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

4 , /' :~ IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ROUSE OF LORDS, June 8. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his scat on the Woolsack. at Five o'clock. The Militia Bill was read a first time. The Kennington Common Improvement Bill was read a mond time. LONDON NECROPOLIS AND MAUSOLEUM BILL. Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of this BBL The Earl of SHAFTESBURY opposed the Bill, as Mang impracticable in its provisions. .The Bishop of LONDON also opposed the Bill. After a short conversation the Bill was read a secon d See. The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a petition from certain copyholders in Cumberland against the topyhold Enfranchisement Bill. On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the Corrupt Practises at Elections Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Registra tion of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Bill was read a isird time and passed. On the motion of Lord COLCHESTER the Public -Works Bill was read a second time. On the motion of the Earl of MINTO the Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill passed through Committee. On the motion of the Earl of HARROWBY the In dtistrial and Provident Societies Bill was read a second Lime. SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL. The Earl of MALMESBURY moved the second read fag of this Bill, which he explained was intended I t h o Ps,ance on a footing of equality w gland with reference to the mutual surrender of criminals. By the convention of 1843 between thb two countries this country obtained the right to claim the Surrender of certain criminals who took refuge in France; while, on the contrary, by the imperfect state. of our law, France was not able to claim criminals who had fled hither from that country. %he Earl of ABERDEEN said he was afraid that the Noble Earl opposite was not sufficiently aware of the difficulties of the S u b jec t which he had taken in hand ; which, indeed, wer e so great that ever si n c e the p eace o f 1815 the two Cou r t s h a d b een i n constant communication for the purpose of conclud ing • a convention of this sort, and in 1843, he (Lord Aberdeen) had for the first time concluded a trea ty with France for the surrender of criminals charged with murder, forgery, and fraudulent bank hptey. He did not think the present Bill gave suffi cient security against political offenders being claimed :seder its provisions, and it on ly requ i re d th e p ro d u cti o n of a inandat d'arret or warrant from a French magistrate and proof of identity. Now, it was evidently insuffi cient that a mere accusation without any proof of the dOMMiSSiOn of the crime _charged should be all that was required to justify us in delivering up an accused Farfy. Lord BROUGHAM readily agreed that this was a sub ject which required legislation, for nothing could be clearer than the proposition of his Noble Friend; that it was hardly eensistenn with the condition of civilised society, that two .nations so closely connected as France and England were lihould exist with the facilities at all times afforded to the most desperate offenders, who had committed the most Atrocious crimes, of escaping with impunity by passing over a narrow channel as easily as formerly ideal boundaries could be passed. Nevertheless, he admitted the many difficulties which would have to be encountered in dealing with tha question. Having enumerated a few of these difficulties, the Mble and Learned Lord proceeded to observe, that under ihe convention it was stipulated that an analogous law to the one now proposed should be passed in France, and a provision to be made in the treaty that the convention 'Should not come into force until a day to be named by both parties; consequently until we shall be satisfied that a law 'was passed, in France similar to this, no such day would be-named. So far all was well. But just suppose a French law to be passed, and this country, being satisfied, gave notice that the convention was to come into operation, say •on the let of October next. Then, by another provision of the Bill six months' notice was required in order that the treaty should be put an end to. Let the House, then, see what might happen during these six months—lawe in these days were not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which .were never repealed and never altered. On the contrary, we lived in times when the rtpeal of laws was almost as fre quent se their enactment; and supposing a law passed before the Ist of October should afterwards be repealed, or a sub stantial modification introduced in it, where was the security for those parties who might then be tried for po litical offences, though under the previous state of the law aley would have been safe? But the chief difficulty was, after all, that which had been alluded to by his Noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen)—namely, that the warrant should be taken as conclusive evidence of identity for the in carceration and surrender of the person accused.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend opposite would bear with him (Lord Brougham) for a few moments, whilst he called his at tention to the sort of legislation which was at this time going on on the other side of the Channel. He had lately had some conversation with the British Ambassador at Paris with regard to a Bill which was then before the corps legis. Seat Bill was in a very forward state, and as the Government there had what might be called a " working majority"—(Laughter)—a majority, he believed, of 242 to 3; and that he thought was almost entitled to the name •et a " working majority"— (Another laugh)— he took it for granted that that Bill would soon be the law of Frame. Nov 4 that Bill contained some moat extraor dinary provisions; for not only might Frenchmen be tried in Frame for offences committed by them in England. or 411sewhore—political offences- included—and possibly these political o ff ence, though not the only ones contained in the might be its principal object--(Hear, hear) — not only might Frenchmen be tried in France for offences nommitted in England, but their accomplices—English yea, it might be, in the condition of accessories—might alb° be tried in France. Nay, more—and he owned he was never more astonished in his life at any act, or attempted set, of legislation as he was when he saw this —Englishmen sat charged as accomplices of Frenchmen—but English men without any accession to, or complicity with, French men , might be tried in France for political offences by them committed in England, provided those offences were against the French Government, or against the public weal, as it was called, of France.—(Hear.) The Earl of MALMESBURY said the Bill to which the Noble and Learned Lord referred was now passed, but its provisions were confined to Frenchmen.—( Hear, hear.) Lord. BROUGHAM was much relieved by hearing the Noble Lord Say that it was confined to Frenchmen. The Earl of MALMESBURY—It was passed by a majo rity of 195 to s.—(Lond laughter.) Lord BROUGHAM—But the Bill in the shape in which he had seen it was no new measure; oil the contrary, it was precisely similar to Article 6of the Code Napoleon. This was the first time, except in peculiar instances, that this great breach in the principle of what Wee termed interna tional law had been made, of not considering that offenders ought to be tried in the country, and by the Jaws of the country, in which the offences were charged to have been committed. Having said this much respecting the proceed. tags in France, it was only fit he should add, that he saw no reason to doubt the fairness and honest intention of the Stench Government in reference to the matter of the con vention. The LORD CHANCELLOR—It appeared to be agreed on both sides of the House that something must be done to meet the just demands of the French Government. At present there were two acts in force which gave to this country all the benefits that could be derived from such a treaty, but actically gave the French Government no benefit at all. ni r Perfectly clear, therefore, that a remedy should be pro fornien and her Majesty's Government were ready to do so, what Int not, we might lose all the benefit we now what was. he feeling of the House, toe, seemed to be that opinion. th r osier to be done should be 'done now. In his of this tom for was the right time to provide a measure possible bri for if dari n g so many years it was found to accord. in Abe Governments of the two countries pea the subject, and if they were now ready, thougn test and lease pr e y migh t not have taken exactly the . were now ready to steps for the purpose—yet, if they pre esely the monies to an arrangement, surely that Was n that_ happy concurrenc es advantage should be taken of ine seu before the R etua Opinion. It was objected to the srldthat it allowed any man to be then up Int this COantry, ot td aarried out of it, Merely upon a difficulty Now, when an attempt warra m n atde an t d o s a i v m o p id le thatt f in the act of convention of t w n a e s ne e nle Earl near him (tinen4 re m --t h a t end eavourin oi Aberdeen), it failed in this ran to do that which was the who was claimed, and constitutional, to protect the persogn who was entitled to our hospitalit t. lawn. we did that which made t and the protection of our government . v ve a dead letter so far as regarded the measure as this, therefore,raara• In carrying forwent such a tain what subetitente. they could p rovide for ascer which had already failed. And an d s e for that vided at this moment was a warrant and sub s t itute pro -1 identity . should be It was very difficult to say how far this f evi dence was to go. Were they to require so much evide n to the • would satisfy them that if the person were to be tried the r e a r s was every probability of his being convicteds i r' ct eu w %ie so e desirous that the objects which they had view eeasSied out, thatif any plan could be na lKed out , w h ich would give greater security to the person fletised and French Government that their criminals in this cou nt ,., would be surrendered oug ht to be _ taken in to them, he wo uld be most h appy to adopt it. • Great care, he admitted, the convention that it would not be made applicable to p o li t i cal offenders. That - convention stood upon a treaty formally entered into. They could not, however, step in between the French Government and their subjects, although they could prevent a Frenchman being improper ly carried int o France to be tried. B ut i f he went into France they could k inn t • more than demand comp l i ance with the terms of treaty, whi c h stipulated solemnly that no man should be tried for any political offence; and that if he be so t ilia ha should be at liberty to p l ea d his surrounder Elifte Ifs this Government a s a discharge from the crime of which he was accused. Iprd BROUGHAM—Or be sent back. ne LORD CHANCELLOR —Or be sent back. That was i'vettaable saggestion'of the Noble and Learned Lord. They were now, however, upon the second reading of the Bill, and he could only say that they would go into Com mittee with an anxious desire to have the benefit of the as sistance cif the Noble and Learned Lords in rendering the Bil'l as perfect as possible for giving effect to the objects which they were all anxious to attain. But what he wanted to impress upon their Lordships was this. He had the most einceee respect for the opinions of the Noble Earl near him. The Noble Earl seemed to think that they had a right to expect that these securities would be given by the French Government. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) could not see how they coull ask the French Government to pass any such law • as w.aild give th em such additional ' security. The Parliament of this country did not pass any law of a si milar kind when an • English subject was brought to this Milani, and w as tried for a political offence. They had no 241(.41 law as pr ohibited _ fender?, nor did them from trying such political of that thisthey propose to pass any such law. He ad mitted Act would tasty by p ra lin e n ot prevent the infraction of he what would be the" against her min subj e ct s . B u t consequence of such infracti on ? It would be an infra c ti on of t tlrey had the usual mode o b i t) treaty itself, and in such case Notale Earl asserted that the vindicating their rights. The odractirred in that Opinion, law went too far. the crimes since the date of the treaty some inadvertence, all retrespectinre, whereas it was clear in 1843 were 'made ofTepees which were created by the ear_ that only all the new made retroePective. If their Lord ships, should have been ; assent to the Bill going into Committee, however, would would leave the Committee in su.s , she had no doubt it approval of their Lordships. 'a a shape as to meet the • Lord CAMPBELL said that they were moat earnestly desired to further this Bu t meaeuen anxious a n d he was turinilnd at this ulna f he mu s t say 9 Pr9ceeding an in THE SUN, this law of e xtradition— n ame y , making g t u h p e of wword of party the party sufficient authority for the accused. He looked with the greatest apprehension upon such a provision. The law of extradition was very ancient. The invariable rule was to require reassonable evidence of the guilt of the party when the Government of a country for the called upon to give up a criminal. They were n ow, the first time, about to propose that the mere assertion of the Government shall be held as conclusive evidence of the guilt of the accused, and that he shall be delivered up to be tried by the laws of his own country. It was extraordinary, upon this subject, that there should be nts reciprocity in the requirements of both countries. If the T noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack asked him how this was to be done? he would simply say, let it be done in England as it was proposed to be done in France. Surely ii; was not proposed that the warrant of the Secretary of Stan to in England, or of an English magistrate, should be taken. as proof positive of the guilt of a party whose extradition was required from France. By the present measure, how easy would it b e f or persons to' forge document s asserting the guilt of an indivi dual who had made himself obnoxious to , France, and merely {,,e) through the form of proving his ids atity before a magi :wrote in this cou ntry— Ry The Earl of MALMESBU —.There is a discretion in the magistrate. _Lord CAMPBELL —The only discret ion the magistrate would have was as to the identity of this accused. On that fact being ascertained he was bound to , order him to be im mediately given up. Now, this was, a power so liable to abuse be thought the greatest care out ;ht to be taken in the creation of it. The law of extradition , even with all the ' s ecurities which at present surrounds ri it, had been much abused. He recollected that when he, had the honour of b e ing Attorney-General he was consulted in a case arising out of the treaty entered into between the United States and Canada. In that treaty there was art extraditional clause, which required that there should be a bill of indictment before the extradition could be demanded. An indictment was found against a man in Canada for horse-stealing, and an application was made to the Governor of Canada on be half of the Government of the United States to have him given up. What were the facts? The accused was a slave who had escaped into Canada on a horse, which he had sent back on his arrival at the frontier. Tho governor, on learn ing these facts, very properly refused to give the man up. There was a remonstrance made by tb e American govern ment in consequence and he (Lord C.) advised the govern ment of this country to stand by the g overnor in what he had done. Now, when the power was capable of being so abused under that law, how much more was it likely to be abused under a convention which only z equired the ipse dixit of a party as an authority for giving up an accused party? The LORD CHANCELLOR said it -was understood that in the working of the French law the English government would have the same facilities afforded them in France in respect to the arrest of their criminals the French govern ment would have in this country. By the 11 th article power was given to the Secretary of State to supersede proceedings, where, under article 10 iaf! the convention or otherwise, it might appear proper. The Duke of ARGYLL said that they were all anxious that no person should be delivered up, i/F after being se deli vered up he was liable to be tried for pc litical offences. He understood the Noble and Learned Lorsl on the woolsack to say, that upon this point they must sim ply trust to the faith of the convention ; that as the English Government did not propose to bind themselves by any law %upon this point, they therefore could not demand that the French Government should bind themselves so. He would, however, remind their Lordships of the terms of th c; 12th article :—"No person surrendered by the French Government under the said convention should be prosecuted or proceeded against in the United Kingdom, or in any of the dominions of her Majesty, for or on account of any crime or offence com mitted previously to his being so surrendered, except the crimes described in the said conventioia, but shall be wholly released by such surrender from all ;prosecutions and pro ceedings in respect of any such previous crime, except as aforesaid, and in case of any prosecution contrary to this provision, such surrender shall be admitted as a va lid d e f ence , and evidence thereof may be given under a plea of not guilty." If this Bill be passed, he thought that it would be the duty of the French Government to bind itself by law in a similar manner as this country would then have done by the article in question. In consequence of many political changes to which France was exposed, it was impossible that the French Government could give thern equal security with the law of this country. If, however, a convention was to be entered into, they must take the gusa-antee of the French Government and the French Legislature as equivalent to ' their owns Now, there were about 20 offences described in this measure, which he thought would afford additional facilities to persons being tried for political offences quasi criminal. He was strongly opposed to the principle of deliver ing up supposed criminals merely upon the accusation of the French Government, and proving the identity of the party. Lord BROUGHAM called attention to the 7th article of the convention, which says—" No accused or convicted person who may be surrendered shall in any case be pro ceeded against or punished on account of any political offence committed prior to his being surrendered, nor for any crime or offence not described in the present convention which he may have committed previously to his being surrendered ; and proof of having been so surrendered under this con vention shall be a good and valid defence against any proceeding on account of any political offence previously committed, and shall entitle the party to an immediate acquittal." The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was nothing more just than that the French Government should pass such a law as this, and thereby secure a reciprocity of power. If they did not pass such a law as would meet the provisions of that clause they could then strike it out of their Act. • After a few words from the Earl of HARROWBY, Lord CRANWORTH said that the principle of this Bill was to legislate so as to carry into effect a treaty and con vention, many of the terms of which were inadmissible. Under this impression, he, for one, thought that this Bill should not be read a second time. Lord DIALIIESBURY said that this Bill was considered to be a matter of necessity. It had been well considered at the Foreign-office, and he therefore hoped' that their Lord ships would read it a second time; and that the Noble and Learned Lords opposite would give their valuable assistance in amending the details so as to render it as perfect as possible. Lord CAMPBELL said that the objections could not be removed without a new French convention. The LORD CHANCELLOR apprehended that the Bill might be so modified as to meet their Lordships' views. It might then be left to the French Government for their adoption or rejection. Earl GREY thought the Bill should not be passed in its present shape. He thought, before surrendering an alleged criminal, there ought to be offered some evidence of his guilt, as was the case in the treaty between this country and the United States. No man ought to be given up with out a prima fade case being made against him. Unless it could be amended to that extent,, he could not allow the Bill to be read a second time. Lord ABERDEEN said that clause too provided expressly for the objection taken by the Noble Earl (Grey), but then found surrender no difficulty ffi single eutt y in similar ca ses hi t h erto t h ey h a d never yet been able t o in doing so. l.France, on the contrary, had Lord BROUGHAM suggested that in cases where crimi nals were claimed, depositions should be laid before the Secretary of State, and if found satisfactory, he should allow the warrant to issue. They might allow the Bill, with that understanding, to be read a second time. Lord MALMESBURY said all he wished was, that this Bill should be improved, and with that view he hoped their Lordships would allow the Bill to be committed. The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be committed on Friday. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Jane 8. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE. (Continued front our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. V. SCULLY said it was quite clear that those who support e d the motion wer e not s i ncere in their alleged desire fo r an i t!ein i ry—in fact, Maynooth they haa lto them selves avowed their ins i ncer i ty. This was merely a a step to the aboli s h ment of gather, which they were prepared to effect without the slightest inquiry. They wished to have a kind of inquisition to upset the grant, and that would lead to the destruction of the College. Ile agreed in thinking that the proposal for inquiry was a mere share, for it inquiry was earnestly wished for, it could be had at once under the powers exercised by the visitors.— (Hear, hear.) He had no objection to inquiry, but h e complained that a Select Committee was , as the Noble Lord d st tribunal teo uc (Lord; joCniidßutssirr had stated, the very He denied that 'the people of England called for inquiry, but even supposing they did, why should the Hon. Member. for North Warwick shire not adopt the suggestion, that it should take place between this and the next session of Parliament, either by Royal Commission or by the visitors, who had the power of conducting the strictest investigation upon oath? He objected to an inquiry of an in sulting character, such as that proposed, which it was notorious was intended as an electioneering clap trap. As to the miserable grant itself, he was prepared to contend that the people of Ireland were entiged; to it on every ground of justice and good faith. The Church Establishment of Ireland cost this country directly about 3,000,0001. per annum. There were 600,000 Protestants is Ireland, so that the religious n struction of each Irish Protestant cost 5/. a head, while, by dividing the Maynooth grant among the Roman Ca tholic population, he found that each of them received one penny ; so that each Protestant received just :as much as 1,200 Catholics; the Protestant got 3icl, per day for his religious instruction, while the same sum had 'to serve each Catholic for three years and a half. The discre- Pitney between the numbers of Catholics and Protestants 4 . 