The Express.
London, England, 1852-06-09 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY, EVENING, JUNE 9, 1852.

led me to form that opinion I beg leave to refer your lowd-
abip to a correspondence between Mr. Bennett and myself
which was publishml in the Times newspaper of December
12, 1860. 1 am wholly without information as to any
change which may have token place iu Mr. Bennett's prin-
ciples or opinions since his resignation of the cure which he
he;il in my diooesc.—l am, your lordship's faithful and obe-
dient servant, C. J. Luxons.—The lion. and Rev. the
Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells."
Now he felt bound to say that in his opinion, and he
thought the house would agree with him, so far so the
lii.hop of London wits concerned, that letter fully and en-
tirely acquitted him of the charge of having been in any
matter whatever a party either to misleading or deceiving
the Bisl op of Bath and Wells. (Cheers.) The 'attar was
Is fact the strongest condemnation of the whole procredieg,
it was a !enstiostrincer a warning—almost amonnted to a pro-

I test. lie had beard that this lettei:of the Bishop of London.was
never seen or read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells; that
he received the certificate signed by the three clergymen,
but neither saw nor read the letter lie did not
know what explanation could he given on that point,
but this ho did know, that if the Bishop of London
did sign the certificate, and did at the same time
write a letter to accompany it, and if the Bishop of Bath
and Well. refused or declined to open that letter mid read
the contents, such conduct was a great aggravation of the
grievance of which the public heel to complain. Here
again, fleecy, r, he must assume that anything so extremely
improper was untrue. He now came to the question of
examination. By the canon it was required that no bishop
should institute any one to a benefice unless he should ap-
pear, WI dim examination, to be worthy of his ministry.
Well, uow Caine the questioa, what was "due examina-
tion ?" The word " clue " implied that the extent of the
namination was not to be left entirely at the discretion of
the bishop; and Lord Ellenborough, in a judgment to
which he had previously referred, said the law required the
bishop to found Isis judgment upon the best information
that he could obtain, and that everything which could con-
wientiously minister to his approbation or disapprobation
' should be taken into account. Well now, was that
the character of the examination instituted by the
bishop of Bath and Wells ? lie would take
one point to which the examination ought to
have been directed. It was alleged against Mr. Bennett
that he had declared that all ideas of disseminating Chris-
tianity by the Bible were positively a fiction and an absur-
dity. (Hear, hear.) Should not the bishop have examined
Mr. Bennett on that point ? (Hear, hear.) They all knew
that it was the opinion of protestant, genitally tint the
Bible was to the poor Wan the greatest treoallre and that
without it the richest was in a worse position than the most
miserable pauper who possessed it. Such being the feeling
of the protestant community at large with regard to the
Bible, a man came amongst them who told them that all the
feelings in which they and their families had been brought
up were false, and that all ideas of disseminating Chtis-
, tianity by the Bible were a fiction and an absurdity. Why,
with their feelings in reference to the Bible, this must have
sounded like little less than blasphemy. (Hear, hear.) Had
Mr. Bennett entered their houses, seized their bibles, and
thrown them in their faces, they could not have been more
shocked. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, they appealed to the
bishop. Ought not the bishap to have said at once
to Mr. Bennett, " Here is a statement which is shocking to
protestant minds. I must have an explanation of it, and
Mat a:pietistic.' must go forth to the world. You have
Noted in a letter to Lord John Russell that you are un-
in your opinion. Do you still held the opinion
whir you have expressed about the Bible? If you are
changed in that opinion let tho world know it. If you are
unchanged in that opinion, I shall held myself disgraced as
a protestant prelate if I granted you institution. (Hear,
hear.) Did the bishop question Mr. Bennett in that man-
ner ? There was a strong reason for supposing that he did
not, as there was ahio strong evidence that Mr. Bennett's
*pinion on the point was not changed. (Hear, hear.) A
few words with regard to Mr. Bennett's opinions as to the
supremacy of the crown, which were set forth with much
vigour in his letter to Lord John Russell. That was a
point of peculiar importance. The 36th canon said that
no person should be received into the ministry unless he
tint subscribed three articles, the first of which declared
' the Queen's supremacy in spiritual and ecclesiastical as
well as in temporal matters. Mr. Bennett's letter exprem-
, ing his views en the subject came at a peculiar period. At
that time there was a movement of a large portion of the
clergy of the church of England on this question. A cir-
cular was s•nt round, and was signed by nearly 2,000
clergy, in which it was said that the parties had taken the
oath in a peculiar sense. That circular had appended to it
the names of three clergymen in particular, Archdeacon
Manning, Robert Isaac Wilberforce, and William liodg-
mill, Regius Professor, all of whom had sines joined the
church of Rome. Mr. Bennett said that he Nemo, like
many other clergymen, uncoil, at having taken the oath.
He took the opinion of counsel as to whether or not he was
bound by the oath, and counsel declared that he was; yet
that diet not induce him to resign at the time, or
prevent him from recently accepting the living of Frome.
Ile knew what Mr. Iknnett's opinion wax with regard to
the oath, and the sense and manner in which the rev. gen-
tleman interpreted it. Ile had had brought before him the
correspondence with the Bishop of London which had
been made public and proclaimed to the world, and be
(Mr. Herman) wanted an answer trithe question, whether
this was not a point which came properly under the due
examination enjoined by law upon the Bishop of Bath and
Wells ? That prelate ought to have required of Mr. Ben-
nett an explanation of the sense in which he made the de-
claration, whether in that implied by law or in a non-
natural sense—(hear, hear)—and whether he took the oath
of the Queen'. supremacy with a mental reservation and
qualification. The house had a right to know whether
these questions were put, and what were the answers. It
was not sufficient to tell them that the Bishop of Bath and
Wells had privately examined Mr. Bennett, and that that
lrivate examination was satisfactory to the right rev. pre-
ate. The object of that examination was to satisfy the
church at largo and the community over which Mr.
