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

rat 4 . before now build up in that House fabrics of accuse w"?lt against particular prelates of the Establiehol Church, n 'ch, when examined, had turned out to be splendid exag prations. (" efer to Hear, hear," from Mr. Horsman.) lie might a nd the Hertield manor case.— Question. The Hon. Learned Gentleman had been upwards of two hours in - ?illg, his elaborate accusation, and surely the House would i e Ceend its indulgence to him while he attempted to answer 1, (Rear, hear.) In the case alluded to the Hon. and ,Ilearned Member had utterly failed in every material point es,,ter.- (Hear, the charges which he made against the Bishop of Glou hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had for a lon time taken on himself the functions of an ac cuser of the clergy. In 1828, when the Hon. and Learned Ge ntleman Church, he was an elder of the Presbyterian made charges against the eminent and excellent Dr. Chat lp— . er s , which obli ge d D r . Ch a l mers t o re sort to the press. i t ' Rear," f rom M r. H orsman. ) He admired the cheer of the o, and Learned G en tl eman . No doubt the Hon. and Learned,,, G en tl eman t h oug h t D r. Ch a l mer s as much in the• Nig,",R on that occasion as he thought the Bishop of Bath and obliged in this. B u t the fact was that Dr. Chalmers was n ged to publish an answer for the purpose of demonstrate of l "g-t os the unsoundness of what he called the aerial accusations Gentleman e Ron. and Lear Gentleman. The Hon. and Learned had taken ned on himself the character of a public arellser of th e clergy, and was bound to be accurata in the n gilsge he used, and to take care that the views he pre ect of a case came up to the standard of facts. If the er c • ee and Learned Gentleman would embark in discussions launching, great legal knowledge, he was bound to avoid unfounded charges, and to take care that the Principles on which he proceeded were sound. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had put the House in a dilemma ch he c ou ld no t acce pt. Th e Hon. and Learned Gentle man said that either the House was a fit place for a debate i;llthe Present, or else there ought not to be an Este -li:cued Church. He trembed to dispute the dilemma,tab but eVeared it was just possib e l for them to have an ) Est ee tir ch, and yet that that House might not be the fitting -ene f . . f or or the discussion like the present.—(Hear.) Speaking not rumself, he did not scruple to say that that House was Ha fitting arena for such discussions. He admitted that ere might have been—nay, what was more important— ofq t there had been some cases of foul play; that the Church e England was rent from head to foot with her divisions • the he asked them, apart from all interests of his own, or Of ;;" day, whether they thought that religious divisions of likely to be mitigated, and that the sores and wounds f the Church were likely to be healed, by rhetorical decla- Illation, by exaggeration, and by mi sappre h ens i on and mis statements of fact?—(Hear.) It might be that he himself Night err in this respect ; but if he did so, it would be un lOtentional, for he had the deepest sense of the mischief I vhich arose from such a sotirce.—(Hear, hear.) If the Hon. tltt Learned Gentleman knew anything of the nature of re %lons partisanship he must know that heat and violence on re side engendered heat and violence on the other.—( Hear, v es re) He believed that if the influence of Mr. Bennett j„ er e in question, there would be no better mode of increas "g and propagating that influence than by singling him i etit for attack, if that attack were coloured by religious feel dlga• That fact must be kept in mind throughout the whole thee4Bi ( : ) n, if they wished Theis the evils of such dis t-°nB---(Hear, hear.) first point which called for attention was whether the country was to be goveyned, e o lther ecclesiastical or in civil matters, by the private t 1 e i4 4 , 1 " 8 of particular men, according to their popularity for lefe` u°l "ent, or by a system of fixed laws?—(Hear, hear.) 'le - " w as to be governed by private opinion, and if that House mere to become the means of making such private opinion W ildin g in matters of religion, representative institutions ab:tild become a nuisance, and ecclesiastical questions would n Oft they were in fact, the bane and plague of the House tle; ‘ ,," the country.—(Hear. hear.) But he maintained that 44 4 W e e ,re not there to decide what was in the abstract th e i" thee , had to decide one•or two questions. , First, had t o 6. 4 ws been obeyed? If the laws were good they ought (11,,"eyed; and if not good they ought to be altered.— le ga iwt "ear.) They had no right to establish any extza ray — Vstene. of influence or jurisdiction by which they blogyht operate on the regular operation of the law. It must in its own fixed course, irrespective of the opinions of We e ' l 'uals. That was the first principle he laid down. It raniaterial to keep in view the person before them in the regent instance. The speech of the Honourable and tiot r . ne d Gentleman had a good deal cleared up that ques- Wa e t,_ 4B he understood the case, the person whose conduct biati be ors them was the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As a 1:10 11 ? he Was a great officer of state, and he agreed with the h e l d rble and Learned Gentleman - indeed he that)ong lave e b e e oPinion—that it was a great absurdity . our bi e h o ""Illd not afford the means of correcting a delinquent Vie w l", - (Hear, hear.) He frankly owned that he should for t h e the greatest favour any judicious proposition With ",, e P"Pese of providing such means.—(Hear, hear.) WhiebflPeet to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the point that he "e wished to put to the House was simply Pri ect ';was not a delinquent bishop, and ,that not even a hl t u,J a cie ease of delinquency had been made out against this Tha t being•so let them put aside the other charges o f the eas e- They had nothing to do with the proceedings Pressi Patron. Th e H on. an d Learned Gentleman had ex ile, 'Y dis claimed casting any imputation on the conduct of t o s patro e. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had omitted grea`rs one element to which every patron ought to pay Wh om at tention, and that was the feeling of the people over 41 1(11:„ (tn e Y particular pastor was placed. Though the Hon. eotild Z rl 'ed Member bad dealt with the facts as best he Ghat he had admitted that in this particular case—through ere ®pe t peculiarity or delusion—the people of Frome were ore 1 3' satisfied with what the patron had done.—(slr. .... d id ( ia ll o e t a , i No, no.") The Hon. and Learned Gentleman 11 then, aSmitthat the people of Frome were satisfied. gentiear, hear, fr om M r. H orsman .) The Hon. and Learned ( (e a t %Man throughout the whole of his first speec , ande e rishi c ! ut e bad represented the objectors as the clergy and pa die !Ars of Frome. Now, it was not a fact that they were *at fi p d e""e aet" ; „": Rightly or wrongly, they were satisfied . with W "a o r i t i l d ' e 'f e T t ‘ e ut r e o n f t, and were grateful for it. He held in his the churchwardens, which, if the House name Permit, he would read.—(Cries of " Name.") The ,the date as Miller—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear") — and 4 aereb:Pros the 17th of April, before the Hon. and Learned Wa s m a' oroughe forward his first motion on the Stibject. It its reseed to the patron, the Marquis of Bath, and was o 0/4 " FROME VIIARAGE. " Frome, April 17. of y ou I . have the honour to acknowledge the receipt es ed to L ordship's letter of yesterday's date,. and will .pro and i n , "ewer the inquiries therein contained, fully, .fairly, usse st - P a rtially The appointment of Mr. Bennett is not boidivPtionabli; to the body of the parishioners. This I inhabitant.set this p lam prepared boldly to maintain.. The to the of under many and great obligations fuu h°ll se of 'Ph nl yi e ust a e re and there is none they more cheer bielsinecognise or - more gratefully appreciate than the b estewed on them in the regard manifestd . by that I lette - e in i . l Y for their spiritual good in nominating Mr. fe ar ,„ s Vicar of Frome. I assert, and without the slightest Ish,.;"' co ntradiction, that since Mr. Bennett commenced his er ks —s trY he morning onreation hae increaed a least I,44laird,t and that aa c to g the g evening v services, s there never pete r ao many persona assembled within the walls of St. ie:„, '4 Church. The lowest calculation last Sunday even t as - ,",as 2,000. At the commencement many have been at ofr t Ou• ): 1 3 curiosity, and the love of novelty, but at the end co `E O months there is not only no diminution, but the It-4gregation is increased and increasing." shL w as not right erefore to siy that the sentiments of s o ,' People of Frome had ' been over-ridden in the appoint c,!et of Mr. Bennett.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned tpZ eti tieraam denied the churchwarden had represented e sentiments of the that people, but it was right he should in ,pn. the lion. and L earne d G ent l eman t h at i n a pos t cr i p t the letter it was stated that the parishioners, in vestry %enabled, had re-elected the writer of the letter church trarden. It appeared that under the guidance of certain clergymen, 54 persons had protested against the appoint kent of Mr. Bennett. Of these 54, only 16 belonged to the Parish church to which Mr. Bennett had been appointed; and of these 16 one-half had returned to the church within i tfew weeks after Mr. Bennett was inducted. One circum ee of a somewhat solemn nature was connected with part of the question. One person of the 54 who had vretestid was taken ill, and his first act was to send for kr• g en hear, . nett, and he died receiving his ministration.—(Hear, •) irz T . ,he patron, therefore, was vindicated so far as the f as ee ; la ' the parishioners was concerned. It might be i - K.( l that their pproval was only a proof of the 'depth of their .blindness. a-- -- He was not authorised to give any lees - " lu t of Mr. Bennett's sentiments. Indeed he had a slight acquaintance with him. There were n,„ - ",,Y lion. Members who knew him intimately, and might, isT r "aPe, be able to speak on that point. Instead of taking 1 -' 5 influenced and exaggerated view which the lion, and I.•,earned Gentleman had done of everything that Mr. Bennett sled 4 .:A and assuming that at this moment Mr. Bennett was .hi ' same man that he w a s, h e mus t say th a t th e a dd ress t o ‘,31 from the parishioners of F rome was a d emons t ra ti on ' n et led him t o th e encourag i ng h ope t h at Mr. Bennett had 'sat himself wisely and discreetly in his parish, and th at, ieb whether like other men, he m i g ht roc k i n t h e trou bl es „ h surrounded them—he was steady i n hi s a ll eg i ance to t re Church of Engl an d, an d f a i t hf u l i n the discharge of his , s t ltY as a • minister of that Chu r ch.—(H ear, hear.) That "as a rational inference to draw when they found the whole parish approving of Mr. Bennett's doctrines and discipline. It seemed to him that the accusations against Mr. Bennett di- Vided themselves into two classes, the first relating to his pro ceedings at Kissengen the second t o hi s pu b l i shed works. * PHs proceedings in London were not, and could not be, the 'subject of inquiry. The Hon. and Learned Member seemed to think that the proceedings at Kissengen ought to have Vpivented the Bishop of Bath and Wells instituting M r . tennett. With respect to the proceedings at Kissengen he ;rail not aware of the state of the case, except in one very s ,' lll Portant particular. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman if . Mr. Bennett did not appear at the m t zt _d assumed that iglish church at Is-is-sengen, it proved that he was un athful to the English Church. But he thought the Hon. an dl ts Learned Gentleman must l . have forgotten that Mr. n to a private family.— Platt was travelling f eers) a t i h n e Hon. and Learned Gen- As to the story which k i e trian had told them of the stone for an alter which Mr. . he was said to have carried about with . him, he must IL? knew nothing.—(Llear.) Even if the Hon. and 0 4 -- t r o d- Gentleman should be able to support his s collect that the pro eeeeins,P°lltre he wished the House pro the Bennett at Kissintgoenrvedid not at all affect Bishop net of the Bishop of Bath and ells..