Sitting of 7 June 1822

YORKSHIRE ELECTION POLLS BILL.
Mr. Wynn moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Chalonersaid, it was a remarkable circumstance, that those who advocated the measure had no connexion with the county of York, and therefore could receive no injury if it were carried. On the other hand, the various interests in the county of York which would be effected by it felt no inclination to support the measure. That which principally created his hostility to the bill was the direct and gross injury which it would inflict on the exercise of the elective franchise. If the electors had committed

847
an infraction of any act of parliament, it would perhaps be right to visit them with this measure. But he knew not what they had done to merit such an infliction; and, therefore, he should move as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Ramsdencould perceive no benefit which the bill was likely to produce, Out was confident that its effects would be mischievous. The voice of the great body of the Yorkshire electors was decidedly against it. He held in his hand a statement of the sentiments of the grand jury on the subject. Of 22 members 21 were present when the expression of their opinion took place. Of these 21 members, 17 decided against the bill, and, four reserved their opinion. Three of this latter number had since given their opinion against this measure, and one gentleman, who was absent at the time, was supposed to be hostile to it. The only one in favour of the bill was the county treasurer. It would have a baneful effect on the elective franchise. As the law now stood, he had four votes for the county of York; but if this measure were agreed to, he should only have two.
Mr. Wilberforceconsidered this question as one of very high importance. A variety of opinions existed as to the best mode of popular representation. Some wished to confine the elective franchise to large counties, towns, and districts; others were desirous of extending it to places of smaller consequence. From the extent of its population, and its diversity of character, all those varieties of opinion were to be found in the county of York, which might be said to constitute a little empire. He was, however, entirely in favour of having future elections for that county carried on as they had formerly been. The feeling of constitutional importance which arose from an election so conducted was of no small value in the support of public liberty. To know that by their proceedings at a great election, they gave a tone to the rest of the country, was exceedingly pleasing to the people, and was a principle which they valued in the extreme. On the importance of keeping this stimulating principle alive, the late Mr. Fox had dilated in public and private company; and his opinion, he was convinced, would be treated with respect. The bill of the right hon. gentleman would have a contrary effect. The right hon. gentleman conceived that the
848
county of York was so large and populous, that the election of members by a portion of it would be sufficient to satisfy the ambition even of those who were most fond of popular applause, while it would prevent the evils arising from a great and expensive contest. This proved to him that the right hon. gentleman was not, acquainted with the local circumstances of Yorkshire. If the great extent of a county were to be assigned as a reason for making such a division, where were they to stop? Why should not Devonshire or Lancashire be divided? If the reason were good for any thing, he knew not what boundary could assigned to the innovation. The same course might be pursued with respect to great and populous cities. To say that such or such a portion of electors was of sufficient importance to introduce a member to that House, was to let a principle into their system of legislation better calculated to justify the bold experiments hi representation which were hourly recommended, than any other plan he had yet heard of. The great expense of a contest for York, shire was one of the reasons adduced in support of this bill; but as great an expense had been incurred even in borough elections. Small places, as Waterloo and Agincourt, were sometimes the theatres of great actions; and elections for small towns and boroughs had frequently created immense expense. Two or three noble families had, he believed, been ruined by contested elections for Northampton; but no one had thought it necessary on that account to divide the district. Any attempt to make popular election a sort of closet or private affair, instead of a proceeding that would bring forward the feelings, passions, and energies of men, ought to be condemned, because it militated against public liberty. He loved those feelings of constitutional liberty which, he contended, could not be maintained if elections were converted into mere matters of private arrangement. He had been himself elected six times for the county, and he cherished a grateful recollection of the kindness with which he had been received. The support he had met with tilled his heart with the warmest gratitude; but those who gave him that support knew it was not his cause they were upholding, but the cause of the independence and freedom of the county. They knew the contest was an expensive one, and therefore a munificent subscription was raised

849
new era for that country. By it he hoped to prevent the necessity of keeping up the large military establishment there, and of employing military force upon all occasions.
Sir H. Parnellfully agreed that the present measure was one of the most important that could be submitted to their consideration, with reference to the condition or interests of Ireland; but he could not help regarding as most grievous, the consequences of that neglect which had marked the proceedings of those to whom the government of Ireland had been hitherto confided. In that country there was still visible a sort of lawlessness which seemed to indicate that the effects of early conquests were not yet terminated. Among the more immediate causes of confusion, however, he might mention the want of a proper system of communication between the executive authority and the different counties. In England this branch of the civil power was in full vigour, and there were lords lieutenant in every county with whom government might correspond, and derive, through these means, timely information with regard to all that was passing, or likely to occur. One material defect of this measure was, that it offered no enactment for improving the present state and character of the magistracy in Ireland. Its sole purpose was, to provide for a new mode of appointing constables, and the bill might be considered as going to vest greater powers in the hands of magistrates, who were already notorious for doing all they could to bring the laws into disrepute. It was but recently that one of them was convicted of turning every process that came before him to his own private emolument. It was no uncommon case for a justice of the peace to derive 200 l. or 300 l. a year from his office. The first object, therefore, was, to establish some officer in each county with whom the government might communicate, and then to reform the magistracy. This ought to be done immediately—his majesty's ministers ought to take courage to do it. Of the existing body of magistrates some held considerable tracts of land, and having themselves tithes to pay to a large amount, had been detected in encouraging and fomenting the tumults which had proceeded from that cause. It was not surprising, therefore, that the police should he defective. Such were its defects, that outrages and reorders were often committed with im-
850
punity? For want of a regular execution of the laws, every one looked for redress in his own schemes; and gave way to the sudden and violent impulses of revenge. It was to this cause and not to defective Excise regulations, that undue collection and inadequate produce of the revenue was to be attributed. Another ill consequence was, that it impaired general credit, and often subjected individuals to wants and hardships that were foreign to a commercial country, and might even subject people to starve in the midst of plenty. Now, the new system which the right hon. gentleman proposed to introduce appeared to be a system of military police, or at least he did not know where to trace the distinction between it and the police of France. Why, if they took care to reform the magistracy, should they not, in the first instance, try the constitutional police of this country? He had no doubt that if the whole system of constables were assimilated to the English, there would then he an efficient civil power in Ireland. The Irish grand juries had so many other objects to attend to, that the appointment of constables was necessarily subordinate. The errors that were committed in the choice might proceed from inattention rather than from any corrupt motive. In England the appointment of constables lay with individual magistrates. Why, if they themselves were properly selected, should not the same confidence be reposed in the magistrates of the sister country? He had a decided objection to any measure which was likely to disgust the resident gentry of the country; and he could not help wishing that the right hon. gentleman would restrict his plan to the formation of an auxiliary police; leaving the appointment of the common constables to the same authority, with which it at present rested. Nor did he think the efficacy of the measure by any means so certain as the right hon. gentleman supposed. If the existing common constables were reduced, government would have the disposal of from 3,000 to 4,000 new appointments; and how was the disposal of those appointments to be conducted, so as to prevent the degenerating of the whole system into a job? Applications from every unfit quarter would not he wanting; and he was quite certain that many county magistrates (the fittest persons to recommend) would decline communicating with government upon the subject. He was sure the

851
judgment, not of the county of York, but of the whole kingdom. Nothing could be more injurious than to say that this measure belonged to the county of York, and that it was improper in the member for Montgomery to bring it forward. He protested against this argument, and must contend, that those who were unconnected with the local interests or prejudices of a place, were likely to bring forward more advantageous measures for the removal of any evil that affected it, than those who would probably be guided by their passions or feelings. With respect to the opinion of the grand jury, he would only say, that nothing could be mores pernicious than for a grand jury to leave the local business which was intrusted to their care, for the purpose of giving an opinion on questions of general interest. He found that 19 or 20 of these gentlemen had declared against the bill. Now, with all due respect for their opinion, on a measure which concerned the interest of 23,000 voters, and of the county at large, he did not think it was entitled to more respect than that of any other 19 or 20 gentlemen who had considered the nature and object of the measure.
Lord Normanbysaid, that the House ought to pause before they proceeded farther with a measure which was as inimical to the interests as it was obnoxious to the feelings of the freeholders of York.
Lord Hothamcontended, that the bill would be beneficial to the county of York, and denied that they had any reason to believe that the county was averse to it.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that a decided majority of the freeholders were against the bill. The West Riding were almost unanimous against it.
Admiral Sotheronthought it would be for the benefit of all parties that the county should be kept entire.
Mr. Denisonopposed the measure, and expressed a wish that a bill similar to that formerly brought forward by lord Milton, might be adopted.
Mr. Duncombesupported the bill.
Mr. H. Sumnersupported the bill, and contended that the West Riding ought not to ride over the two other ridings.
The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time," the House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 69. The second reading was accordingly put off for six months.

CONSTABLES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. Goulbournrose to move the second reading of this bill. He pointed out the state of the police with regard to the appointment of constables, and showed its defects. He also alluded to the difficulties of arresting persons in Ireland, which could seldom be effected with the concurrence, or without the opposition, of the population. From these causes, to be efficient in his office, a constable ought to devote his whole time to its duties. The grand juries who now appointed them could not grant such salaries as would enable them to do so; and, in consequence, the office of constable had fallen into a state which it was most desirable to avoid. If they wished to make the people of Ireland respect the law, they must endeavour to ensure its administration with effect. The means of accomplishing this, he was about to propose to the House. He was aware that he might be met with the objection that it was against the principles of the constitution to vest such a power in the hands of the government as the appointment of these constables. But he thought the first constitutional duty of every man was to enforce the observance of the laws. The appointment of the constable of a barony was no new power in the hands of government. Several previous acts had authorized this, and the object now in view fully authorized them in extending the power to the common constables. He should propose by the bill, that the duties of a constable should be limited to the maintenance of peace, under the directions of the magistrates. He thought the present measure would remove one of the difficulties which prevented their acting with that efficiency which rendered a magistracy respectable. The House was aware that there were extraordinary measures of police now in operation, which had been attended with the most happy results; and he did not mean to imply any thing unfavourable to those measures when he proposed others, which, he considered, would operate as a preventive, instead of a remedy, for outrage. Various petitions were to be found upon their Journals, pointing out the defects of the police in Ireland. One of these, from the county of Galway, also alluded to the means by which they were to be removed. He thought no man would object to the proposition, that an effective police in Ireland was desirable. He proposed this measure to the House as the opening of a