Bennett was called to preside. The object of Mr. Bennett's
mission was to promote harmony and concord, and to pre-
vent schism amongst his people. How could that be ob-
tained without publicity ? Every one of the population of
name was entitled to see that there had been a due exa-
Millation aid a full inquiry. Private examinations might
ho all very well in cases where charges were brought
spinet the private characters of clergymen, but in this
sae the charge was a public one, the offence wu a public
OM, and the expiation ought to have been public, the
seaidid was notorious, and the removal of that scandal
should have been as notorious. Mr. Bennett's opinions
In favour of the church of Rome were well known, and it
esseatial to the peace and harmony of the community,
that everything which had given satisfaction to the right
rev, prelate :should have bean made known to those whose
dearest interests were bound up with the spiritual super-
intendence of Mr Bennett. Instead of appearing in the
digalled character of an impartial judge upon the qua-
ils.* Mb, of Bath sad Wells had, as it appeared to
demeaned himself in a manner which, in that house,
wee ausidered most :
be had sunk the nity of the judge in the obdigitionable, he might say most
odious little-
ness of the partisan. He r. Horan) thought he had
tally established the three propoaitions with which he set
oat. He had shown that the Bishop of Bath sod Well
had instituted Mr. Bennett in such a =MIL 811 M slat
out the parishioners of Frame from that legal Nei= to
which they would have resorted; that be insM
tined him without the certificate at ilte pen
!ions diocesan and without due manthugien. It
was no answer to be MU that Mr. Bensete, aims lie in-
stitution, had acquired the emildeme ef Me gadabouts 1
that extent that a memorial hod been signed by 1,900 of
them, expressing their satisfaction with the soundness of
his doctrines. If Mr. Bennett had acquired all this popu-
larity, the ground for inquiry was all the granter. Al he
(Mr. Horan) had stated before, it might be true that
Mr. Bennett was a Roman catholic, or that he was a Jesuit,
and he would now have the opportunity of converting the
parishioners of Frame to his own opinions. With regard
to the memorial, he had his suspicions, and he did not think
it would come out of this inquiry quite pure. The govern-
ment had admitted that tho importance of this
question could not be exaggerated, and all
aides of house agreed that it could not
rest where it was. The government; had stated,
that an inquiry was essential and inevitable, and the ques-
tion now was whether the intuiry could beiestituted by any
other means than that white he proposed. It was not per
'ibis to par♦ressintlem, bemuse t ere were no facts be-
fore the house wink imi been generally received. An in-
quiry could not take Sage by commission, and legislation
was impossible, became it must be preceded by facts.
(Bear.) The government said that a commission of in-
vary would not be ellagesal, and some hon. gentlemen ob-
jected to the prosecudou of an inquiry by • public com-
mittee. He must say, that when they had bees told that a
public committee was their only resource, became if a com-
mandos of inquiry were instituted it would not be
gentigegroggsd. and would fail to obtain answers to it.
ans, such an announcement made by the government
pee him considerable surprise. (Hear, hoar.) In the
seem of the last few years there had bees upwards of a
hundred royal commissions, all issued with similar power
and with no more legal authority than any commission
which might now be issued by the government. Some of
them ammissions had been most important, but no one
ems ,scarred in which their inquiries had been
1011101. 'Yet in the ease of a great gnevanee an almost
ureessiente• scandal,. the house was told for the first time
by bee Idaj sty's ministers that a commission of inquiry
Mid not be issued because answers to its quations might '
set be given. When the government was one whole month
• anxious deliberation on this matter, be must assume
that answer to he well advised. He hoped that no such
newer would have been given by any one of the right
serreroad veleta et tie notatili.hea church; and he did not
' bane MA • 1•1111111iNilia of inquiry i• sued in the Queen's
ame would not with *wry class of her Majesty's subjects
abet with immediate teepee—(cheers)—from the highest to
'tie lowest, whether at the palace of the peer or the cottage of
OS mechanic and labourer, a royal commission would at once
obtain answers to its questions. (Hear, bear.) He should
Mee thought the prelates of the established church would
awe been among the first to show the respect due to the
nallMoity of the law and of the Queen. He should have
tan they would have felt it to be an opportunity of
they would have gladly availed themselves to pro-
nag the principle of which the Queen bad *et an exam.
$e—the principle that the more exalted the rank the
greater the reponeibility, and that gnat power end great
privileges were held for public purposes. He left the'
,question in the hands of the house and not in the heads of
the government. It was neither a government ace a party
question. (Hear, hem.)
A panes of some moments ensued. No bon. member rue
to speak, and loud cries of "Divide," ensued, when Mr.
Gladstone and Sir Benjamin Hall rose together. The
former having given way,
Sir B. HALL said—Mr. Speaker, I rose to order, to call
the attention of the house to the conduct of the hen. gen-

tleman (Mr. O'Connor) who sits near me. Sitting by the
side of the hon. gentleman this moment, I war crying
" divide," because no member rose to address the lititt.t,
when the hon. member turned round upon me and struck
me in the side. (•'Order, order.") I told the hon. gen-
tleman un a former occasion, that if he addres,eil me in the
house, or subjected me to any annoyance, I should call
your attention to the subject, and place myself under your
protectioa, which I now beg to do.
The SPEAKER—The bon member for Nottingham has
been so long a member of the house, that it is not necessary
for me to remind him that it is sgain-t the rules and regu-
lations id the house for any member either to interrupt or
to interfere with another member during the proceedings
of the house. lam sorry to say that the hon. member fur
Nottingham has of late been constantly infringing these
rules and regulations—(b -4 cries of "hear")—and I must
-w tell him that if he Its in that condi ' it will be

now tell him .0 persist. ..on conduct,
my painful duty to call the attention of the house to the
hon. member by name, and for the house to tide^ such
ulterior steps as may prevent such misconduct being re-
peated. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. F. O'CONNOR, who had been sitting on the front
opposition bench, close to the table, and who, during the
Speaker's short address, bad been loudly vociferating
" Order, order," then rose, and spoke in a rambling and
incoherent manner. He said-1 did not do anything to the
hon. baronet, and only caught him by the coat. I did not
do anything whatever. Ile is my greatest enemy. (Order,
order.) Ile was ono of the members of the land committee
that sat five years ago. ("Chair, chair.") A member of the
government was then chairman of that committee, and it
was composed of 15 members. I built honors and cot-
tages— (order, order)—but thu ruffians (the members of the
laud society) paid norent. ("Order,"and cries of "Chair.")
I laid out my money in building, and could get no rent or
money for five years. They talked about soup. (Renewed
cries of " Chair. ') Members paid 601. or 1:50/., and they
were located, but the ruffians paid nu rent. (" Chair.'
One day • farmer came up with a red cap on, and • hatchet
in his hard, and was going to cut my head oil—
The SPEAKER here interposed, in obedience to the
loudly expressed general wish of the house. Ile said—l
must now call upon the hon. member by name. Mi. Feu-
Ras O'Connor, if you have any apology to make to the house,
now is the time. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNOR—I make the apology to the house. I
beg the pardon of the hon. gentleman far eLytning I said
to him. (Hear, hear.) 1 apol...gise to the house. You are
the best Fie-ricer that ever sat in that chair. (" Order,
order.") (Mr. O'Connor resumed his seat, but immediately
afterwards got up, and passing along the floor, was again
called to order, fur interrupting Mr. Gladstone, who was
speaking.)
Mr. GLADSTONE, regarding this as mainly a legal
question, objected to the tone and spirit of Mr.
florsraan's speech. Having taken upon himself the
character of a public accuser, he was bound to be
accurate in the language he used. The honourable
gentleman said Mr. Gladstone has attempted to draw
the house into a dilemma which I should he sorry to sco it
accept—namely, that either this house is fit for debates
like the present or you ought not to have an established
church. Now, I dispute the authority of the hon. gristle-
man with fear and trembling; but it is just possible that
we ought to have an established church, and yet that this
house is not the fitting arena for debates like the
present. I do noracruple to aseert that this house is not a
fitting arena for such debates. (Cheers.) I say that it is
possible to abstain altogether from such discussions, although
I I admit there has been much provocation, many impru-
dences, and worse than imprudences, some foul play.
