Star. — London, England, 1820-05-13 00:00:00

11 I i i II I i I II j . I r 1 ~ I ...Or •.. , • PARLIAMENT•ARY PROCEEDINGS. HOUSE or tor. DS, MA Y 12. The Earls of Surromt, AYLtSFORD, Go+LrorT, the Duke of Soatsastr, and the Bishop of CLOTNX, took the oaths and CI& seats. _ _ Counsel were ftnalry heard in the Scots' Appeal, " Dunbar v. Tlniffie."—.ludgenibt postponed. Counsel were also beard respecting the Writ of Error Case, " Rowe v. Young." The further consideration of the Queensberry Cause, with re ference to judgment, was postponed. Their Lordships then adjourned for some time during plea s-re. On the resuming of the House, The Insolvent Debtots' Continuation Bill was brought up by Bir. Can apd other Members, and read the first time. A Stessenger from the East India House brought up certain rapers containing Accounts relative to the East „India Company. ALLOWANCE" TO yOREIGN MINISTERS. The Marquis of LANSDOWN rose to move for a Return or: the Allowances made to British Ministers at Foreign Courts during a limited period. His Lordship prefaced his motion by o'.)scriing, that he wished to remove a misapprehension of hi; object which had arisen from the speech of a Noble Lord (Li verpool) on the night on which he gave notice of his motion. IL: (Lord Lansdown) bad then stated that it would be proper to separate front the Civil List all such charges as were in their hature subject to variation, and be heard it with surprise as s.n-ted, that the allowances to certain Officers of the Royal lionseholci, such as the Lot ;. Chamberlain and Lord Steward, were more subject to fluctuation than those to Ministers at Foreign Calms—and therefore that it would be as proper to se parate one as the other from the immediate expenditure of the C. JAIL lie denied; however, that such was the case, the ex penses incurred by allowances to the Lot d Chamberlain and Lord Stewardvrere Capable of being averaged—those in support of Foreign Missions depended upon political circumstances that must 'alWays render them liable to uncertainty, and it could. not be.a cause confusion in the public mind upon the subject of the Royal expenses, and act injuriously on the compact made be tween the King and tfie Nation at the commencement of a reign, if such variable charges were mixed up with the neces sary and permanent expenses of the Royal Establishment. The object of his motion was ultimately to separate those salafies to Foreign Ministers from the charges of the King's Household, which latter ones he considered ought to be free from any Par liamentary controul. His Lordship concluded by moving; " That an Address be presented to his Majesty, praying for a Return of all the Allowances, Salaries, and Pensions, paid to British Ministers at Foreign Courts during the last ten years, distin guishing each year."—Ordered. • - - CONVICTIONS UNDER THE NEW ACTS: The Earl of DARN LEY, after a few observations to shew that the late Acts affecting constitutional subjects had been proved to have been unnecessary by the later convictions Under the old laws, moved for A Return of the Convictions, which bad taken place under the Act spaced, since the Ist of December, 1819."—Ortlered. TIIE ATIIAWASIAN CREED. Lord lIOLLAND rose, pursuant to notice, to pre: I sent.a Petition from a Clergyman of the Diocese of Exeter. He found it necessary to commence, by say ing a few words as to the time at which the Petition was presented, and as to tire mode of proceeding which he intended to adopt—as to the former, the fact was, that the Petitioner had, as early as the moath of November, applied to a Nobleman on the subject, whose Manly spirit and commanding elo quence would, if any could, afford protection to the oppresscd—.he meant Lord Grey—but his Lordship was then indisposed. An application was then made ths,Noble Lord himself; but he was also so un well, is tot to be able to attend to his duties in the House, and the subequent dissolution of Parliament, occasioned the further delay which had occurred ; but he boptd the time thus unavoidably elapsed, would not have the effect of prejudicing the case, As to the mode pursued, be wished to observe, that he thoright it the most manly, just, and candid way to have their Lordships summoned for the occasion, that those high characters whose conduct was ani madverted upon in that Petition, might have the best opportunity of giving the requisite explanation to the House. The Noble Lord thee proceeded to state the substance of the Petition; which was briefly as fol lows. The Petitioner, the Rev. Mr. Jones, was a Cleigyinan of the Church of England, who held the Curacy of the Parish of North Povy, in the diocese of Exeter. A County Meeting was called sonic time back, for the