1 1 Ireland, and the relative value of the endowments of 146 two churches, had struck every person who knew titution anything__ of Ireland. Both foreign travellers and the great statesmen of this country had remarked on this ia rl i re . ilr a tnd had spoken of it as the great evil of Ire the Rex: Catholic of grant - , in fact, was nothing more than a and ender undes t • hitey ei property which had been robbed from ttiaCatholic Chards, and from the Ronian in the reign of Queen Elizaheth protectorate of Cromwell, and also under Willi am e population of 'e e l tart. were the ori g i n 'lie The spoilings of these monarbhs the poverty of the Roman Cathblie ( rd. What Ireland wanted was fair m erely to be allowed to enter the play. They eau lists, at t l o ri h s a h lf iors2B, n w Why, but the other day, see .......wiTel O'Rourke and Barbarian, bad dene—(Laughter) had a fair start. Much wasstranothing of the sort in Ire 4b6uteill ti ln Y entenism in Ireland, but had been asserted he asserted that there he. The Honourabl e l eng th to detail the Mem ber then proceeded at great Water o f aWI Y their gradual railaxa the penal laws, tracing their first imposition was always considered of many great l i en up to the time when the College foandecl. That step had th e a _ of Maynooth was an d van acquainted with the rites and of___ in the light of a aYnooth was inquired into by Lord Castlereagh ono of whose chief advisers enoammpe:C;:ln(llnitlBo,o,lthe state AT was tile Protestant Biohop of Leath,l formerly a Re pmraanctiCcaest of advice which he gave was not to !cue the seipPlY O# the Boman Catholic priest hood in Ireland to foreign colleges, but to do their best w i t h education at home. The same to provide them Catholic, Church, end th e authority deprecated an interference with th e colle ge of Maynoeth. This was, however, not the first time that this agitation had been r aised a g ainst this establish ment, it had been raised before in 1800, and afterwards , in 1826. it being now Fbur o'clopht the .rPE-t. Tan left:tho Chair, and the House adjourned until Si x o'clock. ; The House resumed at Six o'clock. A messenger from the Lords brought up the follow ing Bills: to which the* Lerdebis hod greed:— LONDON, WEDNESDAY Battle and Robortsbridge Road. Runcorn Improvement. London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway. Shillingford, Wallingford, and Reading Road, and Shillingford Bridge, without amendment. Ipswich Dock, with an amendment. South-Eastern and Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railways, with amendments. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the grant to Maynooth. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented a petition from the Society for obtaining the Repeal of the Taxes on Know ledge, praying for an inquiry with regard to the'postage charged for the transmission of newspapers under 2 oz. Mr. G. SANDARS presented a petition from the physicians and surgeons of Wakefield and its vicinity, praying for more adequate remuneration in criminal prosecutions. Mr. ADDERLEY presented a petition from George, Cape of Good Hope, with 200 signatures, chiefly field comets, praying for the speedy passage of their constitution ordi nances, with all their details as first drawn. Mr. 'CUBITT presented a petition from the Southern Association of Baptist Ministers and Messengers, assembled at Whitchurch, Hants, representing 27 churches, 3,000 mem bers, and 12,000 hearers, against the Militia Bill. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Saffron Walden against the Militia Bill. Sir B. HALL presented a petiton from the inhabitants of the parishes of St. Marylebone and St. Pancras, agreed to in public meeting assembled, complaining of Romish doctrines and practices being permitted in the churches of the Esta blishment, and praying that an inquiry may be instituted into the conduct of the Bishop of London, in reference to the matters complained of. Mr. BROCKMAN presented a petition from the members of the Hythe Reading Society to be furnished with copies of such of the reports and other Parliamentary documents ordered by the House of Commons to be printed as refer to literature, science, the fine arts, and the useful arts, free of expense, &c. Mr. TUFNELL presented petitions from the Eastbourne Literary and the Peterborough Mechanics' Institutions in favour of a distribution of Parliamentary papers to all mecha nics' and literary institutions. Mr. G. THOMPSON presented a petition from the Tower Hamlets, praying an inquiry into the cause of the prohibi tion of meetings on the Sabbath-day in Bonner's•fields. Mr. PACKE gave notice that he should move that the County Eledtions Poll Bill be read a third time that day six months. no such statement. What he said was, that when Mr. Ben nett left London he went abroad to visit Rome, and that it was believed he had gone there in more senses than one. When he said that, he had had a passage in his mind of the Rev. Mr. Bennett's letter to the Bishop of London, which he would now quote to the House. He said (talking of his difficult position), " The end must be that I seek for peace elsewhere." Now, he believed no person who read that passage could put on it any other interpretation than that by " elsewhere" Mr. Bennett meant the Church of Rome. The term was stereotyped—it was the phrase of those who had preceded Mr. Bennett where he (Mr. Hors man) supposed Mr. Bennett was going at the time, and it was understood to be the usual expression of clergymen of the Church of England in respect to that change. —(No, no.) He could quote several clergyman who had gone over to Rome who had used that phrase, and two occurred to him at the moment—Mr. Wilberforce and Archdeacon Man ning.—(Hear, hear.) It had been represented that he had founded his statements respecting the proceedings of Mr. Bennett abroad on the evidence of one person, but, had he believed the inquiry would not have been granted, he would net have limited his evidence to one person. That gentleman had been placed in a most awkward position, but, in order to show the Spirit in which he wrote, he would quote a passage from his letter, which would show he had very different feelings from those attributed to him. lie wrote as follows : " The best evidence on this point, it seems to me, would be that of the English chaplain, whose name I forget, but who must be mentioned in the 'Clergy List,' or at any event in Graville's Spas of Germany.' If any evidence to this extent, which is all I can with truth aver, can be avail able in corroboration, I have no o hj ection to give it; but I should object most strongly to being brought forward alone to prove a charge, which, if not better supported, must fail. For, upon such evidence alone no bishop, still less any legal authority, could condemn him. It is only from a fervent zeal for the cause of the Gospel truth and an intense disgust at the hypocrisy of the man, that in any event I should like to bring charges, which, exclusive of the compulsion of duty that would necessitate them, must have the appearance of underhand observation. In fact, I took no other notice of these parties than such as a person excee di ng ly ill is forced t o pay to th ose w h ose i ncons id era t e no i s i n ess is the source of co ns t an t anno y a nce to an invalid." Ancl thus stated th e w h o l e th a t I can consc i en ti ous ly testify on again,t a week afte r , h e wrote : ‘ I this point. Being then, as now, very ill, I should not have noticed Mr. Bennett at all but for the prominence of his peculiarities. As it was no business of mine to be his censor, and he seemed to be comfortably on his way to St. I gave him but v er y littl e a tt en ti on , never thinking i that his Romanism would require to be testified by aPtnelytikeere'vlllence of mine. T o b e o bli ge d t o g i ve any evidence at all a gainst him is naturally very unpleasant to me, con sidering the manner in which my observations were made; and if these observations are to be made use of as the groundwork of any overt proceedings against him, I must beg that the promoters of such proceedings will first amply s h u y b o st b a t il ain tia i t n e g t m h y e te s s t t a ina te e m n e y n o ts f , o w th h e i r ch r c e a si n de b n e ts don ( e th w er i e th w ea e s r e e , about forty English there at the time) of the English chap lain, and any of the innumerable persons about the Roman Catholic Church, who must have had daily opportunities of witnessing his attendance. If this be done, and it can be done with very little trouble or cost, I have not a doubt that the result would be to prove indisputably, that while at Kis singen, at least, there being in the place an English church and English service, he voluntarily attended by preference the Roman Catholic." After the speech which he (Mr..llorsman) delivered, Mr. Stntzer wrote a further letter, which would best show what his feelings were, in which was the follow ing letter : e‘ It seems to me that the simple course, if Mr. Bennett deny what I believe on my honour to be undoubtedly true, is to send to Ki es i ngen, where conclusive evidence can be easily got. Th ere must b e some 50 or 10D p ersons , a t the very least, who can say positively that they have seen or not seen him at mass. I have already stated the amount of evidence I can give. I have been dragged into this most unpleasant business by the hasty letter of Mr. Pratt; but, being in it, I feel bound to substantiate every syllable that I have advan ce d , and w i th that view I s h ou ld no t on l y b e willing, b u t glad to pay the whole expenses of any person who can go seems to ' over to Kissingen and settle the whole. But it Lae that the question could be much more easily decided. Does Mr. Bennett deny the fact of his constant attendance at the Roman Catholic service and his non-at tendance at the Church of England service at the same place? If he does not, the whole question is at rest. .eir John Harrington was wilh him all the time ; surely he could not refuse, if solemnly called upon, to give his testi mony, however unfavourable it must be in its consequences to his friend.' The gentleman was not anxious to raise any accusation against Mr. Bennett, but that having in conversations men tioned facts which were repeated without his authority, and published, much to his annoyance, when asked if those statements were true, he took the part a man of spirit ought to take, and said he did not take any part in publishing the facts, but that, as they were stated by him, he thought he was bound in honour not to shrink from confirming what he had asserted , —(Hear, hear.) He had said so much because it was due to the gentleman in question; but he had other testimony which he could have adduced, and, he could have stated many things which he had not wished then to bring forward. He had seen a letter in the handwriting of a lady from Germany, who said that the organist of the church (at Kissingen) had pointed out a gentleman to her, and told her it was Mr. Bennett, late of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, but now in communion with the Church of Rome. He could have stated that Mr. Bennett's proceedings and conduct had been notorious, and that he was pub lished in the Roman Catholic Directory as having been re ceived into the Church of Rome.