FROME VICARAGE—THE REV. MR. BENNETT. (Hansard, 8 June 1852)

§ MR. HORSMAN

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for "a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of Frome." The hon. Gentleman said, that in asking the House to resume that discussion, which might be said to have been adjourned on the 20th of April, he thought it would be proper that he should, as shortly as possible, recall to the attention of the House the condition in which the question was then left, that they might know the situation in which they now stood when they invited them to resume it. On that occasion he made a Motion in that House that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to inquire whether due respect had been paid to the decrees, canons, and constitutions ecclesiastical of the Church of England in the recent institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome. Now the object and aim of that Motion could not be misunderstood. It was aimed at the act of institution, an act for which the Bishop of Bath and Wells solely was responsible—an allegation having been made to the Bishop that the presentee was an unfit person to he instituted, and the Bishop having proceeded to institute him in spite of that allegation and the evidence adduced in support of it. From the terms of the Motion there was no doubt of its intent. From the manner in which it was received and debated by the House, still less was there doubt about its object and meaning. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Government, moved the Amendment to the Motion that he proposed, and the right hon. Gentleman showed that he had not misunderstood the object of his (Mr. Horsman's) Motion. The ground on which the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to that Motion was based, was twofold. First he stated that the mode in which he (Mr. Horsman) proposed to pro- 246 ceed to gain redress for the complainants, was inadequate. But in the next place he stated very explicitly, and more than once, that one chief ground on which he invited the House to reject the Motion was, that there was an appeal to the Archbishop against the act of the Bishop. In order that he might not in any manner mis-state what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion, he would quote his exact words. He said— I have always understood, and I cannot help believing, that there must be an appeal from the prelate who acts in contravention of the canons of the Church to the Archbishop. If there be an appeal to the Archbishop, if the conduct and decision of the prelate is subject to that superior revision, that surely must be a reason why the House of Commons should not interfere before that appeal has taken place."—[3 Hansard, cxx. 918.] Now that showed that the right hon. Gentleman saw, felt, and admitted that the Motion was directed against the act of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and did not merely touch the conduct which had been alleged against the Rev. Mr. Bennett. Well, the House was not satisfied with the ground which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took on that occasion; and various Members on both sides of the House expressed their belief that the question ought not to be so disposed of; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), whom he saw opposite. speaking the sentiments of many of his Friends on that side of the House, stated very clearly what he (Mr. Horsman) thought was the sentiment of the House. These were the hon. Member's words:— He was quite certain that, this question having been raised, the country would demand that it should be fully investigated. It was a question that, having been raised, must be dealt with; and although he should wish to leave it in the hands of the Government to decide how the investigation should be made, so that they, in the proper and due exercise of the privilege vested in them of advising Her Majesty, should indicate the proper course to be taken in the matter, he yet begged them not to imagine that the question could be passed over without satisfying the public by a full inquiry.—[Ibid., 925.] He (Mr. Horsman) therefore repeated, that it was shown at that time, by the general feeling of the House, and it was notorious from what had since passed, that the hon. Member expressed not only his own sentiments, but the sentiments of many Gentlemen who sat around him. The House therefore, being dissatisfied, another Member of the Cabinet immediately arose—the Secretary of State for the Colonial 247 Department. That right hon. Baronet's language was equally strong and equally difficult to mistake. The right hon. Gentleman cordially— Assented to the proposition which had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that this question having been raised it ought to be dealt with. He felt not only that this was a question which ought to be raised, but that, having been raised, it ought to be dealt with; and he would say for himself, as well as for every other Member of the Government, that this question ought not to be allowed to rest in its present position, but that unquestionably there ought to be an inquiry instituted and a remedy provided.—[Ibid.,925.] The right hon. Gentleman then went on to show what he felt to he the object of the Motion. He said that the Resolution proposed by him (Mr. Horsman) went solely, as he understood it, to call in question the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells in having instituted Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, and, in fact, without meaning anything offensive in the phrase to him (Mr. Horsman), he must say he regarded it as an attack upon the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The right hon. Gentleman further proceeded to say, that the question of the alleged conduct of Mr. Bennett while at Kisseugen certainly ought to be made the subject of inquiry—that he hoped that what had passed in that House would be the means of causing an inquiry to be made, and that the statements made about the conduct of Mr. Bennett at Kissengen would be fully investigated. So that the right hon. Baronet and other Members of the Cabinet set out by stating not merely that the Motion was directed against the act of institution by the Bishop, but that in addition there should be a full and complete inquiry into the proceedings alleged against Mr. Ben-net during his stay at Kissingen. Such an impression did these statements on the part of two Members of the Government, and especially that on the part of the Colonial Secretary, make on the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), that he stated that he had been relieved from great difficulty by the promise of inquiry made by the Government, and that he declined voting for the hon. Member for Cockermouth's Motion for inquiry. But the noble Lord rested his objection to the Motion on three precise and specific grounds. First, he wished to know whether there was, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated, an appeal from the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the Archbishop of Canterbury; next, what was the 248 character of the certificate, or rather of the qualification of the certificate which Mr. Bennett received from the Bishop of London; and, thirdly, he stated that, feeling the propriety and necessity of investigating the subject, he wished, in the first place, to leave it in the hands of the Government: he said he would rather leave it in the hands of the Minister of the Crown to consider what steps they should take; and let them state at some future day if they had found a mode of inquiry that would be satisfactory, and lay before the House the facts they might ascertain. Until that day arrived, the noble Lord said he could not consent to be a party to an address to the Crown. Another Member of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, also spoke, and took the same ground in opposing the Motion, and showed that he also understood the Motion to be directed against the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Notwithstanding this, the general feeling of the House was in favour of that inquiry. When he (Mr. Horsman) was appealed to in reply towards the close of the debate, he stated his reasons why he felt it his duty not to accept the qualified promise of an inquiry given by the Government, and why he should press his Motion to a division; and after he sat down, the Chancellor of the Exchequer a second time rose somewhat irregularly in debate, and assured the House that the Government were prepared to institute that inquiry which the House appeared unanimously to desire. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he would not propose a judicial inquiry, as he (Mr. Horsman) had asked him to do—he would not promise a friendly inquiry, as was suggested by his right hon. Colleague; but he could promise that it would be a bond fide inquiry into the circumstances alleged, and that he could not say more. He had stated these facts to the House that they might clearly understand, not merely what was the Motion then made, but what was the manner in which that Motion was received, and, as he might say, disposed of, by the Government. On a subsequent day, after a month had elapsed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the House, on the part of the Government, the result of—he would not say the inquiry, but of—the proceeding of the Government on that head. To that announcement he did not wish to refer. He felt that on that occasion it would be extremely inconvenient if they were to embarrass the discussion 249 of the greater question by anything that would be understood to be a criticism, or a censure, or opinion of the past proceedings of the Government. Therefore, to avoid that, a few nights ago, on going into Committee of Supply, he touched upon the law of the case, and in the presence of the Attorney General he put some questions, or rather stated his views by way of question, in order to elicit an assent from that right hon. and learned Gentleman on the law of the case. The Attorney General then supplied what had been defective in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and taking these two statements together, they arrived at this conclusion—that even supposing the sole ground of complaint was against Mr. Bennett, it was very doubtful, under the Church Discipline Act, how far redress could be obtained, owing, first to the limitation in the 20th Clause of the Act restricting its operation to offences committed within the last two years; and in the next place, because no notice could be taken, under the Church Discipline Act, of an offence committed abroad. But, as regarded the Bishop of Bath and Wells, it would be admitted by every lawyer in that House that there was no redress whatever provided by law against his institution of Mr. Bennett—there was no statute under which, and no court in which, that institution could be challenged. The right hon. and learned Attorney General rather imagined on that occasion that he (Mr. Horsman) in his statement meant to cast censure on the manner in which the Government had fallen short of their duty in the promised investigation; while an hon. Baronet on the same occasion said, that he (Mr. Horsman) had acquitted them of all blame. Now he (Mr. Horsman) had done neither the one or the other; for his desire and determination on that occasion were to avoid the expresssion of any opinion whatever—he had not thought that at that moment he was in a condition to express one; but he would take the discussion this evening as the sequel of that of the preceding night, and judge of the proceedings of the Ministers by what would occur this evening. If he found that having stated that this question ought to be investigated—that it was a grave question, and could not rest where it was—they were now prepared to act up to that opinion, he should be satisfied, as he believed the public would also be. But if he found that they endeavoured 250 to make this a party question, and brought the influence of the Government to bear upon his Motion to defeat it, then he should arrive at a different opinion; and he believed the country also would arrive at a different opinion, and would express it. He had said thus much, to put the House in possession of the facts of the case. He had referred to what had been said by different Members of the Government. He would make no further allusion to the report that had been given to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he wished to discuss the question without any admixture of party feeling. He had formerly stated so fully the facts relating to Mr. Bennett, that he should not have thought it necessary to go further into them now; but a question had been raised in that House by the friends of Mr. Bennett as to the accuracy of the narrative that he had given; and something he had said had been misunderstood by the noble Lord the Member for Down, who seemed to think that he had asserted that Mr. Bennett was no longer in communion with the Church of England, and was in communion with the Church of Rome. Now, he made no such statement. He said, indeed, that when Mr. Bennett left the diocese of London he went abroad, and he was understood to have gone to Rome in more senses than one. What he meant by that statement was no more than what might be inferred from the rev. gentleman's own writings. In his letter, written to the Bishop of London when he resigned his benefice, Mr. Bennett said, "that the end must be ere long that he must give up the conflict, and seek peace elsewhere." Now he believed no person who read that passage would put on it any other interpretation than that by "elsewhere" Mr. Bennett meant the Church of Rome. "Seek peace elsewhere" was not a term to be misunderstood; it was one with which they were very familiar; it was the stereotyped phrase of those who had preceded Mr. Bennett where he supposed Mr. Bennett was going at the time, and was the usual expression of clergymen of the Church of England who contemplated that change. ["No, no!"] He could quote it from several of her clergy who had gone over to Rome, and to take only two instances which occurred to him at the moment, he could quote it from Mr. Wilberforce and Archdeacon Manning. He, therefore, thought himself justified in putting upon those words the interpretation—that Mr. 251 Bennett did feel that he was not in his right place in the Church of England, and did feel at the same time a disposition at any rate to join the Church of Rome. He had said something of the rev. gentleman's proceedings at Kissengen, and it had been represented that his whole statement was founded on the evidence of one party there. He owned that, if at the time when he spoke, he had believed that the inquiry he asked would not have been fully gone into, he should have felt it would place the gentleman upon whose authority he spoke in a very awkward position to quote him there. But he could assure the House that there was nothing to disapprove in the spirit which had actuated that gentleman. To show this he would read to the House the sequel of his letter, which would show how different his spirit had, in fact, been from that which, in some quarters, had been imputed to him. He thought it his duty to read portions of the gentleman's correspondence to show that he was not either an anxious or a willing witness against Mr. Bennett, but had done what any Member of the House might have done—mentioned to a friend what occurred at Kissengen. That friend (as it turned out very much to his annoyance) made his statement public. He could not then draw back, but when asked whether his original statement was true, took the part a man would take under such circumstances. He said— It is painful to me to be brought forward as a witness in this case, but as the facts were undoubtedly stated by me, though not for publication, I do feel bound in honour to confirm what I have said; and though my letters were not intended to be published, I am still prepared to come forward and substantiate every word I said. Shortly after the speech which he (Mr. Horsman) had delivered, the gentleman, Mr. Stutzen, wrote a further letter, which would best show what his feelings were, and in which there was the following passage:— It seems to me that the simplest course, if he denies what I have stated to be true, will be to send to Kissengen, where conclusive evidence can easily be obtained. There must be fifty persons at least who can say if they have seen or have not seen him at mass. I have stated the evidence I can give. I have been dragged into the matter by the hasty letter of Mr. Pratt, and being in it I am bound to substantiate every syllable, and am willing to pay the whole expenses of any person who can go over to Kissengen, where the question can be easily decided of the attendance of Mr. Bennett at the Roman Catholic Service, and 252 his non-attendance at the Church of England service. If he did not attend the Roman Catholic service, of course the question is at rest. Sir J. Harrington was with him, and could scarcely refuse, when solemnly questioned, to give his testimony, however unfavourable it might be in its consequences to Mr. Bennett. He (Mr. Horsman) had read this to show that the writer of the letter was evidently an unwilling witness; but finding that his statements had been published—though he was no party to their publication—as a man of spirit and character he felt himself bound not to shrink from the confirmation of that which he had stated. These letters had been written without any idea of publication, and when the writer was asked to allow them to be published, he had felt a reluctance to be placed in so painful a position, and did not wish his testimony to be used unless supported by other evidence. This much he (Mr. Horsman) had stated, because he felt