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

T E SUN,

it;a before now build u • that' **e fabrics of accusa-
-1
inHouse
vi; Lagainst particular prelates of the • Established Church,
ap when examined, bail turned out to be sp:endii exeg-
gerations.— (" Hear, hear," from Mr. HarSinaii.) He might
1.:6k) the Hortiele minor case.-(Question.) (geese ion. ) The ,Uon.
as the
Learned Gentleman had been upwards of two hours in
king his
indulgenceu and sure,ly the House would
etatentl its to him while he attempted to answer
l( Herr, hear.) In the case alluded to the Hon. aed
ii,,rlied Member had utterly failed in eveiy material point
Lee charg ,s which he made against the Bishop of. Gloa-
eele,r• - (Hear, bear.) The lion. and Learned Gentkman
sae for a lona time taken on himself the functions of an ac-
iser of the clergy. In 1828, when the Hon. and Learned
ei:Mel/lin was an elder of the Presbyterian Church. he
N
eeade charges egainst the eminent and excellent Dr. Chal-
zere, which obliged Dr. Chalmers to resort to the preee.—
b°ll Rear," from Mr. Horsman.) He admired the cheer of the
g. and Learned Gentleman. No doubt the Hon. and
rained Gentleman thought Dr. Chalmers as much, in the
er,,tg• on that occasion a he thought the Biehop of Lath and
ell' in this. 'Bet' thanf ct was that Dr. Chalmers was
leeibliged'to publish an answer for the' purpose of dereionst.ret-
- g the unsoundness of whet he called the aerial accusations
of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The Hon. and Learned
1 Gentleman had taken on himself the character of a public
j
..er
n.„ of the clergy, and was bound to be accurate in the
eLreage he used, and to take care that the views he pre-
lee-"' of a case came up to the standard of feels. If
.the
ete-„••; °od Learned Gentleman would embark in discussions
I ele•rei,ng leunfounded)a knowledge, he was
takenbund to avoid
easncinles —eumg charges, and to carti that the
on which he proceeded were sound. The lion.
al Learned Gentleman hed put the House' in a dilenama
-•"cil he could not accept. The non. and Learned Gentle-
said that either the House was a fit place for a debate
14,.8 8 the present, or else there ought not to be in Este-
-Iled Church. He trembled to dispute the dilemma, but
Zehfeared it was just poaeible for them to have au Established
et 'tech, and yet that that House might not be the fitting
for"
, a for the dscussion like the present.—(llear.) Speaking
ktrtailllf self, herd id not scruple to say. that that House was
teer Ming arena for such discussions. He admitted that
t, e might have been—nay, what was more iMportant—
or Englandad been some cases of foul play; that the Church
but was rent from head to foot with her divisions;
he asked them, apart from all interests of' his own, or of
e day, whether they thought that religious divisions
falikely to be mitigated, and that the sores and wounds
the Church were likely to be healed, by rhetorical decla-
Illation by exaggeration, and by misapprehension and mis-
a,_ ,
might
of fact ? (Hear.) It might be that he himself
la.44ight err in this respect ; but if he did so, it would be un-
tentional, for he had the deepest sense of the mischief
hca .
aritl arose from such a source.—(Herr, hear.) If the Hon.
Learned Gentleman knew anything of the nature of re-
Pons partisanship he must know that heat and violence on
tae aide engendered heat and violence on the other.—( Hear,
bkr•) He believed that if the influence of Mr. Bennett
ee
inere in question, there would be no better mode of increas-
oe a propagating that influence than by singling him
filet forattack, if that attack were coloured by religious feel-
That fact must be kept in mind throughout the whole
et;ssnesion, if they wished to neutralise the. evils of such dis-
taas"ns•—(Hear, hear.) The first point which called for
veer attention was whether the country was to be governed,
o"ne:r in ecclesiastical or in civil matters, by the private
tli)eill•°°B of particular men, according to their popularity for
e:entement, or by a system of fixed laws ?—(.Hear, hear.)
wee to be governed by private opinion, and if that House
'Zee; to become the means of making such private opinion
world g' in matters of religion, representative institutions
134" shatcome a nuisance, and ecclesiastical questionswould
aried, they were in fact, the bane and plague of the House
the °` the country.—(Hear. hear.) Bat he maintained that
tight Were not thre to decide what was in the abstract
the i; They had to decide one or two questions. First, had
to b-ws been obeyed? If the laws were good they ought
(if ° obeyed ; and if not good they ought to be altered.
legtar, hear.) They had no right to establish any extaa
sYstern of influence or jurisdiction by which they
move 0
.u.ove P!rate on the regular operation of the law.
.I.t must
11440 Its own fixed course. irrespective of the opinions of
Was
fnsl'als That was the first principle he, laid down. It
hterial to keep in view the person before them in the
•leearnetilnBlance. The speech of the Honourable and
lion, A Gentleman bad a good deal cleared up that ques-
, as be7° he understood the case, the person whe,ose conduct
keenl.,°r° them was the Bishop of Bath and IN ells. As a
he was a great officer of state, and be agreed with the
held
the
and Learned Gentleman indeed he had long
8 e oeinion—that it was a great absurdity that our
ba .11i °old not afford the means of correccing a delincinent
re
roar, hear.) He frankly owne:l that he should
f‘er the the greatest favour any :judicious proposition
With perm, of
providing such means.—(Hear, hear)
Whieh'ek''Peet to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the point
that he he wished to put to the House was simply
A'tenwrts nova delinquent bishop, and
,that not even a
hen. fizcie case of 'delinquenc-, hal been made out against
this ca being CO let them.' put aside the other charges
P tealtif tee as°. Tfiey I.:ad nothing to do with tbe proceedings
Pat °p•
, The Hon and 'Learned Gentleman had ex-
,the pat disclaimed casting. nny imputation on the conduct of
'0 stitte". The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had omitted
Free!: at,"eelenlent to which every patron ought to pay
who, 'eetton and that was the feeling ot the over
tt,44(ll:e4bY
ee perilcular pastor was placed. Though thee) on.
-Sid he Member had dealt with the facts as best he
\Thai:el,: tied admitted that in this particular case—through
Peen r Peculiarity or delusion—the people of Frome were
01.,ny satisfied with what the patron had done.—(Alr.
(litteo 47,--s‘ No, no.") The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
admit\illy 4r that the people of Promo were satisfied.