—(Oh, oh!) Though that was a work of great circulation, it was not a work of autho rity; but he might have looked upon it as being of some authority, because Dr. Wiseman had stated,:during the agita tion on the Titles Bill, that if the Noble Lord had looked into it he must have been aware of the Pope's intentions, as he had been designated in the Directory as " Archbishop of Westminster" some time previously. He held in his hand the affidavit of a German servant, to the effect that it was a matter of notoriety to all the servants in the hotel that Mr. Bennett went to mass every morning, and he could also have stated, on the former occasion when this subject was before the House, that Mr. Bennett, when travelling with his party, carried about in a box a consecrated stone for au altar, and that this stone was set up when they halted; and, Mr. Bennett officiating as a priest, performed religious ser vice before it. It was known that in the Roman Catholic Church every Roman Catholic priest must carry about with him a small consecrated stone for an altar, w herever he went, but such a thing w as un k nown i n the Protestant Church. He would now state why he felt the evidence, on the authority of Mr. Pratt and his letter, was the most proper evidence that could have been adduced. It was a rule in this House that where a charge was made acrainst an individual, the person bringing the charge should be extremely careful as to the character of the evidence he adduced, particularly p that he should bring forward none w hi c h s h ou ld be unfair to the ar ty accused ; and d uring the last five years, i n a ll th e motions which he (Mr. Horsman) had made upon ecclesias tical subjects, he had invariably stated that the evidence , u p on which he based his mot i ons had b een a l ways p u blished evide nnaced known to the world and generally taken from re turns reports laid upon the table of the House. So, in this instance, setting aside the letter of Mr. Pratt, it was a strong fact that Mr. B ennett's name should be published in a work like the Roman , Catholic Directory in the month of November, and that it should remain unnoticed and un contradicted until the month of April. It might be said that it was possible Mr. Bennett had not seen that publication, but n s strong had not, it as e gv d e , nfa f c e at r sst h uh e ma w tinM a g s r in thitpa he to show that this letter had ls position le tter should re at in all entirely v r eelnyt a events, b een brought under Mr. B ennett ' s a tt en ti on . B e f ore th e insti tution of that gentlema n i t would be remembered that t h ere was a good deal of excit ement at Frome, and when t h e in stitution took place, Mr. Hastings, one of the clergy of Frome , addressed th e f o l lowing letter to Mr. Bennett. The un noticed, nee institution took place on the 24th of January, and this letter was written on the 31st : Mr. Pratt) I " RectO;;;Trowbridge, Jan. 31, 1852. ,c Rey. Sir, h —The encl osed letter (this was the letter of copi e d from the Achill Missionary Herald of this month. You may not h ave the opportunity of seeing th e paper, and conseq uently be unable to reply to it. ' As a brother clergyman and a near neighbour I have felt it to be my duty to make you acquainted with the serious charge brought publicly against you and the scandal occasioned i th ere by to the Church ; mayl hope you will not think me officious or obtrusive Al calling your attention to the sub ject? Trusting to hear that there has been some mistake in the statement, . I am, Rev. Sir, yours faithfully, Si Rev. W s Benn e t t " J. D. Hasrmas." Now, if Mr. Bennett had been a clergyman regarding whose orthodoxy there wa s no actual doubt, but about whom ra p had originated owing to a contin en t a l oug ht to have been th ankful for such an opportun ity of c ontradicting that , re ports residence, he re ort ; and certainly Mr. Be nnett, p w ith his antecedents, ought to have felt himself b ound to a nswer it.—(Hear.) That letter, however, me t with no reply. Mr. Hasting s waited until the 12th of February, when he wrote this second letter : " Rev. Str, —.012 1852. • " Rectory, Trowbridge, Feb. , „ " Saturday, the 31st ofJanua r y , I addressed a letter to you, dir ected ' Vicarage, Frome.' The object of that communicati on was to afford you an opportunity of pee ing a letter sign e d ' John 0. N. - Pratt,' a copy of w hich I enclosed, and which a 'This letter was naturally the subject English newspa - p . e c r h ... of mach conversation among the clergy of the neighbour hood, and I had ho ed ' l' gto you to be enabled, on your authority, to has since appeared in several of the p c 0 n t i r n a l . v ic ri t writing con tained. Your silence, however, so opposed to the courtesy by which your conduct, as I am informed, is characterised, compels me to conclude that it is not in your power to afford the desired statements therein - e xplanation. I regret this the more as it tends to confirm those who were. willing te , pass over what had oc curred in your former parish in the adverse opinion they en • of faith, h tertained respecting r aointment to any office in the Church yips of the Church of Rome, which you have publicly and solemnly declared erroneous in her ceremonies and in matters inasmuch ou as your preference for the ser vices doctri ne in your ordination vows you promised to give a 8 thrown contempt upon that Church, whose faith ' faithful diligence always' to minister and teach. hear.) " I am, Reverend Sir , yours f a i t h fully , ..J. D. HAsmas." That letter aga i n received no an swer whatever. What con clusion would any man draw from such silence?—(Hear, kr. Hastings drew his own conclusion, and this was his letter to him (Ur. Horsman) on the subject: "Rectory, Trowbridge, April 24, 1852. "MY dear Sir,—Enclosed are copies of the letters pro mised ; S - ou are at liberty to make what use you please of them. I may observe, my object in writing them was to afford ?dr. Bennett an opportunity of contradicting the report of his attendance upon the Roman worship in preference to that of the Anglican Church, particularly 1 as I was informed by a friend of his who had requested me 1 1 0 call upon hi m that hi s v i ew s were ver y much c h ange d. t was the intention of myself and several of the clergy around to have called upon him, had this statement proved true. Just at this time Mr. 0. N. Pratt's letter appeared, .aid I thought it advisable at once to communicate with Mr. B ennett on the subject. lam truly sorry, that by his taking no notice of either letter, he has left an impression on I m y milad, as I have stated to him, that he could not refute the statement, and, consequently, had not changed his views, thus precluding myself and others from paying him that courtesy w hi ch belongs to a brother clergyman coming into the neighbourhood. "I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly, ~ "J. D. llAsmws. Now, Horsman) ga ve th e other d ay as t o the conversations of Mr. put aside altogether the evidence whic h he ( Mr. Ben nett, and here was the fact that a letter was published in, and went the round of all the newspapers, stating pub licly that 111 r. Bennett never entered the Protestant church when at Kissingen, but was a regular attendant at mass, and that thi s l etter was enc l ose d to Mr. Bennett by a brother clergyman in a f r i en dly, kindly, and brotherly spirit, and when it wa s k nown that no no tice was taken of the commu given, the fact must leave a convictio n nication, and n o suc h e xplanation as that which the circum stances required wa s upon the mi n d o f ever y impartial man that the statem en t was true._(H ear , hear.) He (Mr. Horsman) asked now Whe t her ; if he had had the CIWiCO Of Byer Sp Luc i a eyideuve , THE PICTURE BY TITIAN_ Mr. CHARTER'S asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there was any truth in the report that a picture, said to be by Titian, which was recently purchased for the National Gallery at Marshal Soult's sale for 2,400/., was last year in the possession of a London dealer, by whom it was shown to several of the trustees, who then might have purchased it for 1,200/. ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there was no proof that a picture in the possession of a London dealer, and said to have been purchased by Marshal Soult, was shown to the trustees of the National Gallery, and offered to them for 1,290/. It was quite true that a picture, undoubtedly by Titian, and which had been purchased by the National Gallery, was for sale in London recently, and was seen by a friend of his; but he was not aware that that pic ture had been omsred to the National Gallery for 1,2001. But he must observe that nothing was more delusive as to the real value of a picture than the fact of its acquisition by a private individual at a particular price. He knew of a picture by Murillo which had been recently sold for 24,009/. sterling, which had bean offered to a distinguished individual well known to many Hon. Members in that House only a few years ago for 8,0001. There were very few pictures of emi nent merit that did not find their price in, London at the very top of the scale. It was impossible that the picture in question had been offered at a less sum than the trustees of the National Gallery took it at. But the country had given 2,4001. for it, and he believed that they had purchased a very valuable picture at a moderate price. PRIVATE BILLS. Sir R. PRICE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case of private Bills being prevented from passing the House of Commons by an early dissolution of Parliament, any steps would be taken to facilitate their being passed in the next Pullen lent, so that the great expense incurred in respect to them, up to their present stages, might not be thrown away? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was not in the power of the present Parliament to facilitate the passing of these. Bills in the next Parliament. No doubt the indulgence which the Parliament of 1831 had afforded would be given by the new Parliament. At the same time, the Hon. Member must feel that the circumstances must be of a very pressii ig character to justify such a course. 72HE MAYNOOTH GRANT. Mr. M. GIBBON wished to ask a question of the Chan cellor of the Es.chequer with regard to the employment of the time of thiii House and the dispatch of public business. They had still got the Maynooth question hanging over them, and after a whole morning had been devoted to it, they were still as far from the termination of the debate as ever. He wistted, therefore, to ask the Right Hon. Gentle man, who was the trustee of the publi c f or th e p ro per appli cation of the public time, whether he did not think it fit for him to use his influence with the Hon. Memberfor Warwick shire to induce him to postpone all further proceedings to a more convenient season. _----- - The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he felt his duty at present to be in unison with the statement which he had already made to the House, namely, to take care that all those measures to which the Government were bound should be passed this session with due deference to the great consummation which they all awaited.— (Laughter.) That he acknowledged was itself a difficult, though he would not say an impossible task, but he must decline, with respect to the subject of Maynooth, to under take that which the Right Hon. Gentleman had asked him to perform. OYSTER FISHERIES. In answer to a question from Sir G. CLERK respecting the oyster fisheries, Mr. HENLEY said . he would pay every attention to the subject, and endeavour whether he could see his way to a relaxation of the law to enable parties to fish in the months of May and June without weakening the object for which the law had been passed—namely, the prevention of poach ing on the fisheries. The papers to which the Right lion. Baronet alluded should be laid on the table to-morrow. THE REV. MR. BENNETT. Mr. HORSMA.N, on rising to move CraSelect Committee to inquire into the circumstances connected with the insti tution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, said that when, on the 20th of April last, he moved— `. That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct inquiry to be made whether due respect was paid to the decrees of the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical of the Church of England is the recent institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome," the object of that motion could not have been misunderstood. It clearly was to make inquiry into the act of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, for which he alone was responsible, in insti tuting a presentee against whom certain allegations been made, in spite of those allegations and of the evidence is prove them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, on the part of her Majesty's Government, moved the amendment, showed he did not misunderstand the object of the motion, for he opposed it on grounds of a twofold nature ; first, that the mode of redress proposed was inadequate; and next,' that there was an appeal to the Archbishop against the act of the Bishop. The Right Hon. Gentleman said : • " I cannot help believing that there must be an appeal from the prelate who acts in contravention of the canons of the Church to the