The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-05-13 00:00:00

Mutt s Select Ciro*,; titre 1)* isrpointed In telt* •
into coasideratiou the pelitiAtt
Jones, • slot the rule which Ita;lboolld..stl: l'firbttPr
before instituting • clrrit to s benefice in
hie din-
ewse, to demond the ctintiterattigtiettirr to his testi-.
sonoials of the Bishop in whom set• he boa resoled.
and to report their observations thereon to the.
•
Ttie
petition was then litooght up Mid reed. On
the question, that it !icon the table, being put
L
r The Bishop of !Italia voite.- oliaerviit tons
be should ebonite Intlarsalf to •the Matter and
tiosorof the Petition. it was true that the Petitioner
had been regularly ordained—true that a comity
itlieeting had been held at which he had mode a
speech; but he wassurtnised that it should. Inesaid or
toisintoated that the mutiVe• of his conduct hatilleen
grounded on the favourable opinions espeoriSed of
iths Romans Catholics. On the Petit ismetel %frit* so-
rfilltifted to two liviogs (which, by the could
blot hove held longer than stem leant). and ap-
!plYingto hlm to euuntersign Ids lestiritunials, lie hail
declitied to do ao. Bo:the had expressly told him,
that his• determination in that respect sees not
grounded on the sentiments of his awed§ or Ilia
•opittions of the dolma of the Roman Catholic,.
with winch opinion', he added, be had no right to
'lnterfere. To the assertion that he heal tefused to
countersign the testimonial because of the speech.. he
had given, and he now again gave, a distinct dis-
claimer. If he had erred it was on error of iii. heed, •
not of his heart. He had investigated the matter of
the case with the greatest care, and weighed with
scrupulous nicety every thing offered on behalf of
the Petitioner, either by letter or word of mouth.
He begged leave to say that when the three clergy-
men signed the testimonial, they were then igtiorant
of what had occurred, but afterwards on losing in-
formed of it, they had withdrawn their signatures
His view of the case might be erroneous, hut he cots-
tiderrd that the teotituouial did not give credit to
the general character of the 'lemon iu whole
favour it was signed, but that the persona whose
iiguatom it bore, only gave it as to their belief, or
what had Coale under their roomed knowled:.•.
• When' be was called on to countersign it, he was
obliged to stele use of his belief, mud on that lie-
*lief he formed his opinion, end thought he was con-
scietitiotist), right in refusing to sign it. 117 lien
lie allowed the Petitittiter to keep his minor snug-
lion, he done it out of a humane feeling to-
wards him, at the mime time he did not allow a
maineut to elapse before he made the siecesoory
inquiries, mid the frank of them counrmed hint
lie was right in reltisnig to countersign the tes-
timonial. The Petitioner had stated, that no hi-
(loamy was made ; so far from it, it was made, and it
occupied hint three week.. lie did tout think that
there was any thing else for hiss to observe on, and
he begged porta,' for having so lung intruded on
the patieoce of their Lordships.
Lord ERSZINI: said, he had seen malty testimo-
nials, and never saw one differ from another.
had fallen from the Itvy. Prelate was correct, that
the testimonial was not to the effect of giving the
pervon in whose favour it was signed general credit, •
but it went to that credit which ought to entitle
him to that permutation be sought. One of his
lobs Was placed in t di6cult situation, 'rein pre.
