APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



299 



for it appeared by the defend- 

 ant's affidavits, tliat the objection 

 had been very early made to him ; 

 and the rule to show cause had 

 produced the following answer 

 from the Bishop. By his first 

 affidavit, he stated that his sole 

 reason for refusing the licence was 

 a conscientious opinion and con- 

 viction arising from every circum- 

 stance of the case, and from the 

 most diligent inquiry into the ap- 

 plicant's conduct as a clergyman, 

 that he could not, consistently 

 with the duties of his office, ap- 

 prove of him ; and that he had 

 thus acted, solely from a consci- 

 entious discharge of the duties 

 of his office, which required 

 him to approve of none whom he 

 did not conscientiously believe to 

 be a fit person to discharge the 

 duties of the office of lecturer. His 

 second affidavit, in return to the 

 rule nisi, which required him to 

 show cause against a mandamus, to 

 hear and determine, with a view 

 to licence, stated, that he had re- 

 peatedly admitted the applicant 

 before him, and had made the 

 most diligent inquiry into his 

 claims, and that the result of that 

 inquiry was a conviction that the 

 applicant was not a fit person to 

 discharge the duties of a lecturer ; 

 and that, from a conscientious dis- 

 charge of the duties of his office, 

 and from no other motive or rea- 

 son whatsoever, he could not ap- 

 prove or license him as such lec- 

 turer; and that he had formed 

 and adhered to this determination, 

 upon a full consideration of the 

 case, according to the best of his 

 judgment, and could not in his 

 conscience beheve that the appli- 

 cant was a fit person to discharge 

 the duties of the office of lecturer. 



If the court had granted a manda' 

 mus to the Bishop in the first in- 

 stance, surely this would have 

 been a conclusive return to it, un- 

 less the court were prepared to say 

 that the function of approval was 

 vested in them, and not in the 

 Bishop ; and that, notwithstanding 

 his conviction, he should be com- 

 pelled to license; that he should 

 approve, though he did not ap- 

 prove ; that he should adopt the 

 reasoning of the court, and the 

 conscience of the court, in despite 

 of his own head and his own 

 heart. The court could not trans- 

 fer to themselves a power which 

 was for wise purposes granted to 

 another, and a mandamus to such 

 an effect had never yet been moved 

 for. All the cases cited yester- 

 day, and on former occasions, were 

 cases where there arose some ob- 

 jection, on the score of the rector 

 or vicar to the use of the pulpit ; 

 the objections came from another 

 quarter, and not from the Bishop 

 per se. The mandamuses were 

 granted to the Bishop to license, 

 pro forma, in order to get at the 

 right of the party. The court had 

 never acted upon the conscience 

 of the Bishop, and compelled him 

 to license when his refusal was 

 conscientious ; but it was said to 

 be the business and duty of the 

 Bishop to inquire into the appli- 

 cant's case in a sort of judicial 

 mode, as the courts of law would, 

 by the adduction of evidence, and 

 by a public hearing. What power 

 had the Bishops to compel such 

 evidence ? How could they ad- 

 minister an oath ? How could 

 they do more than express the ap- 

 probation of their conscience duly 

 informed on the subject? The 

 utmost the court could do would 



be 



