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

JUNE 9, 1852.

to bring before the House. he had not selected that which
was the most proper and the most appropriate? It was evi-
dence which had been known to Mr. Bennett ; it was, there-
fore, the fairest to that gentleman, and, he thought, the most
satisfactory and conclusive to the House. He came now to
a far more important and serious paint of this subject. He
had done with Mr. Bennett, and now came to the
conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The import-
ance of Mr. Bennett's acts were perfectly insignificant as
compared with the acts of the Bishop. The difference in
station between the nginister 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 (Mr. Hoisman) 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 bad 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 the❑ 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 place 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 more 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 such 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
cause 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, while
Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before he was 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. Oa 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 ➢r. Twiss.
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 tQ 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 proctors. On the 23d they had an oral
opinion from Dr. Twiss (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:r.m. the next day,
at which hour he would arrive at the station and join us.
On hie way from the station to the committee-room he heard
the bells strikenp, and was told that Mr. Bennett had just
been inducted. This 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 Mells, 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
you that on Wednesday, the 21st of January (being the
same day on which the reply of the Bishop of Bath and
Wells to the Rev. H: D. Wickham was received), I went to
London with that gentleman upon the instructions of the coin-
mitteelo 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 the effect that Mr. Bennett's opi-
nions as they appeared by reference to his published works
were decidedly unsound, and tthat the proper course to
stay his institution and induction was to enter a caveat
in the Bishop's Court at Wells. I obtained a form of
the caveat, which was as follows: 'Let nothing be done in
r the(.
.countyD.,
ando
f the matter of the institution ofeth_e Wtifo JE. Bennett,
clerk, to the vicarage of I(r.omB
)Be,
pwrocootdo,r
i
Somerset, unknown to
others, parishioners, inhabA'itants of the said parish of Frome
Selwood, I returned to Frome on Saturday, the 24th, about
one o'clock, and as I entered the town I heard the bells ring-
ing for Mr. Bennett's which I was informed had
just taken place.
written to state the effect
of Dr. Twiss's opinion, haindd purcetvitnu, sly
and to call the committee together,
and, if Mr. Bennett's induction bad not taken place, I should
at once have obtained the sanctionte of the Committee, and
entered the caveat in the afternoon of the 24th of January.
The absence of the Bishop have been no impediment
in the way of entering the caveat, which must, as a matter
of course, have been received by his officer at Wells, and the
effect would have been to stay induction until the proper
proceedings had been taken to decide the question of iltr.
Bennett's orthodoxy.
I ameray dear Sir, very truly yours,
Frome, June 2,
" C
it
" J. Hurd, Esq." C. Cnurrw LL.
He was sure the House would see how far the statement
was correct, that the parishioners of Promo had not been
ready to avail themselves before coming to this Hones
which openof
sßath to them. But they
of every legal remedy
were shut out by the Bishop and Wellse
from that
redress which they might have
obtained if h 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-Genera
lodged, and the Bishop had notwithstanding proceeded to
institute, would not the institution have been void? The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman
(Sir Thesiger) had had
opportunities of enquiring into the whole ci a d
,
rchmstanceof
the case. He had seen the opinion of Dr. Twiss • he must
ohnedfourpmoend
haijinudto greent upon Mr. Bennett's doctrine, and he
assist the house in coming to a conclu-
sion by saying if that caveat
had been lodged, and the
question of Mr. Bennett'sothodoxy had gone to
trial, whether it was probable that he 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 he 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 (Mr. 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 on 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 tat
the three clergymen signing the certificate were known to
him, and that, in his opinion. they would not sign what
they did not believe to be true.—(Bear,) The ousefoormughist
to see that certificate. [An Hon. Member--"` House
The to be found in the books."] Yes, but the House ought to
see this particular certificate.—(Cheers They ought to
London know the names of the three
and certificate.—(Cheers.)
put
their signatures to that document,
they had opportunities of knowing what who testified
tßetnnett twhaast
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 have to request that my counter-signi atg:
to this testimonial may be considered as being limp have
expression of my opinion that the clergymen _
ave testi.
