The Express. — London, England, 1852-06-09 00:00:00

!Nivea, and to what section of the Homan catholic church Maynooth professed to belong ? It had been seated that it ems of the ultramontane school, la which the aelhotrltl of the Pope was exalted far above the sovereign's, and tliptithe must rancorous intolerance woe tenglit there. figh.Wil liam read statements in reeprot to denunaktione from the altar, followed often by an. attack upon the individual denounced; the agnalfbli rirefientiro of the Muphooth priests, mil tile doetiiiiis inculcated at toe coasge, In the course of reading which he was interrupted somcwhist roughly by Captain Megan. blr.‘". SCULLY Wended Mr. Herbert's objection, that en inquiry, if really desired, could be had instanter by the esistiug visitors. But the mover and eeciinder of the mai tioa, he contended, were not sincere in their demand fur an inquiry; their avowed object was to get rid of the college alto:ether. He had no objection to a boon pc inquiry, but he did object to one that was unfair and insulting. If the motion was not a lucre sham, if en holiest inquiry was redly sought, let it be either by a royal commission, or by the Mutton, persons of distinguishes' rank and character, who had an inherent power under thu act to examine upon oath all persons and into all mutters. With respect to the grant itself—this miserable and wretched grant, an Mr. Scully termed it—he maintained that the peol It of Ireland were entitled to it, not only upon the ground of compact, but upon the stronger amends of policy and justice. To establish this part of his argument, Mr. Scully produced a long array of historical authorities, which, with a very comprehensive survey of the character end streets of the and laws, and in an exam:nation 01 the Liatort ut the Maynooth College from its Snit endowment in l i lt., the bon. member preseeded to read eatract alter extract, pre sumed to be used as proof of compact between sue:cc...lvo government. and the Irish catholic* on the subject of May nooth, until the hour of adjournment arrived. The hon. member's attention was then called to the fact by the Speaker, upon which he moved the adjournment of the house, and ab.eneral rush of honourable members to the doors emptied the house before the Speaker had time to put the question. The house rase at four o'clock. The house resumed at 6 o'clock. PETITIONS I'RESENTED. PARLIAIIINTART IIRPOK(6. By Mr. BROCKMAN, from the members of the Ilythe Reading Society, to be furnished with copies of such of the reports and other par liamentary documents ordered by the Mouse of Commons to be printed, as refer to literature, science, the fine arts, and the useful arts, Se., etc., free of capense.—Mr. W. B. CARTER, from members of the Mechanics Institute et Winchester, for a free grant and transmission to that end all similar societies, of all publications of the house having reference to scientific and literary subjects. Margoorit.—By Mr. W. LC/I_llllAM', (rum the Ge neral Assembly of the Church of Scotland, against the Maynocth grant, and, generally, against tho encourage. cunt given by the legislature to popery. MILITIA BILL.—By Mr. COBDEN, from Saffron Wal den; Mr. CCBITT, from the Southern Association of the Baptist ministers and messengers assembled at Whitchurch, Dante, representing 27 churches, 3,000 members, and 12,000 hearers, against. Roisicu DUCTRINIPI Ann PRACTICIII IH TNT CHTRCII OT EMMA \II —By Sir B. BALL, from the inhabitants of the parishes of St. Marylebonc and St. rimers*, agreed to at a public meeting, complaining of Itornesh doctrines and practices beirg permitted in the churches of the establish ment, aid praying that an inquiry might be instituted into the conduct of the Bishop of London. COUNTY ELECTIONS BILL. Mr. I'ACKE gave notice --- tb;C;WtheiJiion for going into committee on the County Elections Bill (as we under stood) he would more that it be committed that day three months. FaI.HASE OF PICTURES FOR THE NATIONAL GALLERY. The CHANCELLOROrti7gIi.:IIEGUER, in !answer to Mr. CHAWITILIS, stated that the Titian" purchased fur the Notional Gallery at the sale of Soult's collection had, he believed, been offered for sale in Loudon, but car taioly not to the British trustees, as had been alleged, for a less sum than it was purchaNcil for at this sale. ..... PRIVATE BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to Sir It. Price, was sure the hen. baronet must, feel that it was not in the power of the present parliament to take any steps to facilitate the progress of private bias in the neat parliament. He must remind the lion. baronet that no resolution of the present house would be binding on its successor. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF I.ol(l)B.—TvEsudY, JUNG 8. The Louts Cuakerttath took his seat at A o'clock. THE MILITIA DILI.. • This bill wee brought up from the Commons, and read a lest .ime. LONDON NECROPOLIS AND NATIONAL MAUSOLEUM BILL. Lied BEDESDALII moved the second reading of this bill. The East of SHAETESBL'IlTobjected to the measure. The compaay takulated that they would be able to secure ose• half at two. thirds of the dead bodies of peeress dying in and about London, but that was a most exaggerated esti mate. Unless, however, they tould means some 30,000 or 40 000 corpses us a year it was impossible for them to ware the preliminary expenses of the undertaking. The bill was altogether subversive of the priaeiple established by the Interment, Act, pared last year; but there should he no ze o u l l u .s e i c to w n a in ia.. bu t r o ials, no coi the long lin sta ere m i:l . t.rttli„eh theiti Tour pses is many cues would have to be brought to the railway sta. ties, sad which, in some thetaneee, would not te less than seven tallest. Aestivating he the bill, the dead bodies were to he brought together at IMAMS times, sad kept in the &relies an.:. r the railway watil it should suit the convenience of the railway company to transmit them by night. The mourners were then to go on the fullowing day, and thus • lapse of Several hours would take place between the transmission of the bodies and their being followed by the mourners. Ile hoped, when the hiU went before the committee, it would be sery easefully dish with. it was peptised that there should be s distinction between the Lariat of paupers and artisans. Thor graves of paupers might h, openid so often as the cowpony pleased for the interment of other curpses— a provision which was most objectionable un the score of public health sad deeeney. A great call was no doubt in tended to he remidied by the bill, but a remedy could only b. properly ttheted in a way which would be consistent with the requi.ites of public health and decency. 1 he Bishop of LONDON concert'. d in the sentiments of the noble earl. The burial of the pour ought to be the subject of public supervision. Ile entirely objected to cemetery comp..nies, and te all monopolies in the burial of the dead. The Earl of CHICHESTER was understood to defend the bill, hut was quite inaudible in the gallery. The Earl of CARLISLE would suppott the second reedit* et the by did net see any immediate prospect of a general measure being passed on the subject, sal the bill before their lordships might be greatly amended in committee. The bill was then read a second time. NOTICES OF MOTIONS. Earl FITZWILLIAM gave notice that lie would on Thurs day present a p••titiom relative to local taxation, and put a question to the government on the subject. Lied 11110C(111.01 gave notice that on Thursday he would present petitions rtlative to the distress it the West ladies. COI•\ItOI.B ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL. The LOUD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from copynoiders ut Cumber Lulu against this bill. CORRUPT PRACTICEs AT ELECTIONS BILL. On thu motion of the Marquis of LA NSDO WN E this MII was read a second time pro forma, and ordered to be committed on Monday. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES BILL. On the motion of Lord COIAII ESTEE this bill was read a third time. WORKS BILL. On the motion of Lord COLCIIE.st Ell, who said the object of this bill was to carry out a measure of last session, this bill was read a second time. LAW OF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill went through committee. INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL. On the motion of the Earl of Hatnower, this bill was read • second time. SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL. he E irl of MALMESEURY propoied the second read ing of this bill. Up to this moment France and England bail not been plated on an equal footing on this subject. Whilst the convention signed in 1843 acted well as regarded English criminals who absconded to France, it did not practically give to that country the power of obtaining the surrender of their criminals by Eugluaid. There was a cousiderable difference between the laws of the two countries with reference to the power of magistrates to commit offenders. There was considerable difficulty here in proving the identity on oath, and it was impossible for magistrates to detain persons accused until they could get evidence from the other side of the channel. The conse quence had been to phice France in the position of hoviog a negative convention, so much so, in fen, that out of founees warrants issued for the surrender of criminals in this country, thirteen had miscarried. and only one eri mine, had been taken, and that was in I ereey. It was im possible to expect the French government to endure such • state of things so unfair towards themselves, without remonstranee. The existing convention was signed in 1843, and he believed that in 1843 the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) attempted to improve that convention, and a draft, he believed, was actually drawn up. but for some reason it never came to maturity ; and be was informed that in 1848, in mosequenee of the French resolatiou, no more notice bad been taken of it until his predecessor is office and the French ambassador laid the foundation of the present convention, which extended the number of criminals for mutual surrender. The convention motained an article which he hoped would give entire se curity to political effendi's, and he must say that the French "overman' had met him on this point with great frank eels. He was authorised by the French ambeasadur to state that my provision which the wisdom of parliament or the kagesuityof the legal profees'on could suggest, so as to se cure political Oft alms from being surrendered, the French government would accept. He was aware that many im provements could he made in the bill, but it was of great importance that an one-sided convention shosiM not be esta blished ; and he was afraid that the French govern ment. after waiting a long time in the hope of obtaining • fair convention for both nations, would, if they could not now sneered in their object, throw amide the convenden altogether. (Hear, hear.) The Earl of ABERDEEN gelled the attention el the house to the greet difficulty of the subject, and eljesked the retroppeetive operation of the WU, which was made I. apply to all offences committed sieve 1813. He woad aet, however. oppose the semeril Lord CAM PORLL die l ined ledb et ths and priseto =skis./ the mere emiN at re /Medi allitilsOM eR idestifiestioa, wiliest pot sr lessesside asrlsks guilt, sufficient relator, ire the eserestlar d mum km under the protectlos of imam\ kw. Lord BROUGHAM emlether pen Joked is the Ake. lion, and The LORD CHANCELLOR peendesd to consider the point is senamittee. Lad MAN WORTH wee ef *aims Ad the hill wee wrees k prisaple, sad that se amp is keen meld lea der It telemake. After eeseidetable diseemies, is wig& Leal Malawian the Lord ammeller, the Dike ef Awn,* of AU; deem, Earl Grey, sad lard *ashy it Altsiky took pert, who all admitted that awe emit measure amid he paled, while they adutawiefeed dm &Meshy of tweeting the nib- Net. The bill was thee reed a wend time, and their lordships adjourned at half-pest aeon eciork. HOUSE OF OOMMON3.--TumAy, Jun 8. The Senecas took tie Omer at 12 o'clock. PRIVATE RIMERS& Tat LOOM' AIIINIMIENTa TO Till 'OLLOWIXO BILLS VMS eoIortDMISD AND MIMI= so :—Loastoa Das Light =1 (amendment of nets, Me.) (No. 2); Manchester, sad lAweababtre liallway (No. 4; Portrash Mortimer: Bills. BILLS WU • TIMID TM, allir PASSIM :—Watsaa's Hospital (Edinburgh) &tom; Wirksworth Minis. Cm- Mom and Mineral Courts; South Yorkshire Nallway sa d Rion Daa Compaay (isle or lease, tie.) ; Exeter Reads ; BILL, as •111.11DiD. 11P01TEI AND AORIIIO TO:— Cambridge to Ely end other Sande (re•oommitted) ; Chel sea Waterworks; New Rims , Commey (to improve the 'apply of water, Ise.); Brno. PUBLIC BUSINESS. PETITIONS PRESENTED. WATXOOIII ENDOWMENT Acr.—By Mr. F. MACKEN ZIE, from places in Scotland; Sir W. VERNER nod Mr. SPOONER, from various places in Ireland sail England; Om repeal nf. Usminatrr TRATE (Scortsso).—By Mr. F. MAC ISNZIK, from places in Scotland, against the abolition of. ' 1 Talus us KNoWLEDOE.—By Mr. N. GIBSON, from Association fur promoting Repeal of Tales on Knowledge, praying that the further prosecution of Mr. Dickens' Novisehold Narrative may bs delayed until • select eom mittee had inquired why the Board of Island Revenge had mi:ected au un.tamped monthly for prosecution, when se many ...tidy and fortnightly publications an allowed to contain new* withnut a stamp. MAVNOOTII ADJOURNED DEBATE. FILESIIFIELD in re-opening the debate, observed, that the motion for iniairy had not boon opposed apes asp general ground; had at bees to repeal the act of lb* be could understand why it should be resisted, but all that was Joked was an inquire whether certain allegations as to the teaching at Maynnoth ware true, or rather whether thtre shnuld be as inquiry which, according to Mr. ficrj^ ant Murphy, would - only redound to the credit of the college. The cense:endow doubts of the people of England, as to whither the objects of the Institution were fairly eanied out, and the grant was properly applied, ought to be set at rest. The coarse of those who advocated the motion was not aggressive, but drfeadve. Mr. 11. IIEfiBERT, in opposing the motion of Mr. Spooner, propose , 1 to test his sincerity by inviting him to adopt, inetvil of that motion, en amendment which he (Mr. Herbert) bad put upon the netice paper, but which he 'cgs Preeluded from rnovino, to intrust the inquiry to the visitors of the college, with each additional visitatiotto the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland might deem ricamanry—a tribuml ansmialbarad by yorliamant, nod Wren* will arjvp or t,. is so of Ibn original =Mks, =rime W idea dm smstieg me e sho u tie Oise* et the sevemseet ld low Na else& ea ledieidea. allowed by lie gime. reie g r illa esedillied dtedesedea et yew. Ems es der =ria On Mug* anon% sod yes IS set IS list die tbsWelead inelessliss lisy THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY, EVENING, JUNE 9, 1852. led me to form that opinion I beg leave to refer your lowd abip to a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself which was publishml in the Times newspaper of December 12, 1860. 1 am wholly without information as to any change which may have token place iu Mr. Bennett's prin ciples or opinions since his resignation of the cure which he he;il in my diooesc.—l am, your lordship's faithful and obe dient servant, C. J. Luxons.—The lion. and Rev. the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells." Now he felt bound to say that in his opinion, and he thought the house would agree with him, so far so the lii.hop of London wits concerned, that letter fully and en tirely acquitted him of the charge of having been in any matter whatever a party either to misleading or deceiving the Bisl op of Bath and Wells. (Cheers.) The 'attar was Is fact the strongest condemnation of the whole procredieg, it was a !enstiostrince r a warning—almost amonnted to a pro- I test. lie had beard that this lettei:of the Bishop of London . was never seen or read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells; that he received the certificate signed by the three clergymen, but neither saw nor read the letter lie did not know what explanation could he given on that point, but this ho did know, that if the Bishop of London did sign the certificate, and did at the same time write a letter to accompany it, and if the Bishop of Bath and Well. refused or declined to open that letter mid read the contents, such conduct was a great aggravation of the grievance of which the public heel to complain. Here again, fleecy, r, he must assume that anything so extremely improper was untrue. He now came to the question of examination. By the canon it was required that no bishop should institute any one to a benefice unless he should ap pear, WI dim examination, to be worthy of his ministry. Well, uow Caine the questioa, what was "due examina tion ?" The word " clue " implied that the extent of the namination was not to be left entirely at the discretion of the bishop; and Lord Ellenborough, in a judgment to which he had previously referred, said the law required the bishop to found Isis judgment upon the best information that he could obtain, and that everything which could con wientiously minister to his approbation or disapprobation ' should be taken into account. Well now, was that the character of the examination instituted by the bishop of Bath and Wells ? lie would take one point to which the examination ought to have been directed. It was alleged against Mr. Bennett that he had declared that all ideas of disseminating Chris tianity by the Bible were positively a fiction and an absur dity. (Hear, hear.) Should not the bishop have examined Mr. Bennett on that point ? (Hear, hear.) They all knew that it was the opinion of protestant, genitally tint the Bible was to the poor Wan the greatest treoallre and that without it the richest was in a worse position th an the most miserable pauper who possessed it. Such being the feeling of the protestant community at large with regard to the Bible, a man came amongst them who told them that all the feelings in which they and their families had been brought up were false, and that all ideas of disseminating Chtis , tianity by the Bible were a fiction and an absurdity. Why, with their feelings in reference to the Bible, this must have sounded like little less than blasphemy. (Hear, hear.) Had Mr. Bennett entered their houses, seized their bibles, and thrown them in their faces, they could not have been more shocked. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, they appealed to the bishop. Ought not the bishap to have said at once to Mr. Bennett, " Here is a statement which is shocking to protestant minds. I must have an explanation of it, and Mat a:pietistic.' must go forth to the world. You have Noted in a letter to Lord John Russell that you are un in your opinion. Do you still held the opinion whir you have expressed about the Bible? If you are changed in that opinion let tho world know it. If you are unchanged in that opinion, I shall held myself disgraced as a protestant prelate if I granted you institution. (Hear, hear.) Did the bishop question Mr. Bennett in that man ner ? There was a strong reason for supposing that he did not, as there was ahio strong evidence that Mr. Bennett's *pinion on the point was not changed. (Hear, hear.) A few words with regard to Mr. Bennett's opinions as to the supremacy of the crown, which were set forth with much vigour in his letter to Lord John Russell. That was a point of peculiar importance. The 36th canon said that no person should be received into the ministry unless he tint subscribed three articles, the first of which declared ' the Queen's supremacy in spiritual and ecclesiastical as well as in temporal matters. Mr. Bennett's letter exprem , ing his views en the subject came at a peculiar period. At that time there was a movement of a large portion of the clergy of the church of England on this question. A cir cular was s•nt round, and was signed by nearly 2,000 clergy, in which it was said that the parties had taken the oath in a peculiar sense. That circular had appended to it the names of three clergymen in particular, Archdeacon Manning, Robert Isaac Wilberforce, and William liodg mill, Regius Professor, all of whom had sines joined the church of Rome. Mr. Bennett said that he Nemo, like many other clergymen, uncoil , at having taken the oath. He took the opinion of counsel as to whether or not he was bound by the oath, and counsel declared that he was; yet that diet not induce him to resign at the time, or prevent him from recently accepting the living of Frome. Ile knew what Mr. Iknnett's opinion wax with regard to the oath, and the sense and manner in which the rev. gen tleman interpreted it. Ile had had brought before him the correspondence with the Bishop of London which had been made public and proclaimed to the world, and be (Mr. Herman) wanted an answer trithe question, whether this was not a point which came properly under the due examination enjoined by law upon the Bishop of Bath and Wells ? That prelate ought to have required of Mr. Ben nett an explanation of the sense in which he made the de claration, whether in that implied by law or in a non natural sense—(hear, hear)—and whether he took the oath of the Queen'. supremacy with a mental reservation and qualification. The house had a right to know whether these questions were put, and what were the answers. It was not sufficient to tell them that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had privately examined Mr. Bennett, and that that lrivate examination was satisfactory to th e right rev. pre ate. The object of that examination was to satisfy the church at largo and the community over which Mr. Bennett was called to preside. The object of Mr. Bennett's mission was to promote harmony and concord, and to pre vent schism amongst his people. How could that be ob tained without publicity ? Every one of the population of name was entitled to see that there had been a due exa- Millation aid a full inquiry. Private examinations might ho all very well in cases where charges were brought spinet the private characters of clergymen, but in this sae the charge was a public one, the offence wu a public OM, and the expiation ought to have been public, the seaidid was notorious, and the removal of that scandal should have been as notorious. Mr. Bennett's opinions In favour of the church of Rome were well known, and it esseatial to the peace and harmony of the community, that everything which had given satisfaction to the right rev, prelate :should have bean made known to those whose dearest interests were bound up with the spiritual super intendence of Mr Bennett. Instead of appearing in the digalled character of an impartial judge upon the qua ils.* Mb, of Bath sad Wells had, as it appeared to demeaned himself in a manner which, in that house, wee ausidered most : be had sunk the nity of the judge in the obd i g i tionable, he might say most odious little ness of the partisan. He r. Horan) thought he had tally established the three propoaitions with which he set oat. He had shown that the Bishop of Bath sod Well had instituted Mr. Bennett in such a =MIL 811 M slat out the parishioners of Frame from that legal Nei= to which they would have resorted; that be insM tined him without the certificate at ilte pen !ions diocesan and without due manthugien. It was no answer to be MU that Mr. Bensete, aims lie in stitution, had acquired the emildeme ef Me gadabouts 1 that extent that a memorial hod been signed by 1,900 of them, expressing their satisfaction with the soundness of his doctrines. If Mr. Bennett had acquired all this popu larity, the ground for inquiry was all the granter. Al he (Mr. Horan) had stated before, it might be true that Mr. Bennett was a Roman catholic, or that he was a Jesuit, and he would now have the opportunity of converting the parishioners of Frame to his own opinions. With regard to the memorial, he had his suspicions, and he did not think it would come out of this inquiry quite pure. The govern ment had admitted that tho importance of this question could not be exaggerated, and all aides of house agreed that it could not rest where it was. The government; had stated, that an inquiry was essential and inevitable, and the ques tion now was whether the intuiry could beiestituted by any other means than that white he propos ed . It was not per 'ibis to par ♦ ressintlem, bemuse t ere were no facts be fore the house wink imi been generally received. An in quiry could not take Sage by commission, and legislation was impossible, became it must be preceded by facts. (Bear.) The government said that a commission of in vary w o u ld not be ellagesal, and some hon. gentlemen ob jected to the prosecudou of an inquiry by • public com mittee. He must say, that when they had bees told that a public committee was their only resource, became if a com mandos of inquiry were instituted it would not be gentigegroggsd. and would fail to obtain answers to it. ans, such an announcement made by the government pee him considerable surprise. (Hear, hoar.) In the seem of the last few years there had bees upwards of a hundred royal commissions, all issued with similar power and with no more legal authority than any commission which might now be issued by the government. Some of them ammissions had been most important, but no one ems ,scarred in which their inquiries had been 1011101. 