Gentle ' hear, from Mr. Horsman.) The Hon. and Learned
ter'ao throughout the whole of his first speech, and even
(itiis:ei.'oleetr,slioafdFrepresented the objectors as the clergy and pa-
te'es4tistiee. ,erc?mes Now, it was not a fact that they were
appoint nightly, or wrongly, they were satisfied with
i'4o a nle4tr and were grateful for it.w.er H e held in his
otel letter of ifthe
the churchwardens, which, House
acme Permit, he would read.—(Cries} of " Name.") Tho
ble (4twas Miller--(lronical cries of " Hear, hear") —and
etreee:has the 17th of April, before the Hon. and Learned
1$ add urought forward his first motion on the subject. It
as ressed to the patron, the Marquis of Bath, and was
ewes:

" FRONIE Viestastox•
Prome April 17.
~ a, " _ , t
efh7sY lierd, I have the honour to acknowledge he.receipt
eeett
tor Lsrdship's letter of yesterday's date, andllwilfl ?ro-
kl i 'l'4*er the inquiries therein contained, fu y, a rnotis
to the body of the parishioners. Th
to
the bithass et
trt;f
inhties I am re pared boldly to maintain. The'
under many and great obligations
kilY -esti" °f ;limo e are
nd there is none they more cheer=
hlsasinrenise or- more gratefully appreciate than the
NS fg N'nwed on them in the regard
.manifested by that
!/°11: ETII!IY for ,their spiritual good• in nominating. Mr.
4.4(.7-- vicar of Frome. I assert, and without the sligte&t.
Nei-, vicar of
that Since Mr. Bennett. commenced_ his
t
AtriestsZoihe morning congregation have lacreasetderaet
neverleas
are , ' and that as to the evening
_services, there
ete ° nianY persons assembled within the walls of St.
his' 1.4 Church. The lowest calculation last Sunday even-
trietvaS 2,000. At the commencement many have been at-
of
the(l by curiosity and the love of novelty, but at the end
ree
eon Months there is not only no diminution, but the
h g'•egation is increased and increasing."
thwa,"not right, therefore to sly that the
sentiments of
Illsll,,Pe°Ple of Frome had been over-ridden in the appoint-
°'fG's-,, Mr. Bennett.—(Hear, hear.) The lion. and Learned
tas••"erean denied that the churchwarden had represented
for
_°entirnents of the people, but it was right he should mst
et "( tae Hon. and Learned Gentleman that in a
.postcrip
with letter it was stated that the parishioners, in vestry
i'etribled, had re-elected the writer of the letter church-
carden. It appeared that under the guidance of certain
s;erßymen, 54 persons had protested against the appoint-
,s'eat of Mr. Bennett. Of these 54, only 16 belonged to the
appoint-
gash church to which Mr. Bennett had been appoiated;
liatlrti of these 16 one-half had returned to the church within
11ta‘e_Wteweeks after Mr. Bennett was inducted. One circum-
thit' of a somewhat solemn nature was connected with
14..isrt of the e tion. One person of the 51 who had
krlt:4 was taker ill, and his first act was to send for
L.. •'nett, and he died receiving his ministration.—(Bear,
at) leelin The patron, therefore, was vindicated so far as the
eaid ji °I the parishioners
was`as concerned. It might be
the at their approval only a proof
_of tohe diveopthanoyf
ac cur!, blindness. He was not authorised t
1)-'14 of Mr. Bennett's sentiments. Indeedg he had
'There were
la it slight acquaintance with
_so, ~
PerV„,4l-en• Members who knew him intimately,him
_and might,
the ;"s; be able to speak on that point. Instead of taking
Issa'nuatienced and exaggerated view which the Hon. and
liscirZad Gentleinan had done of everything that Mr. Bennett
the a , and assuming that at this moment Mr. Bennett was
hit Tne man that he was, he must say that the address to
that ;rasa the parishioner& of Frome was a demonstration
eiod,;tl hien to the' encouraging hope that Mr. Benett had_
that,"eted himself wisely and discreetly in his parish, And I,th whether like other men, he might rock in the troubles
the eh surrounded them:she was steady in his allegiance to
dist,„&-lilarch of England, and faithful in the discharge of his
Va.' as a minister of that Church.—(Hear, hear.) Tara p 47. a rational inference to draw when they round the whole
It ssli approving of Mr. Bennett's doctrines and discipline.
I.l,c'stned to him that the accusations against Mr. Bennett di-
t.;`e,l themselves into two classes, the first relating'to his pro-
ki.edinp.a.at Kissengen— the second to his published works.
niats.Proceedings in London were not, and could not be, the
Clect of inquiry. The Hon. and Learned Member seemed
gs at Kissengen ought to have
ii'thik that the. proceedin
ted the Bishop of Bath and Wells instltuting Air.
nettN,, tlett. With respect to the proceedings at Ki.ssengen he
iollnot aware of the state of the case, except in one very
had rtant particular. Iron and Learned Gentleman
ri,.4l•3Bllmed that if TDlhre. Bennett did not appear at the
fis -phi church at Kis:sengen, it proved that he was un-
tlath 1:,, to the English Church. But he thought the Hon.
ust have forgotten that. Mr. av,rles,itr G en ilegm aaisi
'''(
etrieti
chaplain to a private family., —ti
Iltie%) As travelling
Which the Hon. %tid alterLeav,rlod. Csiivirs.
Bee,ll had told them Of the stonefor
wa
_t_ h b
841 hit wag said to have carried about
roll i h him, be must
if the Hon. and
Leannees krass a othin g. —( Hear.) E
tit tI Gentleman should be able to Fun
teediess!)tint, he wished the House to rec:alect that the pro-
the eei,, (4' hir. Bennett at Bissingen did not_aotarall affect,nL.
Itishap jillaerit °f the Bishop of Bath and Wells. —(H jsennett'uu
t)11 acCon,.; n„° Power to take:any steps against M
' sions
"lid th'..7 °' each proceedings, because they werer.done be-
(Exprea_ been
ofd is, iltrisdiction of our ecelesiastical law.—
logni`seant.) Even if the Bishop of Bath and Wells. had
sq° eciainststf Such proceedis, be did not believe 'that
I"at ls • - 'aye taken a a steps with regard to them. A case, 1
tev:ils". atla, miglitb-enCitedin support A' his opinion.
'sell" aaPtist No had preached in ti Presbyterian church, lie
deli vi,;l at Inverness. The attention of the Bishop of Lon-
;trent es' ealled to the fact, but it was found not to be an
Wells ,see'gnil Able by law. Against the Bishop of Bath and
the,. osSue Ron. and Learned Genrleman had made three
plirsg s--het
tharilt° the Biahop preceeded in undue haste and in
prevent the parishioners having a fair hearing ;
that he e broceeded ' without thi. proper certificate; and
hik t"be Proceeded without due examination. It appeared. to
feena:t each and every one of those charges was without
the Positionl°ll' nut first of all let them realise to themselves
enti , f
111 ' - 'n the Bishop. The Honourable and Learned.
tabjecca.„; in the first statement which he made on this
'isho ' wad Prodeeded entirely on the' assumption that
the P,:' when they received presentee!, were invested by
tlittL)'l. r ?f England with largo discretionary powers to iicet
to cu. ate them. That was not the case. respect
ilact aobsolute ; and
ttaie ilt, in matte f dination the bishops power
try hrdaisea a if ict ooruld be 7shown that a bishop
man who was not =stifled for the inin.i-
-tlnty. e:°1111reaasaea es having departed from .Im.
