The Sun.
London, England, 1820-05-13 00:00:00

PREVEN'IIVE NIEASLTItES.

The EaTtjtillanNLeY, atter-With)? seeming to
advert to what had been said in the former discus-
oh this sabioct, observed, that he still re-
rained his opinion that the old established law of
the snit %1 as pet fee ty adeviate• to protect the
country from the evils which were so strongly ap-
prehended, and thought there was of course no
ttecessity for new, severe, Or unconstitutional en-
actthents. In these scwinsents lay the considera-
tion, (which he believed was well founded), that
under tie new restrictive statutes, no oue convic-
Inok place while several convictions 'occur-
red under the old law. For the purpose of bring-
ing till, imporianr consideration regolarly before
t-! eir L!,rdships, he should now move that there
be laid before the House, a Statement of ttil Con-
victions antler arty'., v Acts passed since the Ist
day of December, 1310
witiell was ordered.ac-
c:ortiingly,

• cASE OF THE REV. MR. JONES.
The Order of the lily, upon which their Lord-
ships ,unthioned, being read,
Lord IiuLLAND r SC, p; Stttttt to his notice, to
call their 1.-idsliips! atirntiou to the case of this
Rev. Gel,tleinan. His Lordship prefaced his mo-
tion, (minded upon Alf Jones's netition, with a
bptertt of ',cry e'insidto able lentil. The petition, •
Ins Lordship ohseivrd, which he was about' to
present to the !louse, was founded upon a eit-
cumstance which took place in September last,
but it. cidental or unavoidable cirenins otters cans-
fte t 1,1,1 of the presentati .n to this 'period.
;Ilr'let:Hied it upon ,he veli.le the more eligible
way 'o state the circninstances, accompanied with
Iris reattlts and animadvelsioos upon the case
he fe:t it incumbent upon hint to make,
than that their Lor,:ships should proceed to the
the petition in the first instance, 1-le
bed no! 0.,1y given the most serious attention to
the subject himself, but be had, by the desire of
the Rev. petitioner, communicated is tenor to
those most likely to be 4ected by its allegations;
and this mode lie thought would he the most ad.
vaniageous way 01 introducing the motion which
Ile Meant to (Mind upon the allegations. The pe-
titioner, he slated, was a Clergyman of the Chinch
of En.4land, and regularly ordained in the diocese
of Esete.r. A tew months ago a county meeting
of the inkabitants of Devonshire took place, for
the purpose of considering the propriety of peti-
tioning Parliament, with a view to the grant of
no more indulgences to our Catholic fellow-sub-
jects The petitioner attended, and spoke at the
meeting, in answer -,;tincipally to what had been
advances( by a Rev. Brother, uho was in favour
of the object for which the meeting was called.
Not long after this the petitioner bad some eccle-
siastical preferments tendered to him, which were
situated in the dioceses of Lincoln and Peter-
borouelt, In order to valify him for institution,
it was necessary he should obtain testimonials as
to his character and competencyfrom two or three
Clergytnen of the Diocese ; these he had rept-
-larly procured ; but it was also necessary. that
tht se testimonials should be countersigned by the
Bishop of the Diocese; but in this last procedure,
to ilia great surprise and injury,. the Bishop re.
fused to countersign the testimonials. By the
Prelates, in whose Diocese the preferments con-
ferred upon him were situated, he was informed
that it was an invariable rule that the testimonials

sho:ild he eouniersigned by the Prelate at his
OW a Diocese betore his institution into the liv-
ings co411;1 take place. In the petition it was
alleged, that the petitioner had personally appli-
td to his Diocesan, who assumed to himself the
right of refusing his counter-ignature without as.-
sighing any reason for so doing. Yet it appeared
be did admit that his reasons were not for any de-

feet in competeocy or moral character. He after-
w.►rds learned that the refusal proceeded from his

alleged holding certain language in a speech he
cn,*(le at the said county meeting. The petitioner
offered proof that he had never t►ird such words ;
but he never had an opportunity of rebuiting or

