Mr. Justice Le Blanc said, The prosecutor's showing that he was preacher or teacher to a congregation, without also showing that the congregation to which he had been appointed was a legal congregation, by the house or place of meeting having been certified and registered as required by law, was not sufficient to entitle the Court to issue this prerogative writ.

Lord Ellenborough lamented, that when the course to be pursued was so easy, there should be a disinclination to comply with it. As parties, however, chose to stand on the extreme point of right, his Lordship could not prevent it. At present he did not find it necessary for him to determine, whether the Justices were correct in demanding the certificate; or the party, in supposing that his own oath was sufficient. It was enough for his Lordship now to see, that it did not appear on the face of the affidavits that this was one of those houses or places of worship dissenting from the forms of the Church of England, which the bishop would have been called on to give the necessary qualification. Mr. Justice Bailey concurred in the same opinion. He thought it even of importance to the Dissenters themselves, that the certificate should in all cases be required, as it would prevent improper applications. It was a formality easily complied with, where the party applying was really the preacher or teacher to the congregation in respect of which he claimed to be allowed to qualify himself. discharged.

MONDAY, PLB 3.

Rule

.

from the penalties of the acts against Protestant Dissenters. The learned counsel did this upon an affidavit, which stated that the applicant was a Protestant Dissenting Minister, and was also by trade a currier; and that upon applying to the Quarter Sessions, he was refused thus to exempt himself, in consequence of a late determination of this Court, in the case of the King v. the Justices of Denbighshire (14 East, 285); in which it was held, That a Protestant Dissenter, merely stating himself as one who preaches to several congregations of Protestant Dissenters, without shewing that he has any separate congregation attached to him as such teacher or preacher, was not entitled to be admitted by the Justices to qualify. This decision the Magistrates of Gloucester had quoted as a determination against all persons pretending to holy orders, in which capacity the present applicant clained; and the words of the statute extended to persons dissenting from the Church of England, in holy orders, or pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders."

Lord Ellenborough said, that the decision of the Court had been mis taken; but from what source did the present applicant state himself to have derived the holy orders to which he pretended!

Mr. Topping submitted, that it was not necessary under the sta tute to state that; and the Magistrates had not refused him on that account.

Mr. Justice Bailey-Has he been ordained by any body?

Mr. Topping hoped the Court would not narrow the exemptions of the Toleration Act, by asking for qualifications which the legislature did not intend. The intention of the act was to enable any person who conceived he had ta lents for the ministry, to exercise those talents without incurring the penalties of several acts of parliament, and to enable him to discover whether he was qualified to be elected the pastor of a separate congregation.

Lord Ellenborough. A person

stating himself to be pretending to holy orders, must derive those orders from some source; the Court would not canvas what.

Mr. Topping contended, that pretending to, meant laying claim to. Lord Ellenborough. Whatever interpretation you may contend for, it is very fit that interpretation be argued. You must argue, that pretending to holy orders, means looking forward to future holy orders; by which construction, every student in an University, who contemplates the profession of the church, is included in your doctrine. Upon these subjects, however, I am anxious that there shall be no opportunity of saying the case had not every hearing. Take a rule to shew cause.

Same v. Same.

MR. BROUGHAM obtained a similar rule upon a precisely similar motion, on behalf of T. S. Brittan, who did not state himself in his affidavit to follow any secular occupation, and who, in point of fact, is a student at a Dissenting Academy.

The King v. the Justices of Suffolk.

MR. GURNEY also obtained his rule to shew cause now upon an amended affidavit, in which it was sworn that the applicant's meetinghouse was registered, as by law required.

SATURDAY, FEB. 8.

The King v. the Justices of Suffolk.

THE Attorney-General and Mr. Dampier shewed cause against this rule nisi, for a mandamus to compel the Justices of Suffolk to administer the oaths to Mr. Elrington, and to permit him to subscribe the declarations under the Toleration Act, as teacher of a separate congregation of Dissenters in that county; which they had refused to do, in consequence of the applicant's declinature to produce a certificate from certain leading members of his congregation, testifying his appointment as such separate teacher and preacher, contrarily to a rule established by the Justices to administer such oaths, and granting

Mr.