4_ . bishop's tf the ',nit hat Wat;'tfieriasinre of the law on the subject
hissul_a!td Learned Gentleman bad
Powers with respect to presentees? The
r,,,,Ti0n,. on this subject from Mcotland, where he con-
perhaps imported some of
had a better system prevail d ' The . law of Scotland
fair always be.en stuious; tog . .give to the Pcorde a
the
wilt:nasality a stating
had been
to presentees, an,i. on,
~nlaset. °le, llie practice had been too'vefair scope to such
•CngiaZins- But that was not the spirit of t e to gut, • The inspiring idea of the law of England had been
to theraredwith every security the
' give
a h law of
The alystYsson and the
41)44 or the • inchoate right of the presentee.
patron's right to present
law la well•governed countries like our

own became the, spirit of the courts of law, and, as in the
case of motet-rain, thejealortsly of the Legislature was guarded
by the rigid interpretion given to the statutes by the
courts of . law. Iu the same way the cones had viewed
with the utmost jealousy the civil rights of the patrons and
the inchoate right of a presentee. Toe power of the bishop
was narrow by law, and narrower according to practice,
and 'every act of a perroa was scrutinised with the mines;
jealousy in order to give effect to what the low favoured,
and to restrain what the law regarded with distrust. Was
the Bishop to refuse admi:sinn to a presentee Isocause he
had written a work which did not meet his views, or be-
cause he interpreted the oath of supremacy differently from
the bishop? Was the Bishop of Beth and Wells to refuse
admission to. Mr. Bennett because virtually, but not legally,
the Bishop of London hag expelled him from his benefice,
or because some fifty persons in Frome had addressed
him not to institute Mr. Bennett! If the Bishop of Bath
and Wells had so acted he would have been forthwith
brought into the Queen's Bench, and it would have been
no justification of his conduct if he had told the judges
that he had refused admission to Mr. Bennett because
the Bishdp of London had disapproved of his conduct.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells would have been called on
by the court to prove that Mr. Bennett was disqnalified
either .on the ground of heretical doctrine, immoral conduct,
Or insufficient learning.—(iiear, hear.) Except on these
grounds the Bishop would nave no locus standi in a court of
law. From the Statement of the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman ono. would have supposed that his doctrine of a
etrict examination of a presentee was very popular in this
country, and that the feeling of Parliament was in favour of
it. S.) far back as 162 t, the House appointed a Committee
to inquire into the conduct of one of the bishops, who was
afterwards Archbishop of York, and the Committee reported
that the Bishop had failed to admit presentees, and that his
not haviniinducted them had been to the great injury of the
recentpatron . T
case
the of andin thtehier recollection
presentation
be
House
Bi si aotpi ofno Exeterdonl) t .
Brampford Speke. The ruinous and crushing costs of these
ecclesiastical suits were enough to deter persons from engag-
ing in them. He believed the Bishop of Exeter had learnt
that fact by hard experience. In another case, in which the
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had prosecuted a clergy-
man for immorality, the cost to the Bishop was not less than
4,2001. Justice, he hoped, ought to be done even to a
Bishop, and these things ought not to be forgotten
`when their incomes were alluded to. He had stated
that if the Bishop of Bath and Wells had refused to
admit Mr. Bennett he might have been called into court
by a writ of guare inzpedit, and if he failed to establish
heresy, immoral conduct, or insufficient . learning against
Mr. Bennett, he would have been condemned to pay costs.
The other mode of proceeding was the duplex querela. Ac-
cording to that mode, if the Bishop refused to act, the ques-
tion passed to the Court of the Archbishop, and then to the
Committee of Privy Council. He hoped, therefore, the
House would recollect that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in
every step that he took, was bound to keep himself within
his legal powers, andithat the moment ;lie stepped on doubt-
ful ground he made himself liable to being proceeded against
in a court of law. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
had stated that the Bishop of Bath and,Wells had proceeded
with undue haste, for the purpose of overcoming the objec-
tions of the parishioners. The facts, he thought, lcd to an
opposite' conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) He should bo sorry
unnecessary to detain the Mouse, but in shch a case he
begged they would assume their judicial character, and
hear the .answer he had to make to the statement of the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman, What step should
the parishioners have takerin order to interrupt these pro-
ceedings? Their first step' was to have entered . a caveat,
for by doing so they could have furnished the Bishop with
good and solid grounds for delaying proceedings. Why
then had they sot taken that step in -the first instance?—
(Hear, hear.) Every lawyer in Frome must have known
that ;his was the mode of proceeding. Mr. Bennett's pre-
sentation was known in Frome on the 30th of December,
but he was not instituted till the 24th of January; an in-
terval of 26 days elapsed. That a caveat could have been
entered in a single day was evident from the fact of Dr.
Twiss having on the 23d of January advised a caveat,
and from its being ready on the 21th of 'January,— (Hear.)
The lion. and Learded Gentleman said that the parisioners
petitioned the Bishop, but petitions were of no legal value,
while, by entering a caveat the petitioners would have in-
curred a forensic responsibility. If the Bishop had pleaded
the petitions is any suit the Court would have laughed in
his face. He ventured to say that there was net an at-
torney in From° who would not have advised the peti-
tioners that if they were -in earnest, the proper mode of
proceeding was by caveat. The Bishop would- net have
been entitled to plead Use address which he had received
from the petitioners in any proceelangs which might have
been taken against him. The Hon. and. Learned Gentle
man thought that the address did not supply matter br judi-
cial consideittion. The Bishop was nor of that opinioe,
and as the parishioners
,had not taken the proper method
of entering a caveat, he contended the Bishop would not
have been Justified in refusing to iossitete.— (Heat, hen-.).
if the Bishop could not refuse, neither could he delay
'institution. He apprehended that a judge could not delay
justice without reason, any more than lie could refuse euetice.