• •
disproving the charge alleged against.hito ; and in
consequence 1),; was consttained to relinquish pre-
fermeirs which would have bronght him in five
hundred ponitils, a year. So that for no clerkal
or moral offence whatever wal Mr. Jones con-
strained to mike such a sactifit:e of his profes-
sional hopes au t! prospects in life ; and he learned
farther that he had little or no remedy at law ;
and he was, through the treaTmcitt he 'hen re-
ceived, rendered a waked and stigmatized person
in ihe Diocese. lie Was, however, snffered to
remain to the Curacy which he hch! icy the county

of Devon; Their Lordships must feel what ef-
fect such a treatment must have with reapeet to
all free expression of rentiment ou the part of the
far greater portion of the Cleve)? in Foreland.—
The name of the petitioner was the Reverend
John Pike Jones, and the seat of r,ia Corary,
Ndrih Ptivey, in the Connty.of Devon. lie ad-
jured the House to consider the effect of such an
aastoundon of power pi) the part of Djocesaos ;
mid with respect to the idea of such t man as
the petitioner recurring to the legal Tttbonii
in such a case as the present, which involved
a question of power on the pa-t of Dioreseatts,
how was.a poor Curate, at 80t, per stilton!, to
contend against the whole Prelacy of Eogand
His Lordship then more partictll3,ly adverted to
rite charge made ageriut the pe'itioper, that not
oine.tencits of the Clergy of Ettglaitit, or la-
ther the approbation of the A•haeasian Creed,
particularly its damnatory articles, believed
in what they so sigoed. But when the
tenor of his argument, and the general conduct
of that speech, ,vas considered, he, as alleged,
must consider that such part of Mr. ifllles'S
speech was improperly or ineorrec:ly reported.
What he had said seemed rather to apply to cer-
tain tenets in the [impair Catholic faith or creed ;
and for the purpose of proving that he was mis-
represented, the PeritkiWt had not only adatteed
arguments, but references, that he court ow, or
did not so express himself. His Lordship then
animadverted at some length oil tne nature and
tenderey of the Creed of St. Athanasius, and re-
ferred to the expressed sent intents of several high
and learned Ptelates, and other lumivaties of the
English Reformed Church, ire order tut strew that
several of those had gone greaaer lengthy in tin-
pnuing the 41.01111 es of that Creed than what it
was asserted had been expressed by the peti-
He, alnotig whets, instanced the senti-
ments t xpreased by Archbishops sou and
Tennison, of Bishop Burnett (who had said, that
hp believed not CO out of 100 of those who had
aimed the articles, h-ad actually read them) ; awl
of that admirable writer, Archdeacon Paley. Some
of these, and other clerical writers, opetey ex-
pressed their disbelief in the darnnatory articies of
the Athanasian Creed.- Yet for not going ‘tc tar
(eveo admitting that the allegation was correct),
the Reverend Mr. Pike Jones was to he sacrificed
st:gr.naiitied. lowards" coniclio,ion, the
Noble Lora sovonterlYeited upon whir: was Said by
;Mr. Prefee,h,ey D.!i1111S, IZI his ConvOentio
.prtictibiri6nth r cct tit tVil at he shio tit , Rev.
Prelate (Clerk of t:e floy:t1 Closet) raving s(4tCd
that a Great PerSoe.ee would wi!bhold is assent
to a Bill in favouV of the Ca:htilie
were it passed by "both Houses of -Parliament --e
l'orsoing this strain of argument, and glancing „•
the lanatiage belt! by a late Rev. Prelate, •ot
part of the doctrinal or dogmatic tenets of the
Church. which hi regarded as it sp.:cies of re-
bosses or conitntlrtima—(A Lordship
proceeded to consider the praencability of such d
man as the petit inner hoping flir a-iia7fe-qoate re-
medy at law. OU thishead, however, he admit-
ted himself to be nought of a profound Lawyer ;
but he considered, upon the whole, that the- most
likely mode in such a man as the petitioner, was
by laying iris case humbly before the Legislature,
as .wits the course now adopted. • It %vas his in-
tention to move, after the Petition shookd be read,
for the appointment of a. Committee to inquire
into the allegations of the Petition of the fleAr..
J. P. Jones, and the state of the Law respecting
the hystitution of (iltrgyinent into vaesot
fiees. and to report thereon to the House.
The Petition was then lead, and astpearea •o the
effect stared by the Noble Lurd, who afterwards
-moved as above.
The Milton of EXETER rose—He did not feel
himself, he observed, called upon to enter into
any of thoSe details or animadvetsiona into which
the Noble Laid had gone so mach at large, but
,would, as was all that seemed to him to be neces-
sary, confine himself to such of the allegations of
the petitioner as personally referred to
What had been said of the County Meeting was,
believed, correct ; but not so with respect to
what the petitioner alleged as to his belief of his
(r he Rev. Prelate's) motives for declining to
countersign the Testimonials, baying proceeded
from the petitioner's making a speech in favour
of the Roman Catholics. hare petitioner was pre-
sented to two livings, and had applied to him to
countersign his testimonials. It was, he should
observe, an invariable practice, anti of very ancient
•usage, and he believed never omitted, that such a
sanction should be received. When the peti-
tioner presented himself, he distinctly said to him,
that his decision in this instance, had no reference
to those opinions which he _(sw petitioner) had
expressed. Thst liv was at full liberty to hold his
opioions and with respect to himself, he (the
Nev. Prelate) hoped for the same indulgence for
his own opinions, which the Noble. Lord oppo.
site claimed, in holding the claims alluded to in a
different• light front the Noble Lord, and from
those who-thought with him. 'lle principle upon
which he'acted oft the present---occasion had al-
ways ruled his conduct ever "since he presided in
his present diocese, which was more than 13
years. In his declining to countersign these testi-
monials,' be must distinctly disclaim that his mo-
tive had any reference to the speech referred to ;
and the petitioaer knew that he bad so disclaimed
it. lie thought he could trot he regularly called
upon to state why he had so declined, because
be had a clear discretihnary power vested in hint
so to do. His own conscientious jrulgtoent ap-
proved of his conduct on the occasion. He had
acted from the best of that judgment. He had
investigated the matter with the greatest care
arid, instead of the case bring lightly treated,
be must beg leave to say, tire vet v reverse was the
tact. It was true, lie had received letters deriving
what was asserted ; brit, on the other hand, he
had received information from persons in habits
'of intimacy with the petitioner, and he had re-
ceived letters corroborating vrbat he had heard
by word of mouth, and he begged leave to say,
that the three Clergymen who signed the testi-
monials a ire pet feet ly ignorant of what hail passed,
awl when they received information of it they beg-
ged leavp to withdraw their testimonials, which
documents' of course fell to th.e grotrud. Doubts
may be entertained by some as to the power of a
Bishop in such. a case, hut in Lis own view of it,
informed as he was by persons 'every way worthy

