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

SUN LONDON, WE D S TITA.IIr ra; elan before n ow b u ild up i n th a t House fabrics .of accuse "°2l against p art i cu l ar prelates of the . Established Church, Which, when examined, had turned out to be splendid exag gerations. (" Hear, hear," trem Mr. Hoesman.) He might r efer to th e Horfield manor cage.-(Question.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had been upwards of two hours in re4 king his elahorate accusation, and surely the House would extend its indulgence to him while be attempted to answer ite--(llear hear.) In the case alluded to the lion. and Learned Member had utterly failed in every material point in the charges which he made against the Bishop of Glou eester.— (Hear, bear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had fora long time taken on himself the functions of an sic- Fuser of the clergy. In 1828, when the Hun. and Learned Gentleman was an elder of the Presbyterian Church, he blade charges against the eminent and excellent Dr. Chal n!ers, which obliged Dr. Chalmers to resort to the press.— Hear " from rM . ITOrsmall. ) lie admired the cheer of the C U. and Lea rne d G en tl eman . No doubt the Hon. and earned Gentleman thought Dr. Chalmers as much in the Wrong on that occasion a s he thought the Bishop of B ath and 'ells in this. Bat the feet was that Dr. Chalmers was oblig e d to . publish an answer for the purpose of demonstrat itit the unsoundness of what he called the aerial accusations _of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The Hon. and Learnd ilentleman had taken on himself the character o f a public lan guage of th e clergy, and was bound to be. ac curate in the ' an guage he used, and to take care that the views he pre none of a case came up to the standard of facts. If the . and Learned Gentleman would e mbark in discussions was great legal ,he bound to avoid launchiag unfounded charges, knowledge and to take care that the principles on which ha proceeded were sound. The Hon. t i re Learned Gentleman had put the House in a dile mma Zuich he could not accept. The Hon. and Learned Gentle r:eu Said at either the House was a fit place for a andebate bu s h ed tbe preent or else there ought not to be Este eutjahed Church. He trembled to dispute the dilemma, but Xfeared it was just possible for them to have an Established „ e s ' ua rull, and yet that that House might not be the fitting ena for the discussion like the present.—( Hear.) Speaking for himself, he did not scruple to say that that House was there might have been—nay, what was more important— that there had' been some cased of foul play; that the Church England was rent from head to foot with her divisions out he asked them, apart from all interests of hi s own, or of the e they though re t thatreligious divisions * Werlikely to be mitigated, and that the sores and wounds of the Church were likely to be healed,. by rhetorical decla- Illation, by exaggeration, and by misapprehension and mis- Statements of fact?—(llear.) It might be that he himself alight err in this respect ; but if he did so, it would be un intentional, for he had. the deepest sense of the mischief Which arose from such a source.—(Hear, hear.) If the Hon. ; 11 14 Learned Gentleman knew anything of the nature of re !aeons partisanship he must know that heat and violence on otie side engendered heat and violence on the other.—( Hear, Were He believed that if the influence of Mr. Bennett "ere in question there would be no better mode of increas g and propagating that influence than by singling him taller attack, if that attack were coloured by religious feel tr• That fact must be kept in mind throughout the whole e e , e u , s sion, if they wished to neutralise the evils of such dis th—A°n&—(Hear, hear.) The first point which called for e ir attention was whether the country was to be governed, her in ecclesiastical or in civil matters , by the private tt il lons of particular men, according to their popularity for If 'c ra ontent, or by a system of fixed laws ?—(year, hear.) was to be governed by private opinion, and if that Hope Cre to become the means of making such private opinion : die t in matters of religion, representative insti t ut i ons h ' what they wereaid become a in fact,uisance, and ecclesi as and t plagical questions would 4:, the baneplague of the House th ee ef the country.(flear, hear.) But he maintained that ei g g, were not there to decide what was in the abstract th e i " They had to decide one or two questions. First , had t o is awe been obeyed? If the laws were good they ought (ne o beyed; and if not good they ought to be altered.— l ega r , hear.) They had no right to establish any extra migh t a Ystern of influence or jurisdiction by which they m ove ,°Perate on the regular operation of the Jaw. must 4 44 41 ita own fixed coarse, irrespective of the opinions of Vas 4 ° 3 . That was the first principle he laid down. It pee sen rFrial to keep in view the person before them in the ,In,stance. The speech of the Honourable and ti o i;:""? Gentleman had a good deal cleared up' that ques leas b , fee he understood the case, the person whose conduct ba s h ° t L iere them was the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As a /lon e ll us Was a great officer of state, and he agreed with the held t t'Ale and Learned Gentleman indeed he had long law . s h e opinion —that it was a great absurdity that our hi sho ould, not afford the means of correccing a delinquent vie w P e — e(llear, hear.) He frankly owned that he should tar th' s u t n the greatest favour any judicious proposition With P u rpose of providing such means.—(Hear, hear) lete eh r espect to th e Bi s h op of Bath and Wells, the point that h e u ° wished t o p u t to the House was simply biro e wEes not a delinquent bishop, and jhat not even bi ro. Jgcle case of delinquency bad been made out against in thi s :hat bei ng so, let them put aside the other charges °f the Patron.. The .had nothing to do with the proceedings Pr ess , ro,rOn. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had ex the disclaimed casting any imputation on the conduct of arril tr" ' e The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had omitted treat element to which every patron ought to pay who attention, and that was the feeling of the people over kid any particular pastor was placed. Though the Hon. e°tilt, earned Member had dealt with the facts as best he Iflaat e . v ! mad admitted that in this particular case—through ,irfeetir Peculiarity or delusion—the people of Frome were emu Y satisfied with what the patron had done.—(Mr. di d leot l4ll—J. No e no.") The Hon. and Learned Gentleman , the; admit that the people of Frome were satisfied. ''l7l tl e a te r ' he ar, from Mr. Horsmen.) The Hon. and Learned tarsi e " . `, an throughout the whole of his first speech, and even isiu4 had represented the objectors as the clergy and pa tihissatllere , f; of Frotne. Now, it was not a fact that they wore b t ee.ap i p — o e i n d ; Rightly or rongly,. they were satisfied with andLtnent and were grateful for it. He held in his _ a letter vs buld of the churchwardens, which, if the House kne e Permit, he would read.—(Cries of " Name.") The e _the d„, W aa Miller—(lronical cries of " Hear, hear") —and Was a d 17th of April, before the Hon. and Learned -ea a de might forward his first motion on the subject.. It 49 fop_uwressed to the patron, the Marquis of Bath, and was a " FROMM VICARAGE. u . i . “ Frome, April •17. ef y o Zy t terd, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt e eed to ordship's letter of yesterday's date, and will p l and he answer the inquiries therein contained, fully, .fair y, Utie 2t e - e t partially; The appointment of Mr. Bennett is not eolaiv"°nalele to the body of the parishioners. • This I inhapassert ; this I prepared boldly to maintain. The fullh e nott o f ss 0 „, ero tne are under many and great obligations sIY es oo - i ti e i ° s :Thynne, and there is none they more cheer atefully appreciate than the olal'ing towedbe more . g n r the regard manifested by that te,, a tt efanl i ; l 3' for t o lV lem spi l ritual good in nominating Mr. r„, car of Fro e m ir e - I assert, and without the slightest reeS:" . contradialon that . since Mr. Bennett commenced his oiltL ist ey . ts _ lass he morning congregation have increased at least ter t-- ` l, and-that as to the evening services, there never " e s nY persons assembled within the walls of St. Is k te „,, - 'a ~b urch. The lowest calculation last Sunday event triols 2 ,000. At the commencement many have bean e lf Of tl; r e " by curiosity and the love of novelty, but at the en Is ee Months increased not only no diminution, but the t°"regation is and increasing." th s W e as not right, therefore, to vy that the sentiment!' o t_ f is tee - People of Frome had been over-ridden in the appoin q . " -t of Mr. Bennett.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned tilentleman denied that the churchwarden had represented 10,, that of the people, but it waS right he should in ko.l the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that in a postcript .he letter it was stated that the parishioners, in vestry - ' 4 enibl el had re-elected t under'wrier of the letter church ,arden. It appeared that the guidance, of certain 141ergymen, 54 persons had protested against the appoint „lllent of Mr. Bennett. Of these 54, only 1G belonged to the Parish church to which Mr. Bennett had been appointed; ~'l ld of these 16 one-half had returned to the church within g, 1"7 weeks after Mr. Bennett was inducted .' Ono dream je"ree of a somewhat solemn nature was connected with , 13 art f the uestion. One person of the 54 who had reotePst fa s o tak q ilf, and his first act was to send for hey Bennett, e la a - nd e h n e died receiving his nsiais!ration:— (Hear, leer ' The patron, , therefore, was vindicated so far as the l ag of said th the parishioners was concerned. It might be th . Lit their approval was only a proof of the depth of eir se - "ad He was not authorised to give any of dues. ue " , ..u t of . M r . Bennett 's sentiments. Indeed he had tia nb , alight acquaintance with him. There were lles - ef. 'Lora. Members who knew him intimately, and might, t h - laPe, be able to speak' on that point. Instead of taking L„ s acifluenced and aggerated view which the Hon. and b eds Gentleman had done of everything that Mr. Bennett the s aid, and assaming that at this moment Mr. Bennett was hi' S ame man that he was, he must say that the address to th ill from the parishioners of Frome was a demonstration t eat lea hi_ in to the encouraging hope that Mr. Bennett had t 4 2?locted himself wisely and discreetly in his parish, and 1 ,17_,. whether like other men, he might rack in the troubles tee%) surrounded them—he was steady in his allegiance to tl 'y Church of England, and faithful in the discharge of his pi : - LtY as a minister of that Church.