they should have for it with his consent should be parsimony and economy.
The previous question being put, the House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 113. The main question was then put, and agreed to; and a Bill was brought in by Mr. Curwen, for the repeal of the Husbandry Horses Duties, and read a first time.

BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH'S EXAMINATION QUESTIONS.
Lord Kingrose to call the attention of the House to a case in which the rights of the rectors of the church of England were directly involved, and which also affected the rights of the great body of the clergy. He held in his hand the petition of the rev. Henry William Neville, rector of Blatherwick, a gentleman who had had recourse to this mode of seeking redress with great reluctance, and who would not have brought his complaint before their lordships if he could have obtained redress in any other manner. The petitioner held two livings in the diocese of Peterborough, to, one of which it was necessary he should present a curate. The rev. John Green was accordingly presented. He came forward with proper testimonials of character and ability. He had already signed the 39 articles, and was ready to be examined and to subscribe them again. This, however, was not sufficient to satisfy the right rev. prelate opposite (the bishop of Peterborough), who insisted upon answers to 87 questions previously framed and printed, and on refusal to answer them, signified his

1167
determination to exclude the applicant from the curacy. This determination the petitioner remonstrated against; but the reverend prelate peremptorily refused to relinquish his demand. He then appealed to the archbishop of Canterbury, to whom he wrote on the 19th of June, but received no answer until the 7th of August, having in the interval written a second time to request a prompt decision. The archbishop, in his letter, after apologizing for the delay in replying, by stating that he had been more than usually occupied, observed that there was no doubt of the right of examination belonging to the bishop of the diocese, and that that right was so obvious, that he supposed the applicant must have since complied with what the bishop required of him. This, he (lord King) observed, was by no means a proper answer, as no grounds for the opinion given were stated. As the right rev. prelate acted as a judge, it certainly would have been more satisfactory had he stated the reason on which his decision was founded. It was contended, he knew, that the bishop of the diocese possessed a complete discretionary power. It might be so; for he confessed that he did not well understand the canon law on the subject, and could only reason from analogy. He was told that it was very difficult to ascertain what the limits of the ecclesiastical powers were; but with regard to the question of examination, he must suppose that a right rev. prelate, in giving judgment on it, must consider himself to be deciding in the character of a judge. He must be bound by some rules and principles, otherwise the decision was arbitrary. If a judge in Westminster-hall committed error, or was guilty of abuse, his conduct could be brought under the consideration of that House by a writ of error; and surely there must be some remedy in the case of misconduct by an episcopal judge. He thought that the power of examination was very properly given to the reverend bench opposite, with the view of ascertaining the qualification of the persons who were candidates for holy orders, or for institution; but the 87 questions of the right rev. prelate opposite, which were printed, sent by post, and answers desired to be returned in the same manner, could have no reference to ability; they were a test and nothing else. The noble lord read some of the questions, and argued that from their leading nature it was im-
1168
possible to regard them as any thing else than a test; and if the right rev. prelate meant them as a test, his objection then was, that the law had provided a much better one, and that neither the right rev. prelate nor the whole of the rev. bench opposite,' had any right to impose another. The 39 articles were intended by the law to draw a line, to a certain extent, about the church, and no other authority was entitled to alter that boundary. This was creating quite a new power. The existing law said to candidates, "You shall not enter the church unless you subscribe the 39 articles;" but in addition to this, the right rev. prelate said, unless you take another test of my framing, I will not institute you." The answer which the right rev. prelate had given to the petitioner's letter admitted that he had established a new standard for himself; for in it he observed, that with a knowledge of his standard, the government had appointed him to one bishoprick and translated him to another. As this was the case, he should be glad to know whether the 87 questions of the right rev. prelate had been adopted as a test by ministry or not. But why bring forward this argument of the new standard having been adopted by the right rev. prelate's patrons? If he had had any convincing argument, it would have been better to have used it, than to have overwhelmed the unfortunate petitioner with the opinion of his patron. This was telling him that the most powerful persons in the country, and those who might have ultimately to decide on his case, were secured against him. He was informed that he might seek what remedy he pleased: but it was made known to him beforehand that his application would be of no avail. This new standard might most seriously affect the prospects in life of persons educated for the church, with a view to settling within a particular diocese. He had heard this new standard of doctrine described as cobwebs for catching Calvinists, and that it could give pain to nobody but Calvinists. The comparison did not appear perfectly correct; for flies sometimes escaped from a spider even after being entangled in his toils, but with this cobweb the unfortunate Calvinist must unavoidably fall under the fangs of his powerful antagonist. He regretted that such a practice had been adopted, for nothing was more likely to create a schism in the church. Another prelate might

