The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-22 00:00:00

T URS ?.3A It

The Hack Stakczs of 1 sor. each,
Scaruno, 95t lib; with 5 added, one
The Hurdle
in in !l4 ep,
Prudence,
nwooQn, iini
sttwsolh; heatsTh be yRCO
se,rietro,,
list
t(sLlobw;e)fireua-
s t ,
jaktei (al Little
se,
,Pv:).L vera,cl.ll,l list lib.
miles; over five hurdles (9 Subs ); was won easily by
li'Dl.o added, two
Mr. Laud's Prospect, aged (151.), (J. Ablett), boating
Cigar, Brunette, Thoßoarer, Klaiber, and Banker.
The Beaten Randicap IVOI won by Good-for-Nothing,
lOst 101 b, beating
Hamm Scarum, 10/t, Salop, list, and

ASCOT HEATH, 1852 •
Nominations for the Fernhill Stakes.
Duke of Itichialond'a Stella, 2 yrs—Sir R. Pigot,'s
Jack the Gisntkiller, 2
yrs—Mr. E. Batson's Kandidja,
3 yrs—Mr. Yarworth's Hoppicker, 3 yrs—Lord Exeter's
mMoonudn:sa
Harbinger,i n l l o.r, r, 3 yrs—Mr. Howard's Vnultress, 2 yrs
—Mr' E. R. Clark's PI umstend, 3 yrs—Duke of Rich-
yrs— r. a
3 yrs.
1 Nominations for the Emperor of Russia's Plate.
Kiugotee,3 yrs—lndian Warrior, 3 yrs—Little Harry,
yrs—Teddington, 4 yrs—Russborougb, 5
3 yrs—Ring of oath., 5 yrs—Bobbie Noble, 3 yrs—
's Peppermint,
Woolwich, Ambrose, 3
6 yrs —Alfred tin:Gres:l, 31f°yrras—
geur, 5 yrs— 3 yrs—Mountain '
His Grace, 3 yrs—Sally,
Deer, 4 yrs—joe Miller, 3 yrs—Grey Tommy, 3 yrs—
Orr 3 yrs—Pitsford, 5 yrs—Racbete, 3 yrs—Ring-
leader, 4 yrs-131uck Doctor, 5 yrs—Stilton, 3 yrs —Nut-
yrs—Vol ti-
shPli, 5 Yrs—Tornboy, 5 yrs.
NE WMARKET SECOND SPRING MEETING, 1852.
Handicap for the Suffolk Stakes of 15 sots. each, 5 ft, if
Tommy, 3 yrs, 7st 121b—Harbinger, 3
declared on Tuesday next.
Hernandez, 4 yrs, pat—Officious, 5 yrs, Bst 121 b
Nutshell, 7 yrs, Bst 21b—Dulcet, aged, 7ot 131b—Grey
Flirt,3 yrs, 7st 81b—Knook Knoll, 4 yrs, 73t alb—St.
yrs, 6st 51b—Greengage,
Antonio, aged, 7At 31b—Frantic, 3 yrs, let 3lb-I:Louis-
yrs, 7st 81b—
kin, 3 yrs, 7st 21b—Midas, 4 yrs, 7st 21b—Tophana,
aged, 6
10 121b—Patriot, aged, Est 101b—Gay Lass, 4
yrs, 6st 6—Poodle, 3 yrs, 6st 81b—Gr D
and uchess, 3
69t 21e—Young Hawthorn,
yrs, sst 3 rs, sst 121b—Hampton, 3
yrs, 59t 101b—Maria, 3 YBlb—Hugo, 3 yrs,
sst 81b. 3 yrs, 6st 41b—Suttler, 3 yrs,