—(Hear, hear.) That s as a rational inference to draw when they found the whole Ki r i 1, ah approving of Mr. Bnnett's doctrines and disCipline. ' eeetned to him that the accusations against Ztlr. Bennett di eta e... ed themselves into two classes, the first relating to his pro iaedinas at Kissengen—the second to his published works. ." 4 „ Is proceedings iLondon were not, and could not be, the Vlesect of inquiry,. The Hon. and Learned Member seemed 0 think that the proceedings at Kissengen ought to have t r evented the Bishop of Bath and Wells instituting Mr. ,c , nnett With respect to the proceedings at Kissengen he ' a not . aware of the state of the case, except in one very had important particular. The lion. and . Learned Gentlemau _,as, gamed that. i , f . Mr. Bennett did not appear at the k it T, , ,eh church at le . is,.sengen, it proved that he was un -44(1,mA to the English Church. But he thought the Hon. Latinoearned Gentleman must have forgotten that Mr. ttravelling ( 4 ,• was as chaplain to a' private family.— tis al%) As to the story which the Hon. and Learned Gen ..rod_ 1.1 e,, 'ut had told them of the stone for an alter which Mr. ea s 'nett m e said to have carried about with him, he must Even if the Hon. and Lea rned he nothing.—( Hear.) EVIL n this poi, 0 earn?4l Ge ntleman should be able to support his statement feedin gs o f ° t ' wished the Hoase . did not at all affect the -Bennett at Kissingen to recollect that the conductpro the of the IT hop of Bath and Wells.— ~ )) had no i'S • steps against r. M Bennett (Hear.) The - 4 acco unt Power to takeetny Youd the of such proceedings, because 'they were done be of dissent) of of our ecclesiastical law.— , ogrusant of eo Even if the Bisho of Bath and Wells . (had been Exressions 440teionld have l' such proceedings, be 'did not believe that taken any steps with regard to them. A case, Ile v . ° l l 3 g ago, might be cited in support of his opinion. Th beli e _ aptiat Noel had preached in a Presbyterian church, he (1 04 Ytd at Inverness. The 'attention of the Bishop of Lon ofeee„was called to the fact; but i t was found not to b e an Well' s ' egniiable by law. Against the Bishop of Bath end the ellares lion. and Learned Gentleman had made three poi.„esEt--that the Bishop proceeded in undue haste and in th a rs h e to Prevent the parishioners having a fair hearing that h -° Proceeded without the proper certificate ; and 1140 th e r eee dtd without due examination. It appeared to fou nd II- each and every one of those charges was without tile position But first of all let them realise to themselves ge o ll: then bl i the Bishop. The Honourable and Learned etthh,;:ha t O, in the first statement which he made on this llisi to ? 4 _ ad proceeded eptirely on the assumption that the f i ,r,:' *hen they received presentees, were invted by. tept ( 7,7_ ef England with large discretionary powers . to ac 404801.17ortele,cti'athem, ' That was not the case. With respect matters of ordination, the bishops power thadr.., ? a. bl r cl e a l i n u e t 71; and if it could •be shown that a bishop a man who was not qualified for the minhia aift , I le would be regarded as having departed from is "4 0 4 .b l i l 3 u h t o w ii, h a at was the nature of the law on the subject powers with respect to presentees? The of bl e u ._ _and Learned Gentleman had perhaps imported some eess?tions on this subject from Scotland, where he con 7. h at ri a better system prevailed. The law of ,Scotland fair 0 4 , 1%9 4 8 been studious to give to the people a the ,_Phortunity of stating objections to presentees, and, on oh iao `:, ole, the practice had been to give a fair scope - to such_ ael 'lOn. But that was not the spirit of the law of to sort The inspiring idea of the law of England had been t o ,Z r _roud with every security the patron's right to present T h '.''T fulvowson and the inchoate right of the presentee. 'w omit or the law hi well.goyetne-d countries like our THE guarded ie own became the spiriteoftuhsetycoout the Legislature rtsoflawan wasd,as n t the case of mortniain, the jab by the rigid interpretion 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 inchciate right of a presentee. The power of the biShop was narrow by law, and narrower according to practice, and every act of a patron was scrutinised with the utmost jealousy' in order to give effect to what the law favoured, and to restrain what the law regarded with distrust. Was the Bishop to refuse admission to a presentee because he had written 'a work eihich 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 bad 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 air. 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.—(flear, hear.) Except on these grounds the Bishop w ou ld h ave no' !dens Standi in a court of law. From the Statement of she Honourable and Learned Gentleman one would have supposed that his doctrine of a strict examination of a presentee was very popular in this country, and that the feeling of Parliament was in favour of it. So far back as 1624, the House appointed a Committee to inquire into the conduct of one of the 'bishop's, who was afterwards Archbishop of York, and the Committee reported that the Bishop had failed to admit presentees, and that his not havine inducted them had been to the great injury of the patron. The House had, no doubt, in their recollection the recent case of the Bishop of Exeter and the presentation to Brampford Speko. The ruinous and crushing costs of th a ese ecclesiastical suits were enough to deter persons fro m en gg t in h g at in fact them.hyhwandielheatrhnet hard He e experience. believed th e In ßi another shep et x a s e e t , e i r n Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had prosecut ed a clergy man for immorality, the cost to the Bishop was not less t ha n 4,200/. • Justice, he hoped, ought to be done' even to a Bishop, and these things ought not to be forgotten when 'their incomes were alluded to. He 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' guars impala, and if he failed to establish heresy, immoral conduct, or insufficient, learning against Mr. Bennett, ho would have been condemned to pay costs. The othermode of proeeeding was the duplex querda. Ac cording to that mode, if the Bishop refused to act, the ques tion passed to the Court of the Archbishop, and then to the Committee of Privy ' Council. He hoped, therefore the House would recollect that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in every step that he took, was bound to keep himself within his legal powers, andithat the moment he stepped on doubt ful ground he made himself liable to being proceeded against in a court of law. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had stated that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had proceeded with undue haste, for the purpose of overcoming the objec e tions of the parishioners. The facts, he thought, led to an opposite conclusion.—(llbar, hear.) He should be sorry unnecessary to detain the House, but in such a case he begged they would 'assume their judicial character, and bear the answer he had to make to the. statement of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, What s t e p 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 is the first instance?— (Hear, hear.) Every lawyer in Frain° must 'have known that this was the mode of proceeding. Mr. Bennett's pre sentation was known in Frome on the 30th of December, but he was not instituted till the 24th of January ; an in terval of 26 days elapsed. That a caveat could have been entered in a single day was evident from 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 ho had received from the petitioners in any proceedings which might have been taken against him. 'The Hon. and Learned Gentle man thought that the address did not supply matter for judi cial consideration. The Bishop was not of that opinion, and 'as the parishioners had not taken the proper method of entering a caveat, he contended the Bi s h op wou ld no t have been j ustified in refusing to institute.—(Hear, heat.) 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. --(Hear.) The obligation not to postp one, j ust i ce 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 bad 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 bad made was virtually to the eflect that because they had found that Mr. Bennett had professed opinions not acceptable to them, the Bishop of Bath and Wells should undertake net 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 230 of January that those parties hall sought advice on the subject of their caveat—that was to say 25 days after they ought to have sought it, and -whoa 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 eioted—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 la w w h en he stated that at the present time, and fora long series of years, th e 39th canon was that which exclusively regulated the institution of ministers to benefices. The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Bishop of Bath and Weils 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. Ile met the state ment of the Hon. 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 that he could not name the three incumbents. But he knew that the testimonial, soTar'as the three incunbents were con cerned, was the usual testimonial. the Hon. Gentleman had said that the' testimonial was to the effect that Mr. Bennett had never done anything contrary to the doctrine or disci- . pline of the-Church of England. But the words of the testi monial were in reality to the effect that Mr. Bennett had never held, or taught, anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England. It would be very diffi cult indeed to say 'of any man that he had not done any thing contrary to any particular doctrines; but a man's teaching was more public, and could more properly be made the subject of a testimonial' such as that to which he was referring. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had received pre cisely the usual testimonial, as far as the incumbents were concerned: •, but it was not the usual testimonial, so far as. the dismissing Bishop—the Bishop of London —was concerned. The Bishop of London had annexed a note in which he called the attention of the 'Bishop of Bath and Wells to the fact that Mr. Bennett had' been dismissed from the. diocese of London, or that the Bishop of that diocese had made use of the voluntary Offer of resignation of Mr. Bennett, because, as he,said, the continuance of that clergy man in the diocese would seriously prejudice its free and good order. He had called the attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the correspondence which had been pub lished 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 far as the incumbents were concerned; but it was not the usual testimonial, inasmuch as it had an extraneous comment appended to it by the Bishop of London. The question then arose, • what was the exact legal nature and effect of that explanatory note of the Bishop of London, and what were the dutiefo which it imposed on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? He (Mr. Glad stone) understood that n o t es o f th at ki n d were not unfree auently appended by bishops to testimonials; but it was quite plain that with fa s signature were affixed to any document in conformity law and usage, its legal effect could not be si altered by any . • gratuitous comment made by the party g signing it The meanin g • of the signature of the Bishop of London continued the m be the explanation affixedsa e in point of law, whatever might that explanation? to it. Wh a t was t h e v al ue o f lie (Mr. Gladstone)said it was this—that it imposed that the value of the duty of ascertaining for on l the Bishop of Bath and Wells of Mr. Bennett, and of satisfying what was the doctrine He contended that it could lliaeLinfi himself upon that point. than that of imposing on the Bishop op value and effect the duty of examining Mr. Bennett. op rh o e f Bath and Wells Lo admitted that the certificate of Hun. Gentleman London was not necessar that the canonsthe Bishop of' ire it, and that practice did not requ did not require it • and h e (►lr. Gladitone) believed th at , 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 Hon. G en tleman, which was that the Bishop of B a th an d Wells had admitted Mr. Bennett wi*thout due examinati on, and ho (Mr. Gladstone) was bound to' say he thought that in the Gentleman the Bishop of d Wells Bath an s ense of the Hon. bad so admitted Mr. Bennett.. He should , however, add, that although the const r uction which the Hon. Gentlem an ' 1 examination" might suit the had given to the phrase ' duo felt confident that there was House of Commons , he no gentleman there who had ever inquired . into a legal question t hat construction. He saw that would not at once repudiate lawyers there who felt with 'the Hon. Gentleman in the case, discussing he and upon the point which he was then d ap pealed to th e m w ith the same confidence with which he ap pealed to 1100. Gentlemen who adopt ed his views in the matter. The H on .' G ent l eman had laid down the doctrine that a judge—f or a bi s h op h in such a case as t hat was a judge in the stricte s t sense of the term—the don. Gentleman had laid doivn the doctrine that that judge was not to institute an examination of such a nature and to such an extent as to satisfy his own conscience, he being the person on w hose conscience the law had laid the burden of the decision, hut such an examination as would satisfy other per sons on whom the law had not laid the burden of the decision—such an examination as would •satisfv what the u ic, ,, and - Hon. Gentleman called " the p such an exami nation as would no doubt satiety himself the Hon. Member I for Cockermbuth.—(Fiea:r, hear, and laughter.) He-wished I he could get the Hon. Gentleinan to look in cold blood at the con.sequences—he did not like to use strong epithets—. but he should say the really, frightful and hideous cense-. I quences of such a doctrine of judicial duty, and such a coa -1 option of thejadiciaLcharacter, as that a judo® in a en 00 0 11- and important Matter was not to look for such evidence an would satisfy his own conscience, but far such evidence as would satiety the public.--(Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") If I he had misunderstodd the Hon. Gentleman, and if the Hon. Gentleman would admit that the duty of a judge was 'to in stitute, on'hii solemn responsibility, such an examination as would satisfy his own judgement, 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 had examined Mr. BennettOiot in the Greek Testament, not on matters of form or of ecclesiastical . history-he bad examined Mr. Bennett-not the Mr. Bennett of former times, but the Mr. Bennett Of 'January last-the Bishop who had himself been it great sparer from illnees-from crushing and torturing illness-ha who . had been in full possession of all his intellectual ' pewers and faculties-for the, Right 1-finr. Geritleman'the Secretary of State was Min taken in supposing that he had arrired.at an extreme old age-ho had carefully examined Mr. Bennet on all those points on which he had thought that en examineion had• been called for.-•ninnely, those points in' dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Reme; and it was not until he had made up his mind that on those, points Mr. Bennett had held by the Church of England th a t hdhad 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 Rome in regard, for in. stance, to the points touched in the Thirty-eine Articles, his course would have been clear, and it would then, no doubt, have been his dirty to have refused institution. Bat baring found that there had been no georind 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 Hon. Gentleman, but on . the belief and conviction§ of himself, the Bishop, who was the judicial officer appointed by the law to decide the case, had subjected Mr. Bennett to a dtte examination ; and it was to his honour that he bad 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 arty movement vehatever among any discontented clergymen or laymen.• 'The Bishop had himself instituted the inquiry because he had seen that the circumstances of alreßenciett'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 he believed that an ex amination was necessary. Now he (Mr. Gladatotte), should ' confess that the Hoh. Gentleman fairly bedt him when he led them in that House into the domain of pure and unmixed theology . The Hon. Gentleman bad quoted from a work of Mr. Bennett some propositions in theology; and the Hon. Gentleman had told them thatit would not be' appropriate in that House ' to dismiss !those peopositicies. • "No ;but al though the Hon.,Gentleman had not - thought appropriate to discuss, he had thought it appeopriate to judge and de cide.-(Hear, hear.) The HOP. Gentleman' had quoted a saying of Mr. I3ennett's , with'regard to the Mily Scriptures. Bat Mr. Bennett himself lead' on st 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 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, - 11e' 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 prefane by reading the passage in the House of Commons. The Ho • nourable 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.) ' Ile ' - (Mr. Glad stone) believed ho could show the Hon: Genteman that he was totally unaware of one of the great religious • contro versies of this century. The passage in the work of Mr. Bennett had 'reference to this question-whether in the work of eropagating Christianity,' of spreading Cheistianity among those who had not previously profeased its doctrines =the Bible alone should' be used; and Mr. Bennett had said that it would be a' fiction and delusion to' euppose that Christianity would be propagated by merely' distributing the Bible among an un-Christian people. .Bnt Mr. Bennett did not protest against the use of the Bible by Christians for the education of their 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 bad 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 o f the clergy and Bishops of the Ch urc h o f - 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. R 3 had himself given no opinion upon the subject. Mr. GLADSTONE continued-The Hon. Gentleman had quoted the passage from the memorial;; but ho had also ad verted to it in another part of his speech. • The opinion of Mr. Bennett was one which had been entertained by the great mass of the bishops and clergymen of the 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 paten 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 O w n e l r y e io„nalybbiaomun,,dalo c o o r n p fo u r u m un to ab t i h o e !rco a n n se d ci t u h e a n t c t e h o ey f a co d ul e lc . parture from it. It seemed that Mr. Bennett had put a particular f ro na constructionwason tl . e p e nt oathnp upon n f supremacy H w o h n i o c a h r dif feredahloGentleman. But 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 one construction of the oath; and other Honourable Members had given a different construction of it o and it was well known that at the present moment there were two Peers who were precluded from taking, their seats in the House of Lords, because they found it impossible to affix to the oath o t f ha s y ldnpnroenniricysnhasneryihe. clear ßnt aant an ddi e s v ti e n n e t t s meaning' to believed which that the meaning' attached to the oath of supremacy by Mr. Bennett did not amount to an offence punishable in i t t h e a courts; • gron ground d th fore - B s i sthayo `staying Bath a i a n d s ti N t ir n e t l ir to l s u e o o u f l d ui% n lia o rr t . in ße tt ei k na_ e_ nett, although, he might thereby ave miloonaroi;raabnldo save Member him th had merely to carry out the law of which he was sworn to guardian, even though it might be necessary for him do s s t o a in ne e a s n . unpopularAs himself fCroOniCkertralleolltr'tilThye of the he regardednG iad m s a t n nh n es : s, thought bn oa and nu gd hutndheer charge,ub d p t hospahuowl shown nn tt c h ic t n o tv t nhi evi dence, ice, evidence was the same as in other cases dealt with by bishops of the Established Church.-( Hear, hear.) 13ut when he , came to the third charge, he had shown tha t the -Bishop or Bath and Wells, without waiting f or inquiry or sugg estion from the Bishop of London, made up his Mi nd that Mr. Bennett could not be convicted of false doctrine, and that, therefore, it was not his duty to deny o r delay the justice that rested with hi m to was hear.) The Bishop of . Bath and Well s 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 en ecclesiastical court, and if-his doctrines were there declared to be contrary to those - held by the Church of England, there would then be a case against the Bishop of Bath and Wells,. who examined the' works of Mr. Bennett, and de clared them conformable to the .doctrines of the Church of England.-(Hear, hear.) But now came the question,-- ' What were they to do ?r-(Rear, hear.) It was not hi s ( Mr. 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 for that motion as it now stood, he would be assenting to the allegation that a prima facie case had bean made against the Bishop of Bath and Wells; but in his opinion no such case was 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.