The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-09 00:00:00

THE SUN,

own became the spirit of the courts of law. and, as ih the
case of mortmain, thejealously of the Legislature was guarded
by the rigid iuterpretion given to the statutes by the
courts of law. In the same way the courts had viewed
with the utmost jealousy the civil rights of the patrons and
the inchoate right of a presentee. The power of the bishop
was narrow by law, and narrower according to practice,
and every act of a parron was scrutinised with the utmos;
jealousy in order to give effect to what the law favoured.
end to restrain what the law regarded with distrust. Was
the Bishop to refuse admission to a presentee because he
had written a work which did..not meet his views, or be-
cause he interpreted the oath of supremacy differently from
the bishop? Was the Bishop of Bath and Wells to refuse
admission to Mr. Bennett because virtually, but not legally,
the Bishop of London, had expelled him from his benefice,
or because some. fifty persons in Frome had addressed
him not to institute Mr. Bennett! If the Bishop of Bath
and Wells had so acted he would have been forthwith
brought into the Queen's Bench, and it would have been
no justification of his conduct if he had told the judges
that he had refused admission to Mr. Bennett because

the Bishop of London had disapproved of his conduct.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells would have been called on
by the court to prove that Mr. Bennett was disqualified
either on the ground of heretical doctrine, immoral conduct,
or insufficient learning.—(Hear, hear.)
Except on these
grounds the Bishop would have no locus standi in a court of
law. From the Statement of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman one would have supposed that his doctrine of a
strict examination of a presentee was very popular in this.
country, and that the feeling of Parliament was in favour of
it. So far back as 1621, the House appointed a Committee
to inquire into the conduct of one. of the bishops, who was
afterwards Archbishop of York, and the Committee reported
that the Bishop had failed to admit presentees, and that his
not havine inchietel them had been to the great injury of the
recentpatron .e a
sle' The House
of
Exeterdoub t ,
andin t htehier recollection
presentation
ttheto
tli Bishophad,
Brampford Speke. The ruinous and crushing costs of these
ecclesiastical suits were enough to deter persons from engag-
ing in them. He believed the Bishop of Fxeter had learnt
that fact by hard experience. In another case, in which the
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had prosecuted a clergy-
man for immorality, the coat to the Bishop was not less than
4,000/. Justice, he hoped, ought to be done even to a
Bishop,- and these things ought not to be forgotten
when their incomes were alluded to. He had stated
that if the Bishop of Bath and Wells had refused to
admit Mr. Bennett he might have been called into court
by a writ of quare impedit, and if he failed to. establish
heresy, immoral conduct, or insufficient learning against
Mr. Bennett, he would have been condemned to' pay costs.
The other mode of proceeding.was the duplex quertla. Ac-
cording to that mode, if the Bishop refused to act, the ques-
tion passed to the Court of the Archbishop, and then to the
Committee of Privy Council. He hoped, therefore, the
House would recollect that the Bishop of Bath and Walla, in
every' step that he took, was bound to keep himself within
his legal powers, andithat the moment ha stepped on doubt-
ful ground he made himself liable to being proceeded against
in a court of law. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
had stated that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had proceeded
with undue haste, for the purpose of overcoming the objec-
tions of the parishioners. The facts, he thought, led to an
opposite conclusion.—(llear; hear.) He should be sorry
unnecessary to detain the House, but in such a case he
begged they would assume their judicial character, and
hear the answer he had to make to the statement of the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman, What step should
the parishioners have taken in order to interrupt these pro-
ceedings? Their first step was to have entered a caveat,
for by doing so they could have furnished -the Bishop with
good, and solid grounds for delaying proceedings. Why
then had they not taken that step in the first instance?—
(Hear, hear.) Every lawyer in Frome- must have known
that Lis was the mode of proceeding. Mr. Bennett's pre-
sentation was known in Frome on the 30th of December,
but he was not instituted till the 24th of January; an in-
terval of 26 days elapsed. That a caveat could have been
entered in a single day was evident from the fact of Dr.
Twiss having on the 23d of January advised a caveat,
and from its being ready on the 24th of January,— (Hear.)
The Hon. and Learded Gentleman said that the parisioners
petitioned the Bishop, but petitions were of no legal value,
while, by entering a caveat the petitioners would have in-
curred a forensic responsibility. If the Bishop had pleaded
the petitions in any suit the Court would have laughed in
his face. He ventured to say that there was not an at-
torney in Frome who would not have advised the peti-
tioners that if they were in earnest, the proper mode of
proceeding was by caveat. The Bishop would not have
been entitled to plead the address which he had received
from the petitioners in any proceedings which might have
been taken against him. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man thought that the address did not supply matter forjudi-
cial consideration. The Bishop was not of that opinion,
and as the parishioners had not taken the proper method
of entering a caveat , he contended the Bishop would not
have been justified in refusing to institute.—(Hear, hear.)