IT

SPIR_ of the
PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
TIMES.—.No one
can rise from a perusal of the
debate on Mr. Ilorsm
-suis motion for a commission of
inquiry into the case of the Rev. Mr. Bennett with-
out a feeling of painful interest, and something like a
conviction that we are unprovided with the machinery
integrity of the doctrine and
teaching of the Church of England. We have ar-
ticles, symbols, and canons, and, assuredly, are not
unprovided with ecclesiastical courts, whose numbers
are counted by hundreds.
required to preserve the
We have an episcopal form
of Government, and a Legislature, the great majority
of which is composed of members of the national
safeguards Church, yet all theseP
would appear to be
insufficient to preserve the purity of the faith and to
prevent the occupation of the high
places and the
appropriation of the revenues of the Church by pc-r-
-ef:MS holding those very doctrines which she is most
anxious to oppose. The statement of Mr. Horsman
produced, as it was well calculated to do, a great
impression on
shoved by proofthe House
s, whose cogency hardly admits of
refutation, that a clergyman of Commons, for it
holding almost every
Rome, and those in a
exaggerated than sincere Roman
after his tendencies have
Catholics
form
doctrineoliem s
mare
eh
themselves,
the e
lves,
d Churche
light,
o, f
be transferred from one
compensated for episcopal cep-
sure honour, patronage', and preferment
d beenw diocese
is fully 'u
ltl o
they another,b
first
rrosutgh by t
at o
n
in the second. It snowed, also, a lamentable want of
uniformity and consistency in the governors of the
Church, and seemed to threaten the teaching with im-
punity of as many different creeds as the country has
been divided into dioceses. We are not disposed to
underrate the grave nature of these apprehensions, nor
'le dCurcnhYth is
that
theprevalence of dissent without
the an evil of less magnitude than
anarchy within. Still there is one consideration
which may naturally tend to allay these feelings, and
that is, that the promotion of Mr. Bennett to the
living of Frome could never have occurred without
very grave and serious misconduct on the part of
almost every one in any way connected with the trans-
action. In a bank, or any other mercantile establish-
ment, no check which human ingenuity can devise is
so perfect that it cannot be defeated or rendered nu-
gatory by a conspiracy among all the persons to whom
its working is intrusted. If, then, we find that
it required a dereliction of duty on the part of no
less than six persons to enable Mr. Bennett to abuse
and personate the character of a clergyman of
the Protestant Church of England, as he has un-
doubtedly done, we may fairly conclude that, how-
ever deficient our ecclesiastical law may be in pro-
viding remedies, it has been by no means barren in
precautions. In the first place, the law required the
certificate of no less than three clergymen to a state-
ment which they must have known to be untrue ; for
how could they certify that Mr. Bennett had " held,
written, or thought nothing against the doctrine or
discipline of the Church of England," when they
knew that he had been compelled to resign his living
for a wilful breach of discipline, which, although ad-
monished, he refused to correct, and answered for his
conduct during his residence at Kissingen, which
they either did not take the trouble to ascertain, or,
if they did, wilfully misrepresented ! But the authors
of the Canons contemplated apparently the possibility
that clergymen might be found to !sign a false
certificate of character, and therefore devised a check
by requiring the signature of the bishop whose
diocese the clergyman was leaving, to authenticate
his " honesty and ability, and his conformity to the
ecclesialtical laws of the Church of England." This
signature the Bishop of London, we are informed, re-
fused to give, and in so doing discharged his duty with
consistency and propriety. We wish we could find any
ground which would justify our expressing similar
opinion with reference to the conduct of the Bishop of
Bath and Wells. Something may fairly be conceded to
infirm health, but it is impossible to separate the exer-
cise of an important office from the responsibility it in-
volves. The Bishop of Bath and Wells knew that Mr.
Bennett did not bring with him the recommendation
from his former bishop which the Canons require, and be
knew that recommendation could not be given, because
Mr. Bennett had been virtually dismissed from his
former benefice for unfaithfulness to the Church and
unwillingness to comply with ecclesiastical discipline.
