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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 8. The LORD CHANCELL,L took his seat on the Woolsack at Fivo o'clock. The Militia Bill was road 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 The Earl of SHAFTESBURY opposed the Bill, as being impracticable in its provisions. The Bishop of LONDON also opposed th© Bill, After a short conversation the Bill was read a socond time. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a ?petition from certain copyholders in Cumberland against the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill, On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the Corrupt Practises at Elections Bill was read a :second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Registra tion of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bill was read a third time and passed. On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the "Public Works Bill was read a second time. On the motion of the Earl of MINTO the 'Aviv of Evidence (Scotland) Bill passed through Committe e. On the motion of the Earl of HARROWBY the In dustrial and Provident Societies Bill was read a secon d time. SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL. The Earl of MALMESBURY moved the second read ing of this Bill, which he explained was i n t e nded .. place France on a footing of equality withto England with ref e r ence t o th e mutual surrender of criminals. By the convention of 1843 between the two countries this country obtained the right to claim the surrender of certain criminals who took refuga i in France; while, on the contrary, by the imperfect. state of our law, France was not able to claim criminals who had fled hither from that country. The Earl of ABERDEEN said he was afraid that the Noble Earl opposite was not sufficiently aware , of the difficulties of the subject which he had taken in hand; which, indeed, were so great that ever sine() the peace of 1815 the two Courts had been in constant communication for the purpose of cox iclud ing a convention of this sort, and in 184 3, he (Lord Aberdeen) had for the first time conchs ded a treaty w ith France for th e surrender of crin duals charged with murder, f orgery, and fraudulent bank ruptcy. He did not think the present Bill gave suffi cient security against political offenders being et aimed under its provisions, and it only required the prodi action of a er.andat Barret or warrant from a French magi strate anti proof of identity. Now, it was evidently a nsuffi eject that a mere accusation without any proof ,of the commission of the crime charged should be an that was required to justify us in delivering up an su lensed party. Lord BROUGHAM readily agreed that this wasi a sub ject which required legislation, for nothing could be clearer than the proposition of his Noble Friend, that it was hardly consistent with the condition of civilised society, that two nations so closely connected as France and Englana I were should exist with the facilities at all times afforded •to the most desperate offenders, who had committed the most atrocious crimes, of escaping with impunity by passing : over a narrow channel as easily as formerly ideal boundaries could be passed. Nevertheless, he admitted the many diffi , :ulties which would have to be encountered in dealing wit .h tha question. Having enumerated a few of these difficulties, the Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to observe, that under the convention it was stipulated that an analogous ;law to the one now proposed should be passed in France, and a provision to be made in the treaty that the convention should not come into force until a day to be named by both parties; consequently until we shall be satisfied that a la w was passed in France similar to this, no such day 'would be named. So far all was well. But just suppose a French law to be passed, and this country, being satisfied, gav e notice that the convention was to come into operation, say on the Ist of October next. Then, by another provision of the Bill six months' notice was required in order that the treaty should be put an end to. Let the House, then., see what might happen during these six months—laws is these days were not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which were never repealed and never altered. On the contrary, we lived in times when the repeal of laws was almost as fre quent as their enactment; and supposing a law passed before the Ist of ,October should afterwards be repealed, or a sub stantial modification introduced in it, where was the security for those parties who might then be tried for po litical offences, though under the previous state of the law they would have been safe? But the chief difficulty - was, after 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. He had lately had some conversation with the British Ambassador at Paris with reeard to a Bill which was then before the corps legis haft; That Bill was in a very forward state, and as the Government there had what might be called a " working majority"—(Laughter)—a majority, he believed, of 242 to 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 accomplices—English men, ft might be, in the condition of accessories—might also be tried in France. Nay, more—and he owned he was never mere astonished in his life at any act, or attempted act, of legislation as he was when he saw this - Englishmen not charged as accomplices of Frenchmen—but English men without any accession to, or complicity with, French men , might be tried in France for political offences by them committed in England, provided those offences were against the French Government, cr 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 len to s. —(Loud laughter.) bard 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 6of 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 ings 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 sides of the House that something must be done to meet the just demands of the French Government. At present there were two acts in force which gave to this country all the benefits that could be derived from such a treaty, but practically gave the French Government no benefit at all. It was perfectly clear, therefore, that a remedy should be pro rcied, hey and did her Majesty's Government were ready to do so, ' or if t not, we might lose all the benefit we now w en e a rd. The feeling of the House, too, seemed to be that epiniownasi'roper to be done should be done now. In his , L. the present was the right time to provide a measure oi tins sort, for if during so many years it , wae found im possible to bring the Governments of the two countries into accord the subject, and if they were now ready, thou - eh uP° th l er ey migut not have taken exactly the best and most e oper steps for the purpose—yet, if they were now ready e e orar , to - an arrangement, surely that was precisely the mome nt - when advantage should be taken of that happy concurrence of mion o It was objected to the meas ure before th e R ouse P • Oaken up in this country, that it allowed its merely to be proo,fitor,carried out of it, merely upon a ii,.acuentity. Now, when an attempt warrant and simple was made to avoid that ,„ e lti in the act of convention of —that ien Atha to do that which was the Noble Earl near him • ji _ rele rl of Aberdeen), it failed in this respect constitutional, to protect tbe person who , , was claimed and and who was entitled to our hospitality and j: e protection of our laws, we did that which made the treaty a dead letter so far as regarded the government et France In can y" g forward such a measure as this, therefore, the must zis - ce n t. - - t ain what substitute they could for that ° P s ro u o b e f st o it ,, u pro- It which had already faid. And the vided at this moment wawa warrant and f i identity. Machc,L evidenc e e v a l ; say how far this neo n was very difficult to dence was to go. Were they to require so would satisfy them that if the person were to be tried there was every probability of hisbeing convicted? 11® was so desirous that the objects which they had in view sh ould be carried out, that if any plan could be chalked out w hi ch would give greater security to the person accused and to th e Ferench Government that their criminals in this country * would be surrend ere d t o t h em , he would be most hap py to adopt it. Great care, he admitted, ought to be ta ken in the convention that it would not be made applicable to political offenders. That convention stood upon a treaty formally entered into. They could not, however, step in betweena the French G overnment and their sub j ects , although th ey at ted 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 surrounder here bee this Government as a discharge from the crime of which he was accused. - Lord BROUGHAM—Or be sent back. The LORD CHANCELLOR —Or be sent back. That was a valuable saggestiou of the Noble and Learned Lord. They were now, however, - upon the Second reading of the Bill, and lie could only say that they would go into Com mittee with an'anxious desire to have the benefit of the as sistance of the Noble and Learned Lords in renderine the - 13'111 as perfect as possible for giving effect'to the objects • which they were all anxious to attain. But what he wanted to impress upon their Lordships was this. He had the most sincere respect for the opinions of the Noble Earl near him. The Noble Earl seemed to think that they had a right to expect that these securities would be given by the French Government. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) could not see bow they could ask the French Government to pass any each law as would give them such additional security. The Parliament of this country did not pass any law of a si milar kind when as Engles!: subject was brought to this country, and was tried for a political offence. They had no sfeeneln' nelaw as prohibit e d t h em from trying such political or em did they p ro p ose t o pass any such law. He ad mitted that this Act would not orevent the infraction of ,h e treaty by Fra nce as against' her own subjects. But whet would be the consequence of such infraction ' It would be an infractio n of the treaty itself, and ins . nch . case they had the usual mode of vi a di c n t i nb a their rights. The Noble Eeri asserted that the reen ß npective law went too far. He concurred in that opinion. y some inadvertence, all the crimes since the date of the was clear in 1843 w ere nude that e4Evee. , retrospective, whereas it . _ only all the ne w . 1- elfierices which were created by the law should have been I ek. , : 7 frpt t.W. retrospective. If their Lonlships, howe v e r wou ld 'r I '• ' had no - ' doubt it 4 .--,-- .1 . gement tee the Bill going info C . emmittee, h e .r . erniedne4 the Committee in such a shape as to meet the r 4<i-, 4 7:.,, d o ',,.p pcy4-0 heir Lordships.. If iitc But he must say .ij f a' t / ..7 - 4114 . . PBELL said that . t h e y were most ennious and k,....,.._.__. sired to further this measure. oe - ti en' */' prised at this novel mode of pre eeethog as ( 0 1p a , - ' - ..ig,e_.„ mit A THE this law of extradition. —namely, making the word of the party sufficient authority for the giving up of the party accused. He locked with the greatest apprehension upon such a provision. The law of extradition was very ancient. Tile invariable rule was to require reasonable evidence of the guilt of the party when the Government of a country was called upon to give up a criminal. They , ere now, for the first time, about to propose that the mere assertion of the Government shall be i`ield as conclusive evidence of the guilt of the accused, and tL'at he shall be delivered up to be t r ied by the laws of his own country. It was extraordinary, upon this subject, that there stould be no reciprocity in the requirements of both countries. If the Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack asked him how this was to be done? he would simply say, let it be done in England as it was proposed to be done in France. Surely it was not proposed that the warrant of the Secretary of State in England, or of an English magistrate, should be taken as proof positive of the guilt of a party whose e xtradition was required from France. By the present measure, how easy would it be for s r l o vin xi i ous i d t e o n I t ; tra before , n a m m e a r ey . persons to forge docum ents asserting the guilt of an indivi dual who had made hiomf f obn sgtorattheroiungthhisthoeoufontrry_ p e g o h s y g li The Earl of MALMESBURY.-- , There is a discretion in the magist r a te. PBELL—The only discretion the magistrate L or d CAM would have was as to the identity of the accused. On that fact being aseertajned he was bound to order him to be im mediately given li t ". Now, this was a power so liable to abase he thought the ,neatest care ought to be taken in the creation of it. The law of extradition, even with all the securities which at prest'nt surrounded it, had been much abused. He recollected that when he had the honour of being Attorney•Ganeral he e ras consulted in a case arising out of the treaty entered into bcn;ween the United States and Canada. In that treaty there vas 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 02, 1 man up. There was a remonstrance made by the American govern ment in consequence and he (Lord C.) advised the govern ment of this country to stand by the governor in what he had done. Now, when the power was capable of being so abused under that law, how much more was it likely to be abased under a convention which only required the ipse dLvit 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 I 1 th article power was given to the Secretary of State to 6uper , ,ede 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 ;lid not propose to bind themselves by any law upon this point, they therefore could not demand that the French Governmont 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 Kingdom, or in any of the dominions of her Majesty, for or on account of any crime or offence com mitted previously to his being so surrendered, except the crimes described in the said convention, but shall be wholly released by such surrender from all prosecutions and pro ceedings in respect of any such previous crime, except as aforesaid, and in case of anv prosecution contrary to this provision, such surrender shall be admitted a s a va lid d e f ence, and evidence thereof may be given under a plea of not guilty." If this Bill be passed, he thought that it would be the duty of the French Government to bind itself by law in a similar manner as this country would then have done by the article in question. In consequence of many political changes to which France was exposed, it was impossible that the French Government could give them equal security with the law of this country. If, however, a convention was to be entered into, they must take the guarantee of the French Government and the French Legislature as equivalent to their own. Now, there were about 20 offences described in this measure, which he thought would afford additional facilities to persons being tried for political offences quasi criminal. He was strongly opposed to the principle of deliver ing up supposed criminals merely upon the accusation of the French Government, and proving the identity of the party. Lord BROUGHAM called attention to the 7th article of the convention, which sans—" No accused or convicted person who may be surrendered shall in any case be pro ceeded against or punished on account of any political offence committed prior to his being surrendered, nor for any crime or offence not described in the present convention which he may have committed previously to his being surrendered ; and proof of having been so surrendered under this con vention shall be a good and valid defence against any proceeding on account of any political offence previously committed, and shall entitle the party to an immediate acquittal." The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was nothing more just than that the French Government should pass such a law as this, and thereby secure a reciprocity of power. If they did not pass such a law as would meet the provisions of that clause they could then strike it out of their Act. After a few words from the Earl of HABROWBY, 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 MALMESBIJRY sail that this Bill was considered to be a matter of necessity. It had been well considered at the Foreign-office, and he therefore hoped that their Lord ships would read it a second time ; and that the Noble and Learned Lords opposite would give their valuable assistance in amending the details so as to render it as perfect as possible. - Lord CAMPBELL said that the objections could not be removed without a new French convention. The LORD CHANCELLOR apprehended that the Bill might be so modified as to meet their Lordships' views. It might then be left to the French Government for their adoption or rejection. Earl GREY thought the Bill should not be passed in its present shape. He thought, before surrendering an alleged criminal, there ought to be offered some evidence of his guilt, as was the case in the treaty between this country and the United States. No man ought to be givea 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 objection 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 COJIVIONS, June 8. MAYNOOTII COLLEGE. ,Continued from our Afternoon Edition 01 yesterday.) Mr. V. SCULLY said it was quite clear that those who supported the motion were not sincere in their alleged desire for an inquiry —in fact, they had them selves avowed their insincerity. This was merely pr o e f par M ed aYn g a eth s e to r p , wthoichthe theayboliwshemreent without the slight es t i nqu i ry. t o o o t h Effectal o - They wished to have a kind of inquisition to upset the grant, and that would load to toe des:ruction of th e C o ll ege. Ile agreed in thinking that the proposal tor inquiry was a mere sham, for it inquiry was earnestly wished for, it could be had at once under the powers exercised by the visitors. (Hear, Leer.) Ha had no objection to inquiry, but he complained that a Select Committee was, as the Noble Lord (Lord Johns Russell) bad stated, the vary worst tribune' to conduct it. He denied that the people of England called for inquiry, but even supposing they , did, why should the Hon. Member for North Warwick shire not adopt the suggestion, that 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 strictest investigation upon oath? He objected to an inquiry of an in sulting character, such as that proposed, whieh it was notorious was intended as an electioneering clap trap. As to the miserable grant itself, ho was prepared to contend that the people of Ireland were entitled to it on every ground of justice and good faith. The Church Establishment of Ireland cost this country directly about 3,000,0001. per annum. There were 600,000 Protestants in Ireland, so that the religious in struction of each Irish Protestant cost 51. a head, while, by dividing the Maynooth grant among the Roman Ca tholic population, ho found that each of them received one penny ; so that each Protestant received just as much us 1,200 Catholics; the Protestant got 3id. per day for his