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

SUN LONDON, WE D S TITA.IIr

ra;

elan before now build up in that House fabrics .of accuse-
"°2l against particular prelates of the. Established Church,
Which, when examined, had turned out to be splendid exag-
gerations. (" Hear, hear," trem Mr. Hoesman.) He might
refer to the Horfield manor cage.-(Question.) The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had been upwards of two hours in
re4king his elahorate accusation, and surely the House would
extend its indulgence to him while be attempted to answer
ite--(llear hear.) In the case alluded to the lion. and
Learned Member had utterly failed in every material point
in the charges which he made against the Bishop of Glou-
eester.— (Hear, bear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had fora long time taken on himself the functions of an sic-
Fuser of the clergy. In 1828, when the Hun. and Learned
Gentleman was an elder of the Presbyterian Church, he
blade charges against the eminent and excellent Dr. Chal-
n!ers, which obliged Dr. Chalmers to resort to the press.—
Hear " from rM. ITOrsmall. ) lie admired the cheer of the
CU. and Learned Gentleman. No doubt the Hon. and
earned Gentleman thought Dr. Chalmers as much in the
Wrong
on that occasion as he thought the Bishop of Bath and
'ells
in this. Bat the feet was that Dr. Chalmers was
obliged to.
publish an answer for the purpose of demonstrat-
itit the unsoundness of what he called the aerial accusations
_of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The Hon. and Learnd
ilentleman had taken on himself the character of a public
language
of the clergy, and was bound to be. accurate in the
'anguage he used, and to take care that the views he pre-
none of a case came up to the standard of facts. If the
. and Learned Gentleman would embark in discussions
was
great legal ,he bound to avoid
launchiag unfounded charges, knowledgeand to take care that the
principles on which ha proceeded were sound. The Hon.
tire Learned Gentleman had put the House in a dilemma
Zuich he could not accept. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
r:eu Said at either the House was a fit place for a
andebate
bushed
tbe preent or else there ought not to be Este-
eutjahed Church. He trembled to dispute the dilemma, but
Xfeared it was just possible for them to have an Established
„es'uarull, and yet that that House might not be the fitting
ena for the discussion like the present.—( Hear.) Speaking
for himself, he did not scruple to say that that House was
there might have been—nay, what was more important—
that there had' been some cased of foul play; that the Church
England was rent from head to foot with her divisions
out he asked them, apart from all interests of his own, or of
the e they though re
t thatreligious divisions
*Werlikely to be mitigated, and that the sores and wounds
of the Church were likely to be healed,. by rhetorical decla-
Illation, by exaggeration, and by misapprehension and mis-
Statements of fact?—(llear.) It might be that he himself
alight err in this respect ; but if he did so, it would be un-
intentional, for he had. the deepest sense of the mischief
Which arose from such a source.—(Hear, hear.) If the Hon.
;1114 Learned Gentleman knew anything of the nature of re-
!aeons partisanship he must know that heat and violence on
otie side engendered heat and violence on the other.—( Hear,
Were He believed that if the influence of Mr. Bennett
"ere in question there would be no better mode of increas-
g and propagating that influence than by singling him
taller attack, if that attack were coloured by religious feel-
tr• That fact must be kept in mind throughout the whole
ee,eu,ssion, if they wished to neutralise the evils of such dis-
th—A°n&—(Hear, hear.) The first point which called for
eir attention was whether the country was to be governed,
her in
ecclesiastical or in civil matters, by the private
ttillons of particular men, according to their popularity for
If 'craontent, or by a system of fixed laws ?—(year, hear.)
was to be governed by private opinion, and if that Hope
Cre to become the means of making such private opinion
:diet in matters of religion, representative institutions
h '
what they wereaid become a
in fact,uisance, and ecclesiasandtplagical questions would
4:, the baneplague of the House
theeefthe country.(flear, hear.) But he maintained that
eigg, were not there to decide what was in the abstract
the i" They had to decide one or two questions. First, had
to is awe been obeyed? If the laws were good they ought
(ne obeyed; and if not good they ought to be altered.—
legar, hear.) They had no right to establish any extra
might aYstern of influence or jurisdiction by which they
move ,°Perate on the regular operation of the Jaw. must
44441 ita own fixed coarse, irrespective of the opinions of
Vas 4°3. That was the first principle he laid down. It
peesenrFrial to keep in view the person before them in the
,In,stance. The speech of the Honourable and
tioi;:""? Gentleman had a good deal cleared up' that ques-
leas b, fee he understood the case, the person whose conduct
bash ° tLiere them was the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As a
/lonell us Was a great officer of state, and he agreed with the
held tt'Ale and Learned Gentleman indeed he had long
law .sh e opinion—that it was a great absurdity that our
hisho ould, not afford the means of correccing a delinquent
view Pe—e(llear, hear.) He frankly owned that he should
tar th'sutn the greatest favour any judicious proposition
With Purpose of providing such means.—(Hear, hear)leteehrespect to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the point
that he u° wished to put to the House was simply
biro
ewEes not a delinquent bishop, and jhat not even
biro. Jgcle case of delinquency bad been made out against
in this:hat being so, let them put aside the other charges
°f the Patron..
