able terms of capitulation, and promised a general pardon; in consequence of which, the affairs of state returned to their usual course, and the troops which had been taken prisoners rejoined the royal standard. The Parliament of Naples, however, has refused to acknowledge the convention; alleging, that General Pepe exceeded his powers, and that it is contrary to the glory and interest of the united kingdom, and to political treaties, to allow of any alteration in the connexion of the two Sicilies. It remains to be seen what will be the effect of this rejection upon the minds of the inhabitants of Sicily. If Austria assume a hostile attitude, Naples will have work enough on its hands nearer home. DOMESTIC. The proceedings respecting the Queen in the House of Lords have taken a turn which, under all the untoward circumstances of the case, we were disposed to hope, might be productive of as little inconvenience as any issue that could have been devised. On this point, however, we must now express ourselves with a great degree of hesitation. For the affair is by no means concluded; and to what further evils the angry passions of parties and the agitated feelings of the public-wrought upon as they will be by the insidious arts of a factious press-will lead, it were impossible to anticipate. The evidence in defence of the Queen having been closed, Mr. Denman and Dr. Lushington summed up the case on her Majesty's behalf, and were replied to by the King's attorney and solicitor general. On Thursday, the 2d of November, a motion having been made that the bill should be read a second time, a debate commenced, which was prolonged till the Monday following, when it was carried by a majority of 28; the numbers being 123 to 95. In this memorable debate, most of the leading members of the house delivered their sentiments; many of them at great length, and with considerable power of eloquence and argument. Both the ministers and the opposition met the subject, professedly, without party considerations. More than thirty peers, who usually vote with ministers, were in the minority; while lord Grenville, and several opposition lords, were in the majority. There several protests were signed by a number of peers against the second reading the first, on the ground that the alleged crime had been inferred, but not legally proved; the second, because although enough had been proved to shew the existence of guilt, yet as all the allegations had not been substantiated, the bill ought not to proceed further; and the third, on general grounds." This last protest was signed not only by the chief opposition lords, but by several ministerial and neutral ones. The "general grounds,"we presume, were the general inexpediency of bills of pains and penalties, and the undesirableness of proceeding farther with this particular bill in the present state of public feeling. In the Committee a debate and division took place upon the divorce clause, which was carried by a majority of 129 to 67. To the composition of this majority, very different views and principles contributed. Many thought that the clause was necessary to give effect to the other provisions of the bill: many, however, of those who had voted against the second reading of the bill, voted for this clause, avowedly in order to ensure the final rejection of the measure, by clogging it with a provision to which it was known that numbers could not conscientiously assent, who nevertheless were convinced of the Queen's guilt, and were ready to vote for her political degradation. The King's Ministers themselves voted against the divorce clause, though it had been introduced by them, stating their full conviction that the reasons which had been alleged against it were unanswerable. Many lords, both temporal and spiritual, took up the subject on scriptural grounds. A consideration which evidently had great weight was, that the letter written by the King to the Queen, shortly after their marriage, and given in evidence in the course of these proceedings, was, in fact, a voluntary separation on his part; and that having thus "put her away," he was so far answerable for the consequences, (according to our Lord's own decision on the subject, Matt. v. 32), that he could not justly claim a divorce on any ground of reason, precedent, or Scripture. The circumstance, however, which chiefly operated on the minds of their lordships in this instance, was rather hinted at than expressed: it referred to those particulars in the husband's own conduct which are usually considered by courts of justice as depriving him of a right to this specific remedy. In consequence chiefly of the retention of the divorce clause, the majority on the third reading was reduced to nine; there being 108 for the bill, and 99 against it. Some of the bishops, in particular, shewed their conscientiousness in voting against a bill which they generally approved, from a due regard to the dictates of Scripture, which they considered would have been infringed by this enactment. In consequence of the smallness of this majority, Lord Liverpool felt it expedient to withdraw the bill. Here it will probably be expected of us that we should