tioner.

credit, and not mealy those who had signed
the testimonials, his conduct was perfectly satis-
factory to his own cotiteitnce and. his jiidgment.
The petitioner 'says, that by "the elect of his (the
Rev. Prelate's) refusing to countersign, lie was
debarred from. all legal remedy. Ile begged leave
to say, that the petitioner actually had a remedy
in the Courts below ; and even were there no
such remedy, he (tl►e Rev. Prelate) felt that he was
bound in conscience to act as he had done. It
was also stated, that though he refused to authen-
ticate the testimonials, still he permitted the pe-
titioner to retain a minor preferment; btit in thiS
he conk say that - he was actuated by considera-
tious.of feeling.—(l-tear, hear o—Atid he most
again repeat that he had made every practicable
ingaity into the circumstances of the case, at least
daily for three weeks, and the result was such as
to determine him to act,as he had done.

Lord ERtKIYB contended that the petition
ought to be received, because be conceived that
the.con,inct of the Right Rev. Prelate could not
be justified in refusing to countersign the ;est imo-
trial 0, the petitioner. All the reason given by
the Right., Rev. Prelate for the refusal was, that
lie had made inquiries and found the tel te-
net's of the Ciergymau were not such as he ap-
proveft. But it was the duty of the Prelate either to
countet sign Or give such reasons as might enable
rho.. pe,itiouer to jostify his conduct in a Court .nt
Justice. No - man had a greater vetter4tion tnr
the Liturgy of the Chinch o EnAantt than him-
!selt ; but at the sane tin e, theie were parts of the
Ailiatia*i.n Creed from whit it some of the
Clergymen of our ClAirch diff:red. It Aes ;here-
iore a grievous thing tti:t a Asian of good moral
conduct anti correct religions principles; should
for such an itriagtriary offence as thiS, be deprivci,
of his future prospects in lite. Some,. hing: ought
to be done, and a law should be iotrocl,kieed, to.
prevent such an abuse of power at this.
Loup CHANCELLOR }.hied ,it it was fitt,.hat
the House should for, monaent qin, Mqp,
lion, for the purpose of institcting an, inqpiry,
whether the Bishops int England should be coin
pclied to nepait from that lint of discretion they,
had right to exercise whit respect to the infe7.
rior Clergy. The Canon law kid down no rule
upon the subject Every Bishop ita the poy.er
countersign a Cicrgyrnates testimonium, 16. it-
tiley hioke,l upon that 'act es r•:!.:0,,g :note tAan
in,-.tter of course, they failed {4l ii,t per kJ)" MaliCe
of
their duty. Jr vi+As, the duty of the Bishop to eX"
amine whether ripe pe,ti,on proposed to! a living,
Vi .53 tit to have one iu.•hoi.diocese.
ItaDt'e the lii.hop had exercised an improptr tuts,
err I WO,• it" c'•raplatning pc: .3r had a remedy in a
Unutf:o;_LA.V. ; it Was sio' ror Parliament to
.eriteroan. tit th kind, or to adopt
any n 7 bad object to alter the
law of ,ne .vas r,••; a individual cast
g that suE.Aild heir Lonia.6ps make so
material a departure from the usages of the
j co.int ry