The .had nothing to do with the proceedings
Press, ro,rOn. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had ex-
the disclaimed casting any imputation on the conduct of
arriltr"'
e The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had omitted
treat element to which every patron ought to pay
who attention, and that was the feeling of the people over
kid any particular pastor was placed. Though the Hon.
e°tilt, earned Member had dealt with the facts as best he
Iflaate.v! mad admitted that in this particular case—through
,irfeetir Peculiarity or delusion—the people of Frome were
emu Y satisfied with what the patron had done.—(Mr.
did leotl4ll—J. Noe no.") The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
, the; admit that the people of Frome were satisfied.
''l7ltleater' hear, from Mr. Horsmen.) The Hon. and Learned
tarsie".`, an throughout the whole of his first speech, and even
isiu4 had represented the objectors as the clergy and pa-
tihissatllere
,f; of Frotne. Now, it was not a fact that they wore
btee.apip—oeind; Rightly or rongly,. they were satisfied with
andLtnent and were grateful for it. He held in his
_ a lettervsbuld of the churchwardens, which, if the House
knee Permit, he would read.—(Cries of " Name.") The
e_the d„,Waa Miller—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear") —and
Was ad
17th of April, before the Hon. and Learned
-ea ade might forward his first motion on the subject.. It
49 fop_uwressed to the patron, the Marquis of Bath, and was
a

" FROMM VICARAGE.
u .i. “ Frome, April •17.
ef yoZytterd, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
eeed to ordship's letter of yesterday's date, and will pl
and he answer the inquiries therein contained, fully,
.fair y,
Utie2te-et partially; The appointment of Mr. Bennett is not
eolaiv"°nalele to the body of the parishioners. • This I
inhapassert ; this I prepared boldly to maintain. The
fullhenott of ss
0„, erotne are under many and great obligations
sIY esoo-itiei°s:Thynne, and there is none they more cheer-
atefully appreciate than the
olal'ing towedbe
more
.g
nrthe regard manifested by that
te,,attefanli;l3' for tolVlemspilritual good in nominating Mr.
r„, car of Froemire -I assert, and without the slightest
reeS:". contradialon that. since Mr. Bennett commenced his
oiltListey .ts_
lass he morning congregation have increased at least
ter t--`l, and-that as to the evening services, there never
" es
nY persons assembled within the walls of St.
Iskte„,,-'a ~burch. The lowest calculation last Sunday event-
triols 2,000. At the commencement many have bean elf
Of tl;re" by curiosity and the love of novelty, but at the en
Is ee Months
increased not only no diminution, but the
t°"regation is and increasing."
thsWeas not right, therefore, to vy that the sentiment!' ot_f
istee-People of Frome had been over-ridden in the appoin
q."-t of Mr. Bennett.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned
tilentleman denied that the churchwarden had represented
10,,
that
of the people, but it waS right he should in-
ko.l the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that in a postcript
.he letter it was stated that the parishioners, in vestry
-'4enibl el had re-elected t under'wrier of the letter church-
,arden. It appeared that the guidance, of certain
141ergymen, 54 persons had protested against the appoint-
„lllent of Mr. Bennett. Of these 54, only 1G belonged to the
Parish church to which Mr. Bennett had been appointed;
~'lld of these 16 one-half had returned to the church within
g,1"7 weeks after Mr. Bennett was inducted.' Ono dream-
je"ree of a somewhat solemn nature was connected with
,13 art f the uestion. One person of the 54 who had
reotePst fa so tak q ilf, and his first act was to send for
hey Bennett, e
laa-ndehne died receiving his nsiais!ration:— (Hear,
leer ' The patron,, therefore, was vindicated so far as the
lag of
said th the parishioners
was concerned. It might be
th . Lit their approval was only a proof of the depth of
eir se
-"ad He was not authorised to give any
of dues. ue" ,
..ut of . Mr. Bennett 's sentiments. Indeed he had
tianb, alight acquaintance with him. There were
lles-ef. 'Lora. Members who knew him intimately, and might,
th-laPe, be able to speak' on that point. Instead of taking
L„s acifluenced and aggerated view which the Hon. and
beds Gentleman had done of everything that Mr. Bennett
the said, and assaming that at this moment Mr. Bennett was
hi' Same man that he was, he must say that the address to
thill from the parishioners of Frome was a demonstration
teat lea hi_
in to the encouraging hope that Mr. Bennett had
t42?locted himself wisely and discreetly in his parish, and
1,17_,. whether like other men, he might rack in the troubles
tee%) surrounded them—he was steady in his allegiance to
tl'y Church of England, and faithful in the discharge of his
pi:-LtY as a minister of that Church.—(Hear, hear.) That
s as a rational inference to draw when they found the whole
Kiri
1, ah approving of Mr. Bnnett's doctrines and disCipline.
