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

PERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Jwie 8. The LORD CUANCELLOR t0,31c his seat on 1. O Woo!sick at Five o'clsclr. The Militia Bill was read a first time. The Kennington Common Improvement Bill was read a second time. LONDON NECROPOLIS AND MAUSOLEUM BILL. Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of this Bill. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY opposed the Bill, as being in in its provisions. The Bishop of LONDON also opposed the Bill. After a short conversation the Bill w:s read a second time. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from certain copyholders in Cumberland against the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. On thu motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the Corrupt PrDctises at Elections Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. Oh the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Registra tion of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Public Works Bill was read a second time. On the motion of the Earl of MINTO the Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill passed through Committee. On the motion of the Earl of HARROWBY the In dustrial and Provident Societies Bill was read a second time. SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTIO N WITH FRANCE) BILL. The Earl of MALMESBURY moved the second read ing of this Bill, which he explained was intended to place Franco on a footing of equality _ with England with reference to the mu t u al surrender of crimittals. By the convention of 1843 between the two countries this country obtained the right fe claim the surrender of certain criminals who took refuge in France; while, on the contrary , by the imperfect state of oar law, France was not able to claim criminals who had fled hither from that country. The Earl of ABERDEEN,Said he was afraid that the Noble Earl opposite was w n h o i t eh su h ffi;: h ie a n d tly tak a e w n ar i e n diffieultios of the sabjent of the which, indeed, were so great that ever since the peace of 1815 the two Courts had been in constant communication for the purpose of conclud ing a convention of this sort, and in 1843, he (Lord Aberdeen) had for the first time concluded a treaty with France for the surrender of criminals charged wits murder, foigery, and fraudulent bank ruptcy. He did not think the present Bill gave suffi cient security against political offenders being claimed under its provisions, and it only required the production of a niandat Barret or warrant from a French magistrate and proof of identity. Now, it was evidently insuffi cient that a mere accusation without any proof of -the commission of Vie crime charged should be all that was required to justify us in delivering up an accused party. Lord BROUGHAM readily agreed that this was a sub ject which required legislation, for nothing could be clearer than the propcsition of his Noble Friend, that it was hardly consistent with the condition of civilised society, that two nations so closely connected as France and England were should exist with the facilities at all times afforded to the most desperate offenders, who had committed the mcst atrocious crimes e of escaping with impunity by passing over a narrow channel as easily as formerly ideal boundaries could be passed. Nevertheless, he admitted the many difficulties which would have to be encountered in dealing with tha question. Having enumerated a few of these difficulties, the Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to observe, that under the convention it was stipulated that an analogous law to the one now proposed should ba passed in France, and a provision to be made in the treaty that the convention should not come into force until a day to be named by both parties; consequently until we shall be satisfied that a law was passed in Franca similar to this, no such day would be named. So far all was well. But just suppose a French law to be passed, and this country, being satisfied, gave notice that the convention was to come into operation, say on the let of October next. Then, by another provision of the Bill six months' notice was required iu order that the treaty should be put an end to. Let the Elouse, then, see what might happen during these six months—laws in these dap, were not like the laws of the Medes and Pereiace, which were never repealeet and never altered. On the contrary, we lived in times wlien the repeal of laws was almost as fre quent as their enactment; and supposing a law passed before tee Ist of October shculd aiterwarda be repealed, or a sub stantial modification introduced in it, where was the security for those parties who might then be tried for po litical offences, though under the previous state of the law they would have been safe? But the chief difficulty was, atter all, that which had been alluded to by his Noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen)—namely, that the warrant should be taken as conclusive evidence of identity for the in carceration and surrender of the person accused.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend opposite would bear with him (Lord Brougham) for a few moments, whilst he called his at tention to the sort of legislation which was at this time going on on the other side of the Channel. lie had lately had some conversation with the British Ambassador at Paris with regard to a Bill which was then before the corps kg's latif: Teat Bill was in a very forward state, and as the Government there had what might be called a " working majority"—(Laughter) —a majority, he believed, of 242 to 3 ; and that he thought was almost entitled to the name of a " working majority"— (Another laugh)— he took it for granted that that Bill would soon be the law of France. Now, that Bill contained some most extraor dinary provisions ; for not only might Frenchmen be tried in France for offences committed by them in England. or elsewhere—political offences included—and possibly these political offence, though not the only ones contained in the Bill , might be its principal object—(Hear, hear) — not only might Frenchmen be tried in France for offences committed in England, but their accomplice3—English men, It might be, in the condition of accessories—might also be tried in France. Nay, more—and he owned he was never more astonished in his life at any act, or attempted act, of legislation as he was when he saw this - Englishmen not charged as accomplices of Frenchmen—but English rzen without any accession to, or complicity with, French men, might be tried in France for political offences by them committed in England, provided those offences were against the French Government, or against the public weal, as it was called, of France.—(Hear.) The Earl of MALMESBURY said the Bill to which the Noble and Learned Lord referred was now passed, but its provisions were confined to Frenchmen.—(Hear, hear.) Lord BROUGHAM was much relieved by hearing the Noble Lord say that it was confined to Frenchmen. The Earl of MALMESBURY—It was passed by a majo rity of 195 to s. —(Loud laughter.) Lord BROUGHAM—But the Bill in the shape in which he had seen it was no new measure; on the contrary, it was precisely similar to Article Gof the Code Napoleon. This was the first time, except in peculiar instances, that this great breach in the principle of what was termed interna tional law had been made, of not considering that offenders ought to be tried in the country, and by the laws of the country, in which the offences were charged to have been committed. Having said this much respecting the proceed. iugs in France, it was only fit he should add, teat he saw ao reason to doubt the fairness and honest intention of the French Government in reference to the matter of .the con vention. The LORD CHANCELLOR—It appeared to be agreed on both aides of the House that something must be done to meet th just demands of the French Government. At present the were two acts in force which gave to this country all the betelits that could be derived from such a treaty, but practically g bero ave the French Government no benefit at all. I w fe de ae o Perfectly clear, therefore, that a remedy shouldp , i f • th and her Majesty's Government were ready to do so, enjo ed. t7 did not, we might lose a ll the benefit we now enjoyed. did feeling of the House, too, seemed to be that what was p op i n i on the roPer to be done slesuld be dens now. In his of this sob, was the right time to provide a measure possible to hrie 2r if daring so many years it was found im tie the Governments of the two countries r eady, a Poe the subject, and if they were now though Lest and most proiLernight not have taken exactly the were now ready t e enaa s e tePs for the purpose—yet, if they i sa ly the moment _,to an arrangement, surely that was prec wnen thitt happy concarrenc e of advantage should be taken of opinion. It was objected to the measure before the Roust at it allowed any man to be taken up in ails country., m n ' proof et „..cearried out of it, merely upon a warrant and simple us tit was ma de to avoid that dim e j t y• Now, when an attempt E z i in the act of convention of the Noble Earl near him (the . of Aberdeen), it failed in that in ,endeav this respect— to do that which was who was claimed, and constitutional, to protect the P u e r r i so n el who was en titled to our hospitality end the Protection of our laws, we did that which made th e • ..rt eet r. 3: ce dead letter so the government of tar as regarded • In carrying forward such a measure as this, theret ere 7 the tain what substitute they could pr _y e must ascer which had already failed. And the uv ea tu L _,.. a for that vided at this moment was a warrant and proof substitute pro y how far this p • o f identity. It was very diffictf t to s . neat facie elf dence was to go. W ere they to require eo much ee i den '- would satisfy them that if the person sser . e to be tried Zas"e eves every probability of bit b e ing convicted? R e was co ` ' -le they had in vie desirous that the objects which w .should he carried - out, that if any plan could bo chalked out which would give greater security to the person accused and to the nainch Government that their criminals in thie, Country would be s urren d ere d to t h em , be would be most napp y to adopt it. Great care, he admitted, ought to 130 taken i n th e convention that it would not be made spplicable to political offenders. That convention stood upon a treaty fornaallye entered into. Th ey could not, h owe ver, step in betweent tip French Go vernment and their su bj ec ts, although they colll2 prevent a Frenchman being improperly carried into France to be tried. But if he went into France they could not. do more than demand compliance with the terms of their treaty, which stipulated solemnly that no man should be tried for any political offence; and that if he be so tried, that he - should be at liberty to plead his snrrounder here l' this Government as a discharge from the crime of which be was accused. Lard BROUGHAINI—Or be sent back. The LORD CHANCELLOR —Or be sent back. That was a valuable suggestion of the Noble and Learned Lord. They were now, however, upon the second reading of the Bill, and he could : Only say that they would go into Com mittee with an anxious desire to have the benefit of the as ti,stanee of the Noble and Learned Lords in rendering the MI as perfect as p o s s ibl e f or giving effect'to the objects which they were • all anxious to attain. But what he wanted to impress upon their Lordships was this. He hod the most sinew respect for the opinions of the Noble Earl near him. The Noble Earl seemed to think that they had a right to expect that these securities would be given by the French Government. ?cow be (the Lord Chancellor) could not see how 1 1 o:they c o uld as k th e F renc h . G overnment to pass any such es would give them such enditional security. Th e milar'te k t i enr o f t hi s country di d not piss any law of a si rid when an Engttsli 'subject was brought to this 1 COUTItr r , 411 e. law and was tried for a political offence. They had no . a ax prohibitedthem . of fenders, nor