If the Bishop could not refuse, neither could he delay
institution. He apprehended that a judge could not delay
justice without reason, any more than he could refuse justice.
—(lean) The obligation not to postpone justice was as
strong as the obligation not to deny it. The bishop would
certainly have been responsible to the patron, as well as to
the presentee, if, knowing that the parishioners declined en-
tering a caveat, he had refused to institute the 'presentee to
the benefice to which he had received the presentation. As
regarded the question of delay, therefore, he begged the
House to remember that twenty-six days had elapsed be-
tween the time when the people of Frome had become aware
of the intention to present Mr. Bennett and the time when
he had been instituted. He put it to the House that if
those parties were in earnest it was their duty to pursue
one or other of two courses; they ought either to have con-
sulted the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to have asked
him whether he thought there were grounds for legal pro-
ceedings against Mr. Bennett, and then of course they
should be bound by the decision of the Bishop; or they
might have abstained from consulting the Bishop at all, and
have themselves entered a caveat and commenced legal pro-
ceedings in the matter. But they had not chosen to adopt
either of these courses. The demand they had made was
virtually to the effect that because they had found that
Mr. Bennett had professed opinions not acceptable to them,
the Bishop of Bath and Welts should undertake not only
the cost and risk of the legal proceedings, but that he
should undertake them in a cause which he believed to be
good for nothing. Let it not be forgotten that it had only
been on the 23d of January that those parties had sought
advice on the subject of their caveat—that was to say 23
days after they ought to have sought it, and when Mr.
Bennett was on the point of being instituted. Then, the
second charge of the Hon. Gentleman against the Bishop of
Bath and Wells was, that Mr. Bennett had been instituted
without the proper certificate. But upon that point it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Gladstone) that the Hon. Gentleman
had fallen into an error in supposing that one of the canons
he had quoted—namely. the 48th canon, had anything to do
with that matter. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed he was be-
yond all risk of being questioned or contradicted by any
one conversant with ecclesiastical law when he stated that
at the present time, and for a long series of years, the 89th
canon was that which exclusively regulated the institution
of ministers to benefices. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to
think that the Bishop of Bath and \Veils had been guilty
of a legal offence in admitting Mr. Bennett without the
testimonial of the Bishop of London, But the 39th canon
did not require such a testimonial as that which the Hon.
Gentleman supposed to be indispensable. He met the state-
ment of the lion. Gentleman by stating that the Bishop of
Bath and Wells had received from Mr. Bennett full evi-
dence with regard to his life and doctrines, and that if he
had refused to entertain that evidence Mr. Bennett, or the
patron of the living, would have been entitled to have pro-
seeuted the bishop in the courts, and to have compelled
him to have granted institution. The Hon. Gentleman had
admitted that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received
the usual testimonial signed by three incumbents, but he
had asked who these three incumbents were, and whether
he (Mr. Gladstone) had got that testimonial. Now, he had
to state in reply, that he had not got the testimonial, and
thatle could not name the three incumbents. But he knew
that the testimonial, so far as the three incunbents were con-
cerned, was the usual testimonial. 'The Hon. Gentleman had
said, that the testimonial was to the effect that Mr. Bennett
had never done anything contrary to the doctrine or disci-
pline of the Church of England. But the words of the testi-
monial were in reality to the effect that Mr. Bennett had
never held, or taught, anything contrary to the 'doctrine or
discipline of the Church of England. It would be very diffi-
cult indeed to say, of any man that he had not done any-
thing contrary to any particular doctrines ; but a man's
teaching was more public, and could more properly be made
the subject of a testimonial such as that to which he was
referring. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had received pre-
cisely the usual testimonial, as far as the incumbents were
concerned;; but it was not the usual testimonial, so
far as the dismissing Bishop—the Bishop of London
—was concerned. The Bishop of London had annexed a

note in which he called the attention of the Bishop of Bath
and Wells to the fact that Mr. Bennett had been dismissed
from the diocese of London,or that the Bishop of that diocese
had made use of the voluntary offer of resignation of Mr.
Bennett, because; as he said, the continuance of that clergy-
man in the diocese would seriously prejudice its free and
'good order. Ile had called the attention of the Bishop of
Bath and Wells to the correspondence which had been pub-
lished in the Times between himself and Mr. Bennett.
And thus they had got one step further in the matter.
The testimonial was the usual testimonial compelling the
Bishop to institute Mr. Bennett as AU,. ai..._;...hhihanta were
concerned; but it was not the usual testimonial, inasmuch as
it had an extraneous comment appended to it by the Bishop
of London. The question then arose, what was the
exact legal nature and effect of that explanatory note of
the• Bishop of London, and what were the duties which it
imposed on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? He (Mr. Glad-
stone) understood that notes of that kind were not unfre-
quently appended by bishops to testimonials ; but it was
quite plain that if a signature were affixed to any document
bex 1. Conformity
anywit h
gratuitousl aw a nd u
commentse, its l englaald effect f
be cyt
thecould
partyn ot
The meaning of the signature.
signing it.