' eeetned to him that the accusations against Ztlr. Bennett di-
eta
e... ed themselves into two classes, the first relating to his pro-
iaedinas at Kissengen—the second to his published works.
."4„ Is proceedings iLondon were not, and could not be, the
Vlesect of inquiry,. The Hon. and Learned Member seemed
0 think that the proceedings at Kissengen ought to have
trevented the Bishop of Bath and Wells instituting Mr.
,c,nnett With respect to the proceedings at Kissengen he
' a not . aware of the state of the case, except in one very
had important particular. The lion. and. Learned Gentlemau
_,as, gamed that. i,f. Mr. Bennett did not appear at the
kitT,,,eh church at le. is,.sengen, it proved that he was un-
-44(1,mA to the English Church. But he thought the Hon.
Latinoearned Gentleman must have forgotten that Mr.
ttravelling (4,• was as chaplain to a' private family.—
tis al%) As to the story which the Hon. and Learned Gen-
..rod_
1.1 e,, 'ut had told them of the stone for an alter which Mr.
eas'nett mesaid to have carried about with him, he must
Even if the Hon. and
Learned he nothing.—( Hear.) EVIL-
n this poi,
0 earn?4l Gentleman should be able to support his statement
feedings of °t' wished the Hoase.
did not at all affect
the -Bennett at Kissingen
to recollect that the
conductpro-
the of the IT hop of Bath and Wells.—
~ )) had noi'S
• steps against r.
M Bennett
(Hear.) The
-4 account Power to takeetny
Youd the of such proceedings, because 'they were done be-
of dissent) of
of our ecclesiastical law.—
, ogrusant of
eo Even if the Bisho of Bath and Wells.
(had been
Exressions
440teionld have l'
such proceedings, be 'did not believe that
taken any steps with regard to them. A case,
Ilev.°ll3g ago, might be cited in support of his opinion. Th
belie_ aptiat Noel had preached in a Presbyterian church, he
(104 Ytd at Inverness. The 'attention of the Bishop of Lon-
ofeee„was called to the fact; but it was found not to be an
Well's' egniiable by law. Against the Bishop of Bath end
theellares lion. and Learned Gentleman had made three
poi.„esEt--that the Bishop proceeded in undue haste and in
tharshe to Prevent the parishioners having a fair hearing
that h-° Proceeded without the proper certificate ; and
1140 the reeedtd without due examination. It appeared to
found II- each and every one of those charges was without
tile position
But first of all let them realise to themselves
geoll: then blithe Bishop. The Honourable and Learned
etthh,;:hatO, in the first statement which he made on this
llisito? 4_ ad proceeded eptirely on the assumption that
the fi,r,:' *hen they received presentees, were invted by.
tept (7,7_ ef England with large discretionary powers. to ac-
404801.17ortele,cti'athem, ' That was not the case. With respect
matters of ordination, the bishops power
thadr.., ?a. blr
cl ea
li
nu et 71; and if it could •be shown that a bishop
a man who was not qualified for the minhia-
aift ,Ile would be regarded as having departed from is
"404
.blil3uhtowii,ha at was the nature of the law on the subject
powers with respect to presentees? Theof
bleu._ _and Learned Gentleman had perhaps imported some
eess?tions on this subject from Scotland, where he con 7.
hatri a better system prevailed. The law of ,Scotland
fair 04,1%948 been studious to give to the people a
the ,_Phortunity of stating objections to presentees, and, on
ohiao`:, ole, the practice had been to give a fair scope-to such_
ael'lOn. But that was not the spirit of the law of
to sort The inspiring idea of the law of England had been
to ,Zr_roud with every security the patron's right to present
Th'.''T fulvowson and the inchoate right of the presentee.
'w omit or the law hi well.goyetne-d countries like our

THE

guarded ie
own became the spiriteoftuhsetycoout the Legislaturertsoflawan wasd,as n
t the
case of mortniain, the jab
by the rigid interpretion 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 inchciate right of a presentee. The power of the biShop
was narrow by law, and narrower according to practice,
and every act of a patron was scrutinised with the utmost
jealousy' in order to give effect to what the law favoured,
and to restrain what the law regarded with distrust. Was
the Bishop to refuse admission to a presentee because he
had written 'a work eihich 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 bad 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 air. 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.—(flear, hear.) Except on these
grounds the Bishop would have no' !dens Standi in a court of
law. From the Statement of she 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 1624, the House appointed a Committee
to inquire into the conduct of one of the 'bishop's, who was
afterwards Archbishop of York, and the Committee reported
that the Bishop had failed to admit presentees, and that his
not havine inducted them had been to the great injury of the
patron. The House had, no doubt, in their recollection the
recent case of the Bishop of Exeter and the presentation to
Brampford Speko. The ruinous and crushing costs of thaese
ecclesiastical suits were enough to deter persons from engg
tinhgatin
fact
them.hyhwandielheatrhnet
hard He
e experience. believed
th e
Inßi anothershep et
xa
seet,eirn
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had prosecuted a clergy-
man for immorality, the cost to the Bishop was not less than
4,200/. • 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'guars impala, and if he failed to establish
heresy, immoral conduct, or insufficient, learning against
Mr. Bennett, ho would have been condemned to pay costs.
