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

JUNE 9, 1852,

to bring before the House, he had not selected that which
was the most proper and the most appropriate F It was evi.
deuce which had been known to Mr. Bennett; it was, there.
fore, the fairest to that gentleman, and, he thought, the most
satisfactory and conclusive to the House. He cams now to
a far more important and serious point of this subject. He
had done with Mr. Bennett, and now came to the
conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The import-
ance of Mr. Bennett's acts were perfectly insignificant as
compared with the acts of the Bishop. The difference in
station between the minister and the prelate was nothing as
compared with the difference of the effects which might fol.
low from the acts of a man who acted only in his individual
capacity, and another gifted with power and authority, and
whose example spread so far beyond himself.—(Hear, hear.)
On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker
which he would take the liberty of quoting :
" The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach
not far, they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps,
by such as dwell at the next door; whereas men of more
ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives
are viewed afar off—so that the more there are which observe
aloof what they do;the greater glory by their well-doing they
purchase, both unto God whom they serve, end to the State
wherein they live!'

He (Ur. Heiman) felt that he had spoken, when he last
addressed the House, under a due sense of all the respon-
sibility which attached to the task he had taken. Some
weeks had elapsed since then, and, if his statements had
been rash and hasty, he -had had ample time to reconsider
and modify them, while, if they had been incorrect, ample
opportunity had been afforded for repudiating them. After,
however, all possible consideration and reconsideration, he
was bound to say that the opinion he then stated had been
very much strengthened, and whatever he then thought as
to the acts of the Bishop of Bath and Wells as deserving of
censure, fell short of the truth, even more as regarded the
Bishop than as regarded Mr. Bennett. The Bishop of Bath
And Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett in the first place with
a haste and with a determination to shut out the parish-
ioners of Frome from that legal redress which they would
have had if the Bishop had given them more time; he had
instituted him, secondly, without having that certificate
from Mr. Bennett's former diocesan which, by usage and by
law, he was under an obligation to require; and, thirdly,
without that due examination which was enjoined by
law, and which the parishioners of Fromo had a right to de-
mand; and he (Mr. Horsman) was prepared to show that
the Bishop had done this not accidentally, not carelessly, not
,hastily, not upon impulse, but advisedly, as the lawyers
said " perversely," And with the intention of defeating the
ends of justice. What was the position of the different par-
ties at the time when Mr. Bennett was presented to the
vicarage of Frome, and before his institution ? Each party
then had a legal position and certain legal rights. The
parishioners of Frome did not at that time know what
their legal rights were. They acquired that knowledge
later on, and, unfortunately for them, later than the Bishop.
This was the position of the parties:—Before Mr. Bennett
was instituted it was open to the parishioners under the
canon law to have lodged a caveat against that institution
in the Bishop's court. The object of the caveat was this,—
that an individual might be presented to a benefice of
whom a bishop might know nothing, and any persons who
knew him to be unfit, and wished to prevent his institu-
tion, did so by a caveat. If such a course had been taken in
this instance, Mr. Bennett would have. had to have
"warned" the caveat, and that would have compelled the
proctor through whom it was lodged to state the name of.
the person who had lodged it, and the objections to institu-
tion. Then the cause would have been referred by the
bishop to the Vice-Chancellor's Courts, from these it would
be referred to the archbishop, and from the archbishop the
cause might be taken by appeal to the Privy Council.
That was the position of parties, and that was the right
which was available to the parishioners of Frome, while
Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before ho was insti-
tuted. He ( Mr. Horsman) would now show the House how
they were defeated in their attempt to avail themselves of
that right, and what was the course pursued towards them
by the Bishop. Mr. Bennett's presentation was confirmed
on Tuesday, the 30th of December; on Wednesday he visited
Frome, on Thursday, January 1, the inhabitants moved, and
a protest was got up signed by five clergymen and 48 heads of
families. On the 2d this protest was delivered to the Mar-
chioness of Bath, and the day after they received her lady-
ship's reply. On Wednesday they memorialize.' the Bishop,
giving their reasons against the institution, by which, of
course, they meant to ask his Lordship to make inquiry into
the truth of what they alleged. They made this statement
on the 7th of January.; on the 15th they received the reply
of the Bishop declining to accede to their prayer, and stating
that he should proceed with the institution. On the very
same day they wrote to him again, praying him to give them
14 days' delay to consider whether it might be their duty to
take any further steps in the matter. They rcceived his
answer on the 21st of January, and that very day they sent
their solicitor to London to take the opinion of Dr. Twig'.
Their solicitor returned 'on the 23d, and they then
learned, for the first time, the means within their power
for delaying institution. They received this opinion on
the 23d, and a caveat was prepared on the 24th ; but before
that the Bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett.—(Hear, hear.)