London continued the same in' point of law,
lie (Mr. Gladstone)ili might
be the explanation affixed to ofw htahteevßerishp ofo
that explanation?
the duty of ascertaining for himself"'
it was this7--that it imposed on the'
oh saidat wasthat the
ee
Value
value
have iohp of Bath and Wells.
of Mr. Bennett, and of satisfying himselfl. atwas the doctrine
other upon that point.
He contended that it could
than that of imposing on the Bishop of valuetli and
effect
ll s
the duty of examining Mr. Bennett The Gentleman
Hon.
himself admitted that the . certificate of the Bishopemalif
London was not necessary— that the canons did noto
require it, and that practice did not require it; and
he . ( dr. Gladstone) believed that, under these cir-
cumstances, he had shown that there was an end to that
part of the case attempted to be established against the Bishop
of Bath and Wells. He next came to the third charge of the
was thatthe Bishop of Bath and Wells
Gentleman, which
Hon.
Bennett without' duo examination, and, he
had admitted Mr.
(Mr. Gladstone) was bound- to say he thought that in the
sense of the Hon. CTen tleman the Bishop of Beth and Wells
Bennett. He should, however, add,
admitted Mr.
had so the Hon. Gentleman
construction which
that although the
had given to the phrase "due examination" might suit the
House of Commons, he
felt confident that there was no
gentleman there who had ever
inquired into a legal question
ion. He saw
t.
that would not at once repudiate that construe
lawyers there who felt with the Hon. Gentleman in the case,
and upon the point which
hewas then discussing he
confidence with which he ap-
pealed to them with the same
ap-
pealed to lion. Gentlemen who ad opted his views in the
matter. The Hon. Gentleman had laid down the doctrine
that was a judge
that ajudge—for a bishop in such a case as
iron Gentleman had
. .
in the strictest sense of the term—the ---- '
laid down the doctrine that that judge was not to institute
an examination of such a nature and to such an extent as to
satisfy his own, conscience, he being the person on whose
conscience the law had laid the burden of the decision,
but such an examination as would satisfy other Per-
sons on whom the law had not laid the burden of the
decision—such an examination as would satisfy what the
Hen. Gentleman called " the public," and such an exami-
nation as would no doubt satisfy himself the Hon. Member
for Cockermouth.—(Hear, hear, and' laughter.) He wished
he could get the Hon. Gentleman to look in cold blood at
the consequences—he did not like to use strong epithecs—
but ho should say the really. frightful and hideous conse-
quences of such a doctrine of judicial duty, and such a con-
cepticez of the judicial character, as that a judgt ha a solemn

and important matter was not to look for such evidence as
would satisfy his own conscience, but for' such evidence aa-
would satisfy the public.—(Loud cries of " Hear. hear.") If
he had misunderstood the lion. Gentleman, and if the lion.
Gentleman would admit that the duty of a judge was to in-
stitute, on his solemnresponsibility, such an examination as
would satisfy his own judgment, and acquit his own con-
science before God and men—then he and the Hon. Gentle-
man were agreed. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had dis-
charged that duty; he hail examined Mr. Bennett, not
in the Greek Testament, not on matters of form
or of ecclesiastical istory—he had examined Mr.
Bennett—not the Mr. Bennett of former times, but
the Mr. Bennett of January last—the Bishop who
had himself been a great sufferer from illness—from
crushing and torturing illness—but who had been in full
possession of all his intellectual powers and faculties—for
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of &ape was mis--
taken in supposing that he had arrived at an extreme old
age - he had carefully examined 'Mr. Bennett on -all those
points on which he had thought that an examination had
been called for—namely, those points in dispute between
the Church of England and the Church of Rome eandit was
not until he had made up his mind -that on those points Mr.
Bennett had held by the Church of England that he had, pro-
ceeded to take any of the steps necessary for granting the:
proposed institution. If he had found that Mr. Bennett had
held the opinions of the Church of Home in regard, for in-,
stance, to the points touched in the Thirty-nine Articles, his
course would have been clear, and it would then, no doubt,
have been his duty to have refused institution. -But having
found that there had been no gronnd for attributing to Mr.
Bennett an adherence to the doctrines , of the Church of
Rome, he had granted institution. Acting, not on the
belief and convictions of the Hou. Gentleman, but on the
belief and convictions of himself, the Bishop, who was the
judicial officer appointed by the law to decide the case, had
subjected Mr. Bennett to a due examination; audit was to his
honour that he had done that, not under the influence of any
compulsion on the part of the parishioners of Frome; for he
had done it before there had been any movement whatever
among any discontented clergymen or-laymen.-- The Bishop
had himself instituted the inquiry because he had seen that
the circumstances of Mr. Bennett's former career had been
such as to call for it. He had •taken upon himself that
responsibility, and by his own mouth had examined Mr.
