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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE uF LORDS, June 8. ir,9 LORD CHANCELLOR. took his seat on the, Woolsack a Five o'clock. The Militia Bill was reset a fir:.c time. The Kennington Common Lcprovement Bill was read ..soond time. LONDON NECROPOLIS AND MAUSOLEUM BILL. Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of this The Earl of SHAF 7ESBURY opposed the Bill, as boing impracticable in its provisions. The Bishop of LONDON also opposed the Bill. After a short conversation the Bill was read a second wane. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition fv.ai certain copyholders in Cumberland against the C,,pyhold Enfranchisement Bill. On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the Corrupt Practises at Elections Bill was read a second ti ,e, and ordered to he committed on Monday. On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Registra- , tion of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Public Works Bill we?: read a second time. On the moti:n of the Earl of MINTO the Law of L'vidence (Scotland) Bill passed through Committee. On the motion of the Earl of HARROWBY thelna dustrial and Provident Societies Bill was read a second 'si isle. SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL. The Earl of MALMESBURY moved the second read leg of this Bill, which he explain of was uality intended to eq with place France on a footing o Eiegland wish reference to the mutual surrender of cr ..minals. By the convention of 1843 between the ewe countries this coun tr y obtained the right to claim the surrender cf certain criminals who took refuge in France; while, on the contrary, by the imperfect state of our law, France was not able to claim criminals who had fled hither from that country. The Earl of ABERDEEN said he was afraid that the N o bl e E ar l opposite was not sufficiently aware of the denculties of the subject which he had taken in hand; which, in d ee d, were so great that ever since the peace of 1815 the two Courts had been in constant communication for the purpose of conclud log a convention of this sort, and in 1843, he (Lord Aberdeen) had for the first Limo concluded a treaty with France for the surrender of criminals centerged with murder, forgery, and fraudulent bank ruptcy. He did not think the present Bill gave suffi cient security against political offenders being claimed under its provisions, and it only required the production 6 , 1 a rectedat d'arret or warrant from a French magistrate eel proof of identity. Now, it was evidently insuffi te ent that a mere accusation without any proof of the c .earaission of the crime charged should be all that way required to justify us in delivering up an accused party. Lord BROUGHAM readily agreed that this was a sub ject which required legislation, for nothing could be clearer than the proposition of his Noble Friend, that it was hardly Consistent with the condition of civilised society, that two nations so closely connected as France and England were should exist with the facilities at all times afforded to the most desperate offenders, who had committed the most atrocious crimes, of escaping with impunity by passing over a narrow channel as easily as formerly ideal boundaries could be passed. Nevertheless, he admitted the many difficulties which would have to be encountered in dealing with tha question. Having enumerated a few of these difficulties, the Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to observe, that under the convention it was stipulated that an analogous law to the one now proposed should be passed in France, and a provision to be made in the treaty that the convention should not come into force until a day to be named by both parties; consequently until we shall be satisfied that a law was passed in France similar to this, no such day would be named. So far all was well. But just suppose a French law to be passed, and this country, being satisfied, gave notice that the convention was to come into operation, say on the let of October next. Then, by another provision of the Bill six months' notice was required in order that the treaty should be put an end to. Let the House, then, see what might happen during these six months—laws in these days were not like the laws of the Bledes and Persians, which were never repealed and never altered. On the contrary, we lived in times when the repeal of laws was almost as fre quent as their enactment; and supposing a law passed before the Ist of October should afterwards be repealed, or a sub stantial modification introduced in it, where was the security for those parties who might then be tried for po litical offences, though under the previous state of the law Ley would have been safe? But the chief difficulty was, atter all, that which had been alluded to by his Noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen)—namely, that the warrant should be taken as conclusive evidence of identity for the in carceration and surrender of the person accused.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend opposite would bear with him (Lord Brougham) for a few moments, whilst he called his at cention to the sort of legislation which was at this time going on on the other side of the Channel. He had lately had some conversation with the British Ambassador at Paris eeith regard to a Bill which was then before the corps legis latif: That Bill was in a very forward state, and as the Government there had what might be called a " working majority"--(Laughter)--a majority, he believed, of 242 to 3 ; and that he , thought was almost entitled to the 'name of a " working majority"— (Another laugh)— be took it for granted that. that Bill would soon be the law cf France. Now, that Bill contained some most extraor ',Unary provisions; tor not only might Frenchmen be tried , n France for offences committed by them in England. or elsewhere---political offences included—and possibly these • political offence, though not the only ones contained in the Bill, might be its principal object—(Hear, hear) — not only might Frenchmen be tried in France for offences committed in England, but their accomplices—English men, ft might be, in the condition of accessories—might also be tried in France. Nay, more—and he owned he was never more astonished in his life at any act, or attempted act, of legislation as he was when he saw this -Englishmen not charged as accomplices of Frenchmen—but English men without any accession to, or complicity with, French men , might be tried in France for political offences by them committed in England, provided those offences were against 'she French Government, Cr against the public weal, as it was called, of France.—(Bear.) The Earl of MALMESBURY said the Bill to which the Noble and Learned Lord referred was now passed, but its provisions were confined to Frenchmen.—(Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM was much relieved by hearing the Noble Lord say that it was confined to Frenchmen. The Earl of MALMESBURY—It was passed by a majo rity of 195 to s.—(Lond laughter.) • Lord BROUGHAM—But the Bill in the shape in which he had seen it was no new measure; o n the contrary, it was precisely similar tce Article 6of the Code Napoleon. This - was the first time,. except in peculiar instances, that this great breach in the principle of what was termed interns. nowt' law had been made, of not considering that offenders ought to be tried in the country, and by the laws of the country, in which the offences were charged to have been committed. Having said this much respecting the proceed ings •intEranee, it was only fit he should add, that he saw so reason to doubt the fairness and honest intention of the e French Government in reference to the matter of the con ' • ven time. '• The LORD CHANCELLOR—It appeared to be agreed on both sides of the House that something must be done to meet the just demands of the French Government. At present there were two acts in force which gave to this country all the benefits that could be derived from such a treaty, but 1 1 1 ; s4 tieally gave the French Government no benefit at all. ' , vido ne , perrectly clear, therefore, that a remedy should be pro for they her Majesty's Government were ready to do so, en : 3 , 7 4 . did not, we might lose all the benefit we now what was The feeling of the House, too, seemed to be that opinion. th r'oper to be done should be done now. In his of this so d , ]leeent was the right time to provide a measure possible to b for if daring SO many years it was found im into accord,, the Governments of the two countries ready, thonglC-"se the subject, and if they were now best and most the y might not have taken exactly the were now readreaLr steps for the purpose—yet, if they precisely the mor es Z t r u to an arrangement, surely that was that happy coneurr et Zhen advantage should be taken of measure before the g o °f opinion. It was objected to the t a ken up in this eowit l a . r a e ri that it allowed any man to be warran t and simple pr oo f oft,t,,carried out of it, merely upon a was ma de to avoid. that, dim _entity. Now, when an attempt the Noble Earl near him ( e - i ; . ` c c re. in the act of convention of respect_.that in endeey e , of Aberdeen), it failed in this constitutional, to protect th e p Z a u o g to do that which was who was claimed, and who was entitled to our hospitality ° laws, swe did that which made the a n t d the protection of our tar as regarded the government o i r td9 a dead letter so forward such a measure as this, thp - ,. c 'rance. In carryingtain what substitu te they collie they must ascer eovide for that which had already failed. And veleel at thee seoeueue WAS a wt. arr.tu 4 , 4 1 _Substitute pro- . say how far this of identitv. to . It was very difficielt Prim a • • b evidence as Were they to require so much . facze eves would person , were to e tried there deuce was to go. would satisfy them that it', was every probability of his being convicted? Its had theyin -1 was so desirous that the objects which be chalk Should be carried out, thatif any plan could chalked out w person accused which would give greater security to t he thisand to the French Government that their cri minal s be most happycount would be surrendered to them, he would adopt it. Great care, he admitted, ought to be . taken I , T. ° th e convention that it would not be made applicable to a treaty' p o li tica , off - cadets. That conve n ti on stood upon formally entered into. They could not, however, step in between, the French Government and their subjects, although they cZnill prevent a Frenchmanbeing pro perly carried into France to be tried. But if he went improperly into France they could not do more than demand comp l i ance with the terms of their amity, which stipulated solemnly that no man should be tried for any politi ca l offence; and that if he be so tried, that he should b e a t liberty to p l ea d his surrounder here trythis Government as a discharge from the crime of which he was accused. Lord BROUGHAM—Or lie sent back. The LORD CHANCELLOR—Or be sent back. That was a valuable suggestion of the Noble and Learned Lord. They were now, however, upon the second reading of the nil!, and he coulronly say that they would go into Com mittee with an anxious desire to have the benefit of the as sistance of the Noble and Learned Lords in rendering the Bill as perfect as possible for giving effect'to the objects which they were all anxious to attain. But what he wanted to impress upon their Lordships was this. lie had the most sinceze respect for the opinions of the Noble Earl near him. The Noble Earl seemed to think that they had a right to expect that these securities would be given by the French Government. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) could not see how they c ou ld as k th e F renc h G overnment to pass any 01l _ a chlaw as would gi v e th em suc h a ddi t i ona l security. The rlatam.ent of this count r y did no t p ass any l aw o f a si mrilrkuld when an E ng lish su bj ec t was b roug h t to this Country, and was tried for a political offence. They had no such LW as prohibited them from tryi ng suc h p o liti ca l of that this ey propose to pass an y suc h l aw . H e ad mittedtreaty by France Act would n o t p reven t th e i n f raction o f t h e what would be th e would be an infraction ( Tesequence of such i n f rac ti on ? It they had the usual mod the treaty itself, and in suc h case eof vindicating their rights. The Noble Earl asserted that th lie concurred in that opin e ,on retrospective law went too far. the crimes since the date of the treaty in 1843 were made By some inadverten c e, a ll retrospective, whereas it was clear that only all the new offences which were created by th e made retrospective. If their -order should have been 1. assent to the Bill going into Committe:l 3 7 ; however, would would leave the Committee in such _ e had no doubt it a shape as to meet the approval of their Lordships. • Lord CAMPBELL said that they were most anxious and earnestly desired to further this measure. cut he must say e was surprised at this novel. ;node of Proceeding a/kW TNE SUN, .res-,LONDON, , this law of extradition—namely, making the word of the party sufficient authority for the giving up of the party accused. He looked with the greatest apprehension upon such a provision. The law of extradition was very ancient. The invariable rule was to require reasonable evidence of the guilt of the party when the Government of a country was called upon to give up a criminal. They were now, for the first time, about to propose that the m ere assertion of the Government shall be held as conclusive evidence of the guilt of the accused, and that he shall be delivered up to be tried by the laws of his own country. It was extraordinary, upon this subject, that there should be no reciprocity in the requirements of both countries. If th e Noble and Learned wasntnd,proposed orof Lord on the Woolsack asked him how in England this was to a bes it do w ne as ? he would simply say, let it be d one that t proposedhe warrantto b edo o n fe the in Secretary France.a nce. g a S relyof a l tt in En o l an English magistrate, should be taken as proof positive of the guilt of a party whose extradition was required from France. By the present measure, how easy would it b e f or persons to forge docum ents asserting the guilt of an indivi dual who had made himself obnoxious to France, and merely go through the form of proving his identity before a magi strate in this country — The Earl of DIALMESBURY—.There is a discretion in the magistrate. Lord CAMPBELL—The only discretion the magistrate would have was as to the identity of the accused. On that fact being ascertained he was bound to order him to be im mediately given up. Now, this was a power so liable to abuse he thought the greatest care ought to be taken in the creation of it. The law of extradition, even with all the securities which at present surrounded it, had been much abused. He recollected that when he had the honour of being Attorney-General he was consulted in a case arising out of the treaty entered into between the United States and Canada. In that treaty there was an extraditional clause, which required that there should be a bill of indictment before the extradition could be demanded. An indictment was found against a man in Canada for horse-stealing, and an application was made to the Governor of Canada on be half of the Government of the United States to have him given up. What were the facts? The accused was a slave who had escaped into Canada on a horse, which he had sent back on his arrival at the frontier. The governor, on learn ing these facts, very properly refused to give the man up. There was a remonstrance made by the American govern ment in consequence and he (Lord C.) advised the govern ment of this country to stand by the governor in what he had done. Now, when the power was capable of being so abused under that law, how much more was it likely to be abused under a convention which only required the ipse dixit of a party as an authority for giving up an accused party? The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was understood that in the working of the French law the English government would have the same facilities afforded them in France in respect to the arrest of their criminals as the French govern ment would have in this country. By the 11 th article power was given to the Secretary of State to supersede proceedings, where, under article 10 of the convention or otherwise, it might appear proper. The Duke of ARGYLL said that they were all anxious that no person should be delivered up, if after being so deli vered up he was liable to be tried for political offences. He understood the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack to say, that upon this point they must simply trust to the faith of the convention ; that as the English Government did not propose to bind themselves by any law upon this point, they therefore could net demand that the French Government should bind themselves so. lie would, however, remind their Lordships of the , terms of the 12th article :—"No person surrendered by the French Government under the said convention should be prosecuted or proceeded against in the United Kingdom, or in any of the dominions of her Majesty, for or on account of any crime or offence com mitted previously to his being so surrendered, except the crimes described in the said convention, but shall be wholly released by such surrender from all prosecutions and pro ceedings in respect of any such previous crime, except as aforesaid, and in case of any prosecution contrary to this provision, such surrender shall be admitted as a valid defence, and evidence thereof may be given under a plea of not guilty." If this Bill be passed, he thought that it would be the duty of the French Government to bind itself by law in a similar manner as this country would then have done by the article in question. In consequence of many political changes to which France was exposed, it was impossible that the French Government could give them equal security with the law of this country. If, however, a convention was to be entered into, they must take the guarantee of the French Government and the French Legislature as equivalent to their own. Now, there were about 20 offences described in this measure, which he thought would afford additional facilities to persons being tried for political offences quasi criminal. He was strongly opposed to the principle of deliver ing up supposed criminals merely upon the accusation of the French Government, and proving the identity of the party. Lord BROUGHAM called attention to the 7th article of the convention, which says—" No accused or convicted person who may be surrendered shall in any case be pro ceeded against or punished on account of any political offence committed prior to his being surrendered, nor for any crime or offence not described in the present convention which he may have committed previously to his being surrendered; and proof of having been so surrendered under this con vention shall be a good and valid defence against any proceeding on account of any political offence previously committed, and shall entitle the party to an immediate acquittal." The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was nothing more just than that the French Government should pass such a law as this, and thereby secure a reciprocity of power. If they did not pass such a law as would meet the provisions of that clause they could then strike it out of their Act. After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY, Lord CRANWORTH said that the principle of this Bill was to legislate so as to carry into effect a treaty and con vention, many of the terms of which were inadmissible. Under this impression, he, for one, thought that this Bill should not be read a second time. Lord M.ALMESBURY said that this Bill was considered to be a matter of necessity. It had been well considered at the Foreign-office, and he therefore hoped that their Lord ships would read it a second time; and that the Noble and Learned Lords opposite would give their valuable assistance in amending the details so as to render it as perfect as possible. Lord CAMPBELL said that the objections could not be removed without a new French convention. The LORD CHANCELLOR apprehended that the Bill might be so modified as to meet their Lordships' views. It might then be left to the French Government for their adoption or rejection. Earl GREY thought the Bill should not be passed in its present shape. He thought, before surrendering an alleged criminal, there ought to be offered come evidence of his guilt, as was the case in the treaty between this country and the United States. No man ought to be giveu up with out a prima facie case being made against him. Unless it could be amended to that extent, he could not allow the Bill to be read a second time. Lord ABERDEEN said that clause too provided expresaly for the objection taken by the Noble Earl (Grey), but thee in similar cases hitherto they had never yet been able tO surrender a single criminal. France, on the contrary, h a l found no difficulty in doing so. Lord BROUGHAM suggested that in cases where crir4 nals were claimed, depositions should be laid before the Secretary of State, and if found satisfactory, he should alio* the warrant to issue. They might allow the Bill, with th 4 understanding, to be read a second time. Lord MALMESBURY said all he wished was, that this should be impro ve d, an d w ith that view he hoped their Lordships would alUow the Bill to be committed. The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be committed on Friday. - Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMIVONS, June 8. MAYNOOTII COLLEGE. (Continued_from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. V.. SCULLY said it was quite clear that those who supported the motion were not sincere in their inquiry —_in fact, T h t i h s ey wa h s ad m th er e e ; nt i saelllevgeesd'adveoswireedforthaen i irins a step to the abolishment. of Maynooth alto gether, which they were prepared to effect without the slightest inquiry. Th ey wished to bevels kind of inquisition to upset the grant, and that would 4. load to the destruction of the Colle ge . Lie e agree d in thinking that the proposal fur inquiry was a mere sheik), for if inquiry was earnestly wished f u r, i t could be hd at once under the powers exercised by the visitor s .' (Hear, hear.) lle bad no objection to inquiry, but be complained that a Select Committee was, us the Noble Lord (Lord; John Russell) had stated, the very worst tribunal to conduct it. He denied that the people of England called for inquiry, but oven supposing they did, why should the Hon. Member for North Warwick shire not adopt the suggestion, that it should take pl I ce between this and the next session of Parliament, eit er iby Royal Commission or by the visitors, who had 0 power of .conducting the strictest investigation upon 'oath? Ho. objected to an inquiry of an in sulting:.character, such as that proposed, which it was notorious was intended as an electioneering clap trap. As to the miserable grant itself, he was prepared to contend that the people of Ireland were entitled, to it on every ground of justice and good faith. The Church Zatatntscnuul, of Ireland cost thls:couutry directly about 3,000,000/. per annum. There were [ 600,000 Protestants in Ireland, so that the religious in -1 struction of each Irish Protestant cost 5/. a bead, wh i le, by dividing the Maynooth grant among the Roman • a tholic population, ho found that each of them recei ed one penny ; so that each Protestant received just ' as much as 1,200 Catholics; the Protestant got 3id. per 4ay for his religions instruction, while the same sum had' to serve each eeitholic for three years and a half. The discre pancy between the numbers of Catholics and Protestants 1n Iceland, and tho relative value of the endowmentsi of the two churches, had strack every person who kiiew l'h f is an ything r of Ireland. Both foreign travellers and :the c laity, i great statesmen of this country had remarked on this the Re: l and. aly, and bad spoken of it as the great evil of