These proceedings were of so very extraordinary a character
that he- (Mr. Horsman) had really felt at first that they
were hardly to be believed. He had, however, received
the following statement, in confirmation, from Mr. Hurd, of
Frome

• "Frome, June 2, 1852.
" I will take up the subject on Thursday, January 15, on
which day we wrote to the Bishop at Brighton, praying that
he would delay institution for fourteen days. On the 19th
he dates his civil reply, which we received on Wednesday,
the 21st ; and, by the very next train, on the same day, we
sent Mr. Cruttwell and the Rev. Hill Dawse Wickham to
London, to consult proctors. On the 23d they had an oral
opinion from Dr. Twiss (to save time), urging them to lose
no time in entering a caveat to stay institution and induc-
tion, or induction, as the case may be. Mr. Cruttwell wrote
on that day from London to the committee at Frome to be
ready laa the committee-room at one o'clockr.ar. the next day,
at which hour he would arrive at the station and join us.
On his way from the station to the committee-room he heard
the bells strike up, and was told that Mr. Bennett had just
been inducted. This was Saturday, January 24. A few
minutes after we had met Mr. Bennett and a few strange
clergymen (three, I think) passed our window on their way
from church, after induction. Mr. Bennett called on Dr.
Griffith, at Elm, two miles from Frome, on the morning of
Saturday, January 24, and was by him, as commissary, in-
stituted. He then proceeded back to Promo Church, and
was inducted the same morning by the Rev. Mr. Blackwell,
curate of Melts, near Frome. The Rev. W. Calvert, curate
of Promo (for four years), and then residing at the vicarage-
house, declined being present at the induction.
He (Mr. Horsman) had wished to know whether these facts
eteeraivveedlleda
were confirmed by Mr. Cruttwell, and he had
i hadrt
statement' from that gentleman, which, though
over somewhat the same ground, so extraordinary and in-
credible was the whole proceeding, he would read to the
House .
"My dear Sir,--In answer to your inquiry, I beg to inform
you that on Wednesday, the 21st of January (being the
same day, on which the reply of the Bishop of Bath and
Wells to the Rev. H. D. Wickham was received), I went to.
London with that gentleman upon the instructions of the com-
mittee to take Dr. Twiss's opinion. It was not until the after-
noon of the 23d that we succeeded in obtaining the verbal
opinion of Dr. Twiss, to the effect that Mr. Bennett's opi-
.nions as they appeared by reference to his published works
were decidedly unsound, . and that the proper course to
stay his institution and induction to a
form of
enter a caveat
in the Bishop's Court at W.e—ll,Let s.i obtained
the caveat, which was as follows. be done in
J. E. Bennett,
inforth(eacDor),untyanodf
p.roctor
the matter of the institution of
,riseeißweovo.d,
clerk, to the vicarage o.
Somerset, unknown to (P.t
inhabitants of tne said parish of Frome
others, parishioners,
379 the 24th, about
Selwood,' I returned to Frometeotn Saturday,
one o'clock, and as I entered the
wrienhi heard the bells ring-
ing for Mr. Bennett's induction, was informed had
had previously written to state the effect
ef takencommittee
pieee together,
ge ehtohuelrd,
just taken place.
of Dr. Twiss's opinion,
notandsitaoonectailolath
e3induct. n had
and, if Mr. Bennett
at once have obtained the the Committee, and
the 24th of January.
entered the caveat in the afternoon ofo
The absence of the Bishop would have been no impediment
in the way of entering the c aveat,which must, as a matter
of course, have been received by his officer at Wells, and the
effect would have been to stay induction until the proper
proceedings had bean taken to decide the question of Mr.
Bennett's orthodoxy. •
dear very truly yours,
o I am, my
" W. C. Caurrwam.
" Promo, June 2,
" "J. "lard, Esq."