-(Hear, hear.) His (Mr. Glad stone's) first objection was to their professing to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. 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 Cockermonth now accused them with.- (Hear, hear.) If they wished to go into the ques tion --of ecclesiastical appointments-if an inquiry were moved, for to investigate the state of the law, and to do so in a fair and impartial spirit, the Honourable Member moving such inquiry would confer one of the greatest services 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, 'hear.) But whether the subject should be undertaken by a Commissioner or by a paid Committee, was another ques tion. If they wanted an immediate inquiry, they could not have it now by a Committee. Whether there should be a Commissiou, or whether there should be a general aeknow- • 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, ho would not say. At the same time, he should say that, if her Majesty's Government were disposed to un • dertake the responsibility of an inquiry into the state of the law on this subject, they would give not only a most 'useful tu r p ri r t e o pa t r h e e d d t is o cu g :s . i:n a raised by the Hon. Member for Cocker ntme.o.acurettihs,urbieitaahlsiog c h o i n u f d e i r cia a , vast amount of benefit.-(Hear, i ) h n i s hisrro duty,nelitinleder, of these courses he (Mr. Gladstone) would b , o e a n s _ car ( e i , : e n ar li h e e c a as o e_n b o ae w erna b uo ro sse rn t u o gt s h t t. favourable consideration. But and only hlisodffinets7, and in that the with accuracy before them, ho shou u ld wrah ei h r a s ddd s objectionable course of proceeding would be casting censure on a prelate -not by implication, but openly-who had never acted in a manner unbecoming his exalted position, and who, instead of blame and censure, (ctleer merited at their hands - arked tht ) t. the Right o fHooxnofourrd thesihti j g . he p s A t co N im u e l n o da N tio r n em . able Gentleman the Member for the isy usual ability, and had h lead when n n P h u a i d broughttoet the had stated hishe deep' e Gentlemanep sentiments attentiono n t i ht which occasionsh I gone very far to justify the coarse the Bishop had taken t t ilh : is e n : e d ua b sr j ea e b e i t eT before the House proved how strongly the peo lo of this country and the Members of' that House had been P excited by those dissensions which unhappily existed in the Church of lingland.-(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford had observed with painful truth, that the Church e weissirr John nanrdatkoingt torn .by believed y r tlioseun thathappy thisdis- Swear:_i°thynaSi'n-land h owing to that portionmholofsatethxgeprativcialeieor anu gy of the Ch u rch who had take n that line which Mr . Be nnett pur sued-e( Load che ers from _atlloledt to e p h arts of the House) - a a fro w ni lio one u 5 l d in ioce e • which dinyibhiicsji case id hieadd doubts whether clergyme n t a ki ng that line could _ really sincere ministers of the Church.—(Cheers.) He be be lieved that in many most essential • respects, there never was a more exemplary. parochial . Mi n i s ter than Mr. ' Benneft, but the some thing might unquestionably be said of a large portion crl the 'Leman Catholic clergy.-(lleac, "hear.). Butthere cduld n ot b e - a more dangerous error than to confuse personal piety an d the exemplary discharge of parochial dutieS with tho se v i tal doctrines which formed the broad liner of demarcation- between the two Churches. —(Hear, hear:) No one - could deny the unhappy dif ferences and dissensions that had arisen in our Church, and much of them was Undoubtedly attributable to those gentlenien, who, like llir e .n -emlett, 'exhibited that love of forms and histrionic display which so ranch characterised the Church of Rome.—(Hem.. heat.) By means of those gentlemen the lines of distinction between the two Churches were every day made fitter --and" finer,quence been led and a • number Of unw a ry , Protestants ••' b a d . i n': 'consequence swap to the Chnroh of ..Romea—(liear bear.) He could not blame the lionoprabfe Ge n tl eman for bringing those re markable facts before the Hous e , b u t he seriously doubted. how far the House! of COmmons wail a fit arena for such discuseion.—(Hear, hear.) Th e Honourable Member had quoted a statement of hi s (Sir J. Pakington's) opinion the last time this subject was before the House. He had then expressed that opinion, and he had now no intention to 'recede from it.-(Hear, hear.) - The Government on that oc- Sion undertook to mike inquiry, and they exhausted every means in their p_ovrei• to asc erta i n how far that inquiry co u 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. Thep having been submitted to the law officers of the Crown,..they greete it as their opinion that there was no illegality in the; institution of Mr. Bennett, and that as to the transactions ellege& to .have occurred at Kis singen—a foreign country —no legal inquiry by the Bishop could be instituted' respecting- it. ' The Government not resting content with those answers, they submitted a se cond time more comprehensive.questions to the law officers, and were again informed that. there was no legal mode by which ' the circumstances . connected with Mr. Bennett's induction could . -be ' made the subject of direct and immediate inquiry; but if there Was any legal mode then it would be. Opens to the parishioners to proceed under - the •Chuich Dis ciplihe Act. With regard to the transactions at Kissengen, they were questions of fact, and it was undoubtedly a very_ extraordinary fact, and one Calculated to create great anxiety and suspicion, that Mr. Bennett's name wee; to be found .in ‘aßattersby's Directory." This undoubtedly was a 'question Per the Bishop:to inquire into. He (Sir J. PakirigfOU)eharl listened with astonish.. meat to what had fallen from the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), when alluding teethe transactions at Ibis-_ sengen. There an Englisli clergyman passed many months without going near the English el er Onsian his church, or congregation.—(dear, I heetehear..)- It was a subject calculated to excite the gravestanxiety,_and to inspire the deepest re gret, to find that a clergymao so Conducting himself should' be now at the head of an important parish.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir I. Pakington) could.not conceal his astonishment when he heard the. Right Honourable Gentleman vindicating such conduct. —( 1 . No," from__ Mr. Gladstone.) Why, he said the clergyman was acting as a chapl a i n, and that his family was his congregation., ut what was the family ? Why, Sir John Harrington's—the churchwarden of Mr. Bennett's fate church, St. Paul's, where Sir John had conducted him- Self with more zeal, than Cliscretion.—(llear, hear.) He' (Sir John Pakington) could not admit the propriety of any, chaplain so situated being exempt in foro conscientue from attending irplate Of public wcrsbfp.—( Hear, hear.) These were matters of such public notoriety that they must. have come to the knowledge of The Bishop of the di ocese, an d they were matters into which The_ Bishop W as hound ' to in quire.—(Hear.) He did not believe,' however, that any large 1 number of gentleman in that Wine 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 tine ' worthy of the House of Commons, and a'dangermis precedent, and therefore he must oppose the motion. Mr. GLADSTONE said the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken, if he thought, he (Mr. Gladstone) vindicated -Mr. Bennett's conduct at, Kissengeo. Tile wished to 'state also, that the Bishop Of Bath and . Wells had not become ac quainted with that conduct 'until * after Dlr. B ennett ' s in duction.—(oh, oh.) • ' this 'was w ' Sir PAGE WOOD believed this as a grave constitu tional question. -He felt, meat deeply the vast importance of the general subject, and the mede in which the people of England had been excited Oh the subject. O wing to this excitement there was the more_dread of their being led away by their feelings to seine' unconstitutional course.- (Hear, hear.) Could any one doubt .. that the conduct of . numbers of those, who, .being sworn . neembers 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 party-acted-with such baseness as to go over to the Church of Rome the very day aft er h e had preached in the Establish e d Church, and he took with him -the two children of his. organist. -.(Bear, 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 *really_ to denounce. He had dealt with the doctrines of the Church in what was called their " unnatural" sense. :The matter, however, warnot 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 motives, and in that feeling ho - admired Mr. Baptist Noel 'ter having left the Church; but he could not admire those who, approving . of , the doetriues of the Church of Rome, did not go over to that Church. 'Every member of the Church of England was bound to take the - Book of Common Prayer in its natural f orm, and according to its ,strict meaning as aid down by the Churche • But while he felt that, he was of opinion that they.would not advance the cause which he had at heart, namely, adegislatiYe i refoim of the ecclesiastical law, by taking up individuela and holding ;them up to detesta tion, and, still more, by making - the Matter a party question, with a view to a remedy. ' With - regard 'to Parliament, how did the motion before the House stand? 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. ' But. .in' both 'cases the inquiry asked would be contraryto the Bill of Rights, and the principle was this—that they , ought not iceinquire into the conduct of an individual behind his. back, or bring charges against him. unless it was* pet:.he T i ere hit; trial. Thee- eeasht. bring a man before a grand- Jur-7, 'but it would be for the purpose of bringing t . t bill of-Indictment against him; ono Y might have an inquiry Dy the Reuse of Commons, also subject to certain conditions; and ..he did not dispute the right of the House of Cenembni, which was called the Na tionaLltiquest, to inquire' i nt o buses' .but '' ; hut if they instituted inquiry into this e e i - 'Should proceed fairly. He was glad to find thatiher Majesty% Government felt that they could not *Orient to the course eitoposed, and also that they had undertaken to retorameted inquiry into it; for otherwise he felt that there was no possible mOde, even ac-. cording to the statement of •tlie-liori; Member for Cocker mouth, of dealing with the question, his Honourable Friend not having made out any breach" of 'the law: - He did not think it jest that a parish should ho placed in a position to have such a man atetcr Rev: lefee s e e'ennett forced upon them without the power emend' the inctuiry whether , he was a member of the church of En g lat id.