—(Hear.) The . on apn °P had no power to take:any steps against Mr. Bennett Yo nc r t ° ,, u n.t of such proceedings, because they were done . be ef jurisdiction of our ecclesiastical law. — cop T en t.) Even if the Bishop of Bath and Wells (had been Expressions co gnisant of such proceedings, he did net believe that not lons.' have taken any steps with regard to them.. A case, its• s . .% ago, might be cited in support of his opinion. The h e n enlist Noel had preached in a Presbyterian church, he h ,ve d at Inverness. The attention of the Bishop of Lon oefenvfas called to the fact, but it was found not to be an I'Veil e s e ,. ° Plisable by law. Against the Bishop of Bath and ch a p; ‘ue lion. and Learned Gentleman had made three piii.-'kee--that the Bishop proceeded in undue haste and in th - r °B6 to prevent the parishioners having a fair hearing; at h e th at 1 , proceeded without ths proper certificate ; and hi nt "e proceeded without due examination. It appeared to cot, that eacd every one of those charges was without theildati°ll Bu first of all let them realise to themselves is. Position of the Bishop. The Honourable and Learned trootilstlernan, hi the first statement which he mad! on this Bi.h o had proceeded entirely on the assumption d th b at cchewhen they received presenteee, were investe y ep law' of England with large discretionary powers to ac t., or reject them. That was not the case. With respect "orates, in matters of ordination, the bishops power ,t 17 E . absolute ; and if it could be shown that a bishop ad .ordained a map who was not qualified for the minT *' would be regarded. as having departed from his • -X., But wliatiwas the nature of the law on the subject iehoo s =l4, - rmwers with respect to presentees? The it i V il • and Learned Gentleman had perhaps imported some of fe:_i_efitions on this subject from Scotland, where he con ha!,eci a better system prevailed. The law of Scotland f,t`.! opportunity been studious to give to the people a 4 , 5 ,"" of stating objections to presentees, and, on irelhole, the, practice had been to give a fair scope to suc h .. 4 2 t siqt 1 S. But, that was not the spirit of the law of t o u r ttr a nd• The inspirio g e round with uy the patron's idea of the law of England had been to right to present rk i ,Y l adyowson andthe inchoate right of the presentee. ""Pirit of the is well- gov erue d mo vi e§ Like or THE SUN, own became the spirit of the courts of law. and, as ih the case of mortmain, thejealously of the Legislature was guarded by the rigid iuterpretion given to the statutes by the courts of law. In the same way the courts had viewed with the utmost jealousy the civil rights of the patrons and the inchoate right of a presentee. The power of the bishop was narrow by law, and narrower according to practice, and every act of a parron was scrutinised with the utmos; jealousy in order to give effect to what the law favoured. end to restrain what the law regarded with distrust. Was the Bishop to refuse admission to a presentee because he had written a work which did..not meet his views, or be cause he interpreted the oath of supremacy differently from the bishop? Was the Bishop of Bath and Wells to refuse admission to Mr. Bennett because virtually, but not legally, the Bishop of London, had expelled him from his benefice, or because some. fifty persons in Frome had addressed him not to institute Mr. Bennett! If the Bishop of Bath and Wells had so acted he would have been forthwith brought into the Queen's Bench, and it would have been no justification of his conduct if he had told the judges that he had refused admission to Mr. Bennett because the Bishop of London had disapproved of his conduct. The Bishop of Bath and Wells would have been called on by the court to prove that Mr. Bennett was disqualified either on the ground of heretical doctrine, immoral conduct, or insufficient learning.—(Hear, hear.) Except on these grounds the Bishop would h ave no l ocus s tandi in a court of law. From the St a tem en t o f t h e H ono urable and Learned Gentleman one would have supposed that his doctrine of a strict examination of a presentee was very popular in this . country, and that the feeling of Parliament was in favour of it. So far back as 1621, the House appointed a C ommittee to inquire into the conduct of one. of the bishops, who was afterwards Archbishop of York, and the Committee reported that the Bishop had failed to admit presentees, and that his not havine inchietel them had been to the great injury of the recentpatron . e a s l e ' The House of Exeterdoub t , andin t h t e h i e r recollection presentation ttheto tli Bishop had, Brampford Speke. The ruinous and crushin g costs of these ecclesiastical suits were enough to deter pe r so ns from engag ing in them. He believed the Bis ho p of Fxeter had learnt that fact by hard experience. In an o t her case, in which the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had prosecuted a clergy man for immorality, the coat to the Bishop was not less than 4, 0 00/. Justice, he hoped , ought to be done e v e n to a Bishop, - and these things ought not to be forgotten when their incomes were alluded to. He had stated that if the Bishop of Bath and Wells had refused to admit Mr. Bennett he might have been called into court by a writ of quare impedit, and if he failed to. establish heresy, immoral conduct, or insufficient learning against Mr. Bennett, he would have been condemned to' pay costs. The other mode of proceeding.was the duplex quertla. Ac cording to that mode, if the Bishop refused to act, the ques tion passed to the Court of the Archbishop, and then to the Committee of Privy Council. He hoped, therefore, the House would recollect that the Bishop of Bath and Walla, in every' step that he took, was bound to keep himself within his legal powers, andithat the moment ha stepped on doubt ful ground he made himself liable to being proceeded against in a court of law. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had stated that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had proceeded with undue haste, for the purpose of overcoming the objec tions of the parishioners. The facts, he thought, led to an opposite conclusion.—(llear; hear.) He should be sorry unnecessary to detain the House, but in such a case he begged they would assume their judicial character, and hear the answer he had to make to the statement of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, What step should the parishioners have taken in order to interrupt these pro ceedings? Their first step was to have entered a caveat, for by doing so they could have furnished -the Bishop with good, and solid grounds for delaying proceedings. Why then had they not taken that step in the first instance?— (Hear, hear.) Every lawyer in Frome- must have known that Lis was the mode of proceeding. Mr. Bennett's pre sentation was known in Frome on the 30th of December, but he was not instituted till the 24th of January; an in terval of 26 days elapsed. That a caveat could have been entered in a single day was evident from the fact of Dr. Twiss having on the 23d of January advised a caveat, and from its being ready on the 24th of January,— (Hear.) The Hon. and Learded Gentleman said that the parisioners petitioned the Bishop, but petitions were of no legal value, while, by entering a caveat the petitioners would have in curred a forensic responsibility. If the Bishop had pleaded the petitions in any suit the Court would have laughed in his face. He ventured to say that there was not an at torney in Frome who would not have advised the peti tioners that if they were in earnest, the proper mode of proceeding was by caveat. The Bishop would not have been entitled to plead the address which he had received from the petitioners in any proceedings which might have been taken against him. The Hon. and Learned Gentle man thought that the address did not supply matter forjudi cial consideration. The Bishop was not of that opinion, and as the parishioners had not taken the proper method of entering a caveat , he contended the Bishop would not have been justified in refusing to institute.—(Hear, hear.) If the Bishop could not refuse, neither could he delay institution. He apprehended that a judge could not delay justice without reason, any more than he could refuse justice. —(lean) The obligation not to postpone justice was as strong as the obligation not to deny it. The bishop would certainly have been responsible to the patron, as well as to the presentee, if, knowing that the parishioners declined en tering a caveat, he had refused to institute the 'presentee to the benefice to which he had received the presentation. As regarded the question of delay, therefore, he begged the House to remember that twenty-six days had elapsed be tween the time when the people of Frome had become aware of the intention to present Mr. Bennett and the time when he had been instituted. He put it to the House that if those parties were in earnest it was their duty to pursue one or other of two courses; they ought either to have con sulted the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to have asked him whether he thought there were grounds for legal pro ceedings against Mr. Bennett, and then of course they should be bound by the decision of the Bishop; or they might have abstained from consulting the Bishop at all, and have themselves entered a caveat and commenced legal pro ceedings in the matter. But they had not chosen to adopt either of these courses. The demand they had made was virtually to the effect that because they had found that Mr. Bennett had professed opinions not acceptable to them, the Bishop of Bath and Welts should undertake not only the cost and risk of the legal proceedings, but that he should undertake them in a cause which he believed to be good for nothing. Let it not be forgotten that it had only been on the 23d of January that those parties had sought advice on the subject of their caveat—that was to say 23 days after they ought to have sought it, and when Mr. Bennett was on the point of being instituted. Then, the second charge of the Hon. Gentleman against the Bishop of Bath and Wells was, that Mr. Bennett had been instituted without the proper certificate. But upon that point it ap peared to him (Mr. Gladstone) that the Hon. Gentleman had fallen into an error in supposing that one of the canons he had quoted—namely. the 48th canon, had anything to do with that matter. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed he was be yond all risk of being questioned or contradicted by any one conversant with ecclesiastical law when he stated that at the present time, and for a long series of years, the 89th canon was that which exclusively regulated the institution of ministers to benefices. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Bishop of Bath and \Veils had been guilty of a legal offence in admitting Mr. Bennett without the testimonial of the Bishop of London, But the 39th canon did not require such a testimonial as that which the Hon. Gentleman supposed to be indispensable. He met the state ment of the lion. Gentleman by stating that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received from Mr. Bennett full evi dence with regard to his life and doctrines, and that if he had refused to entertain that evidence Mr. Bennett, or the patron of the living, would have been entitled to have pro seeuted the bishop in the courts, and to have compelled him to have granted institution. The Hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received the usual testimonial signed by three incumbents, but he had asked who these three incumbents were, and whether he (Mr. Gladstone) had got that testimonial. Now, he had to state in reply, that he had not got the testimonial, and thatle could not name the three incumbents. But he knew that the testimonial, so far as the three incunbents were con cerned, was the usual testimonial. 'The Hon. Gentleman had said, that the testimonial was to the effect that Mr. Bennett had never done anything contrary to the doctrine or disci pline of the Church of England. But the words of the testi monial were in reality to the effect that Mr. Bennett had never held, or taught, anything contrary to the 'doctrine or discipline of the Church of England. It would be very diffi cult indeed to say, of any man that he had not done any thing contrary to any particular doctrines ; but a man's teaching was more public, and could more properly be made the subject of a testimonial such as that to which he was referring. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had received pre cisely the usual testimonial, as far as the incumbents were concerned;; but it was not the usual testimonial, so far as the dismissing Bishop—the Bishop of London —was concerned. The Bishop of London had annexed a note in which he called the attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the fact that Mr. Bennett had been dismissed from the diocese of London,or that the Bishop of that diocese had made use of the voluntary offer of resignation of Mr. Bennett, because; as he said, the continuance of that clergy man in the diocese would seriously prejudice its free and 'good order. Ile had called the attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the correspondence which had been pub lished in the Times between himself and Mr. Bennett. And thus they had got one step further in the matter. The testimonial was the usual testimonial compelling the Bishop to institute Mr. Bennett as AU,. ai..._;...hhihanta were concerned; but it was not the usual testimonial, inasmuch as it had an extraneous comment appended to it by the Bishop of London. The question then arose, what was the exact legal nature and effect of that explanatory note of the• Bishop of London, and what were the duties which it imposed on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? He (Mr. Glad stone) understood that notes of that kind were not unfre quently appended by bishops to testimonials ; but it was quite plain that if a signature were affixed to any document be x 1. Conformity anywit h gratuitousl aw a nd u commentse, its l e n g l a a l d effect f b e cyt thecould partyn ot The meaning of the signature . signing it. London continued the same in' point of law, lie (Mr. Gladstone)ili might be the explanation affixed to of w h t a h t e ev ß er ishp of o that explanation? the duty of ascertaining for himself"' it was this7--that it imposed on the' o h said at wasthat the ee Value value have iohp of Bath and Wells . of Mr. Bennett, and of satisfying himselfl. atwas the doctrine other upon that point. He contended that it could than that of imposing on the Bishop of valuetli and effect ll s the duty of examining Mr. Bennett The Gentleman Hon. himself admitted that the . certificate of the Bishopemalif London was not necessary— that the canons did not o require it, and that practice did not require it; and he . ( dr. Gladstone) believed that, under these cir cumstances, he had shown that there was an end to that part of the case attempted to be established against the Bishop of Bath and Wells. He next came to the third charge of the was thatthe Bishop of Bath and Wells Gentleman, which Hon. Bennett without' duo examination, and, he h a d admitted Mr. (Mr. Gladstone) was bound - to say he thought that i n th e se nse of the Hon. CTen tleman the Bishop of Beth and Wells Bennett. He should, however, add, admitted Mr. had so the Hon. Gentleman construction which that although the had given to the phrase "due examination" might suit the House of Commons , h e felt confident that there was no gentleman there who had ever inquired into a legal question ion. He saw t . that would not at once repudiate that construe lawyers there who felt with the Hon. Gentleman in the case , and upon the point which hewas then discussing he confidence with which he ap pealed to them with the same ap pealed to lion. Gentlemen who ad opted his views in the matter. The H on . G ent l eman had laid down the doctrine that was a judge that ajudge—for a bishop in such a case as iron Gentleman had . . in the strictest sense of the term—the ---- ' laid down the doctrine that that judge was not to institute an examination o f suc h a nature and to suc h an extent as to satisfy his own, conscience, he being the person on whose conscience the law had laid the burden of the decision, but such an examin a ti on as would satisfy ot h er Per sons on whom the law had not laid the burden of the decision—such an examination as would satisfy what the Hen. Gentleman called " the public," and such an exami nation as would no doubt satisfy himself the Hon. Member for Cockermouth.—(Hear, hear, and' laughter.) He wished he could get the Hon. Gentleman to look in cold blood at the consequences—he did not like to use strong epithecs— but ho should say the really . frightful and hideous conse quences of such a doctrine of judicial duty, and such a con cepticez of the judicial character, as that a judgt ha a solemn and important matter was not to look for such evidence as would satisfy his own conscience, but for' such evidence aa would satisfy the public.—(Loud cries of " Hear. hear.") If he had misunderstood the lion. Gentleman, and if the lion. Gentleman would admit that the duty of a judge was to in stitute, on his solemnresponsibility, such an examination as would satisfy his own judgment, and acquit his own con science before God and men—then he and the Hon. Gentle man were agreed. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had dis charged that duty; he hail examined Mr. Bennett, not in the Greek Testament, not on matters of form or of ecclesiastical istory—he had examined Mr. Bennett—not the Mr. Bennett of former times, but the Mr. Bennett of January last—the Bishop who had himself been a great sufferer from illness—from crushing and torturing illness—but who had been in full possession of all his intellectual powers and faculties—for the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of &ape was mis- - taken in supposing that he had arrived at an extreme old age - he had carefully examined 'Mr. Bennett on - all those points on which he had thought that an examination had been called for—namely, those points in dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Rome eandit was not until he had made up his mind -that on those points Mr. Bennett had held by the Church of England that he had, pro ceeded to take any of the steps necessary for granting the: proposed institution. If he had found that Mr. Bennett had held the opinions of the Church of Home in regard, for in-, stance, to the points touched in the Thirty-nine Articles, his course would have been clear, and it would then, no doubt, have been his duty to have refused institution. - But having found that there had been no gronnd for attributing to Mr. Bennett an adherence to the doctrines , of the Church of Rome, he had granted institution. Acting, not on the belief and convictions of the Hou. Gentleman, but on the belief and convictions of himself, the Bishop, who was the judicial officer appointed by the law to decide the case, had subjected Mr. Bennett to a due examination; audit was to his honour that he had done that, not under the influence of any compulsion on the part of the parishioners of Frome; for he had done it before there had been any movement whatever among any discontented clergymen or-laymen.-- The Bishop had himself instituted the inquiry because he had seen that the circumstances of Mr. Bennett's former career had been such as to call for it. He had •taken upon himself that responsibility, and by his own mouth had examined Mr. Bennett on those points on which be believed that an ex amination was necessary. Now he (Mr. Gladstone), should confess that the lion. Gentleman fairly beat him when he led them in that House into the domain of pure and unmixed theology . The lion. Gentleman had•quoted from a work of Mr. Bennett some propositions in theology,- and . the Hon. Gentleman had told them that it would not be appropriate in that House to discuss those propositions. -No; but al though the Hon. Gentleman had not thought it appropriate to discuss, he had thought it appropriate to judge andede cide.—(llear, bear.) The Hon. Gentleman had quoted a saying of Mr. Bennett's, with regard to the Holy Scriptures. But Mr. Bennett himself had on a former occasion com plained that his words upon that subject had been mis quoted, not by an alteration of the words, but by taking them out of their context, so as to make them bear a meaning totally different from that • which he had intended. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman,-speaking of the pa rishioners of Frome in another part of his speech, had asked whether Mr. Bennett believed that the Bible was a - fiction and an absurdity, imputing to Mr. Bennett that belief, and complaining that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not • made that a matter for his judicial investigation. But when he (Mr. Gladstone) looked at the possage, he saw that it was, in his humble opinion, totally altered, as Mr. Bennett had contended, by being wrenched from what preceded and followed. Could he remedy the evil by reading the pas sage to the House? He felt that he could not. It was a powerful and affecting statement of some of the most solemn doctrines of our religion, which he could not profane by reading the passage in the House. of Commons. The Ho • Pourable Gentleman, he should say, was not in the least degree aware of the common history of the Church of Eng land, except, perhaps, during the years he belonged to it.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He (Mr. Glad stone) believed he could show the Hon. Gent eman that he was totally unaware of one of the great religious contro versies of this century. The passage in the work of Mr. Bennett bad reference to this question—whether in the work of propagating Christianity, of spreading Christianity among those who had not previously professed its doctrines —the Bible alone should be used ; and Mr. Bennett had said that it would be a fiction and delusion to suppose that Christianity would be propagated by merely distributing the Bible among an un-Christian people. But Mr. Bennett did not protest against the use of the Bible by Christians for the education of their souls. And the Honourable Gentleman ought to know that for many years after the foundation of the institution known to every Member of. that House— namely, the Bible Society,-.that institution had been op posed by nearly the whole of the Bishops of the Church of England. He (Mr. Gladstone) doubted if there were more than a single Bishop who had not at the time opposed it; and it had also been opposed by the great mass of the clergy men of the Established Church, because they conceived— whether rightly or wrongly was not then the question— that even among Christians, and particularly in foreign lands, the circulation of the Bible alone was not the instru ment which our Saviour had intended for propagating Christianity. The opinion which had been held by Mr. Bennett was one, therefore, which had been held at the time of the establishment of the Bible Society by the great mass of theclergy and Bishops of the Church of - England. Mr. HORSMAN said he had not quoted the opinion of Mr. Bennett; he had merely said that the memorialists had brought that passage under the notice of the Bishop. Ha had himself given no opinion upon the subject. Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The Hon. Gentleman had quoted the passage from the memorial ; b ut h e h a d a lso ad verted to it in another part of his speech. The opinion of Mr. Bennett was one which had been entertained by the great mass of the bishops and clergymen of the Established Church ; it was no ecclesiastical offence of which the courts could take cognizance, or which they would admit as a valid reason for staying the right of the patron or of the presentee. But the Hon. Gentleman had also adverted to another case —that relating to the oath of supremacy. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) contended that upon that, as upon other points, they ought to be guided by the law, and not by private opinions. He was only afraid that as the law represented the spirit of one period, and the men of the present genera tion represented the spirit of a different period—our laws not having been changed as public opinion had changed—those who were called upon to consider the conduct of great public and judicial officers might forget that those officers were only bound to conform to the law, and that they could only be blameable or punishable in consequence of a de parture from it. It seemed that Mr. 