Bennett on those points on which be believed that an ex-
amination was necessary. Now he (Mr. Gladstone), should
confess that the lion. Gentleman fairly beat him when he
led them in that House into the domain of pure and unmixed
theology . The lion. Gentleman had•quoted from a work of
Mr. Bennett some propositions in theology,- and.the Hon.
Gentleman had told them that it would not be appropriate
in that House to discuss those propositions. -No; but al-
though the Hon. Gentleman had not thought it appropriate
to discuss, he had thought it appropriate to judge andede-
cide.—(llear, bear.) The Hon. Gentleman had quoted a
saying of Mr. Bennett's, with regard to the Holy Scriptures.
But Mr. Bennett himself had on a former occasion com-
plained that his words upon that subject had been mis-
quoted, not by an alteration of the words, but by taking
them out of their context, so as to make them bear a
meaning totally different from that • which he had intended.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman,-speaking of the pa-
rishioners of Frome in another part of his speech, had asked
whether Mr. Bennett believed that the Bible was a-fiction
and an absurdity, imputing to Mr. Bennett that belief, and
complaining that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not •
made that a matter for his judicial investigation. But when
he (Mr. Gladstone) looked at the possage, he saw that it
was, in his humble opinion, totally altered, as Mr. Bennett
had contended, by being wrenched from what preceded and
followed. Could he remedy the evil by reading the pas-
sage to the House? He felt that he could not. It was a
powerful and affecting statement of some of the most solemn
doctrines of our religion, which he could not profane by
reading the passage in the House. of Commons. The Ho •
Pourable Gentleman, he should say, was not in the least
degree aware of the common history of the Church of Eng-
land, except, perhaps, during the years he belonged
to it.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He (Mr. Glad-
stone) believed he could show the Hon. Gent eman that
he was totally unaware of one of the great religious contro-
versies of this century. The passage in the work of Mr.
Bennett bad reference to this question—whether in the
work of propagating Christianity, of spreading Christianity
among those who had not previously professed its doctrines
—the Bible alone should be used ; and Mr. Bennett had said
that it would be a fiction and delusion to suppose that
Christianity would be propagated by merely distributing the
Bible among an un-Christian people. But Mr. Bennett did
not protest against the use of the Bible by Christians for the
education of their souls. And the Honourable Gentleman
ought to know that for many years after the foundation of
the institution known to every Member of. that House—
namely, the Bible Society,-.that institution had been op-
posed by nearly the whole of the Bishops of the Church of
England. He (Mr. Gladstone) doubted if there were more
than a single Bishop who had not at the time opposed it;
and it had also been opposed by the great mass of the clergy-
men of the Established Church, because they conceived—
whether rightly or wrongly was not then the question—
that even among Christians, and particularly in foreign
lands, the circulation of the Bible alone was not the instru-
ment which our Saviour had intended for propagating
Christianity. The opinion which had been held by Mr.
Bennett was one, therefore, which had been held at the
time of the establishment of the Bible Society by the great
mass of theclergy and Bishops of the Church of -England.
Mr. HORSMAN said he had not quoted the opinion of
Mr. Bennett; he had merely said that the memorialists had
brought that passage under the notice of the Bishop. Ha had
himself given no opinion upon the subject.
Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The Hon. Gentleman had
quoted the passage from the memorial; but he had also ad-
verted to it in another part of his speech. The opinion of
Mr. Bennett was one which had been entertained by the
great mass of the bishops and clergymen of the Established
Church ; it was no ecclesiastical offence of which the courts
could take cognizance, or which they would admit as a valid
reason for staying the right of the patron or of the presentee.
But the Hon. Gentleman had also adverted to another case
—that relating to the oath of supremacy. Now he (Mr.
Gladstone) contended that upon that, as upon other points,
they ought to be guided by the law, and not by private
opinions. He was only afraid that as the law represented
the spirit of one period, and the men of the present genera-
tion represented the spirit of a different period—our laws not
having been changed as public opinion had changed—those
who were called upon to consider the conduct of great
public and judicial officers might forget that those officers
were only bound to conform to the law, and that they could
only be blameable or punishable in consequence of a de-
parture from it. It seemed that Mr. 'Bennett had put a
particular constructionw
bieh was
o n t hpeo oath p
o upon
nf supremacy
bythe
Honourable
dif-
feredab
from that
Gentleman. Bat the Honourable Gentleman ought to recol-
lect that the meaning of the oath of supremacy was one
which had already been much debated in that House.