He was mire the House would see how far the statement
was correct, that the parishioners of Promo had not been
ready to avail themselves before coming to this Hones
of every legal remedy which was open to them. But they
were shut out by the Bishop of Bath and Wells from that
redress which they might have obtained if he had given
that moderate and decent delay for which they peti-
tioned. All the evidence relative to Mr. Bennett's pro-
ceediugs at Kissingen might then have been produced. As
it was said the parishioners of Frome had not availed them-
selves of every, chance of legal redress, he wished to ask two
questions of the Attorney-General. If the caveat had been
lodged, and the Bishop had notwithstanding proceeded to
institute, would not the institution have been void? The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had had
opportunities of enquiring into the whole circumstances of
the case. He had seen the opinion of Dr. Twiss; he must
have forined a judgment upon Mr. Bennett's doctrine, and he
called upon him to assist the House in coming to a conclu-
sion by saying if that caveat had been lodged, and the
question of Mr. Bennett's othodoxy had gone to
trial, whether it was probable that he would not
have been • unable to obtain institution? He main-
tained that by the canons the Bishop of Bath and
Wells was bound to receive from Mr. Bennett, and to insist
upon the production by him of a certificate from his former
diocesan; and, secondly that the Bishop of Bath and Wells
A
was bound to subject d. Bennett to a due examination. It
might be said the Bishop acted strictly within the law in
regard to the caveat, but did he act according to law in re-
gard ;to the certificate of the Bishop of London and the due
examination which he was himself bound to make? Upon
a former occasion he (Mr. Horsman) had stated that it was
rumoured that three clergymen of the diocese of London
had signed a certificate that they had known Mr. Bennett
for the three years last past before the date of that certifi-
cate; that they bad had opportunities of observing his con-
duct; and that during that time he had' done, held, written,
and taught nothing that was contrary to the discipline and
doctrine of the Church of England. He had also given it as
a rumour that the Bishop of London had signed that certi-
ficate with a qualification. Three clergymen of the diocese
of London did sign that certificate, but with regard to the
Bishop of London the fact was not quite as he stated
it, He said he understood the Bishop had appended
a qualification to the margin of the certificate.
Whether anything was written on the margin he could not
say, but the ,Bishop • of London had certainly written a
strong letter, stating the sense in which that signature was
to be understood. He was told, and 'he believed, that al-
though the Bishop signedthe certificate, yet that in reality
the Bishop's signature was only understood to attest that
the three clergymen signing the certificate were known to
him, and that, in his opinion. they would not sign what
they did not believe to be true.—(Hear.) The House ought
to see that certificate. [An Hon. Member-1, The form is
to be found in the books."] Yes, but the House ought to
see this particular certificate.- ,(Cheers.) They ought to
knew the names of the three London clergymen who put
their signatures to that document, and
who testified that
they had opportunities of knowing what Mr. Bennett was
doing at Kissingen and other places.—(Hear.) He had a
copy of the letter of the Bishop of London to Bishop of
the
Bath and Wells, which showed that the former took care
that the sense in which he signed the certificate should be
understood. This letter was tendered to him by a clergy-
man who wrote to the. Bishop of London on the subject of
Mr. Bennett's appointment, and who in reply received a copy
of the letter from the Bishop. The letter had no date, but
he was told it was written at the same time as the Bishop's
signature to the certificate. It was as follows :
" My Lord,—l have to request that my counter-Meaul:
to this testimonial may be considered as being einnYLve
expression of my opinion that the clergymen. Yru"
signed it, and who are beneficed in my dioce believe. nave.Btetsittial
fled to your Lordship that which they
verily
ber 1850, Mr.
think it is my duty to state, that in Daces, !, --
Aw
Beuziett l'eNigned th 9 perpetual coacy of S rani 11410"

bridge, and that I accepted his resignation, because I was of
opinion that the peace and good order of the Church in my
diocese would be seriously interrupted if he were to remain
incumbent of that benefice. For the reasons which led me
to form that opinion, I beg leave to refer your Lordship to
a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself which was
published in the Times newspaper of December 12,.1850.
" I am wholly without information as to any change which
may have taken place in Mr. Bennett's principles or opi-
nions since his resignation of the cure which he held in my
diocese. " I am,

" Your Lordship's faithful brother and servant,

" C. J. LONDON.
" The Hon. and Right Rev, the Lord Bishop of
Bath and Wells."
—(Cheers.) That letter acquitted the Bishop of London of
having been a party either to misleading or deceiving the
Bishop of Bath and Wells.—(llear, hear.) The bishop gave
his reasons for Mr. Bennett leaving his diocese, and his letter
was the strongest condemnation, remonstrance, and warn-
ing, almost amounting, in fact, to a protest.—(Hear, hear.)
When the Bishop of London spoke of the peace and good
order of his diocese having been interrupted by Mr. Ben-
nett, was not that a warning that the peace and good
order of the diocese of Bath and Wells would also be in-
terrupted if Mr. Bennett were admitted into that diocese?
