The Express.
London, England, 1852-09-27 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY, SEPT. 27.

Ir:would be difficult to conceive anything more
calculated to excite sorrow and indignation in the
minds of English churchmen than the case which
has just been investigated at Plymouth, in the pre-
Bence of the Bishop of EXETER. The occurrence of
a few more such events must do the Church of Eng-
land a damage scarcely to be repaired by the zealous
efforts of its beet friends carried over a long period
of years. The Rev. GEORGE RI NI,LE PRI NNE, in-
cumbent of St. Peter's, at Eldail, l'lymouth, is
charged by two Devonshire clergymen, priests in
the diocese of the Bishop of EXETER, with intro-
ducing into his church a system of Confession, which
appears to be similar to that practised in the ('hurch
of Rome. The clergymen who bring the charge ,1
enunciate the various articics of the accusation in the i
following manner:
The confessional is within the church.

That the confession is carried on secret'',, not u
in Roman catholic churches, where the parties may
be seen by the passers-by.
That (at least in the case of the girls belonging to
the Orphan's Home) it is periodically and compul-
sively carried on.
That this compulsion and periodical system is en-
forced upon very young children ; from twelve
years of age.
The first impression that every one will receive
who rends the report of the proceedings taken in
consequence of these charges will be, that the Bishop
I.rkevi the inquiry. The proof of the assertion will
not be very difficult. Lo k. at the facts. Mr. PRTNNE
is charged with having a coitlessieed in his church-
with confessing his Hock secretly : with being in con;
nexion with an institution which et,niptis its mem-
bers to practise confession ; and, lastly, with causing
young persons of from 12 to 1 I to come to the con-
fessional. The Bishop is told, concurrently with the
request for investigation into the conduct of Mr.
l'ay'er:, that this gentleman has been guilty
of the grossest indecency in exercising his,
function of father-confessor. lie knows that

