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

T E SUN, i t ; a before now build u • that' **e fabrics of accusa -1 inHouse v i ; L a gainst particular prelates of the • Established Church, ap when examined, bail turned out to be sp:endii exeg gerations.— (" Hear, hear," from Mr. HarSinaii.) He might 1. : 6 k) the Hortiele minor case. -(Question.) (geese ion. ) The ,Uon. as the Learned Gentleman had been upwards of two hours in king his indulgenceu and sure,ly the House would etatentl its to him while he attempted to answer l( Herr, hear.) In the case alluded to the Hon. aed i i ,, r lied Member had utterly failed in eveiy material point Lee charg , s which he made against the Bishop of. Gloa eele,r• - (Hear, bear.) The lion. and Learned Gentkman sae for a lo n a time taken on himself the functions of an ac iser of the clergy. In 1828, when the Hon. and Learned ei:Me l/lin was an elder o f the Presbyterian Church. he N eeade charges egainst the eminent and excellent Dr. Chal zere, which obliged Dr. Chalmers to resort to the preee.— b°ll Rear," f rom M r. Horsman.) He adm i re d t h e c h e er of the g. and L earned Gentleman. No d ou b t th e Hon. and rained Gentleman thought Dr. Chalmers as much , in the er,, t g• on that occasion a he thought the Biehop of Lath and e ll' in this. 'Bet' tha n f ct was that Dr. Chalmers was l e e i bli g e d'to publish an answer for the' purpose of dereionst.ret - g the unsoundness of whet he called the aerial accusations of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The Hon. and Learned 1 Ge ntleman had take n on himself the character of a public j ..er n.„ of the clergy, and was bound to be accurate in the eLr e age he used, and to take care that the views he pre lee-"' of a case came up to the standard of feels. If . the e te - „••; °od Learned Gentleman would embark in discussions I ele•rei,ng leunfounded)a knowledge, he was takenbund to avoid easncinles —e umg charges, and to carti that the on which he proceeded were sound. The lion. al Learned Gentleman hed put the House' in a dilenama - •"cil he could not accept. The non. and Learned Gentle said that either the House was a fit place for a debate 14,.8 8 t he present, or else there ought not to be in Este -Iled Church. He trembled to dispute the dilemma, but Zehfeared it was just poaeible for them to have au Established et ' t ech, and yet that that Ho u s e m i g ht no t b e th e fitting for " , a for the dscussion like the present.—(llear.) Speaking k t rt a illl f self, he r d id not scruple to say . that that House was te er Ming arena for such discussions. He admitted that t , e might have been—nay, what was more iMportant— or Englandad been some cases of foul play; that the Church but was rent from head to foot with her divisions; he asked them, apart from all interests of' his own, or of e day, whether they thought that religious divisions falikely to be mitigated, and that the sores and wounds the Church were likely to be healed, by rhetorical decla- Illation by exaggeration, and by misapprehension and mis a,_ , might of fact ? (Hear.) It might be that he himself la.44ight err in this respect ; but if he did so, it would be un tentional, for he had th e d eepest sense of the mischief hca . arit l arose from such a source.—(Herr, hear.) If th e Hon. Learned Gentl eman k new anyt hi ng of t he nature of re- Pons partisanship he must know that heat and v i o l ence on t ae aid e engendered heat and violence on the other.—( He ar , bkr •) He believed that if the influence of M r . B e n ne tt ee i n e re in question, there would be no better mode of increas oe a propagating that influence than by singling him f il et forattack, if that attack were coloured by religious feel- That fact must be kept in mind throughout the whole et;ssnesion, if they wished to neutralise the . evils of such dis taas"ns•—(Hear, hear.) The first point which called for veer a ttention was whether the country was to be governed , o"ne:r in ecclesiastical or in civil matters, by the private tl i ) e ill•° ° B of particular men, according to their popularity for e:entement, or by a system of fixed laws ?—( . Hear, hear.) wee to be governed by private opinion, and if that House 'Z e e ; to become the means of making such private opinion w orld g' in matters of religion, representative institutions 13 4 " sh atcome a nuisance, and ecclesiastical questionswould ar i e d, they were in fact, the bane and plague of the House the °` t he country.—(Hear. hear.) Bat he maintained that tigh t Were not thre to decide what was in the abstract the i; They had to decide one or two questions. First, had to b - ws been obeyed? If the laws were good they ought (i f ° obeyed ; and if not good they ought to be altered. le g t a r , hear.) They had no right to establish any extaa sYster n of influence or jurisdiction by which they move 0 .u.ov e P!rate on the regular operation of the law. .I . t must 11440 Its own fixed course. irrespective of the opinions of Was fnsl'als That was the first principle he, laid down. It hterial to keep in view the person before them in the • l eear neti lnBl ance. The speech of the Honourable and lion, A Gentleman bad a good deal cleared up that ques , as b e 7° he understood the case, the person whe , ose conduct keen l ., °r° them was the Bishop of Bath and IN ells. As a he was a great officer of state, and be agreed with the held th e and L earne d G en tl eman indeed he had long 8 e oeinion—that it was a great absurdity that our ba .11i °o ld not afford the means of correccing a delincinent re roar, hear.) He frankly owne:l that he should f ‘ e r th e the greatest favour any : judicious proposition Wi th per m , of providing such means.—(Hear, hear) Whieh'ek''Peet to th e B is h op o f Bath and W e ll s , the point t hat he h e wished t o p u t to the House was simply A'ten wr ts nova delinquent bishop, and ,that not even a he n. fizcie case of ' delinquenc -, hal been made out against thi s ca being CO let them .' put aside the other charges P tealtif te e a s°. Tfiey I.:ad nothing to do with tbe proceedings Pat °p • , The Hon and 'Learned Gentleman had ex ,the pa t disclaimed casting . nny imputation on the conduct of ' 0 sti tte ". The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had omitted Free!: at, "e elenlent to which every patron ought to pay who, 'eetton and that was the feeling ot the over tt , 44(l l:e 4bY ee perilcular pastor was placed. Though the e ) on. -Sid he Member had dealt with the facts as best he \Thai: el ,: tied admitted that in this particular case—through Peen r Peculiarity or delusion—the people of Frome were 01.,ny satisfied with what the patron had done.—(Alr. (li tteo 4 7, -- s‘ No, no.") The Hon. and Learned Gentleman admit \il ly 4r that the people of Promo were satisfied. Gentle ' h ear, from Mr. Horsman.) The Hon. and Learned ter'ao throughout the whole of his first speech, and even (itiis:ei.'oleetr,slioafdFrepresented the objectors as the clergy and pa te'es4tistiee. , e r c?mes Now, it was not a fact that they were app o i nt nightly, or wrongly, they were satisfied with i' 4o a nle4 tr and were grateful for it. w . er H e held in his ote l letter of ifthe the churchwardens, which, House acme Permit, he would read.—(Cries} of " Name.") Tho ble (4twas Miller--(lronical cries of " Hear, hear") —and etre ee : h as the 17th of April, before the Hon. and Learned 1 $ add u r ought forward his first motion on the subject. It as ressed to the patron, the Marquis of Bath, and was ewes: " FRONIE Viestastox• Prome April 17. ~ a , " _ , t ef h7s Y lierd, I have the honour to acknowledge he . receipt eeett tor Lsrdship's letter of yesterday's date, and ll wil f l ?ro kl i 'l'4*er the inquiries therein contained, fu y, a rnotis to the body of the parishioners. Th to the bithass e t t rt ;f inhties I am re pared boldly to maintain. The' under many and great obligations ki lY -est i" °f ;li m o e are nd there is none they more cheer= hlsasinrenise or - more gratefully appreciate than the NS f g N'nwed on them in the regard . manifested by that ! /°11 : ET II ! I Y for ,their spiritual good• in nominating . Mr. 4. 4(. 7-- vicar of Frome. I assert, and without the sligte&t . Nei-, vicar of that Since Mr. Bennett . commenced_ his t A t riest s Z o ihe morning congregation have lacreasetderaet never leas ar e , ' and that as to the evening _services, there ete ° n ianY persons assembled within the walls of St. hi s ' 1.4 Church. The lowest calculation last Sunday even- trietvaS 2 ,000. At the commencement many have been at of th e(l by curiosity and the love of novelty, but at the end re e eon Months there is not only no diminution, but the h g'•egatio n is increased and increasing." th wa, "not right, therefore to sly that the sentiments of Ills ll ,, Pe° Ple of Fr ome h a d b een over -ridden in the appoint °'fG's-,, Mr. Bennett.—(Hear, hear.) The lion. and Learned ta s ••"erean denied that the churchwarden had represented fo r _°entirnents of the people, but it was right he should ms t et "( tae Hon. and Learned Gentleman that in a . postcrip w it h letter it was stated that the parishioners, in vestry i'etribled, had re-elected the writer of the letter church carden. It appeared that under the guidance of certain s; er ßymen, 54 persons had protested against the appoint ,s'eat of Mr. Bennett. Of these 54, only 16 belonged to the appoint gash church to which Mr. Bennett had been appoiated; liatlrti of these 16 one-half had returned to the church within 1 1ta ‘ e _W te week s after Mr. Bennett was inducted. One circum thit' of a somewhat solemn nature was connected with 14..isrt of the e tion. One person of the 51 who had krl t : 4 was taker ill, and his first act was to send for L.. • 'nett, and he died receiving his ministration.—(Bear, at) l eelin Th e patron, therefore, was vindicated so far as the eaid j i °I the parishioners was`as concerned. It might be t he at their approval only a proof _of t o he d iv e o pth an o y f ac cur!, b lindness. He was not authorised t 1)- ' 14 of Mr. Bennett's sentiments. Indeed g he had 'There were la it slight acquaintance with _s o , ~ PerV„, 4l -en• Members who knew him intimately, him _and might, the ;" s ; be able to speak on that point. Instead of taking Iss a ' n u a tienced and exaggerated view which the Hon. and liscirZad Gentleinan had done of everything that Mr. Bennett th e a , and assuming that at this moment Mr. Bennett was hi t Tne man that he was, he must say that the address to th at ;rasa the parishioner& of Frome was a demonstration eiod,; t l hien to the' encouraging hope that Mr. Benett had_ that , " et ed himself wisely and discreetly in his parish, And I,th whether like other men, he might rock in the troubles th e eh s urrounded them:she was steady i n hi s a ll eg i ance to di st ,„ & -lilarch of Engla n d, an d f a i t hf u l i n the discharge of his V a .' as a minister of that Church.—(Hear, hear.) Tara p 4 7. a rational inference to draw when they round the whole It ss l i approving of Mr. Bennett's doctrines and discipline. I.l,c'stned to him that the accusations against Mr. Bennett di t.;`e,l themselves into two classes, the first relating'to his pro ki.edinp.a.at Kissengen— the second to his published works. n ia ts .Proceedings in London were not, and could not be, the Clect of inquiry. The Hon. and Learned Member seemed gs at Kissengen ought to have ii' t hik that the . proceedin ted the Bishop of Bath and Wells instltuting Air. nett N,, tlett. With respect to the proceedings at Ki.ssengen he io l lnot aware of the state of the case, except in one very had r tant particular. Iron and Learned Gentleman ri,.4 l • 3Bl lmed that if T Dl h r e . Bennett did not appear at the fis -phi church at Kis:sengen, it proved that he was un tlath 1: ,, to the English Church. But he thought the Hon. ust have forgotten that. Mr. av,rles,itr G en ile g m a a i s i '''( et rieti chaplain to a private family. , — ti Il ti e%) As travelling Which the Hon. %tid alterLeav,rlod. Csiivirs. Be e ,l l had told them Of the stonefor w a _ t _ h b 841 hi t wag said to have carried about roll i h him , be must if the Hon. and Leann e e s k rass a othin g. —( Hear.) E t it tI Gentleman should be able to Fun teedie s s ! )ti nt, he wished the House to rec:alect that the pro the ee i,, (4 ' hir. Bennett at Bissingen did not_aotarall affect ,nL. Itishap ji ll a e ri t °f the Bishop of Bath and Wells. —(H jsennett'uu t)11 acCon,.; n „ ° Power to take:any steps against M ' sions " l id th'..7 °' each proceedings, because they were r. done be (Exprea_ been ofd i s , iltrisdiction of our ecelesiastical law.