did they mitted that this Act would Pr"" to pass any such law. He ad treaty by France a would not prevent the infraction of the what would be the sc against her own subject.. But would be s h e nfraction ortste.;luence of such infraction? It they had t usual mode of treaty itself, and in such case Noble Earl asserted that the vmdicatiog their rights. The He concurred in that op i nioi ztrospective law went too f ar . the crimes since the date of the By some inadvertence, all retrospective, whereas it was o treaty in 1843 were made offences which were created by th :ar i that only all the new made retrospective. If their Lord Lordships, have been Resent to the Bill going into CommitteeTis'e however, would wouhl leave the Commi' tee in such a shapehad no doubt it approval of their Lordships. , as to meet the • Lord CAARBELL said that they were most earnestly desired to further this 'measure. But enxious and he ' wae eurfnised at this novel mode ofhe must say ,•processing as to THE SUN, this law of extradition—namely, melting the word of the party sufficient authority for the giving up of the party accused. He looked with the greatest apprehension upon such a provision. The law of extradition was very ancient. The invariable rule was to re qu i re reas onable evidence the gni% of the party when the Government of a countryfor was called upon to give up a criminal. They were no t. w n , ef the first time, about to propose that the mere lasseeer ofio the the Government shall be held as conclusive leviecr guilt of the accused, and that he shall Ibtewdeeetv?xteerdre.eurruntoarbye tried by the laws of his own country. upon this subject, that there should be and Learned no reciprocity the requirements of both countries. If the Noble heLo Lord e o u n i the a eitnpl y say, Woolsack let asked it b him how on done this Englandwas to as be it cio n wag e thatprop o t s h e e d w to e r b r e e e d t o e n f e tinheFsraeenrceet. S e ry uerf Stateely t was in E u n g o l t a e p d r ?e opted r s e ef an English magistrate, should be taken as proof positi ve o f the guilt of a party whose extradition easy nwas required i from France. By the present measure, how woad it be for persons to forge documents asserting the to the guilt of an indivi dual who had made himself obnoxious France, and merely go through the form o f proving his identity before a magi strate in this country— The Earl of MALMESBURYeeThere is a discretion in the magistrate. Lord CAMPBELL —The only discretion the magistrate would have was as to the identity of the accused. On that fact being ascertained he was bound to order him to be im mediately this was a power so liable to b givenght the n . Now, greates care ought to be taken in the creation of The law o f extradition, even with all the abuse ei i o t h i n e e s which at present surrounded it, had been much abused. He recollected that when he had the honour of being Attorney. General he was consulted in a case arising out of the treaty entered into between the United States and Canada. In that treaty there was an extraditional clause, which required that there should be a bill of indictment before the extradition could be demanded. An indictment was found against a man in Canada for horse-stealing, and an application was made to the Governor of Canada on be half of the Government of the United States to have him given up. What were the facts? The accused was a slave who had escaped into Canada on a horse, which he had sent back on his arrival at the frontier. The governor, on learn ing these facts, very properly refused to give the man up. There was a remonstrance made by the American govern ment in consequence and he (Lord C.) advised the govern ment of this country to stand by the governor in what he had done. Now, when the power was capable of being a) abused under that law, how much more was it likely to be abused under a convention which only required the ipso d;xit of a party as an authority for giving up an accused party? The LORD CHANCELLOR said it was understood that in the working of the French law the English government would have the same facilities afforded them in France in respect to the arrest of their criminals as the French govern ment would have in this country. By the 11th article power was given to the Secretary of State to supersede proceedings, where, under article 10 of the convention or otherwise, it might appear proper. The Duke of ARGYLL said that they were all anxious that no person should be delivered up, if after being so deli vered up he was liable to be tried for political offences. He understood the Noble and Learned Lord on the woolsack to say, that upon this point they must simply trust to the faith of the convention; that as the English Government did not propose to bind themselves by any law upon this point, they therefore could net demand that the French Government should bind themselves so. He would, however, remind their Lordships of the terms of the 12th article:—"No person surrendered by the French Government under the said convention should be prosecuted or proceeded against in the United Kingd om , or i n an y o f th e dominions her Majesty, for or on account of any crime or offence com mitted previously to his being so surrendered, except the crimes described in the said convention, but shall be wholly released by such surrender from all prosecutions and pro ceedings in respect of any such previous crime, except as aforesaid, and in case of any prosecution contrary to this provision, such surrender shall be admitt e d as a va lid defence, and evidence thereof may be given under a plea of not guilty." If this Bill be passed, he thought that it would be the duty of the French Government to bind itself by law in a similar manner as this country would then have done by the article in question. In consequence of many political changes to which France was exposed, it was impossible that the French Goverment could give them equal security with the law of this country: If, however, a convention was to be entered into, they mast take the guarantee of the French Government and the French Legislature as equivalent to their own. Now, there were about 20 offences de - scribed in this measure, which he thought would affard additional facilities to persons being tried fur political offences quasi criminal. He was strongly opposed to the principle of deliver ing up supposed criminals merely upon the accusation of the French Governmeet, and proving the identity of the party. Lord BROUGHAM called attention to the 7th article of the convention, which says—" No accused or convicted I person who may be surrendered shall in any case be pro ceeded against or punished un account of any political offence committed prior to his being surrendered, nor for any crime or offence not described in the present convention which he may have committed previously to his being surrendered; and proof of having been so surrendered under this con vention shall be a good and valid defence against any proceeding on account of any political offence previously committed, and shall entitle the party to an immediate acquittal." The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was nothing more just than that the French Government should pass such a law as this, and thereby secure a reciprocity of power. If they did not pass such a law as would meet the provisions of that clause they could then strike it out of their Act. After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY, Lord CRAN WORTH said that the principle of this Bill was to legislate so as to carry into effect a treaty and con vention, many of the terms of which were inadmissible. Under this impression, he, for one, thought that this Bill should not be read a second time. Lord MALIIESBURY Bali that this Bill was considered to be a matter of necessity. It had been well considered at the Foreign-office, and he therefore hoped that their Lord. ships would read it a second time ; and that the Noble and Lsarned Lords opposite would give their valuable assistance in amending the details so as to render it as perfect as possible. Lord CAMPBELL said that the objections could not be removed without a new French convention. The LORD CHANCELLOR apprehended that the Bill might be so modified as to meet their Lordships' views. It might then be left to the French Government for their adoption or rejection. Earl GREY thought the Bill should not be passed in its present shape. He thought, before surrendering an alleged criminal, there ought to be offered some evidence of his guilt, as was the case in the treaty between this country and the United States. No man ought to be given up with out a prima facie case being made against him. Unless it could be amended to that extent, he could not allow the Bill to be read a second time. Lord ABERDEEN said that clause too provided expressly for the o bj ect i on taken by the Noble Earl (Grey), but then in similar cases hitherto they had never yet been able to surrender a single criminal. France, on the contrary, had found no difficulty in doing so. Lord BROUGHAM suggested that in cases where crimi nals were claimed, depositions should be laid before the Secretary of State, and if found satisfactory, he should allow the warrant to issue. They might allow the Bill, with that understanding, to be read a second time. Lord MALMESBURY said all he wished was, that this. Bill should be improved, and with that view he hoped their Lordships would allow the Bill to be committed. The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be committed on Friday. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 8. MAYNOOTJI COLLEGE. (Continued from our Afternoon 'Edition of yesterday.) Mr. V. SCULLY said it was quite clear that those who supported the motion were not sincere in tom in h th . eir alleged desire f or an iuquiry—in fact, they selves avowed their insincerity. This was merely a step to the a b o li shment of Maynooth alto gether, which they were 'prepared to e ffct without the slightest inquiry. They wished to have ' kind of inquisition to upset th e grant, and that would a load to the destruotion of the Codiege. He agreed in thinking that the proposal for inquiry was a me sham, for it inquiry was earnestly wished for, it Could be had at once under the powers exercised by the visitors. (Hear, hear.) He had no objection to inquiry, b u t h e complained that a Select Committee was, as the Noble Lord (Lord. John; Russell) hild stated, the vary worst tribunal to conduct it. He denied that th© people of England called for inquiry, bat even supposing they did, why should the Hon. Member for North Warwick-. shire not adopt the suggestion, ritat it should take place between this and the next session of Parliament, either by :Royal Commission or by the visitors, who had the power of conducting the strictost investigation upon oath? Ho objected to an inquiry of an in sultOng character, such as that proposed, which it was notorious was intended ea an electioneering clap trap. As to the miserable great itself; lie was prepared to contend that the people of frelancl were entitled to it on every . ground of puttee and good faith. The Church Establishment of Ireland cost this country directly 'about 3,000,0001. per annum. - There were 600,000 Protestants in Irelatid, so that the religious in struoion of each Irish Protestilra cost 51. a head, while, by dividing the Maynooth grater. among the Roman Ca tholic population, ho found (lota each of them received ono pansy ; so that each Pro t mtant received just al much as 1,200 Catholics; the Poitestant got 3id. per day for his religious instruction, cabala the same sum had to serve each a:atholic for three yes ra and a half. The discre pancy between the numbers - of t Datholieslind Protestants treland and the relative yak to of the endowments of tala two church e s, had struck 'every p erson w h o k new '4nYthi ng of Irelaed. Both foreign travellers and the g rea tis i t ., a , tes o m en of thi s coun t r y h a d remar k e d on this landt'ilalsot had spokui of it. eas the great evil of Ire titution of itrant, in fact, W5l :nothing more than a res tbe R ain , u ` l 6'" a Property which had been robb e d f rom Catholi e t tbadie Chu rc h, 'an d f rom th e R oman - and undera sty' : in the reigea o f . Queen El: a Ala-oh I under William protectorate of Cromwell, and also were the origi n lll ' of population ot 'lr e i a l i r poverty 101 The spoT.lings of these monarchs the Roman Catholic pLay. Th ey naerel ; w What :Ireland wanted was fair lists, to have a fair staa.tritted to .!.)e allowed to enter the what Irish hors;s, D ani ,: i o NY"o.V..taut the other day, see had *men eisertsd about 01•trzg,' done—(Laughier)—whca he asserted that ther e ~,,,a a ir y] The Honourabe th lto peace and Barbarian, htei had a fair start:. Mach not . tb . tarch:na in Irelan . d, but u.... _ . ti t lg of the sort in Ire leogth to (lola .the l i ti'D stor y then of proceeded at great their gradual ra laza• the penal low;, tr.icio4 Lb?