Lord Lilfordwished to call the attention of the right rev. Prelate whom he saw in his place to some remarks which had appeared in the newspapers upon the subject of the rev. Herbert Marsh and to ask whether that person was still permitted to perform his clerical duties?
The Bishop of Peterboroughsaid, that no person was more proper to put such a question than the noble Lord, who, it was well known took such a deep interest in the cause of religion, and who rendered the greatest services to it in the diocese in which the noble Lord lived, and of which he had charge. He had read the letter referred to with great pain. It accused him of conniving at the continued performance of his clerical duties by a person who had inflicted deep disgrace on his holy calling; it imputed to him that he still permitted to perform the offices of the Church, to administer the holy Sacrament, a person who had been guilty of offences which in another person, not screened, it was said, as the rev. Herbert Marsh was, by high rank and connections, would have been visited with condign punishment. It was stated that no notice had been taken 799 of the matter by the Bishop until a short time before the trial which had just taken place. Now the first word he had heard about this grievous transaction was in September last, at which time the rev. Gentleman, who lived about nine miles from Peterborough, had just completed his residence as canon in that city. As soon as he got home, after hearing of the matter, he communicated with the rev. gentleman's friends; but he immediately found that there were great difficulties in the case —it was not he who objected to proceed; it was the law which interfered. Their Lordships would recollect, that there was no method by which a Bishop could proceed in such matters now, except under the Church Discipline Act; and that Act did not allow him to take any cognizance of a case which had occurred more than two years back. In this case the offence had been committed four years before it came within his knowledge. All that he then knew was (for the other circumstances did not come out until the trial)—that a criminal connection had taken place between the parties, but it was said that this had taken place at Paris. There was, however, another clause in the Church Discipline Bill, by which the Bishop was only allowed to take notice of crimes or offences committed by a clergyman in his own diocese. So far from there being any selfish inducement on his part to pursue the line of conduct which he did, the living, which was a valuable one, was in his own patronage, and he could find many most excellent and exemplary clergymen in his diocese to whom it would be most acceptable. On that ground, therefore, he could not have any object in screening this rev. Gentleman. The fact was, that he was prevented proceeding in this case in consequence of a defect in the law. He, however, had distinctly told the friends of this person that they must take care not to let him take upon himself any clerical duties in the diocese, and he distinctly stated at first that he could not bear to think of having him do any duty until his innocence of this crime had been proved and made manifest. Mr. Marsh had for a long time kept a curate in his parish, and was frequently absent from his living, residing sometimes at Peterborough and sometimes in this great metropolis; but since the time at which the charge had been brought against this reverend offender, he had not, 800 to his knowledge, done any duty in the parish, which had been entirely performed by the curate. He hoped, therefore, that he had satisfied noble Lords that he was not open to the charge which had been brought against him.
Lord Lilfordsaid, that all who were acquainted with his right rev. Friend were well aware that the suggestion in the newspaper was without foundation, and be was sure that his right rev. Friend only wished to have an opportunity to contradict the statement.
§ House adjourned.