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

MAYNOOTH GRANT.

~:

Mr. SPOONER postponed his motion respecting the
Maynooth Grant till Thursday, the 4th of May.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know whether the Hon.
Member did really intend to bring forward his Emotion,
as it had already been postponed two or three times, and
the repeal of the grant was being made a parry cry
throughout the country.—(Order.) He ought to fix a
day, and stand by it.—(Continued cries of " Order.")
Mr. SPOONER—I have fixed a day and will stand
by it; the reason I have postponed the motion is th at the
position it occupied on the paper rendered it utterly im-
possible to bring it on.
MASSACRE AT THE SOLOMA.N ISLANDS.

Mr. M. MILNES asked the Secretary TO the Admi-
ralty whether any steps had been taken by her Majesty's
Government, to inquire into the facts connected w ith the
reported massacre of Sir Benjamin Boyd, at the Soloman
Islands, with the view of placing the question of his fate
beyond doubt, and of taking such ulterior measuires as
may be necessary?
Mr. STAFFORD said directions had been Bent by
the mail which left on the 24th ult. desiring one or two
vessels, which were under orders to return home,
to return by the route of the Soloman islands,
in order to obtain some account of Sir Benjamin Boyd.
Of course every measure would be adopted tor his reliet
in the event of his still being alive. Efforts would be
made to enlist the services of the United States' whalers
who frequented these islands in the search which was
being made for the missine. gentleman.
Sir R. INGLIS asked' the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty how far the attention of the Board had beers di-
rected to any plan or plans for facilitating disemba rka-
tim from ships into boats, in the event of fire occulting
at sea; and how far the crows are or ought to be exer-
cised in any such plan or plans.
Mr. STAFFORD Enid that sedulous attention had
been directed to this important subject by the Admi-
ralty, and soma of the many inventions which were
almost daily submitted to the Admiralty for facilitating
the lowering of boats would be put into practice on beard
her Majesty's vessels. Instructions had been given to
the captains of ve.sels to keep the boats and gear in
proper condition, so that they could be easily re-
leased, and they would be required to enter a weekly
report on the log boMßok.
. BRAGGS.
Lord DUDLEY STUAR wished to put a question
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting some
outrages alleged to have been committed on British sub-
jects in Tuscany, and particularly on a non-commissioned
offiur named Braggs, belonging to one of her Majesty's
ships at Leghorn. had any steps been taken to obtain
radress for Mr. Bragg.?
Tine CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was quite true that Mr. Braggs having got
h
itnteo
agentsome
squabble with the police was ill-treated, and
of the police was imprisoned for his misconduct for eight
days. Government, however, would not accept this as suffi-
cient reparation for the outrage, and negotiations were
still going on with Tuscany on the subject.
Lord D. STUART said that information had reached
him thit no such punishment had been inflicted upon
the superintendent of the police, but only on one of the
corporals.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had
been given to understand that the punishment was in-
flicted on the chef de post du gensdannie.
MR. MA.THER.

Lord DUDLEY STUART should be glad to know
what was doing in this case.
The CHANCELLOR cf the EXCHEQUER replied
negotiations were still proceeding in
that as active ne
the matter, it would be quite out of place for him to
enter into details no w.—( Hear.)
IN tERNIENT 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 iu Towns,"
p •
resented 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 Towns,"
presented to the House in 1843 by command of her Ma-
jesty; " The Report of the General Board of Health on a
General Scheme of Extraeawal Sepulture," presented to
the House in 1850 by command of her Majesty; and
" The Report of the General Ward 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 Nlausoleum 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 an:l second
year of King William the Fourth, for the regulation of
vestries, with reference to joint parishes.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON seconded the motion.
Mr. WALPOLE said there would be no objection to
bringing in the Bill, bother should be glad to know if it
was intended that the Bill should apply to joint parishes
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. lIORSMAN then rose to move, that whereas by
the conatitu ions and canons ecclesiastical of the Church
of England it is decreed and ordained, that "no bishop
shall institute any to a benefice who bath been ordained
by 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 appsarondu3eme)x; examination
to to be worthy of his ministry" (Canoe
t
" no curate or minister shall be permitted to serve in any
place without examination and admission of the bishop d the diocese, or ordinary of the place,
jurisdiction, in writing under his hand and seal,gP
Phlsacv°inal
having
respect to the greatness of the cure and meetness of the
party. And the said curates arid ministers, if they re-
move from one diocese to another, shall not be by any
means ad,iitted to serve without testimony of the bishop
of the diocese, or ordinary of the place
whence they came, in wilting, of theirhon assafoty,arbeisd
lIlty:
and conformity to the ecclesiastical laws
of the Church of
England" (C nor. 43)—an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, pray;ng that she will be
graciously pleased to direct inquiry to be made, whether
due respect was paid is the decrees of the constitutions
and canons ecclesiastical of the Church of England in
the recent institution of Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of
Frorne. This
Case, the HOD. Member observed, had
brought so much scandal upin the Church that he did
not despair of inducing the House to adopt this motNtion.
He had, however, no charge to make against .r.
because as
Bennett upm his religious convictions,
bugre
ue
en
id.
as he- violated no law
Gentleman had a right to adopt thwehatßepv

