■^^ ] 
 
 W/ 
 
 M 
 
 ^^Jgi i 
 
 \\.>vq^^ 
 
 W^m)<.oi/ ] 
 
 VvC\*c9^-^&j'srT7vO// 
 
 N^^^J^ 1 
 
 
 .ggeg^ 1 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 (A/k.t/ ' ■' 
 
 THE 
 
 SPEECHES 
 
 IN 
 
 PARLIAMENT 
 
 OF 
 
 SAMUEL lH.0 R S L E Y, 
 
 LL. D. F. R. S. F. A. S. 
 
 i.ATi: 
 LORD BISHOP OF ST ASAPIL 
 
 DUNDEE : 
 
 prfitten !)t jaoI)crt Stephen HtntouT; 
 
 FOR JAMES CHALMERS ; AND SOLD BY LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORJIE, 
 c^- BROWN, F. C. ^ J. RIVINGTON, AND T. HAMILTON, LONDON ', 
 A. CONSTABLE Sf COMPANY, AND J. BALLANTYNE Sf COMPANY, 
 EDINBURGH. 
 
 1813.
 
 4
 
 TO THE 
 
 LORD GRENVILLE. 
 
 ^ MY LORD, 
 
 w 1 
 
 As the political leader 
 to whom, with the exception of 
 my late much-lamented friend Mr 
 Windham, my father was most 
 5 strongly attached, I inscribe to 
 your Lordship the following vo- 
 lume of his Parliamentary Speech- 
 es. I believe, on all the great na- 
 tional questions but one to which 
 these speeches relate, your Lord- 
 ship and the Bishop were speakers 
 
 r^84'7JG 
 
 C9
 
 11 
 
 on the same side ; and on that 
 one, my father writes thus to me, 
 only four weeks before his death. 
 
 " I at present intend being up 
 at the meeting of Parliament ; but 
 shall leave * * * ^ * * behind me 
 here, as I foresee nothing likely to 
 occur in the House that should de- • 
 tain me above a fortnight in Lon- 
 don. The Roman Catholics will 
 be before us again this session. 
 My mind was never so long unset- 
 tled upon any great question be- 
 fore. Something must be done ; 
 but what, I am not prepared to 
 say. I shall see Windham as soon 
 as I get to town, and probably my
 
 • • • 
 
 lu 
 
 friends Lords Spencer and Gren- 
 viLLE ; for I suspect there is real- 
 ly no great difference of opinion 
 between us." 
 
 What might have been the re- 
 sult of such a conference, it is not 
 for me, my Lord, to determine : 
 But of this I am certain, that even 
 had the differences of opinion turn- 
 ed out great, yet your Lordship's 
 continuing to advocate the cause of 
 the Roman Catholics would not in 
 the smallest degree have lessened 
 the perfect confidence my father 
 placed in you as the faithful friend 
 and sincere supporter of the Esta- 
 hlished Church,
 
 IV 
 
 With the highest admiration of 
 your public principles, and the ut- 
 most personal respect, I remain, 
 my Lord, your Lordship's most 
 obedient humble servant, 
 
 H. HoRSLEY. 
 
 Dundee, 23d January 1813.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Upon Earl Stanhope's Bill for the Repeal of certain Pe- 
 nal Laws ; June 9, 1789 1 
 
 Upon the second reading of the Bill for the Relief of 
 Roman Catholics, under certain conditions; May 31, 
 1791 35 
 
 In reply to the Lord Chancellor, upon the second read- 
 ing of the Bill for the Relief of the Scottish Episco- 
 palians; May 2, 1792 68 
 
 Upon the Weldon Enclosure Bill, in committee ; May 
 22, 1792 87 
 
 On the third reading of the Treason Bill ; November 
 30, 1795 167 
 
 On the English Militia going to Ireland ; June 19, 1798. 184 
 
 Upon the Bill to Regulate the Slave-Trade within cer- 
 tain limits; July 5, 1799 195 
 
 Upon the Adultery Bill ; May 23, 1800 259 
 
 Upon the Bill to Prevent the Increase of Papists, and 
 to Regulate the existing Monastic Institutions ; July 
 10, 1800 307
 
 11 
 
 PAGE 
 On the Preliminaries of Peace between England and 
 
 the French Republic ; Novembers, 1801 359 
 
 On Laws relating to Spiritual Persons ; June 10, 1803. 375 
 Upon the Bill to Regulate the Ages of Persons to be 
 
 admitted into Holy Orders; April 13, 1804 4-21 
 
 Upon the Bill relating to the Stipends of London In- 
 cumbents; July 23, 1804- 432 
 
 On the Petition from the Roman Catholics of Ireland ; 
 
 May 13, 1805 486 
 
 On the Slave-Trade; June 24, 1806 517
 
 UPON EARL STANHOPE'S BILL FOR THE 
 REPEAL OF CERTAIN PENAL LAWS; 
 
 June 9, 1789. 
 
 On the 18th of May 1789, Earl Stanhope 
 moved for leave to bring in a bill " for re- 
 lievino' members of the church of England 
 
 • 
 
 from sundry penalties and disabilities to 
 which by the laws now in force they may be 
 liable, and for extending freedom in mat- 
 ters of religion to all persons (Papists, on 
 account of their persecuting and dangerous 
 principles, only excepted), and for other pur- 
 poses therein mentioned." As the founda- 
 tion of this bill. Earl Stanhope laid before 
 their Lordships an account of all the penal
 
 2 
 
 laws, whether existing, obsolete, or repeal- 
 ed, which had been enacted from the earliest 
 times upon matters of religion, sorcery, and 
 various other subjects ; and urged the in- 
 justice as well as disgrace of suffering them 
 to remain any longer amongst our statutes. 
 The bill was read a second time on the 
 9th of June ; and opposed by the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, by the Bishops of 
 Bangor and St Asaph, and by Dr Horsley, 
 then Bishop of St David's, in the follow- 
 ing words. 
 
 *' MY LORDS, 
 
 " In a variety of laws framed in 
 different periods of our history, either for 
 the maintenance of religion in general, or 
 for the particular security of the national 
 church, that some may be yet standing upon 
 the statute-book unrepealed, which do little
 
 credit to the spirit of the times in which 
 they were enacted, I shall not take upon me 
 to deny. In the repeal, the specific repeal of 
 laws of this description, I for my part, and 
 I trust my brethren of the Episcopal bench, 
 will never be unwilling to concur. My 
 Lords, if laws be subsisting contrary to the 
 principles of just government, infractive of 
 the rights of private conscience, repugnant 
 to the mild spirit of the religion we pro- 
 fess, — if such laws subsist, the fortunate cir- 
 cumstance of the times in which we live, 
 that no persecution is stirring or likely to 
 be stirred, is no reason, in my judgment, 
 that such laws should be suffered to remain 
 in force : It is a sufficient ground for the 
 repeal of them, that they are weapons loose- 
 ly lying about, which the Fiend of Persecu- 
 tion may at any time pick up and employ 
 to her own fell purpose, if any unfortunate 
 revolution in the temper of mankind should
 
 4 
 
 set her free from the restraints which the 
 tolerance of the times for the present lays 
 upon her. My Lords, it is not enough 
 that this dasmon be kept in order for the 
 time by the prevalence of the contrary prin- 
 ciple, — that she sit mopping, abashed, dis- 
 heartened, under the conviction that the 
 hand and heart of every man are against 
 her : My Lords, she should be disarmed, 
 and laid in chains until the judgment of the 
 Great Day ; my Lords, her armour should 
 be broken and her chains rivetted. 
 
 " But, my Lords, if the peaceful state 
 and temper of the times afford no reason 
 for the continuance of laws which in worse 
 times might be oppressive, your Lordships, 
 I persuade myself, will think it a strong- 
 reason for taking time to proceed with due 
 deliberation and caution in so important a 
 business as the revisal and reform of so 
 considerable a branch of our criminal law
 
 as that which regards offences against re- 
 ligion. Your Lordships will think it be- 
 comes your wisdom to consider the contents 
 of the writing before you apply the sponge ; 
 lest, meaning only to obliterate oppressive 
 laws, you abolish the most beneficial and 
 necessary restraints. 
 
 " My Lords, my objection to the bill 
 upon the table is, that I can discover no- 
 thing in it of this discretion : It drives fu- 
 riously and precipitately at its object, beat- 
 ing down every barrier which the wisdom 
 of our ancestors had opposed against vice 
 and irreligion, and tearing up the very foun- 
 dations of our ecclesiastical constitution. 
 My Lords, if this bill should pass into a 
 law, ho established religion will be left. 
 My Lords, when I say that no establish- 
 ed religion will be left, I desire to be un- 
 derstood in the utmost extent of my ex- 
 pressions : I mean, my Lords, not only
 
 6 
 
 that the particular establishment which now 
 subsists will be destroyed, but that no esta- 
 blishment will remain of the Christian re- 
 ligion in any shape, — nor indeed of natural 
 religion. My Lords, this bill, should it un- 
 fortunately pass into a law, will leave our 
 mutilated constitution a novelty in the an- 
 nals of mankind, a prodigy, my Lords, in 
 politics, — a civil polity without any public 
 religion for its basis. 
 
 *' My Lords, these are not rhetorical 
 words, that go beyond the truth of the 
 thing. To convince your Lordships that 
 they are not, I shall beg your indulgence 
 while I endeavour to show the operation 
 of this bill both upon the statute law and 
 the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 
 
 " First, for the effect of the bill upon 
 the statute law. My Lords, the first clause, 
 — But, by the way, I must apprize your 
 Lordships, that I mean to confine my re-
 
 marks to so much of the bill as relates to 
 the laws concerning religion ; other mat- 
 ters are oddly enough intermixed, but I 
 confine myself to what concerns religion, 
 1 have no objection to the noble earl's 
 eating beef in preference to any other meat, 
 on any day of the year or any hour of the 
 day. — The first clause, my Lords, so far as 
 it relates to the laws concerning religion, 
 abrogates in a lump all the laws in the sta- 
 tute-book relating to the observation of the 
 Lord's-day. My Lords, do your Lordships 
 perceive any thing in the manners of the 
 times that calls for the abolition or the re- 
 laxation of those laws ? Are we guilty of 
 any childish superstition in the observance 
 of the day, that may interfere with duties 
 of a higher obligation ? My Lords, is not 
 the contrary notorious ? Is it not notorious, 
 that the business and the pleasures of all 
 ranks of the people are going on, qn the
 
 Lord's-day, with little interruption ? Per- 
 haps, my Lords, some extravagant severity 
 in the penalties of these laws may call for 
 mitigation. My Lords, I certainly shall 
 not be the advocate for that law of Queen 
 Elizabeth which imposes a fine of 201. per 
 month upon any person above the age of 
 sixteen who neglects to go to church; much 
 less shall I pretend to vindicate that law of 
 James the First by which the King is au- 
 thorized to refuse the 20/. per month, and 
 take two thirds of all lands, tenements, and 
 hereditaments. There might be reasons to 
 justify these laws at the time when they 
 were pa.ssed ; — I shall not enter into that 
 question : Those reasons subsist no longer, 
 and those laws now are not to be defended. 
 But, my Lords, the noble earl's bill equally 
 abrogates the 1st Eliz. cap. 2. sect. 14. ; to 
 which no objection can be made on account 
 of the severity of its penalties. My Lords,
 
 this law only imposes upon every person 
 who, without a lawful or reasonable ex- 
 cuse, shall absent himself from his parish 
 church or chapel on Sundays or holidays, 
 the very moderate fine of one shilling for 
 every offence, over and above the censures 
 of the church. My Lords, this fine is too 
 small to be oppressive upon the poorest of 
 the people. Suppose that the common 
 day-labourer be absent from church every 
 Sunday in the year, and that the fine be 
 levied for every offence, my Lords, the 
 amount of it in the whole year, even up- 
 on the supposition that it may be levied 
 twice on each Sundav, is much less than 
 tlie offender would probably squander in 
 the same time in riotous pleasures, to the 
 great injury of his family, if he were relea- 
 sed from the restraint of this law. This 
 penalty, my Lords, is just what the pe- 
 nalty of such a law should be ; it is a light-
 
 10 
 
 er evil to the individual than he will be 
 apt to bring upon himself bv the neglect 
 of that which the law requires to be done : 
 For, my Lords, it is a notorious fact, that 
 the common people of this country, if they 
 do not keep the Sunday religiously, keep it 
 in another manner ; if they do not go to 
 church, they spend the day in houses of 
 riotous pleasure. My Lords, the severity 
 of the law (w^hat little severity there is in it) 
 is abated by the allowance that it gives to 
 ** laxsiful and reasonable excuses." Its pe- 
 nalties are to be levied only upon those who 
 without " lawful and reasonable excuse" 
 neglect to resort to their parish-church. 
 " Lawful and reasonable excuse : " My 
 Lords, these are large words, which leave 
 much in the discretion of the magistrate 
 who is to enforce the law. A lawful ex- 
 cuse, indeed, may seem to signify such ex- 
 cuses only as were allowed by the laws in
 
 11 
 
 being at the time when tJiis law was made j 
 but a reasonable excuse, is every excuse 
 which the reason of man, judging by its 
 own laws and its own maxims, may ap- 
 prove. My Lords, in the present state of 
 manners, great distance from the parish 
 church or chapel must be deemed a rea- 
 sonable excuse. The noble earl, in the 
 speech with which he introduced the bill un- 
 der consideration, mentioned a case which- 
 had lately happened in the country, in 
 which this law had been enforced against a 
 person whose dwelling-house was at an ex- 
 travagant distance from any place of wor- 
 ship. My Lards, this case, if it really was 
 as it was stated to the noble earl, — if the 
 great distance was pleaded and given in 
 proof, and the fine was notwithstanding le- 
 vied, — this case, I say, bears very hard, in 
 my judgment, upon the discretion of the 
 magistrates who took the information : But,
 
 12 
 
 my Lords, that's all ; the blame was In the 
 magistrates, not in the law ; for your Lord- 
 ships must be sensible that the mildest laws 
 are liable to be abused by misapplication. 
 
 " But perhaps, my Lords, this law may 
 be allowed to be reasonable enough as far 
 as it regards the Siuiday, but it may seem 
 a circumstance of extravagant severity that 
 the observance of holidays as well as Sun- 
 days is required under the same penalties. 
 My Lords, I revert to my former observa- 
 tion, — that the law allows " lawful and rea- 
 sonable excuses" on any day ; and in the 
 present state of manners, I conceive, my 
 Lords, that the ordinary occupations of life 
 form a reasonable excuse of absence from 
 divine service upon holidays, with the ex- 
 ception of a very few, — namely, Christmas- 
 day, Good Friday, the King's Accession, 
 and occasional fasts and thanksgivings. Per- 
 haps the noble earl may wish me to except
 
 IS 
 
 another day, which, if I guess aright, hig 
 Lordship means to add to the calendar. 
 With the exception of these few days, the 
 ordinary occupations of hfe are, as I con- 
 ceive, a reasonable excuse of absence from 
 church on any holiday. My Lords, they 
 are much more ; they are a lawful excuse, 
 — they are such an excuse as the magistrates 
 before whom an information may be laid 
 are bound by law to take notice of My 
 Lords, the magistrate is bound to take no- 
 tice of this excuse, by the very law which 
 settles the holidays of our calendar, by the 
 5th and 6th Edward VI. cap. 3. My Lords, 
 in that very statute your Lordships will find 
 a proviso to this effect. (Here the Bishop 
 read from his notes the sixth paragraph of 
 the statute mentioned ; which provides, 
 that " it shall be lawful to every husband- 
 man, labourer, fisherman, and to all and 
 every other person and persons, of what
 
 u 
 
 estate, degree, or condition, he or they be, 
 upon the holidays aforesaid, in hai'vest, or 
 at any other times in the year, when ne- 
 cessity shall require, to labour, ride, fish, or 
 work any kind of work, at their free-wills 
 and pleasure ; any thing in this act to the 
 contrary notwithstanding.") 
 
 *' But in truth, my Lords, the noble earl, 
 though he mentioned this as one of the laws 
 which he particularly disapproved, com- 
 plained not of the severity of its penalties : 
 He objected to the principle of the law ; 
 he contended that it lays a restraint upon 
 private conscience, exacting the payment 
 of a fine for not doing that which to do 
 might be contrary to conscience. 
 
 " My Lords, I think this a fair objection 
 against the law as it stood originally, in the 
 time of Queen Elizabeth ; when the sub- 
 ject was not indulged in a freedom of 
 choice between the established church and
 
 15 
 
 other modes of worship: But, my Lords, it 
 is no objection now against the law, as it is 
 modified by the acts of toleration, — first by 
 the 1st of William and Mary, and since by 
 the 19th of the present King. By virtue 
 of these statutes, any legal meeting-house 
 to which a dissenter may choose to resort 
 is to all intents and purposes of the 1st of 
 Elizabeth, cap. 2. his parish-church. Who- 
 ever dislikes the rites of the church of Eng- 
 land is secured from all penalties by a re^ 
 gular attendance on divine worship in a re- 
 gular meeting-house of any denomination. 
 My Lords, I can see no severity in the sta- 
 tute of Elizabeth thus modified and miti- 
 gated by the toleration-acts. But the noble 
 earl put the case of a conscience that might 
 scruple public worship in every shape : His 
 Lordship quoted our Saviour's admonition 
 to his disciples to avoid ostentation in their 
 private devotions, as what might be under-
 
 16 
 
 stood as a prohibition of the practice of wor- 
 shipping at all in public ; and he thought 
 the statute of Queen Elizabeth a con* 
 straint upon the conscience of a man who 
 should so interpret our Saviour's maxim. 
 My Lords, I understand very well that men 
 may think differently of particular modes 
 of worship, — that the conscience of one 
 man may scruple what another approves ; 
 but I had so little apprehension that con- 
 science could doubt the propriety of public 
 worship in every shape, that I really thought 
 the noble earl was not in earnest in that 
 part of his argument. My Lords, the noble 
 earl was in earnest : His lordship has since 
 mentioned an instance to me of a person, 
 in the circle of his own connexions and 
 of my acquaintance, who was afflicted with 
 one of those strange consciences ; a noble- 
 man eminent for the probity of his charac- 
 ter and tlie severity of his morals, who.
 
 17 
 
 from conscientious scruples, never in his 
 life mixed with any congregation of Chris- 
 tians in their pubhc rites. My Lords, I am 
 compelled by this instance to admit, that 
 that sort of conscience, which I thought a 
 mere fiction, may exist ; and I must admit 
 that the statute of Queen Elizabeth lays 
 some degree of force upon such a con-^ 
 science. I must therefore beg your Lord^ 
 ships' indulgence while I say a few wordsi 
 upon this great question of the right of 
 private conscience ; which I think is not 
 generally understood. 
 
 " My Lords, the noble earl, in the second 
 clause of his bill, lays down this maxim, 
 that the right of conscience is and ever 
 must be " the unalienable right of man- 
 kind; and as such, ought always to be held 
 sacred and inviolable." My Lords, I agree 
 entirely with the noble earl in that maxim. 
 I am not certain that his lordship will a^ 
 
 B
 
 u 
 
 gvee with me in what I am going to ad-» 
 vance ; — I think he will ; for I really think 
 no one can differ from me who allows that 
 civil government is a thing consistent with 
 the revealed will of God. My Lords, the 
 right of conscience is unalienable; but it is 
 not hifinite^ it is limited. The right of 
 conscience is unalienable within the limits 
 of a certain jurisdiction. Conscience and 
 the magistrate have their separate jurisdic- 
 tions ; each is supreme, absolute, and in- 
 dependent, within the limits of their own. 
 The jurisdiction of conscience is over the 
 actions of the individual as they relate to 
 God, without reference to society : Con- 
 science judges of what is sinful or not sin- 
 ful in our actions. The jurisdiction of the 
 magistrate is over the actions of men as 
 they respect society : He is the judge of 
 what harm may or may not result to socie- 
 ty from our actions j and this harm he has
 
 19 
 
 a right to restrain and to punish, in what- 
 ever actions he descries it, in defiance, my 
 Lords, of the plea of conscience. In tlie 
 exercise of this right, my Lords, the civil 
 magistrate is supreme and absolute, as 
 conscience in the exercise of hers. Con- 
 science, my Lords, cannot be conscien- 
 tiously pleaded against the magistrate in 
 the exercise of this right. My Lords, if 
 the principle which I advance is rightly 
 taken, I shall not be suspected of wishing 
 to narrow the limits of toleration. My 
 Lords, I advance a principle which carries 
 toleration to the utmost effect to which it 
 can be carried, consistently with the secu- 
 rity of civil government. My Lords, ac- 
 cording to my principle, the magistrate has 
 no right to punish an action, be it ever so 
 sinful, merely because it is sinful ; he has 
 no right to punish it, unless beside the sin 
 it contain crime, — that is, harm to society.
 
 20 
 
 Thus, in the instance of perjury : Perjury 
 is an action sinful in so high a degree that 
 the sin may justly be considered as by far 
 the greater part of the whole guilt ; and 
 this action is punished by the magistrate : 
 But the object of the magistrate's animad- 
 version is not the sin of the action, enor- 
 mous as it is ; but the crime of it — the 
 harm it brings to society : An oath is the 
 very first and highest of all civil obligations 
 and securities ; and society must break up 
 were peijury to go unpunished. My Lords, 
 I think I have been fortunate in falling up- 
 on this instance for the illustration of my 
 argument ; because it will serve as a prin- 
 ciple to determine the extent of the magi- 
 strate's authority over the religious conduct 
 of the subject, notwithstanding any plea of 
 conscience. My Lords, since the magi- 
 strate has a clear right to punish perjury on 
 account of the ruin it would bring upoR
 
 21 
 
 society, he has, upon the same ground, a 
 right to punish whatever tends to render 
 perjury frequent — whatever tends to lessen 
 the general veneration of an oath. My 
 Lords, upon this principle, the magistrate 
 has a right to restrain and punish open 
 atheism, and the disavowal of God's provi- 
 dential government of the world. And, 
 my Lords, we must go one step farther ; 
 Since the magistrate, in this country, be- 
 lieves that he is possessed of a written re- 
 velation of God's will, he must punish the 
 open disbelief and denial of that revela- 
 tion : He has no right to persecute parti- 
 cular opinions, however erroneous, of sects 
 professing a general belief in the revela- 
 tion ; but he has a right to punish the 
 general disbelief and total rejection of it. 
 And since he has a right to punish athe- 
 ism, a disavowal of God's providence, and 
 a total rejection of the Christian revela-
 
 22 
 
 tion, he has a right to restrain and punish 
 actions, in which, as they are interpreted 
 by the general sense of mankind, these 
 pernicious opinions are imphed : He has 
 therefore a right to restrain and to punish 
 the neglect of public worship, which is one 
 of those actions : And any man whose con- 
 science is of that sino'ular construction as to 
 disapprove all public worship, would deal 
 but handsomely by his country in submit- 
 ting cheerfully and silently to the very 
 moderate penalty which our laws impose. 
 My Lords, besides this statute of Queen 
 Elizabeth, the bill upon the table, should 
 it pass into a law, will repeal the act of 
 Charles the Second for the better observa- 
 tion of the Lord's-day (29th Charles II. 
 cap. 7.) ; and from this time forth, stage- 
 coaches and waggons will travel the road 
 — watermen will ply upon the Thames — 
 hackney-coachmen in the streets, upon the
 
 Lord's-day as on any other, under the ex- 
 press sanction of the law. The bill will 
 also repeal the act of Henry the Sixth 
 (27th Hen. VI. cap. 5.) against the keeping 
 of fairs and markets on the Lord's-day; for 
 the bill takes away all prosecution in any 
 court for the neglect of any rite or cere- 
 mony of the church of England. The ob- 
 servation of the Lord's-day is enjoined by 
 these laws only as a ceremony of the 
 church ; therefore all prosecutions are staid 
 that might be founded upon these statutes, 
 and the statutes are virtually repealed. 
 
 " My Lords, I should now consider the 
 effect of this law upon the ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction ; but I fear your Lordships are 
 already tired with the length of this dry 
 debate. I shall therefore confine myself to 
 a few short remarks upon points which I 
 think have not been touched by the right 
 reverend lords who have gone before me^
 
 24 
 
 " My Lords, the bill goes to the aboli- 
 tion of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all 
 offences against religion. The noble earl, 
 in his speech on the first reading, ex- 
 pressed great dislike of the ecclesiastical 
 courts : His lordship thought it a great 
 objection, that the mode of trial in them 
 is not by jury. My Lords, will the noble 
 earl extend this objection to every court 
 in which he finds the same defect ? Has 
 the Court of Chancery a jury ? has the 
 Admiralty Court a jury ? Would the 
 noble earl abolish the jurisdiction of every 
 court in which the mode of trial is not by 
 jury I I do not remember whether his 
 lordship made another objection to the 
 ecclesiastical courts, which, in my opi- 
 nion, is of much greater weight, — their 
 way of taking the depositions of witnes- 
 ses ; not viva voce, by examination and 
 cross-examination in the presence of the
 
 25 
 
 parties and £heir counsel, but by answers 
 given in private to written interrogatories. 
 My Lords, in my judgment this practice in 
 the ecclesiastical courts is a thing much 
 more exceptionable than the want of a 
 jury ; and, to confess the truth, my Lords, 
 I am one of those who think that the change 
 was much for the worse which was made 
 by our Norman kings, when they separated 
 the ecclesiastical from the secular jurisdic- 
 tipn. My Lords, the change was much 
 for the worse : But I beseech your Lord- 
 ships to remember that it is now seven 
 hundred years old. We are got to such a 
 distance from the period when the change 
 took place, that the present practice has 
 acquired the authority of a venerable pre- 
 scription ; and the attempt to bring things 
 back to their former state mioht not be 
 very politic. My Lords, instead of trou- 
 bling your Lordships with any arguinents
 
 26 
 
 of my own upon that point, f will beg youi' 
 permission to give you the opinion of the 
 great Judge Blackstone, in his own words. 
 (Here the Bishop read from his notes a 
 paragraph from Judge Blackstone's Com- 
 mentaries, to this effect : " It must be ac- 
 knov/ledged, to the honour of the spiritual 
 courts, that though they continue to this 
 day to decide many questions which, are 
 properly of temporal cognizance, yet jus- 
 tice in general is so ably and impartially 
 administered in those tribunals, especially 
 of the superior kind, and the boundaries 
 of their power are now 30 well known and 
 established, that no material inconvenience 
 at present arises from this jurisdiction still 
 continuing in the ancient channel ; and, 
 should an alteration be attempted, great 
 confusion would probably arise, in over- 
 turning long-established forms, and new- 
 Hiodelling a course of proceedings that h(i^
 
 27 
 
 now prevailed for seven centuries." — Com- 
 mentaries^ book iii. cap. 7.) 
 
 " My Lords, these were the sentiments of 
 Judge Blackstone : The noble earl's are dif- 
 ferent. My Lords, the noble earl spoke with 
 high disapprobation of the canons by which 
 our spiritual courts are directed : He told 
 your Lordships they were an invention of 
 the same age with the absurd childish sta- 
 tutes against witchcraft. My Lords, in 
 that point of history the noble earl was not 
 quite accurate ; for though it be true that 
 the canons which we now use were set forth 
 in the reign of King James the First, not 
 one of them, as far as my recollection goes, 
 was an original fabrication of that age. My 
 Lords, the canons of 1603 are a compila- 
 tion from the canons of all former ages, — 
 a selection of such rules as seemed suited 
 to our civil government and to the consti- 
 tution of a Protestant Episcopal church.
 
 The noble earl, in disparagement of these 
 canons, produced the third as a specimen 
 of the folly and mischief which they con- 
 tain : He told your Lordships that this 
 third canon breathes such a spirit of ambi- 
 tion and priestly lust of power as is not to 
 be borne. Now, my Lords, the truth is, 
 that the scope of this canon is just the re- 
 verse of what the noble earl supposes it to 
 be : The scope of this canon is not to sup- 
 port church power, but to moderate church 
 power, by maintaining the supremacy of 
 the secular magistrate. The canon says — 
 " Whoever shall hereafter affirm that the 
 church of England by law established un- 
 der the King's Majesty is not a true apos- 
 tolical church- teachino^ and maintainincj 
 the doctrine of the apostles, let him be ex- 
 communicated ijyso facto^' &c. Observe, 
 my Lords, how the church of England is 
 described, — " the churcli by law established
 
 29 
 
 under the King's Majesty." When we se- 
 parated from the church of Rome, the Pa- 
 pists were perpetually insulting us, as no 
 church, because by making the King the 
 head of the church we had given the su^ 
 premacy to a layman. The canon meets this 
 insult : It affirms that the church of Eng- 
 land is a true apostolical church, notwith- 
 standing that she have a layman for her 
 head ; and it pronounces every one ex- 
 communicate who shall dare to deny this. 
 My Lords, the impugners of the King's !Mar- 
 jesty's supremacy, not the enemies of extra- 
 vagant church power, are the persons whom 
 this canon anathematizes. My Lords, I 
 mention this only as an instance how much 
 the noble earl has seen things by a false 
 light in this subject. 
 
 " My Lords, before I sit down, I must 
 beg leave to take notice of one thing which 
 fell from the noble earl, as it appears to me
 
 of a most dangerous tendency. The nobl^ 
 earl took occasion to say that the canons 
 are not binding even on the clergy. It has 
 long been a maxim (to be understood how- 
 ever with many exceptions and restric- 
 tions), that they are not generally binding 
 on the laity ; but the noble earl is of opi- 
 nion they are of no force even against the 
 clergy. My Lords, the noble earl seemed 
 to found this opinion upon some statute, 
 which, as he interprets it, amounts to a re- 
 peal of all canons universally. My Lords, 
 I guess that the statute that the noble earl 
 had in contemplation was the 13tli of 
 Charles II. cap. 12. (Here the Bishop 
 Went into a minute discussion upon this 
 statute ; many parts of which he read at 
 large trom his written notes. He said that 
 the design of this statute was to explain an 
 act of the 17th of the former King, which 
 had been passed to repeal an act of the 1st
 
 31 
 
 of Elizabeth, concerning the commission-j 
 ers for causes ecclesiastical : A doubt had 
 arisen on the construction of this statute 
 of repeal, whether it had not taken away 
 all ordinary power of coercion and pro- 
 ceeding in causes ecclesiastical : This 
 doubt gave occasion to the act of the 13th 
 of Charles II. to explain : The explanation 
 in brief was this, that nothing of the ordi- 
 nary jurisdiction was taken away by Charles 
 the First's statute of repeal : But, that a 
 contrary doubt might not arise upon the 
 construction of this act of explanation, — 
 that it might not be understood to give 
 new powers to the ecclesiastical judges, but 
 simply to restore the old, — a proviso is 
 added at the end, that nothing in this act 
 contained shall be construed " to extend 
 to give any archbishop, bishop, &c. any 
 power or authority to exercise, execute, &;c. 
 which they might not by law have done
 
 S2 
 
 before the year of our Lord 1639 ; nor to 
 abridge or diminish the King's Majesty's 
 supremacy; nor to confirm the canons made 
 in the year 1640 ; nor any other ecclesias- 
 tical laws or canons not formerly confirm- 
 ed, allowed, or enacted by Parliament, or 
 by the established laws of the land as they 
 stood in the year 1639.") 
 
 " My Lords, I imagine that it is upon 
 this proviso of the 13th Charles II. cap. 12. 
 that his lordship builds his new doctrine 
 that the canons of 1603 are totally repealed. 
 But, my Lords, this proviso goes to no such 
 effect : It repeals nothing ; it only confirms 
 nothing ; its effect is merely negative : It is 
 studiously so worded, as neither to give the 
 ecclesiastical canons any authority which 
 they had not, nor to deprive them of any 
 which they had, by the statute or the com- 
 mon law as it stood in the year 1639. Yet 
 this proviso is, as I guess, — his lordship .will
 
 33 
 
 correct me if I am wTong, — this proviso, 
 as I guess, is the foundation of his lord- 
 ship's singular opinion. (Here the Bi- 
 shop paused, and Earl Stanhope shook his 
 head.) My Lords, the noble earl seems 
 to tell me I am wrong : Why then, my 
 Lords, I am totally at a loss to conjecture 
 on what foundation the noble earl's opinion 
 can possibly stand. My Lords, if it has 
 no foundation, it is unnecessary for me to 
 go about to confute it ; but, as I am appre- 
 hensive that the notion may be very mis- 
 chievous, if it should go abroad into the 
 world clothed with the authority of his 
 Lordship's name, I must observe, that the 
 obligation of an oath lies upon the con- 
 science of every clergyman to submit to 
 the canons whenever his diocesan may think 
 proper to enforce them. 
 
 " My Lords, I have too long engaged 
 your Lordships' attention. My objection
 
 54 
 
 to the bill upon the table is — the generality 
 of its operation ; and, for that reason, I 
 agree with the right reverend prelates who 
 have gone before me, that the House ought 
 to proceed no farther with it.'* 
 
 The bill was thrown out. 

 
 UPON THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL FOR 
 THE RELIEF OF ROMAN CATHOLICS, UNDER 
 CERTAIN CONDITIONS; 
 
 May 31, 1791. 
 
 On the 21st of February 1791, Mr Mit^ 
 FORD moved, in the House of Commons, 
 for a Committee of the whole House, to 
 enable him to bring in a bill " to relieve, 
 upon conditions and under certain restric- 
 tions, persons called Protesting Catholic 
 Dissenters, from certain penalties and dis- 
 abilities to which Papists or persons pro- 
 fessing the Popish religion are by law sub- 
 ject.'* After the bill had been brought in, 
 and passed the House of Commons, upon 
 the second reading of it in the House of
 
 36 
 
 Lords, on the 31st of May, a debate com- 
 menced on the propriety of several clauses, 
 which were afterwards amended in a com- 
 mittee. The Bench of Bishops took a dis- 
 tinguished and honourable part in this de- 
 bate : Among them, the Bishop of St Da- 
 vid^ rose, and spoke to the following ef- 
 fect. 
 
 <( 
 
 MY LORDS, 
 
 " With great charity for the Ro- 
 man Catholics, with a perfect abhorrence of 
 the penal laws, I have my doubts whether 
 the bill for their relief that has been sent 
 up to us from the Lower House comes in 
 a shape fit to be sent to a committee. My 
 Lords, it is not my intention to make any 
 express motion to obstruct the commit- 
 ment of it, if I should perceive that mea- 
 sure to be the sense and inclination of the
 
 31 
 
 House ; but I have my doubts, which I 
 think it my duty to submit to your Lord- 
 ships' consideration. 
 
 " Fixed, my Lords, as I am in the per- 
 suasion that religion is the only solid foun- 
 dation of civil society, and by consequence 
 that an establishment of religion is an es- 
 sential branch of every well-constructed po- 
 lity, I am equally fixed in another prin- 
 ciple, that it is a duty which the great law 
 of Christian charity imposes on the Chris- 
 tian magistrate, to tolerate Christians of 
 every denomination separated from the esta- 
 blished church by conscientious scruples; 
 with the exception of such sects only, if 
 any such there be, which hold principles so 
 subversive of civil government in general, 
 or so hostile to the particular constitution 
 under which they live, as to render the ex- 
 termination of such sects an object of just 
 policy. My Lords, I have no scruple to
 
 38 
 
 sav, that the opinions which separate the 
 Roman Cathohcs of the present day from 
 the communion of the church of England 
 are not of that dangerous complexion. 
 Times, my Lords, it is too well known, 
 have been, when the towering ambition of 
 the Roman clergy, and the tame supersti- 
 tion of the people, rendered the hierarchy 
 the rival of the civil government — the triple 
 mitre the terror of the crown, in every state 
 in Christendom. The Reformation in this 
 country (as it took its rise not in any contro- 
 versies upon speculative doctrines, but in a 
 high-spirited monarch's manly renunciation 
 of the Pope's usurped authority — in the 
 claim of the original absolute exemption of 
 the church, no less than of the state of 
 this kingdom, from all subordination to the 
 See of Rome) excited a spirit of intrigue 
 among the adlierents of the Papacy against 
 the internal government, which rendered
 
 59 
 
 every Roman Catliolic, in proportion as he 
 was conscientiously attached to the inte- 
 rests of his church, a disaffected or at the 
 best a suspected subject. The Revohition 
 widened the breach, by the natural attach- 
 ment of the sect to the abdicated family, 
 which had always favoured it. Happily for 
 this country, and for the peace of mankind, 
 those times are past. My Lords, it is now 
 universally understood, that the extrava- 
 gant claims of the church to a paramount 
 authority over the state, in secular matters, 
 stand confuted by the very first principle 
 of the original charter of her institution — 
 by the early edict of her divine and holy 
 founder, " that his kingdom is not of this 
 world." The ambition of the Roman Pon- 
 tiff, by the reduction of his power and his 
 fortunes, is become contemptible and ridi- 
 culous in the eyes of his own party ; and 
 the extinction of the Stuart family leaves
 
 40 
 
 the Romaji Catholics of this country no 
 choice but the alternative of continuing 
 in the condition of aliens in their native 
 land, or of bringing themselves under 
 the protection of her laws, by peaceable 
 submission and loyal attachment to the 
 existing Government. My Lords, in these 
 circumstances,— in this state of opinions, 
 in this reduced condition of th6 Pope's 
 importance in the political world, in the 
 actual state of the interests of the Roman 
 Catholics of this country, — I persuade 
 myself that the long-wished-for season for 
 the abolition of the penal laws is come. 
 Emancipated from the prejudices which 
 once carried them away, the Roman Ca- 
 tholics are led by the genuine principles 
 of their religion to inoffensive conduct, to 
 dutiful submission and cordial loyalty. My 
 Lords, the Roman Catholics better under- 
 stand than the thing seems to be under-
 
 stood by many of those who call them- 
 selves our Protestant brethren, in what 
 plain characters the injunction of the un- 
 reserved submission of the individual to the 
 government under which he is born is writ- 
 ten in the divine law of the gospel. 
 
 " My Lords, with all this charity for 
 Roman Catholics, with these sentiments 
 of the inexpediency of the penal laws, I 
 must still disapprove of the bill which is 
 now offered for a second readino-. Your 
 Lordships must perceive, that, consistently 
 with the sentiments which I avow, I can- 
 not quarrel with the bill for the relief it 
 gives : No, my Lords, — the noble lord*^ 
 who moved the second reading has himself 
 opened the grounds of my objections. My 
 Lords, I object to the bill that it is insuf- 
 ficient to its own purpose; my Lords, I 
 
 * Lord Rawdon, now Lord Moira.
 
 42 
 
 quarrel with the bill for the partiality of its 
 operation. 
 
 " With the indulgence of your Lordships, 
 I will endeavour to explain from what cir- 
 cumstances in the fabric of the bill this de- 
 fect arises ; I will set forth the importance 
 of the objection ; and then I will trouble 
 your Lordships with the reasons of my ap- 
 prehension that this objection is not likely 
 to be done away by any amendments which 
 we can give the bill in the committee. 
 
 " My Lords, this bill is to relieve Roman 
 Catholics from the penal laws, under the con- 
 dition that they take an oath of allegiance, 
 abjuration, and declaration ; the terms of 
 which oath the bill prescribes. The bill 
 therefore will relieve such Roman Catho- 
 lics as take this oath, and none else. Now, 
 my Lords, it is, I believe, a well-known 
 fact, that a very great number — I believe I 
 should be correct if I were to say a very
 
 4S 
 
 great majority of the Roman Catholics 
 scruple the terms in which this oath is vm- 
 fortimately drawn, and declare they cannot 
 bring themselves to take it. With the per- 
 mission of the House, I will enter a little 
 into the detail of their objections. Not that 
 I mean to go at present into-a discussion 
 upon all the imperfections of the oath : I 
 concur in every one of the objections made 
 by the most reverend Metropolitan * ; but 
 I shall, not touch upon these objections, 
 because they have been ably stated, and 
 because they are not to the purpose of my 
 argument: It is my point to state the ob- 
 jections of scrupulous Roman Catholics. 
 
 " My Lords, the majority of the Roman 
 Catholics who scruple this oath are not Pa- 
 pists in the opprobrious sense of the word, 
 — they are not the Pope's courtiers, more 
 
 * Archbishop Moonix
 
 44 
 
 tlian tlie gentlemen of the Roman Catho- 
 lic Committee, who are ready to accept the 
 oatli. My Lords, the more scrupulous Ro- 
 man Catholics, who object to the terms of 
 this oath, are ready to swear allegiance to 
 the King, — they are ready to abjure the 
 Pretender, — to renounce the Pope's autho- 
 rity in civil and temporal matters, — they 
 are ready to renounce the doctrine that 
 faith is not to be kept with heretics, and 
 that persons may be murdered under the 
 pretence that they are heretics, as impious 
 and unchristian, — they are ready to re- 
 nounce, as impious and unchristian, the 
 doctrine that princes excommunicated by 
 the See of Rome may be murdered by 
 their subjects, — they are ready to renounce 
 the doctrine that princes excommunicated 
 by the See of Rome may be deposed by 
 their subjects ; but to this deposing doc- 
 trine they scruple to apply the epithets of
 
 45 
 
 impious, unchristian, and damnable : My 
 Lords, they think that this doctrine is ra- 
 ther to be called false than impious — trai^ 
 torous than unchristian ; they say that the 
 language of an oath should not be adorned, 
 figured, and amplified, — but plain, simple, 
 and precise. But in truth, my Lords, this 
 scruple is founded on a tender regard for 
 the memory of their progenitors. , Some 
 two centuries since, this error, however ab- 
 surd and malignant, was, like other absurd 
 and malignant errors, universal. Yet, my 
 Lords, there lived in those times many men 
 of distinguished piety and virtue, who ac- 
 quiesced in this error as a speculative doc- 
 trine, though they never acted upon it. My 
 Lords, the more scrupulous of the Roman 
 Catholics think it hard that men of probity 
 and virtue, entertaining a speculative error 
 sanctioned by its universality, upon which 
 they never acted, should, for that error in
 
 46 
 
 mere speculation, be stigmatized as devoid 
 of piety, as no Christians, and as persons 
 that died under a sentence of eternal dam- 
 nation. And certainly, my iiords, the re- 
 probation of this doctrine, under the qualifi- 
 cations of impious, unchristian, and dam- 
 nable, goes to this effect. My Lords, I b,e- 
 seech you to give a candid attention to this 
 scruple, as I am confident your Lordships 
 will to every scruple. My Lords, I enter 
 into this detail from a desire of impressing 
 on your Lordships' minds what is very 
 strongly impressed on mine, — that the ob- 
 jections of these men are not cavils, but 
 fair, honest, conscientious scruples. My 
 Lords, this scruple is analagous to that 
 which every liberal enlightened man would 
 feel if he were called upon to decide upon 
 that which has sometimes been decided up- 
 on with little ceremony, — upon the final 
 doom of virtuous heathens — of men who.
 
 47 
 
 with a sense of moral obligation, and witli 
 sentiments of piety towards the Creator 
 of the miiverse, which might have done no 
 discredit to the professors of Christianity, 
 nevertheless, from the force of example and 
 education, acquiesced in the popular ido- 
 latry of their times. My Lords, I believe 
 your Lordships all believe that there is no 
 name under heaven by which men may be 
 saved but the name of Jesus Christ : Ne- 
 vertheless, my Lords, I should be very un- 
 willing to assert-^my Lords, I would re- 
 fuse to swear, that it is matter of my belief 
 that such men as Socrates, Plato, Tully, 
 Seneca, and Marcus Antoninus, who were 
 every one of them idolaters, are now suf- 
 fering in the place of torment, and are 
 doomed to suffer there to all eternity* My 
 Lords, upon this point I concur in the sen- 
 timents of a great ornament of the Roman 
 church, who might have been an ornament;
 
 48 
 
 to the purest church in the most enhchten- 
 ed times. " Ubi nunc anima Marci Tullii 
 agat, fortasse non est humani judicii pro- 
 nuntiare ; me ceite, non admodum aver- 
 sum habituri sint in ferendis calcuKs, qui 
 sperant ilhim apud Superos summa pace 
 frui." My Lords, will not your Lordships 
 permit the Roman Catholics to have the 
 same tenderness for the memory of Bellar- 
 mine and Erasmus which your Lordships 
 woiild feel for that of virtuous heathens ? 
 
 " My Lords, the terms in which the 
 Pope's civil authority is renounced are 
 matter of scruple to that division of the 
 Roman Catholics which I consider as the 
 majority. My Lords, they are ready to re- 
 nounce the civil authority of the Pope ; but 
 they think that the words used in the oath 
 go to the denial of the Pope's spiritual au- 
 thority, which they cannot conscientiously 
 abjure. The terms of the oath, my Lords,
 
 49 
 
 are these : " I do also, in my conscience, 
 declare and solemnly swear, — that no fo- 
 reign church, prelate, or priest, or assem- 
 bly of priests, or ecclesiastical power what- 
 soever, hath, or ought to have, any juris- 
 diction or authority whatsoever within 
 this realm, that can directly or indirect- 
 ly affect or interfere with the indepen- 
 dence, sovereignty, laws, constitution, or 
 government thereof, or the rights, liber- 
 ties, persons, or properties of the people 
 of the said realm, or any of them." The 
 power therefore abjured, is all ecclesiastical 
 power which can directly or indirectly hi- 
 terfere with the sovereignty, constitution, or 
 government — with public or with private 
 rights. My Lords, these scrupulous Ca- 
 tholics think that this description compre- 
 hends the Pope's spiritual authority ; for 
 they say, that they must admit that the 
 Pope's spiritual authority does, indirectly, 
 
 n
 
 50 
 
 by inference and implication, interfere with 
 civil government and with civil rights. My 
 Lords, is it not manifest that the, Pope's 
 supremacy, indirectly and in speculation, 
 interferes v/ith the sovereignty — with the 
 King's supremacy as head of the church ? 
 My Lords, with the constitution the Pope's 
 supremacy indirectly interferes, in a part 
 which I believe your Lordships hold in 
 some regard. My Lords, it is a conse- 
 quence from the doctrine of the Pope's 
 supremacy, that no consecrations and ordi- 
 nations are valid but what emanate from 
 the authority of the See of Rome. If this 
 be the case, my Lords, the bishops of the 
 church of England are no bishops : If we 
 are no bishops, we have no right to sit in 
 this assembly with your Lordships ; I have 
 no right to be now holding this argument 
 before your Lordships. JNIy Lords, is not 
 this an interference — indirectly, I grant —
 
 51 
 
 but indirectly is it not an interference with 
 the constitution ? My Lords, if we are no 
 bishops, it is a farther consequence, that no 
 man is made a priest by virtue of our or- 
 dinations : No p'iest of ours, therefore, has 
 any just right to any temporaUties that he 
 may hold of such a nature as to attach ex- 
 clusively to the priestly character. My 
 Lords, is not this an interference with the 
 rights of the subject? My Lords, these 
 are striking instances that occur at the mo- 
 ment ; many other instances might be 
 found, in which the Pope's spiritual supre- 
 macy unquestionably interferes, indirectly, 
 with civil authority and civil rights : And 
 the most that can be expected of conscien- 
 tious Roman Catholics is, not that they 
 should renounce all authority carrying this 
 interference, for that were to renounce the 
 Pope as their spiritual head ; but that they 
 should bind themselves to Government,
 
 52 
 
 that they will never act upon these prin- 
 ciples, which in theory they cannot re- 
 nounce, — that whatever they may think, as 
 a matter of opinion, about the Pope's su-* 
 premacy, they will never in fact make an at- 
 tack, or commit anv act of hostilitv, aijainst 
 the constitution and the government in ei- 
 ther branch ; but on the contrary, will de- 
 fend it. And these engagements, my Lords, 
 those Roman Catholics who scruple this 
 oath are ready and desirous to give in the 
 most explicit and unequivocal terms. They 
 say, that they think themselves " bound 
 by an oath which they have already taken, 
 and that they are ready to strengthen the 
 obligation bv a new oath, to defend to the 
 utmost of their power the civil and eccle- 
 siastical establishment of the country, even 
 though all the Catholic powers in Europe,, 
 with the Pope himself at their head, were 
 to levy war against the King for the ex-
 
 53 
 
 press purpose of establishing the Roman 
 Catholic religion." My Lords, there are 
 other points in this oath, which Roman 
 Catholics, I think, must scruple ; I believe 
 the gentlemen of the Catholic Committee, 
 who declare themselves ready to take this 
 oath, will see some difficulty in particular 
 parts of it, when they consider the full im- 
 port of certain terms. But, my Lords, I 
 shall go no farther at present in this de- 
 tail ; I will only say, in general, that there 
 are parts of the oath which I myself would 
 refuse to take. 
 
 " My Lords, I must observe, that the gen- 
 tlemen of the Catholic Committee, and the 
 party that acts with them, who scruple no 
 part of this oath, declare that they, equally 
 with the scrupulous party, maintain the 
 Pope's spiritual supremacy ; — they are 
 shocked that the denial of it should be 
 imputed to them. Your Lordships there-
 
 54 
 
 fore perceive, that the two parties are per- 
 fectly equal, in the degree of aifection, or 
 disaffection, take it which way you will, that 
 they bear to the government of the country : 
 Therefore I cannot see upon what principle 
 a relief which is granted to the one should 
 be denied to the other. 
 
 " It may be said, this relief is a matter 
 not of right, but of mere grace and fa- 
 vour ; and that the person who confers 
 a favour may at his own will and pleasure 
 prescribe the conditions on which he will 
 bestow it : But, my Lords, the favours 
 of a government are surely to be dis- 
 pensed by some rule of distribution ; and 
 that rule ought to be an equal one ; my 
 Lords, it ought not to be a rule of ar- 
 bitrary election and reprobation, making 
 a distinction of persons where there is no 
 difference of character in the degree of 
 civil merit.
 
 55 
 
 " My Lords, I have heard it said, not in 
 this House, but out of doors it is a maxim 
 in common circulation, that the Legislature 
 has nothing to do with the disputes of these 
 people among themselves, — that it may be 
 rather an object of good policy to- promote 
 and increase their divisions, as it may be a 
 means of weakening the strength of the 
 party. 
 
 " My Lords, the maxim Divide et im- 
 pera, if it be ever wise, is wise only in 
 despotical governments. My Lords, if it 
 be wise in such governments, it is because 
 such governments are radically unjust, — 
 the relation of the governor and the o-o- 
 verned to each other beino^ that of ene- 
 mies ; but, in governments such as this 
 under which we have the happiness to live, 
 it is a wicked maxim. In our constitution, 
 the promoting of the happiness of the go- 
 verned is not only the duty but it is the
 
 56 
 
 actual object of government, and the 
 aim of all its operations and of all its mea- 
 sures. In such a government, union and 
 harmony among citizens of all descriptions 
 is to be desired ; and it should be the en- 
 deavour of the government to promote it, 
 as the means of binding the love and af- 
 fections of all to the constitution. 
 
 " But, my Lords, admitting for a mo- 
 ment that we have nothing to do with tlie 
 disputes of these people among themselves, 
 yet your Lordships surely have to do with 
 the justice and equity of your own pro- 
 ceedings. Now, consider my Lords, up- 
 on what principle were the penal law.-s 
 against the Roman Catholics iirst intro- 
 duced? — Certainly upon this principle, 
 that the Roman Catholics in general were 
 disaffected subjects. Upon what principle 
 w*ould the Leo'islature now relieve any Ro- 
 man Catholics from those laws ? — Certainly,
 
 51 
 
 my Lords, upon this principle, that the Le- 
 gislature acquits those to whom it extends 
 the relief of the crime and suspicion of dis- 
 affection. Upon what principle is the re- 
 lief which is extended to some withheld 
 from others ? — Certainly upon no just prin- 
 ciple but this, that those others still lie, in 
 the eye of the Legislature, under a suspi- 
 cion of disaffection. Thus, my Lords, b}' 
 passing a law which will give only a partial 
 relief, you will impress a stigma of disaffec- 
 tion upon the party not relieved ; which, 
 in my judgment, if there be no ground for 
 suspecting them, would be the height of 
 cruelty and injustice. 
 
 " But, my Lords, give me leave to say, 
 that though your Lordships would indeed 
 have nothing to do with any disputes 
 among the Roman Catholics upon contro- 
 verted points of their own divinity, the 
 matter and the state of the present dispute
 
 58 
 
 are such, that your Lordships have much 
 to do with it in forming a judgment upon the 
 present bill. The matter in dispute is the 
 propriety of the oath as it stands in this 
 bill ; which oath the one party is ready to 
 accept, — the other reprobates. The dis- 
 pute began in terms of mutual respect and 
 great moderation ; but as the dispute went 
 on, both sides, as is the case in all disputes, 
 prew warmer : Both sides have now lost all 
 temper ; and the quarrel, a religious quar- 
 rel, my Lords, is raging. The scrupulous 
 Catholics speak of the w^'itings on the other 
 side as schismatical, scandalous, and in- 
 flammatory : The Catholic Committee 
 charge the former with inculc",ting princi- 
 ples hostile to society and government, 
 and to the constitution and laws of the Bri- 
 tish. My Lords, these reproaches are, I 
 think, unmerited on either side ; but they 
 are for that reason the stronger symptoms
 
 39 
 
 of intemperate heat on both sides. My 
 Lords, this bill, should it pass into a law, 
 will not mitigate the quarrel, but inflame it; 
 and as it reenacts the penal laws against all 
 those who from their scruples about the 
 oath cannot bring themselves within the 
 benefit of it, the Roman Catholics who will 
 be relieved by this bill will be impowered 
 to inforce those laws against their more 
 scrupulous brethren, with whom they are 
 quarrelling. My Lords, the history of the 
 church too clearly pro^ es, that men whose 
 minds are inflamed with religious contro- 
 versy are not to be trusted with such wea- 
 pons. My Lords, when I look at the names 
 of the gentlemen who compose the Catho- 
 lic Committee, — men of high birth, of dis- 
 tinguished probity and honour, — I cannot 
 for a moment suppose that any of them 
 would pursue the quarrel with their adver- 
 saries in that base manner : But, my Lords,
 
 6tf 
 
 fhe leaders of a party cannot always com- 
 mand the passions of their followers ; and 
 -your Lordships will have no security that 
 this may not be done, but the liberality 
 and honour of the individuals : And is it 
 wise or just, my Lords, to put any inno- 
 cent man in the power of his enemy, rely- 
 ing only on the good disposition of that 
 enemy to restrain him from the abuse of 
 that power which you put into his hands ? 
 My Lords, if the party relieved by this 
 bill should take the advantage which the 
 law will give them against the other party, 
 a horrible persecution will arise. My Lords, 
 I shudder at the scene of terror and confu- 
 sion which my imagination sets before me, 
 when, under the operation of this partial 
 law, should it unfortmiately receive your 
 Lordships' sanction, miscreants of base in- 
 formers may be enriched with the fortunes, 
 our gaols may be crowded with the persons,
 
 61 
 
 and our streets may stream with the blood, 
 of conscientious men and of good subjects ! 
 And of all this cruelty, my Lords, if it 
 should take place, the laws of the country 
 will get the credit. 
 
 " ]\Iy Lords, I am aware that it may seem 
 to your Lordships that there is an easy an- 
 swer to all this, — Send the bill to a com- 
 mittee, and amend the oath. My Lords, 
 there is the difficulty ; I fear that we are 
 not competent to make such amendments 
 in the oath as may obviate the mischief. 
 My Lords, look at the state of the contro- 
 versy among the Roman Catholics. Three 
 of the four Roman Catholic bishops who 
 call themselves the apostolical vicars for the 
 four districts of this country — three out of 
 these four have promulgated an encyclical 
 letter, in which they reprobate the oath as 
 it stands in the present bill ; and they go 
 farther, — they advance this principle, that a
 
 62 
 
 conscientious Catholic ought not to take any 
 oath declaratory of any opinion upon doc- 
 trinal points till it has received the appro- 
 bation of the ecclesiastical superiors. The 
 gentlemen of the Catholic Committee ex- 
 claim against this as an extravagant stretch 
 of authority; — I confess, my Lords, I see no 
 extravagance in it ; I believe, were I a Ro- 
 man Catholic, I should think it my duty to 
 submit to it; — but the Catholic Committee 
 are indignant under this usurpation of au- 
 thority, as they think it, of the apostolical 
 vicars ; and a paper has appeared, signed by 
 the gentlemen of the Committee, which I 
 know not very well what to call : My Lords, 
 it looks something like an appeal to the 
 Pope ; and yet I can hardly suppose that 
 an appeal to him has been actually made, 
 or that this is a copy of a paper sent as a 
 formal appeal to Rome. But the Commit- 
 tee say — " We appeal to all the Catholic
 
 63 
 
 churches in the universe, and especially to 
 the first of all Catholic churches, the Apos- 
 tolical See, rightly informecL" My Lords, 
 if this is an appeal to the See of Rome, or 
 if it be a notice of an intended appeal,- — 
 and, my Lords, it must be something, — it 
 should seem that the Len^islature cannot 
 stir a step farther : For it would be per- 
 fectly nugatory to pass a law to give relief 
 upon the condition of an oath, when the 
 persons to whom the relief is offered are 
 divided into two parties, one of which say 
 " We cannot take this oath," — the other 
 say, " We must go to Rome, and ask the 
 Pope, whether, under the circumstance of 
 the interdict of the ecclesiastical superiors, 
 we may take the oath or no." And, my 
 Lords, suppose you amend the oath, what 
 assurance can your Lordships have that 
 the apostolical vicars will approve the oath 
 as amended by your Lordships ? If they
 
 64 
 
 should not approve it, the more scrupu- 
 lous Roman Catholics will not take it 
 
 " My Lords, the remedy for this seems 
 to me to be. unique: The remedy would 
 be, to find an oath which may be sufficient 
 for the security of Government, and which 
 the majority of the Roman Catholics have 
 already taken, and the apostolical vicars, 
 having themselves taken it, must approve. 
 Such, my Lords, is the oath which was re^ 
 quired of the Roman Catholics by the law 
 of 1778 ; and I am very sorry that that oath 
 was not adopted in this bill : But, froni 
 what I have heard, I have much doubt 
 whether, if we go into committee, we shall 
 be unanimous upon a motion for substitut- 
 ing that oath instead of the oath that now 
 stands in the bill ; and for this reason, my 
 Lords, I fear the bill is incurable.* 
 
 * In this apprehension the Bishop had the pleasure to 
 find himself mistaken. In the committee of the whole
 
 65 
 
 " My Lords, I have detained you much 
 longer than I thou<Tlit to have done. It 
 only remains that I thank your Lordsliips 
 for the patient attention with which I have 
 been honoured ; and that I make it my re- 
 quest, that any expressions that may have 
 escaped me, in the. course of a speech in 
 point of language iji many parts quite un- 
 premeditated, may be candidly interpreted. 
 My Lords, what most of all I deprecate, is 
 that I may not be suspected of insincerity 
 in my professions of an abhorrence of the 
 penal laws, — ^^that my objecting to the com- 
 mitment of this bill may not be deemed a 
 stratagem of mine to get rid of the busi- 
 
 House upon the bill (4th June), the oath, as it stood, was 
 upon the Bishop's own motion expunged, and the oath taken 
 by the Roman CathoUcs in Ireland in the jear 1774, with 
 some very slight alterations, substituted. The Irish oath is 
 in effect the same with the oatli of 1778; and of" the two, is 
 drawn with the greater accuracy.
 
