The Sun.
London, England, 1858-09-25 00:00:00

THE BOYNE HILL CONFESSIONAL.

The commissioners appointed by the Bishop of
Oxford, under the Church Discipline Act, to in-
quire into the charges made against the Rev. Richd.
Temple West, M.A., of Christ Church, Oxford,
curate of Boyne Hill, met yesterday at the Town
Ha 11, Maidenhead, to pursue the investigation. The
commissioners were Dr. Robt. Phillimore, Chan-
cellor of the Diocese of Oxford ; the Ven. Jas. Ran-
dall, M.A., archdeacon of Berkshire ; the Rev. J.
A. Leigh, vicar of Bray (the parish in which Mr.
Gresley's district is situate) and rural dean ; Mr. Chas.
Sawyer, of Heywood Lodge ; and Mr. Hebbert, of
Bray-wreth Lodge. The court was crowded by the
resident gentry and clergy of the neighbourhood.
Amongst the former were Mr. J. Walter, M.P., and
Mr. Pascoe Grenfell, M.P., by the direction of the
chancellor.
Mr. Cripps, of the Oxford circuit, instructed by.
Mr. Gamber, of Gray's-inn, appeared for the com-
plainant, the Rev. John Shaw, rector of Stoke
Pogis. Mr. West was represented by Mr. J. D.
Coleridge, who was instructed by Mr. Bowland, of
Reading.
Mr. J. M. Davenport, secretary to the Bishop of
Oxford, and registrar of the diocese, read the com-
mission, as follows :

" Samuel, by Divine permission, Lord Bishop of
Oxford, to our beloved in Christ, Robert Joseph
Phillimore, Esq., D.C.L., Q.C., Vicar General of our
diocese ; the Venerable Archdeacon James Randall,
the Rev. James Edward Austen Leih, rural dean,
Charles Sawyer, Esq., and John ilibbert, Esq.,
greeting
" Whereas the Rev. Richard Temple West, a
clerk in holy orders of the United Church of England
and Ireland, and stipendiary curate of Boyne Hill,
in the county. of Berks, and within our diocese and
jurisdiction, is charged. by the Rev. John Shaw,
vicar of Stoke Pogis, in the county of Buckingham,
with an offence against the laws ecclesiastical, in
having within two years hereof, in the performance
of his ministerial duty on the occasion of visiting a
certain sick person named Nancy Arnold, put impro-
per questions to her with the view of leading her to
make confession to him, as is more fully charged in a
certain requisition or complaint sent to us, a copy of
which is hereunto subjoined: and whereas, we rightly
and duly proceeding under the authority and in
conformity with the provisions of a certain act of
Parliament passed in the session holden in the third
and fourth years of the reign of her present Ma-
jesty, chapter 86, ' for better enforcing Church Dis-
cipline ' did on the 30th day of August last, now
past, being 14 days at least before the issuing of
this our commission, send notice under our hand to
the said Richard Temple West, that it was our in-
tention to issue a commission under our hand and
seal to you the five above-mentioned persons for
the purpose of making inquiry as to the grounds of
the aforesaid charges ; we, therefore, by virtue and
in further pursuance of the said recited act, do, on
the application of the said John Shaw, issue this
our commission to you, the said Robert John Phil-
limore, James Randall, James Edward Austen
Leigh, Charles Sawyer, and John Hibbert, for the
purpose of making inquiry as to the ground of the
aforesaid charge, and we do hereby authorise and
empower you to make such inquiry, and to proceed
in the execution of this commission in the manner
directed by the said act.
" Given under our hand and seal the 15th day',of
September, in the year of our Lord 1858, and
of our consecration the 13th.”
The requisition or complaint referred to :
" To THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF
OXFORD-- •