* first imposition L . lad ego of Maynooth was t o , n ,t ea i, That stop bad the aroc'tion at a y g tioa, up to OTo time when tho ca qi . Nleath nos, and it vrai tllways cant iderrd .in themranh great f at in , 0 by LT , I .d castlerengh, one .cf w hos , e fot h ro ie e t r ' Fi l t a l ll is l i r i e r ' o ; wail toe piatesatnatintwl'elihaiPqa.a:„l,:iittft' ead:-dvtvi u t h t h ri h te e s g a a t v id o . compac t. In 1800 &he stata of. M ayauoth was i -i . 11 : man Catholic, Practices of the Church , was not to lawn the supplY of ,17, e' Roman Catholic 1:11M . the first ti rae _ priest hood in Ireland to foreign cola vs,. but to do their beat that to provide them with educatbn Lt home. The me t Ar - EI interfer Ince with the college - authority deprecated a , „ „ o f Maynooth. This was, howev•`4 7 l this agitation bad been raised agamst this ebtothsh. meria it had been raised before in 1800, and afterwards in 1826. ' o'clock, be ,-.:•PEATith left It being. now Four o.clock, o . Chair, and the House adjourr.e3l until t.-.,ix o'clock, The House resumed at Six o'clock• A messenger from the Lurch; :brought up the follow. mg Bills, to which their Lordshiipa had agreed:— 4 LONDON, Battle and Robertibridge Road. Runcorn Improremuit. London, Tilbury, rAnd Southend Rsil way. Shillingrord, Wal:ingford, and Reading Road, and Bridge, without amendment. Ipiwich Dock, with an amendment. South-Bait:ern and Reading, Guildford, an 4 Reigate Railways, with amendmfmte. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against he grant to Maynooth. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from the Society for obtaining the Repeal of the Taxes on Know ledge, praying for an inquiry with regard to the postage charvd for the transmission of newspapers under 2 uz. Mr. G. SANDARS presented a ptz:ition from the physicians and surgeons of Wakefield and its vicinity. praying for more adequate remuneration in criminal prosecutions. Mr. ADDERLEY presented a petition from George, Cape of Good Hope, with 200 signatures, chiefly fi e ld corne t s , praying for thei speedy passage of their constitution ordi nances, with all their details as first drawn, Mr. CUBITT presented a petition from the Southern Association of Baptist Ministers and Messengers, assembled at Whitchurch, Hants, representing 27 churches, 3,000 mem bers, and 12,000 hearers, against the Militia Bill. lir. COBDEN presented a petition from Saffron Walden against the Militia Bill. Sir B. HALL presented a petiton from the inhabitants of the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. Pancras, agreed to in public meeting assembled, complaining of Romish doctrines and practices being permitted in the churches of the Esta blishment, and praying that an inquiry may be instituted into the conduct of the Bishop of London, in reference to the matters complained of. Mr. BROCKMAN presented a petition from the members of the Hythe Reading Society to be furnished with copies of such of the reports and other Parliamentary documents ordered by the House of Commons to be printed as refer to literature, science, the fine arts, and the useful arts, free of expense, &c. Mr. TUFNELL presented petitions from the Eastbourne Literary and the Peterborough Mechanics' Institutions in favour of a distribution of Parliamentary papers to all mecha nics' and literary institutions. Mr. G. THOMPSON presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets, praying an inquiry into the cause of the prohibi tion of meetings on the Sabbath-day in Bonner's•fields. Mr. PACKE gave notice that he should move that the County Elections Poll Bill be read a third time that day six months. THE PICTURE BY TITIAN_ Mr. CHARTERIS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there was any truth in the report that a picture, said to be by Titian, which was recently purchaed for the National Gallery at Marshal Soult's sale for 2,4001., was last year in the possession of a London dealer, by whom it was shown to several of the trustees, who then might have purchased it for 1,200/. ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was no proof that a picture in the possession of a London dealer, and said to have been purchased by Marshal Soult, was shown to the trustees of the National Gallery, and offered to them for 1,2001. It was quite true that a picture, undoubtedly by Titian, and which had been purchased by the National Gallery, was for sale in London recently, and was seen by a friend of his ; but he was not aware that that pic ture had been offered to the National Gallery for 1,200/. But he must observe that nothing was more delusive as to the real value of a picture than the fact of its acquisition by a private individual at a particular price. He knew of a picture by Murillo which had been recently sold for 24,003/. sterling, which had berm offered to a distinguished individual well known to many Hon. Members in that House only a few years ago for 8,000/. There were very few pictures of emi nent merit that did not find their price in, London at the very top of the scale. It was impossible that the picture in question had been offered at a less sum than the trustees of the National Gallery took it at. But the country had given 2,4G01. for it, and he believed that they had purchased a very valuable picture at a moderate price. PRIVATE BILLS. Sir R. PRICE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case of private Bills being prevented from passing tine House of Commons by an early dissolution of Parliament, any steps would be taken to facilitate their being passed in the next Parliament, so that the great expense iacurred in respect to them, up to their present stages, might not be thrown away? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was not in the power of the present Parliament to facilitate the passing of these Bids in the next Parliament. No doubt the indulgence which the Parliament of 1831 had afforded would be given by the new Parliament. At the same time, the Hon. Member must feat that the circumstances must be of a very pressing character to justify such a course. THE MAYNOOTII GItAN I'. Mr. M. GIBSON wished to ask a question of the Chan cellor of the Exchequer with regard to the employment of the time of this House and the dispatch of public business. They had still got the Maynooth question hanging over them, and after a whole morning had been devoted to it, they were still as far from the termination of the debate as ever. He wished, therefore, to ask the Right Hon. Gentle man, who was the trustee of the public for the proper appli cation of the public time, whether he did not think it fit for him to use his influence with the Hon. Member for Warwick shire to induce him to postpone all further proceedings to a more convenient season. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he felt his duty at present to be in unison with the statement which he had already made to the House, namely, to take care that all those measures to which the Government were bound should be passed this session with due deference to the great consummation which they all awaited.— (Laughter.) That he acknowledged was itself a difficult, though he would not say an impossible task, but he mast decline, with respect to the subject of Maynooth, to under take that which the Right Hon. Gentleman had asked him to perform. OYSTER FISHERIES. In answer to a question from Sir G. CLERK respecting the oyster fisheries, Mr. HENLEY said he would pay every attention to the subject, and endeavour whether he could see his way to a relaxation of the law to enable parties to fish in the months of May and June without weakening the object for which the law had been passed—namely, the prevention of poach ing on the fisheries. The papers to which the Right Hon. Baronet alluded should be laid on the table to-morrow. THE REV. MR. BENNETT. Mr. HORSMAN, on rising to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the insti tution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, said that when, on the 20th of April last, he moved— `. That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct inquiry to be made whether due respect was paid to the decrees of the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical of the Church of England in the recent institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome," the object of that motion could not hav e b een m i sun d ers t oo d. It clsarly was to make inquiry into the act of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, for which he alone was responsible, in insti tuting a presentee against whom certain allegations had been made, in spite of those allegations and of the evidence is prove them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on the part of her Majesty's Government, moved the amendment, showed he did not misunderstand the object of the motion, for he opposed it on grounds of a twofold nature; first, that , the mode of redress proposed was inadequate; and next, that there was an appeal to the Archbishop against the act of the Bishop. The Right Hon. Gentleman said : " I cannot help believing that there must be an appeal from the prelate who acts in contravention of the canons of the Church to the Archbishop. If, then, there be an appeal to the Archbishop, it' the conduct and decisions of the prelate are subject to that superior revision, that surely must be a reason why the House of Commons should not interfere before that appeal has taken place, and, in lieu of having re course to such a tribunal, should not substitute a means which is confessedly so inadequate to obtain the result which is desired." But the House was not satisfied with the grounds taken by the Riglat Honourable Gentleman, and various Members ex pressed their belief that the question could not be disposed of in that manner; the Hon. Member for North Warwick shire in particular, who, expressing the sentiments of those around him, said—. " He was, however, quite certain that, the question having been raised, the country would demand that it should be fully investigated ; this was a question which, having been raised, must be dealt with." Another member of the Cabinet, the Secretary for the Colo nies, rose subsequently, and said he concurred in the views of the Hon. Member who had spoken, and that he-- " Felt not only that this was a question which ought to be raised, but that, having been raised, it ought to be dealt with; and he would say for himself, as he believed he might say for every member of her Majesty's Government, that the matter ought not to rest in its present position, but that unquestion ably inquiry ought to be made, and a remedy ought to be provided." The Noble Lord the Member for the city of London declined to vote for an address to the Crown, on the grounds,—first, that there might be an appeal to the Archbishop, as the Right Hon. Gehtleman had stated; next, that they did not know the character of the certificate of the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received from the Bishop of London ; and, thirdly, that he wished to leave the inquiry in the hands of Government. Tao Noble Lord said : " Let them at some further day declare whether they have found any mode of inquiry that is satisfactory, and let them lay any facts they may ascertain before the House. Until that period arrives I cannot consent to be a party to an address to the Crown." Ms