which the house had granted him, viz. a Committee of Inquiry, could he have substantiated the charges he had brought forward? The vote for the Committee may be considered tantamount to a grand jury finding a true bill, which issues in the trial of the accused; and it showed that the House was at least satisfied of the great probability of truth in the charges brought forward, or it would not have decided for the trial.

Now allow me to call your Lordship's attention to the terms used by Mr. Bennett in speaking of these charges. (P. 13.) He says "turn carefully, my Lord, to the evidence, and your practised eye will observe how entirely it depends on mere tittle tattle and gossip," "that on May 20th and May 21st, fresh discussions should arise and tales of falsehood be reiterated from time to time." P. 17, 18. "Slander and falsehood had been greedily taken in and listened to for months." P. 18. "Another weary night and another weary night; Maynooth first, then Frome." (Any interference with the teaching of Dens' Theology or of other such text books in the College of Maynooth, being apparently equally reprehensible in Mr. Bennett's mind with an enquiry respecting his own tenets and practises.) "I come now," says Mr. Bennett, (p. 21,) "more immediately to deal with the prosecutor's statements; and in doing so I shall pass by most of the assertions so unaccountably made by the said prosecutor, by simply denying their truth." On this point I am entirely at issue with the Vicar of Frome,-it costs me something to give him this title, but it is his. I am of opinion that most, if not every one of the assertions made by Mr. Horsman are not only substantially, but literally correct. The Catholic Directory, though quoted by Romanists as a book of authority, might be wrong in classing Mr. Bennett among the avowed perverts to Rome from the Tractarian party, but Mr. Horsman said it was so stated, and he was correct. If he overstated the number of Mr. Bennett's Curates who had gone over to Rome by one, we may throw into the balance those of his Sisters of Mercy, who reconciled themselves to that Church, and we shall square the account pretty well.

With regard to the dismissal of "the popular Curate," I can furnish your Lordship with something better than the anonymous "hearsay evidence," Mr. Bennett now finds it convenient to bring forward from the Oxford Herald, viz. a letter from that gentleman himself.

LETTER IN THE OXFORD HERALD ADOPTED BY MR. BENNETT.

"With regard to the charge of Mr. Horsman, that Mr. Bennett's first act was to dismiss the popular curate, (Mr. Calvert,) this statement is entirely untrue. The living was asked for, for Mr. Calvert, and refused by the Marchioness of Bath; and Mr. Calvert stated publicly, that with his family, he could not possibly vacate the vicarage-house, and take a subordinate position as a curate to the new vicar (whoever he might be), and that most probably with a reduced stipend as from a resident vicar, which, he said, he expected would be the case. All this was before the appointment of Mr. Bennett; and after this, he stated that nothing would induce him to officiate in connexion with Mr. Bennett, or continue his curate a moment after he was appointed; and he also refused to see Mr. Bennett, when he called on him at the vicarage, the morning of his induction. Mr. Calvert also said, that Mr. Bennett, in giving him notice, had acted in a most gentlemanly way, and just as he should have done himself. Mr. Calvert's dismissal was, therefore, his own act, and in accordance with his own wishes, expressed both before and after Mr. Bennett's appointment."

Let us compare this statement with the letter following.

“1, Lark Hall Rise, Clapham, Nov. 10, 1852. "Dear Mr. Wickham,-In reply to your enquiries respecting the letter quoted by Mr. Bennett from the Oxford Herald, which I saw for the first time a few days since, I beg to state

"1. That I am altogether unaware of any application having been made on my behalf to Lady Bath, for the Vicarage of Frome. Several of the parishioners expressed a wish to me at different times that a memorial should be sent to that effect, but I invariably discouraged the project.

"2. I never said that I could not take a subordinate position as Curate to any resident Vicar. In reply to a Gentleman saying 'I hope, Mr. Calvert, we shall not lose you,' I said it is not at all likely that I can stay, as the Vicar, whoever he may be, will want the Vicarage, and will most probably give only the usual stipend.

"3. I certainly never refused to see Mr. Bennett. On one occasion hearing that he was likely to call at the Vicarage, I went home on purpose to meet him. I also met Mr. Bennett after his appointment, on parish matters. On the morning of Mr. Bennett's induction, the Rev. Mr. Black

well of Mells, and the Rev. Mr. Clutterbuck, of Buckland, called, asking me to be present at that ceremony. This I declined, saying that I could not conscientiously do it, as it would imply a welcome to Frome, which I could not give him. I added, however, pray assure Mr. Bennett that I should be sorry to be wanting in proper courtesy or due respect After a few general remarks, Mr. Clutterbuck said to Mr. Blackwell, we must not stay, as Mr. Bennett is in the carriage in the street.' And thus the interview terminated.