purpose of petitioning against any fur ther concession to the Roman Catholics : a number of Freeholders and Clergymen attended, a great number of whom were hostile to the Catholic claims. The Petitioner also attended, and in the. course of the discussion delivered a speech in answer to one made by a Reverend Brother, who had spoken in fa vour of the object of the Meeting. He was afterwards presented to two livings by a friend, one in the dio cese of Peterborough, the other in that of Lincoln. It is necessary on those occasions to produce to the Bi shop of the diocese in which the living is situate, a tes timonial signed by three Clergymen of the diocese in which the presented Cleik resides, and which testi. monial ought to be countersigned by the Bishop of the same diocese. In the case of the Petitioner, three neighbouring Clergymen did sign his testimonial, which ascribed to him art orderly, sober, and pious lite, and vouched that he had never held or written any doctrines contrary to those of the Church of England. This document was submitted of course to the Bishop of Exeter, the diocesan, but he refused to countersign it. The Petitioner then wrote to the other two Bishops, in order to ascertain whether they, would refuse to institute him on account of the want of his Diocesan's counter-signature. He received letters from both in answer, which agreed as to the determination not to institute on such testimonial. The Petitioner then called upon his diocesan, and requested to know the reason why he refused his sig nature? 'f he Learned and Reverend Prelate, although he assumed the power of such refesal without as signing any reason, yet was manly and candid enough to state what his reason was; and from what the reason was, it might be seen what it was not. — It *as not for want of. competency, nor was it founded on any impeachment of moral character, or anything that constituted a deficiency of icloneisas persona for a clerical office; but it was in conse quence of the Petitioner having uttered certain words in a speech at a Public Meeting. The Petitioner of fered proof that he had never spoken the words im puted to him, but it was of no avail. The persons who bad informed the Bishop, as he was not present himself, were honoured with more credit. They were not however named, nor was Mr. Jones at any time confronted with them ; nor did he get any op portunity of refuting their charge, or disproving rlieir credibility. When he found it in vain to per ..e‘ ere in 'coking for institution, he, although not compelled by law, but feeling an obligation in :ionour, surrendered the presentations, and thereby lost a provision of 5001. per annum. This was a d estr uction of property, and a loss of livelihood in flicted on a clergyman who had committed no ca nonical' (deuce, and had no opportunity of disproving • , the facts alleged against b 1 n. lie had, mbieoier, pti remedT in law. Although his moral charaCter was blameless, and the diocesan bad offered to write to the other Right Reverend Prelates, acknowledg ing that his count n was not withheld on account pa*of any moral im on, yet he was treated in such a way, as to bQcome a • marked and stigmatized man. If he had done anything which constituted a suffi- 1 cien tfttuse for preventing his institution to a living, it ought to have been as valid a ground for depriving him of his Curacy. The Noble Lord then proceeded to state several circumstances in proof of the good character which Mr. Jones had supported in the parish to which he belonged. He said that he had been scarcely ever a week absent from his parish, and that he had received a letter from the wife of his Rector, who was then confined to his bed, ex pressing a high sense of the manner in which he had discharged his parochial duties. On the death of his Rector also, the parishioners had passed a reso lution, to the purport that he was deserving of being appointed their new Rector; but other arrangements interfered, and prevented it. The Noble Lord next observed, that the case of refusing to countersign, and that of refusing to institute, were very different as regarded a remedy in l*w. ' :In the latter case the Bishop might undoubtedly ;do*, in the first instance, and assign no reason—but by process of law he was compellable to assign a reason; and, if he did not, the tribunal which issued the process, had also the power to enforce it; but there was no legal remedy against the Bishop for his refusal to countersign.