296 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



applicant, otherwise than by a ge- 

 neral declaration of his unfitness: 

 and had refused to convene his ac- 

 cusers before his lordship, so that 

 the applicant might have an oppor- 

 tunity of meeting them. A letter 

 was recited, dated the 9th April, 

 1810, from the Bishop to the 

 church-warden, stating, that Dr. 

 Povah was only in deacon's orders, 

 and that it was customary to elect 

 the rector (Mr. Shepherd) if there 

 should be no valid objection against 

 him ; and also a letter from his 

 lordship, dated the 21st of the 

 same month, and addressed to Dr. 

 Povah, telling him that it was in 

 a sermon preached a month before 

 that which he had justified, that 

 the doctrines against infant bap- 

 tism were imputed to him. It 

 also appeared, that Dr. Povah 

 had written a letter to the Bishop 

 of Sodor and Man, in which he 

 accused the Bishop of London of 

 refusing his licence, only because 

 his relation, by marriage, Mr. 

 Shepherd, was not elected. This 

 Dr. Povah now attributed to com- 

 mon report, and could not tell 

 from whom he had heard it. 



In Easter term, 1811, the court 

 refused a mandamus to the Bishop 

 alone, unless it could be shewn 

 that the like application had also 

 been made to the Archbishop, and 

 rejected by him ; the act of uni- 

 formity enacting, that no person 

 should be allowed to preach as a 

 lecturer in any church, &c. " un- 

 less he be first approved, and there- 

 unto licensed by the Archbishop of 

 the province, or the Bishop of the 

 Diocese." (13 East. 4.19.) 



Mr. Attorney -General, Mr. 

 Dampier, and Mr. Abbott, now 

 shewed cause against the rule nisi, 

 which had, after much delibera- 



tion, been granted against both 

 the Archbishop of Canterbury, and 

 the Bishop of London. The w?a?j- 

 damus would command them to 

 do what they had already done ; 

 for the Bishop stated in an answer 

 to the rule, that the applicant had 

 been repeatedly admitted before 

 him, with a view to being licensed ; 

 that his lordship had made diligent 

 inquiry into the applicant's con- 

 duct, and being in his conscience 

 convinced that he was an impro- 

 per person to be so licensed to the 

 lectureship for which he applied, 

 had thought it right to reject 

 him. And the Attorney-General 

 submitted that the Bishop had a 

 right to abide by his own judg- 

 ment, formed as it was upon fair 

 and solid grounds. The Arch- 

 bishop (for the present rule was 

 addressed both to one and the 

 other), stated his respect for every 

 rule of this court, and his anxiety 

 to perform what the law required 

 of him ; but his Grace held it 

 his duty to refer the court to the 

 act of uniformity, and to what had 

 been the invariable practice under 

 it, and to lay before the court his 

 impression of the line which he 

 ought to pursue, leaving it to their 

 wisdom to direct him. The re- 

 pertories and muniments at Lam- 

 beth palace had been searched, 

 and there was no instance in 

 which a licence had been applied 

 for to the Archbishop under the 

 circumstances of the present case ; 

 and the Attorney-General sub- 

 mitted (and his Grace submitted 

 through him), that it never could 

 have been the intention of the 

 legislature to grant an appeal from 

 the judgment of an Archbishop 

 to that of a Bishop ; as would be 

 the consequenpe of the prevalence 



of 



