clergymen, are still permitted to sit as judges in the church's judicial courts, it can never be believed, that an unbeneficed and unemployed deacon is, as being a clergyman, prohibited from taking part in the same spiritual jurisdiction, and from holding the canonical office of an advocate in the same ecclesiastical courts. To this argument the learned judge was pleased to reply-" It is very true, Sir, the fact is as you have stated it, and we think it a great grievance." Having made my apologies to Sir William for the trouble I had given him, I took my leave.

And here I must beg leave to inform the uncanonical reader, that, in the concluding six words of this conversation, as uttered by Sir W. Scott, lies the whole sum and substance of that objection, so falsely alleged to be founded in the canons of the church. The real grounds of the grievance, thus complained of by the learned judge, I shall notice in the following section, where I shall also shew on which side that grievance really lies; and, for the present, shall content myself with observing, that, if the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction by the clergy be, as declared by Sir W. Scott, a grievance suffered by the laity, it is a grievance and an injury to which the legislature itself, king, lords, and commons, are a party and an accomplice ;-seeing that, by an act of parliament, * passed in the very same reign with that which first admitted laymen, † on condition of their being (as I am), doctors of civil law, lawfully create, to hold any office of spiritual jurisdiction, from which they had, by the church's laws, been excluded, under pain of excommunication, the clergy are expressly authorised to act both as chancellors and as advocates in these very courts; the indulgence of a dispensation from residence on their livings, where they have the cure of souls, being granted, by that act, to such of them as shall be employed in either of those ecclesiastical offices.

On the following day I again waited on the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, having acquainted him with the result of my conference with Sir W. Scott, I then took the liberty of stating to his Grace my total disbelief in the existence of any whatever prohibitory canon, as had been asserted by his ecclesiastical ministers. I, moreover, represented to the Most Reverend Primate, that even had his ministers been correct in their assertion, and were it true that the clergy are forbidden to hold this canonical office, still such a prohibition could not, if fairly construed, be made to reach my case; for that, in putting off the clerical character, I had acted under the sanction of a resolution passed by one branch of the legislature (an "authority sufficient, as I thought, to guarantee the conduct of any individual like myself), in the year 1805; and which resolution went fully to establish the principle, that a deacon, when laying aside that character and designation, does, ipso facto, cease to be a clergyman. Whereas the act subsequently

* 21 Hen. viii. c. 13.

+37 Hen. viii. c. 17.

See Mr. Rushworth's case, cited in the second part of an Address to the Visitors,

passed (viz. in the year 1801), merely declares, that any one who has taken the orders of a deacon, shall thereafter remain ineligible to a seat in the House of Commons. His Grace, in reply, was pleased to say, that any provisions of that act must certainly, in so far as regarded my case, be considered as an ex post facto law. Having further suggested to his Grace's consideration the extreme hardship I should consider myself as suffering, if excluded from the exercise of a profession, the qualification for which I had obtained at so great an expense of my time and property, the Archbishop, who had listened to me very attentively, said, "Sir, you have argued the matter with much ability, and I must also say (and especially, considering the great interest you have in the question), with great calmness and moderation. I will see Sir W. Scott, and will converse with him on the subject."-I then, after requesting permission to intrude a few moments longer on his Grace's indulgence, asked him whether, should it, contrary to my expectation, ultimately appear that I could not be permitted to exercise the profession of an advocate in the church's courts, I might, in that case, be allowed to enter (as I had never yet done), on the exercise of clerical duties in the church itself. To this question the Archbishop, with a smile, replied in the following words:"Sir, I indeed rather expected you would ask me that question, but must confess myself not quite prepared to answer it. I should rather think not. It is, however, a matter which would come, in the first instance, before your diocesan to determine, and could only be brought before me in the way of an appeal."-I then took my leave of his Grace.