Ire• Catholic grant, in fact, was nothing more than a res titutionthe property which had been robbed fFom under Williantille Roman Catholic Chureh, and from the Roman n the reign of Queen Elizabeth and under were the ori protectorate of Cromwell, and also 111. The spoil cgs of these monarchs population g ino f t he poverty of the Roman Catholic play. They rend. Wh a t I re land wan t e d was 'f a i r eu lists, to have Irish horses a fairY wanted to be allowed to enter! the , awe. Why, but the other daye see what il el O'Rourke and Barbarian, 'had done—(Laughter)......, had been asserted about they had a fair start. Much ultranaontanism in Ireland,, but lhaenda.sseTrthede li th o a n t ou th r e a rbelewasMember nothing of the sort in Ire tthoetihrefitrims t e ira wh P e o i s a it t i h oi c r a y n o d ll of th eir th g e rad p u e a n l al rel l a a x w a s ! t then proceeded at great length to detail the his ( It o ir f i ne n ' i d nu e gp c i . That step ,had Sanctiontheo of many great egf of Maynooth was and it was always names,.considered in the light of a into by Lord I h of Maynooth was inquired Gait erea . g , one of whose chief compact. In 1800 the state advisers Meath, formerly a Ro man Catholic, and well acquainted with the rites and was the Protestant Bishop of he gave practices of the Church, and the advice which was not to leave th e su pp l y of the Roman Catholic priest hood in Irelaud to foreign colleges, but t o do their' best to provide them with education at home. Th e same authority deprecated an intert erence with the college of Maynooth. This was, however, not the first ti me t h at this agitation had been r aised a g ainst this estalish ment, it had been raised be fore in 1800, and afterwards in 1826. It being and the no llu w o Eo s u e r o'clock,the SPEAK ER lef t the Chair, adjourned until biz o'clock. 1 The House resumed at Six o'clock. A messenger from the Lords brought up the follow ing Bills, to which their Lordships had. agreed: Battle and Robertsbridge Road. Runcorn Improvement. London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway. WRllingford, and Reading Road, and Shitlingford Bridge, without aal-ndment. Ip:iwich Dock, with an amendment. South.-Eastern and Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railways, with amendments. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from the Society for obtaining the Repeal of the Taxes on Know ledge, praying for an inquiry with regard to the postage charged for the transmission of newspapers under 2 oz. Mr. G. SANDARS presented a petition from the physicians and surgeons of Wakefield and its vicinity, praying for more adequate remuneration in criminal prosecutions. Mr. ADDERLEY presented a petition from George, Cape of Good Hope, with 200 signatures, chiefly field cornets, praying for the speedy passage of their constitution ordi nances, with all their details as first drawn., Mr. CUBITT presented a petition from the Southern Association of Baptist Ministers and Messengers, assembled at Whitchurch, Hants, representing 27 churches, 3,000 mem bers, and 12,000 hearers, against the Militia Bill. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Saffron Walden against the Militia Bill. Sir B. HALL presented a petiton from the inhabitants of the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. Pancras, agreed to in public meeting assembled, complaining of Romish doctrines and practices being permitted in the churches of the Esta blishment, and praying that an inquiry may be instituted into the conduct of the Bishop of London, in reference to the matters complained of. Mr. BROC;KINIAN presented a petition from the members of the Hy the Reading Society to be furnished with copies of such of the reports and other Parliamentary documents ordered by the House of Commons to be printed as refer to literature, science, the fine arts, and the useful arts, free of expense, &c. Mr. TUFNELL presented petitions from the Eastbourne Literary and the Peterborough Mechanics' Institutions in favour of a distribution of Parliamentary papers to all mecha nics' and literary institutions. Mr. G. THOMPSON presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets, praying an inquiry into the cause of the prohibi tion of meetings on the Sabbath-day in Bonner's-fields. Mr. PACKE gave notice that he should move that the County Elections Poll Bill be read a third time that day six months. THE PICTURE BY TITIAN_ Mr. CHARTERIS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there was any truth in the report that a picture, said to be by Titian, which was recently purchased for the National Gallery at Marshal Soult's sale for 2,4001., was last year in the possession of a London dealer, by whom it was shown to several of the trustees, who then might have purchased it for 1,200/. ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was to proof that a picture in the possession of a London dealer, and said to have been purchased by Marshal Soult, was shown to the trustees of the National Gallery, and offered to them for 1,2001. It was quite true that a picture, undoubtedly by Titian, and which had been purchased by the National Gallery, was for sale in London recently, and was seen by a friend of his ; but he was not aware that that pic ture had been offered to the National Gallery for 1,2001. But he must observe that nothing was more delusive as to the real value of a picture than the fact of its acquisition by a private individual at a particular price. He knew of a picture by Murillo which had been recently sold for 24,003/. sterling, which had been offered to a distinguished individual well known to many Hon. Members in that House only a few years ago for 8,000/. There were very few pictures of emi nent merit that did not find their price in. London at the very top of the scale. It was impossible that the picture in question had been offered at a less sum than the trustees of the National Gallery took it at. But the country had given 2,400/. for it, and he believed that they had purchased a very valuable picture at a moderate price. PRIVATE BILLS. Sir R. PRICE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case of private Bills being prevented from passing the House of Commons by an early dissolution of Parliament, any steps would be taken to facilitate their being passed in the next Parliament, so that the great expense incurred in respect to them, up to their present stages, might not be thrown away? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was not in the power of the present Parliament to facilitate the passing of these Bills in the next Parliament. No doubt the indulgence which the Parliament of 1831 had afforded would be given by the new Parliament. At the same time, the Hon. Member must feel that the circumstances must be of a very pressing character to justify such a course. THE MAYNOOTII GRA'. Mr.M. ; GIBSON wished to ask a quest i on o f th e Chan cellor of the Exchequer with regard to the employment of the time of this House and the dispatch of public business. They had still got the Maynooth question hanging over them, and after a whole morning had been devoted to it, they were still as far from the termination of the debate as ever. He wished, therefore, to ask the Right Hon. Gentle. man, who was the trustee of the public for the proper appli cation of the public time, whether he did not think it fit for him to use his influence with the Hon. Member for Warwick shire to induce him to postpone all further proceedings to a more convenient season. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he felt his duty at present to be in unison with the statement which he had already made to the House, namely, to take care that all those measures to which the Government were bound should be passed this session with due deference to the great consummation which they all awaited.— (Laughter.) That he acknowledged was itself a difficult, though he would not say an impossible task, but he must decline, with respect to the subject of Maynooth, to under take that which the Right Hon. Gentleman had asked him to perform. OYSTER FISHERIES. In answer to a question from Sir G. CLERK respecting the oyster fisheries, Mr. HENLEY said he would pay every attention to the subject, and endeavour whether he could see his way to a relaxation of the law to enable parties to fish in the months of May and June without weakening the object for which the law had been passed—namely, the prevention of poach ing on the fisheries. The papers to which the Right Hon. Baronet alluded ahould be laid on the table to-morrow. THE REV. MR. BENNETT. Mr. HORSMAN, on rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the insti tution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, said that when, on the 20th of April last, he moved— '• That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct inquiry to 6e made whether due respect was paid to the decrees of the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical of the Church of England in the recent institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome," the object of that motion could not have been misunderstood. It clearly was to make inquiry into the act of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, for which he alone was responsible, in insti tuting a presentee against whom certaia allegations had been made, in spite of those allegations and of the evidence to prove them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on the part of her Majesty's Government, moved the amendment, showed he did not misunderstand the object of the motion, for he opposed it on grounds of a twofold nature; first, that the mode of redress proposed was inadequate; and next, that there was an appeal to the Archbishop against the act of the Bishop. The Right Hon. Gentleman said : " I cannot help believing that there must be an appeal from the prelate who acts in contravention of the canons of the Church to the Archbishop. If, then, there be an appeal to the Archbishop, if the conduct and decisions of the prelate are subject to that superior revision, that surely must be a reason why the House of Commons should not interfere before that appeal has taken place, and, in lieu of having re course to such a tribunal, should not substitute a means which is confessedly so inadequate to obtain the result which is desired." But the House was not satisfied with the grounds taken by the Right Honourable Gentleman, and vaaious Members ex pressed their belief that the question could not be disposed of in that manner; the Hon. Member for North Warwick shire in particular, who, expressing the sentiments of those around him, said— " He was, however, quite certain that, the question having been raised, the country would demand that it should be fully investigated ; this was a question which, having been raised, must be dealt with." Another member of the Cabinet, the Secretary for the Colo nies, rose subsequently, and said he concurred in the views of the ., Flleottn.noMt e o m n b ly er th w a h t o th h i a ,, d w s a p s o a ke ci n u , e a s n ti d on th w a h t i h ch e— ought to be raised, but that, having been raised, it ought to be dealt with ; and he would say for himself, as he believed he might say for every member of her Majesty's Government, that the matter ought not to rest in its present position, but that unquestion ably inquiry ought to be made, and a remedy ought to be provided." The Noble Lord the Member for the city of London declined to vote for an address to the Crown, on the grounds,—first, that there might be an appeal to the Archbishop, as the Right Hon. Geatleman had stated; next, that they did not know the character of the certificate of the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received from the Bishop of London ; and, thirdly, that he wished to leave the inquiry in the hands of Government. Tho Noblo Lord said ; " Let them at some further day declare whether they have found any mode of inquiry that is satisfactory, and let them lay any facts they may ascertain before the House. Until that period arrives I cannot consent to be a party to an address to the Crown." His