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

EVENT a.

JUNt 91 1852.

to bring before the House, he had not selected that which
was the most proper and the most appropriate? It was evi-
deuce which had been known to Mr. Bennett; it was, there-
fore. the fairest to that gentleman, and, he thought, the most
satisfactory and conclusive to the House. He came now to
a far more important and serious point 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 minister and the prelate was nothing as
compared with the difference of the effects which might fol.
low from the acts of a man who acted only in his individual
capacity, and another gifted with power and authority, and
whose example spread so far beyond himself.—(Hear, hear.)
On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker
which he would take the liberty of quoting
" The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach
not far, they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps,
by such as dwell at the next door; whereas men of more
ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives
are viewed afar off—so that the more there are which observe
aloof what they do,ithe greater glory by their well-doing they
purchase, both unto God whom they serve, and to the State
wherein they live."
He (Mr. Horsman) felt that he had spoken, when he last
addressed the House, under a due sense of all the respon-
sibility which attached to the task he had taken. Some
weeks had elapsed since then, and, if his statements had
been rash and hasty, he had had ample time to reconsider
and modify them, while, if they had been incorrect, ample
opportunity had been afforded for repudiating them. After,
however, all possible consideration and reconsideration, he
was bound to say that the opinion he then stated had been
very much strengthened, and whatever he then thought as
to the acts of the Bishop of Bath and Wells as deserving of
censure, fell short of the truth, even more as regarded the
Bishop than as regarded Mr. Bennett. The Bishop of Bath
and Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett in the first 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 whoknew 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
Frame, 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
into
the they meant to ask his Lordship to make inquiry
the truth of what they alleged. They made this statement
on the 7th of January; on the 15th they received the reply
of the Bishop declining to accede to their prayer, and stating
that he should proceed with the institution. On the very
same day they-wrote to him again, praying him to give them
14 days' delay to consider whether it might be their duty to
take any further steps in the matter. They received his
answer on the 21st of January, and that very day they sent
their solicitor to London to take the opinion of Dr. Miss.
Their solicitor returned on the 23d, and they then
learned, for the first time, the means within their power
for delaying institution. They received this opinion on
the 23d, and a caveat was prepared on the 24th; but before
that the Bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett.—(Hear, hear.)
These proceedings were of so very extraordinary a character
that he (Mr. Horsman) had really felt at first that they
were hardly to be believed. He had, however, received
the following statement, in confirmation, from Mr. Hurd, of
Frome

"Frome, June 2, 1852.
" I will take up the subject on Thursday, January 15, on
which day we wrote to the Bishop at Brighton, praying that
he would delay institution for fourteen days. On the 19th
he dates his civil reply, which we received on Wednesday,
the 21st ; and, by the very next train, on the same day, we
sent Mr. Cruttwell and the Rev. Hill Dawse Wickham to
London, to consult 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:P.m. the next day,
at which hour he would arrive at the station and join us.
On his way from the station to the committee-room he heard
the bells strike up, and was told that Mr. Bennett had just
been inducted. 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 Frame Church, and
was inducted the same morning by the Rev. Mr. Blackwell,
curate of Melts, near Frome. The Rev. W. Calvert, curate
of Frome (for four years), and then residing at the vicarage-
house, declined being present at the induction."
He (Mr. Horsman) had wished to know whether these facts
were confirmed by Mr. Cruttwell, and he had received a
statement from that gentleman, which, though it travelled
over somewhat the same ground, so extraordinary and in-
credible was the whole proceeding, he would read to the
House :
"My dear Sir,—ln answer to your inquiry, I beg to inform
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 com-
mittee to take Dr. Twiss's opinion. It was not until the after-
noon of the 23d that we succeeded in obtaining the verbal
opinion of Dr. Twiss, to the effect that Mr. Bennett's opi-
nions as they appeared by reference to his published works
were decidedly unsound, and that 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
the matter of the institution of the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett,
clerk, to the vicarage of Frome Selwood, in the county of
Somerset, unknown to (A. B), proctor for (C. D.), and
others, parishioners, inhabitants 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 induction, which I was informed had
just taken place. I had previously written to state the effect
of Dr. Twiss's opinion, and to call the committee toghouldether,
and, if Mr. Bennett's induction had not taken place, I s
at once have obtained the sanction of the Committee, and
entered the caveat in the afternoonu__ of the 24th of January.