The othermode of proeeeding was the duplex querda. 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 Wells, in
every step that he took, was bound to keep himself within
his legal powers, andithat the moment he 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 objece
tions of the parishioners. The facts, he thought, led to an
opposite conclusion.—(llbar, hear.) He should be sorry
unnecessary to detain the House, but in such a case he
begged they would 'assume their judicial character, and
bear 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 is the first instance?—
(Hear, hear.) Every lawyer in Frain° must 'have known
that this 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 ho 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 for judi-
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, heat.)
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.
--(Hear.) 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 bad 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 bad made was
virtually to the eflect that because they had found that
Mr. Bennett had professed opinions not acceptable to them,
the Bishop of Bath and Wells should undertake net 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 230 of January that those parties hall sought
advice on the subject of their caveat—that was to say 25
days after they ought to have sought it, and -whoa 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 eioted—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 fora long series of years, the 39th
canon was that which exclusively regulated the institution
of ministers to benefices. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to
think that the Bishop of Bath and Weils 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. Ile met the state-
ment of the Hon. 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
that he could not name the three incumbents. But he knew
that the testimonial, soTar'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. He 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 far as the incumbents 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 dutiefo which it
imposed on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? He (Mr.
Glad-
stone) understood that notes of that kind were not unfree
auently appended by bishops to testimonials; but it was
quite plain that
with
fa s
signature were affixed to any document
in conformity
law and usage, its legal effect could not
be
si altered by any .
•
gratuitous comment made by the party
g signing it The
meaning • of the
signature
of the Bishop of
London continued the m
be the explanation affixedsa e in point of law, whatever might
that explanation? to it. What was the value of
lie (Mr. Gladstone)said
it was this—that it imposed that the value of
the duty of ascertaining for onl the Bishop of Bath and Wells
of Mr. Bennett, and of satisfying
what was the doctrine
He contended that it could lliaeLinfi himself upon that point.
than that of imposing on the Bishop op
value and effect
the duty of examining Mr. Bennett. oprhoef Bath and Wells
Lo
admitted that the certificate of Hun. Gentleman
London was not necessar
that the
canonsthe Bishop of'
ire it, and that practice did not
requ did not
require it • and
he (►lr. Gladitone) 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
Hon.
Gentleman, which was that the Bishop of Bath and Wells
had admitted Mr. Bennett wi*thout due examination, and ho
(Mr. Gladstone) was bound to' say he thought that in the
Gentleman the Bishop of d Wells
Bath an
sense of the Hon.
bad so admitted Mr. Bennett.. He should, however, add,
that although the construction which the Hon. Gentleman
' 1 examination" might suit the
had given to the phrase ' duo
felt confident that there was
House of Commons, he no
gentleman there who had ever inquired .
into a legal question
that construction. He saw
that would not at once repudiate
lawyers there who felt with 'the Hon. Gentleman in the case,
discussing he
and upon the point which he was then d
ap-
pealed to them with the same confidence with which he ap-
pealed to 1100. Gentlemen who adopted his views in the
matter. The Hon.' Gentleman had laid down the doctrine
that a judge—for a bishop h in such a case as that was a judge
in the strictest sense of the term—the don. Gentleman had
laid doivn 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,
hut 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 •satisfv what the
u ic,,, and-
Hon. Gentleman called " the p such an exami-
nation as would no doubt satiety himself the Hon. Member
I for Cockermbuth.—(Fiea:r, hear, and laughter.) He-wished
I he could get the Hon. Gentleinan to look in cold blood at
the con.sequences—he did not like to use strong epithets—.
but he should say the really, frightful and hideous cense-.
I quences of such a doctrine of judicial duty, and such a coa-
-1 option of thejadiciaLcharacter, as that a judo® in a en 00 0 11-

and important Matter was not to look for such evidence an
would satisfy his own conscience, but far such evidence as
would satiety the public.--(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") If
I he had misunderstodd the Hon. Gentleman, and if the Hon.
Gentleman would admit that the duty of a judge was 'to in-
stitute, on'hii solemn responsibility, such an examination as
would satisfy his own judgement, 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 had examined Mr. BennettOiot
in the Greek Testament, not on matters of form
or of ecclesiastical . history-he bad examined Mr.
