mand it more especially from me. I For instance, can a writer expect to be proceed, therefore, to the distasteful answered, who will seriously quote Bitask.

shop Burnet for a recommendation and But first I shall beg leave to dispose authority to the Episcopal Bench of very summarily of the theological mat- our days, to live • abstracted from ter introduced by this Reviewer. No courts, from cabals, and from parties?" man, who respects himself, will con- -scenes in which that good Bishop tend on such subjects with an opponent bore a busier part than the most secuof so very slender qualifications ; with lar of our prelates for a century past, one, who thinks the Church of Eng- and where, by his zealous support of land only half-reformed, because its whig principles, he raised himself to catechism for the instruction of chil- that eminent station, which, together dren contains no express denial of the with his numerous virtues, would entransubstantiation of the sacramental sure to him, if he were now living, a elements ;—who can talk with the full share in the invectives of his premost edifying gravity, of the “ distinct sent panegyrist. and unequivocal repudiation of the real Still, our low estimate of this wripresence, which we find in the Thirty- ter's intellectual qualifications must not Nine Articles," where every one who prevent us from exposing those his moknows what is meant by the real pre- ral delinquencies, which derive imsence (a very different thing from the portance from the mischievous cause corporal presence), knows also, that it they are intended to promote. It is nois distinctly and unequivocally affirm- torious that a design is systematically, ed :-who, because “ the power of and almost avowedly, pursued by magiving absolution" is claimed both by ny of the reformers of the present day, the English and the Roman Church, to bring the established Church nto can speak of it, therefore, as if it were contempt, and to draw down the haclaimed by both in the same meaning tred of the people on its ministers; and and extent, though it is notorious that that in furtherance of this design, every the Church of Rome has pronounced expedient of every kind, the meanest an anathema against all who do not artifice and the most daring falsehoods, admit the absolving power of its priest- are resorted to without scruple or rehood to be higher, even in kind, than straint. Instances of both these dethe highest claim ever advanced in our scriptions we shall find in the Review Church :- who can talk of the “ as- before us. sumption of this power by the English The first which I will quote is of Clergy;" of this assumption being the former kind,-a fraud so miserable, undeniable,”, (and yet, as it should that it would be utterly, beneath all seem, of its being denied by divers ap- notice, excepting to mark the sort of proved authors, without knowing, persons who are most forward in their that whether the power be assumed, hostility to the Church. or disclaimed, and the assumption ad- The Reviewer is anxious to have it mitted or denied, depends on the man- believed, that our present Bishops, ner in which the power itself, never among many other points of inferioronce defined by him, is understood: ity to their predecessors, are distin-lastly, who can close his learned lec- guished by an increased and increasing ture on this point, with asserting that spirit of luxury, avarice, and selfish“ the primitive Church never pretend- ness. It suited this purpose to set forth ed to have any absolving power ; see with high encomiums the splendid lion one side Hammond und Marshall, berality of Bishop Butler, in disposing -Wheatley contrà;" whereas all these of the revenues of his great preferthree writers (whatever be their differ- ments ; but it did not suit the same ence on a collateral question) and all purpose to state the real object, on others of any reputation amongst us, which his largest munificence was beagree in affirming, what this dreamer stowed, namely, an episcopal palace. fancies that half of them deny. This, I say, it was not convenient to

These, and blunders such as these, the Reviewer to mention ; for, blunplace his theological dogmas beyond derer as he is, he could not be blind the reach of controversy. Perhaps, too, to the manifest absurdity of denounon similar grounds, he might claim in cing all living bishops, in the gross, some other points as good a right to for “ living sumptuously in vast and the undisputed possession of the field. splendid palaces," and holding forth

one, who is deceased, as a pattern of the false and treacherous praises of truly primitive virtue, for rearing a such a writer as this, I pass to a more Palace for himself and his successors culpable act of the same description, to live in.

committed against a living Prelate, : Accordingly, by a stroke of his pen against one, whose mild virtues; and ke changes the Palace of Bristol into truly Christian meekness of demean. the Cathedral, on the repairs of which our, (I will not on such an occasion he tells us, that the Bishop "expended do him the injustice of referring to his more than he received from the See.” higher qualities,) might have been exThose who will take the trouble of pected to disarm the hostility of the looking into the Biography of this emi- most inveterate cnemy of his order. nent man, (a trouble which I can ven. But the rancour of a thorough-paced ture to promise them will be its own Reformer finds in these virtues only reward) will find, that he did indeed fresh and stronger motives to his ha“ expend in repairing and improving tred. Accordingly, our Reviewer fasthe Episcopal Palace at Bristol four tens on this Prelate with a pertinacity thousand pounds, which is said to have of misrepresentation, which can only been more than the whole revenues of be accounted for by his reliance on the the Bishopric amounted to, during his unwillingness of such a man to stoop continuance in that see."

