hands, such as fear God, and have a zeal for religion."* Now, my Lord, two out of three of these lay shepherds never go into their diocese, to look after their spiritual flock, at all, whether their Bishop be absent or present, sick and infirm, or well and able to do his own episcopal duty. Whence, (as Dr. Gibson says) it is manifest that these " oculi Episcopi," these inspectors placed over the Clergy and the people, are of no use whatever in the Church of Christ, except for "receiving the Fees," the spiritual proceeds of their high and holy office. And, moreover, as touching "a zeal for religion," they being Laymen, I know, my Lord, of no right that any man has to expect from them a greater share of such" zeal," than what is felt by the hackney coachman now driving under my window. My Lord, there is no Church in Christendom, wherein "the sacred and dreadful works of spiritual discipline," and "that gift of God, for the benefit and good of souls, spiritual jurisdiction," are thus made a sinecure job of, as they are in the Church of England. Well may methodists and sectaries increase and flourish : and well, also, may religious and seriously-minded men associate together, to act as sub-vicegerents of the Bishops, for the "prosecution of vice and wickedness," and for performing those "sacred and dreadful works" left (as Dr. Gibson says) unperformed and unheeded by the Church's " offiproper cers," so much is their whole time and attention taken up with "other affairs." Nevertheless, must I (though with diffidence and deference) offer, for your Lordship's consideration, one remark, touching this latter point.-Seeing that the "suppression of vice" can (so far as human means go) be effected only by "the prosecution of vice;" and seeing also that the latter of these is, by our Constitution, already charged, as its duty, upon the Church; I much doubt the constitutional legality of any self-appointed body, either of law-givers, or law-takers, assuming powers, not delegated to them from that source, whence such an authority can alone be legally derived. If it were contended that these serious and religious men are merely striving to put in force the different acts of Parliament, passed in aid of the Church's spiritual jurisdiction, I should, without stopping to enquire into the legality of their unofficial interference, rather recommend it to them, not only as a more constitutional, but as a more efficacious means of redress, that, going directly to the source of the disease, they should (as any individuals lawfully may do) petition the Throne for an enquiry into the existing state of spiritual jurisdiction, instituted" for the prosecution of vice and wickedness;" and that they should further humbly and dutifully implore our most gracious Sovereign,

* Cod. Jur. Eccl. Anglican.-Introduct. p. 26.

as supreme head of the Church, for an enforcement of that Church's laws; so that "every person in it may be constrained to a vigorous execution of the part belonging to him," and its "sacred and dreadful works," the " prosecution of vice and wickedness," no longer entrusted to men whose whole attention is in such wise taken up with "other affairs," that they have no time (as Dr. Gibson says) for performing any of their sub-episcopal duties, save and except that of "receiving the Fees."

With such serious impressions as have been left upon your Lordship's mind, by "a religious education," the several sad and dismal violations of the Church's laws, we have lately witnessed, cannot have failed to excite in it the most awful and painful reflections. It is not alone the King's supreme spiritual authority, that has thereby been insulted, but the Church's honour and dignity also, as well as a proud defiance given to God's holy commandments.† “A word in due season how good," my Lord, "is it!" And what a load of public calamity and shame should we have escaped, if they, whose duty it was, had spoken but one such word in an high quarter. Far better account would a word so spoken have turned to, and far more conducive to our Church's honour and dignity would such a discountenance of public and notorious crimes have proved, than any countenance given to the efforts used for dispossessing the Clergy of their right to administer" the sacred and dreadful works of spiritual discipline," and for securing to lay "intruders' in Christ's Church on earth, "an authority which Heaven never gave, by means which it can never sanction.'

Was there, my Lord, any foundation for the " grievance" complained of by Sir William Scott, and said to arise from the administration of Church discipline being, in some instances, still held by the Clergy, acting as Chancellors or Vicegerents of the Bishops; or, as touching the Advocate's spiritual

* See Mr. Erskine's Defence of the Reverend Mr. Tooke, at the Old Bailey.

