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

EVENING,

to bring before the House. he had not selected that which
was the most proper and the most appropriate? It was evi.
deuce which had been known to Mr. Bennett; it was, there-
fore, the fairest to that gentleman, and, ho thought, the most
satisfactory and conclusive to the House. He came now to
a far morn important and serious pint of this subject. He
had done with Mr. Bennett, and now came to the
conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Well,;. The import-
ance of Mr. Bennett's acts were perfectly insignificant as
compared with the acts of the Bishop. .Vhe difference in
station between the minister and the prelate was nothing as
compared with the difference of the effects which might fol-
low from the acts of a man who acted only in his individual
capacity, and another gifted with power and authority, and
whose example spread so far beyond himself.—(Hear, hear.)
On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker
which he would take the liberty of quoting:—
" The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach
not far, they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps,
by such as dwell at the next door; whereas men of more
ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives
are viewed afar off—so that the more there are which observe
aloof what they do, the greater glory by their well-doing they
purchase, both unto God whom they serve, and to the State
wherein they live."

He (felt. Horsman) felt that he had spoken, when he last
addressed the House, under a due sense of all the respon-
sibility which attached to the task he had taken. Some
weeks had elapsed since then, and, if his statements had
been rash and hasty, he had had ample time to reconsider
and modify them, while, if they had been incorrect, ample
opportunity had been afforded for repudiating them. After,
however, all possible consideration and reconsideration, he
was bound to say that the opinion he then stated had been
very much strengthened, and whatever he then thought as
to the acts of the Bishop of Bath and Wells as deserving of
censure, fell short of the truth, even more as regarded the
Bishop than as regarded Mr. Bennett. The Bishop of Bath
and Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett in the first plate with
a haste and with a determination to shut out the parish-
ioners of Frome from that legal redress which they would
have had if the Bishop had.given them mere time; he had
instituted him, secondly, without having that certificate
from Mr. Bennett's former diocesan which, by usage and by
law, he was under an obligation to require; and, thirdly,
without that due examination which was enjoined by
law, and which the parishioners of Frome had a right to de-
mand; and he (Mr. Horsman) was prepared to show that
the Bishop had done this not accidentally, not carelessly, not
hastily, not upon impulse, but advisedly, as the lawyers
said " perversely," and with the intention of defeating the
ends of justice. What was the position of the different par-
ties at the time when Mr. Bennett was presented to the
vicarage of Frome, and before his institution ? Each party
then had a legal position and certain legal rights. The
parishioners of Frome did not at that time know what
their legal rights were. They acquired that knowledge
later on, and, unfortunately for them, later than the Bishop.
This was the position of the parties :—Before Mr. Bennett
was instituted it was open to the parishioners under the
canon law to have lodged a caveat against that institution
in the Bishop's court. The object of the caveat was this,—
that an individual might be presented to a benefice of
whom a bishop might know nothing, and any persons who
knew him to be unfit, and wished to prevent his institu-
tion, did so by a caveat. If sach a course had been taken in
this instance, Mr. Bennett would have had to have
" warned" the caveat, and that would have compelled the
proctor through whom it was lodged to state the name of
the person who had lodged it, and the objections to institu-
tion. Then the cause would have been referred by the
bishop to the Vice-Chancellor's Courts, from these it would
be referred to the archbishop, and from the archbishop the
chase might be taken by appeal to the Privy Council.
That was the position of parties, and that was the right
which was available to the parishioners of Frome, white
Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before heAvas insti-
tuted. He (Mr. Horsman) would now show the House how
they were defeated in their attempt to avail themselves of
that right, and what was the course pursued towards them
by the Bishop. Mr. Bennett's presentation was confirmed
on Tuesday, the 30th of December; on Wednesday he visited
Frome, on Thursday, January 1, the inhabitants moved, and
a protest was got up signed by five clergymen and 48 heads of
families. On the 2d this protest was delivered to the Mar-
chioness of Bath, and the day after they received her lady-
ship's reply. On Wednesday they memorialized the Bishop,
giving their reasons against the institution, by which, of
course, they meant to ask his Lordship to make inquiry into
the truth of what they alleged. They made this statement
on the 7th of January; on the 15th they received the reply
of the Bishop declining to accede to their prayer, and stating
that he should proceed with the institution: On the very
same day they wrote to him again, praying him to give them
14 days' delay to consider whether it might be their duty to '
take any further steps in the matter. They received his
answer on the 21st of January, and that very day they sent
their solicitor to London to take the opinion. of Dr. 'friss.