853
for the purpose of carrying on the election. At his last election, many hundred electors would not take one farthing for their expenses, and nearly one half of the subscription money was returned. This bill, in his opinion, placed the electors of Yorkshire on a similarity with the electors of Grampound, since it deprived them of a considerable portion of their elective franchise.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that many of those who last session agreed in the disfranchisement of the borough of Grampound, and the transfer of the right to the great county of York, were induced not to offer certain amendments which would have endangered the fate of the bill, on the distinct understanding, that the manner in which the additional members were to be elected should form the subject of a bill to be afterwards introduced. The measure then contemplated was now before the House, and he denied that it was, in any degree, a breach of the franchises of the electors of Yorkshire. The hon. gentleman asked, why was not Devonshire or Lancashire divided? They were not divided for this simple reason—because the House had fixed on the county of York, in consequence of the great number of its electors, to exercise that right which had been forfeited by the electors of Grampound. It then became the duty of the House to consider in what way the new members were to be elected, and whether they had not better be chosen by a division of the county, than by the counts, at large. Many years ago, the state of the county of York was brought under the consideration of the House, for the purpose of lessening the expenses attendant on the election of members. It then appeared, that at the last election for that county, 23,000 persons actually voted, and many individuals who came to York to give their votes, were unable to fulfil their intention, although they waited to the latest moment. The subdivision of property in manufacturing districts was known to have increased the number of electors; and therefore, if the House did not now alter the system of election with respect to Yorkshire, they would be imperatively called on to do so hereafter. A noble lord, one of the members for Yorkshire (lord Milton), felt the necessity of an alteration so strongly, that he had some time ago introduced a bill to divide the county of York into three or four districts, for
854
the convenience of polling for members of parliament. The hon. member had served, that the contest for Northampton had required as large a sum as that which was expended on the election for Yorkshire. It was very possible. But how was that large sum spent? It was laid out in direct violation of the law. The magnitude of the sum so expended would have supplied a very good reason for making the law relative to bribery and, treating more strict than it was. But the immense expense attendant on the election for Yorkshire was occasioned by the conveyance of voters to the poll. And, he would ask, ought not parliament to interfere with a system under which 100,000 l. might be legally expended? It was a well known fact that in a contested election for Yorkshire 100,000 l. had been laid out on each side without one illegal or irregular expense. Besides, the number of voters thus brought together was too great to be introduced into one town; and it was almost impossible to decide on the validity of the votes that might be objected to. The hon. gentleman said, that there would be, under this bill, a similarity between the treatment adopted towards the borough of Grampound and that extended to the county of York. The similarity, as he called it, was this—that two members were taken from Grampound, and given to the county of York. At the last contested election, 13,830 voters had polled for the West Riding only, and he thought that a person elected by nearly 14,000,individuals, however fond he was of popular favour, ought to be satisfied. At the same election 9 000 voters polled for the North Riding. If the whole county voted for the four members, the consequence will be, that if an opposition were set on foot against any one of them, the other three, against whom there was no objection, would be equally saddled with expense. This was the case with the city of London. In 1813, he first introduced a proposition of this description. It was particularly approved of by the noble member for Bedfordshire (the marquis of Tavistock), who was so eager to express his opinion of it, that he got him (Mr. W.) to draw up two clauses, which he declared he would move on the third reading of the bill, in order to record his sentiments. The present measure he brought forward in the last session, in order that it might lie over, and be submitted to the

855
country gentlemen would be disgusted. A nobleman, perhaps, residing upon his property, doing his utmost to improve the condition of the country, but accustomed to nominate his own officers, if suddenly deprived of the constables on whom he could place reliance, and surrounded by an armed force composed of strange faces, would be more than likely to become an absentee. He could name persons who would be very likely to take that course. The House ought to look also at the cost of this proposed plan. There were so many high constables, at salaries of 130 l. a year, with house, furniture, &c. provided; so many petty constables at 35 l. a year, with clothing, arms, and accoutrements. Then there were inspectors at high salaries. The county which he represented was, as to extent, of the third class only; yet the expense of the measure, as applied to that county, would amount to at least from 3 to 4,000 l. a year. The cost under the present system did not exceed 800 l. a year. He had no objection to allow the lord lieutenant to appoint a police in case of disturbance to aid the common constables, and in case of extremities to be made as formidable and as efficient as ministers could propose; but he was still for keeping up the constitutional body of the constables, although it certainly required to be reformed and made more efficient, by giving the appointments to the magistrates, and allowing them to increase their numbers and the means of remunerating them; and he should conclude with moving, "that the bill be referred to a committee above stairs."
Mr. Plunkettsaid, that upon the necessity of improving the police of Ireland, no difference of opinion could exist. Whether the measure now proposed was the fittest to be adopted, it was for the House to determine; but it was the unanimous opinion, that a change in the police must be the first step towards the promotion of tranquillity, in that country. The hon. baronet had most correctly spoken of Ireland as having been governed for many years by little else than measures of emergency; and the object was now, instead of having a relaxation of law one moment, and a paroxysm of violence the next, to have a steady, vigorous, and efficient police—a police which should not only act to punish crime, but, to prevent it; and which, by habituating the people to obey the law, would in the end have the
856
effect of attaching them to it. But the hon. baronet treated the measure as unconstitutional. It was not a measure which proposed any new law, or created any new crime, or introduced any new officer, or set up any new authority. How, then, was it unconstitutional? The constables were now appointed by the grand juries; and, under the new system, they would be nominated directly by the Crown. Surely there was nothing unconstitutional in that. As the Crown was the fountain of all executive power, what difference could it make whether the Crown appointed the magistrate and the magistrate the constable, or whether the Crown appointed the constable directly? And if it was possible that the projected system might become a job, this was quite certain—that the existing system was notoriously and avowedly a job. He meant to cast no reflection upon the grand juries of Ireland; but where the power of appointment was divided among 24 persons, each of whom was exempt from responsibility, and shifted all blame upon his next neighbour, the appointment could not fail to resolve itself into a job. It was a job from the nature of the system, and not from any fault in the parties who worked it. But in the new system there was far less probability of such a consummation. The lord-lieutenant might be open to occasional imposition; but, if abuse did arise, the monthly return of the inspector gave, under the new system, the opportunity of correcting it; while, under the old one, a gentleman upon a grand jury appointed some servant or dependant, who was better provided for as a barony constable than as a b hanger-on upon the appointer's bounty; and, whatever was the man's conduct, he continued to act as constable for a period of six months, until the grand jury sat again. The hon. baronet spoke of his knowing resident magistrates who would be disposed to take offence if they were displaced by the bill; but did he suppose that the provisions of the bill were imperative, and that the lord-lieutenant, because he had the power of appointing, was bound to appoint in all places? The exercise of the power was entirely optional; and he (Mr. P.) should view it as an abuse of the power, if it were used in all places, without reference to existing circumstances. Look to the present state of the county of Longford. Gentlemen must remember when Longford was remarkable for the

857
non-execution of the law, the supineness of the magistracy, and the prevalence of crime. But, since a noble lord (Forbes) had exerted himself in that county, it had become the best regulated and most orderly in Ireland. Now, the House could not suppose that the noble lord alluded to would be superseded in his office by a police magistrate, nor that changes, generally, would be made, where resident gentlemen were efficient. With respect to expense, the measure would be really a measure of economy. The number of baronies in Ireland was 250. Take the scale of one chief constable to every barony, and the probable cost under the new system would be this:—Chief constables, 32,500 l.; petty constables, 175,000 l.; inspectors, four, at 500 l. a year, 2,000 l. police magistrates, ten, at 800 l., 8,000 l.; total 217,500 l. Now, what was the real expense under the existing system? It was, for the last year—baronial constables, 28,907 l.; extraordinary police, 102,113 l.; preventive revenue police, 23,104 l.; military assistance to the revenue, 24,550 l.; snaking a total of 178,664 l.—The new system would be dearer by about 40,000 l. a-year; but if against that were set the various advantages which would accrue—the saving in expense of several prosecutions—the saving of time now given up to the watching for and to the prevention of crime, the account would be nearly balanced. If the House took into its consideration the saving of public morals, and the probable restoration of peace, obedience, and sober habits to the country, the advantage in favour of the new system would be prodigious.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, that he laid little stress upon the question of expense, because he thought that, if the bill would answer the object proposed, it ought, at any cost, to be carried into effect. But he resisted the bill upon the broad ground of its principle. There was no doubt of the advantage of equally enforcing the law, and of making the people look up to it as a protection rather than as an evil; but the bill now proposed, so far from bringing public opinion to the side of the law, was, of all measures, the most calculated to awaken public indignation. The execution of the law at present was defective; but let the system be fairly tried before it was condemned. Let it be ascertained whether the fault was in the principle of the existing system or in the abuse of it. The right hon. gentleman had adverted
858
to the county of Longford. How happened it, if the existing system was so bad, that Longford had thriven under its administration? If the strict administration of our constitutional law had led to such a satisfactory result in Longford, why run needlessly to a system not only new, but highly objectionable? Before they abandoned the constitutional law as inefficient, it was their duty to enforce it. If the constable's staff was not strong enough, let them use the bayonet; and if the bayonet would not do, let them call in the artillery. Let none of the intermediate steps be overlooked, none of the measures of caution and conciliation; but let not the legislature throw disgrace upon the whole magistracy of Ireland by declaring it inefficient, without purging the ore from the dross, and giving due super port and assistance to what remained. Nor was it upon principle only that the bill was objectionable. He opposed it on account of the expense. The right hon. and learned gentleman did not deal fairly with the House in setting against the cost of the new scheme many items which he had taken up. What pledge had the House that under the operation of this measure the existing auxiliary police would be dispensed with, or the service for the prevention of illicit distillation? But the right hon. and learned gentleman denied that the measure was unconstitutional. It was, he said, not unconstitutional, because all power emanated from the Crown, and because it was no matter; therefore, whether the constables were appointed by the magistrates of the Crown, or directly by the Crown itself. Why, if there was any shadow of force in this argument, there would he nothing unconstitutional in adding ad infinitum to the power of the Crown as to appointment to office. Where was the principle to stop? If it was once admitted, what bounds were to be set to it? He might well ask, as had been asked already, how many new places were to be created by this bill? It would be found that ten constables would not be sufficient for each barony, the number required would probably be fifteen. So that there would be from 4,500 to 5,000 new officers to be appointed by the Crown. He objected particularly to the mixing up of revenue duties in the employment of those to be appointed constables. In the present state of the revenue laws in Ireland, such was the temptation to illicit traffic,