religious instruction, while the same sum had to serve each teatholic for three years and a half. The discre pancy between the numbers of Catholics and Protestants ha Ireland, and the relative value of th e en d owments o f the two churches, had struck every person who knew anything; of Ireland. Beth f ore i gn t rave ll ers an d the great statesmen of this country had remarked on teis an";').llY, and had s p o k en o f i t as t h e great evil of Ire• . This rant t i tation g ,in fact, was nothing more than a res the property which had been robbed from the Roman cavaolic Catholic Cbureh, and from the R,:tean l aity, in the reign of Qasen Elizaboth and uneo r protectorate or Cromwell, and also underam The spoiliegs of these monarchs were the origin u I ? the poverty of the Roman Catholic population or ' re f" The ,„ nd. What Ireland wanted was fair to ha l o merely at . air wanted to be allowed to enter the what Irish horses, iPetaarr-t. Why, but the othar day, see O'Rourke and . Barbarian, Lad c lor , —(Laughler)— wh n e e n i iiit thsy had a fair start. Much had been asserted about Ireland, t:ut he asserted that. there seaarb,37,t3tinin4"iBfmthin, The licnourable m then o proce i ed o e r d t a l t a gre re a; length to detail .the history of the penal laws, tracing thtir first impositio n eon theird 1 I gradual rc Ixa tion, up to the titue when -e of Maynooth was fottnded. That step had the sanction of . manygreat names, aw i it was always considered in the light g of a compact. In 1800 the state h of Maytionth was inquired into by L or d Casidereag, , One of whose chief advisers was the Protestant Bialop of Meath, formerly a Ro man Catholic, an d well acpainted with the rites and practices of the Church, and the advice which he gave was not to leave the supply' of the Roman Catholic priest hood in Ireland to foreign colleges, but to do their best to provide them with education at home. The cams authority deprecated kip interference with the college of Meynoeth. 'This was, towev,r, not the first time that this agitation had been raised against this establish ment, it had been raised before in 1800, and afterwards in 1826. It being now Four o'clock, the SPEAKER left the Chair, and the House adjourned until Six o'clock. Ths House resumed at Six o'ciock. A messenger from the Lorc;a brought up tho tog Bills, to which their Lork,l4llips Mid agreed:— LONDON, WEDNESDAY Battle and Robertsbridge Road. Runcorn Improvement. London Tilbury, and Southend Rillway. Wedlineord, and Reading Road, and Shillingford Bridge, without amendment. Ipswich Dock, with an amendment. South-Eastern and Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railways, with amendments. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from the Society for obtaining the Repeal of the Taxes on Know ledge, praying for au inquiry with regard to the postage charged for the transmission of newspapers under 2 oz. Mr. G. SANDARS presented a petition from the physicians and surgeons of Wakefield and its vicinity, praying for more adequate remuneration in criminal prosecutions. Mr. ADDERLEY presented a petition from George, Cape of Good Hope, with 200 signatures, chiefly field cornets, praying for the speedy passage of their constitution ordi nances, with all their details as first drawn. Mr. CUBITT presented a petition from the Southern Association of Baptist Ministers and Messengers, assembled at Whitchurch, Hants, representing 27 churches, 3,000 mem bers, and 12,000 hearers, against the Militia Bill. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Saffron Walden against the Militia Bill. Sir B. HALL presented a petiton from the inhabitants of the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. Pancras, agreed to in public meeting assembled, complaining of Romish doctrines and practices being permitted in the churches of the Esta blishment, and praying that an inquiry may be instituted into the conduct of the Bishop of London, in reference to the matters complained of. Mr. 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, Sec. 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. THOMPSO.N 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. no such statement. What he said was, that when Mr. Ben nett left London he went abroad to visit Rome, and that it was believed he had gone there in more senses than one. When he said that, he had had a passage in his mind of the Rev. Mr. Bennett's let'er to the Bishop of London, which he would now quote to the House. He said (talking of his difficult position), " The end must be that I seek for peace elsewhere." Now, he believed no person who read that passage could put on it any other interpretation than that by "elsewhere" Mr. Bennett meant the Church of Rome. The term was stereotyped—it was the phrase of those who had preceded Mr. Bennett where he (Mr. Hors man) supposed Mr. Bennett was going at the time, and it was understood to be the usual expression of clergymen of the Church of England in respect to that change.—(No, no.) He could quote several clergyman who had gone over to Rome who had used that phrase, and two occurred to him at the moment—Mr. Wilberforce and Archdeacon Man ning.—(Hear, hear.) It had been represented that he had founded his statements respecting the proceedings of Mr. Bennett abroad on the evidence of one person, but, had he believed the inquiry would not have been granted, he would not have limited his evidence to one person. That gentleman had been placed in a most awkward position, but, in order to show the spirit in which he wr ot e , h e wou ld quote a passage from his letter, which would show he had very different feelings from those attributed to him. He wrote as follows: " The best evidence on this point, it seems to me, would be that of the English chaplain, whose name I forget, but who must be mentioned in the 'Clergy List,' or at any event in Graville's Spas of Germany.' If any evidence to this extent, which is all I can with truth aver, can be avail able in corroboration, I have no objection to give it; but I should object most strongly to being brought forward alone to prove a charge, which, if not better supported; must fail. For, upon such evidence alone no bishop, still authority, could condemn him. It i s on ly f rom a e less anyv fervent zealgal disgustat for the e cause of the Gospel truth an d an hypocrisy of the man, that in a n y intensel re t event I should like to bring charges, which, exclusive of the compulsion of duty that would necessitate them, must have the appearance of underhand observation. In fact, I took no other notice of these parties than such as a person exceedingly ill is forced to pay to those whose inconsiderate noisiness is the source of constant annoyance to an invalid." And again, a week after, he wrote:— " I have thus stated the whole that I can co nsc i en ti ous l y testify on this point. Being then, as now, very ill, I should Mr. Be nne tt a t a ll b ut for the prominence As it was no busines s o f m i ne t o b e hi s seemed to be comfortably on hi s wa y t o S t. but very littl e a tt en ti on , never t hi n ki ng i emanism would require to be testified by pco n tef o e t tn censor, h i ke haveoiresr,ls,,y and I peculiarities.t noticed thattvt h c eeehi him s m any evidence of mine. T o b e o bli ged to g i ve 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 mode 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 st a t ements, w hi c h can be done with ease, by obtaining,thetestimony of other residents (th ere 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 singen, at least, there being in the place an English church and English service, he voluntarily attended by preference the Roman Catholic." After the speech which he (Mr. Horsman) delivered, slr. Sniteer wrote a further letter, which would best show what his feelings were, in which was the follow ing letter ; "It seems to me that the simple course, if Mr. Bennett deny what I believe on my honour to be undoubtedly true, is to send to Kissingen, where conclusive evidence can be easily got. There must be some 50 or 103 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 Cathode 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. tir John Harrington was wilh him all the time; surely he could not ref use , if so l emn l y ca ll e d upon , t o g i ve h is testi mony, however unfavourable it must be in its consequences to his friend.' The gentleman was not anxious to raise any accusation against Mr. Bennett, but that having in conversations men tioned facts which were repeated without his authority, and published, much to his annoyance, when asked if those statements were true, he took the part a man of spirit ought to take, and said he did not take any part in publishing the facts, but that, as they were stated by him, he thought he was bound in honour not to shrink from confirming what he bad asserted.—(Hear, hear.) He had said so much because it was due to the gentleman in question ; but he had other testimony which he could have adduced, and he could h av e stated many thin gs w hi c h h e h a d n ot wished then to bring forward. He had seen a letter in the handwriting of a lady from Germany, who said that the organist of the church (at Kissingen) had pointed out a gentleman to her, and told her it was Mr. Bennett, late of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, but now in communion with the Church of Rome. Ile could have stated that Mr. Bennett's proceedings and conduct had been notorious, and that he was pub lished in the Roman Catholic Directory as having been re ceived into the Church of Rome.