+ I have, in a Note to the following Prefatory Epistle to the Archbishop of Canterbury, briefly remarked on the countenance given, by those most nearly allied to his Grace, to the crime of double adultery. When writing that note, I did not think it necessary for me to enlarge on a matter which has so disgusted the public feelings by its gross indecency. I thought it even possible that there might, in the annals of one or other of the allied archiepiscopal houses of Markham and Sutton, be found some ground or cause for this newly-discovered mode of supporting the honour and dignity of the church of England. Posterior events have, however, cleared up this matter, by shewing the countenance, sc given to a double adulterer, to have been rather a movement of prospective gratitude, than one of a backward-looking sympathy. God giving me health and strength thereto, I purpose, in a series of letters to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, to descant more fully on these matters, so nearly touching the honour and dignity of our holy church; as well as on several other subjects connected with the chartered rights of his Majesty's Universities, with the freedom and purity of public justice,and with the power and efficacy of " the laws in being."

office, did there exist (as has been falsely pretended) any law for my exclusion from that canonical office; or, could my claim to exercise the same be resisted, on any ground of EXPEDIENCY, fairly and consistently brought forward, for withholding from me (under the pretence of my being a Deacon) that spiritual office, which the laws of our Parliament and Church both sanction and guarantee to Priests and Deacons, I then would willingly yield up my chartered claim-Sin scrupulus tenuissimus residere aliquis videbitur : non modo patienti, sed etiam libenti animo portentis deorum immortalium, religionique parebo. Were it even possible, by such a restraint, imposed on an individual unofficiating Deacon, to wipe off any of that shame, opprobrium, and disgrace brought on our Church and our religion by the many uncanonical, ungentlemanly, and forbidden pursuits, publicly and notoriously followed in the present day, without hindrance or molestation, by some of the Clergy, I would, in that case also, readily resign my statutable and chartered claim. But, that any such law for my exclusion does exist, I deny. That any expediency for so unsanctioned a measure of “ injustice" and "oppression" can be alleged, I also deny. And if needful, should back that denial, by stating the Most Reverend Primate's utmost efforts, exerted for my admission. Where, my Lord, shall I find the man who will boldly charge those efforts of his Grace, as inimical to our Church's dignity and honour? That any such atonement can be found, in my exclusion from this spiritual office, for the vices and errors now committed by the Clergy, and left unheeded by the guardians of our Church's laws; or the smallest shew of vigilance (under an existing EXPEDIENCY for occasional remissness) kept up, by an exertion of unauthorized severity," injustice," and "oppression," I shall not insult your Lordship by the denial.

The laws of England were, my Lord, not framed to be used as the stalkinghorse of private ends, and as the mask for an unlicensed sub-episcopal monopoly. If these holy things can be lawfully done by none but Laymen—or if there exists a law for my exclusion from the Advocate's ecclesiastical office : why are not the Clergy, who still act as Vicegerents of the Bishops, dispossessed of their spiritual office; and why, also, is not the authority for my exclusion produced, and that exclusion thereby shewn to be sanctioned by "the Laws in Being?" They have shut me out, under the pretence of such a law. There exists (I repeat the assertion) nothing bearing even the semblance of such a law. This they well know; and they have, therefore, for effecting my exclusion, been compelled to adopt such means, as will, in future, enable this chartered company to shut out from his Majesty's spiritual courts, and from the "high and important public office" of an Advocate,

whomsoever it shall not be " agreeable" to them to admit. For, strictly, and to the letter, so it is, that any man, who, after having studied eleven years at Oxford or Cambridge, shall come up to-morrow, for admission as an Advocate in Doctors' Commons, is now rendered dependent, for his admission, or rejection, on the pleasure of Sir W. Scott. Is this, my Lord, English law and justice? If it be not, there is still no redress, for one so rejected, in the laws of England, as these laws are now administered.