859
that if once an officer became an excise-man, he would soon be wholly valueless in his principal capacity; and it was a mistake to suppose that the disturbances in Ireland were in any degree produced by a want of number in the magistrates. In the disturbed districts, the magistrates were more numerous than in the quiet parts. In the more peaceable counties the average was one magistrate to an extent of 25 square miles, and to a population of 5,000 souls. In the disturbed parts, the average ran one magistrate to 7½ square miles, and to a population of 3,043. The deficiency of executive power in the police seemed therefore to attach rather to the redundancy, than to the paucity of magistrates. Let the system he fairly tried as it constitutionally existed. Let the magistracy of the country be purified, and then let that plan be followed which had succeeded in Longford, Kerry, and Mayo. He was convinced that the bill could not be carried into operation without giving rise to the most flagrant abuses.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that if he could be convinced there was in the present bill any thing which could be called an amelioration of the system of police in Ireland, it should have his most cordial support; but, from the view which he took of it, he did not think it would be a benefit to his country; on the contrary, he thought it would be a source of increased evil. He therefore trusted that the house would attentively consider whether some more effective measure could not be adopted to remedy the defects of the old system. The present system of police in Ireland was most defective; but when he saw, that in the case of the county of Longford, and in other places where the attempt was made, that system had been rendered efficacious by a vigilant exertion on the part of the local authorities, he would ask whether the present was a time to abandon all that had been done, and to introduce a system diverging in quite the contrary direction? There was not a doubt in his mind that the enactments of the bill would create very general discontent among the respectable magistracy of Ireland; and he was authorized to state by many most respectable magistrates, that if it passed into a law, they would throw up their commissions, as they should consider themselves disgraced by its enactments. He would have no objection to going into the com-
860
mittee, if he thought that by any modification of its details the measure could be effective; but he was sure it would be neither the one nor the other. It would tend to drive many of the most respectable of the magistracy out of the commission, to render those who might remain, inert and useless; and to increase the number of absentees. He had as great an attachment to his country as any man, but he felt himself bound to say, that if this bill passed, he should no longer consider Ireland as his country.
Mr. Secretary Peeladmitted, that k was a defect in the police of Ireland, that there was not that link of connexion between its magistracy and the government which existed in England, by means of the lords lieutenant of counties. This was an evil to which he should wish to see a remedy applied. With respect to the magistracy of Ireland generally, he had always found it defective; and reform it as parliament might, it would still continue defective, owing to the great number of absentee proprietors. However active and honest their agents might be, they could never adequately supply the places of the great landed proprietors. At the same time he should not wish to see the deficiency remedied by a general extension of stipendiary magistrates; for he thought that the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in every county would degenerate into abuse. Still, however, he held it necessary that government should have the power of appointing such magistrates in certain cases; for it would be destructive of all law to allow 20 or 30 miles extent of country to be without a magistrate, or, what was the same thing, with magistrates who did not act. He would suggest, that the stipendiary magistrate should be appointed only where there was no resident magistrate, or where he did not do his duty; and that then it should be on the recommendation of the other magistrates of the county. Under any other circumstances, he thought that the extension of salaried magistrates would be an evil.—As to the general state of the police in Ireland, it was admitted on all hands, that the system was so bad that something should be done. Let the House look to the present state of Ireland in that respect. She had now, not to guard against any external danger, but to protect the administration of the law, to support a regular army of 21,000 men, besides 4,000

861
yeomanry corps on permanent duty; and notwithstanding this force, they had this extraordinary fact, that in one year there had been 26 murders committed, and only one of the perpetrators had been brought to justice. As to the expense, it should not be left out of sight, that, by the establishment of an effective police, the military expense would be likely to be very considerably reduced. It was agreed on all hands that something should be done. Now, the question was, in whose hands should the appointment of the stipendiary magistrates and constables be placed? It was suggested on one side, that they should be assimilated to the same class in this country. He for one should not object to that, provided it could be effectually done; but he apprehended that it would be very difficult in the commencement. In England the constables were not paid; but it could not be expected that at present, parties would be induced to undertake, without salary, an arduous and unpleasant office, such as that of constable must be; and the less so, as hitherto the constables appointed by the grand jury were paid and armed as those who were appointed by government. There were thus two experiments tried. Constables were appointed by government, and others were appointed by grand juries. But there was a vast difference in their effective force in favour of those whom government had appointed. He contended, that as the power of appointment by the government had not been abused, it was a fair inference, that it was not likely to be abused in future. He implored the House not to reject the measure in its present stage, but to allow it to go into the committee. It was a plan for ameliorating the condition of Ireland, with respect to its police, which all parties agreed required a remedy. Let it go to a committee, and there they might discuss it; for it was not a party question. It was one which arose from a desire to improve the condition of the country; for before they could with safety reduce the troops, before they could give up the operation of such extraordinary measures as the Peace-preservation bill, or the Insurrection bill, they must have an improved police, and habituate the people of Ireland to that which was the greatest of all national blessings—an equal, unvarying, and impartial administration of justice.
Mr. Abercrombyadmitted, that there
862
were two principle defects in the present state of Ireland—that of a defective magistracy, and that which arose from the system of the higher and middling classes being induced to depend none on government than upon their own exertions. Admitting these defects, it was with reluctance he felt himself bound to oppose a measure which endeavoured to provide a remedy. In his opinion, the most effectual remedy would be, to reform the magistracy; and he considered it monstrous to adopt such a bill as the present until every other means of curing the evil were exhausted. During the rebellion, and since that period, many most objectionable individuals had got into the commission of the peace. Now he would suggest that the magistracy should be purged of all such persons; and though it might be inconvenient, still a minister of firmness could effect to the appointment of constables, he thought it ought to be by the magistracy; for if appointed by the Crown, they would soon control the magistrates themselves. The consequence would be, that few respectable persons would continue in the commission, and in a short time the magistrates would be amongst the lowest and most jobbing persons; which, he need not add, would only increase the evil. He had been told by a most respectable Irish magistrate, that he would not continue in the commission if this bill passed; for he would not submit to be controlled by a paid magistrate, or superintended by a set of constables. He had been much pleased when he heard of lord Wellesley's appointment to the government of Ireland; and his expectations were raised, when, in the commencement of the session, he was told to wait for the measures which were to be introduced with respect to Ireland. The present bill he looked upon as the promised measure, and he could not but consider it as lord Wellesley's. He had formerly heard of complaints against lord Wellesley's conduct in India; that he had acted there in imitation of Buonaparte, whose plan was, that every thing should emanate from himself—that he and the people should only be recognized in the state, without admitting intermediate authority. The present bill went upon the same system, and he should therefore give it his decided opposition.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that as there seemed to be but one feeling as

863
to the necessity of some remedy for the present state of the police of Ireland, it would be better to go into the committee on the bill, in which the details might be more properly discussed than in the present stage. The object was, to devise some remedy for an admitted evil: and he disclaimed, on the part of his right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn), any desire to increase the patronage of government by it.
Lord Althorpsaid, that as he had a decided objection, to the whole bill in principle, he could not consent to go into a committee upon it; for no modification could reconcile him to it. The measure was in itself most arbitrary, and would lead to worse evils than those which it affected to remedy.
Mr. Grantsaid, he felt extremely sorry that he was bound to withhold his consent from the present measure. He was the more compelled to give this bill his decided opposition, because it had been under the consideration of the late government of Ireland, and had been rejected after having undergone considerable discussion. He allowed that it was the paramount duty of every government to see justice administered, and property secured; but there was another duty, scarcely less paramount—namely, to take care, that in administering justice and securing property, it did not sacrifice any great principle of constitutional freedom. Indeed, that was the whole distinction between a free and an arbitrary government. The object of both of them was to secure property; but the difference between them was, that in one case it was effected with a due regard to, and in the other at the expense of, every principle, civil, moral, and religious. The questions which every member ought to put to himself before he formed his opinion upon the present bill, were these—first, was there any evil at present in existence? secondly, if there was, was the remedy which it was proposed to apply of a stronger nature than the disease required? and thirdly, had every other remedy been tried, and tried in vain, before the present was proposed for adoption? Before be proceeded to discuss these topics, he should say a few words upon the nature and object of the bill itself. It went to place the whole of Ireland under an armed police, to subject it to a species of gendarmerie, and to render the whole magistracy of the
864
country liable to the control of the lord lieutenant. Having said thus much regarding the general tendency of the bill, he would next proceed to observe, that with regard to the first of the three questions which he had proposed to the House, every gentleman seemed agreed. All concurred in stating the existence of great evil in Ireland, and the necessity of applying some remedy. Much had been said regarding the magistracy of Ireland, upon which it was unnecessary for him to make many remarks at present, as he had declared his opinion on the subject upon a former occasion. He had then spoken of them with the deference which was their due, and which he, for one, should always feel towards them. He could specify some persons among them, who, in periods of great public dismay and danger, had performed their duty in the most honourable, the most conscientious, and the most effective manner: but there were others of them who had been raised to the bench, for which they were not qualified, on account of the influence they possessed over local politics, the assistance they were enabled to lend to certain great personages, and the morbid sensibility which they had contrived to display on various occasions of public calamity. There were also amongst them men of ruined fortunes, who sought to repair the distressed state of their finances at the expense of the unfortunate persons who were placed under their control. A magistracy so constituted was not likely to agree well wish itself; and hence it often happened, that one magistrate would bail a person for no other reason than because he had been committed by another magistrate with whom he was not upon terms of amity. Still, though this was the case, he did not mean to deny that there was a great body of virtuous magistracy in the country; for he would never consent to depreciate the whole of it, because some worthless persons had been admitted amongst them. This was the evil under which Ireland was at present labouring. Now he would ask, was this an evil in practice or in principle? Perhaps some gentleman, in consequence of that question, might ask him whether he objected to the system of the magistrates in Ireland acting gratuitously? To such a question he would reply in the negative, and would then bid his questioner to shape his remedy more closely to the evil