" We, the undersigned inhabitants of the parish,
of Stoke, in your lordship's diocese, and communi-
cants of the Church of England, have read in the
Windsor Express newspaper of June 19, a state-
ment detailing the manner of inducing confession
as practised by the curate of Boyne Hill, and desire
to bring his conduct before your lordship's notice.
" The statement sets forth that the clergyman
went to a poor woman, who was in hourly expec-
tation of her confinement, and proceeded to ques-
tion her in a most improper manner with the view
of leading her to confession; that in going through
the commandments, he dwelt more particularly on
the seventh, and asked her whether she had ever
committed adultery? Upon her replying ' No,' he
said Yes, but recollect, did you not before or
after you were married look on a man to lust after
him or for him?' According to the statement,
the poor woman was ' upset' by his language,
especially as the clergyman continued—' Now you
are lying there and hope to be delivered and live ;
therefore you should confess your sins to me.' .He
pursued the conversation, and inquired, Have you
ever been confirmed ?" No, sir,' she replied.
Then remember,' said he, - it you die you can never
enter the kingdom of Heaven ; if you live you must
receive the Holy Sacrament.' Upon her objecting
to this, through want of preparation, the curate
added, Then you cannot enter the kingdom of
Heaven.' The statement further sets forth that the
clergyman urged upon her, 'that she should not
tell her husband,' and that she was afterwards
visited by a lady calling herself Sister Ellen, and
upbraided by her for repeating the conversation,
and again advised her not to tell her husband.
"It is needless for us to specify to your lordship
the many gross improprieties of which the curate
was guilty. Allowing this account to be true, and
that he stands self-condemned by holding a conver-
sation with any woman which he desired not to- be
repeated to her husband; and as Mr. Joseph H.
Clark, of Attwood House, Maidenhead, has avowed
himself to be the writer of this account, and ready
to substantiate it, we therefore respectfully request
of your lordship to institute a full inquiry into
these charges, and, if true, censure and punish the
accused according to the authority your lordship
has by virtue of your office.
" Your requisitionists view with alarm the pro-
gress of certain Romish doctrines and practices in
the bosom of the Anglican Church, of which they
would specify, scarcely ever heard of since the days
of the Reformation, an unscriptural and unanglican
mode of confession ; and unless these practices are
checked by the firm hand of authority, they fear
that the general character of the clergy will be
lowered in the eyes of their parishioners,that happy,
open intercourse which now exists between both
parties be checked, and thus the clergy and laity
will be separated into two distinct bodies ; they
fear that the affection of the people of England
will gradually be withdrawn from the Church, and
that by substituting the doctrine of an unscriptu-
ntl confession in the place of hearty repentance
and faith in the meritorious sacrifices of Christ on
the cross, an eriipty formalism will by degrees take
the place of holiness of life and a real conversion
to the heart of God.
" J. H. Howard Vyse, lieut.-col. ; Abraham
Darby, Charles Darby, Charles Lyall, Wil-
liam Cathrow, John Alexander Gower, M.A.,
George 'William Dyson, Andrew Patrick,
John G. Scotton, Robert Alfred Williams,
John Shaw, vicar ; Henry Cantrell, church-
warden ; William Cooper, churchwarden.
" Stoke Vicarage, July 14, 1858."
Dr. Phillimore (the chancellor) said this was a
proceeding instituted by virtue of a commission
from the bishop-of the diocese, whose authority was
derived from the Act 3 and 4 Vie., cap. 86, which
provided that when there existed scandal or evil
report against a clergyman for having offended
against the laws ecclesiastical it should be lawful
for the bishop, on the application.of any party com-
plaining, or if he thought fit on his own motion, to
issue :Commission of five persons to make inquiry
as to the truth of such scandal or evil reports, and
the statute went on further to authorise each com-
mission to examine witnesses upon oath, and to
ascertain And
_advise the bishop whether or not
there Were prima facie g*rounds for instituting fur-
ther proceedings. The commissioners were of
opinion that the best course to pursue would be. to
allow both the accuser and accused to be heard by
counsel, and in the mode of proceeding to follow
the ordinary proceeding of the courts of common
law. That was, that the head counsel'who repre-
sented the accuser, should make an opening speech
and examine his witnesses. Then that the head
counsel for the accused should reply, and, if he
thought it necessary, to call witnesses that he should
examine them, and, after having done so, should
sum up their evidence, and then that a final reply
upon the whole case should be allowed to the counsel
for the accuser. But if no witnesses were called
for the defence then there would be no reply.
Mr. Cripps said he appeared on behalf of those
on whose behalf this commission had been issued.
They were persons residing in the immediate neigh-
bourhood, who had had their attention called to
certain circumstances which they considered detri-
mental to the interests of the Church. They repre-
sented' those circumstances to the bishop of the
diocese, and in consequence of their requisition the
present commission had been issued. Although he
found by the terms of the commission that the
name of Mr. Shaw alone appeared as the party
bringing the charge, it was placed there no
doubt on behalf of other requisitionists as well as
himself. These parties having made the represen-
tation to the bishop, and the commission having
issued in consequence, were compelled to appear
in the character of prosecutors, and it would be im-
possible for them, having thus set the matter in
motion, not to appear there to substantiate the facts
they bad brought to the notice of the bishop. In
appearing there as prosecutors in the case, theywere mainly carrying out a public duty, unin-
fluenced by any private or personal feelings or any
private motives of hostility to Mr. West whatsoever
—in short, uninfluenced by any feelings other than
such as they might share with the rest of the pub-
lic He was instructed that :the Rev. Mr. Shaw,
who Wu there
.a 4 the proecutor is the case, was