— logni`seant.) Even if the Bishop of Bath and Wells . had s q° eciai n s t s t f Such proceedis, be did not believe ' that I"at l s • - 'aye taken a a steps with regard to them. A case, 1 tev:ils" . atla, miglitb - e n Citedin support A' his opinion. 'sell" aaPtist No had preached in ti Presbyterian church, lie deli vi ,;l at Inverness. The attention of the Bishop of Lon ;trent e s' ealled to the fact, but it was found not to be an Well s , s ee 'gnil Able by law. Against the Bishop of Bath and the,. o sSue Ron. and Learned Genrleman had made three plirsg s--het tharilt° the Biahop preceeded in undue haste and in prevent the parishioners having a fair hearing ; that he e broceeded ' without thi. proper certificate; and hi k t"be Proceeded without due examination. It appeared . to f eena: t each and every one of those charges was without the Position l ° ll ' nut first of all let them realise to themselves enti , f 111 ' - ' n the Bishop. The Honourable and Learned . tabj ec c a .„; in the first statement which he made on this 'isho ' wad Prodeeded entirely on the' assumption that the P ,:' w hen they received presentee! , were invested by t l i tt L ) ' l. r ?f England with largo discretionary powers to iic et to cu. a te them. That was not the case. respect ilact aobsolute ; and ttai e ilt , in matte f dination the bishops power try hrdaisea a if i c t o o r uld be 7shown that a bishop man who was not =stifled for the inin.i -tlnty. e : ° 1 111 r e a as a e a es h av i ng departed from . I m. 4_ . bishop's tf th e ',nit hat Wa t ;'tfieria s inre of the law on the subject hissul_a!td Learned Gentleman bad Powers with respect to presentees? The r,,,,Ti0n,. on this subject from Mcotland, where he con perhaps imported some of had a better system prevail d ' The . law of Scotland f a i r always be.en stuious; t o g . .give to the Pcorde a th e wilt:nasality a stating had been to presentees, an,i. on , ~nlas et. ° le, llie practice had been too'vefair scope to such •Cngi a Z i n s- But that was not the spirit of t e to gut , • The inspiring idea of the law of England had been to th e r aredwith every security th e ' give a h law of Th e a lystYsson and the 4 1)44 or the • inchoate right of the presentee. patron's right to present law la well•governed countries like our own became the, spirit of the courts of law, and, as in the case of motet - rain, thejealortsly of the Legislature was guarded by the rigid interpretion given to the statutes by the courts of . law. Iu the same way the cones had viewed with the utmost jealousy the civil rights of the patrons and the inchoate right of a presentee. Toe power of the bishop was narrow by law, and narrower according to practice, and 'every act of a perroa was scrutinised with the mines; jealousy in order to give effect to what the low favoured, and to restrain what the law regarded with distrust. Was the Bishop to refuse admi:sinn to a presentee Isocause he had written a work which did not meet his views, or be cause he interpreted the oath of supremacy differently from the bishop? Was the Bishop of Beth and Wells to refuse admission to. Mr. Bennett because virtually, but not legally, the Bishop of London hag expelled him from his benefice, or because some fifty persons in Frome had addressed him not to institute Mr. Bennett! If the Bishop of Bath and Wells had so acted he would have been forthwith brought into the Queen's Bench, and it would have been no justification of his conduct if he had told the judges that he had refused admission to Mr. Bennett because the Bishdp of London had disapproved of his conduct. The Bishop of Bath and Wells would have been called on by the court to prove that Mr. Bennett was disqnalified either .on the ground of heretical doctrine, immoral conduct, Or insufficient learning.—(iiear, hear.) Except on these grounds the Bishop would nave no locus standi in a court of law. From the Statement of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman ono. would have supposed that his doctrine of a etrict examination of a presentee was very popular in this country, and that the feeling of Parliament was in favour of it. S.) far back as 162 t, the House appointed a Committee to inquire into the conduct of one of the bishops, who was afterwards Archbishop of York, and the Committee reported that the Bishop had failed to admit presentees, and that his not haviniinducted them had been to the great injury of the recentpatron . T case the of andin th t e h i e r recollection presentation b e House Bi s i a o t p i of no Exeter donl) t . Brampford Speke. The ruinous and crushing cos ts of these ecclesiastical suits were enough to deter persons from engag ing in them. He believed the Bishop of Exeter had learnt that fact by hard experience. In another case, in which the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had prosecuted a clergy man for immorality, the cost to the Bishop was not less than 4,2001. Justice, he hoped, ought to be done even to a Bishop, and these things ought not to be forgotten `when their incomes were alluded to. He had stated that if the Bishop of Bath and Wells had refused to admit Mr. Bennett he might have been called into court by a writ of guare inzpedit, and if he failed to establish heresy, immoral conduct, or insufficient . learning against Mr. Bennett, he would have been condemned to pay costs. The other mode of proceeding was the duplex querela. Ac cording to that mode, if the Bishop refused to act, the ques tion passed to the Court of the Archbishop, and then to the Committee of Privy Council. He hoped, therefore, the House would recollect that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in every step that he took, was bound to keep himself within his legal powers, andithat the moment ;lie stepped on doubt ful ground he made himself liable to being proceeded against in a court of law. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had stated that the Bishop of Bath and,Wells had proceeded with undue haste, for the purpose of overcoming the objec tions of the parishioners. The facts, he thought, lcd to an opposite' conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) He should bo sorry unnecessary to detain the Mouse, but in shch a case he begged they would assume their judicial character, and hear the .answer he had to make to the statement of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, What step should the parishioners have takerin order to interrupt these pro ceedings? Their first step' was to have entered . a caveat, for by doing so they could have furnished the Bishop with good and solid grounds for delaying proceedings. Why then had they sot taken that step in -the first instance?— (Hear, hear.) Every lawyer in Frome m us t h ave k nown that ;his was the mode of proceeding. Mr. Bennett's pre sentation was known in Frome on the 30th of December, but he was not instituted till the 24th of January; an in terval of 26 days elapsed. That a caveat could have been entered in a single day was evident from the fact of Dr. Twiss having on the 23d of January advised a caveat, and from its being ready on the 21th of 'January,— (H ear .) The lion. and Learded Gentleman said that the parisioners petitioned the Bishop, but petitions were of no legal value, while, by entering a caveat the petitioners would h ave in curred a forensic responsibility. If the Bishop had pleaded the petitions is any suit the Court would have laughed in his face. He ventured to say that there was net an at torney in From° who would not have advised the peti tioners that if they were -in earnest, the proper mode of proceeding was by caveat. The Bishop would - net have been entitled to plead Use address which he had received from the petitioners in any proceelangs which might have been taken against him. The Hon. and. Learned Gentle man thought that the address did not supply matter br judi cial consideittion. The Bishop was nor of that opinioe, and as the parishioners ,had not taken the proper method of entering a caveat, he contended the Bishop would not have been Justified in refusing to iossitete.— (Heat, hen-.). if the Bishop could not refuse, neither could he delay 'institution. He apprehended that a judge could not delay justice without reason, any more than lie could refuse euetice. —( H ear. ) The obligation not to postpone justice was as strong as the obligation not to deny,it. The, bishop would certainly have been respensible‘to the patron, as.well as to the presentee, if, knowing that the partseioners declined en tering a caveat, he had refused to institute the presentee to the benefice to which Sae had received the presentatien. As therefore, he begged the i r i egar eua d e ed the question to remembe rthatof delay,twenty-six days had elapsed be tween the time when the people of Frome had become aware of the intention to present Mr. Bennett and the time when he had been instituted. He put it to the Jelouse that if those parties were in earnest it was their duty to pursue one or other of two courses; they ought either to have con sulted the. Bishop of Bath and Wells, and to have asked him whether he thought there were grounds for legal pro ceedings against Mr. Bennett, and then of course they should be bound by the decision of - the Bishop; or they might have abstained from consulting the Bishop at all, and have themselves entered a caveat and commenced legal pro ceedings in the matter. But they had not chosen to adopt either of these courses. The demand they had made was virtually to the effect that because they had found that Mr. Bennett had professed opinions not acceptable to them, the Bishop of Bath and Wells should undertake not only the cost and risk of the legal proceedings but that he should undertake them in a cause which he believed to be good for nothing. Let it not be forgotten that it had only been on the 23d of January that those parties had sought advice on the subject of their caveat —that was to say 25 days after they ought to have sought it, and when Mr. Bennett was on the point of being instituted. Then, the second charge of the Hon. Gentleman against the Bishop of Bath and Wells was, that, Mr. Bennett had been instituted without the proper certificate. But upon that point it ap peared to him (Ur. Gladstone) that the Hon. Gentleman had fallen into an error in supposing that one of the canons he had quoted—namely, the 48th canon, had anything to do with that matter. He (Mr. Gladstone) believed he teas be yond all risk of being questioned or contradicted:by any one conversant with ecclesiastical law when he stated that at the present time, and for along series of years, the 89th canon was that which exclusively regulated the institution of ministers to benefices.. The Hors. Geatleman seemed to think that the Bishop of Bath and %Veils had b een gu il ty of a legal offence in admitting Mr. Bennett without the testimonial of the Bishop of London, But the 39th canon did not require such a testimonial as that which the Hon. Gentleman supposed to be indispensable. He met the state ment of the Hon. Gentleman by stating that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received f rom M r. B ennett fullevi dence with regard to his life and doctrines, and that if he had refused to entertain that evidence Mr. Bennett, or the patron of the living, would have been entitled to have pro secuted the bishop in the courts, and to have compelled him to have granted institution. The lion. Gentleman had admitted that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received the usual testimonial signed by three incumbents, but he had asked who these three incumbents were, and whether his (Mr. Gladstone) had got that testimonial. Now, he had to state in reply, that he had not got the testimonial, and that he could not name the threeincumbents. But he knew that the testimonial, so far as the three incunbents were con cerned, was the usual testimonial. at he Hon. Gentleman had said that the testimonial was to the effect that Mr. Bennett had never done anything contrary to the doctrine or disci pline of the Church of England. lint the words of the testi monial were in reality