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

JUNE 9, 1852,

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 he 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 he held in my.
diocese. " I am,
"Your Lordship's faithful brother and servant,

" C. J.
" The Hon. and Right Rev, the Lord Biehop ofLONDON.
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withdrawn his condemnation of Mr.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 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lified or withdrawn that condemnation.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 bad 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 read. Lord Ellenborough said :
"It only requires him first to approve, that is, before he
licenses; and, in ho 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 he
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, lam of opinion, be fitly taken into con-
sideration."
, .
The Bishop of Bath should have addressed himself to the 1
circumstances alluded to in the letter of the. Bishop of I
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 Piristianity, are a fiction 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 fodnded on their con-
viction that to a peer 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 hot only the
opinion of the Protestant people of this country, bat that we
occupied ourselves in sending the Bible abroad, as the source
or 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 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
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
Churchof 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 the
barrister informed him that he was bound to do so, because
the oath mnst 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 he resigned his living. In the course of the same
year he presented himself for institution to the vicarage
of Frame, 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' ou the isubjeet 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 sub-
scribed the oath in the sense in which the law imposed it, or
with some mental reservation or qualification ? It was not
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. lt was to be regretted
that the Bishop in this matter, instead of appearing in the
dignified character of An impartial judge, had exhibited hint •
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 had 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-
fustly seen which doth grow to the church of God by faults
inherent in their several actions, as when they carelessly
ordain, when they institute negligently, when corruptly
they bestow church livings (benefices, prebends, and rooms
especially for jurisdiction, when they visit for gain's sake
rather than with serious intent to do good), when their
courts, erected for the maintenance of good order, are dis-
ordered, when they regard not the clergy under them, when
neither cleigy 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
out 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 any
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 From? The House had beeninformed
that 1,200 of the parishioners of Frome had signed a memo-
rial stating that they were satisfied with the soandness of
Mr. Bennett's doctrines. Admit, for the sake of argument, ,
the truth of the alleged popularity of Mr. Bennett at Frome,
he drew an inference from it very different from the conclue
slob 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 bashortlived,
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.—(gear 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
resolution, because the facts were disputed.
proposed there should be an inquiry
by means of a commi
h would be urged
sion, but he foresaw the objections Nellie
in deference to
against that course, although he suggested
is
talt other modes
the wishes of his friends, who desired
the
ea He formersly.
of investigation should bo tried
undertake
ee
inquiry.
Com-
mons was called upon to under
a Commission being rejected, he n_
eirnot admit, however, that
cathl ad Hoursu onthoefll Inquiryubsyeto undertake the task.
would have applied to its Ministers for
a/teldinisitfertshewyoufobulnlidave made
athdedraesdsoptotiotnheoCf
that case the Crown
rethlownmwoteiuonldlf ioher
amveer lb); proposeden altogether
wheas impracticable, they wou!d
that tandev i ce (
requisiteEle a r, hear.) e
investigation,airss)i
in-
quiry not to return a favourable answer
advise her Majesty
so that the question wouldstill
to that address, _
that H
have CO be settled in Souse. On the other
by a Commission
hand,if the Ministers at once advised her Majesty to returnafav
favourable answer, and to institute an inquiry, and they
were stopped at the outset by the announcement that no
inquiries would be given 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 I 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 Was an inquiry into a I articular exercise of the right of

