56] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



derstood the right hon. and learned 

 gentleman had in view. He ob- 

 served, that it had originated in a 

 motion made by lord Folkestone, 

 in consequence of a number of 

 grievances to which persons were 

 liable from the proceedings of the 

 ecclesiastical courts ; and a parti- 

 cular instance was given in a case 

 of defamation. In this case the de- 

 fendant had been acquitted before 

 the commissary court of Surrey, 

 but was afterwards found guilty in 

 the court of Arches, and condemn- 

 ed to do penance ; and then came 

 a dispensation for performance, for 

 which he had to pay 95/. The bill 

 provided no remedy against the 

 recurrence of such a circumstance, 

 nor did it lake away the conse- 

 quences of an excommunication. 



Sir W. Scott made some remarks 

 in defence of the ecclesiastical 

 courts ; and after some other mem- 

 bers had spoken on each side, the 

 House resolved itself into a com- 

 mittee, when sir S. Romilly pro- 

 posed two new clauses ; one, that 

 no person should be appointed a 

 judge of any consistorial court, 

 who had not practised as an advo- 

 cate in the court of Arches, or, if 

 a barrister, had not practised three 

 years in Westminster-hall ; the 

 other, that after passing the bill, 

 no action for tithes should be 

 brought, or suit instituted in any 

 civil court, unless brought within 

 six years after such tithes should 

 have become due. Both these 

 clauses were agreed to. 



On July 1st, the order of the day 

 in the House of Lords standing for 

 a committee upon this bill, the Bi- 

 shop of Chester objected to the 

 clause above-mentioned respecting 

 judges in the consistorial courts, 

 contending that it conveyed an un* 



deserved imputation on the bishops 

 with regard to these appointments ; 

 and that it was impracticable, in- 

 asmuch as persons of the descrip- 

 tion there stated, could not be 

 found to undertake the office. He 

 therefore moved to strike out the 

 clause. 



The Lord Chancellor spoke in 

 defence of the clause; but the 

 arguments of the bishop were sup- 

 ported by lord Ellenborough, who, 

 after instancing several eminent 

 churchmen who had acted as chan- 

 cellors of dioceses, or had been the 

 authors of valuable works on ec- 

 clesiastical law, affirmed that the 

 clause would confine the appoint- 

 ment to advocates in the court of 

 Arches, who would not be quali- 

 fied to render bishops that assist- 

 ance which they ought to derive 

 from their chancellors. 



The clause was in consequence 

 struck out ; and nothing material 

 further occurred with respect to 

 the bill, till its passing into a law. 



In the discussions on the Catho- 

 lic Bill, though several members 

 had manifested an intention to sup- 

 port all those exclusions from place 

 and power which the Constitution 

 had enjoined against separatists 

 from the established church, yet 

 the most extensive and liberal 

 principles of toleration had been 

 generally professed. Hence, pro- 

 bably, the time was chosen for an 

 attempt to relieve from the pains 

 and penalties still legally impend- 

 ing over them, those Christians 

 who impugned the doctrine of the 

 Trinity. 



On iVlay 5th, Mr. William Smith • 

 moved for leave to bring in a bill' 

 for this purpose. Its object, he j 

 said, was solely to remove certain 