to the effect that Mr. Bennett had never held, or taught, anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England. It would be veiy diffi cult indeed to say of any man that he had not done any-. thing contrary to any particular doctrines ; but a man's teaching was more public, and. could more properly be made the subject,of a testimonial such as that to which he was referring. The Bishop of Bath and Wells had received pre cisely the usual testimonial, as far as the incumbents were concerned:; but it was not the usual testimonial, so far as the dismissing Bishop—the Bishop of London —was concerned. The Bishop of London had annexed a note in which he called the attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the fact that Mr. Benneit had been-dismissed from the diocese of London, or that the Bi,hop of that diocese had made use of the voluntary offer of resignation of 4lr. Bennett, because, as he said, the continuance of that clergy man in the diocese would seriously prejudice its free and good order, lie had called the attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the correspondence which•had been pub fished - in the nines between .himself and Mr. Bennett. And thus' they had got one step further in the matter. The testitneniat was the usual testimonial compelling the. Bishop . to institute Mr. Bennett as fax as the incumbents were concerned; but it was not the usual testimonial, inasmuch as it had un extraneous comment appended to it by the Bishop of London. The question then arose, ,what was the exact legal' nature and effect of that explanatory note of the Bishop of London, and What were the duties which it imposed on the Bishop of Bath and Wells? He (Mr. Glad stone) understood that notes of that kind were not unfree quently appended by bithops toftestimonials; but it was ire quite plain th a t if a signature were affixed to any document conformity with law and usage, its legal effect could not t, b i e gn a i l e t g er i e t d . of the byThaeal3;lertuitous comment .roads by the party London continued the same eignature of the Bishop of be the explanation affie.e.eeer point of law, whatever might that explanation? He (Mr.'B ) la itii What was the value of it was this—that it imposed on ttliteteue) said tbet the value of the duty of ascertaining for Bishope of Bath and Wells of Mr. Bennett, and of satiztianei, himselftahat was the doctrine lie contended that it could have toother upon that point. then that of. imposing on the Bishop ef valueßath and effect the duty et examining Mr. Bennett i,he e uhd Wells L admitted that the certificate, of then Gentleman3iai, Lendon was not necessary that the canons did)l3 oft require it, and that practice did not require it; - and n he (sir. Gladstone) believed that, under these cir cumstances, he had shown that there was ,an end to that pact of the case attempted to be established ag a i ns t t h e Bishop of Bath and Wells. Ho next came to the third charge of' the Hon. Gentlertian, whicla was that ttie Bishopof Bath a nd Wells had admitted Mreßennett without due examination, and he thought that he ( Ur. Gladstone) was bound to ay Bishop of Bath and, iWel the of the Hon; Gentleman ls sense had so admitted M r. Bennett. He should, however, add, the II construction which Gentleman that although the "due exam ination" might suit the lead given to the phrase confident that there was no House of Commons, he felt con gentleman there who had ever inquired into a leg a l q uestion that would not at once repudiate that construction. lie saw in the case, lawyers there who felt with the Hon. Gentleman he an and upon the point which he was then discussing pealed to them with the seine confidence with-which in th ap pealed to Hon. Gentlemen who adopted his views the doctrine matter. The Hon. Gentleman had laid down. that a judge—fora bisho p in such a case as that was a j ud g e .! in the strictest s ense of the. term—the don. Gentleman had laid down the doctrine that. that judge was not to institute au examination of such a nature and to such an extent as to satisfy his own conscience, he being the person on whose conscience the law had laid. the burden ofthe decision, but such an examination I a s . would satisfy other per sans on whom the law hail not 1 - • • aid the burden of the decision—such an examination as s. ould sati:,fy whit the I lion. Gentleman called " the public," and such .an exami nation as would no doubt satisfy himself the Hon Member for'Cockermouth.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He wished he could get, the Hon. Gentleman to look in cold blood at ! the consequences—he did not like to use strong epithe s— but lie should say the really . frightful and hideous conse qaetices o f suc h a d octr i ne of judicial duty, and such a con ceptiou of the judicial character, as that -a judge in a solemn LONDON, and imp o•tant matter wes not to look for such evidence a 5 would - satisfy his own eonecience, bat for such evidence as would satisfy the public.—(Lend cries of " deer, hear.") If 1 he had misunderstood the Hon, Gentleman. and if the Hon. Gen tleresn would admit that the duty of a judge was t o in -1 stitine, on his solemn responsibility, such an ostamin Ition as would satisfy his own judgment, and acquit his own con , science before God and men—then ha and the Hen. Gentle-- • Tee Bishop of Bath' and Well • had dine mite were aeree, . ' charged that duty; he had examined Mr. Bennett, not in the Greek Teitament, not' on matters of form or of ecclesiastical history—he had examined Mr. Btnnett—ret the Mr. Bennett eof former times, but the Mr. Bennett of January last—the Bishop • who had himself been a great sufferer from illness—from crushing and torturing illness—but who bad been in full possession of all his intellectual powers and faculties—for the Right Lion. Gentleman the Secretary of- State was thee- • taken in supposing that he had arrived at an extreme old age -he had carefully examined Mr: Bennett on all those points on which he had thought that an examination had been called for—namely, those points in dispute between the Church of England and the Church of Rome; and-it was not until he had made up his mind that on thoie points Mr. Bennett had held by the Church of England that he had pro ceeded to take any of the steps necessary for . grenting the proposed institution. If ho lied found that Mr. Bennett had held the opinions of the Church of Rome in regard, for in stance, to the points touched in the Thirty-nine Articles, his course would have been clear, and it would then, no doubt, have been his duty to hare refused institution. But haying. sound that there had been no groned for attributing to Mr. Bennett an adherence to the doctrines of the Church of Rome, he had granted institution. Acting,' hot on the belief and convictions of the Hon. Getitleman, but on - the belief and convictions of himself,- the Bishop, who was the judicial-officer appointed by the law to 'decide the 'case, had subjected Mr. Bennett to a due examination ; and it was to his honour that he had done thate not under the influence of any compulsion on the part of the parishioners of Freese, for he had done it before there had •been any movement Whatever among any discontented clergymen or laymen. The Bishop had himself instituted the inquiry because he had 'seen that the circumstances of Mr. Bennett's former career bad been such as to call for. it. He had taken upon .himself that responsibility, and by his own 'mouth bad examined Mr. Bennett on those points on which he believed that an ex amination was necessary. Nowte (Mr. Gladstone); should confess that the Hon. Gentleman fairly beat him when he led them in that House into the domain of pure and unmixed theology . The Hon. Gentleman had quoted from a work of Mr. Bennett some-propositions 'in theology, 'and the Hon. Gentleman had told them that it would not be appropfiate in that House to discuss those propositions. No; but al though the Hon. Gentleman had not thought inappropriate to discuss, he had thought it appropriate to judge and de cide.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had quoted a saying of Mr. Bennett's, withregard to the Holy Scriptures. But Mr. Bennett himself had on a former occasion com plained that his words upon- that subject had been mis quoted, not by an alteration of the words, but by taking them out of their context, so as to makel them bear a meaning totally different from that which he had intended. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, speaking of the pa rishioners of From° in another part of 'his speech, had asked whether Mr. Bennett believed. that the Bible was a fiction and an absurdity, imputing to Mr. Bennett that belief, and complaining that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had not made that a matter for his judicial investigation. But when he (Mr. Gladstone) looked at the possage, he saw that it was, in his humble opinion, totally altered, as Mr. Bennett had contended, by being wrenched from what preceded and followed. Could he remedy the evil by reading the pas sage to the House? He felt that he could not. • It was a powerful and affecting statement of some of the most solemn doctrines of our religion, which ho could not profane by reading the passage in the House of Commons. The Ho • nourable Gentleman, he should say, was not 'in the least degree aware of the common history of the Church of Eng land, except, perhaps, during the years he belonged t o it.—(Hear, heel-, and a laugh.) He (Mr. Glad stone) believed he would show the Hon. Gent eman that he was totally unaware of one of the great religious contro versies of this century. The passage in the work of Mr: Benaett had referenc a to this question—whether in the work of rropagating Christianity, of spreading Chtistienity among those who had not previously professed its doctrines —the Bible alone should be used; and Mr. Bennett had said that it would be a fiction and delusion to su pp ose th at Ch r i s tianity would be propagated by merely distributing the Bible among an un-Christian people. . Bat Mr. Bennett did not protest against the use of elle Bible by Christians for the education of their souls. And the Honourable Gsntleman• ought to know that for. many years after. the foundetion of namely, y n the e B r. S o G e l i ao e ncds t ges : di — yuo h t sd. t h e metitution known to every Itlertieer of that :House— op by rch, rrulocbtaett .because t tst d: n f e - i i la f t : h n s t ets h yh - h e oe r f a c o e . a tci . r ivuebeee been v ee, question ,that posed by nearly the whsle of the Bishops of the Church' of ore than a single Dollop who had not at the time opposed it';_ a m:i i i t ei t a i n t o e f r had th r e i a g l E h 3 t, s ) l t y b a 'e b n l n i r sh o w e p re d p that even among. Christians, an I particularly in - foreign t en ds, the circulation of the Bible alone was not the instru ment which •our Saviour had intended for prom-sting Christianity. The opinion.- which had been held 'by Mr. Bennett wits one, therefore, which had been held at the' time of the ettablishment of the Bible Society by the great maes.of the clergy and Bishops of the Church of England.' 