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

TIIE „ SUN, LONDON, WEDNEsp4,3c, r -trEVENING, JUNE , IE34 m an before no w b u ild up i n that House fabrics of accuse against particular prelates of the Established Church, Which, When examined, had turned out to be splendid exag gerations.— (" Hear bear," from Mr. Horsman.) He might ref er t o the Horfield manor case.— (Question. ) The Hon. and Leareed Gentleman had been upwards of two hours in lea king his elaborate accusation, and surely the House would "' t end its indulgence to him while he attempted to answer ,r hear.) In the case alluded to ehe Hon. and Lea rned . Afember had, utterly failed; ih every,material point Ili the charges which he made against the Bishops of. Glous eater.— had for (Hear,' hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman a long time taken on himself the functions of an ac 4:tate clergy. In 1828, when the Hon. and Learned was en elder of the Presbyterian Church, he ode charges against the eminent and excellent Dr. Chal mers, which obliged Dr. Chalmers to resort to the press.— ( e " l jear," from Mr.'Horsman.) He admired the cheer of the Learned and Learned Gentleman. No • doubt. the Hon. and Gentleman : thought Dr. Chalmers as much.in :the Dells that occasion as he thought the Bishop of Bath an e : lls in thia. But` the fact wail that' Dr. Chalmers was obliged to publish an answer for the purpose of demonst!eit 'ge_tne unsoundness of what he called the aerial accusations 4,,Lueand*Learned Gentle Man. The Hon. and Learned sn ' ntl einan had taken coil himself the character of a pu ic Nirser of the clergy, and was bound to be accurate in the ses an gnage he •d to take care that the views he pre- T o te d of a callseBe used, up to the standard •ef facts. If the 11 ; and Learned Gentleman would embark in discussions I o il e tr ,,ng great legal knowledge, he was bound to avoid e a e —c "ing unfounded charges, and to take care that the ',, - ; n eiPles on which he proceeded • were sound. The Hon. 4 1 s - el e Learned Gentleman had put the House in a dilemma likebe could not accept. The Hon. and Learned Gent e- Said that either the House was a fit place for a debate bushed present, or else there ought not to be an Este etseed Church: He trembled to the dilemma, but Zhfeared it was just possible for them to have an Established a t ." 146 3, and, yet that that House might not be the fitting f ir for the discussion like the present.—(Hear.) Speaking tio r t h ; llls elf; be did nokscruple to say that that . House.. was here fitting arena for such discuseions. He admitted that tee— might have been—nay, what was more important— at ther e h a d b een some cases o f foul play ; that the Church tf at t n gland was rent from head to foot with her divisions; ehe asked them, apart from all interests of his own, or of : c if!Y, whether they thought that religions divisions of theel to be mitigated, and that the sores and wounds e l „ Church were likely to be healed, by rhetorical decla sta7inn, by exaggeration, and by misapprehension and mis toi„'eendeets of fact ? (Hear.) It might be that he himself io t gt, err in this respect ; but if he did so, it would be un veil; ttcl nai, for he had the deepest sense of the mischief ailci nti arose from such a source.—(Hear, hear.) If the lion. li g i L earned Gentleman knew anything of the nature of re one side partisanship he must know that heat and violence on h er ,, engendered heat and violence on the other.—(Hear, w et He believed that if the influence of Mr. Bennett l op e In question, there would be ne better mode of increase o' lid propagating that influence than by singling him for attack, if that attack were coloured by rel i gious feel eim•ga• That fact must be kept in mind throughout the whole e e — h u es, if they wished to neutralise the evils of such dis li-4)nre—(Hear, hear.) The first point which called for ti t attention was whether the country was to be governed, oD ee • " in ecclesiastical or in civil matters, by the private th e 7 e e tie of particular men, according to their popularity for mereuinrnent, or by a system of fixed laws ?—(Hear, hear.) w as to be governed by private opinion, and if that House ei na: to become the means of making such private opinion *egg in ,matters of religion, representative institutions endLe become a nuisance, and ecclesiastical questions would nat they were in fact, the bane and plague of the House the f the country.—(Hear, hear.) But he m a intained that e e l Were not there to decide what was in the abstract th e i t . They had to decide one or two questions. First, had to i;,„ e ws been obeyed? If the laws were good they ought (le e - e bnYed ; and if not good they ought to be altered. le o r , bear.) They had no right to establish any extra rei gh , system of influence or jurisdiction by which the y or e " i ° Perate on the regular operation of the law. It mu st iteli v i d n its own fixed course, irrespective of the opinions of Was n , Tbat was he first principle he laid down. It presenn , riai t o k eep in t o ew the person before them in the i nstance. The speech of the Honourable and tion'ed Gentleman had a good deal cleared up that ques , as 6 1 ; 13 be understood the case, the person whose conduct ,nish on ',„' n re them was the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As c a 'ione r e " e , Was a great officer of state, and he agreed with the field e r4o le and Learned Gentleman indeed he had long ;ale e te 'Opinion —that it was a great absurdity that our niah oe e nid not afford the means of correccing a delinquentYiee, re(ilettr, hear.) He frankly owned that he should for t h." l ta the greatest favour any judicious proposition With purpose of providing such means.—(Hear, hear.) Isie eh r eseect to the Bishop of Bath and wash point t ibit e n h n wished to put to the House simply tecee n e w'rea not a delinquent bishop, and ,that not even a L ine). -.1 , 1 , 4 c2e - case of delinquency had • been made out against thi se 'uat being so, let them put aside the other charges o f th e -e a% They had nothing to do with the proceedings pl eas , Patron. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had ex the Y c beelairned casting any imputation on the conduct of t o r: t. tro n. The lion. and Learned Gentleman had omitted great n" element to which every patr on ou g ht to pay Itho: tt ention, and that was the feeling of the p eo p le over o col and es an Y particular pastor was place d . Thou g h the lion. iarried , Member had dealt with the facts as best he ly beee e ll : had admitted that in this particular case—through rf e e ti 'r Peculiarity or delusion—the peop le of Frome were or Y satisfied with what the patron had done.—(Mr. es lnot a , n t,l7 6. No, no.") The Hon. an d Learned Gentleman 0 al e en, admit that the people of Frome w ere satisfied. from Mr. Horsman.) The lion. and Learned `neile. - e ua ti throughout the whole of his first speech, and even riseirt, bad represented the objectors as the clergy and pa lillsee9„eera,olProme. Now, it was not a fact that they were I' u a e le ni• Rightly or rongly, they were satisfied with ua e lie rPui ntinent, and were grateful for it. lie held in his kile a lett er o f t h e churchwardens, which, if the House name Permit, he would read.—(Cries of " Name.") The the d at Was cries,of " Hear, hear")—and ember was the 17th of April, before the Hon. and Learned Ise, 44(1 brought forward his first motion on the subject. - It 43 toll re ssed to the patron, the Marquis of Bath, and was os: it FAO ME VICARAGE ,: Frome, I, April 17. of I, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt te e d to -,.. ordship's letter of yesterday's date, and will .pro tt h li s caNyer the inquiries . therein contained, fully, fairly, lihex Partially. The appointment of Mr. Bennett is not ho ldi y e ttionabl e to the body of the parishioners. This I . 111 habi t — Tt i this I am prepared boldly to maintain. .The r e the hots e t. great obligations n Frome are under many and 1 1111 3 , - use of Thynne, and there is none they more cheer lessiurgschognise or more gratefully a preciate than the n oble r - Mowed on them in the rega e r d d P m in anifested by that nominating Mr. 'elin et 4nl dY for their spiritual go f ear or t vicar of Frome. I assert, and without the slightest rein. -41 co ntradicti on , th a t since Mr. Bennett commenced his stte.i s r .3' the m orn i ng congrega tion have increased at least *ere.o.. '`) _d, and that as to the bevleedni within g servicesthe, there never 'ejer:many persons assem t ee walls of St. lculation last Sun even lag 4 uhurch. e lowes fraet ll, .P 2 , 0 00. A T t h the commencement many have b y een at. ci f 41," by curiosity and the love of novelty, but at the end %I n ..'" months there is not only no diminution, but the j t wb'egation is increased and increasing." h a the sentiments of th,, as not right, therefore, to _ 57 ve t r-ridden in app o l) ,.P a Frame had been G et ,' °t Mr. Bennett.--(Hear, hear.) 'The Hon. and Learned th. fl ernan denied that- the churchwarden bad represented for s e ntiments sentiments of the people, but it was right . he should in of I n k the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that in a postcript 'go lette r it w as stated that the parishioners, in vestry ks,. p„'elbled, had re-elected the writer of the letter church rrrden. It appeared that under the guidance . of certain I .,„srgymen, 54 persons had protested against the appoint- Zetit of Mr. , Bennett. Of these 54, only 16 belonged to the i tish church to which Mr. Bennett had been appointed; . i t - ',`' of these 16 one-half had returned to the church . w . ithin 'evr weeks after Mr. Bennett was inducted. One circum atet, h ; te of a somewhat solemn nature was connected with ptr-ostyart of the question.. One person of the 54 who had krlted,was taken 11 and his first act was te send for he B ennett ennett, and ha died l receiving his ministration.—(Hear, fetii t ( n The , patron, .therefore, was vindicated so far . as t the said th at ' the parishioners was concerned. It migh thei r k ,. their approval was only a proof of the depth of a . uundness He was not authorised to give any I, ee otint • but - of Mr. Bennett's sentiments. Indeed he had ni.. a slight acquaintance with -. it , -„,. him. l T a h n e d re m w ig e h r t e , perveuon. Members who . knew hini . intimate y, th e ir,Q l-is, be able to speak. on that point. Instead of taking ea r „' l letieed and exaggerated view which the Hon. and had ""d Gentleman had done of everything that Mr. Bennett th - L lEti d, and assuming that at this moment Mr. Bennett was hi e jlne man that he was, he must say that the address to 1 114 t j r °Dl the parishioners of FrOme was a demonstration tondo'ed him to the encouraging hope that Mr. Bennett had tveted himself wisely and discreetly in his pari.h, and lit, wh ' h ick ether like other men, he might rock in the troubles ihe'ch s urrounded them=he was s t ea d y in his allegiance to o tit Uharch of England, and faithful in the discharge of his It' j '' " a minister of that Church.—(Rear, hear.) That pads rational inference to draw• when they found the whole It eh approving of Mr. Bennett's doctrines and discipline. p ia Sealed to him that the accusations against Mr. Bennett di e,,`'.,eSl themselves into two classes, the first relating to his pro ceedings at Kissengen—the second to his published works. e ttis . Proceedings i n L on d on were not, and could not be, the to Jett of inquiry. The Ron. and Learned Member seemed „_Lhink that the proceedings at Kissengen ought to have r'ented the Bishop of Bath and Wells instituting Mr. to t , , et t. With respect to the proceedings at Kissengen he '44 it a „ I CA aware of the state of the , case, except in one very etri.t..ant particalar. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman I)F;satiaed that if Mr. Bennett did not appear at the . i sitV Bll church at Kis.sen en it proved that he was un am 4 1 .1 to the English ta titi ,, earn e d Gentleman .must have forgotten that_ , M . (14, ef t, was travelling as ch . a ti et , r. .; As to th P the Hon. and Learncl-G_ _ lain to a private famil e .