Right Hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the same grounds in opposing the motion and showed he under stood it to be directed against the'Bishop of Bath and Wells. The general feeling Of the House was in favour of inquiry, and he ( Hr. Horsman) stated the reasons why he felt it his deity not to accept the promise of the Government; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, somewhat irregularly, rose afterwards and assured the House the Government were pre pared to institute the inquiry for which they seemed so anxious. The Right Hon. Gentleman said— ., H e would not talk of a friendly inquiry, nor could he promise a judicial inquiry, but he would promise that there should be a bona fide one." After a month had elapsed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid before them a report of the result—not of an inquiry, but of what Government had undertaken in the matter—to which he would not further refer, as it would be extremely inconvenient to embarrass the HMSO in considering a far greater and more important question by any reference to the course of proceedings, or to the opinions of her Ma jesty's Government. Only a few nights ago he had stated his views by way of a question to the Attorney-General on the state of the law in this case, and the Hon. and Learned Gen- tleroan stated, that supposing that there was a complaint against Mr. Bennett, it was doubtful how far Mr. Bennett could be made amenable under the Church Discipline Act; first, on account of the 20th clause, which covered offences committed further back than two years; and next, because there would be a difficulty in taking cognizance of an offence committed abroad; but, as against the Bishop of Bath and \Veils, it was admitted there was no redress whatever against his instituti on o f M r . Bennett, - and no — statute or court by. which it could be challenged. The Attorney - General seemed to think he (Mr. Ilorsman) had cast a cen sure upon the Government for their conduct, while another Hon. biember was of opinion he had acquitted Government (Tall blame whatever. But he had neither done one nor the other; for his dsire was to avoidilaTexpressT:uof any opinion whatever, and if he found the Ministry acting up to the declaration they had made, that the question should be investigated, he and the public would be quite satisfied; while, on the other hand, if they endeavoured to make it a party question, and to brin. , " the influence of Government to bear to defeat th e motion, he, and he believed the public also, would arrive at a Very different conclusion. Ho wished to discuss the question now without the smallest admixture of party feeling. On a former occasion he had stated fully the whole of the facts with respect, to the Rev. Mr. Bennett, but questions had been raised by his friends, and some things had been especially misunderstood by the Noble Lord the Member for the county of Down. He seemed to think he (Mr. Horsman) had stated Mr. Bennett was no longer in communion with the Church of England, and that he was in communion with the Church of Rome. Now, he had made i WEDNESDAY no such statement. What he said was, that when Mr. Ben- 1 nett left London he went abroad to visit Rome, aad that it was believed he had gone there in more senses than one. When he said that, he had had a passage in his mind of the Rev. Mr. Bennett's let•er to the Bishop of London, which ho would now quote to the House. He said (talking of his di:atilt pesitian). " The end must be that I seek for eac . e e lsewhere." N w ow, he beli eve d no person who read p that passage could put on it any otle , .er interpretation than that by "elsewhere" Mr. B enne t t meant the Ch urch o f Rome. The term was stereotyped—it was the phrase of those who had preceded Mr. Bennett where he (Mr. Horse man) supposed Mr. Bennett was going at the time, and it was understood to be the usual expression of clergymen of the Church of England in respect to tea:: chance. —(No, no.) He could quote several clergym an w h o h a d gone over to Rome who had used that phrase, and two occurred to him at the moment — Mr. Wilberforce an d Archdeacon Man ning.—(Hear, hs is hear.) It had b een represente d that he had founded statements respecting the proceedings of Mr. Bennett abroad on the evidence of one person, but, had he believed the inquiry would not have been granted, he would not have limited his evidence to one person. That gentleman hail been placed in a most awkward position, but, in order to show the spirit in which he wrote, he would quote a passage hone his letter, which would show he had very different feelings from those attributed to him. He wrote as follows : " The best evidence on this point, it seems to me, would be that of the English chaplain, whose name I forget, but who must be mentioned in the 'Clergy List,' or at any event in Graville's ' Spas of Germany.' If any evidence to this extent, which is all I can with truth aver, can be avail able in corroboration, I have no ol:jection to give it; but I should object most strongly to being brought forward n pros eora, char ge, upon such evidence alone no bishop, still which, if not better supported, fail. l F legal for the c ause o f t h e G ospe l truth and an al authority, could condemn him. It is on ly f rom a hypocrisy of the man, that in any event I should like to bri ng c h arges, w hi c h , exc l us i ve of lessatn lou fervents intenseteany to disgust at the the compulsion of duty that would necessitate them, must have the appearance of und er h an d o b servat i on. I n f act, I took no other notice of the se part i es t h an suc h as a person excee dingly ill is forced to pay to those whose inconsiderate no i s i n ess is the source o f constant annoyance to an invalid. " A thus stated th e w h o l e that I can conscientiously testify n point. B e i ng then. as now, very ill, I should n ot have noticed Mr. B ennett at all b ut for the prominence of his peculiarities. As it was no b us i ness o f m i ne to b e h i s censo r, and he seem e d to be comfortably on his way to St. Peter's, I gave him but very li tt l e attent i on, never thinking re it likely that hiS -- o Manism would require to be testified by ' ‘And I again, l ig o aa n v i have this ,a week aft er, h e wrote:— any evidence of m i ne. To be obliged to give any evidence at all against him is naturally very unpleasant to me, con sidering the manner in which my observations were made; and if these observations are to be made use of as the groundwork of any overt proceedings against him, I must beg that the promoters of such proceedings will first amply substantiate my statements, which can be done with ease, by obtaining the testimony of other residents (there were about forty English there at the time) of the English chap lain, and any of the innumerable persons about the Roman Catholic Church, who must have had daily opportunities of witnessing his attendance. If this be done, and it can be done with very little trouble or cost, I have not a doubt that the result would be to prove indisputably, that while at Kis aingen, at least, there being in the place an English church and English service, he voluntarily attended by preference ' the Roman Cath o li c. " After the sp eec h which he (Mr. Horsman) delivered, Mr. Stu'zer w rote a further letter, which would best show what his feelings were, in which was the follow ing letter "It seems to me that the simple course, if Mr. Bennett deny what I believe on my honour to be undoubtedly true, is to send to Kissingen, where conclusive evidence can be easily got. There must be some 50 or 100 persons, at the very least, who can say positively that they have seen or not seen him at mass. I have already stated the amount of evidence I can give. I have been dragged into this most unpleasant business by the hasty letter of Mr. Pratt; but, being in it, I feel bound to substantiate every syllable that I have advanced, and with that view I should not only be willing, but glad to pay the whole expenses of any person who can go over to Kissingen and settle the whole. But it seems to me, that the question could be much more easily decided. Does Mr. Bennett deny the fact of his constant attendance at the Roman Catholic service and his non-at tendance at the Church of England service at the same place ? If he does not, the whole question is at rest. enr John Harrington was wine him ail the time; surely he could not refuse, if solemnly called upon, to give his testi mony, however uufavourable it must be in its consequences to his friend ' The gentleman was not anxious to raise any accusation against Mr. Bennett, but that having in conversations men tioned facts which were repeated without his authority, and published, much to his annoyance, when asked if those statements were true, he took the part a man of spirit ought to take, and said he aid not take any part in pubiisbing the facto, but that, as they were stated by him, he thought ho was bound i n h onour not to shr i n k f rom con fi rm i ng what he had asserted.—( th en hear.) He had said so much because it was due to the gentleman in question; but he had other testimony which he could have adduced, and he could have stated many things which he had not wished then to bring forward. He h a d seen a l et t er i n the hand wr iti ng o f a l a d y from Germane', who said that the organist of the church (at Kissingen) had pointed out a gentleman to her, and told her it was Mr. Bennett, late of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, but now in communion with the Church of Rome. He could have stated that Mr. Bennett's proceedings and conduct had been notorious, and that he was pub lished in the Roman Catholic Directory as having been re ceived into the Church of Rome.—(Oh, oh !) Though that was a work of great circulation, it was not a work of autho rity ; but he might have looked upon it as being of some authority, because Dr. Wiseman had stated,:during the agita tion on the Titles Bill, that if the Noble Lord had looked into it he must have been aware of the Pope's intentions, as he had been designated in the ,Directory as " Archbishop of Westminster" some time previously. He held he his hand the affidavit of a German servant, to the effect that it was a matter of notoriety to all the servants in the hotel that Mr. Bennett went to mass every morning, and he could also have stated, on the former occasion when this subject was before the House, that Mr. Bennett, when travelling with his party, carried about in a box a consecrated stone for are altar, and that this stone was set up when they halted; and, Mr. Bennett officiating as a priest, performed religious ser vice before it. It was known that in the Roman Catholic Church every Roman Catholic priest must carry about with him a small consecrated stone for an altar, wherever he went, but such a thing Wa s un k nown i n the Protestant Church. He would now s t a t e why he felt the evidence, on the au thority of Mr. Pratt and hi s letter, was the most proper evidence that could have been adduced. It was a rule in this House that where a charge was made against an individual, 'the person bringing the charge should be extremely careful as to the character of the evidence he adduced, particularly that he should bring forward none which should be unfair to the party accused ; and during the last five years, in all the motions which he (Mr. Horsinan) had made upon ecclesias tical subjects, he had invariably stated that the evidence upon which he based his motions had been always published evidence known to the world, and generally taken from re turns ae thi s instance, setting aside th e l etter of Mr. Pratt, it was a strong fa a work like the Roman Cath o li c Di rectory i n th e mon th of November, and that it sh ou ld rema i n unnot i ce d an d un and c t reports that m laidn Bennett's upon the table of th e House. So, in name should be published in con t ra dicted until the month of April. It might be said that it was possible Mr. Bennett had' not seen that publication, but even assuming that he had not, it was, at all events, a strong fact that Mr. Pratt's letter should remain entirely un noticed, intleman it would be