'Mr. LIORSMAN- said he bad -not quoted the • opinion of Mr. Bennett; ,he had merely said that the memorialists had brought that passage under the notice of the Bishop. lie had .himself given uo opinion upon the subject. Mr. GLADSTONE continued—The Hon. -Gentleman had quoted thepassage from the memorial;. but he' had also ad verted to it ie another part of his speech. The opinion of Mr. Bennett was one which bad been entertained by the great mass of the bishops and clergymen of the Established Church; it was no ecclesiastical offence of which the courts could take cognizance, or which they would admit as a valid reason for staying the right of the patron or of the presentee. But the Hon. Gentleman had also adverted to another case —that relating to the oath of supremacy. Now he (Mr. Gladstone) cotended that upon that, as upon other points, they ought to be guided by the law, and not by private opinions. He was only afraid that as the law represented the spirit of one period, and the men of the present genera tion represented the spirit of a different period—our laws not having been changed as public opinion had changed—those who were called upon to consider the conduct of great public and judicial officers might forget that those officers were only bound to conform to the law, and that they could only. be blameable or punishable in consequence of a de parture from it. It seemed that Mr. Bennett had put a Il w o h n i o c u h ra d b i l f e . t. p e a r r , t d i c f u r l o a ni r c t o h n a s t t construction w o n as the oh a n t h p n o n f it p b r y e m tn a c e y wnie t n ha h t a t a he meanin g Gentleman. But the Honourable Ge ntleman o ught to recol lectof the oath of s u p r emacy was one already b e en much debated in that H ouse . The Noble Lord the Member for L ondon had given one construction of the oath, and other Honourable Members had given a different construction of it; and it was well known that at the present moment there were two Peers to affix to the who were precl u d e d from taking, their seats in the Ho use of Lords, bec ause th e y f o und it impossible oath of supremacy any • clear and distinct meaning to which they could subscribe. But at all events he believed that the meaning attached to the oath of supremacy by Mr. Bennett did not amount to an offence' punishable in the courts n and the Bishop of Bath and Wells could . not make it a ground f or stain t h ere by avert t h e institution of Ben nett, although he might y cla mour, and sav e hi mse lf f ro m the hostility of the Honourable Memb er . f or Cockermoutle The -Bishop had merely to carry ou t th e l a w of which he was the sworn guardian, even though it might-be-necessary for him to do so in an unpopular _ manner, an d under unpopular circum stances. As regarded the second charge, the want of evi dence, he (Mr. Gladstone) thought he had sho wn that the evidence was the same as.in other cases dealt with by bishops of the Established Church. _(Hear, hear.) But when he came to the third charge, he had shown that the Bishop of Bath and Wells, without waiting. f or inquiry or sugg estion from the Bishop o f London, made up his min d that Mr. Bennett could not b e convicted of false doctrine, and that, therefore, it was not his duty to deny or delay the justice that rested with him to pronounce.—(lear, hear.) The Bishop of Bath a n d Wells w as fully borne out i n the course which he adopt e d b y t h e conduct of the Bi s h o p of London. lie (Me. Gladsto ne ) b e li eved it to-be the case a s regarded the Bishop of Bath ants Wells th a t h e b a d made himself reaso ne sible to this extent, th a t, if Mr. Bennett were taken into an ecclesiastical court, and if his doctrines ivere there declared to be contrary to those held by the Church -of Engla nd, there would then be a case against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who examined the works of Mr. Bennett, and de Glared them conform a bl e t o t h e doctrines o f th e Church of England.---( Hear, hea r .) But now came the question ,— What were they. eo do ?. (Hear, hear.) It was not his (Mr. Gladstone's) business to advi se th e H ouse on this point—he was not going to make a motion or amendment on the tub ject ; but he would offer a few observations on the motion itself. He should confess there were objections to the - mo tioa as it now stood—namely, as regarded the institution of Mr. Bennett. Were he to vote for that motion as it now stood, he would be assenting to the allegation that a prima facie case had been made against the Bishop of Bath and W ells; but in his opinion no such case was made.— (Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman anticipated, as an objection to his motion, the present period of the session, and in stanced the case of the inquiry moved for by the Hon. Member foe North Warwickshire.—(Hoar, hear.) His (Mr. Glad atone's) flrst - objectiori was to their professing to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to Frome. If they were to inquire at all, they should hare their inquiry into the state and spirit of the enactment of the laws which were studiously framed by suc cessive generations with a view to discourage bishops, and make it impossible for them. to-do that which the Honour able Member for Cackermouth now accused them with.— (Hear, hear.) If they wished to go into the ques tion of ecclesiastical appointments—it an inquiry were moved for .to investigate the state of the law, and to do so in a fair and. <impartial spirit, the Honourable Member moving such inquiry would confer one of the greatest services possible on the country, and greatly con tribute to the stability-of the Established Church.—(Hear, hear.) It was his (Mr. Gladstone's)hpinion that at pre sent parishioners did not possess sufficient means of making their objections known in these cases of institution.—(Hear, hear.) ,But whether the subject should be undertaken by a Commissioner or by a paid Committee, was soother ques tion. If they wanted an immediate. inquiry, they could not have it now by a Committee. Whether there should be a Commission, or whether there should be a general acknow ledgement of the expediency of instituting an inquiry into ecclesiastical and temporal law, with regard tr the power of - making canonical objections to persons instituting to ap pointments, ha would not say. At the same time, he should say that, if her Majesty's Gavernment wore disposed to un • la nu e Ir r rn t a e In to oe thisthth e e sd r sb s e.j : e s n t ; 0 1: h i e l r y i a t y i re o ed f ubl a ya n tg i hi n ve g en u i no r o y nt. into 7i the I n s i t o e a r s t C e t ofoc useful ktehre. mouth, but a l so confer a vast amount of benefit"—(Hear, T o e i t h er of these courses he (Mr. Gladstone) would be prepa re d to censure a high done his duty, and only to give a . most favourable consideration. But hiluty, judicial officer in the Church, who had. and that with-accuracy and care, in the case now brought was, in his mind, a mosti before them, he should confess —( Hear, hear)—because j,ecyetirable course et' proceeding prelate —not by implication, butt-t be casting censure on a acted in a manner unbecoming his had never who, instead of. blame and censure, exalted position, and the highest commendation.--.(Cheers.) e r e e r , a merited at their hands h .) Sir J. PAKINGTON remarked that the Right Honour. able Gentleman the Member f or th e University of Oxford had stated his sentiments with his usual abity, and gone very far to justifeethe college the Bish o p h a d taken in had this case. The deep attention which had b een pa i d to the Honourable Gentleman on . both occasions when he brought the subject before the House proved how strongly the people of thie.country -arlethe Members of that - House had been excited by these dissensions which unhappily existed in the Church ot England.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for- Oxford had observed with painful truth, 1 that the Church was rent and torn by those unhappy dis- I tensions • ,na•d he ' (Sir John Pakington) believed that this • was mainly owing to that portion of the clergy of the. Church who had taken that line which Mr. Bennett pur sued—( Loud cheers from all parts of the House) -a , line which in his case had led to his expulsion from one diocese, and -which had led to the most grave and serious WEDNESDAY i really :sincere ministers . cf the Church.-(Cheers.) lie I : doubts whether clergymen t a kip g th a t line could h b e f. * . lieved that in matey most es:ice:lel respects, there never I Was a more exemplary parochi a l Mi n i s t er than Mr. 1 Bennett, but the same thing mi g ht unquest i ona bly be said 1 of a large 'portion of the R )m an C a th ol i c cleray- -oear , bear.) But there ceeld not be a More dangeroas error teen to c. face personal piety and tlie .exemplary discharge of - parochial duties with these v it a l doctrines which formed the broad lines of demarcation between the two Churches. M —eer, hear.) No one could d'atly the unhappY die . . ferences eat dissensions that lad arisen in our Church, hind much of them was - undoubtedly attributable to those gentlemen, who, like Mr. Ben ne tt ; exh i b i ted t h a t love of forms and histrionic display which so much characterised the Church of Ronae.--(Hear, bear.) By means of those gentlemen the Rees of distinetionhetwe en the two Churches • were 'ever" , day made finer sal finer, a nd a numbee of unwary Protestants ' had in conse q ear.) He could uence been led away to the Church of Rome_-.(gear , h not blame the Honourable- Gentleman f or bringing those re marlaible facts beforethe HOnsaebat he seriously doubted how for the House ef Commons was a fit arena for such dilcussion;--(Hear, hear.) The Hetiourable Member had quoted a statement .of his (Sirhle Paltington's) opinion the last time this subject wa s before the`House. He had then expressed that opinion, and h e h ad now no i nten t ion to rkede from it.- (Hear, hear.) . Th e G overnment on t h a t m aim undertook to Mike inquiry, and they exhausted every means in 'their power to ascertain how fa r that inquiry could he conducted. The first step taken w as to d raw u p questions which in the judgment of the G overnment embr a ce d the whole matter in issue. These having been submitted to the law officers of the Crown, they gaveit as their opinion that there was no illegality in the institution of Mr. Bennett, and that as to the transactions alleged to have occurtied at Kis sin,gen—a foreign countr y —n elegal.inquiry by the Bishop could be instituted respecting it. The Government not resting content 'with those answers, , they submitted a se cond time more comprehensive questions to the law officers, and were again informed that there was no legal mode by which . the circumstances connected With Mr. Bennett's induction could b e made the subject o f direct and immediate inquiry, but if there was any legal mode then it would be open to the par i s hi on ers to proceed under the Church Discipline Act. With regard to the transactions at Kissengen, they were qaestions of fact, and it was undoubtedly a very extraordinary fact, and one ealculated to' create great anxiety and suspicion_, that Mr. Beanett's name was to be foaled in " Battersby's Directory." This undoubtedly was a question for th e Bishop to inqui re into. ie (Sir .6 3 - : Pakington) had listened with astonish ment to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Gladstone), when allading to the transactions at Sie sengen. There an English clergyman pass e d many mo nths without going near the English elergyman, his church, or congregation.—(Hear, hear.) It was a subject calculated to excite the gravest anxiety, and to inspire the deepest re gret, to find that a clergyman so conducting himself should be now at the head of an important p a rish.--(Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Pakington) could not conceal his astonishment when he heard the Right' Honourable Gentl eman vindicating such conduct.—(o No," from Mr. Gladstone.) Why, he said the clergyman was acting as a chaplain, and that his family was his congregation. But what was the family? Why, Sir John Harringeon's—the churchwarden of Mr. Bennett's late church, St. Paul's, where Sir John had conducted him self with more zeal than discretion.—(Rear, hear,) He (Sir John Pakington) could not admit the propriety of any chaplain so situated being exempt in faro conscientue from attending a place of public worship—(Hear, hear.) These were matters of such public notoriety that they must have come to the knowledge of the Bishop of the dioc e se, and they were matters into which the Bish op was bound to in gaire.—(Hear.) He did not believe, however, that any large number of gentleman in that House would agree, that that was a proper place for making a judicial inquiry into the con duct of a bishop. He thought it would be a course un worthy of the House of Commons, and a dangerous precedent, and therefore he must oppose the motion. Mn GLADSTONE said the Right Hon. Gentleman was mistaken, if he thotight, he (Hr. Gladstone) vindicated Mr. Bennett's conduct at Kissengeti. He wished to state also, that, the Bishop of Bath and' Wells had not 'become ac quainted with that conduct 'until after Mr. Bennett's in duction.—(Olt, oh.) - • ' his PAGE WOOD believed this was a graye constitu tional queetien. lie felt most deeple the vast importance of the general subject, and the mode in . which the people of England had been excited on the subject. Owing to this excitement there was the more dread of their being led e.wey bY their feelinge to some unconstitutional - course.