it due to a gentleman whom he had placed in his present position against his wish; but it must be known he had other testimony which he could have adduced, and which, moreover, he would have adduced if he had not believed that an inquiry would have been granted, and that at this inquiry the evidence of which he spoke would have been taken. He could have stated what he had seen in the handwriting of a lady who was at Kissengen last year, that the organist of the church there had pointed our Mr. Bennett as a clergyman who had been recently received from the Church of England into the Church of Rome; he could have stated what he should not have mentioned till this moment if it had not been referred to—that Mr. Bennett's proceedings and conduct at Kissengen were so notorious, that in the Roman Catholic Directory for 1851 his name was inserted as having been received into the Roman Catholic Church. He had not mentioned this, because, in the first place, he could not state that that Roman Catholic Directory, though of very large circulation, was a work of authority. But the House must remember that last year it was stated by Dr. Wiseman, that the English Government ought to have been quite aware of the Pope's intention to create him Archbishop of Westminster, because it had been published in Battersby's Directory the year before. But passing on, he had in his hand a certificate from a German servant at Kissengen, who said it was matter of notoriety to all the servants at his hotel, that Mr. Bennett went to mass every mor- 253 ning. He could have stated, too—and as the investigation for which he called had not taken place he felt justified in now stating—that Mr. Bennett, when travelling abroad last time with his party, carried about with him wherever he went a consecrated stone, for an altar; that this stone was set up when they halted; and that Mr. Bennett officiated as priest and performed religious service before it. Now it was known in the Roman Catholic Church that every priest must carry about with him a small consecrated stone or altar to be used where otherwise he could not perform mass. It was the custom of the Roman Catholic Church; but there was nothing analogous to it in the English Church. Whilst Mr. Bennett was abroad, this consecrated stone was carried about with him; it was before this altar that Mr. Bennett's party assembled to worship. He would now state to the House why that evidence, which he bad adduced on the authority of Mr. Pratt, of Mr. Bennett's proceedings at Kissengen was the most fit and legitimate evidence that could be given. When a Member made a statement in that House, and especially in challenging the public acts of official persons not there present, it was an obligation which they would all acknowledge—and which he, when he had trespassed upon the House in connexion with ecclesiastical inquiries had especially regarded—to be careful as to the character of the evidence they adduced, and to bring forward none that could be held unfair to the party, as unknown to him. During the last four or five years, and in all the Motions which he had made respecting ecclesiastical functionaries and dignitaries, the evidence on which those Motions were based had been published evidence—with which all the world was acquainted, and which generally had been taken from returns and reports laid upon the table of the House. In the case of Mr. Bennett he had thought two points essential: first, that the evidence he alluded to should be that of parties prepared to come forward and substantiate it in public; and, next, that it should be evidence already known to Mr. Bennett, and which could not take him by surprise. So in this case, setting aside the letter of Mr. Pratt, it was a strong fact that the conversion to Romanism of Mr. Bennett should have been published in Battersby's Directory so long, and yet remained uncontradicted till April, when he (Mr. Horsman) spoke upon 254 this subject. He thought it extraordinary, too, that the charges contained in Mr. Pratt's letter should have remained unanswered. Perhaps it would be said Mr. Bennett had seen neither one nor the other. But the fact was he had evidence that that letter had met Mr. Bennett's eye. Before the institution of that gentleman it would be remembered that there was a good deal of excitement at Frome; and when the institution took place, Mr. Hastings, a clergyman in the neighbourhood of Frome addressed the following letter to Mr. Bennett:— Rectory, Trowbridge, Jan. 31, 1852, Rev. Sir—The enclosed letter [this was the letter of Mr. Pratt] I have copied from the Achil Missionary Herald of this month. You may not have the opportunity of seeing the paper, and, consequently, be unable to reply to it. As a brother clergyman and a near neighbour, I have felt it to be my duty to make you acquainted with the serious charge brought publicly against you, and the scandal occasioned thereby to the Church; may I hope you will not think me officious or obtrusive in calling your attention to the subject? Trusting to hear that there has been some mistake in the statement, I am, Reverend Sir, yours faith fully, "J. D. HASTINGS. Rev. W. Bennett. That letter had been addressed to Mr. Bennett in a kind spirit; and even if he had been a gentleman regarding whose previous orthodoxy there had been no doubt, but of whom there had been injurious reports while he was abroad, he would naturally-—it would be thought—be grateful for the opportunity it gave of contradicting those reports; and certainly Mr. Bennett, with his antecedents, ought to have felt himself bound to answer it. Mr. Bennett had been charged with unfaithfulness; yet that letter met with no reply. On Feb. 12, Mr. Hastings wrote again:— Rectory, Trowbridge, Feb. 12, 1852. Rev. Sir—On Saturday, the 31st of January, I addressed a letter to you, directed Vicarage, Frome.' The object of that communication was to afford you an opportunity of seeing a letter signed 'John 0. N. Pratt,' a copy of which I enclosed, and which has since appeared in several of the English newspapers. This letter was naturally the subject of much conversation among the clergy of the neighbourhood, and I had hoped in writing to you to be enabled, on your authority, to contradict the statements therein contained. Your silence, however, so opposed to that courtesy by which your conduct, as I am informed, is characterised, compels me to conclude that it is not in your power to afford the desired explanation. I regret this the more as it tends to confirm those who were willing to pass over what had occurred in your former parish in the adverse opinion they entertain respecting your appointment to any office in the Church of England, inasmuch as your 255 preference for the services of the Church of Rome, which you have publicly and solemnly declared erroneous in her ceremonies and in matters of faith, has thrown contempt upon that Church whose faith and doctrine in your ordination vows you promised to give 'faithful diligence always' to minister and teach.—I am, Rev. Sir yours, faithfully, "JOHN D. HASTINGS. This letter again received no answer. What was the natural conclusion? What conclusion would any man draw from such a silence? Mr. Hastings drew his own. His object was to afford Mr. Bennett an opportunity of denying the charge against him; and the impression left on his mind was that that gentleman could not refute it, and, consequently, had not changed his views. Witness Mr. Hastings' letter to Mr. Wickham:— Rectory, Trowbridge, April 24, 1852. My dear Sir—Enclosed are copies of the letters promised; you are at liberty to make what use you please of them. I may observe my object in writing them was to afford Mr. Bennett an opportunity of contradicting the report of his attendance upon the Romish worship in preference to that of the Anglican Church, particularly as I was informed by a friend of his who had requested me to call upon him that his views were very much changed. It was the intention of myself and several of the clergy around to have called upon him, had this statement proved true. Just at this time Mr. O. N. Pratt's letter appeared, and I thought it advisable at once to communicate with Mr. Bennett on the subject. I am truly sorry that, by his taking no notice of either letter, he has left an impression on my mind, as I have stated to him, that he could not refute the statement, and, consequently, had not changed his views, thus precluding myself and others from paying him that courtesy which belongs to a brother clergyman coming into the neighbourhood.