
 
 <'^'*!&xr^<:^ 
 
 << <ii^ 
 
 ^^m 
 
 
 
 <^ «lC:_^<t' ■'^"<^ 
 
 
 ■•.■r.<5t:" 
 
 .f^<c: <i^.-* -i:,«t 
 
 
 
 
 3Ci •<-t 
 
 
 
 
 C< t 
 
 .i:jt.<t< 
 
 
 
 :3^ <c.. 
 
 
 cc: VIC 
 
 
 '^-^^C"^ 
 
 
 '^i cc 
 
 ■^
 
 TO THE 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, 
 
 ON 
 
 CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION, 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
 
 THE CASE OF THE REV. ALFRED POOLE: 
 
 THE HON. k llEV. EGBERT LIDDELL, M.A., 
 
 Perpetual Curate of S. Paul's, Knkjhtsiridge, 
 and S. Barnabas', Pimlico, 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 Mr. Poole s Appeal to Sis Grace the Archhishop of Canterbury, 
 
 &c. &c. 
 
 LONDON: 
 J. T. HAYES, LYALL PLACE, EATON SQUARE. 
 
 1858.
 
 To the Ri(jht Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop 
 of London, 
 
 My dear Lord Bishop, 
 
 You have recently deemed it your duty 
 to revoke the license of the Rev. Alfred Poole, who, 
 during the seven years of my Incumbency in my 
 present parish, has held a Curacy under me at 
 S. Barnabas', Pimlico, and has discharged the onerous 
 duties of his office to my entire satisfaction. 
 
 Your Lordship is aware, that from the time when 
 Mr. Poole was first informed of the charo-es brouaht 
 against him, on the subject of Private Confession, he 
 emphatically denied that he had ever put the obnoxious 
 questions imputed to him, and requested to be con- 
 fronted with his accusers face to face, as he felt per- 
 fectly confident of his ability to show the worthlessness 
 of the evidence on which these charoes were made. 
 
 But having utterly failed to obtain from your Lord- 
 ship that public hearing, vdiich would have afforded 
 him the most effectual means of clearing his personal 
 character from the foul and cruel aspersions cast upon 
 it, Mr. Poole had no resource but to appeal against 
 your Lordship's sentence to the Arclibishop of the 
 province; in which course your Lordship said you 
 " considered that he was perfectly justified, and 
 that any opportunity, which he desired, of having his 
 case more fully stated, would in all probability occur 
 on such appeal." But the result was, that Mr. Poole 
 was doomed to a further disappointment, for His 
 Grace, without listening to the appellant's prayer to 
 be heard in open court, and (so far as is known) with- 
 out enquiry, in a brief form confirmed your Lordship's 
 decision.
 
 It would betray in me a great forgetfulness of Mr 
 Poole's faithful services, if I did not express the 
 warmest interest in his behalf. But irrespectively of 
 any such personal feeling, your Lordship's and His 
 Grace the Archbishop's act, appears to me of such 
 grave importance to the Church at large, as to demand 
 from me, the Incumbent, under whom Mr. Poole has 
 been officiating, some few observations — were it only 
 that I might honestly state my own principles and 
 practice, in reference to the matter, for which my 
 Curate has been condemned. 
 
 First, 1 will set down as clearly as I can, what your 
 Lordship and His Grace have declared to be the 
 grounds of Mr. Poole's condemnation. 
 
 In a letter, dated May 8th, announcing for the first 
 time the intention of withdrawing his license, your 
 Lordship writes as follows : — " While I fully admit 
 that the statements you have made to me, tend to 
 make me look, with much suspicion upon the particular 
 evidence laid before me, I regret to say, that, quite 
 independently of that evidence, I am led, by your own 
 admissions, to regard the course you are in the habit 
 of pursuing, with reference to Confession, as likely to 
 cause scandal and injury to the Church. I feel espe- 
 cially, that this questioning of females on the subject 
 of the Seventh Commandment is of a dangerous 
 tendency ; and I am convinced generally, that the 
 sort of systematic admission of your people to Confes- 
 sion and Absolution, which you have allowed to be 
 your practice, ought not to take place." Further on, 
 Mr. Poole's course in these matters is described as 
 one, in which your Lordship believes " he has 
 departed from the spirit and practice of the Church of 
 England, and assimilated his mode of dealing with 
 his people, too much to the system of the Church of 
 Komc." 
 
 , UIUC ^ i
 
 The same objections are stated, in slightly different 
 terms, in your Lordship's letter of May 13th, as — 
 "The questioning, especially of females, on the subject 
 of the violation of the Seventh Commandment ; and 
 a systematic ^'^^ admission of your people to Confession 
 and Absolution, going beyond anything contemplated 
 by the services or teaching of our Church." 
 
 In the formal revocation of Mr. Poole's license, 
 bearing date May 18th, 1858, the cause of revocation 
 is said to be — "That, admitting females to Confes- 
 sion, you address to them questions, of a character 
 calculated to bring scandal on the Church." 
 
 And in the letter of His Grace the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, bearing date July 9th, it is written — " Jt 
 appears from the statements in your formal reply of 
 the 21st of May, and in your letter of the 15tli of 
 May, to which in your formal reply you refer the 
 Bishop, that you have been in the practice of con- 
 ducting a system of private Confession and Absolution 
 among your people, and that the Bishop deemed such 
 practice to be not authorised by the Church of 
 England, and to be calculated to bring scandal on the 
 Church. I concur with the Bishop in the view which 
 he has taken of your practice in this respect ; and 
 therefore think it just and proper to confirm the revo- 
 cation of your license." 
 
 In reading these statements, I find myself under the 
 following difficulties : 
 
 First — I cannot ascertain whether Mr. Poole has 
 been convicted upon the women's evidence, with which 
 your Lordship was furnished, or upon his own admis- 
 sions ; or partly upon one, and partly upon the other. 
 
 As to the first point, I will venture to observe, that 
 
 * See correspondence between Mr. Poole and the Lord Bishoo 
 in Appendix.
 
 6 
 
 the particular evidence laid before j'oiir Lordship was 
 all but repudiated bv vou in vour letter of the b^th of 
 May ; vet the chief gravamen of the charge against 
 ^Ir. Poole, viz., " this questioning of females on the 
 subject of violations of the Seventh Commandment," 
 seems, notwithstanding, to rest, mainly if not exclu- 
 sivelv, upon this evidence. 
 
 Mr. Poole certainly denied the charge generally ; 
 and more particularly did he deny having put any of 
 those specific questions imputed to him. 
 
 But secondlv, as to his own admissions, the pecu- 
 liarity of his position is this — that while he can but 
 give a genei*al denial of having made any such admis- 
 sions, as your Lordship ajipears to have understood to 
 be the result of his conversations with you, he has in 
 vain requested your Lord>hip to state, what these 
 adnnssio?is have been. 
 
 M}- Lord, 1 have always understood, that when a 
 criminal is brought before a magistrate, he is duly 
 cautioned, that whatever he says will be taken down 
 and maj' be used against him — so that he is put upon 
 his guard, that he may not incautiously criminate 
 himself. After this caution, his words are taken down 
 and read over to him, that he may have the opj^or- 
 tunitv of contradicting or amending thrm, if not 
 accurately representing his actual statement. If, after 
 his words are taken down, his statement is to be used 
 aoainst him on his trial, it is formally adduced in 
 evidence — when he has again the opportunity of ex- 
 plaining any thing which he may have it in his power 
 to do. So jealous is the law ot England of allowing 
 any man incautiously to criminate himself In a 
 neighbouring country, en the contrary, the practice is 
 to question the accused, and to catch at every thing he 
 may say tending to criminate him. How cor.trary 
 this is to English liabits and feelings of justice and
 
 equity, I need scaTcely point out. But even there, the 
 accused has, after all, the opportunity afforded him of 
 explaining what may appear from his own statements 
 to make against him. In Mr. Poole's case, he was 
 invited, as he thought, to a friendly interview with his 
 Bishop, and upon admissions alleged to have been 
 made by him in the course of that conversation, he 
 finds himself condemned — admissions, which he is not 
 conscious of having made, and of which your Lordship 
 took no note whatever, so that he is condemned only 
 upon your Lordship's recollection of his conversation. 
 I much lament that your Lordship did not think 
 it due to Mr. Poole, to state fully to him what you 
 consider to have been his admissions, and to give him 
 the opportunity of correcting your Lordship's under- 
 standing of them, as I am confident he would then 
 have done, and would still do, if he only knew what 
 they were. 
 
 For these reasons then, I shall never cease to regret, 
 that a man of the holiest character should have been 
 denied that, which is accorded by the common law of 
 England to every man put upon his defence, even 
 were he the greatest criminal. I shrink from sup- 
 posing that the interests of the Church, in such a 
 matter, could be incompatible wilh the interests of 
 ordinary English justice. INay, when I turn to Holy 
 Writ, I find even a judge of heathen Rome saying — 
 " It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any 
 man to die, before that he which is accused have the 
 accusers face to face, and have license to answer for 
 himself concerning the crime laid against him." And 
 many a Roman would have deemed even death a minor 
 punishment, as compared with the moral martyrdom, 
 which Mr. Poole has been thus far com j jelled to 
 undergo. 
 
 1 must, indeed, readily acknowledge, that your
 
 8 
 
 Lordship, in a communication to the Churchwardens 
 of S. Barnabas', dated June 24th, expresses your 
 " satisfaction at the opportunity they gave 3'ou of 
 stating, that you fully believe Mr Poole to be a con- 
 scientious and upright man :" and your Lordship has 
 confirmed that testimony in favour of his personal 
 character, by since expressing to me 3^our readiness to 
 license him afresh to another curacy, which was offered 
 him in your Lordship's diocese. But this refutation 
 on your Lordship's part of the scandalous impu- 
 tations raised against Mr. Poole by Mr. Baring, 
 have elicited no retractation from the latter, whose 
 gratuitous slander of a brother Clergyman yet 
 remains unatoned for. 
 
 I repeat then, that the singularity of Mr. Poole's 
 position is this, that he is condemned upon certain 
 alleged admissions, which he himself denies having 
 made, and of the import of which, from anything 
 which your Lordship will explain to him, he is, and 
 must remain utterly ignorant. The only conclusion, 
 which I think can be drawn from this, is, either that 
 Mr. Poole must have incautiously said something, 
 capable of a meaning which he did not intend, or 
 that your Lordship did not understand fully what 
 he has said. In either case, it certainly seems that 
 the sentence he has incurred has been a very severe 
 one, in a case which your Lordship has admitted 
 to Mr. Poole, to have been at the most one of 
 *' indiscretion only." 
 
 But secondly, 1 labour under this further difficulty 
 — 1 do not see clearly whether your Lordship's and 
 His Grace the Archbishop's objections are directed 
 only against some mode of conducting Confessions 
 peculiar to Mr. Poole, as in the phrases " tids ques- 
 tioning," &c., and " the sort of systematic admission 
 to Confession," &:c. ; or whether they are directed
 
 against any and every act or system of receiving: 
 private Confessions by a Priest of the Church of 
 England ; as when I read of " a systematic admission 
 of people to Confession and Absolution;" and again, 
 " the practice of conducting a system of private Con- 
 fession," &c. 
 
 But I will ask permission to consider your Lord- 
 ship's and His Grace's words seriatim. 
 
 if I take your letter of the 8tli of Ma}^ as the 
 enunciation of the terms of your charge against 
 Mr. Poole, I find your Lordship objecting to " this 
 questioning of females on the subject of violations of 
 the Seventh Commandment." And you state, that 
 " you are convinced generally, that the sort of sys- 
 tematic admission of the people to Confession and 
 Absolution, which he has allowed to be his practice, 
 ought not to take yjlace." 
 
 Your letter of the 13th of May, objects to "that 
 questioning, especially of females, on the subject of 
 violations of the Seventh Commandment," and " a 
 systematic admission of the people to Confession and 
 Absolution, going beyond anything contemplated by 
 the services or teaching of our Church." 
 
 In the formal notice to Mr. Poole, of the 18th May, 
 the charge against him is, " that, admitting females to 
 Confession, he addresses to them questions of a 
 character calculated to bring scandal on the Church." 
 
 If I understand these documents rightly, the first 
 charge is of addressing to females questions on the 
 Seventh Commandment — and the second, the sort of 
 systematic admission of the people to Confession and 
 Absolution — that is the particular system of hearing 
 confessions, adopted by Mr. Poole. 
 
 In the second document, the first charge is again 
 the asking of questions on the Seventh Command- 
 ment; and the second charge is a system of hearing
 
 10 
 
 Confessions, going beyond any thing contemplated by 
 the services or teaching of our Church. By which 1 
 understand your Lordship to object to some supposed 
 system of liearing confessions, going beyond what is 
 allowed by the Church of England. 
 
 In neither of these papers, does 3'our Lordship go 
 so far, as to object to the practice of receiving persons 
 to Confession and Absolution altogether. 
 
 But in the notice to Mr. Poole to shew cause ag-ainst 
 the revocation of his license, which I suppose must be 
 considered as the formal accusation, the second ground 
 of complaint, in the two former papers, disappears 
 altogether, and the charge is reduced to this, that 
 "admitting females to confession, Mr. Poole addresses 
 to them questions on the Seventh Commandment, 
 calculated to bring scandal on the Church." Now if 
 I understand this correctly, your Lordship in this 
 sentence admits, that Mr. Poole was not wrong in 
 hearing a confession, but that you charge him with 
 having done wrong, in the particular questions which 
 he addressed to the penitent. If I interpret this cor- 
 rectly, it was a charge only affecting Mr. Poole himsc If, 
 viz., whether he put improper questions or not — but 
 not affecting any of his brother clergy. 
 
 But when 1 come to the Archbishop's letter of the 
 9th July, I find His Grace saying, that Mr. Poole 
 " has been in the practice of conducting a system of 
 Confession and Absolution among his people, and that 
 the Bishop deemed such practice to be not authorized 
 by the Church of England." In this passape, I 
 understand the Archbishop to condemn the practice of 
 conducting a system of Confession and Absolution 
 altogether, which His Grace states to have your 
 Lordship's concurrr nee. His Grace therefore altogether 
 ignores the charge of asking questions on the Seventh 
 Commandment, which was the subject of the appeal,
 
 11 
 
 and proceeds to condemn Mr. Poole on an entirdy new 
 ground. 
 
 With all this nncei tainty, my Lord, what should 
 Mr. Poole — what should the Clergy of your Lord- 
 ship's diocese, — understand to be the gi'ound of his 
 condemnation ? % 
 
 I should of course decline to identify myself with 
 this or that individual's peculiarities ; and 1 should 
 condemn the needlessness and impropriety of the 
 particular questions on the Seventh Commandment, 
 imputed to Mr. Poole, as fully as your Lordship, 
 and indeed as Mr. Poole himself lias done. For in his 
 letter to your Lordship, of the 1 5th of May, he says — 
 " I have already denied absolutely having put the 
 questions, or suggested the filthy details, which Mr. 
 Baring has taken down from the lips of this poor 
 woman." Once more, if Mr. Poole, or any other 
 Priest, were proved to be guilty of error of judgment 
 in the discharge of a very difficult duty, while 1 should 
 wish to make every charitable allowance for such an 
 error, I should not feel m^^self called upon to defend 
 it. 
 
 But if, on the other hand, your Lordship and His 
 Grace the Archbishop intend to condemn a Priest of 
 the Church of England, simply for the act or the 
 system of receiving private Confessions from such of 
 our people, be they many or few, as come to us with 
 burdened consciences, and desire of their own accord 
 " to open their grief" to us, then I must with great 
 respect, yet without compromise, assert, that 1 humbly 
 consider such a practice to be a Priest's positive dut}^ 
 enjoined by the Church's law; and so far as thatg(>es, 
 1 do without hesitation identify myself with the 
 cause of my condemned Curate. Meither do I wish 
 to shelter myself behind the protection which the 
 law, on mere secular grounds, aHbrds to a beneficed
 
 12 
 
 Clergyman, beyond what it does to a stipendiary 
 Curate; hut I am ready to defend my principles 
 and my practice in the courts of law, and to abide by 
 the consequences, be they what they may. 
 
