APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



301 



the defendant's affidavits. At any 

 rate, with such evidence before 

 him, might not the Bishop be in 

 reasonable suspense ? It had been 

 said, that he had renounced the 

 ground of objection, on the score 

 of the apphcant's doctrines, and 

 was perfectly satisfied with a 

 sight of his MS. short-hand notes 

 of a sermon, in which no such 

 doctrine appeared. But it would 

 be recollected, that he afterwards 

 wrote to the applicant, informing 

 him that it was to a sermon 

 preached a month before that, 

 that his information alluded. The 

 applicant's case had been attempt- 

 ed to be confirmed by the dis- 

 closure of very important matter: 

 it was said, that not only had he 

 not preached against infant bap- 

 tism, but that his sermon in en- 

 forcement of the necessity of that 

 sacrament, had had the effect of 

 electrifying the consciences of four 

 of his auditors, who all imme- 

 diately set about to rectify their 

 remissness in this particular, and 

 to get their children baptized up- 

 on the instant. This case was very 

 unfortunately proved; for although 

 the sermon was preached in Oc- 

 tober, 1809, there was no regis- 

 try of the baptism of a child of 

 Hardy, the first witness through- 

 out the years 1808, 9, 10, and 

 11; and the witness Pollard lay 

 by till the 31st of March, 1811, 

 and then had two children baptized, 

 together, the first being two years 

 and ten days old. The witness 

 Thomas Hart had also two chil- 

 dren baptised on the 5th of May, 

 1811, the first of whom was 

 born on the 1st of August, 1S09, 

 and the second on the 30th of 

 Marcii, 1811. Supposing, there- 

 fore, this court were sitting at 



nisi prills, how would such evi- 

 dence be received ? And could 

 the court dictate the manner of 

 its acting on the Bishop's con- 

 science? If so much of the evi- 

 dence on the part of the applicant 

 was at least improbable, did it not 

 show that the Bishop might with 

 more safety repose on the truth 

 of his other information ? So much 

 might be said, if the court were 

 trying the fitness of the applicant, 

 instead of the Bishop approving 

 it : but the Bishop had returned 

 the applicant to the court, by his 

 affidavit, as generally unfit ; and 

 unless they should think them- 

 selves warranted in assuming a 

 power which the legislature had 

 exclusively placed in the breast of 

 another, in saying, that the Bishop 

 had not inquired, had not ex- 

 amined, and in calling for evi- 

 dence, and placing themselves in 

 the Bishop's place, quoad the ap- 

 proval, they could not overturn 

 his refusal. They were required 

 to repeal an act of parliament, and 

 violate a Bishop's conscience. 

 Their refusal to grant the man- 

 damus contravened no decision, 

 and ran counter to the dictum of 

 any one judge who ever sat on the 

 bench. The rule divided itself 

 into two parts ; the latter respect- 

 ing the Archbishop of Canter- 

 bury, who had, no doubt, a func- 

 tion to exercise in such a case, 

 and to whom it was doubtless com- 

 petent to apply, but not inverso 

 ordine. Taking into their consi- 

 deration the returns of both the 

 defendants to the rule, in which 

 the Archbishop's name was only 

 introduced in a late stage of the 

 business, as the question was new, 

 and not upon the court's perfect 

 satisfaction that his Grace's name 



ought 



