aracter,
and will have been made acquainted with his manner of life, and will
deal as lightly with the case as the law will allow him. For aught
I know he may be imprisoned for a month. I wish it might be for
no more than a day,--or an hour. But when he comes out from his
month's imprisonment,--how then? Surely it should be a case for
ecclesiastical inquiry, whether a clergyman who has committed a theft
should be allowed to go into his pulpit directly he comes out of
prison?" But the answer to this was that Mr. Crawley always had been a
good clergyman, was a good clergyman at this moment, and would be a
good clergyman when he did come out of prison.

But Dr. Tempest, though he had argued in this way, was by no means
eager for the commencement of the commission over which he was to
be called upon to preside. In spite of such arguments as the above,
which came from the man's head when his head was brought to bear upon
the matter, there was a thorough desire within his heart to oppose
the bishop. He had no strong sympathy with Mr. Crawley, as had others.
He would have had Mr. Crawley silenced without regret, presuming Mr
Crawley to have been guilty. But he had a much stronger feeling with
regard to the bishop. Had there been any question of silencing the
bishop,--could it have been possible to take any steps in that
direction,--he would have been very active. It may therefore be
understood that in spite of his defence of the bishop's present
proceedings as to the commission, he was anxious that the bishop
should fail, and anxious to put impediments in the bishop's way,
should it appear to him that he could do so with justice. Dr. Tempest
was well known among his parishioners to be hard and unsympathetic,
some said unfeeling also, and cruel; but it was admitted by those who
disliked him the most that he was both practical and just, and that
he cared for the welfare of many, though he was rarely touched by the
misery of one. Such was the man who was rector of Silverbridge and
rural dean in the district, and who was now called upon by the bishop
to assist him in making further inquiry as to this wretched cheque
for twenty pounds.

Once at this period Archdeacon Grantly and Dr. Tempest met each
other and discussed the question of Mr. Crawley's guilt. Both these
men were inimical to the present bishop of the diocese, and both
had perhaps respected the old bishop beyond all other men. But
they were different in this, that the