1169
choose to put a different construction on the 39 articles from that given to them by the right rev. prelate opposite; and thus a spirit of dissension would be excited. It was therefore most important that the 39 articles, which might justly be called articles of peace, should be the only standard of doctrine. He referred their lordships to the history of the 39 articles, and observed, that there was reason to believe that they had been drawn up in a Calvinistic sense. Upon the whole, he thought that a prelate of the church of England might be content with the articles of religion as they had been drawn up by the reformers of the church. But the conduct of the right rev. prelate was not only calculated to disturb the peace of the church, but that of a great part of the community. He had not only framed these 87 questions for clergymen, but had addressed a set of questions, of a very extraordinary nature, to the churchwardens of his diocese. Among other things it was asked, "Does your minister lead a sober and exemplary life? This might be put to a farmer not much inclined to speak well of the clergyman of the parish, or the answer might depend upon the churchwarden's notions on the subject of evangelical doctrine. There were also questions put as to adulterers and fornicators, and whether there were common swearers in the parish. This was a most extraordinary kind of inquiry. Evil-speaking, lying, and slandering were condemned by Scripture; but here the churchwardens of a whole diocese were invited to speak all the ill they could of their neighbours. The putting of such questions might, for aught he knew, be very legal; but what he complained of was the imprudence of circulating them. The invitation to men to pry into and condemn the conduct of their neighbours could not fail to give excitement to bad passions. When there was a general outcry of danger to religion and the church, he should have expected that every one would have seen the impropriety of such a proceeding; and certainly he never could have supposed that the right rev. prelate, who he was told was the greatest polemical writer of the age, would have been guilty of the imprudence of endeavouring to force on the clergy of the country a new standard of doctrine.
The Bishop of Peterboroughsaid:—
* Dr. Herbert Marsh. From the original edition printed for Rivingtons.
1170
My lords; As the petitioner has already excited a prejudice in his favour by printing his case for distribution more than two months ago, I have the stronger claim on your lordships for a patient hearing, while I am pleading my cause in your lordships' House. From the recital of the petition, it appears, that in the summer of 1820, the petitioner, as rector of Blatherwick, in the county of Northampton, nominated a person to that curacy, who consequently applied for my licence; that the licence was refused him, because he refused to be examined, as required by the 48th canon; that the petitioner then appealed to the archbishop, who decided for the right of examination, which had been contested, first by the petitioner's intended curate, and then by the petitioner himself. Here the petitioner stops short in his recital. But your lordships should be informed of what was done, on the receipt of his grace's answer. The petitioner nominated another person to the curacy of Blatherwick, this second nomination bearing date the 20th of Sept., 1820. The person then nominated submitted without hesitation to the examination required, which, as I expected from his readiness to be examined, proved very satisfactory. And as the testimony to his moral character was no less satisfactory, than the proof which he had given of his sound doctrine, he was licensed to the curacy of Blatherwick. He is still the licensed curate there; I have never heard any complaint of him; and I have reason, to believe, that the parishioners have no desire to change him. Your lordships therefore may judge of my surprise, when on the 29th of March, 1821, more than six months after the last nomination, I received a letter from the petitioner, informing me, that he intended to bring my refusal to license his first nominated curate by petition before the legislature. But from a comparison of this petition with the letters which the petitioner wrote to the archbishop, and which he himself has printed, I now perceive that the object, for which he then contended, is at present entirely abandoned. The right of examination for a curate's licence, which he then contested, is now unequivocally admitted. He says in this petition, that a bishop's right to examine a curate, which had been the subject of a former correspondence, "is not intended to be denied." He now objects only to the mode of examination, or, as he calls it

1171
in his petition, "the nature of that peculiar mode." Now, my lords, my mode of examination is a very common mode; an examination by question and answer. I propose certain questions, as well to curates, as to candidates for holy orders, that from the answers to those questions, I may learn the religious opinions of the former before I license them; and the religious opinions of the latter, before I ordain them. And, my lords, it is very necessary that a bishop should obtain this knowledge. But then the questions—the questions, which I employ for this purpose, whether they are too searching for those who dislike them, or whatever else may be the cause, are questions, which, according to the petitioner, ought not to be endured. He prays your lordships to take them into your "grave consideration," and to afford such relief to those who are affected by them, as to your lordships' wisdom may seem good.