 I admit my own incompetency to do fall justice to 
 so difficult a question as the one under discussion — 
 would that 1 were more competent ! but finding 
 myself placed, without any seeking on my own part, 
 in a position of much prominence at the present crisis, 
 I owe it to your Lordship, to my Reverend Brethren 
 of the Priesthood, and to the Faithful Laity of the 
 Church, to state honestly what I believe to be our 
 duty, in this matter of private Confession and Abso- 
 lution. 
 
 First, I will venture to trace what I may call the 
 theological rationale of the doctrine. Secondly, I will 
 quote the authority for the exercise of this priestly 
 function in the Church of England's Book of Common 
 Prayer. And thirdly, t will state how 1 endeavour 
 to carry out in my own practice, what I gather to be 
 Her real principles in this matter. 
 
 I, — The theological rationale of the doctrine, which I 
 throw into the form of the following propositions : — 
 
 1. Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, in His humanity, 
 is the One true Priest of the new dispensation. 
 
 2. The essential functions of the Christian priest- 
 hood are, first, to oiTer sacrifice: secondly, to remit and 
 retain sin ; thirdly, to bless the people. 
 
 3. As Christ's priesthood is an unchangeable 
 priesthood. He being a " Priest for ever," the exercise 
 of His offline is continually going on now. All wor- 
 ship of the Church in heaven and earth is accept- 
 able worship, only as it is united to the worship He is 
 ever offering — presenting .Himsclf\ in His glorified 
 body, as " the Lamb slain," before the throne of grace,
 
 13 
 
 and by that act " ever making intercession for us." 
 All absolution is remission, only inasmuch as it is 
 " the power of the Son of Man on earth to forgive 
 sins." All blessing in the Church is but the virtue 
 going out from Him ; whether it emanate, as now, 
 through a living ministry, or, as of old, through the 
 mere hem of His garment 
 
 4. The first priestly function, viz sacrifice, is the 
 appointed remedy for all sin. And as sin is ever 
 continuing, so sacrifice must be continually applied to 
 it, for remission — and to each sin, in order to its 
 remission, such sacrifice — the one sacrifice of Christ — 
 is, as a matter of fact, so applied. 
 
 5. This sacrifice, once made for all, must ordinarily 
 be applied to each, through an earthly visible minis- 
 tration, which is none other than the priesthood of 
 the Church of God — tliat Church, in conformity with 
 her Incarnate Lord, consisting, if I may so say, of a 
 divine and human nature, united in one mystical Body. 
 
 6. This earthly visible ministration receives its 
 powers from the Lord, according to the words ad- 
 diessed to His Apostles, "As my Father hath sent 
 Me, even so send I you — receive ye the Holy Ghost;" 
 to which must be added the special commission, 
 "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
 them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are 
 retained." 
 
 7. This commission, by the very nature of the case, 
 could never have been intended to end with those 
 Apostles, to whom it was first given. For if Christ 
 came as the sacrifice for sin, and this was the appointed 
 way of applying that sacrifice, it was unworthy of the 
 coming of Christ, to stint its eft'ect, (in tlie great 
 office of putting away sin by the offering of Himself,) 
 to the sins then present of the contemporaries of the 
 Holy Apostles : and if the commission did not cease
 
 14 
 
 with the Apostles, it must be continued through their 
 successors to this day. 
 
 8. It does, in fact, so continue in the exercise of 
 the Christian priesthood, which is commanded and 
 empowered by Almighty God, not only to declare 
 and pronounce, but also to be the authorized channel 
 for conveying absolution. 
 
 9. This remission of sin implies the confession of 
 it, the remission being not vague and general, but 
 judicial and particular. 
 
 II. — I go on now to prove that the Church of England 
 does, as an integral branch of the One Holy Catholic 
 and Apostolic Church, lay claim to this essential 
 portion of the ministry of reconciliation. In the Ordi- 
 nation of her Priests, she uses the purest and strongest 
 form of consecration — directing her bishops to say, 
 in the very words of the Great High Priest Himself, 
 " 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' for the office and work 
 " of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto 
 "thee, by the imposition of our hands. 'Whose sins 
 "thou dost forgive, they are forgiven: and whose sins 
 "thou dost retain, they are retained.' And be thou a 
 "faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His 
 "holv Sacraments; 'in the Name of the Father, and 
 "of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.'" 
 
 Surely if the Church of England does not mean by 
 this to assert the fulness of her supernatural authority 
 in her children's behalf, she would be uttering Avords 
 of fearful blasphemy — which God forbid ! And if 
 some of her priesthood, through defective teaching, or 
 other causes, are not able to realize the extent of their' 
 own commission, such as do realize it and practically 
 bring it into exercise, are not on that account justly 
 chargeable with enthusiasm or presumption, or 
 erroneous judgment, or even, (as is, alas ! too common,)
 
 15 
 
 with unfaithfulness to the Church, which, under God, 
 they are devotedly serving. 
 
 But 1 go on to shew, by reference to the Book of 
 Common Prayer, how the Church brings the priestly 
 power of Absolution to bear, not only in a general 
 way upon congregations of worshippers, but also in a 
 particular and judicial way upon individuals. 
 
 They, who by careful self-examination, can satisfy 
 their own consciences, "that they do truly repent and 
 unfeignedly believe" the blessed Gospel of Christ, 
 are encouraged to apply to themselves the comfort of 
 the general Absolution pronounced in the daily Service 
 in a declaratory form, and in the office for Holy 
 Communion in a precatory one, and their pardon, is 
 sealed to them in the reception of the Lord's Blessed 
 Body and Blood, given, taken, and received, after the 
 Eucliaristic memorial of His sacrifice. On such as 
 are thus content with the comfort of a general Abso- 
 lution, the Church of England imposes no obligation 
 to make a private Confession — wherein she differs 
 essentially from the practice of the Church of Rome, 
 which enjoins periodical private Confession upon all 
 her members as a necessary matter. The Church of 
 England, on the contrary, following the practice of 
 the early Church, leaves her children free. But in 
 the cases, in which her Priests may be called to 
 administer private Absolution, there she evidently 
 anticipates that they shall have had the oj)portunity 
 of judging, concerning the propriety of administering 
 such Absolution, by first examining- the spiritual 
 condition of the individual applying for it. Private 
 Absolution necessarily involves and pre-supposes 
 private Confession. 
 
 In one instance which occurs in the first Exhortation 
 of the Communion office, after all persons have been 
 instructed how to examine their own lives, with a
 
 16 
 
 view to worthy participation, the following well-known 
 passage occurs : — " And because it is requisite that 
 no man should come to the Holy Communion but 
 with a full trust in God's mercy and with a quiet 
 conscience ; therefore, if there be any of you who by 
 this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, 
 but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come 
 to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister 
 of God's Word, and open his grief: that by the 
 ministry of God's Holy Word he may receive the 
 benefit of Absolution, together with ghostly counsel 
 and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and 
 avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness." 
 
 Here it will be observed, that the Church is not 
 content with directing her Priests to give ghostly 
 counsel and advice in ministerial conference, which 
 any Presbyterian or Dissenting teacher would doubt- 
 less feel called upon to do in such a case, but she 
 speaks^rs/ of " the benefit of Absolution " as a sacer- 
 dotal act, peculiarly befitting the occasion, and pre- 
 eminently calculated to restore peace to tlie troubled 
 mind. The counsel and advice are subsidiary to the 
 Absolution. 
 
 The other case, in which our Book of Common 
 Prayer mentions private Confession, is in the office 
 for the Visitation of the Sick. First, the sick man is 
 questioned as to the soundness of his faith, and " then 
 shall the Minister examine whether he repent him 
 truly of his sins, and be in charity with all the world." 
 This of necessity involves further questioning : and 
 after the suggestion of various points for investigation, 
 it is added — " Here shall the sick man be moved^ 
 to make a special confession of his sins, if his 
 
 * " To move — to give an impulse to — to propose — to recommend 
 — to persuade — to prevail on — to dispose by something determining 
 the clioice," &c. — Johnson.
 
 17 
 
 conscience be troubled with any weighty matter."" 
 After which confession, the Priest shall absolve him, if 
 he humbly and heartily desire it, after this sort : — 
 " Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath left power to 
 His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent 
 and believe in Him, of His great mercy forgive thee 
 thine offences : and by His authority committed to 
 me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the Name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 Amen." 
 
 Nothing can more unequivocally declare the Priest's 
 power and authorit)'^ to convey Absolution than this 
 form, which in the first Book of Edward VI. was 
 ordered to be used in all private Confessions. But 
 the more direct its announcement of God's pardoning 
 mercy to the contrite and believing soul, the more 
 does it require that the Priest should first, by actual 
 investigation be in a position to judge whether such 
 Absolution can be properly administered or not ; and 
 that investigation the Church here designates to be 
 Confession. 
 
 This then is the Church of England's witness to the 
 Catholic interpretation of Holy Scripture on the great 
 doctrine of Absolution. Yet there are many professing 
 members of our communion who throw this interpre- 
 tation quite aside, and claiming to put their own sense 
 upon Scripture, cry out — "• Who wants a Priest's 
 absolution ? God alone can absolve — God alone can 
 pardon sin." This is indeed identical with what the 
 Jews said to our Blessed Lord Himself — " Who is 
 this which speaketh blasphemies ? Who can forgive 
 sins but God alone ?" 
 
 I am not ambitious to argue with such persons, 
 preferring, as I do, the cumulative testimony of the 
 Church as to the mciining of Holy Scripture to any 
 private interpretations ; but it seems to me, that this 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 mode of arguing would prove too much — it would 
 apply just as forcibly to our Blessed Lord's own 
 words ; and yet He, Who was the wisdom and the 
 power of God, did speak them to His Apostles, giving- 
 them precisely the same mission which He, as the Son 
 of Man, had received from His Father, saying — 
 "As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. 
 And ^^llen He had said this, He breathed on them, 
 and said unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost : 
 whose sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, 
 and whose sins ye retain they are retained." Every 
 one is ready to grant that it is God's inalienable 
 property to forgive sins ; but the real question is, 
 whetlier He has or has not delegated authority to the 
 priesthood of His Church to convey this blessed gift 
 to His people in His Name, and under the stipulated 
 conditions, ascertained, as far as may be, of tlieir 
 repentance and faith. There is of course a differ- 
 ence between inherent and delegated authority ; 
 which I would venture to illustrate by the following 
 example. 
 
 The sovereign of our country is invested by the 
 constitution, with a certain power over the life and 
 death of her subjects. Her Majesty may not indeed 
 condemn any, except through the law. But if a 
 criminal have been condemned to death, and some 
 mitigating circumstances can be pleaded in his behalf, 
 the sovereign is empowered to exercise the blessed 
 prerogative of mercy, and to extend the remission of 
 ca])ital punishment to that condemned person. 
 
 But the sovereign does not personally convey to the 
 criminal that sentence, in the case of death, or the 
 mitigation of that sentence, in the case of a reprieve. 
 She has commissioned officers, the Judge and the 
 Sheriff, to whom Her Majesty's authority is delegated 
 lor this purpose. The one or the other of these
 
 19 
 
 subordinate officers executes the formal act delegated 
 to him, of announcing to the criminal what his definite 
 sentence is — and yet this power is not the less real 
 because it is delegated. The result of these officers' 
 personal communication to the prisoner, as the 
 medium of authority from the sovereign to him, 
 is a matter of life on the one hand, and of death on 
 the other. So then with the priestly function of 
 Absolution. It is delegated indeed, but it is real 
 — and its efficacy consists in conveying what it 
 announces, viz., God's gracious forgiveness to the 
 penitent sinner. 
 
 The directions, to which reference has been made 
 from the Prayer Book, sufficiently indicate the mind 
 of the Church of England, with reference to the 
 general treatment of troubled consciences; but the 
 details of this branch of spiritual work are necessarily 
 left to be filled up, according to the exigencies of each 
 case, and the judgment and sympathy of each priest, 
 to whom the work is entrusted. 
 
 To him, full authority to absolve has been given 
 by the very terms of his Ordination ; and as the extent 
 of that awful commission is realized, so in the same 
 proportion will its supernatural gifts be stirred up, 
 and its functions for the salvation of souls be reso- 
 lutely performed. 
 
 And as with the Pi'iesthood, so with the Laity — no 
 sooner are they taught to understand, and influenced 
 by Divine Grace to appreciate one portion of Sacra- 
 mental doctrine, than they are prepared to grasp other 
 portions also — so wonderful is the cohesion of the 
 several parts of Catholic truth. 
 
 The oftencr they are invited to participate in the 
 Holy Communion of Christ's Blessed Body and Blood, 
 the more they are led to think of the preparation 
 requisite for receiving so great a blessing, and to feel 
 
 c2
 
 20 
 
 the comfort of being able to resort, under any per- 
 plexity of conscience, to their spiritual pastor. They 
 know full well that it is left entirely to their own 
 option, whether they shall consult a priest at all in 
 such cases, and if so, what priest. But what the 
 world calls the thraldom of priestcraft, this portion of 
 the laity claim as their privilege, and they do not 
 intend to be deprived of it. And the more the subject 
 is discussed, the more will the truth come out, that 
 this matter of Confession in the communion of the 
 Church of England, is a layman s question, not an 
 encroachment of the priesthood ; for it is prompted by 
 a strong instinct of our spiritual nature, and there 
 is scarcely a religious community, pretending to 
 any discipline whatever, in which Confession, or an 
 equivalent to it, is not practised under one name or 
 another.* 
 
 * The following facts were related in The Guardian of 22n(i 
 October, 1856, p. 80G :— 
 
 "Gekmany. — Tiie Deutsche Volhsblath informs us of the 
 decisions of the Conference of Dresden, held in May last, at 
 which were represented the Protestant Communions of Saxony, 
 Bavaria, Wurtemburg, and many other German States. The 
 necessity of re-establishing private Confession and Absolution was 
 agreed upon. The decisions of the Conference are contained in 
 twenty-three articles, from which we quote the following remark- 
 able passages : — 
 
 *' 'Art. 13. To ensure success in re-establishing the use of 
 regular Confession and Absolution, a commencement must be 
 made by the introduction of private Absolution, and the restoration 
 of the practice of refusing Absolution.' 
 
 " 'Art. 15. The Pastor has the right of withholding Absolution 
 from such as profess heretical doctrines, (doctrines audacienses,) 
 or contrary to the Gos})el, if they refuse to be converted.' 
 
 " Nay, more ; a form of Confession and Absolution has been 
 agreed upon. The Absolution is pronounced in the following form : 
 
 " 'Almighty God have mercy upon you, and by the authority 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, I absolve you from all your sins, in 
 the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 GuosT. Amen. Go in peace. Amen.'"
 
 21 
 
 And if the ties of confidence between a priest and 
 liis people be here and there more than usually 
 strengthened by the Divine blessings on his earnest 
 ministrations, so that out of the multitudes of souls 
 which surround him, not one, or two, but many yearn 
 for relief to their burdened consciences, and come to 
 him of their own accord to open their grief — and 
 that not on one occasion only, but whenever their 
 grief presses upon them — is the act by which they 
 experience comfort and help, or the system resulting 
 out of a repetition of those acts, to be deemed 
 a danger and a cause of scandal ? I know not, as 
 things stand at present, what the answer may be; but 
 this only I know, that as often as any of my people 
 choose to come to me, so often will I be ready to hear 
 their communications, and to give them counsel, and 
 if need be Absolution. I know, indeed, by experience, 
 that a great many cases require the former onl^- ; 
 and further that some persons, very much in earnest, 
 yet of morbid temperament, require to be reminded 
 of their own responsibilities, and to be prompted 
 to exercise more self-reliance in the common duties 
 of every-day life — but this is only to say, that in 
 the difficult work of dealing with consciences, each 
 case must be treated according to its own intrinsic 
 merits. What I claim at the present crisis, for myself 
 and my brother Priests of the Church of P]ngland, is 
 the liberty to exercise our office in our people's behalf 
 according to the full terms of our commission, without 
 being restricted by limitations, upon which the Church 
 in her authorized documents is entirely silent. I will 
 have no hand whatever, through fear of a popular cry, 
 in depriving the faithful laity of the Church, of the 
 least portion of their s])iritual birthright ; and in 
 default of any precise direction on the Church's part 
 as to the number of times when a penitent may be
 
 22 
 
 permitted to make, and a Priest to hear, private Con- 
 fession, I should fall back upon, the spirit of our 
 Divine Redeemer's loving words — " If thy brother 
 trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven 
 times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent, 
 thou shalt forgive him ;" for it seems to me, that 
 such a precept, with regard to our own mutual rela- 
 tions, is but a reflexion of the Divine mind as to GodV' 
 Own readiness to forgive, which should teach us 
 patience and hopefulness, in our pastoral ministrations, 
 towards all who express penitence for their faults, 
 however frequent or aggravated they may be. 
 
