The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-21 00:00:00

INTERMENT IN TOWNS.

On the motion of Sir JAMES DUKE the following
return was ordered :—" The Report on the results of a
special inquiry into the practice of Interment in Towns,"
presented to the House in 1842 by command of her Ma-
jesty; " The Supplementary Report on the results of a
special inquiry into the practice of Interment in rowns,"
presented to the House in 1843 by command of her Ma-
jesty; ‘6 The Report of the General Board of Health on a
General Scheme of Extramural Sepulture," presented to
the House in 1850 by command of her Majesty; and
" The Report of the General Board of Health on a
General Scheme of Extramural Sepulture for Country
Towns," presented to the House in 1851 by command
of her Majesty, be referred to the Committee on the
London Necropolis and National Mausoleum Bill.
PARISH. VESTRIES.
Sir DE LACY EVANS then rose to move for leave
to bring in a Bill to amend an Act of the first and second
year of King William the Fourth, for the regulation of
vestries, with reference to joint parishes.
Mr. C. LUSEIINGTON seconded the motion.
Mr. WALPOLE said there would be no objection to
bringing in the Bill, hullo should be glad to know if it
was intended that the Bill should apply to joint perishes
generally, or only to those of the metropolis?
Sir DE LACY EVANS said it would apply to seve-
ral parishes.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
THE CHURCH AND MR. BENNETT.
Mr. HORSMAN then rose to move, that whereas by
the constitu ions and canons ecclesiastical of the Church
of England it is decreed and ordained, that " no bishop
shall insitute any to a benefice who bath been ordained
ny any other bishop, except he first show unto him his
letters of orders, and bring him a sufficient testimony of
his former good life and behaviour, if the bishop shall
require it; and lastly, shall app ar, on due examination,
to be worthy of his ministry" (Canon 39); also, that
" no curate or minister shall be permitted to servo in any
place without examination and admission of the bishoo
of the diocese, or ordinary of the place, having episcopal
jurisdiction, in writing under his hand and seal, having
respect to the greatness of the cure and meetness of the
party. And the said curates and ministers, if they re-
move from one diocese to another, shall not be by any
moans ad ratted to serve without testimony of the bishop
of the diocese, or ordinary of the place as aforesaid,
whence they came, in writing, of their honesty, ability,
and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws of the Church of
England" (Canon 48)—an humble address be pro.
achted to her Majesty, preying that she will be
graciously pleased to direct inquiry to be made, whether
due respect was paid t) the decrees of the constitutions
and canons ecclesiastical of the Church of England in
the recent institution of Mr. Bennett to the ra v • e of
Frame. This case, the Hon. Member
observed, had
brought so much scandal up ni the Church that he did
not despair of inducing the House to adopt this motion.
Ho had, however, no charge to make against Alr.
Bennett upon his religious convictions, because as
long as he violated no law the Reverend
Gentleman bid a right to aqokt what rzill9i!

p'e3 he thought fit; but it was with the acts of
Mr. Bennett that. ho had to deal with, and the c ndcet
of one of the ,ngettaiies of :he Church in connexion with
Mr. Bennett. The 11..11i1e W,S aware thlt iu 1843 Mr.
Bennett was appointed by the Bishop of Lendou to the
living of St. Paul's, and from that period down to 1850
a system prevailed at St. Paul's which eventually excited
the indignation of the public, and led to his removal. Ac-
cording to a letter which the Thy. Gentleman himself
had pulished it appeared that his proceenings had so
I extsperated the public mind that a large police force was
reeptired to keep the neighbeurhood of the church in
oraer, and on one occasion some of :he people who at-
tended the church wore carried before the polka
magistrate and punished. The magistrate, how-
ever, in sentencing the accused parties, strongly
censured the conduct of Mr. Bennett and his followers,
and the subject afterwards so forced itself upon the at-
tention of the press that the Bishop of London was at
length induced to remove the Rev. Gentleman from his
living. The letter of the Bishop ascompanyieg the dis-
missal W:l3 familiar to the House, LSS must also be
the reply of the Rev. Gentleman to it. It would be re-
membered that the Btthop's letter receintnended Mr.