The case therefore now submitted to your lordships is a case of pure theology. For the questions, which the petitioner submits to your grave consideration, relate entirely to the doctrines contained in the Liturgy and Articles. Now, my lords an inquiry into subjects of this description, is an inquiry, which I believe your lordships' House has never instituted on any former occasion. The Liturgy and Articles derive indeed their authority, as standards of faith, from acts of parliament, which require subscription to them. But if it were deemed expedient to revise the Liturgy and Articles, the revision would be referred either to the convocation, or to commissioners specially appointed by the Crown. For an inquiry into the truth or falsehood of religious doctrines is not the proper business of either House of Parliament; though it would be presumptuous to say, what they shall, or shall not do. Let us suppose then, that the said theological inquiry were instituted in your lordships' House, and let us farther suppose, that the inquiry ended in this result, that it would be very desirable to make an alteration in regard to the said questions, I apprehend, my lords, even in this case, that your lordships House could not, consistently with the constitution of the Established Church, Interfere for the purpose of correcting them and if not for the purpose of correcting them, Much less for the entire removal of them. My lords, I will state the grounds of this opinion. The
1172
48th canon, which requires an examination of curates before they are licensed, has prescribed no mode of examination whatever. It has left therefore the mode o examination to the discretion of the b hop: and, my lords, it has wisely done so For in every diocese, the bishop is most likely to be acquainted with the peculiar wants of his diocese; most likely to understand, and best able to judge of irregularities either in doctrine or in discipline, to which his diocese may be exposed; best able therefore to determine what kind of examinations will most effectually check them. The examination required for a curate's licence, is required for the purpose of ascertaining, whether his doctrine is sound doctrine;" the expression used in acurate's licence. Now the mode of examination, which is best adapted to such a purpose, is unquestionably that, which is best calculated to detect deviations from sound doctrine. And this is the object of my examination questions. These questions; my lords are well adapted to the present wants of my diocese: they operate as a check on some partially prevailing irregularities and in the use of these questions I exercise, I believe very usefully exercise, the discretion entrusted to me by the 48th canon. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that these questions are objectionable. My lords, I make this supposition merely for the sake of argument. For the very same questions, which I now use, I have used almost ever since I have been a bishop: and though they have been well considered by very sound divines, I have never heard any objection to them, till a clamour was excited against them about ten months ago, by a few persons in the diocese of Peterborough. But even on the supposition, that they are objectionable (which however I confidently deny), I again ask your lordships, whether it would be consistent with the constitution of the Established Church to grant the prayer of this petition. The canons are laws for the bishops and clergy, which having passed the two Houses of Convocation were ratified by the royal assent. If therefore the 48th canon shall be so altered, as to remove the discretionary power which it now leaves to the bishops the alteration must be made by the same authority, which made the canon itself And surely, my lords, as that canon remains in force, you will riot

1173
endeavour to deprive a bishop of that discretionary power, which he exercises by virtue of that canon., But, my lords, the prayer of this petition is not confined to examinations for a curate's licence. It goes much farther. The petitioner prays also the interference of your lordships in the examination of candidates for holy orders. The words "candidates for holy orders" are the words, with which the prayer of this petition is concluded. Now, my lords, I believe that since the Church has existed, no temporal authority, either before or, since the Reformation, has ever interfered with the bishops of this country, as to their made of examination for holy orders. Since then I have already shown, that, consistently with the constitution of the Established Church, your lordships could not interfere even with an examination for a curate's licence, it follows à fortiori that the prayer of the petition cannot be granted, as it equally affects the examinations for holy orders. I can come therefore to no other conclusion, than that this petition ought not to be received, let the allegations of it be what they may. But if it be thought unfair to dispose of a petition without any regard to its allegations, I am ready, my lords, to put the issue of it on the allegations alone. These allegations are directed against my examination questions; and as those questions are perhaps not generally, known to your lordships, I beg permission to say a few words on the nature and use of them. I have already observed, that they are proposed, as well to curates, as to candidates for holy orders, that from the answers to those questions, I may learn the religious opinions of the former before I license them, and the religious opinions of the latter, before I ordain them. The questions are constructed on the following plan. They are arranged under nine heads or chapters, most of which have the same titles, with the articles of faith, to which the chapters correspond. With the exception of the eighth chapter, which refers to the Collect for Christmas Day, they relate as well to the Articles as to the Liturgy. Every chapter, without exception, contains an express reference, either to the Liturgy or to the Articles. Nor do the questions themselves relate to any other doctrines, than the doctrines of the Liturgy and the Articles. My lords under such circumstances there is only one possible motive, which; I can have, in, the proposal of these