remembered that there under a Mr. position Bennett's attention. Before this sti. uf n to n ghrha n he tteal of excitem ent at F rome, and when the in stitution took place, Mr. Hastings, one of the clergy of Frome, addressed the following letter to Mr. Bennett. The letter was written on th e 31st : i place the 24th of January, and this R e or c l tory, Trowbridge, Jan. 31, 1852. uniet,:kThe enclos e d letter (this was the letter of fr ia l s ;. :illvi P tue r t at o. t) I have copied from the Achill Missionary Herald of this month. You may not have the opportunity of seeing the paper, and consequently be amble to reply to it. As a brother clergyman and a n ear ne i gh b our I have felt it to be my duty to make 3- Ou acquainted with the serious charge officious s t o p r n o b b li t e r l u y si a v g e ai n ill ca y ll o in u g , aynodarthaettesnctaionn to thedaloccasioned to the therehyChurch;stmay I hope you will no t think me sub ject? Trusting to hear that there has been some mistake in the statement, I am, Rev. Sir, yours faithfully, " R e v. W. Bennett, " J.l), HASTINGS." Now, if Mr. Bennett had been a clergyman regarding whose or thodoxy there was n o actual doubt but residence, he _ but about whom re ports had originated owing to a co oug ht to have been th ankful for such an opportun i ty o f contra dicting that report and certainly Mr. Benne tt, with his antecedents, o ugh t to have felt himself bound t o answer in—:Hearn e That letter, h owever , met with no reply. Mr. Hastings waited until the 12th of February, when he wrote this second letter : Rectory Trowbridge, l2, " Eev. Sin — Oa Settle - ' a letter to you, directed ' Vicarage, Frome ' The object of that communication was to afford you an opportunity seel tained. Your silence, see ing a letter signed 'John O. N. Pratt,' a copy of which of the enclosed, and which has since appeared in several English newspapers. This letter was naturally the subject of much conversation among the clergy of the neighbour hood,day. the 31st of January, I addressed and I hid hoped in writing to you to be enabled, on your authority, to contradict i tive statements therein con ay which your conduct however,lin informed, is characterised, compels me to conclude' as it a is not in your power to afford the desired ex planation. that cgret this the more as it tends to confirm those who e regret this the more as it tends to confirm tbo3s who were wilting to pass over what had oc curred in your former were h w in the adverse opinion they en • tortaine 1 respecting Pa appointment to any office in the your Church of England-so opposed to the courtesy ser vices of the Churchwhich You have publicly and of Rome. 3 " solemnly declared erroneous in her ceremonies and in matters a faith, has throw upon that Church, whose faith and do in a contempt: ' vows you promised to give e your ordination faithful diligenceminister and teach. always' to inasmuch as your preference for the e P. HASTINGS." That letter again received no answer whatever. What con clusion would any man draw from such silence ?—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Hastings drew his own conclusion, and this was his letter to him (Mr. a ) on the subject: Horsman Trowbridge,April 24, 1852. " I am, Reverend Sir, y , o , u n rs . _faithfully, "Rectory, " M Y dear Sir, Enclosed are copie s of the letters pro mised; you areat liberty to make what use you please of I I them. may observe nay object in writing them was to afford Mr. Bennett a ' n oppo r t un ity of contradicting the report of hi s attendance upon the Roman worship in preference to that of the Anglican Church, particularly as I was informed by a friend of his who had requested me to call upon him that his views were very much changed. It was the intention of myself and several of the clergy Pratt's letter appeared, and Just at this time Mr. 0. N. around to have called upon him. bad this statement proved and I thought it advisable at once to communicate with Mr. Benn e tt on the subject. lam truly s orr y , that b y hie taking ne nonce of eithe j r letter, he has left an impression on my mind, as I h ave state d to hi m , that he could not refute view; th us precluding the stat ement, and, consequently, h a d no t changed his ti m himy that courtesy w hi ch belongs to a brother clergyman coming into the nei g hb ourhood. "I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly, e an - . D. H ASTINGS. Now, put as i de altogether the ev id e nce which he (Mr. Ho th rsman) ga ve self and others from paying e other day as to the conversations of Mr. the Bennetts, and here was the fact that a letter was published in, an:l went the round of all the newspapers, stating pub licly that Mr. Bennett never entered the Protestant church clergyman in a friendly, kindly, when at Kissingen, but was a regular attendant at mass, and that this letter was enclosed to Mr. Bennett by a brother spirit, and when it was known that no notice was taken of the commu nication, i r e and .... (fi n e o a s r, uch h explanationear.) H e (Mr. Horeman) asked now s nd tha b t ro w th h e ie rl h y circum stances required w ee g i ve n, the fact must leave a conviction upon the mind of every impartial man that the statement whether, if he bad had the choice ef ever so much evidence EVENING, to bring before the House. he had not selected that which was the most proper and the most appropriate? It was evi. deuce which had been known to Mr. Bennett; it was, there fore, the fairest to that gentleman, and, ho thought, the most satisfactory and conclusive to the House. He came now to a far morn important and serious pint of this subject. He had done with Mr. Bennett, and now came to the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Well,;. The import ance of Mr. Bennett's acts were perfectly insignificant as compared with the acts of the Bishop. .Vhe difference in station between the minister and the prelate was nothing as compared with the difference of the effects which might fol low from the acts of a man who acted only in his individual capacity, and another gifted with power and authority, and whose example spread so far b e y on d hi mse lf. — (H ear, hear.) On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker which he would take the liberty of quoting:— " The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach not far, they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps, by such as dwell at the next door; whereas men of more ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives are viewed afar off—so that the more there are which observe aloof what they do, the greater glory by their well-doing they purchase, both unto God whom they serve, and to the State wherein they live." He (felt. Horsman) felt that he had spoken, when he last addressed the House, under a due sense of all the respon sibility which attached to the task he had taken. Some weeks had elapsed since then, and, if his statements had been rash and hasty, he had had ample time to reconsider and modify them, while, if they had been incorrect, ample opportunity had been afforded for repudiating them. After, however, all possible consideration and reconsideration, he was bound to say that the opinion he then stated had been very much strengthened, and whatever he then thought as to the acts of the Bishop of Bath and Wells as deserving of censure, fell short of the truth, even more as regarded the Bishop than as regarded Mr. Bennett. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett in the first plate with a haste and with a determination to shut out the parish ioners of Frome from that legal redress which they would have had if the Bishop had.given them mere time; he had instituted him, secondly, without having that certificate from Mr. Bennett's former diocesan which, by usage and by law, he was under an obligation to require; and, thirdly, without that due examination which was enjoined by law, and which the parishioners of Frome had a right to de mand; and he (Mr. Horsman) was prepared to show that the Bishop had done this not accidentally, not carelessly, not hastily, not upon impulse, but advisedly, as the lawyers said " perversely," and with the intention of defeating the ends of justice. What was the position of the different par ties at the time when Mr. Bennett was presented to the vicarage of Frome, and before his institution ? Each party then had a legal position and certain legal rights. The parishioners of Frome did not at that time know what their legal rights were. They acquired that knowledge later on, and, unfortunately for them, later than the Bishop. This was the position of the parties :—Before Mr. Bennett was instituted it was open to the parishioners under the canon law to have lodged a caveat against that institution in the Bishop's court. The object of the caveat was this, — that an individual might be presented to a benefice of whom a bishop might know nothing, and any persons who knew him to be unfit, and wished to prevent his institu tion, did so by a caveat. If sach a course had been taken in this instance, Mr. Bennett would have had to have " warned" the caveat, and that would have compelled the proctor through whom it was lodged to state the name of the person who had lodged it, and the objections to institu tion. Then the cause would have been referred by the bishop to the Vice-Chancellor's Courts, from these it would be referred to the archbishop, and from the archbishop the chase might be taken by appeal to the Privy Council. That was the position of parties, and that was the right which was available to the parishioners of Frome, white Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before heAvas insti tuted. He (Mr. Horsman) would now show the House how they were defeated in their attempt to avail themselves of that right, and what was the course pursued towards them by the Bishop. Mr. Bennett's presentation was confirmed on Tuesday, the 30th of December; on Wednesday he visited Frome, on Thursday, January 1, the inhabitants moved, and a protest was got up signed by five clergymen and 48 heads of families. On the 2d this protest was delivered to the Mar chioness of Bath, and the day after they received her lady ship's reply. On Wednesday they memorialized the Bishop, giving their reasons against the institution, by which, of course, they meant to ask his Lordship to make inquiry into the truth of what they alleged. They made this statement on the 7th of January; on the 15th they received the reply of the Bishop declining to accede to their prayer, and stating that he should proceed with the institution : On the very same day they wrote to him again, praying him to give them 14 days' delay to consider whether it might be their duty to ' take any further steps in the matter. They received his answer on the 21st of January, and that very day they sent their solicitor to London to take the opinion. of Dr. 'friss. Their solicitor returned cn the 23d, and they then learned, for the first time, .the means within their power for delaying institution. They received this opinion on the 23d, and a caveat was prepared on the 24th ; but before that the Bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett.—(Hear, hear.) These proceedings were of so very extraordinary a character that he (Mr. Horsman) had really felt at first that they were hardly to be believed. He had, however, received the following statement, in confirmation, from Mr. Hurd, of Frome : "Frome, June 2, 1852. " I will take up the subject on Thursday, January 15, on which day we wrote to the Bishop at Brighton, praying that he would delay institution for .fourteen days. On the 19th he dates his civil reply, which we received on Wednesday, the 21st ; and, by the very next train, on the same day, we sent Mr. Cruttwell and the Rev. Hill Dawse Wickham to London, to consult proctor?. On the 23d they had an oral opinion from Dr. Twins (to save time), urging them to lose no time in entering a caveat to stay institution and induc tion, or induction, as the case may be. Mr. Cruttwell wrote on that day from London to the committee at Frome to be ready in the committee-room at one o'clock:p.m. the next day, at which hour he would arrive at the station and join us. On his way from the station to the committee-room he heard the bells strike up, and was told that Mr. Bennett had j us t been inducted. his was Saturday, January 24. A few minutes after we had met Mr. Bennett and a few strange clergymen (three, I think) passed our window on their way from church, after induction. Mr. Bennett called on Dr. Griffith, at Elm, two miles from Frome, on the morning of Saturday, January 24, and was by him, as commissary, in stituted. He then proceeded back to Frome Church, and was inducted the same morning by the Rev. Mr. Blackwell, curate of Melts, -near Frome. The Rev. W. Calvert, curate of Frome (for four years), and then residing at the vicarage house, declined being present at the induction." He (Mr. Horsman) had wished to know whether these facts were confirmed by Mr. Cruttwell, and he had received a statement from that gentleman, which, though it travelled over somewhat the same ground, so extraordinary and in credible was the whole proceeding, he would read to the House : "My dear Sir,—ln answer to your inquiry, I beg to inform Bath in and the g you that on Wed nes d a y, the list of Bishop of January (be ing same day on whi c h the reply of t he Wells to the Rev. H. D. Wickham was rece ive d), I went to London with that gentleman upon the instructions of the com mittee to take Dr. Twiss's opinion. It was not until th e after noon of the 23d that we succeede d in obtaining th e verbal opinion of Dr. Twiss, to tho effect that Mr. Bennett's opi nions as they appeared by renfedrenthceattothheus• work s p p r u o b p l e i r sh c e o d urse to was l 0 b t e t a i e n n e enter r a a savea f t were decidedly unsound, stay his institution and in a e t du w ct . i e_ o l n le. t R ev. Let nothing v . in the Bishop's Court be done in the caveat, which was as follows . the matter of the institution ()f the se.wood, s in E. Bennett, clerk, to the vicarage of Frome ___S I the county of (A. B). Proctor for (C. D.), and Somerset, unknown tinhabitants° of the said parish of Frome others, parishioners, Frome on Saturday , b y, t he 24th, about Selwood,' I returned to the town I heard the bells one o'clock, and as I entered which Iu• • ring ing for Mr. Bennett's induction , reviously written 8 informed had to state the effect just taken place. I hadP to call the committee of Dr. Twiss's opinion, and , hadnot together, Bennett's induction taken place I should and, if Mr. the sanction of the ' at once have obtained Committee, and th e afternoon of th e 2 4th of January. en tered the caveat in . of the Bishop wou ld have been no finned' t The absence the caveat, which must, ' mien in the way of entering b his officer as a matter been rece i ve d y at Wells, and the of course, have been to stay induction until th e proper proceedings had been ta ken decide the question of Mr. Bennett's orthodoxy. dear Si " I am, my r, very truly yours, • " Frome, June 2, "W. C. Citurrwhere ~ J. Third, Esq." He was sure the House would see how f ar th e statement was corre ct , that the parishioners a Frome had not been rea dy to avail themselves before com i ng to this House Iremedy o f every lege. which was open to them. B ut t h ey wer e shut out by the Bishop of Bath and `Veils from that redress which they might have obtained if he had given that moderate and decent delay for which they peti tioned. All the evidence relative to Mr. Bennett's pro ceedings at Kissingen might then have been produced. As it was said the parishioners of Frome had not availed them selves of every chance of legal redress, he wished to ask two questions of the Attorney. General. If the caveat had been lodged, and the Bishop, had notwithstanding proceeded to institute, would , not the institution have been void? Th e Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had had opportunities of enquiring into the whole circumstances of the case. He had seen the opinion of Dr. T wiss ; he must have formed a judgment upon Mreßennett's doctrine, and he called upon him to assist the House in coming to a conclu sion by saying if that caveat had been lodged, and the question of Mr. Bennett'a othodoxy had gone to trial, whether it was probable that lie would not have been unable to obtain institution? He main tained that by the canons the Bishop of Bath and Wells was bound to receive from Mr. Bennett, and to insist upon the production by him of a certificate from his former diocesan; and, secondly, that the Bishop of Bath and Wells was bound to subject Mr. Bennett to a due examination. It might be said the Bishop acted strictly within the law in regard to the caveat, but did lie act according to law in re gard ;to the certificate of the Bishop of. London and the due examination which he was himself bound to make? Upon a former occasion he (Ur. Horsman) had stated that it was rumoured that three clergymen of the diocese of London had signed a certificate that they had known Mr. Bennett for the three years last past before the date of that certifi cate; that they had had opportunities of observing his con duct; and that during that time he had done, held, written, and taught nothing that was contrary to the discipline and doctrine of the Church of England. He had also given it as a rumour that the Bishop of London had signed that certi ficate with a qualification. Three clergymen of the diocese of London did sign that certificate, but with regard to the Bishop of London the fact was not quite as he stated it, He said he understood the Bishop had appended a qualification to the margin of the certificate. Whether anything was written ou the margin he could not say, but the Bishop of London had certainly written a strong letter, stating the sense in which that signature was to be understood. He was told, and he believed, that al-. though the Bishop signed . the certificate, yet that in reality the Bishop's signature was only understood to attest that the three clergymen signing the certificate were known to him, and that, in his opinion. they would they did not believe to be true--(Bear.) The not _ H sign what to see that certificate. [A n H on. mehmer ouse ought " The form is to be found in the b o ok s ."] Yes, but th e H -- ouse ought to see this particular certificate.—(Cheers.) They ought to know. the names of the three London clergymen who put their signatures to that document, and who testified that they had opportunities of k • nowing what Mr. Bennett was doing at Kissingen and other places.—(Hear.) He had a copy of the letter of the Bishop of London to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, which showed that the former took care that the sense in which he signed the certificate should be understood. This letter was tendered to him by a clergy man who wrote to the Bishop of London on the subject of Mr. Bennett's appointment, and who in reply received a copy of the letter from the Bishop. The letter had no date, but he was told it was written at the same time as the Bishop's Signature to the certificate. It Was as follows : " My Lord,L-I have to request that my counter-signatnr: to this testimonial may be considered as being simply the expression of my opinion that the clergymen whohave signed it, and who are beneficed in my diocese,. ve. But I testi fied to your Lordship that which they verily belie_ e _ e, e .,_ . think it is my duty to state, that in December?, lt 16 !?:_ mr Bennett nettled the perpetual-curacy of rau 0, li igbtlS St. 1 JUNE 9, 1852, bridge, and that I accepted his resignation, because I was of opinion that the peace and good order of the Church in my diocese would be seriously interrupted if he were to remain incumbent'of that benefice. For the reasons which led me to form that opinion, I beg leave to refer your Lordship to a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself which was published in the Times newspaper of December 12, 1850. " I am wholly without information as to any change which' may have taken place in Mr. Bennett's principles . or opi nions since his resignation of the cure which he held in my . diocese. " I am, "Your Lordship's faithful brother and servant, " C. J. " The Hon. a n d Ri g h t Rev, the Lord Biehop ofLONDON. Bath and Wells." —(Cheers.) That letter acquitted the Bishop of London of having been a party either to misleading or deceiving the Bishop of Bath and Wells.--(Hear, hear.) The Bishop gave his reasons for Mr. Bennett leaving his diocese, and his letter was the strongest condemnation, remonstrance, and warn ing, almost amounting, in fact, to a protest —( Hear, hear.) When the Bishop of London spoke of the peace and good order of his diocese having been interrupted by Mr. Ben uett; was not that a warning that the peace and good order of the diocese of Bath and Wells would also be in.. terrupted if Mr. Bennett were admitted into that diocese? —(Hear, hear.) But in the teeth of that condemnation and warning, the Bishop of Bath and Wells proceeded to insti tute Mr. Bennett. Rumours had since reached him, which it was desirable that he should mention, in order that an opportunity might be given to the parties concerned to ex plain them. He had heard, but did not believe, that the letter he had just read was not the only letter written by the Bishop of London to the Bishop of Bath and Wells ; and that in a se cond letter the former prelate had qualified his objections, and withdrawn his condemnation of Mr. Bennett. He did not believe that the Bishop of London would have allowed that letter to be put into his hands if the Right Rev. Pre late had, by a subsequent letter of a different character, qua lified or withdrawn that condemnation. Another rumour had reached him regarding the Bishop of Bath and Wells, which he could not believe. He bad heard that this letter of the Bishop of London was never seen or read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells; that he received the certificate, but that he never saw that letter. Now, if the Bishop of Bath and Wells, knowing that there was such letter, either declined or refused to open or read it, so far was that from being a palliation of the course he had taken, that the House would feel it to be a very great aggravation of the grievance of which the public had to complain.—(Hear, hear.) He might assume, then, that this statement was untrue. The words of the canon were:—" No bishop shall institute any unless, after due examination, he shall appear worthy of his ministry." What was meant by " due exa mination?" Surely the mode and extent of the examination were not entirely left to the will and discretion of the bishop? Lord Ellenborough had set this question at rest 'by a judg ment upon this point, which, if the House would permit him, he would read. Lord Ellenborough said : "It only requires him first to approve, that is, before he licenses; and, in ho doing, it virtually requires him to exer cise • his conscience, duly informed upon the subject; to do which he must duly, impartially, and effectually inquire, examine, deliberate, and decide. Here the duty of exami nation is again pointed out. The bishop is to find out whether he is learned, capable of teaching, moral, and of a right understanding in religion; and, therefore, the court would.require of him that he should institute some proper mode of examination by which the learning, dexterity in teaching, morals, and the religion of the candidate may he ascertained. The word of the statute is approve,' and he must exercise that approbation according to his con science, upon such means of information as he may obtain ; and every thing that can properly minister to his conscien tious approbation or disapprobation, and fairly and rea sonably induce his conclusion on such a subject. though it might not be evidence that would be formally admitted in a court of law, may, lam of opinion, be fitly taken into con sideration." , . The Bishop of Bath should have addressed himself to the 1 circumstances alluded to in the letter of the. Bishop of I London and the memor i al of the parishioners of Frome. To simplify the matter as much as possible he would refer to one point in each document. The parishioners directed the attention of the Bishop to a passage published by