The absence of the Bishop wold have been no impediment
P oifileheer at Wells must, as a matter
in the way of entering the caveat,wi
of course, have been received by h
, and the
effect would have been to stay induction until the proper
proceedings had been taken to decide the question of Mr.
Bennett's orthodoxy.
I am. my dear Sir, very truly
yours,
" Frome, June 2, C. Caurrwaan.
" J. Hurd, Esq."
the House would see how
He was surefar the statement
was correct, that the parishioners of Frome had
avail themselves before c • not been
ready to ava coming to this Heim
of every legal remedy which was open to them. But they
were shut out by the Bishop of Bath and Wells fromredress which they might have obtained if he hadthat
that moderate and decent delay for which they giventi-
tioned. All the evidence relative to Mr Bennett's
Pe
pro-
ceeding, at Kissinger might then have been produced. As
it was said the parishioners of Frome had not availed them-
selves of every chance of legal redress, he wished to ask two
questions of the Attorney-General. If
qu the caveat had been
lodged, and the Bishop had notwithstanding proceeded to
institute, would not the institution have been void? The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had had
opportunities of enquiring into the whole • circumstances of
the case. He had seen the opinion of Dr. Twins; he must
have formed a judgment upon Mr. Bennett' doctrine, and he
called upon him to assist the House
in coming to a conclu-
sion by saying if that caveat
had been lodged, and the
question of Mr. Bennett's oth d o oxy had gone to
trial, whether it was rb b
p o a le 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 b
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. Horsrnan) 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. lie 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 ape ended
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. lie was told, and he believed, that al-
though the Bishop signed:the certificate, yet that in reality
the Bishop9s signature was only understood to attest that
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 House ought
to see that certificate. [An Hon. Member—" The form is
to be found in the books."] Yes, but the II ouse ought to
see this particular certificate.—(Cheers.) They ought to
know the names of the three London clergymen who put
their signatures to that document, and
who testified that
they had opportunities of kn •
6 owino• what Mr. Bennett was
doing at Kissinger and other 1 p aces.—(Hear.) He had a
copy of the letter of the Bishop of London to the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, which sh
that the sense in which
h._(, showed that the former took care
understood. This letter w'assignedthe certificate should be
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 p. 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-signature
to this testimonial may be considered as being simply the
expression of my opinion that the clergymen who have
signed it, and who are beneficed in my diocese, have testi-
fied to your Lordship that which they verily believe. But I
think it is my duty to state, that in December, 18. A N
r.
Bennett resigned the perpetual curacyof St. Paul s, li.nigntfis

bridge, and that I accepted his resignation, because I was of
opinion that the peace and good order of the Church in my
diocese would be seriously interrupted if ho were 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 newspaper of December 12, 1850.
" I am 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 lee held in my
diocese.
" I am,
"Your Lordship's faithful brother and servant,
J.
" The Hon. and Right Rev, the Lord Bishop
ofLonnotr.
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-
nett, 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 had, by a subsequent letter of a different character, qua-
lified or withdrawn that condemnation. Another 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 complain.—(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 road. 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 he 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 fiction and absurdity." Did the
Bishop 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 lees 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 tending 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
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
strong evidence that the Bishop diet 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
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 Manntng, 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 as exercise of the Queen's
supremacy as had taken place in the Gorham case, and the
barrister informed him that he was bound to do so, because
the oath must be taken in the sense in which it was in-
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 signing the protest. Shortly
after arose the controversy with the Bishop of London, and
then be 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 net have been a part of the " due examination" required
from the Bishop to have asked Mr. Bennett whether he sub-
scribed the oath in the sense in which the law imposed it, or
with some mental reservation or qualification? It was net
sufficient to say that the Bishop privately examined Mr.