'l'be Earl of CARIVAAVON observed, that the
Right Reverend Prelate loAd assig,,,l no reaaon
wha'ever toF7t0”:„;:g to sign .itioner's
tes-
tinroniun ; consequently cf. con-. ;ning an un-
fortunate indivi:!ual to ruin, He upon th.e
principle of the Spanish Ini!o;sirio, by making
secret inquiries, and acting owthe i•t',ortnotion he
received without affording the accts . d an oppor-_
tunity of defending himself. The Hte.res'.3 of all
The Clergy and patron 3 in the kiT.:;dom tcquiret:
that the law should be clearly down on thi;
subject. As to the Athanasian Creed, he would
ask whether the Rev. Prelate himself believed or
approved of its doctrines ? It was well known
that there were Bishops in this country who did
not believe that Creed. Here the Noble Earl
rend an extract from a book published by a Bi-
shop .of Lincoln, in which it was. asserted, that
the Athanasian Creed was composed 100 years
after the death, of St. Athanasius, and in whieh
the Bishop declared to be an untortnnate thing,
that such unqualified expressions as those con-
tained in it should be used. The unfortunate
however, whose petition was now the subject of
debate, bad lost his living, and had all his hopes
destroyed, merely for saying that 9-tenths of the
Clergy held opinions, which one of the Bishops
of the Established Church oat think it incon-
sistent,witu his duty, his rkliH.ons !Lows, or his
ecclesiastical character, to eni.ci:ain, and to pub-
lish to the world.

The Marquess Of LaNspowNti„said, that after
what had taken place - that night, and the little
disposition that was sheen to defend the conduct
of the Right Rev. Prelate, he could not abstain,
as an individual, from calling their Lordship's' at-
tention to the situation in which they were placed
by the right that was exercised by the Right
Rev• Prelate in the exercise of what he was pleas-
ed to call his principal duty. But what did the
Right Rev. Prelate mean had.told theist that
he telt himself authorised, perhaps he was so
legally, to receive accounts of the character of an
individual, not from the pat ishioners among whom
he resided, and towards whom he had discharged
the duties of .his sacred office, but to go to. a dis-
tance in order to collect testimony as to particular
expressions, and on the ground of that testimony,
to inflict the most cruel punishment. Though
there were persons, who, like the Right Rev.
Prelate, might feel indifferent to all views of
promotion,' still he might find an apology in the
weakness of human nature, for no unfortunate
Curate who might look forward to some advance-
ment in his humble and obscure situation.—

(Hear, hear !)—But the contrary was•manifested
by his conduct. He had used his discretion to
blast those prospects, merely because lie bad -ex-
excised his tree privilege as a Briton, and without
any allegations against his moral conduct, had
refused him the means of cotoradicting the fact
for which- he was to be twined for life. But mark
the most extraordinary part of the Right Rev.
l'relate's conduct; he had felt himself justified in
refusing the means of defence, anti yet Out of
pute.good-nature, as a twitter of feeling, had per-
mitted him to 'retain his curacy. One of .two
things must follow, either the Petitioner was
most cruelly and barbarously used, or 'he Right
Reverend Prelate had neglected to perform his
duty, which was to have removed him altogether.
He did not sce that any legal remedy couLl be
obtained, and theretote kit indebted to his Noble
Friend for raving brought the subject before the
Ilouse—(l.lear.)

The Bishop of LANDAFP snpported what fell
from the Reverend
conduct
(of Exeter), in the
prop rieiy of whose he coincided..
The Eirl of CARNARVON spoke shortly in rx•
planation.
The Bishop of EXETER was about to comment
on the observations which the
.133r1 of Carnarvon
had explained, when Lord ,Polland called him to
order.

The House then divided on the question as
Follows _

Contents
-85
Non-Contents- •

Majority agaisisi Motion.. —l7
At nine u'Cluck the 'louse adjourned till
Monday.