'Bennett had put a particular construction w bieh was o n t h p e o oath p o upon n f supremacy bythe Honourable dif feredab from that Gentleman. Bat the Honourable Gentleman ought to recol lect that the meaning of the oath of supremacy was one which had already been much debated in that House. The Noble Lord the Member for London had given cone construction of the oath, and other Honourable Members had given a different construction of it; and it was well known that at the present • moment there we two Peers o w a b th ieb o r f be s y np e r o e u m id acy eu who were precluded from takintgirothpeoiersisbele t to a sineffi tb x e to o e t u b s e e of Lords, beca use they found li ev e t d o andet events distinct he meaning that the meaning attached to the oa th of su p remac y b y Mr. Bennett did n o t amount to an offence punishable ot in the courts ; and th e Bi s hop of Bath and Wells could not make e ne . b a sc n r y ibe. clear But it a ground for st a ying the institution 111 r., cla mour, and sav e hi ms elf -from the hostility of B n nett, although h e m i g ht thereby avert popular - the Honourable Memb er f or Cockermouth. The Bisho p • h he was the sworn had merely to ca rry ou t th e l a w of which cream , guardian, even th oug h i t m i g ht be necessary fo r him. to do so in an unpopular m anne r an d under unpopular stances. As regard e d t h e secon d charge, the want of evi dence, he (Mr. Gladst one ) t h ou ght he had shownthat the bishops evidence was the s ame as i n ot h er c ases dealt with by of the Established Ch urc h . — (H ea r, hear.) But w hen he came to the third charge, he had shown that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, without waiting f or inquiry or suggest ion from the Bishop of L ondon, m ade up his min d that Mr. Bennett could not be conv i cted o f f a lse doctrine, and that, therefore, it was not hi s duty to deny or delay the justice • that rested with him to pronounce.—(ll ea r, hear.) The Bishop of Bath and Wells was fully borne out in the course ' which he adopted by the conduct of the Bishop of London. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed it to be the case as regarded the' Bishop of Bath and Wells that he had-made himself respon sible to this extent, that, if Mr. Bennett' were taken into an ecclesiastical court, and if his doctrines were there declared to be contrary to those held by th e Church of Eng land, there would then b e a case against the Bishop of Bath and Well's, who examined the works of Mr. Bennett, and de clared them conformable to the doctrines of the Church of England.—(Hear, hear.) But now came the question, — What were they to do ? (Hear, hear.) It was not his (elr. • Gladstone's) business to advise the House on this point--he was not going to make a motion or amendment on the sub ject; but he would offer a few observations on the motion itself. He should confess there were objections to the mo tion as it now stood—namely, as regarded the institution • of Mr. Bennett. Were he to vote foe that motion as it now stood, he would be • assenting to the allegation- that a , prima facie case had been made against 'the Bishopeef Bath and Wells ; but in' lilt 'opinion no such case Wale made.— (Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman anticipated, as an- objection 'to his motion, the present period of the session, and in stanced the case of the inquiry moved for by the, Hon. Member for North Warwickshire.--(fiear, hear.) . His (Mr. Glad stone's) first objection was to their professing to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Reif. Mr. Bennett to Frome. ' If they were to inquire at all, they should have their inquiry into the state and spirit of the enactment of the laws which were studiously framed by suc cessive generations with a view to discourage bishops, and make it impossible for them to do that which the Honour able Member for Cockermouth now accused them with.— (Hear, 'hear.) If they wished to go into the ques tion of ecclesiastical appointments—if an inquiry were moved for to investigate the state of the law, and to do so in a fair and impartial spirit, the Honourable Member inoving• such inquiry would confer one of the greatest' services possible on the country, and greatly con tribute to the stability of the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.) It was his (Mr. Gladstone's) opinion that at' pre sent parishioners did not possess sufficient means of making their objections known in these cases of institution.—(Hear, bear.) But whether the subject should bo undertaken by a Commissioner or by a paid Committee, was another ques tion. If they wanted an immediate inquiry, they could net have it now by a Committee. Whether there should be a Commission, or whether there should 'be a general acknow ledgement of the expediency of instituting an -inquiry' into ecclesiastical and temporal law, with regard to the power of making canonical objections to persons instituting to ap pointments, he Would not say. At the same time, he should say that, if her Majesty's Government were disposed to un • dertake the responsibility of an inquiry into the state of the e a i l tre c r a o n f 6 t r hes a e law on this Subject, they would give not only a most useful :arn to the discussion raised by the lion. Member for Cocker mouth,. but rro near.) coursesvast be amount (Ar r o . De prepared to give a fb Gladstone) enfit— would aea most f b ' • to censure hig h &me his duty, djudiciel officer in -the Church, who had care, in'the case nowoall! his duty, and that with decuracy and was, in' his mind, a most t ught before them, he should confess —(Hear, hear)--becau.se objectionable course of proceeding prelate —not by implicatioltn would be casting censure ou a acted in a manner unbecomingut openly—who had never who, instead of blame fin c his exalted position, and the highest comtnendation.--oe d s l l i s e e e e, merited at their hands Sir J. PAKINGTON remarked ra.) that -she Right able Gentleman the Member for the University Honour.' had stated his sentiments with his usula of Oxford far • ' ability, and - had gone very to justify the course the Bishop had token this case. The - deep attention which l ea d b een paidbe in Honourable Gentleman on both occasio ns w h en he broughtt the subject before the Rouse proved how strongly the people of this country and the Members of that House had een excited by those dissensions which unhappily existed in the Church of England.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford had observed with painful truth, that the Church was rent and torn by those unhappy dis sensions, and he (Sir John Pakington) believed that this was mainly owing to that portion of the clergy of the Church who had taken that line which Mr. Bennett pur sued—( Loud cheers from all parts of the house) - a line which in his case had led to his expulsion from one (Wow, and which had led to the moot grays and kieripta . - slily - entlerre mittiatere of the Church;--(Cheers, doubts whether clergymen taking that jrne 71cenuldo be lieved p e l en ch ti i n a l l r ll e l s i p n e i c st t e s ; said Bennett, but the same thing might unquestionably lo! v lie m ved a th m at or i o u n e o x a o n m y p r a o ry st of a large portion. of the Roman Catholic clergy.—( Hear , to confuse personal piety and the exemplary discharge of hear.) ..But there could not be a more dangerous error than parochial duties with those vital doctrines which formed the broad lines of demarcation between the two Churches ! --(hear, hear.) No , one 'could deny the , unhappy dif . . there than never m. r . ferences and dissensions that:had arisen in our. Churc h, and much of them was undoubtedly attributable to those gentlemen, who, like 'Mr. :Bennett, exhibited that love of Onus and histrionic display which so much characterised the Church of Romee -- (Hear..hear.): ' By means of those gentlemen the lines of distinction between the two Churches were every day made finer and finer, and a nu of unwary Protestants had in consequenc e .been led away to the Church of Roine,---(Hear, hear.) He could not blama,the Honourable G en tl eman. for bringing the . _se re. 1 markable facts before the House,_ but he seriously doubted haw far the House of Commons was. a fit arena , for.'stich discussion.—(llear, bear.) . The- Honourable 31ember had quoted a statement of his (Sir J. .Pakington's) epinion the last time this subject was before the - House. He Ilan then expressed that opinion, and he had now no intention to recede from it.— ( Hear, hear.).. The Geverntnent.on that oc sion undertook tternake inquiry, and they exhausted evil:9, means in their power to ascertai n -h ow tar that inquiry cou ld be conducted. The first step. taken was to draw up questions which in the judgment of the. Government embraced the whole matter in issue., , These having been submitted to the law officers of the Crown, they gave it as their opinion that there was no illegality in the institution of Mr. Bennett, and that as to the transactions alleged to have occursed at Kas sing,en—a foeeign country—Me legal, inquiry by the Bishop • could he instituted respectioge it. .The Government not renting content with those answers, they submitted . a se cond time more comprehensive- questions to the Jaw officers, add were again informed that—thete. *as no legal mode by which the, circumstances connected with . Mr- Bennett's but if Bennett's induction . could be- made the subject of legal mode then it would be - open to the parishioners to direct and immediate in proceed undrr ,the Church Discipline Act. With- regard to the transactions at Kissengen,-theY ' , were q neutrons effect, there was • any and it was undoubtedly a very -extraordinary -fact, and - one calculated to crOta: great anxiet y end • suspicion, that• Mr. Bennett's name was to be found in fi end Directory." °C4lergtilyeMan passed many months This undoubtedly was a. question •for the Bishow,to inquire into. lie (Slr . j.:Fakingtou) hadelistened with astonish (Mr. Gladstone), -when alluding to the transactions at Kis wThhaetr There had Englishf allen fr --mghf Hon. Gentleman without going near the English-1 e e.e.gynaan, his church, or cpngregation.—(Hear, hear.). .It was a subject calculated to excite the gravest'anxiety, and to inspire the deepest re nsienengtento. gret, to find that a clergyman so-conducting himself should he now at the head of an important parish.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Pa,kington) could net conceal his astonishment when he heard_theitightdionourable Gentlem an v i n di ca ti n g such conduct.—(" No, from -Mr. Gladstone.) Why, he said the clergyman was acting -as a chaplain, and that his family was his congregation. But what was the family ? Why, Sir John Harrington's—the :church war d en of Mr. Bennett's fate church, St. Paul's, where-Sir John had conducted him- self with more zeal than discretion. — (gear, ' hear.) He (Sir John Palsington) could not-admit the propriety of any chaplain so situated being exempt in fo rs canscientuz from attending a place of public worship•—(Hear, hear.), These were matters of such public notoriety that they ,must have come to the knowledge of. the- Bishop of the diocese, and they were matters into which -the Bishop was bound to in quire.—(Hear.) He did not believe,. however, that any large number of gentleman in that House.would agree, that that was a proper place for making a-judicial inquiry into the con duct of a bishop. He thought. it .would be a course un worthy of the House of Commons, and a dangerous precedent, and therefore he must oppose the motion. _. Mr. GLADSTONE saidetheeßight Hon. Gentleman was mistaken, if he thought, 4e (Mr. Gladstone) Vindicated Mr. Bennett's conduct at Kissengen. He wished -to state also, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not become ac quainted with that conduct until after Air. - Bennete's in duction.—(oh, oh.) . _ , Sir PAGE WOOD believed this , .was a grave constitu tional question. lie felt mast-deeply the vast .importance of the general subject, and the.. mode-in which the people of England had been excited on the subject. Owing to this excitement there was the more dreadol their being led away by their feelings to some unconstitutional course.— (He a r, hear.) Could any ono doubt that the ponduet of numbers pf those, who, being sworn members of our Church, had availed themselves of that position to disseminate what we considered—and he meant no offence to any Honourable Member -to be the errors and. -corruptions of the Church of Rome. In one case, a partyeaeted with such baseness •as to go over to the Church of Rome the very day after he had preached in the Established Church, and he took with him the two children of his organist.