Archbishop. If, then, there be an appeal to the Archbishop, if the conduct and decisions of the prelate aro subject to that superior revision, that surely must be a reason wby the House of Commons should not interfere before that appeal has taken place, and, in lieu of having re course to such a tribunal, should not substitute a means which is confesLedly so inadequate to obtain the result which is desired." But the House was not satisfied with the grounds taken by the Right Honourable Gentleman, and various Members ex preised their belief that the question could not be disposed of in that manner; the Hon. Member for North Warwick shire in particular, who, expressing the sentiments of those around him, said— " He was, however, quite certain that, the question having been raised, the 'country would demand that it should be fully investigated; this was a question which, having been raised, must be dealt with.". Anotlier member of the Cabinet, the Secretary for the Colo nies, rose subsequently, and said he concurred in the views of the Hon. Member who had spoken, and that he— " Felt not only that this was a question which ought to be raised, but that, having been raised, it ought to be dealt with ; and he would say for himself, as he believed he might say for every member of her Majesty's Government, that the matter ought not to rest in its present position, but that unquestion ably inquiry ought to be made, and a remedy ought to be provided." The Noble Lord the Member for the city of London declined to vote for an address to the Crown, on the grounds,—first, that there might be an appeal to the Archbishop, as the Right lion. Gentleman had stated; next, that they did not know the character of the certificate of the Bishop of Bath and Wells had received from the Bishop of London ; and, thirdly, that he wished to leave the inquiry in the hands of Government. The Noble Lord said : _ _ " Let them at some further day declare whether they have found any mode of inquiry that is satisfactory, and let them lay any facts they may ascertain before the House. Until that period arrives I cannot consent to be a party to an address to the Crown." His Right Hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the same grounds in opposing the. motion, an d showed he under stood it to be directed agai ns t the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The general feeling of the House was in favour of inquiry, and he (Mr. Horsman) stated the reasons why he felt it his duty not to accept the promise of the Government; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, somewhat irregularly, rose afterwards and assured the House the Government were pre pared to institute the inquiry for which they seemed so anxious. The Right Hon. Gentleman said— " He would not talk of a friendly inquiry, nor could he promise a judicial inquiry, but he would promise that there should be a bona fide one." After a month had elapsed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid before them a report of the result—not of an inquiry, but of what Government had undertaken in the matter —to which he would not further refer, as it would be extremelyear inconvenient to embarrass the HMSO in considering a far greater and more important question by, any reference to the course of proceedings, or to the opinions of her Ma jesty's Government. Only a few nights ago he had stated his views by way of a question to the Attorney-General on the state of the law in this case, and the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman stated, that supposing that there was a complaint against Mr. Bennett, it was doubtful how far Mr. Bennett could be made amenable under the Church Discipline Act; first, on account of the 20th clause, which covered offences committed further back than two years ; and next, because there would be a difficulty in taking cognizance of an offence committed abroad; but, as against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, it was admitted there was no redress whatever against his institution of Mr. Bennett, and no statute or court by which it could be challenged. The Attorney- General seemed to think he (Mr. Horsman) had cast a cen sure upon the Government for their conduct, while another Hon. Member was of opinion he had acquitted Government of all blame whatever. But he had neither done one nor the other; for his dsire was to avoid the expression of any opinion whatever, and if he found the Ministry acting UP to the declaration they had made, that the question should be investigated, he and the public would be quite satisfied; while, on the other hand, if they endeavoured to make it a party question, and to bring the influence of Government to bear to defeat the motion, he, and he believed the public also, would arrive at a very diferent conclusion. He wished to discuss the question now without the smallest admixture of party feeling. On a former occasion be had stated fully the whole of the facts with respect to the Rev. Mr. Bennett, but questions had been raised by his friendiyand some things had been especially misunderstood by the Noble Lord the Member for the county of Down. He seemed to think he (Mr. Horsman) had stated Mr. Bennett was no longer in communion with wwiittizh the 0 %1 Q o f f Egtd,z y d r :h ia a: l ll aci e was JUNE 9, 1852, to bring before the House, he had not selected that which was the most proper and the most appropriate F It was evi. deuce which had been known to Mr. Bennett; it was, there. fore, the fairest to that gentleman, and, he thought, the most satisfactory and conclusive to the House. He cams now to a far more important and serious point of this subject. He had done with Mr. Bennett, and now came to the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The import ance of Mr. Bennett's acts were perfectly insignificant as compared with the acts of the Bishop. The difference in station between the minister and the prelate was nothing as compared with the difference of the effects which might fol. low from the acts of a man who acted only in his individual capacity, and another gifted with power and authority, and whose example spread so far beyond himself.—(Hear, hear.) On this point there was a passage in the writings of Hooker which he would take the liberty of quoting : " The mean man's actions, be they good or evil, they reach not far, they are not greatly inquired into, except, perhaps, by such as dwell at the next door; whereas men of more ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills—their lives are viewed afar off—so that the more there are which observe aloof what they do;the greater glory by their well-doing they purchase, both unto God whom they serve, end to the State wherein they live!' He (Ur. Heiman) felt that he had spoken, when he last addressed the House, under a due sense of all the respon sibility which attached to the task he had taken. Some weeks had elapsed since then, and, if his statements had been rash and hasty, he -had had ample time to reconsider and modify them, while, if they had been incorrect, ample opportunity had been afforded for repudiating them. After, however, all possible consideration and reconsideration, he was bound to say that the opinion he then stated had been very much strengthened, and whatever he then thought as to the acts of the Bishop of Bath and Wells as deserving of censure, fell short of the truth, even more as regarded the Bishop than as regarded Mr. Bennett. The Bishop of Bath And Wells had instituted Mr. Bennett in the first place with a haste and with a determination to shut out the parish ioners of Frome from that legal redress which they would have had if the Bishop had given them more time; he had instituted him, secondly, without having that certificate from Mr. Bennett's former diocesan which, by usage and by law, he was under an obligation to require; and, thirdly, without that due examination which was enjoined by law, and which the parishioners of Fromo had a right to de mand; and he (Mr. Horsman) was prepared to show that the Bishop had done this not accidentally, not carelessly, not ,hastily, not upon impulse, but advisedly, as the lawyers said " perversely," And with the intention of defeating the ends of justice. What was the position of the different par ties at the time when Mr. Bennett was presented to the vicarage of Frome, and before his institution ? Each party then had a legal position and certain legal rights. The parishioners of Frome did not at that time know what their legal rights were. They acquired that knowledge later on, and, unfortunately for them, later than the Bishop. This was the position of the parties:—Before Mr. Bennett was instituted it was open to the parishioners under the canon law to have lodged a caveat against that institution in the Bishop's court. The object of the caveat was this, — that an individual might be presented to a benefice of whom a bishop might know nothing, and any persons who knew him to be unfit, and wished to prevent his institu tion, did so by a caveat. If such a course had been taken in this instance, Mr. Bennett would have. had to have "warned" the caveat, and that would have compelled the proctor through whom it was lodged to state the name of. the person who had lodged it, and the objections to institu tion. Then the cause would have been referred by the bishop to the Vice-Chancellor's Courts, from these it would be referred to the archbishop, and from the archbishop the cause might be taken by appeal to the Privy Council. That was the position of parties, and that was the right which was available to the parishioners of Frome, while Mr. Bennett was a presentee only, and before ho was insti tuted. He ( Mr. Horsman) would now show the House how they were defeated in their attempt to avail themselves of that right, and what was the course pursued towards them by the Bishop. Mr. Bennett's presentation was confirmed on Tuesday, the 30th of December; on Wednesday he visited Frome, on Thursday, January 1, the inhabitants moved, and a protest was got up signed by five clergymen and 48 heads of families. On the 2d this protest was delivered to the Mar chioness of Bath, and the day after they received her lady ship's reply. On Wednesday they memorialize.' the Bishop, giving their reasons against the institution, by which, of course, they meant to ask his Lordship to make inquiry into the truth of what they alleged. They made this statement on the 7th of January.; on the 15th they received the reply of the Bishop declining to accede to their prayer, and stating that he should proceed with the institution. On the very same day they wrote to him again, praying him to give them 14 days' delay to consider whether it might be their duty to take any further steps in the matter. They rcceived his answer on the 21st of January, and that very day they sent their solicitor to London to take the opinion of Dr. Twig'. Their solicitor returned 'on the 23d, and they then learned, for the first time, the means within their power for delaying institution. They received this opinion on the 23d, and a caveat was prepared on the 24th ; but before that the Bishop had instituted Mr. Bennett.