—(Hear, hear.) But in the teeth of that condemnation and
warning, the Bishop of Bath and Wells proceeded to insti-
tute Mr.. Bennett. Rumours had since reached him, which
it was desirable that he should mention, in order that an
opportunity might be given to the parties concerned to ex-
plain them. He had heard, but•did not believe, that the letter
ho had just read was not the only letter written by the Bishop
of London to the Bishop of Bath and Wells ; and that in a se-
cond letter the former prelate had qualified his objections, and
'withdrawn his condemnation of Mr. Bennett.' He did not
believe that the Bishop of London would have allowed
that letter to be put into his hands if the Right Rev. Pre-
late had, by a subsequ'ent letter of a different character, qua-
lified or withdrawn that condemnation. Another rumour
had reached him regarding the Bishop of Bath and
which he could not believe. He had heard that this letter
of the Bishop of London was never seen or read by the
Bishop of Bath and Wells ; that he received the certificate,
but that he never saw that letter. Now, if the. Bishop of
Bath and Wells, knowing that there was such letter, either
declined or refused to open or read it, so far was that from
being..a palliation of the course he had taken, that the
House would feel it to be a very great aggravation of the
grievance of which the public had to complain.—(Hear,
hear.) He might assume, then, that this statement was
untrue. The words of the canon were:—" No bishop shall
institute any unless, after due examination,, he shall appear
worthy of his ministry:" What was meant by " due exa-
.mination ?" Surely the mode and extent of the examination
were not entirely left to the will and discretion of the bishop ?
Lord Ellenborough had set this question at rest by a judg-
ment upon this point, which, if the House would permit him,
he would read. Lord Ellenborough said a—
"lt only requires him first to approve, that is, before he
licenses; and, in so doing, it virtually requires him to exer-
cise his conscience, duly informed upon the subject; to
do which he must duly, impartially, and effectually inquire,
examine, deliberate, and decide. Here the duty of exami-
nation is again pointed out. The bishop is to find out
whether he is learned, capable of teaching, moral, and of a
right understanding in religion ; and, therefore, the court
would require of him that he should institute some proper
mode of examination by which the learning, dexterity in
teaching, morals, and the religion of the candidate may be
ascertained. The word of the statute is approve,' and
he must exercise that approbation according to his con-
science, upon such means of information as he may obtain;
and every thing that can properly minister to his conscien-
tious approbation or disapprobation, and fairly and rea-
sonably induce his conclusion on such a subject, though it
might not be evidence that would be formally admitted in a
court of law, may, I am of opinion, be fitly taken into con-
sideration."
The Bishop of Bath should have addressed himself to the
circumstances alluded to in the letter of the Bishop of
London and the memorial of the parishioners of Frome. To
simplify the matter as much as possible he would refer to
one point in each document. The parishioners directed the
attention of the Bishop to a passage published by Mr. Ben-
nett, in which he said that " All the ideas of the Bible, and
the dispensing of the Bible, as in itself a, means of propaga-
ting-Christianity, are a ction and absurdity." Did the
-Bishop inquire into that? Considering what must ba the
feelings of a Protestant community like that of Frome—
considering the feelings of veneration with which they must
regard the sacred volume, a veneration founded on their con-
viction that to a poor man it was the greatest of blessing,
and that the richest man without it was less than the most
miserable of paupers—considering that this was not only the
opinion of the Protestant people of this country, but that we
occupied ourselves in sending the. Bible abroad, as the source
of religious truth, to the most distant climes, and that per-
sons were to be found whotcheerfully braved toils, privations,
and even death, in prosecuting this the noblest work in
which man could be engaged—considering all these things,
the parishioners of Frome must have regarded Mr. Bennett's
declaration about the Bible a 3 little less than
blasphemy and profaneness. If the Rev. Gentleman had,
entered their cottages, seized their Bibles, and thrown
them into the fire, his act could scarcely have
shocked them more than his words. Should not the Bishop
have said to Mr. Bennett, " Here is a statement shocking to
Protestant feeling; I must have an explanation of it, and
the explanation must go forth to the world. You have
stated, in your letter to Lord J. Russell, that you arenn
changed and unchangeable ; is your opinion on this point.
unchanged? for, if so, I should hold myself disgraced as a
Protestant prelate in granting you institution." There was
strong evidence that the Bishop did not ask this question..
Now for the second point. The Bishop of London, in his
letter to the Bishop of Bath, referred to Mr. Bennett's cora
respondence with Lord J. Russell, in whiCh Mr. Bennett set
forth his views with regard to the supremacy of the Crown.
This point was of particular importance. because every clergy-
mail on his institution was obliged to take an oath regarding
the supremacy of the Crown in spiritual and ecclesiastical
matters. After the decision in the Gorham case a movement
took place amongst a large portion of the clergy of the Church,
about 2,000 of them signed a protest, setting forth that they
had all taken the oath to maintain the Queen's supremacy
in a peculiar sense.—(Hear, hear.) Among -the persons
who signed this document were Archdeacon Manntng, who
had since joined the Church of Rome, and Isaac Wilber-
force, archdeacon, and Hodge Mill, Regius Professor of
Hebrew at Cambridge, who still held preferment in the
Church of England. Mr. Bennett said, that, having taken
the oath in favour of the Queen's supremacy, he became
uneasy in his conscience after the decision in the Gorham
case • that he consulted a barrister as to whether he was
bound by the oath to obey such an exercise of the Queen's
supremacy as had taken place in the Gorham case, and the
barrister informed him that he was bound to do so, because
the oath must be taken in the sense in which it was in.