— ihis, ,he contended,• was an enormous and arbi trary power, and ought to be relieved in the same way as the refusal to institute, as it might be productive of thegrossest abuse, and might tend to the -most serious injury of property ; far although Mr. Jones had surrendered, the livings to which the patron nominated hito, yet, he was not obliged by law to do so, and had he refused, the right of pre sentation must have lapsed, and accrued to the ordi- nary. The words stated to have been spoken by the Pentioneas'at the County Meeting, and which were mentioned by the Bishop as his ground for refusing his request were—" That in subscribing to the eighth of the thirty-nine Articles, which contained an ap probation of the Athanasian Creed and its damnable clauses, nine-tenths of the Clergymen of the Church England subscribed to what they did not believe ;" other words were added, to the purport, that in the whole code of the Church of Rome, there was no thing more uncharitable. These words, his Lord ship said, were incorrectly reported ; instead of the word " damnable," he had used the epithet " dam , natory," which made a vast difference. Evidence to shew that he had not Used the words imputed to him, could be adduced from the report of his speech in the Newspapers, in which nothing of the son t ap peared, also from the letters of persons of credibility present at the time, and from the whole tenour of his argument : one of the persons who deposed in his favour was a Gentleman who had sat next him, a brother of Serjeant Pell—another was a relative of Sir Vicary Gibbs. As to the tenour of the Petitioner's argument, it was a material ground for ascertaining the real character of his expressions. It was in reply to the argument of a Reverend Gentleman who had urged. against the Catholics, that they signed an in tolerant Creed, and that they ought to be judged of, not by whaf they profesied or practised, but by the principles to which they affixed their signatures. In answer to this, Mr. Jones maintained, that it would be as uncharitable to decide against the Catholics on those grounds, as to charge the Clergy of the Church of England with any intolerant principle, which might be contained in the Thirty-nine Articles; for instance, the eighth Article was signed by all the Clergy of that Church ; and as it contained a Creed which declared that every man not of the Church of England must be lost and damned, it was impossible that nine-tenths of these who subscribed it could be lieve in such a doctrine—(Hear, hear).—The Noble Lord then proceeded to shew, that this opinion of the Petitioner, relative to the Athanasian Creed, was in unison with the opinions pronounced upon the same subject by some of the brightest ornaments•of the Church. Among others, he instanced Arch bishop Tillotson, who, in reference to that Creed, had made use of the memorable words—" I wish we Were well rid of it."—(Hear, hear).—He also in stanced Bishop Burnet, who said, that sixty out of an hundred Clergymen signed the Articles without readibg, others without understanding them, and the remainder, because they must. He contended, that it was no less preposterous to refuse to institute Mr. Jones for the words which he had used, than it would have been to refuse to consecrate those learned and illustrious Prelates, if their words had, 'previously to consecration, been urged against them. He also referred to the opinion of Paley, upon the work of the late Bishop of Carlisle, and likewise to the strong language made use of by Bishop Horsley in the House of Lords, who had, in his (Lord Holland's) hearing, called the disputed speculative points of consubstantiation and transubstentiation,conundrunts! —(4l laugh).—His Lordship then argued on the harshness of construction, which, without proper in quiry, had been put upon the words of the Peti tioner, and combated the possibility of any redress for the loss of property, and the ruin and blasting of character in this case, unless from the interposition of their Lordships. As to the courts of law, it had been said that the Petitioner, by proper application, might have a qu art impedit against the Bishops who refused to institute, although he could have none against the Bishop who refused to countersign. The Bishops might answer the quart impedit by a special I plea, to which the Petitioner could put in a demurrer, which, if it set aside the plea, would entitle him to a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench to com pel than to institute him. He then contended, that such a mode of redress was, to a person who sub sisted on a Curacy of £3O per annum, in fact no re dress at all, as he never could sustain the expense of such litigation. It would condemn him to perpetual irrevocable poverty. This was a case of great im portance, both to Ecclesiastical property, and to the state of the inferior order of Clergy—who, if redress was not given in this case, must be reduced to a con dition of abject dependence. The Noble Lord con cluded, by stating, that after the Petition had been read, he would move than it be referred to a Com mittee to inquire into the laws empowering the Bishops to refuse their counter-signature, without assigning a reason, and to report thereon; this he said was tire more necessary, as by tkOIUC late laws the bishops . tact 'obtained a great increase of authority over the inferior ranks of Clergy..