to the exposure of his artifices. I know not whether it is worth The Bishop, in a Charge to his while to add, that so little averse to Clergy, thus speaks of the Unitarian the decoration of his Palaces was this System, a system, of which both himgreat ornament of the English Church, self, and those whom he was addressthat in less than two years, during ing, had in the most solemn manner, which he presided over the Diocese of and on the most awful occasions, deDurham, he found time and means to clared their conscientious disbelief. expend largely on the Castle, the Epis- “ Its influence,” says he, “has genecopal residence, in that city, where his rally been confined to men of some armorial bearings," in all the perfect education, whose thoughts have been folly of Heraldry,” as his Encomiast little employed on the subject of relicalls it when speaking of modern Pre- gion; or who, loving rather to queslates, still mark the scene of his mu- tion than learn, have approached the nificence. In the same richly endow- oracles of divine truth without that humed See, whose high secular privileges ble docility, that prostration of the undemand some due proportion of secu- derstanding and will, which are indislar state, he disdained not to live with pensable to proficiency in Christian all the splendour of the most splendid Instruction.” With what feelings this of those who had preceded him, “at- Reviewer is accustomed to approach tended by a body of serving men gor- those divine Oracles, I do not permit geously apparelled” (as the Reviewer myself to conjecture: I earnestly hope, chooses to describe footmen in purple that they are very different from those liveries of these days); copying in such which accompany his worldly studies. matters after his ancient Patron, Bi- But the following is the manner, in shop Talbot, and studiously departing which he represents the words of the from the more sparing pattern set by Bishop: It is the duty of the peohis immediate predecessor. All this ple to reverence the Church and its he did, without ceasing to “regard members in silent acquiescence,'" with himself as Steward for the Poor,” that prostration of the understanding where their real interests required his and will, which a Right Reverend Preaid, and without departing from that late hus openly prescribed, as the best simplicity which becomes the Christian frame of mind upon all ecclesiastical Bishop,-“knowing” well not only subjects." “ how to be abased,” but also “how Can the dishonesty of this writer go to abound.”

further? Yes:--and in the instance From this pitiful forgery respecting of this very same Bishop, whose lanBishop Butler, a name too pure, as well guage on another occasion is still more as too exalted, to be sullied even by wickedly mis-stated. More wickedly,

Sve Life prefixed to Halifax's Edition of his Works : ses also Chalmers' Biog Diot. and Hutchinson's History of Durham.

I say, because the object of this latter by the vulgar, has long passed away, fraud is not only to misrepresent the should be hazarded in any journal, words of the Bishop, for the purpose maintaining the slightest pretension, of serving a present turn, - but also to I will not say to honesty, but even to hold forth his person to public indig- prudence. The whole passage of the nation, as a courtly Sycophant," Commentator on the Laws of Engone“ guilty of an excess of adulation land, part of which was cited by the unknown in the most despotic reigns,” Bishop, will be found below.* --one, whose baseness could only be But it is time to advert to those paralleled by those“ fawning preach- parts of the Review, which more imers” in Charles the First's time, who mediately concern myself, and the in part caused the troubles that en- Clergy of Durham, a body which sued, by their extravagant doctrines seems to have earned in a peculiar derespecting the right of Kings, “ giv- gree the hostility of every enemy to ing unto Cæsar what Cæsar refused to our Establishment. take, as not belonging to him.”

The trial of the Editor of the DurIt appears, that

in the course of the ham Chronicle, for one of the grossest proceedings in the House of Lords on libels which the licentiousness of the the Bill for degrading the late Queen, Press, even in these days, has yet prothe Bishop of London maintained duced, and the publication of the pro(what every one who loves the Consti- ceedings by the defendant, have aftution will maintain with him) that forded to the congenial spirit of this an enquiry into the personal conduct of Reviewer an opportunity of reviling the King would be unconstitutional; the Clergy, and the Church of Engfor, said he, citing the words of Black- land, of which he has not failed to stone, the King is not under the co- avail himself to the utmost. Decency ercive power of the law, which will and justice might have seemed to renot suppose him capable of commit- quire, that he should at least wait till ting a folly, much less a crime.” For the proceedings have been completed : speaking thus, this distinguished Pre- but decency and justice are antiquated late is charged by our Reviewer with restrictions, which a modern reformer " proclaiming, in his place in the House has long since learned to despise. Beof Lords, that by the Constitution of sides, if he did not send forth his stricthis Country, the King is exempt from tures without delay, it might chance all moral blame; thus perverting the that the assertions, on which they maxim which protects the Sovereign were to be built, might lose even the from personal responsibility, into the faint semblance of probability, which monstrous doctrine, that nothing which it was convenient to throw around he does, as an individual, can actually them. Accordingly, the Reviewer

