LILE'S shop in Fleet Street, some of his writings, which were charged in the indictment with being "blasphemous and profane libels of and concerning the Christian religion." The prosecution was at the instance of the "Society for the Suppression of Vice." Mr. JOHN ELLIS, as Junior Counsel, read the Information; and Mr. GASELEE (in the absence of Mr. Gurney, through indisposition) appeared as the advocate for the prosecution. He commented upon certain passages in the works alleged to have been sold, which were decidedly Deistical, and some of them excessively gross and offensive. "Christianity," said the learned gentleman, "as the greatest authorities had holden, was part of the English law, which would not permit any attempt to subvert or turn into ridicule the religion of the country." This is rather broad ground, and standing up as the substitute of one Dissenter, and having another at his elbow, Mr. Gaselee should have taken care not to frame his legal doctrine so as to make Dissent itself criminal; which it must be according to him, if Dissenters oppose the Church, and in their opposition attempt to shew that some of its doctrines (the doctrine, for instance, of every Bishop's being empowered to give the Holy Ghost,) are absurd and ridiculous. "Still," the learned gentleman proceeded, "he would not have sought for a verdict, if the Defendant had only discussed particular doctrines of the gospel with temper and fairness; but when a libel assailed religion with mere calumny, and represented it as oue entire system of fraud and delusion, it became a duty to protect public morals by seeking the aid of the law against its publishers." As an advocate, he could not say less; but if the publication of such works injure public morals, those persons are not to be vindicated from the charge of promoting immorality who, by prosecutions and punishments, lend wings to profane books, and cause them to be carried into unnumbered hands, which but for this impolitic interference they would never have defiled. Mrs. WRIGHT read her own defence, which was bold and honest, and as little feminine as could be. Her situation in life, her zeal in the cause of unbelief, her opinion of herself, and her estimate of some historic characters which the Christian world revere, will be explained by one extract from the Defence, as given in Carlile's "Report of the Trial." "I challenge my accusers to shew, that I have any sinister motives or lucrative ideas in this affair. No, Gentlemen, I have not. I am a married woman and a mother. I live on terms of affection and conjugal fidelity with my husband, whose earnings are regular and fully competent to make us comfortable; besides this, I have myself been bred to a genteel employ, as a lace-mender, and an embroiderer, at which I could earn double the wages that I have received from Mr. Carlile. I might almost say, that I have served him gratuitously, for I have received no more than the additional expense which has accrued from my absence from home, and from my putting out my child to the care of a nurse. I have stood forward in this righteous cause, by and with the consent and advice of my husband. I am not related to Mr. Carlile in the most distant degree. I am scarcely known to him further than as a customer who has regularly called for his publications. I have imbibed his principles, and I stand forward this day to defend them, and to say to you, Gentlemen, that I am so far proud of them; I am so far convinced they are virtuous, to the very extreme of virtue, that with a better heart and motives than the Christian martyrs of old, who fell as ignorant and fanatical victims to Pagan persecution, I shall submit with pleasure and with joy to any pains and penalties that may fall upon me from this worse than Pagan persecution. Worse, because it is hypocritical, and because, the pretended suppressors of vice are the actual suppressors of moral virtue !" After asserting all the principles of the passages set forth in the Indictment, and pouring all manner of scorn upon revealed religion, she proceeded to read as part of her Defence the whole of Mr. Fox's Sermon on "The Duties of Christians towards Deists," including the Preface and the Postscript to the second edition. The Chief Justice, who had several times before interposed to stop the Defendant, though in vain, raised no objection here; but Mr. DORNFORD, one of the special jurors, interfered in the reading of a part of the Discourse, describing the duties of Deists, and asked "if all this ought to be heard ?" "Chief Justice-It does not seem to me to be relevant, but one is unwilling to prevent a defendant from urging all that she thinks may serve her. "Mr. Dornford.-The manoeuvre is quite evident, my Lord, to get all this published. "Chief Justice.-I shall stop her if she advances any thing which we ought not to hear. "Mr. Dornford.-All this is an attack upon Christianity, my Lord. "Chief Justice.