—The Petition was then read, and the CoMmittee moved. The Bishop of EXETER said, that he would not follow the detail of the Noble Lord's speech, but would content himself with refuting the allegations contained in the Petition. The calling of the County Meeting for the purpose mentioned in the Petition, was correct ; and also that the Petitioner had made a speech at that Meeting in faviiel of the Catholic Claims; but the Learned Prelate disavowed his hav ing been actuated by any political feelings in refusing his countersignature to the testimonial. He did not either, as was alleged, omit to investigate the matter: enquiries on the subject had occupied him three weeks. He had received letters corroborative of the accusation against the Petitioner.. He had acted as he had done in the conscientious discharge of his duty, by adhering to an invariable rule regard ing presentation. The three Clergymen who had signed the Petitioner% testimonial, had done so with a perfect ignorance of his conduct on the occasion mentioned. But since they had heard even his own account of the matter, they had withdrawn their signatures. His Lordship concluded by stating, that as to allowing the Petitioner to retain his Curacy, he had done so merely from a charitable feeling. Lord ERSKINE gave credit to the Right Reve rend Lord for the pinny of his intentions, though he thought his conduct in the present instance was pro perly brought under the view of the House. The manner in which those testimonials were conducted was familiar to all. He believed no one would con tradict him, when he stated that they were of this kind. They generally ran in the following words : " We, the undersigned, do testify that we personally know for the last three years, that we believe him to be a person of moral conduct, and that he does-not maintain any doctrines contrary to those of the Church of England."—But it frequently happened that a Clergyman was promoted, who did not know three Clergymen in diocese. A son of his own hadlieen in that situation; but the signature of one 'being 'procured, the Archbishop of Canterbury signi fied that he was worthy of credit ; the Bishop of Chi chester did the same,:though they knew nothing iaf his son, and thus the difficulty was got over. He would admit, that if a Right Reverend Prelate knew anything, disadvantageous to the personal character of the individual, be was not only justified in not signing the testimonial, but bound not-to sign it.— Every man had a right so to conduct himself in this world, as to preserve his general character, and if he lost it he must take the consequence. Such was the rule of law. - If a person was examined as a witness, and that another swore he did not believe his oath, because he was a man of bad character, the Ccurt could not go into the inquiry. But if, as in the pre sent case, an inquiry was set on foot, not as to the general character, but a particular fact, su?h as the one before them, and that on the ground of that fact the Bishop should refuse to sign, he would take the liberty to say, that such conduct must prove unsa tisfactory to the House. He would ask, why did not the Reverend Prelate go into the Spiritual Court, where the Petitioner would have had an opportunity of defending himself?—(Hear, hear). Would the Reverend Prelate undertake to say, that those from whom he derived his information were present during the whole of the speech, for nothing could be more unfair than to judge from having heard a part only? No man, he trusted, would suspect him of being an enemy to Religion ; he had always venerated it from his youth upwards, and he believed the Liturgy of I the Church of England to be the best and purest in the world. But was it advantageous to have it go abroad that here in England, where every man had a right to be tried by his Peers, the case of an indi vidual should be prejudged ?