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

WEDNESDAY

no such statement. What he said was, that when Mr. Ben- 1
nett left London he went abroad to visit Rome, aad that
it was believed he had gone there in more senses than
one. When he said that, he had had a passage in his mind
of the Rev. Mr. Bennett's let•er to the Bishop of London,
which ho would now quote to the House. He said (talking
of his di:atilt pesitian). " The end must be that I seek for
eac .
e elsewhere." N w
ow, he believed no person who read
p
that passage could put on it any otle,.er interpretation than
that by "elsewhere" Mr. Bennett meant the Church of
Rome. The term was stereotyped—it was the phrase of
those who had preceded Mr. Bennett where he (Mr. Horse
man) supposed Mr. Bennett was going at the time, and it
was understood to be the usual expression of clergymen of
the Church of England in respect to tea:: chance. —(No, no.)
He could quote several clergyman who had gone over to
Rome who had used that phrase, and two occurred to him
at the moment—Mr. Wilberforce and Archdeacon Man-
ning.—(Hear, hs is hear.) It had been represented that he had
founded statements respecting the proceedings of Mr.
Bennett abroad on the evidence of one person, but, had he
believed the inquiry would not have been granted, he
would not have limited his evidence to one person. That
gentleman hail been placed in a most awkward position, but,
in order to show the spirit in which he wrote, he would
quote a passage hone his letter, which would show he had
very different feelings from those attributed to him. He
wrote as follows :
" The best evidence on this point, it seems to me, would
be that of the English chaplain, whose name I forget, but
who must be mentioned in the 'Clergy List,' or at any event
in Graville's ' Spas of Germany.' If any evidence to this
extent, which is all I can with truth aver, can be avail-
able in corroboration, I have no ol:jection to give it; but
I should object most strongly to being brought forward
n
proseora, charge,upon such evidence alone no bishop, still
which, if not better supported,
fail.l F
legal
for the cause of the Gospel truth and an
al authority,
could condemn him. It is only from
a
hypocrisy of the man, that in any
event I should like to bring charges, which, exclusive of
lessatnloufervents
intenseteany
to
disgust at the
the compulsion of duty that would necessitate them, must
have the appearance of underhand observation. In fact, I
took no other notice of these parties than such as a person
exceedingly ill is forced to pay to those whose inconsiderate
noisiness is the source of constant annoyance to an invalid."
A
thus stated the whole that I can conscientiously
testify n
point. Being then. as now, very ill, I should
not have noticed Mr. Bennett at all but for the prominence
of his peculiarities. As it was no business of mine to be his
censor, and he seemed to be comfortably on his way to St.
Peter's, I gave him but very little attention, never thinking
re
it likely that hiS
--oManism would require to be testified by
' ‘And
I again,
l ig
oaa nv i have
this ,a week after, he wrote:—
any evidence of mine.
To be obliged to give any evidence
at all against him is naturally very unpleasant to me, con-
sidering the manner in which my observations were made;
and if these observations are to be made use of as the
groundwork of any overt proceedings against him, I must
beg that the promoters of such proceedings will first amply
substantiate my statements, which can be done with ease,
by obtaining the testimony of other residents (there were
about forty English there at the time) of the English chap-
lain, and any of the innumerable persons about the Roman
Catholic Church, who must have had daily opportunities of
witnessing his attendance. If this be done, and it can be
done with very little trouble or cost, I have not a doubt that
the result would be to prove indisputably, that while at Kis-
aingen, at least, there being in the place an English church
and English service, he voluntarily attended by preference '
the Roman Catholic."