(Cheers.) I admit that the church of England is torn
from head to foot with her divisions; but I ask you
solemnly and seriously • question far above all the
psesiug interests of the day, do you think that re-
ligious divisions arc likely to be mit:gated—do you
think that the serious wounds of the church of Eng-
land are likely to be healed—by rhetorical de•
clamations, by exaggerations of facts, or by misappre•
hensions or mis-stamments of circumstances ? (Loud
cheers.) Form own part, I know not whether I err in
y the same way. If I do, I shall deplore it, from my deep
sense of the mischief occasioned. The hon. gentleman
cannot imagine that by means of these rhetorical periods,
delivered in this hotter, and received with rapturous cheer-
ing by his supporters, this dangerous influence, which men
wish to
.put down will be overcome. If he knows anything
of religious partisanship, he must know that heat and vio.
lence on one side engender heat and violence on the other.
(Hear, hear.) I do not know, it the qui stion were the
maintenance of sectarian feeling in the church and of the
influence of Mr. Bennett, whether any means of protracting
and maintaining that influence could be better adapted
fur the purpose, than that of singling him out as an object
of attack. Now the first question we have to consider, and
which I trust the house will carry along with them, if they
wish to neutralise the evils of this discussion, if they wishto
bring it to a good result—because I admit that discussions
of this kind, though they are evils, may sometimes be ne-
cessary evils—the first question we have to clear up is the.,
is the country to be governed, either in ecclesiastical or civil
matters, by the private opinions of particular min, and ac-
cording to the popular views of the moment, or by a system
of fixed laws? If it is to be governed by private opinion,
and if this house is to become the means of producing such a
result, representative institutions will become little better
than • n u 'sauce, and ecclesiastical questions would continue to
be, as they now are, the bane and plague spot of parlia-
ment. (Hear, hear.) But you are not here to decide what
is an abstract right. You have to decide one of two epics.
tions First, have the laws been obeyed ? Secondly, if
they are good, obey them ; if not goad, alter them.
(Cheers.) You have no right to establish an extra-legal
system of influence or jurisdiction by which you arc to in-
terfere with the regular administration of the laws, which
must mere, each in its own fixed career, irrespective of the
opinions of the day, or even of the hon. member. These ore
the first principles, to which I shall have to advert again,snd
further than that, the house must recollect who is the per-
son now before us. The speech of the boo. gentleman has
a goad deal cleared up that question, as I understand that
the person now properly before the house is the Bishop of
Bath and Wells. The Bishop of Bath and Wells, as bishop,
is necessarily also a great officer of state, and I have always
held it was most inconvenient and improper that our laws
should not afford ready means of correcting delinquent
bishops. (Hear, hear.) I believe there is • difficulty in
correcting them, and I should look with favour upon any
judicious proposal for remedying this defect; but
the point I put in this case is that the bishop
is not • delinquent; that there is not a pre-
sumptive, prima facie case of delinquency of any sort or
kind made out against him. The hon. member has put
aside the other parties in the case, and admits that he has
no charge against the patron. I mention this because this
words of his motion were so large u to include all; but he
has expressly disclaimed all allusion to the conduct of the
patron. The patron proceeded according to law and con-
science, and—another important element omitted by the
hon. member, to which, I confess, I think a patron ought
to pay great attention—according to the feelings of the
people over whom the pastor was to be placed. (Hear,
bear.) Let the hon. member le Jour about, or deal with
the fact as best he may, he is bound to admit, and has ad-
mitted, that in this particular case, through whatever per-
versity or delusion, the people of Procne are
perfectly satisfied with what the patron has done.
(Cries of " No, no," from Mr. Ilorsman.) The
hon. member, then, does tot admit that fact, and that
is one of my causes of complaint against him. Through-
out the whole of his first speech he asserted that the pa-
rishioners and clergy of Promo were hostile to the presenta-
tion. I did not wish to give the fact more value than it
deserves, but it is not the fact that the parishioners were
dissatisfied. (Hear, hear.) Rightly or wrongly, they were
satisfied, nay gratified, with the appointment. I bold in
my hand • letter from the churchwarden, which I shall
read, with the permission of the house. It is from Mr.
Miller, and addressed to the patron, the Marquis of
Bath : My Lord, I beg to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of yesterday's date, and in answer to
your inquiry whether the appointment of Mr. Bennett was
or was not acceptable to the body of the parishioners, I'
boldly assert and maintain that, although the inhabitants of
Frome are under many and great obligations to the how
of Thynne, there is none that they more cheerfully recog-
nise, or more gratefully appreciate, than the blessing he-
stowed, and the regard exhibited by that noble family
for their spiritual good, in the nomination of Mr.
Bennett. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that
since Mr. Bennett commenced his ministry, the
morning congregation has increased one-third, and
as to the evening service, it never was so numerously
attended. At the commencement many might have been
attracted by curiosity, but it gradually increases every
day." Now, sir, we are not inquiring into the justice of
these sentiments, but whether the wishes of the people have
been overridden in this matter. (MD. Herman made • re-
mark.) Tho hon. gentleman denies that the churchwarden
represents the sentiments of the people, but I have to in-
form him that at the vestry which was held on Thursday
last Mr. Miller was re-elected by the parishioners. (Hear,
hear.) The lion. member admits that the parishioners
who petitioned against Mr. Bennett acted under the
guidance of their clergy, and it appears to me that the latter
acted a most unwise part, inasmuch as applications had
been made on their behalf for the living. I do not think
that anything could have been more indiscreet, but the
fact is that under the influence of these clergymen 54
parishioners protested against the appointment, of whom
o ily 16 belonged to the parish church. Of those 16 the
riority had since returned, and connected with this fact
was a circumstance of an exceedingly solemn nature. One
of the 16 being taken alarmingly ill his first act was to send
for Mr. Bennett, and he died while receiving his
ministrations. Now, I think we see the state of
the facts. Fifty odd persons remonstrated against
the appointment, while some 1,100 of the population
have signed a written address in which they express in
strong language their entire satisfaction. What I say,
then, is, that the patron was vindicated in law, in cot&
science, and in the feelings of the parishioners. (Hear.)
