The Sun.
London, England, 1868-04-18 00:00:00

PROSECUXION FOR HERESY.

Yesterday, in the Queen's Bench, before the Lord Chief
Justice and Justices Lush and Hannen, Mr. Brown, Q.C.,
on behalf of Mr. T. Byarcl Shepherd, a parishioner of Frome-
Selwood, in Somersetshire, applied for a rule for a man-
damus to compel the Bishop of London to issue a com-
mission for the trial of certain charges of heresy made
by the said Mr. Shepherd against the Rev.
William James Early Bennett, clerk, of Frome-Sel-
wood. Mr. Brown said that a Mr. Dale, solicitor to
Mr. Shepherd, had written letters to the Bishop of
London asking for the appointment of a commission ; but
his lordship, through Mr. Lee, his secretary, had refused.
The facts of the case were these. The Rev. Mr. Bennett
had published certain books, entitled " The Church and
the World," " A Plea for Toleration," &c., which were
alleged to contain heretical doctrines. The rev. gentleman
held his preferment in the diocese of Bath and Wells ; but
as the books were published in London, which was
part of the offence complained of, it was necessary, in the
first instance, that the Bishop of London should institute
proceedings in order to bring Mr. Bennett under the
Church Discipline Act. The learned counsel proceeded
to read extracts from some of Mr. Bennett's works, in
which it was alleged that he taught, in pages 2 and 3 of
" The Church and the World," " the real, actual, and
visible presence of Christ at the Lord's Supper,"
and in another book, " The Adoration of the
Consecrated Elements," in contravention of the last
rubric of the Communion Service of the Church of Eng-
land, which distinctly stated that "no adoration is meant
or ought to be done." His (Mr. Brown's) client stated
that, if necessary, he could prove that Mr. Bennett had not
only taught, but practised the adoration of the consecrated
elements. These, the facts of the case, were communi-
cated to the Bishop of London, and on the 2nd of
the present month his lordship was asked to appoint
a commission. Mr. Lee, the bishop's secretary, replied,
stating that his lordship did not feel himself called upon
to do so. He did not mean anything with reference to the
doctrine contained in the books spoken of, but must decline
to be made the prosecutor in any case not occurring in his
diocese of London, when a person simply chose to
" publish " the book in London. On the 9th of April
Mr. Shepherd's solicitor again wrote to the bishop,
and received in reply a letter stating that his lordship
declined to interfere unless compelled to do so by legal
proceedings. On these facts Mr. Brown asked for a rule
for a mandamus, anti quoted the case of Homer and
Bloomer v. Jones iti support of his arguments. After
some deliberation the Lord Chief Justice said that the
bishop refused to exercise his judgment, perhaps, because
he thought that the Church itself might suffer. It was
with extreme reluctance that their lordships were compelled
to go, as it were, against him ; but he (the Lord Chief
Justice) thought that the bishop, in saying "unless com-
pelled by legal proceedings," meant that he would rather
act under the direction of the court than by himself.
Under all the circumstances, their lordships felt bound to
grant the rule nisi.