Your charge as it affects the Bishop of London, rests on similar evidence. His Lordship’s conversation in 1829—a letter of 1830—and his speech in 1840. You consulted his Lordship in 1829 on the same subjects, and received in substance the same reply as had been given to you by the Archbishop. And I can as confidently defy you to point out in his Lordship’s speech in 1840, a passage that can give any colouring of justice to your charge; unless you can shew that to deprecate an _alteration_ of our Articles and Liturgy is the same thing as to admit that certain parts of them may bear a difference of _interpretation_, or show that there is no difference between an _existing_ “elasticity” and a _further_ “expansion.” Your evidence then, if anywhere, must be found in his Lordship’s letter of 1830. The letter of which you complain to the Archbishop as “_unkind and inconsistent with former advice_.” {9b} But as you seem to me to have conversed with his Lordship on one subject, and to have written to him, the following year, upon another, I do not see how you make it appear that his Lordship’s letter was inconsistent with his former advice. It does not appear that you had asked his Lordship “in what sense you would be expected to subscribe” _in future_, but whether _having subscribed_, certain opinions which you had taken up, were consistent with your Subscription. His Lordship thought that they were. But nine months afterwards, on being called upon to _renew_ your Subscription, you inform his Lordship that you had determined not to make it again but with a sort of _protest_.—By Subscription, you are called upon to declare that “the Book of Common Prayer and of ordering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing _contrary_ to the word of God, and that the Articles are _agreeable_ to it:” but to this you will not assent, unless you may at the same time be permitted to declare that you do not believe it. You must explain, you tell his Lordship, the sense in which you shall have no objection to subscribe, and that through the medium of a petition to parliament. Now there appears nothing in your report of the conversation to lead to the inference, nor can I easily bring myself to think that his Lordship could have led you to infer that a _qualified_ Subscription was admissible either from candidates for orders, or other clergymen. A different exposition of the general doctrine laid down in several of our Articles, may be fairly allowable; the _letter_ of our Liturgy may in several parts admit of a different interpretation, and if taking our own views of these points, believing them not inconsistent with an allowable interpretation of the words, we can _unreservedly_ subscribe, well and good—but for my own part, I should scarcely expect it of a Bishop to receive a qualified Subscription from me, the precedent I must think would be a bad one, and the practice subversive of the very object of Subscription, independent