I can see nothing here like an _intended justification_ of your opinions. His Grace would give you it appears _no decision_ in private, he nowhere led you to infer that he even _approved_ of your opinions, and could hardly have intended you to conclude that he meant to _justify_ them. He tells you “he could not see how your position would be mended by an open declaration of his opinion, _even if favourable_ to that exposition which would suit your views,” {8} which seems at least to imply a doubt, and where there is a doubt, the judge usually directs the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of it, but this does not involve the judge’s _approval_ or _intended justification_ of the prisoner’s case. Yet this is all that his Grace admitted,—and to what had this admission a reference? To a certain latitude of _interpretation_ allowable under certain circumstances. And I think I can safely defy you to point out a _solitary expression_ in his Grace’s speech on the 26th of May, 1840, in which he attempts to evade this admission, or, in the language of your accusation, “endeavours to crush the very idea of the _same_ latitude which on other occasions he had unequivocally allowed and _approved_.” His Grace’s _approval_ however is nowhere apparent. His Grace addresses himself in his speech to the prayer of the petition, “which he apprehends their Lordships will not countenance in the least degree.” And what is the prayer? “It prays, amongst other things, your Lordships to consider what measures ought to be adopted to make the Prayer Book and the Subscription of the Liturgy consonant with the _practice_ of the clergy, and the acknowledged meaning of the Articles of the church.” And what is the imputed _practice_ of the clergy? According to the statement of the petitioners it is their “general practice to _deviate_ from the authorised _forms_ and _positive obligations_ of the Church,”—when with reference to your own case, the three points on which you consulted his Grace, you can prove that to _deviate_ from or _omit_ the Athanasian Creed—the Absolution—and the words used at the Imposition of Hands—is the _same_ latitude, which with reference to their _interpretation_, he had thought fairly allowable.—You may then boast that you have convicted the Spiritual Head of the Church of inconsistency and duplicity, and no one will attempt to controvert your insinuation that his Grace “has one opinion at Lambeth, and another in the House of Lords.” {9a}