Their solicitor returned cn the 23d, and they then
learned, for the first time, .the means within their power
for delaying institution. They received this opinion on
the 23d, and a caveat was prepared on the 24th ; but before
that the Bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett.—(Hear, hear.)
These proceedings were of so very extraordinary a character
that he (Mr. Horsman) had really felt at first that they
were hardly to be believed. He had, however, received
the following statement, in confirmation, from Mr. Hurd, of
Frome :

"Frome, June 2, 1852.
" I will take up the subject on Thursday, January 15, on
which day we wrote to the Bishop at Brighton, praying that
he would delay institution for .fourteen days. On the 19th
he dates his civil reply, which we received on Wednesday,
the 21st ; and, by the very next train, on the same day, we
sent Mr. Cruttwell and the Rev. Hill Dawse Wickham to
London, to consult proctor?. On the 23d they had an oral
opinion from Dr. Twins (to save time), urging them to lose
no time in entering a caveat to stay institution and induc-
tion, or induction, as the case may be. Mr. Cruttwell wrote
on that day from London to the committee at Frome to be
ready in the committee-room at one o'clock:p.m. the next day,
at which hour he would arrive at the station and join us.
On his way from the station to the committee-room he heard
the bells strike up, and was told that Mr. Bennett had just
been inducted. his was Saturday, January 24. A few
minutes after we had met Mr. Bennett and a few strange
clergymen (three, I think) passed our window on their way
from church, after induction. Mr. Bennett called on Dr.
Griffith, at Elm, two miles from Frome, on the morning of
Saturday, January 24, and was by him, as commissary, in-
stituted. He then proceeded back to Frome Church, and
was inducted the same morning by the Rev. Mr. Blackwell,
curate of Melts, -near Frome. The Rev. W. Calvert, curate
of Frome (for four years), and then residing at the vicarage-
house, declined being present at the induction."
He (Mr. Horsman) had wished to know whether these facts
were confirmed by Mr. Cruttwell, and he had received a
statement from that gentleman, which, though it travelled
over somewhat the same ground, so extraordinary and in-
credible was the whole proceeding, he would read to the
House :
"My dear Sir,—ln answer to your inquiry, I beg to inform
Bathin and the
g
you that on Wednesday, the list of
Bishop of
January (being
same day on which the reply of the
Wells to the Rev. H. D. Wickham was received), I went to
London with that gentleman upon the instructions of the com-
mittee to take Dr. Twiss's opinion. It was not until the after-
noon of the 23d that we succeeded in obtaining the verbal
opinion of Dr. Twiss, to tho effect that Mr. Bennett's opi-
nions as they appeared by renfedrenthceattothheus• worksppruobpleirshceodurse to
wasl 0
bt et a
ienne enter ra a savea
ft
were decidedly unsound,
stay his institution and inaetduwct.ie_olnle.
t Rev. Let nothing v .
in the Bishop's Court
be done in
the caveat, which was as follows .
the matter of the institution ()fthe
se.wood,s
in E. Bennett,
clerk, to the vicarage of Frome
___S I the county of
(A. B). Proctor for (C. D.), and
Somerset, unknown tinhabitants° of the said parish of Frome
others, parishioners,
Frome on Saturday, b
y, the 24th, about
Selwood,' I returned to
the town I heard the bells one o'clock, and as I entered which Iu• •
ring-
ing for Mr. Bennett's induction,reviously written 8 informed had
to state the effect
just taken place.
I hadP
to call the committee of Dr. Twiss's opinion, and , hadnot together,
Bennett's induction taken place I should
and, if Mr.
the sanction of the '
at once have obtained Committee, and
the afternoon of the 24th of January.
entered the caveat in .
of the Bishop would have been no finned' t
The absence
the caveat, which must, ' mien
in the way of entering
b his officer as a matter
been received y at Wells, and the
of course, have
been to stay induction until the proper
proceedings had been taken decide the question of Mr.