—(Hear, hear.) These proceedings were of so very extraordinary a character that he- (Mr. Horsman) had really felt at first that they were hardly to be believed. He had, however, received the following statement, in confirmation, from Mr. Hurd, of Frome • "Frome, June 2, 1852. " I will take up the subject on Thursday, January 15, on which day we wrote to the Bishop at Brighton, praying that he would delay institution for fourteen days. On the 19th he dates his civil reply, which we received on Wednesday, the 21st ; and, by the very next train, on the same day, we sent Mr. Cruttwell and the Rev. Hill Dawse Wickham to London, to consult proctors. On the 23d they had an oral opinion from Dr. Twiss (to save time), urging them to lose no time in entering a caveat to stay institution and induc tion, or induction, as the case may be. Mr. Cruttwell wrote on that day from London to the committee at Frome to be ready laa the committee-room at one o'clockr.ar. the next day, at which hour he would arrive at the station and join us. On his way from the station to the committee-room he heard the bells strike up, and was told that Mr. Bennett had just been inducted. This was Saturday, January 24. A few minutes after we had met Mr. Bennett and a few strange clergymen (three, I think) passed our window on their way from church, after induction. Mr. Bennett called on Dr. Griffith, at Elm, two miles from Frome, on the morning of Saturday, January 24, and was by him, as commissary, in stituted. He then proceeded back to Promo Church, and was inducted the same morning by the Rev. Mr. Blackwell, curate of Melts, near Frome. The Rev. W. Calvert, curate of Promo (for four years), and then residing at the vicarage house, declined being present at the induction. He (Mr. Horsman) had wished to know whether these facts e t ee ra i v v e ed lled a were confirmed by Mr. Cruttwell, and he had i hadrt statement' from that gentleman, which, though over somewhat the same ground, so extraordinary and in credible was the whole proceeding, he would read to the House . "My dear Sir,--In answer to your in q uir y , I be g to inform you that on W e d nes day, the 21st of January (being the same day, on which the reply of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to the Rev. H. D. Wickham was received), I went to. London with that gentleman upon the instructions of the com mittee to take Dr. Twiss's opinion. It was not until the after noon of the 23d that we succeeded in obtaining the verbal opinion of Dr. Twiss, to the effect that Mr. Bennett's opi .nions as they appeared by reference to his published works were decidedly unsound, . and that the prop er course to stay his institution an d induction to a form of enter a caveat in the Bishop's Court at W.e—ll,Let s.i obtained the caveat, which was as f ollows. be done in J. E. Bennett, in for th ( e a c D o r), unty an o d f p . roctor the matter of the institution of , ri s e ei ß w e o v o . d, clerk, to the vicarage o. Somerset, unknown to (P.t inhabitants of tne said parish of Frome o th ers , parishioners, 3 7 9 the 24th, about Selwood,' I returned to Frome te o t n Saturday, one o'clock, and as I entered the w r ie n h i heard the bells ring ing for Mr. Bennett's induction, was informed had had previously written to state the effect ef takencommittee pieee together, g e e h t o h u e l r d , just taken place. of Dr. Twiss's opinion, notandsitaoonectailolath e 3 induct . n had and, if Mr. Bennett at once have obtained the the Committee, and the 24th of January. entered the caveat in the afternoon of o The absence of the Bishop would have been no impediment in the way of ent erin g the c aveat, which must, as a matter of course, have bee n receiv e d by his officer at W e ll s , and the e ff ec t would have bee n to stay induction until the proper proceedings had bean taken to decide the question of Mr. Bennett's orthodoxy. • dear very truly yo urs , o I am, my " W. C. Caurrwam. " Promo, June 2, " "J. "lard, Esq." He was mire the House would see h ow f ar the statement was correct, that the parishioners of Promo had not been ready to avail themselves before coming to this Hones of every legal remedy which was open t o th em . But they were shut out by the Bishop of Bath and Wells from that re d res s which they might have obtai ne d if h e h ad g i ven that moderate and decent delay for which they peti tioned. All the evidence relative to Mr. Bennett's pro ceediugs at Kissingen might then have been produced. As it was said the parishioners of Frome had not availed them selves of every , chance of legal redress, he wished to ask two questions of the Attorney-General. If the caveat had been lodged, and the Bishop had notwithstanding proceeded to institute, would not the institution have been void? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had had opportunities of enquiring into the whole circumstances of the case. He had seen the opinion of Dr. Twiss; he must have forined a judgment upon Mr. Bennett's doctrine, and he called upon him to assist the House in coming to a conclu sion by saying if that caveat had been lodged, and the question of Mr. Bennett's othodoxy had gone to trial, whether it was probable that he would not have been • unable to obtain institution? He main tained that by the canons the Bishop of Bath and Wells was bound to receive from Mr. Bennett, and to insist upon the production by him of a certificate from his former diocesan; and, secondly that the Bishop of Bath and Wells A was bound to subject d. Bennett to a due examination. It might be said the Bishop acted strictly within the law in regard to the caveat, but did he act according to law in re gard ;to the certificate of the Bishop of London and the due examination which he was himself bound to make? Upon a former occasion he (Mr. Horsman) had stated that it was rumoured that three clergymen of the diocese of London had signed a certificate that they had known Mr. Bennett for the three years last past before the date of that certifi cate; that they bad had opportunities of observing his con duct; and that during that time he had' done, held, written, and taught nothing that was contrary to the discipline and doctrine of the Church of England. He had also given it as a rumour that the Bishop of London had signed that certi ficate with a qualification. Three clergymen of the diocese of London did sign that certificate, but with regard to the Bishop of London the fact was not quite as he stated it, He said he understood the Bishop had appended a qualification to the margin of the certificate. Whether anything was written on the margin he could not say, but the ,Bishop • of London had certainly written a strong letter, stating the sense in which that signature was to be understood. He was told, and 'he believed, that al though the Bishop signedthe certificate, yet th a t i n real i ty th e Bishop's signature was only understood to attest that the three clergymen signing the certificate were known to hi m , and that, in his opinion. they would not sign what they did not believe to be true.—(Hear.) The House ought to see that certificate. [An Hon. Member-1, The form is to be found in the books."] Yes, but the House ought to see this particular certificate.- ,(Cheers.) They ought to knew the names of the three London clergymen who put their signatures to th a t d ocument, and who testified that they had opportunities of knowing what Mr. Bennett was doing at Kissingen and other places.—(Hear.) He had a copy of the letter o f th e Bi shop of London to B is hop of the Bath and Wells, which showed that the former took care that the sense in which he signed the certificate should be understood. This letter was tendered to him by a clergy man who wrote to the. Bishop of London on the subject of Mr. Bennett's appointment, and who in reply received a copy of the letter from the Bishop. The letter had no date, but he was told it was written at the same time as the Bishop's signature to the certificate. It was as follows : " My Lord,—l have to request that my cou nter-Mea u l: to this testimonial may be considered as being einnYLve expression of my opinion that the clergymen. Yru" signed it, and who are beneficed in my dioce believe. nave.Btetsittial fled to your Lordship that which they verily ber 1850, Mr. think it is my duty to state, that in Daces , !, -- Aw Beuziett l'eNigned th 9 perpet ual coacy of S rani 11410" bridge, and that I accepted his resignation, because I was of opinion that the peace and good order of the Church in my diocese would be seriously interrupted if he were to remain incumbent of that benefice. For the reasons which led me to form that opinion, I beg leave to refer your Lordship to a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself which was published in the Times newspaper of December 12,.1850. " I am wholly without information as to any change which may have taken place in Mr. Bennett's principles or opi nions since his resignation of the cure which he held in my diocese. " I am, " Your Lordship's faithful brother and servant, " C. J. LONDON. " The Hon. and Right Rev, the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells." —(Cheers.) That letter acquitted the Bishop of London of having been a party either to misleading or deceiving the Bishop of Bath and Wells.—(llear, hear.) The bishop gave his reasons for Mr. Bennett leaving his diocese, and his letter was the strongest condemnation, remonstrance, and warn ing, almost amounting, in fact, to a protest.—(Hear, hear.) When the Bishop of London spoke of the peace and good order of his diocese having been interrupted by Mr. Ben nett, was not that a warning that the peace and good order of the diocese of Bath and Wells would also be in terrupted if Mr. Bennett were admitted into that diocese? —(Hear, hear.) But in the teeth of that condemnation and warning, the Bishop of Bath and Wells proceeded to insti tute Mr.. Bennett. Rumours had since reached him, which it was desirable that he should mention, in order that an opportunity might be given to the parties concerned to ex plain them. He had heard, but•did not believe, that the letter ho had just read was not the only letter written by the Bishop of London to the Bishop of Bath and Wells ; and that in a se cond letter the former prelate had qualified his objections, and 'withdrawn his condemnation of Mr. Bennett.' He did not believe that the Bishop of London would have allowed that letter to be put into his hands if the Right Rev. Pre late had, by a subsequ'ent letter of a different character, qua lified or withdrawn that condemnation. Another rumour had reached him regarding the Bishop of Bath and which he could not believe. He had heard that this letter of the Bishop of London was never seen or read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells ; that he received the certificate, but that he never saw that letter. Now, if the. Bishop of Bath and Wells, knowing that there was such letter, either declined or refused to open or read it, so far was that from being .. a palliation of the course he had taken, that the House would feel it to be a very great aggravation of the grievance of which the public had to complain.—(Hear, hear.) He might assume, then, that this statement was untrue. The words of the canon were:—" No bishop shall institute any unless, after due examination,, he shall appear worthy of his ministry:" What was meant by " due exa .mination ?" Surely the mode and extent of the examination were not entirely left to the will and discretion of the bishop ? Lord Ellenborough had set this question at rest by a judg ment upon this point, which, if the House would permit him, he would read. Lord Ellenborough said a— "lt only requires him first to approve, that is, before he licenses; and, in so doing, it virtually requires him to exer cise his conscience, duly informed upon the subject; to do which he must duly, impartially, and effectually inquire, examine, deliberate, and decide. Here the duty of exami nation is again pointed out. The bishop is to find out whether he is learned, capable of teaching, moral, and of a right understanding in religion ; and, therefore, the court would require of him that he should institute some proper mode of examination by which the learning, dexterity in teaching, morals, and the religion of the candidate may be ascertained. The word of the statute is approve,' and he must exercise that approbation according to his con science, upon such means of information as he may obtain; and every thing that can properly minister to his conscien tious approbation or disapprobation, and fairly and rea sonably induce his conclusion on such a subject, though it might not be evidence that would be formally admitted in a court of law, may, I am of opinion, be fitly taken into con sideration." The Bishop of Bath should have addressed himself to the circumstances alluded to in the letter of the Bishop of London and the memorial of the parishioners of Frome. To simplify the matter as much as possible he would refer to one point in each document. The parishioners directed the attention of the Bishop to a passage published by Mr. Ben nett, in