—(Hear, hear.) The un fortunate man who first took the lead in this movement had written a book upholding the doctrines of the Church of Rome. That tract, which he had read, favoured the most miserable hypocrisy,' which he . (Sir W. P. Wood) should at all times be ready to denounce. ,He had dealt with the doctrines of the Church in. what was called their t" unnatural" sense. The matter, however, waa not confined to one side, and he was afraid that as the unnatural sense led to the Church of Rome, so, .on 'the other side, it might lead to religious error. He respected the opinions of. all men who had changed their religion from conscientious motive; and in that feeling he admired Mr. Baptist Noel for having left the Church; but he -Could not admire those who, approving of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, did not go over to that Church. Even/ Member of the Church of England was bound to take the. Book of Common Prayer in its natural form, and according to its strict meaning as laid down by the Church. But while he felt that, he was of opinion that they would not advance the cause which he had at heart, namely, a legislative reform of the ecclesiastical law, by taking up individuals and holding them up to detesta tion, and, still more, by tusking the matter a party question, with a view to a remedy. With regard to Parliament, how did the motion before the House stand 2 On a former occasion they were asked to have an inquiry under authority of the Crown, and now they were asked to have an inquiry before a Select Committee. Bat in both cases the inquiry asked would be contrary to the Bill of Rights, and the principle was this—that they ought not to inquire into the conduct of as individual behind his back, or bring charges against him, unless it was to put him on his trial. They might bring a man before a grand jury, but it would be for the purpose of bringing a bill of indictment against him ; and they might have an inquiry by the House of Commons, also subject to certain conditions e And. •he did not dispute the right of the House of Commons, 'which was called the Na tional Inquest, to inquire into abuse'; but if they instituted inquiryinto this matter,- the y should p rocee d f a i r ly. He was glad to find that- her Majesty's Gove rnmen t fe lt that thethey could not assent to there cou rse proposed, and alee.that otherwise co he felt that there was rtn nend inquiry into it; for nte. ssible mode, a cording to the statement of is tee lio po n. Member evenrcc mouth, of (keeling with the q ues tion, hi s Honourable Prien d not having made out any breach of the law. He did net think it just that a parisßevhh s ould be pl aced in a pos ition to have such a . Mr. Bennett forced upon them without the power to demand- the Bennett whether he was a member of the Church of - England __ inquiry hear.) But whatever inquiry might be adopted,iae e i • as matters stood it could not lead to such a result as je t c a t. The Bight Hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Unive rsity •ty of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had rather understated the ersi ca - se in favour of the Bishop. The Bishop, it aPpeared, had 28 days to a l >. point to the living, and _did not aPPoint ntil the twentr seventh day; therefore there- was..no .ind u nt haste in the appointment. And with respect to hi s ece • deman din g the-nes timeniaLe of the clerk, a court of cot hat common law would rule he had no such right. A case had • • _ a , _bishop had d amsoneanded the testimonials of arisen where i n - r a clerk, and he was mu by th rt in heavy casts. - Co n oneofthose alternatives which the Hon. Member. for • -C oc k ____ ermouth bed laid demo could proceedings be taken either a ee . t h e Bishop down( London or the Bishop of. Bath. a n un -s e t lls ` Th e Hon. Member for Cockermouth -said that the• Bishop should have gone farther than he had, and e ern - • d the Rev. Mr. Bennett; and the Right 1-1 --cnourablxe M i e n m e leer for the University of Oxford said that he had examined him, se that they had asserting against asserti on . All that the Bishop could have done was to p ut the, Rev. Mr. Ben . " netts own book into his h an d , and said to him, " Did Yc.'ll write this book? I find such and such a statement in it." Such was the course taken in the Gorham case by the Bishop of Exeter; and the Privi, 'fee esetincit y i ng taken a contrary view of the matter, th e ; , ' B "°P had no remedy. That being so, what remedyjerbUld• the Bishop have in the case of the Rev. Mr. Bennett? .The great mistake which the Hon. Member for Cockermouth made was ill his reading of the law. According to the authority of LOrd Ellenborough, the bishop, in such a case as . this, had no diseretion whateVer, the matter of approval resting w it h hi s o Wn conscience, afte r having examined the preacher, which he was bound by law torney in to do. T the place, o r wo uld of h F ome u 1, tn fight -Ave consulted any w at have direct e d th e m , in the to r ight course, and told them , coesan a Proctor : Up to the present moment,' however,t . there e. - aa not one word of judicial intbrmation- e n tt's nstif course propos ed. On reading 12dr. Benn boo kie, he (Sir • Wood) had 'formed hie cw m ia a ee n e j a uste n• It was undoubt edly a grave that e should , - -es be • in e eit n aed under such circumstances, but mill g n at wag the law. Ile Iv" reedy e a i jaw! . heartily • ' y. motioi, for an inquiry which would serve to promote an am eed rnent• of the law, and doubtless as so great eagerness had been displayed for Chancery reform, the ecclesiastical courts• would not escape next session. , Ia his opinion,. however, te__ . , ' - re was no ground for an inquiry such:as had -now been e.._ " In seeed• • for, and if granted, as a general rule in . similar, eircurnstances, *ithout the Member's pledging himself to go on with the inquiry, it was a proceeding opposed to the spirit of•the most obvious principles of the constitution.' it had been Colonel BOYLE said, that as e r nuted to the Reverend Gentlemen who had sign ed . the prole st, 'that they hid been actuated by unworthy •_ motives, as he was ao_ quainted with them all, he could declare hiB. e menet that no such motives had promoted thent..Ltwaindeederue that there was a party at Fromew a ho int erested particular cl ergyman, with the lady patroness to appoin t : •d that they wereergYnien, whom they thought deserteng. , ati , _ ref used. , But, did not induce any of the althouh - that was so, it in the protest:. As for the popularity f the V' o jeer of Frome, e a little infor m • he was able to give the Hous e so well aware of on the subject, 'iii it was probibiy n H had received a letter the locale of the place as he was. had been . applied to on t f i r i Q A ill an attorney of Frome; who . . did•not believe an - very ' - and he there Said he y char ge of question, parishoners, but that there e - feeling had come over t he. amon g the most intell' x isted a decided deterulidatton Bennett • and his clod • 'gent of them to diseountenanb - d Mr e . churchwarden had Teennes. It stated also that the vicar's ed, and as only , with the gre atest left the church, and that it'w Now , when it was diffi. culty a successor had been found. nl have applied to the Bishop . of that the parishioners s . 0 ht as , well say that they had lit . le r Bath and Wells, he ling a (31ate'who had gi ven Teo t t confidence in an appeal to p 1 been 'refried preferment in ge the a curate who had peeviousy : they remembered that thecOst diocese of Ripon; , and w hen nted to 12,0001, there was certainly s of the Gorham case anion aw • the question at 1 /not •to try . H e not much encourage . k wiedgments to the Member . his ac no could not-hut express - for Cockermonth for thet e able add temperate mann er i n which . et forward ; and if his !efforts failed he had brought the sa l e . lie would certainly recommend the at Frome; he to procure peace pack up his portmanteau and be the Rev. Mr. Bennett to p off.—(Cheers and laughter.) . • Mr. YORKE denied t bat the address had be en signed by aby Mr. Cruttwell. Th e Hon. boys and girls, as was - eid Member for Cockermouth h a d left the impressi on upon the m a tter up at the request of the taken the , House that he had •• -- • Bennett nad gon e t o t h e parishioners of Frome. If Mr . mass at Rome he could, never theless, assure th e House that , he was as goo d a c h u rchman as' the Hon. Memb er him when charge his c in or the Bi s h op o f London, he ~. . 1842. • • Sir B. HALL said be, e Hon. Gentleman- b e li e ved t h e was himself a, party to theta Ronising nreeeed ings, and that naa had he took p art i n , t h e m e morable . pr ocession which pro duced such u n f or t un ate resuits ,. -.He maintained that most • had been obtained i n public housee by pe rsons s moking an d of the si gnatures to t h e a dd re ss h drinking, w ho then and there soundness of the doctri nes of Mr. bore testim on y to the Bennett.--(LAughter4 . , ..... . .' - LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 9, 18.52, Mr. YORKE—That is denied by Mr. Crtittvrell. -- Ssrßriffittli--It was denied-by-Mr:-Miller, but stated by Mr. Cruttwell. • But. this was not th e rea l question at; ssue. The real question was, what were they to do in these lament able circumstances? In his district there was a Protestant' ..clergyman who, althongh•performing Divine service in the Church of England, attended a Roman Catholic place of worship Sunday'after Sunday. A gentleman who saw to hire .declared his' readiness to come forward and verify tho that he crossed himself, made the various genuflexions, and remained during the whole time of service ;. that he we n t there again the following Sunday, and' - yet that • man per formed Divine service in the church °ESL Andrew's, Wells street.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") It was said, why did they not * go into the ecclesiastical Court of Wells ? But would anybody, , under such circumstances, go there, when the Bishop had just appointed his own son to preside over it. He believed 'Sir. Bennett had keen the means of converting many persons to the• Church of Rome. - Did the Hon..Geetlernan not know that, connected with the- church . of St: Barnabus was a conventual establishment, and that the daughter of a Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, once a Member of that House, was at the head of that establish.; meat—that the father of the lady had begged of Mr. Bennett-, to use hii influence - and 'endeavour to induce her to retrace - her steps ? And did he, not know that that Rev. Gentle lain, who was,nnly the . pastor of From, had refuted tnlisten to the prayers d the parent; and that.the,daughter,. and all the ladies associated with her, had gone Ord to the Church of Rome.--(Hear, hear.) . .., Did not Lord Colchester cite the case of another lady where a similar result had taken place ?.. , This man had' been proved to have been , trifling for some time with 'Sir John Harrington, of whom . they had begin told by,the ,Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Univeraity of (ford, that he had been justified, in leaying the Church of England, because he had a congregation of. his own—_ _ _ Mr. GLADSTONE said that lie had distinctly contra dicted that statement before. Sir B. HALL wad not aware that the Right Hon. Gentle , man had done so, or. he would nop have made the observa tion. He would ask .the Right Hon. Gentlenian (Mr. Glad stcne) to say candidly what ought to be done under such circumstances? Let the Bishops, who were the persons that ought to be most , desirous of reforming the ecclesiastical law of the country, exert themselves in their places in the other House of:Parliament to effect this object. The Government ,had.intimated that even if they appointed a Commission to inquire.into this subject, the Bishops would not answer the questions that would be put to them. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, no. . • Sir ; B. HALL—WeII, then, let them have a Committee, and request the Bishops to appear before it, and if they then refused to do so the responsibility would be on themselves. Mr. E. YORKE wished to make an observation in refer ence to thezning lad y who had been alluded to by the Hon. Baronet. His imPression was this, that the young lady her self was always restrained by Mr. Bennett from going her own way to the Church of Rome.