865
which prevailed. The constables of the different baronies were often as ill-qualified for their situations as the magistrates were for theirs. The right hon. gentleman here described the manner in which these constables were appointed, and commented on the impropriety of appointing men to such offices who were parties to the local factions and animosities of the towns in which they resided. As a proof of the evil arising from such misgovernment, he stated, that in a barony where there were two magistrates not on the best terms of amity with each other, the two constables were at the head of the two parties into which it was divided. The two constables mutually applied to the magistrates with whom they were connected, for warrants to arrest one another; having obtained such warrants, each proceeded with a considerable force to execute them; and the two parties having met, a violent conflict ensued between them, Was this an objection, he would ask, to the principle or the practice of the present system? He should certainly prefer to see the system in Ireland approximate to that in England; but as that was not the question at present before the House, he would confine himself to the present bill, and would say, that the whole evil which it was intended to cure was to be found in the manner and the motives in which the magistracy and constables were appointed. If from a principle that was good and a practice that was not faulty, such consequences as they at present deplored had resulted to Ireland, he would say, that the system ought to be subverted; but, when the practice was allowed on all hands not to be good, why were they to be called on thus suddenly to abandon the principle? Before they changed, the principle of their system, they were bound to show that every mode of correcting its practice had been tried, and. upon trial had been found inefficient. Now, with respect to the magistracy, he would ask at once, whether any attempt had been made to exclude unworthy persons from the commission? The reply must he in the negative; for though he knew that the appointment to the magistracy had been corrected in various respects, nothing effective had been done to change the system. In all the disturbances which had taken place, complaints had been made of their supineness, but no measures had been taken to
866
remove it. So also with regard to the constables and the police. Had any law been made to correct the gross and palpable abuses of which these latter individuals had been confessedly guilty? No such thing: laws had been made to increase their salaries, and to regulate their emoluments; but no effort of law had been made to regulate the qualifications necessary to their appointment, either with regard to their age, their strength, their being perfectly illiterate, their being tithe-proctors, or their filling any other odious and obnoxious situations.—As to the revision of the magistracy, he knew that about two years ago the names of the whole body had been submitted to the lord chancellor, and that he had given up a considerable portion of his time to the investigation of the list. That revision was not, however, yet completed; and why, he would ask, was this bill introduced before it was so? It was unnecessary for him to remind them, that this bill was in itself a most important measure, and that it affected England equally as much as it did Ireland; for if they admitted an unconstitutional principle to be acted upon in Ireland, what security would they have against its being next year put in force in England.—With regard to the degree of strength which belonged to this measure, which was the second question he had propounded to the House, he would state at once that he thought it too strong. He conceived that a plan of less coercion might be devised—a plan which would compel grand juries to be strict in their examination of the constables they employed, to inspect them occasionally, and to render them at all times liable to the control of the magistracy. He was even of opinion, that gratuitous parochial constables might be introduced with great advantages into part of Ireland. A proof of the beneficial effect of such a plan was now visible in the county of Longford. A noble friend of his (lord Forbes) who had unjustly conceived his character to be compromised on account of the Peace-preservation act being enforced in his neighbourhood, had made the experiment of it in that county; and the experiment had succeeded in spite of the state maxim, that Ireland was never to be governed in tranquillity except by brute force. For five years that county had thus been administered; and he was happy to state, that there was not a

867
person in it, however powerful his faction, that could not be immediately seized, nor a fair, however riotous, from which a constable could not now immediately bring forth his prisoner.—The right hon. gentleman, after pointing out the benefits of such a plan as he had described, proceeded to argue that the bill had been prematurely introduced into parliament. Even if other remedies had been tried and found ineffectual in removing the evil, he should still doubt whether this bill would be more successful. He objected to it because it placed all Ireland under the control of one man, and because he saw that those parts of that country which had been intrusted to the care of upright and virtuous magistrates had enjoyed perfect tranquillity. He saw no reason why, because distressing events had occurred in some counties, all the thirty-two should be placed out of the protection of the law. He objected to it also, because it was at war with every principle of English policy, and because it tended to disunite, instead of to assimilate, the legislation of England and Ireland. He further objected to it, because he objected in general to the system, that the constitutional principles of government that were applicable to England were not also applicable to the sister kingdom. There were three great causes which appeared to him to have been most operative in producing the past and present distressed state of Ireland. The first was that system of coercive laws to which the government had had recourse upon very extraordinary emergency. He wished the House would consider how the government had proceeded from one extraordinary measure of legislation to another with respect to Ireland. Here the right hon. gentleman entered into an historical review of the legislative enactments for the preservation of the peace in Ireland, from the Whiteboy acts down to the present times, and then asked, what had, been the result of the system pursued?—Security? No; it had excited feelings of hatred, and revenge. It had revived a conviction in the minds of the lower classes of Irishmen, that the law wasp upon principle, hostile to them, and that their governors in England felt themselves at liberty to resort to unconstitutional measures for the administration of Ireland, to which they dared not resort for the administration of England. The
868
present bill, too, was another of their extraordinary measures of legislation intended for the benefit of Ireland, and one of its merits its advocates stated to be, that it was a preventive bill. It was, on that very ground he objected to it; for if it was a preventive bill, it must founded on a system of espionage; and the violation of public confidence, and the destruction of domestic tranquillity in must form the very soul and essence of To add the evils of such a system to those which had already desolated that unfortunate country was an act of which he at least never would be guilty.—The second cause tending to the injury of Ireland was, the habitual interference a the government in all matters of internal police. The combined operation of this cause with that which he had just mentioned, the blending of extraordinary legislation on matters of general government with extraordinary interference in matters of private police, had created a supineness among the gentry and inhabitants of the country that could never be sufficiently deplored. That supineness had led the way to humiliation; humiliation had led the way to want of self-respect; want of self-respect had led the way to carelessness in the discharge of public duty; and that carelessness to the abuse of all public trusts. It would be an idle waste of words to endeavour to show how certain such abuses were to produce mischief upon mischief, amongst those who were liable to suffer by them. The best means of removing them would be by using every exertion to excite feelings of self-respect and dignity in the minds of the magistracy of the country. Sorry was he to say, that this bill appeared to him likely to produce the very contrary effect. Some hon. gentlemen had stated, that if passed into a law, it would disgrace for ever the country gentlemen of Ireland. He was glad to hear that assertion made; because, whether that was the object of the bill or not, sure he was that such was its tendency. The right hon. gentleman proved this assertion by entering into a review of the details of the bill, and stated, that the assigning the care of a whole barony to a high constable was as disrespectful to the magistrates in it, as assigning the command of an army to a serjeant-major would be to the officers attached to it. Besides, all the magistrates were to be made subject to the order of the stipendiary magistrates. Could that be gratify-

869
ing to the feelings of an Irish gentleman? Certainly not.—The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to object to the bill, on the ground of the increased expenditure which it would create, and of the strength which it would give to the cause of corruption. Great reductions had been made in the different establishments of the state; but to what end had they been made, if a greater engine of corruption than had ever yet been used by an English government was immediately afterwards to be called into existence, and placed, not under the control of the Crown but of the lord lieutenant? According to the bill, there would be 5,000 well armed men continually under his orders; besides these 5,000, there would be 300 persons more, of vigorous minds and capacities, to control and command them; then there would be 10 or 12 well paid persons at least, to inspect them occasionally; not forgetting 25 stipendiary magistrates, who must be still better paid than their subordinate officers—all bound to act just as the lord lieutenant should direct them. Great as was the confidence he was inclined to place in the noble marquis now at the head of the Irish government, he could not consent to place such a power in his hands without any control or superintendance whatever. The present bill gave him the power of moving this force from one part of the country to another; and if he said that he did it for the good of the country, he could not be molested for so moving it. He did not think that the noble marquis would abuse the power so intrusted to him; but was it right to confide to any one man a power that was certain to lead to so much corruption? He thought not; and therefore he called upon the House to lend him their assistance in rejecting the present measure. In opposing it as he had done, he had discharged a most painful duty; but duty led him to oppose it, and he trusted that he should never shrink from performing what duty imposed upon him, especially when it was so closely connected with the welfare of the empire.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, that nothing short of this bill could restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland.
Sir N. Colthurstsaid, he could not join in the reprobation which had been directed against this bill. Much had been said of the imperfect and inadequate condition of the magistracy. Admitting that
870
to be true, and that a reform of it were necessary, still even such a reform, useful as in other respects it might be, would be inadequate to meet the existing evil. The magistrates had not at present the means of executing the law. But it was said, why not reform the police? He doubted the success of the experiment, even if it were practicable to make it upon the present system. The attempt, however, would occasion a delay fatal to the tranquillity of the country. As the existing danger was great, the remedy ought to be immediate; and to be effective it ought to be strong. With respect to what had been said about the constitutional character of the measure, hon. members looked only at one side of the question. Did the gentlemen of the country who lived on their estates at the peril of their lives, enjoy the blessings of the constitution? His right hon. friend (Mr. Grant) declared himself in favour of a milder measure. If he held that opinion during the 5 or 6 years he was secretary for Ireland, why had he tint himself tried the milder measure to tranquillize the country? Not having done so, was it not fair to infer that he did not think it would have been effectual?
Mr. Grattanwas unfriendly to the bill, and hostile to the introduction of this description of stipendiary magistrates into Ireland.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldlamented that his right hon. friend's (Mr. Grant's) conclusion should have been at variance with the principle arguments of his able speech; for the whole weight of his arguments went to support the necessity of a complete alteration in the existing system. Believing the present bill, in principle, to be the best calculated for the purpose, and that its details could be modified in the committee, it should have his support.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that if the lateness of the hour and length of the debated would not deter him from trespassing on the House, the able and unanswered speech of his right hon. friend (Mr. Grant) would have that effect. But he thought that, being unconnected with Ireland and having necessarily only superficial information to guide his judgment on such a subject, it would be well for him, and for other English gentlemen who thought with him, to show the sister kingdom that they were awake to her

871
condition. It was said that many of the objections to this bill might be removed in the committee. If any thing were obscure in the details, or capable of modification in the structure of the bill, then he should have consented to go into the committee. But his objection went entirely to the principle of the bill. He could not think of tolerating, for the first time in any part of this empire, as a regular and perpetual system, the introduction of a stipendiary police, to be appointed at the pleasure of, and their official existence rendered entirely dependent upon, the Crown. These stipendiaries were also to have a local superintendent to regulate them, uncontrolled by parliament, and amenable alone to the executive government, constituting as it were an intermediate legislative force, most unconstitutionally constructed. Besides, these stipendiary magistrates were to be connected with other magistrates, and were, in fact, to control them; for the constables were to be taught, whenever a difference of opinion arose between the one set of magistrates and the other, to obey the stipendiary magistrates. What gentleman disposed to do his duty could tolerate such an invidious confidence? He objected, therefore, to the whole principle and structure of the bill, and it would be in vain to hope for its adequate improvement in the committee. It was said, why not reform the magistracy? His right hon. friend who was taunted with not having tried mild measures, if he thought they would have answered the purpose, had tried to reform the magistrates; he had endeavoured to revive the system of the magistracy, and was far advanced in that necessary work when he resigned his situation. Why not have continued that revision, in preference to rendering a bad system perpetual by such a bill as this? So convinced was he of the utter inadequacy of this bill, that he would move as an amendment, "that it be read a second time that day six months."
Mr. Grantsaid, that an appeal had been made to him by an hon. bart. (an appeal involving a charge) to which he felt it necessary to give a reply; and he trusted the House would indulge him with their permission to do so. He had been asked, why, if he thought it practicable and right, he had not, while he held office in Ireland, introduced an improvement of the internals system of police in Ireland? Now, on this branch of public duty,
872
two objects had engaged his attention, during the period of his official residence in Ireland,—a period not of five or six years, as the hon. baronet had made it, but a three years—the state of the state of the magistracy, and the state of the constables.—Respecting the magistracy, he had on a former occasion, stated to the House, that more than two years ago, the lord chancellor of Ireland, in consequence of repeated conferences with the government, entered on a revision of the magistracy, with the view of taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by the demise of the late king, to quash the existing commission, and issue a new one. Since that time, the chancellor had employed himself in procuring from nil quarters, names of proper persons for the magistracy.—Mr. Grant said, he had no right to complain of the delay which had taken place in the completion of then list for the new commission; for it was certainly a matter of great difficulty and delicacy, and required much time and caution. In December last, the list, as the chancellor informed him, was finished, with the exception of two or three counties. It must by this time be quite complete. He thought it better, that the whole of the magistrates under the new commission should come, by a simultaneous proceeding, into action together, than that they should enter seriatim, and at different periods; and this for a reason he had already explained to the House.—With respect to the constabulary, he had very early taken into consideration various plans on the subject. And, after much deliberation and discussion, he prepared a bill last session, which several of his hon. friends near him had seen and approved, and which he could not help flattering himself, might have been of use. Into the reasons which prevented, him from bringing in the bill, he would not here enter, because they involve persons who were not present; and he was sure the House would feel, that ought on this ground of delicacy to keep silence on the subject. But he would state,—and for the correctness of the statement, he might appeal to some hon. friends near him, and also to the noble lord, the late secretary for the home department, with whom he was in daily and intimate communication on the subject—he would state, that the bill was completely ready for introduction last session; that he was most anxious to in-