The Noble Lord the Member for London had given cone
construction of the oath, and other Honourable Members
had given a different construction of it; and it was well
known that at the present • moment there we two Peers
owabthieborfbesy nperoeumidacyeu
who were precluded from takintgirothpeoiersisbele t
to
a sineffitbxe
to
oetubsee
of Lords, because they found
li
ev
et
do
andet
events distinct
he meaning
that the meaning attached to the oath of supremacy by
Mr. Bennett did not amount to an offence punishableot in
the courts ; and the Bishop of Bath and Wells could not make
ene
.
bascnry ibe. clear
But
it a ground for staying the institution 111 r.,
cla-
mour, and save himself -from the hostility of B n
nett, although he might thereby avert popular
- the
Honourable Member for Cockermouth. The Bishop
• h he was the sworn
had merely to carry out the law of which
cream-
,
guardian, even though it might be necessary for him. to do
so in an unpopular manner and under unpopular
stances. As regarded the second charge, the want of evi-
dence, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought he
had
shownthat the
bishops
evidence was the same as in other cases dealt with by
of the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.) But when he
came to the third charge, he had shown that the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, without waiting for inquiry or suggestion
from the Bishop of London, made up his mind that Mr.
Bennett could not be convicted of false doctrine, and that,
therefore, it was not his duty to deny or delay the justice •
that rested with him to pronounce.—(llear, hear.) The
Bishop of Bath and Wells was fully borne out in the course '
which he adopted by the conduct of the Bishop of London.
He (Mr. Gladstone) believed it to be the case as regarded the'
Bishop of Bath and Wells that he had-made himself respon-
sible to this extent, that, if Mr. Bennett' were taken into an
ecclesiastical court, and if his doctrines were there declared
to be contrary to those held by the Church of England,
there would then be a case against the Bishop of Bath and
Well's, who examined the works of Mr. Bennett, and de-
clared them conformable to the doctrines of the Church of
England.—(Hear, hear.) But now came the question,—
What were they to do ? (Hear, hear.) It was not his (elr. •
Gladstone's) business to advise the House on this point--he
was not going to make a motion or amendment on the sub-
ject; but he would offer a few observations on the motion
itself. He should confess there were objections to the mo-
tion as it now stood—namely, as regarded the institution •
of Mr. Bennett. Were he to vote foe that motion as it now
stood, he would be • assenting to the allegation- that a ,
prima facie case had been made against 'the Bishopeef Bath
and Wells ; but in' lilt 'opinion no such case Wale made.—
(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman anticipated, as an- objection
'to his motion, the present period of the session, and in-
stanced the case of the inquiry moved for by the, Hon. Member
for North Warwickshire.--(fiear, hear.). His (Mr. Glad-
stone's) first objection was to their professing to inquire into
the circumstances connected with the institution of the Reif.
Mr. Bennett to Frome. ' If they were to inquire at all, they
should have their inquiry into the state and spirit of the
enactment of the laws which were studiously framed by suc-
cessive generations with a view to discourage bishops, and
make it impossible for them to do that which the Honour-
able Member for Cockermouth now accused them with.—
(Hear, 'hear.) If they wished to go into the ques-
tion of ecclesiastical appointments—if an inquiry were
moved for to investigate the state of the law, and
to do so in a fair and impartial spirit, the Honourable
Member inoving• such inquiry would confer one of the
greatest' services possible on the country, and greatly con-
tribute to the stability of the Established Church.—(Hear,
hear.) It was his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion that at' pre-
sent parishioners did not possess sufficient means of making
their objections known in these cases of institution.—(Hear,
bear.) But whether the subject should bo undertaken by a
Commissioner or by a paid Committee, was another ques-
tion. If they wanted an immediate inquiry, they could net
have it now by a Committee. Whether there should be a
Commission, or whether there should 'be a general acknow-
ledgement of the expediency of instituting an -inquiry' into
ecclesiastical and temporal law, with regard to the power of
making canonical objections to persons instituting to ap-
pointments, he Would not say. At the same time, he should
say that, if her Majesty's Government were disposed to un •
dertake the responsibility of an inquiry into the state of the
eailtrecraonf6trhesae
law on this Subject, they would give not only a most useful
:arn to the discussion raised by the lion. Member for Cocker-
mouth,. butrro
near.) coursesvast
be amount(Ar
ro.
De prepared to give afb Gladstone)enfit— wouldaea
most f b ' •
to censure high
&me his duty, djudiciel officer in -the Church, who had
care, in'the case nowoall! his duty, and that with decuracy and
was, in' his mind, a
most
tught before them, he should confess
—(Hear, hear)--becau.se objectionable course of proceeding
prelate—not by implicatioltn would be casting censure ou a
acted in a manner unbecomingut openly—who had never
who, instead of blame fin c his exalted position, and
the highest comtnendation.--oedslliseeee, merited at their hands
Sir J. PAKINGTON remarked ra.)
that -she Right
able Gentleman the Member for the University Honour.'
had stated his sentiments with his usula of Oxford
far • ' ability, and- had
gone very to justify the course the Bishop had token
this case. The -deep attention which lead been paidbe
in
Honourable Gentleman on both occasions when he broughtt
the subject before the Rouse proved how strongly the people
of this country and the Members of that House had een
excited by those dissensions which unhappily existed in the
Church of England.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Oxford had observed with painful truth,
that the Church was rent and torn by those unhappy dis-
sensions, and he (Sir John Pakington) believed that this
was mainly owing to that portion of the clergy of the
Church who had taken that line which Mr. Bennett pur-
sued—( Loud cheers from all parts of the house) - a
line which in his case had led to his expulsion from one
(Wow, and which had led to the moot grays and kieripta

.