express some. opinion on these painful proceedings, and especially on the real import, as it respects the Queen, of the decision of the House of Lords. We are very willing to do so. In the first place, then, it will be allowed that the 123 peers who voted for the second reading of the bill must have believed her Majesty to have been really guilty of the adultery with which she was charged. It is not, however, to be inferred that the ninety-five peers who voted against the bill were of a contrary opinion in this respect. Very few among them declared themselves satisfied of her innocence; a greater number' considered her guilt as not legally, however it might be morally, established: but there were many, probably a moiety of the whole, who, though convinced of her guilt, voted against the bill as in itself inexpedient, and as a measure calculated to disturb the peace of the country without the prospect of any adequate good to be obtained from it. They dreaded the transmission of the bill to the House of Commons, as pregnant with the greatest mischiefs. Supposing even that it should finally pass, it must still have occupied many months in a disgusting inquiry, accompanied by discussions of a more violent and inflammatory kind than any perhaps which have ever been witnessed in this country. And during this period, not only must all public business have been suspended, but the whole nation must have continued exposed to the demoralizing and polluting effects of such an investigation, and to the influence of a seditious press, resolved to avail itself of the aid of the Queen and the popularity of her cause, and of the unaccountable supineness of the government, to extinguish every remaining principle of loyalty among the mass of the population, and then to bring about the revolutionary crisis which it had so long been preparing.-Such, we confess, was our own feeling. In common with the noble lords to whom we allude, we could not resist the force of the evidence, which, on a question of guilty or not guilty, would have compelled us to pronounce against the accused: But neither was it possible for us to shut our eyes to the tremendous evils which were to be apprehended from persisting in the bill. We could not therefore but hail the termination of the measure, in the House of Lords, as a deliverance from many great and obvious dangers. Whether or not it will ultimatly prove so, we do not pretend to conjecture. But viewing the matter with our present lights, we can scarcely imagine a more disastrous event, in the present state of the public mind, and with a press set free from every wholesome restraint, than that the Bill of Pains and Penalties should have made its appearance in our House of Commons, il calculated as that house is for the solemnity of judicial proceedings, and well adapted as it is, from its constitution, and, may we add? its composition, to serve the purpose of popular inflammation. We need not describe the scenes which followed in the metropolis, and in every part of the country, on the bill having been withdrawn. The joy manifested on the occasion was doubtless with many the expression of honest exultation on the imagined deliverance of innocence from oppression and persecution. To such a feeling, wherever it existed, it is impossible for us not to do homage. But it cannot be denied, that in accepting the rejection of the bill, under all the circumstances of that rejection, as a triumph for the Queen, the persons so viewing it must have laboured under some degree of delusion. But let that pass. We should also most cordially rejoice, if we could persuade ourselves that the evils of this calamitous affair had been cured, either by withdrawing the bill, or by an illumination to celebrate that event as the victory of innocence. But we lament to say, that we feel no such persuasion. Amid the alternatives of evil which presented themselves to our minds, to withdraw the bill seemed to be the course which threatened us with the least. But we dare not flatter ourselves that many and serious inconveniences are not still to be encountered before this unhappy affair shall have been brought to its final close. It obviously cannot remain in its present unsettled state; and unless the parties chiefly concerned should be induced to sacrifice personal feelings and resentments to the public good, we can only look forward to a perpetuation of the same angry conflicts which have agitated the nation during the last five or six months, and which not only disturb the peace, but seem to us to threaten the very existence, of the country. Parliament met on the 23d inst. and was immediately prorogued to the 23d of January. A strenuous effort was made by some members of the House of Commons to gain a hearing for a Message from the Queen. Their disappointment, caused by the sudden appearance of the Usher of the Black Rod, commanding their attendance in the House of Lords, was followed by such symptoms of disapprobation as are not usually heard in that assembly. There was no address from the throne previous to the prorogation: the intentions of government with respect to the Queen, therefore, are as yet unknown. Whatever they