Pr

21, 1852

P e h th..-;,,igh 9c.
Mr. Bennett that he had to dea with, aud the o.,udaut

of one of the dignitaries of the Church in connexion with
Mr. Bennett. The House was aware that in 1843 Mr.
Bennett was appointed by the Bishop of London to the
living of St. Paul's, and from that period down to 1850
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 Rov. Gentleman himself

had published it appeared that proceedings had so
exusperated the public mind that a large police force was
required to keep the neighbourhood of the church in
order, and on one occasion some of the peop!e who at-
tended the church were carried before the police
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 aecompanyirg the dis-
missal was familiar to the House, as must also be

the reply of the Rev. Gentleman to it. It would be re-
membered that the Biehop's letter recommended 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,
before 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. Bennett had either gone to Rome or in-
tended to go there; but at all events, however that
might be, the people of lingland fancied he had left
their church for ever. Imagine, however, their surprise,
after what he had 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 attenclaat at mass, and upon subsequent
inquiry being instituted into the truth of this
statement it was found to be substanally correct.
The fact was notorious to all English residents,
and it might be considered as prove 1 that Mr.
Bennett wes, to all intents and purposes, out-
wardly at least, a Roman Catholic, and had lost
all sympathy for the Church in which he had been
brought up. Notwithstanding these circumstances
he was appointed Protestant minister of a Protestant
congregation at Frome.—(dear) The people of FrtenP
were in an agony of apprehension, and dreaded that what
had occurred in London might take place in Frame; 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 was
that the appointment was already mate, and
could not be reversed Now, he did not compisin of the
appointment, because in making it the patroness
only exercised an undoubted and legal right,
according to her conscientious views and convictions.
The writings and preachings of the Rev. Gentleman since
his appointment to the living of Frowe, proved beyond
all doubt that his views and principles had under-
gone no change, and he appeared to labour under
the impression that, within teu years, Protestantism
would have ceased to exist, end the Bible be found
to bo
,a fiction, so far as it was of U3O in pro-
moting and extending Christianity. He passed
no opinion upon such doctrines, but he
simply mentioned them LV3 having been propounded
within the parish church of Frame and remonstrated
against by his own parishioners. The Bishop of London
had long ago been made acquainted with cli these recent
proceedings, but he had taken no notice of them,
and the Reverend Gentleman was left at full
liberty to go on preaching those principles which
he (Mr. -- Horaman) had faintly introduced to
the House as they were explained by the
Rev. Gentleman himself. Now the Ilowe was fully
conversant of the immense powers exercised by
He was a dignitary at large,
and being responsible to no one; be_ f
the Bishop
live
where he liked, or do as he liked.
were a bad man, his pewee could be used fur
the purpose of inflicting eeual wealth,
bishop.
,
a t
'people ; while, on the
hand, if he were
a nice - consciiaence,
ood. The eceless-
hwieel l 0
ffid
ei sep
wasos ed
capable
i f
et ef
much
hr
strict. The bishop
op tical law, however, regulating gthe appointment of
beneficed clergyman was exceedingly
enuefficeoienaning ttesfrtiommenaynootthehriedfiborchaeseer,
unless
nhoet
firsto rd a
eaungyh
to
good life and behaviour from the bishop of the diocese
from which he came; and brought, in writing, testimony
of ability, honesty, and conformity to the ecclesiastical
laws of the Church of England; and, secondly, after
that, the clergyman must undergo examination by the
bishop. Now, as to the manner in which the certificate
was given; it was signed by three beneficed clergyman;
and if they were not resident in the second diocese, it
must be countersigned by the bishop of the diocese from
which ho came. The form of the certificate was, " We
whose names aro hereunto subscribed, being three bene-
ficed
had
clergymen of the Church of England, do declare
that the presentee bath knownbeenpersoanhadllythat
we
have to u s
the space of the last three yearn,
opportunities of observing his conduct; and that during
the whole of that time we verily believe that he hale
lived wisely, soberly, and honestly; nor have we at
any time heard anything to the contrary thereof;
nor hath 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."
np
ps ho
ro
tuel
hd
icstoiteuaelt
deer,
etf hseathti
fsydeurtvrhiianntgg
he the
;,ihera.tdhßrdeeoehnelasto, years
he
?a
nor
legs
dt
con-
trary cty
Now this certificate required that three beneficed- cler-
gbYadineo
and that they
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