-slily-entlerre mittiatere of the Church;--(Cheers,
doubts whether clergymen taking that jrne 71cenuldo be-
lieved
pelenchtiinall rllelsipneicsttes;
said
Bennett, but the same thing might unquestionably lo!
vliemvedathmatoriou neoxaonmypraoryst
of a large portion. of the Roman Catholic clergy.—(Hear,
to confuse personal piety and the exemplary discharge of
hear.) ..But there could not be a more dangerous error than
parochial duties with those vital doctrines which formed
the broad lines of demarcation between the two Churches!
--(hear, hear.) No, one 'could deny the , unhappy dif.
.
there
than never
m. r
.
ferences and dissensions that:had arisen in our. Church,
and much of them was undoubtedly attributable to those
gentlemen, who, like 'Mr. :Bennett, exhibited that love of
Onus and histrionic display which so much characterised
the Church of Romee--(Hear..hear.): ' By means of those
gentlemen the lines of distinction between the two Churches
were every day made finer and finer, and a nu
of unwary Protestants had in consequence .been led
away to the Church of Roine,---(Hear, hear.) He could
not blama,the Honourable Gentleman. for bringing the
.
_se re. 1
markable facts before the House,_ but he seriously doubted
haw far the House of Commons was. a fit arena, for.'stich
discussion.—(llear, bear.) . The- Honourable 31ember had
quoted a statement of his (Sir J. .Pakington's) epinion
the last time this subject was before the - House. He Ilan
then expressed that opinion, and he had now no intention to
recede from it.— ( Hear, hear.).. The Geverntnent.on that oc-
sion undertook tternake inquiry, and they exhausted evil:9,
means in their power to ascertain-how tar that inquiry could
be conducted. The first step. taken was to draw up questions
which in the judgment of the. Government embraced the
whole matter in issue., , These having been submitted to the
law officers of the Crown, they gave it as their opinion that
there was no illegality in the institution of Mr. Bennett, and
that as to the transactions alleged to have occursed at Kas-
sing,en—a foeeign country—Me legal, inquiry by the Bishop •
could he instituted respectioge it.
.The Government not
renting content with those answers, they submitted . a se-
cond time more comprehensive- questions to the Jaw officers,
add were again informed that—thete. *as no legal mode
by which the, circumstances connected with . Mr-
Bennett's
but if
Bennett's induction . could be- made the subject of
legal mode then it would be - open to the parishioners to
direct and immediate in
proceed undrr ,the Church Discipline Act. With- regard
to the transactions at Kissengen,-theY ',were qneutrons effect,
there was • any
and it was undoubtedly a very -extraordinary -fact, and-one
calculated to crOta: great anxiety end • suspicion, that• Mr.
Bennett's name was to be found in fiend
Directory."
°C4lergtilyeMan passed many months
This undoubtedly was a. question •for the Bishow,to inquire
into. lie (Slr . j.:Fakingtou) hadelistened with astonish-
(Mr. Gladstone), -when alluding to the transactions at Kis-
wThhaetr
There
had
Englishf allen fr --mghf Hon. Gentleman
without going near the English-1 e e.e.gynaan, his church, or
cpngregation.—(Hear, hear.). .It was a subject calculated
to excite the gravest'anxiety, and to inspire the deepest re-
nsienengtento.
gret, to find that a clergyman so-conducting himself should
he now at the head of an important parish.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Sir J. Pa,kington) could net conceal his astonishment
when he heard_theitightdionourable Gentleman vindicating
such conduct.—(" No, from -Mr. Gladstone.) Why, he
said the clergyman was acting -as a chaplain, and that his
family was his congregation. But what was the family ? Why,
Sir John Harrington's—the :churchwarden of Mr. Bennett's
fate church, St. Paul's, where-Sir John had conducted him-
self with more zeal than discretion.—(gear, ' hear.) He
(Sir John Palsington) could not-admit the propriety of any
chaplain so situated being exempt in fors canscientuz from
attending a place of public worship•—(Hear, hear.), These
were matters of such public notoriety that they ,must have
come to the knowledge of. the- Bishop of the diocese, and
they were matters into which -the Bishop was bound to in-
quire.—(Hear.) He did not believe,. however, that any large
number of gentleman in that House.would agree, that that
was a proper place for making a-judicial inquiry into the con-
duct of a bishop. He thought. it .would be a course un-
worthy of the House of Commons, and a dangerous precedent,
and therefore he must oppose the motion.