--(Hear, hear.) But whatever inquireeihight be adopted itito his case, as matters stood it could not lead to such a result as that. The4Right Hon. Gentleman, thel Member for the' University of Oxford (Ur. Gladstone) had rather underet in favour aced the Case of the Bishop. Thu Bishop, it die-peered, had 28 days to ap point to the living, and did not aPPOllit Until the twenty seventh day; therefore there 'was mrindecent haste i n the appointment. And with respect to, his demanding the tes timonials of the clerk, a court of e ceininon law would rule that he had no such right. A case had. Olsen wherein a bishop had demanded the testimonials cif it clerk, and he was mulcted by the court in heavy costs. - -In no ne o ' f those alternatives which the Hon. Member for Coo t laid • down, mouth had could proceedings be taken' either it • the Bishop of London or the Bishdp of Bath - egamst aucl Wells • e Th lion. Member for Cockermouth said that 'Bishop should than h • - have gone farther e had the , ated* examined the .Rev. Kr. Bennett; and the Right' ROuotitabeMember for the University of Oxford said that he h a d examined him, so that they had assertion against Ussertion All that the Bishop could have dohp was to p at th •assertion. Rev. Mr. Ben nett's own book into his hand, and eigid :0 him, " Bid you write this book ? I find '. such, and, ent h e it. Such was the coins° taken' ' such a statement . lu the G or h am case by the Bishop of Exeter, and the . Privg cse - Amen having taken a contrary view of the Matter', the [o, o _ p h,id n remedy. That • so what remedyiwould the bi s b- • 0 . being , ' 7 Th e -- . 0 P have in the case of the Rev. Mr. Bennett. great mistake Which the lion. Member for Cockermouth male e i ii '7-8. his reading of the law. According to the authority of L atd Ellenborough, the bishop, in such a case ins this, had le - 0 the matter of approval', resting, with his discreti on whatever, k having examined the reacher, whi ch c'wn conscience, after e was bound by law to do. The people of come might b e ve consulted alaY a t ' torney in the place, who would, have directed' them in the right course, and told them .. .there e' to up to the t moment, of however, . _. e Iva., ti o n to mstify eh not one ward of - judicial infer= e course proPese d. Bennett or) S % • iMr ' On reading e . .wn 'eerie 15 ' 11 1 (Sir NV ' P. Wood) had formed his o 81111316h' '''t doedly a grave thing • that atilt should b e tadinatied under such circumstanoes; ' but Hill._ 1 .0. t was th e law. • H e was ready to join heartil any m o o__ "' ill for an inquiry which would serve toi, promote an me l ee., had of the law , and doubtless as so great eagerness h a d beet ..a i ea for Chancery reform, the ecclesiastical, courts (1 ' whuld P li a ert escape next session. In his opinion, howeoier, there es. - as no ground for an inquiry such as had now beep • eaoree eu for, and if granted, as a general rule in similar circae•- eos without the Member's pledginghimself h to go on with they'iqry, it wee a proceeding oppoied . to t 0 spirit of th e most obvious principles of the constitution. . Colonel BOYLE said; that as . it had been in aPtited to the ed th Reverend Gentlemen who hadsi th gn. inotie E r ' e s _ Pretes t , that they had been actuated by . unwor id y as he was declare ac quaintedi- with them all, he could It was *ii3dbelief pr , that no such motives had prompted them. who interested n th -e" true that there was a party at Fronteua particular e_ ereinselves with the lady patroness to appoint y 1 a „ '''' alan, whom nd that he were refu sed , But, they thought deserving., did t induce any of although that was so , it not . th en , to sirrn opularity of the Vicar of ' ' the protest. ' As for.the p I rome, se a little infonaut. he was able to give the Ilaa not so well aware of the on the suct, as it was probably, ,ad. received a 'letter tlfle locale of ..tile place se . he was- e ile: U 2 lead been a pplied to on tir l aa attorney of - Freme, who id he did not believe any chap a question, and he there 32 ishoners, but that Cle allgo of vet the . par feeling had come o . n among the most intelligent ex isted a decided determination among al 3ennett and his doctrines, of them to discouhtenance i ' Churchwarden had resigned- It stated also that the vicar s.t was only with the greatest ' and. left the church, and that e _ found. :Now, when it was dia. culty a successor had been hld have applied to th e Bishe sail that the parishionere s o h well say that they had liPtill e ta le t as Bath and Wells, 4 a. e I to- a prelate who had given refuge,to confidence in an appea previously. been !refused preferment in the a curate who had hen theyretaembered that thecosts. diocese of Ripon; and w __ uteceto 12,004, there was C t ' 1 er am y of the Gorham case furl to try e the question a law. lie not•much encouragement his acknowledgments to the Member could not bat express - 'blenad.temperate manner in which, for Ceekermouth fer the ;lee forward; and if his lefforts failed he had brought the subje t lie would certa inl y recomme n d to procure peace sit Frome , _ . , *i . t man teau and be pack u,p his p ortman teau to the Rev. Mr. Bennett . e off.--(Cheers and lauehter.) that the address had been signed by Mr. YORKE denied id , said_. by Mr. Cruttwell. -The Hon. boys and girls, as was ti E tia left the impression upon the Member for Cockermou the Matter no at the request of the 'tense that he had taken _ Der. Bennett had gone to the parishioners of FrOme• it nevertheless, assure the House that mass at Rome, he Could, he was as good a c h ur chman as the Hon. Memb er hi mself, " or the Bi s h op o f London;-ween he delivered his ch arge i n 1842. Sirß. HALL sa id h e be l ieved • ' the Hon. Gent leman was himself a pa r ty t o th os e. RoMaaishig proceedings, a n d t h at . had he took p ar t in the memorable procession whirlh th °- duced such u n f or t una t e results. He maintained prat most address s had been obtained in public of the eignatieres to the ae.--e a- • • h then d drinking, w 0 and there houses by pereoies =eking . an of Mr. ,doctrines bore testimony t o ' the soandoeS a s he doctrines B enn ett , -(Laughter.) - .........- _ JUNE 9, 1852. Mr. YORKE—That is denied by Mr. Cruttwell. Sir B. HALL—It was denied by Mr. Miller, but stated by Mr. CruttwelL But this w as not the real question at issue. The real question was, what ware they, to do in these lament able circumstances? Ia his district there was a Protestant eleri - ,,:yman who, although performing Divine service in the Church of England, attends .d a Roman Catholic piece of worship Sunday after Sunday. A gentleman who saw him declared his readiness to come forward and verify the fact that he crossed himself; made the various genuflexions, and remained (luring the whole time of service; that he went there again the following Sunday, and yet that man per.: ' formed Divine service is the church of St. Andrew's, Wells street.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") I t was said, why did they not go into the ecclesiastical court of Wells ? But would anybody, under such circumstances, go there, when the Bishop had just appointed his own son to preside over it. He believed Mr. Bennett had been the means of converting many persons to the Church of Rome. Did the Hon. Gentleman not know that, connected with th 3 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 ment—that the father of the lady had begged of Mr. Bennett to use his influence and endeavour to induce her to retrace her steps ? And did he not know that that Rev. Gentle man, who was now the pastor of Frome, had refused to listen to the prayers of the parent; and that the d aug ht er , an d a ll the ladies associated with her, had gone over to the Church of ILome.—(Hear, hear.) Did not Lord Colcllester cite the case of another lady where a similar result had taken place? This man bad been proved to have been trifling for some time with Sir John Harrington, of whom they had bean told by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Unliersity of Oxford, that:he had been justified in leaving the Church of England, because he had a congregation of his own— upon the speech of the Honourable Member for Cocker mouth, and considered that the issue of the inquiry was the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Well F, that inquiry was to lead to a censure upon thn conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, or to an impeachment on the part of some Members of the HOLM of Commons agaieet that prelate, and when it was notorious that the Bishop refusing ins - itu- Con would have incurred the &Mile proceeding of a writ of quare impedit and duplex quceiel, the proposition could not be entertained. In the present state of the law the Bishop could not have acted differently, and under these circum etances, he (Mr. Walpole) hoped the Hon. Member would ant :press his motion to a division. It it was pressed, he trusted the House would eject it, as he considered it to be both unreasonable and unjust. Mr. DEEDES explained that what he desired was a dis tinct declaration on the part of the Government that they desired no alteration in the existing law. t t o h e be impugned. Mr. GOLTLBURN thought it had been established that u 9 con duct pug o n f ed t . he BishopFeeiin thereforego! Bath and Wells ought not law, he s h ou l d propose as an amendment that the in quiry sho u ld, b e directed, not as to the institution of Mr. but t t o ha t t he th s e tate in o l f u t i h r should not b e i n this particlar case, e Bennett, but into the state of the law attending the in stitution of clerks to benefices. —(Hear, hear.) Mr. HORSAIA.N, in reply, said he thought he could ail' ewer the amendment of the Right Hon. Gentleman in three words. Certain parties were accused of murder, and certain, t f r h i e e n s d t s a t o e f e t h f e t i h r s e P lawro p o w s i e t d h -(Hear, hear, an d l aughter. th r a es t p th e er s e tuome s h uld be inquiry into device by which th e experienced c ute capit al erfo a s r theUniversity s of Cambridge attempted to lead the from Huse the tinquiry in which they were most intere o sted, an awa d y to which hey at this moment seemed to be most inclined. It would be making their proceedings perfectly ludicrous and ridi culous to adopt such a suggestion. (Hear.) The motion con templated inquiry into the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett and the conduct of all the parties implicated in the circum stances in question. A maxim in our law provided that there should be no grievance without a remedy. A grievance had been shown in this case, but where was the remedy? While every one admitted the grievance, not one had sug gested a remedy. Was the grievance to remain unredressed, or was the House of Commons still to say they would do no thing? He had brought this subject forward without having any knowledge of the parties at From° ; indeed, he lead made it a rale to take up no subject on merely local grounds. lle had selected it as a type of an abuse. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion ... .. 156 Against it ... 111 Majority ... ... —45 MAYNOOTII. Mr. GLADSTONE said that he had distinctly contra dicted that statement before. Sir B. HALL was not aware that the Right Hon. Gentle man had done so, or he would not have made the observa tion. He would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Glad stone) to say candidly what ought to be done under such circumstances? Let the Bishops, who were the persons that ought to be'most desirous of reforming the ecclesiastical law of the country, exert themselves in their places in the other House of Parliament to effect this object. The Government had intimated that even if they appointed a Commission to inquire into this subject, the Bishops would not answer the questions that would be put to them. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, no. Sir B. HALL—WeII, then, let them have a Committee, and request the Bishops to appear before it, and if they then refused to do so theresponsibility would be on themselves. Mr. E. YORKE wished to make an observation in refer ence to the young lady who'had been alluded to by the Hon. Baronet. His impression was this, that the young lady her self was always restrained by Mr. Bennett from going her own way to the Church of Rome.—(Laughter.) He thought that his word was as good as that of the Hon. Baronet's. The report then was, that the young lady had a strong in clination to go to Rome, but was restrained, up to a certain point, by Mr. Bennett. But as soon as Mr. Bennett left tit. Barnabas she went to Rome.—(Hear and laughter.) Mr. NEWDEGATE next rose, amid loud cries for a divi sion. He thanked the Hon. Member for Cockermouth for the very able manner in which he had brought this subject under the notice of the House. Whatever might be the re sult of the division, he trusted that one good effect of bring ing forward the subject would be to lead to an alteration in the state of the existing law, and he was anxious to hear, from her Majesty's Government whether they were prepared to consider the state of the law in the next session, and to in troduce some measure which would prevent men from hold ing benefices in the Church of England who had been con ticted of unsound doctrines and the encouragement of Romish practices. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—This discussion, Sir, has tended very much to clear the case since it was brought under the notice of the House. We have com pletely investigated the position of the Bishop of Bath and Wells with respect to these circumstances, and I think I. do not misinterpret the general feelings of the House if I describe it as one which would be extremely reluctant, by any vote which it could arrive at, to throw any censure upon the conduct of that prelate.—(Hear, and cries of " Oh, oh.") It may be certainly very easy for Honourable Gentlemen to sneer at that statement; bat I think after a calm and ample discussion, so ably conducted as this has been, we must ar rive at the conclusion that however many of us may regret the institution of the individual who has become the vicar of Frome, it is impossible for us to assert, by a vote of this House, that it was the duty of the Bishop of that diocese to prevent that institution; nay more, I think that we have, most of us, arrived at this conclusion, that had the Bishop of the diocese thrown any difficulties in the way of the in stitution of Mr. Bennett, he would have incurred very perilous consequences. In the present state of the law, I think it quite impossible that the House should come to any vote which would in fact cast upon a Bishop of the Church of England a condemnation, simply because he Has done that which all must admit to have been strictly his legal duty, and which if 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 Frome.--- (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 nnderthe 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 to 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 Frome are placed, and that that is a remedy for which they need not go to any ecclesiastical court, or have recourse to any ecclesiastical law. But I will not enter into that question again, which we have before urged, because I am willing to admit that there is not sufficient facility or opportunity for parish ioners placed in the situation of those of Frome to obtain that relief and redress which they have a right to expect. But so far as the prospect* mottUn is concerned, it is really the institution of Mr. Bennett into the vicarage—and that is the act of the diocesan—which we are called on to inquire into. I must repeat my opinion that the coneuct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells cannot fairly be called in ques• tion. But if we were to appoint a Committee, let the :House consider what will be the duties of that 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 shouldappoint a Committee to consider the state of the law with respect to the institution of persons into beneficies, and which cer tainly I do not think a Committ ee o f thei House of Com mons the best instrument to carry on with effect. I have been asked by my lion. Friend the Member for Warwick. shire to give a pledge on the part of the Government that they will take into consideration that important subject, the state of the law with respect to the institution to benefices. I am sure my Hon. 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 considera. tion of any Government—that the state of our ecclesiastical laws is one that cannot be much longer tolerated—(Loud cheers) —and that with respect to the ecclesiastical courts, we should follow the same course of temperate and efficient reform which we have applied to all the other means ofjudi cature in the country—these, I think, arc 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 I will not at this moment go out of my way to offer any criticism on the conduct of other individuals con cerned; in these transactions, because I feel it is unneces sary to-night, especially whin the conduct of one individual alone is called in question—still, if the Hon. Gentleman asks me to support this resolution to appoint a Committee to investigate the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, with respect to hiscompletion of an act which I do not think he could have refused to fulfil, I shall feel it my duty to offer a negative.—(Cheers.) Mr. ELLICE said he saw all the difficulties of the case— , he saw all the objections to the appointment of a Select Com mittee—(Hear, hear)—but he could see no other remedy for the grievance complained of—(dear, hear)—except an in quiry—not directed personally against the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, but into all the facts of the case, in order to ground thereon further proceedings with respect to the state of the law— (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.) Mr. MOODY thought that if an inquiry was instituted into the occurrences in London it would be trying Mr. Ben nett twice over. The question they had to deal with was not an individual question, but was one as regarded the I Church at large. t appeared to him that there was a very easy remedy in such cases as the one complained of. He thought a Commission might Ineissued 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 the motion which impugned the conduct of Mr. Bennett. (Hear, hear.) It was for an inquiry into the circum stances a tt en ding hisi ns titution, and was directed entirely against Bath and Walls.—(Hear, hear.) The the Bishop of Bishop, however, in the institution, had only done what by law he was bound to do ; and as far as he was in quiry. Then as concerned, ther efore, there was no ground for the to the state of the law some misconception existed if it were proved that Mr. Bennett , by preach ing or ' for teac hing, by act or word, showed unsoundness of doctrine, it ..was competent for the parishioners to put the law in motion against hlmeunn as to his past conductder the Church Discipline Act—(Hear , hear.)—and even a commission could issue ll in respect of anything said or d o ne in this cou ntr y within two years past.—(H e ar, hear.) Looking, how ever, to the state of the ecclesiastical courts of th e country---:ll e ac, hear)—to the practice of those courts , expense;metimes excessive—incurred in the and the d' s—(Hear, hear)—a remedy was loudly justest proceedings—( called for.—(Hear, hear.) It would be impossible to enter into that i nq uiry now, but he hoped that and equity the reform • place in our courts of law y w hi c h had taken wou ld at the proper time belextended to e the ecclesiastical courts.—(Hear.) he n DEEDES was disappointed at the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to f u ture legislation—.(Hear. liar)— o the speech of the Solicit or-General as to the state law, which had not encouraged any hope of e rth d e somet hi n g being done to niece it in a more satisfactory con ditionn--( hear.) It was shown that t h e law was 11".r' in accessible to in dividuals, and that, therefore, something was be doue.—(Hear.) He reg r etted the state of n„Teesssarwy o h t i had been disclosed as to the position of the Church—(Hea r ') uwles 9 ) Ha was anxious to put au end to it, and at the same time was anxious not to h impute blame to any party unjustly.--(l.lear.) But, as t cre was promote of any alteration of the law, he =st e in order to p this, object to vote for the motion.