hastens to take for granted whatever That in a moment of popular deli- the Defendant, a convicted libeller, has rium, such a misrepresentation of the thought proper to assert; and, without Bishop's words should have been made even sifting the particulars of that Deby those whose interest it was, at all fendant's story, or noticing the palpahazards, to keep alive the delusion, ble inconsistencies by which it is markcould excite no surprise. But it ouglit ed, proceeds to pour forth all the torto be a matter of astonishment, that rent of his eloquence in pity for the s0 flagrant a perversion of the truth,- meek and suffering martyr, and in innow when the frenzy, which alone dignation against his priestly persecugave it a chance of being credited even tors.

be wrong

“ To these several cases, in which the incapacity of committing crimes ärises from a deficiency of the will, we may add one more, in which the law supposes an incapacity of doing wrong, from the excellence and perfection of the person ; which extend as well to the will as to the other qualities of his mind. I mean the case of the king : who, by virtue of his royal prerogative, is not under the coercive power of the law; which will not suppose him capable of committing a folly, much less a crime. We are there. fore, out of reverence and decency, to forbear any idle inquiries, of what would be the consequence if the King were to act thus and thus ; since the law deems so highly of his wisdom and virtue, as not even to presume it possible for him to do any thing inconsistent with his station and dignity ; and therefore has made no provision to remedy such a grievance."- Blackstone's Comin. Book iv. c. 2, ad fin.

He begins with the following state- of the fact, which was made the prement:"A newspaper of merely lo- text (it could not be the cause) of so cal circulation, had published a few much abuse, would have softened remarks upon the factious spirit of (however its falsehood might have agsome of the Durham Clergy, in order- gravated) the criminal character of the ing the bells not to toll at her Majes- libel

. Let him say, whether the pubty's decease, a mark of respect invari- lic denial of the imputed fact must ably shewn to all the members of the not have appeared to sanction the conRoyal Family."

clusion, that that fact, if true, would Of the three propositions expressed have afforded some justification, or, at or implied in this statement, the first least, excuse, of the foul matter which is a wilful concealment of the truth. was appended to the statement of it. An honest man, in stating the case, I say this, even on the supposition that as this Reviewer professes to do, would the Clergy who had been libelled were at least have said, that the remarks of the prosecutors. But this was not the the newspaper (whether he considered case, as must have been known to the them excusable or not) were of a very Reviewer from the publication before coarse and intemperaté kind. But of him, in which it is twice asserted by this I shall have occasion to say more Mr Scarlett, that the Bishop of the hereafter. The other two propositions diocese was the prosecutor. In truth, are direct falsehoods. It is false, that the libelled Clergy knew nothing of the the Clergy of Durham ordered that prosecution till they were informed of the bells should not toll at her Majes- it through the public prints. It was ty's decease; it is also false, that the the venerable Bishop, who, feeling tolling of the bells is a mark of respect he always feels, as the friend and fainvariably shewn to all the members ther of his Clergy, instituted the proof the Royal Family.

ceedings, to vindicate that body from It will be said, however, that these a most foul and groundless attack; and falsehoods are not originally of the instituted them under the advice (not Reviewer's fabrication, that he found merely the cold legal opinion) of his them asserted by the defendant, and Attorney-General, Mr Scarlett. I stop not denied by any one ? No! even this not to claim all that might justly be poor plea cannot be admitted; for it is claimed from the authority of that only just to the defendant to say, that name, when advising a prosecution for he expressly declined making the as- a libel. No man who knows Mr Scarsertion, which the Reviewer has had lett, even by reputation, (and who is no difficulty in making for him.“ We there to whom he is not thus known?) know not whether any actual orders can believe for a moment, that he would were issued to prevent this customary give the sanction of his recommendasign of mourning," are the words of tion to any unnecessary attempt to rethe libel itself.--Or it may be said, strain the freedom of the British press, perhaps, that it was in the first instance or even to punish its pardonable exthe assertion of the learned Counsel forcesses. the Defendant. Be it so; I shall not But, the Bishop of Durham being trouble myself to distribute the pro- the Prosecutor, it is manifest that he perty in these matters between the could not make the denial ; his legal parties.