Your Lordship will not, nor, as I trust, will any one, construe ought contained in the following pages, as breathing the slightest insinuation disrespectful to the Clergy of our Church, in their collective character. On the contrary, it is their interests and privileges, it is their right to act as Vicegerents of the Bishops, together with my own right to act as an Advocate in the Church's courts, that I am striving to defend. Against the Clergy's right to perform such holy functions, these sub-episcopal Prize-court men, these sinecurists in the sacred works of the Church's discipline, have raised the cry of "grievance;" as against my chartered claim, and for a fence to their monopoly, they have raised the cry of that Church's honour and dignity being in danger. For rebutting their plea, (however impossible to stop their cry) I have been compelled to urge (on Bishop Gibson's authority) the present state of Church discipline, and the great mass of crimes, vices, and errors left by these men of so tender conscience unprosecuted, and unheeded. If in discharging this duty to myself, to my university, and to my profession, I have brought forward any matters less seemly, and ill befitting the Clergy's sacred character and office; be it remembered, (as the tenor of my Work will prove) that I have therein acted, under a necessity, imposed on me by my opponents' false and unfounded plea: idque me non ad meam defensionem attulisse, sed illorum defensioni retulisse. Too well, my Lord, am I known for an orthodox and zealous supporter of the Constitution in Church and State, to suffer any uneasiness on this head. But I do thereby suffer a severe increase of hardship, from the persecution exercised towards me. For, whilst, on the one hand, my triumphant sub-episcopal opponents are deriding my fruitless efforts to obtain an hearing, I, on the other, am twitted and laughed to scorn by men less loyal than myself, because that order of things, I all my life have striven to maintain, deserting me in my utmost need, has left me, naked and defenceless, in the lurch of " hardship," "injustice," and " oppression." *

These expressions, as in the following work I have repeatedly declared, are not my own; but such as I am ready to produce my vouchers for, whenever my opponents, by consenting to a public and legal hearing of my case, shall afford me the opportunity of so doing.

Nor is it alone to the clerical character, and to the Clergy, as a branch of the community-to rank, also, and distinguished birth, no man pays greater deference than I do. . Neither did I ever use to murmur or repine, for that it was my lot to pay, not to receive that homage. Now, my Lord, I do, indeed, regret that I was not born the son of a Duke, an Earl, or Baronet. For if such can violate, with impunity, the Church's laws, assuredly must their privilege of rank and birth secure them in the enjoyment of their chartered rights, while demeaning themselves in strict conformity to those laws. The immunities they enjoy, I do not envy them. Could I but have the benefit of the laws, these beneficed Clergymen might violate them, ad libitum, for ought that I should trouble myself. Unless, peradventure, I were their Bishop's Vicar-General; and, then, I most undoubtedly would ("in the absence of the Bishop"!!!) do my duty, my bringing these breakers of our Church's laws to condign punishment. Having no plea of noble birth, such as these Reverend, Honourable, and Right Honourable Fox-hunters,* Cricketers,

*For a further statement of the privilege, enjoyed by some of the clergy, of violating, with impunity, the Church's laws, see Narrative of Facts, page 51 to p. 60. Considering, as I do, one matter of fact worth a volume of arguments, I shall here subjoin the report of a case, taken from the Morning Post, of the 4th of the present month:

"This was an action, by which it was sought to recover from the Honourable and Reverend Mr. Capel a compensation in damages for the injury done by him, AND ABOUT TWO HUNDRED IN HIS TRAIN, in following the chase of a fox over certain inclosed lands, belonging to the Plaintiff, situated within a few miles of London ;-HE BEING CHARGED AS BEING THE LEADER OF THE HERTFORD SUBSCRIPTION PACK OF HOUNDS.

"The Defendant at first entered a justification on the records, by which HE PLEADED HIS RIGHT TO ACT AS HE HAD DONE, being in pursuit of "one of those destructive and hurtful vermin and beasts of prey, called foxes.' This he afterwards departed from, so as to reduce the case to a simple question, on a Writ of Inquiry for damages. The plea, however, was not withdrawn; sq that the Plaintiff was let in to the proof of all the circumstances of the Defendant's conduct, IN PURCHASING AND REARING FOXES, EMPLOYING HIS SERVANTS TO DIG HOLES FOR THEM, TURNING OUT THOSE, WHICH HAD BEEN REARED BY HIS ORDERS, AT THE PROPER SEASON;' so as to leave no doubt of THE DEFENDANT BEING MUCH GIVEN TO THE PLEASURES OF THE CHACE. The damage charged was confined to the first of April last, being Easter eve, when it was stated, by one of the witnesses, that THE DEFENDANT HAD ACTED AS HUNTSMAN, and his servant as whipper-in. There were not, however, above twenty present on the Plaintiff's ground on that day; the witness would not swear that the damage exceeded forty shillings, but he, at the same time, said, that if the property had been his, he would not willingly have submitted to the trespass for ten times that sum.

"Mr. Marryatt, for the Defendant, spoke in mitigation of damages.-Lord Ellenborough addressed the Jury; when they found for the Plaintiff, Damages Ten Pounds."