The Sun.
London, England, 1868-11-06 00:00:00

THE BRITISH LYING-IN HOSPITAL.

The half-yearly general court of governors of the
British Lying-in Hospital was held at the hospital,
Endell-street, London, yesterday; Mr. E. J. Leigh'
ton, chairman of the board, in the chair. The most ire'
portant item of business was the consideration of
code of revised laws for the government of the
institution, which has now been in existence for 120
years. The secretary having read the minutes of the last
meeting, the chairman proceeded to comment on an
anonymous paper which had been circulated amongst the
governors in reference to the proposed new laws. This
document he characterised as a tissue of misrepresenta-
tions. He proposed that the new rules, which were in the
hands of the subscribers, should be adopted, with such
alterations as might be suggested by the meeting.
This was seconded, when Dr. Lee proposed and Lieut.•
Colonel Hamilton seconded an amendment to the effect
that the old rules of the institution, as well as the proposed
new ones, should be printed and circulated amongst the
governors, and considered at the next half-yearly meeting•
This produced a lengthy and animated discussion, and the
amendment on being put was lost.

THE CHARGE OF HERESY AGAINST THE

REV. W. J. E. BENNETT.

On Thursday Sir T. Twiss, the chancellor of the diocese
of London, and the other commissioners appointed V
the Bishop of London, assembled at London House,
St. James's-square, to inquire into the doctrines put
forth by the Rev. Mr. Bennett, the incumbent of
Frome, touching the real presence of Our Lord in the
Eucharist. Mr. A. J. Stephen, Q.C., and Mr. Archi•
bald appeared for the promoter ; Mr. Sheppard, in'
structed by Mr. Murray Dale, solicitor, for the Church As'
sociation. Dr. Swabey, instructed by Mr. Brook, solicitor,
for the English Church Union, watched the proceedings
on the part of the defendant. The object of the present
inquiry was to ascertain whether there was sufficient ground
for the Bishop of London to send the case to the Arches
Court. Mr. Stephen, Q.C., on the commissioners taking
their seats, said he wished it to be understood that although
they had met at the residence of the Bishop of London it
was to be considered as an "open court," at which the
public had a right to be present. He so read the Church
Discipline Act, under which the present proceedings
were adopted. The commission was also read. The false
doctrines were alleged to be published and maintained it;
the works of Mr. Bennett, in " The Plea for Toleration;'
and in " The Church in the World." Sir Travers
Twiss said he could now answer the question put. It was
to be considered an "open court," and the public to be ad'
mitted. Dr. Swabey thought the defendant had a right
to reserve any matter, but he had no wish to have anything
in privacy. Mr. Stephens proceeded to open the case. He read
several extracts of the works mentioned, and contended
that he had proved the charge of false doctrines contained
in the pamphlets.
Several witnesses were called as to the publication of
the works.
Dr. Swabey submitted that there was not a tittle of proof
as to the publication. He left the case in the hands of the
commissioners.
The commissioners retired, and on their return into
court, Sir Travers Twiss said they had carefully considered
the matter, and were of opinion, which they declared
openly and publicly, that there was primd facie ground for
further proceedings.
Just as the court was about to be dissolved, Mr. Steppel
asked that the shorthand-writer (Mr. Walsh) should prove
his notes. He was anxious to guard against all possible
" miserable objections." This was done, and the court
°
broke up. The case will now appear in the Arches Cour