Bennett, and was satisfied with what took place. The ob-
ject of the examination was to satisfy the Church at large,
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 known
also to Mr. Bennett's parishioners. It was to be regretted
that the Bishop in this matter, instead of appearing in the
dignified character 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 ,characters,
namely, that of a partisan. It appeared to him that he had
established the three propositions with which he bad set out.
Hooker pointed, in the following passages, to the evils likely
to result from such a malversation of office on the part of a
high ecclesiastical dignitary as that with which the Bishop
of Bath was chargeable :
"If now, there arise any matter of grievance between
the pastor and the people that are under him, they have
their ordinary, a judge indifferent, to determine their causes
and to end their strife. But in case there were no such ap-
pointed to sit and to hear both, what would then be the
end of their quarrels? . . . But the hurt is more mani-
fustlyauts seen which doth grow to the church of God by faults
inherent in their
,several actions, as when they carelesslycbaap
corruptly
ordain, when they institute negligently,
especially for jurisdiction, when they
visited)" when their
they bestow church livings (benefices, prebewinhdesl,lgaanidn,srosoamkes
rather than with serious intent to
courts, erected for the maintenance
of
goodnder them, when
dis-
ordered, when they regard not the clergy
aweu for which 'this
neither clergy nor laity are kept in that
appeareth in them
dogo -o'rder, are
authotity should serve, when anything
oficnkalolfy,Cwhrhisetn,
wrahthenerththeyanhaavfeatbhberlryesapffeeocttitoon
means whereby their
they neglect the true and requisite
au-
thority should be upheld.
be exceeding great."
Surely the hurt which grpweth
out of these defects must needs
notice of the House, and was it any
had brought under the
he was a few nights ago, that Mr.
The hurt was exceedingly great in the instance which he
answer to be told, as
great extent, the confidence
of ironic ? The House had been informed
soundness o
Bennett had already won, to a
of the parishioners of
a signed a memo-
Ptooswt towards
thean
parishioners
ey were a
satisfied
sFfi Frome bad
withh dt h
memo-
rial stating that they
Admit, for the of
that 1,200 of the
mit,
th of the alleged popularity of Mr. Bennett at Frome,
the tru
he drew an inference from it very different from the conclu-
sion Mr. Bennett's doctrines.
at which that gentleman's friends arrived. Had it been
said that Mr. Bennett was universally disliked, that no one
went near him, and that the mischief would 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 Frome." Under such circum-
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 wasb
the inquiry to be pursued ? The House could not proceed by
resolution, because the facts were disputed. He formerlycon,e_
proposed there should be an inquiry by means of_ commis-
sion, sion, but he foresaw the objections which woiunld be
deference to
against that course, although he suggested it
the wishes of his friends, who desired thato all other
of investigation should be tried before th le4
oor
Com-
mons was called upon to undertake the inquiry. Inquiry by
a Cemmission being rejected, now called upon the House
to undertake the task. Inot
admit,
2.00 f
modes
however, that
to its Ministers for
the adoption of the motion
formerly
been altogether facile. In
didr lyproposed by him for an
address to the Crown would h
that case the Crown would
haveapplied
The Ministers would have made
advice.—(Hear, hear.)
and if they found that in-
quiryre.turn a favourable answer
impracticable, they would
by a Commissiontignaotonwto,aa
in that
the question would still
the requisite investigation,
advise her Majesty
to that that House. On theother
hand, once advised her )11
and to institute an inquiry, and they
thbaeedadlorsiesanst‘ivsdsetered: s lijeety to return
ed at the outset by the announcement that no
a favourablest°PsPeould be given on their interre t that
h°
ve
tiof
oga ones,again
would have brought the matter before the House, and it
were
inquiries
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 1 y
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 Vilt§ an inquiry iat9 r 1 ea4ICUIU 9Xercieta of the right 0

r patronage, and as to the mode in which a Bishop had dive!