Bennett to resign, or legal measures would be taken to
remove him; and in accordance with that recom-
mendation Mr. Bennett did resign, and his resig-
nation was accepted by the Bishop; not, however,
bed ere the Rev. Gentleman had made a formal
protest that he had violated no rules of the
Protestant Church, and the Bishop had declared
that he had not only been unfaithful to the Church but
insubordinate to his diocesan. It was then publicly re-
ported that Mr. atnnett bad either gone to Reme or in-
tended to go there; but at all events, however that
might be, the people of England fancied he had left
their church for ever. Imagine, however, :heir surprise,
after what he hied said and written, that it should
come to pass that he should again be appointed
to a living in the Protestant Church. It was
a matter of surprise that any patron could present
him, but a still greater matter of surprise
that any prelate could be found hardy enough
to institute him. When Mr. Bennett left St. Paul's he
declared that his religious convictions were unchanged
and unchangeable, and it was right that the House
should know what church he attended during the twelve
months which intervened between his resignation
and his appointment to the living of Frome.
It had been stated in a public print that Mr. Bennett had
spent the interval in Bavaria, where, instead of at-
tending the English Protestant Church, he was a
constant attendant at mass, teed upon subsequent
inquiry being instituted into the truth of this
statement it was found to be substanelly correct.
The fact was notorious to all English residents,
and it might be considered as provel that Mr.
Bennett was, to all intents and purposes, out-
wardly at least, a Roman Catholic, end had lost
all sympathy for the Chutch in which ha had been
brought up. Notwithstanding these circumstances
he was appointed Prat scant minister of a ltrotestant
congregation at Frome.—(dear) The people of Frome
were in an agony of apprehension, and dreaded that what
had occurred in London might take place in Frorne; and
they sent a very strong but most respectful memorial
to the patroness of the living to cancel the appointment.
This memorial was signed by five clergymen, and the
most influential part of the people in the
town, but the only reply they received wa•
that the appointment was already made, ant
could not be reversed Now, he did not complain of the
appointment, because in making it the patroness
only exercised an undoubted and legal right,
according to her conscientious vitws and convictions.
The writings and preachings of the Rev. Gentleman since
his appointment to the living of Procne, proved beyond
all doubt that his views and principles had under-
gone no change, and he appeared to labour under
the impression that, within ten years, Protestantism
would have ceased to exist, and the Bible be found
to be a fiction, so far us it was of use in pro-
moting and extending Christianity. He passed
no opinion upon such doctrines, but he
simply mentioned them as having been propounded
within the parish church of Promo and remonstrated
against by his own parishioners. The Bishop of L indon
hsd long ago been made acquainted with ell these recent
proceedings, bat he had taken no notice of them,
and the Reverend Gentleman was It ft at lull
liberty to go on preaching those principles . which
he (Mr. Llorsmati) had faintly introduced to
the House as they were explained by the
Rev. Gentleman himself. Now the House was fully
conversant of the immense powers exercised by a bishop.
He was a dignitary at large, enjoying great wealth,
and being responsible to no one; be could live
where he liked, or do as he liked. If the Bishop
were a bad man, his power could be used for
the purpose of inflicting injury upon the
people ; while, on the other hand, if he were
well disposed and gifted with a nice conscience,
his office was capable of much good. The ecclesias i
tical law, however, regulating the appointment o
beneficed clergymen was exceedingly strict. The bishop
could not ordain any one coming from another
._diocese,
unless he first brought sufficient testimony of e
fermis
good life and behaviour from the bishop. of the diocese
from which ha came; and writing,brottiytt,intotbeic
eootleessitaimstenayl
of ability, honesty, and c,int
laws of the Church of England; aud, secondly, after
that, the clergyman must uedsrgo examination by the
bishop. Now, as to the manner in which the certificate
was given; it was signed by three beneficed clergyman;
and it they were not resident in the second diocese, it
must be countersigned by the bishop of the diocese from
which he came. The form of the certificate was, " We
whose names are hereunto subscr,bed, b, fag three bene-
ficed c:ergynaen of the Church of E ignited, do declare
that the presentee hash been personally known to us for
the space of the last three years, and that we have had
opportunities of observing his conduct; and that during
the whole of that time we verily believe that he hath
lived wisely, soberly, and honestly ; nor have we at
any time heard anything to the contrary thereof;
nor hash he at any time, so far as we are aware,
written or taught anything contrary to the doctrine
and discipline of the Church of England."