Mr. Topping, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Brougham, in support of the mandamus, contended, that the Jus-, tices' refusal was an attempt to deprive the Dissenters of the benefit of the Toleration Act; of the provisions of which no construction the Justices had entered. The apcould justify the rule into which plicant was admitted to be entitled to take the oaths: why, then, was he not suffered to take them? Topping had known Courts of Quarter Sessions for 20 years, and had never yet heard of such a rule. If the applicant swore falsely, he gained nothing. The learned counsel had heard that a circular letter had been written to every Court of Quarter Sessions, desiring them to require such a certificate. When would there be an end of these innovations? and what right had these Courts to affix such rules, or impose such terms? Mr. Brougham was touching on Lord Sidmouth's Bill, when

Lord Ellenborough requested bim to abstain from the introduction of politics. His Lordship asked, Whether it was not proper that the Justices should be informed that the applicant was a proper person to be admitted to take the oaths and subscribe the declarations? People were very jealous of the liberty of conscience; but the Court must consider the liberty of the whole community. As there were several other applications of a similar nature pending, as this was the first time the construction of the Toleration Act had come to be discussed in a Court of Justice, and as it would be proper to hear

every argument fully before the Court should pronounce its final judgment, the decision of this case was postponed till the next term, when those other cases would come on to be heard.

con

tention.

Jan. 25, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, in addition to the address to the Prince Regent of the last sessions, a farther address, praying that his Royal Highness inay be pleased to direct that there be laid before the house a Return of the number of Places of Divine Worship, according to the rights and ceremonies of the Church of England, in England and Wales; also, a Return of the number of Places of Divine Worship not according to the Church of England, in all parishes where the number of parishioners exceed 1000. — Ordered.

Dr. Povah's Case decided.

THE long-depending cause hetween the Bishop of London and Dr. Povah, respecting the refusal of the former to licence him to a Lectureship in the city, was decided in the Court of King's Bench, on Saturday, Feb. 8. Lord Ellenborough delivered the judgment of the Court, which was to this effect:

That the Bishop had a right to determine upon the fitness of the minister to occupy the station proposed; it was concluded that. the Bishop conscientiously objected to Dr. Povah as unfit; and that the Court could not interfere with the Bishop's conscience. The affidavits of two reverend gentlemen, who objected to Dr. P. contained in the Bishop's affidavit. were considered as far more credibile and respectable than the evidence adduced by himself and his friends, in refutation of the objec tions made against him on account of his doctrines, &c. The Court decided, That they could not overturn the Bishop's refusal, and violate a Bishop's conscience. rule was therefore discharged.

The

By this decision, it appears that the refusal of a Bishop to licence a clergyman, is likely to be supported by the Courts of Law; and it may be feared that in many 'cases (not in all, we trust) the crime of being evangelical will be conscientiously deemed sufficient to exclude the most useful preacher from the pulpits of the Establishment.

We are happy to hear that the late Mr. Phillips, Classical Tutor in the Lancashire Independent Grammar School, is succeeded by Mr. Reynolds, son of the late Dr. Reynolds, Physician in Ordinary. to his Majesty.

THE Bethnal Green Auxiliary Society, in aid of the Missionary Society, London, held their Second Anniversary at Gibraltar Chapel, Bethnal Green Road, January 21. Mr. Rayson, of Wakefield, come menced the service with prayer; Dr. Collyer preached an animated discourse from Job. vi. 8; and Mr. Platt concluded. The collection amounted to £17. 6s.

The uncertainty of human life was greatly exemplified in the recent death of the Rev. Dr. George Hall, in Dublin, on the very day (Nov. 23) in which the London Gazette announced his elevation to the See of Dromore, as successor to the late venerable Bishop Percy.