—( H ear. ) The obligation not to postpone justice was as
strong as the obligation not to deny,it. The, bishop would-
certainly have been respensible‘to the patron, as.well as to
the presentee, if, knowing that the partseioners declined en-
tering a caveat, he had refused to institute the presentee to
the benefice to which Sae had received the presentatien. As
therefore, he begged the
iriegareuadeed the question
to
remembe
rthatof delay,twenty-six
days had elapsed be-
tween the time when the people of Frome had become aware
of the intention to present Mr. Bennett and the time when
he had been instituted. He put it to the Jelouse that if
those parties were in earnest it was their duty to pursue
one or other of two courses; they ought either to have con-
sulted the. Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to have asked
him whether he thought there were grounds for legal pro-
ceedings against Mr. Bennett, and then of course they
should be bound by the decision of -the Bishop; or they
might have abstained from consulting the Bishop at all, and
have themselves entered a caveat and commenced legal pro-
ceedings in the matter. But they had not chosen to adopt
either of these courses. The demand they had made was
virtually to the effect that because they had found that
Mr. Bennett had professed opinions not acceptable to them,
the Bishop of Bath and Wells should undertake not only
the cost and risk of the legal proceedings but that he
should undertake them in a cause which he believed to be
good for nothing. Let it not be forgotten that it had only
been on the 23d of January that those parties had sought
advice on the subject of their caveat —that was to say 25
days after they ought to have sought it, and when Mr.
Bennett was on the point of being instituted. Then, the
second charge of the Hon. Gentleman against the Bishop of
Bath and Wells was, that, Mr. Bennett had been instituted
without the proper certificate. But upon that point it ap-
peared to him (Ur. Gladstone) that the Hon. Gentleman
had fallen into an error in supposing that one of the canons
he had quoted—namely, the 48th canon, had anything to do
with that matter. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed he teas be-
yond all risk of being questioned or contradicted:by any
one conversant with ecclesiastical law when he stated that
at the present time, and for along series of years, the 89th
canon was that which exclusively regulated the institution
of ministers to benefices.. The Hors. Geatleman seemed to
think that the Bishop of Bath and %Veils had been guilty
of a legal offence in admitting Mr. Bennett without the
testimonial of the Bishop of London, But the 39th canon
did not require such a testimonial as that which the Hon.
Gentleman supposed to be indispensable. He met the state-
ment of the Hon. Gentleman by stating that the Bishop of
Bath and Wells had received from Mr. Bennett fullevi-
dence with regard to his life and doctrines, and that if he
had refused to entertain that evidence Mr. Bennett, or the
patron of the living, would have been entitled to have pro-
secuted the bishop in the courts, and to have compelled
him to have granted institution. The lion. Gentleman had
admitted that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received
the usual testimonial signed by three incumbents, but he
had asked who these three incumbents were, and whether
his (Mr. Gladstone) had got that testimonial. Now, he had
to state in reply, that he had not got the testimonial, and
that he could not name the threeincumbents. But he knew
that the testimonial, so far as the three incunbents were con-
cerned, was the usual testimonial. at he Hon. Gentleman had
said that the testimonial was to the effect that Mr. Bennett
had never done anything contrary to the doctrine or disci-
pline of the Church of England. lint the words of the testi-
monial were in reality to the effect that Mr. Bennett had
never held, or taught, anything contrary to the doctrine or
discipline of the Church of England. It would be veiy diffi-
cult indeed to say of any man that he had not done any-.
thing contrary to any particular doctrines ; but a man's
teaching was more public, and. could more properly be made
the subject,of a testimonial such as that to which he was
referring. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had received pre-
cisely the usual testimonial, as far as the incumbents were
concerned:; but it was not the usual testimonial, so
far as the dismissing Bishop—the Bishop of London
—was concerned. The Bishop of London had annexed a-
note in which he called the attention of the Bishop of Bath
and Wells to the fact that Mr. Benneit had been-dismissed
from the diocese of London, or that the Bi,hop of that diocese
had made use of the voluntary offer of resignation of 4lr.
Bennett, because, as he said, the continuance of that clergy-
man in the diocese would seriously prejudice its free and
good order, lie had called the attention of the Bishop of
Bath and Wells to the correspondence which•had been pub-
fished -in the nines between
.himself and Mr. Bennett.
And thus' they had got one step further in the matter.
The testitneniat was the usual testimonial compelling the.
Bishop.to institute Mr. Bennett as fax as the incumbents were
concerned; but it was not the usual testimonial, inasmuch as
it had un extraneous comment appended to it by the Bishop
of London. The question then arose,
,what was the
exact legal' nature and effect of that explanatory note of
the Bishop of London, and What were the duties which it
imposed on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? He (Mr. Glad-
stone) understood that notes of that kind were not unfree
quently appended by bithops toftestimonials; but it was
ire quite plain that if a signature were affixed to any document
conformity with law and usage, its legal effect could not
t,biegnailetgerietd.
of the
byThaeal3;lertuitous comment .roads by the party
London continued the same eignature of the Bishop of
be the explanation affie.e.eeer point of law, whatever might
that explanation? He (Mr.'B)laitii What was the value of
it was this—that it imposed on ttliteteue) said tbet the value of
the duty of ascertaining for Bishope of Bath and Wells
of Mr. Bennett, and
of
satiztianei,
himselftahat was the doctrine
lie contended that it could have toother upon that point.
then that of. imposing on the Bishop ef valueßath and effect
the duty et examining Mr. Bennett
i,he e uhd Wells
L
admitted that the certificate, of then Gentleman3iai,
Lendon was not necessary that the canons did)l3 oft
require it, and that practice did not require it;- andn
he (sir. Gladstone) believed that, under these cir-
cumstances, he had shown that there was ,an end to that
pact of the case attempted to be established against the Bishop
of Bath and Wells. Ho next came to the third charge of' the
Hon. Gentlertian, whicla was that ttie Bishopof Bath a
nd Wells
had admitted Mreßennett without due examination, and
he thought that he
( Ur. Gladstone) was bound to ay
Bishop of Bath and, iWel the
of the Hon; Gentleman ls
sense
had so admitted Mr.
Bennett. He should, however, add,
the II
construction which Gentleman
that although the
"due examination" might suit the
lead given to the phrase
confident that there was no
House of Commons, he felt con
gentleman there who had
ever inquired into a legal question
that would not at once repudiate that construction. lie saw
in the case,
lawyers there who felt with the Hon. Gentleman
he an-
and upon the point which he was then discussing
pealed to them with the seine confidence with-which
in th
ap-
pealed to Hon. Gentlemen who adopted his views
the doctrine
matter. The Hon. Gentleman had laid down.
that a judge—fora bisho-
p in such a case as that was a judge
.! in the strictest sense of the. term—the don. Gentleman had
laid down the doctrine that. that judge was not to institute
au examination
of such a nature and to such an extent as to
satisfy his own conscience, he being the person on whose
conscience the law had laid. the burden ofthe decision,
but such an examination
I as
. would satisfy other per-
sans on whom the law hail not 1 -
• • aid the burden of the
decision—such an examination as s. ould sati:,fy whit the
I lion. Gentleman called " the public," and such .an
exami-
nation as would no doubt satisfy himself the Hon Member
for'Cockermouth.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He wished
he could get, the Hon. Gentleman to look in cold blood at !
the consequences—he did not like to use strong epithe s—
but lie should say the really. frightful and hideous conse-
qaetices of such a doctrine of judicial duty, and such a con-
ceptiou of the judicial character, as that -a judge in a solemn

LONDON,

and imp o•tant matter wes not to look for such evidence a 5
would- satisfy his own eonecience, bat for such evidence as
would satisfy the public.—(Lend cries of " deer, hear.") If
1 he had misunderstood the Hon, Gentleman. and if the Hon.