Mr. Ben nett, in which he said that " All the ideas of the Bible, and the dispensing of the Bible; as in itself a means of propaga ting Piristianity, are a fiction and absurdity." Did the Bishcp inquire into that? Considering what must be the feelings of a Protestant community like that of Frome— considering the feelings of veneration with which they must regard the sacred volume, a veneration fodnded on their con viction that to a peer man it was the greatest of blessing, and that the richest man without it was less than the most miserable of paupers— considering that this was hot only the opinion of the Protestant people of this country, bat that we occupied ourselves in sending the Bible abroad, as the source or religious truth, to the most distant climes, and that per sons were to be found who;cheerfully braved toils, privations, and even death, in prosecuting this the noblest work in which man could be engaged—considering all these things, the parishioners of Frome must have regarded Mr. Bennett's declaration about the Bible as little less than blasphemy and profaneness. If the Rev. Gentleman had entered their cottages, seized their Bibles, and thrown them into the fire, his act could scarcely have shocked them more than his words. Should not the Bishop have said to Mr. Bennett," Here is a statement shocking to Protestant feeling; I must have an explanation of it,"and the explanation must go forth to the world. You have stated, in your letter to Lord J. Russell, that you are un changed and unchangeable; is your opinion on this point unchanged? for,' if so, I should hold myself disgraced as a Protestant prelate in granting you institution. There was strong evidence that the Bishop did not ask this question. Now for the second point. The Bishop of London, in his letter to the Bishop of Bath, referred to Mr. Bennett's cor respondence with Lord J. Russell,.in which Mr. Bennett set forth his views with regard to the supremacy of the Crown. This point was of particular importance, because every clergy man on his institution was obliged to take an oath regarding the supremacy of the Crown in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters. After the decision in the Gorham case a movement took place amongst a large portion of the clergy of the Church, about 2,000 of them signed a protest, setting forth that they had all taken the oath to maintain the Queen's supremacy in a peculiar sense.—( Hear, hear.) Among the persons who signed this document were Archdeacon Manntng, who had since joined , the Church of Rome, and Isaac Wilber ' force, archdeacon, and Hodge Mill, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, who still held preferment in the Churchof England. Mr. Bennett said, that, having taken the oath in favour of the Queen's supremacy, he became uneasy in his conscience after the decision in the Gorham case; that he consulted a barrister as to whether he was bound by the oath to obey such an exercise of'the Queen's supremacy as had taken place in the Gorham case, and the barrister informed him that he was bound to do so, because the oath mnst be taken in the sense in which it was in. tended by the person imposing it, and not according to the interpretation which it might suit the convenience of - the party taking it subsequently to put upon it. Mr. Bennett did not resign his living to satisfy his scruples of conscience, but contented himself with signing the protest. Shortly after arose the controversy with the Bishop of London, and then he resigned his living. In the course of the same year he presented himself for institution to the vicarage of Frame, and the oath in favour of the supremacy of the Crown must again be taken. Ought not the Bishop of Bath to have taken notice of Mr. Bennett's recorded opinion' ou the isubjeet of the oath? Should it not have been a part of the " due examination" required from the Bishop to have asked. Mr. Bennett whether he sub scribed the oath in the sense in which the law imposed it, or with some mental reservation or qualification ? It was not sufficient to say that the Bishop privately examined Mr. Bennett, and was satisfied with what took place. The ob ject of the examination was to satisfy the Church at large, and especially that portion of it over which Mr. Bennett was to be set. The scandal was notorious; its removal should have been notorious also. If Mr. Bennett's opinions had un dergone a change, the fact should not have been communi cated to the Bishop alone; it should have been made known also to Mr. Bennett's parishioners. lt was to be regretted that the Bishop in this matter, instead of appearing in the dignified character of An impartial judge, had exhibited hint • self in that which in that House was held to be the most objectionable, it might almost be said,odious of characters, namely, that of a partisan. It appeared to him 'that he had established the three propositions with which he had set out. Hooker pointed, in,the following passages, to the evils likely to result from such a malversation of office on the part of a high ecclesiastical dignitary as that with which the Bishop of Bath was chargeable : "If now, there arise any matter of grievance between the pastor and the people that are under him, th e y have their ordinary, a judge indifferent, to determine their causes and to end their strife. But in case there were no such ap pointed to sit and to hear both, what would then be the end of their quarrels? . . . But the hurt is more mani fustly seen which doth grow to the church of God by faults inherent in their several actions, as when they carelessly ordain, when they institute n eg li gen tl y , w h en corrupt l y they bestow church livings (benefices, prebends, and rooms especially for jurisdiction, when they visit for gain's sake rather than with serious intent to do good), when their courts, erected for the maintenance of good order, are dis ordered, when they regard not the clergy under them, when neither cleigy nor laity are k e pt i n th at awe f or which this authority should serve, when anything appeareth in them rather than a fatherly affection towards the flock of Christ, when they have no respect to posterity, and, finally, when they neglect the true and requisite means whereby their au thority should be upheld. Surely the hurt which groweth out of these defects must needs be exceeding great." The hurt was exceedingly great in the instance which he had brought under the notice of the House, and was it any answer to be told, as ho was a few nights ago, that Mr. Bennett had already won, to a great extent, the confidence of the parishioners of From? The House had beeninformed that 1,200 of the parishioners of Frome had signed a memo rial stating that they were satisfied with the soandness of Mr. Bennett's doctrines. Admit, for the sake of argument, , the truth of the alleged popularity of Mr. Bennett at Frome, he drew an inference from it very different from the conclue slob at which that gentleman's friends arrived, Had it been said that Mr. Bennett was universally disliked, that no one went near him, and that the mischief would bashortlived, it might perhaps be expedient to let the matter rest, but the case was different when it might be said, " Mr. Bennett may be a Roman Catholic, but he is very popular—he may be a Jesuit, but he is Very attractive—it may be true that he said what is alleged about the Bible, but he is convert ing all the parishioners of Frome." Under such circum stances the popularity of Mr. Bennett would only be the fulfilment of the worst forebodings of those who objected to his appointment.—(gear hear.) The question now to be determined was what was to be done. The Govern ment admitted that the case was one of which it was im possible to exaggerate the importance. It was admitted on all sides that it could. not rest where it was. Inquiry was declared to be not only essential but inevitable. How was the inquiry to be pursued? The House could not proceed b y resolution, because the facts were disputed. proposed there should be an inquiry by means of a commi h would be urged sion, but he foresaw the objections Nellie in deference to against that course, although he suggested is t alt other modes the wishes of his friends, who desired the ea He former s ly . of investigation should bo tried undertake ee inquiry. Com mons was called upon to under a Commission being rejected, he n_ eirnot admit, however, that cat h l ad Hoursu onth o e f ll Inquiryubsyeto undertake the task. would have applied to its Ministers for a/teldinisitfertshewyoufobulnlidave made a th d e dr a es d s op to tio t n he o C f that case the Crown re th l o wn m w ot e i u on ld l f i o h e r a m v e e r l b ); proposeden altogether w he as impracticable, they wou!d that t a n d e v i ce ( requisiteEle a r, hear.) e investigation,airss)i in quiry no t to return a favourable answer advise her Majesty so that the question wouldstill to that address, _ that H have CO be settled in Souse. On the other by a Commission hand,if the Ministers at once advised h er M a j esty to returnafav favourable answer, and to institute an inquiry, and they were stopped at the outset by the announcement that no inquiries would be given on their interrogatories, that again would have brought the matter before the House, and it would have been their duty to consider how to retrieve the false step which her Majesty's Ministers had taken.—(Hear. hear.) They had been told by the Ministers that inquiry I y a Commission was impossible, so that the inquiry must be instituted by Parliament, or not at all. Now, what really was the objection to inquiry by a Committee of that House? It Was an in q uir y into a I articular exercise of the right of patronage, and as to the mode in which a Bishop had chosen to exercise his authority. Tbey were every d a y legislating on ecclesiastical affairs. There were several Church Bills at. that moment on the order-book, and there bad not been a week during the present session in which they had not been considering something or other respecting the Established. Church.—(Hear, hear.) It was rot only .necessary, but. inevitable that such Menial he theecase. It was one of th conditions of the Established Chat-eh that 'Parli a ment, which created that Church, should be able to consider its affairs, and correct what was wrong.— H ear , hear.) If there were abuses th ey ought to be removed, if there were scandals they ought to be inquired into, if there . were griev ances they ought to be redressedgleer,fiear.) They were,. told, however, that they oug h t not to take cogn i zanc e of Church Affairs because the House of Commons was not now composed exclusively of members 'of the Established Church- But why was the House not composed wholly of members the Established Church? Because the nation of Enean" was not composed entirely of members of the Established Church; and if they said that the 'louse of Commons, as representing the nation, was to fir dissevered from its Es tablished Church that it ought not to have direct-cognizan ce of its affairs, then, a fortiori, the nation'must be so far sees rated from the Estahhehed Church that they ought not tcs have an Established Ch urc h at all.—(hear, hear.) Tha t was the legal and in ev it a bl e resu l t of the argument; rf pressed home; but he held, on the other hand, that the Established Church was the creation, of Parliament —tha t it existed by the bre a th o f P ar li ament, and was subject to its jurisdiction, and there was no duty of Parliament obvious, no responsibility so undeniable. as that when it had established a church for the teaching of one religion, it should net be made subservient to the interests of another —that it should not allow .a minister of that Church to become the secret agent of another.—(Hear hear.) The people of England h av i ng h a d the present question raise's; would most assuredly lik e to see that Parliament wa s earnest upon it. He believ e d that s h e i nqu i ry need not be one x long duration—that the witnesses would be very few, and that the whole exam i na ti on need not last more than a 'o',.. 