of Elizabeth, concerning the commissioners for causes ecclesiastical: A doubt had arisen on the construction of this statute of repeal, whether it had not taken away all ordinary power of coercion and proceeding in causes ecclesiastical : This doubt gave occasion to the act of the 13th of Charles II. to explain: The explanation in brief was this, that nothing of the ordinary jurisdiction was taken away by Charles the First's statute of repeal: But, that a contrary doubt might not arise upon the construction of this act of explanation,— that it might not be understood to give new powers to the ecclesiastical judges, but simply to restore the old,-a proviso is added at the end, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed "to extend to give any archbishop, bishop, &c. any power or authority to exercise, execute, &c. which they might not by law have done

before the year of our Lord 1639; nor to abridge or diminish the King's Majesty's supremacy; nor to confirm the canons made in the year 1640; nor any other ecclesiastical laws or canons not formerly confirmed, allowed, or enacted by Parliament, or by the established laws of the land as they stood in the year 1639.")

My Lords, I imagine that it is upon this proviso of the 13th Charles II. cap. 12. that his lordship builds his new doctrine that the canons of 1603 are totally repealed. But, my Lords, this proviso goes to no such effect: It repeals nothing; it only confirms nothing; its effect is merely negative: It is studiously so worded, as neither to give the ecclesiastical canons any authority which they had not, nor to deprive them of any which they had, by the statute or the common law as it stood in the year 1639. Yet this proviso is, as I guess,-his lordship will

correct me if I am wrong, this proviso, as I guess, is the foundation of his lordship's singular opinion. (Here the Bishop paused, and Earl Stanhope shook his head.) My Lords, the noble earl seems to tell me I am wrong: Why then, my Lords, I am totally at a loss to conjecture on what foundation the noble earl's opinion can possibly stand. My Lords, if it has no foundation, it is unnecessary for me to about to confute it; but, as I am apprehensive that the notion

go

may be very mischievous, if it should go abroad into the world clothed with the authority of his Lordship's name, I must observe, that the obligation of an oath lies upon the conscience of every clergyman to submit to the canons whenever his diocesan may think proper to enforce them.

My Lords, I have too long engaged your Lordships' attention. My objection

C

to the bill upon the table is-the generality of its operation; and, for that reason, I agree with the right reverend prelates who have gone before me, that the House ought to proceed no farther with it.”

The bill was thrown out.

UPON THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF ROMAN CATHOLICS, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS;

MAY 31, 1791.

N

On the 21st of February 1791, Mr MITFORD moved, in the House of Commons, for a Committee of the whole House, to enable him to bring in a bill "to relieve, upon conditions and under certain restrictions, persons called Protesting Catholic Dissenters, from certain penalties and disabilities to which Papists or persons professing the Popish religion are by law subject." After the bill had been brought in, and passed the House of Commons, upon the second reading of it in the House of