Bennett-not the Mr. Bennett of former times, but
the Mr. Bennett Of 'January last-the Bishop who
had himself been it great sparer from illnees-from
crushing and torturing illness-ha who.had been in full
possession of all his intellectual ' pewers and faculties-for
the, Right 1-finr. Geritleman'the Secretary of State was Min-
taken in supposing that he had arrired.at an extreme old
age-ho had carefully examined Mr. Bennet on all those
points on which he had thought that en examineion had•
been called for.-•ninnely, those points in' dispute between
the Church of England and the Church of Reme; and it was
not until he had made up his mind that on those, points Mr.
Bennett had held by the Church of England that hdhad 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 Rome in regard, for in.
stance, to the points touched in the Thirty-eine Articles, his
course would have been clear, and it would then, no doubt,
have been his dirty to have refused institution. Bat baring
found that there had been no georind 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 Hon. Gentleman, but on. the
belief and conviction§ of himself, the Bishop, who was the
judicial officer appointed by the law to decide the case, had
subjected Mr. Bennett to a dtte examination ; and it was to his
honour that he bad 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 arty movement vehatever
among any discontented clergymen or laymen.• 'The Bishop
had himself instituted the inquiry because he had seen that
the circumstances of alreßenciett'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 he believed that an ex-
amination was necessary. Now he (Mr. Gladatotte), should '
confess that the Hoh. Gentleman fairly bedt him when he
led them in that House into the domain of pure and unmixed
theology . The Hon. Gentleman bad quoted from a work of
Mr. Bennett some propositions in theology; and the Hon.
Gentleman had told them thatit would not be' appropriate
in that House ' to dismiss !those peopositicies. • "No ;but al-
though the Hon.,Gentleman had not- thought appropriate
to discuss, he had thought it appeopriate to judge and de-
cide.-(Hear, hear.) The HOP. Gentleman' had quoted a
saying of Mr. I3ennett's, with'regard to the Mily Scriptures.
Bat Mr. Bennett himself lead' on st 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 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, -11e' 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 prefane by
reading the passage in the House of Commons. The Ho •
nourable 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.) ' Ile ' -(Mr. Glad-
stone) believed ho could show the Hon: Genteman that
he was totally unaware of one of the great religious • contro-
versies of this century. The passage in the work of Mr.
Bennett had 'reference to this question-whether in the
work of eropagating Christianity,' of spreading Cheistianity
among those who had not previously profeased its doctrines
=the Bible alone should' be used; and Mr. Bennett had said
that it would be a' fiction and delusion to' euppose that
Christianity would be propagated by merely' distributing the
Bible among an un-Christian people. .Bnt 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 bad 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 the clergy 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. R 3 had
himself given no opinion upon the subject.
Mr. GLADSTONE continued-The Hon. Gentleman had
quoted the passage from the memorial;; but ho 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 paten 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
Ownelrye
io„nalybbiaomun,,dalo coornpfourumuntoabtihoe!rcoannsedcituheantctehoeyf
acodul
elc.
parture from it. It seemed that Mr. Bennett had put a
particularf
ro na constructionwason tl.epent oathnp
upon
nf supremacy
Hwohniocahr dif-
feredahloGentleman. But 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 one
construction of the oath; and other Honourable Members
had given a different construction of it o and it was well
known that at the present moment there were two Peers
who were precluded from taking, their seats in the House
of Lords, because they found it impossible to affix to the
oath otfhasy ldnpnroenniricysnhasneryihe. clearßnt aant an
ddiesvtiennetts meaning' to
believed
which
that the meaning' attached to the oath of supremacy by
Mr. Bennett did not amount to an offence punishable in
itth e
a courts; •
gron
ground
d th
fore -Bsi sthayo
`staying
Bath ai ands
tiNtirnetlir
tol sue ooufl dui%nliaorrt. inßetteikna_e_
nett, although, he might thereby ave
miloonaroi;raabnldo save
Memberhim th
had merely to carry out the law of which he was swornto
guardian, even though it might be necessary for him do
ss
to a inne
easn. unpopularAs himself
fCroOniCkertralleolltr'tilThye of the
he
regardednG iadmsatnnhnes:
s,
thought
bn
oaandnu gd
hutndheer charge,ub dpt
hospahuowl
shown
nn
ttchict no
tvt nhi
evi-
dence, ice,
evidence was the same as in other cases dealt with by bishops
of the Established Church.-( Hear, hear.) 13ut when he,
came to the third charge, he had shown that the -Bishop or
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
was
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 en
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
Wells,. 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 ?r-(Rear, hear.) It was not his (Mr.
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 for that motion as it now
stood, he would be assenting to the allegation that a
prima facie case had bean made against the Bishop of Bath
and Wells; but in his opinion no such case was 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.-(Hear, hear.) His (Mr. Glad-
stone's) first objection was to their professing to inquire into
the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev.