-No, Sir, I understand the reverse; what she is now reading is certainly inoffensive.” Mrs. WRIGHT then proceeded at great Intelligence.-Miscellaneous.-Literary. length to quote the opinions of other Christian writers against the prosecution of unbelievers, and to expatiate upon a variety of other matters: in the midst of which she "requested permission," according to the printed Report, "to retire and suckle her infant child that was crying. This was granted, and she was absent from Court twenty minutes, in passing to and from which, to the Castle Coffee House, she was applauded and loudly cheered, by assembled thousands, all encouraging her to be of good cheer and to persevere." She concluded with telling the Jury that she scorned mercy and demanded justice.-The Lord CHIEF JUSTICE, whose temper and conduct throughout the trial cannot be too much applauded, "after stating the substance of the Indictment, observed that the Defendant was not called on to auswer any reasonable or fair discussion on the truth of Christianity in general, or any of its particular tenets. The law permitted that every subject, however sacred, should be freely, yet moderately and temperately discussed; but it would not yield its protection to gross and scandalous calumnies on the established faith. It would be a most extraordinary state of society in which the privilege of defaming that religion on which all its institutions were built, should be conceded. The publication had been clearly proved; indeed, it had been avowed and gloried in by the Defendant; and, therefore, the only question would be, whether the passages bore the character imputed to them by the record. The learned Judge then read the paragraphs set out in the indict ment, and left the Jury to say if they could doubt of their meaning. Much had been urged, to which, if applied to a different case, he should readily accede; he meant those arguments which had been largely quoted to shew the impolicy of attempting to support religion by the secular power; and these certainly would have great weight if a grave and serious disquisition were indicted: but it would be hard to shew that every society had not a right to support itself against calumny and slander, and to protect the young and uninformed from the influence of mere contumelious abuse. If the Jury thought these passages were only parts of a fair and temperate discussion of the sacred topics to which they had reference, they might acquit the Defendant; but if they considered them as gross and indecent attacks on religion, they must find her guilty." "The Jury turned round in their box for about two minutes, and then returned a verdict of GUILTY." Mrs. WRIGHT has not yet been called up for her sentence, and happy would it be 647 for the credit of Christianity and the interests of society if she were purposely forgotten, and the fanaticism of an uninformed and misguided female were not to be sanctified in the eye of the vulgar by severity of punishment, which they will not fail to regard as cruel oppression. MISCELLANEOUS. GREAT disasters have this month be fallen the shipping on the coast. The storm on the night of Sunday the 13th instant, was peculiarly fatal. The Eastern coast was ravaged as by a hurricane. Amongst other melancholy accidents, which have been reported to us by private letters, we have been deeply concerned at the following account from Wisbeach. Mr. ROBERT GARLAND, youngest son of Mr. W. Garland, of Gedney, being in a delicate state of health, was advised to try the effect of a sea voyage. He accordingly entered a sloop in Wisbeach river, on Saturday the 12th inst., which sailed the same day down to the Wash, and the next day put out to sea, but was wrecked in the storm at night on the Lincolnshire coast, when every soul on board perished. The wreck was ascertained by fragments of the vessel and her freight being afterwards washed on shore. On board this vessel, we are sorry to add, were the whole furniture, books and other goods of the Rev. LUKE KIRBY, who is about removing from the neighbourhood of Wisbeach to undertake the pastoral charge of the Unitarian congre gation at Thorne. This worthy man, who is highly esteemed by all that know him, is by this casualty stripped of all his property, and reduced to the deepest distress. Our correspondent informs us that it is proposed to enter into a subscription for his relief, and to this measure we shall cordially give our assistance. LITERARY. fish a second volume of Speciinens of the Mr. BOWRING intends shortly to pub Russian Poets. PROPOSALS are issued for publishing, by In a few days will be published, a new edition of the "Rudiments of Chemistry," in one small neat pocket volume, with Eight highly-finished Copperplate Engravings, a Vocabulary of Chemical Terms, and a Copious Index. By SAMUEL PARKES, F. L. S., &c. This little volume, which has been much enlarged, is printed on fine paper, the whole care fully corrected, and adapted to the present state of Chemical Science. PARLIAMENTARY. Peterborough Questions. Lord