from recommending that
it should be laid on the table. He, however, saw that it was repugnant
to the act of union, and that if such indulgences were allowed, there
would then be nothing to exclude a man from the church of England
but popery. Any innovations in the forms prescribed, he added, would
occasion such contentions in the nation, that neither poppy nor
mandragora could restore it to its former repose. Mr. Dunning replied,
and he argued that every good subject ought to be entitled to a chance
of obtaining posts of profit and honour. It was by no means a principle
of sound policy, he said, to narrow the means of access to emoluments.
As to the quiet of the nation being disturbed by innovation, he could
not see such could be the result from granting the prayer of the
petition. He added, if the repose of the nation partook at all of the
torpid state of insensibility which Lord North's mandragora had diffused
through the house, the sooner it was broken the better; it was
an alarming symptom, which, instead of betokening health, was the
forerunner of destruction. The house divided at midnight, when the
petition was rejected by a large majority.

{GEORGE III. 1771-1773}

ECCLESIASTICAL NULLUM TEMPUS BILL.

Another debate in which the clergy were concerned arose from a motion
made by Mr. Henry Seymour, for leave to bring in a bill for securing
estates against dormant claims of the church. It was argued that as the
_nullum tempus_ of the crown had been conceded in favour of the people,
no reason existed why some limitation in this respect should not be set
to ecclesiastical power. On the other hand it was contended that the
power of reviving claims was necessary to protect the church from
encroachments; and that while in the case of the crown it was an
instrument in the hands of the strong to oppress the weak, in that of
the church, it was a defence of the weak against the strong. The motion
was rejected by 141 to 117.

THE CASE OF DR. NOWELL.

On the anniversary of the execution of King Charles, the 30th of
January, Dr. Nowell preached a sermon before the house of commons. The
speaker and four members only were present, and a motion of thanks and
for printing the sermon was carried as a matter of course. When the
sermon was printed, however, it was found to savour of the doctrines
of passive obedience and the divine right of kings, and to contain
principles in direct opposition to those which had place