Bennett's orthodoxy.
dear Si
" I am, my r, very truly yours,
• " Frome, June 2, "W. C. Citurrwhere
~ J. Third, Esq."
He was sure the House would see how far the statement
was correct, that the parishioners a Frome had not been
ready to
avail themselves before coming to this House
Iremedy
of every lege. which was open to them. But they
were shut out by the Bishop of Bath and `Veils from that
redress which they might have obtained if he had given
that moderate and decent delay for which they peti-
tioned. All the evidence relative to Mr. Bennett's pro-
ceedings at Kissingen might then have been produced. As
it was said the parishioners of Frome had not availed them-
selves of every chance of legal redress, he wished to ask two
questions of the Attorney. General. If the caveat had been
lodged, and the Bishop, had notwithstanding proceeded to
institute, would, not the institution have been void? The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had had
opportunities of enquiring into the whole circumstances of
the case. He had seen the opinion of Dr. T wiss ; he must
have formed a judgment upon Mreßennett's doctrine, and he
called upon him to assist the House in coming to a conclu-
sion by saying if that caveat had been lodged, and the
question of Mr. Bennett'a othodoxy had gone to
trial, whether it was probable that lie would not
have been unable to obtain institution? He main-
tained that by the canons the Bishop of Bath and
Wells was bound to receive from Mr. Bennett, and to insist
upon the production by him of a certificate from his former
diocesan; and, secondly, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells
was bound to subject Mr. Bennett to a due examination. It
might be said the Bishop acted strictly within the law in
regard to the caveat, but did lie act according to law in re-
gard ;to the certificate of the Bishop of. London and the due
examination which he was himself bound to make? Upon
a former occasion he (Ur. Horsman) had stated that it was
rumoured that three clergymen of the diocese of London
had signed a certificate that they had known Mr. Bennett
for the three years last past before the date of that certifi-
cate; that they had had opportunities of observing his con-
duct; and that during that time he had done, held, written,
and taught nothing that was contrary to the discipline and
doctrine of the Church of England. He had also given it as
a rumour that the Bishop of London had signed that certi-
ficate with a qualification. Three clergymen of the diocese
of London did sign that certificate, but with regard to the
Bishop of London the fact was not quite as he stated
it, He said he understood the Bishop had appended
a qualification to the margin of the certificate.
Whether anything was written ou the margin he could not
say, but the Bishop of London had certainly written a
strong letter, stating the sense in which that signature was
to be understood. He was told, and he believed, that al-.
though the Bishop signed.the certificate, yet that in reality
the Bishop's signature was only understood to attest that
the three clergymen signing the certificate were known to
him, and that, in his opinion. they would
they did not believe to be true--(Bear.) The
not
_H sign what
to see that certificate. [An Hon. mehmer ouse ought
" The form is
to be found in the books."] Yes, but the
H--ouse ought to
see this particular certificate.—(Cheers.) They ought to
know. the names of the three London clergymen who put
their signatures to that document, and who testified that
they had opportunities of k • nowing what Mr. Bennett was
doing at Kissingen and other places.—(Hear.) He had a
copy of the letter of the Bishop of London to the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, which showed that the former took care
that the sense in which he signed the certificate should be
understood. This letter was tendered to him by a clergy-
man who wrote to the Bishop of London on the subject of
Mr. Bennett's appointment, and who in reply received a copy
of the letter from the Bishop. The letter had no date, but
he was told it was written at the same time as the Bishop's
Signature to the certificate. It Was as follows :
" My Lord,L-I have to request that my counter-signatnr:
to this testimonial may be considered as being simply the
expression of my opinion that the clergymen whohave signed it, and who are beneficed in my diocese,.
ve.
But I
testi-
fied to your Lordship that which they verily belie_ e_e, e.,_.
think it is my duty to state, that in December?, lt16!?:_ mr
Bennett nettled the perpetual-curacy of rau 0, li igbtlS
St. 1