tended, by the person imposing it, and not according. to the
interpretation which it might suit the convenience of the
party taking it subsequently to put upon it. Mr. Bennett
did not resign his living to satisfy his scruples of conscience
but contented himself with signing the protest. Shortly
after arose the controversy with the Bishop of London, and
then he resigned his living. In the course of the samb
year he presented himself for institution' 'to the vicarage
of Frome, and the oath in favour of the supremacy
of the Crown must again be taken. Ought not the
Bishop of Bath to have taken notice of Mr. Bennett's
recorded opinion on the isubject of the oath ? Should
it net have been a part of the " due examination" required
from the Bishop to have asked Mr. Bennett whether he sub-
scribed the oath in the sense in which the law imposed it, or
with some mental reservation or qualification? It was not
sufficient to say that the Bishop privately examined Mr.
Bennett, and was satisfied with, what took place. The ob-
ject of the examination was to satisfy the Church at Mrge,
and especially that portion of it over which Mr. Bennett was
to be set. The scandal was notorious; its removal should
have been notorious also. If Mr. Bennett's opinions had un-
dergone a change, the fact should not have been communi-
cated to the Bishop alone ; it should have been made knovin
also to Mr. Bennett's parishioners. It was to be regretted
that the Bishop in this matter, instead of appearing in the
dignified character of an impartial judge, had exhibited him-
self in that which in that House was held to be the most
objectionable, it might almost be said,odious of; charactere,
namely, that of a partisan. It appeared to him that he had
established the three propositions with which he had set out.
Hooker pointed, in the following passages, to the evils likely
to result from such a malversation of office on the part of a
high ecclesiastical dignitary as that with which the Bishop
of Bath was chargeable:— •

"If now, there arise any matter of grievance between
the pastor and the people that are under him, they have
their ordinary, a judge indifferent, to determine their causes
and to end their strife. But in case there were no such ap-
pointed to sit and to hear both, what would then be the
end of their quarrels? . . . But the hurt is more inani-
lastly seen which doth grow to the church of God by faults
inherent in their several actions, as when they carelessly
ordain, when they institute negligently, when corruptly
they bestow church livings (benefices, prebends, and rooms
especially for jurisdiction, when they visit for gain's sake
rather than with serious intent to do .good), when their
courts, erected for the maintenance of good order, are dis-
ordered, when they regard not the clergy under them, when
neither clergy nor laity are kept in that awe for which this
authority should serve, when anything appeareth in them
rather than a fatherly. action towards the flock of Christ,
when they have no respect to posterity, and, finally, when
they neglect the true and requisite means whereby their au-
thority should be upheld. Surely the hurt which groweth
out of these defects must needs be exceeding great."
The hurt was exceedingly great in the instance which be
had brought under the notice of the House, and was it any
answer to be told, as he was a few nights ago, that Mr.
Bennett had already won, to a great extent, the confidence
of the parishioners of Frome? The House had been informed
that 1,500 of the parishioners of Frome had signed a memo-
rial stating that they were satisfied with the soundness of
Mr. Bennett's doctrines. Admit, for the sake of argument,
the truth of the alleged popularity of Mr.-Bennett at Profile,
he drew an inference from it very different from the conclu-
sion at which that gentleman's friends arrived. Had it been
said that. Mr. Bennett was universally disliked, that no one
went near him, and that the mischief would be shortlived,
iemight perhaps be expedient to let the matter rest, but the
case was different when it might be said, " Mr. Bennett
may be a Roman Catholic, but he is very popular—he may
be a Jesuit, but he is very attractive—it may be true that
he said what is alleged about the Bible, but he is convert-
iug all the parishioners of Frome." Under such circum-
stances the popularity of Mr. Bennett would only be the
fulfilment of the worst forebodings of those Who objected
to his appointment.—(Hear, hear.) The question now
to be determined was what was to be done. The Govern-
ment admitted that the case was one of which it was Im-
possible to exaggerate the importance. It was admitted on
all sides that it could not rest where it was. In airy
was
was,
deelered to be not only essential but inevitable. Hew
by
the inquiry to be pursued? The House could not proceed'
resolution, because the facts were disputed.
proposed there should be an inquiry by
meansould be urged
commis-
sion, but he foresaw the objections whichw
against that course, although he
suggestedhat it in deference to
t all other modes
the wishes of his friends, who desired Ta
the inquiry. nil ry by
now
ca
iled upon the UQuse
a Commission being rejected, he
of investigation should be tried before the Hourel ofoi
Com-
mons was called upon to undertake
He did not admit, however, that
to undertake the task.