Nv
e
signed it, and who are beneficed in my d
fled to your Lordship that which they verily believe.
nllm,
ievlB,
e.soßmutr.l
think it is my duty to state, that in December,
„_.
giug-
f st. raw Aru
Bennett resigned the perpetual curacy o

bridge, and that I accepted his resignation, because I was of
opinion that the pewee and good order of the Church in my
diocese would be seriously interrupted if he werl to remain
incumbent of that benefice. For the reasons which led me
to form that opinion, I beg leave to refer your Lordship to
a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself which was
published in the Times newspa.er of December 12, 1850.
" I tun wholly without information as to any change which
may have taken place in Mr. Bennett's principles or opi-
nions since his resignation of the cure which he held in my
diocese. " I am,
" Your Lordship's faithful brother and servant,

66 C. J. LONDON.
" The Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of
Bath and Wells."
—(Cheers.) That letter acquitted the Bishop of London of
having been a party either to misleading or deceiving the
Bishop of Bath and Wells.—(Hear, hear.) The bishop gave
his reasons for Mr. Bennett leaving his diocese, and his letter
was the strongest condemnation, remonstrance, and warn-
ing, almost amounting, in fact, to a protest.—(Hear, hear.)
When the Bishop of London spoke of the peace and good
order of his diocese having been interrupted by Mr. Ben-
uett, was not that a warning that the peace and good
order of the diocese of Bath and Wells would also be in-
terrupted if Mr. Bennett were admitted into that diocese?
—(Hear, hear.) But in the teeth of that condemnation and
warning, the Bishop of Bath and Wells proceeded to insti-
tute Mr. Bennett. Rumours had since reached him, which
it was desirable that he should mention, in order that an
opportunity might be given to the parties concerned to ex-
plain them. He had heard, but did not believe, that the letter
he had just read was not the only letter written by the Bishop
of London to the Bishop of Bath and Wells ; and that in a se-
cond letter the former prelate had qualified his objections, and
withdrawn his condemnation of Mr. Bennett. He did not
believe that the Bishop of London would have allowed
that letter to be put into his hands if the Right Rev: Pre-
late o
had,rh
bywi
withdrawn
a Nnthat
subsequent
v
letter
condemnation. ofa
Another different
lified rumour
had reached him regarding the Bishop of Bath and Wells,
which he could not believe. He had heard that this letter
of the Bishop of London was never seen or read by the
Bishop of Bath and Wells; that he received the certificate,
but that he never saw that letter. Now, if the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, knowing that there was such letter, either
declined or refused to open or read it, so far was that from
being a palliation of the course he had taken, that the
House would feel it to be a very great aggravation of the
grievance of which the public had to complaiu.—(Hear,
hear.) He might assume, then, that this statement was
untrue. The words of the canon were:—" No bishop shall
institute any unless, after due examination, he shall appear
worthy of his ministry." What was meant by " due exa-
mination?" Surely the mode and extent of the examination
were not entirely left to the will and discretion of the bishop?
Lord Ellenborough had set this question at rest by a judg-
ment upon this point, which, if the House would permit him,
he would read. Lord Ellenborough said :
"It only requires him first to approve, that is, before he
licenses; and, in so doing, it virtually requires him to exer-
cise his conscience, duly informed upon the subject; to
do which he must duly, impartially, and effectually inquire,
examine, deliberate, and decide. Here the duty of exami-
nation is again pointed out. The bishop is to find out
whether he is learned, capable of teaching, moral, and of a
right understanding in religion; and, therefore, the court
would require of him that he should institute some proper
mode of examination by which the learning, dexterity in
teaching, morals, and the religion of the candidate may be
ascertained. The word of the statute is ' approve,' and
he must exercise that approbation according to his con-
science, upon such means of information as he may obtain ;
and every thing that can properly minister to his conscien-
tious• approbation or disapprobation, and fairly and rea-
sonably induce his conclusion on such a subject, though it
might not be evidence that would be formally admitted in a
court of law, may, I am of opinion, be fitly taken into con-
sideration."