Gen tleresn would admit that the duty of a judge was to in-
-1 stitine, on his solemn responsibility, such an ostamin Ition as
would satisfy his own judgment, and acquit his own con-
, science before God and men—then ha and the Hen. Gentle--
• Tee Bishop of Bath' and Well • had dine
mite were aeree, .
' charged that duty; he had examined Mr. Bennett, not
in the Greek Teitament, not' on matters of form
or of ecclesiastical history—he had examined Mr.
Btnnett—ret the Mr. Bennett eof former times, but
the Mr. Bennett of January last—the Bishop • who
had himself been a great sufferer from illness—from
crushing and torturing illness—but who bad been in full
possession of all his intellectual powers and faculties—for
the Right Lion. Gentleman the Secretary of- State was thee- •
taken in supposing that he had arrived at an extreme old
age -he had carefully examined Mr: Bennett on all those
points on which he had thought that an examination had
been called for—namely, those points in dispute between
the Church of England and the Church of Rome; and-it was
not until he had made up his mind that on thoie points Mr.
Bennett had held by the Church of England that he had pro-
ceeded to take any of the steps necessary for.grenting the
proposed institution. If ho lied found that Mr. Bennett had
held the opinions of the Church of Rome in regard, for in-
stance, to the points touched in the Thirty-nine Articles, his
course would have been clear, and it would then, no doubt,
have been his duty to hare refused institution. But haying.
sound that there had been no groned for attributing to Mr.
Bennett an adherence to the doctrines of the Church of
Rome, he had granted institution. Acting,' hot on the
belief and convictions of the Hon. Getitleman, but on -the
belief and convictions of himself,- the Bishop, who was the
judicial-officer appointed by the law to 'decide the 'case, had
subjected Mr. Bennett to a due examination ; and it was to his
honour that he had done thate not under the influence of any
compulsion on the part of the parishioners of Freese, for he
had done it before there had •been any movement Whatever
among any discontented clergymen or laymen. The Bishop
had himself instituted the inquiry because he had 'seen that
the circumstances of Mr. Bennett's former career bad been
such as to call for. it. He had taken upon .himself that
responsibility, and by his own 'mouth bad examined Mr.
Bennett on those points on which he believed that an ex-
amination was necessary. Nowte (Mr. Gladstone); should
confess that the Hon. Gentleman fairly beat him when he
led them in that House into the domain of pure and unmixed
theology . The Hon. Gentleman had quoted from a work of
Mr. Bennett some-propositions 'in theology, 'and the Hon.
Gentleman had told them that it would not be appropfiate
in that House to discuss those propositions. No; but al-
though the Hon. Gentleman had not thought inappropriate
to discuss, he had thought it appropriate to judge and de-
cide.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had quoted a
saying of Mr. Bennett's, withregard to the Holy Scriptures.
But Mr. Bennett himself had on a former occasion com-
plained that his words upon- that subject had been mis-
quoted, not by an alteration of the words, but by taking
them out of their context, so as to makel them bear a
meaning totally different from that which he had intended.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, speaking of the pa-
rishioners of From° in another part of 'his speech, had asked
whether Mr. Bennett believed. that the Bible was a fiction
and an absurdity, imputing to Mr. Bennett that belief, and
complaining that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not
made that a matter for his judicial investigation. But when
he (Mr. Gladstone) looked at the possage, he saw that it
was, in his humble opinion, totally altered, as Mr. Bennett
had contended, by being wrenched from what preceded and
followed. Could he remedy the evil by reading the pas-
sage to the House? He felt that he could not. • It was a
powerful and affecting statement of some of the most solemn
doctrines of our religion, which ho could not profane by
reading the passage in the House of Commons. The Ho •
nourable Gentleman, he should say, was not 'in the least
degree aware of the common history of the Church of Eng-
land, except, perhaps, during the years he belonged
to it.—(Hear, heel-, and a laugh.) He (Mr. Glad-
stone) believed he would show the Hon. Gent eman that
he was totally unaware of one of the great religious contro-
versies of this century. The passage in the work of Mr:
Benaett had referenc a to this question—whether in the
work of rropagating Christianity, of spreading Chtistienity
among those who had not previously professed its doctrines
—the Bible alone should be used; and Mr. Bennett had said
that it would be a fiction and delusion to suppose that
Christianity would be propagated by merely distributing the
Bible among an un-Christian people. . Bat Mr. Bennett did
not protest against the use of elle Bible by Christians for the
education of their souls. And the Honourable Gsntleman•
ought to know that for. many years after. the foundetion of
namely, yn the
eB
r.S oGel iaoencdstges:di —yuo
htsd.
the metitution known to every Itlertieer of that :House—
op
by
rch,
rrulocbtaett
.because
ttstd:
nfe-i ilaft:hnst
etshyh- heoerfac
oe. atci. r
ivuebeee been
v ee,
question-
,that posed by nearly the whsle of the Bishops of the Church' of
ore
than a single Dollop who had not at the time opposed it';_
am:iiiteitaintoefr hadthreiaglEh3t,s)ltyba'ebnlnirshowepredp
that even among. Christians, an I particularly in-foreign
tends, the circulation of the Bible alone was not the instru-
ment which •our Saviour had intended for prom-sting
Christianity. The opinion.- which had been held 'by Mr.
Bennett wits one, therefore, which had been held at the'
time of the ettablishment of the Bible Society by the great
maes.of the clergy and Bishops of the Church of England.'
'Mr. LIORSMAN- said he bad -not quoted the • opinion of
Mr. Bennett;
,he had merely said that the memorialists had
brought that passage under the notice of the Bishop. lie had
.himself given uo opinion upon the subject.
Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The Hon. -Gentleman had
quoted thepassage from the memorial;. but he' had also ad-
verted to it ie another part of his speech. The opinion of
Mr. Bennett was one which bad been entertained by the
great mass of the bishops and clergymen of the Established
Church; it was no ecclesiastical offence of which the courts
could take cognizance, or which they would admit as a valid
reason for staying the right of the patron or of the presentee.
But the Hon. Gentleman had also adverted to another case
—that relating to the oath of supremacy. Now he (Mr.