— j a an . h a ,, e story which jaynett- '' told them of the stone for an alt h e i r in wh h i e ch m tl e r t . h" e v w i as said to have carried about with t. il e s th rn .et i a ~,,,'tneelaivtie nothin -Hear.) Even if the Hon. and , ea . i_ &mat ra Tan . should . b n e e a e b e l e e te to r s e u e p , p a o e r e t t the clones" i tr -i l vished the House K ss . n his that e t t a h t e em p r e o n - , jaish° P i l t ra t °f . tile Bennett at of Bathi iangdenvirdeildie..n_o(the_ 9, t at n3 affect t Mr.• -Bennett f3 ., 11 accou r i 4 4 ) Power to take'any steps alt of were done Ili th,,,- - Y,' sech proceedings, j because they x th di sseniA t % s dictio of our ecclesiastical law._(- had been be coaisi--**l ' - ' v erl. 1 the Bishop of Bath and Wells pressions he co nt q Such ' not 1 ttld lia,e takenroceed t in he did not believe tha e t A e T a he jl e . ong be a gooliit ane e ge, with regard to them. cited P i e n support of his opinion. _ . e 4611:sP4Ptit Neel had preached in a Presbyterian church, h don ir c : l 4t Inverness. The attention of the Bishop of Lon *tie , 8 Called to the fact, but it was found not to be an 701 ft,,h.,..i , abl by .Itir g s ,; - " 01.0 n. e anil lw. Learned Gentleman had made three Pllr Pos u at the Bishopproceeded in undue haste and in . 1 1. 1 tat 00 event the parishioners having a fair hearing , b • rt h o c, Proceeded without the proper certificate ; and i,,03. thatded without due examination. It appeared to -°l ted e ach and eve one of those charges was without the at . _ -,_, q e e t ' i rtiot i •-tint.firstrYof all let them realise to themselves Attbin ia ßi s h op . The Honourab h le a k n a d de L o e n ar t n: i d s eet, 1',, 111 the first statement which itith ops, wahu proceeded entirely on the as e sn n m . ption that ~.s e la w . 4 . L .,cla they received "'Pt e r r • - "lgland with large discretionary presentee . .., w e r p e 0 T e v r e e s t t e e d a b e y . to efect th e v e ll , Me g , i 1 That ordination, the bishops .power In• was not the case. With respect b a d s iiiil,4_l. matters of t, o r d 4l " . e '-e d a and if it could be shown that a bishop (11 4 h e -would be u departed from his an who was illioatviqugalified for the =me et ty. tut what wregardedthe nat as ure of the law on the subject ,be 1,104b.s bishop's - powers with respect to presente d es? ore l e or his ii 4 7d Learned re__ talons - Gentleman had perhaps im con , on this sub from Scotland, where e _ porte h s h i3 cd a setter Jed stem prevailed. fact „,, _ . system people a fai r ~.1Wa3.8 been studious to give to the the uPPortunity of statin g The law of Scotland objections to presentees, and, on . objet h,ile, the practice had been j to give a [air scope to such tiioile_ But that t4 a ricl. 'The inspiringwidaes had been t a n e o f t th t e h l e aw sp e i f r E i n o f an th d e law of 'vib e with every security the patron's right 1 1 _ : . yowson and the inchoate right of the p r F sen r The pint of the law in well. to pres t e e n e. D'rerned countries like ou own became the spirit of the a courte,of law, and, a 5 in the case of mortmain, thejealousNof the Legislature Was guarded by the rigid- interpretion given to. ether statutes'eley- the courtelof law. In the same way the courts had viewed with the utmost jealousy the civil rights of the patrons and the inchoate right of a -presentee. The power of the bishop ' was narrow by law; and narrower according to practice, and every act of a patron was scrutinised with the utmost jealousy in order to give effect to what the law favoured, and to restrain what the law regarded with distrust. Was the Bishop to refuse admission to a presentee because he had.written a work which did not meet his views, or be cause. he interpreted the oath of supremacy differently from the bishop? Was the Bishop of Bath and Wells to refuse admission to Mr. Bennett because virtually, but not-legally, the Bishop of London had a expelled him from his benefice, or because some fifty persons in Frome had addressed him not to institute. Mr. Bennett! If the Bishop of Bath and. Wells had so acted he would have been forthwith brought into the Queen's Bench, and it would have been no justification of his conduct •if he bad told the judges that he had refused -admission to Mr. Bennett because the ,Bishop of' London had disapproved_ of his conduct. The Bishop of Bath and Wells would have been called on by the court to prove that Mr. Bennett was disqualified either on the ground of heretical doctrine, immoral conduct, or insufficient learning.—(Hear, hear.) Except on these grounds the Bishop would have no locus etandi in a court of la*. From the Statement of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman one would have supposed that his doctrine of a strict examination of a presentee was very popular in this country, and that the feeling of Parliament was in favour of it. So far back as 1624, the House appointed a Committee to inquire into the conduct of one of the bishops, who, was afterwards Archbishop. of York, and the Committee reported that the Bishop had failed to admit presentees, and that his not havine inducted them had been to the great injury of the patron. The House had, no doubt, in their recollection the recent case of the Bishop of Exeter and the presentation to Brarnpford Speke. The ruinous and crushing costs of these ecclesiastical suits were enough to deter persons from engag ing in them. He believed the Bishop of Exeter had learnt that fact by hard experience. In another case, in which the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had prosecuted a clergy man for immorality, the cost to the Bishop was not less than 4,2091. Justice, he hoped, ought to be done even to a Bishop, and these things ought not' to be forgotten when their incomes were alluded to. - He bad stated that if the Bishop of Bath and Wells bad refused to admit Mr. Bennett he might have been called into court by a writ of quare impedit, and if he failed to establish heresy, immoral conduct, or insufficient - learning • against Mr.'Bennett, he would have been condemned to pay costs. The other mode of proceeding was the duplex querela. Ac cording to that mode, if the Bishop refused to act, the ques tion passed to the Court of the Archbishop, and then to the Committee of Privy Council. He hoped, therefore, the House would recollect that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in every step that he took, was bound to keep himself within his legal powers, andithat the moment he stepped on doubt ful ground he made himself liable to being proceeded against in a court of law. , The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had stated that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had' proceeded with unduehaste, for the purpose of overcoming the objec tions of the parishioners. The facts, he thought, led to an opposite conclusion.—(Flear, hear.) He should be sorry unnecessary to detain the House, but in such a case he begged they would assume their judicial character, and hear the answer he had to make to the statement of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, What step should the parishioners have taken in order • to interrapt these pro ceedings? Their first step was to have entered a caveat, for by doing so they could have furnished the Bishop with good and solid grounds for delaying proceedings. Why then had they not taken that step in the first instance?— (Hear, hear.) Every lawyer in Emma must have known that this was the mode of proceeding. Mr. Bennett's pre sentation was known in Frome on the 30th of December, but he was not instituted till the 24th of January; an in terval of 26 days elapsed. That a caveat could have been entered in a single day was evident from th e f ac t o f D r. Twiss having on the 2351 of January advised a caveat, and from its being ready on the 24th of January,— (Hear.) The Hon. and Learded Gentleman said that the parisioners petitioned the Bishop, but petitions were of no legal value, while, by entering a caveat the petitioners would have in curred a forensic responsibility. If the Bishop had pleaded the petitions in any suit the Court would have laughed in his face. He ventured to say that there was not an' at torney in Frome who would not have advised the peti tioners that if they were in earnest, the proper mode of proceeding was by caveat. The Bishop would not have been entitled to plead the address which he had received from the petitioners in any proceedings which might have' been taken against him. The Hon. and Learned Gentle man thought that the address did not supply matter for judi-' cial consideration. The Bishop was not of that opinion, and as the parishioners had not taken the proper method of entering a caveat , he contended the Bishop would not have been justified in refusing to institute.—(Hear, hear.) If the Bishop could not refuse, neither could ho delay iustitution. He apprehended that a judge could not delay justice without reason, any more than he could refuse justice. —(flear.) The obligation not to postpone justice was as strong as the obligation not to deny it. The bishop would certainly have been responsible to the patron,' as well as to the presentee, if, knowing that the parishioners declined en tering a caveat, he had refused to institute' the presentee to the benefice to which he had received the presentation. As regarded the question of delay, therefore, he begged the House to remember that twenty-six days had elapsed be tween the time when the people of From° had become aware of the intention to pr esen t Mr. Bennett and the time when he had been instituted. He put it to the House - that if those parties were in earnest it was their duty to pursue one or other of two courses; they ought either to have con sulted the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to have asked .him whether he thought there were grounds for legal pro ceedings against Mr. Bennett, and then of course they should be bound by the decision of the Bishop;' or they_ might have abstained from consulting the Bishop at all, and have themselves entered a caveat and commenced legal pro ceedings in the matter. But they had riot chosen to adopt either of these courses. The demand they bad made was virtually to the effect that because they had found that Mr. Bennett had professed opinions not acceptable to them, the Bishop of Bath and Wells should undertake not only the cost and risk of the legal proceedings, but that he should undertake,. them in a cause which he believed to be good for nothing. Let it not be forgotten that it had only been on the 23d of January that those parties had sought advice on the subject of their caveat—that was to say 25 days after they ought to have sought it, and when Mr. Bennett was on the point of being instituted. Then, the second charge of the Hon. Gentleman agairlet the Bishop of Bath and Wells was, that Mr. Bennett had been instituted without the proper certificate. But upon that point' it ap peared to him (Mr. Gladstone) that the Hon. Gentleman had fallen into an error in supposing that one of the canons he had quoted—namely. the 48th canon, had anything to do with that matter. He (Mr. Gladstime) believed he was be yond all risk of being questioned or contradicted-by any `one conversant with, ecclesiastical ee law ea fwohenyehaera, thestate 89th at the present time, and fora long series Canon was that which exclusively regulated the institution of ministers to benefices. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had been guilty of a legal offence in 'admitting Mr. Bennett without the testimonial of the Bishop of London, But the 39th canon did not require such a testimonial as that which the Hon. Gentleman supposed to be indispensable. He met the state ment of the Hon. Gentleman by stating that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received from Mr. Bennett fall evi dence with regard to his life and doctrines, and that if he had refused to entertain that evidence Mr. Bennett, or the patron of the living, would have been entitled to have pro secuted the bishop in the courts, and to have compelled him to have granted institution. The Hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received the usual testimonial signed by three incumbents, but he had asked who these three incumbents were, and whether he (Mr. Gladstone) had got that testimonial. Now, he had to state in reply, that he had not got the testimonial, and that he could not name the three incumbents. But he knew that the testimonial, so far as the three incunbents were con cerned, was the usual testimonial. the Hon. Gentleman had said that the testimonial was to the effect that Mr. Bennett had never done anything contrary to the doctrine or disci pline of the Church of England. But the words of the testi monial were in reality to the effect that Mr. Bennett had never held, or taught; anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England. It would be very diffi cult indeed to say of any man that he had not done any thing contrary to any particular doctrines ; but a man's teaching was more public, and could more properly be made the subject of a testimonial such as that to which he was referring. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had received pre cisely the usual testimonial, as far as the incumbents were concerned;; but it was not the usual . testimonial, so far as the dismissing Bishop—the Bishop of London —was concerned. The Bishop of London had annexed a note in which he called the attention of,the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the fact 'that Mr. Bennett had' been dismissed from the diocese of London, or that the Bishop of that diocese had made use of the voluntary offer of resignation of Mr. Bennett, because, as he said, the continuance of that clergy man in the diocese would .seriously prejudice its free and good order. He had called the attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the correspondence which had been pub lished iu the Times, between lifmselff and Mr. Bennett. And thus they had got one step further in the matter. The testimonial was the usual testimonial compelling the Bishop to institute Mr. Bennett as far as the incumbents were concerned ; but it was not the usual testimonial, inasmuch as it had an extraneous comment appended to it by the Bishop of London. The question then arose, what • was the exact legal nature and effect of that explanatory note of the Bishop of London, and -what were the duties which it imposed on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? He (Mr. Glad-. • stone) understood that notes of that kind were not unfre quently appended by bishops to testimonials ; but it was quite plain that if a signature were affixed to any document in conformity with law and usage, its legal effect could not be altered by any gratuitous comment made by the party signing it. The meaning 'of the signature of the Bishop of London continued the same in point of law, whatever might be the explanation affixed to it. What was the value of that explanation? He (Mr. Gladstone) said that 'the value of it was this—that it imposed on the Bishop of'Bieth and Wells the duty of ascertaining for himself what was the doctrine of Mr. Bennett, and of satisfying himself upon that point. He contended that it could have no other value and effect than that of imposing on the Bishop of Bath and Wells the duty of examining Mr. Bennett. The Hon. Gentleman himself admitted that the certificate of the Bishop of London was not necessary— that the canons did not require it, and that practice did not require it; and he (Sir. Gladstone) believed that, under these cir cumstances, he had shown that there was an end to that Part of the case a t t em p ted to be established against the BiShop of Bath' and Wells. He next came to the third charge of the' Hon. Gentleman, which was that the Bishoaof Bath and Wells had admitted Mr. Bennett without due examination, and he (Mr. Gladstone) was bound to say he thought at that in the s ense of the Hon. Gentleman the Bishop of Bath and Wells had so admitted Mr. Bennett. He should, however, add, that although the constrn,c,dtittoenexecahrnicihnatthioen,H, o rn n i . g G ht n a t u l t p t m th an e had given to the phrase House question that felt ever . c inquiredo nfid ent into, there was gentlemane Commo ns; there wh h h e a d Tr Gentleman in the case, lawyers there who felt with the eeon. that would not at once repudiate that construction. lie saw paneadleud to upon tthheempowlih intwthheicheamhee ewonafisdtehneene discussingwith whien h h ee apap pealed to H on . G ent l emen who adopted his views in the matter. The Hon. Gentleman had laid down the doctrine li t na h i a dth t de a o j ws u i d nri g et e thet c — : f d o o ra bishop in' such a case as tha t was a j udge sense trinet oi t h a e t that judge wa term—theloon.n not to institute an examination o f suc h a nature and to suc h a n extent as to loon. Gentleman had satisfy his own conscience, he being the person on whose conscience the law had laid the burden of the decisio n, but such an examinati on as would satisfy other per sons on whom the law had not laid the burden of the decision—such an examination as would satisfy what the Hon. Gentleman called e. the public " and such an exami nation as would no doubt satisfy hi for Cockermotith.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He wished g he could get the Hon. Gentleman to look in cold blood at the consequences—he did not like to use stpngepithets— but he should say the really frightful and hideous conse quences of such a doctrine of judicial duty, and such a con ception of the judge in a Kama judicial character, as that a • and iraleeftant matter was not to look foe such evidence as ; would satisfy his awnsenScience, but fore-eaeh-evideticetets- Lwottld 'settee , the pudic.—(Loud cries of Hear, hear.") If he had misunderstood the . Hon, Gentleman, audit the Hon. Gentleman would - admit thet the duty of a judge was to in stitute, 'on his solemn responsibility, such an examination as would satisfy his own judgment, and. acquit his own coo seletite before God, and men—then he and the lion. Gentle man were agreed. - The Bishop of Bath and Wells had dis charged that duty; he had _examined Mn., Bennett, not in the Greek Testament; not on matters of form• or of ecclesiastical history—he had examined ..Mr. Bennett—not • the Mr. Bennett of former . times, .but the Mr. Bennett of January last—the. Bishop who, had himself been ee great _sufferer , from .. illness—from crushing and torturing` illness=bot who haeLbeen in full' possession of all hie intellectual powers sad faculties—for the Right Hon. Gedtleman.the_Secretary of State was mis taken in supposing that he had arrivedat an extreme old. age -he had carefelly examined Mr. Bennett .on all. those points on which. he had thought that an examination had' been called ftir—namely, those pints in dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; and it was. hot until he bad made up his mind that on those points Mr. Bennett had held by the Churcloof England that he had pro teeded to take any 'of the steps necessary for.granting the propped institution. If he liad found that. Mr.,,Bennett had held-the opinions' of the Church of Rome ineregard, for in. stance, to the points touched in the Thirty-nine Articles, his Course would have been clear, and it would -then, no doubt, have been his duty to have refused institution.. But having found that there had been no, gronnd for attributing to Mr. Bennettean adherence to 'the doetrines of the Church of Rome, he had granted "institutioli. Acting, not on the • belief and convictions of the Hon. Gentlemen o bta .on. the belief and convictions of hirtiself, .the Bishop, who was the judicial officer appointed by the . law to decide. the case,•had subjected Mr. Bennett to a due examination; anditwaa to his honour that he had done that, not under the influence of any Compulsion on the part of the parishioners of 'tome, for he had done it before there had been any movement Whatever among any discontented clergyinen or laymen,. :Elle Bishop had himself instituted the inquireebeCause he had seen that the circumstances of Mr. Benriett's former career had been such as to call for it. He had:taken upon -himself that responsibility, and by his own - Mouth had examined. IMr. Bennett on those points on which he believedthot an ex amination was necessary.. Now ho.(Mr. Gladstone), should confess that the Hon. Gentleniaii fairly beat him when he led them in that House into the domain of pure and unmixed theology . The Hon. Gentleman had quoted from &work of Mr. Bennett some propositions in theology, and the Hon. 'Gentleman had told them that it would not be appropriate in that House to discuss those propositions. No; but al though the Hon. Gentleman had not thought it appropriate to discuss, he hid thought it 'appropriate to judge.and de cide.—( Hear, hear.) The. Hon... Gentleman had quoted a saying of Mr. Bennett's; with regard to the Holy . Scriptures. Bat Mr. Bennett himself had - on a 'former occasion com plained that higovords upon that subject had been mis quoted, not by an alteration of the words, but by taking them out of their context, so as to make them, bear a meaning totally different from that which he, had intended. . The Hon. and Learoed Gentleman; speaking of the pa rishioners ofFrome in another part of hie 'speech, had asked whether Mr. Bennett believed that the Bible was a fiction and an absurdity, imputing to Mr. Bennett that belief, and complaining that the Bishop of Bath and Wells bad not made that a matter - for his judicial investigation. But when he (Mr. Gladstone) looked at the possage, he saw that it was, in his humble opinion, totally altered, as Mr. Bennett bad contended, by being wrenched from What . Preceded and followed. Could he remedy the evil by , reading the pas• sage to the House? He felt that he could not. It was a powerful and affecting statement of some of the most solemn. doctrines of our religion, which euld h s e ay, c w ou a l s d .no n t ot' in pro th fa e n l e ea b s y t reading the passage in the House of Commons;; The Ho . heeh common history of the Ch or a l of nnurbe Ge Eng land, except, perhaps , during the years. be belonged degreea l aware n t 0 1 Gentleman,' m thean to it.—(Hear, hear, and. • a laugh.) He (Mr. Glad stone) believed he could show' the Hon. Gent'enian that he was totally unaware of. one of the great religious cOntro- VersieS .Of• this century. The passage in the work of Mr. Bennett had reference to this question-o.whether in the work of propagating Christianity, •of spreading Christianity among those who had not previously professed its doctrines —the Bible alene 'should be used; and Mr. Bennett had said. that it would be a fiction and delusion to suppOse that Christianity would be propagated by merely distributing • the. Bible among an un-Christian people. Bnt Mr. Bennett did not protest against the use of the Bible by Christians for the education of their soils. And the Honourable Gentleman ought to know that for many.years after the foundation of the institution known to every- Member of that House— namely, the Bible Society—that institution had • been op-' - posed by nearly the whole of the Bishops of the Church of England. He (Mr. Gladstone) doubted if there were more than a single Bishop who had not at the time opposed it; and it had also been o w P r P o o n s g e l d y .by wa th s e n gr et ea t t h m en as thesofquestion— that m en of t Establishedhziegahmtiyeng Christians,C h urch , a because tiectahleayr particularly conceived— whether foreign letion of the Bible alo ne was not the instru ment cn whichu our Saviour had i n t en ded for propagating U The opinion which h a d' b een h eld by Mr. B ' one, therefore, which h a d b een held at the time Christianity. ri tlands,event the irc t w h it e Yn establishment of the Bibl e Society 'by the great o f n i e a e s nringoetitfll a" the clergy and Bishops of the Ch urc h of England. Mr. HOUSMAN said he had not quoted the opinion of Mr. Bennett; he had merely said that the meniorialistalad brought that passage under the notice of the Bishop. Ha had : himself given no opinion upon the subject. - Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The Hon. Gentlemin had quoted the passage from the memorial; but he had also ad verted to it in another part of his speech. The opinion of Mr. Bennett was • one which had been entertained by the great mass of the bishops and clergymen of the Establiehed Church ; it was no ecclesiaitical offence of whiCh the courts could take cognizance, or whiCh they would admit as a valid reason for staying the right of the patron ,or of the, presentee. But the Hon. Gentleman had also adverted to another case —that relating to the oath of supreinacy. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) contended that upon that, as upon other points, they ought to be guided by the law, and not by private opinions. He was only afraid that as the law represented. the spirit of one period, and the men of the - present genera tion represented'the spirit eefa different period—our Levee not having been changed as public opinion had chatiged—thO.se who were called upon to consider the conduct of great public and judicial officers might forget that those officers were only bound to conform to the law, and that they could only be • blameable or punishable in consequence of a' de parture from it. It seemed that Mr. Bennett had put a particular construction on the oath of supremacy which dif fered from that which was put upon it by - the Honourable Gentleman: But the Honourable Gentleman ought to recol-, lest that the meaning of the oath of supremacy was one. Whichehad -Already been Mitch debated in that House. The Noble Lord the Member. for London had given one. construction of the oath,' and other Honourable Members had given a different construction of it; and it was well w k r o w w n e t r h e a p t r a e knot o t h d e e d p fi r es o m e n t t k m i n o g m e t n h tthere e irs ea t o w eiroe the Peers o Hou se r of Lords, because they found it impossible to affix to the• oath of supremacy any clear and distinct meaning to which they could subscribe. But at all events he believed that the meaning attached to the bath of supremacy by the courts; and th e Bi s h o p of Bath an Mr. Bennett did not amount to an dovvffeenlcieeoopoeindinshoatbmleakine, it a ground fo r s t a ying the insti nett, although he might thereby avert o pop a of cln tae-. of lt l lr r . Be mour, and save hi m self ' from the hostility h Honourable Me m b er f or Cockerrnouthe The Bishop guardian, even though it might be necessary for ao had merely to' carry out the law of which he was the h sworn so in an unpopular manner, and under unpopular want of evi dence, circum stances. As regarded the second charge, i a e t h 0 p t . h :e s evidencede ce, he a a s t r. the Gladstone) same osi thoughtn other h casese d of the Established Church: (Hear, hear.) But when h came to the third charge, he had shown that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, without waiting' for inquiry or suggestion from the Bishop of London, made up his mimi that Mr. Bennett could not be convicted of false doctrine, and that, had eal t t hse with oya n b n y t therefore, it . WaS not his duty to deny or delay the justice that rested with him t o pronounce .—(Hear, hear-) The Bishop of Bath and Well§ was fully borne out in the, course which he adopted by th e con d uct o f the Bishop rof London. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed it to be the case as regarded the Bishop of Bath and Wells that he had made himself respon sible -to this extent, that, if Mr. Bennett were taken into an ecclesiastical court, • and if his doctrines were there declared to be contrary to those held by the Church of England, there would then be a case against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who examined the works of Mr. Bennett, and de clared•them conformable to the doctrines of the Church of Englande--(Hear, hear.) But now 'came the qiiestions — What 'were they to do ? (Hear, hear.) It was not his (Mr. Gladstone'e) business to' advise the House on this, point—he was not going to make a motion or amendment on the sub ject; but he would offer a few observations on the motion itself. He should confess there were 'objections to the mo tion as it 'now stood- - -namely, as regarded the institution Of Mr. Bennett: Were he to vote for that motion as it now stood, he would be assenting to the allegation that a prima fatie case had been made against the Bishop of Bath and Wells; but in his opinion no such case was made : — (Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman an tici p ated, as an objection to his motiOno th e present period of the session, and in stanced the case of the inquiry moved for by the Hon. Member., for North Warwickshire.—(Hear, hear.) His -(Mr. Glad stone's) first objection was to their professing to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Bev. Mr. Bennett to Frome. If they were to inquire at all, they should have their inquiry into .the state and spirit of the enactment of the laws which were studiously framed by suc cessive generations with a view to discourage bishops; and make it impossible for them to do that which the Honour able Member for Cockerniouth now accused them with.— (Hear, hear.) If they wished to go into the ques tion of ecclesiastical appointments—if an inquiry were moved for to investigate the state of the law, and to .do so in a fair and impartial spirit, the Honourable Member moving such inquiry would confer one of the greatest services poesible on the country, and greatly can tribute to the stability of the Established Church.—(Elear; hear.) It was his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion that at pre sent parishioners did not possess sufficient means of making their objections known in these cases of institation.—(Hear, hear.) But Whether the subject should' be undertaken by a Commissioner or by a paid Committee, was another ques tion. If they wanted an immediate inquiry, they could not have it DOW by a Committee. Whether there should be a Commissiou, or whether there should- be a general acknow ledgement of the expediency of instituting an, inquiry into ecclesiastical and temporal law, with regard to the power of making canonical objections to persons . instituting , to ap pointments, he would not say. At the same time, he should .say that, if 'her Majesty's Government were disposed. to un • dertake the responsibility of an inquiry into the state of the law on this subject, they would give not only a most useful turn to the discussion raised by the Hon. Member felt Cocker mouth, but also confer a vast amount of benefit.—(Hear, near.) To either of these courses he (Mr. Gladstone) would be prepared to give a. most favourable consideration. But to censure a high judicial officer in the Church,. who had done his duty, and only fiis dtity, and that with accuracy and care, in the case now brought before them, he should confess was, in his mind, a most objectionable course of proceeding —(Hear, hear)--because it would be cas ti ng censure on a pt.( late—not by implication, but openly—who h a d never acted in a manner unbecoming his exalted position, and who, instead of blame and censure, merited at their hands the highest commendation.—(Cheers.) Sir J.• PAKINGTON remarked that the Right Honour able Gentleman - the Member for the University of Oxford had stated his sentiments with his usual ability, and had gone very far to justify the course the Bishop h a d t a k en i n this case. The sleep attention which had been paid to the Honourable Gentleman on both occasions when he brought the subject' before the House proved how strongly the people of this country and the Members of that House had been excited by those dissensions which unhappily existed in the Churcla,ot Ertgland.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford had observed' with painful truth, that the Church was rent and torn by those unhappy dis sensions od (Sir Jelin •Pakington) believed that this as manly to that portion of the clergy of : the Church who bad, taken that line which Mr. B ennett pur sued—(Loud cheers fro m all p arts of the House)— a line which in hicase had led to his expulsion from one ad led to the Moot • grave and scrim dipceSe, dipeen, and which h : i n ly owing ; doubts whether e _al Cramene-taking that line' could he* rreatiraiiieire ministers of the Church.—(Cheers.). He be- I lieved that in many most essential respects, there never was a more exemplary parochial Minister than Mr. Bennett, but the same thing might unquestionably. be said-, of a .large portion of the Roman Catholic clergy.—(Hear, hear.) Bat there could not b e a inure dangerous error than to confuse personal piety and the exemplary discharge o f parochial duties - 'with those vital doctrines which formed the broad limit of demarcation between the two Churches. —(Hear, hear.), No one 'could -deny the . unhappy dif ferences and dissensions - that had arisen in our Church, and much of them was, undoubtedly attributable to those gentlemen, who, like M. 'Bennett, exhibited that love of forms and histrionic display whi c h so muc h character i se d the Church of Ronte.—(He a r. - he ar.) By means of those gentlemen the lines of disti nc ti on between the two Churches were every day Made fiber` -- and fi ner, and a number of unwary Protest ents bad ' i n ' conseq uenc e been led away to the Cbarch of R0n10..--ill (Hear, hear.), He could not (genie the Honourable'. Gentleman for bringing those re markable facts.beforia the - finale, but h e ser i ous ly doubted how far the House of Coon:fobs was a fit arena for such discussion.—(Hear, hear.) 'll e Honourable Member ,had quoted a statement of his- (Sir J. Pakington's) opinion the last time this subject was before the House. He had then expressed that Opinion; and h e h a d now no intention to recede from it.—(Hr, hear.) Th e Gove rnment . on that oc , sion undertook to mike inquiry, and they exhausted every means in their power to ascertain how far that inquiry could be conducted.- The first step taken was to draw up questions which in the judgment of- the - Government embraced the whole matter in iss4. These haviag been submitted to the : law officers of the Crown, they gave' it as their opinion ehat there was no illegality in the institution of Mr. Bennett, and that as to the transaions alleged, to have occurred at Kis singen—a foreign:country—no'-legal inquiry by the Bishop, could be instituted. respecting • it„., . The Government Mot e resting content with those answers, they submitted a se cond time more comprehensive -questions to the law officers, and were again informed that there was no legal mode by which the circumstances connected with Mr. Bennett's induction could be made the subject. of direct and immediate inquiry, but if there was any legal mode then it 'would be open to the parishioners to proceed under , the Church Discipline Act. With regard to the transactions at Kissengene they were questions of fact,. and it was undoubtedly a very extraordinary fact, and one calculated to create great anxiety and suspicion, that Mr. Bennett's name was to be found-in " Battersby's Directory." This undoubtedly was a• question for the Bishop.to inquire into. -He (Sir' J.; Pakington) had listened With astonish mentto What had fallen from the 'Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone),, when alluding to the transactions at Kis sengen. There an English clergyman passed many months without going near the English- elergyeaan his church, or congregation.—(Hear, hear.) -It was a subject calculated to excite the gravest anxiety, sand to inspire the deepest re gret, to find that a clergyman so conducting himself should be now at the bead of an important parish.—( Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Pakington) could not conceal his astonishment when he heard the Right Honourable Gentleman vindicating such conduct.-4" No," from. Mr. Gladstone.) Why,. he said the clergyman was acting as a chaplain, and that his family was his "congregation. But what was the family ? Why, .Sir John Harringtoa's—the churchwarden of Mr. Bennett's late church, St. Paul's, where Sir' John had conducted him self with more zeal than discretion.—(gear, heir.) He (Sir John Pakingion) could . not-admit the propriety of any chaplain so situated being exempt in faro conscienttce from attending a place of public wership.—(Elear hear.). These were matters of such publie notoriety that they must have come to the knowledge of-the.. Bishop of the diocese, and they were matters into which the Bishop was bound to in quire.—(Hear.) He did not 'believe, *mover, that any large number of gentleman in that House would agree, that that *as a proper place for making a judiCial inquiry into the con duct of a bishop. He thoUght _it would be a course un worthy of the House of CoMmons, and a dangerous precedent, and therefore he must oppose the motion. Mr. GLADSTONE said the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken, if he thought, he (Mr, Gladstone) Vi n di cated Mr. Bennett's conduct at ;Kissengen._ He wished to state also, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not become ac quainted with that conduct until after Mr. Bennett's in duction.