 Such are the general principles by which, as I 
 gather from the Book of Common Prayer, a Priest of 
 the Church of England should be guided, in reference 
 to this highly responsible part of his sacred office. 
 
 And here, that I ma}^ not seem to be uttering sen- 
 timents either new, or foreign to the Church of 
 England, I would commend to the careful considera- 
 tion of your Lordship and of His Grace the Arch- 
 bishop, the words of one of His Grace's illustrious 
 predecessors in the chair of Canterbury — I mean 
 Archbishop Wake. " The Church of England refuses 
 no sort of Confession, either public or private, which 
 may be any way necessary to the quieting of men's 
 consciences ; or to the exercising of that power of 
 bindino' and loosiu"; which our Saviour has left to His 
 Church. We exhort men, if they have any the least 
 doubt or scruple — nay, sometimes, though they have 
 none, but especially before they receive the Holy 
 Sacrament, — to confess their sins. We propose to 
 them the benefit not only of ghostly advice, how to 
 manage their repentance, but the great comfort of 
 Absolution too, as soon as they shall have completed 
 it. Again, when we visit our sick, we never fail to 
 exhort them to make a special confession of their sins
 
 23 
 
 to him that ministers to them : and when tliey have 
 done it, the absolution is so full, that the Church of 
 Rome itself could not desire to add anything to it."* 
 
 III. It remains that I should state honestly to your 
 Lordship, how I endeavour to carry out these principles 
 in my own practice. 
 
 I have never presumed to enjoin any one to resort 
 to Confession as a pre-requisite to their admission to 
 the Holy Communion, or to any other rite of the 
 Church. I conceive it to be the duty of all Christians 
 to examine their own lives and conversations by the 
 rule of God's commandments, so as to ascertain their 
 real state and condition before God. But if a person 
 find himself unable to do this with sufficient certainty 
 to guide him in practice, or if having done it, he find 
 his conscience troubled with any weighty matter, I 
 consider that it is his inalienable right, as a member 
 of the Church of England, to resort to the Priest 
 
 • Wake's " Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of 
 England," under the head " Penance and Confession." 
 
 I may further add here, that in the first Book of Edward VI. 
 it was said : — 
 
 " Such as shall be satisfied with a general Confession, must not 
 be offended with those that do use to tlieir further satisfying, the 
 auricular and secret Confession to the Priest; and tliose also 
 which think needful and convenient, for the quietness of their 
 own consciences, particularly to open their sins to the Priest, must 
 not be offended with those that are satisfied with their humble 
 Confession to God, and the general Confession to the Church." 
 
 Upon which, Wheatly justly remarks: — 
 
 " So that we may still, I prcsuuie, wish, very consistenlly with 
 the determination of our Chureh, that our people would apply 
 themselves oftener than they do to their spiritual ])hysician, even 
 in the time of their health ; since it is much to be feared, th;^y are 
 wounded oftener than they complain, and yet through aversion to 
 disclosing tlieir sore, surfer it to gangrene, for want of their helj), 
 that should work the cure." — Wheatly, Booh of Common P rayer. 
 sect. iv.
 
 24 
 
 whom he may select, and make his confession. I 
 conceive it to be the duty of the Priest to hear the 
 confession — to make such enquiries respecting the 
 matter confessed, as he in his discretion may think 
 necessary — to give such directions for future conduct 
 as may best meet the case; and if the penitent humbly 
 and heartily desire it, to give him Absolution. 
 
 I consider that as the penitent alone is the judge of 
 that state of his mind which induces him to have 
 recourse to the Priest for Confession, and that without 
 appeal ; so it must be left to the j udgment of the 
 Priest to counsel or advise as he may see fit, and that 
 also without appeal, because by the 113th canon, the 
 Priest is not at liberty to divulge to any one whatso- 
 ever, any matter which has passed in Confession. In 
 the granting or withholding of Absolution, I con- 
 ceive that the Priest is, and must be, the sole judge 
 of his own act. He must officiate as in the presence 
 of God, to Whom alone he is responsible, for what 
 has been entrusted to him in Confession. 
 
 With regard to the frequency of Confession, the 
 Church imposes no definite rule — neither can I. Who 
 is to say how often an individual may feel unable to 
 quiet his own conscience, either upon the subject of 
 the Holy Communion, or in any other important 
 matter bearing upon It ? Yet so often as that dis- 
 quietude occurs, the Church authorizes him to go to 
 his Pastor. But though he be free to make applica- 
 tion to the Priest as occasion prompts him, the moral 
 influence of the Priest will have its due weight in the 
 matter; and if he have reason to think that the peni- 
 tent is morbidly exercising the right of coming to 
 Confession, so that it is in danger of becoming a snare 
 and a hindrance, rather than a help to spiritual pro- 
 gress, then I conceive it would be the Priest's duty 
 to point out the mischief of such a course, and by
 
 25 
 
 affectionate remonstrance to bring the applicant's 
 mind to a more healthy tone, and a stronger sense of 
 personal responsibility. 
 
 I have never encouraged persons under age to come 
 to me for any private communications, without the 
 knowledge and approval of their parents or guardians: 
 neither would 1 willingly receive the Confession of a 
 married woman, if she come without the cognizance 
 of her husband. But under both heads, (as every one 
 must perceive,) there may be exceptional cases. 
 
 I think again that great danger exists in allowing 
 Confessions to be heard by young men recently or- 
 dained, and not sufficiently learned or discreet for the 
 work; and I should be glad to hear that some steps 
 were taken by authority, to restrict the performance 
 of this function to those who by age, character, and 
 experience, are duly qualified for it. But until that is 
 done, I presume it is in the power of each Incumbent 
 to make such regulations with his own Curate as he 
 may think necessary ; for I feel deeply that too much 
 precaution cannot be taken to guard the Priest in 
 his duty, provided only that we recognize the right 
 of the laity to this ministration. 
 
 They who are most experienced in the guidance of 
 souls can tell us best, how great help this kind of 
 intercourse with their Pastor is to those who are 
 earnestly seeking repentance : and proportionable to 
 that benefit is the sin of those, who from ignorance, 
 party spirit, or prejudice, or love of notoriety, would 
 debar penitent sinners from seeking a help which may 
 be the turning-point of their salvation, as 1 verily 
 believe it is in multitudes of cases. 
 
 There remains one point of much importance on 
 which I feel bound to make your Lordship acquainted 
 with my views. 
 
 Your Lordship has stated, in your condemnation of
 
 Q6 
 
 Mr. Poole, that you consider the questioning, espe- 
 cially of females, on the subject of violations of the 
 Seventh Commandment, to be of very dangerous ten- 
 dency. Putting aside, as denied by Mr. Poole, and 
 not yet proven, the particular questions with which 
 he was charged, 1 most readily admit the difficulty of 
 this part of our duty, the need of much prayer and 
 self-discipline, and the great impropriety, nay, sin, on 
 the part of the Confessor, of asking any questions 
 on this Commandment, which do not strictly arise 
 out of matters confessed, or out of the circumstances 
 of the penitent, otherwise known to him ; because h s 
 duty is simply to aid the penitent in an unreserved 
 confession of past acts of sin, not to suggest fresh evil. 
 
 1 hope I may be permitted to consider that this is 
 your Lordship's general meaning ; for I cannot con- 
 ceive your Lordship to imply, that God's Ministers 
 are to be more silent upon one part of His holy law 
 than upon another; or that sinners' consciences are to 
 be least probed upon that Commandment, which, in 
 spirit and in letter, is, by general admission, most 
 violated. 
 
 The law of the Church, in the Visitation Office, 
 enjoins us to examine whether the penitient believe and 
 repent aright — and how can we examine without some 
 questioning ? It may be dangerous to question, but 
 ma}^ it not be yet more damjerous to a sinner's soul to 
 be silent, if his besetting sin by that means be slurred 
 over, and allowed to escape his notice ? 
 
 The Word of God speaks with fearful plainness 
 upon this class of evil. The Church, in her selection 
 of Scripture lessons at certain seasons, is no less 
 explicit; and whether His authorized Ministers can 
 be silent upon the subject, either in their public or 
 private ministrations, without grievous detriment to 
 the higliest interests of morality, is a question deserving
 
 27 
 
 the very gravest consideration, which, for myself 
 I will acknowledge I dare only answer in one way.. 
 What is admitted, by universal consent, to be the 
 great social eril of the present day ? And shall we 
 expect to stem it, either in individuals or in society, 
 by simply ignoring it ? 
 
 The medical man is exposed to far greater risk of 
 evil imputations than the priesthood, in the pursuit of 
 his profession: and the vicious may doubtless here and 
 there, abuse the trust reposed in them; yet the general 
 interests of the community and the value of human 
 life, imperatively demand that such trust, in reference 
 to the treatment of the body, should be largely given ; 
 and if a practitioner lost a critical case, through 
 hesitation to investigate the symptoms, he would 
 neither be doing justice to his patient, nor to the noble 
 profession, of which he is a member. Moreover, 
 he would render himself liable to the penalties of the 
 law, if by any neglect on his part the patient died. 
 Reasoning then from the close analogy which exists 
 between the two cases, and knowing fidl well that 
 your Lordship will admit the interests of the soul to 
 be infinitely higher than those of the body, I must 
 confidently claim at your hands, in spite of its possible 
 danger, at least as much freedom in investigating 
 causes of spiritual diseases and death, as is not only 
 willingly conceded, but demanded by the public, 
 in the instance of all bodily ailments. And I would 
 rest my claim upon those solemn words of warning, 
 which your Lordship is called upon to recite in the 
 Ordination Service, to every Priest on whom your 
 Episcopal hands are to be laid : — " If it shall happen 
 the same Church, or any member thereof, to take any 
 hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye 
 know the greatness of the fault, and also the horrible 
 punishment that will ensue."
 
 28 
 
 In corroboration of the above, I have before me at 
 this moment, a communication from a deeply religious 
 member of the other profession, whose name, were I to 
 mention it, would command universal respect. He 
 says, " I had thought of writing to the Bishop of 
 London, to shew the necessity of Confession, from the 
 facts which come before medical men — where they 
 have to deal with cases of physical, mental, and moral 
 ruin, consequent on evil habits unconsciously con- 
 tracted in early life, which might have been averted 
 by timely warning and counsel."* 
 
 * 1 have since received tlie following letter from the same 
 writer, which I insert in full : — 
 
 " My dear Mr. Liddell, 
 
 " I rejoice lo find that you are about to address the 
 Bishop on the subject of Confession. 
 
 ** In the course of my professional career, many sad cases have 
 come before me, which have foiced on me the conviction, that 
 spiritual guidance in early life would prove an inestimable blessing 
 to the young of both sexes, in guarding and preserving them from 
 those snares and pitfalls which involve thousands in physical and 
 moral ruin. How often would a timely admonition prevent the 
 formation of evil habits, heedlessly and ignorantly acquired, which 
 sorelv undermine the health, enfeeble the will, and so weaken the 
 whole moral character, as to render life a burden, and too often 
 bring the poor victim to a lunatic asylum ! 
 
 " Such cases are far more frequent than many suppose ; but I 
 have no hesitation in saying, that they would be much less fre- 
 quent if the Bishops and Clergy knew more of human nature, and 
 really set themselves to the work of cwing s\n-s'\ck souls. Sooner 
 or later, these unhappy persons come to us to seek relief from 
 their wasting misery — the renewal of their shattered health, and 
 the reinvigoration of their desponding spirits. My heart sickens 
 with sorrow when I recall the wretchedness and hypochondriasis 
 which many of them suflier; especially those, who, having awoke 
 to a consciousness of the sin and misery to which they have 
 brou<Tht themselves, have long vainly struggled in prayer, un- 
 ceasing efforts, rigid self-denial, and mortification, to pluck from 
 their breasts this worse than Promethean vultui e which consumes 
 their hope and joy. For the cases to which 1 now refer are not
 
 29 
 
 One more illustration I will draw from the practice 
 of the legal profession. Let us suppose the case of a 
 person, either involved in pecuniary difficulties, or 
 
 found among the licentious and debased, but among the good and 
 refined, who sincerely desire to lead a religious life. Most heartily 
 do I wish that the Bishop of London had some experience of the 
 anguish which such endure, and their great need of, and strong 
 desire for, spiritual guidance and sti'ength. He could not then 
 have acted as he has done in the case of Mr. Poole. He would 
 not dare to incur the fearful responsibility of ciushing their whole 
 spiritual life. I trust, however, that the Clergy will suffer nothing 
 to hinder them in the exercise of one of the most important and 
 highest functions of their sacred office, but boldly offer the ministry 
 of reconciliation to their weak and erring brethren. We cheer- 
 fully and unsuspectingly use all the appliances of our art to 
 mitigate the physical evils consequent on the violations of the 
 Seventh Commandment; and shall Bishops and Priests withhold 
 that balm which Christ has left in His Church for wounded 
 and diseased souls, through fear of such dangers as may attend 
 the practice of Confession, or because a fanatical and sensual mob 
 cry out against it, as did the devils of old against the power of the 
 Lord, ** Torment us not before our time?" Are the dangers (if 
 there be such) of Confession to be for one moment compared with 
 the countless perils which beset the path of those who never resort 
 to it? Which, I ask, brings the greater "scnndal upon theChurch?" 
 Why should it be more dangerous and scandalous for a Priest 
 to ask young women questions relating to the Seventh Com- 
 mandment than for a medical man to do so ? The consulting room 
 is almost as sacred and confidential as the confessional ; but wc 
 medical men are not (through any fear of dangers) deterred from 
 asking such questions, and making such investigations, as may be 
 necessary to ascertain the nature and extent of the disease we are 
 called upon to treat. To impure minds this may be lull of danger; 
 but the conscientious practitioner would not consider that a justi- 
 fication of himself, if he had neglected any means necessaiy to 
 search out the disease of the body. And yet in that more fatal 
 disease of the soul which issues in eternal death, are our spiritual 
 physicians, the Clergy, to be forbidden to act? This law of God 
 is almost universally violated either in the letter or the spirit; and 
 is the mouth of every Priest to be stopj)ed who should ask young 
 •women any questions relating thereto, with the view of saving 
 their souls from hell ? 
 
 This senseless cry about the Seventh Commandment is nothing
 
 30 
 
 pressed by any of those misfortunes, which sometimes 
 liappen from the misconduct of children, or of any 
 other member of the family. Now, if such an one 
 go to obtain the opinion of his legal adviser, will not 
 the first question asked of him be, "Have you told me 
 the whole state o' the case? " and will not the lawyer 
 who knows his business, probe his client to the utmost, 
 until he is satisfied of having- obtained every fact, 
 which can make for or against his cause — so that he 
 may know how to take advantage of what is good in 
 the case, and may also ascertain the weak points 
 against which he is to prepare himself and client, as 
 far as he can ? And do you think, my Lord, that the 
 spiritual adviser should be less cautious, or that we 
 are in this case to furnish a further illustration of that 
 saying of our Divine Master — " The children of this 
 world are, in their generation, wiser than the children 
 of light?" 
 
 better than maudlin sentimentality, when thousands of both sexes, 
 and in every rank of like, are being continually slain, body and 
 soul, by the violation of it. Let all those tiiat take up this 
 groundless alarm, go to our hospitals, and see the mass of wasting 
 disease and misery, consrqucnt on the breach of this Divine law, 
 and when they have contemplated the sad and sickening spectacle, 
 let them remember that over and above all this, there exists, 
 among the educated and refined, an untold amount of mental and 
 physical suffering arising from the same cause. Let them consider 
 all this, and then say, if they can be so insensible to the weakness 
 and misery of fallen humanity, that the healing which Christ 
 has left in His Church shall not be applied. Souls may perish 
 by thousands, but it is loo indelicate a thing, forsooth, for a priest 
 to warn a young woman against sins, which may perchance make 
 her the companion of devils! We all know that with the utmost 
 propriety and decorum in our outward life, the fatal disease may 
 be lurking in the hidden soul. 
 