armed to o living by a Noble and hemmed Friend
of hie, god nut knowing any beneficed clergymen .
in the diocese. The Archbishop of Canterbury
came down to that House, and signed a testimonial
. that lie woo worthy of credit ; he kiwi/ nothing of
him, but depended on the report of his good zit...
rector. If there was a general report &optima the
character of the Petitioner, the Reverend Prelate
would slot be bound to countersign his testimonial.
So it was in a Court of Law, if a man was put into
■ witness-Witt, to speak to the bad character
of a present, lie waspof asked. what part of his dia-
meter he disapproved of, but whether from his ge-
oriel character lie wag not worthy of belief? But
the Reverend Prelate lied stated, that he did not
make aft isiquity hay the general character of the
Petiti ,e, but that he only inquired as to one
single fast. He must therefore say lie was not borne
out in reftising to couotersign the testimonial. It
creteitily was a hard case, that a moot should be de-
prived of the belie& of a prestentation, became
while speaking its a public assembly he turtle use
of a loose expression. Flow did the Rev. Prelate
know that his •infortmonts had reported to hum the
whole of the speech of' the Petitiotter ? It was well
known that to take the speech of any mail, how-
ever versed in public apeoking. it was possible
in only hearing a part of it that it would appear
very different from the meaning of the 'wool who
delivered it. In his opinion, it was the duty or the
Right Rev. Prelate to have countersigned the testi-
Tim Bishops of this country had always
conducted themselves to inch a way.as to give get's-
rat satisfaction. kind they most properly had a great
share of popularity attached to them ; but on this
occasion he could not Orbit' the Rev. Prelate had
done hit duty in refusing to countersign the testi-
*sound, as that refit'sl was mot grounded on general
teinduct, but • single law.
The Loan CHANSnr.OII Piga, could a mafiosi
Asientertaiiied for a inumeut by their Lordships.
whether a man should he ordained that did not
'hold to the creed of the Church of Etiglend.?—
' Where a Clergyman was presented IM must have
• tenet character fur the loot three rears before be
could lienebt by it. His Noble Frietid had lord
'Sheol theMit was the defy
.of the Bishop to countei-
sign •the testimmiltil after it liad received the sign*.
litres of three Clergymen. Did it become his fluty
by tire Comm- Faint?" for if it did. ia the time of
James I. the Cation Law was deternsiued by the
Bishops. mud they might hare altered it as
they thought flt. If Clergymen signing a testi-
monial. and a Bielsop,couutersig • g it, thought it ;
was a matter of course for a presenloi ion. he would •
tell them, that. siccording to his humble judgment,
Ilkley were tunitakett. The quoin 111 l came to this, it
was or was 11011 he duly of the Bishop to counter-
sign the tertimunial? If it will his duty. rod be slid
• not doit, the Comets of Law were open to the per-
Sion aggrieved • to seek redress, and that House wits
not the proper trilmital for, him to apply so. If
the Noble LordIflollaod) intended to ground ally
measure, such MI btiugusg in o.Blii to regulate the
Warr conduct of the Right Rev. Bishopo,on this
wobjrci. tt would he neeemary•forobini to slew that
/else power, as it was now reified in the Bishops,
'is. 'ablated, for it was pot net litigant or one iso-
slated csse that the WI of tlint.ined shipald be
ataartit,