After the speech
which he (Mr. Horsman) delivered,
Mr. Stu'zer wrote a further letter, which would best
show what his feelings were, in which was the follow-
ing letter
"It seems to me that the simple course, if Mr. Bennett
deny what I believe on my honour to be undoubtedly true,
is to send to Kissingen, where conclusive evidence can be
easily got. There must be some 50 or 100 persons, at
the very least, who can say positively that they have seen
or not seen him at mass. I have already stated the amount
of evidence I can give. I have been dragged into this most
unpleasant business by the hasty letter of Mr. Pratt; but,
being in it, I feel bound to substantiate every syllable that
I have advanced, and with that view I should not only be
willing, but glad to pay the whole expenses of any person
who can go over to Kissingen and settle the whole. But it
seems to me, that the question could be much more easily
decided. Does Mr. Bennett deny the fact of his constant
attendance at the Roman Catholic service and his non-at-
tendance at the Church of England service at the same
place ? If he does not, the whole question is at rest. enr
John Harrington was wine him ail the time; surely he
could not refuse, if solemnly called upon, to give his testi-
mony, however uufavourable it must be in its consequences
to his friend '
The gentleman was not anxious to raise any accusation
against Mr. Bennett, but that having in conversations men-
tioned facts which were repeated without his authority, and
published, much to his annoyance, when asked if those
statements were true, he took the part a man of spirit ought
to take, and said he aid not take any part in pubiisbing the
facto, but that, as they were stated by him, he thought ho
was bound in honour not to shrink from confirming what he
had asserted.—( then
hear.) He had said so much because
it was due to the gentleman in question; but he had other
testimony which he could have adduced, and he could have
stated many
things which he had not wished then to bring
forward. He had seen a letter in the handwriting of a lady
from Germane', who said that the organist of the church (at
Kissingen) had pointed out a gentleman to her, and told
her it was Mr. Bennett, late of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge,
but now in communion with the Church of Rome.
He could have stated that Mr. Bennett's proceedings
and conduct had been notorious, and that he was pub-
lished in the Roman Catholic Directory as having been re-
ceived into the Church of Rome.—(Oh, oh !) Though that
was a work of great circulation, it was not a work of autho-
rity ; but he might have looked upon it as being of some
authority, because Dr. Wiseman had stated,:during the agita-
tion on the Titles Bill, that if the Noble Lord had looked
into it he must have been aware of the Pope's intentions, as
he had been designated in the ,Directory as " Archbishop of
Westminster" some time previously. He held he his hand
the affidavit of a German servant, to the effect that it was a
matter of notoriety to all the servants in the hotel that Mr.
Bennett went to mass every morning, and he could also
have stated, on the former occasion when this subject was
before the House, that Mr. Bennett, when travelling with his
party, carried about in a box a consecrated stone for are
altar, and that this stone was set up when they halted; and,
Mr. Bennett officiating as a priest, performed religious ser-
vice before it. It was known that in the Roman Catholic
Church every Roman Catholic priest must carry about with
him a small consecrated stone for an altar, wherever he
went, but such a thing Was unknown in the Protestant
Church. He would now state why he felt the evidence, on the
authority of Mr. Pratt and his letter, was the most proper
evidence that could have been adduced. It was a rule in this
House that where a charge was made against an individual,
'the person bringing the charge should be extremely careful
as to the character of the evidence he adduced, particularly
that he should bring forward none which should be unfair to
the party accused ; and during the last five years, in all the
motions which he (Mr. Horsinan) had made upon ecclesias-
tical subjects, he had invariably stated that the evidence
upon which he based his motions had been always published
evidence known to the world, and generally taken from re-
turns ae
this instance, setting aside the letter of Mr. Pratt, it was a
strong fa
a work like the Roman Catholic Directory in the month
of November, and that it should remain unnoticed and un-
and c
t reports
that
m laidn
Bennett's upon the table of the House. So, in
name should be published in
contradicted until the month of April. It might be said that
it was possible Mr. Bennett had' not seen that publication,
but even assuming that he had not, it was, at all events, a
strong fact that Mr. Pratt's letter should remain entirely un-
noticed,
intleman it would be remembered that there
under a
Mr. position
Bennett's
attention.
Before this
sti.
ufntonghrhanhe
tteal of excitement at Frome, and when the in-
stitution took place, Mr. Hastings, one of the clergy of
Frome, addressed the following letter to Mr. Bennett. The
letter was written on the 31st :
i place
the 24th of January, and this
R eorcltory, Trowbridge, Jan. 31, 1852.
uniet,:kThe enclosed letter (this was the letter of
frials;.:illviPtuertato.t) I have copied from the Achill Missionary Herald
of this month. You
may not have the opportunity of seeing
the paper, and consequently be amble to reply to it. As a
brother clergyman and a near neighbour I have felt it to be
my duty to make 3-Ou acquainted with the serious charge
officious
st
oprnobbliterluysiavgeain ill
caylloinug, aynodarthaettesnctaionn to thedaloccasioned
to the therehyChurch;stmay I hope you will not think me
sub-
ject? Trusting to hear that there has been some mistake in
the statement,
I am, Rev. Sir, yours faithfully,
" Rev. W. Bennett,
" J.l), HASTINGS."