1174
questions, namely, to ascertain from the answers to them, whether the religious opinions of the person examined; accord with the doctrines of the Established, Church. But even if the thing did not speak for itself, no doubt ought to been—tertained, after the explanation, which, I have repeatedly given, unless I must lose the privilege which is claimed by all men the privilege of explaining my own meaning. Nor can the petitioner pretend, that the explanation, which I have given, has never come to his own knowledge. He has printed the explanation. I gave, it in a letter written to the person, whose refusal to be examined gave rise to the petitioner's complaint, and which the petitioner himself has printed in a pamphlet, intituled "Official Correspondence." At page 5 is the following passage, relating to the standard of doctrine set forth, by the authority of the Church." I sent you a set of questions, to which I required your answers, that I might, learn from those answers, whether you kept to that standard, or not; and with the intent of granting you a licence, if you did keep to that standard, but with the intent, of refusing a licence, if you did not keep to that standard." Since then the petitioner has printed this explanation, he must know the use and intent of these examination questions. He must know that they refer to the standard set forth by the authority of the Church; and that the answers to them are tried by that standard alone. Yet the petitioner, with this knowledge of my real purpose, has, ventured to assure your lordships, that I have set up a" new standard," a "private standard," an" arbitrary standard;" and that in consequence of this new, this private, this arbitrary standard, the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies are superseded. That I may not misrepresent his meaning by taking words out of their connexion, I will quote the whole of the sentence to which I allude. "Hence it is, that the legal securities for sound, doctrine, which refer not to any private Standard, but to the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, are superseded." If therefore I have set up a new, or a private standard, by which the legal securities for sound doctrine are superseded, and those legal securities for sound doctrine consist in the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, I must have introduced a new standard, by which the old standard is superseded, Nor is this the whole of the mischief which,

1175
according to the petitioner, arises from these questions. I have not only introduced a new standard, a private standard, an arbitrary standard, but a standard to which I require subscription. His own words are "the acknowledgment of this new standard is the hinge, on which alone the curate's acceptance or rejection is made to turn: "and he adds, that "subscription to the entire document must be made." Such, my lords, are the allegations on which the prayer of this petition is founded. And if they contained one particle of truth, it would be the duty, not of your lordships, but of the convocation to interfere. It would be the duty of the convocation to compel a bishop, who could be so regardless of his most solemn obligations, to return to the standard, which he had thus disgracefully forsaken. But, my lords, I have not forsaken the standard of the Established Church. My offence consists in my unwearied endeavours to prevent its being forsaken. Those endeavours have been successful: or your lordships would never have heard of this petition. But, my lords, I must not merely deny the charges: I must confute them. And first, my lords, I will reply to the charge of requiring subscription, "subscription" (as the petitioner says) "to the entire document," which document, as he further Says, contains a new standard of faith. Now the document, as he calls it, consists of a string of questions; and subscription to questions would be so absurd, that no man in his sober senses could require it. The name of the person examined can be affixed only to his answers. If therefore the signing of his name to his own answers is a subscription to a new standard of faith, it is at the utmost only a subscription to his own standard of faith. But, my lords, the signature to those answers is required for a very different, a very obvious, and a very common purpose. It is required merely as an acknowledgment on the part of the person examined, that the answers, which are sent to me, are really his answers. And this signature, which neither is, nor can be, required for any other purpose, than merely to authenticate the answers, is represented by the petitioner, as subscription to a document setting forth a new standard of faith. Really, my lords, I could not have supposed, that so gross a perversion of the truth could ever have found its way into a petition to the House of Lords.