—(Hear, hear). The Bishops of England had always acted in a manner which reflected dignity on their characters, and no thing could be more painful to him than that it' should go forth to the world that a Bishop had re fused to sign a testimonial, not on the ground of general character, but on a recent fact which did not implicate that character. It was contrary to the prin ciples of justice. Something, he thought, might be done by their Lordships in this case; for he agreed with his Noble Friend, that the idea of going to law with the Bench of Bishops was not within the humble means of a •Curate—(Hear, hear). The LORD CHANCELLOR asked if it was fit that the House should for a moment entertain a mo tion, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry, whether the Bishops of England should be compelled to de part from that line of discretion they had a right to exercise with respect to the inferior Clergy ? The Canon law laid down no rule upon the subject..— Every Bishop had the power to countersign a Cler gyman's testimonial, but if they looked upon that act as nothing more than a matter of course, they failed in the performance of their duty. It was the duty of the Bishop to examine whether the person proposed for a living, was fit to have one in his dio cese. If in this instance the Bishop had exercised an improper discretion, the complaining party had a remedy in a Court of Law ; but it was not for Par liament to entertain any complaint of the kind, or to adopt any proposition that bad for its object to alter the law of the land. It was not an individual case that should induce their Lordships to make so mate rial a departure from the usages of the country. The Earl of CARNARVON observed, that the Right Reverend Prelate had assigned no reason what ever for refusing to sign the Petitioner's testimonial ; and consequently of consigning an nnfortnnate indi vidual to ruin. He acted upon the principle of the Spanish Inquisition, by making secret inquiries, and acting on the information be received without afford ing the accused an opportunity of defending himself. The interests of all the Clergy and Patrons in the kingdom required that the law should be clearly laid down on this subject. As to the Athanasian Creed, he would ask whether the Right Rev. Prelate him self believed or approved of its doctrines ? It was well known that there were Bishops in this country who did not believe that Creed.---(llere the Noble Earl read an extract from a book published by a Bishop of I,incoln, in which it was asserted, that the Athanasian . Creed was composed 100 years after the death of St. Athanasius, and in which the . Bishop de clared it to be an unfOrtunate thing, that su.:ll un qualified expressions as those contained in it should be used). fhe unfortunate man, however, whose Petition was now the subject of debate, had lost his living, and had all hi; hopes destroyed, merely for saying that nine-tenths of the Clergy held opi nions, which one of the bishops of the Established Church did not think it inconsistent with his duty, his religious tenets, pr his ecclesiastical character, to entertain, and to publish to the world. The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, that in the absence of all explanation on the part of the Right Reverend Prelate, and in a state of doubt as to the proceedings that should take Place in this transac tion, he should beg to call their Lordships' attention to the-extraordinary situation, in which the Clergy; belonging to the diocese of the Right Reverend Pie late were placed. It was material to consider what !the grounds were upon which he had exercised hit jurisdiction. The Right Reverend Prelate had said; he thought himself justified in makinginquiry, at distance from the complainant's parish, relative to the expressions he might have uttered ; and then; acting on that testimony, to inflict a punishMent or him, and blast his character for ever. This unfelt.: tuuate man, without having any allegation thrown' out on his moral condi:et, and without the means of justifying himself, was to be ruined in all his pros:- pects through life, merely on account of the arbitrary will of an individual. That individual gave their Lordships to understand, that, in the goodness of his heart, he had allowed the poor Clergyman to retain his Curacy, while he considered him unfit to hold a living ! l'es, in the goodness of his heart, he allowed this man of dangerous doctrines to propagate the same among thousands of people! Perhaps the Right Reverend Prelate thought, that so long as he continued a Curate, he could do no mischief, even though he spoke against the thanasian Creed; but it would be most dreadful to allow him to propagate such a doctrine after he got a living ! Was not this a subject which it was the duty of the House to take notice of? Was it tit that such a power should be exercised by any Bishop, or that such injustice should be done to the Clergy and Patrons of livings? The unfortunate Gentleman in question was either most barbarously ill-used, or the did not duly ex ercise the trust reposed in him, by