—(Laughter,) He thought that his word was as good as that of the Iden. Baronet's. The report then was, that the young lady. had a strong , in clination to go to Rome, but was restrained, up to a certain Oita, by,Mr. Bennett. But as sown as Mr. Bennett left St. She went to Roine.(Efear and laughter.) NEWDEGATE next rose, amid loud cries for a divi sion. He thanked the Hon. Member for Cockerniouth for the very able manner in which he had brought this subject Under the notice of the House. Whatever might be the re sult of the division, he ,trusted that one good effect of bring iug forwardthe subject would be to lead to an alteration in the state of the existing law, and he was anxious to hear from her Majesty's G r overnment,whether they were prepared to consider the state of the 'law in the next session, and to in troduce some measure which would prevent men from hold- ' ing benefices in the Church of England who had been con victed of unsound doctrines and the encouragement of Romish practices. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—This discussion, Sir, has tended very much to , clear the case since it was brought under the notice of the House. We have com tely investigated the position o f the Bishop of Bath and WWells with respect to these circumstances, and -I think I do not misinterpret the general feelings of the House if I describe it as one which would be extremely reluctant, by any -vote which it could arrive at, to throw any censure upon the conduct of-that prelate.—(Hear. and cries of ".Oh, oh,”) It may be certainly very easy for Honourable Gentlemen to sneer at thatstatement ; but I think after a calm and ample discussion, so ably conducted as this has been, we must ar rive at the conclusion that however many of us may regret the institution of the individual who has become the vicar of Frome, it is impossible for us to assert, by a vote of this House, that it was the duty of the - Bishop of th at diocese to prevent ' that. institution; nay more, I think that we have, most of us, arrived at 'this conclusion, that had the Bishop of the diocese thrown any--difficulties in the way of the in , stitution of, Mr. Bennett, he would have incurred very perilOus. conseqhenCei. In the . p re sent state of the law, I think it quite impossible that the House, should come to any vote which would in fact cast upon 'a Bishop of the 'Church of England a condemnation, simply 'because he has done that which ill niust admit to have been strictly his legal duty, and which if he had not fulfilled would have involved him In the most serious injury. I consider the question of the conduct. of the Bishop of Bath and ..Wells to be perfectly distinct from those which have occurred with -respect to the present vicar of ironic.— i (Hear, hear.) But at the same time I cannot but remember that it is only the conduct of the Bishop with which we have to deal.--(Hear, hear.) When this question was first brought under the notice of the House, I took the liberty of stating with respect to the point of the ability which the parishtonera of Frome should have of challenging the institution of one who was to become their vicar, that if the state of the law did not afford a remedy. then, -I thought, it was our duty to supply one. Generally speaking, that is a principle which I think ought tai guide us under these. most painful circum stances. I cannot think, with the Hon. Gentleman .the Member for the city . of Oxford, that there is no remedy for the parishioners. I must- still repeat, acting on the opinions that have been given me, and confirmed by my own in quiries—the opinion I have expressed before in this House, that there is a remedy for the parishioners of any living placed under the circumstances in which the parishioners of From . ° are placed, and that that is a remedy for ' which they need not go to any ecclesiastical court, or have recourse to any ecclesiastical law. But I will not'enter into that question again, which we bave boforo tirgad, boonutse I Am willing to a d m it that there is not sufficient facility or opportunity for parish ioners placed in the situation of those of Frome to obtain that relief and redress which they have a right to expect.. But so far as the present motion is concerned, it is' really the institution of Mr. Bennett into the vicarage—and that is the act of the diocesan—which we are called on to inquire into. I mast repeat my opinion that the coneuct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells cannot fairly be called in ques tion. But if we were to appoint a Committee, let the 'House. consider what will be the duties of that Committee. Their duties would not be, I apprehend, to rake up evidence with a view to institute proceedings against the Bishop. Well, then, what is the duty of that Committee ? Is it to be a Committee to consider the state of the law? In my opinion this is hardly the moment in .which we should appoint a Committee to consider the state of the law with respect to the institution of persons into beneficies, and which cer tainly Ido not think a Committee of the House of Com mons the best instrument to carry on with effect. I have been asked by my Hon. Friend the Member for Warwick shire to give a pledge on the part of the Government that they will take into consideration that important subject, the state of the law with respect to the institution to benefices. I am sure my Hoa. Friend will not press me to give a pledge on a subject of so grave and difficult a character. But that it is a subject which ,must engage, sooner or later, the considers. tion of any Government—that the state of our ecclesiastical laws is one that cannot be mach longer tolerated—(Loud cheers)--4nd that with respect to the ecclesiastical courts, we should follow the same course• of temperate and efficient reform which we have applied to all the other means of judi cature in the country—these, I think, are opinions which few of us do not share, and-certainly they are sentiments on which the Government are prepared to act. I trust the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth will not ask the House to come to a decision on this motion. If indeed he persists in so doing, although I myself most sincerely re gret much that has occurred at the vicarage of Frome, and although. 1 will not at this moment go oat of my way to offer any criticism on the conduct of other individuals con cerned' in these transactions, because I feel it is unneces sary to-night, especially when the conduct of one individual alone is ealled in question—still, if the Hon. Gentleman asks me to support this resolution to appoint a Committee to investigate the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, with respect to hiscompletion of an act which I do not think he could have refused to fulfil, I shall feel it my duty to offer a negative.-4 Cheers.) . gr. ELLICE said he saw all the difficulties of the cam— bia saw all the objections to the appointment of a Select Com mittee—(Hear, hear}-but he could see no other remedy for the grievaucecomplained of—(Hear, hear)—except an in codry-7not. directed personally against the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and 'Wells . , but into all thefacts of the case, in ; order to, ground thereon further proceedings with respect to the state .of ,the law,— (Hear) —which gave no relief to parties complaining of this grievance.—(Hear, hear.) Upon this ground he should vote for the motion, seeing no other meani of redress.-.--(Hear, hear.) Au.. MOODY thought that if an inquiry was instituted into the occurrences in London it would be trying Mr. Ben nett twice ,over. Ans question : they had to deal with was not, an. individual .qaestion,, but was one as regarded the Church at large. It A ppeared to him that there was a very easy remedy in such cases as . the one complained of. He thought a Commission might be:issued with reference to what had taken place abroad, as well as to what had oc curred at home.—(Hear, hear.) The SOLICITOR•GENERAL said there was nothing in p t igned the conduct of Mr. Bennett. the _motion which ha It . was. for an inquiry into the circum (Hear, hear.) tution and was directed entirely against Attending I" lt i and Walls Y —(Hear, hear.) The against the Bishop °.' n ßilit the institution, had only done Bishop, however', I W - al - beand to do ; and as far as he what by law he was concerned, therefore, there was no ground for the in quiry. ' , Then as to the state of the law some miscon ce p tion e xisted, for if it were proved that Mr. Bennett, by preach ing or teaching , b y act or wor d, showed unsoundness of I was c ompetent for the parishioners to i - the doctrine,under the Church Disco) me law in motion against him Act—(lfear, hear.) —and even as to his past conduct commission w eld issue in respect of anything hear a ° country within two years past.--(Hear, . said Looking, however, to the state of the ecclesiestical courts co o hear)—to the practice of those urts, th e . country—( H e metimes xcessive—incurred in the and the p was loudly Hear, he e ar)—a remedy . justest proceedings--(xense—(Hear, hear.) It would be impossible to enter called for. i n to that inqu iry now, but he hoped t hat the reform whichhad taken °place in our cour ts of law andequity wou ld at the prop er time be l extended _ to„the ecclesiastical courts.--Ole%'• DDO ted at, the answer of the CliManr.cej?lor4rEeliVe E w stie dis q:e7as ili to fu . ture legislation -7-(He. it of the Soli ci t or-G e neral as tO t h e hear),.-and'fbe sOgec enc ouraged any' hope of sta te of • the taw, which h ad not being done to place it in a more - satisfactory con. Bd°itniething ion.....(il ea r, hear.) It wash own that the law was in accessible to indiv id uals, and that, H th e er re ef g o r r e e t , t s e o a m t e h th e i s n t g at w e a o s f necessary to •b d (Hear.) which )a d been disclosed as to the position of the things He was anxious to put an end to it, Church—( Hear. e time was anxious not to impute blame to and at the ear H ) But, as there was no hope any party utuustly( ear• . of any at of the law, he must, in order to promote ect to , v ote for the motion.—(Hear.) this, obi ur EY HERBERT could, not express how strongly sin by the statements that had been made. He he wt.s pained was satisfied that the uestion before them should be strictly o in f t r o od ,_and h that members of the Church should have looked ea s res s without the necessity of coming to th a t House, which wa s not well suited for questions of the kind. hear.) The Bishop. of Bath and Wells, it was clear, could not have re f us ed the induction, without ri sking an a t law for his refusal. notiona,. WALPOLE begged to be permitted to address one word to the House inconsequence of what had fallen from Hon. Member fur West Kent (Mr. Deedes).. That , Hop. the he thought, had entirely mistaken the reply of Oentleinae• h i s Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the a ppeal of the Hon, Member for Uockerma n th. Th e in quiry would have been acceded to f it4 i wa t o b r ee pQ rl p y tl e t ztry as suggested by the Right HonOurftble cur . g, ,Ltut" risen he, (1. 41 Avolvie), ;elected .lA`.l .; --- , - t I uo q . , i upon the speech of the Honourable Member for Cocker mouth, and considered that the issue of the-inqiiiry was thei conduct of the Bishep of Bath and Wells, that inquiry wa.d. to lead to a censure upon the conduct of the Bishop of • i Bath and Wells, or to an' impeachment on the part of some j Members of'the House of Commons against that prelate, ' and when, it was notorious that the Bishop refusing institu tion would have' incurred the double' proceeding of a writ of " quire impedit and duplex qucerel; the propodition could not he entertained. - In the present state of the law the Bishop could not have acted differently, and under these circum stithces, he (Mr. Walpole) hoped the Hon. Member would not ;press ,his motion to a division,' If it : was pressed, he trusted the House would reject it, es he considered it to be both unreasonable and . unjust. ' . ' 41r. DEEDES explained that what he desired was a dis- . tint declaration on the part of the Government that they , cleared no alteration in the existing law. ' M. GOULBURN thought 'it had been established that . 