_--1.

*V* t .%.*:, -\.

, 4111 . .-, • •
...
TIM Ertl of CauttatiOlt said Hittthe; Right
-11". Pteiete had uohtuste to that garment, aasigu-
•ed any. ream., full Withholding hi. stignature, ex-
cept that he lied -used his discretion, and that he
was ten. bound to assign any is for &prim%
the Petitioner of the welfare nod happiness lie
might have had by the preeentatieua.gml. Aut. fur
depriving others of their-right of patronige. He had,
however, told Owns lie had not given is refusal
without inquiry, far lie bad made it autougat his
neighbour. ; but lie had out told them that his
oeighbours were' nut prejudiced agaiost the Peti•
timer, he had trot thetight proper to tell them the
names of 111, witiseires, or who they were. 1 He (the
Noble Earl) knew molting of that particular tripe
except what he heard in that House, but he would
*toted against the conduct of the Right Reverend
Prelate for the rake of the beneficed Clergymen
and those persons who had patronage. The Right
Rev. Mellow had mated that the Clergymen wise
• had signed the testimonial had withdrawn their sig.
natures, but they did not do so until he had pet hie
mark of disapprobation on the Petitioner. He was
therefore tif opinion that there was a sufficicut atm
merle out to demand inquiry.
The Marquis of Lexsuuwe said, in the Agave/
of ill expl.nation and excuse on the part of the
Right Rev. Prelate, they were called on to look
into the situation of the rinforttonsie Petitioner, sod
ohm us to the manner in which the Rev. Prelate
'had used his jurisdiction. He told their Lordships
lie was justified in taking his report of the conduct
of the Petitiouer, nut from his surrishioners, but
from a distant part of his (the Bishop's) diocese,
and on such information inflicting the worst of•
punishment on the Petitioner, by depriving him
of the means of support. This might not pee.
Imps weigh with the Reverend Prelate, foe they
were to suppose that he, as • Bishop, did not,
look for or expect farther church preferment ;
but it was trot so with the Petitioner, who was •
subaltern in the church, a curate; in him it •
was pr.oseworthy to desire to gain preferment.
which would be the reverse in the Right Reverend
Prelate if his mitad soared above his. present See.
His Lordship continued : the mast extraordinary
;pot of the Reverend and Learned Prelate'. con.
duet tar, that he had felt himself bound from •
s.llllO a defy (a mistekeir +reuse of dirty hr should
*ay) to act no a manner repugnant to the feelings
oreChrietiin. He had chorea to exercise the des-
ereiitio
,vested ip him by law, rather than give the !li
party au opportunity of appearing in a spiritual
court; Mad what is more extraordinary stiff, 'that
whets he is asked-how he could suffer this Reverend
Gentleman vtillie centime to mislead the emigre-
mitiose of AI; :aitaall .eye or 901. per annum. the
Lear;lid INselatp,repliete, that it was from feeling* of
good name.. Noe as the Learned Prelate had so
completely mastered the feelings of compassion in
the first iron of the case, he was surprised that he
should have permitted them to operate in the latter.
The Learned Prelate had (conscious of the duty
ishich he owed to his country and to the people of.
Peterborough') refused to admit a person who iim •
'refit to teach them, and yet,with regard to his iiwii
diocese, with regard to the people .of Hovey, he pee.-
mits him to preach what
.he likes. In the living of
WM • year there is no objection to him, hut the
moment he is recommended for • preferment of four
or five hundred a-year, he beecmes unfit and
ey dangerous. One of two things appeared, clear to .
him (the Marquis of Lansdowe), either the Rev; '
Gentleman also had beeu the 'subject of that night's
conversation, had been most barbarously used, Or
ilse the Right Reverend ('relate had not duly ex.
ercised the trust reeosed in him. It was not I
question regarding s getersuce to an individual
Dilly, but it was a q•sestion of a. great °mire' of
publie duty. Under thee! eecirmistances he did
not feel diiposed to argue the cieestion legally,
more particularly after the little iisfurmation which
lie lord derived from the speech of the Nithle and
Learned Lord. It had beets said, that there was ti
legal remedy fur the Reverend Gentlemate He
' should like to lessim where thst remedy lay. and
whether it waswithin the...reach of an individual.
It was the duty of their Lordships to afford at !rest
a hearing to a complaint like titre, and he could not
but feel indebted to the Noble Lord who had
brought the subject before the House.
The bishop of LA NDA YI, said he honoured the
feelings of sensibility and compassion entertained
by the Nub:e Lords who had spoken, and must
himself take credit for some share of them. Yet he
' could not are that the Right Rev. Prelate had exer-
cised tiny other than a sound discretion in refusing
his sanction to one whom he must consider ohjec-
• tionable. It was the duty of the Bishop, if he
knew any thing against the personal- character of
the individual, to act upon it. -The Right Rev.
Prelate observed. that he had himself passed
through every grodation of the Church, and lie '
thought it-a gross libel to say, that nine-tenths of
thi Clergy did not believe the Atherissian Creed
although they signed the articles.
The Earl of CARNARVON rose and
:said, p. !
his words had beet' misapprehended, lie *mild
-explain whet the question was which hi realty '
Imeant to ask—it was, whether the Learned pre-
late wally did approve the dumnatory clauses of
the Athattetern Creed? Fur himself, he must
1 asio
say, that if these were the tenets of any church,
that church was certsinly not Christian.
• The Birliop of EXETER rose, but before he
Lord Hoeeeen rose to order. He said that it
was the rule or that House that when • Noble
Lord hod explained words which be had used us
debate, it was not competeut for any Noble Lord
to impute other words thou those which had been
acknowledged.
• The House then divided on the question. when
it appeared there was fur receiving the Petition—
Contents
Nua.cuateuts 34

Majority.... 17
The Hauge adjourned at holr.part eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY, MAT It.

ER MEMBERS. .
greciii., peel litiptom took 110 °nitro mot their oasts,
mom them were Lord Receive .ad Lord Rt*llLaT.
NEW WRIT.
O Ille Malian of Lord J. Nowt*, S or+ writ wee or•
tiered for the DOIVIIOI4 Tavisheek, is 04 eysollt,
Fosekerley, who ohm hkeketiia bad aeceo Jibe Chiller*
llordreds.
. f

ISio