"4. In the afternoon of this day I received the notice, a copy of which 1 enclose. Some who saw it remarked that it was rather sharp practice;' I replied 'I don't think so, it is written in a gentlemanly way, and just the course that I should have taken myself, as I would not allow Mr. Bennett to preach in my pulpit if I could prevent it. These, I think, are all the points to which the letter adverts. I am sure that I need not say how much I am pained to be under the necessity of making a statement so different from one previously put forth, on such authority. "Believe me, Dear Mr. Wickham,

"The Revd. H. D. Wickham,

"Yours faithfully,

"W. B. CALVERT."

"Keyford Parsonage, Frome Selwood, Somerset."

Copy of Mr. Bennett's letter referred to above.

"Frome, January 24, 1852.

"Dear Sir, I write this to inform you that I have this day been inducted into the living of Frome Selwood, and to say that from this date I wish to take the responsibility of the duties of the Parish on myself. I wish to know from you whether you would require a legal notice and the legal time for vacating the Vicarage, (which is six weeks,) or whether you would be kind enough to receive this letter as sufficient notice. If you should desire to vacate the Vicarage earlier than the legal period above-mentioned, would you have the kindness to inform me what that time would be? I should be obliged to you to forward me a list of the sick and poor of the parish at present under visitation. Also a list of the communicants, and at the same time any other information on Parochial matters which it may be in your power to communicate.

66 I am,

dear Sir, faithfully yours.

"W. J. E. BENNETT."

"Please to address at the Rev. E. Griffiths."

QUESTION OF HASTE IN INSTITUTION.

Mr. Bennett's next complaint against Mr. Horsman is, that he "asserted that the Bishop of Bath and Wells insti

tuted him hastily and without examination;" this, he says, "I shall pass by,' simply denying its truth and asserting

the contradictory.'

"" 66

I refer, my Lord, to the report of this debate in the Times newspaper of the 9th June, and there find that Mr. Horsman is reported to have said that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett "without that due examination which was enjoined by law, and which the parishioners of Frome had a right to expect." The Record newspaper of the 10th June reports the speech in nearly the same words, that the Bishop instituted "without that due examination which was enjoined by the law, and which the parishioners had a right to demand." The addition of the little word due, which Mr. Bennett has omitted, is not without weight. The Bishop of Bath and Wells was aware of the circumstances under which Mr. Bennett had quitted his late preferment. He was aware, or at least he might have informed himself of the temper of mind in which Mr. Bennett, after that event, had left England, as he had published it to the world when he wrote to the Bishop of London, "The end must be ere long, that I give up the conflict and seek for peace elsewhere,”—a phrase used both by Mr. Wilberforce and Archdeacon Manning, to signify their intention of joining themselves to the church of Rome. Now had the Bishop extended his examination of Mr. Bennett in reference to his conduct abroad, or had he even delayed his institution (of the canonical objection of the twenty-eight days we shall speak hereafter) for the brief period of the fortnight for which we had begged, the Kissingen story must have come to light, and would have required some such explanation as Mr. Bennett has given in his second letter to your Lordship, in the face of which the Bishop could not have proceeded to institution. The least delay must have brought the story to the Bishop's knowledge, for the letter of Mr. Pratt to the Achill Herald is dated the 12th of January. The day after his Lordship addressed his letter to the Memorialists through me, stating that he had satisfied himself that Mr. Bennett "was not attached to, nor likely to be influenced by, the Doctrines

of the Church of Rome," but that he had a "firm and deeprooted attachment to our own Church, and to all the Doctrines of the Church of England, repudiating all Romish doctrine," &c., and therefore that he should adhere to his intention of instituting him. And it was not till the 19th that his Lordship closed the correspondence with the cavalier letter, which has been so universally condemned, in which he does not even vouchsafe a reply to our request for a fortnight's delay. This letter was written then seven days after the date of Mr. Pratt's letter to the Achill Herald, and within a fortnight of this date, the public attention had already been so much directed to the subject, that we find the Rector of Trowbridge, by a letter dated January 31, acquainting Mr. Bennett with the serious charge brought publicly against him, and with the scandal occasioned thereby to the Church, in order that on Mr. Bennett's denying it, he and several of his brother clergy might pay their respects to him as the new Incumbent of an important town in the neighbourhood.

STATEMENT OF THE TWENTY-EIGHT CANONICAL DAYS.

We must advert now to the question of the twenty-eight canonical days. Sir Page Wood took the House of Commons much by surprise in the debate upon the Frome Vicarage on the 8th of June, when he stated that according to the present canons, only twenty-eight days were allowed to a Bishop for inquiring into the fitness of a clerk before he instituted, and that in the present case the institution did not take place till the twenty-seventh day after the presentation had been made. Such a statement, coming from so respectable a quarter, told powerfully with many against Mr. Horsman's motion; for where was the injustice, or what blame could be thrown on the Bishop, if, after all, he had only instituted Mr. Bennett on the last day allowed by the canon law? Mr. Horsman, however, did not rest satisfied with Sir Page Wood's view of the law on this question, but he referred it to Drs. Twiss and Phillimore; and they both gave their opinion, which was read in the house on the 18th of June, that the 95th Canon,