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 Cockermonth 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 moving 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,
'hear.) But whether the subject should be undertaken by a
Commissioner or by a paid Committee, was another ques-
tion. If they wanted an immediate inquiry, they could not
have it now by a Committee. Whether there should be a
Commissiou, or whether there should be a general aeknow- •
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, ho 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
law on this subject, they would give not only a most 'useful
turprirteopatrheeddtisocug:s.i:naraised by the Hon. Member for Cocker-
ntme.o.acurettihs,urbieitaahlsiog choinufdeirciaa, vast amount of benefit.-(Hear,
i)hn i s
hisrro duty,nelitinleder, of these courses he (Mr. Gladstone) would
b,oeans
_car(ei,:enarliheecaasoe_nboaewernabuorossernt
uogtshtt.favourable consideration. But
and
only
hlisodffinets7,
andin thatthe with accuracy
before them, ho shouuldwraheihrasddds
objectionable course of proceeding
would be casting censure on a
prelate-not by implication, but
openly-who had never
acted in a manner unbecoming his exalted position, and
who, instead of blame and censure,(ctleer merited at their hands
-arked tht)t. the Righto fHooxnofourrd-
thesihti
jg.hepsAt coNimuelnodaNtiornem.
able Gentleman the Member for theisy
usual ability, and
had
h lead
when
nn Phuai d
broughttoet the
had stated hishe
deep'
e Gentlemanep sentiments
attentiono n
ti
ht
which
occasionsh I
gone very far to justify the coarse the Bishop had taken
ttilh:isen:eduabsrjeaebeiteTbefore the House proved how strongly the peo lo
of this country and the Members of' that House had beenP
excited by those dissensions which unhappily existed in the
Church of lingland.-(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Oxford had observed with painful truth,
that the Churche weissirr
John
nanrdatkoingt
torn .by
believedyrtlioseun thathappy thisdis-
Swear:_i°thynaSi'n-land h
owing to that portionmholofsatethxgeprativcialeieor anugy of the
Church who had taken that line which Mr. Bennett pur-
sued-e( Load cheers from _atlloledt to
epharts of the House) - a
afro wnilio one
u 5
ldiniocee • which
dinyibhiicsji caseid hieadd

doubts whether clergymen taking that line could _ really sincere ministers of the Church.—(Cheers.) He be-
be
lieved that in many most essential • respects, there never
was a more exemplary. parochial . Minister than Mr. '
Benneft, but the some thing might unquestionably be said
of a large portion crl the 'Leman Catholic clergy.-(lleac,
"hear.). Butthere cduld not be-a more dangerous error than
to confuse personal piety and the exemplary discharge of
parochial dutieS with those vital doctrines which formed
the broad liner of demarcation- between the two Churches.
—(Hear, hear:) No one -could deny the unhappy dif-
ferences and dissensions that had arisen in our Church,
and much of them was Undoubtedly attributable to those
gentlenien, who, like llire .n
-emlett, 'exhibited that love of
forms and histrionic display which so ranch characterised
the Church of Rome.—(Hem.. heat.) By means of those
gentlemen the lines of distinction between the two Churches
were every day made fitter--and" finer,quence been led
and a • number
Of unwary ,Protestants ••' bad . in':
'consequence
swap to the Chnroh of ..Romea—(liear bear.) He could
not blame the lionoprabfe Gentleman for bringing those re-
markable facts before the House, but he seriously doubted.
how far the House! of COmmons wail a fit arena for such
discuseion.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Member had
quoted a statement of his (Sir J. Pakington's)
opinion
the last time this subject was before the House. He had
then expressed that opinion, and he had now no intention to
'recede from it.-(Hear, hear.) - The Government on that oc-
Sion undertook to mike inquiry, and they exhausted every
means in their p_ovrei• to ascertain how far 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. Thep having been submitted to the
law officers of the Crown,..they greete it as their opinion that
there was no illegality in the; institution of Mr. Bennett, and
that as to the transactions ellege& to .have occurred at Kis-
singen—a foreign country—no legal inquiry by the Bishop
could be instituted' respecting- it. ' The Government not
resting content with those answers, they submitted a se-
cond time more comprehensive.questions to the law officers,
and were again informed that. there was no legal mode
by which ' the circumstances . connected with Mr.
Bennett's induction could . -be ' made the subject of
direct and immediate inquiry; but if there Was any
legal mode then it would be. Opens to the parishioners to
proceed under - the •Chuich Disciplihe Act. With regard
to the transactions at Kissengen, they were questions of fact,
and it was undoubtedly a very_ extraordinary fact, and one
Calculated to create great anxiety and suspicion, that Mr.
Bennett's name wee; to be found .in ‘aßattersby's Directory."