an entire stranger to Mr. West, and his only object
was that the truth should be properly and fairly
investigated. That was the purpose he had in
view; and that accomplished, whatever the result
of the commission might be, he and those who
were acting with him would be fully and entirely
satisfied. It had come to the knowledge, of the re-
quisionists that a clergyman residing in or near
the town of Maidenhead went to the house of a sick
woman and there enjoined upon her the duty of con-
fession ; and that in the course of his examination of
this woman as to her former life and her sins he put cer-
tain questions to her of a most improper character.
He did not know how far they would be obliged to
go into the exact nature of these questions, but he
believed that it would be found that they were such
as were repugnant to the instincts of any educated
man, whether clergyman or layman—especially
when they considered that they had been put to a
woman while on a bed of sickness, in the absence
of her husband, and that the questioner enjoined
her not to tell her husbandwhat she had been asked.
That was, in point of fact, the matter which the
commission had to inquire into. There was no
necessity for going into the question whether the
practice of auricular confession was part of the doc-
trine of the Church of England. The propriety of
a minister going to the bed of such persons and re-
quirin., them to disburden their consciences of any.
sins that might weigh upon them by confessing it
men might differ upon. Some might think it right,
and even advantageous ; while others might con-
sider it opposed to the principles of our Church.
But whether such a practice was consistent with
the doctrines of the Church or not, he apprehended
that no one present would say that it was right for
a clergyman to go to a person who was on a bed of
sickness, and, taking advantage of their physical
and mental weakness, conduct such an examina-
tion according to his own fancy, putting questions
of an improper nature, and then giving injunctions
of secrecy. Such a practice was no part of the doc-
trine of the Church of England, and would never
be tolerated by the people of England. Passing
from that, he came to the question before the com-
mission—viz., whether there was so much of truth
in the allegatims made by the requisitionists as to
call for further inquiry ? Now, it appeared to him
that the very fact of the issuing of the commission
settled that point, provided the allegation was
proved. That, he submitted, decided the question
whether what was alleged to have been done was in
accordance withthe doctrines of the Church ornot. If
what was stated to have been done was only what
in the eyes of the highest ecclesiastical authority in
the diocese, was what was right and proper, surely
he would not have issued a commission. No inquiry
was requisite, therefore, as to the doctrine of the
Church, seeing that the existence of the commis-
sion proved that what was alleged was an offence
against that doctrine. The chief witness he would
call to prove the truth of the allegation was the
woman to whom the clergyman, Mr. West, had
put the questions. Of course there could be only
two persons present at the time ; and it was one of
the inconveniences, in cases like this, that there
could be no third party to throw light upon the
matter, or to corroborate or refute the statements
of the party making the allegation. The accused
party could not, according to the laws of evidence,
be himself examined on oath to refute the charges
brought against him, and the decision must there-
fore rest upon the evidence of the chief witness and
the credibility to be attached to it. It appeared
that Mr. West had hardly left • the cottage of this
poor woman when a lady, Mrs. Ellen, came upon
the scene, and to that lady the woman, Mrs. Arnold,
related the conversation. That lady was so struck
with its impropriety that she immediately made a
memorandum of it. That was the same memoran-
dum which was transmitted to the bishop, and to
which he referred as the matter set out in the re-
quisition.. The words so entered and written down
in the memorandum remained written now, and
had a year or two years elapsed between the con-
versation and the inquiry, the contemporaneous
memorandum being in existence would be strong
corroborative proof. The defence of Mr. West up
to the present time had been not, " I indignantly
deny ever. having put such questions," but rather
the avowal that it was in his opinion right and
proper, and that confession should be practised
generally as a Wholesome and proper institution of
the Church. Mr. Gressley and Mr. West called
upon Mrs. Ellen, and-had a conversation with her
upon the subject of this woman's statement. One
would suppose that their object in calling was
to deny the truth of it. But it was not so. Mrs.
Ellen in her evidence would tell the court that some
conversation took place on that occasion as to the
duty of confession but no denial was made of what
the woman said Mr. West had told her. ^r ec the
questions he had put_ It appeared that after some
conversation, Mr. West left the room, leaving Mr.
Gressley with Mrs. Ellen, as she preferred to state
what the woman had charged Mr. West with say-
ing to Mr. Gressley rather than to Mr. West him-
self. He would •now call Mrs. Arnold, who would
state what was the nature of the questions put to
her. The other side might attempt to prove, per-
haps, that this woman was of bad character—that
she was an uneducated person, and that she had
done many things in the course of her life that
could not meet with approbation. But the more
uneducated the mind, the more improbable was it
that such a circumstantial and detailed statement
should have been coined by her.
Ann Arnold was then called, and examined by
Mr. Cripps—My name is Ann Arnold. My hus-
band's name is Richard Arnold. I live at Titley-
row, near Maidenhead. I was confined on the 7th
April last. Mr. West, the curate, had visited me
two or three times before that. On one occasion,
on the 17th March, I remember, when Mrs. Ellen
visited me, shortly after the curate came. Ido not
remember the exact day. One of the visits of Mr.
West was upon the same day that Mrs. Ellen
came, but before she came. I was in bed when
Mr. West came. He
•came into the room to me.
The bedroom door was shut when he came ; so was
the street door. After Mr. West came the door
was shut. He opened the door and came in, and
then shut it after him. Mr. West having shut the
door, asked me first how I was ; then afterwards he
said, " Mrs. Arnold, you know it's right we should
confess to man," and then he began asking me if I
knew the Catechism, and then he asked me if I
knew the Commandments. At first he asked me if I
knew the commandment, " Thou shalt have no other
God but me." I don't remember the next. Then
he asked me if I knew the commandment, "Thou
shalt honour thy father and thy mother " and he asked
me if I did so. I told him " No." I said my mo-
ther died when I was too young, and I was sure I
had not obeyed all my father's commands. Then
he came down through the other commandments
to the sixth, but I said I had forgotten them. I
answered the sixth. And then he came to the
seventh, and asked me if I had committed fornica-
tion. I replied, " I don't know your meaning sir."
He !aid, " You don't ?" and I said, " No, sir, I don't."
He said " The meaning of fornication was, did I
look upon any man to lust after him before I was
married or after." I answered " That I was mar-
ried too young." After that he made a short prayer.
I don't remember what it was. He prayed for me
to confess to him.
The Chancellor—What do you mean by that ?
Witness—He prayed for me for what I had con-
fessed to him.