—I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly, J. D. HASTINGS. Then he (Mr. Horsman) said, put aside altogether the letter from the gentleman who resided in the hotel at Kissengen, put aside all the evidence which he (Mr. Horsman) had given the other day as to the conversations of Mr. Bennett, which had been overheard, and here still was the fact, that a letter went the round of all the newspapers, in which it was stated that Mr. Bennett never went near a Protestant church when at KisseDgen; that he was a regular attendant at mass; that upon this a brother clergyman wrote him, in a friendly spirit, a letter which afforded him the opportunity of stating in reply that these assertions were not true; and that that letter was met in the manner described—a manner which left a conviction in the mind of every impartial man that the statements alluded to were true. The clergy, fellow-labourers of Mr. Bennett, 256 were disposed to receive him as a friend, to assist and co-operate with him—they were disposed to extend to him a kind and charitable feeling, which did them credit; all they asked was—"Do enable us to give a satisfactory answer to your parishioners, to our own feelings and consciences; do tell us you did not intentionally and habitually absent yourself from your own church, and attend the Roman Catholic. We will then receive you, spite of all that is past, with friendly and open arms." Was there any one to say that there could be more than one reason why Mr. Bennett should not give the answer he was asked to give? That reason must be, that the statement was true, its contradiction impossible. He (Mr. Horsman) would now ask whether, if he had had the choice of ever so much evidence to bring before the House, he had not selected that which was the most proper and the most appropriate? It was evidence which had been made known to Mr. Bennett: it was therefore the fairest to that gentleman, and he thought most satisfactory and conclusive to that House. He came next to a far more important and serious branch of this subject. He had done with Mr. Bennett; he had to speak now of the acts of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The importance of Mr. Bennett's acts were insignificant as compared with the acts of the Bishop. The difference in station between the minister and the prelate was nothing as compared with the difference of the effects which might follow from the acts of a man who acted only in his individual capacity, and another gifted with power and authority, and whose example spread so far beyond himself. On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker which he would take the liberty of quoting. As Hooker said— The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach not far; they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps, by such as dwell at the next door; whereas, men of more ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives are viewed afar off; so that the more there are which observe aloof what they do, the greater glory by their well-doing they purchase, both unto God, whom they serve, and to the State wherein they live. He (Mr. Horsman) felt that he had spoken, when he last addressed the House, under a due sense of all the responsibilities which attached to the task he had undertaken. Some weeks had elapsed since then, and if his statements had been rash and hasty, he had had ample time to reconsider and 257 modify them; while if they had been incorrect, ample opportunity had been afforded for refuting them. After, however, all possible consideration and reconsideration, he was bound to say that so far from his having anything to withdraw, the opinions he then gave had in the interim been very much strengthened; and, further, that what he had stated then, fell short of truth, as regarded the Bishop of Bath and Wells, more than it fell short of truth with regard to Mr. Bennett. The Bishop had, in the first place, instituted Mr. Bennett in a manner and with a haste most condemnable, and moreover with a determination to shut out the parishioners of Frome from the legal redress they would have had if they had been given more time. He did it, in the second place, without a certificate from the Bishop of the diocese which Mr. Bennett had left, which by usage and by law he was bound to require; and he did it, in the third place, without the examination enjoined by law, and which the parishioners had a right to demand. He did not even do this hastily, or carelessly, or upon impulse, but advisedly, or as the lawyers said, perversely, and with the intention to defeat the ends of justice. What was the position of the different parties at the time when Mr. Bennett was presented to the vicarage of Frome, and before his institution? Each party then had a legal position and certain legal rights. The parishioners of Frome did not at the time know what their legal rights were. They acquired that knowledge later however; but, unfortunately for them, later than the Bishop. This was the position of the parties: Before Mr. Bennett was instituted, it was open to the parishioners under the canon law to have lodged a caveat against that institution in the Bishop's Court. The object of the caveat was this—that an individual might be presented to a benefice of whom a Bishop might know nothing, and any persons who knew him to be unfit, and wished to prevent his institution, did so by a caveat. If such a course had been taken in this instance, Mr. Bennett would have had to have "warned" the caveat, and that would have compelled the proctor through whom it was lodged to state the name of the person who had lodged it, and the objections to institution. Then the cause would have been referred by the Bishop to the Chancellor's Courts; from these it might he referred to the Archbishop; and from the Archbishop the cause might be taken 258 by appeal to the Privy Council. That was the position of parties, and that was the right which was available to the parishioners of Frome, while Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before he was instituted. He (Mr. Horsman) would now show the House how they were defeated in their attempt to avail themselves of that right, and what was the course pursued towards them by the Bishop. Mr. Bennett's presentation was confirmed on Tuesday the 30th of December; on Wednesday he visited Frome; on Thursday, January I, the inhabitants moved, and a protest was got up in a few hours, signed by five clergymen and forty-eight heads of families. On the 2nd this protest was delivered to the Marchioness of Bath, and the day after they received her Ladyship's reply. On Wednesday, the 7th, they memorialised the Bishop, giving their reasons against the institution, by which, of course, they meant to ask his Lordship to make inquiry into the truth of what they alleged. They made this statement on the 7th of January; on the 15th they received the reply of the Bishop declining to accede to their prayer, and stating that he should proceed with the institution. On the very same day they wrote to him again, praying him to give them fourteen days' delay to consider whether it might be their duty to take any further steps in the matter. They received his answer on the 21st of January, and that very day they sent their solicitor to London to take the opinion of Dr. Twiss. Their solicitor returned on the 23rd, and they then learned, for the first time, the means within their power for delaying institution. They received this opinion on the 23rd, and a caveat was prepared on the 24th; but before that the Bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett. These proceedings were of so very extraordinary a character that he (Mr. Horsman) had really felt at first that they were hardly to be believed. He had, however, received letters from two gentlemen of Frome, which he would read to the House. [The hon. Member here read the letters he referred to, one of which was from Mr. Wilson C. Crutt-well, addressed to Mr. J. Hurd; and the other from a gentleman whose name was not given, written in answer to an application from the hon. Member for Cock-ermouth, which repeated in extenso the above statement of facts.] He (Mr. Horsman) was sure the House would now see how far the statement was correct, that 259 the inhabitants of Frome had not been willing to avail themselves of every facility which the law afforded them before they came to seek the interposition of Parliament. He contended that it was not till they had been deprived of every chance of legal redress that they had ventured to seek assistance in the House; but they were shut out by the Bishop of Bath and Wells from that redress which they might have obtained if he had given that moderate delay for which they petitioned. Now he would put a question to the hon. and learned Attorney General, which, though he could not expect him to answer in his legal capacity, yet he hoped he would give his opinion as a Member of this House, and anxious to facilitate its deliberations. The hon. and learned Gentleman had had an opportunity of inquiring into the whole of this affair. He had seen the opinion of Dr. Twiss on this case, and having also had an opportunity of forming his own judgment and opinion on the matter, he would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman whether, if the caveat had been