'Yet in the ease of a great gnevanee an almost ureessiente• scandal , . the house was told for the first time by bee Idaj sty's ministers that a commission of inquiry Mid not be issued because answers to its quations might ' set be given. When the government was one whole month • anxious deliberation on this matter, be must assume that answer to he well advised. He hoped that no such newer would have been given by any one of the right serreroad veleta et tie notatili.hea church; and he did not ' bane MA • 1•1111111iNilia of inquiry i• sued in the Queen's ame would not with *wry class of her Majesty's subjects abet with immediate teepee—(cheers)—from the highest to 'tie lowest, whether at the palace of the peer or the cottage of OS mechanic and labourer, a royal commission would at once obtain answers to its questions. (Hear, bear.) He should Mee thought the prelates of the established church would awe been among the first to show the respect due to the nallMoity of the law and of the Queen. He should have tan they would have felt it to be an opportunity of they would have gladly availed themselves to pro nag the principle of which the Queen bad *et an exam. $e —the principle that the more exalted the rank the greater the reponeibility, and that gnat power end great privileges were held for public purposes. He left the' ,question in the hands of the house and not in the heads of the government. It was neither a government ace a party question. (Hear, hem.) A panes of some moments ensued. No bon. member rue to speak, and loud cries of "Divide," ensued, when Mr. Gladstone and Sir Benjamin Hall rose together. The former having given way, Sir B. HALL said—Mr. Speaker, I rose to order, to call the attention of the house to the conduct of the hen. gen tleman (Mr. O'Connor) who sits near me. Sitting by the side of the hon. gentleman this moment, I war crying " divide," because no member rose to address the lititt.t, when the hon. member turned round upon me and struck me in the side. (•'Order, order.") I told the hon. gen tleman un a former occasion, that if he addres,eil me in the house, or subjected me to any annoyance, I should call your attention to the subject, and place myself under your protectioa, which I now beg to do. The SPEAKER—The bon member for Nottingham has been so long a member of the house, that it is not necessary for me to remind him that it is sgain-t the rules and regu lations id the house for any member either to interrupt or to interfere with another member during the proceedings of the house. lam sorry to say that the hon. member fur Nottingham has of late been constantly infringing these rules and regulations—(b -4 cries of "hear")—and I must -w tell him that if he Its in that condi ' it will be now tell him .0 persist. ..on conduct, my painful duty to call the attention of the house to the hon. member by name, and for the ho u se to tide^ such ulterior steps as may prevent such misconduct being re peated. (Loud cheers.) Mr. F. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the front opposition bench, close to the table, and who, during the Speaker's short address, bad been loudly vociferating " Order, order," then rose, and spoke in a rambling and incoherent manner. He said-1 did not do anything to the hon. baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did not do anything whatever. Ile is my greatest enemy. (Order, order.) Ile was ono of the members of the land committee that sat five years ago. ("Chair, chair.") A member of the government was then chairman of that committee, and it was composed of 15 members. I built honors and cot tages— (order, order)—but thu ruffians (the members of the laud society) paid norent. ("Order,"and cries of "Chair.") I laid out my money in building, and could get no rent or money for five years. They talked about soup. (Renewed cries of " Chair. ') Members paid 601. or 1:50/., and they were located, but the ruffians paid nu rent. (" Chair.' One day • farmer came up with a red cap on, and • hatchet in his hard, and was going to cut my head oil— The SPEAKER here interposed, in obedience to the loudly expressed general wish of the house. Ile said—l must now call upon the hon. member by name. Mi. Feu- Ras O'Connor, if you have any apology to make to the house, now is the time. (Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNOR—I make the apology to the house. I beg the pardon of the hon. gentleman far eLytning I said to him. (Hear, hear.) 1 apol...gise to the house. You are the best Fie-ricer that ever sat in that chair. (" Order, order.") (Mr. O'Connor resumed his seat, but immediately afterwards got up, and passing along the floor, was again called to order, fur interrupting Mr. Gladstone, who was speaking.) Mr. GLADSTONE, regarding this as mainly a legal question, objected to the tone and spirit of Mr. florsraan's speech. Having taken upon himself the character of a public accuser, he was bound to be accurate in the language he used. The honourable gentleman said Mr. Gladstone has attempted to draw the house into a dilemma which I should he sorry to sco it accept—namely, that either this house is fit for debates like the present or you ought not to have an established church. Now, I dispute the authority of the hon. gristle man with fear and trembling; but it is just possible that we ought to have an established church, and yet that this house is not the fitting arena for debates like the present. I do noracruple to aseert that this house is not a fitting arena for such debates. (Cheers.) I say that it is possible to abstain altogether from such discussions, although I I admit there has been much provocation, many impru dences, and worse than imprudences, some foul play. (Cheers.) I admit that the church of England is torn from head to foot with her divisions; but I ask you solemnly and seriously • question far above all the psesiug interests of the day, do you think that re ligious divisions arc likely to be mit:gated—do you think that the serious wounds of the church of Eng land are likely to be healed—by rhetorical de• clamations, by exaggerations of facts, or by misappre• hensions or mis-stamments of circumstances ? (Loud cheers.) Form own part, I know not whether I err in y the same way. If I do, I shall deplore it, from my deep sense of the mischief occasioned. The hon. gentleman cannot imagine that by means of these rhetorical periods, delivered in this hotter, and received with rapturous cheer ing by his supporters, this dangerous influence, which men wish to . put down will be overcome. If he knows anything of religious partisanship, he must know that heat and vio. lence on one side engender heat and violence on the other. (Hear, hear.) I do not know, it the qui stion were the maintenance of sectarian feeling in the church and of the influence of Mr. Bennett, whether any means of protracting and maintaining that influence could be better adapted fur the purpose, than that of singling him out as an object of attack. Now the first question we have to consider, and which I trust the house will carry along with them, if they wish to neutralise the evils of this discussion, if they wishto bring it to a good result—because I admit that discussions of this kind, though they are evils, may sometimes be ne cessary evils—the first question we have to clear up is the., is the country to be governed, either in ecclesiastical or civil matters, by the private opinions of particular min, and ac cording to the popular views of the moment, or by a system of fixed laws? If it is to be governed by private opinion, and if this house is to become the means of producing such a result, representative institutions will become little better than • n u 'sauce, and ecclesiastical questions would continue to be, as they now are, the bane and plague spot of parlia ment. (Hear, hear.) But you are not here to decide what is an abstract right. You have to decide one of two epics. tions First, have the laws been obeyed ? Secondly, if they are good, obey them ; if not goad, alter them. (Cheers.) You have no right to establish an extra-legal system of influence or jurisdiction by which you arc to in terfere with the regular administration of the laws, which must mere, each in its own fixed career, irrespective of the opinions of the day, or even of the hon. member. These ore the first principles, to which I shall have to advert again,snd further than that, the house must recollect who is the per son now before us. The speech of the boo. gentleman has a goad deal cleared up that question, as I understand that the person now properly before the house is the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The Bishop of Bath and Wells, as bishop, is necessarily also a great officer of state, and I have always held it was most inconvenient and improper that our laws should not afford ready means of correcting delinquent bishops. (Hear, hear.) I believe there is • difficulty in correcting them, and I should look with favour upon any judicious prop osal for remedying this defect; but the point I put in this case is that the bishop is not • delinquent; that there is not a pre sumptive, prima facie case of delinquency of any sort or kind made out against him. The hon. member has put aside the other parties in the case, and admits that he has no charge against the patron. I mention this because this words of his motion were so large u to include all; but he has expressly disclaimed all allusion to the conduct of the patron. The patron proceeded according to law and con science, and—another important element omitted by the hon. member, to which, I confess, I think a patron ought to pay great attention—according to the feelings of the people over whom the pastor was to be placed. (Hear, bear.) Let the hon. member le Jour about, or deal with the fact as best he may, he is bound to admit, and has ad mitted, that in this particular case, through whatever per versity or delusion, the people of Procne are perfectly satisfied with what the patron has done. (Cries of " No, no," from Mr. Ilorsman.) The hon. member, then, does tot admit that fact, and that is one of my causes of complaint against him. Through out the whole of his first speech he asserted that the pa rishioners and clergy of Promo were hostile to the presenta tion. I did not wish to give the fact more value than it deserves, but it is not the fact that the parishioners were dissatisfied. (Hear, hear.) Rightly or wrongly, they were satisfied, nay gratified, with the appointment. I bold in my hand • letter from the churchwarden, which I shall read, with the permission of the house. It is from Mr. Miller, and addressed to the patron, the Marquis of Bath : My Lord, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and in answer to your inquiry whether the appointment of Mr. Bennett was or was not acceptable to the body of the parishioners, I' boldly assert and maintain that, although the inhabitants of Frome are under many and great obligations to the how of Thynne, there is none that they more cheerfully recog nise, or more gratefully appreciate, than the blessing he stowed, and the regard exhibited by that noble family for their spiritual good, in the nomination of Mr. Bennett. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that since Mr. Bennett commenced his ministry, the morning congregation has increased one-third, and as to the evening service, it never was so numerously attended. At the commencement many might have been attracted by curiosity, but it gradually increases every day." Now, sir, we are not inquiring into the justice of these sentiments, but whether the wishes of the people have been overridden in this matter. (MD. Herman made • re mark.) Tho hon. gentleman denies that the churchwarden represents the sentiments of the people, but I have to in form him that at the vestry which was held on Thursday last Mr. Miller was re-elected by the parishioners. (Hear, hear.) The lion. member admits that the parishioners who petitioned against Mr. Bennett acted under the guidance of their clergy, and it appears to me that the latter acted a most unwise part, inasmuch as applications had been made on their behalf for the living. I do not think that anything could have been more indiscreet, but the fact is that under the influence of these clergymen 54 parishioners protested against the appointment, of whom o ily 16 belonged to the parish church. Of those 16 the riority had since returned, and connected with this fact was a circumstance of an exceedingly solemn nature. One of the 16 being taken alarmingly ill his first act was to send for Mr. Bennett, and he died while receiving his ministrations. Now, I think we see the state of the facts. Fifty o dd persons remonstrated against the appointment, while some 1,100 of the population have signed a written address in which they express in strong language their entire satisfaction. What I say, then, is, that the patron was vindicated in law, in cot& science, and in the feelings of the parishioners. (Hear.) Having affirmed that, with regard to Mr. BennetCe con duct at Kisaingen, there was no proof of his attending Boarish worship: and that he did not attend the service at the protestant church was accounted for by the fact that he was travelling u chaplain to a private family, where he performed Divine sees ice. Mr. Gladstone went on to say, against the Bishop of Bath and Wells the hon. member makes three charges—first, that the bishop presented with undue haste, and with set purpose to pre , vent the parishioners from having a fair hearing for their objections , ; secondly, that be presented without a proper certificate from Mr. Bennett'. former bishop; and thirdly, ' that he presented without due examination. Now it appears to sae that each and every one of these charges is without foundation. But first of all let us realise the situation of the bishop. Is the bishop entitled to say to a presentee, You have written certain regarding holy Scripture , which do not meet my vie ws; Y e :suet have an explanation, or 1 cannot admit you " Or, because a clergyman in tak ing the oath of supremacy interprets it differently from the bishop, will that justify the bishop in refus ing presentation? Or because the Bi s hop a London Iniaei e I tually, not legally, expelled Mr. Ilenwet (min lie those thereby maiiireeting disapproval of his ethelatt. is that to r e l e r t n r t r l awdni an e R C: " :1 0 11 ragell: tee reason why the 'lithe') of Bath end WI his You have been expelled by the Bishop of Laden, u arid I cannot admit you i" Or because three or four chivy's', and fifty parishione bß n icitoc h r a i bishop not to grant institution, the t say no that account that he will not grant it? What would b e t h e Court o u f ene'' Q : : to uPrel duet, awl it would not he enough to tell the ju lets de ' et the Bishop of London or thu fifty parishioners of Frees t When brought there, he most show a positive and absolute, a dry and strictly legal disqualification. (Hear, was.) h ie not enough to show that the presentee has been Italie erect, or that at a former time he hat dime w h et he ought nut to have done. It is only if lie •an show Mu Mr. Bennett at that moment either teaches heretical doe trine, fails in moral conduct, ur is insuffieieut in blow n , that he will have any defence. Without this emend, le; bishop has no locus standi. Them was a rent ease that of the Bishop of Exeter, and the rioters , id !Samford That bishop will hear with gnus. eatisfaction that it is the place of the Ithleip to assume such pow er; but lie knows the contrary from somewhat herd tile. fiance, and a bill of mete of upwards of 3,1100 f. That is another point—the ruinous, crushing, di sire the sees ef there ecclesiastical suits, which are rsonieli, I twist sae, t o paralyse any episcopate, however anxious to d o their ,(stye (Loiel cheers.) You really hardly can exp. et men t o r, r ,', e such tremendous expense.. There was a eerie in who ii the Bishop of (How:ester and Bristol had a proeeut,,,e samosa4 a clergyman for immorality, which cost him 1,'.:00/. h e house will feel that justice ought to be done rtes 10 bish and when you speak of their extravagant mum's. s. 3 ou 5h.,„4 recollect these face. Mr. Oldutone having furtlitrad tfl og to the legal difficulties of the bishop consequent ou the jealousy with which the law haul guarded the fields of the patron, and blamed thou who complained of th e institution for not having issued a car. or in time have enabled the bishop to stay proceeding-, said the hon. gentleman's second charm is, that Mr. Bennett was instituted without a proper certificate. I think lie is ill error in supposino that the 45th canon has anythire; to do wok that question. For a series of year* it has been the leek canon which hu regulated the institution of ministers t o benefices. The hon. gentleman thinks that the bishop would be guilty of a legal offense by instituting without" certificate, but although the 48th canon refers to sue!, a certificate, the 39th don net. I sin bound 'o say that the bishop rem iv. d with Mr. 'Sennett full evidence, as to hit life and doctrine, end ouch ns if he had rtfwool to :let ' lt would have cnn bled Mr. Bennett, or the pwron, to prose cute him in the courts. The hon. gentleman admits that Mr. Bennett poranscol the ordinary twins. nabs from three ineumlwnts, and he ask, tie• who they arc, but I have not got the testimonials with me, and I cannot say who they are, but I can say that the hon es ,. nials are of the usual deecrintion. The language of the testimonials does not *peal, of " what be has done," but that he " has not held or taught," anything mut e .," to the teaching of the Church of England. It would ly difficult fur the incumbents to my what he " has done" for three years, but to ascertain what his traehthir has been is morn easy. The !hilltop :received nearly the same testimo nials as usual, as far as the incumbents were concerned, but the testimonial was not the same as far as the dismissing bishop was concerned. The Bishop of Louden annexed a statement to the certificate in which he called attention to the fact, that Mr. Bennett had been itemiser(' from his dio- cese—that is, that be availed bimetal of his voluntary ie.*. nation, in order that the peace and order ef the diocese might not be perilled, end lie called the attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the eorrespondence in the Times between himself and Mr. Bennett. The testimonials were the usual one, as ler as the incumbents were concerned, but as far as the bishop was concerned they were not the usual one., as they hail an extraneous statement annexed to them. Now the question we have to ascertain is, what was the legal effect of the ex planatory note of the Bishop of London, and what wan the duty Imposed by it on the Bishop of Bath and Wells. I have made it my study to see what that Jute is. I under stand that notes are not unfrequently appended to testimo nials, and it is plain that if the signature was affixod to this document, which is drawn up according to law, it cannot be varied in its legal sense by explanations or protests attached to it, and the effect and meaning of the signature would be the same in point of law. 