the reverend gentleman is charged with punn-
ing a line of conduct which cannot fail to
be productive of the most disastrous effects on
those who come within the sphere of his professional
duties. Is the fact of a confessional existing in a
Protestant church a trifling feet? Is it • matter
unworthy of being brought.imelici4lly before the con-
sideration of a Protestant Bishop. that one of his
clergy has established this confessional, that ho is in
connexion with an institution which forces its inmates
to attend the confessional—that the conduct of the
clergyman is such as to suggest thoughts of impurity
to children who by the mere fact of age ought to be
supposed free from such thoughts? No one will
surely assert this, and yet the Bishop of EXEILR
does not hesitate to act upon this view. He begins'
by declaring, first, that the matters do not amount
to an offence against the ecclesiastical or temporal
law. Can any one believe this to be true ? And, if
it is true, will any one estimate for us the value of
an ecclesiastical law which does not prevent any
English clergyman from practising a distinctive rite
of the Romish communion . , or what is the value of
a temporal law which will not protect our children
from the polluting influence of impure suggestions
coming from a minister of the Church ? The Bishop
of OXFORD has lately been mainly instrumental in
the passing of an act for the better protection of
young females against the attacks of seducers; is
this law intended to operate against the laity alone?
Aro the clergy to be specially re.ieved from the ope-
ration of a law which is to preserve our wives and
daughters? We are not meddling with the question
of the guilt cr innocence of the Reverend Mr.
PRTNNE. He ay or may not have been guilty of
the indiscretions and crimes with which he has been
charged ; the great fact to which we wish to draw
attention is, that a Bishop of the English Church has
pronounced that such indiecretioas and such crimes
nre not subjects for investigation by ecclesiastical or
tempera: authorities in England. If this is the case,
what does the Church gain by investing bishops with
authority ?
What, however, does the Bishop gain by thus ex-
cluding the case in question from the domains of
ecclesiastical and temporal authority ? Thus much,
that as there is no regular court, he can have no
legal authority. He refuses, therefore, to examine
witnesses on oath; excludes from the meeting num-
bers who would hare exercised their right to be
present, had the inquiry been conducted publicly;
throws himself upon the courtesy of those present,
rather than appeal to their sense of justice : and re-
serves to himself, and takes care to exercise, the pri-
s lieges he obtains by being free from those restraints
which a judicial investigation must have imposed
upon
He begins, therefore, by granting reporters per-
mission to be present, but fetters them with the
condition that they shall only report what he is
pleased to allow. His plea is, that he wishes to check the
publication of indecent matter. How this end has been
attained will be seen by all those who have perused
the report of the trial as it has appeared in the news-
papers. The reticence that has been exercised only
adds to the fearful indelicacy of the whole investiga-
tion. The Bishop next signifies his intention of
taking the charges one by one, and commences with
the first—" The confessional is within the church."
He asks for proof of this charge. Mr. 'Utensil'',
one of the accusers, proceeds to substantiate it, and
in so doing noes the name of another clergyman (the
snood of the list of accusers), upon which the Bishop,
taking advantage of a technical objection, virtually
stops the inquiry. Ile will hare Mr. HATCTIARD'S CCU*
gone through first, because Mr. Ilarcliaan'ic name
is first on the list, although Mr. HarcitanD explains
to his lordship that Mr. CHILD' and himself have
put their eases into one. To this the Bishop replies,
Vou have put your case first, and I cannot consent
to your being heard foe another. We must have
your complaint tint gone into." Did his lordship
want to know whether there was any truth in the
alleged charge..? If so, why did he refuse the evi-
dence that would have proved the truth ? The two
clergymen in question very wisely refused to take
any further active part in the proceedinp, and the
case was then left almost entirely in the hibds of Mr.
I) tat.lati, Ike curate V Me aceased. The result of such
proceedings may be imagined. The charge against
Nli. PRTNNE was that the confessional was in his
church. This fact could not be denied. All Ply-
mouth knew that Mr. PRTNNE did confess those of
his flock who choose to avail themselves of his
spiritual assistance, in a room it the church. How
veal this fact to be got over? Mr. PRYNNE, had he
LI en questioned on the siihect, would not have cu-
d. ivoured to get over it. We do him the justice to
believe that he would have honestly admitted the
truth of the accusation. But the Bishop, who tied
the brief for Mr. Parsiar, was 11131 t clever than his
client. lie commenced by a state:nent which vir-
tually defines a " confessional" to be not a building
where confessions are received, hu! a building nomi-
nated a " confessional," and apprceiriated solely to the
tho practice of confession. Mr. 'PRYNNE Milt have
drawn • long breath when he saw the Bishop ride
roughshod over the most tender portion of his ease.
"A eosfruienei," said his lordship, "is as notorious
as a pulpit. If there is a confessional in the church,
nothing would induce me to hold a confirmatioi, in
it. There was nuns when I sea is Ow ea I
want it to be proved."
We blush fur the Chugih has a Bishop who
can make use of a quibble like this. Mr. Parterres
curate was obliged to allow, in answer to a question
from the Bishop, "'du wet she,,,, I say that there is
m) room in the chinch used fur confession, but not
fur that (dune."
Who cares whether, when confession is over, the
room in which it takes place is used for any other
purpose? What consolation is it to a wretched
mother who Ends that the slunaieriag evil tendencies
of a child have been tortured into rampant pees-
riency under the examination of a weak or vicious
clergyman ? What cotsolation is it to her to be told

I ant anxious that a curtain should be drawn over
this unhappy state of things." Acting upon this
impression, tt is not at all astonishing that his lord-
ship should have refused to receive through a clergy-
man the testimony on the subject of confession of a
young person who was dying. The case was pre-
judged. The deeisioa was already prepared. The
advocate of confession was to be spared, and the
Bishop allowed to make use of the occasion to confirm
his clergy in their use of Popish Ordinanoes. The
fiat was pronounced, and the public and the whole
church now know the worth of an appeal to the
Bishop of Extras.