lodged, and the question of Mr. Bennett's orthodoxy had gone authoritatively to trial, it was not at least doubtful whether Mr. Bennett would have been able to obtain institution. There were two points to which he would now call the special attention of the House. The one was what the Bishop of Bath and Wells was bound to do according to law and usage on receiving the certificate produced by Mr. Bennett from his former diocesan; and the second was how far the Bishop was bound to institute him without having first subjected him to a due examination. He would admit that with regard to other points the Bishop had perhaps acted within the strict letter of the law. But did he act according to law in instituting Mr. Bennett on the certificate which he produced from the Bishop of London, and did he before instituting him subject him to a due examination? He had stated on a former occasion what he had heard as matter of rumour, that three clergymen of the diocese of London had signed a certificate to the effect that they had known Mr. Bennett during the whole of the three years last past before the date of the certificate; that they had had opportunities of observing his conduct during the whole of that time; and that they verily believed he had done, held, written, or taught, nothing contrary to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England. He 260 had stated it as matter of surprise—as a rumour which was in itself extremely improbable—but that he had heard it as a rumour to which he was disposed to give credence—that three clergymen of the diocese of London, knowing all that had taken place within the diocese within that very year, had yet put their names to a certificate, stating that during all the time when that clergyman was pronounced unfaithful by his Bishop, and virtually ejected from his living, he had done and taught nothing contrary to the doctrines and discipline of the Church. He had also stated it as a rumour that the Bishop of London had signed that certificate, though with a qualification, which qualification had been added in the margin. He had now to say that what he stated as a rumour turned out in all essentials to be fact. There was now no doubt that the three clergymen did sign such a certificate; but with regard to the Bishop of London, the fact was not precisely as he had stated it; whether he had added any qualification in the margin of the certificate he did not know, but it appeared that after signing the certificate the Bishop accompanied that certificate with a letter, couched in decided language, stating in what sense that signature was to be received. Of the certificate he knew nothing; but the House ought to see it. If it were to be argued that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had acted according to law, they who made that statement were bound to produce that certificate. [Mr. GLADSTONE: It is in all the ordinary books.] Yes; but the House ought to see this particular certificate. The form of the certificate might be in all the common books; but he wanted to see the names of the three London clergymen who had put their names to this document—who took the extraordinary step of stating that they had known Mr. Bennett during the year 1851—when he was abroad, at Kissengen and other places. He knew nothing whatever of that certificate, but he held in his hand a copy of the Bishop of London's letter to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and which accompanied that certificate. Before reading it, he wished to state to the House how he came into possession of that letter. About three weeks ago, when the discussion was expected to come on in this House, a clergyman called upon him to state that he had in his possession a copy of the Bishop's letter, which he had received from the Bishop himself. It appeared to have come 261 into the clergyman's possession in this manner: he had written to the Bishop of London, and inquired whether the rumours regarding his conduct in the affair were true; and in his reply the Bishop stated that the best answer he could give was to enclose a copy of the letter which he had appended to the certificate. The clergyman offered him (Mr. Horsman) a copy of this letter; but in the first instance he declined receiving it, thinking that if any statement were to be made on the part of the Bishop of London, it would be fairer and more satisfactory to him that it should he made by some friend of his own. But on further consideration he felt that it might be said of him that though he brought the charge he declined to state the defence, and he therefore sent to the clergyman and obtained a copy of the letter, which was to this effect. It had no date, as it was written to accompany the certificate:— My Lord—I request that my counter-signature to this testimonial may he considered as simply the expression of my opinion that the clergymen who sign it are beneficed in my diocese, and that they testify to your Lordship that which they verily believe. But I think it my duty to state, that in December, 1850, Mr. Bennett resigned the perpetual curacy of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and that I accepted his resignation because I was of opinion that the peace and good order of the Church in my diocese would he seriously interrupted if he remained incumbent of that curacy. For the reasons of that opinion I beg to refer your Lordship to the correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself, which was published in the Times on December 12, 1850. I am wholly without information of any change which may have taken place in Mr. Bennett's principles or opinions since his resignation of the cure which he held within my diocese.—"I am your Lordship's faithful servant and brother, CHARLES JAMES LONDON. The Hon. and Bight Rev. the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells. Now he felt bound to say, and he thought the House would agree with him, that so far as regarded the Bishop of London, this letter acquitted him of being a party to intentionally misleading or deceiving the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Did any one call that a certificate such as was required by law of the former good life and behaviour of the person that was to be instituted to a benefice? It was a strong condemnation—a remonstrance—a warning. It almost amounted to a protest. It said that the peace and good order of the Church were likely to be interrupted by Mr. Bennett's remaining in the diocese of London. Was not that a warning that the same result 262 might possibly occur if he were admitted into the diocese of Bath and Wells? Yet in the teeth of that condemnation and warning, the Bishop of Bath and Wells proceeded to institute Mr. Bennett. He thought, then, the House would agree with him on the first point, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not received the certificate which was required by law. The position of both Prelates in this matter was so extraordinary, that conflicting rumours were naturally in circulation, and explanations were given or suggested of portions of the transactions which would otherwise be unintelligible. Though he could not notice all the rumours that were in circulation, yet some of them were stated on such high authority, and were disseminated so widely, that he felt entitled to mention them, and thus give an opportunity to the persons concerned for explaining them. There was one rumour which he wholly disbelieved, though he had heard it from various quarters, that the letter he had read to the House was not the only one the Bishop of London had written to the Bishop of Bath and Wells; that he had written a subsequent one, and that in this second letter he had qualified the strong expressions of the first, and intimated his opinion that, under all the circumstances, Mr. Bennett's institution to Frome was not objectionable. As he had already said, he entirely disbelieved that statement; for it was impossible that the Bishop of London would have allowed the first letter to be put into his (Mr. Horsman's) hands if he had really written a subsequent letter to qualify or contradict it. But he had heard another rumour in relation to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, which was likewise so general that he was glad to have this opportunity of mentioning it, as he thought it ought to be explained. He had heard that this letter of the Bishop of London had never been seen or read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells—that he had received the certificate of the three clergymen, countersigned by the bishop, but that he never saw or read the letter. If it were really true that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received the certificate, but that he declined to open or read the letter which accompanied it, he thought that, so far from ignorance of its contents being a palliation of the course he had taken, the House would feel that it was a