-- (R ear , hear. ) C add any one doubt ' that the conduct of ne m e ess of those, who, being aworn members of our Church, had availed themselves of that position to disseminate what Member - to be the errors; and - corruptions of th e. Ch urch of Honourable we considered—aud he meant no offence to any . Reae. ln ono case a Party acted with- such baseness wee go over to the Church of. Ranee the very day after he had ) The . un preached in the Established Chureh, and he took with him i m 'il a d a reel wl t :o f movement had written a beta upholding the doctrines of the Church it h r i e s t o t r e g i an e - ( m Ei n e d ar i , n he t htr in . of Rome. That tract, which he had read, favoured-the f t n ii r e tn tw nn o te c ..nioat miserable hypocriey, Which he (Sir W. P. Wood) should at all times be realy to, denounce. He had dealt with the doctrines of the Church in what was called their " unnatural" sense. The matter, however, was not confined to hue side, and he was afraid that ae• the unnatural Sense led to the Church of Rome, so, on the other siele, it, might lead to religiou s error. • H e respected' the opinions of all men who had changed their religion from cemscieutions motives, and in that feeling he admired Mr. Biptist Noel for having left the Church; but he could not admire those who, approving of the doctrines of the Church of Rome, did not go over to that Church. Every member of the Church of England was bound to take the Book of Common Prayer in its natural form; and: according to ite 'strict meaning as laid down by the Chtirth. Bat while he felt thatehe was of opinion that they would not advance the cause which he had at heart, namely, a legislative reform of the ecclesiastical law, by taking up individuals and holding them up to detesta tion, and, still more, by making the matter a party question, with a view to a remedy. With iegard to Parliament, how did the motion before the Reuse stand? Oa a former occasion they were asked to have an inquiry under authority of the Crown, and now they were asked to have an inquiry before a Select Committee. But in bah cases the inquiry asked would be contrary to the Bill of Rights, and the principle was this—that they ought not to inquire into the conduct of an individual behind his back, or bring charges against him, unless it was to put him. on his trial. They might bring a man before a grand jury, but .it would be for the purpose of bringing a bill of indictment against him; and subject to onditio; and he 'did not dispute the right of the House Of Cenineons; Which . was called the Na tional Inquest, to inquire into abuses; but if they instituted . inquiry into 'this matter, they shtuld proceed 'fairly. fle was glad to find that her Majestyte- GOVemment felt that they could not assent to the course proposed, and also that they had undertaken to recommend inquiry i n to it; for otherwise he felt that there w as no possible mode, even ac cording to the statement of the rfon. Member for Cocker mouth, of dealing with the question, his Honourable Friend not having made out any breach of the lave. He did not think it just that a parish should be placed in a position to have such a man as the Rev. Mr. 'Bennett forced upon thern without the power•to deinand the inquiry whether he was a Member of the Church of England-- 1 r hear.) Bat whatever inquiry might be adopted intohisea ' • matters case, as - stood it could not lead to such a result a The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Mernbet for the-University, 0 „ „ worn (Mr. Gladstone) had rather understated t l i :1 - 81Y T U case in favour of the Bishop. The Bishop, it app point to the living, and did not . eared;had 28 days to ap aPPoint until the twenty seventh day; therefore there was no i bas i c , i n the appointment. And with respe to his ngecent . the tes timonials of the clerk, a court oftOMan 3 emending ule that he had no such right. A case had' Ort law would .. , arisen wherein a 18134 0 1 , had demanded the testimonials of a clerk,and mulcted he was by the court in heavy costs. In none of those alternatives which the Hon. Member for Cocker ia id down! could proceedings be taken either e ineath had n _ Bishop ot London or the Bishop of Bath andga4t th The HON Member for Cockermouth said that 'th le •ho should have gone farther than he had, a n d e e Bishop p_ the Rev. Mr. Bennett; and the Right calmedHonotirablM r for the University of Oxford said that he had - ein ni e h. so exam him, that they had assertion against nisserti - 11 that the Bishop could have done was to put _on. A the Rev. Mr' Ben nett's own book ? into his hand, and said ' e Did you write this book I find such , and to him, such a statement in it." Such was the course taken in the such case by the Bishop of Exeter, and the Privy o nline ,. ' 3l h in avi e nZ taken a contrary view of the matter, the Bishop - bo n e so, what remedyiwon the-Biahop have • °P had no remedy. That the case of the key. Mr. Bennett ? The great mistake which lli the Hon. Member for Cockermouth made w aa ;11. his edin g of the law. According to the authority • of Lor d - Ellei r al ,l orou - h the I g , had bishoe, in such a case_ as this, e • -0 discretion whatever, the matter of approval resting with. his own conscience, after • examined the preacher, which h e having d b ' law was bean Y , to do. The people of Frame might h whowould h aye consulted any ae torney in the Place, them to.eo aye directed them in the right course, and told th however, there a Proctor. .Up to the present moment, r e leas not . no word judicial • formation to lustily the 0 of iu eourse proPesed' Ou reading iMe• 'a book, Beenett he was p. ,Wood) had formed -his- own conclusion, It was undoubt edly a grave thing that a man should be - i . d d naltO under 8 - such circumstances, but still that was the law. H e was ready to join heartily in any m e tioe , 4 for n in nitY which would serve to promote an athend ° lent of a he ci law, and doubtless as so great eagerness lied h -eea t for Chancery reform, the ecclesiastical courts le -oul displayednot esca e next 583 - 81QD• I s n hia opinion, however', there was no roan% for an inquiry uch as had now been moved for, g eed if grauted, as a general rule in similar circumstances, without the Member's pledging himself. to go on 'With ee, , -ec most it was a proceeding opPosed to- the spirit of the most obVfons principles of the constitution. air,. Colonel BOY LE said, that as it , la„ been i mputed to Reverend Gentlemen who had eignea . t9e prot est, that theythe m gu had been actuated by awe oithy =dives, as he was ac • hid with them all, he c belief that could declare his .. et was no such motives had promoted them.indeed' true that there was a party at Promo who interested themse lves with the lady patroness to appoint a particular clergy man , Whom they thought deserving, and that t ey were refused. But, although that, was so, it did not indu n ce f treyNhife them to sign the wri t able toeA fur the p - °lmiler-l a tY little infor ar of Frome, he .gve the Reuse . well aware of e on the subject, as it was probably net so o eceived a letter the Iseale of the place as he was. Ile had er l' d from an a not le to on attorney of Frome, who had bee 'd believe a the very • and he there said•he di question, .an change of' arishoners, but that the feeling had come over the parishoners, re ex isted a decided determination the most • • amongintelligent of - ite Bennett-and his doctrines. It 'them to discountenance ---r-• hwarden had et stated also that the vicar 's anire cel with the r resigned, and left the church, and that it f w o a n a nd. - Y Now when eit ewsat din. catty a successor had been bay© applied t to the Bisheoepaid that the p wishioners should 11 say that they h °f Bath and Wells, he might 0 we had little l t ho had gv I to g a pre a e vi eu refuge to confidence in an appeal . been refused preferinent in the a curate who had previous‘y they remembered that the costs diocese of Ripon; arid when. they 1° 000 L there w • to -, , as certainly of the Gorham case amountedt° try the question at law. He not much encouragement could not but express his ac knowledgments to th e M ember for Cockermouth for the able win tempera t e manner in which he hal brought the subject forwaid ; and if his e fforts failed to procure peace at he From?,would' certainly recommend ack up his portmanteau an d be the. Rev. Mr. Bennett •to P off.—(Cheers and laughter.) the address had been signed be Mr. YORKE denied that 1 • C utt. The Hon. id by 1 % e• well r boys and girls as was said the' impression . upon the Member for C oc kermouth hadleft House that h e h a d ta ken the matter up..at the req uest of the Bennett had i If Mr. . ire to the parishioners of Frome , . nevertheless, essare the louse that . mass at Rome, he could, never the Von. Member lahneen he was as good a churchman as e delivered h' l ---''' or the Bishop of London, when h his charge in 1842. Sir B. HALL said he believe • d the Hon. Gentleman was himself a ; pa r ty to those Romanising proceedings, an d that he took p art in the memora bl e processih n which had pro duced weh unfort u nate results. He maintained that m os t public houses in of the si gnatures to the address h a d been obtained. th en ic and th ere houses by p ersons smoking an d d r inking, who bore testim ony t o th e , soun dness of th e doctrines of Mr. Be nnett. —(Laughter.) .......___ -rn JUNE Mr. YORKE—That is denied by Mr. Crattwell.. Sir B. HALL—It was' denied by Mr. Miller, hut stated by Mr Cruttwell. But this was not the real question at issue. The real question was, what ware they to do in these lament able circumstances? Ta his district thrre was a Protestant clergyman who, although - performing Divine service its the Church of England, attended a Roman Catholic place of worship Sunday after Sutalay., A gentleman who saw hire declared his readiness to emits° forv;atd and. verify the fact that he crossed himself, made the various genuflexions, and remained , !uring thq whole time of service; that he went there again the following Sunday, and yet that mau .per formed Divine service iu the church of St. Andrew's, ' street.;—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was said, why did they not go into the ecclesiastical- court of Wells? But would anybody, under such circumstances, go there, when,the Bishop had just appointed his own son to preside over it.. He believed. Mr. Bennett had been the means of • converting many persons to the Church of Rome. Did the Hon. Gentleman not know that, connected with the church of St. Barnabas was a conventual establishment, and that the daughter of a Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, once a Member of that House, was at the head of that establish ment—that the father of the lady had begged of Mr. Bennett • to use his influence and endeavour to induce her to retrace her steps ? And did he not know that that Rev. Gentle man, who was now the pastor of Frome, had refused to listen to the prayers of the parent; and that the daughter, and all the ladies associated with her, had gone over to the Church of Rome.—(Hear, hear.) Did not Lord Colchester cite the case of another lady where a similar result had taken place? This man had been proved to have been trifling for some time with Sir John Harrington; of whom they had hem told by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cbstord, that he had been justifies its leaving the Church of England, b - ecause he had a congregation of his own— Mr. GLADSTONE said that he had distinctly contra dicted that statement before. Sir B. HALL was not aware that the Right Hon. Gentle man had done so, or he would not have made the observa tion. He would'ask the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Glad stone) to say candidly what ought to be done under such circumstances? Let the Bishops, who were the persons that ought to be most desirous of reforming the ecclesiastical law of the country, exert themselves in their places in the other House of Parliament to effect this object. The Government had intimated that even if they appointed a Commission to inquire into this subject, the Bishops would not answer the questions that would be put to them. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No, no. Sir B. HALL—WeII, then, let them have a Committee, and request the Bishops to appear before it, and if they then refused to do so the responsibility would be on themselves. Mr. E. YORKE wished to mike an observation in refer ence to the young lady who had been alluded to by the Hon. Baronet. His impression was this, that the young lady her self was always restrained by Mr. Bennett from going her own way to the Church of Rome.-(Laughter.) He thought that his word was as good as that of the Hon. Baronet's. The report then was, that the young lady had a'strong in clination to go to Rome, but was restrained, up to a certain. point, by Mr. Bennett. But as soon as Mr. Bennett left St. Barnabas she went to Rome.-(Hear and laughter.) Mr. NEWDEGATE next rose, amid loud cries for a divi sion. He thanked the Hon. Member for Cockermouth for the very able manner in which he had brought this subject. under the notice of the House. Whatever might be the re• suit of the division, he trusted that one good effect of bring. ing forward the subject would be to lead to an alteration in the state of the existing law, and he was anxious to hear from her Majesty's Government whether they were prepared, to consider the state of the law in the next session, and to in troduce some measure which would prevent men trcm hold ing benefices in the Church of England who had been con victed of unsound doctrines and the encouragement of Romish practices. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said - This mi disssion, Sir, has tended very much to clear the case since it was brought under the notice of the House. We have com pletely investigated the position of the Bishop of Bath and Wells with respect to these circumstances, and I think I do not misinterpret the general feelings of the House if I describe it as one which would be extremely reluctant, by any vote which it could arrive at, to throw any censure upon the coaduct of that prelate.-(Hear. and cries ,of " Oh, oh.") It meybe certainly very aa..y for Honourable Gentlemen to sn per at that statement; but I think after a calm and ample discusion, so ably conducted aS this bee been, we must ar rive at the conclusion . that however many of us may regret the institution cf the individual who has become the vicar of Frome, it is impossible for us to assert, by a vote of this House, that it was the duty of the Bishop of that diocese to prevent that institution ; nay more, I think that we have, most of us, arrived at this conclu , ion, aut lied the Bishop of the diocese thrown any difficulties in the way of the in stitution of Mr. B.:et - lett, be would have incurred very per il ous consequences.. In the 'present state of the law, I think it quite impossible that the Howe should come .to any vote which would in fact cast upon a Bishop of _the Church of England a condemeatiOn, simply because he has done that Which all must admit to have been strictly his legal duty, and which if be had not fulfilled would have involved -WM in the most serious injure. .I consider the questilin of the cendud of the Bi,hop of Bath 'and Walls to be perfectly dietinct , from those which have occurred with respect to the preseat vicar of Frome.-- ( Hear, hear.) Bat at the same time I cannot but remember that it is only the Conduct' of the Bishop with which we have to deal.-(Hear, hear.) When this question was first brought under the notice of the House, I took the liberty of stating with respect to the point of the ability which the parishtoners of Frome should have of challenging the institution of one who was to become their vicar, that if the state of the lawn did not afford a remedy, then, I thought, it was our duty to su pply one. Generally speaking, that is a principle which I think ought to guide as under these most painful circum-, stances. I cannot think, with the lion. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford, that there is no remedy for the parishioners. I must still repeat, acting on the opinions that have been given me, and confirmed by my own in quiries-.the opinion I have expressed before in this House, that there is. a remedy for the parishioners of any living placed under the circumstances in which the parishioners of Frome are placed, and that that is a remedy for which they need not go to any ecclesiastical court, or have recourse to any ecclesiastical law. But I will not enter into that question again, which we have before urged, because I am willing to admit that.there is not sufficient facility or opportunity for parish ioners placed in the situation of those of Frome to obtain that relief and redress which they have a right to expect. But so far as the present motion is -concerned, it is really the institution of Mr. Bennett into the vicarage-and that is the act of the diocesan-which we are called on to inquire into. I must repeat my opinion that the coneuct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells cannot fairly be called in ques. tion. But if we were to appoint a Committee, let the House consider what will be the duties of that Committee. Their duties would not be, I apprehend, to rake up evidence with a view to institute proceedings against the Bishop. Well, then, what is the duty of that Committee? Is it to be a Committee to consider the state of the law? In my opinion this is hardly the moment in ,which we should appoint a C om mittee to consider the state of the law with respect to the institution of persons into beneficies, and which cer tainly Ido not think a Committee of the House of Com mons the best instrument to carry on. with effect. I have been asked by my Hon. Friend the Member for Warwick shire to give a pledge on the part of the Governmenf that they will take into consideration that important subject, the state of the law with respect to the institution to benefices. I am sure my Hon.' Friend will not press me to gives pledge on a subject of so grave and difficult a character. But that it is a subject which must engage, sooner or later, the considera. tion of any Government-that the state of our ecclesiastical laws is one that cannot be much longer tolerated-(Loud cheers) -and that with respect to the ecclesiastical courts, we should follow the same course of temperate and efficient reform which we have applied to all the other means of judi cature in the country-these, I think, are opinions which few of us do not share, and certainly they are sentiments on which the Government are prepared to act. I trust the lion. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth will not ask the House to come to a decision on this motion. If indeed he persists in so doing, although I myself most sincerely re gret much that has occurred at the vicarage of Frome, and although 1 will not at this moment go out of my way to offer any criticism on the conduct of other individuals con cerned) in these transactions, because I feel it is unneces sary to-night, especially when the conduct of one individual alone is called in question-still, if the Hon. Gentleman asks me to support this resolution to appoint a Committee to investigate the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, with respect to hiscompletion of an act which I do not think he could have refused to fulfil, I shall feel it my duty to offer a negative.-(Cheers.) Mr. ELLICE said he saw all the difficulties of the case he saw all the objections to the appointment of a Select Corn mittee-(Llear, hear)-buf he could see no other remedy for the grievance complained Of-(Elear, hear)-except an in-. quiry--not - directid pershally against the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, but into all the facts of the case, in order to ground therein further proceedings with respect to the state .of the law- (Clear) -which gave no relief to parties complaining of, this grievance.- (Hear, hear.) Upon this ground he should vete for the motion, seeing no other meani of redress.-(liear, hear.) Mr. MOODY thought that if an inquiry was instituted into the occurrentes in London it would be trying Mr. Ben nett twice over. The question they had to deal with was not an individual question, but was one as regarded the Church at large. It appeared to him that there was a very easy remedy in such Oases as the one complained of. He thought a Commission might be , issued with refer e nce to what had taken place abroad, as well as to what had oc curred at home.- (Hear, bear.) The SOLICITati-GENERAL said there was nothing in the motion which impugned the conduct of Mr. Bennett. -(heer, hear-) It was for an . inquiry into the dream stitution. and was directed entirely against the Bishop stances *attending his il:1 of Bath and Wells.-(Hear, hear.) The Bishop, however , in the institution, had only done . what by law he was bound to do; and as far as he was concerned, therefore, there was no ground for the in quill. Then as to the state of the.law some mieconception existed, for if it wore proved that Mr. Bennett, by preache te a ching, by act or word, showed unsoundness of ins or d oc t r i n e, it .was coinpetent for the parishioners to put the blue under the Church Discipline law in motion .3glanst Act_(ereer, hear.) -and even as to his past conduct a commission could issue . in respect of o anyth il in e g ar sa h i en d r o . ; done in this country within two t t wo of y t e h a e rs past.- st L ook i n g, however, to te ae p ractice of t courts of , Hear, hear)-to the practice of those courts, the country-4 inetimes excessive-incurred in the and the' exPeas" - i as sess proceedings-s°( Hear ,a hear )-a remedy . hear.) It would be impossibwlesstoloeundtelyr 'called for.-(lle af, into that inquiry i .now, but he hoped that t h e reform w hi c h had taken p the ecclesiastical iaplacen our courts ofthla wan d equ i t wou ld a t the pr , oper time beeextended t o courts -( s ilea r. ) Dir. . D EDES E w x a c s h e disappointed o t a u r t e t l h e g e s a l n a s ti w o ef Chancellor of the hear) -and the speech of the Solicit or-General as to the s t a te of the la w, which had not encouraged any hope of somet hing being done to p lace it in a more satisfactory con dition,-(Bear, hear.) . It was show's that the law was in accessible to individualseand that, therefore; something was a done.--(Hear.) He regretted the 'state of necessary n h t i o h b had been disclosed as to the position of the thing' He was anxious to put an end to ' ; it, Church- (frax r • and at the same time was anxious not to impute bl ame to -(ilear.) But, as there was no hope, u iustly. he must, in order to prom o t e any pall},n "len of the law, of any alteration ' SIDNEY HERB s T could nut express how strongly this, o bject to vote for the Er motion.- (lleer.) Mr. S h e we . s pained by the statements that had been made. He was sa tisfied strictly that the question before them should be l oo k e d into, that members of the Church should h ave ' mea ns of redress without the necessity of coming to that which was not well suited 'for questions of the ki n d. Hoitsiee,a7, hear.) The Bishop of Bath and Wells, it W A S c l ear, could not have refused the induction, without risking an action a t law for his refusal. wnIePOLE begged to be permitted to address one word to the House in consequence of what had fallen from the lion. Member for West Kent (Mr. Deedes). That Lion. Gentleman• he thought, had entirely mistak en the reply of hi s Light }Lin. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the appeal of the Hon. Member for Cockermauth. The in quiry would the have been acceded to if it tad been put, as suggeste d by Right Honourable Member for Coventry (Mr. W a lp o l e ) re fl ecte d ( Hr. E. Ellice). Bust when he 9, 1852, up on the speech of the Honourable Member for Cocker mouth, and .considered that the is. of the inquiry was the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Well that inquiry *as to lead to a censure upon the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, or to an impeachment on the part of some Members of the House of Comnions agaiest that prelate, and when it was notorious that the Bishop refusing ies,Pu i flan would have incurred the double proceeding of a writ of 4uare iinpedit and duplex qucerel, the proposition could not be entertained. In the present state of the law the Bishop -could not, have acted differently, and: under these circum stances, he (Mr. Walpole) hoped the Hon. Member would net ;press his motion to a division. If it was pressed, he trusted the House would reject it, as lie considered it to be both unreasonable and unjuet. Mr. DEEDES explained that what he desired was a dis tinct declaration on the part of the Government that they desired no alteration in the existing law. Mr. GOIJLBURN thought it had been established that the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells ought not te be impugned. i r r o e p n o te se d Feeling, therefore, that the inquiry slahwou:hdenosthobueldia this particular case, but to the state of the in quiry should be directed, Bennett, but into the e state of the law attending the in stitution of clerks to ben efices. —(Hear, hear.) a n s ot a a n s a to me t n h d e m i e n n st i itu th ti a o t n t o h f e Mr. HORSMAN, in reply, said he thought' he could tue f w ri o e r n d d s s . fC theirsetta Certain proposedparties that accused sever the amendment of the Right Hon. Gentleman in three there sohf.oushould murder, be i a n n ti d u iry certain into the state of the law with respect to capital punishment. t e e x d p toe o r i l e e n a c d e dt h M e e . m ll b o e u r n f e o as r t w t h h a . e3e,Universityfrom s e —(Hear, hear, a n d l aug h ter.) Such w a d of ev Cambridge i a c t h t e t m h e p inquiry in which they were most interested, and to which they at this moment seemed to be most inclined. It would be making their proceedings perfectly ludicrous and ridi culous to adopt such a suggestion. - (Hear.) The motion con templated inquiry into the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett and the conduct of all the parties implicated in the circum stances in question. A maxim in our law provided that there should be no grievance without a remedy. A grievance had been shown in this case, but where was the remedy? While every one admitted the grievance, not one had sug gested a remedy. Wei the grievance to remain nnredressed, or was the House of Commons still to say they would do no thing? He had brought this subject forward without having any knowledge of the parties at Frome ; indeed, he had made it a rule to take up no subject on merely local grounds. Ile had selected it as a type of an abuse. The House then divided, when there appeared For the motion ... ... 156 Against it .. 111 Majority ... ... —45 MAYNOOTH. Mr. BROTHERTON then moved the adjouttment of the House. Mr. OSWALD inquired when it was the intention of the Member for North Warwickshire to bring on the adjourned debate on the Maynooth grant? Mr. SPOONEIt said he must refer thellon. Gentleman to the resolution of the House. That would be decided when the other orders were disposed of. Mr. NEWDEGATE said it was his intention to take the sense of the House on the question of the adjourn ment of the debate. It was now determined to defeat a decision on that question by a factious opposition, but the attempt of the Member for Salford to get rid of the question would be frustrated, for he would take the sense of the House on the question when the dropped order for the resumption of the debate on the Maynooth grant Caine Ott. Mr. ANSTEY would be no party to a postponment of the ileeision on the Mayncoth question, and he hoped the Member for Salford wculd press his motion. Mr. BROTIIERTON had no intention to get rid of the question, but to get rid of the House.—(Laughter.) They had been already sitting fourteen hours, and he was deter.. mined to pre,s his motion to a division. Mr. HINDLEY thought the proposal of the Member for Salford most reasonable, and he hoped the Government would support the motion for the adjournment of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he ,hou t ;ht the House had sat long enough. The House then. adjourned at Halt -past One o'clock. PARLIAMEN TA Ine DIVISIONS. From the Votes and froeeeza4 l ;:. .;t' the House of Commons TUESDAY. JUNE 8. FROME VICARAGE. Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a Select Committee to appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with tho institution of the Reverend Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of Frome:"—Amendtnent proposed, to leave out from the first word " the," to the end of the question, in order to add the words " state. of the Law affecting the in stitution to Benefices," instead thereof :—Question put, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divide:l: MAJORITY--AYES, 156. A.hdy, Sir T. N. Edwards, Henry Moody, C. A. Adair, B.A. Ellice, Edward Morris, David Aglionby, H. A. Ellice, Edward,jun. Mostyn, E. M. Alcoa, Thomas Ellis, John . Noel, Gerald J. lluntx, G. F. Anstey, T. C. Archdall, Captain E Eli ala.r °t i, j l4 ° '" l ll in li E aM . • Paget, Lord George Arkwrifr,ht, G. Farnham, E. Parker, John Armstrong, R. B. Forbes, Wm. Pechen, Sir G. Bagge, William Forster, Matthew Pigott, Francis Baines, M. T. . Fox, W. J. pintingten, JameS Baird James Freestun, Colonel Pinney, William Baldock, E. H. Frewen, C. H. Ricardo, John L. Barrow, W. 11. Gesell, Charles Rice, E. R. Bass, M. T. Glyn, George Carr Rich, Henry Berkeley, Henry F. Goddard, A. L. Robartes. T. J. A. Berkeley. C. L. G. Green, John .' Romilly, Col. Bernal, Ralph Greene, Thomas Rushoat, Captain Blackstone, W. S. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Salwey, Colonel Booker, T. W. Gronfell, Charles W. Scholefield, W. Moyle, Colonel Grey, R. W. &obeli, Captain Bremridge,Richard Grosvenor, Lord R. Smith, J. A. Bridges, Sir B. Hardcastle, J. A. Smyth, J. G. Bright, John Harris, Richard Somerville, Sir W. i Broadwood, H. nestle, Archibald Stanford, J. F. Brockman. la- D.. 11.adinm, Tho....sa Eta..lon W. 0. Brotherton, J. Henry, Alexander Stansfield, W. R. C. Brown, H. Heywood, James Stanton, W H. Buller, Sh J. Y. Heyworth, Lawrence Staunton, Sir G. Butler, P. S. lllldyard, T. B. T. Strait, E. Butt, Isaac 'Lindley, C. Stewart, Admiral Buxton, Sir E. Hodgson, W. N. Stuart, Lord D. Carter, Samuel Howard, C. W. G. Sutton, H. M. Cavendish, C. C. Mitt, William Tenison, E. K. Chaplin, W. J. Jackson, William Tennent, R. J., Childers, J. W. Kershaw, James Thompson, Colon el Clay, James ' King, P. J. Thompson, George Clay, Sir W. Kinnaird, A. F. Tollemache, F. J. Clifford, FlenrAM. Langston, J. H. Tolleinache, John Cobden, Richard Laslett, William Townshend. Captain Collins, William Lennard, T. B. V erner, Sir W. Colvile, C. R.* Locke, Joseph Verney, . Sir H. Copeland, Alderman Long, Walter Vivian, J. a. Corry, H. L. Lowden, PrySe Walsh, Sir J. Cowan, Charles M`Gregor, John Wethy, G. E. Crowder, R. B. kV Taggart, Sir J. Williams, John DWrymple, Captain Mangles. it. I). Williams, W. Dawes, Edward Marshall, W. 'Wilson, Matthew Dawson, T. V. Martin, J. Wortley, J. S. D'Eynconrt, T. . Matheson, Colonel Wyld, James Dod, J. W. Melgand, Viscount Wyvlll,•Marinadtike Duff', James Milligan, Robert , TILLLER4. Duncan, George Mitckell, T. A. Horsman, E. Da3 las, Sir David Moffatt, George Hall, Sir B. MINORITY—NOES, 111. Bailey ' CrawhheY Gwyn, Bowel Portal," Melville Bailey, Joseph Hamilton, G. A. Prime, Richard Batllie, H. J. Heueage, G. It. Renton, John C. Bankes G. Healey , J. W. ' ReptonoG. W. Barrington, •Vis. Herbert, Henry A. Richards, Richard Bell, J a cob Herries, J. 0 . . Seymer, H. K. Benbow, John Hervey, Lord A. Sibthorp, Colonel Bennet, Philip Hope, Sir J. Sotheron, T. H. S. Bolder.), George 11. . Hope. A. Spooner, R. Bramston, T. W. Howard, E. G. Stafford, Augustus Brooke, Lord Hudson, G. Stanley, Edward Bruce, C. L. Johnstone, Sir J. Stanley, Lord Cabbell, B. B. Jolliffe, Sir W. H. Stuart, John Carew, W. H. Pole Jones, Captain Start, H. G. Child, Smith Kelly, Sir F. Teunent, Sir J. Christopher, It. Kildare, Marquis Thesiger, Sit F. • Christy, Samuel • Knight, F..W, Thompson, Alderman Clive, H. B. Knox, Colonel Trollops, Sir J. Cocks, T. S. . Langton, W. H. Tyl er , Si r G . Collins, T. Legh, G. C. Tyrell, Sir J. Cotton, W. S. _ I Le e n w n i o a3 x a , m L , Or v d is l co l. tua sa. t .v V i il vi ll at ers i: DiscountJ. E. D Dam avi e e r s , , C D o . l A on . el Littleton, E. R. Waddington, H. S. Deedes, W. Lygon, General ' Walpole, Spencer Disraeli. B. Mackenzie, W. F. Walter, John Buncombe, W. E. Dunne, Colonel , PrOSSCr, F. Manners,. Lord C. Watkins, Colonel • Manners. Lord J. Wog-- Du Pre, C: G. Masterman, J. West, F. It. Farrar, James illiles,'William Whiteside, James Fellowes, Edward Morgan, 0. Wigram, Loftus Fereison, Sir H. Mailings, J. R. Wodehousc. Edmund Fikner, Sir E. .Naas, Lord Wood, Sir W. P. Floyer, 'John Itewdegate, N. Wynn. 11. W. Freshfield, J. W. . Young, Sir John Trrzr.as. Gilpin, Colonel Packe, C. W. Gladstone, W. E. Pakington , Sir J. Greenall, G. Oswa ld;Al e xander • Yorke, E. T. Palmer, Roundel' •°album, Henry Guernsey, Lord • Patten , J. W . Herbert, Sidney TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRILDFO REFORM ASSOCIATION. I am, Sir, yours eery sincerely, .A.N OLD REFORMER. Blackheath, Jane 9, 1852. THE COUNTRY MARKETS. IPSWICH, Jowl: 8. We ccntinue to have the smallest show of wheat possible; prices remain firm, and no disposition is shown by the sellers to accept less ttan late figures. The showery and now very forcing weather is questionable as regards benefit to the grow ing cropi. PIR QUA RTY R. PER QUARTER. Wheat, red - 32s to 00s Ditto, white 4ss to 48s Oats oos to 00s Barley, malting ... (10s to 00s Rye oos to 001 Ditto, grinding.... 00s to Ois Malt...—. . .. .„ OOB to 00s Beans ... AVERAGES FOR THE WXK ENDING JUNE 5, 1852. Wheat Barley Beans, 67 „ 32s Od Peas Oats • „ 00s Od HULL, JUNE S. Messrs. Taylor and Bright's Circular states :—A good deal of rain hes fallen at intervals during the past week—it was much needed for spring corn and • grass, and has come too late to prevent a light hay crop. The transactions of the past week have been on a very limited scale, but each description of spring corn has somewhat increased in value, with limited ar rivals and small stock in warehouse. We had a fair supply of wheat from our own farmers, with very little foreign on show, either from ship or granary. Fresh farmers' wheat was good to sell at last week's rates, and more inquiry for foreign, with out however leading to niuch business. A retail sale for bar , ley, as also a good consumptive demand for beans and peas• In oats not much btisinesi passing. No alteration to be quoted, but cakes are decidedly cheaper. Nothing doing in rapeseed, but cakes go off readily at our quotations. Bones maintain their value. The following are the present prices of grain E. 8 . Wheat, English, red 37 to 40 Do. white 4O 441 Dantzio and Ko- S. ff Peas, white and yd. 30 32 Do. grey 26 28 Linseed, Black Sea 44 46 nigsberg 4O 45 Pomeranian and Hamburgh . 3B 40 Danish, Holstein, & Friesland 36 38 Russian and Odessa 34 38 Oats, English Do. Danish 16 18 Do. Friesians io lJ Do. Russ. & Odessa 15 17 Barley, malting 2B Do grinding • 26 271 Do. Petersburgh ... 42 0 Do. Riga & Archngl. 38 42 Do. Konigsberg .... 36 40 Per ton. Lins. c., Hull 71 lOs Od to 0101 Do. fine for. ...7i 5s Od to 0/0s Do. inf. foreign... 0/ to 61 Os Rapeseed 23/10s to 001 Kape cases...w2s tict to Vbs Od Tares, English 37s —00 e Do. foreign 32s —34 e Guano 5l 71 to 91 10 Beaii.s Do., foreign 26 26 Rye Meal 71 Os CORK, Juxx 7. - Barrels. Currency. O White wheat 001 Od to 00. Od 00s Od-20 stony O Red wheat oos Od to 00s Od 0 Ditto ON Od to 00s Od } 00s Od-20 do 0 Ditto ON Od to 00s Cd 0 Barley 00s Od to 00s Od} 0 Ditto oos Od to ON Od 00a Od-00 do 0 Ditto Cos Od to ON Od 0 Bere . 00s Od to 001 Od N Cd 16 Oats 10. 6d to 121 Od 0 Ditto .... .. . oos Od to 00s Od 00s Od-0 de 0 Ditto ... oos Od to ON Od ONs OO5 Oil to 00s Od 00s Od per owl Quantity sold at the .Highest Prices :- 0 barrels whits wheat; 0 red ; 00 barley; 0 bere; 11 oats; 0 pigs. Quantity of Grain and Number of Pigs sold last week t..., Wheat, 48. Barley, 35. Oats, 629. Pigs, 0. PRICES OF BUTTER. CAJIT. . CIIIMINCT.. ... 63, Third quality ............... 54. sFeireostngau quality 67s Second qua 'ty / .4. ...... 88, .. ......... T i Third quality Fourth quality Fifth quality Sixth quality Return of Cattle sold for week ending May 29. Pigs, 319. Sheep, 444. Cows, 88. Collt.—Florx—Fast 12s 64 to 13s 6d ; extra 14s 6d ; s ocoLls, 10a 6d to 12s; households 95 to lOs 64 ; thirds, 7 5 t o g, per cwt. Oatmoal 11s to 1 ls 6d; Indian meal Es 3d to 8x94; wheat,. meal, 946 d to lus Ed per cwt. Indian corn 815 s to 3 1 108 per t oo Bran 87s 6d to 90s per ton. Hay—Farmers 286 Od t o 30a; avp,..