1176
I will, now consider what proof the petitioner can bring, that my standard of doctrine really is a new, a private, and an arbitrary standard. He bestows indeed these titles, and very liberally bestows them, on my examination questions: but the calling of a thing either by this or by that name does not; determine its real character, unless it be rightly so called. And; my lords, I am really at a loss to comprehend, how a string of questions can be considered as a standard at all. They afford indeed a test of doctrine, inasmuch as the answers to them are tried, but tried by no other standard, than the standard set forth by the authority of the Church. It is such a perversion of terms to give the name of standard to mere questions, that the charge preferred by the petitioner, if it can be established at all, can be established only by a consideration of the answers. Even if the questions lead to the answers, nay, my lords, if it be true that the questions imply the answers, it will still be the answers, and not the questions, which must be made the subjects of trial. After all then the matter at issue comes simply to this. Do I try the answers to my questions by the old and established standard, the Liturgy and Articles: or do I try them by some new some private, some arbitrary standard? My lords, if no credit is to be given to my own solemn declaration, that I acknowledge no other standard of faith, than the standard of the Established Church, a standard which I acknowledge, because it accords with Holy Scripture; and if that solemn declaration derives no support from the express references to the Liturgy and Articles, contained in every chapter, under which those questions are arranged, it was incumbent on the petitioner to produce some example, in which the answers to my questions really had been tried by some new, some private, some arbitrary standard. If such examples exist, they are very easily found. My examination questions are not answered in a corner. I do not give them to be answered in my presence, and then pocket the paper, without giving the person examined an opportunity of making a transcript. No, my lords; the questions are always sent to the persons to be examined who give the answers at their leisure. If, on the receipt of the answers, I find any which are at variance with, the doctrines of the

1177
Church, I never reject; without previous remonstrance. I show in what manner the answer differs from the doctrine, of the Liturgy and Articles: I have sometimes succeeded in recalling persons, to the standard, which they had unadvisedly forsaken: and those only have beep finally rejected, who have persevered in answers, which were irreconcilable with the doctrines of the Church as explained in its Liturgy and. Articles, according, to their literal and grammatical meaning. My conduct therefore towards the persons examined has always been so open and undisguised, that if the charge preferred by the petitioner were true, a proof of it might easily be given. No proof has been given and under such, circumstances the absence of proof shows the impossibility of proof. I will not retort on the petitioner and say, that by his endeavours to excite suspicion as to my standard of doctrine, he has only excited suspicion in regard to his own but this, my lords, I will confidently say, that I have never in a single instance departed from the standard of the Established Church. And if I have never employed any other standard, than that which is set forth by the authority of the Church, the remaining charge, that I have set up a standard which supersedes the Liturgy and Articles falls of itself to the ground. My lords, I have now shown, that the three principal allegations, the allegations on which the prayer of the petition depends, namely, that I employ a new standard of faith, that I require subscription to this new standard of faith, and that this new standard supersedes the Liturgy and Articles, are allegations utterly devoid of truth.
Having now refuted the chief allegations of this petition, the allegations on which the prayer of it depends, I will not detain your lordships with many observations on those which are of minor importance. But, as the petitioner lays some stress on the interpretation of the Liturgy and Articles, which in the present age are by different persons very differently explained, and very differently applied, it is necessary that I should take some notice of his objections. When I interpret the Liturgy and Articles, the petitioner observes, that such interpretation is the result only of private opinion; and that private opinions, though the opinions of a bishop are not "authoritative," the term used in his petition. Now, my lords, it is perfectly true, that whether the rector of
1178
Blatherwick, or, the bishop of diocese interprets the Liturgy and Article, their interpretations are equally, excluded from the claim to be authoritative. But does the petitioner therefore imagine, that there are no rules of interpretation. whether the Liturgy and Articles are explained according to the plain, literal, and grammatial meaning of the words, or whether meaning of the words, or whether meanings are ascribed to the words which they were never intended to convey. My lords, m rules of interpretation are well-known to the public from my Lectures on Interpretation. And the principles maintained in those Lectures must afford convincing; proof, that no one who. is examined by my questions, can have any thing to apprehend from, his answers to them, unless he himself departs from the just rules of interpretation, and ascribes meanings to words, which they were never, intended to bear. But if the petitioner, by his objections to private interpretation, would exclude examination in the Liturgy and Articles; if he means, that bishops should be satisfied with subscription to the. Liturgy and Articles, and never venture to ask any questions about the meaning of them, he argues in opposition to the right, which he had previously admitted. He forgets also, that the canons require both subscription and examination. And, my lords, if candidates for holy orders are not examined, and closely examined, as to their religious opinions, if amidst the prevailing irregularity of doctrine, subscription to the Liturgy and Articles is made the sole criterion, by which a bishop shall judge of sound doctrine, a similar, though not the same effect, will be produced in this country, which has been already produced in some parts of Switzerland, where there are clergy, who subscribe to the creed of Calvin, and preach the doctrines, of Socinus.