Having affirmed that, with regard to Mr. BennetCe con-
duct at Kisaingen, there was no proof of his attending
Boarish worship: and that he did not attend the service at
the protestant church was accounted for by the fact that he
was travelling u chaplain to a private family, where he
performed Divine sees ice. Mr. Gladstone went on to
say, against the Bishop of Bath and Wells the
hon. member makes three charges—first, that the bishop
presented with undue haste, and with set purpose to pre-
, vent the parishioners from having a fair hearing for their
objections,; secondly, that be presented without a proper
certificate from Mr. Bennett'. former bishop; and thirdly,
' that he presented without due examination. Now it
appears to sae that each and every one of these charges is
without foundation. But first of all let us realise the situation
of the bishop. Is the bishop entitled to say to a presentee,
You have written certain regarding holy Scripture
, which do not meet my views; Ye:suet have an explanation,
or 1 cannot admit you " Or, because a clergyman in tak-
ing the oath of supremacy interprets it differently from

the bishop, will that justify the bishop in refusing
presentation? Or because the Bishop a London Iniaeie
I tually, not legally, expelled Mr. Ilenwet (min lie those
thereby maiiireeting disapproval of his ethelatt. is that
to
re le r tnrtrl
awdni an
e RC: ":1011
ragell: tee
reason why the 'lithe') of Bath end WI
his
You have been expelled by the Bishop of Laden, uarid
I cannot admit you i" Or because three or four chivy's',
and fifty parishionebßnicitochrai
bishop not to grant institution, the t say no that
account that he will not grant it? What would be the
Court oufene''Q ::touPrel
duet, awl it would not he enough to tell the ju lets de' et
the Bishop of London or thu fifty parishioners of Freest
When brought there, he most show a positive and absolute,
a dry and strictly legal disqualification. (Hear, was.) hie
not enough to show that the presentee has been Italie
erect, or that at a former time he hat dime whet
he ought nut to have done. It is only if lie •an show Mu
Mr. Bennett at that moment either teaches heretical doe
trine, fails in moral conduct, ur is insuffieieut in blown,
that he will have any defence. Without this emend, le;
bishop has no locus standi. Them was a rent ease
that of the Bishop of Exeter, and the rioters, id !Samford
That bishop will hear with gnus. eatisfaction that
it is the place of the Ithleip to assume such power;
but lie knows the contrary from somewhat herd tile.
fiance, and a bill of mete of upwards of 3,1100 f. That is
another point—the ruinous, crushing, di sire the sees ef
there ecclesiastical suits, which are rsonieli, I twist sae, to
paralyse any episcopate, however anxious to do their ,(stye
(Loiel cheers.) You really hardly can exp. et men to r,r,',e
such tremendous expense.. There was a eerie in who ii the
Bishop of (How:ester and Bristol had a proeeut,,,e samosa4
a clergyman for immorality, which cost him 1,'.:00/. he
house will feel that justice ought to be done rtes 10 bish
and when you speak of their extravagant mum's. s. 3 ou 5h.,„4
recollect these face. Mr. Oldutone having furtlitradtflog
to the legal difficulties of the bishop consequent ou the
jealousy with which the law haul guarded the fields of the
patron, and blamed thou who complained of the
institution for not having issued a car. or in time
have enabled the bishop to stay proceeding-, said the
hon. gentleman's second charm is, that Mr. Bennett was
instituted without a proper certificate. I think lie is ill error
in supposino that the 45th canon has anythire; to do wok
that question. For a series of year* it has been the leek
canon which hu regulated the institution of ministers to
benefices. The hon. gentleman thinks that the bishop
would be guilty of a legal offense by instituting without"
certificate, but although the 48th canon refers to sue!, a
certificate, the 39th don net. I sin bound 'o say that the
bishop rem iv. d with Mr. 'Sennett full evidence, as to hit
life and doctrine, end ouch ns if he had rtfwool to :let 'lt
would have cnn bled Mr. Bennett, or the pwron, to prose-
cute him in the courts. The hon. gentleman admits
that Mr. Bennett poranscol the ordinary twins.
nabs from three ineumlwnts, and he ask, tie• who
they arc, but I have not got the testimonials with me, and
I cannot say who they are, but I can say that the hones,.
nials are of the usual deecrintion. The language of the
testimonials does not *peal, of " what be has done," but
that he " has not held or taught," anything mute.,"
to the teaching of the Church of England. It would ly
difficult fur the incumbents to my what he " has done" for
three years, but to ascertain what his traehthir has been is
morn easy. The !hilltop :received nearly the same testimo-
nials as usual, as far as the incumbents were concerned, but
the testimonial was not the same as far as the dismissing
bishop was concerned. The Bishop of Louden annexed a
statement to the certificate in which he called attention to
the fact, that Mr. Bennett had been itemiser(' from his dio-
cese—that is, that be availed bimetal of his voluntary ie.*.
nation, in order that the peace and order ef the
diocese might not be perilled, end lie called the
attention of the Bishop of Bath and Wells
to the eorrespondence in the Times between himself and
Mr. Bennett. The testimonials were the usual one, as ler
as the incumbents were concerned, but as far as the bishop
was concerned they were not the usual one., as they hail an
extraneous statement annexed to them. Now the question
we have to ascertain is, what was the legal effect of the ex-
planatory note of the Bishop of London, and what wan the
duty Imposed by it on the Bishop of Bath and Wells. I
have made it my study to see what that Jute is. I under-
stand that notes are not unfrequently appended to testimo-
nials, and it is plain that if the signature was affixod to this
document, which is drawn up according to law, it cannot be
varied in its legal sense by explanations or protests attached
to it, and the effect and meaning of the signature would be
the same in point of law. 'the value of the eaple
nation was, that it made it the duty of the
Bishop of Bath and Wells to ascertain for him-
self the doctrines of Mr. Bennett. But this brings
me to the third charge, which I do tint wish to anti.
ciliate. I wish to point out that, as regards the second
charge, the bishop manifestly stands clear, because the tee
tirnotilals of Mr. Bennett only differed from those weeny
given in consequence of the addition made by the Bishop
of London, which only cast the duty on the Bishop of
Bath and Wells of inquiry into the doctrines he held. this
cannot, therefore, form any ground of accusation against
the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Then we come to the third
charge made by the hon. gentleman, which is this, tl.at the
Bishop of Bath and Wells instituted Mr. Bennett without
due examination ; and I am bound to say that, in the sense
in which the hon. gentleman uses the term, he did institute
Mr. Bennett without due examination—for such is the
construction which the hon. gentleman puts on the words
"due examination," that although it may suit the House
of Commons, yet there is no legal person who would not
disown it. The hon. gentleman laid it down that a judge
(for the bishop is a judge for the purposes of admitting the
presentee of a living) should not only have seen that the
examination made by him was not of such a nature as to
satisfy him, the judge, on whom the law lays the burden
and responsibility of the decision and his conscience, but to
satisfy those on whom it lays no such burden, the public
se,l the bon. member for Cockermouth. (" Hear, hear,"
and laughter.) I wish the hon. gentleman in cool blood
would endeavour to see the hideous consequences which
such a doctrine would entail, as that a judge in the exercise
of his judicial functions is not to look to the satisfying of his
own conscience, but to satisfy the opinion of the-public.
Sliest, hear.) The bishop examined Mr. Bennett, not
in the Greek Testament, or on matters of form or of ritual,
or of ecclesiastical history, he examined not the Mr. Bennett
of former times, but of the mouth of January last—l say the
Bishop of Bath and Wells, suffering as he did tortures from
bodily illness, but bring in the fall possession of his men-
tal powers, carefully examined Mr. Bennett on all the
points on which he was called upon to enter in that nazi-
nation, namely, the differences between the church of Eng-
land and the church of Rome, and it wan not until he had
made up his mind of the soundness of the examination that
he took any stepe for his institution; for if he had found
that Mr. Bennett held any of the doctrines of the church of
Rome, mid which are contrary to the 39 articles, his duty
was clear; but finding that there was no ground for believ-
ing that Mr. Bennett held any of the doctrines of the church
of Rome, he instituted him to the living. Not certeinly
according to the conviction of the hon. gentleman, hut ac-
cording to the conviction of the bishop, that prel.de did
subject Mr. Bennett to due examination, and it was dame by
the bishop, not under the fear of any conmulsien do
the part of the parishioners, and before any move
was made by the discontented clergy and laymen,
because he saw that the circumstances of his
former career rendered it necessary. He took on
himself the responsibility, and with his own mouth cis-
mined Mr. Bennett, and examined him to his own satisfac-
tion. Then the hon. gentleman has quoted theopinion of Mr.