The Bishop of Bath should have addressed himself to the
circumstances alluded to in the letter of the Bishop of
London and the memorial of the parishioners of Frome. To
simplify the matter as much as possible he would refer to
one point in each document. The parishioners directed the
attention of the Bishop to a passage published by Mr. Ben-
nett, in which ha said that " All the ideas of the Bible, and
the dispensing of the Bible, as in itself a means of propaga-
ting- Christianity, are a ction and absurdity." Did the
Bishcp inquire into that? Considering what must be the
feelings of a Protestant community like that of Frome—
considering the feelings of veneration with which they must
regard the sacred volume, a veneration founded on their con-
viction that to a poor man it was the greatest of blessing,
and that the richest man without it was less than the most
miserable of paupers—considering that this was not only the
opinion of the Protestant people of this country, but that we
occupied ourselves in sending the Bible abroad, as the source
of religious truth, to the most distant climes, and that per-
sons were to be found who:cheerfully braved toils, privations,
and even death, in prosecuting this the noblest work in
which man could be engaged—considering all these things,
the parishioners of Frome must have regarded Mr. Bennett's
declaration about the Bible as little less than
blasphemy and profaneness. If the Rev. Gentleman had
entered their cottages, seized their Bibles, and thrown
them into the fire, his act could scarcely have
shocked them more than his words. Should not the Bishop
have said to Mr. Bennett, " Here is a statement shocking to i
Protestant feeling; I must have an explanation of it, and
the explanation must go forth to the world. You have
stated, in your letter to Lord J. Russell, that you are un-
changed and unchangeable; is your opinion on this point
unchanged? for, if so, I should hold myself disgraced as a
Protestant prelate in granting you institution." There was i
strong evidence that the Bishop did not ask this question.
Now for the second point. The Bishop of London, in his
letter to the Bishop of Bath, referred to Mr. Bennett's cor-
respondence with Lord J. Russell, in which Mr. Bennett set
forth his views with regard to the supremacy of the Crown.
This point was of particular importance, because every clergy-
man
on his institution was obliged to take an oath regarding i
the supremacy of the Crown in spiritual and ecclesiastical
matters. After the decision in the Gorham case a movement'
took place amongst a large portion of the clergy of the Church,
about 2,000 of them signed a protest, setting forth that they:
had all taken the oath to maintain the Queen's supremacy.
in a peculiar sense.—(Hear, hear.) Among the persons
who signed this document were Archdeacon Manning, who'
had since joined the Church of Rome, and Isaac Wilber-
force, archdeacon, and Hodge Mill, Regius Professor of
Hebrew at Cambridge, who still held preferment in the
Church of England. Mr. Bennett said, that, having taken,
the oath in favour of the Queen's supremacy, he became
uneasy in his conscience after the decision in the Gorham
case; that he consulted a barrister as to whether he was
bound by the oath to obey such an exercise of the Queen's,
supremacy as had taken place in the Gorham case, and thn
barrister informed him that he was bound to do so, becaus
the oath must be taken in the sense in which it was my
tended by the person imposing it, and not according to the
interpretation which it might suit the convenience of the
party taking it subsequently to put upon it. Mr. Bennett
did not resign his living to satisfy his scruples of conscience,
but contented himself with sigaing the protest. Shortly
after arose the controversy with the Bishop of London, and
then he resigned his living. In the course of the same
year he presented himself for institution to the vicarage
of Frome, and the oath in favour of the supremacy
of the Crown must again be taken. Ought not the
Bishop of Bath to have .taken notice of Mr. Bennett's
recorded opinion on the 'subject of the oath? Should
it not have been a part of the " due examination" required
from the Bishop to have asked Mr. Bennett whether he subs
scribed the oath in the sense in which the law imposed it, op
with some mental reservation or qualification? h was not
sufficient to say that the Bishop privately examined M.
Bennett, and was satisfied with what took place. The obl-
ject of the examination was to satisfy the Church at law,
and especially that portion of it over which Mr. Bennett was
to be set. The scandal was notorious; its removal should
have been notorious also. If Mr. Bennett's opinions had un-
dergone a change, the fact should not have been communi-
cated to the Bishop alone; it should have been made knowin
also to Mr. Bennett's parishioners. It was to be regretted
that the Bishop in this matter, instead of appearing in the
dignified chafacter of an impartial judge, had exhibited him-
self in that which in that House was held to be the most
objectionable, it might almost be said,odious of characteis,
namely, that of a partisan. It appeared to him that he had
established the three propositions with which he had set ont.