Now, if Mr. Bennett had been a clergyman regarding whose
orthodoxy there was no actual doubt but
residence, he
_ but about whom re-
ports had originated owing to a co
ought to have been thankful for such an opportunity of
contradicting that report and certainly Mr. Bennett,
with his antecedents, ought
to have felt himself bound to
answer in—:Hearn e That letter, however, met with no
reply. Mr. Hastings waited until the 12th of February,
when he wrote this second letter :
Rectory Trowbridge,l2,
" Eev. Sin—Oa Settle - '
a letter to you, directed ' Vicarage, Frome ' The object of
that communication was to afford you an opportunity seel-
tained. Your silence,
see-
ing a letter signed
'John O. N. Pratt,' a copy
of
which
of the
enclosed, and which has since appeared in several
English newspapers. This letter was naturally the subject
of much conversation among the clergy of the neighbour-
hood,day. the 31st of January, I addressed
and I hid hoped in writing to you to be enabled, on
your authority, to contradict itive statements therein con-
ay which your conduct however,lin informed, is characterised,
compels me to conclude' as
ita is not in your power to afford
the desired
explanation.that
cgret this the more as it tends
to confirm those who e regret this the more as it tends
to confirm tbo3s who were wilting to pass over what had oc-
curred in your former were
hwin the adverse opinion they en •
tortaine 1 respecting Pa
appointment to any office in the
your
Church of England-so opposed to the courtesy
ser-
vices of the Churchwhich You have publicly and
of Rome. 3" solemnly declared erroneous in her ceremonies and in matters
a faith, has
throw
upon that Church, whose faith
and do in a contempt: ' vows you promised to give
e your ordination
faithful diligenceminister and teach.
always' to
inasmuch as your preference for the e
P. HASTINGS."
That letter again received no answer whatever. What con-
clusion would any man draw from such silence ?—(Hear,
hear.) Mr. Hastings drew his own conclusion, and this was
his letter to him (Mr.a ) on the subject:
Horsman
Trowbridge,April 24, 1852.
" I am, Reverend Sir, y,o,unrs.
_faithfully,
"Rectory,
"MY dear Sir, Enclosed are copies of the letters pro-
mised; you areat liberty to make what use you please of I
I
them. may observe nay object in writing them was to
afford Mr. Bennett a'n opportunity of contradicting the
report of his attendance
upon the Roman worship in
preference to that of the Anglican Church, particularly
as I was informed by a friend of his who had requested me
to call upon him that his views were very much changed.
It was the intention of myself and several of the clergy
Pratt's letter appeared,
and Just at this time Mr. 0. N.
around to have called upon him. bad this statement proved
and I thought it advisable at once to communicate with
Mr. Bennett on the subject. lam truly sorry, that by hie
taking ne nonce of eithejr letter, he has left an impression on
my mind, as I have stated to him, that he could not refute
view; thus precluding
the statement, and, consequently, had not changed histi
m himy
that courtesy which belongs to a brother clergyman coming
into the neighbourhood.
"I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly, e
an-. D. HASTINGS.
Now, put aside altogether the evidence which he (Mr.
Ho th rsman) gave self and others from paying e
other day as to the conversations of Mr.
the Bennetts, and here was the fact that a letter was published
in, an:l went the round of all the newspapers, stating pub-
licly that Mr. Bennett never entered the Protestant church
clergyman in a friendly, kindly,
when at Kissingen, but was a regular attendant at mass,
and that this letter was enclosed to Mr. Bennett by a brother
spirit, and
when it was known that no notice was taken of the commu-
nication, ire and
....
(fineoasr,uchh explanationear.)
He (Mr. Horeman) asked now
sndthabtrowthheierlhy
circum-
stances required wee given, the fact must leave a conviction
upon the mind of every impartial man that the statement
whether, if he bad had the choice ef ever so much evidence