Bennett with regard to the oath of supremacy. Now I
want to show, and it is a doctrine I would earnestly lay
down, that we are to be governed by the law, and not by
opinion. It is true the law may represent the spirit of one
generation, and we and our opinions may represent the
spirit of another, because wo may not have adapt,' our
laws to our onward growth, and suffered them to stand still
while our opinions have advanced ; but wo cannot make the
Judicial character responsible only to our °ruins,
but the judge must be tried by the teat of
the law which he has to administer. The second
question which has been discussed is, that Mr. Bennett
puts a particular eonstruction on the oath of su-
premacy, which the hon. gentleman says is contrary to its
intention, and he complains that the Bishop of Bath and
Wells did not stay his presentation on that ground. It is
obvious that the bishop was of different opinion with the
parishioners of Frame with merited to the sense in which
Mr. Bennett should view the oath of supremacy. though
he duly considered and attended to their representatioas
for he states that he had done so ; and 1 say that
if Mr. Bennett's construction of the oath of supremacy is
each as to constitute a legal offence, and he can he shown 10
hold Woe doctrines, why not try the question in the courts?
There can be no difficulty here with regard to any limita-
tion of the cognisance of an offence within two years. It
was in the latter part of the year 18,50 that the offence, if
any, were committed, and why not try the question.
What was the opinion of Dr. Twits? He stated that no
offence had been committed, and if so, what blame as
attach to the Bishop of Bath and Wells ? and if he wee
guilty of an offence, why not prosecute hint in the mutts?
From this dilemma there is no escape. The bishop was
acting strictly judicially and according to law in consider-
ing whether there were an grounds of accusation against
Mr. Bennett which could be sustained in the Court of
Queen's Bench, and if he had come to Ruch n conelusum,
then nomight havesaid, " twill stay the presentation ;'• bat
as he was of a contrary opinion, he said, " 'will not yield from
the fear ofclamour or frim any dread of the hon. mem-
ber for Cockernionth, or any notion of having to endure un-
popularity." I have now gone through the grounds
on which these charges are brought forward. I
is now the question with me what is to be due
with respect to this motion. I have great objections to
it as it stands. It is a motion for a committee to
inquire into the circumstances of the iastitutiou of Mr.
Bennett. That was the act of the Bishop of Bath end
Wells, and if I were to vote for sorb a motion I should be
saying that there is a prima joue ease against the bishop,
and that he ilia not acted according to the spirit and letter
of the law. 1 cannot so vote, for I lids ve the c'oute to
be groundless, and unfounded in truth. The honour-
able gentleman anticipates the objection that the
inquiry cannot proceed to any extent in the Ott'
vent session, and referred to the similar circum-
stance in which the motion of the honourable
member fin Warwickshire is placed. I urce that them
could be no useful inquiry by a committee. My first oh'
jaction is to an inquiry " shupliciter" into the rage
.otot
Ironic. If we are to have an inquiry it should
the whole stole of the law and its enactment.. w Inch is
impossible for them to do that which, the hon. gent m
an
now wishes to be done. (lieu, hear.) If you like za-
stuiliouely framed to discourage' bishops,
quire into the whole system of ecclesiastical appointments,
and I include Willem—(h-or, hear)—if that is dour. t
church of
service will he conferred on the country and the
England. For Ido not think that sufficient scope is 17
to the choice of parishioners with roomed to the. etc ity
ith sr-
that are set over them. (Hear, hear.) And *
and to

Farce 10 canonical objections, which ire takes up by
P eons only from the impulse of their own convictions,
if none farcier news as given for inquiring into
Ili .t eabieet much ureice would be done to the church.
WI.: her Own• object. will he best obtained by means of
totamonouers or committees of this boom I cannot say, nit
I do not think thst the inquiry by a committee of this bone
would be fruitful in its rusks. The hon. gentleman eve-
nt iderretht he chirp, bring up his wirnewes bee,,,, a co,„.
mintier. but he mina remember that other men secretes the
'ism of poe.et judgment as well a• himself, and they might
kw, up witaeois• oleo, and though ten days might be suf.
or tor friar' nary or of time, of the lion. g. sitli•man's
y. I &teenlel sr. rya ly s alike fur ths's lamination of theirs. Then
ith regard to a commission. whether the state of the present
n..tliiiinnt i. such as to entitle it to make an inquiry into
tee uttered by segue persone to canonical instite.
bans I will out say. but if the government would give
their itteution to the ait iption of some mode of examining
iota the present state of the law it would receive my fa-
vourable consideration, but when it is proposed, by means
of a committee of inquiry, to hold up to obloquy a high
jothei al et6..er of the church, who has only done his duty,
hi •och 4 committee I srn the gray, st olosctii•ns, because,
In dale:c loon, you would censure a man who has never
to, high station, and who, instead of your blame,
rs, • sour e.onenetulataan.
rs.. J INtel ON, utter a few preliminary remarks,
said Oic manner in which the lion. gent ;mien (NI r. Mersin an)
• brims; ht this subject before the house, and the deer'
att, noon the hog.. has on both occasions paid to it, is, I
thin', a proof how ettungly the feelings of the people cat
this sourtry. aril of this house as repn 'outing those feel-
ings, are recited by those unhappy dissension. which un•
fwtnnah ly Exist iu the Church of England—(hr e, hear)
,n I n hie!, the right hon. gentleman (Mr Gladstone)
r, ton .1 nith painful tooth, alien he -aye the church
loos r. at and torn by these unhappy dissensions. (Hear,
tear) .end I am sorry to say that we must in a great tie-
✓ce tria-e firese unhappy dissensions to that portion of the
elomy et the Church cat England who hive taken that line
viola Mr. licnnett has pursued. (Loud and prolongeol
tbisting nom :at parts of the honee.) A line which in his
taw ho led to virtual expiesion from one diessor, a line which
it is irupossible to deny has led to most grave and serious
qui.stione whether clergymen taking that line e in be con-
• as Ming really and truly eincere ministers of the
church of England. (('heers.) Sir, I use this expression with
th, elites me grief. I believe that in many respects
there never was a more exemplary parochial minister than
Mr. Bennett. (Hear, hear.) It woulil be injustice to
deny that. I am quite willing to admit that it is so. But
we must not look only to those parochial ministration..
(Hear. hear.) The same thing may unquestionably be said
et • vire lame moth,. of the priests of the Itomish church.
(Cheers.) They are men of the most exemplary lives.