 66 
 
 ness altogether, and disappoint the peti- 
 tioners at your Lordships' bar in their just 
 expectations of rehef. My Lords, I call 
 the Great Searcher of hearts to witness, that 
 there is no such duplicity, no such malice, 
 in my intention. My Lords, if your Lord- 
 ships should be moved, by Avhat has been 
 said by me, or what may be said with more 
 ability by others to the same effect, to re- 
 ject this bill, — rather than that the Roman 
 Catholics should be finally vmrelieved, I 
 would pledge myself to your Lordships, to 
 the Roman Catholics, and to my country, 
 to bring in a bill, early in the next session, 
 which should not be ]:)regnant with the 
 mischiefs which seem to me the certain 
 consequences of this bill. Rut I should 
 hope, that your Lordships would not leave 
 a matter of such moment to the discretion 
 and abilities of any individual lord ; but 
 that your Lordships will think proper to
 
 67 
 
 name a committee, to revise all the subsist- 
 ing laws against the Roman Catholics, and 
 to frame a bill for the repeal of such as 
 may with safety be repealed. The only 
 objection that I can see to such a measure 
 is the delay, — for it is much too late in the 
 session to begin such a business : But, m^ 
 Lords, in a matter of this magnitude and 
 importance, the Legislature should think 
 little of the delay of a few months ; nor 
 ought the Roman Catholics themselves to 
 murmur at a delay Avhich may conduce to 
 put the relief they solicit upon a broad and 
 permanent basis."
 
 IN REPLY TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR, UPOJ^ 
 THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL FOR 
 THE RELIEF OF THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPA- 
 I,IANS ; 
 
 May 2, 1792. 
 
 xL'ARLY in the session of 1792, a bill was 
 brought into Parliament, to remove cer- 
 tain disabilities, forfeitm'es, and penalties, 
 under which persons frequenting or offi- 
 ciating in certain Episcopal chapels and 
 meeting-houses in Scotland then laboured. 
 The bill was read a second time, in the 
 House of Lords, on the 2d of May ; when 
 the Lord Chancellor (Thurlow) stated se- 
 veral objections against it. To these ob- 
 jections the Bishop of St David's replied.
 
 69 
 
 " MY LORDS, 
 
 " I am happy to perceive, that 
 in the sentiments wliich I have to dehver 
 to your Lordships upon the present object 
 of discussion, I shall not have the misfor- 
 tune to differ very widely, in any thing that 
 essentially regards the principle of the bill, 
 from the noble and learned lord upon the 
 woolsack. My Lords, a wide difference 
 from him I should call a misfortune ; be- 
 cause it would necessarily produce in me a 
 degree of mistrust of my own judgment, 
 which would considerably abate the satis- 
 faction which otherwise I might feel in fol- 
 lov/ing what still might be the firm and full 
 conviction of my own mind. Nevertheless, 
 my Lords, in any question like this, in 
 which the interest of religion, the public 
 weal, tnd the credit of the Legislature, 
 might be concerned — a question of justice 
 and mercy towards a suffering part of the
 
 70 
 
 family of Christ, — it would ill become me 
 to be influenced, in the vote that I should 
 give, upon any authority but that of my 
 own conviction ; and it might not less mis- 
 become me to oppose a high authority by 
 a silent vote, without stating to your Lord- 
 ships the grounds on which my contrary 
 conviction stood. My Lords, the princi- 
 ple of this bill has been so clearly stated 
 by the noble earl * who moved the second 
 reading, and so well illustrated by the 
 noble viscount f who spoke last, that it is 
 unnecessary to dwell upon it. The object 
 of the bill is to relieve certain dissenters 
 from the established church of Scotland, 
 well-affected to his present Majesty and 
 the Protestant succession, from the penal- 
 ties of disaffection imposed by former laws. 
 My Lords, the hardship under which they 
 
 * Lord Elgin. f Lord Stormont.
 
 n 
 
 labour consists not in the severity of these 
 penalties. Disaffection, in former times, 
 was generally among persons of their re- 
 ligious persuasion, though not necessarily 
 connected with their religion ; and of the 
 measures of severity that might be neces- 
 sary for those times, the Legislatures of 
 those times were the j udges. But, my Lords, 
 the hardship is, that the present genera- 
 tion, being converted from the disaffection 
 of their ancestors, and retaining only their 
 religious principles, cannot, by any thing 
 they can do, by any security that they can 
 give for their good conduct and submis- 
 sion to Government, secure themselves 
 against the penalties of disaliection. As 
 cordially attached as any of us to the exist- 
 ing government, — praying in their religi- 
 ous assemblies for his Majesty King George 
 and theKoyal Family by name, in tiie terms 
 in which we of the church of Lngiand in
 
 7^ 
 
 our own liturgy pray for them, and taking 
 tlie oaths that we all take, — still they are 
 liable, clergy and laity, to all the penalties 
 of the 19th George II. 
 
 " My Lords, the good policy of this bill 
 of relief is not at all connected with any 
 ' question about the antiquity of the practice 
 of praying for sovereigns. From what fell 
 from the noble and learned lord, I think 
 there must be some mistake upon thatpoint; 
 his lordship must have received some mis- 
 information. My Lords, I cannot believe 
 that these Episcopalians ever alleged the 
 example of the ages before Constantino in 
 ■Justification of their omission in former 
 times of praying for the King by name. 
 Prayers for sovereigns is one of the-very 
 oldest parts of Christian worship. These 
 Episcopalians must very well know, that 
 the precept of praying for kings and all 
 that are in authority is three hundred years
 
 7 
 
 ct 
 
 older than Constantine ; and that it was 
 the constant practice of the earliest Chris- 
 tians to pray even for the princes that per- 
 secuted them. My Lords, their omission 
 of praying for the King by name was ow- 
 ing to their notions about indefeasible 
 hereditary right, which would not suffer 
 them to renounce the family to whicli 
 their allegiance had once been sworn, nor 
 to adopt the principles of the llevolu- 
 tion. The omission was not defended by 
 any pretended example of antiquity : It 
 stood upon no better ground than that of 
 gross and avowed disaffection. But, my 
 Lords, the example of the ages before Con- 
 stantine must have been alleged to a very 
 different purpose : It has been alleged by 
 these Episcopalians to justify their claims 
 to an episcopacy, and to explain what sort 
 of episcopacy that is which they claim. 
 My Lords, it is not my wish to lead the
 
 74 
 
 House into the perplexities of that theolo- 
 gical discussion : I shall comprise what I 
 find necessary to say upon it in very few 
 words. 
 
 " My Lords, these Episcopalians make a 
 distinction, and it is a just distinction, be- 
 tween a purely spiritual and a political epis- 
 copacy. A political episcopacy belongs 
 to an established church, and has no ex- 
 istence out of an establishment. This sort 
 of episcopacy was necessarily unknown in 
 the world before the time of Constantine. 
 But in all the preceding ages, there was 
 a pure spiritual episcopacy, — an order of 
 men set apart to inspect and manage the 
 spiritual affairs of the church, as a society 
 in itself, totally unconnected with civil 
 government. Now, my Lords, these Scot- 
 tish Episcopalians think, that when their 
 church was cast off by the state at the 
 Revolution, their church, in this discarded
 
 75 
 
 divided state, reverted to that which had 
 been the condition of every church in 
 Christendom before the establishment of 
 Christianity in the Roman empire by 
 Constantine the Great, — that, losing all 
 their political capacity, they retained how- 
 ever the authority of the pure spiritual 
 episcopacy within the church itself; and 
 that is the sort of episcopacy to which 
 they now pretend. I, my Lords, as a 
 churchman, have some respect for that 
 pretension ; but I liave no wish to lead the 
 House into a discussion about it. The 
 merits of the bill rest not on the validity 
 of that episcopacy in any sense. In what 
 sense the bishops of this church of Scottish 
 Episcopalians may be bishops, — whether 
 they are bishops in any sense, — is not the 
 question : What the validity of their ordi- 
 nations may be, is not the question : The 
 single question is — Are these Scottish Epis-
 
 ^76 
 
 copalians good subjects ? and do they hold 
 religious principles, in the emphatic lan- 
 guage of the noble and learned lord on the 
 woolsack, " fit to be tolerated?" — that is 
 to say, are they good subjects? and do 
 they agree with us in the fundamentals 
 of Christianity ? — for these are the reli- 
 gious principles " fit to be tolerated." If 
 they can satisfy us upon these points, the 
 Legislature is not at all concerned in the 
 question of the spiritual validity of their 
 orders. My Lords, consider only how 
 we deal with Protestant dissenters here in 
 England ; for all that I would wish for 
 our Scottish brethren is, that they, as dis- 
 senters from the established church of Scot- 
 land, should be put upon the same footing 
 with the Protestant dissenters from the 
 church of England. My Lords, by the to- 
 leration-act of the 1st of William and Mary, 
 a pastor of a congregation of Protestant dis-
 
 77 
 
 senters must enter the place and situation 
 of his meeting-house ; he must give in his 
 own name and place of abode ; he must 
 take the oaths to Government ; and he 
 must show that he agrees with us in the 
 fundamentals of the Christian religion ; 
 and by the terms of that statute, which is 
 the narrowest of all the present schemes of 
 toleration, he must also testify his agree- 
 ment with us in the general principles of 
 Protestantism. This he does by subscri- 
 bing a great many of the Thirty-nine Ar- 
 ticles. My Lords, when the dissenting 
 minister has complied with these condi- 
 tions, he is never asked, — no one has autho- 
 rity to ask him, — Sir, how comes it that you 
 call yourself a clergyman ? what are your 
 orders ? by whom were you ordained ? by 
 what ritual ? He has given the security 
 which all good subjects give for his loyal- 
 ty to Government, — he professes religious
 
 78 
 
 principles " fit to be tolerated ;" that's 
 enough : He is admitted, without farther 
 inquiry, to all the benefits of toleration. 
 Now, my Lords, here are a set of dissent- 
 ers from the established church of Scot- 
 land, good subjects, and holding religious 
 principles very " fit to be tolerated ;" for 
 the cause of their dissent from the esta- 
 blished church of Scotland is their very 
 near ascreement with the established church 
 of England; and they approach your Lord- 
 ships with this modest request, that they 
 may not be more hardly dealt with than 
 Protestants of various denominations differ- 
 ing more widely from both establishments. 
 My Lords, one thing that fell from the 
 noble and learned lord on the woolsack 
 struck upon my mind very forcibly, — as 
 deserving, I mean, a serious consideration. 
 His lordship gave it as his opinion, that it 
 would be for the credit of Episcopacy in
 
 79 
 
 Scotland, that their congregations should be 
 supplied with ministers (according to the 
 intention of the 19th of the late King) or- 
 dained by bishops of the English or Irish 
 church. The noble and learned lord, if I 
 took his argument aright, supposed that 
 the statute passed in favour of the Scottish 
 Episcopalians in the 10th of Queen Anne 
 would bear him out in that opinion. That 
 statute made it " free and lawful for all 
 those of the Episcopal communion in that 
 part of Great Britain called Scotland, to 
 meet and assemble for the exercise of di- 
 vine worship, to be performed after their 
 own manner, by pastors ordained bi/ a Pro- 
 testant bishop.'' The noble and learned 
 lord conceives, that under the latitude of 
 this expression, a " Protestant bishopf^' the 
 statute meant indeed to tolerate the ejected 
 bishops, and the clergy immediately or- 
 dained by them, but not to extend the to-
 
 80 
 
 leration to the succession. My Lords, I 
 must take the hberty to differ from the 
 noble and learned lord upon the con- 
 struction of this statute of Queen Anne. 
 I think it was the intention of the statute 
 to extend its toleration beyond the ejected 
 bishops themselves to the whole succes- 
 sion ; for I find, my Lords, that of the 
 thirteen bishops of Scotland ejected at the 
 Revolution (the dioceses were in all four-r 
 teen, but it happened that one see was va- 
 cant when the Revolution took place; thir- 
 teen bishops therefore were ejected ; now 
 of these thirteen), seven certainly, probably 
 eight, were dead before the 10th of Queen 
 Anne; and a ninth was out of the kingdom, 
 for he fled with the abdicated King. At 
 the time therefore when this act was pass- 
 ed, no more than four of the ejected bishops 
 were alive, and within the kingdom ; and 
 four new consecrations had taken place.
 
 81 
 
 two in the 4th of Queen Anne, and two 
 more in the 8th. At the time therefore 
 when this act was passed, the Scottish Epis- 
 copacy consisted of an equal number of the 
 original bishops and the succession, — four 
 of each ; and if it was the intention of the 
 act, as the noble and learned lord has ar- 
 gued, to confine the toleration to the ejec- 
 ted bishops, and exclude the succession, I 
 can only say, my Lords, that the framers 
 of that statute did their business not quite 
 so well as business of that sort was used to 
 be done in those times. 
 
 " My Lords, with respect to the interests 
 of Episcopacy in Scotland, my opinion is 
 unfortunately the very reverse of that of 
 the noble and learned lord. The credit 
 of Episcopacy will never be advanced by 
 the scheme of supplying the Episcopalian 
 congregations in Scotland with pastors of 
 our ordination ; — and for this reason, my 
 
 F
 
 &2 
 
 Lords, that it would be an imperfect crip* 
 pled episcopacy that would be thus upheld 
 in Scotland. When a clergyman ordained 
 by one of us settles as a pastor of a con- 
 gregation in Scotland, he is out of the reach 
 of our authority. We have no authority 
 there ; we can have no authority ihere ; the 
 Legislature can give us no authority there. 
 The attempt to introduce any thing of an 
 authorized political episcopacy in Scot- 
 land would be a direct infringement of the 
 Union. My Lords, as to the notion tliat 
 clergymen should be originally ordained 
 by us to the ministry in Scotland, I agree 
 with the noble viscount, that the thing 
 would be contrary to all rule and order. 
 No bishop who knows what he does or- 
 dains without a title ; and a title must be 
 a nomination to something certain in the 
 diocese of the bishop that ordains. My 
 Lords, an appointment to an Episcopal
 
 83 
 
 congregation in Scotland, is no more a title 
 to me, to any bishop of the English bench, 
 or any bishop of the Irish bench, than an 
 appointment to a church in Mesopotamia. 
 " My Lords, with respect to marriages, I 
 agree with the noble and learned lord on 
 the woolsack, that if this bill should pass, 
 the Episcopalians will be authorized to 
 marry in their meeting-houses, by the 
 10th of Queen Anne. But, my Lords, I 
 see no inconvenience that can arise from 
 this. It will open no door to clandestine 
 marriages ; for though they will be autho- 
 rized to marry, they will not be authorized 
 to marry otherwise than in conformity to 
 the regulations of the 10th of Queen Anne, 
 — that is to say, they can marry those only 
 whose bans have been regularly publish- 
 ed, not only in the meeting-houses where 
 the marriage is to be solemnized, but in 
 the kirks of the parishes where the parties
 
 84 
 
 9 
 
 are resident. But, my Lords, I go farther ; 
 I say that this bill will give them no autho- 
 rity with respect to marriages, but what 
 they do already enjoy and exercise. My 
 Lords, the fact is, that these Episcopalians 
 do now solemnize marriages every day; 
 they solemnize marriages legally; they so- 
 lemnize marriages under the express co- 
 vert and sanction of the persecuting sta- 
 tutes ; and these marriages so solemnized 
 by them, — my Lords, in what I am going 
 to assert, I stand in the judgment of noble 
 lords to whom the laws of Scotland are 
 more accurately known than they may be 
 supposed to be to me, — but, my Lords, I say 
 these marriages solemnized by these Epis- 
 copalians are good and valid by the laws of 
 Scotland. (Here the Scots lords all gave 
 a nod of assent.) And, my Lords, the 
 ground of my assertion is this : Our mar- 
 riage-act extends not to Scotland ; there-
 
 85 
 
 fore, by the law and usage of Scotland, it 
 is not necessary that any should be present 
 at a wedding except the parties themselves 
 — that's two, the man who is to act as fa- 
 ther and give the bride away — that's three, 
 and the clergyman or pretended clergyman 
 who is to perform the ceremony — that's 
 four. Now, my Lords, by the express 
 permission of the 19th of the late King, 
 whicli I call the persecuting statute, four 
 persons may assemble for the celebration 
 of any religious rite ; for the meeting is 
 not illegal, unless j^t;e be present, over and 
 above the members of the family, if the 
 place of assembly be a house inhabited by 
 a family, or Jive^ if the place of assembly 
 be a house not inhabited by a family. 
 
 " My Lords, these are my notions upon 
 the points that have been agitated. I 
 shall not go into points that have not 
 been brought forward in objection ; though
 
 I am prepared to meet any other objec- \ 
 tions that might be moved : But I am i 
 sensible that I have already taken up too i 
 much of your Lordships' time ; and I fear ! 
 rather irregularly, when in fact no ex- ; 
 press question is before the House. I am | 
 aware that the bill must receive amend- ; 
 ments in the committee, and perhaps ad- j 
 ditions ; but the principle of the bill has < 
 my entire approbation." j 
 
 The question was then put, and carried j 
 without a division, that the bill should be i 
 read a second time, and go into a commit- 
 tee of the whole House on Wednesday 
 next.
 
 UPON THE WELDON ENCLOSURE BILL, 
 IN COMMITTEE ; 
 
 May 22, 1792. 
 
 The Duke of Norfolk opened the de- 
 bate, opposing the clauses of the bill which 
 enacted a commutation for the tithes, on 
 the ground of the want of the rector's con- 
 sent, which he considered as a s'me qua non 
 in all bills of this kind; but without enter- 
 ing into the merits of this particular case 
 in any other part. 
 
 The Bishop of St David's rose when 
 the Duke of Norfolk sat down. He de- 
 clared his concurrence with the* Duke of 
 Norfolk in the sentiments expressed by
 
 88 
 
 his Grace, of the necessity of a clergyman's 
 expHcit consent to the commutation of his 
 tithes, before a bill could be passed enact- 
 ing any such commutation. He affirmed, 
 that, in the instance of the present bill, 
 that principle clearly applied as an insur- 
 mountable objection, the rector's consent 
 having never been given. He declared, 
 that, should the bill in its present shape be 
 passed by the Committee, he would, upon 
 the ground he had mentioned, most strenu- 
 ously concur with the noble duke in an op- 
 position to the bill, upon the report or up- 
 on the third reading. For that reason, he 
 said that he should neither enter into ar- 
 gument upon the general principle, nor 
 into a discussion of the pretended proof, 
 produced by the coimsel against the peti- 
 tion, of what they called the rector's im- 
 plied consent ; that he should reserve him- 
 self upon both those points for the open
 
 89 
 
 debate in the House, of which he was fear- 
 ful a necessity would arise ; and there he 
 pledged himself to show, that, in all the 
 evidence produced before the Committee, 
 not a shadow of a proof was to be found, 
 of an explicit, direct, unconditional con- 
 sent ; that, on the contrary, that very evi- 
 dence afforded the strongest proof of a 
 steady firm refusal of any such consent, 
 from the first meeting of proprietors in 
 July 1791 to the present moment. The 
 Bishop then v/ent on nearly in the follow- 
 ing words. 
 
 " Noble lords who differ from the noble 
 duke and me with respect to the general 
 principle, that a clergyman shall in no case 
 be compelled to accept an allotment of 
 land in lieu of tithes without his own free 
 consent, will, I am confident, agree with 
 me in this, — that where the consent of the 
 clergyman has not been given, Parliament
 
 90 
 
 ought not to give its sanction to the pro- 
 posed commutation without the most satis- 
 factory proof of the adequacy of the allot- 
 ment. Now, my Lords, in this instance I 
 must contend that we have no such proof: 
 On the contrary, I am persuaded that the 
 value of the land alloted is far inferior to 
 the value of the tithes in kind. I am sen- 
 sible that all that has been given in evi- 
 dence as a ground of comparison, seems, 
 in the first general view of it, very little ; 
 beincp little more than an account of the 
 produce of the rectorial tithes in a single 
 year, the year 1790, deposed to by the 
 rector's daughter, 
 
 " To this two objections are taken : The 
 first, a very material one, if it can be sup- 
 ported, — that it is untrue ; that the total 
 of that account greatly exceeds the actual 
 produce of the tithes, even in that year: 
 TliQ second, — that, admitting the accpunt
 
 91 
 
 to be true — admitting that it states no more 
 than the real produce of the rectorial tithes 
 of that year, yet the produce of a single 
 year cannot be taken to be the average va- 
 lue of the living ; and it is assumed that 
 the average value, deduced from the pro- 
 duce of many successive years, is the thing 
 to be compared with the value of the allot- 
 ment, in order to form a judgment of its 
 adequacy or inadequacy. 
 
 " My Lords, I shall trouble your Lord- 
 ships with my sentiments upon both these 
 objections. I shall contend, my Lords, 
 that the account given in upon the oath of 
 the rector's daughter is a true one, — that it 
 is a true statement of the produce of the 
 rectorial tithes of Weldon in the year 1790. 
 Many objections have been made to dif- 
 ferent items of the account. I trust that 
 I shall be able to set it upon its legs ; and, 
 Avlien I have done this, I shall trouble your
 
 9^ 
 
 Lordships with my judgment upon the 
 famous doctrine of average of which your 
 Lordships have heard so much from the 
 learned counsel against the petition. It is 
 indeed my opinion, that the produce of this 
 single year differs little, if at all, from the 
 -average value. But whether this be so or 
 no, I shall venture to' maintain a principle 
 which I know will at first seem paradoxi- 
 cal, — that in making a comparison between 
 the value of the tithes in kind and the in- 
 tended allotment, your Lordships ought to 
 take the value of the tithes upon the pro- 
 duce of the year 1790, rather than upon 
 the average of that and several preceding- 
 years : I shall maintain, that the doctrine 
 of average does not apply to the question 
 of adequacy in this instance. 
 
 " My Lords, upon the first point — the 
 truth of Miss Raye's account of the pro- 
 duce of 1790, I shall trouble your Lord-
 
 93 
 
 ships in very minute detail : Upon the 
 question of average I shall be very short 
 indeed ; for if the principles which I shall 
 advance speak not for themselves when 
 they are clearly propounded, I shall not 
 think it worth while to spend words in sup- 
 port of them. 
 
 " My Lords, the truth of the account 
 given in by Miss Raye rests chiefly on her 
 own evidence. Witnesses have been pro- 
 duced to contradict her evidence in many 
 particulars. My Lords, I pledge myself 
 to vindicate the truth of her evidence in 
 every article in which it has been impeach- 
 ed. My Lords, this is a point upon which 
 I think myself competent to speak with 
 some degree of confidence ; I have attend- 
 ed the Committee, from the first opening 
 of it to the present moment, with the as- 
 siduity of a committee-clerk ; I have heard, 
 not only heard, but I have minuted the
 
 94 
 
 whole evidence ; I have not only minuted 
 the evidence, but I have studied it ; — I 
 speak from a distinct connected view of 
 the whole, and from an accurate know- 
 ledge and recollection of every particle of 
 the evidence ; and, my Lords, I undertake 
 to defend, not only the veracity of the rec- 
 tor's daughter, most unwarrantably im- 
 peached by the learned and honourable 
 counsel who summed up, but I defend the 
 matter of her evidence. My Lords, I dis- 
 tinguish, and I am sure your Lordships 
 will admit the distinction, between the ve- 
 racity of a witness and the truth of parti- 
 cular facts averred : A particular fact may 
 be false, without any want of veracity in 
 the witness. But, my Lords, I assert not 
 only the veracity of the witness, but the 
 truth of the facts to which she deposed ; 
 and I undertake to show, that in every 
 particular in which the witnesses called on
 
 95 
 
 the other side have been said to contradict 
 her, there has either been in reality no con- 
 tradiction, or the great preponderance of 
 credibility is on her side. I shall speak to 
 the several particulars of her evidence that 
 have been called in question, in the order 
 in which they occur in this paper (the 
 printed account which the Bishop held in 
 his hand). 
 
 " My Lords, the first exception that was 
 taken to Miss Raye's evidence, was upon 
 the article of the tithe-wheat. She de- 
 poses, that the rector's tithe-wheat, in the 
 year 1790, amounted to sixty-nine quar- 
 ters; and, at fifty shillings per quarter, was 
 worth 172/. She told your Lordships that 
 it was not all sold ; she said ten quarters 
 were consumed in the family, and five 
 more were used upon the land for seed: 
 The rest was sold at fifty shillings per quar- 
 ter upon the average ; and the wheat being
 
 96 
 
 all nearly of equal quality, she reckoned 
 the whole at fifty shillings per quarter ; and 
 it was by this reckoning that she made the 
 value of the sixty-nine quarters in money 
 172/. All this she stated with great dis- 
 tinctness, perfect recollection, and with 
 great appearance of openness and candour. 
 Your Lordships see, that by this account, 
 fifteen quarters of the sixty-nine having 
 been applied to the rector's own use, either 
 in his family or for seed, fifty-four quarters 
 must have been sold ; and Miss Raye de- 
 posed, that all that was sold was purchased 
 by two persons, Johnson and Sharman. 
 Johnson was called, and a servant of Shar- 
 man 's, who was said to be the keeper of 
 his accounts. Sharman himself, I know 
 not why, appeared not : But these two 
 men, Johnson and Sharman's servant, were 
 produced by the counsel against the peti- 
 tion, to prove that the quantity of wheat
 
 97 
 
 bought by those two persons, who bought 
 all that was sold, was less than Miss Rayes 
 account made it. Now, my Lords, let us 
 see how much less these witnesses made it. 
 Johnson deposed, that he bought of Mr 
 Raye, of wheat of the year 1790, either one 
 quarter and a half, or two quarters ; he 
 could not positively say which was the true 
 quantity, but he was sure what he bought 
 did not exceed two quarters. Sharman's 
 servant deposed, that his master bought 
 forty-nine quarters and three bushels. Xow, 
 my Lords, to the forty-nine quarters and 
 three bushels bought by Sharman, add the 
 two quarters bought by Johnson (for since 
 Johnson was called to confront iNIiss Rave, 
 I, in defending her testimony, have a right 
 to take the largest quantity that his testi- 
 mony admits), the sum of what was bought 
 by Johnson and Sharman was fifty-one quar- 
 ters three bushels. Of the fifty-four quar- 
 
 G
 
 98 
 
 ters therefore which ]\Iiss Raye by her own 
 
 account must have sold, it is proved that 
 fifty-one quarters three bushels were bought 
 by those very persons to whom she says 
 she sold all that was sold. This is proved 
 by the evidence of those very witnesses 
 who were called to contradict her in this 
 part of her story. There remains only a 
 difference of two quarters and five bushels ; 
 much too inconsiderable, in my judgment, 
 to bring suspicion upon her evidence. But 
 let me call an important circumstance to 
 the recollection of your Lordsliips, — that 
 Sharman's servant spoke not from any dis- 
 tinct memory that he now professes to re- 
 tain of the quantity of wheat actually bought 
 of Air Rave bv his master in the vear 1790 : 
 he spoke from something that he called a 
 book of accounts : But such a book of ac- 
 counts, I believe, was never before pro- 
 duced in evidence ! — an old, ragged, dirty,
 
 99 
 
 mutilated thing, — leaves evidently torn out, 
 and what remained hanging in tatters, that 
 the wind was afraid to blow upon it ! My 
 Lords, though in the existing remains of 
 this book we find only forty-nine quarters 
 three bushels of wheat bought of Mr Raye 
 by Sharman, is it not probable that the 
 parts now lost, had the book been entire, 
 would have given an account of so much 
 more as would have made up the deficien- 
 cy ? My Lords, I cannot allow that such 
 evidence as this affords any ground to tax 
 the deposition of the rector's daughter. 
 
 " But, my Lords, it was argued by the 
 learned counsel who summed up the evi- 
 dence, that sixty-nine quarters of wheat 
 was a much larger quantity than the wheat- 
 field of Weldon could yield in tithe to the 
 rector in the year 1790, the rector's tithe 
 being only a moiety of the whole. This 
 conclusion the learned counsel drew from
 
 100 
 
 the number of acres cropped with wheat 
 in that year, and the average crop per acre, 
 as stated by his own witnesses, — who made 
 the average crop so httle as twenty bushels 
 per acre, or certainly not more than three 
 quarters. The number of acres cropped 
 with wheat were put at three hundred and 
 twenty-two; which I suppose might be near^ 
 ly the number ; but for the average crop, 
 my Lords, we have nothing but the evi- 
 dence of a Mr Arnsby, — a coal-merchant, 
 my Lords, a woolstapler, a maltster, every 
 thing but a farmer. This man presumed 
 to depose to the average crop of the wheat- 
 field from the crop upon his own part of 
 it ; and his own part of it, by his own con- 
 fession, was but a very few acres. From 
 the produce of very few acres, perhaps 
 not more than five or six, he takes upon 
 him to swear to the average crop of three 
 hundred and twenty-two acres. My Lords,
 
 101 
 
 does such evidence deserve attention ? My 
 Lords, I am myself no farmer, but I have 
 conversed with noble lords who ha\'e much 
 knowledge of such subjects ; and they as- 
 sure me that the average crop of the wheat- 
 field of Weldon might, in a good year,* 
 be fairly supposed to amount to four and 
 a half quarters per acre : f And in that 
 case, sixty-nine quarters is no such pro- 
 digious quantity for the moiety of the 
 tithe. 
 
 " My Lords, the learned and honourable 
 counsel who raised this objection from the 
 
 * Even Arnsby allowed that the year 1790 was a good 
 year: For, being asked whether the average produce of the 
 wheat-field had been increasing since the year 1780, lie 
 answered " Not till the last two years;" and being asked 
 again, to what that increase of the last two years was 
 owing, he answered " To the season." 
 
 f James Walker deposed, that in the year 1791, the ave- 
 rage crop of the wheat-field of Weldon was four and a hail' 
 quarters upon the statute acre.
 
 102 
 
 quantity, took the objection at first, as I 
 thought, with great fairness and candour. 
 I was sorry that this fairness and candour 
 were lost sight of in the progress of his ar- 
 gument. My Lords, he said that he did 
 not tax Miss Raye with any intention to 
 impose upon the Committee ; but he behe- 
 ved she had made this mistake, — that she 
 had not distinguished between the tithe- 
 wheat and the wheat wliich grew upon the 
 rector's own glebe ; and that the sixty- 
 nine quarters to wliich she had deposed 
 was really the sum total of the two parcels 
 — the tithe-wheat and the wheat from 
 the glebe. And having got an answer 
 from one of his own witnesses about the 
 acres of wheat in the rector's glebe, he 
 amused your Lordships with a very pretty 
 calculation, assuming the number of acres 
 in the wheat-field to have been exactly three 
 hundred and twenty-two, — assuming the
 
 103 
 
 average crop to have been exactly three 
 quarters per acre, — assuming the acres in 
 the glebe to have been precisely what one 
 of his own witnesses made them, — and as- 
 suming farther, that the crop of wheat up- 
 on these acres in the glebe was neither 
 more nor less than three quarters per acre. 
 From a calculation formed upon all these 
 assumptions, the learned and honourable 
 counsel brought out this conclusion, — 
 namely, that the glebe-wheat and the tithe- 
 wheat, taken together, made exactly, to a 
 single grain, my Lords, the quantity of 
 sixty-nine quarters, which Miss Raye had 
 stated as the amount of the tithe-wheat 
 alone. My Lords, I have been myself too 
 much conversant with calculation not to 
 know the extreme futility of such calcula- 
 tions as these. The only circumstance 
 that gives them effect upon the mind, is 
 the precise agreement of the result with
 
 104 
 
 the conclusion that the computer before- 
 hand desired to bring out ; and this pre- 
 cision is Itself a circumstance to be mis- 
 trusted : It has no weight, unless you sup- 
 pose an accuracy in the data of calculation 
 which in the nature of things cannot be- 
 long to them : In short, it is a mere trick 
 which the computer puts upon himself; he 
 assumes data fitted to the conclusion which 
 he means to bring out, and then he triumphs 
 in the agreement of the result with his own 
 wishes. My Lords, give me leave to make 
 such alterations in the data of this calcula- 
 tion as shall suit my purpose, and shall by 
 no means seem improbable, and I will pre- 
 sently bring out a conclusion as much in 
 favour of Miss Raye's evidence as the 
 learned counsel's was against it. But in 
 good truth, my Lords, such calculations 
 may pass very well as specimens of a 
 young lawyer's scientific accomplishments,
 
 105 
 
 but considered as arguments, they are con- 
 temptible. 
 
 " But, my Lords, Miss Raye disclaims all 
 benefit from the very fair hypothesis that 
 the learned counsel set up to save her ve- 
 racity while he impeached her fact. My 
 Lords, she has said most positively, and 
 upon the most distinct and perfect recol- 
 lection, that the tithe- wheat and the glebe- 
 wheat were not mixed ; they were carefully 
 kept separate. She allows that they were 
 put together (some of the tithe-wheat at 
 least was put with the glebe-wheat) in the 
 same rick or stack ; but a separation was 
 made between them by a bed of rushes, 
 damaged hay, and damaged oats. And 
 now, my Lords, it is that I feel myself 
 plunged in solicitude and anxiety ; for 
 now, my Lords, we are come to the great 
 question of character, upon which I shall 
 not be ashamed to confess that my feelings
 
 106 
 
 are Indeed acute. My Lords, this story of 
 the rushes either is true, or it is an inven- 
 tion : Of the distinction between veracity 
 and fact, we can in this instance take no 
 advantage : Either this story is true, or 
 this poor young w^oman, at the hazard of 
 her reputation, at the peril of her soul, 
 has committed a crime of which I who 
 believe her innocent will not pronounce 
 the name ! 
 
 " My Lords, I take courage when I look 
 at the evidence which was brought to con- 
 tradict her. It consists of the depositions 
 of three witnesses. The first was Thomas 
 Pendilow, a labourer, who worked as a 
 harvest-man with Mr Raye in the year 
 1790, and was one of three labourers who 
 made the wheat-stack. Observe, my Lords, 
 he was, by his own confession, only one 
 of three ; and the other two (James Mar- 
 low, and a third, whose name this wit-
 
 107 
 
 ness could not recollect) were not called. 
 My Lords, this man had no recollection of 
 making any separation in the stack by a 
 bed of rushes, damaged hay, or damaged 
 oats : But your Lordships, I am sure, will 
 recollect that he could not say positively 
 that he did not make or assist in making- 
 such a separation : He had no recollection 
 of the thing ; he had no recollection of the 
 negative ; his evidence was perfectly neu- 
 tral and indifferent ; he could not posi- 
 tively remember that he did, — he could 
 not positively remember that he did not : 
 My Lords, he was the very Ignaro of the 
 " Fairy Queen,"— 
 
 " He could not tell, — ne ever other answer made."* 
 
 And yet, my Lords, I was very much struck 
 with the style of this man's evidence. My 
 
 * Fairy Queeu, canto viii. stanza 32.
 
 108 
 
 Lords, I cannot suppose — I do not mean 
 to insinuate — that he had been instructed; 
 but I o\^Ti I was surprised to find a man 
 in his appearance such an arrant clown so 
 great a master of the style of deposition. 
 He never wandered in his answers beyond 
 the precise hmits of the question ; he never 
 laid himself open to cross-examination, 
 by answering to more than was asked of 
 him ; It was — it was not, — this was his style 
 of answ^ering ; except that whenever we 
 touched upon the rushes, he either affec- 
 ted perfect ignorance, or if he ventured to 
 give any thing like any answer, he took 
 care to make it w^iolly insignificant, by 
 guarding it with some saving-clause about 
 the best of his knowledge or the best of 
 his recollection. I disliked and I suspec- 
 ted these reservations, conceiving tliat me- 
 mory 7nusf serve him one way or other up- 
 on a fact of this kind : And the question
 
 109 
 
 being put to him in various ways, he was 
 at last reduced to the necessity of these 
 answers. 
 
 " Qicestion, In making the stack, do you 
 remember using any rushes, or damaged 
 oats, or damaged hay ? — AnsK'er, None, to 
 the best of my knowledge. 
 
 " Question, Do you recollect seeing any 
 or not ? — Answer, I do not recollect. 
 
 " Question, Can you swear, that in ma- 
 king of the stack you did not use rushes, 
 damaged oats, or bad hay ? — Ansuer, I am 
 not positive that I did not, 
 
 " And again, 
 
 " Question, Can you speak positively 
 whether there was no rushes, damaged oats, 
 or bad hay, made use of in the stack? — 
 Answer, I do not remember there was any. 
 
 " Question (by myself). Can you swear 
 there was 7wt any ? — Answer, I am not po- 
 sitive there was not any.
 
 no 
 
 " My Lords, I must confess, that it ap- 
 peared to me very extraordinary, that of 
 three men who worked together all day 
 upon the stack (for so this very Thomas 
 Pendilow deposed), who must have been all 
 equally competent to depose to the fact of 
 the rushes, one only should be called, 
 whose memory upon it was made up of 
 neojations. He was brought to contra- 
 diet Miss Raye ; and the amount of the 
 contradiction that he gave her was this, 
 that he could say nothing positively one 
 way or the other upon the fact in question. 
 My Lords, this testimony is not a feather 
 in the scale ; it is a mere nothing. 
 
 " Another witness was John Ballard, a la- 
 bourer, who had taken down the stack, and 
 moved the wheat into the barn. This bu- 
 siness he said he did by himself, w^ithout the 
 help of any other. He indeed confessed no 
 want of memory ; he spoke without hesita-
 
 Ill 
 
 tion or reserve : He swore pretty roundly, 
 that in taking down the stack, he met with 
 no rushes, damaged hay, or damaged oats, 
 — nothing but pure wheat. Those were his 
 words. But your Lordships will remember, 
 that, in the cross-examination of this wit- 
 ness, circumstances were brought to light, 
 which amounted to a very strong presump- 
 tion indeed, if not to full proof, of malice 
 in the witness against the rector and his 
 family : And yet he let out one circum- 
 stance in favour of Miss Raye's testimony; 
 a little circumstance, my Lords, — -which 
 however I thought of great weight, coming 
 from such a witness. It had certainly been 
 to no purpose to keep the tithe-wheat and 
 glebe-wheat separate in the stack, which 
 Miss Raye said was done, and which I be- 
 lieve was done, if they had been afterwards 
 mingled in the barn : On the other hand, 
 if a separation was made of the wheat (with-
 
 112 
 
 out necessity) into two parcels in the barn, 
 it is a strong presumption that these par- 
 cels had been previously separated in the 
 stack ; unless better proof than we have 
 heard be adduced of the contrary. Ques- 
 tions were put to this John Ballard, to sift 
 this circumstance of separation or no-se- 
 paration in the barn. He was asked " Was 
 the wheat of the stack all put into one end 
 of the barn?" He said " No ; some of it 
 was mowed in one end, and some in the 
 other.'* He was asked " Was one end full 
 before you began to mow, or before you 
 had orders to mow, in the other .^" He said 
 " He could not tell ; he had not noticed that 
 circumstance." I entreat your Lordships 
 to remember that this fell from a witness 
 suspected of malice. 
 
 " The third witness called to prove the 
 pretended confusion of tithe-wheat and 
 glebe-wheat was Thomas Langham, a la-
 
 113 
 
 bourer, who swore that he was one of two 
 men who thrashed out the wheat in the 
 barn, in the autumn 1790. In harvest-time 
 he had helped to pitch both glebe and tithe 
 wheat in the field into the wagcrons. He 
 said, that whither the glebe-wheat was car- 
 ried after he had pitched it, he knew not : 
 He knew nothinof therefore of the forma- 
 tion of the stack : Xor could he know any 
 thing about the taking of it down ; for John 
 Ballard, if he spoke the truth in that point, 
 did all that business by himself Langham 
 indeed was asked whether the wheat of the 
 stack was brought entirely into the barn 
 before it was thrashed ; and he answered 
 that it was : But what means he had of 
 knowing that circumstance appears not. 
 He swears however, that he, with another 
 man, thrashed out the wheat in the barn, — 
 whether it was the whole stack, or only a 
 part of it ; for I cannot admit, my Lords, 
 
 H
 
 114 
 
 that his testimony in the very face of it 
 carries any weight with respect to that cir- 
 cumstance : Neither does it appear that he 
 could know whether the wheat he helped 
 to thrash was tithe-wheat and glebe-wheat 
 mixed together, or tithe-wheat alone. He 
 swears, that he, with another man, thrashed 
 out wheat in the barn ; and that, in thrash- 
 ing out, lie did not make any separation : 
 But that no separation of the grain thrashed 
 out was made at all, is more than he said. 
 He deposed indeed to another circum- 
 stance, that he himself moved the wheat 
 from the barn's-end to the thrashing-floor ; 
 and that there did not appear to be any se- 
 paration of the wheat in straw in the barn. 
 This he said in the course of his examina- 
 tion in chief : But, my Lords, upon the 
 cross-examination, he affirmed what Ballard 
 (the malicious man) also confessed, — that 
 some of the wheat was in one end of the
 
 115 
 
 barn, and some in the other. This, I think, 
 is the sum of Langham's evidence in what 
 relates to the wheat. And w^hat does it 
 amount to, but this, — that he, Thomas 
 Langham, did not perform with his own 
 hand that which Miss Raje says was done, 
 but never said Thomas Lanoham did it. 
 But, my Lords, this Thomas Langham was 
 one only of two thrashers ; why was not the 
 second thrasher produced ? My Lords, I 
 thought it strange at the time — much more 
 do I think so now, having discovered that 
 the same person who thrashed with Tho- 
 mas Langham was one of the two who as- 
 sisted Thomas Pendilow in makino- the 
 stack, and consequently was competent to 
 depose to the rushes, as well as to the sepa- 
 ration or no-separation of the grain thrash- 
 ed in the barn, — my Lords, I think it very 
 strange indeed, that the counsel against 
 the petition, being so frugal of evidence
 
 116 
 
 as to produce to one point one witness out 
 of three, to another one out of two, should 
 choose to keep awav that one of the two 
 who was competent to depose to two im- 
 portant facts, and to bring forward the other 
 only, who could speak but to one of those 
 facts, that one being of the two by far the 
 most irrelevant. 
 
 " My Lords, when the learned counsel for 
 the petition represented to your Lordships 
 that those other witnesses, James Marlow 
 and the third stacker, who was also the se- 
 cond thrasher, were in town, and earnestly 
 entreated your Lordships to call them be- 
 fore you, though they had no right to call 
 them because they had closed their evi- 
 dence, it was a great disappointment to me 
 that the request was not granted. I felt 
 the force of the objections made by noble 
 lords in my eye, a noble earl and a noble 
 viscount : I felt it so strongly, that I did
 
 117 
 
 not insist upon taking the sense of the 
 Committee ; yet I lamented that tiiese 
 witnesses were not calletL My Lords, I 
 must say, that, had we called them, we 
 should not have sacrificed substantial Jus- 
 tice to a point of form. My Lords, it con- 
 sists with my personal knowledge to aver, 
 that such persons as James Marlow and 
 Simon Ferrer (for that is the name which 
 Pendilow had forgotten) do exist ; that 
 they were in London at the time when 
 the learned counsel for the petition said 
 they were in London. And, my Lords, 
 it is my firm belief and persuasion, that 
 had your Lordships called these men be- 
 fore you, James Marlow would have told 
 your Lordships that a separation was ac- 
 tually made in the stack by a bed of rushes, 
 damaged hay, and damaged oats. He 
 would have told your Lordships that he 
 did himself assist Thomas Pendilow in
 
 118 
 
 forming this bed of separation, — that he 
 himself mowed the rushes for this purpose, 
 by the rector's orders, and for the express 
 purpose of keeping tlie glebe-wheat and 
 the tithe-wheat separate. It is my belief 
 and persuasion, that he would have told 
 your Lordships that the rector said to him 
 "James, I must have my tithe- wheat and my 
 glebe-wheat kept apart : Go you and mow 
 such and such rushes." He would have told 
 your Lordships (as I believe), that the glebe- 
 wheat was all laid below the rushes, — that 
 the tithe-wheat was all laid above them : 
 He would have told your Lordships, that 
 such care was taken to keep the glebe- wheat 
 and the tithe- wheat distinct, that tlie last 
 waggon that came from the glebe-field 
 brought only half a load. All this James 
 Marlow would have told your Lordships, 
 in the most precise peremptory terms, upon 
 clear distinct recollection, — not like one
 
 119 
 
 of the Ignaro family, my Lords. My Lords, 
 it is my belief and persuasion, that Simon 
 Ferrer would have confirmed jNlarlow's evi- 
 dence about the separation by a bed of 
 rushes, — that he would have told your 
 Lordships that he saw that separation 
 formed ; and it is my belief that he would 
 have told your Lordships that he assisted 
 Langham in thrashing wheat in the barn, 
 and that the grain, when thrashed, was laid 
 in separate parcels. My Lords, I have no 
 more doubt of the veracity of this innocent 
 young woman, in this important article of 
 her evidence, — I have no more doubt of 
 her veracity (which in this point is inse- 
 parable from the truth of her fact), than I 
 doubt the fact that I am now standino- here 
 asserting her veracity before your Lord- 
 ships : And, my Lords, I am persuaded, 
 that had these men been called before the 
 Committee and examined, the same convic-
 
 120 
 
 tion would have been impressed with equal 
 force upon the mind of every noble lord. 
 " My Lords, upon the subject of the 
 wheat, Miss Raye was contradicted in ano- 
 ther circumstance, — in the number of acres 
 of glebe cropped witli wheat in the year 
 1790 : She made them not more than three 
 or four acres. Thomas Pendilow said there 
 were seven acres of the glebe in wheat. 
 He had helped to reap the wheat : But 
 observe, my Lords, he had not taken it to 
 reap by the acre ; he worked by the day. 
 AVliat knowledge then had he of the num- 
 ber of acres ? Did he speak by a rough 
 guess ? — No, my Lords, — by no guess or 
 judgment of his own at all : The rector, 
 he said, had told him that he had seven 
 acres of wheat in the glebe. My Lords, 
 in these common fields, it is well known 
 that a great proportion of the ground lies 
 in the shape of balks and lands-ends, which
 
 121 
 
 are never ploughed, but produce grass : It 
 was easy to suppose, that the balks and lands- 
 ends were included in the seven acres men- 
 tioned by Thomas Pendilow and excluded 
 from Miss Raye's account, — that she spoke 
 strictly of the land bearing wheat. Tho- 
 mas Pendilow was asked whether the land 
 in wheat would amount to seven acres, be- 
 sides balks and lands-ends : His answer 
 was, that he understood the rector to speak 
 of seven acres of wlieat, not including balks 
 and lands-ends. Your Lordships see, that 
 this man swears at last to nothing more 
 than his own construction of the rector's 
 conversation, — which might be right or 
 might be wrong : If it was right, the rec- 
 tor to be sure confessed to him seven acres 
 of wheat ; and it will be for us to consider, 
 how far the rector's confession, in loose un- 
 guarded conversation, ought to counter- 
 vail his daughter's solemn oath; but if
 
 122 
 
 Thomas Pendilow put a wrong construc- 
 tion on the rector's words, then the quanti- 
 ty confessed by him, according to the true 
 meaning of his words, might be greatly less 
 than seven acres. But taking the deposi- 
 tion just as it was given, and making the 
 most of it, your Lordships will remember 
 that it is nothing more than the deposition 
 of Thomas Pendilow^ — the worthy repre- 
 sentative of the Ignaro family, my Lords. 
 
 " My Lords, I have done with the wheat: 
 The next exception to Miss Raye's evi- 
 dence was taken upon the barley. My 
 Lords, the circumstance in question is of 
 no other consequence than as it may affect 
 the general credit of the witness ; for it 
 relates to the barley that grew upon the 
 glebe ; and since it has not been pretend- 
 ed that the account of the tithe-barley has 
 been swelled with the addition of the glebe- 
 barley to it, the circumstance I am about
 
 123 
 
 to mention cannot otherwise afFect the 
 tithe-account than as it may afFect the cre- 
 dit of the witness, if it should turn out to 
 be an instance of wilful deviation from the 
 truth. My Lords, Thomas Pendilow de- 
 posed, that the glebe-barley of the year 
 1790 was inned and stacked in the rector's 
 yards : Thomas Langham deposed, that 
 Arnsby bought the barley of the glebe in 
 grain after it was thrashed out. Here the 
 counsel against the petition triumphed. 
 Here are two witnesses, who clearly, ex- 
 plicitly (for even the Ignaro man upon this 
 point used no reserve or hesitation) — two 
 witnesses clearly, explicitly, deny the fact 
 that the glebe-barley was sold standing up- 
 on the ground ; a fact deposed to by Miss 
 Raye. Deposed to by Miss Raye ! Good 
 God ! my Lords, I was struck with asto- 
 nishment when this assertion fell from the 
 learned and honourable counsel : Your
 
 124 
 
 Lordships will be struck, when I assure 
 your Lordships that the fact has not been 
 explicitly deposed to by Miss Raye. My 
 Lords, I speak not from an obscure distant 
 recollection of the evidence which we 
 heard Miss Raye give three weeks ago : 
 My Lords, with a most anxious attention to 
 this circumstance, have I read Miss Raye's 
 evidence over and over again, the whole 
 of it — the examination in chief and the 
 cross-examination, yesterday, this morning. 
 My Lords, I affirm distinctly, that in her 
 whole evidence there is no mention of bar- 
 ley growing on the glebe, expressly and by 
 name ; it appears not by Miss Raye's evi- 
 dence whether a single blade of barley 
 grew in the glebe in the year 1790, or no. 
 My Lords, she exposed herself to the dan- 
 ger of this vile imputation, by that which 
 is in truth a great argument of her can- 
 dour and integrity — by a neglect of that
 
 125 
 
 discretion which was so remarkable in the 
 Ignaro man's manner of giving evidence: 
 From a desire of informing your Lordships, 
 she often in her answers went beyond the 
 precise limits of the question : And this 
 base imputation has no foundation in the 
 express matter of her deposition ; it is 
 founded only on an inference drawn from 
 one of those answers, without any distinct 
 mention of the glebe-barley in the imme- 
 diate question which produced the answer, 
 or in any previous part (or any following 
 part) of the examination : Speaking of the 
 crop of the glebe in general, she said that 
 " the crop of the glebe, except the wheat, 
 was sold standing." * The crop of the 
 glebe, except the wheat. Now, my Lords, 
 
 * The question put to Miss Raye was this, — « Was the 
 glebe in the rector's own occupation that year ? " she an- 
 swered "Generally it was not, except some few acres; 
 the crop of which, except the wheat, was sold standing."
 
 126 
 
 If you will assume, what you cannot find 
 in Miss Raye's evidence, that the glebe 
 was in part cropped with barley, it will fol- 
 low indeed, by inference from her words, 
 that the barley was sold standing : And 
 if your Lordships will assume farther, that 
 the barley was distinctly in Miss Raye's 
 recollection at the time when she gave this 
 answer, as a part of all that crop which 
 with the exception of the wheat only she 
 said was sold standing, — and if your Lord- 
 ships believe this fact disproved, as far as the 
 barley is concerned, by the depositions of 
 Pendilow and Langham, — then, to be sure, 
 with the help of this inference and these 
 assumptions, a cruel imputation will be 
 brought upon the young woman. Rut I 
 am confident your Lordships will not suf- 
 fer the credit of a witness to be impeached 
 in your Lordships' judgment by inference, 
 and implication, and precarious assump-
 
 127 
 
 tions. My Lords, I will not retaliate 
 upon the witnesses against the petition, — 
 though Thomas Pendilow was one of them, 
 — I will not retaliate on them the injury 
 and insult offered to the rector's daughter ; 
 for, my Lords, I never will impute wilful 
 falsehood w^here I can with any colour of 
 probability suppose a mistake. My Lords, 
 I do suppose that Thomas Pendilow saw a 
 stack of barley in the rector's yard : Is he 
 sure that it was the barley of the glebe ? 
 He called it glebe-barley, but might it not 
 be tithe ? It did not appear that he helped 
 to bring home either the glebe-barley or 
 the tithe-barley, or that he knew whence 
 the barley which he saw in stack was 
 brought. I suppose that Thomas Lang- 
 ham knew that Arnsby bought barley of 
 the rector in grain thrashed out ; but is he 
 sure that it was not tithe-barley ? JNIy 
 Lords, upon this easy supposition, that
 
 128 
 
 Pendllow and Laiigham have mistaken 
 tithe-barley for glebe-barley (a mistake 
 which they might very easily commit), the 
 credit of all the witnesses is saved; it is 
 saved, even if the inference from Miss 
 Raye's testimony be taken as a part of her 
 explicit deposition : I never will admit that 
 it ought to be so taken ; but so taking it, I 
 say that it is unfair and uncandid to im- 
 pute fraud or prevarication on either side, 
 when contradictory testimonies may be so 
 easily reconciled. 
 
 " My Lords, I have now done with 
 wheat and barley : I come next to the 
 turnips ; an article upon which we have 
 been loudly charged. We * have been 
 charged, — yes, my Lords, I feel that I have 
 fallen into the lansuage of an advocate ; — 
 
 * The Bishop observed a noble lord to laugh, and minute 
 the expi'ession.
 
 129 
 
 let it pass ; my argument, I trust, will be 
 impartial. Miss Raye, my Lords, has 
 deposed that she received 7/. 12s. for se- 
 venty-one and a half acres of turnips. She 
 is taken up upon the number of acres : 
 A man is produced (a Thomas Pywell), a 
 tenant at will of Mr Hatton*s, and one 
 of his gamekeepers ; He deposes to the 
 acres of turnip in the common fields of 
 Weldon in the year 1790 j and he makes 
 it, I forget the exact quantity, but certainly 
 a third or a fourth less than the quantity 
 mentioned by Miss Raye. By what know- 
 ledge of the fact does he speak ? — By the 
 most exact of all knowledge, my Lords, — 
 by measurement of the turnip-land, made 
 by himself Measurement ! how was it 
 made ? — With a chain. When ? — The 
 Thursday or Friday was sennight before he 
 was examined. His examination was taken 
 on Monday the 14th of this very month ;
 
 130 
 
 the Thursday or Friday sennight before, he 
 was sent down from London^ he .told your 
 Lordships, to make this measurement : 
 Down he w^ent, with his measuring-chain 
 in his hand, in the beginning of iMay 1792, 
 to measure the land that was. cropped with 
 turnips in the parish of Weldon in the 
 year 1790: He performs this task with 
 great expedition, and with wonderful, ac- 
 curacy : He posts back again, and reports 
 the quantity of land to an inch, my Lords ; 
 he swears to acres, roods, and perches. 
 Had the crop of turnips been all in one 
 field, jMr Pywell ? — O no ! it grew in dif- 
 ferent patches in different fields. And 
 how did you, now, in ^lay 1792, distin- 
 guish exactly, so as to give evidence upon 
 your oath, all these scattered patches that 
 were in turnip in 1790? — My Lords, the 
 man is blessed with a strong retentive me- 
 mory of his own J and his recollection was
 
 131 
 
 helped by the occupiers of the lands to 
 whom he went round for that assistance! 
 
 " Now, my Lords, let us consider in 
 what way the poor young woman might 
 come by her knowledge of the number 
 of acres. But first, my Lords, let me ob- 
 serve, that she has not sworn to the num- 
 ber of acres as a distinct fact by itself; she 
 swears only to this complex proposition, — 
 " I received so much money for so many 
 acres of turnip." i\Iy Lords, this young 
 woman is no surveyor, to measure land 
 with a chain, — she is no gamekeeper, my 
 Lords, to have a readv ffuess at the acres 
 in a field by repeatedly walking over it : 
 My Lords, the thing speaks for itself, when 
 it is fairly considered; — the tithe of turnips 
 is paid for in W^eldon, as it is almost every- 
 where, at so much by the acre ; and the 
 number of acres mentioned by j\Iiss Raye 
 is the sum of the acres confessed by the
 
 IS2 
 
 several tenants, at the time when they 
 reckoned with her for the tithe of turnip : 
 One man paid for so many — another for so 
 many ; and when the account of the year's 
 produce is made up, the acres of the seve- 
 ral tenants are collected into one sum, 
 their payments are collected into one sum, 
 and the witness deposes, that for so many 
 acres of turnips (seventy-one and a half) 
 she received so much money (7/. 12s.): 
 The fact to which she must be understood 
 to swear, of her own original knowledge, 
 is the sum of money she received. And 
 let me observe by the way, my Lords, that 
 with respect to the sum of money recei- 
 ved for every article, which is the material 
 point, her testimony, under all the attacks 
 that have been made upon it in other points, 
 stands unquestioned. She swears to the 
 acres only as the acres accounted and paid 
 for by the tenants : And can your Lord-
 
 133 
 
 ships believe that the tenants acknowledg- 
 ed and paid for many more acres than were 
 cropped with turnip ? Is it usual with your 
 Lordships' tenants, when they settle with 
 the parson, to magnify the account of what 
 is due to him ? My Lords, upon this fact 
 of the quantity of land cropped with turnip 
 in the year 1790, which is more worthy of 
 credit, the confession of the tenants at 
 the time reckoning with the parson, or 
 Mr Py well's measurement, made now in 
 May 1792, of the scattered patches of land, 
 which his recollection, assisted by the recol- 
 lection of the farmers, tells him was crop- 
 ped with turnip in 1790? Which is most 
 deserving of credit, my Lords ? — when it 
 is remembered, that when the parishion- 
 ers settled with the rector, or rather with 
 the rector's daughter, it was not their in- 
 terest to magnify, it is now their interest to 
 abate. My Lords, this matter is so very
 
 134 
 
 clear, that I should be ashamed to consume 
 the time of the Committee by saying ano- 
 ther word upon the subject. 
 
