"and fortunate, though humble instrument, through "whose agency the occasion was presented of effec"tuating so considerable an advantage.

"As for the Reverend Metropolitan, whose part "in this business must have been so influential, I "shall not easily be convinced that, in other affairs,

66

he can have been induced to adopt courses incon"sistent with the principles which appeared to me to guide his conduct in this. But even could I suppose such a conviction effected, I should think it certainly not the less incumbent on me fully to represent, in its just colours, that portion of his Ec"clesiastical Administration which, having had the op

66

66

portunity of closely observing it, I thought strongly "marked with every quality by which the true in"terests, not merely of the National Establishment, "but of Christianity itself, can best be promoted. "I am, my dear Sir,

66

Very faithfully your's,

"WILLIAM SMITH."

"P.S. I must also record on this subject that for "which I have sufficient authority to induce my own "entire belief; that, at a Meeting of the Right Re

66

ર

verend Bench, convened to determine on the "conduct proper to be pursued with respect to the Bill, the Bishop of Norwich alone professed his approbation of it, and his determination to support "it: but this I should never have learned or suspected “from any the slightest change in the conduct or language of the Archbishop of Canterbury."

LETTER II.

MR. BENTHAM to MR. SMITH.

"DEAR SIR,

Queen Square Place, Westminster, Feb. 1818.

"I HAVE to acknowledge the favour of your very obliging Letter. So far as concerns the Archbishop, "it is truly gratifying to me to see the account I had "received from unimmediate, so fully confirmed by "such respectable, as well as immediate, evidence. "At the same time, in regard to the general result, "I wish it were in my power to indulge in any such "comfortable view, as that which, it seems to me, you have taken of it. Concurring with everything you say with regard to the Archbishop,—still, in "the state of things, as reported by you, I am "unable to see any such security, as you (it seems "to me) not only have seen, but continue to see " in it.

"What you count upon (so it seems to me) is in "the first place, absolute security as against statute "law; in the next place, like security as against "common law.

66

"Neither against the one nor against the other scourge, is it my good fortune to be able to see any "such security for you: and the liberty I take of mentioning the matter here, is accompanied with

66

"the less hesitation, because, though, perhaps, not exactly relevant to the purpose of my first Letter "to you, it is completely so to the purpose of the "present work.

66

"1. First, as to statute law. As to bills, upon a "careful search among the House of Commons' papers, I find two, and no more than two, both of the year 1813: one, the original bill, date, June 15; the other, the amended bill, date June 23. "One you speak of, of course the latter, as rejected; of course in the Lords: rejected, in the manner you describe. This rejection-what then "is the peccant matter by which it was produced? "A comparison of the amended bill with the act will "shew it. In the bill it is the clause, by which, to "the repeal of the particular act, which pro tanto, is by that clause accordingly repealed, is added a

66

sweeping clause, repealing so much of the said "act of the ninth and tenth of King William, and of "all or any other act or acts of the English, Scotch,

66

66

British, Irish, or United Parliaments, as imposes

penalties on those who,' &c.-(except, &c.) Having "this sweeping clause in it, the bill was rejected, The act which afterwards passed, and which we have, has no such sweeping clause.

66

"Nor yet was the clause got rid of in the ordinary "way, by amendment; instead of this, the whole bill, as it stood, was thrown out: an intimation having, however, been previously given-and that, "as it should seem a secret one-that, provided this

"obnoxious clause were omitted, another bill might "be less unfortunate.

66

Now, Sir, on the subject of this manœuvre, I "will venture to submit to you an observation or

"two.

66

66

"In the first place, that sweeping and completely tranquillizing clause, for what cause was it not permitted to stand? For this cause, or for none : "because in the pre-eminently learned eyes in question, even as against statute law, it would have "rendered if not security too secure, at any rate "tranquillity too tranquil.

66

"To leave you still in a state of insecurity, anxiety, "and dependance-either this was the object of the "veto, or it had none. In the statute book is there

any other statute, by which punishment, in any shape, is attached to the sort of act in question? If, yes, here then the persecuting intention stands "confessed. Is there no such statute? Then is the " omission useless and indefensible.

"So much for the design. Now as to the mode. "This clause being then, by the persons in ques"tion, let us suppose, regarded,-at any rate professed to be regarded, as improper, or at least as "needless, then why not get rid of it in the ordinary way? For what cause decline getting rid of "it by an amendment? Sir, I will assign a cause : "let any other supposable cause be found, I will " acknowledge my mistake. Sir, it was the "fear-the well-grounded fear-of that senti

66

"ment, which would be the necessary result of their being seen to do that, which in fact, they were doing.

66

"To neither of the pre-eminently learned persons

in question, would it have been agreeable to see "his name upon the journals, in quality of mover of "such an amendment: an amendment by which the "mind of the mover would thus far have stood de

66

picted upon record, in its real colours. No: they "insisted on your doing against yourselves, what they were ashamed to do: they insisted on your employing your own hands in cutting the ground "from under your own feet.

66

Speaking of the persons in question, on occasion "of the penalties in question,-after saying, 'disapproving the sweeping repeal of all the statutes, by "which the penalties, &c.' were imposed, preferring (you add) that they should be described and repealed nominatim.

66

66

"Pardon me, if in this word preferring, I see the "source of a misconception, which it seems to me necessary to obviate. An intimation, which by "implication, this word presents to me, as likely to convey, is that, between the courses thus put in opposition to one another, there existed-at any "rate in the learned eyes in question-some natural incompatibility: that of these same two courses one, and that alone, was regarded as legally proper, the other legally improper: and that the two being, as above, naturally incompatible, that "which was regarded as the proper one-that, and