((tear, hear.) But I kuow no more dangerous error than
to trunnill personal piety, personal virtue, or the cam-
plary discharge of ministrations, with the profesaion and
ma,..tenanee of thou vital principles snit doctrine, which
form the great line of demarcation between the pro-
testant ani catholic churches. (Cheers.) No man
can be ignorant of—no man can shut his eyes to
the tiniest py diseensious that have arisen in .our
church. It is nos for me. to say that a large portion of
gentlemen who, like Mr. Itennett, have been re-
markable for what has been called by a high authority
"tit. ,r histrionic love of form,"ond for constantly taking a
line as eq.,. a. th. y passihly can to Ib.manism while In.-p-
-ins within the toms of the church of Englarel—(cheers)—
I 4. n..t OW.an to my that they may not be exemplary men
and aiiimate,l by must sincere and conscieetious feeling. ;
lee I do say that we cannot abut our eyes to the unhappy
▪ Cl. that have resulted. (Hear, hear.) We see the line
of dishes-nu between the protestant faith and the nourish
cher, drawn liner and liner by tine conduct. ((tear.)
W, e numbs es of our f, protestant' god drawn into
thss• stonier*. and then led away into the church of
itsr• .vs.) Looking at these unquestionable fade,—
lo 'lam at the unhappy results which have taken place is
ear "an church,—( cannot but regard it as a great
tonfortune that any patron of a living in the
church of England should have been led by feel-
inoi--colocit oboes, I have no doubt, but, in my
haw,. judious at, most injudicione,—to give a
inatortant as the beteg et Franc to a person so
situit..l as Mr Bennett. (Chun.) I cannot shrink from
the die loration of this opinion. 'I o this extent I go with
the b. 117. gentleman. I cannot blame him fur bringing
the.. remarkable facts before the House of Commons.
(ll.ar. hear.) 1 so far agree with my right hon. friend,
the me nes r for the University of Oxford, that I seriously
debt how tar the House of Commas is an arena for such
do. uesaens. sr ) But of thi. I feel sure, that it is
enly woke remarkable circumstances, it is only at a Dio-
nne. when the public mind is strongly excited by such tie•
manislaere• as those, that it can be justifiable to make the
Howe of lemmas an arena for such discusions. (Hear,
bear.) The government on a late occasion undertook to
make inquiry ; and the hos. gentleman has rather made it
a matter of charge against the government— at lest I un-
&novel him to say that we had not 'given the inquiry we
pennised. and had kept him waiting bur weeks before we
gave an limner on the subject of that inquiry. In fact, if
be did not direetly charge it against us, I oilfired from what
be said, both on this and the firmer evening,
that be thought the government had not ru-
sticated the pledge they had given. Now, as I
wee mord theme who were willing to give that pledge, as
far as it west, I must beg distinctly to express my opinion
that we are not open to this imputation. (Hear, hear.) I
wish to say dietinetly fur the government—every member
Nit will support ale in saying es—and I might sago appeal
to my hon. and learned friend the Attornity-Cieneral—
whether we did not exhaust every means in our power in
endeavouring to macaroon to what extent we could legally
Smoke the inquiry. The lint step we took was to draw up
gentians which, in our judgment, embraced the whole
matter at ire. We sulimitted those questions to the law
olleers el' the crown. We received from them the most
distinct opinion that, in the tuts of the institution of Mr.
Bennett by the Bishop of Bath and Wells there wu no ir-
regularity; that with regard to the transactions at Kissin-
gen. as they had taken place in a foreign land, no legal
Inquiry—l believe I am right in saying, even by the bishop
—could take place ; and that, in fact, as the matter stood,
there was no manner in which the government could le-
eaLy recommend or point out how an inquiry could take
place. The questions which we put to the law offi-
cers embraced the whole subject ,• and the answers
of the law officers were marked with that ability which
might he expected. Still the government could not rest
content with those answers; and this is the minas why
the time dap. d of which the boo. gelatins= boo com-
plained. A second time we submitted questions to the law
°Seem of the crown; and upes He samseasaiwile =sew
the estions we Brat put bitimma they
badges made mere wide and theepelesimire thee they
were at dret—we retemed to the mem eseeltuions COD.
elusion at neeneed by my Might his. Mead the Chancellor
of the Iseheeper litho lianstesethat there was no legal
mode by whisk the eireemelanessos they stood, could be
made chasubject of Ahern gairsbut that,
if there were • *gal made of ithifiating Nanniry (be-
came we were set anneeonet, stemma. with the eir-
minimums), that legal mode would be .pan to the pariah-
toners under the Church Diosiplin• AM. I believe I am
right in slat* the facts; and I wish to make it distinctly
known to the bon. gentlemen and the beers that there was
ao unwillingnees on the pert of the genwoment. that we
addressed to the inquiry the fad rifle ns attention, that
the lapse of time was occasioned by SW repeated refer-
encia to the law °Moen, and that •the malt of our
consideration was, that there was no legal mode in which
the inquiry could he made. (Hear, lima After this ex •
planation I hope the hon. genthrisan will see that in a
matter of this kind, involving poista of law of the greatest
di Imecy, difficulty. and isiportaners, we as a government .
Ind no power to institute proceedings and Mqeiriee • we'
meld only proceed in • legal mammy sad we found that
there was no legal manner in which ;hose inquiries could .
be made. Sir John then went on to expose his astonish-
meet at the manner in which Mr. Gladstone had alluded to
the transaction at Kiesingen, and his regret that a per-
son who had so conducted himself as Mr. Bennett 9a
that oemsion should be at the head of an imps*
sat parish. The Bishop of Bath and Wells was bound,
he thoaght, to inquire into these remarkable allow
bus, hid the government had no power to compel him ;
and, alter the inquiry they had made into the state of the
law. he meld not consent, nor did he think any large sew
her of members of the house would consent, to mks the'
Laical conduct of a bishop of the church of England& sub.
et of inquiry before such a tribunal aa committee of the
vowel Commons.
Mr. OLADSTONE—n, rybt
_hay seethe= is mie.
taken is soppoing that I Andemilind the pemmedings of Mr.
Bennett at Kiningen. I stated that it was Mama
t+ my former impressions ; tml 1 wish to state
Liao that the Bishop of Beth sad Wells never
heramr acquainted with the prommilegs at Kisaingen till
Meg after Mr. Bennett wee Inellltaimd. (~ Oh, oh I") I
know not who it is who mhos Imes himself, by signs of
that kind, to ?met my smarties ; but I trust, whoever it is,
be sill by and bye rise and vindicate his views. (Hear.)