—(oh, oh !) Though that was a work of great circulation, it was not a work of autho rity; but be might have looked upon it as being of some authority, because Dr. Wiseman had statedauring the agita tion on the Titles Bill, that if the Noble Lord had looked into it he must have been aware of the Pope's intentions, as he had been designated in the Directory as " Archbishop of Westminster" some time previously. He held in his hand the affidavit of a German servant, to the effect that it was a matter of notoriety to all the servants in the hotel that Mr. Bennett went to mass every morning, and he could also have stated, on the former occasion when this subject was More the House, that Mr. Bennett, when travelling with his party, carried about in a box a consecrated stone for an altar, and that this stone was set up when they halted; and, Mr. Bennett officiating as a priest, performed religious ser vice before it. It was known that in the Roman Catholic Church every Roman Catholic priest must carry about with him a small consecrated stone for an altar, wherever he went, but such a thing was unknown in the Protestant Church. He would now state why he felt the evidence, on the authority of Mr. Pratt and his letter, was the most proper evidence that could have been adduced. It was a rule in this House that where a charge was made against an individual, the person bringing the charge should be extremely careful as to the character of the evid ence h e adduced, particularly that he should bring forward none which should be unfair to the party accused ; and during the last five years, in all the motions which he (Mr. Horsman) had made upon ecclesias tical subjects, he had invariably stated that the evidence upon which he based his motions had been always published evidence known to the world, and generally taken from re turns and reports laid upon the table of the House. So, in this instance, setting aside the letter of Mr. Pratt, it was a stron g fact that Mr. Bennett's name should he published in a work like the Roman Catholic Directory in the month of November, and that it should remain unnoticed and un contradicted until the month of April. It might be said that it was possible Mr. Bennett lied not seen that publication, but even assuming that he had not, it was, at all events, a strong fact that Mr. Pratt' s l e tt er s h ou ld rema i n ent i rely un noticed, for he was in a position to show that this letter had been brought under Mr. Bennett's attention. Before the insti tution of that gentleman it would be remembered that there was a good deal of excitement at Frome, and when the in stitution took place, Mr. Hastings, one of the clergy of Frome, addressed the following letter to Mr. Bennett. The institution took place on the 24th of January, and this letter was written on the 31st " Rectory, Trowbridge, Jan. 31, 1852. " Rev. Sir,—The enclosed letter (this was the letter of Mr. Pratt) I have copied from the Achill Missionary Herald of this month. You may not have the opportunity of seeing the paper, and consequently be unable to reply to it. As a brother clergyman and a near neighbour I have felt it to be my duty to make you acquainted with the serious charge brought publicly against you, and the scandal occasioned thereby to the Church ; may I hope you will not think me officious or obtrusive in calling ycur attention to the sub ject? Trusting to hear that there has been some mistake in the statement, I am, Rev. Sir, yours faithfully, , ‘Rev. WBennett. " J. D. HASTINGS." Now, if Mr. Bennett had been a clergyman regarding whose orthodoxy there was no actual doubt, but about whom re ports had originated owing to a continental residence, he ought to have been thankful for such an opportunity of contradicting that report; and certainly Mr. Bennett, with his antecedents, ought to have felt himself bound to answer it.—(Hear.) That letter, however, met with no reply. Mr. Hastings waited until the 12th of February, when he wrote this second letter : " Rectory, Trowbridge, Feb. 12, 1.852. " Rev. Sir,—On Saturday, the 31st of January, I addressed a letter to you, dire c t ed Vicarage, Frome."lhe object of that communication was to afford you an opportunity of see enclosed, and which h as since appeared in several of the pap ' John 0. N. Pr a tt,' a copy o f w hi c h I ers. Thi s l e tt er was naturally the su bj ec t conver sation among the clergy of the neighbour hoi see ing a neighbour hood, Englishclandnte elr newspapers. signed h had hoped in wr iti ng t o you to b e ena bl e d, on your authority, to contradict the statements therein con tained. Your silence, however, so opposed to the courtesy by which your conduct, as I am informed, is characterised , compels me to conclude that it is not in your power to afford the desired explanation. I regret this the more as it tends to confirm those who were willing to pass over what had oc curred in your former parish in the adverse opinion they tertained respecting your appointment to any of fi ce i n the the Church of Rome, which you have publicly Church of England, inasmuch as your preference for the ser vices ofand solemnly declared erroneous in her ceremonies and in matters h of faith, has th rown contempt upon that Church, faith and doctrine i n your ordination vows you promised to give faithful diligence always' to minister and teach. " I am, Reverend Sir, yours faithfully, J. HAsneras. That letter again received no answer whatever. What con clusion would any man draw from such silence?—(liear, hear.) Mr. Hastinga drew his own conclusion, and this was his letter to him (Mr. Horsman) on the subject:— "Rectory, T ro wbridge, April 24, 1852. " My dear Sir,—Enclosed are copies of the letters pro mised; you arc at liberty to make what use you pl ease o f them. I m ay observe, my object in writing them was to afford Mr. Bennett an o pp or tunity of contradicting the report of his 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 up on hi m t h at his views were very much changed. It was the i n t ent i on of myself and several of the clergy around to hav e ca ll ed upon him, had this state men t prov e d true. Just at this time Mr. O. N. Pratt's letter appeared, and I thought it advisable at once to communicate with Mr. Bennett on the subject. lam truly sorry, that by his the statement, an 1, hill s that had not c h a nged i taking no n o ti ce of either letter, he has left an impression on my maid, a s I h ave stated to him, that he could not refute.s views, thus p rec l ud i ng myself and others from paying that courtesy w hi c h b elongs to a brother clergyman coming into the neighbourhood. "I am, my dear Sir, your very truly, ~ ~ J . D. Ileswics. Now, put aside altogether the evidence which he (Mr . Horsman) gav e t h e other day as to the conversatio ns of Mr. Bennett, and h ere was the fact that a letter was p ublished in, and we n t t h e round of all the newspapers, licly that M r . B ennett never entered the P ro t es tant chu r ch when at Kissinger)stating pub , but was a regular attendant at mass, upon the mind of every and that this le;ter WAS enclosed to Mr. Bennett by a . brother clergyman in a friendly, kindly, and brotherly spirit, and was true. — (l.lear, hear.) 11, (Mr. Iforsman) asked now when it was known that no notice was taken of the commu nication, and no such explanation as that whish the circum stances required was given, the fact must leave a conviction whether, if he impartial man that the statement bauf had the choice of ever so much evidence 8 - U N, THE PICTURE BY TITIAN_ CHARTERS asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if thee was any truth in the report that a picture, said to be by Titian, which was recently purchased for the National Gallery at Marshal Soult's sale for 2,4001., was last year in the possession of a London dealer, by whom it was shown to several of the trustees, who then might have purchased it for 1,200/. ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was 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 must observe that nothing was more delusive as to the reZq value of a picture than the fact of its acquisition by a private individual at a particular price. He knew of a picture by Morino which bad been recently sold for 24,0001. sterling, which :lad been offered to a distinguished individual well known to many Hon. Members in that House only a few years ago for 8,0001. 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 impossib le thata the picture in question had been offered at a less sum than the trustees of the National Gallery took it at. But the country had given 2,400/. for it, and he believed that they had purchased a very valuable picture at a moderate price. PRIVATE BILLS. Sir R. PRICE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case of private Bills being prevented from passing the House of Commons by an early dissolution of Parliament, any steps would be taken to facilitate their being passed in the next Parliament, so that the great expense 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 Bills in the next Parliament. No doubt the indulgence which the Parliament of 1831 had afforded would be given by the new Parliament. At the same time, the Hon. Member must feel that the circumstances must be of a very pressing character to justify such a course. THE MA YNOOTII GRANT. 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 Eight Hon. Gentle. man, who was the trustee of the public for the proper appli cation of the public time, whether he did not think it fit for him to use his influence with the Hon. Member for Warwick shire to induce him to postpone all further proceedings to a more convenient season. _ _ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he felt his duty at present to be in unison with the statement which he had already made to the House, namely, to take care that all those measures to which the Government were bound should be passed this session with due deference to the great consummation which they all awaited.