Hooker pointed, in the following passages, to the evils likely
to result from such a malversation of office on the part ofs a
high ecclesiastical dignitary as that with which the Biship
of Bath was chargeable :
"If now, there arise any matter of -grievance betw4n
the pastor and the people that are under him, they hate
their ordinary, a judge indifferent; to determine their causes
and to end their strife. But in case there were no such
to sit and to hear both, what would then be
the
p
end of their quarrels? . . . But the hurt iardore
by
ma
fu,stly seen which doth grow to the church of
ots
inrdhaeirnentwihnentheitrh.esyeveinrastlitauctetionn
bends, and rooms
they bestow church livings (benefices,
they
p
es ,g
nags.
awm
yh when
when
ny ccaorretlneps
corruptly
whenintent thtoydoViregsiot-df)o in
,r
when their
sake
erasptheceiraitlyhan with
forurialleircitoiouns,
courts, erectedthfoery gattheemrd not
tntahne gycceleorfgononddeorrdthere,ma,rewhe;
dis-
ordered, when
neither clergy nor laity are kept in that awe for which 'this
authority should serve, when anything appeareth in them
rather than a fatherly affection towards the flock of Christ,
when they have no respect to posterity, and, finally, when
they neglect the true and requisite means whereby their au-
thority should be upheld. Surely the hurt which groweth
oat of these defects must needs be exceeding great."
The hurt was exceedingly great in the instance which 'he
had brought under the notice of the House, and was it sviy
answer to be told, as ho was a few nights ago, that Mr.
Bennett had already won, to a great extent, the confidence
of the parishioners of !come? The House had been informed
that 1,200 of the pariehipners of Frome had signed a memo-
rial stating that they were satisfied with the soundness of
Mr. Bennett's doctrines. Admit, for the sake of argument,
the truth of the alleged popularity of Mr. Bennett at
Frome,
'nvaievfrryeirsendadilffal
he drewawt ah
mai f eßree
thatnn, cage:
tnftrtoiwematasai it
ti
yer
disliked,
arrived.nt f r o m the
thatHa d einotonbcoe neu
assioind atht
went near him, and that the mischiefwould be shortliVed,
it might perhaps be expedient to let
_the matter rest, but the
case was different when it
Might be said, " Mr. Bennett
may be a Roman Catholic, but he
is very popular—he may
be a Jesuit, but he is very attractive—it may be true that
he said what is alleged about the Bible, but he is convert-
ing all the parishioners of From e " Under such
u hcircum-
stances the popularity of Mr. Bennett would only be the
fulfilment of the worst forebodings of those who objected
to his appointment.—(Hear, hear.) The question now
to be determined was what was to be done.. The Govern-
ment admitted that the case was one of which it was im-
possible to exaggerate the importance. It was admitted on
all sides that it could not rest where it was. Inquiry 'was
declared to be not only essential but inevitable. How Was
the inquiry to be pursued? The House could not proceed
by
y
resolution, because the facts were disputed. He eformerly
a proposed there should be an inquiry by
means of
commis-
sion, but he foresaw the objections which w
ould be urged
against that course, although he suggested it in deference to
the wishes of his friends, who desired that
all other modes
of investigation should be tried
before the Hoursof Com-
mons was called upon to undertake the inquiry. Inquiry by
a Commission being rejected, he now called upon the House
to undertake the task.
He did not admit, however, that
the adoption of the motion
would
proposed by him for an
address to the Crown
Id have been altogether futile. In
that case the Crown would leave applied to its Ministers for
_he
Ministers
would have made
advice.—(Hear, hear.) T
in-
quiry by a "
investigation, and if they found that
the requisite
misiion was impracticable, they would
advise her Majestynot to return a
so that
to that address, the question would still
have to be settled in that House. On the other
band, if the Ministers at once advised her Majesty to return
a favourable answer, and to institute an inquiry, and they
were stopped at the outset by the announcement that no
inquiries would be
g-ven on their, interrogatories, that again
would have brought the matter before the House, and it
would have been their duty to consider how to retrieve the
false step which her Majesty's Ministers had taken.—(Hear,
hear.) They had been told by the Ministers that inquiry 4: a Commission was impossible, so that the inquiry must be
instituted by Parliament, or not at all. Now, what really
was the objection to inquiry by a Committee of that House?