great aggravation of the grievance of which the public had to complain. But here again 263 he must state that though the rumour was so general and so public as to induce him to mention it to the House, yet he would assume that it was untrue; that the whole proceeding had taken place in its due course; and that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had proceeded on his own judgment and responsibility. He would now proceed to the other point, that of due examination. The canon stated that no bishop should institute a presentee to a benefice unless it appeared on due examination that he was worthy to be a minister. Now what was "due examination?" Here he trusted there would he no difficulty in arriving at a true meaning of the term. The mode and the extent of the examination were not entirely left to the will and discretion of the bishop. The question had been set at rest by a legal authority, to which they would all bow. In the judgment of Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Plover, that learned Judge said— It only requires him first to approve, that is, before he licenses; and, in so doing, it virtually requires him to exercise his conscience, duly informed upon the subject; to do which he must duly, impartially, and effectually inquire, examine, deliberate, and decide. Here the duty of examination is again pointed out. The bishop is to find out whether he is learned, capable of teaching, moral, and of a right understanding in religion; and, therefore, the court would require of him that he should institute some proper mode of examination by which the learning, dexterity in teaching, morals, and the religion of the candidate may be ascertained. The word of the statute is 'approve,' and he must exercise that approbation according to his conscience, upon such means of information as he may obtain; and every thing that can properly minister to his conscientious approbation or disapprobation, and fairly and reasonably induce his conclusion on such a subject, though it might not be evidence that would be formally admitted in a court of law, may, I am of opinion, be fitly taken into consideration. Now, was that the character of the examination instituted by the Bishop of Bath and Wells? What were the points to which he would naturally address himself under the circumstances, in order to inform himself effectually and impartially of the fitness of Mr. Bennett? Manifestly on those points which were brought before him: first, by the memorial of the parishioners of Frome; and, secondly, by the letter of the Bishop of London. To simplify the matter as much as possible, he would refer to one point in each document. The parishioners directed the attention of the Bishop to a passage published by Mr. Bennett, in which he said that "all the ideas of the Bible, and the dispersing of 264 the Bible, as in itself a means of propagating Christianity, are a fiction and absurdity." Now that extract from Mr. Bennett's published opinions was brought under the notice of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. All the world knew that Mr. Bennett had published that opinion. He should like to know if that was not a point which the Bishop of Bath and Wells ought to have inquired into? Let them consider the feelings in which the Protestant community of Frome had been brought up with regard to the Bible; let them remember the veneration with which the very possession of it was regarded—that it communicated to the poor man the richest blessing and treasure which he possessed, and that the richest man without it was worse than the veriest pauper—considering also this was not the opinion of the Protestant community of this country with regard to themselves alone; but if there was one thing more than another which was an honour to the Protestant community, it was the ardour and the earnestness with which they laboured to impart the same blessing to others—and that there was no toil, nor peril, nor persecution, nor death itself, which they were not willing to hazard in the exalted enterprise of putting into the hands of the heathen and the outcast that Book which they told them they had only to receive and believe in to be saved. That was the feeling of the Protestant community of Frome; and yet a man came among them armed with the authority and sanction of the Bishop, and told them that all the feeling in which they and their families had been brought up—in which their children had been educated, and by which their aged had been comforted in the hour of death—the feelings which had sustained them in the midst of every adversity and trial—he told them that all ideas of the Bible and of the dissemination of Christianity by means of the Bible, were positive fictions and absurdities. Why, with the feelings of these people towards the Bible, this would sound to them little less than blasphemy and profaneness. If he had entered into the cottages of the poor, and thrown their Bibles into the fire, he did not believe they would have been more surprised and shocked. Well, then, what ought the Bishop to have done? Was not this a point on which he ought to have made inquiry? If it was his duty to examine Mr. Bennett at all, ought he not to have said to him, "Here is a statement with which you are charged, 265 and which has shocked the Protestant feelings of your parish—I must have an explanation upon this point, and that explanation must go forth to the world. You state in your letter to Lord John Russell that you are "unchanged and unchangeable." Are you unchanged in this opinion? If you are changed, then let me, let the parish, let the world know it; if you are unchanged, I should hold myself disgraced, as a Protestant prelate, if I were to grant you institution? "He wanted to know did the Bishop of Bath and Wells examine Mr. Bennett on this point? He thought there was strong evidence to show that he did not, and that no answer had been given by Mr. Bennett to show that on this point his opinion was changed. He would now refer to the second point—the letter of the Bishop of London. The Bishop referred to the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Mr. Bennett, which involved a still further reference to a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and Lord John Russell, in which Mr. Bennett set forth with great force and vehemence his opinions with regard to the supremacy of the Crown. This was a point of peculiar importance; because every clergyman, previous to his institution to a living, is obliged by the 35th Canon to swear to three articles, one of which is, that the Queen's Majesty, under God, has supreme authority in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things and causes, and further to swear that he took this oath willingly and ex animo. Mr. Bennett gave, in his letter to Lord John Russell, a history of the working of his mind with regard to the Queen's supremacy, which was worthy of notice. It came at a peculiar moment, when after the decision in the Gorham case, a movement took place amongst a large portion of the clergy of the Church, and a circular or protest had been signed by about 2,000 clergymen of the Church of England, all of whom had taken this oath, but who declared that they had taken it in a peculiar sense. That circular contained, among others, the names of three clergymen, the first of whom was Archdeacon Manning, who had since gone over to the Church of Rome; the other two were Robert Isaac Wilberforce, archdeacon, and William Hodge Mill, Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, who still continued to hold their preferments in the Church of England. Mr. Bennett stated that after the Gorham decision he became 266 uneasy in his conscience with respect to the oath of supremacy he had taken; that he sought the opinion of counsel learned in the law whether the oath he had taken bound him to obey that decision; and that he received the opinion of counsel, who stated that submission to the civil power was binding upon the consciences of those who had taken the oath; that it was an acknowledged rule in morals that oaths were to be taken in animo imponentis, and that should any new case arise, or any development of circumstances not before contemplated, still the oath was binding, and of continued obligation in the newly developed sense. Mr. Bennett then, though thus uneasy in his conscience, did not resign his living, which he had obtained only on condition of his subscription to the oath—he contented himself with protesting against the oath being received in its natural sense. Shortly afterwards the controversy occurred with the Bishop of London, and then Mr. Bennett resigned his living. Hut when he was presented to the living of Frome, and presented himself, he was again called upon to take the same oath, with regard to which he said he was uneasy in his conscience, and with regard to which he stated in his letter to Lord John Russell that he was "unchanged and unchangeable." Now. what course did the Bishop of Bath and Wells take with regard to this matter? He knew the opinions Mr. Bennett held respecting the oath; and he would put it to the House whether this was not a point on which the Bishop might have properly examined him and asked, "Do you now subscribe the oath in animo imponentis, or do you take it in a non-natural sense? I must have your answer. Are you unchanged and unchangeable—do you take the oath of the Queen's supremacy in the manner in which it is intended to be taken, or do you take it with any mental reservation or qualification?" The House ought to know whether those questions had been put, and the nature of the answers. It was not sufficient to tell the House that at a private conference and on a private examination those important questions had been answered to the satisfaction of the Bishop? What, he would ask, was the object of the office of a bishop? The satisfaction and security of the Church. What was the object of his judicial office? To prevent schisms, to put an end to differences, and to promote harmony amongst the people. 