 " My Lords, I now come to the last 
 article in the account of the year 1790 in 
 which the truth of it has been arraigned, — 
 I mean the article of the wood of the pur- 
 lieus. It is stated that the tithe of the 
 wood produced 43/. 3s. ]\Iy Lords, this 
 is the only point upon which I feared I 
 should be incompetent to speak with any 
 confidence ; for the depositions relating 
 to this wood are the only part of the evi- 
 dence which I did not receive by my own 
 ear. My Lords, the day the witnesses 
 were examined who were called to contra- 
 dict the account in this article, I had been 
 sitting in the committee-room, at the table, 
 listening to and minuting every syllable of 
 the evidence, from eleven o'clock till three: 
 Business of some magnitude, I forget what.
 
 135 
 
 was to come on in the House that evening: 
 I expected long debates and a midnight 
 division: My Lords, I confess with shame, 
 I had the meanness — I have repented of 
 it ever since — to shrink from the fatigue 
 of my Parhamentary duty; and not at all 
 foreseeing the important matter that was 
 immediately coming on, I retired for re- 
 ireshment : I was absent from the com- 
 mittee-room a little more than an hour ; 
 and during my absence, the depositions of 
 the stewards of the woods were taken: 
 Wlien I returned, some noble lords, whose 
 sentiments I knew had much accorded with 
 my own upon the whole business, so far as 
 we had yet gone, told me " Here is a mis- 
 take about the woods." After the whole 
 evidence was closed, when I mentioned it 
 to some noble lords, as my clear opinion, 
 that all the contradiction given to Miss 
 llaye amounted to nothing at all, and de-
 
 136 
 
 clared my intention of going in detail into 
 the discussion of the evidence, article by 
 article, they said " Remember, however, 
 there was a mistake about the wood." 
 This was suggested to me by noble lords 
 whose sentiments I knew to be in general 
 the same with mine upon every part of this 
 business, as the single mistake, but as a 
 mistake which must be admitted. My 
 Lords, it gave me great satisfaction to per- 
 ceive, by casting my eye over Miss Raye's 
 account, that the mistake, whatever it might 
 be, was an innocent mistake, — that it must 
 be mere mistake, not design, my Lords ; 
 for this reason, that this wood was charged 
 on both sides of the account, and made 
 no difference at all in striking the balance. 
 The wood was reckoned in the account of 
 the produce of 1790; but it was also reckon- 
 ed as a distinct article of the future produce 
 of the living, under the enclosure, if the
 
 137 
 
 bill should pass : It swelled the account 
 of the amount of tithes ; but it equally 
 swells the account of the produce of the 
 living, if the commutation should take 
 place. The allotment of land is not to co- 
 ver the tithe of wood ; and the tithe of 
 wood is very fairly charged as a distinct 
 article of future produce. If the charge 
 of this tithe-wood is a mistake on one side, 
 it is equally a mistake on the other : If 
 you strike it out here, you must strike it 
 out there ; and the difference between the 
 amount of the year 1790 and the future 
 produce of the living under the commuta- 
 tion, will, in spite of this supposed mis- 
 take, remain what the account makes it. I 
 confess, I was much satisfied to find the 
 supposed mistake so innocent ; still I 
 wished to discover upon what ground of 
 evidence a mistake had been so generally 
 admitted. Yesterday morning, my Lords,
 
 138 
 
 at an early hour, I came down to this 
 House; I applied to the Clerk for his, mi- 
 nutes of our proceedings; and in his room, 
 I sat me down to study the depositions of 
 the stewards of the woods in his minutes. 
 I presently perceived that the only woods 
 which fell in 1790 were a part of Lord 
 Sondes's and a part of Mr Hatton's; so 
 that the 43/. 3s., if there was no mistake, 
 must all be accounted for from the tithes 
 of those woods. Now, John Walker, the 
 steward of Lord Sondes's woods, confessed 
 in his evidence that he paid Mr Raye in 
 money, for the tithe of Lord Sondes's fall 
 in 1790, the sum of 261. 14s. 3d. : He de- 
 posed, that the money was paid in January 
 1791. Is this the mistake? was the re- 
 ceipt of 1791 charged to the account of 
 1790? — No such thing, my Lords; the 
 witness was distinct and candid : He said 
 the money was paid in January 1791 ; but
 
 139 
 
 he had said before that the fall was made 
 in 1790. Indeed the thing speaks for it- 
 self: If the money was paid so early in 
 the year 1791 as the month of January, the 
 fall must have been in the preceding year. 
 The money therefore, though not paid till 
 1791, is justly put to the account of the 
 year 1790, in which the tithe accrued. 
 Now for the tithe of Mr Hatton's fall in 
 the year 1790. The steward of Mr Hat- 
 ton's woods, Mr Pywell (not the famous 
 measurer of turnip-grounds, but another 
 Mr Pywell), deposes that the tithe of Mr 
 Hatton's wood was not sold to Mr Hat- 
 ton, but taken in kind by the rector, and 
 carried off. Mr Pywell therefore could 
 give no account of what the rector might 
 make of this tithe, otherwise than bv in- 
 forming your Lordships of the value of 
 Mr Hatton's nine tenths, by which the 
 value of the rector's single tenth might be
 
 140 
 
 estimated. He deposed, that the value of 
 Mr Hatton's nine tenths was 127/. The 
 ninth part of this is 14/. 2s. 2d. ; which must 
 have been the value of the rector's tenth, 
 according to Pywell's estimate. Now, will 
 some noble lord assist me ; it is difficult to 
 compute and speak at the same time. 
 (Lord Spencer and the Bishop of Bangor 
 each took up a pen.) My Lords, to 26/. 
 14s. 3d., the price paid to the rector for 
 Lord Sondes's fall, add 14/. 2s, 2d., the 
 value of the tithe of Mr Hatton's fall, 
 what is the sum ? (Lord Spencer and the 
 Bishop of Bangor both answered 40/. 16s. 
 5d.) Very well, my Lords, of Miss Raye's 
 4:31. 3s. we have actually accounted for 40/. 
 16s. 5d. ; the difference is 2/. 6s. 7d., — which 
 is the utmost amount of her mistake, if anv 
 mistake has been committed. My Lords, I 
 find by the deposition of Daniel York, that 
 there was a small fall of Lord Upper Os-
 
 141 
 
 sory's wood in the year 1791 ; and that 
 the tithe of that fall amounted to 21. 4s. 
 My Lords, was this the mistake ? has she 
 to the 40/. 16s. 5d. of the year 1790 added 
 this little sum of the succeeding year ? To 
 be sure this will make up all that remains 
 to be accounted for, within two or three 
 shillings. My Lords, if this was the mis- 
 take, the smallness of the error (not to re- 
 peat what I have said about the insignifi- 
 cance of it, as it stands in the account^ 
 had it been ever so great) proves that it 
 must have been mere inadvertence ; for it 
 could never be by design that she advan- 
 ced the account from 40/. 16s. 5d. to 43/. 
 3s., in order to make an addition of so 
 small a sum as forty-six shillings to the 
 whole receipt of the year, which exceeded 
 640/. But, my Lords, I feel myself under 
 no necessity of admitting even this small 
 mistake : It is a probable supposition, that
 
 142 
 
 the tithe of wood, which the rector took in 
 kind of Mr Hatton, might be sold at as 
 much more than Py well's valuation of it, 
 as would do away all the mighty difference 
 between 40/. 16s. 5d., already accounted for, 
 and Miss Raye's sum of 43/. 3s. 
 
 " But it was hinted to me one day in 
 the committee-room, by a noble lord, that 
 as the fall of these woods was not made 
 every year, the tithe of wood received in 
 any one year ought not to be taken for 
 the yearly average of that species of tithe. 
 Certainly not, my Lords ; Nor was the sum 
 of 43/. 3s. deposed to by Miss Raye as the 
 yearly average of the tithe of wood, but as 
 the produce of that tithe in the year 1790 ; 
 for the title of her account is this, " The 
 value of the rectorial dues of Weldon in 
 the year 1790." She was indeed asked a 
 question about average ; and I shall have 
 occasion hereafter to recall to your Lord-
 
 143 
 
 ships' attention the fair ingenuous answer 
 which she. gave to it ; which will entirely 
 clear heribf any design of representing this 
 article as the yearly average of the tithe- 
 wood. 
 
 " My Lords, I have now spoken to every 
 article of Miss Raye's evidence i that has 
 been called in question.* I hope I have 
 
 * One point of little moment the Bishop passed by un- 
 noticed. A weak attempt had been made to confute Miss 
 Raye about the price of barley. She deposed to twenty- 
 six shillings as the average price at which she had sold sixty 
 quarters. Avnsby swore that he bought of the rector, in the 
 year 1790, thirty-seven quarters one bushel, at twenty-five 
 shillings per quarter. Now, as this was not much more than 
 half the quantity which the rector had to sell, the average 
 price of the whole might be what Miss Raye stated, though 
 the truth of Amsby's assertion should be admitted. But 
 his assertion was not true. In an account between himself 
 and the rector, running from 15th March 1790 to 2d May 
 1791, Arnsby makes Mr Raye his creditor for barley bought 
 by him of Mr Raye in October, November, and December, 
 1790, at the various prices of twenty-five shillings, twenty- 
 five shillings and sixpence, and twenty-seven shillings, per 
 quarter. The Bishop went down to the debate with tlii*
 
 144 
 
 missed none ; — I am sure I have missed 
 none of any importance : And I hope 
 I have convinced your Lordships, that 
 Miss Raye's depositions have not been 
 confuted, or even in the least degree dis- 
 credited, in any one of the points which I 
 have considered ; and that in many they 
 
 curious document in his pocket : But considering that the pa- 
 per had not been given in evidence (for it was sent for from 
 the country after Arnsby was examined, and it came too late), 
 and that he had no means of proving the handwriting, the 
 witnesses being all gone out of town except Miss Raye her- 
 self and the Reverend Mr Graham, he thought it better to 
 leave the truth of Miss Raye's assertion about the price of 
 the barley to stand upon the general credit of her evidence, 
 established, as he conceived it to be, by his own argument 
 upon more material points, and upon the general incohe- 
 rence of Arnsby 's; which, had not the debate been unexpec- 
 tedly cut short by the proposal of a compromise on the part of 
 Mr Hatton, would have been well set forth by a noble lord 
 who had declared his intention to the Bishop of going into 
 a minute discussion of Arnsby's evidence, and of tearing it 
 all to pieces. The Bishop, in the most confident expecta- 
 tion of his noble friend's success in that undertaking, was 
 well pleased to leave Mr Arnsby in his lordship's hands, 
 where he would have found no quarter.
 
 145 
 
 have been confirmed by the testimony of 
 the witnesses that were called to contra- 
 dict her. 
 
 " My Lords, it was advanced in argument 
 by the learned and honourable counsel a- 
 gainst the petition, that, setting out of the 
 question all the objections to the items of 
 the produce of the year, the net income 
 is fallaciously stated, because Miss Raye 
 has allowed for no other outgoings than 
 the expenses of the collection : The learn- 
 ed and honourable gentleman observed 
 that she had deducted nothing from the 
 gross produce for rates and taxes. ]\Iy 
 Lords, I shall readily confess that this is 
 (or rather that it might be, for I am not 
 sure that it is) an omission ; a very par* 
 donable omission, my Lords, and of very 
 little consequence, — such as in no degree 
 reflects upon the integrity of this young 
 woman ; of which I trust I have produced 
 
 K
 
 146 
 
 abundant proof. Depend upon it, my 
 Lords, she reasoned thus : The hving will 
 still be subject to rates and taxes, if the 
 enclosure should take effect ; the deduc- 
 tion therefore vvdll be the same then as 
 now ; and it is needless to take notice of 
 an equal deduction on both sides of an 
 account, which leaves the balance unaltered. 
 My Lords, if there was any inaccuracy in 
 this reasoning, it was only this, — that for 
 the tithes in kind the rector is liable to 
 the taxes both of landlord and occupier ; 
 for the allotment of land, if he lets it, which 
 the account supposed, he will be subject to 
 those of landlord only. The taxes under 
 the enclosure therefore may possibly be 
 diminished ; and . I will grant that this 
 ought to have been stated : But the omis- 
 sion seems to have been mere inadvertency ; 
 and, I apprehend, is of very little conse- 
 quence : For though I believe in my con-
 
 147 
 
 science, that the produce of the living, 
 under its present good management, is as 
 much as Miss Raye's account makes it to 
 be, yet it must be taxed and rated accord- 
 ing to the last letting ; and after the unfair 
 advantage that was taken of that circum- 
 stance in argument, your Lordships will 
 hardly forget that the last letting was very 
 low ; insomuch that, upon the whole, I do 
 very much question whether the rates and 
 taxes upon the commutation will fall much 
 short of the present rates and taxes. Had 
 the whole present rates and taxes been de- 
 ducted, I suppose the net income from 
 the tithes in kind would not have been 
 lowered above 20/. ^^er annum^ if so much. 
 Upon the whole, I am not sure that this 
 was an omission, — certainly not a conceal- 
 ment ; but I am in doubt whether it ought 
 to be admitted as an omission, even of 
 inadvertence.
 
 148 
 
 " But the learned and honourable coun- 
 sel charged Miss Raye with an omission of 
 much greater magnitude : He said that 
 she ought to have reckoned, as an article 
 of the outgoings, the wages of that service 
 (as he called it) which she performs for 
 her father. He said, that if an event which 
 may naturally enough be expected should 
 remove this excellent daughter from her 
 father's family, a servant must be retained 
 to do the business which she at present 
 takes upon herself; and the wages of that 
 service he put very high. My Lords, I 
 am not inclined to say that he overrated 
 them ; but I do deny that the wages of 
 such service, if such service were to be pro- 
 cured for pay, are to be placed to the ac- 
 count of the outgoings from the living ; — 
 for this reason, my Lords, — the service is 
 of that sort which every man who has his 
 health and his senses, mens sana in corpore
 
 .149 
 
 mno, is supposed to perform for himself j 
 and it must be owing to some peculiarity 
 in the man, if he wants another to do it 
 for him. The want of such assistance 
 must be peculiar to Mr Raye, as Mr Raye ; 
 not common to him with all that ever were 
 or will be rectors of Weldon. The neces- 
 sity must arise from some particular cir- 
 cumstance in his health or his disposition : 
 He may be a sickly man, a vapoured man, 
 an indolent man, a careless man, or, my 
 Lords, he may be a very studious man. 
 My Lords, I speak upon this subject with 
 something of a fellow-feeling : My own fa- 
 mily accounts would be ill kept were they 
 in my own keeping : My Lords, should / 
 have the misfortune to be deprived of 7Ji7/ 
 assistant, and find myself obliged to retain 
 at a considerable salary some discreet trus- 
 ty gentlewoman to keep the accounts of 
 my family expenses, my Lords, could I
 
 150 
 
 fairly reckon that salary among the out- 
 goings of the bishopric of St David's? 
 Would the Minister allow me so to reckon 
 it, were I to give in an account of my 
 bishopric to him, to show him the defi- 
 ciencies of it, and enforce my claim to 
 some profitable commendam ? — My Lords, 
 lie would treat such an item of outgoinojs 
 with ridicule and contempt ; and he ought 
 so to treat it. And the case is'^thg very 
 same in the present instance. 
 
 " For another reason, my Lords, the va- 
 lue of Miss Raye's services are not to be 
 reckoned as outgoings from the living ; be- 
 cause they are services not necessary to 
 the collection of the living, — they are ser- 
 vices that arise out of no particular spe- 
 cies of property, but are necessary in all 
 families, for in all families accounts must 
 be kept. My Lords, when the learned and 
 honourable counsel mentioned this as an
 
 151 
 
 article of the outgoings, it struck me that 
 he might as well have insisted that the an- 
 nual amount of the rector's butcher's bill 
 should be put to the charge of the outgo- 
 ings of the living. (The Bishop observed 
 a general look of surprise in the Commit- 
 tee; from which he concluded that this 
 remark was either not understood at all, 
 or that it struck forcibly : He therefore 
 thought proper to dwell upon it.) Noble 
 lords seem to receive this remark with sur- 
 prise : Will noble lords explain to me why 
 the butcher's bill is not an outgoino: ? 
 The money goes out of the man's purse, 
 there is no doubt of that ; in that sense 
 therefore it is an outgoing, — but it is not 
 an outgoing from the living. Why ? — If 
 any noble lord will do me the favour to 
 put that question to me, I think I can 
 answer it. The butcher's bill is not an 
 outgoing from the living, because the meat
 
 152 
 
 which is bought with the money raised by 
 the sale of the tithe is still the produce of 
 the living, converted out of the substance 
 of money into the substance of meat ; the 
 meat is the rector's property ; and that 
 property is as much the produce of the 
 living in the shape of beef, as it was in the 
 shape of wheat and other grain in the barn 
 before the grain was converted into gold 
 and silver coin. My Lords, the very same 
 thing is to be said of the labour of ser- 
 vants : The labour of servants is property ; 
 and being acquired by the money raised 
 from the living, is still the produce of it in 
 another shape. The wages that pay for the 
 service are not an outgoing from the living, 
 unless the service be of that sort which is 
 immediately employed in the collection of 
 the profits of the living : In that case, but 
 in no other, the expense of the service is 
 an outgoing from the living. Miss Raye's
 
 153 
 
 service to her father is not of that sort; 
 her service is the exact and faithful keep- 
 ing of accounts. The profits of the hving 
 might be collected though such accounts 
 were not kept : The rector might still en- 
 joy the fruits of the rectory, though he 
 would not so exactly know what he enjoy- 
 ed. And, my Lords, these accounts have 
 no analogy to a tradesman's books, which 
 the tradesman must hire a clerk to keep j 
 they are merely a gentleman's private ac- 
 counts. 
 
 " My Lords, I have now considered every 
 mistake or omission with which Miss Raye 
 has been charged. One omission only can 
 I find, — that of the rates and taxes ; an o- 
 mission of which I cannot exactly rate the 
 effect, but I am confident it must be very 
 small : I suspect it is nothing ; and, if it 
 be any thing, I have shown how easily the 
 omission is to be traced to honest inad-
 
 154 
 
 vertency. But, my Lords, had errors been 
 found in Miss Raye's account which have 
 not been found in it, I should still have 
 protested against the fallacy and iniquity 
 of a maxim advanced in argument by the 
 learned and honourable counsel, in sum- 
 ming up, " that an error proved in a single 
 article of the account must be allowed to 
 discredit the whole and every part of it." 
 My Lords, the thing implied in this maxim 
 is too plain : This uncandid principle as- 
 sumes the guilt it would conclude. Show 
 me a fraudulent statement of any one ar- 
 ticle of an account, and I will be open to 
 the suspicion of a fraud in the whole, or in 
 any other article : But upon no other prin- 
 ciple but the supposition of a fraudulent 
 design can it be allowed, that, in an ac- 
 count composed of a variety of articles, 
 having no necessary connexion with each 
 other, an error in one or more concludes
 
 155 
 
 error in all the rest. This argument of 
 the learned counsel's ran in a circle, and 
 tacitly assumed as its foundation the hor- 
 rible conclusion it was meant to establish. 
 The learned counsel afterwards spoke out 
 more plainly : My Lords, I was astonish- 
 ed and amazed, when, upon no better 
 grounds than the evidence of such wit- 
 nesses as he had called, and the flimsy tex- 
 ture of his own arguments, he hurled the 
 vile charge of perjury at a trembling wo- 
 man's head. 
 
 " My Lords, a general exception was ta- 
 ken, by this learned and honourable coun- 
 sel, to Miss Raye's evidence, as the evi- 
 dence of an interested witness : He said, 
 that a daughter is more an interested w^it- 
 ness for the father than a tenant at will 
 or a gamekeeper for the lord. My Lords, 
 it was very well answered, but I think 
 not sufficiently, by the very learned coun-
 
 156: 
 
 ^el in reply, that Miss Raye was not what 
 any jury would have deemed an interest- 
 ed witness. My Lords, the remark was 
 certainly just ; Miss Raye has no such 
 immediate interest in the revenues of the 
 living of Weldon as would make her what 
 our courts of justice call an interested wit- 
 ness : But, my Lords, I apprehend that the 
 learned and honourable gentleman who so 
 called her did not really mean that she 
 was interested in the strict forensic mean- 
 ing of the word ; — he meant that she was 
 subject to an influence ; and he meant to 
 say that the influence of a parent over his 
 child is stronger than that of lord over te- 
 nant at will or gamekeeper. This, I be- 
 V lieve, was his meaning ; but, my Lords, I 
 deny it — flatly I deny it, speaking of cor- 
 ruptive influence. My Lords, I maintain 
 that the relation of lord to tenant at will 
 or servant is productive of a far more cor-
 
 157 
 
 ruptlve influence than that of parent to 
 child. My Lords, I have detained jour 
 Lordships so long [Heai\ hear ! — Go on, go 
 on /), that I will not argue this question ge- 
 nerally, as I thought to have done. I will 
 only trouble your Lordships with a re- 
 mark upon this particular case, — that in 
 this instance the influence must be all on 
 the daughter's side ; she is evidently so ne- 
 cessary to her father, that she must have 
 influence over him, — he can have no un- 
 due influence over this daughter. 
 
 " My Lords, I have now done with my 
 defence of Miss Rave's evidence : I must 
 now trouble your Lordships, as I proposed, 
 with very few words about average. 
 
 " Miss Raye was asked whether she be- 
 lieved that the amount of the year 1790 
 was nearly the average value of the living. 
 She said she thought it was ; and, without 
 speaking to the average of each species of
 
 158 
 
 tkhe, she gave a reason for that opinion^ 
 which I confess made a stronger impres- 
 sion upon my mind than any calculation 
 could have made upon it : She said she 
 believed the amount of the year 1790 to 
 be nearly the average, because she had ma- 
 naged her father's accounts since the year 
 1786 ; and (though the tithes since that 
 time have been taken in kind) she had 
 found little variation in his income from 
 one year to another. My Lords, the an- 
 swer was fair and ingenuous ; and I give 
 credit to it. I am confirmed in the belief 
 that the receipt of this year was very near- 
 ly the average of the living, from a calcu- 
 lation of my own of the probable yearly 
 value; which I shall submit to the con- 
 sideration of your Lordships. (The Bishop 
 gives in his calculation.) My Lords, it is 
 formed upon principles generally recei- 
 ved and followed ; and is independent of
 
 159 
 
 every thing given in evidence on the side 
 of the petition, except the acknowledged 
 quantity of land in the parish, of the dif- 
 ferent sorts — of arable, meadow, ley, enclo- 
 sure, and forest. My Lords, I make the 
 gross annual amount of the rectorial tithes 
 640/. ; the expense of collecting I put at 
 651. ; and having supplied Miss Raye's 
 omissions, — not her perjuries, my Lords ; 
 never shall my tongue brand them, never 
 shall it be silent if I hear them branded, 
 with that odious name, — but having sup- 
 plied her supposed omissions by a mode- 
 rate allowance for taxes, and by taking 
 into the account the trifling payments for 
 tenths and procurations, I raise the annual 
 outgoings to 82/. 7d., which subducted from 
 640/. leaves 557/. 19s. 5d. (say 558/.) for 
 the net annual income. In this valuation, 
 your Lordships will observe, neither the 
 rent of the glebe nor the tithe of wood is
 
 160 
 
 included. Thus, my Lords, thB net in- 
 come, according to mj valuation, is but 
 231, short of the actual net produce of the 
 tithes in the year 1790, as stated by Miss 
 Raye. Of this difference of 23^., so much 
 as 17/. 7d. is owing to the charge I have 
 made against the living for taxes, tenths, 
 and procurations : The remaining dif- 
 ference of 51. 19s. 5d. (say 61.) would be 
 more than made up by adding to my va- 
 luation of the gross produce the annual 
 average of tithe-wood ; which ought to be 
 added, since the account given in evidence 
 of the year 1790 takes in that species of 
 tithe. Now surely, my Lords, from this 
 near agreement of my calculation with the 
 actual receipt of the year 1790, I have 
 some reason to conclude that the receipt 
 of the year 1790 was very nearly the ave- 
 rage of the living ; for my calculation, if 
 it be any thing, is a calculation of average.
 
 161 
 
 " But, my Lords, I said at the beginning 
 that this inquiry into the average, a point 
 upon which the learned counsel against the 
 petition said so much, and, as I thought I 
 perceived, with strong impression upon 
 your Lordships' minds, is really, in my 
 judgment, of no importance ; because, in 
 comparing the present value of the living 
 with the value of it under the circum- 
 stances of the proposed allotment, the pro- 
 duce of the year 1790 ought rather to be 
 made the basis of calculation than the ave- 
 rage value, if the average could be proved 
 to have been greatly short of the amount 
 of that year. My Lords, I shall in very 
 few words show upon what ground I ad- 
 vance what may seem so singular a notion. 
 My Lords, the acknowledged expected ef- 
 fect of the enclosure will be ^ rapid improve- 
 ment of the cultivation of the whole parish, 
 consequently a rapid improvement of the 
 
 L
 
 16^ 
 
 living, were the lands to continue subject 
 to the payment of tithes in kind. And iii 
 another way, the enclosure will greatly ad- 
 vance the value of the rector's tithes ; be- 
 cause, as your Lordships well know, more 
 land will come under that cultivation which 
 yields its whole tithe to the rectcj', and 
 less will continue in that cultivation which 
 yields a moiety of its tithes to the impro- 
 priator. For both these reasons, my Lords, 
 the value of the living is from this moment 
 in a state of rapid growth ; and whatever 
 the average ma;y have been of former years, 
 I think it never could again (except in sea- 
 sons of extraordinary scarcity) produce so 
 little, were the tithes to be taken in kind, 
 as it produced in the year 1790. I con- 
 sider the value of that year as the minimum 
 of all years from that time forward, though 
 it should exceed the average of years past ; 
 and the rector takes no imdue advantage, —
 
 163 
 
 he gives all the advantage that he ought to 
 give — more than might in justice be de- 
 manded of him, — when he takes that year 
 for the basis of his calculation. Will it be 
 asked, why is no account taken of the later 
 year, of the year 1791 ? My Lords, it has 
 appeared in evidence that 1791 was an ex- 
 cessive year ; it was rendered excessive by 
 the expectation of immediate enclosure: 
 And it is an argument of fair dealing on the 
 rector's side, that he has not attempted to 
 avail himself of the vast profit of that year 
 to enhance his claim. 
 
 " My Lords, I have gone through every 
 point of my argument : Before I sit down " 
 
 (Here the Mace entered the room, and 
 
 required the attendance of the Peers in 
 Westminster Hall. What the Bishop was 
 going to say was of no great consequence. 
 The Committee adjourned to the next day, 
 Wednesday May 23d.)
 
 164 
 
 The Bishop was heard through the whole of this long 
 speech with the greatest marks of favour and attention. 
 Whenever he attempted to apologize for the length of it, 
 or for the delay that he often made by referring to the 
 minutes of the evidence, he was always encouraged by the 
 general and eager cry of " Hear, hear ! " The Bishop obser- 
 ved, while he was speaking, that his argument was careful- 
 ly minuted hy a noble viscount, whose family connexions 
 might be supposed not to incline him to favour the petition. 
 The Bishop observed that every unguarded expression that 
 fell from him, such as fall from every speaker in the fe- 
 ver of debate, was marked and minuted by the noble vis- 
 count. In short, it was evident to the Bishop himself, and, 
 as he thought, to the whole Committee, that it Avas from 
 that noble viscount, if from any noble lord, that the Bishop 
 was to expect a reply ; and, considering the great abilities 
 and the habits of that noble viscount in Parliamentary de- 
 bate, upon all subjects, the Bishop did expect the strongest 
 reply that an argument so impugnable as he conceived his 
 own to be in all its points could receive. The appearance 
 of the Mace in the committee-room, as has been mentioned, 
 stopped the Bishop abruptly, and of consequence prevented 
 ihe opportunity of a reply on that day. The next day, Wed- 
 nesday the 23d, when the Committee met according to ad- 
 journment, after some short speeches upon the question 
 of consent, from the Bishops of Bangor, Peterborough, and 
 St David's, the noble viscount from whom the Bishop of St 
 David's expected an answer to his argument upon the evi- 
 dence, rose in his place, and said — " My Lords, I do not 
 rise to speak ; I rise to make a proposal." His Lordship 
 then made a proposal of compromise in the name of Mr 
 Hatton, and sat down. The Committee approved of the
 
 165 
 
 oroposal ; and the Bishop of St David's was asked if he 
 would recommend the terms to Miss Ilaye, who was under- 
 stood to be intrusted by her father with the entire manage- 
 ment of the business. The Bishop of St David's, seeing 
 little hope of success in any farther opposition to the bill, 
 after a proposal had been made which received the appro- 
 bation of so numerous a Committee that it might seem al- 
 most equivalent to the approbation of the whole House, 
 (the Bishop of the diocese himself being in that Committee, 
 and concurring warmly in that approbation), took it upon 
 him to recommend the proposed accommodation ; though 
 his own opinion remained then (and remained to the last) 
 unchanged with respect to the value of the living ; and the 
 tei'ms offered, though very liberal as referring to the allot- 
 ment, were far short of an equivalent for the tithes in kind. 
 One great motive with the Bishop to close with the pro- 
 posal was, that it left him in possession of an undisputed 
 victory upon the interesting question of a most deserving 
 young woman's character, most unjustly and injuriously im- 
 peached. Not a syllable had been said in reply to the 
 Bishop's defence of her evidence ; not a syllable could be 
 said if the compromise took place, — the noble viscount who 
 proposed it having by this very measure (if it took effect) 
 deprived himself of any future opportunity of the reply that 
 was expected from liim. Under these circumstances, the 
 Bishop of St David's strongly recommended the acceptance 
 of the offered terms. It was not witliout difficulty that Miss 
 Raye was persuaded ; she insisted to the last, and with great 
 reason, that the terms of ihe proposal were far short of the 
 value of the tithes in kind. She yielded however to the 
 advice and entreaties of her two friends the Bishop of St 
 David's and the Reverend Mr Graham ; who both urged,
 
 166 
 
 that the acceptance of the proposal was, in the actual pos- 
 ture of affairs, the best thing to be done for her father's in- 
 terests, and for the living ; and that her character was se- 
 cured against all malicious insinuations, by the manner and 
 the moment in which the proposal came from Mr Hatton's 
 friends. The manner, the moment, and the substance of 
 the proposal, made it indeed equivalent to a confession, that 
 the Bishop's defence of her evidence was unanswerable, and 
 that the bare value of the allotment would be an inade- 
 quate compensation for the tithes in kind.
 
 ON THE THIRD READING OF THE 
 TREASON BILL; 
 
 NovEMBEji 30, 1795. 
 
 On Friday the 6th of November 1795, 
 Lord Grenville brought in a bill entitled 
 " a bill to prevent seditious and treason- 
 able practices." The bill originated in a 
 daring attack which had been made on 
 the King, in his way to the Parliament- 
 House, on Thursdg-y the 29th of October. 
 During the time the clauses of the bill 
 were agitated in a committee, some very 
 warm and personal debates took place. In 
 one of these, Dr Horsley (now Bishop of 
 Rochester) supported the measure ; and 
 insisted, in the course of his argument,
 
 168 
 
 that " all that the people had to do with 
 the laws of the country was to obey them." 
 This was very warmly taken up by Lord 
 Lauderdale ; who said, he should not 
 have been surprised at such an expression 
 from an Eastern mufti, — but that it should 
 fall from an English bishop, astonished 
 him beyond measure. In reply to this, 
 the Bishop, on the third reading of the 
 bill, 13th November 1795, rose and said, 
 
 " MY LORDS, 
 
 The sentiment which fell from 
 me, in a former night's debate, which has 
 excited such a fever in the mind of the 
 noble earl, and has drawn forth such a 
 torrent of his eloquence, I uttered upon 
 the gravest deliberation, and with the stea- 
 diest conviction of my mind ; and I never 
 shall retract it. My Lords, I am sensible 
 that it is perfectly disorderly to allude to
 
 169 
 
 any thing that passed In a former debate ; 
 and I should not have done it, had not the 
 noble earl compelled me to this irregu- 
 larity : But when any of your Lordships 
 is thus attacked, he generally meets with 
 the indulgence of the House, if, in his own 
 defence, he transgresses the strict rule of 
 order. My Lords, a turn was given to 
 my expressions, at the time, as if I had 
 delivered that maxim professing at the 
 same time to be little acquainted with the 
 laws of my country. My Lords, I made no 
 such profession : I never meant to impute 
 that ignorance to myself, whatever other 
 noble lords may impute to me. I avowed 
 only an ignorance of those technical parts 
 of the law in which none but lawyers by 
 profession can be learned, and in which it 
 is no disgrace to any man that is not a 
 lawyer by profession to be unlearned. This 
 avowal of my ignorance was made in sta-
 
 170 
 
 ting to your Lordships, as I thought it my 
 duty to state, the wide diiFerence of my 
 opinion, concerning the second clause of 
 this bill, from the opinions that were ad- 
 vanced by a noble and a learned lord* 
 whom I am proud to call my friend. My 
 Lords, it was painful to me at the time to 
 express my dissent from his opinions, be- 
 cause he was absent ; and I thank the 
 noble earl who has given me the oppor- 
 tunity, now that my noble friend is in his 
 place, to repeat my objections to his argu- 
 ment. My Lords, I said that the only 
 point of argument I could perceive in my 
 noble and learned friend's objections to the 
 provisions of the bill w^as this, — that the 
 bill applies the punishment of felony to 
 crimes not felonious. I said, my Lords, 
 that this seemed to me a technical objecr 
 
 * Lord TnuRi.ow.
 
 171 
 
 tion, of which perhaps " I was not lawyer 
 enough to perceive the force."* I observed, 
 that those punishments were not appHed 
 by the bill to crimes of simple misdemea- 
 nour, except upon the accumulation of the 
 crime by a repetition of it : That it satis- 
 fied my mind concerning the justice of the 
 bill, that the punishments w^ere no more 
 than were proportioned to the natural tur- 
 pitude and malignity of the crimes,' — which 
 seemed to me the true measure of punish- 
 ment ; whereas the noble and learned lord 
 had argued as if punishment were rather to 
 be adjusted to the technical denominations 
 of crime. The force of that argument, I 
 said, I was perhaps not enough of a law- 
 yer to perceive. This, my Lords, was all 
 the ignorance I took to myself 
 
 " My Lords, the noble earl, who took 
 fire at my assertion that " individuals have 
 nothing ta/do with the laws l)ut to obey
 
 172 
 
 them," said, that " mdividuals ought not 
 only to obey the laws, but to study them." 
 My Lords, the noble earl said well : It is 
 the duty of individuals to study the laws, 
 that they may shape their conduct by 
 them : It is the duty of every one who 
 holds a place in this legislative assembly, 
 to study them more particularly ; that he 
 may have a full comprehension of the 
 whole system of our laws, a knowledge 
 of the relation of one part to another, 
 and of the general spirit of the whole ; 
 that he may be competent to judge of 
 the legality of public measures — of the 
 consistency or the inconsistency of new 
 laws proposed with the laws already sub- 
 sisting. My Lords, this study of the laws 
 of my country I have not neglected. I, 
 should be unworthy of the place I hold 
 in this assembly, I should be ashamed to 
 rise before your Lordships, with a con-
 
 173 
 
 sciousness upon my mind of an ignorance 
 upon this subject. Not affecting any such 
 ignorance,— not putting myself in this 
 branch of knowledge below the level of 
 any noble lord who has not studied law as 
 a lawyer by profession, — certainly not put- 
 ting myself below the level of the noble 
 duke^ who thought fit to impute this igno- 
 rance to me, — affecting no such ignorance, 
 but assuming and arrogating to myself all 
 that knowledge of the laws which becomes 
 the station I have the honour to hold, — I 
 repeat, under the restrictions with which 
 at the first I qualified the assertion. With 
 the exception of such laws as may have a 
 bearing upon the particular interests of 
 certain persons or bodies of men, who 
 have undoubtedly a right to discuss such 
 laws — to meet for the purpose of consider- 
 
 * Duke of Bedford.
 
 174 
 
 iiig such laws pending or existing — ^to use 
 all decent freedom of speech in such dis- 
 cussions — to petition to stop the progress 
 of any such law pending, or to obtain the 
 repeal of any such law existing, which may 
 be to them a grievance (and, my Lords, I 
 take the word " o-rievance" in a large sense 
 to signify even inconvenience), — my Lords, 
 with this restriction, and with the excep- 
 tion of such laws, I repeat the assertion, 
 that " individuals have nothing to do with 
 the laws but to obey them." 
 
 " My Lords, the noble earl said, that 
 this was a maxim better calculated for the 
 meridian of Constantinople than of Lon- 
 don. ]\Iy Lords, those were not the noble 
 earl's expressions : He delivered the senti- 
 ment in other words, — in that vein of plea- 
 santry in which the noble earl so much ex- 
 cels ; and I heard it with a high relish of 
 the wit, though it fell upon myself He
 
 175 
 
 said it was a doctrine that would have 
 come with better grace from the lips of 
 the Mufti than from the mouth of an Eng- 
 lish prelate. My Lords, the noble earl is 
 mistaken ; the maxim is not calculated 
 for the meridian of Constantinople : The 
 miserable inhabitants under that dismal 
 sky have no lazv, my Lords, to study or to 
 obey ; they have only to obey the change^ 
 able will, caprice, or whim, of their tyrant. 
 My Lords, it is a maxim not calculated for 
 the meridian of Geneva, or of any other 
 turbulent democracy : In such govern- 
 ments, the people have only to obey the 
 uncertain veering humour of popular as- 
 semblies. But in this country, my Lords^ 
 where the rule of conduct lies certain and 
 defined in the letter of the statute-book, 
 and in recorded customs and adjudged 
 cases, an equal rule to all, liable to no 
 sudden change or perversion — to no par-
 
 176 
 
 tial application from the passion or jthe 
 humour of the moment, — in a country thus 
 blessed, the individual subject, with the re- 
 strictions that I have stated, " has nothing 
 to do with the laws but to obey them." 
 My Lords, it is a maxim which I ever will 
 maintain, — I will maintain it to the deaths 
 -—I will maintain it under the axe of the 
 guillotine^ if, through any insufficiency of 
 the measures which may now be taken, the 
 time should ever come when the prelates 
 and nobles of this land must stoop their 
 necks to that engine of democratic ty- 
 ranny. 
 
 " My Lords, I have heard nothing this 
 night to alter my opinion concerning the 
 expediency and justice of the bill before us. 
 I have heard that it creates new crimes : 
 But, my Lords, when this is said, the dis- 
 tinction seems not to be taken between 
 creating new crimes and applying new pu-
 
 177 
 
 nishments to old ones. My Lords, this is the 
 effect of this bill, — it applies new punish- 
 ments to such things only as by the exist- 
 ing laws are highly criminal. But it is 
 said, and it has been said upon an autho- 
 rity which I ever must revere — upon the 
 authority of my noble and learned friend, 
 from whom I never differ upon such sub- 
 jects without fear and trembling for the 
 frailty of my own judgment (I differ from 
 him with the more reluctance upon this oc- 
 casion, because I know his zeal for the ge- 
 neral good order of society : I know that 
 neither I nor any of your Lordships can 
 go beyond him in the warmth of his at- 
 tachment to his King and to the constitu- 
 tion of his country), — it has been said, my 
 Lords, upon his great authority, that the 
 penalties of the laws, as they already stand, 
 are sufficient for the coercion of such crimes. 
 JVIy Lords, how stands the fact ? Has not
 
 178 
 
 the experiment been made? Have not 
 the existing laws, in many recent instan- 
 ces, been put in execution? What has 
 been the effect ? — A pubhsher of a sedi- 
 tious pamphlet is imprisoned ; and he lives 
 at ease in his prison, amassing wealth from 
 the profits of the publication for which he 
 was imprisoned — from the sale of it in- 
 creased by the very circumstance of his 
 imprisonment. " Set him in the pillory." 
 The pillory ! The pillory, my Lords, ap- 
 plied as a punishment for such crimes, is 
 the stepping-stone to glory : Ever since 
 Williams mounted it, the printer of the 
 " North Briton," it has been the post of 
 honour. 
 
 " My Lords, it is with astonishment I 
 have heard it said, that the various sedi- 
 tious and blasphemous publications of the 
 present day are not likely to produce mis- 
 chief My Lords, what are the springs of
 
 179 
 
 human actions ? Have the opinions of men 
 no influence upon their actions ? — not 
 their speculative opinions upon mere ab- 
 stract subjects, but their opinions in mo- 
 rals, religion, and politics, — have these no 
 influence on their actions ? Have these 
 publications no tendency to spread opi- 
 jiions? Are they not circulated for that 
 purpose, with great industry, and with too 
 sensible an effect? Have not the minds 
 of the common people been turned by 
 such publications to subjects to which it 
 had been better if their minds never had 
 been turned? Have they not been poi- 
 soned with false and pernicious notions? 
 And has not a great change in the de- 
 meanour of the lower orders actually been 
 produced ? 
 
 " My Lords, in the length of this argu- 
 ment, 1 had almost forgotten to take no- 
 tice of what dropped from the noble eai'I,
 
 180 
 
 relating to some supposed transaction o£ 
 my former life. He has told your Lord- 
 ships that I was once present at a meeting 
 for reform in the borough of Southwark. 
 My Lords, I cannot conceive to what the 
 noble carl alludes: I hope he will have 
 the candour to assist my recollection, by 
 specifying occasion, time, and place. I can- 
 not recollect that I was ever in my life 
 present at a meeting for reform in the bo- 
 rough of Southwark, or anywhere else. I 
 have never been a great frequenter of pub- 
 lic meetings of any kind ; except that late- 
 ly I have attended, and taken an active part, 
 at meetings in my own county, to consider 
 of measures for alleviating the distresses of 
 the poor. I well recollect, that some years 
 since, when I was a private clergyman, and 
 rector of Newington, I attended an elec- 
 tion-meeting in Southwark. The noble 
 earl will probably think that one of the
 
 181 
 
 best actions of my life, when I inform him, 
 that it was a meeting of freeholders of 
 Surry, who wished to promote an opposi- 
 tion, at a general election, to a candidate 
 who was supposed to have at that time 
 the favour of the Court. But that was 
 no meeting for reform, but an election- 
 meeting ; and I cannot recollect that I 
 was ever present at any other public meet- 
 ing, of any sort, in the borough of South- 
 wark. If the noble earl can by any circum- 
 stances bring it to my recollection that I 
 ever was, I will not attempt to dissemble 
 the fact : There have been few actions of 
 my life that I wish to be concealed." 
 
 The Duke of Bedford rose, and said, 
 that he was reconciled to the Bishop's doc- 
 trine, that " individuals had nothins; to do 
 with the laws but to obey them," as he 
 had now qualified it : That, had the Bisliop 
 stated it in the same unqualified manner as
 
 182 
 
 before, he should have moved to have the 
 words taken down; and would have taken 
 the sense of the House upon them ; He 
 should have thought, in that case, the re- 
 verend prelate had deserved the " stepping- 
 stone to glory." 
 
 The Bishop of Rochester rose again, 
 and said, that the noble duke was mistaken 
 if he apprehended that the Bishop now re- 
 tracted any part of what he had before ad- 
 vanced : That he had not in the former 
 debate gone so much at large into the sub- 
 ject, — perhaps he had not expressed him- 
 self so clearly, and the noble duke might 
 not have honoured him with an equal at- 
 tention ; but that in the former debate 
 he had adviinced the assertion under the 
 same express reservations : That he would 
 be the last man to deny the subject's right 
 of petitioning for the redress of grievances j 
 that he knew that right to be a part of the
 
 183 
 
 constitution, and would maintain it with 
 his latest breath." 
 
 The Duke of Bedford again rose, and 
 said, that he now recollected the fact to be as 
 the Bishop stated it : That the Bishop had 
 made the like reservations of the general 
 maxim when he first asserted it ; and iiad 
 even alleged the particular instances of 
 the opposition given by the West India 
 merchants to the abolition of the slave- 
 trade, and that of the manufacturers of 
 snufF to the extension of the excise-laws 
 to their trade, as instances of a legal oppo- 
 sition of subjects to pending laws."
 
 ON THE ENGLISH MILITIA GOING 
 TO IRELAND; 
 
 June 19, 1798, 
 
 On the 19th of June 1798, Lord Gren- 
 viLLE laid before the House a message 
 from his Majesty, stating, that several re- 
 giments of mihtia had made a voluntary 
 tender of their services, in aid of the re- 
 gular forces of the kingdom, for suppres- 
 sing the rebellion existing in Ireland ; and 
 the message recommended to the two 
 Houses of Parliament to consider the most 
 effectual means to enable his Majesty to 
 accept, for a time and to an extent to be 
 limited, the services of such militia regi- 
 ments. After presenting the message, his
 
 185 
 
 Lordship moved an address to the King, 
 signifying the readiness of the House to 
 adopt the measure recommended therein. 
 The Earl of Caernarvon moved an amend- 
 ment, avoiding any mention of that par- 
 ticular measure. Upon this the debate 
 was taken ; and the Bishop of Hochester 
 spoke as follows. 
 
 " MY LORDS, 
 
 " I never came to this House 
 with my mind so much embarrassed with 
 doubt and difficulty as upon the present 
 question ; for none has arisen, since I 
 have had the honour to sit in this assembly, 
 in which the collision has been, to my ap- 
 prehension, so stout and difficult, between 
 the reasons for a measure on the one hand, 
 and the objections against it on the other. 
 And the thing proposed still appears to me
 
 186 
 
 so extraordinary, and the crisis so impor- 
 tant, that, unwilling as I am to obtrude 
 myself on your Lordships upon a question 
 of mere secular politics, I cannot persuade 
 myself to give my vote without stating to 
 your Lordships upon what principles my 
 mind, after much doubt and hesitation, is 
 at last resolutely made up to the support 
 of the measure. 
 
 " My Lords, it cannot be denied that 
 the measure, abstractedly considered — con- 
 sidered, I mean, in itself, not as connected 
 with the particular circumstances of the 
 times — is in a high degree unconstitutional: 
 It cannot be denied, that it is diametrical- 
 ly opposite to the spirit and to the express 
 provisions of the militia-laws. These, my 
 Lords, are objections certainly of very great 
 weight. My Lords, the measure proposed 
 must be confessed to be contrary to the 
 very sense and meaning of a militia. A
 
 187 
 
 noble marquis, whom I do not now see in 
 his place, whose opinions upon this sub- 
 ject are entitled to the highest attention, 
 told your Lordships, that the militia is the 
 standing garrison of the island of Great 
 Britain. My Lords, it cannot be more ac- 
 curately described ; and the measure in- 
 tended is to permit a part of this garrison 
 to go out upon a very diiferent service. 
 But then, my Lords, what is the occasion ? 
 Tt is not a question, I believe, with any one 
 o^ your Lordships, that a dangerous Jaco- 
 biiical rebellion is at this moment ra«jinoj 
 in ii-eland. Noble lords have said that 
 the ii formation has not come to us in the 
 proper way, and through the proper chan- 
 nel. Some noble lords would have been 
 better pleased if the information had been 
 brought to the House in such a way as to 
 open more matter of debate — to furnish 
 more topics of invective against his Majes-
 
 188 
 
 tj's Ministers. But, my Lords, however 
 the information may have come, the fact 
 is undisputed ; and the mode of informal 
 tion is a matter of no sort of importance 
 in our deliberations upon the measures to 
 be taken upon the ground of the admitted 
 fact. The fact, the fact disputed by no 
 man, is, that a Jacobinical rebellion rages 
 in Ireland ; and it is proposed to send away 
 a part of our garrison of internal defence 
 to assist in the suppression of the rebellior 
 in that kingdom. Now, my Lords, I can- 
 not in idea separate the safety and preser- 
 vation of the kingdom of Ireland, in feiese 
 circumstances, from the safety and p'eser- 
 vation of Great Britain itself: To protect 
 Ireland, is to protect Great Bi*it?in. My 
 Lords, if this Irish rebellion should be suc- 
 cessful, there will be no sitting for our 
 Sovereign, or not long, upon the throne of 
 Great Britain ; there will be no sitting for
 
 189 
 
 your Lordships to deliberate in this House; 
 there will be no rights, no liberties of the 
 people, to maintain — no property of any 
 man to defend : This militia will be kept 
 at home for the defence of nothinp- ; for 
 nothing at home will there be to be de- 
 fended. It has been said that the Enclish 
 farmer enrols himself in the militia, or 
 pays his money for a substitute, conceiving 
 that he is contributing his personal service 
 or his money for the immediate defence 
 and security of his own family, his own 
 granaries, his own stock, his own farm- 
 house : My Lords, I say that if this Irish 
 rebellion is not quashed, the English farm- 
 er will have no farm-house, no granaries, 
 no stock, no family, to be defended ; his 
 family will be butchered, his stock carried 
 off, his granaries burnt, his comfortable 
 mansion will be made a dunghill: The 
 militia, embodied, as it is said, for the
 
 190 
 
 single purpose of his defence, will be able 
 to give him no defence at all. This is 
 my notion of the times. We are under 
 the dominion of that imperious necessi- 
 ty which for the time cancels all consider- 
 ation of the laws provided for ordinary 
 times — leaves no law subsisting, but that 
 sovereign law of the salus populL My 
 Lords, this necessity of quelling the Irish 
 rebellion at any rate, I connect with ano- 
 ther circumstance clearlj proved; and the 
 two together leave no doubt in my mind of 
 the expediency of the measure proposed. 
 The other circumstance is, that the militia 
 is the only force his Majesty can permit to 
 go upon this service, consistently with our 
 internal security. This appears from the 
 statement that has been made to the House 
 by the noble Secretary of State ; and his 
 statement I regard as the best evidence 
 to be had to that fact. Some noble lords,
 
 191 
 
 I know, will not agree with me in this. 
 But, my Lords, the noble Secretary of 
 State, by his official situation, possesses the 
 best information upon that point. He has 
 entered, I think, as much into the detail as 
 the responsibility of his situation would 
 permit. If he has misled me by a false 
 statement, he must have wilfully misstated. 
 If I conceived him capable of a wilful mis- 
 statement, I should think him unfit for his 
 situation, and should join the band of his 
 opponents : But as long as I think other- 
 wise of him — as long as I think him fit 
 for the station that he holds, I must cre- 
 dit his evidence upon this fact, as the 
 best to be hack And, connecting the two 
 facts, that a dangerous rebellion subsists in 
 Ireland, and that a part of the militia is 
 the force that can best be spared for the 
 assistance of Ireland, I must support the 
 present measure. My Lords, were noble
 
 192 
 
 lords m earnest^ when thej said that bj 
 this measure Parliament would break its 
 faith with the people ? Mj Lords, I do not 
 deny, that such acts of Parliament as the 
 militia-laws, are, in a certain sense and to 
 a certain degree, contracts between the go- 
 vernment and the subject : But, my Lords, 
 I do maintain that the first of all con- 
 tracts between any government and the 
 subject is the preservation of the constitu- 
 tion, of the independence of the state, 
 and the liberties of the people : This is 
 that to which first and most of all tlie faith 
 of government is pledged : This is the 
 first paramount contract ; all other con- 
 tracts are subordinate to this, and must 
 give way to it ; all the ordinary opera- 
 tions of the laws must be suspended, when 
 that great article of public faith the con- 
 servation of the public safety cannot be 
 kept without the infringement of them.
 
 193 
 
 My Lords, we are at this moment under 
 that necessity, — a necessity which from 
 time to time has arisen in all governments ; 
 and under it all governments resort to some 
 extraordinary means of preservation. All 
 the different ways that may be taken may 
 be reduced, I think, to two general divi- 
 sions. The one is that method which a 
 coarse policy, as I think it, suggested in 
 the ancient democracies ; which was to 
 erect a temporary despotism, — to set up 
 a chief magistrate who should be relea- 
 sed from all the ordinary restrictions of 
 the laws, and have authority to do what- 
 ever his own discretion might advise for 
 averting the danger of the moment. This 
 was what the Roman republic did when 
 it created a dictator, or invested the con- 
 suls with dictatorial powers; whenever the 
 Senate came to the awful vote " Caveant 
 consules ne quid detrimenti respublica cH" 
 
 N
 
 194 
 
 piat." The other, the gentler and the bet- 
 ter way, is that which we now take,^ — that 
 the Legislature itself should by its own 
 act, in times of great danger, suspend those 
 particular restrictions of the laws which fet- 
 ter the executive government in the exer- 
 tions which the crisis may demand. Up-- 
 on these principles, my Lords, I shall agree 
 to the original motion of the noble Secre- 
 tary of State, and vote against the amend* 
 ment offered by the noble earl."
 
 UPON THE BILL TO REGULATE THE SLAVE- 
 TRADE, WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS; 
 
 July 5, 1799. 
 
 A. BILL having been brought into Parha- 
 ment to prohibit the trading in slaves on 
 the coast of Africa within certain limits, 
 the same was debated in a committee on 
 the 5th July 1799; when the Bishop of 
 Rochester supported the bill by the fol- 
 lowing arguments. 
 
 " MY LORDS, 
 
 " I hope I shall not trespass 
 too long upon your time ; as I mean to 
 confine myself, as far as the course the de-
 
 196 
 
 bate has taken will permit, to the narrow 
 limits of the question which is immediate- 
 ly before the House — the bill upon the 
 table ; a subject quite distinct from the 
 general question of abolition. Not, my 
 Lords, that my mind shrinks from the dif- 
 ficulty and magnitude of that general ques- 
 tion : The time, I trust, is at no great dis- 
 tance, when I shall rise before your. Lord- 
 ships to arraign the injustice and impolicy 
 pf that nefarious traffick ; — injustice, my 
 Lords, which no considerations of policy- 
 can extenuate; impolicy, equal in degree 
 to the injustice. And, my Lords, I shall 
 not be deterred from going openly into 
 this discussion, from the danger supposed 
 to attend the measure, and the very agita- 
 tion of the question, at this season, arising 
 from the particular complexion of the 
 times. I knovy well, my Lords, that the 
 advocates for the slave-trade have, long
 
 197 
 
 endeavoured to represent the project of 
 abolition as a branch of Jacobinism ; with 
 which, my Lords, it is no more connected 
 than it is with the religion of the Persees. 
 My Lords, we who contend for the abo- 
 lition proceed upon no visionary notions 
 of equality and imprescriptible rights of 
 men ; we strenuously uphold the gra- 
 dations of civil society : But we do in- 
 deed, my Lords, aifirm, that those grada- 
 tions both ways, both ascending and de- 
 scending, are limited. There is an exor- 
 bitance of power to which no good king 
 will aspire ; and there is an extreme con- 
 dition of subjection to which man cannot 
 without injustice be degraded ; and this, 
 we say, is the condition of the African 
 carried away into slavery. But, my Lords, 
 as to any danger attending the measure of 
 abolition at this particular season, I shall 
 contend, when that question comes before
 
 198 
 
 you, that the danger is all on the other 
 side ; that the present times imperiously 
 demand the abolition ; that the continu- 
 ance of the slave-trade threatens new and 
 increased dangers to civil society ; and that 
 the continuance of it, rather than the abo- 
 lition, is to be dreaded, as a probable means 
 of setting a new edge upon the reeking 
 knife of St Domingo. 
 
 " But, my Lords, this is not to the pre-i 
 sent purpose ; the question of abolition is 
 not before you : The present bill is only 
 to abolish the trade upon a certain portion 
 of that coast on the whole of which it is 
 at present exercised ; in order to remove 
 certain obstacles which the slave-trade car- 
 ried on upon that part of the coast throws 
 in the way of the colony of Sierra Leone. 
 My Lords, the part of the coast upon 
 which the bill prohibits the trade is de- 
 scribed to be that which lies west of a line
 
 199 
 
 drawn due nortli from the southernmost 
 part of Cape Palmas. Cape Pahnas, your 
 Lordships know, is a point upon the coast 
 of Africa, where the Grain Coast on the 
 west and the Tooth Coast on the east meet 
 in an angle. It Hes in the latitude of five 
 degrees, at least above four and a half de- 
 grees, north ; and, as the coast is laid down 
 by D'Anville, as nearly as may be under 
 the meridian of Gibraltar ; but, according 
 to the new map made by Major Rennell 
 from Mr Park's Travels, it lies about two 
 and a half degrees west of the meridian of 
 Gibraltar ; and of course, the line drawn 
 due north from this Cape strikes into the 
 ocean again a very little to the north of 
 Cape Blanco.* This bill therefore, my 
 
 * Not that Cape Blanco which is generally considered as 
 the northernmost limit of the British slave-trade ; but ano- 
 ther, much farther to the north, upon the coast of Fez, and 
 jiearly upon the parallel of the island of Porto Santo.
 