allowing an im proper and dangerous person to per form the clerical duties. He was glad to hear it stated, that the Clergyman had a legal ieniedy against the Bishop ; but whether he had or not, it was the duty of that House to pay some attention to the prayer of the Petition, and to watch over the interests of the infe rior order of Clergy throughout the kingdom, as no set of men were mote entitled to the protecti.ai of the Legislature than they were. It was impossible for any man to say that the Bishop had not deviated from his duty, or misused hisludgment, when he re fused to sign the Petitioner's testinsonium, and at the same time allow him to go on doing mischief, which must be the case, if the Petitioner was such a man as the Bishop described him tts be. The Bishop of I. ANDAFF then addressed their Lordships. From all he had heard, he did not think ! [ that any act of misgovernment was made out against the Right Reverend Prelate. What he had done ap peared to him to be only in the strict discharge of his duty. With respect to the alleged opinions of the Clergy on the subject alluded to, he had passed through all ranks, and he looked upon tie statement as a gross libel upon that highly reipectabie body— " The Right Reverend Prelate might inadvertently, or unwittingly. cogntersign testimonials ; but it, before he had so done, any circumstances came to his know ledge respecting.the character or opinions ache indi vidual,.he was bound to• act upon them. The Earl of C A RgA RVON, in explanation, stated, that he had not charged the Right Reverend Prelate with a disbelief of the damnatory articles of the Atha nasian Creed ; but the Right Reverend Prelate had not himself - expressed any opinion on the subject.— Another Right Reverend l'relate had, in his writings, thrown more than a doubt upon the necessity of their belief. Indeed he (Lord Carnal/on) had never heard any Prelate say that he believed. them ; and all that he should add was, that those who did believe (hem could nee .be Christians ! The Bishop of EXETER was proceeding to com ment upon what had fallen from the Noble Earl, when Lord HOLLAND rose to order. His Lordship ob served, thit according to the standing rules and con stant practice of their Lordships, if any Loble Lord, in explanation, disavowed p ar tic u l ar wor d s , no Noble Lord had a right afterwrds to impute those words to him..—The question was then pti, and their cord ships divided, when their appeared--Contents 18— Non-contents Ss—Majority 17. Adjourned at Half-past Eight, till Monday. lIOUS3 OF COMMONS. Several Members took the oaths and their seats. Lord MILTON laid upon the table a Petition from Vraie held, complaining of the Tat upon Wool. Mr. LIWLETON gave notice, that he would, on Monday, bring in a Bill respecting theWa,ses of Labourers in the Potteries. Lord J. RUSSELL moved for a New Writ for the Borough of Tavistock, in the room of • Fazakerly, Esq. who has ac cepted the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. The LORD REGISTRAR of SCOTLAND presented Petition from certain Freeholders of Dumbartonshire, for a re peal of the late Duty on I►lalt.—Laid on the table. • AGRICULTURAL DISTRR3S. Lord TEMPLE presented five Petitions from oc cupiers of land in various parts of Buckinghamshire, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying that their case !right be taken into consideration with a view to their relief. Mr. HUME could not avoid taking this opportu nity of remarking, that notwithstanCing the nume rous, petitions which had been presented from the farmers of the country representing their distresses, still the miseries of this class of people were not so numerous or aggravated as thoseof the commercial and manufacturing classes. He was of opinion that the Corn Bill, and all other restrictions of the kind, sho!lld be removed, in order to give a stimulus to the industry of the country. The Corn Bill, instead of serving the farmer, had, by its pressure on 17;4 commercial interests, added to the distress of the agricultural classes. Mr. CURAVEN said, if the Hon. Member had at tended to the terms of the different petitions on tl:e table/ he would find that the prayer was not for any immediate relief, but for inqui►y. If the Hon. Mem ber had been acquainted with the real state of thei case, he would have seen that the agriculturists did not demand an exclusive attention to their distre,s, or that a remedy should be provided for their reUct at the expense of any other interest in the State. lie was sorry to witness the existence of a notion, in that House, that the interests of the agriculturist and ihe inechanic were separated. He was of a contrary opinion, and believed that each of these pertens