pplied to its Ministers for
tandedraesdsoptotiotnheocf
rtohwe
nmwotoionnidjilo
havehramveaerlbyeepnroaplotosegdetbhyerhfiamtilfeo.i alnn
that case the Crown would
) The
andAliimn
pisirftaecrsttitewiboluefol,dutnhhde that,wm ouadl
would
advice.—(Hear,
a favourable answer
the question would still
advise ber Majesty the requisite i.iihyt
in-
quiry by a Commissionee
satio.g ja ttlho na,t was
not to return
settled in that House. On the other
thhoaanvae, tiof thbee Ministers at once advised her Majesty to return
that address,
a favourable answer, and to institute an inquiry, and they
were stopped at the outset by the announcement that no
inquiries would be given on their interrogatories, that again
would have brought the matter before the House, and it
would have been their duty to consider how to retrieve the
false step which her Majesty's Ministers had taken.--(Hear,
hear.) They had been told by the Ministers that inquiry by
a Commission was impossible, so that the inquiry must be
instituted by Parliament, or not at all. Now, what really
was the objection to inquiry by a Committee of that House?
.L Iraq late .a k adigulax oUrci4o oP Vag OA; ci

patronage, and as to the mode in which a Bishop had chosen
to exercise his authority. They were every day legislating
On ecclesiastical affairs. There were several Church Bills
at that moment on the order-book, and there had not beea.s
week during the present session in which they had not been
considering something. or other respecting the EstablishedChureh.—(Hear, hear.) It was not only 'necessary, but
inevitable that such should be the case. •It was ono of th
conditions of the Established Church that Parliament,which created that. Church, should be able to consider
its affairs, and correct what was wrong.—t Hear, hear.)lf there were abuses they ought to be removed, if there were
scandals they ought to be inquired into, if there were griev-
ances they ought to be redressed.-411earalseara_ They ere
told, however, that they alight not tp . take cognizanceOf
Church affairs becahie the House. ortommons was not nor
composed exclusively of. members of the Established Church.
Bat why was the House not composed wholly of members et
the Established Church? Because the nation of England
was not composed entirely of members of the Established
Church ; and if they said that the House of Commons, as
representing the nation, was so far dissevered from its Es"
tablished Church that it ought not to have direct.cogniaance
of its affairs, then, a fortiori, the nation must be so far sepa-
rated from the Established Church that they ought noato
have an Established Church at all.—(Hear, beats) Thit.t,
was the legal and inevitable result of the argument, u
, Erested home ; but he held, on the other hand, that the
stablished Church Church was the creation of Parliament—tits'
it existed by the breath of Parliament, and was subject to
its jurisdiction, and there was no duty of Parliament t!ti
obvious, no responsibility So undeniable, as that when it
had established a church for the teaching, of one religion,
should not be made subservient to the interests of another
—that it should not allow a minister of that Church to
become the secret agent of. another.—(Hear hear.) The
people of England having had the present question raised,
would most assuredly like to see that Parliament was earnest
f
upon if, He believed that she inquiry need not be one a
long duration—that the witnesses would be very few, and
that the whole examination need not last more than a week
or ten days. The facts of the case were indeed few and
simple. -Here was. a clergyman, the incumbent of St•
Paul's, Knightbridge, whose ministrations, were carried-au
in such a manner, and acquired Such notoriety, that the ser-
vices were interrupted by mobs and riots.—(Hear, fiesta,'
Virtually ejected by his diocesan he published a letter,
which he told his diocesan that lie found himself in a false
position in the Church of England.. He went abroadrand it
was stated that his attelidance on a Roman Catholic place °f
worship was so notorious, that he was openly claimed in their
publications as a convert to their faith, and in`:full contrt
niou with their Church. It was stated that during t"
whole time he was at Rissingen he was .never near a pro-
testant Church, and an habitual attender at a Rein,
,
Catholic Church. Thid statement was brought before run
in a friendly manner, by _a brother clergyman, and iff
received by him in such a way as to confirm its trim'*
The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, or.
morialised the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and gave extract
from his published works. The condemnation of m"
former diocesan was again virtually recorded. The fact W;
brought before the Bishop that he denied the suprenuic7„s
the Crown, and that he took the oaths in a qualho'
sense. All these things were brought before the Bishop'
but without the inquiry required by law, witnout the prop
certificate, he not only instituted him, but did so in such f
manner as to shut out the parishioners from the only tri-
bunal established by law before which they could have le'
dress.—(llear.) For all this they were told there was to a,e.
