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

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

Mr M. GIBSON begged to ask a question of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer with reference to the employment
of the time of the house and the despatch of public basi-
-1 nes". They hail tl c Maynooth debate still hanging over
them—(" hear," and a lauah)—and after what had occurred
that morning, it was clear they were still u far as ever from
a determination of it. Ile begged to ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, as the trustee fur the proper application of
the public time, whether he would think tit to use his in-
fluence with the hon. member for Warwickshire to induce
him to postpone all proceedings on that subject to a more
convtment season.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said his
duty was, as he had more than once stated to the house, to
take care that the measures of which the government had
charge were passed, with a due deference to that great
consummation which they all desired. (Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) He felt that to be a digicult, but not un impossible
task, but he must decline undertaking any other new duty.
(Haar, hear.)
OYSTER FISHERIES.

Mr. HENLEY, replying to a question from Sir G. Clerk,
respecting the necessity of modification, in the convention
betwein Franco and England as to the oyster fisheries,
said that a memorial praying fur a relaxation of the
law had occupied his attention, and he would consider
the subject, end if he could see any way, in con-
currence with France, of ',lazing the law, so as to enable
the fishermen to fish in the deep without endangering
Ike operation of the law against poaching in the close sea-
man, he wished to do so. Ile would shortly lay the papers
tokritil to on the table.
BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.

...
Mr. OSWALD said that the Maynooth debate was in a
tiiar position. An hon. gentleman had been stopped
e adjournment when in possession of the house, and,
from his exordium his acerth promised to I. still
He begged to ask the bon. member for Warwick-
shire to what day he proposed to adjourn the debate on
Mayuooth
Mr. SPOONER said that, by the resolution of the house,
that question must be considered after the other orders of
the day had been disposed of.
PAPERS RELATING TO KOSSUTH.

Lord D. STUART begged to ask the Chancellor of the
Ezehequer when some papers relating to Kouuth, and
other Hungarian refugees at Kutayelt, for which he had
moved on 20th April, would be produeed ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
papers were my voluminous, but as soon as they were
?lted they would be laid on the table. Be would mks
lequiry on the subject.
r. OSWALD asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
what was the latest hour at which he would take the orders
of the day, of which there wire 16 on the paper.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would to-
=int en the rule which always prevailed that when the
el motion were over, the orders of **day woebt he
preseeisa with. If the hoar wee as sexemeasble ere he
wail sot ask any cm wit tilissese ta as. The P.116'
cubic bear at which tie slim ef the say would be eases
would breed as the Norse whisk we takes will seprd
to Retie of miss.
14. OSWALD 115 what was feast by a refeenelde
hour ? Would the hon. geatlema not pressed with
the elm after 12o' ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
course taken by the bon. gentleman was not fair or
usual. (Hear, hear.) Unfortunately there was little prn►
pert of the orders being reached to-night, but he would be
regulated in his proceedings b the usual eataree.
THE CASE OF THE REV. MR. BENNETT. _