_.
Mr. GLADSTONE saidetheeßight Hon. Gentleman was
mistaken, if he thought, 4e (Mr. Gladstone) Vindicated Mr.
Bennett's conduct at Kissengen. He wished -to state also,
that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not become ac-
quainted with that conduct until after Air. -Bennete's in-
duction.—(oh, oh.) . _ ,
Sir PAGE WOOD believed this , .was a grave constitu-
tional question. lie felt mast-deeply the vast .importance of
the general subject, and the.. mode-in which the people of
England had been excited on the subject. Owing to this
excitement there was the more dreadol their being led away
by their feelings to some unconstitutional course.— (Hear,
hear.) Could any ono doubt that the ponduet of numbers
pf those, who, being sworn members of our Church, had
availed themselves of that position to disseminate what
we considered—and he meant no offence to any Honourable
Member -to be the errors and. -corruptions of the Church of
Rome. In one case, a partyeaeted with such baseness •as to
go over to the Church of Rome the very day after he had
preached in the Established Church, and he took with him
the two children of his organist.—(Hear, hear.) The un-
fortunate man who first took the lead in this movement
had written a book upholding the doctrines of the Church
of Rome. That tract, which he had read, favoured the
most miserable hypocrisy,' which he . (Sir W. P. Wood)
should at all times be ready to denounce. ,He had dealt
with the doctrines of the Church in. what was called their
t" unnatural" sense. The matter, however, waa not confined
to one side, and he was afraid that as the unnatural sense
led to the Church of Rome, so, .on 'the other side, it might
lead to religious error. He respected the opinions of. all
men who had changed their religion from conscientious
motive; and in that feeling he admired Mr. Baptist Noel
for having left the Church; but he -Could not admire those
who, approving of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, did
not go over to that Church. Even/ Member of the Church
of England was bound to take the. Book of Common Prayer
in its natural form, and according to its strict meaning as
laid down by the Church. But while he felt that, he was of
opinion that they would not advance the cause which he had
at heart, namely, a legislative reform of the ecclesiastical law,
by taking up individuals and holding them up to detesta-
tion, and, still more, by tusking the matter a party question,
with a view to a remedy. With regard to Parliament, how
did the motion before the House stand 2 On a former occasion
they were asked to have an inquiry under authority of the
Crown, and now they were asked to have an inquiry before
a Select Committee. Bat in both cases the inquiry asked
would be contrary to the Bill of Rights, and the principle
was this—that they ought not to inquire into the conduct
of as individual behind his back, or bring charges against
him, unless it was to put him on his trial. They might
bring a man before a grand jury, but it would be for the
purpose of bringing a bill of indictment against him ; and
they might have an inquiry by the House of Commons, also
subject to certain conditions e And. •he did not dispute the
right of the House of Commons, 'which was called the Na-
tional Inquest, to inquire into abuse'; but if they instituted
inquiryinto this matter,- they should proceed fairly. He
was glad to find that- her Majesty's Government felt that
thethey could not assent to there course proposed, and alee.that
otherwiseco he felt that there was rtnnend inquiry into it; for
nte.
ssible mode, a cording to the statement of is
tee liopon. Member evenrcc-
mouth, of (keeling with the question, his Honourable Priend
not having made out any breach of the law. He did net
think it just that a parisßevhh sould be placed in a position to
have such a . Mr. Bennett forced upon them
without the power to demand- the Bennett
whether he was
a member of the Church of -England
__
inquiry
hear.) But
whatever inquiry might be adopted,iae ei• as matters
stood it could not lead to such a result as jet
cat. The Bight
Hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University •ty of Oxford
(Mr. Gladstone) had rather understated theersica-se in favour
of the Bishop. The Bishop, it aPpeared, had 28 days to al>.
point to the living, and
_did not aPPoint ntil the twentr
seventh day; therefore there- was..no .indu nt haste in the
appointment. And with respect to hisece
• demanding the-nes-
timeniaLe of the clerk, a court of cothat
common law would rule
he had no such right. A case had • • _a, _bishop
had d
amsoneanded the testimonials of arisen wherein
-r
a clerk, and he was mu
by th rt in heavy casts. -
Co
noneofthose alternatives
which the Hon. Member. for• -Cock
____
ermouth bed laid demo
could proceedings be taken either aee. the Bishop down(
London or the Bishop of. Bath. anun-setlls` The Hon.
Member for Cockermouth -said that the• Bishop should
have gone farther than he had, and e ern- • d the Rev.