patronage, and as to the mode in which a Bishop had chosen
to exercise his authority. Tbey were every day legislating
on ecclesiastical affairs. There were several Church Bills
at. that moment on the order-book, and there bad 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 rot only .necessary, but.
inevitable that such Menial he theecase. It was one of th
conditions of the Established Chat-eh 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 griev-
ances they ought to be redressedgleer,fiear.) They were,.
told, however, that they ought not to take cognizance 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
the Established Church? Because the nation of Enean"
was not composed entirely of members of the Established
Church; and if they said that the 'louse of Commons, as
representing the nation, was to fir dissevered from its Es-
tablished Church that it ought not to have direct-cognizance
of its affairs, then, a fortiori, the nation'must be so far sees-
rated from the Estahhehed Church that they ought not tcs
have an Established Church at all.—(hear, hear.) That
was the legal and inevitable result of the argument; rf
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
obvious, no responsibility so undeniable. as that when it
had established a church for the teaching of one religion, it
should net 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 raise's;
would most assuredly like to see that Parliament was earnest
upon it. He believed that she inquiry need not be one x
long duration—that the witnesses would be very few, and
that the whole examination need not last more than a 'o',..
7
or ten days. The facts of the case were indeee few and
shrple. Here was a clergyman, the incumbent of St.
Paul's, Knightbridge, whose ministrations were carried en
in such a manner, and acquired such notoriety, that, the ser-
vices were interrupted by mobs and riots.—(Hear, hear.) Virtually ejected by his diocesan, he published a letter, 'n
which he told his diocesan that he found himself in a false
position in the Church of 'England. He went abroad, and
was stated that his attendance on a Roman
.Catholic place?
worshiP-Wee so notorious, that he was openly claimed in their
publications as a convert to their faith, and in full comma-
nion with their Church. It was stated that during
whole time he was at Kissingen he was never near a
Pre
testant Church, arid an habitual attender at a Roman
Catholic Catholic Church. This statement was brought before bw:
in a friendly mariner by a brother clergyman, and via'
received by hiM in such a way as to confirm its truth.
The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, 01°'
-rriorialised the Bishop of Bath and Wells and gave extracts
from, his published works. The condemnation of b.is.
former- diocesan was again virtually recorded. The fact w"' f
brought before the Bishop that he denied the supremacyv „
e
the Crown, and that he took the oaths in a qualified
s-nse. All these things were brought before the, Bisheil
but without the inquiry required by law, without the prelg
certificate, he not only instituted him, but d:d so in so t,h .
'manner as to shut out the parishioners front the only tri-
bunal established'by law before which they could have re,
dress.—(Hear.) For all this they were told there Was tole
no redress, because a Commission of Inquirywouia not be '
fectual, and because there were some gentlemen who objected
to pursuing such an inquiry by a' Parliamentary Committe
Why, they had had hundreds of Commissions with no We
%
V
authority than would hat% existed in the present case,
though the inquiries had often been exceedingly unpalatable
to those to whom they were addressed, much valuable infor-
mation had nevertheless been acquired, while in not one case
had the inquiries of the Commissidners been evaded.. -.1)11.
now they were told, for the first time, that a Commission fi ,r;
not to be instituted because answers to the inquiries wowd
.
not be got. That was no doubt a well-advised announce
cent, and had not been made except on good grounds. Sct.
..° v
ting apart the circumstances of this case, he would 111°,
thought that such an answer. could not have been given a
the prelates of the Established Church.—(Hear, hea!'•!.
There was not in the country another body by whom an lu
quiry issued in the Queen's name would not have been re-
spected.—(Hear, hear.) There was no class of her Na,
j eety's -subjects 'who,' it' a'Commission of Inquiry had been
issued, would not have hastened to meet its wishes; let it
knock at the door of the peer or the cottager it would have,
been respected, because it was issued in the Queen's none'
and he should have theught that the prelates of the E't",;
blished Church would have been among the first to respect
the authority of the law, and show their loyalty ;
acknowledging the Com Mission of the Queen.—(lle:2-'
hear.) They might have been expected to recogn's-
the principle on which their Sovereign had set the ea,
ample, that the more exalted the rank the greater the
responsibility, that great power and great priviler
were to be held 'for public purposes, and not a•ra
seerated for selfish ends.—(liear, hear.) The responeibi",s7
connected with this case now rested with Parliament alo3'
and, whatever might be the ground on which they acted,,
whether it affected the sincerity of their faith, whetecroat
involved the supremacy of the Crown, or the jurisdiction
PArliament, it was a serious responsibility. It would 158
very unfortunate and very fatal event if /Parliament on rs?c"ii
occasion were by a majority to refuse the inquiry Nrul Ito
every one admitted ought to be instituted.. A majority
us
such a case would only show hoW fatal and how. danger:ea
a 'majority aas when opposed to truth. A majority hi %la
a ease could not influence public opinion ; a majority euells,
not acquit Mr. Bennett or. the Bishop of Bath and tba
but a majority could disappoint public expectation, an, ..01
public reprobation diverted from other parties would
ea
point the finger of scorn at the House of Commone.—
hear.) It would tell them that their Church was a rne'aii'y,
that their Protestantism was a pretence, that their loyalty
to
was a sham ; and it would tell them that, in endeavouring
screen individual delinquents, were perpetuating nee
powers, but that they were degrading
stroying the Church.—(Hear.) The Hon, Merb„l-
-moved for a Select Committee to inquire into theßan-
stances
connected with the institution of the Rev- • nett to the vicarage of Frome. Parliament ar''''Sen
f "Di-
vide Di-
A short pause took place, followed by loud cries a "
vide!"

