300 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1812. 



be to give them an admonition, 

 and a solemn call to inform their 

 conscience on the subject. A lec- 

 tureship was not like a temporal 

 inheritance, in which the patron 

 of a living had a right to the 

 induction of his clerk, unless the 

 Bishop should return a decided 

 cause of unfitness. The statute 

 Articuli Cleri gave the examination 

 to an ecclesiastical judge ; and, in 

 the case of presentation to a bene- 

 fice, the Bishop must certainly 

 state the cause of his refusal ; hut 

 there was nothing which directed 

 this in the act of uniformity. 

 The office of lecturer was only en- 

 grafted on a foundation, whereby 

 the spiritual wants of the parish 

 were already in part supplied ; 

 and it became the wisdom (cer- 

 tainly it did the jealousy) of the 

 legislature after the then recent 

 contentions in the church, to in- 

 vest the licensing of lecturers in 

 the Bishops. The analogy, there- 

 fore, did not hold between them 

 and the cases arising from the 

 institution of regular beneficed 

 clergymen. 



His lordship then proceeded to 

 consider some of the cases which 

 had been quoted, and to show 

 their diversity from the present. 

 He then said, the fact was, that 

 the Bishop of London had very 

 early objected to Dr. Povah, on the 

 score of his doctrines ; but as he 

 discovered he was only in deacon's 

 orders, he very naturally wished 

 to object to license him upon the 

 least obnoxious ground, and to 

 perform his duty in the least harsh 

 and objectionable form. The 

 letter respecting the heterodox 

 sermon was written from James 

 Hall, of Walthamstow, to Dr. 

 Hall, as early as the S'ith of 

 November, 1809; and this could 



not have been meant to apply to 

 impede Dr Povah's licence to 

 the lectureship, which did not 

 become vacant till March, 1810. 

 When the Bishop became ac- 

 quainted with this letter did not 

 exactly appear; but it was sent 

 by Dr. Hall to the Bishop's secre- 

 tary, and was most likely commu- 

 nicated to the Bishop before Dr, 

 Povah's first application, although 

 it appeared that upon that first 

 application the Bishop did not im- 

 mediately recollect the circum- 

 stance; but when he was re- 

 minded of it by his secretary, was 

 it not imperative upon him to re- 

 sist the application I The Bishop 

 exercised a very proper discretion 

 in refusing at the time to disclose 

 to Dr. Povah the name of his 

 accuser, but it was now before 

 the court, Dr. Hall's affidavit being 

 confirmed by that of another per- 

 son, the Rev. Mr. Macgregor. If, 

 therefore, the court were trying 

 the fact of Dr. Povah's fitness 

 (which Lord Ellenborough dis- 

 claimed their right to do), the 

 question would be, whether the 

 affidavits of these gentlemen were 

 to be believed, who did hear the 

 doctrines imputed, or those of the 

 greater number who swore they 

 did not. Besides the maxim, 

 that in all cases negative evidence 

 was not so strong as positive, 

 there must be many things which 

 passed in a sermon that the majo- 

 rity of an audience overlooked : 

 and the deponents on the part of 

 the applicant were persons who, 

 from their class and condition in 

 life, could not be supposed to be 

 such accurate observers, or to have 

 such a knowledge of the applica- 

 tion of a sermon to the doctrines 

 of the church, as the two reverend 

 gentlemen who came forward in 



the 