267 And how were those ends to be obtained without publicity? It was the essence of justice that it should be known to the public that a due investigation had taken place, and that judgment had been given after a full inquiry. He would admit that in a case where a secret charge was brought against a clergyman, the examination might well be conducted in private; but in the present case the charge had been public, and the answer should have been made public—the offence had been committed before the world, and the justification should have been known to the world. Mr. Bennett's predilections for the Church of Rome had been notorious—the change should have been publicly communicated, for it was essential to the peace, the harmony, and the satisfaction of the community, not only that everything which had been proved to the satisfaction of the right rev. Prelate, but that its being so proved satisfactory should have been made known to those whose spiritual interests were so deeply bound up with the spiritual views of Mr. Bennett. He was sorry to say, that it was not in the character of an impartial judge, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells appeared in this transaction, but that he had demeaned himself to that character which was, to all right-thinking men, the most objectionable and the most odious—the sinking of the dignity of the judge in the littleness of the partisan. He thought he had now established his three propositions. In the first place, he had shown that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett in such a manner as to shut out all means of redress which the parishioners of Frome might otherwise have resorted to; secondly, that he had instituted him without a proper certificate from his previous diocesan; and, thirdly, that he had done so without due examination. The question of such a malversation of office by the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries had been well described by a great authority, whom he had before cited—Hooker:— If, now, there arise any matter of grievance between the pastor and the people that are under him, they have their ordinary, a judge indifferent, to determine their causes and to end their strife. But, in case there were no such appointed to sit and to hear both, what would then be the end of their quarrels?… But the hurt is more manifestly seen which doth grow to the Church of God by faults inherent in their several actions; as, when they carelessly ordain; when they institute negligently; when corruptly they bestow church livings, benefices, prebends, and rooms es- 268 pecially of jurisdictions; when they visit for gain's sake rather than with serious intent to do good; when their courts, erected for the maintenance of good order, are disordered; when they regard not the clergy under them; when neither clergy nor laity are kept in that awe for which this authority should serve; when anything appeareth in them rather than a fatherly affection towards the flock of Christ; when they have no respect to posterity; and, finally, when they neglect the true and requisite means whereby their authority should be upheld. Surely the hurt which groweth out of these defects must needs be exceeding great."—[Eccl. Polity, b. vii. ch. xxiv. 3.] And must not the hurt in this instance be exceedingly great? Was it any answer to him to say, as it had been said a few nights before, that Mr. Bennett had to a great extent won the confidence of his parishioners? Was it an answer to him that 1,000 of them had signed a memorial, stating that they were satisfied with the soundness of his doctrine? If it were true that Mr. Bennett had acquired all the popularity in Frome of which they had heard so much, he drew from it an inference very different from that to which the rev. gentleman's friends had arrived. He could understand that if they were told that Mr. Bennett was universally disliked in Frome—that no one would go near him, or have anything to do with his teaching—he could in such a case understand the argument that the conduct of this individual was unworthy of notice, and that the mischief would be shortlived; but when it was said, "True, he may be a Roman Catholic, but he is becoming popular;" or, "he may be a Jesuit, but he is very attractive;" or, "he may pronounce the Bible as a means of Christianity a fiction and an absurdity, but he is converting all the parish to his opinions;" then he would reply, so far from Mr. Bennett's popularity reconciling him to his appointment, it only justified the very worst forebodings of those who objected to it, and who from his ministry anticipated the greatest mischief. He said this, assuming the statement about the memorial to be true; but he believed the reverse, and he would advise that that memorial should not be again adduced before the House, for it would not come out pure and undefiled from the inquiry. The question now was, what was to be done? It was admitted by the Government that the importance of the question could not be exaggerated, and that an inquiry was not only essential but inevitable. Then the question arose, could they institute an inquiry in any other man- 269 ner than that which he had proposed? Gould they proceed by resolution? They had no facts before them on which they could resolve, for the facts were denied and disputed. Then what was the mode of inquiry open to thorn? He was prepared for objections to every mode of inquiry that could be suggested, for he knew what the House could do when they wished to avoid a disagreeable topic. They were aware of the case of the unhappy tradesman who applied to his customer for the amount of an account which it was not quite convenient to pay. If he called early, the servant said, "his master was not up;" if he called in the middle of the day the answer was, that "the master had just gone out;" if in the evening, "the master had company;" if he were patient and civil, he could afford to wait; and if impatient and clamorous, then he was an impudent scoundrel, and deserved to be kicked down stairs. He hoped that no farce of that kind would be played by the House of Commons. The House would see he had not been impatient—that he had not been in a hurry to propose a Parliamentary Committee. Although he believed from the first that the best mode of inquiry would be by a Parliamentary Committee, it was not until he was now told on the best authority, that of Ministers themselves, that no other mode was open to them that he had made that proposition, for he felt it was not one in which the House would agree if other modes of inquiry wore open. He knew that many of his own friends had objections to such a mode of inquiry as long as others existed; and therefore he thought it more becoming to them, and more respectful to the House, to propose in the first instance an inquiry the most agreeable to their wishes, an inquiry by a Commission. He did not think that if his Motion had been carried, such a Committee would have been utterly futile. If the House had moved an address to the Crown, it would have been one important step towards the inquiry; but if the House of Commons had addressed the Crown, the point would of course have been referred to Her Majesty's Ministers. Then Her Majesty's Ministers would have consulted the law officers of the Crown, and if they found an inquiry by a Commission impracticable, of course they would not advise a favourable answer to the Address. and then the grounds of that advice would have to be stated to the House. But if 270 Her Majesty's Ministers did not proceed with that caution for which he gave them credit, but advised that a favourable answer should be returned to the Address, and an inquiry was commenced, and it was found that answers would not be returned to the interrogatories, that again would have to be submitted to the House, so that