MR F. 'NOR.
Mr. GLADSTONE. 'rose O CON
to address the House, why be
was interrupted by
Sir B. HALL, who said—l wish to refer to a questioonwlif
order. lam sorry to call the attention of the House t
e_
conduct of the Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Ceu,sf
nor), but I feel it my duty to do so.—(Loud cries"
Heir.") While I was this moment. calling "Divide, no
seeing any Member rise to address the House. the 110,0.
,
Member turned round on me and struck me in the side--
laugh)—and severely hurt me. I told the Han. Gentleman
former occasion that if he addressed me in this
.
,
put Myself under
House, or subjected me to any annoyance, I should c.!ll
your attention, Sir, to the subject, and
your protection, which I now do.— [During the time occu-
pied by the Hon. Baronet in his statement, air. F. or
o.Conn
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 has
been so long a Member of this House that it is unnecessary
to remind him that it is against the rules and orders of the
House for one Member to interrupt or annoy another in the
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 tell,
hint that if he persists in that course it will be my painful
duty to call the attention of the House to the Hon. Member
by his name, and it will then be for the House to take Snell
ulterior steps as will prevent any such misconduct in (avast,.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the front
Opposition bench, close to the table, and who, during the
Speaker's short address, had been loudly vociferating
"Order, order," then rose, and spoke in a rambling and in-
coherent manner. He said—l did not do anything to the
Hon. Baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did not
do anything whatever. He is my greatest enemy.—(Order,
order.) He was one of the members of the land committee
that sat five years ago.-4" Chair, chair.") A Member of
the Government was then chairman of that Committee, and
it was composed of 15 members. I built houses and cottages
—.(Order, order)—but the ruflienshe members of the land
society) paid no rent.— (.. Order," and cries of "Chair.")
Though in five years they got as much manure as would fdl
this room. [This idea seemed particularly to affect the Son.
Gentleman, for the allusion caused biro to weep.) They
talked about soup.—(Renewed cries of "Chair.") Members
paid 601. or 150/., and they were located, but the nage
paid no rent.—(" Chair.") One hand farmer came up wit"
a red cap on, and a hatchet in his, and was going to cut
my head off—
The SPEAKER id ,I mast now call upon the goo'
hlember by name. Mr. O'Connor--(A pause.) )If the goo.
Member has any apology to make to the'lluoussee, now is the
time to do so.
Mr. O'CONNOR—I make an apology to the House'
beg the Hon. Member's pardon for anything I did to hug'
(Hear, hear.) You are the best Speaker that ever sat in the
chair.—(" Order I" and a laugh.)
The matter then dropped, ano
Mr. GLADSTONE hoped the attention of the House eerP--
-
not he diverted from the important subject by the scene
S
which had just occurred. He would commence his remar,
bye expressing his regret at being called upon to follovr„.ts
on. Gentleman without first having had it intimated toiom
what course her Majesty's Government intended to lettrs%et
For although he was personally acquainted with the eildrl!ea
individual, the object of the Lion. Gentleman's charge, set
had made it his study to inform himself on the subjectc`b
after all this was mainly a legal question, a question ws!foo
could net be discussed or. decided without the applicaetioa
of legal knowledge and legal authority. It was a ques et
on which he had hoped Government and the law ofnuerstbo
the Crown would have stated the view theyetook hsa
distinct legal issue which had not unfairly, but whichatlee
broadly and visibly, been raised by the Honourable
man, and would, on their authority and respoosibo"f„,
offer advice to the House as to the course they should Tito
sue. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the ques
as a legal question, and he could not help whaling rat
Honourable Gentleman had confined himself with somero
that rho
greater strictness to the legal view. It appeared to
Honourable Gentleman, who declared his only object
be to attain truth, and to show truth, had allovied,fis
rhetorical powers and _warmth of feeling to mix themserbe
with his statement of the alleged facts of the case, and
had done this with an ability which might be dangerous to
the House, unless wholesome efforts were made to bring
et
them back from the warmth infused into the case, and to oat
duce them to consider they were only discussing a ould
question on the strict and dry view of its merits. Ile vA,h
not dwell on the various parts of the Hon. Member's spe"
but he must beg leave to call attention to one or two..
points. The Honourable tt,fember said, unless the lieu.'
agreed to his motion, their Protestantism would be a Pre-
tence and their loyalty a sham. That' issue was ti9o
_
strong.-- (Hear' hear. ) The House had a discretion in ±:e
matter; they had a right to test the statmehts of the 13?".
Xember to • see if those statements were borne 0ut...._
whether he was consistent in his doctrine, or whether 5(277
part of his doctrine was not overturned by what was lard
down in the speech. This the House was entitled to do
without the fear that the people would consider thaat_ct,f_if
loyalty of that House was a sharn if they refused to d
the Honourable Member's views. lie would just give anrs lug
stance of the Honourable Member's inagnifyiog powers
toett
speech. The Honourable Gentleman said the objectio
Commission had been made by the "tight Honourableer,
Gentleman on the ground that no power would be thereof
conferred to obtain answers to questions. Oa that basis ~,t',`
o
Hon. Geetleman built the inference that the Bishop t
and Wells had declared he intended to refuse answering
questions, and then, with the same ingenuity, he procseejnedg
to extend the refusal to the whole bench of Bishops.l a) l-
o 111°
that no other class of her Majesty's suljects wou he ov_
same. On that foundation, and no other, hadAse'7.,evj
Gentleman built his tirade against the whole r,01;3_,.0d.,
bench. He was not the man to defend bishops c,r __?„`;jita
else when they did not do their duty But be did s"."
bishops, like an y other persons, were entitled to II of
from, f
same decency of treatment —(" Hear, hear,
that decency 0
man.) He did not think that they bad got member.Learneo justice and
treatment at the hands of the Hon. and •
_fled Gentle!
(Etear, hear.) tie had heard the Hon. and Lear , • •