may be, we cannot but look forward with much anxiety to the next session of Parliament, which promises, we fear, to be a session of stormy debate. We contemplate also, with serious apprehension, the spirit of disaffection which has so widely extended itself in the land, and which is likely to be aggravated by the renewed discussions with which we must lay our account, on the unhappy business of the Queen. In the mean time, her advisers seem determined to prevent even a momentary respite of that agitation which has been excited in the country by the proceedings against her Majesty. Among many proofs of their solicitude to keep alive this popular feeling may be mentioned the Queen's intended procession to St. Paul's, on the 29th instant, for the professed purpose of returning thanks to God for her deliverance. We lament deeply that they should have resorted to this particular expedient for fomenting angry passions;-that the rites of our holy religion should unhappily be made to minister to party violence; that a solemn act of worship should be resorted to as a mere ruse de guerre; and the house of God, the God of peace, be thus converted into the temple of discord. But let it not be supposed, because we have thought it our duty thus to speak, that we are inclined to advocate the propriety of the various measures which ministers have deemed it right to pursue in this affair. On the contrary, from the first step to the last, as far as we have been able to form a fair and honest judgment, they appear to us to have acted with so much timidity and indecision, and with such a want of wisdom and foresight, as have tended exceedingly to abate our confidence in their capacity to guide the nation through the delicate and difficult, not to say perilous, circumstances in which it is now placed. In what we have said, or may yet say, therefore, we must be understood as not taking the side either of our present ministers, or of those who are opposed to them. The interests we are anxious to subserve are far more important than any which are involved in the continuance or removal of any one set of public functionaries. They are those of law and of social order, of morality and religion, which appear to us to encounter risks at the present crisis beyond any which we have previously witnessed. If our voice could reach throughout the kingdom, we should call upon every man-whatever may be his sentiments relative to the Queen-who wishes to preserve inviolate our blessings, both civil and religious-who wishes to guard our constitution in church and state from falling a sacrifice to the unmeasured violence of one set of men, or the unaccountable supineness and timid, vacillating policy of another-to endeavour, while there is yet time, to repel the danger which threatens us. What measures may be taken with that view, whether of association or otherwise, we pretend not to say. But one powerful means of averting the evils which impend over us, every Christian happily possesses; and the use of this we strenuously recommend to them; namely, prayer to the great God and Father of all, that he would be mercifully pleased to dissipate the coming storm, and to restore harmony and tranquillity to our distracted country; that he would infuse into our councils a wise and conciliating spirit; and that he would defeat the designs of those who are the enemies of peace and true religion. ECCLESIASTICAL PREFERMENTS. Rev. Ralph Spofforth, M. A. Eastrington V. near Howden, Yorkshire. Rev. F. Wrangham, M. A. F. R. S. the Archdeaconry of Cleveland. Rev. A. Luxmore, Barnstaple V. Hon. and Rev. Dr. Rice, Oddington R. Gloucestershire, on his own presentation as Precentor of York Cathedral. Rev. James Davies, M. A. Barring ton Parva V, Gloucestershire. Rev. Elias Thackeray, formerly Fellow of King's college, Cambridge, to the living of Ardie, in the county of Lowth. Rev. Daniel Rowlands, Llany cefen Perpetual Curacy, Pembrokeshire. Rev. John Overton, B. A. Elloughton V. Yorkshire. Rev. C. S. Bonnett, M. A. Avington V. near Winchester. Rev. John Edgar, Kirketon R. Suffolk. Rev. C. G. Jackson, Histon St.. Andrew, with Histon St. Ethelred V. Cam bridgeshire. Rev. Dr. Carr, Vicar of Brighton, and Deputy Clerk of the Closet to his Majesty, Dean of Hereford, vice Dr. Gret ton. Rev. O. Taylor, M. A. (Head Master of the Cathedral School, Hereford) to the Prebend of Moreton Magna, in the Cathedral of Hereford. Rev. W.K. Coker, B. A. North Curry V. Somerset. Rev. Dr. Keate, Stowey V. Somerset. Rev. Jeremy Day, M. A., Hetherset R. Norfolk. Rev. W. J. Rees, M. A., to a Prebend in the Collegiate Church of Brecknock. Rev. Shirley Western, Rivenball R. Essex. Hon. and Rev. A. Hobart, Walton on the Woulds R. Leicestershire. Rev. W. Cross, M, A. (Vicar of Amwell), Halesworth cum Chediston R. Suffolk, vice Avarne, deceased. : Rev. James Towers, Wherwell V. Hants. Rev. Thomas Calvert, B.D. Norrisian Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, Winslow, or Wimslow R. diocese of Chester. Rev. Thomas Schreiber, Bradwell near the sea R. Essex. Rev. Thomas Wynne, St. Nicholas V. in Hereford. Rev. Charles Kendrick Prescot, Stockport R. vice his late father. Thomas Turner Roe, M.A. Benington R. Lincolnshire. Rev. W. Crabtree Checkendon R. Oxon. Rev. J. Johnson, Fellow of Magdalen College, to the Donative of Sandford, near Oxford. Rev. James Rudge, D.D. of Limehouse, to be Chaplain to Prince Leopold. Rev. John Holmes, A.M. St. Nicholas R. with All Saints annexed, in Southelmbam, Suffolk. DISPENSATION. Rev. D. Williams, M. A, Rector of Bleadon, has been instituted, by a Dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury, to Kingston Seymour R. So merset. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. We are obliged to a Correspondent for pointing out to us a charge contained in a contemporary publication, of our having copied from their work a Letter from a Clergyman in India, which we inserted in our Number for Angust (p-561), under the head of Church Missionary Society, knowing it not to have been written by a friend or correspondeut of that Society. The simple fact is, that we had never seen the Letter, except in the Missionary Register for July (p. 283), where it appears under the general heading" India within the Ganges: The testimony of a clergyman to the rapid advance of the natives will be read with great pleasure: Great things, he writes, are going on,' &c." And there being no statement of its having appeared in any other quarter, we took it for granted that it was copied from the correspondence of some friend of the Church Missionary Society, The charge of an intentional mistatement of this kind is as little plausible as courteous; for, even if we were dishonest enough wilfully to attribute to one society the merit that belongs to another, we should hardly be so silly as to do it at the certain risk of prompt detection. Zas; J. M, W.; L. L. B.; D. M. P.; CH, SOPH.; B. B.; J. D.; W. V.; A CONSTANT READER; A. .•••• A Пiçis; and KIMCHI; are under consideration. S. S. should have kept a copy of his “ squib :” we cannot undertake to find it. ERRATA. Present Number, page 751, col. 2, line 1, dele however. 3, for though it serves, read may serve, THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER. No. 228.] DECEMBER, 1820. [No. 12. Vol. XIX. RELIGIOUS COMMUNICATIONS. MEMOIR OF BISHOP WILSON. (Concluded from p. 720.) WWilson from his palace to E must now follow Bishop a prison; where he evidenced the same piety, charity, and disinterestedness which bad characterised all his previous conduct. The cause of his imprisonment was, the fearless discharge of his duty in a contest which arose between the spiritual and temporal courts of the island, respecting their mutual power. The jurisdiction of the Bishop had for many years been exposed to invasion by the civil authorities; and the laws of the Church were frequently violated, and ecclesiastical censures evaded by their illegal interference. Caps tain Horne, who at this period was governor, seems to have exercised great tyranny in his office; and much distress prevailed in the island from his arbitrary conduct. Bishop Wilson, who was accustomed to administer justice with inflexible impartiality, could not behold these proceedings with indifference; and he determined in particular to resist the right claimed by the Earl of Derby, as lord of the isle, of exercising metropolitical jurisdiction-a power which the Bishop asserted belonged exclusively to the Archbishop of York, to whom alone appeals could be legally made in ecclesiastical affairs. The circumstances which brought the point to an issue, were briefly these:-Mrs. Horne, the governor's wife, had accused Mrs. Pullen, a widow lady of irreproachable character, of criminal conduct; in consequence of which Archdeacon Horribin, the governor's chaplain, CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 228. expelled Mrs. Pullen from the sacrament. Appeal was made to the Bishop, who, being duly satisfied of the innocence of Mrs. Pullen, sentenced Mrs. Horne to retract and ask pardon for the calumny; till which was done, she was not to be admitted to the holy communion. The Archdeacon, notfit to admit her, in consequence of withstanding this prohibition, saw which he was suspended by the Bishop for contumacy and breach of canonical obedience. He appealed to the civil magistrate, Governor Horne, who, under pretence that the Bishop had acted illegally in suspending the Archdeacon, fined him fifty pounds, and his two Chancellors or Vicars-general, who were officially concerned in the suspension, twenty pounds each. To this sentence all the parties refused to submit, as derogatory to the privileges of the Church; and they were in consequence arrested and taken by a guard of soldiers to the prison of Rushen Castle, June 29, 1722. The inconveniences of a prison were greatly augmented by the Governor's unprecedented severity. He gave strict orders to admit no person whatever to see them, and endeavoured, both by menaces and sufferings, to overcome their constancy. The Bishop was, however, determined to follow the dictates of his conscience at whatever sacrifice; and his meditations and prayers written at this period shew how greatly God was pleased to support him in his affliction, and to bestow on him the graces of resignation and acquiescence. Thus he says 5 H |