Gladstone) cotended that upon that, as upon other points,
they ought to be guided by the law, and not by private
opinions. He was only afraid that as the law represented
the spirit of one period, and the men of the present genera-
tion represented the spirit of a different period—our laws not
having been changed as public opinion had changed—those
who were called upon to consider the conduct of great
public and judicial officers might forget that those officers
were only bound to conform to the law, and that they could
only. be blameable or punishable in consequence of a de-
parture from it. It seemed that Mr. Bennett had put a
Ilwohniocuhradbilfe.
t.pearr,tdi cfur loanir ctohnastt construction
wo nasthe oh ant hp
nonfit pbrye mtna cey
wnietnhahta tahe meaning
Gentleman. But the Honourable Gentleman ought to recol-
lectof the oath of supremacy was one
already
been much debated in that House.
The Noble Lord the Member for London had given one
construction of the oath, and other Honourable Members
had given a different construction of it; and it was well
known that at the present moment there were two Peers
to affix to the
who were precluded from taking, their seats in the House
of Lords, because they found it impossible
oath of supremacy any • clear and distinct meaning to
which they could subscribe. But at all events he believed
that the meaning attached to the oath of supremacy by
Mr. Bennett did not amount to an offence' punishable in
the courts n and the Bishop of Bath and Wells could .
not make
it a ground for stain
thereby avert the institution of
Ben-
nett, although he mighty
cla-
mour, and save himself from the hostility of the
Honourable Member. for Cockermoutle The -Bishop
had merely to carry out the law of which he was the sworn
guardian, even though it might-be-necessary for him to do
so in an unpopular _manner, and under unpopular circum-
stances. As regarded the second charge, the want of evi-
dence, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought he had shown that the
evidence was the same as.in other cases dealt with by bishops
of the Established Church. _(Hear, hear.) But when he
came to the third charge, he had shown that the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, without waiting. for inquiry or suggestion
from the Bishop of London, made up his mind that Mr.
Bennett could not be convicted of false doctrine, and that,
therefore, it was not his duty to deny or delay the justice
that rested with him to pronounce.—(lear, hear.) The
Bishop of Bath and
Wells was fully borne out in the course
which he adopted by the conduct of the Bishop of London.
lie (Me. Gladstone) believed it to-be the case as regarded the
Bishop of Bath ants Wells that he bad made himself reasone
sible to this extent, that, if Mr. Bennett were taken into an
ecclesiastical court, and if his doctrines ivere there declared
to be contrary to those held by the Church -of England,
there would then be a case against the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, who examined the works of Mr. Bennett, and de
Glared them conformable to the doctrines of the Church of
England.---( Hear, hear.)
But now came the question,—
What were they. eo do ?. (Hear, hear.) It was not his (Mr.
Gladstone's) business to advise the House on this point—he
was not going to make a motion or amendment on the tub-
ject ; but he would offer a few observations on the motion
itself. He should confess there were objections to the- mo
tioa as it now stood—namely, as regarded the institution
of Mr. Bennett. Were he to vote for that motion as it now
stood, he would be assenting to the allegation that a
prima facie case had been made against the Bishop of Bath
and W ells; but in his opinion no such case was made.—
(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman anticipated, as an objection
to his motion, the present period of the session, and in-
stanced the case of the inquiry moved for by the Hon. Member
foe North Warwickshire.—(Hoar, hear.) His (Mr. Glad-
atone's) flrst-objectiori was to their professing to inquire into
the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev.
Mr. Bennett to Frome. If they were to inquire at all, they
should hare their inquiry into the state and spirit of the
enactment of the laws which were studiously framed by suc-
cessive generations with a view to discourage bishops, and
make it impossible for them. to-do that which the Honour-
able Member for Cackermouth now accused them with.—
(Hear, hear.) If they wished to go into the ques-
tion of ecclesiastical appointments—it an inquiry were
moved for .to investigate the state of the law, and
to do so in a fair and. <impartial spirit, the Honourable
Member moving such inquiry would confer one of the
greatest services possible on the country, and greatly con
tribute to the stability-of the Established Church.—(Hear,
hear.) It was his (Mr. Gladstone's)hpinion that at pre-
sent parishioners did not possess sufficient means of making
their objections known in these cases of institution.—(Hear,
hear.) ,But whether the subject should be undertaken by a
Commissioner or by a paid Committee, was soother ques-
tion. If they wanted an immediate. inquiry, they could not
have it now by a Committee. Whether there should be a
Commission, or whether there should be a general acknow-
ledgement of the expediency of instituting an inquiry into
ecclesiastical and temporal law, with regard tr the power of -
making canonical objections to persons instituting to ap-
pointments, ha would not say. At the same time, he should
say that, if her Majesty's Gavernment wore disposed to un •
la
nue
Irrrnt ae In
to
oe
thisthth e e
sdr
sbse.j :e
snt ;01:hi
elr
yi
at yi
reoedfublayan
tgi
hinvegenu inor
oynt. into
7ithe I
nsi to
ear
st
Cet ofoc usefulktehre.
mouth, but also confer a vast amount of benefit"—(Hear, To either of these courses he (Mr. Gladstone)
would
be prepared
to censure a high
done his duty, and only
to give a
.most favourable consideration. But
hiluty,
judicial officer in the Church, who had.
and that with-accuracy and
care, in the case now brought
was, in his mind, a mosti before them, he should confess
—( Hear, hear)—because j,ecyetirable course et' proceeding
prelate—not by implication, butt-t be casting censure on a
acted in a manner unbecoming his had
never
who, instead of. blame and censure, exalted position, and
the highest commendation.--.(Cheers.)
ereer,a merited at their hands
h .)
Sir J. PAKINGTON remarked that the Right Honour.
able Gentleman the Member for the University of
Oxford
had stated his sentiments with his usual abity, and
gone very far to justifeethe college the Bishop had taken in
had
this case. The deep attention which had been paid to the
Honourable Gentleman on . both occasions when he brought
the subject before the House proved how strongly the people
of thie.country -arlethe Members of that-House had been
excited by these dissensions which unhappily existed in the
Church ot England.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
the Member for- Oxford had observed with painful truth, 1
that the Church was rent and torn by those unhappy dis- I
tensions
• ,na•d he ' (Sir John Pakington) believed that this •
was mainly owing to that portion of the clergy of the.
Church who had taken that line which Mr. Bennett pur-
sued—( Loud cheers from all parts of the House) -a ,
line which in his case had led to his expulsion from one
diocese, and -which had led to the most grave and serious

WEDNESDAY

i really :sincere ministers
.cf the Church.-(Cheers.) lie
I : doubts whether clergymen takipg that line could
hbef.