Now this certificate required that three beneficed cler-
gymen should state that during the three last Sears they
had opportunities of observing Mr. Bennett's conduct,
and that they could testify that he had dons nothing con-
trary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of Eng-
land. Had any three beneficed clergymen of the diocese
of London signed that certificate in this case, stating that
during the last three years they had an opportunity of
observing Mr. Bennett, when during the last of those
thrre years he had been on the Continent; and that they
could testify that during that time he had done nothing
contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of
England, when during the hummer of 1851 he had been
habitually worshipping in the Reinan Catholic Church?
Incredible as it might appear, the certificate had been
signed by three clean men of the Church of England in
the diocese of London!--([dear,) But this was not all.
Those clergymen not being resident in the diocese to
which the presentee was removing, it must be counter-
signed by the teshon of the diocese from which he was
going. Had the Bi.hop of London countersigned the tetti-
monial? Had the Bishop of London, who had pressed for
the resignation of Mr. Bennett, as guiliy of et:faithful-
ness to the Church of Englund and insubordinate to
his bishop, had he signed a certificate to the effect
thet during the last three years he was a feithful
minister of the Establishment? Why, incredible as it
might seem, h© hied heard that the • Bishop of Landon
had actually signed the memorial—(Heer, hear) —though
he had signed it iwith a qualification.—(lltar, hear.)
There was no qualification iu the canon. The presentee
could not he admitted without testimony in writing from
the bishop to his honesty and conformity. The law,
therefore. was clear that the bishop must give the testi-
mony. The practice bad been, however, that three cler-
gymen of the Church of England should siga the cacti-
finale,
but that the bishop countersigned it merely to the
effect of saying that he attests that the clergymen who
signed it were resident in his diocese, and not as tcetify-
ing to what they stated. There hail been this deviation
from the practice, however, in the present case, that the
Bishop of London had written in the margin of the cer-
tificate that he was only to be understood as attesting
that these were genuine signatures, and was not a party
to the statements of the certificate. At least hboas,o
pre-
sumed that this was so, and that the Bishop
_dee!,
sought to save his consistency. If so, there had
_bath
thrown additional responsibility on the
.Bishop.to of B
from thee
arid Wells; and, as he received a certificate
Bishop of London with an unusual quelificahen,
reason for unusual prudence and p
circumstances. inch a
hear.) And surely, under such circu
explanation
certificate, with such qualification,
iE requiredieethere had been
precaution.—(Hear,
and elucidation.—(Eleer, hear.)
signed the certificate
three clergymen of the diocehse ofti Liaolinadaeantiownhoob had
e
part esibdotplotofbeEenatshigannedd
Bishop,theßihoipb,
b y e!.or thewi
l'che
certificate
aetaeß)?l
which case
Wells had deliberately dispensed with the precautions
which were esteblished by law for the security of the
Church.—(Hear.) And there was this further point,
that, even after the certificate was received, duly signed,
the Bishop was bound to examine the presentee. By the
39th canon, the presentee must appear on such exa-
mination worthy of his ministry ; and, by the 48th
canon, no minister was to be permitted to servo in any
place without examination by the bishop (:f the diocese.
This examination was not mere 1:112t ter of form. There
was no point on which the lew Rise more explicit.
There was a judgment of Lord Ellenb trough on this
question, in which ho stated that, in all cases, " there
was to be an examination by the bishops • :that was
to precede tsolcaissien. The duty of examination was
cast upon him by the express terms of the canon ;
and, therefore, if either the beahop would not examine,
at all, or only in a mode ineffectual, the court could
interfere by mandamus to compel such an
tion to he made as pertained to his duty. The word of the
statute is ' approve,' and the bishop must exercise that
Puns of
approval according to his conscience or such re informationexamina-
as he can obtain. Everything that
di
probation, and may
pro-
perly minister to hi* conscientious appr,b4(io'_°- _
con' •
elusions, though not farmelly *
,siobniet,lliese grounds
fairly and reasonable
law, may be taken into consideration.'