After seven or eight days had elapsed, I solicited and obtained another interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury. On my entering his study, his Grace, in the most obliging manner said, "he was extremely sorry that, having been occupied with the Catholic question, and other important business, he had not had an opportunity of seeing Sir W. Scott; and that he had not chosen to write to Sir William, having more to say on the subject than could well be stated in a letter." The Archbishop, at the same time, assured me, "that the delay had not arisen from the matter having been out of his mind, as he had really thought very much upon it; and that it did strike him as very hard, that a gentleman of my character should be squeezed between two professions, and not be allowed either to prosecute the one, or return to the other;—that it did seem very hard, and that he would see and converse with Sir W. Scott on the subject."

That no law or canon does exist, giving countenance to the objection, set up by his Grace's spiritual ministers, I was well assured. I knew, on the contrary, that the existing laws, if an appeal to them were permitted, would confirm my claim to that metropolitan protection, which the Archbishop's liberality and justice had led him to afford me. Under this persuasion, every doubt had vanished from my mind; and I considered his Grace's promised conference with

Sir W. Scott, rather as a mark of condescending and delicate attention to the feelings of his officer, than as a step necessary to the removal of an objection, already disavowed by his own metropolitan justice and wisdom. The result of that conference was, in the course of a few days, conveyed to me in the following letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Sir,

Lambeth Palace, May 14th, 1805.

I have received an answer from Sir W. Wynne, and Sir W. Scott, respecting your application to be admitted an advocate in Doctors' Commons, and they are decidedly of opinion, that it cannot be done without gross impropriety. I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your faithful, humble servant,

C. CANTUAR.

The intelligence hereby communicated to me being precisely that which I had myself conveyed to his Grace on my first interview, I therefore could not but regret the very unnecessary trouble occasioned to the Most Reverend Primate; and of which his Grace's unfailing affability and politeness had thus made me the reluctant instrument. It is not, however, as this narrative will prove ;-it is not to time alone, nor the passing away of more than four succeeding years, that I stand indebted for the obliteration of those feelings which were excited in my breast, while I again and again read and spelt this letter through. Notwithstanding the metropolitical notification it contained, of the decided opinion held by the Judge of the Admiralty, and his spiritual coadjutor, the Dean of the Arches, on this matter of church government, I still retained a conviction, that the opinion of these ecclesiastical ministers was as unfounded in law, as their assertion of a prohibitory canon had been false in fact. To the opinion of counsel it therefore was that I determined, in the next place, to have recourse. As a mark of respect due to the obliging attention shewn me by the Archbishop of Canterbury, I yet felt it incumbent on me previously to acquaint his Grace with the resolution I had so formed. Having waited on him for that purpose, and having stated to his Grace the object of my visit, together with my anxious wish that I might not, therein, appear guilty of any intended disrespect, the Archbishop very condescendingly declared himself obliged by my attention, and said, that "he could not be offended, nor could it require any apology, that I should pursue the measures pointed out to me for the attainment of what I considered as a matter of right." To which concession his Grace was pleased to add―" At the same time, Sir, as I cannot take it amiss that you should pursue the advice of your legal friends, you, also, cannot be surprized that I should follow the opinion of my counsellors." Considering, as I did, that these counsellors of the Archbishop of Canterbury were themselves the party, the members of that very chartered company against whose monopoly I was appealing, I did not trust myself to make any reply to the plea thus stated by his Grace. Having, however,

ventured once again to urge the hardship I suffered, and which he himself had not only been sensible of, but also kindly acknowledged, the Archbishop then replied" Sir, I have done all in my power; I have represented your case to Sir W. Wynne and Sir W. Scott, as one, in my opinion, admitting of a clear distinction, and also, as one never likely to occur again. You have received their answer; and I cannot, and I am sure, Dr. Highmore, you would not wish me to, press a gentleman on the society against its inclination." I bowed respectfully to his Grace, and took my leave.