officers did not advise that it should But as to the fact not having been be made by any one ;* and the Court denied ; let any one read the libellous of King's Bench ruled, that in such a attack, and then say, whether the truth case it was wholly unnecessary. After.

a

After the Defendant's affidavit had been filed, an affidavit was made by me (which could not, however, be received in that stage of the proceedings,) from which the following is an extract :

« Touching the matters really pertaining to the cause now pending before this Court, this deponent saith, that having been in holy orders nearly twenty years, and having lived both in Cathedral cities and also in several other places, he nevertheless does not know nor believe, that “it hath been notoriously customary,' as the said John Ambrose Williams, in his said last-mentioned affidavit, hath affirmed, upon the decease of the Queen Consort and cvery member of the Royal Family, for the Clergy of the Established Church to solemnize the event by tolling, or causing to be tolled, the bells of their respective Cathedrals and Churches.' That, on the contrary, this deponent believes, that

this, had the Reviewer a right to con- ordinary provocation; and yet that it elude that the pretended fact was really was not remarkable for any needless true, because it had not been denied asperity either of sentiment or of lanand to make this conclusion a pretext guage. I would also ask my Reviewer, for his own vulgar and unbridled ri- whether, when he called that pamphlet baldry? But enough of this. a “very libellous publication," he had

In the next passage, which I shall not heard that a consultation of the quote, I am myself particularly assail, most eminent Whig lawyers, at the ined. It is asserted, that “ sometime stance of some of the most zealous asbefore the attack complained of, I had sertors of the freedom of the Press, published a pamphlet full of violent had been holden for the express pure invectives against those who had taken pose of detecting in it something libelpart with the late Queen, during her lous, and that they were compelled to unexampled persecution,”, and that abandon the attempt as hopeless ? this pamphlet “ assumes the form of And here I would quit all mention a letter to Earl Grey."

of this pamphlet, had not one particu. It is not my intention to hold any lar sentence of it been made the ground controversy with the Reviewer respects of a most shameless attack on me. I ing that pamphlet. I wish not, in- had said, that I felt myself called upon deed, to recur to it, (nor to any other to accept the Noble Earl's challenge, contention in which it has been my and to avow before the world the fortune to be engaged), more than is grounds on which I justified an Adnecessary. But since he has thought dress to the Throne from the Clergy fit to couple it with another letter to of this Diocese, which Address his Earl Grey, of which I am not the Au- Lordship had very publicly and very thor, nor ever was an Approver; and violently assailed. is In doing this," since he has laboured to give the im. I proceeded, “ I am not ignorant, that pression, that both these letters are I may possibly draw upon myself all equally violent, and equally reprehen- the fury of all your adherents; from sible, and has even designated both as the political Reviewer, who scarcely

very libellous publications," I may any longerpretends to regard truth and be allowed to remind all who ever read justice as qualifications for his calling, my pamphlet, that it was strictly de- down to the miserable mercenary who fensive; that it was written under no eats the bread of prostitution, and pan

in most places it is notoriously customary for the said Clergy not so to solemnize such event, nor to order or forbid the tolling of the bells of their said Churches on such occasions. And this deponent further saith, that for more than eleven years preceding the month of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, he was one of the Prebendaries of the Cathedral Church of Durham, and that it was not then customary for the bell of that Cathedral Church to be tolled on the death of every member of the Royal Family. That it most commonly happened (10 the best of this deponent's knowledge and belief) that the bell of the said Cathedral was not tolled on those occasions ; but this deponent is confident that the omission was never intended, nor did he ever hear that it was considered by any one as ever having been intended as a mark of disrespect to any, either of the deceased or of the living members of the Royal Family.

" And this deponent further saith, that for upwards of ten years preceding the twen. ticth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, he was minister of Saint Margaret's, Crossgate, one of the parochial churches of Durham, and hath lived in terms of intimacy with some, and acquaintance with the rest of the Clergy of the said city; that during that time many members of the Royal Fanıily deceased, and that on none of those occasions doth this deponent remember that he gave, or was asked or ex. pected to give, any directions whatever about tolling the bell of the said church; and that, as far as the knowledge and experience of this deponent enable him to say, he does not believe that the clergy of the parochial churches of Durham are in the habit of giving any directions whatever on the subject of tolling or not tolling the bells of their said churches on such occasions ; and in the particular instance of the death of the late Queen, he is convinced, from his personal knowledge of the said clergy, that (whatever may have been their opinions respecting her Majesty's conduct when she was living) they did not either, by wilfully forbearing from any customary practice of ordering the bells of their said churches to be tolled, or by any other act or omission whatever, intend to insult the memory of the said Queen."