— (Laughter.) That he acknowledged was itself a difficult, though he would not say an impossible task, but he must decline, with respect to the subject of Maynooth, to under take that which the Eight 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 weakecing 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. BEVNEif. 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 have been misunderstood. It clearly was to make inquiry into the act of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, for which he alone was responsible, in insti tuting a presentee against whom 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 be opposed it on grounds of a twofold nature; first, that the mode of redress proposed was inadequate; and next, that there was an appeal to the Archbishop against the act of the Bishop. The Right Hon. Gentleman said : " I cannot help believing that there must be an appeal from the prelate who acts in contravention of the canons of the Church to the Archbishop. If, then, there be an appeal to the Archbishop, if the conduct and decisions of the prelate are subject to that superior revision, that surely must be a reason why the House of Commons should not interfere before that appeal has taken place, and, in lieu of having re course to such a tribunal, should not substitute a means which is confessedly so inadequate to obtain the result which is desired." But the House was not satisfied with the grounds taken by the Right Ilonourable Gentleman, and vaaious Members ex pressed their belief that the question could not be disposed of in that manner; the Hon. Member for North Warwick shire in particular, who, expressing the sentiments of those around him, " 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— ought inquiry n trestsayoughti for t !‘ Felt n o t on l y t h at this was a question which ought to be raised, but th a t, h av i ng been raised, it ought to be dealt with • and he to would ato s b peres made, himself,he ande believedpositionbut ra that h ed e y might unquestion ablyh say fo every member of he r M a j esty ' s Government, that the matter t to be r 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. Gentleman 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. The 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." His Right Hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the same grounds in opposing the motion ' and showed he under stood it to be directed a ga i nst the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The general feeling of the House was in favour of inquiry, and he (Mr. Horsman) stated the reasons why he felt it his duty not to accept the promise of the Government; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, somewhat irregularly, rose afterwards and assured the House the Government were pre pared to institute the inquiry for which they seemed so anxious. The Right Hon. Gentleman said— " He would not talk of a friendly inquiry, nor could ho should be a bond fide one." promise a judicial inquiry, but be would promise that there After a month had elapsed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid before them a report of the result—not of an inquiry, but of what Government had undertaken in the matter—to which he would not further refer, as it would be extremely inconvenient to embarrass the 1131.153 in considering a far greater and more important question by any reference to the course of proceedings, or to the opinions of her Ma jesty's Government. Only a few nights ago he had stated his views by way of a question to the Attorney -General on the state of the law in this case, and the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman stated, that supposing that there was a complaint against Mr. Bennett, it was doubtful how far Mr. Bennett could be made amenable under the Church Discipline Act; first, on 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 Wells, it was admitted there was no redress whatever against his institution of Mr. Bennett, and no statute or court by which it could be challenged. The Attorney- General seemed to think he (Mr. Horsinan) had cast a cen sure upon the Government for their conduct, while another lion. i% ember was of opinion he had acquitted Government of all blame whatever. But he had neither done one nor the other; for his dsire was to avoid the expression of any opinion whatever, and if he found the Ministry acting up to the declaration they had made, that the question should be investigated, he and the public would be quite satisfied ; while, on the other hand, if they endeavoured to make it a party question, and to bring the influence of Government to bear to defeat the motion, he, and he believed the public also, would arrive at a.very different conclusion. He wished to discuss the question 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. Hcrsman) had stated Mr. Bennett was no longer in communion with the Church of England, and that he was in ccuitauniou with the Church of Lome. Now, he had made EVENT a. JUNt 9 1 1852. 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, he thought, the most satisfactory and conclusive to the House. He came now to a far more important and serious point of this subject. He had done with Mr. Bennett, and now came to the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The import ance of Mr. Bennett's acts were perfectly insignificant as compared with the acts of the Bishop. The difference in station between the 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 beyond himself.—(Hear, hear.) On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker which he would take the liberty of quoting " The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach not far, they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps, by such as dwell at the next door; whereas men of more ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives are viewed afar off—so that the more there are which observe aloof what they do,ithe greater glory by their well-doing they purchase, both unto God whom they serve, and to the State wherein they live." He (Mr. 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 place with a haste and with a determination to shut out the parish ioners of Frome from that legal redress which they would have had if the Bishop had given them more time; he had instituted him, secondly, without having that certificate from Mr. Bennett's former diocesan which, by usage and by law, he was under an obligation to require; and, thirdly, without that due examination which was enjoined by law, and which the parishioners of Frome had a right to de mand; and he (Mr. Horsman) was prepared to show that the Bishop had done this not accidentally, not carelessly, not hastily, not upon impulse, but advisedly, as the lawyers said " perversely," and with the intention of defeating the ends of justice. What was the position of the different par ties at the time when Mr. Bennett was presented to the ,vicarage of Frome, and before his institution? Each party then had a legal position and certain legal rights. The parishioners of Frome did not at that time know what their legal rights were. They acquired that knowledge later on, and, unfortunately for them, later than the Bishop. This was the position of the parties :—Before Mr. Bennett was instituted it was open to the parishioners under the canon law to have lodged a caveat against that institution in the Bishop's court. The object of the caveat was this, — that an individual might be presented to a benefice of whom a bishop might know nothing, and any persons who knew him to be unfit, and w i s h e d t o prevent his institu tion, did so by a caveat. If such a course had been taken in this instance, Mr. Bennett would have had to have " warned" the caveat, and that would have compelled the proctor through whom it was lodged to state the name of the person who had lodged it, and the objections to institu tion. Then the cause would have been referred by the bishop to the Vice-Chancellor's Courts, from these it would be referred to the arc hbi s h op, an d f rom the archbishop the cause might be taken by appeal to the Privy Council. That was the position of parties, and that was the right which was available to the parishioners of Frome, while Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before he was insti tuted. He (Mr. Horsman) would now show the House how they were defeated in their attempt to avail themselves of that right, and what was the course pursued towards them by the Bishop. Mr. Bennett's presentation was confirmed on Tuesday, the 30th o f D ecem b er; on W ednesday he visited Frame, 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 into the they meant to a sk hi s L or d s hi p to make inquiry 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. Miss. Their solicitor returned on 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 subj ec t 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 proctors. On the 23d they had an oral opinion from Dr. Twiss (to save time), urging them to lose no time in entering a caveat to stay institution and induc tion, or induction, as the case may be. Mr. Cruttwell wrote on that day from London to the committee at Frome to be ready in the committee-room at one o'clock: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 just been inducted. This was Saturday, January 24. A few minutes after we had met