—(Oh, Ob:) ' .. Sir PAGE WOOD believed this was a grave. constitu tional question. He felt most deeply the vast importance of the general subject, and the' 'mode in which the people of England had been, excited bo the subje c t. O wing to this excitement there was the more dread of their being led away by their feelings to Some unconstitutional course. —(Hear, hear. )_ Could any one doubt that the conduct of numbers of those, who,' being sworn members of our Church, had 'availed themselves of that position to disseminate what we considered—and he meant no offence to any Honourable Member - to be the errors and corruptions of the Ch urc h o f ' Rome. In one case a party acted with such- baseness as to go over to the Church of Rome the very day after he had preached in the Established Church, and he took with -him the two children of his organist.-a(llear, hear.) The un fortunate man who first took the lead in this movement had written a book npholding the doctrines of the Church of Rome. That tract,' which he - had read, favoured the most miserable hypocrisy, which t he (Sir W. P. W oo d) should at all times be ready to denounce. He had dealt with the doctrine ef the Church in what was called their a unnatural"- sense: The matter; however, was not confined to one side, and he was afraid that as , the unnataral sense led to the Church of Rome, so, on the other side, it might lead to religious error. Ho • respected the opinions of all men who had changed their religion from conscientious motives, and in that feeling lee - ridnlifed Mr. Baptist Noel for having left , the Church e but he could not admire those who, approving of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, did not go over to that Church. Every ,member of the Church of England was,bound to take the-Book of CoMmon Prayer in its naturailonn, and accordin to . its strictanea n i ng as laid down by th e Chi nch. But while he felt that, he was of opinion that they would not advance the cause which he had at heart, namely, a legislative reform of the ecclesiastical law, by taking up indiyiduals and holding them up to detesta tion, and, still more, by makinglhe matter a partyqnestion, with a view to a remedy.' With regard to Parliament, how did the motion hefore the House Stand? On a former occasion they were asked tohave an inquiry under authority of the Crown, and now they were asked to have an inquiry before a Select Committee. But is both cases the Inquiry asked would be contrary to the Bill of Rights, and the principle was this—that they 'ought not to inquire into the conduct of an individual behind his back, or bring charges against him, unless it was to put hiiefon his trial. • They might bring a man before a grand jury, but it would be for the purpose of bringing a, bill of indictment against 'him; and they might have an inquiry by the House of Commons, also subject to certain conditions; and he did not dispute the right of the House of Commons, -'which was called the Na tional Inquest, to inquire into abuses • but if they instituted inquiry into this matter, they should proceed 'fairly. He was glad to find that her Majesty's Government felt that they could not issent ,to the course proposed, and also that they had undertaken to , r ecoharnend inq " y into it; for otherwise he felt:: that there was no posluir m d even ac cording to the statement of •therliorre Membe r o f or Cocker mouth, of dealing with the question, his Friend Honourable _not having made out any breach- oe did not "the law . H e think it just that a parish should be pia in s osition to have such a man as the Rev. wir, Benn ett ced p without the power to demand the in • forced upo, n them as Cl ry whether he w a member of the Chuech of Eugland ui e But whatever inquiry might be adanted • . - -(Rear, hear., . _ into his case, as matters stood it could not to arch's Minißight Hon. Gentleinan, the Member for the t The as that. , niversity of Osten" (Mr. Gladstone) had rather understate d- • f our ofthe Bisbop.Bishop, it ap ea the case in av point to the living, and did no t red, had 28 days to ?- seventh day; therefore there- wa:ptliinoint until the tw'nentn appointment. And with respect to de baste i. .. timonials of the clerk a court of . corn his demanding the tea l that he had no such right. A case had in a on law 'would bishop had demanded the testuriOnials of a iterri.den wherein a ed by the court in vei costs. • -In - n on '', and he site lei" 'natives which the Hon. Member for- -Cocker e of those altern ative s could proceedings be taken .either mouth had laid dow n,_ London or the Bishop of Bath - _against the .Bishop _ l _' . l Member for Cockermouth said .''!" Wells. The lien that th e Bishop should have gone farther than he had; and Re v. Mt. Bennett; and the Right H on - examined the . ourala I ber for the University of Oxford said that- h e h ea em SO that they had assertion against assertion, examined him,.. BiShop could have done was to -p ut ' l lan. All that the nett's own book into i hand, • the Rev. Mr. Ben writeWs and se • you this book? I nd such and id to hi m , a Did . it." Such was the course taken in Such a statement in the Bishop of Exeter, and . the' Privy 0 4 Gorham case by a contrary vie* of the matter, the liishopril having taken e.a. being so, what remedytwould the Bisbo ad no remedy. That the Rev. Mr. Bennett? The great ' , n e t have in the the H on. Member for Cockermnuth male Was m a k e which law. According to the authority of e his reading of th e eaord E li h the bishop, in such a case as this, h a d. no . enboroug 'whatever, having the matter of approval resting with his d iscretion having examined the preacher, whi c h h e w !' conscience, a ft er d The people of Frome might h m , was bound by I , to 0. hie would hay dire e consulted any at torney in the place, w told them to- 0 e cted them in the right course, and consult a. botuever, t c he a r ~. Proctor. Up to the present moment, , ation to iusti ' - ,, a s not . one word of judicial inform l Y th ey d Bennett's b ' course propese • 0n reading /Mr. book, _ Wood) had formed his Own conclusion he It was un on h" , (Sir W. P. edlv a grave teeing Alia .t a man should be d bt ' such circumstances, bat atl 1. that was inetitud e d under tk ready to join heartily in any motioa . O law. He was which would nerve .to protnoti an am end for an inquiry and doubtless as so great eageraess h a d hTent of the law, Chancery reform, the ecclesiastical courts e:4 displayed for next session. In his opinion, however, there°4l4 not escape for ian inquiry such ' had now been eneve . was no ground' granted, as a general r le In similar .circum at d for and if ttia,Member's pledging h imself to go on with res,' without was a proceeding opposed: to the spirit of th e e inquiry, it a Most obvious principles of the co nstitution, . Colonel BOYLE said, that nit had .been im p , Reverend Gentlemon who had signed the protest-, ted to the had been actuated bv t unWotthr motives as h that they quainted with them all, ,he could declare ;ale belieQf ras "- such motives had prompted them. -- It was indeed tru hat no there was a party at Frome who interested thernselv: 'that appoint "a particular a e the lady patroness to app 1 rgym a v , s wi th were they thought deserving, and that they e refused'...„ B ut although that was SO, - it did'nOt induce any of th en i . te the protest As for the popularity of the "Vicar e f P u t . s'gU_ .he.was ab l e to give the House a,.little information on ot t n h o, subject, as it waS *probably not so well aware of the e oca L . of the place-as he was: •Haeletarreceivd a letter fro an : attorney of Frome, who had' been applied to on the m ve question, and he there said 'he did not believe any ry feeling had come; over the parishoners; but that' then - , ere ex isted a decided determination among the most i • ntelli geut o f them to discountenanc e Mr.-Bennett 'an d his doctri nes. I t stated also that the vicar's churchwarden had resigned, an d left the churcht e and that it was only with the greatest dim e culty a successor had been found. Now, when it was said that the parishioners should have app li e d th to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, he might ne . w ell say hadat they had little confidence in an appeal to a prelate who given refuge to bride who had previously been refused pre ferment- in the a c remembered that the co sts diocese of Ripon ; and when they 1.,000/.; there of the Gorham case amounted t o was certainly ac , _ao ' :mot much encouragement to - try the question e-try , gmen e at law. Re could not but express his Knl d t . s to -the Member d t emperate which w i for Cockermouth foe the able an d manner i and if his he had brought the subject forwa rd; 'efforts failed, he would certain l y recommend to procure peace , at Frome , pack •u his - partite t • -- the Rev. Mr. Bennett to •Pn 11 and be off:—(Cheers and laughter.) Mr. YORKE denied that the address had been signed 1?3 , 0 tt 'll by Mr. ru we . The li o n boys and girls, as was said left the impression On. Member for Cockermouth b ad 1 upon the at the House that he had taken the matter i p had request ofthe If Mr. Bennettgone 'to parishioners of Frome. I s assure the House mass at Rome, he could, neverthe es , that the Hon. .Member hi he was as good a churchman as raself, he delivered h" or the Bish o p o f London, wheel ... IS charge in 1842. Gentleman Sir B. HALL sa id h e believed , the Hon. himself a party t o th os e R o manisiag procee dings, and th a t he took p ar t i n = t h e m aniorahle p rocession which had pro duced , such un f ortuna t e resu lts : 11 e maintained that most of the signatures to' the a dd res rhadheen•eatained in P u bli c . housea by pe rsons smo ki ng an d drinking, wh o _ t hen and th ere 1 1 bore testimon y . to the soundness of the d o c trines of Ur. l 'Bennett — (Laugh ter . ) . -- - • Mr. YORKE—That is denied by Mr. Crattwell.. - Sir B. HALL—It was denied by Mr. Miller, but stated by Mr. Cruttwell. But this was not the real question at issue. The real question was, what were they to do in these lament , able circumstances? In his district there was a Protestant clergyman who, althongh performing Divine eervice in the Church of England, attended a Roman Catholic place of worship Sunday after Sunday. A gentleman who saw him declared his readiness to come forward and verify the fact that he crossed himself, made the various genuflexions, and remained during the whole time of service; that he went there again the following Sunday, and yet that man per formed Divine service in the church of St. Andrew's, Wells street.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was said, Why did they not go into the ecclesiastical court of Wells ? But, would anybody, under such circumstances, go there, when the Bishop had just appointed his own son to preside over it. •He believed Mr. Bennett had been the means of converting many persons to the Church of Rome. Did the lion. Gentleman not know that, connected with the 'church of St. Barnabus was a conventual establishment, and that the'claughter of a Right Hon; and Learned Gentleman, once a Member of that House, was at the head of that establish ment—that the father of the lady had begged of Mr. Bennett to use his influence and endeavour to induce her to retrace her steps ? •And did he not know that that Rev. Gentle man, who was now the pastor of Frome, had refased to listen to the prayers of the parent; and that the daughter, and all the ladies associated with her, had gone over to the Church of Rome.—(Hear, hear.) Did not Lord Colchester cite the case of another lady where a similar result had taken place? This man had been proved to have been trifli ng" for some time with Sir John Harrington, of who m they had bean told by the Rht Hon. Gentleman, the Member f or th e University of (ford, that:he had been justiflei ha leaving the Church of England, because he had a congregation of his own— Mr. GLADSTONE said that he had distinctly contra dicted that statement before. Sir B. HALL was not aware that the Right Hon. Gentle man had done so or he would not have made th e observa tion. He would nsk the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Glad stone) to say candidly what ought to be done under such circumstances? Let the Bishops, who were the persons that ought to be most desirous of reforming the ecclesiastical law of the country, exert themselves in their places in the other House of Parliament to effect this object. The Government had intimated that even if they appointed a Commission to inquire into this subject, the Bishops would not answer the questions that would be put to them. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, no. Sir B. HALL—WeII, then, let them have a Committee, and request the Bishops to appear before it, and if they then refused to do so the responsibility would be on themselves. Mr. E. YORKE wished to make an observation in refer ence to the young lady who had been alluded to by the Hon. Baronet. His impression was this, that the young lady her self was always restrained by Mr. Bennett from going her own way to the Church of Rome.—(Laughter.), He thought that his word was as good as that of the Hon. Baronet's. The report then was, that the young lady had a strong in clination to go to Rome, but was restrained, up to a certain point, by Mr. Bennett. •But as soon as Mr. Bennett left St. Barnabas she went to Rome.—(Hear and laughter.) Mr. NE WDEGATE next rose, amid loud cries for a divi sion. He thanked the Hon. Member for Cockermouth for the very able manner in which he had brought this subject under the notice of the House. Whatever might be the re• suit of the division, he trusted that one good effect of bring ing forward the subject would be to lead to an alteration in the state of the existing law, and he was anxious to bear from her Majesty's Government whether they were prepared to consider the state of the law in the next session, and to in `troduce some measure which *add prevent men from hold ing benefices in the Church of England who had.been con victed of unsound doctrines and the encouragement of Romish practices. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—This discussion, Sir, has tended very much to clear the case since it was brought under the notice of the House. We have com pletely investigated the position of the Bishop of Bath and Wells with respect to these circumstances, and I think I do not misinterpret the general feelings of the House if I describe it as one which would be extremely reluctant, by any vote which it could arrive at, to throw any censure upon the conduct of that prelate.—(Hear, and cries of " Oh, oh.") It may be certainly very easy for Honourable Gentlemen to sneer at that statement; but I think after a calm and ample discussion. so ably conducted as this has been, we must ar rive at the conclusion that however many of us may regret the institution of the individual who has become the vicar of Frome, it is impossible for us to assert, by a vote of this House, that it was the duty of the Bishop of that diocese to prevent that institution ; nay more, I think that we have, most of us, arrived at this conclusion, that had the Bishop of the diocese thrown any difficulties in the way of the in stitution of Mr. Bennett, he would have incurred very perilous consequences. In the present state of the law, I think it quite impossible that the House should come to any vote which would in fact cast upon a Bishop of the Church of England a condemnation, simply because he has done that which all must admit to have been strictly his legal duty, and which if ho had not fulfilled would have involved hint in the most serious injury. I consider the question of the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to be perfectly distinct from those which have occurred with respect to the present vicar of Frome.— (Hear, hear.) Bat at the same time I cannot but remember that it is only the conduct of the Bishop with which we have to deal.—(Hear, hear.) When this question was first brought under the notice of the House, I took the liberty of stating with respect to the point of the ability which the parishtoners of Frome should have of challenging the institution of one who was to become their vicar, that if the state of the law did not afford a remedy, then, I thought, it was our duty to siipply one. Generally speaking, that is a principle which I think ought to guide u under these most painful circum stances. I cannot think, with the Hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford, that there is no remedy for the parishioners. I must still repeat; acting on the opinions that have been given me, and confirmed by my own in quiries—the opinion I have expressed before in this House, that there is a remedy for the parishioners of any living placed under the circumstances in which the parishioners . of Frome are placed, and that that is a remedy for which' they need not go to any ecclesiastical court, or have recourse to any ecclesiastical law. But I will not enter into that question again, which we have before urged, because I am willing to admit that there is not sufficient facility or opportunity for parish ioners placed in the situation of those of Frame to obtain that relief and redress which they have a right to expect. - But so far as the present motion is concerned, it is really the institution of Mr. Bennett into the vicarage—and that is the act of the diocesan—which we are called on to inquire into. I must repeat my opinion that the coneuct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells cannot fairly be called in ques tion. But if we were to appoint a Committee, let the :House consider what will be the duties of that Comnaittee. Their duties would not be, I apprehend, to rake up evidence with , a view • to institute proceedings against the Bishop. Well, then, what is the duty of that Committee ? Is it to be a Committee to consider the state of the law? In my opinion hefi of ei the e 3 this is hardly the moment in which ich we should appoint a Committee to consider the state o f th e l aw w ith res p ec t t o t t ai he nl i y ns l ti d tu a ti n o n n t otfhpinekrsoans Committeei ne an li d nn w se h o ic f h cn c in er .. m ons the best instrument te carry on w ith e ff ec t. I h ave - been asked by my Hon. Friend the Member for Warwick. shire to give a pledge on the part of the Government that they will take into consideration that important subject, the state of the law with respect to the institution to benefices. I am sure my Hon. Friendwill not press me to gives pledge on a subject of so grave and difficult a character. But that it is a subject which must engage, sooner or later, the considers. tion of any Gevemment—that the state of 'our ecclesiastical laws is one that cannot be much longer tolerated—(Loud cheers)—and that with respect to the ecclesiastical courts, we should follow the same course of temperate and efficient reform which we have applied to all the other means ofjudi cature in the country—these, I think, are opinions which few of us do not share, and certainly they are sentiments on which the Government are prepared to act. I trust the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth will not ask the House to come to a decision on this motion. If indeed he persists in so doing, although I myself most sincerely re gret much that has occurred at the vicarage of Frome, and although 1 will not at this moment go out of my way to offer any criticism on the conduct of other individuals con cerned] in these transactions, Because I feel it is unneces sary to-night, especially when the conduct of one individual alone is called in question—still, if the Hon. Gentleman asks me to support this resolution to appoint a Committee to investigate the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, with respect to hiscompletion of an act which I do not think he could have refused to fulfil, I shall feel it my duty to offer a negative.—(Cheers.) Ur. ELLICE said he saw all the difficulties of the case— he saw all the objections to the appointment of a Select Com.- m ittee—(flear, hear)—but he could see no other remedy for the grievance complained of—(Hear, hear) —except an in ciairy—eot 'directed personally against the conduct of the 13ishdp of Bath and Wells, but into all the facts of the case, in order to ground thereon further proceedings with respect to the state of the law—(l - fear) —which give no relief to Parties complaining oe this grievance.—(Hear, hear.) Upon this ground he should vote for the motion, seeing no other meani of rediess.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. MOODY• thought that' if an inquiry, was instituted into the occurrences in London it would be trying Mr.- Ben nett twice over. The question they had 'to deal with was pot an individual question, but was one as regarded the Church at large. It appeared to him that there was a very easy remedy in such cases as . the one complained of. m He thought a Commission t b enssued with reference to what had taken place abroad, as well as to what had oc curred at home.— (Hear, hear.) The SOLICITOg•GENERAL said there was nothing in the Motion which impugned the conduct of Mr. Bennett. - e (Hear, hear.) It was for an inquiry , into the circum stances attending his institution, and was directed entirely against the what by the Bishop of Bath and instit Wal ution(Hehad ar, h onear.) done The ly Bishop, however, in law he was-bound to do; and as far as he was concerned, t h ere f o re, there was no ground for the in quiry. Then as to the state of the law some misconception existedit we re proved that Mr. Bennett, by preach ing' for or for if• , by act or word, showed unsoundness of d o ctrine, it was com petent for the parishioners to put the law in motion against him under the Church Discipline r hear.)—and even as to his past conduct Act-( ea commission cou ld issue in respect of anything said or ilOne i h this country within t wo years past.— (Hear, bear.) f er, to the state of the ecclesiestacal courts o Looking,, howev (Hear, hear) ,—to the practice of those courts, the cOuntry: — . ometimes excessive—incurred in the d an the expeuses—s edings—(leare hear ) — a remedy was lou dl y called justest Wa n ar It would be impossible to enter f".—{ nirY now,hehope d into that inf but i w hi c h had takenlace in our courts of law and equity w ou ld at the proper time belextended _to_th e ecclesiastical courts.--( 11 e -lr a ) answer of the the • 111 r. D 'EDES was disappointed at Chance ll o r of the Exchequer as to future leg islation—(Hear. h of the Solicitor-General as to the hear)—and the speec h of had not encouraged - any hope of of the law, which state. done to p lace it in a more satisfactory con something being shown that the law was in t' r hear.) It was s clition.—(- 0a ' and that therefore, something was accessible to individua ls , , accessi be done.—(llear.) Ile regretted • the state of necessary to thi n gs sehich had been disclosed as to the position of the Church—Ole an ' He was anxious to put an end to it, • us not to im ute bl the same time was anxio p arne to and at ....(flear.) But, as there was no hope 'ustly. any party uhl. of the law, lie must, in order to promote of any alteration the motion.