„.. ' 00s ; dealerB2St to 40s Od; average ON per ton. St ram . - —se i•armere lbs Od to 23. Cd, average 203: dealers 272 Od t o 0 0 , od ; average ON Od per ton. Bread—Whesten l ea f 6 bacon 6d to 7d ; sau"usa:ellds;d household loaf bd to Od per 411). Freak butt:4l: to 04 103 per lb. Eggs-3s 44 to 3a 6d p er h ima ...L, - --, 8d to Ltiempart 14: to ; Lydney 155 ; La n d,„.. -- ,, Coals—. Bangor slat —Beef 4id to 7d ; mutton 54 t r."..' gdlon. Mess 1. '66 per ton. Tallow Sg s o d 4 ,..' 'jug ; Colin, Fleece wool 14. to 15s per atone. Whisky , 25 o. p., 52 9d p • •"' 394 per cwt. er muttony Hemp 291 t 0341 per ton. Fish 7d ; pork 44 to Od ; 81 8s to 9/ Os per cwt. Bark, red 71 to 8/ lOs per ton. es 2117 , 1 6 d tc:1 1 310 s Poi tout. p v e e ; 11 11. 4 i flo to --.5 ‘G ,,,,,„, ditto, 24. to 005 per barrel ; N -- herrings 18s to 19.- red ton. Timber—Memel, 70 " ib lutdiaucl, 101 Os to li/ per ditto, 21 15s per ton; dealser ton; r e d p i ne, 31 5 , ; ye llow Market )6e to 241; s ' ' 151 to 181 per 100. Bides-- 3d to Od per lh ett ed las to 24s per owe ; mil skins - Pots itki to I2d. Ottao, p..... t ° ea, white 84 to 9d; pinkfl to . el C 8 per tol l . ' i "lan, 10! los to 114 leba b°44 '" TAT --Archangel, 192 per bar rel. ~- - A MEMBER - O.FPA - RLIA.NIENT ASSAULTED ~.A FC_ OT ACES E By MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR. The conduct of Mr. Feergus O'Connor in the Ilonie of ADVERTISEMENT ] Commons last night-au account of which appears in our AND TUB It oyAL , the size oft, Parliamentary report-reg n u e lr e e s s #e tbe a very i c o o f nat ar era„ laable, ne wly-invented, v ___ ..n .... sver fal waistcoat er y met _kr' person can be p lia..pocket on the Race-course, tiou of hi 4 relatives. On t ofdissolution glass that the Speaker or the see men tit is scarcely to be expected n and known li • a. wale answer every purpose des distant • tbey House should take any further steps in relation to the Hoo. ' houses - country scenery Member for Nottingham than may be required for keeping and ships . ,3 at the Opera- they' are invaluable ' him within something like bounds when he obtrudes f h ti are cieariy seen at 12 to 14 miles; , or 8 _ 0 0..11,, d himself upon their deliberations. But his relatives Gentlerneu e . eer stalking, 3 fists.- 'l'o tearrielseeners and Tour 'To be had at Messrs. ought really to have medical adVice npon his real S. and H. Sol ~ 'o'• • es 1)9, 1 et P A in em ar esstre . icca condition, as a glance at his recent proceedings will dilly, o • °Ea -' hotel.ucla 'T Te lescopes -A new and most PPQ;te the York e possessing such extra show. First, the establishment' of that huge failure the importau Telescopes.Land Scheme, by which some thousands of hardworking ordinary t invention in „ ii ne bes. with an extra eye piece, men were deprived of thousands of pounds; then a series of will show powers, that s osse er a . t , s Moons, Saturn's Ring, and the offensive scenes before the Master in Chancery, when Mr. Double dietinctly, Jup e i same Telescope' weighing only three tars. With the se 's countenance 3 i t i miles distant, O'Connor's conduct in relation to the Land Scheme was . ounce under inquiry; next a discreditable assao in a theat , and as' c?.ri, be seen persons m il es . They supersede every followed by incarceration in the. Rouse of Correction 're ; other kind object from 16 ' waistcoat pocket, and are of larger and all then air exhibition of troublesome conduct in the Rouse - ' kind for the . powers accordingly. Opera and Race sothen a sudden flight to the United States of sizes, with incises; powers wo nderful powers; an object can be by whf aglnlmorr.- A miles distant. Messrs. S. and B. course glasses, sudden a return by . the steam-ship that took him; rut", , clearly seen from 14 16 invented invaluable preserving greatly to the dismay of the paisengers; then a series or Solomons, Optici . have unseemly interruptions _of the jad • ges in the courts ' e diately they are placed before imper.• , nem and now, finally, an assault upon a Member of of law ; Spectacle Lenses . strip of instances ag the House feet vision,.evesri object appears clear and distinct, the most Y g h s beeomes bright and brilliant, is brought to of Commons. Surely here is a sufficient site pointing out why. Mr. O'Connor's relatives should ed defective # r _, and original state. The Invisible measures calculated to secure his comfort, • take its Y° . Li d all kinds of Acoustic instruments for relie lie of others whilst th„ safety and the progress of blic busines • e genic e d"' ness. 39 ' - Albermarle-street, Piccadilly, op further interruption. -Daly News. s is secured from lie for a long posits the It or. .trite The eccentricities of Mr. Feargas O'Connor of extur%etrhiothfural,,tner7e_no. 1 FADVERTISEMENT.] • • time past attracted a considerable share of ßsrry's delicious Food cures Indigestion, public, attention. Da Even before his departnre for America If c onstipation, nervous debility, and nervous, bili an examin.. i l con aon that took place before one s of ther complaints, in all their varied forms; with conduct during dyspe psia, and live Cbancery was of so outrageous a nature as t 1 Doss .. la . cramps, acidity, he his incarceration, bad he not been dealt with e have ilieed , 81)----s " &e.-Extract of a letter from the Rev. J. W. Fla ciful spirit. Since hie return to England his in a most mer e - , is tre adaches, sickness, depression of ' 2- hi ltidiington Rectory, Norfolk :-" Eight years' dyspepsia, pear to be more deranged than mind would ap- : veil, nervousness, and debility, with cramps, spasms, and nausea, before. We find him at one ee ryou # had consulted the advice o? many, has moment insulting all thelgueete • •in the hotel, ' which my servant drinking out of one naiu's glass , coffee-room of an for effectually removed by Du Barry's delicious health-re the plate of another; text he turns and helping himself from been effectually food in a very short time. I shall be happy to ans hall, where he enters each of the p uP in Westinin ' s : a , s war any inquiries in canisters, suitably packed for familiar conversation with the • d e courts in turn, be l l ed- i all climates, and with full instructions-llb., 2s. 9d. ; 2lbs , dresses them in a vein of joculg Judges on the bench, re and . 4 s . 6d.; slbs , Ils.; 121 be. 225.; super-refined, Sibs., 225.; place. Every action would show thatity ill-tuited to the o t as e ession , 10Ibs. 335. The 10Ib. and 131 b. carriage free on receipt of of his right mind. Upon anyother be was not in .h p - m ild long postso'ffice order. Barry Du Barry ape Co., 127, New Bond. supposition be s since have, been locked . takes his street, London ; Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly ; lace as Member of p the Rouseof ' up. Again, w h en he Commons Ivo find him be- . Hedges and Butler, 135, Regent-street; and all respectable having himself in such the discus- grocers and chemists. a manner as to ,itterrupt slops and embarrass the House ' d list night, , 4 1 ADVERTISEMENT.] Holloway's Pills bn . NI , hat occurre ve been however, can leave no doubt that the unfortunate genttrleman the means of curing another Sufferer from a Liver Complaint. is a maniac. The particulars of his outrage upon S . r'eni -The wife of a respectable tradesman, residing • the in neigh j im.in Hall, mad of the sc d in the House o bourhood of Thrapstone, was suffe • ene which occurre ring for more than two Commons wi , 11 be found in Parliamentary report of this ears from a severe liver complaint d • s urieg which period she our this is an isolated act. 3 , h b t cl . I • day. It must not b is is received t e es me ica advice, but without deriving the e supposed that th has been the Fur some tithe past Mr. Fear as O'Connor . slightest benefit therefrom. she then made trial of Rollo terror of the Hens% 4. •an of all persons who frequent the halls moment he might waY - 's Pilla, and bv their use alone she has been restored to and passages of the buiPing For the perfect health ; die name of was not done. the party cured is not made have been placed in fe “ k e • pin ins;' , but this public, but Mrs. Collier Even so, what w sa '' e • h a him when the powers of bookseller , Thrapstone, can vouch for the authenticity as to be done Wit of the dissolution ? of the case. Thse Pills were also an in the House sho ld h • a , ave.exru pd by re:son • a dangerous madman. 1 . fallible remedy for indi gestion , bilious headaches,and attacks, There can be no question that he is . . , a ll disorders of the stomach. qdruggists,and at old all Are w to o committed some serious e wait until he shall have by r d stablisliment, 244, area ,London. crime before society takes precautions to preserve itself? -- , EDINBURCrt P. Times. I - , lAIR or MORAL PHILOSOPHY..... ....m.•••.M...•••••••••••••••••••=aft • V Mr. Macdougall and Mr. Ferrier were the candidates for the rz. ---.Alunors•—Snape and Smitn . THE HULL ....ARRoTit ' . ; vacant Professorship,final examination, and were , were brought up yesterday for { former by 20 votes against 13. I Committed for the murder. ti V re e i - - I- (. . n , • Ak.,,,,, 3 / 4 t,_ ThiA ,,, ..4.. ) .. s. vP,• • •• 04 •-•) , ~..,,..-,, ? A,:1 i...- _-. . i,1 -........›...!......- - - (CONTINUED ON MONDLYB AND WEDNESDAYS.) l'i ` l4 'f r . 4 ..--; 4t g 5.7 S:r,—C.i.Mtnoday the 7th of Jae°, the bli:i;a Bill was :cad a third time, and a Clause added, extending , certain exemptions to the Uuiversities of -London and Durt:em. A:nem:hi:lents directed to limit the powers of t h o Bill, were negativad by majorities of 187 to 142, and 173 to 82. A pouition ha'l been ably taken up by the Ggvernuat,nt, in making tae. application of a con sciipiion pataiisive and not obligatory; the effect of whi c h wee to divainish opposition by imaging the danger more obscure. At the same time, the resistance to the Bill has been wanting, in concentration and vigour; ex hibiting an inclination to be prepared with an answer to constituents, rather than the steady adhesion of men conscientiously desirous of falling in,the last ditch. Oa Tuesday the House met at noon to proceed with the question o f M a y noo th. After a few preliminary speech es o f no great length, an orator from Catholic Ireland, as the Americana' say " occupied the floor," , till the ha n d o f t h e cloc k reached four, and the i debate died a natural death. Without following him through his details, one thing, he proved, which is sufficient to dispense with all the - rest; and that is that the House is now called UPon to institute an in quiry, while there is all the time a legal method of inquiry directed by Act of Parliament. Why is not the House of Commons to institute an inquiry into the cases which may be now in band at the Old Bailey,—or into the more complicated mysteries pending in the Court of Chancery? Simply because there is a legal appa ratus already for those very purposes,. and it would be simple foolishness for the House of Commons to erect itself into a new tribunal. At sin came on Mr. Herman's motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the i ns tit u tion of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the Vicarage of Prom o . S ome s trange points appear to be established. It seems to b e avo w e d , that a bishop is powerless for good, and by do abroad, can Among other things, it is declared that nothing a consequence if be has any strength it is for evil. lawyers in the clergy man, can by u , bishOp. - As an instance , it is virtually main tained by beatakcelenrcgoygnmanizancmesoyf the Government, backed by all the go to a Catholic countr y every winter if be can css th b a e t get there, may there mak„, the most ostentatious displays of communion---- with the Church of Rome, ending in getting himself ember of that Church in the Almanac, or Directory , as am trectory, and may come back to take his tithes i England without the pos sibility of interference in To lea Tone doubt u Y any ecclesiastical supe rior.is maintained that such s Pon the subject, it himself to heavy P ain4 and penzieerio.r would subject interfere. For this, bishops s . if he attempted to Some persons may be comforteficere th their revenues. ter things to come; from the Lint, that e hope of bet- motion was carried by 156 to 111. Here r I.l43"man's gins the first chapter of the Re-refo • rmaitor. of , perhaps, of England. Hoglund. _ the Church EVENING-,