they would be compelled to see how they could retrieve the false step of Her Majesty's; Ministers, and vindicate the supremacy of the House. In either case their position would be just the same as now, only now that the Government, after four weeks' anxious deliberation, informed the House that they could not institute an inquiry, and that it must be instituted by a Commission, or not at all. Then he would ask what was the objection to an inquiry by a Committee of the House? Here was a particular state of facts—here was a particular exercise of the right of institution by a bishop of the Established Church, and it was proposed to inquire how far the intentions of the Legislature had been carried out. He could not understand how any objection could be taken to a constitutional inquiry by the House of Commons into such a subject. They were every day legislating on ecclesiastical affairs. They had even now several Bills relating to the Church on the Order book; and not a week passed during which they were not called to consider some question connected with the Established Church. It was inevitable that they should constantly do so. It was one of the conditions on which the Established Church was upheld by Parliament, that Parliament should be not only empowered, but bound, to exercise a control over that Church, in order that abuses might be removed, that scandals might be inquired into, and that grievances might be redressed. He was always sorry to hear that dangerous objection to Parliament dealing with the Church. They were repeatedly told that the House of Commons ought no longer to take cognisance of Church affairs, because the House was not now composed exclusively of members of the Established Church But why was Parliament not composed of members of the Established Church? Because the people whom it represented were not composed entirely of members of the Established Church; and if they said that the House of Commons, as representing the people, was so dissevered from the 271 Established Church that they could not take cognisance of its affairs, then, a fortiori, the nation was so dissevered from the Established Church that there should be no Established Church at all. That was the logical and inevitable result of the argument if pressed home; but he, on the other hand, held that the Church, as established by law, was the creation of Parliament, that it existed by the breath of Parliament, and was subject to its jurisdiction, and that there was no duty so obvious, no responsibility so undeniable, as that, when it had established a Church for the teaching of one religion, it should not allow it to be made subservient to the interests of another—that it should not allow a minister of one Church to become the secret agent of another. He would take it that no objection would be taken to this Motion on the ground of the advanced period of the Session. He might, if such were taken, refer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Warwickshire on Maynooth, and would say, like him, that the people of England, having the question raised, were anxious to see if Parliament were earnest in dealing with it. He believed that the inquiry would not be of long duration. The witnesses whom he would call in support of his allegations would be few, their evidence would be short, and he believed the whole examination would not exceed a week. He would ask the House to be careful as to the manner with which they would deal with this question. Here was the case of a clergyman who had been an incumbent of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, whose ministration had been carried on in such a manner, and had been attended with such notoriety, that the services had been interrupted by mobs of people, the minister had been rebuked, and virtually ejected by his diocesan, to whom he then addressed a public letter, in which he told him that he found himself in a false position in the Church of England, and must seek peace elsewhere. He then went abroad, where it was stated his attendance at a Roman Catholic place of worship was so notorious that he was claimed by the Roman Catholic clergy as a convert to the Church of Rome, and as one in full communion with that Church; further it was stated, that during the whole time he was at Kissengen he never attended the Protestant place of worship, but was an habitual attender at a Roman Catholic Church; and when these statements were 272 brought to his knowledge in a friendly spirit by a brother clergyman, he received them in such a manner as to lead to the unavoidable conclusion that they were true. He was then presented to a benefice in a different diocese, and went to another bishop for institution. The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, memoralised their Bishop, and gave extracts from Mr. Bennett's published works. The condemnation of his former diocesan was again virtually repeated. The fact was brought before the Bishop in such a way that he could satisfy himself that he had denied the supremacy of the Crown, and that he took the oaths in a qualified sense. All these things were either brought before the Bishop, or would have been if the desired delay had taken place; but without the delay and without the inquiry required by law, without the proper certificate, he not only instituted him, but did so in such a manner as to shut out the parishioners from the only tribunal established by law before which they could have redress. He must say that when he was told that in such a case a Parliamentary Committee was the only resource, because a Commission of the Crown would not be respected, the statement created considerable surprise in his mind. During the last few years they had had some hundreds of commissions, invested with no more authority than that proposed, which had inquired into all kinds of subjects, which had afforded to the House much valuable information, and the efforts of which had in no case been baffled. And now, in a case of great grievance and of unparalleled scandal, they were told that a commission of inquiry could not succeed, for answers could not be enforced to the questions put by it. He took it that this statement was not made but on good grounds and authority. Taking this peculiar case, he hoped this was not the answer given by the Prelates of the Established Church, for he believed that by no other class would a commission issued in the Queen's name not be received with immediate respect. He believed that at the door of the humblest cottager a commission issued in the name of the Queen would be received with respect, and that all Her Majesty's subjects would evince their loyalty by respecting a commission to inquire into any fit subject, no matter how unpalatable it might be, because that commission was issued in the Queen's name. He should have thought 273 that the Prelates of the Established Church would have been the first to respect the Queen's authority; that they would have been glad of an opportunity to acknowledge the principle, of which their Sovereign had set such an example, that to the highest rank was attached the highest responsibility, and that great powers and privileges were to be held for public purposes, and not desecrated for selfish ends. That was the principle acknowledged by their Queen. He would leave the House to deal with this question, for he did not consider it a Government or a party question, but a question addressed to the conscience of every man, and one on which every man should exercise the right of private judgment. He would say that Parliament was now responsible for the manner in which they should deal with a question which could not be evaded. The responsibility which might have formerly rested on Mr. Bennett, or when Mr. Bennett was instituted, on the Bishop, was, now that it had been brought before Parliament, thrown sole and undivided on the Parliament. The question, either as affecting the sincerity of their faith, the supremacy of the Crown, or the jurisdiction of Parliament, involved most serious considerations; and he thought it would be a very unfortunate and very fatal event if Parliament on that occasion were by a majority to refuse the inquiry which every one admitted ought to be instituted. A majority in such a case would only show how fatal and how dangerous a majority is when opposed to truth. A majority, in such a case, could not influence public opinion; it could not acquit Mr. Bennett, for public opinion already condemned him, nor would it acquit the Bishop of Bath and Wells, for his own acts convicted him; but this a majority might do—public reprobation might be diverted from other parties, and the finger of scorn would be pointed at the House of Commons—it would be said that their Protestantism was a pretence, that their loyalty was a sham; and that in endeavouring to screen individual delinquency they permitted a public wrong—that they were degrading themselves, and destroying the Church.