162

Archbishop of Canterbury, and at the instance, as we were givento understand, of Mr. Pitt, who wanted to know the sentimentsof the Bench relative to the repeal of the Test and CorporationActs. The question proposed at the meeting was put thus: —« Ought the Test and Corporation Acts to be maintained?” Iwas the junior bishop, and as such, was called upon to delivermy opinion first, which I did in the negative. The only bishopwho voted with me was Bishop Shipley. The then Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of Worcester, Lincoln,Ely, Peterborough, Norwich, Exeter, Bangor, Bath and Wells,Rochester, and Lichfield , voted that the Acts ought to be main-tained. When the question was thus decided, that my brethrenmight see I was not sorry to be known to have voted as I haddone, I moved, that not only the result of the meeting, but thatthe names of those who had voted for and against the mainte-nance of the Acts, should be sent to Mr. Pitt; and the motionwas passed unanimously.

The question for the Repeal of the Acts was then lost in theCommons, by a majority of 78 — 178:100. It was again broughtforward in 1789, and was again lost by a majority of 20 —122: 102. This small majority encouraged the Dissenters tobring it forward again in 1790 ; but the cry of the Church’s dangerbegan to be raised, and meetings were held by some alarmedclergymen, principally in the dioceses of York and Chester, andthe question was lost by a majority of 194 — 299:105. In aconversation I then had with Lord Camden , President of theCouncil, I plainly asked him if he foresaw any danger likely toresult to the church establishment, from the repeal of the Test