.no redress, because a Commission of Inquiry would not e er,
fectual, and b because there were some gentlemen who object
to pursuing such an inquiry by a Parliamentary Comraittet
Why, they had had hundreds of Com:l:fissions with no, WI:
authority than would have existed in, the present 'case, and
though the inquiries'had often been exceedingly ,t 37,
to those to whom thpy were addressed, much valuable nalu
mation had nevertheless been acquired, while in not one al
had the inquiries of the Commissioners been evaded. 13“0
now they were told, for the first time, that a Commissionalo
not to be instituted because answers to the inquiries Wu.:
not be got. That was no doubt a well-advised announce'
ment, and had not been made except on good grounds. Set;
Wag apart the circumstances of this case, he would ha:,
thought that such an answer could not have been givsn
alie„ prelates of the Established Church.—(Hear, hear"
There was not in the country another body by whom an
quiry issued in the Queen's name would not have beah„,
spected.—(Hear, hear.) There was no clads of her JUra
jesty's subjects: who, if ntommission of Inquiry had 1)7;
would not have hastened to meet its wishes; leta
it a
knock at the_ door of the peer or the cottager it would has
been respected, because was issued in the. Queen's riasni,e:
and he should have thought that the prelates of the -r,s`-,:t
bushed Church would have. been among the first to resPt,
the authority of the law, and show their loyaltY:,
acknowledging the .Commission of the Queen.--(0'e"
hear.) They might have been expected to recoa'uw"
the principle on which their Sovereign had set the e;
ample, that the more exalted the rank the greater Ii 5
resP onsibility; that great power and great pri
were to be held for public purposes, and not
secreted for selfish ends.—(Hear, hear.) The responsibrli e
connected with this case now rested with Perliameut alOin
and, whatever might be the ground on which they acted', ris
whether it affected the sincerity of their faith, waetes
imvolved the supremacy of the Crown, or the jurisdicti os
Parliament, it was a serious responsibility. It would beat
very mifortunate and very fatal event if Parliameat on ffet
occasion were by, a majority to refuse the inquiry
every one admitted ought to be instituted. A ininer'ty
;:iaus
such a case would only show how fatal and how dung
a majority was when opposed to truth. A majority 'u sob
a case could not influence public opinion ; a majority wells,
not acquit Mr. Bennett or the Bishop of Bath and 74 the
but a majority could, disappoint public expectation, and
public reprobation diverted from other parties wou,saresr,
point the finger of scorn at the House of Commons. —0%1,,
n 3 hear.) It would tell them that their Church was a cts*
;loyalti
that their Protestantism was a pretence, that tiles to
was a sham; and it would tell them that, in endeavount.hei,
screen individual delinquents, they were perpetnatilig d' “de
powers, but that they were degrading rarliaa„hnilmt son tilos
atroying the Church.—(Hear.) The Hon, °L'—ciraunr"
moved for a Select Committee to inquire into th;dr. Ben.
stances connected with the institution of the Bev'.
nett to the vicarage of Frome.
A short pause took place, followed by Dim
vide !" loud cries of "

MR F. O'ORs
t.
Mr. GLADSTONE. rose toC ONN
addreshe House, when
be
was interrupted by
Sir B. HALL, who said—l wish to refer to a cluesti°Talaf
order. lam sorry to call the attention of the House to
conduct of the Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. 0'C°13,4%.
nor), but I feel it my duty to do so.—(Loud crime
" Hear.") While I was this moment calling " Divide," nqt
Hosenolnage,faoonnnryseMurbejmocceebteeasdrion,mrise_e to addreis the House. the -1,13',"e
Member turned round on me and struck me in the side—
laugh)—and severely hurt me. I told the Hon. Gentleurs
ttheat-anify hean naeyddarneeess,ed me in tali° I
your attention, Sir, to the subject, and put myself
your protection, which I now do.— [Daring tlheStiTntllledoccdeor_
pied by the Hon. Baronet in his statement, gr. F. O'CoiT
indulged in a, series of bows and smileS, eventually ado
his mite to the adds
hilarity so generally occasioned by the reter
ence to the immediate cause of the complaint.]
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Nottingham bag
been so long a Member of this House that it is unnecesan9;
to remind him that it is against the rules and orders oflo
House for one Member to interrupt or annoy another in toc
course of the proceedings. lam sorry to say, however, that
the Hon. Member for Nottingham is in the constant habit O
violating those rules and orders—(Hear)—and I now tell
him that if he persists in that course it will be my painfu:
duty to call the attention of the House to-the Hon: alerlibe
by his name, and it will then be for the House to take such
ulterior steps as will prevent any such misconduct in future.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the front
Opposition bench, close to the table, and who, during did
Speaker's short address, had been loudly vociferating
"Order, order," then rose, atP spoke in a rambling and in'
coherent manner. He said—l did not do anything to the
Hon. Baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did not
do anything Whatever. He is my greatest enemy.—(Order'
order.) He was one of the members of the land committal
that sat five years ago.—(" Chair, chair.") A Member c'
the Government was then chairman of that Committee, atl('t
it was composed of 15 members. I built houses and cottage;
—(Order, order)—but the ruffians (the members of the las
society) paid no rent.— (.4 Order," and cries of " Chair•, ?
