§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI beg that, by the favour of the House, I may be permitted to take this opportunity of conveying to them the result of the investigation which Her Majesty's Government undertook to make as to the remedies that exist with respect to an alleged grievance relative to the institution of the vicar of Frome. After the discussion that took place in this House some three weeks ago [see vol. cxx. p. 895], Her Majesty's Government requested the Crown officers to report to them as to the means which Her Majesty might possess to make such an inquiry as was then suggested to be expedient. Sir, the Crown officers have reported to Her Majesty's Government that Her Majesty had no means of making any efficient inquiry with reference to the circumstances in question: that it would not be possible, if a commission were issued, that the Commissioners would be able to summon before them the witnesses they might deem necessary, and to compel the production of that evidence which they might think it expedient should be brought forward; or even to render compulsory the presence of those parties at the investigation who were directly informed upon it. It was even reported to the Government by the Crown officers that if such a commission were issued, and if, in despite of those difficulties, a course of bold investigation was taken, the commission might assume the character of a court of ecclesiastical inquiry, and in that character would be an evident breach of the Bill of Rights. Sir, irrespective of those legal opinions of the Crown officers, Her Majesty's Government have viewed with great suspicion such a course as was suggested for their adoption on the evening in question. Without giving any opinion upon or presuming to prejudge the instance in question, the Government have felt that when a person violates the law, we give him a great advantage if we attempt to vindicate the law in an illegal manner; and therefore not only from the opinion of the Crown officers, but as a question of policy, the Government were of opinion that the course pressed upon their adoption would fail in the object which I believe both sides of the House desire to attain; and might 686 not only fail in the object, but might give an advantage to the person who possibly may have offended. Under these circumstances, and feeling the matter to be one of a gravity that cannot be exaggerated— believing that if it be possible under the existing law for a person in communion with another Church to be instituted with impunity into a living of the Church of England—that that would be a grievance intolerable to, and an act of oppression upon, the people of this country— Her Majesty's Government, if they had seen no means of redress obvious or possible, would notwithstanding the state of the Session, have felt it their duty to bring the question under the consideration of the House of Commons; but, Sir, before they should take a course of that description, they felt it their duty to inquire whether, irrespective of the means suggested in the debate to which I have referred—I mean irrespective of an inquiry to be instituted by Her Majesty—there were no other means of redress open under the circumstances alleged. They submitted, therefore, the whole condition of the question in that aspect to the Crown officers, and they have been advised by the Crown officers that in the law as it at present exists there are sufficient means of redress; that by the Act of the 3rd & 4th of the Queen, chap. 86, called the Church Discipline Act, it is open to any parishioner of Frome who may complain of a grievance such as that described by the hon. Member who brought this subject before the House (Mr. Horsman), to appeal either to the bishop of the diocese in which such offence against the law has been committed— [Laughter.] I hope the House will allow me to explain the case as represented to the Government. I am sure the Members of the House will have many opportunities of bringing forward their opinions; it is my duty to state the opinion which we have received as to the law of the case, and the conclusion that the Government have formed in consequence of that opinion. I repeat that we are advised that under the law, as it at present exists, any parishioner of Frome may appeal to the bishop of the diocese in which the alleged offences are said to have been committed, or to the bishop of the diocese in which the alleged offender now holds preferment: he may call on either of those prelates to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the circumstances; and if the result of that commission of inquiry is a primâ 687 facie case against the alleged offender, in that case it is also in the power of both these prelates, or either of them, at once to institute a judicial inquiry. That judicial inquiry would then investigate the whole of the facts; and if the alleged offender were thought guilty of the offences charged, would punish him by depriving him of the preferment he enjoyed, or suspending him from the exercise of any of his sacred functions. Now, it does appear to me that, as yet, no parishioner of Frome has sought redress by this mode. It appears that up to the present moment no appeal has been made either to the Bishop of London, in whose diocese these offences against ecclesiastical discipline are said to have taken place, no appeal has been made to him to issue a commission; nor has any appeal been made to the bishop of the diocese in which the alleged offender now holds preferment. I was somewhat surprised at the expression of feeling which ventured to notice a few moments ago, because Her Majesty's Government cannot share in the feelings which that expression would seem to indicate as being the prevalent opinion of some Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Her Majesty's Government have a confidence in the discretion and sense of duty which animate the conduct of the Prelates of the Church, and they cannot, therefore, for a moment suppose that they would offer any opposition to the course of justice and the cause of truth. But, Sir, the House may see that there is a legal remedy in existence which has not been appealed to by those who complain; and Her Majesty's Government cannot doubt that the House of Commons will agree with them that nothing can be more unwise than to have recourse to any violent act, where it can be shown that the means of redress in existence have not only not been exhausted, but not even been appealed to. This is the real state of the case. If the inquiry, such as was proposed by the hon. Member for Cockermouth some time ago, had been adopted by Her Majesty, we could legally have arrived at no other result than that at which we have arrived; and I am sure that the House of Commons would not wish to arrive at any result in an illegal manner. The Government have been advised—and I may say I hope without ostentation, that we have, irrespectively of the advice of the Crown lawyers, given the subject the gravest and most painful consideration—they have been ad- 688 vised that there is a legal remedy in existence, which has not been availed of by those who complain of the grievance. Under these circumstances the Government do not doubt but the House of Commons will agree with them—that it is of the utmost importance that, before any other step is taken, those who complain of the grievance should seek that redress the law has placed at their disposal.