 200 
 
 Lords, goes to prohibit the trade complete- 
 ly upon the whole of what is called the 
 Windward Coast. I believe that the ex- 
 tent of the coast which the bill will cut off 
 was fairly enough stated, by the witnesses 
 against the bill, to be three hundred leagues 
 or more, and to make about one third of 
 the whole coast on which British ships ex- 
 ercise the trade. 
 
 " But, my Lords, we are not to conclude 
 that this bill, interdicting the trade on one 
 third of the w^hole extent of coast, goes to 
 extinguish one third part of the trade ; it 
 is no such thing, my Lords: The propor- 
 tion of the trade that will be abolished by 
 tliis bill will be very inconsiderable indeed, 
 — -I believe, indeed, nothing; for, my Lords, 
 though the prohibited district is one third 
 part of the whole, the proportion of slaves 
 from this part of the coast is very small 
 indeed.
 
 201 
 
 " Mr Olderman told your Lordships, 
 that before the war it was one third part of 
 the whole ; Mr Branker said that it was 
 about one foui'th part : But now, my Lords, 
 at the present, it is so reduced as to be 
 not more than one twentieth part. Mr 
 Branker says, the whole number of slaves 
 now exported in a year from the coast of 
 Africa is fifty-six or fifty-seven thousand ; 
 and that of these, not more than four thou- 
 sand are taken from the Windward Coast : 
 Afterwards, I think, he came down to three 
 thousand as the number from the Wind- 
 ward Coast ; and by putting together all the 
 evidence, — I shall not argue over again in 
 detail what has been so clearly stated by 
 the noble Secretary of State ; but putting 
 all the evidence together, there is no rea- 
 son to think that the number now taken 
 from the Windward Coast in the year is 
 more than two thousand : However, my
 
 202 
 
 Lords, I will take it at three thousand, the^ 
 mean between Mr Branker's greatest num- 
 ber and my least ; and then your Lord- 
 ships see, the total being by Mr Branker's 
 evidence fifty-six or fifty-seven thousand, 
 the share of the Windward Coast will be 
 very nearly one twentieth. One twentieth 
 therefore, my Lords, is the utmost propor- 
 tion of the trade which this bill will abo- 
 lish. But, my Lords, I say it will not do 
 so much as that ; it will not abolish an 
 atom of the general trade. 
 
 " The witnesses have said that the re- 
 duction of the trade upon the Windward 
 Coast has been owing to the war. I do 
 not believe it : There are many facts, in 
 the comparison of the slave-trade of this 
 country with that of other nations, which 
 prove that the war can have had no such 
 operation. But, my Lords, from some 
 cause or other, and I care not from what.
 
 203 
 
 the trade upon the Windward Coast has 
 been reduced ahnost to nothing. But, my 
 Lords, it appears from the evidence (from 
 the evidence against the bill ; for upon that 
 I build my whole argument), that, whilst 
 the trade has been thus sinking upon the 
 Windward Coast, it has been growing upon 
 the Leeward ; for the whole annual num- 
 ber of fifty-six or fifty-seven thousand very 
 greatly exceeds the total of the annual ex- 
 port before the reduction on the Windward 
 Coast. Now, my Lords, since I find in fact, 
 that the reduction upon the Windward Coast, 
 from whatever cause it has proceeded, has 
 been accompanied with such an increase of 
 the trade in the other part as has vastl}^ 
 overbalanced the deficit from that reduc- 
 tion, — have I not a right to conclude, that 
 any farther diminution which may be pror 
 duced to. windward by this bill will be more 
 than overpaid by an increase upon tlie un-.
 
 204 
 
 prohibited parts; and so the total of the 
 trade will remain at least undiminished ? 
 My liOrds, if this be a just conclusion,-— and 
 I am sure it is the just and necessary con- 
 clusion from the evidence, — if any policy 
 — the contrary is my opinion ; but if any po- 
 licy persuade the continuance of the trade, 
 there is nothing in this bill contrary to 
 such policy ; for this bill leaves the trade, 
 in its generality, such as it finds it. 
 
 " My Lords, if any humanity calls for 
 the continuance of the trade (for such an 
 argument has been attempted), this bill 
 cramps not the generous efforts of that hu- 
 manity ; for not a slave less, , upon the 
 whole, will be taken in the year from one 
 part or another of Africa. 
 
 " My Lords, I heard with joy and satis- 
 faction the statement, made by great au- 
 thority, of the prosperity of the West India 
 Islands : I rejoice that the empire posses-
 
 205 
 
 ses such a fund of wealth in that quarter. 
 But, my Lords, if the prosperity of the 
 West India Islands is at all. connected with 
 the slave-trade, — if it depends upon the 
 numbers annually exported from Africa, — 
 it will not be in the smallest degree endan- 
 gered by this bill ; by which the slave-t^c de 
 will not be affected, the numbers will not 
 be abridged. And so the West India plant- 
 ers themselves seem to think, by the per- 
 fect indifference they have shown about 
 this bill. Do your Lordships imagine you 
 liave had the great body of West India 
 planters at your bar, petitioning against 
 the bill ? — No such thing, my Lords. -We 
 had something like a petition from the 
 single island of Jamaica : The gentleman 
 residing here in the character of agent for 
 that island presented a petition against the 
 bill. A learned counsel appeared for that 
 petition at the bar, and he produced wit-
 
 250 
 
 liesses : And much was I astouished at Xhe 
 sort of witnesses he produced, — I was quite 
 puzzled with it. Three witnesses were 
 called. The first was a gentleman who 
 told your Lordships he had resided in Ja- 
 maica twenty years : He had an estate of 
 his own ; and he managed some other 
 estates : For his own estate, he had pur-^- 
 chased, in the twenty years, two hundred 
 slaves in all ; and of these two hundred, 
 eleven were purchased as slaves from the 
 Windward Coast ; but he was cheated in 
 two of them, for two of the eleven turned 
 out not to be from the Windward Coast : 
 He had therefore purchased in all, in the 
 space of twenty years, nine slaves from 
 the Windward Coast, and no more. This 
 seemed to me an extraordinary evidence to 
 prove the importance of the import from 
 the Windward Coast to the island of Ja- 
 maica. The second of the three witnesses
 
 207 
 
 iiad resided some time in Jamaica^ not as Hl 
 planter, but as a merchant : He had re^ 
 sided in that part of the island where he 
 had the least opportunity of acquiring any 
 knowledge of the import ; for he resided 
 in the north part of the island : He had 
 been concerned in the sale of three car- 
 goes, and no more ; and from what part of 
 the coast of Africa the slaves sent to Ja- 
 maica might come, or what proportion 
 might come from the Windward Coast, he 
 told your Lordships plainly he knew no-* 
 thing. The last witness of the tliree was 
 called only to prove the present average 
 price of a prime slave in the island of Ja- 
 maica ; and he was not asked a single 
 question about the import. 
 
 " My Lords, I was very much astonish- 
 ed at this sort of evidence. One witness 
 proved that the proportion of Windward 
 slaves purchased by him was next to no-
 
 208 
 
 thing ; and a second could give your Lord- 
 ships no information at all upon the sub- 
 ject of the import ; and the third was not 
 called to that point. I very much suspect- 
 ed some mystery lay at the bottom of this. 
 My Lords, the mystery was soon cleared 
 up, when the log-books were exhibited; 
 for by them it appears that the slaves from 
 the Windward Coast in general are not 
 carried to Jamaica, but to other islands 5 
 and one of the slave-captains, when he 
 spoke of the preference given to the Wind- 
 ward Coast slaves, excepted the island of 
 Jamaica, — where, he said, the slaves from 
 Bonney are preferred. My Lords, they are 
 so much preferred, that the Jamaica plant- 
 ers refuse the Windward Coast cargoes ; 
 they will not take slaves from the Wind- 
 ward, if they can procure those of another 
 part. The island of Jamaica, therefore, 
 ie not at all interested in the event of this
 
 209 
 
 bill, since the trade which it will cut off 
 makes no part of the supply of that island ; 
 and yet this island of Jamaica, which can- 
 not in any way be aflfected by the bill, is 
 the only one of the West India Islands 
 that has petitioned against it. My Lords, 
 I have a right to conclude, that the great 
 body of the West India planters are not 
 adverse to this bill ; and if they are not 
 adverse to it, it must be because they are 
 sensible that their supply will not be di- 
 minished by it. 
 
 " Then, my Lords, for the good town of 
 Liverpool, — if the prosperity of Liverpool 
 depends upon the slave-trade, it will not 
 be affected by this bill ; which will leave 
 the slave-trade, in its total amount, just as 
 it found it. 
 
 " But your Lordships have been told 
 that this bill, professing only to abolish 
 the trade within certain limits, in effect 
 

 
 ^10 
 
 will destroy the whole trade, by the dif-^ 
 ficulties which will be laid upon it ; for 
 it is pretended, that ships cannot trade 
 even to the Leeward Coast without taking 
 in provisions upon the Windward Coast. 
 My Lords, the answer is very short and 
 very plain : I shall state it very briefly ; 
 for it has been well stated in detail by the 
 noble Secretary of State. The answer is, 
 my Lords, first, that if the allegation were 
 true, that provisions must be taken in up- 
 on the Windward Coast, this bill forbids 
 not but that any ship may stop upon the 
 Windward Coast for the purpose of taking 
 in provisions ; but, secondly, my Lords, the 
 allegation, though made by witnesses upon 
 oath, is false — absolutely false, my Lords : 
 The oaths of these witnesses are falsified 
 by the deposition of the log-books. A 
 ship^s log-book, your Lordships know, is 
 the authentic record of the occurrences
 
 211 
 
 of her voyage, which must bear down all 
 other evidence ; and by the log-books up- 
 on the table, or rather by an extract from 
 the log-books, given in by consent by the 
 counsel on both sides, it appears, that out 
 of one hundred ships which sailed from the 
 port of Liverpool to the Leeward Coast 
 in the years 1791 and 1797, one ship only 
 — yes, my Lords — one ship only out of one 
 hundred took in provisions upon the Wind- 
 ward Coast. 
 
 " So much for that part of the case. 
 Again, it is pretended, that the bill prohi- 
 bits the trade in that part where it may be 
 prosecuted with the greatest advantage ; 
 that the tirrie of the voyage from the Wind- 
 ward Coast to the west is shorter in a very 
 great proportion than the time of the pas- 
 sage from the Leeward Coast ; and that, in 
 consequence of the brevity of the voyage.
 
 212 
 
 the mortality is less and the slaves arrive 
 in better health. This, my Lords, would 
 be a consideration of great importance, 
 were it true ; but it is all pretence and 
 fiction^ My Lords, in exposing the false- 
 hood, I shall not avail myself in argument 
 of the vile deception which these witnes- 
 ses upon oath audaciously attempted to 
 practise upon this House, by smuggling 
 the time of the tedious delay upon the 
 Windward Coast to collect the cargoes* 
 The cargoes are not collected but in a long 
 time upon the Windward, — upon the Lee- 
 ward Coast they are completed presently j 
 and when the time of detention upon the 
 coast is added to the time of the Middle 
 Passage, the voyage from the Windward 
 turns out to be the longest of the two ; and 
 if the quickest voyages are the most heal- 
 thy, the voyages from the Leeward, as the
 
 213 
 
 noble Secretary of State most justly argued, 
 ought to be the healthiest. But, my Lords 
 I wave this : I will take the comparative 
 length of the voyage (I mean the length in 
 time) as they themselves have stated it ; 
 and I will show your Lordships, that this 
 pretended healthiness of the passage from 
 the Windward Coast is all a fallacy. My 
 Lords, I assert, — confidently and hardily I 
 make the assertion, and I challenge con- 
 futation ; let any one who will take the 
 trouble to follow me in the calculations 
 upon which I am about to enter confute me 
 if he can, — I do assert, my Lords, that the 
 very healthiest of their ships are nothing 
 better than pestilential gaols ! I assert, 
 that in the healthiest of their ships, upon 
 their shortest passages, the rate of morta- 
 lity is enormous — the waste of human life 
 prodigious, monstrous, shocking to the
 
 214 
 
 imagination ! This, my Lords, I assert ; 
 and I will prove my assertion by their own 
 statements. 
 
 " My Lords, Mr Robert Hume made 
 several voyages from different parts of the 
 coast of Africa to the West Indies ; and 
 he has given his account, upon his oath, 
 of the time of each voyage, the total of his 
 cargo, and the number of the deaths in 
 each. My Lords, in the year 1792, Mr 
 Robert Hume made a voyage from the 
 Windward Coast to Jamaica. He made 
 it in thirty-tliree days ; he shipped upon 
 the coast of Africa two hundred and sixty- 
 five slaves ; and twenty-three died in the 
 Middle Passage. Twenty-three, my Lords, 
 out of two hundred and sixty-five, in thirty- 
 three days. Thirty-three days are, as near- 
 ly as may • e, one eleventh of a year ; and 
 eleven times twenty-three is two hundred
 
 215 
 
 9,nd fifty-three ; and this would have been 
 his loss by death, had the passage lasted a 
 whole year, — two hundred and fifty-three 
 out of two hundred and sixty-five : The 
 man would have lost within a very few of 
 his whole cargo. 
 
 " Now, my Lords, your Lordships know, 
 that the importation of slaves above the 
 age of twenty-five is prohibited, in the West 
 Indies, by the colonial laws. I must there- 
 fore assume, that this cargo of Mr Robert 
 Hume's, and other cargoes which I shall 
 have occasion to mention, was composed 
 of persons not above the age of twenty-five 
 years. My Lords, in this town of Lon^ 
 don, the rate of mortality, by the most ap- 
 proved tables which all calculators use, is 
 not, at the age of twenty-five, more than 
 seventeen in one thousand in the year : 
 Out of one thousand persons living, of the 
 age of twenty-five, seventeen and no more
 
 216 
 
 die in the town of London in a year ; — in 
 Mr Hume's ship, two hundred and fifty- 
 three, my Lords, out of two hundred and 
 sixty-five.* 
 
 " My Lords, in the year 1795, Mr Ro- 
 bert Hume made a voyage from the Gold 
 Coast to St Vincent's. The mortality was 
 nothing like that of the former voyage : 
 And this is one curious instance, in confir- 
 mation of what was argued by the noble 
 Secretary of State, that, when the deposi- 
 tions of these gentlemen are properly cor- 
 rected, by supplying material circumstances 
 which they, witnesses upon oath, conceal- 
 ed, the voyages from the Leeward Coast 
 turn out to be the healthiest. So it was, 
 ^y Lords, upon the comparison of these 
 
 * Which would be nine hundred and fifty-five out of one 
 thousand. The mortality therefore of this ship was to the 
 mortality of London as nine hundred and fifty-five to seven- 
 teen,- — that is, rather more than as fifty-six to one.
 
 217 
 
 two voyages of Mr Hume, — his voyage to 
 Jamaica in 1792, and this voyage to St Vin- 
 cent's in 1795 : The latter, though from 
 the Leeward Coast, was far the healthiest. 
 And yet, even in this healthier voyage, the 
 rate of mortality was enormous. The car- 
 go consisted of two hundred and fifteen 
 slaves ; the vessel was seven weeks and 
 four days in her passage ; and the deaths 
 in that time, Mr Hume said, were three 
 or four. Three or four died, out of two 
 hundred and fifteen, in seven weeks and 
 four days. Seven weeks and four days 
 make about one seventh of the whole year ; 
 and seven times three or four is twenty-one 
 or twenty-eight ; the mean, in round num- 
 bers, is twenty-four : Twenty-four there- 
 fore would have died out of the two hun- 
 dred and fifteen, if the ship had been the 
 whole year upon tlie Middle Passage:
 
 218 
 
 Twenty-four therefore out of two hundred 
 and fifteen* was the rate of mortahty in 
 this ship ; the rate at London, for person^ 
 of the like age, being only seventeen in 
 one thousand. 
 
 " In the year 1796, Mr Hume made a 
 voyage from Cape Mount to Jamaica, in 
 thirty-one days. His whole cargo was 
 two hundred and thirty j of which one 
 only died in the Middle Passage. One 
 out of two hundred and thirty in thirty-one 
 days ; again, my Lords, an enormous rate 
 of mortality. Take the thirty-one days as 
 a month : Then twelve out of two hun- 
 dred and thirty in the year was the rate 
 
 * Twent3'-fbur out of two hundred and fifteen is at the 
 rate of one hundred and eleven out of one thousand : There- 
 fore the mortahty of this ship was to that of London (at 
 the assumed age of twenty-five ) as one hundred and elevea 
 to seventeen, — or as six and a half to one nearly.
 
 219 
 
 of mortality in this ship; instead of seven- 
 teen out of one thousand, the London 
 rate.* 
 
 " I shall trouble your Lordships with 
 but one instance more ; and that shall be 
 the instance of the ship Plumper of Liver- 
 pool. Your Lordships are already well 
 acquainted with the story of the Plumper. 
 Your Lordships will recollect, — it is in 
 evidence, — that there is a great peculiarity 
 in the negro constitution ; that it is parti- 
 cularly conducive to the health of the ne- 
 gro to be close shut up in foul air. This 
 is death to us white men, as we know by 
 the experiment of the Black-Hole, and 
 other tragical instances ; but for your ne- 
 
 * Twelve out of two hundred and thirty is at the rate of 
 fifty-two nearly out of one thousand : Therefore the mor- 
 tality of this ship was to that of London as fifty-two to 
 seventeen, — that is, rather more than three to one.
 
 220 
 
 gro, it is the reverse : Keep him but hot 
 enough, he will always do well ; and the 
 better, the more you try to stifle him. 
 Now, my Lords, the good ship Plumper 
 was built upon this very principle ; and 
 the extraordinary healthiness of her voyage 
 was alleged as a fact, to evince the folly of 
 the regulations we have made to prevent 
 the negro from being poisoned in the Mid- 
 dle Passage, as we idly fear, in the steams 
 of his own person. In the Plumper, care 
 was taken that the slaves should have no 
 room to stir or breathe : She was a single- 
 decked ship ; and the height in the hold 
 was no more than two feet seven inches : 
 In this vessel, one hundred and forty slaves 
 were stowed ; and of these there died in 
 the passage only two. Two out of one 
 himdred and forty. The time of the 
 passage is not stated in Mr Coxe's ac-
 
 221 
 
 count:* But it appears that the vessel was 
 small, — I think not exceeding eighty-four 
 tons burden, but I am sure under ninety 
 ton if These small vessels, your Lordships 
 know, are not employed in the Leeward 
 Coast trade ; they are sent only to the 
 Windward Coast : I have a right, therefore, 
 to assume, that this small vessel slaved ujv 
 on the Windward Coast ; and I shall deal 
 very fairly by her, if I allow for the time 
 of her Middle Passage what has been stated 
 by the witnesses to be the average time 
 of the Middle Passage from the Windward 
 Coast to the West Indies. Now, my Lords, 
 one of the witnesses, Mr John Olderman, 
 an experienced slave-captain, has told you, 
 that the passage from the Isle de Los to 
 
 * This is a paper given in at the bar, as part of the evi- 
 dence for the petitions against tlie slave-carrying bill ; and 
 K to be found in the printed minutes of that evidencer 
 
 t Eighty-four was the tonnage.
 
 222 
 
 Barbacloes is made in twenty-one or eighteen 
 days, — from the river Gambia to Barba- 
 does, in fifteen days ; but the average of 
 the passage from the Windward Coast to 
 the West Indies, he states at thirty days. 
 Allowing therefore this average time, tliirty 
 days, to the ship Plumper for her Middle 
 Passage, it was in thirty days that two of 
 her slaves died out of one hundred and 
 forty. Two in thirty days, or one month, 
 is twenty-four in the whole year : Twenty- 
 four, therefore, out of one hundred and for- 
 ty in the year, was the rate of mortality in 
 this ship ; instead of seventeen out of one 
 thousand, the London rate.* Part of this 
 excessive mortality is, I doubt not, to be 
 
 * Twenty-four out of one hundred and forty is rather 
 more than one hundred and seventy-one out of a thousand. 
 The mortah'ty of this ship, therefore, was to that of London 
 as one hundred and seventy-one to seventeen, — that is, more 
 than as ten to one. n
 
 ^23 
 
 ascribed to tlie provision that was made, 
 in the construction of the vessel, to secure 
 to the negroes the lull advantage of the 
 want of air : But upon this circumstance 
 I lay no stress ; — I maintain, that when 
 the rate of mortality is examined upon 
 true principles, it is so enormous, in the 
 very best of their vessels, that when we 
 talk of a healthy slave-ship, we talk of a 
 nonentity ; there is no such thing. And 
 no certain proportion can be found be- 
 tween the comparative liealthiness of one 
 voyage and another ; but making the best 
 comparison we can, and taking into the ac- 
 count the numbers that die in the Wind- 
 ward trade before they quit the coast, the 
 result would be in favour of the Leeward. 
 " My Lords, with respect to the reduc- 
 tion that has taken place in the export 
 from the Windward Coast, the witnesses 
 pronounce that the war is the cause of it;
 
 224 
 
 and they say, that some time or other, 
 though in what future year of our Lord 
 they cannot tell, a peace will come ; and 
 when the peace comes, the trade upon the 
 Windward Coast, if this bill should not 
 pass into a law, will revive. My Lords, I 
 say, that at best this is but prophecy ; and 
 we have had abundant experience, that 
 when these gentlemen pretend to prophe- 
 cy, their predictions are generally falsified 
 by the event : But I say, that without any 
 revival of the trade upon the Windward, 
 which I hope and trust will never be, we 
 have the highest reason to believe that the 
 deficit apprehended from the prohibitions 
 of this bill will be more than made up by 
 the growth of the trade on the remaining 
 part of the coast. Now, my Lords, since 
 the diminution of the trade upon the whole, 
 by the operation of this bill, will be no- 
 thing, — since neither the interests of the
 
 225 
 
 slave-trade itself, nor the supply of the 
 West India Islands, nor the trade of Liver- 
 pool, can possibly be affected by this no- 
 diminution, — since the inconveniences ap- 
 prehended from the proposed limitation, 
 by reason of the necessity of touching at 
 the Windward Coast for provisions, — since 
 the greater length of the Middle Passage 
 from the Leeward Coast — the greater un- 
 healthiness of the voyage, — since all this is 
 mere pretence, falsehood, fiction, and de- 
 lusion, — I ask your Lordships, whether the 
 objects of the Sierra Leone Company are 
 not such as in some degree merit your at- 
 tention ? 
 
 " The grand object of the Sierra Leone 
 Company is to establish a fair and friendly- 
 commerce with the Africans ; and, by that 
 means, to spread the light of knowledge, 
 divine and human, in that country, and 
 gradually to forward its civilization. That 
 
 p
 
 ^26 
 
 these objects cannot be obtained while the 
 slave-trade is carried on in the neighbour- 
 hood of the colony, is manifest. By exclu-^ 
 dino; the slave-trade from that neighbour- 
 hood, the trade itself will suffer nothing ; 
 the benevolent designs of the Sierra Leone 
 Company will be forwarded. Much pains 
 have been used, my Lords, to make this 
 colony contemptible ; from the low state of 
 their finances, the narrow extent of their 
 trade, and the little progress they have 
 hitherto made in their great project of in- 
 structing and civilizing Africa : Biit, my 
 Lords, when I consider the difficulties the 
 Sierra Leone colony has had to struggle 
 with, my wonder is, not that it is not more 
 flourishing, but that it exists at this mo- 
 ment,^— not that its progress is so small, 
 but that it should be any thing. All in- 
 fant colonies have difficulties ; but the dif- 
 ficulties of this colony have been unusually
 
 227 
 
 great,— the dreadful sickness which in the 
 first year swept off so many of the first 
 settlers; the destruction and pillage of 
 their town by the French ; but most of all, 
 my Lords, the untoward materials they 
 had to work upon, in the formation of the 
 colony itself. The first colonists were the 
 blacks from Nova Scotia : These were a 
 set of people of the very worst disposi- 
 tions, — averse to labour, debauched, re- 
 fractory, untractable : My Lords, it is no 
 small argument of the good effects that 
 may be expected from this colony, that 
 these are now, by the good management 
 of the Company, quite an altered race, — 
 sober, industrious, orderly. But, my Lords, 
 we have still a stronger argument of what 
 this colony may do, in the change for the 
 better which in some small decree has 
 taken place in the manners of the slave- 
 traders in their neighbourhood. My Lords,
 
 228 
 
 it IS easy to understand, that your slave- 
 trader must be an animal more difficult ta 
 tame than the mere savage : The slave- 
 trader is something very different from the 
 savage man ; he is the man barbarized, — 
 not untaught, like the savage ; but, ac- 
 quainted with civil life, and with powers 
 of intellect considerably improved, he uses 
 his improved intellect only to be the slave 
 of his avarice, and to overpower all those 
 generous sympathies of our nature which 
 might be obstacles to its pursuits ; he has 
 eradicated in his own bosom all the vir- 
 tuous feelings of the savage ; he has im- 
 bibed all that is evil in the policy of civil 
 life. Yet the Sierra Leone Company has 
 succeeded in somewhat softening the loath- 
 some asperity of the manners of these bar- 
 barians. 
 
 " But, my Lords, there remains one 
 principal argument brought against the
 
 229 
 
 bill, of which I have not yet taken notice. 
 However inconsiderable the number of tlie 
 slaves may be of which it will deprive the 
 trade, it is said the bill will deprive it of 
 its best slaves ; and in this respect, the 
 loss, however it may be made up in point 
 of number, in value cannot be compensa- 
 ted by the supply from other parts ; for, 
 with the exception of some taken from the 
 Gold Coast, the slaves procured upon the 
 Windward Coast, the witnesses say, are the 
 very best of all. And why are they the 
 best, my Lords ? — They are the best, not 
 only because they are the healthiest and 
 the strongest, but because they are the fit- 
 test for field-labour ; they are the most 
 tractable, docile, and submissive ; they are 
 easily trained to many parts of the business 
 of a ship ; they easily learn the use of 
 small-arms, and to work the great-guns 
 with so much dexterity, that two of the
 
 230 
 
 slave-captains have told your Lordships 
 they have fought their ships with cargoes 
 of these slaves. One of the two, in 1796, 
 commander of the Jemmy of Liverpool, 
 v/ith only eight white men aboard, but with 
 two hundred and nineteen slaves from 
 Cape Mount, engaged a French privateer, 
 and beat her oiF. The other, in 1779, his 
 ship's company being forty-two whites, 
 with one hundred and fifty Windward 
 Coast slaves in arms, chased a large French 
 privateer into Aux Caves, in St Domingo ; 
 when another ship of the enemy, of equal 
 force, lay a few miles to leeward. My 
 Lords, while these Africans were upon 
 military duty, they were permitted to as- 
 sume the appearance of men and of sol- 
 diers ; they were armed and dressed like 
 the other men : Wiat became of them, 
 my Lords, when the service was perform- 
 ed ?— My Lords, they were divested of the
 
 231 
 
 arms which they had so bravely used in the 
 defence of the ships of this country against 
 the King's enemies ; they were divested of 
 their clothing j they were stripped stark 
 naked, my Lords, — these men, who had 
 saved our vessels from the enemy ! they ] 
 
 were exposed to sale, naked slaves, in the 
 slave-markets of the West Indies I My I 
 
 Lords, what were your feelings when this 
 shameful tale was told? I will tell your i 
 
 Lordships what my feelings were — what ] 
 
 they are at this moment : I would rather -\ 
 
 have been one of the Africans which were \ 
 
 so sold, than either of the British slave- 
 captains (I lament, my Lords, that I must 
 call them Britons) who sold their valiant J 
 
 comrades in arms ! ' 
 
 " But, my Lords, the circumstance to ' 
 
 >yhich I would principally direct your at- 
 tention is this, — this fitness for field-labour, 1 
 this tractability, this docility of disposition, !
 
 232 
 
 these, wherever they are found, are certain 
 marks of at least incipient civihzation ; and 
 the Windward Coast slaves, in whom these 
 marks of incipient civizilation, by the tes- 
 timony of these witnesses, appear, are for 
 that reason the very persons whom the 
 slave-trade, upon its own principles, ought 
 to spare. My Lords, when the slave-trade 
 attempts to defend itself, as it does, upon 
 the ground of humanity, it is upon this 
 pretence, — that the natives of Africa are 
 in that state of barbarism from which it is 
 impossible they should ever spontaneously 
 emerge : They pretend, therefore, that it 
 is charity to these people to tear them from 
 their native soil, and transport them to 
 those Hesperides of the blacks, where their 
 condition, though bad enough, will yet be 
 something better, in some small degree 
 nearer to that of civil life, than it ever 
 could be if they remained in their own
 
 233 
 
 country. My Lords, if the assumption 
 were true, I know not that the conclusion 
 would be just. My Lords, a learned coun- 
 sel at the bar took upon him to argue the 
 policy of public measures ; he took upon 
 him to instruct your Lordships in your le- 
 gislative duty ; he admonished your Lord- 
 ships to beware how you would attempt to 
 alter by force the moral and political state 
 of man. My Lords, I agree with the 
 learned counsel in the general maxim ; — 
 the moral and political state of man is 
 ordered by Providence ; and any attempt 
 of man forcibly to alter and amend it is a 
 presumptuous interference in a matter that 
 belongs to Providence : But, my Lords, 
 upon the slave-trade I charge the guilt of 
 that presumption. If the natives of Africa 
 are in that abject state of barbarism which 
 the slave-merchants allege, i say that Pro- 
 vidence has placed them in it ; and what
 
 234 
 
 has the slave-trade to do with His dispensa-r 
 lions ? Whatever the present condition of 
 these Africans may be, I am confident that 
 the merciful God, who has cast their pre^ 
 sent lot so low, will, in his own good time, 
 without the interference of the slave-trade, 
 raise them to the full state and dignity of 
 man. Let the slave-trade leave the work 
 to Him ; it is no concern of theirs. But if 
 the plea that they set up were better than 
 jt is as applied to Africa in general, their 
 argument fails them on the Windward 
 Coast : The slaves procured there are not 
 in the state of hopeless barbarism they 
 describe ; by their own showing, among 
 these people the work of civilization is be- 
 gun. And think, my Lords, how far, over 
 what a length of country, this incipient ci- 
 vilization must extend. The slaves pro- 
 cured upon this Windward Coast are not 
 tlie natives of the coast itself; thev are
 
 brought down from remote parts of the in- 
 terior country. The witnesses have told 
 your Lordships, that these people reckon 
 their time by moons ; and describe the 
 time that they are travelling to the coast 
 as five, six, seven, and sometimes eignt 
 moons ; and the witnesses guess that their 
 rate of travelling may be fifteen miles per 
 day. I will take six moons as the time of 
 the journey ; and I will suppose they tra- 
 vel only twelve miles per day : Twelve 
 miles per day, for six months together, 
 makes a journey of two thousand one hun- 
 dred and twenty-four British miles ; and 
 so many British miles, upon the parallel 
 of the middle latitude of the Windward 
 Coast, make thirty-one and a half degrees 
 longitude ; and thirty-one degrees of lon- 
 gitude eastward from the middle of the 
 Windward Coast carry us into the very 
 heart of Africa, in the broadest part. And
 
 ^36 
 
 throughout this long tract of country, the 
 natives, by the evidence of the witnesses 
 themselves, bear the marks of incipient ci- 
 vilization. But, my Lords, by the relation 
 of Mr Park, on which I rely more than on 
 the united testimony of all these witnesses, 
 through the whole extent of this country, 
 civilization is much more than incipient. 
 Through this very country the line of Mr 
 Park's journey lay ; and, my Lords, you 
 cannot travel half a day with Mr Park, in the 
 whole route from Pisania to the very extre- 
 mity of that line, but you find all the way 
 the pleasing vestiges of a civilization that 
 has already made some progress, and is 
 heightening every step you go the farther 
 you get inland from the coast, — that is, the 
 farther you recede from the stage on which 
 the slave-trade perpetrates its horrors. My 
 Lords, Mr Park not only speaks in general 
 terms of the growing civilization of these
 
 231 
 
 people, but he mentions many particulars, 
 from which your Lordships may form your 
 own judgment. My Lords, he thus de- 
 scribes the dress of the Man dingoes : 
 •' Both sexes dress in cotton cloth of their 
 own manufacture : The men wear a loose 
 frock with drawers half-way down the leg, 
 sandals on their feet, white cotton caps on 
 their heads ; the women, a petticoat of the 
 same material, with a sort of mantle cast 
 over the shoulders." My Lords, is this 
 the dress of savages ? — is there not evi- 
 dently a degree of elegance and neatness 
 in it ? Speaking of their manners, he says 
 " They are industrious in agriculture and 
 pasturage: They manufacture cotton cloths, 
 and coloured leathers ; they smelt iron ; 
 they smelt gold ; they draw gold wire, of 
 which they form various ornaments." My 
 Lords, are these the occupations of bar- 
 barians ? My Lords, they are not desti-
 
 238 
 
 tute of moral principle : The first les- 
 son, says Mr Park, a Mandingo woman 
 teaches her child, is the practice of truth : 
 The lamentation of a miserable mother 
 over her son, murdered by a Moorish ban- 
 ditti, was, that in the course of his blame- 
 less life, " her boy had never told a lie, no 
 never ! " Towards strangers, he says, they 
 are of a mild and obliging disposition. 
 Having mentioned their habit of pilfering 
 (which although a mark of imperfect civi- 
 lization, your Lordships are too well read 
 in history not to know is no mark of bar- 
 barism), he adds — " To counterbalance this 
 depravity in their nation, it is impossible 
 for me to forget the disinterested charity 
 and tender solicitude with which these 
 poor heathen sympathized with me in my 
 sufferings, relieved my distresses, and con- 
 tributed to my safety. In so free and kind 
 a manner (speaking of the women in parti-
 
 239 
 
 cular)" My Lords, there is nothing ni 
 
 this to provoke the laugh of levity : Mr 
 Park's is a simple, but a serious, sober nar- 
 rative ; the freedom of which he speaks was 
 not the freedom of wantonness, as those 
 who laugh must be supposed to understand 
 
 it " In so free and kind a manner did 
 
 they (the women) contribute to my relief, 
 that if I was dry, I drank the sweetest 
 draught, if hungry, I ate the coarsest mor- 
 sel, with a double relish." Then, my 
 Lords, of their domestic attachments and 
 affections among themselves, he gives many 
 striking instances. Your Lordships, I am 
 sure, must recollect the affecting story of 
 the return of the blacksmith of Kasson to 
 his native village. — By the way, my Lords, 
 I must ask, is this a character of savage 
 manners, — that a young man goes from his 
 home to a distant country, to find profi- 
 table employment in a trade ? — But the
 
 240 
 
 story of the return, my Lords, after an ab- 
 sence of some years ! His brother meets 
 him on the road, and brincps out a sin^- 
 ing-man to sing him into the village ; he 
 brings a horse to mount him upon, that he 
 may enter the town in a respectable man- 
 ner : At the entrance of the village, his 
 arrival is welcomed by a concourse of the 
 people ; his mother, blind with age, sup- 
 porting her tottering steps upon her staff, 
 is led out to meet him ; the crowd re- 
 spectfully make way for her ; she shows 
 the strongest emotions of joy and mater- 
 nal affection, when she is satisfied, by feel- 
 ing his person with her hands, that he is 
 indeed her very son. J\Ir Park concludes 
 the interesting narrative with this remark, 
 that " from this interview he was fully con- 
 vinced, that whatever difference there is 
 between the negro and European in the 
 formation of the nose and the colour of the
 
 241 
 
 skin, there is none in the genuine sympa- 
 thies and characteristic feeling of our com- 
 mon nature." These, my Lords, are tjje 
 people which the slave-trade, in defiance 
 of its own principles, makes its victims on 
 the Windward Coast, — because, forsooth, 
 they are the best of slaves ! Their civili- 
 zation is already in its progress, and needs 
 not the assistance of the slave-trade. 
 
 " My Lords, shall I be told " Imagine 
 what civility you please, slavery is the 
 birth-right of the African ; and we remove 
 him only from slavery in one place to 
 slavery in another?" — My Lords, slavery 
 is a word of very large indefinite meaning, 
 comprehending a variety of conditions, in 
 fact very different from one another, under 
 a common name. My Lords, I believe it 
 really is the case, — the thing is so repre- 
 sented by two travellers of great credit ; by 
 Mr Watt, who not long since made his
 
 242 
 
 way from Sierra Leone into the Foolah 
 Country ; and just now by Mr Park, who 
 has penetrated much farther, — I admit that 
 it is the case, that in that part of Africa of 
 which I have been speaking, not more than 
 one fourth part of the inhabitants are of 
 free condition ; the other tliree fourths are 
 slaves. But, my Lords, of what sort is the 
 African slavery in Africa ? — My Lords, it 
 seems at this moment perfectly analogous 
 to the slavery of the heroic and the pa- 
 triarchal ao'es ; when the slave and the 
 freeborn lived so mucli upon a footing 
 that vou could hardly distinguish the one 
 from the other, — when the Princess Nau- 
 sicaa took a part in the labour of her fe- 
 male slaves — and the slave-girls, when the 
 common task was finished, were the play- 
 mates of the Princess, — when Abraham's 
 confidential slave, sent to choose a wife for 
 his master's eldest son, found the lady de-
 
 243 
 
 signed by Providence to be joined in mar- 
 riage to so great a man as Isaac, in the la- 
 borious office of drawing water for her fa- 
 ther's cattle — and the slave of Abraham 
 that came upon this happy errand was re- 
 ceived by the parents of the bride with all 
 the respect and hospitality with which they 
 could have received his master. My Lords, 
 the indigenous slavery of Africa is of this 
 kind. The witnesses have told you, that 
 persons not well acquainted with the coun- 
 try would mistake the domestic slaves for 
 free persons : There is no external distinc- 
 tion ; they are dressed alike, they are fed 
 alike, they are lodged alike, and they are 
 all employed alike ; the slave is not treat- 
 ed with rigour nor punished with severity ; 
 the master cannot legally sell his domestic 
 slave, unless for crime, and with the con- 
 sent and approbation of the family. This 
 is the description which your Lordships
 
 244 
 
 have received of the African slavery from 
 the witnesses examined at your bar upon 
 the present occasion : It is the same in 
 substance as was given some years since 
 by different persons examined before the 
 House of Commons ; and it is confirmed 
 by the relations of jMr Watt and Mr Park. 
 My Lords, it is absurd to compare this 
 sort of slavery with that to which the slave- 
 trade consigns the African : No two things 
 can be more unlike ; they agree in nothing 
 but the name. 
 
 " My Lords, I have trespassed much 
 longer than I thought to do upon the in- 
 dulgence of the House ; and I could wish 
 to abstain entirely, as I at first proposed, 
 from every thing relating to the subject of 
 general abolition, without any immediate 
 bearing upon the particular question of 
 this bill. But, my Lords, an argument 
 was set up at the bar, and applied to the
 
 245 
 
 present bill, — though, in my judgment, it 
 more belonged to the general question, — of 
 such a sort, that it might not become the 
 holy robe I wear were I to let it pass un- 
 noticed. 
 
 " My Lords, the learned counsel who 
 rephed to the summing up of the learn- 
 ed counsel for the Sierra Leone Company 
 said, that if the slave-trade were the wicked 
 sinful thing which those who would abolish 
 it conceive it to be, it is very strange there 
 should be no prohibition, no reprobation 
 of slavery, in the Holy Scriptures either of 
 the Old or New Testament. The learned 
 counsel evidently wished your Lordships 
 to conclude, that the slave-trade is at least 
 not condemned, if not sanctioned, by re- 
 ligion. My Lords, that learned counsel 
 has studied his law-books with more cri- 
 tical accuracy than his Bible, or he never 
 would have been the great and able lawyer
 
 246 
 
 that he is ; he would have been no better 
 law3'er than he is divine, — that is to say, 
 he would have been a very bad one. 
 
 " My Lords, the sentiments of a right 
 reverend prelate, while he lived a dear 
 and valued friend of mine,* have been cit- 
 ed in this night's debate, as if they had in 
 some degree coincided with those of the 
 learned counsel upon the subject. True it 
 is, that about the time when the question 
 of abolition first began to be agitated, the 
 right reverend prelate let fall something in 
 a sermon, about a danger which he ap- 
 prehended might arise from exciting the 
 public mind upon the subject of the slave- 
 trade, while it was protected by the laws, 
 and while the matter was under the exa- 
 mination of the Privy Council. I confess 
 
 * Dr Samuel Hallifax, Lord Bishop of Gloucester, af- 
 terwards of St Asaph.
 
 247 
 
 that I never saw that danger ; and I am 
 confident, were the right reverend prelate 
 among us now, his sentiments upon the 
 scriptural part of the argument would not 
 be very different from mine. Be that as 
 it may, I am confident, that in what I am 
 about to deliver upon that subject, I shall 
 have the concurrence of my right reverend 
 brethren near me. 
 
 " My Lords, I do certainly admit, that 
 there is no prohibition of slavery in the 
 Bible, in explicit terms, — such as these 
 would be, "Thou shalt not have a slave," 
 or " Thou shalt not hold any one in slave- 
 ry ;" there is no explicit reprobation of 
 slavery by name. ^ly Lords, if I were to 
 say that there was no occasion for any 
 such prohibition or reprobation, because 
 slavery is condemned by something an- 
 terior either to the Christian or the Mosaic 
 dispensation, I could su])port the assertion
 
 248 
 
 by grave authorities, — not the authorities 
 of the new-fashioned advocates of the 
 rights of men, — not such authorities as 
 Vattel or Tom Payne. My Lords, what 
 is the definition of slavery in the Impe- 
 rial Institutes ? — " Servitus est constitu- 
 tio juris gentium, qua quis dominio alieno 
 contra naturam subjicitur." And they are 
 called slaves, servi^ because commanders 
 were accustomed to sell prisoners of war, 
 and to save, servare^ those who otherwise 
 would have been slain. And what is the 
 comment of Vinius upon these paragraphs ? 
 — That among Christians this institution 
 of the law of nations is not in use, because 
 " The law of charity has taught Christians, 
 that captives are not to become the slaves 
 of the captors ; that they ought not to be 
 sold, — ought not to be compelled to hard 
 labour, nor to submit to many other things 
 in the servile condition."
 
 249 
 
 " But, my Lords, in truth it would be 
 very extraordinary if the Bible contained 
 any such prohibition or reprobation of slave- 
 ry, in terms, as the learned counsel seems to 
 have searched for in it, and has searched for 
 in vain. My Lords, the Christian religion 
 is an institution not adapted to any parti- 
 cular nation, to any one age, or to any par- 
 ticular form of government ; it is univer- 
 sal, for all nations, for all ages, for all forms 
 of government without exception: It there- 
 fore enjoins nothing and prohibits nothing 
 but what is universally practicable or uni- 
 versally omissible. Now, my Lords, slave- 
 ry, though certainly contrary to the nature 
 of man in its perfection, yet is one of 
 those things, which, in the present de- 
 praved state of human nature, will in point 
 of fact, — slavery, though not in its worst 
 forms, but in some form or another, will 
 in fact always exist among the sons of
 
 250 
 
 men ; it will perhaps always be a part, 
 though a bad part, of the actual condition 
 of the human race. Now, my Lords, the 
 Christian religion, and revealed religion 
 generally, is very cautious how it disturbs 
 the peace of the world by sudden and vio- 
 lent 'emendations of the political and moral 
 state of man : It gives out general prin- 
 ciples, which will work an amendment by 
 decrees ; and trusts for the eradication of 
 moral evil, to the slow and silent ope- 
 ration of those general principles. But, 
 my Lords, if you will conclude, that what- 
 ever is not expressly prohibited or repro- 
 bated in the Holy Scriptures is sanction- 
 ed by them, the inference will be extrava- 
 gant and dangerous. My Lords, the sa- 
 cred history records, without any expres- 
 sion of disapprobation, the severities ex- 
 ercised by King David upon the vanquish- 
 ed Ammonites, when he put them undev
 
 251 
 
 axes, and saws of iron, and harrows of iron, 
 and made them pass through the brick- 
 kilns : Would your Lordships allow it to 
 be a just inference, that religion sanctions 
 generally such treatment of conquered ene- 
 mies? Because the Christian religion 
 positively enjoins, as it does enjoin most 
 positively, the submission of the individual 
 to the existing government, be it what it 
 may, or in what hands it may, — would 3'our 
 Lordships infer, that the Christian religion 
 gives its sanction to the injustice and op- 
 pressions of Xero and Caligula ? Yet, my 
 Lords, to all this the argument goes, if 
 from the no-condemnation of any thing in 
 holy writ, we are to conclude the approba- 
 tion of it, and by consequence the inno- 
 cency of the practice. 
 
 " But, my Lords, in truth I may wave 
 all this : I luight concede, if the thing were
 
 252 
 
 tnie, without prejudice to the cause of 
 abohtion, that rehgion even approves the 
 condition of slavery. My Lords, the ques- 
 tion of abohtion has nothincj to do with 
 the question whether the condition of 
 slavery be allowed or forbidden by re- 
 ligion — whether it be consistent with na- 
 tural justice or contrary to it : Upon the 
 question of abolition, those who take con- 
 trary sides are not at issue about the right 
 or wrong of the condition of slavery ; but 
 we are at issue about the right or the 
 wrong of certain modes or means that are 
 used of reducino; men to that condition : 
 Are the means which the slave-trade em- 
 ploys for that purpose right or wrong ? — 
 Now, my Lords, 1 do affirm, that although 
 the learned counsel knew not where to 
 find it, — positively I affirm, that the New 
 Testament contains an express reprobation
 
 253 
 
 in terms, an express prohibition of the 
 slave-trade by name, as sinful in a very 
 high degree. 
 
 " The apostle St Paul, my Lords, in the 
 
 First of his Epistles to St Timothy My 
 
 Lords, the Bible is to be treated in this 
 House with reverence. If I find occasion, 
 in argument upon a subject like the pre- 
 sent, to quote particular texts, any noble 
 lord who may think proper to receive 
 such quotations with a laugh must expect 
 
 that I call him to order. 1 was saying, 
 
 my Lords, that St Paul, in the First of 
 his Epistles to St Timothy, having spoken 
 of persons that were " lawless and disobe- 
 dient, ungodly and sinners, unholy and pro- 
 fane," proceeds to specify and distinguish 
 the several characters and descriptions of 
 men to which he applies those very ge- 
 neral epithets ; and they are these, — " mur- 
 derers of fathers, murderers of mothers.
 
 254 I 
 
 man-slayers, they that defile themselves 
 
 i 
 
 with mankind, men-stealersJ'^ Man-steal- ' 
 ing, your Lordships see, is placed by the 
 apostle in the scale of crime next after ' 
 parricide, homicide, and sodomy. Now i 
 what is man-stealing, my Lords? — is it 
 not kidnapping and panyaring? Your i 
 Lordships then cannot doubt that this text 
 condemns and prohibits the slave-trade, in 
 one at least of its most productive modes. 
 But, my Lords, I go farther : I maintain 
 that this text, rightly interpreted, con- \ 
 demns and prohibits the slave-trade gene- \ 
 raUy, in all its modes ; it ranks the slave- ! 
 trade, in the descending scale of crime, 
 next after parricide, homicide, and sodomy. \ 
 " The original word for which the Eng;- i 
 iish Bible gives " men-stealers" is av^^oc- ] 
 
 'Ko^ishi' Our translators have taken the 
 
 i 
 
 word in the restricted sense which it bears ] 
 in the Attic law ; in which the llKn avl^a- \
 
 ^55 
 
 Toha-fjt.^ was a criminal prosecution for the 
 specific crime of kidnapping, the penaky 
 of which was death. But your Lordships 
 know, that the phraseology 6f the Holy 
 Scriptures, especially in the preceptive part, 
 is a popular phraseology ; and my noble 
 and learned friend* opposite to me very 
 well knows, that uv^^oc-Trohs-rigy in its popular 
 sense, is a person who " deals in men," 
 literally a slave-trader : That is the Eng- 
 lish word, literally and exactly correspond- 
 ing to the Greek, t That noble andlearn- 
 
 * Lord Thurlow. 
 
 -j- " Who will there be to sell you slares," says Poverty 
 to Chremulus, in the "Plutus," Act Second, Scene Fifth, 
 " when the other will have money in plenty as well as you i " 
 — " Some merchant," replies Chremulus, " desirous of gain, 
 coming from Thessaly, ttx^x 7r>.«r»» «>S^«7roo.r«», where slavC' 
 traders are most numerous." — See the Scholiast on the pas- 
 sage. 
 
 Much has been said in defence of the slave-trade from 
 the example of antiquity. The fact however is,, that the 
 persons who carried it on were universally infamous ; for
 
 256 
 
 ed lord knows very well, that the Greek 
 word is so explained by the learned gram- 
 marian Eustathius, and bj other gramma- 
 rians of the* first authority.* I repeat it 
 therefore, my Lords, once more, — it cannot 
 too often be repeated, — that in this text of 
 Scripture the slave-trade is condemned and 
 prohibited by name, as a thing abominable 
 in the sight of God, and wicked in the 
 next degree to sodomy. 
 
 " My Lords, the learned counsel with 
 whose argument I have been dealing clo- 
 sed his eloquent oration with an admoni- 
 tion to your Lordships to beware how you 
 are persuaded to adopt the visionary pro- 
 
 Kv^^dTro^tflii, " a slave-trader," in the Greek language was 
 an appellation of the highest infamy and reproach : You 
 could not call a man a worse name. — Vide Schol. Aristoph. 
 Thesmoplu lin. 825. 
 
 * Eustath. ad II. H. 475. 
 Schol. Aristoph. ad Plut. lin. 521.
 
 257 
 
 jects of fanaticism. My Lords, I know not 
 in what direction that shaft was shot ; and 
 I care not : It concerns not me ; proudly 
 conscious as I am, that \vith the highest 
 reverence for our holy rehgion — with the 
 firmest conviction of its truth — with a 
 deep sense, I trust, of the importance of 
 its doctrines and its precepts — the general 
 shape and fashion of my life bears no- 
 thing of the stamp of fanaticism. But, my 
 Lords, give me leave, in my turn, to ad- 
 dress a word of serious exhortation to your 
 Lordships. Beware, my Lords, how you 
 are persuaded to bury under the opprobri- 
 ous name of fanaticism the regard which 
 you owe to the great duties of justice and 
 mercy ; for the neglect of which, if you 
 should neglect them, you will be answer- 
 able at that tribunal where no prevarica- 
 tion of witnesses can misinform the judge, 
 — -where no subtilty of an advocate, miscall- 
 
 11
 
 258 
 
 ing the names of things, " putting evil for 
 good and good for evil, bitter for sweet 
 and sweet for bitter," can mislead bis judg- 
 ment. 
 
 The bill was thrown out, by a majority 
 of seven.
 
 UPON THE ADULTERY BILL 
 May 23, 1800. 
 
 On the 2d of April 1800, Lord Auck- 
 land, after expatiating very forcibly and elo- 
 quently upon the enormous increase of the 
 vice of adultery, and the perversion as 
 well as abuse of many divorce-bills which 
 had passed the Legislature of this country, 
 moved to bring in a bill to prevent any 
 person divorced for adultery from inter- 
 marrying with the guilty person. The bill 
 was accordingly brought in j and upon the 
 third reading, on the 23d of May, a very 
 animated debate arose ; in which the Bishop 
 of Rochester thus delivered his senti- 
 ments.
 
 260 
 
 " ^, 
 
 MY LORDS, 
 
 " It may seem that I ought to 
 rise with great diffidence before your Lord- 
 ships, after the admonition I have received, 
 from a noble earl* who spoke early in this 
 night's debate, of my utter incapacity to 
 form any judgment in a matter of the sort 
 now before the House. But, my Lords, I 
 am encouraged, by the example of the 
 noble and learned lord upon the woolsack, 
 and by the example of a right reverend 
 prelate near me ; wlio, notwithstanding 
 they were equally with myself included in 
 the incapacity imputed in common to re- 
 cluses of the law and to recluses of the 
 church — to legal and ecclesiastical monks, 
 have nevertheless adventured to give their 
 opinion upon the present occasion. But, 
 my Lords, much more than by the ex- 
 
 * The Earl of Carlisle.
 
 261 
 
 ample of the noble and learned lord upon 
 the woolsack, much more than by tlie ex- 
 ample of the right reverend prelate near 
 me, I feel myself emboldened by the pub- 
 lic judgment of my country — ^by repeated 
 and express declarations in tlie statute- 
 book. My Lords, at a time when there 
 was httle partiality for the authority of the 
 churcli, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, 
 it is repeatedly asserted in the statutes — 
 asserted as the ground of many particular 
 enactments, that the proper judges in 
 causes matrimonial are divines and canon- 
 ists ; that divines and canonists are the 
 persons best qualified to judge of the crime 
 of adultery — what is to be deemed adul- 
 tery — what punishments should be applied 
 to it. And the temporal judges in those 
 times gave the same opinion : When pro- 
 hibition was prayed to stop proceedings in 
 the ecclesiastical courts in causes of adul-
 
 262 
 
 tery, it was constantly refused ; and re- 
 fused upon this avowed principle, by the 
 Justices in the Court of King's Bench, 
 — that the ecclesiastical courts were the 
 proper courts to have cognizance of adul- 
 tery, because it is a matter in which di- 
 vines and canonists are the most compe- 
 tent judges. That branch therefore of 
 the law with which the present question 
 is most immediately connected, the wisdom 
 of our ancestors has placed in the hands of 
 those whom the noble earl pronounces in- 
 capable of forming any sound judgment in 
 such matters, 
 
 " My Lords, I was perfectly astonished 
 at the reflections which the noble earl 
 thought proper to cast upon the ecclesias- 
 tical courts. One of his lordship's great 
 objections to the present bill is, that, intro^ 
 ducing a new punishment of adultery, it 
 nevertheless reserves the jurisdiction of
 
 263 
 
 these courts. The noble earl talks of this 
 jurisdiction as a perfect nuisance in the 
 country : The ecclesiastical courts, in the 
 noble earFs conceptions, are an Augasan 
 stable, which want a Hercules. to cleanse 
 them. My Lords, I must tell the noble 
 earl, what I need not tell your Lordships, 
 that the proceedings in the ecclesiastical 
 courts are as regular, and go with as much 
 certainty to serve the purposes of substan- 
 tial justice, as those in the temporal courts. 
 It is true, my Lords, they have, in those 
 matters that are subject to their cogni- 
 zance, a system of law and jurisprudence 
 of their own, and their own forms of pro- 
 ceeding : But their system is a wise, well- 
 digested system, founded on the general 
 principles of justice ; and their forms are 
 regular, known, and certain : And, in the 
 hands in which the administration of that 
 part of the law of the country is at present
 
 264 
 
 placed, and has been placed for a long time 
 backward, no one will presume to say that 
 justice is not distributed with as much 
 ability and as much integrity in those 
 courts as in any other court of law or 
 equity in Great Britain. 
 
 " My Lords, I derive farther encourage- 
 ment to offer my opinion upon the pre- 
 sent occasion, from the example of my 
 noble friend the original mover of this 
 bill : For, my Lords, the incapacity im- 
 puted to me and the recluses of the law is 
 not confined to us ; it extends over various 
 descriptions of persons in this assembly, 
 and my noble friend is included under the 
 same disability. My Lords, it seems his 
 grave and weighty occupations as a public 
 minister at foreign courts have kept him 
 retired like us from scenes of gayety and 
 dissipation ; and he is destitute of all that 
 ability for the present discussion which is
 
 265 
 
 not to be acquired without much experi* 
 €nce in the arts of practical gallantry ! My 
 Lords, these men of public business — these 
 foreign ministers, are all of them, like my- 
 self, like my brethren on this bench, like 
 the noble and learned lord upon the wool- 
 sack, like his brethren in Westminster 
 Hall, — they are all very drivellers in these 
 subjects ; monks, recluses, mere old wo- 
 men, my Lords : It is a shame you should 
 mind any thing they say ! 
 
 " However, my Lords, I shall take cou- 
 rage to offer my opinion, such as it may be, 
 perhaps at some length, upon the present 
 subject. My Lords, the objections to the 
 bill have been taken upon so many differ- 
 ent grounds, — what they want singl}^ in 
 weight, they so abundantly make up in 
 number, — that although I am not at a loss 
 what to reply to any one, I am indeed 
 much at loss with which to begin. There
 
 266 
 
 is so little coherence in the different ob- 
 jections among themselves, that they lead 
 to no particular order j and to give perspi- 
 cuity, and what I can of brevity, to my 
 argument, I must endeavour to reduce 
 them to some general heads. 
 
 " One ground of objection has been, 
 that the bill is an alteration of the laws of 
 the land. 
 
 " Another, that it gives a double punish- 
 ment for one crime ; not taking away the 
 action of damages when it makes the adul- 
 terer liable to indictment. 
 
 " The divine law has been much brought 
 hi question. It is contended on our side, 
 that the marriage of a divorced adulteress 
 with the adulterer is itself adultery, by 
 the law of God : The opposers of the bill 
 not only deny this, but they allege the 
 law of God in justification of such mar- 
 riages.
 
 267 
 
 *' Another objection is, — and a great one 
 it would be, if it could be made out, — that 
 the effect of the clause prohibiting such 
 marriages will be the very reverse of that 
 which the promoters of the bill expect ; 
 that it will promote adultery, instead of 
 restraining it. 
 
 " Now, my Lords, with respect to the 
 first objection- — that the bill will change 
 the law of the land, your Lordships may 
 remember, that in a former debate I ven- 
 tured to meet this objection, so far as it 
 regards that part of the bill which makes 
 adultery a misdemeanour punishable by the 
 temporal courts, with a flat denial. I said 
 that this did not amount to a change of the 
 law ; and I was doubtful whether in this 
 I should have the concurrence of the noble 
 and learned lord upon the woolsack : But, 
 my Lords, I have the satisfaction to find, 
 from what I have heard this night, that
 
 . 26S 
 
 there is no difference of opinion between 
 the noble and learned lord and me upon 
 this more than upon any other part of the 
 subject ; the noble lord having stated, with 
 more precision and accuracy, the very same 
 distinctions which were in my mind when 
 I made the assertion, and are indeed the 
 ground of it. My Lords, if the bill crea- 
 ted any new crime, — if it made that crimi- 
 nal which the law never considered or 
 treated as a crime before, — that I should 
 allow to be a very material alteration of 
 the laws of England : But no new crime is 
 created ; adultery always was a crime by 
 the laws of England ; a new punishment 
 is applied, and a new mode of prosecution 
 is established. But when the penalties 
 hitherto applied have been found insuffi- 
 cient to the prevention of the crime, and 
 the mode of prosecution ineffectual, I can- 
 not admit, that the enactment of strong-
 
 269 
 
 er penalties, and the introduction of a more 
 vifrorous mode of prosecution, are an essen- 
 tial alteration of the law. These measures 
 seem to me to be only an affirmance of the 
 old law, — means of enforcing obedience 
 — of preventing those offences which it al- 
 ways was an object of the law to prevent, 
 by adequate punishments. I cannot see 
 that the making of adultery a misdemean- 
 our is any dangerous innovation in the 
 law ; it is only a strengthening of it. 
 
 " Noble lords contend, that even this 
 reasoning (the justice of which, I know, 
 they admit not) is not applicable to what 
 they call the abominable clause : This, 
 they say, is an alteration of the law upon 
 my own principles ; since it makes that 
 henceforth unlawful which at present is 
 lawful, inasmuch as the marriage of the 
 divorced adulteress with her seducer is not
 
 270 
 
 Ibrbidden by the law of England as it 
 stands at present. 
 
 " But, my Lords, here again I must dis- 
 sent : I maintain, that the bill, in this 
 particular clause, is the very reverse of in- 
 novation. I say, my Lords, that the pre- 
 sent practice is a departure from the true 
 principles of the law, and from the ancient 
 practice ; and that this bill, in the abomi- 
 nable clause, reverting to the old prin- 
 ciple and restoring the old practice, in- 
 stead of innovating abolishes innovation. 
 My Lords, inasmuch as causes matrimo- 
 nial belong to the ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
 tion, the canon law, so far as it has not 
 been altered by statute, and so far as it has 
 been uniformly adopted as the rule of our 
 ecclesiastical courts, is upon this subject a 
 branch of the common law of England, 
 By the common law of England therefore
 
 271 
 
 (for by the old canon law, the law of this 
 subject), parties separated a mensd et thoro 
 by the sentence of the court are not al- 
 lowed to contract a new marriage, the one 
 during the life of the other ; and any new 
 marriage so contracted is illegal ; and the 
 cohabitation of parties under colour of 
 such illegal marriage is adultery. " In 
 all sentences for divorce and separation 
 a thoro et mensd, there shall be a caution 
 and restraint inserted in the act of the 
 said sentence, that the parties so separated 
 shall live chastely and continently ; nei- 
 ther shall they during each other's life 
 contract matrimony with other person.'* 
 This is the 107th of our canons of 1603 : 
 But this is only the general rule of the 
 old canon law transferred into the domes- 
 tic canons of our reformed church ; for 
 what says the old canon law ? — " Nee 
 illi nubere conceditur, vivo viro a quo re-?.
 
 272 
 
 cessit, — neqiie hiiic alteram ducere, viva 
 uxore quam dimisit," And of the same 
 tenor were our own ancient constitutions. 
 " Secundum evangelicam disciplinam, nee 
 uxor a viro dimissa alium accipiat virum, 
 vivente viro suo, — nee vir aliam accipiat 
 uxorem, vivente uxore priore ; sed ita ma- 
 neant, aut sibimet reconcilientur." This 
 was the condition of separated parties, — 
 both absolutely restrained from contracting 
 any new marriage during their joint lives ; 
 till it was first proposed, in the Reformatio 
 Legum, in the case of separation for cause 
 of adultery, to give the injured party liber- 
 ty of marrying again, but with express re- 
 striction of the indulgence to the innocent 
 party. " Cum alter conjux adulterii dam- 
 natus est, alteri licebit innocenti novum ad 
 matrimonium si volet progredi ; nee enim 
 asque adeo debet Integra j^^soiia crimine 
 alieno premi, coelibatus ut invitae possit
 
 273 
 
 obtrudi. Quapropter, Integra persOna non 
 habebitur adultera, si novo se matrimonio 
 devinxerit." But as the Reformatio Legum 
 never passed into a law, the practice came 
 in by degrees of giving this liberty to the 
 husband separated from an adulterous wife, 
 by those private bills of divorce which are 
 now become so common ; but it never was 
 in the imagination of the Legislature, when 
 such bills were first introduced, that they 
 were to go to the effect of setting the adul- 
 teress at liberty, — that an act of the Legis- 
 lature, relieving the injured husband from 
 the difficulties his wife's guilt had brought 
 upon him, was to enable the guilty wife to 
 carry her wicked purpose to its ultimate 
 effect. This extravagant notion, I believe, 
 took its rise from the strange principle set 
 up by Archbishop Cranmer and his asso- 
 ciates in the case of Lord Northampton ; 
 ^hich was recited by a noble lord, I be-
 
 274 
 
 lieve with accuracy, in a* former debate. 
 Archbishop Cranmer, and those who sat 
 with him upon that question, upon his 
 suggestion said, that a marriage once dis- 
 solved was as though it never had been 
 had, and that both parties were set at K- 
 bertj. With a great reverence for the 
 memory of that ilhistrious reformer, I have 
 no hesitation in saying, that upon this oc- 
 casion the venerable Archbishop reasoned 
 more like a monk than a senator : He came 
 to a conclusion upon a great question of 
 law and justice upon a mere logical sub- 
 tilty ; applying abstract principles to a prac- 
 tical question, without due accommodation • 
 of them to the particular circumstances of 
 the case ; in which way of application ab- 
 stract principles are apt to be fallacious.* 
 
 * It is to be observed, however, that the intended appli- 
 cation of the principle was only to the relief of the in- 
 jured husband : For the question before the Committee of
 
 275 
 
 The conclusion to which he came I main- 
 tain to be contrary to one of tlie most uni- 
 versal rules of jurisprudence, — that no law 
 is to be so interpreted as to make any one 
 the better for his own wrong. But is not 
 the adulteress the better for her own wronof, 
 if, when separated from her husband for 
 her crime, she is, by virtue of that very 
 separation — that is in effect by virtue of her 
 crime, set at liberty to go on to the full 
 satisfaction of her criminal desires, under 
 the sanction of a le<jal marriage with her 
 seducer? — I maintain, that every such mar- 
 riage is contrary to the true principles of 
 the law of England, and contrary to the 
 
 Bishops was only this, — whether the Lord Northampton, 
 separated from his wife for her adultery, might lawfully and 
 conscientiously contract a new marriage, the divorced wife 
 living. Their decision, with respect to him, was just ; but 
 the principle, in the extent in which it was laid down, 
 was absurd, and has been the source of much mischief and 
 confusion.
 
 276 
 
 original intention of the Legislature in 
 granting bills of divorce. And this bill re- 
 calls, as I have said, the true principles 
 and the old practice. 
 
 " But, my Lords, I must explicitly dis- 
 claim an inference that has been fastened 
 upon this assertion of mine, — an inference 
 which I not only disclaim, but abominate. 
 It has been said, that if these principles of 
 mine are true, the marriages (which are 
 very numerous) that have of late years 
 taken place between divorced wives and 
 their seducers must be absolutely null and 
 void, and the offspring of all such mar- 
 riages must be illegitimate. My Lords, 
 that the validity of all these marriages 
 stands upon no better ground than a prac- 
 tice swerving from principle, I ever will 
 maintain ; but that they are not to be 
 deemed valid, after the continuance of the 
 practice for so many years, with the con-
 
 277 
 
 nivance of the courts of law and of the Le^ 
 gislature, — that the children of all such 
 marriages are illegitimate, — these would 
 be mischievous wicked inferences. This 
 is not the only instance in which wise laws 
 have suifered a sort of tacit repeal, by a 
 general consent in the neglect of them, and 
 have passed into desuetude ; and in such 
 cases the old law cannot safely be restored 
 but by new enactments : And to every 
 thing previous to those new enactments 
 the rule applies, " Quod fieri non debet, 
 factum valet."* But, my Lords, if the 
 case of these marriages were as the objec- 
 
 * And this rule must be applied, even in cases in which 
 a law of the country, founded on the divine law, has 
 through inadvertence and a misconstruction of the law been 
 infringed for a long course of time, and in numerous in- 
 stances. The error must be corrected for the future without 
 retrospect. The Mosaic law went even farther than this ; 
 when, for political reasons, it tolerated the continuance of 
 practices very inconsistent with the original institution of 
 marriage.
 
 278 
 
 tion to my argument supposes, it would 
 be an additional argument for this bill. 
 This bill puts out of doubt the validity of 
 all these marriages already had, and the 
 legitimacy of the offspring : If the one or 
 the other could be called in question as 
 they now stand, v;hen once this bill shall 
 be passed into a law they never can be 
 called in question. For what says the 
 bill ? — That " after the passing of this act, 
 it shall not be lawful, &c." My Lords, 
 the very passing of a bill to make a thing 
 unlawful for all time to come, implies, 
 of necessity implies, that in time past, 
 previous to the passing of the bill, the 
 thing was deemed lawful ; so that this 
 bill, making such marriages in future, but 
 in future only, unlawful, legalizes all that 
 have been already had, and lays asleep all 
 doubts about the civil condition of the off- 
 spring.
 
 279 
 
 " But, my Lords, by the letter of the 
 divine law, I persist in my assertion, that 
 all these intermarriages of the adulteress 
 with her seducer, after a bill of divorce 
 from her former husband, are adulteries. 
 A noble earl has gone so far in the con- 
 trary opinion, as to maintain that such 
 marriages, so far from being forbidden, are 
 commanded by the divine lav/. In proof 
 of this, the noble earl produced a para- 
 graph of the Mosaic law, in which it is 
 commanded, that if a man lie with a dam- 
 sel that is not betrothed, " she shall be 
 his wife ; he may not put her away all his 
 days."* But this relates only to virgins ; 
 *' a damsel that is a virgin" are the 
 very words of the text. There is no sort 
 of doubt, that by the Mosaic law, a man 
 having deflowered a virgin, was obliged to 
 
 * Deuteronomy, xxii. 28, 29.
 
 ^80 
 
 iiiarry her ; but let the noble earl look 
 again, and find me, if he can, any law of 
 Moses, or any passage in the whole Bible, 
 which commands or even permits the di- 
 vorced adulteress to marry the partaker of 
 her guilt. 
 
 " But, my Lords, when I speak of the 
 divine law, I mean the divine law as it 
 stands under the gospel : By that law, I 
 contend, these marriages are adulteries. 
 By the laws of Moses, the punishment of 
 adultery was death ; and a large power 
 of repudiation was given to the husband 
 for inferior offences. In the later periods 
 of the Jewish history, when the morals of 
 the people were exceedingly relaxed and 
 depraved, capital punishment in the case 
 of adultery was rarely inflicted ; but the 
 power of repudiation was used in an ex- 
 tent beyond any thing the letter of the 
 law could justify ; and this the more sober
 
 2gl 
 
 patt of the nation seem to have under- 
 stood. Our Lord was consulted concern- 
 ing the propriety of such divorces : His 
 answer was, that by the original institu- 
 tion of marriage, the contract was indis- 
 soluble, — that the liberty of divorce under 
 the Mosaic law was an accommodation to 
 a certain hardness of heart among the 
 Jewish people, — that from the beginning 
 it was not so. He adds — " And I say un- 
 to you (I, in conformity to the spirit of 
 the institution, thus lay down my law), who- 
 soever shall put away his wife, except it be 
 for fornication, and shall marry another, 
 committeth adultery ; and whoso mar- 
 rieth her which is put away committeth 
 adultery."* In the First Epistle to the 
 
 * Matthew, xix. 3 — 9. In this 9th verse, '< I say unto 
 you, &c." our Lord lays down his own law, without regard 
 to the law of Moses, which he abrogates. By Christ's law, 
 tlie man who puts away his wife, except for adultery, and
 
 282 
 
 Corinthians, St Paul lays down the same 
 rule as a positive command of our Lord, 
 with respect to married persons both Chris- 
 tians. Where one of the parties was a 
 heathen or a Jew, and the other a Chris- 
 tian, the case admitted some exceptions : 
 But in the case of husband and wdfe both 
 Christian, the apostle says — " Unto the 
 married I command (not I, but the Lord), ' 
 let not the wife be separated from her hus- 
 band ; but if she be separated, let her re- 
 main unmarried, or be reconciled to her 
 husband."* The apostle enjoins this, not 
 
 marries another, commits adultery ; and he who marries 
 her thus , put away by Christ's law, for adultery, the only 
 cause of putting away under Christ's law, committeth adul- 
 tery. This is the only exposition which our Lord's words 
 can bear : For, by the law of Moses, it was not adultery for 
 a man to put away his wife for another cause than adultery, 
 and many another ; neither was it adultery by the Mosaic 
 law for another man to marry a \yoman put away. See 
 Deuteronomy, xxiv. 1, 2. 
 
 * 1 Corinthians, vii. 10, 11.
 
 283 
 
 as from himself, but as a positive com- 
 mand of Christ. The apostle therefore 
 agrees in my interpretation of our Lord's 
 words, when I say, that, as the divine law 
 is laid down by our Lord himself in his 
 answer to the Pharisees, the cohabita^ 
 tion of a divorced adulteress with her se- 
 ducer under colour of a marriage, notwith- 
 standing the connivance of human laws, is 
 gross adultery. 
 
 " My Lords, in a former night's debate 
 (to which I may be permitted to allude, 
 though not strictly in order; because it 
 was agreed on both sides, to postpone the 
 discussion of points of argument then ge- 
 nerally opened till the bill should reach its 
 present stage), — I say, my Lords, when 
 what I have just now said of the marriages 
 of these divorced women under the law of 
 the gospel fell from me in a former night's 
 debate, a noble earl quarrelled with the pre-
 
 284 
 
 sumption, as It seemed to him, of the as- 
 sertion ; reminding me that the cause of 
 those whom I ventured to call adulteres- 
 ses was not to be judged before the Last 
 Great Day ; and the noble earl added, that 
 on that day he knew it would be judged 
 mercifully. My Lords, I really believe 
 there is less difference between the noble 
 earl's sentiments upon that point and mine 
 than the noble earl himself imagines. The 
 noble earl seems to confound two things 
 which are totally distinct, — the general 
 enactments of the divine law ; and the ap- 
 plication of those general enactments to 
 fix the final doom of every individual. My 
 Lords, if I say that the crime of adultery 
 is generally forbidden by the Ten Com- 
 mandments, the noble earl will not con- 
 tradict me or tax me with presumption : 
 If I say that adultery is generally forbid- 
 den by the Christian religion, under pain
 
 285 
 
 of eternal damnation, the noble earl will 
 not contradict me, nor tax me with pre- 
 smnption. What is to be deemed "adul- 
 tery, the noble earl and I shall not agree. 
 If I say that the marriage of the wife di- 
 vorced for adultery with her seducer is 
 itself adultery of the most heinous kind, 
 the noble earl will contradict me, because 
 he holds the contrary opinion : Still he 
 has no right to tax me with presump- 
 tion ; since, in my judgment, the case 
 has been so ruled by what I suppose I 
 may be allowed to call the very highest 
 ecclesiastical authority. But, my Lords, if I 
 were to assert of any individual adulteress, 
 she is lost for ever, she has been guilty of 
 that which never can be pardoned, — much 
 more, were I to assert of all the women 
 who have wantonly contracted marriage 
 with the seducers of their affections from 
 their former husbands, — if I were to pro.-
 
 286 
 
 nounce of all these adulteresses, or of any 
 one of them, that their irreversible doom 
 is to endless punishment, — mj Lords, I 
 should be guilty of most impious horrible 
 presumption, and I should justly incur the 
 noble earl's reprehension. My Lords, it is 
 my duty to teach and to maintain, that 
 there is no crime which, upon a true re- 
 pentance, God will not pardon : And God 
 forbid that I should think otherwise of 
 these unfortunate women, than that many 
 of them will be brought to sincere repent- 
 ance ; and when once they are brought to 
 repentance, their pardon is certain. If the 
 noble earl, therefore, when he says their 
 case will be mercifully judged at the Last 
 Day, means only that the merciful provi- 
 sion of the gospel for the pardon of peni- 
 tent sinners extends to this species of sin 
 as much as to any other, I entirely concur 
 with the noble earl in that opinion : Still
 
 287 
 
 I must assert, that the cohabitation of a 
 wife divorced for adultery with a new hus- 
 band, the former husband living, is adul- 
 tery by the divine law ; since I have for 
 that opinion the decision of our Lord him- 
 self, and the apostle's exposition agreeing 
 with my own upon that decision. 
 
 " My Lords, I believe I have taken this 
 discussion upon the divine law somewhat 
 out of the order of gjeneral heads which 
 I laid down ; and I must now go back to 
 another ground of objection, which, to say 
 the truth, in the variety of matter that 
 presses upon me in this argument, I had 
 almost forgotten, — namely, that this bill, 
 not taking away the husband's action of 
 damages when it makes the adulterer liable 
 to indictment, in effect gives a double pu- 
 nishment for the same crime. My Lords, 
 is this any novelty in the law of this coun- 
 try? Are there not many cases in which
 
 288 
 
 a party, injured by such act of another as ig 
 at the same time a pubhc crime and a pri-» 
 vate wrong, is at liberty to pursue the of- 
 fender either by indictment or action of 
 damages ? But in such cases, the guilty 
 party is not liable to both punishments ; 
 he is not to suffer for misdemeanour and 
 to pay damages too, I believe, in all these 
 cases there is a particular process by which 
 his Majesty's Attorney-General calls upon 
 the party complaining to make his elec- 
 tion whether he will proceed by indict- 
 ment or by action of damages : He is at 
 liberty to take his remedy in either way, 
 but not in both. And this, my Lords, I 
 apprehend, will be the case under this bill. 
 This, however, is a point upon which I 
 speak with diffidence, because it belongs 
 to the learning of monks of another order : 
 But if I have described the practice of the 
 courts erroneously, I hope the Superior of
 
 289 
 
 that other order, the noble and learned lord 
 upon the woolsack, will contradict me. 
 
 " But, my Lords, we are told that the 
 action of damages tends to promote adul- 
 tery; and that, for this reason, a bill brought 
 in for the prevention of adultery ought to 
 abolish that action. It is supposed to pro- 
 mote adultery in this way : Many a base 
 sordid husband contrives to offer his wife 
 to the arts of a seducer, in order to enrich 
 himself by the damages which he hopes to 
 recover. My Lords, I agree with the noble 
 and learned lord upon the woolsack, in the 
 opinion he delivered the other night, that 
 the injured husband, in certain situations 
 in life, may fairly and honourably seek the 
 benefit of the action of damages ; and that 
 he ought not to be deprived of it : But in 
 cases of connivance and collusion, it is my 
 belief that the damages given by the jury 
 never are received. And this is a strong 
 
 T
 
 290 
 
 argument for another mode of punish- 
 ment, not liable to be evaded by the col- 
 lusion and secret good understanding of 
 the parties. 
 
 " I come now, my Lords, to consider 
 the last article of objection, taken from the 
 supposed effect of what is called the abo- 
 minable clause ; as if that were likely to 
 be the reverse of what the promoters of 
 the bill expect from it. 
 
 " Upon this head, it has been argued, 
 that the experience of the thing is posi- 
 tively against us. This inference from ex- 
 perience is not very clearly made out ; but' 
 it is founded on a comparison of the man-- 
 ners of the women in this country, where 
 the practice of divorce for cause of adul- 
 tery obtains, with the manners of married 
 women in foreign countries professing the 
 Roman Catholic religion, which allows not 
 of divorce for any cause. It is said that
 
 291 
 
 m those countries adultery is far more fre- 
 quent ; and this greater frequency of the 
 crime is ascribed to the absolute disuse and 
 prohibition of divorce in those countries. 
 My Lords, I am very ready to believe the 
 fact, and very ready to admit that the 
 true cause is assigned for it ; because I 
 can easily imagine, that the women will be 
 less strict, where they know, that be their 
 conduct ever so bad, their husbands can- 
 not cast them off, but are still under the 
 necessity of supporting them as their wives, 
 and must father the offspring. This seems 
 indeed to be a very strong argument in fa- 
 vour of our practice of divorce for adultery. 
 I have sometimes had doubts upon that 
 point ; I have sometimes thought, that it 
 had been a happy thing for the public if 
 no bill of divorce had ever passed : But 
 I confess, that the notorious prevalence of 
 adultery in countries where divorce is by
 
 292 
 
 no means to be had seems to prove the 
 contrary. But, my Lords, there is no far- 
 ther inference ; I can find nothing, in the 
 statement of the case between this and fo- 
 reign countries, that offers any thing hke 
 experiment to decide the present question, 
 in this country, where divorce is admitted, 
 of the policy or impohcy of the restraint 
 proposed to be laid upon divorced women : 
 Nor do I see how it is possible that foreign 
 countries should furnish any such experi- 
 ment ; because divorce must take place 
 before you can have experience of the 
 good or ill of any thing that is to follow it, 
 " I conceive therefore, that we have no 
 way of judging of the utility or inutili- 
 ty of the restraint proposed by this bill, 
 but by a probable estimation of the differ- 
 ent manner in which the minds of parties 
 in adultery are likely to be affected before 
 the actual commission of the crime, by the
 
 293 
 
 law as it now stands, and by the law as it 
 will stand if this bill should pass into a 
 law. This is the only way to judge of the 
 expedience of the clause of restraint as a 
 preventive ; in which light I consider it. 
 
 " Now, my Lords, I imagine that in 
 most cases of adultery that come before 
 your Lordships, the first incitement to the 
 crime on either side has not been the mere 
 animal appetite — not gross brutal sensuali- 
 ty ; that sentiments of mutual friendship 
 and affection have mixed themselves with 
 appetite ; that these sentiments of affec- 
 tion have had somewhat of a just founda- 
 tion, in the amiable qualities and elegant 
 accomplishments of either party : I sup- 
 pose that this mixed passion, a compound 
 of desires highly criminal and of certain 
 sympathies of the mind in themselves in- 
 nocent, is in most instances the incentive 
 to the crime on both sides : I may sup-
 
 294 
 
 pose too, that in many cases the husband's 
 treatment of the wife is not such as to 
 recall her wandering affections, — that he 
 cares little about her, — that, from his in- 
 difference and her levity, they are become 
 objects of mutual disgust and aversion, — 
 and that the husband perhaps, no less than 
 the wife, has s^t his heart upon a new con- 
 nexion. Now, what says the law, accord- 
 ing to the present practice, to these three 
 parties ? — It says this : " Nothing so easy 
 as for all of you to have your several wishes. 
 Nothing is wanting, but a little money on 
 the part of the husband, who must set the 
 whole scheme a-goino^, to answer the ex- 
 pense of the law proceedings ; and that 
 want the proceedings themselves may per- 
 haps supply. Let the husband give the 
 lady and the lover opportunity ; then let 
 him brintj his action of damacjes : His 
 damages, if he takes them, will defray hi§
 
 295 
 
 charges in the spiritual courts and in botli 
 Houses of Parliament. The lady must 
 make no defence ; she must kindly supply 
 the husband with the proofs of her own 
 shame : The lover must not defend the 
 action of damages ; he may find his ac- 
 count in suffering judgment to go by de- 
 fault. Great damages may be given ; but 
 if the husband is opulent, every shilling 
 may be remitted. However that may be, 
 if you can amongst you defray the charges, 
 a divorce will be obtained, and you will all 
 be at liberty." My Lords, is it fit that the 
 laws of a civilized country, of a Christian 
 country, should hold this language to three 
 such parties as I have set before your 
 Lordships, — the indifferent husband, the 
 gay wife, the amorous seducer ? 
 
 " But now, my Lords, let us see how 
 the matter will stand if the laws are altered 
 in the manner we propose. The lady, I
 
 296 
 
 should think, will have some consideration 
 of the situation to which the indulgence of 
 a criminal passion would reduce her. I 
 shall not dwell upon the miseries of that 
 situation : They have been set forth with 
 so much eloquence and feeling by noble 
 lords who oppose this bill, that no words 
 of mine could heighten the description. 
 But, I ask, can noble lords imagine that 
 the forecast of these sufferings, which they 
 contemplate with such pangs of commise- 
 ration in a third person, will have no effect 
 upon the mind of the woman herself, to 
 deter her from those criminal indulgences 
 by which she would be involved in them ? 
 Then, my Lords, for the seducer ; who pro- 
 bably, as the law is understood, palliates his 
 guilty project to his own mind with the 
 intention of making the lady his own wife 
 if they should be detected and a divorce 
 should take place,— will it be no restraint
 
 297 
 
 upon him, when the law tells him " You 
 shall not be at liberty to give her this pro- 
 tection — to make even this imperfect re- 
 paration of her honour ?" That a divor- 
 ced wife, by marriage with her seducer, is 
 reinstated in the character and rank which 
 she held in society as a virtuous woman, is 
 certainly not the case : However, she is 
 brought into a situation of tolerable ease ; 
 in which she finds it not difficult to forego 
 the enjoyment of that cast of society from 
 which she is excluded. Will it be no re- 
 straint upon her lover, when the law tells 
 him " It shall not be in your power to 
 raise her even this step above the condition 
 of absolute scorn and infamy : You shall 
 not be allowed to confer upon her the 
 name of wife?" 
 
 " Noble lords say " No ; this will be no 
 restraint upon his passions : It will be an 
 incentive." Noble lords say, that it never
 
 298 
 
 is in the contemplation of a seducer to 
 marry the woman upon whom his arts suc- 
 ceed : That no man, of his own good- 
 liking and free-will, marries the woman he 
 has corrupted : That the marriage is a 
 matter of dire necessity, which the impe- 
 rious laws of gallantry, it seems, impose up- 
 on him ; and, extricated from the shackles 
 of those laws by the operation of our bill, 
 he will pursue his base purposes with less 
 scruple and hesitation. 
 
 " My Lords, I really think this man of 
 gallantry is very ill treated by his noble 
 friends. My Lords, I gave him, under 
 the impulse of a criminal passion, some 
 portion, however, of the feelings of a man 
 — some share of the sentiments of a gen- 
 tleman. His noble friends turn him into 
 a downright hog ; for, my Lords, there 
 remains nothing but bare unqualified sen- 
 suality to be the incitement to the conduct
 
 299 
 
 which they impute to him. My Lords, I 
 really believe that neither this bill nor any 
 ()ther you can frame will restrain the pas- 
 sions of this swinish seducer. But frequent 
 as the crime of adultery is, I hope, my 
 Lords, that these swinish seducers are very 
 few in number. My Lords, when xce have 
 spoken of connivance and collusion on the 
 part of the husband, which we believe to 
 be very common, noble lords on the other 
 side have exclaimed " What ! do you 
 think husbands are so base ? Your supposi- 
 tion is a libel on the character of the Eng- 
 lish gentleman ! " My Lords, I tell those 
 noble lords, their supposition is the libel 
 on the character of the English gentleman : 
 Though I cannot consent to couple the 
 epithet of honourable with the appella- 
 tion of adulterer, yet I am confident the 
 swinish adulterer is a very rare character
 
 300 
 
 indeed among my countrymen. And on 
 any but that character, this bill will be a 
 powerful restraint. 
 
 " And now, my Lords, with respect to 
 the situation of the divorced adulteress un- 
 der the operation of this bill, — it will un- 
 questionably be a situation of extreme de- 
 gradation and affliction ; yet it is not a 
 hardship brought upon her by this bill: 
 She brings herself to it by her crime ; and 
 the bill only says, that she shall not be al- 
 lowed to extricate herself from it by the 
 very completion of a guilty project. And 
 if this restriction be a punishment for one 
 that will actually incur the punishment, 
 numbers will be saved by the terror of the 
 example. 
 
 " But noble lords say the situation of 
 the fallen woman will be such as must 
 drive her to absolute desperation, render
 
 301 
 
 repentance and the reformation of her hfe 
 impossible, and exdude her from all hopes 
 of future mercy. 
 
 " My Lords, that she cannot in the pre- 
 sent world recover her situation in society, 
 I admit ; but I conceive that very circum- 
 stance, the mortified and solitary state to 
 which she will be condemned, will be the 
 surest means of bringing her to deep reflec- 
 tion — through reflection to repentance — 
 through repentance to pardon. If she has 
 any sense of religion remaining in her 
 mind, — and God forbid I should suppose it 
 totally extinguished, — the less she has of 
 comfort and countenance in the world, with 
 the more earnestness will she turn herself 
 to God. She is surely more likely to re- 
 pent in a state of retirement and solitude, 
 than clasped in the arms of her seducer, 
 and sharing with him in gayety and plea- 
 sure. Do noble lords conceive that the
 
 502 
 
 repentance of a sinner is impeded by the 
 punishments applied to his crimes by the 
 secular magistrate ? — My Lords, my opi- 
 nion is far otherwise : I have not the least 
 doubt, that severe laws, and a severe exe- 
 cution of the laws, have often been the 
 beginning at least of a complete radical re- 
 form in minds too depraved and hardened 
 to be wrought upon by any other means : 
 I have no doubt, that many of the worst 
 criminals that die by the hand of the exe- 
 cutioner, are brought, by the sentence which 
 they suffer here, to a deep sense of their 
 crimes, and to that repentance which will 
 avail them in the Last Day. My Lords, 
 this is the presumption of our forms of 
 law, — this is the opinion of the church. 
 According to the received forms of law, 
 the judge never pronounces sentence of 
 death upon a criminal, but he adds " The 
 Lord have mercy on your soul ! " which
 
 303 
 
 would be a wicked mockery of the man'^ 
 dreadful situation if his soul were utterlv 
 without hope of mercy. The church ap- 
 points a clergyman to attend the con- 
 demned malefactor in the interval between 
 sentence and execution, to prepare him 
 for death, and to assist him in making his 
 peace with God ; and if he gives signs of 
 genuine repentance, the church so much 
 relies on the acceptance of that repentance, 
 that slie permits him to be admitted to the 
 sacrament. Thus dying by the stroke of 
 vindictive justice, he dies in the peace and 
 communion of the church ; he dies a re- 
 conciled penitent, in the hope of final par- 
 don. My Lords, were the case otherwise, 
 I know not upon what principle capital 
 punishments could be justified in a Chris- 
 tian country ; for a sentence of death 
 would be a sentence of much more than 
 death, — an anticipation of the dreadful sen-
 
 304 
 
 teuce to everlasting torment. Now, my 
 Lords, God forbid that I should deny to 
 these unfortunate women the comfort of 
 that hope which I extend to the very worst 
 of malefactors ; I doubt not, but that num- 
 bers of them will be brought to repentance 
 and to mercy : But I contend, that the 
 restraints laid upon them by this bill will 
 be the most likely means to awaken them 
 to repentance ; so that this very severity 
 in its ejQPect is mercy. 
 
 " My Lords, you have been addressed as 
 fathers, — you have been entreated not to 
 be severe against those infirmities of our 
 common nature from which your own 
 daughters, with all the advantages of high 
 breeding, cannot be exempt. My Lords, 
 I too call upon you as fathers ; I demand 
 of you, not connivance at the shame, but 
 protection of the innocence and honour of 
 your daughters ! A father may have many
 
 305 
 
 (laughters ; if one of these is betrayed by 
 those infirmities of our common nature, 
 how is the father to protect the honour of 
 the rest ? Will he think its security too 
 dearly bought by the sufferings of the 
 guilty ? How is it to be secured at all, if 
 this guilt is generally to escape with impu- 
 nity ? — But, my Lords, I address you not as 
 fathers individually : I say, that the inno- 
 cence of daughters is a matter in which 
 fathers ought to make a common cause; 
 and the feelings of the individual must be 
 sacrificed, when the occasion requires it, to 
 the common interest. 
 
 " My Lords, once more I conjure you 
 to remember, that justice, not compassion 
 for the guilty, is the great principle of le- 
 gislation. Yet, my Lords, your compas- 
 sion may find worthy objects : Turn, my 
 Lords, your merciful regards to the illus- 
 trious suppliants prostrate at this moment 
 
 u
 
 306 
 
 at your bar, — Conjugal Fidelity, Domestic 
 Happiness, Public Manners, the Virtue of 
 the Sex ! TJiese, my Lords, are the sup- 
 pliants now kneeling before you, and im- 
 ploring the protection of your wisdom and 
 your justice." 
 
 The bill was carried, by a majority of 
 eight ; seventy-seven peers voting for it, 
 sixty-nine against it.
 
 UPON THE BILL TO PREVENT THE INCREASE 
 OF PAPISTS, AND TO REGULATE THE EXIST- 
 ING MONASTIC INSTITUTIONS; 
 
 July 10, ISOO. 
 
 A BILL having passed the House of Com- 
 mons, entitled " an act to prevent any ad- 
 dition to the number of persons belonging 
 to certain foreign religious orders or com- 
 munities lately settled in this kingdom, 
 and to regulate the education of youth by 
 such persons," the same was moved for 
 commitment in the Upper House on the 
 10th of July 1800. The framers of this 
 bill contended, that the growth of Popery 
 had come to such an excess by the tolera- 
 tion granted to the emigrant clergy and 
 the exiled monks and nuns of France, that
 
 308 
 
 strong measures were required to stop it. 
 The bill therefore provided, that the tem- 
 porary residents in the several monasteries 
 in the kingdom be subject to the provi- 
 sions of the alien act ; that the names and 
 numbers of all such persons be returned 
 to the magistrates in their respective dis- 
 tricts ; that the farther extension of such 
 institutions should be prohibited ; that 
 the heads of all such monasteries return 
 their names, &c. together with that of their 
 pupils, at every quarter-sessions ; and that 
 magistrates should in their districts inspect 
 the same. The bill was strongly opposed 
 by the Bishop of Rochester, in the fol- 
 lowing words. 
 
 <{ 
 
 MY LORDS, 
 
 " If I have not opposed the 
 second reading of this bill, it is because I
 
 309 
 
 conceive that your Lordships are seldom 
 clearly informed of the principle of a bill 
 till it has been read a second time. The 
 first reading is little more than a notifica- 
 tion that a bill for such or such a purpose 
 is in the House ; and, at this period of the 
 session, we are so little in the habit of a 
 close attendance upon our Parliamentary 
 duty, that it happens to many of your 
 Lordships not to see the prints that are 
 laid upon the table till within a few mi- 
 nutes of the second readino^. But the bill 
 having now received its second reading, I 
 must suppose your Lordships to be in com- 
 plete possession of its principle ; and I 
 rise without the least hesitation to oppose 
 its farther progress. In this, my Lords, I 
 shall labour under this particular disadvan- 
 tage, — that none of the friends of the bill 
 having taken the trouble to open what 
 they take to be its merits, I can only guess
 
 310 
 
 what the J will find to say In support of it : 
 I can therefore only state my own objec-' 
 tions ; and reply to the supposed argu- 
 ments of the other side, by guess and divi- 
 nation. 
 
 " My Lords, the object of the bill is to 
 provide a security against certain dangers 
 which it is supposed may arise from the 
 great influx of persons of the Roman Ca- 
 tholic religion into this country, in conse- 
 quence of the French Revolution, — to pro- 
 vide a security against these dangers by a 
 new power to be placed in the hands of 
 the Crown. My Lords, my objection is, — 
 that in one respect the bill is unnecessa- 
 ry, and in another completely unconstitu- 
 tional : It is unnecessary as a means of se- 
 curity against the dangers it foresees, — not 
 because the apprehension is altogether 
 groundless, but because the security is al- 
 ready provided by the existing laws ; and
 
 311 
 
 in regard to the new power which it would 
 give to the Crown, it is perfectly unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 
 " My Lords, the storm of antichristian 
 persecution, which has raged in France 
 since her Revolution, has driven numbers 
 both of the secular clergy, and persons of 
 both sexes of the religious orders, to take 
 shelter in this hospitable land, by the na- 
 tural generosity of Britons, and the influ- 
 ence . of the benevolent principles of the 
 Protestant religion, the universal asylum 
 of the persecuted and distressed. My 
 Lords, the protection we have given to 
 these miserable fugitives reflects the high- 
 est honour upon the country, and upon 
 the Protestant religion, which we profess. 
 At the same time, my Lords, while we ex- 
 tend this kindness to persons of a diffe- 
 rent religious persuasion, it certainly be- 
 comes the wisdom of the Legislature, to
 
 312 
 
 look to tlie consequences that may arise to 
 our own civil constitution and our own 
 ecclesiastical establishment, and to provide 
 for the security of both : But, my Lords, 
 I contend that the security of both is suf- 
 ficiently provided for by the existing laws, 
 — better provided for by them than by this 
 bill ; and that any new law for the purpose 
 is altogether unnecessary : And I am al- 
 ways an enemy to the multiplication of 
 statutes without urgent necessity. 
 
 " My Lords, before I enter upon the 
 particular dangers which the bill w^ould 
 prevent, and the means of prevention af- 
 forded by the existing laws, I believe it 
 will be proper to premise some general ob- 
 servations upon the statutes which relate 
 to persons professing the Roman Catholic 
 religion, as they stand at present. This 
 may somewhat shorten the sequel of my 
 argument j and I feel, that in spite of all
 
 313 
 
 I can do to abbreviate, the detail into 
 which I shall be obliged to enter will de- 
 tain your Lordships much longer than I 
 could wish : But somewhat I hope of bre- 
 vity, and much of perspicuity, will be gain- 
 ed by the preliminary observations I am 
 about to make. 
 
 " First, my Lords, I would observe, 
 that all laws respecting Roman Catholics 
 apply equally, without any difference or 
 discrimination, to the natural-born subjects 
 of his Majesty and to aliens. This is the 
 case both of the old penal statutes and of 
 the late statutes of relief: The penalty 
 attaches upon any overt act of Popery, 
 whether he who commits it be a natural- 
 born subject or an alien, without any re- 
 gard to that difference of condition. On 
 the other hand, the late statutes for the 
 relief of Roman Catholics from some pe- 
 nalties, upon certain conditions, — the be-
 
 314 
 
 iiefit, I say, of these extends equally to the 
 alien and natural-born subject : These sta- 
 tutes of relief relieve equally, and under 
 the same conditions, all persons on whom 
 the penalties would otherwise attach ; the 
 alien is equally with the natural-born sub- 
 ject entitled to the relief, if he perform the 
 condition under which the relief is held 
 out. 
 
 " My Lords, another observation I have 
 to make upon these laws is this : It is 
 very important ; and I believe the thing is 
 not generally understood, — it certainly was 
 riot understood by the framers of this bill. 
 My Lords, by the late statutes for the re- 
 lief of Roman Catholics, not one of the old 
 penal statutes is repealed, — except indeed 
 certain clauses in a statute of the 11th 
 and 12th of WilHam the Third, subject- 
 ing any Popish bishop, priest, or Jesuit, 
 who should say mass, or exercise any part
 
 315 
 
 of the function of a Popish bishop or 
 priest, and any person professing the Po- 
 pish rehgion who should keep a school or 
 take youth to board, to perpetual imprison- 
 ment ; entitling any person who should 
 apprehend and prosecute to conviction 
 any Popish bishop, priest, or Jesuit, to a 
 reward of 100/. ; and creating certain dis- 
 abilities of taking lands by descent, devise, 
 or limitation. These odious clauses in the 
 statute of King William are indeed repeal- 
 ed by an act of the 18th of the King : 
 But, with the exception of these clauses, 
 my Lords, not one of the old penal statutes 
 is repealed. My Lords, I speak in the 
 presence of those who are well acquainted 
 with this subject : I am therefore in no ap- 
 prehension that I shall mislead your Lord- 
 ships ; I hope I shall be myself set right, if 
 I am in error. But, my Lords, I repeat 
 my assertion, desiring to be contradicted if
 
 316 
 
 I am wrong, — with the exception of so 
 'much as I have mentioned of the statute 
 of King William, not an atom of the old 
 penal law is repealed.* 
 
 " It is Irue, my Lords, a statute was 
 passed, in the 31st of the King, to re- 
 lieve persons professing the Roman Catho- 
 lic religion from certain penalties, under 
 certain conditions. But, my Lords, this 
 statute, without repealing any one of the 
 old penal laws, gives its relief in this man- 
 ner, and in no other : It requires that the 
 Roman Catholic shall take and subscribe 
 a certain oath and declaration ; which, with 
 respect to him, is an oath of allegiance, su- 
 premacy, and abjuration : Then it enacts, 
 that no person who has taken and sub- 
 scribed this oath and declaration shall 
 
 * Tliis was said to provoke a noble duke to speak out, 
 who made signs, as they were understood, of dissent.
 
 317 
 
 henceforth be prosecuted, by virtue of any 
 of the penal statutes, for certain overt acts 
 of Popery, which it names, — such as not 
 going to church, going to mass, or keeping 
 a Popish servant. But as it only stays the 
 prosecution or conviction, without repeal- 
 ing the statute, — if any Roman Catholic 
 refuses or neglects to take and subscribe 
 the oath and declaration, the unrepealed 
 statute is in full force against him ; or if, 
 having taken the oath, he does any thing 
 forbidden by the old statutes, which is not 
 mentioned in the statute of relief as one of 
 the things for which he is not to be prose- 
 cuted, the old statute is in force, and the 
 penalty for such offence still attaches. 
 
 " Having made these general observa- 
 tions upon the laws respecting Roman Ca- 
 tholics, as they now stand, I shall now state 
 to your Lordships the very sufficient se- 
 curity which I conceive they afford against
 
 318 
 
 any danger that may be thought likely to 
 arise from the fugitives from France, the 
 objects of her antichristian persecution. 
 
 " My Lords, it is supposed that these 
 ecclesiastics of the church of Rome may 
 have some zeal to propagate the religion 
 to which they are attached, and may take 
 advantage of every opportunity they can 
 find of disseminating the principles of their 
 church among our common people. My 
 Lords, it is very likely : I should expect 
 that the ecclesiastic of the church of Rome 
 would be animated with this zeal ; be- 
 cause, my Lords, I conceive that every 
 man that has a religion has some zeal for 
 propagating that religion, — meaning, by a 
 religion, some particular shape and form of 
 the Christian religion — a religion affecting 
 the future interests of men, and furnishing 
 means for the securing of those interests. 
 My Lords, I say that every man that has
 
 319 
 
 such a religion has a zeal for the propaga- 
 tion of it : If he has not the zeal, he is not 
 in earnest in his professions. If indeed a 
 man's religion consists merely in negatives, 
 — which is the case with many now-a-days, 
 who would be thought good Christians and 
 the best of Protestants, though they seem 
 to have no acknowledged creed, but a sort 
 of confession of disbelief, without an avow- 
 ed assent to any thing definite ; persons 
 who, not adhering to the original principles 
 of the Reformation, as laid down in the Con- 
 fession of Faith of the churches of Saxony, 
 and the Thirty-nine Articles of the church 
 of England, think to reform the Reforma- 
 tion, by expunging, one after another, eve- 
 ry article of our belief — the Trinity — the in- 
 carnation — the atonement — grace — the vir- 
 tue of the sacraments as means and instru- 
 ments of the gifts and graces of which they
 
 320 
 
 are signs, — I can easily suppose that such 
 persons will have little zeal about the caput 
 mortuum of religion which remains after 
 this dissipation of the substance. The 
 man who puts the Son of Mary upon a le- 
 vel only with the son of Sophronisca, — who 
 acknowledges in our Lord Jesus Christ no- 
 thing more than the Socrates of Jerusalem, 
 —will feel, I suppose, no more zeal for the 
 propagation of the moral of the gospel 
 (which is the whole of such a man's Chris- 
 tianity) than I feel to propagate the dry 
 moral of Socrates or of Marcus Antoninus. 
 But every man that has a religion that de- 
 serves the name cannot but have some- 
 thing of a zeal for the propagation of it. I 
 suppose, therefore, that the Roman Catho- 
 lic priest has this zeal ; and, my Lords, I 
 bear him no ill-will for it, — conscious that I 
 have it too for our common Christianity,
 
 321 
 
 and for tliat form of Christianity to which 
 I am attached — the doctrine and rites of 
 the reformed church of England. 
 
 " But, mj Lords, a man that knows any 
 thing of the w^orld, and of the present state 
 of the Christian religion in the world, will 
 understand, that this zeal, however lauda- 
 ble in itself, is a principle that must be laid 
 under considerable restraint, otherwise it 
 may do much mischief, — mischief to that 
 which it is its object to serve — to religion. 
 In the present state of things, a prudeijt 
 man, who considers how the interests of 
 churches and of states are connected and 
 blended, will be sensible, that his zeal for 
 the propagation of the particular tenets of 
 his own sect upon many occasions must 
 be repressed, — that it is a part of his reli- 
 gious duty to restrain it. But the public 
 safety must not be trusted to the discretion 
 of individuals : It is fit, therefore, and ne- 
 
 X
 
 322 
 
 .(iessary, that the laws should lay diie re* 
 straint upon the irregular sallies of an in- 
 discreet zeal ; and, my Lords, this interfe- 
 rence of the laws is the more necessary, be- 
 cause the thing to be restrained is in itself 
 not criminal. But, my Lords, I say, that 
 the zeal of the Roman Catholic is very suf- 
 ficiently restrained by our subsisting sta- 
 tutes. jMy Lords, the statute of the 3d Jac. 
 cap. 4. is at this day in full force against any 
 person who shall attempt to draw away 
 any one within his Majesty's dominions 
 to the communion of the church of Rome. 
 My Lords, by the 22d and 23d clauses of 
 that statute, and by an older statute, the 23d 
 of Eliz. cap. 1. which also is still in force, 
 " it is high treason for any person, either 
 upon the seas, or beyond the seas, or in any 
 other place within the King's dominions, 
 to reconcile or be reconciled to the Pope or 
 See of Rome." To be reconciled indeed
 
 323 
 
 is no longer an offence to be prosecuted 
 under these or any other statutes ; because 
 the statute of the 31st of the King says, 
 " that no one complying with the condi- 
 tions of that statute shall be liable to im- 
 peachment or prosecution simply for being 
 a Papist or reputed Papist ; or for profess- 
 ing or being educated in the Popish reli- 
 gion ; or for hearing or saying mass ; or for 
 being a priest or deacon ; or entering or 
 belonging to any ecclesiastical order or com- 
 munity of the church of Rome ; or for be- 
 ing present at, or performing, or observing, 
 any rite, ceremony, practice, or observation, 
 of the Popish religion ; or maintaining or 
 assisting others therein;'* provided, &c. 
 But, my Lords, will any one point out to me 
 the clause in the statute of the 31st of the 
 King, or in any other statute now subsisting, 
 which says that a person having reconciled 
 or attempting to reconcile any other person
 
 324 
 
 within the King's dominions to the Pope or 
 See of Rome, shall not be impeached or pro- 
 secuted under these statutes of Elizabeth 
 and James as for the offence of high, trea- 
 son ; and, if convicted, shall not suffer as a 
 traitor ? And, my Lords, I ask, are not the 
 penalties of high treason a sufficient re- 
 straint, are they not all the restraint you can 
 lay, upon the zeal of Roman Catholics ? 
 
 " My Lords, I ought to ask pardon of the 
 House for taking up so much of your time 
 upon this subject of the danger of conver- 
 sions ; because, in truth, it has little con- 
 nexion with the bill ; for the bill takes 
 no notice of this danger, and pretends not 
 to provide any security against it. Rut, my 
 Lords, I know that the apprehension of 
 this danger is without doors one of the 
 most popular arguments for the bill, and 
 has procured it any favour that it has with 
 the public. People in general have given
 
 325 
 
 themselves no trouble to know more about 
 this bill than that somehow or other it is 
 against Popery, and particularly against the 
 propagation of Popery by the emigrants 
 from France : And you hear it said every 
 day, in commendation of this bill, " Oh ! 
 God forbid we should persecute them ! but 
 the laws should take care that they do not 
 pervert our own people." So say I, my 
 Lords ; but then I say the care is already 
 taken ; and I think it right to take this op- 
 portunity of setting the public right upon 
 this point^of showing tliat the supposed 
 merit of the bill, in this particular, rests 
 upon a misconception of the bill itself, and 
 a misunderstanding of the law upon the 
 subject as it actually stands. 
 
 " But now, my Lords, I proceed to con- 
 sider that apprehended danger which is one 
 express and principal object of the bill ; a 
 danger apprehended from the impunity
 
 326 
 
 given bj the statute of the 31st of the King, 
 under conditions, to Roman CathoHc tutors 
 and schoohiiasters ; of which these fugitives 
 from France, it is supposed, may avail 
 themselves. 
 
 " My Lords, the fact must be admitted, 
 that amono- the fugitives from France are 
 many regulars of both sexes. The monks, 
 however, are verv few ; and the far greater 
 proportion both of monks and nuns are the 
 natural-born subjects of his Majesty, — Eng- 
 lish monks and English nuns, who were set- 
 tled in convents of their own in France 
 and Flanders, because they could make no 
 such settlement in their own country. Their 
 houses have been demolished, their proper- 
 ty plundered, their persons harassed ; and 
 they have fled into the arms of their mo- 
 ther-country in the hope of finding a shel- 
 ter here from the fury of Antichrist in a 
 foreign land. With these, some French
 
 327 
 
 monastics of both sexes have made their 
 escape ; and they are now all settled in dif- 
 ferent parts of the country, in houses in 
 which the remaining members of eacli con- 
 vent live in common. The monks, as I 
 have said, are few, — English Benedictines 
 settled at Acton Barnell, near Shrewsbury ; 
 English Benedictines at Vernon Hall, near 
 Liverpool; English Franciscans, near North 
 Allerton ; and English Dominicans at Cars- 
 halton, in Surry. The persons of these 
 four diiFerent orders amount to no more 
 than twenty-six ; and these, with the addi- 
 tion of five miserable Cistercians of the or^ 
 der of La Trappe settled near Wareham, 
 and five Carthusians near Wardour Castle, 
 make the sum-total of monks, English and 
 French, settled in England. The nuns, 
 my Lords, are more numerous ; consisting 
 of the surviving members of twenty-two 
 ponvents in all, of which eighteen were
 
 S2S 
 
 English, and four only French, — the Ber- 
 nardine Dames, from Abbey Desprez at 
 Douay, settled at Pentonville, near Isling- 
 ton ; the ladies of the order of St Francis 
 de Sales, settled near Little Chelsea ; the 
 Benedictine Dames of Montargis, at Bodney 
 Hall, in Norfollv ; and the Hospitalieres of 
 Cambray, at or near Bford, in Essex. The 
 whole number of these four French con- 
 vents is, I believe, very small. Of the 
 eighteen English, I could state distinctly 
 the different orders, the settlements, and 
 the numbers of each ; for I believe I am 
 possessed of pretty accurate and authentic 
 information : But I shall not trouble your 
 Lordships with this detail ; I shall only say 
 that the gross number certainly exceeds not 
 three hundred and sixty persons. 
 
 " My Lords, all these persons (with the ex- 
 ception of the ten French monks) have quar- 
 iified themselves to be teachers of youth,
 
 329 
 
 according to the statute of the 31st of the 
 King ; and they have opened schools at 
 their respective habitations, — the monks for 
 boys, and the nuns for young ladies. 
 
 " My Lords, I, for my part, am well 
 pleased that the Roman Catholics of this 
 country are at last furnished with the means 
 of education for their sons and daughters 
 within the kingdom. My Lords, it was a 
 cruel and a weak policy to compel the Ro- 
 man Catholics to send their children abroad 
 for that liberal education which they could 
 not receive at home ; and I believe your 
 Lordships will agree with me, that a Ro- 
 man Catholic education at home is a much 
 better thing than a Roman Catholic edu- 
 cation in a foreign country. My Lonls, 
 for this reason I rejoice at the institution 
 of respectable Roman Catholic schools in 
 different parts of the kingdom. But the 
 friends of the bill, I suppose, will say ** It
 
 330 
 
 IS very fit that the Roman Catholics should 
 have the liberty and the means of educating 
 their own children in their own principles ; 
 but let us take care that they pervert not 
 our children ; let them be restrained from 
 taking the children of Protestants to board 
 or educate." Agreed, my Lords ; this re- 
 striction should certainly be laid upon them. 
 Will your Lordships give me leave to re- 
 cite the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th clauses 
 of the 31st of the King. " No ecclesiastic 
 or other person of the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion, who shall take and subscribe the 
 oath, &c. shall be prosecuted in any court 
 for teaching or instructing youth as a tu- 
 tor or schoolmaster : Provided, that no 
 person professing the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion shall obtain or hold the master- 
 ship of any endowed college or school 
 for education of youth, or keep a school in 
 either of the Universities : And provided.
 
 331 
 
 that no schoolmaster professing the Ro- 
 man Catholic religion shall receive into his 
 school the child of any Protestant father : 
 And provided, that no person professing 
 the Roman Catholic religion shall keep 
 a school till his or her name and descrip- 
 tion shall have been recorded at the quar- 
 ter-sessions, by the clerk of the peace, &c. 
 And no person offending in the premises 
 (i. e. the premises of these three provisos) 
 shall receive any benefit of this act." No 
 schoolmaster, therefore, professing the Ro- 
 man Catholic religion, who shall receive 
 into his school the child of any Protest- 
 ant father, is to have any benefit of this 
 act. My Lords, if he has no benefit of this 
 act, he is liable to the penalties of all the 
 subsisting statutes against Popish school- 
 masters. And what are those penalties, my 
 Lords?— By the 23dEliz. (cap. 1. sect. 6.) 
 " Any person who shall keep or maintain
 
 332 
 
 a schoolmaster which shall not repair to 
 church, or be allowed by the bishop or or- 
 dinary of the diocese, shall forfeit 10/. for 
 every month ; and such schoolmaster or 
 teacher presuming to teach contrary to this 
 act, shall be disabled from teaching, and 
 shall be imprisoned for one year." Such, 
 my Lords, are the penalties by the statute 
 of Elizabeth, — upon the person retaining 
 a Popish schoolmaster, a forfeit of 10/. per 
 month ; upon the schoolmaster, disabili- 
 ty, and imprisonment for one whole year. 
 But, my Lords, these being not enough, 
 by the 1st Jac. cap. 4. " No person shall 
 keep any school, or be a schoolmaster, out 
 of any of the universities or colleges of this 
 realm, except it be in some public or free 
 grammar-school, or in some such noble- 
 man's or gentleman's house as are not re- 
 cusants, or where the same schoolmaster 
 shall be specially licensed thereunto by the
 
 333 
 
 archbishop, bishop, or guardian of the spi- 
 rituahties of that diocese." And the pe- 
 nalty, my Lords, for offence against this 
 statute, as well upon the schoolmaster as 
 the party that shall retain or maintain him^ 
 is a forfeit upon each of them separately ot 
 40s. a day. Forty shillings a day, my Lords, 
 seems a sufficient forfeit to keep any Po- 
 pish schoolmaster or schoolmistress in pret- 
 ty good order. But it is said these old laws 
 are a mere dead letter, they are so difficult 
 to be enforced. Difficult to be enforced, 
 my Lords ! I maintain that no law is more 
 easy to be enforced than these penal sta- 
 tutes against Popish schoolmasters. My 
 Lords, the statute of King James is a bu- 
 siness of qui tarn ; for the forfeit is half to 
 the King and half to the person that sues : 
 And will any man of common information 
 say, that a prosecution by indictment for a 
 misdemeanour under this new bill will be
 
 334 
 
 an easier proceeding than a qui tarn action ? 
 What ! my Lords, is a pettifogging attor- 
 ney nowhere to' be found, who would lend 
 his services in this righteous business of 
 bringing Popish schoolmasters and school- 
 mistresses to condign punishment? But 
 then, it is said, it would be odious to enforce 
 these penal laws. Would it so, my Lords ? 
 — then I say it is infinitely more odious to 
 be framing new ones. 
 
 " My Lords, I now come to the greatest 
 danger of all, in the apprehension of the 
 framers of this bill ; which it is the princi- 
 pal object of the bill to prevent, — the dan- 
 ger that, in consequence of the numerous 
 settlements of nuns and monks, but chief- 
 ly of nuns, for the monks are so few that 
 they may be very properly overlooked, — 
 that in consequence of these settlements, 
 monastic institutions may gain a permanent 
 establishment in this country.
 
 335 
 
 " I have stated to your Lordships, that 
 English nuns of eighteen different orders, 
 besides four sets of French nuns, are set- 
 tled in different parts of the country, — each 
 order in a house of its own ; where the per- 
 sons of the same order Hve together (but a- 
 part from those of other orders), arid, other- 
 wise than in the business of education, mix 
 not with the world. Now, my Lords, if 
 any ten or twenty or a larger number of 
 these ladies should choose to take a great 
 house, where they may live together as 
 they have been used to do all their lives, 
 and lead their lives according to their old 
 habits ; getting up in the morning and re- 
 tiring at night at stated hours ; dining upon 
 fish on some days of the week, upon eggs 
 on others, — I profess I can discover no 
 crime, no harm, no danger, in all this ; and 
 I cannot imagine why we should be anx* 
 ious to prevent it. My Lords, I say ii
 
 336 
 
 would be great cruelty to attempt to pre- 
 vent it ; for, my Lords, these women could 
 find no comfort in any society but their 
 own, nor in any other way of life. My 
 Lords, they cannot mix with the lower or- 
 der of the people : They are ladies, well- 
 born (many of them indeed of high ex- 
 traction), and of cultivated minds. And 
 yet, my Lords, they are not prepared to 
 mix in the politer circles. Enamoured, 
 by long habit, of the quiet and solitude 
 of their cells, — absorbed in the pleasures 
 of what thei/ call the interior life, — these 
 women would have no relish for the 
 exterior life of fashionable ladies. My 
 Lords, it would be martyrdom to these 
 retired, sober women, to be compelled to 
 lay aside the cowl and simple habit of their 
 order, to besmear their cheeks with Vermil- 
 lion, and plaster their throats with litharge, 
 ' — to clap upon their heads an ugly lump of
 
 337 
 
 mannfactured hair, in shape and colour as 
 different as possible from the natural cover- 
 ing, — and then, with elbows bared to the 
 shoulder, to sally forth to the pleasures of 
 the midnight rout, to distribute the cards 
 at loo, or, soaring to sublimer joys, to rat- 
 tle the dice-box at the games of hazard ! 
 Exquisite, ravishing, as these delights must 
 be confessed to be to those who have a 
 well-formed taste, these stupid women, my 
 Lords, have not that taste ; and if you will 
 not permit them to live in their own dull 
 way, you should have strangled them when 
 they first landed. " Who ever thought of 
 strangling them?'* say the friends of the 
 bill ; " or who would hinder them from liv- 
 ing quietly among themselves in their own 
 habitations ? But what we fear is, tliat they 
 will inveigle our own young women, — that 
 they will profess new nuns in this country, 
 — that so a succession will be provided, and 
 
 Y
 
 monastic institutions established, not only 
 for a time, but rendered perpetual ; and 
 that is the danger which this bill is intend- 
 ed to prevent." My Lords, I confess my 
 mind is not much alarmed with apprehen- 
 sions of this danger. My Lords, I think 
 we have a pretty good security against it 
 for the present, in the general inclination 
 of the minds of my fair countrywomen ; 
 which, I am persuaded, is not bent towards 
 retirement and seclusion : But the fancies, 
 to be sure, as well as the fashions of Eng- 
 lish ladies are liable to change ; and there- 
 fore I agree, that small as the danger seems 
 to be at present, the laws ought to pro^ 
 vide against it. But, my Lords, I ask, 
 upon this point as upon the former, have 
 not the laws provided ? Will your Lord- 
 ships take the trouble once more to turn 
 to the 31st of the King : How do your 
 Lordships read the 17th section? — " Pro-
 
 339 
 
 vided also, and be it farther enacted, that 
 nothing in this act contained shall make 
 it lawful to found, endow, or establish 
 (lawful to found, to endow if founded, or if 
 founded and endowed, to establish — domi- 
 cile in this country) any religious order or 
 society of persons bound by monastic or 
 religious vows ; or to found, endow, or esta- 
 blish any school, academy, or college, by 
 persons professing the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion, within these realms or the dominions 
 thereunto belonging : And that all uses, 
 trusts, and dispositions, whether of real or 
 personal property, which immediately be- 
 fore the said 24th day of June 1791 might 
 be deemed to be superstitious or unlawful, 
 shall continue to be so deemed and taken ; 
 anything in this act contained notwithstand- 
 ing." Nothing, yom- Lordships see, in this 
 act contained, is to make it lawful to found, 
 endow, or establish any monastic society
 
 340 
 
 in this country. If nothing in this act of 
 the 31st of the King makes it lawful, I am 
 sure it is not made lawful by any other 
 act : It is completely unlawful ; and if 
 any of the religious ladies settled here at- 
 tempt to establish and perpetuate their or- 
 der in this country by professing new sisters 
 here, they are guilty in every such instance 
 of a gross overt act of Popery ; and the 
 whole park of the artillery of the penal 
 code points at them its dreadful thunders. 
 And not only so, my Lords, but no mo- 
 nastic society can take any property, real 
 or personal : Property of any kind, or 
 granted in any way, " devised, bequeathed, 
 or settled upon trust, so that the profits 
 may be applied to any abbey, priory, con- 
 vent, nunnery, college of Jesuits, seminary 
 or school of Popish education," is forfeited 
 to the King, for the use of the public, by 
 the 1st Geo. sect. 2. cap. 50. And I think,
 
 341 
 
 mv Lords, there is little danger that any 
 monastic society without funds of any sort 
 for its subsistence will be of long dura- 
 tion. 
 
 " But, my Lords, I know reports are 
 confidently circulated that these laws are 
 disregarded, and that new professions have 
 taken place in great numbers among the 
 nuns of the different orders since their ar- 
 rival here. My Lords, as to the great 
 numbers, I disbelieve it : That some have 
 taken place, I believe ; but they have been 
 very few; and when the particular cases are 
 examined, there will be found to be very 
 little ground of complaint. 
 
 (The Bishop then related two cases ; Up- 
 on which the Lord Chancellor rose, and 
 observed, that it might be very improper 
 to proceed in this particular detail ; since, 
 whatever might be said in extenuation, the 
 thing was certainly a high offence against
 
 342 
 
 the laws ; and the discovery of particular 
 instanced might subject the persons con- 
 cerned to severe prosecutions.) 
 
 *' My Lords, I thank the noble and 
 learned lord for stopping me : I am sen- 
 sible of the indiscretion of entering upon 
 this detail, and shall proceed no farther 
 in it. But the necessity of abstaining 
 from it, which the noble and learned lord 
 has suggested, greatly strengthens my ar- 
 gument. To profess a new sister, even in 
 the most excusable cases, is now stated by 
 great authority to be a high offence against 
 the existing law^s; exposing the persons 
 concerned to the danger of very severe pe- 
 nalties : The noble and learned lord there- 
 fore agrees with me that the thing is for- 
 bidden, under the highest penalties, by 
 the laws we already have : I hope, there- 
 fore, he will agree with me in the conclu- 
 sion that no new law is necessary upon
 
 343 
 
 this subject. My Lords, with respect to 
 the fact of the professions that have taken 
 place, I shall onlj say in general, that it is 
 my full belief and persuasion, that not one 
 has taken place among our English nuns 
 but in cases similar to the two I have de- 
 scribed ; in which the professed were 
 young ladies that were upon their proba- 
 tion in the convent abroad, before the 
 storm fell upon the convents. Such, and 
 such only, as I believe, have been profes- 
 sed in this country since the arrival of the 
 convents here. And, my Lords, I must 
 say more for them : I have the greatest 
 reason to believe, that even in such cases 
 the offence will not be repeated amongst 
 the English nuns : I have the greatest rea- 
 son to believe, and could almost venture to 
 assure the House, that the vicars apostolic, 
 well aware of the illegality of the practice, 
 have cautioned their people against it, and
 
 344 
 
 will use their utmost influence to preven^T 
 it in the future. My Lords, in saying this 
 with respect only to the English nuns, I 
 would not be understood to admit that 
 any worse cases have happened among the 
 French sisterhoods, or that the thing is 
 likely to be repeated among them : But 
 with respect to them, my Lords, I speak 
 with less confidence, because I have not 
 means of information equally accurate ; and 
 I conceive that the vicars apostolic may not 
 have the same command over them as they 
 have over the English. But I must observe, 
 my Lords, with respect to them, that al- 
 though the penal law^s and the statutes of re- 
 lief from penalties apply equally, as I re- 
 marked long since, to natural-born subjects 
 and to aliens, yet if these alien nuns should 
 be so ill-advised as to take advantage of the 
 indulgence w4iich our statutes extend to 
 them, to do any thing that may justly oiFend
 
 345 
 
 or alarm the public, the summary opera- 
 tion of the alien bill, my Lords, hangs over 
 them. So that, with the laws respecting 
 Popery, equally applying to subjects and to 
 aliens, with the addition of the alien bill to 
 keep aliens in order in all points, I con- 
 ceive our security against the dangers which 
 this bill would obviate to be most com- 
 plete. 
 
 " But now, my Lords, let us look at the 
 means of security which this bill would 
 provide ; which I affirm to be most uncon- 
 stitutional. 
 
 " My Lords, the preamble of the bill 
 states, that " numbers of persons belong- 
 ing to certain religious orders or commu- 
 nities have lately come into this kingdom." 
 — Agreed, my Lords ; the fact is as stated. 
 Then the preamble assumes, " that it is 
 expedient to permit, under certain restric- 
 tions, their residence here." — Agreed again,
 
 346 
 
 my Lords : It is very convenient to per-^ 
 mit their residence ; for, with respect to the 
 far greater part of them, their residence, 
 upon the condition of their taking the oaths 
 required by law, cannot but be permitted. 
 The nuns in the proportion of nine to two, 
 and the monks in the proportion of twenty- 
 six to ten, are natural-born subjects; and ha- 
 ving taken the oaths, have a right to reside 
 here, in their own country, without any re- 
 strictions. Well, my Lords, since here 
 they are, and since they cannot be sent 
 away, the bill wisely proceeds to enact, 
 that " from the passing of this act, it shall 
 be lawful for his Majesty, his heirs and 
 successors, when they shall think fit, to 
 grant to such religious orders or commu- 
 nities professing the Roman Catholic faith, 
 his royal licence and authority to continue 
 to reside in these realms during the conti- 
 nuance of the present war, and one year
 
 347 
 
 after." — To continue to reside ? My Lords, 
 for the continued residence of the indivi- 
 duals no hcence is wanted ; it is a matter 
 of right with respect to most of thsm : The 
 continued residence therefore which is to 
 be hcensed, must be understood of their 
 residence as orders or communities — their 
 residence as monastic corporations, in that 
 form and shape ; and so the words that 
 follow explain it : The King is impower- 
 ed to grant them his licence to reside, 
 *' and to perform and observe, within their 
 respective houses, the rites and ordinances 
 of their respective institutions ; any law or 
 statute to the contrary notwithstanding." 
 This, my Lords, is what I maintain to be 
 perfectly unconstitutional. Observe, my 
 Lords, — they are licensed to perform the 
 rites and ordinances — of what, my Lords ? 
 — Not simply of the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion, but of their respective institutions.
 
 348 
 
 My Lords, did the framers of this bill 
 know what will be allowed, or rather did 
 they know what will not be allowed, under 
 such a licence ? Penance, your Lordships 
 know, is a rite of the Roman Catholic re- 
 ligion : But penance in religious houses 
 is administered by the order and direction 
 of the superior; and as there administered, 
 it often consists in imprisonment for any 
 length of time, and in other corporal se- 
 verities. Good God ! my Lords, and are 
 the superiors of these Parliamentary mo- 
 nasteries to be impowered, by his Majes- 
 ty's royal licence, to imprison and otherwise 
 maltreat the persons of his Majesty's sub- 
 jects? But, my Lords, this is not all : Did 
 the framers of this bill know how, according 
 to the notions of Roman Catholics, a new 
 monastery may be founded ? — My Lords, 
 it cannot be done by act of Parliament : 
 The Roman Catholics will not consider it
 
 349 
 
 as a monastery, without some considerable 
 interposition of the authority of the eccle- 
 siastical superiors, — of the bishop of the 
 diocese, in any country where the church 
 of Rome is the established church; except, 
 indeed, in the case of an order of nuns 
 specially exempted from the jurisdiction of 
 the bishop, and subject to some order of 
 monks ; which is the case of many : But in 
 tlilfc country, where the church of Rome 
 is only tolerated, I apprehend the vicars 
 apostolic stand in the place of the bishop 
 of the diocese, or other ecclesiastical supe- 
 rior. But, however that may be, my Lords, 
 the ecclesiastical authority, in whatever 
 hands it may be lodged, must be interposed 
 for the regular constitution of a monas- 
 tery or a convent. And so, by this licence, 
 my Lords, the King is to give not barely 
 a religious but a civil political effect to 
 these acts of the hierarchy of the Roman
 
 330 
 
 church. Still, my Lords, this is not all : The 
 Roman Catholic bishop cannot act in such 
 a business of himself ; he must be special- 
 ly impowered by a bull of the Pope. Your 
 Lordships know that the importation or 
 putting in ure of any faculty, dispensation, 
 bull, or instrument whatever, of the See of 
 Rome, is prohibited by a multitude of sta- 
 tutes, under the highest penalties : But 
 with all these prohibitions of the law, the 
 King by this bill will be impowered, in 
 the instance of settling a monastery or con- 
 vent here, to dispense. My Lords, have 
 we forgotten what it was that lost James 
 the Second his crown ? — was it not his at- 
 tempting to dispense with the laws in that 
 very branch in which this bill would place 
 a dispensing power in the hands of the 
 Sovereign ? My Lords, I see but few of my 
 brethren upon that bench ; but among the 
 few that are present, I have the satisfaction
 
 351 
 
 to see a successor of one of the seven who 
 had the honour to be committed to the 
 Tower for the opposition they gave to the 
 arbitrary measures of James the Second : 
 My Lords, I trust that right reverend pre- 
 late will think it his duty, for the honour of 
 his see, to give me his most strenuous sup- 
 port in the resistance I am now making 
 to this dangerous, alarming, unconstitu- 
 tional project. 
 
 " But now, my Lords, I will suppose 
 that your Lordships find these objections 
 of no weight, — which I hope will not be the 
 case : But suppose the bill passed ; suppose 
 the licences granted ; they are to be only 
 for a term (the probable term perhaps a 
 pretty good one), till the end of the war 
 and one year after ; — my Lords, what is to 
 become of these women when that period 
 shall arrive ? Are we then, when they are 
 comfortably settled, attached to their habi-
 
 352 
 
 tations, advanced in years, — are we then to 
 say to helpless inoffensive women " Come, 
 ladies, turn out ! your term is expired ; 
 you can stay no longer here ?" My Lords, 
 this can never happen ; they are in no 
 danger : I again repeat, they are natural- 
 born subjects of the King — born to the 
 rights and franchises of subjects : They 
 have bound their allegiance to the Sove- 
 reign in the terms which the law prescribes ; 
 and it never can be said to them " Turn 
 out." But I hold up this circumstance to 
 your Lordships' notice as a manifest indi- 
 cation of the spirit in which this bill has 
 been framed. 
 
 " My Lords, being put to my shifts, as 
 I mentioned at the beginning, to discover 
 what the friends of this bill could say for 
 it, I have hearkened out very much to the 
 fro and con about it in company. One 
 thing I have heard urged in favour of the
 
 353 
 
 bill is this, — that the Roman Catholics very 
 much dislike it : They dislike it ; ergo^ 
 it must be a most delectable bill ! A very 
 pleasant argument, my Lords ! Only con- 
 sider how far this will go. If a bill were 
 brought in to repeal the 31st of the King, 
 the Roman Catliolics, I will answer for 
 them, would very much dislike that. Would 
 your Lordships, for that reason, pass it? 
 Will your Lordships apply this principle to 
 other bills now pending? There is a cer- 
 tain bill before the House, which the mil- 
 lers exceedingly dislike : W^ill your Lord- 
 ships therefore pass it at once, without any 
 farther investigation of its merits, or any 
 hearing of their objections ? Such a pro- 
 ceeding would save your Lordships much 
 time and trouble ; and the final conclusion 
 might, in that instance, for aught I know, 
 be very right : But, my Lords, this way of 
 
 z
 
 354 
 
 coming to it would not be very consistent 
 with the wisdom and justice of Parliament. 
 " My Lords, there is one part of this bill, 
 and one part only, which I cannot say I 
 Avholly disapprove : It is that clause which 
 requires Roman Catholic schoolmasters and 
 schoolmistresses of a certain description to 
 make an annual return of their schools to 
 the clerk of the peace. My Lords, I think 
 it would be very proper that Government 
 should be informed from time to time of 
 the actual state of all Roman Catholic 
 schools : But I would rather that this should 
 make a part of a general bill for the regu- 
 lation of all schools ; a matter that loudly 
 calls for tlie attention of the Legislature. 
 Time was, my Lords, when schools were 
 under some control ; but since the statute 
 of the 19th of the King for the farther re- 
 lief of Protestant dissenting ministers, tliey
 
 355 
 
 have been under none. A schoolmaster 
 has only to declare that he is a Christian 
 and a Protestant dissenting from the esta- 
 blished church of England, and to profess 
 his general belief in the Holy Scriptures in 
 the terms required of dissenting ministers, 
 — and no one has a right to ask him " Wliy 
 have you opened school here? whom do 
 you teach ? or what do you teach them ?'* 
 My Lords, the consequence is, that schools 
 of much worse tilings than Popery abound 
 in all parts of the kingdom, — schools of Ja- 
 cobinical religion, and of Jacobinical poli- 
 tics ; that is to say, schools of atheism and 
 disloyalty, — schools in the shape and dis- 
 guise of charity-schools and Sunday-schools, 
 in which the minds of the children of the 
 very lowest orders are enlightened ; that is, 
 taught to despise religion and the laws, and 
 all subordination. Books have been com^. 
 posed for the use of such schools, of the
 
 S56 
 
 most dangerous tendency. My Lords, I 
 know that this is going on in various parts 
 of the kingdom, and particularly in the 
 neighbourhood of the metropolis. I hope 
 that in another session the attention of the 
 Legislature will be turned to this most im- 
 portant business : But it is much too late 
 in this to take up any general plan of re- 
 gulation ; and there is nothing that presses 
 for any immediate regulation beyond what 
 we already have of Roman Catholic schools 
 in particular. My Lords, it is my persua- 
 sion, that the Roman Catholics of this coun- 
 try are in general good subjects, loyally at- 
 tached to his Majesty's person and to the 
 constitution. I must say more, my Lords, 
 though not more than I have said upon for- 
 mer occasions in this place : I am per- 
 suaded, that of all sects dissenting from 
 the established church, there is not one in 
 the present times from which either church
 
 357 
 
 or state has less to fear than from the Ro- 
 man Catholics. My Lords, in this state of 
 things, 'the danger is not to the church of 
 England from Popery : The danger to be 
 more dreaded is that which threatens us 
 all from the common enemy of the Chris- 
 tian name. Nothing could be more oppo- 
 site to the general interests of Christianity 
 — nothing more opposite to the interests 
 of the state — nothing more opposite to the 
 interests of the Protestant religion— than 
 any measure that might conduce, as the 
 passing of this act would conduce, to a re- 
 vival of the rancour between Protestants 
 and Roman Catliolics ; which, I flatter my- 
 self is dying away, if we can but persuade 
 ourselves to let what is well alone. 
 
 " My Lords, I could say much more 
 against this bill ; but I have taken up too 
 much of your time : What I have said is 
 more than sufficient to warrant the motion
 
 358 
 
 I now make. I humbly move your Lord- 
 ships, tliat this bill be committed for this 
 day three months." 
 
 The motion was opposed by the Bishop 
 of Winchester ; warmly supported by 
 Lord Grenville; and carried, without a 
 division. Of course, the original bill was 
 lost.
 
 ON THE PRELIMINARIES OF PEACE BETWEEN 
 ENGLAND AND THE FRENCH REPUBLIC ; 
 
 November 3, 1801. 
 
 J.N the end of the year 1801, prehminary 
 articles of peace were conchided between 
 Great Britain and the French Repubhc. 
 Perhaps no peace was ever made on which 
 rejoicings were more general, or satisfac- 
 tion more universally and loudly expres- 
 sed. There were however some statesmen, 
 formidable from their character and their 
 talents rather than their numbers, who 
 professed an early and unequivocal dissa- 
 tisfaction at the peace. Their opposition 
 could not be ascribed to antipatriotic mo- 
 tives ; for during the whole course of the
 
 360 
 
 war, they had been conspicuous in their en- 
 deavours to animate the country, and in- 
 deed all Europe, against the common ene- 
 my : To represent them as men who pre- 
 ferred war to peace, was an effort of gross 
 and malignant injustice, which their cha- 
 racters, as exhibited on every occasion, evi- 
 dently refuted. They did however prefer 
 the late war to the present peace ; and their 
 reasons, ably and amply detailed by them- 
 selves in the two Houses of Parliament, 
 are the materials from which a judgment 
 must be formed of the correctness of their 
 views and the justness of their inferences. 
 Among this little band was Dr Horsley, 
 Bishop of Rochester ; who, when the ad- 
 dress to the Throne expressive of approba- 
 tion of the peace was moved by Lord 
 RoMNEY in the House of Lords, on the 3d 
 of November 1801, made the following 
 speech.
 
 361 
 
 " t^Y LORDS, 
 
 " After what I have heard in 
 this House this night from the gravest au- 
 thority, — in perfect agreement with wliat I 
 before had heard elsewhere from authority 
 not less respectable, — I ought perhaps to be 
 diffident of my own judgment, when it 
 stands in opposition to the sentiments of 
 those whose opinions I have long been in 
 the habit of looking up to with respect and 
 deference ; who may be supposed, from the 
 situations which they have held in public 
 life, to be more competent than I can be 
 to form an accurate judgtnent upon ques- 
 tions like that which is now before us. 
 Nevertheless, when a resolution has been 
 moved, that this House should approach the 
 Throne with an address expressive of ap- 
 probation of the preliminaries of peace with 
 the French Republic which have been laid 
 upon the table, I cannot consistently with
 
 362 
 
 my Parliamentary duty give my vote of as- 
 sent to the motion, miless a conviction were 
 wrought upon my mind by argument, that 
 these prehminary articles are, at least in 
 the leading points, such as any one who 
 pays regard to the interests and honour of 
 the country may conscientiously approve. 
 My Lords, I shall not attempt at this late 
 hour'*' to go into the detail into which I 
 thought to go when I came down to the 
 House this night. The attempt indeed is 
 rendered unnecessary, by the great ability 
 with which the subject has already been 
 discussed, by the noble earl who first rose 
 in opposition to the motion, and the noble 
 lord who followed on the same side. I 
 shall therefore compress my argument as 
 much as possible, and state my reasons ge- 
 nerally for dissenting from the motion. 
 
 * Three in the mornjn>r.
 
 363 
 
 But I think myself obliged to declare my 
 reasons, in a brief and general way; because, 
 having the misfortune to disapprove in this 
 instance of a measure of the Executive 
 Government, which, as I guess, is likely 
 to receive the approbation of a great ma- 
 jority of this House, it would not be re- 
 spectful either to the House or the Mini- 
 ster to give a silent vote of opposition ; and 
 I am the more anxious upon this occasion 
 to explain the reasons of the vote which I 
 shall give, because I am aware that it may 
 seem strange that any one should rise from 
 the bench on which I have the honour to 
 sit to disapprove of peace. 
 
 " My Lords, I hope my mind is not in- 
 sensible to the miseries of war : I am well 
 aware how much it is the duty of the mini- 
 sters of the gospel to promote what they can 
 the tranquillity and concord of mankind, 
 and to stop the effusion of human blood.
 
 364: 
 
 God forbid, my Lords, I should ever be 
 wanting in that duty ; God forbid I should 
 not be the advocate of peace. My Lords, I 
 now rise the advocate of peace ; for, because 
 I would be the advocate of the substance 
 and reality, I must and will be upon all 
 occasions the open and decided enemy of 
 the mere name, the pretence, and the 
 counterfeit of peace. And what is any 
 peace, but a mere name, a pretence, and a 
 counterfeit, which contains in it the seed 
 and germ of everlasting wars ? And such, 
 in my judgment is the peace which, accord- 
 ing to the preliminaries upon the table, his 
 Majesty's present Ministers are concluding 
 with the French Republic. My Lords, I 
 shall not go into the detail of the arguments 
 which this topic opens : The subject might 
 at any time be too much for my abilities ; 
 it certainly at present is too much for my 
 strength. In mercy to your L-ordships and
 
 365 
 
 myself, I will be very general and briefs 
 The general view of this wide subject, I can 
 comprise, I think, in few words. 
 
 " What is the present situation of France, 
 my Lords ? — Her present situation is, that 
 she is possessed of a continental territory 
 which comprehends nothing less than the 
 whole body of the ancient western empire, 
 I call all this the territory of France, my 
 Lords, not forgetting that much of it be- 
 longs to other kingdoms and states which 
 she calls her allies : But this makes no dif- 
 ference ; for such is the French power, that 
 those whom she honours with the name of 
 allies are in truth her subjects, or, to speak 
 more properly, her slaves. This vast tract 
 of territory is covered with a population far 
 exceeding any thing that was spread over 
 the same surface when it was subject to the 
 Romans ; and this immense population is 
 at the command and disposal of a govern-
 
 366 
 
 nient more energetic, more united, more 
 prompt in execution, than the government 
 of Rome was under any of her best em- 
 perors. This vast empire is fenced on the 
 one side by a barrier of rivers, mountains, 
 lakes, rocks, forts, which render it inacces- 
 sible to any of the neighbouring states that 
 would be the most likely to assail it : On 
 the other side, the termination is the whole 
 leno'th of sea-coast from the mouth of the 
 Texel to the harbour of Brest ; a coast 
 which will be particularly formidable to 
 this country when France shall have got 
 up a navy ; and that in no long time she 
 will have a navy, your Lordships cannot 
 doubt, if you recollect what vast forests of 
 timber clothe the sides of the mountains 
 which crown the banks of the Rhine in a 
 great part of its course. Now, my Lords, I 
 am very well aware, that our naval strength, 
 and the successes of our navy, had the war
 
 367 
 
 been continued, could never have deprived 
 France of any part of these vast continen- 
 tal dominions : But, my Lords, I contend, 
 that for this very reason this country ought 
 to have retained the acquisitions of her 
 naval victories ; which were ours by the very 
 same right of conquest by which France 
 holds the greater part of her continental 
 empire ; and would have been in our hands 
 a great drawback, as it were, from her ge- 
 neral strength. My Lords, this has been 
 so fully argued by the two noble lords to 
 whom I alluded before, that it is needless 
 for me to dwell upon it : I shall only say, 
 that no answer has yet been given to the 
 arguments of these noble lords, — no answer 
 I mean, which takes hold of my mind. 
 Noble lords indeed have entered into mi- 
 nute calculations of the value of each arti- 
 cle of our cessions taken singly : Minorca 
 is worth only so much, — Malta only so
 
 368 
 
 mucli, — and so on. But, my Lords, this 
 is not at all the question, What might be 
 the value and importance of each separate- 
 ly ? — the question is. What is the value and 
 importance of the aggregate ? My Lords, 
 what I ask of Ministers is this : Why have 
 they voluntarily ceded to France, without 
 any compensation, in addition to their con- 
 tinental empire, — of which, by the conti- 
 nuance of the war, I grant, we could not 
 hope to dispossess them,- — but why have 
 they ceded to them, in addition to that, the 
 absolute sovereignty of the Mediterranean 
 Sea ? — for that, your Lordships must per- 
 ceive, is the effect of the cession of every 
 island and every port in the Mediterranean 
 and the Adriatic. Then for our conquests 
 in the West Indies. But here I am stop- 
 ped : Noble lords say, that the cession of 
 these same West Indian islands was a part 
 of the project of negotiation in 1797 j that
 
 369 
 
 in effect that project received the sanction 
 of Parhament, by the address which upon 
 that occasion we carried to the Throne ; 
 and that Parhament cannot now disapprove 
 the cessions to which it consented upon 
 that former occasion. My Lords, I very 
 well remember that the cession of those 
 islands entered into the projet of 1797 ; 
 and I admit that the cession at that time 
 was sanctioned by the address of Parlia- 
 ment : But, my Lords, I must deny that 
 the sanction given to that cession then 
 binds us to an approbation of the same 
 cession now ; for although the islands ceded 
 are in name the same, in value to the 
 French they are very different. My Lords, 
 ask the French themselves : Their own 
 writers say " We receive back the islands 
 of St Lucie, Martinique, and Tobago, im- 
 proved and enriched by the culture, the 
 industry, and with the capital of British 
 2 a
 
 370 
 
 subjects." My Lords, they say more ; they 
 say that these islands have no vahie but 
 what they derive from having been some 
 time in the possession of the EngKsh. 
 Now, my Lords, this being the case, the 
 value of these islands must be infinitely 
 greater now than it was in the year 1797 ; 
 because they have been four years longer 
 in our possession ; and the cession of them 
 might be a measure of sound policy in the 
 year 1797, and a measure of very weak po- 
 licy in the year 1801. Then, my Lords, I 
 ask again. Why have we given the French 
 the key of readmission to their Asiatic pos- 
 sessions, by the cession of Pondicherry ? — 
 which in a few years, I fear, will render 
 our boasted conquest of the Mysore use- 
 less, if not detrimental, to this country : 
 We shall have made the conquest not for 
 ourselves, but for the French.* Indeed I 
 fear, that by the effect of this peace, it is not
 
 371 
 
 for Britain, but for France, that in every 
 quarter of the globe our brave sailors and 
 soldiers have bled and conquered. 
 
 " My Lords, what I dread as the worst 
 consequence of this peace, is the revival of 
 the spirit of Jacobinism in this country. 
 My Lords, in this country the spirit of 
 Jacobinism is revived : We have already 
 seen unequivocal symptoms of it. I al- 
 lude not in this to the tumultuous joy of 
 the rabble of this metropolis, when they 
 dragged the two Frenchmen about the 
 streets : I found my opinion of the resusci- 
 tation of Jacobinism on the sentiments 
 publicly avowed by persons who move in a 
 much higher sphere ; who have dared to 
 say, that " The terms of this peace are not 
 bad enough for Great Britain — not good 
 enough for France : That the interests of 
 mankind demand that France should be 
 exalted and Great Britain humbled." My
 
 37^ 
 
 Lords, I still have hope that this daring 
 spirit will be overpowered and kept down 
 by the energies of internal government. I 
 should think, it a great calamity indeed if 
 that should take place which some nobLe 
 lords seem to wish, — if the two bills should 
 be repealed which I deem the essential 
 barriers of the constitution ; not, as some 
 aflfect to think them, infringements of it. 
 
 " My Lords, I have freely spoken my 
 sentiments. I hope my warmth has not be- 
 trayed me into expressions personally dis- 
 respectful to any of his JMajesty's Mini- 
 sters from whom I have the misfortune to 
 differ upon this question. In this very 
 measure, which I disapprove, I give them 
 entire credit, not only for great integri- 
 ty, but I suppose they have been influ- 
 enced by considerations which might in 
 some degree deserve the attention of great 
 and able statesmen, as no doubt they are j
 
 373 
 
 and were I single in the disapprobation of 
 what they have done, I should be very 
 willing to suppose that it was owing to the 
 inferiority of my own talents that I saw 
 things in another light than they. Never- 
 theless, my own vote must be determined 
 by my own judgment. 
 
 " Before I sit down, I must say one thing 
 more. The sentiments which I have now 
 delivered to your Lordships, I have never 
 given to the public in any other manner 
 nor in any other place. I think it neces- 
 sary to make this declaration ; because I 
 find a report is got abroad, and has ob- 
 tained credit among my friends, that I have 
 been the author of certain letters addressed 
 to the noble Secretary of State for Foreign 
 Affairs, which have lately appeared in the 
 public prints. * My Lords, I declare, that 
 
 * Of the letters alluded to, Mr Cobbett was the author.
 
 374 
 
 however I may agree in the opinions con- 
 tained in those letters (as I agree indeed en- 
 tirely), — whatever I may think of the infor- 
 mation and abilities of the writer (of which I 
 think very highly), — ^yet I declare, upon my 
 honour, I am not the author of them, nor 
 have I any knowledge of the author. ISlj 
 Lords, I hold my situation as a lord of 
 Parliament much too high, to condescend 
 to attack a noble Secretary of State in a 
 newspaper, or in any other manner than 
 as I now do, upon my legs in this place." 
 
 Minority. 
 
 Marquis of Buckingham. Earl Spencer. 
 
 Earl of Pembroke. Earl of Caernarvon. 
 
 Earl of Warwick. Bishop of Rochester. 
 
 Earl FiTzwiLLiAM. Lord Grenville. 
 
 Earl of Radnor. Lord Gtvydir.
 
 ON LAWS RELATING TO SPIRITUAL PERSONS 
 June 10, 1803. 
 
 On a motion for the Peers resolving them- 
 selves into a Committee of the whole 
 House upon the bill entitled " an act to 
 amend and render more effectual the laws 
 relating to spiritual persons, &c." the Bi- 
 shop of St Asaph * spoke as follows, 
 
 " MY LORDS, 
 
 " Upon the second reading of 
 this bill, I took the liberty to declare, that, 
 
 * Dr Horsley was translated from the see of Rochester 
 to that of St Asaph in 1802.
 
 376 
 
 with an entire approbation of the principle, 
 I was dissatisfied with the fabric of it in 
 many parts : And I craved the permission of 
 the Honse, — which I understood that I ob- 
 tained, — when the motion should be made 
 which is now made for the House to re- 
 solve itself into a committee upon the 
 bill, to trouble your Lordships with a ge- 
 neral review of the fabric of it ; which I 
 thought would be the best way to explain 
 the grounds of the numerous amendments 
 which I should feel it my duty to pro- 
 pose ; and would much shorten the discus- 
 sion in the committee, which must other- 
 wise go to a great length upon particular 
 points. 
 
 " Mv Lords, in the oeneral review which 
 I propose to take of the fabric of the bill, 
 I cannot avoid, though it may not be per- 
 fectly in order in the present stage of the 
 bill, — but I cannot avoid saying something
 
 377 
 
 upon the principle of it ; for which I must 
 crave your Lordships' indulgence : For, in 
 considering the fabric of the bill, I must 
 not only consider the connexion of the 
 different clauses with one another, but the 
 relation of them all to the principle of the 
 bill. But whatever I shall say upon the 
 principle, will not be in impeachment, but 
 in defence and support of it. 
 
 " My Lords, the residence of the bene- 
 ficed clergy upon their benefices, and the 
 abstraction of the clergy from all secular 
 occupations, are two points of principal im- 
 portance in ecclesiastical discipline. It is 
 impossible (generally speaking) that the 
 parish-priest should discharge himself of 
 the duty which he owes to the flock com- 
 mitted to him, without his personal resi- 
 dence among them. My Lords, the pub- 
 lic instruction of the people from the pul- 
 pit, the public celebration of the offices of
 
 378 
 
 the cliurch, are but a part — I had almost 
 said they are but a small part — of the duty 
 which the parish-priest owes to his pa- 
 rishioners. My Lords, he owes it to them 
 besides, to live among them, — to exhibit in 
 his o\Mi deportment, and in the good order 
 of his family, the example of a godly and 
 relioious life : He owes it to them, to be 
 present to relieve the distresses of the poor 
 by alms proportioned to his means ; and 
 he owes it to them, to be ready, at the call 
 of the sick and the dying, to administer 
 those consolations which, to persons in 
 those circumstances, can only be afforded 
 by the word of reconciliation in the gospel, 
 and by the means of reconciliation offered 
 in the sacraments of the church, — to assist 
 the penitent in making his peace with God. 
 And how are these great duties to be per- 
 formed by a clergyman not resident in his 
 parish ? My Lords, this is not all ; the
 
 379 
 
 resident clergyman is to maintain the pure 
 dignified character of a clergyman, unem- 
 barrassed and unsullied with the low occu- 
 pations of the world. 
 
 " My Lords, before the statute of King 
 Henry the Eighth, the enforcement of these 
 two points of ecclesiastical discipline was 
 entirely in the hands of the ecclesiastical 
 superiors : They were enforced by the 
 canons, and by ecclesiastical censures and 
 penalties ; and the temporal laws and the 
 temporal courts had nothing to do with 
 either. My Lords, I mention this, because 
 upon the second reading, a noble duke, 
 whom I do not now see in his place, op- 
 posing the principle of the bill, said that 
 it went to take the clergy in these points 
 out of the hands of judges and juries, and 
 to put them entirely under the bishops. 
 My Lords, if it were so, this would only 
 be a restoration of things to the old foot-
 
 380 
 
 ing ; forjudges and juries had no concern 
 with these matters before the statute of 
 Henry the Eighth. But, my Lords, I 
 have no wish that the clergy should be 
 taken out of the hands of judges and 
 juries : I think, that whoever looks to the 
 state of the church, with respect to the re- 
 sidence of the clergy, will find that it has 
 been much improved since the secular au- 
 thority has been impowered to interpose in 
 it; and that the statute of Henry the Eighth, 
 with all its vices on its back, has been upon 
 the whole productive of more good than 
 harm ; and if a motion were made to re- 
 peal that statute, without putting something 
 more equitable and at the same time more 
 efficient iii its stead, I would oppose it : So 
 little am 1 inclined to take the clergy out 
 of the hands of judges and juries. But, 
 my Lords, this bill goes to no such effect ; 
 it only remedies the iniquity of the bill of
 
 381 
 
 Heliry the Eighth with respect to the pe- 
 nalties of non-residence, and the intolerable 
 rigour of it in the restrictions upon taking 
 in ferm. The statute of Henry ihe Eighth 
 punished non-residence by pecuniary pe- 
 nalties ; which were the same, without any 
 discrimination, whatever the means mi^ht 
 be of the delinquent to sustain them : And 
 it was therefore unjust ; for it is very evi- 
 dent, that a penalty of 50/. is a much 
 heavier penalty upon a clergyman whose 
 whole income perhaps is not more than 
 30/. per annum^ than upon another whose 
 income may be 500/. And though, in the 
 present state of the church, many allowable 
 causes of non-residence exist, it gave no 
 discretion to judge or jury to mitigate the 
 penalty : Nor indeed can such discretion 
 be placed with them, according to the mode 
 of recovering the penalty which that sta- 
 tute prescribes. Now the present bill re-
 
 382 
 
 medies this iniquity of the old bill, by esta- 
 blishing a scale of penalty justly propor- 
 tioned to the degree of the delinquency 
 and the means of the delinquent ; and it 
 gives a discretional power to the bishops, of 
 dispensing with residence, and relieving 
 from the penalties of the statute, in cases 
 in which non-residence ought to be in- 
 dulged. 
 
 " My Lords, the present bill, like the 
 original statute of Henry the Eighth, being 
 intended to enforce residence in all cases 
 in which there is no reasonable cause of 
 exemption, though it places the clergy un- 
 der the coercion of the secular courts, 
 withdraws them not from the authority of 
 the bishops : On the contrary, it is a far- 
 ther object of this bill to strengthen the 
 ecclesiastical authority with regard to re- 
 sidence. My Lords, in theory the ecclesi- 
 astical authority in this point is complete :
 
 383 
 
 The power of the bishop goes even to 
 deprive a contumacious non-resident of his 
 benefice. Nevertheless, the exercise of 
 this power is so difficult, as to render the 
 power itself almost useless. It is exercised 
 only in the bishops' courts ; where the pro- 
 cess is so tedious, and may run to such an 
 expense, that few bishops are willing, or in- 
 deed able, if they hate many opulent non- 
 residents to deal withj to engage in it. This 
 bill therefore wisely puts the exercise of 
 this power into the bishop's own hands, 
 without any interference of his court. And, 
 my Lords, the length and expensiveness of 
 the proceedings in our courts are not the 
 only considerations which make it expe- 
 dient that the power should be placed in 
 ourselves personally. My Lords, in the 
 courts of the Archbishop, of the Bishops 
 of London, Winchester, Rochester, and all 
 the dioceses which have their courts here in
 
 384 
 
 town, justice, I am persuaded, is as regu- 
 larly administered as in any of his Majes- 
 ty's courts in Westminster Hall : But, my 
 Lords, in the provincial courts, I fear the 
 case is not quite the same, especially in mat- 
 ters in which clergymen are interested ; be- 
 cause the judges of those provincial courts 
 are them selves clergymen. My Lords, when 
 I was Bishop of St David's, I gave one of 
 the best livings in the patronage of that 
 see, a rectory in Cardiganshire with a good 
 house upon it, to a clergyman, under the 
 most explicit and solemn promises of resi- 
 dence. When he was in possession of the 
 living, he represented to me, that he had a 
 curacy in Glamorganshire (which indeed I 
 knew to be the case) ; and he hoped I would 
 not so insist upon his promise, but that I 
 would give him some time to detach him- 
 self from his engagements there. The re- 
 quest seemed reasonable ; and I told him I
 
 385 
 
 would give him half a year. Tlie half year 
 passed away; and my clerk was still upon 
 his curacy in Glamorganshire, and seemed to 
 have made no preparations for fixing himself 
 upon his rectory. I began to suspect that 
 he meant to elude his promise. Another 
 half year was consumed in remonstrances on 
 my part, and shuffling excuses on his ; and 
 when I was preparing to come to town for 
 the winter season, I sent for him, and after 
 some warm expostulations with him, I said 
 to him " Sir, take notice, that if I do not 
 find you in residence upon your living 
 when I return into the country next sum- 
 mer, I shall take measures that may be 
 very disagreeable to you." Upon my re- 
 turn to my diocese the ensuing summer, I 
 found my clerk was not yet in residence ; 
 and I caused a process to be instituted 
 against him, in order to his deprivation, 
 in my consistory court. He was up to the 
 
 2b
 
 S86 
 
 business : He took advantage of all the 
 causes of delay which the nature of the pro- 
 ceedings admit ; and after a whole twelve- 
 month's litigation and some expense incur- 
 red, this unprincipled clergyman, through 
 the connivance of my own court, slipped 
 through my fingers ; the judge of my court 
 being a clergyman, my Lords — a non-resi- 
 dent clergyman. My Lords, this instance 
 shows the expediency of placing the offence 
 of non-residence under the coercion of the 
 bishop himself, in a summary way ; as is 
 wisely proposed to be done by this bill. 
 
 " My Lords, another part of the bill goe& 
 to release the immoderate rigour of the sta- 
 tute of Henry the Eighth in the prohibi- 
 tion upon the clergy of taking in ferm. 
 The whole principle of the bill therefore 
 consists of three parts : It goes to do 
 away the injustice of the statute of Henry 
 the Eighth in the part relating to the re-
 
 3B7 
 
 sidence of the clergy, at the same time that 
 it enhances the penalties upon culpable 
 non-residence ; it goes to invigorate the 
 episcopal authority ; and to give relief in 
 the matter of taking in ferm. 
 
 " My Lords, the restraints of the statute 
 of Henry the Eighth in that matter are 
 most unquestionably extravagant and in- 
 tolerable. Nevertheless, it is a matter of 
 the very first importance to abstract the 
 clergyman from those occupations which 
 vi^ould degrade his character in the eye of 
 the laity : It is certainly the spirit of all 
 the ancient constitutions, that a clergyman 
 should be a clergyman, and nothing else. 
 My Lords, far be it from me to join my 
 voice to the despicable cant of Puritanism ; 
 as if it were the duty of a clergyman to 
 withdraw himself entirely from the com- 
 merce and society of the world, and that 
 every moment of his time is sintully em-
 
 388 
 
 ployed which is not given up to meditation 
 and prayer, and studies strictly theological. 
 My Lords, there is no branch of learning 
 that misbecomes a clergyman : He that 
 would understand the Bible, in such a man- 
 ner as he ought to understand it who is to 
 expound it, should be deeply skilled, as the 
 writer of a great part of it was, in " all the 
 learning of the Egyptians." I have not scru- 
 pled to tell the clergy, ex cathedra, that a 
 clergyman's time is not always mispent 
 when he is studying the proportions of ar- 
 chitecture and the divisions of the mono- 
 chord : For I assert, in contempt and de^ 
 fiance of all the whining cant of PuritanSy 
 that there is no branch of abstruse science 
 or polite literature which may not be use- 
 ful, which may not be even necessary, for 
 the illustration of some part or another of 
 the book which it is our duty to expound. 
 And as to intercourse with the world, I
 
 389 
 
 hold that none can be qualified to instruct 
 the world without it : He who is to teach 
 men their duty practically, must know hu- 
 man nature generally, and the particular 
 manners of his country and his times. But, 
 my Lords, the clergy should be kept apart 
 from those occupations which would de- 
 grade them from the rank which they 
 ought to hold in society, and mix them in 
 familiar habits with the inferior orders — 
 from every thing indeed which would give 
 them a lay character. My Lords, I know 
 that it becomes me to speak tenderly of 
 Arming, the fondled bantling of the pre- 
 sent times. Agriculture is an occupation 
 for the gods : Can the character of a coun- 
 try curate be degraded by his addicting 
 himself to those pursuits which procured 
 divine honours to Ceres and Triptolemus? 
 — But, my Lords, I beseech you to remem- 
 ber that this godlike occupation of farming
 
 390 
 
 will not be taken up by the inferior cjergy, 
 if they are allowed to engage in it, in the 
 manner in which some of your Lordships 
 apply to it, for your own amusement, for the 
 public benefit, and to your own great lossj 
 — they will apply to it as a business, and 
 for gain : The country curate, if he turns 
 farmer, will take part in the labours of hus- 
 bandry ; he will wield the sithe and the 
 sickle ; he will fodder the kine, and help 
 to throw out the dung upon his land ; and 
 thus he will be associated with the labour- 
 ing peasantry ; Even the business of the 
 markets, which he will attend to show hi^ 
 own samples and make his own bargains, 
 will mix him too much in familiar habits 
 with the lower farmers; and thus the whole 
 dignity and sanctity of his character will b^ 
 obliterated. The restrictions of the old, 
 statute are certainly rigorous in the ex- 
 treme, and require relaxation : But wheu
 
 391 
 
 we come to the consideration of these 
 clauses, I beseech your Lordships to take 
 care that the relaxation is not carried be- 
 yond the proper limit, — that the new bill 
 does not exceed in indulgence as much as 
 the old one in severity. I do not say posi- 
 tively that this is the case. It is a very 
 difficult subject, and I have not made up 
 my mind ; but it is a matter to be well 
 looked tOt And this is all that I shall at 
 present say upon that part of the bill. 
 
 ** With respect to the clause which enacts 
 the penalties of non-residence, I have al- 
 ready expressed my approbation of it. I 
 fear indeed that the time of allowed noij- 
 residence is longer than it ought to be : I 
 think, with a little ingenuity, the three 
 months will often be turned into six. 
 
 " My Lords, this penal clause is followed 
 by another, containing a very long list of 
 cases of exemption — -of absolute exemp-
 
 392 
 
 tion^ without any interposition of that dis- 
 cretional power of exemption which is 
 given to the bishops in a subsequent part 
 of the bill. Some such exemptions were 
 given by the old bill ; and it is certainly 
 proper that they should stand : But many 
 cases are specified, which are either already 
 exempted by the general reservation of the 
 exemptions of the old bill, — and then the 
 enumeration of them nominatim only serves 
 to swell the list of exemptions to the public 
 eye, and to give the country a suspicion 
 that we are inventing all sorts of loopholes 
 for the clergy to creep out at ; or, if they 
 are not so exempted, they are in my 
 judgment not entitled to this absolute ex- 
 emption : And many others are added, 
 which are certainly improper. I shall point 
 out these when we come to the considera- 
 tion of this clause in the committee : I shall 
 mention only one at present, as an example.
 
 393 
 
 My Lords, the situation of a minor canon 
 in any cathedral or collegiate church is 
 made one of the grounds of absolute ex- 
 emption from the penalties of non-resi- 
 dence upon a benefice. It is true, the 
 exemption is only given for the time during 
 which the statutes of the cathedral or col- 
 legiate church require the minor canon's 
 attendance, and during which he shall ac- 
 cordingly be in attendance and performing 
 his duty there : But, my Lords, I am in- 
 formed, that the statutes of the Church of 
 St Paul (and the case may be the same in 
 some other cathedrals, though not in all) 
 require the attendance of every minor ca- 
 non for the whole year ; and yet very con- 
 siderable livings often fall to the share of 
 these minor canons. Now, my Lords, if 
 a minor canon of St Paul's were to obtain 
 a living of twelve or thirteen hundred 
 pounds a year in tlie diocese of London,
 
 394 
 
 and the Bishop were to say to him that he 
 ought to be resident upon his great Hving, 
 though it should obhge him to rehnquish 
 liis situation in the Church of St Paul's and 
 to give up the petty emolument of his office 
 there, — is it fit that this minor canon should 
 have it to say to the Bishop of London 
 " No, my Lord : Here I am, a minor canon 
 in your Lordship's cathedral : I cling to my 
 stall ; and, without your Lordship's permis- 
 sion to be absent from my living, I defy 
 the penal statute." My Lords, in this si- 
 tuation is the Bishop of London placed by 
 this clause with respect to a minor canon 
 of his own cathedral. 
 
 " My Lords, this clause is followed by 
 another, which gives the bishop of every 
 diocese a discretional power of granting a 
 licence of non-residence for a certain time 
 in certain enumerated cases, but in certain 
 enumerated cases onlv. Then follows the
 
 395 
 
 clause of enumeration ; which is very full : 
 I mean not to say that it is too full ; — per- 
 haps it may not be complete ; — enumera- 
 tion seldom is complete : But certainly 
 this is not too full ; it contains no case 
 which may not be a fair ground of exemp- 
 tion. But, my Lords, I do strongly ob- 
 ject to this principle of enumeration. I 
 apprehend, that the enumeration will have 
 the effect of an advertisement to the clergy 
 of all the pretences upon which they may 
 come to the bishop and tease him for a 
 licence. My Lords, I will illustrate this 
 by an example. One of the cases in which 
 a licence of non-residence may be granted 
 is illness or infirmity of body of the incum- 
 bent himself, his wife or child ; — certainly 
 a most reasonable case. If his own health 
 require the assistance of the air or water 
 of some particular place, it would be very 
 hard that he should not be allowed to re-
 
 396 
 
 move to that place for a time ; and if the 
 ill health of wife or child require such as- 
 sistance, it would be cruel not to give the 
 husband or father liberty of accompanying 
 them. My Lords, highly as I think of the 
 duty of residence, it never should have di- 
 vided me from a sick wife or a sick child ; 
 and a restraint to which I would not sub- 
 mit myself, I would not have imposed on 
 others. But see, my Lords, what may be 
 the consequence of advertising this as one 
 of the cases entitled to indulgence ; see 
 what pretences may be set up on the ground 
 of this advertisement. I suppose a cler- 
 gvman in affluent circumstances, with a 
 sprightly wife and child, has long been re- 
 sident on a country living : The lady is 
 grown perfectly sick of this relegation from 
 elegant society in a dull sequestered situa- 
 tion : She says to her husband " My dear, 
 we have been a long time in this dismal
 
 397 
 
 place ; surely you might get a licence of 
 non-residence for some time: I am dread- 
 fully nervous, you know ; you are overload- 
 ed with bile ; and the poor child is rickety : 
 Bath would set us all up : Ask the Bishop 
 for a licence." The husband, perhaps, is a 
 little bashful : He has taken, to be sure, a 
 great deal of rhubarb ; the lady never goes 
 through the day without ether; and the 
 child is perpetually swallowing something 
 to strengthen its limbs : But yet he is con- 
 scious that there is no such degree of dis- 
 ease among them as would justify him in a 
 request to be non-resident, especially as 
 his situation is a very healthy one ; he is 
 unwilling therefore to make the application. 
 " Plio !" says the lady ; " you are so conscien- 
 tious ! Leave it to me to manage : I will 
 speak to the Bishop's lady ; she is as ner- 
 vous as I am, and will take my part from 
 fellow-feeling : I warrant you we shall pre-
 
 398 
 
 Vail upon the Bishop, who is himself a good- 
 natured man, if you will but get over your 
 foolish scruples, and sign the petition." 
 The man is prevailed upon ; the petition 
 is signed : The apothecary of the village 
 can, with a very safe conscience, make af- 
 fidavit of the ill health of the family ; know- 
 ing that he has supplied them with medi- 
 cines in a quantity sufficient to make them 
 all sick if they were not so beforehand : The 
 bishop is besieged with the solicitations of 
 the lady and all her friends, among whom 
 his own lady is one of the warmest ; and 
 he must muster up a great deal of resolu- 
 tion to stand the siege. And all this in- 
 convenience arises from what I call the 
 advertisement ; for, without that, the in- 
 dulgence might be granted to real ill 
 health ; but these solicitations upon the 
 pretence of ill health would not have been 
 invited.
 
 399 
 
 " My Lords, I would propose that the 
 bishop should have this power of licensing^ 
 without any enumeration of cases, in every 
 case which in his judgment should be en^ 
 titled to the indulgence. 
 
 " But, my Lords, much more than to the 
 clause itself, I object to the proviso annex- 
 ed to it. It is provided, my Lords, that 
 if, in any of the enumerated cases, the 
 bishop shall refuse to grant a licence to 
 the clergyman petitioning for it, the clergy- 
 man may appeal to the archbishop of the 
 province ; who is impowered to grant the 
 licence which the bishop (who probably is 
 better acquainted with the real merits of a 
 case in his own diocese than the metropo- 
 litan can be) has thought proper to refuse. 
 An appeal, my Lords ! from what ? The 
 licence of non-residence is no matter of 
 right ; it is a favour. My Lords, I under- 
 stand the propriety of an appeal from aju-
 
 400 
 
 dicial sentence, where rights are in ques- 
 tion ; but I do not understand the pro- 
 priety of an appeal when a favour only is de- 
 nied. The clergyman is to go to the arch- 
 bishop, and say " My bishop has refused 
 me a favour which I asked: Make him grant 
 it." My Lords, the appeal given in this 
 case to the archbishop, I assert to be un- 
 constitutional in the highest degree : It in- 
 vests the archbishop with the ordinary go- 
 vernment of every diocese in his province, 
 in matters merely spiritual ; in which he has 
 no right to interfere beyond the limits of 
 his own proper diocese. In any other 
 diocese, the archbishop's authority is mere- 
 ly visitatorial ; he possesses not an atom 
 of ordinary jurisdiction ; and ought not to 
 be introduced to it. My Lords, I desire 
 to know, in what instance the archbishop 
 is authorized to interfere in the administra- 
 tion of any other diocese than his own, in
 
 401 
 
 spirituals. If I refuse to ordain a candi- 
 date for holy orders, he has no remedy by 
 appeal to the archbishop. It is true, it is 
 my duty, in such a case, to acquaint the 
 archbishop with my refusal of the candi- 
 date, and my reason for refusing him ; and 
 to transmit to the archbishop all the testi- 
 monials of character and papers of form 
 that were produced to me : Not that the 
 archbishop has any power to revise what 
 I have done ; but for this purpose, — that 
 the archbishop may send a circular letter 
 to all the other bishops of the province, 
 informing them that such a person has 
 been refused by such a bishop, and re- 
 questing that no one of them would ordain 
 him without consulting himself the arch- 
 
 C5 
 
 bishop or the bishop who first refused. 
 The very terms in which these circular 
 letters are conceived imply the indepen- 
 dence of the bishops in the matter ; for 
 
 2c
 
 402 
 
 tlie archbishop neither commands me td 
 ordain nor forbids any other to ordain^ 
 but advises every other not to proceed 
 to ordination without a consultation. My 
 Lords, if a clergyman comes to me with 
 a presentation to a living in my diocese, 
 and I refuse him institution, he has no 
 appeal to the archbishop. The patron has 
 his writ of quare impedit in the secular 
 courts, — and very properly : The clerk has 
 no appeal to the archbishop, because insti- 
 tution is a branch of the voluntary jurisdic- 
 tion in spirituals in which the archbishop 
 has no share ; but the patron has his re- 
 medy in the King's courts, because his 
 temporal rights are affected. In short, my 
 Lords, there is no instance in which the 
 archbishop can meddle with the voluntary 
 jurisdiction. In the contentious jurisdic- 
 tion in causes between parties agitated in 
 the bishop's court, an appeal certainly lies
 
 403 
 
 to the archbishop ; and in all such cases, 
 an ulterior appeal lies to the King in Chan- 
 cery, — and very properly ; because all this 
 jurisdiction arises out of the civil establish- 
 ment, and antecedent to establishments 
 was not inherent in the spiritual society as 
 such : But in the voluntary jurisdiction — 
 in matters purely spiritual, there is no au- 
 thority in any diocese beyond the bishop's ; 
 and the attempt to introduce a superior 
 authority, in this instance, is a most out- 
 rageous violation of the ecclesiastical con- 
 stitution, — not merely the particular con- 
 stitution of the church of this kingdom, 
 but the constitution of the church catholic, 
 by which every bishop in his own diocese 
 is supreme. And, my Lords, this is a 
 matter of no light consideration. The at- 
 tempted innovation is most dangerous ; 
 for ecclesiastical history, as your Lordships 
 well know, 'bears me out in the assertion
 
 404 
 
 which I now make, that the whole super- 
 structure of the Papal tyranny arose out of 
 encroachments and usurpations, small as 
 they seemed in their beginnings, of metro- 
 politans and patriarchs, upon the inde- 
 pendent authority of bishops. 
 
 " My Lords, I am aware that upon this 
 point some of my reverend brethren have 
 an opinion different from mine. I know 
 that one very learned prelate, whose deep 
 erudition and great talents are far above 
 any praise of mine, to whom I bear the 
 greatest personal regard, and whose opi- 
 nions are entitled to your Lordships' gravest 
 consideration, — I know, or have reason at 
 least to believe, that this reverend prelate 
 will tell your Lordships, that an archbishop, 
 in his opinion, stands related to the bishops 
 of his province just as a bishop stands re- 
 lated to his parish-priests ; and that the 
 bishop is bound by his oath of canonical
 
 405 
 
 obedience to the archbishop, just as the 
 parisli-priest is bound b_y liis oath of canon- 
 ical obedience to the bishop. My Lords, 
 if the analogy were perfect, — which in my 
 judgment it is not, — but if it were per- 
 fect, it would make for my opinion rather 
 than for his. My Lords, tlie bishop, 
 when once he has instituted a rector or 
 vicar, or licensed a perpetual curate to a 
 parish-church, has nothing more to do with 
 the cure of souls in that parisli : He com- 
 mits that cure to the priest, and it is en- 
 tirely gone from himself; and he has no 
 right to interfere with it, otherwise than by 
 his visitatorial authority, to see that the 
 priest in the exercise of it conforms to the 
 laws of the church and the realm. If the 
 priest does any thing contrary to either, 
 the bishop, as visitor, has a right to admo- 
 nish him ; and if admonition is ineffectual, 
 to punish him by ecclesiastical censures
 
 406 
 
 and penalties : But no otherwise can he in- 
 terfere in the cure of souls with which he 
 has invested the priest. To him he com- 
 mits the care and government of the souls 
 of the parishioners ; saving, indeed, to him- 
 self and his successors his episcopal rights. 
 Now, what are the episcopal rights which 
 are so reserved ? — I say, the whole of the 
 visitatorial power ; and besides, the right 
 of making use of the church for the per- 
 formance of some rites which a bishop only 
 can perform ; but these make no part of 
 the parochial cure of souls. The bishop 
 has a right to go to the parish-church when 
 he thinks proper, to confirm the parishion- 
 ers, and persons of other parishes, whom 
 he may think proper to call to that church 
 to receive confirmation : He has a right 
 to interfere in some matters without ex- 
 pressly holding a visitation : If the priest 
 takes upon liim to repel any person from
 
 407 
 
 the holy communion, without consulting 
 the bishop upon the case, — if he takes upon 
 him to reconcile a convert from the church 
 of Rome, and to receive his public recanta- 
 tion, without the permission of the bishop, 
 — if he introduces a curate to take a share 
 with him in the cure of souls, without the 
 bishop's licence, — these are offences which 
 the bishop may correct : But these are ex- 
 traordinary cases ; making no part of the 
 general parochial cure of souls, — which 
 the bishop is to control and direct so that 
 every thing may be done in order, but he 
 canuot take the exercise of it upon himself; 
 And just so, I say, an archbishop has a vi- 
 sitatorial authority over the bishops of his 
 province, but no right to interfere with 
 them in the exercise of the voluntary ju- 
 risdiction over their clergy. And I appre- 
 Jiend that the mistake arises from con- 
 founding the voluntary and the contentious
 
 408 
 
 jurisdiction. In the contentious jurisdic- 
 tion which is exercised in the bishop's 
 court, in causes between party and party, an 
 appeal is always open to the archbishop's 
 court, and an ulterior appeal to the King 
 in Chancery ; and this extends to the bi- 
 shop's government of his clergy, so far as 
 it is exercised in his court. If a clergyman, 
 upon any offence committed, be libelled in 
 the bishop's court, pro salute animce^ an 
 appeal lies from the sentence ; because the 
 whole power of the court arises out of the 
 civil establishment of the church, and the 
 very court itself is a creature of the secular 
 authority. But the case is quite otherwise 
 with respect to that voluntary jurisdiction 
 which is exercised by the bishop personally 
 without his court ; which is inherent in the 
 episcopal office and character, by the con- 
 stitution of the church catholic, antecedent 
 to all alliances between church and state.
 
 409 
 
 " With respect to the oath, the bishop is 
 certainly bound by it to the archbishop as 
 much as the priest to the bishop ; as much, 
 I say, my Lords, but not more. And what 
 is the obedience to which the oath binds 
 either? — Not to an indefinite, unhmited, 
 but to canonical obedience, — to no obe- 
 dience beyond canonical. And I say, that 
 a submission to the archbishop, in the exer- 
 cise of my voluntary jurisdiction in my 
 own diocese, is no part of the obedience 
 which I owe the archbishop by virtue of my 
 oath. 
 
 '* But, my Lords, I must observe, that 
 the relation between the archbishop and 
 bishop, and the relation between bishop 
 and parish-priest, are materially different. 
 The parish-priest derives his whole power 
 of cure of souls from the bishop : The bi- 
 shop confers it on him by institution, or, 
 in the case of a perpetual curate, by li-
 
 410 
 
 cence ; but in either case it comes from 
 -the bishop solely. But a bishop owes not 
 a particle of his diocesan authority to the 
 archbishop: The archbishop neither con- 
 fers nor can he withhold it, although he 
 has a limited control over it. In Eng- 
 land, the diocesan authority is conferred by 
 the election of the clergy of the cathedral 
 church : It is that election which makes 
 the bishop of the diocese. It is true, that 
 election is so controlled and directed by 
 the King, as supreme head of the national 
 church, that it seems to be little more 
 than a mere form ; for when the clergy of 
 the cathedral are impowered to proceed to 
 election, by the conge d^elire, their choice 
 is directed to a particular person recom- 
 mended by the King. In effect, therefore, 
 it is from the King that the bishop receives 
 his diocesan authority ; the election of the 
 clergy of the cathedral being only the form
 
 411 
 
 by which the King gives it : But the arch- 
 bishop has no share in the giving of it. It 
 is triie, the election is followed by a pro- 
 ceeding in the archbishop's court, which 
 is called the confirmation of the bishop 
 elect : But this is not a proceeding by 
 which the archbishop confers the diocesan 
 authority; it is merely a revision of the 
 proceedings in the business of the election, 
 to see that all has been done in due form 
 and order, without any such irregularity as 
 would render the election ah initio a nul- 
 lity. Inquiry is also made into the cha- 
 racter of the bishop elect; to see that he is 
 a person in public reputation, and, in the 
 tenor of his life, fit to be advanced to so 
 high a station in the church. And when it 
 is found that all has been regularly done, 
 and that the life and character of the bishop 
 elect are unimpeachable, the judge of the 
 archbishop's court pronounces that he is
 
 412 
 
 duly elected, — that is, duly invested with 
 the diocesan authority. But that sentence 
 does not invest him ; it declares only that 
 he is invested. 
 
 " In another part of the United Kingdom 
 (I speak in the presence of two metropoli- 
 tans of that part of the kingdom, who will 
 correct me if I am wrong in what I am 
 going to assert), the bishop is invested with 
 his diocesan authority immediately by the 
 King's letter patent, without any previous 
 election of the clergy of the cathedral, or 
 any subsequent confirmation of the arch- 
 bishop. 
 
 " In both parts of the kingdom, there- 
 fore, the bishop derives the whole of his 
 diocesan authority — in the one both in form 
 and effect, in the other in effect though 
 not in form — solely from the King ; not an 
 atom of it from the archbishop. Then 
 for our temporalities, and all our secular
 
 413 
 
 authorities and prerogatives, in both parts 
 of the kingdom, we hold them solely of 
 the Crown. 
 
 " Then, my Lords, what part of our 
 diocesan authority do we derive from the 
 archbishop ? — Certainly not an atom of it. 
 We derive only from him the power of 
 order ; which is given by consecration, and 
 can be given in no other way ; no secular 
 power can give it. But the power of order 
 is the spiritual capacity of exercising those 
 sacred functions which none without that 
 power can perform. And this power of 
 order is always described by the canonists 
 as a distinct thing from the diocesan au- 
 thority : And it is distinct, and indeed in 
 its nature is a higher thing : Christ first 
 gave it to the apostles ; the apostles con- 
 veyed it to others j and those only who have 
 derived it from the apostles in perpetual 
 succession have power still to convey it.
 
 414 
 
 But it Is so distinct from diocesan autho- 
 rity, that the power of order may be pos- 
 sessed (and in some instances is possessed) 
 without a particle of diocesan authority ; 
 and diocesan authority might be conferred 
 on a p6rson not having the power of order ; 
 though such a person, without the power 
 of order, could not perform any one of the 
 sacred functions of a bishop. The bishop, 
 therefore, — which is the great point that I 
 am anxious to prove, — derives no part of 
 his diocesan authority from the archbishop. 
 The contentious jurisdiction in every dio- 
 cese arises out of the civil estabhshment, 
 and is properly subject to appeal : But the 
 bishop of every diocese has a power, which 
 is called the voluntary jurisdiction, which 
 is of higher origin and earlier date than 
 any civil establishment ; which the arch- 
 bishop, beyond the limits of his own pro- 
 per diocese, has no right to take into his
 
 415 
 
 own hands ; except in extraordinary cases, 
 — namely, vacancy of a see, when it de- 
 volves to him for the time, as guardian of 
 the spiritualities ; and when, for the pur- 
 pose of visiting his province, he inhibits 
 the bishops for a short time. And I con- 
 tend, that the power of appeal proposed to 
 be given by this bill would mix the arch- 
 bishop, in the ordinary jurisdiction of every 
 diocese in his province, in the voluntary 
 branch, in a manner in which he ought not 
 to mix in it ; and would be a violent in^ 
 fringement of the independence of the bi- 
 shops. 
 
 " But, my Lords, dismissing this ground 
 of objection, I might argue against this ap- 
 peal simply from the impolicy of it ; and 
 perhaps some of your Lordships may allow 
 more weight to this argument than to the 
 other. My Lords, I say, that this appeal
 
 416 
 
 lays the ground of much ill-humour be- 
 tween the bishops and their clergy, and the 
 archbishops and the bishops ; and is likely 
 either to defeat the purposes of the bill, or 
 will be nugatory. My Lords, if the arch- 
 bishop, in the exercise of the power given to 
 him, should pin his faith upon the bishop 
 (which is the course most likely to be 
 taken), and say " I will not grant what the 
 bishop has refused ; I will confirm his re- 
 fusals," then the appeal is nugatory. If, 
 on the other hand, the archbishop should 
 be very alert in the exercise of this new 
 unconstitutional authority with which the 
 bill improperly invests him, I tliink any 
 bishop that finds himself interfered with 
 will be apt to say to his clergy " I will 
 have nothing more to do with this busi- 
 ness : I will license none of you : Go to 
 the archbishop, and he may license you all,
 
 417 
 
 if it so please him ;" and then the purpose 
 of the bill will be pretty much defeated. 
 
 " But noble lords may say " What then 
 is your plan ? Would you give every bi- 
 shop a power within his diocese of licen- 
 sing at his pleasure, without any check up- 
 on him in the exercise of that large dis- 
 cretion?" — My Lords, my plan would be 
 this : I would propose to your Lordships, 
 that every bisliop should be impowered to 
 grant licences within his own diocese, in 
 every case which should seem in his judg- 
 ment entitled to the indulgence : But then 
 he should be required to set forth in every 
 licence the cause of granting it j and, be- 
 sides, he should be obliged to transmit to 
 the archbishop, on or before a day to be 
 fixed by the act in every year, a report of 
 all the licences granted by him in the year 
 preceding ; specifying not only the names 
 of the clergy, and the names of the bene- 
 2d
 
 4l8 
 
 fices in respect of which they shall have 
 been granted, but the time for which each 
 has been granted, and the causes of grant- 
 ing : And this report, with the addition 
 of his own proper diocese, the archbishop 
 should be required to transmit to the 
 King in Chancery. And, my Lords, this, 
 I maintain, would be a severer check upon 
 the bishops, in the exercise of their discre- 
 tional power of dispensation, than any the 
 bill imposes in its present shape ; because 
 it makes the acts of the bishop public and 
 notorious. My Lords, what is the security 
 for the proper conduct of any public men 
 in the exercise of any discretional powers 
 with which they may be invested ? What 
 is the security for a judge's just exercise of 
 his discretional powers ? — My Lords, the 
 security is this, and nothing else, — that the 
 judge is a public man, in a great conspicu- 
 ous station, and that nothing that he does
 
 419 
 
 is done in a corner: My Lords, this is 
 the security you have for the discretion of 
 a judge. The very same you have for the 
 discretion of a bishop : A bishop is a per- 
 son holding a conspicuous situation in the 
 country, high in rank, and invested with 
 great authority ; and the jealous eye of the 
 public is upon him and upon all his ac- 
 tions. 
 
 " But, my Lords, it may be said, that 
 cases may occur when the cause of granting 
 cannot with propriety be set forth in the 
 licence, — cases in which it may be fit that 
 a licence should be granted, and yet the 
 cause of granting may be unfit to be told. 
 A clergyman may be disqualified for duty; 
 or even his absence may be made a mat- 
 ter of necessity, by reason of some disorder 
 which it would be cruel to divuloe. Other 
 cases may occur, hardly fit to be mentioned 
 here. But for these cases the bill has in
 
 420 
 
 my judgment very wisely and properly pro- 
 vided. Here I consent that the archbishop 
 should be called in, — not byway of appeal; 
 but, as this bill calls him in, to confirm 
 any licence granted by the bishop when 
 the cause of granting cannot be set forth; 
 without which confirmation, such licence 
 should be void. 
 
 " My Lords, in that part of the bill 
 which gives the bishops a summary exer- 
 cise of the ecclesiastical authority, I shall 
 request your Lordships to attend carefully 
 to the structure of the clauses, to see that 
 they are so drawn as really to go to the ef- 
 fect intended. And this is all I shall say 
 at present upon that part of the bill. 
 
 " The case of the cathedral clergy, which 
 seems not sufficiently provided for, will re- 
 quire your particular attention. 
 
 " I have nothing more to say, till the 
 House shall be in committee."
 
 UPON THE BILL TO REGULATE THE AGES OF 
 PERSONS TO BE ADMITTED INTO HOLY OR- 
 DERS; 
 
 April 13, 1804'. 
 
 On Friday the 13th April 1804, the House, 
 agreeably to the order of the day, having 
 resolved itself into a committee of the 
 whole House upon the bill respecting the 
 ages of persons to be admitted into holy 
 orders, the business proceeded without 
 any observation, till the clause was read 
 which enacts, that in case any person shall, 
 from and after the passing of this act, be 
 admitted a deacon before he has attained 
 the age of three-and-twenty years com- 
 plete, or a priest before he has attained 
 the age of four-and-twenty years complete,
 
 422 
 
 such admission shall be merely void in law, 
 as if it never had been made ; and the per- 
 son so admitted shall be incapable of hold- 
 ing and disabled from taking any eccle- 
 siastical promotion or preferment whatso- 
 ever in virtue of such his admission. 
 
 Upon this, the Bishop of St Asaph rose, 
 and observed, that this clause contained the 
 only part of the bill upon which any doubt 
 or difficulty could arise. As to the inca- 
 pacity of holding and taking ecclesiastical 
 preferment, there was nothing new in that : 
 It attached upon priests, at least, ordained 
 before the canonical and legal age of twen- 
 ty-four years, by former statutes. But it 
 was not equally clear that any existing sta- 
 tute went the length of annulling the or- 
 dination itself; which would be the effect 
 of the words " Such admission shall be 
 merely void in law, as if it never had been 
 made ;" and it might be doubted, though
 
 423 
 
 he himself, upon a full consideration of the 
 subject, had no doubt, whether this was 
 consistent with the great principle of the iur 
 delebility of the sacred character ; " a prin- 
 ciple, my Lords, which I for one" said the 
 Bishop " never will abandon." My Lords, 
 upon a late occasion, when tjiis question 
 of the indelebility of the sacred charac- 
 ter came to be much agitated in this 
 House, it was argued (learnedly and sound- 
 ly, in my judgment) by a noble and learn- 
 jed lord who now sits near me, that the pro- 
 cess against criminal clergymen in our 
 courts, which is called degradation, which 
 is commonly supposed to be a deposition 
 of a clergyman from his order, goes how- 
 ever no farther than to a deprivation of a 
 clergyman who incurs that sentence, of all 
 the secular emoluments, privileges, and im- 
 munities of his order, and to a suspension 
 Qf his legal exercise of the functions of the
 
 424 
 
 ministry ; but does not extinguish the sa- 
 cred cliaracter itself. This is more than 
 the sentence of any earthly tribunal can 
 operate ; comprehending under the general 
 name of earthly tribunal, the tribunal of 
 the church itself on earth. My Lords, I- 
 hold with the noble and learned lord in 
 that opinion. And I go farther : I main- 
 tain, that the limit which that opinion as- 
 signs to the effect of desjradation circum- 
 scribes in this case even the omnipotence 
 of Parliament itself Boldly I assert, that 
 to extinguish the sacred character, is more 
 than any act of the Legislature can effect. 
 What the secular authority gave, the secu- 
 lar authority may take away : It may take 
 away all the property, all the rights and 
 privileges, which the clergy hold by virtue 
 of the civil establishment of the church ; 
 for these things it gave : But the spiritual 
 capacity itself, conferred by ordination, this
 
 425 
 
 no earthly power gave, and no earthly power 
 is competent to the abrogation of it : No 
 act of Parhament can take away the sacer- 
 dotal character, once ritely, canonically, and 
 validly conferred. 
 
 " But, my Lords, there may be, in cer- 
 tain cases, a radical nullity in the act of or- 
 dination itself, — such an irregularity in the 
 performance of it, or such incapacity in the 
 recipient, as may render the act from the 
 beginning null and void. My Lords, the 
 canons of the primitive churcli mention 
 many such incapacities. If any person be- 
 fore his ordination had been twice married, 
 or had contracted marriage with a widow, 
 or with a woman divorced, or witli a slave, 
 or with an actress, — the ordination was null : 
 Notwithstanding that the outward ceremo- 
 ny of ordination had passed upon him, no 
 character was allowed to be conveyed ; he 
 remained a mere layman. There was no-
 
 426 
 
 thing which, in ancient times, the church 
 was so anxious to prevent and disallow as 
 an admission to holy orders at too early an 
 age. By the Neocassarean canons, by the 
 decrees of Siricius, by the canons of the 
 African Code, and those of the Trullan Sy- 
 nod, it appears that the earliest age allowed 
 in ancient times, either in the Greek or in 
 the Latin church, was twenty-five for the 
 order of deacons, and thirty for that of 
 priests. 
 
 " Now, my Lords, though I never will 
 allow to Parliament an authority to un- 
 make a well-made priest or deacon — an 
 authority to extinguish the spiritual cha- 
 racter once validly conferred, yet if there 
 has been any such irregularity in the colla- 
 tion of the character as to make the act 
 from the very beginning null, it is cer- 
 tainly competent to an act of Parliament to 
 declare that original nullity. The case is
 
 427 
 
 somewhat analogous to that of marriage. 
 No court in this country has authority to 
 dissolve the marriage-contract between par- 
 ties who were in all respects capable of the 
 contract at the time when it was made : 
 But if impediments existed at the time of 
 marriage, such as to render the parties in- 
 capable, and the contract by consequence 
 originally null, of such original nullity the 
 ecclesiastical court has cognizance, and may 
 declare it ; and, by that judgment, separate 
 parties illegally united. So, in the case of 
 ordination, I maintain that even an act of 
 Parliament cannot abrogate what was at 
 first well done : But, on the other hand, I 
 equally maintain, that it may declare and 
 point out an original nullity in the act. 
 My Lords, it is understood that it is neces- 
 sary to the validity of any religious ordi- 
 nance, conferring any special grace or spi- 
 ritual capacity, that the intention of the
 
 428 
 
 person who administers should go with the 
 external act. My Lords, it cannot be sup- 
 posed that any bishop, in conferring orders, 
 means to do a thing disallowed by the ca- 
 nons of the church. If he lays his hands 
 on the head of a young man under the ca- 
 nonical age, and says " Receive the Holy 
 Ghost for the office and work of a priest," 
 the bishop must be in error, deceived with 
 respect to the age : Though liis hand and 
 his lips are employed, his mind is abhor- 
 rent from the action : He does not mean 
 to ordain a person priest under twenty-four 
 years of age : The church has told him in 
 her canons, that such a person is incapable of 
 the priesthood : Such a person, therefore, 
 is not wdthin the intention of the ordainer; 
 and is not ordained bv him. The same 
 reasoning applies in the case of deacons. 
 My Lords, in this view of it, as declaring 
 (in affirmance of tlie canons of the church)
 
 429 
 
 an original nullity, in particular cases, in 
 the act of conferring orders, arising from a 
 canonical incapacity in the recipient, not 
 as annulling orders ritely and validly con- 
 ferred, I approve of the enactment of this 
 clause : I think it a wise one." 
 
 The Duke of Norfolk knew, that the 
 indelebility of the sacred character was a 
 principle in the church of Rome ; but he 
 did not know that it was equally a princi- 
 ple in the church of England. It was not 
 his intention to move any amendment, if 
 the bill, as it stood, had the approbation of 
 the Reverend Bench. He thought, that 
 through the imperfections of registers, and 
 defect of evidence of the time of birth, it 
 might sometimes happen that the act might 
 be unintentionally transgressed ; and that 
 for that reason the penal incapacities were 
 too severe. His grace thought, that if per- 
 sons receiving orders prematurely were to
 
 430 
 
 be liable to such penalties, the bishop con- 
 ferring them ought to be made subject to 
 penalties ; and that the Bishop of Sodor 
 and Man ought to be included in the bill. 
 The Bishop of St Asaph replied, that 
 he agreed with the noble duke, that it 
 might sometimes happen that the act might 
 be unintentionally transgressed : But for 
 that very reason, he was desirous that the 
 nullity of the ordination should be declared 
 by the bill ; because this opened means of 
 relief for persons unintentionally trans- 
 gressing, from disabilities which would 
 otherwise attach upon them for their whole 
 lives. That the noble duke could not 
 imagine that any bishop would not be 
 liable to penalties who should dare to dis- 
 obey the positive enactments of an act of 
 Parliament. That the Bishop of Sodor and 
 Man, though not particularly named in the 
 bill, is included in it ; for although he is
 
 431 
 
 no lord of Parliament, as not holding of 
 the Crown, he is an English bishop with- 
 in the province of the metropolitical see of 
 York. 
 
 The clause was then agreed to unani- 
 mously.
 
 UPON THE BILL RELATING TO THE STIPENDS 
 OF LONDON INCUMBENTS; 
 
 July 23, 1804-. 
 
 A BILL brought into the Upper House for 
 making farther provision for the clergy 
 within the city of London was moved 
 for a third reading on the 19th of July 
 1804. 
 
 The Duke of Norfolk, allowing the ob- 
 ject of the bill to be desirable, objected to 
 the mode in which it was proposed to ef- 
 fect that object, as wholly inconsistent with 
 the principles upon which the House had 
 hitherto legislated in whatever affected the 
 rights of private property. He would call 
 upon their Lordships to say, whether they 
 could in honour and conscience pass the
 
 433 
 
 bill, except the previous consent of every 
 person on whom it would operate as a tax 
 had been obtained. The clergy of London, 
 from the time of the Reformation to the 
 reign of Charles the Second, was maintain- 
 ed by a certain poundage upon the rental 
 of houses : After the great fire, by a sta- 
 tute of Charles the Second, that poundage 
 was commuted for a sum certain ; and at 
 that proportion it had continued until that 
 moment. He would freely admit that the 
 salary was by no means adequate to the 
 proper maintenance of the clergy; and 
 much as he was inclined to concur in any 
 measure that should enable them to sup- 
 port their due rank, yet he could not bring 
 himself to consent to this bill. He moved 
 therefore that the third reading should be 
 postponed until that day three months. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor (Eldon) was 
 not willing that the bill should be read a 
 
 2e
 
 434 
 
 third time 720W, nor postponed for three 
 months : He would propose that it be de- 
 ferred a few days only ; that he might satisfy 
 his mind, if possible, that the objects of the 
 bill and the rights of private property were 
 reconcilable in the mode taken by the bill. 
 
 The third reading was accordingly post- 
 poned till the 23d of the month. On the 
 day fixed by adjournment, the Bishop of 
 St Asaph defended the bill. 
 
 "my lords, 
 
 ^' The bill upon which we are 
 to debate whether it shall be read a third 
 time now or on this day three months is en- 
 titled " an act for the relief of certain in- 
 cumbents of livings in the city of London." 
 My Lords, before I go into the bill, I 
 must desire your Lordships to remark, that 
 these certain incumbents, to whose relief
 
 435 
 
 this bill applies, are a great majority of the 
 beneficed clergy ol the city of London, — a 
 great majority, my Lords. I repeat and 
 insist upon this circumstance, because great 
 misrepresentation has gone abroad. It was 
 lately asserted in a very respectable assem- 
 .bly, — and what was asserted in that assem- 
 bly has found its way into the public prints, 
 — ^that the incumbents to be relieved by this 
 bill are a minority only of the London 
 clergy. It has been said, that the parishes 
 to which what is called the fire-act applies, 
 and to which of consequence this act, which 
 is an amendment of the fire-act, applies, 
 are in number only forty-eight ; while the 
 parishes within the city, not affected by 
 the fire-act, nor by this bill, are fifty-one. 
 My Lords, this is a most outrageous false- 
 hood. The parishes which fall under the 
 fire-act and under this bill are not fewer 
 than eighty-six ; though the livings, it is
 
 436 \ 
 
 true, are no more than fifty-one : For after 
 the fire of London, it was thought proper ' 
 to rebuild only fiftv-one of the eighty-six i 
 churches destroyed by that calamity, and, 
 by uniting, to reduce sixty-nine of the be- 
 nefices to thirty-four ; and thus the eigh- 1 
 ty-six parishes made only fifty-one livings. ; 
 Still they are eighty-six parishes. But the - 
 parishes which escaped the fire and are not 
 affected by the fire-act are nineteen, and ■ 
 no more. The incumbents, therefore, for ; 
 whose relief this bill is introduced, are a 
 very great majority of the London clergy. 
 
 " My Lords, your Lordships have heard ] 
 
 i 
 much, I believe, of the opulence of those 
 
 nineteen livings in which the rights of the 
 clergy were not curtailed by the fire-act : 
 Your Lordships have heard, that the reve- 
 nues of those nineteen livings are immense, : 
 enormous — far beyond the proportion of ' 
 the wants of any private clergymen — too j
 
 437 
 
 much for churchmen to be permitted to 
 enjoy ! My Lords, this is another false- 
 hood. One of those hvings is said to pro- 
 duce 700/. pel' annum^ another 800/. : I 
 speak of reputed vahies, which are gene- 
 rally beyond the truth ; but the average of 
 the nineteen is no more than 290/. per an- 
 num^ 
 
 " My Lords, it may seem strange, that 
 at this time of day we should have to pro- 
 vide for the better maintenance of the 
 London clergy ; especially as you will per- 
 ceive, by the very preamble of this bill, 
 that their maintenance has in former times 
 been the object of Parliamentary provision. 
 Your Lordships have heard that their ap- 
 pointments are very inadequate ; but you 
 are perhaps not informed how they came 
 to be so poor, nor what claim the London 
 clergy have to a better maintenance. I 
 shall therefore endeavour to state to your
 
 438 
 
 Lordships what their situation originally 
 was, and how they were reduced to their 
 present impoverished condition. This will 
 throw much light upon the argument I am 
 about to hold upon the justice and expe- 
 diency of the present bill. 
 
 " The maintenance of the clergy, your 
 Lordships know, dei'ives from two principal 
 sources — tithes and oblations. The streets 
 of London, my Lords, or of any great town, 
 produce no tithes, — certainly no predial 
 tithes, nor any mixed: London can produce 
 no species of tithes but the personal. Of 
 personal tithes we hear much indeed in the 
 old canonists, and something we hear of 
 them in the statute-book ; yet I am per- 
 suaded the claim never was generally en- 
 forced, and nowhere less than in the city 
 of London : The oblations therefore have 
 been in all times the principal mainte- 
 nance of the London clergy. It is true,
 
 439 
 
 we have acts of Parliament which purport 
 to be for regulating the payment of tithes 
 in London : But that is only that the word 
 is very inaccurately used as a general name 
 for the legal dues of the clergy of whatever 
 description ; or that tithes, if any there 
 were, are meant to be included under the 
 general provisions of those acts. The cer- 
 tain matter of fact is, that the oblations 
 made almost if not altogether the whole 
 property of the London clergy. 
 
 " The oblation, your Lordships know, 
 was a small payment due of right to the 
 minister upon Sundays and other great fes- 
 tivals of the church ; regulated in its quan- 
 tum by custom and usage, but everywhere 
 bearing some proportion to the rent of the 
 parishioner who was to pay it. The ear- 
 liest authentic information that I find about 
 the oblations in London, is in an ordinance 
 of Roger Niger, who was Bishop of Lon-
 
 440 
 
 don in an early part of the thirteenth centu- 
 ry. * Niger requires, that the good citizens 
 of London pay to the minister one farthing 
 for every ten shillings of rent, " Diebus 
 Dominicis, et solennibus, et festis duplici- 
 bus, prsesertim apostolorum quorum vigi- 
 liae jejunantur." f And these payments Bi- 
 shop Niger orders as due, in his time, of an- 
 cient usage and immemorial custom. In the 
 beginning of the thirteenth century, there- 
 fore, the oblations, upon these days and in 
 this proportion to the rents, were due by a 
 usage then ancient, and by a custom then 
 
 * See a pamphlet entitled " Case respecting the Mainte- 
 nance of the London Clergy, briefly stated, and supported 
 by reference to authentic documents. By John Moore, 
 LL.B. Rector of St Michael's, Bassishaw, and Minor Canon 
 of St Paul's, London." It is much to be lamented, that this 
 learned gentleman was not encouraged to execute his pro- 
 posal of reediting Bishop Walton's treatise of the Tithes of 
 London. 
 
 f i. e. " On Sundays, holidays, and the double festival^, 
 especially of the apostles whose vigils are fasted."
 
 441 
 
 become immemorial. There was however 
 some want perhaps of precision in the lan- 
 guage of Bishop Niger's ordinance, which 
 opened a door to much litigation between 
 the clergy of London and their parishion- 
 ers. Bishop Niger states the quantum of 
 oblation upon every day of offering at one 
 farthing for an annual rent often shillings, 
 one. halfpenny for a rent of twenty shil- 
 lings, and one penny for a rent of forty 
 shillings. But he goes no farther in de- 
 scribing the ascending scale ; he mentions 
 no higher rent than forty shillings, nor any 
 higher payment than one penny ; from 
 which the citizens of London had the in- 
 genuity to draw this curious conclusion, — 
 that one penny was the utmost that could 
 be claimed, let the rent be what it mioht. 
 One penny, they allowed, was demandable 
 every offering-day for a rent of forty shil- 
 lings ; but they contended, no more was
 
 442 
 
 demandable if the rent should be forty 
 times forty sliillings. Archbishop Arun- 
 del put out a constitution, in which he in- 
 terpreted Bishop Niger's ordinance more 
 favourably for the clergy. He declared the, 
 true sense of it to be, that an additional 
 farthing was to be paid for every additional 
 ten shillings of rent, to whatever the rent 
 might amount. The Archbishop's consti- 
 tution was approved and confirmed by the 
 Pope ; and the good citizens of London 
 submitted : For your Lordships will ob- 
 serve, that we are got back to times when 
 an ordinance of the diocesan and a metro- 
 politan constitution, confirmed by the pa- 
 pal bull, was law, and the only law upon 
 such questions. 
 
 " But, upon this, the citizens of London 
 had recourse to another expedient to lower 
 the claims of oblations. They raised a 
 question upon the number of days in the
 
 443 
 
 whole year on which the oblations were to 
 be paid. It was their point to make them 
 as few as possible ; and it was the interest 
 of the clergy to make them as many. Bi- 
 shop Niger's ordinance said the oblations 
 were to be made " Diebus Dominicis, et 
 solennibus, et festis duplicibus, praesertim 
 apostolorum quorum vigiliae jejunantur."* 
 About the Sundays there never was any 
 difficulty : But for tlie other festivals, the 
 citizens contended, that the words " prfjbser- 
 tim apostolorum quorum vigilia^ jejunan- 
 tur" were meant to circumscribe the appa- 
 rent latitude of the preceding words, " so- 
 lennibus et festis duplicibus;" and to spe- 
 cify what solemn days and what double 
 festivals were to be days of offering ; and 
 that these were only the festivals of those 
 
 * " On Sundays, holidays, and the double festivals, espe- 
 cially of tlie apostles whose vigils are fasted."
 
 444 
 
 apostles whose vigils were fasted. Those 
 in our calendar were never more than they 
 are now ; that is, they were no more than 
 eight : And those eight days, added to 
 the fifty-two Sundays, made sixty days of 
 ofFerino; in the whole vear, if none of the 
 eight days fell upon a Sunday ; which would 
 sometimes happen, and reduce the number. 
 Sixty days, at one farthing for each day, 
 upon a rent often shillings, was equivalent 
 to a rate of two shillings and sixpence in the 
 pound ; which seems, I confess, to be con- 
 siderable for the time; and the diminu- 
 tion, by the coincidence of festivals and 
 Sundays, amounted to no more than four- 
 pence upon the twenty shillings rent in 
 seven years.* The clergy, however, natu- 
 
 * Wlien the dominical letter is either A, B, or D, through- 
 out the year, no one of these eight festivals can fall upon a 
 Sunday : When it is F throughout the year, one of them, 
 and only one, will fall upon a . Sunday : When in the months
 
 445 
 
 rally wished to make more days of offer- 
 ing ; and to more they certainly were en- 
 titled by Bishop Niger's ordinance, or ra- 
 
 afler February the dominical letter is C or G, one, and only 
 one, will fall upon a Sunday : When in those months it is 
 E, five of the eight days in question will fall upon Sundays: 
 In bissextile years, when the double letter is GF, no one 
 of the eight days will fall upon a Sunday : When the dou- 
 ble letter is FE, six of them will fall upon Sundays ; one 
 for F, and five for E : AVhen the double letter is ED, no 
 one will fall upon a Sunday : When the double letter is 
 DC, one and no more will fall upon a Sunday : When the 
 double letter is CB or BA, no one of the eight will fall 
 upon a Sunday: When the double letter is AG, one and no 
 more. Hence it will be found, that in the whole cycle of 
 the dominical letter (making it begin with G), the clergy 
 would lose in the first four years of the cycle, eight days ; in 
 the second quaternion, they would loose seven ; in the third, 
 only two ; in the fourth, six ; in the fifth, two ; in the sixth, 
 one ; in the seventh, six. They would lose therefore in 
 the twenty-eight years of the whole cycle thirty-two days ; 
 that is, they would receive for no more than one hundred 
 and ninety-two days in addition to the Sundays, instead of 
 two hundred and twenty-four, for which they would have 
 received in the course of an entire cycle if none of these 
 eight fe^ivals had ever fallen upon a Sunday : Their loss 
 therefore would be one shilling and fourpence in the twen- 
 ty-eight years upon every annual rent of twenty shillings.
 
 446 
 
 ther by that ancient usage and immemorial 
 custom upon which that ordinance was 
 founded. 
 
 " Your Lordships have heard it said, 
 that upon this occasion, a sly old pope 
 created twenty new saints to bring grist to 
 the mill of the London clergy. My Lords, 
 I know that this assertion is to be found in 
 authors of considerable name, who might 
 have been expected to write with more 
 caution or with more veracity upon this 
 subject : But I was surprised to find, the 
 other day, that their authority had imposed 
 upon my noble and learned friend upon 
 the woolsack. My Lords, I should be ob- 
 liged to any noble lord that would give me 
 the names of those twenty worthies that 
 were canonized upon that occasion, or 
 the name of the pope who performed the 
 operation. ^Jy Lords, they are nowhere to 
 be found, — the names of those illustrious
 
 447 
 
 saints, or the name of tlie pope who 
 sainted them. The plain matter of fact is 
 this. Besides the festivals of those eight 
 apostles whose vigils are fasted, there are 
 certain days which have always been ob- 
 served in the church, — not in the church 6£ 
 Rome particularly, but in every church in 
 Christendom, — with as much and some of 
 them even with more reverence than the fes- 
 tivals of any of the apostles ; days not in- 
 troduced by any pope, but anterior to all 
 Popery ; days which have no reference to 
 any saint, ancient or modern, but to our 
 Lord himself; being the anniversaries, or 
 days observed as the anniversaries, of the 
 most interesting occurrences of our Lord's 
 own life : Such are the feast of our Lord's 
 nativity, the feast of his circumcision, his 
 epiphany. These days, in the whole year, 
 were eighteen in number. To these we 
 must add the feast of the apostles St Phi-
 
 448 
 
 lip and St James, and the feast of the na- 
 tivity of St John the Baptist ; which were 
 always observed as great feasts, although 
 the vigil of the former was not fasted. 
 These, with the other eighteen, make twen- 
 ty days, — just as many as the' Pope is said 
 to have added new saints to the calendar : 
 To which, however, two more are still to 
 be added, being observed in those times in 
 every parish, though not in all parishes on 
 the same day. These two are the anniver- 
 sary of the dedication of the parish-church 
 and the feast of the patron saint to whom 
 the church was dedicated. We have there- 
 fore twenty-two days in the year to be 
 added to the eight days of the apostles 
 and to the fifty-two Sundays, making in all 
 eighty-two days in the year-; for which 
 the clergy claimed. And it is remarkable, 
 that in the reign of Henry the Eighth, upon 
 an attempt to adjust the differences which
 
 449 
 
 then subsisted between the clergy of Lon- 
 don and their parishioners, the number of 
 eighty-two days of offering in the year was 
 admitted by a Court of Common Council. * 
 It is said, that in the interval between the 
 time I am speaking of and the reign of 
 Henry the Eighth, the claims of the clergy 
 had been carried much higher. About the 
 middle of the fifteenth century, an incum- 
 bent of one of the city livings sued one of 
 his parishioners, in the ecclesiastical court, 
 for recovery of oblations withholden : Sen- 
 tence was given in favour of the clergy- 
 man : The suit made a great noise, and 
 the cause was carried by appeal to Rome ; 
 where the sentence was confirmed : But 
 the City taking the matter up, and disputes 
 running very high, King Henry the Sixth 
 thought proper to call in the Pope's autho- 
 
 * See Moore's Case of the London Clergy, page 18. 
 
 2f
 
 450 
 
 rity : Nicholas the Fifth, after inquiring 
 into the merits of the case, issued his bull 
 ratifying the ordinance of Bishop Niger as 
 interpreted by Archbishop Arundel and In- 
 nocent the Seventh, and confirming the 
 sentence given in the case between the 
 clergyman and his parishioner. In this 
 the number of offering-days, it is said, was 
 carried up to one hundred.* And I can 
 easily believe it ; for I can easily believe 
 that the clergy at this time would think 
 they had a right to claim all the days spe- 
 cified as solemn festivals, " festa solem- 
 niter celebranda," in the provincial consti- 
 tution of Archbishop Islep : The number 
 of days in that constitution is forty-two ; 
 which, added to the fifty-two Sundays, make 
 ninety-four (little short of one hundred) in 
 the year. Nor can I think the claim of 
 
 * See Moore's Case, page 11 — 17.
 
 451 
 
 one hundred days fastens on the clergy of 
 those times any imputation of rapacity : 
 For the number is much short of what they 
 might have claimed under the letter of Bi- 
 shop Niger's ordinance ; which seems to 
 give them all the festa duplicia ; and the 
 festa duplicia of the Roman calendar are 
 very numerous indeed. However, my Lords, 
 in the time of Henry the Eighth, the Com- 
 mon Council of London could not reduce 
 the offering-days to a number less than 
 eighty-two : They admitted the claim of 
 the clergy to eighty-two days of offering in 
 the year ; and eighty-two, at the old rate 
 of one farthing for each day upon every 
 ten shillings of rent, is equivalent to a rate 
 of three shillings and fivepence in the 
 pound. 
 
 " The citizens of London having admit- 
 ted the claim of the clergy to this extent, 
 I cannot understand upon what principle
 
 452 
 
 the claim was reduced by the 37th of Hen- 
 ry the Eighth to two shillings and nine- 
 pence in the pound. That statute has 
 reference to a decree to be made by com- 
 missioners appointed by the King, " for 
 the appeasing of divers variances, conten- 
 tions, and strifes, which had arisen between 
 the parsons, vicars, and curates of the city 
 of London, and the citizens and inhabi- 
 tants of the same, for and concerning the 
 payment of tithes, oblations, and other du- 
 ties, within the said city and liberties." 
 Tlie preamble of the act sets forth, that 
 " as well the said parsons, vicars, and cu- 
 rates, as the said citizens and inhabitants, 
 had compromitted and put themselves to 
 stand to such order and decree, touching 
 the premises, as the King's commissioners 
 should make :" And the statute enacts, that 
 such decree as should be made by the 
 King's commissioners, or any six of them.
 
 453 
 
 before the 1st day of March then next en- 
 suing, should " stand, remain, and be as an 
 act of Parliament, and bind as well all citi- 
 zens and inhabitants of the said city and 
 liberties for the time being, as the said 
 parsons, vicars, curates, and their succes- 
 sors, for ever." And in pursuance of this 
 act, the commissioners issue their decree, 
 " that the citizens and inhabitants of the 
 said city and liberties shall yearly pay their 
 tithes" — so the decree says ; but tithes, as 
 I have stated to your Lordships, in Lon- 
 don mean oblations — " to the parsons, vi- 
 cars, and curates of the said city, and their 
 successors, for the time being, after the 
 rate hereafter following ; viz. of every x 
 shill. rent by the year, of all and every 
 house and houses, warehouses, &c. within 
 the said city and liberties, xvi pence and a 
 halfpenny, and of every xx shill. of rent 
 by the year, of all and every such house
 
 454 
 
 and houses, &c. ii sliill. and ix pence, and 
 so above the rent of xx shill. by the year, 
 ascendino' from x to x shill. according; to 
 the rate aforesaid." 
 
 " Thus, two shillings and niriepence in 
 the pound, according to the rents, was fix- 
 ed as a composition for the oblations due 
 to every incumbent of a living in the city 
 of London : And this continues to this 
 day to be the legal claim of every city 
 clergyman ; except any particular place can 
 show a custom of payment at a lower rate, 
 or where another mode of payment has 
 been established by later statutes. 
 
 " But in no period of time, I believe, 
 have the London clergy actually received 
 to the amount of this rate of two shillings 
 and ninepence in the pound, short as it 
 falls of what the Court of Common Council 
 in the 20th of Henry the Eighth admitted 
 to be their just demand, — viz. three shil-
 
 455 
 
 lings and fivepence in the pound. But even 
 this lowered demand, — upon what princi- 
 ple lowered I cannot say, — this lowered 
 demand of two shillings and ninepence has 
 never been received. By concealment of 
 the rents, and various subterfuges, the pay- 
 ments were so much reduced, that in the 
 reigns of James the First and Charles the 
 First, the clergy applied to Parliament 
 for redress ; and in the latter reign, the 
 King ordered, that the incumbent of every 
 living should send in an account of his ac- 
 tual receipt at that time from his living : 
 The citizens were also required to send in 
 their estimate of the actual receipt of each 
 living, accompanied with a statement of 
 "what the annual value of each would a- 
 mount to at the rate of two shillinos and 
 ninepence.^' These estimates were made ; 
 
 * See Moore's Case, page 35, 36.
 
 456 
 
 and both parties, the clergy and the citl-' 
 zens, appear to have acted with great good 
 faith ; for the difference is little or nothing, 
 — nothing certainly in the general result, 
 but very little in the detail between the 
 two statements of actual receipt, that of the 
 clergy themselves and that of the citizens ; 
 though it was the interest of the clergy to 
 put it as low as they could, and of the citi- 
 zens to put it as high as they could : But 
 they agreed in their separate statements, 
 and by that agreement are entitled to the 
 highest credit. And by comparing either 
 statement of actual receipt with the state- 
 ment of real value according to the two 
 shillings and ninepence in the pound, it 
 appears, that what the clergy received 
 was less than one third of the full value.* 
 
 * See a document annexed to Moore's Case, which is said 
 to be preserved among the records of the city, in the Town- 
 Clerk's Office.
 
 457 
 
 The troubles coming on, no measures were 
 taken for their relief; and they remained 
 in statu quo till the fire of London j which 
 gave occasion to a change in the manner of 
 providing for the clergy of those parishes 
 which were destroyed by the fire, which 
 eventually has been very detrimental to 
 them. 
 
 " I have stated to your Lordships, that 
 after the fire of London, fifty-one livings 
 were formed out of the eighty-six parishes 
 which had suffered by that calamity. And 
 by an act of the 23d of King Charles the 
 Second, commonly called the fire-act, a 
 certain annual income is appointed for the 
 maintenance of the incumbent of every one 
 of these livings, to be raised, — or so much 
 of it as shall exceed the small stipend paid 
 in some parishes by the impropriator, — to 
 be raised by equal assessment upon the 
 inhabitants. My Lords, I do not believe
 
 458 
 
 that the Legislature at that time meant to 
 deal illiberally by the clergy, or that the 
 citizens of that time wished their clergy to 
 be illiberally dealt by. It is true, the set- 
 tled incomes fell far short of what the 
 amount of the legal demand would have 
 been just before the fire ; and I find that 
 they fall short, upon the whole, just in the 
 same proportion in which the actual re- 
 ceipt fell short a few years before the fire. 
 I imagine, that the intention of the Legis- 
 lature was to secure to the clergy what dieir 
 actual receipt had been just before the fire ; 
 and perhaps it might have been unreason- 
 able to lay upon the citizens, under the re- 
 cent and heavy pressure of that calamity, 
 a greater burden than they had been for 
 some years in the habit of sustaining. The 
 provision might be competent for the cler- 
 gy of that time ; and what is more, I be- 
 lieve the clergy of that time were better off
 
 459 
 
 with the incomes the fire-act gave them 
 than they would have been had they been 
 left in possession of their claim to two shil- 
 lings and ninepence in the pound ; and for 
 this reason : Your Lordships will find a 
 proviso at the end of the statute 37th of 
 Henry the Eighth, " that if any person 
 take a tenement for less than the accus- 
 tomed rent, by reason of great ruin or de- 
 cay, brenning, or such like occasions or 
 mischiefs, that then such persons shall pay 
 tithes only after the rate of the rent re- 
 served in the lease, as long as the same 
 lease shall endure ;" and by a clause in 
 the act for the rebuilding of London passed 
 in the 20th year of Charles the Second, te- 
 nants in fee-tail were impowered to grant 
 the sites of their demolished houses, upon 
 building or repairing leases, as we should 
 now call them, for fifty years ; The conse- 
 quence therefore would have been, that,
 
 460 
 
 where such leases were granted, the clergy, 
 left to their demand of two shillings and 
 ninepence in the pound, for fifty years to 
 come would have received it only upon the 
 ground-rents. The condition in which the 
 fire-act put them was, I believe, much bet- 
 ter for the clergy of that time : But the 
 evil was in making the annual income cer- 
 tain ; for certain annual income is unim- 
 proveable income. If the income was only 
 a competence then, it is very evident it 
 must be downright beggary now ; and in 
 the same proportion and at the same pace 
 at which their parishioners have been grow- 
 ing rich, the clergy, with this unimprove- 
 able income, have been growing poor. If 
 the clergyman by his income was upon a 
 level with the merchant at the time of the 
 Restoration, he is now, with the same in- 
 come, hardly upon a level with the junior 
 clerk in the merchant's counting-house:
 
 461 
 
 If he is to be raised to his true level, his 
 income must be enlarged. I agree there- 
 fore with noble lords who think the real 
 fault of the present bill is that the relief it 
 will afford will be inadequate. Your Lord- 
 ships will recollect, that it was observed by 
 a right reverend prelate the other day, that 
 of the fifty-one livings which are the object 
 of the fire-act, six only amount to 200/. per 
 annum : These six will be raised by the pre- 
 sent bill to 333/. 6s. 8d. ; — anotlier indeed 
 will be advanced to the amazing sum of 
 366/. 13s.4d. J — this is the great prize, which 
 turns up from a late union of two parishes, 
 which, by the old act, produce by their se- 
 parate incomes put together 220/. : But of 
 the fifty-one livings, the far greater part 
 will still be under 300/. per annum, and 
 nineteen of them will not exceed 200/. 
 And what is even 300/. per annwn for the
 
 462 
 
 maintenance of an incumbent of a London 
 living in the present times ? 
 
 " My Lords, it may seem that I might 
 have spared this part of the argument ; for, 
 with great satisfaction I mention it, the 
 principle of the bill is not opposed. No 
 one of your Lordshij^s entertains a doubt 
 that the provision for the London clergy is 
 shamefully insufficient ; and no one of your 
 Lordships but wishes it were very consi- 
 derably improved. The objection to the 
 bill which weighs with some of your Lord- 
 ships is, that it is contrary to the establish- 
 ed usage of this House, — a usage founded 
 in the just attention of the House to private 
 property, — to entertain a private bill, unless 
 the petitioners for it can show that they 
 have the consent of all those whose inte- 
 rests may be affected by what they desire 
 to be done for their own advantage. My
 
 463 
 
 Lords, I acknowledge the wisdom and jus- 
 tice of this proceeding in all cases of pri- 
 vate bills — of bills in which private inte- 
 rests only are concerned ; for one private 
 interest is not to be advanced at the ex- 
 pense of another : But although this bill 
 was brought into Parliament by petition, 
 and so far carries the shape and appearance 
 of a private bill, yet I cannot admit that it 
 is really of the nature of a private bill. My 
 Lords, it is not a bill for th.e promotion of 
 private interests : In its object it is a pub- 
 lic bill ; it is a bill for an object of the 
 greatest national importance that can be 
 brought before Parliament. My Lords, a 
 bill for the better maintenance of the Lon- 
 don clergy is a bill for the support of the 
 established religion in the metropolis ; and 
 with the condition of religion in the me- 
 tropolis, its condition in the whole nation 
 is nearly and intimately connected. Wliat
 
 464 
 
 greater national object can your Lordships 
 have before you ? — My Lords, when I first 
 rose, I was anxious to impress your Lord- 
 ships with a persuasion of the fact, that 
 the petitioners for this bill are a very great 
 majority of the whole body of the London 
 clergy. I am apprehensive, that my ear- 
 nestness upon that point may lead to a 
 misconception of my present argument, — 
 that your Lordships may imagine that I 
 would put this out of the class of private 
 bills because it is for the general interest 
 of the London clergy. My Lords, that is 
 not my meaning ; — the general interests of 
 the London clergy, as a body by them- 
 selves, are still but private interests : But, 
 my Lords, my argument goes to identify 
 those general interests of the London cler- 
 gy with the general interests of the whole 
 nation. It is upon this ground that I 
 maintain that this is no private bill j be-
 
 465 
 
 cause it is not for a private but for a pub- 
 lic object of the first magnitude : And in 
 the case of such a bill, it would be a sacri- 
 fice of substance to form indeed (which I 
 am confident your Lordships will never 
 make), if your Lordships were to say " Be- 
 cause this bill has been introduced by peti- 
 tion, we will not entertain it, unless we 
 have before us every individual whose pri- 
 vate interests may be in any way aifected, 
 to give his consent." My Lords, I do 
 deny, that upon a measure of great nation- 
 al importance, the consent of individuals 
 whose interests may be incidentally affected 
 is to be sought. Private interests are to 
 give way to public advantage ; and for this 
 very plain reason, that the individual whose 
 interest is in any way deteriorated by a 
 measure of public expediency has his com- 
 pensation in the share that will come to 
 
 2g
 
 466 
 
 him of the pubhc good which the measure 
 is to produce. 
 
 " Still, mj Lords, I know it is appre- 
 hended, that the passing of this bill will 
 be a dangerous precedent, and open a door 
 to many applications which it would be 
 very improper to grant and yet difficult to 
 refuse when once this is granted. Upon 
 what ground, it is said, will you refuse after 
 this a legislative relief to any clergyman who 
 can show that his provision is inadequate ? 
 — And, God knows, this is what many de- 
 serving clergymen can too easily demon- 
 strate. One is reduced to a miserable pit- 
 tance by a modus which he is compelled to 
 receive in satisfaction for the tithes of many 
 productive acres and the increase of nume- 
 rous flocks and herds : Another performs 
 the laborious duty of a populous parish, for 
 no better remuneration in this world than
 
 467 
 
 a scanty stipend paid by the impropriator. 
 " Therefore," says the noble and learned 
 lord upon the woolsack, " the passing of 
 this bill will be a dangerous precedent, un- 
 less you can distinguish the case of the 
 London clergy from the case of any other 
 clergyman who is insufnciently provided." 
 My Lords, I say that the case of the Lon- 
 don clergy is distinguished : It is distin- 
 guished from every other by this very cir- 
 cumstance, that they are the London clergy 
 — the clergy of the metropolis. My Lords, 
 this distinction is not of my invention : It 
 is obtruded upon your Lordships' notice by 
 the authority of the statute-book ; in which, 
 not a single statute, from the earliest times 
 to the latest, is to be found relating to tithes 
 in general, in which an express exception is 
 not made of the case of the London cler- 
 gy, — and for no other reason than because 
 they are London clergy : They are clergy
 
 468 
 
 of the metropolis, and their competent 
 maintenance is essential to the maintenance 
 of the religion of the country ; which is not 
 equally to be said in the solitary case of 
 any rural clergyman. 
 
 " My Lords, I really can perceive no 
 analogy at all between the case of a coun- 
 try clergyman beggared by a modus (which 
 however is a very deplorable case) and the 
 case of the body of the London clergy beg- 
 gared by the fire-act. I apprehend that 
 every modus (which the courts, if it were 
 litigated, would confirm) must have origi- 
 nated, or must be supposed in law to have 
 originated, in composition real ', and that, 
 in every such case, the incumbent, at the 
 time when the composition took place, re- 
 ceived for himself a valuable consideration 
 over and above the small payment reserved, 
 to the detriment of his successors. There 
 was nothing unlawful in the practice, how-
 
 469 
 
 ever prejudicial it was to the church and 
 to religion, till it was restrained by statute: 
 But here was a valuable consideration to a 
 person entitled and having at the time a 
 right to sell ; and it would be contrary to 
 all justice to pretend at this time of day to 
 set aside a lawful contract of so long stand- 
 ing. But can it be imagined, that the in- 
 cumbents of the city livings at the time re- 
 ceived any valuable consideration for what 
 was subtracted from their legal claims by 
 the fire-act ? 
 
 " With respect to impropriations, my 
 Lords, it has been argued, that this bill is 
 inconsistent with its own principle ; inas- 
 much as, proposing to augment the burden 
 of the assessment upon the inhabitants, it 
 proposes to make no augmentation of the 
 burden upon the impropriators : If the 
 assessment upon the inhabitants is to be 
 augmented, why are not the stipends paid
 
 470 
 
 by the impropriators to their vicars and 
 perpetual curates augmented in the same 
 proportion ? It would be only a just impo- 
 sition upon them, and would in some de- 
 gree ease the inliabitants. — Equitable, my 
 Lords, as on the first face of the proposal 
 this may seem, it will, I believe, upon a 
 closer inspection, appear, that it would nei- 
 ther be generally practicable to raise the sti- 
 pend paid by the impropriator, nor, were it 
 practicable, would it be just. Many of the 
 impropriations are in the hands of ecclesi- 
 astical bodies, and make the principal part 
 of their maintenance ; and these appro- 
 priators could but ill afford to expend the 
 sources of their own maintenance upon the 
 support of their inferior brethren, however 
 they may wish their brethren were better 
 provided. Then the far greater part of 
 these appropriations are under lease ; and 
 the proportion in which the revenue of the
 
 471 
 
 estate is shared between the lessor and the 
 lessee is for the most part such that the 
 lessee has seldom so little as two thirds, 
 and the lessor, in his reserved rents and the 
 fines put together, seldom so much as one 
 third. And for this reason, the burden of 
 the stipend to the vicar or the perpetual 
 curate is usually thrown by the lease upon 
 the lessee : He pays it as reserved annual 
 rent. One of the most valuable appropria- 
 tions in the city, I believe, is the rectory 
 of St Bridget, commonly called St Brides, 
 in Fleet Street : This is appropriate in 
 the Church of Westminster: It is under 
 lease : In the beginning of the last century, 
 there were endless disputes between the 
 lessee of the Church of Westminster and 
 the inhabitants of the parish : After teasing 
 one another with vexatious law-suits till 
 both sides were tired out, they united, the 
 Dean and Chapter, their lessee, and the pa-
 
 472 
 
 rishioners, in a petition to Parliament for 
 a bill to adjust their differences : A bill 
 was accordingly passed, assigning a certain 
 annual income of 400/. to the appropriator, 
 to be raised hy assessment upon the inha- 
 bitants of the parish ; and this seemed so 
 much below the full value, that many bur- 
 dens which properly belonged to the ap- 
 propriator were thrown upon the inhabi- 
 tants : This annual income of 400/. is un- 
 der lease : The Church of Westminster 
 receive only their reserved rent, and their 
 very moderate septennial fine : — Now, my 
 Lords, in this case, would your Lordships 
 say " The Church of Westminster should 
 be compelled to increase the stipend to the 
 Vicar of St Brides?" The Dean and Chapter 
 would say " We cannot afford it ; we have 
 not the means : Our reserved rent goes, 
 with all our reserved rents, to the susten- 
 tation of our collegiate church and of our
 
 473 
 
 famous grammar-school, — to the payment 
 of the stipends of minor canons, lay-clerks, 
 organists, sacrists, vergers, and to the edu- 
 cation of the choristers ; and our reserved 
 rents are barely sufficient to this expendi- 
 ture ; The septennial fines are our own 
 maintenance, — liable, however, in a certain 
 proportion, and occasionally liable without 
 limit, to the repairs of the fabric : From 
 what sources are we to draw the increase of 
 the Vicar's stipend?" If you say "Throw 
 the burden upon your lessee, who, it is very 
 well known, pays the present stipend," — 
 " The lessee" they will reply " will not con- 
 sent ; and what means have we of compul- 
 sion? We renewed the lease but last year, for 
 the accustomed rent and with the old cove- 
 nants ; and the lessee will submit to no in- 
 crease for twenty years to come, — ^lie will 
 hold us to our bargain." Under such cir- 
 cumstances, my Lords, I cannot see either
 
 474 
 
 that the mcrease of stipend could be prac- 
 ticable or that it would be just. 
 
 " Again, in the city, the impropriation 
 in many instances is in the parish ; The 
 parish has bought the impropriation ; and 
 in all these cases, to increase the stipend 
 would be no ease to the parishioners : It 
 would only augment their payments in 
 another shape. 
 
 " Some noble lords may perhaps be ap- 
 prehensive, that, if this bill pass, we may 
 soon be desired to do the same thing for 
 the incumbents of those new parishes which 
 have been created under the act of Queen 
 Anne for buildin<j fiftv new churches. 
 Those incumbents may be supposed to be 
 in the same situation as the incumbents of 
 the city livings which this act concerns ; in 
 so far as their maintenance depends upon 
 certain annual income raised by assessment 
 on their parishioners. JNIy Lords, the an-
 
 475 
 
 swet Is, that the situations are widely dif- 
 ferent. The incumbents of those new pa- 
 rishes depend in part only upon fixed an- 
 nual income ; it is in part only that their 
 incomes are certain and unimproveable : 
 Their maintenance, in great part, depends 
 upon shares assigned to each of them of a 
 sum of money raised by a duty upon coals ; 
 and in aid of what that might produce, an 
 additional certain annual income is assigned 
 them, to be raised by assessment. But the 
 commissioners for carrying the actsof Queen 
 Anne and King George the First into exe- 
 cution were directed to lay out the shares 
 of the money raised by the coal-duty either 
 in real security or in the public funds. Laid 
 out in real security, it is improveable in- 
 come ; and I believe the fact is, that it was 
 for the most part so laid out. This I know 
 to have been the case in two instances, — in 
 the parishes of St Anne's, Limehouse, and
 
 476 
 
 St Luke's, Old Street : The incumbent of 
 the former is possessed, in right of his liv- 
 ing, of a very productive estate in Essex ; 
 of the latter, of a very good estate in Mid- 
 dlesex, purchased with the money I men- 
 tioned. The incumbents therefore of these 
 new parishes will have no pretence to soli- 
 cit the interference of Parliament to aug- 
 ment the unimproveable part of their in- 
 come : They are all already, upon the 
 whole, well provided. 
 
 " My Lords, the case which comes the 
 nearest to that of the London clergy, so far 
 as the individual only is considered, is that 
 of the incumbents of livings where the 
 tithes have been commuted by act of Par- 
 liament for a fixed money-rent. I know 
 one remarkable instance of thisj and I 
 doubt not but that many more are to be 
 found. The tithes of a rectory in Oxford- 
 shire, which is in the patronage of the see
 
 477 
 
 of Rochester, by a bill of enclosure which 
 passed before the middle of the last centu- 
 ry, when such matters were not so well un- 
 derstood as now, were commuted for a cer- 
 tain annual payment of 100/. clear of all 
 taxes and deductions. It happened that I 
 presented to the living not long before I 
 w^as removed from the bishopric of Roches- 
 ter ; and by the account I have had of the 
 living since, I understand that the tithes 
 which were exchanged for 100/. per annum 
 now produce 1000/, or 1200/. But, my 
 Lords, if the Rector of Mixbury shoidd ap- 
 ply to Parliament,-: — if he should say " jVIy 
 case is as hard as that of the London clergy: 
 Do for me what has been done for them," — 
 I should think it a proper answer to him if 
 he were told " Your case is indeed very 
 hard; but what has been done for the 
 London clergy was not done on the consi- 
 deration of the hardship upon individuals.
 
 478 
 
 but In contemplation of the importance 
 of maintaining the state and dignity of 
 the established religion in the metropolis ; 
 which would be ill supported if the great 
 body of its clergy were suffered to remain 
 in a depressed state : Your case is very 
 hard ; but the public is not materially af- 
 fected by the inadequate provision of the 
 clergyman of an obscure country village ; 
 and a legislative arrangement of property 
 of long standing must not be disturbed for 
 the sake of an individual." 
 
 " In short, my Lords, I can see no dan- 
 ger in the precedent, which, it is appre- 
 hended, the passing of this bill will esta- 
 blish. The case of the clergy of the me- 
 tropolis is so different from any case that 
 can be imagined of any private country 
 clergyman, or of the clergy of Westmin- 
 ster, or of the suburbs, that what is now 
 done cannot easily be drawn into prece-
 
 479 
 
 dent : And since the present bill is for a 
 public object, I cannot admit that it is to 
 be dealt with as a private bill in this House, 
 merely because it was brought into the 
 House of Commons by petition ; and that 
 the petitioners are to be called upon to 
 show, that, requesting that to be done for 
 them which the public good requires should 
 be done, insomuch that if it is not done 
 great public mischief must ensue, — I saj, 
 my Lords, such petitioners, in my judg- 
 ment, are not to be called upon to sliow 
 that they have the express consent of eve- 
 ry individual whose interests may be in 
 some degree affected by measures of such 
 public importance ; for surely, my Lords, 
 public advantage must to a certain ex- 
 tent overpower private interests. But, my 
 Lords, let me not be misunderstood : Far 
 be it from me to say, that upon a measure 
 of the greatest public importance, if
 
 480 
 
 individual has an apprehension of injury in 
 his private property he has not a right to 
 petition your Lordships, — that it is not 
 your Lordships' duty, if he sets forth his 
 case, to hear him at the bar upon his peti- 
 tion, and to take measures to prevent the 
 injury to private property, if injury is like- 
 ly to arise ; for although the interests of in- 
 dividuals may be, without injustice, in some 
 degree deteriorated for the sake of a pub- 
 lic end, \\hich cannot otherwise be attain- 
 ed, yet injury is not to be done to private 
 rights, even for the sake of public good, 
 unless the consideration of the public good 
 involve considerations of justice which may 
 justify what might otherwise be unjust. 
 But, my Lords, in the case of the present 
 bill, has any individual discovered any ap- 
 prehension of detriment to his property ? 
 Have we had any petitions against the mea- 
 siil^? My Lords, this thing has not been
 
 i81 
 
 done In a corner : There lias been no con- 
 cealment : The introduction of the bill into 
 Parliament was a matter of the greatest 
 public notoriety. The draught of the bill 
 was communicated to the Court of Com- 
 mon Council : The Court referred it to 
 the consideration of a committee, and that 
 committee to a sub-committee; which, I 
 am told, is the usual way in which such 
 business is conducted in the city. The 
 principal committee report to the Court of 
 Common Council, that the sub-committee 
 had reported to them, " that having taken 
 the said bill into their consideration, and 
 having held several conferences with the 
 committee of the clergy thereon (who a- 
 greed to some alterations upon their sug- 
 gestion), they, after duly considering every 
 circumstance in favour of the said incum- 
 bents, as also of their respective parishion- 
 ers, were of opinion that the said bill, §^ 
 2 H
 
 482 
 
 it now stands, will not be an unreasonable 
 charge on the inhabitants of this city ; and 
 therefore may with propriety be acceded to 
 by the Corporation : And we (viz. the 
 principal committee), agreeing in opinion 
 with the said sub-committee, humbly sub- 
 mit the same," &c. 
 
 " But, my Lords, this is not all : A pub- . 
 lie meeting of the inhabitants of the city of 
 London was called, — not by any authority, 
 but by those who, delighting in public 
 meetings, volunteered their services. One 
 meeting at least was held, and came to 
 some wise resolutions in reference to this 
 application of the clergy to Parliament ; 
 which, by order of the meeting, were to be 
 communicated to the Lord Mayor, the Al- 
 dermen, Deputies, and Common Council of 
 the several wards, and the Churchwardens 
 of the several parishes, to be by them com- 
 
 unicated to the inhabitants at large, with 
 the veiy evident though not avowed design
 
 483 
 
 of exciting an opposition to this bill. But, 
 my Lords, what did all this advertising, 
 and meeting, and resolving, and commu- 
 nicating, produce ? — Nothing at all, my 
 Lords : It certainly tended to turn the at- 
 tention of the inhabitants of the whole city 
 to the bill ; but no petition was produced, 
 not a mouth was opened, till in the very 
 last stage of the bill j and when the pre- 
 sent session of Parliament was supposed to 
 be within a few days or rather a few hours 
 of its close, a paper was presented purport- 
 ing to be a petition of the Gity of London 
 against this bill. My Lords, if a petition 
 against any private bill had come, in such 
 a stage of the bill and at such a period of 
 the session, before a committee above stairs, 
 I know what the impression would have 
 been upon the mind of a noble friend of 
 mine opposite to me, who deserves higli[;> 
 of the country for the vigilance wkJ;'^*'-'^
 
 484 
 
 he watches the iniquity of private bills ; I 
 know what the impression would have been 
 upon my noble friend's mind, and upon 
 my own : The mode of opposition would 
 have prepossessed us strongly in favour of 
 the bill so opposed : We should have said 
 " This smells too strong of trick : A peti- 
 tion against a bill that has been the whole 
 session pending ! — in this stage of the bill, 
 and in these expiring moments of the ses- 
 sion ! — The opponents feel they have no- 
 thing to say against the bill, and they would 
 kill it by stratagem.'* My Lords, I am too 
 little acquainted with city politics to pre- 
 tend to guess in what way this same peti- 
 tion against the bill before your Lordships 
 might be procured, — after the bill had re- 
 ceived its second reading — after the report 
 of the committee above stairs upon the bill 
 -when it was before a committee of the 
 wh6ie<*!^ouse previous to its third reading.
 
 485 
 
 My Lords, when first I heard of this fa- 
 mous petition, I thought it might be a step 
 taken only for the good of the common 
 sergeant, — that this bill might not be car- 
 ried through without his deriving some 
 emolument. My Lords, I mean no disre- 
 spect to that learned gentleman ; far from 
 it : When he appeared at your Lordships' 
 bar, he felt, I suppose, that he had little to 
 say in support of the petition ; and he had 
 the good sense to say very little. 
 
 " My Lords, under all these circumstan- 
 ces, — considering the bill as in substance a 
 public bill — considering the want of oppo- 
 sition as a tacit consent, if consent were 
 wanted, of all persons affected by it — con- 
 sidering the importance of the object, — I 
 cannot agree to the amendment moved by 
 the noble duke ; and I shall certainly say 
 " content" upon the question that the word 
 '* now" stand part of this motion."
 
 ON THE PETITION FROM THE ROMAN 
 CATHOLICS OF IRELAND? 
 
 May 13, 1805. 
 
 On the 10th of May 1805, Lord Gren- 
 viLLE moved that a petition from his Ma- 
 jesty's Roman Catholic subjects of Ireland, 
 praying to be released from certain civil 
 penalties and disabilities in force against 
 them, be taken into consideration : Where- 
 upon an animated debate arose ; which last- 
 ing to a late hour, was resumed on the 
 13th of the same month ; when the Bishop 
 of St Asaph rose and said
 
 487 
 
 *^ MY LORDS, 
 
 " In delivering my sentiments 
 upon this subject, I hope I shall be able 
 to maintain that temper of cool discussion 
 which a question affecting so numerous and 
 so respectable a description of his Majesty's 
 subjects — a question so important and mo- 
 mentous in its bearings and consequences 
 — demands. 
 
 " My Lords, if I should feel it to be my 
 duty to resist the prayer of this petition, 
 my vote will not be founded upon any un- 
 charitable sentiments entertained by me, 
 of that branch of the Christian family which 
 holds communion with the church of Rome. 
 My Lords, I shall easily find credit with 
 your Lordships for this assertion ; I shall 
 easily find credit for it with the country ; 
 I shall easily find credit for it with the Ro- 
 man Catholics themselves : For of every 
 measure that has been brought forward,
 
 488 
 
 during the time that I have had a seat in 
 this House, for the relief of the Roman 
 CathoHcs from the old penal laws, it is well 
 known I have been a strenuous support- 
 er ; — some measures of a contrary ten- 
 dency I have strenuously and successfully 
 resisted. 
 
 " My Lords, I do not hold that there is 
 any thing in the Roman Catholic religion 
 at variance with the principles of loyalty: 
 I impute not actual disloyalty, far from it, 
 to the Roman Catholics of this kingdom at 
 the present day, I do not believe that any 
 Roman Catholic of this country, at the 
 present day, thinks himself at liberty not 
 to keep faitli with heretics — not bound by 
 his oaths to a Protestant government, or 
 that the Pope can release him from the ob- 
 ligation of his oath of allegiance to his 
 sovereign. The questions upon these points 
 which were some years since proposed to
 
 489 
 
 foreign universities, and to the faculties of 
 divinity abroad, and the answers that were 
 returned, which a noble earl* this evening 
 read in his place, were no news to me : I 
 had a perfect knowledge of tlie questions 
 proposed and the answers returned ; in 
 which these abominable principles were 
 most explicitly and unanimously reproba- 
 ted by the learned bodies to which the 
 questions were propounded ; and I am per- 
 suaded, that the Roman Catholics of this 
 country are sincere in their disavowal and 
 abjuration of those pernicious maxims. I 
 hold, that the Roman Catholics of this 
 country are dutiful and loyal subjects of 
 his Majesty ; and I think them as well en- 
 titled to every thing that can be properly 
 called toleration, and to every indulgence 
 which can be extended to them with safety 
 
 * Earl Albemarle.
 
 490 
 
 to theprinciples of our constitution, as many 
 of those who do us the honour to call them- 
 selves our Protestant brethren ; the Roman 
 Catholics indeed differing less from us in 
 essential points of doctrine, and in church 
 discipline, than many of them. But, my 
 Lords, my mind is so unfashionably con- 
 structed, that it cannot quit hold of the 
 distinction between toleration and admis- 
 sion to political power and authority in the 
 state. The object of toleration, my Lords, 
 is conscientious scruples. My Lords, I 
 conceive that the Roman Catholics already 
 enjoy a perfect toleration : The statutes 
 which exclude them from offices of high 
 trust and authority in the state are not 
 penal ; such exclusions are not penalties ; 
 and the relaxation of those statutes would 
 not be toleration ; it would be an indul- 
 gence of a very different kind : And al- 
 though I wish the Roman Catholics should
 
 491 
 
 enjoy toleration in its full extent, — that 
 they should be subject to no penalties for 
 any religious opinions which may be pecu- 
 liar to them — to no restraint in the use of 
 their own forms of worship among them- 
 selves, — yet I could not without anxiety 
 and apprehension see a Roman Catholic 
 upon that woolsack where my noble and 
 learned friend now sits, or on the bench of 
 justice so worthily occupied by a noble and 
 learned lord at my right hand. My Lords, 
 this petition goes this length : It prays, 
 that a Roman Catholic may be invested 
 with the capacity of being any thing in the 
 state but king. Now, my Lords, if there 
 would be no danger to the constitution to 
 admit a Roman Catholic to be any thing 
 but king, — if this would be a safe thing to 
 do, I confess it is beyond the powers of my 
 mind to imagine upon what principle the 
 act of settlement can be defended.
 
 492 
 
 ^' My Lords, my mind is not yet brought 
 to that modern liberahty of sentiment 
 which holds it to be a matter of indiffe- 
 rence to the state of what religion the per- 
 sons may be who fill its highest offices : 
 I hold, that there is danger to the state, 
 when persons are admitted to high offices 
 who are not of the religion of the state, be 
 it what it may. And, my Lords, I am 
 ready to argue this very fairly : I think 
 in my conscience, that I myself, being a 
 Protestant, should have been a very unfit 
 person to have held any high office under 
 the old French Government. My Lords, 
 the noble Secretary of State, in the former 
 night's debate, argued this point of the in- 
 expediency of admitting persons differing 
 in religious persuasion from the state, — he 
 argued it from the practice of antiquity; 
 and he argued justly. It certainly was the 
 policy of all the states of antiquity to re-
 
 493 
 
 quire that persons in office in the state 
 should be of the established religion of 
 the country. My Lords, I shall argue 
 from the sad experience which modern 
 times afford of the mischief of giving 
 way to the contrary principle. My I^ords, 
 having said that I will argue from modern 
 times, I may seem to be going somewhat 
 back, if I mention the French Hugonots ; 
 but, my Lords, they are an instance in 
 point. I will say, that the Hugonots were 
 very bad subjects of Roman Catholic 
 France : They became bad subjects in con- 
 sequence of the extravagant indulgences 
 which for a long series of years they were 
 permitted to enjoy : They became at last 
 so bad, that the French Government was 
 provoked to revoke those indulgences ; and 
 the cruel persecution took place which 
 drove them from their country. The per- 
 secution was cruel, but it was the natural
 
 494 
 
 effect of impolitic indulgence ; and such 
 indulgence may always be expected to ter- 
 minate in such cruelty. But, my Lords, I 
 rely chiefly on the events of much later 
 times — of our own times. My Lords, I 
 ask, what was the real beginning and radi- 
 cal cause of that dreadful convulsion which 
 at this moment shakes all Europe ? What 
 was the real be^jinnino; and first cause of 
 the subversion of the ancient French Go- 
 vernment, and of the overthrow of the ve- 
 nerable Galilean church ? — Was it not the 
 placing of Neckar, that Protestant repub- 
 lican, at the head of the counsels of monar- 
 chical Roman Catholic France? 
 
 " Now, my Lords, if there be danger in. 
 admitting a Protestant to any high part in 
 a Roman Catholic government, the danger 
 certainly must be rather greater of admit- 
 ting a Roman Catholic to any high part in 
 a Protestant government ; and for this
 
 495 
 
 reason, — that the Roman Catholic pledges 
 his obedience, within a certain limit, to a 
 foreign power ; which is not the case of the 
 Protestant. I say, my Lords, within a cer- 
 tain limit ; for I am aware of the distinc- 
 tion between the spiritual supremacy of the 
 Pope, which is all which our Roman Ca- 
 tholics acknowledge, and his authority in 
 civil matters, which they renounce ; and I 
 believe them to be perfectly sincere in that 
 renunciation. But, my Lords, there is such 
 a connexion between authority in spiritual 
 matters and in civil, that I apprehend some 
 degree of civil authority may indirectly 
 arise out of the spiritual supremacy ; inso- 
 much that the conscientious Roman Ca- 
 tholic may sometimes find himself ham- 
 pered between his acknowledgment and his 
 renunciation. It is true, however, that the 
 Roman Catholics of this part of the United 
 Kingdom explicitly renounce even that in-
 
 496 
 
 direct authority of the Pope in civil mat- 
 ters : For the English Roman Catholic 
 swears, that " he does not believe that the 
 Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, 
 prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought 
 to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, 
 power, superiority, or preeminence, direct- 
 ly or indirectly, within this realm." I very 
 well remember, my Lords (and I have 
 reason to remember it, for I had a great 
 share in that business), that when the oath 
 to be imposed upon the Roman Catholics 
 was under consideration in this House, 
 there was some hesitation about the word 
 ** indirectly." Some of us thought, that it 
 would be pressing too hard upon the con- 
 science of the Roman Catholic to make 
 him abjure that which might seem to be 
 an appendage only of what he was permit- 
 ted to acknowledge. The word, however, 
 was after some debate inserted : It stands
 
 497 
 
 in the oath ; and the English Roman Ca- 
 thohc abjures even that indirect authority 
 of the Pope in temporal and civil matters. 
 Still, I fear, the line of demarcation be- 
 tween spiritual and temporal it may not 
 always be easy to define ; and I nmst ob- 
 serve, that the Irish oath is not drav/n with 
 the same precision : The word " indirect- 
 ly" is omitted; and there is another im- 
 portant omission ; the Irish Roman Catho- 
 lic does not, so ex]3licitly as the English, 
 bind himself to maintain the Protestant 
 succession. 
 
 " My Lords, having mentioned these 
 oaths, I must take occasion, in justice to 
 the Roman Catholic clergy of England, to 
 set right, a matter which I think was inac- 
 curately stated by a noble and learned lord 
 in the former night's debate. That noble 
 and learned lord seemed to think that the 
 Roman Catholic clergy of this country 
 
 2i
 
 498 
 
 scrupled to make those abjurations which 
 their laity have made ; and he told your 
 Lordships, that when the bill for the relief 
 of the Roman Catholics was brought into 
 Parliament, the apostolical vicars put forth 
 an encyclical letter forbidding the people 
 of their communion to take the oath pre- 
 pared for them. Now, my Lords, it is 
 very true that the apostolical vicars forbade 
 the taking of that oath which stood in the 
 bill originally brought into the House of 
 Commons and which actually passed that 
 House: But their objection to the oath 
 was not, that they were unwilling that their 
 people should swear to the maintenance of 
 the Protestant succession, or to the renun- 
 ciation of the Pope's indirect as well as di- 
 rect authority in temporals ; but the oath, 
 as it was framed in the Lower House, con- 
 tained some theological dogmata, which 
 they deemed, and in my judgment rightly
 
 499 
 
 deemed, impious and heretical. The dog- 
 mata to which I allude amounted to an 
 abjuration of the legitimate authority of 
 the priesthood in the administration of 
 what we churchmen call the power of the 
 keys ; abjurations, my Lords, which I, a 
 Protestant bishop, would not make ; and I 
 should impute great blame to any priest 
 of mine who should condescend to make 
 them. It was on account of these abjura- 
 tions that the apostolical vicars reprobated 
 the oath as it stood in the first bill ; and 
 when the oath was amended in that part, 
 as it was in this House, the vicars aposto- 
 lic made no farther objection. On the con- 
 trary, when the bill had passed, they ex- 
 horted their people, clergy as well as laity, 
 to take the oath as it now stands ; and they 
 have, I believe, themselves taken it. 
 
 " My Lords, at the beginning of this de- 
 bate, although I never thought of consent-
 
 500 
 
 ing to the prayer of the petition in the ex- 
 tent to which it goes, yet, I confess, the 
 inch nation of my mind was not to oppose 
 the motion of going into a committee. I 
 thought it might best become the gravity 
 of your Lordships' proceedings, to consi- 
 der the subject in detail — to examine the 
 petition article by article ; for, my Lords 
 I hold not with those who think, that be- 
 cause the whole or any thing like the 
 whole cannot be granted, nothing might 
 be conceded : And it was not till the de- 
 bate had made a considerable progress that 
 my mind was changed. But I must de- 
 clare, that it is now completely changed, by 
 the representation that has been made to 
 us, by very high authority, of the actual 
 state of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in 
 Ireland. iMy Lords, I have long under- 
 stood, that the Roman Catholic clergy in 
 Ireland were upon a different footing from
 
 501 
 
 their brethren here. Here, the Roman Ca- 
 thoHc clergy appear in the unassuming cha- 
 racter of mere missionaries : There are no 
 diocesan bishops, no parisli priests : Eng- 
 land is divided into four districts, which 
 are superintended in spirituals by four bi- 
 shops in par^libus^ — a Bishop of Centuriae, a 
 Bishop of Acanthos, &c. ; who take the title 
 of vicars apostolic, and exercise their spi- 
 ritual authority with great modesty and de- 
 corum, and in a manner perfectly inoffen- 
 sive to the established church and to the 
 state. I knew that in Ireland, each pro- 
 vince has its titular archbishop, each dio- 
 cese its titular bishop, and each parish its 
 titular priest ; but I had no conception, till 
 a noble and learned lord informed us of it, 
 that these titular prelates and priests claim 
 to be the rightful possessors of the respec- 
 tive sees and parishes, and treat the pre- 
 lates and priests of the established church
 
 502 
 
 as usurpers and intruders. I had no con- i 
 ception that the titular Archbishop of Ar- \ 
 magh would publicly take to himself the 
 style of Armachens, and designate the Lord \ 
 Primate by the simple appellation of Dr | 
 Stuart. The withholding from the Lord i 
 Primate the title which belongs to him, in 
 itself is no great matter ; but the claim to ] 
 jurisdiction, in exclusion of the established i 
 prelacy and priesthood, is another thing. i 
 A noble duke on the opposite bench has 
 said, in exculpation of them, that these Ro- \ 
 man Catholic prelates are really bishops. i 
 Most undoubtedly, my Lords, they are bi- 
 shops as truly as any here : They are of 
 the episcopal order ; and men, I dare say, 
 in their individual character, highly worthy 
 of that preeminence in the church. But, i 
 my Lords, I am sure the noble duke knows 
 enough of our ecclesiastical matters, to be i 
 apprized of the distinction between the
 
 503 
 
 " power of order" and the " power of ju- 
 risdiction." The " power of order" these 
 Roman Catholic prelates possess ; but the 
 " power of jurisdiction" does not of neces- 
 sity attach upon the " power of order." A 
 man may be a bishop, and yet it follows 
 not of necessity that he is bishop of a 
 diocese. The two powers, that of order 
 and that of jurisdiction, are quite distinct, 
 and of distinct origin : The power of or- 
 der is properly a capacity of exercising the 
 power of jurisdiction conferred by a com- 
 petent authority ; and this power of order 
 is conveyed through the hierarchy itself, 
 and no other authority but that of the 
 hierarchy can give it. The only compe- 
 tent authority to give the power of epis- 
 copal jurisdiction in this kingdom is the 
 Crown. It is true, that in this part of the 
 United Kingdom, that power may seem in 
 some degree to flow from the hierarchy ;
 
 504 
 
 because we have the form of an election of 
 a person to be bishop of a vacant see, by 
 the clergy of the cathedral : But this is a 
 mere form ; the Chapter cannot proceed to 
 elect without the Kinc^'s licence : The 
 King's licence to elect is always accompa- 
 nied with his Majesty's letter missive, re- 
 commending a fit person to their choice ; 
 and it always so falls out, that the Chapter 
 agree with the King in their opinion of the 
 fitness of the person. In substance, there- 
 fore, the collation of the diocesan jurisdic- 
 tion is from the Crown. In Ireland, the 
 collation of the power of jurisdiction is, 
 both in form and in substance, from the 
 Crown solely ; for the prelates of that part 
 of the kingdom are appointed to their re- 
 spective sees without any conge d'elire, or 
 any form of an election by letters patent 
 under the great seal. In neither part 
 therefore of this kingdom can there be any
 
 505 
 
 legitimate power of jurisdiction but what is 
 conferred by the Crown ; and the claim of 
 such a power independent of the Crown is 
 a most outrageous violation of the very first 
 principles of our ancient constitution. 
 
 " But, my Lords, unwarrantable as this 
 claim of the Roman Catholic prelates in 
 Ireland appears to be, I am still more a- 
 larmed by the manner in which, as we have 
 been informed by the noble and learned 
 lord,* they exercise their spiritual autho- 
 rity. My Lords, when the noble and learn- 
 ed lord entered upon this topic with a re- 
 mark that we here in England have no 
 idea what excommunication is in Ireland 
 — that it is really a dreadful thing ; and 
 seemed to make this the ground of some 
 charge he had to bring against the Roman 
 Catholic clergy of Ireland, — my mind, I 
 
 * Lord Redbsdale.
 
 506 
 
 confess, was all puzzle and amazement : I 
 could not imagine what this might be ; and 
 surmises arose of the very contrary of that 
 which I now understand to be the case. 
 Excommunication in Ireland a dreadful 
 thing ? — Why, I said to myself, to a Chris- 
 tian, to one who really believes, how should 
 excommunication, in the true meaning of 
 the word, in Ireland or anywhere else, not 
 be a dreadful thing ? Excommunication, in 
 the true meaning of the word, is the sepa- 
 ration of a Christian, leading a disorderly 
 life disgracing his profession, from the 
 Christian congregation — a banishment of 
 him from the church : And this separation 
 every Christian must consider as a state of 
 great danger and peril ; for, as the pro- 
 mises of the gospel are all made to the 
 church in its corporate capacity, and ex- 
 tend to the individual only as a member of 
 that elect society (none but fanatics hold
 
 507 
 
 the contrary), to be severed from that so- 
 ciety is to be excluded from all share in 
 the blessings and promises of Christianity. 
 This is excommunication ; and this is cer- 
 tainly a dreadful thing. Excommunication, 
 as it is practised here in England, I know 
 very well, in itself is no dreadful thing ; it 
 carries no terror with it but in its secular 
 consequences : But this is because what we 
 call excommunication is not really what 
 the word means ; and I have always con- 
 sidered the manner in which it is used a- 
 mong us as little better than a profanation 
 of a most sacred rite of discipline. It is 
 used with us merely as an engine to sup- 
 port the authority of the ecclesiastical 
 courts. If a man disobeys a citation, and 
 persists in his neglect of it, excommunica- 
 tion is denounced, though the object of the 
 citation should lie in some of these secular 
 matters which by our laws are submitted
 
 508 
 
 to the cognizance of these courts. The 
 sentence is pronounced by a layman, with- 
 out any thing striking in the manner of it ; 
 and, if the offender still persists, at the ex- 
 piration of certain days, comes indeed a 
 dreadful thing ; he is committed to prison, 
 by virtue of the writ de excommunicato ca- 
 piendo — a writ issuing from a secular court ; 
 and there he must remain, till, in the lan- 
 guage of Doctors Commons, he has made 
 " his peace with the church," i. e. till he 
 has made his submission to the court. The 
 person on whom the sentence falls all the 
 w4iile finds not the burden of any thing 
 properly to be called a sin upon his con- 
 science ; He is not aware that he has of- 
 fended the church ; for his imagination 
 cannot identify the ecclesiastical court, in 
 which a layman sits as judge, taking cog- 
 nizance perhaps of matters of a secular 
 nature, with the church ; and he perceives
 
 509 
 
 not that religion has any thing to do in 
 the business. Such excommunication has 
 certainly nothing dreadful in itself, but in 
 the imprisonment only which follows. 
 Such was not the primitive excommunica- 
 tion. The objects of that dreadful sen- 
 tence were none but notorious sinners, — 
 fornicators, usurers, idolaters, railers, drunk- 
 ards, extortioners:* It was pronounced 
 with awful solemnity, in the full assembly 
 of the church, by the bishop himself, or 
 some person specially delegated by him : 
 It produced the greatest consternation in 
 the conscience of the sinner ; and generally 
 brought him to a sense of his guilt, and 
 produced a reformation, which nothing- 
 short of this severity could have effected. 
 When the noble and learned lord said that 
 excommunication in Ireland was a dreadful 
 
 * 1 Corinthians, v. 11,
 
 510 
 
 thing, the surmise that naturally rose in 
 my mind was, that the excommunications 
 of the Irish prelates were something more 
 resembling the primitive excommunica- 
 tions than that is which our courts call 
 excommunication ; and I wondered how 
 this was to be turned to the reproach 
 of the Roman Catholic bishops. But 
 when the noble and learned lord went 
 on, he soon made me understand, that 
 their excommunication is no less a profa- 
 nation, though in a different way, but no 
 less, if not more a profanation of the rite, 
 than our practice. It is indeed a dreadful 
 thing; but not dreadful simply by the 
 alarm of the excommunicated person's con- 
 science, but by the worldly distress it brings 
 upon him : It is not simply a separation 
 from the body of the faithful, but it is, to 
 all intents and purposes, an interdiction ab 
 aqua et igne. No Roman Catholic dares
 
 511 
 
 to administer a crust of dry bread or a cup 
 of cold water to the person under this in- 
 terdiction ; and the offence which draws 
 down this horrible sentence is any friendly 
 intercourse which a Roman Catholic may 
 be found to hold with Protestants. My 
 Lords, this is an abominable abuse of the 
 power which Christ has placed in the hands 
 of the governors of his church, — not to de- 
 stroy the worldly comforts of men, but for 
 the salvation of their souls. No precedent 
 is to be found for such tyranny in the con- 
 duct of the apostles. The first instance of an 
 excommunication upon record took place, 
 in a very early period, in the church of Co- 
 rinth : A member of that church was 
 leading a most flagitious life ; and the pro- 
 cess of the excommunication was this. 
 The apostle St Paul, not being able to at- 
 tend in person, issues his peremptory man- 
 date to the church of Corinth to assemble.
 
 512 
 
 and, in full congregation, " in the name of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the power 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver the of- 
 fender unto Satan^^' — that is, to expel him 
 from the church ; by which he would be de- 
 prived of those assistances which the church 
 affords to resist Satan, — "for the destruction 
 of the flesh," — not that the man was to be 
 starved — driven from civil society, and re- 
 duced to perish witli cold and hunger and 
 thirst ; but for the mortification of the 
 carnal appetites ; for the flesh here evi- 
 dently signifies the appetites of the flesh : 
 And this flesh was to be thus destroyed 
 to this intent and purpose, " that the spirit 
 might be saved in the day of the Lord 
 Jesus :" And the spirit in that day will be 
 saved ; for the man was brought to re- 
 pentance ; and upon his repentance, the 
 apostle writes to the church again, to re- 
 ceive the penitent again into their commu-
 
 513 
 
 nion, and to " confirm their love to him." 
 And it appears that offenders under this 
 dreadful sentence were still treated with 
 great charity and commiseration ; for thus 
 the same apostle writes to the church of 
 Thessalonica : " We command you, bre- 
 thren, in tiie name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 that ye withdraw yourselves from every 
 brother that walketh disorderly ; and if any 
 man obey not our word by this epistle, 
 note that man, and have no company with 
 him, that he may be ashamed : Yet count 
 him not as an enemy^ hut admonish him as 
 a brother.^'' Very different this from the 
 despotism which we are told is exercised 
 by the titular bishops in Ireland over per- 
 sons of their own communion. 
 
 " My Lords, in this state of the Roman 
 
 Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, it would be 
 
 in vain to go into a committee to take this 
 
 petition into consideration ; for certainly 
 
 2 k
 
 514 
 
 nothing of political power and influence 
 can be conceded to the Roman Catholics 
 in Ireland beyond what they already en- 
 joy, unless their hierarchy can be reduced 
 to a less oifensive form, and checked in 
 the monstrous abuse of their spiritual au- 
 thority. I should hope that neither of 
 these things is impracticable, — that both 
 may be effected, by the influence of per- 
 sons of rank of that persuasion with their 
 pastors, concurring with Government in 
 mild measures for the attainment of these 
 ends. But if these ends cannot be attain- 
 ed by the concurrence of the Roman Ca- 
 tholics themselves with Government, I con- 
 fess we seem to be reduced to this dilem- 
 ma, — either this hierarchy must be crush- 
 ed by the strong arm of power (God for- 
 bid the dreadful necessity should arise), or 
 the Roman Catholic church must be the 
 established church of Ireland. My Lords,
 
 515 
 
 if the thing were res integral — If we had 
 now to form a constitution for Ireland ab 
 initio, — I have no hesitation in saying, that 
 it might be matter of grave dehberation 
 which of the two measures should be 
 adopted. But this is not the case. The 
 Irish constitution is settled — settled long 
 since, upon the basis of Protestantism ; 
 and that constitution so settled has been 
 recently confirmed by the pacta conventa 
 of the Union. When I speak, however, of 
 crushing the Roman Catholic hierarchy in 
 Ireland, I mean not that the Roman Ca- 
 tholics of that country should be deprived 
 of the superintendence of bishops ; but 
 their bishops should not be allowed to as- 
 sume diocesan jurisdiction in exclusion of 
 our own prelacy, or even coordinate with 
 it; nor should they be suffered to domineer 
 in the manner we are told they do.
 
 516 
 
 " My Lords, if these difficulties stood 
 not in the way, I should be ready to go in- 
 to a committee. Still I should oppose the 
 prayer of the petition, in the extent to 
 which it goes ; for this among other rea- 
 sons, — that I think a compliance with it 
 would be the worst thing that could befall 
 the Roman Catholics as well as ourselves : 
 The immediate effect of it, I think, would 
 be, to revive that detestable rancour be- 
 tween Protestants and Roman Catholics 
 which has for so many years been the dis- 
 grace of the Western church, but is dying 
 away if we only let alone what is well."
 
 ON THE SLAVE-TRADE 
 June 24, 1806. 
 
 X HE House of Commons having resolved, 
 on the 18th of June 1806, on the aboli- 
 tion of the slave-trade, — after the division 
 on the original question, a motion was 
 made and carried by Mr Fox, that a con- 
 ference should be desired with the Lords, 
 on a subject particularly connected with 
 the honour and humanity of the nation ; 
 and that the Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer (Lord Henry Petty) should be or- 
 dered to attend their Lordships for that 
 purpose. After the conference. Lord Gren- 
 ville moved in the House of Lords, on 
 the 24th of the same month, the order of
 
 518 
 
 the day for taking into consideration the 
 resokition which had been sent up from the 
 Commons ; and concluded with moving 
 that their Lordships should concur in the 
 said resolution. This was opposed by 
 Lord Hawkesbury ; who moved the pre- 
 vious question. L^pon this a debate arose } 
 in which the Bishop of St Asaph support- 
 ed the original motion. 
 
 •' MY LORDS, 
 
 " Consistently with the senti- 
 ments which for years I have been avow- 
 ing in this House, I cannot but declare nay 
 entire approbation of the motion of the 
 noble lord, to agree in the resolutions of 
 the House of Commons, communicated to 
 us in a late conference, respecting the 
 slave-trade. And, my Lords, this appro- 
 bation I for my part shall be ready to de-
 
 '519 
 
 clare in any month of the year, any day 
 of the month, and any hour of the day.* 
 
 " My Lords, in the discussion of this 
 subject, I could wish that the two questions 
 of slavery and the slave-trade had been 
 kept as distinct as they are in their own 
 nature, and as they were represented to be 
 by the noble lord who brought this busi- 
 ness forward. But in the arguments of the 
 two noble lords who have spoken on the 
 other side, they have been perpetually con- 
 founded : Nay, indeed, one of those noble 
 lords, the noble earl opposite to me in the 
 blue riband, has gone so far as to say, that 
 the two things, slavery and the slave-trade, 
 are one and the same ; at least, that they 
 are so far the same, that we who contend 
 for the total abolition of the slave-trade 
 ought upon our own principles, the noble 
 
 * The Earl of Westmoreland objected to tlie agitatiotj 
 of the question at this late period of the session.
 
 520 
 
 earl has been pleased to say, to propose 
 the immediate emancipation of the slaves 
 already on the islands. My Lords, I can 
 easily suppose that the noble earl imagines 
 that he understands upon what principles 
 my opinion is founded better than I my- 
 self understand : I dare say he thinks so. 
 But, my Lords, I can perceive no connex- 
 ion, and there is no connexion, between 
 the emancipation of the persons actually in 
 slavery and the abolition of the slave-trade. 
 I might think, as I do think, the immediate 
 emancipation of the slaves a measure to be 
 strenuously resisted, and yet not think 
 myself, for that reason, obliged to vote 
 that the means which are used bv us to 
 keep up the supply of slaves are fit to be 
 put in practice. However, my Lords, I 
 agree, that in discussing the merits of the 
 slave-trade, it is fit previously to take a 
 view of slavery itself: And, my Lords, I
 
 321 
 
 agree with the noble lord near me, the mo- 
 ver of the question, that slavery is itself 
 an evil of the very first magnitude — a ca- 
 lamity to those on whom it falls — a cala- 
 mity the heaviest, the most dreadful, of all 
 which are incident to mortal man. My 
 Lords, the evil of the thing is this, — that 
 it is a degradation of man from the condi- 
 tion of man. The moment that any one 
 becomes a slave, he is in the state and con- 
 dition of man no longer : He is no longer 
 master of his own body or his own mind ; 
 he has no longer any property in him- 
 self, or in the exertions of his ow?i in- 
 dustry. And, my Lords, this is an answer 
 to all those arguments in favour of the slave- 
 trade which are drawn from the humane 
 treatment the negroes meet with in the 
 West Indies from the planters. My Lords, 
 I do not call in question the humanity of 
 the planters : I doubt not that their hu-
 
 522 
 
 manity generally administers to their slaves 
 all the consolations the condition is capa- 
 ble of receiving. But what can the utmost 
 humanity of the master do for the slave ? 
 ■ — He may feed him well, clothe him well, 
 work him moderately ; but, my Lords, no- 
 thing that the master can do for his slave, 
 short of manumission, can reinstate him in 
 the condition of man, from which man 
 ought not to be detruded. My Lords, 
 with concern and indignation I have often 
 heard it argued in this House, that under 
 the kind treatment of the planters, the ne- 
 groes in the West Indies live as comforta- 
 bly as our own peasantry. My Lords, with 
 respect to mere animal enjoyment, it may 
 be true ; but mere animal enjoyment is not 
 the great consolation of man's existence. 
 Our British peasant, sustaining himself and 
 his family upon his homely meal of coarse 
 barley bread and skimmed milk, and stretch-
 
 523 
 
 ing his weary limbs at night upon his pal- 
 let bed, is independent — the master of 
 himself, and the father of his own family : 
 The bread he eats, and distributes to his 
 children, is his own : He sleeps upon his 
 own bed : All the fatigue he endures is 
 for himself; he toils for himself and his 
 own family — not for a master : His com- 
 forts depend not upon the precarious 
 kindness of a master : He is a man ; 
 he holds the rank and dignity of man in 
 civil society. But the negro slave in the 
 West Indies!- — my Lords, you may pamper 
 him every day with the choicest viands, — 
 you may lay him to repose at night on one 
 of your " beds of roses,"* — but with all this, 
 
 * These words allude to what had passed in debate a few 
 nights before in the Lower House. One of the members of 
 the new Ministry complained of the disordered state in which 
 their predecessors, upon their retirement from office, had 
 left the affairs of Government. In reply, it was said, that 
 so far from this being the case, the very reverse was the
 
 524 
 
 he is not in the condition of man ; he (a 
 nothing better than a well-kept horse. 
 
 " Mj Lords, this is my notion of slave- 
 ry. But whether this evil ought to be abo- 
 lished by legislative measures, is not the 
 question before us : The question before 
 us is, Whether the means which we em- 
 ploy to reduce every year thousands and 
 myriads of the human race with whom we 
 have no ground of quarrel to this deplora- 
 ble state, few of whom would otherwise 
 ever have been reduced to it, are such as 
 ought to be employed by a great nation 
 like this, pretending to conduct itself by 
 the eternal laws of justice, and professing 
 the Christian religion. 
 
 truth ; that the business of the pubhc offices had never been 
 left by any administration in a more regular train than by 
 the last ; that the new Cabinet would find every thing ready 
 prepared to their hands ; and would have nothing to do but 
 pocket the emolament? of office, and " repose on beds of 
 roses."
 
 525 
 
 ** My Lords, with respect to the huma- 
 nity and the justice of the slave-trade, — that 
 it is inhumane, that it is unjust, is a matter 
 so manifest to my mind, that I declare I 
 know not how to argue it : The proposition 
 is so very clear, that I know not where to 
 find media of proof to make the truth of it 
 more evident. 
 
 " My Lords, what is humanity ? — Is it 
 not a desire to promote the happiness of all 
 of the human species with whom we come 
 in contact? Is our slave-trade consistent 
 with this humanity ? 
 
 " What is justice, my Lords ? — Is it not 
 to do to others as we wish they should do 
 to us ? — to do as we would be done by ? 
 Is the slave-trade consistent with this jus- 
 tice ? 
 
 " My Lords, if the slave-trade be inhu- 
 mane and unjust, I need not at present ar- 
 gue its impolicy. The noble lord opposite
 
 526 
 
 has admitted, that if it can once be proved 
 to be inhumane and unjust, it must be im- 
 poKtic. My Lords, I rejoiced in the ad- 
 mission : I knew the noble lord was sin- 
 cere in what he said ; he spoke the gene- 
 rous sentiments of his heart : And I re- 
 joice to find, that he thinks, as I do, that in 
 public measures as well as in private life, 
 honesty is the best policy, and that nothing 
 can be politic which is inhumane or unjust. 
 The slave-trade is inhumane, is unjust ; 
 therefore it is impolitic. Upon the point 
 of policy, therefore, I shall say no more at 
 present. 
 
 " I pass now to another topic, — the reli- 
 gion of the question. I thought, indeed, 
 a reverend prelate near me had left me lit- 
 tle to say on the scriptural part of the sub- 
 ject : And little, indeed, I should have had 
 to say, — nothing, but to declare my entire 
 concurrence in the sentiments of that reve-
 
 527 
 
 rend prelate, — had not his argument been 
 answered in so masterly a manner by the 
 noble earl in the blue riband, learned in 
 the Hebrew law ! 
 
 " My reverend brother told your Lord- 
 ships, that perpetual slavery was not per- 
 mitted by the Jewish law ; — that a native 
 Jew could be held in slavery for seven years 
 only at the longest ; for he had a right to 
 his freedom upon the first return of the 
 sabbatical year ; — and that a foreign slave, 
 purchased in the market, or captivated in 
 war, could be held in slavery for fifty years 
 only at the longest ; for the foreign slave 
 had a right to his freedom upon the first 
 return of the year of jubilee : And from 
 these premises, my reverend brother con- 
 cluded, that perpetual slavery was unknown 
 among the Jews. 
 
 " I confess I was carried away by the 
 fair appearance of my reverend brother's
 
 528 
 
 arguments, till, to my great surprise and 
 his utter confusion, the noble earl rose? 
 with his Bible in his hand, and quoted 
 chapter and verse against him ! 
 
 " My Lords, with respect to the native 
 Hebrew slave, we have this law, which was 
 quoted by my reverend brother : *^ If thy 
 brother, an Hebrew man or an Hebrew 
 woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee 
 six years, then in the seventh thou shalt 
 let him go free from thee : And when 
 then thou sendest him out free from thee, 
 thou shalt not let him go away empty ; 
 thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy 
 flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy 
 wine-press ; of that wherewith the Lord 
 thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give 
 unto him." — Deut. xv. 12 — 14. And with 
 respect to the foreign slave, we have this 
 law, quoted likewise by my reverend bro- 
 ther : " Thou shalt number unto thee seven
 
 529 
 
 sabbaths of years — forty and nine years : 
 Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the 
 jubilee to sound throughout all the land : 
 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and 
 proclaim liberty throughout all the land, 
 to all the inhabitants thereof.'* — Lev. xxv. 
 8 — 10. The manumission of the Hebrew 
 slave on the seventh year was provided for 
 by the other law : Under the expression, 
 therefore, of all the inhabitants, foreign 
 slaves must be comprehended ; for none 
 but foreign slaves could remain to be ma- 
 numitted in the fiftieth year. 
 
 " My Lords, there is a circumstance, not 
 touched upon by my reverend brother, — 
 but there is a passage in the law, which I 
 have always considered as a strong argument 
 of the lenity with which slaves were treated 
 among the Jews, and of the efficacy of the 
 provisions the law had made to obviate the 
 
 2l
 
 530 
 
 wrongs and injuries to which the condition 
 is obnoxious. My Lords, I am afraid I 
 cannot, by memory, refer exactly to the 
 place ; but the noble earl there, with his 
 Bible, I am sure will have the goodness to 
 help me out, and turn up the passage for 
 me. My Lords, it is a passage in which 
 the law provides for the case of a slave 
 who should be so attached to his master, 
 that when the term of manumission fixed 
 by the law should arrive, the slave should 
 be disinclined to take advantage of it, and 
 wish to remain with his master ; and the 
 law prescribes the form in such case to be 
 used, by which the master and the slave 
 should reciprocally bind themselves, the' 
 slave to remain with his master for life, and 
 the master to maintain him. This I have 
 always considered as a strong indication of 
 the kindness with which slaves were treat-
 
 581 
 
 ed among the Jews ; else whence should 
 arise that attachment which this law sup- 
 poses ? 
 
 " But we are all in the wrong, it seems, 
 my reverend brother and I ; we reason from 
 specious premises, but to false conclusions. 
 The noble earl has produced to your Lord- 
 ships -a passage in the Levitical law, which 
 enacts, that the foreign slave should be the 
 property of his master for ever ; whence 
 the noble earl concludes, that the perpe- 
 tual servitude of foreign slaves was actually 
 sanctioned by the law. But, my Lords, I 
 must tell the noble earl, and I must tell 
 your Lordships, that the noble earl has no 
 understanding at all of the technical terms 
 of the Jewish law. In all the laws relating 
 to the transfer of property, the words " for 
 ever" signify only " to the next jubilee :'* 
 That is the longest ^^ for ever^' which the 
 Jewish law knows with respect to proper-
 
 532 
 
 ty ; and this law, which makes the foreign 
 slave the property of his master for ever, 
 makes him no longer the master's proper- 
 ty than to the next jubilee. And, with the 
 great attention the noble earl has given to the 
 laws and history of the Jews, he must know, 
 that when they were carried into captivity, 
 they were told by their prophets, that one 
 of the crimes which drew down that judg- 
 ment upon them, was their gross neglect 
 and violation of these merciful laws re- 
 specting manumission ; and that, in con- 
 tempt and defiance of the law, it had been 
 their practice to hold their foreign slaves 
 in servitude beyond the year of jubilee. 
 
 " My Lords, much has been said, espe- 
 cially by the noble earl, about the antiqui- 
 ty of slavery. Certainly the condition of 
 slavery has subsisted in the world from the 
 earhest times; but the slavery of the early 
 ages, — though slavery, in its mildest form, I
 
 533 
 
 ever will maintain to be a dreadful evil, — 
 but it was a very different thing from the 
 negro slavery in the West Indies. But, 
 my Lords, slavery is not the thing in 
 question : The only thing in question is 
 the slave-trade. We have heard indeed 
 much of the antiquity of that trade. My 
 Lords, be its antiquity what it may, I can- 
 not admit that any prescription of time can 
 give a sanction to inhumanity and injus- 
 tice : But let us look a little into this plea 
 of antiquity. 
 
 " Now, my Lords, I know very well, 
 that from the highest antiquity, slaves 
 have been an article of commerce, — that 
 they were in all times to be bought in the 
 marts upon the coasts of the Red Sea and 
 the Mediterranean. But, my Lords, I ask 
 the noble earl in the blue riband, who has 
 so much insisted upon this topic of anti- 
 quity, has he, in the whole compass of his
 
 534 
 
 reading, found in all antiquity any thino' 
 analogous to our slave-trade ? Can he tell 
 me of any ancient nation which was in the 
 practice of fitting out fleets of ships an- 
 nually, to transport the inhabitants of any 
 particular country, against their will, torn 
 violently from their native soil, their habi- 
 tations, and their families, to hard cruel 
 slavery in a foreign clime ? Was there 
 any thing in ancient times bearing the least 
 resemblance to the modern slave-trade ? — 
 My Lords, I deny it ; there was no such 
 thing. Does the noble earl, who with so 
 much force of eloquence has described 
 the flourishing state of slave-trade in an- 
 cient times, in Persia, in Greece, in Egypt, 
 among the Romans, all over the world, — 
 does the noble earl seriously believe, that 
 there was to be found in the fleets of any 
 ancient nation — that there was to be found 
 upon the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, or
 
 535 
 
 the Euxine, in the Euphrates, or the Tiber, 
 a single vessel constructed upon the model 
 of a British Guinea-ship? — a vessel form- 
 ed to stow the greatest possible number 
 of persons in the smallest space, with every 
 contrivance for the profit of the trader, 
 and without the least attention to the com- 
 forts or consideration of the sufferings of 
 the miserable victims of that infamous traf- 
 fick. — My Lords, again I say, there was no 
 such thing. Slaves may have always been 
 an article of trade; but the slave-trade 
 carried on in vessels fitted for the trans- 
 port of no other commodity but the per- 
 sons of men in chains — of men and wo- 
 men, boys and girls, unjustly captivated, is 
 of modern date. My Lords, that in an 
 cient times there was no such trade, it is 
 not incumbent on me to prove; I call up- 
 on the other side to prove that there icas. 
 They cannot prove it ; I defy them ; they
 
 536 
 
 cannot produce a particle of proof. But, 
 my Lords, I will go farther than the rules 
 of argumentation oblige me to go : Not 
 content with the total defect and absence 
 of proof on the other side, I will argue 
 for the negative, from a notorious fact in 
 the history of the Romans. My Lords, 
 the Romans had in their best times some 
 negro slaves ; but they had very few of 
 them, — their negroes bore a very incon- 
 siderable proportion to tlie working slaves 
 upon their farms ; whereas, had there been 
 any thing of a slave-trade in the world in 
 those times, their negro slaves must have 
 greatly outnumbered all the rest. 
 
 " My Lords, having disposed of the an- 
 tiquity of the trade, I come again to the 
 religious part of the subject. We find no 
 prohibition, it is said, of the slavery in the 
 Bible. Certainly not, my Lords ; the pa- 
 triarchal religion, and most remarkably
 
 537 
 
 the Christian religion, avoid as much as 
 possible all interference with civil insti- 
 tutions. Our Lord delivered general 
 maxims of conduct to lay hold of the con- 
 sciences of men ; and by the silent effect of 
 those general maxims, and not by more 
 violent means, he aimed at the gradual re- 
 formation of the manners both of indivi- 
 duals and bodies politic. It is not there- 
 fore to be concluded of every thing not ex- 
 pressly forbidden in Scripture, that it is 
 therefore not contrary to the spirit of re- 
 vealed religion ; and not being forbidden, 
 is approved. 
 
 " But, my Lords, I must again remind 
 your Lordships, that we are not to talk 
 about slavery, but about tlie slave-trade ; 
 and about slave-trade in its modern shape 
 — the Guinea-trade. The noble earl then 
 will ask me " What prohibition have we in 
 Scripture of the slave-trade ?" — None, my
 
 33S 
 
 Lords. It would indeed have been strange, 
 if this modern practice had been prohibited 
 to the sons of Noah, or to the children of 
 Israel, who never practised it, had no con- 
 ception of it, and could only have wonder- 
 ed what it was they were forbidden to do. 
 It would have been strange indeed, if any 
 prohibition of the slave-trade had been to 
 be found in the Scriptures of the Old Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 " But have we any prohibition of it in 
 the New Testament? — None, my Lords, 
 absolutely none ; and for the same rea- 
 son, — the crime, in its modern shape, was 
 unknown in the times of the promulgation 
 of the gospel. But, my Lords, although 
 we have no exip]icit prohibition of the slave- 
 trade in the New Testament, we have a 
 most express reprobation of the trade in 
 slaves, even in that milder form in which 
 it subsisted in ancient times, — such a re*
 
 539 
 
 probation of it as leaves no believer at li- 
 berty to say that the slave-trade is not 
 condemned by the gospel. The reverend 
 prelate near me has cited the passage* in 
 which St Paul mentions " men-stealers" 
 among the greatest miscreants. " Men- 
 stealers," so we read in our English Bible ; 
 but the word in the original is ocv^^oc'Tro^i^alq, 
 Avlpoczoli^Ttg is literally a " slave-trader;" 
 and no other word in the English language 
 but " slave-trader" precisely renders it. It 
 was indeed the technical name for a slave-t 
 trader in the Attic law ; and although the 
 Athenians scrupled not to possess them- 
 selves of slaves, yet the trade in slaves 
 among them was infamous. But whatever 
 they might think of it, we have reason 
 to conclude, from the mention made of 
 " slave-traders" by St Paul, that if any of 
 
 * 1 Timothy, i. 9. 10.
 
 540 
 
 them should ever find their way to hea- 
 ven, they must go thither in company with 
 murderers, parricides, and sodomites ! 
 
 " My Lords, it is with rekictance that I 
 come to touch upon the impolicy of this 
 trade, — its inherent impolicy, I mean, ex- 
 clusive of that whicli consequentially at- 
 taches upon it as inhumane and unjust. I 
 come to this with reluctance, because I am 
 very unwilling to tire your Lordships with 
 saying the same thing over and over again ; 
 and, upon this part of the subject, I have 
 nothing to say but what I have been re- 
 peatedly saying upon many former occa- 
 sions for the last eighteen years. But, my 
 Lords, whenever this subject is brought 
 before the House, I cannot acquit myself 
 to my own conscience without declaring 
 my opinion upon every part of it. My 
 Lords, it is the firm persuasion of my mind, 
 — a persuasion not rashly conceived, not
 
 541 
 
 conceived without an anxious and laborious 
 study of the reports of the Privy Council, 
 the evidence given at the bar of the House 
 of Commons, and the evidence at our own 
 bar, — it is my firm persuasion, that sound 
 policy no less forbids the continuance of 
 this trade than humanity and justice. My 
 Lords, I am persuaded, that when the slave- 
 trade shall be abolished, the cultivation of 
 the West India Islands will rapidly im- 
 prove : The number of the negroes will not 
 only be kept up, but it will increase by 
 their natural propagation : By the kind 
 treatment of the planters, insured to them 
 by stopping the sources of a new supply, 
 they will be gradually approximated to the 
 condition of freemen ; and as they approxi- 
 mate that condition, their labour will be 
 more productive ; for it is agreed on all 
 sides, that the labour of a freeman infinitely 
 surpasses that of the best slave : The conse-
 
 542 
 
 quence therefore must be, that West India 
 property, instead of being injured by the a- 
 bolition, will in a short time greatly increase 
 in value. But then, it is said, what are we 
 to do with the new lands ? how are they 
 to be brought into cultivation without new 
 supplies by importation ? — My Lords, I 
 say, the proprietors of those lands must be 
 content to wait till they are furnished with 
 the means of cultivating that property with- 
 out crime ; which means, time, and no great 
 length of time, will afford, by the natural 
 increase of the blacks upon the islands. 
 But to contend that the present condition 
 of the uncultivated lands justifies the con- 
 tinuance of the trade for their speedier cul- 
 tivation, is in effect to say, that the pos- 
 session of a certain quantity of land in a 
 barren state gives the owner a right to 
 manure his soil with the carcasses of mur- 
 dered Africans.
 
 543 
 
 *' My Lords, we have heard much of St 
 Domingo : The example of that island, it 
 is said, should deter us from the agitation 
 of all these questions : The horrid scenes 
 that have been passing there have all been 
 occasioned, it has been said, by the disse- 
 mination of speculative notions about li- 
 berty and the rights of man among the ne- 
 groes of that island. My Lords, the dread- 
 ful example of St Domingo makes a con- 
 trary impression upon my mind. What- 
 ever speculative notions might be dissemi- 
 nated among the negroes of St Domingo,-— 
 I give little credit to the assertion of such 
 dissemination ; but whatever it might have 
 been, I maintain it could have done no 
 mischief at all ; it never could have taken 
 effect without a superabundance of the black 
 population. That is the thing to be dread- 
 ed : The annual importation from Africa 
 increases the black population in the West
 
 544 
 
 Indies in an exorbitant degree, and in the 
 most dangerous manner. It is the conti- 
 nuance, therefore, of the slave-trade, not 
 the abohtion of it, which it is to be feared 
 may whet the knife of St Domingo in our 
 island of Jamaica. 
 
 " My Lords, being decidedly for the origi- 
 nal motion, I cannot agree to the previous 
 question ; and I hope your Lordships will 
 not agree to it : For it would ill become 
 your Lordships to delay for a moment to 
 vote inhumanity to be inhumanity, injus- 
 tice to be injustice, and bad policy to be bad 
 policy." 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Printed by R. S. Rixtoul, Dundee. 
 
 4.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF TAX 
 
 yc^-k"**-- 
 
 I 
 
 University ot Ca«"?"'if facility 
 SOUTHERN BEG.ONALLBnAR;fACK..^33, 
 
 *05 «<'»'^,r,'S,'':XrtT.o me llbrar, 
 
 )rm L9— 42m-
 
 L 005 846 338 1 
 
 UCi 
 
 AA 000 056 206 6
 
 L