7 or ten day s . Th e f acts o f the case were indeee few and shrple. Here was a clergyman, the incumbent of St. Paul's, Knightbridge, whose ministrations were carried en in such a manner, and acquired such notoriety, that, the ser vices were int errupted b y mobs and riots.—(Hear, hear. ) Virtually ejected by his diocesan, he published a letter, 'n which he told his diocesan that he found himself in a false position in the Ch urc h of 'England. He w en t abroad, and was stated that his attendance on a Roman .Catholic place? worshiP - Wee so notorious, that he was openly claimed in their publications as a convert to their faith, and in full comma nion with their Church. It was stated that during whole time he wa s a t Ki ss i ngen he was never near a Pre testant Church, arid an habitual attender at a Rom an Catholic Catholic Church. This statement was brought before bw: in a friendly mariner by a brother clergyman, a nd via' received by hiM in such a way as to confirm its truth. The parishioners of F rome , t o wh i ch he was appointed, 01°' - rriorialised the Bishop of Bath and Wells and gave e xtracts from, his published wor k s . T he condemnation of b . is . former - diocesan was a ga i n v i rtua ll y recorded. The fact w"' f brought before the Bishop th a t h e d en i ed the supremacyv „ e the Crown, and that h e t oo k t h e oaths in a qua l i fied s-nse. All these things were brought before the, Bisheil but without the inquiry requi re d by law, without the prelg certificate, he not only instituted him, but d:d so in so t , h . 'manner as to shut out the parishioners front the only tri bunal established'by law before which they could have re, dress.—(Hear.) For all this th ey were told there Was tole no redress, because a Commission of Inquirywouia not be ' fectual, and because there were some gentlemen who objected to pursuing such an inquiry by a' Parli amentary C omm itte Why, they had had hu n dred s of Commissions with no W e % V authority than would hat % ex i s t e d i n the present case, though the inquiries had often been exceedingly unpalatab le to those to whom they were a dd ressed, much valuable infor mation had nevertheless b een acqu i red, while in not one case had the inquiries of the C omm i ss idn ers been evaded.. -.1)11. now they were told, f o r the fi rs t t i me, that a Commiss i on fi , r; not to be instituted because answers to the inquiries wowd . not be got. That was no doubt a we ll- a d v i sed anno unce cent, and had not been mad e except on good gr ounds. Sc t. ..° v ting apart the circumstan ces o f t hi s case, he would 1 11 °, thought that such an answ er. cou ld not h ave been given a the prelates of the E s t a bli s h e d C hurch.—(Hear, hea!'•!. There was not in the count r y anot h er b ody b y whom an lu quiry issued in the Queen's name would not have been re spected.—(Hear, hear.) The re was no class of her Na , j eety's -subjects 'who,' it' a'Commi ss i on o f I nquiry ha d bee n issued, would not have h as t ene d t o meet its wishes; let it knock at the door of the p eer or t h e cottager it would have , been respected, because it was issued in th e Q ueen ' s n one' and he should have theught that the prelates of the E' t ",; blished Church would h ave b een among the first to respe ct the authority of the l aw , and show their loyalty ; acknowledging the C om M is s ion of the Queen.—(l l e:2 - ' hear.) They might have been expected to recogn's the principle on which their Sovereign had set the ea, ample, that the m ore exa l ted the rank the greater t he responsibility, that great power and great priviler were to be held 'for public purposes, and not a•r a seerated for selfish ends.—(liear, hear.) The responeibi",s 7 connected with this case now rested with Parliament a lo3 ' and, whatever might be the ground on which they acted,, whether it affected the sincerity of their faith, whetecroat involved the supremacy of the Crown, or the jurisdictio n PArliament, it was a serious responsibility. It would 158 very unfortunate and very fatal event if / Parliament on rs? c " ii occasion were by a majority t o re f use the inquiry Nru l Ito every one admitted ought to be instituted.. A majority us such a case would only show h o W f atal and how. danger:ea a 'majority aas when opposed to truth. A majority hi %la a ease could not influence publi c opinion ; a majority euells, not acquit Mr. Bennett or. the Bishop of Bath and t ba but a majority could disappoint public expectation, an, .. 0 1 public reprobation diverted from other parties would ea point the finger of scorn at the House of Commone.— hear.) It would tell them that their Church was a rne' aii 'y , that their Protestantism was a pretence, that their loyalty to was a sham ; and it would tell them that, in endeavouri ng screen individual delinquents, were perpetuating n ee powers, but that they were degrading stroying the Church.—(Hear.) The Hon, Merb„l -moved for a Select Committee to inquire into theßan stances connected with the institution of the Rev - • nett to the vicarage of Frome. Parliament a r ''''S en f "Di vide Di- A short paus e t oo k p l ace, followed by loud cries a " vide!" MR F. 'NOR. Mr. GLADSTONE. 'rose O CON to address the House, w hy b e was interrupted by Sir B. HALL, who said—l wish to refer to a questio o n w l i f order. lam s orr y t o ca ll t h e attention of the House t e _ conduct of the Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Ceu, sf nor), but I f ee l i t my duty to do so.—(Loud crie s " Heir.") While I was thi s moment. calling "Divide, no seeing any M em b er rise to address the House. t h e 110, 0 . , Member turned ro un d on me and s t ruc k me in the side -- laugh)—and severely hurt me. I told the Han. Gent lema n former occasion that if he addressed me in this . , put M y se lf under House, or subje c t e d me to any annoyance, I should c.!ll your attention, Si r , to the subject, and your protection, whi c h I now do.— [During the time occu pied by the Hon. B aronet i n his statement, air. F. or o . Conn Indulged in a series of bows and smiles, eventually adding his mite to the hilarity so generally occasioned by the refer ence to the immediate cause of the complaint.] The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Nottingham has been so long a Member of this House that it is unnecessary to remind him that it is against the rules and orders of the House for one Member to interrupt or annoy another in the course of the proceedings. lam sorry to say, however, that the Hon. Member for Nottingham is in the constant h a bit of violating those rules and orders—(Hear)---and I now tell, hint that if he persists in that cou rse it w ill be my pain f ul duty to call the attention of the House to the Hon. M e mber by his name, and it will then be for the House to take Sne ll ulterior steps as will prevent any such misconduct in (avast , . Mr. F. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the fro nt Opposition bench, close to the table, and who, during the Speaker's short address, had been loudly vociferating "Order, order," then rose, and spoke in a rambling and in coherent manner. He said—l did not do anything to the Hon. Baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did not do anything whatever. He is my greatest enemy.—(Order, order.) He was one of the members of the land committee that sat five years ago.-4" Chair, chair.") A Member of the Government was then chairman of that Committee, and it was composed of 15 members. I built houses and cottages —.(Order, order)—but the ruflienshe members of the land society) paid no rent .— (.. Order," and cries of "Chair.") Though in five years they got as much manure as would fdl this room. [This idea seemed particularly to affect the Son. Gentleman, for the allusion caused biro to weep.) They talked about soup.—(Renewed cries of "Chair.") Members paid 601. or 150/., and they were located, but the nage paid no rent.—(" Chair.") One hand farmer came up wi t " a red cap on, and a hatchet in his, and was going to cut my head off— The SPEAKER id ,I mast now call upon the goo' hlember by name. Mr. O'Connor --(A pause. ) )If the goo. Member has any apology to make to the'll u ous se e, now is the time to do so. Mr. O'CONNOR—I make an apology to the House' beg the Hon. Member's pardon for anything I did to hug' (Hear, hear.) You are the best Speaker that ever sat in the chair.—(" Order I" and a laugh.) The matter then dropped, ano Mr. GLADSTONE hoped the attention of the House eerP- - - not he diverted f rom the important subject by the sce ne S which had just oc curre d . H e would commence his rem ar , bye expressing his reg re t a t b e i ng called upon to follovr„. ts on. Gentlem an w i t h out f i rst having had it intimated to iom what course her Majesty's Government intended to lettr s % e t For altho ug h h e was personally acquainted with the eildrl!ea individual, the object of the Lion. Gentleman's charge, set had made it his s t u dy t o i n f orm hi mse l f on t h e subjectc`b after all this was mainly a legal question, a question ws!f oo could net be disc usse d or. d ec id ed w i t h out the a pplicae t i oa of legal kno w l e d ge an d l ega l aut h or i ty. I t was a que s e t on which he had hoped Government and the law ofnuer s tbo the Crown would have st a ted th e view theyetook hsa distinct legal issue which had not unf a i r ly, b u t whichatlee broadly and visibly, been raised by the H onoura ble man, and would, on their authority and respoosibo"f„, offer advice to the House as to the course they should Ti t o sue. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the ques as a legal question, and he could not help whaling r at Honourable Gentleman had confined himself with somero that rho greater strictness to the legal view. It appeared to H onou rable Gentleman, who declared hi s on l y o bject be to attain truth, and to show truth, had allovied,f is rhetorical powers and _warmth of feelin g to m i x themserbe with his statement of the alle ge d f acts of the case, a nd had done this with an ability which mi g h t b e dangerous to the House, unless wholesome efforts were made to bring et them back from the warmth i n f use d i nto the case, an d to oa t duce them to consider they were only discussing a ould question on the strict and dry view of its merits. Ile vA, h n ot dwell on the vari ous parts of the Hon. Member's spe" but he must beg leave to call attention to one or two .. points. The Honourable tt , fember said, un l es s the lie u. ' agreed to his motion, their Protestantism wou ld be a Pre tence and th e i r l oyalty a sham. That' i ssu e was t i9 o _ strong.-- (Hear' hear. ) Th e H ouse h a d a di s cretion in ±:e matter; they had a right to t es t t h e s t a t me hts o f the 13 ?" . Xember to • se e if t h ose statements were b orn e 0ut...._ whether he was consistent in his doctrine, or whether 5(277 part of his doctrine was not overturned by what was lard down in the speech. This the House was entitled to do without the fear that the people would consider tha a t_ c t , f_if loyalty of that House was a sharn if they refused to d the Honourable Member's views. lie would just give an rs lu g stance of the Honourable Member's inagnifyiog powers to ett speech. The Honourable Gentleman said the objectio Commission had been made by the "tight Honourab le er , Gentleman on the ground that no power would be thereof conferred to obtain answers to questions. Oa that basis ~,t',` o Hon. Geetleman built the inference that the Bishop t and Wells had declared he intended to refuse answering questions, and then, with the same ingenuity, he procseejnedg to extend the refusal to the whole bench of Bishops. l a) l o 111° that no other class of her Majesty's suljects wou he ov_ same. On that foundation, and no other, hadA se '7.,e v j Gentleman built his tirade against the whole r , 0 1; 3 _,. 0d ., bench. He was not the man to defend bishops c , r __?„`; jit a else when they did not do their duty But be did s"." bishops, like an y other persons, were entitled to II of from, f same decency of treatment —(" Hear, hear, that decency 0 man.) He did not think that they bad got member.Learneo justice and treatment at the hands of the Hon. and • _ fled G en tle! (Etear, hear.) tie had heard the Hon. and Lear , • •