My lords, I can find nothing else in this petition that merits the least attention. For as to the comparison of my Examination Questions with the Lambeth Articles, to which they have no resemblance either in matter, or in manner; or as to the irrelevant epithets of "uncanonical" and" unconstitutional," which the, petitioner, bestows on these questions; or as to the complaint, that they are useless, as a test of ability, when they are intended as a, test of doctrine, and form only a preliminary exami-

1179
nation for holy orders; or that they are connected questions, as if they had better be desultory; or that they are put in such a manner as to indicate ray own opinion, as if it were a hardship on candidates for holy orders to know what answers were likely to be approved, they are either frivolous in themselves, or have no bearing on the prayer of the petition. But as this prayer is concluded in so solemn a manner, as might induce your lordships to conclude, that by the granting of this prayer, the whole body of clergy in my diocese, as well as candidates for holy ordei-s, would be relieved from a grievous burden, I will briefly state to your lordships the amount of the evil (if it be an evil), which has been hitherto produced by these questions. During the whole time that I have used these questions, the number of persons, who have been refused ordination in consequence of their answers to them, amounts to one. The number of curates, who have been refused a licence in consequence of their answers to these questions, amounts to one also. The number of curates, who have been refused a licence, because they refused to answer at all, amounts to two; namely, the intended curate of Blatherwick, and a person who came into my diocese about the same time, for the purpose of becoming curate of Burton Latimer. But as the right of examination, which these two persons contested, is now acknowledged by the petitioner himself, the refusal to license them can no longer be considered as a grievance. There remains then one curate and one candidate for orders. And this is the mighty grievance for which the House of Lords is to be set in motion. It is true that these questions may, in one respect, have tended to the exclusion of more. They may have prevented applications, as well for ordination, as for licences; because wherever an irregularity of doctrine exists, these questions seldom fail to detect it. But herein lies their utility; a utility, which is proved by the very clamour, that has been raised against them. For though they are disliked by the petitioner, and by others who think like himself, I can confidently assert, that they are approved by the great body of toy clergy are approved, my lords, because they are a check on fanaticism, from which the church, in this country, has more to apprehend, than from any danger, that now besets it. My lords, will conclude by advert-
1180
ing to the two principal points, on which I have shown, that the fate of this petition must rest. I have shown in the first place, that the prayer of it could not be granted by your lordships, consistently with the constitution of the Established Church, whatever were the allegations on which it were founded. And I have shown in the second place, that even if the issue of its be put on the allegations, the allegations, on' which the prayer of the petition entirely depends, are entirely destitute of truth. And now, my lords, having said what; was necessary for my own defence, I leave; it to your lordships to determine, whether the petition shall be received, or not.
The Archbishop of Canterburystated, that the application made by the petitioner to him, was not in the form of an appeal, but merely a letter inquiring whether the bishop could be justified is the conduct he pursued or not? Some unavoidable delay had taken place in giving an answer; and when given, the answer was, that the 48th canon empowered and directed the bishop to examine all applicants for admission into his diocese.
Lord Calthorperespected the character and talents of the right rev. prelate; but was of opinion, that the conduct be had pursued was calculated to disturb the peace of the Church, and to endanger the ascendancy of the Protestant Establishment, by the revival of controversial points.
The Earl of Harrowbydid not see any practical object which could be gained by the reception of the present petition. It was inconsistent with the charity of Christians to suppose that the church intended do exclude Calvinists; but he did not see how parliament could now be appealed to.
Earl Greythought their lordships had the power of applying a remedy in a case of this kind, and that redress could sometimes be obtained from no other quarter. The mode of examination aodpted by the right rev. prelate appeared to him to be extremely dangerous to the peace of the Church.
The Marquis of Lansdownadmitted the expediency of empowering the right reverend bench to examine persons applying for admission in their dioceses. But though he admitted the right, be must my it might be abused, and for the purpose of asserting the right of the House to interfere, he would vote in favour of the motion, that the Petition be laid upon the table.
The motion was then put, and negatived.