The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-06-15 00:00:00

The Earl of Hattacswer did not see what benefit
could arise from the Petition lying on the table.—
He wished the Reverend Bench to have the SOW
discretion on these subjects which they had for
centuries ; but they ought to use that discretiou
liberally, as was. intended by the Constitution, not
to exclude men from being ministers of the church
because there was a slight difference of opinion.—
It never was intended that Calvinists should be ex-
cluded from the b'nefits of the church. It was
the duty of the Reverend Bench to look ut the
question liberally, and not narrowly.
Earl G•EY said, the Right Rev. Prelate had
told them that they had no jurisdiction, for if he
had acted wrong there was an appeal to the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury ; and they had heard Iron►
that Most Rev. Prelate that he had no jurisdiction.
Then where could the jurisdiction be if it war not
in Parliament ? and it was high time it should
interfere, when • Curate removing from one
diocese to aimilier, and asking for a license, had
to subscribe to eighty-seven new Articles of faith
before he could obtain his purpose. He agreed
with the Noble Earl (1-larrowby) if it was neces-
sary for a new test to exclude Calvinists from the
church, it must be done by • convocation appointed
by the Crown, ■nd not by the 87 Articles of the
Right Rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of PreeitnottoncH denied that his
questions had ■ny such effect. He had nothing to
do with Calvinism ; they were to protect the Eats-
blished Chinch from having those admitted into it
who held different doctrines from it.
Earl G•EY, in continuation, said, lie collected
from the speech of the Right Rev. Prelate the
cause of the observation he had made, but he now
found that his construction was wrong, for the 87
Articles were to protect the Church Irom different
doctrines ; it however amounted nearly to the same
thing, but allowing it, it ought not to be provided
for by the individual act of the Right Rev. Pre-
late, who felt much offended at his 87 Articles be-
ing called a new question of faith. Looking to the
questions themselves they were to all intents and
purposes a new test. This might he Ivry pro-
per, but it ought not to be done on the sole au-
thority of the Right Rev. Prelate. It was • new
standard of faith to which subscription was re-
quired, as it was different from the 39 Articles, and
he required explicit answers from a Clergyman before
he licensed him for a cure. What would be the
consequence if the Right Rev. Prelate was allowed
to iiitroduce his tratican, and another Bishop his
vaticau I it would cause • division in the church.

He was of opinion that their Lordships had full
juri.diction, and that the Petition ought to be
maintained.
Lord CALTHORPC spoke in explanation.
The Marquis of LANBDOWN supported the mo-
tion.

The question was then put, that the Petition
should be lad on the table, and negatived without
a division.
Mr. CHARLES GRANT, and other Memb.rs of
the House of Commons, brought up a Niers:Age
that that House had agreed to the Amendourprs of
th.ir Lordships to the Irish Courts of Law Regu-
lation of Fees Bill.
Adjourned at Ilalf-past Eight o'Clock.