The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-21 00:00:00

p!es he thought fit; but it was with the acts of
Mr. Bennett ►hat be had to deal with, and the c nduct

of one of the dignitaries of the Church in connexion with
Mr. Bennett. The Houie wss uware that in 1843 Mr.

Bennett was appointed by the Bishop of London to tho
living of St. Paul's, and from that period down to 1850
a system prcvai:ed at St. Paul's which eventually excited

the indignation of the public, and led to his removal. Ac-
cording to a letter which the Rev. Gentleman himself

had ptiblished it apPOa;edtbathis proceeding 3 had so
ex .sperated the public miA that a large police force was
rt gaited to keep tho nPighb,,urnood of the cburch in
orrier, and on one occasion some of the people who at-
tended the church were carried before the police
magistrate and punished. The magistrate, how-
ever, in sentencing the accused parties, strongly
censured the conduct of Mr Bennett and his followers,

and the subject afterwards so breed itself upon the at•
tentiou of the press that the Bishop of London was at
length induced to remove the IZev Gentleman from his
living. The letter of the Bishop at companyiug the dis-
taigas! was familiar to the House, as must also be

the reply of the Rev. Gentleman to it. It would be re-
memberud that the Bt,hop's letter reehmtnended Mr.
Bennett to resign, or legal measures would be taken to
remove him; and in accordance with that recom-

mendition Mr. Bennett did reedgn, and his resig-
nation was accepted by the Bishop; not, however,
before the Rev. Gentleman had made a format
protest that be had violated no rules of the
Protestant Church, and the Bishop had declared
that ho had not only been unfaithful to the Church but
insubordinate to his diocesan. It was then publicly re-
ported that Mr. 11-nnett had either gone to Reme or in-
tended to go there; but at all events, however that
might be, the people of Engllnd fancied ho had left
their church for ever. Imagine, however, their surprise.
after what he had said and written, that it should
come to pass that he should again be appointed
to a living in the Protestant Church. It was
a matter of surprise that any patron could present
him, but a still greater matter of surprise
that any prelate could be found hardy enough
to institute him. When Mr. Bennett left St. Paul's be
declared that his religious convictions were unchanged
and unchangeable, and it was right that the House
should know what church be attended during the twelve
wont ha which intervened between his resignation
and his appointment to the living of Frome.
It had been stated in a public print that Mr. Bennett had
spent the interval in Bavaria, where, instead of at-
tending the English Protestant Church, he was a
constant attendaut at mass, and upon subsequent
inquiry being instituted into the truth of this
statement it was found to be substanally correct.
The fact was notorious to all English residents,
and it might be considered as proved that Mr.
Bennett ass, to all intents and purposes, out-
wardly at least, a Roman Catholic, end had lost
all sympathy for the Church in which he had been
brought up. Notwithstanding these circumstances
he was appointed Prot-stant minister of a Protestant
congregation at Frottm—(Llear ) The people of Frome
were in en agony of apprehension, and dreaded that what
had occurred in London might take place in Fromm; and
they sent a very strong but must respectful memorial
to the patroness of the living to cancel the appointment.
This memorial was signed by five clergymen, and the
most influential part of the people in the
town, but the only reply they received was
that the appointment was already made, and
could not be reversed Now, he did not complain of the
appointment, because in making it the patroness
only exercised •an undoubted and legal right,
according to her conscientious views and convictions.-
che writings and preachinga of the Rev. Gentleman since
his appoiremeut to the living of Frown, proved beyond
all doubt that his views and .principles bad under-
gone no change, and he appeared to Libour under
the impression that, within ten years, Protestantism
would have ceased to exist, and the Bible be found
to be a fiction, so far as it was of use in pro-
moting and extending Christianity. He passtd
no opinion upon - such doctrines, but he
simply mentioned them as having been propounded
within the parish church of Frome and remonstrated
avinst by his own parishioners The Bishop of L indon
hid long ago been made scqaainted with all these recent
proceedings, but he had taken no notice of them,
and .the Reverend Gentleasan was :left at full