three years he had been on tee 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 summer of 1851 he had been
habitually worshipping in y;h, Raman Catholic Church?
Incredible as it might appear, the certificate had been
signed by three clergymen of the Church of England in
the diocese of London!—(;lean) But this was not all.
Those clergymen not beinie resident in the diocese to
which the presentee was removing, it must be counter-
signed by the bishop of the diocese from which he was
going. Had the Bi.hop of I ioncion countersigned the te,ti-
monial? Had the Bishop or London, who had pressed for
the resignation of Mr. Ben nett, as guilty of unfaithful-
ness to the Church of Eng land and insubordinate to
his bishop, had he signet 1 a certificate to the effect
that during the last three years ho was a faithful
minister of the Establishmt rat? Why, incredible as it
might seem, he had heard that the Bishop of London
had actually signed the metut nrial—(fleer, hear) —though
he had signed it with a qu alification.—(Hear, hear.)
There was no qualification in the canon. The presentee
could not be admitted without testimony in writing from
the bishop to his honesty a ad conformity. The law,
therefore, was clear that the bishop must give the testi-
mony. The practice had beet t, however, that three cler-
gymen of the Church of Engl and should sign the certi-
ficate, but that the bishop cow itersigned it merely to theio
effect of saying that he attests that the clergymen
ts,!fl
signed it were resident in his d ese, and not as
nig to what they stated. There 'bad been thisdettveiasattitiohyne-
from the practice, however, is thih
present case,
the
Bishop of London had written in. the margin of
cer-
tificate that he was only to be us iderstoodasoat a ttesting
that those were genuine signature a, and was n
pares
o
to the statements of the certifies te. At least h pre-
sumed that this was so, and tk at the Bishop
had so
thrownso u g h to
save
this
responsibilityconsisten c
tt
y. It
thseo,
Bishopt ere had f
Bheaethn
and Wells; and, as he received, a certificate from the
additional
Bishop of London with an unuste al qualification, it was a
reason for unusual prudence and preceution.—(Hear,
hear.) And surely, under such circumstances, such a
certificate, with such qualification, required explanation
and elucidation.—(!leer, hear.) itiaer there had been
three clergymen of the diocese of London who had
signed the certificate with such 0 qualification on the
part of the Bishop, or the certificae swihtandtnheot been signed
by the Bishop, in which case the Bishop of Bath and
Wells had deliberately dispensed
ed, security
duly
signed,o i the
cwhhiuevhehw.lre(fieesatarbolishAedudbythlearwe
wfst:
that, even after the certificate was ;'sectethhievis further point,
istry ;
39th canon, the presentee must
the Bishop was bound to examine the presentee. By the
exa-
mination worthy of his min.
Thisplace
examinationw th out e. :atria s E ,ppear on such exa-
canon, no minister was to b
was no point on which be porn itted to servo in any
and, by the 48th
natioa by the bishop ot the diocese.
There was a ottmheerieari,
rriatwtearsofmfoorrem.exTplhiceirte.
question, in which —
judgment of Lord Ellenberough on this
cast upon him by
he stated that s in all cases, there
was to be an examination by ti e bishops that was
to precede admission. The duty of examination was
the ex teas to ins of the canon ;
pr
and, therefore, if either the blight v p would not examine
at all, or only in a mode ineffee: i eel, the court could
interfere by mandamus to compel such an examina-
tion to be made as pertained to his duty. The word of the
statute is approve,' and the bish op must exercise that
approval according to his conscie r ace or such means of
information as he can obtain. By a rything that can pro-
perly minister to his conscientious approbation or disap-
probation, and may fairly and re4,nissihte in a court of
elusions, though not formally tad
f. ouniably assist his con.
therefore. the parishioners of Fro a to h :d memorialised
law, may be taken into considerate is a. On these grounds
the Bishop, praying him to cousid '4 'r the circumstances,
and institute the examination r‘•l tuirod by law. The
Bishop, who could not be ignorant of the facts, and cer-
tainly was not ignorant of the law,, did not condescsnd
even to notice any one of the circ u instaeces laid before
him by the memorialists; but sir a oly said, " Rev. and
dear Sir,—l hays read the memori at signed byiyeu. Had
I not been (I can assure you) sati: itliA that Mr. Bennett
was not attached to, or likely to b e influenced in favour
of, the Church of Berne, or like lg• to influence others
in that direction, I should have do eined to institute him
from whatever quarter the nomina ti en might have come.
But I am so fully satisfied that le ass a firm and
deep-
rooted attachment to our own CI
j i-rt.
and repudiates
Romish doctrines, that I feel I a' ad be acting unjustly
by him, and uncourteously to t no Mar chioness of Bath,
and I must adhere firmly to us y intenti ni of instituting