 I am, dear Mr. Liddell, 
 
 Yours sincerely,
 
 31 
 
 I have thus far taken the liberty of freely expressing- 
 my mind to your Lordship, upon the doctrine and 
 practice of Confession and Absolution. I will now say 
 a few words upon some of its accessories, which have 
 been brought under discussion. 
 
 In a conversation, which I had the honor of holding: 
 with your Lordship on the 10th of May, respecting 
 Mr. Poole's case, I asked what your Lordship would 
 consider a Priest ought to do, if a person came to him 
 in strict compliance with the directions in the Commu- 
 nion office, to open his grief, and to desire Absolution? 
 Your Lordship will doubtless remember the substance 
 of your reply, which consisted only of a series of 
 negations, viz., that the Priest ought not to wear his 
 surplice — nor to require the penitent to make his Con- 
 fession on his knees, before a Cross — nor to use a form 
 preliminary to the Confession itself, nor yet a form of 
 Absolution, similar to those in use in the Church of 
 Rome. 1 must confess that these negations, as to mere 
 accessories, conveyed no definite information whatever 
 to my mind, as to what a Priest ought to do in the 
 performance of the essential parts of this sacerdotal 
 duty. 
 
 So far as Mr. Poole was concerned, I knew that he 
 was not responsible for the Cross in the vestry of 
 S. Barnabas', nor could I agree with your Lordship, 
 in considering it inexpedient that a penitent should 
 make confession kneeling before that sacred symbol, 
 which tends so forcibly to remind us of that Saviour of 
 the world, by Whose Cross and precious Blood we 
 have been redeemed : neither can 1 admit, that there 
 is an identity between the form of opening a Confession 
 with a simple appeal to the three Persons of the 
 Blessed Trinity, such as I believe Mr. Poole has used, 
 and the Roman form, which includes an invocation 
 to the Blessed Virgin, and S. John Baptist, the holy
 
 32 
 
 Apostles, and all the Saints, any more than there is an 
 identity between our version of" the Nicene Creed, and 
 that denominated the Creed of Pope Pius IV, to which 
 the Tridentine decrees are appended. And as to the 
 Form of Absolution, I know that Mr. Poole has used 
 none other than that prescribed in the Visitation Office. 
 
 But with respect to the general bearing of these 
 negations, the only inference I could draw from them 
 was that, in your Lordship's opinion, the more 
 informal a Priest of our Church was, in the matter of 
 private Confession and Absolution, the further he was 
 removing himself and the penitent from the dangers 
 of Romanism. I can only respectfully assure your 
 Lordship, that my ministerial experience leads me to 
 exactly the opposite conclusion. I have found that 
 many devout persons not unnaturally connect infor- 
 mality, in the performance of sacred functions, with 
 irreverence, or in other words, with a want of realizing 
 the full solemnity of what we are about, or the presence 
 of Him, in Whose Holy Name we are ministering. 
 This leaves a very painful impression on the minds of 
 such persons, and causes them to contrast our Com- 
 munion unfavorably with that of the Church of Rome, 
 in which, to speak with fairness, the public offices of 
 religion are administered with great care and precision. 
 
 So again, if they see their Clergy disparaging some 
 of the highest parts of their office — ignoring their own 
 priestly character — contented to stand upon the low 
 level of Presbyterianism, and going counter in many 
 details of their ministrations to the plain directions of 
 the Prayer Book, they are led to ask themselves 
 whether the Ecclesiastical system of the Church of 
 England, as developed in her offices, be not a mere 
 theory and an unreality. They are perplexed with 
 the want of unity around them — and well they may 
 be!
 
 33 
 
 But if, on the other hand, they see some at least of 
 their Clergy endeavouring, through evil report and good 
 report, to work out in their practice the whole of the 
 Church's law; — if they see the Churches of such men 
 opened for daily prayers and frequent communions, 
 and the men themselves upholding their sacred office, 
 and fearlessly performing all its functions; — then they 
 are led to hope that that branch of the Church 
 in which, by God's providence, their lot has been cast, 
 is still instinct with Divine life ; that it may yet go 
 on, nnder God's blessing, guiding and leavening 
 popular opinion, instead of timorously truckling to it; 
 and they themselves rise up with more steadfast heart 
 determined to do their own part in the Church's cause, 
 and at any cost of personal suffering to maintain 
 every portion of the sacred deposit of Catholic truth 
 committed in a measure to their trust. 
 
 Let me admit then, that my own spiritual instincts 
 accord with the minds of such as I describe — many of 
 whom I am thankful to number among my cono-re- 
 gations ; and therefore I should, upon principle, en- 
 deavour in all such priestly acts, as the hearing of 
 private Confession and conveying Absolution, to 
 mark them with all the formality, which 1 think they 
 deserve. 
 
 Thus I hold, that the most proper place for this 
 ministration is the Church, or some spot within the 
 precincts of the Church, as for example the Vestry .*- 
 With a further view to avoid informality, and as a 
 great safeguard to the Priest himself, I think it highly 
 
 * It has been attempted to exasperate the public mind against 
 my Curate by tlie mention of a darkened chamber and other 
 exaggerations of that kind, so it is as well that I should mention 
 that the room he used was simply and solely a vestry of S. 
 Barnabas, with such light as the time of day admitted into two 
 windows, one on each side of the room. 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 desirable, that ho should put on his ecclesiastical vest- 
 ments, and that the penitent should make Confession 
 kneeh'no;, as is our custom witli other acts of devotion 
 towards Almighty God, and as is specially directed 
 with reg'ard to tlie general Confessions made in the 
 public Services in the Church. 
 
 I am aware that a layman in my district, of mature 
 age and in the highest ranks of society, who has b^en 
 accustomed for many years to go from time to time 
 to Confession, has informed your Lordship of the 
 comfort he has always found on such occasions in 
 being reminded by the sioht of the Cross of the healing 
 doctrines which it symbolizes; and again, that it would 
 never enter into his head to make confession in any 
 other position than on his knees. 
 
 In conclusion, your Lordship will, I am sure, permit 
 me to draw your attention to the remarkable manner 
 in which the fomenters of popular agitation upon the 
 subject of Confession and Absolution get over the 
 stajru'cring: fact, tliat both the one and the other are 
 permitted — and in some instances recommended — in 
 our Prayer Book. They admit the fact, but they cut the 
 Gordian knot by saying, "that the Prayer Book (that 
 manual of Enghsh Churchmen — such as they with 
 much inconsistency still call themselves,) is a relic of 
 Popery !" — "that it was compiled some three hundred 
 years ago, when we were just emerging from darkness: 
 but it is not to be supposed that in these enlightened 
 times the people are going to submit to this thraldom 
 of priestcraft ! " Now I ask first, in the name of com- 
 mon sense and justice, Who are the traitors? They 
 who renounce their sacred calling, or they who con- 
 tinue in it ? '^I hey who denv the doctrine of their own 
 Prayer Book and denounce its directions; or they who 
 believe the one and follow the other ?
 
 35 
 
 But let this pass — We have to do with the Church 
 as it is — not as men may think it ought to he; though 
 it would he well for all, who have any reverence for 
 the Church of Enghmd, to consider seriously iuto 
 whose hands they are playing, by joining with those 
 who revile the Clergy, for strictly carrying out her 
 directions. We do not seek to force our views upon 
 those who are unwilling to accept them. We only 
 claim to believe what the Church, even by the admission 
 of our adversaries, does teacli, and to do what she 
 does authorize. 
 
 For my part, I have a strong conviction, that truth 
 will always bear sifting ; and I have no doubt that 
 God will, in His great mercy, bring out the true 
 doctrine of our Church upon this controverted 
 point, by the instrumentality of its very adversaries. 
 Satan is very crafty — l)ut he generally overreaches 
 himself. 
 
 Tlie doctrine of the two blessed Sacraments of 
 Christ our Lord, has, each in its turn, been vehemently 
 assailed of late years. And what is the result ? They 
 are both far better understood and more deeply rever- 
 enced by the mass of English Churchmen than they 
 were before. 
 
 Another link in the great chain of Sacramental 
 Truth is now passnig through the fire. 1 hanks be to 
 God, Who does not put upon us trials more or 
 greater than we can bear! lie will doubtless in His 
 good time fulfil the promise, " If any man will do 
 His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be 
 of God." He will purge away the dross, and leave 
 the gold refined. " If this counsel or this work be of 
 men, it will come to nought," said Gamaliel to the 
 Jewish council of rulers; ''but if it be of God ye can- 
 not overthrow it : lest haply ye be found even to fight 
 against God." 
 
 d2
 
 36 
 
 That He may overrule present events to the glory 
 of His own great Name, the salvation of penitent 
 sinners' souls, and the stability of the Church of 
 England, is the earnest prayer of. 
 
 My Lord, 
 Your Lordship's faithful Servant, 
 
 ROB^- LIDDELL. 
 
 36, Wilton Crescent, 
 August, 1858.
 
 37 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 To the Rio^ht Honorable and Most Reverend John Bird, by 
 Divine Providence Loud Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate 
 of all England and Metropolitan: 
 
 The humble Petition of Alfred Poole, Clerk, 
 Master of Aris, presented to His Grace undtr and 
 by virtue of the provisions of the Statute 1 & 2 Vict., 
 cap. lOG. 
 
 Sheweth — 
 
 That he, the said Reverend Alfred Poole, was 
 licensed by the late Lord Bishop of London, on the 2Gth Sept., 
 1851, as Assistant Stipendiai-y Curate in the Church of S.Barnabas, 
 in the District Chapelry of S. Paul, Wilton Place, in the 
 County of Middlesex, and that he has from that time till the 
 revocation of his license by the present Lord Bishop of London, 
 as hereinafter mentioned, on the 25th May, 1858, served as such 
 Curate without, as he believes, any reproach or objection, except 
 in the single instance hereinafter mentioned. 
 
 That on the 22nd of March, 1858, he received from the Lord 
 Bishop of London a letter, of which the following is a copy : — 
 
 " Fulham, March 22nd, 1858. 
 " Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 " I have received a formal complaint from the Hon. and 
 Rev. F. Baring against you, respecting the practice of Confession 
 at S Barnabas. The practices attributed to you are of such a 
 character, that for your own sake, as well as that of the Church, 
 this matter must be fully investigated. I thcrefoi-e shall feel 
 obliged by your calling on nic to-morrow at Loudon tlouse, and 
 if you will send your name to my Chaplain, 1 will see you at 
 once. 
 
 " I remain. 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 " Rev. Mr. Poole." A. C. London.
 
 38 
 
 That on the 23rd March, 1858, in consequence of the above 
 letter, he had an interview with the Bishop of London at London 
 House. 
 
 That at this interview the Bishop read to him certain statements, 
 which the Bishop informed him had been forwarded to him, the 
 Bishop, by the Hon. and Rev. F. Baring, which statements were 
 to the tenor and eftect following : — 
 
 [Part of the Eoidence is omitted as being unfit for publication.] 
 
 " Evidence of Susan Buckingham. — I am 26 years of age. I 
 have resided for the last 13 months at No. 12, Whitaker-street, 
 in the district of S. Barnabas. I was married seven years ago : 
 my husband, who was in the Guaids, died about two years ago. 
 Miss Joy, one of the district visitors, whom I had known pre- 
 viously, pressed me to n ceive the Sacrament, particularly on last 
 Good Fiiday, and begged me to go to Mr Poole; upon which I 
 went on Good Friday evening. I then told him that I wished to 
 receive the Communion on Kaster Sunday. I was confiimed at 
 the aoo of 17, and told Mr. Poole so : Mr. Poole then said it was 
 too short a lime for preparation, and that I must come to him on 
 Monday evening to make open confession. I went on the Monday 
 at 9 o'clock to his own room : he then asked me if I had ever 
 robbed any one ? if I had ever pilfered trifling things i'rom my 
 mother, such as sugar and halfpence ? [ *^ * * * * 
 • * * * * * ] whether I had ever been to a 
 Priest? Upon which, I said 1 was not a Catholic. He replied, 
 that he was my Priest now, and that I must open my mind to 
 him as my holy father, and that God had given him the power to 
 remit or retain all my sins, and that he had the keys to heaven. 
 He then told me that I must go into a dark room with liim on 
 the i'ollowing Friday at 3 o'clock. Miss Joy called the following 
 day, and told me to be sure to go to Mr. Poole, and that unless i 
 went, they could not tliink of doing anything ioi- me : she then 
 gave ine a grocery ticket. I did not go on the following Fiiday, 
 as 1 was afraid ; upon which Miss Joy told me that Mr. Poole 
 could not think of giving me anything more, from my disap| oint- 
 ing him : alter which 1 went down to Mr. Poole, and staled that 
 1 had not bread for my children ; upon which he sent me word 
 that he had nothing to do with my worldly aft'airs but only 
 my spiritual. 1 did not go to Mr. Poole again until last autumn 
 — it was on a Monday, and he appointed me to come to him t)n the 
 lollowing Friday at 4 o'clock. 1 was taken by him through the 
 parsonage into the dark room, where 1 could haidly see : lie then 
 locked the door : he went into the room in a black gown, he then
 
 39 
 
 put a white one over it, witli a girdle round bis waist: he then 
 told me to kneel down before a large cross placed upon a table, 
 upon which stood two large candles which were not lit ; he was 
 seated in a chair by my side; he ihon said — 'You must do as 
 your holy father tells you,' and repeated sevei'ul words, such as 
 God the Fathku, Goi> the Son, and God the Holy Ghost ;' 
 he then asked me[* * * * * * * *] 
 He told me not to be ashamed to tell my holy father these things. 
 I went to him again in about a fortnight, and was examined 
 in his own room respecting my thoughts during the past fort- 
 night : he then asked rae[* * * * * * * 
 * * * * ] At the end of another fortnight I went to 
 him again on a Friday, at 4 o'clock : I was taken by another way 
 into the dark room ; 1 knelt down the same as before : he then 
 wanted me to go through my confession again, but I refused : he 
 then asked if I had anything fresh to tell him, particularly about my 
 thou<:hts; he then stood beliirid me, with hi> hands upon my bead, 
 and said some words in a limguage that I could not undcistand, 
 which 1 supposed was Latin, a?id gave me AI)solutii)n. I then 
 left him, with instructions to go the following Monday, when he 
 told me that my mountain of sins were all removed, and gave me 
 a book called ' The Stepa to the Altarj' which 1 was carrfully to 
 read, and that, when I hiid done penance in the Church, I might 
 receive the Holy Communion. 1 then told him, that I should 
 not think of doing penance. The reason of my having been con- 
 demned to penance, was, my having confessed to have sold two 
 pawn-tickets tor coats ol my brother's to procure food for my 
 children, but for which my brother wrote to me to say that I had 
 acted quite right, under the circumstances. Afier he had given 
 me Absolution, he gave me l.v. a-week for seven weeks, and 5,v. to 
 redeem some clothes from pawn, in order that I might go into 
 service; but he told me that I was not to receive the Communion 
 before I saw him again, but I never have been to him since. I 
 have received a note from him, accusing me of telling falsehoods, 
 in not going out to service when I piomised to do so ; but 1 tried 
 hard, but could not obtain a situation in consequence of my being 
 so long out of place. The whole of this evidence I am ready to 
 state upon oath in the j)resence of Mr. Poole; and if there is any 
 inaccuracy, it is only iji the days, but I believe that to be coii-ect ; 
 and no j)romise has ever been made to me, directly or indirectly, 
 ot any sort of reward lor the evidence I have now given." 
 