Right Hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the same grounds in opposing the motion A n d showed he under stood it to be directed aga i nst the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The general feeling of the House was in favour of inquiry, and he (Mr. Horsman) stated the reasons why he felt it his duty not to accept the promise of the Government; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, somewhat irregularly, rose afterwards and assured the House the Government were pre pared to institute the inquiry for which they seemed so anxious. The Right Hon. Gentleman said— " He would not talk of a friendly inquiry, nor could he shouldpr om is ebae a judicial bondfi inquiry, one."but. he would promise that there After a month had elapsed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid before them a report of the result—not of an inquiry, but of what Government had undertaken in the matter —to which he would not farther refer, as it would be extremely inconvenient to embarrass the House in considering a far greater and more important question by any reference to the course of proceedings, or to the opinions of her Ma jesty's Government. Only a few nights ago he had stated his views by way of a question to the Attorney-General on the state of the law in this case, and the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman stated, that supposing that there was a complaint against Mr. Bennett, it was doubtful how far Mr. Bennett could be made amenable under the Church Discipline Act ; first, on accouit of the 20th clause, which covered offences committed further back than two years; and next, because there would be a difficulty in taking cognizance of an offence committed abroad; bat, as against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, it was admitted there was no redress whatever against his institution of Mr. Bennett, and no statute or court by which it could be challenged. The Attorney - General seemed to think h e (M r . Horsman) had cast a cen sure upon the Government for their conduct, while another lion. Member was of opinion he had acquitted Government of all blame whatever. But he had neither done one nor the other; for his dsire was to avoid the expression of any opinion whatever, and if he found the Ministry acting up to the declaration they had made, that the question should be investigated, he and the public would be quite satisfied; while, on the other hand, if they endeavoured to make it a party question, and to bring the influence of Government to bear to defeat the motion, he, and he believed the public also, would arrive at a very different conclusion. He wished to discuss the question 110 W without the smallest admixture of party feeling. On a former occasion he had stated fully the whole of the facts with respect to the Rev. Mr. Bennett, but questions had been raised by his friends, and some things had been especially misunderstood by the Noble Lord the Member for the county of Down. He seemed to think he (Mr. llorsman) had stated Mr. Bennett was no longer in communion with the Church of England, and that he was in communion with the Ch urc h o f R ome . N ow , h e had Lugo WEDNESDAY ;no such statement. What he said was, that when Mr. Ben nett left London he went abroad to visit Rome, and that it was believed he had gone there in more senses than one. When he said that, he had had a passage in his mind of the Rev. Mr. Bennett's lever to the Bishop of London, which he would now quote to the House. He said (talking of his difficult position), "The end must be that I seek for peace elsewhere." Now, he believed no person who read that passage could put on it any other interpretation than that by " elsewhere" Mr. Bennett meant the Church of Rome. The term was stereotyped—it was the phrase of those who had preceded Mr. Bennett where .he (Mr. Hors man) supposed Mr. Bennett was going at the time, and it was understood to be the usual expression of clergymen of the Church of England in respect to that change.—(No, no.) He could quote several clergyman who bad gone over to Rome who had used that phrase, and two occurred to him at the moment—Mr. Wilberforce and Archdeacon Man ning.—(Hear, hear.) It had been represented that he had founded his statements respecting the proceedings of Mr. Bennett abroad on the evidence of one person, but, had he believed the inquiry would not have been granted, he would not have limited his evidence to one person. That gentleman had been placed in a most awkward position, but, in order to show the spirit in which he wrote, he would quote a passage from his letter, which would show he had very different feelings from those attributed to him. He wrote as follows: " The best evidence on this point, it seems to me, would be that of the English chaplain, whose name I forget, but who must be mentioned in the 'Clergy List,' or at any event in Graville's Spas of Germany.' If any evidence to this extent, which is all I can with call aver, can be avail able in corroboration, I have no objection to give it; but I should object most strongly to being brought forward alone if not better supported, must less any legal authorit such y e i v a i h dence alone no bishop, still which, condemn him. It is only from fail.top rol , e ur a, upon charge, a fervent zeal for the cause of the Gospel truth and an intense disgust at the l'aypocrisy of the man, that in any event I should like to bring charges, which, exclusive of ipspi°enaraonfcdeuot that would necessitate them, must f underhand observation. In fact, I ht to ha o ev k e theen°nother notice of these parties than such as a person exceedingly ill is forced to pay to those whose inconsiderate noisiness is the source of constant annoyance to an invalid." And again, a week after, he wrote : " I have thus stated the whole that I can conscientiously testify on this point. Being then, as now, very ill, I should not have noticed Mr. Be nnett at all but for dm prominence of his peculiarities. As it was no business of mine to be his censor, and he seemed to , be comfortably on his way to St. Peter's, I gave him but very little attention, never thinking it likelytall an y evidence of mine. T o b e o bliged to give any evidence a against that Romanisrn would require to be testified by himhis is naturally very unpleasant to me, con sidering the manner i n w hi c fi m y observations were shade ; and if these observations are to be made use of as the groundwork of any overt procee di ng s against him, I must a beg that the promoters of such proceedings will first amply substantiate my statements, which can be done with ease, by obtaining the testimony of other residents (there were about forty English there at th e time) of the English chap lain, and any of the innumerable persons about the Roman Catholic Church, who must have had daily opportunities of witnessing his attendance. If this be done, and it can be done with very little trouble or cost, I have not a doubt that the result would be to prove indisputably, that while at Kis singen, at least, there being in the place an English church and English service, he voluntarily attended by preference the Roman Catholic." After the speech which he (Mr. Horsman) delivered, Mr. Stutzer wrote a further letter, which would best show what his feelings were, in which was the follow ing letter : "It seems to me that the simple course, if Mr. Bennett deny what I believe on my honour to be undoubtedly true, is to send to Kissingen, where conclusive evidence can be easily got. There must be some 50 or 100 persons, at the very least, who can say positively that they have seen or not seen him at mass. I have already stated the amount of evidence I can give, I have been dragged into this most unpleasant business by the hasty letter of Mr. Pratt; bat, being in it, I feel bound to substantiate every syllable that I have advanced, and with that view I should not only be willing, but glad to pay the whole expenses of any person who can go over to Kissingen and settle the whole. But it seems to me, that the question could be much more easily decided. Does Mr. Bennett deny the fact of his constant attendance at the Roman Catholic service and his non-at tendance at the Church of England service at the same place? If he does not, the whole question is at rest. tdr John Harrington was wills him all the time; surely he could not refuse, if solemnly called upon, to give his testi mony, however unfavourable it must be in its consequences to his friend. ' The gentleman was not anxious to raise any accusation against Mr. Bennett, but that having in conversations men tioned facts which were repeated without his authority, and published, much to his annoyance, when asked if those statements were true, he took the part a man of spirit ought to take, and said he slid not take any part in publishing the facts, but that, as they were stated by him, he thought he was bound in honour not to shrink from confirming what he had asserted.—(Hear, hear.) He had said so much because it was due to the gentleman in question ; but he had other testimony which he could have adduced, and he could have stated many things which he had not wished then to bring forward. He had seen a letter in the handwriting of a lady from Germany, who said that the organist of the church (at Kissingen) had pointed out a gentleman to her, and told her it was Mr. Bennett, late of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, but now in communion with the Church of Home. Ile could have stated that Mr. Bennett's proceedings and conduct had been notorious, and that he was pub lished in the Roman Catholic Directory as having been re ceived into the Church of Rome.—(Oh, oh !) Though that was a work of great circulation, it was not a work of autho rity; but he might have looked upon it as being of some authority, because Dr. Wiseman had stated,:during the agita tion on the Titles Bill, that if the Noble Lord had looked into it he must have been aware of the Pope's intentions, as he had been designated in the Directory as " Archbishop of Westminster" some time previously. He held in his hand the affidavit of a German servant, to the effect that it was a matter of notoriety to all the servants in the hotel that Mr. Bennett went to mass every morning, and he could also have stated, on the former occasion when this subject was before the House, that Mr. Bennett, when travelling with his party, carried about in a box a consecrated stone for an altar, and that this stone was set up when they halted; and, Mr. Bennett officiating as a priest, performed religious ser vice before it. It was known that in the Roman Catholic Church evey Roman Catholic priest must carry about with hint a small consecrated stone for an altar, wherever he went, but such a thing was unknown in the Protestant Church. He would now state why he felt the evidence, on the authority of Mr. Pratt and his letter, was the most proper evidence that could have been adduced. It was a rule in this House that where a charge was made against an individual, the person bringing the charge should be extremely careful as to the character of the evidence he adduced, particularly that he should bring forward none which should be unfair to the party accused ; and during the last five years, in all the motions which he (Mr. Horsman) had made upon ecclesias tical subjects , he had invariably stated that the evidence upon which he based his motions had been always published evidence known to the world, and generally taken from re turns and reports laid upon the table of the House. So, in this instance, setting aside the letter of Mr. Pratt, it was a strong fact that Mr. Bennett's name should be published in a work like the Roman Catholic Directory in the month of November, and that it should remain unnoticed and un contradicted until the month of April. It might be said that it was possible Mr. Bennett had not seen that publication, but even assuming that he had not, it was, at all events, a strong fact that Mr. Pratt's letter should remain entirely un noticed, for he was in a position to show that this letter had been brought under Mr. Bennett's attention. Before the insti tution of that gentleman it would be remembered that there natdodorkessed the following letter to Mr. Bennett. The was a good deal of excit ement at Fronts, and when the in place, Mr. H as ti ngs , one o f th e c lergy of place on the 24th of January, and this l e tt e r was written on th e 3 1 st : sintris°tti-iiiiittuji ion took " enclosedlt ectory , letterT r ow brl ~ R e v. Sir,—The(thisdge,wJasan.th3el,llBs2. corded from the Achill Miss• n 7 letter of Mr. Pratt) I have of this month. You may a not have the opportunity arj f seeing a near neighbour l ep h y ave felt it to be the paper, and consequently be unable tor l to it. a As a against you, and the scandal occasioned m b ry ot d h u er ty cl t e o rg n y i m ak a o n; o n ti d acquainted with the serious charge f may I hope you will not think me officious or obtrusive in calling your attention to the sub ject ? Trusting to hear that there has been some mistake in the statement, I am, R ev. air, yours faithfully, • .