Mr. Bennett and a few strange clergymen (three, I think) passed our window on their way from church, after induction. Mr. Bennett called on Dr. Griffith, at Elm, two miles from Frome, on the morning of Saturday, January 24, and was by him, as commissary, in stituted. He then proceeded back to Frame 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 you that on Wednesday, the 21st of January (being the same day on which the reply of the Bisho p of Bath and Wells to the Rev. H. D. Wickha m was received ) , I went to London with that gentleman upon the instructions of the com mittee to take Dr. Twiss's opinion. It was not until the after noon of the 23d that we succeeded in obtaining the verbal opinion of Dr. Twiss, to the effect that Mr. Bennett's opi nions as they appeared by reference to his published works were decidedly unsound, and that the proper course to stay his institution and induction was to enter a caveat in the Bishop's Court at Wells. I obtained a form of the caveat, w hich was as follows : Let nothing b e done in the matter of the instituti on of the Rev. W. J . E. Be nne tt, clerk, to the vicarage of Frome Selwood, in the county of Somerset, unknown to (A. B), proctor for (C. D.), and others, parishioners, inhabitants of the said parish of Frome , Selwood,' I returned to Frome on Saturday, th e 24th about one o'clock, and as I en tered the town I hear d the bells ring ing for Mr. Bennett's induction, which I was informed had just taken place. I had previously written to state the effect of Dr. Twiss's opinion, and to call the committee tog houldether, and, if Mr. Bennett's induction had not taken place, I s at once have obtained the sanction of the Committee, and entered the caveat in the afternoonu__ of the 24th of January. The absence of the B isho p wold have been no i mpediment P oifileheer at Wells must, as a matter in the way of entering the caveat,w i of course, have been receive d by h , and the effect would have b een to stay i nduction until the proper proceedings had been taken to decide the question of Mr. Bennett's orthodoxy. I am. my dear Sir, very truly yours, " Frome, June 2, C. Caurrwaan. " J. Hurd, Esq ." the House would see ho w He was surefar the statement was correct, that the parishioners of Frome had avail themselves before c • not been ready to ava coming to this Heim of every legal remedy which was open to them. But they we re shut out by the Bisho p of Bath and Wells from re d ress which they might have obt a i ne d i f he hadthat that m oderate and decent delay f or w h ich they giventi tioned. All the e v ide nce relative to Mr Bennett's Pe pro ceeding, at Kissinger 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 qu the caveat had been lodged, and the Bishop had notwithstanding proceeded to institute, would not the institution have been void? The 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. Twins; he must have formed a judgment upon Mr. Bennett' doctrine, and he ca ll e d upon him to as s i s t t h e House in coming to a conclu sion by saying if that caveat had been lodged, and the question of Mr. Bennett's oth d o oxy had gone to trial, whether it was rb b p o a le that he would not have been unabl e 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 i n sist upon the producti on b him of a certificate from his former diocesan • and, secondly, that the Bi s h o p o f B a th an d W e ll s was bound to subject Mr. Bennett to a due examination. It might be said the Bishop acted strictly within the law in regard to the caveat, but did he act according to law in re gard to the certificate • of the Bishop of London and the due • examination which he wa s hi mse lf b oun d t o ma k e ? Upon a former occasion he (Mr. Horsrnan) 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. lie 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 ape ended a qualification to the margin of the certificate. Whether anything was written on the margin he could not say, but the Bishop of London had certainly written a strong letter, sta ting the sense in which that signature w as to be understood. lie was told, and he believed, that al though the Bishop signed:the certificate, yet that i n real i ty the Bishop9s signature was only understood to attest that the three clergymen signing the certificate were known to him, and that, in his opinion. they would not sign what they did not believe to be true.—(Bear.) The House ought to see that certificate. [An Hon. Member—" The form is to be found in the books."] Yes, but the II 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 kn • 6 owino• what Mr. Bennett was doing at Kissinge r an d other 1 p aces.—(Hear.) He had a copy of the letter of the Bishop of London to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, which sh that the sense in which h ._ (, showed that the former took care understood. This letter w ' a s s ignedthe certificate should be 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 p. had no date, but he was told it was written at the same time as the Bishop's signature to the certificate. It was as follows : "My Lord,—l have to request that my counter-signature to this testimonial may be considered as being s imply the expression of my opinion that the clergymen who have signed it, and who are beneficed in my diocese, have testi fied to your Lordship that which they verily believe. But I think it is my duty to state, that in December, 18. A N r. Bennett resigned the perpetual curacyof St. Paul s, li.nigntfis 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 ho 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 lee held in my diocese. " I am, "Your Lordship's faithful brother and servant, J. " The Hon. an d R ight Rev, the Lord Bishop of Lonnotr. 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 nett, 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. H e 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 had heard that this letter of the Bishop of London was never seen or read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells; that he received the certificate, but that he never saw that letter. Now, if the Bishop of Bath and Wells, knowing that there was such letter, either declined or refused to open or read it, so far was that from being a palliation of the course he had taken, that the House would feel it to be a very great aggravation of the grievance of which the public had to 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 mo d e an d 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 road. Lord Ellenborough said : "It only requires him first to approve, that is, before he licenses; and, in so doing, it virtually requires him to exer cise his conscience, duly informed upon the subject; to do which he must duly, impartially, and Effectually inquire, examine, deliberate, and decide. Here the duty of exami nation is again pointed out. The bishop is to find out whether he is learned, capable of teaching, moral, and of a right understanding in religion; and, therefore, the court would require of him that he should institute some proper mode of examination by which the learning, dexterity in teaching, morals, and the religion of the candidate may be ascertained. The word of the statute is ' approve,' and he must exercise that approbation according to his con science, upon such means of information as he may obtain ; and every thing that can properly minister to his conscien tious approbation or disapprobation, and fairly and rea sonably induce his conclusion on such a subject, though it might not be evidence that would be formally admitted in a court of law, may, I am of opinion, be fitly taken into con sideration." The Bishop of Bath should have addressed himself to the circumstances alluded to in the letter of the Bishop of London and the memorial of the parishioners of Frome. To simplify the matter as much as possible he would refer to one point in each document. The parishioners directed the attention of the Bishop to a passage published by Mr. Ben nett, in which he said that " All the ideas of the Bible, and the dispensing of the Bible, as in itself a means of propaga ting Christianity, are a fiction and absurdity." Did the Bishop inquire into that? Considering what must be the feelings of a Protestant community like that of Frome— considering the feelings of veneration with which they must regard the sacred volume, a veneration founded on their con viction that to a poor man it was the greatest of blessing, and that the richest man without it was lees than the most miserable of paupers —considering that this was not only the opinion of the Protestant people of this country, but that we occupied ourselves in tending the Bible abroad, as the source of religious truth, to the most distant climes, and that per sons were to be, found who:cheerfully braved toils, privations, and even death, in prosecuting this the noblest work in which man could be engaged—considering all these things, the parishioners of Frome must have regarded Mr. Bennett's declaration about the Bible as little less than blasphemy and profaneness. If the Rev. Gentleman had entered their cottages, seized their Bibles, and thrown them into the fire, his act could scarcely have shocked them more than his words. Should not the Bishop have said to Mr. Bennett, " Here is a statement shocking to Protestant feeling; I must have an explanation of it, and the explan a ti on 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 diet 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 Church of England. Mr. Bennett said, that, having taken the oath in favour of the Queen's supremacy, he became uneasy in his conscience after the decision in