 " Evidence of Elizabeth Shiers. — I am 50 years of age. I 
 have been married 30 years, and have lived six years in the parish
 
 40 
 
 of S. Barnabas. Miss Joy first came to me about two years ap^o ; 
 finding that I was in distress, she gave me a grocery ticket, and 
 told me to go to S. Barnabas' Church, and promised to relieve 
 me if I would go. 1 consented to go last Good Friday: she told 
 me to go in the evening to see Mr. Poole; I went at 9 o'clock 
 and saw him. In the hall there were nine or ten other persons 
 waiting. Mr. Poole asked me what I came for? I told him that 
 I wii^hed to receive the Communion on Easter Sunday, and he 
 told me he could not think of letting me do that, as there was so 
 little time for preparation, and that 1 must come to him first. 1 
 did not like this, and I did not go to him until some time after- 
 wards ; but in consequence of what he said, I did not receive the 
 Sacrament. Miss Joy came again, and pressed me to go to Mr. 
 Poole: I went first on a Monday evening: 1 then told him that 
 I felt very much hurt at being refused for Easter Sunday, as 1 
 had been in the habit of receiving it onee a month for 11 years, 
 when I resided in the countiy; upon which he said that their 
 rules were diftbrent from those in the country — that he did not 
 allow any one to receive the Holy Communion without going to 
 him to make a full confession ; by doing so, that he would give 
 me Absolution, after which I might receive the Holy Communion. 
 It was appointed that I should go to him on the following Fiiday; 
 I went accordingly at 4, into his room, and sat down on a chair 
 in front of him : he asked me it I was penitent.'' I told him that 
 1 felt grieved at keeping fiom the Loiuj's table so long. He then 
 asked me if I h.ad ever made confession to a Priest? J said, 
 Mo 1 there were no Catholics where 1 came from, and I did not 
 understand what he meant by Confession to him : he said that I 
 need not be afraid of telling him anything, for it was kept strictly 
 secret, and that God had given him power to letain or remit my 
 sins. 1 asked him to write down questions he would ask me : he 
 replied, that lie could not do that, but tliat ho would lend me a 
 book, which he did, called the * Book of Confession :' that I was 
 to divide my life into periods of seven years, and to recollect every 
 circumstance that had taken place in each period, and that I 
 must not be ashamed to tell him, if I had ever had [ * * * 
 •*•****] he cautioned me to be 
 careful, and not to forget anything: he then appointed me to 
 come the following Friday; I went, but he was engaged. 1 
 was afterwards ill, and obliged to go to the hospital : 1 then 
 wrote to him to call upon me, as I was too ill to go out; but 
 he sent word by Mrs. Buckingham that he could not come to me. 
 When 1 was better, I went to him, but he could not see me, and 
 I have never seen him since.''
 
 41 
 
 " Evidence of Caroline Harding. — I reside in No. 6, Passmore- 
 street, in the district of S. Barnabas. I am 34 years of age, and 
 have been married 15 years I was examined for Confirmation 
 by Dr. Burgess when I lived in his parish. One of the lady 
 visitors called upon me several times, and urged me to attend the 
 Communion, upon which I stated tbat 1 had a desire to do so. 
 Mr. Poole called upon me — it must be eight or nine months ago ; 
 he told me tbat before I received the Holy Communion, that I 
 must attend his class and be examined : I replied that I had been 
 examined for Confirmation, and knew the nature of the Sacra- 
 ment; he then said that he must see me privately for half-an-hour 
 first : 1 replied that 1 had nothing to confess, except to my Maker ; 
 he answered that my attendance was absolutely necessary before 1 
 could be permitted to attend the Communion. My husband 
 would not allow me to go, as he said that he knew it was for 
 Confession, where others were compelled to go if they hoped to 
 leceive any relief. 1 have since attended chapel, and none of the 
 Curates have been near my house since." 
 
 That the petitioner denied before the Bishop, as he denies now 
 before your Grace, most solemnly, that he ever put to the women, 
 whose statements are above given, or to any persons, the indecent 
 and disgusting questions contained in the above statements, or any 
 questions of a similar import ; and that he then asserted to the 
 Bishop, as he asseits now to your Grace, that the statements, so 
 far as they express that he did so, are entirely and deliberately 
 false. 
 
 That at the said interview, the Bishop put to the petitioner 
 many inteirogatoiies, both as to the statements of the women 
 above-mentioned, and also as to his opinions upon the general 
 subject of Confession; to which interrogatories, the petiticmer gave 
 such answeis as he could make at the moment ; but that he look 
 no notes, and has no distinct recollection of the language of such 
 his answers. 
 
 That the petitioner heard nothing further from the Bishop upon 
 the subject, until the second week alter Easter, when he again saw 
 the Bishop at London House, at the Bishop's desire; and that on 
 this occasion he was alone, while the Bishop was attended l)y his 
 Secretaiy, who the petitioner is informed, and believes, is a gentle- 
 man belonging to the profession of the law. 
 
 ihat at tliis interview the Bishop informed the petitioner that 
 he had since the last interview instituted enquiries, independent of 
 the statement laid before him by Mr. Baring; and the Bishoj) 
 read to the petitioner a statement of evidence which had been
 
 42 
 
 taken down by his Lordship's own a^ent or adviser from the same 
 "witnesses, in the absence and without the knowledge of tiie peti- 
 tioner, tojrethcr with the statements of another witness, taken in 
 the same manner, wI)o was not mentioned in the statement of Mr. 
 Barinj;. And the Bishop further stated, that he had satisfied 
 himself that no reliance was to be placed upon tlie evidence of the 
 |)ersons whose statements had been, as before-mentioned, trans- 
 mitted by Mr. Baring ; and proceeded further, as at the fonner 
 interview, to interrogate the petitioner as to his opinions upon the 
 subject of Confession, and to take notes in writing of the peti- 
 tioner's replies. 
 
 That at this interview, the petitioner requested to be furnished, 
 and was furnished by the Bishop with a copy of the statements 
 forwarded to His Lordship, as aforesaid, by iMr. Baring ; which 
 statements he returned to His Loidship in a few days, vvith a 
 paper containining his own roniaj-ks thereon — a copy of which 
 paper, marked (A), accompanies this petition ; and to which the 
 petitioner begs leave to refer, as forming pait of his statement and 
 petition ; but the peliiioner was not furnished with a copy of the 
 Bishop's notes of his, the petitioner's, replies. The said notes 
 were never read over to him then, or at any other time ; nor does 
 he now know the language of his replies, or what the Bishop con- 
 ceived to be the effect of the language he then made use of. 
 
 That shortly after this, the petitioner was invited by the Bishop 
 of London to be present, and was present, at an evening party at 
 London House, on M-hich occasion the Hev. Robert Liddell, 
 Incumbent of S. I'aul's, Wilton place, aforesaid, was likewise 
 pj-esent ; and the |)etiiioner was informed by the said Rev. Robert 
 Liddell, and verily believes that the Bishop of London then said 
 to the said Rev. Robert Liddell, that he did not know that the 
 petitioner had been quite discreet in all that he had done, or words 
 to that effect; but that the matter was at an end, or words to that 
 effect. 
 
 That nothing further was heard by the petitioner upon the 
 subject until the 5th of May, 1858, and that he conceived from 
 the time which had elapsed, and from the conversation between 
 the Bishop and the Rev. Robert Liddell as above set forth, that 
 the matter was at an end. 
 
 That on the said 5tli of May, after a Confirmation held in the 
 S. Paul's Church, the Bishop intimated to the j)elitioner that he 
 should give his judgment upon the subject in a few days, and 
 asked the petitioner it he had anything fuither to say upon it, to 
 which the petitioner, believing entirely trom what had passed 
 between himself and the Bishop, and between the Bishop and the
 
 43 
 
 Rev. R. Liddell, that His Lordship was satisfied upon the matter, 
 replied that he had not. 
 
 That to the very gieat surprise and sorrow of the petitioner, he 
 received the followini": letter from the Bishop on the 8th of May, 
 1858, in which the Bishop, as will ap])ear from the letter itself, 
 expressed his intention of withdrawing the petitioner's license quite 
 independently of the evidence brought against him : — 
 
 " London House, May 8th, 1858. 
 
 " Rtv. and dear Sir, 
 
 " I have very carefully, and with a very earnest desire 
 to do what is right, considered the complaint made against you by 
 the Hon. and Rev. F. Baring, and the communications which have 
 passed between myself and you in connection with this complaint. 
 
 " While I fully admit that the statements you have made to 
 me, tend to make me look with much suspicion upon the par- 
 ticular evidence laid before me, I regret to say, that quite inde- 
 pendenly of that evidence, I am led by your own admissions to 
 reuard the course you are in the habit of pursuing, in reference to 
 Confession, as likely to cause scandal and injury to the Church. 
 I feel especially, that this questioning of females on the subject of 
 violations of the Seventh Commandment is of a dangerous ten- 
 dency; and I am convinced, generally, that the sort of systematic 
 admission of your people to Confession and Absolution, which 
 you iiave allowed to be your practice, ought not to take place. 
 
 " Under the circumstances, I feel I ought to mark my sense of 
 the impropriety of what you describe as your practice, and I shall 
 therefore feel myself bound, though with great pain, to withdraw 
 your license as Curate of S. Jiarnabas, and shall send you formal 
 notice accordingly. 
 
 " I earnestly pray that this solemn protest, on my i)art, against 
 a course in which I believe you have departed from the spirit and 
 practice of the Church of England, and assin)ilaied your mode of 
 dealing with your people too much to the system of the Church 
 of Rome, may cause you to pause and reflect on the dangers to 
 which such a course of action as you have adopted, may expose 
 both yourself and those over whom you exercise influence; and I 
 trust you will allow me to add, that 1 shall at any time be glad to 
 give you my best advice and assistance in the difficulties in which 
 you are involved. 
 
 " I remain, 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 Yours faiihfullv, 
 
 " Rev. Alfred Poole." A. C. LuNUOX.
 
 44 
 
 That the petitioner addresfed to the Bishop the following' letter, 
 in answer to the preceding letter from the Bishop to liimself : — 
 
 " S. Barnabas' College, May 11th. 
 " My dear Lord Bishop, 
 
 " I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's 
 letter of the 8th instant, in which quite independently of the 
 particular evidence brought against me, your Lordship proposes 
 to take the extreme course of withdrawing my license uprn the 
 ground that I have departed from the spirit and practice of the 
 Church of England, as regards Confession. 
 
 " I should be even more surprised and grieved than I am by 
 the severity of your Lordship's threatened sentence, did it not 
 strengthen my conviction that your Lordship must be under some 
 misapprehension as to the course I have pursued in this respect. 
 
 "Considering the very grave consequences which must ensue 
 from the carrying out of such a sentence as your Lordship con- 
 templates, I feel sure that I may trust to your Lordship's kind 
 consideration to allow me the fullest opportunity of defending 
 myself against so serious a charge. 
 
 " 1 beg to assure your Lordship, that I have always endeavoured 
 to follow conscientiously and strictly the teaching of ihe Church 
 of England as regards Confession. If 1 have erred in this respect, 
 I am most willing to acknowledge my error, and to conform my 
 practice to the Church's teaching. But I am at piesent unaware, 
 in mv own conscience, or from anything which your Lordship has 
 said, in what respects I have departed from the laws of the Church 
 or the spirit of her teaching. I beg therefore most respectfully to 
 request your Lordship to point out what are the particulars, either 
 as regards my admissions, to which you refer, or anything 1 
 have done, on which your Lordship's severe animadversion is 
 founded. 
 
 *' 1 refrain from entering into any explanations until I hear 
 further from your Lordship what are the particular grounds upon 
 which your Lordship supposes me to have contravened the laws 
 of the Church. But in the event of your Lord^hip siill thinking, 
 upon full explanation, that my practice has been in anywise at 
 variance with the same, I would further ask your Lordship to be 
 kind enough to give me such instructions as may enable me to 
 act, according to my heart's desire, in strict obedience to the 
 Church's laws. 
 
 " 1 cannot but hope that when I am ready to acknowledge my 
 error — if I have erred— and my earnest desire to do my duty 
 faithfully and strictly according to the Chuich's guidance, your
 
 45 
 
 Lordship will re- consider the extreme measure contemplated, viz., 
 that of severing my connexion with a parish in which I have 
 laboured for the last seven years." 
 
 That the petitioner received on the 13th May, the folIowin'T 
 letter from the Bishop : — 
 
 " London House, May 13th, 1858. 
 " Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 " I have already stated that what I object to in the 
 course which you admitted to me that you pursue, is, that ques- 
 tioninfj, especially of females, on the subject of violations of the 
 Seventh Commandment, which seems to me of very danj^erous 
 tendency, and a systematic admission of your people to Conifossion 
 and Absolution going beyond anything contemplated by the 
 services or teaching of our Church. 
 
 " I very greatly regret that I cannot alter the opinion at which 
 I have arrived with much pain, and after very long and serious 
 consideration, that it is for your own good and that of your people, 
 that I should withdraw your licence. I earnestly trust and pray 
 that this strong protest on my part may have the desired effect on 
 your own mind, and that of the people committed to you. 
 
 '* I do not think I ought to allow myself to be involved in 
 further correspondence, though I shall be most ready to consider 
 anything you may suggest. 
 
 ♦* I would only repeat, that I shall he ready at all times to give 
 you my best advice in the difficulties that surround you. 
 *' Believe me to be, 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 Very faithfully yours, 
 " Rev. A. Poole." A. C. Londox. 
 
 That the petitioner addressed on thelSlh of May, the following 
 letter to the Bishop : — 
 
 " May 15th, 1858. 
 " My dear Lord Bishop, 
 
 " I cannot express the painful feeling of disappointment 
 with which I read your Lordship's reply to my letter of the 11th 
 inst. 
 
 " Your Lordship having threatened me with the extreme sen- 
 tence of withdrawing my licence apart altogether from the 
 particular charge brought against me, and upon the ground of my 
 own admissions, as regards the practice 1 am in the habit of 
 pursuing with respect to Confession, I asked your Lordship to be 
 kind enough to state what were the particular admissions to which
 
 46 
 
 you roforrod, and wherein the practices atlmitfcd were contrary lo 
 the spirit and laws of the Church. In answer to tliis request, your 
 Lordsliio simply reiterates the charire in <;pneral terms, and leaves 
 me still without any tangible i^rounds on which to defend myself. 
 
 " I feel so strongly the hardship of this proceedinir, that I can- 
 not refiain from once more appealing to your Lordship's sense of 
 justice, and with a view to this, venturing to ask your candid con- 
 sideration of tlie real facts of the case. 
 
 *' I was called, in the first instance, to answer to a dpfi?nte and 
 pnrtimlar charge brought before your Lordship by Mr. Baring; 
 1 requested your Lordship to allow me to make a eounter-state- 
 inent as full and explicit as the charge brought against me: to 
 this your Lordship consented, and my statement was accordingly 
 laid before you. Up to the moment of receiving your Lordship's 
 letter, I had no idea of being under judgment for anythinix beyond 
 the strict merits of the charge brought against me, and theiefore 
 when asked by your Lordship, in S. Paul's vestry, whether I had 
 anything more to say in reference to Mr B.'s complaint, I 
 unhesitatingly answered * No !' But by the terms of your Lord- 
 ship's letter, giving your decision on the case, your Lordship, to 
 my suiprise, grounds your sentence not on the facts of that case, 
 but upon some admissions as fo my general practice drawn foith 
 in the course of the enquiry ; and yet your Lord«hip did not state, 
 nor could I foim iUiy conception what admissions I had made 
 which could be construed mto a charge so ijrave as that of a 
 departure from the spirit and practice of the Church, and deserve 
 a sentence so severe as the withdrawal of my licence. 1 asked 
 your Lordship, therefoie, to be kind enough to tell me what par- 
 ticular practices admitted by me you referred lo, and to this 
 present time your liOrdshij) has made no definite charge on which 
 I am able to sjiow cause why your Lordship's sentence should 
 not be passed on me. 
 
 " 'I'he only clue which your Lordship gives me to discover any 
 admissions 1 have made, is contained in the general charge on 
 which your Loidshiji's sentence is founded, and which is thus 
 expressed in your Lordship's words : — 
 
 " (L) ' 'J he questioning of females on the subject of violations 
 of the Seventh Commandment: 
 
 " (2.) * 'J'he sort of systematic admission of your people to 
 Coniession and Absolution, which you have admitted to be your 
 practice.' 
 