Though in five years they got as much manure as would
this room. [This idea seemed particularly to affect the get:
Gentleman, for the allusion caused him to weep.] Tied
talked about soup.—(Renewed crdi.easaynodaf,l'ana‘rCindheawriras. Mernbei'
paid 601. or 1501., and they were located, but the math°
paid no rent —("aepho9alaoiirgd.yl)tro.Onn.
MemberlllyeT mhhMember
SPEAKEReardbhoyaffs na
anyt ne. Mr. O'Connor--(A
a red cap on, and a hatchet his gOlultll°Cjs
O'CONNOR
—I
to do so.
the
"—a
nid a makel a laugh.) h. )
must
te
tnoowthecaHnousuo,n is11:11::
nology to the House.
beg the Hon. Member's an a- hitt'.
Mr. GL A matter
D strrhoe nNdEr ohpeppeedd,
pardon for anythin I did to 40
The
(Hear, hear.) You are the best S ak that ever sat in "
pause) If the lathe'
chair.—(" Order peer
0,01
tanheaattention of the House
..ner
not be diverted from the important subject `by the 7,401
which had just occurred. He would commence his reol—tee
by expressing his regret at being called upon to folloycipt
Hon. Gentleman without first having had it intimated toftia,
what course her Majesty's Government intended to P 11.705
For although he was personally acquainted with the elm aol
individual, the object of the Hon. Gentleman's charge' ye'
had made it his study to inform himself on the subject,,idi
after all this was mainly a legal question, a question Nv
could net be discussed or decided without the 13PPlic'
of legal knowledge and legal authority. It was office' ore
on which he had hoped Government and the law to
the Crown would have stated the view they took 0, od
distinct legal issue which had not unfairly, but which
broadly and visibly, been raised by the Honourable 01,,c-i
man, and would, on their authority and reset:,T oerw
offer advice to the House as to the course they show
sue.. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the clue. az
as a legal question, and he could not help wishing_ do
Honoureble Gentleman had confined himself with some,' tee
greater strictness to the legal view. It appeared ths‘,,
Honourable Gentleman, who declared his, only ottlec:bi
be to, attain truth, and to show troth, had allowe'
daes
rhetorical powers and warmth of feeling to mix thews' die
with his statement of the alleged facts of the case, °ls' to
had done this with an ability which might be dangereLiog
the House, unless wholesome efforts were made to 'B' ie..
them back from the warmth infused into the case, and tli), gal
duce them to consider they were only discussirg old
question on the strict and dry view of its merits. Ile '-x,ll/
not dwell on the various parts of, the Hon. Membe'r's
but he must beg leave to call attention to one or ,10,
points. The Honourable Member said, unless the 13:° ,re
agreed to his motion, their Protestantism would be a ,tioir
tenco and their loyalty a shain. That issue was' 00
strong.— (Hear, hear. ) The Houie had a discretion i
matter; they had a right to test the statments of the
-Member to see if those statements were berm)
_owe
whether he was consistent in -his doctrine, or whether a
part of his doctrine was not overturned by what Wan. 'op
down in the speech. This the House. was entitled to .1,0
without the fear that the peop s
le would consider that.
loyalty of that House was a sham if they refused to an
.
the Honourable Member's views. He would just give s of
stance of the Honograble Member's magnifying powers o
speech. The Honourable Gentleinen said the objection
le
Commission had been,‘, made by thd Right Honohuer:
Gentleman on the - ground that no power would be t j",O
conferred to obtain answers to questions. On that baste_ ''"sob
Hon. Gentleman built the inference that the Bishop of 0. ipg
and Wells bad declared he intended to refuse answer' .0.
questions, and then, with the same ingenuity, 1y! og
that no other class of her Majesty's subjects would do to extend the refusal to the whole bench of Bishop.. Ty, be
same. On that foundation, and no other, had iscca
,Pujybo• /Yt
tirade r
manade
bench. Gentleman
He builtwawas
else when they did not do their. duty.
Babe "ustice a
bishops, like any other persons, were entitled. to reci
atrizatedthbeishwepheos?leidFsay
.la,
some decency of treatment.—(" Hear, hear," trop' eir
t decency
man.) He did not think that they had got Oa;
nohltsth
treatment at the hands of-the Hon: and Learnea o_tv.neut
(Ijcgr, hear.) Ie had heard the Lim awl Many" "