Ito exercise his authority. They were every day legislating
on ecclesiastical affairs. There were several Church Bale
caotntshidaterminogmseonniteotngi
on
the order-book, and there had not been
week during the present session in which they had not beef!
or other respecting the Established
Church.—(Hear, hear.) It was not only necessary, g
inevitable that such should be the case. It was one of rk
conditions of the Established Church that Parliament,
but
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 grie"
antes they ought to be redressed.—(Hear, hear.) They well
told, however, that they cught not to take cognizance 0
Church affairs because the House of Commons was not nogcomposed exclusively of members of the Established Chump;
But why was the House not composed wholly of members Uf
the Established Church? Because the nation of England
was not composed entirely of members of the Establisben
Church ; and if they said that the House of Commons, as
representing the nation, was so far dissevered from its F•e-
tablished Church that it ought not to have direct cognizance
of its affairs, then, (1 fortiori, the nation must be So far sepa-
rated from the Established Church that they ought not
have an Established Church at all.—(Hear, hear.) Thu
was the legal and inevitable result of the argument,
pressed home; but he held, on the other hand, 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 !I
obvious, no responsibility so undeniable, as that when
had established a church for the teaching of one religion, tt
should not be made subservient to the interests of anotber.
—that it should not allow a minister of that Church tn.
become the secret agent of another.—(Hear hear.) Tlie,
people of England having had the present question raised
would most assuredly like to see that Parliament was earnest
of
upon it. He believed that she inquiry need not be one
long duration—that the witnesses would be very few, and
that the whole examination need not last more than aWe
or ten days. The facts of the case were indeed few and
simple. Here was a clergyman, the incumbent of P'
Paul's, Knightbridge whose ministrations were carried en
in such a manner, and acquired such notoriety, that the gr.;
vices were interrupted by mobs and riots.—(Hear, bear:ei
Virtually ejected by his diocesan, he published a letter, ""
which he told his diocesan that be found himself in a fail
position in the Church of England. He went abroad, and 1„f
was stated that his attendance on a Roman Catholic place
worship was so notorious, that he was openly claimed in thee-
publications as a convert to their faith, and in full 11'
nion with their Church. It was stated that during the
whole time he was at Kissingen be was never near a oe
testant Church, and an habitual attender at a Ro'ter;
Catholic Church. This statement was brought before him
in a friendly manner by a brother clergyman, and rr7
e 7
received by him in such a way as to confirm its trule''
The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, Or,
morialised the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and gave extnoi:
from his published works. The condemnation of
former diocesan was again virtually recorded. The fact
brought before the Bishop that he denied the supremae9e.d.
the Crown, and that he took the oaths in a quabo-'
sense. All these things were brought before the Bislo2.,„eP',
but without the inquiry required by law, without the pr.
certificate, he not only instituted him, but did so in slue'.
manner as to shut out the parishioners from the only tri-
bunal established by law before which they could have ri,
dress.—(Hear.) For all this they were told there was tom
no redress, because a Commission of Inquiry would not be r." 4
fectual, and because there were some gentlemen who object(
to pursuing such an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committer'
Why, they had had hundreds of Commissions with no 10'1
authority than would have existed in the present case, an
though the inquiries had often been exceedingly unpalatabw
to those to whom they were aedressed, much valuable info'
mation had nevertheless been acquired, while in not one 0;.„
had the inquiries of the Commissioners been evaded. Pn.
now they were told, for the first time, that a Commissionerri
not to be instituted because answers to the inquiries wow'
not be got. That was no doubt a well-advised announl:
'tent, and had not been made except on good grounds. St
ting apart the circumstances of this case, he would /18e,
thought that such an answer could not have been given tl
the prelates of the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.)