Sir W. P. WOOD said he felt mat deeply the vast im-
portant, of the general subject, and the mode in which the
k' lien of the people of England had been justly excited;
wed hi was th.. more jealous of the house being led away
fry tho. h hugs of their own into any departure from a
strioly coioetutional course on that question. (Hear,
hear) Ile .aol the teehngs of the people had been justly
excited. an, one doubt as to the conduct of mem-
bers of thow who, being sworn ministers of our church,
chstied them.. lee. of that position to disseminate what pro-
*stun considered to be- errors and commtione--in one case
a partings', an individual had acted with oath baseness
teat
Ift"
he hael gone over to the church of Homes the Sunday
hie
in hie owls church, our with him
eallilren of his orgaoist, who had bona entreated to him
eduation (Hear, hear.) There were other mom almost
rl°.4lY sneaking; and the unfortanale men who took the
!es.' a this wr, tched movement had essiaminosd his earner
by "mime • nork, in which clergymen were told hew they
gawk' held all the doctrines of the church of Some, and yet
!stank their preferment and positMa Is their ownehurch.
.hket tract he ...inside-real as the origiaatiog tract that hail
Ind co in TUI h of this miserable \money. He should at
is has. b” ready to denounce those— who adopted the
ertelea of the church in what was ail sg a nownatural
Cnfortuaately this non-natual tease was not con-
-1 10 otif. sole. lie was afraid that others had taken
... Lean *pounding Use doctrines of the church in a
....Idieral sense than they wove warranted is doin
g. we reserve, thoee who avowed their principles whenn Wy
ad claseeed their mind. and
admired Mr.
when he 'left the cher* bares
has principles to be lansaniannat with her
liturgy . 0., loth sides he detested every deeeription of aes-
uturst inrerptetatwr. When a
Went to the date in 041
toPrathliFisriaashiedigwaithwcaishe vgaliveabmwhiehishd
rei.
- —etrevvizywiznii according had beta by the thank of lingleod ens she

adopted her present feria of church prayer. ffealiag eU
this, and that the safeguards they bad were not Ade.
quite, he was at tl.e lama time convinced that they
should not adopt the course they had at heart—
namely, e legitimate reform of the eeclesi.otical Lea—
hy taking up these isolated rues, and making martyrs of
end atiil lees by making a party matter of a
church question. How did this particular question stand
' Way, on 3 former Orc.ninri, they were asked to address the
Queen, to inquire. Everybody knew that the mode by
which the crown inquired was by commission, and every
lawyer must have felt that it was impossible to have a cora-
lra:ssion to asci main *nether a bishop had transits... d the
law. A commis ion of that description wu contrary to the
bill of tights. Now they were asked to do that by a com-
mittee of the house, which they could not du by com-
mission. (Hear, hear.) The principle of the bill
of rights was, that they could not intone into
an Offline hellion the hack of the ps ruin charged, ex-
cept for the purpose of patting him on his trio!, because
otherwise they would east a stigma on a man which be had
no opportunity 01 meeting. They might unpile° before a
grand jury, becalm they intended to try II man; and they
might have an inquiry befere &committee of the House of
Commons, if they int, nil •II to impeach the bishop; but he
did not apprehend that the bon. member wished to do that.
Ile did not dispute the power of the house, that it ass the
grand inquest of the nation ; but if it was it behoved them
to Oct with a judicial mind, with a strict legal form of in-
quiry, and not by an early before-dinner debate, as that
was the other day, come to a hasty snit ill consii.ered reso-
lution. Ile was glad. therefore, that no resolution was
come to On that occasion, and that her Majesty's ministers
undertook an inquiry which they made, and the result of
which every lawyer must have foreseen. Every lawyer must
have known that there was no legal mode of effecting the
panting of Mr. Bennett. The question was had the Benson
of Bath and Wills, according to the statement of the hon.
member for Cuekermouth, been guilty of such a breach of
the law that the house was bound to take POMP steps?
Nuw, he was bound to say that the honourable
member did not make out the slightest in-
reinterpret of the law, even on his own showing.
It did not appear that the bishop hail any materials to so.
tiefy its requirement' if he had held the party to be Un-
qualified, and to answer a pare isspedit or a duplex pe-
seta, or both. It was not reasonable, then, to expect that
the bishop should refuse to institute Mr. Bennett without
the information which should judicially satisfy him.
Colonel BOY LE stated facts which east doubts upon the
alleged popularity of Mr. Bennett at t'resene. But this, he
remarked, was not the question. If Mr. Bennett was po-
pular, and his doctrine was unsound, the mischief he would
du must he the greater.
Mr. YORKE gave some explanations respecting the feel-
ings of the parishioners of Frew, soil declass! that Mr.
Bennett was as good a churchman as Mr. Burman himself.
Sir B. HALL accused Mr. Yorke of being a party to the
romanixing practices of Mr. Bennett, and disputed some
of his allegations regarding the state of opinions in Frame.
He commented with severity upon the put religious utile
of Mr. Bennett, and defended the course taken by
Mr. Hurvman in bringing this matter betels the house,
although he admitted that the motion was open to grave
and serious objections.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said the allegations of the hoe.
member for Cockennouth remained unrefuted ; but there
appeared to he a disinclination on the pert of many hon.
members to impute blame to the Bishop of Bath and
Wells. (Hem., hear.) He (Mr. Newili gate) wished to ask
the government whether he had rightly inf rred that they
were prepared to consider the state of the law before the
next session, with the view of preventing such persons as
Mr. Bennett from being instituted in future?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he did
not rise immediately after the hon. member for Cocker-
mouth concluded his speech, because he understood it to be
the wish of the house that the right hon. gentleman the
member for the I:niversity of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone),
should make a statement on behelf of the Bishop of Bath
end Wells. This discusaion had, he thought, very much
cleared the rise. Since the period when the subject
was first brought before the house that even-
ing, they hail, he thought, very completely inves-
tigated the • position of the Bishop of Bath end
Wells, with respect to the eireumstences of the case, and
he thought he did not misinterpret the general feeling of the
house, when he described it as one of extreme reluctance,
by any vote at which they might arrive, to throw any cen-
sure on the couduct of that prelate. (Ileer, hear.) It
might be very easy for honorable gentlemen to except to
that statement, but he thought that after the
calm end able discus-ion which had taken
place, they must have arrived at this conclu-
siol2, that, however many of them might regret
the institution of the individual who bad Femme vicar of
Frotne. it was impossible fur them to assert by a vote of
that house that it was the duty of the bishop of the diocese
to prevent the institution. (Hear, hear.) Nay, more, he
thought they had nearly all arrived at the conclusion that,
had the bishop of the diocese thrown any difficulties in the
way of the institution of Mr. Bennett, he might, and
probably would, have incurred very perilous consequences.
Ile thought it quite impossible for the House of Commons
to come to a vote which would nut on a bishop of the
church the condemnation of that assembly, because he had
done that which must be admitted to have been nothing
more than his strict legal duty, and which, if he had not
done, he would probably have suffered serious injury.
Ile (the Chanci nor of the Exchequer) considered the ques-
tion uf the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells to be
one perfectly distinct from the circumstances which had oc-
curred at Froine—(hear, hear)—but, at the same time, be
could not but recollect that at that moment it was only on
the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells that they
were called upon to give a vote. (Hear, hear.) When
this question was first brought under the notice of the
house, he took the liberty of stating, with regard to the
point of the ability which a parishioner should have to
challenge the fitness to be instituted of one who was
about to become his vicar, that if the law did not afford a
remedy, he thought it was their duty to supply one.
