Star.
London, England, 1812-02-10 00:00:00

Lifllf 11V7'ELLIGENCE.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, FEBRUARY 8.
SIR r. BURDETT V. THE SPEAKER.
This day the argument on the Writ of Error brought
from the Court of King's Bench in this case came on,
when Mr. CLIFFORD contended at considerable length,
for the four following points :
Ist. That there was no necessity for the proceedirgs which
had taken place against Sir F. Burdett ; that they were not sup-
ported in law : and that, although the House might have pro-
ceeded to expel sir F. Burdett, they bad no power to imprison
him during the whole of the Sessions.
9.d. That the Resolution of the House, declaring Sir F. Burdett
guilty of a breach of privilege, was not in conformity with the
power of the House of Commons.
Sd. That the warrant was not executed in conformity with the
Order of the House. The Order was, that the Serjeant should
arrest Sir F. Burdett, and he should have proceeded with his
Me.sengers to take him into custody, but bad no power to call
in aid a military force; and
4th. That the breaking open the door of Sir F. Burdett's house
was unjustifiable, inasmuch as this was a simple process fur con-
tempt, in which the Kng was no way a party.
Mr. RICHARDSON was heard in support of the judg-
ment of the Court of King's Bench ; and the Court
deferred hearing Mr. Clifford in reply till the 18th of
April next.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 8.
DR. POVEY AND THE BISHOP OF LONDON.
THE KING V. THE BISHOP OF LONDON, AND THE ARCH-
BISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
At the sitting of the ccurt, this morning, Lord
ELLENBOROUGH proceeded to pronounce the judg-
ment of the Court in this case. His Lordship ob-
served, that the Court had employed the time which
had elapsed between the close of the argument yes-
terday and this morning, in considering all the cases
referred to, and the arguments of Counsel on both
sides, and he was then about to deliver the judgment
of the Court upon the whole of this case, with the
concurrence of the rest of the Bench. His Lord.
slip then, having taken a view of all the cases which
had been cited on this occasion, said, that in all of
them, without exception, the Couit entirely concur-
red ; but were of opinion, that they did not by any
means dispose of the present quzstion. There was
no such application as this ever before made to this
Court. It was a else entirely depending upon an
Act of Pstrliammt which was m ide at the time of
the conformity to the Church Establishment, at a
time, when the LegislatUre was extremely attentive
to, and jealous of, the effect of conflicting cp:ilions
on the subject of religion, of which this country had

many instances of Cie grelt mischiefs resulting from
such conflicting opinions; and this Act of Parlia-
ment had given in this respect an exclusive dominion
to the Bishop over the right of granting licenses —for
the right of granting license to preach was suppletory
to the ordination of a person in the Church. This Act
of Parliament had directed that he should either ap-
prove or disapprove, and that no other power had
dominion over him in that respect, and that his con-
science alone was to be the object of his guide ; this
dilnot require that he should examine witnesses, and
if it did, it would be perfectly nugatory in that re.
spect, since 4.. e had no power by law to compel the at-
tendance of any witness whatever • and if witnesses
were brought before him, and tendered evidence, he
had no means of administering an oath, he was there-
fore to satisfy his conscience, and in doing this, he had
a right to make use of whatever knowledge he might
pos-ess; such, for instance, as he might have acquired
personally from conversation, from being acquainted
with the object of the application at College, from
knowing his habits of life or conversation, or from

a thou;and other instances, from the delicacy of
which, they could not with propriety be disci Ised,
but which from their nature, might be fully bind-
ing on his conscience. Should the Court, therefore,
command the Bishop in this case to act as the Man-
damus would direct him, it would in effect ba say.
ing this—" we, this Court, command you, the Bibhop
of London, to approve, although you may disapprove
—we command you to licence, although in your con-
, cknce you believe the object applying for it is un-
worthy of it." Here the Bishop had declared, he re-
ceived the application of this Reverend Gentleman,
that he had heard him, and had examined into the merits
1 of his application, and upon full inquiry and delibe-
rate consideration, he was conscientiously of opinion,
that he was unfit for the office which ke now sought;
that he was actuated by no motives but a conscientious
discharge of his duty, and therefore had refused him
that licence. Supposing the Mandamus had issued,
and that the Rev. Prelate had stated, by way of re-
turn to such Mandamus, the very words which were
now to be found in his affidavit in opposition to this
rule; such return to such Mandamus would have been
perfectly satisfactory to the Court. But much reliance
. .