‘ Rev. W. Benn e tt . had been a lergy " Now, if Mr. Bennett orthodoxy there J. D. Ila d aT u rNa vr sZ o ' se was no actual doubt,e clergyman regarding lwhom re ports had originated ew i n t ought to have been thankful report; and certainly . - with his antecedents,contradicting that Mr. Bennett, ofora such continental a a opportunity residence, _m ear.s ought to have felt himself bound to with no reply. • ) That letter, however, met when he wrote this second letter : answer it.r.r Hastings waited until the 12th of February,' " Rectory, Trowbridge, Feb. 12, 1852. ~ Rev. Sir -...0 to ' -0 Saturday, a letter you, directed ' Vicarage, 3 Frorne."The object of that communication English newspapers. was to afford you an opportunity of see , letter signed, .Y, the 31 tof January, I addressed il e k •;l! , ted, ane ' John 0. N. Pratt,' a copy of which I wlileh has s i nce appeared in aavarat of . the of much hood, and I conversation among the clergy of the neighbour your hbour your authority,had hoped in writing to you to be enabled,. on to This letter was naturally the subject to ire - r silence, however, so opposed to the courtesy by which con tained. y ou contradict the statements therein con your co Church oeE the des' d ° conclude that it is not in your power to afford compel s me t conduct as I am informed,. is characterised, confirm those who were willing to pass over what had oc curredtertainin e xplanation. I regret this the more as it tends your former parish in the adverse opinion they en • ed respecting your appointment to any office in the of the ngland, inasmuch as your preference for the ser vices, e Church of Rome, which you have publicly and B _ ° . ll P lll, Y declared erroneous in her ceremonies and in matters of faith, has thrown contempt upon that Church, whose faith his letter to him ()chine in your ordination vows you promised to give I faithful diligence always' to minister and teach. " I am, Reverend Sir, yours faithfully, 4' J. D. Hasumtas." That leher again received no answer whatever. What con c."l" would any man draw from such sileace 2—Meer, hear.) Dir. Hastings drew his own conclusion, and this was ~ Rectory, Trowbridge, April 24, 1852. observe, " l‘ly dear Sir,—Enclosed are copies of the letters pro mised;th You are at liberty to make what use you please of (Mr. llorsman) on the subject: . — P ll . I may m y object in wr itin g th em was to auo rd Mr. Ben ne tt a n opportun it y of contradictin g t he report of his attendance upon the Roman worship i n preference to that of the Anglican Church, particularly as I was informed by a friend of his who had requested me to call upon him that his views were very much chan g ed. It was the intention of myself and several of the clergy around to have called upon him, had this statement proved true. Just at thi s time Mr. O. N. Pratt's letter appeared, and I thought it advisable at once to communicate with Mr. Bennett on the subject. la m truly sorry, that by his taking no notice of either letter, he has left an impression on my mind, as I have stated to him, that he could not refute the statement and, consequen tl y , had not changed his views, thus precluding myse lf and others fro m p a y in g hi m that courtesy which belongs to a brother clergyman coming into the neighbourhood. "I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly, "J. D. 1.1.4.auxG5." Now, put aside altogether the evidence which he (Mr. Ilorsman) gave the other day as to the conversations of Mr. Bennett, and here was the fact that a letter was published in, and went the round of all the newspapers, stating p u b. licly that Mr. Bennett never entered the Protestant church when at Kissingen, b u t was a regula r attendan t at mass, and that thi s letter was enclosed to Mr. Bennett by a brother Clergyman in a friendly, kindly, and brotherly spirit, and when it was known that no notice was taken of the comma. nication, and no such explanation as t hat which the circum stances requi re d was given, the fact must leave a conviction upon the m i n d o f ever y impartial man that the statement was true.—(H ear , hear.) lie (Mr. Ilorscrian) ask e d whether, if he had had the choice of flyer 49 Lug h • now g OPltlence JUNE 9, 1852. to bring before the House. he had not selected that which was the most proper and the most appropriate? It was evi dence which had been known to Mr. Bennett ; it was, there fore, the fairest to that gentleman, and, he thought, the most satisfactory and conclusive to the House. He came now to a far more important an d ser i ous p a i n t of this subject. He had done with Mr. Bennett, and now came to the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The import ance of Mr. Bennett's acts were perfectly insignificant as compared with the acts of the Bishop. The difference in station between the nginister and the prelate was nothing as compared with the difference of the effects which might fol low from the acts of a man who acted only in his individual capacity, and another gifted with power and authority, and whose example spread so far beyond himself.—(Hear, hear.) On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker which he would take the liberty of quoting : " The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach not far, they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps, by such as dwell at the next door; whereas men of more ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives are viewed afar off—so that the more there are which observe aloof what they do,!the greater glory by their well-doing they purchase, both unto God whom they serve, and to the State wherein they live." _ He (Mr. Hoisman) felt that he had spoken, when he last addressed the House, under a due sense of all the respon sibility which attached to the task he had taken. Some weeks bad elapsed since then, and, if his statements had been rash and hasty, he had had ample time to•reconsider and modify them, while, if they had been incorrect, ample opportunity had been afforded for repudiating them. After, however, all possible consideration and reconsideration, he was bound to say that the opinion he then stated had been very much strengthened, and whatever he the❑ thought as to the acts of the Bishop of Bath and Wells as deserving of censure, fell short of the truth, even more as regarded the Bishop than as regarded Mr. Bennett. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett in the first place with a haste and with a determination to shut out the parish ioners of Frome from that legal redress which they would have had if the Bishop had given them more time ; he had instituted him, secondly, without having that certificate from Mr. Bennett's former diocesan which, by usage and by law, he was under an obligation to require; and, thirdly, without that due examination which was enjoined by law, and which the parishioners of Frome had a right to de mand; and he (Mr. Horsman) was prepared to show that the Bishop had done this not accidentally, not carelessly, not hastily, not upon impulse, but advisedly, as the lawyers said " perversely," and with the intention of defeating the ends of justice. What was the position of the different par ties at the time when Mr. Bennett was presented to the vicarage of Frome, and before his institution? Each party then had a legal position and certain legal rights. The parishioners of Frome did not at that time know what their legal rights were. They acquired that knowledge later on, and, unfortunately for them, later than the Bishop. This was the position of the parties :—Before Mr. Bennett was instituted it was open to the parishioners under the canon law to have lodged a caveat against that institution in the Bishop's court. The object of the caveat was this, — that an individual might be presented to a benefice of whom a bishop might know nothing, and any persons who knew him to be unfit, and wished to prevent his institu tion, did,so by a caveat. If such a course had been taken in this instance, Mr. Bennett would have had to have " warned" the caveat, and that would have compelled the proctor through whom it was lodged to state the name of the person who had lodged it, and the objections to institu tion. Then the cause would have been referred by the bishop to the Vice-Chancellor's Courts, from these it would be referred to the archbishop, and from the archbishop the cause might be taken by appeal to the Privy Council. That was the position of parties, and that was the right which was available to the parishioners of Frome, while Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before he was insti tuted. He (Mr. Horsman) would now show the House how they were defeated in their attempt to avail themselves of that right, and what was the course pursued towards them by the Bishop. Mr. Bennett's presentation was confirmed on Tuesday, the 30th of December ; on Wednesday he visited Frome, on Thursday, January 1, the inhabitants moved, and a protest was got up signed by five clergymen and 48 heads of families. On the 2d this protest was delivered to the Mar chioness of Bath, and the day after they received her lady ship's reply. On Wednesday they memorialized the Bishop, giving their reasons against the institution, by which, of course, they meant to ask his Lordship to make inquiry into the truth of what they alleged. They made this statement on the 7th of January; on the 15th they received the reply of the Bishop declining to accede to their prayer, and stating that he should proceed with the institution. Oa the very same day they wrote to him again, praying him to give them 14 days' delay to consider whether it might be their duty to take any further steps in the matter. They received his answer on the 21st of January, and that very day they sent their solicitor to London to take the opinion of ➢r. Twiss. Their solicitor returned cn the 23d, and they then learned, for the first time, the means within their power for delaying institution. They received this opinion on the 23d, and a caveat was prepared on the 24th ; but before that the Bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett.—(Hear, hear.) These proceedings were of so very extraordinary a character that he (Mr. Horsman) had really felt at first that they were hardly to be believed. He had, however, received the following statement, in confirmation, from Mr. Hurd, of Frome "Frome, June 2, 1852. " I will take up the subject on Thursday, January 15, on which day we wrote tQ the Bishop at Brighton, praying that he would delay institution for fourteen days. On the 19th he dates his civil reply, which we received on Wednesday, the 21st ; and, by the very next train, on the same day, we sent Mr. Cruttwell and the Rev. Hill Dawse Wickham to London, to consult proctors. On the 23d they had an oral opinion from Dr. Twiss (to save time), urging them to lose no time in entering a caveat to stay institution and induc tion, or induction, as the case may be. Mr. Cruttwell wrote on that day from London to the committee at Frome to be ready in the committee-room at one o'clock:r.m. the next day, at which hour he would arrive at the station and join us. On hie way from the station to the committee-room he heard the bells strikenp, and was told that Mr. Bennett had just been inducted. This was Saturday, January 24. A few minutes after we had met Mr. Bennett and a few strange clergymen (three, I think) passed our window on their way from church, after induction. Mr. Bennett called on Dr. Griffith, at Elm, two miles from Frome, on the morning of Saturday, January 24, and was by him, as commissary, in stituted. He then proceeded back to Frome Church, and was inducted the same morning by the Rev. Mr. Blackwell, curate of Mells, near Frome. The Rev. W. Calvert, curate of Frome (for four years), and then residing at the vicarage house. declined being present at the induction." He (Mr. Horsman) had wished to know whether these facts were confirmed by Mr. Cruttwell, and he had received a statement from that gentleman, which, though it travelled over somewhat the same ground, so extraordinary and in credible was the whole proceeding, he would read to the House :--- "My dear Sir,—ln answer to your inquiry, I beg to inform you that on Wednesday, the 21st of January (being the same day on which the reply of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the Rev. H: D. Wickham was received), I went to London with that gentleman upon the instructions of the coin mitteelo take Dr. Twiss's opinion. It was not until the after noon of the 23d that we succeeded in obtaining th e verbal opinion of Dr. Twiss, to the effect that Mr. Benn e tt' s opi nions as they appeared by reference to his published works were decidedly unsound , and t that the proper course t o stay his institution and induction was to en t er a caveat in the Bishop's Court at Wells. I obtained a form of the caveat, which was as follows: 'Let nothing be done in r the (. .countyD., ando f the matter of the institution of e th_e W tifo JE. Bennett, clerk, to the vicarage of I(r . om B ) Be , p w roc oo t d o , r i Somerset, unknown to others, parishioners , inhab A' itants of the said parish of Frome Selwood, I returned to Frome on Saturday, th e 24 t h , a b out one o'clock, and as I entered the town I he ar d the bells ring ing for Mr. Bennett's which I was i n f orme d h a d just taken place. written to st a t e the effect of Dr. Twiss's opinion, ha in d d p u r c e t v itn u , sly and to call the committee together, and, if Mr. Bennett's induction bad not take n p l ace, I should at once have obtain ed the sanctionte of th e C ommittee, and entered the caveat in the afternoon of the 24th o f J anuary. The absence of the Bishop have been no impediment in the way of entering t h e caveat, w hich must, as a matter of course, have been r eceived b y h is officer at Wells, and the effect would have been to stay induction until the proper proceedings had been taken to decide the question of iltr. Bennett's orthodoxy. I ameray dear Sir, very truly yours, Frome, June 2, " C it " J. Hurd, Esq." C. Cnurrw LL. He was sure the House would see how far the statement was correct, that the parishioners of Promo had not been ready to avail themselves before coming to this Hones which openof s ßath to them. But they of every legal remedy were shut out by the Bishop and Wells e from that redress which they mi g ht have obtained if h had given th a t moderate and d ecent delay for which they peti tioned. All the eviden ce relative to M r . B ennett ' s pro ceedings at Kissingen might then have been prod uce d. A s it was said the Parishioners of Frome had not availed them selves of every chance of legal redress, he wished to ask two questions of the Att orney- G enera lodged, and the Bish op had no twithstanding proceeded to institute, would not th e institution have been void? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir Thesiger) had had opportunities of enqui r i ng i nto the whole ci a d , rchmstanceof the case. He had seen the opinion of Dr. Twiss • he must ohnedfourpmoend h a i j in ud to greent upon Mr. Bennett's doctrine, and he assist the house in coming to a conclu sion by saying if that caveat had been lodged, and the question of Mr. Bennett'sothodoxy had gone to trial, whether it was probable that he would not have been unable to obtain institution? He main tained that by the canons the Bishop of Bath and Wells was bound to receive from Mr. Bennett, and to insist upon the production by him of a certificate from his former diocesan; and, secondly, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells was bound to subject Mr. Bennett to a due examination. It might be said the Bishop acted strictly within the law in regard to the caveat, but did he act according to law in re gard :to the certificate of the Bishop of London and the due examination which he was himself bound to make? Upon a former occasion he (Mr. Horsman) had stated that it was rumoured that three clergymen of the diocese of London had signed a certificate that they had known Mr. Bennett for the three years last past before the date of that certifi cate; that they had had opportunities of observing his con duct; and that during that time he had done, held, written, and taught nothing that was contrary to the discipline and doctrine of the Church of England. He had also given it as a rumour that the Bishop of London had signed that certi ficate with a qualification. Three clergymen of the diocese of London did sign that certificate, but with regard to the Bishop of London the fact was not quite as he stated it, He said he understood the Bishop had appended a qualification to the margin of the certificate. Whether anything was written on the margin he could not say, but the ,Bishop of London had certainly written a strong letter, stating the sense in which th a t s i gnature was to be understood. He Was told, and he believed, that al though the Bishop signed:the certifi ca t e, yet that in reality the Bishop's signature was o n ly un d erstood to attest tat the three clergymen signing the certificate were known to him, and that, in his opinion. they would not sign w h at they did not believe to b e true.—(Bear,) The ouse fo o rm ugh is t to see that certificate. [A n H on. Member--"` House The to be found in the books."] Yes, but the House ought to see this particular certificate.—(Cheers They ought to London know the names o f th e three and certificate.—(Cheers.) put their signatures to th at document, they had opport un iti es of knowing what who testified t ße t nnett t w h a a s t doing at Kissingen and other places.—(Hear.) He had a copy of the letter of the Bishop of London to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, which showed that the former took care that the sense in which he signed the certificate should be understood. This letter was tendered to him by a clergy man who wrote to the Bishop of London on the subject of Mr. Bennett's appointment, and who in reply received a copy of the letter from the Bishop. The letter had no date, but he was told it was written at the same time as, the Bishop's signature to the certificate. It was as follows "My Lord,—l have to request that my counter-signi atg: to this testimonial may be considered as being limp have expression of my opinion that the clergymen _ ave testi. Nv e signed it, and who are beneficed in my d fled to your Lordship that which they verily believe. nllm, ievlB, e. so ß m ut r. l think it is my duty to state, that in December, „_. giug f st. raw Aru Bennett resigned the perpetual curacy o bridge, and that I accepted his resignation, because I was of opinion that the pewee and good order of the Church in my diocese would be seriously interrupted if he werl to remain incumbent of that benefice. For the reasons which led me to form that opinion, I beg leave to refer your Lordship to a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself which was published in the Times newspa.er of December 12, 1850. " I tun wholly without information as to any change which may have taken place in Mr. Bennett's principles or opi nions since his resignation of the cure which he held in my diocese. " I am, " Your Lordship's faithful brother and servant, 66 C. J. LONDON. " The Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells." —(Cheers.) That letter acquitted the Bishop of London of having been a party either to misleading or deceiving the Bishop of Bath and Wells.—(Hear, hear.) The bishop gave his reasons for Mr. Bennett leaving his diocese, and his letter was the strongest condemnation, remonstrance, and warn ing, almost amounting, in fact, to a protest.—(Hear, hear.) When the Bishop of London spoke of the peace and good order of his diocese having been interrupted by Mr. Ben uett, was not that a warning that the peace and good order of the diocese of Bath and Wells would also be in terrupted if Mr. Bennett were admitted into that diocese? —(Hear, hear.) But in the teeth of that condemnation and warning, the Bishop of Bath and Wells proceeded to insti tute Mr. Bennett. Rumours had since reached him, which it was desirable that he should mention, in order that an opportunity might be given to the parties concerned to ex plain them. He had heard, but did not believe, that the letter he had just read was not the only letter written by the Bishop of London to the Bishop of Bath and Wells ; and that in a se cond letter the former prelate had qualified his objections, and withdrawn his condemnation of Mr. Bennett. He did not believe that the Bishop of London would have allowed that letter to be put into his hands if the Right Rev: Pre late o had, rh bywi withdrawn a Nnthat subsequent v letter condemnation. ofa Another different lified rumour had reached him regarding the Bishop of Bath and Wells, which he could not believe. He had heard that this letter of the Bishop of London was never seen or read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells; that he received the certificate, but that he never saw that letter. Now, if the Bishop of Bath and Wells, knowing that there was such letter, either declined or refused to open or read it, so far was that from being a palliation of the course he had taken, that the House would feel it to be a very great aggravation of the grievance of which the public had to complaiu.—(Hear, hear.) He might assume, then, that this statement was untrue. The words of the canon were:—" No bishop shall institute any unless, after due examination, he shall appear worthy of his ministry." What was meant by " due exa mination?" Surely the mode and extent of the examination were not entirely left to the will and discretion of the bishop? Lord Ellenborough had set this question at rest by a judg ment upon this point, which, if the House would permit him, he would read. Lord Ellenborough said : "It only requires him first to approve, that is, before he licenses; and, in so doing, it virtually requires him to exer cise his conscience, duly informed upon the subject; to do which he must duly, impartially, and effectually inquire, examine, deliberate, and decide. Here the duty of exami nation is again pointed out. The bishop is to find out whether he is learned, capable of teaching, moral, and of a right understanding in religion; and, therefore, the court would require of him that he should institute some proper mode of examination by which the learning, dexterity in teaching, morals, and the religion of the candidate may be ascertained. The word of the statute is ' approve,' and he must exercise that approbation according to his con science, upon such means of information as he may obtain ; and every thing that can properly minister to his conscien tious• approbation or disapprobation, and fairly and rea sonably induce his conclusion on such a subject, though it might not be evidence that would be formally admitted in a court of law, may, I am of opinion, be fitly taken into con sideration." The Bishop of Bath should have addressed himself to the circumstances alluded to in the letter of the Bishop of London and the memorial of the parishioners of Frome. To simplify the matter as much as possible he would refer to one point in each document. The parishioners directed the attention of the Bishop to a passage published by Mr. Ben nett, in which ha said that " All the ideas of the Bible, and the