— (Hear. ) this, o bject to vote for SIDNEY HERBERT could not express how strongly he as pained by the statements that had been made. He W as satisfied t ha t the question before them should be strictly l oo k e d into, an d that members of the Church should have means o f. re dress wi thout the necessity of coming to th at which w as not well suited for questions of the ki n d . I House, --(Hear, hear.) The Bishop of Bath and Wells, it was c l ear , could not hav e refused the induction, without risking an action at law for his refusal. Mr. avALPOLE begged to be permitted to address one word to the House in consequence of what had fallen from the Hon, Member for West Kent (Mr. Deedes). That Hon: Gai i ieman , he thought, had entirely mistaken the reply of his Eight Ma, Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the epees" of the Hon. Member for Cocker Mouth. The in quiry would have been acceded to if it had been suggested by the Right Honourable 'Member for Coventry (Mr. E. Bilice). But when he (fir. Witipie) reflected upon the speech of the Honourable Member for Cocker , mouth, and considered that the issue of the inquiry was , the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, that inquiry I was to lead to a censure upon the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, or to an impeachment on the part of some Members of the House of Commons against that prelate, I and when it was notorious that the Bishop refusing institu tion would have incurred the double proceeding of a writ of quare impedit and duplex qucerel, the proposition could not be entertained. In the present state of the law the Bishop could not have acted differently, and under these circam stances, he (Mr. Walpole) hoped the Hon. Member would not :press his motion to a division. If it was pressed, he trusted 'the House would reject it, as he considered it to be both unreasonable and unjust. I Mr. DEEDES explained that what he desired was a dis tinct declaration on the part of the Government that they desired no alteration in the existing law. Mr. GOULBURN thought it had been established that the co n d uct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells ought not to be impugned. Feeling, therefore, that the inquiry should not be in this particular case, but to the state of the law, he should propose as an amendment that the in quiry should be directed, not as to the institution of Mr. Bennett, but into the state of the law attending the in stitution of clerks to benefices. —(Hear Mr. HORS MAN, hear.) he could an in 1'e1 31 .5-, said he thought ewer the amendment of the Right Hon. Gentleman in thre . e words. Certain parties Were friends of theirs proposed that a te used of murder, and certain the state of the law with respect re should be inquiry into sto capital punishment. —(Hear, hear, and laughter. device by ' which the experienced Meuch was the ingenious m i ter for the University of Cambridge attempted to lead the inquiry in which they were most interesTeecl away from the n d to which they at this moment se eme d to be most inclined and roidid ul . be making their proceedi ngs perfectlyludicrous motion con templated Air culous to adopt such a sug ges ti on . (Hear.) inquiry into the in s tit ut i on of the Rev. Bennett the conduct of all the parties implicated in the etubtaa7 stances in question. A maxi m i n our law Provided there should be no grievance with ou t a remedy. A grievance t had been shown in this case, bat where was the remedy? While every one admitted the grievance, not one had sug gested a remedy. Was the grievance to remain unredressed, or.was the House of Commons still to say they would do no thing? He had brought this subject forward without having any knowledge of the parties at Frome ; indeed, he had made it a rule to take up no ,subject on merely local grounds. He had selected it as a type of an abuse. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion ... ... 156 Against it ... 111 Majority ... . -. ". -45 MAYNOOTH. Mr. BROTHERTON then moved the adjournment of the House. Mr. OSWALD inquired when it was the intention of the Member for North Warwickshire to bring on the adjourned debate on the Maynooth grant? Mr. SPOONER said he must refer the Hon. Gentleman to the resolution of the House. That would be decided when the other orders were disposed of. Mr. NENYDEGATE said it was his intention to take the sense of the House on the question of the adjourn ment of the debate. It was now determined to defeat a decision on that question by a factious opposition, but the attempt of the Member for Salford to get rid of the question would be frustrated, for he would take the sense of the House on the question when the dropped order for the resumption of the debate on the Maynooth grant came on. Mr. ANSTEY would be no party to a postponment of the decision on the Alaynooth question, and he hoped the Member for Salford would press his motion. Mr. BROTHERTON had no intention to get rid of the question, but to get rid of the House.--(Laughter.) They had been already sitting fourteen hours, and he was deter mined to press his motion to a division. Mr. HINDLEY thought the proposal of the Member for Salford most reasonable, and he hoped the Government would support the motion for the adjournment of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he thought the House had sat long enough. The House then adjourned at Half -past One o'clock. TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. t (CONTINUED ON MONDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS.) Sir,—On Monday the, 7th of June, the: Militia Bill was read a third time, and a Clause add e d, ex t ending i . certam exemptions to the Uni vers iti es o f L on d on and Durham. Amendments directed to limit the powers of the Bill, were negatived by majorities of 187 to 142, and 178 to 82. A position had bean ably taken up by the Government, in making the 'application of a con scription permissive and not obligatory; the' effect of which was to diminish opposition by making the danger ' more obscure. At the same time, the resistance to the Bill has _been wanting in conecwatioa and vigottr; ex hibiting an inclination to be prepared with an answer to Constituents, rather than the steady adhesion of men conscientionsij desiraiie Of falling 4a : the Iv;st ditch. Oa Tueiday_the Ht)1130 met at neon eto peoeeed with the question of. Maynooth. After a few preliminary speeches of no great length, an orator from Catholic Ireland, as the Americans say " occupied the floor," till the hand of the clock reached four, and the debate died a natural death. Without following him through his details, one thing he proved, which is sufficient to dispense with all the rest; and that is that the House is now called upon to institute an in quiry, while there is all the time a legal method of inquiry directed by Act of Parliament. Why is not - the House of COmmons to institute an inquiry-into-the cases which may be now in band at the Old Bailey,—or into the more complicated mysteries pending in the Court of Chancery? Simply because there is a legal appa ratus already for those very purposes, and it would be simple foolishness for the House of Commons to erect itself into a new tribunal. At six came on Mr. Horsman's motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to theViCarage of Frome. Some strange points appear to be established. It seems to be avowed; that a bishop is powerless for good, andA by consequence if he has any strength it is for evil. ''''''°ng other thi ngs , it is declared that nothing a clergy man by a bishop, A • •• is virtually can do abroad, can be be taken cognizance of a an instance, Is main tained by thee. Government, , ___ may backed by all the lawyers in ti r entry every go to . a cati t i n olic House, that a clergyman get there, may displays winter if he can ostentatious of commulenmake the most ending in getting he ns l Church in the Alman ac c fannounced as a eaember of that sibility of interference back to take his tith es o-r Directory, and may oche with the Church of Rome, rior. To leave no it England without the pos is maintained that auchu himself to heavy pains and upon the subject, it doubt any ecclesiastical sup ?mai ° fsortrellve Dpensaresioirf he attemptedwould tto s in o t m er e fer p e e . rso F n o s r m th ay is' be bis e their revenues. ter things to come, from the fact glut" hope of bet motion was carried by 156 to 111. Efer r. Horaman's gins the first chapter of the Re-reformatione' perha e s ___ k be. of England. of the iimareaL I am, Sir, yours very sincerely, AN OLD REkORMER. Blackheath, June 9,1852. THE COUN TRY MARKET& IPSWICH, JUNE 8. We continue to have the smallest show of wheat possible; prices remain firm, and no disposition is shown by the sellers to accept less Oran late figures. The showery and now very forcing weather is questionable as regards benefit to the gr ow _ ing crops. PER QUARTER. PER QUARTZ/G. Wheat, red Ditto, white 4ss to 48s Oats ......... 005 to oo s Barley, malting ... 00s to 00s Rye ooa to 00s Ditto, grinding 00s to 005iMa1t........... 00s to 00s Beans AVERAGES FOR THE MIES ENDING JUNE 5, 1852. Wheat Barley Beans 37 „ 32s Od Peas Oats ... „ 00s Od HULL, JUNE 8. Messrs. Taylor and Bright 's Circ u l ar s t a t es ;—A good deal of rain has fallen at intervals during the past week—it WU much needed for spring corn and grass, and has come too late to prevent a light hay crop. The tr ansac ti ons o f th e p as t week have been on a very limited scale, but each description of spring corn has somewhat increased in value, with limited ar rivals and small stock in warehouse. We had a fair supply of wheat from our own farmers, with very little foreign on show, either from ship or granary. Fresh farmers' wheat was good to sell at last week's rates, and more inquiry for foreign, with out however leading to much business. A retail sale for bar ley, as also a good consumptive demand for beans and peas. In oaf not much business passing. No alteration to be quoted, but cakes are decidedly cheaper. Nothing doing in rapesee, but cakes go off readily at our quotations. Bones maintain their value. The following are the present prices of grain s. Wheat, English, red 37 to 40 Do. white 4O 44 Dantzic and Ko nigsberg 4O 45 Pomeranian and liamburgh . 3B 40 Danish, Holstein, Sr 8. 8 Peas, white and yel. 30 32 Do. grey 26 28 Linseed, Black Sea 44 46 Do. Petersbnrgh 42 4.5 Do. Riga & Archng 38 42 Do. Konigsberg 36 —4O Per ton. Friesland 36 38( Russian and Odessa 34 38 Oats, English Do. Danish Do.Friesland lB 2u Do. Russ. & Odessa 15 17 Barley,malting 2B 30 Do. grinding 26 —2 7 i Beans 29 31 Do., foreign 26 28 Ling. c., Hull 71 103 Od to 010. Do. fine for. —7l 5s Od to 0/ Oa Do. inf. foreign... 0/ to 61 03 Rapeseed 23/ 108 to 001 Rape cakes...92s 6d to 953 01 Tares, English ......37, 008 I Do. foreign 328 —34 s Guano 5l 71 to9llo Bones, do 97s 6d to 1001 Rye Meal 71 01 CORK, Juira 7. . . Barrels. Currency. O White wheat 00s Od to ON Od 00s Od-20 stone O Red wheat oos Od to 00s Od 0 Ditto oos Od to 00s Od} ON 00-10 do O Ditto ON Od to 00: Od O Barley 00. Od to ON 00 0 Ditto oos 00 to 00$ Od} 00s 0d—.09 do 0 Ditto OO3 Od to 003. Od 0 Bere 00s Od to 00s Od Os Od 16 Oats 10, 6d to 12. Od ,0 Ditto .... OO3 Od to 00s Od ON 00—.9 de 0 Ditto ... ON . 'Od to 00. Od O Pigs ... .. ; oos Od to 00s Od ON Od per met Quantity sold at the Highest Prices:— 0 b arrels white wheat; 0 red ;00 barley; 0 bete; 11 oats; 0 pigs. Quantity of Grain and Number of Pigs sold last week:-. Wheat, 48. Barley, 35. Oats, 629. Pigs, 0. PRICES OF BUTTER. CTIRILINCY. CAST. First quality .... 69. First quality .... ........ .. 60. Second quality Third quality 63s Third quality bhis Fourth quality Fifth quality Sixth quality 361 Sixth quality Return of Cattle sold for week ending May 29. Pigs, 319. Sheep, 444. Cows, 88. Coar.—Flour.First 12s 6d to 13s 6d ; extra 141 6d; per too. Hay—Farmers 2880 d to 30s3averame seconds, 10s Gd to 12s ; households Nto 10s 6d ; thi r d s, 7 s to 9s per cwt. Oatmeal 1 is to I ls 6 d; Indian meal sa 3 d to 889 d; wh eat . meal, 9a 6d to 10s 6d per evrt. Indian corn 815. to 81103 pe r t on. Od : 98 0 40. Od; average 00s per ton. St: ew--F ;es 00.;Bran 8d dealers s t c 2s 9 s to Od to 23s 00; average 20,; dealers 27 3 Od to 00 3 ave rage 00. Od per ton. Bread—Wheaten loaf 60 t o houtehold loaf bil to Od per 41b. Fresh butter, 8 o rb; 10d; per lb. Eggs-31 4d to 33 60 per hundred. -- Nevrport 141 Od ; Lydney 154 ; Landore 00. • C oals i-. 12. 6d per ton. Tallow 35s Od t o 3 ,, -- , N....fus rthFs7l:oe;ceswol 14s to 152 Per atone. Whisky', 2 5 o . p., 55 9d par i m • l 's pfrr cwt. imperial gallon. Meat —Beef 4d to 7d ; mutton 50 to 81B 7d ar8 ; sk,to pe red r 9 1 170$ 4: t perto 4 8 0010 cwt. bacon peßangor aut o ng 6 d o. sid ; vet 4d to slates 2 a l ustg" 50 per lb. Hops f tch herrings 183 to 19s; red 17s 6d to 3/ Os per ton. Hemp 29/ to 34/ per ton. Fish— ditto, 243 to 00s per barrel ; N e ton. ' Timber—Memel, 70 w °luldl andi 10/ Os to ii/ ye! ditto, 21 153 per ton; d o t per ton; red pine, 315.; yellow Market 16s to 243; salted 1 51 to 181 per 100. Hides-- 10d to 12d. Guano --P 3d to Od per lb. p 0 ..,._ 83 to 24 e per ew t ; calf skin. to 910 i per ton. Tar—eruvian, 10/ 105 to 11Z; Ichabcof -- Ar : n e af gel y , h iL i ga ta ve B r d barreL t o 9d; pia k 42 t-_-......--_ PARLIANIETARY DI VISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) TUESDAY, JUNE 8. FROME VICARAGE. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Reverend Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of Frome :"—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the first word " the," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " state of the Law affecting the in stitution to Benefices," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 156. Abdy, Sir T. N. Edwards, Henry Moody, C. A. Adair, R. A. Ellice, Edward Morris, David Aglionby, 11. I. Ellice, Edward,jun. Mostyn, E. M. Alcock, Thomas Ellis, John Muntz, G. F. Anstey, T. C. Elliot, John E. Noel, Gerald J. Arehdall, Captain E wart, William Paget, Lord George Arkwright, G. Farnham, E. Parker, John Armstrong, R. B. Forbes, Wm. Pechell, Sir G. Bagge, William Forster, Matthew Pigott, Francis Baines, M. T. Fox, W. J. Pfikington, James Baird James Freestun, Colonel Pinney, William Baldock, E. IL Frewen, C. H. Ricardo, John L. Barrow, W. H. Leach, Charles Rice, E. R. Bug, M. T. Glyn, George Carr Rich, Henry Berkeley, Henry F. Goddard, A. L. Robartes, T. J. A. Berkeley. C. L. G. Green, John 1 Romilly, Col. Bernal, Ralph Greene, Thomas Rushout, Captain Blackstone, W. S. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Salwey, Colonel Booker, T. W. Grenfell, Charles W. Scholefleld, W. Boyle, Colonel Grey, R. W. Scobell, Captain Bremridge. Richard Grosvenor, Lord K. Smith, J. A. Bridges, Sir B. Hardcastle, J. A. Smyth, J. G. Bright. John Harris, Richard Somerville, Sir W. Broadwood, H. Hastie, Archibald Stanford, J. F. Brockman, E. D. Headlam, ThomaS Stanley, W. 0. Brotherton, J. Henry, Alexander Stanslield, W. R. C. Brown, H. Heywood, James Stanton, W H. Buller, Sit J. Y. Hey Worth, Lawrence Staunton, Sir G. Butler, P. S. Hildyard, T. B. T. Strati., E. Butt, Isaac llindley, C. Stewart, Admiral Buxton, Sir E. Hodgson, W. N. Stuart, Lord D. Carter, Samuel Howard, C. W. G. Sutton, IL M. Cavendish, C. C. Hutt, William Tenison, E. K. Chaplin, W. J. Jackson, William Torment, it. J. Childers, J. W. Kershaw, James Thompson, Colonel Clay, James King, P. J. Thompson, George Clay, Sir W. Kinnaird, A. F. Tollemache, F. J. Clifford, llenryjM. Langston, J. li. Tollemaehe, John Cobden, Richard Laslett, William Townshend, Captain Collins, William Lennard, T. B. Verner, Sir W. Colvile, C. It. Locke, Joseph Verney, .Sir 11, Copeland, Alderman Leng, Walter Vivian, J. H. Corry, H. L. Loveden, Pryse Walsh, Sir J. Cowan, Charles M'Gregor, Joh n Welby, G. E. Crowder, R. B. M•Taggart, Sir J. Williams, John Dalrymple, Captain Mangles, R. D. Williams, W. Dawes, Edward Marshall, W. Wilson, Matthew Dawson, T. V. Martin, J. Wortley, J. S. D'Eyncourt, T. Matheson, Colonel Wyld. James Dod, J. W. Weigand, Viscount Wyvill, llannadnke Duff, James ' Milligan, Hobert TELLERS. Duncan, George Mitchell, T. A. Ilorsman; E. • Dundas, Sir David Moffatt, George ' Hall, Sir B. MINORITY—NOES, 111. Bailey, crawsh ay Gwyn. Rowel Portal,` , Melville Bailey, Joseph, Hamilton, G. A. Prime, Richard Batllie, 11. J. Heneage, G. IL Renton, John C. Bankes, G. Henley , J . W . Repton, G. W. Barrington,. Tis. Herbert, licury A. Richards, Richard Bell, Jacob, Berries, J. C. Seyrner, H. K. Benbow, John Hervey, Lord A.. Sibthorp, Colonel Bennet, Philip Hope, Sir J. Sotheron, T. H. S. Boldero, George H. Hope, A. Spooner, R. Bramston, T. W. Howard, E. G. Stafford, Augustus Brooke, Lord Hudson, G. Stanley, Edward Bruce, C. L. Johnstone, Sir J. Stanley, Lord Cabbell, B. B. Jolliffe, Sir W. H. Stuart, John Carew, W. H. Pole Jones, Captain Sturt, 11. G. Child, Smith Kelly, Sir F. Tennent, Sir J. Christopher, R. Kildare, Marquis Thesiger, Sir F. Christy, Samuel Knight, F. W. Thompson, Alderman Clive, H. B. Knox, Colonel Trollope, Sir J. Cocks, T. S. .: Langton, W. H. Tyler, Sir G. Collins, T. Legh, G. C. Tyrell, Sir J. Cotton, W. S. Lennox, Lord H. G. Villiers, Viscount Darner, Colonel Lewisham, Viscount Vivian, J. E. Davies, D. A. Littleton, E. R. Waddington, H. S. Deedes, W. Lygon, General Walpole, Spencer Disraeli, B. Mackenzie, W. F. Walter, John Buncombe, W. E. Manners, Lord C. Watkins, Colonel Dunne, Colonel haimers, Lord J. wegg-Prosser, F. Du Pre, C. 0. Llasterinan, J. West, F. B. Ferrer, James liiles,' , Williarn Whiteside, James Fellowes, Edward Morgan, 0. Wig,ram, Loftus Ferguson, Sir It. Mullings, J. R. Wodehouse, Edmund Filmer, Sir E. Naas, Lord Wood e Sir W. P. Floyer, John N ew d ega t e , N. Wynn, IL W. Freshfield, J. W. Oswald, Alexander Young, Sir John GaPin, Colonel Packe, C. W. Yorke, H. T. TELLEss. Gladstone, W. E. Pakington, Sir J. album, Henry Greenall, G. Guernsey, Lord Patton, J. W. Palmer ' 11<mindell Herbert, Sidney 'A DV ERTISEMENT.] A MEMBER OFI 3 ARLTIAM O V O T NN A O S R S . AULTED BY MR. FEARGUS ASCOT RACES AND THE ROYAL Exsan The conduct of Mr. Feargus O 'Connor in the House of - .' rTI . olc-A reel waistcoat valuable, ne • v v ery hieh ser a i p o p u e s ars con i s u ide o r u a r - , wly-invented, very small P elve--- ...en be Commons last night-an acc ount .sth o e f Parliamentary report - requ i res of dissolution of Parlia- Pocket glass, the size of - h'eh & Pe— a 'walnut, by w I every parlx'se tion of his relatives. On the eve a seen and knownmiles distant ; they answ er - err ment it is scarcely to be expected that the Speaker or the on the Race - co in . coun try seen e, at the Opera-housese _ - ,ace invaluable House should take any further steps in relation to the Hon. Member for Nottingham than may be required ,for keeping and ships are clearly s e en at 12 to 14 m il e s; .-11. Sportsmen, h h Gentlemen_,gd for ihootin him within something like bounds _w w he n . e obtrudes himself upon their deliberations. But his relatives A rb e marle-street, n am d e e k e e r epe st rs al , k e i n n d g 1. , euri ya s c r h s t . ing re be bad at Messrs. ~ S . • and B. Solomons, Opticians, 39, - s -A new and most ought really to have medical advice upon his real condition, as a glance at his recent proceedings will dilly; opposite the York-hotel. Telescope no ing such extra show. First, the establishment of that huge failure the or ..ry powers, that some, important invention in Telescopes , 1 ., - ,i h e an extra eyepiece, Laud Scheme, by which some thousands of hardworking d" men were deprived of thousands of pounds ; then a series of will show distinctly, Jupiter's Moo ns, , pe, weighing only three offensive scenes before the Master in Chancery, when Mr. Double Stars. With the same ' and an object mules elist ant e O'Connor'e conduct in relation to the Land Scheme was ounces, can be seen a perm:l'B l , - s. i They supersede every ei T in ,..e ch , :navt7ce , s3bß i 4g, and the under inquiry ; next a discreditable assault in a theatre, Dg l6 po t w o followed by incarceration in the House of Correction • , other kind for the waistcoat P c L e n eingly. Opera and Race sizes; with inc f r r e o as m i 2° m e e t, an d are of larger and all then an exhibition of troublesome conduct in the House of Commons; then a sudden flight to the United States, and cours'e glasses with . wen" li es distant. Messrs. S. and B. e er er s a - powers ; an object can be as sudden a return by the steam-ship that took him out, clearly seen f r ,; n a 14 to e l . 6 o w i n vented invaluable preierving greatly to the dismay of the passengers; then a series of Soloneons, Opticiaus, ;l a t e ly they are placed before imper unseemly interruptions of the judges in the courts of law ; Spectacle Lenaeskr ttamt in - 9 , pears clear and distinct, the most and now, finally, an assault upon a Member of the House feet vision, ever y -.6lA7‘'. in P es bright and brilliant, is brought to of Commons. Surely here is a suf fi cient string of instances , aged defective sight , m id original state. The Invisible 0 . 2 , _ pointing out why Mr. O'Connor's relatives should take its youthful,naturaA , A al kinds of Acoustic instruments for relief measures calculated to secure his comfort, whiLst the saf e t y genic Vibrator, and _39, Albermarle-street, Piccadilly, clee of others and the progress of public business is sec used "o f xtreme deafne ss ' ur from e York Ti ee - further interruption. -Daily News. positdthe L tluli ERTISEMENT .3 The eccentricities of Mr. Feargus O'Connor h f I ' Indigestion, have or a long delicious Food cures bill time past attracted a considerable share of public - Barry's debility, and nervous, with attention. DU constipation, nervous . . Even before his departure for America his Co nduct durin ejesm, laints in all their vane an examination that took place before one of the Ma t ' a a g dYsI 3 d B e er complaints, crty, ' headaches, sickness, depression of Chancery was of so outrageous a nature as to have - justified -rs 1 n ous, I°s ' sf er f aPB ' tract acii a letter from the Rev. J. W. Fla his incarceration, had he not been dealt with in a most mer- is pir P ls; -- ' Recto of Norfolk :--e Eight years' dyspepsia, ciful spirit. Since his return to England his mind would ap- vs-ell, Ridlingtond deebiory, l ty, with cramps, spasms, and nausea, pear to be more deranged than before. W e find him at one riervonsn es3 ' an t had consulted the advice of many, has moment insulting all theiguests in the coffee- botel, for ;010 110 Y servant by Du Barry's delicious health-re. drinking out of one man's glass, and hel • room of an hotel, from been erectually remo v ed very short time. . I shall be happy to ans the plate of another. Next he turns up pu l ; Westminster - Imsel ' etoring food in . a _ es ' Sold in canisters, suitably packed for hall, where he enters each of the courts i n l turn , begins a Iv er an y inclairl 'with full instructions-11b., 2s. 9d. ; 2 1 bs , familiar conversation with the Judges on the benc h and ad- all climates., an d l ; 121bs. 225.; super-refined, dresses them in a vein of jocularity ill-suited to tbe time and i 4s. 6 c 1 .; 51133 1, `.the 101 b. and 131 b. carriage free on - receipt of place. Every action would show that he was not in poss ession! 101 be., ric 33 e s' order. Barry Du Barry acd Co., 127, New Bond., of his right mind. Upon any other s up p osition he should long D ' °a" L ndon ; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly ; since have been locked U. A g ain, wben he ta k e s his I et a ° nd Butler, 155, Regent-street ; and all respectable place as Member of the House of Commons we find him ' be- Fled g es cre and chemists. having himself in such a manner as to interrupt the discip- , groc TisEmENT.] - Holloway's Pills have been 1 eons and embarrass the House. What occurred last night, svEu . another Sufferer from a Liver Ca la' t. however, can leave no doubt that the unfortunate geß tiel T ene ' the means of cur r in e, curing another tradesman, residin i the u 'ulh g n neig is a maniac. The particulars ot his outrage upon Sir Howe of -The wife of T a lone was suffering f e jamin Hall, and of the scene which occurred in the t o ieei s bourhood of sever r s e liver complaint, dur; .r snore than two a, Commons, will be found in our Parliamentary report act. years from b a e se best medical advice, but R ei ch period'' the day. It must not be supposed that this is anis been the received benefit . 'left therefrom. she then w ith ou t clerrvin_g em.. For some time past Mr. Feargus O'Connor has at the halls slightett e a nd b their use alt ,i made trial o f red ll e e he has been res t ore d to terror of the House, and of all persons who freque w e ns might way's Pills, • the name o f and passages of the building. For th"an- not d e perfect health , . the party cured is not made h this was don et' üblic, but Mrs. Collier, bookseller, Thranstone can voile ant have been placed in. safeikeeping, -- w hen the powers of P the ' h t •t of also in for aut en ici y the case. These Pills were an Even so , what was to be done wi th him vi f the dissolution ? fallible remedy for indigestion, bir headaches, and ious attacks, the House shouldihave expired by reason o • dangerous madman. all disorders of the stomach. -S Sold by all druggists, o and at There can be no question that he is a . tted some serious, Strand, London. Are we to wait until he shall have com mitted preserve itself?- lessor Holloway's Pre Establishment , 244, S crime before society takes precautions o Times. EDINBURGH C HAIR OF MORLL PHILOSOPHY.... Mr. Macdougall and Mr. Ferrier were the candidates f the vacant Professorship, w h ich bas been decided i n favon4Rthe former by 20 Votes agtiort 13. TEM HULL GARROTE MVRDER.—Snage and Smith Were brought up yesterday for final examination, and were committed for the murder.