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

ASCOT.,IIE 1862

Ncminations for the Fernhtll Stakes. ,
Duke of Richmond's Stella, 2 yrs—Sir R. Pigott 'a
Jack the Giantkiller, 2 yrs—Mr. E. Batson's Sabdidja,
3 yrs—Mr. Yarworth's Hoppicker, 3 yrs—Lord. Exeter's
Mountain Flowir, 3'yrs--Mr. Howard's Vaultress, 2 yrs
—Mr. E. R. Clark's Plutustesd, 3 yrs—Duke of Rich-
mond's Harbinger, 3 yrs--Mr. Halford's Peppermint,
Kingston,3 _,)rs
,u,-,lndian Warrior, 3 yrs—Little Harry,
3 yrs—King of 00,k :5
yrs-t-Hobbie Noble, 3 yrs—
Nominationslar the Emperor of Russia's Plate.
Woolwich, 6 yrs—Alfred the Great, 3 yrs--Ambroso, 3
yrs—Teddington, 4 yrs—Eussborougb, 5 yrs—Voiti-
gear, 5 yrs—His Gracie, 3 yrs—Sally, 3 yrs—liountain
Deer, 4 yrs—Joe Mier, 3 yrs—Grey Tommy, 3 yrs—
leader, 4 yrs—Black Doctor, 5 yra—Stilton,
°cello, 3 yrs--Pitsford, 5 yrs—Rache' é', 3 yrs—Bing-
shell, 5 yrs--Tomboy, 5 yrs.
NE WM ARKET SECOND SPRING MEETING, 1852.
Handicap for the Suffolk Stakes of 15 sties: each, 5 it, if
declared en Tuesday next. I is_
Tommy, 3 yrs, 7st 121b—Harbinger, 3
Hernandez, 4 yrs, 9st—Officious, 5 yrs, 851 12w-
-3 yrs—Nut-
Nutshell, 7 yrs, B,st 21b—Dulcet, aged, 7st 131b—Grey
yrs, let 81b—
Flirt, 3 yrs, 7st 81b—Knook Knoll, 4 yrs, 7st 51b-:-St.
Antonio, aged, 7st 31b—Frantic,
kin, 3 yrs, 7st 21b—Midas, 4 yraY, 7st 21b—Tophana,
aged, Est 121b—Patriot, aged, 6st 101b--Gay Lass, 4
yrs, Est 101b—Poodle, 3 yrs, Est 81b—Grand Duchess, 3
yrs, Est 51b—Greengage,"3 yrs -- , 6st 41bSuttler, 3 yrs,
6st 21b—Young Hawthorn; 3 yrs, sst 121b—HaniP1"/ 3
yrs, sst 101b—Maria, 3
sst 81b. yrs, sst 81b—Hugo, 3 yrs,

SPIRIT of the
PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
-.-
TIM.E'.--IS4O one can
rise from a perusal of the
debate on Mr. Ilorsman's 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 tee are unprovided with the machinery
required to preserve the 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. We have an episcopal form
of Government, and a Legislature the
of the national
the great majority
of which is composed of membe
Church, yet all these safeguards 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 per-
sons 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 the House of Commons,
for it
showed by proofs, whose cogency hardly admits of
refutation, that a clergyman holding almost every
doctrine of the Church of Rome, and those in a
form more exeggera'ed than sincere Roman
Catholics themselves, can, after his tendencies have
been fully brought to light, be transferred from one
diocese to another, and compensated for,episcopal cen-
sure in the first by honour, patronage, and preferment
in the second. It showed, 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
to deny that the prevalence of dissent without
the Church is 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 Frame 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 d, 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 clergyman might ha found to taken 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 referenceeo the conduct of, the Bishop of
Bachand Wells. Something may fairly be conceded to
infirm health, but it is impossible to separate the exer-
cise of an important cffice from the responsibility it in-
volves. The Bishop of Bath and Wells knew that Mr.
Bennett did not, bring wish him the recommendation
feom his former bishop which the Canons require, and he
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.
Ho knew that he was most distasteful to the pa-
rishioners at Freese, and was fureiseed with extracts
,from his published writings which might well have
startled the conscience of any Pro:estant 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 decision 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 abuse of private patronage and protect the
parishioners of Frown from the spiritual injury and tem-
poral discord resulting from the intrusion upon them of
a clergyman in whom they could not, and ought not, to
have confidence, and whose ministry they were bound
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.
Another person whom it is impossible to acquit
of blame is the • Lady Patroness herself. We take
it that the law, by making an advowson private
property, did not mean to release the owner from
those duties, which the nature of the prcperty 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 he
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 schist 4 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
to one Church,
and feeling I, —ow comes he to be the
recipient of the
patronage . and emoluments of
another ? How can a clergyman who passes
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 to the rule es a Protestant episco-
pate? Such conduct presupposes
a moral obliquity
which we trust is rare, ahnd_dw.hich the recent secession of
so many clergymen, 1 o ing similar opinions, to the
Church of Rome shows at any rate not to be universally
connected with them. It therefore appears that,without
grave misconduct on the ps.rt of the patroness, the
ebisho and •
re-
commending clergy, t. , rn the incumbent, the
present scandal could havebottne taken place,
and that it
is not by the default of
some comfort, ;two persons that it can
be repeated. This
13
we aorr, and we trust that
the friendly inquiry which , are promised may end in
the suggestion of some course
e cou.se which may do reason to
irritated fesliegs e the people of Frome, and
the justly
confidence. in 'f it cannot restore that. ain the discretion of
if
bishop and the sincerity and Orthodoxy of the in-
cumbent which the present exposure has dono so much
to destroy, may peen, et the recurrence of a similar evil.
DAILY NEWS.—In suffering a numerical defeat on
lie inquiry into the '
his motion. for a pub circumstauces
i of the .
attending the i
..DLitllt.oll
~e. i J. W. Bennett to
the benefice of From° 6 1"0( t Mr. Horsmau has
• d anottler success. ' For, in averting
public game
three Cabinet Ministers (two of them &-
public is quirt',
N have undertaken, with the full and
eeetaties of btAte)
the House of Commons,'
'esti-
ea tire approbation of
gation; and the sto
sufthe
tote a friendly
"3""*I e'd that, asatunie thn"l
alor o
Exchequer has admitt I g e f cts te b
to afford
and the law no remedy for the
as represented
sn t priest on a Protestant cure
s
intrusion of a semt-Rolnite vide one. And what are
or souls, legislation inusita
1318)43 the Bishop.e
of London,
the facts of the case?.
far. we,nett held opinions and had
though warned that far. , .
and
than
tiny pernicious
published doctrines more
any cetataiiied in the
Tracts for,the,Tinaes," instituted