'the value of the eaple nation was, that it made it the duty of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to ascertain for him self the doctrines of Mr. Bennett. But this brings me to the third charge, which I do tint wish to anti. ciliate. I wish to point out that, as regards the second charge, the bishop manifestly stands clear, because the tee tirnotilals of Mr. Bennett only differed f rom those weeny given in consequence of the addition made by the Bishop of London, which only cast the duty on the Bishop of Bath and Wells of inquiry into the doctrines he held. this cannot, therefore, form any ground of accusation against the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Then we come to the third charge made by the hon. gentleman, which is this, tl.at the Bishop of Bath and Wells instituted Mr. Bennett without due examination ; and I am bound to say that, in the sense in which the hon. gentleman uses the term, he did institute Mr. Bennett without due examination—for such is the construction which the hon. gentleman puts on the words "due examination," that although it may suit the House of Commons, yet there is no legal person who would not disown it. The hon. gentleman laid it down that a judge (for the bishop is a judge for the purposes of admitting the presentee of a living) should not only have seen that the examination made by him was not of such a nature as to satisfy him, the judge, on whom the law lays the burden and responsibility of the decision and his conscience, but to satisfy those on whom it lays no such burden, th e p u blic se,l the bon. member for Cockermouth. (" Hear, hear," and laughter.) I wish the hon. gentleman in cool blood would endeavour to see the hideous consequences which such a doctrine would entail, as that a judge in the exercise of his judicial functions is not to look to the satisfying of his own conscience, but to satisfy the opinion of the-public. Sliest, hear.) The bishop examined Mr. Bennett, not in the Greek Testament, or on matters of form or of ritual, or of ecclesiastical history, he examined not the Mr. Bennett of former times, but of the mouth of January last—l say the Bishop of Bath and Wells, suffering as he did tortures from bodily illness, but bring in the fall possession of his men tal powers, carefully examined Mr. Bennett on all the points on which he was called upon to enter in that nazi nation, namely, the differences between the church of Eng land and the church of Rome, and it wan not until he had made up his mind of the soundness of the examination that he took any stepe for his institution; for if he had found that Mr. Bennett held any of the doctrines of the church of Rome, mid which are contrary to the 39 articles, his duty was clear; but finding that there was no ground for believ ing that Mr. Bennett held any of the doctrines of the church of Rome, he instituted him to the living. Not certeinly according to the conviction of the hon. gentleman, hut ac cording to the conviction of the bishop, that prel.de did subject Mr. Bennett to due examination, and it was dame by the bishop, not under the fear of any conmulsien do the part of the parishioners, and before any move was made by the discontented clergy and laymen, because he saw that the circumstances of his former career rendered it necessary. He took on himself the responsibility, and with his own mouth cis mined Mr. Bennett, and examined him to his own satisfac tion. Then the hon. gentleman has quoted theopinion of Mr. Bennett with regard to the oath of supremacy. Now I want to show, and it is a doctrine I would earnestly lay down, that we are to be governed by the law, and not by opinion. It is true the law may represent the spirit of one generation, and we and our opinions may represent the spirit of another, because wo may not have adapt,' our laws to our onward growth, and suffered them to stand still while our opinions have advanced ; but wo cannot make the Judicial character responsible only to our °ruins, but the judge must be tried by the teat of the law which he has to administer. The second question which has been discussed is, that Mr. Bennett puts a particular eonstruction on the oath of su premacy, which the hon. gentleman says is contrary to its intention, and he complains that the Bishop of Bath and Wells did not stay his presentation on that ground. It is obvious that the bishop was of different opinion with the parishioners of Frame with merited to the sense in which Mr. Bennett should view the oath of supremacy. though he duly considered and attended to their representatioa s for he states that he had done so ; and 1 say that if Mr. Bennett's construction of the oath of supremacy is each as to constitute a legal offence, and he can he shown 10 hold Woe doctrines, why not try the question in the courts? There can be no difficulty here with regard to any limita tion of the cognisance of an offence within two years. It was in the latter part of the year 18,50 that the offence, if any, were committed, and why not try the question. What was the opinion of Dr. Twits? He stated that no offence had been committed, and if so, what blame as attach to the Bishop of Bath and Wells ? and if he wee guilty of an offence, why not prosecute hint in the mutts? From this dilemma there is no escape. The bishop was acting strictly judicially and according to law in consider ing whether there were an grounds of accusation against Mr. Bennett which could be sustained in the Court of Queen's Bench, and if he had come to Ruch n conelusum, then nomight havesaid, " twill stay the presentation ;'• bat as he was of a contrary opinion, he said, " 'will not yield from the fear ofclamour or frim any dread of the hon. mem ber for Cockernionth, or any notion of having to endure un popularity." I have now gone through the grounds on which these charges are brought forward. I is now the question with me what is to be due with respect to this motion. I have great objections to it as it stands. It is a motion for a committee to inquire into the circumstances of the iastitutiou of Mr. Bennett. That was the act of the Bishop of Bath end Wells, and if I were to vote for sorb a motion I should be saying that there is a prima j ou e ease against the bishop, and that he ilia not acted according to the spirit and letter of the law. 1 cannot so vote, for I lids ve the c'oute to be groundless, and unfounded in truth. The honour able gentleman anticipates the objection that the inquiry cannot proceed to any extent in the Ott' vent session, and referred to the similar circum stance in which the motion of the honourable member fin Warwickshire is placed. I urce that them could be no useful inquiry by a committee. My first oh' jaction is to an inquiry " shupliciter" into the rage . o to t Ironic. If we are to have an inquiry it should the whole stole of the law and its enactment . . w Inch is impossible for them to do that which, the hon. gent m an now wishes to be done. (lieu, hear.) If you like za stuiliouely framed to discourage ' bishops, quire into the whole system of ecclesiastical appointments, and I include Willem—(h-or, hear)—if that is dour. t church of service will he conferred on the country and the England. For Ido not think that sufficient scope is 17 to the choice of parishioners with roomed to the . etc ity ith sr that are set over them. (Hear, hear.) And * and to BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. Mr M. GIBSON begged to ask a question of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer with reference to the employment of the time of the house and the despatch of public basi -1 nes". They hail tl c Maynooth debate still hanging over them—(" hear," and a lauah)—and after what had occurred that morning, it was clear they were still u far as ever from a determination of it. Ile begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the trustee fur the proper application of the public time, whether he would think tit to use his in fluence with the hon. member for Warwickshire to induce him to postpone all proceedings on that subject to a more convtment season. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his duty was, as he had more than once stated to the house, to take care that the measures of which the government had charge were passed, with a due deference to that great consummation which they all desired. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He felt that to be a digicult, but not un impossible task, but he must decline undertaking any other new duty. (Haar, hear.) OYSTER FISHERIES. Mr. HENLEY, replying to a question from Sir G. Clerk, respecting the necessity of modification, in the convention betwein Franco and England as to the oyster fisheries, said that a memorial praying fur a relaxation of the law had occupied his attention, and he would consider the subject, end if he could see any way, in con currence with France, of ',lazing the law, so as to enable the fishermen to fish in the deep without endangering Ike operation of the law against poaching in the close sea man, he wished to do so. Ile would shortly lay the papers tokritil to on the table. BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. ... Mr. OSWALD said that the Maynooth debate was in a tiiar position. An hon. gentleman had been stopped e adjournment when in possession of the house, and, from his exordium his acerth promised to I. still He begged to ask the bon. member for Warwick shire to what day he proposed to adjourn the debate on Mayuooth Mr. SPOONER said that, by the resolution of the house, that question must be considered after the other orders of the day had been disposed of. PAPERS RELATING TO KOSSUTH. Lord D. STUART begged to ask the Chancellor of the Ezehequer when some papers relating to Kouuth, and other Hungarian refugees at Kutayelt, for which he had moved on 20th April, would be produeed ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the papers were my voluminous, but as soon as they were ? l ted they would be laid on the table. Be would mks lequiry on the subject. r. OSWALD asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the latest hour at which he would take the orders of the day, of which there wire 16 on the paper. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would to =int en the rule which always prevailed that when the el motion were over, the orders of **day woebt he preseeisa with. If the hoar wee as sexemeasble ere he wail sot ask any cm wit tilissese ta as. The P. 116 ' cubic bear at which tie slim ef the say would be eases would breed as the Norse whisk we takes will seprd to Retie of miss. 14. OSWALD 115 what was feast by a refeenelde hour ? Would the hon. geatlema not pressed with the elm after 12o' ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the course taken by the bon. gentleman was not fair or usual. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately there was little prn► pert of the orders being reached to-night, but he would be regulated in his proceedings b the usual eataree. THE CASE OF THE REV. MR. BENNETT. _ iititig — • Of which he had given notice, for a " Select contadittes Wife. qnire into the circumstances connected with the lestitudem of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frame." On the 20th of April last, he had moved an edemas to her Majesty, praying that an inquiry might be ands whether due respect had been paid to the canons and 011111•• sinatical constitution of the church, in the institution a Ibis Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Fermat. The object and aim of that motion could not have b en misundemtoed. I. was aimed at the act of institnion of Mr. Bennett by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wee solely responsible tor it, a representation having been made to him alleging the un fitness of Mr. Bennett, and yet he proceeded to institute him in spits of that allegation and the evidence whieh was adtinced in support of it. Not only from the terms of the motion itself, but from the manner in which it had been re ceived by the house, there could have been nu doubt of the object and meaning of that motion. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer on that occasion moved en amendment, by which he showed that he did not misunderstand the object of the motion. The ground of his opposition to it was twofold. Firstly, he objected that the mode in which he (Mr. linesman) had proceeded to gain redress for that of which he oom plainsd was inadequate to the purpose; and next, he said explicitly and clearly, that one ground of objection to the motion, and that on which he invited the Neese to reject it, was that there was an aal is the archbishop against any act of the bishop. The hones being dissatisfied with the statement of the Chan oilier of the Exchequer op roes another member of the eshinet, the right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colonies. His language was equally strong, and showed that he did wet mistake the object of the motion. lle said "that his hon. friend who had last spoken had said that eel this question hail been raised it ought to be dealt with, and la that opinion he must cordially concurred. Ile felt not only that this was a question which ought to be raised, but that, hewn,' been mimed, it ought to be dealt with : and he would say for himself, as he believed he might say fur every member of her Majesty's government, that the matter ought not to rest in its present petition, but that unques tionahly inquiry ought to he made, and a remedy ought to be provided." He afterwards went on to say that " be thought the alleged conduct of Mr. Bennett at Kissinger ought to be ' made therubject of inquiry." So that the right non. gentle , man, another cabinet minister, set out by suiting an opinion not merely against the active institution of Mr. Bennett b the Bishop of Bath and Welk, but that there should be • full inquiry into the proceedings of Mr. Bennett at kireingen A third cabinet minister, the Secretory for the !tome Depart ment, also spoke and uttered the lame views. The Keno'sl feeling of the house, therefore, was in favour of ineptiry. When In reply he (Mr. Norman) appealed to them to adopt the motion he stated why it was that De felt it to he his duty not to accept say yielded poste tram the seteraawae, wed why be i should press it to a division. After he had sat down the Clariceßow of the Exchequerroug end eastredAhe burn pro 1496 66,6 geoessealtent pro to dastleage gm j uqu ic c. i sliii stated that he ala old not imp • ju tl iehl *w ry suc h set e it e r ,; Horsens) bad a ,or a friendly inquiry such as n spokes of by eollesigue, but te would pro -2111611 •OPPsofids inquiry, and he s tale d " that, he thought, Wlill the government ought to b called; opus to state. subject wee brought hefure the Louse surrounded by difficulties. Ile thought no person could contend that there were the means for a special inquiry as at present advised ; and he could only repeat, on the part of the government, that there would be a boosafitils inquiry into the circuuntanue." On a sub sequent day, after the tapes of a month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on the part of the government a report of the results of that which the government had under taken. To that he (Mr. Hemmen) did sot wish to advert. The Attorney-Ueneral came to the conclu sion that even if there was a cue of eompsint against Mr. Bennett, it was doubtful, under the provisions of the Church Discipline Art, if he was amenable to the law, because, by the 20th clause of that act, the loin:nee must be committed within two years, and if the offence was committed when the offender was abroad, it did not apply at all. But es regarded the Bishop of Ilath and Wells, it wee admitted that there was no redress in point of law against him for the institution of Mr. Bennett ; that there wee no statute applicable to the case ; or no court where that act could be called in question. The Attorney-Gene ral at that time seemed to imagine that he (Mr. Herman) had censured the manner in which the government had fallen sheet in the investigation they had undertaken. An hon. baronet who sat below him (Mr. Herman) said that he had aequi•ted the government of ad remiss ness. Ile did neither the one nor the other, and his desire was then to avoid discussion on that point, and he did not feel that he was in a condition to enter on that dis cussion now, or to arrive at any judgment on that question. lle took up the matter to-night as a sequel to the former discussion, and if to-night he found that the government said that they thought it was a grave question and one which could not rest here, ho would be satisfied. If, how ever. they made it a party question and used the into .nee of the government to defeat the question, ho should come to a different opinion, and he believed the country also would entertain a different opinion, and would express that opinion. Ile hail stated thus much is order to put the house in possession of the real state of the cue. Ile would make no allusion except in pluming to the report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he wished to disuse the question without any party feeling. After giving some furth er details in vindication and corm- boration of the statements he had made as to the proceed. ings of Mr. Bennett at Kissingen, and his alleged Romanist tendencies, Mr. foreman addressed him eel( to the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in comparison with whose acts, Le said, those of Mr. Bennett were perfectly insignificant. Ile felt bound to say that, after considering and reconsidering this matter since he first introduced it to the notice of the house, his opinion respecting the conduct of the bishop had been much