the Gorham case • that he con su lt e d a b arrister as to whether he was bound by the oath to obey such as 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 must 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 be resigned his living. In the course of the same year he presented himself for institution to the vicarage of Frome, and the oath in favour of the supremacy o f the Crown must again be taken. Ought not the Bishop of Bath to have taken notice of Mr. Bennett's recorded opinion on the ' subject of the oath ? Should it net 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 net 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. It was to be regretted that the Bishop in this matter, instead of appearing in the dignified character of an impartial judge, had exhibited him• self in that which in that House was held to be the most objectionable, it might almost be said odious of , characters, namely, that of a partisan. It appeared to him that he had established the three propositions with which he bad 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, they have their ordinary, a j u d ge i n diff erent, 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 fustlyauts seen which doth grow to the church of God by faults inherent in their ,several actions, as when they carelessly cbaap corruptly ordain, when they institute negligently, especially for jurisdiction, when they visit ed) " when their they bestow church livings (benefices, prebe w i n h d e s l , l g a a n i d n , s ro s o a m ke s rather than with serious intent to courts, erected for the maintenance of goodnder them, when dis ordered, when they regard not the clergy awe u for which 'this neither clergy nor laity are kept in that appeareth in them dogo - o'rder, are authotity should serve, when anything o fi c n k al o l f y, C w hr h is e t n , w ra h th en er th th ey an h a av f e at b h b erl r y es a p ff e e o c t ti t o o n means whereby their they neglect the true and requisite au thority should be upheld. be exceeding great." Surely the hurt which grpweth out of these defects must needs notice of the House, and was it any had brought under the he was a few nights ago, that Mr. The hurt was exceedingly great in the instance which he answer to be told, as great extent, the confidence of ironic ? The House had been informed soundness o Bennett had already won, to a of the parishioners of a signed a memo- Ptooswt towards thean parishioners ey were a satisfied s F fi Frome bad withh d t h memo rial stating that they Admit, for the of that 1,200 of the mit, th of the alleged popularity of Mr. Bennett at Frome, the tru he drew an inference from it very different from the conclu sion Mr. Bennett's doctrines. 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 be shortlived, it might perhaps be expedient to let the matter rest, but the case was different when it might be said, " Mr. Bennett may b e 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.—(Hear, hear.) The question now to be determined was what was to be done. The Govern ment admitted that the case was one of which it was im possible to exaggerate the importance. It was admitted on all sides that it could not rest where it was. Inquiry was declared to be not only essential but inevitable. How was b the inquiry to be pursued ? The House could not proceed by resolution, because the facts were disputed. He former l y con , e _ proposed there should be an inquiry by means of_ commis sion, sion, but he foresaw the objections which wo i u n ld be deference to against that course, although he suggested it the wishes of his friends, who desired that o all other of investigation should be tried before th le 4 oor Com mons was called upon to undertake the inquiry. Inquiry by a Cemmission being rejected, now called upon the House to undertake the task. Inot admit, 2 . 0 0 f modes however, that to its Mini s t ers for the adoption of the motion formerly b e en altogether facile. I n didr l ypr oposed by him for an address to the Crown would h that case the Crown would haveapplied Th e Ministers would ha ve made advice.—(Hear, hear.) an d if they found that in quiryre.turn a favourable answer impracticable, they would by a Commissiontignaotonwto,aa in that the question would still the requisite investigation , advise her Majesty to that that House. On theother hand, once advised her )11 and to institute an inquiry, and they th bae e d a d l o rs i es a n st ‘ i v sd s e t e r e d : s lijeety to return ed at the outset by the announcement that no a favourablest°P s P eould be given on their interre t that h° ve t i o f oga ones,again would have brought the matter before the House, and it were inquiries 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 1 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 Vilt§ an inquiry iat9 r 1 ea4ICUIU 9Xercieta of the right 0 r patronage, and as to the mode in which a Bishop had dive! Ito exe rc i se his authority. They were every day legislating on ecclesiastical affairs. There were several Church Bale c a o t n t s h id at er m in o g m s e o n ni t e o tngi on the order-book, and there had not been week durin g th e present session in which they had not beef! or other respecting the Established Church.—(H ear, h ear.) It was not only necessary, g inevitable th a t such should be the case. It was one of r k conditions of th e E stablished Church that Parliamen t, but which created that Church, should be able to consider its affairs, and correct what was wrong.—(Hear , hear.) If there were abuses th ey ought to be removed, if there we re scandals they ought to b e i nqu i red into, if there were gr i e " antes they ought to be re d ressed.—(Hear, hear.) They well told, however, that they cug h t not to take cognizance 0 Church affairs because th e H ouse of Commons was not nog composed exclusively of memb ers of the Established Chump; But why was the House n o t composed wholly of members Uf the Established Church? Be cause the nation of Engla nd was not composed entirely o f mem b ers of the Esta bli s ben Church ; and if they said that th e H ouse of Commons , as representing the nation, was so far diss evere d f ro m its F•e tablished Church th a t it oug ht not to have direct cogn i zan ce of its affairs, then, (1 fortiori, the nation must be So far sepa rated from the Established Church that they ought not have an Established Church at all.—(Hear, hear.) Thu was the legal and inevitable result of the argument, pressed home; but he held, on th e o th er h and, t h a t the Established Church was the creation of Parliament—th at it existed by the breath of Parliament, and was subject to . its jurisdiction, and th ere was no duty of Parliament !I obvious, no responsibility so un d en i a bl e, as that w h e n had established a church f or th e teach i ng of one relig i o n, tt should not be made subservient to the interests of anotber. —that it should not allow a minister of that Church t n. become the secret agent of another.—(Hear hear.) T lie , people of England havi ng h a d t h e present question ra i s ed would most assuredly like t o see t h at P arl i ament was earn est of upon it. He believed th a t s h e i nqu i ry need not be one long duration—that th e w it nesses would be very few, an d that the whole examination need not last more than aW e or ten day s . Th e f acts o f the case were indeed few and simple. Her e was a c l ergyman, the incumbent of P' Paul's, Knightbridge whose ministrations we re c arried en in such a manner, and acquired such no t or i e t y, t h at the gr.; vices were interrupted by mobs and r i o t s . — (H ear, bear :e i Virtually eject e d b y hi s d i ocesan, he published a letter, "" which he told his diocesan that be found himself in a fail position in the Ch urch of England. He went abroad, and 1„f was stated that hi s attendance on a Roman Catholic place worship was so n o t or i ous, that he was openly claimed in thee publications as a convert to their faith, and in full 11' nion with their Church. It was stated that during t he whole time he wa s at Ki ss i ngen be was never near a oe testant Church, and an habitual attender at a Ro'ter; Catholic Church. Thi s s t atement was brought before h im in a friendly man ner b y a brother clergyman, and rr 7 e 7 received by him in such a way as to confirm its trule'' The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, Or, morialised the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and gave extnoi: from his published w or k s. T he condemnation of former diocesan was again virtually recorded. The fact brought before the Bishop that he denied the supremae9 e . d. the Crown, and that h e t oo k t h e oaths in a quabo-' sense. All these things were b rought before the Bislo2.,„eP', but without the inquiry requ i re d b y law, without the pr. certificate, he not only instituted him, but did so in sl ue'. manner as to shut out the p ar i s hi oners from the only tri bunal established by law before which they could have r i , dress.—(Hear.) For all thi s th ey were told there was to m no redress, because a Com m i ss i on of Inquiry would not be r." 4 fectual, and because the r e were some gentlemen who objec t( to pursuing such an inquiry by a Parliamentary Committer' Why, they had had hundreds of Commissions with no 10 ' 1 authority than would have existed in the present case, an though the inquiries had often been exceedingly unpalatab w to those to whom they were aedressed, much valuable info' mation had neverthel ess b een acqu i red, while in not one 0;.