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

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 an 1 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 reshling 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-
quiring 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 thengiving 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 allege Si )ns made by the requisitionists as to
call for further inquiry ? -INow, 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 with the 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 eontemperaneous
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, or of the
questions he had put. It appeared that after sonic
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," awl then he began asking me if I
knew the Catechism, and then lie asked me if I
knew the Commandments. At first he asked Inc if I
knew the commandment, "Thou shalt :lave no other
God Isut 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 (lid 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 conic 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."
Ire said, ".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 rememer 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. Cripps—He asked me if I had things- for,
my use. I said I had Mrs. Bickcll's bundle. He
said, " You need not tell your husband ;" and then
he wished me " good dav;" 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. Colmidge—Mr. West does not object to the
examination being extended to the conversations
"which took place upon any day. 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,
repeatthel have
to Mfrs.
1 discussed.
closely as you remembered conversation. Ellen
oaus
Cripps—Did you we wil it
hid 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, then it would
be receivable, but that was not the object ; it was
to get irregularly at evidence which could not be
given regularly. What the witness said to Mrs.
Ellen in the absence' of Mr. West is clearly not
receivable.
The Chairman—The question may certainly be