had memorialised
therefore, the parishioners of Fr.odm,re
rho circumstances,
assist
enC)sur t of
the Bishop, praying him to consider
and institute the c xaminationric
required by law. The
of the facts, and Bishop, who could not be ignorant
lass',
did not condesc end
cer-
tainly was not ignorant of e
even to notice any one of the circumstances laid before
ts but simply said, " Rev. and
him by the memtlri3l" t memorial signed bynyeu. Had
dear Sir,—l have read tae,
setisfied that Mr. Bennett
I not been (I can assure y,
to be influenced in favour
not attached to, or likely
was
of,
of Rome, or likely to influence others
the Church
I should have declined to institute him
direction, .
ifrnomthawthatever quarter the nomination might nave come.
But I am so
fully satisfied that he has a firm and deep-
rooted attachment to our own Church, and repudiates
Romish doctrines, that I feel I should be acting unjustly
by him, and uncourteously to the Marchioness of Bath,
aild Y mot %Vra@ firmly to Day inwutiwi ci inetimiDg

him." The Dishdp, without • noticing Any of the facts
pieced besori- torn by. raa memort4llsts, essuened the
g& of int,3lli and, declaring he wss satisfied Mr.
Bennett was sttsched Zo the Church of England,
decided contrary to the evidence and against the
law ; and determined to institute him with-
out further exanainadon. The memorialists were
disapirited, bat did not despair. They wrote to 'the
Bishop again, and msde another request. They had
sire tdy received ore answer, which was not particularly
courteous or conciliatory; but i; was a model at episcopal
kindness as compared with the accord. This secuud let-
ter
was I sin r, quiisad by those clergymen and lay-
men who presented the memorial requesting your Lord-
ship not to institute Mr. Bennett, to express their deep
regret that you still intend to proceed with the institu-
tion, though he has not retracted any of those doctrines
and opinions cited in their memorial, arid which have
created so much alaina At the ssme time we thank
your Lordship for giving us the credit of objecting to
him only from a sense of duty. And on the recogn'
tion of this principle we now trust your Lordship will
AO far oblige us as to stay institution for the short period
of a fortnight, in order that we may deliberate calmly
on a matter of such great importance, and consider whe-
ther or not we may take further steps." Wasi that an
unreasonable request—coming, as it did from a tongue
gation under rho Bishop's spiritual charge, deeply
moved upon a religious question, and showing a degree
of solicitude upon it for which a b ishop might have
been expected to feel some sympathy What was the
reply ? Some days elapsed bef re Reese received, and then
it was as followst—n Rev. Sir,—l beg to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter, and remain your faithful ser-
vant, RATU and WELLS "—(Hear, hear, and,a laugh.)
He (Mr. Horrtran) would not comment upon that reply
—(Hear, hear.) These gentlemen had presumed to ex-
ercise the right of privaie judgment, which he presumed
wets distasteful to their Bishop; and they received their,
reward. He rtaillecteci reading that Archbishop Laud
had said on one occasion that he hoped " to live w sea
the day when the proudest gentleman of England would
stand uncovered before the meanest priest." He thought
this reply of the Bishop breath, d the spirit of Laud;
though he hopet the gentlemen of England would not
bend to it.—(lfear, hear.) The Bishop, however, had
instituted Mr. Bennett, woo was inducted into the vicar-
'ige of Fronse, where he had a large income psid by
.tue
State, wi h p ttronage of three livings and the appoint;
ment of several curates; with those opportunities of
using his influence which wore given to ministers off
the Established Church in a position of authority. And
what was the first public act of Mr. Bennett after his in-
duction? The House would remember that when he bad :-
resigned St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and St. Btrnabastn'
Pimlico, three curates of the latter church sent in their re'
signation in a public letter, addressed " to the Bishop of
London," in which they said, " Hutting heard that it is
your Lordship's desire that the terrines in the church
should be performed in a mariner different from that in
which we have hitherto had the privilege of enjoying
them, we beg to resign our cures into your Lordships"
hands." Signed, first, by the It, v. Mr. De Gex; and .