§ MR. GLADSTONEI wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the meaning of a part of the explanation he has just given. ["Order!"] I can assure the House it has reference to a point which is involved in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I wish to know if I am right in understanding him to say that Her Majesty's Government have ascertained that the steps which were taken by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, whose conduct was impugned on a former occasion, in the matter of the institution of Mr. Bennett as vicar of Frome—that the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, according to the information they have received, was in due course and in all points according to law?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI confess I cannot exactly understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by "the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells."
§ MR. GLADSTONEI understood that the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the institution of Mr. Bennett, was distinctly impugned on a former night, as not being according to law; and it is on that account that in the discussion which then took place, I suggested that the Government should ascertain and state whether that was so or not.
§ MR. HORSMANI had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have concluded with some formal Motion, because there are some points in his statement which it would be rather convenient to notice. Still, though it is not quite regular, perhaps the House will allow me to make an observation upon one point in that statement which refers partly to a question of law, and partly to the complaint which I made when I brought forward the Motion upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman says that no parishioner of Frome has appealed either to the Bishop of London, as the prelate in whose diocese the alleged offences were committed, or to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, as the prelate in whose diocese the 689 alleged offender holds preferment. Let me remind the right hon. Gentlemen that the whole of my statement, when I made that Motion, was directed to what took place after Mr. Bennett's nomination to the living of Frome, and to circumstances which occurred, not in the diocese of Bath, but to other circumstances which occurred in the dioceses of Bath and London and on the Continent, and which seemed to me to make an inquiry desirable. In illustration of what I stated to the House the other night, I will read two lines, with the purport of which the Government is perfectly acquainted, for I took the precaution of making them aware of it. I hold in my hand Battersby,s Catholic Directory, in which there is a list of converts to the Roman Catholic religion given monthly, and in the month of July (1851) I find this entry:—"Mr. W. J. E. Bennett, late of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, has been received into the Church. Deo gratias." Now, as to the redress of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks. The Commission would have to be appointed by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, supposing the offence to have taken place in his diocese, and it would consist of five clergymen, to be nominated by the Bishop, so that the appeal would be made to him, and the judges by whom the inquiry is conducted would be nominated by him. That is the whole amount of redress which the existing law affords; but for an offence committed abroad there is no redress whatever. I brought forward my Motion a month ago, and I now understand that the whole of the"bonâ fide inquiry," which was promised us by the right hon. Gentleman, has resulted in merely taking the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. Under these circumstances I beg to give notice that, to-morrow, I shall move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations which I have already brought before the notice of the House.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI trust the House will permit me to make an observation as to the point upon which the hon. Gentleman has now touched. In the first place, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I was speaking of the redress which was sought for by the parishioners of Frome; and in anything which took place between them and the Bishop of Bath and Wells, no allusion whatever was made as to what occurred abroad. The hon. Gentleman 690 misconceives—no doubt from my imperfect expression—the spirit and tone of the communication I have made to the House. That which I desired to state to the House, and which Her Majesty's Government considered as of paramount importance, was, that there are means of redress under the existing law. I gave no opinion upon the point whether, according to the views of the hon. Gentleman, or other hon. Gentlemen, those means are perfect or imperfect—efficient or inefficient. But the House will agree with me that the means of redress offered by the law should always be exhausted before we take into consideration what course should he pursued to supply that redress. That is all I felt it necessary to impress upon the House; and I will not, therefore, notice the taunt or sneer of the hon. Gentleman about time having been wasted upon this subject. It was for me to communicate to the House that which it was of great importance it should know; but with regard to the investigation of Directories, or what has occurred on the Continent, the fact is this—that as the law at present exists, no misconduct under such circumstances can be reached, and that, no doubt, is a subject worthy the consideration of the House. I will not make a statement upon any of those alleged facts. I will merely say, generally, that I have seen many letters which were written—not anonymously, but by persons who are no friends of Mr. Bennett—and which give a very different version of these circumstances. Indeed, the Government do not wish to mix themselves up in any way with the circumstances which have taken place abroad. If they found that the Crown could by any means of its own institute an efficient inquiry with a view to eliciting the truth, they would be perfectly ready to recommend it; but it would be trifling with the House to counsel the Queen to institute an inquiry which they know, by the advice of the Crown officers, as well as by their own experience, would end in nothing but disappointment and annoyance: their duty, therefore, is simply to lay before the House that which they believe to be the real state of the law. With regard to the point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), I confess that, at this moment, I do not understand the meaning of his inquiry. As far as we are advised, there was nothing illegal in the act of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; but his conduct, in the institution of Mr. Bennett, 691 Under the circumstances, does not in the least affect the privilege of the parishioners of Frome in appealing to either of the two prelates, and especially to the Bishop of London, for redress of the grievances they complain of. And that is the course which, upon the whole, I think it most expedient they should pursue.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the declaration of the Government only served to fortify his previous opinion. He had made himself acquainted with all the circumstances of the case as connected with the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and when the time came he would he perfectly prepared to show that that right rev. Prelate had acted not only up to the letter hut to the spirit of the law throughout the whole transaction.