He knew that he was most distasteful to the pa-
rishioners at Frome, and was furnished with extracts
from his published writings which might well have
startled the conscience of any Protestant Bishop ; and in
a case so notorious he might, and doubtless could, have '
ascertained in what manner Mr. Bennett's time had
been spent during his continental tour. To him was
intrusted the , duty of asserting the dignity of the
episcopal order by paying to the d.cision of the
Bishop of London- that respectful consideration which
one court of competent jurisdiction usually shows to the
judgments of another. He was interposed by the law to moderate the elitist. sof private patronage and protect the , parishionersdo
rfels'ruoii:nii;gfriorincmthtehespicirtirtuusailimirjcupo n nd te
of
I injury a
a clergyman is wham they could not, and ought not, to
have confidence, and whose ministry they were bound
them -
p
to reject. Never did more important duties combine to
point out the proper line of action. Never was a
Christian bishop called upon for an exercise of firmness
and justice in a case more clear and more urgent. It is
needless to say how these duties were met and dis-
charged, or how completely the cause of the patroness
triumphed over that of the, people and the Church.
Anoth
blame i person whom it is impossible to acquit
of s the
it that the law, bads Patroness herself. We take
t 3' making an advowson private
property, d
tiesid not mean to release the owner from
hose du which the nature of the property im-
plies, and we are quite sure that if it meant this
it could not do so. There is a trust which it is the
duty of the bishop to see enforced, but which if ho
neglect his duty loses none of its binding obligation, to
exercise the awful responsibility of appointing the per-
son to whose care the souls of thousands of poor and
ignorant persons are committed, with a careful reference
not only to the opinions of the patron but to the interests
of the flock. Granting that the religious opinions of
the patroness coincide with those of her presentee, she
was bound to think not merely of herself, but of those
for whom she was acting, and to avoid as much as in
her lay the danger of schism and disunion, which an
appointment like that of Mr. Bennett was sure to pro-
duce. But what shall we say of Mr. Bennett him-
self? Belonging as he undoubtedly does in spirit
and feeling to one Church, how
comes he to be the
recipient of the patronage and emoluments of
another ? How can a clergyman who pas: - -
his time in the society of Roman Catholic priests,
who frequents their places of worship in preference
and to the exclusion of those of the Church to which
he nominally and occasionally conforms, undertake the
care of a Protestant congregation, subscribe Protestant
Articles, or submit
conductto te rule of a Protestant episco-
pate? Such prehsuppe,es
a moral obliquity
which we trust is rare, and
which the reoent secession of
so many clergymen' holdingat
similar opinions, to the
Church of Rome shows
It any rate not to be universally
theta.
connected with ththerefore appears that,without
grave misconduct on the part
bisho of the patroness, the there-
commending clergy, Ps and the incumbent, the
present scandal could
~
one not havec r taken place, and that it
is not by the default 0t
two persons that it can
be repeated. This is somecomfort, and we trust that
the friendly inquiry which we are promised may end in
the suggestion of ' some course 'which may do reason to
feelings of the i the justly irritated.
if it cannot restore that confidence in the discretion of
and
the bishop and the sincerity orthodoxy of the in-
cumbent which the presentexposure has done so much
prevent the recurrence of a similar evil.
to destroy, may
..,., .
DAILY NEWS.—In suffering a numerical defeat on
his motion for a public inqutfrey intoc the circumstances
attending the institution of the Rev. J. W. Bennett to
the benefice of Frome success. *
For,
ll orsman has
substantially gained inof
them averting
s e
.
another Cabinet Ministers (tw
public inquiry, three
with (two
and
the full cretaries of State)
have
e House of undertaken,C
entire approbation of the
theomm one, to substi-
tute a friendly inveva-
that, assuming Chancellor of thea
Exchequer has admitted the facts to b
no remedy for the
law t o afford
as represented and thetii tt
on a Protestant cures pries
intrusion of a semi-101123 Provide one. And what are
of souls, legislation Inns!
.1 P 1843
oho Bishop of London,
the facts of the case? o_
iv inenett held opinions and had
though warned that sar.
~„
__,.._
_. ,
published doctrines morV'in'uf:aa" and tsernicions. tn..n
any contained in the " Tracts for the Times," instituted