It way ttn, inquiry iat9 A pstiicular exercise Qt. the 00; a

patronage, and as to the mode in which a Bishop had chosen
to exercise his authority. They were every day legislating"
on ecclesiastical affairs. There were several Church Bills
at that moment oa the order-book, and there had not been a
week during the present session in which they had not been
considering something or other respecting the Established
Church.---(Hear, hear.) It was not only necessary, but
inevitable that such should be the case. It was one of th
conditions of the Established Church that Parliament,
which created that Church, should be able to consider,
its affairs, and correct what was wrong.—(Hear, hear.)•
If there were abuses they ought to be removed, if there were
scandals they ought to be inquired into, if there were grief
ances they ought to be redressed:—(.Hear;hem;)—Thersrerers
told, however, that tuy ought not to 'takecognizance of
Church affairs because the House of Commons was not now
composed exclusively of members of the Established Church.
But why was the House not composed wholly of members of
the Established Church ? Because the • nation of England
was not composed entirely of members of the Established
Church; and if they said that the House of Commons, as
representing the nation, was so far dissevered from its E9'
tablished Church that it ought not to have direct cognizance
of its affairs, then, a fortiori, the nation must be so far sePs"
rated from the Established Church that they ought nottto
have an Established Church at all.—(Hear, hear.) That
was the legal and inevitable result of the argument, u
pressed home; but he held, on the other band, that the
Established Church was the creation of Parliament—that
it existed by the breath of Parliament, and was subject to
its jurisdiction, and there was no duty of Parliament 8o
obvious, no responsibility so undeniable, as that when it
had established a church for the teaching of one religion, It
should nu ;t be made subservient to the interests of another
—that it should not allow a minister of that.. Church to
become the secret agent of another.-(Hear hear.) The
people of England having had the present question seism's
would most assuredly like to see that Parliament was earnest
upon it. He believed that she inquiry need not be one ii-
long duration—that the witnesses would be very few, and
that the whole examination need not last more than awned
or ten days. The facts of the case were indeea few and
simple. Here was a clergyman, the incumbent of Dt*
Paul's, Knightbridge, whose ministrations were carried 00
in such a manner, and acquired such notoriety, that the ser-
vices were interrupted by mobs and riots.—(Hear, heart)
Virtually ejected by his diocesan, he published a letter, 01
which he told his diocesan that he found himself in a fall
position in the Church of England. He went abroad, ancl,7/
was stated that his attendance on a Roman Catholic place "
worship was so notorious, that he was openly claimed ie their
publications as a convert to their faith, and in full comma"
nion with their Church. It was stated that during the
whole time he was at Kissingen he was never near a Pre:,
testant Church, and an habitual attender at a Row'
Catholic Church. This statement was brought before gun
in a friendly manner by a brother clergyman, and Isr
received by him in such a way as to confirm its tow'
The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, rut
morialised the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and gave extra,..„o'
from his published works. The condemnation of ; .
,
u
former diocesan was again virtually recorded. The fact War
brought before the Bishop that he denied the supremacled
the Crown, and that he took the oaths in a eat?
sense. All these things were brought before the Bishop'
but without the inquiry required by law, witnout the propel
certificate, he not only instituted him, but did so in such
manner as to shut out the parishioners from the only
bunal established by law before which they could have re'
e
dress.—(Hear.) For all this they were told there was to
no redress, because a Commission of Inquiry would not ben
fectual, and because there were some gentlemen who Alente
to pursuing such an inquiry by a Parliamentary ,
Why, they had had hundreds of Commissions with no mod
authority than would have existed in the present case, an;
though the inquiries had often been exceedingly unpalitacsr.,
to those to whom they were addressed, much valuable in
a,
mation had nevertheless been acquired, while in not one rut
had the inquiries of the Commissioners been evaded. -",,4
now they were told, for the first time, that a Commissions%
not to be instituted because answers to the inquiries WOI/...'"
