The Sun.
London, England, 1822-06-08 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDA", JUNE 7.
The Earl of EGMONT took the oaths and his

seats.

Mr. TOMLYNS, from the Bank, presented Returns of the
quantity of Bullion issued by the Governor and Company
to the Treasury from 1820 to the present time.—Laid on the
table. - ' _ _ .

Mr. In.vma, from the Custom-house, presented an Account
of the quantity of Foreign Grain imported and warehoused in
this country.—Laid on the table.
Lord CLIFDEN presented Petitions from the Manufac-
turers and Retail Dealers in• the Spirit Trade, of the City of
lVaterford, Kilkenny, Carlow. and Callon, praying for pro-
tection against the practice of illicit Distillation.—Laid on the
table. _ _ _ .

The Doyle Divorce Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Archbishop of YORK presented a Petition from the
Archdeacon and Clergy of York, against the catholic Peers
Bill:—Laid on the table.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE moved for returns of the
expences incurred by the Commissioners for examining. Public
Records in Ireland since the year 1820.—Ordeied.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY, and others, brought up from the
Comm Ons several private Bills, which were read a first time.
VAGRANTS.

The Vagrant Laws Amendment Bill welt through a Corn..
mittee, and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday
next.

CATHOLIC PEERS.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE held a Petitionfrom the Inha.
titants of the town and neighbourhood of Mansfield, in ihe
county of Nottingham, against a Bill pending in their Lord-
ships House for granting peculiar favours to Catholic Pears in
violation of the Constitution. In the course of a few days that
petition had been signed by 1250 persons. Hetrusted, there-
fore, that the eyes of the country were opened, alai he believed
that the chief part of the empire viewed with terror the passing
of such a Bill by one branch of the Legislature. In his part
of the country be could say that hostility to . tie Bill was In-
creasing, and would increase, which must be tie case against
a measure which he could, and the nation would, soon call by
no other name than that of odious. It was a till more insi-
dious and more full of danger than any which had been passed
since the times of Charles the Second. He trusted that, in re-
jecting it', their Lordships would give a fresh proof of their
wisdom. The discussion having unexpectedly been postponed,
he feared it would not be in his power to attend then it should
take place, as domestic circumstances might prevent him. JA
this were the case, he should feel deeply morteied, as it was'
not only a sense of duty, but inclination which nade him con-
sider it necessary to oppose such a Bill.
Lard HOLLAND did not rise to object to thepetition, which

he regarded as one which it was very proper for their LordshipS
to receive. Still less did he mean to anticipate the discussion
on the measure against which the petition was directed; for,
though their Lordships should not have the benefit of the
Noble Duke's attendance, he was convinced that, whether that
Noble Duke should be present at the time, or should avail
himself of his Parliamentary privilege, to give his vote, his
opinion on the subject would be equally unchanged. But he
objected to the manner in which the Noble Duke had describ-
ed the Bill, as one for granting peculiar favours to Catholic
Peers in violation of the Constitution. Let the Noble Lord
read the Bill and he would see that it was not one to grant fa-
vours in violation of the Constitution, but one to restore the
ancient Constitution of the country and of that House. In
saying that he meant to express no opinion as to the propriety
of passing the measure; but he could not suffer so erroneous a
description to be sent forth to the world by an individual of
rank and influence, whose opinion must certainly be looked to
by the uninformed on the subject. The Bill on the table must
rest on its own merits. Some doubted whether the period were
come for passing such a measure, others objected to the mea-
sure altogether, but nothing but the grossest ignorance could
maintain that if the Bill did pass, it would not render the Con-
stitution more analogous to what it was in former times. lle
,also assured the Noble Duke that lie knew something of the
public opinion in that part of the country frofh which the Pe-
tition had come, and that it was by no means so general against
the Billyas the Noble DukeAupposed: And;' if much exas-
peration had prevailed on the subject, it would have still more
become the Noble Duke to be correct In what he stated, and
not to give a description which was totally inapplicable to the
measure.

The Petition having then been received; and laid on the
table,

The Duke of NEWCASTLE presented similar Petitions
from the Borough of Newark-upon-Trent, the ToWns of
East Redford and Tuckford, the Parish of Sutton and Ashley,
and froiu the Inhabitants of Nottingham. The last had been
signed in two days by 1825 individuals. Read and laid on the
table.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE gave noticei-that on Mon-
day next he should'move the second reading of the Bill for the
more effective punishment of Manslaughter.

CHURCH DISCIPLINE.

Lord DACRE rose pursuant to notice to present a petition
which he had received, and should submit to their Lordships
with reluctance, as it bore personally on one individual whom
Ile sincerely respected for his high character and attainments.
He should not have done his duty, however, if he had not ac-
cepted the task ; the more especially as the petition com-
plained of a practice which savoured in some degree of seve-
rity, He should first move that the petition be read ; then. that
it do lie upon the table, and if this were agreed to, he should
then propose to address the Crown. Their Lordships were
not ignorant of the subject, as it had come before them last
year, and had he been satisfied by the answer then given, that
the Right Reverend Prelate whose conduct was- arraigned had
acted in conformity. with the law of the land, and that of the
Church, he could assure him that he would not have brought
the present petition forward. But since that time the peti-
tioner stated that the Right Reverend Prelate had added to
the 87 questions which he then proposed, 30 more on one
single point•
,of doctrine, whereas the Thirty-nine Articles
should be the only standard of the doctrines of the Church.
He should not however now enter into the - matters of fact
which the petition contained, but should only move that it be
read.