 " With respect to the first point, and having filready denied 
 absolutely having put the questions or suggested the filthy details 
 which Mr. Baring has taken down from the lips of this poor
 
 47 
 
 ■woman, and as your Lordship abandons the particular evidence 
 as deservinf^ of much suspicion, I understand your Lordsliip to 
 refer to tlie propriety of askin<>; any questions on that subject. 
 
 "Tlie only admission I have made on this })oint, is, tliat I asked 
 questions in the particular instance alluded to, because I rcas 
 reqvested hj/ the persnii lo do so — knowinfr beforehand that these 
 were the very sins which she come to confess. Am I to under- 
 stand that your Lordship condemns me without previous advice 
 or remonstrance given on so difficult a point of discretion, in 
 which I am borne out by the approval of 7hi/ Incumbent, viz. — 
 that of asking: any questions on a certain commandment, when 
 requested to do so by the penitent herself, and when the refusal to 
 do so might hinder the penitent from * opening her griefs ?' 
 
 " As to the second point, 1 respectfully submit thai the terms — 
 * the sort of systematic admission,' do not convey to my mind any 
 tangible charge on which I am in a position to defend m}self. 
 
 " I have told your Lordship, that in the case of persons troubled 
 in mind, and wishing lo he prepared lor Holy Communion, I 
 have, in the first instance, put before them the ' ways and means' 
 in iheir own power of quieting their consciences ; that when these 
 have failed, 1 have recommended to them the remedy provided 
 by the Church (in the first Exhortation to H. C.) for those who 
 are unable to quiet their own consciences and require further 
 comfort and counsel, viz., to have recourse to a Minister to 'open 
 their grief/ and obtain the benefit of Absolution, and then ahrai/s 
 and anil/ as a remedy which ihey mai/ adopt, never which they 
 must adopt as a nne-qva 7wn to the reception of the Sacrament. 
 This is the oidy sort of admission lo Confession and Absolution 
 which I have allowed to be my practice, and in no other sense 
 can the word * systematic ' be a))plied to it, except that if twenty 
 or fifty paiishioners required of me that 1 should act in the 
 language of the Exhortation in regard to each severally, I should 
 do for each and all what 1 should do for one. Is this \\hat your 
 Lordship means by ' the sort of systematic,' &c. &c. ? and does 
 your Lordship condemn me for this ? If not, I am at loss lo under- 
 stand what admissions of mine can bear any other construction. 
 
 " At present therefore, 1 am under the heavy censure of your 
 Lordship, while yet not conscious from memory from my admis- 
 sions, or fiom your Lordship's words, for what particular acts of 
 mine I am condemned. J again venture then to ajipeal to your 
 Loitlship's sense of justice lo give me a sufficient opportunity of 
 defence, and with a view to that, a clear and definite statement of 
 the particulars in which 1 have transgressid the laws of the 
 Church. 
 
 " Believe me to be," &c.
 
 48 
 
 That the petitioner received from the Bishop on the 18th of 
 May, the following letter : — 
 
 " London House, May 18lh, 1858. 
 " Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 " I have given so much consideration to the subject of 
 your letter, and have weiohcd so carefully all the circumstances, 
 that I do not see what course remains, except for me to forward, 
 to you the enclosed document, to which I shall be glad to receive 
 your formal answer. 
 
 " T act, you vvill believe me, with great sorrow, that steps of 
 this nature should seem to me to be required by my deep respon- 
 sibilities as appointed to guard the Church in this diocese, and 
 especially entrusted with the control of persons in your position. 
 " Believe me to be. 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 " Rev. A Poole." A. C. Lo.vdon. 
 
 That the letter last above set forth contained a document, of 
 which the following is a copy. 
 
 "To the Reverend Alfred Poole, Clerk, B.A., licensed to per- 
 form the office of Assistant Stipendiary Curate, in the Church of 
 S. Barnabas', in the district chapelry of S. Paul, Wilton Place, 
 in the county of Middlesex, and diocese of London. 
 
 " We, Archibald Campbell, Bishop of London, do hereby give 
 you notice, that for a cause which appears to us just and reason- 
 able, namely, that admitting females to confession you address 
 to them questions of a character calculated to bring scandal on the 
 Church, it is our intention to revoke the licence, dated the 26th 
 day of September, 1851, granted to you by our predecessor, 
 Charles James, late Lord Bishop of London, to serve the said 
 Church as Assistant Curate. And in order to give you sufficient 
 opportunity to shew cause to the contrary, we appoint you per- 
 sonally to attend us for that purpose, at London House, S. James' 
 Square, in the said county of Middlesex, on Saturday the 22nd 
 day of May instant, at 10 o'clock a.m., unless you piefer at any 
 time before tiiat day, to shew such cause in writing, under your 
 hand, addressed to us at the same place. 
 
 " Given under our hand this 18th day of May, in the year of 
 our Lord 1858. 
 
 A. C. London." 
 
 That save as aforesaid, the said document was never served 
 upon the petitioner, nor were the provisions of 1 & 2 V'ic, c. lOG, 
 8. 112, complied with in respect to the service of the said document.
 
 49 
 
 That on the 21st of May, the petitioner addressed to the Bishop 
 a letter, of which the following is a copy :— 
 
 « May 21st, 1858. 
 
 " My dear Lord Bishop, 
 
 " I have to acknowledge your Lordship's letter of the 
 18th instant, accompanied by a citation to appear before your 
 Lordship, on Saturday next, the 22nd day of May instant, at 10 
 o'clock a.m., to shew cause against your Lordship's threatened 
 sentence of revoking my licence, unless I prefer at any time before 
 that day. to shew such cause in writing under my hand. 
 
 " In obedience to your Lordship's command, I therefore pro- 
 ceed to address to your Lordship what appears to me to be 
 necessary on my behalf. 
 
 " The ground upon which your Lordship intimates your 
 intention to withdraw my Licence, is, that ' admitting females to 
 Confession, I address to them questions of a character calculated 
 to bring scandal on the Church.' 
 
 "This charge is made in general terms, and I do not know in 
 what way I can meet it, unless it be by a general, but a solemn 
 and entire denial of its truth. I admit that when persons, male 
 or female, have sought my ministry in Confession, 1 have put to 
 them such questions as have been suggested by the matters con- 
 fessed, which have appeared to me necessary, in order to enable me 
 to give the ' counsel and advice' which the case required. But I 
 solemnly assert that I have never put any questions of a nature, 
 or in a maimer, or in language 'calculated to bring scandal on the 
 Church,' or otherwise, than was calculated to assist the penitent, 
 and to enable him or her to receive more effectually the con- 
 solation or advice, which, as the minister of the Church, it was 
 my duty to impart. So far as the charge is general, I do not see 
 how I can answer it more perfectly than I now do, unless it be to 
 repeat what I have (in substance) told your Lordship already in 
 my letter of the llih instant, that I am ready to follow your 
 Lordship's godly admonitions, if your Lordship will be kind 
 enough to point out any particulars in which your Lordship thinks 
 me to have erred, and to give me such instructions as shall enable 
 me to conform my practice to the laws and spirit of the Church. 
 
 " But referring to the particular charges which have been 
 brought before your Lordship, by the Honorable and Keverend 
 Mr. Baring, and to which your Lordship has already drawn my 
 attention, I beg to remind your Lordship of my verbal denial of 
 the charges made in your Lordship's presence, of the written 
 statement which I had the honor to lay before you on the 22nd 
 
 B
 
 50 
 
 day of April last, and of my two subsequent letters, dated the 11th 
 and 15th of the present month. 
 
 "In addition to what I have therein stated to your Lordship, 
 and which I hep; may be received as part of my present answer, I 
 have to say, tliat in a charp;e so c;ricvousIy affectinp; my character 
 as the present, (may I add, one of the most serious that can be 
 brouclit acfainst a clergyman,) and calculated to brino^ so much 
 scandal on the Church, 1 feel entitled to ask, (and your Lordship 
 will I hope pardon me, for sayin'^ that I ask it not as a favour, 
 but as a right, which every one is in every case entitled to,) that 
 my accusers may be brought before me, and that I may meet them 
 face to face, and be allowed such assistance as I may require for 
 my defence; and for this purpose I request your Lordship to allow 
 me to be fmnished with a statement in writing of the ])articular 
 charges which I may be required to meet, and to assign a time 
 when I may be heard by myself, or by my adviser, before your 
 Lordship, and I may also adduce such evidence on my part, as T 
 may be advised. And I beg to ask your Lordship to give me the 
 benefit of such an investigation of the charges made against me, 
 as is provided by the Act of the 3rd and 4Lh Vict., c 8G, s. 3." 
 
 That on the 22nd of May, the petitioner received a letter from 
 the Bishop, of which the following is a copy: — 
 
 " London House, 22nd May, 1858. 
 
 " Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 " 1 have carefully considered your letter dated 21st May, 
 which I received last niglit, and which I understand to be your 
 formal answer to the citation to appear before me this day, at 10 
 o'clock, unless you preferred to shew cause why your Licence 
 should not be revoked, by sending to me a written statement. 
 Your letter of the 21st, with your previous communications 
 referred to in that letter, I take to be your defence, and I greatly 
 regret that I do not, from what you have urged, leel myself 
 exonerated from the duty of revoking your Licence. 
 
 '* You request me, as I understand, in the last paragraph of 
 your letter of the 21st, to issue a commission to try your case. I 
 have of course, during the long time that the matter has been 
 before me^ very carefully considered what manner of proceeding 
 would be most advantageous for the interests of the Church, while 
 it was just to yon ; and 1 have thought that it was best to exercise 
 that controlling power which a Bishop is entrusted with, in 
 dealing with the Curates of his diocese, to decide such matters 
 personally, subject to an appeal to the Aichbisliop. I beg to 
 assure you, that 1 think you will be perfectly justified in exeicising 
 this right of Appeal, and any opportunity which you desire of
 
 51 
 
 liavin^ your case more fully staled, would in all probability occur 
 on such Appeal. 
 
 ** I am bound to thank you for the expression of your readiness 
 to follow my * podly admonition,' and I indeed hope, that it the 
 matter had to commence afresh, and you were enteiinrj on the 
 duties of your cure, that you would conform your practice to what 
 1 should prescribe, but unfortunately it is with the past that we 
 have now to deal ; and I feel convinced, that taking upon your- 
 self very difficult and delicate I'esponsibilities, you have in your 
 way of meeting them, brought great scandal on the Church. And 
 this it is which I feel calls upon me for the present painful step. 
 
 ** I assure you most sincerely of my personal regard and of my 
 perfect willingness, if in any way at any future time, you should 
 again be laboring under my care, to give you my best advice 
 and direction in all difficulties. 
 
 " Believe me to be, 
 
 Rev. and dear Sir, 
 
 Your faithful Servant, 
 *' Rev. A. Poole." A. C. London. 
 
 That on the 25ih of May, the Bishop revoked the petitioner's 
 Licence, by a document, of which the following is a copy : — 
 
 *' Archibald Campbell, by divine permission. Bishop of London, 
 
 "To the Rev. Alfred Poole, Clerk, B.A. 
 
 *' Whereas our predecessor, Charles James, Bishop of London, 
 did on or about the 2Gth day of September, in the year of our 
 Lord 1851, by a Licence under his hand and episcojial seal, grant 
 unto }ou His Licence to peiform the office ot Assistant Stipen- 
 diary Curate, in the Church of S. Biunalias', in the District 
 Chapeliy of S. Paul, Wilton Place, in the county of Middlesex, 
 within our Diocese and jurisdiction, and did assign unto you the 
 yeaily stipend, in the said Licence mentioned, for serving the said 
 cure. Now we by virtue of the power and authority given to us 
 in this behalf, by an Act of Parliament made and passed in the 
 1st und 2iid ytars of the reign of Her present Majesty Queen 
 Vietoiia, entitled, * An Act to abiidge the holding of benefices in 
 plurality, and to make better provision for the ie?idence of the 
 clcigy,' and of all oth( r power and authoiity vested in us, ordinary 
 and episcopal, for sufficient cau>es us hereunto moving, do by 
 these presents revoke, annul, and make void the said Licence. 
 And we do hereby dismiss and remove you the saul Alfred Poole, 
 from the office of Assistant Stipendiary Cuiate, in iIil- Chuich of 
 S. Barnabas' as aforesaid, fiuui the day of the date of these 
 presents. 
 
 £2
 
 52 
 
 " Given at London House the 25th day of May, in the year of 
 our Lord 1858, and in the second year of our consecration. 
 " Witness our hand and episcopal seal. 
 
 A. C. London." 
 
 That the petitioner has in vain endeavoured to ascertain from 
 the Bishop of London the grounds of the revocation, and that he 
 is at piesent wliolly unable to understand them. 
 
 That the Rev. Robert Liddell, on the part of the petitioner, 
 and by his authority, applied to the Bishop for a copy of the 
 charges made against him, and of his own alleged or supposed 
 admissions or confessions so taken down in writing by the Bishop 
 as aforesaid. 
 
 That the said Rev. R. Liddell received from the Rev. Edward 
 Parry, the Bishop's Chaplain, the following reply to his said 
 application : — 
 
 " London House, S.W., June 5, 1858. 
 " Dear Sir, 
 
 '• I am desired by the Bishop of London to say that he 
 has considered your request to be allowed to have copies of cer- 
 tain papers respecting Mr. Poole, and that he sees no reason why 
 you should not have an opportunity of examining and copying 
 any papers which are necessary. 
 
 " It will be necessary for you to make application to Mr. Lee, 
 in Dean's-yard, for this purpose — the matter being now placed in 
 his hands. 
 
 " I remain, dear Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 Edward Parry, 
 « Hon. & Rev. R. Liddell." (Chaplain.) 
 
 That, in consequence, the said Rev. R. Liddell applied to Mr. 
 Lee, an attorney, the Bishop's legal adviser and Secretary, for 
 copies of the said documents. 
 
 That Mr. Lee answered the application of the Rev R. Liddell, 
 as follows : — 
 
 "3, Dean's Yard, Westminster, S.W., 
 "My dear Sir, 15th June, 1858. 
 
 " I this morning showed the Bishop of London your 
 letter applying for copies of * Mr. Baring's original deposition 
 from Mrs. Buckingham and Mrs. Shier's in re Poole,' and of 
 * the memoranda which the Bishop of London made of Mr. Poole's 
 admissions in one or more interviews which Mr. Poole had with 
 his Lordship at London House.'
 
 53 
 
 ** There can be no objection to your taking a copy of Mr. 
 Baring's paper, and I have given directions to allow you^ or any 
 one you may send here, to take a copy of that document : but I 
 am unable to supply you with any private memoranda or notes of 
 the Bishop's, of what may have taken place at any personal 
 interview of Mr. Poole with his Lordship. 
 
 '* I am, my dear Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 " The Hon. & Rev. R. Liddell." John B. Lke. 
 
 That by the advice of his counsel, a further application was in 
 consequence made by Messrs. Smart and BuUer, the petitioner's 
 attornies, to the Bishop, for the purpose of ascertaining ihe real 
 grounds of the revocation of the petitioner's licence, of which the 
 petitioner was and is bondjide ignorant, and upon which therefore 
 he has been, and is unable properly to consult with his attornies 
 and counsel, although it is a matter most grievously affecting his 
 worldly interests and professional character. 
 
 That to this a[)plication, Messrs. Smart and Buller received 
 from Mr. Lee, the Bishop's attorney and legal secretary, the fol- 
 lowing answer : — 
 
 " 3, Dean's Yard, Westminster, S.W. 
 22nd June, 1858. 
 " Dear Sirs, 
 
 " I am directed by the Bishop of London to acknow- 
 ledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, in which, on 
 the part of the Rev. Alfred Poole, and with a view to his appeal 
 to tl)e Archbishop, you apply to His Lordship to furnish you 
 with a copy of the memoianda taken down by him of matters 
 which he considered to have been admitted by Mr. Poole in con- 
 versation with his Lordship; or in case the Bishop should have 
 taken no notes of these admissions, that he would state to you 
 what he considered such admissions to have been. 
 