"e• a .
placed before him by tee uteineronists, assumed the
gift of infallibility, and, declaring ho was satisfied Mr.
Bennett was attached to the Church of England,
decided contrary to, the evidence and against the
law ; and determined to institute him with-
out further exannineeion. The memorialists were
disspirited, but did not despair. They wrote to the
Bishop again, and in-de another request. They had
already received one answer, which was not particularly
courteous or conciliatory; hut it was a model of episcopal
kindness as compared with the second. Thieaccond let-
ter was I rim reouewed beettiese-clerge,•meit and lay•
men who presented the memorial requesting your Lord-
ship net to institute Mr. Bennett, to express their deep
regret thot you still intend to proceed with the institu-
tion, though he has not retracted any of those doctrines
and opinions cited in their memorial, and which have
created so much alarm. At the same 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
so far oblige us as to stay institution for the short period
of a fortnight, in order that we may deliberate calmlY
on a matter ot such great importance, and consider whe-
ther or not we may take further steps." Was that an
unreasonable request—coming, as it did from a congre
gation tinder the Bishop's spiritual charge, deeply
moved upon a religious question, and showing a degree
of solicitude upon it for which a b ishop might he
been expected to feel some sympathy ? What was the
reply ? Some days elapsed before it was received, and then
it was as follows:—" Rev. Sir,—l beg to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter, and remain your faithful sera
vent, BATH and WELLS,"—(Hear, hear, medal laugh,')
He (Mr. Horsiran) would not comment upon that reply
—(Hear, hear.) These gentlemen had presumed to ex-
ercise the right of private judgment, which he presume"'
Was distasteful to their Bisho and they received their.,
reward. He recollected reading; that Archbishop Laud
had said on one occasion that he hoped " to live to see
the day when the proudest gentleman of England Would
stand uncoverei before the meanest priest." He thought
this reply of the Bishop breathed the spirit of Mud!
though he hoped the gentlemen of England would not
bend to it.—(Hear, hear.) The Bishop, however, haul
instituted Mr. Bennett, who was inducted into the vicar`
age of Frome, where he had a large income paid by the
State, with patronage of three livings and the appoint'
ment of several curatesiien;hawwpistohrseittihgooni
using
eintshtaibs those
eehnf oaptuoptohrmotruiinntyiist.tieers;:o.,o°..Aff
d"Cncheurcwhh
what was the first public act of Mr. Bennett after his ".;
duction? The House would remember that when he"'
resigned St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and St. Barnaheg'
Pimlico, three curates of the latter church sent in their re;
signation in a public letter, addressed " to the Babel)
London," in which they said, " Having heard that it iS •
your Lordship's desire that the services in the church
should be performed in a mintier different from that 111
which we have hitherto had the privilege of enjoYlrl
them, we beg to resign our cures into your LordshipS
hands." Signed, first, by the la v. Mr. De Gex; an
ta
the first act of Mr. Bennett, as vicar of Frome, was "sii-
dismiss the popular curare whom he found established
there, and to pat in his place that reverend g, edema!,
Mr. De Gex. Now, in what position did the parishionf
ers of Frome stand? The place was excited; the clergy.
had memorialised; the laity had protested; the Noncom
formists had held a public meeting—(i . laugb)--14
which they had raised their voice on bet all of
Protest
antism against what they considered a new " Papal tig-
gression."—(Hear, and a laugh.) This was a question
in which the Dissenters had as strong an interest es al,
members of the Estshlishment.—(Loud cries of'` Bear'
from the Liberia' side.) They might not be amenable
y
to the discipline of the Established Church; but wbQ
would deny that Protestantism had been deeply to* •