iititig—• Of
which he had given notice, for a " Select contadittes Wife.
qnire into the circumstances connected with the lestitudem
of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frame."
On the 20th of April last, he had moved an edemas
to her Majesty, praying that an inquiry might be ands
whether due respect had been paid to the canons and 011111••
sinatical constitution of the church, in the institution a Ibis
Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Fermat. The object
and aim of that motion could not have b en misundemtoed.
I. was aimed at the act of institnion of Mr. Bennett by the
Bishop of Bath and Wells, who wee solely responsible tor it,
a representation having been made to him alleging the un-
fitness of Mr. Bennett, and yet he proceeded to institute
him in spits of that allegation and the evidence whieh was
adtinced in support of it. Not only from the terms of the
motion itself, but from the manner in which it had been re-
ceived by the house, there could have been nu doubt of
the object and meaning of that motion. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer on that occasion moved
en
amendment, by which he showed that he
did not misunderstand the object of the motion.
The ground of his opposition to it was twofold. Firstly,
he objected that the mode in which he (Mr. linesman)
had proceeded to gain redress for that of which he oom-
plainsd was inadequate to the purpose; and next, he said
explicitly and clearly, that one ground of objection
to the motion, and that on which he invited the
Neese to reject it, was that there was an aal
is the archbishop against any act of the bishop.
The hones being dissatisfied with the statement of the Chan-
oilier of the Exchequer op roes another member of the
eshinet, the right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Colonies.
His language was equally strong, and showed that he did
wet mistake the object of the motion. lle said
"that his hon. friend who had last spoken had said that eel
this question hail been raised it ought to be dealt with, and
la that opinion he must cordially concurred. Ile felt not
only that this was a question which ought to be raised, but
that, hewn,' been mimed, it ought to be dealt with : and he
would say for himself, as he believed he might say fur every
member of her Majesty's government, that the matter
ought not to rest in its present petition, but that unques-
tionahly inquiry ought to he made, and a remedy ought to be
provided." He afterwards went on to say that " be thought
the alleged conduct of Mr. Bennett at Kissinger ought to be
' made therubject of inquiry." So that the right non. gentle-
, man, another cabinet minister, set out by suiting an opinion
not merely against the active institution of Mr. Bennett b
the Bishop of Bath and Welk, but that there should be • full
inquiry into the proceedings of Mr. Bennett at kireingen
A third cabinet minister, the Secretory for the !tome Depart-
ment, also spoke and uttered the lame views. The Keno'sl
feeling of the house, therefore, was in favour of
ineptiry. When In reply he (Mr. Norman) appealed
to them to adopt the motion he stated why it was
that De felt it to he his duty not to accept
say yielded poste tram the seteraawae, wed why be