— (Hear.) II r could not express how stron g ly Mr. SIDNE Y pained by the statements that had been made. He I w he a3 w : t i s ethat the question before them should be strictly looked into, and that members of the Church should have means of re d res s without the necessity of corning to that House, which was not well suited for questions of the kind. t Th a n hear.) The Bishop of Bath and Wells, it was clear, could have refused the induction, without risking an action at law for his refusal. Mr. WALPOLE begged to be permitted to address one wor d to the House in consequence . of what h a d fallen frcm th e Hon. Mem ber for West ;neat (Mr. Deedes). That Hon. Gentleman• lie thought, had entirely mist a k en the reply of his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to t h e a ppeal of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth. The in quiry would have been acceded to if it h a d b een put, as ;uaiested by the Right Honourable Memb er f or C oventry ( Mr Lili c e). But when 145 (Ur. Walpole) reflected Mr. BROTHERTON then moved the adjournment of the House. Mr. OSWALD inquired when it was the intention of the Member for North Warwickshire to bring on the adjourned debate on the ➢laynooth grant? Mr. SPOONER said he must refer the Hon. Gentleman to the rebolution of the Holm.. That would bo decided when tho other orders were a10r...,1 or. Mr. NEWDEGrATE said it was I,to intention to the sense of the•liouse on the question of the adjourn- Ment of the debate. It was now determined to &feat a decision on that question by a factious opposition; but the attempt of the Member for Salford to get rid of the question would be frustrated, for he would take the sense of the House on the question when the dropped order for the resumption of the debate on the Maynooth grant came on. Mr. ANSTEY would be no party to a postponment of the decision on the Maynooth question, and he hoped the Member for Salford would press his motion. Mr. BROTHERTON had no intention to get rid of the question, but to get rid of the House.—(Laughter.) They had been already sitting fourteen hours, and he was deter mined to press his motion to a division. Mr. HINDLEY thought the proposal of the Member for Salford most reasonable, and he hoped the Government would support the motion for the adjourarnent of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he :hought the House had sat long enough. The House then adjourned at Half-past One o'clock. PARLIAMEN TARY DIVISION S. From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons) TUESDAY, JUNE 8. FROME VICARAGE. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances .connected with the institution of the Reverend Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of Frome:"—Amendment proposed, to leave out from the first word " the," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " state of the Law affecting the in stitution to Benefices," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided : • MAJORITY-AYES, 156. Ahdy, Sir T. N. . Edwards, Henry Moody, C. A. Adair, R. A. Ellice, Edward Morris, David Aglionby, IL A. Ellice, Edward,jun. Mostyn, E. M. Alcock, Thomas Ellis, Johh Muntz, 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. Fos, W. J. Pilkingtell, Jame. , Baird James Freestun, Colonel Pinney, William Baldock, E. H. Frewen, C. H. Ricardo, John L. Barrow, W. II: (leach, Charles Rice, E. R. Bass, M. T. Glyn, George Carr Rich, Henry Be,rkeley, Henry F. Goddard, A. L. Robartes. T. J. A. Berkeley, C. L. G. Green, John 4 Homily, Col. Bernal, Ralph Greene, Thomas Rushout, Captain Blackstone, W. S. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Salwey, Colonel Booker, T. W. Grenfe,ll, Charles W. Scholefield, W. Boyle, Colonel Grey, R. 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. Ilroadwood, H. llastle, Archibald Stanford, J. F. Brockman, E., D. Ileadlam, Thomas Stanley, W. 0. Brothertou, J. Henry, Alexander Staustid, W. R. C. Brown, 11. Heywood, James Staiiton, W H. Buller, Sit J. Y. Iteyworth, Lawrence Staunton, Sir G. Butler, P. S. Hildyard, T. B. T. Strutt, E. Butt, Isaac Ltinclley, C. Stewart, Admiral • Buxton, Sir E. llodgson, W. N. Stuart, Lord D. Carter, FMmuel lloward, C. W. G. Sutton, U. M. Cavendish, C. C. unit, William Tenison. V. IC. Chaplin, 'W. J. Jackson, William Torment, R. J. Childers, J. W. Kershaw, James Thompson, Colonel Clay, James King, P. J. Thompson, George Clap, Sir W. Kinnaird, A. F. Tollemache, F. J. Clifford, IlenryjM. Langston, J. 11. Tollemache, John Cobden, Richard Laslett, William Townshend. Captain Collins, William Leonard. T. B. Verner, Sir W. Colvile, C. It. Locke, Joseph Verney,, Sir u. Copeland, Alderman Leng, Walter Vivian, J. IL . Corry, 11. L. Loveden, rrySo Walsh, Sir J. Cowan, Charles Af'Gregor, John Wclby, G. B. Crowder, U. B. 3l‘Taggart, Sir J. Williams, John Da Tymple, Captain Mangles, R. D. Williams, W. Dawes, Edward Marshall, W. Wilson, Matthew D awson, T. V. Martin, J. Wortley, J. S. D'Eyneourt, T. Matheson, Colonel Wyld, James Dod, J. W. m e i gi md, Viscount Wyvill, Marmaduke Duff, James Milligan, Robert TELLEB.g. Duncan, George Mitekell, T. A. llorsman, E. Dtuidas, Sir David Moffatt, George Ilall, Sir B. • MINORITY—NOES, 111. B ailey, Crawshay GwYn, Bowel Portal,'Melville Bailey, Joseph Hamilton, G. A. Prime, Richard Baillie, H. J. Heneage, G. 11. Renton, John C. Bankes, G. Henley, J. W. Repton, G. W. Barrington, Vis. Herbert, Henry A. Richards, Richard Bell, Jacob Berries, J. C. Seyiaer, 11. K. Benbow, John' Hervey, Lord A. Sibthorp, Colonel Bennet, Philip Hope, Sir J. Sotheroh, T. 11. S. Bolden), George H. Hope, A. Spooner, R. 13ramston, T. W. Howard, E. G. Stafford, Augustus Brooke, Lord Hudson, G. Stanley, Edward Bruce, C. L. Johnstone, Sir J. Stanley, Lord Cabbell, B. B. Jolliffe, Sir W. U. Stuart, John T T S t i e u i l e ri s i i e g n e ll t, r ; Siosi G. J. Christopher, F. Carew, W. H. Pole Jones, Captain , Child, Smith Kelly, Sir F. Christopher, R. Kildare,'Marquis Christy, Samuel' Knight, F. W. Thompson, Alderman Clive, H. B. Knox, Colonel Trollope, Sir J. Cocks, T. S. _ Langton, W. 11. T y l er, Si r G . Collins, T. Legh, G. C. Tyreil, Sir J. Cotton, W. S. Lennox, Lord U. G. Villiers, Viscount Darner, Colonel Lewisham, Viscount Vivian, J. E. Davies, D. A. Littleton, E. R. Waddington, H. S. Deedes, W. - Lygon, General Walpole, Spencer Disraeli, B. Mackenzie, W. F. Walter, John Dencombe, W. E. Manners, Lord C. Watkins, Colonel Dunne, Colonel 111:Inners, Lord J. Wegg - Prosser , F. Masterman, J. Du Pre, C. G. West, F. It. Earn); James Miles,: , William Whiteside, James Fellowes, Edward Morgan, 0. Illgrrun, Loftus Ferguson, FA". 'R. Mailings, J. R. Wodehouse, Edmund Filmier, Sir. E. Naas, Lord Wood, Sir W. P. Floyer, John Kewde , ate, N. Yor ke , 11. W. Freshfield, J. W. Oswald, ° Alexander Gilpin * Colonel Padre, C. W. TELLERS. Greental, G. Palmer. Round el( Gladstone, W. E. Pakington , Sir J. , y Y o o ui,g , , E. T. . T i Goulburn, Henry Guernsey, Lord Patten, J. W. Herbert, Sidney ______----- — ••••••••a TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. (CONTINtiED ON MONDAYS AN D WEDNESDAYS.) Sir,—On Monday the 7th of June, the Militia Bill was read a third time, and a Clause added, extending • certain exemptions to the Universities of London and Darham. _ Amendments directed to limit the powers of the Bill, were negatived by majorities of 187 to 142, and 178 to 82. A pozition had been ably taken up hy the Governimmt, in making the application of a con scription permissive and not obligatory;- the effect of which was to diminish opposition by making the danger more obscure. At the same time, the resistance to the Bill has baen wanting in tronc.:ntration and vigour; ex hibiting an inclination to be prepared with en answer to constituents, rather than the steady adhesion of men conseientionqly desirous of falling in the last ditch. Oa Tuesday the House met at noon to proceed with the question of Maynooth. After a few prehminary speeches of no great length, en orator from Catholic Ireland, as the Americans say " occupied the floor," till the hand of the clock reached four, and the debate died a natural death. Without following him through his details, one thing he proved, which is sufficient to dispense with all the rest; and that is • that the House is now called, upon to institute an in quiry, while there is all the time a legal method of inquiry directed by Act of Parliament. Why is not the House of Commons to institute an inquiry into the cases which may be now in hand at the Old Bailey,—or into the more complicated mysteries pending in the Court of Chancery? Simply because there is a legal appa ratus already for those very purposes, and it would be simple foolishness for the House of Come:tem to er e ct itself into a new tribunal. At six came on Mr. Horsnaan's motion for a Select Committee to inquire into , the circumstances connected With the institution of thellev. Mr. Bennett to theVie.arage of Frome. Some strange points appear to be established. It sec auto be avowed, that a bishop is powerless for good, and by consequence if be has any strength it is for evil. lAmong other things, it is declared that nothing a IT v e r m a 2 can do abroad, can be be taken cognizance of by the Government, backed by all the gl t o d w i ny-et bishop , eodrsa in Catholic t h As an ot 12 in i; r s ,y ta instance , et r7 it a i m s .cnivi;rgurnialllanytemmacaniany get there, m a y ending in getting himself disPlaYe of communion back to take his tithes i r ta there make the most ostentatious ounced as a member of that Church in the Almanac, or with the Church of Rome, Directory, and may come is maintained that such u pos sibility of interference England without the rior. To leave no clo y ecclesiastical supe rior. p ior would subject bt a u ny su. Some e el p f e t r o so h n e heavy n a ' y painsbe" a;sld4: nl comfortedi 1 3°' b 3: y . t 'h e ; hope5 ttet subject,Pft attempted to ter things to come, from the fact tht e NU. IlOrsmareS motion was carried by 156 to 111. gins the first chapter of the Re-reformatiorne9ofP"thheaa be of of England. I am, Sir, yours very sincerely, AN OLD REFORMER. Blackheath, Juno 9, 1852. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. IPSWICH, JUNE 8. We ccntinue to have the smallest show of wheat possible prices remain firm, and no disposition is shown by the sellers to accept less than late figures. The showery and now very forcing weather is questionable as regards benefit to the gro w _ ing crops. PER QUARTER. PER QUARTER. Wheat, red Ditto, white 4ss to 485 Oats oos to 00s Barley, malting ... 00s to 00s Rye oos to 00s Ditto, grinding ... 005 to ON Malt oos to 000 Beans AVERAGES FOR THE WEEK ENDING JUNE 5, 1852. Wheat Barley Beans... ..........« B7 „ 32s Od Peas ..... ••••••• ..... • 45 „ Zi,Os 9d Oats •• ..... --- • -- „ 00s Od 11171.. L, JuNs 8. Messrs. Taylor and Brig-ht ' 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. The transactions of the past week have been on a very limited scale, but each description of spring corn has somewhat increased in value, with limited ar rivals and small stock in warehouse. We had a fair supply of wheat from our own farmers, with very little foreign on show, either from ship or granary. Fresh farmers' wheat was good to sell at last week's rates, and more inquiry for foreign, with out however leading to much business. A retail sale for bar ley, as also a good consumptive de man d f or b eans an d p eas . 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 q uo t a ti ons . B o nes maintain their value. The following are the present prices of grain: 8. s. Wheat, English, red 37 to 40 Do. white 4O 44 Dantzic and Ko nigsberg 4O 45 Pomeranian and Horan:ugh 28 40 Danish, Holstein, & 5. 