DACRE rose with reluctance to present a petition to their Lordships, as it was directed against a person (the Bishop of Peterborough) whose character for piety and learning was eminent. But he should not do his duty if he did not bring it under the consideration of the House, because it appeared to him that the conduct of which the petitioner com, plained savoured strongly of severity. His present motion was for presenting the petition. After it should be read by the clerk, he would move that it be laid on the table. If their Lordships agreed to that motion, he would follow it up by moving an address to the Crown, framed in a manner which the case appeared to him to require. Their Lordships were not ignorant of the nature of this case, as it had been before the House in the course of the last session. He must here observe, that if the Right Reverend Prelate had thought fit to act consistently either with the statute law or the canon law, he would not have given occasion to the present complaint. But he saw with regret that the Right Reverend Prelate, not satisfied with the eighty-seven questions, answers to which he originally required from all persons before he li censed them, had since added thirty-six more, making one hundred and twentythree intricate questions on points of doctrine propounded to the petitioner. The petitioner complained of this demand, considering himself only bound to declare his belief in the Thirty-nine Articles. He should now beg leave to present the petition of the Rev. Thomas Shuttleworth Grimshaw, Rector of Burton, Northamptonshire; and Vicar of Biddenham, Bedfordshire. The petition was then read. It stated that the petitioner had appointed the Rev. Edward Thurtell, Curate of Burton, and complained that the Bishop had refused to license him on the ground of his not giving satisfactory answers to his questions. Lord DACRE observed that he had another petition to the same effect from a gentleman of the name of Knight, but it was not then necessary to present it, as the question would be determined by the fate of the petition now read. The noble Lord professed himself to be a very unlearned man on subjects of this kind, and would therefore have hesitated to enter the lists with one of the first controversialists of the age, had not the grievance complained of appeared to him so unquestionably severe. The subject of complaint was briefly this-that persons who had received holy orders were compelled to submit to an examination of a very extraordinary nature before they could be licensed to curacies in the diocese of Peterborough. The questions of the Reverend Prelate were delivered to the candidates printed. The candidate was expected to annex his answer to each question, and then sign the paper; but the questions were printed in so contracted a manner, that they could only be replied to in the most brief manner possible. On Mr. Thurtell's appointment, the questions were sent to him, enclosed in a letter, from the Bishop, dated the 3rd of August last. On the 11th, Mr. Thurtell wrote to the Reverend Prelate, stating that he had complied with his Lordship's request as speedily as possible; that he had considered the questions attentively, and answered them, he trusted, conscientiously; but that some of the questions involved points of so difficult and delicate a nature, that he felt it impossible to answer them in a satisfactory manner in the column appropriated for that purpose; and that he had therefore deemed it expedient to add an appendix, wherein he inserted some of the authorities upon which the answers were founded. The Reverend Prelate, in return, wrote a letter to Mr. Thurtell, dated the 17th of August, in which he says, "The object of my examination questions is to ascertain the religious opinions of the person examined, that I may know whether they accord with the doctrines of the Church. For this purpose I want nothing more than short, plain and positive answers: such are the answers which have been hitherto given to my questions, and such I expect from every one. But instead of giving plain answers to plain questions, you have sent me a mass of dissertation, containing such restrictions and modifications as prevent your real opinions from appearing so plainly as they ought to do.” He would not here enter into any discussion on the facility with which answers might be given, farther than to remark, that what the Bishop called plain questions involved some of the most intricate Intelligence.