 *' The Bishop having placed in my hands all the papers rela- 
 ting to this matter, I have carefully examined the notes to which 
 Mr. Poole alludes as having been taken down by His Lordship ; 
 and they appear to be simply notes of Mr. Poole's denial of par- 
 ticular passages in the evidence of the women who were examined 
 at the Bishop's instance. 
 
 "The admissions on which — cou])lcd with the evidence given by 
 these women — the Bishop has considered it his duty to revoke 
 Mr. Poole's licence, do not appear to have been noted in writing; 
 but those admissions were abundantly sufficient to satisfy His
 
 54 
 
 Lordship that Mr. Poole had habitually applied a system of Con- 
 fession calculated to inflict great injury, on the Church ; that in 
 particular he was in the habit of puttint;; to females, in the con- 
 fessional, such questions on the Seventh Commandment, as, in 
 His Lordship's opinion, could not be asked under the circum- 
 stances described, without tending to bring great scandal on the 
 Church. 
 
 *' It would appear from the copy of the counsel's opinion, 
 which accompanied your letter, as if it had been represented to 
 them that the Bishop had refused to assign to Mr. Poole the 
 grounds on which he decided to revoke his licence. This, how- 
 ever, is not the case. His Lordship's letter of the 8th May, to 
 which I beg to call your attention, read in connexion with the 
 charges raised by Mr. Baring, and with the evidence taken by 
 the gentleman employed by the Bishop for that purpose, explains 
 the giounds of His Lordship's decision with quite sufficient dis- 
 tinctness to enable Mr. Poole to frame his appeal to the Arch- 
 bishop. 
 
 " I am, dear Sirs, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 " Messrs. Smart & Buller." John B. Lee. 
 
 That the petitioner is now more than ever unable to understand 
 the grounds upon which the Bishop of London has proceeded in 
 revoking the petitioner's licence — the grounds assigned by him 
 having, as the petitioner ventures humbly to submit, varied greatly 
 from time to time, and being, as he conceives, inconsistent with 
 each other. 
 
 That the petitioner does not know, and the Bishop still refuses 
 to tell him why his licence has been revoked. 
 
 That if it has been revoked because the Bishop believes the 
 statem(?nts of the women forwarded by Mr. Baring, or made in 
 answer to tlie Bishop's own ex parte enquiries — those statements 
 the petitioner solemnly asserts, as he always has asserted, to be 
 deliberately untrue. 
 
 That if it has been revoked because he is supposed by the 
 Bishop to have admitted these statements to be true, he asserts 
 that he never did so admit, and wishes, but in vain, to know from 
 what supposed statement of his such au inference can have been 
 draAvn — an inference which he entirely repudiates. 
 
 That if it has b^en revoked because he is supposed by the Lord 
 Bishop to have admitted that he had habitually applied a system 
 ot Confession calculated to inflict gieat injury on the Church, or 
 that he was in the habit of putting to females in the confessional
 
 55 
 
 questions on the Seventh Comraaiidmerit, tending to bring great 
 scandal on the Church, he asserts most solemnly that he never 
 intended to adniif, nor, as he verily believes, did he ever admit 
 anything of the kind, or anything leading to such an inference — 
 an inference which he denies and repudiates ; and that he is more 
 than ever anxious to ascertain what supposed expressions of his 
 are those from which the Lord Bishop has been pleased to draw 
 such inferences, that he may show, as he is confident he can show, 
 that they have been misapprehended, or that he never intended to 
 make, or never did make use of any such supposed expressions. 
 
 That if it has been revok(;d because of his opinions on the 
 general subject of Confessions, extracted from him in answer lo 
 the Bishop's interrogatories, he asserts that he holds and desires 
 to hold nothing more than what he bond fide believes to be the 
 doctrine of the Church of England on this subject ; and that he 
 has always bei'n, and now is, most anxious bond Jide to submit to 
 the law of the Churoh of England on this matter, and in no way 
 to exceed it : that he has frequently and respectfully requested the 
 Bishop definitively to point out to him in what particulars his 
 Lordsiiip deems him to have exceeded it ; that the Lord Bishop 
 has never yet been pleased to comply with this request, and that 
 the petitioner is, as aforesaid, bund fide ignorant what points of 
 his doctrine, or particulars of his practice, are deemed by the Lord 
 Bishop to be erroneous. 
 
 'i'hat the petitioner can conceive no other ground upon which 
 his licence has been revoked, and is bond fide unable, as aforesaid, 
 to ascertain or to state the grounds upon which the Bishop has 
 proceeded, and that the petitioner humbly submits that it is but 
 simple justice that he should have a definite and intelligible state- 
 ment of the grounds of a proceeding whereby it may be his 
 character will be blighted and his prospects destroyed. 
 
 'I'hat the petilitioner then-fore humbly prays that Your Grace 
 will be pleased to annul the said revocation ot his licence by the 
 Bishop as aforesaid ; and that Your Grace will be pleased to 
 ap[)oint a time for the hearing of the petitioner on the matter of 
 the said appeal, and that at the time so to be appointed by Your 
 Grace, you will be pleased to sit judicially and to hear him, the 
 petitioner, by counsel, on the matter of the said appeal, and to 
 allow any witnesses to be examined viva voce, whether against 
 the said petitioner or on his behaltj for the following, amongst 
 other reaio s : 
 
 1. Because under the circumstances, the revocation of the 
 petitioner's Licence by the Lord Bishop of London, is unfounded 
 and unjust.
 
 56 
 
 2. Because the statements forwarded to the Bishop of London 
 by Mr. Barinjj, are in substance entirely and deliberately untrue. 
 
 3. Because the revocation of the Licence by the Bishop, is 
 grounded by His Lordsliip upon certain supposed admissions and 
 confessions made by the petitioner, which he has never had an 
 opportunity of explaining, the lai)<>uaire of which he does not know, 
 the Bishop's understandintj of which he does not know, and a 
 copy of which, as taken down by the Bishop, has been refused 
 him by His Lordship, so that the petitioner cannot tell for what 
 cause his Licence has been revoked. 
 
 4. Because the petitioner has never had sufficient opportunity 
 given to him, of shewing cause why his Licence should not be 
 revoked, his supposed admissions and confessions never having 
 been distinctly stated, so that he knew not, and knows not now, 
 what he is supposed to have admitted ; and the Bishop having 
 sent his own adviser to take evidence against him behind his back, 
 and without giving him any notice thereof, and having refused to 
 assign a time when he might be confronted with his accusers, and 
 might be heard and might adduce evidence before His Lordship, 
 as requested in the petitioner's letter of 21st May. 
 
 5. Because he has always entirely and ex animo acce])ted, and 
 does now so accept what he believes to be the law and doctrine of 
 the Church of England, and does not desire, and never has desired 
 in any respect to go beyond it, and believes bona fide that he 
 never has in any respect gone beyond it in his practice. 
 
 6. Because the notice to your petitioner to appear and show 
 cause before the Bishop, was not served in such manner as is 
 provided by the 112th section of the statute of the 1st and 2nd 
 Vict., c. 106, before referred to. 
 
 7. Because the Petitioner's personal character has been 
 grievously attacked, and charges revolting in their nature, and 
 derogatory to his position as a clergyman, have been made against 
 him, not only in the statements forwarded by Mr. Baring, as above 
 mentioned, but also in the citation of the Bishop of the 18th of 
 May, hereinbefore set forth, wherein the Bis^hop accuses him of 
 asking scandalous questions of women, although the petitioner has 
 always most solenmly denied, and does now most solemnly deny 
 the same. And the petitioner says, that it is just that he should 
 have an opportunity of defending himself and clearing his cha- 
 racter openly and befoie a judicial tribunal, and of testing the 
 character of his accusers and examining their stories, all which 
 has been hitherto denied him. 
 
 8. Because grave doctrinal questions may arise on this Appeal, 
 and it is Just to the petitioner and respectful to your Grace, that
 
 57 
 
 your Grace and your Grace's Vicar-General, should be attended 
 by counsel, to assist the petitioner in a matter of vital importance 
 to himself, and which without such assistance he is unable pro- 
 perly to conduct and to aid your Grace, towards the determination 
 by your Gi'acc, of such questions. 
 
 y. Because the course pursued by the advisers of the Bishop, 
 both in witholdinn; from the petitioner any definite statement of his 
 supposed admissions, and in assigninfj; various indefinite and 
 conflictino; reasons for the revocation of the petitioner's Licence, 
 is exceedingly embarrassing to the petitioner, and he is very 
 desirous of legal assistance, in the conduct of a case so difficult 
 and complicated, and so important to the petitioner. 
 
 And your petitioner will ever pray, &c. 
 
 To this appeal, the following reply was sent by His Grace the 
 Archbishop on the 9th July, together with the accompanying 
 formal confirmation of the Bis^hop's sentence: — 
 
 " Lambeth Palace, 9th July, 1858. 
 " Reverend Sir, 
 
 '* I have considered very carefully the statements con- 
 tained in your petition of appeal against ihe revocation of your 
 licence, as Curate, by the Bi.<hop of London, which you have 
 presented to me under the provisions of 1 & 2 Vict., cap. 106, 
 8. xcviii. 
 
 *' Under that statute, the Bishop has power, after having given 
 to the Curate sufficient opportunity of showing reason to the con- 
 trary, to revoke, summarily and without further process, any 
 licence granted to any Curate, for any cause which shall appear 
 to such Bishop to be good and reasonable. 
 
 " My duty, therefoie, is to examine, in the first place, whether 
 sufficient opportunity has been given to you of showing reason to 
 the contrary. And 1 find, that by a formal letter under the hand 
 of the Bishop, dated 18th May, you were appointed personally to 
 attend the Bishop for that purpose at London House on 2*2nd 
 May, unless you preferred at any time belore that day, to show 
 such reason in writing under your hand ; and that on 21st May, 
 in obedience to the Bishop's letter, you addressed to him, in 
 writing under your own hand, what apjjearcd to you to be neces- 
 sary on your own behalf. 
 
 "I have to consider, secondly, whether there has been good and 
 reasonable cause lor the revocation of your licence. 
 
 " It ap])ears from the statements in your tormal reply of the 21st 
 May, and in your letter of the loth May, to which in your ibimal 
 reply you leler the Bishop, that you have been in the practice of
 
 58 
 
 conducting a system of private Confession and Absolution amongst 
 your people, and that the Bishop deemed such practice to be not 
 authorised by the Ciiurch of England, and to be calculated to 
 bring scandul on ilie Church. 
 
 ** 1 concur with the Bishop in the view which he has taken of 
 your practice in this respect, and therefore think it just and pro- 
 per to confirm the revocation of your licence, and I confirm it 
 accordingly. 
 
 " I am. Reverend Sir, 
 
 Your faithful Servant, 
 " The ]?ev. Alfred Poole, J. B. Cantuar. 
 
 " S. Barnabas' College, Pimlico." 
 
 " We, John Bird, by Divine Providence, Lord Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, 
 having carefully read and considered the merits and circumstances 
 of an appeal made to us by the Rev. Alfred Poole, Clerk, as the 
 Assistant Stipendiary Curate in the Church of Saint Barnabas, in 
 the District Chapelry of Saint Paul, Wilton Place, in the County 
 of Middlesex and Diocese of London, from the order, decree, or 
 judgment of the Right Reverend Father in God, Aichibald 
 Campbell, Lord Bishop of London, whereby he did revoke the 
 licence which had been granted to the said Alfred Poole, to per- 
 form the office of the Assistant Stipendiary Curate in the said 
 Church of Saint Barnabas j and being of opinion that the said 
 Lord Bishop of London hath exercised a sound discretion in 
 revoking the licence of the said Alfred Poole, do by virtue of the 
 powers and authorities vested in us, as Archbishop aforesaid, by 
 a certain Act of Parliament made and passed in the Session of 
 Parliament held in the first and second years of the reign of Her 
 present Majesty, intituled ' An Act to Abridge the holding of 
 Benefices in plurality, and to make better provision for the Resi- 
 dence of the Clergy,' and by viitue of all other powers in us 
 vested, as Archbishop aforesaid, hereby and by these presents 
 pronounce against the aforesaid apjieal of the said Alfred Poole, 
 and do ratify and confirm the revocation of the aforesaid licence 
 granted to him to perform the office of Assistant Stipendiary 
 Curate in the Church of S. Barnabas aforesaid. 
 
 " Given at Lambeth Palace under our hand, this ninth day of 
 July, in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and 
 filty-cight, and of our translation the eleventh. 
 
 "J. B. Cantuar. 
 
 ** (Witness) Felix Knyvktt, 
 
 " Secretary to the Archbishop."
 
 59 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 At a numerously attended meeting of laymen, Communi- 
 cants of the Church of S. Barnabas, held on Thursday the 
 17ih June, the following resolutions were moved, and passed 
 unanimously : — 
 
 " 1 . That whereas the charfi;es lately made against the Rev. Alfred Poole 
 at a meeting held at S. James's-hall, June 11, 1858, are scandalous and 
 false, and are calculated to prejudice his appeal to the Archbishop, this 
 meeting declares its heartfelt sympathy with an undiminished confidence in 
 Mr. Poole as their minister, who by his spotless life, and unceasing labours 
 amongst them for seven years, has won the affection of all classes of his 
 people. 
 
 " 2. That this meeting declares its admiration of Mr. Poole's conduct in 
 the trying and difficult circumstances in which he has been placed ; and 
 that, to the best of its belief, during his seven years' ministrations at S. 
 Barnabas', he has uniformly acted with discretion, and not exceeded in his 
 teaching or practice the doctrines or discijjline of the Church of England. 
 
 " 3. That this meeting, consisting as it does wholly of communicants at 
 S. Barnabas, distinctly denies that it is the practice of the clergy to require 
 confession as a preparation necessary to the reception of the Holy Com- 
 munion ; but it asserts, on the part of the clergy and laity, the right of the 
 latter to the practice of confession, and the benefit of absolution, as set forth 
 in the service ibr ' Ordering of Priests,' in the ' Exhortation,* in the office 
 of* Holy Communion,' and in the * Order for the Visitation of the Sick,' in 
 the Book of Common Pi-ayer of the Church of England. 
 
 " 4. That this meeting has heard with the utmost indignation of the foul 
 aspersions cast at the meeting at S. James's-hall upon the reputation of 
 ladies of the most unblemished character, whose exertions and kindness 
 amongst the poor in this district are held in the highest estimation by every 
 one here present ; and that the greatest confidence is felt by this meeting 
 that the offertory alms have never been misapplied by the clergy or district 
 visitors. 
 
 " 5. That this meeting caimot separate without expressing its fervent 
 attachment to the Book of Common Praver, and its assent to the following 
 passage extracted from the 3(Jth Canon of the English Church : — ' That the 
 Book of Common Prayer and of Ordaining of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, 
 containeth in it notlung contrary to the word of God, and that it may be 
 lawfully 80 used.'
 
 60 
 
 " G. Resolved that a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the Bishop 
 of London, with an uigent request that his Lordship will reinstate the Rev. 
 Alfred Poole in his curacy ; or bo pleased to state, lor the satisfaction of 
 the district, the grounds of his dismissal. 
 
 " 7. Resolved that a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the Arch- 
 bishop of the Province." 
 
 These Resolutions were transniiited to the Bishop : his at- 
 tention being especially drawn to the 6th Resolution. 
 
 In acknowledgment of the receipt of the above the Bishop 
 replied as follows : — 
 
 " Fulham Palace, June 24, 1858. 
 
 " Gentlemen, 
 
 " I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
 the 21st instant, enclosing Resolutions agreed to at a Meeting 
 of Communicants of the Church of S. Barnabas', Pimlico ; 
 to which Resolutions your names are appended. 
 
 " I greatly regret that I have been so incessantly occupied 
 since 1 received your letter, that I have been quite unable to 
 sit down to answer it till now. 
 