5 Peas, white and yel. 30 32 Do. grey c6 28 Linseed, Black Sea 44 46 Do. Petersbingh Do. Riga & ArchngL 38 42 Do. Konigsberg Per ton. FriQand 36 381 Russian and Odessa 34 38 Oats, English Do. Danish.... . 16 la Do. Friesland lB 20 Do. Russ. & Odessa 15 17 Barley,rnalting 2B 30 Do. grinding 26 Beans 23 31 Do., foreign 26 28 Lins.e., Hull 7/ 109 Od to 0/ Os Do. fine for. —7l 53 Od tooloa Do. inf. foreign... 01 to 61 Os Rapeseed 231108 to 001 Rape cakes...92s 6d to 95s 01 Tares, English 37s OGs Do. foreign 32s 343 Guano 5l 71 to 91 101 Bones, do 97s 6LI to 1005 Rye Meal. 71 Oa CORK, Jumr 7. Barrels. Curreney. O White wheat 00s Od to Ols Od 00a Od—`2.o stone O Red wheat oos Od to 011 Od 0 Ditto oos Od to 00s Od} 00s Od-20 do O Ditto o9s Od to 00s Od 0 Barley 00. Od to 00s Od 0 Ditto oos Od to 00s Odf 00 3 0d....09 d o 0 Ditto oos Od to 00s Od 0 Bere 00s Od to 00s Od Os Od 16 Oats ..10s 6d to 12$ Od O Ditto ... ..... 00s Od to 00s Od 00s 03-0 do 0 Ditto ... ..... 00s Od to 00s Od O Pigs Quantity sold at the Highest Prices:— • 629. sold las pi t gs w , 04 0. ki... 0 barrels white wheat; 0 red ; CO b a rley; 0 bare; 11 oats; 0 pigs. Quantitywheat a Grain Barley,a and N u 3 m s b . er of Oats,P i s PRICES OF BUTTER. CANT. CITRAINCY. First quality . .............. 69s First quality . Second quality Third quality 63s Third quality s4s Fourth quality Fifth quality xth Fifth quality Sixth quality 36s Si quality .. .... 27s Return of Cattle sold for week ending May 29. Sheep, 444. Cows, 88. Pigs, 319 - CoaL—Fl°llr otteeholde 9s to lOs 6d ; thirds, 7a to 9s 10e 6d to 12s ; h . isiii 8 3d to 8s 9d ; wheat. s econda, iills land ; Is►ii aa meal 8s First 12e 6d to 13s 6d ; extra 14s 6d; newt. Cat 6d 3 to L Indi an Corn 815 s to 8110 s pet ton. ; average P- 6d t IDa 6d per ow Ha e y re — ge F o ar 3 m spe ers r 2 to S n a O d to 30s 2Se to 40a Od, av tan . tt aw--Farmers Cie; dealers rage 20a ; dealers 276 Od to COs Od; Od to 23e Od; ave _ 15e oos Od p et ton. Bread—NV neaten loaf 6d to Od; av o cri t e old loaf 15d to Od per 41b. Fresh butter s 8d to i t i od use per ih. E gg s-3e 4i to 36 6d per bunclretl• Coals—. 04 ; Lydney lbs • Laudore 00s ; Culla, per t0n.... Newport 14s , Tar rai l : :7 ' s 6d t c. 0906 6d per ton. " 1 361 Oti to 39t per wt. 12s Whisky, 2,5 o. p., 5s 9d per imperial gallon. Most _B ee f 4id to 7d ; mutton 5d to sia• veal 4d to 7d; pork 4d to Od ; bacon tid to 7d ; sausages s ' d per lb. HoPg 818 s to 910 s per cwt. Bangor slates 2/ 17a ed to 3101 per Ws' Bark, red 7t to Si 10s per ton. Fleece vrool 142 to 15a per Wilt Hemp 29/ t 0341 per t onneish—Sootch herrin s 18sto 19s; '''' ditto, 24s to 00a per ; Ne wfoundland, g lO/ Os to T i g On. Timber 0a 70s per ton ; red p ine, 31 NIL a ........ ditto, 2/ 15s per ton; deals, 151 to 181 per 103. _,zl:7—kioo Market 16e to 245; salted 18s to 24a pet cwt; ea" ski ns 3d to Od per lta. Potatoes, white 8d t o 9d . _„_.; — Bl 104 to 12d. Guano—Peruvian, 101 10s to 11/; lessao"" to 9108 per ton. Archangel 19s per barrel. ......__ ' S O'CONNOR. A:MEMBER 5F PARLIAMENT ASSAULTED BY MR. FEARGU . the House o f - _ [ADvERTISEMENT — .) ASCOT RACES AND THE ROYAL v mos.—A ount of which appears in our The conduct of Mr. Feargus O'Connor in Commons last night—au account report—requires the very serious considers- valuable, newly-invented, ver small powerful a be Parliamentary 0 can tie eve of a dissolution of Parlia- Pocket glass, the size ofwalnut, by w hich a Person purpose lion of his relatives. On expected that the Speaker or the seen and known li, miles a. that . an swer every E-giß waistcoat went it is scarcely to be . It . to the El on the Race-course, distant; they . c ountry scenery at the Opera-houses , they are invaluable House should take any further steps in re a ion on. and f_or shootin, Member for Nottingham than may be required for keeping to Sportsmen, Wing, ships are clearly seen at 12 to 14 miles; him within something like bounds when he obtrudes himself upon their deliberations. But his relatives u ~, deer stalking, Gentlemen Gamekeepers, and Touns 9 Albemarle-street, Piece oueht really to have medical advice upon his real S. and B. Sclonaons, Opticians, Se _ copes ...A new and most condition,' as a glance at his recent proceedings will dilly, opposite the York-hotel. Tel, es • " t s .—Te be had at Messrs. possessing such extra nest, the establishment of that huge failure the important invention in Telescopes, extra eye piece, show. by which some thousands of hardworking ordinary powers, that some, i Land Scheme,. Moons, Saturn ' 3 Ring, and the men were deprived of thousands of pounds; then a series of will show distinctly, Jupiter's Telescope, a e , . offensive scenes before the Master in Chancery, when Mr. Double Stars. With the same's countenance 3i miles distant, O'Connor's conduct in relation to the Land Scheme was ounces, can be seen a Petr i va il es . They supersede every under inquiry; next a discreditable assault in a theatre, and an object from 16 to '''"t ocket, and are of larger and all followed by incarceration in the House of Correction - other kind for the waistwa e s P aceordin gly. Opera and Race inches, with an , then an exhibition of troublesome conduct in the House of ;,.), ~- :aerial powers; an object can be sizes, with increasing P Commons; then a sudden flight to the United States, a n d course glasses, w",„ - 1 6 miles distant. Messrs. S. and B. as sudden a return by the steam-ship that took him out, clearly seen from 14 to 16 invented invaluable preserving greatly to the dismay of the passengers; then a series of unseemly interruptions of the judges in the courts of law ; Solomons, 0 Spectacle Lenses, I:9 P ticia n n ediately they arc placed before imper and now, finally, an assault upon a Member of' the Hou se i fect vision, everyba, b ec omes bright and brilliant, is broughtto 'Wed appears clear and distinct, the most of Commons. Surely here is a sufficient string of instances I rural, and original state. The Invisible Or measures_ pointing out why Mr. O'Connor's relatives should tale ' its youthful, na -- and a ll kinds of Acoustic instruments for relief calculated to secure his comfort, whilst the safety / ganic Vibrator, ea._ 39, Albermarle-street, Piccadilly, op aged defective sig of others and the progress of public business is secured f of extreme dearu ts _.,, L from • the york Betel. interruption.—D a dy News. posits rADVERTISEMENT.] The eccentricities of Mr. Feargus O'Connor have for a time past attracted a considerable share of public long Da Barry's . n debility, and nervous, bill delicious Food cures • with Even before his departure for America his conduct duringattention. d „ seps is, c onstipatt a o i n n , t n s er i v n o s all their varied forms , Indigestion, an examination that took plac® . before one of the Masters in ' headaches, sickness, depression of Chancery was of so outrageous a nature as to have justified spas . cramps, of a letter from the Rev. J. W. acidity,Fla mpl his incarceration, had he not been dealt with in a most mer- s pirits, &c.—Extract Rectory, Norfolk: " Eight years' dyspepsia, ciful spirit. Since his return to England his mind would ap- . ve il, Bidliug and o debility, with cramps, spasms, and nausea, ou r, and liver co pear to be more deranged than before. We find him at one 1 e aryousness , servant had consulted the advice of many, has moment insulting all thelguests in the coffee-room of an hotel, I for which my removed by Du Barry's delicious health-rt drinking out of one man's glass, and helpi ng himself from I been effectually in food a very short time. I shall be happy to ans thel, plate of another. Next he turns up in Westminster - storing .v quiries."—Sold in canisters, suitably packed fcr hall, where he enters each of the courts in turn, beg ins a 1 wer anyi - and with full instructions-11b., 2s. 9d. ; 21hs , familiar conversatien the judgee - on the bench, and ad- all climates,..... s us.; 121bs. 223.; super-refined, 51bs., .22.5.; dresses them in a vein oathjocularity ill-suited to the time and ' 4 s . 6d. ;_ , 5 1 . ° t 33 The 10Ib. and 131 b, carriage free on receipt of place. Every action would scow that he was not in Pesaessien 1° post-office order. Barry Du Barry and Co., 12r , New Bond of his right mind. Upon any other supposition he should long pos street, London; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; since have been locked up. Again, when 11 6 , e . id tal t m es be- ledges and Butler, 153, Regen t -street; and all respectable place as Member of the licuee cf Cummons we t - the h diecus ' grocers and chemists. having himself in such a manner as to interrupt ast night, 4 ildllOWhy'S pills have been .n.DVERTISEMENT.] sions and embarrass the Ilouse. What occurred gentleman [ of curing another Sufferer from a Liver Complaint. however, can leave no dcebt that the unfortunate Sir Ben- the means —The wife of a respectable tradesman, r ;d* • the -• h es. ing in neigh- Commons, - is a maniac. The particulars of his outrage' u rie l l: House of tone, was • bourhood of Thraps sufferng fur more than two jamin hail, and of the scene which occurred in tof this m a severe liver complaint, during she Commons, will be found in our Parliamentary report d t years fro . ~ which period leo ate ac . received the best medical advice, but without deriving the day. It must not be supposed that this i s an has been the . t benefit therefrom. She tt, •of Ilo na some time past Mr. Feargus O'Connor the halls slightesLen made trial 0 frequent d bytheir . terror of the ilc nice and of all persons who o ncment he might way's health the nam eusealene she has been restored to and passages of the building. For the t i is b it s h was not done. perfect b , of the party cared is not made 1* but tars. Collier 13 , i c ut - r - , vouch have been placed in safeikeepinZ, e 'e n the powers of Pu ic, he ti •t f , eo seer, f erapstone e , a _ an . . Even so, what was to be done with Aby reason hiin y' of the dissolution? for the aut d n f ci y o d. the case. These Pills wer ;: d the Hohse shouldlhave expire , . ../ dangerous meth:am fallible reme or in igestion, bilious attacks, headaches, is a , d at of the st • ' all druggi s t s, an al ,disorders stomach. —Sold by There can be no question that he some serious committed Prctessor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand', Lon don. Are we to wait until he shall have itself ? tions to preserve crime before society takes Pr ecau 1 EDINBURGIi CHAIR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY...a Times. 'Mr Macdou g all and M Ferrier were the candidates for the fi' ---------- Tim - a and Smith • r.... , favour ~„_ in of the B ......I:IRDER. pe „ vacant Professorship, which has been decided TUE HULL %A - ABBOT terday for filial examiaa4on, and we " former by 20 Votes against 13. were brought up yes & committed for the murder. EVENING, MI