§ MR. HORSMANsaid, that, in reference to the Motion of which he had given notice as to the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, that he thought it better to adhere to his original intention of bringing forward that Motion on an early day after Whitsuntide, than to press the Government to any immediate course with reference to it, which might result in an interference with the progress of public business. Having alluded to the subject, he would take the opportunity of putting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in reference to a misconception that had got abroad with respect to that right hon. Gentleman's statement of the law, or, to speak more correctly, with respect to his statement of the law 804 opinion expressed by the Crown officers, on the case submitted to them on behalf of the Government. The House had manifestly inferred from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, a few evenings since, what he was sure the right hon. Gentleman could never have intended—namely, that parties complaining of a bishop's having improperly instituted a presentee to a living, had redress for that grievance under the Church Discipline Act. This, he thought, could not have been the right hon. Gentleman's meaning, and, if not, he would give him an opportunity of correcting this misapprehension by now asking him this question, namely, Whether, in the case of any person complaining that a bishop had improperly instituted a presentee to a living, there would be redress for such a person under the Church Discipline Act?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI am not aware that I made use of the expression "improperly instituted" on that occasion. What I stated, or, at all events, what I intended to state, was, that any parishioner of Frome who complained of a grievance in the institution to a vicarage of a person, like the present vicar of Frome, alleged to have committed gross breaches of discipline and doctrine, might obtain redress through the interposition of the bishop of that diocese where the alleged breaches of discipline and doctrine were committed; and I also stated that he might obtain redress by appealing to the bishop in whose diocese the person accused of offending against the ecclesiastical law at present holds preferment. I stated that there were these two ways of redress open to the parishioners of Frome; and that it did not appear from all the inquiries which the Government had instituted on the subject that any parishioner or parishioners of Frome had as yet endeavoured to procure redress by either of these methods. If that was not precisely what I stated, it is assuredly what I intended to convey to the House. With respect to the other point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has slightly alluded, namely, as to the means of obtaining redress against these bishops, or either of them, in the event of they or either of them refusing to institute the inquiry provided for by the Church Discipline Act, I beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that what I stated was this, that Her Majesty's Government had such confidence in the discretion and sense of duty of the Pre- 805 lates of the Church, that they could not contemplate any such contingency. My words, as accurately as I can recall them now to memory, were these: "The law has provided the means of redress, and we cannot believe that the bishops, who are the means appointed by law to secure that redress, would offer any obstacle to the course of justice and the cause of truth."
§ MR. HORSMANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misconceived his question. His (Mr. Horsman's) Motion was to inquire whether the Bishop of Bath and Wells had acted properly in instituting the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome; and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer met that Motion by stating, in effect, that, if the Bishop had acted improperly, the parishioners had redress against him under the Church Discipline Act. Those might not have been the precise words used by the right hon. Gentleman, but the language he employed was thought to have that signification. He begged to be informed whether it was the opinion which was conveyed to the Government by the law officers of the Crown, that there was any redress against the Bishop under the Church Discipline Act?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMy remembrance of what I stated is precisely that which I have already explained. I have a strong impression—an impression in which I am confirmed by hon. Friends who sat near me, and listened attentively to my words—that I never made any such statement as the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me. I spoke merely of the redress which the law had provided for the parishioners of Frome with respect to a grievance which they might suppose themselves to labour under; but I did not make any statement as to their redress against a Bishop.
§ MR. HORSMANwould be glad to be informed whether, in the case submitted by the Government for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, there was any inquiry whether, in the event of a parishioner complaining, without effect, to a Bishop of the improper institution of a vicar, there was, as the law now stood, any redress against that Bishop? — any right of appeal to an Archbishop for instance?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappealed to the House whether it was not irregular and highly inconvenient 806 that the Government should be called upon to state the precise terms in which a case had been submitted on their behalf to the Crown officers. He would, however, state this much, for the satisfaction of the hon. and learned Gentleman—for he wished to have no secrecy on the subject—that the Government did consult with the Crown officers as to the alleged irregularity in the institution of the vicar of Frome, and that the Crown officers gave it as their opinion that there was no irregularity.
§ MR. HORSMANgave notice that tomorrow he would ask Her Majesty's Government whether there would be any objection on their part to the laying on the table of the House the case submitted to the law officers of the Crown in the matter of the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome? On that occasion he would, with great deference to the Crown officers, take leave to state his own views as to the law of the question.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not put the hon. and learned Gentleman to the inconvenience of waiting until to-morrow for a reply to that question. He begged to say that he considered the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman as very irregular and wholly unusual. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had, on principle, the greatest objection to laying on the table any case submitted by the Government for the opinion of the Crown officers, and he hoped that the House would support the Government in that objection.
§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHwould take that opportunity to state the nature of the question he intended to ask in reference to this subject either to-morrow or on Monday. Entertaining a notion that this question had been very unfairly dealt with, and that assertions had been made with reference to it which could not be substantiated; he wished, before there was further debate on the question, to ask whether Her Majesty's Government were aware, or whether they had reason to believe, that the Rev. W. J. Bennett, who had been appointed to the vicarage of Frome, was or was not a clergyman in the holy orders of, and in communion with, the Church of England?