which he said that " All the ideas of the Bible, and the dispensing of the Bible, as in itself a, means of propaga ting-Christianity, are a ction and absurdity." Did the -Bishop inquire into that? Considering what must ba the feelings of a Protestant community like that of Frome— considering the feelings of veneration with which they must regard the sacred volume, a veneration founded on their con viction that to a poor man it was the greatest of blessing, and that the richest man without it was less than the most miserable of paupers —considering that this was not only the opinion of the Protestant people of this country, but that we occupied ourselves in sending the. Bible abroad, as the source of religious truth, to the most distant climes, and that per sons were to be found whotcheerfully braved toils, privations, and even death, in prosecuting this the noblest work in which man could be engaged—considering all these things, the parishioners of Frome must have regarded Mr. Bennett's declaration about the Bible a 3 little less than blasphemy and profaneness. If the Rev. Gentleman had , entered their cottages, seized their Bibles, and thrown them into the fire, his act could scarcely have shocked them more than his words. Should not the Bishop have said to Mr. Bennett, " Here is a statement shocking to Protestant feeling; I must have an explanation of it, and the explanation must go forth to the world. You have stated, in your letter to Lord J. Russell, that you a r enn changed and unchangeable ; i s y our opinion on this point. unchanged? for, if so, I should hold myself disgraced as a Protestant prelate in granting you institution." There was strong evidence that the Bishop did not ask this question.. Now for the second point. The Bishop of London, in his letter to the Bishop of Bath, referred to Mr. Bennett's cora respondence with Lord J. Russell, in whiCh Mr. Bennett set forth his views with regard to the supremacy of the Crown. This point was of particular importance. because every clergy mail on his institution was obliged to take an oath regarding the supremacy of the Crown in spiritual and ecclesiastical matters. After the decision in the Gorham case a movement took place amongst a large portion of the clergy of the Church, about 2,000 of them signed a protest, setting forth that they had all taken the oath to maintain the Queen's supremacy in a peculiar sense.—(Hear, hear.) Among -the persons who signed this document were Archdeacon Manntng, who had since joined the Church of Rome, and Isaac Wilber force, archdeacon, and Hodge Mill, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, who still held preferment in the Church of England. Mr. Bennett said, that, having taken the oath in favour of the Queen's supremacy, he became uneasy in his conscience after the decision in the Gorham case • that he consult e d a b arr i ster as to whether he was bound by the oath to obey such an exercise of the Queen's supremacy as had taken place in the Gorham case, and the barrister informed him that he was bound to do so, because the oath must be taken in the sense in which it was in. tended, by the person imposing it, and not according. to the interpretation which it might suit the convenience of the party taking it subsequently to put upon it. Mr. Bennett did not resign his living to satisfy his scruples of conscience but contented himself with signing the protest. Shortly after arose the controversy with the Bishop of London, and then he resigned his living. In the course of the samb year he presented himself for institution' 'to the vicarage of Frome, and the oath in favour of the supremacy of the Crown must again be taken. Ought not the Bishop of Bath to have taken notice of Mr. Bennett's recorded opinion on the isubject of the oath ? Should it net have been a part of the " due examination" required from the Bishop to have asked Mr. Bennett whether he sub scribed the oath in the sense in which the law imposed it, or with some mental reservation or qualification? It was not sufficient to say that the Bishop privately examined Mr. Bennett, and was satisfied with, what took place. The ob ject of the examination was to satisfy the Church at Mrge, and especially that portion of it over which Mr. Bennett was to be set. The scandal was notorious; its removal should have been notorious also. If Mr. Bennett's opinions had un dergone a change, the fact should not have been communi cated to the Bishop alone ; it should have been made knovin also to Mr. Bennett's parishioners. It was to be regretted that the Bishop in this matter, instead of appearing in the dignified character of an impartial judge, had exhibited him self in that which in that House was held to be the most objectionable, it might almost be said,odious of; charactere, namely, that of a partisan. It appeared to him that he had established the three propositions with which he had set out. Hooker pointed, in the following passages, to the evils likely to result from such a malversation of office on the part of a high ecclesiastical dignitary as that with which the Bishop of Bath was chargeable:— • "If now, there arise any matter of grievance between the pastor and the people that are under him, they have their ordinary, a judge indifferent, to determine their causes and to end their strife. But in case there were no such ap pointed to sit and to hear both, what would then be the end of their quarrels? . . . But the hurt is more inani lastly seen which doth grow to the church of God by faults inherent in their several actions, as when they carelessly ordain, when they institute negligently, when corruptly they bestow church livings (benefices, prebends, and rooms especially for jurisdiction, when they visit for gain's sake rather than with serious intent to do .good), when their courts, erected for the maintenance of good order, are dis ordered, when they regard not the clergy under them, when neither clergy nor laity are kept in that awe for which this authority should serve, when anything appeareth in t h em rather than a fatherly. action towards the flock of Christ, when they have no respect to posterity, and, finally, when they neglect the true and requisite means whereby their au thority should be upheld. Surely the hurt which groweth out of these defects must needs be exceeding great." The hurt was exceedingly great in the instance which be had brought under the notice of the House, and was it any answer to be told, as he was a few nights ago, that Mr. Bennett had already won, to a great extent, the confidence of the parishioners of Frome? The House had been informed that 1,500 of the parishioners of Frome had signed a memo rial stating that they were satisfied with the soundness of Mr. Bennett's doctrines. Admit, for the sake of argument, the truth of the alleged popularity of Mr.-Bennett at Profile, he drew an inference from it very different from the conclu sion at which that gentleman's friends arrived. Had it been said that. Mr. Bennett was universally disliked, that no one went near him, and that the mischief would be shortlived, iemight perhaps be expedient to let the matter rest, but the case was different when it might be said, " Mr. Bennett may be a Roman Catholic, but he is very popular—he may be a Jesuit, but he is very attractive—it may be true that he said what is alleged about the Bible, but he is convert iug all the parishioners of Frome." Under such circum stances the popularity of Mr. Bennett would only be the fulfilment of the worst forebodings of those Who objected to his appointment.—(Hear, hear.) The q u e stion now to be dete rm i ne d was what was to be done. The Govern ment admitted that the case was one of which it was Im possible to exaggerate the importance. It was admitted on all sides that it could not rest where it was. In airy was was , deelered to be not only e s sen ti a l b u t i nev itable. Hew by the inquiry to be pu rsue d? Th e H ouse could not pro c e ed' resolution, because the facts were disputed. proposed there should be an inquiry by means o uld be urged commis sion, but he foresaw the objections whichw against that course, although he suggestedhat it i n deference to t all other modes the wishes of his friends, who desired T a the inquiry. nil r y by now ca iled upon the UQuse a Commission being rejected, h e of investigation should be tried bef ore the Hourel ofoi Com mons was called upon to underta k e He did not admit, however, that to undertake the task. pplied to its Ministe rs f or t a n d e dr a es d s op to tio t n he o c f r t o h w e nmwotoionnidjilo haveh r a m v e ae rl b y ee p n ro a p l o to se g d et b h y er h f i a m til f e o . i a l n n that case the Crown woul d ) The andAliimn pisirftaecrsttitewiboluefol,dutnhhde tha t ,wm ouadl would advice.—(Hear, a favourable answer the question would still advise ber Maj es t y the requisite i . ii h y t in quiry by a Com mission ee s a ti o . g j a t t l h o na,t was not to return settled in that House. On the other t h ho a a n v a e , t i o f th b e e Ministers at once advised her Majesty to return that addres s, a favourable answer, and to institute an inquiry, and they were stopped at the outset by the announcement that no i n quiries would be given on their interrogatories, that again would have brought the matter before the House, and it would have been their duty to consider how to retrieve the false step which her Majesty's Ministers had taken.--(Hear, hear.) They had been told by the Ministers that inquiry by a Commission was impossible, so that the inquiry must be instituted by Parliament, or not at all. Now, what really was the objection to inquiry by a Committee of that House? .L I ra q late .a k adigulax oUrci4o oP Vag OA; ci patronage, and as to the mode in which a Bishop had chosen to exercise his authority. They were every day legislating On ecclesiastical affairs. There were several Church Bills at that moment on the order-book, and there had not beea.s week during the present session in which they had not been considering something . or other respecting the EstablishedChureh.—(Hear, h ear. ) I t was not only 'necessary, but inevitable that su c h s h ou ld b e the case. • It was ono o f th conditions of the E sta bli shed Church that Parliament , which created th a t. Ch urch, should be able to cons ider its affairs, and corre c t w h at was wrong.—t Hear, hear.)lf there were abuses th e y oug ht to be removed, if t h ere w ere scandals they ought to be inquired into, if there were griev ances they ought to be redressed.-411ear a lseara_ They ere told, however, that they alight not tp . take cognizanceO f Church affairs becahie the House. ortommons was not nor composed exclusively of. members of the Established Church. Bat why was the House not composed wholly of members et the Established Church? Because the nation of England was not composed entirely of members of the Established Church ; and if they said that the House of Commons , as representing the nation, was so far dissevered from its Es" tablished Church that it ought not to have direct.cogniaanc e of its affairs, then, a fortiori, the nation must be so far sepa rated from the Established Church th a t th ey oug ht n oato have an Established Church at all.—(Hear, b eat s) Thit.t, was the legal and inevitable result o f th e argumen t, u , Erested home ; but he held, on the o th er h an d , t h a t the stablished Church Church was the creation o f Parliament—tits' it existed by the breath of Parliament, and was subject to its jurisdiction, and there was no duty of Parliament t!ti obvious, no responsibility So undeniable, as that when it had established a church for the teaching, of one religion, should not be made subservient to the interests of another —that it should not allow a minister of that Church to become the secret agent of. another.—(Hear hear.) Th e people of England having had the present question raised , would most assuredly like to see that Parliament was earnest f upon if, He believed that she inqui r y nee d no t b e one a long duration—that the witnesses would be very few, and that the whole examination need no t l as t more t h an a week or ten days. The facts of the case were indeed few and simple. -Here was. a clergyman, the incumbent of St• Paul's, Knightbridge, whose ministrations, were carried-au in such a m anner , and acquired Such notoriety, that the ser vices were interrupted by mobs and riots.