64 Give me leave, Sir, to recommend to the con-si- had been placed on some of the dices found in the
deration of the Catholics of Ireland, the sage counsel books, in which it was held, that on the Bishop re-
of Cie Solicitor General, one of their best ft lends. I turning to such an application as this for licensing a
am convinced, with him, that the Catholic Committee schoolmaster, that he vvasnot of sufficientleat ning, that
has been the most pernicious enemy that Catholic i this matter of fact might be tried by a Jury► His
Emancipation ever saw. It had diverted the public Lordship admitted that such dias was to be found in
mind from the great and material question and effec- 1 such books, but he never heard an" instance of their
ted no good. Emancipation cannot be legally dis- 1 application, nor did he know how it could possibly be
cussed except in Parliament. It is not by trampling applied. Supposing, for instance, that such an issue
upon the law that its objects can be etlected. It is as this came to be tried before a Jury, namely,
not by intemperance that bigotry can be conciliated;' whether the object of the application to the Bishop
it is not by violence that the Legislature can be per- was or was not a person of competent learning for that
suaded that the claims of the Catholics are just. The ! office ;+ was it to be taken for granted, that twelve
Solicitor General's fascinating display of all that was ' farmers at a country Assizes were competent judges
great in the mind, or brilliant in fancy will not be un- I of the literature of such an applicant ? or was it to be
availing ; Ido not only not despair that the Catholic taken for granted, that even the Judge himself was
Counnitlee will profs-by it, but I entertain the most competent to the duty of instructing the Jury suf&-

: •
ctently on the frianner in Which they th • ect
Such a question ? For the .queStibti would be, Whe.-
ther upon a thesis wri ten in Latin; the person apply;
ing had proved that he was perfectly Mader of the
rules of the grainmar of that dead language ? the
very statement of the thing Would be in itself ttici
dicrotis for the gravity Which became the
tion of justice. His Lordship next took 3 V:ew of the
evidence as it had been disclosed on the affidaVitii
with respect to the doctrines of Dr. Pover, a's preach=
ed before certain congregations, oft the 'subject t f iri
Lint baptism ; and his Lordship, upon this point; fell
no difficulty in saying, that if the queition WAS to
turn on-that paint alone, the wei,,ht of eviderct. wate
in favour of the cenclusion drawn by the Reverend
Prela.e against the Efactor ; bat this was a matter on
which the Court was not tailed upOla to (feud •---..the
case itself was deci,ive without it. His LOrdsh:il
concluded in saying, that should the Court grant ate
Mandamus, it would be 'wither more nor lest: thAn
an absolute repeal of the very Act by which this ease
tvas governed. It *as therefore the decided opinion
bf the Court that this Rule ought to be discharged;
u .e dischargs.d.
The Anne N i.Y.GEN EflA L, on behalf of the; Bishopi
immediittely :afterwards se:al, that as this application
had been made in then anner which had appeared to
have impressed the C, urt, lie trusted Lhe4 Lordships
would discharge tl.e Rule with costs.
Lord ELLE:NBC/HOU:11 observed, that as this was
the first appUzation of the kind, and although the
law was clear, yet havi.ag never been pronounced
upon a sandhi app:ication, it might be as well per-
haps not to grant costs ; but if any other such appli-
cation should be niade hereAter, the Court would
consider whether the costs might not be granted to
dr:se who might find it necessary to oppose such ap-
plication: