★ Keep up to date with the latest news - subscribe to the Transcribe Bentham newsletter; Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
general character, but a particular fact, such as the one
before them, and that on the ground of that fact the Bishop
should refuse to sign, he would take the liberty to say, that
such conduct must prove unsatisfactory to the House. He would
ask, why did not the Rev. Prelate go into the Spiritual Court,
where the Petitioner would have had an opportunity of defending
himself (hear)? – Would the Rev. Prelate undertake to say, that those
from whom he derived his information were present during
the whole of the speech, for nothing could be more unfair than
to judge from having heard a part only? No man he trusted
would suspect him of being an enemy to religion; he had always
venerated it from his youth upwards, and he believed the Liturgy
of the Church of England to be the best and purest in the world.
But was it advantageous to have it go abroad that here in England,
where every man had a right to be tried by his peers, the
case of an individual should to be prejudged (hear)? The Bishops
of England had always acted in a manner which reflected
dignity on their characters, and nothing could be more
painful to him than that it should go forth to the world
that a Bishop had refused to sign a testimonial, not on the
ground of general character, but on an recent fact which did
not implicate that character. It was contrary to the principles
of justice. Something he thought might be done by their
Lordships in this case; for he agreed with his Noble Friend
that the idea of going to law with the Bench of Bishops was
not within the humble means of a Curate (hear).
The Lord Chancellor who spoke in so low a tone of voice as to
be scarcely audible below the Bar, defended the Power of the Right
Rev. Prelate to act as he had done. It had been stated that he
must sign the testimonials; if so, there must be a power to
compel him; but he could not find it in the Canon Law. He
apprehended that it was a most serious duty incumbent on
the Clergy and the Bishops to inquire into the Character
of the person whose testimonials they were required to sign
and maintained that the Bishops ought not to be satisfied
with the signatures of the Clergy, to the exclusion of their
own judgement and opinions. It had been stated the individual
was too poor to go to law with the Bench of Bishops;
but if every man who had that plea was to have recourse
to Parliament, the business of their Lordships would soon
accumulate. If the objection of his Noble Friends was
against the law as it stood, they should proceed by
bringing in a Bill which the House would have an opportunity
of discussing; but even in that case he would beg
of them before they consented to any enactment to consider
what was the duty of Clergymen an Bishops
in signing and countersigning testimonials. For these
reasons he was induced to think that they had not
enough before them to justify the adoption of any measure
by Parliament, for whatever some Noble Lords
might think of the particular case, it was not a single
case that could justify them in adopting any change
in the Ecclesiastical Constitution of the country.
The Earl of Carnarvon said, that the present
was not a mere personal question, but one of great
and practical and general importance. It was with
pain he had heard such a question so treated; for, up
to that moment, the Right Rev. Prelate had not assigned
a single reason for the conduct he thought
proper to pursue. By refusing to countersign the
testimonial, he had taken away the character and
|
Identifier: | JB/109/150/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 109.
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
109 |
|||
|
150 |
|||
|
001 |
|||
|
Collectanea |
1 |
||
|
recto |
C5 |
||
|
35805 |
|||