This undoubtedly was a 'question Per the Bishop:to inquire
into. He (Sir J. PakirigfOU)eharl listened with astonish..
meat to what had fallen from the Right lion. Gentleman
(Mr. Gladstone), when alluding teethe transactions at Ibis-_
sengen. There an Englisli clergyman passed many months
without going near the English eler Onsian his church, or
congregation.—(dear, Iheetehear..)- It was a subject calculated
to excite the gravestanxiety,_and to inspire the deepest re-
gret, to find that a clergymao so Conducting himself should'
be now at the head of an important parish.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Sir I. Pakington) could.not conceal his astonishment
when he heard the. Right Honourable Gentleman vindicating
such conduct. —(1. No," from__ Mr. Gladstone.) Why, he
said the clergyman was acting as a chaplain, and that his
family was his congregation., ut 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 Cliscretion.—(llear, hear.) He'
(Sir John Pakington) could not admit the propriety of any,
chaplain so situated being exempt in foro conscientue from
attending irplate Of public wcrsbfp.—( 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 hound' to in-
quire.—(Hear.) He did not believe,' however, that any large 1
number of gentleman in that Wine 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 tine
' worthy of the House of Commons, and a'dangermis precedent,
and therefore he must oppose the motion.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Right Hon. Gentleman was
mistaken, if he thought, he (Mr. Gladstone) vindicated -Mr.
Bennett's conduct at, Kissengeo. Tile wished to 'state also,
that the Bishop Of Bath and. Wells had not become ac-
quainted with that conduct 'until
*after Dlr. Bennett's in-
duction.—(oh, oh.) • '
this 'was
w
' Sir PAGE WOOD believed this as a grave constitu-
tional question. -He felt, meat deeply the vast importance of
the general subject, and the mede in which the people of
England had been excited Oh the subject. Owing to this
excitement there was the more_dread of their being led away
by their feelings to seine' unconstitutional course.- (Hear,
hear.) Could any one doubt
.. that the conduct of .numbers
of those, who, .being sworn . neembers 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 party-acted-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. -.(Bear, 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 *really_ to denounce. He had dealt
with the doctrines of the Church in what was called their
" unnatural" sense. :The matter, however, warnot 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
motives, and in that feeling ho -admired Mr. Baptist Noel
'ter having left the Church; but he could not admire those
who, approving. of , the doetriues of the Church of Rome, did
not go over to that Church. 'Every 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
aid down by the Churche • But while he felt that, he was of
opinion that they.would not advance the cause which he had
at heart, namely, adegislatiYeirefoim of the ecclesiastical law,
by taking up individuela and holding ;them up to detesta-
tion, and, still more, by making-the Matter a party question,
with a view to a remedy. ' With- regard 'to Parliament, how
did the motion before the House stand? 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. ' But. .in' both 'cases the inquiry asked
would be contraryto the Bill of Rights, and the principle
was this—that they , ought not iceinquire into the conduct
of an individual behind his. back, or bring charges against
him. unless it was* pet:.heTi
ere hit; trial. Thee- eeasht.
bring a man before a grand- Jur-7, 'but it would be for the
purpose of bringing t.t bill of-Indictment against him; ono
Y might have an inquiry Dy the Reuse of Commons, also
subject to certain conditions; and ..he did not dispute the
right of the House of Cenembni, which was called the Na-
tionaLltiquest, to inquire' into buses' .but '' ; hut if they instituted
inquiry into this ee
i- 'Should proceed fairly. He
was glad to find thatiher Majesty% Government felt that
they could not *Orient to the course eitoposed, and also that
they had undertaken to retorameted inquiry into it; for
otherwise he felt that there was no possible mOde, even ac-.
cording to the statement of •tlie-liori; Member for Cocker-
mouth, of dealing with the
question, his Honourable Friend-
not having made out any breach" of 'the law: - He did not
think it jest that a parish should ho placed in a position to
have such a man atetcr Rev: lefee se
e'ennett forced upon them
without the power emend' the inctuiry whether, he was a member of the church of Englatid.--(Hear, hear.) But
whatever inquireeihight be adopted itito his case, as matters
stood it could not lead to such a result as that. The4Right
Hon. Gentleman, thel Member for the' University of Oxford
(Ur. Gladstone) had rather underet in favour
aced the Case
of the Bishop. Thu Bishop, it die-peered, had 28 days to ap-
point to the living, and did not aPPOllit Until the twenty-
seventh day; therefore there 'was mrindecent haste in the
appointment. And with respect to, his demanding the tes-
timonials of the clerk, a court of e
ceininon law would rule that
he had no such right. A case had. Olsen wherein a bishop
had demanded the testimonials cif it clerk, and he was mulcted
by the court in heavy costs.- -In none o' f those alternatives
which the Hon. Member for Coot
laid • down,
mouth had could proceedings be taken' either it • the Bishop of
London or the Bishdp of Bath - egamst
aucl Wells • e
Th lion.
Member for Cockermouth said that 'Bishop should
than h • -
have gone farther e had the
, ated* examined the .Rev.
Kr. Bennett; and the Right' ROuotitabeMember for the
University of Oxford said that he had examined him, so
that they had assertion against Ussertion All that the
Bishop could have dohp was to pat
th •assertion.