The petition was then read. It was from Thomas Shuttle-
worth Grimshaw, Clerk, Master of Arts and Rector of Burton
Latimer, and complained of the Bishop -of Peterborough's re-
fusal to license in his Diocese, unless 87 questions which he
put to Candidates were answered to his satisfaction: It then
prayed their Lordships to address the King to enforce the De-
claration at the head of the Liturgy.
The petition having been read.
Lord DACRE stated that he held another to the same effect
from another individual. The ground of complaint in both
was the nature of the examination to which Candidates, for
Holy Orders or for Curacies were subjected by the course
adopted by the Right Rev. Prelate. Hie then -*ad a letter
from a Mr. Thurtell, who said that he had considered the 87
questions most attentively, and answered them most con-
scientiously, and that some of them 'being of iernost deli-
cate nature, lie had subjoined an Appendix to his answer,
with the authorities on which it was founded. In reply to this
the Right Rev. Prelate-had written a letter in which he stated
that the object of this examination was to ascertain the re-
ligious principles of the Candidate, that he might know whether
they were founded on the doctrines of the Church ; that he only
wanted plain and short answers, instead of which Mr. Thur-
tell had sent him a mass of disquisitions which prevented
his own opinion from being seen, and that he sent him '
another copy of his questions, to which he should return
precise answers, and that as the mode of examination de-
pended entirely on his own discretion; he should inform Mi.
Thurtell before-hand, that if he did not choose to conform-,
to it; he should not be licenses). Now' he contended that
admitting the right of the Reverend prelate to examine and
to choose the mode of-his examination, still he was bound by the
common statute and the canon law to confine himself within
certain limits. It had been the common practice'and courtesy
when a person removed from another Diocese, to admit the
validity of the testimonial which he presented, signed by his
Rector and countersigned by the Bishop. As the Rev. Pre-
late acknowledged no such courtesy, he would allow that he
possessed the right of examination, but that by the Thirteenth
of Elizabeth, and by the Thirty-fourth Canon, he was limited
in his examination to these points, whether a person could'
explain in Latin, and account for his belief according to
the Articles of the Church. If these Articles had been so
drawn up by those who had prepared them, as to embrace a
larger latitude than one particular sect, then persons might ac-
count for their faith according to them, in more than/one parti-
cular mode. This, he contended, was the end for which they
had been framed, and he supported his opinion' by quotations
from Bishop Burnet and Fuller's History, and by the later
authorities of the Bishop of Bangor and of Bishop Horsley.
He also maintained that the Royal Declaration which pre-
ceded the Liturgy was intended to show that men of different
opinions might meet within the pale of the Thirty-nine Are
tides, all of them taking them to be for, them. He com-
plained that the Eighty-seven Questions proposed by the Re-
verend Prelate were not an examination, but a test, which
must be gone through before he would admit of examination.
The Royal Declaration wished all " curious questions" to be
laid aside, but many of the Rev. Prelate's questions were of
the most metaphysical order. If they were identical with the
Thirty-nine articles, then they were superfluous ; and if they
were not co-extensive with all those articles, they were in Op-
position to the Statute and Canon Laws. The Rev. Prelate
might say, that this was not the proper place for discussing
such questions, but if he denied their Lordships' authority, in
what situation were they placed? Would it not be possible
that every. Bishop should have articles of his own, and would
men undertake tne cure of souls, if they were to be tried by
different tests in every Diocese, and be exposed to such severe
proceedings ? Would their Lordships remain passive, when
such a practice might become 'generalized, and, the country
might be filled with Bishops with articles in their hands, and
by Ministers inquiring in what Diocese they might profess ?
Would not this be recruiting for Dissenters ? Such a prac-
tice would give them a complete triumph. Here would
be an Episcopal Establishment with a dissenting popula-
tion. He hoped their Lordships would concur with him in
the opinion that some remedy should be provided for such an
evil. It was always supposed that there was no wrong with-
' out a remedy, and the Crown had power to grant one. It
might direct a Convocation to be called. So soon, therefore,
as the Petition should be laid On the table, he should move an
Address to the Crown praying his Majesty to institute an in-
quiry to ascertain whether any innovations had taken place
in Church Discipline likely to produce mischievous conse-
quences. At the same time he had too much respect for the
character of the Right Reverend Prelate not to attribute the
course which be, had adopted to over-zeal, which would pro-
dube effects totally different from those which he contemplated.
The Noble Lord concluded by moving that the Petition do lie
upon the table.
The Bishop of PETERBOROUGH would begin by mak-
ing some remarks on the speech of the Noble Lord, and would
then go through the allegations of the Petition, On which all
Petitions must stand or fall. The Noble Lord had infornied
,the House of the case which had given rise to the petition, but
it ''ad been stippresseed by the Petitioner. The right of exa-
n ation was given to Bishops by the 48th canon, which or-
dered that no curate should be admitted, except after having
been examined by the Bishop of the diocese. Had not every
Bishop then also the right of choosing a mode of examine-
! tion ? The questions which he proposed Were not a test, but
an essential part of his examination. He compared the