-Parliamentary. Peterborough Questions. and controverted points in theology. But the Right Reverend Prelate proceeded in his letter to insist on his mode of examination, which, he observed, depended entirely upon his own discretion; and he concluded with saying, "I think it right to inform you beforehand, that if you do not choose to conform exactly to the mode prescribed to you, you cannot be licensed." His Lordship was ready to admit that the mode of examination was left to the discretion of the Bishop; but then he must contend that the Reverend Prelate was, both by the statute and canon law, bound to confine his mode of examination within certain limits. He would not dispute the right of even examining persons removing from one parish to another; but as this sort of examination had not before been practised in the Church, the learned Prelate ought not to have been surprised at finding some hesitation in those who were called upon to submit to it. He would not contend that under the 48th canon such an examination was not within the reach of the Reverend Prelate's power. But when spiritual persons removing from one charge to another produced proper testimonials, such a course as that pursued in the diocese of Peterborough was altogether unknown, because it was naturally to be presumed that such persons had already been sufficiently examined. If their Lordships referred to the Act of 13th of Elizabeth, they would find that the Bishop could only examine the candidate in order to ascertain whether he could explain in Latin an account of his belief in the Articles of the Church. The canon, in the same manner, requires the candidate to give an account of his faith in Latin according to the Articles. Thus, though the Bishop was at liberty to examine on his discretion with respect to the mode, yet he was limited, both by the canon and the statute law, as to the object, which was merely to make the candidate give an account of his faith according to the Articles. Here he wished their Lordships to consider what was meant by giving an account of faith according to the Articles. If a particular acknowledgment of the candidate's belief in the Articles was required, it would be easy by a single question. But if the Articles were framed so as to embrace different opinions, then it would be competent for persons to give an account of their faith in more ways than one. The questions of the learned Prelate were, however, of a leading nature, and often admitted but of one answer. Indeed, he called upon the candidate to answer them with Yes, or No. They were a series of tests, framed for the see of Peterborough, 649 in addition to the Thirty-nine Articles, which were the only lawful tests. In proof of the latitude of interpretation allowed for the Thirty-nine Articles, he should now quote some of the highest authorities of the Church. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, Book i. Part ii., speaking of the form in which the Articles of the Church had been drawn up by those who framed them, states, that they cut off the errors of Popery and Anabaptism-" avoiding the niceties of schoolmen, or the peremptoriness of the writers of controversy; leaving, in matters that are more justly controvertible, a liberty to divines to follow their private opinions, without thereby disturbing the peace of the Church." Fuller, in his Church History, observes, that the present Articles in the main agree with those set forth in Edward VI.'s time, but those who drew them up wished to allow more liberty to dissenting judgments. He says, "These holy men did prudently pre-discover that dif ferences in judgments would unavoidably arise in the Church, and were loth to unchurch any, and drive them off from our ecclesiastical communion for such petty differences, which made them pen the Articles in comprehensive words, to take in all who, differing in the branches, meet in the root of the same religion." The noble Lord then quoted the Bishop of Bangor, Bishop Horsley, and several other eminent authorities for a wide interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles. To these authorities he might add the intention of the persons who established the Articles, which appeared from the King's declaration prefixed to them. As it thus appeared that the Articles of the Church of England admitted of more than one mode of arriving at belief in them, he must contend that the learned Prelate was bound to receive every answer by which a candidate could explain his belief according to the Articles. The candidate, it appeared, was not admitted to examination until the questions were answered. But if the candidate was ready to account for his faith according to the Articles, the Reverend Prelate was, according to the statute of Elizabeth, bound to examine him. Disregarding the statute of Elizabeth, the canon law, and royal declaration which precedes the articles, the Reverend Prelate persisted in submitting questions and demanding answers previous to examination. These questions, too, were not of the plain and simple nature described by the Bishop; but were, on the contrary, of a most_metaphysical description, and calculated to produce great anxiety as to the answers. should quote one of the interrogatories He as an example of the rests It was in the following terms:-"Is not the power of God equally manifested, whether he operates on man immediately, as in a mere passive object, or whether he acts mediately through the agency of man himself, and