the first act of Mr. Bennett, as vicar of Frown, was to
dismiss the popular curate whom he found established
there, and to put in his place that reverend gentleman,
Mr. De Gex. Now, in what position did the parishion-
ers of Frome stand? The place was excited; the clergy
had memorialised; the laity bad protested; the Noncon•
formists had held a public weeting—(A. laugh)---in
which they had raised their voice on behalf of Protest-
autism against what they considered a new "Papal sr,
gression."—(Hear, and a laugh.) This was a question
in which the Disssirers had as strong an interest as thl9,
members of the Establishment.—(Loud cries of Hear,
from the Liberal side.) They might not be amenable
to the discipline of the .hlsiablithed Church; but who
would deny that Protestantism had been deeply tits,.tte'
debted to them, and be believed that they would form
ttfnettin
the best bulwark against encroachments upon the .
Protestantism of the country.—(Cheers from the None •
conformist Members) It was not then to be sneered at
that the Dissenters had protested against Mr. Bonneted
appointment. Men of most respectable character and
position in Fromm had absented themselves from the
church, and the trustees of a Church school, twelve in
theonco church,ber resolvepeopled
thatottheFcrohmildorheneeswhownlhdat ethotadattend
hap-
pened in London. They knew that two of Mr. Ben.
nett's curates hailgone over to the Church of Rowe, and.
.
while ministers in the Church ofd England had made use t
of every opportunity their position in it might afford
them to mike converts to the Church to which they were
themselves hastening. They knew that in the parish of.
St. Bernabas Mr. Bennett had established a convent of
Sisters of Mercy (as it was willed), and that every one
of those lathes had gone over to the Church of Rome.'
They knew also, that among the members of his con.
gregetion many had gone over, not obscure in station;
and they naturally dreaded the same results itt"
Freese. They knew also that the evil bad hes
rested with the seceders themselves; that though
many had by leaving one church and entering another
found rest, others had not been so happy. He spoke in
the hearing of those who could bear testimony to the •
truth of the statements he now made—of those who'
knew the family afflictions, the domestic sorrows which
had been occasioned, and the social distrust which till
abuses had generated. They had heard of paren,laf
agonies—they had heard even of broken hearts; and 1
such things had occurred in London, why should• they
not occur in Freme? And where was to be found th!:
remedy? The Bishop of Bath and Wells told them that
the parties were satisfied, but were the people of Engi.
land satisfied? Were the public and the Protestants 0
Engleud satisfied? Was Parliament satisfied? Ile
would rather ask, was there to be no redress for the
things, and where was it to be found? Not certainly in
the morality of our clergy—not in the conscience° of our
prelates. Our clergy, alas! were too much mistnutte
and our prelates were too deeply tainted, The laity of
England, thank God, were yet sound.—(Hear, hear
The laity of England were the Church of England":
they constituted its soundness and its hope; and it s'l6°
for the laity of the Church of England to bestir them-
selves on the present ()cession —(Elee,r, hear.) And__
hew could they lsgitimettly bestir themselves as
through their reereisentativea in Parliament? II";
proposed, therefore, that the House of Commons, repre
stinting the laity of England, should lay the petition a
the foot of the Throne, and pray of the Queen that?de
would add one more to the many claims she had already
established upon the love and admiration of her faithful
subjtcts by becoming the protector of her people and °f
their religion, by assisting thsra, not against assaults
from without, but against treachery from within--.n5.5
against the avowed enemies of the Church, bute against'
the
the Church's own unworthy sons—(Hear,
and though they might be dignitaries of thelaw
even when those enemies were found in hcbieahr
which. the
would compel them to ww;iience of that law hurcphia,csehse,
repudiated
Bishop of Bath and W. 113 hal w
was the
great scandal done to the Churcedeo
tender of that faith
head, and. show herself the true
her throne had been esta-
on this occasion—that she wouldhevifnawcehiheehrssheense of the
and that liberty by which
cbllui scibeedd . —by( Eimeoavri.
t), humble address he re-
Tg
theaet H.o,nA.eand
tLhaetarsnheed
willMemberbe con-
cluded
to be made whether dee
pre-
sented to her Maj,;,,rt,Ye'l iPprquVrnyg,
ciously pleased to
crees of the constitutions" and
respect was the Church of England in the
canoes ecelesiastica
of Mr. Bennettthe '
to mange of
recent institution
Fron7o."