873
troduce and pass it; that it was not his fault, that it was not brought in; and that he had at last yielded to the necessity of deferring it, only because he thought it inevitable, and on the conviction, that during the recess, the obstacles and difficulties in the way would he surmounted, and he should then be enabled to carry the measure into effect in the subsequent session.
Mr. D. Brownesaid, that in the county of Mayo, the constables recently appointed by the grand jury had been found perfectly efficient. That mode of appointment, he was persuaded, was much superior to the proposed plan of appointment by the government.
Lord Ebringtonopposed the measure, as being, subversive of every, thing like a free government in Ireland.
The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time," the House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 59.

List of, the Minority

Abercromby, hon. J.

Lawley, F.

Barrett, S. B. M.

Martin, J.

Bright, H.

Milbank, M.

Brougham, H.

Monck, J. B.

Browne, Dom.

Marryat, J.

Buxton, T. F.

Newport, sir J.

Calcraft, J.

O'Callaghan, J.

Campbell, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Carter, J.

Power, R.

Colborne, N. R.

Powlett, hon. W.

Concannon, L.

Prittie, Hon. F.

Crompton, S.

Rice, T. S.

Creevey, T.

Ricardo, D.

Denison, W. J.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Duncannon, viscount

Rumbold, C. E.

Evans, W.

Robertson, A.

Fergusson, sir R.

Scarlett, J.

Forbes, C.

Smith, W.

Grattan, J.

Smith, R.

Glenorchy, lord

Sebright, sir J.

Grant, C.

Tremayne, J. H.

Gaskell, B.

White, L.

Hamilton, lord A.

Warre, J. A.

Hume, J.

Webb, E.

Hurst, R.

Western, C. C.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Wood, alderman

Jervoise, G. P.

Wodehouse, E.

Kennedy, T. F.

Whitmore, W. W.

Latouche, R.

TELLERS.

Lemon, sir W.

Althorn, viscount.

Lennard, T. B.

Ebrington, viscount.

Lushington, S.

ILL-TREATMENT OF CATTLE BILL.
Mr. Buxtonrose, on the order for the third reading, of this bill, and having stated some objections, recommended the hon. member by whom it was introduced,
874
to withdraw it, for the purpose of introducing an amended measure next session.
Mr. R. Martincould not consent to abandon the bill.
Mr. Monckopposed the Bill, and moved, "That it be read a third time that day six months."
Mr. Scarlettopposed the Bill, not because he did not concur with the hon. mover, in disapproving of the ill-treatment of animals, but because the offences proposed to be punished by this bill were of too vague and indefinite a nature. Indeed, if the, principle were adopted he could not see where the line was to be drawn, or why there should not be a punishment affixed to the boiling of lobsters, or the eating of oysters alive.
Mr. Holfordexpressed a wish that the hon. member would withdraw the He really should not, as a magistrate, know how to act, if a postboy were brought before him, under the present bill, for riding his horse too hard.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, he was satisfied of the propriety and justice of the measure; and, as he thought the majority of the House was with him, he should press it.
The amendment being withdrawn, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH'S EXAMINATION QUESTIONS.
Lord Dacrerose with reluctance, to present a petition to their lordships, as it was directed against a person, whose character for piety and learning was eminent. After the petition should be read by the clerk, he would move that it be laid on the table. If their lordships agreed to that motion, he would follow it up by moving an address to the Crown. Their lordships were not ignorant of the nature of this case, as it had been before the House in the course of the last session. [See Vol. 5, p. 1166.] He must here observe, that if the right reverend prelate had thought fit to act consistently either with the statute law or the canon law, he would not have given occasion to the present complaint. But the right rev. prelate, not satisfied with the 87 questions, answers to which he originally required from all persons before he licensed them, had since added 36, making 123 intricate questions on points of doctrine propounded to the petitioner. The petitioner complained of this de-wand, considering himself only bound to declare his belief in the 39 articles. He should now beg leave to present the petition of the Rev. Thomas Shuttleworth Grimshaw, rector of Burton Latimer. [The petition was then read. It stated that the petitioner had appointed the rev. Edward Thurtell curate of Burton, and complained that the bishop had refused to license him on the ground of his not giving satisfactory answers to his questions.] The subject of complaint was briefly this—that persons who had received holy orders were compelled to submit to an examination of a very extraordinary nature before they could be licensed to curacies in the diocese of Peterborough. The questions of the right rev. prelate were delivered to the candidates printed. The candidate was expected to annex his answer to each question, and then sign the paper; but the questions were printed in so contracted a manner,

825
that they could only be replied to in the most brief manner possible. On Mr. Thurtell's appointment, the questions were sent to him, enclosed in a letter, from the bishop, dated the 3rd of August last. On the 11th, Mr. Thurtell wrote to the right rev. prelate, stating that he had complied with his lordship's request as speedily as possible; that he had considered the questions attentively, and had answered them, he trusted, conscientiously: but that some of the questions involved points of so difficult and delicate a nature, that he felt it impossible to answer them in a satisfactory manner in the column appropriated for that purpose; and that he had therefore deemed it expedient to add an appendix, wherein he had inserted some of the authorities upon which the answers were founded. The right rev. prelate, in return, had written a letter to Mr. Thurtell, dated the 17th of August, in which he says, "The object of my Examination Questions is, to ascertain the religious opinions of the person examined, that I may know whether they accord with the doctrines of the church. For this purpose I want nothing more than short, plain, and positive answers; such are the answers which have been hitherto given to my questions, and such I expect from every one. But instead of giving plain answers to plain questions, you have sent me a mass of dissertation, containing such restrictions and modifications as prevent your real opinions from appearing so plainly as they ought to do." He would not here enter into any discussion on the facility with which answers might be given, farther than to remark, that what the bishop called plain questions involved some of the most intricate and controverted points in theology. But the right rev, prelate proceeded in his letter to insist on his mode of examination, which, he observed, depended entirely upon his own discretion; and he concluded with saying, "I think it right to inform you beforehand, that if you do not choose to conform exactly to the mode prescribed to you, you cannot be licensed." Now, he was ready to admit, that the mode of examination was left to the discretion of the bishop; but then he must contend that the right rev. prelate was, both by the statute and canon law, bound to en tine his mode of examination within certain limits. He would not dispute the right of even examining persons removing front one parish to another; but as this
826
sort of examination had, not before been practised in the church, the right rev. prelate ought not to have been surprised at finding some hesitation in those who were called upon to submit to it. He would not contend that under the 48th canon such an examination was not within the reach of the right rev. prelate's power. But when spiritual persons removing from one charge to another produced proper testimonials, such a course as that pun sued in the diocese of Peterborough was altogether unknown; because it was naturally to be presumed, that such persons had already been sufficiently examined. If their lordships referred to the act of 13th Eliz., they would find that the bishop could only examine the candidate in order to ascertain whether he could explain in Latin an account of his belief in the articles of the church. The canon, in the same manner, requires the candidate to give an account of his faith in Latin, according to the articles. Thus, though the bishop was at liberty to examine on his discretion with respect to the mode, yet he was limited, both by the canon and statute law, as to the object, which was merely to make the candidate give an account of his faith according to the articles. The questions of the right rev. prelate were, however, of a leading nature, and often admitted but of one answer. Indeed, he called upon the candidate to answer them with yes, or no. They were a series of tests framed for the see of Peterborough, in addition to the 39 articles, which were the only lawful tests. In proof of the latitude of interpretation allowed for the 39 articles, he would quote some of the highest authorities of the church. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, book i, part 2, speaking of the form in which the articles of the church had been drawn up by those who framed them, states, that they cut off the errors of popery and anabaptism—"avoiding the niceties of schoolmen, or the peremptoriness of the writers of controversy; leaving, in matters that are more justly controvertible, a liberty to divines to follow their private opinions, without thereby disturbing the peace of the church." Fuller, in his Church History, observes, that the present articles in the main agree with those set forth in Edward 6th's time, but those who drew them up wished to allow more liberty to dissenting judgments. He says, "These holy men did prudently predis-

827
cover that differences in judgments would unavoidably arise in the church, and were loth to unchurch any, and drive them off from our ecclesiastical communion for such petty differences, which made them pen the articles in comprehensive words, to take in all who, differing in the branches, meet in the root of the same religion." The noble lord then quoted the bishop of Bangor, bishop Horsley, and several other eminent authorities for a wide interpretation of the 39 articles. To these authorities he might add the intention of the persons who established the king's declaration prefixed to them. As it thus appeared that the articles of the Church of England admitted of more than one mode of arriving at belief in them, he must contend that the right rev. prelate was bound to receive every answer by which a candidate could explain his belief according to the articles. The candidate, it appeared, was not admitted to examination until the questions were answered. But if the candidate was ready to account for his faith according to the articles, the right rev. prelate was, according to the statute of Elizabeth, bound to examine him. Their lordships must perceive, that if this course was permitted in one diocese, it might be generalized. Every bishop might have his particular set of questions, and their clergy would be driven to study these papers, in order to discover to what diocese it would be most convenient for them to go. To act on such a system was nothing else than recruiting for dissenters. There would soon be an episcopacy, with questions and articles on the other. It was the boast of this country, that there was no wrong for which the law had not a remedy. Was this system of clerical interrogation to form an exception? If there was no remedy in the hands of their lordships, they might at least be the means of procuring redress. The Crown might refer the cast to the Convocation, or some other mode of settling the question might be found. Their lordships ought, therefore, to agree to the address he intended to move after the petition was laid on the table. The purport of the address would be, to request that his majesty would be pleased to order an inquiry to be made to ascertain whether any innovations had taken place in church discipline.
The Bishop of Peterborough[Dr. Herbert Marsh,] rose and said: *—My Lords;—The question, whether the prayer of this petition shall be granted or not must chiefly depend on the truth or false-hood of the allegations. The allegations, therefore, shall be distinctly submitted to the consideration of your lordships. But, as some topics have been introduced, to which the allegations do not refer, it is necessary that those topics should be previously examined. The noble lord has stated, and truly states, that I refused a licence, in the course of last summer, to a person whom the petitioner had nominated to the curacy of Burton Latimer. But the noble lord has not accurately stated the grounds on which the licence was refused; nor was the refusal itself an act of injustice, as must be inferred from the arguments which he has employed. That a bishop is not only authorised but required to examine curates before they are licensed, appears from the 48th canon; and the necessity of such examination appears farther from the terms of a curate's licence, in which a bishop declares that he confides in the "sound doctrine" of the person to whom he grants it. Now, my lords, it would be a perfect anomaly, if they who are entrusted with the duty of examination had not the power of determining the mode of examination. Exercising, therefore, the discretionary power which belongs to examiners in general, I sent to the person, whom the petitioner had nominated, an Examination Paper, containing questions, which I required him to answer. The object a this examination by question and answer, being avowedly to ascertain the religious opinions of the persons examined, the only mode by which that object can be satisfactorily obtained, is by short, plain, and positive answers to the questions proposed. Such answers have been invariably given by the persons, to whom the questions have been proposed during the time that I have employed them in my present diocese. But the petitioner's intended curate departed entirely from the mode prescribed, which no one had attempted beside himself. Instead or giving direct answers to the questions proposed, he answered in so ambiguous and circuitous a manner, that it was im-
* From the original edition printed for F. C. and J. Rivington.