1 " 116 ,, • c°a dt'et of the Bishop o f Bath and Wells. eugl4, not to. ee impugned. Ili he . should propose as Feeling, therifore, that the inquiry an am should not be in this particularcase, but to the state of the , qu ry should bedirected, not as to the institution of Mr. B nett, but into the state ofthe I ttendin- the in endment that the in ution of clerks to beneficea. a b. - , r• iIQIISMAN • 1 • N I ,in re (Hear; hear.j . t ' P said he thought he ceigld an. i s , r the amendment of the Right Den. l Gentleman in three words. Certain parties • we're' aecueed of 'it A - iind certain fri ads of theirs_proposed'that timeln r er, into .;la ;la state of the law with • reirieCt t" [ should_- be inquiey Ir the University p cc i shmen t. Hear, hear, and" laughter. y' Such °e Vital de ice by which the experienced Illem ber W f al the ingenious ofCambridge attempted to lead the House in uiry in which they were most interested, and fron;t the thy at this moment seemed to be most 'inclined. It which b making their proceedings perfectly, ludicrous trilti ‘ rich c ous to aaopt such a suggestion. - (Hear.) The motion te plated inquiry into the institution of the Rev. Air. Be "- % l ett a the conduct of all the parties implicated in the oi st ncesan question. ' A maxim in' our law provided that there should be no grievance without a remedy. A grievance Wd been shown in this case, but where Was the rem e dy? hile every one admitted the grievance, not one h ad sug geted a remedy. e Was the grievance to remain unredressed, or' was the House of Commons still to say they would de ne tr.? Hehad brought this subject forward with ou t h av i ng a knowledge of the partie,s at,Frome ; indeed, he had made it gi rule"to take up no subject on merely local grounds. He -had selected it at a tYpd of an abuse. • - . ' The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion ... .. .. ... 156 Against it .. . ..".. ... ... H 1 - ' - Majority ... ...'.• - ... ... —45 •'.- • - MAYNOOTIL . - • ' Bfr. BROTHERTON then moved the adjournment of the House. ' - Mr. OSWALD inquired when it was the intention of the Member for North Warwickshire to bring on the adjourned debate on the Maynooth grant? • Mr. SPOONER said he must refer thellon. Gentleman to the resolution of the House. That would be decided when the other orders were disposed of. Mr. -NE WDEGATE said 'it wai his intention 'to take the sense of the House on the question of the adjourn. ment of the debate. It was now determined to defeat a decision on that 'question by a' factious 'opposition, but 'the attempt of . the Member' for-- Salford to- get rid of the. question would be frustrated, for he would take the sense of the House on the question" when the dropped order for the AsumptiOn of the debate on the Maynooth • grant came on. . , Mr. ANSTEY would be no party to a poatponment of the decision on the Maynooth question, and he hoped the Member for Salford' would press his motion. i Mr. BROTHERTON had no intention to get rid of the question, but to get rid of the House.---(Laughter.) They , had been already sitting fourteen hours, and he was deter mined to press his motion to a division. Mr. HINDLEY thought the proposal of the Member for Salford most reasonable, and he hoped the Government would support the motion . for the adjournment of the House: . - The CRANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he thought the House had sat long enough. " The House then adjourned at Half -past One o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. ,From the Votes and ,Proceedings of the. House of .Couunons,) TUESDAY, JUNE 8. FROME VICARAGE. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of ,the Reverend Mr. Bennett to the. Vicara ge of Frome:"—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the fast word " the," to the end of the Question, iu, order to add the words " state of the Law affecting the in stitution 'to Benefices," instead thereof:—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:— • MAJORITY—AYES, 156. Ahdy, Sir T. N. '' . Edwards, Henry Moody, C. A. Adair, R. A. Ellice, Edward Morris, David Aglionby, H. A. Ellice, Edward,jun. Mostyn, E. 31. Alcock, Thomas Ellis, John - 3inntz, G. F. Anstey, T. C. Elliot, John E. Noel, Gerald J. Archdall, Captain E wart, William Paget, Lord George Arkwright, G. . Farnham, E. Parker, John Armstrong, R. B. Forbes, Wm. Pechell, Sir G. Bagge, William Forster, Matthew Pigott, Francis ' Baines, M. T. Fox, W. J. Pilhingten, James Baird James Freestun, Colonel Pinney,' William /3aldock, E. li. Frewen, C. H. • Ricardo, John L. Barrow, W. H. Geach, Charles Rice, E. B. Bass, 31. T. • Glyn, 'George Carr ' Rich, Henry Berkeley, Henry F. • Goddard, A. L. Robartes. T. J. A. Berkeley, C. L. G. Green, John ' Romilly,"Col. Bernal, Ralph Greene, Thomas Rushout, Captain Blackstone, W. S. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Salwey, Colonel Booker, T. W. Grenfell, Charles W. Scholetield, W. Boyle, Colonel Grey, B. W. Scobell, Captain Bremridge, Richard Grosvenor, Lord R. Smith, J. A. Bridges, Sir B. Hardcastle, J. A. Smyth, J. G. Bright, John Harris, Richard Somerville, Sir W. Broadwood, IL Thistle, Archibald Stanford, J. F. Brockman, E. D. Headlam, Thomas- Stanley, W. O. Brotherton, J. Henry, Alexander Stanfield, W.R. C. Brown, H. Heywood, James Stanton, W H. Buller, 511 J. Y. Heyworth, Lawrence Staunton, Sir G. Butler, P. S. Hildyard, T. B. T. Strutt, E. Butt, Isaac ' Hindley, C. Stewart, Admiral Buxton, Sir E. Hodgson, W. N. Stuart, Lord D.' Carter, eamnel . Howard, C. W. G. Sutton, H. M. Cavendish, C. C: Hutt, William ' Tenison, B. K. Chaplin, W. J. Jackson, William Tennent, R. J. Childers, J. W. Kershaw, James Thompson, Colonel Clay, James King, P. J. Thompson, George Clay, Sir W. Kinnaird, A. F. Tollemache, F. J. Clifford, HenryPS. Langston, J. H. Tollemache, John Cobden, Richard Laslett, William Townshend, Captain CollinS,William Lenard, T. 13 . Verner, Sir W. Colvile, C. R. Locke, Joseph Verney, "Sir 11, . Copeland, Alderman Long, Walter Vivian, J. H. Corry, H. L. Lo Cowan, Charles ' J o hn Welby, G. B. Crowder, R. B. 31 , Taggart, Sir J. Williams, John o e r d e e g n, m ,v or, Pryse Walsh, Sir J. Da'rymple, Captain Mangles, R. D. Williams, W. Dawes, Edward Marshall, W. Wilson, Matthew Dawson, T. V. martin, J. Wortley, J. S. D'Eyncourt, T. Matheson, Colonel Wyld, James Dod, meigund, Viscount . WYYIII, Mar ma d u k e Dna; James ' Milligan, Robert • TZLLEItII. Duncan, George Mitchell, T. A. Horsman, E. Dundas, Sir David Moffatt, George Hall, Sir B. Bailey, Crawshay MINORITY—NOES, lilt Gwyn, Bowel Portal,' Melville Bailey, Joseph Hamil ton, G. A. Prime, Richard Baillie, H. J. lleneage, G. 11. - Benton, John C. Bankes, G. Henley, 3. W. ' - Repton, G. W. Barrington, Vis. Herbert, Tlenry A. Richards, Richard Bell, Jacob Retries, J. C. Seyiner, H: K. , Benbew, John ; Hervey, Lord A. • Slbthorp, Colonel Bennet, Philip Hope, Sir J. Sotheron, T. IL S. Bolder°, George H.. Hope, A. Spooner, R. Bramston, T. W. Howard, E. G. Stafford, Auguittus Brooke, Lord • Hudson, G. Stanley, Edward Bruce, C. L. . Johnstone, Sir J. Stanley, Lord Cabbell, B. B. ,Tollitre, Sir W. H. Stuart, John Carew, W. H. roe JoneS, Captain Start, H. G. Child, smith Kelly, Sir P. Tennent, Sir J. Christopher, R. Kildare, Marquis Thesiger, girl'. Christy, Samuel Knight, y. W. Thompson, Alderm an Clive, H.' B. 'Knox, Colonel Trollope, Sir J. Cocks, T. S. Langton, W. H. Tyler, Sir G. Collins, T. Legh, G. C. Tyrell, Sir J. Cotton, W. S. Lennox. Lord H. G. Villiers, Viscount --.: Darner, Colonel Lewisliant, Viscount Vivian, J. E. Davies, D. A. ' ' Littleton, E. R. Waddington, H. S. Deedes, W. Lygon, General Walpole, Spencer Disraeli, B. hiackenzle W. F. Walter, Joh n Duncombe, W.,E. Manners, Lord C. Watkins, Colonel Dunne. Colonel M anners, Lord J. Wegg - Pross e r , F. Du Pre, C. G. 3lasterman, J. West, F. R. • Farrer, James .. MilesoNyilliam Whiteside, James Fellows, Edward ' Morgan, O. Wigram, Loftus Ferguson, Sir B. mailings, J. R. Wood, Sir Wodehouse, Edmund W. 1 Rimer, Sir E. Naas, Lord Wynn, Si W. 2. Flayer, John ' Newdegate, N. Freshlield, J. W. Oswald, Alexander young, Sir John Gil Colonel I'acke, C. W. TELLEBS. Gladstone, W. E. rakingt° n ' 6'l". Goulburn, Henry B Greenall, G. Palmer,ounden Yorke, E. T . h. W. Guernsey, Lord rattet_____J...._...,......,.....__ Herbert, Sidney ASCOT RACES AND THE ROYAL E A MEMBER O!CONNOR. By MR. FEARG US in the House of pocket glass, the size [ A DTERTISEMENT.] N —IL The conduct of Mr. OF PARLIAMENT ASSAULTED xu nario .• Commons last night—an ulres the very serious considers- valuable, newly-invented Parliamentary report—requires account o f f a w d h i i ss ch elu a t p io p n ear o s f i p n ar o n u a r_ , very pe rs on can be e qui S re p a eak fo e r r k o e r ep t i h n e g. and ships are clearlyaeen at small a relatives. On the eve o s O'Connor of a walnut, by which answer every purpose lion of his seen arid known li miles d' they scenery distant ; f rther sty sin relation to the Hon on the Race ra-bouses ; country -course, at the Ope . . t h e y aro invaluable valuable m hin ei n i s t e it s i h s n s u c l a d r c t e a l k y n t n o n b y e e u xp ec t e t pi a , et required Member for Nottingham than may l 2 to 14 wales', to Sportfruen, him within something like bounds when he obtrudes for shooting, deer stalking, Yaebtiag Te be had at Messrs. himself upon their deliberations. But his relatives Gentlemen, Garnekeepers, and Tourists. la s/n ada-street, rea lly to to have medical advice upon his real S. and B. Solomons, Opticians, 39, A _A new and most powerful waistcoat ought as a glance at his recent proceedings w ill dilly, opposite the. York-hotel. Telescopes ndition, e show. First, the establishment of that huge fail ure the important invention in Telescopes ,h with an extra eye piece, Land Scheme, by which some thousands of hardworking ordinary powers, that some, 31 t a i i nc ,, e 'Saturn's Ring, and the men were deprived of thousands of pounds; then a serie s o f will show dist' tl J Piter'' `"" weighing only three inn 9, u Telescope, po . ssessing sucli 'extra offensive scenes before the Master in. Chancery, when Mr. Double Stars. With the same , countenance 31 miles O'Connor's conduct in relation to the Land Scheme was ounces, can be seen a perso o n siles. They supersede r every under inquiry; next a discreditable assault in a theatre, and an object- from followed by incarceration i n th e Ho use of Correction ; ' other kind for the waistcoat pocket, 9 accordingly. Opera and Race then an exhtion of troublesome conduct in the House of I -pomekea and are of larger and all sizes, with increasing r w n l r r ae powersobject can be Commons; then a sudden eight to the United States, and 1 course glasses, wi th vr i e e miles distant. Nlessrs. S. and B. as sudden a return by the swain-ship that took him out, I clearly seen from 14 to have greatly to the dismay of the passengers; then a series of ' ,Solomons, Optician s ' invented invaluable preserving e diately they are placed before impel.- unseemly interruption s of the judges in the courts of law , Spectacle Lenses, ri , and now, finally, an assault upon a Member of the House of Commons. Surely here is a sufficient string of instances agfeeetdvdiseifoenc,g orbeeconies bright and brilliant, is brought to i j e c in t appears clear and distinct, the moat Li" Si° ' h and original state. The Invisible Or e pointing out why Mr. O'Connor's relatives should tae its youthful, natural,nd all kinds of Acoustic instruments for relief measures calculated to secure his comfort, whilst the safety i genic Vibrator, and 39, Albermarleastreet, Piccadilly, op of others and the progress of public business is secured from of extreme deal „_ e _ L York ''''' further interruption. —Daily News. posits the (ADVERTISEMENT.] The eccentricities of Mr. Feargas O'Connor have for a I time past attracted a considerable share of public attention. Du Barry delicious Food cures In digestio n, Even before his departure for America his conduct during d in all their varied forms; with an examination that took place before one of the Masters in Z s , an d liver com ac p i l ditv, headaches, sickness, depression__ a of Chancery was of so outrageous a nature as to have justified spasms, cram 1, Txtract of a letter from the Rev. J. W. Fl . - ati a o i n a , t n s, ervous debility, and nervous, his incarceration, had ho not been dealt with in a most mer- s pirits, - - i n * — a.to Rectory, Norfolk:—" Eight years' dyspepsia. ciful spirit. Since his return to England his mind would aP" veth n i o t ihn s , - and debility, with cramps, spasms. and nausea,as pear to be more deranged than before. We find him at " 8 nerr ilea servant had consulted the advice of many, h moment insulting all the:guests in the coffee-room of an hotel, ! for 1 hich my removed by Du Barry's delicious health-rem drinking out of one man's glass, and delin himself from I been effectu d a ja y a very short time. I shall be happy to ana the plate of another. Next he turns u p in Westminster-I storing food eiriee."