Af er a slight Pause, ,
paid dollthoift de
of?.1-1thinle it possible to exaggerate
t EXCHEQUER rose
the imprtauce of the question which the Hon. and
d Gentleman has brought under the consideration
Learned
of the House. And, Sir, when I think to what a class
of discussion the present dehat, Way
and The
t said—Sir, d C—BS r dEoLni;
give rise if the
House sanctions the motion of the Hoo. and Learned
Gentleman, I confess I look to the future of Parliamen-
tary duty as one rife with el ments of no slight inte-
vs,d_witn elements of discuss on which may produce 6
very
important effect, and One not anticipated, upon o 1
noon out of doors.—;dear, hear.) Sir, I myself nm not
prepared otuortienrh
tiny opinion
and Learnedpinicinuponth ue
the cirecuttele;
m t'
n
has called which
our attention this evening. I feel, all-
tnohwichto the
stances
havec never felt more acutely, the inconvenience of a
popular assembly like this being engaged in discussions
such as that to which we have now listened.—(Hear'
hear.) But, Sir, I must confess that as I listened to the
address of the Hon. and L-'arned Gentlemen, I was
has made for dealiog with
much struck with the inadequacy of the proposal he
referred. According to the II d Leaned Gentle-
man,on an
experienced by
a very great grievance has been ex
too, with re-
some of her Maj • d that,
6 subjects a.' to interest their
wet to matters whichcalculated
'eel" • are (Hear, hear.) But
-nags in a matter the most Gentle-
manacute.--
has really proposed any
theqsubject to which he has
I do net understand that the Hon. and Learned
he has alleged. The proposition
presented to her Majesty,
praying medyffoore
the vancrs
that " An humble address be
iporuesly pleated to direct- in-
praying that she will be gradeue
respect was paid to the
quiry to be made whether
• the recent institution of Mr.
the Church of England in
.74
of Freese. e ow, I think, that
decrees of the c.,nstiturions and canons ecclesiastical of
Bennett to the vicereee
before assenting to this uddresa, the House would do well
by agreeing to it they will estab-
lish
authority able to cope with the circumstances
to which thewhether,
tton.
Gentleman has referred.—(Hears
for example, the Rouse assents to
that inquiry is made in accordance
Suppose, in fact, that her Majesty
with it.
this Commission of inquiry, it will be accomea"
issues
by no authority to force any one to make any cora-
nied
thheiasr.lotiSers","L'ele'
ntotion he way be unwilling to offer.—(Hear, bear.)
The Commission of inquiry would not have any power
to obtain from the very individuals they
might most lilte
to subject to inquisition the information they requirca,;
___(H„e, hear) Oa the statement of the Hon. an
Learned Gentleman himself, it appears to me that one
of these two alternatives must occur—either there is at
present tdrdsting a remedy for these alleged grievances'
or there is not.—(Hear, hear.) I speak, of course, ea
such a subj.-et with a d, fvret,ct which must best !gale°
any Mt,ar!er of this House who Las not the particular
learnine, which applies to these questions. I can"!
but believe, however—I have always understood--that
must be an appeal from a
prelate who acts la
contravention of the canons of the Church—that
there
must be an appeal to the Archbishop.--(Hear,
)
And if the ceeclact nf a prelate is so sob CI. to th.at
superior revision, I think an appeal ought to tt}a
place before th.re is any intertirence on the part of
the House of Commons.—(lltia,r, hear.) I think that
such appssl should be had in preference to adopting
a tribunal which is confessedly inadequate to attain
the desired result.—(Hear, hear.) B.r, I know that
many pi.':3oP3 are of opinion that there is too great
facility tiff eded in the institution of clergymen to
into
giro no opioten or enter .
flees; bet I do nut wish to
subject on the present occasieh•
any controversy on that •
bear.
pinion that this is is proper alibi,
and that many are of o
check may be aPP
It could easily be shown that such an opinion does exist,.ec
to legislate on, in ordsr that some
gad au jammed control estabiio led, 441,),Aw 6 Key

tor