The Sun.
London, England, 1821-06-15 00:00:00

least objection to them ; so that he was justi-
fied in supposing that they met with the general
concurrence of his brethren. BUt it they were
erroneous, it was not for that House to alter or
remove them. The prayer of the Petition ought
not to he granted, let its allegations be what
they might ; but he Would meet it on the ground
of the allegations alone. He was accused of pro-
posing questions as a new standard of faith, in-
stead of the 39 Articles, whereas the questions
he proposed were founded on those Articles, and
were to be determined by a reference to those
Articles alone. The offence with which he was
charged consisted in his unwearied endeavours
to prevent the Church from being. forsaken. He
had succeeded to a great extent, or their Lord-
ships would never have heard of this Petition.
The signature of the Curate was not required to
be affixed to any opinions of his, but to the an.
swers which might be given by-the Curate him-
self. It was, therefore, a misrepresentation to
say that he proposed a test to which he required
a signature. He did not think that so gross a
misrepresentation of truth could have found its
way into the House of Lords. If no credit were
due- to his own solemn declaration, that he ac-
knowledged no standard of faith but that which
was established by the Church of England, be-
cause it was the most consistent with the Holy
Scriptures, at least some proof should be pro-
duced on the other side to establish the incon-
sistency of which he was accused. He never
declined to admit clergymen into his diocese, in
consequence of their refusal to answer the ques-
tions proposed to them, without remonstrating
i❑ the first instance ; and he had often succeeded
in correcting the error into which they had fal-
len. The Canon Law required, in addition to
subscription to the 39 Articles, that the Bishop
should enter into an examination of the Clergy-
man ; and if subscription to the Articles were
alone to be required, the same effect would be
produced in this country which now existed in
Switzerland, where the same clergyman sub-
scribed to the doctrines of Calvin, and preached
the doctrines of Socinius. The Petitioner had
stated, that the influence of Lay Patrons was
likely to be injured if a new standard were esta-
blished ; but he was convinced that the rule of
justice, and not of private interest, would decide
the fate of that Petition. The questions were
not intended, as the Noble Lord had truly said,
to ascertain the ability of the Clergyman, but
whether his doctrine was sound ? The number
of persons to whom he had refused ordination
was one. He had also refused service to one, for
refusing to answer the questions; so that the
whole amount was two ; and this was the mighty
grievance for which the House of Lords was to
be set in motion. He would confidently assert,
that the questions were approved by the great
body of the Clergy, because they had a tendency
to check fanaticism, which was one of the greatest
evils with which the Church had to contend. He
would repeat that the allegations of the Petition
were destitute of truth, and leave the Petition to
be decided upon by their Lordships' judgments •

Lord KING denied that the Petitioner had re-
linquished his right to complain of the conduct
of his diocesan, by appointing another curate ; for
if he had not done so himself, the Bishop would
have done so for him. The point at issue was,
whether the 87 questions constituted a new
standard or not ? The Right Reverend Bishop
required answers to those questions in writing,
that they might appear, on record against the par-
ties ; and so far it was a test.

The Archbishop of CANTERBURY stated, in
explanation of his own conduct, that the applica-
tion made by the Petitioner to him, was not in
the form of an appeal, but merely a letter in-
quiring whether the Bishop could be justified in
the conduct he pursued or not ? Some unavoid-
able delay had taken place in giving an answer;
and when given, the answer was, that the 48th
canon empowered and directed the Bishop to ex-
amine all applicants for admission into his dio-
cese. It was not necessary, nor would it have
been right, to enter into further explanation.
There was no appeal to him, and there could"
have been none.

Lord CALTHORPE expressed high respect for
the character and talents of the Right Reverend
Prelate; but was of opinion that the conduct
which he had pursued in this instance was cal-
culated to disturb the peace of the Church, and
to endanger the ascendancy of the Protestant
Establishment, by the revival of controversial
points. He should vote in favour of the motion
for layint.r, the Petition on the table.
The Earl of HARR° way did not see why the
Petition should be laid on the Table, as it was
not likely to be followed by any practical re-
sult. He deprecated the principle of exclud-
ing the Calvinists from the Church of England,
which was never contemplated when that esta-
blishnient was formed ; and thought that there
was but little Christian charity and humility in
that mind which could deny that some of the
brightest examples were to be found among those
who professed that doctrine. What remedy
could be afforded in the present case he knew
not, but he hoped that the Right Reverend Bench
would continue to exercise the same discretion
which had chaiaCteriied their past conduct.
Earl GREY contended, that those who had the
charge of the general interests of the country
had a power to protect those interests in question,
which related to the Church as well as to the
State, and that the House had therefore a' juris-
diction-over such cases as the present, though the
Right Rev. Prelate was of opinion that the Pe-
titioner could have no remedy but from the Arch-
bishop. The Archbishop had himself declared
that 'no appeal could be made to him ; that he
had no jurisdiction ; the only appeal, therefore,
that could be made was to the superintending
jurisdiction of Parliament itself. The Noble
Earl, in whose general opinions on this subject
he concurred, had stated that he knew not what
remedy could be applied. The complaint was
that an attempt was made to require a subscrip-
tion to a new test, and if that complaint could
be established, he entertained no doubt but that
the House would be able to correct the evil by
addressing the Royal Authority to direct an
alteration in the course of examination, as he
believed had been done in one instance before.