dispensing of the Bible, as in itself a means of propaga ting- Christianity, are a ction and absurdity." Did the Bishcp inquire into that? Considering what must be the feelings of a Protestant community like that of Frome— considering the feelings of veneration with which they must regard the sacred volume, a veneration founded on their con viction that to a poor man it was the greatest of blessing, and that the richest man without it was less than the most miserable of paupers —considering that this was not only the opinion of the Protestant people of this country, but that we occupied ourselves in sending the Bible abroad, as the source of religious truth, to the most distant climes, and that per sons were to be found who:cheerfully braved toils, privations, and even death, in prosecuting this the noblest work in which man could be engaged—considering all these things, the parishioners of Frome must have regarded Mr. Bennett's declaration about the Bible as little less than blasphemy and profaneness. If the Rev. Gentleman had entered their cottages, seized their Bibles, and thrown them into the fire, his act could scarcely have shocked them more than his words. Should not the Bishop have said to Mr. Bennett, " Here is a statement shocking to i Protestant feeling; I must have an explanation of it, and the explanation must go forth to the world. You have stated, in your letter to Lord J. Russell, that you are un changed and unchangeable; is your opinion on this point unchanged? for, if so, I should hold myself disgraced as a Protestant prelate in granting you institution." There was i strong evidence that the Bishop did not ask this question. Now for the second point. The Bishop of London, in his letter to the Bishop of Bath, referred to Mr. Bennett's cor respondence with Lord J. Russell, in which Mr. Bennett set forth his views with regard to the supremacy of the Crown. This point was of particular importance, because every clergy man on his institution was obliged to take an oath regarding i the supremacy of the Crown in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters. After the decision in the Gorham case a movement' took place amongst a large p or ti on o f t h e c l ergy of the Church, about 2,000 of them signed a protest, setting forth that they : had all taken the oath to maintain the Queen's supremacy. in a peculiar sense.—(Hear, hear.) Among the persons who signed this document were Archdeacon Manning, who' had since joined the Church of Rome, and Isaac Wilber force, archdeacon, and Hodge Mill, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, who still held preferment in the Church of England. Mr. Bennett said, that, having taken, the oath in favour of the Queen's supremacy, he became uneasy in his conscience after the decision in the Gorham case; that he consulted a barrister as to whether he was bound by the oath to obey such an exercise of the Queen's , supremacy as had taken place in the Gorham case, and thn barrister informed hi m t h at he was bound to do so, becaus the oath must be taken in the sense in which it was my tended by the person imposing it, and not according to the interpretation which it might suit the convenience of the party taking it subsequently to put upon it. Mr. Bennett did not resign his living to satisfy his scruples of conscience, but contented himself with sigaing the protest. Shortly after arose the controversy with the Bishop of London, and then he resigned his living. In the course of the same year he presented himself for institution to the vicarage of Frome, and the oath in favour of the supremacy of the Crown must again be taken. Ought not the Bishop of Bath to have .taken notice of Mr. Bennett's recorded opinion on the 'subject of the oath? Should it not have been a part of the " due examination" required from the Bishop to have asked Mr. Bennett whether he subs scribed the oath in the sense in which the law imposed it, op with some mental reservation or qualification? h was not sufficient to say that the Bishop privately examined M. Bennett, and was satisfied with what took place. The obl ject of the examination was to satisfy the Church at law, and especially that portion of it over which Mr. Bennett was to be set. The scandal was notorious; its removal should have been notorious also. If Mr. Bennett's opinions had un dergone a change, the fact should not have been communi cated to the Bishop alone; it should have been made knowin also to Mr. Bennett's parishioners. It was to be regretted that the Bishop in this matter, instead of appearing in the dignified chafacter of an impartial judge, had exhibited him self in that which in that House was held to be the most objectionable, it might almost be said,odious of characteis, namely, that of a partisan. It appeared to him that he had established the three propositions with which he had set ont. Hooker pointed, in the follo w i ng passages, to the evils likely to result from such a malversation of office on the part ofs a high ecclesiastical dignitary as that with which the Biship of Bath was chargeable : "If now, there arise any matter of -grievance betw4n the pastor and the people that are under him, they hate their ordinary, a judge indifferent; to determine their causes and to end their strife. B u t in case there were no such to sit and to hear b o th, what would then be the p end of their quarrels? . . . But the hurt iardore by ma fu,stly seen which doth grow to the church of o ts in rd h a e i r n ent w i h n en thei t r h . e s y eve in ra st l it a u c te tio n n bends, and rooms they bestow church livings (benefices, they p e s , g n a g s . a w m y h when when n y ccaorretlneps corruptly when intent th to y do Vi re g si o t - d f ) o in ,r when their sake e ra sp th ec e i r ai t ly han with foruria l l e i r c i t o io u n s , courts, erected th fo e r y gattheemrd not t n t a h n e gy c c e le o r fgo n o n d de o r rd th er e , m a , re whe; dis ordered, when neither clergy nor laity are kept in that awe for which 'this authority should serve, when anything appeareth in them rather than a fatherly affection towards the flock of Christ, when they have no respect to posterity, and, finally, when they neglect the true and requisite means whereby their au thority should be upheld. Surely the hurt which groweth oat of these defects must needs be exceeding great." The hurt was exceedingly great in the instance which 'he had brought under the notice of the House, and was it sviy answer to be told, as ho was a few nights ago, that Mr. Bennett had already won, to a great extent, the confidence of the parishioners of !come? The House had been informed that 1,200 of the pariehipners of Frome had signed a memo rial stating that they were satisfied with the soundness of Mr. Bennett's doctrines. Admit, for the sake of argument, the truth of the alleged pop u l ar i ty of Mr. Bennett at Frome, ' n v a i e v fr ry e i rs en d a d i l ff a l he drew awt a h m a i f eßree thatnn, c ag e : tn f t r t o iwe m atasa i it ti yer disliked, arrived.nt f r o m the that Ha d ei n ot o nbc o e n eu a ss io i n d a th t went near him, and that the mischiefwould be shortliVed, it might perhaps be expedient to let _the matter rest, b u t th e case was diffe ren t when it Might be said, " Mr. Bennett may be a Rom an C atholic, but he is very popular—he may be a Jesuit, but he is very attractive—it may be true that he said what is alleged about the Bible, but he is convert ing all the parishioners of From e " Under such u hcircum stances the pop u l ar i ty of Mr. Bennett would only be the fulfilment of the worst forebodings of those who objected to his appointment.—(Hear, hear.) The question now to be determined was what was to be done.. The Govern ment admitted that the case was one of which it was im possible to exaggerate the importance. It was admitted on all sides that it could not rest where it was. Inquiry 'was declared to be not only essential but inevitable. How W as the inquiry to be pursued? The House could not proceed by y resolution, because the f a ct s were di s puted. He e formerly a proposed there should be an in q uiry by means of commis sion, but he foresaw th e o bje c ti o ns which w ould be urged against that course, although he suggested it in deference to the wishes of his friends, who desired that a ll other modes of investigation should be tried b e fore the Hoursof Com mons was called upon to undertake th e inquiry. Inquiry by a Commission being rejected, he n o w called upon the Hous e to undertake the task. He did not admit, however, th a t the adoption of the motion would proposed by him fo r an address to the Crown Id have been altogether f ut il e. In that case the Crown would leave applied to its Mi n i sters for _he Ministers would have made advice.—(Hear, hear.) T in quiry by a " investigation, and if they found that the requisite misiion was impractic a bl e, t h ey would a d v i se her Majestynot to retur n a so that to that address , t h e question would still h ave to be settled in that House. On the other band, if the Ministers at once advised her Majesty to return a favourable answer, and to institute an inquiry, and they were stopped at the outset by the announcement that no inquiries would be g-ven on thei r , i nter rogatories, that again would have brought the matter before the House, and it would have been their duty to consider how to retrieve the false step which her Majesty's Ministers had taken.—(He ar , hear.) They had b een told by the Ministers that inquiry 4: a Commission was impossible, so that the inquiry must be instituted by Parliament, or not at all. Now, what really was the objection to inquiry by a Committee of that House? It way ttn, inquiry i a t 9 A pstiicular exercise Qt . the 00; a patronage, and as to the mode in which a Bishop had chosen to exercise his authority. They were every day legislating" on ecclesiastical affairs. There were several Church Bills at that moment oa the order-book, and there had not been a week during the present session in which they had not been considering something or other respecting th e Established Church.---(Hear, hea r .) It was not only necessary, but inevitable that such should be the case. It was one of th conditions of the Established Church that Parliament , which created that Church, should be able to consider, its affairs, and correct w h a t was wrong.—(Hear, h ea r.)• If there were abuses they ought to be removed, if there were scandals they ought to be inquired into, if there were grief ances they ought to be redressed:—(.Hear;hem;)—Thersrerers told, however, that tuy ought not to 'takecognizance of Church affairs because the House of Commons was not now composed exclusively of members of the Established Church. But why was the House not composed wholly of members of the Established Church ? Because the • nation of England was not composed entirely of members of the Established Church; and if they said that the House of Commons, as representing the nation, was so far dissevered from its E 9 ' tablished Church that it ought not to have direct cognizance of its affairs, then, a fortiori, the nation must be so far sePs" rated from the Established Church that they ought nottto have an Established Church at all.—(Hear, hear.) That was the legal and inevitable result of th e argumen t, u pressed home; but he held, on the other band, that the Established Church was the creation of Parliament—tha t it existed by the breath of Parliament, and was subject to its jurisdiction, and there was no duty of Parliament 8 o obvious, no responsibility so und e ni a bl e , as t h a t when i t had established a church for th e t eac hi ng o f one re li g ion, I t should nu ;t be made subservient to the interests of another —that it should not allow a minister of that.. Church to become the secret agent of another.-(Hear hear.) The people of England having had the present question seism's would most assuredly like to see that Parliament was earnest upon it. He believed that she inqui r y nee d no t b e one ii long duration—that the wit nesses wou ld b e very fe w , and that the whole exami na ti on nee d not l ast more than a wned or ten days. Th e f acts o f t h e case were indeea few a nd simple. Here was a c l ergyman, t h e i ncumbent of Dt* Paul's, Knightbridge, whose ministrations we r e c arried 00 in such a ma nner , and acquired such notoriety, that the ser vices were interrupted by mobs and riots.