That was the opinion which now influenced her MaJetty's
government, and that was the principle which ought to
guide them under these painful circumstances. (Hear.)
He could not agree with the statement made by the right
hon. gentleman, the member for Oxford, that the researches
of the government had molted in that which all lawyers
had previously contemplated, v 4., that there was
no remedy for the parishioners of Frame. He
must again repeat the opinion that he had expressed be-
fore to the house, that the puishimews had a remedy by
which they need not go ion as eoclesiastical court, or
have recourse to ecclesiastical law. He would not enter on
that question again, because be was perfectly willing to
admit that there was met, in his mind, sufficient
belay, or sufficient sr yortnnity, for parishioners,
placed in the anaties of those of Frame, to obtain
that redress to whin day hid a (Cheer.) As far
as the present =Minima imagensedit ale really thenstitn-
non of Mr. Bestial to the MUMS of hewn an therefore
the act of the Bishop of Bah cad Wens whin wee before
them, and into which thin were mated en Inquire. (Hear,
hear.) Ile must meet his "Ins that the conduct
of the Bishop at Bath an Wells could
not be fairly Gelled fa quedita. If they were
to appoint this eannitese, let the hone ssmoider what its
duties would be. Thoyonlii an be plain Oinks up evi-
dence to institute proandispepionnebbier. That wasout of the question. Was it to be • ennt—hose to inquire
into Amnon of the law ? (Hear. Mr.) This was hardly
the Wisemint in which to appotat a anat-
tee le oriesider the Mate et the law mason
with bassion, a ss*sl of the gransa dilleally tad
impoelmele, sad for the naddeniem nun,* a amentittee
of the lawn we,, SOW mot the but authority. (Hear.)
His Ma. hind the Warviaddre (Mr. Heinle-
gawitibeil "eked Ma he pledge bland not the goverment
One enoldwalea the slob albs law with
Ineleas. He end* waohl Online say an
Betit was a sableet which se.t readve theseadderalinat
any goverineeat. The Meer et NW eededeleirel NOM
wee one wish ragtime. be eserimei nankager. SLed
cheers.) la serest to the. they wend, he
the nose ens" lonpenee end sada* whin
bid bees eosin to ell the other 'eons 'lndicator* la
rr earatry. (Rear hear.) Then were "plains whhh
tow et dun did let share, sad they certainly was
seutieneepi ea which the goverment was p
to eel. Be trusted that the hon. sod learned pen
(Mr wand an ask the hewn le eons W a aa4
din madei.WsM. It he peahen la dens as be (the
Chandler et the Ilaihequer), elan& be Aron.~
=?ishatueltnat bad marred mine Amm
he wend act at this nensat eater nee wry tri-
Van ea Ss nadaned say todividoeb nanned wattle
hlnneolles. fine boa seadenn periled la ann. the !
hewn
to engirt
• emenittos to investigate the anon et
the Bishop of Bath and Walls. be should feel it his duty to
nest the mot on by a direct sie=es
Mr. E. ELLICE sew greet be the enutination
of a committee to lugedes Womb simmtineue. but as it
was an inquiry not into the penned anon et the bbhop,
but into that of Mr. Bennett, he should vote for the
motion.

—Iir:MOODY should support the motion on the same
grounds.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL could not agree to the
statement that the motion did not involve an inveetiption
into the conduct of the Bishop of Beth and Wells.
Looking to the state and practice of cur ecclesias-
tical oourta some remedy was certainly nemaary.
And, when the proper time should arrive, he hoped the
same reform would be extended to the ecclesiastical as was
now being applied to the equity and common law courts.
Mr. DEEI)Ed thought the admission of the hen. and
horsed gent emsn proved that it wee the duty et the go-
verament to turn their early sheathe to providing a re-
medy for the evil stated ; and mthere was no promise that
the subject would be taken up by minieteve at • future
period, he felt bound to vote for the motion.
Mr. S. HERBERT bad not undeiwtood the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to decline to give hie consideration to the
eu4.est.•
Mr. WALPOLB explained that his right hon. friend the
Chancellor of the E r had not declined on the pert
of the government is glee his attention to the enkject of
ecelscicanal law retenm ; bat what belied sojedai la wee
a motion which if Gorki Mail it sag nest a emirs we
the Bishop of Bath awl Welk ha eberfatt the kw en it
stood. Ile hoped the miss WOW at be peened, or if
pressed, that it would be "siesta by the bresee.
After • few weeds ken Xr. IMMO is explanation.
Mr. OOULBURN kit pest fealty as to the erne
which it was beet hr the berme to perms. It had Jeen
dearly established in. as hr se the eeemitiet of the Bishop
of Bath and Welk me eoweemok, Ogee wee re (tweed for
inquiry. What wee warted wee ea late ihe state of
' the law, and he peered as an that the minima
dleald read, " a esaiaittee to kereire kite the date of the
law le the Wahiawa ef slake into beeeikee in the
ehiCi et " (Chews.)
hates bees pat.

Mr. HOUSMAN would answer the amendment In three
words. It was as though certain parties were brought to
the bar on a charge of murder, and a friend got up and pro-
pined to meet it by an inquiry into the state of the law on
canes' punistimeuts. (Ilear, beer.) It would be to make
the house ridiculous, alter the discus•iun they bad Lad, so
to dispose of the umbel. There being uo other mews of
proceeding, ho had no course but to press his motion to a
division.
The house then divided :
For the motion
For the amendment lll-45
The result was greeted by loud dist:rag drum the oppo-
sition. _ _

Mr. BItOTHERTON hating moved the adjournment of
the hour,
Mr. OSWALD inquired when the Maynooth dente
would be resumed ?

Mr. BPOONEIt could only refer the hon. gentleman to
the orders of the house. When the order was read would
be the time to state on what day the debate would be ri.
Minted (Hear, hear.)
Mr. OSWALD had supposed the motion for adjournment
hail not been put until the order. had been goon through.
The SEW.AIiEIt intimated that the hon. member for
Salford had moved the adjournment of the house before tho
orders were rent'.

Mr. NEWDEGATE believed the motion to adjourn the
house was only part of a listens an iir.t.mee of which they
had had that morning, to defeat the motion of his lion.
triend (Mr. Spooner), by delay. lle would, however, as-
sure lion. gentlemen opposite that it should not succeed,
and whenever they come to read the dropped orders he
would resiat any teethe, adjournment of the debate, and
press for a division on the main question.
Mr. ANSTEY hoped the hon. member fur Salfeid would
not press his motion. He thought the objection of the
hon. member for Warwiekshiie 411 unreasonable one.
Mr. BROTHERTON reminded hon. gentlemen that the
house had now been sitting fourteen hours and a half. if
however, they were determined to go on with the May-
nouth debate—which could not b 0 brought to a close before
four o'clock—it was not for him to utter any objection.
Mr. HINDLEY hoped the lion. member would persist in
his motion fur adjourning the house, and called on the
government to support him.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
certainly do so, thinking they had sat long enough.
't he motion was then agreed to, and the house adjourned
at half pest one o'clock.

nirms.