debted to them, and he believed that they would MO
the best bulwark against encroachments upon the
Protestantism of the country.—(Cheers from the Nona
conformist Members.) It was not then to be sneered 0,!.. , •
that the Dissenters had protested against Mr. Bennettli
appointment. Men of most respectable character tsoo
poeitica in From,. had absented themselves from th!:
church, and the trustees of a Church school, twelve
number, had resolved that the children should not attealto hai
the church. Tho people of Frome knew what had here,.
pened in London.. They knew that two of Mr. neui'ha
nett's curates had,gone over to the Church of Rome,l4;e%.-
mopapkoerctuohnvitee4thwei
while uainistet in•the Chhrch of England had made 0 d
!‘the position in
it which
uoiC
might aof
themselves hasteniege `They knew that in the pariela'. rade::
St. Barnabas Mr. Bennett had established a conventfeae.
of
fem everyt o
Sisters of Mercy (as it was called), and that every 4i•
of those ladies had gone over to the Church of
They knew also, that among the members of his CO
gregation many had gone over, not obscure in statioa.
and they naturally' dreaded the same results
of
Frome. They knew also' that the evil had 11%
rested with the seceders themselves; that th°,l3e
many had by letairing oieh, church and entering 'elle% it
fouad rest, othere'hiedilotlaeen so happy. $e spo. tbg
the hearing of those who could bear testimony to bc,
truth of the statements he now made—of these ~W.,eie)
knew the family afflictions, the domestic sorrows w'll-o,a,
had been occasioned, and the social distrust which mat .
abuses had generated. They had heard of pared
agonies—they had heard even of broken hearts; abbey
such things had occurred in London, why should abbey
not occur in Frome? And where was to be foundteee
remedy? The Bishop of Bath and Wells told thetnong°:
the parties were satisfied, but were the people of ,of
land satisfied? Were the public and the Protestant fie'
England satisfied? Was Parliament satisfied? edaa
would rather ask, was there to be no redress for tneris
things, and where was it to be found? Not certain) our
the morality of our clergy—not in the consciences or _v,,ed.
prelates. Our clergy, alas! were too much mistrtl" ea
and our prelates were too deeply tainted, The 1111tYtta
England, thank God, were yet sound.—(Hear, beds„
The laity of England were the Church of Englabsos,
they constituted its soundness and its hope; and it 0,-;
for the laity of the Church of England to bestir th:nd
selves on the present occasion.—(Hear, hear.) d'nto
how could they so legitimately bestir thews
through through their representatives in Parliament? TT
proposed, therefore, that the House of Commons, re
seating the laity of England, should lay the petitionse:
the foot of the Throne, and pray of the Queen that I?
l
would add one more to the many claims
she bad falrea
• ,
established upon the love and admiration of her faithio
subjects by becoming the protector of her people and 0,
their religion, by assisting them, not against assaio,
from without, but agsinmt treachery from within—e°t,
against the avowed enemies of the Church, but agthas
the Church's own unworthy sons—(Rear, hear)
even when those enemies were found in high Pee_ye
and though they might be dignitaries of the Chao? '',llL'e
would compel them to obedience of that law whielanted
Bishop of Bath and Wells had so wantonly repoalta,ba
on this occasion—that she would evince her 0060 01 ..the
great scandal done to the Church of which she was, •ias
head, and show herself the true defender of that
and that liberty by which her throne had been e t
blished.—(Hear. The Hon. and Learned Member con''
eluded by moving that oAn humble address be pre.sented to her Majesty, praying that she will be g7i
ciously pleased to direct inquiry to be made whether :had
respect was paid to the decrees of the constitutions
.r3O.
canons ecclesiastical of the Church ot England in
recent institution of Mr. Bennett to the vicarage
•
Frome."
After a slight pause, ose,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER r