Rev. Mr. Ben-
nett's own book into his hand, and eigid :0 him, " Bid you
write this book ? I find '. such, and,ent he
it. Such was the coins° taken' ' such a statement .
lu the Gorham case by the
Bishop of Exeter, and the . Privg cse
-Amen having taken a
contrary view of the Matter', the [o,o_
p h,id n remedy. That
• so what remedyiwould the bisb- • 0 .
being , ' 7 The -- . 0P have in the case of
the Rev. Mr. Bennett. great mistake Which the lion.
Member for Cockermouth male e iii'7-8. his reading of the
law. According to the authority of Latd
Ellenborough, the
bishop, in such a case ins this, had le
-0
the matter of approval', resting, with his discretion whatever,
k
having examined the reacher,
which
c'wn conscience, after
e was bound by law
to do. The people of come might be
ve consulted alaY at'
torney in the place, who would, have directed' them in the
right course, and told them ..
.there e' to up to the
t moment,
of
however, .
_. e
Iva.,
tion to mstify eh not one ward
of - judicial infer=
e course proPesed.
Bennett or)
S % • iMr '
On reading e .
.wn 'eerie 15' 111 (Sir NV' P.
Wood) had formed his o
81111316h' '''t doedly a grave thing • that atilt should be
tadinatied under
such circumstanoes; ' but Hill._ 1.0. t was the law. • He was
ready to join heartil any moo__
"'ill for an inquiry
which would serve toi, promote an melee.,
had of the law,
and doubtless as so great eagerness had beet
..a i
ea
for
Chancery reform, the ecclesiastical, courts (1'
whuld Pliaert escape
next session. In his opinion, howeoier, there es.
- as no ground
for an inquiry such as had now beep •eaoree
eu for, and if
granted, as a general rule in similar circae•-
eos without
the Member's pledginghimselfhto go on with they'iqry, it
wee a proceeding oppoied.to t 0 spirit of the
most obvious
principles of the constitution.
. Colonel BOYLE said; that as. it had been inaPtited to the
ed th
Reverend Gentlemen who hadsi
thgn.inotieEr'es_Pretest, that they
had been actuated by. unworidy
as he was declare ac-
quaintedi-
with them all, he could
It was *ii3dbelief
pr, that no
such motives had prompted them.
who interested nth -e" true that
there was a party at Fronteua-
particular e_
ereinselves with
the lady patroness to appoint y 1 a„
'''' alan, whom
nd that he were refused, But,
they thought deserving.,
did
t induce any of
although that was so, it not . then,to
sirrn
opularity of the Vicar of ' '
the protest. ' As for.the p
I rome,
se a little infonaut.
he was able to give the Ilaa
not so well aware of the on
the
suct, as it was probably,
,ad.
received
a 'letter tlfle locale
of ..tile place se.he was- e ile:U 2
lead been applied to on tirl aa
attorney of-Freme, who
id he did not believe any
chap a
question, and he there 32
ishoners, but that Cleallgo of
vet the . par
feeling had come o .
n among the most intelligent ex-
isted a decided determination among
al 3ennett and his doctrines, of
them to discouhtenance i
' Churchwarden had resigned- It
stated also that the vicar s.t
was
only
with
the
greatest ' and.
left the church, and that e _
found. :Now, when it was dia.
culty a successor had beenhld have applied to the Bishesail
that the parishionere s o
h well say that they had liPtill
e tale t as
Bath and Wells, 4 a. e
I to- a prelate who had given refuge,to
confidence in an appea
previously. been !refused preferment in the
a curate who had
hen
theyretaembered that thecosts.
diocese of Ripon; and w __
uteceto 12,004, there was C t ' 1
er am y
of the Gorham case furl
to tryethe question a law. lie
not•much encouragement
his acknowledgments to the Member
could not bat express -
'blenad.temperate manner in which,
for Ceekermouth fer the ;lee forward;
and if his lefforts failed
he had brought the subje t
lie would certainly recommend
to procure peace sit Frome, _ . ,*i . t
manteau and be
pack u,p his portmanteau to
the Rev. Mr. Bennett .
e
off.--(Cheers and lauehter.)
that the address had been signed by
Mr. YORKE denied
id ,
said_. by Mr. Cruttwell. -The Hon.
boys and girls, as was tiEtia left the impression upon the
Member for Cockermou
the Matter no at the request of the
'tense that he had taken _
Der.
Bennett had gone to the
parishioners of FrOme• it
nevertheless, assure the House that
mass at Rome, he Could, he was as good a churchman as the Hon. Member himself,
"
or the Bishop of London;-ween he delivered his charge in
1842.
Sirß. HALL said he believed
• ' the Hon. Gentleman was
himself a party to those. RoMaaishig proceedings, and that
. had
he took part in the memorable
procession whirlh th °-
duced such unfortunate results. He maintained prat
most
address s had been obtained in public-
of the eignatieres to the ae.--ea- • • h then d drinking, w 0 and there
houses by pereoies =eking. an
of Mr. ,doctrines bore testimony to' the soandoeS a s he doctrines
Bennett,-(Laughter.) -
.........- _