The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-07 00:00:00

L

<-__.-..----

PRICE 4D. STAMPED, SD,

feel sure, request the noble earl to remain..silent on the mat-
ter if you think silence right and expedient:
" It seems to me impossible that the right rev. - owner of
this estate can be cognisant of the real inward state of things
here. I have hitherto been kept silent by the assurance
that he both knows and approves.
" From time to time I have asked, And what does our
bishop think of it ?' and the answer has been, that; though
sometimes surprised, your. lordship has been quieted by the
assurance of the Bishop of Oxford's approval."
The bishop replied to that letter in the following
terms :
" 43, Queen Anne-street, W., Feb. 23, 1858, 9 p.m.
Rey. and Dear Sir,—Your letter of this day's date has
just reached me from Cambridge. I cannot approve of
your returning- to Grain= until I see my way more clearly
through the perplexities which at present must beset you
there. I write this in the hope of stopping your departure
from Cambridge, or, at least, your return to Gridlham until
you hear again from me.
• " I remain Rev. and dear Sir,
" Your diocesan and faithful brother,
" Rev. E. Randall." " A. T. CICESTER.

There was then an interval, and the bishop did
not again communicate with tho Rev. Edward
Randall until February, when he addressed the
following letter to him :-
4 43, Queen Anne-street, W., 24th Feb. 1858.
"Rev. and Dear Sir,
_—l have now examined into all the
circumstances connected with the paper on Sacraments en-
trusted by the rector of Graffham to his schoolmaster, and
I have also called for and perused the whole of the very vo-
luminous papers drawn up by Mr. Randall for catechetical
instruction of the children there, . .
" The first paper, of which you sent me a paper taken by
itself unexplained, and with -the unmodified statement of
the use to which it was to be applied, was indeed startling
enough. But you will remember that from` the first
I expressed my conviction that there must be. some
misapprehension, some mistake. I am thankful to say
examination has fully confirmed that impression. It would
be inconsistent with the facts, as I have them now before
me, and with the whole tenor of the rector's catechetical
teaching, to found upon the accidental detachment of that
imperfect paper from the whole of the next an imputation
upon. the rector, of the least inclination on his part towards
Rothe and of a design to insinuate her tendency amongst
the children. The design and object I am now satisfied
have been precisely the reverse. -
" With respect to yourself, I cannot acquit you of great
haste and precipitation in the matter. No one would have
surmised, from your previous letter to me, that your
rector, whombrou were dilating upon to me, was expected at
Graffham the day after you wrote to me.' - An opportunity
was then at hand for you to have learnt from him what was
the purpose for which he had placed that paper in the
schoolmaster's hands, and, at any rate, it would only have
been just and fair to him, if you intended to send the paper
to me, to have waited the one day, which alone was neces-
sary, to have received your letier, and the paper and the
rector's statement and explanation together; and this was
not all, but you acted in an equally precipitate and unjus-
tifiable, as well as unecclesiastical and insubordinate way
towards me. Having appealed to me, you do not wait for
what I 'may judge or do, but you appeal at once over me to the
limes newspaper •;' and not satisfied with this, you next appeal
to Lord Shaftesbury, and now you tell me you are appealing
to the Cambridge professors. I use the term "appeal," for
this is really the import of the reference you have made
to these different quarters. This is so extraordinary 'a
mode of prooeeding, so entirely imclerical and contemptuous
towards your bishop, in whose hands you had placed the
matter, that I cannot avoid reproving you for it, as I hereby
do ; and I most earnestly exhort you to be less precipitate
and more circumspect in future.
" Again, I learn with extreme pain—indeed, you tell me
yourself that last Sunday you abstained from communicat-
ing, because you could not partake with Mr. Randall. Now,
this was an extreme and most indefensible measure. No
authority had condemned your rector, and if you could not
quell your own convictions to his prejudice you should have
stayed at home, and not have exhibited to the parishioners
the scandal of one clergyman excommunicating another—
the curate, the rector.
"Now, I have not allowed myself to be biassed by this
extraordinary conduct on your part. You know I have
listened to and received all you had to say or write. If the
rector were unfaithful, I was bound to inquire into charges
to that effect, however strangely they might be alleged be-
fore me. I have done so, and done it fully, and am thankful
to bo able to repeat he stands in my judgment clear and
upright.
And now, finally, to a very painful part of the business,
viz.. your own position. It is clear your continuance at
Gra.ffham can be productive of comfort and of good neither
to yourself nor anyone else. The parish cannot be in a
quiet settled state while you are there. I think you told
me yourself that before this matter had been arranged you
should leave at Lady-day. I trust this will be carried out,
and the less you are there the better.—l remain, Rev. and
dear sir, your diocesan and faithful brother,
"Rev. Ed. Randall." "A. T. CICESTER.
The matter did not end there. On the 10th March
a letter was received by the Rev. Edward Randall,
expressive of his regret at being• obliged to recal
the testimonials which he had given him. That
letter ran as follows :
"Doddington, March 10, 1858.
" Rev. Sir,--I hereby retract the testimonials which I
gave you before your recent disgraceful conduct, and re-
quire you to return them to' me.
" I remain your obedient servant,
" Rev. E. Randall." " S. OxoN.
A further letter was addressed to him by James
Randall, to the following effect :
" Deddington, March 10, 1858.
" Rev. Sir,—l find myself under the painful necessity of
forbidding you to make any further use of a testimonial I
formerly gave you, and I hereby require you to return it to
me. You may address it to me at I3infield. Your most
unhandsome behaviour to your rector, and the language I
understand you to have held concerning your bishop, in-
duce me to take this step.
" Yours obediently,

The Rev. Edward Randall." " JAMES RANDALL
The consequence was the Rev. Edward Randall
retired from the parish. Well, matters remained
quiet until the autumn of 1858, when the affair
again excited much attention in Sussex, in conse-
quence of the matter having been taken up by a
paper called the National Standard. Now it was
clear, said Mr. Bovill, that if the reports and
charges here circulated could not be investigated
the whole church must suffer.
Lord Campbell—That consideration cannot affect
oar judgment.
Mr. Bovill would contend, however, that under
the operation of the Church Discipline Act the very
existence of such reports required the issuing of a
commission on the part of the bishop. The power
of determining what were the doctrines of the
church did not surely rest with one bishop.
Lord Campbell—The whole question, must be
determined by the act of parliament.
Mr. Bovill would call attention to the wording
of the act of Parliament, but at the same time he
could not help saying that there would' be little
uniformity in the church if the act were capable of
a different construction from that which he con-
tended for.
Lord Campbell—Let us come to the point
whether it is obligatory upon the bishop to issue
the commission.
Mr. Bovill—Their lordships would surely con-
sider what was the object of the general law. Uni-
formity, as to the doctrines and practice of the
church had been insisted on in statute after statute.
Mr. Justice Wightman--We have simply to
consider whether the power vested by this act of
Parliament is discretionary or not
Lord Campbell—lt is quite plain that from the
period of the Reformation down to the year 1840
tir
_church could rely on no such protection.
-Mr. Bovill—But before that act passed it was in
the power of any one, by using his office of
judge, to put the ecclesiastical tribunals in
motion against any clergyman charged with such
practices as here referred to. The learned gentle-
man then proceeded to cite a great number of
authorities- to prove that the exercise of the power
of the bishop was not simply discretionary but it
was compulsory on tkim to issue a commission of
inquiry, on a prima facie case being made oat,
especially relying upon the case of " Ditcher v.
Denison."
, On the conclusion of the argument,
Lord Campbell said Mr. Bovill might take a rule.