Mr. Bennett; and the Right 1-1
--cnourablxe Mienme leer for the
University of Oxford said that he had examined him, se
that they had asserting against assertion. All that the
Bishop could have done was to put the, Rev. Mr. Ben."
netts own book into his hand, and said to him, " Did
Yc.'ll
write this book? I find such and such a statement in
it." Such was the course taken in the Gorham case by the
Bishop of Exeter; and the Privi, 'fee
esetincit ying taken a
contrary view of the matter, the ; ,
'B"°P had no remedy. That
being so, what remedyjerbUld• the Bishop have in the case of
the Rev. Mr. Bennett?
.The great mistake which the Hon.
Member for Cockermouth made was ill his reading of the
law. According to the authority of LOrd Ellenborough, the
bishop, in such a case as. this, had no diseretion whateVer,
the matter of approval resting with
hisoWn conscience, after
having examined the preacher, which he was bound by law
torney in
to do. T
the place, or would
ofhF omeu 1,
tn fight
-Ave consulted any w
at-
have directed them, in the
to
right course, and told them ,coesan a
Proctor: Up to the
present moment,' however,t . there e.
-aa not one word
of judicial intbrmation-
entt'snstif course proposed.
On reading 12dr. Benn bookie, he (Sir •
Wood) had 'formed hie cwmiaaeen ejausten• It was undoubt-
edly a grave that e should ,
--es be • ineeitnaed under
such circumstances, but mill gnat wag
the law. Ile Iv"
reedy ea i jaw!. heartily • ' y. motioi, for an inquiry
which would serve to promote an ameed
rnent• of the law,
and doubtless as so great eagerness had been displayed for
Chancery reform, the ecclesiastical courts• would not escape
next session. , Ia his opinion,. however, te__ .
,'-re was no ground
for an inquiry such:as had -now been e.._
"Inseeed• • for, and if
granted, as a general rule in. similar, eircurnstances, *ithout
the Member's pledging himself to go on with the inquiry, it
was a proceeding opposed to the spirit of•the most obvious
principles of the constitution.'
it had been Colonel BOYLE said, that as e
rnuted to the
Reverend Gentlemen who had signed
. the prolest, 'that they
hid been actuated by unworthy •_motives, as he
was
ao_
quainted with them all, he could declare hiB. e
menet that no
such motives had promoted thent..Ltwaindeederue that
there was a party at Fromewaho interested
particular clergyman,
with
the lady patroness to appoint
: •d that they wereergYnien, whom
they thought deserteng. ,ati , _ refused. , But,
did not induce any of the
althouh-that was so, it in
the protest:. As for the popularity f the V' o jeer
of
Frome,
e a little inform •
he was able to give the House
so
well
aware of on the
subject, 'iii it was probibiy n
H had received a letter the locale
of the place as he was.
had been. applied to on tfiriQAill an
attorney of Frome; who . .
did•not believe an- very ' -and he there Said he y charge of
question,
parishoners, but that there e -
feeling had come over the.
among the most intell' x
isted a decided deterulidatton
Bennett • and his clod • 'gent of
them to diseountenanb-d Mre.
churchwarden had Teennes. It
stated also that the vicar's ed, and
as only, with the greatest
left the church, and that it'w Now, when
it
was
diffi.
culty a successor had been found.nl have applied to the Bishop. of
that the parishioners s. 0
ht as, well say that they had lit. ler
Bath and Wells, he ling
a (31ate'who had given Teo tt
confidence in an appeal to p
1 been 'refried preferment in ge
the
a curate who had peeviousy:
they remembered that thecOst
diocese of Ripon; , and when
nted to 12,0001, there was certainly
sof the Gorham case anion
aw
• the question at 1
/not •to try . He
not much encourage .
k wiedgments to the Member
.his ac no
could not-hut express -
for Cockermonth for thet e able add temperate manner in which
.
et forward ; and if his !efforts failed
he had brought the sal e .
lie would certainly recommend
the at Frome; he to procure peace
pack up his portmanteau and be
the Rev. Mr. Bennett to p
off.—(Cheers and laughter.)
. •
Mr. YORKE denied t
bat the address had been signed by
aby Mr. Cruttwell. The Hon.
boys and girls, as was - eid
Member for Cockermouth had left the impression upon the
matter up atthe request of the
taken the ,
House that he had
•• -- • Bennett nad gone to the
parishioners of Frome. If Mr.
mass at Rome he could, nevertheless, assure the House that
,
he was as good a churchman as' the Hon. Member him
when charge his c in
or the Bishop of London, he
~. .
1842. • •
Sir B. HALL said be, e Hon. Gentleman-
believed the was
himself a, party to theta Ronising nreeeedings, and that
naa
had
he took part in, the memorable . procession which pro-
duced such unfortunate resuits,. -.He maintained that most
•
had been obtained in public-
housee by persons smoking andof the signatures to the address h
drinking, who then and there
soundness of the doctrines of Mr.
bore testimony to the
Bennett.--(LAughter4
. , ..... . .' -