After the declaration thus made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, of the motive which induced him to withdraw his fiat, and thereby to bar my admission, as an advocate, it will not appear the least of the many misrepresentations, resorted to by my opponents for securing their unlawful monopoly, that the honour and dignity of the church of England have been alleged for that purpose. Finding me not a man to be gulled by their false assertion of a prohibitory canon, they then shift round, and addressing vulgar and unlearned credulity, thus bespeak it-" Aye, true; we mistook about the canon; but it is still quite plain, do you see, that, even if there be no law, there ought to be a law, and therefore we will make a law. For most assuredly do the church's honour, and our religious and holy zeal forbid us to admit into our spiritual courts (excepting the Archbishop, whom we have need of), any applicant of such a character and description as this man is."-That the church of England's dignity and honour are, and very deeply, implicated in this canonical transaction, I will not deny. It is, however, as I judge, in a sense far different from that imposed on men unversed in our holy church's laws, by these canonical, or rather, I should say, uncanonical monopolizers. Yet may this company of chartered ecclesiastical Ministers (as they indeed well know), so long as they can succeed in keeping clear of any legal investigation, set up this, or any other flimsy and false pretence; and it shall be found strong, as proof from holy writ, in support of their monopoly.

Having thus received his Grace's consent, I accordingly took the opinions of different counsel on the probable means of obtaining, in a court of law, that relief which the Archbishop of Canterbury had declared himself unable to afford me. Although agreeing with each other, and with the Most Reverend Metropolitan, as to the hardship I was suffering, they differed as to the likelihood of any redress being successfully sought in the court of King's Bench, the only one of the temporal courts which could be supposed to have cognizance of the injury done me. The entirely spiritual nature of the advocate's office and employment seemed to render the claim of admission to it a matter cognizable rather before a spiritual than a civil court of justice. But, as that office is also declared to be one "of an important public nature," (the advocate being entrusted with the dearest and most sacred rights and interests of His Majesty's subjects) my learned

friends were still of opinion, that a mandamus might be obtained for it in like manner as it may for admission into various other spiritual offices, and even into divers degrees and conditions, which have not the name and character of an office assigned to them. After much deliberation, the chief obstacle seemed to lie in the insufficiency of my counsel's means of information respecting these ecclesiastical matters, and in the necessity we should be under of proceeding against the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had himself done all in his power to procure my admission, while it was the chartered society, which governs the church in his Grace's name, who would be my real opponents in the suit. By which necessity of moving the court against the Most Reverend Primate, we should also be precluded from availing ourselves of the opinion, so liberally and candidly avowed by his Grace, touching this matter of church discipline.

About this time there was put into my hands, by a friend in the Commons, a book, which I had not till then seen, and containing the recital of a case, of which I had never before heard. It bears, as its title, a Catalogue of English Civilians, by a Member of the College. Whether the circumstances of the case, which I am about to extract from it, are, as there related, true or false, I have not the means to ascertain. The learned author, who has recorded, ought to have known them to be true. For the church's honour, and for the memory's sake of a respected Primate, I must believe them to be false. The statement has, however, stood, during five years, in print; its authenticity remaining hitherto unimpeached by any surviving friend of the Archbishop, whose memory it either calumniates or insults. After giving a short history of the college of ecclesiastical judges and advocates, and speaking of its charter of incorporation, the learned member concludes the introduction to his work in the following words:

"It was at the same time declared to be a fixed law, that no person should "be admitted into the society, without having regularly taken the degree of "doctor of the civil law, either at Oxford or Cambridge. As many priests had for"merly been included among the advocates, it might have been supposed that

deacons, not being so closely connected with the church as to be precluded from "the power of dissolving the tie and embracing another profession, would not "be rejected. Trusting to this ground of hope, a regular graduate applied for "admission: Archbishop Secker intimated the case to the doctors; and, on their

replying that the refusal of a fiat to such an applicant would be more agreeable "to them than the grant of it, he forbore to gratify the soliciting deacon. It is "now understood, that the applications of clergymen, whether priests or deacons,

* "That is, not in a merely honorary mode, or by mandamus, but after a due performance of the exer"cises prescribed by the academical statutes."

C