* . lieved that in matey most es:ice:lel respects, there never
I Was a more exemplary parochial Minister than Mr.
1 Bennett, but the same thing might unquestionably be said
1 of a large 'portion of the R )man Catholic cleray- -oear
,
bear.) But there ceeld not be a More dangeroas error teen
to c. face personal piety and tlie .exemplary discharge of
- parochial duties with these vital doctrines which formed
the broad lines of demarcation between the two Churches.
M —eer, hear.) No one could d'atly the unhappY die..
ferences eat dissensions that lad arisen in our Church,
hind much of them was -undoubtedly attributable to those
gentlemen, who, like Mr. Bennett; exhibited that love of
forms and histrionic display which so much characterised
the Church of Ronae.--(Hear, bear.) By means of those
gentlemen the Rees of distinetionhetween the two Churches
• were 'ever", day made finer sal finer, and a numbee
of unwary Protestants ' had in conseqear.) He could
uence been led
away to the Church of Rome_-.(gear , h
not blame the Honourable- Gentleman for bringing those re-
marlaible facts beforethe HOnsaebat he seriously doubted
how for the House ef Commons was a fit arena for such
dilcussion;--(Hear, hear.) The Hetiourable Member had
quoted a statement .of his (Sirhle Paltington's)
opinion
the last time this subject was before the`House. He had
then expressed that opinion, and he had now no intention to
rkede from it.- (Hear, hear.) . The Government on that m-
aim undertook to Mike inquiry,
and they exhausted every
means in 'their power to ascertain how far that inquiry could
he conducted. The first step taken was to draw up questions
which in the judgment of the Government embraced the
whole matter in issue. These having been submitted to the
law officers of the Crown, they gaveit as their opinion that
there was no illegality in the institution of Mr. Bennett, and
that as to the transactions alleged to have occurtied at Kis-
sin,gen—a foreign country—nelegal.inquiry by the Bishop
could be instituted respecting it. The Government not
resting content 'with those answers, , they submitted a se-
cond time more comprehensive questions to the law officers,
and were again informed that there was no legal mode
by which . the circumstances connected With Mr.
Bennett's induction could be made the subject of
direct and immediate inquiry, but if there was any
legal mode then it would be open to the parishioners to
proceed under the Church Discipline Act. With regard
to the transactions at Kissengen, they were qaestions of fact,
and it was undoubtedly a very extraordinary fact, and one
ealculated to' create great anxiety and suspicion_, that Mr.
Beanett's name was to be foaled in " Battersby's Directory."
This undoubtedly was a question for the Bishop to inquireinto. ie (Sir .63-: Pakington) had listened with astonish-
ment to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman,
(Mr. Gladstone), when allading to the transactions at Sie-
sengen. There an English clergyman passed many months
without going near the English elergyman, his church, or
congregation.—(Hear, hear.) It was a subject calculated
to excite the gravest anxiety, and to inspire the deepest re-
gret, to find that a clergyman so conducting himself should
be now at the head of an important parish.--(Hear, hear.)
He (Sir J. Pakington) could not conceal his astonishment
when he heard the Right' Honourable Gentleman vindicating
such conduct.—(o No," from Mr. Gladstone.) Why, he
said the clergyman was acting as a chaplain, and that his
family was his congregation. But what was the family? Why,
Sir John Harringeon's—the churchwarden of Mr. Bennett's
late church, St. Paul's, where Sir John had conducted him-
self with more zeal than discretion.—(Rear, hear,) He
(Sir John Pakington) could not admit the propriety of any
chaplain so situated being exempt in faro conscientue from
attending a place of public worship—(Hear, hear.) These
were matters of such public notoriety that they must have
come to the knowledge of the Bishop of the diocese, and
they were matters into which the Bishop was bound
to in-
gaire.—(Hear.) He did not believe, however, that any large
number of gentleman in that House would agree, that that
was a proper place for making a judicial inquiry into the con-
duct of a bishop. He thought it would be a course un-
worthy of the House of Commons, and a dangerous precedent,
and therefore he must oppose the motion.
Mn GLADSTONE said the Right Hon. Gentleman was
mistaken, if he thotight, he (Hr. Gladstone) vindicated Mr.
Bennett's conduct at Kissengeti. He wished to state also,
that, the Bishop of Bath and' Wells had not 'become ac-
quainted with that conduct 'until after Mr. Bennett's in-
duction.—(Olt, oh.) - • '
his PAGE WOOD believed this was a graye constitu-
tional queetien. lie felt most deeple the vast importance of
the general subject, and the mode in . which the people of
England had been excited on the subject.
Owing to this
excitement there was the more dread of their being led e.wey-
bY their feelinge to some unconstitutional -course.-- (Rear,
hear. ) C add any one doubt ' that the conduct of nemeess
of those, who, being aworn members of our Church, had
availed themselves of that position to disseminate what
Member - to be the errors; and -corruptions of the. Church of
Honourable
we considered—aud he meant no offence to any.
Reae. ln ono case a Party acted with- such baseness wee
go over to the Church of. Ranee the very day after he had
) The . un-
preached in the Established Chureh, and he took with him
im'iladareelwlt:of movement
had written a beta upholding the doctrines of the Church
ithriestotregiane- (mEinedari,nhethtrin.
of Rome. That tract, which he had read, favoured-the
ftniiretntwnnotec
..nioat miserable hypocriey, Which he (Sir W. P. Wood)
should at all times be realy to, denounce. He had dealt
with the doctrines of the Church in what was called their
" unnatural" sense. The matter, however, was not confined
to hue side, and he was afraid that ae• the unnatural Sense
led to the Church of Rome, so, on the other siele, it, might
lead to religious error. •He respected' the opinions of all
men who had changed their religion from cemscieutions
motives, and in that feeling he admired Mr. Biptist Noel
for having left the Church; but he could not admire those
who, approving of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, did
not go over to that Church. Every member of the Church
of England was bound to take the Book of Common Prayer
in its natural form; and: according to ite 'strict meaning as
laid down by the Chtirth. Bat while he felt thatehe was of
opinion that they would not advance the cause which he had
at heart, namely, a legislative reform of the ecclesiastical law,
by taking up individuals and holding them up to detesta-
tion, and, still more, by making the matter a party question,
with a view to a remedy. With iegard to Parliament, how
did the motion before the Reuse stand? Oa a former occasion
they were asked to have an inquiry under authority of the
Crown, and now they were asked to have an inquiry before
a Select Committee. But in bah cases the inquiry asked
would be contrary to the Bill of Rights, and the principle
was this—that they ought not to inquire into the conduct
of an individual behind his back, or bring charges against
him, unless it was to put him. on his trial. They might
bring a man before a grand jury, but .it would be for the
purpose of bringing a bill of indictment against him; and
subject to onditio; and he 'did not dispute the
right of the House Of Cenineons; Which . was called the Na-
tional Inquest, to inquire into abuses; but if they instituted
. inquiry into 'this matter, they shtuld proceed 'fairly. fle
was glad to find that her Majestyte- GOVemment felt that
they could not assent to the course proposed, and also that
they had undertaken to recommend inquiry into it; for
otherwise he felt that there was no possible mode, even ac-
cording to the statement of the rfon. Member for Cocker-
mouth, of dealing with the question, his Honourable Friend
not having made out any breach
of the lave.