i should press it to a division. After he had sat down the
Clariceßow of the Exchequerroug end eastredAhe burn
pro 1496 66,6 geoessealtent pro to dastleage gm juquicc.
isliii stated that he alaold not imp • jutliehl *wry such
seteiter,; Horsens) bad a ,or a friendly inquiry such
as n spokes of by eollesigue, butte would pro-
-2111611 •OPPsofids inquiry, and he staled " that, he thought,
Wlill the government ought to b called; opus to state.
subject wee brought hefure the Louse surrounded
by difficulties. Ile thought no person could contend that
there were the means for a special inquiry as at
present advised ; and he could only repeat, on
the part of the government, that there would
be a boosafitils inquiry into the circuuntanue." On a sub-
sequent day, after the tapes of a month, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer gave on the part of the government a report
of the results of that which the government had under-
taken.
To that he (Mr. Hemmen) did sot wish to
advert. The Attorney-Ueneral came to the conclu-
sion that even if there was a cue of eompsint against
Mr. Bennett, it was doubtful, under the provisions of
the Church Discipline Art, if he was amenable to the
law, because, by the 20th clause of that act, the loin:nee
must be committed within two years, and if the offence was
committed when the offender was abroad, it did not apply
at all. But es regarded the Bishop of Ilath and Wells, it
wee admitted that there was no redress in point of law
against him for the institution of Mr. Bennett ; that there
wee no statute applicable to the case ; or no court where
that act could be called in question. The Attorney-Gene-
ral at that time seemed to imagine that he (Mr. Herman)
had censured the manner in which the government had
fallen sheet in the investigation they had undertaken.
An hon. baronet who sat below him (Mr. Herman)
said that he had aequi•ted the government of ad remiss-
ness. Ile did neither the one nor the other, and his desire
was then to avoid discussion on that point, and he did
not feel that he was in a condition to enter on that dis-
cussion now, or to arrive at any judgment on that question.
lle took up the matter to-night as a sequel to the former
discussion, and if to-night he found that the government
said that they thought it was a grave question and one
which could not rest here, ho would be satisfied. If, how-
ever. they made it a party question and used the into .nee
of the government to defeat the question, ho should come
to a different opinion, and he believed the country also
would entertain a different opinion, and would express that
opinion. Ile hail stated thus much is order to put
the house in possession of the real state of the cue.
Ile would make no allusion except in pluming to the
report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he
wished to disuse the question without any party feeling.
After giving some further details in vindication and corm-
boration of the statements he had made as to the proceed.
ings of Mr. Bennett at Kissingen, and his alleged
Romanist tendencies, Mr. foreman addressed him-
eel( to the conduct of the Bishop of Bath and
Wells, in comparison with whose acts, Le said, those of
Mr. Bennett
were perfectly insignificant. Ile felt bound
to say that, after considering and reconsidering this matter
since he first introduced it to the notice of the house,
his opinion respecting the conduct of the bishop had
been much strengthened; and that, much as Mr. Bennett's
conduct deserved censure, it fell far short of what was due
to the conduct of his superiors. He would Sew, in the
first place, that the bishop instituted Mr. Bennett in a man-
ner that indicated haste and a determination to shut out
the parishioners of Frome front the legal redress which they
would have had if the bishop had been less hasty ; secondly,
that Mr. Bennett wan instituted without that certificate
from his former diocesan which was always required in such
caeca ; and thirdly, that be did so without that due exami-
nation which was enjoined by the law, and which the pa-
rishioners had a right to demand. Ile would show that this
was not done accidentally, carelessly, without forethought,
and upon impulse, but that it was done advisedly, and as the
lawyers said, perversely, and with the intention of defeating
the ends of justioe. Let the house observe the position of
the parties. At the time of the institution, each party had
a legal position, and certain legal rights. The parishioners
did not know their legal rights at the time ; the bishop un-
fortunately knew his before them. When the bishop was
about to institute, it was open to the parishioners, under'
the canon law, to enter a caveat, which they might have
lodged in the Bishop's court, and the question would have
been tried in the court of the Chancellor of the diocese.
From that court an appeal would lie to the archbishop,
and from the archbishop to the Privy Council.
Such were the rights of the parishioners before
the institution ; but they were not aware of them.
lie would now ma the house to attend to the dates. It was
known on the 30th of December that Mr. Bennett was to
be appointed as the clergyman of Frome. On* the 7th of
January a memorial was presented to the bishop against
the appointment. On the kith they received the bishop's
reply. On the same day they wrote again to the bishop,
prayiug for a delay of 14 days, in order that they might
have time to consider what steps they ought to take. They
received the bishop's answer on the 21st,and on thatsamo day
the parishioners sent up a solicitor to London to teke the
opinion of Dr. Twits as to the steps which they should
take. On the 24th they returned, having been advised tu
enter a caveat u soon as possible, and on the 24th, before
they could de so, they found that the bishop had instituted
Mr. Bennett. (Hear, hear.) Ile thought this proceeding
one of so extraordinary a character, that he tasked the
gentleman who related the circumstances to him, if he
was quite sure of their correctness, and he received the
following reply :

" I will take up the subject on Thurtday, January 15th,
on which day we wrote to the bishop at Brighton, praying
that he would delay institution fur 14 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 Davie: Wickham, to
London, to consult proctors. On the 23rd they had an oral
opinion from Dr. Twigs (to save time), urging them to loos
no time in en'cring a caveat to stay institutiPn and induc-
tion, or induction, be as the case may . Mr. Cruttwell wrote
nn that day from London to the committee at From., to be
ready in the committee room at one o'clock p.m. the next
day, at which hour he will arrive at the station and join us.
On his way trona 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, alter induction. Mr. Bennett
called on Dr. Griffith, at Elm, two miles from Fromo, on
the morning of Saturday, January 24, and was by him, as
commissary, instituted. lie then proceeded back to Frame
church, and was inducted the same 'morning by the Rev.
Mr. Blackwell, curate of blells, near From. The Rev.
W. Calvert, curate of Frome for four years), and then re-
siding at the vicarage hope, declined being present at the
induction."
_ _ .