not be got. That was no doubt a well-advised anntiOnL,
ment, and had not been made except on good grounds. PI;
ting apart the circumstances of this case, he would lave
thought that such an answer could not have been given by
the prelates of the Established Church.—(Hear,
There was not in the country another body by whom an
quiry issued in the Queen's name would not have beeu;;;,
spected.—(Hear, hear.) There was no class of her a`43eo"
jesty's subjects who, if a Commission of Inquiry had it
issued, would not have hastened to meet its wishes; ,v".,0
knock at the door of the peer or the cottager it woud la'
' been respected, because it was issued in the Queen's 112614'
' and he should have thought that the prelates of the .„
Wished Church would have been among the first to resPi;a
the authority of the law, • ,and show their • loyalty
acknowledging the Commission of the Queen.—(itlis
hear.) They might have been expected to recog':,..
the principle on which their Sovereign had set the tie
ample, that the more exalted the rank the greater ,
responsibility, that great power and great privilege;
were to be held for public purposes, and not
secrated for selfish ends.—(hear, hear.) The responsib
connected with this case now rested with Parliament at),
and, whatever might be the ground on which they ace' it
whether it affected the sincerity of their faith, whetiao af
imvolved the supremacy of the Crown, or thejurisdictio. _ 0
Parliament, it was a serious responsibility. It would beat
very unfortunate and very fatal event if Parliameat on gat
occasion were by a majority to refuse the inquiry this
every one admitted ought to be instituted. A nittlerlras
such a case would only show 'how fatal and how dog's:l ab
a majority was when opposed to truth. A majority iu
a case could not influence public opinion; a majority web,
not acquit Mr. Bennett or the Bishop of Bath and fa the
but a majority could disappoint public expectation, 11;d nolf
public reprobation diverted from other parties vr°44loo,
point the finger of scorn at the House of Commons.
hear.) - It would tell them that their Church was a nlyntity
that their Protestantism was a pretence, that their joy
was to
was a sham ; and it would tell them that, in endeavouringtut
screen individual delinquents, they were perpetuatnif gnd de'
powers, but that they were degrading Parlia.,,rrness- bar then
ins t r3ovye g
for tah e
SelectC l 'u r
Committeecla.—( llear
into tajew. Ben.
)to Tinhetioilitoon,
stances connected with the institution of the Rev.
nett to the vicarage of Frome.
A short pause took place, followed by loavide !" circura-
d cries of "

MR. F. O'CONNOR.
Mr. GLADSTONE rose to address the House, When
was interrupted by Of
Sir B. HALL, who said-I wish to refer do a questioolie
order. lam sorry to call the attention of the House te,L,
conduct of the Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. OVeO
nor), but I feel it my duty to do so.-(Loud „t
llear•") While I was this moment calling " P"
seeing any Member rise to address the House. the °reel
Member turned round on me and struck me in the side- en
laugh)-and severely hurt me. I told the Hwi. Gentle° .5
an• in 01
on a former occasion that if he addressed me e
House, or subjected me to any annoyance, I shout
your attention, Sir, to the subject, and put myself Nue
your protection, which I now do.-[During the taT6o°rinor
pied by the Hon. Baronet in his statement, iefr. F-
it° adding
indulged in a series of bows and smiles, eeenttia4 der
his mite to the hilarity so generally occasioned by the r
ence to the immediate cause of the complaint.]
The SPEAKER-The Hon. Member for Nottinghanisil
been so long a Member of this House that it is ulineeevs, the
to remind him that it is against the rules and orders
.1
House for one Member to interrupt or annoy another int!'-`,,t
course of the proceedings. lam sorry to say, howevert.i.ref
the Hon. Member for Nottingham is in the constant habit It
violating those rules and orders-(Hear)-and nove.l;:i
him that if he persists in that course it will be my paotr
duty to call the attention of the House to the Hon. bleio
"n,
by his name, and it will then be for the House to take so:
ulterior steps as will prevent any such misconduct in futuorft
Mr. V. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the
Opposition bench, close to the table, and who, during
th
Speaker's short address, had been loudly vociferati
"Order, order," then rose, and spoke in a rambling and I,oe
coherent manner. He said-I did not do anything to tP".
Hon. Baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did
do anything whatever. He is my greatest enemy.-(Order'
order.) He was one of the members ot the land‘_ committe;
that sat five years ago.-(" Chair, chair.") Member
the Government was then chairman of that Committee, an's
it was composed of id members. I built houses and cottagei
-(Order, order)-but the ruffiansphe members of thelsi;,e
society) paid no rent.- (" Order, and cries of " Chaired
Though in dye years they got as much manure as would
this room. [This idea seemed particularly to affect the gen.