There was not in the country another bedy by whom an ins
quiry issued in the Queen's name would not have been re'
re,
spected.—(Hear, beer.) There was no class of her I,'"
jesty's subjects who, it a Commission of Inquiry had been
issued, would not have hastened to meet its wishes; let,
. i,
knock at the door of the peer or the cottager' it would
been respected, because it was issued in the Queen's name'
and be Ahould have thought that the prelates of the Etta'
blished Church would have been among the first to respilct
s,
the authority of the law, and show their loyalty lir;
acknowledging the Commission of the Queen.--(rlee:
been
exp
hear.) Tpnleey
o n theirm have
Sovereign
had set theectedtoreco egn;
the principle
thatrinei the more exalted the rank the greater I'm,.
responsibility, that great power and great privilege:
were to be held fur public purposes,
and not et.
secreted for selfish ends.—(Hear, hear.) The responsililil
connected with this case now rested with Parliament nil
and, whatever might be the ground on which they acre3l
whether it affected the sincerity of their faith, whether'
imvolved the supremacy of the Crown, or the jurisdiction,
Parliament, it was a serious responsibility. It would be ;
very unfortunate and very fatal event if Parliament on tl.1:1;
occasion were by a majority to refuse the inquiry win.
every one admitted ought to be instituted. A majority
such a case would only show how fatal and how dangerecb
a majority was when opposed to truth. A majority in alli
conj.(
a case could not influence public opinion; a majority
not acquit Mr. Bennett or the Bishop of Bath and
but a majority could disappoint public expectation, andthe
public reprobation diverted from other parties would nvet,
point the finger of scorn at the House of Commons.—(Beet'
hear.) It would tell them that their Church was a mockeq:
that their Protestantism was a pretence, that their 10Yay,,
was a sham ; and it would tell them that, in endeavouring t°
screen individual delinquents, they were perpetuating tut'
powers, but that they were degrading Parliament and de'
the cer e
Straying the Church.—(Hear.) The Hon, Arecaba-r dish
moved tor a Select Committee to inquire into
stances connected with the institution of the Bev-
vet• Bane
nett to the vicarage of Frome.
A short pause took place, followed by loud cries e.
,f "D'•
vide !"

MR F. 'NOR.
Mr. GLADSTONE. roseO CON
to address the House, when bn
was interrupted by
Sir B. HALL, who said-I wish to refer to a question of
order. lam sorry to call the attention of the House to a'
conduct of the Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Con';
nor), but I feel it my duty to do so.-(Loud cries 0:
" Hear.") While I was this moment calling "Divide," nc*
seeing any Member rise to address the House. the Hone
Member turned round on me and struck me in the side-(''
laugh)-and severely hurt me. I told the Hen. Gentian:l,ll
on
,a former occasion that if he addressed me in tbq
House, or subjected me to any annoyance, I should en,
your attention, Sir, to the subject, and put myself under
your protection, which I now do.-[During the time occu
pied by the Hon. Baronet in his statement, Mr. F. O'Cong°',
indulged in a series of bows and smiles, eventually adding
his mite to the hilarity so generally occasioned by the refer'
ence to the immediate cause of the complaint.]
The SPEAKER-The Hon. Member for Nottingham 13
been ao long a Member of this House that it is unnecessahr"
to remind him that it is against the rules and orders of „
House for one Member to interrupt or annoy another in „.."-t
course of the proceedings. lam sorry to say, however, that
the Hon. Member for Nottingham is in the constant habit of
violating those rules and orders-(Hear)-and I now tJ
him that if the ersists in that course it will be my pain's
duty to call attention of the House to the Hon. 151eln-,e, by his name, and it will then be for the House to take see--
ulterior steps as will prevent any such misconduct in future'
Mr. F. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the trues
Opposition bench, close to the table, and who, during the
Speaker's short address, bad been loudly vociferating
"Order, order," then rose, and spoke in a rambling and in'
coherent manner. He said-I did not do anything to the
Hon. Baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did noV
do anything whatever. He is my greatest enemy.-(Ordere
order.) He was one of the members of the land committee,
that sat five years ago.-(" Chair, chair.") A Member oe
the Government was then chairman of that Committee, and,
it was composed of 15 members. I built houses and cottage?.
-(Order, order)-but the ruffians (the members of the Lena
society) paid no rent.- (" Order, ' and cries of " Chair.")