strengthened; and that, much as Mr. Bennett's conduct deserved censure, it fell far short of what was due to the conduct of his superiors. He would Sew, in the first place, that the bishop instituted Mr. Bennett in a man ner that indicated haste and a determination to shut out the parishioners of Frome front the legal redress which they would have had if the bishop had been less hasty ; secondly, that Mr. Bennett wan instituted without that certificate from his former diocesan which was always required in such caeca ; and thirdly, that be did so without that due exami nation which was enjoined by the law, and which the pa rishioners had a right to demand. Ile would show that this was not done accidentally, carelessly, without forethought, and upon impulse, but that it was done advisedly, and as the lawyers said, perversely, and with the intention of defeating the ends of justioe. Let the house observe the position of the parties. At the time of the institution, each party had a legal position, and certain legal rights. The parishioners did not know their legal rights at the time ; the bishop un fortunately knew his before them. When the bishop was about to institute, it was open to the parishioners, under ' the canon law, to enter a caveat, which they might have lodged in the Bishop's court, and the question would have been tried in the court of the Chancellor of the diocese. From that court an appeal would lie to the archbishop, and from the archbishop to the Privy Council. Such were the rights of the parishioners before the institution ; but they were not aware of them. lie would now ma the house to attend to the dates. It was known on the 30th of December that Mr. Bennett was to be appointed as the clergyman of Frome. On* the 7th of January a memorial was presented to the bishop against the appointment. On the kith they received the bishop's reply. On the same day they wrote again to the bishop, prayiug for a delay of 14 days, in order that they might have time to consider what steps they ought to take. They received the bishop's answer on the 21st,and on thatsamo day the parishioners sent up a solicitor to London to teke the opinion of Dr. Twits as to the steps which they should take. On the 24th they returned, having been advised tu enter a caveat u soon as possible, and on the 24th, before they could de so, they found that the bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett. (Hear, hear.) Ile thought this proceeding one of so extraordinary a character, that he tasked the gentleman who related the circumstances to him, if he was quite sure of their correctness, and he received the following reply : " I will take up the subject on Thurtday, January 15th, on which day we wrote to the bishop at Brighton, praying that he would delay institution fur 14 days. On the 19th he dates his civil reply, which we received on Wednesday, the 21st; and, by the very next train, on the same day, we sent Mr. Cruttwell and the Rev. Hill Davie: Wickham, to London, to consult proctors. On the 23rd they had an oral opinion from Dr. Twigs (to save time), urging them to loos no time in en'cring a caveat to stay institutiPn and induc tion, or induction , be as the case may . Mr. Cruttwell wrote nn that day from London to the committee at From., to be ready in the committee room at one o'clock p.m. the next day, at which hour he will arrive at the station and join us. On his way trona the station to the committee room he heard the bells strike up, and was told that Mr. Bennett had just been inducted. This was Saturday, January 24. A few minutes after we had met, Mr. Bennett and a few strange clergymen (three, I think) passed our window on their way from church, alter induction. Mr. Bennett called on Dr. Griffith, at Elm, two miles from Fromo, on the morning of Saturday, January 24, and was by him, as commissary, instituted. lie then proceeded back to Frame church, and was inducted the same 'morning by the Rev. Mr. Blackwell, curate of blells, near From. The Rev. W. Calvert, curate of Frome for four years), and then re siding at the vicarage hope, declined being present at the induction." _ _ . This statement was smarmed by Mr. Crutwell, who came up to London ea the part of the parishioners. The house would now see bow far the parishioners of Franc were liable to the Ape that they lad not been ready to avail themselves et lb* hid eseiedy Whom coming there. The bishop refusal them that modereta eml decent delay which would have prevailed the battled's of Mr. Bennett. (Hear, hear.) Me would vesture te= two questions to the hon. sad kernel gentlemengentlemen the M isr nay-General. In the first play, belied' sok bim erhsehee, ender the canon law, if the caveat hal beta lodged mad the bishop bad instituted in spite of B l i t he institution would not lam been void ? That was a point on which the hcm. smi karats* smitlemms mold ve se dillealty in giving en 'gbh& Tee mend tessalea whisk be would pat to bilm--sad be aikened it Mlles nem in by capa city as • member of that be.. thee ea a lawyer —was, whether, with the oppertnnallos whisk be bed bad for in etshlag late the whole etre, be did act believe that if the sweet lad beat lodged. sad the question of Mr. Bennett's arthalexy fekly tril aw neesumhises of doctrine would have boon established. hear.) Now, there were two enreially w bl abbed to bring before the house Ina mon with the Way of Bath and Wells; first, that the b hint was bound to require from Mr. Bennett the andlooM of his foamy diocesan; secondly, that be was boned, before he instituted him, to subject him to what ems Itsessed "due enuaination." In hie anticipation et Ae peemediaps of the parishioners, the bishop, it might be said, kept strictly within the law ; but did he keep within the law as regarded the certificate sad the examination I He (117.1terseme) stated on a former ocarien that be had L ind a tumour that three clergymen el the Messes of Leedom and sigend a certificate dada, that**, Ing ham Mr. Bennett during the whole of the three premodify years, and that ba sis opportuaities of observing his sendnot during that they verily believed thane ball held, written, thsegbt nethiag atoMm the &stelae end discipline of the united ohne of Wend end be tad. What he then stated as matter of sewer be email now state as matter of fact : three eleampeee of the disease of London did sign the certificate. The rumour !high be mentioned at the same time, with regard to the Blelhopa London, was not quite correct. He stated that be bad eta derstood that the bishop appended to his declaration a cm*. Mention written on the margin of the certifies*. The fact was much stronger than that. The bishop of Lark* b a yi ng s i gn ed the certificate, wrote at the same time a very strong letter, stating the sense in which his signature was to be understood. He had heard, and believed it to be the fact, that though the bishop of London's sigaature was re quired by the words of the canon, yet the meaning of the agitator° was simply that the party was known to the bishop. This usage was go invariable, that the Bishop of London did not feel justified In withhold iag his signature, under any circumstances, but in the present case he took care that it should be accom ponied with an explanation in order that there might be no mistake about his own opinion, and in order that no decep tioa might be practised on the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Of the certificate itself he knew nothing ; but he presumed that it would be produced, otherwise it could not be shown that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had acted according to law. (Hear, bear.) He wanted to see the names of the three London clergymen who took the extraordinary step of asserting that they had had an opportunity of observing Mr. Bennett through the year 18:4, during a portion of which year he woe abroad—(bear, hear)—and that during that time he had done nothing contrary to the doctrine and discipline of the church of England. Ile knew nothing, as he had already stated, of the certificate ; but he held in lais band a copy of the later of the Bishop of London which accompanied it. The hon. member then stated that the fol lowing letter was given to him two or three week. ago by • clergyman who called upon bin., with the consent of for Bishop of London. "My Lord,-1 have to request that my counter-aignature ' to this testimonial may be emaidered as being simply the 'armies of my op' in that the clergymen who have signed it, and who see beneficed in my diocese, have testi . fled to your lordship that which they verily believe. But I think it is my duty to state that in December, 1850, Mr. Bennett resigned the perpetual curacy of Bt. l'aul's, Knightsbridge, and that I accepted his resignation because I I was of opinion that the peace and good order of the church in my diocese would be seriously interrupted if he were to roma inottmbent of that benefice. For the ~MI which