—(Hear, heart ) Virtually ejected by his diocesan, he published a letter , 01 which he told his di ocesan t h at he found himself in a fall position in the Ch urc h o f E ng l and. He went abroad, ancl,7/ was stated that his a tt en d ance on a R oman Catholic place " worship was so notorious, that he was openly claimed ie their publications as a convert to their faith, and in full comma" nion with their Church. It was stated that during th e whole time he was at Kissingen he was never near a P re :, testant Church, and an habitual attender at a Row' Catholic Church. This statement was brought before gun in a friendly manner by a brother clergyman, and Isr received by him in such a way as to confirm its tow' The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, rut morialised the Bishop of Bath an d Wells, and gave extra,..„ o ' from his published works. The condemnation of ; . , u former diocesan was again vi r t ua lly recor d e d . Th e fact War brought before the Bishop that h e d en i e d t h e suprem acl ed the Crown, and that he took the oaths in a eat? sense. All these things were brought before the Bishop' but without the inquiry required by l aw , witnout the prop el certificate, he not only instituted him, but did so in such manner as to shut out the parishioners from the only bunal established by law before which they could have re' e dress.—(Hear.) For all this they were told there was to no redress, because a Commission of Inquiry would not ben fectual, and because there were so m e gen tl emen who Alente to pursuing such an inquiry by a P ar li amentary , Why, they had had hundreds of Commissions with no m o d authority than would have existed in the present case, an; though the inquiries had often b een excee di ng l y unpalitacsr., to those to whom they we re a dd resse d, muc h va l ua bl e in a , mation had nevertheless be en acqu i re d, w hil e i n not one rut had the inquiries of the C omm i ss i oners b een eva d e d. -",, 4 now they were told, for the fi rs t ti me , th at a C omm i ss ions% not to be instituted because answers to the inquiries WO I/ ...'" not be got. That was no doubt a well-advised anntiOnL, ment, and had not been mad e excep t on goo d groun ds. PI; ting apart the circumstances o f thi s case, h e would lave thought that such an answer could not have been given by the prelates of the Establish e d Ch urc h . —(H ear , There was not in the country another body by whom an quiry issued in the Queen's name would not have beeu;;;, spected.—(Hear, hear.) There was no class of her a` 43eo " jesty's subjects who, if a Commission of Inquiry had it issued, would not have hastened to meet its wishes; , v"., 0 knock at the door of the peer or the cottager it woud la' ' been respected, because it was issued in the Queen's 11261 4' ' and he should have tho ug ht th at t h e prelates of the .„ Wished Church would have been among the first to resPi;a the authority of the law, • ,and show their • loyalty acknowledging the C omm i ss i on of the Queen.—(itlis hear.) They mi g ht h ave b een expected to recog':,.. the principle on w hi c h t h e i r Sovereign had set the tie ample, that the more exalted the rank the greater , responsibility, that great power and great privilege; were to be held f or public purposes, and not secrated for selfish ends.—(hear, hear.) The responsi b connected with this case now rested with Parliament at), and, whatev er m i g h t b e the ground on which they ac e ' it whether it affected the sincerity o f th e i r faith, whe tia o af imvolved the supremacy of th e C rown , or t h e j ur i s dictio. _ 0 Parliament, it was a ser i ous respons ibili ty. I t would be a t very unfortunate and very fatal event if Parliameat on ga t occasion were by a majority t o re f use t h e i nqu iry t hi s every one admitted ought to be instituted. A nittle rl r as such a case would only show 'h ow f ata l an d how dog' s:l ab a majority was when opposed to t rut h . A majority iu a case could not influence public opinion; a majority we b, not acquit Mr. Bennett or the Bishop of Bath and fa the but a majority could disappoint public expectation, 11 ; d n olf public reprobation diverted from other parties vr° 4 4l o o, point the finger of scorn at the House of Commons. hear.) - It would tell them that their Church was a nlyn t i t y that their Protestantism was a pretence, that their joy was to was a sham ; and it would tell them that, in endeavouringtut screen individual delinquents, they were perpetuatnif g n d de' powers, but that they were degrading Parlia.,, r rne ss - b a r the n in s t r 3 o v y e g for t a h e SelectC l 'u r Committeecla.—( llear into ta j e w. B en . ) to T in he tioi li to on, stances connected with the institution of the Rev. nett to the vicarage of Frome. A short pause took place, followed by loa vide !" circura d cries of " MR. F. O'CONNOR. Mr. GLADSTONE rose to address the House, Whe n was interrupted by O f Sir B. HALL, who said-I wish to refer do a questioo lie order. lam sorry to call the attention of the House te , L , conduct of the Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O VeO nor), but I feel it my duty to do so.-(Loud „t llear•") While I was this moment calling " P" seeing any Member rise to address the House. the °r e el Member turned round on me and struck me in the side - e n laugh) -and severely hurt me. I told the Hwi. Gentle° . 5 an• in 01 on a former occasion that if he addressed me e House, or subjected me to any annoyance, I shout your attention, Sir, to the subject, and put myself Nue your protection, which I now do.-[During the taT6 o ° rin or pied by the Hon. Baronet in his statement, iefr. F it° adding indulged in a series of bows and sm il es, eeenttia 4 der his mite to the hilarity so gene ra ll y occas i on ed by the r ence to the immediate cause of the complaint.] The SPEAKER-The Hon. Member for Nottinghanisil been so long a Member of this House that it is ulinee e v s , t he to remind him that it is against the rules and orders . 1 House for one Member to interrupt or annoy another in t !' - `,, t course of the proceedings. lam sorry to say, however t .i . r e f the Hon. Member for Nottingham is in the constant habit It violating those rules and orders-(Hear) -and nove.l;:i him that if he persists in that course it will be my paot r duty to call the attention of the House to the Hon. bleio " n, by his name, an d i t w i l l t h en be for the House to take s o : ulterior steps as will p r event any such misconduct in futuorft Mr. V. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the Opposition ben c h, close to the table, and who, during th Speaker's short address, had been loudly vociferati "Order, order," then rose, and spoke in a rambling and I, o e coherent manner. He said-I did not do anything to tP". Hon. Baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did do anything whatever. He is my greatest enemy.-(Order' order.) He was one of the members ot the land ‘_ committe; that sat five years ago.-(" Chair, chair.") Member the Government was then chairman of that Committee, an' s it was composed of id members. I built houses and cottag e i -(Order, order)-but the ruffians p he members of thels i ;,e soc i e ty) paid no rent. - (" Order , and cries of " Chaired Though in dye years they got as much manure as would this room. [This idea seemed particularly to affect the gen. Gentleman, for the allusion caused him to weep.] T he re' t a lked about soup.-(Renewed cries of "Chair.") Membe-5 paid 601. or 1501., and they wer e located, but the ruili au b paid no rent.-(" Chair.") On e d ay a farmer came 11P-We'-;tut a redcap on, and a hatch e t i n hi s hand, and was going to my head off-- The SPEAKER said-I must now call upon the 0 11 1, Member by name. M r . O'Connor --(A pause) If the „ n o Member has any apo l ogy to make to the llouse, now is I time to do so. Mr. O'CONNOR- I make an apology to the 11e0t,..0 beg the Hon. M em b er ' s pardon for anything I did to hiee,46 (Hear, hear.) You are the best Speaker that ever sat in chair.-(" Order !" and a laugh.) The matter then dro d - Mr. GLADSTONEwe ns hoped e t a h n e tl attention of the House e ce e not be diverted from the important subject by th e B eri , i s which had just occurred. He would commence his rem - t he by expressing his regret at being called upon to follow bite had it intimate d ta ie s l Hon. Gentle man w i thout first having what course her M a j es t y ' s Government intended to Pu.riteet For alth oug h h e was personally acquainted with t he On eted individual, the object of the Lion. Gentleman's charg e : yet had made it his study to inform himself on the subi ec l'hicli after all this was mainly a legal question, a questioor ;40 could not be discussed or d ec id e d w ith ou t the alV es tioo of legal knowledge and leg a l a u th or ity. It was al l ers of on which lie had hoped Government a nd the law "" c o the the Crown would have stated the vi ew they took e tl b e d distinct legal issue which had not unfairly, but wit o tle broadly and visibly, been raised by the Honourable man, and would, on their authority and resp°° p et , offer advice to the House as to the course they she° o teoti sue. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the r i tl , th as a legal question, and he could not help wi'"'"„y e hst Honoureele Gentleman had confined himself with eernse the greater strictness to the legal view. It appeared th' t t to Honourable Gentleman, who declared his only objeed his be to attain truth, and to show truth, bad all° s L e ee ife 3 rhetorical powers and warmth of feeling to mix theL" - e a Do with his statement of the alleged facts of the case, 9- 5 to had done this with an ability which might the House, unless wholesome efforts them back from the warmth infused into the case, 50 " duce them to consider they were only discussing 3 „de were b e :fa g t et! 50d to F o r question on the strict and dry view of its merits. Ho vole ctir not dwell on the various parts of the Hon. Member's oP e t wo but he must beg leave to call attention to one oy e _ oo points. The Honourable Member said, unless the tt u re , agreed to his motion, their Protestantism would be a P te o tence and their loyalty a sham. That is sue wg i g n t b° strong.-(Hear, hear.) The llouse had a discretion trio. patter; they had a right to test the statments of the_'-'l3, A:ember to see if those statements were borne out o whether h e was consistent in his doctr i ne , or whether ~id part of his doctrine was not overturned by what was d 0 down in the speech. This the House was entitled tO tbe without the fear that the people would cons ider that jep, loyalty of that house was a sham if they refused to a_ magnifyingift, the Honourable Member's views. He would just give stance of the Honourable Member's magnifying i speech. The Honourabie Gentleman said the objecting ureb le Commission had been made by the Right Hon() Gentleman on the ground that no power would be th l- q,'", conferred to obtain answers to questions. On that basis `,, t h Hon. Gentleman built the inferene• that the Bishop o N t e io r r og and Wells had declared he intended to refuse 50 0 5 : 80 eed questions, and then, with the same ingenuity. he Pr say ing to extend the refusal to the whole bench of Bishons. e'y 'e the that no other class of her Majesty's sutjec ts Noel ee 000. same. On that foundation, and no other, had isceP °l Gentleman built his tirade against the whole l_ bo dy , bench. He was not the man to defend bishops 0r u?, t hat netice else when they did not do their duty. But he did 13 3 . Y ' bishops, like any other persons, were entitled to j ar. ya p . some decency of treatment.-(" Hear, hear," from decency man.) He did not think that they had got thate, nent eer.- - treatment at the hands of the Hon. and Lean ] 'l e , u u e t tle! (Aar, hear.) He had heard the Hon. wad Luse • EVENING, ;.