Though in five years they got as much manure as would flit
this room. [This idea seemed particularly to affect the Hon"
Gentleman, for the allusion caused him to weep.] They
talked about soup.-(Renewed cries of "Chair.") elembers
paid 601. or 1501., and they were located, but the milieu;
paid no rent.-(" Chair.") One day a farmer came up with
a red
head cap on
off-
, and a hatchet in his band, and was going to en°
my
The SPEAKER said-I must now call upon the Hoe'
Member by name. Mr. O'Connor--(A pause.) If the Hone
timebe
r d has any apology to make to the House, now is tbe
to oso .
Mr. O'CONNOR-I make an apology to the House. t
beg the Hon. Member's pardon for anythin I did to hire•i:
(Hear, hear.) You are the best Speaker that ever sat in t"- chair.-(" Order !" and a laugh.)
The matter then dropped, anti
Mr. GLADSTONE hoped the attention of the House would-
not be diverted from the important subject by the wan
which had just occurred. He would commence his remark-4_
by expressing his regret at being called upon to follow t?
Hon. Gentleman without first having had it intimated tobl/31
what course her Majesty's Government intended to Pursno''e
For although he was personally acquainted with the einineud,
individual, the object of the Hon. Gentleman's charge, an
et
had made it his study to inform himself on the subjeet,,Teb,
after all this was mainly a legal question, a question vn-qo',„
could not be discussed or decided without the applicaqoa.
of legal knowledge and legal authority. It was a quests
on which he had hoped Government and the law esters of
th
the Crown would have stated the view they took on ,
distinct legal issue which had not unfairly, but which %.'"'"
broadly and visibly, been raised by the Honourable Gen!:
man, and would, on their authority and responsibila:
offer advice to the House ae to the course they should 01r
sue. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the quent'„„
',
as a legal question, and he could not help wishing tu:,
Honoureble Gentleman had confined himself with somewhat
greater strictness to the legal view. It appeared that the
Honourable Gentleman, who declared his only object
~3
be to attain truth, and to show truth, had allowed 111
rhetorical powers and warmth of feeling to mix themsehr4,,
35
with his statement of the alleged facts of the case, and -
bad done this with an ability which might be dangerous '°
the House, unless wholesome efforts were made to bring
them back from the warmth infused into the case, and to
duce them to consider they were only discussing Ing,d
question on the strict and dry view of its merits. Ile we%
not dwell on the various parts of the Hon. Member's speech,
but he must beg leave to call attention to one or two
points. The Honourable Member said, unless the house
agreed to his motion, their Protestantism would be a pre'
tence and their loyalty a shim. That issue was to:
strong.- (Hear, hear.) The House had a discretion in t'
matter; they had a right to test the statments of the -Boa'
Member to see if those statements were borne out--_
whether lie was consistent in his doctrine, or whether sel
part of his doctrine was not overturned by what was 1577
,e!
down is the speech. This the House was entitled to
_eo
without the fear that the people would consider that tiae
loyalty of that House was a sham if they refused to adopt
the Honourable Member's views. lie would just give an in-
stance of the Honourable Member's magnifying powerso
t of
speech. The Honourable Gentleman said the objection 2!
Commission had been made by the Right Honourable
Gentleman on the ground that no power would be thereby'
conferred to obtain answers to questions. On that basis the
Hon. Gentleman built the inference that the Bishop of 15.
and Wells had declared he intended to refuse
answering
ssyg
questions, and then, with the same ingenuity, he proceeded
to extend the refusal to the whole bench of Bishops, . !tie:
that no other class of her Majesty's subjects would do
same. On that foundation, and no other, had
h
Gentleman built his tirade against the whole Etpiesrop',..!
bench. He was not the man to defend bishops o.r.arletchuaJt
else when they did not do their duty. Bat he did say and
bishops, like any other persons, were entitled to jus
v
some decency of treatment.-(" Hear, hear," from dMerc'enlley o(
man.) He did not think that they bad got that
t
treatment at the hands of the Hon. and Learned Member`.
beAr had t 461 1:1011. end Letglaeo
Gentle'
; •