Gentleman, for the allusion caused him to weep.] There'
talked about soup.-(Renewed cries of "Chair.") Membe-5
paid 601. or 1501., and they were located, but the ruiliaub
paid no rent.-(" Chair.") One day a farmer came 11P-We'-;tut
a redcap on, and a hatchet in his hand, and was going to
my head off--
The SPEAKER said-I must now call upon the 0
111,
Member by name. Mr. O'Connor--(A
pause) If the „no
Member has any apology to make to the llouse, now is
I time to do so.
Mr. O'CONNOR-
I make an apology to the 11e0t,..0
beg the Hon. Member's pardon for anything I did to hiee,46
(Hear, hear.) You are the best Speaker that ever sat in
chair.-(" Order !" and a laugh.)
The matter then dro d -
Mr. GLADSTONEwens
hopede tahnetlattention of the House ecee
not be diverted from the important subject by the Beri,is
which had just occurred. He would commence his rem-the
by expressing his regret at being called upon to follow bite
had it intimated ta
ie
sl Hon. Gentleman without first having
what course her Majesty's Government intended to Pu.riteet
For although he was personally acquainted with the On
eted
individual, the object of the Lion. Gentleman's charge: yet
had made it his study to inform himself on the subiecl'hicli
after all this was mainly a legal question, a questioor ;40
could not be discussed or decided without the alVestioo
of legal knowledge and legal authority. It was all ers of
on which lie had hoped Government and the law ""co the
the Crown would have stated the view they took etl bed
distinct legal issue which had not unfairly, but witotle
broadly and visibly, been raised by the Honourable
man, and would, on their authority and resp°° pet,
offer advice to the House as to the course they she° oteoti
sue. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the ritl, th
as a legal question, and he could not help wi'"'"„yehst
Honoureele Gentleman had confined himself with eernse
the
greater strictness to the legal view. It appeared th't t to
Honourable Gentleman, who declared his only objeed his
be to attain truth, and to show truth, bad all°sLeeeife3
rhetorical powers and warmth of feeling to mix theL"-ea Do
with his statement of the alleged facts of the case, 9-5 to
had done this with an ability which might
the House, unless wholesome efforts
them back from the warmth infused into the case, 50"
duce them to consider they were only discussing 3 „de
were b e
:fa gt et!
50d to
For
question on the strict and dry view of its merits. Ho vole
ctir
not dwell on the various parts of the Hon. Member's oPetwo
but he must beg leave to call attention to one oye_oo
points. The Honourable Member said, unless the tture,
agreed to his motion, their Protestantism would be a Pteo
tence and their loyalty a sham. That issue wgign tb°
strong.-(Hear, hear.) The llouse had a discretion trio.
patter; they had a right to test the statments of the_'-'l3,
A:ember to see if those statements were borne out
o
whether he was consistent in his doctrine, or whether ~id
part of his doctrine was not overturned by what was d 0
down in the speech. This the House was entitled tO
tbe
without the fear that the people would consider that jep,
loyalty of that house was a sham if they refused to a_
magnifyingift,
the Honourable Member's views. He would just give
stance of the Honourable Member's magnifying i
speech. The Honourabie Gentleman said the objecting
ureble
Commission had been made by the Right Hon()
Gentleman on the ground that no power would be thl-q,'",
conferred to obtain answers to questions. On that basis `,,th
Hon. Gentleman built the inferene• that the Bishop oNt
eiorrog
and Wells had declared he intended to refuse 5005:80eed
questions, and then, with the same ingenuity. he Pr saying
to extend the refusal to the whole bench of Bishons. e'y
'e the
that no other class of her Majesty's sutjects Noel ee 000.
same. On that foundation, and no other, had
isceP°l
Gentleman built his tirade against the whole l_body,
bench. He was not the man to defend bishops 0r u?, that
netice
else when they did not do their duty. But he did 133. Y '
bishops, like any other persons, were entitled to jar. yap.
some decency of treatment.-(" Hear, hear," from decency
man.) He did not think that they had got thate,
nenteer.--
treatment at the hands of the Hon. and Lean] 'le, uuettle!
(Aar, hear.) He had heard the Hon. wad Luse

•