829
possible to ascertain with any precision what his opinions were. Where I was the most anxious that he should be explicit, he was the most obscure. For the answers to such questions he referred me to an appendix, consisting of ten folio pages, closely written; and this appendix had so many restrictions and reservations, that instead of explaining his opinions, it served only to conceal them. My lords, this was a mockery of examination, and an insult to the bishop who proposed the questions.
Having stated to your lordships in what manner the object of the examination was defeated, I will proceed to the sequel. Being unwilling to reject, without affording the opportunity of a second trial, I sent on the 17th of August 1821, another copy of my questions, which I desired this person to answer in the same direct and positive manner, with which no one had ever refused to comply. And I added, that if he did not choose to conform to that mode, he could not be licensed. My lords, this was no exercise of severity: for the mode prescribed was the, only mode by which the object of the examination could be obtained. But in a letter which I received from him on the 30th of August, 1821, be informed me, that he could give no other answers, than those which he had given already, but that, if I wished for more explanation, he was ready to send it. Now, I request your lordships to consider the circumstances under which this offer of additional explanation was made. I had already endured the drudgery of wading through ten folio pages of explanation, which tended rather to conceal, than to explain. Could it be expected then, that I should require more explanation, which would evidently have been of the same description? It would really have been absurd to require, it. And as he positively refused to answer in such a manner, as would enable me to say, that I confided in his sound doctrine, I should have subscribed to a falsehood, if I had signed his licence. I refused therefore what as an honest man I could not grant.
Another topic, to which the noble lord has adverted, is the custom of bringing testimonials, when a curate applies for a licence; which testimonials if he comes from another diocese, are countersigned by the bishop of that diocese. Such testimonials, as the noble lord contends, imply, that the person, who brings
830
them, has been sufficiently examined already, and therefore ought not to be subjected to any further examination. I cannot mean to offer an affront to any of my right rev. brethren: but where I must take the responsibility on myself, I must be allowed to judge for myself. And after all, my lords, to what do the usual testimonials amount, in reference to doctrine? They are signed by three beneficed clergymen, who state, that "as far as they know and believe," the person who brings them has never taught any thing that is contrary to the doctrine of the established church. And the bishop who countersigns them, states only, that the subscribers are beneficed in his diocese, and worthy of credit. The testimony of the bishop therefore is testimony to the credit of the subscribers. And though no bishop ought to countersign a testimonial, if he knows that the person, in whose favour it was given, really does maintain doctrines which are contrary to those of the church, as he would then declare, that the subscribers were worthy of credit in a case where he himself believed they were not entitled to it, yet where a bishop has not subjected a curate to examination, he must generally depend on the testimony of the subscribers. After all, then, the testimonial which is brought from another diocese, resolves itself generally into the testimony of three beneficed clergymen. And as their testimony to doctrine is matter only of opinion, which unfortunately for the present age is subject to great diversity, the bishop of one diocese offers no affront to the bishop of another diocese, if, notwithstanding the counter-signature of the latter, the former determines to grant no licence, till he is enabled to declare from his own knowledge, that the licensed curate is of sound doctrine.
The remarks, with which I have hitherto detained your lordships, have related to the examination of curates. But though the refusal of a curate's licence gave rise to the petition, the petition extends over a much wider field. It relates to the exminations for holy orders: and the noble lord, who presented it, has himself appealed to the 34th canon, which relates exclusively to candidates for holy orders. From that canon he has argued, against the use of those questions, which were originally proposed only to candidates for orders and are now confined, to them again. I shall at present make no remarks

831
on the noble lord's construction of that canon, as in the answers to the allegations, I shall endeavour to shew, that this canon, so far from being an argument against those questions, is authority in their favour. I am now only stating that this petition is directed against the mode of examination which is applied to candidates for holy orders. My lords, since the church has existed, no temporal authority has ever interfered with the rights of bishops to examine candidates for orders according to the mode, which in their opinion is best adapted to the purpose. If your lordships once interfere on this delicate subject, there will be no end to such interference, and a door will be opened to incalculable evil. Every unsuccessful candidate for orders, not only in my diocese, but in every diocese throughout the kingdom, will then think himself at liberty to send a petition to your lordships, complaining of the examination to which he was subjected, and praying your lordships to revise it.
But there is something in the subject matter of my questions, which is thought to render them peculiarly objectionable, and to warrant an interference, which has not been attempted in regard to any other bishop. My lords, I have no concern with the modes of examination adopted by other bishops. I am concerned only with the vindication of my own mode, which has been very improperly termed, an imposition of new articles of faith. I do not deny the assertion of the noble lord, that I propose questions which are technically termed leading questions; but they are not thereby converted into a new standard of faith. The answers, whatever they may be, are tried by the Liturgy and Articles, the standard of our national faith: and that, which is always referred to a standard, cannot be a standard itself. The noble lord has represented the questions as a preliminary test, which candidates for orders must undergo before they are admitted to examination. If questions may be called a test, because the answers to them are tried, I will not dispute about the appellation. But as the answers are tried by no other standard, than the standard of our national faith, they cannot be a test independent of that standard. To the objection, that candidates for orders are tried by these questions, before they are admitted to examination, I must beg permission to answer, that the trial, which
832
they undergo in regard to doctrine is as much a part of their examination, as the trial which they undergo in regard to their proficiency. And if I deem it expedient to examine in doctrine, before I examine in proficiency, it is a matter in which I have an undoubted right to exercise my own discretion.
My lords, I have thus endeavoured to explain to your lordships the course, which I have pursued in the examination of candidates for holy orders. And I hope that the general view which I have taken of the subject, will convince your lordships, that it merits not the censure which has been cast on it. To the particular objections which are made by the petitioner, I shall reply in the examination of the several allegations. I have hitherto adverted only to such topics as were introduced by the noble lord, who presented the petition: but I will now proceed to the allegations, on which the question, whether the prayer of it shall be granted, must chiefly depend.
The first allegation is, "That the lord bishop of Peterborough has fir some time introduced into his diocese a new mode of examination, consisting of 87 questions, embracing the minutest modifications of doctrine, and peremptorily requiring all candidates for ordination, and curates applying for a licence, to conform thereto, or to incur the penalty of being rejected." My lords, it is absolutely false, that I propose questions to be answered, on the terms stated in this allegation. Neither in such principle do I impose such hard conditions. When I was bishop of Landaff, the questions were accompanied with directions for answering them, in which the candidates were cautioned to pay due attention to them, because an unsatisfactory answer (as was there added) "may tend to their exclusion from the sacred office." But as this caution, thought never carried into effect, was liable to misrepresentation, I re-printed the questions before I came to Peterborough, and omitted the directions. Every copy, without exception, which has been delivered, either to curates, or to candidates for orders, in the diocese of Peterborough, has been delivered according to the reprinted form, that is, without the directions. Yet the petitioner represents the bishop of Peterborough, as "peremptorily requiring" what he calls a conformity to my questions, "under the penalty

833
of being rejected." And even the directions, which I gave as bishop of Landaff (with which, however, he has no concern), are grossly misrepresented. I there said, that an unsatisfactory answer "may tend" to exclusion, whereas, according to this allegation, it must tend to exclusion.
The second allegation is, "That to the above 87 questions, his lordship has very recently added 36 more, on one doctrine alone: and that on the same principle the number may be multiplied till there is no limit but the will and pleasure of the diocesan," Here, my lords, is another misrepresentation. Instead of adding, I have subtracted. Instead of adding 36 to 87, I have substituted 36 for 87, namely, in the examination of curates: no alteration having been made in the examination for orders. But let me substitute what I will, it is impossible to please the petitioner, whose objections are, in fact, directed, not against this or that set of questions, but against all questions which relate to doctrine.
The third allegation is, "That such an exercise of authority is unwise in policy, oppressive in principle, and impracticable in its proposed end; exceeding the powers vested in any prelate, calculated to produce a spirit of faction and controversy in the church contrary to the intention and design of the compilers of our articles, and in opposition to the most approved testimonies which are recorded on this subject." My lords, I have already proved, that "such an exercise of authority," as the petitioner imputes to, his own unfounded representation. It is unnecessary, therefore, to examine any of the predicates, which he affirms of such authority.
The fourth allegation is, "That the clergy recongnize no standard, to which they are bound to conform, but the 39 articles as by law established." My lords, this allegation is again untrue. Conformity to the liturgy, as by law established, is no less required of the clergy, than conformity to the articles. It is true, that conformity to the liturgy has been understood in a different sense from conformity to the articles. It was understood, for instance, in a different sense, by the clergy who returned from Geneva in the time of Elizabeth, with the tenets of Calvin, tenets so adverse to our liturgy, that Calvin, in one of his
834
epistles, calls it the leavings of Popish dregs. The Calvinistic clergy, therefore, in the reign of Elizabeth, as also in those of her two immediate successors, regarded a conformity to the liturgy as implying only the reading it from the desk, whether they believed in its doctrines or not. But no clergyman of the present age can take refuge in such explanations. By the act of Uniformity, which passed on the Restoration, it is required that all clergymen, within two months after their admission to a benefice, shall make the following declaration, openly in the church, in the presence of the congregation to which they are appointed. "I do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained, and prescribed, in and by the book intituled the Book of Common Prayer." Now, my lords, when a clergyman declares his unfeigned assent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, he necessarily declares his unfeigned assent to the doctrines therein contained. It is not true, therefore, that the thirty-nine articles are the sole standard of faith for the clergy of the Established Church. But though the petitioner has failed in his attempt to exclude the liturgy from all participation in the standard of nationa faith, your lordships cannot fail to remark the principles which are displayed in this allegation. In 1641, when similar principles prevailed with regard to the liturgy, the House of Lords appointed a committee of religion, the only instance, I believe, on record. The first resolution of this committee was, that the five points, as they are called, should be explained in the Calvinistic sense. They then undertook to reform the liturgy: and not long afterwards the liturgy was abolished. My lords, I sincerely hope, that our liturgy will not be abolished again. But of this I am certain, that petitions to the House of Lords, in which such principles are revived, must prepare the way for it.
The fifth allegation, still in reference to the 39 articles, is, "That the 36th canon and the 13th of Elizabeth, c. 12, demand consent and subscription to this standard, and to this only; and consequently the system imposed by the bishop of Peterborough is a violation of this statute and this canon." That the 36th canon requires subscription to the thirty-nine articles only, is an assertion which is