and said—Sir, I do not think it possible to exsagereba,
the importance of the question which the Hon. acii'
Learned Gentleman has brought under the consideratie
of the House. And, Sir, when I think to what a et;
of discussion the present debate may give rise if ef
House sanctions the motion of the Hon. and Leer%
Gentleman, I confess I look to the future of Parlialvere -ei
tary duty as one rife with elements of no alight
rest—with elements of discussion which may Preuli-e-pid
very important effect, and one not anticipated, tiPea
nion out of doors.—(Hear, hear.) Sir I myself at°
prepared now to offer any opini • 'on upon " the circure"
stances to which the Honourable and Learned Gres d:
:
man has called our attention this
evening• I feel, ale
I have never felt more acute) the inconvenience
popular assembly like this
we have nowleein d discussioero
e
such as that to which agelistened.—alet,
hear.) But, Sir, listened
I must confess that as I
address of
T
the lion, and Learned Gentleman, e he
much struck with the inadequacy of the propose boy
has
made for dealing with the sub act to which be
tie-
reterred. According. to tho Hon. ajnd Leaened GI by'
roan, a very great grievance has been experlehcch rev
tome of her Majesty's subjects, and that, too, 'IT ,beir
spent to matters which are calculated to intere-b, •Dets
feelings in a matter the most acute.—(Hear, heordeetleei
I do not understand that the Hon. and Learned._haeee
man has really prop-iced any remedy for the grit; e iP, .
he has alleged. The proposition before the geesaiesty,
that " An bumble address be presented to her io-
praying that she will be graciously pleased
to (Lir; the-
quiry to be made whether due respect was paid of of
decrees of the constitutions and canons ecclesiast
the Church England in the recent institution uef test,
Bennett to the vicarage of Frome," Now, I (h,islide Well
before assenting to this address, the House woutoi egab'
to consider whether, by agreeing to it they stances
lush any authority able to cope with the circtlol6,oear•
to which the Hon. Gentleman has referred.•kilo to
hear.) Suppose, tor example, the House 396 e &toe
this motion, and that inquiry is made in eeeer • •sti
gele
with it. Suppose, in • fact, that her cops'
issues this Commission of inquiry, it will be ana cony;
nied by no authority to force any one to make°liver.)
munication he may he unwilling to offer.—(Hear' poa.,,ear
The Commission of inquiry would not have 6131
t
to ebtain -row the very individuals they might Inebilaed,
to subject to inquisition the information they urea% gybed.
—(Hear, hear.) On the statement of the seee,t otte,
Learned Gentleman himself, it appears to me is !"
of ihr se two alternatives must occur—either theraweee
present rx-stin-
K a remedy for th, se all, ged grier 011
, ~f c()Or''' roe
or there is not„--Clear, hear.) I ~pears, beat.-
such a suhjeet with a d fel eece hich must best
pert snot.
any Menoser of this Home who has not the rigrcovot
learning which applies to these questions. i-_,,1130.
but believe, however—l have always understooe_ofo
there must be an appeal from a prelate who!t by
contravention of the canons of the Church-41', bear),
must be an appeal to the Archbishop.— (11..acr tbet
And if the conduct ef a relate is so sebjte Oa
superior revision. I think an appeal ought art tot
place before there is any interarence on thing ibet.
the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) I beneieg
such an appeal should be bad in preference to euveatieia
to t
a tribunal which is confessedly inadequate
hw
the desired result.—(lelesir, hear.) S.r, I hflueest 0
many persons
are of opinion that there is too g' wee-
, '
facility ere aded in the institution of rgyinen t°et. 10
flees; but Ido not wish to give an opinion or eta- 400•
ocess
any controversy on that subject on the present, eels
It Could easily be shown that such an opinion
elea:_ejeot
and that many are of opinion that this is a proper
to legislate On, in order that some chteiladlor b
and an iucreased control established. But 111 What