 " Allow me to say, in the first place, that I am not surprised 
 that you should express your feedings very strongly as to cer- 
 tain aspersions, which you state have been cast, at a public 
 meeting, on ladies engaged in visiting the poor in your district. 
 Without pronouncing any opinion, on one side or the other, as 
 to the sound discretion exercised in their labours among the 
 poor, I am sure few will hesitate to agree with you, that their 
 exertions and kindness, as they proceed from the purest mo- 
 tives, are held generally in very high estimation. 
 
 " You draw my attention very particularly to the 6th of the 
 Resolutions, in which I am requested " to reinstate the Kev. 
 Alfred Poole in his curacy, or be pleased to state, for the satis- 
 faction of the distiict, the grounds of his dismissal." With the 
 former of these requests I deeply regret that I cannot comply; 
 but (as yon are aware) it is open for Mr. Poole to appeal (as I 
 understand he has done) to a higher authority. 
 
 " With respect to the second request, 1 have all along stated 
 distinctly to Mr. Poole the grounds on which, with much pain, 
 II I thought myself bound to revoke his licence. These grounds 
 
 I: are set forth especially in the letters I addressed to him before 
 
 1 proceeded to the formal revocation, which letters Mr. Poole 
 doubtless will have no objection to lay before you when his 
 Appeal is concluded.
 
 61 
 
 " I attach orreat importance to your testimony in favour of the 
 zeal and good intention of the Rev. Alfred Poole, and his 
 devotion to his sacred calling; and I beg to thank you for the 
 opportunity you have given me of stating that I fully believe 
 him to be a conscientious and upright man. 
 
 " Mv belief is, that in the painful matter alluded to, he has 
 greatly erred in judgment, and that his practice, with the best 
 intention, has been very dangerous to the Church — so danger- 
 ous thai I do not feel justified in any longer continuing my 
 authority to him to act at present, as the spiritual guide of so 
 many souls in so important a sphere. But I wish you to 
 know, as I have assured himself, that I feel much for the 
 painful position in which his indiscretion has made it my duty 
 to place him ; and I am ready now, as ever, to give him my 
 best advice in his difficulties. 
 
 " I have, &c. 
 
 A. C. London. 
 
 " The Churchwardens of S. Barnabas." 
 
 At the Meeting of Communicants next assembled, on the 
 29th of June, it was imanimously resolved to send to the 
 Bishop the following reply; which was transmitted to His 
 Lordship on the 3rd instant : — 
 
 " July 3, 1858. 
 " My Lord, 
 
 " In acknowledging your letter of the 24th June, we beg to 
 state that, previously to our Resolutions of the 17th ult., some 
 of us had, and we have all since carefully read, the corres- 
 pondence between yourself and Mr. Poole, to which you refer 
 us ; but are unable to discover in it the reasons for your 
 revocation of his Licence. 
 
 '* It is true, that, in it you condemned, in general terms, the 
 systematic admission of his people to Confession and Absolution, 
 but we cannot find any sjiecijic and (tefinite charge against 
 him, for having acted with impropriety, or exceeded the 
 teaching of our Church, on any one particular occasion^ or in 
 any one particular act. 
 
 " And in this opinion, we may add, we find ourselves fortified 
 by the following passage from the recent opinion of Mr. Poole's 
 Counsel. 
 
 " We cannot think that His Lordship upon consideration 
 will persist in withholding from Mr. Poole a distinct statement 
 of the grounds of that decision which he is to appeal from.
 
 62 
 
 Mr. Poole is only askincr what pvpry defenflant, in any pro- 
 ceeding, civil or criminal, is entitled to, a^ matter of simple 
 justice — hut which he has never yet had — a definite statement 
 of the charfjes aijainst him. 
 
 " Such was the delibei ate opinion of Counsel, after having the 
 n'hole of your Lordshijii's rorrespondevre with Mr. Poole laid 
 before them. 
 
 " We have always understood that in visitinf:^ a Clerfrvman 
 with so severe a sentence as his summary dismissal, it is hut 
 reasonable that some such drfinite and distinct charge should 
 be made and proved atjainst hirn. And we hejj further to 
 remark in this case, that if it be the systematic admission of 
 his people to Confession and Absolution which is objpctionable, 
 it would in our opinion have been both more fair towards 
 Mr. Poole himself, and more satisfactory to the Church at 
 larjje, as setting at rest for ever that great question through the 
 whole Diocese, to have settled it in the way in which 
 Mr. Liddell has offered to have it tried ; viz. by substituting 
 himself as the accused party, and taking upon himself all 
 Mr. Poole's responsibilities. 
 
 " It is true also, that in your correspondence you specify as 
 objectionable Mr. Poole's questioning of females admitted to 
 Confession ; but this also is manifestly only a general cha7"pe, 
 and it appears to us, that the propriety or impropriety of such 
 a practice must depend on the piior and larger one, of the 
 propriety of Confession altogeth< r. For if the practice of 
 Confession be, as we hold it is, the liiglit of the People, which 
 the Clergy may not refuse when *' any come to " them for it, 
 then it cannot be more improper to question them upon their 
 violation of the Seventh than of any of the other Command- 
 ments; or, to question females upon it, if they piesent themselves 
 for Confession, than males. 
 
 " We also observe, and that with the greatest pain, that on 
 three occasions you have characterized Mr. Poole's conduct as 
 *' scandalous," or " tending to scandal." But we observe also, 
 that he has denied geverally, this charge, and, in particular, 
 has deni( d having put to these females any of those questions, 
 to which alone the above epithet could be fitly applied ; For 
 these reasons, therefore, as well as for those to whicli we have 
 befoie adverted, namely, that Co)>frs^ion is the Itight of the 
 People, and that the nature of the questions addiessed to lliem 
 must depend on the nature of their .siw.v, we are utterly at a 
 loss to conceive how your Lordship could with jut.tice impute 
 to him such conduct.
 
 63 
 
 " We remaik, likpwisp, that on repeated occapions before the 
 revocation of Mr. Poole's Licence, and even now in your letter 
 of the 24th ult., you have expressed your willinc;ncss to pive 
 him your "advice" in the difficulties in which he is surrounded, 
 but that up to this moment you have never once p^iven him 
 that advice, although he has again and again embraced the 
 offer of if. 
 
 " Lastly, we cannot refrain from noticing that, after staling in 
 your letter of May 8, you proceeded against Mr. Poole " quite 
 inde'penihvtly of the parlicvJar cvhJevce" brought against him, 
 you subsequently (on June 22) fall back and rely upon that 
 evidence; for in a letter of that date from Mr. Lee (your Lord- 
 ship's legal advisei), to Messrs. Smart and Buller, the solicitors 
 to ^Ir. Poole, Mr. Poole's "admissions, covplid with the evi- 
 dence given by these women," are stated as the grounds of the 
 revocation ; and your letter of May 8, read in connection rvith 
 the charges raised by Mr. Baring, is said to " explain the 
 grounds" of your decision. 
 
 " We need not point out further how irreconcileable these 
 letters of May 8 and June 22 appear to us to be; and we ask 
 your Lordship which letter it is that contains the true grounds 
 of your proceedings? Upon the whole then, we trust that in 
 a matter which so deeply concerns us, as involving a grave 
 question of Church discipline, and also the removal of a be- 
 loved clergyman, we may be infoimed by something more than 
 a reference to correspondence which appears to us to contain 
 only general statements, why it is that we have been so sud- 
 denly deprived of the ministrations of one in whom we have 
 such entire confidence. 
 
 " Even upon the assumption that Mr. Poole's licence has 
 been Icgalh/ revoked, we feel, as attached members of a con- 
 gregation within your Lordship's jurisdiction, this information 
 is viorally due to us from your Lordship ; viz , how, and in 
 what way the admission of the people to Confession and Abso- 
 lution, and questioning them on their particular sins, can 
 amount to a violation of the laws of the Church ? For we feel 
 strongly, that tmless some such law has been violated, it can 
 never have been intended by the law of the land, tliat a Clergv- 
 n)an against whose moral character (as is clear from vour 
 repeated testimonies in favor of Mi'. Poole) no imputation rests, 
 should be dismissed by the summary piocess to which you 
 have resorted. 
 
 " We are, (?fec. 
 (Signed, on behalf of the Meeting, by the Chairman, 
 and the Churchwardens of S. Barnabas'.)"
 
 64 
 
 To which the Bishop replied : — 
 
 "July 6, 1858. 
 " Gentlemen, 
 
 " I beg^ to acknovvledfre the receipt of your letter of 
 the 3rd instant, which reached me yesterday. 
 
 " I am sorry that, in the present state of matters, I can give 
 no other answer than that I regret you should take a different 
 view from myself, of the responsibilities and duties which 
 attach to my office. 
 
 " I have, &c. 
 
 " A. C. London."
 
 65 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 " Hursley Vicarage, 
 
 Winchester, Aug. 11, 1858. 
 
 « My Lord, 
 
 " In obedience to your Lordship's recommendation, 
 I have taken the advice of my friends and re-considered the 
 subject of my recent conversation with you, in consequence of 
 my application to be licensed to Mr. Stuart's Curacy at S. 
 Mary Magdalene's. I do not feel it right towards Mr. Stuart 
 (who has so generously offered me his Curacy,) to keep the 
 matter open longer than is necessary, and I therefore feel called 
 upon to do what depends upon me in order to the decision of 
 the question. 
 
 " First then, my Lord, I beg to state that I am desirous of 
 accepting Mr. Stuart's offer, and of being licensed, because, 
 after having been removed by your Lordship from my former 
 Curacy, a great (but I believe a very unjust) prejudice has 
 been raised against me; and I could not be surprised if many 
 other Incumbents of your Lordship's diocese should shrink 
 from appointing me to their Curacies. It is therefore very 
 important to me that I should accept the offer now made to me 
 and be licensed. But I do not feel that I could either accept 
 the Curacy, or, as your Lordship suggested to me to do, work 
 for some time without a license, under the restriction which 
 your Lordship proposed to place upon me. 
 
 " The restriction which I understand your Lordship to 
 require is, that I should not exercise the office of hearing Con- 
 fessions (at least for the present.) 
 
 " Now I must respectfully submit to your Lordship, that if 
 I am to accept a Curacy in your Lordship's diocese under such 
 a restriction as this, it would be to admit the justice of your 
 Lordship's revocation of my former license, which I think can 
 scarcely be expected of me under the circumstances. 
 
 " It was a great satisfaction to me to hear from your Lord- 
 ship, at our recent interview, that the only thing you charged 
 me with was indiscretion ; and 1 humbly but confidently think 
 that if your Lordship would have explained to me the particulars
 
 66 
 
 of the admissions I am supposed to have made to you respect- 
 ins; my practice and conduct in the matter of hcarino; Confes- 
 sions, T couhl have shown your Lordship that I had been 
 misunderstood, and that I did not, and do not, deserve even 
 this amount of censure. But your Lordship will, I think, 
 admit ihat a punishment very dispropoi'tioned to such an 
 offence has been awarded to me, and that it will be still more 
 heavy if I am prevented, by the 7estriction proposed, from 
 ajrain accepting duty in your Lordship's diocese. I earnestly 
 hope, therefore, that this further mensure of puniishment will 
 not be imposed upon me. Could it be shown that I belong to 
 any particular class of Clergymen who are debarred from 
 hearing Confessions by any rule of the Church of England, of 
 course it would be my duty to submit; but even so, I confess 
 it would seem very hard to me to be singled out for the enforce- 
 ment of such prohibition — no offence having been proved 
 against me. 
 
 " I again assure your Lordship, as I did on a former occa- 
 sion, that I have never urged or indnced any one to come to 
 Confession as a habit, nor as a condition of admission to Holy 
 Communion, or any other rite of the Church. On the con- 
 trary, whenever I have had reason to believe that it was likely 
 to take from the person resorting to it that sense of his own 
 responsibilities which is necessary to a healthy state of mind, 
 and which cannot be removed from any one without danger ; 
 or whenever I have had reason to fear that it might produce a 
 morbid state of mind, which 1 know is sometimes the result of 
 the abuse of frequent Confession, 1 have always done my 
 best to check or discourage it, and I shall always continue to 
 do so. In proof of what I have said, 1 may remind your 
 Lordshi|) of what I told you of those whom I had recently 
 prepared for Confiimation and Communion. Of course in so 
 doing, 1 had to point out to them what the Church recom- 
 mends to those who require "further comfort and counsel." 
 But as I was not aware of any special necessity for dwelling 
 upon this with any one of them, so the result was, that out ofCU 
 persons, not one came to me lor Confession, and only one asked 
 for it, and in that instance I did not think it was a case in 
 which I ought to receive it, as the parents' consent had not 
 been obtained. Still, where persons of their own free choice 
 resort to me for the relief and unburihening of their consciences, 
 1 do not see how 1 can (if my ministry is to be of any value,) 
 refuse to receive them ; ai.d, if so required, to hear their Con- 
 fessions, subject to the conditions 1 have before expressed as 
 being my practice.
 
 67 
 
 " With rep:ard to the mode of hfiaring Confessions, viz., the 
 form in which it should be made — the place of hearing; it — 
 whether it should be heard by the Priest in his surplice, or in 
 his ordinary dress, and the like. In all these matters, I have 
 in my former Curacy only acted in conformity with the wishes 
 of the Incumbent under whom I served. Although I have my 
 own opinion as to what is desirable in these matters, I can 
 assure you that I attach no other importance to them than so 
 far as they are in compliance with the apostolic precept — "Let 
 all things be done decently and in order." But I would very 
 respectfully submit lo your Lordship, whether it is desirable, 
 either for him who makes, or him who hears Confession, that 
 all form should be taken away. One very principal object of 
 form in such matters is to mark strongly to both parties the 
 sacredness of ihe act in which they are engaged, and to put a 
 check against abuses, to which all, even our most solemn acts 
 are liable. This, my Lord, I conceive to be the chief use of 
 any forms which I have ever used. But having laid these 
 thoughts before your Lordship, 1 am ready to forego my own 
 judgment and to act as your Lordship sees fit to direct me. 
 
 " I have ventured to trouble your Lordship at some length 
 with this statement, in order that I may (as I hope I have 
 done) show that 1 neither contend for nor practise any system 
 of receiving persons to Confession ; nor, so far as I know, do 
 any act in relation to it other than what is permitted and 
 sanctioned by the Book of Common Prayer, which I do, ex 
 animo, consent to and accept unreservedly. 
 
 " I heartily hope that I have said enough to satisfy your 
 Lordship. You have lately done me the justice to bear jiublic 
 testimony to your opinion of my uprightness : I venture to 
 hope that your Lordship will seal your opinion of me by 
 accepting this statement of my opinions and practice, and by 
 granting me a license as Curate of S. Mary Magdalene, with- 
 out imposing the restriction which you proposed to me. 
 
 " As 1 have said I do not ieel at liberty to keep Mr. Stuart 
 longer in suspense than necessary, and I earnestly hope your 
 Lordship's answer will not make it necessary for me to refuse 
 an oft'er, which, as 1 have shown your Lordship, it is of so 
 much importance to me to accept. 
 
 ** I have the honor to be, 
 My Lord, 
 Your Lordship's faithful Servant, 
 
 Alfred Poole. 
 " To the Lord Bishop of London."
 
 68 
 
 « Fiilham Palace, S.W. 
 
 " My dear Sir, August 13th, 18>58. 
 
 "At our last interview I endeavoured to set before 
 jou as clearly as I could my view of your case, and to give 
 you my best advice. I cannot recede from what I then stated. 
 I felt it my painful duty to revoke your license at S. Barnabas', 
 because in my judgment your practice in respect of Confession 
 was calculated to bring scandal on the Church. All statements 
 by you, which I have seen or heard since I revoked your 
 license, have, I confess, strengthened me in the conviction that 
 1 was bound to take that painful step. 
 
 " Having most carefully considered your letter of the 11th, 
 which I have this day received, I feel obliged to say that, much 
 as I regret it, I cannot accept you as Mr. Stuart's Curate. 
 
 " Believe me to be, 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 " Rev. A. Poole." A. C. London. 
 
 loBdon :-J. T. Hayw, 6, Lyall Place, Baton Squtre.

 
 
 
 »/>. 
 
 
 
 
 »> 
 
 »:^j»> 
 
 
 >5 ?: 
 
 
 
 
 > i>