He did not
think it just that a parish should be placed in a position to
have such a man as the Rev. Mr. 'Bennett forced upon thern
without the power•to deinand the inquiry whether he was
a Member of the Church of England--
1 r hear.) Bat
whatever inquiry might be adopted intohisea ' •
matters
case, as -
stood it could not lead to such a result a The Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Mernbet for the-University,
0„ „worn
(Mr. Gladstone) had rather understated tli:1-81Y T U
case in favour
of the Bishop. The Bishop, it app
point to the living, and did not .
eared;had 28 days to ap
aPPoint until the twenty-
seventh day; therefore there was no i
basic, in the
appointment. And with respe to his ngecent .
the tes-
timonials of the clerk, a court oftOMan 3 emending
ule that
he had no such right. A case had' Ort law would .. ,
arisen wherein a 1813401,
had demanded the testimonials of a clerk,and mulcted
he was
by the court in heavy costs. In none of those alternatives
which the Hon. Member for Cocker
ia id down!
could proceedings be taken either eineath hadn _
Bishop ot
London or the Bishop of Bath andga4t th
The
HON
Member for Cockermouth said that 'th le
•ho should
have gone farther than he had, and e e Bishop p_
the Rev.
Mr. Bennett; and the Right
calmedHonotirablM r for the
University of Oxford said that he had - einnie h. so
exam him,
that they had assertion against nisserti - 11 that the
Bishop could have done was to put _on. A
the Rev. Mr' Ben-
nett's own book
?into his hand, and said ' e Did you
write this book I find such , and to him,
such a statement in
it." Such was the course taken in the such
case by the
Bishop of Exeter, and the Privy online,.
'3l hinavienZ taken a
contrary view of the matter, the Bishop -
bone so, what remedyiwon the-Biahop have •
°P had no remedy. That
the case of
the key. Mr. Bennett ? The great mistake whichlli the Hon.
Member for Cockermouth made waa ;11. his
edin
g of the
law. According to the authority •
of Lord-Elleiral,lorou- h the I
g ,
had bishoe, in such a case_ as this, e
• -0 discretion whatever,
the matter of approval resting with. his own conscience, after
• examined the preacher, which he having
d b ' law
was bean Y ,
to do. The people of Frame might h
whowould h aye consulted any ae-
torney in the Place,
them
to.eo aye directed them in the
right course, and told th
however, there a Proctor. .Up to the
present moment, re leas not . no word
judicial • formation to lustily the 0
of iu
eourse proPesed'
Ou reading iMe• 'a book,
Beenett
he
was
p.
,Wood) had formed -his- own conclusion, It was undoubt-
edly a grave thing that a man should be - i .
d d naltO under 8 - such circumstances, but still that was the law. He was
ready to join heartily in any metioe ,
4 for n in nitY which would serve to promote an athend
°lent ofa hecilaw,
and doubtless as so great eagerness lied h
-eea t
for
Chancery reform, the ecclesiastical courts le
-oul displayednot esca e
next 583-81QD• Isn hia opinion, however', there was no roan%
for an inquiry uch as had now been moved for, geed if
grauted, as a general rule in similar circumstances, without
the Member's pledging himself. to go on 'With ee, ,
-ec most
it
was a proceeding opPosed to- the spirit of the most obVfons
principles of the constitution.
air,.
Colonel BOY LE said, that as it, la„ been imputed to Reverend Gentlemen who had eignea
.t9e protest, that theythe
m gu
had been actuated by awe oithy =dives, as
he was ac-
• hid with them all, he c belief that
could declare his .. et was no
such motives had promoted them.indeed' true that
there was a party at Promo who interested themselves with
the lady patroness to appoint a particular clergyman
, Whom
they thought deserving, and that t ey were refused. But,
although that, was so, it did not induncef
treyNhife them to sign
the writable
toeA fur the p
- °lmiler-latYlittle infor ar of Frome,
he
.gve the Reuse .
well aware of e on the
subject, as it was probably
net
so
oeceived a letter the Iseale
of the place as he was. Ile had er
l' d from an
a not
le to on
attorney of Frome, who had bee
'd believe a the very
• and he there said•he di
question,
.an change of'
arishoners, but that the
feeling had come over the parishoners,
re ex-
isted a decided determination the most • •
amongintelligent of
-ite Bennett-and his doctrines.
It
'them to discountenance ---r-•
hwarden had et
stated also that the vicar's
anirecel with the r resigned, and
left the church, and that it
fwoanand. - YNow when eit ewsat din.
catty a successor had been
bay©
appliedt to the Bisheoepaid
that the p wishioners should
11 say that they h °f
Bath and Wells, he might 0 we had little
l t ho had gv
I toga pre a e vi eu refuge to
confidence in an appeal
. been refused preferinent in the
a curate who had previous‘y
they remembered that the costs
diocese of Ripon; arid when. they
1° 000 L there w •
to -, , as certainly of the Gorham case amountedt°
try the question at law. He
not much encouragement
could not but express his acknowledgments to the Member
for Cockermouth for the able
win temperate manner in which
he hal brought the subject forwaid ; and if his efforts failed
to procure peace at he
From?,would' certainly recommend
ack up his portmanteau and be
the. Rev. Mr. Bennett •to P
off.—(Cheers and laughter.)
the address had been signed be
Mr. YORKE denied that
1• C utt. The Hon.
id by 1% e• well
r
boys and girls as was said
the' impression.upon the
Member for Cockermouth hadleft
House that he had taken the matter up..at the request of the
Bennett had i
If Mr. . ire to the
parishioners of Frome,.
nevertheless, essare the louse that
. mass at Rome, he could, never
the Von. Member lahneen
he was as good a churchman as e
delivered h'l ---'''
or the Bishop of London, when h his charge in
1842.
Sir B. HALL said he believe
• d the Hon. Gentleman was
himself a ;party to those Romanising proceedings, and that
he took part in the memorable processih n which had pro-
duced weh unfortunate results. He maintained that most
public-
houses in
of the signatures to the address had been obtained.then ic-
and there
houses by persons smoking and drinking, who
bore testimony to the, soundness of the doctrines of Mr.
Bennett.—(Laughter.)
.......___