By Mr. CriTips—He asked me if I had things for
my use.l I said. I had Mrs. Bickell's bundle. He
said, " You need not tell your husband ;" and then
he wished me "good day," and off he went.
By the Chancellor—He said, " Remember, you
are in this state, you don't know whether you will
live or die." He told me if I was not confirmed I
should not go to heaven. I don't remember that he
said anything else to me on that occasion. I can-
not remember anything else just now. _
By Mr. Cripps—He said " Remember, Mrs. Ar-
nold," he says " that you are telling me the truth."
That was when he was asking me about the com-
mandments. Ido not. remember which of the com-
mandments he was asking,me about when he said
that.

The Chancellor—Do you remember anything else
that was said on that occasion to you beyond what
you have stated ?
Mr. Coleridge--Mr. West does not object to the
examination being extended to the conversations
which took place upon any clay. The terms of the
commission do not limit the inquiry to any parti-
cular day.
Mr. Cripps (to witness)—Do you remember any-
thing being said in the course of that conversation
about the word adultery ?
Witness—He asked me if I had committed adul-
tery. I told him I did not know.
The Chancellor—What did you mean by that
answer ; that you did not know what adultery
meant ?
Witness—l meant that I was not going to tell
him. (A laugh.)
By Mr. Cripps—Mrs. Ellen saw me on the same
day, directly afterwards. I thought she must have
met him at the gate. I told her what had passed.
Mr. Coleridge—l must remark that Mr. West
was not there.
The Chairman—Well, we will have it discussed.
Mr. Cripps—Did you repeat to Mrs. Ellen as
closely as
you. remembered the conversation
you
had just had. with Mr. West ?
Mr. Coleridge objected to the question. If it
stood by itself, and was a mere statement of fact
that the conversation was repeated,
the object .it l
theneit would
be receivable, but that was
not `vas
What given regularly. Wh
to get irregularly at evtidence which could not
the witness said to Mrs.
Ellen in the absence of Mr. West is clearly not
receivable.
certainly
may be
The Chairman—The question