—(Hear, fies t a,' Virtually ejected by hi s diocesan he published a letter, which he told hi s di ocesan that lie found himself in a false position in the Church of England.. He went abroadrand it was stated that his attelidance on a Roman Catholic place °f worship was so notorious, that he was openly claimed in their publications as a convert to their faith, and in`:full contrt niou with their Chu rc h. I t was stated that during t" whole time he was at Rissingen he was .never near a pro testant Church, and an h a bi tua l attender at a Rein , , Catholic Church. Thid st a t ement was brought before run in a friendly manner, by _a brother clergyman, and iff received by him in such a way as to confirm its trim'* The parishioners of Frome, to which he was appointed, or. morialised the Bishop of B a th an d W e ll s, and gave extra c t from his published work s . Th e condemnation of m" former diocesan was again virtually recorded. The fact W; brought before the Bishop that h e d en i e d t h e suprenuic7„s the Crown, and that he took th e oa th s i n a qualho' sense. All these things were brought before the Bishop' but without the inquiry required by l aw , w i tnout the prop certificate, he not only instituted him, b u t d i d so i n su ch f manner as to shut out the parishio ners f rom t h e only tri bunal established by law before which they could have le' dress.—(llear.) For all this they were told there was to a,e . .no redress, because a Commission of In qu i r y wou ld no t e er, fectual, and b because there were some gen tl emen w h o o bject to pursuing such an inquiry by a Parliamentary Comraittet Why, they had had hundreds of Com:l:fissions with no, WI: authority than would have existed in, the present 'case, a nd though the inquiries'had often be e n exceedingly ,t 37, to those to whom thpy were addressed, m uc h va l ua ble nalu mation had nevertheless been acquired, while in not one al had the inquiries of the Commi ss i oners b een evaded. 13“0 now they were told, for the first time, that a Commissionalo not to be instituted because answ ers t o th e i nqu i r i es Wu . : not be got. That was no doubt a well-advised announ ce ' ment, and had not been made except on good grounds. S et ; Wag apart the circumstances of this case, he would ha:, thought that such an answer could not have been g ivsn alie„ prelates of the Established Church.—(Hear, hea r " There was not in the country another body by whom an quiry issued in the Queen's name would not have beah„, spected.—(Hear, hear.) There was no c l a d s o f h e r JUr a jesty's subjects : who, if ntommission of Inquiry had 1) 7; would not have hastened to meet it s w i s he s ; le t a it a knock at the_ door of the peer or the c o tt ager i t would has been respected, because was issued in the. Queen's ri a s ni , e : and he should have thought that the prelates of the -r , s` - ,: t bushed Church would have. been among the first to resPt, the authority of the law, and show their loyaltY:, acknowledging the .Commission of the Queen.--( 0 ' e " hear.) They might have been expected to recoa'uw" the principle on which their Sovereign had set the e; ample, that the more exalted the rank th e greater I i 5 resP onsibility; that great power and great pri were to be held for public purposes, and not secreted for selfish ends.—(Hear, hear.) The responsibrli e connected with this case now rested with Perliameut alOi n and, whatever might be the ground on which they acted', ris whether it affected the sincerity of their faith, waetes imvolved the supremacy of the Crown, or the jurisdicti o s Parliament, it was a serious respo ns ibilit y . It would be at very mifortunate and very fatal even t if P ar li ame at on ffe t occasion were by, a majority to ref use t h e i nq uiry every one admitted ought to be instituted. A ininer' t y ;:i a us such a case would only show how fatal and how dung a majority was when opposed to t ru th. A majority ' u sob a case could not influence public opinion ; a majority wells , not acquit Mr. Bennett or the Bishop of Bath and 7 4 t he but a majority could, disappoint public expectation, an d public reprobation diverted from o th er part i es wou , sa resr , point the finger of scorn at the House o f C om mons. — 0 % 1 ,, n 3 hear.) It would tell them that th e i r Ch urc h w as a cts* ;loyalti that their Protestantism was a p re t ence , that tiles to was a sham; and it would tell them that, in endeavount.hei, screen individual delinquents, they were perpetnatilig d ' “ de powers, but that they were degrading rarlia a „ h nilm t s o n tilos atroying the Church.—(Hear.) The Hon, °L ' — c iraunr" moved for a Select Committee to inquire into th; dr. Ben . stances connected with the institution of the Be v '. nett to the vicarage of Frome. A short pause took place, followed by Dim vide !" l ou d cries of " MR F. O'OR s t . Mr. GLADSTONE . rose toC ONN addreshe House, when be was interrupted by Sir B. HALL, who s a id—l wish to refer to a cluest i°Ta la f order. lam sorry to call the attention of the House to conduct of the Hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. 0'C° 13 ,4% . nor), but I feel it my duty to do so.—(Loud crime " Hear.") While I was this moment calling " Divide," nqt Ho se no ln a g e,f a oo n nnr y se M urb e j m occee b te e asd r ion , m ris e_ e to addreis the House. the - 1,13 ',"e Member turned round on me and struck me in the side — laugh)—and severely hurt me. I told the Hon. Gentle u r s t t h e at - an if y he an n a ey dd a r n e ee ss , ed me in t a l i° I your attention, Sir, to the subject, and put myself your protection, which I now do.— [Daring tlheStiTntllledoccdeor_ pied by the Hon. Baronet in his statement, gr. F. O'CoiT indulged in a , series of bows a nd sm il e S, eventually a do his mite to the adds hilarity so generally occasioned by th e reter ence to the immediate cause of the complaint.] The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member for Nottingham bag been so long a Member of this House that it is unnecesan 9; to remind him that it is against the rules and orders oflo House for one Member to interrupt or annoy another in toc course of the proceedings. lam sorry to say, however, tha t the Hon. Member for Nottingham is in the constant habit O violating those rules and orders—(Hear)—and I no w tel l him that if he persists in that course it will be my painfu: duty to call the attention of the House to-th e Hon: alerlibe by his name, and it will then be for th e H ouse to take su c h ulterior steps as will prevent any such misconduct in future . Mr. F. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the fro nt Opposition bench, close to th e table, and who, during d id Speaker's short addres s , h a d been loudly vociferating "Order, order," then rose, atP spoke in a rambling and in' coherent manner. He s a id—l did not do anyth i ng to the Hon. Baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did not do anything Whatever. He is my greatest enemy.—(Order' order.) He was one of the members of the land committal that sat five years ago.—(" Chair, chair.") A Member c' the Government was then chairman of that Committee, atl ( ' t it was composed of 15 members. I built houses and cottag e ; —(Order, order)—but the ruffians (the members of the las society) paid no rent.— ( .4 Order," and cries of " Chair• , ? Though in five years they got as much manure as would this room. [This idea seemed particularly to affect the get: Gentleman, for the allusion caused him to weep.] Ti ed talked about soup.—(Renewed crdi.easaynodaf,l'ana‘rCindheawriras. Mernbei' paid 601. or 1501., and they were located, but the mat h ° paid no rent —(" a e p h o9 a lao i i r gd . y l) tro. O n n. MemberlllyeT mhh Member SPEAKER e a r d b h o y a ff s na anyt ne. Mr. O'Connor--(A a red cap on, and a hatchet hi s gOlultll°Cjs O'CONNOR —I to do so. the "— a n i d a ma k el a laugh.) h. ) must t e tnoowthecaHnousuo,n is11:11:: nology to the House. beg the Hon. Me m ber's an a - hitt'. Mr. GL A matter D s t rr h o e n N d E r o h p e p p e e d d , pardon for anythin I did to 4 0 The (Hear, hear.) You are the best S ak th a t ever sat in " pause) If the la th e' chair.—(" Order peer 0 ,01 t an he a attention of the House .. n er not be diverted from the important subject `by the 7,40 1 which had just occurred. He would commence his reol — t ee by expressing his regret at being called upon to folloycipt Hon. Gentleman without first having had it intimated tof tia , what course her M a j es ty' s G overnment i nten d e d to P 1 1. 7 05 For although he was personally acquainted with the elm a o l individual, the object of the Hon. Gentleman's charg e ' ye' had made it his study to info rm hi mse lf o n the subject,, i di after all this was mainly a legal question, a question Nv could net be discussed or decided without the 13PPl ic ' of legal knowledge and legal authority. It was o ffice' o re on which he had hoped Government and the law to the Crown would have stated the view they took 0 , od distinct legal issue which had not unfairly, but whi ch broadly and visibly, been raised by the Honourable 0 1,,c - i man, and would, on their authority and reset: , T o erw offer advice to the House as to the course they show sue.. The Honourable Gentleman had raised the clu e. az as a legal question, and he could not help w ishing_ d o H onoure ble Gentleman had confined himself with som e ,' t ee greater strictness to the legal view. It appeared ths‘, , H onoura ble Gentleman, who declared hi s, only ottlec: bi be to , attain truth, and to show troth, had allow e ' daes rhetorical powers and warmth of feeling to mix thews' d ie with his statement of the alleged facts of the case, ° ls ' to had done this with an ability whi c h m i g h t b e dangereL io g the House, unless wholesome e ff orts were ma de to ' B ' ie.. them back from the warmth i n f use d i nto t h e case , and tl i ) , gal d uc e them to consider th ey were only discussirg old question on the strict and dry view of its merits. Ile ' - x,ll/ not dwell on the various parts of , the Hon. Membe'r's but he must beg leave to call attention to one or , 10 , points. The Honourable Member said, unless the 13:° , r e agreed to his motion, their Protestantism would be a , t ioi r tenco and their loyalty a shain. That issue wa s ' 00 strong.— (Hear, hear. ) The Houie had a discretion i matter; they had a right to test the statments of th e - Member to see if those statements were berm ) _ ow e whether he was c ons i s t en t i n -his doctrine, or whether a part of his doctrine was not overturned by what Wan . 'op down in the spe ec h. Thi s th e House . was entitled to . 1 , 0 without the fear that the peop s le would consider that. loyalty of th a t H ouse was a s h a m if they refused to a n . the Honourable Member's views. He would just give s o f stance of the Honograble Member's magnifying pow er s o speech. The Honourable Gentleinen said the objection le Commission had been,‘, made by thd Right Honohuer: Gentleman on the - ground that no power would be t j",O conferred to obtain answers to questions. On that baste_ ''" so b Hon. Gentleman built the inference that the Bishop of 0 . ip g and Wells bad declared he intended to refuse answer ' .0. questions, and then, with the same ingenuity, 1y! og that no other class of her Majesty's subjects would do to extend the refusal to the whole bench of Bishop . . Ty, be same. On that foundation, and no other, had iscca , P uj ybo• / Y t tirade r manade bench. Gentleman He builtwawa s else when they did not do their. duty. Babe "ustice a bishops, like any other persons, were entitled. to re c i atrizatedthbeishwepheos?leidFsay .la, some decency of treatment.—(" Hear, hear," trop' e ir t decency man.) He did not think that they had got Oa ; no hl t s th treatment at the hands of - the Hon: and Learnea o_tv .neut (Ijcgr, hear.) Ie had heard the Lim awl Many" " EVENING, 1110