This statement was smarmed by Mr. Crutwell, who
came up to London ea the part of the parishioners.
The house would now see bow far the parishioners of
Franc were liable to the Ape that they lad not been
ready to avail themselves et lb* hid eseiedy Whom
coming there. The bishop refusal them that modereta eml
decent delay which would have prevailed the battled's
of Mr. Bennett. (Hear, hear.) Me would vesture te=
two questions to the hon. sad kernel gentlemengentlemen the Misr
nay-General. In the first play, belied' sok bim erhsehee,
ender the canon law, if the caveat hal beta lodged mad the
bishop bad instituted in spite of Blithe institution would
not lam been void ? That was a point on which the
hcm. smi karats* smitlemms mold ve se dillealty in
giving en 'gbh& Tee mend tessalea whisk be would
pat to bilm--sad be aikened it Mlles nem in by capa-
city as • member of that be.. thee ea a lawyer—was,
whether, with the oppertnnallos whisk be bed bad for in-
etshlag late the whole etre, be did act believe that if the
sweet lad beat lodged. sad the question of Mr. Bennett's
arthalexy fekly trilawneesumhises of doctrine would have
boon established.hear.) Now,there were two
enreially w bl abbed to bring before the house
Ina mon with the Way of Bath and Wells; first, that
the b hint was bound to require from Mr. Bennett the
andlooM of his foamy diocesan; secondly, that be was
boned, before he instituted him, to subject him to what
ems Itsessed "due enuaination." In hie anticipation et
Ae peemediaps of the parishioners, the bishop, it might be
said, kept strictly within the law ; but did he keep within
the law as regarded the certificate sad the examination I
He (117.1terseme) stated on a former ocarien that be had
Lind a tumour that three clergymen el the Messes of
Leedom and sigend a certificate dada, that**, Ing ham
Mr. Bennett during the whole of the three premodify years,
and that basis opportuaities of observing his sendnot
during that they verily believed thane ball held,
written, thsegbt nethiag atoMm the &stelae end
discipline of the united ohne of Wend end be tad.
What he then stated as matter of sewer be email now
state as matter of fact : three eleampeee of the disease of
London did sign the certificate. The rumour !high be
mentioned at the same time, with regard to the Blelhopa
London, was not quite correct. He stated that be bad eta-
derstood that the bishop appended to his declaration a cm*.
Mention written on the margin of the certifies*. The
fact was much stronger than that. The bishop of Lark*
baying signed the certificate, wrote at the same time a very
strong letter, stating the sense in which his signature was
to be understood. He had heard, and believed it to be the
fact, that though the bishop of London's sigaature was re-
quired by the words of the canon, yet the meaning of the
agitator° was simply that the party wasknown to the
bishop. This usage was go invariable, that the Bishop
of London did not feel justified In withhold-
iag his signature, under any circumstances,
but in the present case he took care that it should be accom-
ponied with an explanation in order that there might be no
mistake about his own opinion, and in order that no decep-
tioa might be practised on the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
Of the certificate itself he knew nothing ; but he presumed
that it would be produced, otherwise it could not be shown
that the Bishop of Bath and Wells had acted according to
law. (Hear, bear.) He wanted to see the names of the
three London clergymen who took the extraordinary step
of asserting that they had had an opportunity of observing
Mr. Bennett through the year 18:4, during a portion of
which year he woe abroad—(bear, hear)—and that during
that time he had done nothing contrary to the doctrine and
discipline of the church of England. Ile knew nothing, as
he had already stated, of the certificate ; but he held in lais
band a copy of the later of the Bishop of London which
accompanied it. The hon. member then stated that the fol
lowing letter was given to him two or three week. ago by
• clergyman who called upon bin., with the consent of for
Bishop of London.
"My Lord,-1 have to request that my counter-aignature
' to this testimonial may be emaidered as being simply the
'armies of my op' in that the clergymen who have
signed it, and who see beneficed in my diocese, have testi-
. fled to your lordship that which they verily believe. But I
think it is my duty to state that in December, 1850, Mr.
Bennett resigned the perpetual curacy of Bt. l'aul's,
Knightsbridge, and that I accepted his resignation because
I I was of opinion that the peace and good order of the church
in my diocese would be seriously interrupted if he were to
roma inottmbent of that benefice. For the ~MI which