835
again untrue. The 36th canon requires subscription also to the liturgy? That the 13th of Elizabeth, cap. 12, requires subscription to the articles, and not to the liturgy, is no argument in favour of the position for which the petitioner contends. For an act had previously, the act of Uniformity, which passed in the very first year of Elizabeth's reign. And this act is as silent about the articles, as the other is about the liturgy. The one, therefore, would form as good an argument against subscription to the articles, as the other against subscription to the liturgy. To the inference, which is deduced in this allegation, it is sufficient to reply, that as the premises are unfounded, the inference cannot be true. I require, indeed, subscription to the liturgy, as well as to the articles. But as the 13th Eliz., c. 12, in requiring subscription to the articles, does not prohibit subscription to the liturgy, and the 36th canon requires subscription both to the liturgy and to the articles, I do not see in what manner I violate either the act, or the canon.
The sixth allegation is, "That however he may consider his system of examination to be according to the national standard, it is henceforth no longer the national standard, to which the candidate is exclusively called to assent, but rather the bishop of Peterborough's interpretation of that standard." My lords, if there must be no interpretation of the articles, there must be no examination in the articles: for the notion of examination without interpretation involves an absurdity. The matter at issue, then, is reduced to this—have bishops, or have they not, a right to examine in the articles? If they have no such right, I must abandon not only the questions of which the petitioner complains, but all other questions on the articles, which at my own discretion I might think proper to employ instead of the present questions. My lords, I contend that bishops have a right to examine in the, articles; and in support of that right I appeal to the 34th canon. By that canon every candidate for orders is required "to yield an account of his faith," and to yield this account "according to the articles of religion." Whether the account be given in English or in Latin, is nothing to the account itself. I ask, then, your lordships whether any man can yield an "account
836
of his faith," and yield that account "according to the articles of religion," by the bare act of putting his name to the articles? I ask your lordships whether he can yield an account of his faith, according to the articles, by any other means than by examination in the articles? I am sure your lordships will determine that nothing but examination can elicit the account required.
The seventh allegation is, "That the title prefixed to the 39 articles, viz. articles agreed upon for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and of establishing consent touching true religion, sufficiently illustrates their design, and proves that it is the articles themselves, and not a prelate's interpretation of them, that constitute the only authorized provision against all diversity of opinion." My lords, it is certainly true, that diversity of opinion in matters of religion is the object against which our articles were intended to provide. But I am at a loss to comprehend how this diversity of opinion can be prevented in the way proposed by the petitioner. He says it is "the articles themselves, and not a prelate's interpretation of them, that constitute the only authorized provision against all diversity of opinion." But the articles themselves as opposed to the interpretation of the articles, cannot possibly produce the effect intended. By the articles themselves, as opposed to the interpretation of them, can be meant nothing more, than the bare letter of the articles. But the bare letter of the articles, without reference to the sense of the articles, expresses no opinion whatever. And that which expresses no opinion, can never operate as a check on diversity of opinion.
The eighth allegation is, "That the royal declaration no less asserts that 'no 'man shall put his own sense or comment 'to be the meaning of the article.'" My lords, I cannot deny that these words, when taken by themselves, appear at least to militate against interpretation generally. For if no man shall put his own sense upon the articles, no sense whatever can be put on the articles. Such an assent to articles of religion would indeed be a very unmeaning assent: it would in fact be an assent to nothing. But if the words quoted by the petitioner are taken in connexion with what precedes and follows, the effect is very different. The sentence from which he has extracted a few words, is as follows, "and that

837
no man hereafter shall either print or preach, to draw the article aside any way but submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall fide put his own sense, or comment to be the meaning of the article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense." From this sentence your lordships will perceive that the royal declaration is so far from prohibiting an interpretation of the articles (which would be a perfect absurdity), that it prescribe seven the rules of interpretation. It enjoins that the articles shall be interpreted in their "literal and grammatical sense;" that they shall not be drawn aside from this sense; and that no man shall put on them any other meaning, than their plain and literal meaning. My lords, these are rules of interpretation, from which I have never swerved. They are rules, which I have uniformly and zealously maintained, the as petitioner himself might have known, if he had read his Diocesan's Lectures on Interpretation.—But in the answers to my examination questions I have met with woeful instances of departure from these rules. I have met with instances, in which the words, both of the liturgy and of the articles have been so drawl aside from their literal meaning, as to make them express the reverse of that meaning. And such interpretations have been given, not merely in matters of "curious search," where a latitude of opinion might be allowed, but on points of doctrine which are too clearly expressed to admit of doubt, and too important to be regarded as not essential to the Established Church. And I can solemnly assure your lordships, that in the few instances in which my duty has compelled me to reject on account of doctrine, I have never done it for deviations of the former kind, unless accompanied by deviations of the latter kind. And as my conduct in this respect has been grossly misrepresented, I beg permission to add, in answer to the charge of undue severity, that I have spared no pains to recover those, who had departed from the doctrines of the church. And my endeavours in this respect have been grossly misrepresented, I beg permission to add, in answer to the charge of undue severity, that I have spared no pains to recover those, who had departed from the doctrines of the church. And my endeavours in this respect have been so successful, that the total number of rejection on account of doctrine has, in the course of five years, amounted only to three.
The ninth allegation is, "That such a proceeding therefore is a manifest violation of these several provisions, and threatens to endanger the stability of the
838
national creed; and though ostensibly professing to promote uniformity, is destructive of the very object that it assumes to establish, by becoming a precedent for the endless multiplication of interpretations in every diocese throughout the kingdom." By the term "such a proceeding" I suppose the petitioner understands that mode of examination, which I apply to candidates for holy orders. But I have shown in the answer to the former allegation, that though a garbled extract from the declaration appears to favour his objections, the whole sentence produces the contrary effect. My mode of proceeding therefore is no violation of those provisions, to which he refers in the 8th allegation. Nor is it a violation of the provisions to which he refers in the 7th allegation, as I have shown in the answer to that allegation. I need not, therefore, examine the inference which he deduces in the 9th allegation, as the premises are unfounded.
The tenth allegation, still in reference to my examination questions, is, "That no similar attempt has ever been made since the time of archbishop Laud, when it produced the most serious consequences, alike affecting both church and state." My lords, I cannot deny, that the prelate to whom the petitioner alludes, did make, a "similar attempt." The royal declaration, prefixed to the articles, was prefixed at the suggestion of Laud, when bishop of London. And that declaration has life same object with my examination questions, namely, literal and grammatical interpretation. The declaration also gave as much offence to the Calvinists of that age, as my examination questions in the present age. The former prepared an address to the king against the declaration: and it seems a similar address is now in contemplation against the examination questions. Nor is it improbable that the fate which attended archbishop Laud would befall the bishop of Peter-borough, if the same party should again obtain the ascendancy in the church. Be this, however, as it may, I shall not be deterred from the performance of what I believe in my conscience to be my bounded duty.
The eleventh allegation is, "that the royal declaration prefixed to the 39 articles, was issued in order to prevent the recurrence of such an evil, by denouncing in the strongest manner, such innovations, and imposing the severest penalties: and

839
that these solemn prohibitions are never the less violated to sundry and numerous instances by the proceedings of the bishop of Peterborough." From this allegation it is evident, that the petitioner entirely misunderstands the origin and purport of the royal declaration. The evil to which he refers, can be no other evil, than that which he had stated in the allegation immediately preceding, namely, the evil there ascribed to archbishop Laud. But the "recurrence" of that evil could not have been prevented by a declaration issued in the early part of king Charles's reign, 1628, and at the suggestion of Laud himself. The petitioner evidently supposes that it was issued at the suggestion of Laud's adversaries, and that it was issued, not for the purpose of checking the licentious interpretation of the puritans, but for the purpose of checking the measures of Laud himself. I do not wonder, therefore, at his great regard for the declaration, though his quotation from it clearly shows, that much cutting and paring is necessary, before it will suit his purpose.—That I violate the prohibitions of the declaration is a charge which I solemnly deny. The chief prohibition, is that of drawing aside the articles from their literal and grammatical sense. But I am so far from violating that prohibition, that I comply with it to the utmost extent.
The twelfth allegation is, "that your petitioner has appealed to his grace the archbishop of Canterbury, who alleges that he is not competent to interfere on this occasion." My lords, there is only one remark to be made on this allegation, namely, that in this instance, as in every other instance which has come to my knowledge, his grace has acted according to the true spirit and constitution of the Established Church.
My lords, I now come to the prayer of the petition, in which is proposed an address to his majesty as head of the church, to enforce the royal declaration. But the enforcing of the royal declaration will, for reasons already stated to your lordships, defeat rather than promote the purpose of the petitioner. That purpose, if answered by an address to the throne, can be answered only by an address imploring his majesty to issue his royal mandate to the bishop of Peterborough, and prohibit the questions, of which the petitioner complains. My lords, if his majesty could be induced to issue such a mandate, I would bow in obedience to the royal com-
840
mands. But before your Lordships concur in a motion to that effect, it is necessary to consider, whether such an exercise of the royal prerogative would be consistent with the constitution in church and state. In the use of those questions I exercise a right, which I enjoy under existing laws; and laws cannot be annulled by one branch only of the legislature. The 34th canon is my warrant for an examination in the articles. My questions constitute an examination in the articles. And whether I propose for that purpose the questions which I now employ, or introduce another set, as circumstances may require, is a matter which must depend on my own discretion and in which no one has a right to dictate.—My Lords, I do not deny, that bishops, as well as other men, may abuse their authority. With such an abuse of authority I am charged in the present petition: but whether truly or not must depend on the truth or falsehood of the allegation. My lords, I have sifted those allegations to the bottom. I have proved, that the first allegation contains a direct falsehood: that the second is a misrepresentation; that the third allegation, in which the petitioner contends for an abuse of authority, is dependent on the two former, and consequently devoid of truth. I have further proved that his fourth and fifth allegations exhibit other deviations from the truth; while his attempt to exclude the liturgy as a standard of faith, betrays a creed, which ill deserves the protection of your lordships. Of the remaining allegations, as far as they have any reference to the pretended abuse of authority, I have shown, that they are altogether fallacious.—I ask, then, your lordships, will you accede to the prayer of a petition, which is founded in sophistry and falsehood? That the noble lord, who has presented it was not aware of its sophistry and falsehood, when he yielded to the solicitations, with which I know that he was earnestly pressed, I am well assured, or he would have rejected those solicitations with disdain. The noble lord could not suspect, that any man would dare to affront the House of Lords by the tender of unfounded allegations.
My lords, before I conclude I beg permission to say a few words concerning myself. Whatever be the fate of the questions, I have no personal interest at stake. I shall be no personal loser, if they are wholly abandoned. I have no other desire to retain them, than, what arises from