„ had the inquiries of th e C omm i ss i oners been evaded. Pn. now they were told, for the first time, that a Commissionerri not to be instituted beca use answers to the inquiries wow' not be got. That was no d ou b t a well-advised announl: 'tent, and had not been ma d e except on good grounds. S t ting apart the circumst ances o f th i s case, he would /18e, thought that such an a nswer cou l d not have been given tl the prelates of the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.) There was not in the country another bedy by whom an ins quiry issued in the Qu een ' s name would not have been re' r e , spected.—(Hear, beer.) There was no class of her I, '" jesty's subjects wh o , it a C omm i ssion of Inquiry had bee n issued, would not have h astened to meet its wishes; let, . i, knock at the door of th e p eer or the cottager' it would been respected, because it was issued in the Queen's name' and be Ahould have thought that the prelates of the Etta' blished Church would h ave b een among the first to respilc t s , the authority of the l aw , and show their loyalty lir; acknowledging the C omm i ss i on of the Queen.--(rlee: been exp hear.) T p n l e e y o n their m have Sovereign had set the ectedtoreco e gn ; the principle that rinei the more exalted the rank the greater I'm,. responsibility, that great power and great privileg e : were to be held f ur public purposes, and not et . secreted for selfish ends.—(Hear, hear.) The responsilil i l connected with this case now rested with Parliament nil and, whatev er m i g h t b e the ground on which they acre3l whether it affected th e s i ncer i ty of their faith, whether' imvolved th e supremacy of the Crown, or the jurisdiction, Parliament, it was a serious responsibility. It would be ; very unfortun a t e an d very f atal event if Parliament on tl.1:1; occasion were by a majority t o re f use the inquiry w in . every one admitted ought to be instituted. A majority such a case would only show how fatal and how dangere cb a majority was when opposed to truth. A majority in a ll i con j. ( a case could not influence public o pi n i on; a majority not acquit Mr. Bennett or the Bishop of Bath and but a majority could disappoint public expectation, andt he public reprobation diverted fr om ot h er parties woul d nvet , point the finger of scorn at the House of Commons.—(Beet' hear.) It would tell them that their Church was a mockeq: that their Protestantism w as a pretence, that their 10Yay,, was a sham ; and it would t e ll t h em that, in endeavour ing t° screen individual delinqu ents , t h ey were perpetuating tut' powers, but that they were degrading Parliament and de' the cer e Straying the Ch urc h.—(H ear.) The Hon, Arecaba-r dish moved tor a Select C omm i ttee to inquire into stances connected with the institution of the Bev- vet• Bane nett to the vicarage of Frome. A short pause took place, followed by loud cries e. ,f "D'• vide !" MR F. 'NOR. Mr. GLADSTONE. rose O CON to address the House, when bn was interrupted by Sir B. HALL, who said-I wish to refer to a question of order. lam sorry to call the attention of the House to a' conduct of the Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Con '; nor), but I feel it m y duty to do so .-(L ou d cr i es 0: " Hear.") While I was this moment calling "Divide," nc* seeing any Member rise to address the House. the Hone Member turned round on me and struck me in the side-('' laugh) -and severely hurt me. I told the Hen. Gentian: l , ll on ,a former occasion that if he addressed me in tbq House, or subjected me to any annoyance, I should en, your attention, Si r, to the subject, and put myself under your protection, whi ch I now do.-[During the time occu pied by the Hon. B aronet i n his statement, Mr. F. O'Cong ° ' , 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 13 been ao long a Member o f thi s H ouse t h at i t is unnecessahr" to remind him th a t it i s aga i nst t h e ru l es and orders o f „ House for one Member to interrupt or annoy another in „ . ." - t course of the proceedings. lam sorry to say, however, t ha t the Hon. Member for Nottingham is in the constant habit of violating those rules and orders - (Hear)-and I now tJ him that if the ersists in that course it will be my pain' s duty to call attention of the House to the Hon. 151 eln - ,e, by his name, and it will then be for the House to take see -- ulterior steps as will prevent any such misconduct in future' Mr. F. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the trues Opposition bench, close to the table, and who, during the Speaker's short address, bad been loudly vociferating "Order, order," then rose, and spoke in a rambling and in' coherent manner. He said-I did not do anything to the Hon. Baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did noV do anything whatever. He is my greatest enemy.-(Ordere order.) He was one of the members of the land committee, that sat five years ago.-(" Chair, chair.") A Member oe the Government was then chairman of that Committee, and , it was composed of 15 members. I built houses and cottage? . -(Order, order)-but the ruffians (the members of th e Lena society) paid no rent.- (" Order, ' and cries of " Chair.") Though in five years they got as much manure as would flit this room. [This idea seemed particularly to affect the Hon" Gentleman, for the allusion caused him to weep.] They talked about soup.-(Renewed cries of "Chair.") elembers paid 601. or 1501., and they were lo ca t ed, but the mil i eu ; paid no rent. - (" Chair.") One day a farmer came up with a red head cap on off , and a hatchet in hi s b and, and was going to en° my The SPEAKER said-I must now call upon the Hoe' Member by name. Mr. O'Connor --(A pause.) If the Hone time be r d has any apology to make to the House, now is t b e to oso . Mr. O'CONNOR-I make an apology to the House. t beg the Hon. Member's pardon for anythin I did to hire• i : (Hear, hear.) Y ou are the best Speaker that ever sat in t " - chair.-(" Order !" and a laugh.) The matter then dropped, anti Mr. GLADSTON E hoped the attention of the House would not be diverted from the important subject by the wan which had j us t occurred. He would commence his remark-4_ by expressi ng hi s regret at being called upon to follow t ? Hon. Gentleman without first having had it intimated tob l/31 what course he r M a j esty ' s Government intended to Pursno''e For although he was personally acquainted with the einineud, individual, the object of the Hon. Gentleman's charge, an et had made it his study to inform himself on the subjeet , ,T e b, after all this was mainly a legal question, a question vn-q o ',„ could not be discussed or decided without the applicaq oa. of legal knowledge and legal authority. It was a quests on which he had hoped Government and the law esters of th the Crown would h ave s t ate d t h e v i ew they t oo k on , distinct legal issue which had not un f a i r l y, but which %.'"'" broadly and visibly, been raised by th e Honourable Gen!: man, and would, on their authority and responsibila: offer advice to the House ae to the course they should 0 1r sue. The Honourable Gentleman had r a i se d th e q uent' „„ ', as a legal question, and he could not help w i s hing tu:, Honoureble Gentleman had confined himself with s omewhat greater strictness to the legal view. It appeared that th e Honourable Gentleman, who declared hi s only object ~3 be to attain truth, and to show truth, h a d a ll o wed 111 rhetorical powers and warmth of feeli ng to mix themsehr4,, 35 with his statement of the alleged f ac t s o f t h e case, and - bad done this with an ability which m i g h t be dangerous '° the House, unless wholesome efforts were made to bring them back from the warmth infused into the case, and to duce them to consider they were only discussing Ing, d question on the strict and dry view of its merits. Ile we% not dwell on the various parts of the Hon. Member's speech, but he must beg leave to call attention to one or two points. The Honourable Member said, unless the house agreed to his motion, their Protestantism would be a pre' tence and their loyalty a shim. That issue was to: strong.- (Hear, he ar .) The House had a discretion in t' matter; they had a right to test the statments of the -Bo a ' Member to see if those statements were borne out--_ whether lie w as cons i stent in his doctrine, or whet h er s el part of his d octr i ne was not overturned by what was 157 7 ,e! down is the speech. This the House was entitled to _eo without the fear that the people would consider that tiae loyalty of that House was a sham if they refused to adopt the Honourable Member's views. lie would just give an in stance of the H onoura bl e M em b e r's magnifying powers o t of speech. The Ho noura bl e G en tleman said the objection 2 ! Commission had been made by the Right Honourable Gentleman on the ground that no power would be ther eb y' conferred to obtain answers to questions. On that basis the Hon. Gentlem an b u ilt the inference that the Bishop of 15. and Wells had declared he intended to refuse answering ssy g questions, and then, with the same ingenuity , he proceeded to extend the refusal to the whole bench of Bishops , . !t i e: that no other class of her Majesty's subjects would do same. On that foundation, and no other, had h Gentleman built his tirade against the whole Etpiesrop',..! bench. He was not the man to defend bishops o.r.arletchuaJt else when they did not do their duty. Bat he did say an d bishops, like any other persons, were entitled to jus v some decency of treatment.-(" Hear, hear," from d M e r c ' en ll e y o( man.) He did not think that they bad got that t treatment at the hands of the Hon. and Learned Member` . be A r had t 461 1:1011. end Letglaeo Gentle' ; • ~,~,,.