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

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 14.

The Bills of Exchange Bill, the East India
Prize Money Bill, the Irish Prisons Regulation
Bill, and the Justice of the Peace Bill, were
brought up from the Commons, and read the first
time.

A message was brought from the Commons re-
questing a copy.. of the Report of the Committee
on Foreign Trade.=.Ordered.
Mr. fryjng, from the Custom House, presented
an account of the Foreign and British Wines
upon which duties had been paid and dray. backs
allowed, from the year 1785 to 1820.
Lord Rous presented a Petition from the
Owners and Occupiers of Land in the hundred
of Clo%ves, in Suffolk, complaining of Agricultural
Distress, and praying relief.
The Irish Insolvent Debtors' Bill went through
the Committee, and was reported.

THE BISHOP OF PETERIIOROUGH.

Lord KING begged leave to call•the attention
of their Lordships to a petition which he felt it
his duty to present to the House, and which ap-
pared to him to contain matter of considerable
importance, both as it acrected the interests of the
Church of England, and the rights of many per-
sons connected with the Church. The Petition
Was from the Rev. Henry :Neville, Rector of
Botherwicke, in the Diocese of Peterborough,
-and he was authorised to state to their Lordships,
that this Mode of seeking redress would sot have
been appealed to, if the Reverend Person could
haie obtained it in any other way. The Peti-
tioner's complaint was, that the Right ltev.,the
Bishop of Peterborough had refused to licence a
Curate to officiate for him in his Diocese, though
the Curate had proper testimonials signed by the
Archhbishop of York, and had subscribed to the
39 Articles, as required by law.' The ground of
the Diocesan's objection was, that the Curate
refused to sign a new test, propmed to him,. con-
sisting of a list of eighty-seven questions. On the
peremptory refusal of the Right Reverend
Bishop, the Petitioner applied to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, from whom, after a considerable
delay, he received an answer, stating that there
could be no doubt as to the right of the Bishop
of the Diocese to examine Curates before he ad-
mitted them, and referring to the 48th Canon,
Without any further cominent or explanation.—
The grounds and reasons of his opinion ought,
he conceived, to have been more fully and satis-
factorily stated in a case of so much importance.
It would probably be contended, on the other
side, that the Bishopp, had a discretionary power,
but if he had refused to appoint to a benefice upon
such a ground, an appeal might be
.made to the
common law. In such cases the Bishops acted
as Judges, and must be bound by known rules.
If the Judges in WeStminster Hall committed
any abuse, an. appeal might be made -to that
House, and if an Episcopal Judge committed any
abuse, he could not be persuaded but that the
House might take cognizance of their misconduct
-also. It was a principle that there could be 'no
wrong in this country without a remedy. The
power of examining Clergymen was properly
given to the Right Reverend Bench ; but he
Would. ask any one who had read the 87 ques-
tions, whether they could possibly be intended
to ascertain the ability of the person ? These ques-
tions were in a printed form, and were sent by
post to be answered through the same conveyance.
If they were meant as a test, his answer was, that
the law had declared a much better test in the 39
Articles. The unfortunate person thus refused
by the Right Reverend Prelate was told that

11e might seek his remedy, hut the opinion of
the authority to which he should appeal, had
been already ascertained, and was against him.
The new standard, if recognised, might affect
the prospects of many persons and the inter-
ests of the Church at large. The questions were
termed, in the language of ecclesiastical jocularity,
" cobwebs to catch Calvinists," against whose
doctrine they were principally directed. His
chief objection was, that they had a tendency to
create schisms in the Church ; for if oue Bishop
had a right to put a strained construction on the
39 Articles, another Bishop had the same right,
anal differences might hence arise destructive to
the peace of the Church. The great object of
the Church of England was to promote peace,
quiet, and order ; the articles themselves were
founded in peace, and many of them were of a
nature not to be examined too curiously. There
was even reason to believe that those Articles
were drawn up originally by CalvinistS. The
Right Reverend Bishop ought, he presumed, to
be content with the 39 Articles, instead of ad-
vancing opinions of his own which he required
the Clergy of his Diocese to subscribe. He had
no doubt but that the object of the Right Rev.
Bishop was to produce uniformity in the Church,
but the attempt was so made as to risk the peace
of the Church. After some further observa-
tions the Noble Lord concluded with moving,
that the Petition should be read, with a view
to move afterwards that it should he laid on the
Table.

The. Bishop of PETERBOROUGH said, that as a
prejudice had been eAcited, against him by publi-
cations, he felt that be was the more entitled to
their Lordships' indulgence. He was surprised
at hearing from the Petitioner in six months after
the transaction, after the Curate had been licens-
ed in another Diocese,. and another Curate ap-
pointed in his place, that it was his intention to
bring the subject before Parliament. If any ap-
peat was to be made, it should be to the Arch-
bishop of the Province, and not to Parliament.
But by adopting another Curate the Petitioner
had acquiesced in the, decision which he- now
come forward to support. The Bishop of the
Diocese had a right to examine Curates ; but the
objection in the present instance was to the mode
of examination. His mode was a plain one, that
of question and answer, and his object was to
ascertain the doctrines and religious •opinions of
those who applied, for admission into his. Diocese.
The question was one of pure theology, relating
wholly to the doctrines of the established church,
and theref6re did not come under the jurisdiction
of that House. His questions had been submitted
to many Bishops, none of whom had stated the