The Sun.
London, England, 1833-02-28 00:00:00

Lord KING rose to state that he did not concur with
the Noble Baron in the notice of motion. Ho did not
complain of any grievance at being designated a "devil's
advocate."—(A laugh.) Nay, so far from that offending
him, he was amusH:l by it. He had heard of the devil's
advocate in the Court of Rome. who was a very important
person, and whose duty, ex officio, was to warn the Pope
not to admit any improper person to be declared a Saint.
—(Loud laughter.) He (Lord King) felt, therefore, ra-
aer gratified than otherwise at being called a devil's ad-
vocate.

Lord TEYNHAM, after a few observations, said that
he would withdraw his notice.

VENUE (IRELAND) BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought up the report
of the Venue (Ireland) Bill.
The Duke ot RICHMOND presented a petition from a
place in the county of Sussex, and one from a pl tce in
Derby, praying the Legislature to interfere for the better
observance of the Sabbath. Also two petitions praying
IT the abolition of slavery ; and, in the absence of his
Noble Friend, Lord Kinnaird, he presented a petition,
signed by many thousands of the citizens of Perth, also
praying for the abolir!r.4:E. slavery.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented twenty
petitions from diff rent places in England. praying for the
aholi'ion of slavery. The Noble Marquis stated that all
these pAitions prayed for the immed ate abAition of negro
slavery ; ti ey all expressed an anxious desire t' at any mea-
sure introduced for that purpose 'night be accompanied by
such enactments as would provWsafety to both parties.
Lord SUFFIELD presen>. 1 two petitions to the same
effect.

_
Lord KING presented a petition from Kilburnie, in the
county of Ayr, tit the same effect.

Earl De -DUNSTANVILLE presented two petitions
:raving for :1-
of the Sabbath.

The Bishop of BATH and WELLS said, he rose
in consequence of a charge made by a Noble
Baron, whom be was glad to s-e in his place
(Lord King), against a most respectable clergyman in his
diocese. He was glad to be a witness to the respec-
t ibility of that gentlereran, hut he believed the best way to
refute the calumnies would be, to read a letter be had that
evening received from that gentleman himself. The Rev.
Pre ate then real the letter aluded to; amongst other 'hinge
it said that the petition had been got up awe cerried about
the p dish for signatures by Lord King's gent. Th,t in no
instance had he rai,.ed the tithes since he went to the pa-
rish, hut i❑ many he had lowered them. That on the
last tithe 'lay there h d not been a ng'e complaint.
That he had never threatened t-i take the tithe on
fish, and that he had no doubt but that the wicked peti-
tion originated with his Lordship. The clergyman in
question was a most excellent man, and, from the inquiries
which he had made, he believed his conduct to have
been most exemplary since he went to that parish.
He hoped that the Noble Lord now felt ashamed of his
conduct ; for not one of his facts were traced out to be
true. He trusted the Noble Lord would not go on making
these attacks against defenceless men. The- constant re-
petition of them, after the most unequivocal denials of
many of them, would almost lead one to suppose that
he laboured under an aberration of mind. He would only
again say, that the gentleman who had been so maligned
stood in as fair a light as before that petition had been
presented. He trusted the Noble Baron was now ashamed
of his precipitate conduct, and would now rise in his
piece, and make the amende honorable to the gentlemen
who had suffered under the lash.

Lord KING said he did not feel in the predicament
mentioned by the Rev. Prelate. His contradiction came
from the despot himself, at all events from the party com-
plained of.--(Hear, hear.) The gentleman, whom he
called his (Lord King's) agent was a lessee of land in
the parish, and he was given to understand that
the petition was signed by every person in the parish,
except two. The petitioners were not his tenants, but
the tenants of other gentlemen. He had no influence
over them, and his agent had not signed the peti-
tion in that character but in his character of a lessee of land.
The Right Rev. Prelate had said that the clergyman
had not raised his tithes, hut had lowered them.—(Hear,
hear.) There was a good reason for that, because the
price of corn was lower, and therefore the rector was en-
titled to no credit for it. The facts that he (Lord King)
stated yesterday he would repeat to-day ;he bad said that
the rector had caused such alarm in the parish, by his
threat to tithe herrings, that his proctor was burnt
in effigy.—(Hear.) Would the Right Reverend Prelate
contradict that ? Or would he contradict the fact that
the rector bad made the parish a little Ireland ? But
whenever a case of hardship against a clergyman was
mentioned, up started some Right Rev. Prelate to assure
the House that the individual in question was one of the
best and most respectable of men. They all knew, how-
ever, that the best men were not proof against the temp-
tations afforded by the tithe system.
The Bishop of BATH and WELLS stated that he
would make particular inquiries, from individuals resi-
dent in the neighbourhood, and if he found any of the
assertions in the letter which he had read to be false, he
assured the Noble Lord (King) that he would come down
to the House and state so. He could not help regretting
to find the Noble Lord so ready, upon all occasions, to
come forward and malign the clergy.
Lord KING said he never maligned anybody who did
not deserve it.

The Bishop of EXETER felt it his duty to allude
to a circumstance which oceurred some nights ago,
when he had it not in his power to do justice to a
clergyman of his own diocese,—he meant the Dean
of Exeter. Their L .rdships might not possibly
recollect the case, among the multitude of groundless at-
tacks which the Noble Lord (King) was in the habit
of making on the clergy, and he would now,
therefore, bring it to their recollection. That Noble
Lord stated that the Dean of Exeter had appro-
priated to himself the tithes of two townships in the
county of Devon, that he had made an extremely sma I
allowance to the Curate, and that the parish had only
duty performed in it once on each Sunday. He also
stated that the Dean of Exeter had taken care,
when he renewed his fines, to screw them up to the
utmost extent, but that he bad given no increase to the
stipend of the curate. He had written to the Dean, who
stated in answer that he had been Dean of Exeter 20 years,
and that he was the impropriaror of the tithes in ques
tiun, but he denied that he had ever received a six-
pence of fines. When the Noble Lord thought fit
to make such charges, he ought to recollect that
there was some difference between saying that which his