—Sola in canisters, suitably packed for hall, where he enters each of the courts ') in turn, begins a 1 wer :MY t t es iicl anti with full instructions-11b., 2s. 9d. ; 21be , familiar conversation with the judges on the bench, and ad- : all cl d. im . a bibs , Ifs.; 121bs. 228.; super-refined, 51b1i., 22. a.; dresses them in a vein of jocularity ill-suited to the time and ' 48. b i l , 335. The 101 b. and 131 b. carriage free , on receipt of place. Every action would show that he was not in possessit'n ' lag °i t Office order. Barry Du Barry and Co., 127, New Bond. of his right mind. Upon any other supposition he &leak/I° IA B t London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; post-office since have been locked up. Again, when be takesim be- ' lied es and Butler, lob, Regent-street; and ill respectable place as Member of the House of Commons we findh. scus - grocers and chemists. having himself in such a manner as to interrupt last night, g [ADVERTISEMENT.] 110110 way's Pills have been %ions and embarrass the House. What occurred _ . entleman the means of curing another Sufferer from a Liver Complaint. however, can leave no doubt that the unfortunate g . _ n Sir Den- The wife of a respectable tradesman, residing in the neigh is a maniac. The particular,: - of his outrage the house of '.— of Thra stone, was suffering for more than two jamin Hall, and of the scene which occurred in "° ' t epert of this bourhood p livertaint . . ears from a severe comp, during which period she Commons, will be found in our Parliament.a s ry n r - a isolated act. Yea lived the best medical advice, hut without deriving the day. It must not be supposed that this ' or has been the received the best medical advice, Without deriving tbe is is an 15 day. It must not be supposed th*t, or has been the s lightest benefit therefrom. She the i •l of Holln n mte. e tria For some time past Mr. Feargus O'Care f quent the halls 5 ' g way's Pills, and by their use alone ;he has been . .restored to terror of the 'louse, and of all persons whomoment he might f t health • the nameof the ot made For the . s not done. er ec 2 Collier _, and passages of the building • i but this wa p ublic, but Dirs. , can vont:. have been placed in safelke e P' l4 ' 1 when the powers of P the authenticit of th bookseller, Thrapstone, a . so _ n Even so, what was to be done with ban of the dissolution ? for .. _ y . e . case. These Pilliasere I a h ,and reason fallible remedy for indi estio • ' g n bilious attacks, . headac e the House should ; have expired by . a dangerous madman. ts, and at he is all disorders of the stomach.—Sold by all druggia There can be no question that a nave committed some serious Loudon. Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Stratid, ' Are we to wait until he shall precautions to preserve itself?— crime before society takes Pr ec3 1 EDINBURGH CHAIR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY.P"' Times. h Mr. Macdougall and Mr. Ferrier were the candidates for the ---------- and Smit MURDER. —Shape vacant Professorship which has been decided in favour of the THE HULL GARROTT finalexamination, and were yesterday for, former by 20 votes against 13. , were brought up yeste Committed for the murder. sr op eup s i 21.3:c _oe nse trsiyp TO THE SECRETARY OFTELE BRADFORD ---- --REFORM ArMATIOX.- .., • . 754 ri (CONTINUND :OS , LIONDA.S.B AtTD WEDNESDAYB.) ¶ A Sir,-0a Monday the 7ili9R,June, the gilitia Bill -"-f -was read a third "filitg, and a Clause adelO4o.7.l.ending 1 certain,eze(uptions to: the Universities of London -_and -. Durham, ' Amendinents directed to limit the powera , ok ~.. - the Bill, were negatived by Majorities,,of 187 'to ',141,-,'' "`> and 178 .tin 82., AdjOilition had been ably taken .4p,;, P- the Government,--in-malting- the-applieatioa-ef-nreens.....__ .scriPtion permissivisAld- not • obligatory; the. effect of vihichiras tn. ditniniseoppintition by making the idAnger ,r,wore&men& Atlth.E) same time, the resistance t 6 them: Bill 40,3fieillip4ng in concentration and vigonr; ; 0,1r,-. 7 -'' hibitimg l El math,o6oll to te prepared: with an.aitswer te : constituents, rather thati the steady . adhesion of men , aonscientinslx.d(ivirons of falling in the list A ditch. On Tifesday.k-he.--Effiuse wet at noon ..0, 112409 6 4 1 . 1 with 7 - 'tho tint-siiess-0,, , f-Maynoothi --- . - lafter - A e - fe'vr - Preg, l 4 ar Y - SpOeches or no , great- length, an orator irons Cithblic Ireland, as the Americans -say ' . occufi.4.o l f il° "' " •—• :ill the hand 'cif the clock reached Vl*, - and the itel?a-to . :dlifli a -.natural death, Without. followlif ~: him • thretigtv , tie , deflitifsi otih thing he proved, whwi u '* ' is SLif.3,... l ,'"c? r i'lir- 4 P , r l ; - : , e with r.lt tho teat; and thavis - thacltie 1 - 1011su is 'now t. :lied upon to ;hi:AL° 3 aii'lli . '", s , quir3, whilwiihelx, ':isa , all the. time a legal method' of ing•tirYllifeeted•• by Act of- Parliament.. Why is slot the House of.,Pointu,?us to institute an, incieiry into the , '. . cases-whichimay he novrirt-hand at the- Old-Bailey,—.4Ar - into theinore complicated mysteries- pending in the Court of Chancery? Simply because' there is a legal uppzi• rates sheet-1Y for th9N:YerY plup2sil,,,apd .it would be sirhple foolishaesssfor the klonsa .of Commons to erect itself into a new tribunal • ~ • . . At ai come ou Mr. Etorstuan's motion for a Select 09mmittee to iuquire- into the-circumstances connected .. R ith the inigitritiespept the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of 'Prom o .. d, that a bishop is , po w e rleas for go avowed, It, se uos to 4avowegood,„and by consequence - Some strange points appear to be esta blished. lif he has any strength it is itar . ,evil. ..., A r °rig ' other alit:ll , l,r, it is declared that nothing a by a bishop. A - it is virtually main g6 to a Catholic ;al rgy As 411 instsnce, . Pained by all the mall ,can do abroad, can be be taken cognizance of the - "Goiiti'n nt, backed by lawyers in the ...T3oute me , that a clergyman may -ending in getting himself a g,t there, may ',there make the most ostentatious country every winter if he can displays of comnitinien. with the Church of RODIN- -- - - member of that Church in the .AlmaDoo or 'Directory, as a E irectory, and may come',,, .. back to take hia'tithes in . riot. To leave no di u t,. ' : l4: ' Y i ld s mse - m it a . i ta nta liem ine r d i that - ftra sucli , sibility of interference b - 'this, hilltops rec e le ve - n su g rt, l io a r t i i o d - r : w w ith o o u u ld t the ,sub p j o ect s emlesiustical nape upon the subject,- it Some persons may be Comforted. ,b interfere. Foi e hope of bet e, perhaps, be gins :tr things to cotoe.- from the fact, that ®'their en , revenues. otion was carried by' 1.56 to 111. the first chapter of the Re-reformationl'l'lerktor;th- Reo.ershmuarneh's a E n gland. I am, Sir, yours very s i ncerely ' . - 1... AN OLD REPORiIER. Blackheath, June 9,1852. ~, THE COUNTRY MARKETS. IPSWICH, JUNE & • • . We continue to have the smallest .shovF bf wheat possible; prices remain firm, and no disposition is shown by the sellers to accept less tkan late figures. The showery and now yery forcing weather is questionable as regards benefit to the grow ingorops, Flea QIIAILTI11..! FEE QOARTER. Wheat, red Ditto, white 4ss to 48s Oats oos to 00s Barley, malting ... 00s to 00s Rye oos to 00$ Ditto, grinding 00s to OJs Ma1t..,,.....::..., oos to ON Beans AVERAGES FOR TEE WEEK ENDING Julia 5, 1852. Wheat ......... 756 quarters, at 41s Od Barley 7 „ 26s Od ..... Beans... ......... 37 „ 32s Od Peas • Oats ... 00s Od - HULL, JUNE 8. ' Messrs. Taylor and Bright's Circular states :—A good deal of rain has fallen at intervals during . the past week—it was much needed for Spring corn and grass, and has come too late to prevent a light hay crop. 3fryttrans i tetions of the past week have been on a very liinited scale, but each description of Spring corn has somewhat increasoittr ? value - , — with - limited pvals and small stock in warehonse. • We hail a faii: supply of wheat from our own farmers, with very little foreign on show, either from ship or granary." Fresh farmers'-asheat was good to sell at last week's rates, and more inquiry for foreign, with out however leading to much business, A retail sale for bar ley, as also a good consumptive demand for beans and peas. In oats not much business passing. No alteration to be quoted, but cakes are decidedly cheaper. Nothing doing in rapeseed, but cakes go off readily at our quotations. Bones maintain their value—_ The following are the present prices of grain ; a. ai 3. 8 Wheat, English, red 37 to 40 Do. whits .........» 40 44 Dantaic and S- nigsberg 40 43 Pomeranian and Hamburgb. . 3B 40 Danish, Holstein, & Friesland 36 38 Russian. and' Odessa 34 38 Oats, English l7 19, Do. Danish. ,16 18 Do. Friesland lB 20 Do. Russ. & Odessa. 15 17 Barley,malting 2B 30 Do. grinding 26 27 Beans — 31 Do., foreign CORK, Peas, white and yeL 30 32 D,o. grey 26 28 Linseed, Black Sea. 44 46 Do. Petersburgh ... 42 4b Do. Riga & Areb.ngL 38 :42 Do. Konigsberg .... 36 40 Per ton. Lins. c., Hull 71 lOs Od to 0100 Do. fine for. ...7159 Ocl to 0101 - Do. int. toreign... 01 to . 61 Os Rapeseed 23110 s to 001 Rape cakes...92s 6d to Pss 01 Tares, English .. ... A7s —oos Do. foreign 32s 34 Guano 5l 71 to 9/ 10 t Bonet, do 9786d to 1004 'Rye-Meal Ot . Julcs 7- Barrels. Currency. O White wheat 00s Od to 004 Od 00s Od- 0 0 stone O Red wheat oos Od to 00s Od ) 0 Ditto oos Od to 00s Od 009 Od-2.0 do O Ditto 0d to 00s Od 0 Barley Od 00's cid } 0 Ditto OO9 Od to ON. Qos Od-00 do Ditui cos ofi_ to : dos, Od Od 0 Bete 00s Od to 00e Od Os 6,1 16 Oata 6d to 12s Od 0 Ditto.•••• ••• 0 thi Od to . i .oos 0d 00s 03-9 de 0 Ditto . Od tbl/05 Od O Pigs .... ....... 00s Od POs 1 451 00a 01 per cwt Quantity sold at ills Highest Prices:— 0 barrels white ; 0 red; 00 barley y.O bore ; 11 oats, 0 pigs. Quantity of Grain and Number , of I igs told l ast week 1.. Wheat, Barley, §5. Oats, 629. Pigs, 0. PRICES OF BUTTER. : - CANT. , .CURRINCY. First ualit 69s First quality .... ........ ..60s y q ...... 67s Second quality Second quality 54s Fourth quality ............ 55, Fourth quality Third quality quality 461 Fifth quality 37s to 30s; aver 2 Sixth quality .....»....».. 36s Sixth quality Return of Cattle sold for week ending May 29. ..... ......-.. 6 46 3 5 . F Th ifth ird quality COAL—Flour—First 12, 6d to 13s 6d ; extra 140 6d; Pigs, 319. Sheep, 444. Cows, SS. seconds, 106 6d to 12s ; households 9s to lOs 6d ; thirds, 7 8 't, 0 9, per imucir u eci tter 8d • per cwt. Oatmeal 11s to lls 6d; Indian meal Ss 3d to Ss 9d; wheat meal,Hay—Farmetispe2rsisaiud 9s 6d to 1086 d per cwt. Indian corn Si 5s to 8 / 1 0s pc. tom, 00s; dealers 2Ss to 40s Od; average 00s per ton. Str mi. F m a ,,- .11 158 Od to 23s 04; average 20s; dealers 27E Od to Olf a r-- I av e r age 00s Od per ton. Bread -- Wheaten loaf ca Od ; Bran 87s 6d to 9Ds per ton. household loaf bd to Od per 41b. Fresh b to 01; Newport 14. Od ; Lydney 15s • ) oals--... 43 , Landor . lOd per lb. , Eggs.-3s 4d. to 3s 6d 12. 6d per ton. Tallow 35 a NI e "°*-; Meninx, Whisky, 25 o. p., 5s 9d p„ im7 vial 391 - p4tr owl, 7d ; pork 4d to Od ; bacon Ca to id . 6 id ; veal 4d to —Beef 4id to 7d ; mutton 5d gallon. Meat 8180 to 9108 per cwt. Bangor slates laugag" 54 Per lb. Hops Bark,red 71to 81105 per ton. Fleece :1/ 178 6d to al 0, per ton. Hemp 29/ to 34/ per ton. Fish— s, wool 14s to 15s per steno. ditto, 24s to 00s per barrel ; 'otch herrings Iss to 198; re d ton. Timber—Memel, 70s Newfoundland, 10/ Os to 11i 1 ,41 ditto, 2/ 15s per ton; dealsper ton ; red pine, 31 51; yellow Market 16. to 2 , 151 to 181 4:i; salted 18i tr. 100. Hides per 3d to Od per lb, p 0 - 24 8 per owt ; calf skins 10d to 12d. Guan Per°ta't-eB9 white 8d to 9d; Pin k li i to 91'.8 p er ton. T ar. "lan, 101 10s to Ill; lehli b°° ' .krchangel, 191 per barraL .....____ , c+3 • •.