841
the belief, that they have contributed to the welfare and security of the church. The voice of faction has been raised against them, and in the outcry, episcopal authority has been treated with insolence, and ecclesiastical discipline has been set at nought. But, my lords, this very opposition, when viewed in its true light, may be regarded as an argument in their favour. From assurances, which I still possess, I know that they were approved by learned and orthodox divines: and if that approbation has been lately checked, it is the infirmity of human nature which recoils at the approach of danger.—My lords, it might not have been expected that a bishop who devotes his life to the defence of Christianity, and the defence of the Established Church, should be called before your lordships to answer for his conduct. But as I am not aware that I have violated my duty even on the subject of complaint, I willingly resign my cause into the hands of your lordships.
Lord Hollandsaid, that he disapproved of the language which the right rev. prelate had employed in speaking of the petitioner: such language was harsh in itself, and not becoming the quarter whence it proceeded. With regard to the defence of the right rev. prelate to the charge of the petition, it was the most complete instance of ignorantia elenchi he had ever heard. The question to be ultimately decided was this—whether the learned prelate was justified in putting his questions. If he had that right, no man could doubt that he had also the right to choose his own mode of examination; but it was first necessary to determine whether the matter, substance, object, and principle of the examination were warranted by the law of the land, and by expediency and prudence? He would broadly assert, that it was ambiguous and doubtful, whether, by law, the learned prelate had a right to do so; and, whether he did or did not possess it, it had always been thought most imprudent and, improper in the right rev. prelate to assert it. With regard to the canons, when he heard the right rev. prelate speak of them in a tone of such authority, he could not help at least hinting a doubt whether those canons were, in truth, any part of the law of the land, for they had never received the sanction of parliament, like the Liturgy, the Articles, or the Homilies. The 48th canon was the only one on which the
842
claim now set up could be rested: but even this 48th was liable to two interpretations. It was not to be disputed that the petitioner had subscribed the 39 articles; and that act hitherto had been considered a sufficient test. Looking at the history of these 39 articles, he found that they had been put into their present shape at the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth, in 1562; and with reference to their doctrines he must say, that from the period of the Reformation down to the time of that good man Hooker, and even of that bad man Laud, the principles of Arminianism were unknown to the Church of England. One of the greatest ornaments of the Bishops' bench had said, that those 39 articles contained opinions on which a clergyman of the Church of England ought not to be examined. Was the right rev. prelate quite sure that such men as Parker and Sanderson could have satisfactorily answered his questions? Was he quite sure, even that all those by whom he was now surrounded, could do so without offending against some doctrinal point, which the right rev. prelate held so necessary to true religion and virtue? It was not to be denied that the 39 articles were drawn up by persons whose opinions tended more to Calvinism than to Arminianism; but as bishop Horsley had correctly said; they were intended to admit both within the pale of the church; they were articles of peace and union, and observed a perfect and judicious neutrality. Whitgift had endeavoured to add six articles wholly Calvinistic; but for the reason stated they were rejected. Down to the reign of William III. that "discreet laxity" of which Fuller spoke Church History, had always been allowed, regarding the articles. Coming down to a later date, he arrived at the great authority of archbishop Wake upon this subject—an authority to which he had before alluded. The injunctions he promulgated related solely to the testimonials and to the morality of the candidate for a curacy, or for holy orders, but said not a syllable regarding rejection on points of doctrine. He had held a correspondence with the Protestants of Geneva and Bern; and in one of his letters to the latter, he had thus spoken of the 39 articles: "I have never, to any man or men, given my opinions upon that subject, and I am determined never to do it. It has always been the policy of

843
the church of England, and I trust in God it will always remain so, to require nothing more than the mere subscription of the articles." Thus it was evident, that archbishop Wake could never have entitled himself to a curacy in the diocese of the right rev. prelate. He, one of the loftiest and ablest dignitaries of the church must be abandoned by those who thought with the present bishop of Peterborough, as a republican, as one who would be willing to bring his sovereign to the block, and as meriting all the reproaches and epithets which the right rev. prelate, in his truly Christian spirit, had heaped upon the petitioner. He had heard that some of the candidates to whom licenses were refused from the see of Peterborough had obtained them in other dioceses. He had read the answers to the 87 questions, and he could find no ground for the charge of artifice, brought forward by the right rev. prelate. The object of the petitioner was, to gain the curacy, and but for his honest scruples of conscience he might have obtained it. He now came to the topic of expediency, and he must observe, that if the practice of the right rev. prelate could be justified by strict law, it was in itself a tremendous grievance, and a most cruel power, the exercise of which ought to be controlled. The hardship in a case like that of the petitioner was extreme. By the resolutions in the case of Horne Tooke it had been settled, that when once a man was a deacon, he could look for advancement in no profession but the church. A man might be able to subscribe the 39 articles with the latitude hitherto allowed, and an opportunity of preferment in the diocese of Peterborough occurring, he might have reasonably expected that no obstacle would have been presented to his obtaining it. But no: the bishop stepped in, and put him to a new test by his 87 questions, some of them of no easy solution, and such as archbishop Wake himself could not have answered. Still, answered they must be; and if it could not be done without it, the candidate must read over the right rev. prelate's long controversial work for is instruction. He had no choice—"extiactæ corpus non utile dextræ" and if he did not give satisfactory replies upon all the doctrinal points, he must be content to be a beggar all his life. It might be true that only three had been rejected by the right rev. prelate; but
844
could he say how many had been deterred from seeking advancement through such an ordeal? There was one remark which he would not have made but for the charge of artifice which had been made against the petitioner. The 87 questions were propounded to young, inexperienced men—to candidates for curacies of holy orders; but they were never put to beneficed clergymen, who might be supposed to be more competent to reply. The truth was, that in such cases third persons were interested—the lay patron—perhaps the Crown; and if objections were made to the interrogatories, the matter could be carried to another jurisdiction. He did not say that it was so; but it looked very much as if the right rev. prelate was resolved to go as far as he could without (to use a familiar phrase) being hauled over the coals. By a practice like this, each separate diocese would be converted into a separate church, and divisions and sects would be endless. But, since the Church of England was part of the law and constitution, parliament was bound to interpose in cases of necessity. He did not put it on the miserable ground of property; but, for the sake of the interests of religion, the House was called upon to interfere and to take care that the basis of the church was as broad and solid as duty to God and the welfare of the state would allow. The right rev. prelate had done what, till his time, had not been attempted since the Reformation. He strove to straighten and narrow the basis of the church; and the speech he had just made showed that those who wished for the peace and security of the country ought either to put an end to the practice he had begun, or at least to institute an inquiry into its legality and policy. The right rev. prelate objected to the extraordinary interference of the House; yet he himself, day after day, had sat with exemplary patience to support a bill of pains and penalties against the first subject of the realm, on the ground that the ordinary law did not reach the case. Here the ordinary law did nor reach the case; yet he contended that there was no remedy but through a convocation. As to the power of a convocation, it was unquestionably a very pretty power to be read of in books; live to see the day when it should be again exercised.
Lord Calthorpecontended, that the mode of proceeding adopted by the right rev. prelate closed all those openings in the 39 articles purposely left for the scruples of conscientious minds. He thought it most desirable for the welfare, and most essential to the peace, of the country, and the interests of the clergy, that their lordships should express their decided reprobation of the course which had been pursued by the right rev. prelate. He did hope, that their lordships by their vote of that evening, would make it clearly understood that they would not lend their high sanction to a proceeding, more menacing to the prosperity of the church, than any which had been ventured on, since the period of the Reformation.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that as he had, on the last occasion voted that the petition should not be laid upon the table, he felt anxious to explain the grounds upon which he should now be disposed to give a contrary vote. They allegations which the petition contained appeared to him to be of the gravest character; and, looking to the important interests which might be in some further inquiry ought to be instituted. He was satisfied, in regard to the church and its welfare, that to narrow the base was the best method of securing the superstructure. The conduct of the right rev. prelate, he considered to be clearly most impolitic. But, while he was disposed to vote for laying the petition on the table, he was far from pledging himself to support the proposed address.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it appeared to him that the petition ought to be permitted to be read and laid on the table, whether their lordships should found any ulterior measure upon it or not. But if it was intended, by laying the petition on their table, to imply any censure on the right rev. prelate, he would vote against it, even in that stage of the question. He could not see how the right reverend prelate, indeed, could go on to the subscription, without previous examination.
The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Lord Dacresaid, he had intended to have followed up the last motion, by moving an address to the Crown; but from what the learned lord had said, it was clear that he should find much opposition if he persevered in his intention. He was
846
therefore inclined to substitute for it a motion, "that this petition be referred to a committee to consider the matter thereof."
The Lord chancellorsaid, that having explained the terms on which he would consent that the petition should be laid on the table, he would only add, that he could not consent to this motion.
The Earl of Carnarvonexpressed his astonishment, that not one of the right rev. prelates on the bench had signified, either by word or gesture, whether he approved or disapproved of the doctrines and conduct of his right rev. brother. Those learned and rev. prelates' attendance on the present occasion was certainly ornamental; but whether it would be practically useful, remained to be determined. He really did think that on a question like the present, their timid silence was a desertion of the cause which it was their duty to advocate. On any constitutional question there was no delay on their part in giving their lordships the benefit of their experience; but now, on a question of church policy, it seemed they were prepared to go to a vote without any explanation of their opinions. What would the public think when they found, that among so many right rev. prelates there was not one who had said a word on the subject? He trusted, however, that one would yet be found to rescue the bench from what he must call the shame of such inactive and timid policy.
The House divided: Contents, 19; Not Contents, 58.