by means which, as creator of all things, he must have previously impart ed ?" The Reverend Prelate's questions were either identical with the Thirty-nine Articles, or they were not. If they were identical, they were unnecessary; and if they differed, and imposed another test previous to examination, they were unlawful. Their Lordships had been unanimous in their condemnation of the learned Prelate, when this subject was agitated last Session; and yet he had still persisted in putting those questions, and denied their Lordships' jurisdiction. Their Lordships, however, must perceive that if this course was permitted in one diocese, it might be generalized. Every Bishop might have his particular set of questions, and their clergymen would be driven to study these papers, in order to discover to what diocese it would be most convenient for them to go. To act on such a system was nothing else than recruiting for Dissenters. There would soon be an Episcopacy, with questions and articles, on one hand, and a Dissenting population on the other. It was the boast of this country, that there was no wrong for which the law had not a remedy. Was this system of clerical interrogation to form an exception? If there was no remedy in the hands of their Lordships, they might at least be the means of procuring redress. The Crown might refer the case to the Convocation, or some other mode of settling the question might be found. Their Lordships ought, therefore, to agree to the address he intended to move after the petition was laid on the table. The purport of the address would be to request that his Majesty would be pleased to order an inquiry to be made to ascertain whether any innovatious had taken place in Church discipline. He hoped that nothing he had stated would be considered as arising from any personal objection on his part to the Right Reverend Prelate, whose learning and character he respected. He attributed the conduct of the Reverend Prelate solely to zeal in the adoption of one view of the subject. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the petition do lie on the table. The Bishop of PETERBOROUGH began by remarking, that the value of a petition, and the propriety of granting or refusing its prayer, must depend on the truth of the allegations on which it proceeded. He would examine the petition before the House by this test; but before he did so, he must beg leave to make some preliminary observations on the speech of the noble Lord by whom the petition was introduced. In the first place, it rather made against the petitioner that the noble Lord was not instructed by him to state to the House the circumstances in which his complaint originated. These circumstances the petitioner must have designed to conceal, and this wish for concealment was not consistent with a desire for a just and impartial decision. The person whom he (the Bishop of Peterborough) refused to ordain was nominated by the petitioner last autumn. Conceiving that it was not only his right but his duty, as Bishop of the diocese in which the cure was to be served, to examine the qualifications and doctrines of the candidate for orders, he (the Bishop of Peterborough) required an answer to certain questions which he put to him. Now, if the ght to examine existed, the examiner must be permitted to proceed in that mode of examination by which his mind could best be satisfied of the doctrines held by the person whom he subjected to examination. The ques tions which he put were not tests or articles of faith, they were merely designed to draw forth answers as to the candidate's faith, which might afterwards be tried by the Liturgy and the Thirty-nine Articles. Their conformity or non-conformity with the doctrines of the Church could then be decided. The Liturgy and Articles were therefore the test, and not the list of questions which he propounded. And had not he (the Bishop of Peterborough) a right to follow the dictates of his own judgment in framing such questions as in his opinion would best accomplish the object of an examination which his duty commanded him to institute? If the mode of examination was objected to, and if the House of Peers was to be called upon to interfere in every particular case in which a candidate for a license, or for orders, objected to the set questions put by Bishops, the applications to their Lordships would be endless, and the authority of the Episcopal order would cease to exist. Such an interference with the rights and duties of Bishops had not taken place since the Church was established; nor would the Establishment long continue if motions like the present were agreed to. If their Lordships attended to the prayer of this petitioner, they might soon expect similar applications from every diocese of the kingdom. Every curate who was refused a license, and every candidate for orders whose claims were rejected, would declare themselves aggrieved-would complain of hard treatment, and petition the House for redress. |