liberty to go on preaching those principles which
he (Mr. Hotelman) had faintly introduced to
the House as they were explained by the
Rev.. Gentleman himself. Now the Howe was fully
conversant of the immense powers exercised by a bishop.
He was a dignitary at large, enjoying great wealth,
and being responsible to no one; he could live
where he liksd, or do as he liked. If the Bishop
were a bad man, his power could be used fur
the purpose of inflicting injury upon the
people ; while, on the other hand, if he were
well disposed and gifted with a nice conscience,
his office was capable of much good. The ecclesias-
tical law, however, regulating the appointment of
beneficed clergyman was exceedingly strict. The bishop
could not ordain any one coming tram another diocese,
unless' he first brought sufficient testimony of his former
good life and behaviour from the bishop of the diocese
from which he came; and brought, in writing, testimony
of ability, honesty. end centorwity to the ecclesiastical
laws of the Church of England; and, secondly, after
that, the clergyman must tiedsrgo examination by the
bishop. Now, as to the menner in which the certificate
was given; it was signed by three beneficed clergyman;
and it they were not resident in the second diocese, it
mist be countersigned by the bishop of the diocese from
which ho came. The form of the certificate was, "We
whose names are hereunto subscribed, being three bene-
ficed c ergymen of the Church of England, do declare
that the presentee bath been personally known to us for
the space of the last three years, and that we have had
opportunities of observing his conduct; and that during
the whole of that time we verily believe that he bath
lived wisely, soberly, and honestly; nor have we at
any time heard anything to the contrary thereof;
nor hath he at any time, so far as we are aware,
written or taught anything contrary to the doctrine
and discipline of the Church of England."
Now this certificate required that three beneficed cler-
gymen shouli state that during the three last years they
had opportunities of observing Mr. Bennett's conduct,
and that they could testily that he had done nothing con-
trary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of Eng-
land. Had any three beneficed clergymen of the diocese
of London signed that certificate in this case, stating that
during the last three years they had an opportunity of
observing Mr. Bennett, when (Leine, the last of those
three years he had been on the Continent; and that they
Could testify that during that time he had done nothing
contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of
England, when during the summer of 1851 he had been
habitually worshipping in the Roman Catholic Church?
Incredible as it might appear, the certificate had been
signed by three clergy men of the Church of England in
the diocese of London ! —(lear.) But this'was not all.
Those clergy Men not being resident •in the diocese to
which the presentee was removing, it must be counter-
signed by the b3shoo Of the diocese from which he was
going.. Had the Bishop of London countersigned the testi-
monial? Had the Bishop of London, who bad pressed for
the resignation of Mr. Bennett, as guil,y of unfaithful-
ness to the Church of England and insubordinate to
his bishop, had he signed a certificate to the effect
that dating the last three years he was a ftithtul
minister of the Establishment? Why, incredible as it
might seem, he hed beard that the Bishop of London
had actually sign! d the memortal—(flear, hear) —though
he had signed it with a qualification.—(Hear, hear.)
Th. re was no qualification in the canon. The presentee
could not be admitted without testimony in writing from
the bishop to his honesty and conformity. The law,
therefore, was clear that the bishop must give the testi-
mony. The practice had been, however, that three cler-
gymen of the Church of England should sign the certi-
ficate, but that the bishop countersigned it merely to the
effect of saying that he attests that the clergymen who
signed it were resident in his diocese, and not as testify-
ing to what they stated. There had been this deviation
from the practice, however, in the present case, that the
Bishop of London had written in the margin of the cer-
tificate that he was only to be understood as attesting
that these were genuine signatures, and was not a party
to the statements of the certificate. At least he pre-
sumed that this was so, and that the Bishop had so
sought to save his consistency. so, there had been
thrown additional responsibility on the Bishop of Bath
and Wells; and, as he received a certificate from the
Bishop of London with an unusual qualification, it was a
reason for unusual prucl4nce and preceution.---(Elear,
hear.) And surely, under such circumstances, such a
certificate, with such qualification, required explanation
and elucidation.'-(Hear, hear.) Either there had been
three clergymen of the diocese of London who bad
signed the certificate with such a qualification on the
part of the Bishop, or the certificate had not been signed
by the Bishop, in which case the Bishop of Bath and
Wells had deliberately dispensed with the precautions
which were established by law for the security of the
Church.—(Hear.) And there was this further point,
that, even after the certificate was received, duly signed,
the Bishop was bound to examine the presentee. By the
39th canon, the presentee must appear on such exa-
mination worthy of his ministry ; and, by the 48th
canon, no minister was to be permitted to servo in any
place without examination by the bishop of the diocese.
This examination was not mere matter of form. There
was no point on which the law was more explicit.
There was a judgment of Lord Ellenborough on this
question, in which he stated that, in all cases, .‘ there
was to be an examination by the bishops - that was
to precede admission. The duty of examination was
cast upon him by the express terms of the canon ;
and, therefore, if either the bishop would not examine
at all, or only in a mode ineffectual, the court couldinterfere by mandamus to compel each an na-
tion to be made au pertained to his du
must exercise that
statute is approve,' and the bishop ty. The word ofhe
approval according to his that can pro
-
information as he can obtain-
coiiscierirthoinrgsuch means of
eiion or di,ap
Per)), minister to his eonseicnttiErmelasestio.Ypnparbiti}b
probation, and may fairly and assist his con.
consideration. On these grounds
elusions, though not formally
admissible court of
law, may be taken into cons
circumstances,
and institute the examination t
therefore, the parishihnertsoofooFnariodmere
thhead
memorialised
the Bishop, praying requiredotthe
fbacytglawan.d Tcehre.
I;am,i
Bishop, who could iati. not be gri.irtin
tainlY was not igoorant of the law, tans not condescsnd
even to notice any one toff the 'circumes laid before
but' simply said, Rev. and
him by the memorialists;
dear Sir,--I have read the memorial
signed by 'y u. Had
I not been (I can assure you) satisfied that Mr. Bennett
e
was not attached to, or likely to be influenced in favour
of, the Church 'of Rome, or likely to iuflaence others
in that direction, I should have declined. to institute him
from whatever quarter the nomination might have come.
But I am so fully satisfied that he has a firm and deep-
rooted attachment to our own-Church, and - repudiates
Romish doctrines, that I feel I should be acting unjustly
by bin?, and uneourteously to the Marchioness-of Bath,
tiud I-111110114bere 6atly-v say -uonsioa •,vf .iusituag